The URL can be used to link to this page

2014, 12-09 Regular MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday, December 9, 2014 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor Joe Putsch of Valley Fourth Memorial Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: Dr. James Harken, Spokane Valley Arts Council COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Ajienda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on Dec 9, 2014 Request for Council Action Form Totaling: $1,106,812.63 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending November 15, 2014: $297,159.54 c. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending November 30, 2014: $414,226.63 d. Approval of November 17, 2014, Special 2:30 Study Session Meeting Minutes e. Approval of November 17, 2014, Special 6 p.m. Formal Format Meeting Minutes f. Approval of Resolution 14-013 Setting Planning Commission Public Hearing for Jan 8, 2015 g. Approval of Holiday Closure, December 26, 2014 h. Approval of December 2, 2014 Study Session Meeting Minutes NEW BUSINESS: 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 14-020 Adopting Shoreline Master Program — Lori Barlow [public comment] 3. Proposed Resolution 14-014 Terminating Easement — Cary Driskell [public comment] 4. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointment to Spokane Housing Authority — Mayor Grafos [public comment] 5. Motion Consideration: Approval of Contract, Argonne Corridor Project — Steve Worley [public comment] Council Agenda 12-09-14 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 6. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos INFORMATION ONLY: 7. "No Truck" Signs CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2"—d and 4"—' Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1St 3rd and 5th Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 12-09-14 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 Past and Present The historical journey of the Spokane Valley Arts Council began in the fall of 2003 with seventeen local residents meeting together with the common goal of increasing the appreciation and visibility of the arts in the area east of Spokane. We had no specific idea on what we were trying to achieve, but dialogue was encouraged, and many meetings were held over the next twelve months. The SVAC became a 501c3 nonprofit corporation on November 1, 2004. Currently we have an all -volunteer executive board of 13 members. In the spring of 2007, Peggy Doering of ValleyFest asked me if the SVAC might be willing to put together an art event at CenterPlace during the ValleyFest three day celebration. The SVAC agreed to do this, and held the first Artist Showcase and Art Auction the fall of 2007. It was successful, and we will be hosting our 9th Artist Showcase this spring, on May 30th, 2015, with over a dozen demonstration artists and approximately 60 pieces of art to be sold. The Spokane Valley Arts Council has provided expertise, artist connections, easels and lighting to the Northwest Museum of Arts and Culture to help build their fall art auction patterned after our Artist Showcase. The MAC held their fourth successful event this past November. The city of Spokane Valley has been generous since our inception, with grant funding and providing us with monthly meeting space at CenterPlace. The Park Department also has been generous each year allowing us the use of the great room at CenterPlace for our Artist Showcase. We have provided art work by local artists to decorate the Spokane Valley Library main branch. We also keep the show cases at CenterPlace filled with quality art and change it out every three months. We have funded the construction and placement of two monumental bronze sculptures in the past seven years. The first one, an eight foot mountain man, called Working the Line, by Jerry McKellar, stands next to the Discovery Playground in Mirabeau Point Park. The second sculpture is an Indian maiden called The Berry Picker by Nancy McLaughlin, standing on the north side of CenterPlace next to the roadway. A third monumental bronze titled Dance of the Sun and Moon by Jerry McKellar will be donated to the city and placed across the street from Horizon Credit Union on Montgomery approximately / block west of Worldng the Line. The dedication for this bronze will take place on Thursday, March 26th at 4 PM. KSPS public television has been filming a documentary on Dr. McKellar and will also be filming the placement and presentation. This doclunentary will include the fabricating process of this piece from start to finish. I invite and encourage the entire city council, Parks Department, and city employees to attend. In keeping with our goal of improving the appreciation of art in this area, we have established The Spokane Valley Arts Council Student Art Scholarship. Four $1000 scholarships will be awarded to high school seniors in the East Valley, West Valley and Central Valley school districts. The alternative high schools within these districts are also included. Students will submit their art to be juried into the Artist Showcase, and those accepted will be part of the silent auction, if the student desires. An additional $1000 award, the Lynn Baiter Scholarship, will be presented to one of the final four, voted upon by the attendees at the Artist Showcase. These funds have been donated by Quarry Tile. What's In The Future? Recently I met with three council members and invited them to my home to view the art collection my wife and I own. Pauline and I individually have bequeathed the art that our children do not want or cannot receive due to state or federal inheritance taxes to the Spokane Valley Arts Council. SVAC has the option of displaying the art or selling it. The collection is huge, being in the neighborhood of over 3000 pieces. When talking with individual council members, I broached the subject of the city and SVAC partnering in some form, with SVAC providing rotating art and the city providing a structure to house the art. We could, in this manner, provide an art experience for our citizens or welcome visitors to our city through a unique museum. If this idea can gain traction with the city council, I would welcome a meeting between the Spokane Valley Arts Council and the city in some form. Submitted by Dr. James Harken, President, Spokane Valley Arts Council CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 9, 2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: a consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS 11/14/2014 33897-33918; 110514007 11/14/2014 5998-6002 11/19/2014 8; 4980-4894; 33919 11/20/2014 6003-6007 11/20/2014 33920-33960; 1118140167 11/21/2014 33961-33994 11/26/2014 33995-34029 11/26/2014 6008--6014 12/03/2014 34030-34035 GRAND TOTAL: TOTAL AMOUNT $411,243.13 $725.00 $67,349.73 $428.00 $285,442.18 $115,032.17 $310,300.31 $1,087.50 $5,204.61 S1,106.812.63 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists #001 - General Fund Other Funds 001.01 1.000.511 City Council 101 — Street Fund 001.013.000.513. City Manager 103 - Paths & Trails 001.013.015.515. Legal 105 — Hotel/Motel Tax 001.016.000. Public Safety 106 — Solid Waste 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 120 - CcnterPlace Operating Reserve 001.018.014.514. Finance 121— Service Level Stabilization Reserve 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 122 — Winter Weather Reserve 001.032.000. Public Works 123 —Civil Facilities Replacement 001.058.050.558. Comm. Develop.- Administration 204 — Debi Service 001.058.055.558. Comm. Develop.— Develop.Eng. 301 —Capital Projects (1st V% REST) 001.058.056.558. Community Develop.- Planning 302 - Special Capital Proj (2' '/�% REET) 001.058.057.558. Community Develop.- Building 303 — Street Capital Projects 001.076,000.576. Parks & Ree—Administration 304 — Mirabeau Point Project 001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance 307 — Capital Grants 001.076.301.571. Parks &. Rcc-Rccrcation 309 — Parks Capital Grants 001.076.302.576. Parks & Ree- Aquatics 310 -- Civil Bldg Capital Projects 001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center 311 — Pavement Preservation 001.076.305.571. Parks & Rec-CenterPlacc 312 — Capital Reserve 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 402 — Stormwater Management 001.090.000.514. General Gov't -Finance related 403 — Aquifer Protection Area 001.090.000.517. General Gov't -Employee supply 501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement 001.090.000.518. General Gov't- Centralized Services 502 — Risk Management 001.090.000.519. General Gov't -Other Services 001.090.000.540, General Gov't -Transportation 001.090.000.550. General Gov't -Natural & Economic 001.090.000.560. General Gov't -Social Services 001.090.000.594. General Gov't -Capital Outlay 001.090.000.595. General Gov't -Pavement Preservation RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchiist 1111412014 1:43:071DI I Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33897 11/1412014 002816 ABLE CLEAN-UP TECHNOLOGIES INC 15904 33898 11/14/2014 000497 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 33899 11(14!2014 001122 CAMERON-REILLY LLC 33900 11/14/2014 002572 CINTAS CORPORATION 33901 33902 33903 33904 33905 33906 33907 11/14(2014 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY 11/14/2014 001770 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO 11/14/2014 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES 11/14/2014 000235 DB SECURE SHRED 11/14/2014 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE 111-1615140 PAY APP 1 606840033 606840912 606841291 606842080 606843269 306843631 606844441 48052 CRY WOLF REFUND 349564 2721111014 3213-2014-QTR3 11!1412014 003256 DISCOVERY BENEFITS INC, HRA PLAN 0000490884 -IN 11/14/2014 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 42813 Fund/Dept 001.058.056.524 001.090.000.592 303.303.149.595 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.543 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.543 101.000.000.542 001.013.000.513 001.000.000.342 001.058.055.558 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 001.018.016.518 001.058.056.558 Description/Account Amount FENCE RENTAL 1,055.26 Total : 1,065.26 ADMINISTRATION FEE AUG-NOV 2i Total : 0149 -SIDEWALK INFILL PHASE 2 C Total : SUPPLIES ACCOUNT 02356 PW SUPPLIES ACCOUNT 02356 PW SERVICES ACCOUNT 02384 PW SUPPLIES ACCOUNT 02356 PW SUPPLIES ACCOUNT 02356 PW SERVICES ACCOUNT 02384 PW SUPPLIES ACCOUNT 02356 PW Tota I : WEB HOSTING SERVICES Total : FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT V`e Total : SURVEYING PROFESSIONAL SE•R\ Total : DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION Total : MLS CREDIT CARD FEES Q3 2014 Total : SEPTEMBER 2014 HRA SERVICE F Total : 78.90 78.90 194, 914.81 194, 914.81 92.73 92.73 207.73 106.17 92.73 178.33 92.73 863.15 425.00 425.00 25.00 25.00 1,162.00 1,162.00 162.60 162.60 419.24 419.24 382.50 382.50 LEGAL PUBLICATION 124.55 Page: 1 uchlist 11/14/2014 1:43:07 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33907 11/14/2014 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 33908 11/14/2014 004053 GALLINGER, GABE 33939 11/1412014 001181 KOUDELKA, CARRIE 33910 11/14/2014 001944 LANCER LTD 33911 11/14/2014 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 33912 11/14/2014 001204 POWELL, DOUGLAS (Continued) 42814 42815 42819 42820 42821 42822 42823 42824 EXPENSE 1ST PICTURE 0449312 Fund/Dept 001.013,000.513 001.058.056.558 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 001,058.056.558 001.058.055.558 001.018.016.518 001.058.050.558 497 001.013.015.515 511 001.013.015.515 EXPENSE 33913 11/14/2014 000675 RAMAX PRINTING & AWARDS INC 26231 26239 33914 11/14/2014 000952 RECALL DESTRUCTION SVC 33915 11/14/2014 003459 RICOH USA INC 33916 11/14/2014 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 3901145937 1050706472 50311836 001.058.057.558 001.058.056.558 001.058,056.558 001.058.057.558 001.058.057.558 001.018.013.513 Description/Account Amount LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : "PICTURE IT WELLNESS CAMPAIC Total : BUSINESS CARDS Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total: EXPENSE REIMBURSMENT Total : PLANNING COMMISSION CLOCK PLANNING COMMISSION CLOCK Total : DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION PERM/ Total : COPIER SUPPLIES CD Total : COUNTY IT SUPPORT OCTOBER 2, 110,45 161.60 25.00 73.95 34.85 37.40 85.85 81.60 735.25 104.66 104.66 10.00 10.00 75.93 75.93 530.40 2,115.86 2,646.26 474.50 474.50 146.75 73.38 220.13 61.61 61.61 194.81 194.81 12, 544.21 Page: 2 vchltst 11/14/2014 1:43:07PM Voucher List Page: 3 Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33916 11/14/2014 000090 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS (Continued) Total : 12,544.21 33917 11/1412014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER C07-077 001.000.000.362 LEASE AGREEMENT S&A 2013/201 Total : 33918 11/14/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 51502331 001.058.056.524 AUGUST WORK CREW INVOICE- C Total : 110514007 11/5/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER OCTOBER 2014 001.016.000.512 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES Total : 23 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 23 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just. due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that 1 am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Bank total : 5,705.54 5,705.54 1,153.04 1,153.04 187,818.73 187, 818.73 411,243.13 Total vouchers : 411,243.13 Page: 3 vchtist 11114/2014 1:16:59PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 5998 11/14/2014 004054 AUTOSPORTS NORTHWEST 5999 11/14/2014 004056 INLAND NW HEALTH SERVICES 6000 11/14/2014 004057 JONES, KATHY 6001 11/14/2014 004055 VENTLING, KRISTINA PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND 6002 11/14/2014 004058 WOMENS HEALING & EMPOWERMENT PARKS REFUND 5 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref 5 Vouchers in this report Description/Account Amount 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.237.10.99 001.237.10.99 FIRESIDE LOW Total : ROOM 109 Total : FIRESIDE LOW' Total : DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM Total : DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM Total : Bank total : 210.00 210.00 52.00 52.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 43.00 43.00 725.00 Total vouchers : 725.00 Page: 5- vchiist Voucher List Page: 1 11119/2014 3:54:13PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 8 11!2012014 003256 DISCOVERY BENEFITS INC, HRA PLAN Ben57982 001.231.28.00 HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT: 400.00 Total: 400.00 4980 11/20/2014 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN 8en57984 301.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 28,370.00 Total : 28,370.00 4981 11120/2014 000682 EFTPS 8en57986 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 31,258.21 Total : 31,258.21 4963 1112012014 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 457 PL/ 8en57988 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: PAY! 5.214,84 Total : 5,214.84 4984 11120/2014 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EXEC PL Ben57990 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 1.172.35 Total : 1,172.35 33919 11/23/2014 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION Ben57980 001.231.50.03 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: PAYMENT 934.33 Total : 934.33 6 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 67,349.73 6 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 67,349.73 Page: .- vchlist 11/20/2014 4:13:36PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor I11 V vice 6003 1112012014 004062 ANNA -MAYA POWELL LLC PARKS REFUND 6004 11/2012014 004059 COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL PROD. PARKS REFUND 6005 11/20/2014 004061 INTERNATIONAL RIGHT OF WAY 6006 11/20/2014 004063 RAEBEL. KATIE 6007 11/20/2014 004060 WESCO DISTRIBUTION INC 5 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref 5 Vouchers in this report PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT AUDITORIUM Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT ROOM 111 Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT ROOM 109 Total : 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT ROOM 110 Total : Bank total : 52.00 52.00 210.00 210.00 104.00 104.00 10.00 10.00 52.00 52.00 426.00 Total vouchers : 426.00 Page: vchlist 11120/2014 3:26:12PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 7 ' 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33920 11/20/2014 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 33921 11/20/2014 002988 ACE LANDSCAPING CORPORATION 33922 11/20/2014 000150 ALLIED FIRE & SECURITY 33923 11/20/2014 003076 AMSDEN, ERICA 33924 11/20/2014 000168 BLACK BOX NETWORK SVC 52712 52713 5520 JC1015819 EXPENSE SPO -066925 33925 11/20/2014 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 77612784 77613566 33926 11/20/2014 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST 33927 11/2012014 002920 DIRECTV INC 33928 11/20/2014 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 33929 11/20/2014 000609 GENDRONS CO NOVEMBER 2014 24413789995 42865 42866 42870 42871 5196 33930 11/20/2014 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL OCT 14 1042 OCT 14 1118 Fund/Dept 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 101.042.000.542 001.090.000.594 001.032.000.543 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.548 001.090. 000.548 001.076 305.575 101.042.000.543 001.013.000.513 001.013.000. 513 001.058.056.558 001.058.056.558 001.032.000.543 001 011.000 511 001.011.000.511 Description/Account Amount 2014 STREET SWEEPING CONTRP 2014 STORM DRAIN CLEANING Total : 2014 LANDSCAPING RIGHT OF WP Total : DVR UPGRADE AT CENTERPLACE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT PHONE REPAIR SERVICE 6,916.14 8,406.79 15,322.93 9,211.41 9,211.41 7,539.59 Total : 7,539.59 Total : Total : COMPUTER LEASE 001-8922117-0( COMPUTER LEASE 001-8922117-0[ Total : ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE Total : CABLE SERVICE MIANT SHOP Total : LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION SUPPLIES; PW Total : Total : 22.96 22.96 1,034.28 1,034.28 1,006.63 115.29 1,121.92 225.25 225.25 48.99 48.99 75.20 129.60 92.65 25.00 322.45 16.25 16.25 LOBBYIST SERVICES 3,116.80 LOBBYIST SERVICES FEDERAL 7,000.00 Page: 'I� vch1ist 1112012014 3:26:12PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33930 11120/2014 001253 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL (Continued) 33931 11/2012014 002568 GRANICUS INC 33932 11/20/2014 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY 33933 11/20/2014 003667 GREEN SOLUTIONS LLC 33934 11/20/2014 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. 33935 11/20/2014 003297 HIGGINS, LEWIS ROD 33936 11/2012014 003697 INTEGRA 33937 11/2012014 001181 KOUDELKA, CARRIE 33938 11/20/2014 000662 NAT'L BARRICADE & SIGN CO 59592 24619 GS1401-03 281364 281365 281853 281854 281857 281864 281865 281877 281878 281885 281886 281964 281965 261998 282225 EXPENSE 12480050 2ND PICTURE 85919 Fund/Dept 001.011.000.511 001.018.013.513 001.090.000.513 001.058.057.558 001,058.057.558 001.018.014.514 001.018.014.514 001.032.000.543 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.058.050.558 001.058.050.558 001.018.016.518 001.018.016.518 001.076.000.576 001.076.000.576 001.058.057.558 001.013.000.513 001.011.000.511 001.090.000.586 001.018.016.518 001.032.000.543 DescriptionlAccount Amount Total : 10,116.80 BROADCASTING SVCS COUNCIL C Total : BASIC BUSINESS MEMBERSHIP Total : SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLA Total : COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : INTERNET SERVICE FOR SCRAPS Total : "PICTURE IT" WELLNESS CAMPAIC Total : SUPPLIES: PW 719.59 719,59 450.00 450.00 9,452.50 9,452.50 5.40 5.54 170.14 69.33 283.89 150.92 33.46 303.11 46.50 28.20 12.98 479.40 22.28 18.79 54.33 1,684.27 33.60 33.60 88.48 88.48 15.00 15.00 54.35 Page: vchlist Voucher List 11/2012014 3:26:12PM Spokane Valley Page:' ,...�f Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33938 11/20/2014 000662 000662 NAT'L BARRICADE & SIGN CO (Continued) 33939 11/20/2014 001035 NDM TECHNOLOGIES INC 22522 6590 6600 33940 11/20/2014 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 33941 33942 33943 33944 33945 33946 737710712001 737837733001 737837760001 737837761001 738424202001 738589136001 739036343001 740685580001 11/20/2014 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER OCTOBER 2014 11/20/2014 000881 OXARC INC R304208 11/20/2014 000437 PERIDOT PUBLISHING LLC, LIBERTY LA SUBSCRIPTION 11/20/2014 002424 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL 11/20/2014 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. 11/20/2014 002616 ROADWISE INC 1428301-NV14 44370 55394 55395 55396 55397 Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 101.042.214.594 001.090.000.518 001.032.000.543 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.519 001.090.000.519 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.519 001.032.000.543 001 018 014.514 001.016.000.586 101.042.000.542 001.143.70.00 001.090.000.518 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 Description/Account Amount Total : CREDIT FOR CENTERPLACE COMI SWITCHES FOR CONNECTION STF WATCHGUARD XTM 25 1 YR -LIVE Total : SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: GENERAL SUPPLIES: GENERAL SUPPLLIES: GENERAL CREDIT : GENERAL SUPPLIES: GENERAL SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: FINANCE STATE REMITTANCE Total : Total : CYLINDER RENTAL MAINT SHOP Total : Total : Total : THE SPLASH 1 YEAR 2015 POSTAGE METER RENTAL 2014 STREET AND STORMWATER Total : FREEZGARD FOR STREET FREEZGARD FOR STREET FREEZGARD FOR STREET FREEZGARD FOR STREET Total : 54.35 -620.28 1,970.73 89.13 1,439.58 6.29 464.68 168.46 152.16 -88.92 22.81 147,27 338.25 1,211.00 52,683.10 52,683.10 96.88 96.88 12.00 12.00 275.00 275.00 107, 209.12 107, 209.12 5,745.05 5,746.05 5,733.50 5,759.88 22,983.48- Page: 2,983.48 Page: -3�� vchlist 1112012014 3:26:12'PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33947 11/20/2014 000779 SOUTHARD, BRAD OCTOBER 2014 101.042.000.542 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL SERVICE 2,545.00 Total : 2,545.00 33948 11/20/2014 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY OCTOBER 2014 001.016.000.586 CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F 544.50 Total: 544.50 33949 11/20/2014 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 3550.209 001.013.015.515 FILE COMPLAINT 240.00 Total : 240.00 33950 11/20/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 51502411 101.042.000.542 WORK CREW INVOICE OCTOBER : 6.941.94 Total : 6,941.94 33951 11/20/2014 002540 SPOKANE HOUSE OF HOSE INC. 409574 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 151.16 Total : 151.16 33952 11/20/2014 000862 SPOKANE ROCK PRODUCTS INC. PAY APP 2 311.000.202.595 0202-APPLEWAY BLVD STREET PF 22,116.42 Total : 22,116.42 33953 11/20/2014 000093 SPOKESMAN -REVIEW 408839 001.032.000.543 ADVERTISING ACCOUNT 42365 1,083.42 Total : 1,083.42 33954 11/20/2014 000093 SPOKESMAN -REVIEW 23152 001 011 000.511 SUBSCRIPTION ACCOUNT 288112/ 93.60 Total : 93.60 33955 11/20/2014 002135 SPRAY CENTER ELECTRONICS INC 229147 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 101.48 Total : 101.48 33956 11/20/2014 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3247633085 001.018.013.513 SUPPLIES: COUNCIL 129.40 3247633087 001.018.013.513 SUPPLIES; COUNCIL 114.12 Total : 243.52 33957 11/20/2014 000335 TIRE-RAMA 8040049638 101.042.000.542 47362D: SERVICE 1,550.45 0000032314 001.090.000.518 40204D: SERVICE 14.08 Total : 1,564.53 33958 11/20/2014 001108 TRAFFIC PARTS 394797 309.000.176.595 SUPPLIES FOR CIP 0176 845.00 Total : 845.00 Page: K- vchlist 1112012014 3:26:12PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33959 11120/2014 000676 WEST- THOMAS REUTERS 33960 11120/2014 001685 ZAYO GROUP LLC 830646660 OCTOBER OCTOBER B 1118140167 /111912014 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION SPKVLY-59 42 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 42 Vouchers in this report 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished. the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim, Finance Director Cate Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date FundlDept 001.013.015.515 001.090.000.518 101.042.000.542 001.016.000.521 Description/Account Amount WEST INFORMATION CHARGES Total : INTERNET SERVICE CITY HALL DARK FIBER LEASE Total : CRY WOLF CHARGES OCTOBER 2 Total : 743.69 743.69 560.73 409.41 970.14 3,867.00 3,867.00 Bank total : 285,442.18 Total vouchers : 285,442.18 Page: ��_ vchlist 11121/2014 2:39:02PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33961 1112112014 001081 ALSCO 33962 11/21/2014 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC 33963 11121/2014 000030 AVISTA 33964 11(2112014 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC LSP01529149 LSP01534877 LSP01540501 INV010986 410069444 October 2014 9589379 9591425 80093791 S0094400 33965 11/21/2014 001103 CAREER TRACK, FRED PRYOR SEMINAL 16505043 16505045 16505046 16505048 33966 11/21/2014 003500 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 33967 11/21/2014 000070 INLAND POWER & LIGHT CO 33968 11/21/2014 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6 102577 102629 94202 October 2014 October 2014 33959 11/21/2014 001635 I55 FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 801269 801270 Fund/Dept 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 101.042.000.542 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.304.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.301.571 001.076.000.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 DescriptionlAccount Amount FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC Total : PRECINCT: JANITORIAL SVCS: OC Total : UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA Total: LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C Total : SEMINAR REGISTRATION: KAREN SEMINAR REGISTRATION: CAROL SEMINAR REGISTRATION: JENNIFI SEMINAR REGISTRATION: PATTY E Total : COFFEE SUPPLIES AT CENTERPU SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : UTILITIES: OCT 2014 PW UTILITIES: PW UTILITIES: PARKS Total : Total : 20.39 20.39 20.39 61.17 2,386.87 2,386.87 25,723.20 8,024.62 33,747.82 214.73 302.63 13.75 68.04 599.15 49.00 49.00 49.00 49.00 196.00 109.11 131.71 240.82 410.81 410.81 89.10 166.00 255.10 EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLAc 73.75 EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE 179.09 Page: �~ vchlist 11121/2014 2:39:02PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: �l- Bank code: arbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33969 11/21/2014 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 33970 11/21/2014 001845 KRUEGER INT'L INC 33971 11/21/2014 001002 M & L SUPPLY CO INC 33972 11/21/2014 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 33973 11/21/2014 001832 MT HOOD SOLUTIONS (Continued) 801899 804659 13419198 S100189528.001 October 2014 1015676 33974 11/21/2014 003327 NORTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY, CO 7831 33975 11/21/2014 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 33976 11/21/2014 001860 PLATT ELECTRICAL SUPPLY 33977 11/21/2014 000415 ROSAUERS FOOD & DRUG CENTER 33978 11/21/2014 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 33979 11/21/2014 003794 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY 1731000829 F420333 F424838 F491791 F494126 10-442334 6346481 11/2014 Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.304.575 001.076.305.575 001.075.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.013.015.515 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076 305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.300.576 001.076.301.571 DescriptionlAccount Amount EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : Tota'I : Total : 001.076.302.576 UTILITIES: PARKS JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: CP TUITION FOR SEMINAR SERIES Total : SUPPLIES: OPS/ADMIN, FINANCE Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : CENTENNIAL TRAIL MAINTENANCE Total : INSTRUCTOR PAYMENTS Total : 36.88 273.91 563.63 1,081.57 1,081.57 25.57 25.57 1,705.23 1,705.23 492.41 492.41 200.00 200.00 27.78 27.78 182.83 91.41 170.74 204.46 649.44 12.98 12.98 6,183.94 6,183.94 996.20 996.20 Page:-�-�--- vchlist 11(21/2014 2:39:02PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: /91 -1 ---- Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33980 11/2112014 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES 33981 11/21/2014 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST #3 November 2014 November 2014 33982 11/21/2014 004052 SPOKANE GUILD SCHOOL FOUNDATIO 2014 33983 11/21/2014 001281 SPOKANE VALLEY ARTS COUNCIL November 2014 33984 11/21/2014 000404 SPOKANE VALLEY HERITAGE MUSEUM November 2014 33985 11/21/2014 002306 TERRELL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MIC 2116 2141 33986 11/21/2014 001472 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES 59010468 33987 11/21/2014 003649 TROPHIES UNLIMITED 481091 33988 11/21/2014 000167 VERA WATER & POWER November 2014 33989 11/21/2014 004024 VERG'S CONSTRUCTION INVO-475 33990 11/21/2014 003175 VISIT SPOKANE 6100 33991 11/21/2014 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0060324-1518-1 2303257-2681-1 Fund/Dept 001.076.302.576 001.076.300.576 001.090.000.560 001.090.000.550 105.000.000.557 309.000.217.594 309.000.217.594 Description/Account Amount SPOKANE CO SEWER CHRGS: NO Total : WATER CHARGES: PARKS Total : 2014 SOC SERV GRANT REIMBU'R: Total : 2014 ECO DEV GRANT REIMBURSI Total : 2014 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB Total : 0217-EDGECLIFF SHELTER PROJE 0217-EDGECLIFF SHELTER PROJE Tota I : 001.076.300.576 TCIPA ANALYSIS PARKS 001.076.305.575 NAME TAGS 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: NOV 2314 001.016.099.521 105.000.000.557 402.402.000.531 101.042.000.543 Total : Total : Total : PRECINCT DOOR AND WALL PROJ Total : 2014 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB Total : WASTE MGMT: PW VACTORING WASTE MGMT: MAINT SHOP Total : 1,577.31 1,577.31 254.73 254.73 2,968.77 2,968.77 11,571.00 11, 571.00 2,004.79 2,004.79 1,794.35 3,391.50 5,185.85 20.00 20.00 19.02 19.02 4,409.02 4,409.02 7,678.56 7,678.56 15,944.06 15,944.06 1,542.15 173.74 1,715.89 Page: . 3 vchlist 11/21/2014 2:39:02PM Voucher List Spokane Valley /6 - Page: -� Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33992 11/21/2014 000066 WCP SOLUTIONS 33993 11/21/2014 000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW 33994 11/21/2014 003128 YWCA OF SPOKANE 34 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 34 Vouchers in this report 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered. or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date 8776881 8776882 8784957 October 1-31-2014 November 2014 Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.302.576 001.090.000.580 Description/Account Amount SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : OPERATING EXPENSES AND MGM Total : 2014 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI Total : 1,757.57 228.27 63.59 2,049.43 9,418.00 9.418.00 379.25 379.25 Bank total : 115,032.17 Total vouchers : 115,032.17 Page: �� vchlist 11!2612014 1:44:19PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 33995 11!2612014 000648 ABADAN REPROGRAPHICS 33996 11/26/2014 003563 ACES VALLEY POWER TOOL 392.36 39770 219132 33997 11/2612014 003078 ALLWESTTESTING & ENGINEERING 75914 33998 11/2612014 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 148704 33999 11/26/2014 001122 CAMERON-REILLY LLC 34000 11/26/2014 003795 CLEARWATER SUMMIT GROUP 34001 11/26/2014 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 34002 11/2612014 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 34003 11/26/2014 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC 34004 11126/2014 000106 FEDEX 34005 11/26/2014 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC PAY A P P 1 1014.0929 565164 RE-313-ATB41014128 RE-313-ATB41014162 1014-0464 2-852-44469 42867 42890 42893 42894 42895 Fund/Dept 303.303.155.595 309.000.176.595 101.042.000.542 311.000.187.595 101.042.000.542 303.000.191.595 303.303.149.595 101.042.000.543 303.303.149.595 311.000.187.595 303.303.166.595 001.013.015.515 303.303.060.595 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 001.013.000.513 Description/Account Amount SULLIVAN BRIDGE PRINTS APPLEWAY TRAIL PRINTS SUPPLIES: PW Total : Total : 0187 -SPRAGUE STREET PRESERb Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : 0191 -VISTA RD GRADE CROSSING Total : RETAINING WALL WORK Total : TOWER RENTAL PUBLIC WORKS Total : SIDEWALK INFILL PROJECT SPRAGUE AVE ST PRESERVATION Total : 0166 - PINES RD & GRACE AVE IN1 Total : SHIPPING CHARGES LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : 104.35 49.46 153.81 1,739.20 1,739.20 7,052.50 7,052.50 29.00 29.00 37,043.35 37, 043.35 2,295.70 2,295.70 204.02 204.02 118.24 305.15 423.39 408.12 408.12 7.31 7.31 172.80 124.55 25.00 71.40 29.75 Page: vchlist 1112612014 1:44:19PM Voucher List Spokane Valley i';/7 Page: —1--- Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 34005 11/26/2014 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 34006 11/26/2014 002975 FREEDOM SALES AND SUPPLY 34007 11/26/2014 001003 GEOENGINEERS INC 34008 11/26/2014 000007 GRAINGER 34009 34010 34011 11/26/2014 002043 HDR ENGINEERING INC (Continued) 42895 42897 42898 42899 42900 2014706 0131829 9597480913 9597480921 00178581-B 11/26/2014 004006 HISTORICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES 1410074 11/26/2014 002520 HUSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 34012 11/26/2014 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. 34013 11/2612014 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY 34014 11/26/2014 003251 MCI MARKETING 112205 112241 112504 788366 0090110 SPOIN1133138 10109 10110 Fund/Dept 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.032.000.543 311.000.000.544 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 303.000.177.595 402.000.197.595 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.090.000.558 106.000.000.537 Description/Account Amount LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION SUPPLIES: PW Total : Total : FWD TESTING - FALLING WEIGHT Total : SUPPLLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW Total : 0177 - FURURE TRAFFIC ANALYST: Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW 5-207 ANNUAL DOT INSPECTION Total : TIP DATA MAINTENANCE AND SUP Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : ADVERTISING FOR COSV OCTOBE SOLID WASTE ADVERTISING 34.00 30.60 45.90 39.95 40.80 614.75 53.21 53.21 6,802.69 6,802.69 347.93 10.52 358.45 27,412.90 27,412.90 171.82 171.82 37.81 214.18 122.50 60.81 435.30 6,722.81 6,722.61 355.68 355.68 30,912.80 15,683.57 Page: vchlist 11/26/2014 1:44:19PM Voucher List Page: - a— Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 34014 11/26/2014 003251 003251 MDI MARKETING (Continued) Total : 46,596.37 34015 11/26/2014 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 18571606 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: PW 25.72 18571607 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: PW 22.00 Total : 47.72 34016 11/26/2014 002203 NAPAAUTO PARTS OCTOBER 2014 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES ACCOUNT 16402591 605.94 Total: 605.94 34017 11/26/2014 003211 NORDIC TARPS MFG INC 13712 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 333.55 Total: 333.55 34018 11/26/2014 003090 NORTH 40 OUTFITTERS 059272/3 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 2.82 59468/3 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 8.26 Total : 11.08 34019 11126/2014 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 740583632001 001.018.013.513 SUPPLIES: OPS AND ADMIN 10.70 Total : 10.70 34020 11/26/2014 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS INC. 40790 001.018.013.513 DECAL INSTALL 96.53 Total : 96.53 34021 11/26/2014 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC 9201 303.303.156.595 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION SER` 1,007.43 Total : 1,007.43 34022 11/26/2014 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY OCTOBER 2014 B 001.016.000.586 CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F 258.06 Total : 258.06 34023 11/26/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 42000078 001.016.000.554 NOVEMBER 2014 ANIMAL CONTRC 20,173.42 51502395 001.016,000.523 OCTOBER HOUSING INVOICE 2014 122,049.00 Total : 142,222.42 34024 11/26/2014 002135 SPRAY CENTER ELECTRONICS INC 229287 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 209.38 Total : 209.38 34025 11/26/2014 000854 SPVV LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 1419.08 303.000.185.595 0185 - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 1,200.00 Total : 1,200.00 Page: 18� vc h l ist 11/26120/4 1:44:19PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 34026 11/26/2014 000257 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE 34027 11/26/2014 001875 STRATA INCORPORATED 34028 11/26/2014 004072 STURM HEATING INC 34029 11/2612014 003206 VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP 35 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 35 Vouchers in this report L105859 SP140338-IN 3P140351 -IN SP140355-IN 0036406 -IN 115609 Fund/Dept 001.090.000.514 303.000.191.595 303.303.149.595 309.000.176.595 101.042.000.594 001.013.015.515 Description/Account Amount SAO AUDIT OF 2013 1,588.40 Total : 1,588.40 0191 -VISTA RR CROSSING MATERI 0149 - SEDEWALK INFILL MATERIAL 0176 -MATERIALS TESTING Total : EXHAUST SYSTEM MAINT SHOP Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : Bank total : 310,300.31 Total vouchers : 310,300.31 695.00 4.734.75 639.50 6,069.25 13,804.90 13,604.90 3,954.57 3,954.57 Page: 4_, vehlist 11 (26/2014 1:58:58P M c Voucher List Page: - Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionfAccount Amount 6008 11/2612014 004067 ABIDE IN CHRIST MINISTRY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT ROOM 109 52.00 Total : 52.00 6009 11/26/2014 003195 KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT CANCELLATION 592.00 Total : 592.00 6010 11/26/2014 004068 LIEN, BARBARA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FIRESIDE LOU! 149.50 Total : 149.50 6011 11/26/2014 004065 MOUNT SPOKANE 2000 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT ROOM 109 52.00 Total: 52.00 6012 11/2612014 004069 REDMOND, CHRISTINE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 REFUND CANCELED BREAKFAST 5.00 Total : 5.00 6013 11/2612014 004066 THIRTY -ONE -GIFTS PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 185.00 Total : 185.00 6014 11!2612014 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS PARKS REFUND 001,237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT AUDITORIUM 52,00 Total : 52.00 7 Vouchers for hank code : pk-ref Bank total : 1,087.50 7 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,087.50 Page: vchlist 1210312014 8 22:51AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor invoice 34030 1213/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 34031 12/3/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 34032 12/3/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 34033 121312014 001606 BANNER BANK 2199 Oct 2014 2199 Oct 2014 2199 Oct 2014 2199 Oct 2014 2199 Oct 2014 2199 Oct 2014 2199 Oct 2014 2199 OCt 2014 9094 Oct 2014 9094 Oct 2014 9094 Oct 2014 9094 Oct 2014 9094 Oct 2014 9094 Oct 2014 9094 Oct 2014 9094 Oct 2014 9094 Oct 2014 9094 Oct 2014 9094 Oct 2014 7511 Oct 2014 7511 Oct 2014 7511 Oct 2014 7511 Oct 2014 7511 Oct 2014 7511 Oct 2014 7511 Oct 2014 2207 Oct 2014 2207 Oct 2014 2207 Oct 2014 2207 Oct 2014 FundlDept 001.018.013.513 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.013.000.513 001.032.000.543 001.013.000.513 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.076.301.571 001.076.301.571 001.076.301.571 001.076,301.571 001.076.301.571 001.076.301.571 001.076.301.571 001.076.305.575 001.076.000.576 001.076.301.571 001.076.305.575 001.032.000.543 001.018.016.518 001.018.016.518 001.032.000.543 001.032.00 0.543 001.032.000.543 001.018.013.513 001.058.055.524 001.058.053.558 001.058.056.558 001.058.056.558 Description/Account Amount GREATER SPOKANE INC SPOKANE VALLEY CHAMBER OF C ALASKA AIRLINES ALASKA AIRLINES ALASKA AIRLINES ICMA GREATER SPOKANE INC ALASKA AIRLINES Total : PARTY CITY WALMART NORTH 40 OUTFITTERS SPIRIT HALLOWEEN DOLLARTREE SPIRIT HALLOWEEN FUN EXPRESS LLC SILHOUETTE LIGHTS & STAGING MOTION AUTO SUPPLY AMAZON DISPLAYS 2 GO Total : COMFORT INN WENATCHEE GIBSON`S NURSERY & LANDSCAP DOLLAR TREE CAPITALAEROPORTER AIR ALASKA AIRLINES CAPITALAEROPORTER AIR VIZIAPPS STORE Total : AFFORDABLE LOCK EXPRESS ASSOCIATION OF WA CITIES AMAZON AMAZON 35.00 25.00 195.20 217.20 217.20 232,45 750.00 217.20 1,889.25 14.12 67.08 34.51 43.44 9.78 29.32 8 8..34 73.87 98.91 93.02 393.58 945.97 281.88 50.83 3.26 137.00 354.20 -137.00 15.00 705.17 11.96 125.00 79.83 79.82 Page: vchlist 12103120/4 13:22:51 AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 34033 1213/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 34034 12/3/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 34035 12/312014 003701 BEST WESTERN 6 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 6 Vouchers in this report (Continued) 2207 Oct 2014 2207 Oct 2014 2207 Oct 2014 2207 Oct 2014 2207 Oct 2014 2207 Oct 2014 2207 Oct 2014 2207 Oct 2014 2223 Oct 2014 2223 Oct 2014 2207 Oct 2014 Fund/Dept 001.058.056.558 001.058.056.558 001.058.056.558 001.058.057.558 001.058.050.558 001.058.056.558 001.058.056 558 001.058.050.558 001.018.013.513 001.018.013.513 001.058.056.558 DescriptioniAccount Amount AMAZON AMAZON CHAMPLAIN PLANNING PRESS INC SHOPLET.COM ASFPM AMAZON INLAND NORTHWEST PARTNERS ASFPM AMAZON.COM AMAZON BEST WESTERN Total : Total : Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : 79.83 79.83 301.25 214.34 130.00 79.82 80.00 130.00 1,391.68 17.71 14.21 31.92 240.62 240.62 5,204.61 5,204.61 Page: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 12-09-2014 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Period Ending November 15, 2014 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 252,155.51 $ $252,155.51 Benefits: $ 45,004.03 $ $ 45,004.03 Total payroll $ 297,159.54 $ $297,159.54 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 12-09-2014 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Period Ending November 30, 2014 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 255,182.22 $ 5,475.00 $260,657.22 Benefits: $ 142,810.16 $ 10,759.25 $153,569.41 Total payroll $ 397,992.38 $ 16,234.25 $414,226.63 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington Monday, November 17, 2014 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff 2:30 p.m. Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember — arrived 2:42 ABSENT: Bill Bates, Councilmember Mike Jackson, City Manager Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Mike Basinger, Senior Planner Christina Janssen, Planner Gloria Mantz, Engineer Luis Garcia, Development Services Coordinator Karen Kendall, Planner Jenny Nickerson, Senior Plans Examiner Micki Harnois, Associate Planner Chad Riggs, Engineer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Wick who was expected to arrive shortly, and Councilmember Bates. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmembers Bates from the meeting. Agenda Topic: Comprehensive Plan Update Under the Growth Management - Act John Hohman Staff and consultants will preview the comprehensive plan update process, including legislative requirements, steps in the process, and timeframe for completion. The study session will include an initial opportunity for Councilmembers to suggest potential topics and issues that the Council may want to consider in the forthcoming public process. Items to Consider: Public Participation Process; Community Visioning Process; Topics for Consideration; and Open Discussion. Community Development Director John Hohman: Today we begin our process of our legislative update for our comp plan. As you know the first comp plan was initiated and adopted in 2007 and we do need to update it. We brought a consultant team together which we will introduce in a second, but what we wanted to do is to kickoff this process, talk a little bit about the legislative requirements of what we're doing today, and then talk about some of the comprehensive plan basics, and then talk about our anticipated process and how do we expect to move forward, and talk about the next steps, and at the very end we want to have an initial discussion with Council just to talk about the topics that are of interest to you and that you would like us to focus on. Nothing will be resolved at this point, it's just something to get the discussion and process started so we can develop our plans in the future and bring those forward to you. Council Special Study Session 11-17-2014 Page 1 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT And now I'd like to introduce our consultant team, and this will be a project update team similar to how, you're familiar with the Shoreline Management Program, and how that was put together, various different consultants and the staff worked together to do that and we expect the same here, although probably a heavier burden will be on the consultant team to work on all these elements. And so we have selected the overall consultant of Van Ness Feldman to do the majority of the work and we have brought in two consultants to work with that on various aspects;. If you recall Tadas from our Shoreline Management Program, he is here today to speak with you, along with him is Anna Nelson, and shell be taking part of this presentation as well, and then Doug Mclntrye right behind us; he's with Van Ness Feldman as well and he'll be working on this program. We have two other consultant firms that are not with us today, we'll be meeting with them tomorrow morning to kick off the staff portion, and that's Fehr & Peers, Chris Breiland, you may recall that is the same firm that worked on the University Overpass Project; and then we have Morgan Shook from EcoNorthwest, and that's going to be a very important element of this update, where we're going to be integrating economic development throughout this entire document and looking at things from a marketing prospective as much as we possibly can. So that'll be the majority of the consultants' working on this; and again staff will have a role as well and we will look to plug in as much as we can and provide that local information and work with the public as much as we possibly can considering our current work load as well, trying to balance all those activities. So, why now? As you know, we've had a lot of discussions over the years about some of the difficulty about our comprehensive plan and our development regulations, and we will be working on a few of those later, and this evening we'll be bringing back some of those text amendments back for a second reading; and some of the issues with our development code. All of the changes we brought forth within our development code have to be within the context of our comprehensive plan; and our comprehensive plan as you know, is outdated and is really in need of a re -fresh; and that's what we want to do here now is we want to start the process of looking at all the things that have changed over the last ten years, and bring those forward into a document that will provide vision and clarity as we move forward into the future for what is our twenty-year plan for the city, and how are we going to get there; so this is an extensive public process that we'll be undertaking, and Tadas and Anna will be talking a bit more about that as we go forward. The Growth Management Act requires that comprehensive plans be completed and those updates have to be done every eight years; and what we want to do is to recognize that because our comp plan is outdated and we may be able to bring certain aspects of the City's development back with our documents, we want to go ahead and get those started as quickly as possible and get those completed as quickly as possible, so that's why we are starting now. We do have a legislative deadline of June 30, 2017, that we'll have to meet, but we hope to be well, well done before that date happens; because what we want to have is a vibrant document that we can move forward; look at our different land use categories that we have now and classifications and make sure that it matches what our needs our in the future, as well as protecting those areas of the city that need to be protected, so this is going to be the beginning of a lot of dialogue about land use throughout the coming year. So, with that, I'll turn it over to Tadas, and he'll talk more about the specific requirements. Consultant Tadas Kisielius: So most of you are probably already familiar with the Growth Management Act, but the background here was important to highlight the scope of what we intend to cover, or what the City can cover. As you know, the Growth Management Act sets the goals and requirements for planning in the city, there's a big emphasis on deference to choices that accommodate local circumstances, so you have room as a city to choose an approach that fits the city within the confines of those fourteen goals that are listed on the slide, and I don't want to go into any detail other than just to acknowledge those are the fourteen goals in the statute, and for every goal there's the corresponding requirements in the statute that talk about what you're supposed to do in the parameters of those specific topics, so it's a wide ranging list of things that the city covers in its comprehensive plan. It is a little bit different and I've worked a lot with you all on the Shoreline Master Program update, it different in the statutory scheme that again focus on local circumstances, it is you all who are the final authority in terms of the approval, it doesn't go to a Council Special Study Session 11-17-2014 Page 2 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT state agency for approval; this is your document. As we talk about the comprehensive plan, that really is the touchstone for implementing those goals and requirements. This is a quote from MRSC*, which is a site that helps local jurisdictions with planning, but we put it up there because I think it captures the importance and the primacy of that document, and it really is the touchstone. People refer to the comp plan as the blueprint for everything else that follows. So, it's going to set the basics that are then implemented through more specific development regulations. This little inverted triangle [referring to slide 7 on the PowerPoint presentation] is meant to capture the levels of abstraction of planning here; we've got the, the framework starts with the Countywide Planning Policies at the top, and that's a set of policies that were adopted by the County and all the cities within the county, that are basically meant to set the parameters and basic points of agreement in about how each city in the county go about with their individual comprehensive plans. So that's going to inform to some degree, the task at hand. The comprehensive plan, what we're about to work on, is then the next level down and for the City itself, it's really like I said, it's really the blueprint for planning in the City that is then most sharpened by the implementing development regulations. For everything in the comprehensive plan, you have goals and policies, you then have development regulations that implement that approach. And for some, we'll have discussion about changes to the goals and policies within the comp plan, and some we may have implementing regulations that need to accompany those, so we'll have to talk about this concept a couple times as we go through the process. Consultant Anna Nelson: The development regulations, one team member that we didn't really highlight on the slide but is part of the team is the critical areas ordinance, or updates to the critical area regs, so the team member that we used for that SMP update, we will have to adopt critical area regulations for how shoreline jurisdiction as part of the update, so we'll work with those regulations as part of the shoreline (?) masterplan process, that's part of the team as well. Tadas Kisielius: Noah Herlocker from URS is the person we'll be using for that. And again, I think that's a good example, because that is one where you do need specific regulations, and again I think we collectively spend a lot of time crafting an approach within the shoreline that we feel is going to be a nice place to start as we look for what to do to protect critical areas outside the shorelines as well, so there's a lot of advance work, if you will, that you have already done in the context of the shorelines master program update that will pave the evidence here through this process. Anna Nelson: The only other thing I wanted to, since this slide is up related to the Countywide Planning Process is the population allocations, that's something that the County hasn't really picked up yet and I understand that they're going to start looking at that soon so that'll be important to our update process here as well. Tadas Kisielius: This is a general timeline here of what to expect, and we'll begin where we are now, which is updating the necessary background information and documenting existing conditions, and in the first step beyond that is going to be to implement a public participation program, and before we implement it, we're going to have to take a look at it and bring it back before you to talk about what is that public participation program; but the notion here is that throughout this process there is robust opportunity for public participation for the general public to come before you and before the Planning Commission and give their input as to what they think the comp plan should address. It's an important part of the GMA, the public participation, and so to make sure that we provide ample opportunity for public participation, we will have a public participation plan that just documents those opportunities for the general public to get involved. And we'll talk more about that in the details. With that launched then, the task is really to come up with a vision for the development of the community, and then to develop goals and policies and objectives that are consistent with that vision, that's really the body of your comprehensive plan. And then finally at the end of it all, as mentioned before, you have implementing development regulations and there may be times or places where we need to re -craft the development Council Special Study Session 11-17-2014 Page 3 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT regulations to match the changes to the comprehensive plan. So that's kind of the sequence that we'll be tackling as well be tackling these issues. Ok, so project roles and responsibilities, as I said there's four different interests here on the slide, the public, as I mentioned before has a role to play here. They're going to be coming to you and they will be afforded the opportunity to tell you their ideas for what should happen with the comprehensive plan and planning in the city generally. The Planning Commission's really going to be taking lead in terms of front lines, as they did with the shoreline master program, they're going to be doing a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of sorting through that public comment testimony, and preparing a recommendation for the Council's consideration; but you all as the Council are the decision maker for this document, so you will be very involved in this process as well. Finally, the bottom bullet there is staff and the consultant team, we're going to be the ones to facilitate the process by drafting language, giving you background information, providing technical expertise, and helping prepare recommendations for the Planning Commission to consider then to hand over to you. So again, you're not starting from scratch here; you've got an existing document so we're not going to throw that out, we're going to start by looking at which you've already got, and we thought we'd at least put a slide up to show what are the existing elements of your comprehensive plan. So there're a couple that the statute GMA requires, there are GMA requirements that you got the land use element, housing element, capital facilities plan, utilities element and transportation; you have to have those; you do. We'll be looking at those to see what should be changed, what can be changed. Additionally, the GMA allows you to have optional elements and the City has chosen a couple of those: economic development, parks and rec, natural environment, neighborhoods, bike and pedestrian, these are all optional elements that can be included in the comprehensive plan. We divided this up, this update process, into three phases, and really we're just at the outset of phase 1, and that's to start, we have to come up with a public participation program and start to gather input about how to put, what is that community vision that's going to be the center point for everything that follows. This meeting is part of that, we're going to be, as John mentioned at the end, we're going to be getting input from you all if there are issues that you'd like to see addressed that's part of that process of gathering information to help us focus our efforts as we move forward. We're gathering data, well be working together with staff and with the other consultants to pull together all the necessary information we need to move this forward. Based on that information, that's really going to determine what we're calling phases 2 and 3, because again, because this is an update process, it's how big this is, how targeted this is, it's all dependent upon on what you want to see change through that community vision; and so it's kind of hard to really say with any sort of certainty what phase 2 and phase 3 are going to look like. You're going to see down there, something we haven't talked about at all yet; this is going to be accompanied by a state environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act, so for planning purposes you'll see the beginning EIS, final EIS, we were assuming just for purposes of being conservative in a time estimate, to choose for planning purposes, the EIS, the document that we'll use for that environmental review. We're not predetermining the outcome of the environmental review and it might not be an EIS because that's the more time consuming of the choices, but we kind of threw that up there for timeframe and planning; but the environmental review's going to accompany this, we have to go through the SEPA process and the EIS may be the outcome, and that we used for budgeting purposes, I mean budget in time. So with that in mind, this is the time frame that we were looking at, the phase 1 we're kicking off now and hoping to wrap that up relatively quickly so we can get on to the meat of the work, which will be phase 2 and phase 3. You'll see on there, as John said, we're really trying to do this aggressively, it's a tall order just to be very candid, the timeframe here of doing it in one year is a tall order, but we won't really know until we see more what's the scope of work we're tackling here; but that's what we're aiming for; and this is about a reasonable time frame, especially for phase 2 I think, and phase 3 that that's about the ballpark of what we're looking at. Council Special Study Session 11-17-2014 Page 4 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT Ok, so before we open this up for input, the next steps, we're going to be compiling input we gather here today and we're also in the works for preparing recommendations for the public participation program that we'll be talking about tomorrow, the consultant teams and staff will be getting together to talk about this among other issues; and we'll be presenting recommendations to Council prior to moving forward with any of those items and you will be hearing from us relatively soon, and we'll also be working very shortly on a scope of work for phases 2 and 3; that's really the next steps that we're going to be taking on. John Hohman: So are there any questions on the process at all at this stage? No? Ok then. What we want to do then for the remainder of the allotted time today, is really to just open the discussion with council, some of the initial topics that you all have had experience with throughout the years that you would like us to focus on. I've heard a lot of things about affordable housing, senior housing, other elements like that, that's the level of topic that we would like to hear today and maybe some explanation as we go forward as well. We're here to answer any of the questions or to take down notes, do whatever we can to have this initial discussion, and we probably would have preferred to have more of a roundtable setup but because of the meeting tonight that precluded that, but be that as it may, whatever topic you want us to look at, we're more than willing to do so at this time. So feel free to open up the discussion and let's hear your thoughts. Deputy Mayor Woodard: From the housing part of it, I would most like to see a real serious look at mini -houses, mini -housing development, higher densities for people that provide housing for start-up or first-time buyer type thing, or even in the case of some of these social programs throughout the county, particularly here in the valley, even allowing churches and houses of god, or synagogues, or whatever, I don't care what brand they are, if they want to try to help some of their, the homeless, or the elderly, by putting some minihomes or microhomes or whatever, I'd like to see us look at that both in zoning and in housing, as well as in the zoning area, what's already on the ground; what's actually on the ground, not what we'd like to have on the ground; and then there could be some areas that we'll need to focus on, either expanding that into more useful property like Dean's said in the past, and that we have worked on a little bit along Trent, kind of incentivize people using some of those dead lots or dead properties; and on that note, I'd like to see even along Sprague, Sullivan and most of the main bus routes, a repurposing of properties that are not, and I'll pick on one, and it's not because it's any particular property that we might be able to use on Sprague, but University Appliance for example. That building's been vacant now for probably three or four years; it's kind of an eyesore; maybe somebody wants to come along and repurpose that for multi -family, high density because it's along the bus routes, and whatnot, a minimal amount of parking, types of concepts with of instead of 22 units per acre, maybe they want to go to a micro or mini - condo complex there, multi-level, maybe four stories or whatever. I want to look at options, I guess is what I'm talking about, whether it's mini condos, boarding houses, microhouses. I would also like to see us come up with real development regulations that allow us to get into the backyards of these 320' deep lots, a lot of the people who own those lots for a great number of years can't do anything with it because you can't get a 30' road past their house to get into the backs of those. I don't mean necessarily for fourteen houses, but maybe they'd want to put one other house or a duplex or something like that so it's better utilized. I don't know what it's going to take, you know better than I do, but those are some of my initial thoughts. Councilmember Pace: I've got a list. So, number one, this probably goes without saying, but I would hope the comprehensive plan, the process, the actual end result from start to finish and all the way through, is based on and driven by the City's vision and core values, 'cause those things were established, those statements were established when the City was incorporated, and I think they've served the City well all the way through, so that should just be fundamental. That should trump anything Tadas Kisielius: And on that point, that is absolutely something we're going to start with, because there is the community vision statement in the existing comprehensive plan, so one of the first questions we'll Council Special Study Session 11-17-2014 Page 5 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT have is, the first truth, is that still accurate; is that the right vision statement and if so, and what I'm passing around is just one page from the comprehensive plan that captures and helps us with the discussion, is it still the right vision statement, is it accurate, and if it is, how are we doing? Those are the kind of questions that we'll want to get at in this phase 1 is looking at that very basic premise; ok this is what we say we do, should we still be saying we do that, and if so, are we doing that. Councilmember Pace: And I would emphasize also that the core values they come up with is in our business plan; and then the next thing is, I know there's some disagreement there, this may raise some red flags, but I would like to see our comprehensive plan block any future attempts to bring back SARP** or anything resembling or derived from it and any language that refers to it or hints of it is just removed, and not even there. Number 3, I would like to see any concepts, language, ideas that come from international or national or state agencies or organizations; let's just use plain English, the language that's used by our residents here and the whole point of that is let's focus it on our residents and not on outside organizations, nothing wrong with them but this is for the city as you said; and then of course, one of the goals that's already there, protecting property rights, that's just really important. The next one is be a tool for stimulating economic development while on the other hand preserving Spokane Valley history, culture, character and values; and I kind of tie those to the real history of the area and the incorporation, so the incorporation, the vision statement and the core values kind of go together, and that kind of is all about economic development, and the history going way back to when some of these folk's families first settled here when it was just bare ground used for farming. That drives the culture and character and values and all that. Next one is, needs to enable and encourage historical preservation but as a benefit to property owners without putting constraints on them, and I'm thinking about you know, I like everything that Mike Basinger presented to us and that we've been talking about, historical preservation; but I'm thinking about something that happened recently in downtown Spokane where a car dealer wanted to get, I don't remember if they already owned it or if they were going to buy it [Cary Driskell: redevelopment] but yeah, there was two brick buildings that were listed as historical preservation, they wanted to tear them down and use them for new redevelopment and they weren't allowed to do that, so I'd like to see that not be a part of our historical preservation, and also included in that, I'd like to see it be such that if a house is listed on the city's historical preservation list, that any modifications that don't affect the history, or moving the building to another site, that the building codes be rolled back to what it was when that house was first built, which may mean no building code. The next thing is, Arne already touched on this, but it needs to be able to enable flexibility with use of residential property especially the other property too, so that, and I'm thinking about things like allowing RVs to be used as accessory dwelling units, allowing mini and micro houses to be added to existing lots, really tying single room occupancy of boarding houses and so on. The next one is the comprehensive plan should encourage development and improvement and stability of manufactured home parks without restricting the property rights of park owners. Now all these things are constraints brought in a hard place kind of thing, but I think we've got the creativity out here to figure it out. And I'm thinking about citizen input; in one of my previous lives in the electronics industry I remember using, getting input from employees and customers about various things using focus groups, processes that look like the so-called charrette process, and those always struck me as being manipulative; boy top management had the answer already and they wanted to manipulate the folks into coming up with the same answer and then go away thinking it was their idea. I'd like to see true, honest, transparent input from all citizens. And then for the actual writing of the document, I'd like to see, instead of having Growth Management Act boilerplate inserted in it, just put a reference to it. I'd like to see incentives for locating housing on or near bus routes, and I don't mean money incentives or tax incentives, but things like ok, if you put your housing within a quarter mile of especially a bus route but even a bus line, you can go higher, you can have more density, you can have less parking. That kind of thing I think it's important to solicit the input from organizations like Building Owners and Managers, home building association, the realtors, the chamber of commerce, but let's restrict that to organizations that have a significant amount of membership right here within our city limits; so organizations from Olympia and Washington, D.C., they're not helpful at getting what our city wants. And fmally an Council Special Study Session 11-17-2014 Page 6 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT annexation, that it gives guidelines for an annexation process based on either citizen request or city request that ends up being the true, whichever it is, reflecting the true wishes of the citizens in both the annexed and already the city area. And as Forrest Gump would say, that's all I have to say about that. Tadas Kisielius: We took copious notes; I think that, and all of this is very helpful, but we'll look at all those things; some of the subjects we can visit in more detail when we get to that point, there's certain things that you touched on that are really governed by more than just the GMA, there's other compelling laws, and so we may be limited in terms of what options we have for some of those issues. Councilmember Pace: Right, and that's the old rock and a hard place, but there's a whole lot of creativity out there. Tadas Kisielius: Understood, so that's just a long way of saying that we will look at every single one of those and come back to you with, as we go through the process; and just one piece on the, in terms of solicitation input from organizations I think, on that one, just to touch on that specifically, we, as part of a public participation program, I think that will go toward the extent to which you weigh the input, where we can't really stop somebody from, and I think that will be within your direction sort of thinking it through. Councilmember Pace: I should have clarified; I don't want to card people at the door. Tadas Kisielius: Understood. But anyway, these are all very good points and well be looking at those things. Councilmember Wick: I mean just reading through the vision statement again, it seems like that is in my mind, still where we want to be. We're all about the community of opportunity where individuals and families can grow and play and businesses will flourish and prosper, is kind of at the heart of all our decisions up here; so that is in my mind, still pretty right -on where we want to go; and then the other things kind of in my mind is we also want to protect while, there's a lot of comment on infill and development, and up and smaller, I also want to make sure we protect those that don't want to be sardines and so in my mind, I also want to kind of highlight some of the community and identity pride where we preserve our neighborhoods and allow us to do that stuff as well. But safety is our number one, and infrastructure are our top two things that we try and go for here so that the community and pride, will be a family friendly wholesome, safe place to live and raise a family, and preservation of neighborhoods is also very high on my list. A lot of talk about trying to restrict different things. I really like the goal on the open collaborative, if somebody has an idea, I'd much rather hear it or see it and consider the options, so I just think these goals that were set off before are just kind of really right on from where I want to go. Not much change there, but I am interested to hear more about the preservation I think we're kind of looking along at a historical preservation piece. I don't know how well we could build that into here. I don't see that a whole lot in there. And then from my experience on the Economic Development Committee, try to balance the three different types of zoning for our city with the commercial, industrial, residential, to protect those zones, that's what I think has really helped us through the down -turn of the economy is being able to protect the industrial areas as being industrial, residential as residential, so not having too much of one or the other, but still protecting those. That's kind of my two -cents. Tadas Kisielius: And the vision statement base would still be accurate, then that's great if that's what, and that's how we sort of treat that; I appreciate your input now, and then well quickly turn to then, how are we doing, interest captured and what can we do better, if there's agreement that that vision is still accurate. Council Special Study Session 11-17-2014 Page 7 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmember Hafner: I have three comments that are really not very specific, but I think that they are aiming at exactly what we plan to do totally for our city. I agree with Ben and the rest of them, I think safety is a primary concern, whatever we do that has to be involved in the equation. Secondly, I think there is preservation of our neighborhoods. It has come up time and time again no matter whether we're looking at apartments, or duplexes or whatever, the integrity of our neighborhoods has come up as what's important and I think that needs to be looked at; and I think that all of the things that we talked about, even what Mr. Pace has said, and Arne and so forth; it comes down to how does it affect our community in the decision making; and whatever you come up with, how is it really affecting our community or our citizens and I think that has to be the most objective in our mind as we're making all these changes and whether it's for a little house coming in, housing or whatever, as whatever decision we make, how does it directly or indirectly affecting the people that are living there in that community. We're not going to be here, or at least I'm not going to be here ten or fifteen years from now, twenty years from now, how is the community going to look like. I think that's very very important on how we use common sense. Mayor Grafos: And I think we need to, as we move forward, I'd like to look at this, I think the preservation of neighborhoods is number one; and we're not Spokane and we're not Spokane County or whatever, we have a unique situation here in the City of Spokane Valley. We have neighborhoods that are pretty unique and I don't want to see anything happen to that through zoning policies that degrade what we do in these neighborhoods I think we have plenty of land, commercial land, and I would like to center our attention on the commercial zones, take each one of those, one at a time, look at what we can do to manage those commercial zones. If it's 320' feet deep like Arne was talking about, or we could do apartments on the back of commercial areas where there's community commercial or regional commercial I'd like to see that done I think we have a gem in the rough on Trent Avenue over there where it's been downzoned through a couple of processes over the years. I would not like to see another charrette process of input from the community, and I think it's up to this Council to make those decisions based on what is good for the community; and I'd like to see us go forward. I think the vision statement is great. We want to be a city of opportunity, but we don't want to be Spokane, and we don't want to be Seattle, and we want to preserve what we have which is kind of a unique style of life. Councilmember Higgins: Is, the specifics have already been pretty much covered; I would like to second emphatically what Dean, Arne mentioned about Trent in getting that out of the nonconforming statute and enhancing that however we can. But back to a major, overarching philosophy here and that is, as we're looking at this entire plan, that it be drafted or re -drafted as it were, with an eye to accommodating and facilitating economic development. I guess we can do that. We have a lot invested in that and it's whatever we can do to further that, we need to do. And lastly, historic preservation. I would expect Tadas, that you have encountered in your travels, where historical preservation has been used as weapon; and I would, as you're looking at this, I'd like to strike a happy medium between that happening and actually preserving things that need preserving. Deputy Mayor Woodard: Let me sum up what I was trying to say because sometimes I get too specific, but I will make it a little bit more general. I want the multi-million dollar homeowner or business, the billion -dollar business to feel like they can come to Spokane Valley; and I want the start-ups to feel like they can come, or the starter home family to know they're just as welcome here. That's the options. It's not a requirement that we have "x" set aside for only one kind of thing, but if the right person comes in and they want to put their money up and put it at risk, and they want to try to do it, they have the options within the development codes and regulations. Obviously it has to work within the neighborhoods we have, we have very large lots in some areas and are quite frankly why people live here. I don't want to destroy that. But there are people holding property which you can't access; that they would like to see it if they could sell part of their lot or whatever, so I want everybody welcome to Spokane Valley regardless of their financial or means in life; and have the options that they feel like they can come here without fighting us too much, and yes, I do want very much preservation, but a common sense approach to is as Council Special Study Session 11-17-2014 Page 8 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT opposed to what a study is talking about, a punitive, I don't want a punitive one. If you want to do the historic preservation, how can we get out of your way to help do that whether it's the move of a home or a home on its site where it is. And yes we want it safe, and obviously if it's moved any new foundation would probably have to meet all the requirements today, yes, I agree, but I don't want to destroy a kitchen, or destroy a back porch or whatever because now we can't get the staircase so they can get down there. I know that this is really picky to us right at the moment because we have a situation like that. Otherwise, people are just going to bulldoze; and it would really be a shame, if you saw the article on houses, we'd lose every one of those rock houses in the valley because either they can't do something to modernize them in a way that makes them comfortable and more appealing, or they can't move them. You can move a rock house by the way, it is a lot of work but you can move it, so if they want to move them off of some piece of property to someplace else where it may be more appropriate family neighborhood, I hope we can encourage that. So overriding options, options, options. As much voluntary as possible and not mandated that you must do it here with this kind of deal. Tadas Kisielius Just to summarize, this has been really helpful; and we will be looking at all these issues; and even in these discussions, you can hear some of the, some concepts that can be at odds with each other, but we are going to try to thread that needle, and the good news is, I think that through the GMA, there really is a recognition that the City should be able to choose an approach that satisfies the unique level of service, so you've got the ability to, we've got the ability to help craft an approach that threads the needle and that's what we aim to do. In closing, this was just a kick off; and there'll be lots more opportunities to come before you; we'll be back here again with the public participation program so if it'll be helpful at that point to have more discussion about general topics to address, we can raise that again. But this has been very helpful, and we appreciate it. John Hohman: I just wanted to thank you for your participation today. It's really helpful to point us in the right direction as we start off on this trying to put together kind of a scope of work and what are the different topics. What we heard today, and it sounds like a lot revolves around land use; we've known that's been one of the biggest parts that's been outdated on the Plan. We have periodically updated certain elements of that but we have seen a lot of different areas struggle with this, all the different high density, residential comprehensive plan amendments that have come forward in the preceding years. It's all been very difficult to go through. We know we have issues on that and that's one of the main areas of focus. But we've also heard you're interested in protecting those areas, the low density residential; we'll look at that very closely; and we do believe that there is a lot of the existing plan that is good, and a lot of work went into that; so the areas that Mr. Hafner I'm sure you're aware of all the work that went into RI zones for instance, as an example; those we do need to look at, and give those a very careful look at protecting those areas as you've brought up. We'll bring all that together. Staff has compiled another list of some of the areas that we have experienced problems specifically with land use; we'll be bringing those elements together and the ones discussed today in a meeting tomorrow, and as Tadas mentioned, we'll be back with a public participation program and also talk more specifically about community vision and how we'll going to proceed with that. Once those elements are done, we are going to work on a detailed scope, phase 2 and you will be part of that process as well. So we just wanted to be sure that you know that this is just one stop of many. In fact, one of the slides that you'll be seeing tonight during the shoreline management program, Lori actually put together some statistics on all the different meetings, it's in your packet, I'm sure you've looked at it already. We can assume there'll be a number of meetings as well in this process, and we do welcome your participation, so thank you very much. Deputy Mayor Woodard: One last thing that I hope will come out of this process is I was involved on planning commission when we did the land use analysis; and if we honestly cannot get to the depth of some of these lots, or we're never going to break up Rotchford acres into five lots per acre there or whatever, let's make sure that we have in the next round from the county, a really really accurate land use analysis so that; we'll growing, and we've got to be honest about where we're going to put the people. We Council Special Study Session 11-17-2014 Page 9 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT do need some more MF2 properties because we can't build houses fast enough to take care of the growth. I wish we didn't have the apartments necessarily, nobody wants apartments, but where else are you going to put them? But we don't have, I know one piece of property's going to be closed by the end of December, that leaves us one left that's five acres or bigger in the MF2. We've got to figure out where we're going to do some of this and make sure it's an honest analysis or we're going to be in deep trouble here in about another five years. John Hohman: That's a great point, Mr. Woodard. One of the areas that we're going to be looking at as well is in our low-density residential classification. We know that our number of subdivisions have dropped off even with the economy coming back and part of the reason for that is the difficulties in compiling properties as you've mentioned, so we need to get a critical look at those areas as well. Mayor Grafos: Anything else? Deputy Mayor Woodard: I move we adjourn. A second was made, and the vote by acclamation was unanimously in favor. The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk (Note: To ensure that all comments and concerns were captured, the minutes were transcribed verbatim.) * "The GMA establishes the primacy of the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is the starting point for any planning process and the centerpiece of local planning Development regulations (zoning, subdivision, and other controls) must be consistent with comprehensive plans. State agencies are required to comply with comprehensive plans and development regulations of jurisdictions planning under the GMA." **SARP: Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan Council Special Study Session 11-17-2014 Page 10 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Special Meeting Formal Meeting Format Monday, November 17, 2014 Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Absent: Bill Bates, Councilmember Mike Jackson City Manager Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Eric Guth, Public Works Director John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: In the absence of a pastor, Mayor Grafos asked for a moment of silence. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, Staff and the audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Bates. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Bates from the meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Wick: reported that he attended the Valley Heritage Museum Annual Fundraiser, which included some impressive information about the history of Felts Field and the air races. Deputy Mayor Woodard: said he attended the World War II Memorial Service. Councilmember Higgins: said he attended the City's exit audit and that this city received a clean report; that he went to the Inland NW Partners meeting at Hayden and attended a session devoted to the topic of business development. Councilmember Pace: said he went to the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) Transportation Leadership Summit at the Lincoln Center where they discussed their Moving Forward Plan; also attended the STA Joint Committee meeting where he heard the result of an economic study concerning whether the center city line would increase property taxes and stimulate development, and said the results were not overwhelming; attended the Wastewater Policy Board meeting and said they recommended no rate increase for the sewer system, and that a rate study will be conducted next year. Councilmember Hafner: concerning the STA meeting, he said their Moving Forward Plan includes a proposed .3¢ sales tax increase for an upcoming ballot issue, said he was uncertain whether that had a sunset clause, he said about 24 projects would be involved with a capital outlay of $12-$14 million; and if it all passes it would be a great boom for the City of Spokane, adding that he wasn't sure what it would do for other areas; said he attended the Health Board meeting and mentioned the Ebola preparation efforts; said he attended the Hayden workshop where one of the speakers was a vice president from Avista, and said it would be nice to have him talk to us about economic development. Minutes Special, Formal Format Council Meeting 11-17-2014 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT MAYOR'S REPORT: Proclamation: Giving Tuesday Mayor Grafos reported that he attended the Ponderosa Grade School open house and heard an update on what the schools are doing; he spoke at the Toys for Tots event on Sullivan; went to the Sunshine Disposal open house; spoke with first and second graders at Summit Elementary school about such things as ecology, and only allowing rain in the drains; went to the GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) monthly board meeting where their legislative agenda was a topic; said he spoke against GSI choosing the Barker Grade Separation over our trail project, but was informed the direction of choices comes from WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). Mayor Grafos then read a proclamation on "Giving Tuesday" which was accepted with thanks by Ms. Becky Duffey, who also works with Meals on Wheels, and she encouraged people to get involved with giving. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Diana Wilhite, Spokane Valley: said she appreciates that Council is finally looking into replacing the roof at CenterPlace; said it was brought to their attention last June; that several weeks ago during a hard rainstorm she was at CenterPlace and was appalled to see rain dripping down into several buckets; she spoke of Council moving funds from the Civic Replacement Fund; said that the roof needs to be a high priority and that Council needs to take care of the City's assets before spending money on new projects like the Appleway Trail. Said she also heard that Council is looking into a land purchase from Mr. Magnuson at the U -City area; said that previously the building reserve fund had over $5 million but that this Council has spent down those funds to just over $1 million now; and said she would like to hear an explanation of why Council wants to buy land for a new city hall. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Shoreline Master Plan- Lori Barlow Mayor Grafos opened the public hearing at 6:26 p.m. Senior Planner Barlow explained that tonight staff will be asking Council to take two actions; first to conduct this public hearing to gather any additional public comments, and second, later in tonight's meeting, to consider the first reading of an ordinance to adopt the Shoreline Master Program. Ms. Barlow briefly went over the process undertaken so far, said this is set for ordinance approval at the December 9 Council meeting, after which it will be sent to the Department of Ecology for their adoption process. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered and Mayor Grafos closed the public hearing at 6:34 p.m. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on Nov. 17, 2014 Request for Council Action Form Totaling- $4,097,514.08 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending October 31, 2014: $432,781.77 c. Approval of October 21, 2014 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes d. Approval of October 28, 2014 Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes e. Approval of November 4, 2014 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-014 for 2014 Budget Amendment — Mark Calhoun After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Ordinance #14-014 amending Ordinance #13-016 which adopted a budget for the period January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Deputy City Manager Calhoun explained the proposed changes for the budget, all as noted on his Request for Council Action Form. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. Minutes Special, Formal Format Council Meeting 11-17-2014 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-015 for 2015 Budget Ordinance — Mark Calhoun After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Ordinance #14-015 adopting the 2015 Budget. Deputy City Manager Calhoun said that this is the action which will adopt the budget for calendar year 2015. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 5. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-016 Code Amendment, Definitions — Christina Janssen After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 14-016 amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Appendix A. Speaking for Planner Janssen, Community Development Director Hohman said that there have been no changes since the first reading, and that this ordinance simply adds the word "indoor" under the definition of gun ranges. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 6. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-017 Code Amendment, Title 19 — Christina Janssen After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Ordinance No. 14-017 amending Title 19 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Mr. Hohman briefly went over the proposed changes and said that after further review concerning the medical and dental clinics, that the primary access shall be on an arterial, and the building size should not exceed 20% of the lot's square footage; and that he spoke to the property owner who concurs. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 7. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-018 Code Amendment, Title 22 - Christina Janssen After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Ordinance No 14-018 amending Title 22 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Mr. Hohman briefly went over the proposed changes. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 8. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-019 Code Amendment, Manufactured Homes — Marty Palaniuk After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Ordinance 14-019. Director Hohman explained that based upon discussion during the first reading of the ordinance, staff recommends changing the carport setback to 10'; he said this could still cause some parking issues, but feels 10' is a good compromise. Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Mr. Wes Crosby: said he spoke last week; that the setback problem he sees concerns parking, and is the size of the carport, and of the possibility of double -wide homes; said the request on the park is two parking spaces per lot, and that this creates 20' easement; said 10' doesn't solve anything; said prior to changes, it was a 5' setback; said some of the carports become patios, but that is not a reason to make a change in the setback; and he questioned the imposition on manufactured housing. There were no other public comments. There was brief discussion about further changing the carport setback to 5', and Mr. Hohman said that either way, parking would be an issue and probably doesn't matter if it is 5 or 10' and if Council preferred, this could be changed tonight to 5'; that if Mr. Crosby would like to have 5', staff doesn't feel strongly one way or the other, adding that Mr. Crosby's park is private. It was moved by Councilmember Higgins and seconded to amend the motion to change the setback to 5' from 10'. Vote by acclamation on whether to amend the motion: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. Mayor Grafos invited public comment on the amended motion; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation on the fully amended Minutes Special, Formal Format Council Meeting 11-17-2014 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT motion to approve Ordinance No. 14-018 amending Title 22 SVMC, and to change the setback from 10' to 5'. In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 9. First Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-020 Adopting Shoreline Master Plan — Lori Barlow After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to advance Ordinance No. 14-020, adopting the Shoreline Master Program, to a second reading. Planner Barlow explained that this ordinance is not intended to implement the Shoreline Master Plan yet as the Department of Ecology will review the plan for approval; that once approved by Ecology, the City will adopt Chapter 4 as Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 21.50, and amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the Shoreline Master Program as a chapter. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 10. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Recommendations — Mark Calhoun Mr. Calhoun explained that the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee(LTAC) met, heard presentations from those seeking LTAC funding, and decided upon recommended allocations as follows: Visit Spokane: $256,000 Visit Spokane (visitor center): $0 Spokane Valley Parks & Rec (volleyball courts): $0 Spokane Valley Parks & Rec, CenterPlace: $15,000 Spokane Co. Fair & Expo, marketing: $28,000 Spokane Co.Fair & Expo, interim marketing: $8000 Spokane Co.Fair & Expo, exotic animal display: $2000 Valleyfest: $10,000 Vallleyfest, Bike Celebration: $10,000 Spokane Sports Commission: $185,000 Spokane River Forum: $1,000 Spokane Valley Heritage Museum: $15,000 HUB Sports Center: $40,000 M. Calhoun also explained the difference in law from previous years; and that with the current legislation, Council can only approve or reject the amounts recommended and cannot change the recommended allocation amount; and said this is scheduled to come to Council for a motion consideration at the December 16 Council meeting. There was some Council discussion on the recommended allocations, including why the Museum's allocation is half of what they requested; and that the requested $120,000 for the volleyball courts did not receive any recommended funding. Councilmember Wick, who is also the chair of the LTAC, said that he tried to convince the committee of the need for the volleyball courts but the Committee wanted to see how those currently planned courts work out before giving them more money, and also mentioned the need for concession stands since the area would be hosting tournaments, and that the courts should be funded through the City's capital expenditures. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he did not agree with the lack of funding; that this would be the largest volleyball court in the region and would bring in a lot of traffic, thereby benefitting the local hoteliers in the valley; and said he feels the Committee was shortsighted; and that Vallleyfest deserved more; he said we are misrepresented by the downtown entities; that the committee is asking our city to give an abnormal amount of money in proportion to the other contributions; again that he thinks the committee should have funded some of the volleyball courts, and that he is disappointed. Councilmember Pace said he would prefer allocating no funds to the Sports Commission and leave the remaining recommendations as they are, or have the committee go back and do it all over. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he too would rather see it re -done and have the committee take greater consideration in their recommendations. Council also asked Mr. Calhoun if he would provide information on allocations of past years, and Mr. Calhoun said he would get that information and forward it to Council, and/or include it with the December 16 packet materials. Deputy Mayor Woodard also questioned not approving any funds for a visitor's center, and Mr. Wick explained that they were looking at partial funding, and Visit Spokane said they would not be able to accomplish their goal with partial funding, so they withdrew that request. A question arose about committee appointments as two of the members' terms are set to expire the end of the year. City Manager Jackson said that each year we hold discussion about what will bringing lodging into our valley motels, and what facility or event should we invest in to bring room nights into the valley; he said that since those two Minutes Special, Formal Format Council Meeting 11-17-2014 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT terms expire the end of the year, there is a potential for appointment of new members, and said he will look into that question further should this be sent back to the committee. It was again mentioned that a motion to determine the allocation of funds is scheduled for the December 16 Council meeting. 11. Stormwater Drainage Easement Modification — John Hohman Community Development Director Hohman explained that this easement was originally intended as a stormwater detention for the Ridgemont development; that over the years there were various agreements with Spokane County, and we are successors to that; that the owners seek a revised agreement as some of the conditions in the old agreement are no longer valid, and the 1994 agreement also contained some errors; he mentioned that the pond referenced is a little to the south of that and no water from that drainage gets to that point; and said ultimately this would come back for a motion to authorize Mr. Jackson to execute the agreement. Mr. Hohman said this new agreement doesn't change much but it frees up some title and other issues on the property; and said the families will continue to own, maintain, and hold the city harmless, and that it would have no impact on our drainage requirements. There was no objection to staff proceeding with this matter for a future motion consideration. 12. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos Councilmember Pace said he would like to have a report sometime after the first of January to discuss the ordinances banning marijuana in the city of Fife and Wenatchee to help us see if we should have a moratorium on medical marijuana, and as well to look at the retail side of marijuana. Mr. Jackson said that we could examine what Fife and Wenatchee have done, and discuss this at the agenda committee. Mayor Grafos said he would like a future agenda to include a review of the no truck zones in the city, and would like to see the criteria on those streets, such as Vista off Broadway, and compare those with other streets on the other side of the City that are having problems with trucks. INFORMATION ONLY 13. Noxious Weed Board Update was for information only and was not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Jackson said that Public Works Director Guth received notice from the Department of Ecology that our Solid Waste Plan has been approved, effective today; which he added is nice timing as the effective date is the same as our new contracts and ordinances. 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION [RCW 42.30.110(1)(i); and RCW 42.30.110(1)(b)] Potential Litigation; and Acquisition of Real Estate It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive Session for approximately sixty minutes to discuss potential litigation and acquisition of real estate, and that no action would be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 7:39 p.m. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Mayor Grafos declared Council out of Executive Session and immediately thereafter, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Special, Formal Format Council Meeting 11-17-2014 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 9, 2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution setting a date for a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission — Request to vacate an unimproved triangle shaped area along Old Mission Avenue approximately 3,688 square feet in size. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.140; RCW 35A.47.020 and RCW 35.79 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The applicant J.R. Bonnett Engineers on behalf of the owner River Sequel, LLC (Fritz Wolff), requests the vacation of an unimproved triangle shaped area along Old Mission Avenue, approximately 3,688 square feet in size. The portion of right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located at the intersection of Old Mission Avenue and Mission Parkway adjacent to Assessor's tax parcel number 45124.0138. EH' 'ALF: E r,TJEE E,E111 . f.. Exhlluc E+Eui E1F':-.iu9 I T 'MLE WLLTI- USE tri \ Area of proposed street vacation 4181800 3PD1'.,3G,1.M V OPTIONS: Set a date for a Public Hearing on the proposed street vacation or take no action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve Resolution 14-013, setting January 8, 2015 as the date for a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on Street Vacation Application STV -2014-0001. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Planner ATTACHMENT: Resolution 14-013 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 14-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE AND TIME FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER STREET VACATION REQUEST STV - 2014 -0001 PURSUANT TO RCW 35.79.010; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the applicant J.R. Bonnett Engineers on behalf of the owner River Sequel, LLC (Fritz Wolff), requests the vacation of an unimproved triangle shaped area along Old Mission Avenue, approximately 3,688 square feet in size. The portion of right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located at the intersection of Old Mission Avenue and Mission Parkway adjacent to Assessor's tax parcel number 45124.0138; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.79.010 specifies that the legislative authority shall establish by resolution the time when a Street Vacation application shall be considered by the legislative authority or a committee thereof; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code 22.140 establishes regulations and procedures for the processing of vacations of public streets (hereafter referred to as "Street Vacation"); and WHEREAS, Spokane Valley Municipal Code 22.140.030 specifies that the Planning Commission shall conduct the public hearing required pursuant to RCW 35.79.010; and shall develop and forward a recommendation for a requested Street Vacation to the City Council. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. Establishment of Public Hearing Date and Time for STV -2014-0001. The required public hearing for Street Vacation Request STV -2014-0001 shall be conducted before the Spokane Valley Planning Commission, January 8, 2015 beginning at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at the City Hall of the City of Spokane Valley, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption. Adopted this 9th day of December, 2014. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution No. 14-013 Establishment of Public Hearing Date and Time for STV -2014-0001 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 9, 2014 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Holiday Closure: City Hall and CenterPlace GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to close City Hall and CenterPlace for the entire workday, Friday, December 26, 2014. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. There would be no loss of compensation for employees that day since City Hall is closed. STAFF CONTACT: John Whitehead, HR Manager ATTACHMENTS: None DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington December 2, 2014 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff 6:00 p.m. Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember ABSENT: Bill Bates, Councilmember Mike Jackson, City Manager Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Doug Powell, Building Official Luis Garcia, Development Services Coordinator Karen Kendall, Planner Micki Harnois, Associate Planner Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Bates. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Bates from tonight's meeting. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: Drainage Easement Agreement — John Hohman It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the Drainage Easement Agreement between the City of Spokane Valley, and Kenneth and Sharon Tupper, and Hilda Rentz. Director Hohman explained that as discussed at the November 17 meeting, this deals with an approximate eleven -acre parcel originally provided by the developers to accommodate stormwater drainage in the area; that many of the provisions of those documents have either been long since fulfilled, or were found to be in error; and said that the original documents were all executed before the City's incorporation. Mr. Hohman added that the owners will continue to be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the parcel, as well as hold the City harmless. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 2. Motion Consideration: Purchase of Real Property — John Hohman, Cary Driskell It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve the acquisition of 3.38 acres of real property at the southeast corner of Sprague Avenue and Dartmouth Road from Dartmouth, LLC, and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute any documents necessary to accomplish that acquisition. City Attorney Driskell said that there has been previous discussion of the need for a city hall owned by the City instead of leased; and at the summer workshop, the focus included looking at various places in particular, the former University City site; he said staff explored the various options and that a letter of intent was given to the owner, Mr. Magnuson for the proposed site as noted in the motion. Mr. Council Study Session 12-02-2014 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT Driskell said the purchase price is $7.65 per square foot, plus standard closing costs, and as part of the purchase, the City would do a boundary line adjustment to create the lot out of the existing parcels. Mr. Driskell also noted that this purchase would require an amendment to the 2015 budget, and that funding would be covered by reserves in funds 310 and 312. As part of the agreement, Mr. Driskell explained that the owner would remove the existing parking between the former JC Penney and Crescent buildings, as well as the parking approaches, in the hope to entice future development. Mr. Driskell said the closing is anticipated for the first week of January. Councilmember Wick asked if any of the additional land around the parcel is for sale and Mr. Driskell indicated it is, by the same owners. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Councilmember Wick said he feels the location is good, and he likes the ability to be joined to the park and trail, but thinks we are limiting ourselves by buying a smaller piece to only house city hall and parking; and said he would like to purchase more land; that extra land might be used for organizations such as SNAP or Spokane Valley Partners. Mayor Grafos said he feels this purchase as stated, is the best option and that the City can buy this and construct the building for about the same cost as we pay in rent, and that the owners would remove those obsolete buildings at the owner's expense, all at no cost to the taxpayer; he said this is simple, affordable, and within budget. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he spoke with Spokane Valley Partners and they are not prepared to move even ten or more years from now; that they know they will get the bus route corrected; that he feels the City needs to move forward and not restrict the Valley Partners or other property owners. Councilmembers Hafner and Pace also agreed with the purchase and location; and Councilmember Pace said other organizations have boards and budgets and if they are in the market for property, they should pursue that on their own. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Hafner, Pace, and Higgins. Opposed: Councilmember Wick. Motion carried. NON -ACTION ITEMS: 3. Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan — Luis Garcia, Doug Powell Director Hohman introduced new Development Services Coordinator Luis Garcia, who is a certified building official, and with him Mr. Gerry Bozarth from Spokane County Emergency Management. Via his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Garcia explained that the plan expired in 2012, and an update is required in order to qualify for federal funding under the Disaster Mitigation Act; and that it is important to remember: "No Plan, No Money." After Mr. Garcia explained about the initial adoption, and went over the highlights, goals, objectives and guiding principle, Councilmember Pace asked if any of this would require any additional cost to our residents or businesses, and Mr. Bozarth confirmed that there would be no additional cost; and in response to other questions, explained that this plan is just for natural hazards, like winter storms and wildfire problems; he said he applied for the grant the year before the initial plan expired, that grant was denied, he applied again the following year, and it was approved; and said that this is a two-year process. Mr. Bozarth said that as grant funds become available, he will make Mr. Garcia aware and that they would apply for those funds. Concerning the objectives, Mr. Bozarth explained that they were developed by a steering committee comprised of members from the entire community, and that the objectives are very broad in order to enable the applying for grants later. There were no objections to moving this forward. 4. Beekeeping — Micki Harnois Planner Harnois explained that the purpose of this agenda item is to provide information to assist Council in determining if City beekeeping regulations are adequate, to provide a small survey of regulations in other jurisdictions, and to discuss beekeeping issues and possible solutions. Ms. Harnois explained what beekeeping is; she showed the comparison of our requirements to other jurisdictions, explained the purpose of the regulations including the minimum lot area, setbacks, flyaway barrier and source of water. Councilmember Higgins asked why the minimum lot area was set at 40,000 sq. ft.; and Mr. Hohman said that was the recommendation from the Planning Commission at the time. Councilmember Pace said he Council Study Session 12-02-2014 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT would like to see this move forward, but suggested that perhaps a WSDA (Washington State Department of Agriculture) registration might not be needed unless it also deals with training. Ms. Harnois said the registration fee is $5.00 for one to five colonies; and that the WSDA would, upon request, perform inspections. Councilmember Pace suggested that we don't need to register bees, and that it is more of a question of freedom and property rights. Councilmember Hafner said he would like to see what those WSDA requirements are and Mr. Driskell said staff will research those regulations as it could be that the registration is mandatory. Mayor Grafos said he also would like to see the regulations and said he would have no problem with a $5.00 registration. Mr. Hohman said staff will conduct further research and come back to Council for additional discussion. Council concurred. 5. Street Vacation Process — Karen Kendall Planner Kendall explained the street vacation process, including the defmition of a street vacation and accompanying regulations, who can initiate a vacation, the application process including the setting of a public hearing for the Planning Commission; process for the public hearing noticing; the decision process, and the historical application process as noted in our Municipal Code. 6. Old Mission Right-of-way Vacation — John Hohman Director Hohman said that the City received an application requesting a street vacation of approximately 3,688 square feet on Old Mission Avenue in order to enhance the entry to the trailhead and development, provide delineation between the public and private ownership, and offset land lost by the dedication of right-of-way for the trailhead turnaround and parking. Mr. Hohman noted that the applicant also donated $25,000 for trailhead enhancement. Mr. Hohman asked for Council consensus to place this on the December 9 consent agenda to set the Planning Commission January 8, 2015 public hearing. Council concurred. 7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos. There were no suggestions for changes to the Advance Agenda. 8. Information Only: The (a) Department Monthly Reports and (b) Argonne Road Project were for information only and were not reported or discussed. 9. Council Comments — Mayor Grafos. There were no Council comments. 10. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson Mr. Jackson mentioned that next week's Council agenda will include an informational item on the "no truck" parking signs. Mr. Jackson also noted that this year Christmas day falls on a Thursday, and at times in the past, City Hall was also closed for the following Friday, and he asked if Council agreed to placing a motion on next week's consent agenda to close City Hall December 26. Council concurred. Concerning the AWC Rail Committee that he, Mr. Guth, and Councilmember Wick have been involved with, Mr. Jackson said that the DOE (Department of Ecology) finalized their initial 450 page draft report yesterday; that in looking at the summary of the report's recommendations, which can be found on the DOE website, the study completely omits the City of Spokane Valley; he said we will plan to make some comments about the issue; that some of the report discusses hazard based on population density, yet the accident in Quebec which resulted in killing 47 people, shows a town population density of only 760 per square mile; and Mr. Jackson noted there is no correlation between hazard and population density. Mr. Jackson said he, Mr. Guth, and Councilmember Wick will draft some comments in response to this study, and that he hopes to bring this back in a few weeks. Mr. Jackson said the final report is due in March. On a different topic, Mr. Jackson said the Council's winter workshop is tentatively scheduled for February 17, 2015, but that February 18 begins the AWC (Association of Washington Cities) legislation action meeting in Olympia; he said if many Councilmembers are planning to attend the Olympia session, we could rescheduled the workshop. Councilmember Wick said he is planning to go to Olympia, although he Council Study Session 12-02-2014 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT hasn't seen an agenda yet, and likely could take a flight the evening of February 17. It was determined that this would be discussed further. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session 12-02-2014 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 9, 2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance No.14-020 adopting the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Numerous discussions regarding local implementation of the Shoreline Management Act under RCW 90.58. BACKGROUND: The City has conducted a comprehensive SMP update. The update has been prepared consistent with the SMA and its implementing guidelines (WAC 173-26), and provides goals, policies development regulations, and permitting procedures for areas within the City's shoreline jurisdiction. The SMA requires that local government must conduct a local review and approval process prior to submitting the SMP to Ecology for state review and approval. The SMP will not be in effect until the amendment is approved by Ecology. Once approved by Ecology the City will adopt Chapter 4 of the SMP as Chapter 21.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the SMP as a chapter. The Council considered the first reading of the ordinance on November 17th, and moved to advance the item to a 2nd reading. No changes have been made to the SMP since that time. The public comment period on the Draft SMP ended on November 17th. Kitty Klitzke, Spokane Program Director for Futurewise, submitted comments via email on November 18th. They are attached for your information. OPTIONS: Move to approve the ordinance, with or without further amendments; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 14-020, adopting the Shoreline Master Program. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Planning Commission Recommended Draft SMP (Previously provided under separate cover for November 4, 2014 meeting.) Attachment B: Ordinance No. 14-020 Attachment C: Kitty Klitzke, Futurewise, email and comment letter DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 14-020 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ADOPTING THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM IN ORDER TO SUBMIT THE DOCUMENT TO ECOLOGY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, in 1972, the public adopted the Shoreline Management Act, codified at Chapter 90.58 RCW (SMA), by way of referendum to "prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines'; and WHEREAS, RCW 90.58.080 requires local governments to develop or amend master programs for the regulation and uses of the shorelines of the state consistent with the guidelines adopted by the Washington State Depaitment of Ecology (Ecology); and WHEREAS, RCW 90.58.020 directs local governments developing shoreline master programs to give preference to uses in the shorelines in the following order of preference which: 1) recognize and protect the State-wide interest over local interest; 2) preserve the natural character of the shoreline; 3) result in long-term over short-term benefit; 4) protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines; 5) increase public access to publicly -owned areas of the shorelines; 6) increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; and 7) provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.5 8.100 deemed appropriate or necessary; and WHEREAS, in 2003, Ecology adopted new rules, pursuant to RCW 90.58.200, which gave procedural and substantive direction to local jurisdictions for updating shoreline uses and regulations, which became effective January 17, 2004; and WHEREAS, when it incorporated in 2003, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted Spokane County's then -existing Shoreline Master Program as the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Pursuant to RCW 90.58.080, the City is required to adopt a comprehensive master program update consistent with the criteria set forth in Ecology's guidelines (WAC 173-26); and WHEREAS, two bodies of water within the City are regulated under the City's SMP, including the Spokane River and Shelley Lake. The Spokane River is designated as a "shoreline of statewide significance" and Shelley Lake, is designated as a "shoreline of the state"; and WHEREAS, in the fall of 2009, the City began its SMP update without the assistance of grant funding from Ecology; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a comprehensive inventory of the ecological functions and conditions within its shoreline jurisdiction to provide a scientific foundation for application of the shoreline environment criteria and assignment of the appropriate shoreline designations; and WHEREAS, the results of this comprehensive inventory are contained in the document entitled City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update Inventory and Characterization Report, dated April 4, 2010, Amended September 7, 2010 and accepted by Resolution No. 10-014 (Inventory); and WHEREAS, in 2011, the City established a Shoreline Advisory Group (SAG) to develop the goals and policies to direct the development of the SMP and the regulations; and Ordinance 14-020 Page 1 of 4 DRAFT WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of WAC 173-26-224(4)(c), the City has conducted a public access analysis, as set forth in the Public Access Plan accepted by Resolution No. 13-001 which plans for an integrated shoreline public access system that identifies public needs and opportunities to provide public access; and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of WAC 173-26-186(8)(c) and 173-26-201(2)(f), a document entitled Shoreline Restoration Plan, accepted December 11, 2012 by Resolution No. 12-012 ("Restoration Plan") has been formulated so that the City's SMP includes goals, policies and actions for restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions; and WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of WAC 173-26-186(8)(d), the City conducted an analysis of potential cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future development on shoreline ecological functions and other shoreline functions fostered by the policy goals of the SMA. The cumulative impact analysis is contained in the City of Spokane Valley, Shoreline Master Program Update - Cumulative Impacts Analysis, prepared June 3, 2013, and revised September 26, 2014 (Cumulative Impact Analysis); and WHEREAS, throughout the SMP update process, the City has made a concerted effort to generate public involvement, including holding five open houses, 29 Planning Commission meetings, and 32 City Council meetings; creating a web page devoted to the SMP update; sending two mailings to all shoreline property owners making them aware of opportunities to participate in the process, and maintaining an email list in order to keep interested parties informed; and WHEREAS, the City has utilized the scientific information from the Inventory and the Cumulative Impact Analysis to draft the proposed SMP update; and WHEREAS, on September 19 and 26, 2014, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2014, the Planning Commission held a study session; and WHEREAS, on October 9, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report with a recommendation followed by deliberations; and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2014, the Planning Commission continued deliberations and made their final recommendation for approval of the SMP; and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2014, the Planning Commission approved the findings and recommendations; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 2014, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, providing a 60 -day notice of intent to adopt amendments to Spokane Valley development regulations; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2014 the City's Responsible Official under the State Environmental Policy Act issued a determination of non -significance for the proposed SMP Update; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, City Council reviewed the proposed SMP at a Study Session; and WHEREAS, on November 17, 2014, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed SMP Update; and Ordinance 14-020 Page 2 of 4 DRAFT WHEREAS, the City Council has considered public testimony and comments, staff and consultant input, and certain documents and information, including: 1) the Inventory; 2) the Cumulative Impacts Analysis; 3) City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program, Comprehensive Plan Policies, 4) Shoreline Master Program Update, Draft Shoreline Regulations; 5) the Restoration Plan; 6) the Public Access Plan; 7) SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance; 8) All other Supporting Documents to Shoreline Master Program update; and WHEREAS, the City Council fmds that this SMP update includes the necessary master program elements required by WAC 173-26-191(b), the master program basic requirements set forth in WAC 173- 26-191(2) and the general master program provisions set forth in WAC 173-26-221; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.480 provides that the goals and policies contained in a local shoreline master program shall be considered an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted under the Growth Management Act, chapter 36.70A RCW and that this cannot take effect until after Ecology has approved the document, which will happen at a later date; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to repeal the existing SMP, which will occur after this SMP is approved by Ecology, which will happen at a later date. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to adopt a revised Shoreline Master Program in order to submit the document to Ecology for review and approval. After Ecology approves the Shoreline Master Program, the City will then consider it for final adoption, including partial codification. Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed SMP and recommended approval of the amendment. The City Council has read and considered the Planning Commission's findings. The City Council adopts the foregoing recitals as findings for this Ordinance, which are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full, and also makes the following conclusions: Conclusions: A. The Council finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) for the SMP. The SMP is consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. B. The Council finds the following public notices were given to offer the public participation opportunities consistent with the adopted City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Public Involvement Plan: 1. Appointment of a citizen based Shoreline Advisory Group which met twice a month over a six month period, to assist in the preparation of the draft Goals and Policies; 2. Appointment of a Technical Advisory Group consisting of representatives from a wide variety of resource agencies and interest groups; 3. Numerous public meetings and public hearings before the Planning Commission; 4. Numerous postings of public notices, draft SMPs and technical documents, meeting notices on the City website; 5. Emailing from City staff to numerous interested persons and agencies; 6. Individual notification of the August 28, 2009 and October 23, 2009 public meetings to notify potentially -impacted shoreline landowners of the public Ordinance 14-020 Page 3 of 4 DRAFT meetings, and individual mailing of the Shoreline Inventory Activities to potentially- impacted shoreline landowners; 7 Display advertisements published on five separate dates in the Spokesman Review and/or Spokane Valley Herald newspaper inviting persons to open house meetings throughout the draft development process; and 8. Notices posted on the City's website of all public meetings regarding the Draft SMP planning effort. C. The policies of the SMP are valid and applicable and will further the public health and welfare. D. The SMP will provide the citizens of Spokane Valley a program that is predictable and specific to their community. E. The process employed by the City in preparing and reviewing the SMP is in compliance with chapter 90.58 RCW, WAC 173-26, Washington State Shoreline Management Planning Guidelines, and the adopted City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Public Involvement Plan. F. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Draft SMP be adopted as presented. Section 3. Adoption of Shoreline Master Program. The City Council adopts the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program, Appendices and Supporting Documents as set forth in Exhibit 1, attached hereto for the purpose of submission to the Department of Ecology for review and approval. Section 4. Other sections unchanged. All provisions of the currently -adopted SVMC 21.50 shall remain in full force and effect until the Department of Ecology has completed its review and approval process, and the City subsequently adopts an ordinance authorizing the effective date of the SMP. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this 9th day of December, 2014. ATTEST: Mayor, Dean Grafos City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 14-020 Page 4 of 4 Chris Bainbridge From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Kitty Klitzke ‹Kitty@futurewise.org> Tuesday, November 18, 2014 9:13 AM Deanna Horton; Lori Barlow; mayorl councilmembers Tim Trohimavich; Mike Petersen; wsabrahamse@comcast.net; Rick Eichstaedt; Jerry White Comments on Shoreline Master Program Futurewise Comments on Proposed Spokane Valley SMP Nov 12 2014.docx; Valley Boat Access point . 1.png; Valley Boat Access Point . 2.png; W_C OYOT E_ROC K_DOC K_vv_t470.j pg Dear Mayor Grafos and Council Members, I apologize that due to illness I was not able to attend last night's hearing on the shoreline master plan. if possible, please accept the following comments on behalf of The Lands Council, Spokane Riverkeeper, Trout Unlimited and Futurewise. These comments are very similar to the comments we presented to the Planning Commission with the addition of one suggested site for improvement in the Public Access Plan. I also hoped to point out one thing with regard to property rights and clocks at the hearing. There are two sides to the property rights concern, they are the rights of the land speculator versus the rights of existing neighbors and the future owners of the homes the land speculators build. Restricting docks on River section three (This area is considered a transition area from the free flowing river found in the upper sections to the Upriver Dam reservoir area downstream. During spring runoff, river velocities are high providing the characteristics of a free flowing river throughout this area) will protect the rights of homeowners who purchase homes in this area by preventing them buying docks with their homes which are likely to fail. (Please see attached photo that shows what happened to a dock that was attempted in this area.) It also will protect citizens with existing docks from added congestion and wakes in their sections of the river, and it will protect existing and future recreational uses on the river which all citizens have a right to enjoy. This is not a matter of whether or not to protect property rights, but of whose property rights you choose to protect. Thank you for your consideration, Kitty Klitzke Futurewise 509 838-1965 futurewise l 'uiiding communities Protecting the land November 12, 2014 The I-lonorable Dean Grafos, Mayor City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 Dear Mayor Grafos and City Council Members: Subject: Comments on the Planning Commission Recommended Draft City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program — October 23, 2014 Sent via email to: mayor councilmembersspokanevallcv.org Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Planning Commission Recommended Draft. Futurewise, The Lands Council, Spokane Riverkeeper, and the Spokane Chapter of Trout Unlimited strongly support updating the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Since City of Spokane Valley adopted Spokane County's shoreline master program, we have learned a great deal on how to better protect water quality and other shoreline functions. The Washington State Department of Ecology has also adopted new shoreline master program guidelines. Those are all reasons why the Shoreline Management Act requires comprehensive updates to shoreline master programs for the first time ever. We also strongly support the improvements to the proposed shoreline master program update. I participated on the city's Shoreline Technical Advisory Committee. I present these comments on behalf of my organization, Futurewise and The Lands Council, Spokane Riverkeeper. and the Spokane Chapter of Trout Unlimited. Futurewise is working throughout Washington State to create livable communities, protect our working farmlands, forests, and waterways, and ensure a better quality of life for present and future generations. We work with communities to implement effective land use planning and policies that prevent waste and stop sprawl, provide efficient transportation choices, create affordable housing and strong local businesses, and ensure healthy natural systems. We are creating a better quality of life in Washington State together. Futurewise has supporters throughout. Washington State with many in Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley. standards for docks, see SNIP 12.26 12.32 on Chapter 2 pages 15 of 18 :and 21.511.30 Piers and docks in Chapt T 4 pales 36 -- 37 of 61. We appreciate that the City has incorporated the recommendation of the Department of Natural Resources that piers and docks should also comply with proposed SVMC 21.50.410 as applicable. This will clarify that important protections also apply to piers and docks. Futurewise Eastern WA 35 W. Main Street, Suite 350 Spokane, WA 99201 p. 509-838-1965 www.futurewise.org Spokane Valley Planning Commission November 17, 2014 Page 2 We support the Department of Ecology recommendation to substitute the following for subsection, "9," to read as follows: "New residential development of two or more dwellings shall provide joint use or community dock facilities, when feasible, rather than allow individual docks for each residence." As Ecology points out, this is required by the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines in WAC 173-26-231(3)(b). It is also necessary to protect the river from the adverse impacts of a proliferation of docks and to protect the public's right to use the river. The language in proposed "9" is too limited geographically to protect the river. Docks on the Spokane River should be limited to the Upriver Reservoir arca located west (or downstream) of the Argonne Road bridge. This recommendation is supported by the technical work completed by the City's consultant, URS, which recommended against dock development upstream of the Millwood area. For example, in a May 16, 2011 memo to Lori Barlow, URS stated: Spokane River Section 3 includes the river from the Trent Avenue Bridge to just downstream of the Coyote Rocks development. Hydraulically, this area is considered a transition arca from the free flowing river found in the upper sections to the Upriver Dam reservoir arca downstream. The Upriver Dam reservoir extends to about the mid -point of the Coyote Rocks development. During spring runoff, river velocities are high providing the characteristics of a free flowing river throughout this area; during the summer, river velocities are low providing more lake like characteristics below the Centennial Trail Bridge. Throughout much of this section, summer river depths are shallow. Trout spawning areas have been located at and below the Centennial 'frail Bridge. Much of the area is considered a high quality shoreline. This arca is not appropriate for docks due to the high spring river flows that would require either robust anchoring structures or seasonally movement of the docks, the likely impact to ecological function of the shorelines and to critical areas (trout spawning) from construction and use, and the shallow river depths. According to a report completed on behalf of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington Department of Ecology, and the Washington Department of Transportation titled, Over -Water Structures: Freshwater Issues' one of the most significant impacts of docks is the creation of altered habitat that is ideal for the predation of native trout species by non-native bass. This is often the result of altered light patterns caused by the shading of the dock. This is a situation that exists in the Spokane River. One measure to reduce this impact is to address the shading associated with docks. Accordingly, a new requirement ("10") should be added to provide measures to reduce the impact associated with predation of native trout, particularly all new docks should include ambient light grids, white PVC sleeves for pilings, bright reflective aluminum, and bright white materials for flotation." Jose Carrasquero, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Over -Wafer Structures: Freshwater Issues (April 12, 2001) at: http://wdfw,wa.gov/publications/00052/wdfw00052.pdf Spokane Valley Planning Commission November 17, 2014 Page 3 Please include Chapter 3 The Planning Commission Recommended Draft, October 23, 2014, at httn://www.spokanevallev.org/fi lestorage/124/938/210/948/1036/5722/SMPSS PLAN T able_of_Content.pdf was missing Chapter 3. We understand the Planning Commission did not modify the chapter, so it did not impede our review. Table 21.50-2: Shoreline iviodification Activities Chapter 4 p. 19 of 61 We recommend that bulkheads and other structural shoreline and slope stabilization measures not be allowed as a permitted use in the Urban Conservancy environment. Structural shoreline stabilization measures have significant adverse impacts on rivers. Given the high potential for adverse impacts and the purpose of the Urban Conservancy environment to protect important shoreline resources, if structure stabilization is allowed in this environment it should only be allowed as a conditional use to ensure that it is give necessary review. 21.50.230 Shoreline buffer's and building setbacks, on Chapter 4 pages 20 and 21 061, and Map 4.1 Draft Shoreline Buffer Map. We understand from the City of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report that the buffer is drawn to include the shoreline vegetation and protect it from dcvelopment.3 That is one important function of buffers and we appreciate addressing and support including the shoreline vegetation in the buffer. However, we have two concerns about the proposed buffer. First, in some areas the buffers are not wide enough to protect all shoreline functions. For example, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified high river temperatures as a serious problem in the Spokane River. The department wrote to the City of Spokane Valley: While the upper river habitat structure could be ranked as fair to good, the water quality parameters, particularly instream flow andtemperature, force the ranking under Condition to be Poor. WDFW is quite concerned with the population decline of native redband trout in the Spokane River and as described above, this is likely linked with reduced spawning material, increased temperature, low recruitment success, and predation.¢ To address temperature, 90 to 151 foot wide buffers are required.5 Maintaining wildlife habitat requires buffers from 100 feet to 600 feet wide.° Removing pollutants can require buffers from 33 feet to 200 feet depending on the poIlutant.' Maintaining microclimate, the 2 K. Lea Knutson and Virginia L. Naef, Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian pp. 69 — 70 (`Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildl., Olympia WA: 1997). Accessed on Oct. 8, 2014 at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.phq?id=00029 3 URS Corporation, City of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Repot —DOE Preliminary Draft p. 5 (May 31, 2013). d Washington State Department of Fish and Letter to the City of Spokane Valley Subject: Comments regarding the Technical Review Draft of Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report p. *2 (March 10, 2010). 5 K. Lea Knutson and Virginia L. Naef, Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian p. 164 (Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildl., Olympia WA: 1997). 6 1Cl. at pp. 165 — 67. 7 td. at pp. 164 — 65. Spokane Valley Planning Commission November 17, 2014 Page 4 relatively cooler temperatures along the river and adjoining riparian areas that arc aid fish and wildlife survival can require buffers 412 feet wide.8 While some of the buffers proposed in the shoreline master program are wide enough to perform some of these needed shoreline functions, others are not, The buffers along the river from East Trent Drive to Mirabeau Parkway extended on both sides of the river arc along an undeveloped area, but are not wide enough to protect the river. As these areas develop, noise, light and glare, and pollutants will adversely impact the river. We recommend 200 foot wide buffers in these areas. When the river turns east, north of East Manfield Drive on the south side of the river the buffers narrow until North Sullivan Road. Almost all of this area is undeveloped. As development occurs in this area, it will adversely impact the river. Again, we recommend 200 feet buffers outside of the few already developed areas. North and south of East Indiana Avenue, the buffers become quite narrow on the east side of the river. This area is largely undeveloped and could accommodate a 200 feet wide buffer. East of North Barker Road and north of East River Walk Road on the south side of the Spokane River, the buffer again narrows. In this area the houses and even most yards are setback from the river. We recommend a wider buffer here, ending at the existing planted yards. Our second concern is that the mapped buffer may be difficult to identify as changes occur over time. So we recommend that dimensions be added to map so the buffer width can be more readily identified. 2 1.50.250 Public Access, on Chapter 4 pages 21 and 23 of 61, Draft Public Access Pl; cl Figure 5- " . Plait City Counci Please consider adding the East Indiana Takeout to sites to consider for improvements in the Public Access Plan. Attached are two images of the site. 21.50.2 80 ",reli 4201 ,,,icy l and historic resources on Chapter 4 l►ai!t,cs 26 — 27 of 61. We strongly support the provisions for protecting archaeological and historic resources, These provisions will help protect valuable cultural resources. :1 ra rR •�-i�silfY±'!a"ti Un ('��..t a'�<. ��.. 1 ii,e rr r..; i 39 0161. While we recognize that the list of maps and inventories in proposed 21.50.470 is not an exclusive list, we suggest that a reference to the latest Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural hazards map available at DNR's Washington State Geologic Information Portal. While the map does not show all geological hazards, it does include many. 9 s M. at p. 167. 9 Washington State Geologic Information Portal accessed on Nov. I2, 2014 at: http://www.dnr.wa,govlresearchsciencettopies/aeosciencesdataIpages/ eoloev portai.aspy Spokane Valley Planning Commission November 17, 2014 Page 5 21.50,490 Critical area rel icw .and 21.50.500 Critical area report requirements for all critical areas on Chapter 4 pages 39 — 41 01'61, Critical areas, especially natural hazards, have the ability to affect development well beyond 200 feet from the development site.10 Similarly, some fish and wildlife buffers extend beyond 200 feet. So we recommend that critical areas that can either adversely affect the proposed development or that the development may adversely affect be identified in the critical areas report. We recommend that 21.50.490(13) be modified to read as follows with our additions double underlined: B. Applicant shall identify in the application materials the presence of any known or suspected critical areas on or within 200 feet of the property line,_tmycritical area buffer that _includes any part of the project aro, or any _area that has the potential to harm people or structures within the project area, whichever is farther. We recommend that 21.50.500(B)(7) be modified to read as follows with our additions double underlined: 7. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, water bodies, and critical areas associated with buffers located on site, adjacent to, and within 200 feet of proposed project areas, tiny critical area huft r. tlaa l_incindes any part of the project .aLe a, or_any eritica] area that i aas the poter tial_ to harm people or structures within_tlhe_projcct arca, whichever. s farther. If buffers for two contiguous critical areas overlap (such as buffers for a stream and a wetland), the wider buffer shall apply; 21.50.520( CH We, - Shoreline Critical .area Regulations un (haahty! -f n:!L of 61 WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(A) requires Shoreline Master Program regulations "to achieve, at a minimum, no net loss of wetland arca and functions ...." Wetlands provide important functions that benefit Spokane Valley residents, property owners, and businesses. These functions include removing pollutants, such as nitrogen, that would otherwise get into surface waters and ground water drinking water supplies and recharging ground water. The city must adopt wetland regulations that achieve no net loss of wetland arca and function which the proposed wetland regulations fail to do because of a typographical error in proposed 21.50.520(C)(1). We very much appreciate that the propose shoreline master program update no longer excludes shall wetlands from protection. Thank you very much! However, implementing that important reform inadvertently excluded several important wetland types from protection. So we recommend that proposed 21.50.520(C)(1) be modified with our recommended deletions are shown below with double strike throughs. 1. Applicability. 'These buffer provisions apply to all wetlands,that- a. —41 t iar-oaa-441L-!ruff€ems; 10 See for example Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Significant Deep -Seated landslides in Washington State and Widespread Shallow Debris -Flow Landslide Events in Washington State accessed on Nov. 12, 2014 at: http://www_dnr.wa.uov/Publications/;cr list large Iandslidcs_pdt' Spokane Valley Planning Commission November 17, 2014 Page 6 tar—Own i . .1 -by DFW r c. A , €1:gietie-not=n llutk .. tky4d; an.1 \.• a• -'. as' .for-ioeal c s icloatified4he titilr� +R 21.50.540 fish and v, habitat conservation areas - Shoreline critical area :•._'!=:dations on Chapter 4 page 53 of 61. Proposed 21.50.540(C) provides that "[b]uffers shall not exceed 100 horizontal feet from the edge of the FWHCA." However, buffers wider than 100 feet are needed to protect fish and wildlife habitats. For example, in urban areas great blue heron rookeries may require buffers as wide as 197 feet. a a WAC 173-26-221(2)(a)(ii) requires that SMPs arc to "[p]rovide a level of protection to critical areas within the shoreline arca that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources." Limiting fish and wildlife buffers to 100 fcct will not assure no net loss. So the 100 foot buffer limit must be deleted. 21.50.540(1:J(2) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation Simi - Shoreline critical ;arta regulations on Chapter 4 p:rgc 55 of 61. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife priority species and habitats databases include habitats depicted as points, areas, and lines. The area habitats include, for example, the communal roost of the bald eagle, a Washington State sensitive species. The proposed regulations, however, limit protections for nearby developments lo den and nest sites and point locations. This is inconsistent with WAC 173-26-221(2)(a)(ii) which requires shoreline master programs to "[p]rovide a level of protection to critical areas within the shoreline area [including fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas] that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources[.]" By failing to protect habitats depicted as lines and areas, the Spokane Valley SMP fails to meet this standard. Our suggested modifications to proposed 21.50.540(E)(2) to address this issue are shown below with our additions double underlined and our deletions double struck through. 2. Any proposal in a FWIICA or within 1,320 feet from a habitat with_.which priority species has_a_priInfil_X_{ ss_Qc_iation derr-or4-io4-44,e that the Director (in consultation with the WI.)FW) determines is likely to have an adverse impact on a FWHCA or associated species shall provide a Habitat Management Plan, including: viii.The location of priority habitat types or priority species habitats porF 1-Iot a within 1,320 feet of the proposal li J. M AzeITad, Management recommendations for Washington's priority species: Great 13Iue Heron p. 6 (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington: 2012) accessed on May 22 at: http:l/wdfw.wa.govipublications/013711wdfw01371.pdf and enclosed with our prior letter. Spokane Valley Planning Commission November 17, 2014 Page 7 21.50.550 Geologically hazardous areas - Shoreline critical area regulation Chapter 58 of 61. Geological hazards have the ability to affect development well beyond 50 feet frons the development site.12 They may also reach well beyond the height of the slope or 50 feet. The slope responsible for the Oso tragedy had a slope height of about 600 feet tall but ran out for nearly a mile from the bottom of the slope.' The 2013 Ledgewood-Bonair Landslide on Whidbey Island had an average slope height of 200 feet, but global positioning system (GPS) measurements suggested that the toe of the slide extended approximately 300 feet.14 While we recognize that there are, no slopes in Spokane Valley this large, until there arc scientific standards landslide hazard buffers should be determined on a case-by-case basis. We recommend that proposed 21.50.550(C)(1) and 21.50.550(D)(2) be tnodified to read as follows with our additions double underlined and our deletions double struck through: 1. Any development or uses prrpp ed fql' an_area.thaf rn_ abbe sii1ject to damage from withitt -feet f:a geologic hazard area shall prepare a critical areas report satisfying the general critical arca report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500 and the additional standards for Geologic Hazard Areas in SVMC 21.50.550(E). 2. Buffers from all edges of Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas. a. For landslide hazards, a Qualified Professional shall review the landslide hazard and determine buffers sufficient to protectproppsed and existing development from the risk of dannrage. For erosion hazards t'I'he minimum buffer shall he equal to the height ol- die fthe slope or 50 teet, whichever is greater. b. For er_osionhazards, tFhe buffer may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet when a Qualified Professional demonstrates that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses, and the subject critical arca. c. The buffer may be increased where the Director determines a larger buffer is necessary to prevent risk of damage to proposed and existing development. Thank you for considering our comments. If you require additional information please contact me at telephone (509) 838-1965 or e-mail Kitty@futurewise.org futurewise.orl Sincerely, 12 See for example Washington State Department of Natural Resources,Significant Deep -Seated Landslides in Washington State and Widespread Shallow Debris -Flow Landslide Events in Washington State accessed on May 22, 2014 alt: http://www.dnr.wa.eov/Publications/e:er listlare land lides_pdf 11 Jeffrey R. Keaton, Joseph Wartman, Scott Anderson, Jean Benoit, John deLaChapelle, Robert Gilbert, David R. Montgomery, The 22 March 2014 Oso Landslide, Snohomish County, Washington p. 144 (Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER): July 22, 2014). Accessed on Sept. 10, 2014 at: Imp://www.geerassociation.org/GEER Post%20EQ%20Reports/Oso WA 2014/ 14 Stephen Slaughter, Isabelle Sarikhan, Michael Polenz, and Tim Walsh, Quick Report Jar the Ledgewood- Bonair Landslide, Whidbey Island, island County, Washington pp. 3 —4 (Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources: March 28, 2013). Accessed on Oct. 3, 2014 at: htto://www.dnr.wa,gov/publications/ger or whidbev island landslide 2013.pdf Spokane Valley Planning Commission November 17, 2014 Page Kitty Klitzke Spokane Program Director Futurewise Mike Petersen Executive Director The Lands Council Jerry White Spokane Rivcrkccper Center for Justice Mr. Bill Abrahamse Chapter President Trout Unlimited CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 9, 2014 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution 14-014 Releasing Interest in Stormwater Access Easement — 3715 South Woodruff Road. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Acceptance of replacement stormwater easement August 26, 2003; administrative report September 2, 2014. BACKGROUND: The Ponderosa 6th Addition was platted in 1980. As part of that process, the developer left some property unplatted to act as a stormwater drainage area between several of the lots. (See Exhibit A) Through the platting action one of the west -facing lots (3715 South Woodruff Road) was burdened with an access easement to the stormwater drainage area. That easement identified a benefit to Spokane County anticipating stormwater from the public streets would flow through this area, which had historically been an old watercourse for surface water. A house was subsequently constructed on the site, which was partially built over the access easement on the north side of the property. In August, 2003, the owner of the property asked the City to switch the access easement to the south side of the property since the north side was unpassable for vehicles. The City did so when the Council approved an extinguishment of the prior easement (north side), and granting of a new access easement (south side) in August, 2003. In 2012, the owners of the property applied for and received a building permit for an addition to the structure, which covered a portion of the 2003 access easement area. In their application, the owners failed to identify that an easement covered part of the property upon which the addition would be constructed. It is the responsibility of the applicant to identify any easements or other limitations that would preclude the permit being requested. They failed to do so, the permit was granted, and they constructed building improvements over a portion of the easement on the south side of property. At some point in 2013, the owners became aware of the easement, and requested that the City remove the easement. In analyzing the issues related to that request, the City determined several things of importance. First, the attempt to extinguish the north access easement in 2003 was not valid because the only legal way to extinguish an easement created by platting is to do a plat alteration, which was not done. In effect, there are now two legally existing stormwater drainage area access easements burdening the property at 3715 South Woodruff Road. Second, the unplatted area (stormwater drainage area) is no longer land locked between parcels. The property owners on the east side of Ponderosa 6th Addition along Ridgeview Drive acquired the rights to the previously unplatted area by adjusting their parcel boundaries. Third, Art Jenkins, Stormwater Engineer, stated that due to other stormwater improvements made in the area over the years, the City does not need use of this access since the additional stormwater improvements reduce the runoff to the previously unplatted area from public streets. Most of the runoff that this area was intended to handle came from the Ponderosa Elementary playground during winter months when the ground was frozen. The City has installed a number of drywell facilities in that area, and has a larger drainage swale at the corner of East 40th Court and East Driftwood Court in the cul-de-sac. These facilities handle the stormwater sufficiently, and Mr. Jenkins advised that the City could extinguish the access easement without impairing the City's ability to handle runoff. Given these facts, staff seeks to release its interest in the stormwater drainage area access easement located on the south side of the property located at 3715 South Woodruff Road. Staff has also advised the owners that they will need to apply for a plat alteration to remove the easement on the north side of their property created thought the platting action of Ponderosa 6th Addition. OPTIONS: (1) Approve Resolution 14-014 to release City's interest in the access easement; (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to approve Resolution 14-014 to release the City's interest in the south stormwater drainage area access easement on 3715 South Woodruff Road, and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute all documents necessary thereto. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 14-014 Exhibit A — Plat map of Ponderosa 6th Addition (1980) Exhibit B — 2003 Easement extinguishment and grant of new easement DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 14-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, RELEASING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY'S INTEREST IN A STORMWATER FACILITY ACCESS EASEMENT AT 3715 SOUTH WOODRUFF, SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO . WHEREAS, the Ponderosa 6th Addition was platted in 1980. As part of that process, the developer left some property unplatted to act as a stormwater drainage area between several of the lots; and WHEREAS, through the platting action one of the west -facing lots (3715 South Woodruff Road) was burdened with an access easement to the unplatted stormwater drainage area. That easement, located on the north side of the property, identified a benefit to Spokane County, anticipating stormwater from the public streets would flow through this area, which had historically been an old watercourse for surface water; and WHEREAS, Richard and Barbara Berkseth (the Berkseths) currently own the property at 3715 South Woodruff, Spokane Valley, WA, with said property being encumbered by an access easement for a private stormwater facility, as identified in Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, when the house currently owned by the Berkseths was constructed in 1980-81, it was partially constructed over the access easement on the north side of the property. In August, 2003, the Berkseths asked the City to switch the access easement to the south side of the property since the north side was unpassable for vehicles. The City did so when the Council approved an extinguishment of the prior easement (north side), and accepted the grant of a new access easement (south side) in August, 2003; and WHEREAS, in 2012, the Berkseths applied for and received a building permit for an addition to the structure, which covered a portion of the 2003 access easement area. In their application, the Berkseths failed to identify that an easement covered part of the property upon which the addition would be constructed. It is the responsibility of the applicant to identify any easements or other limitations that would preclude the permit being requested. They failed to do so, the permit was granted, and they constructed building improvements over a portion of the easement on the south side of property; and WHEREAS, in 2013, the Berkseths became aware of the easement, and requested that the City remove the easement; and WHEREAS, the City subsequently determined that the attempt to extinguish the north access easement in 2003 was not valid because the only legal way to extinguish an easement created by platting is to do a plat alteration, which was not done here. In effect, there are now two legally existing stormwater drainage area access easements burdening the property at 3715 South Woodruff Road; and WHEREAS, the formerly unplatted area (stormwater drainage area) is no longer land -locked between parcels. The property owners on the east side of Ponderosa 6th Addition along Ridgeview Drive acquired the rights to the previously unplatted area by adjusting their parcel boundaries; and Resolution 14-014 Releasing Stormwater Facility Access Easement — 3715 South Woodruff Page 1 of 2 DRAFT WHEREAS, it is not necessary for the City to continue to hold this easement for stormwater protection purposes; and WHEREAS, the property owners will still need to request a plat alteration from the City to remove the original stormwater facility access easement granted when the original plat was filed in 1980, and which is located on the north side of the Berkseth property. The property owners have been notified of the same. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: The City releases any interest it may have in the stormwater facility access easement located on the property described in Exhibit A, 3715 South Woodruff Road, Spokane County parcel number 45321.2302, and authorizes the City Manager to execute any necessary documents to complete that process. Adopted this day of December, 2014. City of Spokane Valley Dean Grafos, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 14-014 Releasing Stormwater Facility Access Easement — 3715 South Woodruff Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A South 15 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, PONDEROSA 6T11 ADDITION, as per plat recorded in Volume 16 of Plats, page 23, records of Spokane County; Situated in the County of Spokane, State of Washington. Parcel No.:45321.2302 EXHIBIT B North 15 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, PONDEROSA 6T11 ADDITION, as per plat recorded in Volume 16 of Plats, page 23, records of Spokane County; Situated in the County of Spokane, State of Washington Parcel No.:45321.2302 When Recorded Mail To: City of Spokane Valley Attn: Chris Bainbridge 11707 East Sprague, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RELEASE OF INTEREST IN ACCESS EASEMENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ACTUAL BENEFITS HEREIN DERIVED by the parties hereto, and in furtherance of City of Spokane Valley Resolution 14-014, the undersigned City of Spokane Valley does hereby agree to relinquish and release any interest it may have in that EASEMENT, described under Spokane County recording number 4959799, and all rights and liabilities which may have accrued thereunder. The access easement being released and relinquished is described as follows: South 15 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, PONDEROSA 6T11 ADDITION, as per plat recorded in Volume 16 of Plats, page 23, records of Spokane County; Situated in the County of Spokane, State of Washington Parcel No.: 45321.2302 as granted in that Drainage Easement Dedication recorded under Spokane County recording number 8011190024. Dated this day of December, 2014. 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: BY: Attest: Mike Jackson, City Manager City Clerk STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of Spokane ) On this day of December, 2014, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared Mike Jackson, City Manager of Spokane Valley, to me known to be the individual who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written: Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Spokane Valley. My commission expires: 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 12-09-2014 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointment to Spokane Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.82.070(13); and Spokane Valley Resolution 03-033, 03- 047, and 12-005 BACKGROUND: Created in 1972, the Spokane Housing Authority's mission is to "provide, develop, and promote quality affordable housing options in the communities we serve." SHA annually provides housing assistance to over 5,000 families of low income through a combination of tenant -based rental assistance, SHA -owned apartment communities, and scattered -site housing. A six -member Board of Commissioners, appointed by the City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, and Spokane County, governs the SHA (SHA Website, see also RCW 35.82.070(13)). Since the Housing Authority is established by State law, the appointment of a commissioner is made by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. Spokane Valley is authorized for two people who work or reside within the Spokane Valley city limits. An ad announcing the vacancy was placed in the Valley News Herald and Spokesman Review October 24, 31, and November 7; and an announcement was included on our City's website. Committee Board Member Jack Beeching's term expires December 31, 2014, and he does not seek reappointment. Applications were received from Gretchen Campbell and Angela Johnson and were distributed to the Mayor and Council November 18, 2014. BACKGROUND: Mayor Grafos intends to appoint to the SHA Board of Commissioners as the representative from the City of Spokane Valley. Terms are for five years. OPTIONS: Council discretion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to confirm the Mayoral appointment of to the Spokane Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, for a term beginning January 1, 2015, and ending December 31, 2019. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: n/a COUNCIL/STAFF CONTACT: Mayor Grafos ATTACHMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 9, 2014 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade Project #0060 — 1-90 to Trent Ave Construction Bid Award GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 — Contract Authority PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: (1) September 12, 2006; Council approval of federal grant application for the Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade project, (2) Adopted the 2007-2012, 2008-2013, 2009-2014, 2010-2015, 2011-2016, 2012-2017, 2013-2018 and 2014-2019 Six Year TIPs which included the Argonne Road Corridor Improvements; (3) February 16, 2010; Info RCA on upcoming 2010 Public Works Project Council Actions; (4) Info RCA on consultant Supplemental Agreement #3, July 5, 2011; (5) Approval of consultant Supplemental Agreement #3 on July 12, 2011; (6) Passage of Ordinance 13-020, authorizing acquisition of land under condemnation authority on December 17, 2013; (7) Info RCA on upcoming bid award, December 2, 2014. BACKGROUND: This project will provide improvements to the traffic signals at the Argonne/Knox and Argonne/Montgomery intersections. The project will also add a northbound right turn lane on Argonne Rd at Montgomery Ave to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion. The City received a federal grant covering 86.5% of the cost of the project, up to $1,116,400. The length of time required from grant application to construction (8 years) has resulted in increased project costs. The current project estimate is $1.45 million, an increase of approximately $159,000 from the original estimate at the time of grant application. The project also includes additive bid schedules (related additional work requested if bids received are within the project budget). These additive items are identified in the table below. This additional work includes reconstruction of the failed pavement within the Argonne/Knox intersection (see attached exhibit) and replacement of a structurally deficient traffic signal pole at the northwest corner of the Argonne/Montgomery intersection. Schedule Type of Work Source of Funds A (base bid) New Knox signal; northbound turn lane FHWA grant + City match B (additive) Reconstruct Knox intersection City funds C (additive) Signal pole replacement City funds These additive schedules are not part of the original grant request and are not eligible for grant reimbursement. The current estimate for these two additional schedules is approximately $200,000. The project was advertised on November 7, 2014, and bids were opened on December 5, 2014. After opening bids and tabulating the results, staff will present the results at the Tuesday, December 9, 2014 Council meeting for award of the contract to the lowest responsive responsible bidder. OPTIONS: (1) Award the Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrades Project to the lowest responsible bidder, or (2) take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrades Project #0060 to in the amount of $ and to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The grant -eligible work is estimated at $1,449,300. The local match for this work is $333,000. The additional non -grant eligible work is estimated at $200,000. REET funds (Fund 301) will pay for all local match and non -grant eligible work. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, P.E., Senior Capital Projects Engineer, Eric Guth, P.E., Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulations to be provided at the Council meeting; Exhibit for Argonne and Knox intersection paving 0060 Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrades Project Paving at Knox (by bid schedule) Base Bid work (grant funded) Schedule B work (City funded) DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of December 4, 2014; 8:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings December 16, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Allocations for 2015 2. Motion Consideration: Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan- Doug Powell, Luis Garcia NON -ACTION ITEMS: 3. Sullivan Road Corridor Study — Eric Guth, Sean Messner 4. Economic Incentives — Erik Lamb, Mike Basinger 5. State and Local Marijuana Laws: Consumption/Possession by Minors— Erik Lamb 6. Legislative Agenda for Medical Marijuana — Erik Lamb, Mike Jackson 7. Minor Code Amendments to Dangerous Dog Regulations — Cary Driskell 8. Advance Agenda December 23, 2014 no meeting December 30, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Mayoral Appointments- Planning Commission NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Advance Agenda 3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [due Mon, Dec 8] (20 minutes) (15 minutes) (20 minutes) (20 minutes) (25 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 135 minutes] [due Mon, Dec 22] (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] January 6, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Dec 29] 1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) January 13, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Jan 5] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Dangerous Dog Code Regulations — Cary Driskell (20 minutes) 3. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointments, Lodging Tax Advisory Cmte Appt — Dean Grafos 10 minutes) 4. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointments, Councilmembers to Committees — Mayor Grafos (10 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 50 minutes] January 20, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Review of Various City Marijuana Regulations and Bans Statewide 2. Governance Manual Discussion/Review — Chris Bainbridge 3. Advance Agenda Draft Advance Agenda 12/4/2014 8:59:39 AM [due Mon, Jan 12] (20 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] Page 1 of 2 January 27, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Jan 19] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Dangerous Dog Code Regulations — Cary Driskell (20 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 4. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes] February 3, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Jan 26] 1. Advance Agenda February 10, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [due Mon, Feb 2] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] February 17, 2015, Special Meeting Winter Workshop (8:30 a.m. — 4:30 p.m.) (tentative) [due Mon, Feb 9] Tentative topics: CenterPlace State and Federal Legislative Updates City Hall Coal trains Marijuana Tree City USA February 17, 2015 — 6:00 p.m. meeting cancelled in lieu of Special Workshop meeting February 18-19, 2015 AWC City Action Days Legislative Session February 24, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Comp Plan, Site Specific Amendments — 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 4. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports March 3, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda March 10, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda *time for public or Council comments not included [due Mon, Feb 16] (5 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] Marty Palaniuk, Christina Janssen OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Avista Electrical Franchise Bid Process, Explanation of Public Works Coal/Oil Train Environmental Impact Statement Historic Preservation Public Safety Quarterly Costs SEPA/NEPA Process — Eric Guth Draft Advance Agenda 12/4/2014 8:59:39 AM [due Mon, Feb 23] (5 minutes) [due Mon, March 2] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) Setback Requirements Sidewalks and Developments Spokane Regional Transportation Mgmt Ctr Street Sweeping Bike Lanes Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 9, 2014 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: "No Truck" signs — Existing signs authorized by SVMC 9.30.030. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 9.30.030-.040; WAC 308-330-265(17); Resolution 12-013 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of SVMC 9.30.030 on December 11, 2012; adoption of Resolution 12-013 on December 11, 2012. BACKGROUND: Prior to the City's incorporation in 2003, Spokane County had placed a number of signs stating "No Truck" or "Local Delivery Only" adjacent to streets that would later become Spokane Valley. The applicable Spokane County Code section (SCC 46.44.0802) does not list the criteria used to determine whether or not to put a section of residential road on this restricted list. After incorporation, the City had not adopted any regulation that would give effect to these existing signs, thus precluding enforcement. In December, 2012, the Council adopted SVMC 9.30.030 and .040, which made it illegal to operate a commercial vehicle over 10,000 gross vehicle weight in certain areas of the City where signs were already posted. The effect of this was to allow enforcement, with a penalty, of the existing signs. Staff did not make any attempt to determine what criteria the County used to conclude it was appropriate to limit access by such vehicles. Copies of SVMC 9.30 and Resolution 12-013 (with Master "No Truck" Sign List) are attached for your review. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Copies of SVMC 9.30 and Resolution 12-013 (with Master "No Truck" Sign List) Spokane Valley Municipal Code 9.30 (as of 12-3-14) Chapter 9.30 MISCELLANEOUS VEHICLE REGULATIONS Sections: 9.30.010 Purpose and authority. 9.30.020 Definitions. 9.30.030 "No Trucks" signs. 9.30.040 Liability of owner for violations. 9.30.050 Excessive noise from vehicle audio system prohibited. 9.30.060 Idling of commercial vehicles limited in residentially zoned areas. 9.30.070 Operating refrigeration units on certain vehicles limited in residentially zoned areas. 9.30.080 Violations — Penalty. 9.30.010 Purpose and authority. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the kinds and classes of traffic, parking, and vehicular noise on certain streets within the City. This regulation is undertaken in order to promote the efficient movement of vehicles and conduct of commerce, while preserving the integrity of residential zones. The provisions of this chapter are adopted under the authority granted by RCW 46.44.080 and SVMC 9.05.040, and are to promote the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City. 9.30.020 Definitions. Terms used within this chapter are defined as follows: "Commercial vehicle" means that term as defined in RCW 46.04.140, as now or hereafter amended. "Local delivery" means providing local or neighborhood deliveries or services to points upon such streets or roads. "Residential area" means the following zoning districts, as delineated on the official zoning map of the City: R-1 Single -Family Residential Estate District. R-2 Single -Family Residential Suburban District. R-3 Single -Family Residential District. Spokane Valley Municipal Code 9.30 (as of 12-3-14) R-4 MF -1 MF -2 Single -Family Residential Urban District. Multifamily Medium Density Residential District. Multifamily High Density Residential District. "Residential street" means any street or alleyway within the City which is not designated on the City's arterial road map. "Trailer" means that term as defined in RCW 46.04.620, as now adopted or hereafter amended. "Vehicle" means that term as defined in RCW 46.04.670, as now adopted or hereafter amended. 9.30.030 "No Trucks" signs. A. Any street upon which a "No Trucks" sign is posted shall be permanently closed to all commercial vehicle travel having a gross licensed weight of 10,000 pounds or more, except for the purpose of providing local or neighborhood deliveries or services to points between the posted signs. The City may, for clarification purposes, also post optional "Local Delivery Only" signs in conjunction with "No Trucks" signs. B. The following vehicles are exempt from the provisions of this section: 1. All vehicles owned, contracted, or operated by governmental agencies. 2. Emergency vehicles and solid waste disposal vehicles. 3. Electrical, water, telephone, and natural gas utility providers responding for installations, maintenance, or incident repairs. 4. Vehicles actively used for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the actual and bona fide repair, alteration, remodeling, or construction of any building or structure upon a residential street. 5. Trailers currently used at a specific location within a residential zone for the purpose of assisting or providing services such as construction, carpentry, plumbing, or landscaping to a residence or location upon a residential street. 6. Recreational vehicles including motor homes, campers, and travel trailers. 7. Vehicles belonging to, or operated by, persons permanently residing within the City limits, as evidenced by the owner's or operator's address on file with the Washington State Department of Licensing. To qualify for this exemption, the vehicle must be used for commuting to work at places located inside or outside of the City limits. 8. Any commercial vehicle belonging to a business located between the posted "No Trucks" signs. Spokane Valley Municipal Code 9.30 (as of 12-3-14) C. The location of signs reading "No Trucks" shall be established through adoption of a master "No Trucks" sign schedule, which shall be adopted and may be amended from time to time by separate resolution. Any such alteration shall be made on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, be reasonable and safe, and in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of this City. "No Trucks" signs shall become effective upon the placement of such signs, and shall cease at such time as the signs are removed by the City. All signs placed pursuant to this section shall conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for streets and highways for the state of Washington. 9.30.040 Liability of owner for violations. If the person operating the commercial vehicle at the time a citation for violation of SVMC 9.30.030 is issued is not the owner of the vehicle, then the issuing officer may also issue a citation for the owner of the vehicle in addition to the operator pursuant to RCW 46.44.120, as adopted or amended. Further, the operator of the commercial vehicle is authorized to accept the citation and to execute the promise to appear on behalf of the owner of the vehicle. 9.30.050 Excessive noise from vehicle audio system prohibited. The sound from any motor vehicle audio system such as tape players, radio, and compact disc players at volumes so high as to be audible greater than 50 feet from the vehicle itself is prohibited. 9.30.060 Idling of commercial vehicles limited in residentially zoned areas. No person shall cause a commercial vehicle to idle in any residentially zoned area for more than 15 consecutive minutes, or more than 15 minutes total in any single calendar day. 9.30.070 Operating refrigeration units on certain vehicles limited in residentially zoned areas. Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. any day and 7:00 a.m. the next day, no person shall operate a refrigeration unit on a commercial truck or trailer in a residentially zoned area, except in the performance of a local delivery. 9.30.080 Violations — Penalty. Any person violating or failing to comply with any provisions of this chapter shall be subject to a Class 1 civil infraction pursuant to Chapter 7.80 RCW. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 12-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A MASTER "NO TRUCKS" AND "LOCAL DELIVERY ONLY" SCHEDULE P Ir RS L ANT TO SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICH'AI. CODE SECTION 9,30.030(C). AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 9.30.030(C) to require that the location of signs in the City depicting that "No Trucks" and "Local Delivery Only" be set forth in a Master "No Trucks" and "Local Delivery Only" Schedule; and WHEREAS, the City shall herceforth use a resolution to establish or modify where "No Trucks" and "Local Delivery Only' signs shall be placed in the City; and NHEREAS, the City- S .nior Traffic Engiin e..: shall conduct an enginceri:s.e, and traf0c nvcstigafiotr pursuant to Wash: ng,tun Administrative. Code 308-330-265(171 adopted by the City throiEgh 5"t'MC'. chapter 9.05, .for all proposed changes to the Master "No Mucks" and "Local Dclivc yOnly" Schedule, )•wliic11 shall be reasonable rill safe, and in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of this City, NOW THEREFORE, he it csolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1, Adoption of the Master "No Trucks" and "Lucal Delivery Only" Schedule. The. Master "No Trucks" and "Local Delivery Only" Schedule, as set Jkarlh below, is adopted. Section 2. Repeal. To the extent that any previous actions to establish "No Trucks" or "Local Delivery Only" signs are inconsistent with those set forth herein, they are repealed. ATTES Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Approved this 11th clay of December, 2012. bristine * =bridge, City Clerk Approved as to for•ni: the City A•ney CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY T omas E, To) ,ey, Mayor Resolution 12-013 Master"No Trucks" and "Local Delivery Only" Schedule Page 1 of 2 MASTER "NO TRUCKS" SCHEDULE The following road sections located in the City of Spokane Vale.), slip}I1 ba restricted to truck travel as set forth in Spokane. Valley Municipal Code 9.30.030 by placement of a "No Trucks" sign, lvhich inay be posted in conjunction with a "Local Delivery Only" sign. Road Segmeiit(s) Zone Limits Location Jackson Avenue M+nitgornel-}' Drive. to Wilbur Road Jackson Ave]rue to Me])tgomery Drive S.19. TSN., R.4,1E.W.M. Wilbur Road , S.19, T25N,, R.44E.W.M. Grace Avenue Bc:•wclisil Road to SR -27 BLwdish Road to SR -27 S.9, T25N., R.44 E.W.M Buckeye Avenue S.9, 'r25N., R.44 E.W.M Lily Road SR -290 to Montgomery Drive S.12, T25N., R.43 E.W.M. Girard :tid SR -290 to Montgomery Drive S.12, T25N., R.43 E.W.M. Bowman Road SR -290 to Montgoinery Drive S.12, T25N., R43 E.W.M. Montgon+ery Drive Lily Road to Park Road S.12, T25N., R.43 E.W.M. Area bordered by Pak. Road, SR -290, Ar;annc Road, and 1-90 S.7, T25N., R.44 E.W.M. Vista Road Bit'oadway Avenue to:F1ission Avenue S.18, T25N., R./14 E.W.M. S.18, T25N., R.44- E.1V,M. Mission Avenue Vista Road to Marguerite Road Maxwell Avenue Wilbur Road to SR -27 S.16, T25N., R.44 E.W.M Wilbur Road Maxwell Avenue to Mission Avenue S. 16, T25N., R.,14 F W til Bradley Road SR -290 to Marietta Avenue S.12, T25N., R.43 E.W. I. Dora Road SR -290 to Ma:]sfield Avenue S,12, T25N., R.43 E.W.:',1. Colenian Road SR -2.90 to Ilia} Avoltuc S.12, T25N.. R.43 E.W.M. Pack Roa.:1 AdditionSubdivision south of Mission AVenLle, west of Park Road, and north of 1-90 S.13, T25N., R,43 E.W.M. Clinton Road Sprague Avenue to Main Avenue S.15, T25N,, R.44 E.W.M. Main Avenue McDonald Road to Clinton Road S.1. T25N.. ].4413.1\'..:T. Wellesley Avenue City limits to Evergreen Road S.3, 'l 25,N'.., 1014 E.W.M. Resolution 12-013 Master "No Trucks" and "Local Delivery Only" Schedule Page 2 of 2