The URL can be used to link to this page

2008, 02-05 Study Session . j r - i, ~ a Y AMENDFD AGEhDA CI'I'1' OF tiPOKANF. VALLF1i' CITY COUNCIL w'ORKSHF.FT STIIUY SESSION Tuesday, February 5, 2008 6:00 p.m. G1TY IIALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor (Nlease Silence Your Ccll Phones Uuriog the Neeting) DISCUS510N LEADER SUf3JECT/ACTIVITY GOAL ,1 e►► I:inplnVee hrtrodirclic» ts,- ,1 flke Jackson introducing Tunrnrv .tilessi►ig, NR Teclinicrcn; Steve bf'orlev rtrlruducing Craig A!d►s,nrtir, Engineer; Ken Thompson intrnducrng Terrrna jVfarchanl, ACC(IL(ItICIIJ('I31![Igil ,4/ic/Il'SI, :Wrke Cnnne!!v introducirrg Diana Powel! I.egul Inlern 1. Glenn Miles/Tveil Kersten 2007 Travel Dcmand Madel Update Discussiun~'Inforrnation (30 minutes) Rick VanLeuven (GU minutcs) C'ummunications interoperability Presentation;`Intormation 1. %4ikc lacksonlSteve W'orley Contractor Sclcction Outdoor I'ools Discussicm;`Inf'orrnation ( 10 minutes) 4. Mike Connelly (15 minutes) Juint Planning Area Discussion?Inti)rrnatian 4a. Neil KerstenlKen Thompson Snow Plowing and Budget t~,_~ Discussion/Information 5. Mayor Munson ;1dvancc Agcnda Uiscussiunilnformatiim 6. lnformation Onlv: a. Economic Development Dialogue - Mavor Munson b. Spokane Count,, Librarv Dislrict 2007 d'h Quarter ReE)ort c. Strccl ,1cceptance - hlike Connell}' d. Letters of Support - Mayor Munson 7. %9ayor Munson Council Chcck in C)isc'.ls~ion lnf~~rrnati(-)n 8. Davc h1crcicr Cit\ hlanas;er Commcnts I)iticus~icm!7nfc?rniation Q. Executivc Session: Land Acquisition AD.inli RN .\'ore: L nless utherwise nuted abuve, there will he no public comments at Council Study Sessions. However, Council rlways reserres the righl to requcct information from the public and staff as appropriate. Durinx meetings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council, the Council rescrves thc right to GWkr "aclion" un an\ item listed or cuhsequenth added to the agenda. The tenn "action" mcans to deliheratc. .li;cttsl%. rr% irt%, cott,iLlrr, r%alu;i1c, ur m;dre a cullc.tivc po~i[i\ c or ncLIatk c dc.ision. 1lll'E`. Individuali `lanning to x?rnd the mretm_r. «hr reyu:re %Prcr+l as.itiWn,e lPaccurnmod:ric PhN,ical, henrin~. or ntlirr impairment., plcatic ;nnl:l,t ~ thr Co-% l'lerk at Iiil+;i 4N- 1i?liil .i; as pns.ihl: ;n that arranccmcnts ma% hc madc i ti!uih :Ie,sn,n ,'1_enda. Fehtu:u\ j, _'!)l?ti Spokane va11ey~ 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206-6124 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.688.0194 MEMO To: city councii From: Mayor Rich Munson Re: Attached Conespandence Date: January 14, 2008 Attached for your information and review are the following documents: ✓ Letter received from Judith Gilmore. It will be placed as an agenda item in the near future. ✓ Information only letter received from the State of Washington Office of Financial Management. ✓ Spokane Valley Partners invitation to the Fifth Annual Bow Tie Dinner. This is the same night as the Mayor's Ball - AAarch 29'". cc: Dave Mercier, City PAanager Mike Connelly, City Attomey✓ Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Enc. ' .1udEth A. G[Imore 2907 W. Sharp Spotcane, WA 99201 ED • • • 327.5041 /990.6956 C E I ' J AN 14 200B _ ~ - City of Spokane Valley , January ll, 2008 , . Mayo.r Rich Muuson . 11707 E. Sprague , Spokane Valley, WA 99206 _ Dear Mayor Munson, . . Congratulations on your recent election to the office of .1VCayor of the City of Spokaae Valley. It is obvinus that you have a great deal of support from and a good.working relatianship with the members of the Ciry Council. ' While;most,of our.contact 44s!.been made widlArmer:mayoi'-niane Wilh;ite;rT understand . y.ou are sqmeNvhat familiar with the work of Farm Power; the:on=farm demonstration- ' straw,.to,energy,.project;that.has been- developed:.in. Spokane County on the outskjrts ofi Rockford, Washington. Afederal?earmark-sponsored by Senator Patty Murray:in 2004'£undcd th'e project.: - Those funds were used to develop the infrastructure For the project. 1'ortions of that funding were also used for necessary accessories for the gasifier and such items as electrical engi.neering, preparation of pernutting. requests; submittal ofEF1 requirements to the Department of Energy, etc. • , . , . This project has, had the full support and participation of Gary Banowetz and his scientists at the USDA-ARS National Forage Seed Production Research Center in. Corvallis, Oregon as well as witli the Tri-State Grass Seed Cropping Systems Project. ' Our Farm Power project director Jack W. Zinimer, Ph. D, a oraduate and former faculty . member of Waslungton State University has also stayed in constant contact with various faculty at WSU.during the course of this project. ' While the gasifier plant is close to operation; we are now in need •of flunding to f nalize allthe,remaining:eET'orts-at.tihe plant-prior,to pro.duction o.fwhat will, not.only be'alternative% fuel but also a source to create electricity! : • . . In: order- to ~s.ecu0 tlie: additional motues needed-•at ttu'slime; FarmPower is appl,ying for . rural- development grant r,equests at both the federal and state levels: Xt is here that we need your:help.e areasking.you, Mary:~Vemer; IVIa}~or-Spokane and.Spokane'County' . Cominissioners to assist us in these efforts wilh letters of support f.rom your office that may be enclosed with our grant request to cover the costs o.f electrical wiring of the gasifier (approximately $60,000). Should you need any further information prior to writing your letter of support, or bave . aziy questions please don't hesitate to contact me or other board members, Jeb Morris, . Lukins and Annis.(455.9555) orLarry Gady (291.3322) and we will be happy to assist with whatever you may need to complete your letter. This is a huly exciting time as we are so close to opening up tlus projcct to the public and being able to share with others the phenomenal opportuaity for Spokane County to take the lead in attc;rnative energy e.fforts. We do hope, Mayor Munson, in the very uear future, you will agree to travel to the Gady Farm in R.ockford and view this plant firsthand. On behalf of,the other mexnbers of the Board of Directors of Farm Power I would like to thank you in adva.nce for yaur consideration of this request for a letter of support, and for the time you are'talang tofulfill it. ' . • . ~ . , Sincerel ~ . , . . ~ - ~ ' - . . Judith ' more ' ai l: juditha ~sisna,cor►~ or j il~ moro mgear.cam c: Aiane Wilhite , ' S "***-,PARTNERS . . promoting self-reiinnce, enlr.ancing qualitij of life - January 10, 2008 RECEIVED Rich'Munson ~AN 1 4 2008 Spokane Valley City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Stc 106 . Spokane Valley, wA 99206 City of SpQkar~e Va1ic-;, Dear Rich- ' Spokanc Valley Partners (SVF) is preparing £or the Fifth Annual Bow Tie binner. Auxiliary President Berta Bagley along with event Co-chairs Jearuue Abba and Ginger Brooker are pleased . to again stage the 2008 anr►ual affair with their exciting new format in support of the working poor and the di'sadvantaged families of the Valley. Like most of us familiar with the Valley, it's a surprise to learn that nearly 30% of all household.s in the Valley try to live on less than. $25,000.00 in yearly income, . This alarining stadsne gives the SVP its mission of "Providing basic life necessities, teaclung life slaills that promote self rcliance, and addressing the emotional: and psychol'og.cal needs" for the Valley's low income.anci disadvantaged families. •-*okane Valley Partaer.s fiilfills their mission by offiering: the Valley's Food Bank, a f.ree clothing bank, emergency assistance, plus seasonal programs such a.s; Smart Sfarl• school . suPplies, Coats 4 Kids, arid'Season of Sharing. As persons are served they are also educated, . SVP offers cooking classes, budgeting classes, parenring classes, and they teach parents how to support their children's homework needs. 'I'he SVP campus also houses the ctiuaties largest NVTC (Women, Infants and Children) Clinic, ES.D 101 has a tutoring program and many other much needcd services. . Cr.aig Howard in Has Dec. 21, 2007 SV NEws Herald Lditorial said it best, when he wrote: . ' "With a food bank, clothing bank and a wide array of support services, tlie organization (Si'P) is recog•nized as the Valley's primary resource center for individuals and families in iteed of extra support. ...the center continues to liold to its' missiori ofprovidit:g `a hand up, not a handout'. " With the SPV mission in mind, won't you plcase join us for the Fif h Annual Bow Tie A.£fair with our new faxrnat at $125.00 per person, and $ 1,000.00 per 8 person table. The Grand Door Prize will be a$4,000.00 trip voucher, to be used toward a vacation of the winner's choice and 20 plus prize offerings to entice yAU. Our gourmet meal wi].l not change, but the date and venue wiU. This year's event will be Saturday March 29'h at Decades. Reservations and credit eard payments may be made by phoning (509) 927- 1153. Please join us March 29tb in supporting the . iVlissian of the Spokarie Valley Pattners. Call today and remembez 100% of the proceeds'will be piut to work bere' iii-the Spokairie Valley: ' : • - Si.ncerely:~ ' ' - Sincerely, Jeannie Abba Ginger rer Bow Tie Dinner Co-chair Bow Tie Dinner Co-chair 10814 E. Broadway • P.O. Box 141.360 •'Spokane, WA 99214-1360 ' (509) 927-1153 • Fax (509) 928-8463 • wtivw.svpart.org ~ SPokane Valley ~ ~PA RTNERS . , promoting self-reiiance, enhAncing quaditij of life , Spokane Valley Partners key 2006 Service Levels. Food Bank: . Households 9,672 .Individuals 28,862 In 2007 we are helping abouf 800 families per month Clothing Ban.k ~ Emergency Assistan.ce , ~ouseholds 7,361. . Households. - .997 . . . Individual- 25,372 Individuals 2,618 . . . ~ Spent $94;400 - Baby Layettes 130 ~ Coatis forKids' 1,178 (2007=1591) - Smart-Staxt School Supplies 1,040 (2007-1329) Christr_n.as • - - ~ . . ~ : . ~ . Household's ` 693 I:ndiyiduals 1,777 (2007-1793) ; ~ . . Have a Heart Households ~ 147 _ (2007-142) . , ~ . Individuals 426 (2007-464) ~ Pxotective 1'ayee 999 . Total Volunteer Houxs 23,888 ~ 10814 B. Broadway • P.Q.13ox 141360 • Spokane, WA 99214-1360 (509) 927-1153 Fax (509) 928-8463 • wvw.svpart.org ~6 S2ATg O p ' o £ W . •k • ' RECEIVED ' STATE OF WASHINGTON JAN 14 2008 OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT •/nsurance Buildin,g, Pp Box 43113 • Olyriipia, Waslringfon 98504-3 1 1,C- ~ay (~01(Jqf2~ft6kane Valle V . Y . January 07, 2008 . ' Informational Copy 0nly , No Enclosunes. • Dear City and Town Population Contact: . FIappy New Yeai:! We are again preparing.for the development of ouL annual ci .ty anci town populations in accord-uice Mth RCW 43.62.030. Otu- "tLrc you going to census or- estirriate?" form (Form E), is - enclosed. 1'lease retum Form E bv Januarv22. 200$. • Tf you plan to conduct any sutveys to develop your 2008 popularion estimate, please contacti-the office oFFinalicial riTanagement (OFTV). 'Fo be acceptcd, survey procedures need to meet specifie . standards and be authorizeti in advance by OIbM. - - •In 2008, data collecfion for population estimates will begin a transition to the collection procedures , . OFM .p,lans to use iri 2010 and throughout the 2010 decade. 2008 is the•fixst year-cities and toiArns " • will be asketl to contact anci provide information on all individuals living in "special housing.'-' Please refer to the enclosed'sheet titled "Counting Persons in Special Housing." - • . • Census Administrator Training Session, bn February 13, 2008, is adviseci for those planning a lu-ge. , •=census for their April 1 population or for any large census required for an annexation:• Please retum tlic Census Administ~-ator Training Session form by February 4, 2008. hlny one Nvishing to learn • . about census procedures is also welcome. If you do not handlc annexations, please fonvard this material to the appropriate position. $everal persons handling annexations have expressecl a desire to - attend this ses.sion. As the designated population 'contact person for your city/town, you have'been scnt this letfer and all • • enclosuzes. Mayors 1rc beint seiit a copV'Of tliis letl:et but without anYenclosures. • ' - If you are interested in rcvie~ving the pOpulation,data at our Intemet site, please select ~'opi~lation (on the ` first line, then choose "Estui~ates and Forecasts" ~&om the pop dd~vn menu) aY www'ofm.wa:gdv. This intemet site includes population informaiion; publications, annexation'prbcessing requirernents, annexation reports, census forms, and census manuals (Tabulation, Fnumerator, A.dministrator). Other - information will be added as time allows. If you have any questions or would-li.ke assistance in deciding whether to conduct a census, please - contaot me at 360.902.0588 or Diana Brunink at 360.902.0597. ' Sincerely, ' Chief laemographer Enclosures cc: Mayors (letter only, no enclosuresl • . ~ - . `7 ~ , ' tt? A(rL"A C1TY ~F SPQK.~NE VA-LLE1F C[`rY +cOLrNCrL WORKSHEE°r STlrF1'k' SESS1ON Tuesd ov, Fe hr-uary 5, 24108 6:00 p.m. CZTY i[AILL COLTxtiCII, CELOIIBF4R4 11707 Esas4 Spragsre Avcnur. First Fl"r iPfCase SifcnCC YOur Cel! PhuaM UUsiau thc N1refinj,',) DItiCU-%-';10N LEADER SltB,ILMAC-tl1'TTY GOAL .-Vew L`nmpl+a,,°et IrarraAluc.rrons_ !Lfikt +J~~--kson inlxodu-in,► HR 7'eeJurici~M. .51$~~e if'orderrrt.kducr"rrg CraigA1dwu,tI,. Fngr`rreerr, Ken J'bor+ip.san tratrodg+crng 1"errtrro Mardwnf. Acc'g1rrjrantflfridgei Analvo,, ,`llike C;cmaefdlP iatrodueirt~,T Dicarra Pn1vc1! Legrtf Intert I_ G1enn MilervNc:xl Km-tcMi 2007 T'savol DcnoM Modt1 Lip&c rmat ion (30 minut,es) Rick Vhn3.,euvrn (6(1 rTiinut~~) ('0M m lan ic;llions 1nterepcrability b re~chtc~~ia~Y~~~~~rm~~stac,n 3. MikeJucksoriiSlew Wurlc3 CiMrreracEor Srlrttion Ouldoor Pr-*o[_5 L7i5,csssiomfinformatinn (10 niinutes) •1. N1-jkeConn+tZly ( I5 minu1~~) J 6 ni p~~nning 4r~,a Discvssion►Werrnatyon 5_ lkbyLkr S-'(unson Advruicc AgenAn Discus-Mnnrbforniauinn h. informatian ~ly: a. Fconclmi,~ Devclopment t3ialogi,iE. Nlayor Mwisorr b. 5pokane CofI0'~y LLL}L3L'1f D15ISiL'L 20007 40s Qttarter Repcort v, Strect AtcvpCascc -Kkc C:4iiinvl1y 7. May-or N1tinrosen CoMineil Check in Diwassivn{Inforrrtation 8, Dawe Memier City Mttntkger Comments Mcussioa~~~ormution 9. E-!crciutF~~ ~e.5siori: L niid Aeyui5ifian ADJi?URN Norr: Uni~~s aiheawife nntcd abnrfc. there vcitl hc no puFylke cotnmentsAT Cuuncel :ilud) :iessiuni, lioiwevec, Council alw~)-s rmrves tlle 1'ight tU reo;urs1 informallun Cram thc pubUc and s1afC ns appra1zrf2fa During n~ccurip hr1d b'tt 3?i0 Cd43~ Or,~,rxrknsM ''alC~ ctru~sci7, dic Council mt=Nrs thc righ4 to rakc`a~.-tion" uri any item liFtcd alsird 11+ tlic 41~cn& 'rhe r~rar,1t6 defibcift~c, -lirycsss- rrvicw, snnsidrr. eti:duate, or i2aAr n coltcctivc pa5ailve nn cega.,rve ;1mLsioe_ ~NO7iCE: tawJ~Yidua?a CEunaaieag iD ancnd Ohx mr.Cnisr wfur mqriire sPcpRf naivanec t-t eremm(mi= ph."itnC, ht*ting, rx OIbCe rmpaircanuTd, scncacl t,'~e CqClcrjLjjR I'.ZU9)qj +.-l[ANM ms t+neera &i V-Ksitsl= wi tMu7 wm,,~n#s tctry ~s csadc. ,,ruarsctiricrn,lFcnrJu, };hmarw 9, 2 0t~,.4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 5, 2008 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ pubiic hearing ❑ iniormation ED admin. report ❑ pending legisladon AGENDA ITEM T1TLE: 2007 Travel Demand Model Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Glen Miles of the Spokane Regional Transportation Councii will give an update on the 2007 Travel Qemand Mode1 Update. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACT10N OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS Presentation ~6 1 • s'~.~ , s - r 7. ~ n t ~M S ti y ~ ~ " ~ r ` • Regional Spokane ~ I~~,~ l'~~~ Transportation ~ ' Council's ~rV` I ~ Regional T~ravel Der~r~and Model Update 2007 - a, S ~ ~ r ~ . i ~y- _ E'., 1'I I i ~~lf'~~ T , i~~~ r~ I i , I ~ 1 I , . ~ ~ ~ ~ • . / , - ~ / • • ' ~ . f ~ . r : r r~` . - . ~7• _ ~ • . - ~ - . _ . - . , . . - ~ ~ t ~ R ~ ' _ _ , ~ i' ' - ~ n / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ J ~ I . ~ * ~ , ~ ~ t / + - - - ~i r ~ ~ / / ~ ~ , ~ , ~t_ ~ ~ ~ _ oN " ~ • ~`1 ~ . ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ r . 04 ~~►1~ ~ ~ . . ;.a. ~ At i= ~I, '1'`':•~~ I x , ~t , 4 +e ~ ti: t - t< ~ y r s' y L )n ~ ~ . ~ ~ - ~ r ~ . ~ • . - . A _ ~ - ~ v y s ~ ~ 1 • • ~ ~ • ~ 4m , ~ ~ 1 1 • . ~ ~ a ~ . . , , ..t ~ - s ~ i ~ - •fl•ui,Y . I • j; ;'dS ~ , D-o c 1 ons, stakehold'e groups, / do . ;t . i ` d by . independent ~ j r o identify r w . , weakness in the jj ; AA ' - ~u ~ d J ~ l• ,a ~ ~ y d ~ F' ~ ~i a ~ • wimp e w w a' , w d . , e ' local ~~y. . . _ . . ' - _ . . . . ~ . . . . . 11 ~ ~ ~ ♦ ~ ! e ~ , ~4, ~ i: Ly . ~r I ~ tt~ I 1 . e w ~ ~ - ~ 1 • • 11 • 1 1 , ' _ 1 " i ' ! " ~ • ~ } r`• II ~ ~ ♦ / ~ • ~ ~ I" y . 1 1 ~ ► ~ . , . ~ . . . . . _ . . ~ - ~ - i I t': / ~y/. .`y~~ i 1 ~ i ~ I ~~N i ~ ~ ~ , , .3~~. ~ ~ . . ; ~ ~ 1 4 ~J ~ c: • - - 1 ; ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~;1~~~~ f ~ '~i ~ " • ~ ' I I 1 ~ ~ . ~ - - . - ~ ~ • ~ - ,i, r' F, 1 • ~ + ~ ~ ~ „ ~ , ~ ~ ( ~ ~ l - y .1 t~~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ I I c r 4~ ~ ' ~ . ~ . . ~ wc ~ ~ . . . . _ . ~ ~n • ~ , ~ . ~ - _ -d •0 0 • . • 0 ~ . . _ , . . , ° ~ . i s • ~ ~r ~ . ~ • • • " ~ ~ . _ ~ - . ~ r - - . _ . ~ f ,n q~ , . ♦ ; ~ i + . ' 'i,... ~ . . _ ~ ~ . ~ F- . , _ . 1 . ~ . ~ O ' • A I ~ r ° ~ . I ~ ~ o` t1r ~ ri ~ . . . , ~ . , ` ~ 1 - + ~ ~ - • J . - ! ~ I i w ~ ~ i .aU .I ~ ~ - - ' ~ rO ~M N ~ Y ` J, l. r~ " '11►~.`%M I .i i~~~~ . ~ . - . . . - ~ I ' • I , ~ I ~ • I A ~ ~i i • . . . ~ ~ t II ' ~ '1~a,o . ~ • IISI~ i ~ ~r ~ i • , ° I i ~ r r . . / • " • ~ " ~ ~ ~ / • ~ ~ y~~ u . , _ . _ . . - , r y' `.a t ~ i / 7 o • A;1 o ! y .hL ^ s~ ~ ~ . . . . . ~ , . ~!1 . • - . ~ . . . ~ , Y~ . , ^ i~ _ ~ -r M 4 ~ . , - , . ~ _ , z,- ~ ~ , (M47rdeie(i -Actu17l) I iPM Best ' l41cdoled PM ModeEed- Ac4Lial Acttml PM Reak Olractkmi 0507 Link 0 Pesk'VoIrrnie FM Pe8k Voltrme Volutne _ tio ri fiwest 5creenl ir~ 0 20 ♦ ~5 i,;{I~nif4J r4.'rj. ~F`I4~A~ E +121 11148 414 - -1~_~1 1E}~.]~."7Q~'E~ w'~~-,Uesle ~vf~- YV?O Ash St. k 661 766 1(IS 0_15BU50227 ~ • i~v~t+~~! E~C, 4w~1 Ash t_ 9 ~ ~'~,1W -2 8 Rt~va~~ Ave. ~~+iO Ash St E 218 6677 i'~ 1 73 0.~~1RF:~?3B'~ E_,~~e hrlale R~ ~t:~fI Si - 31~~~ ~.l e t .!•:~t-~: owls 136 ~ WestWond` T,- _T - - - : 73gs _ T~3i.acl~~ 1~Yt~. `Z ..r~i, ~33 1174 ~~~~1 -2 Ave_ W rNsrr t_ Y.1 3 - N+YthftstB4v°d IA+dQ Ash St. 114+ ! 1718 S~ 133it -334 -0_223515716 . - - - ~ F awart Ave_ VVI r'lsh St :::::F d 286 7 5 ri _341 5 i ive Mile Rd ti+'tiIO Ash St 527 6760 _ 573 46 GMT'~652$ ~ -3.I7 ~l -f 1 ~r. Tj ~ !i , - ° - - - - - - m.. i►. _ i ~d1►'+~;~ ~ ~i~~ ~ rt~l~ M~ ~ P'-~':~'q~q~ I~I ~ ~ ~q''~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~~w r j r ft~ ; ~ • , Modeled - Actupl BI (Phodeled - Actual) I 96 Allowable Within Total PtO Peak Actual 81 Totai pM Peak MOde{ed Dlrectional PM Actual B4-D12cUonal Devlatlvn pcr Alfowable Dlreclional volume 81-Directmal Volume Peak Volume PM Peak volume TMIP FHA Devkitfon? ~ uter u u an ort cntn no Yes 11087 11746 659 0.059438983 54 k -r~ 1~~..n~.~A.a,`•A~ti .La.,Ir~,_'.,._ ~ ~ ~ - l , 'i 4 ~ Total PM Peak Total PM Peak (Modeled - Actual) / Achral Directlonat Modeled Directlonal hAodeled - Actual Actual PM Peak "~'ulu1ne Volurne F'Pri F-cah. '~'oiume N./olume AII Nonh-South Screenline Southbound -i ± }581 47073 -2485 -iJ. `,0 la 2G6 Nonhbound 54391 52482 -'1909 -0.0350977 18 All East-West Scr"nline 1E~ East oun 281721 14 -23 0.0008 13 ` estboun 268431 25509 - t 334 796963 ~ ~ : ~ . - - - - d~ ~ ko_~Q RO '~e- 0 0 1'.~~~~ iz k 1 I,~ . i, ~ MAO9eLf ° ACiIi YI t$A yM4AfO77FtJ ' A~~I}i~~ j ~ ~ ~ li1JrYT2i1 . ~`opRp ~ Pead!~ Iw,il T~ ~I P~:~k ?~Ft~~larJ eltoclJorutl f~t~ +~Clun~ DY---fJNNt~~fil~l !i~v~~ti p~c 'rl4~Y~4 ~r~ Disrt~r~uDlv'~a ~V"c~lr~r~ Eii-Dirt~cli,o#'~~Itirre I Pe~k V~um#~ €'!IA I~~tak'V~Ivn~~ Tt~'IMP ~#-~~4_ L7+p+:~flE~n'~ Nortii -S~+LItfa :~r~rr~~raiiies - Ye5 ti7st-Wd,'SC St:Cel!flll[le5 @ 5 536581 ic,tejN 4crF,enfiiies 1532.13[ t 1~ I. ; 01_ ~ YES y Y'. A y mu01 $.P'iWAN'F ' I 14RE.i HA5E~ Cc~wDrrrar~rs ~ c~ 2ft5 Y. - ~ ~ f - ~ - ~ I ~ ~ • ~ - ~ f ~ , t t1! N ~ , . ~ 'f .o- 40•.. I a ' . .lylY p , _ u: SRTC , , ~ y 4 , , - - - - - - _ ° =T - - - ~ ~ - - , p • - • 4 . , . , . , ' . • L ~ q W. N ~ r a.` , I ay - ' M ' ; .-1 ,Ad ,O,r~l , y i ~ ~py ~ F• I ~Y 4 1 r X'N„"_F r f . . . r ~5~ y~~ 7 ~a' ~+°g e. N 9~. h - p 1 A4s • ~°4, ~ , . k x~ ' s ~ 17 , .j~~ ~IITI- * ^ i _ iwv~n= s~.1• I . Pr= s,~ y i AUrnaPGurAMAFrEA "rsrEr+Ps..at+R sagara rrEFK WARta IS i SrZTC - y• f / ~ a,' i'~+~~►~~► ~ ~I~ i~T# P. W i •i , sPVruMF wcrnoPOUrAN ARu FUTi1RE caNanoHs 1oIs durcv y~ ' 7 _ ~ JI ~ . \ I 1 4 ~ ` ~ J I - - • - - ~ »'nii`~:..w~..~ t r-; I ' i~ u+~ wo ti ~ wr.ac~ww•r~f► 1 ~ , - ,-4 J~ - ~ ~ _ w.. ; I N, I . ~ - ~ ~ q. r n... SRTC Y ~ \ ~ ! ~ f ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ #~~~!I ~ ,<<.r• ~ ✓ 1~,~~j~ ~I I'^ i J .L ~ JV! ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ i' • • y1'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4tf • 1~41 r~ r. ~ ' ~I! ' W.+~,~ ~ ' ~i ] h~~. ~ .1~;..~p w.}-~•- d - , . 1 ~ ' - •A 1 ~r.. ~ . . ~ i 'S`i~. _ , - f ~i`""1+1~...'~ ~ , ~i • ' { ~ • ti. 1 I z l• t - Ll . J .1 !.`w~ ~ w~ ~ ..I _ _ I ti ~►~.~.r • f - + .T ~ N ` . ~ YEitiO1'OIJfANA)WAAL46TlAPlAN ~ LOND•TErLIt 1'EAR?070 .a .~.R-..s SRTC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ - - - r ~ t~ ~ •~~r. - ~ . k~ I~ • L bftff Sf"OlCANE 1 nfErnoPOUrarr ARF-A rurunc cavarrons Mo r;Wtfl ~ 1 ' ~ ~ I~w I 1 ~ .r . I 1 ~ w ` I 1aH u.. rw rw Lw nc N.nw rea v+c A.r.. . in ~ l,,l ' - _•4 ~ - 4T~;:~._ , . i . l _ - ' • , ~ ~ " ' 4 I, ~ * ~ ~ ' M9~~1►Mr ~ - , SRTC _ , ~ ! /J V'r_A 00 00 k y~ 0-! ~ Orit.*;i _ • ~ , ~ r ' • I ~s, ~i. M~ ,0'~ ~y., "~+~R' i A , d aeg i p , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ , o •n miles p ~ . s ♦ . , p 1 ' b • • / / , a w i r / 1 a ~ po • !po • ~ ,i o • d ~ , ~ / o be . " d b • • ~ d . capacity, public • 1 po . ! o " . d r _ , em° o the non-mo • • t . po • • r~ r' ' ~`Vi Spokane Regional Transportation Council ~ r, r~ ~ .a~,~ .•I` ~ I ~ / I t I f 1 1 ,rw. A~,~,d_-""•~ y - I-- ~''t( ( i f ~ • - - - ~ ~Tt_ _-r"qL~ nw ~ ~ 1 1 I J 7 1 ~ wi+ln~i~- 1 ~ ~ E ~ ~ ♦ w~w - Av~ 1 ~ M~Y~ { ` Mw ~ N e i ~ • wrw~ ww= Ir'+~k rrw~~ w~.s~-- ^ ~ I~M~ wV+r ~IIW I + 1 Aw 11 I ~YY~ yr~. M~•` --M NM• RM~~ /~M~ MM~ r M I ~ . I t i i I t};4~ a I r 2005 Baas PM PsMc Vd Ferr to Evwprwn ' arsntisd on: 20.12200T 9.44 DfiAFT a - , ~ ~ a ~ ~ • ~ • , ~-z - ~ I. ~ ~ ` 1? 1;' j~ Spokane Regianal Transportation Council ' ' ~ 1: I ~ I• P~ " I iA r s I f i i _ i[~~~ ~II~ ~I~ ~ ~ N I ,s• > > ui. MM ~ ~ I ; ( w~ ~.k~~ ~ - I- ~ - - wr~~ wrr~iI w,r~~ t ) ~ ww ~ • ' ~ ~raAr1' w~v+ ~ ~±~~yT-- 1~v~~ r_ ~•II~~ »w~ ~ Mwr~ww• ~M ~fI1~ I - - - ~ - wr~a Arw ew~ ~r~ M~11= Aw~ I - . . /~~1 ■ ~11~I~~a~_"_ - r11N~ 1~~M AMIIII I~~/= rI A~C w'~w w_1 I IrY~ M«~ IA~/ 11rr~ I~wM I~~ I i, I Z ~ I I ~ ~ ~ 2112 2030 vasey cowoor Ba.e PM P"k va FeR m Eveqpew DrinrT cnmd.d a,: 21.121007 e.44 . l r~ Spokane Regional Transportation Council . ,~.I~ - •w~a i t ~ ~ ~ 1 . . : ~ • - - - - ~ I ~ ~ ! ~ • ~ I - ~.~r~ irr ~ r ~ -T- ^"r ^w'r•~ - i~r~- -w~r w,..a w.~x i...i--~ w..+ I wwZ .rwrti I y~ Mly~r ww.= w'., w r~ r IYrM~ A~•~ I 1 - ^"v, 7 ~ wr.i wiwi~ rS'i w~i ~ l • ~~1 ~ • ' - .--t. I wr ~ w~n.. ~ 11i30 VaDdy C4rt1dor AMnwtln 4- PM i'Mk Vol Forr tio Ewrpnmon C rsmW on: 05.12200T 0.44 DRAFT . - . - - Clorrl ~ ~ or ~ `'i.`i;►; ta • t, ~ - - - - - - - Spokane Regional Transportation Council . ~ . a 4 i i + t : I ~ i V 7['t4 _ ,,t~~ r • _ ~ _ ( tiw' r Ir~pl~ NMti•.'nt.. _ 1YM~~w I~y M~ A1M ~r • w~~ ~ ~ wY~i~ - w~~ ~w..~ w~~ wNw~' w~w nlwl= ~~r~ ww,.r w+r « - ^rw~ ~IrwZ fi ; N ~ ~r _ ~y~ - - `~..:~-•~s ~ A~M AwN ~r y ~ I I w~• wv~ wr~ t- - y AM~ Nr~ A~11~ wr~ - -9 2030 VBby CorrMor ARemaUvs C2 - PM PNk Vd Ferr tD Ev~ryr~t Crc+aled on U.?2.24J7 ~844 DRAF'T ~ ✓f 1 ~ - ~ , - Spokane Regional Transportation Council . I ~ • ~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ j _ r t'' ,i ~~Ik • ~ Mr"W ti~r4M- ~ J- . _ - - ~w - qIW"-P- w~•~~~•~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~Y' 1'L w- ~r ~ II ww ,r - ~'n 1 ~ ~ w•~.j 1 t - I~y~^~ AIr~ ww~ wrr~ 1~~v1 ~ ■.~w~~ ~r~ wr..i ~~Si ~ . _ ~ ait I ~ I ^ • ~ ~ ryrsi - wr ~ w.~4 1 I wiwi~ ~ • . 11 r...' ..1r«. rv..~i r•w ~ i ` 1 ~ - ti! Jt ~I• . 2030 Va1ery CarWor AltKnapvs C2 - P111 ReaIc Vd I. Iman to Fsrr ~ ~ Croabid on: 05.122007 0.44 DRAFT - , r ~ ~ 1 t~ r y . , i Spokane Regional Transportation Council L7 wr + f I~I~ _ r~w~~ wwwi~ ~ r~wi~ - r ♦ ~ ~ ' i 1l ~j• ~ l ~ l~u t, I I ! t I I ~ t ~ a ~ ~fr ,r,~,•. 'p 3~ 1~til~n = ~ • 2030 vafty c«raor Aftmsuv. c2 - PM PWic va Roundaoouc GroaW on: 08.122007 9.44 DRA(-T I i i ~ ~ 1- if . ~a . ~ . . ~t ~ ~i~ ~ I ✓ i~! ~r, . • . _ - . . _ . . . . - - - - + the to,' : d ^d fo . project ' - ~ ~ - . . . . . < o ^ od • doesn't maki 'the 1 o ~ r: - 4 o test . altematives . • dentit'y- po % - ( ; , ~ , ~ . , . - r r~ . - n . ~ . ~ . . ~ 4~ . n , • , , Y i r, . , r. _ • r , ~ _ . . ~ : ..rt ,.'i f ll.l ~ • ~ . . r .P \ . ~ , f 1 ~.J • , • ~ . . , j ~.~-sl • - , - ~ - 'd~ '~~~~~a ,,wJ ~f~,, ~~.e •4t _ ~;T~~lI~S.~'e~.L', ' ~iA ~ ~ L'i It'i ' ' ; . Y'`~~, r, n ~,c. ~ n ,'1 ee _ ~ h„ n { Ty'~~ n ".`Y'-. .`(1y^._'~`«..f .t ~ ~ , , - - - o . n - . ~ - ~ ~ : . y ! 1 r~1 l - - - 1 . 1 ..-r~ • , ii~~S ~ • ~ _ . i ~,I, ~ ' ~ ~ ~ Q , ~ ~i ~ ~ , ' / ^ ~ , s ~ • w w . . ' . . + - - , , _ . . . . . . . " , ' , A ' i ~ "f• ~ , CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 5, 2008 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ o!d business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information (E admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Communications Interoperability Presentation GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Police Chief Rick VanLeuven will give a presentation on the Challenge to the Public Safety Communications System ion the Spokane Region OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: • STAFF CONTACT: Rick VanLeuven ' ATTACHMENTS Presentation . ~ . . . ~ The Challenqe to the Public Safety Communications . Svstem in the Spokane Reqion , . Everyone in this room or someone you know at some time will have an emergency and need help. • You will call one number 9-1-1 ! What will happen when You do? What is the "Svstem" {pp Aaacct of camyonr.nts bctaw mnko ira lltc svstoml • An InaidenU Situation Occurs • Someone calls for Help • Someone answers tfio call (9-1-11 CrimeCheck) • Somcone dispatches tha call . . • SomconQ responds to rondor assistance • While responding providers communicate among themselves 8 access information . • Responders arrive 8 implement an action plan • Responders notify public in harms way • Situation is mitigated • Everyone goes home safel ' 1 The Problems - • Shortcomings in the "System" - Wo cannot talk via radfas to cach other • -°Dead spots" where radios wiil not vrork - Rella bilfty (Some equtprncm >>o yrs oia) - No current eapa6illty to notify publtc of omorg encies ("Reverse 9-1-1 - 9-1-1 ovarWad - No Crime Check , - Umited/ No Fundinp • FCC Required Changes (oueconowcccnndo9y) - Radto system conversions required by 2012 The Problems • Specificalty, shortcomings include: -Lack of radio coverage - Lack of radio frequencies ~ -Lack of "Interoperability" among emergency response agencies -Lack of sufficient backupl redundancy -Lack of data intagration -Lack of investment in infrastructure -Aging equipment 8 incompatibility with new technology @e: oid cornwrlcr-nc., smvaref oi9um Tv voraus analog TV) e FCC Required Changes IFe r,+l Communications Commissi N • FCC has required conversion to narrow bandjunalat rte,~ncy wnen) operation by end of 2012 • Affects aii VHFlUHF systems in United States (Most of our radio systems in the Spokane Region are VHFIUHF) • r A~ . , . , 2 , FCC Required Chanqes lFederal Cammunkatbns Commisslonl All government radio systems must be upgraded to meet FCC narrow-banding requirements, not just Public Safety radio systems . , Our Challenqes! • The Train is comingl (FCC Requiremenfs) • The light you see - is not the end of the tunnel - it's the train • Replacing the system is a Multi-year / Multi-phase . process • To avoid duplication and reduae overall system cost a ragoonal approach is required • The costs to Individual iurisdictions to do this e alone are rohibitivo To Fix the Radio Component ' To Meet all technical & operational requirements, greatly enhanced coverage, capacity and features . - Cast - 34Q-45 mHlion - MiCrovravo Dishes lRme,~r tc xt into rrcm we ca« tD a,u: e,t - Rodlo Tawet sltes cu.. a wtdr~.~ - Radio conErol equipment at Radio sites i.v~•.yti~vi - Cantrol equipmen6 at CommunBcalions Buibding - Initial purchase of Public Satety nwbile & poriable radios - Desbgn & ErvgPneering - L.abor to instnll and test system 3 ~ '\1 i _ j The Solution • A Long-Term funding solution is needed . • Alternatives for funding are limited • We can't do it alone, or individually, we need a Regional Solution! ,o Other Requirements To Make the Communications System Work: • Crime Chetk Funding (24-7) ~ • Cover Projoctcsd Future 9-1-1 Funding Gap • Operational Funding of Reverse 9-1-1 System • On-going maintenance cost of Radio system • Future radio system replacement cost Our ecommendation • We believe the best solution is • implementation of a 1/10 of 1°/a . sales tax, solely for Emergency Communication Systems and . facilities. , 4 . • 1 Detai Is . Place before the voters in Spring 1006 • Proposal asks for 10 cents on every $100 - purChase (11t0 of onc pcrcent - groccrfcs oxcmpt) • By Law, this funding source can ONLY be used for Emergency Communication Systoms • 10 year Sunset Clause , • Oversight Committee selected by County Commissioners • Administered by the Spokane County Emergency Communications Board (msda up of numerous at-largc and agcnry repansentaNvrsa) ° What We Need From You! • Understand the issue • Help others understand the significance of the crisis we face If funding is not secured " . n. Everyone in this room or someone you know at some time will have an emergency and need help. You will call one number 9-1-1! Will the System Work when You Need it? ts ~ l 5 ~ Questions? •Supgested Prosentation Format: ~ Slides 1-3-Elocted Official Slides 4-10 - Public Safety LE/ Fire Slides 11-13 - Citizens • Slides 14-End - ElecGed Official ir Alternatives to Radio Component 1. 'Do notbin q~': Volate FCC Rules or shut do+vn systems an~fleets - Cost $ 0- FCC Fines ? - V~erv Likelv th.~c wlll be no response wpahil(_tYJ2Y, ~memencv~ices Apenciog • 2. `Tamporarv Fix': Meets FCC requirements only, - Doas no1 fi?S_She radla oroblems (ie: interopCrabllity, or iional crti~n s, or high spced d~tq - Cost - S S 5-20 mil[ion (Takes - 4 years) 3. 'Fix the S stem'; Meets all fechnical & . operationa reqwrements, greatly enhanced , coverage, capacity and features ~s ~ - cost - 34 0-45 million ' 6" \ Narrowbanding Current Channel Configuration ADOP.TED BAND.PIAN' v11~ IcD.f7~ ~a. rooo_i \New Required Channel Confiqurati_on nanL.aL lt 1i~ , l ~L 1_ Narrowbanding Current Channel Confiquration 8!g Pfpe ' \ i' . j New Reauired Channel Configuration L{ttle Ptpe m Where Are We? • The findings of 2002 Radio study and current radio study are dear - thc svstem is in desaerate need of reoair & upqrado • The external factors (FCC rnmaWes) are clear • The operational lacking of existing systems are clear - • The lessons-learned from other incidents and . disasters are ctear • There is not consistent funding for inFrastructure • :1 . ~ 7 ~ Where Are We? - Paqe 2 • The 9-1-1 system is increasingly becomfng overloaded • 9-1-1 Funds will nat cover intreasing demands for serrice in near future • Crime Check is not funded • We don't have the ability to immediaiely let the ' public lcnow vrhen there is an emergency impacting their neighbOrhood (Reverse 9-1-1) • There is not Consistent funding to maintain ' systems n FCC Narrow Band Mandate Costs • Narrow banding prooess has Mro mandatory transdions, each tivith equipment change-outs requtred , • For 19 Mand3te, atl work mwt be camplete by 1Re lasd day of 2012 ~ • Seccnd sWgo does not yet have a date esta4lished • The Spokane regim casts for complianeo by all tocal govemment in Spokane Cauniy is astlmated ai: $15 -$20 P.lillion • Convarsion does not prav6de any significant enhanecmenls other than thC bertefit of neAv squipment - , 23 OCa XaRlp e - O p@ra I 1 Y Interoperabilitv Issues Consistent Problems • Lack of effective in and out of building • communications had significant negative impact on ability to communicate/ and coordinate • Interoperability became an issue as other ' agencies joined in the response • These issues will become worse vrith upooming FCC Requirements ~ 8 . ' ~ oca xam es - o era i r ' Interoperability Issues • Geiger Corrections Incident • Gang Sweep with ATF • SWAT Operation in Valley • g The Problems Facing Us • Our Communication System, Which Affects All Public Safety Agencies, Needs Immediate Repair and Updating - We cannot talk to each other - Too many'dead spots' in region • Call Volumes are Overloading the 911 System, Causing aelays and I.onger Hold Times ' • No Crima Check - Less Effk;lent Gdme Reparting • FCC has Mandated tfi'e Conversion of Emergency Communication Systems by 2012 • No Current Capability for Pubfc Emorgency Notifocation (Reverse 911 b , History: Prior Study • Public Safety Agencies Recognized Current & Future Communications Challenges • Commissioned Study early 2000's • ADCOMM Engineering - report in 2003 Identified - ' Significant shortcomings in radio facilities, voice redio system performance Sys tems must be upgraded or replaced to meet FCC narrowband mandate - Need to anticipate future requiremenis and develop strafegic viovi for region -$43M far oonversion to 7001800 MNz trunking =7 . ~ . 9 ~ . History: lJpdated StuCiY - • 2007 Gorr1R1[SSIOrIed $parftg t0 review and Update 2003 stUdy . ~ Sparlrng p reliminary conclusiarts clearly. reinforces the afore me ntioned findings A , Definitions: Operabilitv ' 1Dperabrlr7y' rMeans ubJfc safoty Wio sysfems meel ' user reqa+rerrrenps fvr (rn order of prroiily); . 1. Arrp Cp%mfa9o . 2. CaFadLy . . O 3. RelmbR~, - Feawres •Perf4rmanae af partable radias in#p structures is required and sysker~s musl ha~+$ enough t2pa tily lu he ndlg overfpad 2Venks ~Exisli" sysiems DO NOT meet requiremenls #or public saFeky operability in kerrns of coverage and caPacity! . . ~ I]efrn ition: l nteropqra6iliiy lnteroperability' simpfistically mearis tha t_ . - Ag~nGies need to be 8bfe to 121k to eaGh - oiher • AgenCres +nean3 Law E15foR5emenL FrC, Eh75, . Amtwl@nCe, FublitWbrks, U9ilah2s, ' . Transportatbn, Fublic Heallh, eiq • fnteroper2bili'ty without operability is asking far trouble± 'I ~ I ~ - 10 /r So What do We Do? • COPS Interoperability Grant aavarded Septemher 2005, grant is for S3M, with a 254'0 lacal match • Supports development ot a regionat • interoperabllfty system that enhances linkages between first responders • Sognaiories from all firelEA1S and la+v enforcement agencies vrllhtn Spokane County • SpaA(ng htred to design and Gnplement solution ' • While (ocused on Interoperability, the projoU allowed SparAng !o book again at the finrlings of the 2003 study Current Project - Grant • COPS Interoperability Grant awarded September 2005, grant is for $3AA, w[Ih a 25% local match • Supports devetopment af a regEonal interoperabitity system that enhanoes linkages ' behvQEn flrst responders • Signatodes from alI firelEMS and lavr enforcement agencies wilhin Spokano County • SpaAing h(red to desEgn and implement sotution • While focused on interoperability, the project al0avied Sparling to look again at the flndings of the 2003 study u . Current Project: What Have We Learned? • Opembiliiy i5 the basic pertomsance ot public safety ' radfo sys?ems - Results indica4e pow developmeni in temu of basic rad3o system operab6lity • Interoperaa7ity is the abil"rty io Gnk differirtig radio syslems for speGflc evenis and tncidents - This is sn rrea where addjtional operaGona1 and technical solutions are reqtcred • Lorsg term strategy for grrnvth and capab'Jlty - Guidance was offered In 2003 sludy that changea vrere required • S/fu, !!on remalns erardv the same ' n ! r % 11 ~J ` Solutions: Responses to Identified Radio System Problems • 'Do nothinq' • Rebuild existing systems to meet FCC - narrrnv band mandate alone: `Rebufld' • Replace existing systems with next generation system: 'Next Generatlon' ~ Options for Progress: Regional Cooperation in Place • 911 Baard • Interoperability Board ~ • 1CE Gtant Project Team • Law Enforcemen4 • FirelEA4S • Over a decade of coopera4ion within and . behv2en first responder agencies • Local, state, Federal and tribal . r Requirements for Sustainable Communications • Regional vision & funding strategies will be required to move to the next , generation govemmental radio systems • Attention to long term operational issues and planning is key • Timing of FCC issues requires action NOW ~ ~ , 12 Y Options for Progress: Funding Smal Scale Capdtal DeveDopment Gran?s: - DHS COPS: AppfieQ tor, lost - DHS Assistance to Flreflghters (AFC Grants) - DOJluOC'PSIC GranY: epplted for, won. - ThCSO are insufficfent for iull SyStE3m development and ' can't bc used solety to meei FCC nanma band mandate k'ev Svs om Capfital and Sugtafning Fundinm: - 9190 of 196 EoQ 911 and emorgecicy oommunicaUons systCms: tried, failed II Options for Progress: Partnerships and . Cost Sharing Opportunities • Partnerships can help improve performanoe, reduoe capital end operating expense • Regional partnership opportunities exist: , - Wlildn SpoOcanc Covnty (genersl govemmcnl, ~podaa ~ dstrict9, tronsA) - - 1NithFn odjaccnt oourt(es in Wsshington - 41rAhin odjaccrtl covn!les tn Idaho, especially Koo2ensi Caunty - As part ot statoxdde strateg°.ps (Ilwugh Stato is (ocused on westem Washingion and 2010 Olympics) . 3e Options for Progress: Examples There sre'maoy examples from wiih3n Washirtgton State for systems and pcocesses IEke that being consideted - SnalIflcKinp Counry - e decsM ago - Srbhorn(sh CaunPj - a deeetla apo , - PlwwConmty melrortao-raw • - Eenton Gourty - c9M ycars a;o - Clark Geurly - in eanerr9 wilh PorilanC end Ihree eoi,ntios in Oregon These systems can take a year to creste enabling ' interlocals and design a syst_m Systems take tvro to Ihrco years to buiid ~ 13 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY . Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 5, 2008 City Manager Sign-off; Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information Hadmin, report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Contractor Selection Outdoor Pools Report GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of contract with ORB Architects for Pool Upgrade Design; Review of Info Memo dated December 21, 2007 on project status BACKGROUND: The design of the Swimming Pool Upgrades is complete. The proposed additions to each of the City's three pools include: Park Road Pool: Water Slide Valley Mission Pool: Leisure/Training Pool w/ Zero-Depth entry Terrace View Pool: Lazy River . The proposed schedule is as follows: Bid advertisement: January 4, 2008 Bid Opening: . February 1, 2008 Contract Award: February 12, 2008 Construction Begins: March 10, 2008 The contractor will be required to complete the improvements to the existing pools and bathhouses within 90 days after Notice to Proceed is given. The additions to the pools (water slide, leisure/training pool, lazy river) must be completed within 150 days (approximately 5 months) after Notice to Proceed is given. Attached is the most recent estimate for the pool upgrade project. The base bid includes improvements to the existing pools and bathhouses along with the additional features listed above. The additional items listed will be bid as Additive Bid items. This allows Council to select those items that can be included within the budget after the base bid fias been determined. Staff will bring a summary of Friday's bid results to the Study Session for review with Council. OPTIONS: Discussion only . RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACTS: Current project budget is $1,995,000 . STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager ATTACHMENTS Project Estimate CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 5, 2008 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information Z admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Contractor Selection Outdoor Pools Report GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of contract with ORB Architects for Pool Upgrade Design; Review of Info Memo dated December 21, 2007 on project status BACKGROUND: The design of the Swimming Pool Upgrades is complete The proposed additions to each of the City's three pools include: Park Road Pool: Water Slide Valley Mission Pool: Leisure/Training Pool w/Zero-Depth entry TeRace View Pool: Lazy River The proposed schedule is as fallows Bid advertisernent: January 4, 2008 Bid Opening: February 1, 2008 Contract Award: February 12, 2008 Construction Begins: March 10, 2008 The contractor will be required to complete the improvements to the existing pools and bathhouses within 90 days after Notice to Proceed is given. The additions to the poots (water Slide, leisureltraining pool, lazy river) must be completed within 150 days (approximately 5 months) after Notice to Proceed is given. Attached is the most recent estimate for the pool upgrade project. The base bid includes improvements to the existing pools and bathhouses along with the additional features listed above. The additional items listed will be bid as Additive Bid items. This allows Council ,o select those items t7at can be included within the budget after the base bid has been determined. Staff will bring a summary of Friday's bid results to the Study Session for review with Council. OPTIONS: Discussion only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACTS: Current project budget is $1,995,000 STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager ATTACHMENTS Project Estimate CITI( OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 5, 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: Joint Planning Area Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, Spokane County Wide Planning Policies. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: See below _ BACKGROUND: (All identified exhibits are available for your review with the City clerk.) 1.- On August 10, 2005 the Joint Planning Subcommittee of the GMA Steering Commiftee of Elected Officials discussed steps. necessary to create joint planning agreements. Minutes of that meeting are attached as Exhibit A. 2. On September 06, 2005 the City of Spokane Valley provided a proposed Joint Planning Agreement to the Spokane County Commissioners. A copy of that agreement and the commissioner's response is attached as exhibit B. 3. On September 29, 2006 this agreement was discussed at the Joint CitylCouncil ~ Meeting at the Spokane Valley Council Chambers. See attached Notice of Special Meeting attached as Exhibit C. 4. Between this date and early 2006 the City and County, exchanged versions of this Joint Planning Agreement. What began as a specific joint planning agreement with respect to the TurtleCreek area evolved into a discussion concerning a template to be used by the County for all inter-jurisdictional joint•planning agreements. 5. On January 18, 2006, the GMA Steering Commiftee approved a Motion Recommending Joint Planning For Existing Urban Growth Areas, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D. 6. On February 08, 2006, the City of Spokane Valley provided the GMA Steering Commiftee members with copies of a draft Joint Planning Agreement proposed to be adopted as a template. This agreement was to be discussed at the GMA Steering Committee meeting on February 16, 2006. (See e-mail from Spokane County to the GMA Steering Committee, attached as Exhibit E.) 7. On May 17, 2006, the City of Spokane Valley sent, at the request of the County, an additional-copy-of-the-joint-planning ag-reement provided`to the GMA Steering Committee. (See e-mail attached as Exhibit F.) 8. On June 28, 2006 the GMA Steering Committee considered a joint planning agreement to be used as a template. By this time the document included changes suggested by ;--,1 both Spokane County and the City of Spokane. (See minutes attached as Exhibit G.) : ~ J 9. The GMA Steering Commiftee discussed the joint planning agreement template at both its September and October meetings. Possible changes were presented and discussed. No action was taken. ' 10. On October 16, 2006 Spokane County circulated a revised copy of the joint planning agreement to all members of the GMA Steering Committee for consideration on November 15, 2006 (See minutes of GMA Steering Committee artached as Exhibit H). 11. On November 15, 2006, the GMA• Steering Committee continued to discuss the agreement. No action was taken. (See minutes of GMA Steering Committee attached as Exhibit I). 12. In November of 2006 the jurisdictions of Spokane County, the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane Valley, the City of Liberty lake and the City of Airway Heights received a collaborative grant from CTED to review development regulations used. in the urban growth areas and municipalities in Spokane County. 13. On December 20, 2006, the GMA Steering Committee moved to accept the proposed Joint Planning Agreement as a tEmplate. The motion passed 8 to 3 with Commissioner Mielke, Commissioner Richard a'nd Mayor Peterson voting against. The minutes of this meeting are attached asExhibit J; the template agreement is attached as Exhibit K). 14. On May 29th, 2007 the results of the CTED grant were presented at a Luncheon meetin9 sponsored by CTED. (A copy of those results is attached as Exhibit L). 15. On July 23, 2007, at a joint meeting between the City of Spokane Valley City Council . and Spokane County Commissioners, the most recent version of the Glenrose/Moran Prairie JPA was discussed as a basis for future agreements with the City of Spokane Valley. (The County proposal and minutes of this meeting are attached as Exhibit M.) - The City responded with several comments. (These comments are as set forth in the e- ' mail to James Emacio attached as Exhibit N.) 16. On July 31st, 2007 we were advised that the Commissioners would consider the . City's comments in conjunction with their consideration of the Joint Planning Agreement being negotiated with the City of Spokane for the Glenrose area.( See e-mail from James Emacio, attached as Exhibit O). 17. On September 13, 2007, Spokane County sent correspondence and a, proposed agreement to the City of Spokane and City of Spokane Valley regarding Glenrose/Moran. (See attached Exhibit P). 18. On October 19, 2007 then Mayor Wilhite sent a letter to the Commissioners requesting that all UGA's adjacent to the City of Spokane Valley be identified as Joint Planning Areas. (This letter is attached as Exhibit Q). 19. On November 27, 2007, Spokane County Commissioners scheduled discussion of the Mayor's request. No action was taken at the meeting. The City did advise the County that they would provide an updated version of the Turtlecreek JPA for County consideration by the end of the year. 20. On December 4, 2007, the Commissioners considered the comments of the City of Spokane concerning the GlenroselMoran Prairie•agreement. No action was taken. 21. On December 24, 2007 the City of Spokane and Spokane County agreed on the . Glenrose JPA. - 22. On January 4, 2008, the City of Spokane Valley provided Spokane County with a ~ revised version of the Turtlecreek JPA. A copy of that agreement is attached as Exhibit ~J R1• . OPTIONS: council direction RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NA BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mike Connelly, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: N/A (See City Clerk for copies of identified exhibits.) ~ ~ , March 25,2008, Regular Nleetint, 6:00 p.m. (due date Monday, March 171 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Nlinutes [5 minutes] 3. Interim Ordinance 07-025 (czpires May 7, 2008) 1t reading [15 minutes] 4. First Reading Stornnvater Ordinance - John liohrttan (15 minutes] 5. Admin Keport: Legislative Matters - l)ave Mcrcier [15 minutes1 Ci. Into Only: Uepartrnent Reports [*estimated meetinh: ___minates] .~ril 1, 2008. Study Scssion, 6:00 V.m. [due datc 1londay, `i.irch 241 1. Subarea Plan & Regulations Document - Scott Kuhta (30 minutes) 2. Gomprehensive Plan Amendments Quarterly Updatc- Greg RicCormick (30 minutes ) .tictturd.71', ,.lprr? I1ah`, .1lrrri(?cuu 1'urk Nr;tc! April 8, 2008. Regular Meeting. 6:00 p.m. [due date Rtunday, Ntarch 311 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes 15 minutes] 2. First Rcaclink Ordinancc adopting Suh-arca I'lan - Scott Kuhta [20 minutcs] 3. Interim Ordinance 07-025 (expires May 7, 2008) 2nd reading _ [15 minutcs] 4. Sccond Reading StormNvater Ordin,ince - John Hohman ~ I5 minutesJ /;S'tule of tlre: ('itY .-tclclress: f April 15, 2008. Studv Session 6:00 a.m. (duc date Monday, April 71 1. Accidenl Statistics Along Broadway -Neil Kersten (15 minutes) Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Update - Morgan Koudelka (15 minutcs) i. Fiudget Amendment for 2008 Budget - Ken Thompson (15 minutes) April 22, 2008, Reeular Mccting, 6:00 p.m. [due datc Monday, April 141 1. Second Rcadinb Ordinancc Aclopting Suh-arc<i f'lan - Scott Kuhta [ 10 minutrs] 2. tnfo Only: Department Reports Anril 29, 2008, Studv Session 6:00 p.m. [due dAte Monday, April 211 N1av 6, 2008, Studti• Ses.4ion 6:00 n.m. [due date Monday, April 281 19av 13 2008, ReLular Mcetina, 6:00 p.m. [duc date NTunday, N1ay 51 ~.hut~('otuicrl:S'I~r11K~rr~u;. / nTHER PENDING ANlllUR i?PC(7M1N(; ISSI1E5iNlEE:TINGS: Animal Convol Ordinance - Carv Driskell Pines,`IvfanS!irld Ckm~, acc A,~ ard tite~e %\'o: I:v Code Campliance Amendmcnts ([JDC) Retreat: June (2009 guals (Shoreline Nta,crr F'rc,eram) Comp Plan Amend-Quarierly Update (Jan, Apl, July, Oct) Strategic Financial Plan (July ?Or)y ) Coyote Rock ROW Dedications Approval Street N-lasterPlan Adoption East Gateway Monument Structure Transpartation IIenefit District Graffiti Ordinancc "('ransportation Impacts Impact Fee Request Central Valley School District Use Agreement (Cary Driskc?; i Law Enforcemcnt Connact Work Force Development, [n-Sen ice llclinitinn~ Mansfield Ave ROW Dedications for Granite Pt Apts. Mirabeau Parkway Speed Limits/TralTic Control Devices -ioe incl.id.• ~irn: '~,r ~~~~1•li~ ~;~nn:~r~; ) NLC Meeting Nov 11- 15, Orlanda, Florida Northeast Housinv Solutions City Mernbership crucight'ower 5.ze vL:hiclr nrdinlncr i ADVANC'C ACLN I)A For Planning Discussion Purposcs ( ini` as of January 31, 2008; 9:45 a.m. Please no~te thiti is a work in proeress; items are. '~!nt.iti` c To: Council c4t St:ilf From: City Managcr Rc: Draft Schcdulc frr i_'pcomin,- C'Ouncil Februarv 12, 2008, Regular Nleeting, G:QO p.m. [due date Monday, Feb 41 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes [5 minutes] 2. Nlotion Consideration: Bid Award Contractor Selection Outdoor Paols - Mike Jackson/S Worley[ 10 minute; ] 3. Motion Consideration: Street Acecptancc - John HohmanlMike Connelly [10 minutcs] 4. Mayoral Appointment: Cable Advisory Board - Mayor vtunson [5 minutesl 7. Admin Report: Legislative Matters - Dave Mcrcier [10 minutes] 6. Admin Keport: 2007 Accomplishments fteport - Mike Jackson 130 minutes] 7. Admin Report: Universal Park Consultant Selection - tilike Jackson (10 minutes 8. Admin Report: Valley Mission Park Site Plan - Mike Jackson I 10 minutesJ 9. Admin Rcport: Transportation Benefit District - Cary Driskell 115 minutes J 10. Pne Gnrrtruct Renewal Report -Neil Kersten [15 minutes] 11. Discussion: Ad Hoc Committee Charters - Mati or NlunsonlDeputy h•tayor Denenny [20 minutes] 12. Executive Session: Land Acquisition (beeins at 5 p.m.) [*estimated meeting: 140 minutesl Feb 19, 2008, 5tudv Scssion, JOINT MTG W/PLANNING CntiTNTiSSTnN 6:00 p•m. (tlue 1Tnn, Feb 1 I J E3ook 111 Sub-area Plan -N•tichael Preedman Februarv 26, 2008, Reeular Meeting, 6:00 p.m. ((lue elate Mond:i}, Feb 181 1'roclamation: Support of Armed Forces & Aerospaee 14fuseum 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes [5 minutes] 2. Motion Consideration: Univcrsal Park Bid Award -Mike Jackson [10 minutes] 3. Admin Report: Aviation Ordinance Discussion - Mike Connelly [30 minutes] 4. Admin Report; Panhandling (ad hoc committee update?)- Cary Driskcll [20 minutes] 5. Adrnin Rcport: Lcgislative Matters - Dave Mercier [10 minutes] 6. Admin Report : Position fteclassifications - Mike Jackson [20 minutes] 7. Adrnin Report: Mirabeau Park Propcrty Land `I'rade- Mike Jackson [IS minutes] 8. [nfo Only: (a) Parks & Rcc Advisory Board - Mike Jac}:son; (b) Department Reports 9. F:xccutive Session: [*estimated meeting: 110 miautes] March 4. 2008, Studv Session, 6:00 p.m. [due date Nlonday, Feb 251 l. Jail Expansion Project - Lt Mike Sparler, Gerry Winkler, Sheriff s Office (15 minutes) 2. Storniwatcr Vtanual Updatc - John Hohman (20 minutcs) 3. Legislative Matters - llave Viercier (10 minutes ) 4. Affordable I iousing - Councilmember Ta}'lor (15 rninutes) 5. Corporate Process 'Craining for Councilmembers - Stan hicNutt (60 minutes) 6. UDC Interim Code Amendments (indoor dog kennels) - Kathy MeClung/Greg McCormick (20 miiwte~,) TOTAL MINUTF.S 140 minutes March 11, 2008, No meetinQ, (iVLC Cungressional Ciry ConJA-larch 8-I2) March 18. 2008. StuJv Session. 6:00 a.m. [due date Nionday, llarc6 lUJ 1. Legislative Matters - Uave Mercier (10 minutes) 2. TMDL Presentation -Councilmember Denenny (20 minutes) 3. Webcasting/television Council vleetings Costs Analysis (20 minutes) 4. Street Design Standards - Neil Kersten (30 minutes) 5. Accident Prer•ention Plan - Ghris Bainbridge (20 minutes) 6. Firiance Curnmittee Repc)rt: Funding Optio~ns (30 minutes) TOTAL Nii`LJTES: 130 minutes Dra11 :\d%•anrc :1gcnda 1i3112008 9.42:23 Ahi Pagc 1 of, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY . Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 5, 2008 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing X information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Letter to Greater Spokane Incorporated (GSI) Re. Economic Development Dialogue GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Mayor Munson believes that it would be useful to speak with business , owners who have recently moved to Spokane Valley as well as those who have decided to expand their enterprises or reject proposals to relocate out of the City. The letter asks that GSI furnish client contact data to the City so that city officials may introduce themselves and converse with business owners about the factors they considered in deciding to locate, expand or anchor their business in the City. OPTIONS: Unless any Councilmember seeks revisions to the content of the attached letter or - objects to the idea of pursuing the suggested dialogue, the letter is planned for release on . February 6. If there are questions or comments, please feel free to give the Mayor feedback at any time. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None required. BUDGETlFINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Dave Mercier ATTACHMENTS Draft Letter , , ScrrYorane ,;,~OValley y 11707 E. Sprague Ave. . Suite 106 • Spokane Valley, WA 9920'6 (509) 921-1000 • Fax (509) 921-1008 • cityhall@spokangvalley.org , e ruary . , 00$ Rich Hadley, PresidendCEO , . Greater Spokane Incorporated • 801 W. Riverside; Suite 100 • ' . Spokane, `VA 99201 • Subject: Economic Development Dialogue Dear Rich: ~ The City of Spokane Va11ey wishes to step up its economic developinent activities and seeks your assistance in doing so. The first phase of oiir approach involves direct data . gathering from business owners withinthe Va11ey to increase our unclerstauding of the dynamics at play in mak.ing key decision Lhat affect prospects for sustauung ar enlarging , the economic base of the City. Vde are interESted in cultivatirig relationships with owners and operators who have broug,ht a busuiess to town and those who have either electcd to expand their enterprise locally or recently decided to continue doing business in the City _ rather than relocate. Our request of yotir organization is to serve as a source of referral by providing us the name and contact data of Va11Ey business people Greater Spokane Incorporated works with that fit the thiee categories describEd above. Wc iniend to visit these businc;sses and engage in conversation that better acquaints us with loc.al enterprises and thc decision making metrics they employ. Wc believe that gaining a bettcr understandinb of local conditions and circumstances that best posturE the City for cncouraging business sector sustainability and growth will pay long term dividends. ' , We cau appreciate that somc businesses are sensitive about anyone divulging GSI involyement while you a.re in thc process of assisting them. We ask that when GSl has • completed renderirig assistance to any business located within the city limits, you inform the cpmpany that City representatives wish to meet Arith thein and seek their permission to pass on their contact information. VVe plan to respoucl by expressing our appreciation ' of their presence in the community and by initiating a dialogue that helps strengflien our . efforts to facilitate continued economic development i.n Spokane Valley. . Thank you for your consideration. I would be happy to speak with you personally about . this request if you wish. . Sincerely, • - R.icha,rd Munson, ivlayor Spvkane Caunty Library Disfrict ~ • Spakane Valley Library Services and District Support Report to the City of Spokane Valley 4th Quarter 2007 r B Custoiner uSe rneaSUreS , Overall 2007 cucula#ion at #he three greater Spakane VaRey librarics was up 4,4% aver last year, with tlte bigges~ iklcrease con tinuing to be the + 1,7%'at Azgoni}e_ Spokane Valley was up 2_496 and Otxs Orchards dawn 7.6% . As tl-ie table belvw shvws, mvst vther measures were up atSpokane VaIley and Argonne and down at Otis Orchards with the exception oF r.egistered users. The more rLguiar deletion of ciaf-abase records For inactirre library cards is resulting in a relatively steady btzt 1ower registratian tafal.. . Selected 4th Quarker 2007 Year-to-]7ate S#atistics Circulaiion Doar cottnr Referenee Program Sofkware Skation ln uiries Al#endaxtce 13oolan s Y'I'D YTD to 1'TD Y'i'D to YTD Y'1'0 bo Y'CD Y`X'D to Y7.'D 7.'1'D to I 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 7007 2006 ' SCLD 2,040,8-75 5,2% 1,224,796 17% 233,507 - 7.?9G 54,322 m 3.3% 228,846 8.296 S O VallE 526.7791 2.4% 298,084 3,3t 75,285 - 7.3% 77,683 8,9;o 73,445 3.8% I O Ar oxtnc 134,635 17.49G 84,941 8,2°6 14,727 73.996 2,126 -8,796 19,633 79_196 Okis 78.063 - 1.696 54,{}87 -5,0% 9,755 28,19b 2,274 4.6% 7,946 - S_89G Selbtntal , 739.477 4.49b 4,37,172 ~.196 99,767 -2,096 22,023 6.596 701,024 5_3% °la $CLD 36_2y6 - 35_79G - 42,7% - 44,596 Registered Custoiners by Rritnch o£ RegisEration . 2047 °l, of Y'1''D Change °l+p Aduit °l0Yvuth , YTD SCLD #rom 2006 ~ SCLD 109,734 - - 5.59'0 75.696 24,496 S a ValIe 35,260 32_1%' - 7_7i6 77_7.i6 22,996 . Ar onne 9,720 8,9% - 5.396 78,1 0 21_9iro Okis 5,032 4_696 -12,59G 70,296 29.896 , SubhntaI 50,017 45,696 - 7,796 - - . 4tn quarter activity highIights at Greater Spolcazie Valley brazxches Spokaxie Va fley .Lxbrat-y 'Cb ere were rnoxe tfxan usual cftaliengutg custorner interactions this month resulking izi reports ta 1aw enforcernent and 911, incladi-ng an angry mstomer wl-to threatened to buxrt down the building and a medical assistance cail for what hi-med out to be a case of- inebrfation + The Far thg Love of tlffovies series continued to be a rnixed bag uFikh J.ow aktendance at the Wecinesday cvening showingg. I#'s looking more and nlore like Saturd ay sf ternoo.n s are khe best time for this program. Page 7 af 6 • The addition of a staff computer at d-ie sel.f-checkout has been awelcome addition as staff is able to register new customers and assist customers with their accouzit questions as well as bei,ng able . tn do other circulation jobs bettiveen customers. Also at self-checkdut, one station was changed to better meet f1DA requirements since there are several reoar customers who use a wheelchair. There was quite a bit of materia.ls shifting on both floors-genres dnwnstairs and a consolidahion of repair manuals in one place upstnirs, making it easier for customers to locate what they need. • Plans were completed to lau.nch a book discussion group in February 2008. Argor►ne Library • 4th quarter activities included staff visits to the Millwood ECEAP; Tiger Cub and Boy Scout visits to learn about the l.ibra.ry; and the usual pre-school storytime and After School Special programs. • A display on China was provided by a regular teen customer who retently traveled there. • Artwork from Ness Elementary and other 1Nest Va.l.ley School District schools was featured. • Axgonne continues its upwazd trend in checkouts with a 17% increase over the 2006 total. The • addition of Friday to the schedtil.e has offered customers more optinns for service and is continuing to impact overall circulation at the library. Otis Orcharcis Librarij • Otis Orchards always has great customer stories. Here's a small selectian. A customer, out of work on a disability claim, praises our selections of vid.eos, books and music. "Stir-crazy" is a real ter.r.~, he says, and we're "saving his life." •A UT'S dxiver came i.n to pick up audio boaks. When a staff inember menMoned tl1at he must be very busy these days, he said he's dxiving a semi hom Spokane to Hermiston, Oregon every day and works 12 hours and that the audio books are what keep him.sane. • A family that liv€d on the South Hill had carcls fAr both library systems but recently moved to Liberly T.,ake, u,naware of their change to non-rESident status. The wife was very-disappointed and dicln't think they cauld afford to purchase a library ca.rd; but her husband purchased a carci for her ChxisLmas stocking. 5he was thrilled. Greater Spokane Valley rriends of the Library , Spakane Valley: The Friends of the Library held a very successful October used book sale bringing in slighkly over $1,400. CusEomers were lined up waitiulg to get ul and expressed rheir appreciation for another `ve.ll-organized event. Argonne: The Friends met in NoveniUcr and dECideci to recruit more metnbexs to their team.. Spokane Valley Area Libraries Froject LCFA fornxation On Qclober 1 the Millwood town cou.ncil voted 4 to I to approve the Greater Spakane Valley LCFA formation request. The Spakanc Valley city coiuicil unaiumously approved its resolution on the 901. With SCLD board approval on the 16th, the joint request wenY ta the Boacd of Cou.nty Commissioners. On November 6 the Com,missioners una.n.i.mously approved the resalutions placing the two LCFA issues on the ylarch 71, 2008 ballot. A cid7en campaign com.m.ittee formed to support the ballot measuxes. Spokane Valley Libran,/ site • City Center Master Plan: SCLD and City staff worked on Masfier Plan issues witlt Nlichael - Freedman's office follo-.aTing the Octobez 2 jouzfi council/board study session, resulting in final Ivlaster Plan drawings shoiyi.ng the library building as a simple rectangle and somc basic paxking areas, as we had requested. •Property purchase: SCLD entered into a consultizlg contract with ClearPath LLC to provide . services related to the negotaation and purchase of properry for a new Spokane Valley Library as well as assistance with masfier planning and site development issues. The Non Binding Letter of Intenti was signed in NOVember and after two months of negotiations, the property purchase Page2of6 agreenlent with University City, [nc. for the new Spokane Valley Lib.r.ary site was approved in principle by the Bnard of I'rustees in DeceinUEr but wasn't finalized for signature by the time that ~ the attorneys working an it left for the Christnas/New Year's holiday. • Conklin Road property: After the City of Spokane Valley provided written confirnation of its E1ppleway right-of-way requirenlents for Conklin Road propErty, ehe seller subsequently shifted the District's properiy 25 feet narth witl1 u1 addendum to the purchase agreement, and the transaction closed on Octobex 30. In Dccenitber Conklin Development decided to appeal the future right-of-way acquisition requirement and requestCd a.formal agreement regarding the disposition of the 25 foot str.ip depending upon the outcome of the appeal. Presentatdons ' Sprague & Appleway Corridnr Subarea 1'lan project manager Scoht Kuhta and SCLD director VZiE:e Wirt presenteci the prog-run on the city center project and new Spokane Valley Library f.or the November 6 Greater Spokane Vallcy Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Coninuttee ineeting. 1'rustee Tint HahtenUurg did a combo presentatian at December's Spokane Valley Chamber of Com.merce Gavernment Affairs Coulnuttec meeting-part as a trustEe and part as a campaign comnuttee co-chair. DISTRICT-WID : Customer use ineasures • . As anticipated, we brokE two mxllion circulal-i.ons of library materials in 2007-2,040,875 to be exact, a 5°,6 increase over 2006. Equal]y (or niore) impressive was the 2007 door count of 1,224,796. By way of ~ comparison, that's higher than the combined 2006 attendance (the latest figures available) at all three Public Facilitics District venues: the Veterans Memorial Arena, Convention Center, and INB Performing Arrs Center. Qther mcasu.res to note? E1n incrEase in soflware station bookings (228,846 far the year); a 13% increase in meeting room boakings (2,021 for the year); a 22% i.ncrease in Web site user sessions (458,840) and an $°,6 increase in page views (1,076,875) that included a 6$% increase for the catalog; and x 4% increase in database scarches. 'Chere s even a silver lirung and/or explanation for mosY of the decreases from 2006. i2eferenee inquiries are dnwm only 2%; much less than the plumrnetulg nwnbers of the past couple af years. Program numbers are d.owm only 5%, Even though they reflect the huge change in the way that our outreach services al•e done. tand the drop in database retriEVals is ah least partially attributable to the most popular genealogy database no longer being available remotely because of license agi-eement restrichions. Adult services Prograznnung: Ocrober was all about Spokane is IZeadirig, with several SCLD programs based on the Jess Walter book, "Citizen Vince." The fall Humanities Washington progxams, Jack NisbeNs "David Douglas and thE Natural Treasures oE the Inland Northwest" were presented at six branchES over a three-month period. Several eomputer instrucrion classes were presentecl around the District, Nvith aDecember Spokesman-Rerriezv listing resulting in capacity registrations and waiking l.ists for upcoming classes. Collections: 4Veeding assignments werc audio ba4k collections, several non-ficdan categories, reference, and large type. r putreaeh: An average of 32 adult facilili.es was visited each month; the ntajority in the Spokane Valley area. T.hat number i.ncludes visits and drop-off of deposit collecti.ons. There was also a presentation of the Read the Region program at Cheney Assistecl Living. Page 3 of 6 Community: Moxa.n Prairie has been eonfirmed as a Tax-Aide site for 2005, jou-ii;ng Spokane Valley, Norltt Spo.kanc, Deer Park and Cheney. _ Youth services Programming: Montlily A.Eter School Specials facused on Russian, Native American, and iVtexican_ ' cultures. The Teen Read Week program was "Get Stuck at Your Library" which featurecl crafts with duch tape. It was a hit everywhere wzd lots of teens now have fashionable duct tape wallets and flip flops. t1 winter musical Vrogram for school aged children with Eric F-Iermai1 was confirmed and four 2008 Sumnler Reading programs wer.e booked. In addition MOBNS will Ue partnering with SCLD and Spokane Public Libra.ry for Summer Reading 2008 Uy providing free day passes to all ch.ild,ren who finish thei.r reading goal. Big Read: Spokane's Big Read (A National Endowment for the Humanities program in partnership with Spokane Public and Fairchild AFB libraries) of T'lte Nialf.ese Falcort w.ill kick-off at the Davenpnrt Hotel on Febniary 19th. Events azouzld Spokane over the next Eour wEeks will include nair film series, book discussions, lectures on topics ranging from ha.rd-bailed detective fiction to the "Art-of Disappearing", and a"little read" at same local clementary schools with author Bruce Hale (Ttie Maited Fnlcnn), and culnzinate in a Short Noir Film Festival for Teens at the 1v1AC. Collecdons: V1Teeding assigmnienfis a.ttcluded childreri s paperbacks and picture books. Oukreach: As a resuJt of our letters to childcare facilities advertising storytime services and preschaol book bags, we have added about 7 more facilities. We've noticed an increase in the caxculatian of our preschool book bags. SCLD is now certified as a STA.iS txaining organazation for childcare workers; youth services staff will present "6 Skills of Early Literacy" for clock hour credits at an upcoming Spokane Regional Childcare rneeting and also at the Gift of Chi.ldhood Conference. Cnmmunity: Both rEgional youth services supervisors participated in "Care to TZead," a train.ing provided by Reading is Fundamental-a train ttie trainer session for a six-session series of worl:shops that we c3n adapt to fit our STARS trainulg plans for 2008. Other community acdvities werc the firsfi meeting of the Quality Rating Improvement System Com,munity Advisory Team (QRIS) for ehildcares in Spokane and a book ta.lk of new non.Eiction ehildren s titles and new teen fiction for local Washi.ngton LiUrary Media Assoriation (school librarians) monthly meeting. DiSTRICT • Boar.d of Trustees acHon • The resoluHnn requesting the establishment of the Greater Spokane Valley Library Capital . Facility Area was approved. ' • Several District policies were reviewed and reaffirmed or updated this quarter: Volunteer Program, Facility Use for Palitical Purposes, Friends of the Library, and l?ersonnel. • The 200$ Ralanced Scorecard was approved. • l:n budget action, there were budget presentations throughout the quarter and a variety of resolutions requireci for property tax levies and budget adoption were approved. • The Real Estate anci Purchase Agreement with Uiuversity City, Inc. for the new Spokane Valley . Lib.rary site was approved. • The Boazd concurred with the request of the Spangle toivn council's an,nexation request. • 2008 officers were elected, with Acin Apperson once again serving as chair and Jake Laete as vicc- chair. • The 2008 meeting schedule and locahions was approved, along with overview presentation topics and the policy review scbedule. _ 2008 budget ~ Approval of the September 20061evy lid lift proposal made SCLD's 2007 service enhancements and staE£ing backfill possible and its impact will conti.nue to be felt in 2008 and 2009, as the [YnanciaT plan Page 4 of 6 for the lid lift spa.nnecl three years. Fortunately, Years 1 and 2 of that plan were/are consistent with projections, allewing us l•o contulue te maintain those service enhancements for oux cardllolders. General Operating fund revenue, including a$119,1].0 interfund trans.£er, is projected at $10,031,946, with a hcalthy i.ncrease in new construckion softening the rami.ficahivns of the 1% levy lid on property tax levies ttiat cAntinues in effect. With his lid, our levy rate will drop almost 10°% fi•om 50¢ to just undex 45¢, a$1,012,000 reduction fronl the maximucn property tax levy possible. Because both the Airway Hcights service contract and the City of Spokane Moran :['rairie annexatian mitigation fees arE calculated using the regular levy xate, there's also an unpact on them. In expenses, est7.mated at $9,296,258, lhe largest incrcase wil1 be Eor persanncl-salary adjustments equal to the 1.8% increase in the min;mum wage, salary steps far eligibl.e stalf, Uenefit costs, and two neNv supporY positions arc included. 'C'he next largest incr.ease is for library materials, up 10% over 2007 to $1.235 million. The approxunate $735,000 balance of revenue over expenses should provide suEficient cash flow going into 2009 to assure service level maintenance in Yea.r 3 oE the levy lid lift financial plan. Revenue and expenses, incluciing the $1,235,000 library materials budget, arc the high.est i.n dte District's histoxy. 1'roject Safe Place We've agreed to participate in hlie VolunteErs of tlmerica (VOA) Project Safe 1'lace, which identifies stratEgie locations in the community where peoplE, Especially children, can scek safety and assistance. Each is designated by a black and yellow sign on the outside of tilte building. Staff at all Facilidts have had orientation and the signs are up. ' . Briefly O ■ 1he District's non-resident library card fee, which is calculated using a'formula estatilished by BQard resolution, won't change for 2008. TYll remain at $95 per household. DiSTRICT • Collection Services • 11,336 copies representing 3,351 titles were ordErcd;16,211 il•enis were processed and sent to branches. ■ Districl•-wide book displays and book lists werc "Spokane Xs I7eading Citizen Vince" (October), with an accompanying web bookli.st featuring books ltie Spokrine Is Rending author Jess Walter would lil:e, as well as a print and web booklist called "Read 77he Regiori" fearuring books fi•om the Pacific Northwesl's best; "\Tational tlmerica.nTaidian Heritage Month" (November); and "Fu.nny Fiction" (December). ■ As o.f December 1, all ten branches had a free three-year subscription to GrantStation,which providES grants information aUout fcderal, sl•ate and privatc funcling, as well as onlinc trauung on grant seeking, technical a.ssistance, and grant writing. ■ Access to the World Boak Onli.ne Reference Center went live on December 24 Customers have unlain,ited simultaneous in-l.ibrary and remole aecess to every article from the 22-volume Wurlrl Book EncycIapedia print set, V1'arld $ook Kids, and a Spaitish-language encyclopedia. 11-ie nu.mUer of print copies of the Y1lorld Book wi.ll be reduced from nine ho four to help pay for the online version. Coxnrnunications • Faeilitated several-Spokesman-Reviezv and Spokczne VaIleij Nezus Herald articles, incluciing a levy lid wrap-up story, University City lazid purchase, and audiobooks; coordinated a KPBX interview on the propexty purchase. • Related to the Greafier Spokane Valley LCFA project, prepared fact sheet and dish•ibuted to Urnnehes; draited and coordinatcd content far the projECes SCLD website section. Page5of6 • Prcpared publicity for Big .12ead and began coordinating kick-off event pla.zttv.ng. ■ Coord.inated staff media trauung session at Gonzaga Universily. _ ■ Continued to caordinate media trauling fox Nov.17 and compiled Uios on eaeh trainee. • In consultataon with youth services staff, decided to hald the 2008 library card campaign in rhe fa.ll rather thu-i late winter. Human Resour.ces ■ Attended the WCIF/WCI1' meeting in Sea-'Cac at which health insurance prem.iums aze . established. Elttended the WCIF/ WCIP meeting in Richland. • Spent a grEat deal of t7me revising ulle.rview questions to try to assess work behaviors, and working -with the interviewers to better articulate the competencies they are requiring in new hires. ■ Comments on the October 26 Sta.ff Day were posityve, with presenterJoe AlUert and the wellness program kick-off speri.f.ically mentioned. • Contracted with Fastern 4Vashington University for 16 hours of traxn,i.rig for all managers and supervisors that wi_ll begin on Janua:ry 18. ■ Completed procESSing United Way eampaign contributions, which at $10,619 set an SCLD record. Infoxmation Technology ■ lnstalled new co.mmercial grade wirelESS access points that are more manageable through thc network in all brwlches and contulued to look for ways to limit b3ndwidth the wireless users can occupy in a.n effort ta slow the rate at which we tteed to increase the Internet accP.ss bandwidfih. ■ Will purchase Smart Money Ma.nager software for use in implementing WeU-based credit card payments for custAmecs' fees. ■ Restruetured three IT staff positions t•o varying degrees in preparation .Eor thc addition of a new operations assistanl position budgeted for 2005. - , Finance, Facilities, Purchasuig ~ • To allow for majar repairs, the Spok3ne Val.ley Library elevator was shut dAwn (or two days. • Rcceived the TDistrieti's 2005-2006 audit report, which included nA fi.ndings or management letters. •Terminated the custodial scrvices contract with Nadonal Maintenailce Contractors as of November 18 after months of failing to correct documentation compliance issues fvr T.&I's intent ta pay prevailing wages requiremenhs. '['he firm with the second lowest bid from the spring 2007 custodial serviees contracfi soliritation, American Building Maintenance, agreed to accept a short- term contract throuph vlarch 31, 2008. a Completed work for the early 2008 RFP process for both custodial services and grounds maintenance services contracts, with both RFP's to be advertised on January 6 and a February 11 bid closing. • A review of the district's projECted 2008 cash flow coiifirmed that a Tax Anl7cipation Note(s) issue will not be required. Ot/23/o8 . Page 6 of 6 OFFICE UF THE CITY ATTORNFX SpWoane ~CI-IAFI.. CONNELLY, CTTY ATTORNEY ~ CA17.Y P. ARiSKELL, U~PUTY CiTY ATTOltN~Y ,,;oOValley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 549.921.1008 ♦ cityhaU@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mayor Richard Munson, members of the City Council; Dave Mercier, City Manager, Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager . From: Mike Connelly, City Attorney CC: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director, Kathy McClung, Community Development Director; John Hohman, Senior Engineer-Development ~ Date: Jaauary 30, 2008 Re: Street Acceptance On Decembcr 31, 2005 the City council adopted ardinance No. 05-033, entiYled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE BVALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING SPOKANE VALLEY CODE SECTION 10.05.450 - 10.05.455 ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR ACCEPTING RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATIONS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTNE DATE. The pertinent sECtions specifically stated: No real property dedicated to public use by an owner of such property shall be deemed public right-of-way, or under the care or ~ control of the City, unless the dedication has been accepted through passage of a resolution confirming the same by the City council. 1 This provision is not intended to change the dedication and - acceptance process that occurs by operation of law under 58.17 through the final platting process. The Public Works Director or designee shall adopt appropriate procedures to ensure that any dedication and acceptance is in accordance with adopted City or State law. This provision was repealed by the adoption of the new Uniform Development Code in Scptember of 2007 pursuant to Ordinance Na. 07- 015. The council has the option of adopting a new ordinance similar to that set forth above, adopting an ordinance that creates a new proccss or procedure that could be either administrative or a mix of administrativE , action and legislative oversight or take no further action. A formal process for the acceptance of right of way is rccommended. The amount of Council oversight is a matter of policy for the council to decide. The procESS should however include a requiremcnt that all original documents rcflecting the acquisition of right of way be C.led as a permanent record with the City Clerk. For example, the council could adopt the language of the previous - ordinancc (05-033) but add language such as: Authority to accept dedications of right of way on behalf of the City, which occur as a result of road construction capital projects is delegated to the City Manager or designee. Staff would also recommend that the council consider a resolution confirming L'he adoption of dedical:ions of right of way that may have occurrcd as part of past capital projects ancl that were not specifically approved by the cauncil. Attachment: Ordinance No. 05-033 - . ~ 2 . I` CITY OF SPQKANE VAL,LEY 1 SFOICANE COUN`CY, WASHINGTON QRDINANCE NO. 05-033 . AN O1tDINANCE OF 'I`HE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPUKANE COUNTY, VVASHINGT0N, ESTABLISHTNG SPOKAiNE VALLEY CODF SEC'I'IOV 10.05.450 - 10.05.455 ADpPTINC REGULATIOAfS FOR ACCFPTING RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATIONS, PROVIllliItG FOR SFVERABILITY, ANn CFFECT'IVE llATF. VJHMREAS, the City desires to have ati organized process by which it accepts real hroperty dedicated ta the City for use as right-of-way for transportation purposes by the general public; and WHERE AS, most roads within the City have been, or arc anticipated to be, dedicated to the City through the fmal platting process; and W:EIFRrAS, there dnes not currently exist a regulatory mechanism for aceeptance from private parcies af real property for use as public roads in the City, except ihrough the final platting prbcess. NQW, THEREF012.E, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as fol lows: Section a. P, urnose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish a regulatory meehanism whereby real property can be dedicated to the City, and the City can accept khe same, for public use for tra»sportation purposes when dedication and acceptmnce through final platting is not appropriate. Sectiun 2. Ncw Sections to Chapter 10.05, eiititled "Right-of Way Tacdication" are hereby O addcd to ttie Spokane Valley Munieipal Code tq read as follows: Section 10.05.450 - Acceptance of Right-of-WaY. No real qroperty dedicated to public use by an owner of such property shall be deemetl public right-of-way, or under the care or contrnl af the City, unless the dedication has been acccpted through passage of a resolution confirming the same by the City . Council. This provision is not intended to change the dedication and aeceptance process that occurs by opcration of law under RCW 58.17 through the final platting process. Seclion 10.05.455 - Adoation of 1'rocedures. The Public Works Uirector or designee shall adnpt appropriate procedures to ensure that any dedication and accepCance is in accordance with adopted City or State law. Section 3. Sevcrabilitv. 1f any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinancc should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a courl of cotnpetent jurisdiction, such invalidity or uncoiistitutionality shall nat ai(eet the validity or constitirtionality of any other section, sentence, clause; or phrase of this Ordinancc. Section 4. Effective 17a1e. This Ordiiiance shall be in full farce aiid effect five (S) days aRer thc date of publication of this Orclinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City. I'ASSED by the City Council this 13te day of laccember, 2005. FITTEST: Mayor, Diana Wilhite Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinancc 05-033 Adopting 17igfit-of-Way Dcdication Process Page I of 1 January Snowfall Winter 07-08 Spokane (KGEG) 70 - 63" total GO through ~ 50 113 1 ~ 40 ~ 2007-0$ Sn ow - ez 30 i Average Snow y 33.6 avg 20 ' th ro ugh 10 ~ o ' Q~ o 0 0 0 ~ o o am ~ o g o o ~ o o~ o 9 ~ LD N m ~ ~ ~ e- ~ e- e- ~ T- N CN CV e- s- r ~ v- ~ D ate 4th Highest ever in Spokane January Year Snowfall 56.9" 1950 48.7-' 1969 46.5" 1954 40.0" 2008 7th Snowiest Winter through Jan. July - January Year Snowfall 77.3" 1964-65 74.3" 1949-50 70.1" 1992-93 69.7" 1968-69 67.5" 1996-97 65.5" 1951-52 63.0" 2007-08 Current Status of the City • Priority 1 and 2's are clear. • Priority 3's are plowed, but many streets have an ice floor of 2" - Y. • Priority 4's are 60% complete. _ ~ ~ - - r•''~ 3~~'r ~i ~ ` ~ ~ _ ~ } t' , , - ~ _ ~ • r ~ 1 c~~ ~ ~ - - ' _ . ; _ _ - • .._~1...~~ ~ ~ ~~1 ~ • • ` rM~-: ~ 1N1f ` ♦ ' ~~.1 ~ ~ 1 y. ~•+f? '1~ 1~•'. ~S-....~~ -.i~A1~1~~~.. ~ . ~ ~/~1 ~ ~ L~~ - _ r . t . ~ . N f ` . ~ ~ s~•' r j t ~ ~ i-' ~ ~ ~ ~ u,,, ~ ~ ~ ~ . _ d+~~~=~r ~'•!F; 1 - i. - ~ ~ f ~ i -~C'l ~Ic.~i~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ _ - ' . ~ ~ ,~~r ' s r. , . ` ~ - 4 -i--= - . ~ - ; I ~ , ~ . ~ j ~ I . ~ ' 1 z u~ , f~ I~ ~ ~t - ~ f i y~ ~ ~ _ _ ! ~ - - " '_T-. • L t - - ~1.1` - - ' • - ~ ~ • ► . . t• ~ •MI,F - _~1...•'~ ~ ~ _tf ~ , ~'~i • I. I ~ - f ~ ~ _ - ~ rr: • -~=1. ~ j`~1-~-;;! :~'~~1~~~' ~ ( • - ~ -i, ~ ~ i 1 ~ i{~~ i i~ ~1 r / ~ r-~~ ' r ~i._ _ ~ - s S _t~~~~ • ~u ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ t~- ~a ~t _ . ~ . ~ ` ~ - - t; ~ i~~ . 4~~ r ~ _ ~ _ . ~ ~,~a!`►ti~~" I SI~ _ ! _ ~ -yir i. ~ ~^L ..a l~~ ♦ : CompletedAreas ~'~4 , r' _E_ . ~~.t}~-- ~ . ; - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ' 11✓ ~ ` .a..._ ~ i ;i~' ` _ - f f _ 1~~- f~ • ' Y~ .~.fr ~ ^ - . _ ~ ~ ' ' ~ - ~ { _ ~ t•• 1f~~lr•__]..2 r a~ I ~ . ~ ~ [~I ~ Y~ I 1 11-y"il~ r+ ~ ~ ~ ; • . - ~ . ..r~~1.M~~~ / ~f ~ ~ Yv~r I~~~ 1 1~ ~ ~ . ► ~ , j~ ~ ~ r~ • ~ I ~~fr.~p~r►; . ' ~ ' ' - Current Work Plan • County - 5 graders and 2 plow/sander trucks during the day shift. - 6 graders plus 3 plow sanders at night. • Private -4 graders during day and night shift. • All residential streets should be plowed by late Wednesday. Future Flo-oding Concerns • The National Weather Service has issued a flood warning beginning Thursday through the weekend. • Warm temperatures, rain and higher winds a re expected. . Future Flooding Concerns • We have reauested the County have 4 graders during the day and 6 at night if needed. • We have GAAA eiger Crews on standby to clear drains. . • We have Sweeping on standby with 2 sweepers to vacu u m u p stand i ng water. • We have our two City Maintenance Inspectors on overtime if needed. . Street Repair Potholes • Much greater than normai. • The 2 City maintenance inspectors have used over five hundred 50 pound bags of cold mix asphalt to repair street potholes in January. • We will initiate a$200,000 contract with Poe Asphalt under the City Managers contract authority to handle larger street pothole, repairs. Thanks • Tim Klein, Street Maintenance Superintendent • Receptionists and Street Maintenance I nspectors - • County Supervisors and Crew - 9 Private Contractors . AMOV1~~~ ~~OKANE COL.JIYTY SAIVD1NG, DEICIIVG, SIVO1IV REMO11AL ACTIJAL EXPEIVDITIJRES 2007 2006 2005 2004 SAIVDI NG $274,955 $161,521 $102,095 $112,900 DEICIfV~ $4633681- $74,71 7 $153,335 $113,405 SNOV11 $131548 $ 91746 $113,352 $108,150 I~EMO11AL TOTAL $7529184 $245,984 $3685782 $3349455 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY RESOURCES FOR 2008 STREET FUND WINTER COSTS • Street Fund • Savings in street fund during 2008 • Winter Weather Reserve • Extra fund balance once 2007 books are closed . Remember to replenish the Winter Weather Reserve Fund 2006 Approved Mul~~-year County Contract - Exhibit 2 . Multi-year Budge# and Transition.P[an ncTJvrrr ACrIvIrr 200e ZOaa cmrrcouourr . . CODE dESCFRIF''f'IOW ACT11f1TV CONTRACT Amo[]NT , . E~'t~Rbadi~la~fianai~oa'~a4~iluli io` ~;I'f~ ~:'~'yM 9 u~F!~~ ;4:~,~ . ~ .r. . _ _ . . 2$12 a{I9f G071ff'd Pf2 0I ' . r 2824 9haulder Re Ir cI . 2922 Shnu]dar P,talntanaeeo Gradar cf 28311 {3reMOP1a'irt F2vad Graing c[ ' . ;~3JU Pothufc P=hlrqgm ' CGf , . 2340UV Wfnter PolMe Palch COUnt g24,206.73 234Z Chl 5e3ll 2943 Pavernent Removal & Repfacm* 2344 Caadc$ealln4 CDUfI $445,700.30 _ 2345 Qh" Sealirvg Prep & Cleanu 2346 BlOdE P{][CM H4t r-l . 29413 FO 92a1 - 2359 Grawellf}iri Raad Temlp cI 2413 Llpht Qi~oh GEeanfnA G I ~511 $rfd4e Ins GUon CI 2512 Brfdge kep3ir-,8up2rsfruchire [".I 2513 61iG a Ra a1rSU]]slructure Cit 3610 51dCt427k Clt 2611 Clubs q 2620 P91hs ~`il 2E45 C3u$rdrall Mdnden$nCe ~'iq . N46 IW4 Fenaine clty 2047 Pl4edianlulalnuananca Cliy 2661 iJquld deEc]ng Caun $18 235,a5 2662 Sandn4 C013f1 $279,412-315 . a663 Snrnu liarrwwal4:toaclvra COUi1l $267.263,99 2594 Snow Rarnaval - 59Gawalks C4lin $5 074.1 5 - 2570 SlreetClceNng` - CI 2879 Mrr6er9wei~ InA ~'il 2+373 Sweepings Cleari-Lpp cI 2719 RaadaideM9win4 CI 2712 6rush Cremi r1Yao Trimmirrg Cau nt $42618,2T " 2713 wEged conli~REs CI - 2713A Weed Peantrcd-Res no s ay) q 2714 WeCd QOfItrQl-~'i4f1 cIt 27 14# W[icd Conlrnl-Gen (no spraY) GIty 27ZO lmgakimi ~i 2750 L.itler PickLrp 2769D Lfilerpfc6ou dam city 2753 LlfkarCanirol GIL 27 6D ContourCantraE city 2742 GurdaurCanbqt-RfVU ci ' . 87511nvestimGon CDUn ~114~9,46 " . Emeru°rr.7 calWut Caunty 32%090.1]o SuhWtal J3oed Mainleflance $A87.79~,97 f aiiaJ;sWi;jjwa~f;P~ne9~ari~~li~i~~1~;!~'~'..'~.~n~`I?i~~~lr~~ 971a o,y,r,ell Repalr ci e7M opjwau clem,wt Ci . 9I30 CIIIVPftR4 [T ci ' 974U CulVer# CIean4Ut CIt 9742 Swaln Malrroertarwe C It . 9747 Curb. {3aer& Fnlet Re a7 Clty . 8750 Chasin94Yater Counky ~5.~IE~1,14 Pump Repalr . 11!s osai Starmwatar Marn[ananoeYolal $SA94,16 2541 lA9S. Sl nMa3ntenaitaa Cinun $62 U5fx5i 7642 fCW95. 599na1Mafnienanoe COUlI $2I37,2s3,9a 2643 TMS. S[r1 n Couil $102A65.69 2e4-4 rMS Crassvralks 8 duoas s Cauniy $ae.4z7.12 2643 Wel t liimarktlan S nl Ciouniy S1.786.62 - , 2658 SVf I,pre $ Clearou COUI7 ~595.51 2664 Lcnnd Trucl~- Pra L Cmertu Coun[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2943 Raad MalntenaRae 9tr! n COufII 2044 RoadMainlariancal,e eqds COUII aZOY 5iyn Vonc~aIism Goun 4202 ACGd9Td R9 efr- Si9n6 c0U17 4208 AcrltlantRepafr- 5fgnak • COU11ky Traffic Maln6annnca Tatnl $493,79523 . t$~,aqw, ~g~s~nimar.3~?'vPt, odd~aod:TraHlc~lyl~ifii~ar~iica,~'~';~t~!~~►~:~'.-"~t~t5~..~~j;k~,,'~*,:in2 . . . _ . . . Ro2d PL21ritfioerlce T89k5 139e7,111_91 Siomrrrakar Mainkenanca Taska $6,494_9 s TmFfrc pAaintenence Tasks Me,na emen[Overhead 19% ' $292.416.23 AdIT1rf118UMIlra OMerheqd a .ri% $74 320.UB Corr¢n8mCJ}' Clty PAafnkenanceJinspectars•• SUBT4TALS 51,943.137A9 ReOQt111t1e11dad Budget TOTAI. CiTY BUDC7ET ' 20 08 Restricto d BudgetSuhrnlM[ $1,401 ,468,00 2008 Approved sudget $1 ,014,46 5.0 0 „ BID TABULATION - Swimmins~ Pool Ups~rades Sp~~1{a.T1e BID NO. 08-005, , ~Val.ley BID OPENING DATE February 1, 2008, 11:00 A.M. BIDDERS Engb3cofs Estimete M.J. Taklsakl, Inc. ALL REQUIRED SUBMrTTALS Ycs 1'fQ11R fTE61 DESCRIPTION Unit aly Unit Price TOta1 Unit Prico TOt3l 1 B,ASE BID L.S. 1 $ 1,799,029.00 $ 1,799 029.00 $ 2,354,420AO $ 2,354,420.00 2 ALTERNATE BID NO. 1A - PARK R0AD SECURIIY LIGHTING L.S. 1 $ 13,293.00 $ 13 293.00 $ 8120.00 $ 8,120_00 3 ALTERNATE BID NO. 18 -TERRACE VIEW SECURIIY LICI4T1NG L.S. 1 $ 16,844.00 $ 16 E34A.00 $ 8,800.00 $ 8,800.00 4 ALTERNATE BID NO. 1C - VALLEY MISSION SECURITY LIGHTIN L.S. 1 $ 16,275.00 $ 16,275.00 $ 13,650.00 $ 13,650.00 ' 5 ALTERNATE 810 NO. 2A - PARK ROAD SHADE STRUCTURE L.S. 1 8,952.00 $ 8,952.00 $ 10,670.00 $ 10,670.00 6 ALTERNATE BID NO. 2B-TERRACE V1EW SMADE STRUCTURE L.S. 1 $ 8,952.00 $ 8,952.00 $ 10,610.00 $ 10,670.00 7 ALTERNATE BID NO_ 2C - VALLEY MISSION SNAOE STRUCTURE L.S. 1 $ 11.084.00 $ 11,084.00 $ 17,180.00 $ 17,180.00 8 ALTERNATE 13ID NO. 3A - PAf2K ROAQ POOL DECK L.S. 1 $ 17,488.00 $ 17,488.00 $ 15,610.130 $ 15 610.00 9 ALTERNATE BID NO. 3B - TERRAC[ VIEW POOL DECK L.S. 1 $ 9,446.00 $ 9,446.00 $ 9,600.00 $ 90600,00 10 ALTERNATE BID NO. 3C - VALLEY MISSION POOL DECK L.S. 1 $ 12,074.00 $ 12,074.00 $ 12 900.00 $ 12,900.00 .11 ALTERNATE BID NO. 4- VALLEY MISSION WATER FEATURE 17,762.00 $ 17,762.00 $ .15 520.00 $ 15,520.00 TOTAL BASE BID ESTIMATE a 1,931,199.00 $ 2,477,140.00 BASE BID $ 1,931,199.00 $ 2,477,140.00 Sales Tax $ 166,083.11 $ 213,034.04 GRAND TOTAL $ 2,097,2II2.11 $ 2,690,174.04 • Cflrrected Total - Differs from Bid Proposal Form " CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 5, 2008 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing a information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Joint Planning Area Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A; Spokane County Wide Planning Policies. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: See below BACKGROUND: (All identified exhibits are available for your review with the City clerk.) 1. On August 10, 2005 the Joint Planning Subcommittee of the GMA Steering Committee of Elected Officials discussed steps necessa,ry to create joint planning agreements. iN'linutes of that meeting are attached as Exhibit A. 2. On SeptembEr 06, 2005 the City of Spokane Valley provided a proposed Joint Planning Agreement to the Spokane County Cammissioners. A copy of that agreement and the commissioner's response is attached as exhibit B. 3. On September 29, 2006 this agreement was discussed at the Joint CitylCouncil Meeting at the Spokane Valley Council Chambers. See attached Notice of Special Meeting attached as Exhibit C. 4. Between this date and early 2006 the City and County exchanged versions of this Joint Planning Agreement. What began as a specific joint planning agreement with respect to the TurtleCreek area evolved into a discussion concerning a template to be used by the County for all inter-jurisdictional joint planning agreements. 5. On January 18, 2006, the GMA Steering Committee approved a Motion Recommending Joint Planning For Existing Urban Growth Areas, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D. 6. On February 08, 2006, the City of Spokane Valley provided the GMA Steering Committee members with copies of a draft Joint Planning Agreement proposed to be adopted as a template. Ttiis agreement was to be discussed at the GMA Steering Committee meeting on February 16, 2006. (See e-mail from Spokane County to the GMA Steering Committee, attached as Exhibit E.) 7. On May 17, 2006, the City of Spokane Valley sent, at the request of the County, an additional copy of the joint planning. agreement provided to the GMA Steering Committee. (See e-mail attached as Exhibit F.) 8. On June 28, 2006 the GMA Steering Committee considered a joint planning agreement to be used as a template. By this time the document included changes suggested by both Spokane County and the City of Spokane. (See minutes attached as Exhibit G.) 9. The GMA Steering Committee discussed the joint planning agreement template at both its September and October meetings. Possible changes were presented and discussed. No action was taken. 10. On October 16, 2006 Spokane County circulated a revised copy of the joint planning agreement to all members of the GMA Steering Committee for consideration on November 15, 2006 (See minutes of GMA Steering Committee attached as Exhibit H). 11. On November 15, 2006, the GMA Steering Committee continued to discuss the agreement. No action was taken. (See minutes of GMA Steering Committee attached as Exhibit I). - 12. In November of 2006 the jurisdictions of Spokane County, the City of Spokane, the . City of Spokane Valley, the City of Liberty lake and the City of Airway Heights received a collaborative grant from * CTED to review development regulations used. in the urban growth areas and municipalities in Spokane County. 13. On December 20, 2006, the GMA Steering Committee moved to accept the proposed Joint Planning Agreement as a template. The motion passed 8 to 3 with Commissioner ' Mielke, Commissioner Richard and Mayor Peterson voting against. The minutes of this meeting are attached as Exhibit J; the template agreement is attached as Exhibit K). 14. On May 29th, 2007 the results of the CTED grant were presented at a Luncheon meeting sponsored by CTED. (A copy of those results is attached as Exhibit L). 15. On July 23, 2007, at a joint meeting between the City of Spokane Valley City Council and Spokane County Commissioners, the most recent version of the GlenroselMoran Prairie JPA was discussed as a basis for future agreements with the City of Spokane Valley. (The County proposal and minutes of this meeting are attached as Exhibit M.) The City responded with sFVeral comments. (These comments are as set forth in the e- mail to James Emacio attached as Exhibit N.) - 16. On July 31st, 2007 we were advised that the Commissioners would consider the City's comments in conjunction with their consideration of the Joint Planning Agreement being negotiated with the City of Spokane for tfie Glenrose area.( See e-mail from James Emacio, attached as Exhibit O). 17. On September 13, 2007, Spokane County sent correspondence and a proposed agreement to the City of Spokane and City.of Spokane Valley regarding GlenroselMoran. (See attached Exhibit P). 18. On October 19, 2007 then Mayor Wilhite sent a letter to the Commissioners requesting that all UGA's adjacent to the City of Spokane Valley be identified as Joint Planning Areas. (This letter is attached as Exhibit Q). 19. On November 27, 2007, Spokane County Commissioners scheduled discussion of the Mayor's request. No action was taken at the meeting. The City did advise the County that they would provide an updated version of the Turtlecreek JPA for County consideration by the end of the year. 20. On December 4, 2007, the Commissioners considered the comments of the City of Spokane concerning the GlenroselMoran Prairie agreement No action was taken. 21. On December 24, 2007 the City of Spokane and Spokane County agreed on the Glenrose JPA. 22. On January 4, 2008, the City of Spokane Valley provided Spokane County with a revised version of the Turtlecreek JPA. A copy of that agreement is attached as Exhibit R). OPTIONS: council direction RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NA BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mike Connelly, City Attorney . ATTACHMENTS: N/A (See City Clerk for copies of identified exhibits,) ~ ~ ~ DRAFT GROWTH MANAGEMENT STEERING CONaMITTEE . OF ELECTED OFFICIALS Joint Planning Subcomrnittee August 10, 2005 . 11707 East Sprague . Spokane Valley City Council Chambers Spokane, WA 99206 Sub-commitbee Members Present: . Richard Munson, City of Spokane Valley, Council (Chair) . Bob Apple, City of Spokane, Council Matthe+w Pederson, City of Airway Heights, Council Mark Richard, Spokane County, Commissioner . Sharon Colby, Spokane County Fire District No. 3 Staff Present: ' Chuck Freeman, City Manager, City of Ainnray Heights John Pederson, Assistant Director, Spokane Gounty Department of Building . . and Planning Martin Rollins, Spokane County Prosecutor's Office Marina Sukup, Director, City of Spokane Valley, Community Development . Department Greg McCormick, City of Spokane Valley, Community Development Department , Scott Kuhta, City of Spokane Valley, Gommunity Development Departrnent Dave Mercier, City Manager, City of Spokane Valley Mike Connelly, City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley . Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attomey, City of Spokane Valley Welcome and Introductions The meeting was called to order by Councilmember Munson. Steering Committee members and staff were introduced. Councilmember Munson noted that Peter Barnes, Spokesman-Review reporter was in attendance. Meeting Purpose Councilmember FVlunson began the meeting with introductory remarfcs about joint planning, that we need to understand what joint planning means, what would be included in the process, and interlocal agreements. Councilmember Peterson stated that he was unclear of what the intent of the subcomrnittee would be. The Countywide Planning Policies were updated last year and the same issues were discussed then. Mike Connelty suggested that this wvas an opportunity to jump start the joint - planning process. He would like to sse joint planning agreements in place prior to future expansions of the Urban Growth Area (UGA). Joint planning should focus on the following issues, in order: . 1. Transportation 2. Sewer and Water ' • . 3. Land Use and Zoning Discussion continued concerning the purpose of the subcommittee. . Staff Pfesgntation Greg IUIcCormiclc presented an overview of joint planning. Mr. McCormick discussed an annexation study oonducted by the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. The annexation study included an interlocal agreement case study of Clark, Douglas, Kitsap and ' Snohomish counties. Councilmember Munson encouraged the subcommittee to review the materials presented prior to the next meeting. Subcommittee Discussion Dave Mercier requested Spokane County representatives to clarify their views on joint planning and UGAs, wondering if there is a basic UGA philosophy. John Pederson discussed the history of Joint Planning Areas, JPAs were adopted but nothing happened after that. The challenge is the areas between cities such as Liberty Lake and the City of Spokane Valley or Airway Heights and the City of Spokane. Mr. Connelly suggested that the subcommittee should: 1. Define UGA ' ~ . 2. Define joint planning area and who the participants in a joint planning process should be. Cfearly define control issues vs planning issues. 3. Determine how the issues relate to annexation. Discussion on the County's UGA phi(osophy continued. Councilmember Peterson stated that Airway Heights' position is that the UGA belongs to the County and many entities have a stake in UGAs. Commission Richard stated that he does not believe.all UGAs are intended to be annexed or a part of cities. There are areas that are natural for annexation and there are areas that are not supported for annexation. . Further discussion on revenues, land quantity analysis, population projections, capital facilities and impacts of growth. _ Issues for Next Meeting ' Gouncilmember Munson enoouraged the subcommittee to'do some homeworlc - by reviewing the information presented. The next meeting should focus on a common understanding of joint planning and we should expect the outcome of a joint planning process would be. Commissioner Richard suggested that the committee members consider fihe following when discussing urban growth areas and how UGA's affect all jurisdictions including the county: 1. Impacts to community. . 2. Revenues . 3. Jurisdictions should bring a map with their areas of interest. Mr. Munson stated that the next Steering Committee meeting is on September . 29, 2005 and that the subcommittee should be prepared to make recommendataons at that meeting. • . - The next meeting was scheduled for 9 a.m. on September 7, 2005, Spokane Valley Council Chamber. Cvuncilmember Munson will brinq donutis. The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.rim. ' ~ ~ ~ . 1a2~ , t - i~ . O tJNCfY . sp .C KW OFFIGE OF COUN3"Y COMA1I5530NERS TODD MIELKE, IST DISTRiCT • MARK RFCH.4RD, ZrD DISTRICT • PHILLIP D. HARRIS, 3RD DISTRICi September 29, 2005 T-lonorable Diana Wilhitc, Ma}ror City of SPokane Valley . 71707 E Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Va11ey, WA 99206 RE: Draft Interlocal Agreement laear Mayor Wilhite: The Board has received your letter dated August 30, 2005 and the dra13 Jn►.erlocal Agreeinevt Regwding JoijZt Pla.iuung betuieen the City of Spokane Valley and Spakane • County dated September 6, 2005. We a~preciaie your ~ood faitti e~#ozt in taking Us £irst step toward prepari.ug a draft interlocal agreement as a rneans to initi ate iziter-agency coordination. It is our desire to work cooperarititel.y with you to develop an intcrlocal agreement acceptable to both entitics. UZti.ma#ely, it rriakes sense to have the Steering Conunittee adopt model language that reflects concerns from all jurisdictions that woi.lld servc as atemplate for future Joint Planning Agreements. We believe it would be most productive to convene a joini study session beriveen the Board aiid City Council arid apprapriate sta-ff to cotnPare any and all proposals and couuter-proposals for a workable i.nterlocal agreement. Pleasc contacfi the Clerk o£ ihe Board, Daniela Erickson, at 477-2265 to coordina#c scheduling a joint shidy session. Tlus joint study session should be scheduled as soon as possible. We Jook forward to urorking witll you to zccomplish this important joi.nt planning fask. . Sineerely, ~ . _ . lip 'D. Harris, Cliair o d Mielke, Vice-Chair Mark 12.ich ci, Conunissionsr cc: Rich Munson, Depu#y Mayor City Council Membcr Michael DeVlemin- Steve Taylor, City Got2.uci1 Member Gary Schimmels, City Council Meriber Mike Flauigan, Ci'ry Council Member Dick Denemy, City Council Member 111G WEST BROADWAY AVENU:. • SPOKATvE, V?Asxn:Grorr 99260-0100 •(509) 477-2265 DR.AFT 9/6/05 _ Interlocal Agc-eement Regarding Joint Planning between the City of Snokane Valley and Spokane CountV 7"his agreement is entered 'urto on the day of Septcmber, 2005 by the City of Spokane Valley (Spokane Valley) and the County of Spokane (Spokane Cbunty). On July 19ih; 2005, the Spokane County Board o.f. County Conunissioners • adopted Resolution approving a chazige in the Spokane County Comprehensive Flan from Urban ResenTe to Low Density Residential for the property described in Paragraph 3 below. Spokane Valley has expressed concems , about the impact of the gropose,ci extension of the Urban Growth Area io transportation capacity within the Spokane Valley and possible incompatible developIIient standards and design. To avoid any further dispute and resolve the ideutif ed concems the parties agree to the following: 1. Legal basis: This agreement is entered into pursuant to RCW 36.70A.01.0; . 020(3); 110 (2); 210 (3) (a), (b), (d); and (fl; RCW 39.34; Coi.lntv-Wide Plannin Policies Por Spokalie Counfy (Plaiuung Policies) Topic 2; Overview of Growth Management Aet( GiNIA) Requirements; Topic 2; Policies (1) and (2); '1'opic 5 Transportation, Ovcrview of Grow-th 1vlanagement (GMA) Requirements; Glossary Couuty-A~ide I'lazuung Aalicy Terms, Joini 1'latuiuig Areas; Spokane Valley Inte•rim Comvrehensivc Plan; Spokane Counh, Comprchensive Flan. 2. Area affected: The agrecmeut applies to that portion of Spokane Couiity generall}, located south of Turtle Creek; west of Barker, north of 32nd and i e.asi of Chapman Road and more specifically describ£d in Exhibit 1; attached hereto aild by this reference i.ncorporated lierein. Intent: It is the intent of the part7es, 1) to promote coordinatzti plaiuung for transportation aud development standards between the Spokane Valley and Spokane County for the araa af€ectcd, 2) to ensure that transportation unpacts resulting from development in the affected area are adentified and ihat adequate funding is provided for to pay for ihe c;osts of improvements made necessary by these impacts; and 3) to e.nsure that devcloprnent standards for streets, sidewalks, curbi.nQ, drainage and utilitiies are compatible with standards existi.ng and planned for by Spokaile Vallcy. Spokane Vailey and Spokane County desire to jointly establish and 'unplemeni development • regulations and procedures governing the review and approval o#' subdivisions, short subdivisions anci conditional land uscs Nk-ithin this a5ected area. The parties also desire to jointly establish and implement development regulations and procedures govenzing the provision of public facilities withui the UGA propErty in question. Spokane Valley and Spokaile Couniy agree to couimit suffcient staff to draft and finalize these specific aereements wiihin 180 da}ls of E?+ecutYOn of this agreement. Thc parties also recognize that irnmediate land use development in 'this azea vNithout a joint plaruung agreement governing t.he same ~Ni11 fxustraie the purpose and intent of this agrecment and the developmen# regulations and procedures to hc established. Consequently; Spokane Valley and Spokane Countv agee io the following immediatc measures: 4. Transportation: a. The parties recognize that: i. Development in either the Spokane Valley or Spokane County creates'potential impacts for intersccrions ajid corn'dors in the adjacent jurisdiction. ii. ThE area in question contains approximaiely 244 acres of undeveloped land a,nd additiona] property that is underdeveloped in light of proposed new density standards (6 homes per acre.) iu. That the total build out of this area, estimating 4 homes per acres for the undeveloped properties and no additional build out for tlle developed areas wrould allow the consiruction of 976 ncw homes resultin; ui 10,736 daily automobile trips. iv. That this inerzased velucular traffic will have an impact on the intersections and roadways within SPokane Valley, includi.ng but not li.mited to the intersections of Sullivzui and Sprague, Sullivan and Saltese and the Barkcr Road and I-90 . interchange. . U. In order to ensure sufficient fiinds to pay for the improve.ments necessitated by these irnpacts the parties agree to the followino: i. ,ach development application for a subdivision, short subdivision or couditional land use permit that conie,mplates 20 or tnore living units, or PU'D application of any size, shall wvithiin _ working days of submission be provided b}, Spokane County to the Spokane Valley Community Development Director. ii. Spokaue Gounty shall requue thc applicant for each development proposal described in "i" above to prepare and provide to Spokane Valley and Spokane Countv a Traffic Impact Analysis (TTA) quantifying the impact of that development. The scope of that TIA shall bc approved by Spokane Valley. ui. Spoka.ne Valley shall be provided ivith any environmental checklist, or other request niade pursuant to RCW 43.21C et seq far properties withiii thc affected area ,Nhthin _working days of submission. iv. Spokane Va11e}, shall liave aiotice of and be able to a#tend any predevelopnient coiiference and/or deve.lopment conference 'Mth respect to development proposals described in "i" above _ or any PUD proposals. v. Spokane Counry after consultation v,Tith Spokane Valley shall include in its recommended conditions of approval to the Hearing Examiner or other appropriate hearing body a, ' condition requiring appropriate fuiancial contributions for direct traiisportation impacts ta Spokane Va11ey identified in . the TIA prepared for each project. vi. Spokane County after consultation with Spokanc Valley shall inciude ui its recommEnded conditions of approval to the Hearing Fxaminer or other apprapriate hearing bod}, a condition settincy fortli the tinie, maxuler and rneaus of tr-ansference of any payuient intended to compensa#e Spokane Valley for identifiod traffic impacts. vii. Spokanc Cowiiy reco ;nizes that to unplement tlus agreement some modification Af existing land use regulations niay be required and agrees to mal:e such modifications wittiin _ days of execution of this agreement. 5. Development Standards: a. Spokane County agrees to adopt ~~ithin _ days of the execution of this agreement, the Spokatie Valley streei standards; as we11 as staiidards for drainage, starm wate•r and utility dcsigv and location for the affected area as are set forth in Exhibit 2 attached hcreto aild incorporated bere.in. Prior to the effeetive date of tlLis legislation Spokane County agrees to recouuuend to the Hearui; Examiner or _ other appropriate hearing body that development -,Nztlun the affec•ted area be consistent with the Spoka.ne Valley Standards discussed above. b. Spokane CounYy agrees to confe.r with Spokane Valley prior to finalization of the necessity for and/or the location of any connector streets andlor die classification of any streets within or adjacent to a proposed development or acijacent to the boundaries of Spokane Va11ey. If agreement is not reached resulting in joint recommendation to the hearing Examuier or other appropriate hearing body both parties shall present their respective positiotLS to the Heariug Examiner or other appropriate hearing body. c. Spokaue Cowity agrees to adopt, within _ days of execution of this ageement, the Spokaiie Va11ey PLTD ordinance which is set forth in Exh.ibit 3, attached hereto and incorporated herein; as to PUD of this legislat7on Spokane County agrees to recommend to the heari.ng Examiner or other appropriate Uody, that development within tlie affe.cted area be consistent \Nrith the I'UD ordinance set forth above. . 6. Other Ftegulations: a. NTOthing in this aueement shall supersede or ne-ats any eaisting land use ar developmeYrt regulation for Spokane Valley or Spokane County. 7. Additional Ab ecments: - a. The parties contemplate future }oint plaiuung agreements that may relate to the affected area of other portions of Spokane County and/or Spokane Valley. Notlung in this agre.ement is intended to prohibit thE development of futiure agreements relating to esther the impacts • identified above or other i.mpacts that may now or ui the future exist. 8. Rights reserved: . a. rso*hzng in these agireements is intendcd to waive or linvt the riQhts of . the parties to require nvtijation for any vnpact as allowed by federal, . state or local laws or ord'uiancES includinj but noi luiuted to environmental inipacts governed by 43.21C.010 et seq. 9. Accounting of Egist'ing Fees: ' a. That Spokane Couni), shall witlzin 60 days of execution of this aQreement provide an accounting of all fees paid to mitigate i.mpacts to . intersections or roadwa57s currently within Spokane Valley along with the disposition of thosc fuLids. 10. Cbange in Standarcis or Ordinances: a. Any cliange in Spokane Valley or Spokane County stanclards or ordi.nances relied upon in this agreement shall be wi4hin _working - days of passage forwazded to the other party. If tEie parties cannot agree to the unplernentaiion of these standards witliin 30 days the issue may be im.mediately sei for mediation by either party. H. vlediadon of Disputes: a. Any disputes arising froin tlus agreemcnt, including the failure to agree as to new staudards and/or applicable ord'viances as is set fort]i ui paragraph 10 above, shall be set for mediation Aithin 30 days of notiFication of a dispute. If inediation is unsuccessfui ihen the parties agree io arbitration pursuant to RCW 7.60.010, co be held with 60 dnys of the date mediation is abaudoned. 12. Indemnification and .Liability: a. Spokane Count), sha11 protee.t, save harniless, indemnify and defend, at . its own expense, Spokane Valley; its elected and appointed o££cials, officers; employees and a-aents, fronl any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever arising out of Spokane County's performance of this agreement, including claims by the Spokane County employee's or third parties; eacept for those damaaes caused solely by . the negligence or «riilfa1 inisconduct of Spokane Valley, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, or agents. . b. Spokane Valley shaU protect; save ]iarmless, indernnify aud defend, at its own eapense, Spokane County its elected and appo'vited offcials; officers, employees and agents, from any loss or claim for danages of any nature «ihatsoever arising out of Spokane Valley's performance of this agreement, i.ncluding claims by the Spokane Valley employec's or third parties, eacept for those damages caused solely'by the negligence or wi.llflil misconduct of Spokane County, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employecs; or agents. c. In the event of liabilicy for damages of avy nafure whatsoever arising out of ti-ie pe.rformance of tt»s Agreemsnt by Spokaiie County and Spokane Valley, including claims by Spokane County's or Spokane Valley's owu officers, officials, employees, agents, volunteers, or third parties; caused by or resulti.ng from the concurrent negligencc of Spokane county and Spokane Valley, each parties liahility hcreiuider shall onlv be to the extent af that party's negligence. d. No liability shall be atiached to Spokane County or Spokane Valley by reason of entering into tliis agrccment except as expressly provided herein. 13. SEVerability: If any provision o£ this agreenzent or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the provisions and/or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances sfiall not be affected. 14. Enfir€ Agreement: This agreement constitutes the entire agreement behween the paities wiih respect to thc affected property. Tt is anticipated that The parties will enter uito furtlicr interlncai agreeinents oii specific subjcct areas as indicated above. ~ EJ ~ nro. S 0842 BEFOxE TRE Boaxn oF couh°rY coM2YffssionT-xs oF sPOKANE cour-17Y, wasIUNGTON LY'L'HE MATTER CONCERNING A JQL\`T ) 1biEETING OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY CITY ) NOTICF+ OF COUT'CEL, TAE ?YL4YOR AND SPOKAN-E ) SPECIAL MEETIlNG COU'NTY COMMISSIONERS ) NOTICE IS HEERE-BY GIVF.N hy the Chairman of the Board of County Cammissioners of Spokane County, NVashington, pursuant to R.C.W. 42.30.080, that the Board of Coutity Cammissioners will mectwith the Spokane Valley City Council and Ma}or at a Special Meeting TffC~'RSDAY, SEPTE11'IBER 29, 2005, AT 11:30 A.M. SPOKA~VE VALLEY COUNCTL C$.4.MBERS . . 11707 E. Sprague Avenae, Spokane Valley,'FVA 99206 The purpose of the specc.ial meeting will be for the Board of County Commissioners, Spokane Valley City Counci] and Niayor to take "action," as that term is defZned in R:C.W. 42.30.020, on the foIIowing items: 1) RevisSons for the Road Maintenaace Contact . " , 2) City/Coanty Model Agreements (assurance ["me too"] cJause) 3). Interlocal Agreemeat regardfng Joint Planning . 4) Urban Growfh Areas . 5) Appleway Right-of-Way Transfer 6) Transportatjon Tnfrastructure NeedS 7) Ffinancial Partictpation by cSties in t6e cost of fundiag Spokane Regional Heatth ' District - 8) 1110 of 1% LocakOption Sales Tax for new and expanded `'[eafal Realth Scrvices and new and expanded Therapeutic Courfs • ' The terminology °`action" as used hereen shall mean deliberate, discuss, consider, review, evaluate, mal:e a collective decision or take a vote an the abor•e listed item5. ' Any person may appear at the time, place and date af the Special Meeting and observe the action(s) of the Board of County Commissioners, Spokane Valley City Council and Mayor. rTo public testimony will be received. Staff may be asked to respond to questions. . DATED this 27th day of Septeniber 2005. ' og. BOARD OP CUTJ1vTY COhxMISSIONT. RS cOG• sro OF SPOKA\'E COUNTY, WASMINGTO\° . o~ •aC~" '1'j,• ~SD p 'i~ 0 ~ ' ~ hillip D. ris, Chairman/ . ATT]E T: cauri'~` . ~ . Daniela Erickson, Clerk of the Board ~ F-I ~ ~ ~ ~ (As ainended and approved by the Steering committee on January 18th, 2006) ' - , MOT10T~~ RECOMVETIDING JOINT PLANjINVIhiG FOR EXIS1"TNIG UR.BAN GRpWTH AREAS AiND PURTHER RECOMMFNDING THAT JOINT PLANRN1NIG AGREEMENTS SHOULD $E lN FLACE PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF FUTiJRE URBAN GROWTH AREAS Whereas, the Gro'wth Manaoement Steering Committce of Elected nffcials (SteerinD Committee) has Canned a sub-conunittcE to review issuES sunauz-iding joint planning and urban eroNN<th areas; and - Whereas the subcomauittee has mct on the lOth of Aulaust, 2045 and 9th of September, 2005 to discuss these issues; and «rhereas, the StEering Commitiee recognizes that urban dcvelopment without joint planning may rzsult in unfunded impacts to adjacent jurisdietions as well as inconsistent development standards in areas where future anneaation is possiblc; and NVhereas, the Steering Committee recognizes that a number of UGA's are adjacent to a singlc jurisdictions and joint planning would clearly be appropriate between SpokanE County and that jurisdiction; and Whereas, the jurisdictions further recognire that otlier UCTA's may impact both Spokane Couiit}, aud more than one municipa] jurisdiction requiring joint planning between all affected jurisdictions; and Whereas, t1ie jurisdictions recognir~ that tying the issue of joint planning agreements to the issue of future anneaation has resulted in disagrEemcnfs as to specific applications of the law and significant conflicts over future revenues wich the end result being a collective inability lo draft and finalize neccssar_y joint planning agreements; and Whereas, ihe Steering Committee Nvish's to separate, without prejudice tv any .juriscliction, the issue of fuhire annexaiinns and the legal authority and right to pursue such annexations from the issue af joint plannina to facilitate the drafting and executi4n of joint plw-ining agreements; Now, Theref4re, the Steering Committee recon-imends the folloAring: 1. That all jtirisdictions im.mediately begin thc process of draii.ing aiid finalizuig _joint planning agreements for eYisting Urban Growth Areas. Areas wherc a single municipality and Spokane County are the interested jurisdictions should be completed within 6 montlis of passage of this motion. Arcas where iwo or more municipalities havE aii intcrest shall within 6 months of passage of this motion identi6, the Zones where common interests lie and within 12 months of passaee of this motion complete and execule a joint plaiuiing agreement. It is understood that these initial agreements may not be comprehcnsivc or identify and re5olve all joint plaiuu-iing issues but should address . . at a ininimum the issues of transportation ullpacts and design standards. It is intended that the parties continue to revicw and revise these agreements as needed. 2. That; notwithstanding languaee contained in the County-Wide Planning Policies for Spokane County, Glossary County-wide planning 1'olicy Terms defining "Joint-1'laruiing Arzas", which statcs: Joint Flanning Areas - aress designated as Urban Growth Areas assi ned to . a cih' or town for future urban development but located in the unincorporated county where a coordinated planning prc►ce:ss beriveen the cities, towns and the County will be. conducted." at page 47 The adoption of a joint planning agreement shall not be considered as eridence in suppori of or in opposition to, the future annexation of an_y specific area nor shall any jlu-isdiction, enterulg uito such an agrecment waive any right to appeal auti/or to pursue or oppose annexati4n efforts or asiy other cause of action available under statc or fcderal law unlcss specifically restricted by the tcrms of any such agreement. 3. That further; prior to Final approval of any future extension of Urban Growth Boundaries Spokane County require that a.joint planning aerECment bc executcd berivecn jurisdictions That are deeined to be affectcd by reasonable modeling standards. 4. It is recommendcd that appropriate dispute resolution procedures are identiiied by the County Com.missioners. ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ GMA Stecring Conuiuttee . Page l of. 1 Mike Connelly From: DeCorde, Debbie [DDeCorde@spokanecounty.org] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:59 PM To: AI French; Allen Gainer, Apple, Bob; Bart Haggin; Bill Gothmann; Bill Grimes; Bob Anderson; Curt Huff; Curt Kelling; Dan Mor1c; Diana Wilhite; Don Hartzog; Doug Smith; Franks, Steve; -Gary Schimrtzels; Greg McCormick; Harris, Phil; Heather Cannon; Helen Cragun; Hession, Dennis; Hubert, David; John Higgins; John Mannix; Marina Sukup; Matthew Pederson; McLaughlin, Nancy; Mike Devleming; Micki Hamois; Mielke, Todd; Mike Connelly; Pederson, John; Richard Munson; Richard, Mark J.; Roger Kreiger; Saott Kuhta; Sharon Colby; Shirley Maike; Shogan, Joe; Stanley Schwartz; Steve Peterson; Susan McGeorge; Thornas Lien; Tom Richardson; INendy VanOrman Subject: GMA Steering Committee Attachments: Joint Planning DRAFT 11.doc Good Afternoon all, Richarcl Munson requested the attached document be forvrarded to you. It is the Joint Planning Interlacal Agreement which the City of Spok,ane Valley submitted for discussion. Thank you to all who have responded to the emails and subsequent phone calls polling for a quorum. If you tiave not responded yet, please contact me. See you next Wednesday, February 15th, at the City of Spokane Valley Chambers at 9:00 a.m. Thanks, Defif ie 17eC'a-ude Acting Cleric to the Steering Committee 509.477.7208 «Joint Planning DRAFT 11.dac» 9/19/2007 Page 1 of 1 Mike Connelly From: Mike Connelly Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 3:02 PM To: 'dhubert@spokanecounty.org' Subject: FW: Joint planning agreement Attachments: Interlocal.jointplanning.general.doc Attached is ihe latest intzrlocal we sent the county. I assume you have the county's version and the Cify ofi Spokane's let me know if there is anything else you need. MFC Mike Comielly , City Attorney City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Spraguc Ave. Suite 103 Spokane Valley, NUA 99206 Plione: (509) 688-0238 Fax: (509) 688-0299 -Confidentiali Notice: The in1"Urmation contained in this email and any accompanyina attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the_ intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privilcged. lf any reader af this communication is not the intended recipient, unTUthorizsd use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unl~~Nful. li'you have received ehis com.munication in eiror, please imenediately notify the sender by rehirn email, and delete [he original messa'e and all copies from your systein. Thank you. From: Mike Connelly Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:10 PM To: Richard Munson Subject: FW: )oint planning agreement Rich: Attached is the joint planning agreement MFC 9/l 9/2007 ~ ~ ~ MINUTES OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT STEERING COMMITTEE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS June 28, 2006 The meeting of the Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials was called to order by Chairman Richard Munson at 1 10 p m. on June 28, 2006 in Spokane Transit Authonty's Second Floor Board Room at 1230 West Boor.e Avenue Spokane WA 99206. VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Apple, Council Member, City of Spokane. Voting Diana Wilhite. Council Member, Ciry of Spokane Valley, Voting Alternate Ed 'Chuck" Crockett, Council Member, Town of Latah. Voting Mark Richard. Commissioner, Spokane County, Voting Matthew Pederson, Mayor, City of Airway Heights, Vofing - Vice Chair Michael DeVleming, Council Member, City of Spokane Valley, Vohng Nancy McLaughlin, Council Member, City of Spokane, Voting Phil Harris, Commissioner Spokane County, Voting Richard Munson, Council Member, City of Spokane Valley, Voting - Chair Todd Mielke, Commissioner, Spokane County, Vofirrg Wendy VanOrman, Council Member, City of Liberty Lake, Voting Aliemate NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: Sharon Co1by, Fire District #3 STAFFPRESENT: Dave Hubert, Spokane County. Prosecuting Attomey John Pederson, Assistant Director, Spokane County Department of Building and Planning Mark Holman, Assistant Director, Spokane County Department of Building and Planning Interested parties as shown on the attached copy of the Sign-in Sheet. 2. Minutea of May 17, 2006 Mr. Richard moved to approve the minutes for May 17, 2006. Ms. McLaughlin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Election for Chair and Vice Chair Mr. Richard nominated Matthew Pederson, Mayor of Airway Heights as the incoming Chairman for the GMA Steering Committee. Mr. Munson called for a vote. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Mielke nominated Mark Richard, Spokane County Commissioner as the incoming Vice Chairman for the GMA Steenng Committee. Mr. Munson called for a vo!e. The motion passed unanimously. Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials MINUTES: June 28, 2006 Page 2 of 3 4. Spokane County Timeline - Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning Mr_ Munson moved the discussion toward the County's timeline pertaining to the draft lnterlocal Agreement for Joint Planning. Mr. Mielke stated that the Board of County Commissioners is stitl waiting for certain elements to be resolved Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) with regard to transportation concurrency. However, that should not stand in the way of communication and participation in joint planning. Mr. Richard reiterated there is still work for the Board of County Commissioners to do and welcomed input from the jurisdictions. Mr. Richard gave the floor to Mr. Holman, Assistant Director, Spokane County Department of Building and Planning who confirmed the document is a working draft and proceeded to review the document with the GMA Steering Committee. In closing, Mr. Holman asked that the mernbers take the draft document back to tfieir respective jurisdictions for review and comment. Mr Apple joined ttle meeUng at 1_31 p m Mr. Mielke suggested a change to item number 14. The Utle should reflect that item nurnber 14 is where one can find language pertaining to amendments. Ms. VanOrman asked what, if any. jurisdictions have offered input on the draft Interlocal Agreement. Mr. Holman responded that the draft was initiated by the City of Spokane Valley with refinements by Spokane County. Mr. Mielke added the document is an agreement and everyone should remember that agreements typically are between two or more parties and therefore there is something beneficial for the parties involved. He asked that the draft interlocal agreement be taken back to respective jurisdictions for review and commert 4. TOPICS OF INTEREST FROM JUNE 19T" INTER-GOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION SEMINAR Mr. Munson invoked the privilege of the chair and moved the discussion to topic number seven on the agenda since this topic is related to topic number four. Mr. Munson felt the recent seminar was beneficial. however, he would have liked to have seen more participation. Mr. Munson stated the major point of contention is annexation. He stated friendiy annexations do take place, and there are examples of friendly annexations taking plaoe. The Boundary Review Board (BRB), along with CTED may hold follow-up seminars this fall. 5. IMPACT FEE DISCUSSION Mr. Munson gave the floor to Ms. Wendy VanOrman. Ms. VanOrman stated that over the last few months the primary topics of discussion in front of the GMA Steenng Committee have been Urban Growth Expansion and Population Allocations but nothing regarding how to pay for Capital Facilities. Ms. VanOrman mentioned that developers may be a bit hesitant about impact fees, she impressed on the group to take it slow with their respective junsdictions and involve the development community. Impact fees help those areas that are being developed to acquire Capital Facilities they need mthout reaching back into a pocket that has already contnbuted to an impact. Impact fees help offset costs, they don't pay for all of the Capital Facilitfes. Ms VanOrman mentioned that tfie only jurisdiction currently impasing impact fees is the City of Medical Lake, which, have been imposed since 1997. The impact fees have been used toward parks, fire departments, and schools. Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials MINUTES: June 28, 2006 Page 3 of 3 Ms. VanOrman stated that other revenue streams must be considered as growth occurs. In reviewing the RCWs, impact fees are very restrictive in what they can pay for. Impact fees can onfy accommodate public school facilities, publicly owned parks and open spaces or recreation facilities, public streets and roads, or fire protection facilities in jurisdictions that are not part of a fire district. Mr. Munson stated the City of Spokane Valley council has discussed impact fees on a preliminary basis. The main concem is what impact this will have on future development. Mr. Munson's had hoped that it could be presented as a County wnde formula, however, the information provided cleariy indicates that it is a case by case decision per jurisdiction. Mr. Bob Apple stated that impact fees are a tool and should be developed on a case by case basis and determined by the municipal governments. Commissioner Phi! Harris jained the meeting at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Munson commented that this was a start and he was certain the topic of impact fees will be discussed in the future. 6. TOPICS OF INTEREST FROM THE MAY 31ST MEETING OF GOVERNMENTS Mr. Richard commented that this was the first of what may be future meetings. The meeting was designed to draw elected Dfficials together to discuss regional issues The next meeting is planned for the first part of September 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS No public comments or questions were made. 8. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING The next meeting was not set at :his time. Spokane County is still waiting for comments from the service purveyors to determine if they can accommodate the population allocation as assigned by the Board of County Commissioners for initial planning purposes. Spokane County will need some time to assemble the input and create a proposal that will reflect future land use plan. urban growth area boundaries, and appropriate land use categories within those boundaries. There was a brief discussion surrounding whether or not Initiative I-933 would receive eiough signatures to be pJaced on the ballot. There was a request for holding a presentation both for and against the proposition. The assumption was that if I-933 passes, it will have a significant impact on land use legislation. Based on a vote by the GMA Steering Committee, the opportunity to have a pro and con discussion regarding I-933 failed unanimously There being no further business to come beTOre the GMA Steering Committe2, the meeting adjoumed at 211 p.m. Heather Wolf, APPROVED: Richard Munson Clerk of thz Steering Committee ~ ~ ~ , • ! . _ . . . . _ . . - ~ spowrt COUITY , . . . RECEiVED BUILDING AND PLANNING aCT 17 2006 . JAMiE.S L. MANS0N, DIRECTOR SPQKAId~ vAL!_EY . . C~AI►tdfA7'RY D~EL.OPtdtNT DATE: Octobzr 16, 2006 FROM: James L. Manson, Director TO: PVIs. Marianne lvlorris, City Plannzr City ofAirway Heights Mr• Tom Richarci;on, Planning 1208 S. Lundstrom Sf. Director Airway Heights, WA 99001 Cfh' af Cheney 112 Anderson Raad Cheney, WA 990041870 Mr. Roger Kriager, Mr. Doug Smith, Communiiy Pianning Director Deveiopment Director City of Deer Park City of Liberty Lake 316 East Crawford Avenue 22710 East Country Vista Bivd. Deer Park, Wq 99008 Liberiy Lake, WA 99019 Mr. Doug Ross, Mr. Steve Franks, Planning Director Planning Direc#or City of Medical Lake C~ty of Spokane Post Office Box 369 3~loor, City Hall Medical Lake, WA gg022 808 West Spokane Falls Slvd Spokane, WA 99201 Ms. Marina Sukup, Ms. Kathy Marcus Communify Developrnent Dirsctor Representing fhe Cities of Deer Park, ' City of Spokane Valley Fafrfleld, Latah, Spangle, and 11707 East Sprague, Suite 106 Waverly Spokane Valley, WA 99206 . 970 Orchard Avenue Hayden Lake, ID 83835 Mr. Bill Grimes Ms. Heather Cannon, Planning Studio Cascade Director Representrng the Cities of Medica! Lake and Town of Mrllwood Rockford 9103 E. Frederick 114 West Pacific, Suite 200 Millwood, Washington 99206 Spokane, WA 99201 . 1026 W. $ROADWAY AV£NUE • SPOKAN,F, WA 99260-0050 PxoNE:'09-477-3G7> • FAx: 509-477-4703 . °rr,n. r,nG ,s-~ '71» On October 11, 2006, the Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials requested that each jurisdiction be sent a copy of the attachment entitled: "DRAFT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT W1TH CHANGES RECOMMENDED BY SPOKANE VALLEY 9/7/06° "1NTERCOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDlNG JOINT PLANNING BETWEEN SPOKANE COUNTYAND 4 Please forward a copy of this document to pertinent staff andlor City Council for their review and comment back by the next Grovth (vlanagement Steering Committee of Elected Officials meeting which is scheduled to be held on November 15, 2006 at 9AM in the Spokane Transit Authority Conference Room. Thank you, in advance, for your attention to this very important matter. c: Carol Hirschel, Mayor, Town of Spangla Dennis P. Hession, Mayor, City of Spokane RECEIVED Todd Mielke, Spokane County Commissioner Niark Richard, Spokane County Commissioner Phil.Hatris, Spokane County Commissioner OCT 1 7 2006 Diana Wilhite, Mayor, City of Spokane Valley William Tensfeld, Mayor, Town of Waverly StiPOKqNE VALLEY COMhAU1dITY DE1 ELOPMENT RECEIVED . . 4CT 1 7 2006 DR.AFT INTERLOCAL AGREE1111E.NT NVITH CHANGES SPOK4NE VALLEY RECONUqEN-DED BY SPOKANE VAI..LY 9/7/06 DPARTMENT OF COMlAUNIETY DEVELOPMENT Interlocal Aueement Regardinp Joint P13nning behycen Saokane Couniy and This aa4reement is entered i.nto on the day of 2006, by Spokane County and the City/T'oxNa of , hereinafter referred to as "Parties". VVhereas, a Goal of the State Growth Managcnaent Act is to eilsure coordination between comnunities and jurisdictions to recoucile conflicis, snd . Whereas, RCW 36.70A210 sets aortla certain requirzments for Count),-wide Planning Policies; includi.ng tliat couniy-Nvide planning policies shall address policies for joint count), and city planninc within urban growth area,, aud Whereas, The Count}+Nuide Plan.ning Policies far Spokane CoLnty adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210 contain policies for a jou2t planning proc,ess intended to resolve issues regarding how zoning, subdivision and oiher land use approvals in designated joint plaiuning areas will be eooruinatcd, and that such joint planning may be accomplished pursua.nt to an interlocal agreement eatered into between and/or among jurisdictions and/or special purpose districts, and . Wbereas, the Parties are dcsirous of resolvi.ulg how zoning, subdivision a,nd other land use approvalsin designated joiut plaiuzing areas will be coordinated, and 1 RECEIVED OCT i 7 2000" SPOKANE VALLEY DEPARTA4ENT OF ' COMMUNITf DEVELOPP.EENT Wliereas, the partles Nvish to separate, without prejudice to either Pariy, tlle issue of potential annexations and the legal authority a.nd right to pursue or oppose such annexations £rorn this agreenent and the executioa of the saxue; Now, therefore be it Resotved, towards addressing how zoning, subdivision and other land use approvais for joint planning will be coordinated and ensure that transportation capacity for development is concurrent with the deveIopment, the Parties agre,e to cooperative joint pianning i7 designatEd areas pur,uant to tile following: 1. Lebal basis: This agt-eenient is entered into pursuuant to RCW 36.70A.010; 020(;); 210 (3) (a)= (b), (d), and (f); RCW 39.34; Countvwide Planning Policies For S akane Cogn (Planning Policies) Topic 2, Overview of Growth Management Act (GMA) Requirernenis; Topic 2, Aolicies (1) and (2); Topic 5 Transportarion, Overview of Grow-th MaaagemEnt (GMA) Requi,rements; Glossary Countyw;de pZanning policy Terms, Joint Planni,.ng qreas; the S okane C~un Com rehcnsJrvc 1?lan and the Comprehensive Plan of the City/Town of 2. Intent: It is the intent of the Yarties 1) Co promotc coordination planning for transpflrtalion ' and development standards between the parties for the area affected, 2) to enswe improvements to mitigate transportation impa.cts resulting from development are identified and such improvements are constructed/completed concurrent with the development, andlor, mitigated to the extent that adequate funding is secured to pay for the costs of improvements 2 RECtI'VED OC i 1 7 2006 . . SPOKlrNE VkLLcY • • QE?p9ThtR~tT CF COt~IMUNITY QEVElAPM EPFT made necessary by these irnpacts, and to ensurz that aevelopmeat stta~ndards proscribed witthin the affected areas for allowab]e Iand uses, densities, streets, sidewallcs, curbing, drain2ge and utilities are conipatible. The Parties desire to jointly develop aad implement develapme.at rzgulatioas and procedures acldressing the review and approval of affecteci projects within the aff'ected area. The Parties aIso desirc to jointly establi.sh and imp]ement development regulations and procedures . goi-cining the provision of a11 pubiic facilities «rithin the affected area. The parties agee to. coidmit suffic2ent staff to draft annd finalize the,e specific agrcenients in a tiunely rzaanner. 3. Area affected: The agreement applies to development proposals N-vithin the Cit~ ~/I'oun in of • and adjacent to unincorporated Spokane Couniy Urban Groivth Areas and proposals within u.nincojporated Spokane County Urhan Growth/Joint Planning A.reas adjace.at to the City/Town of 4• Projects affected: This ap-eement applies to new development proposals subject to the I~zotice of Application requircinents ot' RCW 36.70B as adopted by the jurisc~ietion; incIud~ g proposals subject to the State Envsonmental Policy Act; w-itkiin the affected area. Nlotice of Application, Ntotice of Hearirig and Notice of Decision required by'RCW 36.70B and an Y environrnental cbecklist, EIS or other environmental. document required pursuant to RCW 43.2I C sha11 be providcd to the Parties in accordance with applicable regslations, The Parties furtLer agree the}, shall provide each other at least 7 days notice of, and are allowed and encouraged to attend any,.building p8rmit preconstruction conference and/or 1and use ~ a RECEIVED OCT i 7 200o SPpKAN=_ vALLEY DEPARTMEN7 OF predevelopment or tec}anacal review meeiings. Such notice shail be ~ ~e fo~ of ~~oPr~E standard notice for suc.h con¢erences/meetingS givzn by the jurisdietion. a The Parfies shall cansult (clarify) oa proposals outliued above prior to issuance of any final DNS, 1VIDNS or staff report to the Hearing Exarniner in an attempt to reach a consensus position/recorn.mendation. For SEPA documen~~ jurisdiction having lf-'ad agency status shai] include the conseruus/collective recommendation and an Y mitigating conditions, or their individual recornmendations and any rniti atin ~ g conditions if unable to reach consensus, as appEcable; for projects proce;edPng to public hearing, both PartiE$ shal1 inc]ude tlie consensus recommendation in their respecUVe staff report/recommended cobditions of approval to the Hearing LXaminer or other appropriate heariug body, or, if unable . to agree, their respecti ve recomrnendations. . 5. Transportatioa: The Parties recognize ihat develop'ment in either o f the Parties jurisdiction creates potential impacts for inte.rsections and corridors in the adjacent jurisdiction. ro ensvre proper plarzuing and mitigation of devclopment traffic impacts or sufficient funds for the improvErnents necessitatcd by the tr~c inapacts of development, the parties agre e that: a. The Parties may require the applica,nt for eacb affected development proposal to prepare a Traffic Impact Anaiysis (7IA) qua~tifying the impact of fhat develo pment and provide the same to the other party. Each jurisdiction shall have the opporhinity to contribute to the development of the scope of such study. 7he parties may mutually agree to waive the requirement for a TIA. 4 RECE}VED _ 17CT l ? 2006 SPOKANE VALLEY COhRt UMiTYiDEV=LOPMENT . b. TIae Pariics shall r~.quire construction of improvements necessary to mittgate • identified direct transportztion impacts to take place concurrent urith development or, alterriately, a recommended condition of approval to the Hea.ring Examiner or other appropriate hearing body, requiring appropriafe finane.ial contributions for identif ed direct iransportation impacts identified. The condition shall identify the time; Fnanxacr and means of transference of any payment infended to campensate the other pariy far identified traffic limpacts, or as Mitigatian in a MDNS, and prior to approval of the project. c. For those deveIopment projects wherz construction af improvements necessary t.o inifi~aie ident~ed direct transportation impacts does not take place concurrent Nvith project developmcnt, tbe Parties sha11 jointly establish a uniform method for quanti.f}~ing appropriate financial contributions for improvements to be m3de ~kithin 6years of project approval for identified direct transporEation impac2s. The Parties recognize that to implement this agreement some niodificafion of existing reguIations Fnay be required and agree to make such modific.3tions in a timely manner afl.er establishment of a u.niform and mutually agreed upon method for quantifying appropriate financial contributions. d. The Parties iurther aeree to jointly recommend denial of any development proposals that fail to comply ivith the concurrency standards of eit.her paa-ty. e. Thv Parties furtber agree to incorporate the f.~ndings and recommendations on concurrency being prepared by the Spokane Regional Transportazion Council (SRTC) i.nto this Joint Planning Agreement, to the extent agreed to by the Parfies, by fon-nal aiuendment at such time t11at the project is completed. 5 RECEIVED OCT 1 7 2006 SP~OKAA+= VAl,LEY ' COMMUNITYT EVELOPMENT 6. Deveiopment Standards: The Parties recoEn,ize thaf land usQ development in the affected . area without c,Ornmon development regulations could frustratz the purpose and intent of ihis agreement and the procedures established. a• The Parties agree to assign the necessary staff to review applicable development regulations, includirzg but not limited to (nzore speeifzcity recon7n3e7 ided) zoning designations, Iandscaping, signage, subdivision, road a.nd street standards, bicycle paths, jogging lanes; trail systems applicaiion review procedwes ~~d stormwater drainage requiremeats. Differences shall be identified a,nd a consEnsus standard recornmended, after wh.ich mutual recom.mendation Nuill be processed as an amendment to each Parties Development Regulauons in a la«~1u1 rnarner toNvards the , end of developing uniforrait}, in said develapment stand,ards. Such revietiv shou Id include representatives from the private sector «rho may be impacted. Tb%- process to identify individuai jurisdiction differences shall commence upon SIgning a fthis agreement, Nvit.h a goal of con2pleting the identification of differeiices tArithin 6 months of signing. Recom.mendation for consensus standards 5h,1l follow. b. The Parties agree to confcr on the necessity for and/or the location of any connector s streets and/or the classification of a.ny streets within or adjacent to a proposed deveIopment or adjacent to the border between the Parties. If agreement is not . reached both Parties shall present shall present their respective positions to the Hearing Examinei or other appropriate hearing body. . c_ The parties agree to consulC on Comprehensive plarVZoning categories, aIlo,,vable land uses and densities in areas where they have common borders towards ensuriIIg a 6 ' RECEIVED OC i 1? 2006 ' DEPARTM~NT~OF rationaI transition of land uses in those areas. Such consultationm~ua~'1 ni°~u~e PMEhIT consuliation on the classification of streets and roadways on the common borders. 7. Other Regulations: Nothing in this agreement s?zall supersede or nega.te any exi;ung 13nd use or developFneat regulation of the Parties. 8. Additional Agreements: The Parties contemplate fi.ature joint planning aereemenis that may relate to the affected area of other portions of Spokane County and/or Lhe City/To~vn of Nothing fn this agrecment is intended to prohibit the development of future agreements relaiing to either the unpacfs identified above or other impacts that rnay now or in the futu.re exist. . 9. Rights reserved: Nothing in this aereeFnent is intended to Nvaive or limit the riiaht5 of the Parties to require mitibation for any impact as allowed by federal; 5tc3tE OT local laNvs or ordinances including but not limited to envi.ronmental impacts governed by 43.21 C et saq. . 10. Change i_n Standards or Ordinances: A.ny change in the Parties standards oa ordinances reli-ed upon in this agreement, or modified pursuant to this agrcement, shall bee fonvarded to the other party ~Mthin days of passage. If the Parties cannot aeree to the irnpleu?entation of such standards Krithin 30 days the issue may be set for mzdiaiion by either party. 7 OCT 1 ? 2006 SPOKANE VALL;cY COW1M N(tYT EVELO~MEIJT 11. ?Vfediation of Dispntes: Any disputes arising from this agreement, including the failure io agree as to new standards and/or applicable ordinances as is set forth in paragraph 10 above, may be set for mediation by either pariy N~rithin 30 days of notifacation of a dispute. Frior to anediation, the Parties, represented by their elected officials, shall first meet informally in an attempt to reach resolution. If a mediator cannot be agreed upon by the ~ Parties, each party shall select obe mediator vrho in tizrn shall select a third xnedigtor to conduct the mediation. 12. Indeznn'cation and Liability: a.. Spokane County sltall protect, save ham-dess, indeEranify -and defend, at its own expense, (City/Town), its elected and appointed oificials, officers, employees and agents, fi-om any loss or claim for damages of any natvre w-hatsoever arising out of Spokane County's periormance of this agreeinent, including claiuis by the Spokane County employee's or third parties, except for those da.IIiages caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of (Cit),/Town), its eIected and appointed officials, officers, ernployees, or agents. b. (CitylTown) shall protect, save hannless, indemnify arid defend, at its ow-n expensc, Spokane Count}, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agent.s, from any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever arising out of (City's/To~NVs) perfornance of this agreement, includi.ng claims by the (City/Tomm) employee's or third parties, eacept for those damages caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of Spokane County, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees; or agents. . 8 I I 1 2400 Or r 9PQKAh1L VALLEY • D FARTNTENF OF 0 6MM hlETY DEVEi_OPMGNT c. ln ths event of liability foF danages -of any jjua-,~e ~~haiso~~er ~rising olit of #he pe'dormance o#` thLis Agraement by Spoka.ne County and (Cit)'lT~~wn), inclUd4)a cZainns by SPokane Couuty's or PW slTown's) own officers, officials,' employees, ~ age'-ts, votUntee~s, ar third parqes, c.aused. by oF ri~su]ti.ng froi-il the concu.rr,,nt negligejnce of Spokane Courity and_ (C-ityfTown), eacJa Partits J iabiYity b ereunder shall only be fo thc exteat ofthat party's ni~~g1igmce. ~ I d. No liability sliail be amcb~-d to S pokane County ar (City{Tawn) by -reason of eWueri n~ ; . in#a this agreemenf except as expressly provided herein, . I ' ~ l3. Severability: Tf any provisian of thss agreement or its application ~o -auy person or ~ circumsta.ace is held invalid, the remaindez o£ t.he proiFisjous andlai- th~ appl3cwtion of the pravisions to other persons or ci~c~m.s~nces sha]1 aat be afFe.cted. In such case the. parties agree ta meet a.~,d amend thi.s agr~ement as may be iutitua11y dee.med necessary. 14. Eotire Agreement: Tllis agreement canstifutes tlte enfiire agreemcnt between the.Parttes {vith respect to idefltified propert;F. This agge-,ment znay be amended in wntihi3 by mutua.] agreenlent of the Parties. . 15. UEsignated I2epresentative. The Pariies agree that (position) sha2] be thc d~sipated represtntativ~ o#` the City17`own forcoozdination of this agreemerEt and for receipt of any corn-m unicatrons rt-lated tD fihis agreement and (position) shall beffie designated repres~,,rtative of the Caunfy. . . 9 n CVr_ I V CU ;C! I I 2006 • SPOKAN VRLLEY 16. Effective Date and Duratfon. Tlxis ag-e~ement shall becazne cffecti°~ e followCg i.n DC~~pRRT~aENr aF ~aPPi~~WPMr of the agreement by the official govemiilg bodies of each of the Parties hereto and the signi.ng of the agrEement by the duly authorized representativc of each of the Parties hereto, and shall reruain in effect unless termi.nated. OFTIOIVS 17. Annezations. The parties iNish to sepai-ate, iN11hO1.CI 1Jl•ejudice to either Par•ty, tlze issue of potential ann.exatiorts aizd the legal auEhority and right to pursue or oppose such annexations frorn tliis agreentent arzd the execution of the same. 18. Teimination. Either Party may tenninate its obligalion under tlzis agreem.ent upor: one year (180 days, 90 days, 60 days, or 30 days?) advance written notice to the other Pary. Folloiazng a terntiruztiort, th.e county aiul City--are responsible forfiuOlli.ng any outstanding obiigarions under tlzis agreement, or am.endinent thereto, iizcurred prior to the e~'ective date of tlze tennination. 10 ~ ~ ~ . MINUTES OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT STEERING COMMITTEE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS November 15, 2006 , The meeting of the Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials was called to order by Chairman Matthew Pederson at 9:13 a.m. on November 15, 2006 in Spokane Transit Authorifiy's second floor Board Room at 1230 West Boone Avenue, Spokane, WA 99206. VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Apple: Council Member, City of Spokane, Voting Helen Cragun, Council Member, City of Deer Park, Voting A/temate Ed "Chuck" Crockett, Council Member, Town of Latah, Voting Michael DeVleming, Council Member, City of Spokane Valley, Voting Al French, Council Member, City of Spokane, Voting Nancy McLaughlin, Council Member, City of Spokane, Voting - Todd Mielke, Commissioner, Spokane County, Voting Richard Munson, City of Spokane Valley . Matthew Pederson, Mayor, City of Airway Heights, Voting -Chair ' Steve Peterson, Niayor, City of Liberty Lake Mark Richard, Spokane County Commissioner, Voting Wendy VanOrman, Council Member; City of Liberty Lake, Voting Altemafe NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: Bart Haggin, Unincorporated Spokane County . Sharon Colby, Fire District #3 STAFF PRESENT: • Pamela Knutsen, Assistant Director, Spokane County Department of Building and Planning John Pederson, Assistant Director, Spokane County Department of Building and Planning . Interested parties as shown on the attached copy of the sign-in sheet_ 1. Chairman Pederson called the meeting to order at 9:13 a.m. 2. Minutes of October 11, 2006- Mr. Richard moved to approve the minutes for October 11, 2006. Mr. DeVleming seconded and the motion passed unanimously. 3. CTED Regional Collaboration Grant: Susan Winchell, Boundary Review Board 1 Susan Winchell submitted a handout to the Committee outlining the CTED Collaborative Grant (Exhibit A). Ms. I7'Vinchell advised that the grant will allow for coordinated planning within the Urban Growth Area of Spokane County. The participating jurisdictions will be the Ciry of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, City of Liberty Lake, City of Airway Heights, and Spokane County. Ms. Winchell advised that the City of Spokane will be the fiscal agent responsible for receiving and dispersing the grant funds. She advised that the Grant Technical Committee members included Steve Davenport, Spokane Counry; Ken Pelton, City of Spokane; Scott Kuhta, City of Spokane Valley; Doug Smith, City of Liberty Lake; and Marianne Morris, City of Airway Heights. Ms. Winchell advised that the intent is to review the development regulations of each jurisdiction, assess inconsistencies, and develop aiternatives. She then introduced Mr. Bill Grimes of Studio Cascade Consultants. . Mr. Grimes advised the Committee that each junsdiction will be contacted to review their development regulations; including their individual zoning, subdivision, and environmental regulations. Mr. Grimes advised that public works standards will also be reviewed. Once the data has been gathered, it will be assessed to show where the jurisdictions are consistent and where they are inconsistent and develop alternatives. Mr. Grimes hopes this process will be completed by June of 2007 and advised that the Grant Technical Committee will be presenting their findings to the Steering Committee prior to that time. • 4. Results of Subcommittee Discussion on Updating Countywide Planning Pollcies Nir. Pederson advised that the Steering Committee Subcommittee met initially on November 3, 2006 and again on November 15, 2006. He noted the Subcommittee members are Todd Mielke, Rich Munson, AI French and Mathew Pederson. Also attending these meetings were John Pederson and Pam Knutsen of Spokane County Building and Planning. Ms. Knutsen provided an overview of the items being discussed by the Subcommittee. She noted that item sixteen (16) of the Countywide Planning Policies refers to the time frame for completing UGA Boundary review and revision. The RCW requires this to be done every ten (10) years. Ms. Knutsen noted that the current Countywide Planning Policies provide for review and revision of the County's Urban Growth Area Boundary to be done every five (5) years. Ms. Knutsen stated the Subcommittee has elected to revise item sixteen (16), paragraph two (2) to add; "Additionally, every seven (7) years each jurisdiction must take legislative action to review and revise the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, development regulations, critical areas and natural resource lands.° The Subcommittee has also agreed to add, °All review and any revisions to the UGA Boundary- shall be concluded within three years of initiation consistent with the ten (10) year time period described in RCW 36.70(a) 130, sub- paragraph three (3).° The Subcommittee also added language to read, °The legislative authority of each city and town shall complete their UGA uptiatg! twelve (12) months prior to the ten (10) year anniversary date." . The Subcommittee will be meeting again on November 27, 2006 to continue review of item seventeen (17) of the Countywide Planning Policies. VVhen this procress is complete, the Subcommittee will present their recommendations to the Steering Committee for their review and, approval. 5. Joint Planning Area Discussion Mr. Munson submitted a revised Draft Interlocal Agreement (Exhibit B), as proposed by the City of Spokane Valley, to the Committee for review by their respective jurisdictions. Mr. Munson then introduced Mr. Mike Connelly, Attorney for the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Connelly advised that ~ the intent of this Interlocal Agreement template is to bring about discussion on the development of an Interlocal Agreement useful to all jurisdictions. Primary changes include replacing the language °towards addressing how" to "to address the manner in which" (page 2, paragraph 2), and replacing "affected area" with °urban growth areas" on page 3, paragraph 2. Mr. Connelly also- noted minor changes on pages 4 and 6 of the draft document. Ms. McLaughlin expressed concern regarding the statement "Differences shall be identified and a consensus standard recommendedn (page 6, paragraph a) and whether this language is truly achievable. Mr. Ken Pelton, City of Spokane Planning Department, advised the Committee that the grant will look at alternatives for land use standards and will be evaluating the different needs of communities. Mr. French suggested that the language in sentence three (3), paragraph finro (2), and page two (2) be revised to read "transportation capacity for development `meefs concurrency' with the developmenY'. Mr. Mielke agreed with Mr. French conceming this paragraph and recommended replacing the omitted °and" with the word "to" in the second sentence. On page 3, Mr. Mielke suggested replacing the omitted "affected area" +rvith "designated areas". These - changes were noted and Mr. Connelly was asked to forward the agreement with these changes to the Committee members for their review. Mr. Connelly noted that paragraphs 17 and 18 under Options were added but will be revised according to the extent of the agreement and the commitment of the jurisdictions. Ms. Colby asked vrhether fire districts and water districts would be included in the agreement. Mr. Connelly indicated that they would be, as well as other special districts. Mr. Pvlunson stated that the City of Spokane Valley would like to move fonward and establish an agreement with the County at this time. Mr. Mielke suggested allowing time for special interest districts to have the opportunity to submit language within a specified time frame. Mr. Richard recommended that any special purpose districts submit their comments and suggestions one week prior to the next meeting of the Committee. • Motion After further discussion, Mr. Richard moved that any additional comments on this document by the jurisdictions and special purpose districts be received one week prior to the next scheduled Steering Committee meeting and that the Committee attempt to finalize this document at the next - meeting. Mr. French seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Pederson recommended that the Interlocal Agreement be listed as an action item on the next agenda. - . 6. Urban Growth Area Boundary Adiustments Mr. John Pederson noted that Spokane County intends to take action on amending the Urban Growth Area Boundary to address remands from the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board in the cases of McHugh v. Spokane County and Miotke v. Spokane County. Mr. Pederson advised that the Board of County Commissioners has directed the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding removal from the UGA of areas previously added under these applications. Mr. Pederson noted that the Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on November 30, 2006 to address this matter. Mr. Pederson advised that whether or not the Steering Committee would need to take action on these items will 6e clarified with legal counsel. Mr. Mielke gave an overview of the Board of County Commissioners discussions with the Eastern Washington Grovuth Management Hearings Board on these issues. 3 7. Tim el i n e for Update af C omprohens ive Plans: Status report frorn each jurisdiction 'I. Spokane Coun#y Mr_ Pederson reported that on Novernber 13, 2006 the Spakane Caunty f'lanning Commissian signed Findings of Fact in their recommendation regarding updates to the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan #ext, Capital Facilities Plan and minor revisions to the Spokane County Zoning Code with the purpose of demonsErating cornpliance with statutory guidelines under RCUV 36.70A.130. The Board of C ounty Cornmissianers received the Planning Commission's recomrnendation on hlovember 14, 2006 and set November 2 8, 2 006 as the date to cans'rder the recornrnendation, Mr. Pederson advisett that in early 2007, staf# wiEl rneet with the Steering Committee to coordinate efforts to update the Urban Growth Area $oundary. 2. Town of Latah Mayor Crackett advised that the Town of Latah is continuing to work an their Cornprehensive Plan and hopes to have it campleted soon. , 3. City of Deer Paric and Towrts of Fairfield and Spangle I ICathy Maecus advised that the CFty of Deer Park Planning Cammission wkll be meeting on November 27, 2006 to review the UGA addNtion far #he airpor# landing and takeoff zone and expansion of spray irrigation area for reclaimed sewer water_ The report will be preserrted to the Deer Park City Council on Decernber 6, 2006 and should be adapted by mid-Demrnber. Ms. Marcus alsa advised that khe Deer Park City Council will be rnee#ing the evening of November 15, 2006 to address a resalutian conceEning completed work on #he Land Quality Analysis and #he Population Ailoca#ion. S he noted that the Towns of FairField ~nd S pa ngle have cornpleted their work and submi#ted it to CTED, 4. Town of Waverlp, City of MiElwnod, C ity of iVle€JFCaI Lake [Vat pEesent. . 5. Ciiy of CFreney Mr. Tom Richardson, pfa nning Qirectar for C ity of Ch eney, advised that the Capital Faciiities Plan has been approved by the City CounciL The Urban Grourth Area ' Boundary revisions, in deaft form, have been approve[f by the Cit]r Council, Mr. ' Richardson advised that the Findings of Fact will be completed in January, 2007. A tirne line and working plan for cornpletion has b een prepared, 6. City of Airway Heights . Ms. Marianne h+iorris, City Planner, reported that City of Airway Heights expects final approval on the ComprehensRVe Plan on December 18, 2006. 4 7. City of Spokane Mr. Ken Pelton, City Planner, reported that the Spokane City Council will hold a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Updates on November 20, 2006 and they are expecting resolution adoption in early December, 2006. 8. City of Spokane Valley Mr. Scott Kuhta reported that the City of Spokane Valley is in compliance with GMA timelines as the City's first Comprehensive Plan was adopted last spring. Mr. Kuhta stated that the City Planning Commission reviewed the proposed UGA Boundary and finished their deliberations last week. He will be forwarding recommendations to the City Council by the end of tfie year. The Planning Commission did not make any revisions to the UGA. Mr. Kuhta noted that work needs to be done on updating the Capital Facilities Plan. Mr. Kuhta advised that the City of Spokane Valley is very interested in seeing the timeline set for the bifurcation process so they can meet the deadline. 9. Ciry of Liberty Lake Mr. Doug Smith reported that the City of Liberty Lake has completed its Environmental Analysis, UGA Boundary update, and Population Allocations. The City's Planning Commission rrvill meet on November 27, 2006 to review these reports. Mr. Smith noted that the City is in the middle of their 30 day comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Urban Growth Area alternatives. The public comment period will close on December 8, 2006. Mr. Smith stated he anticipates holding the first public hearing on this issue on January 16, 2007. Mr. Pederson asked whether the FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement) will be complete and issued by January 16, 2007. Mr. Smith advised that they expect to complete the FEIS by December 15, 2006. Mr. Richard expressed concem that the City of Liberty Lake will not be successful in the timeline there are affording and asked if the ' City has an alternative plan if this timeline is not met. Mr. Smith stated that the City of Liberty Lake has gone through the Environmental Impact Statement process within the prescribed timelines; however, there is an optional 14 to 30 day comment period allowed on the scoping portion of the EIS and the City Council voted to allow for a 21-day comment period. 10. Town of Rockford Mr. Bill Grimes, representing the Town of Rockford, reported that the Town of Rockford has completely rewritten their Comprehensive Plan over the last 8 months. A draft has been sent to CTED for 60-day review: The plan will be presented to the Town Council at their first meeting in December, 2006. Mr. Grimes reported that the process should be complete by early January, 2007. iNr. Pederson commented that he hopes all jurisdictions will forward their completed documents to the County at their earliest convenience. 8. Public Comments or Questions . 5 Mr. Bart Haggin commended jurisdictions on defeating Proposition 933. Ms. Judy Bellows asked when the public hearings were going to be held for the update in the five (5) year plan. Mr. Pederson advised her that a public hearing date cannot be set until resolutions of items pending are presented to the jurisdictions respective councils. When these projects are . complete, a public hearing will be scheduled. He also advised Ms. Bellows that Comprehensive . Plan Text Amendments have been addressed by the Planning Commission and Findings have been sent to the Board of County Commissioners. N9r. Pederson advised that the screening and evaluation criteria the Board of County Commissioners adopted is used to evaluate potential areas that would be considered for inclusion into the Urban Growth Area Boundary. Mr. Pederson advised that comments that were of a rural nature were not within the scope of what is being considered in the Urban Growth Area update process. - 9. SET AGENDA FOR IdEXT MEETING Chairman Pederson advised that the next meeting of the Steering Committee Subcommittee is scheduled for November 27, 2006 to be held in Conference Room 2B of the Public Safety Building beginning at 10:00 a.m. - The next meeting of the GMA Steering Committee was set for December 20, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. to be held in the STA Board Room. Approved: Chairman Matthew Pederson Date: Vickie Merriott, Cler4c 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ DRAFT ' MINUTES OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT STEERING COMMITTEE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS December 20, 2006 The meeting of the Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials was called to order by Chairman Matthew Pederson at 9:13 a.m. on December 20, 2006 in Spokane Transit Authority's second floor Board Room at 1230 West Boone Avenue, Spokane,. WA 99206. VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Appie, Council Member, C'rty of Spokane, Voting Helen Cragun, Council Member, City of Deer Par1c, Vofing Altemafe Ed tlChuck" Crockett, Council Member, Town of Latah; Voting . Michael DeVleming, Council Member, City of Spokane Valley, Voting AI French, Council Member, City of Spokane, Voting Nancy McLaughlin, Council Member, City of Spokane, Voting Todd Mielke, Commissioner, Spokane Courrty, Voting Richard Munson, City of Spokane Valley, Voting Matthew Pederson, Mayor, City of Airway Heights, Voting -Chair Steve Peterson, Mayor, City of Liberty Lake, Voting Mark Richard, Spokaoe County Commissioner, Voting Wendy VanOrman, Council Member, City of Liberty Lake, Voting Alterriate NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: Bart Haggin, Unincorporated Spokane County., Sharon Colby, fire District 03 STAFF PRESENT: Pamela Knutsen, Assistant Director, Spokane County Department of Building and Planning John Pederson, Assistant Director, Spokane County Department of Building and Planning Dave Hubert, Spokane County Deputy Prosecuting Attomey Interested parties as shown on the attached copy of the sign-in sheet. 1. Action on Minutes of November 15, 2006 Mr. DeVleming moved to approve the minutes of November 15, 2006. Mr. French ssconded the motion and motion passed unanimously. . 1 2. . Action on Draft Interlocal Agreements Chairman Pederson advised that the Steering Committee had been presented with a draft Interlocal Agreement prepared by the City of Spokane Valley for consideration. Mr. Munson commended the City of Spokane on the changes they submitted to the Committee. Mr. French advised that the City of Spokane staff reviewed the document submitted by the City of Spokane Valley and outlined the changes proposed. Motion Mr. French moved that the Committee substitute the •document as amended by the City of Spokane for the document that was presented and prepared by the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Munson seconded the motion. Chairman Pederson asked if Mr. French was referring to the document dated 12-4-06. Mr. French advised that he was referring to the one dated 12-6-06. Mr. Mielke asked for a comparison that . shouvs the changes, Mr. French stated that the draft that showed all the comparative language was emailed on Tuesday, but offered a red-lined copy'he had on hand. Mr. Mielke expressed concem regarding the phrase "consrstenf with fhe City's comprehensive plan and development standards" in Item 2 Intent, page 3,. Mr. Mielke stated that he feels this statement allovws for one City's rules .to override the rules and ordinances of the other jurisdiction involved. He also expressed concern regarding the language 'the Parties shall require (or recommend, as the case may be) constrtrction of the transportatron rmprovements necessary to mifigate transportafion impacts identirted in the T1A..." in Item 5, Transportation, paragraph b. Mr. Munson asked for legal opinion on this statement. Mr. Richman, Attorney for the City of Spokane, . advised that the language vwas for clarification and 'compliance with the Growth Management Act. . Mr. Richman advised the Committee that this draft Interlocal Agreement is consistent with other Joint Planning Agreements in Washington State. Mr. Richman advised that if there is a conflict between the County's Comprehensive Plan and the C'rty's Comprehensive Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan prevails in a Joint Planning Area. Mr. Connelly suggested that °and cons;stent" antl 'parties" be added in brackets as altematives for the Interlocal Agreement template. He reminded the Committee that this is an issue for the Cities and County to discuss in the future and that this Interlocal Agreement is merely a template. . Commissioner Richard noted that Item 3, Applicability, represents a major change in policy. He stated that this language reflects the notion that the Cities will be looking to mitigate the impacts of those areas that are contiguous with their boundaries and stated he does not find this acceptable. Mr. Richman advised that the intent was to attach maps outlining the Urban Grovvth Areas on a case by case basis. Mr. Richard asked if the word "contiguous" was to be interpreted to mean internal and extemal. Mr. Richman advised it was intended to show a common boundary; that an Urban Growth area could extend on both sides of that common boundary. Discussion moved to Item 5, Transportation, paragraph b; °...payment of money in lreu thereof....to the jurisdicfion whose transportation system is thereby impacfed." Mr. Pederson stated that he feels this issue is subject to individual agreement between the jurisdictions involved in the Interlocal Agreement and suggested that the word "template° be added to the title of the document. Mr. Munson made a friendly amendment to add the word "1emplate° to the document. Mr. French accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Munson asked that friendly amendments also be made to Item 2, Intent: page 3, paragraph one, to read °...compatible and consisfent with tJie City's 2 Parties cornprehensive plan and development standards, "and on Item 3, Applicability, remove the statement "which are configuous fo the City's corporafe boundaries...° Mr. French accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. French restated his early motion at the request of the clerk to substitute the draft Interlocal Agreement submitted by the City of Spokane Valley with the document that was amended by the C'rty of Spokane and dated 12-06-06 as a draft template. Motion seconded by Mr. Munson. Vote was 8 to 3, with Mr. Pederson, Mr. Munson, Ms. McLaughlin, Mr. DeVleming, Mr. French, Mr. Gainer, Mr. Apple, Mr. Crockett voting in favor and Commissioner Mielke, Commissioner Richard and Mr. Peterson voting against. Mr. Mielke advised the Committee that his concerns lie with the statement, "to insure the development standards applied within the UGA are consistent with the Parties development standards." - • 3. Report from Steering Committee Subcommittee on Updating Countywide Planning Policies . Mr. French presented the recommendations of the Subcommittee on Policies 16 and 17 that deal wfth the timing of updates to Comprehensive Land Use Plan"s and Urban Growth Area boundaries. Mr. French advised that discussion csntered on timetables for" beginning and completing work on the UGA boundaries. Mr. French advised that the Subcommittee was not able to reach a consensus on Policy 16 and two options were presented for the Steering Committee's consideration. Consensus was reached on Policy 17 and the recommendation was presented to the Steering Committee. Mr. French advised that currently updates to the UGA and Comprehensive Plans are done on a five-year cycle. The Subeommittee recommended changing this to a ten-year cycle (Option 1) or a seven-year cycle (Option 2). Mr. French advised that there is a lot of time, energy and resources required to complete this work and that he recommends the updates be done on a ten-year cyde. Mr. Bart Haggin advised the Steering Committee that the five year cycle was developed due to resistance to the Growth Management Act. Mr.Haggin stated his support for a ten-year time frame for the UGA updates. Mr. French outlined Policy 17 for the Steering Committee. He noted that each individual jurisdiction can request annual UGA expansion, if necessary. Mr. Munson outlined the second option proposed by the Subcommittee. Mr. McCormick expressed concern that a ten-year cycle was too long. He advised the Committee that within a ten-year period, each jurisdiction has already gone through two OFM Population projections and that those projections are used by several service providers who may have shorter time frames for developing their services. Mr. Munson summarized the seven-year versus the ten-year proposals and recommended the Committee accept Option 2. Mr. Pederson noted that there was not consensus at the Subcommrttee level and he advocated for the five-year update planning cycle. He noted that this is a five-year update only and not an overhaul of entire Comprehensive Plans. Mr. Pederson stated his feeling that a ten-year planning cycle was too long a timeframe. Mr. Pederson noted that OFM projections are provided every five years and provide a growth marker for planning and he feels a five-year update cycle meets the needs of the majority of the small cities in the county. ~ ~ - Mr. French advised that comprehensive, long-term planning must be done. He informed the Committee that Arlington, Virginia set aside 1600 acres for wastewater treatment facilities for their community in the 1880's. . Mr. Haggin stated that Spokane County is out of step with other jurisdictions in fhe State who use a ten-year cycle. He suggested the Steering Committee look at other counties in Washington to*see how they are dealing with this issue. Mr. Mielke asked the Committee to consider Option 1 as it is consisterit State Statutes and he feels that a five-year cycle will encumber jurisdictional staff unnecessarily. Mr. Connelly stated that what adversely impacts cities and counties is development that is not regionally coordinated and planned. Mr. Connelly stated that the five-year review forces regional planning earlier rather than later. Mr. Richard asked staff whether Spokane County is the anomaly in using a five-year UGA planning cycle. Ms. Knutsen informed the Committee that she had reviewed other counties in the state and found a range of update cycles, ranging from annually to ten-year cycles. Nis. Knutsen advised that Spokane County's goal was to become more consistent with State law. She advised that item 16 does provide jurisdictions the ability to request the County Commissioners to initiate the UGA boundary review process. Ms. Knutsen stated that Option 1 allows County staff to complete the numerous other planning functions required of them and that County resources are limited. Mr. Richard moved to continue discussion on this issue to the next meeting. Mr. Munson seconded and motion passed unanimously. 4. Set Agenda for Next Meeting. The next meeting of the GNIA Steering Committee was set for January 17, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. to be held in the STA Board Room. Chairman Matthew Pederson adjourned the meeting at 11:01 a.m. Approved: Chairman Matthew Pederson Date: Debbie Decorde, Interim Clerk 4 ~ ~ 0 TEMPI..ATE (As approved by the CM.A Steering Committee on December 20, 2006.) [nterlocal.ALTreement Regarding Joint Plaruiuie betw-een Spokane Counh, and This agreeinent is EntEred into on tlie day of , 2006, by Spokane Gounty and tlie Citylfwvn of , hereinafter referred to as "Parties". `Vhereas, a Goal or the State GroA~th Managemeni Act is to ensure coordination betwecn coirununities and jurisdictions, including speeial districts to reconcile conflicts, and . R'hereas, RCW 36.70A.210 sets forth certain require.ments £or Counry-Nvide Planning 1'olicies, includirig tliat county-wide planning golicies shall address policics for joint county and city planning within urban growth areas; and Whereas, The Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County adopted pursuant to RCVJ 36.70A.210 contain policies for a jouit plaiuiing process intended to resolve issues regarding how zoning, subdivision and other land use approvals in desip-natcd joint planning areas «ill be coArdinated, and that such joint plaruung may be accomplished pursuant to an interlocal agreement entered into between and/or among jurisdictions and/or special purpose districts, and Whereas, the Parties arE desirous of resolvuig_ how zonine, subdivision and other land use approvals in designated joint plamiing areas will be coordinated, and 1 Whereas, the Parties wish to separate, Afthout prejudice ta either Party, the issue of Iaotential annexation.s a.nd the legal authority and right to pursue or oppose such annexations from tlus agrecment and the execution of the Same; Now, therefore be it Resoh~ed, towards addressing how zoning, subdivision and other land use approvals for joint planning -v%711 be coordinaled, to cnsure that transportaiion capacity for developmenl meets concurrency requirements and that consistent devclopment standards are used, the Parties agree to cooperative jouit planning in designated areas pursuant to the following: , • l. Legal basis: This agreement is entered into pursuant to RCW 36.70A.010; 020(3); 210 (3) (a), (b), (d), and (f); RCW 39.34; Countvmdde Planning Policics For Spokane Countk (T'lacuung Policies) Topic 2, Overview of Growth Management Act (GiMA) Requircments; Topic 2, PoliciES (1) and (2); Topic 5 Transgortation, 4verview of Gro-wth ivla.naaement (GMA) Requirements; Glossary Countywide Planning F'olicy Tenns, Joint Planning Flreas; the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan of the City/ToNAqi of 2. Intent: Tt is the intent of the Partics l) to provide for coordinaled planning for trausportation and development standards in the UGA, as defined in this agreement, 2) to ensure thai transportation improvements necessary to mitigate transportation impacts resulting from development a.re identifed and constructed concurrent ,.N1th the developmcnt and/or that adequate funding is secured to finauce construclion of such transportation improvements 2 concurrent with development, as required by RCW 36.70A.110.070(6)(b), wid 3) to ensure that development standards applied within the UGA relatine to allowable land uses, densities, strects, sidewalks, curbing, draunage and utilities are cornpatible and consistent with the Panies comprehensive plan and developmenc standards. 1 he Parties ciesire to jointly develop and implcmcntdevelopme.nt regulations, proccdures and . standaa-ds related to ihe review and approval of projects «ithin the UGA, as defined 'ul this aQreement. The parties alsa desire to jointly establish and implement consistent development regulations and procedures govcrning ihe pravision of all public facilities wikhin said UGA. The Parties agree to commii suffcient staff to draft and finalize these specific agrecments in a timely manner. (Mention of the C1'El7 Growth Management Services Grant could be insertcd here.) ' 3. Applicability: The ageemcni shdll apply to development proposals Arithin urban gro'wih areas., as identified in Exhibit "A" hereto (tlie "UGA"). 4. Projects affected: This agreement applies to new development proposals in The UGA that are subject to the votice of Application requirements oF RCW 36.70B as adopte,ci by the jurisdiction; includ'uig proposals subject to the State Environnental Policy t'1et. Notice of Application, Notice of Hearing and Notice of Iaecision required by RCW 36.70B aiid any environmenlal checklist, EIS or other environmental document required pursuant to RCW 43.21 C sha11 be pr4vided to the Parties in a timely mazmer and in accordance vvith applicable , ~ regulations. ThE Parties further agree they shall provide cach otlier at leasl 7 days notice of, and are allowed and encnuraged to attend any, building pemut preconstruction conference andlor land use predcvelopment or techiiical review meetings. Such notice shall be in the fonn of standard notice for such confcrcnces/meetings given by the jurisdiction. a. The Parties shall consult (clariFy) on proposals outlined above prior to issuance of any final DNIS, A4iaNS or staff rEport to the I-Iearing Fxaminer in an attempt to reach a consensus position/reconunendation. For SFPA documents, the jurisdiction having lead agency status shall include the conscnsus/collective recommendatioii and auy n-iitigating conditions, or their indiviciual recommendations and any mitigating conditions if unablc to reach consensus, as applicablE; for projects proceeding to public hEarine, both Parties sha11 include thc consensus rec:amniendation in their respective staf-T reporllrecommended conditions of approval to the Heazing Examiner or other appropriate hea,ring body, or, if unable to agree, their respcctive recommendations. 5. Transportation: The Farities rECOgnize that development activity within their respectivc jurisdictions will- cause transpnrtation impacts and may unpact transgortation levels of ~ se.rvice in neighboring jurisdictions. To ensure proper identification and cnitiaation of development rclated transportation impacts, the Parties agree that: a. Unless nthenvise inconsisteiit with law, either of thc Parties may require preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) quantifying the impact of any new development withiii the UGA. In each such case; botli Parties shall have an opportunity to cnniribute to the development of the scope of such siudy. The Parties ma}° mutually agree in 4 writinn to waive the requirement for a TIA Anth respect to any particular development proposal. b. In approving and/or making reconuncndations rcgarding devclopment proposals; each of the Aarties shall require (or recommend; as the case may be) construction of, the transportation improvements necessary to initigate transportation impacts idenrified in the TIA concurre.nl vvith developiiient as required by 1ZCW 36.70A.070(6)(a) and/or the dedication of such land or payment of money in lieu thereof that is necessary to niitigatc such impacts to the jurisdiction whose transportation system is thereby impacted. Any such fees shall be held and encumbereci as pravided in RCW 82.02.020. c. For development projects in the UGA where conshuction of iniprovements necessary to mitigate identified direct transportation impacts does not take place concurrent Nuith . project development, the Parties shall jpintly estdblish a uniforn-i method for quantifying appropriate financial contributions for imProvements to be made witlun 6 years of project approval for identified dirzct trausportatioii uupacts. The partics recognize ihat to impleinent tlus agreement sorue modification of existing regulations cnay be required anci agree to make such modifications in a limely man.ner afier establishment of a uniform and mutually agreed upon method for quantifying appropriate financial contributions. d. Thc Parties further agree to jointly recommend dcnial of any development proposals that fail ta cnmply witli the concurrency standards of either party. 5 e. I'he - Parties further agree to incorporate the fmdings and recomanendations on concurrEncy being prepared by the Spokane Regional Transporiation Council (SRTC) into this JUint Planning A-geement, to thc extent agreed to by the Parties, by fonnal amendment at such time that the project is completed. 6. Development Standards: The Farlies rccognize that developrnent in the UCA vvithout convnon development regulations could frustrate the purpose and intent of this agreement and the procedures established. a.. Tlle Parties agree to assiDn lhe nccessary staff to rcview applicable development regulatiocis, including but not limited to zonuig designations, PUD standards, landscapina, signage, subdivision, road and street standards, bicycle paths, jagging lanes, trail systems application review procedures and storuiwater drainagc requirements. Differences shall be identified and a consensus or compatible standard recornmended, after which inutual recommendation ,vill he processed as an amendcnent to each Parties' . development regulations in a lawful maiuier towards the end of developing uniforcnity in ' said development standards. Such review should include representatives from the private sector who may be impacted by any such amendmcnt.s. The process to identil'y individual jurisdiction differences shall conunence upon si€ning of this agreEment, with a goal of completing the identification of differences lAridtin 6 months of signing. Reconunendation for consensus standards shall fallow. (The CTF1.7 Growth Management Services Granc could be mentioned hEre.) b. The F'arlies agree to confer on the necessity for andlor the localion of any connector sti-eets andlor the classification of any slreets Nuithin or adjacent to a proposecl 6 development or adjacent to ihe border between the Farties. 1f agreement is not reached, both Parties shall present shall present their respective positions to the Hearing Lxaminer or other appropriate hearing body. c. The Parties agree to consult on Comprehensive Flanl7oning eategories, allowable land uses and densities in the UGA. Sucll consultation shall include consultation on the classification of streets and roadways on the coinmon bordcrs. 7. Otber Regulations: Nodiing in tlus agreement shall supersede or iieeate any existing land use or developmcnt regulatiori of the Aarties. 8. Additional Agreements: T'he Parties contempldte future joint planning agreements that may relate to the UGA or other portions of Spokaue Count}, andlor the CitylTovvn of Nothing in this agreement is intended to prohibit the development of future agreemenfs relating to either the impacts identified above or othcr impacts that may now or ui the future exist. 9. Rights Reserved: Nothing in this agreement is inte_nded to waive or linut the rights of the Parties to require mitigation for any inipact as allovved by federal, state or local laws or ordinances including but not lunited to environmental impacts governecl by 43.21 C et seq. 10. Change in Standards or Ordinance:.c: Any cllange in the Parties standards or ordinances rclied upOn in tlus agreeiueilt, or modified pursuant to this agreement, shall be forwarded to the othcr party within days of passage. 1f the Parties cannot agrze ta the . 7 implementation of such standards tirithin 30 days the issuc may be set for mediation by either party. 11. Mediation of Disputes: Any disputes arising from this agreement, including che failure to - agrce as to new siandards and/or applicable ord'uiances as is set forth in paragraph 10 above, may be set for mediation by either party ~vithin 30 days of notification of a dispute. Prior to mediation, the Parties, represented by their electEd officials, shall first meet informally in an attempt to reac-h resolution. If a mediator cannot bs agreed upon by the Parties; cach party shall sclcct one mediator who in turn shall select a third mediator to conduct thc mediation. 12. Indemnification and Liahility: a. Spokane County shall protect, save harmless, indemnify and defend; at its own expense, (City/ToNA1l), its electcd and appointed officials, officers, employccs and agents, from any loss or claim for damages of any nature wfiatsoever arising out of Spokane County's performance of this agreement, including claims by thc Spokane County employee's or [hi.rd parties, except for those damages caused solcly by the negligence or willful misconduct of (City/Towm), its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, or agents. b. (City/T'own) shall protect, save harn-dess, indEnuufy and dcfend, at its olAm erpense, Spokane County its elected and appointed officia-ls, officers, employces and agents, from any loss or claim for danlages of any nature whatsoever arising aut of (City's/To«n's) performance of th.is agreement, including claims by the (CityrT'own) 8 eniployee's or third Parties; cxcept for those damages caused solely by the ncgligence " or willi'ul misconduct of. Spolcane County, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employecs, or a;ents. c. In the event of liability for damages of any nature whatsoever arising out of the perforniance of this AgTeemenf by Spokanc County and (City/To,,vn), ulcluding claims by Spokane County's or (Cit_y1sCi'o,.N1i's) owm officers, officials, employees, aaents; volunteers, or third parties, caused by or resultinb from the concurrent negligence of Spokane County and (City/Town), each Parties liabilihr bereunder shall only be to the exlent of that party's neQligence. d. No liability shall be attached to Spokane County or (City/To,,N~n) by reason of cntering into this agrcement except as expressly pro,,rided herein. - D. Sevcrability: If any provision of this agrecmenl or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the provisions and/or the application of the provisions to other persons or cucumstanees shall not be a_ff.ected. In such case the parties agree to meet and ainEnd this aerEement as may be mutually deemed uecessary. l4. Entire Agreement: This agreement constitutcs the entire aereement beri;Teen the Parties ,vvith respect to identified property. 7 his agreement may be auiended in wTiting by mutual agrr;cment of the Parties. 15. nesignated Representative. The Parties agree that (posilion) shall be the desigiiated representative nf the Cily/To«,n for cnord'uiation of this agreement aud for 9 receipt of ali,y communications related to this agreement and (position) shall be the designated representative of thc County. 16. Effective Uate and Duradon. Tlus agrEement shall become effective folloNving the approval of the agreement b}~ the official governing bodies of each of the parties hereto and the signirig of the agreement by the duly auihorized representative of each of the Farties hcreto, and shall remain in effect unless ternlinated. 17. Tenniiiation. Either Party may terminate its cibligation iuider lhis agreement upon one year advance written nntice to the other Party. Followuig a terniination, the eounty azid City are responsible for fulfilling any outstanding obligations under this agreement, oc amcndment therEto, incurred prior to the effective datc of the termination. 10 0 ~ • ~ ~ I ~ ( . _ . I~~ • ~ ~ T - r - ~ it~ T.0_- • , _4o )uly, 2007 , Acknowledgei-nents T he Collaboratire Plannulg Grant way awarded to uie five 5pc,kane nietro jurisdictions of Spokane County, the City of Spokane, ihe City of Sgokane Valley, the City of Airway Heights, and the City of liberty iake. A steering committee representing each jurisdirtion was establi5hed to develop a work pian, select a consultant, review work proclucts, and set the general direction for the sti,dy. ParticipaHng on the Collaborative Planning Steering Committee wexe !-'tevc Davenport, AICP, Spolcane Covnty; Ken Pelton, AIQ', City of Sgokane; Scott Kuhta, AIQ', City of Spokane Valley; Marianne Morris, City of Airway Heights; Doug Smith, City of Liberty Lake; and Susan Wlnchell, A1CP, Houndary Review Board. Providing policy direction for the study were the many elected and agpointed officials Eor the participating jurisdictions as listed below. Special recognitian goes !o Spokane Valley City Council member Rich 'vtunson for takina the lead on interlocal aareements far the reginn. 5pakane County City o{ Airway Height5 Msrk Richarde, CommLesianer Matthew Pederson, Mayor 7odd Mielke, Comm3ssioner Larry Haskell, Councilmcrnber Bonnie !Nager, Commis3inner Patrick Rushing, Councilmember Charlotte Lawrenze, Coundlaiember City of Spokane Dnn 4Sitchetl, CnuncilnlemEvr Dennis Hession, Mayor ltick Jacks, Coundlmemhez Juc Shogan, Coundl PTtstdcilt lohn Eiolloway, Counriicricmber 8ub Appie, Counclimemlxr AI French, Councilmcmber City of Liberty L~ke Brad Stark, Cauncilmember Steve Petersan, Ivtnvu: Mary Verner, Councilmemti+er 1h'endy Van Orman, Counulme~i'.,v: Nancy McUughlIn Councilmember [Veal Olandrr, Counctlmember Kub C-ro%v. Cotmcilmember [?avid Crump, Counrilmembcr Juanna klegin, CouncilmembCr City of Spokane Valley Judi Owens, couRcflmemtxf Diuia Wilhite, biayor Brian Sayrs, Coucicilmembe: Patriek Jenksns, Cnuneitmemhe: Steve 7aylar, l7eputy :Nayor Michael DeVlemming, Cotulcilmember Gary Sclummel5, Councilmember Richard Munson, Coun:ilmembc; BID Gothman, Caundlmzmber Dick Dertenm•, Counri::nemFyer 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Contents 1 Executive Summary, ~ 3 Introduction 5 Assessment 19 Issues 23 Coordination Strategies 37 Toward an Interlocal 43 Appendices 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Executive ~ ~ Summary ► ~ S pokane Cuunty's population is ~ growing, and forecasts call for that ~ orowth to ccmtinue. Pressure to develap ~ land within the county's urban growth areas (UGAs) will Increase ►n r+~<p- ~,ti. ~ subdividing vacant land to crea cf- 1 new residential lots and inte; i ; ,,4 ~ those areas already develope.'. ~ 1 i,is report addresses collaLu„..1:.,- ~ ; llnning in the caunty's metropohi.- UGA, including the City of Spokari, ~ the City of Spokane Valley, thr Gt~ i ~ Liberty Lake, the City of Airway Heig?;t~., ~ and Spokane County. It discusses hovv development applications are revicK•ed ~ through the jurisdicrions' review processe:. ~ and the land u5e conflicts that azise as ~ projects are approved and constru,=r-Li i r, ~ unincorporaied portions of the L:c: \ ~ The repart investigates Lhe devetopcii_ r.t regulations and street standards emplv} cc ~ by the5e jurisdictions, focusing on ~ those "edge$" where unincorporateci ~ land exists between the city limits and the outer baundary of the UG:1. ~ It discusses the various issues the ' jurisdictions face when considering , land use appllcations ir► these areas, ~ and then su&gests a range of strategies to ensure the land use review processes ' effectively promote public healih, safetv ~ and welfare, and pravidc for a fair and 1 } ~ ~ ~ ~ t 1 ~ ~ ~ \1, r.y o[ thc devtlapment standardc « adopted by the four citie9 and applied to ~ areas near their city limits are generalh• consistent with Spokane County's urban znning standards. Densities, Sot sizes, permitted land uses and other requirements Eypically match, with what - is permitted on one side of a dty limit ~ line mirrored an the other. There are exceptions, of course, but the general rule is that what is wtithin the UGA is expected to be urban. Zoning districts, either within cities or within the unincorporated ~ rounty; retlect that consistent vision. Street standards are also similar. Roads ranstructed to current standards will Ic3ok and function pretty much the same whether they are within city limits or w-ithin the County's unincorporated UGA. ~ Conflicts hmd tfl emerge from things development regulations do not addsess. They appear in areas where subdi-visian natterns fmm one neighborhood to the op next do not match, even though zoning scandards may be quite similu. They r appear where sewer service is vnavailable, : equiring lots to be large enough io ~ accommod.ate private septic systems ~ regardless of zaning lot size startdards. r "fhey appear where development occurs in different eras, wherc market f demand changes over time, resulting in r architectural ar technAlagical shifts. And , they appear in processes the jurisdirtions use to consider land use actionG. I~ Strategies introdviced ai the end r ~~f this report propase a variet}• of ! techniyucs to improve coliaboration. ~ v so r 2 (:ollabora,ive Flanning: $po{.ane Couniy's hletro l_'rhan C;rutitithArea f ON r 00 Introduction T lte l=:rvwt`i Mar,agemint Act i(;MAI requires the estahlishment of urh; n growth areas (U-GAs) and policies for joint county and city planning witli UGAs "...to ensure caardination between communities and jurisdictians to rc-ccmcile canflicts." The Act also requires that "the comprehensive plan of each countv or city...shall be coordinated with, and cQnsistent with, the comgrehensive plans...of other counties, cities with which the countp or city has, in patty, common horders or related regional issues." Spokane County's adopted Cauntywide Planning Policies (CWPF) address the need for jaint planning within UGAs and define joint planning areas (JPA) as "...areas designated as urban growth areas assigned to a city or town for iuture urban development, but lorated in the unincorporated county where a coordinated planning prcticess hetween the cities, towrts and the County will be canducted." To aversee joint planning wlt}11I1 UGAs, the CVb'PP zstablish a Steering Committee of L=lected Officials charged with defining standards for UGA delineation, minim,im leveis of wvice, distribution of future growth, and negotiating designations for liGAs in the Eorm of a recnmmendatinn to the Board of Couiitv Commi_si~ Sppkane Cnunty and ea,-h t,a.c tht1ir own set of development regulations and dcsign standards. Even though che CWPP include gu3dance on regional 3 ~ 90 00 40 wo vp let•e1: oi service and inttrgovernmentai *0 coocdination, specific development ~ and design standards still differ rroc:~ iurisdiction to jurisdirtion. As land go within the metro area UGAs continues or to urbanize, consistency in regulatic+ns op and standards becomes more critical. wo This report cammunicates a basis for ~ coordinated planning within the UGAs b}: • Evaluaring the differences in currentlv ' adoFted development regulatians ~ • T'roviding objective data upon which to ~ base coherent future land use decisians r • Guiding the developmer►t uf altematives for impleinencation This report also focuses on develogmenc ~ regulaiions each agency has adopteci, ~r including the Tules and procedures used to administer them. 8 does not eacplore 00 UGA sizing, land use designatian oz the 00 intricacies of joint planning. The intent is I to comgile an a9sessmeni of regulationz the flve (urisdlctinns have adopted, idenrify where they agree or not, assess the way each agency manages praject ~ review, and suggesi alternatives for the jurisdictirnts ta cartsider in impraving projet:t revie», in their -eL-pect;v-r UG:'1t-. ~ ~ ~ 4 t=nllaho-at:~e I'larning: Spok.ane Cc.ruritv's ,ti1e:tro Urhan Grow,h Are.i Assessment T his report's firs-t ubjective is to present an ocerview oE the rule- and standards adopted by participant agencies regarding land development. Five jurisdictions are the subjezt of this studv: • Spokane Cuunty City of Airway Heights t:ity of Liberty Lake • City af Sgokane • City of Spokane Valley These jwisdictions regulate lan:: development in the metropolitan ares , of central Spokane County, stretchin, from Fairchild Air Force Base in the west to the Idaho border to the ea~1. Each is responsible for long•rangc planning under the provisians oi thc Growth Managemes►t Act for regulatin,~ development through local zoning and subdivision regulations, and for reviewin,; utility and FuUUc worlc9 designs for compliance with local design skandards. This chapter exam.ines the range of golicies, rules and standards now ir, place for each of the jurisdictions, rut rr-rit wich infnrmatian available at the time of this repart. Each agency sugglied relevnnt information for incIusion in this assessrnent, aided in de#ermining the report scope, and participated in intervievvs to ensure comgrehensive understanding of thc ir materiaEs. 5 ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ Comprehensive Planning in Spokane County r Spokane County is mandated to pian r fully under the grovisions of the 00 Growth Managemeni Art. Pursuant op to thase requirements, the countv's 00 local jurisdictiQns established s set ~ of Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) and empanelled a Steering r Committee of Local Elected Government . - j`• I"'~, ~ Officials ('Steering Committee) to ensure that local comprehen..~ive plans ' - were coordinated and consistenL ~ r '1'he CWT'P define several threshnlds that local gaiernments must meet and ~ several pracesses that local governments ~ must observe to ensure that their 10 plans recognize the planning efforts of neighboring jurisdictions. The CWPP fp also confirm Spokane County as the ~ lead coordinatnr of regional land use ~ planning, a role generally assumed by caunties planning under GMA. 00 A review of the participating jurisdictions' ~ romprehensive plans indicates more ~ similarities than differences in goals and ~ policies. Each agrnty seeks to maximize ~ effidency in land use, encourage develapment H-ithin ex~sting commercial ~ districts and industrial land, preserve and ~ 2nhance resideniial neighbarhoods and VO provide pubiic services at a pace consistent 0 with forecast growth Each city generally tends to favor more intense development ' near its center, with less intense 00 development un its geriphcry. That patterr► is generally consistent with the County's (and use designations within the UGA. The types of land uaes general[v ~ i 6 Ci,ilahora;ive F'lanr.inc;: Spuk.ine (:ountv's,\1t>trn l: rban Grumh rlrea ~ cities and within the UGA a rt Law Density Residential Perhaps the most common land use designaticm on jurisdictional peripheries, or "edges" is the larger-:,,c \ singIe-family residential designation. ~ T}•piLal chaTacterisiics ittclude ~ helatively homogenou,~ ~ti?-ir~,cin a « tieveloFment pattern- ' Generally distant frorn :no-s, cammercial or town center •~-~o - • Requlres minimal levels of infrastructure to suppatt it • Is generally reliant an thc autoii:o`-,i 1e and a hierarchy of roads ti ,-t-•: . k1edium Density Residenti.il , In same areas, partitu[arly in t Its southern, eastern and southeastern ~ purtions of Spokane, medium- ~ density residential adjoins the , It marks those places where urba.-1- style devetopment of single-famEly or ~ lower intensity multi-faauly housin,e, ' types was permitted, along Hith the , cancunent ccrostruction of roads and utilities. It is often difficult to detert,tirio ~ whiGh areas are located within which ~ jurisdiction, as eitV limit lint-s sviii--:cime---- ~ jn}; i-i xr;i o.,t froru H,n ~ ~ In nurth Spokane, high-&n i t~. ~ residential development adjoin ~ the i city limit lines, abuiting undeveiuptf,-:, ~ industrial or rural land within the Cnunty's jurisdiction. This is not a ~ ccImMIDn edgt, condition, but dk-,e= i 1 , C_i)ll3E)r_e-,d-iV(' I'larining: CoL'rliy ~ MPl(il 1'fb:l(1 Cfo\ti11l A'e'a 7 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ i ~ i in thi5 p3rticLlar area, and pnserit~ a ~ tiharp iransition between land on one ~ 5ide of the city limit line and the uther. i Highway Commercial ' ti4ajor commercial carridura ru7 ~ ihrough the various jurisdictions, and ~ c trip commercial developmeni has occumed regardless Qf jurisdirtianal ~ influence. The edge condition of the?se , r n,mmercial areas occurs along all inte.►- ~ Jurisdictiacal arteriats and impacts ' - - i each of the fi%v participating agencies, r , ~ ---1 Heavy and Light Industrial Liberty Lake, Spokane Valley-, tipnkane ~ and Airway Heighis all have industrial areas within their dty liatiis that adjoin r SFokane County or their incorporated ~ neighbors. For the mnst part, these ~ industrial areas follow railroad or higbway corridars, running through r and betK een the jurisdictions. r b1lhlle the geitera] d'uection of goals and ~ policies among the vnrious agencies ~ is generally consistent, incompaiible ~ implementation chrough land use designation, zoning, and various design r standards may lead to difficulties. R" Comprehensive planning may set the 'r stage for land use placement, but it is only ane giece of o ven• complex puule. C !w ~ r. ~ ~ ~ d~ 8 Collaborati~e 1'lanning: Spokane Counhy's ,tiletro Urban Groti%th Area ~ ~ ~ i i 1 1 I 1 ~ s%~ape~1 E~J each juri;diction's experience; Zon i ng in regulating land deti•elopment, and iri ~ The four cities and the Caunty agree in each 1urisdictian's future asPirations. ~ concept nn what types oE land uses shauld ~ Zoning reconciles the lona range dcvelop along their boundaries, but there Frrn~ded in the cemprehensive pla ~ exist very few examples of complete with more rurrent deff►ands madz E,~ ~ cumpatibility in zoning regulatiQns. titihile der•elopers, resiclents an~ business~~ the fundamental structures of respective ~ Each cammunity is different, resul~~,:, zoning and subdivision ordLnances may in different standards and differen~ ~ ~e very similar (a reIlection of GMA exF►ectations for land use regulation. ~ compliance requirement5, recognition of Some zaning ordinances may be marO the CWPP, constitutirnlal and statutory restrictive than others - K•hich ma ve ~ limitatlons), each jurisdiction has adopted Ferfectly arceptable in established areas 1 unique sets af standards regarding , ~+ermitted land uses, minimum lot sizes, nearer the community s center (in the 1 development intensiries and other criteria case of incorporaYed jurisdictions) - bu t ~ relevant to tand development. vlany of rnaY rreate disparities along the e~:;:c1 lhe rules adopted by each ager►cy are where a city and the County adjoin ~ sornewhat siauJar, but there are rruances A comgarative matrix of the varioL _ 1 ~ Greater Spokane , Urban Area - Zoning ~ _ r 7 - 1 ~ - • - ~ /t ~w • ` ~ *4 ~ J ~ ~ • / ~ , („Ilaho~~tive f 1anniri~: ~-~i~nty'~ !~1r~tr~~ llrh=n Gruti~'h ;1r.,,i 9 1 1 ► resi~.iential zoning districts for is each of the five jUrisdictions is Table 3.1 • Zorting Oestricts on tfx Edge ~ euntained in the Appendix. Eight ~ _oning standards illustrate hou' tht' Atzac~ Pair ~ ~~~~~t❑ A'r.cr.~eR • jurisdicticros differ and where the}• 77e similar. Those standard9 are: Co'0°t7/sPa++r CsotilneAru LDR~7[SF t-DW G K't LORR$i • 11iI1iIItuII7 dL7L5Ity Cmwr/spakaar slprrver MpV~ HDVR4F • 'vlaacimum densiry Countrj5pokane Rtvenlde LDRIfiD'F - • Minimvm !ot area c°u°htSpok*nt sev" WI• LMn~ . Cauutv/Srokaae Shax+om LDR/W ~ Minimum frontage MDR/nF • Unit roverage area c°""`''/Spo'"" "'r°t' LnQmf Minimum front/flanking setback Caunty/5poLane Menn/GlvCrow LDR/W ~ • RM?Wt- • Minimum back/side setback c°umr/svok-am Lndlan c,nyon Maximum building hei;ht. courvy/sya,- TwrM xnJ wm, PERt,,e r cowntT/5po"ne Nnrth MeLro Am LDaJZg Tahle 3.1 presents the various zonin~ I.DRJJR- ~ Cccnry/Val1ey h:klD. ~ districts that ad?oin jurisdictional boundaries. This helps narrow the Civu-P/ValleT AlCtainbudr KD. LLhil i.'ti discussionsunoundingcomgatibility Lib" Lk,,C.., coa.crx+dV W.fl-D v ` and ronflict b} • idenh'fYing sPecific D` zoning districts that lie along the edges. ~'r r~~`~•'~`, w,•• ~ uR.: I"he table's second column helps provide ,,,,,,,r Ne'Fyt,l ,uAI,n C'ccn:r C 'BIx FD R•I/R: geograFhlcal refrzence fnr the various R:,~. ~ cdges, applying designarions such a9 "Five Mi1e,» "Hiltyard" and "West PlainS" to ~ ldentify where potenHal conQicts ma}' bt'. AS=~~f Yaet Lor~~.nA Abu!~in; ~ Uietrirte Zoning is not static. Sgokane County and c"~'~°~'"" ^b *~~n+ ~ ~ the City of Spokane hare overhau]ed their coumr,/Spo,,,. ,;Vwtb n,.,,,on RC/= deceloptnent tegulations to bring zoning C-qiSpok- ~ ~ i nto compliance wiih their comprehensive plans. Their regulakion9 today bear little maitt"s u~s ~ resemblance to the regulations used just cnuneriLmKrs c„re Hvepa/Spr.g,,. wMs ~ fice years ago. The cities of Liberty Lake ub" LO.iv.lley bm,,. A.. ~-zoi f and Spokane Valley initially adopted sPOa.-rvicl" r,rai, HW14 5pokane Cvunty's Zoning ordinance upon ~ rs.~~ wr~ffi MUfc: ~ their inrnrporation, and Liberty Lake r ex has since rewritten its zoning to meet the SP°k'"0/c01nty "W`'id u/u City's needs. Spokane Valley has adopted r incremental changes to County code, and 10 Cull; brirative Plannin,,: tipokanc County's Nletro L'rban Grotiti•th Arca . • - - - - ~ : ~ r rr r r ~e ~ ~ , _ . •erf~~•~;a • st . . ~ , z s, ~ ; , w J~VIJ is nutv proie:sing a full developmeni regulations averhaul. A.irway Heighis reviews and periodically updates its xoning ardinance to reflect changes in its comprehensive plan and in State law. Development regulatians aLsn dirtate how jurisdictions process development praposals and issue permits. Each jurisdiction uses its own develagment review process, though each must also conform to State requirements regarciing SEPA review, process time ' limits, and publicnoHficatian. ~ - - k ~ ~s~'" _ _~,'1~ ~ • - . s • ~ wsir. ' ~ II ~ ■ J'A ' `I • lf! 0 0 a ~ » , M - r IP /Af•//O i " , i ~ • R~~~~~ i r~ rrrr iR I - I ~ rifl':3 fI l341i1f3t;~F'~., ~U:;1-;Q_ ti~ln?~.lPw l ISuPIi': ~N'lPi.',~ I~f~?:=': t.ifo,•- 1h I V 1 ~ r r ~ ~ r ~Jii>gs 111dY71d1:ce tne roUt ,f 1}l:lT oLti'Tl 01 FirilJ Figures 3.4 and 3.5 illustrate haw ir Residential Zoning Districts development standards from the City ~ af Spokane and Spokane Couniy to Each jurisdictian stratifies residential may resvlt in differing subdivisinn land use in a similar fashion. Each deyiCns un the same sitr.. op emplo}-s a variety of residential densities, M ranging from !ow-densitv, detached ~ single-family residential to higher- T~ report's principal Eindings regarding density, attached mu1H-family residenHal. inflUences on the design and permitting vf ~ The City of Spokane has the greatest residential de~~eloF+ment are: r number of residenfial districts, creating Single-Family Density 00 different zoning categories for a broad palette of residential types. Table 3.2 is Four units per acre is a c~~mmon density ~ organized to indicate which housing fflr single-family residential zoning, op categori~ are percnitted in whirh zoning ~nd it ~ the minimum density generall~• ON district. [n all Jnri9dictions, single regarded as urizan. Spokane County's faallly, detached residential housing is LDR the City of Sgokane's RSF, Spokane 00 permitted in nearly any residentfal zone. Valley's UR 3.5, Liberty L.ake's K-1, and ` Airway Neighks' R-1 designations target ♦ tn general, land use and density residential development at thai level of differences between adjoining ager►cies density. It appean all the jnrisdicHons op are not prannunted. The greatest agree on residential densiry in the UGA 1110, disparity appears to exist between the and in those 5ingle-famitr areas titi•ithin ON uty of Spokane and Spokane County. city limits along the edge. ♦ Differences between Spokane County and the xoning designations along the Multi-Family Density to perighezy of Spokane Vailey and Liberty The LjGA inctudes a mix of residential op [-ake are minimal, gerhaps because densities. w'Iiile most Is rescned for or both cities used the County's zoning single-Eamily development, some a-eas rip Tablc 3.2 - List af Residentia) Zonirtg Disiricis ~ Br TYPe 1I7~ AJ~ RSF, ll-).3~ R-7. 1:. Q-1 L4, U.L ~ :.:1(L f.^.IIIY, Dl4:PClI (,.OjLP iTF, AIdY. AtDRHDt 1[HD A-12 R-" 9-3 1-2 R-! ~ 4,-ale Famtty, Attxhed/Qvpla i LDR YDR ~ A~f. R-]~. L7. II r Y 7•. 1-1 ~.•3 ~ r~ ~ a-u a•s ►c-r op nrL:cHf.msly. Anach.d ~ 1~aP. itiD R~R ~ sta•. H• a? ~ Y. M• 7' Ouim ~t^iv.i 4cic, mcnn'.ac~:rrd tccungj A•3. M;' All r~r.r~ ~ er_~t NZ ~ ~ 12 Collaborat+ve 1'lanninK: tipukane County's Nletro l)rban Growth Arca ~ ~ ~ ~ - F'iP~ pI_IITl;f['i:iIt' Nun-rc~sicferitial Zoiiing pistric', pIanned for multi-fam3ly housing. In areas like North Division, the Count}' Commercia) and indostrlal zoniii~, and the City of Spokane bath apply designations also e?cist in the L1(;.A multi-family zoning designatiQns. As is and along the peripheries of che the case with single-family zanes, ululti- cities. These districts arz genemli; located along major arterials and family density designations between the railroad corriciors without regard jurisdictions are consistent. Where multi- urisdictional bound~ family, areas in different jurisdiction5 i y~ re~~tin~, ~1,- Freferred locations for co:I I -rlc, rci,~1 adjoin, the permitted denrities are and industrial land uses. similar. Tablz 3.31ists the various Lo::ir,ler, l_vt Size and industrial zoning districts empl,., :-ed Density ranges may be 6imilar between by the five jurisdictions, categnrizir,Q1 jurisdictians, but minimum lot size them by Izvels of intensity. Each of requirements may differ. For instance, )urisdictions uses diEferent strata of !at sizes in Spokane's RSF zone may cornmercial and industrial zaning to be as small as 4,350 square feet undzr 6eparate mare intense ust>s from oncc generating less inipact. Some jurisdict;tin~ certain conditions. In contrast, lot sizes invite residential uses into commerrial and in the County's LDR zone, immediately industrial zones, aibeit subject to special adjacent to ihe City's RSF district (in conditions. 5pokane's Planned lndustri,I Moran Prairie), imposes a minimum (ot ae$ignatian, for example, permits housing size of 7,200 square feet. Densities may among industrial usea, subject to speJfic be similar, but individual residentia) design criteria. This table p:o-vides a subdivisions can contain dramatitally coo1prehensive list of all zoning dist ric ts, different lo! sizes and create different even though only some of them ma%neighborhtioC{ Ch1rdi3tT. Jt::u;sllv exist in the edge conditior~. T:.hlp 3.'1 - List uf Commmial S Indu;lrial loning District% Bv 7ypc „ = _ c = a z e j - ' - U ptn .i > L Z . Kri f1,bnrhood Conttrte~c~a' NC 14 R 6-1 M-0 Cc, l - Cnmmnaltr or teiianal Commc~nl C[. RC ~ C-; C+:'•2. CC-I M-? - - C:alnf 6minns puMA or Sown Gnra CHD S- b M.1 1~t lnduat:ul or &:scauza Pari G 1-2 l•3 l-:. 4-1. Fi-1 1.1. 1?. I-3 . L. L y.; :ndourlalorHeivrEndcsirW .ctier r ia Coilaborative f'fan-iim7: Spo4:ane t=ou^ly"c- Metru l'rl;,-in Gti,,:vth Ar~-'''- 13 Design Guidelines ~ The City of Spo',cane is the only -y }urisdiction of the frve thai has design guidelines tn help conirol the appcarunce of development and its relationship to the public realm. All achieve a measu, re of such cantrol through tninimum lot dimensions, minimum landscaping ~ requirements, building height, and setback standards. AII five also employ street sectian design requirements, but these , tc.=nd to focus nn right-af-way allocation, iderttification of minimum lane widchs ~ and various construction det<11I5. i Spokane's design guideiines ~ are implemenced through: ~ • T_oning (actual design standards ~ included iri specifit zoning districts) - ~ • 5uharea plans (design standards i ncluded in area plans for a communfiy ~ containing muttiple zoning districts) ~ • Yrocess (ciesign review for certain ~ types of uses, for devetopment in certain sensitive areas, or ~ for deviatians from zaning ~ dimensiona) requirements), ~ Spokane's design guidelines are not ~ tiniversally applicable, and beu only ~ on development within the CBD, alang the Spokane River, in designated ~ "Centers and Corridors° areas, and ~ where project applicanYs propase "pians in lieu" appljcations to deviate from ~ certain requirements. The scope of the ~ City's deslgn guidelines addresses the treatment of building facades (especially , where they interface with the street), the placement of structures on the site, and ~ the arrangement and quantity of an-site ~ landsraping Eor different types of Iand use. r ~ 14 Collaborative Planning: SFokane County's Metro Urban Growth ~1rc3 ~ r r ~ "1'here are a few areas where Spokane's The urran &rowth 3rea contains design guidelines may impact every type of street. Local strect-, . omgatibility of develapment in adjacent trace through neighborhoods in juri.sdictions. North Necada Street is incorparated and unincorpora;ed cNne. North Nevada is an area where areas alike. Collectars access thc 1oca? the City of Spokane intends to apply streets, and arterials distribute traffic, design guidelines immediately adjacent concentrating on the mohility of tu areas with no design guidelines now people and goods through the UG:1 in place under County juri6dittian. Tlte City's comprehensive plan antidpates Tt1e ~P~dix contains a summarv uiuch of the area along North Nevada street right of way requiremc- to annex eventvally into the City. in~; the City has identified the land Corridor." As such, de-v-elopTneri: fv~I~L S V~~~y City jurisdiction would be subject to ~~esign regulations. If instead the area Lo~al streets ra:i~e in I~ibht-u;-~1a~~ develops under County 1urisdictian, width from 50 to SO feet, accommodati:;,- no design regulations would apply. two travel lanes and para]tel on-strc~_t parking. Only Airway Heights and The cities of Liberty I.ake and Spokane Spokane publish standards for loca: Valley aze considering adopting design streets. The design of local streets ir ~ guidelines. Liberty Lake may apply design Spokane County, Spokane Valley and guidellnes ta its central business district Liberty Lake is dictated hy what is and tQ a proposed mixed-use develapment approved on subdivision maps or u hst along the Spokane River. T?►e City of strcet design is in place immediatelv Spokane Valley is considering design adjacent ta the streets being construcced guidelines for application to its Sprague/ ,rtppleway carridor subarea_ None of these Colle~tor rights of way vary frum h~~ ti~ 80 feet, accommodating up to four tra•,-e! wauld likely impact development design ~~r re~~:e~v in adjoinin~, j,iricdict;r.n~ lunes in some urban settinas and part:!f c,,;-street parking under certain conc3iti, StfC~'t~ :~rterials are the widest streets, with r; - of way ranging from 80 to 110 feet Thes== Street design requirements ancl the SLreets can accammudate up to seven lan- _ size of street rights of way are diEferent of travel, with on-st-reet parking avaiL; ' from one jurisdictian to the next. All in a variety of configumtions depend i r-;~ i five jurisdictions employ a similar street on the ~etli.lg and desir-r~i slreet furc:;o-i ~ hierarchy, classifying streets as arterial, collector or local streets. Spokane ~ County, Sgokane Valley, and liberty Sidewalk Placement ~ Lake use the same set of standards. Spokane requires planter Str:p: be ~ The aiies of Spokane and Ainvav „?;a,_cr.t !!i the b.:L'. Heights have uniyue standard, ! 1 ! . CnIlaboxative Planning: Spokane Cour,[-~,"; Nletru L.rrbsri Gro-,%th r\rea 15 1 1 ~ ~ ~ and that siciewalks are adjacent to tkie right of way. The other four jurisdictiens call for curb-adjacent sidewalks. . ~ Regional Mobility I'heSpakane Regional'I'r: nsPnrt3 tion . : Commissien (SRTC) a.ssists witll ~ arterial street planning within the ~ [?GA, ensvring regional mobility i: maintained and cancentrating, mo51ly, ~ on the morement of thraugh-traffi.. ` ~ Development Review & SEPA - - ~ i" The processes and practice oE project ~ mview rereal the shortcomings oE ` ; f~, ti., ~,.•~_;.-s~-_: ~ developmertt regnlations and inter- jurisdirtional cQtnmunicatian. IE permitting takes tao lang, if environmental f review fails to identify relevant ~ mitigation measures, or iE incompatible r land uses wind up adjoining each other, fIngers point ro the failure uf ~ the derelopment review Frocess ~ State Enviranmental Poliry Act (SEPA) ~ and pnblic natice laws require notificaticm ~ of responsible agencies and nearby property owners for many quasi-)udicial and legislative proposals. Agencies routinely review and make comments on develogment propctsals, but th-r_re is no written process naw agreed upon by these jurisdictions to set expectations for participaHon and guide groject review. "Ihere is canrern that some prajects or Iand use propasals may "fall through the cracks," particularly in the case of projects ar progasals within the unincarporated UGA near the municipalides. bti'hile signiNcant eEfort mav be invested 16 ( nllahorative Plannirg: Spnkane ( c1unn,'S,M(-trn lirhan (.;rowth Area in collabo:dti~~e plan»ing fur long-range Ouasi-judicial Acliun-~ land-use consistency, actual develoFment prajects - prcxessed, approaed and Quasi-Judici.~1 actions, iike variance~, use canstructed - often act to sgotlight permits, or site-specific zone changes, and even exacerbate jurisdictional require limited exertise of ju~igment clifferences an the way tllings ought to and diScreHon by the apgroving bod~-. be. Reconciling both long-term vision and Public officiaLs, boards of adjustment short-term requiremenb for development and hearing examiners are usuall%- review is a persistent challenge for empowered to act on these types of planners within a single agency; permits, with those acted an by ptiblic coordinating with another jurisdiction officials requiring the least apglication in that effort adds to the dif&rulty. of disczetian. Those pernvts goinp tn tioards vf adjustment or hearins There are three baslc types of land examiners eften require public hearin~,;, use acti~ns that the Caunty and Eul! SEPA documentation and a w•rit ten incorporated jurisdictions take: record of findings and conclusians in nupport of the detision These aclions are ~~linisterial Acti~~ns subject ta maximum processing time~- 1-hese actions, like building perniits, are as mandated by State law, encouraging approved when it is clearly documented 1oca1 jurisdictians tn act expediently that the proposal meets all aFFUr-able in their considerarion. ThQSe actions rules. These are usually acted on by usually require an "apFeal period," jurisdiction staff, with no ar very where appiicants must wait for several limited arility to exercise independem days before taking action aUuwed bti• judgment or disrretion in the praject's the permit. The delay allaws far thase -tPFZOVaI. Agencies generally try to aggrieved by the jurisdiction's action to streamline the processing of minesterial appeal the decisien to the next hlghest permits, occasionnlly referring to them level. as "over-the-counter" permits. Resules of permit issuance can be immedlate, with Qujsi•judirial ijrtinns are of particular permitees able to bui]d as soon as they conrern to collaboracive ptanning. Land teave the office. divisions and other development projccts may confarm to che requirements of As a rule, ministerial actions involve no one jurisdlction, but may nat cuniorm notification of neighboring jurisdictiors. to the rcquirements of an adjoining Building permits, grading permits, sign jurisdictian. Lot sizxs, street cross- permits and a variety of similar land use Sections, permitted land uses, anti action9 occur with no notice given. Ie is maximum building heights can va: y ~ the same Eor Spokane County as it is fnr from one commvnity to the next, and the , the other jurisdictions. existing project review process for quas:- ~ judicial projects allows little opportunil:~- fk-ir intcr-juri_clic[ional communicaiion at I I Collaborative Planning: Spokane County's Metro L'rban C;rovtirh Area 17 1 1 1 llle p1"ojoLt IC0e1b :eVrl. Legislative actions - r~~•.' F' I Legislative artions, li}:e compreher,sive plan amendmenb and annexadons, require approval by a jurisdiction's city cauncil or board of count}, ~ commissioners. These also reqtr i re cxtensive public notice, and they demand the highest level of exercise of judgment. The actions taken at this level are comprehensive and may have lang-range ~ i mpact. They are also subject to appeal, with some of those appeals going to the Gioti4't}1 M3I23geIIleflt I Ii3t3I1g5 EjOdfd. ~ ~ ~ ~ op 00 00 00 iH (~'(1~~~flflfi?il~fP,i17}n:iig: sno41af1P G UUP.i~ ~ NIt?i(Il 1.~f~l;l(1 ~ ifilL~'tfl ,-~f~?~I ~ ~ ~ 00 Issues / T l.it, :n i ,';T-,:tiv,. r_,alri..,_,., ~nc- !.:k_;~:J in the agpenaix assemble and present, side-by-side, the develapmerit regulations employed by each jurisdict in metropolitan Spokane County. A review of those matrices reveals some of the issues that have caused difficulty in the review and issuance of development permits. The street standards apply onlti to those streets under the lurisdiction af the County and four cides. Highways uwned by titi'SD01' are not included. Land Use Compatibility \ot surprisingly, the range of land use- permitted in unincorporated 5pokare County is larger than that permitted within incorporated municipalities. Single-family aoning in Spukane Count ; permits more antiilary usE*s than thN companion single family zoning in an}• uf the cities_ In additicm, Spokai-,: County's industrial Zoning permits mu_tri-family housing, an issue that has drawn consfderable attentian..-it ii respert tu industrial zaning neac airpurt~ and adjacent to municiF►al bvundaric~; DesFite those differences, how.,ver: the conflicts in Iand tLse and zonin,; Nvit7ir: lf-:r~ l.(_,A :lc r~•l:~:_.c;~ ;ri:,,. Urdinance f=1ux TAniftg QTC1171dITCt- IS IIOW dIIlE'71d171g 1t5 lOIl1I1g O[dIRd7lCE', replacing thc, Spokane County-b3sed nne 19 ~ / ~ ~ 1 the City a.li~pted upun its incurpuratioii. juri4dictio*is. I he iiIIiing cNi when R Airway Heights may follow suit, adopting responsibie agencies aze notificd for ~ : aning revisions to impfement its project comment ar of environmental cumprehensive plan. As zoning ordinances determinations, the process for change, neighboring jurisdictiuns will 'uuorFarating agency comment into the ~ need ta reevaluate Iand use and process project record, and the method for trea:ing compatibility along tl~eir boundaries. SII'A review of non-praject actions are contingent on the type, tocation and r complexity of the projert L•+ein,g considered. V Communieation Fach jurisdicHan assigns SQ'A project T-he process for reviewing develapment management responsibility to the project ' -ipplications in the UGA or within plannera working on the proposals, ~ jurisdictions near other jurisdictions is and each planner uses discretion in OF undefined. This {s a big issue, pariicularly the applicaHon of l.he SEPA prescess. OF in the case of environmental review where development in one jurisdiction impacts Spokane Connty uses a master OF neighborhoods, streets or utility systPms distribution list tn help planners ~ o: another. The issue has two components: determine which agencies should receive environmental infarmatian ~ •'viisdirected or misrouted notice on indiridual projects. Planners mLSt ~ - Agency personnel and agency evaluate the list however, for each ~ titles change. Project infnrmetion applicarian amending it as neressary iniended for agency comment can to suit ib uniqne needs. Fnvircmmental OF be sent to the w-rong individual checklists for project9 within a mile of sp er the wrong department, with a state highway are to be rirculated tc op neither the sender nor the intended the Washington State Department oi rn-ipient aware af the problem. Trartsportation_ Checklists for projects OF •Non-response - There is na guarantee near historic or cultural resaurces must a that agency comments will impact a be sent to the State's Deparimerrt of OF project proposal. Jurisdicdons voicing Archaeology and Histnric Preservation. si*nificant ronaerns must rely or This Qexibility is necessary for the ~ their persuasiveness (and sometimes aPPrupriate aPF' ltcation of SII'A ~ the threat of legal ackion) to campel praesses, but it allows for agencies ~ praject appiitants and the responsEble to be overlooked when they should ~ jurisdiction to incarporafe changes be consulted. SFPA provides for local er to the proposal or the conditions governmen! Ilexibility in the way in attached to permit approval. which the rules are implemenied, ~ but the inconsistency in who gets ~ SEPA Guidelines & Notice for nori8ed can lead ta misunderstandings ~ Comment and insufficient participatian OF The locaI gvidelines for implementing ~ SEPA are almost identical betti•een ~ ~ 20 CoIlaborative Planning: Spcll.ane CnLmtv's .'~1etro l.lrU~3n Gnitivth Area ~ . ~ ~ Arterial Streets Thp various agencies include a range of ~ O arterial street types. While the City of ~ Liberty Lake and the City of Spolcane U Va11ey emplay Spokane Caunty's street ~ standards, those standards incJude ~ enough variety in street design to permit incompatibte arterial designs on either side of a boundary. The Ctiy of Spokane's < standards also identify numerous arteriai street types - difEerent than Spnkane ` County's - allowing the City to select froin A a diverse palette, and Airway f-Ieights uses tto•o different arterial street desirns. ` Vvhile street sections differ betweer, jurisdittians, the agencies have so r: r heen able to negotiate design solutjon-; and compromises based on 6treet function and broader :and use objertivr.s. ~ l N Right of Way Allacation & widths Adopted street sectirnts indicate differences in iane widths and the locaHons of sidewallcs and planting strips. N4ost urhan standards indicate curb- adjacent sidewalks. The City of Spokane's, however, indicate that the sidewalk is ta be separated frnm travelwa}s, and placed adjacent to the ROW boundary. In some ca_Ges, similar roadway classifications can lead to differing RObb' requirements. While this may not seem problematic in the case of Spokane Couniy, the City of Liberty Lake, and lhe City of Spokane Valley - hecause all three share the same standards • the varietv of street design choice and the critcria u.5ed to helect them may result in each agency assignin, a dif[erent street cc~;~Ii~ur~li~~n Collaburati~c f'Ianninn: 5pukane C:~~untv's ti1~tn_, lJrhan Gro,,ti:h Area 21 and i:0 ri1' ic,r ct;.. -acne c,•Fe nr use ~ Uesign & Location of Coliector Streets ~ Airway Heights and the City of Spo}:ane employ standards far urban collectors that aze different from those empla}•ed ~ by the other jurisdictions. This ls not a big issue, except in areas where more ~ collectar-level connectivity in the edge condition is needed. This impacts areas like Moran Prairie, the West Plains ~ near Hayford Road and all other areas ~ where juri6dictionn] boundaries zig and r zag throuah UGA neighbarhnods. ~ Neighborhood Character ~ Neighborhoods in the UGA utilize a wide ~ variety of lotal street types, residential ~ densiries and land uses. Some of the more ~ rural tand uses may have been estabiished w long before the creation af a UGA, bu t the inconsisiencies in street standards ~ and zoning requirements have resulted ~ in eclectlc neIghborhoods that appear ~ to be in some sort of transiHfln. Many residentg of these areas may not seek a w more uniform neighberhood character. w Fer thnse who do, however, the current WO 41atc of dei•elopment regulations and street standards w•ill nr•ed to Ue revi5ed. r ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r 22 Cullalx)rative Hanning: SpaE;ane Cuuntti'"5 ,\1t~tru l!rb:an Gru-.,.thA-ed ~ ~ ~ ~ Coordination Strategies A ll five jur:sdictiocts wLh io improve ways in wluch they wortc tcrgethcr. The UGA will continue to experience develapment pressures, and these jurisdictions cnust coordinate to cnsurc public services are pravided at the levels people expect and that neighborhoods function according to resident desires 't'his chapter discusses strategies in which the jurisdittinns commvnicate wiih each other and how they czn revise development review practices to weicome addiNonal participation from their adjoining jurLdictions. Of the seven coordination strategies discussed here, only twu focus on procC-s modifications. These would make chsn,~,e~- in che way development application>. are consideTed, asking the jurisdiction,~ to enhance infocmation sharing and arcountability. The remaining strateg:cs {ntlude some structural change as well, asking jurisdictions tn reconsider their current development regu':,ition- and haw they are administerecl. 23 or tr ~ ~ ~ ~ Enhanced Communication & public. This -;y-stem, if kzpt up tn ~ date, could be an attractive venue Process Clarity for all projects within the UGA ~ This strategy focuses more on pracess and within diy limit9 near the ~ than on policy and regulations. It progoses UGA or adjoining jurisdictions. ~ ,hat each jvrisdiction maintain che rules • Public natite - While much of thr ~ now in place, cvncentrating on effective praject review prQCess happens 00 inter-jurisdictional cammunication and Frior to issuance of public notice ror transparent processing of develapment hearings, it is still important that #0 applications. While it enhances respotsible agencies and 3djoining 00 communication between 'ryrisdictions, jurisdictions receive notice of project, ~ it does not necessarily ensure that and are provided a meaningEuI development or SEPA review would be QppartUnity to comment ~ any more effectne that ft is toda}•. To implement this strategy, the following ` DQments of this would approach involve: artions wnuld need to be azcomplished: • Inter-furisdictianal pre-applicaHon/ ' Data access - All Jurisdickions wil] 4r pre-development meetings - Vlost need access to the County s PLUS 4r jurisdictions alreadv employ some ~cking data' This may require go type of pre-develapment meeting ~~g for non-County staEf, 6als bef4re equipment st city planning ~ to review pr°ject ~o~'O of5ces, and a detiitafed etfort on ~ appticants have their projects , designed and ready foc submittaL ~ Cuunty s part to ensure the ~ Few pre-de~•elopment applicatians, s}'Stem is regulazly, comprehensively and accurately updated. go how-ever, involve representaNves tr from adjoining jurisdictians. This • NotifuaNon pmceduree - Jvrisdictions appraach would change that. will need W review their notificatjon go • Permit status reporting - Spokarte Frocedures and revise them to ensure OF County would report project that all relevant communication milestones in its Fermit and Land re$arding project review gets 4r Use System (PLUS), increasing circulated to all appragriate agencies v transparency of their review process and jurisdictions. This may require ~ assealbly of a universal alailing and 1nd making proje~t information ciistributian Iist and new ways of ~ using and tracking electrQnic meciia ~ • Pre-application conferences - The County may wish to ronsider Invi;ing ~w representatives From adjoining ~ ~ jurisdictions to project meetings Frior to applicaHon submittaL 'I'his ~ - would establish rommunication ~ prOtocolc for t~ru;-r.'t re-v'.E:w.3iltj ~ ~ 24 Cl'VlldboCiftl\'C Nanninr_;: Spol,3ne ~_17~.!fli~'~5 Nif'tfl) Uihan Gh]1~'th,-Nr<'d ~ ~ ~ ~ peruiit open discussiun a1 pert:ni•nt development regulations issues. • Staff coardination group - Eacl► jurisdiction would need to commit siaff resonrces to ensure that communicarion between the aoencir-s cemains as eEfective as possible. • City ackaowledgcment of applicatian - Ta ensvre adjaining cities are a%vare of develupment applicatians in the UGA, the County may require cities to acknowledge the Counry's receipt af development applicatiQns prior to grocessfng them. Tle table below• summarizes the lteriefits and drzwbacls or this strate~y, 51 - Enhanced Cnmmuninllon & Procrss Clarity Advantsses Dnwbatkf IrrrrtntM Has LutL a I'c•I~einit~~chl..An:~ ~ceauats6:.;. LSotamtlut ~:~~~•4' tarlflg anC dr~;.- ~-evelapmeat Ir._z=a!ccr, .c, .tar.dazda and rulee i . . _ , ~ ~ Collaborative (71anrting: 5pokane Cuun'y '5 ,tiletru Lrban Grotiti;h A.rca 25 ~ ► ~ ~ SEPA Notif ication impact statement. A comment acknawledgement would notify I mprovement an agency res-ponder that the lead _ agency recelved the comment. Und~r This strategy seel:s ia make SEPA review the current syst~, those makin,~ and notification practices mom effective commenb h~ve no idea whether ~ for che five jwisdicnons, enabling local staff to understand whet to expect as their comments were receivzd. pmjetb in adjoining jurisdictiQns work To implement this strategy, the folloH-ing - their way through SEPA re,67ew and actions will need to Ue accomplished: ensuring that all responsible agencies , Hatification audit - All furisdictionc are notiAed of relevant projects. will need to review their SEPA Flemenb of this approach would invQlve: noti£caHon processes to ensure ihat af! staff responsible for mnnaging projert - [Iniform master llst - Understanding Teviews use the same practice and the that individual projects will have same notification lisis, intergreting _ unique distribution rec{uircments, SEPA guidelines the same and ~ it still may be good practice ta integrating SEPA irrto the develupment e5tatalish an interjuriadictional review process in a consistent r_lannr;. master discributian list and to keep Fetdback cycle - Jurisdictions ic current, reIlecting changes in staff • wiIl need to modify thelr SEPA ~ ac:d in organizativnal strvcture. Practice to respand to commenters. Project planr►ers on agency staff regazdless of the ultimate • can still add ar d,elete specific d'uposirion of their comments. recigients depending on project neecls, but aU will have the same • Electronic distribution - The basic Infarmation at their disposaL Jurisdictions, to savP on mailing costs ~ Commcnt acknowledgement - There in the face af an increased notificatiL-n i • correspondence requirement, is pmvision neither in SEPA swr in ~d ~y cansider n~ew ways uf using ~ Iotal adogEed guidelines requiring thc electmnic media to fadlitate wid=~r ~ acknowledgement af an agency's dan of SEPA materials. comments related to SEPA unless that distribu comment concerns an environmental • Staff coordination group - Each jurisdiction would need to commit staff resoumes to cnsure that /0100~ ~ ~ - communication betw•een the avencies remain as effective as possible and that the names and contact ~ details far appiopriate SEPA agency ~ representatlves are current. f ~ 40 40 26 Cc,llaburstitie Plannino: Spvkane County's Metro Urban Grr,)wth Area f-P ~ ~ ! ~ ES~-- tdt?iC L~C!cLY -S11i11I211f17rS SI14 bCllcr!i, 3113 +j:dwIj::.J.t l?f l~Z:ti titrutC~V- S: - 5[PA Notiticaliori ImprovPment Advinladeo OrawLacLr -.irocraccaan56L'JtY GreaterS3::::cr..,i, ori projrct actron SFYA Ioid ajen_r ~.-.ocr.mmlsn uound Need m r•vt■. cL-mnfitltUMttive_` 5E'... EcIJo!rnr, ud.'ut ~•ni'i:• ' -xs Lm17Uf !eve:npfflrnt .cnndudi and !.,~iiesmall ransdir.tl;r.n v::-liv ( t l\'P H !nnin~ ti,,t)~~.::11i= (_(~UFI:~ ~".'ii-("U I ff)a fl ( If. iLL',ll '2 7 ~ ~ Consideration of City Lnuntv or po-lhlv ;:nntlict- aPd suggesting design modiricationr Regulations in County Qr rnitfgation strategies. Review • County response - County statr would This strategy wauld ask the County to transmit City comments to projert ronsider the aaning and street design applicants foz their cansideration. ~ standards fzoat adjoining municipaliiies acknowiedging receipt of the City's ~ c+~mments to the commenting Citv. whEn reviewing development projects within the UGA. This is intendrd to ensure • Connty staff repoct -'The Caunty's ~ that development near euisting cities is staEf report would include City compatible with ttie develapment within comments, with the undustanding r city limits. The County may rely on City that the pmject would need ~ comrnent on the proposeti development in to comply wich the County's- lieu of actually Ieazning the develapment det'elapment regulatians and be ~ regulations from eath municipaliry, but approved, conditionally approved ~ some County staff familiarity with city or denied based on County rul--. ~ codes would 6treamline the process. To implement this strateg}, the fullowing Elements of this approach involve: aztions w ill need to be accamglished: ' ~i • Agrecmeat - jurisdictinns emFloying • City notifiution and iaQitation this strategy would need to adopt an ~ - Thi9 action would have thz Caunty notifv adjeining municipalities ir►terlocal agreement to estabiish the ~ terms and conditions for when cities ~ when development applicarions aze are notified af various applications and made near jurisdictional boundaries. which arzas within the UGA are ta ~ The notification would invite City have project review infarmed by which ~ comment on the pzoFwsal, induding dty's rules. The agreement might also (M a review of the applicatian as if It were to be de~eloped subject to nddress sharing of application permit ~ city development regulations. review fees refiecring involvement af 6oth city and Courtty staff time. ~ • Gty comment - The City would Staff involvement - This strategy tp resgond to the County's invitation, • woulcl efEectively double ptoject review apF►ly-ing its development regulations work, asking bvth city and Cauniy to the praject, infarming the planners to review groject applications r for consistemcy with their respecHve ~ development regulatioru. City staff • would aLso need to be available lo ~ assist County staff as needed during ~ ~ the project review process, and County staff would need to work ~ ihmugh reconciling the outcomes of ~ citv project reviek• with the standard~ ~ ~ ZH Cu~ldbr~ra[ive Pianninn: 5pokane County's N1etro l_ rL),,n Growth Arcj ~ ~ ~ ~ wnt3ir:rd in Luuntv :ebul~tic~n~. I 1;e Jurisdictions would need to expect a:,d support that level of staff dedication • Review proces9 modifications - The develapment review processes «•ould need to be modified to accaunt f~-,r the additional time that maY be necessary to accommodate this extra level of County project review. Staff coordination group - Each jurisdictian wauld need to commit staff resources to ensure that communication between the agencies remains as effective as posslUle. The table belaw summarizes the benefits and drawbacks of this strategti•: 53 - CortsidrraUon oi City Regulatlons m Courttv Advanagn Onwbaclu cu=ly usq Iwctltal AldyCtl M4aEzrtv tn rc'.n Eni da[idosu SGw Col!! tpFLr_' f!er1des fw dfy CUy utu63e to mlcr_r aesiqn gvidann rnafQilance F e!t(or:ro AeQut:es astEgctmrnt u.' =-r..asunkatioa UC.A tolndlridnal nnes he-wem ~ttrtsdlcttoru Keqvirn Carmty pta i! G+r:llurts ~tanehr ta be LqifUsr with (,f EavrrnmrM tn muL-1pk codrs s i . •:a r t15tu Uri.1vat how City h:sv .ppJr a~11 1viey tncptrt Co;_.rc. un:•'.irti~n~~.:.i.ailv prcqect¢tion l:eqoims zrrna~re .-.!r ♦ i ! t-nr I . v•+ t.'t.r C:ollaborative l'ianning: SpokaneCr;!in-,t''SMFi*Cl l_'rhan (;rutiti[h,lrea 29 Adoption of Area_Specif ic would ncr.d IO Itv:ew dIlij perhaps ~ revise their development regulations to ~ Regulations implemeni the directian derived from the subarea or neighbarhood plan ~ This strategy builds upan the concept ~ nf joint planning areas and subarea • Subarea organixation - Ocice a plans, craHng develapment regulations subaTea is recognized, it would becar,lr ~ that are unique to identified subareas inrreasingly necessary to empanel ard ~ or neighborhnods - and that are derived spppart a subarea or neighborhuos frum focused study and local community organizadon to heIp implement the ~ Elartidpation implementativn of this step plan and monitor its progress. ~ would rely on subarea or neighborhood • Agreement - jurisdictions emptoying ~ initietive to create special standards that this strategy would need ta adopt an ~ would agply only to them, sim.ilar to the inierlocal agreement to effectivetc subarea planning process the County transfer authority to the agpropriate r instituted in 2002. This actiun would cifies to review development Ferniits, r be applied in areas H•here residents issue approvals, and enferce the ~ believe the County's development regulations under which the pereiits regularions and collaborative planning are issued. The a$rtement would ~ efforb would be inSUfflcient to enhance also need ta specify the types of ~ neighbarhood character or provide for regulations that will apply to the ~ satisfactory levels of public servlces. UGA, clarifying which rutes would remain Caunty and which would ~ To implement this strategy, the following re~~e city codes. In addition, ehe ~ actions would need tu be accomplished: agreement might need to include • 5nbuea/Neighborhood plan prrn'isions far a majoriiy of permit ~ - Unique or specific areas would application fees to be transferred co ~ need to be identified, and plans cities performing project r2vie+•. ~ be prepared to elicit community The table below summarizes the benefits ~ comment and transform cammunity and drawbacks of this strategy, ~ desires into land use policy and development regulations. u _Adop6an of Arei_5peciiic Rcgulaflon, ~ Zoning revisions - Jurisdirtions AINanufft Dra,,,bat:U ~ bud en sitlatttei hpanuvo "hbiulvaJ potbms 4tnhrm nd5hbnrhon,: ~ paroeslvv t0 [Omatunlty dlrLkru ;2%ql needs and eapeesattav ~i~bl ldw~ wba r. ~ laplnnanad by Inruiwlonm ungk hutadittlan nqulrv&a-fi.>r t ~ t~eun cemautnSutt~m ~ ~ ~ M+.~e~ ivr:~dlctiem y ~ 30 L(:,Ilal.)ura'ive Pl,Ynnin~~ ~pok.3ne Lount`'S Pv1etru Urban Gn.mtli Arra ~ ~ ~ r. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Adoption of UGA-wide frum the int-eniury process. ' Development Regulations ' Agreement - Jutisdictions employing ~ ihis strategy would need to adapt at: Ti1is strategy would propose the creation interlocal aareement that effectively ~ and adaptinn of a new set of L1GA transfers authoritY to the aFProPriate ~ development regulatians for adoption cities to review development perLiits, 1 by the Cau.nty, basing them on che issue approvals, and enforce the development cpntext now in place. lt wauld regulations under which the permitti ~ differ from current zoning by graviding are issued. The aSTeement wauld ~ fnr development regulatians that are also need to specify the types of 1 rooted in things Iike existing residential lot regulatians that would apply to sizes, type oE street Improvements already the L]GA, clarifying which rules ~ constructed, mminuation af land uses remain CountY and which wou:d ~ that are now permitted and orientation of refcrcnce dty todes. In addltion, ti-, ~ development with respect to 5treets, parks, agreement might need to include ~ srhools end other public gIaces. The new provisions for a majority of permit regularions would seek to create a zoning applicatinn fees to be transferred t- ~ emrironment that is more tailared to the cities performing praject revic•,: ~ community desires, possibly using desi.gn The tahle below summari2es the l~enet:~ = ~ g-uidelines or "form-based" appraaches to and drawbacks of ihis strategz- help the rNgulations fit and manage the ~ transition ta urban intensity approprtately. ~ 55 - Adoptfon of UGA•wkle Regulations To implement this strategy, the follawing A4r,,,r,ge, pnwbor4. ~ actions would need tn be accomplished: s.,ed on e.i,tina Frpaztve ~ drv.lmrnmf puums Ctostra paRI, t, e • Aipd-wide inventory - The UGA A++ponuve m cnm=" dixnmlort WI:r ~ would need to be inventoried, with "+0dtuM sapscuttmu snningerptoa.n Implenunted br fM.. nef nrr~rr'Y ~ exisringdevelopmentcanditions .1,16le )u tlsdktinn -11 .1,•.,,.,:,:.,.,„ . , measured, magped, and characteri 7eci for development of a new ~ development regulations appro:: _ i i ~ Zoning revisians - Jurisdiction ~ ' z+•ould need to review and, perhaP;. , revise their development regulatiu;:~ to impJcment the direction cl,.-r i~ ~,_i ~ ~ 1 • ~ ~ ~ UJ~:f~Uf~IIVt' ~~.llfl~fl;i `liiii':3!lc? l I~IJ:~I\ = i~~•_'i';i ~_!111.:^ ( ft1'.1~-I '1,'c'? ~1 Adoption of City • Lounty response - l ountNI s:aff would transmit City comrnents to project Development Regulations applicants for their ccsnsideration, with County Review acknowledging receipt of the City's comments to the cammenting City. In this strategv, tlZe County would adopt the zuning and street design standards ' CD~ty staff regort - The Counry's from adjoining municipaliries to apply tn staff repart wauld include City ~omments, with the development projects within the UGA. understanding development that the profect must comply with the This wovld ensure that devP City near existing cides is entirely consistent 's development regulatinns - and ith development inside city Iimics, ~ approved, conditionally appmved developing untier exactly tile same rules. or denied based on the Citys rules. The County would need to rely nn City ~~'~n though it H-ould be a Caunty comment on the praposed development action, the terms and canditions would referenee City codes and regvirements. and also on learning the development regulatinns fram each municipality. To implement this strategy, the following - attions would need to be accacnplished: Eleinrnts of thls aggroach would involve • Agreement - Jurisdictions emgloying - • City notification aad invitition this strategy wauld need to adoF+t an - This action wvuld have the County interlocal agreement to establish the notify adjaining municipa]lties terms and conditions far when cities when development appIitations are are notified of various applicatians made nearjurisdictional bavndarie9. and which areas k•ithin the UGA _ The notification would invite City are subjezt to which city's rules. comment on the progosal,, including The agreement would also need to - a review oi the application as if it spedfy the types of regulations that wcre to be developed subjeci to would aFply to thc UGA, clarifying city development regulations. which rules remain County and ~ = City comment - 7'he City would which would reference clty codes. In respond to the Caunty's invitfltion, additian, the agreemrnt may neeti to ~ applying its development regulatians include provisions fer the sharing of ~ tn the project, informing the development application fees, since County of possible conflicts and planners on both sides oE the city iirnit ~ suggesting design modi.ficatians tines will be im'OIVed 13'1 pTO)eCt fE1'iew. or mitigadon strategies. • Consistency aadit - If the County ~ adopts aty development regulations and does not adopt a11 related city C cades that would conceimably apply ~ i to development, the jurisd.iclians C would tteed to review applicable ~ rules for consistency and make r- r 32 Co!1aborative {'ianning: 5pakane [_ounk's tiletro Urban Grow'h.lrea ~ ~ to ~ i ► i t ~ ► ~ re~~ison; as necessar~. ~ • Staff involvement -'T'u ensurc the ~ County staff accurately interprets city rules, County staff would need ~o 1 invest time to learn city developmcn; ~ regulations, and c➢ty staff H•oulci ~ need to be availabte to assist Ci ~u n t v siaff as needed during the project ~ revierv process. The furisdiciions ~ wauld need ta expect and support ~ that level of staff dedication. ~ Review process modi$cations - 'I hc- develapment review processes wou,Ll ~ need to be modified to account for the ~ additicmal time that might be necesserY ~ tn arcommodate this extra tevel uf ~ County Froject review, Including an educatiQnal period to inforat UGA ~ project applicants of the requirement ~ to conform to city development regulations. Application fees ma}• ~ also need to be increased ro reflect ~ the greater demand an staff time. ~ The table belnw summarizes the benefits ~ and drawbacks of this strategy- i 56 -11dop1 City Rraulations, Gounty itrvirw 1 Adr-nntages Orawhaciz i rrnvWn for:cty ! Q1y vr.aDl► to wr!orrr ~ cuuaa 6uidao'= mmpUinn Reinfmcn Qrquirei uaignourn : f 1 cemm~n5eallon UGA ro t:R3:ridaal nnre !+ef..een ~uNWinlvri• RegYI t!f C6STCY {t! f / ~ FacuiLtn tftnlln to be Eamiliar ri3h r. F Snrrrnmtr.t In muttipLe rodes ~ ■nNUtbR~ Connry rniJaaa aui -c: h-1ay npp1y roAll welcame'dy' zanirq ~ I.:risf.ict(an~ rquiilr CnaW uuu eonfvet,,r ?.es.'vits cntanwhlmdn In nar" spyng petm i ~UGA, Coilahorative PI,?nning: Spn'k,,nN (.c~~tin,y,'s,11eiro Urban Growth Area 33 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ Adoption of City City Liiiicial for act:an ~ Development Regulations • County notification - City staff would i transmit copies of the staff report to with City Review the Caunty fvr revicw and cumment. ~ This 6trategy would ask the City to notifying the County of hearing ~ take over project review respvnsibility dates and recammended attians. ' for all development projerts within • City action - The City would act Qn the the UGA, applying municipal zonino pmject as if it were within municipal and street design standards as if they boundaries, notifying the applirant were located within city limits. This is and the County of decision outrome{ intended to ensure that develogment To implement this strategy, the followin` near existing citles is compatible with actions would need to be accamplisheti: adjacent development. The Caunty tivould need to rely on City notificatiun • Agreemeni - Juri9dictions of comment periode and hearings on the employin$ this strategy wauld need proposed development to oEfer input on to adopt an interlocal agreement the proposed projects, taking a'hands- effectively transferring authority oEf" position in development review. to the appropriate cfties ta revicn.• development permits, issue approvais, f=!ements of this approach would involve: and enforce the regulations uncer City notificaNon and invitation which the permits are issued. Trc agreement would aLso nezd m sp,:cifr - This actian would have the County the types of regulariars that would notify adjoining municipalities agpty t~ the liGA, clarify ing which when devefapment applications are made near jurisdictianal boundaries. rules remain County and which would The notification would imrite City T1eferenc+e city codes. In addirian, the agreement might need to include comment on the proposal, including provisions for a majarity of permit a revlew of the application as if it application fees to be transferred to were to be developed subject to city develoFnnQnt regulations. ~e cities pPrfonnin$ project review. • City staff report - The City would ' Cansistency audit - If the County re_spand to the Couniy's invitation, adapts city devclopment regulahons and does not adopt all re)ated city a;.)plying its develapment regulations codes chat coald conceivably apply to the project and preparing a staff to development, the jurisdictio:l, r~port to take to the appropriate would need to review applicahle rules forconsistencY and make f revisirnts as necessarv. ~ • Stiff iavolvement - County sta: i would need to participate in the c-itie>' revit;n• of development pruject_<'o 34 (-o113horat+~e I'la.nni^g: tipokane t ountv'; Mctro l_'r'tian Gro4vtn Area ensure cit}' appruvals are generj!. ti ronsistent with ocher Courity rulc - and regulatinns that might a15a and to ensure the project is compatible with adjoining development under County jurisdiction. • Review process modi9cations - The deve)opment review processe-~ %1•ould need to provide for the immediate transfer of projects within the UGA to the appmPriate city for review and processinh. Information the County provictes to potential project aFplicants would need to include the prcrject review processes for the appropriate cities. 1 hi table below 5ummarues tht 1 e!:e'i:= and draWhacks Of thi~~tr.:teL'.: S" - Adopt Cliy Re(ulaliunc, ( itN Rcvirvv Adh,:ntagn Dnwhad i r-rvWrs for cttp Rrqoires mipuaezi: =1 }--7Jet1 rwfer L(GA !p !n: :Tidaa' ci!,-. Rr_nfmcn Cnanly mJdm, =.,x.mmnk8tlan not wtlcoma':I, ' 4rc,cz~a jrrUduttnno snntnsaad rrr~e. F~_illtam tnmfer tanld cIIuse eanr c.,T. ci Eev■rnrtcenl in in non-eonioE pr.:.. ; ~ r ~cutiucL FwqsirN . . . M,y.rrptrm.:i csiY.urr i.eMctlau cqnal l% LrLA uelpr.' 1 1 1 1 1 ~ Table 5.1 - implemcntatioe Taskt 6y Stritegy Table 5.2 - Haw Stralrgirs Imluencr Intfriocal S~nl~r Ag►eement Puticipants - 3 4 4 1 Gr r ` L ~ • L . a > s- ~ - 1V ~ ♦ ti 4 n Is e : . . . 1 tiur::ea!i^~rnh~n~rmmt < tidti~icztiaa~odll ■ M ■ ;E,'.~;-rocmenF~n;emcn! x . f'ia-applitetlan ■ r x ■ x ■ 1 Gry eoamulhtlan ft mef:ln P st.11 caord,n.efon a sro6.rs, plaaaL,g ■ ■ ■ ■ s ■ x - g: aup S. LGA-w t+it standarda w city ckaewpled ~ t = ■ r = i Adw} ttan of ttty tqu W1oti~ ~ powm ~r!C~wntt rr+n+ L n!lorm ~ nMlflCatlt7n Iiat ; iAdop•ion ul C`r regvltrinna _ rrvi~r- in~ ltaqp4 to dty M 7 x ` :_Ity LOD1nll'St / 4 t ,_,=nMwt i .Anc.rl.apmrrt ■ ~ Cowely t4!{ rrporl r t m a rc ■ Co¢irty land s = r ■ r ■ ~ lx wtknn Cit7 traII csport x . Cit7 knd nn accicr r lntclnca( aEteopent n ■ _ * p - Prncm • mudiEiwllam a 2 s r : z itnnlatlo:u ~ mcdilcattan~ ■ x } ~ S,~hav planntni • i cneutencr sndlt x ■ ~ ~ v 4p 36 ( nll,,horLitive F'12nr~n~: ti~~nRane C~runc~'~ l~1et-~~ l~rban ( ~r~~~ti?I3 Area 4p ~ ~ ~ ' Toward a n ~ lnterlocal ~ ~ S p c~kane County, the City of Spokane, the City of A.irway Heights, the CitN• ~ of Spokane Valley, and the City of Liberty L.ake together regulate land devzlopment ~ in the metrogolitan Spokane urban grolvth ' area (UGA) with a combined population ~ of more than 300,000 msiden".. State and local papulation Eorecasts predict thot ~ population will continue to grow over ' the next 20 yeazs, indicating that the:e , wi11 be inaeased pressure to devetop land withln the unincarporated UGA ~ to accnmmodate it. This wlll impact ~ the general purpose governments ~ charged with regulating land use, and ~ it will alsa impact che special-purpose entities eharged with praviding special ~ public Eaciliries and services a9 well. ~ 7'his report pre5ents several strategies ' the jurisdictions can consider to make the ~ method and outcome of their collaborative ~ land use actions more productive. Socne concentrate on revising the pracesses ' by which development aFplications are ~ considereci Others concentratc on more , structural Tevisions, madifying codes anci transferring review and apprrnai ~ authority. Each strategy can function on ~ its own or, in many cases, can be paireLi , w ith others to ensure the enriranment far 13 nd use actions is respon s i~ t ~ and conducive to collabarati~:,n 1 The strategies are nat viewOL3 J,'; 11 ~ size-fits-a!1 approach. Fach j;.i rz,.Ljlc tti?Il ► 37 ~ ~ r ~ ~ r ~ rperates with a unlque set of policies chaice and the scope of topics to be ~ and rules. Each portion of the UGA is addressed in an inierlQCal agreement. _ also unique, demanding close study of pertinent issuee and the forces that may Spokane County's Grow lh Management ~ influence which strategy is the best 6t • and Steering Committee of Local Elected ` ultimately determine an eEfort's success. Mciais adopted a template for such an %toran Prairie and Fne Mile Prairie are 'nteTl°cal agmement in the spring of 2007. two very diffemnt places. The West Plains, That template provides a general siructure DoH;nriver, and Pondezosa also present for idetstifying the various expectations very different, unique cunditions. In short, and responsibilities, establishing a the strategies chosen depend entirely on consistent farmat within which the ~ che area to which they apply and on the individual jurisdjctians can nummi.ze jurisdictians that will administer chem sections to meet case-by-case demands. Regardless of the strategies chosen, Spokane Cauniy and the Cii} of Spokane the participating jurisdictioris in each are now negotiating an interlocal - cullaboration eEfort wiIl need to reach a8reement in the Moran Prairie area _ agreement on how to implement them. ihat will test the template, and perhaps _ In Washington, the Md far this type of inf°rm futuTe inter-jurisaictional efforts. cooperation is an interlocal agreement, custvmized Eor each applicatian and What to Include adopbed by each legislative body. The _ agreements spell out the expeciations and hileTlaal agreements can be challenginR resgonsibilities of all cnncerned parties, to craft and even more challenging to identifying the means by which to put the nayigatQ through an adopticm proceSS.1-he - de-rired collaUoration strategies into action more simple agreements ehat are cnnfined ~ Aprincipal objective of this report is to tD mas of concern appear to be the _ help jurLSdictions take utitial steps to most suecessful, limiting their reach ar..i cansider these agreements. It should help appliration. In this regard, jurisdictions facilitate and guide collaborative and ta°lung t° embark on callalorative equitable interIocal agreemeni negotiations. planning should carefully con.Mder c1,a _ objectives, scope, priority, timing, and Table 5.1 illustrates the types of actions implcmentaNon steps each interlocal will each of the varioua collaboration sirategies cvntain, limit[ng them to the issues at implies. This is intended to be mnre hand and dearly defining the extent of representaHve than comprehensive, inter-jurisdictional interdependence_ indicatinQ the level of work neCessary to implement each scrategy. When put into What ~ practice, interlocal agreements between ~~loca1 agreements are general . iurisdicttons will need ta consider each of $overnmenial tnols, enabled by the the elements identified for the prefened IntuIocal Cooperation Act (RCW 39.34), strategies. This table should help them to permit local units of gwernment _ grasp the ramifications of cach sttateg-y 38 Lollahorative Planning: Spokane Cciunty'r, Meuo Urban t=,rov.-th Area ~ 1 1 1 / 1 1 ~ to cooperate tiviti1 ocher 1ui iiitie., an ~ a basis of mutual advantagc." 'fhey are ~ frequently used to shere responsibillties i among several local jurisdictions for ~ reg-ianal law enfarcement, or to dirtate , how libraries share resources. Thrv are flexible, and they serve many ~ purposes. [t is essential in en Interlo~.:al ' abreement, lwwever, that the extent uf it4 authority, or its scape, be deF~i:ed and sMctly limited to the issurs driv-ing the need for the agreesieclt. t Interlocal agreements can address such preSaing and potentially thorny _ issues as revenue sharing (permit fec s, property taxes, sales taxes, and other re«nues), coit sharing (developaient review, pubiic sefety, transportatioi, Iicilities, libraries, and other casts), impact mitigation, project review• authority, street design standards, development regulationts, development review processes, transfes of government E.annexation, incorFwraiion), and so nn. Ther+ can create a framewark for managing issues of common concern. 4Vho 1 n 5pokane's UGA, not all five jurisdictions need tn participate in cvery interlocal. 1n some areas, an irterlocal agreement may invvlve Sliokane County and only one city. 1 n another, it may involve Spokane Luunty and two citles. In still another, it may involve only two tities. The parties to be invited into the interlocal agreements are defined by the area to hrhich the interlocal agreement appties. The preferred planning collaboration strategy uiay aLso intluence ~vho (.ullabo;,iti~e f'Iirlnin(;: tipokanr- i_nun!y'5 MwlrU Uriban G-uv,tll Arra 39 wvuld need to participate in interlocal agreements (Table 6.2). Generally, strategies that lmgact the processes by which applications are to be considered ~ can be considered more universally. ~ Converse7y, strateg-ies that emphasize i ` changes to iand use policies, street ~ design standards or develapmQnt regulations will call for more unique solutions applicable to specific pairinRs ~ of jurisdictions. For example, the * strategy calling for enhanced irtter- M jui'isdlctianal cQmmunicaHon couId ~ very we11 appDy for all jurisdictions. However, the strategy calling fQr the ~ ! County's adaFtian of city developmertt ~ regulations would dictate that an I;` interlocal agreement be reached betH•een ~ ~I~j~ the County and that particular cihr. ~ x. - -r~"~ I = ~ ` In same cases interlocal ~ , agreementt ~ may atso need to involve others chan simply the incorporated jurisdirticns ~ and thQ Caunty. Fire districts, utilitN r prnviders, lihraries, and othc*rs mav ~ need to be inrluded, depending on the scope Qf the agreement ancl its ~ ramifications to issues of concern ~r to responsible service Froviders. ~ V1'ho champinns the interlocal is also an iatportant consideration. These agreements require legislative approval, so it is imperative that legisIative member9 or seniar-level administration be invQlved from the start in their formulation and negatiation £ven though che interlocal agreements may deal strictly with technical issues, their implementation reties on poUdcal commitment at the highest levels. For this reason, m,ayors, citv council members, rity managers, 40 Collafxarative Pianning: Spokane Couniy's hletro Urhan Grov.tn Are,3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 cotint ti cOrnmissioners and the in statutvey requirements ihat p:omise ~ C'avnry Admin.istrator will need to be great imgact across jurisdictional iines involved early and genuinely sUpport can motivate municipalities to share ~ the interlocal agreement concept. responsibilities and authority. At ocht: ~ times, interlocal agreements occur in ~ Where response to opportunity or strategir ~ Interlocal agreemenis may npt he suited Flanni_ng, when agencies seek to tc, all places within the i1GA. It may achieve sornething together that the-~ ~ , . 1 helgful to identify all areas that are rauld not achieve ind~ndenilti'. ~ candidates far collabarative planning Not all partions of Spokane County's ~ and then to prioritize them. The Meran UGA appropriate for interlocal i'rairie interlocal derives from a comman agreements may call for them at thc ~ desire between the City of Spokane and san-w hme. Moran Prairie and the ' Spokane County b Iacate an aquatic West Plains may be first in Iine, but centcr In unincorporated territory near a other areas, where the issues are no: projected urban centez. Comman wist-es as pressing, may be able to wait. and a pressing need for collaboration spawned the need for an interlocal Hotv ag -reement for that particular location. 'f he geographical boundary of that ~terlocal agreements are rustomized ~ a~re~ment is rtot yet deMrmined, but it eatures, designed ta address tht uni~~ue ma_y very rvell establish the groundwork issues confronting each individual for inter-jurisdictional coIlaboration in collabaration effort. While the Steering tlie larger Moran Prairie neighborhood. Committee has develaped and approved an interlocal agreement temglate, ii will Other azeas may also be ready fvr probably be revised fQr each application. intcrlocal agreements. Some are atready being considered in the West Numerous issues tsetween the Plains areas in response to specific general purpose gev~rnments have develapment proposals. As thnse been identified whith could benefit agreements moti•e forward, they may from negotiations and potential be expanded to address some of the intcrIocal agreements through the i;-ues necessary to ensure collaborative caurse of this project. I4ot all issues P!anninc; Lit a:omewhat larcer scale. invo(ve all jurisdictions. Individual jurisdictioiu have differeni prioritie=, for what issues need attention. Sorting through the possible subjects and ~rim.ing is also important, Sometimes iiltzrloral areas and setting up a prioritired li-: agreements are born in ~vould be an excellent next steE . t risis, answering an immQdiaie need to coilaborate an an important issue that Within the Metro area, 5pokane CountNoutweighs Jurisdictianal reluctance. has identified 11 Joint Planning Area-s Large dcvelopment proposals os chanves (J1?As) In additiLin there a:e an additional l.ollafiurativ[ P13nning: tiEok:tne (:nEiri;y's k1e;ru L'ruari Grc,vti;h Area 41 fe 0 ~ r ~ 7' area; „-hich ::re adjace.tt tu incorporated officials. "1'hi5 report indicates that ` cities and to v►hich they can be associated there is a need for coIlaborative, inte;- i hut for which no jPA is established. The juzi5dictiarwl planning, and that the ` Spokane County North Metro liGA is a technical barriers regarding inconsistency ~ unique azea with a Farticularly difficult between de~~elopment regulations aze rat ~ set of current issues. Spokane Caunty is too difficult to overcame. Initial interlotal responsible for aIl of these areas. Spokane agreemenis, now being considered ~ County is a necesssry participant in between the County and the City of ~ any meaningful negotiation and would Spokane, can help establish a tempEate ~ have to sign arry interIncal agreement for inter-jurisdicti4nal collaboration in that was the product of such an etfort. the context of land use action. Futu: e ~ effarts can build upan this template, ~ Spokane County has agreed in cansider items suggested in the Steering principl~ ta examine al1 of the areas Committee's model, and be tailored to ~ list~ and to do three things: meet individual organizatianal needs. 1he 40 To prioritize them in order Qt diffic-ulty County's commitment to prinritize area.9 ` of issues (easiest to hardest) of inter-jurisdictidnal concern, to ascertain 40 " the level of staEf rornmitment necessary tc) •I'o assess the amount of staff p~~e these agzeements, and to meet with ~ time and effart that would be o~~ j~udictions regarding prioricies ~ required to undertake negotiations on an interiocal a and dmIng indicates growing suppert i greement fer this sort of callaborative effort. ■ • To meet coTlectively with the ~ cities and tawns to review the ~ prioritized list and timing. ~ T1lere should be an agreement among W 31l the parties about the schedule and speci6c timing far these negotiations. %P How each set of negotiations is set is tr, up be determincsd 4 general pracess and ~ protocol can be established. The detaiis for ~ each separate negotiation will have to be ~ iinalized among the participating partirs. ~ ~,Ul parties to aay individual negotiation 5hould be able to recommend additional ~ topics which can be added to the basit ~ :Nmplate. However, all parties will have to agree to any additional topics being added. ~ I fow Spokane County and the ather ~ municipal jurisdictions move fork•ard ~ from this point is tip ta the elected ~ ~ ~ 42 l_Cil!3E30f3T1ve Planning: SpC?{iaIIe (_IitJfli'y'~S Mf•IfCl L I(bd[1 G(i1:11ff Aff?d ~ ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 ' Appendix Developnieiit , Ai' ~ Standards , , , , , , , ~ , ~ , , 1 Table A.1 YComparative Standards, Residential Zanes h4aairswon . . !Ninir~um YardSel6acF (frnntl Minimum Yarr! ~sback ,siaxirnu~i Stinclard; Minamum Den=.iS) pEnsil~ 4lmamum !mt Ars~~ I1din, ~r~um Lur Widdh llmffArea Cm^erage F-latk€ngy i~idgiRear~ 6sailding 4frighl r-!ItrJ :re-FW_ S.f ?e hr. EfPA-64w '!eeu:".vRes:.ier'.~x1 l~r=[ tunl•~ zF.{E FamIV-fA4Ae.: '+r+Irf+Rily-SY V' 3i . Gnp{iA - iDFZ (Ia i1 Dupie3 - 90. LUit lqum •tmsar=ity Ferac1:edt"1-6d!OU*J 7U-ri3!e?c:ze:-6p' 3xxderce.Cy' S,~;u1I'Fdr Pntr? fooCdi7mfa dwildimjer~la 15 Re1ldrnrPf Pl:u T unit t ~~,1f 5:n@ta Frm;l4 - 43,566l,F. ~InQ[a f~mily •gti i5~ G.rinne -«fi' y Ii7 ~ "erai~r~ uot~ ^ d,~J al a ern'e9ed uet^e - fdF' .;;i' Ppdu 3' ~m r~ JEet! Eaffi i~orld'rnye~rmlrl ld~7~ - 9d~ C}eeslry Aeeli9ttlLE ~ utvky u E-ia sjn$lr F::nitq 4.7,00 e... =nQ:e Fa mily CsaMSE 93' uT no 4'~'} ~~'vy"irs • ~,#D~i F, irogln • ~7' o-WE=j ua fi OD7 s! 3'-sn ii+ed L±d..E . b;" . 3 u 7'fut r.r~s,f.t~Y Pi~' a 4u 'u:i e zteJ~r FfLFAHi%IENEUH:JP-4'O=i:fridFAl lvlswlil :i - LnIL• aingles¢-riy.t.a70 m+. 5LngleFaatlV-.1' ;;"A ~_vL~-e-L°' • i- 5u ~q~:a-ajOtlci, uupacs=i+J. Caa~;e -ll «~'rpmfsh t1A .IPeridentLalA.-cnii~dd~ 5¢ai:~ '0 anilc 7,~Ipis Ir' - - 8~5-~, ~rderc615' ~'ne•3'•5' ~Q' ~ ;:artce. 29 ttr~ -'S' YSF- poklwn.1.*[51.<~9rFzmily avcWCii. 10 unls 4,157&.f, +v 4i -s"''t Rem r-,"3' 51 nElr pui:§„~ T3 5' ~fF- ~,aevrncWTwnffmi➢v Purilri .OUn:q ^~d'as-}.35t5a f. N' ~k.3 AT $,:E:.hRd hs+u?.'~~ -4.3541 SI i=ge. y~ 1zu ~.-~i :eFcmll : S' S1t~ - ~ Q\iF•!ici;ltntttlNiL:l7fi4.-11y I"~unl~ ~ans~ 13~!iPaatl~t.i 1i4509 t. F P i larf~ ~ ~ R[Ek'eC~:I1{ln-r~r 76 - ' Relt-14' 31 . ~ Sin,a,iefanl]C-~'?sh~F ` R, - ieeE:sa:e•ii 5' ~ ~ Si( ~H3-R9S~'u~.~:al}ilah 4+er.dtg L~.-u N1~1 i ~iM 115 ncMininxa iE. i usu: C{.a 5., 13' fr=. iff 0: na: 9~1=! ' eiixle Frmllr l $de =3: Coer ii' anL1 i,~cfsi 1 e rin4: rarrs rr;~~ prri or .Il aR.'cw ~'wdUingu~ P' . D-41-I1, -hqlAl4.1.f3;MCIrrotr ~Pvp1R30'pR+cnit SWr-i;tirrnr:I5`f,:eaeiAeriew Lrlinr,L I 114,S3op3n9e.~U1 ;miupc!vr te y+qrr:n 51,*rFsmflyVrttaeAed-d,DO0mt. 31nrLeFiiml{yiktrcbednir 3m I3Sfasd+rrL'laj urat ~5' #ttrU7" 35 I ra:(D S, QDP A,f.! l~Cf ~ S9'4 J ^ N-3 - Mw I ~fc . g~~ary, G'rsst end aa~~ ~W r' T•rx Fy i O~Ilf pr~;iil DaPV~ ~W'11. j3,GC4~,1~+piC! pG'.P3C'asrvm jng ;z;l ^'.m[le 3:° 45,~~P~ml ~~rli e~ !-i_..Kdt2 GSdngllFur~ilyrn7n_~';YI~IJc.f; ~1vI;i,Fcc~llghG'IPIJ3_!7 Ilav„0, 114 • 11aee~te_iured _Liunn6 : rsm5 ~~r:oC : r e is:e~.7E^] E~' ',[?i° 34K reL:»e.,..:_ ,.r,.! . . . . . . ~ .-~n.~_ . "irr L'0.•5 , Lrhr.ti'iizsL{zrtizl r~xtuu Nn m:niaivei.Z~ersLi.x 1 pcr Acrt 61-ti.703t eT 3= hvai ict uuz Lui!-:.'). ~'y m i lV - l~; 1k7+7 e . . Aea~~~F- i~' ~'Er• 5 ^9 t:rhinAs,idirib~? tid mhnla~m~Srr~i-x awnr S~i9mElI2 -,-20.P70 r.t. ~~'~I~ wvag+-?~' Rar21' qug]eFimlly-tsU1XIt [ SenriaFrmi;y'i5' !,kn3dma•13 Sdr-9' U167 =I::bclRtwldsnil+i7 Niaw.tnimumd►auliy 7pcanr ➢;P1=x 11,0130 r+. VPgIii^i,go^ `'-q, 6aTWssa2T ~eea-9T 39' I 16tu[0-FS-4lr-15,Gb0 is, Muui,Fammo[y . isD' fAd.rri.,Fm"i7p13'nm" - Si;:lriamidy .d.-20 e.F 5Ln5:eFttlkL":y -!H"' $tildl7+64- 13 ~t.y, 13A.-SI-Ilrhsn;ndernvlL 'nmtnimmmSx~m~r SZFn~:e Ilupl~SA[~o'iE Ovj+l" -6~" €~S ~rr4 $~s1., M#r,7J' 4{U' XUti~Farsllp.ICt04p i, ?dvLi l Exn-.i4v-50' g ~h~ttLiF~xx_'lg73`~r~ E - ir;ami5 1 6iz:0. 5 ir"rF4 r,!d i L9 .1ii;r L tr..r.., J+_:x.° i::T U ~.1 t! 2Cn ,.f J if I s ;7 6_1 can Rl_li -:ar.ily 6.:ilGo' M.!.1..,S.r bw~ Y t.4L,'!~xmi!gf:~'n:~1 . gld.' iE.y- 7 33 ~Fzt'i= d~trF~s~. eF+P1i:4 ,-,7FJC .7.30pi f. .Ui.`e] 5nIcFal.i~. 4 ~'A.!a::.~ei_L 9~- ^fFcmi...-C,~ $ y ~1 ig d fmAllrg•acrne;mtv ri11ts17Cd~lf.~le~utlll-4 p e'elr ~m - 5~iglrFam177 .5.C912 •t~:°9GL 1. Yleltt!SF.I SingGP+wily -i3' LkLYe!Y!d5kn,%lrFelii 61y-KA F,d-jEl_+. Eperate u-~Plrc.70G 2.06aah IIarlta-14' ti-aplt+-7D% fnrq At-"r1.-t~d duru R-:-hl',xedAnLde~!lsl Ruh2dg itFa:ni•ecezai: re 1:~3 ucr! Ai1~hcx5inS,s Farniiy 7X"i..G,9M a.f A.:ucYiedSiagl!%1r-11'-a-1LI4w$f-SSins;cln..uti1v -1115 :f i19/`deadirtg efaU ]{w -li" ampliYtlUwo`.tSAviidcrx S'Iskiu.wdPahed 1-6m.ieParA h gr ecrc lda^.n:ia¢turr,','}I~mP f P rk - -`H] e.i. 'ddiau. Hunm'~aYl~-3a' Nrw[fl;JUn~i }iums t''9i`k id'~`UI'a~t7f-i.h*h l~~tis :fnjLd .mise,r~nrt ~~eril~~ .!M.111-FdehllfFEv~~vr$-l..~aY-r '41a I!i,Frnj irlfp~sl~& -9.It3Q- ;3,I.i~7C~iF, '~Grhi-Fc-SCxHe;tsll'.~i4' LfLlti-Pdrvlly}{.^i;dn~{-"US i7eLazhed Sir Pnlni:y ti• ~te DeltiNmd 5,1sle Firkly •{,LCId ~ E.~+]C lf. 1)4Irs}1~! SinS~ Familp -~v fklic4rj wi~gls FFTP!~Fs-~ ~ Ltv}°!ts-~n[7 ]:,p4.i s r+rlrr 12 FeT ane ! Llvrle - i]° C1-aplee 7L~A ~ itnry `.r ~Pe~, tiYf dutl ve R3-Adult-EamII Rtalakn',Ij i Ats:nr 5-~n rFsr~kly „+tree~ tion2 {'M.x19sd5mceFar~iiw G a~L~,•_AL1c aJ. A' !uhCdTla IrTAm::Y-~L~' A71ir~hr#`xe :tFam1'ryYti ~r15 S =mplJagrr u i ih b a i1pYnr ~ ilavi~€[u.-•?NleelfPt~f~ i: YLf'd ldsmiteclnardh±nsrPea$ 3"Je.d lAelltl NiI:Ir,~N,1 p0' Msnuiev[nlryHnazPd3V h 5rdilra.er~.=rt- r YiF~mll4'F~'~~n h~i ! rJ-Il~,rnr:,i~dar al miln.rarnOryl-[avaLR- 17 i;:e blul"1-~icvll j3:u51+J ,D]C~1?4wJ~i! 'MAlll Fa„9:F N~uur.~"dLl' Mci ~ ~~^k ~dul2FrlNlr ld Ewmllr~, e.E 6 = I Table A.7 -Comparative 5tandacds, Gommercial Zones StanQards MtisxJmum Fhk Miriimum Lot Area Minirrium Frontaga l:nNlArri CoNerage Monfrnurn Yard 5etbacic (Fr4nUMnking) ;Vyinitmum Yard 5etk2rlk iSidelitearl lwlaximum 8uilding Heighl A~ .y'rC-p:!I~Y+kvrh~5~:i:o==e~3xl Akna';1rq 3!riidenlijl,fRnr3,1 .S' 751 Pe tc 4+r,S - lF - --A4oati.ng Cam.aw_[[:I4t{1rn1Yf'tr-.eJ -1Y +tC-CUmmuninCammaae:a: t.~Te tinnr t~vteng~:~.Ha3~Aarx!~L 3~ ' iieer V'sFd ItC-RrKlawlfamMcrr^,al frcme honr t;are la' Rbut~5119 Aee'sdat.PaliRnrF'. 13' ~Rea.t'h.d -L~ Akurt~~i B Go~r.=a~1~~:`~. {p" Lak.C ~Inix~➢n~:o~mehkr2~CC~31~ft~1~l N.1'R '.;arc F7' 14" Rbuf[1uQS1~eidea¢salJ3f,.it!•15' =wAr 7nys ~.i . _r.. , r . . ......~e - Cd-l'i:.:r L~^ '}yir~~~ri:k 6.i+no-n . ' j; Abutal^g Ca~~u]f°.,sduNirial ~ D' ~43~at1~ n6 C7vrnrna: u1E ~~u,:arnf~ - p' ` Frsn s`.•reit ]oF::rx - I]' Fmcc Iteet lu[ :oC • vr 4AL - Off:re F.rcail. RI f+il PRryu1f[QIltil 3i1' Yic rnr: !.rcmen[ 67= Ik-ra:ard. int- iT €nm d ta'ir9 ICS 35' Ab¢t!ir.s Cnaeme3e.1lj1rAJ1 ?ri31u- D' ,4'trut6'-,tr~- Cd[H~rnthYlj ~~uu~9 ~ d' ea tima 1as h:x - 9' Fmm errrt 101 iine - Q XY•tie3y!!h~!raadlee.il I~I !:^_rrqclr_-:nee.S Nc:q__e.r.:1 srL=.R-xifAld lut•iiy PromR.auradPmi.;[? 13' lUbutting Comm*rc1iT1'lnduerr1s7 - 4' Al,utring Crm~~xs-„1j1r~l~trul -4" F~m I=nr, tar lina 9' :rnrl yveei 121 linm -cr :RirtP1-NeighLmzlia.~dMlr*lUse 1 Nr:rqu;.-~„cf lC ware;:Erur"a 1: ausR-3anr:l,~c10` tr.,nk-umedlut-70' Ua h~aag~~:.^xnener~ia{~tn~ami.] 9 ilbc[Lit5C~amraereldlfndwL-idl-a' - F: a, ==Et L-A i;fm Tmn simrt Int lim -l7' CII•C9mmuniPrlEuclns# :40►lqul[tffln19 iP NoY!qB:rem~tlt F.=.~xnneiSM.10' F1'euClR~ey+lqk•1A' ~-14~' mt ibui ring C=mr_-ri&Vladmvtr'rl Akuirinr [rnnrnrl~}/:~dwr.u: ~ Fmn rt:-tl Mi iinr . 21 FrnvG,txet lut itra - o' v'.:..rrir.:nneclntif], r_ N~;-!Ce1~F.F.xSead.Hu~rsi Sor.e ='.~GCl.3. iJ' S~]Y 33.~anrny=t~~l.i1 L'R-:3-iS? Pul~~c:al-'•.'i;: ~eidttkul-.L''L?.I tioLSent~7~{~+ fa44Zm! UA27' R=~!idf iEk- i - L!A _ 23'J a,s; - u' 54trYard ~ 1.! • G.^nourtttT 3ra9i~ .'Stlitr 14~tl~rmtk~l. U054.1 .'?J Aeell{&-,liil mr r.f 95l 15 {P.eai={iEzed (01~nrrnl L'A-35 IS: XXlliient'vl LR-3S - IS'} kei'IdechtuE -911' (7) (noermt JC..T 1?r.-"-la' X_,mi&mfid 4'R-; -'1'R-2E 11'J - = R►IA - SS' 5:nn YMrd E' D.3 "rtr.tlcna:Humnev wvna Un;9ett:vlE5w 12.RMuPrc,ul~= =1 F19 15'r^umcimZSd~:t311 l+if:.Z3:.'.5) tC'rj qe~le:en! L'R.' - Gh-:S -==~1 Rev Yerd - _fl' .nne G}7i F'~IYa70 ,..3 S:AdSL'A -S'y`rtnr,uyj 35 C1 -X[9C-~V =CiJ:;fiR:i&l :1vae !;i"ir ti ;0117. t7lil ac e iuimar ahn~'i Ceeer''r d' la' (4f t'a rd - C•- ^ l~=s~+l C'aemmffd4dil '.Stlnf 'tiu~t a:f k51 Fe~nt }'~a:J Si~1t'~i°C -3''r_~ rrxryl 'a {oPfllf Yifd - :~V ti.4 I C.l. Canrrsni:X Cammerii V071a 'tianr 57 0: $~rdt7! 1'1Pd Slde llyd (tl4drdibl R-: -4+J7 (=_Rcf amli~v!'drariai-~~ 8aa:1"itrd-5! - Pce~' eiaa R~pd+^tfl~4l.. ~G~! :fl0' C. 1. f':ee+r.~ [ncnrnercul 1lan+ tir.nr 5;T ci{ ~YO~I Yer~ siie Y41rd - S' rnd~v-e-r R°: -40 7 taUr! fNwr Rtr~~rvRfI~J :o'! (SF' UC+adiacrl !u Jt!.!g.tuttJ erl!01 Wl w :allrem {Fh -Reiden:iil Eiloxe;! cttLfy wfP9 C4Md7ehiilur, khr'r.nt. e1r.E'J 1 r'4° 9PI)' Sr"L 9f f[cur arxe {3p' Maxiavn hrikhd r_dvc" EF±:,Y lI wii 1LIM MY oi L'RZ,3 [nnt r4 '#llderLJl cuhd Ivu;an (4I tert tne t5ooc shrcc'u t1. lhil i't t4':lk!t Ud I Fs rlrer v uW ta;A ng u ~ Table A.3 - Comparative Standar+ds, lndustrial Zone-s 5tin&rd6 %Usiniunn FAR Aiinimu+alotAr[a Minirnum Frontagt Unit!Area Cm+tragt! ~`vlirLimvm 5'ird!~tb~~k'f~;:~G': Minintum Y'ard SeLba[k (5ide1Rearl nlaxim~an~ i3u:l~lir.~; NeIgnr ~+I l,aul''ng GorrrnefO+Trlr:~!tsmol Psone I' 23' llgncull~ 1- 15 ~ I-I-L~]rfinL'.Ifilcl tio-0 viJ'1E W~' AtluEliMg RijCarrlidl hbuftnr, Co'mer:k~,1niju"'QI - 2~° I A,bjffnc 4g'rk:t,irg 77' 31'.11f:'!,, t~;;iEr6cl 1G.1. ir Mills~duih7p~Reailfer;io1-3::' ~ ~a iom ~ ~tso~k irom H•!-r~v!"Ir~9l+,€11 Vcne I~orequuerner.l I ti_:'~~Cla~nt Settx R-20ned-1CI' Rmned-19' ?.buttlrg Resder,tia'-35" Salback ha7 Se'bocK Gcm 16 - Fqr-eJ lyduiir:30 sc;'~2 Wcire;Lireman'. i? h,T -9:j,,ia-nec1 ti-_Mnerl - 10' fc =ed - I:,, Atu i r..1 ;?e-3 Yrxc; ~ P[1Ik Nzi r, InaB IiS' PtMlkS"r=_ei-SD' SGeYtg--, -lono ~Fgn~lrq S",'ear e 50' Ad]= en l U;?-35 - ~Adjasr l lld,7 . pR-~ -M; Rcar Too - 1~2 1lgr,! Irjd's'rj Nono fasn1 Tarc • 55' Stde ri7,+.5' A~' ficnilcns5tse1-50' Aa(=en"UR-;-5 .5' Ac~oca~i Uk.l - U2-~ • 5 F:I Y= 35' 31Ce Y~ S 1.3 . i na ir❑m cerv9rune ?j CUmET -25 far5s'hameenre.- YnC-J Rflar• 19" H•I Hc~^f I~u~,~~:1 ~d~rie 351rom per,~"v Mn~ nr i'Om~ . ..'r.. E~m ~eRS~ rdt,r r~ ' Ya'd • 2]' SIdB YClnd • 5' (417uft~V Remc#eeilid l~"J ~!lxC~~l wl'~n neKt'n ~rt-~ aa , I - fU9ht onoue-r~q N4ne 6.~ ~:arl I I I ~ , ~ ~ Street Sections Appendix i i ~ .u ~i I ~ Table 13.1 - Cornpara#ive 5tandards, Stree# Sections (arterials) yl~ ~ . . . 1..'t4.11 ~~.tt:. I k C+ I.jcid i fruatiR3V ,t+riru ~ - - - - - - ' - . ` ~ _ i [urt-ed !~Jm ~,Aaad~itlnnaEsS~si:i ~ mide L3 required ior ne l i _ !F? f~i: L~c4 4S1Ae 17fl' FS .Ade 74' . sddl7~anuiI lcermCc{i S !~•F ~ d i ` ~ ~ ~I i R~''+°~ i ~...r~~ . I - . ~ . . ,1 ` W:s~~uu~ Mfrnor finT N' -*.A~+ea~iru ~ ~&aWrd~EIsnll3an e.rk i•sne ~ {i411YPAq-j IYfd •.alk! ~ar nw n¢ I ~ A~ats~n~EM~nnl'W ~ i r~. i§euldved aertEcn 4ry ~ ~ ~ y ~l _ I--- ~ •;~sss~-- :l►nA - 't : ~ }:a~c S6 3"o- n~~r y.a..,Yq ~.:1 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ b:,et4e i6 Ey ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I M ~ 1 ~ i ~ T-able S.? _ Camparative Standards, Street Sections (collectors) Cit}i uf Airwa}r t°feighta C ii} aPSpakane City {l~ Libcrty'LA'e, Ciiy of 5paka:-ie Irallcy, 5poka.r,C ~ 1.^ ~ 3E MSYS j ~ sf• S -7 Yhl'hH C ~ ~2 Cummrr'.~tCallrrmr6~ ~ '~'"^YY ~ ~ OF ~t~{, * i1 G5 'Y~ i '__I Ca'.lr_tne 2.fano ;~rowi1~ dqrU1N71 r:nrCS;lr,1=Y nch dde & requEr[d lef t1e I ;.pi9w t''~ ~ adilirionadndew4ll1l I i anmr- ~ ~ T;; r r ' ~ I ~ - _ - ear ~ , ...r. F ~ l F ~ w~-w U titrghLla:haod Coll:nor 55 ~ 1Rlml Colleciar ~ ^ YWk Il~IE.'~511 ~`Oil j qAnIddI flmia15Sit~tc~ri CaI~Pf1~vP:-IhYl UF#[ie:dahn!n.nf h Ilddllnqiilltdhqt~e Welf.l~erTs~Q;~ll~mrwilkdyld~n►.if~^r.:o ~ry oddillsa a+. a~J.w1.k1] Irgriuhfi~dan ~~pe+~¢~I1 an - 777Fl.e Fj T ss Y i~1 '.4i@I7 I ~~pm ~ I IIII !~rirth~¢IYtrt=131 iz~WLSZtc:.e+v77 X722!$4 C,II~r,-mr~-~ariFa~~frdKlirrbiduii~ll ' f 1 ' Table 8.3 - Camparative Standards, Street Sections (,~oc-al) ~ ' CEky oi .4W~wav City ai Spokane City o# Liberiy Lake, City o( Spokane Valiey, Spokane ~ ~ 4L L-03~ Jri ~ ~ ~ tzrrLol ;:Andd•:filon': St fta I ~ I ~+indJNt~tV ~ .w~ h FWt fr re;elre: ilnr - I ~ (a' ~ anf~d~tt~en611.Wre1e~4 ~ . ~,vir, 'r-fftEH' ~ I ~ iteldent~l ~ e.R hRdL7.!f o17A] i N a Yte lt Irteyulerd ln Ike ~ f'"dII'd +4d Ii IRT W i ri j-..~ i}) N I p ~ ~ •~c ~r.r _ . - 4 7~- { F ie~ ~ k~~ it~w~ ~ I ~ ~ ' ~ ~►~,~uy ~ iArn+ridi -9ern115:~un Lrn+L4ral;u 4~ ~ ny~drvr.q ao~f-Ar, ree the eddi'iar o[~tiew lw r . mu c ~ FnlarnriA4 ~ ~ ^ I I ~ Ra:rvled lirking ~ N II';iLie • ~ D4iv~~e.= Y I ril~ ~ M I 3ouSts'~r4~71' J'f' r ES ~ I ' +k I I ~ ~ { ~ ~i ~ J i Appendix Agreeme~1t C Template I ~ 1 . , ' . 1 . , . ~ . . . . - ! . . - . 1 I . , DRAFI' I~i ITERLOCAL AGREE•hfENT. ~ - . • . - ' (12-4-06) ,Joint 1'laFUUng between Spokane Countv and • Interiocal Aereement Rep-ariiiny ! ' ' . . • . . ! - • p This 'agraement iS entcred into. on, the day af 2006, by Spnkane.Gounty and the 1 , . . City/Town of , hereinafler refezred to as "Parties".. . . ~ - ~ _ . . . • _ . , . . ! ' - 'oVhereas, a Goal of the Stal'e Growtb Manabernent Act is io ensure coor'dination :between ~ cbmmunities and jurisdictions; including special districts to Geconcile conflicts, and ' ~ . . . > . , . , . . . Whereas, RCW 36.70A.21*0 sets f.or.th certain requirecnents, for County-wide Planaing Policies, f . • . ineludin- that county-wide planning. polieies shall address po]icies for joint county and city . _ planningwithin urban growth areas; and s . • ~ - . . • - . i . - • . ~ - Whereas, The Countywide Plannin; Policies for Spokane -County adopted pursuant ta RCW . ~ . • . • . - i . 36.70A.210 contain policies for a joint planning process inteaded -to resolve issues regarding . ; • . . . how zorung, subditision and other land use app.rovals in designated joiut planning areas will be ~ . • - coordinated, and that such jain't planning may be accomplished pursuar,i to an ''interloc,al ~ aueement entered into between andlor'amoog jurisdictions andJor sgecial Puspose ciisiricts, and j . - . • • ' . . . , WEiereas, the Parties are desirous oi resolving how znnirsg, subdivision and other land use - ~ approvals in designated joint pianning areas will he coordinated, and. ~ . ~ • s - • - + ' . 1 . - . - . ~ • . . . - . • . ~ • ~ . - ~ ' • ' ' . ' ~ " . ' ' • ~ . . ~ . Whereas, tIie,Partizs wish to separat:e, without prejvdice to, eidier Party, the.issue of potential . . , annexations azid the legal autharity and right to pursue -or oppose sucb annexalions froni this . ~ . agreemenl and thc execution of the saane; . . , ~ ' - . . ~ Now, therefore be it- Resolved towards addressing llow zoning, subdivis:on and other land' use ' approvals for joint * placuting w-i]I be caordinated, to ensure that transportation capacity for ~ . . , . . ~ deveiapment meets concurrency requirernents and that cflnsistent development standards -are ' used, the Parties agree to 'cooperative joint planning iB 'designated areas pursuant'to the ~ . , . . ~ following: . . . ~ . . . • i6' . . . ' . . 1-. Legal4basis: This agr-eement is entered- irito pursuant Co R.CW 36.70A:010; 020(3); 210 (3) ~P . . - • . . - _ . ~ (a), (b), (d), and (fl; RCW !39.34; Countvwide Planning Policies For Sgokane Countv ~ . (Planning•Folicies) Topic 2, Overvievw of Growth Management Act (GNiA) Requirements; . . . ~ Topic 2, Policies (I) and (2); - Topic 5 Transpor.tation,- Overview of Growth Manageinent 00 .(GMA) Requircments; (3lossary Countywide Planning Policy Tecros, Joint Plannirig Arcas', . • . • ~ , the ~pgkane Countv Comprehensive Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan of the CitylTown of ~ , . . . • • ~ - - 2. Intent: It is the intent of the Parties 1)'to promote coordination planning. for transp6rtation . ~ . • ~ and • development stazuisrds _ between the Parties. for the area affected, 2) to ensizre ~ . . . . ' . _ ~ ' -improvements tn mitigate transportation impacts resulting from development are identified . and,such improvements are constcvcted/completed concurrent with thc devetopment, ancUor, . , ' . ~ . . . . . - . ~ . • ' . . . . ~ • • ~ . ' ~ ~ . ' . - . . . . • - . - ~ • . mitigated to the eitent fhat adequatc~ funding is secur°cl lo pay for th'ccosts of improvements 1. ~ inade necessaiy by these iriipacts, and 3). to eosu~: that devel.upment st~-idards proseribed ' . . - . . wi.thin the affected are2s for allowable land uses, c:iensities, streefis, sidewalks, curbiuZ, 1 . - • • . ~ drainaae and utifities are compatible'. . , I , • . 1 . _ ~-The Parties desire to jointly develop and implement developrnent regulations, pTOC0dllTES arid - 1 ~ stanctards reiatzci to the rc-view and approval of prajects wZthin affeeled are:,as. Tlie Aarties ! also desire to jointly establish and implement- consistent developmeent regulations and ~ ' . i, pro.cedures governinD the_ provision of a11 public, faci,lities within the affecled 'area. The. ' - e . . Parties agree to comnlit suffi.eient staff to draft arid finalize these specific aiueenzents in_ a . i. . _ • ! timet.y rzianner. {Mentian nf the CTED Grawth Management Services Gsant•could be inserted . ) - • . • . here.) . . . . . . i - - ` . - _ . . ► • ' 3. Ai-ea affected.: The aEreement applies la development propnsals within the City/Town of ' - , . . . . ~ ' - and adjacent to uniracorporated Spokane-County U-rban Growth Areas ~ , • . . . . i and proposals witlun unirzcorporated Spokane• Courity Urban GrowthlJoi.rat' Planning Areas . ~ adjacent to the City/Tpwn of ' See attacheci Map of UGAV. ~ . • . . , • aieas sutiject to this aQreement.) . ' _ . . . . ~ ' • ~ 4. Projects -affeceed: This agreemenY applies to new development proposals subject.to the . , . . . . NoLice of Appfication requiremenEs af..RCVv' 36.70B as•adopted by the jtirisdiction, including ' proposals suUject ta the State Envuomnental Policy Act; within the affected arza. Notice of ApPlic.arioTi; 'Notice of Heariy2g and NTOtice of Decision'required by RCW 36.70B uzd any • . ' . ; . . . i ' . . ~ . • ~ • • • , ' - ~ - envrironmental cherk-list, EIS or other enviromneittal document reqired pursuank-to RMV • . '43.2 ] C-shall be provideti to the Paifiies in a tirnzly maruier and in accor.dance with applicable ~ re.,ulations. Tfie Parties furthei agre;, they shall Provide each other at least 7days notice of, . . . ~ arad are allo.wed and encouraged to attend any, building permit preconstruction conference ~ andlor land use predevelopment or technical review meetings. Snch notice shall be in the • . . - , • , CA , fonn of standard notice for such eonferences;meetings given by the jurisdiction. . ; a. 'I`he Parties shall consult (clarify) on praposal.s outlined above prior to:issuance of aay ~ . . . . • . . • ~ final DN.S, MIDNS or staff report to the Hearing Examiner in an attempt, to reach a . cans°nsus position/recommendation.- For SEPA docummts, the jurisdiction ha-Ong. . ' ' • . . . ~ Iead agcncy status shall inelude the consensus/collective recammendation and any . . . . . ~ • rnatigatiug conditions, or theiz individuai recommenciatjons- and 'any mitigating ~ conditions. if unable to reach consensus, as spplicable; for projects proce€ding to ~ - • •public hearistg, bath Parties shall include the- consensus recomr►zendadon in their . . . . ~ respective staffreportlrecontmended conditians of approval tv the Hearing Exam.iner ~ . . • ~ or other appropriate hearing body,or, if unable ta agree, their respcctive . ~ . . • : . _ ~ - recommendations. • ' . . • • • ~ . . • - , • ~ 5. TransportAtian:, Ttze I'arties recognizc that development in either of the Parties -jurisdiction ~ . - . l~ creates potential unpacts for -intersections and corridors in the. adjacent jurisdiction. To t~ . . • - 00 ensure proper'planning and mitigation o£development traffic impacts or suffcient fuuds for ~ the improvements necessitated by the traffic-impacts of development, the Parties agree that: . . 4Y. • a. The Parties mav iequire the applicant for each affected development proposal to prepare a Traffic.Impact A.nalysis ('FIA) quancifying the impact af that deveiopmEnt . . • ' . . . . . . . . . . . ~ • A . . aa..i ~ • , ' . 1 1 • • ' ' " • I . - • , . . . , . ' . - . • . . . and providc the ss.nie to the other party. Each j«risdiction shall ha`~e tlie . ~ . , . . . opportunity to contYibute to the deuelopmeiit ofi the scoge of such -stvdy. The Paities ~ . - - may mutLialty a~ee to wa,i~=e the requir~nent for a TIA. . ~ . - . . . i b. T'be Paities sball require corstraction of imp.rovemencs necessaryta mitigate ~ . • . . . identified direct transportalion impaets to tak-e p13ce concunent with'-development ~ , . . . or, atternately, a recopimendcd condition of •appioval to the Hearing Examiner or ~ ' . . . olher apprapriate riearing* bady, Tequiring appropriate financial conhributions for ~ ideaatified dirzct transpartaa.on impacts identified. The condition shall iden.tify the ~ . . - ~tirne, manner and means of transferencz of. any payment intended to compensata ~ the other party for identified traffic impacts, or as'Mitigation ul a MDNS, and prior to . ' ► - • ' . . approval of the piaject. • ' ' . ~ c. Far those devetap;neat projects where consiYUCtion of i-ngrovements neoessary. to ' ~ . . . . . . i. , mitigate identified direcfi transportation impacts does not takE place 'cor~current - ~ . . with praject development, the Parties shall jointly establish a unifomi inethod fo'r . ► , . • _ - • . . i quantify-ing appropriate ftnanciai cantn`butions for improvements to be, made withill' , i b years of project approval for idcntified direct transportation impacts. The 'Parties . • ~ . recopize that to implement this -ageement sc►me - modificarion of existing i . . . . ~ . • regulations may be requircd and agree to make such modificarions. in a timely . ~ manner a€ter establishment of a uniform and mutually. agreed upan method for . 1. . . . . . ' i quantify-in,g appropriate financia] contributions. . , • . . . ~ . d_ z'lie Partjes furihcr agrae to jointly recommend.-denial of any'developmeat.proposals i . . - fihat fail tn compIy Krith the concuirency standartis of either party. , . i . - • . . i • - . . . i • . i ' • i 5 , . ' . • . • .a. . i . . . . - c. The Parties furCher agree to incorporate the 'fndings ar,q recommendations an `y _ • conr-i2rrency being prepared by the Spokane Regi.onal Tra.nsportatiou Councii (SRTC) • • • . • . . inta this 7oint Piaining Agreement, ta the e:xtent agreed to by the Parties; by focm.a3 ~ amendment at such rime that the project is completed. ~ . . ~ . • • . , ' ~P. . ' 6. Devel.opmeut Standards: - The Parties recognize that land 'use developrnent in ihe affected ~ . area without corrirnon development regulations could frustrate thc purpose and intent of this ~ agreement. aad the procedures established. . • . _ . ~i . . . _ . , a: - The Parties ae,}ree to assign the necessary' staff -to review applicable developinenx ~ . . . ~E.' . regulations, including but not limited to zoAing designations, PUD Standazds, - . ~ Iandscapin.i? ; signage, subdivision, road and st'reet standards, bicycle paths, jog,.,ing lanes, . . ' ~ trail systems applicstion review procedures and stormwater .drainage requirements. ~ . . , - ~ . Difference.s shall be identified and a cansensus or compa#ible standarci recommcnded; ' . afrec wtiich mutual recosumendation wrill be processed -as an ameddmenr to each Parties . _ • • - ' Development Regulations in.a lawful manner_ towands the end oE developing uniformity . . in said development standattds. Svch revietiv should include repraentatives fro.m the . ~ - private sector who inay be impacted. The 'p.rocess to identify individual Jurisdiction - . differences shall commence upon-signing of this agreecnent with a goa2 of coinpleting ~ , • . . ~ the identification of differences within 6 months of signing. Recommendation for ~ - consensus sEandards shall follow. (The CfiED Growth Management Services Grant could . ' ~ ' be mentioned here.) - . , . . - . . - _ . ' b. The Paraes agree to confer on the necessity for and/or the location of any oonnector . . sireets and!or the classification of any streets withi.n ar adjacent to a progosed J _ . ,.r. . - . ' • . . ~ • , , , ' 4 ' . . 1. . 1 . 1-. developriient or adjacent to- the botder- beh=een die Partie~. If agrecment is noL I' . • ~ reachecl both Farties .liall present sball present lheir respeckive -pasitions to th€ ~ Hearing Examiuer or other appropriate bearing body. ' c. 'I'he Parties agrer to consult on Comprehensive Plan/Zoning categori.es; allou+able Iand ~ . ues and densitics in arees where they -have cormuan barder.s towards ensuring a. . ~ . - • • - . f.•' rati.anal traasition of laztd uses in those are-as. - Such consuL[ation shall include . . consultabon on the classif cation nf streets and rnadtiuays on the comtnou borders. . ~ ~ - . . . 7. Other Regulations: Nothing in this agreement shall supersedc or aegate.any existing la.rtd, . 1' , • - . . 1 use or development regulation of the Patties. . 1• . ' . . I . . - ' 8. Addiki.onal 4greem.erats: The Parties contemplate future joint planning agreeinents that m3y . • I • • - . ~relaie to the aft'ected area of ather portions of Spokane County andlor the Ci.ty1T'own of ~ Nolhing in: tlus agreecnent is intezldzd to.-pmhibit the ' ► . ' , • . . ~ development of future agreeinents relating to either the impacts iaenrified above or other ~ impacts ihat may 7ow or in th.e £uture exist. . • ~ ' . , ~ , . , . . i . 9. Rights Reserved: Nofhing in this. agreemen.t is intended to waive or l.ixnit the rights af the i ' - • ► Parties to requirc mitigation for any impact as allowed by federal, state or local laws or • ~ •ordinances includi.ngbut not Iimited ta envirorunzntal impacts ~ovemed by 43.21C et seq. ~ - • i- i . ~ 10. Change in Sfandards or Ordinances: Any change iii the Parties sfandards or ordinances . . ~ relied upon in fhis agreement, or modified pursuant'to t,ii.s agreenient, shall be fart;=arded to ► - ~ . - . . • i ' - . 7 . ~ . . ' . ' . ~1 . . ~A ' the otiier party Rtithin days of passage. If the Partie,~ c,annot agree tD the implementation of such standards wichin 30- days the issue rnay be set for iaediation by ~ , -either party. . ' . . ~ 11. Mediation of Disputes: Any'disputes arisina from this aggreeIIlent, including the failure to ' . - . . ~B ' .agree as to new s,tandards andlor applicabtc ordinances as is set forth in paragraph 10. ~ , . ~ . above; may be set for mediation by either part}J wiihin 30 days of notification of a dispute. . ~ . ' . • . ~ Prioz to mediation, the P«rties, 'represented by their elected officials, shall. fiirst meet . ~ • ~ infonnally in an• attempt to reacli resolutiou. If a mediator cannot be ago,-ed: upoz by the , • • . . Parties; each party shall select oae mcdiator who in tum shall select •a.thii'd rneciiator to ~ . • . _ . coaduct the modiatian. - - ' - ~ . , - . • , • , ~ , • . 12. Indemnification and ]Liability: ~ • . . ' - ~ a: Spokane County shall protect, save harmless,' ind.emnifv and deieiid, at its owri ~ . . - ' . . . ~9 exgcnse, (Ciiy/Tvwr.►), its elected and- appointed officials, ofTicers, ernployees and agents, from any loss or claim for damages of any nature Whatsoever arisirig out of Spokane Countys gerformance of this agreemeAt, including claims by the Spokane Counry eniployee's or third parties, cxcept for fliose damages caused solely by the ~ negligence -or willfiil miscanduct of (CitylTown), its elected and appointed officials, ~rs . . . ' . ~ officer's, eiuployees, oragents. : . . . • . ~ b. (City/Town) shall protect, save harmless, indenn.ify and defend, at its own expensc, •~d - ~ Spokane County its elected and appainted officials, officers, employees and agenks, 40 from any 'loss or claim for damages of any riature whatsoever arisind out of . ~ ' • , ~ , . . ~ . ~ - . P ' . ~ . ~ • ' ' - . . ' . - . 6. . . . , ~ . , (Ciry'&!.`T'own's) performarice of this agreement; inctuding clairns b}+ tize (City/Tawn).. , ~ • . . , . b employee's or third parties, cxcept ior those damages caused solely by the negligence - ~ or tviliftal misconducr of'Spokane County, iEs elected and appointed aMcials, officers, ~ . . . 1 ' . esuplo}rees, or agenis. . - . e . ~ . . . . , . . ~ c. In the event of liabiiity for darnages d.f any natvrc whatsoeveT ar-ising out of tbe . ~ perfor-hance of this Ageement by Spokane' Couniy and (City/Tvwn), includitig e . ' • . ' - . ~ - , daims by Spokane Count}?s or (City'srTnwn's) own offiem, officials, esnployees, ~•agents;,voluntecrs, or thizd parEies, caused by or resulting from die- concuirent_ 1 ' . ~negligencc, of Spokane-County and (City/Pown), each parties liabiiity he;eunder shall ~ oniy be to,the exEent of that partys negligence. ~ . . d. No liabilii_y shall be attachcd to Spol:ane County or (Cityrl'ow-ii) b'y reason -of entering into. this agreement except as expressly provic3ed herein. - • . . . i . . 13. Severability: _ If any provision of this 92reement or'its applic2tion to any.person or ► • . . - . . ' circumscance is held invalid, rhe remainder of the provisions anci/or the application of th4b _ provisions to okher persons or eircumsrances shall not 6e affected.• In such case the parties • agree to meet and amend this agreement as may bz mutually deemed necessary. .14. Entire Agreement: This agreement constitutcs the entire aQreement behween 'the Parties ' with resgect to ic3entified property. 'I"his agreernent may be amendeci in Nvriting by mutual agreement oi the Parties. • . • ' ~ 9 . . . ~ , • - . ~ . • - , . - ~ 'I5. Designafied Tlepresentative. The Parties agce ibat ~(position)'shall be the . . , ~ _ • designatf;d rzpresentaiive of the Cityfl'own for coordination of this age-ement and for n ~ receipt of any co~~munications related to this agreement anci (.Po ~sitio). sha.il be the designaied represenCative of the Counry. ~ . ~ . - ' Ib. ]Effective Date and' Duration. This agre~.~ent shall become effective fallowing'the ~s . . - ~ approval of the atreern eni by tlie of.hcial governin~ bodies af each of the Parties hereto and ~ the siening of the agreement by the uuly authorizad representative of each of,the PartiES . . . , - ~ ' hereto, ar►d shall remain in effect unless ienniuated. . . . ~ . ' ~ 17. Terinination. Either Party may tenninate its obligation under this agreeuzent upon on.e year advance written notice to'thc othec Party: Following a temlination, khe county an.d City are ~ . . ~ • responsible for tulfiUing any ouLstanding nbligations under this agreement or amendment ' . . . • ~ , . thereto, iricurrad grior to the effective date of the tennination. , . , . , . _ . ~ . • . . , . ~ . . . . . , ~ . . . ~ ' ~ - ~ • . . ' ~ . ' . - ~ , . ~ ' - ~ - - . . ~ - . - . . . ~ 10 - . i~ Cl ❑ ~ NI'INiJTES Joint City CounciU Spakane Cvunty Commission Meeting . Monciay, July 23, 2007 2:00 p.m. Spokane Va11ey City Council Chambcrs 11707 E Sprague Avenue Attetrdatice: Citv of Spokane Vallev Spakane CountY Mayor Diana Wilhite Commissioner Todd Mielke Deputy Mayor Steve 1"aylor Commissioner Bonnie Magcr [arrived 2:20] Councilmembcr Dick Denenny Commissioner Mark Richard (absen~) Councilmember Mikc DeVlem.ing Couneilmember Bill Gothmann Councilmember Rich Munson Councilmember Gary Sehimmels City Manager Dave Mereicr Jim Emacio, DPA Prosecutor's Office City Attomey Mike Connelly Dave MubQr[, IaPA I'rosecutor's Office Deputy City Ma.nager Nina Rcgor Bob Brueggeman, County En&i.neer I7eputy City Attorney Cary Driskell Gerry Gemmill, Assistant to Chief Exe. Offcer Planning Manager Greg McCormick John Pederson, Assistant Air. Bldg & Planning Financs Director Ken Thompson Bruce Ra~-.,ls; Utilities Director Public Works Director Neil Kersten Nancy Hill, SCRAPS Director Senior Engineer Steve Worley Adm. inistrative Analyst Morgan Koudel}:a Senior Planncr Scott Kuhta City Clerk Chris Bainbridge Others in Altendance included: Rep. Timm Ormsby Jim Hutten.maier I'lanning Commissioner Gail Kogle Craig Howard, ValleyNcws 1-ierald Mayor Wilhite opened the meeting at 2:14 p.m., and announeed that Commissioner Richard will not be able to attend today's meeting. 1. Joint Planoint! tlgrcement • Mayor Wilhite bmugfit attcntion to the July 12, 2007 draft interlocal joint planning agreement beriveen Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley. Commissioner Mielke explained that the GvfA Stcering Committee has also examined this drai•Z, and with the help of legal counsel, has worked to clean up the references; and he mentioncd that this "redline" version is different from what the Steering Committee reviewed as some of the previous references were tao broad, such as mal:ing reference to "ait}vvhere widlin the UG,q" as opposed to in die ` jnint planning area." ,Attorney Emacio dien highlighted the proposed changes. Mr. Emacio explained that the rationale for the change on page 4 under "projecu affected" was it was felt it should be a fwo-way ayrecment within jurisdictions [Commissioner Mager arrived]; he said that page 5 Special Joint CounciUCounty Vleeting: 07-23-07 - Paee 1 of 6 Approved by Council: 08-14-07 provides that either party could require the preparation of a transporiation impact analysis for a project which was developed in eit6er area; that the word "shall" was ehanged to "may"' and the "concept i.mpact analysis" was changed to "transpmrCation impact study." Mr. Emacio also explained l'hat section 5 identifies the terminologY, as the County said when a project is developed; it may not require a complicated traffic impact analysis, but could require somelhing less like a craffic count or study; so the word "study" encompasses the various types of traffic analysis, and is more broad than the word "analysis." Mr. Brueggeman added that they usually met with a proponent on scoping to get a sense of what the project would entail'and the facilities it might affect; and then make that determination at the scoping meeting of what would be necessary. He further explaiiied that the Board's intent was to have this as a template and have the specific namc of the joutt planning area filled in later. Mr. Emacio alsQ stated that this template is not final; that they sent it to the Ciry of Spokane and expect they'll have some suggestions; after which the document can be brought back here for furthcr review. Other possible changes, hc said, are that they can request the study rather than reyuire it; and to lcave the jurisdiction where the project will be, to have the last call on whether to conduct the study. Although every area is within the County, Commissioner Alielke said that the County would have input regarding scope, but the City would have the ullimate say in doing the study. Some discussion ensued regarding possible conflicts if one entity feels a sludy should be done and the other party disagrees, thus defeating the purpose of the agrecment; and that designated representatives are explained in sextion 15. Mr. Bmacio also pointed to paragraph 5, a.nd said tihat section 1.30 of the County R.oad and Drainage $tandards contain specific criteria about what it takes to mitigate issues and address concurrency; that now there is no official requirement to try to work out these differences; but this template says that entitles must meet. Councilmember Munson remarked that there is still a concem if the County is doing development in a joi.nt area and a disagreement ensues including long involved mitigatian, that if "triggers" were already in placc tbal mechanism could save time. Deputy Mayror Taylor added that definitions of what a developer should do regarding road improvements to accommodate the developments, are differenl from the standard; and there are some Supreme Court rulings that discuss what kind of improvements a developer must do for new impact purposes. Mayor 1Vilhite mentioned ttiat this is the-first step in this process; and Mr. Emacio replied that what he explaincd above are the big changes, and the remainder changes were to clean it up to make it read better. Commissioner Mieike said that nn page 7, immediately above "Development Standards" that section 3 also added a clause about the SRTC's concurrency regulations once finalizcd; and that the f3oard has not yet seen those regulations and will address them once they have had a chancc to review them. Othcr diseussion turned to concurrency regulations and the SRTC's authority to have them; that the SRTC is a required planning entity; and that if the law requires concurrency, even the SRTC would fall under certain statutory concurrency regulations; and if currcncy is not met, NIr. Mielke said they have the ability to shut doNvn the project. The Court undcr LUPA were also mentioned and whal could be an appropriate hearing body; and it was pointed out that section 22 includes "Venue Sripulation." Ot1ler issues included mention by Attorney Connelly that replacing the UGA witti joint planning agreements dvoughout the document works well as long as all the adjacent UGA's are joint planning area.s; and that might not necessarily be the case. Mr. Connelly also mentioned that undcr the sectinn 2 "intent" section, the original document included that standards had to be "consistent" wilh City development standards,.and that now the word is changed to "compatible" which is a softer word and le.,..s . strictly i.nterprcted. Mr. Mielke said that he would not tell somenne in an unincorporated area that they have to comply with City ordinances; that for him the common ground is to find a way to work lhrough the process and to find the consistent stanclards in the UGA; that he is willing tn work to move forward with common road scandards. Ivlr. Connelly said some of the changes to be aNrare of include the deleted language on pagc 3; that section 5 Transportation wcnt from requiring to requesting; that the TIS analysis Special Joint CouncillCounty vleeting: 07-23-07 PagE 2 of 6 Approved by Council: 08-14-07 is good but there is nothing requiring scoping or a transportation study; and that section "d" had wording caken out that would require the authorizing jurisdiction to recommend denia] of a project that failed to meet concurrency; and that the top of page 7 uses language that addresses the parties agreei.ng to joinHy identify proposals that fail to comply with concurrency standards. Mr. Emacio said the Board suggested that as they didn't want to forego authority over a proje;ct. Mr. Connelly responded that the less certain the lanouage means the less certainty ,vou'll have for planning purposes; if a documcnt doesn't allow one jurisdiction to develop in a way to meet adjacent jurisdiction cancurrency; at what level do respcctive bodies want to negotiate to. Mr. Mielke countered that a chan 9e in the language doesn't cliange the ultimate result, that the parcies further agree to "jointly" identify and recornmend denial of proposals that fail to c;omply; and that the County is still looking at projects on a joint basis and if there is a failure to meet concurrency, and those failures are identified, dhat will be a set up for denial in the future until such concurrency is met; as the GMA says if there is a failure of concurrency, the project is stoppscl. Attomey Connelly said the result could be the same; and the reason for the agreement is to try nat to have to use the courts. Flttorney Emacio said that identifying is better than recommendino denial; and Mr. Mielke added diat once that is identified due to failure to meet concurrency, State law takes over, adding that having `Vigbers" would bc a good idca. It was mentioned that should be considered, but not to the poinl of staling the pror,ess; and tha1: the process and the changes can be done concurrently. Mayor Wilhitc said she sees no reason why we shouldn't move forward on both. Mr. Connelly said he would not recommend adding the paragraph. about the SRTC until the SRTC decided what they would do about concurrency; that the mediation paragraph neetis to be more specific to include mediation as to any determinatinn made pursuant to this agreement and not the "terms of this agreement;" and if thcre is an argument about a determination, then the terms needs to be different and the language broadened; adding that he will give his written comments lo Mr. Emacio for furlher consideration. Further brief discussion mentioned having level of service as at trigger; having some kind of standardized rnethod instead of negotiation witliin eaeh project rype; having a regional approach to , determine Nvfiatever impacts the County dcvelopment would have on the Va11ey; impact fees wheLher local or regional and how khey might be processed (SRTC with a regional fee andlor have each jurisdiction adopt their own); how to impose the City's standazds in areas outside the City's jurisdiction; that this draft document can always be amended later; and that tllis agrecment is a good starting place. Mayor Wilhite mentioned that this issue can be brought up again at the next joint City/Counry meeting. 2. Potential Reeional Ballot issues Mayor Wilhite rnentioned the "Ballot and Potential Ballot Issues" handout; and said these dates are [entative; and thai Spokane Valley does not anticipate adding anything to the November ballot; and asked if anyone is aware• of any other potential ballot issues for 2007. CQmmissioncr Nlielke said that August 14 is the last day to submit anything for the fall 2007 ballot; and mentioned that Crime Check is listed under the City of Spokane; he menlioned the 1/10`h of 1% sales tax le,.y; and said that the 911 Board anticipated their revenue stream will go red in 201 that they seek a long term solution and have discussed the possibility of snme 911 and erime check combination; and said that there is a consideration of having as a ballot issue, the 1/10 of 1% sales tax; which would amount to 60% of the revenues going to the County, and the remaining 40% being split among the jurisdictions. Mr. vlercier also mentioned that Representative Timm Orrnsby is also in attendance today and may be of assistancc in answering questions. Mayor Wilhite said that the City plans a six-year budget; and said that we bave a street fund for maintenance purposes; that Counci) would Iike to know how to supplement that fund, and that the 1/10 of 1% might be considered provided the City could use it for road maintenance purposes. Special Joint CouncillCounty Meeting: 07-23-07 Page 3 Af 6 Approved bv Council: 08-14-07 ' Commissioner Mielke responded that they could consider using those funds if they were labeled for strategic infrastruccure and roads; but that respecCive road funds cannot be used outside one's jurisdictinn. Councilmember Munson mentioned that our master road plan estimates the need for an annua) five million dollars to maintain our roads. Commissioner Mielke said that the County is trying to identify needs and desires, and that it typically takes about six months to see the revenue oncQ a measure is enacted. Discussion of that issue ensued including mention that the City's road are critical; that the City's $4.6 million per year challenge won't be met by that 1/10t° of 1%; the possibiliry of having a vehicle registration within die City's zip codes would generate an estimated $70,000 (a $20.00 license tab fee); and how to sell this idea to the voters when Che City's has its own plan to sell the City Center. If the County wanted thc City's endorsement or support of this issue, the tight time schedule was also mentioned and the realization thaY the Councilmembers might not be ready to make such a decision. Other pending ballot issues included the need for a jail; other types of revenue sources such as utility tax andlor B&O tax; the inoperability of the eurrent 911 communication system; the need to prioritize issues and that Council agreed public safety and infrastructure are top priorities. Mayor Wilhite said that perhaps this issue of supporting the 1/10 of 1% can be addcd to Council's ?uesday agendn; and that Mayor Wilhite will report such outcome back to the Board nf County Commissioners. 3. WASTEWATE12 Treatcne.nt Facilitv Governance Commissioner Mielke stated that the County has drafted a"Sewer System Governanc,e Principles" list and he asked V1r. Rawls to join in the discussion. Mr. Mielke emphasized that this is a draft document and is a result of a compilation of notes taken over the last few years as he has talked to different people about this subject; and if there are any questions regarding where wc are in the proce,ss, with the facility, he asked that those questions be addressed to Mr. Rawls. Mr. Rawls explained that they are about to issue the Request For Proposals; that they met with some design firms a few weeks ago; and are working through those com.ments, some of wfiich are large and some minor; that the RFP will be issued about mid-August with a December date to submit proposals; that there will likely be site visits in January, and it is hoped to have a contract in plar,e by July 2008; and that this all assumes the "T'otal Ma:imum Daily Load "(T#MAL) goes forward and gets submitted to the Environmenta] Protcetion Agency (EPA); ttiat the operations might be approved beginning 2008 if there , are no appeals, with projcct construction beginning about July 2008; that it would be ready for testing in the fall of 2011, with start-up around January 2012. Mr. Rawls also said that they received a conditional use permit, and there is nothing in there to cause worries; that the appeal period is about to end; and they are waiting to see if there are any surprises in the draft Tlvf.nl.; that regarding the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elim.i.nation System) or T'MDL permit; there could be an opportunity for legal challenge or appeal; that there are a number of options; and as we get closer we will have better vision. Further discussion included meetings widi all associated jurisdictions for a regiona] approach; the problems of limited eapaeity; associated funding issues such as utility tax; other jurisdictions such as Liberty Lake and Airway Weighis and their wastewater issues; mention that the plant must be self- supporting; the qucstion of rates and trying to have the lowest possible rates to consurners but have rates high enough to cover the debt retirement and operational cost. Cominissioner Mielke then highlighted the principles in the praft document. 4. Regional Animal Cnntrol SCRAPS ($pokanc County Regional Animal Protection Service) Uirector Nancy Hill explained that a Regional Research Team was recently formed with Morgan Koudelka; City of Spokane Dave Steele, and herself; and that the team has developed a draft regional budget to include staffing and operating costs along with capital expenditures, which include an addikion to the facility and start-up costs SUCII AS upgraded computers, vehicles, equipment, and uniforms. She explained that they are still working on rcaching smaller areas like Spangle, Latah and Deer Park. Ms. Hill said that the ori-inal proposal was to Special Joint CounciUCounty Meeting: 07-23-07 Page 4 of 6 Approved by CounciL• 08-14-07 increase the spav/ncutered license by $5.00 and a non-spayed/.neutered license by $8.00; to increase the daily board rate from $6.00 to $10.00; and add soine additional fees such as trip costs. She said that given the current license rates, thesc new fees could bring about $150,000 in additional revenue, half of which would be credited to the Spokane Valley account. She also inentioned that she is examining jurisdictionalizing the revenue; for example, if Spokanc Valley citizens were more -responsible in IicensinD pets, the City would ses the value of thaL She furChex axplained that they are looking at a new soffivare package to enable them to make surc everyone pays what they should. T'here was some mention of having a one-time lifetimc license which coulcl save mnncy on renewals; but Ms. Hill said many places which do have those don't have the annual income to operate. She also stated that the City of Spokane wanls to set their own licensc fees, but that Nvoulcl be problematic in printing out forms. In reshonse to a question of whcn this would all begin, Ms. Hill said they can start t;his new program without hearing from all the smaller cities; but that are waiting to liear &om the City of Spokane and she hopes to hear from them this week. Further discussion included not placing a burden on responsible people; grant opportunities for the Humane Society; pet shops, dag breeders, dog trainers, wid veterinarians to complete a self-mailer postcard back to SCRAPS to help track unlicenscd peis; having an ordinance to enforce licensing; the desire of Council to hear SCRAPS Community Assessment Report; that the next time this comes on the agenda, it will bE placed at the &ont of the agenda, and that perhaps a representative from the area vets . association could attend the next meeting. [Aeputy Mayor `raylor left the meeting at 4:35 p.m.] 5. Other topics: Regional Support Network Grant Yroposal Mayor V►rilhiCe said that the Regional Support Network is pursuing a gra»t proposal; that $4.00 of the $10.00 auditor's real estate recording document fee collected by Spokane County goes to the State, which makes that $4.00 available for grants; and that Representative Ormsby called hcr regarding this topic, and she invited him to eaplain the issue. . Representative Ormsby said that as the jurisdictional legislative bodies, the Board and Ciry Council will be asked to approve any plan for the Stale's portinn of the document recording fee. In bacl:ground, Mr. Orrr►sby said that 2005 Legislature approved House Bill 2163, which is homeless housing assistance funding that it accumulates from a$10.00 documenl recording fee around real estate transactions; that $6.00 of lhat $10 is returned back to the community; and that there is a local Count), task force that reviews applications and dispenses the local portion of that money tnward local homelcss housing progranis. Mr. Ormsby said that the State keeps a very small porcion of the remaining $4.00 for administrative fees; and the remainder they drive to communities in the form of competitive grants; that Spokane County is the entity eharged with writing that grant; that the grant submitted for thqse dollars in 2006 was not funded; perhaps because the grant was written to support tliree separate populadons: offenders re-entering the population; tiie ch.ronically mentally ill; and foster children coming out of foster care and into emancipation; and that the Sfate viewed that application as trying to serve a very broad spectnun of the population in a very short time frame (one-year). NIr. Ormsby said that in speal:ins with the Director of the Regional Support Nehwork (RSN), aaid with the individuals on the two, 2163 groups, one t6at writes the application and the other that sen~es on the dispensing board; and with Mayror Hcssion and Mayor Willlite, that one of the things to consider is that the most difficult and unsympathetic population that is a ehallenge to provide housing for is the ex-offender population; and in housing the ex- of•Iender, it helps law enforcement as law enfnrcement knows where these people are and therefore diminishes the public safety responsibility. Mr. Ormsby said that his proposal to the RSN' and to the task force charged with writiiig the grant, and to die Board of County Commissioners and City Councilmembers, is to consider writing that grant specific to the offendcr population; and that he is aware this is not politically popular, but that he seeks the SherifTs Office support, the Department af Correction support, and the City's pplice department support as well. Special Joint Couneil/County Mecting: 07-23-07 Page 5 of 6 Approveti by Council: 08-14-07 Mr. Mielke added that in the ex-offender population, there is overlay with the mentally ill; and suggested rathzr than just mentioning the "ex-offender" population, that Mr. OrinsUy considcr adding the mentally ill population as well; to have the two categories together; and he added that approximately 60% of those charged with felonies have mental illness; and that with the mental housing gRant, once a persan has a conviction, they lose their eligibility for housing assistance making it difficult to place mcmbers of this popularion in stable environments; and thcrefore making them more at risk for re-offending. Mr. Ormsby said that hc has also informed the Ciry of Spokane's lVlayor office of this topic; and that this is time sensitive as the grant must be submitted by some time neat month. Mayor Wilhite expressed concern about the ending of the grant, and questioned if that means the housing assistance ends after lhree years and if so, what becomes of those displaced persons. Mr. Ormsby said that housing officials such as SNAP have counseled him on what needs to be done in the grant process and what should be avoided to avoid displacing persons dfter the grant ends. Mr. Mercier said that he encourages the coordination of'this topic with the currcnt state regional funding efforts to assist in homelessness; and that.linkage of the lwo proposals would be usefuL Mayor Wilhite said the City has received several grants throuah the SherifPs . Office regarding special i'unding, and it would be helpful to know how long those gants are, and how the . grant funds ase wrorked into the costs associated with thc City's eontract with the Couiity, and she asked if the County would sent the City a list of thnse grants along with the grant's lifespan to assist in the City's ' financial planning. Mayor Wilhite thanked the Councilmembers, the County Commissioners, and City and Counry staff for attending; said that shc would like to continue having joint meetings possibly monthly or every six weeks; and that the next meeting would be hosted by Yhe Board of County Commissioners. Mr. M.ielke said that he will leave the scheduling up to Mr. Ric•hard, and said that possibly the »ext mccting could he scheduled some time after I..abor iaay. 1'here being no further business, Vlayor Wilhite thanked everyone for their participation, and adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m. Diana Wilhite, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Special loint CounciUCouncy Meeting: 07-23-07 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: 08-14-07 S crry ol~ane AGENDA zTEM #1 p ;,O*VaHey ° 11707 E.Sprague Ave. • Suite 106 • 5pokaneValley,lNA 99206 (509) 921-1000 • Fax (509) 921-1008 • cityhall@spakanevalley.org NiEMORATVDUM . , 'T'O: Spokane Valley City Counci:l- . ° FROM:- pave-Mercier; Cify-Manager DATE: juty 19, 2007 . RE: 13,ITERLOCAL PLANNIIljG AGREEMENT , _ . . A draft of the new intexlocal joint plarning agreexnent between Spokane County . and the City of Spokane Vauey is aitached for your review. rnc. e 3IIPV l2, 2007 DR4.FT ' . . rormat~' Fnr~ Tures N>~v ttoQna_, _ • . - , • . • . DeletQd: FsLibSt'^C"y : ; . . - • ' . . , . c. . . ' ' . . • r Defeted: DR4Ff LNTERLOC&L . AGREE?d£~1T9 . ~ u ~R?AeAL .~C~'REE1vIEI~rr REeARI) Q JOINT LANNING BETW~EN ' . . . . . SPOK.ANP, COUNTY ANla . I . T}E CTTY OF SPO' ANE ' De{eted: a Deietee• fihis ~lgreement is enE~ed m,, by S P. okane Co~m hereinaf~er referred ic~ as h'", • ~ - ~ ~ ~ . . . Deleted: ~6- dey af , . . - and the Citj+,.of ~o~a~e here~natter nfer~ "CiivR3ndY.... ~nos De(eted: Rovm _ Deictcd: m re-ferred to aloa$ v,ith the~Gounfv as lhc "Pas4ies". _ - . . . . . . ~ ~DCleteds es Whereas, a Goal of rhe Sta#e Grow#h Mana$ement Act is to easure coordination betwzen D~leted. p--Qnt I communities and jurisdictions, includjng oecial ~ u,T,~ ose distriic#s:to:reconcile coaflic~, and ' . , . . • • . . Delcteds • Whereas, RCW 36.70A.2I0 se#s forth certtin requ?i'ements for County-widepPlann~g D-jetw. P ~olicies, including ~liat, eouat}'-w~ide, Plannmg. Policies shall address policies for joint county and citY Planning widiin urhara growth areas, and . . Deletd: P ~ Whereas, Tbe Countywide ~l~ning. D,oliciss for, Spokene Co~mty. adopt~i,~wst~sut to oe~eted: P RCW 36.70A.2I0 oontaFa palicies for a,}oint planning process intended to resolve issues 1'egdi'dlI]g hOW 7A111?8g, Si2bdiVlSiOII and orher land uscs approvals in desipated joint - planaing aren wil be coord'mated, and that such joint planniag 'may ba accomplished . pursuant to an. interlocal agreement entered 'anto baEvveen andlor among ju'isdictions audlor specialpiupose_c~is#~ and - - - ~ . Whereas, the Pazaes a-e de;irous of reselvip-g how zoning, subdivision. and other land . • use approvals =_n the MoranlG)enrosa UGAIJPA and adioinir,e ~ronertv wi~m ih~ Ci of : DdeiL°d: cL-i~4-+=AlointDam=in^e S2okane will b ccoo. rdinated,........and . ' . . . . . . . _ ~ Whereas, the PErdes wish to separzate; without prejuclice to either Paziy, the vsue of ; - - , Daleted: s poteatial annexatioA of xhenq,ora,niG,len,rose UGA/JPA and the le,gal a.u-fbority and iight to . . Deleted: s p~sue or opposs such aanezatio . . • oeEet~d~ from...... ~ • . ent P....~?~ . . . . . - Dele#td: imd the ~x~ af tae sam=; Now, therefore be it Resofved; towards a.ddressiag how zoning, subalivision and other.,.. lat►d use P-pprovals for jaii-it pIanning will ba coordiaated, to ezasure that fransportation. _ . capacity for deveelopuient meets concu.rrency requ:rements and ,,tU.t consistrat . development sfandaids-ai-6 use4 ihe Parties• agree to coopeaative joint plaaning- in the__. . . . . neictea: o:a~u,d vice~ Moran/Glenrose LFGAIJPA and ad'iUV-iine UroTr#v located vithin the Citv of Spok~~e, pursuant tn the iollowing tuFns and conditions: • DCl2b:d: n I]. Le}al basis: 'Ibis'4~eement is eauereti, into pws~.~t to-RC~J 36.70AA10; 02~{3); , . 2I0 (3) (a), (b), (d); and RCN 3934;'Counfvwide P1anuinQ Po icies Fo SDokane • - ' CouuL (pi_anning Policies) Topic 2, OvervieNv of Gro'~ih ?vlanage*_ne-at Act (GIMA) Reqturemants; Top1c 2; Policies (1) and (2); Topic.5 Vensportation, Ovzrview o£ (}rowth IN-fanagement (GMA) Requirements; and Glossary Countywide P12.nning - Del--ted: tb: Snnl=n CocatY • Policy Terms, 7oint Plaanine Areaso • ' ~a~: t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' C=qr:b=s~m Pl= of tat C3ty+'Farva of 2. Intent- It is the intent of 1he Parties_ Deteted: I ~ to rovide or co dinated planninfor.traas .Portatioa aad development,SS~~S 1F1. DetciCd:~ ~~ko~ ....1?_. . . . . . ' • DeEcbbel: tLe . d Gl rose UGAI3PA che "U~1JPA'' o~caed: iiGA those eas oo;~sistiaa of e PVloranl A ~ • 2 ihat area 3ocated in rhe Cirv of S-ookane ad'ao°..nt to the t1GAl3PA the "C'rv . Pro-oe-rtv'1 ioi-Littv refear-..d to as the Joint Plannins Area as defiFied 'm this ' Deleted: a ~,~3'E07ZkP.1]t, • . Deleied:2 b~ fA ensure thai tr-ansportation improvemezts neces$ary:.to Rate trcnsPorta~on . impacts.resufting from development in rh° JoiritPla,-ar►use Areas are identified and . consEructed concurrent %vith the deyelopment and/or that adequate funci.in° is securei to finance constYuction -of such iransportztion improvements. co. acurrent. with • , DeltedO 36.7OA12O.470(6)(b) developmegt, asrequired by RCW 36. OA.070 6 (b, a.?d.. . . . . : ~ . . . . . ffl ensure ...~aat develoDnent s~ndards th171 the ~Jo~ 'L Plafl77u'ia ;1rerela~g Del~d: UGA ~ t . _..aPP..h........ed v.R r-,~... ) - . ' Deleted: _ to nllow2ble lEnd usrs; densities; sireets, sidewallcs, curbang, drainage and udlities sre D~leted: ~~,!st=wJ!bt&-cjW.8 . ~ • ~ • • . Q,MPrCb=Idn phm cma amaUP=ex I compan. . . . . . . . . ~ _ The Parties desire to joinly develop aind implement develapment regulations, procedures and standards related to the revisw and approval of grdje,cts w-itkvn t.he • ~odcicd: vGA. ~ oe=d m chit loint P1annine Areas The Pzrties aLclesire bo ly ~;;tzblish and ...~plement I _ Y consistent developaent regulations and procedui-es governing the Provrision of all . _ ~ , Deleted: UOA public facilffies witbin said T~,qint Plarfnung ~reas_-- Tha Parties . a~ree •to co~it Deleted: (M=ns3 Qf tbz CTID ~ Groa-s.~' ?✓:ecsgcmcat S=Vicee Gncat sufficient staff to draft and fmaliz.e #hasa specific agreements in a timely m2imer. raLga ez ~s=iea b=-) - , • ' ' . Defebed: n - 3. Applicability: The ~eement, sh~i.l apPly..i.°.. development proposals w-ithui tbe . I . - De1eLed: tsben gowrh mmu .s's's-..h ere • ' - aA,;ro Mora,-VGlrnsose UGA/1Pas ideiatiiEed in Exlubit "A" bereto a-~e"[JGA/JP . . zs °~s°'~~r~~•~ . ~ well as that area located vOdi?n nce City of Sw)~-e ider~tified ij) L-xhibit "A"_ as - Deleted: "Ciiv Propertv" ioiatlv ferred to '%vithi this Agrcerment as the "Joint Plannina Arzas'. . oefebed: a 4. Projects affected: This ~eement applies to new dsvslopm~t proposaLs in.the oint Deleted: va~ P]anning reas that are subjcct to ttye Notice of Applicatio-a reql:aements of RCVJ 36.7013 es zdopted by ttie C61.FnN ;or nmDertv in the UGA/JPA or Cstv &r nrouertv in* •Defeted: j•.a9s~ the Citv Pro ertv; inclLdan~eyroposals.subject to.4hhe StaEe Environmen`l Policy Act {the °`peveloaMent PronosaP(s)"). ' Notice, of Applicatiou, Notiee of Heari-ag md TToticri of Decision required by RCW . . y. 36.70B and anyen-6ronmwfialchecklist, ET,S or o3her environinental docuffient requind pursuant io RCW 43.21C ior Development Prouosals in rhe Joint Planr,in~ • • Deleted: Perties m a timelv manner aud i,n„ Areas shall be provided to each nartv bv tbe ot~e p . accordance wit'a applicable regu.latiQns. 'Ihe PardeS na,rther agrec they shall prnvide . . . ear,)~ other at least 7 days notice of ariv technica rev;ew mentina( ) with reQard to a , , _ . oelcteds Develonment Proaosaland a~'e allowed aaiii.encou~ed_to_attc~id buildieo,eam;t, • . • . . Defeted:, buMbgp..-rm.~t . ' , . ~rw~sati..~tiom aa~aae ead1a ]~d . oreconstrucfion confetence and/or techn.iczl revicw meu1uc~ notice shail.bs En.. m--cng. the farm of standard notice 'for such iechnical i-eview msetinc ~,iven by t~e_ either" Deleted: • . • oeletLn: jwis6cow P~.•• . . . Deleted: a 73a The Parties.shall.~,`,,,~er on.Develon~ent kroposals ou4lineci above prior to ,:"..I Deleted: c=suzc(awify) Deleted: p issuance of any fnal DNS, NIIa1NS or staff regorE tn the Heariug Exe,mmer in . an attempt to reach a consensus position/rmomnaendation. For SEPA , docments, the jurisdiction having lead a.gency suatus shall include the . , ' consensus./collective reaozmendation agd any -mitis*zting conditions, or their . individual rzcommandations and any mitigating conditions Ff imable #o reach ' _ cAnsensus, as zpplicable; for pro}ects paoceeding to public hfAri~ both Parties shall include the consensus recomme-adafion in tbeir respective staff reporthecommended co-nditions of approval to the Heaning Examiner or ocber • . _ . apPropriatee heaain; body, or, , if' unable to agrea, #heir respective rzconauzendafions. - , . • . 5. Transportation: The Parties recoQaize that_ developme?it activity within their DeFeted: vn71 respeftiva jurisdicrions ►a _.c~se ~ansportation_ impacs :~nd. maY... imaact . Deletcd: ns:~3boricg t-ansportation Ievels of service in neaghborunQ Jurisda.ctions;To ensure,.Pp?t~?'. . identi5eation and mitigation of developm6t related t-msportation impacts, ahe . , Parties agree that: ' . DcleLed: ceqcun ' a. Unless otherwise incon-Ristent with •law, either of #he. Parties may rzouP ' Deleted: Aaslydx • . ITri SGt Of flII•.. •,Deketed:A Study. .T.I~S ..q???n??T_.h0 ..P . . . . y~ . preparation -of a.lYaffic Impact . Deleted: az+v dcvcloymew _ Jlevel o oMl ifhin the, Joint lannina Areas...7~e term_ _inolo-' 77S 1S ' Deleted:;~~ Deleted:UCA . ' defined in Section L' 3Q of the Sookzn£ Coun-Lv Road and DrainaQe Standar~_ a , . copy of which ~s attacl•,ed herzto a$ Exhibit "B." The Parties understand that the , terrninologv TIS rnav ranize from an in deprh analvsis of d e siie lDevel4P ent . . , Protaosall generzted ]evels-of service to a cunorv review oi s: feN issues. In the event e P wit~in ufio e'iuisdicti n rbe Develonm t Pr osal is a o osed ' Deleted: la etda ~ as; Do%b Psdcs determines to nrmare a 7"IS rhe orl~ parrv __shall.have_ an, op.P°'t!~ty..t°.. . QaEe:ea: ==mc w ~artic~aw in he sco e used to dete~ine the den~ of an2lvsi . Dejeted: d-.-jopm=rl ear. • . . -~---.,....P~~.....,--,r-... ~ ~ , . . . . • DeteLed: a b. In approvirig z~-►dlor rsaldng recommenda:tions regard.ing P-evelopmennt octetea: of so:b =ly Deleted: 'Pss?stia _ rcap da=Y ?_roposals,. each,of t~e ParTies sla~l reire..(or reco~end~, as the case ma~ . ~-1n~smR~„~~="q:.-~= . t . . fnrallAwi& resp= toaygsdailar . . . . Ecvrlopn~tt pMomL cons~,~ction of ti~e transportatioa inprovemenfs aecessary. to ~e D~~: d , Dcieced: p tran.;porta~on imgacts i~tified in Uae T7~.S . concurreat .~vi#h developmeent as Dcleted:A required by RCW 36.70A..070(6)f_b1_.analor _the dedication of such ]and or °eleted: (t) • payment of money in Iieu thsreof that is necessary to mitig"~te such imPacts to'he jurisdiction,whosa lransportation system is tk►ereby 'vmpacted." Any such fees,shall . , be held aad ~mcumbered as pro -v-ided 'm RCW 82.02•020. ' ' Dcleted: d a For ~velo nent ~ osaJs m the Joint lann~~~ A.reas where cons,truction of __..Detez~: I ."°v . _ , Defeted• UGA , inprovements nscessary bo mitigais identified direct transportation impacts does Detted: Wj= not taFce plece concuzrent v,iYh the Develo *nent Pro os the Peaties shall.jomtly . establish a imiform method for quantifYing aPproPna#a £nancial contributions , . amono the Citv. Countv and sgQnsorldeveloper Qf tha pevelonment PrQposal for . Del.-ted: prsjcd . i,ix,,p;ovemeil#s Co be made within 6 yeaas oi ~e a~proval,,o,~f ihe Developmea;t Pronosal for identified direct -portation zmgaas. The Paraes recognaze that . Deleta~: a ' re a~ons may,be s . . to implemezst this Aree~ent_some,rnadification of exis~ required and agc e to make'such modi£ca:ions in a tmety'mannei oonsisteat vr~ anv ax)clicabl5 law after establishment-o£ a unaform and mutu'lIY agreed upon -method for quantifying aPPropriate financizl contri~sutions. ' DeL~bCd: rua==A d. The Pmties furthm-agree i.o jointly identievelopme~t P~roposals ~ai.. ..ocEeted: ~a ~~y a I • ' . - iail to comply wit'h The concurrency standards of aither Pas-ty. - ueleced: ~ e. The Parties Sather agree tn mnsider. incorporat~ing,: the fmdu~ and . ' I • ncurrencY being P re~~d by the Spokane Region~1 recommendat~ons on co _ Oefcted: Ja~s Plsa~ng - Transportation Council (SR'TC) into this ,A~reeAa~t, to t4e ex~nt a~esd, to, neteted: 3+= pro;ctt is c~7~ by the Parties, by formal amendrsent at such ti.me that SRTC's conciurenc . . • rp?t118L10DS 3I£ fl3]817Zed. , . . , Deletedt LF(3A ' b. Development Stindards: The PzrEies ;ecogniza that develop=_nrut,.in tha ~Planninz A.reas writhout common develogment regulations could fivsErate the pu'pose Deleted: e and intent of I oelecea', mca th_ pr=dw= e„~ent~...._. - a.- The Parties agree to assign ihe necessary siaff to rrview applicab!e development regulations, fnchzding but not limsted to aoniiiD desigli.ations, PLTll . • standards, landscaping, sianagz, subdivision, road and street standards, bicycle- . paths, 30gging lanes, trail systerns application review grocedureA and, storinwater. drainage raquirements. Differznces shail be ideafffied and a conssnsus or - compatible standard recommended, after which uufual recommendation_qwill be processed as an ameadmeiat to each Parties' development regulations in a iawful I . , manner towards the end of developing uaiformity in said development standards• . Such review should inelude representaiives from the private sector who may be iznpactsd by any such amendments. The process to ?dentify lIIdIVIdtt31 Deleted: a with a.: - I . . , 3urisdiction differences shall commence upon signing of this ment, Agree J goai of comple :ng the ideaatification of diffemnces wittim --161 montns of Deletea c gh cr:,~ cruwth signi1g. Recommendation iot consensus scand2rds shall follow. , b.. The P.....~es ~`i~'~°~' sc.~;0.~ r,~c t~a~ ==6omW b=r_)y agree to confer on ?he necessEry for andlar the location o£ any connector ocl~d: Xopntcd . dev:Snp~..-cC . street-3 andlor the classification of 3ny streets R:tkin or adjaceat tn. a, Dete#ed: nr 4a= c3 tle b=d= re~,e~t is not . reached, bo#~► Par~es. shall : b:~"'-=~`P~°-'' . De~~ei ~sent Prouoselfsl If a . . _ . DeleDed: *sIl p~es~nt~,the~rr~ecrivepos;fions.~o~e....... Hearin~ E~caminer ro riz~ o~.~eea:~= .............:~.P...P...... , Mctea: w ak= - - ° hea.riL-ig body_ or administrati`~e ofricial.. . . ' - c. The ParEies agrec fip consWt on Compre.hensive Planl7onm$ categor'es, pctebed: uGa . . • I . . allowable laad uses 'and densities in the omt Plannintr Are3s•.•_ Such ~ consultation shall. include consulffition oA- fhe classification of sfreets, and. roaaways on the common bordeis. . - I. Deletad: e I 7. Other Rewlatioas: -Is'othmg in this 6gre~nt s44..suP.ersede or.aegzta.aay.:. _ . 1 existing 13nd we or development regulation of the Parties. . 8. Additional A.greemenis: 'Ihe Parties contemplafle fiutue jaint plaaaing agrz..menfs [Del etid: tbe UriA or aab= paraacs c± • that nay relate to othej UGAIIPA's or J int Plannmq Arzzs_, SPaJnce CcLmy and/aQ n~leted: ib~ cxyrawn of . nded to:.Prohi~it i-hz n~cted: e Ir'ot~in~ in this.~reement is inte development of futura ageements relating to either the impecfs,identified above o: . , . ..L . ~ other impac*s rhat may now or in the future cxist , . . • 9. Righis Resen,ed: Noching in this Agee~e~t is intendzd ?o waive or liauit the ri~hts . I . of the Parties to require mitigation ior aay impact as al,lowed by fsderal, state or local . laws or ordmanr.es including but aot limitsd ta euvaonmental impacts goveraied by • Drleted: a c~q. cbaptw 4321C RCM or mitiaation fees govemed bv RCVJ 82.02,060_ I . . 10. Cha~ge ~n Standards or Ordimances: Any-change in ~e P~i~ ~ective (i) - Delebed: cmner& or develo~ment i~ei~l~zions (ii`) CAIIIDT°h~sive plans or •(ii:i) ot~cial contmis~ '''"'lp: reaardless of whetber rhev afiect the Jokit Plannina A.reas_shall be forwarded tothe Deleied: other pai?y wiihin Z1 days of ~~ssa~e. - " D~~ P=tiez ==wi agrm to wiffii.,soaay:~n itim. =9y~= for . . . . . ;w6ati= by r*= Buty- • DebCtcdS e I 11. Mediabon of Disputes: Any dispu°s arising from this Ageement,may be set fo;:: DdE~. ,n~,~~,~ ai co new cLmannic w eppt:~W- mediation by: either'party'wi~n 30 da}~s of notificatian of a dispute: Prior to ..~°LCiiGS1`~m~~~~o mediation, the Parties, represented by their elect.ed officials, shall first meet _ . ia-formally iu au aitempt bo reach re.solution. If a mediator cannot be agreed upon by the Pm-ties, each party sha11 select one mediz#or who in tum sball.select a third- . mediator to conduct the mediaFian. 'Me decision of tha nediataon nanel shalJ not bz ' bindin¢ o either -oartv Provided, however th~ PaLtie$ a-asee to consjder in trood faith rhe decisiori'ofthe megiation nanel. ' • ' • 12. Indemni£ication and Liability: ' • - . a. Spokane Coeuaty sbaII p:otect, save ]aarmless, indemnify and defend, at its own . . Deleted: lToa~) . expense, (Cit)4..................... _.ectza ana,appaintza..o~cialst_o~cers,_~m~loye~_~a.. I ag~nts, €rom 3ny loss or claim for damages o£ any nafurewhatsoever arising . out of Spakane County's performance of ihis agreement, incluemg claims by , . the Spokane Courity ernployee's or third parties, eaccept for those dama;es . caLsed solely by the negligence or tvBinzl misco-aduct of (Cityrown), its _ elected and appointed officiaJs, officwrs, ezmployees, or P-gents. . , Dclcted: iTawn) b. (City.s4a4protect,. save hasmless, indemaif'y _~d defemd, at i~s oven ;xpen~, . I . . - • Spolcane Com. ty its elected and zppoint;d officials, officers, employees and agens, fron any loss or claian for dama.ges of any nalun whztsasver ari..ci.ng out of (City's/Tovvn's) perfarmance of this agreeuaent, including clp-ims by.the (City/Tovrn) employee's Dr third parties, except for those -dam2ges caussd solety by ihe negligence or Aillful inisconduct of Spokane Cotmiy, its elect;d-. . • and appoiated officiaLs, officers, employees, or agents. ' . . , c. L-► the everat of liability for dainages af any natu; e wha:so: ver arising oi-A of the . ' , ' . oe►eted: /Toun) performance of this Agre-ement by Spokane Couaty and (City+ jricludina„ ' Deteted: ~Tcw~'~) ..clai.ms by Spokana County's OP (CF#y's, own of~cers,_officiGls,.ern~loye~, . agents, volunteeis, or thi,rd parlies, cause by or resulting froFn the cencufrent - _ ~ . Kjetce: Rown) I negligence of Spokanie County and (Ci►yt.each Parties laability hereunder sh?]l._ - : only be to the ext.mt of that party's_negligence. . . ' oeieced: iToam) I d. No liabilify shr11 be ~.`tached to Spokane County or (City by reason of enter~ng . . - into t-iis agreement excrpt as expressly provided here;n. . - , , . Deieted: a • . I 13. Severability: If arxy provision of this Aieeme~t or its. applacation.to.any.gersoa or . • c"arcumstance is held invalid, rhe remaindes. of the provisions and/or the spplication , of the provisions to other persans or cireamstances shall not be afiected. 11) such • . oeleted: y . I c,ase ffie ~artues .a~arse .to. ~ee# ~d. ~mend this.Agreement as may, be nufualty o~td: a de,=.ed neciessary. . , , _ . ' Delet~dt a 14. Entire Ab eement: T$is ,~g,reex..~ent consdtutz, ~c entire a,reeent b~veen the . . . D°leted: a Paries with respect to ideatified prop°rty. 1b.is 4,ge~ent may be, a~euded 'm, . wrting by iriutual agee*nent of the PErlies. ~ . - • De(,.(,Kad:Bmr 15. Designated Representative. Th-e Parties agree ihat the ~Iavor hislher . deypnee • .(positifln) shall be the desi,nated- representative of the - D~lebed: rI'oxa CItyf. OT CAOid1ri3ti0II Of thJS.~=.5 e~,,ee m~t. ~a foF of.~y.,~,'.F"~~o~:: _°~e~:a . . Deleted:a ~ rela~d to *.~is~eem~nt and the Chairman of the Board of Cou~~L C.ommissioness • o his(ber deisnQes • (position) shall be ffie_--desipated ~ rapresentative of the County. . . . •r: ~ Deletedc a 16. £ffective Date and Dnraaon. This 4%=~? shall become effec~ve followiz~~a the.. ' Dele2ed: a ~ . approval of ti~e ~lgreement by, the bfficial governing bodies of each of the Paities . - . 02leted: a • • here-to and the signing of tho AWeement.by„t~e duly ~ori.z~d representativ~e_of ~ each of the Parties hereto, and sbp-ll remain in eiied unless tumixiated. DeleLed: 17. ~ Erit Formafted; ~tlets end NumberEng I 17.rTermination. Either P~ ma teran»+ate its obli~adon,under this.~reem._..,, : - } ..._S'...... • Fcro+attad: Font 3oSd upon one year advance wzitten notice to the other Party. Following a teraLiaFation, De[etad: a:. DeEeted: e the Cflunty and Ci a~c oasible for fu~filling.an~+, outstandi~~, obli~ons. w. ...r~ . . Dekeaed: a uuder this ~greemaut, o~ a,mendment thereto, incxured prior to, tiie e~Fecfive date : ' " . . . 'of the termination. 18 Headintrs ne paraEmvh head.ines aDpearang in this Agreement bave bezn insertedsoleYv for ahe nwpase of convsnisnce an d readv refermce. ln no way do tbev p=acP to and shall aot be deemed to define_ limit or ea-tend Lbe scone or inteint of th~- F3a12r_t2Dhs t4 W}l1Ch ?hey U~i ]t~i ' . 19 Counipauarts TNs A~ement mav be execu►eci in a.nv number of col.mteroaris, _ each of which when s exa;uted nd delive d sba1 he an ori_~inaL but se~ch cou.nterp-: shall toQerheT oanstitute but one and the sxme. ' . 20 ProDealy and Epuipme--it e o•wnershin of ali ;onestv and eouinzr,ent uti&ed bv anv Partv tn meet i s obligations under she terns of this Aaree*nent sball , rem ain wEth such PaRv. . 21'. RCIM 39.34 Reauuui clauses . , . - ~ 22 -Venue SaDulation This Mreement has been and shall he const►ved as A'igvinQ ' ber..n made sd delivered wilii_n the Swe of WashLia-ton and it is mut.iallv , ir~derstood and aereed bv °ach Pm-fv thzi this Agree7~ent sha]1 be ¢overned hv the Jaws of the Sffitc of DJa_~hiaaton bn, 2s t:o inteF-rnretaiion and verfonnance. Anv, . . . ac ' n ai law sniE in eauitv or iudFCial nroceedinss for the enforcement of this Agreetnent or an urovions hereLo. sba]] be institutad onl an couts f com e:ent iurisd+ction Wirhin Sookane Coi.mtv_ Washin~y . • •Id6tSccs All notices or 'other comir,Lnic3fions triven hereunder sfiall be deemed ' riven on •(i) the dav such notices or other comriunicafions rereceivsd when sant . , b Dets al delivsrv- or u- e thLd da follow' a the da• on whic e sarne ; . havP been rc,ai]ed bu ccrtified mail deiiv= receint requested P-nd nosfi.aqe prmaid , . addressed the PuSries at tihe addresses sei forth beJoiv_ ar at such oiher address as ' . che i andes shall froaz time-tatime desiena'te b notice in writing tn the other ' Pa e . . COLIIIY; Chairn-.1 of rhe Saa~ d of CounN Commissio erS_ . Forrnatted: une spadng: ingle 1116 West BroadwatiAv=ue Spokaae. Wasbington 99260 . . . CII"Y CiN of Saokene Ivfavor orhis/her authorized ren7eseniativs Citv Hail • 808 VVest Spokane FzIis Boulev~rd ~ Snokane. Washington 99201 . . Fo~,natbee: t~,e spncu,9: sL,9te, . Nvmbered + Lzvel: 1 + Numbesing ~4. RCW 39.341Reauired Claw~,. . . • 1, 2, 3, + S.~K at 1~ + - A11gnmen.. lerfi + l.Signe7 at D.Zs . + 7ab after Q.5° + Yndzn: at OS° . - A. Pumase . Fcrn,ateed: IndearrE t.eft 0.25°, [Une spacng: single. • See Paraeranh 2 above . Forrnatcea: NumDered + Level: z+ Numbsrtng Siy}e: A, B. C. + S13rt • at 2 t AtE-,~mert Left + AlPSmed at B. DuT aii Di]'. • _ . . ~ . • 0.75' + T`ah aite1: 1° + Inden+r at 1° See P~sraph 16 above. . ~c~d: Ineent te°: 0.75° - • . Forniatfled: Numbered + Level: 2 + C OTE8i11Z2t1OI1 Of SBA3TSae 871t71V P-r2d ]lS DOWP,I'S , _ . . N!tistbeJ9ng Sj/'.e: A„ B, C~ + StaK • . at 1+ Alb,uTer~ Left t Al►gned a4 fl.r + Tab after: 1°'+ Indent 3: , No new or seDara'te )egal or zdministra~tive entitv is creatad to acminiscer ttm- f" p:,ovisions of this Agreenent Formatsea: Ina..nt: L..~- 4: 0.75° ..~~u 0.75°, ' . . , FamiztEed: Ind:nt L. D. Resnonsibilities of &,e Pari.ies. une spacsr,A: slnpk± Fwnietted: Una spadng: 51n9l=, Nu,naered t LPVeI: 1+ Nvmhering SEe tiFOV1SIOYLS ab0V8. . Styie: A, 8, C, + Sbrt at 5+ • • Alignnent ieR + Arigned a•_.• O.r E. Auwment to be filed. : + Tab after 1° + Fnds~: at i° . . • FarmaLbed: ]ndmt: L..~~:: 0.75°, _ar,s. ' une spadng: sing~ 'Che ity shaIl file this Aera~-,~t v,itt~ its CitY CIexk Tf~e Countv sha.ll i~.l Format~d: U,'~: spa[ing: ~ngf2, this A, gree n~ent'on~~is web site. • . . . Nu4ered + t.evel: i+ Nu;nbeFiny Slyle: A. B. r- + Start ar 5+ AlfgnmenC: l.eR + A13gn~ aC: 0.75° F. Financin~~ ' Tab af4m: 1°+ Iriderrt at 1• Formatted: Indent Let 0.7r. . Fach Partv shall be resnonsible for the financintr of its conu-actual abl;ear;ons Une spadm: sLngle under i5 norma] budeetarv Drocess. Fom,atcea: Une szadrr;: sinyle, Num6ered = l.evzl: i = Nbmbering G.Te_ , iASi70n. • . SZyle: A, d, 4... + 4aK aC 5+ Mgnment Lett + AIIgaied at: 0.75° . • • . _ . + Tab after: i• + Inderd at i" See P2r2craph 17 2bove. Formatted: Ir.iertt: l.ef",: 0.75°, Une spadng: single - .i . IN WI7NESS MHEREOF *hc Pames have caused this Aup-•ment to be executed on J-,e date and vear o-poosit.- their resaective siQnanue blQcL-. Formatted: Norma) $QARD OF COUT~TY 6%MSS1O-NT-t2s OF SPO]CANTE CQi.JNTY- 4JASHINGSON NIARiC RICRARD. Chairanan BONTNIE MAGER. Vice chair TODD MIELKE. Commissioner _ ATi'EST: Daniela Uckson - Clerk of the Board . . - CITY OF SFOK,ANE - Bv: . • Titje• AT"]"EST: Anproved as io ;orm: Czty CI crjc Assistant Citv Attonev . , El F-I ~ Page 1 of 1 Mike Connelly From: Mike Connelly . • Sent: Mond2y, July 30, 2007 2:48 PNi To: 'Emacio, James' Cc: Dave Mercier, Greg McCormick Subject: Joint planning agreements Jim: Following are the oomments made at tfie joint hearing; 1. Throughout the document you have changed UGA's to Joint Planning Areas (JPA's) This only +,works if all of the adjacent UGA's are JPA's. 2. Section 5 Transportation "require" is changed to °request°. 3. Sectivn %(d) Transportation'recommend denial' is changed to'identify". • 4. Section 5(e) was written when it was proposed to wait to complete joint planning agreements until after SRTC oompleted its analysis. This does not appear to be an issue any longer. The City of Spokane Valley would ask that the changes in 1-3 above be removed. Thanks for your assistance in putting this together. MFC Mike Connelly City Attorncy City of Spokaile Valley 11707 East Sprague Avc. Suite ].03 Spokanc Vallcy, WA 99206 Phone: (509) 688-0238 Fa.~.: (509) 688-0299 1/29/2008 ~ ~ a Page 1 of 1 Mike Connelly . From: Emacio, James (JEmacioQspokanecounty.org) Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 1:00 PM To: Mike Connelly Subject: RE: Joint planning agreements Mike: The BOCC determined during their CEO meeting this morning that they would consider your oomments when they received the City of Spokane's comments on the MoraNGlenrose Joint Planning Agreement. Regards, Jim From: Mike Connelly [mailto:rnoonnelly@spokanevalley.org] ' SEnt: Monday, July 30, 2007 2:48 PM To: Emacio, James Cc: Dave Mercier; Greg McCormick Subject: Joint planning agreements Jim: Following are the comments made at the joint hearing: 1. Throughout the document you have changed UGA's to Joint Planning Areas (JPA's) This only works if all of the adjacent UGA's are JPA's. 2. Section 5 Transportation °require` is changed to "requesY". 3. Section %(d) Transportation "recommend denial" is changed to "ideniify". ` 4. Section 5(e) was written when it was proposed to wait to complete joint planning agreements until after . SRTC completed its analysis. This does not appear to be an issue any longer. The City of Spokane Valley would ask that the changes in 1-3 above be removed. Thanks for your assistance in putting this together, MFC Mike Connelly City Altomey City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague .Ave. . Suite 103 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: (509) 6$8-0238 Faac: (509) 688-0299 l r29/200s ~ El ~ _ ► ~ . - ; ~ . - -_::r'Y i~ . % S P O K A N E C O U N T Y o . . . - Sreia J.']VCxER OmcE O: P[zoSsCVrwG A'!'l'oRnFY DdAIL TIO: PROSECUTSNC A7TaCcNEY Civil Division ' 1115 W. Bro3dway Avenue Spokane, NNA 49260-0270 Scptember 13, 2007 (509)477-764 FAX_ 477•3672 11ir. James A. Richman A,ssistant City Attorney 808 West Spokane Falis Boulevard Spokaae, Washington 99201-3326 Mr. 'Mike Conne[ly City AYtorney for City of Spokane VaUey 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 Re: _41ora.n/Gdenrose Join1 Planning Agreement ]7ear Jauies and Mi.ke: The Board of County Commissioners ("l3oard") had an opportunity to consider tl2e suagested changes that each of you had wiih rcgard to ttle above referenced document in a study session . held Wednesday, September 5, 2007. 7ame.s uicluded lus proposed changes in a doctuneut daied July 30, 2007. Mike included his proposcd chanaes iu an electironic commtuucation of the .satne date. . flfter such a review, tlie Board rNuested tl-iat I preparc (i) a black-liue version setting fortb the suggested changes by both of you and the Board's comments with regard to the suggested changes as well as (u) a ftnal document incorporating the chauges whicb the l3oard felt were appropriate. AccardinglV; I have cnclosed a black-liiie and fi.nal copy of the Moran/Crlenrose Toint Plamiing Agreement. - To assis[ in your review of the black-line Ag7•eemert.a, I would like to higlaliglit some of the more sigiiificajit requested changes and the basis for the Board's accepting or determining tkat the ehaziDe was noi appropnate. l. Page 1 of 17: The City of Spokane Va11Ey wanted to chaiige the termulology "MoranlGlenrose UGA/J'PA" to "Joint Plaiuung Area withui che Moran/Glenrose UGA". The reason for tlie suggested change was ihat some UGAs are not also Joint Plannuig Axeas. Tlie J3oard concurrecl with tlus suggested chaiige. ❑ o o n o Crixn"-l DeparY,r.ent Civll Deprrtment Damesdc Violenoe Un(t Drug/?ropeity Departmeni Juvr,r,Ele Depa:tment I700 W. ASiiIIon Avcnuc 1115 W. Braae'way 9b1 id Monrce, Sutte 2UD 721 N. JeHemn 1206 W. Mallor. Avcnuc Spol:ane, WA 4526D4)r/0 Spokane, WA 95260-0270 Spokane, WA 9'9203 Spokane, WA 941260-0270 Spo}:anG WA 99260-OY70 (509) 477-3652 7r1X: 477-3409 (503)577-5764 FR)i:477-3672 (309) 835-450D FAX:935-4552 (5M 477-6415 rAX: 477-6450 (5Q4) 471-6046 F.4X: 477-6944 Mr. James A. Richman Mr. AUke Connelly . September.l3, 2007 Page 2 2. Page 3-4 of 17 (Paragraph 2(c)): The City of Spokane proposed laneuage suggesting that development staudards within the Joint Planzing Area be "consistent with the City's comprebensive plan and development standards." The Board felt that this praposed lanauage was inconsistent with other provisions of the Agreement addressina the City's and Comity's joint revie~v and adoption of development regulations in the Joint Planning Area. As such, the Board did not concur with this suggested change. 3. Page 6 of 17 (Paragraph 5(a)): Thc City of Spokane arfd City of Spokaiic Valley joiutly felt that any party to ihe'Agreement should have the ability to "requirc" as opposed to "requesf' the preparation of a traffc iznpact study (TIS) witb.i.n the CitylCounty Joint Plaruiing Area. The Board believes that the terminology "request" is more appropriate thati "require" for the following reasons: (i) There is a lega] question as to wheiher either entiiy, can delegate iis decision as to the necessity of a TIS to the oihcr Part}'• (ii) The Board added languaee co the paragaph requiring either party to consider "in jood faith" another party's request for a TT.S. Specifically, the foilowina languabe was addcd: "The Parties agree to consider in good faith the other parties request for a TIS." (iii) Paragraph 11 of the Agreeme»t provides a iuediation process ul the event there is disaQreement over the necessity of a TIS, The Board added the following language to emphasize this fact: `;Aany disaereement betvveen the Parties as to the necessity for or scope of a 11S for a Development I'roposal may be resoJved as provided for in paragrapli 1 l(Mediation of Disputes). 4. Page 7 of 17 (Aaragraph 5(d)): The City of Spokane addetl additional language to ttus subparagraph providing th. at neither party could not approve a Dcvelopinent Proposal within the City/Couuty Joint Plamiuig Area if it causcd a level of service . to fall below standards adopted by the Parties. The Boa.rd felt if that language was to be aclded to the Agreement, that it should be consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b). Accordingly, in addition to the fol.lowuig underlined language with the City wauted, the Board proposed acidi.ng ttie italici2ed laalguage: Mr. rames A. Richmao . Mr. A'.[ike CannellY September 13, 2007 Fage 3 d. Development Proposals sha11 not be apnroved in the Citv/Couniv Joint PlanninQ A.reas that cause levels af service on locall owned transportatfon facilities within the Ci /Countv Joint Planuing Areas to drop below the standards adopted by tlie narties to the Agreement in t.heir respecti>>e tra3rsporlQtion elemerzts of their comprelrerr.sive plans uailess n°ansportQtion irnnroverrtents or strategi.es to accomnv.odaie the impaci of the Development Pronosal are rn.ade coircurrent wirh the Developmerrt Pronosal or ihe Devedoprrrent Aroposad as conditioried ta acconznlish corr.currencv. 5. Page 8 of 17 (Paragraph 5(d)): The City of Spokane anci City of Spokane Valicy wauted to elinlinate the tenn.inology "identiff' anci i.nstead use the terminoloay "reconunend den.ial" Nvitli regard to the Parties' respective responsibilities when a Developinent Proposal fails to comply ~Nith concurrency standards. At the present tune County staff does not make a recom.mendation as to whether or not a Development Proposal should be approved or denied. Instead, County sta£f simply advises as to its consistency with the cornpreliensive pjan. Accordingly, the Board felt ihat the #ernunology "identify" was inore appropriate chan "recominend denial". 6. Page 10 of 17 (Paragraph 6(a)): The City of Spokane proposecl that in the cveni the Parties were unable to agree on development regulations to be impletnented in the City/Count}+ Joi.nt Plaun.i.ng Area within 1$ months; that the City's regulations tivould apply. The Board believes it is premature to address whose developuient regularions would apply in the City/Count), Joint Plaiuiing Area until the process of identii'jri.ng differences and dialonui,ng on joi,nt deve.lopment regulatians tal:es place. As sucla, the.Board Uelieves the City's suggested change is not appropriate at tlus time. Tlie City of Spokane also proposed that language be added to this pas•agraph providing that the docun-ient prepared vy the Boundary Review Board ("BRB") in collaboration with the parlies and entitled "Collaborative Plannine: Spokane County's Nletro Urbau Growth Axea, July, 2007" be used to "guide decision ma.king related to the review of development proposal and adoption of developnlent regulaiions in the Joint Planning A.r'eas." Although the BRB doe•ument coinpiles and cnmpares some development regul2tioiu, it does not set forth aily "guide" to decision makuig. Instead it sets forih strategies. As such the Board did pot believe the City of Spokane's suggested language was appropriate. vlr. James A. Richman ?VLr. A'like Coanelly September 13, 2007 Page 4 7. Paee 11 of 17 (Paragraph 6(d)): The City of Spokane proposed adding this subparagraph. The Board concurs in. adding the paragraph, liov.,ever, the Board believes that the paragraph must be consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b) and the ColuZty's Coinprehensive Plan. A.s such; the Board added the following italicized language to the City's underli.ned language. d. The Parties am-ee to adopt and enforce develoUment reQulations consistent urith RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b) wlvch prolubit development approval if the devclopment causes the levEl of service on a locallv owned transportation facilitv wiun the . - Areas to decline bclow the standards adopted 'ui the Joint Plarining transportaiion element of the comprehensive nlan of eithcr of the Parties u.nless Lransportation improvements or stratemes to accommodatE the unRa.cts o£ development are made concunent with the development or the Developnient Proposal is conditioned to accomUlish concui-rerrcv. Strategi.es nxay include in.creased publfc trarasportation service ride Sharing Arog_rran~s, dernand manaZernent atrd otlzer h•ansportation svstenzs »iuna. e~ ment stratee'ies The terrninaloev "cortcun-ei-it with develoDrrient" SjJQIl nfemis that inz. rovements or st.ra.te r'es are in 1n.ce at the tirne o the development or that a frnancial convnitm.era.t is iiz place to conzplete the inppro»eMents or strateiZies wiihin 6 vem°s._ 8. Page 16 of 17 (Paragraphs 24 and 25): The City of Spokane requested that these new paragraphs be added to the Agreement. The Board agrees with nlinor modifications as address in the black-luled ADreement. On Uehalf of the Board, J would rEquest that you share with your clients a copy of this correspondence as well as the black-line version of the Agreement. Ve urs, 7 ACIO Clu . ~ Deputy Prosecutiilg Attorney Enclosures (2) cc: Board of County Comniissioners Jolui Pedcrson Bob Brueggeman August 13, 2007 Black-I:ined COUNTY DRAFT I\TERLOCAl. AGREEN'lE'VT REGAItDING JOINT PLANti1NG BE'fNVEEti SPOKA\'E COUtiTY A.nD THE CITY OF SPOK-tiNE This Aereelucr.t is en'ercd !nto, by tipoi:ano: Co,uiliv, he::;na1'ter :~fe~cd to as ::(`OUliiv"a17d ihC L'll\' Ot `pok:P.°, hCfe1T13tt~n- iciCITZd t0 ~'(_li\'', ]Ollill~' I'CfzrrCd t0 310'lg ',viih iliC Cou;lTv ;is illc "P.:r;:es". N'4'hereas, a Uoal of tlze State Crrowth Management Act is to ensure coordination hetween communities and jurisdictions, including special purpose districts to reconcile COIlfl]CtS, 1Ild VVhereas, KCNV 36.70A.210 sets forth certaui requirements for County-wide plaiuun~ policies, inclsdin~ ttiat coucity-wide platuung policies shall address policies for joicit couuty and city planning within urban growth areas, and Whereas, The County-wide planning policies for Spokane County adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210 eontain policies for a joint planning process in:rnded to re.olve i•sues rcaarding how zoning, subdivision and ottier land 'sse approvals :ll desig.liatcci joint plaTltung areas will be coordinated, and that such joint planning rnay he accomplished pursuar►t to sn interlocal ageement entered in±o berween anci;`or arr►ong jurisdictions aild/or special purpose districts, and «'hereas, the Parties ar, desirous nf- r~solving ho«- alid othcr '.snd use .:ppro% Lil: i;i t:ic Joint Planning Arca within the \1c,r~~i Gl~c,_rose i:GA412A :ind ad;oii:ii;" propcitv -,aitiii:l ilic C'itv of SPokane wiil be CoorLiirlated; and (City of Spokane Vallcy wanted to cliange ihe terminology "UCA/JPA" throughout the PaC'e 1 of 17 Agreement bec.ause not ail UGA's are also J-PA's. The County concurred %vith that suggestion and the terminology throughout the Agrcement is chan;rd f'rom "Moran/Glenrose IJGAIJPA" to "Joint Planning Area Ni-ithin thc '1lorani(:lenrosc TjGA". ) Whereas, t}ie Parties recop-nize that develoUment occurring in one iurisdictiorl can have transportation im_pacls on neip.hborine iurisdictions and wish to develop and adopt:.development regulations that will assist ut identi 2ng and mitieating those unQacts; and (City of-Spokane wanted lhis additional recital. The Count,y concurred wit6 that suggestion.) NV-hereiis, e~ee--44-zSp,,. o no 6,n8~.; C20uneil iva~efr~c~3 i ~ am. d + * •h' ^ (Gity of Spokane ivanted this additional recital. The County tielieves it is redundant in light of Yaragraph _5(e) and therefore has eliminated the recital.) NN'hereas, cl:e Parties wislt to sepa.Yate, %vithout prejudice to either Yarcy, the issue of potential aluiexation of the Joint Planninst Area within the MoraniGlenroc;; ~_T(_T.,VJR4 ~i,ld t~lZ leual 3UtI101"ltNanc3 Tl~lt t0 ~7UI-S~~C i~I" O ~~~O=C 5UCi7 ailllc:\3tli)1i fr<~i1i :h=5 Ag7CCri1CIlt . \ow. therefore be it Resolved, to•,v.lrds addressing how z.oning, subkii, is:ocl an~i other land u~e approvals for Jolilt planning «<ill be coordinated, to ensure that transportation capacity for devclopnlent meets concurrency requirements and th•~t Cp11S1STellt &-veROp:I12ill stwid?I'd5 a1'Z L15ed, thC P3Irt:°S Tll CoOnc'.-itlvt 'i)li't P::1rFlllio Yakc ? ~~f I? in the Joint PlanninQ Area Nti7thin 'Moran;`Glenrose UGAl3RA and adjoining property located \vitllin the City of Spokane pursuant to the fol]ovAng terms and conditions: 1. I.eQal basis: This Ageement is entered into pursuant to RC\l` 36.70A.010; 020(3); 210 (3) (a), (b). (d). and I.ii; K(=1V 39..;4; Coln:t_~aic+.~ i'1<:IIl'.I'1!_: Polic:es FeT S-_)okane C;~•.:n~',' i,Pla:lntnky i'ol:cit•~ I Copic 2. C)'~ i~tt of Giowt:-l A:t I.GM_'1) 1Ze~uirei.l~-ws; Toi,ic Po'.ic:cs (1) a1id (2); Topic ~ Transportatioci, O~ er,,iew of Growrth Management (GMA) Requirements; 311CI G1455 :r} C'ountywide Plaiuiing Policy Terms, Joint Planning Areas. 2. Intent: It is the intent of the Parties: a. l'o pro•;ide for coort?ir:ated 11aininD for vansporiation and deve'.opt:le:;-, standa:ds in those arcas consisting nf?he (1) Joint-PlaiininQAreawiihin~tlie 11oraii, Gicnr«;C l_ GA.+3M (:l,e "UGAlJM") and (2) that area ]ocated in the City of Spokane adjacent to the GGA{3PA (the "City Property'), jointly referred to as the City/County Joint Planning Areas as defined in this AQreernent. (City of Spokane VaUey's request to elimioate the use of the terminology "MA/JPA" uecessitated making t(ie ahove changes in terminology throu;liout the Agreement. County concurs in terminoloa chaoges.) b. To ensure that transporlation uvprovements necessary to mitieate :r:iilSpOt"tatloll unpacts resulting from development in the Citv/Count~ JuiiIt 1'1`r-L1-ing :'~:cas ar-e is identified and constructed concurrent with the de~c?opment andor that adeyuate fiincling is s-,cured to f r.snce construction of such transpor?wtion i_lipro% cme:lts coT1C:L1I`Ce11T WIiFI dCvt;jOPi1lCIlt, a= required by RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b), and c. To ensure that clevelopment standards applie~~ N,~--ithin thc ilage 3 tir 17 CitYi'Gouniy Jaint Planning fVeas relating to allowable land uses, dcnsities, strects. ;;dewall:s, curhing, drainage and utilities : re compatib?e. ~ en• stafi.a.,f&. (City of Spokane proposed reinserdng the iriimediately preceding additional lined out language. County felt the language was inconsistent witli other provisians of the Agreement addressing the Parties joint review and adoetion of development regulations in the City/County Joint Planning Area and as such did not betieve the language shuuld be added to the Agreement.) l Eie Pz:lii;s desire tk) jointly develop and ui:plement develaprnent regulatiuns, prucec?urcs :nd St ~Ir,ii<Ml, r~;atcd tO ll.C ."Vic='N Inci --pproVal c>l pro.lecls \~itlun thz CI_. t1i(,Ollllt`` lilllli ArtaS. lil:' i,.,1:7L-5 ai=U des1''2 tG~ alllj impl::inent co:ls:aic.it deve:op::~--nt rc-anilations and procedures goveming the provisioii or" all public facilities within said Citv/Countv Joint Planning Areas. The Pariies a-::~ tc~ commit sufficient staffto dr:,i; ,i r:i<<i:i: .:i,c~~ 3. annlicabilit. Tl:, :o Area within the NZoraiL"G]enrose LGA3RA. as ideiitiiic.i :r. itl~iil T:Ic Joint Planning L-x:li:,it "A" licreto as the "UGr'1I-JPA" as well as that area located w:thin t}ie City L>; Spokane identi£cd 'ui Exhibit ",A" as "City Property" ;ointly referroj t,_i Auecment as the "CitY/Count,, _fo;ni P: :rt,, r_ 4. Prolects affecteri: I i-iis r_C,, i:t .'Ic Cit)`Y~Countv 1Oir:t Arcas sre subject 'o ttie Not:c.: 01 Appl:c-a'iou recJLirI,-ir.enI; of RCW 36.74B as adopted by the County for properiy in the L'G:-N/-J:Rr4 or tl:e ('ity for praperty ii3 the Ciry Property, including proposals subject to the State F']1V]rOIlIllelli3l POI1Cv Act (the "T)evZIOpIrieilt Pin]?Oca]{,s)..). Notic:~ o~ I)ecicion requ:rcd h_• \;,:ice of .application. \+,tice of Hearing and RCW' 36.'1)3 and aiiy environmcntal checklist, EIS or other environmental documei:t reyuireci pursuant to RCV+T 43.21C for Development Proposals in the Citv!_ Countv Joir.t planzing Areas shall be provided to each pariy b.; c11:: otiier , arcy in 3 t.:l,:el., !liar.n~r ; T-, ii iii accordaiice NNitli applicable regulatio:ls. Th.- Pan:e~ f~ar.l:cr agcc ::w% Shall r:,-,:& each otheF at least ~ davs notice of any tecl:tucal review nieeting(s) with regarci to 1 L)~~~l~,pmc:~t 1 ropos:-1 and are allowed and encotu'aged to attend any building pernlit J~r~Cn'7-~iI"l:Cllc):7 COI'tcT'cfiCe dIl~lOitPC~111IC8I 1'eVleW IlleeilTlgS. SUC~'1 riOUGe 5~13Il r~. :Il'.~1C toi-cn of standard notice for such technical review meering gV, L:.i 'ny tie :i1he1- p::rtv. . The Parties (or their authorizeci desianecs) shall eo:licr on L)eveloDnwri 'r'70;?0~315 outlined above prior to issuance of any final DNS, NiDtiS or s?aff report to the lle.a-ing Exai.iiner ui an atte;lipt to reach a consensus position,'recornniendarion. For SEPA docuuients, the juri5diction having lead agency status shall include the consensuslcollective recommendation and any ulitigating conditions, or tlicir individual recommendations and any mitigaring conditions if wiable tc) rzach consensus, as applicahl:: :nr p:O~jc.:t5 tu puhl?c l:earir,g. both Pa;~':_:s shall iiZClude the 1eec>1:u11:t;da::011 i;i thcir re~I,ec:i~:: stail' conditions of apliruvc:l to t;1e Hearing Examiner or other appropriate hearing bodr•, or, if unable to agree, their respective recommendations. (City of Spokane proposed above underlined language. County concurrecl.) Z;. Transportation: Thc Yarties recogrriize tilatdev;:lopn7c:lt acti"'itv "vithin LhC!1' rCspel'UvC Jl1ilSd1Cl]O11S lll,l%' C[ill5i: 1TaT75po11310I1 llTirlaCls 312d may impact t:anSpt~iZ<tic>n ?e"cl~ Ci' :ii nei'hborin, jurisdictions. To ensurc proper I':ige 5 of t? 1~CI1IltlCct:l'J:1 d:l~.j :l:lil'."aili~:l JI ~C'.:i~~,`ll:.'I.: .~~~11~~ lr~i?1_~1~-'17:i:]c ~l iI~i7d~;._. ~~'~11~~ -:ee that: I_:i'.c„ _~uZ~.~,~,._~ ; _~-~~t ..:t~, i_. . ~i~l~~~~r ,~('1:_ i'... ~.e- -~:n. IC(~11C~( ["2i~ti}i~ `1-~~;=`!t:.'~:] ,i: ;i 1:,_tii~ ~`i-.1`s~_l til.i~~_,' I ~ ~11 ~ dl_.:i~~ _ I1 - l.. --'t ::~~v lle~~e:opment Proposal ~~;i:hin tl;c ~~/Coun Joint Plaiuung Areas. Tl~e Parties a~ree to consider in good faitlt the ot}ier party's request for a TI,S. Anv disa~re~men~ t~ctween the Parties• as to the necessity` for or scope of a T1S for a Dedelopment Yrop~>>.~i ~i~a_y_6e resolved as provided for in the~ara~a~h 1](Mediation of Disputes~. ('the Cit~ of Spokane and City of Spokanc Valley proposed detcting the terminolugy "request'' and reinsertiuQ the tcrmin~logy "reyuire." The Co_unty,, belie~es that the terniinology urequest" is more appropriate for the follotiving reasons:'(1) `There is a legal _question as fo whether either; party can delegute its decision.•as to tl~e necessity for a TIS to the other party. (2) Paragraph 11 of the Agreement provides a nrediutr_on process in t6e event the Parties disagree aver the reqairemeot for a TIS. (3) Count~~ added language requiriug either ~arty-to consider iu "~ood faith" another narties'~request for a'I'IS.) The teniiinology '1 IS is defined in Sectic}n 1.3~ of t},e Spokane County Road and Drainage Standards, a copy of which is attached her:.to as t-;xhibit "B." 'Che Pareies unders:a:~d that th~ tern~in~~:~~U}~ TIS ma}° ran~~e rr~un ai~ in t~:'~l;~l .iil.tl'~'il~ ~~t C~~~ *_1;. (L)C'~ i:~1~~~111~;1t ~~:,?~?i?~~il) _~"I~:CC3tc<. lc~ ~~ls-;,; '~~I~y i~~ ~t? ~i ~_.tc(~~;y ~~'~i~'~1 ~lf t~t'~' 1ti~L~~. 11:'11C ~~~;ll l~l~ 1 1[l\ '~:1t1'.ll;''•l'fli?`~: ~l:I:~lj:~~ll7'.-l l:l~ ~~~'~~ll~;l'.1~.21}i ~'ropo~:il i; propo~ed ~i~t~r.i~ir;c~ ;o c:-~~cire oreparation oi a TIS, the other party sh: ~l }ia~-e an ol ~ortuil~tti~ to participate iii the scoping used to deterniine the depth o; anal}~si.~. (City of Spokane proposed precedio~ underlined language. County agrecd.} t>~~~~ r~ ~,i ~ ~ b. In "iLi arA'or r.ial:ing recommendations rcgardin,~. Dcvelogrnent Proposals, each of the Parties shall require (or recornmend, as the case n""y be) construction of the transportarion improvements necessary to mitigatc t_an,po:-tation i-1ip7-c'Lz id~nti;:M :he T1S runctnTent «-ith :3s requireA by RO\~ ~lb~> 'nd~rr ?t.eiiedication ot suc11 1aud or p,:-,-iwnt ~~f nloncv in lieu tlie:-eo1 st:c:l imracts to ;l;e jurisdiction •,,,l;ose transportation system i~ tLcreb} impat'.-ii. :Amy such fees shall be held and cncumbered as provided in RC«' 82:01.928 82 02 OS9(Countv noted incorrect RC1V reference and made appropriate chan e. c. For Dcveloprnc:nt i'roposals in thc Citv/Count4• Joint Planriitl,; Are;15 whetc COIiqtT'1Ct10,] oI lII1pIO%cIlleIItS I1CCeSS3I'v tO P11?1iz3iC idet:tified direct cransportation impacts does not take place concurrent with the Development Proposal, tht~ Parcies shall jointly establish a uniform method for quantifying app.opr.ate final,:cir:l contributions among the City, Ct,untv ai;d Spon,or: de%e'ur)er of t11-. Dcve]op_I:ent Proposal fcr improve:nents to hc: maLlL- •,Vithin 6 years of tEie approNal of tli_~ DzvcIQp.'Tlz']t PI'Opns31 f0I' llicllilIled [liT,,-Ct traP.Sj?OIt3114I1 lI?1p3C14. ThC PSi'tiCS teCO~,'IllZz thai to irnplc;tneilt !his Agrecrlient soni: n:odihcation of existing regulations may b~: required and agree to make sucb modifications in a timely manner consistent N;-ith a;i;,- applicable 1aw Lifter establichment of a unit0rn-1 Wid mutuall., ~q.reeei lor yua:~tif, in;g appruprilate financial cu:ltributiuns. d. Development Proposals shall not be approved in the CitY/County Joint Plaiuiing Areas that cause levels of service ori-local]Y owned transportation facilities wiihin the Citv,'Count~Joinf Plarulin~ Ar' -e,as to dro~ belo«~ the standards adopte~d by tlic ['aQe 7 uf 17 t)aRies to the A e.ement in rheir res ective /runs vrtutl~'rt e.:e11101rts o_thc;; , u,2less tr-aigporlation „T r-espeeti cvnrprehensive plans StI'QtBQlP,S 10 impact afil;,' 1)e'1'cftinlllB/II i4'lth lh(.' P1'rlpi7Ql111 OT" 11;t' D-C1'c'hUD)7IE"12( P/-[POCi7l 1S_ t+~l7dITill7icL1 1rJ vccomplislr cor,cy,-rencr. (new non italicized language added by the City of Spokanc. Italicized language added by Couaty. County believes that the italicized language tnust be added so the City's proposed lanbuage is consistent with RCNN 36.70A.070 (6)(b). The initial language said the Parties would jointly reconimcnd dcnial of any project Nvhich does not meet concurrency standards of either party.) T},.-: Part:--:s 1-_c_:1cr aLrcc to nen;a: icl.-nti:v Devclopmciit Proposals that fail 'o comp;v Ncitli the concurrency standards of either party and to report thcir respecti-,-1- IlI1dll1gS to the decision maker. (The City of Spokane and Cify of Spokane Valley would like the language modified so t6af the terminology "identify" is deleted and the terminology "recoIIimend denial" is inserted. At the present tirue, the C'oumtV staff only "advises" the appropriate hearing body as to Nshether the deNelopment proposal is or is not consistent with appropriate provisions within its comprehensivc plan. The hearing body makes the decision, on the Development Proposal. accordin;(y, the CounttiI hclicves this recommended chanae is not appropriate.) fl:C jlll.jl It_~ ;111',l C.-]::111T:11~'~I~Cl`l._ L'Ja 1C1j 1',L- Transportation Council (SRTC) into this 3e~124annmg Agreement, to the extend agreed to by the Parties, by fomial amendment at such time that SR*f C's concurrenc}•' rew latinr; ~:rc finalized, (Cih~ of Spokane Valley commented that this language Nvas initiallN 8 f.%f 17 added when it was proposed to wait to complete joint planning agreements until after SRTC had completed its analysis. This does not appear to be an issue an}longer. County believes the-language is still appropriate.) 6. Develvpment Standard4: The Parties reco=17f that c'-evclopr.iern in the City/Count Jolllt Pl;iriIillla .Ari;as--w"Ithout common compatible dcvelopincnt r2gu!atior:5 could irustrate the pur7ose and intent of this Agrecment. a. The Parties agree to assign the necessary statf to review applicab!e development regulatioris, including but not limited to zoning desiat:acions, PL-D standards, landscapuig, signage, ~ubdivi.si<m, road and ~treCt S`;.:Icisrds, sewer and water standards, bicycle paths, joir1Y lanes, trail systems applieation re-view procedures ancl stunmvater drainage requiremec:ts. (City - of Spokane adcied laaguage. County concurs.) llifferences shall be identified and a consensus or compatible standard reconunended, after whieh mutual recommendations will be processed as an aniendnient to each Pariies' development repula:ions in a la\\+ul :i:urine: tov;ard; t:i~2 end .>f developing uniformity in said dcNcloprncnt standsrds. Thc P:irties shall utilize the "CollaburaliVe Ylanning: Spokane County's Metro Urban Growth Area;- auly,; 2007" repoc[ to guide decisiou making related to review of devzlopment: proposals and the acioption of developmcnt regulations in the Jaint • Planning Areas. (City of Spokane proposed this language. The County acknoKledges tvat the "Rcport" is a valuable tool in that it compiles and compares some development regulations betneen the Parties. T6e "Keporl" further sets forth various strategies to address v.arious matters. However, the "Report" does not set forth a"guide to decision making' and as such the County does not feel the suggested languagc is appropriate). Such f'a2e 9 uf 17 rcvie-w ;'ios!ii i;,clude rtprt:scnCaii~cs Croi:i tl.prCector ho a:a} bl- :1111)' c t_,_3 aliy such amendments. "I'he fi) r tiie Je:r.t Planrims A;::a-c .I...: (A t': Pariic;s. `A':i17 :i ~!031 O? Cc?n1Pl:tin`- 1}:L: .Ccl.i1L'cai:OI: oT differences vf COIllpdtii`,12 dcve;opment re«ulations %~itnin six (6) nionths of siming. Recorrunendations for development reolations 'and their implementation shal) follow. (The original language read: Recommendation for consensus standard5 shall follow. Cih, of Spokane proposed immediately preccding languabe. Cuunty concur-s in rcvised lan ;uage.) ,f~ ~t,~ ~~~r~. ..k, Bt'ec} iLl3fli~°t'i3lCi}l- :~v~ ' ~ . . . , a ur-batt a . . . - ' - 4f *i~LPai4ies L.1 f6 ~n:~eh- nrs- nrtren * i{L.i..' ei'oteefi. (19) r»rsdt}is -r L CAMn develapnw4it-if.-Ae . / f Ul..n.-...... Areac-s [}iu ' Pai4ies ,ti, 11 1, 1 ,7 t 1'--- - = l.L ted fhL"~,-~tu- ' . ' '-$tiB~~S aiid, aa ar f, ap,,,.. Ll,o z^;n*`vlfli3g-Area&.- (NeSr language added by the City.of Spokane:. Counh, helieves thatit is premature :,to ;,~a¢dress:: whose. deyelopment regulations'will apply in the City/County Joint Planning Area.until the process of identifying difference and dialoging on joint developmcnt regulations takes place. :1s such the Cit) of Spokane's suggested language is not appropriate at ttjis time.) I P.1I' :i`. .-0 i!` -1:C1" I'i'l 1:1l~C~S~I.'v _,.;di-`I tll~:_ of any comiecto; streets an(L`or the classification of any streets within or adjaeent Developinent Proposal(s) within tlie GitvlCountv Joint Plannin-v Areas. (The underlined lan(yuabe Nr•as not in any draft. County feels it should hc .►(1ded tn the firial Peg: 10 ut 17 document.) It aareerr.ciit r.ut reached, both Part:~~ sh:iil present their respccci',: to tlic Hearing Examiner, appropriate hearing body, or administrative officir:l. c. The Parties agree to consult o:i Co~»p:c-t~er,~i% e Pla~t'7~~_lii_~ ca:e,onc:s, a1'.wxahle l:ind uscs at:ci densitie-, in tl:--- Tc:,lt Plan::iila. Areas. S-scll L11T<it]ii?l ~ha:l :IlC'llRIC CO:l;111131;ori orl thL- l1ds51?:C"3::LI1 Ot strcctc .i}ci on tlie cc>n,.n:on borders. d.:,_The-Pazties a ee.to ado t and enforce develo menl regulations, consisteiit with`"RCVi~~=3R-70A.070bl-which rohibit develo'ment a noval if the development causes'the level of service on a locallv owno_tran~ortation facilitv within the Joint Planninp-Areas ' lo decline below the siandards adopted in the,transtwrtation elcment of- thecouiprehen'sive' plan of eilher of= the -Parties;=:unless~hansoortaiion iuiprovements or=~strateQies,-toiacedmmodate -the`tititpacts of developmerit~~are made concuirent with the -development or the Developmenl _Proposal - is conditrone~l 'to accomplisl: concurrencv Slrategies mav include increased public fraiuoortution se►vice. ride sltaring progrnins demand manaQemPnt und otlter trmi.rportallon systenzs manaZement sb•alegies=~ ~Zhe ternunolo,QV ;'`concurrefit with develapment" shall::means tlrat injProvements or slrategies~are rn 12Iace at the time~of`the~develonnre~it::_onetliat•a flnancial con:nritnrent is in place to coniplete the iniprvvenrents or strateeies within 6 i!ears. (City of Spokane added underlined non italicized language. County concurs with language but also believes additional italicized language within RCVV 36.70A.070 (6)(b) and the County's Comprehensive Plan should be added should Ue added.) 7. Other ReQulations: Nothing in this A`-rcc.l:ent shail supersede or ncklatc f'aZc 11 of 17 azv esi=ting 1and uce or devela; ment regulation oCthc; PairtieS. 8. Additional Agreemeats: The Parties contem; iatc :iirur° joi:it pl:rnl=n,, agieemciits that n,av re'.ate to o'l:er I_ (;AAJPA-'s or !oint Ptaiulii,u \~_,t11:r:~i_i t't~is .'1~~~rcetlient inteildcd to pro_,iLit _1 dc~~:-1o.~mer.t ~~1~ a~7ccmci.ts rehitinL, to either tf:~ innpacts identi(icd ,:bove or othcr irlipac's tllat may :loNv ()r in the 1=.;~lire exist. 9. Ri2hts Keserved: Notlung in this Agreement is intended to waire or lirnit the riehts of the Parties to require mitigation for any inlpact as ailowed h., statc or local laws ar ordinances including but not limited to enlylironn-:ental ir,ipcts `uver.ie,i b,: ch:pter RC%t' o; mil;ea'ion .eeLz vv;~ c-rned tiy RCW I11. Cttan2c in Standards or Ordinanccs: :1r}' cli;inL%.-. :n the Partic*~ -e;p ecc(i) developr.,~::it re~:~lation~, euiupreliznsive plans, or (iii) ofiicial controls . . r.- arcless of N+-hether tbey affect the Citv/Countv loint Planning Area"s shall be =onwarded to the other party -,;Zthin 21 days ut pas5a,e. 11. n'[ediation of llispuies: displites arising frorn this Agreernent ma} sct ior ,r.cdiailUI1 b%' Clil-aer puiriy within 30 days of notification of a disPute. Prior to -he P--~-cie~z, rL~nrcse:;ted hy their elected officials, shall first rnect informally in ~1~ ::t;~~11pc to reach resolution. 1f a mediator cannot be agreed upon by the Parties, cach party shall select one mediator tvho in tuni shall s,-lr.ct a third mediator to cc~-iduct the '11tf(aial.1011. F)c deci~ZioII ct til~-- 1-;1eLiiatici; :,ha:l r.ut be c.r: pdrt_,. i'I'0V1j,-d, hLMCv.-I'. :liz P3T;:Cs 3,c'.'CC'. 1o ~~}il~lljCi" 1:1 "oi?i Ialtll lllz i:~l'1~]Uil (_?t 0:-- 131~ij:a::011 ~?~111~1. 12. Indemnification and I.iabilin : }~_;_:cct. ~:f,~ L.~irnl:•ss, ~.~~1~~:~i.ii`,' :~i~.i a. Spokane County shall P: kc 12 nf I-~ defend, at its oz,~-n eXpC:Isc, tlie Citv, its elccted 4nd appeintcd oilicia'.s. officzrs, el;lrjpyCeS •,i.*1d 3,e']'S, fro?-Il ?.Il}' IOss nr C1.'-1ri1 lor dar:lages of any nature whatsoevc: arisiriz out of Spokane Count}'s perfonnance of this agreemeut, including claims h} Spokane County's employees or third parties, except for thosc damages caused solel}, h,, the n-e,ligence or v.,iilful misconduct of the City, its elccted and aapoin:e~ officials, ofticers, employees. er asei;ts. b. I he City shall protcct, save harmless, iildeinnif}, and defcnd, at i,S ov,-n expense, Spokane County its elected and appointed officials, officers, employec, and agents, from any loss or claim for damages of aiiy nat•:ire vdhatsocn er the City's performance of thus agreement, includilig clain-is Li". tilc 0t%'s or ttvrd parties, except :or those damaEl-s caused solely by the negligence or %\illiid rniseonduct of Spokai.e Coutit~~, its electcd and appoir.tetl off;cials, oftice-s, emplo~ee~, or aoents. c. In the cvent of liability for damages of any nature what.soevcr arising out of the perforniance of this Agreement by Spokane County and tie City, i~rludin~: clain;s b~' Snokai:e County's or Citv's o-,en nftic~,s, official;, emplo.,ees, 3oC'I1;5, l'O]iln:l'rs, OI- pai:tlL:S. C'.:liSClj h\' Or I'z~SllIl.I]-_:l ITiti:l the Ci~11C'..1TcIll :'lzgll`LTIIe of Spokarie County aild the City, each Parties liabiliq hercuncier shall only be to the extent of that party's negligence. d. 'No liahility ~~all be attach~d to Sr okanc Cour.t.r o: thc C;ty by re;1-sQI1 01 tf1.'.CI'lll~i 7111Q tllli a'_'CC::iIICIlt 2\Cipt 3z; cX~I"e~514' p1"0~'id:;lj l1vT::11. l:i. Severahilitv: lf <liiy prc,vi;ion offl:i~; .'1orce-i:ent or its applic',iic,n tu an%' 1iASOI1 L?I G1rC1:7115ta1'4e 1s lleld lilv3l?d, the I't;II2a1P.de1' [?1 the provisions anci'OF the Pade 11 of 1? applieation o: °he provisions to other persons or circwz;staiices shall not be af'fec:ed_ In such case the Parties au-rez to mee+. and amend this A~recn_~:,: i= ma., b~: 14. fJvtire AcTrccmc•nt: ! 1=:, het« ten the Partics itin resp::,ct ;o -Lhc I113ttCTS SG't tOlrth Ilc:1'elIl b'C :ir:ended in xvr.tii;- h}` 1liilll3l a`'Te-,:1?Cn: of i}le 15. Designated Representative. The Partie,; ai.,rce tiiat tineMa}-or o: :1;~ 1-.L:- designee shall be the designated repr4~~~:c:.:i•~ of t'rx Ci.y i'u: cocrdir.::-ion of -1-,i~ t,~'T~C7'lClit '~l1?:1 :0` Uj ti! l'll~ C11,11IIilaIl ii1l '1'.c {3t`l_'"cl t)' t_~ .]1'l\ (_~,~'lli'1:-.:i`i1c1~ i- ~::.17~i =~1'•-• 1'~= 16. Effeetive Date and Duratiou. l'lus Agrecu:ent sLall becorne efiectiVe :~0i:o„ ing the approval of ttlc Agrcement b}' the official govemir.i~ bociie, 0' eac}1 0tl-,e Pa1"I'CS llZfeiO a1id t_1c slti]liI]'.? Ot ;tie A,.,-Iec:7"iZlll 1:1f duly authi)r]L-_d ~~ch of ?'1c; T''`r1:c5 }]cI"cto_ ~:I)d s}1:11l icT?7'4l:] :I1 CITL'C: '_lnl-c-SS t:.:"lIl~l'iZd. 17. Terntinatioii. E:thcr P._rtv mav tcrrlin::tc- i.~ c,hl:gation under this A-,recm-oi:t :ipon one year advance writte.n notice lo the other I'arty. F011owing a terniination, the County and City are respozsible for fulfilling any outstanding ob ii g.3tionG '~7-1111':il l<. Headin,s. 1'1:c ma:-;,r~~Fh xilpearin:- in C11~- been inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. hi no way do thev ..uinn;~e 'o, and s'iall not be dccmeci ?o defne. ]imit or extend the seope or ir:'vnt c i t'a,~e 14 ot 17 thc pai-a,ff::phsto ,-l~ich tll~.•, ~~er;a:n. 19, ('ounterparts. I'his Ati,reemcnt mav he executed in any number u: ccl untCiI)artS, each of which, when so executed alld delivered, shall be a.n ariginal, but _uch counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same. ~0. Propertv and Equipment_ The o«-zlersh~p ef'al] prope-ly and ryuipI-,-jer.t u'i!ize~ b~~ ari~~ Party to mi:ct its c~bli;;at~ens UIlt~ier tli~ terl_s of this .~ti_~re~:~lent shall reniain N;ith such Yarty. 21. Veoue Stipulation. This Agreement has been and shall be consuued as having been made and dclh.-ered within the State of Washington ~:P.d ?t is rIutually understc,od and aUrccd bv e.ach Pai-tv tl;•at thi.; AiLreemLnt shall bc ~o~,rned hv tl:e laNvs L,l, the St•a:e oi l4'a-dhin-oon hoth as to in:ca-przta';on and Any action at law. :ti:t in equitti or jud"cial rrucecduigs For the eiilor•cemei:t of this AgcemenL or a1y provion, hereto, shall be institu*ed only in courts nf cornpetent ;urisdiction within Spakane County, Waslungtc,:l. 27. ~Totices. .-~lI :~~~t1cCS U: utIlCi' C0111I?11111IC~i11O:7S `',1ve:1 :iCtC.L'I]c er (ICCiI1Gd Oti'tri 011: (I) i}1C 1ja1' ~u1'll IiOi]l:ti UC Ofl;CI- 10I17111L1f:1c3i7t!Ii5 are ',v1'_c:] sent b}' p~~r5c?,ial deliN cry: ur (ii) tt;c tl:irci ila;v Cotlo,,~i_iti the J~3y lll3 \~hich the sante h.nc been mailed by certified mail delivery, receipt requested and postage prepaid addressed to the Parties at the addresses set forth below, or at such other address as the Parties shall from timc-to-time designate hy notice in -,vriting to the other Parties. COi_'\T1': (,hairman c,f'tiic Board oiTo,;:lt} ('otl,,»:;sioilers 1116 VJest Broadway Av~enue 5p;,karn_. \Va;hineton 99260 Pakc (5 oi 17 ?TY Cit}rof Spokane 11a~L)r or tus:'1ie.r sutl.l;r,veLirL:^r~s'--iit;:~;'~ ~ City Hall S08 Nk,"csc Spokanc Falls Bou:~ Si,()'Kdr-:(:, ,,~-d,C) C ~ =I:-; I ? K( _N'1 39.34 }tequircd C lauses. See Paragrap'.l ? Libu\; 13. Duration 5c•;: Paragraph 16 abc,ti QrO,LMi;•a'?On Oi sL--):irate en!:t•~:117.L1 :ts PO',% er~, ~0 :1:;w OI" 5Cp. :iI':1:C al O' .id fll'.I]15~C3t:'~ ~ CI'1:1i'v i3 GI't0 3d I711P.:~1t1- L1iC provisions of this Agreenient ~ Responsibilities of the Parties. S cc provisions aboN e. F:. A,ree-ncnt to ti:rd. I-1:C'ity Sl:all filc this Al,,r~,_,ni~.:nt ith :ts Ci:y Cl~-k. Th: ('uti_iv, shall plac: tl:i; A rrreennent ~~n its -web site. F. f:inalicuig. Faeh Party sha11 he respcrosihle iar tl,e iinarein;,= Ot i', c0n_ractual crniiLatiL}i:_ under its normal budgetary process. G. Tcnnir-:ation. Ste Yara~2raoh 1, aboNc. 24. Events of Default. 1t shall be aii "Lvent of Deiault" under this Aereement if either of the Parties fails duly to perforni, OUSc:IvC OT COI11pI}' with tlle covenants, agreemenLs, or conditions on its part contained in t}us Aqreement, and such default sh~,il continue for a period of d;irty-(38) niTiet y 90days aitcr writteli iiotice of such failurc, reqLicsting the sartic to be rcmeciied, shsll have hoLn given ta the party in default hy thc nom-defaulting partv, provided 110,N-veyer that such failure sliall not be an Event of I7efault if it is knowingly and ititeiitionally waivcd by thc tion-defaulting party. (City of Spokane Pa~~c 1 n of 1? added language. County accepts as modirted.) 25. Remedies._ Upon the occurrence aiid continuance of dny Evcnt of Delault, tlie non-defaulting party's exclusive remeciie:s shall be specific performance, declaratory judgmcnt and other equitablz remedies, aff&reeavet-y o --atteRle3`s-lee&--aind stich eaf e ~;n (City of Spokane addcd language. County accepts as modified. The County legal staff feels that the recovery of reasonable attorney fees is not appropriate in actions between governmental entitles. In effect it simplV transfers public dollars from one entity to xnother.) TN NVTTVL-SS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused tliis Agreement to be executcd on the date and year oppnsite their respectiv-e signature blocks. BOARD OF COUNI'Y COMM?SSiOtiERS Dateds OF SPOK.ANE COUti T1'. WASIII\TGTO\~ N'LARK RICH.kRD, CI1a1rI11311 BU\`\IE NiAC1ER, V:ce cllair TODll'\iILI.KE. Conlrr:issio:,er ATTLST: I )aniela Encksoil Clerk oft~ie Boa;d CITY OF SPOK:INF llated: By: Title: j~F- S j. ;~pp lo \-l'u aG tll tl11Z11. itv Clc r}; Yaj~e 17 of 1~ ~ i ~ I ~ ~ ~ j ° ~ ~ S CITY oFkane . . . ~ Valle y 11707 E.Sprague Ave. • Suite 106 • 5pokane Valley,WA 99206 . (509) 921-1000 • Fax (509) 921-1008 • i iryhall@spokanevalley.org October 19, 2007 Board of County Coznmissioners . Offica of Spokane County Commissioners 1116 W. Broadivay ' . Spokane, WA 99260-0100 ' Re: Identrfication of Urban Growth Areas, Adjacent to the City of Spokane Ya11ey as Joznt Plceming Areas Dear Comin.issioners: , The purpose of this letter is to forward tzvo planning related requests for your consideration and to call to your atteIItion a third planning matter. First, please consider this a formal requestj that Spokana CouIIty designate the existing Spokane County Urban Growth Areas (UGA's) that are adjacent to the City of Spokane Valley as Joi,nt Planaing Arcas. Bacause af the clear impact aevelopment inlthose areas has on the City of Spokane Valley and the impac# developmcnt wiihin the City oF Sgokane Valley may have on the UGA's, such a dosignation is essential to mitigating futune -impacts and complyiag azth the requirements of Growth Vlanagement This request is simply recognition ihat joint planning is nec~ssary between any adjacent uTban areas. Secondty, we also request a specific time and placo be set tio negotiate a completed Joint 1'larining Agreement w-ith respect to the Turtle Creek area south of the City of Spokane Valley. You have al copy of our proposed agreement conceming that area. Feel free to }aave your staff contact Mi.ke Conneuy, our City Attomey, to schedule suah a meeting. Regarding a separate planning matter, the City is also in the process of amendiag its eomprehensivo plan tn adopt specific Urban Growth Areas to accommodafc future population increases. These population projections were presented to the Growth Management Steering Committee some e ago and should be . finalized by the Council in the near future. , I look forward to your earliest response. Sincerely, , . . &Luva W &~A~ • . Diana `Vilhrte Mayor . Cc: City Counci]mcmbers - • - Dave Mercier, City Manager iMike Connelly, City Attomey • i I I ~I ~ I i ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ I ~ I i ~ I ~ I I I i I ~ I i I i ~ ~ ~ I ~ Page 1 of 1 Mike Connelly From: Mike Connelly Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:06 AM To: 'Emacio, James' Cc: Dave Mercier; Mike Jackson; Greg McCormick; Scott Kuhta; City Council; Cary Dtiskell Subject: Turtle Creek Joint Planning Agreement Attachments: Turtlecreek Joint Planning Agreement 12-31-07.doc Jim: Attached is the City of Spokane Valley°s proposed Joint Planning Agreement for the Turde Creek existing UGA that was discussed last month with the County Commissioners. I incorporated thelmost recent language from the City of Spokane and Spokane County's agreement to the extent it was workable. I did nof incorporate the creation of a defined JPA within the Ciry of Spokan2 Valley but did keep prior proposed language indicating that transportation impacts of developmentwithin either jurisdiction that impacts transportation facilities in the other uvould be subject to the agreement. I will have the planning department forvvard to you a map of the UGA at issue. Let me know when we can meet and discuss this agreement and when it will be considered by the Commissioners. Thanks. Mike Connelly City Attorney City of Spokane Vallcy 11707 Last Sprague Ave. Suite 103 ' Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phonc: (509) 688-0238 Fa,r. (509) 688-0299 Qpnfic3enti_ality Notiee: The information contained in this email and 3r►y , accompan}'ing attachrnent(s) is intendeci onty for the use of the intended recipirnt and may be confidential and/or privileged. ]f any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, diselosure or copying is strictty prohibited, ancl may be unlawful. lfyou have received this communicacion in error, please inunediately notify the sender by return email, and delete the original message and all copies from your sysiem. Thank you. 1/30/2008 PaEe 1 of 2 Mike Connelly From: Emacio, James [JEmacio@spokanecounty.org] Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:01 PM To: Mike Connelty . Cc: Pederson, John; Richard, Mar}c J.; Mager, Bonnie; Niielke, Todd; Gemmill, Gerry; Famell, Marshall Subject: RE: Turtie Creek Joint Planning Agreement Mike: I took some time to review your draft in detail based on the BOCC's discussion on December 4, 2007 on the MoranlGlenrose JPA, My review would have been much easier if you would have shared wi#h the County a black-lined version. In any event, there are some differenoes. One major difference is your inclusion of a much larger undefined area for inclusion in the Turtle Creek Agreement than just the Turtle Creek area itself. I don't recall this concept being included in the letter which triggered this agreement nor do I recall it being discussed during the BOCCs discussion of the Turtle Creek JPA. However, I did not receive a copy of the letter. In any event, may I ask that you forward a copy of the map of this Tudle Creek Joint Planning Area not only to myself but also John Pederson and the chairperson of the BOCC. I also need to indicate that I must leave to the Planning Department and the BOCC vrhether the County can meet the time frames within your draft agreement. As was indicated by the BOCC, the County already has commitments under the Moran/Glenrose JPA as well as the North Division Revenue Sharing Agreem2nt. Staff is spread pretty thin. Much thanks. Jim • From: Mike Connelly [mailto:mconnelly@spokanevalley.org] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:06 AM To: Emaclo, James Cc: Dave Mercier, Mike Jackson; Greg McCormlck; Scotk Kuhta; City Council; Cary Driskell Subject: Turtle Creek Joint Planning Agreement Jim: Attached is the City of Spokane Valley's proposed Joint Planning Agreement for the Turtle Creek existing UGA that was discussed last month with the County Commissioners. I incorporated the most recent language from the City of Spokane and Spokane County's agreement to the extent it was workable. I did not incorporate the creation of a defined JPA within the City of Spokane Valley but did keep prior proposed language indicating that transportation impacts of development within either jurisdiction that impacts transportation facilities in the other would be subject to the agreement. I will have the planning department forward to you a map of the UGA at issue. Let me know when we can meet and discuss this agreement and when it will be considered by the Commissioners. Thanks. Mike Connelly City A ttorncy City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Ave. 1 /30l2008 ' Page 2 of 2 Suite 103 Spokane Valley; WA 99206 1'hone: (509) 688-02338 Faac: (509) 688-0299 Canfidcntiality Alotice: The information contained in t.his email and any , . accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the usc of the intencied recipient and may be confidential andlor privileged. If any reader of this communicatian is not ihe intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictty proh.iliited, dnd may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please itnmediately notify the sender by retum email; and delete tlie original message and all copies from your system. Thank you. 1f30/2008 Page 1 0f 2 Mike Connelly . Frorn: Emacia, James [,lEmacio@spokanecounty.org] . Sent: 1ftilednesday. January 09, 2048 5:04 PM rto: Mike Connelly Subject: RE: Turtle Creek JPA Aktachments: furtlecreekl2-31-07.doc Mike; . , . Than ks for getking me the map, Th95 wijl be helpful in reviewing yvur Turtle C reek Agreement. I will forvrard you r msp on to John Pederson and the BOCC, Jam I FrDm: Mike Connelly [rnailto:mconneEly@spokarieva[ley,org] . . Sent: Wednesday, ]anuary 09, 2008 4:36 PM To: Emacio, Jarnes • . Cc: Dave Mercierr Kathy McGung; Greg McCormicic; Scatt Kuhta; City Council . Subjec#: FW: Turtie Creek JpA i A m: The area identified as Exhibit A and referred ta as the 'Join# Plan nin g Area° or "JPA" in aur proposed Joink Planning Agreement is #h e existing UGA kocated o utside of the Spokane Va11ey C ity limits and ou#linod by the red hash line on the attached rnap. I'd be glad ta give you a black line copy of the agreement if you can tell me which docurnent to use as a base line, i.e, ihe templake passed by the Grawth A+lanagemenk Steering Comrnittee, the agreement with the C ity of Spukane, or a difFerent version? I Ioak fonvard tb hearing from you. Mike Gonncliy City Ariorney . Ci#y of Spokatte Valley 11707 East Sprague Ave, Suite 10 Spoka,xe Valle}+, WA 99206 ' Phonc; (509) 688-0238 FELx= (549) 688-0299 Conf dentiality TUofice; The ir Formation cantaine.d in this ani ail and any . ac,conipanying attacltment(s) is intended only for the use of thc~ intended recipiene artd rnay bf~ confidan#ial and/or privilagad. I#`any reader of this connnunication is not the inEended recipicnt unauthofi7ed use, disciosure- or capyinc, is strici]y prohibiECd, and nnay be un lawful, i.#- you • have received this coinmimication in error, plea-5e imrnediately nnrify the sendar by return ernail, and delete the original message and aEl capies from your sysDem_ Thai3k you. From.: Mike Basinger Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 3:36 PM 1130!?0OS i,f ? To: Mike Conneliy Subject: Turtle Creek JPA 1fike Gu5;n~er. AIC'P Seninr Yfanner Crty ofSpokane 1'alley (509) 688-0045 uoice (544) 911-1008 fmr mhasrnger'ii;crokanevallci'. org 1 /30!?OU~ - ~ ~ ~ IF i c ! a 1 I N ~ `'iF ? I iJ ! j l~ { t - ` - ~ ; = - - , - ~ 7 ~ _ ~ . •_.s.~ . J " ~ - - lr r4 - ' _ 'tl I _ . - • =f ~ . T-~ l ~ ~ I)ccember 31, 2007 Spokane Valley Proposed Joint Planning Agreement . INTN;RLOCAI.: AGREENLEvT REGARDING JOInT PLAl~TiN1NG BFTWEEN SPOKANE COCTN'fY AND THE CITY OF SPOKANE VA1.LEY This Ageement is entercd iiito, by Spokaale County, hereuiaftr referred t4 as "County" and the City of Spokane Valley, hereinafter referred to "City", jointly referred to along with the County as the "Parties". Whereas, a Goal of the State Ctrowth Managemeut Act is to ensure coordination behween communities and jun 's . dictions, including 'sPecial Purpose dis licts lo reconc;ile conf_licts; and Whereas, RCW 36.70A.21.0 sets forth certain requirenients for County-wide plammng policies, unty-~~Zde plaiuung policies shall adl ress Policies for including thai Co joint count}r and city plan.ning within urban growth areas; and Whereas, The County-~v7cie planung policies for Spokane County adopted pursuant to RC« 36.70A.210 contain policies for a joint planiing process intended to resolve issues ~ re Tardine ]ZOw zoning, subdivision and other land I se approvals in . ~ dESigiiated joint planiung areas will be cvordinated, and that such joint plaiuung may be accomplished pursuant to aai interlocal agreement entered into betwecn andlor among jurisdictions and/or special purpose districLs; dnd Whereas, the Parties are desirous of coordinating zoning, subdivision and atller land use approvals, ul the Turtlecreek Urban Grotivth Area (UGA) as dcIl icteci cin the map in llppendix A(hereinafter the "Joint 1'lacuiuig A,rea" or "JPA") as well as zoning, 1 . . . ~ _ . ~ subdivision and other land use approval's in that area af the City of Spokane VaUEy that is adjacent to the defined Joint Planning Area and that directly itnpacts transportation systems wittun that Joint Plannin; Area; and Whereas, the Farties recogaize that developtnent occurring in one jurisdiction can have transportation impacts on neighboring jurisdictions and wish to develop and , adopt developinent regulations that will assist in identifying and mitigating those impacts; and Whcreas, the defined Joint planning Arca located to the south of the City of Spokane Valley and more specifically described in Exhibit A is experiencing significant development and/or requests for development; and N'1'hereas, tbis development impacts the ability of the City of Spokane Valley to plan and provide adequate transportation facilities in compliance with RC`V 36.70A "1 he . Growth Mana ement Act. Now, Therefore Be It Resotved, in order to coordinate the review and approval of zoning, subdivision and otlier land use actions and, to ensure that transportation capacity for development meets concurrency requirements and that consistent development standards are used, the Parties agree to cooperative joint planning pursuant to the Eollo~Ning terms and conditions: 1. Tfegsl basis: This Agreement is entered into pursuant to RCW 3-6.70A.010; 020(3); 210 (3) (a), (b), (d), aiid (i); RCW 3934; CounWvide Flanning Policies For Spokane Countv_ (Pla.nning Policies) 7opic 2, 4verview of GroNN'th Management Act (GMA) Pequirements; Topic 2, Polic.ics (1) and (2); 'I'opic 5 Transportation, Overview of Gro-,vth Management (GAZA) Requircments; and Glossary . 2 i County-Aride Plaiuiine Policy Terrns, Joint Plaining Areas. 2. Tntent: It is the intent of the Parties: a. To provide for coordinatcd plaruiing for transportation in the defined Joint Planning Area as well as areas ,vithin the Cit}, of Spokan I Valley that are I adjacent to tl~e defined Joint Planning Area and ~~l~ere de~~elopment prloposals ciirectly impact transportation systems within that Joint Planning Area. lt is further the uitent of thE parties to provide for coordinatcd development standards in . thl defined Jaint Plau.ning Area. b. 1"o ensure that transporiation improveinents nece Isary to niitigate . transportation impacts resulting frotn new develdpmeni in the Joint Pl i ing Area are identified and conslructed concurrent with the development and/or that adequate funding is secureci to finance construction of such transportation improvements concurrEnt with developmcnt, as required by RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b). c. To ensure that development standards applied ,~ithin the Joint Plann.ina Area relating to allowable land uses, densities, streets, sid I waJks; curbing, a I drauiage and utilities are compatible and consistent with the City's Couiprelleilsive Plan and development standtirds. Tlie Parties desire to jointly develop and iinplement developmeiit regulations; proceciures and standards related to the reviewI and approval of ' projects within the abovc described Joint Plaiining Area. The Parties also desirc to jointly cstablish and implement consistent development regulations and procedures governing the provision of all public facilities «hthin said Joint Plaun.i.ng Area. The Parties agrec to commit sufficient staff to clrafl and finalize these specifi I agreemcnts in a tunely man.ner. 1 ~ 3. Applicabilitv: The Agreement shall apply to development proposals within the Joint Planning tlrea as identified in Exhibit "A" hereto as well as areas within the City of Spokane Valley that are adjacent to the defined Joint Plaruung Area and where development proposals dircctly impact transportation systems withui'that Joint Planning A.rea. 4. Prniects affccted: This Agreement applies ta new development proposals in the areas described abUVC in par~agraph (3) that are subject to the Notice of Application requiremcnts of RCW 36.70B as adopted by the respective Parties, including proposals subject tU the State Environmental Policy Act (the "Development Praposal(s)"). Notice of Application, Notice of IIearing aaid Notice of Decision requi.red by RCW 36.7013 and a.ny enviroiuvental checlclist EIS or other envirnnmental document required pursuanl to RCW 43.21 C for Uevelopment Proposals in the Joint Pldnning fl.rea shall be pravided to each partv by the other party in a timely manner and 'ui accordance with applicdble regulalions. The Parties further agree they shall provide each other at least 7 days notice of any tEChiucal review meeting(s) with respect to a DevelopmEnt Proposa] and ai-c allowed and encouraged to atteild any building permit preconstruction canference andlor technical review meetings. Such notice shall be in the form of scandard noticc for such tcclunical review meeting b ven by either party. . The Parties (or their authorized desi mees) shall confer on Development Proposals outlined above prior to issuance of any final DNS, MDNS or staff report to the Hearing Examincr in, an attempt to reach a consensus positianlrecommendation. For SEPA documents, tlie jurisdiction baving lead agency status sha11 include the consensuslcollective recommendation and any mitigating conditions, or their individual 4 recommendations and any mitigating conditions if unable to reach consensus; as applicable; for projects proceeding 1o public bearing, both Parties sha11 includc the consensus recommcndatio 'n in their respective staff rePort/recommende.d conditions of approval to the Hearing EYaminer or other appropriate hearing body, I or, if unable to agree, their respective recommendations. 5. Transnnrtution: The Pariies recognir,e that development activitv withui their respect' may cause transportation imPacts a~ild ma}~ impdct ~~~e ~urisdictions transportation levels of service in neighboring jurisdictions. To ensure proper idcntification aaid mitigation of development relateci transportation impacts, the Farties dgree that: • a. Unlcss otherw7se inconsistent Nvith law, lhe Parties shall require applicants subject to the Notice of Applicatypn requirements to submit I trip generation letter in connection wiih any propesed dcvelopment activity NAithin thosI i pnrl'ions of the defined Joint 1'lannina A.rea as well those arcas within the City of.' Spokane Val.ley that aze adjacent to the de.fined Joint Planning Area and .vhcre the propo led development I directly vnpacts transportation systems within that Joint Plamung A iea. in al] cases where such trip generation letter indicates that the proposed develop ient activity will generate 100 or more p.m. peak hour trips, the Parties shall also require the al)plicant to prepare a Traffic Impaet Study (TIS) quantifying the transportation impacts of this development. activily, and identilying potential miiigation of all sigcuficant impacts. Where a trip generation letter indicates the ProPosed dcvelopment acti lity Nvill generate I f:ewer than 100 P.m. peak hour trips, each of the Parties sball consider m good faith a request by the other Party to require a developer to prepare a 115; but the ultimate 5 dECision on such applications as to whether or not to require a T1S shall be decided by the Party having regulatory authoric,y avcr the subject application for development approval. The terminology TIS is defined in Section 1.30 of the Spokane County Road a.nd Drainage Standards, a copy of wh.ich is attached hEreto as Exhibit "B." The Parties understand that the terminology TIS may range from an in depth analysis of the site (Developmcnt Proposal) generated. levcls-of-servicc to a cursory review of sa.fely issues; provided, in cases whcre a trip gencration letier uidicates a Development Proposal Nvil] generate ] OQ or more p.m. peak hour trips, the TIS shall evaluate the impacts of those trips on those arterial roadways and intersections identified 'ui Exhibit "C" at a min.imum. hi the event the Party withui whose jurisdiction the Development Proposal is proposed tietermines to require preparation of a TIS; the other party shall have an opportunity to participate ui the scoping used to detcrmine the depth of analysis. - b. In approving andlor making recommendations regarding Development Proposals, each of the Farties shall require (or recomnienci, as the case may be) construction of thc transportation unprovements necessary to mitigate transportation impacts identified 'ui the TIS concurrent wit.h development as required by RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b) and/or the dedication of'such land or payment of money in lieu lhereof that is necessary to rnitigate such unpacts to the jurisdiction whosE transpartation system is thereUy impacted. Any such fees shall be beld and encumbered as provided in RCW . 82.02.020. c. For Development Proposals in the Joint Planning F1reas where construction of unprovcments necESSary to mitiLyate identified direct transportation impacts does not takE place cAncurrent with the Development Proposal, the Parties shall 6 jointly establish d uniform inethod for quantifying appropriale financi I1 contributions among t1ie CiYy, County and sponsor/developer of the DeN~clopment Proposal for imProvements to be made Arithur 6 years of the anProval of the 17evelol ment Proposal for identified direct transportation impacts. The Parties recogvre that to iinplement this Agreement some modification of existing regulatiocLS may be required and agree to make such modifications in a timely manner consistent with any appli lable law after establishment of a uruform and mutually agreed upon method for quanti I ing appropriate financial contributions. . d. laevelopment Proposals shall not be approveci in the areas defincd in paragraph "a" above that cause levels of service on locally o-vNmcl transportation facilities in either juristiiction to drop below the standards adopted in the transporcation elements of the respcctive Part:ies' comPrehensive Plans, unles I transportation I improvements or strategies to acconunodale the unpacts of develApmciit are made cancurrent Nvrth the Development Pr4posals or the DevEloPment Propos I 1 is c;anditioned . I to accomplish concurrency. "1"he parties aeree to (1) notify each other aud (2) in good faitli consider the otlier's concerns with regard to the consideration of an y change in their respective adopted levels of service far any locally owned transportatioi facility witlun the arcas defined in paragraph "a" above. For purposes of ttus require ient, "concurrent with the Development Proposals" shall mean that improvemenis or strategies are in place . at the time of development, or that a fuiancial corninitment is in place to complete die nccessazy improvements or scrategies vNntlun six years. The 1'arties further agree to idcntify Developmcnt Proposals that fail to compl_y with the concurrency standards of eithcr Party and to report tl ieir respective fuidings to ttie decision rnak I in written staff 7 ~ reports. 6. Development Standards: The Parties rccognize that development in the defined Joint Planning Ai-ea without compatible development regulations could frustratc the purpose. and intent of this Agreement. a. The Parties agree to assigil the necessary staff to review applicable development rcgulations, including but not limited to zoning desigiiations, PUD' standards, landscaping; signage, subdivision, road and strEet standards, sewer and watEr standards, bicycle paths, jogging lanes, trail sYstems application review procedures and stormwater draina;e requircments. Such review should' include representatives from the private sector who may be impacted by any such amendments. Thc process of identification and 'unplemcntation of development regulations for the def-incd Joint plann.i.ng Ar'ca shall commence upon the signing of this Agreement by the 1'arties, and shall comply,,vitli the schedule of events set forth in Exhibit "D" hereto. b. The Parties aeree to confer on the nccessity for and/or the location of any conneclor streets andlor the classif Gation of any streets within. or adjacent to a Development Proposal(s) withiu the defined Joint Plamiing Area. If, after satisfying the Parties' respective obligations hereunder; an agreement is not reached, both Parties may present their respective positions to the Hearing Examiner, appropriate hearing body, nr administrative official. c. The Parties agee to consult on Comprehensive Plan/7oning categories, allowable land uses and densities in the defined Joint Planning Area. Such consultalion shall inelude consultation on thE classifieation of strects aud roadways on the conunon borders. . 8 d. The Parties agree to adopt and enforce devclopment regulations, consislent Arith TZCW 36.70A.074(6)(b) wllich prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on an affecled transportation facility in either jurisdiction to decline below the standards adoptEd in the.transportation eJement of the comprehensive plan of either of the Parties, unless transportation improvements or strategies - to aceommodate the i.mpacts of development are made concurrent NN7th the development or the Developrnent Proposal is conditioiied to accomplish concurrency. . Strategies may include uicreased public transportation service, ride sharing prUgrams, demand management; and other lransportation systems management strategies. For purposes of this requiremeiit, "concurrent Arith the development" shall meau that improvements or strategies arc in place at the timc of developmcnt, or tllat a financial comnutment is in placc to complete the necessary improvements or strategies within six years. 7. Qther Itegulations: Noihing in tlus AgreemEnt shal] supersede or negate aiiy existing land use or developme•nc regulation of the Parties. 8. Additianal Agreements: The Yarties contemplate future joint plamning agreements that may relate to other Urban Gro,%vth Areas. Nothing in this tlgreement is intended to prolubit the development of future agreeinents relating to either the impacts identiiied above or ottier impacts that may now or in the future exist. y. Rights Resen~ed: Nlothiug in this Agreement is intendcd to waive ar limit the rights of the Parties to require mitigation for any impact as allowed by federal, slaie or lACal laws or ordinances including but not limited to environmental impacts governed by chapter 43.21C RCW or mitigation fees governeti by RCW 82.02.050 et seq. 9 10. Change in Standards or Ordinances: Any change in the Parties respECtive (i) development regulations; (ii) comprchensive plans, or (iii) official controls regardless of ~vhether they affcct the Joint Planning Area shall be fonvardcd to die other party within 21 days of passage. 11. Nlediation of Aisputes: Any disputes arising from ttus Agrecment may be set for mediation by either party A7thin 30 days of notification of a dispute. Prior to mediation, thc Parties, represented by their electcd offieials; shall 6rst meet infornially in an attempt to reach resolution. If a mediator cannot be agreed upon by the Parties, eacll party shall select onc mediator who in turn shall select a third mediator to conduct the mediation. The decision of the mediation panel sha11 not be binding on either party. Providedj however, the Parties agree ta consider in good faith the decision of the mediation panel. . 12. IndemnificaNon and Liability: a. Spokane County shall protcct, save hannless; indemnify and defend, at its ox-,m expense, the City, its elected and appointed of~"icials, o.fficers, Employees and agents, from any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever arisuig aut of Spokane Couzity's performance of this Ageement, incluciing claims by Spokane County's employees or third parties; except for those damages caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its elected and appointed pfficials, ' o .fficers; employees; or agcnts. b. The City shall protect, save harmless; indemnify alicl defend, at its ow-n expense, Spokane County its elected and appointed officials; officers, employees and agents, from any loss or claim for damagcs of any nature whatsoever arising out of 10 the Citv's performance of this Agreement, including claims by the City's employees or third parties, except for those clamages eaused solely by ttle negligenec or willful misconduct of Spokane County, its elected and appointcd officials, ofticers; employees, or agents. c. lii the cvcnt at' liability for damages of any na_ture whatsoever arising out of the performance of this Agseement by Spokane Cotuity and the City, including claims by Spokane Coiuity's or City's o,~vm officers, oETicials, employees, agents, volunteers, or third pariies, Gaused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of Spokane County and the City, each 1'arties liability hereunciershall only be to the eYtcnt of that party's negligence. d. NO liability shall be attached to Spokane County or the City by reason of entering into this Agreement except as expressly provided herein. 13. Severability: If any provision of t.his Agreement or its application to any Person or circumstancE is held invalid; the remaindEr of the provisions ancUor the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. hi sucli case the Parlies agree to meet and amend this Agreement as may be mutually deemed nccessary. 14. Entire A~reement: T}lis Aareement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the matters set forth hercin. This Agreement may be amended in ~,vriting by iuutual aereemem of'the Parties. ' 15. Desip_nated Representxtivc. The Parties agrcc that the Mayor or his/her dcsignee shall be the designatcd representative of the City for coordination of this Agreement and for receipt of any communications relatcd to this Agreement and the 11 Chairman of ihe Board of Counry Commissioners or his/her designee shall be the ' dcsignaCed represeiitative of the County. Within 34 days of the Parties' mutual cxecution r of this Agreement, the designated representatii~es -shall form working groups consisting of. their respective employees and assign such groups responsibilit}r for complying with the timetable sct forth in E.xhibit "D" hereto. 16. Fffective Date and lluration. Tlus Agreement shall become effcctive following the approval of the Agreement by the official governing bodies of each of the , Parties hereto and the signuia of the Agreement by the duly authorized representative of each of the Parties hereto; and shall remain in effect unless terminated. 17. Terminatian. Either Party may terminate its obligaiion under this Agreement upon onc year advance written notice to the other Party. FolloN&ring a termination, the County and Cit}, are responsible f'or fulfilling any outstanding obligations under this Agreement, or mnendment thereto; incurred prior to the effective date of ihe ternlination. 18. IIcadings. The paragraph headings appearing in this Agreement have been inscrted solely for the purp4se of eonvenience and ready reference. In no way do tbey purpose to, and shall not be cleemed to de•fine; limit or extend the scope or intent of the paraeraplis to tivhich they pertain. 19. Counternarts. This Ab eement may be executed in any numbe.r of counterparts; each of which, when so c:cecuteti and delivered, shnll be an original, but such counterparts shall tAgcther constitute but one and the satne. 20. Pronertv and Equinment. The ownership of all property and equipment utilized by any Party to meet its obligations under the ternis of this Agreement shall 12 reuiaii7 with such Party. 21. Venue Stipulatinn. This Agreement has becn and shall be construed as havuig been madc and delivered wifli'ui the State of Washington and it is mutually . tmdcrstood and agreed by each Party that this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington both as to uiterpretatiou and performance. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceedings for the enforcement of tlus Agreement, or any provions hereto, shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokaaie Couiity, Washington. 22. Notiees. All notices or other communicatiAns given hereunder shall be cieemed given on: (i) the day such nvtices or other commuiucations are rcceived tifien sent by pcrsonal delivery; or (ii) the tturd day following the day on which the same have been mailed by certified mail dclivery; receipt requested and postaize prepaid addressed to die Parties at the addresses set forlh below, or at such other address as the Parties shall from time-to-timc designate by notice in vvriting to the other Parties. COUN'TY: Chauman of the 13oard of Councy Commissioners 1116 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, Washington 99260 , CTTY: City of Spokane Valley Cii_y Manager or luslher autliorized rcpresentative City Ha-ll 11707 l:.ast Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spakane Valley, Washington 99206 23. RC«' 39.34 Required Clauses, . A. .Furpose See Faragraph 2 above B. Duralion 13 See Paragrap h 16 above. _ C. Organization of separate entity and its pnwers \io new or separate legal or admiuistrative entity is created to admuuster thc provisions of this Agreemeni D. Responsibilities of the I'arties. . See provisions abovc. E. Agreement to be rled. 1 he City shall file this Agreement with its Cilt}, Clerk. 1'he County shall place this Ageement on its web site. " F. Fi.nancing. Fach Party shall be responsible for the financing of its contractual obligations under its nomlal budgetary process. G. Termination. See Paragraph 17 ahove. 24. Events of Default. It sha11 be an "Event of Dcfault" under this AgrECment if either of the Parties fails duly to perforni, obsErve or comply vvith the covenants, agreements; or conditions on its part contained in this AQreement, and such default shall continue for a period of siaty (60) days af2er written notice of such failure, requestuig the saine to bc remedied, shall have been given to the party i.n default by the non-defaulting party, prpvided however that sucb failure shall not be an Evcnt of Default if it is kno,Aingly and intentionally waived by thc non-deFaulting party. 25. Remedics. Upon the occurrcnce and continuance of any Event of 17efault; the non-defaulting party's exclusive remedies shall be specific performance; declaratory judguient and other equitable remedies. 26. Exhibits. Exhibit "A" Map of Joint Platuung Area Exhibit "B" Section 1.30 of the Snokane Counry Roadand Drainage Standards Exhibit "C" Artcrial Roadtivays and Intersections Exhibit "D" Process Description for interlocal agreement for UGA development regulations fnr Spokane Councy/City of Spokane Valley UGA/JFA 14 Ir' VdI`1"NESS WHER.FQF, the Parties have caused ihis Agreement to bc executed on the date and year opposite their respective signaturc blocks. BOARD OF COUNTY COA1Ni1SS10NERS • OF SPOI<..ANF COUiNTY, WASH:NGTON MAR[C I21CHARll, Chairman . BONNTIE MAGL1Z, Vice chair TQDIa ]vIIFLKE, Commissioner ATTEST: Daniela Erickson Clerk of the Board CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY By: Title: ATTEST: Approved as to fomi: Cit}, Clerk City Attorney 15 Exhibit ".`A" Map of Jnint Planning Area 16 Exhibit "B" Section 130 of the Spokane County Road dnd Drainage Standards 17 L-xliibit "C" A.rterial Roadways and Intersections 18 Exhibit "D" Process llescription for interlocal agreement for iJGA development regulations for Spokane County/City of Spokanc UGA/JPA 19 EXHIBIT D Goals/Actions Process Description for intcrlocal Start Aate Enci Date agreement for UGA development regulations for Spokane Count y/City of Spokane Valley LTGA/JPA Action Development Regulations Coordination January 15, Aprill,• Strategy -1`his task iilcludes work by the 2008 2008 Parties to select one coordination strategy from lhe Collaborative Planning: Spokane Countyrs • Metro Urban Cirowth Arca Report. Find'uigs and a report to guide the process for adoption of regulations will be developed. Action R.e.port and findings adopted by the Parties April 15, May 1, through an uiterlocal , 2008 . 2008 Goal Cnmpletion of interlocal ageement for UGA developmcnt regulations for Spokane . County/City of Spokane Valley UGAIJpA Action Facilitatinn - Work with ihe Parties tv identify May 1, August lhe scope and details of development 2008 2008 regulations (i.e., zoning, subdivision; I'lJU sign, etc.) that will be adopted. Action Impleinentation - Work witli the Parties to August 1, March 1, preparc necessary ordinFUices to be considered 2008 2009 by the City of Spokanc Va11ey and Spokane County; conduct a public participation process; - adoption by the Cit), Council and Board of Counry Commissioncrs as appropriate. Summary af differences in standards uf Spokanc, Spokane Vxlley, Airway Heights, Liberty I..ake and Spokane County from the rePnrt titled: "Collaborative Planning• Snokane Countv's Metro Urban Grovvth Area" Julv 2007 The report investigates the development regulations and street standards employed by these jurisdictions, focusing on those "edaes" where unincorporated land cxists benvicen the City limit,~ and the outer boundary of the UGA. It discusses the various issues the jurisdietions face whcn considering land use applications in these areas; and then suggests a range of strategies to ensure the land use rcview proccsses effectively promotc public health, sa.fety and welfare, and provide for a fair and consistent development cnvironment. 20 Many of the development standards adopted by the four cities and applied to areas near their city linuts are generally consistEnt Nvith Spokane County's urban zoning standards. llensities, lot sizes, 'pemlitted land uses and other requiremcnts typically match, Nvriih . what is pennitteci on one side of a city linut line nurrored on the other. There are exceptions, of course, but the genera1 rule is that wfiat is within the UGA is eapected to be urUan. Zoning districts, eithcr within cities or wit}iin the uniiicorporated county, rcflect that consistent vision. Street stanciards are also similar. Roads constructed to current standarcis will look and function pretty much the same whether they are within city limits or witlv_n the County's unincorpora'ted UGA. Conflicts tend to emerge from fhings developmcnt regulations do not addrzss. They appear in areas where subdivision pattems from one neighborhood co the next do not match, even thou;h roning standards may be quite similar. They appear where sewer service is unavailable, requiring lots to be largc enough to accommodate private septic systcros regardless of zoning ia/ sizc standards. They appedr where devclopinent occurs in different eras, where market demand changcs over time; resulting ; in architcctural or technolosical shifts. And they appear in processes the jurisdiction use to considEr land use actions. 21