The URL can be used to link to this page

2011, 03-08 Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meetings Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, March 8, 2011 Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Citv Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Lori Barlow, Associate Planner Absent: Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Steve Worley, Senior Engineer John Hohman, Development Engineer Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Bill Dropko of Greenacres Christian Fellowship Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayar Towey led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all councilmembers were present except Councilmembers Grassel and McCaslin. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmembers Grassel and McCaslin from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Depury Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Gothmann: reported that among many meetings, he attended the Health Board Meeting, Boy Scout Leadership Breakfast; Council of Governance meeting, a community health forum at Gonzaga; Fire District building groundbreaking; TIB (Transportation Improvement Board) phone meeting; this City's Governance Committee meeting regarding our governance manual; and a SNAP meeting. Councilmember Grafos: reported that as mentioned previously, he attended the Boy Scout Appreciation Breakfast, and the Council of Governance meeting. Deputy Mayor Schimmels: said he attended the Spokane Transit Operations Committee meeting; stood in for Mayor Towey at the Northeast Mayor's Meeting in Cheney; and went to the Solid Waste Liaison Board Meeting. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Towey said he also attended the Boy Scout Breakfast and participated in our City's Governance Committee Meeting and said the Governance Manual will be presented to council throughout several upcoming study sessions as council takes the opportunity to go through each section; Council Regular Meeting 03-08-2011 Page 1 of 13 Approved by Council: 03-22-2011 that in preparation for the upcoming Washington, D.C. conference, he met with the Director of Relations for representatives from Congresswoman Rogers and for Senator Murray. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments and asked that comments please be limited to three minutes; and for longer comments, he suggested citizens submit their written statements to the clerk who will distribute them to members of council. Mary Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin Ave: regarding the upcoming Indiana Avenue Extension project, she gave copies of her concerns to council, which included her request that council stop the project since she said that SEPA failed to note impacts; that there was no public participation, and there was a failure to notify Washington State Parks; and said developers normally build roads and deed them to the city and said we should not be building roads; she expressed concern for pedestrian safety and of the need to retain public access to the Centennial Trail on Mission. Mel Jones, 1404 N Hod�es, Greenacres: said he got involved with the chicken regulation ordinance which prompted him to get on an e-mail list; and said he wanted to commend staff on their competence and eagerness to please. Bruce Wakeman, 7616 E Baldwin Avenue: said when Mayor Towey goes to Washington, D.C., that perhaps he can bring up with our senators the issue of obscenity not being prosecuted. Diane Johnson, 17112 E. Baldwin: concerning the Flora Mission project, said she understands it is set up and it will happen, that there are some neighbors concerned with the round-about and said a light would be more safe as there is a lot of pedestrian activity in that area; she voiced a concern with a lack of access and the trail head at Mission; and said she would appreciate some of these things being addressed, and asked if the process could be slowed down so things can be done to help the neighborhoods. RoseMarie Larson, Greenacres: said she is concerned with the chicken issue and was told that there would be no opportunity for public comment tonight; and Mayor Towey assured her she could speak to that issue during that agenda item, and the City Clerk explained that Ms. Larson misunderstood their previous conversation when the Clerk told her that there would indeed be opportunity at tonight's meeting for public comment on this issue. 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. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE WNOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 02/14/2011 22153-22209 $258,689.79 02/17/2011 3449-3452 $56,880.08 02/18/2011 22210-22218 $43,670.56 02/ 18/2011 22219-22242 $146,292.13 02/25/2011 22243-22272; 225110005 $32,638.40 02/25/2011 22273-22288 $90,594.48 02/28/2011 5214-5220 (Feb. Park Refunds) $889.00 GRAND TOTAL $629,654.44 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending February 28, 2011: $332,402.34 c. Approval City Council Formal Meeting Format Minutes of February 22, 2011 Councilmember Grafos asked the purpose of voucher #22168 regarding dance lessons, and City Manager Jackson explained that we contract with various people to supply programs for Parks and Recreation , and Council Regular Meeting 03-08-2011 Page 2 of 13 Approved by Council: 03-22-2011 that the dance instructors receive payment for those lessons. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS 2 First Readin� Proposed Ordinance 11-004 (CTA 01-11) Animal Raising & Keeping — Christina Janssen After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to advance Ordinance 11-004 to a second reading. Assistant Planner Janssen went through her PowerPoint presentation explaining the proposal compared with the current regulations, after which Mayor Towey invited public comment. Bridget Jackson, 708 S Progress Road: expressed concern rendering the chickens unable to fly, she suggested simply stating that chickens must be kept on one's own property, and said she felt the chicken's wings did not need to be clipped as owners should be "smart enough to figure out how to keep chickens on their own property;" and added that if there were an acre or more, a property owner should be allowed to have a rooster as they are not as irritating as dogs barking at 2:00 a.m. Hal Jones, 1404 N Hodges, Greenacres: questioned if rendering chickens incapable of flight might include simply having a covered run. Attorney Driskell responded that by keeping chickens in an enclosure and not allowing them to run in other yards, would be rendering them flightless. Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin: said the animals don't bother her but she would prefer having a boombox ordinance as there are other things more irritating than roosters; and that owners should not have to clip the chicken's wings. Grant Rice, 16620 East ValleywaX: said he appreciates what's been done so far and if roosters are kept indoors until 8:00 a.m., they won't crow at the crack of dawn; that if you raise meat chickens, you need roosters. RoseMarie Larson, Greenacres: said if you feed the roosters well before they go to bed, they'll sleep longer; and mentioned there is a way to alter the rooster's vocal cords to lessen the noise; and said there must be other ways of keeping the chickens from flying then clipping their wings. She handed a copy of her written remarks to the City Clerk. Kent Youn�, 704 S Pro rg ess: said he works nights and his neighbor has roosters, but they have never bothered him; and feels it would be senseless to clip their wings. There were no further comments, and Councilmember Gothmann said the original reason this issue came up was when the city was formed, we were getting many complaints about the neighbor's chickens in other people's yards. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-005 Amending Adult Entertainment (Retail, CTA 03-10 — Lori Barlow After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to advance to a second reading, Ordinance 11-005 amending the definition of Adult Retail Use Establishment as set forth in Option 1, the staff-recommended amendment. Associate Planner Barlow went through her PowerPoint presentation explaining the proposal, the difference between the staff recommended definition and the Planning Commission's recommended definition and said the current definition can be interpreted to allow viewing of adult oriented films within an adult retail use establishment, and the intent of the code amendment is to limit the viewing of adult themed films to occur within adult entertainment establishments which are appropriately regulated; that the amendment is necessary to be clear that the City does not intend for an adult retail use establishment to allow their patrons to view adult-oriented graphic films, videotapes, or other digital display of specified sexual activities or sexual conduct within their retail use, and that staff does not support the Planning Commission recommendation because it regulates based on the expectation of adverse impacts rather than evidence of such impacts, and if the City finds that the alternative proposed by staff does not achieve the desired result of limiting viewing of adult video in the nature of an arcade to adult entertainment facilities, the issue can come back with a second amendment. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Council Regular Meeting 03-08-2011 Page 3 of 13 Approved by Council: 03-22-2011 Richard Sloan, ChattaroX, Washin on: said he found it offensive that this topic is being discussed as adult bookstores or pornography should not be in business. Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin: said she understands the legal difficulties with this and wants legal staff to continue to ensure the protections of residents of that area; realizes we have to allow them some place to go, but suggested tightening up the local laws. Bruce Wakeman. 7616 E. Baldwin: spoke of the predator and the prey in connection with this type of business; and said he believes Spokane Valley has the authority to exclude businesses that engage in obscenities. Paul Un�er, 3328 W 2° Avenue: said he dealt with this issue in Spokane and he checked out the place, that they have rooms for one purpose, and said it should be illegal to pursue lewd sexual activity, and feels the Planning Commission's alternative is the wise choice. Lee Lefler. 1120 S Warren Road: said he is pleased to be before a council not afraid to address a big cancer of the United States; and said this is a small change to an ordinance recommended by the city staff to go against what the people want as evidenced by what the Planning Commission recommended and that city employees are afraid to take a strong stand on this matter, and he asked council to please consider doing the right thing. Richard Sloan spoke again about getting a complete breakdown from the Sheriff's Office on what this business costs the taxpayers. Marilyn Lawson, 4917 E 17` Court: said although the city decided to allow adult businesses to remain at the time of incorporation, to remember all the reasons why they are subject to zoning and that she believes Council must do everything to keep the city safe for all citizens, and said she supports the Planning Commission option. Wayne Lawson, 4917 E 17` Court: said staff's version doesn't create a safer environment and without charging, they can hide how much business they generate and said there is no accountability with staffls version; and he asked why is the city afraid to close them down, and asked Council not to let them get away with having business as usual, which he said, is what will happen with the City Attorney`s proposaL There were no further comments. Councilmember Gothmann said that when the City first incorporated, we learned through the courts and rules that this is a permitted activity and that cities must provide some area for this to occur; that we chose a particular area; but if we required all these businesses to move to that one particular area, we would be creating a red light district; that six or seven years ago we asked police to give us information concerning crime around those establishments, and the police said there was actually very little crime, so it was decided to leave those establishments where they were; he said this is a United States Constitution issue as the federal courts have ruled they are permitted to exist; he said the problem is one of enforcement and we need laws that can be legally enforceable; that we found a flaw in the present ordinance and are trying to correct that, and if enforcement doesn't wark, it can be re-addressed. Councilmember Grafos said he agreed that we cannot prohibit this type of behavior because of First Amendment rights, and that the City Attorney has expertise in this area and has consulted with some of the leading experts that it is not in the best interests in protecting rights of citizens to get bogged down in expensive lawsuits; that it is mare effective to take this definition and then move on if it doesn't work; adding that the Sheriff's Office will monitar activity. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he also supports this motion as did Mayor Towey, who added that while he appreciates the Planning Commission's stronger language, he hesitates using that wording since it does not appear in any other ordinance within the State of Washington, and that he does not want our city to become a test market for such verbiage. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 4. Motion Consideration: Purchase Street Maintenance Facility — Neil Kersten It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to authorize the City Manager to execute any necessary documents for the purchase of the property at 17002 E. Euclid based on the conditions outlined in the offer letter dated February 9, 2011 for the purchase price of $750,000. Public Works Director Kersten explained about the process he undertook in looking for property for the city's street maintenance facility, and of the opportunity to purchase this property; that the facility is in good condition and meets the city's needs in terms of building and site; and they have a purchase offer that has been accepted with the conditions as stated, that the offer of $750,000 was less than the appraisal of $760,000; and said they will also conduct a visual and phase one environmental inspection prior to moving in before closing to Council Regular Meeting 03-08-2011 Page 4 of 13 Approved by Council: 03-22-2011 make sure there are no major defects on the property and no title limitations. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 4a. Motion Consideration: Letter of Su�port for Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council's (GSSAC� Application for the Comprehensive Anti-�g Program — Councilmember Gothmann �added agenda item] It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of support to the Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council for the Spokane Counry Strategic Comprehensive Anti-Gang Program. Councilmember Gothmann said he was asked to attend a greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council meeting some time ago where this and the next grant were discussed, and he asked Ms. Linda Thompson, GSSAC Executive Director to further explain these grants. Ms. Thompson thanked Council for the opporiunity to bring this up tonight and mentioned the quick turn- around time for the grants, with a deadline of this Friday; said that this anti-gang program has a maximum grant of $250,000 for three years; and said that there is no cost to the City of Spokane Valley for this or the next agenda item grant. Mayor Towey invited public comment, and Mary Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin said she highly recommends Council support this grant. Yote by Acclamation: In Favor.• Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 4b. Motion Consideration: Letter of Su�port far Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council's A�lication for the Prevention Outreach Coalition — Councilmember Gothmann jadded agenda item] It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of support to the Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council for their Prevention Outreach Coalition Grant Application. Ms. Thompson explained that they have been looking for years to find ways to help the Edgeclift community and this should be of great assistance; that the Edgeclift community was the only community to have a weed and seed grant, and the plan with this grant is to support prevention; and again mentioned that there is no financial obligation to the City of Spokane Valley; and that the Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council has the matching funds required. City Manager Jackson said the coalition involvement agreement is included in tonight's council packet, but that he wanted to make clear that Council is approving the letter and that staff and council should visit before actually signing the grant. Ms. Thompson said they are actually two different things; that the letter would be helpful but they can find someone else to sign that coalition agreement. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Yote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed.• None. Motion carried. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:40 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:52 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments; no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 5. Livestock in Mixed Use Areas — Christina Janssen Assistant Planner Janssen explained the proposal per her PowerPoint presentation; that the Community Development Director received a citizen request for an Administrative Interpretation seeking clarification on zoning regulations for keeping livestock in areas of the city zone Mixed Use. Ms. Janssen said that the Planning Commission held a study session on the issue January 27, held a public hearing February 10, and continued deliberations to February 24. She explained the current regulations regarding animal raising and keeping (SVMC 19.40.150) and the proposal concerning lot requirements, that the lot or track must exceed 40,000 square feet in residential zones, and in mixed use zones livestock and poultry (excluding swine) would be permitted on lots or tracts with legally established residential uses that exceed 40,000 square feet; and she mentioned there are nineteen lots in the entire city which meet those requirements. There were no objections from council to proceed to a first reading of an ordinance. Council Regular Meeting 03-08-20ll Page 5 of 13 Approved by Council: 03-22-2011 6. Ap�lewav Court Draina�e License — Cary Driskell Acting City Attorney Driskell explained that representatives of Appleway Court 202 is requesting permission to landscape and maintain the swale area between their building and the sidewalk along Appleway; that the landscaping would consist of irrigated grass that would extend along the entire side of the parcel; that two inches of top soil and hydroseed would be brought in and there would also be some underground sprinkler piping to provide irrigation. He said the swale area is approximately 50 feet by 327 feet and he showed the area in question on the overhead map, and explained that if Council is in agreement with the proposal, staff suggests granting a license to allow the use and maintenance of this area. The question of liability was brought up and Mr. Driskell said Appleway Court would be responsible for their actions similar to the provisions we include in most city contracts. There were no objections from council to proceed with an upcoming motion consideration. 7. Indiana Avenue Extension — Steve Worlev Senior Capital Projects Engineer Worley said there is a bid opening this Friday for the Indiana Avenue Extension project and the results of that bid will be presented to council for a bid award two weeks from tonight. Mr. Worley explained that in order to access the commercial area of the Spokane Valley Mall from Greenacres, it would require travelling south across the freeway on Flora or Barker, then travel over to the Sullivan/Broadway intersection, then cross back over the freeway to get to Indiana Avenue. He explained that the congestion at the Sullivan/Broadway intersection is becoming high and the level of service is starting to drop, which prompted staff to examine ways to relieve that intersection's congestion; and in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Arterial Street Plan, there was shown that someday there would be a connection to allow all the traffic in this area to easily access through Mission and access the Mall without having to cross over to the south side of I-90 and then back over to the north side again; and said it made sense that this connection would make an efficient east/west arterial and would complete an east/west arterial on the north side of I-90, and thereby complete the existing gap. Mr. Worley mentioned that staff has presented to council numerous times since 2008, including public hearings on Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), and approval of grant applications and adopting the six-year TIP, as well as related items in the development of the Comprehensive Plan and all the public process associated with that Plan, and the adoption of the Arterial Street Plan which showed this road being connected, and all those actions before Council relative to the annual budgets with this project listed in those budgets. Mr. Worley showed figures associated with the original project funding and the current project funding, which originally showed the developer's right-of-way contribution as $530,000 as compared with the current project funding showing the developer's cash contribution of $161,000 in addition to a right-of-way/easement contribution of over $1.2 million, with the total estimate originally projected $7,000 higher than the current project funding. Mr. Worley mentioned that staff applied for and received funds from the Urban Corridor Program (UCP), which is a TIB Grant, in the amount of $1,566,850; and said that UCP program requires developer participation, and that this particular program is intended to improve economic development by the building of roads and improving infrastructure so that new development can occur. Mr. Worley said that normally on projects such as this, we would have to buy the right-of-way and with a 20% match, that would have meant we would have had to come up with a quarter-million dollars just to purchase the right-of-way. Mr. Worley also clarified that there is more than one developer involved, and that it would be more correct to call them "land owners" instead of developers, although some of the land owners might be developers to sell some of the properties to developers, and said that the $200,000 developer contribution has been paid, and said that difference between the $200,000 and the shown amount of $161,000 was donated right-of-way. Mr. Worley explained that when the property owner agreed to partner with us and donate the right-of-way for this project, the agreement was that if this was submitted and approved, the alignment was not "set in stone" as the developer would have the ability to adjust the alignment of the road as necessary based on his future development; and said staff felt that was a fair trade. Mr. Worley showed a drawing of the original master plan of how the developer wanted to develop the plan; and Mr. Worley explained that the Council Regular Meeting 03-08-2011 Page 6 of 13 Approved by Council: 03-22-2011 drawing/plan proposal is not a preliminary plat and is not a plat of any kind; that this has no land use action associated with it yet as it is strictly a picture of what this particular property owner has identified as potentially developing his property based on the mixed-use zone; and said that the property owner wanted to figure out how to develop his property so the road wasn't splitting the property in hal£ In addition, Mr. Worley said that the right-of-way is not shown near the Mission Avenue roadway, but he said the right-of-way still exists and will remain at the completion of the project. Mr. Worley said that the trailhead was commented on tonight that the trailhead at the end of Mission Avenue where it is now is going to be re- located; but he said that the project is not doing any of these things, that this is strictly a conceptual plan; and one of the things not shown on the layout is a roadway that meets any kind of engineering design standard; and he stressed that this is strictly a conceptual plan for a mixed use development, and is a"little bit better than the back of a napkin drawing." Further, Mr. Worley said that this concept has an interiar road which is there to help the development; that the City is not building the interior road; and he showed where the turnouts would be located to accommodate people needing to come in and turn around to head in the opposite direction. Mayor Towey said that at the end of Mission where the pavement ends, beyond that is dirt all the way to the trailhead, and he asked if that is a city road or a city right-of-way down to the trailhead. Mr. Worley said that is a city right-of-way, not through private property, but is a public right-of-way; that the gravel road is in public right-of-way. Councilmember Grafos said the other leg of the conceptual drawing, the south part, that would not be built with city funds but would be strictly paid for by the developer if he elected to do that, or are we agreeing that we will do that for him as part of his $2 million. Mr. Worley said no, that this project is to make a connection from Indiana Avenue to the intersection; the ariginal concept was three lanes, one-lane each direction; and in this concept there is still one each direction, but are split in the one area into two, one-way roads; that there is no center turn lane but under the final road layout proposal, a center turn lane is not needed; he said staff told the properiy owner that this is their concept, but the interior road is not part of the City's project and we cannot include that in the project being built by the city as that would be beyond the scope of our grant application; so our agreement is we would build the outside lanes and when the middle area develops, the developer would build the interior lanes. Councilmember Grafos said then the Mission Avenue, the extension of Mission would be two-way road; and Mr. Worley showed on the layout where the area on Mission would be two lanes, then switch to a one-lane westbound and come back to two lanes; so a traveler coming eastbound would come off the five-lane road, down to a single lane where it splits to one lane eastbound; then come together through the round-about; and Councilmember Grafos said when that road (Mission Parkway) needs to be widened, it would be done at the taxpayer's expense. Mr. Worley explained that there is another project pending that we have design money for now, which is to improve Mission Avenue from Flora east to Barker; that there is no other city project proposed in this area; and once we are finished with the Indiana Avenue Extension Project, we don't have any other plans to widen the road; and will remain that way until the development comes in and once those plans come in, any additional lanes to that road would be built by the developer. Mayor Towey asked if the round-about is inside the grant and Mr. Worley said that the round-about is part of the grant and not separate and he clarified that this is the round-about at Mission and Flora. Mr. Worley said that this is the second iteration of the master plan with a road designed to engineering standards; then from this we ended up with the engineered final drawing and said this is what will be built as part of the city's project. To summarize, Mr. Worley said we have the one-road streets; an access road to Mission Avenue to the trailhead as we want to and must provide that; and said one of the issues staff came across was, if the area is one-way westbound, how do people coming out of this trailhead go east on Mission; and said a turnaround area was created to accommodate that; but another turnaround at the top wouldn't be needed because the round-about would be available. Mr. Worley said staff and the property owner have had a fantastic working relationship regarding what the City is able to pay for as part of a public road, and what they would pay for as part of new development; and the turnaround as part of the developer's new development, would of course be paid for by the developer. Mr. Worley added that sidewalks will be included for the entire length on both sides as they are required as part of the TIB grant. Council Regular Meeting 03-08-2011 Page 7 of 13 Approved by Council: 03-22-2011 As per the slides, Mr. Worley went over the design elements. Mr. Worley also mentioned that the round- about is safer, more environmentally friendly, and more economical in the long-run; he mentioned that the widening of both parkways is a future project that is not a city project and will not be paid for by the city but will be done as part of the development of that commercial area; and said standard design for round-abouts includes street lights and Mr. Worley said those will be included as well. Mr. Worley said a study of the Mission and Flora intersection was conducted, including what would the future traffic look like at that intersection; that it is currently a two-way stop controlled intersection. Mr. Worley said staff looked at two-way stops for the future, ar switching the rivo-way stops to Flora instead of Mission, looked at a signalized intersection, and looked at a roundabout; and overall the round-about allows the intersection to operate at its highest level of service in 2030 with future development in the area. If there were no round-about or signalized intersection and we only used stop-controlled, then the level of service in 2030 would be F which is a failed intersection; and Mr. Worley said when looking at signalized intersections, staff also looks at round-abouts as alternatives. Fuel consumption was examined as well as emissions, and Mr. Worley said the difference between those CO2 emissions and fuel consumption at a signalized intersection, stop-controlled intersection and a roundabout, is the round-about produces less than one-half of the CO2 emissions than any of the other options; and it also uses less fuel because of the start and stops associated with the other types of intersections controls. Pedestrian safety was examined for the round-about and the entire project, and he said that is one of the reasons for the six- foot wide sidewalks with seven-foot wide separated landscaped strips to keep the pedestrians away from the roadway; and in the round-about there are eight and a half-foot wide sidewalks adjacent to the curbs on all corners of the round-about; that there would be ADA (American with Disabilities Act) -compliant pedestrian ramps, and crosswalks with refuge islands in the middle to allow pedestrians to cross only one lane at a time and be safe doing it; and he said also provided is a connection to a pathway that already exists at the northeast corner, which eventually will hopefully connect to the Centennial Trail at the trailhead at the north end of Flora. Concerning the slope of Mission Avenue coming down into the existing intersection, Mr. Worley said the slope is fairly steep but meets the standards for a minor arterial, and to try to mitigate the steepness, the elevation of the roundabout was raised about three or four feet to provide a more shallower landing where people would slow down as they come off the hill; he said there will be signs for the round-about at the top of the hill to warn about the upcoming round-about and slope and to start slowing down. If after all that there are still problems, Mr. Worley said the project for the improvement of Mission Avenue from Flora east to Barker, there will still be an opportunity at that time to look at the slope of the road and if changes are felt to be necessary, the slope could be changed with that project. Councilmember Grafos asked how we would deal with a single-family resident that is about 15-20 feet from the edge of the round-about, which will have a three and a half foot grade in front of their house, explaining that there is a house just to the north of that. Mr. Worley said they transitioned from the elevation of the round-about down to the road on the north side of the intersection, and those grades have all worked out; he said there are some improvements they are making but all the connections to the existing driveways are fully maintained so that single family house will not be impacted. Concerning naming the roads, he said that while Indiana Avenue ends at the railroad tracks, there is also an Indiana Avenue north of Mission; and he said you can't have two Indiana Avenues in the same block location; and in working with the Spokane Valley Fire District and with our building department and we came up with the idea of the noted green area will be Indiana Parkway, and the pink area on the map will be Mission Parkway; and by changing the name to parkways instead of avenues indicates there are two different roads and thereby alleviates the potential problem of having duplicate addresses; traveling eastbound off Indiana a driver will be on Indiana Parkway; and a tra�elling off Mission westbound, the driver will be on Mission Parkway. Mr. Worley mentioned there was some comment about public notification. Mr. Worley said a flyer was sent out to let the residents know that there is an upcoming construction project; he said there was not a Council Regular Meeting 03-08-2011 Page 8 of 13 Approved by Council: 03-22-2011 public meeting on this project but we don't hold public meetings on every project and the criteria used to determine whether a public meeting is needed, is (1) are we doing a road improvement in front of people's houses that we will ask them to sell us part of their front yard as when we have a lot of properly we have to buy, we want people to know ahead of time what it is we are proposing; and (2) when we do construction in front of their homes, we want them to know the project and the status. Since in this case we are not buying right-of-way in front of people's houses and the construction of it is in an area that is away from many residents in this area, staff felt it was not necessary to hold a public meeting. Mr. Worley said the flyer was sent out because the intersection will have to be closed at some point which will impact travel through the area, and the flyer was to let people know about detour routes. Mr. Worley said there have been comments concerning the SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) checklist for this project and that it didn't address all the issues associated with the development of this area. Mr. Worley clarified that when we do a SEPA checklist, we do it for the city's project only; and said there is perhaps a misconception that a SEPA checklist should have been done far that first master plan, but he said that is not how the SEPA process works; that the SEPA process is for that particular road project, what are the city's environmental impacts and he said those are the questions city staff answered. Further, Mr. Worley explained, that when the properties in this area get developed, they will go through their own separate SEPA process; and said regarding the road project, we answered those issues on the checklist and a Determination of Nonsignificance was issued. Mr. Worley said that there are several project partners, such as Centennial Properties, Hanson Industries, and Spokane County, and that staff has had an excellent working relationship with the partners. Finally, Mr. Worley mentioned the several utilities they coordinated with on this project, such as Avista Gas, Avista Electric, Spokane County Utilities, and several others. The road construction is expected to begin mid-April and end approximately July 4; and Mr. Worley said this Friday is the bid opening. Mr. Worley said that this project does not benefit only one developer, but benefits the community and many developers, and is an opportunity to open the north Greenacres area to any development that the Comprehensive Plan allows; that access is maintained to the Centennial Trail; that there might be access issues during construction, but said they indicated to the contractor that they must have access to the Centennial Trail at all times even during construction. Councilmember Grafos said that when Mr. Worley mentioned he would have some options when they are going to continue east to Flora Road and improve Mission, another project, that if the round-about seemed to be a problem with the neighborhood, at what point does that round-about stop being the most efficient use, and said he is concerned with safety and mentioned the grade school about two blocks away; and said when that area grows into a commercial area with all the pedestrian, bike and car traffic, that safety is his concern; and said so far as the design of the project is concerned, he thinks it is great so long as the taxpayer doesn't end up paying for it. Mr. Worley said regarding traffic volumes with the school and the property development, that all that was taken into consideration when they looked at the round- about in terms of what kind of device to use to control that intersection; that SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) Regional Traffic Model looks at all the development in this area, including the school and the mixed-use commercial development, and the future traffic models is what indicates what the future traffic volumes will be; and those volumes are what staff uses in the intersection analysis; and said the round-about is the most efficient, and safest alternative to accommodate all of the future development in this area and said it has all been evaluated, analyzed, and modeled. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said there are now two round-abouts in our city limits and asked if there is a way for our police department to monitor the accidents around those two areas. Chief VanLeuven said they can monitor any collisions that occur at the existing round-abouts. 8. Sullivan Road Brid�e Replacement Project — Steve Worlev Mr. Worley gave his PowerPoint presentation to update council on the status of the Sullivan Road west bridge; that there has been some recent information that has come to staff's attention; he said this particular bridge project has been on every TIP (Transportation Improvement Plan) since we incorparated, at least since 2004; and the reason is because as the inspection reports come in, we have Council Regular Meeting 03-08-2011 Page 9 of 13 Approved by Council: 03-22-2011 identified that this bridge needed to be eventually replaced. Mr. Worley explained that there are actually two bridges at this location, and the southbound lane bridge was built in the early 1950s and the northbound lane bridge was built in the mid-70's. Mr. Worley gave an overview of the bridge and its average daily traffic use, which includes 23% truck traffic which he said is very high; that traffic often backs up well over the bridge during the evening peak traffic hours, and because the distance between the south end of the bridge and the intersection is so short, the right-turn lane is affected because of the bridge backup. Mr. Worley said the last inspection report in April 2010 showed some deterioration which is causing the sufficiency rating to drop; and said this has been in steady decline over the years with a sufficiency rating of 24.14, which is based on a 100 point scale; and said we have a contract with Spokane County Bridge Division who are our bridge engineers, and we also have a consultant who does some of our bridge loadings for us who works with the County; and said all the bridges in the state are evaluated the same way according to a program developed by WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). Mr. Worley said that WSDOT offers federal funds for bridge replacements but in the last round, they were only funding bridge that had a sufficiency rating of 35 or lower, so this bridge qualified for funding. He said the bridge is classified as "structurally deficient," which means it is not ideal for carrying the existing loads; and the bridge pier footings in the river are considered to be "scour critical" since an old footing design was used when this bridge was built years ago; and said that means that the river bed around the footing is scouring away and could threaten the bridge. Mr. Worley said staff is reviewing the need to post weight restrictions and said that the bridge is not an immediate risk for failure and it is safe to drive over; and said if weight restrictions were to be put on this bridge, it would be done so in an effort to prolong the life of the bridge as long as possible until it could be replaced. Mr. Worley explained that a notice was sent out to all the trucking companies giving them notice that this bridge needs to be replaced and of the need to be careful with the loads going over the bridge and to caution the companies not to over-weight the trucks as that would cause the bridge to deteriorate faster. Mr. Worley said this area of Sullivan has been the center of growth for the last twenty years and that growth is expected to continue; and when the County's Bigelow Gulch project is completed, the current estimate is that 8400 vehicles will be dumped daily onto the north end of Sullivan and cross this bridge; and said that 8400 vehicle count assumes that the north Spokane Freeway is completed all the way to I- 90; and said if that is not completed all the way to I-90 by the time Bigelow Gulch is completed, that number will be much higher than 8400; and said the Indiana Avenue Extension project just discussed will also increase traffic on this bridge; and said the Indiana Sullivan Intersection currently has a level of service of C, but has a projected level of service in 2014 of C-D. Mr. Worley said this bridge is considered regionally significant; that SRTC went through a process of identifying the regionally significant projects in our area and we submitted the Sullivan Road Corridar project, which includes the replacement of the Sullivan Road West Bridge, re-surfacing the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge, concreting the entire corridor because of the heavy traffic, and lengthening and widening the bridges over Trent and the Burlington Northern Railroad Track. He said they combined all that into a single project called the Sullivan Road Corridor Project; and this project was ranked #1 of all the other projects submitted in the region, as regionally significant. Mr. Worley said the funding estimate for a new bridge is $19.75 million, that they have $8 million from the federal bridge program, and $2 million from the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment board, and that staff is pursuing additional funds so we can move ahead with the project. Mr. Worley said the estimate is based on a form required by WSDOT, but that staff feels the cost estimate is high; and said the Barker Road bridge was replaced for about $11 million and this bridge is slightly shorter and a little more narrow. To move ahead, Mr. Worley said they would propose sending a letter to WSDOT requesting that they release the design funds for this project; that normally they don't do that until the project is fully funded; but said staff would like to request them to release those funds now so the design and the environmental phase can start; and said it takes about two years to get through the environmental and the design phases of such a project; and said during those two years, staff would like to pursue the rest of the funding for the project; and by starting the design, it would Council Regular Meeting 03-08-2011 Page 10 of 13 Approved by Council: 03-22-2011 allow staff to refine the cost estimate for this project to give a more clear picture of how much remaining funds are needed. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m. Mr. Worley explained that if we were to request the release of those funds, it would require a local 20% match, so we would need 20% of the $2.6 million for the design; and said if Councilmembers were to support this additional funding to our state and federal legislators, we may have a good chance to get the additional funds needed to replace this bridge sooner rather than later; and asked if Council supports the release of the design funds so this project can commence. Councilmember Gothmann said he supports getting the funds as soon as we can; and Councilmember Grafos said he too would support that and said he feels that is an area of growth and the bridge is important. Mr. Worley said if council approves, he would write a letter to our WSDOT contact through Highways and Local Programs and they would take it to Olympia and ask for that on our behalf; and if we get agreement, then we would move through the normal process of working on federally funded projects. Deputy Mayor Schimmels voiced his support of this request. There was brief discussion about options to restricting weight, such as slowing the speed or reducing the bridge to one lane or other ideas to minimize the impact to the businesses in the area. Mayor Towey said he recommends moving forward with this to gain the support of WSDOT along with the federal support; and Councilmember Gothmann said that perhaps this is something Mayor Towey and Deputy Mayor Schimmels could address while in Washington, D.C. Mr. Worley mentioned he distributed information at the last Chamber Transportation Committee Meeting and the representatives from the Spokane Valley Chamber were there who indicated they would be willing to provide a letter of support to WSDOT to go with our letter to request the release of the design funds. Mayor Towey said Senator Murray's chief of staff is an expert on transportation and he and Deputy Mayor Schimmels will be meeting with him during the Washington, D.C. trip. 9. Hanson Propertv Development A�reement — John Hohman Senior Development Engineer Hohman said this project combines the efforts of our Public Works Department with efforts in Community Development and with private developers; that this is a relatively new project as staff has only been working on this far the last three weeks, but staff wanted to share this with Council early on to make sure council is comfortable with the direction staff is taking. Mr. Hohman said this is more focusing on the permitting side of struggling developments trying to have properties ready for development, and this project deals with properties owned by Hanson Industries typically along the Indiana corridor. Prior to getting to the specifics of the project and the development agreement, Mr. Hohman reviewed State regulations and requirements concerning traffic concurrency, traffic thresholds, and levels of service; and spoke of those associated regulations contained in this City's Comprehensive Plan, our own Municipal Code, as well as in the Street Standards. Mr. Hohman explained the purpose of this development agreement with Hanson Industries and gave some of the background of the project; explaining that Hanson Industries typically likes to put in all the infrastructure, do as much permitting up- front as possible, and usually do a lot of preliminary traffic, environmental, and stormwater work; and said they have the desire and the means to put these projects together. In 1998, Mr. Hohman explained, Hanson Industries did a very detailed study/traffic analysis of the different areas they own and how best to move forward with development certainty. Mr. Hohman said that developers like certainty and those buying the projects and developing the buildings also like certainty that there won't be any rule changes down the road. Based on that 1998 traffic study, Mr. Hohman said that Spokane County entered into agreements with Hanson based on work Hanson did on the infrastructure; Hanson and the County agreed that Hanson would be allowed a certain amount of trips in a type of "trip bank" so they could pull from those at a later date; there was a fifteen-year period that began in 2000 and will be expiring March 2015; and said due to the economy, there hasn't been a lot of Council Regular Meeting 03-08-2011 Page 11 of 13 Approved by Council: 03-22-2011 activity over the last three years; and now there is a concern from Hanson that their trips might expire, which would lead into their properties not being as marketable. Mr. Hohman explained that what we are examining, is the possibility of a new developer agreement, or a voluntary mitigation agreement, to look at some option for extending those trips and to look at all the different aspects for providing traffic circulation in the area. Mr. Hohman said that staff believes that extending the trips through this new agreement will promote economic development by making those properties that already exist, economically viable and attractive to development; and clarified that we are talking about having "shovel- ready" properties that can have the very minimum amount of permitting done to get them into the ground; and Mr. Hohman gave some background on Hanson Industries including some of that company's past property development; and said Hanson previously contributed about $8 million to various projects over the years, which Mr. Hohman said, is a significant contribution to the City's and to DOT's infrastructure; in addition to the $200,000 contribution to the Indiana Avenue Extension project previously mentioned by Mr. Worley. Mr. Hohman said that Hanson and city staff want to take a pro-active approach to attract businesses into the city; and the developer wants to offer properties that address traffic and stormwater projects up front so they can strongly market these areas in an attempt to get strong companies to bring businesses here; and he said Hanson feels they have to do this because they are not just competing with Spokane and Liberty Lake, but that competition is expanded to the Tri-Cities, Boise, Post Falls, Coeur d'Alene and other municipalities all vying for these companies. The idea of a new developer agreement was broached as well as new construction to the Indiana and Sullivan intersection, which would be minor but ones that would allow a lot of additional capacity to come through; and in that, staff identified splitting the intersection in two parts, focusing first on the south half and adding a turn lane from eastbound Indiana to southbound Sullivan; then creating another through-lane going eastbound, and making some modifications on the eastern half of the intersection; he said they were able to model that into the SRTC model and it shows that it greatly increases the capacity of the intersection; and said one of the projects scheduled for the summer is to rehabilitate that intersection by putting in a concrete surface instead of the deteriorating asphalt; and the idea came up, can the city and Hanson financially participate to make this happen in the timeframe available, and to be able to generate the capacity that would then allow us to extend their trips for at least ten years beyond the existing 2015 expiration date; and said staff also felt it would be prudent to pick up some right-of-way on the north side since with the bridge project mentioned by Mr. Worley, it included adding another turn lane in front of Crispy Cream that would be southbound Sullivan to westbound Indiana; and he said Hanson very willing to cooperate with us. Mr. Hohman said that the developer is looking for this extension that would allow him to market these properties and have them ready to go, and said this is important to try to resolve as quickly as we can since Hanson is trying to recruit some large economic businesses; and once we have some of this development certainty we are hoping will come out of this agreement, that would help bolster their position in their business recruitment. Next steps, Mr. Hohman said, would be to finalize negotiation with Hanson regarding the trips and contributions; and he explained that an important element that is taking quite some time, is to try to get concurrence from WSDOT, owner of the intersection, and he said a lot of the trips that go through the intersection also go into the interchange, so we have to make sure WSDOT feels comfortable with the work and modeling done. Councilmember Grafos said he feels this is a great idea and supports this 100%; that this is an insight into a successful developer; and said he likes the idea of the concept of "certainTy" with these projects. Mr. Hohman added that from a permitting standpoint, this shows us the types of partnerships we will need to have with future land owners and developers; and said he feels the city must be more pro-active in working with those owners and developers to determine needs and how the City can facilitate meeting the state and local requirements so the properties are marketable. Council Regular Meeting 03-08-2011 Page 12 of 13 Approved by Council: 03-22-2011 10. Advance A e�nda Councilmember Gothmann said he would like concurrence from council, and said that he mentioned this to Community Development Director McClung as well, that he was contacted by a citizen who suggested the city provide electrical inspections and said he would be interested in talking about this service as we could probably provide the service at about the same cost but with better service. Mr. Jackson said he can look into that, but he would make it a lower priority as staff is currently working on various and many different issues. Mayor Towey reminded everyone there is no council meeting next week; and said that Spokane County has offered to give us a piece of land bordering Appleway and Sprague and would like a letter from us accepting the land; and there were no objections from council in staff sending such a letter. City Manager Jackson said with the looming possibility of the federal government cutting the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds, that staff has drafted letters to senators urging that those cuts not be made, and council had no objections to staff sending those letters. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. � ATT omas E. Towey, Mayor i l.L � v � �Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Regular Meeting 03-OS-2011 Page 13 of 13 Approved by Council: 03-22-2011 � �" Added Agenda Item #4a CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 3-8-11 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 4a. Motion Consideration: Letter of Support for Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council's application for the Comprehensive Anti Program GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: We have today received a request from the Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council asking for a letter of support for their application for the Anti-Gang Program. OPTIONS: Authorize a letter of support; do not authorize a letter of support; take other action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of support to the Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council for the Spokane County Strategic Comprehensive Anti-Gang Program. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF/COUNCIL CONTACT: Councilmember Gothmann ATTACHMENTS: Draft letter of support S CITY okane p Valle ° y 11707 E. Sprague Ave. • Suite 106 • Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 921-1000 • Fax (509) 921-1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org March 7, 2011 Linda Thompson Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council (GSSAC) 8104 E. Sprague Avenue Spolcane Valley, Washington 99212-2900 RE: Spokane County Strategic Comprehensive Anti-Gang Program (SCSCAP) On behalf of the City of Spokane Valley, I am pleased to write this letter of support for the Greater Spolcane Substance Abuse Council's (GSSAC) application to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) for the Spokane County Strategic Comprehensive Anti-Gang Program (SCSCAP). The City of Spokane Valley commits to support GSSAC and their partners NATIVE Project, Volunteers of America (VOA) Crosswalk, East Central Community Center and the Spokane Violent Crime Gang Enforcement Team (SVCGET) by providing the following: • Participation as part of the SCSCAP Task Force to address local gang problems � Assist in the formulation of strategies, allocate resources, and monitor progress of the SCSCAP • Provide data to help update the Spokane County Comprehensive Gang Assessment 2009-2010 on an annual basis As Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley, I recognize the need to work together to reduce the impact of gangs in our county. I am committed to supporting the four pronged approach of an effective anti-gang strategy that I feel GSSAC and their partners will successfully implement with this OJJDP funding. Sincerely, Mayor Thomas E. Towey Added Agenda Item #4b CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 3-8-11 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 4b. Motion Consideration: Letter of Support for Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council's application for the Prevention Outreach Coalition Grant GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: We have today received a request from the Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council asking for a letter of support for their application Prevention Outreach Coalition Grant OPTIONS: Authorize a letter of support; do not authorize a letter of support; take other action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of support to the Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council for their Prevention Outreach Coalition Grant Application. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF/COUNCIL CONTACT: Councilmember Gothmann ATTACHMENTS: Draft letter of support ScITYol�ane p Valle ° y 1 1707 E. Sprague Ave. • Suite 106 • Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 921-1000 • Fax (509) 921-1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org March 8, 2011 Linda Thompson Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council (GSSAC) 8104 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, Washington 99212-2900 RE: Drug Free Communities Support Program Grant Application for Prevention Outreach—the West Valley and Edgecliff Response! Coalition On behalf of the City of Spokane Valley, I am pleased to write this letter of support for the Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council's (GSSAC) application to the Office of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) for the Prevention Outreach—the West Valley and Edgecliff Response! (POWER!) Coalition. The City of Spokane Valley has been a part of this coalition for many years through the active participation of Councilman Bill Gothmann when it started as the Edgecliff Weed and Seed Program. Having this coalition continue to implement strategies in the Edgecliff and West Valley areas to reduce substance abuse and the related crime as well as build strong community collaboration benefits our whole city. As Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley, I recognize the importance of reducing substance use among our youth, and in turn adults, and building strong collaborations among all sectors in our community—the goals of the Drug Free Communities Support Program. Again, GSSAC and the POWER! Coalition have our support. Sincerely, Mayor Thomas E. Towey Coalition Involvement Agreement (CIA) Sector Name Sector Member Agency/Or anization Local Governmental Agency Bill Gothmann City of Spokane Valley This agreement between the Prevention Outreach—the West Valley and Edgecliff Response! (POWER!) Coalition, and the Local Governmental Agency Sector Representative, Councilman Bill Gothmann, shall be from March 1, 2011 until terminated by a mutual accord. This agreement will be reevaluated on a yearly basis. ' The POWER! Coalition will be held responsible to: 1. Create and follow by-laws and policies. 2. Formulate coalition goals and objectives. 3. Oversee operations of activities, programs, and paid staff. 4. Continue to increase new membership of the coalition. 5. Create and follow a strategic action plan. 6. Create a credible and relevant sustainability plan which includes volunteer membership and resources, both financial and material. 7. Respect the rights of the POWER! Coalition members to hold their own opinions and beliefs. The Local Governmental Agency Sector Representative, Bill Gothmann, will be held responsible to: ' 1. Be a commuriity leader amongst the represented sector. � 2. Ensure cleax communication between the sector represented and the coalition. 3. Act as a positive role model for youth, families, and peers. 4. Support the coalition's mission. 5. Attend coalition meetings which are held on a monthly basis. 6. Participate in at least one subcommittee. 7. Attend coalition sponsored trainings; town hall meetings, and community events. 8. Contribute to the strategic planning process. 9. Participate in sustaining the coalition's capacity, involvement, and energy. 10. Participate in the DFC Workstation, a communication vehicle used by the DFC Federal partners to provide timely information to coalitions. 11. Prevent youth substance use through environmental strategies. 12. Provides the following services to be used as match, if applicable: resources and services available through the City of Spokane Valley. Coalition Representative's Name Sector Representative's Name Coalition Representative's Signature Sector Representative's Signature / / _� �_ Title Date Title Date GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN-IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 8, 2011 GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTE Please si n in if ou wish to make ublic comments. NAME TOPIC OF CONCERN YOUR COMPLETE TELEPHONE PLEASE PRINT YOU WILL SPEAK ADDRESS ABOUT �' S�0 �� l�� r � �� .� 2�1 ar� �t �� q Lvs o �9�u-� �;� 4�y�? .� 7�- � 53 5-5"i5,3 -�` CG1 �c�� 5 {�O�J , c� �c � � � l'� f �� 7 S5 e� �� d{r�� . s �-��7� ��' << L �J N � � � /-�' ?� vL-� cr /� �j 3 � ` � k-a Zr � � � z �_ 7 �-1 � - �� / - GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN-IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 8, 2011 GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTE Please si n in if ou wish to make ublic comments. NAME TOPIC OF CONCERN YOUR COMPLETE TELEPHONE PLEASE PRINT YOU WILL SPEAK ADDRESS, . � ABOUT /��,/ �' `�� ,� � �-�_ > � � x u � . -��,� ` - j�R�st� c.f � � � ��'v �sc� � � � � � z 2_ ��-97�a S L-c+.,,.v-a,s�-.� 0� l Z.a. `� �-/ � � � G ► � T � �- �i .�'3 6 .S S3 '� (��7 � �Y�' ��J�i '�v�i'�052 Vvl/l , ' d•,,,.,�..o � � /��/ ys To all members Spokane Valley City Council at its regular weekl� meeting, Tuesday March 8, 2011: Mayor Tom Towey, Dep. Mayor Gary Schimmels, Councilmembers Dean Grafos, Brenda Grassel, Bill Gothmann, Bob McCaslin Re. ANIMAL KEEPING REGULATIONS AS THEY APPLY TO CHICKENS The first axiom of law is "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." Just because one is not aware of my existence is not in and of itself the "prooY' I do not exist. The few chickens, including a rooster, which we've enjoyed on our property for the past two decades, are a vital part of our healthcare program. Fifty years ago, medically-supervised Double-blind-testing revealed that I and my (then) toddler son are "toxic/allergic" to a compound used in the creation of GE/GMO products which include over 50% of all drug base OTC and prescriptive medicines. This compound to which we are highly allergic is, for over 60 years, an unlabeled constituent of chemical fertilizer which, since the Thirties, has been used to secretly "recycle" this otherwise Class 1 Toxic Waste product. This product, used to make antibiotics and other drug medicines, is also a basic ingredient in commercial lawn and garden pesticides and herbicides ---none of which we have used on our 7/8 Greenacres property for the past 30 years. And this is why we need to have biodynamic, i.e. "organically" raised chickens (and ducks) and their eggs. Organically-grown (biodynamic) food is our primary health insurance. For over 40 years I do no drug-base medicine and consume only "organically-grown" biodynamic foods, meat, milk, eggs, nuts, grains, fruits, vegetables, and I am living proof this basic, God-given form of disease prevention works, very well. The animals who choose to visit our property, both wild as well as domesticated, enjoy our clean and tidy microcosmic biodynamic existence —in spite of creeping urban commercialism, noisy barking dogs, unmuffled and/or otherwise inconsiderate off-road vehicle use, and a myriad of raucous next-door renters prone to mouthing words dirtier than our chicken's manur�a We trust the proposed updating of the Animal Keeping Regulations will be mindful of individuals like us for whom chickens are a part of our healthcare insurance. The following is the same information previously provided all members of the SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION. 1. A high fat, protein and mineral-rich raw foods meal before bedtime will insure not only roosters but anyone else will sleep longer at night. 2. Our present rooster wards off predators. Four years ago he was a runty, hysterical ADD/ADHD banty-cross who, after several months on our chemical-free food and pasture, is now a silvered black and white beauty who beat up a hawk that attempted to take one of our grandaughter's favorite banty hens. . .: . . , , . . r . . � . - . " . . � � � . . , .., .� � � � � � .. 3. Unless the rooster fertilizes the egg, �hat egg will be def�cient in the mineral zinc (vital to reproductive health) and certain B-vitamins. Infertile eggs will not incubate; they are "dead" and therefore attract salmonelia bacteria which make them rot. Could this be the reason why megalopic commercial confinement poultry/egg operations (which began in the fifties) have blessed us continually with salmonelia poisoned meat and eggs? [Same principle applies to confinement meat operations which have given us pathogenic E. coli, et a.l, ad nauseam.] �' 4. In the old days, and I'm old enough to remember them; roosters without e pleasant voice or those who crowed too much were dealt with by farmers who knew how to surgically alter their vocal cords. If this ancient knowledge can be resurrected within the modern vet industry, could not a rooster still be kept? 5. Our chickens are hens who (on an pure, chem-free, i.e.`"organic" diet) still lay until they die of old age. Another testimonial to the adversity of chemical base feeds which are designed to "whip" the hen's body into overproducing eggs for 18�-24 months (after which they are, literally, worn out and full of cancers, to be sold as "parts". The same applies to megalopic confinement commercial dairies which use (the same chemical which I am allergic to in) the synthetic hormone used on dairy animals to "whip" their bodies into overproducing milk for 18 to 24 months --at which time these dairy animals are replaced --they are so sick and barely able to walk to the slaughterhouse truck. 6. A year ago we took in three hens who were "problems" in another flock which was then being given commercial grade feed. Within two weeks on our chem-free feed and pasture, their "road-rage" combative personalities disappeared and they settled in with the rest of our chickens. True poultry in motion? 7. We enjoy natural, non-toxic rodent control in the personage of our duck and chicken-herding � cat which patrols and controls not only the smaller stuff but also the rabbits and birds, et al, who gravitate to our 7/8 acres and its large "organic" garden simply because it is a chem-free oasis. Our current rooster also catches mice and, Ben and Her (the two ducks) also eat mice. Respectfully submitted in good faith, I am � � �:�� . ��-�- � � Mrs. T. M. Larson i�� L� �/��` � . �'t'c^✓tc�e�c=� �"lol�, ��,H ��`7'd12 i � 9��iG ��'o � _ �� 7 -- �Z. ; � % �� C�� .r.,� ,` Y Z� �(! North Greenacres Neighborhood / Indiana Extension March 8, 2011 Summary of Concerns /Outline of details fo ows Mary PollardlChairwoman ACTION NEEDED BY CO NCIL � Council has power to stop this project — SEPA failed to note impacts No public participation despite this is a huge impact to Mission Ave. Failure to notify Washington State Parks — Centennial Trail which borders Centennial Property. This public agency should be contacted. (SEPA pgs containing omissions/errors attached.) � Developers normally build Roads and then deed to City We should not be building roads to create prime Condo/Townhouse Real estate next to park land. That is plundering the tax payers in guise of economic development. � Absolutely needed Pedestrian Activated Signal - Pedestrian Safety (Elem on Long/ Park and Centennial Trail, children, bikes and pedestrians) Retain public access of Centennial Trail on Mission Highly use of Mission below Flora to access trail — do not close Shown on W.S. Map 2 Connectivity Assessment Map (Sp. Valley) Revised Master Plan Proposal — shows condos and townhouses obstructing access with the trailhead moved just below the Indiana Ave . Mission access point of world class water feature — Kayak & Canoe clubs Vet'y COttCe1'lled (The terminus of Mission Avenue is another popular access for the SRCT and the river. Currently it is heavily used by boaters to access the Sullivan Hole play spot.) \\� Noted in the Shoreline Master Program Inventory & Characterization Report 2010 ��MITIGATE DIESEL EMISSIONS — PROHIBIT MISSION AS TRUCK ROUTE DURING CONSTRUCTION — HEALTH HAZARD TO RESIDENTS ON MISSION WSDOE — DIESEL EXHAUST #1 most harmful pollutant in state. 100 TIMES MORE TOXIC THAN GAS EXHAUST People with asthma, heart or lung problems will be sicker with exposure With hospitalizations and even death while even healthy people are at increased risk or respiratory disease and cancer. Six Years is not a temporary inconvenience —the diesel particulate is so small it cannot be escaped in their homes. Its deeply imbedded in our lungs and permanently creates health problems. Ms. Austin's on Mission has COPD and on oxygen since develops started 6 years ago. She's sicker! � ��: �.l'/Y� Long Term — Best : In this Bid Process require All City Contracts diesel vehicles or equipment have newer engines or be retrofit to Fed standards to get City Bids. Start : This can be done through giving 50 extra points for meeting this criteria Bidders - Loss of 50 points if fined due to particulate violations in past 5 years. . . , - ��,�� , ,, , � . - ._ �� , � ��..� � `z . , ,_ � � , ; � ,c�� ,, Y � �� Indiana/Mission Avenue Extension March 8, 2011 1. Greenacres neighborhood. — no public participation process — 2. Neighborhood has concerns with the proposed Indiana Road Extension. a. Recognize that the project has been around for awhile- TIB Grant 2008 b. Appreciate the recent notification about construction — end of Feb 2011 Project begins April 2011 — call for bids already out- ends mid March c. Council needs to understand that the neighborhood has had concerns about this project and also the proposed Mission Avenue expansion between Flora and Barker since the beginning. Years ago we proposed the connection on Boone — Survey 2005 — Results to Council 9/5/2005 i. Splits the neighborhood in half and dramatic increase of through traffic. 3. Concerns with the Indiana extension include: a. A public benefit for a single developer (Centennial Properties) i. State Funds $1,566,850 ii. City Funds $ $314,900 iii. City staff design of road has a cost that should be borne by the developer. Assumed $50,000 - $100,000. iv. Developer ROW Contribution $1,260,000 (Based on full buildout of development?) v. This is an unusual public/private partnership. All costs should have been borne by the developer not the city and the state. (similar to the RiverPark Square in Spokane — another Cowles development) � Impacts of the proposed Centennial Property Development vi. Increased traffic — is condos/townhouse, future dev. Accounted? vii. Elimination of the Mission Road Centennial Trail access Here is the link to a map in the city's website that shows the Mission public access point. http�//www spokanevalley orq/filestoraqe/124/938/210/948/1216/1 f-4.pdf Here is the map that shows the connectivity assessment that was ignored http�//www spokanevallev orq/filestoraqe/124/938/210/948/1216/ �assessment map.pdf LoOk at th2 4th paragt'aph On page 46. Shoreline Master Program Inventory & Characterization Report 2010 http�//www spokanevalley orq/filestoraqe/124/938/210/948/1216/public review d raft sept 7 2010.pdf viii. b. Public Involvement in the process has been minimal. — Council 6 yr plan for transportation only opportunity. No mailings to Neighborhood Or posting on site. (not legal but part of genuine process) ie. Park Dept. was not notified of conflicts with their project this spring c. SEPA documentation is minimal — This project and related projects have a cumulative impact that should be addressed in the SEPA. Should not have resulted in a DNS. ( needed mitigation) 4. Recognize Road will move forward but the neighborhood has a few requests: a. Limit construction and haul routes to minimize impacts to the neighborhood b. Add active pedestrian crossings — Pedestrian/car conflicts will occur, the Mission Road CT access is heavily used by the neighborhood and others. c. Include the neighborhood in the Mission Road design early and frequently. 5. Opportunity to point out to the council a few items about this project: a. There was no reason to push this project forward at this time with public funding. When Centennial Properties (CP) was ready to develop the property they would have designed and constructed the road with private funds and deeded it to the City. ( Cash contribution is a pittance they should have funded entire project) � b. The only documentation we have on the project is the March 8, 2011 Council Report and the October 19, 2011 SEPA so these comments are focused on these two documents. i. SEPA #7 — Do you have plans for future additions, expansion or fu�ther activity related or connected to this proposal — Answer — NO. Our understanding is that the road has been designed to accommodate the CP development and also the proposed Mission Road expansion. This is a wrong statement. ii. SEPA 9) Housing, 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 14) Transportation. 1. All of these imply that there is no associated development plans. iii. March 8, 2011 Council Report 1. Show Centennial Properties Development Plans to council 2. DEA Traffic Report a. Traffic volumes expected to vary significantly with construction of the extension. b. Intersection will transform into a major connection between retail, commercial and residential developments across a wide area c. Added traffic volumes are expected to deteriorate the operations such that the level of service will be below acceptable levels. d. Unclear if the traffic report included impacts of the CP development. e. Impact to Long/Mission intersection (Future Elem/Park) and deterioration of other Mission intersections as we go East. 6. Conclusion a. Once again the City has proposed a project with limited public involvement. This project will impact one of the few remaining recognizable neighborhoods left in Spokane Valley. This was a tactic used by the last council. b. The lack of public involvement in this major change to the neighborhood and the use of public funding to benefit Centennial Properties is a bad direction for the council to be moving in. c. As stated previously, we recognize the project will likely move forward but would like to request: i. Limit construction and haul routes to minimize impacts to the neighborhood — Do not Use Mission Ave for trucks due to � Diesel/NOX emissions and particulate impacts to residents for 6 + years. ii. Add active pedestrian crossings — Pedestrian/car confiicts will occur, the Mission Road Centennial Trail access is heavily used by the neighborhood and others. We want to preserve this trail use at this point. iii. Include the neighborhood in the Mission Road design early and frequently. iv. Violates comprehensive plan goal to recognize neighborhoods and safe routes to schools. v. Be proactive and recognize 2010 Access Board draft to require Pedestrian Activated Crossings — especially needed for visually impaired — they cannot distinguish traffic sounds to cue them to enter crossing and also confusing for the cognitively impaired. Submitted by Mary Pollard North Greenacres Chairwoman 17216 E. Baldwin. Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99016 509 926-8899 marjam17216@msn.com � ��, : ��$�. w .a Reducin Diesel ' � g �� ,,,,,� a Ir ~ M • � I ��. Particle P O � � l.� t l O I'1 ��4�c.� � ��.. . , .. . . .. Background — r'�ccording to the W'ashington State Department of Ecology, diesel exhaust harms health more than any other pollutant in Washington state. I�1ore than 4 million people in �X�ashington live or work close to busy roads where diesel exhaust is at its highest. People with health conditions, such as asthma, heart disease and lung disease have more health problems �vhen exposed to diesel exhaust F,Yposure to diesel eahaust puts even healthy peoplc at an increased risk Eor respiratory disease and cancer. �---- Where does diesel exhaust come from? v� �� %`ti� '��, Diesel eYhaust comes from diesel engines, such as farm �;��s � r '� �� '; ° and construction equipment, and vehicles—including �� `�� .�;� cars, trucks and buses and trains. I�ine particles also come �: ' �;�� from sources other than diesel, such as smoke from wood �.�� z � � �� ` heating, outdoor burning and wildfires, but they are not � ��f ,� � � �� ,�-� as to.tic as the parucles from diesel. , ��' i�"" 1 � , �,� ., �� "' � Who should be concerned about diesel exhaust? � �� y� y ,r�i�r^��y ��!inr m�arr�� ` � ' y� %%��yy <�� ,� �� e sliould all be conccrned. People come into contact !� �uith harmful levels of diesel exhaust in both urban and � � �.� N��=��"�_- � �` xural areas, such as ne�r a rail yard, a busy trUCk stop, or IireUti�irr; �lie.r�-��uru�lu��o�iu/lou �.r «u,�-�°cl �� any place near a major toad. il�iore than four million in immediale and lortg terrrr heallh efJect:c Washington live and work near busy roads where diesel eYhaust is most common. "I'hese people are potentially being exposed to harmful levels of diesel eshaust on a What is diesel exhaust and why be concerned? regular basis. Diesel exhaust is made up on tiny, highly toxic particles -over- that penetrate our lungs and remain there indefinitely to create and/or worsen both heart and lung conditions. �*.�=e�«�. pkset Partisutake Maitar Saurcas Exposure to diesel particles is linked to unmediate and �..o- ,;� long-term health effects, including: ��•�� h{ar�bt :S _ . • irritaring eyes, nose and throat ' '�� ',,.,- • causin cou hin labored breathin chest ti htness � � g g g� g� g �r � x s„ss�1x, and wheezin � � �� g t�"'`,�...�w� � ,�w.,�«a • making healthy children and adults more susceptible i ; .,�,,,�:��,� to developing respiratory conditions i .,ah �>� '� ��fia�� • increasing the risk of heart attack or stroke for those � � n„�F.:�, with pre-existing heart disease or circulatory problems \ ��> � .= . , .y • causing lung cancer ,�,,� t ��,��,� ,.�,a, �s � _,. ... � ��,,,, _ _� � _ �,-.> . � • � . � What has been done to reduce diesel exhaust? Under state funding, many public fleets—including school buses, garbage trucks, transit buses, etc.—throughout Spokane County have been retrofitted with equipment to reduce emissions. These retrofits have been done mainly on pre-2007 diesel engines. Older, more polluting engines have a long life span and could continue running for many years before being replaced by new, cleaner engines. New engines (2007 and newer) are much cleaner and are not a prioriry for funding. What else needs to be done? The relatively easy and cost-effective retrofits ha�re been done in our area. ��'hat's left to tackle are all the private heavy and light duty vehicles, construction and farm equipment, and locomotives. Is reducing diesel exhaust worth the cost? The benefits outweigh the costs of reducing diesel ex- haust. For every dollar spent to reduce ciiesel emissions, we save �3 -$8 in in health care costs and diesel fleet operating and maintenance costs, according to the California .�ir Kesources Board. Foi everp dollar spent on cliesel retrofits, sociery get5 back $9 -$16 dollars, according to the Liuon of Concerned Scientists. � �� ,�. � � v,� �, m�� Spokane�� ►';� �,- Regional . (I Clea n Ai r Agency ,�i zoio ,. .. - � �• � � w �.:- � � � dl��l� Od ors & Ai r ual �t �'�� ►��_:. Q y ��. 1:�� `�r: : , � �� ,�� ,, 1 �� _ � �� . Background Response to Odor Complaints Everyone has a right to breathe clean, health�= air. This Once a complaint is received, it is recorded into a data- includes air that doesn't smell so bad that it affects our base and then assigned to a field inspector for follow-up. abilit�� to enjoy our home and properry. Inspectors generally respond to complaints during regtilar Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (Spokane Clean Air) business hours. receives complaints about odors coming from a variety Three condiuons must be met for us to consider enforce- of operations, including animal rendering, asplialt plants, ment action on an odor incident: coffee roasting, composring, spray paint operations, waste- water treatment plants, etc. (1) An inspector detects an odor at an intensity level of 2 or greater using the scale below: Health Impacts of Odors Leve10 — no odor detected Odors can be a nuisance, but are they a public health hazard? Odors are a compleY mixture of gases, vapors, Level 1— odor barely detected and dust. It is possible for certain odorous emissions to Leve12 — odor is distinct and definite, any unpleasant have an impact on physical health while others ma�� not. characteristics recognizable 'I'he potential impact of any odor depends upon the Leve13 — odor is objectionable enough ar strong enough concentration of odorous emissions, and the frequency to cause attempts at avoidance and duration of eYposure. The most frequendS� reported Leve14 — odox is so strong that a person does not want to remain present symptoms attributed to odors include headache, nausea, hoarseness, cough, congestion, palpitadons, shortness oF (2) The person(s) impacted by the odor provides an breath, and eye, nose, and throat irritarion. affidavit describing the impact that the smell is hav- in� on theix lives. Persons pro��iding affidavits may be Odor/Nuisanee Regulation required to tcstify at a hearing if the case is challenged. Spokane Clean rlir takes odor complaints seriously and �3� � inspeetor identifies the source of the odor. fc�llo�vs protocols established through c.>ur air clualit�� re�ulations to protect the air and public health. Per a�ency Enforeement Aetion Kegulation I, Article VI, Section 6.04: Before issuing a Notice of Violatic�n, the :lgency ma3� give It shall be unlawful for any person to cause or allo�� the the person causing the odor 15 days to pxovide informa- emission of any air eontaminant in suffieient quanti- tion to the Agency which demonstrates to the satisfaction ties and of such characteristics and duration as is, or of the Agenc}' that all controls and operating practices to is likely to unreasonably interfere with enjoyment of prevent or nunimizc odors to the greatest degree practi- life and property. cable are bein� employed. -over- , . . � O � � � • Enforcement Action Filing Odor/Nuisance Complaints If the Agency determines that all such efforts are being If j�ou smell (or see) an air pollution problem, ��ou may file employed by the person causing the odors and that no ad- a complaint. Here's how: ditional control measures or alternate operating practices Contact Spokane Clean Air as soon as possible. are appropriate, the Agency may decline to pursue formal �omplaints can be called in to the agency at (509) 477- enforcement action. This does not preclude a person af- , �72�� r registered online: wwwspokanecleanair.org under fected by odors to pursue their own legal action against «contact us." someone causing odors. You ��ill be asked to providc personal information, such If the �lgenc}� determines that the person causing the �5 �our name, address, and phone number. Your call may odors hasdt demonstrated to tlie satisfaction of the he answered by voicemail recording if you call during r�gency that all controls and operatin� practices to prevent Ilon-business hours. In addition to ��our name, address, or minuruze odors to the greatest degree practicable are ;�nd tclephone number, plan on providing your location being emplo�=ed, a Notice of Violation may be issued. � the odor was detected and the �ate and time odor Tf the Agency issues a Notice of Violation, the pexson u,as first detected. receiving the notice has 30 days to respond to the allega- tions made in the notice. For more information, please contact Spokane Clean Air at 477-4727. Once the Agency considers any additional information provided Uy the person cited, the Agency will generally assess a fine. In calculating the fine, the Agency will con- sider a variety of factors such as ho�v long the violation occurred, the compliance record of the person receiving the violarion, responsiveness in correcting the ��iolation, and any financial gain associated with non-compliance. r'ines typically start at about $1,000 for first-time �riola- tors, but this can climb sharpl}� if the Agency identifies an economic benefit gained from non-compliance. The person rcceiving the fine has 30 days to make payment, request mitigation, or file an appeal. It will typically take at least three months from the time a complaint is first received until the case is resolved. In some cases �vhere enforcement action is challenged, it may take more than 12 months to resol�re. August 2010 � �� 1' �uqr r Spokane � �' �. Regional . �I , Clea n Ai rA ,. - .. � ,� � - �� . „_ V n aved Roads, Dust w �� ,,,�,,� p ,. . . ► ��~�; I it � � Air ua �:� ��.: & Q y ��_. . . - .. . .. � Why the concern over dust? H/hat can be done to reduce dust? The Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (Spokane Clean rJ �` oid travel on unpaved roads w�ienever Air) responds to many citizen complaints iegarding dust. feasible. tJse an alternate route to reach youx During the dry summer months, dust can especially be an ��stination. air quality concern and a public nuisance. ❑ If you have to drive on an unpaved xoad, keep If left uncontrolled, dust can be public health hazard. your speed down. llriving slowly on an When inhaled, fine dust parricles travel deep into the lungs, unpaved road will dramatically reduce the increasing breathing problems, damaging lung tissue, and amount of dust emissions. aggravating e�sting health problems. Those at higlzest risk � Hire a private contractor, who is approved by to esperience health impacts are those witlz respiratory the city or county, to apply a dust suppressant condirions, the elderly and the youn�. Children are at risk to your road (often referred to as road "oiling" because tlieir lungs are still developing. although it isn't oil that is applied.) Where does all the dust come from? ❑ Establish a local or toad impLOVement district ��ith y<�ur neighUoxs, to help fund part of the In the Spokane area, most of the dust pollution comes paving prc�ject. For more information, contact: from a combination of activities, including: (�it�r : 625-6300 Cc�unty: 477-3600 ❑ Driving ou paved roads before winter traction sand is cleaned up ❑ Keep youx vehicle in the driving lane and off the shoulder of the road where dirt and ❑ Driving on unpaved roads and parking lots debris accumulate. ❑ Dirt and mud tracked onto clean roadways (frorn ��n't use a lcaf blower to clean dirt/debris dirt roads, construction sites, dirt alleys, etc) from side��alks, parking lots, or driveways. ❑ Construction and demolition activities Blo�vin� this into the air doesn't sc�lve the ❑ Dirt, gravel and other types ofstorage piles problem, it just moves it around. Use a broom and dustpan instead! ❑ I-Iandling and transfer of materials J VG'hen hauling debris, keep the load covered at ❑ Agricultural/ farming activities all times. �� , For more information contact the Spokane Regional � � � ��, �� Clean Air Agency at 477-4727, or visit www. �'-��°"�� " � �� °%�' �f �;� � spokanecleanair.org. �� , , � �� a." ,, � � � � � � .�� `�� ' r, � � �� r „qr y �� Spokane �'�°�`'�� ' � e ;:� Regional � r� , �� Clean AirA Dust sticccd up from mutorist travclin�„ ��u sui un}�avc�l r��ad. iuly 2010 � � � - ' � .. - �� , . , � City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist � �Q� TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT �� City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for non-project proposals: Complete this checklist for non-project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, C0171p1ete th2 SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS (p8f� D). For non-project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Nofe fo user� this is an electronic form and each qray box can be filled out on your computer. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable Indiana Avenue Extension 2. Name of applicant: City of Spokane Valley 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Craig Aldworth Senior Civil Engineer 11707 E. Sprague Ave Suite 304 City of Spokane Valley, WA 99206 � (509) 688-0247 Effective October19, 2009 Page 1 of 12 P:\Public Works\Capital Projects\Street Projects\0112 - Indiana Ave Extension - 3600' e of Sullivan to Mission & Flora\Environmenta�lndiana Sullivan SEPA 9-19-09.docx �� ,�� y��-�la� 3� / City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 4. Date checklist prepared: October 26, 2009 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): This project will be completed during the 2011 construction session. 7. Do you have any pl for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal?� If yes, explain. �, ,i � ,/ ��y��,(,�� - -- d � t.�l.f1-� C.� �� i �� `3 �� ;�'� • � 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Unknown �� C��=-�-C.-: ��`C�/ / l��i� r ��ay�� ' �� '. /�j ether a lications are endin for overnmental approvals of othe 9. Do you know wh pp p 9 9 � directly affecting the properry covered by your proposal? Unknown If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. SEPA and Cultural Resource Survey 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The project will consist of construction of a separated 2-lane road extending from Indiana Avenue northeast towards the Mission and Flora intersection where we will also construct a single lane roundabout. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. This project is located in Section 12 and 13 of Township 25 North, Range 44 East and Section 7 and 8 Township 25 North, Range 45 East within the City of Spokane Valley, Washington. 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? Yes. The General Sewer Service Area? Yes. The Priority Sewer Service Area? Yes. (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). Effective October19, 2009 Page 2 of 12 P:\Public Works\Capital Projects\Street Projects10112 - Indiana Ave Extension - 3600' e of Sullivan to Mission & Flora\Environmentanlndiana Sullivan SEPA 9-19-09.docx City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? None List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? No. If so, describe 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None known. ,� 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, i if any: None. �� . /U �a2�i`� � � b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction equipment will temporarily increase noise in the project vicinity. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The contractor will be limited to daylight hours of operation. 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site is unused pasture. Adjacent property is commercial, under development to the south, with residential and business to the north, and residential to the Effective October19, 2009 Page 8 of 12 P:\Public Works\Capital Projects\Street Projects\0112 - Indiana Ave Extension - 3600' e of Sullivan to Mission & Flora\Environmental\Indiana Sullivan SEPA 9-19-09.docx City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checkiist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT after construction. 2) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. There will be a temporary increase in exhaust emissions and dust during construction. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? No. If so, generally describe. � c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Water will be used to control fugitive dust during construction. /�U� �.�� e�.�.e.- ��'�� l - �� . �.�� ;� � 3) Water �- �v�'�(J � GCG ��'� a. Surface: ��'LU � /,�l �� i'�,!�J� / G� � �� 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site �� (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, �� wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes. Spokane River is approximately 600 feet from project limits. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. None. Indicate the source of fill material. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? No. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? No. If so, note location on the site plan. Effective October19, 2009 Page 5 of 12 P:\Public Works\Capital Projects\Street Projects\0112 - Indiana Ave Extension - 3600' e of Sullivan to Mission 8 Flora\Environmenta�lndiana Sullivan SEPA 9-19-09.docx