Loading...
2015, 01-20 Study SessionAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday, January 20, 2015 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL ACTION ITEM: 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)] Motion Consideration Council will adjourn into Executive Session for approximately ten minutes and will take action upon return to open session. NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Erik Lamb 3. Micki Harnois 4. Steve Worley 5. Eric Guth Review of Various City Marijuana Regulations and Bans Statewide Proposed Text amendment, Plat Time Extension, CTA 2014-0006 NEPA/SEPA Process (National (state) Environmental Policy Act) Street Sweeping Bike Lanes 6. Mayor Grafos Advance Agenda Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information 7. Information Only: (will not be reported or discussed): Highway Safety Improvement (HSIP) Grant Update 8. Mayor Grafos Council Comments Discussion/Information 9. Mike Jackson City Manager Comments Discussion/Information ADJOURN Note: Unless otherwise noted above, there will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions. However, Council always reserves the right to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. During meetings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council, the Council reserves the right to take "action" on any item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term "action" means to deliberate, discuss, review, consider, evaluate, or make a collective positive or negative decision. 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. Study Session Agenda January 20, 2015 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 15, 2015 Department Director Approval Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ® executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation GOVERNING LEGISLATION: [RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)] PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I move that Council adjourn into executive session for approximately ten minutes to discuss pending litigation, and that action will be taken upon return to open session." BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action January 20, 2015 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Review of City Marijuana Regulations and Bans Statewide GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 69.50 (Initiative 502 has been codified as RCW 69.50) and WAC 314-55; RCW 69.51A; SVMC Title 19. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Staff has provided numerous administrative reports on the legalization of marijuana since March, 2013. City Council adopted regulations regarding restrictions on recreational marijuana on July 22, 2014. City Council adopted a moratorium on unlicensed marijuana on December 9, 2014. BACKGROUND: Since the passage of Initiative 502 (1-502) in 2012 legalizing recreational marijuana, the State and local jurisdictions have proceeded on varying paths to regulate recreational marijuana. The City of Spokane Valley adopted permanent regulations that: (1) provide zoning for producers, processors, and retailers; (2) limit outdoor grows to industrial zones; (3) limit extraction processes to industrial zones' (4) require 1,000 foot buffers between recreational marijuana producers, processors, and retailers and City Hall, CenterPlace, undeveloped City property (other than right-of-way and stormwater facilities), undeveloped library property, and undeveloped school property; and (5) require 1,000 foot buffers between recreational marijuana retailers and the Appleway Trail and Centennial Trail. On December 9, 2014, the City imposed a moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses (primarily medical marijuana) which will be effective for up to one year or until permanent regulations are adopted regulating unlicensed marijuana uses, whichever is earlier. This report focuses on other types of regulations adopted by cities and counties around the State. The primary types of regulations are as follows (the numbers of cities or counties adopting such regulations are provided based on information from the Municipal Research and Services Center; note there are 281 cities within Washington): 1. No action (44) 2. Allowed under existing zoning (23) 3. Permanent Zoning (62) 4. Interim zoning (20) 5. Moratorium (60) 6. Bans/Prohibited (47) Bans. Bans generally come in one of two forms. The first is an outright ban on recreational marijuana. These bans are premised on the constitutional authority granted to cities to enact police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with state law. They are further based on the premise that 1-502 does not preempt such local laws (this premise was explained by the Attorney General in his January 2014 opinion). The second basis is to deny licenses or permits for any business that is not lawful under local, state, or federal law. These types of laws are primarily based on an argument that 1-502 is preempted by the federal Controlled Substances Act because marijuana remains a Schedule 1 controlled substance under that Act and thus it remains illegal under federal law to grow, process, distribute, or use marijuana. To date, staff is aware of at least five lawsuits that have challenged the bans. These lawsuits primarily claim that 1-502 prohibits bans. In all five lawsuits, superior courts issued decisions upholding the bans on the basis that the bans are valid exercises of the cities' constitutionally granted authority and that 1-502 does not preempt the bans. These decisions have largely tracked the Attorney General January 2014 opinion. However, superior court decisions are not binding on any other courts and so are not a strong basis for reliance for the City to act. Additionally, at least two of the decisions have been appealed and it may be several years before appellate decisions that may be relied upon are delivered. Finally, as highlighted by the Attorney General opinion, the basis for the decisions rests on the current language of 1-502 and so is subject to potential legislative change by the State Legislature in its current session. Since all of the cases have been decided in favor of the cities based upon the lack of preemption in 1-502, none of the courts reviewed or opined on the federal preemption question. Other types of regulations. As indicated above, numerous cities have adopted permanent regulations. These include a variety of types of regulations, which include zoning (identifying appropriate zones with comparable uses where marijuana producers, processors, and retailers may locate), requiring certain types of permits (such as conditional use permits), imposing buffers (such as those enacted by our City to non -marijuana related uses, or between marijuana stores), and in one case, limits on the size of marijuana producers allowed. Ongoing issues with recreational marijuana? The primary issue for recreational marijuana appears to continue to be the challenges faced by competition from unregulated marijuana, which consists of medical marijuana and other black market illegal transactions. The unregulated market is not subject to the same regulatory scheme and extensive taxes, and so offers notably cheaper marijuana, encouraging use of the medical or black market. There have been at least two bills already presented to reconcile the medical and recreational markets, although they take different tracks towards that end. Another issue identified by City staff is a discrepancy between what extraction processes are approved by the Washington Liquor Control Board (LCB) and those that meet the local fire and mechanical codes. The LCB has approved extraction devices and methods that do not comply with local codes, leaving cities to struggle with applicants to either bring the device or method into conformance with local code, or for the applicant to find a different extraction method. Finally, there have been minimal complaints about odor related to recreational marijuana businesses. Status of City Recreational Marijuana Businesses. The LCB has approved 11 marijuana producer licenses, 13 marijuana processor licenses, and two of the three retail stores that were allocated within the City. The two retail stores are both open and operating. OPTIONS: Discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Presentation Review of City Marijuana Regulations and Bans Statewide Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney 1\73S of Regulations (Recreational) Ban (47) Interim Regulations (20) Various levels of new direct regulations (62) Use of existing regulations (44) Moratorium (6o) Figures per MRSC, January 2015, out of 281 cities within Washington Affirmative Bans Primarily based upon State and Constitutional Authority Follows AGO Opinion No. 2 from January 2014 Federal Preemption? Some have indicated will not license any business that is illegal under Federal, State and Local law Affirmative Bans Cont— Lawsuits - City of Fife, Pierce County, City of Wenatchee, City of Kennewick, Clark County Trial Court decisions upholding bans Courts affirmed bans based upon State Constitution and Statutory authority (tracking AGO Opinion); not preempted by State law Have not dealt with Federal preemption question mative Bans Cont. Lawsuits - only trial court decisions and thus do not set precedent Subject to ongoing appeals, which may take years Subject to legislative change Other Lawsuits? - Retailer suing State Liquor Control Board to force it to enforce its rules and sue local jurisdictions with bans Other Types of Regulations Zoning Permitted vs. conditional use permits Buffers to certain uses (e.g., i,000 feet between stores) Limits on size of producers allowed City Licensing - for medical marijuana agoing Issues Slow start up of recreational system (only 97 licensed retailers out of 334 allocated) Competition with black market/unregulated market (medical marijuana) Extraction process compliance with local codes Approved by Liquor Control Board but doesn't meet local code Odor (few complaints) Status of "502" stores in City Two out of three of the retail stores that were allocated within the City have received licenses and are operating 11 Producer licenses granted by LCB 13 Processor licenses granted by LCB Regulations Adopted permanent regulations in July 2014 Limited zoning for all three license types Outdoor growing and extraction limited to industrial zones Buffers City Hall, CenterPlace, undeveloped school property, undeveloped library property, and undeveloped City property - for all Also Appleway Trail and Centennial Trail for retail stores Questions? CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: n consent n old business n new business n n information ® admin. report n pending legislation ❑ public hearing executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative report — Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Code — (SVMC) — CTA -2014-0006 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None Spokane Valley BACKGROUND: CTA -2014-0006 is a city initiated code text amendment to change the time frame for preliminary plat time extensions from a single one-year time extension, to an initial three-year extension with additional one-year extensions allowed by the Community and Economic Development Department. The text amendment will also include the elimination of the criteria in 20.30.060 (A -C). The Planning Commission conducted a study session on November 13, 2014 and a public hearing on January 8, 2015 to consider the amendment. Following the public hearing and deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the proposed code text amendment. The Planning Commission approved the Findings of Fact on January 8, 2015. A comparison of the preliminary plat time extensions of our neighboring jurisdictions will also be discussed. OPTIONS: Proceed to first ordinance reading, send back to Planning Commission for further review, or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consensus to proceed to a first ordinance reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Micki Harnois, Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Text Amendment 2. Staff Reports to Planning Commission 3. Planning Commission Findings 4. Draft Planning Commission Minutes excerpt 5. Presentation CTA -2014-0006 RCA for Administrative Report 20.30.060 Time extensions. An application form and supporting data for time extension requests must be submitted to the department at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the preliminary short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan. Time extension requests shall be processed as a Type I application pursuant to Chapter 17.80 SVMC. The director department may approve an extension provided there are no significant changed conditions or changed development regulations which would render recording of the short subdivision, subdivision or binding site plan contrary to the public health, safety or general welfare_; and provided one or more of the following circumstances is found to apply: A. That some portion of the existing preliminary short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan has been finalized since the project was approved and the remaining lots would form a unified development consistent with the original approval; B. That the preliminary short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan remains generally consistent with the original plat or binding site plan that was approved, and the applicant has taken substantial step: toward finalizing the plat or binding site plan, which shall include at least one of the following: 1. Surveying the lots within the development; 2. Arranging for public services to the site; 3. Obtaining necessary financing for all or a portion of the preliminary short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan; and/or 'I. Completing studies or other requirements which were part of preliminary short subdivision, subdivision, or binding site plan approval; C. That at the time preliminary approval was granted, development of the proposal was conditioned upon the extension of public services which are not yet available. This provision shall not apply to public utility extensions which the project sponsor would normally fund. If the conditions set forth in subsections A, B or C of this section are met, tThe department may grant an e, initial onethree-year time extension. Additional one year extensions may be granted by the department Director beyond the initial eeethree--year extension. Prior to granting time extensions, the director department shall circulate the time extension request to affected agencies for comments. Additional or altered conditions recommended by the department or affected agencies may be required as a condition of this extension. Any time extension granted as a result of administrative delays arc not . - This may also include new or updated City regulations deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, or general welfare. City departments may also recommend additional or altered conditions. The department shall issue a written decision approving or denying the time extension request and provide copies to affected agencies, the applicant, and those parties requesting a copy of such decision. Appeals of a time extension shall be filed in a manner consistent with the provisions of Chapter 17.90 SVMC. Spokane .00.0Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA -2014-0006 STAFF REPORT DATE: December 31, 2014 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: January 8, 2015, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A text amendment proposing to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 20.30.060, Time Extensions to change the granting of a single, one-year time extension to a three-year time extension with the Director granting additional one year extensions beyond the initial three-year extension. The text amendment change would also include the elimination of 20.30.060 (A -C) APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission approve the changing of a single, one-year time extension to a three-year time extension with the Director granting additional one-year extensions beyond the initial three-year extension. The amendment would also change the circumstances listed in 20.30.060 (A -C). STAFF PLANNER: Micki Harnois, Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to SVMC 20.30.060, Time Extensions A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date Published Notice of Public Hearing: December 12-12-14 and 12-19- 14 Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies: December 8, 2014 SEPA Checklist Routed for comments December 8, 2014 DNS issued December 26, 2014 2. PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposal is to modify Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 20.30.060. The intent is to create flexibility in the granting of time extensions when Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2014-0006 circumstances arise that are out of the developer's control. This would also allow the Director to analyze the specific proposal with the established criteria as well as evaluating the good -will effort progress of the project. The proposed amendment will change the granting of a single, one-year time extension to a three- year time extension with the Director granting additional one year extensions beyond the initial three-year extension. The following table shows comparable jurisdictions' allowable time extensions: Jurisdiction 1st time 2nd time 3rd time, etc City of Kennewick n/a n/a n/a City of Kent 1 year 1 year on-going City of Lacey 1 year 1 year on-going City of Liberty Lake 3 years No No City of Pasco n/a n/a n/a City of Spokane 1 year No No City of Spokane Valley 1 year No No Spokane County 3 years 1 year on-going City of Wenatchee n/a n/a n/a B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment, if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive plan goals for providing adequate supply of usable land for industry and maintaining a flexible and consistent regulatory environment, and preserving and protecting neighborhoods. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: Land Use Policy -13.1 Maximize efficiency of the development review process by continuously evaluating the permitting process and modifying as appropriate. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. Page 2 of 3 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA -2014-0006 Economic Policy EDP -7.1: Evaluate, monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable, cost-effective, and expeditious. Economic Policy EDP -7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Analysis: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will make the development standards consistent for all commercial and industrial zones. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Public noticing was completed for CTA -2014-0006 on December 8, 2014. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the applicable approval criteria, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment to change the initial time extension to three years with the Director granting additional one year extensions beyond the initial three year extension. Staff's recommendation also includes the elimination of the listed circumstances listed in 20.30.060 (A -C) Page 3 of 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CTA -2014-0006 January 8, 2015 The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval. Background: 1. Spokane Valley development regulations were adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. 2. This is a city initiated text amendment to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 20.30.060, Time Extensions to change the granting of a single, one-year time extension to a three-year time extension with the Director granting additional one- year extensions beyond the initial three-year extension. The text amendment change would also include the elimination of 20.30.060 (A -C). 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and conducted deliberations on January 8, 2015. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval as modified to City Council. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150F Approval Criteria a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Finding(s): i. Land Use Policy LUP-13.1 Maximize efficiency of the development review process by continuously evaluating the permitting process and modifying as appropriate. ii. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. iii. Economic Policy EDP -7.1: Evaluate, monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable, cost-effective, and expeditious. iv. Economic Policy EDP -7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. b. The proposed city -initiated amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Finding(s): i. The proposed amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will make development standards consistent for all development. 2. Conclusion(s): a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.150(F). Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 2 b. The Growth Management Act stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends City Council adopt the proposed city - initiated code text amendments to SVMC 20.30.060, Time Extensions and eliminate 20.30.060 (A -C) as attached. Approved this 8th day of January, 2015 oe Stoy, Chairman A ST i Dea na Horton, Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 BELOW IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 2015 WITH ALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Public Hearing — CTA -2014-0006, Subdivisions, Time Extensions Commissioner Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. Planner Micki Harnois gave a staff report regarding the change to chapter 20.30.060 regarding time extensions for final plat approvals. Currently the City's code provides for a one time, one year extension if a plat cannot be completed in the state allowed five year time period. Currently there is a situation where a developer cannot finish his plat because he is waiting for a map change from FEMA. Staff is proposing to clean up language and to change the time to a request for an initial three year extension and one year extensions after that. Ms. Harnois noted that with the extensions, the director could apply conditions to the project which would bring it into line with the current codes. Ms. Harnois noted she had contacted several jurisdictions and their regulations ranged from a one- year extension with no other extensions allowed, to an initial three year extension with one year extensions allowed at a time. Commissioner Wood asked if the City of Spokane allowed a one-year extension regardless of the situation, they did not allow another extension, which Ms. Harnois confirmed as correct. Commissioner Anderson asked if the City took any responsibility to notify the developer that the plat was getting close to expiring. Ms. Barlow stated as part of the staff report when preliminary approval is received there is a date specific when the plat expires. If a plat expires the developer can they reapply but the process starts over. Commissioner Graham asked if staff was aware of how many plats have needed an extension. Ms. Harnois stated the FEMA cases where the developer is waiting for a map change to finish his plat. She also asked if the extension is granted would the development fall under new code. The plat would be vested in the code at the time of approval however, the director could apply new conditions if they needed to be brought up to date. Seeing no one who wished to testify, Chair Stoy closed the public hearing at 6:46 p. m. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council of CTA -2014-0006. Commissioner Phillips commented that he is very much in favor of the proposal and that he has had times when he needed the extra time to complete a plat. He also stated that today most plats are fairly small, but it depends on the size of the preliminary plat how quickly you can complete it. Most developers are not willing to develop the large subdivision as they have in the past and so they do it in phases. This all takes time to get thru all the requirements. Commissioner Phillips stated that he is very much in favor of this and would like to see notices sent out when as things get close to expiring. Commissioner Stoy stated he agrees with the proposal and feels the ending dates get forgotten. He stated that maybe there could be a process to notify whoever is providing the developer and or the civil plans notification stating that there plat is about to expire and that they have 30 days. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated that from a legal stand point we have to high light that these are the developer's plats and not the cities plats. It is the developer's responsibility and if we were to create a system of providing notice it creates significant risk for the city and liability if we miss one of those notices. It is not something that he can recommend from a legal standpoint. Commissioner Stoy moved to recommend approval to the City Council of CTA -2014-0006. The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes. Ms. Barlow explained to the Planning Commission that they would be deviating from the normal process and they will be bringing back the findings CTA -2014-0006 to the Planning Commission that evening for approval. 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact: CTA -2014-0006, Subdivisions, Time Extensions. Ms. Harnois stated once the Findings are signed they will move on to City Council. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb explained the general process of the Findings of Fact. Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council the Findings and Recommendations for CTA -2014-0006 as presented. The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes. 01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt Page 2 of 2 SOokane lhdl ley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN NG DIVISION City Council Administrative Report January 20, 2015 CTA -2014-0006 (Time Extensions) Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 20.30.060 Municipal Code Text Amendment Plat Review and Approval Process • Preliminary Approval • Design and Build Improvements • Final Plat Approval Municipal Code Text Amendment Step 1 Preliminary Plat Approval Process Application Submitted Review Process Begins Public Notices and SEPA Route to Agencies and Notify Public of Application Preliminary Approval Final Plat must be submitted prior to expiration Municipal Code Text Amendme1.,. • Conditions for improvements • Approval Expires in 5 years (RCW 58.17) Step 2 - Design and Build Improvements Constructio Plan Submitted Development Engineering Reviews and Approves Plans Improvements must be constructed prior to submitting Final Plat Construction Begins Municipal Code Text Amendment Construct Road (pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk) and Utility Improvements Step 3 - Final Plat Review Final Plat Submitted Routed to all Agencies that commented; Reviewed for compliance with conditions Plat is Recorded Legal Lots are created and available for sale Municipal Code Text Amendment 5 Spokane di1ey COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN NG DIVISION What happens if the 5 year approval expires? • Current Regulations Allow: — A single, one-year time extension may be approved. — Time extension request must be submitted at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the plat. • The plat can't be recorded and the project dies Municipal Code Text Amendment Examples of why the 5 year deadline may not be met? • Public utilities cannot be extended due to a delay in a sewer lift station being constructed by the County • Waiting for approved revisions on a FEMA map • Conclusion: Our current regulations don't allow for continued extensions COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Time Extensions allowed by State Law • RCW 58.17.140 (4) Any city can adopt by ordinance, procedures which would allow extensions of time that may or may not contain additional or altered conditions and requirements. Municipal Code Text Amendment 8 Spakan r'aI1U COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Comparable Jurisdiction's Allowable Time Extensions City of Spokane Valley (interim) City of Kennewick City of Kent City of Lacey City of Liberty Lake City of Pasco City of Spokane City of Spokane Valley Spokane County City of Wenatchee 3 years n/a 1 year 1 year 3 years n/a 1 year 1 year 3 years n/a 1 year n/a 1 year on-going n/a on-going 1 year on-going No No n/a n/a No No No No 1 year on-going n/a n/a Planning Commission Recommendation was to approve the following language (approved 7-0): • Initial three-year time extension • Additional one year extensions at the discretion of the Department • Deletion of 20.30.060 (A -C) Criteria Municipal Code Text Amendment 10 Spokane Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ►NN NG DIVISION Questions? Municipal Code Text Amendment 11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: NEPA/SEPA Process GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Council requested information on what the SEPA and NEPA processes are, how they differ and how they relate to City projects. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, P.E. — Senior Capital Projects Engineer ATTACHMENTS: SEPA vs NEPA Presentation slides SEPA vs. NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES HOW THEY DIFFER FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS SEPA vs. NEPA SEPA = State Environmental Policy Act Chapter 43.21C RCW Enacted in 1971 Framework to consider environmental consequences Implementation rules —Chapter 197-11 WAC Implemented through SVMC 21.20 SEPA Checklist Required on all Projects Unless Categorically Exempt WAC 197-11-908 SVMC 21.20.040 SEPA vs. NEPA STAFF I FRP COSI SEPA CHECKLIST t3 V MC 21-203 Cunlruuuily DovolupineliL - Plat rlilrclyu Divi. II A. apogean,* steer u -s a yen ote .m.730. ell rsee,-ww a - lit pfdnnnre.kieokanealle 0aLe Submitted Rev -cored by PI IIS eI: rile¢: Fre: PART 1- REQUIRED MATERIAL ur 1..10FP n A001000on Fee ❑ 1rrpU¢tnbublon and[aenerabon Leiter. d reduce... by !development Endlnecnnle. Palley Att (SERA), chapter C requlr.s aR governments_ codex of a proposal tab,0:Ing 16.1.10. tint (EIS) m to peparad m r proposals wive probable significant oboes. Impsco o • onyironmona I1. w purpoa o provide information eep you and do ad Impactsfrom an your proposal Cared o o rodeo. r awls mote.. 1110. doproposal, 0 it can to eland Ikeynermatis Fon Oro odder. oduiHnd preparation of an CID- /mower the q ue,tione briefly we the moat occur Infonnaeon k the keel deet ipton you can. You meat primer each question docurolef, and esre0i ply to the beat of your k o*odve. In mo should he able to drawer the o cations frwn your own observation, or profedtteclans without the expo-. tr you ot know the ands., e due.o. does not your erode...eat Op,' or 'does' nail Complete n Com01110 -movers to the 00 000ne now may aygle enncee_eary delay borne quo -atone aek about dowemmenial lso, and landmark Pno...ertbe_e pu ¢01011 n you con. It you nave problem, d1 0o�e.te 1101,t*I 010 crone pan a__ rd Tba pct geesvons apply to all pans cepa, propesat deem a you plan m mor le per o n Caro -rent paredls o lent' s kelp d dpo your pr anylronntorrtal Tbs. 000ncy to wnlm yuoceemb 0 is checklist may ask you o talo am yet provide addluona�I Inxformation rex Drably sidled m doe emining If vara may ba elgmre.m aarorss 11.11. CI! 111.C.KI Ism Fon yinionvoirer nownsea ru nnnminN.• IrlPP!ern even! crawl rein .v_0r.ramar-nna%(P...I n) PI -22Y lb til y For n n-profar-t 2.1`1162.1`11611C,d.. Vin -al a: arta 'applicant.' and 'prep. -di or arw. a000Id M read ar 'prade.a respectreely. A. BACKGROUND 1 Name of proposed pralect, lt applicable 2- Name of a pplicanl. 3- Address. and phone. n Ichor of eppliunl and rsrntact 4 4- Date chec111101 prepared: 5- Agency regueaotg Ch000IIot: 6- Prop02ed tlrnlr511 or schedule (100lutllne passing, rr 0p -p11 7. Da yell have any plane hr fifi re xl.Slins. Cupar ourinecled weer this propusarr7 11 yes, explain. 8. List 00.l o,,olrur,rW information you know .Lo.. prepared, 00eetly related to thle proposal. 9_ Do you knew whether apelicaliones are F.eruiily �fu�r� �gee 010.117 d1Iect& the seopealy wyered by your WopusalJ 10 List any government arpprovals. - pem.ih. 001.1 will tar ne 11. Give Wlef, complete desodption of your proposal, Inc101 the projoot gad NEC. 1 WPC 1R: 9CM0001111Cellera Igtor oftrie esfaer(0 01 your rmpnaarl 'nu eke not need (Lead agencies nwy nlu.Ji1y this Icrrrl to 1riLluelc alk desclrpilon.) b_ Stgnnwater 5EPACE T 1_ What are the depths on the sae 00 groundwater and to bedrock 111 hngwnl'? 2_ Wil stomswater be di0Cltafged Into the ground? If 08. de0crlbe 011.17 potential impacts. B. INVINC]NMLN IAL LLLMI-N IS 1 j Earth a_ General description et the site (check one): n nat, n fo111110, n h111y, ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, abler b. What -salesteepest slope on the site Cappraxlmate parcefrt 01010!)? c. What general types of soils arc found ran Ole xiLe (few ,...111 !pie, clay, volt], gravel, peat, muck)? It you know the classification of agricultural solle, speedy them and note any prima farmland. tl_ Are there surface indications or history of oralsbla8011e In the miedlate inity? If 0p describe. e_ Describe the purpose, type, and appro:d mate quentniee of any Tilling or grading proposed- Also indicate source or 011. T Could erosion occur as a result or clearing, Lx.11xlrucriar, 01 uvea If so, generally describe g. About what percent or the site will be (0ereJ with ecliptic viwx ver face, atter project construction (for example. asphalt 01 DulldInge)? r vwl II*T1r00 Ff. AGErOC Y USE 01eLY Pi -2271.0 Yagct or 11 PL -22 V1.0 re pe 2 of 14 SEPA vs. NEPA • SEPA Checklist Includes Questions Earth Water Plants Animals ) Energy and Natural Resources 3 Environmental Health o Land and Shoreline Use o Housing o Aesthetics Light and Glare • About Recreation Historic and Cultural Preservation Transportation Public Services Utilities SEPA vs. NEPA • Public Works Staff Prepares SEPA Checklist • Community Development Dept. Processes/Manages SEPA process for City Projects SEPA Determinations DNS -Determination of Non -Significance MDNS -Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance DS -Determination of Significance Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Required • Most City Public Works Projects — DNS Sullivan Rd Bridge - MDNS SEPA vs. NEPA 6 NEPA —National Environmental Policy Act Public Law 91 190 - January 1970 "National Charter for Protection of the Environment" Required on all projects with federal funds Categorical Exemptions Other Federal Environmental Statutes Endangered Species Act Section 106 —National Historic Preservation Act Section 4(f) Evaluation — Park and Recreational Lands Section 6(f) —Outdoor Recreation Resources (Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA)) SEPA vs. NEPA NEPA administered differently by each federal agency FHWA Federal Highways Administration FTA —Federal Transit Administration USDOE —Department of Energy FHWA allows WSDOT to manage NEPA process for Transportation Projects in Washington WSDOT uses the Environmental Classification Summary (ECS) Checklist -4Mia. sesta �i Da4tlfIMPanaL Of TfysupPeel�tle.tl SEPA vs. NEPA Local Agency Environmental Classification Summary -c mlAltl Prnleot Number Hoot. CM -I99.101117 ) M.rr. Apenry r.., of r,."1,....17..11., Y101c at i Itle M..r..11..lrl A.. C..,..rr.r- i:r:. - Pi...-. Fl..bi.rrii.q MP Part1 Prnject �2[a fool] A.. 1111{17011. Fctic R.1 1..7101 1 r_., .:rTI..,,A Iyrnr.ri Minn Intent of Suam tealo ®PN:r�,Orr ® Fin... ❑Il.`Fr...l..n- rad ...pram Iltic 0202.5 Elena R,1 Cnd..a Mr Ma.. 021 gm, 44E i .,-0 rm. 10 Count' Spokane Comity rra;ert nescripion - Dexaibe the proroaed projeol. inoludiny the purpose and nerd for Ile project. Connect two separated parts of Mansfield Ave into a "Oleic. eooliorris roadway. relocate ocepa nl; of a msidentlal I.rr:lab..,,d.....lbi.n.r.f' 111.0•1r..1.3i..g,..1,n..r.1r.:.baro. e r 11..1....in i..41.....r1r.r.y 7I..r....1,..7 w l I}... llrr.,.-I..m echoo wdk sorb. =ult.r, mien alk. bake lane. and a emirr Sum laws. 'Ilse ycn,rct wall P .00.4e a dtreet male fa 1.1oa1 R4, eliminating tho more circuitous room oPTn di .-no Ara and Mir alw an Pl--ory. Par12 Envi.[.n.nenlal Claouircatir n RIF PA C CIOSG 1- E71Nwtmnrml Impact 5(14n.ant (EI5) El Mr.. 11-C01.gra:vey Fn:l d({'F) 1:E lypc Worn 2A4:11-1,"1.1If1. srPA ❑ Can ]o.caly..anor per WPti 197-11-00 El6,modin..liar.f Ne 9iamiraae.(5 N4) ❑ Crn'vanmanted hopac-i Dab moot )EI ( U rt+ar>'q.l ❑ Oadornuen n S.pplemtntol Ih or Intornsaa0nal Puroas0 only) InPmfaeep Raqultlng Goeuman.abn fuooumcuted t.Ef [LAG :LI ....2.1. El rlomammatio CC MO(1 ❑ CL.... III -F.....-.r...I.I A.w..1..,l (FA) Ntl'A Approylnl Nig nrt lrC3 P Repicnal Lord r.apramo En gIneor n Ir Wtc Highways and Lona! HmgrantE tnvlrnnmen.1 Enen.er 1Ja tc Fw1.1.a Hi�V...Oy A.In.: riMrOa::r. 41.,04 Connp.orad lay Print 7,111e1a r: Hama} San Knutson Talc pl.onp (04004141.naris rods} 2U-5 WV I -a. ).sokade area code! }us -esus -o �Sl WT owxaa o.aaE rape 1 of 0 E -Ina II hkputsoa.'41.pekaaoc.000 org Y.ti Pmt '3 P -Lo alld Nr. P... n,r Atan.r.A Alxlxrerpa In Remuihed y.. Nr. PM r.r P,..nxA D D D I-1 D Q D 0 1 1 D LEI ® l:orp14 of Engineer: D tiro. 111 ❑ 4100.101 I I NOF:: r.w:l.. Ty, 8 0 Water Hg116 Hering 1 1 W 1.11,11.1 flulily Cr. lira... xr -Rw., 4111 Irsuad by C Indlvll dual Pont. IJo. 0 l:o.-�t ...ea Fenrrt ® Coastal Zone Manopenrenl Certification 120 said..! Alza Ordinal -ion (CAC) rennk 0 Hy.1r.a:f.. Pnjn. fygnrn.,l ® i.a4-0l 0U11ding or 510. Qavabpmonr 4042010. 121 y.0ool facarnp and lirad3n Fern. © National rdlwr t C.i'osharye Clinlnai on dbmte.5 14 91x.44:... P..:,.4 El Stam Warm DI,. mango Pamtt El T£SC moms Complawd D 18 Tribal Permit(a7- (N any), ❑ 12 C.dra P.0,0 fl_kn: tEl ❑ 1.6W aoq onnon re ore]? ryes, amount ri9411:11 801.44,004 sF ® ❑ Is rclooa ton required:' ❑ ® HxR0Vf alroady been aag401art 1410 dile 41010041 II y1s.a[men ra.ponscs 10Appandlx N In Ole ECS Gu14.bpdr. ❑ ® Is a datau roaqu 4.17 a yon, please anapn rlr-li... iri rr rrri �.r. iri Part 4 f nvirnn monfal Cnncirl rrafinna 1- Air Duality - Identify -any anticipated air qualm i.lucp. h me pmleot nolo.. mare MCR000ltan Irancprrtaton Plan, 11Y,, r1.e.1...rl.1,1..liIOr.T.O:.0...I wri:.. P10r. m.. 041:110.41 Y me prol as 1001411 In an Jin L0.41104 Non Attainment ftral or rMlg? Ic are prof... 0x am4r horn .46.104.0205. con[wrnhy raqutrarnantal II yea. 4tlenlllyc.rc.npeon, please rotor to appendix H In the 000011 cd cxocrpt tram anginal gran[ a0011e34011 tdcn4bcp M Ycs D Nr (1(1(17 or Marrllen1 nae leen to r.bean mannndo. W Yea Ell No D Y -es ® No E4:6 444446E -book for Mc 1 a of 0.00444 oar: redo anon In crnmstons as a resutt or41c pone. [Manafe Inert S AW pIafennan ocs,: . a_ la rhia poojeptwilhin an ..wrier relharee area ® Yes ❑ No a 0401141020 promo Inn 20.2 E Yes ❑ Ne ..... A, -....n. 0.rnirn 61 v.. 1 I *J.. !NM -wird l nillr:r w r.k. Fria:r. rr.ny.ifw. 'n tlw rrr. ni.annual fnar. FPA ,113114 r..al? lyes. please lint exemption 0 no, 220 0t 614M1 approval 1lcaembcr 6, 01112 rExhrbrt til b 1a11i5 project located it a Gedo.ically nsardoua Area? CI .(1.5 ®No 11t'.... p.1.......1...:4ihr. a. WM lltl0prolc at lmpaot apC C.,F1.1iNtat otltcrthan 40ll lmActicpc wc:! ❑ I'cr. ElHo Explain your aml.ncr C.} .110 ,i...1 ail I.in 024.1=0430.4104404.0 on. :ri.w _ min.! .0-..a0l,.000, Ai .....0,111 I.,I 1 w,lj. r, x:,mil s..: rr.,.n4 ❑ yes 11 NO ir.ni.1,,aailla,..aa..1arr..• Ai. r!n Alii. FA, .arir0a3 rl.:Vagona.00an.. Wi 1rLr,.irin.gib C61,, •4 rw ryi_ rl=male neon arc, D Yes ®Na F0 C.20*4 SEPA vs. NEPA ECS Checklist contains Part 1 Project Description Part 2 - Environmental Classification NEPA o Class I — EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) o Class II — CE (Categorically Excluded) DCE — Documented CE Programmatic CE (MOU) Class III — EA (Environmental Assessment) SEPA o Categorically Exempt (WAC 197-11-800) o DNS (Determination of Non -Significance) o EIS SEPA vs. NEPA 10 Part 3 - Permits and Approvals Required Corps of Engineers Critical Areas Ordinance Shoreline Permit Water Quality Certification Etc. Part 4 - Environmental Considerations Air Quality Critical/Sensitive Areas Cultural Resources/Historic Structures Floodplains and Floodways Hazardous and Problem Waste Noise SEPA vs. NEPA 11 Part 4 -Environmental Considerations —continued Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife Refuges, Historic Properties, Wild and Scenic Rivers/Scenic Byways, or 4(f)/6(f) Resource Lands Rivers, Streams (Continuous, Intermittent), or Tidal Waters Tribal Lands Visual Quality Water Quality/Storm Water Commitments (Environmental & Long Term Maintenance) Environmental Justice SEPA vs. NEPA 12 " .' ■ Part 5 -Biological Assessment and EFH (Essential Fish Habitat) Evaluations BA Determinations o No EffecL o NLTAA — Not Likely to Adversely Affect o LTAA —Likely to Adversely Affect EFH Determinations o No Adverse Affect o Adverse Affect SEPA vs. NEPA � NEPA Approval Process Public Works Staff or Consultant Prepares the ECS Submit to WSDOT Eastern Region (ER) for Review/Approval WSDOT ER Forwards to WSDOT HQ for Review/Approval WSDOT HQ forwards to FHWA for Review/Approval If WSDOT HQ determines project is Categorically Excluded per MOU between WSDOT and FHWA — no FHWA Review/Approval necessary (typical for preservation projects) Process takes 3-4 weeks after ECS is submitted to WSDOT ER SEPA vs. NEPA Comparison — Sullivan Rd W. Bridge Replacement SEPA SEPA Checklist w/ Attachments - 44 pages Habitat Management Plan (Shorelines) — 44 pages NEPA ECS — 264 pages Section 4(f) Evaluation — 65 pages Noise Study — 17 pages Section 106 — 34 pages JARPA (for both state and federal agencies) — 168 pages SEPA vs. NEPA • Cost Comparison Most Projects — Low Cost Large In -River Projects — High cost Sullivan Rd Bridge - $250,000 SEPA vs. NEPA 6 • Questions? uoReluesaad :S1N3INH3V11V :Sj3ydINI IVIDNVNId/1300f18 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion uo!ssnosia :SNOIldO E®-0J�»® ]»F13mco 7$ »§ k 7 0{$ 0§ Cl D n 2 \./ f\ 7 2 d'\ 0 7 D 0 A »6 �G\*¥ �0/k2 (D G \ $ § = § m § § 7 0 c J £ -0 Di) < $ E / % — k k % ƒ(ek°$ 7m»q°®p oJm(7® =a) a) 0 ea — ®*G ®13o5 -_m—< ��7-,-0•o\ka»% e�) 2 co0--ƒ) a)« _ = 2. 0 m 5.~GD-m-0 2Dak¥�k = s « 0 m « a $ « « ƒ/} <§a k)0- k 6 m � � � � , m o.*°,¥ w a\ƒ c 0 m]® 0C E 2 m 0' « §$\»�C �.gJ o 7 . o ¥ (c:,5. ° _ a) -- % a « o — 0- D- / 7 \ m < § Cl / n d.m m o/¥ oq° D G 0.o o - G -•- 5. ',7: ¥ \ ) / k m _. °) <0° ® ] » § 2.� s< ] « __ s m o_ ° m G = o • (D \ 0 ® ® = ° m 2 » k » -i \ 6 ƒ (D -0 ? ° 0 $ 2 / $ Di) s (D © -' » _ ��'k/k� -�2\m o ° ® ° ¥ / ® § \ « \ � % ƒ ea « $ o ®F $ D- -0 - -0f¥»\=§2 o§.% 2 5. s - 3. $ — c % -o g»k/gf /""c=¥ o 5. ° / �) / ƒ a) c -. =1" m ai � ° ° - ° (s_2 m \ §7 ¢ o wR £ 5 s'§ - s £ * w « £ £ m U / uezwo Ieuo!se000 peniaoaa sal :N3NV1 NOIIDV IIDNfOD Sf1OIA2 Id ƒq \m a � Z qD Z�r ?o" O 31� m �/0 q02 ?� OoCl - O2G -n c m ƒm§ oƒ > ?$a \ƒa m7. F 2s > 2 ) 2 �, OSS 22¥ ƒ =, co D 0 ea ms C (0 '(0 IgG q0% s s AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Street Sweeping Bike Lanes :i idde win He joag3 ❑ ❑ o / \ E❑ \o- • 0 (13-o -o ❑ ❑ 0 ) 3 / \� \ 0 ❑ ❑ -o o c S \m- (13 $/ 0 :algia Euglen' 91-0Z `OZ /Jenuer :leno.iddy .io}oa.iia luewpedea z xi 0 -< -‹ O O Cr) -0 � O 0 D RZ m 0 D I— O o rn _< STREET SWEEPING - BIKE LANES CITY OF SPOKANE VAL WHY SWEEP STREETS? Air Quality Mandate Safety Traffic Striping Ability to Stop Stormwater - Helps keep drainage beds clean Bike Routes Aesthetics STREET SWEEPING - BIKE LANES Addressed with Public Work's action plans: Spring (April - June) Arterial (ongoing from March -November) Fall (2 to 4 weeks in October- November) All Streets are looked at and swept (if needed) at least lx/year Bike Lanes and Routes more frequently swept on arterials 3 SPRING SWEEP PLAN Every curbed public street Non -curbed areas as needed WSDOT: Pines & Trent 50% of total sweeping budget Ow -74 I F7 i Lii now sof "�+� n Jnr• 111"161110.Frill _' 111 i �I J .. . — .■# ■■r : 1■■ s Mita t ax FAA a Miles Lagand 0 Sweeping Service Areas 90 City Sheets PFivata Ey bwnechMalntaned Sheets Streets with Curbs City of Spokane Valley Spring Sweeping Service Areas Revision Date: December 2014 4 ARTERIAL SWEEPING PLAN N 2 Miles Legend -Arterial Maintenance Sweeping WSDOT Maintenance Twice during Month Once during Month City Starr Inspection/Authorization Only Other Areas by Request/Need S Nght Sweeping Zen. - I-90 Commercial Areas Industrial Areas Residential Areas Park/Open Space rc o � Eighth Ar= g City of Spokane Valley Arterial Maintenance Sweeping Revised December 2014 Arterial sweeping frequency based on criteria: ADT/Zoning Curbed Bike Route Staff inspection Accidents Construction About 30% of total sweeping budget 5 • r ,- I 111• t. CI 4 4 �. -t - .•_r.• -•...i_.... -....k...._, _ ,_ __., y 5 I w i 1 '---1`._"C"} 'Yi 1 1 it {�,�' I ,�I.i_ - 1t - r-. i 1 I-_ I. - j --....._'1•...--.....--...4......1.4.7.4. .. 1 +.�. - - sl i i $ 1 i�,. I z 1 ;- I 1 1 , I 1 1 s y` 1. .. ,- �� ; _ - - .,,,,1 -..---kr . 4 �,i I 1,.m i �A4. a 1 4° -- .E l ii i am ,'.1'.ID 4- i t½.Lir:i }►•. '. ",.r - 1 . h 1 '74-'-')--. J 1 __1 1 J j f,l{ l �l r I 1 I.- 1 , 1, - -Y' 1?.. v e = F —� 1 1 - 4 - }.s may., f - G' '-, .- ----i i _. 15 y 1-._..i t—.1 1' j, 4,,.a- 1"..w -•}•t a l--:i •_-n}�, opift L. 1 f 1 { ¢ ; - I � . LEGEND GREATER SPOKANE 1; , 4-r L`: AREA BIKE ROUTES .. '-.T T' I f (SRTC) - - ;_ r /1 l I t"i M '\ 1 n •r Via► �' 1 I j % -- 4 r I -i.--- I 1 I 1 i i j SRTC Bike 2013 Plan - Detailed Bike Plan Type BICYCLE LANE -- -- SHARED ROADWAY SIGNED ROADWAY - - - FAVORITE BIKE ROUTE - - - Streets and Roadways City of Spokane Valley 6 � I • 1 ■ i 7 i 7 -• t 1 4 a.- r' . . r.. -.7 4r Y M r' • r I _ +�+1r ■ r f ■ 1 1 1 ■.• 1 a ..yi. r- .. .r�r_-.'tiY.-ti 1 I l Y - - - - +,"�t'0."-Tr1'a of r . �. 1 • ` j .... r - - 1I - Y - �.- ,..•.:- r 1 "+-fa it IV ....I . 1 _- r �� y _ — 1 1 ■ 1 ' e it r� x ✓ I - - ,�•i +f' l� 1 7 i — +;r` r . r------.....,.. ..; ..-'.,.y� f..... s..... • _, i J 1 r........0.-- -1----,,,,........... Fa it --_ . .i ■ r4)1 i - ....-_.._. 1 1 .• • .f 1 ..' 44 1L. • " ....Le....._ _ m▪ .'#.5._ 1 -.r •b.-.s•+i1 + ..•+-. ..., `f Yf_ 4---�� :v i' .. +•~* _ 1..... 6.''... i..a* SS-...-.:� L-�-�fe.-.y-.-::r--.-r w`.1. .,_w 4t•.p ;~1 J� k1 r"- - ! 1 '" 1 !1 'i 1 i rr-4 #y y4# •E .-- .SFr *.d.."..** ir ...e''''...... f� 1 1 1 *+ 1 ▪ 11 1 ' 1 1 .[e. .. ...NEC .i ..P.1.40 i! ,4.......... a .5 - ` i .. ..... ..�y.. M e, t Z.. _ - . •a- _ '. -• +L.,1.. (.r ---r: -r .r--r-a.-.r-ti- -....ti-; ... -- .. -- T �_ _� ; .. - ' i. �.F ry - - - ' - • 1 1 1 1 ..kir-+ -•1..' •~ a ■.�_l F. .• .6 - J--��a�1--_ :a.�!e.�._. .�`: W N E 0 - Wellesley Ave re -0 o c a ,d s ..,5%15\"'14 irabea pie a rn Euclid Ave ri etta AVe Or 0 LL Euclid Ave Euclid Ave gig Mission Ave wMission Ave c F_��BAhAva�y✓ v ce Eighth Ave IF Eighth Ave c F L c ii 16th Ave a ARTERIAL & BIKE ROUTES SWEEPING FREQUENCIES o A v a o 4 m E - , Valleyway Ave Spra ue Ave ion Av a -re' BroaayAveZ-- O _ _ _ leyway Aie _ V leyway Ave _ Y Mission Ave N O, . a re `\N-3 Eighth Ave Eigh�rAve c V S P 4 no 4 .p • 16th So., cc cw se Rd 1,7,'"'., ms 241h Ave ��� a re ce a c ✓ e .i. 32nd Ave .1 o co ib IP ▪ co 44th Ave a- m Fourth Ave tz E Evergreen Rd 24th Ave 24th Ave m LEGEND WSDOT Sweeping I-90 - WSDOT Sweeping Arterial Maintenance Sweeping Authorized Frequency 2x/Month March -November 1z/Month March -November SIM 2zlYeer & By Authorization Noncurbed Uy Staff Authorization City of Spokane Valley SRTC Bike 2013 Plan - within City Detailed <all other values> CLASSDESC .1 BICYCLE LANE SHARED ROADWAY !i SIGNED ROADWAY FAVORITE BIKE ROUTE 8 w s F Discuss additional sweeping with WSDOT a -a c7, Wellesley Ave b i. N 0 0 raheau Euclid Ave Euclid Av -o ce Mont.omer Dr naxA SR9oty, -Mission Ave " Mi ve on Ave c c c 7 ft o EP va la m q -o ▪ 7 ce leyway Ave Spra a Ave w Eighth Ave Eighth Ave o 16th Ave .41 '"e Eighth Ave ARTERIAL & BIKE ROUTES 44th Ave Mission Ave leyway Ave - 16t Ave SatteseRd 24th Av e 24th Ave 0 - 32nd Ave SWEEPING SWEEPING FREQUENCIES Reviewing an increase in frequency in 2015 v x LEGEND WSDOT Sweeping — 1-90 - WSDOT Sweeping Arterial Maintenance Sweeping Authorized Frequency 9e/Month March -November r 1x/Month March -November 2x/Year 8 By Authorization Non-curbed/By Staff Authorization I City of Spokane Valley SRTC Bike 2013 Plan - within City Detailed <all other values> CLASSDESC BICYCLE LANE SHARED ROADWAY iint SIGNED ROADWAY FAVORITE BIKE ROUTE 9 SUMMARY Currently we sweep all bike lanes and shared roadways at least lx/yr as part of sweeping program. Changes to the sweeping program are evaluated through staff and citizen input. Standards of care are based upon meeting current regulations and maximizing service with available resources. 10 DISCUSSION To: From: Re: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of January 15, 2015; 8:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative Council & Staff City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings January 27, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tues, Jan 20] Proclamation: The Big Read 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Marijuana Moratorium — Erik Lamb (30 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes, YMCA Contract) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-001 Amending Dangerous Dog Regulations — Cary Driskell (20 mins) 4. Motion Consideration: Updated Commute Trip Reduction Plan — Morgan Koudelka (15 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 6. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 70 minutes] February 3, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Public Works Bid Process — Steve Worley 2. Historic Preservation — Gloria Mantz 3. Advance Agenda [due Mon, Jan 26] (20 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 45 minutes] February 9, 2015: Special Joint Meeting with Board of County Commissioners: 9:00 a.m. Meeting will be held in City Council Chambers; topics TBA February 10, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting Marijuana Findings of Fact — Erik Lamb 3. First Reading Proposed Text Amendment, CTA 2014-0006 — Plat Time Ext — Micki Harnois 4. Motion Consideration: Street Sweeping Contract — Eric Guth 5. Admin Report: Old Mission Ave Street Vacation (STV 2014-0001) — Karen Kendall 6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda [due Mon, Feb 2] (5 minutes) (20 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minute) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 60 minutes] February 17, 2015, Special Meeting Winter Workshop (8:30 a.m. — 4:30 p.m.) [due Mon, Feb 9] Tentative topics: Law & Justice Council State Legislative Update (Briahna Taylor) City Hall Marijuana Coal Trains Capital Projects 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. Second Reading Proposed Text Amendment, CTA 2014-0006, Plat Time Ext — Micki Harnois 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Street Vacation Old Mission Ave — Karen Kendall 4. Admin Report: Comp Plan, Site Specific Amendments — Marty Palaniuk, Christina Janssen 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 6. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [due Tues, Feb 17] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 50 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 1/15/2015 2:45:23 PM Page 1 of 2 March 3, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Accomplishments Report 2014 — Mike Jackson (tentative) 2. Advance Agenda 3. Info Only: Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) 2018-2020 Call for Projects [*estimated meeting: 65 minutes] [due Mon, Feb 23] (60 minutes) (5 minutes) National League of Cities, City Conference, Washington, D.C.: March 7-11 March 10, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. (possible no meet 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Street Vacation Old Mission Ave 3. Admin Report: CMAQ Call for Projects — Eric Guth 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda March 17, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda March 24, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: CMAQ Call for Projects — Eric Guth 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 4. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports March 31, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda April 7, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda April 14, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda April 21, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda April 28, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports May 5, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Avista Electrical Franchise Coal/Oil Train Environmental Impact Statement Economic Incentives e -cigarettes Governance Manual Marijuana, Minor in Consumption ing) [due Mon, March 2] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) — Karen Kendall [due Mon, March 9] (5 minutes) [due Mon, March 16] (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) *estimated meeting: 25 minutes] [due Mon, March 23] (5 minutes) [due Mon, March 30] (5 minutes) [due Mon, April 6] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, April 13] (5 minutes) [due Mon, April 20] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, April 27] (5 minutes) Public Safety Quarterly Costs Railroad Quiet Zones Setback Requirements Sidewalks and Developments Spokane Regional Transportation Mgmt Ctr Draft Advance Agenda 1/15/2015 2:45:23 PM Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['new business ['public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2014 City Safety Program Call for Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Staff presentation of the 2014 City Safety Program and recommended project list to City Council on June 24, 2014. BACKGROUND: On July 16, 2014 Capital Programs staff in Public Works submitted applications to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for the 2014 Call for Projects for allocation of Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds for City Safety projects. The City of Spokane Valley submitted three applications: • Citywide Reflective Traffic Signal Backplates Project — Citywide traffic signal enhancements at high volume intersections, • McDonald Rd. Mission Avenue to 16th Avenue — Corridor and traffic signal improvements, • Sullivan Road, Roadway Safety Audit and Improvements — Safety Audit on Sullivan Road between Mission and 8th Avenue, identifying projects to reduce crashes, and construct the identified projects. On December 31, 2014 the City of Spokane Valley was notified by the WSDOT Highway Safety office that the City was awarded the McDonald Rd. Road Diet and Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates projects. Award amounts for the two projects as shown in the table below. 2014 HSIP Grant Applications Project Type HSIP Grant Request City Match Estimated Project Cost McDonald Road Traffic Safety project: Safety Mission Avenue to 16th Avenue Preliminary Engineering $63,900 $7,100 $71,000 Right-of-way $0 $0 $0 Construction $545,000 $545,00 TOTAL $608,900 $7,100 $616,000 Reflective Traffic Signal Backplates project: Safety Citywide Preliminary Engineering $8,100 $900 $9,000 Right-of-way $0 $0 $0 Construction $72,000 $72,000 TOTAL $80,100 $900 $81,000 OPTIONS: Info Only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Info Only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City's match on federally funded safety projects is 10% of preliminary engineering and right-of-way costs. Projects advertised for construction by September 20, 2017 are eligible for 100% funding for construction (no local match required for eligible federal expenditures). If projects are not constructed by September 20, 2017, the City's match for construction costs is also 10%. It is expected that both of these projects will be under construction contract prior to the September, 2017 deadline. STAFF CONTACT: Sean Messner, PE — Senior Traffic Engineer Eric Guth, PE — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: None