2007, 09-18 Study Session
-71
AGENDA
C'CC1' OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CI`T'Y COUNCIL NVORKSHEET
STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, September 18.2007 6:00 p.m.
CITY H,%I_L COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor
(Please'furn Off All Electronic Devices During the Meeting)
DISC[ISSION LEADER S17B.iMPAC11VITY GOAL
Frnplo)vs' lrrrrr,lt~r trr»!c
Kaba ;Vinrri, Accountcvt6lhnlget Analyst, by Finunc•e Director lien Thoml son
Joe O'Brien, 17'Specialist, by Finance Director Ken 1ltontlrson
3fichelle Simpson, Administrative Assistant, by Parks c1'c Rec Director .tifike .fock~on
Rvan Brodivater, Engineering Tech by FngineerJohn Hohman
Peter Fisch, Engineering Tech by Engineer Steve IforlcY
1. Mtargnn Koudclka! Commute Trip Reduction (C1R) Update, Discussion/Informntion
Aumrn Cmuk, 05 minutes) CTR li iciency Act
2. Morgan Koudell a 00 minute) Delmriment hell get I {iehlights [.>iy~tlssion`Inti~rnlati<ul
Ciro ~1~1 i,rnlit 1. IriU nli(nltctil I1-niforrn Dee- o-i,rnent Code
-l Mnvor Wilhite Advancr 1t;enda Additions Ul~cttssnrn'Int"r~nllarn~n
5. lnjlrnrntion Only ltetrx5' 6011 not be discussed or reported):
a. Animal Control Ulxlate - j1 forgan Komlelkr
h CIP C-1r C1nr,atirn1,rl.lfnrlr•1 Ninrr Rernr
h Ma`or \V11111: Council ClItx:k In
Davc Mcrcicr Oty Manager Camn►cnts Discussionllnfo rination
ADJOURN
Vntr: Vuless otherwise noted above, there will be no public comments at Council Study Sesllons. Howt%vr. Council always resmes
the right to rtquest information from the public and staff as appropriate. During mectinp held by the city of Spok=c :valley council,
the C'ourwil rnmcs the right to talc "action" on any item listed or nlhsccluctttly added to the agcndn 71te term "action" means to dcUbc1-11e.
discu". review, comddcr, c%uluatc, or nuke a collective positive or ncKntive d--isl4ML
NOTICE Indnidimt.s planning to aut=A the meeting Id" requite special 1Wsmue to ecco modate phyaient, hewing, or otter unpeirr=Lt, picnic coruxt
tfic C aN Cal; st f."l n? 1-1 W at soun as p4iviblc in taint mTsn_unrnU aav tY maAr
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: September 18, 2007 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information 0 admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: CTR Update (CTR Efficiency Act)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 70.94
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The Council previously approved interlocal
agreement C03-69 on November 12, 2003, interlocal agreement C05-103 on September 13,
2005, and interlocal agreement (still unnumbered) that was approved on July 24, 2007.
BACKGROUND: In 2006, the Washington State Legislature passed the Commute Trip
Reduction Efficiency Act which amended the requirements for local governments in those
counties experiencing the greatest automobile-related air pollution and traffic congestion to
develop and implement plans to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips. The law updates the
previously enacted CTR law and requires local jurisdictions that have at least one or more CTR-
affected work site to prepare CTR Plans. As an affected jurisdiction, the City of Spokane Valley
is required to prepare a draft CTR plan.
The City of Spokane Valley Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Plan is a collection of City-adopted
goals and policies, facility and service improvements and marketing strategies about how the
City will help make progress toward reducing drive alone trips and vehicle miles traveled over
the next four years. The plan incorporates elements of the City's comprehensive plan.
The CTR Plan focuses on reducing drive alone trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) among
employees that work for major employers. The City has set a goal of reducing drive alone trips
by 10% and VMT by 13% for all major employers by 2011.
Spokane County Transportation Demand Manger Aurora Crooks will provide a brief summary of
the CTR plan and give Council a chance to comment. Council comments will then be forwarded
along with the draft plan to the Spokane Regional Transportation Council for review and
approval. The Washington State Department of Transportation is responsible for final approval.
OPTIONS: NIA
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Provide Comments
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst
i
\ J
ATTACHMENTS : Summary Memorandum
S#6@..ne
..;0OValley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhattospokanevalley.org
Memorandum
To: Dave Mercier, City Manager and Members of Council
From: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst
Date: September 18, 2007
Re: Commute Trip Reduction Plan (Efficiency Act)
In 2006, the Washington State Legislature passed the Commute Trip Reduction Efficiency Act which
amended the requirements for local governments in those counties experiencing the greatest automobile-
related air pollution and traffic congestion to develop and implement plans to reduce single-occupant
vehicle trips. This plan has been prepared in accordance with these revisions to RCW 70.94.
The Commute Trip Reduction Plan is a collection of City-adopted goals and policies, facility and service
improvements and marketing strategies about how the City will help make progress toward reducing drive
alone trips and vehicle miles traveled over the next four years. Building upon the success of the existing
commute trip reduction program, the City strives to meet the goals of the plan for the future by working in
partnership and coordination with other agencies and employers.
The CTR Plan focuses on reducing drive alone trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) among employees
that work for major employers. The City has set a goal of reducing drive alone trips by 10% and VMT by
13% for all major employers by 2011. The City may consider some of the following set of strategies that
have been identified as potentially effective to achieve the reduction goals:
The City will be responsible for developing and implementing their local CTR plan. It is responsible for
ensuring that CTR plan is consistent with its local comprehensive plans. As part of its CTR plan, the City
will set the goals and targets for the affected employers.
The City contracts with Spokane County to manage the CTR programs for affected employers in our City.
Note: The draft CTR Plan for the City of Spokane Valley is 92 pages long and was not distributed in
the agenda packet. The full report is available on the P drive at P:1CTR and a hard-copy is located
with the City Clerk for review. The analysis of the comprehensive plan included as an attachment
here is still under review by Community Development.
f
Implementation Schedule
= Event:
D"afe:
July 26, 2007 Draft local plans delivered to jurisdiction staff for
their review
August 10, 2007 Comments due back from local jurisdictions on
draft CTR plans
August 17, 2007 Revisions made to local CTR plans-, final draft
plans delivered to local jurisdictions by Perteet
August 13, 2007 - September 7, 2007 City Councils and County Council review draft
local CTR plans and GTEC programs
September 14, 2007 Spokane Regional Transportation Council
reviews and approves local CTR plans and
GTEC programs
October 2, 2007 Spokane Regional Transportation Council
submits local plans and regional plan to
WSDOT forapproval
December 2007 WSDOT gives approval to local plans and
GTEC programs
January 2008 Local jurisdictions prepare ordinances for the
approved CTR plans
February 2008 CTR plan implementation begins
ReconmendedrStrate ies`to:Achieve Goals
Based on the gaps in services and facilities that were identified, the following strategies are planned that
will help the CTR-affected work sites in City of Spokane Valley make progress towards their 2011 goal.
These strategies will be performed in coordination between Spokane County, STA and the cities of
Spokane, Spokane Valley, Airway Heights, Liberty Lake, Cheney and Medical Lake.
Strateg Descri _tion
Policies and Regulations
Implement the City's vision for Downtown which
Implement City's Vision for includes mixed-use that is supportive of transit,
Downtown Spokane Valley pedestrian, and bicycle use.
The City will work with Employee Transportation
Coordinators (ETCs) to implement successful CTR
programs. ETCs will be responsible for attending
training and networking opportunities, coordinating
annual fairs, conducting promotions, distributing
information, notifying the jurisdiction about
program changes, and meeting program reporting
and surveying requirements. The City will require
ETCs to attend mandatory training sessions and
ETC Training attend available networking opportunities.
The City will review existing parking requirements
that may discourage drive alone vehicle use. The
City will work with employers to implement parking
management strategies such as setting aside
preferred parking spaces for carpools and
vanpools, reducing parking supply and restricting
Review Parking Policies on-street parking spaces.
Amend Comprehensive Plan to The City will review its Comprehensive Plan and
include language about the CTR add new policies to correspond with its CTR plan,
Efficiency Act if necessary.
Services and Facilities
STA r-All continue to provide transit services to
CTR work sites, where service is currently
available. STA will make service enhancements
based on its updated Six-Year Transit
Development Plan. These enhancements may
Transit Services include flexible transit service.
The City will work with STA to implement capital
facilities that will help improve transit. Capital
facilities may include transit signal priority projects,
Transit Capital Facilities exclusive bus lanes, bus stops and shelters.
The City will work with STA to increase the
capacity and quantity of park and ride lot facilities.
These facilities may include both leased and
Park and Ride Lots permanent facilities.
The City will work with STA to increase vanpool
Van pool Services participation.
The City and STA Mill continue to help commuters
find ridematching partners through the
personalized ridematching services and the use of
www.ddeshareonline.com. The City will also
.J provide mapping services to affected work sites to
Carpool Services help them identify the origins of their commuters.
The City will work with major employers to
encourage the provision of amenities such as bike
lockers, access to shower facilities, and changing
facilities to increase usage of non-motorized
Bicycling, and Walking Amenities transportation.
The City will work to improve its system of bicycle
and pedestrian facilities. This may include adding
Enhance Bicycle and Pedestrian new bike lanes, trails and signage to improve the
Facilities pedestrian and bicycling environment.
The City will work to create a telework education
program that would educate employers on how to
implement telework at their work site, if applicable.
The program may include education on human
resource policies and information technology
Telework Program assistance to allow employees to work from home.
The City will work with employers to encourage
employers to offer alternative and flexible work
schedules for their employees, including
Alternative and Flexible Schedules compressed work weeks.
0
The City will provide assistance to affected
employers to help them meet the requirements of
the CTR Efficiency ACT and implement their
programs. Assistance may include individual
meeting with employers or workshops that focus
on specific topics, i.e. CTR survey workshops,
marketing and promotions, etc. The City will also
provide commuter information boards to the work
Employer Assistance sites.
The City will work with affected employers to offer
the Guaranteed Ride Home program to their
Guaranteed Ride Home Program employees.
Marketing and,lncentives
The City will work with CTR work site managers
and owners to educate them about the benefits of
CTR to their organizations. The City will develop a
public relations campaign to encourage
Management Support mans ement to give stronger support for CTR.
The City will encourage employers to offer subsidy
programs to persuade employees to shift to non-
drive alone commute modes. Examples include
six-months of free vanpool participation, transit
pass subsidies, and a one-time payment or gift
Subsidies card for starting a gar pool.
The City will work to expand education efforts to
CTR employees about alternative commuting
including web site, workshops, information
Marketing and Education brochures, and posters.
The City will work with major employers to conduct
on site promotions, transportation fairs, and
activities to increase awareness and use of
Promotional Events commute alternatives.
The City will work with the CTR-affected
employers to create networking opportunities to
discuss CTR issues, coordinate ridesharing
Networking Opportunities programs, and conduct joint promotional efforts.
The City will work to develop partnerships with
other agencies that have similar goals to reduce
automobile travel, i.e. air pollution control authority
Partnerships with Other Agencies and health agencies.
J~1 CTR Program Activities
Program Strategy or Service Agency Responsible for Scheduled Date for
Administering Implementation
Policies and Regulations
Update Comprehensive Plan City of Spokane Valley 2008
CTR Program Enforcement Spokane County On-going
Implement Vision of Downtown City of Spokane Valle On-going
Review Parkin Policies city of S okane Valley 2008 - 2011
Services and Facilities
Transit Services STA On-going
Transit Capital Facilities STA On- oin
Park and Ride Lot Facilities STA On-going
Vanpool Services STA On-going
Ridematching Services STA On-going
Bicycle and Pedestrian City of Spokane Valley On-going
Facilities
Marketing and Incentives
Incentive Programs Spokane County On-goinal
Parking Management City of Spokane Valle On-going
Marketing and Education Spokane County On-going
Promotional Events Spokane County On-going
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES ANALYSIS
This section provides a list of CTR supportive comprehensive plan goals and policies that the City of
Spokane Valley either has or doesn't have. The right hand column identifies the policies that the jurisdiction
has in place relating to the recommended goals and policies in the left hand column. If the jurisdiction
doesn't have some of the recommended goals and policies listed below, then they may want to consider
adding some of these recommended goals and policies to their comprehensive plan during the next update.
Example Commute Trip Reduction & Goals & Policies
Growth Management Planning Policies in Current Plans
Land Use Element
Inter-Agency Coordination
Example Commute Trip Reduction & Goals & Policies
Growth Management Planning Policies - in Current Plans
Work with transit providers to provide transit that is fast, frequent and None, but covered in
reliable between urban centers, urban villages, GTEC's and accessible to Transportation
most of the city's residences and businesses. Element, TG-lo.
1,UP-2.3 & 6.2
Urban Growth Areas
Enter into agreements and establish procedures for setting priorities, Recommended, but
programming, maintaining and financing for countywide, regional and no specific poiicv.
state transportation facilities and services consistent with the GMA
current federal transportation legislation
Land use and transportation goals and decisions should be integrated
with one another and coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions and with the LUG-17
Regional Transportation Plan to determine the types and levels of
transportation facilities to be provided within the unincorporated county.
The county/city should use future land use projections to identify and Recommended, but
provide for adequate safety, structural, rights-of-way and other possible no specific policy.
improvements that support vehicle transportation, non-motorized and
transit needs of the region plus use alternative transit modes as areas
develop.
Integrate Commute Trip Reduction land use planning by requiring non- Recommended, but
motorized pedestrian connections between retail, living, and work places, no specific policy.
Non-motorized connects shall include, but not be limited to: transit LUG-16
connections, bus stops, sidewalks, bike facilities, trails and encouraging L.UP 4.2,4.3,4.7,4.8
employers to participate in ride sharing programs.
When evaluating land use changes to the Comprehensive Plan, None
proposals should include an analysis of how the development furthers the
goals of Commute Trip Reduction planning.
Pursue transportation demand management (TDM) strategies at the None., but covered in
locallregional level by coordinating with regional and state partners so Transportation
customers see their travel choices and the various TDM promotions as a Element, TG-6, TP-
.
coordinated, integrated system that makes a difference in the community. 6. t.
Example:
Regulations to influence travel behavior
Marketing
Improvements in services and facilities
Require the integration of non-motorized and transit connections when LUP-16.2, LUP-1 s.l
planning and developing urban centers or GTEC's,
Establish urban centers and/or GTEC's where they can be served by LUP-14.1
regional transit agencies, or work with the appropriate transit agency to
expand service to the urban center within a reasonable timeframe.
Example Commute Trip Reduction & Goals r Policies
_ Growth Management Planning Policies in Current Plans
Urban Design
Encourage new housing developments a'to be located in urban growth LUPLUP--11.6.6, LUP-2.3,
areas and small towns to help provide a sense of community and safe,
non-motorized transportation to community facilities and public transit
modes.
Discourage transportation improvements that would trigger development LUP-6.5
that is premature or not consistent with applicable comprehensive plans,
policies, or zoning.
Provide aesthetic and functional amenities along pedestrian facilities, LUP-4.6
such as water fountains, benches, trash receptacles, public art, and open
spaces (such as seating plazas).
Provide pedestrian, and bicycle connections in newly developing areas of LUP-4.2
the city, promoting both internal access and linkages with the rest of the
city.
Incorporate transit-supportive and pedestrian friendly design features in LUP-7.3
new development through the development review process. Examples
include:
Provide pedestrian pathways that minimize walking distances to activities
and to transit stops.
Provide weather protection such as covered walkways or arcades
connecting building developments, and covered waiting areas for transit
and ridesharing.
Incorporate guidelines for addressing that sidewalks and walhvays are LUP-14.2
separated from the roadway by a landscaping strip or drainage swale.
Adopt pedestrian friendly design guidelines, especially in high pedestrian LUP-7.2, LUP-8.2
activity zones, such as wide sidewalks, landscape buffers or strips, street
trees, adequate lighting, traffic calming measures (such as traffic circles,
curb bulbs, raised medians, speed tables and chicanes), special
pavements, and bollards.
Adopt development design standards that promote a pedestrian friendly LUP-4.8, LUP-7.4
environment. Such standards may include reduced building setbacks,
requirements for display windows, building entrances oriented toward the
street, and locating parking lots to the rear or side of buildings.
Secure bike lanes and trail improvements or easements through the UP- 16.2
development review process to develop portions of the bicycle and
pedestrian system.
Example Commute Trip Reduction & Goals & Policies _
Growth Management Planning Policies in Current Plans
Require new developments to incorporate non-motorized features or LUP-9.1, LUP-10.3
programs designed to promote use of alternatives to single-occupant
vehicles, such as;
• Preferential parking for car pools and van pools
• Special loading and unloading facilities
• Transit facilities, including comfortable bus stops, and waiting areas,
adequate turning room, and where appropriate, signal preemption and
queue-jump lanes
• Bicycle parking and related facilities
Inter=Agency Coordination
Pursue strategies that make transit safe, secure, comfortable, and None, but covered in
Transportation
affordable. Element. TG-10.
Integrate multiple access modes, including buses, carpools, and LUG-7
vanpools, bicycles, and pedestrians.
Integrate transit-oriented development opportunities with the private and Nonc
public sectors.
Zoning,:
Discourage the development of major, stand-alone park and ride facilities N;one
with city limits. Situations where additions to park and ride capacity could
be considered include:
At the terminus for a major, regional transit system.
When opportunities exist for "shared parking "(e.g., where transit
commuter parking can be leased from another development. Such as a
shopping center, movie theatre, church, etc.)
Areas where alternatives to automobile uses are particularly inadequate
(e.g., lack of direct transit system, or pedestrian and bicycle access) or
cannot be provided in a cost-effective manner.
Allow a reduction in the number of required parking spaces if a None
development provides ride-share programs, car pool parking spaces, bike
racks, lockers or other approved non-motorized parking options.
Encourage transit oriented development and pedestrian friendly land use LUP-2.1, LUP-2 2,
characteristics through zoning and land use policies that encourage 11UP-9.1
mixtures of land uses, increased densities in targeted areas with design
standards.
Adopt a parking credit program that allows developers to reduce the None
number of required parking spaces if they provide an alternative
transportation program to single occupant vehicles.
Housing Element
Work with other jurisdictions to achieve a jobsthousing balance that Recommended, but
makes it possible for people to live closer to where they work. no specific policy.
l
- ,1 Example Commute Trip Reduction - Goals & Policies
Growth Management Planning Policies in Current.Plans
Promote quality, community-friendly residential development, through LUP-2.4, LUP-16.1
features such as enhanced open space and pedestrian connectivity.
Capital Facilities Element
Explore the possibility of encouraging cooperative funding for bicycle none
trails.
Implement a methodology for public-private partnerships when it would CFP-1.4
result in a more efficient use of public resources.
Aggressively seek funding opportunities for safety, mobility, intermodal, None
bicycle, pedestrian, neighborhood, and transportation demand
management improvements
Provide adequate and predictable funding to construct and maintain None
pedestrian and bicycle capital projects.
Effectively link pedestrian project funding and approval decisions to None
priorities identified in the CTR plan, as well as the Non-Motorized element
of the jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan.
Support a greater investment in pedestrian enhancements, and ensure None
that all new transportation projects include funding for pedestrian
improvements.
Continue programs to construct, maintain, and repair sidewalks. Recommended, but
nospecific policy.
Assign high priority to pedestrian and bicycle projects that provide access None; but covered in
to major employment areas and activity centers, provide linkages to Transportation
transit, complete planned bicycle facilities and provide system )rlement,'l'P-9.to.
connectivity.
Effectively link TOM program funding and approval decisions to priorities None
identified in the CTR plan, as well as the transportation element of the
jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan.
Utilities Element
Secure sidewalk and trail easements over existing utility lines where ever None
feasible
Transportation Element
Carpools, Vanpools,-& Ride Share
Ensure that the city as an employer sets a positive example by None
maintaining a strong transportation demand management program for its
employees.
Pedestrian System Connectivity -
The county should ensure that continuous and/or direct bicycle lanes are TP-9. to, T13- 11.5
provided behveen all jurisdictions and major activity centers.
L.
Example Commute Trip Reduction & Goals & Policies
Growth Management Planning Policies in Current Plans
Consider pedestrians along with other travel modes in all aspects of W-9
developing the transportation system. Provide safe and convenient
pedestrian access in all new and improved transportation projects, unless
exceptional circumstances exist.
Remove barriers and deterrents along the existing pedestrian system to TP-9.9, TP-16.1
create better access between employment facilities, residential and other
uses.
Coordinate the local jurisdiction's existing and planned pedestrian system TG-9
with adjacent jurisdictions to provide a continuous, coordinated system,
especially when major employment and activity centers are nearby,
Secure sidewalks and trail improvements or easements through the TP-9.10
development review process to develop portions of the pedestrian
system.
Pedestrian Safety and Security .
Adopt and use national (American Association of State Highway and None
Transportation Officials, AASHTO) design standards for pedestrian
facilities.
Address the special needs of citizens with various degrees of mobility in Recommended, but
planning, designing, implementing and maintaining pedestrian facilities. no specific policy.
Provide consistently designed pedestrian activated signal crossings, and Recommended, but
consider technologies that enhance pedestrian safety at crossings, such no specific policy.
as longer crossing times and audible crossings.
Consider access management to reduce the number of conflict points TP-16.1
(driveways) between pedestrians and vehicles, thereby improving
pedestrian safety.
Ensure that pedestrian facilities are designed and monitored to improve TP-9.5
security and safety, through lighting, openness, vegetation upkeep and
security features such as panic buttons at key locations.
Design midblock crossings with safety as a high priority, and consider '1713-9.5
improvements such as pedestrian crossing signals, flared curbs
(bulbouts), pedestrian refuge islands, medians, and adequate sight
distance around parked vehicles.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Convenience
Conduct periodic analyses of bicycle and pedestrian environments in and None
around urban centers and regional transit stations to identify deficiencies
and to plan access improvements.
Include bicycle facilities in the six-year capital improvement program (for None
trails that will be utilized by bikes) or the six-year transportation program
(for widening shoulder projects that will accommodate bikes).
Example Commute Trip.Red'uction & Goals & Policies
Growth Management Planning Policies in Current Plans
Implement way-finding (signage) along sidewalks and trails that direct None
pedestrians to key locations or destinations, such as major activity
centers, business districts, institutions, major medical facilities, parks or
recreational facilities.
Provide internal pedestrian circulation systems within and between TP-9.1
existing, new or redeveloping commercial, multi-family or single family
developments, and other appropriate activity centers. Provide convenient
connections to frontage pedestrian systems and transit facilities.
Encourage transit use by improving pedestrian and bicycle linkages to the None, but covered in
existing and future transit and school bus system, and by improving the Land Use Element,
security of and utility of park-and-ride lots and bus stops. LUP-7.6. TP-9.1
Provide bicycle connections and secure bicycle parking and storage TP-9.7, TP-9.10
convenient to major transit facilities; increase the number of secure
parking areas for bicycles.
Conduct bicycle transportation studies to improve safety and overall None
quality of bicycling.
Cooperate with the public and private schools, bicycle clubs and other Recommended, but
interests groups to provide education and strategies to promote safe no specific policy.
riding skills and the transportation and recreation opportunities of
bicycling.
Improve mobility and safe access for walking and bicycling, and create TP-9.5
incentives to promote non-motorized travel to employment centers,
commercial districts, transit stations, schools and major institutions, and
recreational destinations.
Update and review the Pedestrian and Bicycle transportation Plan every None
five years. The updates should consider the existing and future role of the
single-occupant vehicle in relation to non-motorized and public
transportation modes, as well as newly annexed areas, areas
experiencing unforeseen development and/or redevelopment, and other
emerging issues.
Develop an effective 'share the road/share the trail' concept for None
pedestrian and bicycle education programs for the motorized and non-
motorized public.
Accessibility
Sidewalks or pedestrian facilities should be located along all both sides of TP-9.2
all arterials, collectors, and at least one side of most local streets.
Pedestrian facilities should be wide enough to allow the disabled, such as Recommended, but
wheelchair users, to access them, usually a minimum of 5' to 6'. A wider no specific policy.
facility should be provided along principal arterials (generally a minimum
f of 8'), or in business districts that attract more pedestrians.
Example Commute Trip Reduction & Goals & Policies
Growth Management Planning Policies in Current Plans
Direct pedestrian linkages should be considered whenever possible, to None
connect between internal land uses and arterials. This reduces walking
distances to transit stops and commercial uses.
Public Transportation
Encourage interconnections and time coordination of public transportation TP-16.3
modes (bus, coach and rail) to increase level of service and ridership.
Work with transit providers to provide transit service that is fast, frequent, TP-11.s
and reliable between urban centers and urban villages and that is
accessible to most of the city's residences and businesses. Pursue
strategies that make transit safe, secure, comfortable, and affordable.
Support development of an integrated, regional high capacity transit TP-ll.3
system that links urban centers within the city and the region.
Develop partnerships with transit providers to implement projects TP-11.6
providing neighborhood-to-transit links that improve pedestrian and
bicycle access to transit services and facilities.
Coordinate with regional, state, and federal agencies, local governments, TP-1 1.2, TP-11.4
and transit providers when planning and operating transportation facilities
and services in order to promote regional mobility for people and goods
and the urban center approach to growth management.
Design transit access into large developments, considering bus lanes, None
stops, shelters, non-motorized lanes & facilities as part of the project
design
Coordinate with transit providers and the private sector to develop and None
implement compatible transportation demand management regulations
and strategies that are consistent with the Commute Trip Reduction Act.
Work with car share companies to provide car share opportunities at key None
locations, such as major employers, business districts, and high density
residential areas.
Provide preferential lanes, such as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes \,one
on roads which will benefit commuters the most, such as those with major
transit routes, and those experiencing the greatest congestion.
Education and Encouragement
Educate the general public and public officials about the economic, None
transportation system performance, environmental, health and social
benefits of walking and biking and develop improved programs to
encourage increased levels of walking and biking.
Educate drivers and pedestrians about pedestrian safety issues, and gone
enforce pedestrian related laws.
Example Commute Trip Reduction & Goals & Policies
i" Planning Policies in Current Plans
Growth Management
Consider the formation of a pedestrian advisory committee to provide None
input to the jurisdiction (staff and elected officials) on pedestrian related
issues and needs, as well as review of major transportation projects to
ensure that pedestrian needs are adequately addressed or considered.
Develop a pedestrian walking/biking map that is focused on major activity None
centers, such as business districts or major employment areas. The map
should identify sidewalks, trails, bike routes, transit corridors and bus
stops/transit centers, and key activity centers such as institutional uses
and government centers, major employers, commercial or retail areas,
parks, and other points of interest.
Monitoring
Ensure that the local government monitors the results of its TDM None
programs and policies, and continually evaluate changes needed to
improve modes lit goals.
Continually evaluate large employer CTR program effectiveness and None
reduce the employer threshold if needed to achieve the jurisdiction's
modes lit goals.
Economic Development Element
Funding Mechanisms
Promote public awareness of the impact travel choices have on None
household finances, personal quality of life, society, and the environment,
and increase awareness of the range of travel choices available.
Employment
Require large employers to implement a commute trip reduction program Recommended, but
for employees, as mandated by the Commute Trip Reduction Act. no specific policy.
The county/city should encourage employers in urbanized areas to offer re-6
staggered work hours or flextime and other Transportation demand
Management programs such as parking management, ride match
services and preferential parking of vanpools, carpools, covered bike
racks, lockers and showers at work sites.
Encourage employers to provide information and marketing on commute TP-6•1
alternatives, such as transit schedules, rideshare information, and
guaranteed ride home programs.
Encourage employers to develop telecommuting options, which allow TP-6.1
employees to work one or more days at home or at a satellite work
center" closer to their homes.
Encourage employers to allow flexible work schedules or compressed T P-6.1
work weeks to help reduce the number of vehicles using local and
regional roadways.
f Encourage major employers to provide daycare opportunities onsite or None
nearby.
Example Commute Trip Reduction & Goals & Policies
Growth Management Planning Policies in Current Plans
Encourage employers to provide subsidies to employees who commute Recommended, but
using other modes, such as free or reduced prices for transit passes, or no specific policy.
discounted parking for rideshare vehicles.
Parks & Open Space Element
Provide for adequate roadway, pedestrian, and bicycling connections in PRP-2.5
newly developing areas of the city, promoting both internal access and
linkages with the rest of the city.
Identify areas to be designated as pedestrian promenades, with None
pedestrian friendly environments.
Provide for uniform bicycle and pedestrian markings and design None
standards for travel along city bikeways and walkways.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: September 18, 2008 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Highlights of 2008 Budget
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: This information is presented as part of the 2007
budget process. The highlights are the basis for the overall workplan.
BACKGROUND: Council will hear a brief presentation from each Department Director relative
to that department's overall budget.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Provide feedback on proposed department budget
.1 highlights.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The proposed 2008 budget provides the basis for the
department goals and activities included in this presentation.
STAFF CONTACT: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
ATTACHMENTS: 2008 Preliminary Budget Department Highlights PowerPoint Presentation
2008 Preliminary Budget
Department Highlights
City of Spokane Valley
Department Directors
September 18, 2007
Executive & Legislative
Support (pp. 34-35)
o Continue monitoring wastewater issues
o Refine initial departmental six-year business
plans
o Formulate aSix-Year Strategic Financial Plan
o Initiate implementation of the sub-area plan for
the Sprague/Appleway revitalization
o Adopt area-wide rezoning proposals consistent
with the comprehensive plan
o Perform an analysis of land owner initiated
request for annexation
o Develop a Shoreline Master Plan
1
• • • Public Safety (pp. 37-38)
o Implement, as appropriate, identified security measures
established by the Spokane Valley Police Department security
committee, and incorporate a crisis response plan to enhance
the safety of employees and patrons of the Spokane Valley PD
o Emphasize strategies and goals set previously by the Spokane
Valley Police Department, i.e. training, leadership, management
skills, and improvement of communication
o Enhance the identity of Spokane Valley Police Department in
the community
o Build upon our multi-jurisdictional working partnership,
enhancing departmental, regional, and community public safety
efforts
o Conduct a staffing analysis to ensure that the specified level of
service is maintained with respect to growth and crime patterns
z
Operations & Admin.
Services (pp. 39-41)
o Incorporate Business Plan into
strategic financial plan
o Finalize formal managed competition
program
o Implement contract audit program
o Conduct community survey
o Plan and implement community events
for City five-year anniversary
3
Operations & Admin. Services,
continued (pp. 39-41)
o Update website: web based HR Center and
on-line applications
o Finalize classification review system
o Enhance Employee Recognition program
o Adopt City Safety Plan in conjunction with
Safety Committee
o Establish initial employee development
opportunities through online learning
o Work with PIO on media strategy for
recruitment
a
0
Operations & Admin. Services,
••o
continued (pp.-39-41)
o Assist in identification of
telecommunications infrastructure
o Consider suggestions made by WCIA
regarding insurance coverages ar
o Consider State Auditor's suggestions
resulting from the annual audit
o Participate in preparation of Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvement
plan
5 F
~ • ~ Parks & Recreation
(pp. 50 - 55)
o Continue park renovations and land acquisition
o Investigate accreditation through the National Park and
Recreation Association
o Complete renovation of Valley Mission Park
o Apply for grant from Washington Interagency Committee
to design and develop Green Acres Park
o Design and start construction of Universal Park
o Create Summer Outdoor Movie night at the park
o Increase variety of year round programs for all ages
o Add additional contract instructors to run specialty camps
or programs
o Create consistent guidelines for contract recreation
program instructors
6
~ • ~ Parks & Recreation, continued
(pp. 50 - 55)
o Complete construction on outdoor pools and host grand
re -opening celebration
o Explore enhanced programs at the pools
o Expand hours of operation for Senior Center to include
limited evening classes & events
o Explore enhanced programming opportunities to a wider
range of seniors
o Encourage Retirement Communities to become more
involved with the Senior Center
o Implement Marketing & Communications Plan for
CenterPlace
o Provide additional training for seasonal staff to improve
customer services
o Research electronic marquees for the lobby to display
events, CCS classes, Senior Center activities, and to market
CenterPlace
Community Development
(pp. 43 - 48)
o Implement the interactive voice response
(IVR) telephone scheduling and permit
expediting system
o Monitor and adjust as necessary the
implementation of the "Over-the-Counter"
permit process
o Complete a preliminary draft of departmental
policies and procedures
o Continue implementation of process
improvements, based on priority
o Adopt revised street standards
s
Community Development
(pp. 43 - 48)
o Continue implementation of the City Center project
o Coordinate Environmental Impact Statement and
Planned Action Ordinance for the City Center
o Develop Shoreline Master Program
o Establish City urban growth areas (UGA) through
Spokane County's process
o Complete Joint Planning Agreements with Spokane
County
o Complete the annual Comprehensive Plan with UGA
revisions
o Review the City's process for clear view triangle issues,
recommend improvements and implement approved
revisions
9
Public-Works
e s ~ General Fund (p. 42)
o Continue involvement with the County
and DOE regarding the Wastewater
Treatment Facility and TMDL
o Work with Project Team on City
Center implementation
o Manage new City Hall project,
including location and pre-design
10
Public Works
Street Fund (p. 57)
o Implement the Street Master Plan
o Construct funded projects on the TIP
o Implement the new Public Works Safety Program
o Continue development of a long range plan for managing
street maintenance, street sweeping, and landscaping
services
o Apply for grants and work with various schools to install
flashing beacons at crosswalks
o Explore a site and facility for storage of equipment and
materials for maintenance
11
Public Works
Stormwater (p. 68)
o Develop asix-year Stormwater Project Plan
o Implement the Regional Stormwater Manual
o Develop asix-year plan for compliance with
Underground Injection Control Program
approved by the NPDES Phase II permit
o Construct a treatment facility for the discharging
of vectoring liquids from drywell cleaning and
maintenance
o Complete stormwater tax rolls
12
oects
Capital Pr
63-67)
(pp.
Road 072, 9,684,476 12,068,193
Design/Const.
Road Preservation 1,291,830 -0- 1,291,830
Projects
Barker Road Bridge -0- 5,562,800 5,562,800
Road Paveback 970,000 -0- 970,000
Stormwater 570,825 -0- 570,825
CenterPlace -0- 441,000 441,000
Parks 3,560,000 -0- 3,560,000
Civic Building 6,100,000 -0- 6,100,000
13
i
~ • General Government (p. 56)
Includes Funding for:
o Annual audit
o Election costs
o City liability & property insurance
o Outside Agency Funding
o Community Survey
o Records Management
o Space study for new City Hall
o Transfers to-
e Civic building reserve fund
• Parks capital fund
• ADA Sidewalk Compliance
14
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: 09-18-07 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report 0 pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: UDC Deliberation:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: At its September 11, 2007 Regular Council meeting,
Council conducted a public hearing and held the first reading of the proposed Ordinance to
adopt the UDC.
At and subsequent to the hearing, several comments were given and received. To assist
Council in its deliberation, please note the attached as listed below.
STAFF CONTACT: Greg McCormick/Mike Connelly
ATTACHMENTS:
J Ordinance 05-003 and accompanying Findings
Memorandum from Inga Note of 9111107 regarding concurrency review
Memorandum from Henry Allen of 9/11/07 regarding UDC Title 22 edits
Written comments from the public:
Loyd Peterson, of 9-11-07
Pinecroft Business Park, of 9-11-07
Ron Oman, of 9-11-07
Van Spradley, of 9-11-07
Pete Miller, of 9-11-07
Mary Pollard, of 9-11-07
Nancy Purcell, plus 4 pages of signatures, of 9-11-07
David H. Olson, plus Spokesman Review of 9-9-07 attached, of 9-11-07
Sherrodd, Alden and Gail, two-page e-mail and letter dated 9-11-07
Duane Halliday, Lamar Outdoor, submitted for 9-11-07 meeting
Margaret Mortz, two-page e-mail of 9-10-07
Clate and Linda Williams e-mail of 9-13-07
CITY OF SPOK.A E VAi LEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASfIYi GTON
ORDWAINCE NO. 05-003
AN ORDI]N ANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKA\T, VALLEY, SPOKANE, COUNTY WASKWGTO'N,
AMENDIING THE INTERIM ZONING MAl' OF THE CITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH
OF NnSSION AVENUE., SOUTH AND EAST OF THE SPOKANTE RIVER AND REST OF BARKER
ROAD FROM UR-7* TO UR-3.5, AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MA 1 fERS PROPERLY
RELATED THERETO.
~1MREAS, the City of Spokane Valley, incorporated on March 31, 2003 and adopted Land Use
plans and regulations as set forth below:
(1) Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and Maps as the
Interim Comprehensive Plan of the City through Ordinance No. 52;
(2) The Spokane County Zoning Code as supplemented and amended
by the Phase I Development Regulations as the Interim Development
Regulations of the City through Ordinance Nro. 53; and
(3) The Spokane County Zoning Maps as the Interim Zoning Maps of
the City through Ordinance No. 54;
WHEREAS, the Interim Spokane Valley Zoning Code includes a process where property owners
may initiate an areawide, rezone by petition;
WHEREAS, at least 51 % of property owners within the subject area must sign the petition to
initiate the rezone;
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2004, the City of Spokane Valley received a sufficient petition to initiate
an areawide rezone for the north Greenacres neighborhood;
*HEREAS, consistent with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GIvIA), Spokane
Valley adopted Public Participation Guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and
amending comprehensive plans and development regulations;
NVHFREAS, following the application to the City, staff conducted an environmental review to
determine the potential environmental impacts from proposed zone change;
W1-1EREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklist submitted by the Applicant, staff issued
a Determination of Nonsignificance (DVS) for the proposal, published the DNTS in the Valley News
Herald; posted the DNS on the site and mailed the DNS to atl affected public agencies;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission (Commission) conducted a briefing on August 12, 2004;
to review the proposed rezone;
NA EREAS, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald
at least 14 days prior to the hearing;
i
Ordinance 05-003; Greenacres Area-wide Rezone REZ-17-04 Page t of 4
WEERE:AS, notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet
of the subject property;
J
WHEREAS, notice of the hearing was posted on the subject property;
RVHEREAS, the Commission received evidence, information and a staff recommendation at a
public hearing on September 23, 2004:
WBERE.AS, the Commission continued deliberations to October 14, 2004, requesting that staff
prepare a map showing vested developments and properties of individuals requesting to be excluded from
the rezone; _ - _ a -
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2004, after considering the entire record, the Commission voted 3-3
on a motion to recommend approval of the requested amawide rezone;
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2004, the Commission reconsidered the motion to approve the
areawide rezone and voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the rezone request for the property depicted in
Attachment A.;
WHEREAS, Council reviewed the request at their November 30, 2004 meeting and requested
that staff prepare information specific to the status of certain development projects in the area, specifically
requesting information on roads and sewer; and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2004, Council reviewed information provided by staff, considered
the first ordinance reading, and tabled a motion to approve the rezone; and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2004, Council remanded the rezone back to the Commission for
their written findings of fact and recommendation; and
Arl'IEREAS, on January 13, 2005, the Commission approved written findings of fact, setting forth
their basis for recommending approval of the proposed amendment; and
NOW, T FIEREPORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows:
Section 1. 'Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Interim Zoning Map
adopted through Ordinance No. 54 in order to permit the property described herein to be used in a matter
consistent with the same.
Section 2. Findings. The City Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted
appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the Application, and recommends approval
of the amendment to the Zoning Map set forth in this Ordinance. The City Council hereby adopts the
findings of the Commission, specifically that:
1. Spokane Valley conducted an appropriate environmental review and all SEPA requirements were
met.
2. Spokane Valley followed its Public Participation Guidelines in processing the proposed rezone,
including adequate public notice of the Commission hearing.
3. The goals and policies of the Interim Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan were considered and the
proposed rezone is consistent with the Interim Comprehensive Plan.
4. The proposed UR-3.5 zone is consistent with surrounding zoning, particularly south of Mission
Avenue.
i
Ordinance 05-003; Greenacres Area-wide Rezone REZ-17-04 Page 2 of'4
1 5. The Interim Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Low Density Residential.
The Phase I Development regulations specifies both UR-3.5 and UR-7* as implementing zones. The
Phase I Regulations do not provide any criteria to help determine which Lo-w Density Residential
areas should be zoned UR-3.5 or IJR-7*.
6. Sitpificant testimony in support of the proposed rezone was expressed at the hearings. Testimony
'WEIudt d,c ncem:aboirt-~thee de-quMylo aVa-d~ks-- sic o -s7Md?envtro i-n a -impac -'Lo-,venng
the allowed density will lessen the potential impacts from new development.
7. b, oppcrty_QmDe.r_sFm .y~req~e l bite_specifistre2onerbackta:(JR'= pia hhl blear g-l✓xaminery~roocss.
8. The zone change will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety and welfare.
Section 3. Property. The property which is subject to this Ordinance is described on the
attached Attachment "A".
Section 4. Area wide Rezone. Pursuant to Chapter 14.402 of the Interim Spokane Valley
Zoning Code, as adopted through Ordinance No. 53, the City of Spokane Valley Interim Zoning Map is
hereby amended as set forth on the attached Attachment "A". The rezone is generally described as
follows:
RLU17-04
Location: That area located north of. Mission Avenue, south and cast of the Spokane River and west of
Barker Road, currently zoned UR-7*.
Decision: Change property shown on Attachment "A" from Ulf-7* to UR-3.5
Section 5. Adoption of Other Laws. To the extent that any provision of the Spokane
County Code, or any other law, rule or regulation referenced in the attached Zoning Map(s) is necessary
J or convenient to establish the validity, enforceability or interpretation of the Zoning Map(s), then such
provision of the Spokane County Code, or other law, rule or regulation is hereby adopted by reference.
Section 6. Map - Conies on File-Administrative Action. The Comprehensive Plan (with
Maps) and Zoning Map(s) are maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the City Department of
Community Development. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is
authorized to modify the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Zoning Map in a manner consistent with this
Ordinance.
Section 7. Liability. The express intent of the City of Spokane Valley is that line
responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this ordinance shall rest with the permit applicant and
their agents. This ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health,
safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals
or organizations.
Section 8. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance shall be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance.
Section 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after
the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City.
Ordinance 05-003; Greenacres Area-wide Rezone REZZ 17-04 Page 3 of 4
PASSED by the City Council this 25a, day of January, 2005.
i
Mayor, Diana Wilhite
Al LUST:
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved As To Farm:
Deputy City Attorney; Cary Driskell
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
j~
Ordinance 05-003; Greenacres Area-wide Rezone REZ-17-04 Pagc 4 of 4.
f" Vicinity Map
a
4 S.
4
Ezdd
a 2L ~l
cn !
S ite
LOF.
r bra Pl -
i 1.
N Greenacr:es Areawide Rezone
SpC~~he ~
--A.- - August,.2004 '~~alle~r
REZ-17-04 Attachment `A'
S#Omne SPOKAONE VALLEY PLANNENG COKNUSSION
FINDINGS OF FACT
jValley GREENACRES AREANVInEREZOINV,
REL-1.7-04
WEMA.S, the City of Spokane Valley, incorporated on March 31, 2003 and
adopted Land Use plans and regulations as set forth below:
(1) Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and
Maps as the Interim' Comprehensive Plan of the City
through Ordinance No. 52;
(2) The Spokane County Zoning Code as supplemented
and amended by the Phase I Development Regulations as
the Interim Development Regulations of the City through
Ordinance No. 53; and
(3) The Spokane County. Zoning Maps as the Interim
Zoning Maps of the City through Ordinance No. 54;
NVITEREAS, the Interim Spokane Valley Zoning Code includes a process where
property owners may initiate an areawide rezone by petition;
WHEREAS, at least 51% of property owners within the subject area must sign the
petition to initiate the rezone; _
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2004, the City of Spokane Valley received a sufficient
petition to initiate an area-wide rezone for the north Greenacres neighborhood;
WMEREA.S, - consistent with the Washington State Growth Management Act
(G-MA), Spokane Valley adopted Public Participation Guidelines to direct the public
involvement process for adopting and amending comprehensive plans and development
regulations;
WHEREAS, following the application to the City, staff conducted an
environmental review to determine the potential environmental impacts from proposed
none change;
WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklist submitted by the
Applicant, staff issued a Determination of Nonsignif canoe (DNS) for the proposal,
published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS on the site and mailed the
DNS to all affected public agencies;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a briefing on August 12, 2004,
to review the proposed rezone;
Planning Commission Findings
Greenacres A.reawide Rezone Page 1 of 3
`J WHEREAS. notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in
the Valley News Herald at least 14 days prior. to the hearing;
WTIEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission hearing was mailed to all
property owners,"ithin 400 feet of the subject property;
WHEREAS, notice of the bearing was posted on the subject property;
WBEREAS, the Planning Commission received evidence; information- and a staff
recommendation at a public hearing on September 23, 2004;
WHEREAS, the Commission continued deliberations to October 14, 2004,
requesting that staff prepare.a map shoNNbg vested developments and properties of
individuals requesting to be excluded from the rezone;
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2004, after considering the entire record, the
Planning Commission voted 3-3 on a motion to recommend approval of the requested
areawide rezone,
NVEEREAS, on November 18, 2004, the Planning Commission reconsidered the
motion to approve the areauride rezone and voted 4-3 to. recommend approval of the
rezone request for the property depicted in Attachment A;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission makes the following:
k 'MiGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Community Development staff conducted an appropriate environmental review and
all SEPA requirements were met.
2. Spokane Valley followed its Public Participation Giddelines in processing the
proposed rezone, including adequate public notice of the .Planning Commission
hearing.
3. The Commission considered the goals and policies of the luterim Spokane Valley
Comprehensive Plan and the proposed rezone is consistent NNrith the Interim
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The proposed UR-3.5 zone is consistent with surrounding zoning, particularly south
of Mission Avenue.
5. The Interim Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Low Density
Residential. The Phase 1 Development regulations specifies both UR-3.5 and UR-7*
as implementing zones. The Phase I Regulations do not provide any criteria to help
determine which Low Density Residential areas should be zoned UR-3.5 or UR-7*.
Planning Commission 1 findings
Greenacres Areawide Rezone Page 2 of 3
The Commission heard significant testimony in support of the proposed rezone. _ i
Testimony included concern about the adequacy of roads, parks, schools and
environmental impacts. Lowering the allowed density will lessen the potential
impacts from new development.
7. Property oAmers may request a site specific rezone back to UR-7* via-the Hearing
Examiner process.
8. The zone change -711 not adversely affect the public's general health, safety and
welfare.
RECONEVI.ENDA`CIOiN
Based ou the stated Findings and Conclusions, the Planning Commissiou recommends
approval of the rezone from UR-7$ to UR-3.5 for the property depicted in Attachment A.
~S~ f - z. s- o c-
David Crosby, Chao Date
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
•
l
Planning Commission Findings
Greenacres Areawide Rezone Page 3 of 3
Vicinity Map
c -
V C. i~
Cr,
.d
7 lid
x
n
a s~
a
x ,
.!3 n
Site
F
- , w
Mora PFt
rd~~ 0 a
0
13L
;mod
30
9fl
d
B adw, l
a ,
1,1v Greenacres Areawide Rezone
S` ,kme
! August, 2004 IV.4Uey
Si ~o~S ne
Valley
4;000 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley RYA 99206
509.921'.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org
Memorandum
To: City Council
From: Inga Note - Senior Traffic Engineer
CC: Dave Mercier, Neil Kersten, John Hohman
Date: 9111107
Re: Concurrency Review section of UDC
The follow-inn change is recommended for the Recommended Draft UDC:
Section 22.20.020.3.c should be changed to read "Aiiy project permit that Nvill have
transportation impacts of less than 10 peak hour vehicular trips, and that will not change the
traffic volumes and flow patterns in the afternoon peak travel period, as determined by the
Development Services Senior Engineer."
There was a misunderstanding on this value during the draft review. A concurrency
exemption for projects generating less than 10 trips is consistent with our current policy,
where we exempt shorts plats (9 units or less).
scrn*an
e
00
V,;OOOValley
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.9211000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhaftspokanevalley.org
Memorandum
To: Greg McCormick
From: Henry M. Allen - Development Engineer
CC: Mike Connelly, John Hohman, Deanna Griffith
Date: September 11, 2007
Re: UDC Title 22 - Edits for Section 22.150 Stormwater
The following changes are reconunended for the Recommended Draft UDC:
A) Section 22.150.060 Design elements - please revise to read:
Drainage facilities within single-family or two-family residential subdivisions shall be
designed as follows:
1. Continuous swales running the length of the street located between the curb and
sidewalk. These swales shall be within City right-of way or within a border easement
granted to the City, or,
2. For driveways with areas over 5000 square feet or private roads - continuous swales
mmning the length of the drives=ay or road and located within easements, or,
3. Consolidated ponds or swales that are located on a separate tract or lot owned by a
homeowners association or dedicated to the City.
Swales are to be continuous around the perimeter of cul-de-sacs.
Consolidated ponds or swales are acceptable on private commercial developments.
B) Section 22.150.070 Design Method - please add:
The maximum depth of water in a swale for treatment shall be six inches.
My name is Loyd Petersen. I reside at 3001 N. Joel Ct.
~ If
Today I would like to apeak about impact .fees. What are impact fees and
why should they exist? Impact fees are a charge levied against a person who
has caused serious monetary damage to another person or persons by reason
of some action he has taken.
The point I would like to bring up is in regard to high density developments
and the cost of schools caused by such developments. Statistics indicate that
the average family today has 2.5 children per household. You are being
asked to allow a new high density UR7* development in our area which will
contain. 85 sites. If you multiply 85 sites by 2.5 the indication is that there
will be over 200 children produced there. That means that in a few years
there will be need for a new school to house those children because there is
not enough room. in existing schools. This is only the beginning because
these children will progress all the way through high school. Who has
caused this need for new schools? Is it the people who now live in this area?
Or is it the result of the developer who is causing these 85 homes to be placed
here? Will these new homes produce enough tax revenue to build the new
schools? The answer to that question is no and the additional tax burden will
fall on the home owners who now live in this area or who will live outside of
the new high density development. Is this fair? Of course not and there
should be a sufficient impact fee charged against the developer to compensate
for at least,a goodly portion of this additional cost.
1. understand that in some areas of this country impact fees because of such
developments can run as much as $10,000 per site. I'm not suggesting that
this much needs to be charged in this case, however there certainly needs to
be a significant charge levied against this developer. Certainly there needs to
be a study made to develop a proper impact fee in this case and in all future
cases of this kind.
Thank you.
?1i cr of t
BusuNEss PARK
September 11, 2007
Members of the City of Spokane Valley City Council
11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
RE: Zoning Districts and Map
Dear Council Members:
The upcoming deadline for the adoption of the City of Spokane Valley
Development Code makes it is apparent that many of the issues regarding the
code will not be totally resolved. Many of the issues that we have presented
could be mitigated with performance based zoning. If you can not smell it, hear it,
and see it then it is ok. In the absence of continued dialog and a change to some
type of performance based zoning we have once again reviewed the proposed
code revisions to determine the most egregious conflicts and restrictions that
Pinecroft has or will have because of the change from the current 1-2 zone to a
Mixed Use Center zone.
The following changes to the uses matrix, Appendix 19 A, will accommodate the
majority of conflicts. These are all shown as additions to the uses allowed in the
MUC zone. 1
Carpenter shop
Catalog and mail order houses
Contractors yard (with sight obscuring wall)
Dry cleaning plant
Furniture manufacturing
Garment manufacturing j
Manufacturing non metallic products
Printing, reprographics, binding services commercial
Repeater facility
Sign manufacturing
Upholstery shop
All of the uses allowed in the MUC zone should also be allowed in the new 1-1
zone.
The following changes should be made to the development standards:
The height allowed in MUC should be 80 feet.
1.2310 E Mirabcau Parkway, Suite 150 • Spokane Valley, lNA 99216 • 509.927.7400 • Fax 509.927.5959 • ww"r.Pinecrof€BusinessPark "ni I
69115~1~ PLA/ / ~1~~~
The outside storage provisions should be changed to allow outside
storage behind a sight obscuring fence or wall that is 75 foot or more
behind the front property line. This should apply to the MUC, CMU and 1-1
zones.
We have just received today a copy of the final Title 22. We have previously
made specific comments about the earlier versions and stand by those
comments. It appears that most of the comments we have previously made have
been addressed. The exception is the requirement that a registered landscape
architect both prepare the landscape plans and do certifications. There are many
landscape professionals that can both design the landscape plans and certify the
installation. With the proposed point system that is particularly true. Landscaping
is a matter of taste. The city should not dictate taste.
As part of the city's new zoning code and zoning map 571.37 acres of industrial
land has been rezoned as MUC, CMU and RC. 89 acres of that takes place at
Pinecroft Business Park. In addition 526.24 acres of industrial land has been
reclassified CF.
The adoption of the new development code will end the current dialog as the city
moves forward to address other issues like the engineering standards. As
developers and constructors of new projects in the city we believe that not
making changes to the code now will result in numerous nonconforming uses
and conflicts with new projects in the immediate future. We request that you act
on our suggestions. The change to MUC is a taking of uses that we currently
have.
Thank you for your cooperation.
V truly yours,
P ecroft, LLC
John G Miller, Manager
?1m croft
BUSL"FM 1?arctc l
To: Mayor and Spokane Valley City Council
Re: Uniform Development Code-Citizen Participation
Date: September 11, 2007
t.S .0h
Our neighborhoods, that are established one-acre lots or more, need to be retained in the
Uni.f.'orm Development Code.
Some Members of the City Council have stated that they are disillusioned with the lack
of citizen participation during the Comprehensive Planning efforts and Land Use actions,
especially, as it relates to the younger residents of our community.
Statistical information indicates that between 30%and 40% of our children, in schools,
have single parents. All parents,single or married are stressed with the responsibilities of
jobs, children, school events, and all other factors. that fall on a growing fancily. They
work all kinds of hours, day and night, and probably do not have time to attend a 6:00 pm
meeting to discuss their concerns.
When the Council receives participation, such as the one-acre lot zoning, they feel it is
only the long-time residents and seniors that are testifying. As stated previously, it is
most difficult for younger residents to attend. To my understanding, seniors pay taxes,
vote, buy goods and services, and add to the economic diversity of our community.
The one-acre zoning request has been in process for over three years and you
Have approved the one-acre zoning on an interim basis.
We are anticipating your approval of the 40,000 sq. ft. zoning for Ponderosa and
Rotchford Communities. This would meet the expectations of the majority of the
populace of -these areas.
Please continue to pay attention to the community and
Respect our neighborhoods.
Thank you for your assistance in this zoning matter.
Sincerely.,
!YI 'dv~
s ~ )C(I
Mr. Van L•'. Spradley
9518 E. 441h Avc.
Spolvane Valley, WA 99206-9255
To: Mayor and Spokane Valley City Council
Re: Uniform Development Code-General Comments
Date: September 11, 20007
To force established neighborhoods to fragment into a
density that destroys'the existing character, in the name of
supplying affordable housing, is not .fair.
Citizens sacrificed, saved, and dreamed of a nice home on
sizable parcels and were willing to pay taxes to support that
goal. The vast majority moved to Spokane Valley to realize
their dream and are now faced with the possibility of
having their dream shattered.
Logic and fact reveal the elements supporting density
development. Those that support, or want it, are developers
and selfish interest groups. It promises to be a cash cow for
them. They have no altruistic goal to provide affordable
housing for low-income people, they are after the BUCK
and reducing the size of parcels, regardless of an existing
neighborhood, is a fast track to profit. In our society, most
have no quarrel over the seeking of profit by legitimate
means, provided it is not unfairly gained. That's why we
elect representatives to protect our interests and we all hope
that concept will continue to .function.
There are areas that can be developed without destroying
established neighborhoods, neighborhoods that were
formed years ago and consist of openness and acreage. We
trust you, our representatives, will continue to look closely
at what the majority of us fairly want and legislate
accordingly.
Sincerely,
J PY
ze"7
September 11, 2007
I listened to your closed session tapes of last Wednesday.
Mr. Gothmann - Thank you for your comments supporting public testimony and
the planning commission recommendations.
This is what I heard when you deliberated Title 20:
Steve Taylor recommended changing the 40,000 square foot zoning in R1 to
25,000 square feet based upon, what I understood to be, a series of letters from a
Ponderosa resident. He stated there would be no substantial changes in the
neighborhood. He also stated if every lot could be subdivided, the areas affected
by that change would see less that 15% ownership taking advantage of that
zoning change. Rather than create a regulation to accommodate one Ponderosa
resident you wisely chose to keep the 40,000 square foot zone.
Greenacres seems to be a different story. The Planning Commission felt that
because the North Greenacres community was the ONLY ONE to pay for and
receive approval for a zone change from UR7* to UR3.5 they were entitled to
keep it.
Mr. Taylor stated the community's rezone was ONLY temporary. If the applicants
thought their efforts were going to be TEMPORARY, YOU CAN'T honestly believe
they would waste their time, effort and money.
HERE is ALSO what I heard during that taped meeting:
1) The area is ripe for RE-development
2) 1 could hear two council members joking in the background stating and I
quote, "you mean DEvelopment. "
3) Maintenance of the area is not very high.
4) Residents in the area are not visualizing the difference between 4 or 6
homes per acre.
5) We need to do it now or we'll have to do it somewhere else, (referring
to, what I call, giving Greenacres the shaft).
6) Steve Taylor recommended the Greenacres zoning changes based upon
a lack of input from citizens. In the Ponderosa's case, I must assume
ONE is enougb.- _ . o M -
7) Bill Gothmann countered and stated there were 700 comments
supporting the 10,000 square foot zoning. He counted them.
The majority of the council gives us no credence. This is NOT just Mary Pollard's
opinion. This is the opinion of an outspoken majority of many Greenacres
citizens. The neighborhoods outcome is obvious. With a simple developer up-
zone application, we suddenly have a determination of non-significance and an R4
zoning with 6000 square foot lots.
City attorney, Mike Connelly advised you, again I quote, "When you deviate from
planning commission recommendation, it would be helpful if you worked with
staff and TRY and tie it to something in the comp plan. You need findings to
justify the change. You make the decisions we have to defend in court."
Bill Gothmann stated leaving the 10,000 square foot zoning in Greenacres north
of Mission WILL STILL MEET GMA requirement and you chose to ignore him.
I am asking that you do not create or go in search of a regulation to deprive North
Greenacres of the 10,000 square foot zoning recommendation.
Pete Miller
18124 E Mission
Greenacres
12~ &i f - .
1
C North Greenacres Neighborhood
Mary Pollard
Chairwoman
17216 E. Baldwin Ave.. -
Spokane Valley, W A 99016, y fDA~//n lJ`'ry//IJ
To: Spokane Valley City Council
1. Rezone of February 9, 2005 that was approved was considered a
substantial change to go from U.R. 7* (6 houses per acre) to U.r. 3.5 (4.3)
`houses per acre. When we were advised of this process the Friday of
Memorial Day weekend in May 2004 we were required to pay $1,800
And went through the process as if it was a comprehensive plan
amendment due to the size of this area 460 acres.
The City Council is making an arbitary and capricious decision against
the testimony that has been given for over 3 years supporting the
10,000 sq. ft. lots. Mr. Gothmann, City Councilman stated that it was
unnecessary to raise the density here to achieve the GMA requirements.
The transportation impacts of Liberty Lake, the Barker Bridge repair
that is going to take out our ability to enter and leave this area to the
north, and the increased traffic as the freeway is overcrowded and
people desiring to get to the new Kohl's, Lowe's and even Walmart
Will bring even more traffic through our neighborhood.
We want the City to show their work.
1. Where is the transportation analysis that shows the impacts from
just outside of Spokane Valley and the impacts to the rest of our
streets with increased density. You cannot just rely on
concurrency as developers apply with their applications for
approval. The city must show that we can take care of the
anticipated increased traffic on our streets.
2. The City is aware that they have a 4 million dollar deficit in road
maintenance at this point. We do not have a funding source
showing how increased upkeep of more public roads are going to
be accommodated.
The City must show the funding or the funding mechanism for all the
Urban services and infrastructure.
Schools, Parks, Roads, Water, Sewer, Sewage Treatment, Police, Fire,
Etc.
Did the City circulate their new map and changes that they are making
so all the state and local agencies can make comment?
Has the City shown the fiscal analysis from all the above agencies and
necessary service providers including Avista of how increased densities
are going to be served and the funding required or mitigation
measures?
We want the change in North Greenacres Neighborhood to go back to
the Planning Commission to ensure that the traffic analysis is completed
for the change in zoning of this substantial change that you are
considering making in this neighborhood by increasing density to
6 homes per acres. As R3.
Unless the City shows the transportation analysis, fiscal analysis,
and circulates this to the agencies for their approval we believe the City
opening themselves to legal challenge.
We ask the City to make meaningful the process that we took serious.
It is a mockery of the system to show your power by forcing the higher
density on an area that has access problems and limited roads. We
cannot make more roads. Boone Ave. WA. D.O.T. has stated they do not
want to become a collector so close to the freeway - that is our only
through road from Flora and Mission is the major thoroughfare for this
area.
Funding for public road improvements on the six year plan have
stopped at Mission Ave. We would like the City to show the funding for
increasing density to improve the rest of our roads to Riverway and the
Centennial Trail. The roads have deteriorated even more from the
intense development of the last two years. A transportation study
should have been done for this area and of impacts for Liberty Lake.
The questions must have answers. That is what GMA is about.
This meeting tonight is a mockery of participation unless meaningful
change can take place.
Keep the Zoning at R-2 as recommended by the Planning Commission.
This sign of good faith will go far in the entire City. No one can judge
another's heart but your words and actions will be what people will
judge your character. We ask you to remind yourselves that you are
our representatives not the power elite to do as you will.
Chapter 22
Lighting - we recommend as we have for the past three years that full
cut off lighting be utilized in all residential neighborhoods to prevent
light trespass and ruining our night skies for community enjoyment.
Our skies belong to everyone and the City Council has erred by ignoring
residential and only focusing on commercial lighting. We laud the
Council for the work in this area but residential lighting that is full cut
off does not cost the developer's one more cent the lights cost the same.
Please enact this change once the lights are in we must live with this
garish night scene.
dx 'o,
~ I
Nancy Purcell
1 2531 S. Adams Road
'When you decided to run for public office and were elected to serve on the City
Council, you accepted the responsibility of representing the people who lived in the City
of Spokane Valley. You were elected to represent our best interests.
You are currently working on legislation that will determine the future of the
Spokane Valley. It is a big responsibility. Are you considering what effect your
decisions .Nrifl have on the homeowners already living in the area? If an area was zoned
for acre lots, those people bought in that neighborhood because that is the lifestyle they
were looking for. 1 can tell you the zoning in our area was changed without any notice to
the residents after most of the lots had been developed as one acre parcels. Is it fair to the
majority of the people to change the character of the area for one developer who will take
his profits and leave?
Are you looking at the effect that overbuilding will have on the schools in the
area? Are the decisions you are making producing overcrowding in the schools?
Families with children want their child attending the school in their neighborhood, but
most of those schools are already filled to capacity without dumping in homes on 8,000
square foot lots or less. The Valley has always had an excellent school system but by
allowing the development at the rate you currently are, you are overtaxing our schools
and thus bringing down the quality. At a time when our children are competing in a
world economy and education is even more important, the test scores for central valley
have fallen two percentage points on the SAT tests. fs the city going to compound that
problem or are you, as the leaders of our City, going to work with the school district, the
County and Liberty Lake to maintain a top notch school system. That means controlling
development.
More homes on smaller lots also add to the problem of an already overtaxed
sewer facility and the quality of the Spokane River is suffering. It also means more
traffic on city streets not designed to handle the traffic. 1 know there are people who
don't want to be bothered with yard work and we need to provide for that also but you
need to plan carefully for that type of development and not allow it wherever there
happens to be an open lot.
Where are the tax dollars going to come from to handle the increased burden on
the infrastructure for new schools, improved roads, a new sewer plant, more policemen,
more firemen-the list goes on and on. The same people who pay your city taxes also
pay the taxes to support all of those other services. Will our tax bills soon resemble those
of the City of Spokane? Most people voted for a valley city to avoid just that scenario
and yet it appears our leadership is sending our city down that road.
Attached is a petition signed by my neighbors urging you as a council to look at
these concerns and look at restoring our former zoning.. As 1 met with my neighbors the
common thread was, we support you in your efforts but we don't think it will do any
good. We don't believe the City Council will listen. Mr. Munson assured us last week.
that the Council is listening. Will the future of the Spokane Valley be shaped by
developers or will you as the City Council listen and act on the concerns of the people
who actually live in the Valley?
i
TO THE SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL:
We the undersigned homeowners and taxpayers strongly urge you, the City Council, to
consider the following when zoning the Valley under the Uniform Development Code
and the granting of building permits:
1) Effect on the homeowners already living in an area that is more than 50%
developed;
2) Effect on the schools that service the area :(i.e. overcrowding, busing, etc.);
3) Change of the character of an existing neighborhood for current residents who
purchased looking for a certain lifestyle;
4) Effect of additional housing on the infrastructure (i.e., streets, sewer., etc.)
5) What effect will the additional costs for infrastructure to support the building have
on the taxes of the area.
We respectfully request that the land bordered on the cast and west by Adams and
Progress and the north and south by 24`t' Avenue and 32" d Avenue be returned to one
home per acre zoning.
9
o erty weer Address
_ o,: 4t r Dated:_~-
Print Namc
eny Owner Address
i'rin ame
P rty Owne Address
L Dated:
Print mnc ^D
CO" Address
C' 9/,/
Dated:
9
print
av-4-x 1
Property Owner Address
1~ih j-0r E . CI-kfn-sd ~l Dated: S
Print Name
r-
Proper + Owner Address
Dated:
Pnnt Ntune
2t' dress
Pro w er
Mir Dated:
Print :une ,
/5;00`"7
Property Owner Address
a Dated:
not Name
Property U Zer Address
L/ Dated: - -D y
not Namc
7
P perty Owner Address
y IV\ Dated: 9 o
Print Name
/y / J1 /1 J'7 lJ'l. 0 /
Jflr-°
Py erty Owner Address
,L-5 r~ ~ [JI Dated: D
Prini Fame
Property Owner Address / r
L _ Dated: / s
mt n$
.i
% zz~ s
A
Property Owi Address ULti- ~
t
'11,1 Dated: DII
S`Cpc 4 y
Print
P , er ne Address f
Dated: `1 I co o
Fri Nacn
G S 2
a b~~~ 1> n ~J 141 7i
Add
PrXpr y w ne Address
Dated:
Print Namc
Pro rty Owner Address /
Dated: I/~ l7
.1, A
Print Namc
c
Prope , ter Address /
Dated:
Print Namc
Property O 7er Address
1~v7 , ~~~Pj1 Dated: L/
Print Name
I rrty weer, t Address
Dated: 0
Prin~Kazn/e. i
Address
Property Owner
V
L L/ S/t6,7,771- % Dated:
Print ame
,toss -
1 1o CJ _ C~~v~ S - Q&/0
Pro O~ Address c~ -
Dated: / f 7
Print Name
1:7
erty Owner Address
~~reSt?,/2 Dated: ~~D 7
ri Namc
;e4-
Propecrty Owner Address /
W, 1~6 Dated: ~/p o
Print Namc
Property Owner Address
Dated: Print Name
Ed.
Propej y O e • _ f7 Address j
A/0, (I L,/ •I . r ree Dated: `1//0107
Print Name
PNTperty Ownet Address
T)d n~n I` , j I ""f ~~I11 Dated: q41 o lo ~
Print Namc
Pro rty O)-vner Address q;
~ Dated: l ~ / '07
Prjnt Name
/1 05 a 'S P
Property Owner f Address
1'k)ei1e~U L Dated: 9 f 1-03
Print e'ame
1
TO: MAYOR DIANA WTLHITE,
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
RE: UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE TNFTLL
DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2007
1 am asking the City Council to maintain one-acre lot sizes in established neighborhoods,
not four lots as stated in the newspaper Saturday, August 18, 2007. It is apparent in this
article that City Planners are confused on which way to satisfy the existing
neighborhoods, and those who ask for zoning changes. City Planners constantly refer to
dividing our one-acre lots into smaller parcels as "infill", which is just a buzzword.
What does this mean?
Infill, I believe, means filling vacant land for the purpose of meeting state requirements.
What your Planning Department doesn't tell you or the community, are the impacts that
infill does to an established neighborhood.
For an example-in. neighborhoods with one-acre lots, we can reasonably expect the
following problems could occur when divided into smaller lots:
1. Temporary critical service outages, power, water, gas and sewer, can occur until
reconnected.
2. If the area has a lot of rock formations, existing homes and neighbors could feel
the blasting of rock, the vibrations of heavy demolisbing equipment, jackhammers
and trucks.
3. Soil erosion and extra drainage can cause runoff on existing yards, and the
potential for flooded basements. This could occur because of improper grading
and drainage within an infill.
4. Noise from the working machinery can be all day long for months.
5. The cost to the TAXPAYER, who will be assessed for paying infrastructure
changes, can be very expensive.
6. Most importantly, the character of the neighborhood will be changed forever.
If the City Planning Department approves zoning changes that allow houses to be
demolished in order to sub-divide into smaller lots, we the community are the losers.
Please consider these items which T have just related to you, and don't destroy those areas
of the City that are truly meaningful to us.
Res ectfully,
Davi H. Olson
8808 E. 44`" Ave.
Spokane WA 99206
SR.com: Valley backs off higher density Page I of 2
SPOKESMANREvIEW.com Sunday, September 9, 2007
Valley backs off higher density
Complaints followed earlier decision
Peter Barnes
Staff writer
August 18, 2007
Following a flurry of opposition to draft zoning that would allow more houses built closer together in Spokane Valley
neighborhoods, the City Council has tentatively moved to preserve larger lot sizes.
"People were saying you need to have something mid-range. I thought about it, and several others of the council members
thought about it and said 'That sounds like something we need to do,'" Mayor Diana Wilhite said Friday.
Council members decided on Monday to bring back a zone for roughly quarter-acne-minimum lots, recommended by the
Planning Commission, until they could look at a map of where the zone would apply.
"'That in itself is going to be a monumental task," Wilhite said.
City leaders still face the question of whether to allow denser building on the city's many vacant lots or to keep those lots at
.the same zoning as the neighborhood around them.
The council's decision on density could change again before it adopts the entire development code by the end of September,
and council members' sentiments are still far from unanimous on the new regulations.
"My vision of Spokane Valley is not to look like West Seattle in 30 }rears," Councilman Rich Munson said, referring to a
densely settled neighborhood in Western Washington. Life in Spokane Valley has a unique flavor, he said, and "i think the
arguments that we've heard to sustain that flavor are valid."
On the other end of the spectrum, Councilman Steve Taylor argued that all but a few residential areas should be zoned at six
houses per acre, citing housing affordability and the public cost of providing services to spread-dut development.
"We're talking about helping fill in the blanks where there's lots within an urban zone, an urban area that needs to be filled,"
lie said.
Bill Gothmann maintained his view that new development should match the neighborhood around it.
"if the people wish to have these kinds of densities that we are proposing, then government ought to figure out how to do it,
and that's our job," he said.
The discussion follows a meeting two weeks ago where three dozen residents from various parts of town admonished the
council for its earlier consensus to allow minimum lot sizes ranging from 6,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet in almost all
Spokane Valley neighborhoods.
Recently, members of the public also have derided Taylor for his dual employment as a City Council member and as a
lobbyist for the Spokane Homebuilders Association.
Others on the council were undecided on what size the residential lots should be.
"You talked about listening to the public. I'm sorry, I didn't 'sec very many 28- to 32-year-old kids, married couples with two
kids looking for a house, giving me testimony. I didn't see very many single mothers giving me testimony about bow they
could get into a house while they're living in an apartment," said Councilman Dick Denenny.
Both he and Councilman Mike DeVletning said. the layout of the map would be critical to their decision.
k
http://www.spokesmanreview,.cotnltools/story_p£asp''1I7=205405 9/912007
_SR.com: Valley backs off higher density Page 2 of 2
DeVleming also pointed out that setting different zones for single-family neighborhoods would be moot unless the council
Cadopted criteria regulating when developers can change the zoning.
J He said there's no point in fussing over zoning density "because, unless we figure out a way of stopping it, eventually it's all
going to convert to whatever density the developers request."
There are few guidelines in the existing code about residential zoning changes. Consequently, builders are consistently
granted higher densities for their projects.
"if you want to prevent everything from being rezoned to the highest allowed intense use, then you have to come up with
some specific criteria to do so," said City Attorney Mike Connelly.
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=205405 9/9/2007
Page 1 of 1
Chris Bainbridge
From: Sue Passmore on behalf of mayor/ councilmembers i
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 9:54 AM
To: Chris Bainbridge
Subject: FW: zoning for the North Greenacres neighborhood
'hris:
;ee below. Thanksll
u.('i i'~M4QYPi
administrative Assistant
1707 E. Sprague Avenue Ste 106
>pokane Valley, WA 99206
109-688-0180 Phone
i09-688-0194 FAX
:rom: 49cadzook@comcast.net [mailto:49cadzook@comcast.net]
;ent: Monday, September 10, 2007 7:12 PM
'o: mayor/ councilmembers
subject: zoning for the North Greenacres neighborhood
C his letter is for public comment.
)ear Mayor and the members of the Spokane. Valley City Council,
or the past three years the community of North Greenacres has flooded your office with letters, phone calls and
estimony at meetings regarding the issue of lot size in our neighborhood. By now you know that the issue of 6,000
:quare foot lots (6-7 houses per acre) in our neighborhood is NOT the will of the people, but orily of the developers and
'ourselves.
Chis letter is to urge you once again to listen to your constituents (those who elected you and to whom you are supposed
o represent) *and follow the advisement of the Planning Conu-nission to allow larger lot size, 1 /4 acre and up, in the North
ireenacres Neighborhood.
>incerely,
klden and Gail Shen-odd
[7315 E. Montgomery
3pok.ane Valley, WA 99016
)22-0608
9/11/2007
From: 49cadzook@comcast.net [mailto:49cadzook@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 7:12 PM
To: mayor/ oouncilmembers
Subject: zoning for the North Greenacres neighborhood
This letter is for public comment.
Dear Mayor and the members of the Spokane Valley City Council,
For the past three years the community of North Greenacres has flooded your office with
letters, phone calls and testimony at meetings regarding the issue of lot size in our
neighborhood. By now you know that the issue of 6,000 square foot lots (6-7 houses per
acre) in our neighborhood is NOT the will of the people, but only of the developers and
yourselves.
This letter is to urge you once again to listen to your constituents (those who elected you
and to whom you are supposed to represent) and .follow the advisement of the Planning
Commission to allow larger lot size, 1/4 acre and up, in the North Greenacres
Neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Alden and Gail Sherrodd
17315 E. Montgomery
Spokane Valley, WA 99016
922-0608
M ►t~ C,
=JJMA
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING
August 23, 2007
R E C V E D
Michael DeVlemmg
City of Spokane Valley
11707.6. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 city of Spokane Valley
Spokane Valley, OVA 99206
Dear Mr. DeVleming:
Please introduce into`the record the following letter regarding the proposed Cap aild
Replace ordinance of billboards.
As part of the Ad Hoc sign committee that met for a couple of years going over these
regulations with much thought and input froln the private and business sectors, 1 find it
disheartening to learn that several key issues are being challenged in the ordinance. I am
referring specifically to the spacing that is required of the billboard companies when
there is an opportunity to replace a location. The sign committee labored over this point,
g'iv'ing more 'than adequate'attention to the issue. The change that the planning
Loirimissio%i-la"s•proposed-from 1000 foot spacing to 2000 foot spacing on the same side `
of the street and 250 feet to 500 feet opposite side of the street is overly and
unnecessarily restrictive. The billboard industry has already relinquished its opportunity
to grow its business. Also, no other industry has been given similar restrictions.
Consequently, i respectfully ask you to leave the spacing requirements as they were
presented by the sign committee.
Our industry has been consistently committed to working with, not against, local
govenunent, and has put a high premium on extending the spirit of compromise regarding
ordinance matters. The fact remains that the Dumber of signs will never increase. In
reality, the matter of simple atb-ition as well as the lack of suitable locatives to replace
lost boards will likely result-in an. overall reduction in the numbers of signs.
The sign eolrunittee has had to come back to the table twice upon being asked to revisit
issues, which we did in good faith, and we produced an ordinance that I believe was fair
and adequately addressed the concerns presented us. It is my sincere hope that you will
accept the spacing requirements we agreed upon.
Sincerely;' `
i e"'Aallidiat Genf ial'Mai! gei-::..
T.'arnar Ouidooi't~dvertisirig
Spokane: 1015 E. Cok:3d0 • Spokone, WA 99202 - (509) 489-4684 • Fex (509) 489-3484
Yakima: 701 N. 1 si Street • Suite 203 - Yok6~, WA 98901 • (509) 248-2366 - Fax (509) 243-2493
Wenatchoo: 23 S, Wenotchee Avenue • Suite 119 - Wenctchee, WA 98801 - (509) 663-9060 • Fcx (5091667-8715
Page 1 of 2
Sue Passmore
C om: Margaret Mortz [migsmortz@icehouse.net]
7nt: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:43 PM
To: mayor/ councilmembers
Cc: migsmortz@icehouse.net
Subject: Low density neighborhoods can be "magnets" to attract relocating companies
Attractive low density neighborhoods can act as "magnets" for relocating companies. Technical. and professional
companies need to offer a high quality-of-life to recruit and retain talent. Attractive neighborhoods Arith large yards and
mature landscape are often particularly appealing, and not available in competing cities. It would be a competitive
advantage to have low-density neighborhoods, as well as higher-density neighborhoods.
Many professionals and managers find these low-density neighborhoods quite desirable. Large yards allow better
choices for children and for keeping pets. Love-density neighborhoods often. lend themselves to physical activity and
outdoor pleasures, unlike most crowded neighborhoods.
Before unique neighborhoods like Greenacres or Ponderosa are destroyed, please consider the ten principles for livable
communities defined by the American Institute of Architects (ATA). lam://xvNvw.aia.or _ v_principles. In particular,
consider principles 2, 7 and 9 Provide Choices", "Create a Neighborhood Identity", and "Conserve Landscapes".
'I. Design on a human Scale
Compact, pedestrian-friendly communities allow residents to walk to shops, services, cultural resources, and jobs and
~Ireduce traffic congestion and benefit people's health.
~l rovide Choices
People want variety in housing, shopping, recreation, transportation, and employment. Variety creates lively
neighborhoods and accommodates residents in different stages of their lives.
3. Encourage Mired-Use Development
Integrating different land uses and varied building types creates vibrant, pedestrian-friendly and diverse communities.
4. Preserve Urban Centers
Restoring, revitalizing, and infilling urban centers takes advantage of existing streets; services and buildings and avoids
the need for new infrastructure. This helps to curb sprawl and promote stability for city neighborhoods.
5. Vary Transportation Options
Giving people the option of walking, biking and using public transit, in addition to driving, reduces traffic congestion,
protects the environment and encourages physical activity.
6. Build Vibrant Public Spaces
Citizens need welcoming, well-defined public places to stimulate face-to-face interaction, collectively celebrate and
mourn, encourage civic participation, admire public art, and gather for public events.
7. Create a Neighborhood Wentity
A "sense of place" gives neighborhoods a unique character, enhances the walking environment, and creates pride in the
( p-F,munity.
is. rrotect Environmental Resources
A well-designed balance of nature and development preserves natural systems, protects waterways from pollution,
reduces air pollution, and protects property values.
9/11/2007
Page 2 of 2
9. Conserve Landscapes
Open space, farms, and wildlife habitat are essential for environmental, recreational, and cultural reasons.
10. Design Matters
Design excellence is the foundation of successful acid healthy co=u-nities."
Sincerely,
Margaret Mortz
3420 S. Ridgevicw Dr.
Spokane Valley OVA 99206
miL,smortz-}a,icehouse.net
893-1472
9/11/2007
Page 1 of 1
his Bainbridge
Clate.Linda.Williams@comcast,net
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:12 AM
To: Chris Bainbridge
Subject: Re: Deadline for written comments
?lease extend these comments to the Council
17HANK YOU- We are residents of Ponderosa Acres, and while we are dismayed that our area may be rezoned to a
iigher density, we want to thank you for the numerous opportunities you've given the public to listen and comment on the
levelopment of the new UDC.
'm sure you've all spent long hours constructing a plan with longevity that works for the majority of the key
ukeholders. We appreciate your efforts and look forward to seeing the final plan.
--late and Linda Williams
X606 S. Raymond Road
--ity of Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Original message.
Froxn: "Chris Bainbridge" <CBai..nbridge@spokanevalley.org>
i result of action taken at last night's council meeting, please note the following:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL. NOTICE FOR TAKING PUBLIC COMMENT
Notice is hereby given that during Council's September 11, 2007 Regular meeting, Council passed a motion to extend the
deadline for the City Clerk to receive written public *comments concerning any portion of the Uniform Development Code,
to 5:00 p.m. Monday. September 24. 2007. Written comments may be mailed to the City Clerk, City of Spokane Valley,
11707 E Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington, 99216; or faxed to City Clerk at 509-658-0194; or sent via e-mail
to cbainbridgQ_spokanevalley. oro. The draft UDC Titles are located on the City's website at %vkvw.spokanevalle)Lorg; then
"Community Development"; then "Uniform Development Code."
Christine Bainbridge; CMC
Spokane Valley City Clerk
(509-688-0177)
9113/2007
DRArr
ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Proposes Only
as of September 13, 2007; 1:30 p.m.
Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative
To: Council & Stuff
From: City Manager
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
September 25, 2007, Regular Nfeeting, 6:00 p.m. [due date Monday, Sept 171
1. Consent Agenda: Payroll, Claims, Minutes; Motion Regarding Holiday Closures [5 minutes]
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting UDC - Mike Connelly 130 minutes]
3. Motion Consideration: Appleway Ave. Bid Award - Steve Worley [15 minutes]
4. Admin Report: City Hall Facilities Planning Monthly Update-Neil Kersten [15 minutes]
5. Admin Report: Panhandling - Erik Lamb [15 minutes]
6. Admin Report: Paperless Agendas, Cost Comparisons - Chris Bainbridge/Bing [20 minutes]
7. Info Only: Fee Resolution - Ken Thompson
8. Information Only: Department Reports [estimated meeting: 1.00 minutes]
Wednesdav, September 26, 2007: AWC Regional Meeting, Doubletree Spokane City Center, 322 v Spokane Falls Ct.
(Sept 27-29, 2007: AFLC, LilerV, Environment & Alatural Resources Steering Committee Fall Mtg,: CenterPlace)
October 2, 2007, 6:00 p.m. Study Session [due date Monday, Sept 241
New Lmplayee Introductions
1. General Budget Discussion - Dave Mercier (30 minutes)
2. CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) Project List for 2007/2008 - Greg McCormick (10 minutes)
3. Admin Report Mirabeau Parkway Speed Limits - Neil Kersten (15 minutes)
4. Adttiin Report: Collins Road Parkin -Neil Kersten 15 minutes
tdinin I~et~ratr:;l_einrl.f_ _ lricf%Ilici~ri ,~ctjrr'_(terllrrtitie) , ; - n 's4: _1:~ nai+7rttA,s
6. Admin Report: Sidewalks (ADA) - Mike Connelly (15 minutes)
7. Admin Report: CTP Organizational Model -Nina Regor (10 minutes)
S. Admin Report Concurrency Issues - Mike Connelly/Neil. Kersten (20 minutes)
9. Admin Report: Fee Resolution -Ken Thompson (15 minutes)
10. Info Only item: Spokane County Conservation District Update - Linda Graham
TOTAL N.MNS: 145 minutes
October 9, 2007, Regular Meeting, 6:00 p.m. [due date Monday, Oct 11
1. PUBLI.C REARING: Final Public Bearing :Proposed 2008 Budget - Ken Thompson [10 minutes]
2. PU:BLtC HEARING: C17BG Project list 110 minutes]
3. Consent Agenda: Payroll; Claims, Minutes [5 minutes]
4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting Budget [10 minutes]
5. Fiat Reading Proposed Ordinance Levying Property Tax -Ken Thompson [10 minutes]
6. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Confirming Excess Property Tax - Ken Thompson [10 rninutes]
7. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, Sunshine Disposal Franchise - Cary Driskell [15 minutes]
8. First Reading Proposed Ordinance. Waste Management Franchise - Cary Driskell [15 minutes
~):;lle ra"`i£ of,C)r"dii~ancc ll7ft)-3 ll_.lcrgettc?, measure ),~:Iyitk~ (~onnelly { sv 15 .triiniyts
10. Proposed Fee Resolution Adoption- Ken Thompson [20 minutes]
11. Motion Consideration: Adoption of CenterPlace Marketing Plan - Mike Jackson [10 minutes]
12. Motion Consideration: Mirabeau Parkway Speed Limits -Neil Kersten (consent...) [10 minutes]
13. Motion Consideration: CIP Organi7Ational Model -Nina Regor (consent...) [10 minutes]
[estimated meeting: 150 minutes]
Draft Advance Agenda 9/13/2007 1:37:46 Pivi Page I of 3
October 16, 2007, 6:00 p.m. Study Session [due date Monday, Oct 81
1. Street Design Standards - John Hohman, and J-U-B Representatives (60 minutes)
2 Street Masterplan Discussion Continuation - Neil K.ersten/J-U-B Representatives (60 minutes)
TOTAL AM UTES: 120 minutes
October 23, 2007, Regular Meeting, 6:00 p.m. [due date Monday, Oct 151
1. Consent Agenda: Payroll, Claims, Minutes [5 minutes]
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting Budget [10 minutes]
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Levying Property Tax - Ken Thompson [10 minutes]
4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Confirming Excess Property Tax - Ken Thompson [10 minutes]
5. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, Sunshine Disposal franchise- Cary Driskell [l5 minutes]
6. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, Waste Management Franchise - Cary Driskell [15 minutes]
7. Motion Consideration: CDBG Project List - Greg McCormick [10 minutes]
8. Admin Report: City Hall Facilities Planning - Neil Kersten [15 minutes]
9. Admin Report: Legislative Matters - Dave Mercier [15 minutes]
10. Information Only: Department Reports [estimated meeting: 105 minutes]
October 30, 2007, 6:00 p.m. Study Session [due date Monday, Oct 221
1. Lodging'rax Committee Grant Application Review- Deputy Mayor Taylor (20 minutes)
2. Aviation Ordinance Discussion -'Mike Connelly (15 minutes)
3. fnfo Only: Library Capital Facilities Area Formation
Fridav, November 2, 2007: Employee Appreciation Dinner (CenterPlace)
_i
November 6, 2007 - no meeting (election night)
LVVWWesd November 7, 2007 Special -Meeting, 6:00 p.m. [due date Monday, Oct 291
1. PUBLIC i EARING 3rd Amendment to 2007 Budget - Ken Thom )son [10 minuets]
.'FL1k31.'Ij HR-AitINr .Fnd
~ rtrngiUR n erge~ cy'Ordinarce-Alike (oiineli~~ [l0;rninuteslj
2. Cansrnt agenda: Payroll, Claims, Minutes [5 minutes]
I First Read ng Proposed Ordinance for 3rd Amendment to 2007 Budget - Ken "Thompson [5 minutes]
4. Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Grant Allocations - Deputy Mayor Taylor [10 minutes]
~:'Adrrrrrr'R~pc~rt: Librart (Jf j i .1 racrlrties'Ac.a,Fc~rniat;ion - Scott Kuhta '30 minut'es],
6. Admin Report: City Hall :Facilities Planning-Neil Kersten [15 minutes]
[estimated meeting: 85 minutes]
November 13, 2007 - no meeting (NLC Conference)
November 20 -Thanksgiving week - no meeting
November 27, 2007 - Special Meeting, 6:00 p.m. [due date Monday, Nov 191
1. Consent Agenda Payroll; Claims, Minutes 4 [5 minutes]
ProPropo$e~ 1Zesolutio,u: Libriiry Ca[iital racilities Area l+oi n,.i :i6n Scott KuFit.n 20 iaiinutes].
Draft Advance Agenda 9/13/2007 1:37:46 Pivl Page 2 of 3
December 4, 2007 Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due date Monday, Nov 261
December 11, 2007, Regular fleeting, 6:00 p.m. [due date Monday, Dee 31
1. Consent Agenda: Payroll, Claims, Minutes [5 minutes)
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance for 3'd Amendment to 2007 Budget- Ken Thompson [5 minutes]
December 18, 2007, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due date iklonday, Dee 101
1. Council Committee Appointments (30 minutes)
2. Swearing; in of Councilmembers
3. Admin Report: City Hall Facilities Planning-Weil Kersten (15 minutes)
December 25 - Christmas Week - no tneeting
Januarv 1, 2008 - HOLIDAY -no meeting
January 8, 2008. Regular Meeting [due date Monday, Dec 311
Election of Council Officers
0 Winter Retreat Possible Dates: Soturdav Januctry 12, or Saturday Februat•y 2,-200
OTHER PENDING AND/O12 UPCOMING ISSUES/VITTTINGS
Schedule Joint Meeting with Planning Commission re. City- Center - Novcmb r
Cable Franchise
Over weight ordinance
Comp Plan Amendments (November)
Tourism Promotion Association Presentation (November/December)
Department Accomplishment Report (January)
Adoption Street MasterPlan
Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan - Scon Kultta
Approval of Pines AIansfield Construction Contract. Award - Steve Worley
Traffic Model Review
Work Force Development, Tn-Scrvicc Definitions
Noise Ordinance (Construction Activity)
Central Valley School District Impact Fee Request
Sewer Collection Systems - Neil Kersten
Animal Control Ordinance - Cary Driskell
"'Hot Zones" (telecommunications infrastructure)
Governance Manual (public hearing/public comment process, etc.)
NIF Housing Solutions City Membership
UDC Revisions: Binding Site Plans/Aviation Zone Regulations
Accident Statistics Along Broadway (April 2008)
estimated; does not include time for public comments.]
Draft Advance Agenda 9/1Y2007 1:37:46 PM Page 3 of 3
ca n or
pol~ane
Valleym
.~Illllp 11707 l= Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1006 ♦ cityhatLospokanevalley.org
Memorandum
To: City Manager Dave Mercier and Members of Council
From: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst
Date: September 18, 2007
Re: Animal Control Items
Aninal control was recently discussed at the joint meeting between the County Commissioners
and the City of Spokane Valley Council ("CaUncil"). As a result, Nancy Hill of Spokane County
Regional Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS) has been working on drafting new ordinances to
incorporate some suggested changes. Nancy is requesting Spokane Valley staff comments from
us regarding her proposals. Nancy will be presented a draft ordinance to the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) on September l l and will make a presentation to Council before asking
the BOCC for final approval.
License Fees
Nancy Hill had mentioned possibly increasing fees $5 for altered pets and $S for unaltered at the
joint meeting. Since then she has perforined a comparative study of license rates and worked
with the City of Spokane and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(.RSPCA) to come up with some appropriate rates that would increase license revenue while still
achieving goals associated with licensing. City of Spokane Valley staff ("City staff") has asked
that any ordinance revisions to the animal control portion of the County code include a provision
that would allow the City to set its own license fee. This would provide the City the flexibility to
set its own rates though staff feels that license campaigns would be more successful with
consistent fees throughout the SCRAPS service area. Greater license compliance would increase
renewals, make it easier to return lost pets; and reduce boarding time for animals.
At the joint meeting, Council indicated it is in favor of pct owners paying for a greater portion
of animal control costs.
The following table illustrates some various options.
L ,i
Animal Control Items
Page 2 of 4
J
Table 1. Animal Control License Fee Options for the Cite of Spokane Valley
Current Joint Mtg. Proposed New Proposed Seattle Match
Cat Altered S 8 $ 13 S 15 S 15
Cat Unaltered S 18 $ 26 S 25 $ 25
Do Altered S 13 $ 18 S 25 $ 20
Dog Unaltered S 28 $ 36 $ 50 $ 40
The last column of the table above shows that the latest proposal would actually use rates higher
than the City of Seattle.
The table below shows how each option would impact the City financially.
Table 2. Financial Impact of Animal Control License F'ee. Options
Current Joint Mtg. Proposed New Proposed Seattle Match
SV Costs S 595,119 $ 595,119 S 595,119 $ 595,119
License Revenue S 158,268) $ 294,599 S (391,718 328,929
% Recovery 27% 50% 66% 55%
Other Revenue S 63,868) $ (63,868 S (63,868) $ 63,868
GF Contribution $ 372,983 S 236,652 S 139,533 $ 202,322
This table shows what the anticipated license revenue would be in relation to the total animal
control costs for the City and shows what percentage of the costs can be recovered or offset
through license revenue. In addition, the last row shows what the City's general fund
contribution would be. The percentage recovery increases dramatically for all proposed options.
There is a fine line to be walked between increasing license fees and maintaining compliance.
The projections above contemplate a static compliance level.
The City of Spokane staff will be proposing to their Council rates that are similar to the'New
Proposed rates in Table 1 above except that the rate for the altered dog 'Mll be $35. County and
City staff believe that the pet license campaign would be more effective with consistent fees
throughout the County but we also believe that $35 may have a negative impact on compliance.
With the current licensed pet numbers applied to the new rates, Spokane would hope to recover
75% of animal control costs. It may well be that the Spokane City Council will decide on
different rates than staff suggests and it may be possible to have rates that are consistent among
all the participating jurisdictions. Iii addition, due to the necessary expansion, it maybe 2009
before SCRAPS can fiilly take over animal control services for the City of Spokane. That will
provide a year for Spokane to test their new rates and allow all jurisdictions to reevaluate the
most effective rates for 2009.
Recommendation: "faking the initial step of matching Seattle rates will allow us to evaluate the
impact of The increased fees on the rate of compliance with pet license laws and the Council may
adjust the fees accordingly. If the current number of licenses sold annually stays the same, the
general fund obligation will be reduced by approximately $170,000.
Animal Control Items
Page 3 of 4
Q
Senior Discounts
There is no current senior discount for pet licenses. Nancy indicated that the last time fees were
increased there were a number of complaints from seniors. She has proposed to freeze the
current rates for seniors but add a dollar to incorporate a one dollar increase to the spay/neuter
surcharge. The license fees projections above do not factor in senior discouts.
Council has previously suggested utilizing some type of economic qualification for seniors
utilizing a discount so that the discount would only apply to seniors with an established need.
Nancy prefers instead to allow one. senior discounted license per person. She says that people
currently have the opportunity to purchase pet licenses while paying their utility bills and
property taxes and also in person. Often time the payments are sent directly to the treasurer's
office. They are not equipped to do any kind of verification and process paperwork of that
nature. Taney also believes that people would be unlikely to go to the trouble of providing the
appropriate documentation and would be more inclined to forego the licenseing altogether.
Utilizing existing discounts for property taxes and utilities would not account for pet-owning
seniors that are not property owners.
Recommendation: In many cases of senior discounts that require economic qualification; the
savings are substantial and the item the discount is applied to is either required (with significant
consequences for failure to comply) or the item or service is greatly desired by the user. In the
case of pet licenses, it is unlikely that a person in non-compliance would be discovered and the
discount is not tied to a service that is greatly desired. The goal is to get people on the books.
The age verification itself will be on the honesty policy as people ,vill be purchasing licenses
through the mail or online so City staff suggests that the honesty policy be employed for senior
discounts as well. Put in place an economic qualification but allow the person to check a box if
they qualify. The discount will still be limited to one license per person or household.
Reporting Requirements
The Council also suggested utilizing reporting requirements for veterinarians, groomers, and
other pet-care facilities. I'lie ASPCA has indicated that it knows of no other such requirement in
the Country and believes that such legislation would meet with heavy resistance from
veterinarians. The arguments against such legislation are a right to privacy and the possible
deterrent to people in getting adequate care for their pets.
Nancy is not pursuing this option, instead preferring to utilize the existing memorandum of
understanding that was signed by the local veterinarian association indicating that they will work
to prornote pet licensing in their facilities.
I have asked our legal department to look into the legality of requiring such reporting at the local
level without state authorization.
Recommendation: Because of the high probability of such legislation causing great opposition
from veterinarians and animal advocate groups, and the fact that there is no indication that this
Animal Control Items
Page 4 of 4
information will actually provide any benefit to the licensing campaign; City staff recommends
focusing on utilizing veterinarians as licensing centers that actively promote pet licensing in lieu
of reporting requirements that would most likely increase total costs without a definitive revenue
benefit.
Breeder Registration
Nancy is still researching the possibility of requiring breeders to register and requiring pet stores
and breeders to license animals at the point of sale.
SCRAPS
Spokane County Red anal Animal Protection Service
Regional Animal Control Summary
Goal: Provide a regional animal control program for all citizens in Spokane County - to
include uniform professional enforcement of laws and public policy - holding stray pets
at one central facility while partnering I*vith Spokanimal and the Spokane Humane
Society to i.nerease pet adoptions.
Current Service Area: Unincorporated Spokane County, Spokane Valley, Cheney,
Millwood and Fairchild Air Force Base
Proposed Service Area: Addition of city of Spokane and as many of our small
incorporated cities as possible
City of Spokane
Start up costs: Spokane will build and fund an addition to the current SCF-A?S facility
to include kennel, office and storage space. Estimated cost of building addition is $2.6
million. An additional $300,000 Rill be required for additional start up costs to include
vehicles, uniforms, cages, computers, etc.
Annual expenses: Spokane will pay an estimated annual cost (includes cost allocations)
for the sen~ice approximately $1.36 million which «~71 be offset by revenues collected
from pet licensing and other fees.
Timeline:
• Currently working on inter local agreement to be signed by November 1, 2007
• Invite small incorporated cities to participate in program
• Building addition Nvdl take an estimated 2 years - city public works project
• Hire 21 employees and purchase extra vehicles, equipment and other supplies.
• Estimated date to take over the service will be November 1, 2009
• Interim - Spokanimal will continue providing the service and work closely with
SCRIPS for a smooth transition
• Creation of advisory board for new regional program
Summary:
A regional program will benefit-the community and its animals providing for
uniform professional enforcement of laws and public policy while creating a central
housing location for all stray pets.
S CfrY p6tCane
Valle
y 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhal4spokanevattey.ors
Memorandum
To: City Manager David Mercier and Members of Council
From: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager; Trish Burns-Hart, Human Resources Analyst
CC: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director; Steve Worley, Senior Engineer - CIP
Date: September 18, 2007
Re: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Organizational Model - First Touch
The purpose of this memo is to review the current organizational model for effectiveness, and
provide recommendations for improvement. It provides the First Touch in the Council agenda
process for Council consideration of the Model.
The City of Spokane Valley supports its six-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) with
one Sr. Engineer - CIP to manage the program, and three FTE.
The Pending Ideas List of the draft Business Plan identified the addition of a Capital Project
Design and Inspection Team. The proposed model described below is a variation on that
concept. It would increase the four-person Capital improvement Program (CIP) division to a
total of eight positions, including the Sr. Engineer who manages the program.
There would be no net increase to the General Fluid to implement this program - the increased
cast would be funded by the scheduled capital projects.
The Finance Comnllttee discussed the proposal at its September 7 meeting, and there was
unanimous support for it.
City of Spokane Vallev Organizational Model
The 2008 - 2013 TIP includes 27 projects totaling $29.2 million. This includes only those
projects that have already secured funding, as well as the STEP projects involving curb-to-curb
paving. The TIP also includes approximately $1.3 million per year in Real Estate Excise Tax
(BEET) funding for road preservation projects. The number of projects the $1.3 million can
fund varies from year to year, depending upon the scope of the project(s).
In addition to the street infrastructure projects, the CIP division is responsible for managing the
construction projects for parks (e.g., CenterPlace and the Universal Park projects) stormwater
projects affecting the City's road system; and developer funded projects (e.g., traffic signal
installation or other road-related upgrades).
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Organizational Model, continued
September 18, 2007
Page 2 of 7
Spokane Valley currently contracts out most of the design and construction Work.. However; '
managing each project is a critical responsibility assigned to City staff to ensure that consultants
are accomplishing the work according to City specifications. Examples of project management
tasks include the following:
• Advertising for, selecting; contracting with and overseeing the work of consultants;
• Making decisions on design elements of each project;
• Participating in public meeting processes;
• Monitoring project budgets;
• Ensuring all environmental and grant requirements are met;
• Coordinating grant reimbursements;
• Overseeing the construction bidding process and selection of contractors;
• Overseeing the construction management of the projects; and
• Project closeout.
The City's TIP is funded through a combination of federal and state grants, as well as local
resources. It should be noted that the effort involved in managing a federally-funded project is
approximately 30% greater than a City- or state-fitided project. On federally funded projects,
the Project Manager must ensure Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and WSDOT
requirements as outlined in the Local Agency Guidelines are met. 'T'hese requirements are more
specific and detailed compared to non-federally funded projects.
The City's current staffing level in the CfP division is not sufficient to manage the projects for
,,vhich the City has already secured fitnding, let alone those projects in the adopted TIP which are
proposed for futures ants. The following table shows a proposed staffing level for the CIP
division.
Proposed Structure
'Position Current FTJE Proposed FTE
Sr. Engineer - CaP Program N4anager 1.00 1.00
Sr. Engineer - Project Mgmt (non-supervisory) 0.00 2.00
Engineer 1.00 0.00
Assistant Engineer 1.00 1.00
Engineering Technician II 0.00 1.00
Engineering Technician I 1.00 2.00
Administrative Assistant 0.00 1.00
Total 4.00 8.00
Currently the City has only one Engineering Technician classification. This proposed model would convert the
existing classification into an Engineering Technician 1, and would create a second classification of Engineering
`rechnician 11.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Organizational Model, continued
September 18, 2007
Page 3 of 7
This model is based on the continued premise that the City will contract out most of the design
and construction work. However, it does add some flexibility to use iii-house design when that is
the more cost effective choice.
With this model, the City could create two project management teams, made up of one Senior
Engineer, one Assistant Engineer (or Engineering Tech II), and one Engineering Tech 1. Among
the three positions on each team, the), would be responsible for oversight of design; project and
grant administration; construction oversight; and construction inspection.
Steve Worley 1
Sr Engineer -
CIP Mgr ;i
New
Admin Assistant
i N i
! Vacant t ! New I
I Sr. Engineer - Sr. Engineer - t
Project Mgr I I Project Mgr I I
I t I I I I
I
I I Shane Arlt I I New
I I
Assistant Engineer ' I I Engineering Tech II
I I I I I I
I I I t t I
I I I I ~ I
! Pete Fisch I New t
Engineering Tech I I I Engineering Tech 1
I I I I
I I t I
Project PAana~ement'tearn I Prajecl tvtanagernent Team II
Personnel Impacts
This proposal results in one new classification - the Engineering Technician II. It would be.
placed at Grade 15, one grade above the current Engineering Technician (1) classification. See
below for more detail on the new classification. V
It would also transfer the FTE authorization for the currently vacant Engineer position into the
Senior Engineer (non-supervisory) classification. This position already exists on the City's
classification system at Grade 17, one grade above the Engineer position.
Fintincial Ana NsIs
There would be no net impact to the General Fund to implement tlvs model. The current FTE
are budgeted in the General Fund at approximately $370,000. The estimated gross amount of the
four additional positions is $315,000.
Capital Improvement Program (CTP) Organizational Model, continued
September 18, 2007
Page 4 of 7
The positions in this division, both current and proposed, spend the majority of their time on
individual capital projects. That time can be directly charged to those projects, so the General
Fund would only pay for the non-chargeable portion of the employee's time.
All seven of the non-managerial positions in the division would need to charge projects for at
least 55% of their time in order to have zero impact on the General Fund. This share of their
time is a conservative estimate of what they can be expected to spend on individual projects.
Other C_onsideration.v
The City is in the process of recalibrating its TIP schedule. Several of the projects that were
scheduled for completion by the end of 2007 have not been completed due to staffing levels
among other reasons. They will be moved into 2008 and future years, which in turn will delay
projects already scheduled for those years.
This proposal will help the City improve its project completion rate. It marks a significant
increase in the staff available to work on the City's CIP. However, once fully operational it will
need to be analyzed to determine whether this model is sufficient to meet the City's CIP
implementation needs.
In addition, there are several major unresolved topics, any of which would require a re-
evaluation of the CIP staffing level. Examples include:
• Street Master flan implementation
• Sprague-Appleway Revitalization Plan and City Center public infrastructure
• bridging-the-Malley (beyond current level)
Engineering Technician 11 Description
This position would compile, monitor, verify and reconcile financial data, including
information related to grants in the Capital Improvement Program. The position is
distinguished from the Engineering Technician position by work of greater technical
depth and problem solving tasks in more specific engineering related designing and
drafting assignments. Specifically, some of the duties of this position would include:
• Responsible for completing complex work assignments in a variety of
technical areas, such as: survey, mapping, design, traffic, inspection, utility
location and engineering project management.
• Provide tecluiical and administrative support to project managers in research,
process analysis, project management, communications, regulatory
compliance, presentations, and report development.
i Assist in the planning and completion. of public works projects by preparing
preliminary designs, drafting projects according to specifications and
i
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Organizational Model, continued
September 18, 2007
Page 5 of 7
inspecting projects in progress or as completed to ensure project is completed
J according to standards.
• Perform a variety of finance functions including compiling, monitoring,
verifying and reconciling financial data, such as public works trust fund loans.
• Monitor and track local, state and federal grants for C1P projects for
compliance purposes; work with granting agencies to prepare project
agreements and submit timely grants reimbursements on a monthly or
quarterly basis.
This position is proposed to be classified at Grade 15, which compares with similar positions in
Washington state. Although their titles varied, the City used as comparison the Senior
Engineering Technician category identified in the AWC Salary and Benefit Survey.
'Month
Airi4diifti6it,- ...T
Spokane Valle (proposed) 'Engineering Technician II S5,197
}Bellingham Sr. Construction Inspector $4,502
Kennewick Engineering Technician 11 $5,172
Richland Engineering Technician IV S6,013
Spokane En ineering Tecluucian TV $4;116
Spokane Count Engineering Technician III 54;593
Washington State Dept. of Engineering Tech Supervisor 55,143
Transportation (WSDOT)
Three Washin-ton Models
in determining the most effective CIP organizational model for Spokane Valley, staff asked
several cities in Washington for detailed information about the way they did business. 'While all
of the jurisdictions provided some information, Lakewood, Shoreline, and Yakima provided
sufficient background information to serve as a comparison.
It is difficult to completely compare any two jurisdictions, because there are many different ways
to provide the service. However, these cities do allow for some surface analysis.
Please note that the total number and value of the projects listed for each of the cities represents
their complete six-year TIP. They likely include both funded and pet.-to-be Rinded projects.
This does not perfectly compare to Spokane Valley's TIP numbers listed above, which only
include the projects whose funding has been secured.
l akei+,ood Model
The City of Lakewood has an estimated population of 58,950. Its proposed 2008-2013 TIP
includes 22 projects totaling $33.5 million.
~ ,J
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Organizational Model, continued
September 18, 2007
Page 6 of 7
Position FTE`
Transportation Division Manager 1.00
Associate Civil Engineer II 2.50
Assistant Civil Engineer 1.00
Engineering Technician 1 2.00
Construction Inspector 1.50
Engineering intern 1.0
Total 9.0
Shoreline ltilodel
The City of Shoreline has an estimated population of 53,190. Its proposed 2008-2013 TIP
includes 12 projects totaling $120.4 million.
Position FTE
Capital Project Administrator 1.00
Capital Project Manager II 3.00
Capital Project Manager I 1.00
Engineering Technician 1.00
Management Analyst* .50
Capital Project Technician 1.00
Administrative Assistant II* .50
Total 8.00
*Estimated allocation of shared positions
Shoreline has two additional employees dedicated to a single capital project - their Auroral
Interurban Project.
Yakima Model
The City of Yakima has an estimated population of 82;940. Its proposed 2008-2013 TIP
includes 72 projects totaling $150.7 million.3 Yakima divides the responsibilities of developing
and managing the TIP across three departments: Public Works, Finance, and Community &
Economic Development (CED).
The CEO's Capital Projects and Engineering Division has the majority responsibility. It has a
total of fifteen FTE., including the Division Manager.
z The two half-time positions are estimates of the amount of time shared from Water Division staff.
3 This includes three railroad grade separation projects totaling 543.5 million. i
Capital Improvement Program (CIE') Organizational Model, continued
September 18, 2007
Page 7 of 7
Position PTE
Project Engineer 2.00
Design Engineer 2.00
Total 4.00
The above four positions appear to be dedicated to capital projects. The remaining eleven
positions divide their time between capital projects and private development. Yakima could not
provide an estimated division of the time.
Yakima does most of its CIP engineering design and inspection in-house, but contracts them out
For large projects. They contract out the vast majority of construction, as well as some of the
analysis and modeling tasks.
Proposal Summary
This proposal would increase the 2008 preliminary budget by two additional positions, change.
the classification of two currently budgeted positions, and create a new position on the City's
classification matrix; which appears in the 2008 Employee Salary Schedule.
There is no net increase to the General Fund for this model, because the cost will be paid through
charges to projects on the C 1P.
J