PC APPROVED Minutes 06-26-14 Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall,
June 26,2014
Vice Chair Carlsen called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for
the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present:
Kevin Anderson John Hohman, Community Development Director
Christina Carlsen Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Robert McCaslin,Absent Excused Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Mike Phillips Christina Janssen,Planner
Steven Neill,Absent, Excused Tadas Kisielius, Special Council
Joe Stoy,Absent-Excused Deanna Horton, Secretary
Sam Wood
Hearing no objections, Commissioners McCaslin, Neill and Stoy were excused from the meeting.
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the June 26, 2014 amended agenda. Motion passed four to
zero.
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the June 12, 2014 minutes as presented. Motion passed,four
to zero.
COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners Phillips and Wood reported they attended the June 24,
2014 City Council meeting.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Mr. Hohman welcomed new Commissioner Sam Wood. Mr. Hohman
also discussed the Planning Commission advanced agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comment.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
A. Public Hearing Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Amendment CTA-2014-0002.
Vice Chair Carlsen opened the public hearing at 6:27 p.m. City Attorney Cary Driskell gave an
overview of Initiative 502, (I-502) regarding the regulations adopted by the state for the
producing, processing and retail sales of recreational marijuana. He said the state law I-502
decriminalized the use and possession for recreational use, established a regulatory system for
licensing producers, processors and retailers and named the Washington State Liquor Control
Board (WSLCB) as the governing authority for these regulations. The federal administration has
determined it will not interfere with states who have voted to legalize recreational use of
marijuana as long as those states can govern it appropriately.
Mr. Driskell stated the Attorney General issued an opinion in January of 2014 that determined
that I-502 contains no clear indication it was intended to preempt local authority to regulate
recreational marijuana. On February 11, 2014 the City adopted interim regulations governing
recreational marijuana. Interim regulations are only good for six months and then permanent
regulations need to be adopted. The interim regulations follow the state regulations, however the
City determined it would be appropriate to buffer the Centennial Trail and the proposed
Appleway Trail along with any vacant and undeveloped public school land and library property.
The interim regulations will expire in August 2014, so the final regulations need to be adopted
prior to the interim regulations expiring. Staff identified some issues with the interim regulations.
The buffer for the Centennial Trail extended to industrial properties on the north side of the river,
which could be used for processing and growing. Also staff considered that processing included
a variety of activities from just bagging the raw marijuana to complex chemical extractions.
After reviewing the processing options, it may be appropriate to allow for the bagging only in
zones other than industrial. On April 22, 2014 Council adopted amendments to the interim
regulations.
06-26-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4
The current interim regulations are:
• Allow Recreational Marijuana Production in CC,RC, and both Industrial zones;but in CC
and RC zones, only indoor grow operations are allowed.
• Allow Recreational Marijuana Processing in CC, RC and both Industrial zones; but in CC and
RC zones, only packaging and labeling of useable marijuana is allowed.
• Allow Recreational Marijuana Retail Sales in MUC, CMU, CC, and RC zones; provide
buffers from Centennial Trail and Appleway Trail.
• Buffer all Recreational Marijuana from undeveloped public school and public library
property.
The proposed amendments would:
• Mirror Existing Interim Regulations.
• Amend Appendix A-Definitions: Add definitions for Marijuana processing, production, and
sales.
• Adopt SVMC 19.85: Development regulations for the processing, production and sales of
Marijuana.
• Amend SVMC 19.120.050-Permitted use matrix to include Marijuana uses.
Ms. Christina Janssen then explained that the amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC)would be under Chapter 19.85. She explained the definitions would be in Appendix A,
where all the definitions for the SVMC are located. In the Permitted Use matrix,marijuana
production would be listed under Agriculture and Animals, Processing would be listed under light
industrial, and retail sales would be listed under the retail sales section. All of these listings have
a reference to the code section for more information.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the City would be issuing a license for the marijuana Mr.
Hohman explained the City does not issue a business license, only an endorsement. The State
would be handling all of the licensing requirements. Commissioner Carlsen asked if the City
would be able to approve who would be receiving a license. Mr. Hohman said the City can
register an objection with the state, and we believe they are taking those objections into account,
however the City does not have any approving authority regarding who will receive a license.
Commissioner Anderson asked if there was a list of who had received a license. Mr. Hohman
explained it was a dynamic process with many people inquiring, two to three a day, about the
different aspects of starting each type of license on a regular basis.
Having no one who wished to test, Commissioner Carlsen closed the public hearing at 6:43
p.m.
Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of CTA-2014-0002 to the City Council.
Commissioner Phillips stated he was opposed to any use of marijuana, and even opposed to
voting in favor of these regulations. He said he would vote for it, however he would rather not
have any marijuana in the City. Commissioner Wood said he understood Commissioner Phillips
statement, but felt there were good buffers in place for the uses. Commissioner Carlsen said she
feels the City has made a good attempt with the regulations laid out for the legalized uses, and the
buffers will protect future uses. Commissioner Anderson voiced he felt the regulations were
approving where legal operations would be allowed. He said he felt the legislature would be
changing the rules because people did not vote on infused products.
Motion passed four to zero.
B. Deliberations Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP),Draft Regulations.
Senior Planner Lori Barlow stated that Mr. Kisielius was present to assist with guidance for a
couple of items which staff needed direction before bringing back the Planning Commission draft
of the regulations for review. Ms. Barlow handed out the comment matrix, which she offered had
a response to each of the comments received at the public hearing along with a letter received
06-26-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4
from the Department of Ecology (DOE). Commissioner Anderson asked if the letter from DOE
was appropriate after the close of the public hearing. Mr. Kisielius responded that DOE had a
special role in the Shoreline Master Program. As the approving agency and a partner in the
regulations, they have the authority and ability to provide more input than would normally be
allowed in other circumstances. The Commissioners reviewed the comment matrix and changes
were noted.
Ms. Barlow said that at the last meeting, the question was asked how many privately owned
parcels and structures would be impacted by the buffers. After an analysis, there were 92
privately owned parcels that would be impacted. Only 30 of those parcels would be impacted
greater than one to two feet, 30 would be impacted by one to two feet and only two structures
would be impacted. Those parcels impacted greater than one to two feet, the buffer might go up
to the property line, but residential uses do not have a setback so it would have little effect on the
property. The two structures which have been impacted are located on the north side of the river,
on Kaiser property, which are pump houses. The buffers in the Orchard Avenue area have not
changed, a straight 50 feet, which is the same as what it was before. The buffer in the Coyote
Rock area is a straight 75 feet. Other areas will have a buffer which will follow the Shoreline
Vegetation Report.
21.50.030(D) DOE is asking to have the language changed to state that the director will consult
with DOE. "Shall"will be inserted for"will"and the change will be made.
21.50.110(F) DOE would like the whole definition from the WAC used.The definition will be
updated.
21.50.110(G) Amending to update the new threshold for replacement docks, from $10,000 to
$20,000.
21.50.260(B)(2)(c) DOE is asking for standards for paths and trails. Standards will be added to
the regulations.
21.50.340(B)(2) will modify this section to remove the reference to permanent in-stream
structures not impeding normal ground and surface water. Also, Table 21.50-2 will be changed to
allow groins and weirs as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the environments which allow in-
stream structures.
21.50.430, where docks will be allowed on the river. There has been considerable discussion by
both user groups about where docks should be allowed on the river. Ms. Barlow pointed out the
standards for allowing docks and said they are not allowed in free flowing portions of the river.
DOE and Futurewise both commented that the regulations should state specifically where docks
will be allowed. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners the City would not be the only
reviewing agency in regard to docks on the river and that there are more stringent regulations
from some of the other agencies. Mr. Hohman commented that he and Mr. Driskell had taken a
tour of the river and the river at Coyote Rock is very shallow and the red band trout do indeed
like to live in this area, as well as their predators. According to SVMC motorized boats are
allowed to the Centennial Trail Bridge. Mr. Hohman said additional analysis should be required
to have a dock at the location of the Coyote Rock area because previously two docks had been
placed in this area and they had come loose and floated down the river. There are safety issues
with a dock based on the structure of the river, such as the need to have a longer dock to get to a
depth needed for a boat, and the problem of rafters running into the dock. The decision is to
allow docks in the Orchard Avenue Area; and to allow docks in the Coyote Rock area provided
the dock meets set criteria and shows that structural and habitat issues are addressed, and the
dock must also meet the permitting regulations of all other required agencies. One of the options
to address this issue will be some type of regulation regarding joint use/community docks.
21.50.480(C)(4)(a) request to modify language to say "legally constructed existing irrigation and
drainage ditches..." This will be modified.
06-26-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4
21.50.510(B)will add"consistent with appropriate state and federal guidelines."
21.50.510(D)(f)(i) Commissioner Anderson said he had an issue with the language because it
seemed there is a changing time line for monitoring the compensatory mitigation. Mr. Kisielius
noted he would have the consultant biologist Noah Herlocker review the language.
21.50.520(C)(1)will modify to remove the exception for category III and IV wetlands.
21.50.520(E)(1)(c)(v)will remove the"or."
21.580.310 will wait to see how the language is drafted in regard to docks and then determine
how to proceed.
21.50.420 modify to acknowledges the Department of Natural Resources has jurisdiction over
projects on state owned land.
21.50.430 will be a place holder waiting on piers and dock language to be coming soon.
Avista requested less stringent regulations from the City to perform maintenance duties around
their power lines. City staff is not recommending any changes based on their request, but
suggests a new foot note to the table 21.50-1 to clarify conditions when a Letter of Exemption
would be required. Ms. Barlow said she felt the current allowances in the proposed regulations
would take care of a majority of the maintenance work. Anything greater would require a permit
and the City would like the ability to review any major work.
21.50.110(L)(4) Commissioner Anderson asked about this section and Avista having this section
deleted. Staff stated after Avista explained the project, it could be determined it would not be
necessary, however the language is from the WAC (Washington Administrativ Code) and it
would be necessary depending on the project to require the Shoreline Development Permit or the
surety bond.
Commissioner Carlsen moved to extend the meeting to 9:1.5 p.m., motion passed four to zero.
Staff is not recommending any changes based on Futurewise's comments except those which
have already been addressed by DOE.
Staff will be returning at the next meeting with a marked up version of the draft regulations for
the Planning Commission's review.
C. Findings of Fact for Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)Amendment CTA-2014-0002.
The Commission reviewed the findings for CTA-2014-0002, Marijuana regulations.
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the Commission's Findings of Fact for CTA-2014-
0002. Vote on the motion was four in favor, zero against, motion passed.
GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commissioners welcomed Mr. Wood to their group.
ADJOURNMENT: pe meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
„, . Li- i
;Chfistina Carls�ei Chai .erson Date signed
D(NOL)
Deanna Horton, Secretary
06-26-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4