2008, 07-29 Special Joint Planning Commission Meeting
City of Spokane Valley
File Copy
C'ITY nF SPOKANE VALLEY
AGENDA
SPF..CIAL JOINT 1VIFETINCISTUUY SESSION
Spokane Valley City CounciU
5pokane VaUe), Planning Commissian
Tuesday, Julv 29, 2008
6:U0 p.m.
Cireat Room at CenterPlace
?426 N Discovery Ruad
AGENDA ITEMS:
Cal) to Orcier and Welcome: Mayor Munson
1. Action Item: Motion Cansideration: Appleway Right-of-way Liltgation, Petition for
Review to Supreme Caurt - Cary Oriskeil, Deputy City Attamey
2_ Workshop Item: Colfaborative Plenning Options for Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) -
Susan Winchell and Bill Grimes
SNORT BREAK
3. 7:00 p.m. (or as soan thereafter as practical):
PUBLIC HEARING: SpraguelAppieway Revitalization Plan - Soott Kuhta
4. (Information Item Attached: Stormwater Vactoring Change Dider]
Adjoum
Noie: Unfass o2horvrise natod above, no public comments will bo bkon at lhis meeting. Howa+rer, Councll
atways resecves tfia rigllt to requast infortnation from the publk and atali as appropriRte. During me$tinge
heW by thc Clty of Spokans Vell$y Gowscil, the Caunca) reserves the nght to take 'acbon' on any ►tem IEated or
suhsequenUy ad+ied to the ag"a. The temi 'action" means to defiberate, discuss, review consider evaluale, ar
rttake e caf{edive positive or negalive dedsfon
NOTICE: Ittdividuols planning to attertd Uie maefing wha require spedal assiat,ance !o eucomrnodate phyaical.
tiear1ng, w omer impsirmenta, ptease conbcl the City Ctertc at (509) 921-1000 aa som ae pmible sa that
arrarver»erNS may ba madQ
July 29, 20OQ .10+t11 MeeUrtg, Cau~ oI ar.d Ptanrnnr7 CLvmrnissian
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 29, 2008 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business X new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legisla#ion
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion consideration - Appleway right-of-way litigation - Petition for
Review to Supreme Court
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The Council previously authorized staff to appeal the
trial court decision to the Court of Appeals, Division II I.
BACKGROUND: The Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion substantially upholding the
trial court. Staff seeks authorization to file a petition for discretionary. review with the
Washington Supreme Court. Any such petition for review must be filed and served no later than
August 14, 2008 OPTIONS: Approve motion authorizing appeal to Supreme Court; do not approve the motion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we authorize staff to fle a petition for
review with the Washington Supreme Court regarding the ownership of the Appleway corridor
east of University Road.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Connelly, City Attomey; Cary Oriskell, Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: Copy of Court of Appeals opinion dated July 15, 2008.
Washington Courts Pagc 1 of 9
-
WASHINGTON
OUR ;
I Courts Home I Opinions Search I Slte Map 1 3) eService Center
Opinion in POF Format
Court of Appeals Division III
State of Washington
Opinlon Information Sheet
Docket Number: 26268-5
Title of Case: City of Spokane Valley v. Spokane County, et al
File Date: 07/15/2008
SOURCE OF APPEAL
Appeal from Spokane Superior Court
DocketNo: 06-2-05375-8
Judgment or order under review
Date filed: 07131/2007
]udge signfng: Honorable Maryann C Moreno JUDGES
Authored by Teresa C. Kulik
Concurring: Stephen M. Brown
Phfllp James Thompsfln
COUNSEL OF RECORD
Counsel for Appellant(s)
Michael F. Connelly
City of Spokane Valley
11707 E Sprague Ave Ste 103
Spokane Valley, WA, 99206-6110
Cary P. Driskell
City Attorneys Office
11707 E Sprague Ave Ste 106
Spokane Valley, WA, 99206-6124
Counsel for Respondent(s)
David W. Hubert
Attorney at Law
1115 W Broadway Ave
Spokane, WA, 99260-2051
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington State Associtation of Municipal Attorneys
http://,~vyvtiv.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.ciisp&fiilenamc=262685iN4AJ 7/23/2008
Washington Courts Page 2 0f 9
Daniei Brian Heid
City of Auburn
25 W hlain St
Auburn, WA, 98001-4998
View the Opinion in PDF Format
IN 'i'H£ COURT OF APmEALS OF TNE STP.TE 0F WA.SHING4'CN
CITY OE' S?OKANv- V?iI:LEY, No. 26268-5-111
a Washington municip8l caxporation, )
1
Anoellant, ) Division Three
}
v. 1
)
SEaKP.V£ COUNTY, a Washinqton ) FtJBLZSHzD OPItiIOCF
public corporation, and 7he 5TATE )
OF WA5HINGTON, 1
1
Respondents. }
i
Kulik, A.C.J. Under RCH' 35•02.180, "[t]he ownership of a.kl county roads
located within the bouncsaries of a newly incozporateci city oz town shail revert Co the city
or town ar.d become streets as oi the o€ficial date of incarporation." In 1980, Sookane
Countv (County) purchased the t4ilkaukee Railroad Richt of Way (zight-o=-way) which
is located oart<_ally within what is na.+ t1e City olf Spokane valley (City). In 1994, the
County, by resolut.ion, dec3icated the proper[y fo= public road purpases. The County
cor:structed a road on one portion o€ the right-of-way, while che other poreion of tne right-
o€-way rsrnained unimproved.
No. 26268-5-1II
City of spokane Valley v. Spokane County
w;ien the City ircorioozated, the impr.oved right-oz-way reverted to the City
pursuant to RCW 35.02.120. The City then filed this action seekirg to quiet ta.tle iy the
unimpzoved right-of-w=y. The tzial ccurt gzanted suzr*nary judgment in favo: of ehe
County, conciuding that the ur,irnproved zignt-of-way Has not a county zoad for purnoses
o<` RCt; 35.02.130 because this portion of the right-of-way hac never been apen as a
matter of :ight to public vehieulaz travel. we hold that the unirnaroved right-oi-way was
not a councy road and, thus, did noe revest to the City under RCW 35.02.130.
Additionally, we holu' that +[re dedicat~on was not vacated uldez RCW 36.37.090.
Accozaingiy, we affirm tha trial coust in part and zevezse in part.
FACTS
http:/lxv-,u%v.courts.wa.gov/opinionsl?fa=opinions.disp&filenaine=262685M:AJ 7I23/2008
Washington Courts Page 3 oF 9
Ine followinq facts aze undisputed. In 1980, the Coanty purchased prcperCy
referred to as the Milwau{ee Railroad Right oL way. This prapesty is located within the
County and is partially saithin what is ncw the City.
In 1994, the Courty adooted a resoluCion dedicating the righC-oP-way for county
road purposes. In 2001, the County constructed a road on the portion o£ the right-of-way
between Dishman-Mica Road and f.iniversity Road. In 2003, this portion of the =a.ght-of-
way was transfezred to the City puzsuant to RCW 35.02.180. 'Fhe improved portion o€
2
No. 26268-5-I1I
City of 5pokanc Valley v. SPokane Councy
the rig}et-Qi-way is not the sub7ect oP this lawsuit.
The postion of the right-of-way at iss=ie here was, and rernains, unimnroved.l
Portions of this right-of-way are irnpassable due to oiles of rocks. Vehicular Cravel is
Dzahibited from =ssing the right-of-way without speciai perrniss=on. ?Sost intersections in
the right-oP-way have sigls lir,iitinq use to authozazed vehicles. Fhe County auChoYized
AvTSTA utilities and ethezs to temporarily use portfons oP the ri9ht-of-way.
The City filect a ccmplaint for declarato=y judgment and to quiet title, alleging
thae the right-oP-way was transfezxed to the City by opezation of RCW 35.02.180. The
parties filed cross-motions for suttimAry judgment.
The Crial court gsanted surnrnary judgment in favor of the County. The couxt
concluded that the *ight-oP-way had nevex been onen as a matter of righC to public
vehicular travei. The covrt a?sc concluded that the undisputed facts did not suppoxi
t:^.e City's assertion t'tat the right-o£-way wos a"cour.ty zoad" as aef_ned in
RCw 36.75.010(6). Conseqaently, the court fu=tner conclsded that the riqlzt-oP-way did
not xevert to the City by operation OP RCW 35.02.184 when the City incoroora:ed :r.
2003. Lasthy, the erial ccuzt conclt:ded that RCw 36.87.090 operated to vacate the
deaication in 1994, pzecludfng the r±ght-of-way from becoming a coanty road £or £ive
1 Hereinafter, rigitC-oP-way rCters only tc the unimosaved and dispuLed partion.
3
No. 26268-5-1II
City oP Spokane valley v. Spokane Countv
yeazs.
ANALYSIS
Wherz zeviewing an order of sucnmary judgment, this court engages in the same
.i.nquizy as the trial courC. wilson v. 5teinbach, 98 Wn.2d 439, 937, 656 P.2ci 1630
(1982}. All facts ana inferences are considered in the light zc:ost favozable to the
nonmoving party. Yaklna Fzuit & Co1d Storage Co. v. Cent. Heating & Plumbing Co.,
http://w~uw.courts.,,va.gov/opinions!?fa=opinions.ciisp&filename=26268~1'\4AJ 7123/200$
Washina on Courts Page 4 of 9
81 wn.Zd 528, 510, 503 P.2d 108 (1972►. Summary judqrnent shouia ne yranted only
when there are no genuine issues of T:ateriai fact and the rnoving party is entitled to
judgment as a rnaLter of law. CR 561c}: 'ililsan, 98 c4n.2d at 437. }{er.e, the Pacts are
nndisPuted, and we ceview the cor.struczion of the statu*_e de novo. 5tate v. Kellez, 193
Wn.2d 267, 276, 19 P.3d 1030 (2001).
CHARACTERZZaTION OF RIGHT-OF-'AAY
RCw 35.02.180 provides, in part: "The owr,ership of all county roads located
wi.th=n the boundaries of a newly incorporated city os town shall revert to tne city oz town
and become streets as of the off<_cial date of incorpozat=on." (Ernphasis added.)
The ciefinition of °coiinty road" i.s r.ot €ound in RC'il 35.02.180 or chspter 35.02
RCZd. As a zesul[, a definition must be found in a statuCe o: elsewhere. See Cobra
9
No. 26268-5-II1
City of 5pckane Valiey v. Spaiane Caunty
Roofinr Servs_, inc. v. Uep't of Laaos s Indus., i57 wn.2d 90, 99, 1-35 ?.3d 913 (2086).
Statutory dcfzna.tions musC be applied befoxe definitions £rom other sources. in re F.D.
?socessing, Tnc., 119 Wrt.2d 452, 457-53, 832 ?.2ci 1303 (1992): Am. Legioz Post No. 32
v. City of 4,aF?a Wai].d, 116 'vin.2d 1, ib, 802 P.2d 784 (1991),
The app3icable deia.nition of "county road"2 ie `ound in RCw 36.15.01016).
Chapter 36.75 RCW deals witft, ar:morg other thing•a, tJte manner by which county toads
"sha11 bn establishee, 2aici out, construcCCd, al-lered, reoaixed, `_mproved, ar.d
maintained 'ny the ieg=slative QuthoriL•y of the resp2ctive counties as agents of the state."
RCk' 36.75.020.
Tne definition of "eounty road" set fo:tn in 2Cta 36.75.010(6) reeds "every
highway or part thereoE, outside the .l.a.adts of incozporated cities and tokls and whith has
noe been desigr-ated as a state highway." Tre word "higt,way" is derined in
RCril 36.75.010(11) as "evezy way, lane, road, stzeet, boulevard, and everv way oa place
a.n the state of Iiashington anen as a matte< of right to pub2ic vehicujar travel both irs=cie
and outside the lirnits of incorporated cities ar:d towns."
T'?e quesiion here is «hether Che riqht-o€-way meets the definition of a"highs.ay."
2 Other defiaitions of "courty road" or "highway" are not applicable here:
RCW 47.09.610{9), ciealing with nub?:c highways and transportation; RCt4 46.04.150,
dealii3g with notor vehicies: and RCW 82.38.020(11) and former RC[+' 82.36.010(10)
{2041), which deai wieh fuel taxes.
5
No. 26268-5-I1I
Ca.ty of 5pokane Valley v. Spokane Councy
IS the ra.ght-of-.:ay meets the definiya.on of highway contained in RCR' 36.75.010(11),
bttp://wNAr,.v.couris.wa.gov/opinionsJ?fa=opinions.dispRfilenan-ie=2626A5MAJ 7l`23/2008
Washington Courts 1'age 5 of 9
Chen the right-of-way is a cour.iy =oad. Zf the rzght-of-way was d County road within the
C.i.ty's Yirna.ts when the City incozporated, then ownership of the right-oP-way reverCeci eo
the City under RCi7 35.02.180. ff the zight-of-tiray was not a county zoad on che date of
incorPoration, che right-of-way zecnains in the possessie•n ot the County.
Tne lar.guage of a statute must be read in context with the entire statute and
construec' in a cnanner chav .i.s cansistent with the genezF.l purposes of the statute.
Nationwide Papezs, inc. v. N.W. Egg Sales, Znc., 69 win.2d 72, 76, 916 P.2d 687 (1966).
"(ijf the staCute's rneaniny is plain on its face, then the caurt rnust give e£fect to that pla.in
meaning as an expression of legzslative inLent." Dep't o-f Ecotiogy v. Carnpbe2l & Gwinn,
L?.C, 146 N'n.2a 1, 9-10, 43 P.3d 9(2002).
Stacutes must be zead so tnat each word is given e€€ect and no poztion of the statute
is rendered rneaningless or supezflvous- 'Ahatco:n County v. City of Bellingham, 126
tqn.2d 537, 546, 909 P.2d 1303 (1996}, Zf a sCatute is unamnbiguous, ics ar:eaning must be
desived £zom ihe wording oP the statute. State v. Lee, 96 Wn. e?pp. 336, 342, 979 2.2d
958 (14991. Statutes must be constzued to avoid absurd results. 5tate v. J.P., 149 Wn.2d
994, 450, 69 P.,id 318 (2003) lquoting State v. Delgado, 148 Wn.2d 723, 733, 53 ?.3d
792 (2003)f•
6
No. 26268-5-III
City of Spokane Vzlley v. Spokane County
The c:efiniCion of "highway" contained in RCi4 35.75.010(11) Can be da.vided into
four paLts: i11 every way, lane, road, street, bouleva=d, and every way or place in the state
o£ washington, {2) open, (3) as a matter o€ right, (9) to vehicu3.ar travel both inside and
outside the lirnits oE a.ncorporated cities and eowns. We examine each paxt os the
definiCion.
Every Wdy o- Place. 3CW 36.75.010(11) provldes Chat d highway is "every wav,
iane, :oac3, street, boulevard, and evezy way or place in the state of 47ashinqton.° Tne
County argues thaC the right-o£-way is not a highway because iC is not An imPzoved zoad
open to vehicular eravel.
Tt►e language four.d in the PirsC pazt of RCW 36.75•01011i) does not support the
County's position. While, the statute includes zoads that are likeiy to be iR,psoveci, such
as "road, street, (and) boulevard," Che statute also lists :oads that may be unimprovea,
such as "way," "lane,^ anc "place." Simply put, ehe first part of the de€inition does :lot
require that a highaay must be an improved road.
Open. RCW 36.75_010(11) provides that a highway is "open." The statute must
he :ead to give rnQan{r.g co each word. The wosd "open" i.s 1ot c€efir.ed in the statute so
hitp://w-,vvv.courts.wa.govlopinionsl`?fa=opinions.disp&filename=262685Mf1J 7/23/2008
Waslungton Courts Page 6 of 9
we must use :ts ordinary meaning. "Ooen" is defined in Webster's as "so arranged or
governed as to perrnit inyress, egress, oz passaye: as a: havinr, no enclosing ox cor,fining
7
No. 26268-5-1I1
City of SpokBnc vailey v. Spokdr:e County
bazzier: free £xoer: €ences, boundaries, or other restzictive marqa.ns b(1) adjustec in a
position that permits passage: not s::uC or fast." i•7ebste:'s Thirci New Znternational
Dictionary i579 {1993).
Tke use of the word "open" in RCiv 36.75.0160(111 means that a highway must be
apassable "way, lane, road, stzeet, boulevard, and every way ox olace" with no barriers.
HerE, the r=ght-oP-way a.s not an open way because .it is r:ot passabZe and there are ba::a.ers
restricL•i;1g passage.
Fss a Diatter of Right. ~CR' 36.75.018(111 provicies that a hiqhway must be "open
as a rnatter o€ r.iqht." ^ahe pnr.ase "as a rnattex of right" helps describe the word "open."
The word "as" neans "to which (degree or aTOUnt) .._:n or to the same degree {n
which.^ Webster's, s=spra, at 125. The most natural 5raro,mattcal readiztig of this phrase is
that the degree of operness is aescriDecS by the phrase "as a matter of right."
Aceord.ingly, here, any "way or place" must be "open," to an en}3anced dsgree, hecause it
must he "oneit as a matter oP right."
The Cicy TainCains that ehe "open as a matter flf xight" requizement was rnet wlaen
the proaezty was cecficated £or pu51ac use. Fn che City's view, the right-of-way was "omer
as amatter of riqht" beQOrc it was constructed, rega*_-dloss of wnether it was passable or
irnproved. In short, the City contends the righC-of-way is a Aighway merely because it
8
No. 26266-5-1I1
City of Spokane J31jCy v. Spokane County
was dedicated.
:r, effect, the City uses the phsase "as a rnatter of right" to t1eEine the wcrci "open"
in a.ray thst looks oniy at the iegal right. Here, we must give meaning to eacn aord,
incjuding the word "open." The phrase "as a rnattes oi :.ighr" adds to, but does not
zeplace, the word "open."
The phrase "open as a matter of right to publ`•c vehicuiar `ravel" is discussed in
A1lerneier v. Univ. of tqashington, 42 Wn. App. 965, 712 P.2d 306 (1985) oad 3uzne11 v.
3jair, 132 Wn. App. 149, 138 P.3d 423 (2006}, zeview denied, 153 P.3d 195 t26471.
A1?eaneier involved a service road on the Una.oersiCy of Washingtoii campus. The
road was routinEly used by authoza.zed vehicles and oeeasionaliy by urauthorized
vehic].es. Allemeier, 42 ::n. App. at 468. The coUrt conciuded che road was not a
http:/lw,.u~v.courts.wa.govlopinions/?fa=opinions.disp&f len,--une=2626R5i~4AJ 7/'?3/200$
Washington Courts Page 7 of ~
highway because ;t was not "'open as a mattez o£ rzght to public vchicular travel."' Id. at
470.
The :oad in B4nneli was within a plat, noC, as here, ownec by the county o4tsi-de a
plat. When the plat was ffled with the county, the plat did noC cieaicate the road withzn
the p1aC far public use. 3ur.nell, 132 Wn. App. at 150-51. Fven though the toad wa9
used by property orm ers in the Aiat, and by the public, the courC conclucieci that the public
had no righ` to txavel on the road because the plat dicf noc specizica].ly dedicate the zoad to
9
No. 26268-5-E11
City of Spokane Vaiiey v. Spokane County
pub2ic use. Id. at 153-54. Ihe ecurt also concluded thar the road was not open to the
pub.lic. Id. Hence, the road yras held to be a aravaae =oad, not a highway, heceuse it was
open to vehicu2ar travel but not open to the pubiic. 7d.
Zn State ex. ze_. Oregan-tvashington R.R. &Nacigation Co. v. Waf2a N7alla
County, 5 Wn.2d 95, 98, 109 P.2d 769 (1940) 1quoL•ing Rem. Rev. SeaC., 5 105111, the
court considcred the meaning o€ a diiferent statute which defined "hzgnway" as Loads
"'actually open and zn use, or to be opened and used, for travel by the publit."' the
court concludod thaC open to the public is chazacterized by whether "'aii the people have
the right to use it."' Ed. at 101 (quoring State ex rel_ Chicago, Milwaukee & auget Sound
Ay. v. Pt:b. Sezv. Cosuo'n, 77 wash. 529, 544, 137 P. 1057 {i91Q►1.
These cases conside*eci roac3s that were passable to vehicular travel.
Consea,uently, these cau:ts he.1d that passabie xoads either aere or wexe noc available to
the public as a matter o£ right. :Iere, the C:ty argues that a coanty road rnust be ded.i.cated
but need not be constructed or passable. But t:►is argument ignozes the zequirement thac
the zoad rnust be open.
The City 3lso relies on an Attorney Geyeral Opfr.ion to support its positior,_ The
Attorney Gereral stated:
trher: the county cornatissioners by appropriate action approce a proposed
p1aC without reservation toncerning the roads designated therein, those
roads becone county roads.
10
No• 26262-5-111
City of Spokane Valley v. 5pokane County
As a conpleted ded:cation wi}.1 rnafce the subject roads avai?ab?e to
public vehicular tzavel as a matter of riqht, said roads would come within
the dePinition cf a pubZic highway (anaJ rnust necessazily then be county
to2 ds .
307 Op. Att'y Gen. 1951-53 (1952). SuC the Artorney General was considering ciedic3ted
http://~~N,~,N,.courts.Nva.gov/opiiuons!?fa=opuuons.disp&filenwne=262685MAJ 7/23/2008
Washington Cowts PagE S oi 9
roac,s includec in a piat, not the sa.tuation hexe where the soad was outsiCe the plat.
To Vehicular Travel. The Phrase "to pL:Dlic vehicular travel" :s a pzeposit:onal
phrase linked to the word "ooen." 3uSC as the rcad rnust be "open as a rriatter of right,"
the road also must be "open to public vehicular tzavel." Here, the right-of-way fs not
open to veh.icuti ar travel. -
In surunary, the righ;,-o€-way is not cpen as a matter o€ right to vehicular travel
and is, theze=ore, not a"highway" or "coi:nty road." Hecause the rzgnt-of-way was rot a
cot:n:.y road, it did not severt to the City unde: RCW 35.02.180.
VACAI`IOCF OF D3DFCATTON
The trial court also cor.cluded that the right-of-.+ay .uas anopen and vacatec as a
rnatter of ia., under RC« 36.67.090. Zn oChez woras, the court concluded that the
opezation of RCcV 36.87.090 vacatec: the 1995 dedication of the zight-of-way Gnd
precluded the establishment of the right-of-way as a councy roaci Por fice years.
RCSP 36.87.090 reads:
Any county road, oz parC thereof, which xernains unoPen foz public use for
11
tco. 26268-5-1II
City af SnoY.ane valley v• SpOkane Coiney
a period oE €ive ycars afrer the ozder is made or authozity graaiCed toL
open=ng it, shall be ther,eby vacated, and the author.ty far buildir.g it ba.sed
by lapse oP Cime: PR0V?DED, That this section sl?all not appiy to any
highway, roaci, st.zee:., alley, oz other pubiic place dedicated as such in any
plat, whetnez the ldnd a.ncluc3eC1 a.n such pldt is within or wsthout the la.mits oF
an incorporated city or toHn, or to any lar.d conveyed by deed to the state
or to an,y county, c9.ty ar town for hlghways, =oads, stzeets, alleys, or other
public places.
(7-rnphasis added.)
F:rst, RCW 36.87.090 does 1ot apply because the right-of-way is not a"cour.ty
road." Second, in 1990, the County purchaeed the property by doed. As a zesulC, this
p-operty fits within the exceotion under RC97 36.87.040. The trial court erred by
concluding that the ded_cation was vacated.
in canclusion, we hold that the _ighC-ot-way does not mee_ the defa.niticn oP
"county roaa" and, thus, did not revert co the City unde: RCSv 35.02.180. Additiona].ly,
we hola thar the zight-oP-way falls within the exemPtion urder RCW 36.87.490 fox
pzoper[ies purchased by deed. Thus, the trial coUxt errec3 by conclud3nq that the
dedication was vacated. Accordingiy, we affi:m the trial cou=t in pazt and reverse in part.
12
No. 26268-5-III
City of Spokane Valley v. Spokane CounCy
Kulik, A.C.J.
http://u,NAtiv.courts.%va.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filenatne=262685iU1.AJ 7/23/2008
Washington Courts Paje 9 of 9
GTE CONCGft:
Brown, J.
Thcmpson, J. Pro Tern.
13
Courts I Organizations I News I Opinlons I Rules I Forms I Olrectory ~ Ubrary
Back to Top I Privacy and Disclaimer Notices
htip:/l,AIww.c4urts.wa.cy,QV/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=262685ti1AJ 7/23/2005
i y,~z:.
~ ►~~~R -
1
~ - -
\ " - -
2
~ C •I
~
1 ~ -
!
. f'
~
I ~ _
~ ~ -
~
,
~ -
~
_
~ ~ - _ .
~ ~ .
_ _
. .
4
~►.iiM ~
i ~,j 1;
. ~ ■I + ~ii~~
l~x
; s a:~sMo t~l
~ i - -
J L
" pv••a nr~i;~--
as~~~s~' •
~c
I -f ~ - -
1
i3sKa~ ' I
-t
~
-
1;..~..:
I a4~u'~•.'. •~.*~I.
7 l ~
~ •i a• ~
~ii'.:~: .Iri1l~r.i : t
• ~f~~~~1! ~ . _ .
~ • ~
~ • ~~s.~-
' .
_ i ~ 1 I
' • ~l ~ ~ .
~ i
1 ' ~
~ ~
~ S 't ~ , • '
~ L ,
• , ~ - -
~ " .~.'.~'r~~•.~ t .~~.H
1 ' ~
, t ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ -
I . ' A ' ~ ~
~ ' _ ~
~~f • ~ ~
6
\ ~ • ' ~ ,
r .
zoi,inoa:..ttk.tcon.
, • _ ~ ~
r ' ' . ~
~~,t
i =
7
. - - - -
' • ~ , f -
. . ,
i ,
F
c. ~
~ ~ -
~..I - - -
_ ,
~
, Q ~ - -
~ ~ -
_ ~
~i
~
~ ~
I I .~s' .~'r 1 ' ' - -
~ y ~ - - - . .
V
i
•
r
L
•
~ - -J L
_1~~~
..s.~:~_: .
9
•
.
I~;, ~
~
,
, ~ _ -
~ -
~:rt~~~~~ - - _
~
.
~
~ ~
~
~
.
-
- -
11
ti
1 l I
~ v
~I ~ .
~ ~ ~t "
` _ ~ ~ ~ ~
I .
~ ,
~
SPOKANE COUNTY, CITY OF fPOKANE. CiTY OF SPOKANE VALLEY.
CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE. CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS, CITY OF MILLWOOD
2007-2009 CTED Collaborative Planning Grant
Spokane County Metro Urban Growth Area:
Development Regulations and Review Process
Spokane County and the cities af Spokar►Q, Spokane VaAey, I-iberty Lake, Airway
t-Ieights, and Millwaod are taking steps as a region to define what collaborative
planning means in the Metro Urban Growth Area.
In 2006, they were awarded a grant Erom the Washington Department of Commu-
nity, l'rade, and Ecenomic Develapment (CIED) ta detemune tfie compatibillty of
development regulatiQns in the hietro Urban Growth Area atui in 2007, a second
grant was awarded to develop a coordinated strategy for rnllaborative planning in
these areas.
lhis brochure describes the work completed to date in this coilaboratlve effart and
is presenterd bo solicit comments and adviee from the ptanning commissions and
c7ty councils of the partiugating metra jurisdictions and the Baard of County
Commissianers.
f SPOKANE M TRO
N GROWT REA
~ ;
5o Ce~. _ ' ' }
~
Jz~
{ .
-4~
a
`
Thimelurtic. _ - - ~ . F^ ; - ~ -=i~►,.,,,,
l _ _ : j .
-
w• ~ ~
. _ - • -
s o, Gr.ant - Committee:
Amuft S140,000 4.1- m
o , ft , Wof tft
t
I r ieriow . i. ~
Collaboration Process
Growth Management Act CTED Collaborative Pianning Grant - Phase
Responsibilities under the Growth 4lanagement In the fall of 2007, 5pokane Counry and the rities
Art require the esfablishment of Urtsan Growth of Spokane, Spokane VaUey, Liberty Lake, Air-
Areas and policies for joint cuunty and dty plan- way Heights, and hliUwood were awarded a sec-
ning within UGAs " to en.sure coardination be- and CTED grant to fw-ther the collaborative
tween communities and jurisdictions to reconcile planning process. I'hase [I af the project w7U:
conflicts". The Act also requires that "the com- • Develop coordinated developtnent regula-
prehensive plan of each eounty ar dty shall dons and review process for use in the unin-
be coordinated with, and rnnsistent with, the corporated urban growth areas;
comprehensive plans af other counties, citics • Determine fiFCal issues for County sen-rcf- d,,-
with which the county or city has, in party, com- Iivery and revenues assoriateci with url .
man borders or related regional issues". gruw-th areas;
• Provide a facilitator for the Coanty an~i ~ Countywide Ptanning Policies cities to negotiaoe inberlocal agreements t~~r
Spokane Caunty's adopted Countywide PIan- cQllabarative plaiuzing in urban growth arl-~+-ning Poliries proi-ide the guidanoe and incentive
to plan collabciratively. Ttu.~se polides were de- Developrreent Regulaclons and Review Process
velopeci to address the need for collatxirative 'I'his inforntational brochure summarizes one
planning within UGAs and define these azeas as option for compatible development regulations
"Urban Grawth Areas assigned to a dty or town and a coordinaUed review process for the Metrn
for future urban development but lcxated in the Urban Growth Area. Specific ereas ef concern
undncorporated rnunty where a coorciinated include cannectivity, land use, strrets, landsc.~ 1-
planning process between the tities, tow-ns and ing, design, density and setbacks. The develop-
the County wiIl be conducted." ment regulations of each jurisdirtion were sur-
Collaboratfon Background veyed in 1'hase I of the CI'ED Collaborative
Grant and were fvund to be similar in mam
Atbempts at collaborative planning tc►r the urban wars. Based upon this assessment, an ovt-rl.:
growth areas thrvugh interlocal agreements liad ~ne was explored that establishes varic~us
not been suc.cessful, and there was a generai con- Caunty-adupbed r.oning overlay districts e,i;
eensus that a better proc.ess was needed. After ing regulations of neighboring jurisdicHo: i
many meetings and much deliberation by bnth
elected officials ancl professional staff from Metro Area Meetings
thrvugltuut the Nictro Area, a path was identi- During the mcmth of July 2008, City Coun, -
fieci. A fizst key tnsk was a thoraugh review af and Planning Commissions of each participa ti r;,
curtent development regutatians and processes. city as well as tie Board of County COIIlIIlL55iOn
CTED Collaborattve Plannfng Grant - Phase I ers WW be pmsented with this FCOposal for com-
patible dc►~•elopment regu]ations and review
In 20Q6, the Washingtan Department of Com- ~Fut fmm each botty will be incorpo-
munity, Trade, and Economic Developrnent rated into a re~commendc~ci proposal whirh will
(CTED) awarded the Metro Area jurisdi~tions a ~~~nted to the Metra Area jurisdictions at
grant to help define the similarities and diEfer- ~~ea-wide meeting in the fall of 2[mt3. Resulcs
ences in land use rngulations and development of this process wiIl be usetii In the development
process in the h4etro Urban Growth r',rea. This of interlocal agreements for joint planning in
work was completed in July of 2007, an►1 titi~ re- urban gro~ti•th areas.
sults were reporbe~d to the participating jurisdi: -
tions in a series of council and commissioner
meetings at tfiat time. Recammendsidon5 wt!
made to provide mpre consistency and ti,
coordinate the development regulations ai,•.
process in the Metro CJrban Grawth Area
Metro Urban Growth Area Overlay Zone
Incertt Overlar Zone
7he overlay zone applies only tu unincarporated The overlay zane eiucompasses a number of dif-
urban growth areas adjacent to the Metro Area ferent County zoning types: rcsidential, com-
cides. Cities would cantinue tn control, plan, de- merrial, mixec!-use and industrial. Each Spokane
sign and regulate aIl land uses w-ithin its city County zoning type wIthin the metro urban
buundaries. grawth area can aLso be found in the existing
Mechanics ordinances of adjacentcides. In essence, d1e
Lnitially, it appeared tfiat a simple extension of overlay zone modifies Spokane County stan-
city development regulativns - particularty as dards With those of the adjacent cities.
c}ley pertained to !n some instances, the overlay
land use, devel- ~r zone would alter the pernutted
opmer►t standards land use table, tailoring land
and street design . ~ vse to more closely matr-h the
- would be an ' i'0°M uses in the adjoinirtg cities.
aFPr'oPriate solu-
tian After re- i`- Densiry scandards
` Densi standarcis would be
vie~~fng the exist- . ti}'
ing land use ron- A~ • 10- updatied and would replace the
text in more de- , underlying zoning require-
t-ail, it brcame ap- ments to create a built environ-
parent that city nient mairlung dty maxlmum
build-ouL This section marries
develapmQnt
regulations alone County minimum requirements
may not address all of the urban growth area's with City maximum require-
likely conElicts and t+e sensitive to nuance in land ments.
use and street design standarcis. Accordingly, The overlay would include floor area ratios
the overlay zone creabes categories for the vari- (FAR) for aIl caaunercial distrirts as well as for
ous County Jand use designations. These catega lQw and medicim-density residential districts.
ries propose tegulations generally consi.Sbertt Current County regulations have an FAR re-
WICII ttIOSe of ihe adjacent cities. quirement for only the Mixcd Use zone - a re-
quirement that would remain uiuhanged by dtie
c,verlay.
Overta Zonin Districts and theu Underl n Conn Zones
. .
l.ow Dertsity Residential I'lus (LDR-P) UGA l.ati.• T3ensity (L;Lll)
Low LTensity Residentul (I.OR) UGA Low Density (ULD)
Medium Density Residendal (l~iDR) UGA Medium Density (LJNID)
High Density Residcritial (HDR) UGA High Derxsity (UND)
Neighborhood Commetcial (NC) UGA Neighbarhoc+d CemmQrcial (UAIC)
Community CQmmescial (CC) UGA Community Commercial (UCC)
Reg{ana] Commercial (RC) UGA Fegional Comnenial (L'RC)
UrEtan Activity or Mlxed Use (MU) UGA Mixed Uw (U4itn
Ligtit Industrial (I.I) UGA Light Industrial (UU)
Heaw Industrial (}-il) UGA Heavy Industrial (UH1)
Subdrvision and Site Design Standards Implemencation
Subdivision and site design standards would In acder to implrmeiit this aliernative, Spokane
aeabe a cansistent fabric of sidewalks, Planting C4unty would adopt dhe urban growth area
strips, street trees, lighting, and block length. overlay inta its zoning reguladons, and wauld
General requirnments and specific require- administer it similarly to its adZer overlays.
ments for residential, cvmmercial, and indus- Currently, the County has an Airport Overlay,
trial districts would also be aeated within the Planned Unit Develapment, and an Aesthetir
overlay. Cotridor Overlay. This would tecome the
Street Sqnduds fowth overlay under l,nne Classificadons,
Street standards wauld be derived from tfiose Chapter 14.600.
of Spokane Couttty with adaptations as needed County ~ff woul►i follow thc -same prcx:ess for
to better cvnform tn those of the cities..1'he permittir►g.3s is currenil,y followed, but Hfien a
Sgokane Regional Transportation Cauncil pmpnsal is within the metropolitan UGA, the
(SRTC) is studying the prevailing street stan- overlav zone reyuirements wnuld also ap}?ly.
dards now, and this section will he wordinated
to ensUre consistency w-ith SRTC findings.
Exam le of Residential Densities in N7etro Overlaj, Zone
~r4~• . ~ o~,
7M&ximum mum Deitsity 4 units/acre 10 uniLs/acre Cher 15 units/acre
[k~ns3ty 10 unit5/acre 120 units/aae Nane
Next Steps
Spokane County and the fire cities ~~ithin the
N4etra Urban Growth Area will continue to work
on consistent devetopment regulations as part of
their overall goal to plan rollaboratively. This
eEfort will dovetail with other tasks tfie jurisdic-
tions are pursuing as a part of Plase II of the ~
C1TD Coqaborative Planning Grant This in-
~t ) ( -
cludes determining the fiscal issues for County
seMce delivery• and revenues associated with
urban growth areas; and providing a facilitatar
for the Counry and metro dties tn negatiate in-
terlotal agreements for collaburative planning in
urban growth areas.
. . u - o . l: -
Studio Cascade. at 83iS-MO bgirimos@studk)caseade.com.
t i m .
~ .
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 29, 2008 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check al) that apply: ❑ Consent ❑ Old business ❑ New business E) Public Hearing
❑ Information ❑ Actmin. RepoR❑ Pending Legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan Public Hearing GOVERNING LEGISLATIOfd: The Subarea Plan must be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW 36.70A.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A
BACKGROUND: The Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan process was initiated during the
summer of 2006. After a series of woricshops and study sessions, the staff/consulting tearn
presented a Public Hearing Draft Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan for hearings
and review by the Planning Commission.
After public hearings and deliberations, the Planning Commission presented their
Recommended Subarea Plan to City Council for review, hearings and deliberations.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
1. Move Subarea Plan forward to deliberations as scheduled.
2. If needed, continue public hearing to a date certain.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N!A STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner
~
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 29, 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: First Touch:
Vactoring Services with AAA Sweeping, Change Order #1
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND: Attached gives background on the first amendment to the contract for
Vactoring Services with AAA Sweeping, LLC, resulting in a net change of $90,000.00.
This item is scheduled to come before Council as an admin report at the August 12, 2008
Council meeting.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT:
ATTACHMENTS: Change Order memo and contract
Y
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
PUBLIC WORKS INFORMATIONAL COVER SHEET
FOR
CITY MANAGER CHANGE ORDER APPROVAL
Date: July 22, 2008
Budget Account No: 402.402.000.538.36.41.10
AGREEMENT TOPIC:
Contract No. 08-002
Vactoring Senrices with AAA Sweeping, LLC
BACKGROUND:
1Vraintaiui.ng our stormwater system is impartant to protecting ground water quality and reducing flooding on
public roads. Currently, Staff is conducting an inventory of every drainage structure located on City property or
within the public road right of way as part of the Washington State Department of Ecology Underground lnjection
Control Program (UIC). We are required to complete street by strect inspections by 2011 and perform an
asscssment of the dr}wells by 2013. After the assessment, all drywclls found that pose a threat to the groundwater
must be replaccd or repaired. The structure i.nformation from the inspections is loaded into a Geographic
Information System (GIS) geodatabase. The geodatabase keeps record of which structures are dirty and in need of
cleaning. Staff identifies structures as "dirty" if they are full or llalf ful.l, as measured to the top the sh-ucture, with
mud, silt, or debris. Using GIS, a list of diriy structures is generated and passed on to the contraetor for cleaning.
Rasically, the city is in crisis management and only eleaning the dirtiest structures. Good housekeeping procedures
should plan for the maintenance of each drainage structtue once every two years. -
Based on wbat has been invenforied so far, Spokane Valley's stormwater system includes 7000 dryNvelis, 3000
catchbasi.ns, 2000 curblsidewalk drops, ] 00 storm manholes, 100 culverts, 4 pump systems, 18 miles of storm pipe,
10 miles of storm ditches, 47 ponds and ma.ny miles of swales. The cleaning of our stormwaier system sbould
follow Best Managemcnt Practices (13tifP) according to the Department of Ecology 2004 E,astern Washington
Stormwater Manual. ?he manual recommends cleaning catchbasins when the depth of debris reaches 60 percent of
the sump depth, as measured from the bottom of the basin to the invert of the pipe out of the basin. (See
detail below) With 3,000 city-owmed catchbasi.ns that can fill up yearly with road debris; we axe not keeping up
with the BM:P. In 2006 and 2007 combined; only 200 oF the dirtiest catchbasins were cleaned.
Reccomended Bv1P Current CSV Reccomended BiW Current CSV
Catchbasin Maintcnauce Catchbasin Maintenance Drywell Maintenance Drywell Mainienance
O O O O O O
O O O
5a~iment F= r---1 r=
0 0 0
Sediment o ~ o Sedime t
0 0 0
000
0 0 0
Sedime r-P t
P:1Public WorlcslStotmwater Mnnagcmcntleontractslt2eq~12St f07 BIdSWIlCtO[IDgII]GW U1d\P1Dk S}lGOI E67 CbEtLjyC OPdCl N0. 1
I
s
It is the same story for drywells. 1`he manual recommends cleaning drywells beforc the sediment depth reaches the
lowest rvw of slots providing outflow from the drywell barrel. (See detail above) With 7,000 city oNvned drywells
that drain street runoffdirectly to the aquifer, our crews have cleaned only 400 of the dirtiest ones from 2006 -
current. That ]caves 6,600 drywells left that are not being cleaned according to the BMP. Pollutants from mad
runoff ends up trapped in the sediment at the bottom of a drywell. Our drywclls need to be cleaned on a routine
basis to remove thc contaminated sediment. Also, when drywell barrels get full of mud and silt and are not cleaned
regularly, many times the material will leech out through the slots and will contaminate the drain field (pluasing
the drain rock), which then needs to be dug up and replaced.
With ground watee quality (Aquifer) and liability (Flooding) issues considered, a regular maintenanco program is
something that every vlun.icipal should have. 7he City should be doing everything possible to engage Best
Management Practices for maintaining the system on a rcgular basis.
Even with an additional $90,000 this yrear for vactoring services, the City will only be able to clean about 150 more
of thc dirtiest dryNvells and catchbasins identified in the summer of 2007. Given the remaininL time in 2008 we
feel 150 is the feasible numbcr that can be cleaned. We have a list ready of appro;umately 200 fulUhalf full
structures identified so far this year that need to be cleaned as soon as possible. Also, Nve did not anticipate
cleaning 300 structures this year because as we inventory, we become more aware of extremely dirty drywells and
calehbasins. Even aRer wc get through cleaning those 200, that sti.ll leaves thousands of drywells and catchbasins
not being cleaned according to the BM7's. We also have many culverts, ditches, curb and sidewal.k inlets, sivales,
and pipes that are not being cleaned. After several years of lack of maintenance to our system, you get a"snowball
effecY' and it become's very• difficult at that point to catch up. We need to at least try to maintain more than we
currently aze.
Scaff is continuing to physically inspcct the dry wells and other structures to comply with the UIC program. Staff
is becoming aware of many drywells and catchbasins that are well beyond the recommended level for cleaning that
is causing the drywells to fail resulting in flooding tind other water control and water quality problems. Also, as
we continue ta inspect and assess our drai.nage structures over the next 5years, w•e will continue to better
understand the current state of our stormwater system. As we finish up our inventory and assessment for the UIC
program in 2013, we will roll all the information into an overall long range stormwater program. This is a complex
issue that needs to be worked throug,h for a better plan to maintain the entire system. Attached are photos showing
what we are maiptaining right now and what is not being maintained.
Public Works Dire or Project Manager
DisTRIsuriorv:
Original to Vendor
Original to City Clerlc
Capy to Submitting Department
Copy to Finance Department .
ATTACHMENTS;
Change Order No. 1
P:1Public WarkslStormwater D4snagementkontruc3slRcqaest f4r BidslVaetaringtincw bidlPink Shat for Change Order No. 1
.j
S ~ pokane
Valley~
,;woOF CHANGE ORDER TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO: 1
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT: Vactoring Services CONTRACT DATE: 12/27/2007
CONTRACTOR: AAA Swee in , LLC CFIANGE OROER NO: 1
~ SCHEDULE A- PROJECT IdO: 08-002
SCHEDULE B -
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES
Additional Vactoring Services using compensatifln rates as outlined in Exhibit B, 2008 Cost Proposal,
of the original contract.
Total Amount ot this Chan e Order: $90,000.00
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION
Original Date: Prior to this Change Order. Including this Changz Order:
THESE CHANGES RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS OF CONTRACT PRICE:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 86,801.58
_ .
TOTAL PRIOR CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT ~ 0.00
.
CONTRACT PRICE PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER (through CO#) $ 86,801.58
NET THIS CHANGE ORDER $ 90,000.00
CONTRACT AMOUNT INCLUDING THIS CHANGE ORDER S 176,801.58
CONTRACTOR ACCEPTAIdCE: DATE:
The contractor fiereby aocepts this adjustment under the terms oi'the original contract for sll work perfomed.
RECOMMENDED BY: DATE:
for (Consultant)
APPROVED BY: DATE:
-7 /1,;;
Neil Kersten, Public VJo
10
APPROVED BY: DATE:
David Mercier, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Distrfbutlon:
ORIGINALS TO: Corstractar, City of Spokane Valley Clerk's Office
COPIES TO: PW Pro ect File
P:P^NlFormsR'emplatssfCO (Kov 06)