Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2007, 10-16 Study Session
AGENDA CITY of SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL NVORKSHEET STUDY SESSION Tuesday, October 16, 2007 6;00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCM CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor Meuse Turn Off All Electronic Dcvices During the Meeting) DISC1)SS10N LEADER SUBJECTIACTTVTII' GOAL 1. Neil Kcrs" (5 minutes) Collins Road Parking Discussion/Information 2. Kcn'rhompson l'r: Resolution Proposctf Change-i. Discussion/Informntion (10 minutes) Jahn 1-lohawn and 1-U-B Street Design Standards Discussion/Information ftcpresentativc, (60 minute) -i. Ncil Km. fen and 3-U,-B Street Nlastcrplan Dkicussionflnfi-Tmaticm Representatives (60 mintttes I Mike C(xwellyrNcil Ker;;Ien c_'~mcurrrncy Issues Discuss (20 min!ttes) !i Mayor Wilhite: Advancc Afcnifa Additinrl7l !)iscuai~1nllnforntati0tt Infi)rmalion atly (nat for discussion or presenl4dion): Slu.-lleY &L~ Dereh pmz err .-lgreerm•nr S. %lavor Wilhile Council t_'lieck in I)iwttlsiun.lnt~~mty!i m 9 Dave Mer:icr City.Managcr l'UtnlncrlLS Uiscussioru'Infomuition A WO URN .Volt: Ualess olberwiw noted abnsc, there will be no public comments at Council Study Senlons, )However, Council always rtserves the right to request information from the public and stiff as appropriate. During nieclinKs held by the City of Spekmc Valley Cown:il, the Council reserves the right to take "action` on a" item listed or subsequently added To rite agenda. Thr term "acti+?n" mean:; to delibeme. discuss, review, mmidet, evaltuite, or make a collective positive or neptivc decision VfMCE- individuals planning to amend the meating wfui mquire special auitssnce to wconm Asic OysfcA, hcxw; . M uther ttnpairmrms, nlwr fr_ City Cleti A! I -(W! 1-h-100 sa loon W r• ss3le so that U.:turrmcnL m2V be made. J ~u~.hs:~>>an ktcna.r, r.lclrti~r: ih_ _c ; ~ 1 . CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY i Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 16, 2007 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Collins Road Parking GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Neighbors of University High School have requested an expansion of the existing no parking zone on Collins Rd. Any changes to on-street parking exceeding 100 feet in length must be made through a council resolution. The existing zone includes Collins Rd. from 32nd Avenue to 31s' Avenue. It is signed with "No Parking, 7-3, School Days". Enforcement is done by the school's resource de?uty. The neighbors have requested expansion of the zone to include the block from 31 g to 30'" Avenue. The attached petition has been signed by a representative of each property fronting this block. According to the school's resource deputy, students are parking north of 32"'d Avenue because it C takes to long to exit the school parking lot in the afternoon. The school lot has adequate capacity. There is no traffic safety reason for making this change. It is likely that student drivers will park on 31 sB Avenue or further north on Collins if the No Parking expansion is approved. Please let us know if you want us to bring this back to council for discussion and possible implementation. OPTIONS: Implement or deny the No Parking zone requested by the residents or provide staff with further direction. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS J 2fJQ :lune28o: 2007 T, , : T(O$c i=ng nee _r.,. City, of- pokan-- Valley. - Vpj tl~e undersigned ,p " -ty°owriors are requesting :tEief the "P~]o Parking"-! dining schoq~ days vyhic urren ly;exists tin C0111ns:Rd I. om 3'2°d Ave.' to .1 , be 6Adhdir g,tMdrth'to.-O- D Ave: Th?a property-gwnpr;at 30:15-S. "Golitn w. ppld lik-6-the.• bo;pa . 09 on t€ie east side: of'Collfns to:-e)dend`fo, ft eir-property line on .the nor' h,. -s nce.30-- is not a.through --str pt. NAME _AD_DRE S' SI:GNATUR.E t Cis o i , f de~wo~-: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action J Meeting Date: October 16, 2007 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: consent ❑ old business new business ❑ public hearing admin. report X pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Changes to the fee resolution GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The current resolution is 06-024 which was passed on November 28, 2006, and was effective January 1, 2007. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Each year the council passes a resolution to adjust fees so that most city costs can be recovered for services provided to others. Staff also recommends deletion of fees when conditions warrant the change. BACKGROUND: Staff has reviewed the following fees: 1. Preliminary and final subdivision approval 2. Binding site plan approval 3. Zoning letters for citizens/mortgage companies 4. Quick turn-around fees for permits on minor projects OPTIONS: Options include: 1.) Direct staff to proceed with an updated resolution; 2) Proceed with some of the fee changes; 3) Do not make any changes RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff recommends Council consensus to proceed with these changes via a resolution for council consideration at the October 23 meeting. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: A small increase in city revenue ($10,000), to cover increased costs is expected during 2008. STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director J Proposed 2008 Fee Resolution Spokane Valley Council Meeting October 16, 2007 A, Proposed Changes Ir" ' 1. Switch short plat preliminary and final fee iw. current resolution proposed Prelim. $924 $1,224 Final $1,224 +$1011ot $924+$10 3at`~2. Add final binding site plan fee current resolution proposed Prelim. $1,674 $1,674 Final - $ 924 + $101lot ,0 WI= 2 1 Proposed changes...-..---- 3. New fee for zoning letters current fee proposed fee $200 4. Over the counter, quick turn-around permit current fee proposed fee $58 saw= 3 Proposed Changes.... 4 5. Deleting some existing fees: *Demo permits for septic tanks/flammable tanks *Special called inspections *Mobile home locations *Annual maintenance permits *Housing inspections *Inspections for fire, wind, mud, flood, day care, nursing homes & hospitals *Temp. tents, canopies & air supported structures tWW"7 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 16, 2007 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Street Standards Recommended Changes GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Ordinance 03-033 adopting the Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction; 9-26-06 Information only memo regarding a proposed amendment to the Street Master Plan contract with JUB Engineers to prepare updated Street Standards; 10-3-06 Study Session to discuss amendment; 10-10-06 motion consideration to authorize the amendment. BACKGROUND: Ordinance 03-033 adopted the Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction by reference. Since that time, all development and capital projects have complied with the County's standards. This provided consistency during the initial years of incorporation. However, the County standards are focused more on rural developments and have been difficult to work with on our predominately infill development. In late 2006, City Council authorized the amendment of the Street Master Plan contract with JUB Engineers to include the development of the City's first street standards. The project team recommends changing various items within the new document. The following topics will be discussed with the Council prior to the development of the draft document: • Residential Streets - Private/Public Designations • Street Layout and Design • Connectivity • Traffic Calming • Private Development Construction Inspection • Street Acceptance Process • Pavement Design and Construction • Arterial Access Management OPTIONS: Standards discussion only. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Standards discussion only. BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Senior Engineer - Development ATTACHMENTS Presentation materials I City of Spokane Valley f Street Standards L2 Recommended Changes Jahn Hohman, P.E. Senior Engineer Dave Kliewer, P.E. JUB Engineers Spencer Montgomery, JUB Engineers i Street Standards . Recommended Changes r; Purpose Discuss varcous topks with Council prior to the preparation of the draft street standards document. Streets . Provide for the safe and effident movement of people and goods. Comprehensive Plan Goals Establish appropriate design standards for transportation fadlitles. Bnsure that roadway systems are deAned to preserve and are consistent with oommunity character. Improve local dreulation and emergency access. Minimize the negative impact from transportation systems on the natural environment. Street Standards Document Implements Comprehensive Plan Transportation Goals and Policies. 2 1 Street Standards - Recommended Changes RESIDENTIAL STREETS - Public/Private Designations ISSUE: Current County approach favors use of driveways and private streets. Driveway serves up to 3 lots. Private street serves 4 lots and above (no limit). Private street is narrower and typically has no curb or sidewalk . Developers choose between private/public. Private is preferred due to lower construction costs. . Homeowners Association responsible for maintenance of private street. RECOMMENDATION: Limit the number of lots to be accessed through private driveways am private streets. Favor public streets and connectivity. I lot ma-Amum for private driveway. 2 - 8 lots can be private street/fire access lane where existing development precludes connections. 9+ lots designated as public street. City will determine public or private designation. Improves ability to establish functional grid network and connectivity. Homeowners/City staff have dear maintenance responsibilides. 3 Street Standards Recommended Changes -1r LOCAL ACCESS STREET SECTION I Current standards do not provide for narrower public streets . Current local access pavement width is 28 to 30 feet . Private streets can be 20, 24, or 28 feet wide depending on lots served. . Added requirements for public streets (width, curb, sidewalk); encourages developers to pursue private streets. . Wider streets generate more stormwat-er runoff (larger treatment & storage requirements) 4 2 l \ Street Standards Recommended Changes RECOMMENDA17ION: Develop new street designs with narrower widths and flexible curb, sidewalk, and parking standards • New standards should minimize differences between private and public local access streets. • Helps open narrower parcels for infill development. • "F"its" many existing neighborhood conditions better. • Lower cost for development. • Inherently "calms'" traffic. • Reduces stormwater generation. 5 Street Standards- Recommended Changes F i Oirrent Residential Street Similar to Proposed Residential Street 6 J 3 Street Standards < Recommended Changes Seattle's Street Edge Alternatives Program r a, r J•; 7 Street Standards r Recommended Changes M+ CRETE COKa.RESE SHOULDER SHOULDER OR FLUSK OR FWSH "'R' cum 3' 12' PROPOSED n H• N I 'Z ' I _.rx u ,r-._~ .rte CURRENT 0.83 L CURD t n,MER WITM 30 L~' S!-rVALY SVALE ASPHALt SL'PLE SLCE'J! 8 ' 4 Street Standards * Recommended Changes MEL, STREET CONNECTIVITY IS5U : Spokane County process allows for excessive private streets and dead-ends. . Difficult for emergency vehicle access. Focuses traffic on Ingress/egress point, destroys grid, limits efficient Infill development RECOMMENDATIONa Establish clear and concise connectivity requirements. Supports growth management, pri nciples by promoting the efficient Infill of land. Connectivity minimizes stranded parcels and possibility of land-locked parcels. Provides pedestrian and bicycle movement through neighborhoods. 9 Street Standards Recommended Changes Private streets/no connectivity to i 5 Street Standards Recommended Changes Private streets/no connectivity Street Standards Recommended Changes Public Streets with Connectivity r i ~ v 1 L + i r - f 6 Street Standards Recommended Changes Public Streets with Connectivity 13 ~J' Street Standards Recommended Changes TRAFFIC CALMING Traffic calming is defined as a combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver beha Aor, and improve conditions for noin-motorized street users. Examples include: Neighborhood Entry No Im Traffic Qrdes/ Roundabouts Narrower Streets f Speed Watch Programs 14 7 Street Standards Recommended Changes TRAFFIC CALMING . ISSUE: Current Standards do not include traffic calming options. RECOMMENQA_DQN: Allow and encourage the use of traffic calming options. Create retrofit standards for existing neighborhoods. . Integrate the design In new development 15 Street Standards Recommended Changes ■ Traffic Calming Example ~ ~ thy.` ' K ~ `~li(` 1;• 16 8 Street Standards Recommended Changes INSPECTION OF PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS • ISSUE • American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) and Spokane County developed the current guidelines for private development construction. • Developer selects inspection firm. Project engineer, contractor, and inspector all report to the developer which has lead to relationship difficulties. • RECOMMENDATION; Spokane Valley staff recommends retaining ACEC construction standards with a modification that the City select and manage the construction inspection firms in lieu of developer making the selection. 17 i Street Standards F Recommended Changes ESTABLISH STREET ACCEPTANCE PROCESS • ISSUE: The City does not have a formal process for accepting streets for City maintenance. • RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the following process: • Provisional acceptance as soon as possible after construction, with developer posting a warranty surety for 2 years. • Owner/contractor repairs any failures during warranty. • Final acceptance after warranty period assuming all deficiencies have been corrected. 1a 9 Street Standards Recommended Ganges PAVEMENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ISSUE: new asphalt roadway projects (only 4-7 years aid) appear to be degrading before their 20+ year design life . Consulting geotechnicaI engineer recommends that design is proper - construction methods are the problem, . Industry experts believe materials are also of lower quality. JUB to study the issue based upon work performed on the Street Master Plan and recommend patenUaI changes to the pavement design and construction requirements, 19 Street Standards r Recommended Changes OSI -Owl. ACCESS MANAGEMENT ISSUE: Spokane County approach is fairly liberal, minimal oversight (applies mainly to arterials and collectors). . RECD DATIOW Adopt more restrictive guidelines as anticipated in the Carnpreheasive Plan for access to arterials especially in commercialfintlustrial pones. This would improve traffic Vow, signal operations, and safety- 2.0 i t ~ Street Standards Recommended Changes Access at south east comer of Sprague and Pines prior to 2004 redevelopment; driveways too dose to signal, no cross access t r= zi C D Street Standards t Recommended Changes Access at south east comer of Sprague and Pines after redevelopment; driveways at intersection removed, cross access opened to adjacent parcels q.. 1 1 22 r 11 Street Standards Recommended Changes Mir, Next Steps Public Meeting/Workshop Discussions with Police and Fire District Prepare Draft Document Follow up Public Meeting Adoption Through Planning Commission and City Council 23 Street Standards Recommended Changes aim Questions? h mod'. 24 12 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 16, 2007 City Manager Sign-off- Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Draft Street Master Plan Presentation - Part II GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adopted 'the drafting of a well-defined Street Master Plan, with funding options", as a principal 2006 budget goal. Reviewed a draft scope of work at the December 20, 2005 Council Study Session and authorized staff to issue an RFP for the selection of a consultant. Reviewed final scope and fee for J-U-B Engineers' at the May 2, 2006 Study Session and approved them on May 9, 2006. JUB Engineers presented a status of the project on December 19, 2006. The draft report was included as an Informational item in Council's July 10, 2007 packet. The recommended Pavement Management Program (Part One of the Street Master Plan) was presented to Council on July 17, 2007. Due to time constraints, the Part Two - Transportation Improvement Program was postponed to a later date. BACKGROUND: Council expressed their desire to develop a well-defined Street Master Plan, with funding options, that identifies the current condition of the city streets and recommends appropriate improvements and maintenance that preserve the value and structural integrity of the local transportation system. J-U-B Engineers was selected as the most highly qualified consultant for this project. The scope for this work is divided into three phases. Phase one is the development of pavement management system that will evaluate the current conditions of the city streets and determine what steps are needed to maintain them at their current level. Phase two is to assist in the development of a Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan incorporating the results of phase one and the other transportation needs of the city. Phase three combines the first two phases into a single Street Master Plan report. The Draft Street Master Plan report was included in Council's July 10 packets. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Direction to staff on further development and/or implementation of the Street Master Plan options BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Budget impacts depend on the approach chosen to maintain the city's street infrastructure STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Steve Worley, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects ATTACHMENTS Draft Street Master Plan PowerPoint Presentation (TIP), Street Fund and Capital Improvement Program Funding Spreadsheets (3) SP okan` jUalley Transportation Planning Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program Presented by r J J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. ENGINEERS e SURVEYORS * PLANNERS Street Master Plan .;Oo`Taljey Transportation Planning -Six-Year TIP Project Overview • Purpose • Review Data and Analysis Methodologies • Development of Tools • Transportation Improvement Program Report • Identify Staffing Requirements 000004 Sheet Master Plan S Valley Transportation Planning - Six-Year TIP Purpose • Identify on-going data needs to assess the transportation system and prioritize projects • Improve data storage/presentation methods with GIS • Be more efficient and better informed in decision-making. processes • Better manage resources in making transportation improvements • Identify on-going staffing needs to maintain TIP preparation process 9-Oct-07 J-U-B l cm, Street Master Plea Sp Valley Transportation Planning - Six-Year TIP Review Data and Analysis Methodologies • Interviews • Staff to determine issues, concerns, existing data, processes used, desires, etc. • Other jurisdictions also to determine useful information, techniques, issues, etc. g-Oct-o? 4 Sp b'~an' Street Master Plan ;W*VaJJey Transportation Planning -Six-Year TIP Review Data and Analysis Methodologies • 146 miles of functionally classified roadway system • 287+ segments 24% without traffic data only 20% are directional (v/c calculations not as accurate) • 177 intersections of functionally classified roadways 126 major intersections included in Comp Plan 25% without count data • No regular program to obtain traffic counts on functionally classified system • Only use accident data for specific project analysis Spo~an Street Master Plan ,,;O*`IaU.*ey Transportation Planning -Six-Year TIP Review Data and Analysis Methodologies Recommendations • Establish regular program to obtain traffic counts Bi-directional Average Daily Traffic • Intersection Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes • Display roadway and intersection performance graphically • Display accident data graphically I JUB S Po"kan~ e~ Street Mister Plan 4;o0`Ialiey Transportation Planning -Six-Year TIP Development of Data Analysis Tools Geographic Information Systems System performance characteristics maps • Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratios • Intersection Level of Service (LOS) • Accidents • Location • Severity • Rates J ¢O bo7 7 9-Oct-07 S p Street Mister Plan jVa11ey Transportation Planning -Six-Year TIP Development of Data Analysis Tools • Nearly 60 Street Master Plan projects identified • 34 projects included in 2008 - 2013 TIP based on fiscal constraint analysis 1 n't Street Master Plan Spokane Six-Year TIP ransportation Planning - S Nalley, T TIP Report 2008 - 2013 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program Report prepared with new database tools. • Project costs updated with Consolidated Bid-Tabs Summary • More accurate cost estimates • More easily updated • TIP Report and funding database • Funding summaries by year by funding source • Interactive TIP Project Map J-U-B - 9-Oct-07 14 SCITVOF7ane Street Mister Plan Nalley Transportation Planning -Six-Year TIP Staffing Requirements • Collect traffic counts (ADT & TMV) • "Clean" accident records • Analyze/map data • Update project costs based on recent bids J-U-R is ~ fr Street Master Plan ciT 10, Spolane _ . Valley , Transportation Planning - Six-Year TIP Staffing Requirements • Two options estimated • Maintained by City Staff • Annual Consultant Contract Still requires involvement of City staff • Does not include current efforts by City to: • Scope new projects • Prepare new cost estimates . Prepare grant applications J 9-Oct-07 16 Spo~kan~~ Stmet Mister Plan s~ley Transportation Planning -Six-Year TIP Staffing Requirements -City Maintained ~ Pros • Year to Year Consistency of Data Collection • Ownership of the Data Familiarity with the Road Network ~ Cons • Additional Staff Will Be Required i' J-U-R L_ i crrYa Street Master Plan 00*0 Spmkane • Transportation Planning _ Six-Year TIP Vauey Staj'p'ng Requirements Annual City Staffing/Man-Hour Requirements Clerical Technician/EIT GIS Technician Project Manager Work Tasks Positions M-H Positions M-H Positions M-H Positions M-H Road Segment Counts 2 460 1 40 1 16 Turn Movement Counts 2 368 1 40- 1 8 Accident Summary 1 16 1 64 1 80 1 2 Bid Tab Summary 1 19 1 20 1 12 Total Hours 35 912 160 38 9-Oct-07 18 77B SP te~ Street Master Plan jVa11ey Transportation Planning -Six-Year TIP Staffing Requirements -Consultant Maintained ~ Pros • Skilled Labor Only When Needed • Tasks are Assignable Depending On City's Need ~ Cons Less familiar with City Street Network • Reduced Consistency of Data Collection. • City Must Still Provide Training, Quality Control & Oversight • Additional Cost and Time for Travel, Meetings & Project Management J•U-B Street Master Plan Van S omme ey Transportation Planning Six-Year TIP Staffing Requirements Consultant Man-hour Requirements Clerical Technician/EIT GIS Technician Project Manger City Personnel Work Tasks Positions M-H Positions M-H Positions M-H Positions M-H Positions M-H Road Segment Counts 2 460 1 40 1 16 1 16 Turn Movement Counts 2 368 1 40 1 8 1 8 Accident Summary 1 16 1 64 1 80 1 2 1 4 Bid Tab Summary 1 19 1 20 .1 12 1 8 Total Hours 35 912 48 38 36 2o 9-Oct-07 ar, c Street Master Plan Spokane .;O*Valley Transportation Planning _ Six-Year TIP Staffing Requirements TIP Maintenance Cost, Maintained Consultant In-House Maintained In-House Cost $73,000 $5,000 Consultant Fee $0 $88,000 Total $73,000 $93,000 J-U-B C ITY OF 000"'~ Street Master Plan S ne VAIey Transpor tion Planning Six-Year TIP 40;~ Fgure 2-2 City o Spokane Valley N Volume to Capacity Ratios 1:~N T - t. 1 I- Legend" Volume to Capaclry Ratla ~ S "36k ~ Va It ley 0,3aI.O-W MW zz 2007 r I , Plop- eI ' #1'l..l Beet Master Plan V VA one Transportation Planning ~ Six-Year TIC' ,;oo* ley :::-egure 2.3 i of Spokane Voile ~ _ - - u ~ . Level of Service 1-7 amp "r T T Legend g 206 Level of Service i A CP - s w E Functional Classification ane Interstate Va~I je _ Pdndpal Arterial LccM Ac s Minor Arteral Way 2-o-, 2XI 7 9-[let-07 c) J-U-B C 900 S IT1'O Street Master Plan • P Transportation Plannt*ng - Six-Year TIP ...;0OValley Figure 2-4 City of Spokane Valley Accident Locations e ; { iY ~ _y ~ • e' a * _ ° - ~ 7 ,t..~ ~+st--~'.~°~'"°~i-7y-►.~~+s s _ . I..~I '''t 'r-s -tom' +l R w a i .N • _ F ~..-y_'y ~ .~~F i~ ev-~.~-.~a.r-r r5f. ~ ~ ~ ` Legend 7- Accidents raw 1 x`" 3. Mal 31 loom , 1-4 21.35 - _ 11 ZO Functional Classlflealkm nL Va - MknorAd-~Id collector 2L Z14)0 Lexial I 9-0ef-07 10 J--U B C ITY Street Master Plan S ne Transportation Pla n-In Six- Il Year TIP raw City of Spokane Valley Accident Severity - yy i. ..fit I• -Ra -F^# a .a. • _ 41.x+ +L~I, ~1 r~_ ` r • l gal ~r.Fa~a;, - - .r v a a Y ` a Y e -06 me- ar a• f . a- ` ►F.a mss- s • - - - ~a~-+ 1~' A ~ .°4. rJ ♦ •-s.# r.. -ate + - - M ~Y n f• ~r P e. • 4~- • aT Fa T • - ' • r Fem. . _ , p ,xe taa-•+~• A a~~a .aa a-aF 17 Y i#-.s-~•a l,,.e i.a_-i ii.w-lF.aF>~ ~ ! i I ~ ~ " ~ ii A 40 a-~• -4F +Y' I R 1 Legend r. - Roadway Sagmm Functional Clas"IDminn Acctdenas m, PTw t) 31 ArwU Intersection r - • Accldent-*. - I~dkfU:~ a F nt~s9a Uxad Road-, V aI e Cnfur*5, ~{a Fs F•~rt~ Cram t iw~ _ ►a a i~:n n:drnri. } f 11 4.4liaf Liiiatbri Map. tr J-U-R Cil'1' 01P Street Master Plan S ~lke Transportation Planning -S• 4;OoValley ix-Year TIP AIIIIIIIIIIIIII Agur2 a-6 - City of Spokane Valley Accident Rates r a1- • - u P T.7 t.ry Y I Sf a a .tom - e 1 le _ K 1 - i ~ _ ~y 1 C y {u - e•~ it - `~4. "jr } Pw y ~ ~ + alp F" ~ ~y i°` I _ 131 r fir. 7 J~y~ 1L :L4 7 *I 14 1_ ..P.1t+ •1• ' I+I~ C J, IMI a P . ~1 - Y ea ± 1a' ekl e INa _ - tk e~A s Legand Accident Rates.- Intersections (2W6) Acetclent Rates: Roads (2006) Per L1IIIIon Entoring Vehm1am Po'r Mill Ion Velltcle Was of Travel S p = I C1 ? ,3 ISl-2.44 1'I `t~kne i11 I a zdt-75:o 7.14 X Irnttwtiona aiieAing oatmti an 1 x rKx* k js (Acak42nt Ratswlll W kywLLF d--%f-rrt an 1ra.lr.161Af I J May 22. rCD7 - - ~ - . F;Lage 2-14 4J-Oct-07 J-U-B City of Spokane Valley - Capital Improvement Program Funding - Option 2 Problem Statement #3 29-Jun-07 Year 2007' 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 RESOURCES: BEG. BAL $ - $ 9.141.000 $ 6,492,000 $ 4,086,000 S 598,000 $(5,376,000) $ (9,827,000) ARTERIAL ST FND $ 882,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CAP PRJECTS-REET 1 $ 4,460,000 $ 1,100,000 3 1.100,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 SPEC. CAP PRJECTS-REET 2 $ 4,600,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 PARKS CAP. IMPRV. FUND $ 1,350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - INVESTMENT EARNINGS $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 100,000 $ 15,000 $ - $ - $ - SPOKANE COUNTY $ 1,600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ STATE - UNIV. PARK $ 800,000 PARKS GRANT $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - $ 50,000 $ - S - STORM WATER DRAINAGE $ 300,000 $ 300,000 5 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000. $ 300,000 $ 300,000 COUNTY STEP PROJ. - STORM DRN $ 70,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200.000 $ 200,000 GEN. FUND $ 410,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20.000 $ 20,000 TOTAL. RESOURCES $14,072,000 $12,811,000 $ 9,512,000 $ 6,621,000 $ 3,168,000 $(2,856,000) $ (7,307,000) EXPENDITURES: PARKS $ 3,550,000 $ 900,000 $ 500,000 $ 580.ODD $ 100,000 S 200,000 S 100,000 UNIVERSAL PARK $ 800,000 DEBT SERVICE PYMNTS $ 187.000 $ 185,000 $ 187,000 $ 184,000 $ 185,000 $ 186,000 S 186,000 CITY MATCH ON 6-YR TIP $ 810,000 STEP STORM DRAIN IMPROVMNTS $ 70,000 Included in rip ;ncluded in TIP inJuded in TIP Included in TIP Induded in -nP Included 41 TIP PINESIMANS & CORRIDOR #2 $ 14,000 2008-2013 Adopted TIP $ 3,149,000 $ 3,454,000 $ 3,974,000 $ 3,624,000 $ 1,950,000 S 3,628,000 Pavement Management - Option 2 $ 985,000 $ 985,000 $ 985,000 $ 4,335,000 $ 4,335,000 $ 4,335,000 STORM DRAIN IMPROV $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300.000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 4,931,000 $ 6,319,000 $ 6,426,000 $ 6,023,000 $ 8,544,000 $ 6,971,000 $ 8,549,000 CARRYOVER TO NEXT YEAR $ 9,141,000 $ 6,492,000 S 4.086,000 S 598,000 $ (6,378,000) $ (9,827,000) $ (16,856,000) Beg. Fund balance & 07 receipts Waiting for consultant's plan i1:;J-{=~7'~.r,cralnV.ets7en'BuAgof 0 Six Year C.IP Fnrijux; ;:urn 7110.1200'/340 P2A Page City of Spokane Valley - Capital Improvement Program Funding Problem Statement #3 29-Jun-07 Year 2007' 2008 2009 2010 j 20ii I 2012 I 2013 RESOURCES: BEG. BAL $ - $ 9,141,000 $ 7,477,000 $ 6,056,000 $ 3,553.000 $ 1,914,000 $ 1,798,00() ARTERIAL ST FND $ - 882,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CAP PRJECTS-REST 1 $ 4,460,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 S 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 SPEC. CAP PRJECTS-REET 2 $ 4,600,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 PARKS CAP. IMPRV. FUND $ 1,350,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - INVESTMENT EARNINGS $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 100,000 $ 15,000 $ - $ - S SPOKANE COUNTY $ 1,600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 5 STATE - UNIV. PARK $ 800,000 PARKS GRANT $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - $ 50,000 $ - > STORM WATER DRAINAGE $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 COUNTY STEP PROJ. - STORM DRN $ 70,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 GEN. FUND $ 410,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 S 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 TOTAL RESOURCES $14,072,000 $12,811,000 $10,497,000 $ 8,591,000 S 6,123,000 $ 4,434,000 $ 4,318,000 EXPENDITURES: PARKS S 3,550,000 $ 900,000 $ 500,000 S 580,000 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 100,000 UNIVERSAL PARK $ 800,000 DEBT SERVICE PYMNTS $ 187,000 $ 185.000 $ 187,000 $ 184,000 $ 185,000 $ 186,000 $ 186,000 CITY MATCH ON 6-YR TIP $ 810,000 STEP STORM DRAIN IMPROVMNTS $ 70,000 included :r 71P lnctudLd :n TIF Included in TIN rcwdei, it TTI Inc udad in I IP Indl ided in TIF PINE&MANS 8r CORRIDOR #2 $ 14,000 2008-2013 Adopted TIP $ 3,149,000 $ 3,454,000 $ 3,974,000 $ 3,624,000 $ 1,950,000 $ 3,628,000 STORM DRAIN IMPROV $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 S 300,000 $ 300,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 4,931,000 $ 5,334,000 $ 4,441,000 $ 5,038,000 $ 4,209,000 $ 2,636,000 $ 4,214,000 CARRYOVER TO NEXT YEAR $ 9,141,000 $ 7,477,000 $ 6,056,000 $ 3,553,000 $ 1,914,000 $ 1,798,000 $ 104,000 ' Beg. Fund balance & 07 receipts Waiting for consattanVs plan `J•I erslcr~~r~tenl8udpet :)©6.,x Year CIP Funning T-10-0, 7!70120 Phi E 1 2008 Restricted 6-Year Street Fund Plan Street Fund 6-Year Plan Based on Proected Revenues 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Salaries, Wages & Benefits $377 351 $407,539 $440.142 $475,354 $513,382 $554,452 Supplies $41,500 $44,820 $48,406 $52,278 $56,460 $60,977 Other Services and Charges $656,400 $708,912 $765,625 $826,875 $893.025 $964,467 Inter ovemmental Services Street Maintenance Services $2,621,645 $2,611,377 $2,820,287 $3,045,910 $3,289,582 $3,552,749 WSDOT Street Maint Services $378,000 $408,240 $440,899 $476,171 $514,265 $555,406 Capital Outlay $20,000 $21,600 $23,328 $25,194 $27,210 $29,387 Interfund Payment for Services $77,055 $83,219 $89,877 $97,067 $104,832 $113,219 1 ntergovem mental Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO Total Expenditure $4,171,951 $4,285,707 $4 628 5" 849 $5.398,767 $5,830,667 $0 Revenue $3,000,0001 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 Fund Balance* $3,773,628 $2,601,677 S915,970 ($1,112,594) ($3,611,442) ($6,510,199) ($9,840,856) '2007 Fund Balance 519101 2007-2012 Otter Services: Delete updating of street condition assessment and pavement management plan work 2007-2012 Street Maint: Assume $100,000 reduction with no service level impact and beginning in 2008 reduce snow removal $260,000 for priority IV residential streets 2009-2012 Street Malnt Reduce $220,000 in street repair Notes: 1 Revenue is at 0% increase per year 2. Expenditures are at 8% increase per year 71 1 012 0 0 7 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 16, 2007 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admrn report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Transportation Concurrency Issues GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: This is a general discussion of transportation concurrency issues related to new development. The following are two examples of concurrency issues: 1. The traffic from a proposed new development requires an existing intersection with stop signs to be upgraded to traffic signals. The Cost of the upgrade is $300,000 and the traffic contribution from the development is 10°x6 of the total traffic volume. 2. The traffic from a proposed new development near the intersection of Sprague and Sullivan causes the existing intersection to fail. The development traffic contribution is 5% of the intersection volume. The fix for the intersection is the extension of Appleway, which is a multi-million dollar project. Attached is a discussion of concurrency issues that can be applied to the examples above. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mike Connelly/Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS Transportation Concurrenc issues Washington state taw requires local jurisdictions to adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval If the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation Improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. These strategies may include increased public transportation service, ride sharing programs, demand management, and other transportation systems management strategies. For the purposes of this subsection (6) "concurrent with the development" means that Improvements or strategies are In place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment Is In place to complete the Improvements or strategies w;thin six years. See RDFW 36.70A.140 (6) (b). The City of Spokane Valley adopted specific LOS standards when it adopted the Comprehensive Plan In March of 2006. A copy of those standards is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The City has also adopted a concurrency ordinance as part of Its newly adopted uniform Development code. This code provision Is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The measure of service adopted by the City in the Comprehensive Plan is twofold. The first is Intersections. The Plan states: Intersection LOS is calculated using standard Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis procedures for the AM or PM peak hour, whichever Is worse. The second is Roadway segments. The Plan states: Roadway segments LOS will be based on allowable average daily traffic (ADT) on a roadway segment as a function of roadway characteristics. The allowable volumes will be developed following completion of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan concludes: SRTC Is tasked in the adopted countywide planning policies with establishing level of service standards for the regional street network. SRTC establishes travel time standards in the principle travel corridors. Table 3.2 Indicates the corridors within the City of Spokane Valley for which travel time LOS has been established. (See attached Exhibit A.) Regional level of service standards are set forth In chapter 4 Capital Facilities, table 4.1; Spokane Valley LOS standards are set forth in table 4.3; Signalized Intersections have a LOS of level D, unsignalized a LOS of level E. (See attached Exhibit A.) I ! tr_ C_ ty f 11 _,i,{-ik-.on(_ VIjIIC y/ I:pI t_l:l F'_'1Iti V h.: J fU than to, "maintain travel corridor time as established by the Spokane Regional Transportation Council." Washington courts have approved a number of different measures of transportation concurrency. Substantial discretion is provided to the local jurisdiction when determining how to measure service levels. (While a local jurisdiction has 'broad discretion" in determining what LOS standards should be established. See Sky Valley v. Snohomish County, CPSGMHB Case No. 9503-0068c (March 12, 1996.)and in establishing LOS standards. City of Bellevue v. East Bellevue Community Municipal Corporation 119 Wn. App. 405 (2003), the LOS should establish realistic expectations. If they are toc+ high they could result in no growth. "As a deliberate policy this would be contrary to the act." WAC 365-195-510(3) (b).) These Include measuring signalized intersections, all intersections, segments or using what Is know as the screen approach where a line drawn from the proposed developed must within ~7-7f d ri-', ~j ,,r_c, rrn,:s -It arterial that would not fall below the required LC Once concurrency is found to be lacking the first question is whaL you do next. Une option is to simply decrease the LOS and related goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Any amendments to the plan must be done at least on an annual basis and involved significant staff participation and public involvement. The amendments must be consistent with all the other goals and policies of the plan. The second question, If the LOS Is not changed, Is how to fund the improvemer' necessary to meet concurrency. Followlno - the Imposition of fees and or Improvem-fv 1. RCW 58.17.110 which states in parr Dedication of land to any public body, provision of public improvements the subdivision, and /or impacts fees Imposed under RCW 82.02.050 througll 82.02.090 may be required as a condition of subdivision approval. Dedication' shall be dearly shown on the final plat. No dedication, provision of public improvements, or Impact fees shall be allowed that constitute an unconstitutic taking of private property. Similar authority to Impose conditions for Improver 58.17.060), or binding site plans (RCW 58.17.035) 2. RCW 43.21C which allows mitigation of identifleti 3. Conditions Imposed pursuant to a Voluntary Developer Agreement pursuant to RCW 82.02.020 to mitigate a direct Impact that has been Identified as a consequence of the proposed development subdivision or plat. 4. Impact fees allowed pursuant to RCW 82.02.050-090. 5. General common law authority to ensure that costs of improvements should be bome by persons who created the necessity for the Improvement. See Geria v. City of Tacoma 12 Wn. App. 883 (1975), State ex rel. Myre v. City of Spokane, 70 Wn. 2d 207 (1967). 6. Fees Imposed pursuant to the creation of a Transportation Benefit District, RCW 36.73, or the Local Transportation Act RCW 39.92. The difficulty arises when the Improvement needed Is disproportionate to the size of the development or not sufficiently related to the Impacts generated by that development. It is still necessary to make the improvement to meet the requirements of concurrency but there Is no developer to pay the total cost of the Improvement. This problem is compounded when the Improvement is located In an area where there likely will not be sufficient "related" development to justify the necessary Improvement In the foreseeable future. This circumstance Is one which the City has faced in the last year and anticipates facing more often in the future. The City In many circumstances will either have to begin denying development requests or paying for the improvements itself. In order to establish and Impose Impact fees to provide some funds for the needed Improvement a number of steps must be taken. Impacts can not be used to pay for existing deficiencies in the transportation system. 1. It Is recommended that a work team of elected officials, attorneys, planners, administrators and consultants be formed to draft, revise and finalize the impact fee ordinance as well as participate and manage the public process. Stakeholders should be involved in the process as soon as possible. 2. Establish a baseline of existing demand and deficiencies based upon LOS standards. 2. Determine the future level of demand that will be placed upon the transportation system by new development. The city can be reviewed as a single unit or divided Into specific districts with unique needs and problems. 3. Determine the design and development of the transportation system necessary to meet that demand. 4. Determine the costs of construction of that system. 5. Establish accurate fees that reflect the level of demand and construction costs. 6. Apportion the costs of transportation Improvements among residential, commercial and Industrial developments. Some jurisdictions make this division by measuring peak hour trips generated by the proposal and charge per peak hour trip. 7. Adopt an impact fee ordinance that conforms to the requirements of RCW 82.02.060 after conducting the necessary stakeholder, planning commission and council hearings and meetings. Attached as Exhibit C is the impact fees ordinance being considered by the City of Spokane. :3.2.6 Roadway Concurrency Level of service (LOS) is a quantitative standard for the operating characterl5ucti of the transportation system. The definitions for each level of service and methodologies for calculating LOS are contained in the Transportation Research Board Special Report 209, Highway Capacity Manual (2000). The GMA requires LOS standards for all arterials and transit routes and also requires that the standards be coordinated regionally. GMA does not define the procedure for measuring LOS. Many communities rely upon Highway Capacity Manual procedures, measuring LOS in terms of vehicle delay at intersections This methodology does not account for the IriF ~..r Levels of Service for Roadways are defined uelovw LaYel of service Flow Chisinklei ts6m A -a; Free now operations at average travel speeds. usually about 9096 of the free flow speed for the arterial class. vehicles are completely unimpeded In their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Stopped delay at signalized intesedions is minimal. B Reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds usually about 70% of the free flow speed for the arterial doss. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are riot subjected to appreciable tension. C Stable operations. The ability to change lanes and maneuver In mid-block locations may be more reW ad than in LOS B. and Ionger queues and/or adverse signal coordination may contribute to lower average travel speeds of about 50% of the average free flow for the arterial dass. Motorists wHl experience appreciable tension while driving. D Small Increases In flaw may cause substantial imeasas in approach delay and decreases in artenat speed. This may be due to adverse signal progression, Inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or some combination of thiines_ Average travel tines are about 40% of free now speeds. E characterized by significant approach delays and average travel speeds of one third the free flow speed or lower, cause by adverse signal progression, high signal density, e4ensive queuing at critical intersections and Inappropriate signal timing or some combination of these. F Arterial flow at extremely low speeds below one third to one quarter of free flow speed- Intemection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with high approach delays resuming. Adverse progression is frequently a contributor to this conddior. Many of the roadways in Spokane Valley were built as rural facilities. Some have been improved using rural road design standards to carry higher traffic volumes, but are not supportive of the character and desires of an urban community Therefore, the City will pursue a two-tiered LOS standar • Intersections. Intersection LOS is calculated - Capacity Manual (H r' ".j ; r whichever is worse • Roadway Segments average daily traffic (AOT) on a roadway segment as a function c roadway characteristics. The allowable volumes will be develor- i following completion of the Comprehensive Plan. SRTC is tasked in the adopted countywide planning policies with establisi level of service standards for the regional street network. SRTC establishe EXHIBIT A travel time standards in the principal travel corridors. Table 3.2 indicates the corridors within the City of Spokane Valley for which travel time LOS has been established. Table 32 SRTC Congestion ManaQwnMt Syatsm travel Times 199/ i TModd2 2020 Roadway AVI From To Average SO NB fm M Sullivan Havana 745 8.41 I-90 Hnvwm Sullivan 8:03 10.46 Argonne0sh ma Nice Sprague 1-90 2:23 2:13 1-90 Upriver Dr Sse 6:34 9Aven Argonne Pw 6:37 Sprague Avenue Argonne Su*vsn &46 7110 Un6ws4 Road Sprague 32nd Ave 3:34 3:46 Sprague 1-90 2:41 223 Pines Road 1-90 SR 290 21D 3:11 Sullivan Road Sprague 1-90 2.03 1.40 1.90 SR 290 4.12 425 Upriver Drive Frederick Sullivan 1246 12:17 Souroe_ Spokane Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan, November 1999. Updated 2002. The Washington State Transportation Commission sets the level of service standards for highways of statewide significance. The Commission coordinates with SRTC to establish level of service standards for state routes not on the highways of statewide significance system. Table 3.3 Roadways Exceeding 80% of Capacity 2025 Roadway From To C~d VIC Rato 1.90 Sullivan Barker Freeway 0.83 1-90 Havana Camahan Freeway 0.84 1-90 Sprague Argonne Freeway 0,64 l90 Broadway Argonne Freeway 0.84 SR 27 Urban Boundary 32nd Ave collector 0.97 Writer Road Sprague 4th Ave Mkw Arterial 0.99 Source: SRTC 2025 Forecast 1112004 The speck levels of service and resulting capital facilities plans are included in the Capital Facilities Element of this plan. Please refer to the Capital Facilities Element for a more detailed discussion of level of service, concurrency and the city's transportation facilities plan. SR-TG has identified roadway segments exp -cted to e),ceed 81)",", of volume/capacity ratio by 2025 (Table 3.3). Planning, _ be considered when traffic volumes reach this leve The SRTC Metropolitan Trensportalion Plan note impede the flow of traffic, even when sufficient capacity is otherwise ava. Table 3.4 shows intersections expected to exce-ed W,'> nf cinac+ty by 7)0'?5 TaMe 3.4 20251rriarsecUon Deficiencies E ling 90% of capacity Roadway Cross Street Functional Class Vic Ratio 190 Sprague Egwasawray 0.91 t-90 Argonne EB On-ramp 1.01 1.90 Pales EB On-ramp 092 1-90 Pines ES Off-ramp 096 1-90 Evergreen EB On-tamp 096 - h {-90 Sullivan ES Off-ramp 091 'I Sprague University Principal 0.91 I Barker Sprague Minor Arterial 104 SR 27 Balls Terse Collector 1-22 Appleway Park Principal Arterial 0.96 APp**y Thietman Principal Arte7rial 1 01 FAClLRY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDAkU (LU51 Domestic Water Supply - Minimum L eels of Service fa storage capacity and flow shall be consistent with the Washington State Department of Health requirements and the Spokane County Coordinated Water System Plan requirements (wham opplkable). System Design - Minimum Levels of Service for pipe sizing. flow rate, and systematic gnd Domessbc Water development shat be consistent with the Washington State Department of Health requirement!. and the Coordinated Water System Plan requirements (where applicable). Fire Flow - Fire flow rate and duraWn as well as fro hydrant specifications and spacing shall be consistent with local fire authority requirements or the Fire Code. which ever is more stringent Incorporated areas will be provided with wastewater collection and transport systems scoordance with the adopted sewer concurrency requirements of the jurisdr'dion_ Unlnoorporaleu, urban growth areas will be provided with wastewater colledion and transport systems 0. Sanitary Sewer arxordanoe with the requirements for sewer concurrenay as sat forth in Spokane County',. Development Regulations Collodion systems and transport systems will be designed for peak flow conditions so that overflows, backups, And discharges from the s~5tem do not occur under EXHIBIT A FACILRY LEVEL OF SERVICE STAMMO LOS Washington State DepaMient of Ecology and local regulations- Wastewater coilacb m and transport systems will convey waslewaler to centralized wastewater treatment facilities. Centralized der treatment and effluent disposal fao'ilbes will be planned. designed, and constructed to provide eftlueM that does not adversely impact the quality of surface of ground water of the State of Washington Planning and design for wastewater treatment and effluent disposal facilities will be based on 20 year projections of population growth and current wale( quality criteria as established by the Washington State Departrmenl of Ecology. (Ce ntragred wasbwabr treabnenf faa'flias sins( be a pert of a sewage syalem ownod or Operated by a cHy, town, mWV00 f oorpamoM comfy, poocd subdYvision of the state or odw approved owrwahip consisting of a collection syslain and necessary f r nits. pumping faofflUes and means Of final treatrment and dfgxmW and alpprvNed or order pemsff from the Wnhaigfon State Deprertrnent Of Transportation Maintain travel condor time as established by Spoitione tonal TrarepoMoIgg Council. Flooding of properly outside deagnated drainage-ways, de4SCtO drain8gs1ways, aasemeMS, NOW zones or other approved drainage families, during the design precipitation or rurroR event prescribed In the standards of the governing local agency or Jurisdiction, shall be prevented within the reasonable probability afforded by such standards. knpad to buildings and aooesaory Stormwater stnucbusa shag be avoided to the max6mum rodent practicable by eva4uating the a Elects of a 100- year rain event, and Implementing messurea to ensure that the runoff attendant to such event is directed away from such buildings and accessory structures. Any slorrrwater discharge to surfax or ground waters must meet federal. state and local rsqutrerner" for water quality tmsbmnl. stonmwater runoff and infWatbn_ Law Enforcement Each Jurisdiction shag specify in its Comprehensive Plan a level of POIcs protection that SIMMONS* the safety of is citizens. Libraries Each 'urisdiction specify Its over level of service- Parks Each Jurisdiction wdl specify its own level of Service Solid waste processing will meet Federal and State regulations. including maintaining any required Solid Waste Iscilkies _ Each Jurisdiction within the non-attainment area ahall develop and use a street clawing plan, coordinating with Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authodty (SCAPCA) as the Oversight agency, to meet mandated Particulate Matter dust standards. Each jurisdiction's street edam ng plan will describe the programs and methods to be used to reduce partiwWs (natter emissions from paved surfaces. Each plan shag address but not be limited to the following' 1) Street Sleet Clearing sweeping frequency and technology to be employed.. 2) Factors for determining when and where to initiate street sweeping following a sanding event. with the goals of expeditious removal when safety and mobility requirements have been satisfied. 3) Sanding reduction goat. 4) Sanding materials specifications to be employed. 5) Nations. appficstion roles and circumstances for use of chemical da4cers and other sanding alternatives. S) Identificstion of pftq roadways (over 15,000 average daily traffic count). Public Transit Jurisdictions within the Public Transit Beneitl Area (PTBA) shag have policies oGMW4ent with the level of service adopled by the Spolusne Transit Authority Board of Directors Urban areas jurisdictions in excess of 5.000 population. or once a population of 5.000 persona is achieved, shag be served by Fire District with at least a (Washhmgton Survey end RBdV Buueau of lna range Services Office) Class 8 Insurance tinting or better. For the purposes of GIM minimum Levels of Service, Class ti or hatter shag be based on the ISO Grading Schedule for municipal firs protection, 1874 edition, as amended. by using the tiro district, fire service cormnunicatlon, and fire Fee and Emergency safety control portions of the grading schedule. The total deficiency points Identified in these Services portions of the ISO or Washington Survey and Rating Bureau schedule shall not exceed 1,830 points. AN Jurisdictions. regardless of size, shag ensure that new development has a File, Flow and hydrant placement per the International Fire Code adopted by that Jurisdiction- Urban arses must be wgMn 5 road miles of an operating firs station that provides senvioe with a 'Class K pumper, unless structures are equipped with fire sprinkier(s) that we rated In accordance with the edition of the tntematkmnai Fire Code adopted by the jurisdiction. and is located within 5 road miles of an EXHIBIT A FACILITY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD operating fire station #%at Provides service with a Class 'A' rated pumper Urban areas shall be served by a state cert7red basic life support (BI.S) agency. Urban areas should be served by an operating basic rite saving unit within 5 miles; and an operating advanced fife support unit within 6 miles or 10 minutes response lhne for those jurisdictions with urban areas In excess of 5,000 In population, and basic life support and advanced We support service- Public Schools To be determined b individual school doted CFP EXHIBIT B Title 22 Design and Development Standards 22.10 Authority 22.10.010 Purpose The following design and development standards are established pursuant to RCW 58.17, 35.A11.020, 35A.14.140, 36.70A (The Growth Management Act) and WAC Sections 365-195- 800 - 865 as well as provisions of SVMC Titles 17-25. 22.20 Concurrency 22.20.010 Concurrency Determination 1. The following facilities and services must be evaluated for concurrency a. Transportation b. Public Water c. Public Sewer 2. The City may also consider concurrency issues for the following facilities and service: a. Parks and Recreation b. Libraries c. Solid Waste Disposal d. Fire Protection e. Police Protection f. Schools 3. The review authority shall be the Director or the Director's designee. 22.20.020 Concurrency Review 1. All project permits/project applications except for those exempt as set forth in subsection (3) below, shall be subject to Concurrency review at the time an application is submitted. Concurrency shall be determined by evaluating the anticipated impact of the application against the Level of Service (LOS) set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. A Certificate of Concurrency issued by the Reviewing Authority shall be required prior to approval of any non-exempt application. 2. A finding of Concurrency requires that adequate facilities are available when the service demands of development occur, or in the case of transportation "concurrent with development' shall mean that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six (6) years. The cumulative impact of development should be considered when making this determination. 3. The following shall be exempt from Concurrency review: a. Project permits that were issued, or project applications that were determined to be complete (see RCW 36.7013) prior to the effective date of these Concurrency regulations. b. The first renewal of a previously issued, unexpired project permit, provided that substantial progress has been made as determined by the appropriate review authority. c. Any project permit that will have transportation impacts of less than ten (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. EXHIBIT B d. The following project permit actions: i. Boundary line adjustments; ii. Final subdivisions/Final PRD's/Final Short Plats/Final Binding Site i Plans; iii. Temporary Use Permit; iv. Variances. e. Proposed project permitstproject applications that do not create additional impacts on transportation facilities. Such projects may include but are not limited to: i. Any addition or accessory structure to a residence with no change or increase in the number of dwelling units over four (4) units; ii. Interior renovations with no change in use or increase in number of dwelling units over four (4) units; iii. Any addition, remodel, or interior completion of a structure for use(s) with the same or less intensity as the existing use or previously approved use. 22.20.030 Pre-Application Determinations Any person may inquire about the availability of capacity prior to project permit applications but responses to such inquiries are advisory only and available capacity can only be reserved by obtaining a concurrency certificate as set forth in this ordinance. 22.20.040 Application Procedures 1. Applications for concurrency review shall be submitted on forms provided by the City. a. Concurrency review shall be performed for the specific property, uses, densities and intensities, and traffic distribution information provided by the applicant/property owner and shall include any project phasing proposed by the applicant. b. The City may request additional information in order to make a .determination. C. All applications shall be circulated for comment to the appropriate departments or agencies. d. The project permit may be conditioned to assure adequate facilities are available to meet the demand generated by the project. If the project is approved, a concurrency certificate shall be issued. to the property owner, his heirs and assigns. e. If adequate facilities cannot be made available to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS), the project application shall be denied. f. The Concurrency Certificate shall automatically be voided if the project permit has been withdrawn, expires, or is otherwise cancelled. 2. Concurrency Certificate: a Shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities and project described in the application and project permit; b Is not transferable to other property, but may be transferred to new owners of the same property; c. Shall remain valid so long as the accompanying project permit has not expired or been revoked; EXHIBIT B d. Is valid for any modification of the permits for which the certificate was issued so long as such modification does not require the applicant to obtain a new project permit; and e. Shall only be issued upon payment of any concurrency fee due. 3. Any capacity that is not used because the full extent of the development is not built _ shall be considered available capacity. 4. Concurrency Certificate Fees. Fees for issuing concurrency certificates shall be based on the adopted fee schedule. 22.20.050 Relation to Other Requirements Compliance with or exemption from the requirements of these regulations shall not exempt a project from compliance with all other County, State, and Federal regulations. 22.20.060 Phased Development When a project is proposed in phases or construction is expected to extend over some period of time, the Applicant/Property Owner may offer a schedule of occupancy that will be used to determine the schedule of improvements that must be completed, or financially guaranteed, prior to occupancy of each phase. However, the required improvements shall be determined by analyzing the impacts estimated to be generated by the fully completed project. 22.20.070 Conflicts Between Provisions This ordinance shall apply as an overlay and in addition to other adopted plans, ordinances and regulations affecting lands in the City. In the event of any conflict between this code and other plans, ordinances and regulations, the provisions of this code shall prevail. In the event of any conflict between this code and any development agreement which has been executed under RCW 36.708.170, prior to the effective date of this code, the development agreement or provisions therein shall govern and prevail during the term of the agreement. 22.20.080 Transportation Concurrency - Additional Considerations 1. Highway Capacity Manual methods selected by the City shall be used to analyze project impacts to intersections. 2. Level of service information in the Capital Facilities Plan shall be used as a starting reference to analyze project impacts. 3. Level of service information shall be updated as necessary to account for traffic levels resulting from the following: a. Traffic from newly constructed projects; b. Projects for which traffic impacts have been tentatively reserved; and c. Projects for which a Concurrency Certificate has been awarded; and, d. Non-project, general background traffic increases. 4. Level of service information shall also be updated as necessary as a result of any discontinued concurrency certificates, funded road projects or new level of service analysis. 5. Each intersection affected by proposed projects shall be reviewed and analyzed for concurrency. The applicant/property owner may be required to provide a traffic impact analysis if existing information does not provide adequate information for the concurrency assessment. The scope of any necessary traffic analysis shall include any intersection where the proposal contributes more than twenty (20) peak hour trips. 6. Specific provisions related to the Sprague/Appleway Sub-Area Corridor Study (Reserved) EXHIBIT B 22.20.090 Water and Sewer Concurrency Additional Considerations 1 _ Local water purveyors must certify to the availability of water capacity and pressure to serve new development, subject to such security as the individual purveyor may require. 2. Spokane County must certify to the availability of adequate sewer collection and treatment capacity: a. At the time of completion/occupancy; or b. Be located within the Spokane County six-year (6) sewer capital improvement program, as adopted. 3. New development located within a six-year (6) sewer capital improvement program area may install septic systems on an interim basis until such time as sewer service is available. All new development shall install dry line sewers and double plumbing if the new development will rely on an interim septic tank/drain field system rather than being connected to a live sewer. Once sewer service is available, the development shall be required to immediately connect to the County's sewer system. DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of October 10, 2007; 11:45 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings October 23, 2007, Regular Meeting, 6:00 p.m. [due date Monday, Oct 151 1. Consent Agenda: Payroll, Claims, Minutes [5 minutes] 2. 2rd Reading Proposed Ordinance 07-018 Adopting Budget [10 minutes] 3.2°d Reading Proposed Ordinance 07-019 Levying Property Tax- Ken Thompson [10 minutes] 4. 2`1 Reading Proposed Ordinance 07-020 Confirming Excess Property Tax - Kea Thompson [10 minutes] 5.2"d Reading Proposed Ordinance 07-021 Appleway Auto Group- Greg McCormick/Mike B [15 minutes] 6 1' Reading Proposed Ordinance 07-022 Sunshine Disposal Franchise - Cary Driskell [10 minutes] 7. Isr Reading Proposed Ordinance 07-023 Waste Management Franchise - Cary Driskell 170 minutes] 8. Proposed Fee Resolution 07-017 - Ken Thompson [10 minutes] 9 Motion Consideration CDBG Project-List- Greg McCormick U10 minutes] 1I 0 M iofi Ui sWeration Sctt~nt~y p c~IS.= evmg l ondero$a Ietates;,Nocti , M ke Connelly, r J`[1.(~ nnnptcs 11. Motion Consideration: Shelley Lake Development Agreement - Mike Connelly [10 minutes] 12. Admin Report: Street Vacation STV 04-07 - Karen Kendall [ I O.minutes] 13. Admin .Report: Legislative Matters - Dave Mercier [ 15 minutes] 14. Information Only: (a) Department Reports, (b) City Hall Facilities Planning Executive Session: Land Acquisition [estimated meeting: 130 minutes] .OO.c u.be 0 O.O7 . O 1+1E ^ff R. G.,: rots *iI a,ten. 310 ~ .cr,na, 3s'I1oa1'il . al fee. in 7 8: U ni (Zd c i. o n :3 }~.m. nw rsi~t I iii Friday, November 2,2007: Employee Appreciation Dinner (CenterPlaee) November 6, 2007 - no meeting (election night) :Wine iesday, November 7, 2007 Special Meeting, 6:00 p.m. [due date Monday, Oct 291 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 3" Amendment to 2007 Budget - Ken Thompson [10 mi.nutesl 2. Consent Agenda: Payroll, Claims, Minutes [5 minutes] 3. 2d Reading Proposed Ordinance 07-022 Sunshine Disposal Franchise - Gary Driskell [I5 minutes) 4. 21°d Reading Proposed Ordinance 07-023 Waste Management Franchise - Cary Driskell [15 minutes'] 5. 1 ' Reading Proposed Ordinance for Street Vacation STV 04-07 - Karen Kendall [10 minutes] 6. 1 ' Reading Proposed Ordinance for 3'd Amendment to 2007 Budget - Ken Thompson [5 minutes] 7. Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Grant Allocations - Deputy Mayor Taylor [10 minutes) 8. Admin Report: Aviation Ordinance Discussion -Mike Connelly [15 minutes] 9. Admin Report: Panhandling- Erik Lamb [15 minutes] 10..1do Only: Paperless Agendas - Chris Bainbridge/Bing [15 minutes) 11. Admin Report: Billboard Lease-Cary Driskell [15 minutes] 12. Admin Report: Fiber Optics - Cary Driskell [15 minutes] [estimated meeting: 145 minutcsl November 13, 2007 - no meeting (NLC Conference) J iovem6cr 20 -~(i C lzp:a 51 pee aaont'"N[eetin ICounctl and Ylsrinin~ Conini~ SS o, n Michael Freedman Presentation: Topic: Sprague/Appleway Sub-area Plan Draft Advance Agenda 10/10/2007 11:45:31 AM Page I of 3 overnher 27, 2007 - Special Meeting, 6:00 p.m. [due date ~1~''1<nri'day Nov 191 1. Consent Agenda. Payroll, Claims, Minutes r [5 minutes] 2. Cable Franchise - Cary Driskel1 [20 mintites] ` 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Street Vacation Sw 04-07 - Karen Kendall [10 minutes] 4. Admin Report. City `s 5Lh Year Anniversary Carol bellc Rraneb [15 minutes] 5. Admin Report- Sidewalks (ADA)- Mike Connelly [15 minutes] 6. Admin Report: City Hall Facilities Planning - Neil Kersten [15 minutes] 7. Admin Report: Fiber Optics - Cary Oriskel1 [15 minutes] [estimated meeting; 95 minutes] December 4, 2007 Study Session, 6:00 V.m. [due date .Monday, Nov 26] 1. Ccamprehensivc Plan AMMdtncnt - Greg Mc ormick (20 minutes) 2. Tourism Promotion Area Funding Model, Presentation (20 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Ass;timption oFPrivate Road Policy Discussion -Neil . erstenf.Dave Mercier (20 minutes) 4. Mission Street Senior Center Update- Mike Jackson (20 minutes) TOTAL MINUTES: 80 minutes 1leeember 111, 2007, Regular Migeting, 6-M) p.m. [due dale Monday, Dec 3J 1. Consent Agenda. Payroll, Claims, Minutes [5 mitlutes] 2. Sccond Rr;,ading Proposed Orditnattcc for 36 Amiendrn"t to 2007 Budget - Ken Thompson [5 111inutes] 3 Motion Consideration Tourism Promotion Area PundiU Model _ [15 minutes] [estimated rnecting: 40 minutes] J}ecomher 18, 2007, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [d ue date Monday, Dec 110! 1 _ Councl I Committee Appointments (30 minutes) 2. Swearing in of Councilmembers (20 minutes) 3_ Admin Report- City Hall Facilities Planning-Neil T erswn (15 Minutes) 4. Ad rain Deport; Paperless Agendas - Chris Bainbridge/Bing (20 minutes) TOTAL MINUTES 85 minutes 1)eeember 25 - Christmas Week-- no meeting Januory 1, 2008 - ffOLIDA1'_-_no rnectin Januau 8, 2008,,R eanlar Meefing [due date Monday, Dcc 31] Election of Council officers Saturday.fanuary 12,200$: Council/Staff Winter Retreat OTHER PENDWG AND/OR UPC QKhNQ j, SUE, SWE ETING - Animal Control Ordinance - Cary Driskoll Department Accomplishment Report (January) "Hot Tones" (telecommunications infiragtruCture) Clearpath Connact Governance Manual {hearing/comment pracess, etc.) Public. Record Training NE Housing Solutions City Mcrobership [Craditi Ordinance U DC RCvisitm;= 13inding Site PlanslAviatiun Tone R.egs lvlirabeau Parkway Speed Urnits Accident Statistics Along Bro adway (April 2D08) Overweight vehicle ordinauce CT Update (Spring, 2008) Adoption Street NlasterPlan Sprague App Icway Re vitaliratiOn PI In --Scott uhta Approval .Pinnf ansfield Contract Award-Stove Worley estimated; does not include time for public comments.] Traffic Model Review Work Porce Uvelnpmen~ In-Service.l]efini#.ious Central Valley School District Impact Fee Request Sewer Collection Systems -Nlei1 Korston Drvft Advance Agenda 1011012007 11 -45 -31 Aft Page 2 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY r^ Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 16. 2007 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Shelley Lake 5th Addition Developer Agreement GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 82.02.020 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: This agreement is entered into by the Parties pursuant to RCW 82.02.020 to mitigate a direct impact as required as part of the approval process for the final plat pursuant to the Staff Report and Notice of Decision dated the 29`x' day of December, 2005 for necessary improvements at the intersection of Sprague Avenue and Conklin Road. OPTIONS: Information only. Staff direction, if any. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Shelley Lake 5th Addition Developer Agreement will be presented in the future for motion to approve/disapprove. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Significant contributions to signal construction STAFF CONTACT: Mike Connelly ATTACHMENTS: Voluntary Mitigation Agreement After Recording, return document to City of Spokane Valley Attn: City Clerk 11707 l Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 VOLUNTARY MITIGATION AGREEMENT SHELLEY LAKE 5t° ADDITION SU*K-08-05 REZ-09-05 This Mitigation Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into by and between Shelley Lake Residential Development, LLC ("Developer"), a Washington Limited Liability Company, and the City of Spokane Valley ("City"), a political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter jointly referred to as "Parties." RECITALS 1. This agreement is entered into by the Parties pursuant to RCW 82.02.020 to mitigate a direct impact identified as a consequence of the development of the property. 2. The Developer is the owneddeveloper of certain real property of approximately 46.48 acres and generally located east of and adjacent to Rotchford Drive; and is situated in Section 24, 'T'ownship 25 North, Range 44 E, WM, in Spokane County, Washington. Sdid property is more specifically described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 3. The Developer has received approval of the preliminary subdivision and rezone identified as ST.I13-08- 05 REZ-09-05, a residential development which will create fifty nine (59) residential lots and four common open space tracts. Traffic mitigation has been required as part of the approval process for the final plat pursuant to the Staff Report and Notice of Decision dated the 29'' day of December, 2005. The Notice of Decision contains the following conditions of approval: SPOKANE VALLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 14. The approval for certain rezones and developments on properties owned by the applicant, Robert Heitman, Jr., were conditioned on the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Sprague Avenue and Conklin Road at the time traffic warrants are met. The applicant shall contribute 40% of the cost to construct the signal, minus a $1,000 offset for conduit previously installed for the signal by the applicant. Such contribution shall be deemed to satisfy the conditions of approval for the Shelley Lake Development, including the Shelley Lake final plats, the current preliminary plat and multi-family uses planned in such development; as well as commercial uses on the properties rezoned in file Nos. ZE-29- 96 and ZE-68-96. 15. The applicant and the City of Spokane Valley have agreed to the details of the contribution by the applicant and transportation coneurrency for the projects described above; and have agreed to execute a developer agreement that specifies payment of the applicant's 40% contribution prior to finalization of the current preliminary plat, the issuance of a building permit for the multi-family property, or the issuance of a building permit for the zone change properties, whichever event comes first. The developer's agreement shall provide for the posting of a performance bond at such time as warrants are met 4. The Parties are desirous of entering into an Agreement which provides for the payment of a proportionate share of improvements deemed necessary at the intersection of Sprague Ave. and Conklin Road which are a direct result of traffic impacts associated with the Development. 5. The Developer's contribution to the traffic signal shall be $99,000 based the developer's forty percent (40%) contribution to the signal, minus a $1,000 offset for the conduit previously installed for the traffic signal.`t'he City estimates the cost of the traffic signal at $250,000. AGREEMENT NOW, THERUORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions hereafter set forth, the Developer and the City hereto agree as follows: 1. Voluntarv A ureement. This Agreement, including all attached documents, is a voluntary agreement as that term is used in R.CW 82.02.020. The contribution offered is proportional to the traffic related impacts generated by the Development. The parties acknowledge that die project is reasonably necessary to mitigate the direct traffic impact of the Development. In the event this mitigation agreement is breached by the Developer, all of the City's obligations under this agreement shall terminate. In the event this mitigation agreement is determined by a court to be invalid, the City shall refund the unexpended portion of the contribution, and the City's obligations under this agreement shall terminate. 2. Project. The project shall consist of the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Sprague Avenue and Conklin Road. The mitigation fee is based upon the cost of the traffic signal. 3. Contribution. The Developer shall pay $99,000, which has been determined to be the Developer's proportionate contribution to the Project for mitigation of future traffic impacts related to the i Development. This traffic mitigation fee shall be used for the design and/or construction of the improvements to this intersection. 4. Payment The Developer agrees to pay all of the above identified mitigation fee at such time as traffic signal warrants, as defined by the Manual on Uniform "Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), at the intersection of Sprague Ave. and Conklin Road are met. The City Traffic engineer shall determine when signal warrants are met. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days after receiving notice from the City. If payment is not timely received, the City may immediately access the funds secured by the letter of credit described below. A letter of credit, which gives the City a unilateral right to access the funds pursuant to this agreement from a financial institution, shall be provided to the City upon execution of this agreement and prior to acceptance of this agreement by the City. 5. Compliance with RCW 82.02.020. Payment collected by the City will be held in a mitigation fee reserve account and may only be expended to fund the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the Project. Payments shall be expended within five (5) years of collection. The City shall be entitled to reimbursement from the mitigation fee reserve account for any funds it may expend for the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the Project prior to the collection of the fee. Any funds in the mitigation fee reserve account not expended within five (5) years shall be refunded by the City with interest as provided in RCW 82.02.020. 6. Notice: All communications, notices or demands of any kind which a party under this Agreement is required or desires to give to any other party shall be in writing and be either (1) delivered personally, (2) sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first class, or (3) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt requested and addressed as follows: 1 If to the City: City of Spokane Valley 11707 F. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Fax: (509) 921-1008 Attn: City Manager If to the Developer: Shelley Lake Residential Development LLC 8225 N. Division Spokane, WA 99208 7. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the successors and the assigns of the Parties. 8. Covernine Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any action for enforcement of this Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in Spokane County, Washington or as otherwise provided by statute. 9. Modifications. No modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be valid until the same is reduced to writing and executed with the same formalities as the present Agreement. 10. Waiver. No officer, employee, agent or otherwise of the City has the power, right or authority to waive any of the conditions or provisions to this Agreement. No waiver or any breach of this Agreement shall be held to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach. 11. Representation. This Agreement forms a frilly integrated agreement between the Parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the Parties hereto. All Parties have read and understand all of the Agreement, and now state that no representation, promise or agreement not expressed in the Agreement has been made to induce any Party to execute the same. % 12. Authority. Both Parties to this Agreement represent and certify that they have full authority and power to enter into and carry out this Agreement. The persons signing this Agreement represent that they have authority to act for and bind their respective principals. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement this day of 2007. DEVELOPER: By: Its: Name: STATE. OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of Spokane ) On this day of 2007 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared to me known to be the of die corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, i and acknowledged the instrument to be the G-ee and voluntary act and deed of the corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate above written. NOTARY PUBIC, in and for the Stake of Washington, residing at My commission expires: Printed Name CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: ATTEST: David Mercier, City Manager Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney