2015, 03-24 Formal Format MeetingMINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Formal Meeting Format
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Attendance:
Dean Grafos, Mayor
Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember
Rod Higgins, Councilmember
Ed Pace, Councilmember
Ben Wick, Councilmember
ABSENT:
Bill Bates, Councilmember
City Staff:
Mike Jackson, City Manager
Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
Eric Guth, Public Works Director
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Gabe Gallinger, Senior Development Engineer
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Christina Janssen, Planner
Marty Palaniuk, Planner
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: Prior to the invocation, Mayor Grafos announced that Council would hold an executive
session at the end of tonight's meeting. In the absence of a pastor, Mayor Grafos asked for a few moments
of silence.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, Staff, and 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 Councilmember Higgins, seconded and unanimously agreed to
excuse Councilmember Bates from tonight's meeting.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously
agreed to approve the amended agenda.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
Councilmember Hafner: reported that he attended the Health Board meeting where they continue
examining the composition of the board as well as the Board's governing manual; and that he went to a
STA (Spokane Transit Authority) meeting.
Councilmember Pace: said he judged a Home School science fair; went to the Greater Valley Support
Network meeting, the STA Board meeting, and the State of the County address.
Councilmember Higgins: said he went to the Japanese American Citizens League annual get-together;
said he and City Attorney Driskell testified in Olympia on the transportation bill, which he said will be
explained further later by Mr. Driskell.
Councilmember Wick: reported that he attended the State of the County address; as part of the Chamber
of Commerce trip, he went to Olympia where the focus was on transportation projects, and said the
Barker Grade Separation and Interchange are in the Senate package now; went to a Spokane Valley
Business Association meeting which focused on transportation and said he gave a report on issues being
addressed by the legislature.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 1 of 7
Approved by Council: 04-14-2015
Deputy Mayor Woodard: as part of the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee, said
concerning the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) applications, they found an additional
$68,000 to go toward the sidewalks around Seth Woodard School, and said that recommendation was
unanimously forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final consideration.
MAYOR'S REPORT: Reported that he attended the State of the County address; and went to the NE
Mayor's Conference where they talked about the need for a transportation bill for the State. In that regard,
he asked for Council support to submit the following proposed testimony and/or letter of support:
"The City of Spokane Valley requests legislative action to address the need for increased
transportation funding in the 2015 Legislative Session, including direct funding for local
transportation needs. We all recognize that quality transportation infrastructure is an important
aspect of economic development. Yet, local revenues simply cannot support the high cost of bridge
and road construction projects. The City of Spokane Valley is supportive of the legislature's
consideration of the transportation revenue package that includes Barker Road overpass. The
Barker/State Route 290 (Trent) overpass would open up 500 acres of industrial property for
development with a potential economic output of $2 Billion creating up to 9,800 new jobs in the
state. Recognizing that state, county and city government in Washington all face the immense
financial challenge of maintaining our transportation infrastructure, we support statewide measures
to fund essential projects. The City of Spokane Valley is maximizing their local support for the
Barker Overpass and we have committed a $2.9 million City match for this critical project. We are
deeply appreciative of the past and present funding support from the State of Washington
transportation programs and we offer our support as you consider transportation funding options to
address statewide needs."
City Manager Jackson said it has been our practice to sign in to support or not to support a bill; and said
he recommends extending our support by providing the testimony as stated. There was Council discussion
about the suggested testimony versus the actual transportation bill, and/or a letter of support, and it was
ultimately determined that Council would support the testimony as stated.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment.
Sandy Pavelich: said she represents residents of the Valley concerned about the Painted Hills Golf Course
purchased by the Black Development Company; said she sent Council a notice that Black had sent to
residents, and said residents are concerned about the environmental impact resulting from the floodplain
and the consequence that might occur with the aquifer and wetlands in the Chester Creek watershed; said
they are also concerned with increased traffic; said if there is another fire storm in the area, there is a
concern about evacuating people in the area.
Bob Race, Spokane Valley: he invited Council to a Kiwanis sponsored "Paint -A -Helmet" event April 25
at the Spokane Fair & Expo Center and he handed the Clerk a flyer advertising the event; on another
topic, said he spent more than 40 years in the transportation industry and noticed that the Industrial Park
in Spokane is full and there are no opportunities for development unless this Council fully supports the
issue so there is an opportunity for funding the Barker Road Interchange; said railroad crossings will be
closed in various areas so this is a vital interchange to compensate for that; said the project is supported
by the Valley Business Association, Valley Chamber of Commerce, Transportation Club, and others and
for those who choose not to support this he thinks there will be a major issue "come election time" with
9,800 jobs that don't happen because this Council has chosen not to support the issue.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Mining Moratorium — Erik Lamb
Mayor Grafos opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Lamb gave a brief overview
of the moratorium, and emphasized that this does not impact existing uses today; that after tonight's
hearing and review of comments, this will be placed on a future Council agenda for consideration of
approval of the Findings of Fact. Mayor Grafos invited public comment.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 2 of 7
Approved by Council: 04-14-2015
John Pederson, Spokane County Planning Director: said he is authorized to speak on behalf of the Board
of County Commissioners, mentioned and then read most of the Commissioners March 24, 2015 letter to
Council, which in summary states that the County believes the current moratorium will have unintended
consequences of precluding mineral extraction on Spokane County owned property in the City of
Spokane Valley, that it will significantly increase the cost of materials for future road maintenance and
construction, and that it will impact the County's incentive to partnership with the City to extend public
sewer in the Tshirley Road area, and they request Council either repeal the ordinance, or repeal it and in
its place adopt chapter 14.260 of the Spokane County Code as this City's interim development regulation
chapter. Mr. Peterson also included as an attachment to the letter, a copy of the County's Code Chapter
14.620, Mineral Lands.
John Shogren, Central Pre -Mix: spoken in opposition to the moratorium; said he realizes this is temporary
but it will lead to making it more difficult to run a business; said he noted this was not intended to impact
existing businesses but said that is rarely the case as it will lead to more regulations and red tape; said he
has over 300 employees and he feels this will financially damage his business; said a gravel pit and land
use are not mutually exclusive in the long term.
Paul Franz, Local General Manager for Central Pre -Mix: said the ordinance mentions that reclamation
renders the land unusable for anything else; said he has picture that shows that is false; said mining is an
interim use of a piece of land and it is very common to be reclaimed into useful property; said to say it
destroys property permanently in incorrect; said the land doesn't go away and is still valuable and can be
re -used; said this moratorium stops changes they were going to make.
Juna McDonald, Licensed Professional Engineer: said she is the corporate environmental engineer for
Central Pre -Mix; she disagreed that the moratorium does not affect existing operations; said they are often
expected and required by the Department of Natural Resources to make updates, and under the
moratorium would be in direct conflict with their permitting agency; she asked Council to repeal the
moratorium and if not, their attorney will submit comments to hopefully be fully exempt.
Stacy Bjordahl: Attorney speaking on behalf of CPM Development Corporation, which she said owns and
operates four mining sites in the City of Spokane Valley; she submitted a letter explaining their position,
which letter she said was previously submitted to legal counsel; said the Growth Management Act
mandates that natural resource lands be preserved and protected, but the City's development regulations
currently do not do that; said the City does not have a shortage of industrial land but rather has 80 years'
worth of industrial land so the supply is not in jeopardy; said the sites are interim and will be reclaimed
and are put to good use; said her letter suggests some amendments to the moratorium; and asks that the
moratorium either be repealed or amended so that existing mining operations are not adversely impacted.
Lance Senter: said he is a recently retired exploration geologist and said the moratorium will hurt the
City's economy as well as the economy of the surrounding area; said he is not a member of Central Pre-
mix or any other industry, but speaks for himself as a private citizen; he knows the importance of using
natural resources; said the land can be reclaimed; said this City advertises itself as being business
friendly, but this seems contrary to that and he would like the moratorium repealed.
There were no other public comments and Mayor Grafos closed the public hearing at 6:55 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 A'enda.
a. Approval of vouchers listed on Mar 24, 2015 Request for Council Action Folin Totaling: $2,078,406.67
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 3 of 7
Approved by Council: 04-14-2015
b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending March 15, 2015: $304,305.44
c. Approval of February 9, 2015 Council/County Special Joint Meeting Minutes
d. Approval of March 10, 2015 Council Formal Meeting Minutes
e. Approval of March 17, 2015 Council Study Session Meeting Minutes
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent
Agenda.
NEW BUSINESS:
3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Christina Janssen, and
Marty Palaniuk
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and
seconded to advance Ordinance 15-006 adopting Comprehensive Plan amendments CPA 2015-0001 and
CPA 2015-0002, to a second reading. After Planner Janssen went through the proposed amendment as
shown in her PowerPoint presentation, Mayor Grafos invited public comments.
Stanley Schwartz, Attorney representing Applicant: he mentioned several documents included in the
record and delivered to the Planning Commission: a letter from him to the Commissioners, a letter from
the property owner, and a letter and study from NEI Black about surplus office space in Spokane Valley;
he mentioned the Staff Report is favorable to this change, and that the proposal shows it is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan; said this is a unique site; his client was unable to attend tonight's meeting but
will be here for the second reading; and he encouraged approval of the amendment to put the property to a
higher and better use. There were no other comments for this proposed amendment.
Planner Palaniuk then explained the second proposed amendment, a request to change the designation
from Low Density Residential with a single-family residential zone classification, to a Mixed Use Center
designation with a Mixed Use Center zone classification. Mr. Palaniuk noted the public comments which
were received outside the public comment period, including a petition from twenty-five homeowners in
opposition to the proposal, have tonight been distributed to Council. Mayor Grafos invited public
comments.
Joe House, Spokane Valley: said he lives around the corner on Montgomery and owns two properties on
Flora Road; said developing this as mixed use is not good use of the land; that it needs a buffer between
the existing houses and those that will be built; said he collected over 50 signatures from people in the
neighborhood asking that this proposal be denied; said he hasn't spoken to anyone in that area in favor of
this; and he submitted his letter and petition.
Patricia Abraham: said she submitted this request on behalf of her mother and the next-door
neighborhood; said she has lived in the community all her life and understands some of the concerns; said
the original plan was to put in a senior citizen's mobile home development; but things have changed and
now that doesn't seem to be a good fit; said she was left with the problem of what could be done with the
property; said the proposal now is to put in a storage unit which she said, won't have a lot of traffic
impact; said it could be used for storage of boats and RVs and for people who need to store things while
looking for a home; said this is currently one of the only parcels left still zoned R3 and she is trying to
maximize it; that it would create contiguous zoning, and properties around the area are either mixed use
center, or R-4.
In response to a question from Deputy Mayor Woodard about permitted uses of the property, Mr.
Palaniuk said some permitted uses would be multi-lamily, offices, self-service storage, as well as others;
said there could be a development up to 60' with retail on the bottom and some multi -family on top; it
could include some retail, although that is fairly limited. Mr. Jackson suggested Council amend the
motion to split the proposals into two ordinances for the second reading. It was then moved by Deputy
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 4 of 7
Approved by Council: 04-14-2015
Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to amend the motion to split the proposals into two
ordinances for the second reading; and Council voted unanimously to approve the fully amended motion
to advance Ordinance 15-006 adopting comprehensive Plan amendments CPA 2015-0001 and CPA
2015-002 to a second reading, and to split the ordinances at the second reading and to consider each
independently.
4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-007 Zoning Map Amendments — Christina Janssen, Marty
Palaniuk
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and
seconded to advance ordinance 15-007 adopting updates to the Oficial Zoning Map to a second reading,
and to split the ordinances into two separate ordinances to be considered independently. Planner
Palaniuk gave a brief overview of the proposed change. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed: None. Motion carried.
5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-008 Additional Lodging Tax — Erik Lamb
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and
seconded to advance Ordinance No. 15-008, amending SVMC 3.20 to impose an additional special excise
tax on the sale of lodging to be used for certain capital expenditures for tourism promotion purposes, to a
second reading. Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained the proposal, which is as a result from a
recommendation from the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC); and said if approved, the funds
would be set aside as a capital reserve and would not be subject to appropriation by the LTAC and City as
part of the annual distribution process until a project or plan for tourism facility was developed and
proposed by the City. Mr. Lamb explained that such additional funds would be placed into a separate fund
with the revenues from the additional 1.3% limited to acquiring, constructing, making improvements to or
other related capital expenditures for large sporting venues, or venues for tourism -related facilities, which
facilities generate overnight guests at lodging facilities subject to the lodging tax as allowed and provided
by law. Further, Mr. Lamb said in order to approve an additional tax, the municipality must provide a 45 -
day period for the LTAC to comment, but as this recommendation was originally from the LTAC, if it is
Council's desire to impose an increased tax, it could only do so after April 11, 2015.
There was discussion about the use of the funds and Mr. Lamb explained that it must be a capital
improvement; that there is reference to a sports venue but that is not limited to just sports, but it could be
any capital improvement that would generate over -night stays at hotels; said the anticipated amount of
extra funding is $330,000 a year. Councilmember Hafner said if these funds were kept for ten years, that
would amount to over $3 million, and he asked if a soccer field would be an appropriate use and Mr.
Lamb replied it would. The importance of a plan was also mentioned and Mr. Lamb explained that the
state auditor has indicated this could not be used solely to develop a plan, but the revenues could be used
for a tourism promotion plan of some sort to determine how best to spend the revenues within Spokane
Valley. Mayor Grafos invited public comment.
Lee Cameron, Owner Spokane Hospitality and Mirabeau Park Hotel & Convention Center: said he
brought two versions of the same support letter, with several different signatures; and another letter from
the City of Spokane Valley Hotels expressing a willingness to increase the tax, but sharing some
concerns; he said there is strong support on this proposal from the lodging community in Spokane Valley
to invest in facilities; said a lot of funding goes outside the City, some comes back but much doesn't and
we don't have a marketable tourism facility; he feels it is essential that dollars be in a dedicated fund for
that purpose; said Council provided some direction and goals and he feels this proposal fits those well; he
also noted that signature doesn't mean a vote against this proposal were out of town or
aiov uiu� a blank �j proposal, , asmany
had to seek corporate authorization. Jody Sanders: also mentioned the letter from the City of Spokane
Valley hotels expressing some concerns; said they support raising the tax as a facility is needed in the
valley; and that they look forward to working Council as this moves forward. Coleen Heinselman,
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 5 of 7
Approved by Council: 04-14-2015
General Manager Spokane Valley Hampton Inn Suites: also voiced her support and said she feels it would
be a great asset to get people here and stop sending them downtown. Andy Rooney, General Manager
Mirabeau: said he supports the tourism of Spokane Valley and feels it will make it a very vibrant
community and help in the long run.
There were no further comments. Councilmember Wick said that the LTAC had some very deliberate
discussion about this as there was a lot of confusion about the tax; and said he supports the motion and
appreciates the Hotel Association gathering the signatures. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed: None. Motion carried.
6. Proposed Resolution 15-003 Amending 2015 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)— Steve Worley
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Resolution 15-003 adopting the 2015
amended TIP. Mr. Worley explained that this amends just the 2015 TIP by deleting projects that did not
receive funding, and adding those projects that were not completed in 2014 and have been carried over to
2015. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried.
7. Motion Consideration: CMAQ Call for Projects Steve Worley [public comment]
8. Motion Consideration: City Hall Architectural Services Contract — Gabe Gallinger
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to award the design contract for the City Hall
project to Architects West, and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the contract. Senior
Engineer Gallinger explained that this proposal was before Council last week when a detailed description
of the steps taken so far were explained; said staff recommends Architects West as the most qualified
firm. Mayor Grafos invited public comment. City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned an e-mail received from
Dr. Philip Rudy expressing support of the plan and location for a new City Hall; and expressing some
safety concerns concerning traffic. Each Councilmember received a copy of the e-mail. Vote by
Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
7. CMAQ/TA (Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality and Transportation Alternatives) Call for
Projects — Steve Worley
Senior Engineer Worley explained that this has been moved to an administrative report rather than a
motion, as after the materials were originally submitted for inclusion in the Council packet, staff met with
and received more information from SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council). Mr. Worley
explained that when this item was last discussed, some comments were made about the Pines Road
underpass, to move that forward instead of the Sullivan Road Bridge Improvements as part of Bridging
the Valley; that it was felt the Pines project would be better as a grade separation already exists at
Sullivan; and that we should switch Appleway Trail from Pines to Evergreen, to Sullivan to Corbin. Mr.
Worley said we don't know if we will get state funding for the Evergreen to Sullivan so it was suggested
leaving that in, and if we find out before the end of April when the applications are due, that it got funded,
then we could switch it out, and if it didn't get funding, we would stay with Evergreen to Sullivan, which
would give us a complete trail from University to Sullivan Road.
Concerning the Argonne Road Bridge over I-90, Mr. Worley said the FHWA (Federal Highway
Administration) determined that was a capacity -improvement project and not an air-quality project; said
the corridor from Trent to Sprague is all three lanes and said staff tried to explain how much better traffic
would flow and thereby reduce congestion and improve air quality, but the FHWA said that it was not
eligible under the CMAQ so we have to remove that project. Further, Mr. Worley explained, in trying to
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 6 of 7
Approved by Council: 04-14-2015
find another project to take its place, he said that corridor is our most congested corridor, so staff is
struggling to find another area that has enough congestion to improve the air quality; said he hasn't found
it yet but plans to come back in a week or so for another recommendation. Mr. Worley also noted that the
Pines Road underpass is a very expensive project.
Mr. Worley said that sidewalks were mentioned at the last meeting about why we are not doing more
infills; and he said that SRTC is looking for a sidewalk connectivity project so perhaps the Safe Routes to
School projects that were submitted in the past might work well for this, specifically Bowdish Road
Sidewalk Project, 8th to 12, and 12th to the Elementary School; or as an alternative, perhaps we could
look at streets in the areas around the Appleway Trail and try to identify streets that cross the trail, and
then provide sidewalk connections from Sprague to 4th where the roads cross the trail. Mr. Worley said
the drawback to that idea is those areas are not on the bike/pedestrian master plan, so the score would be
reduced; therefore Bowdish might be the best alternative. Deputy Mayor Woodard and Councilmember
Wick both stated that perhaps this would be a good opportunity to look at the pedestrian/bike plan. After
further discussion, Councilmembers they said felt the Bowdish Sidewalk project is important. It was
noted this will likely return to Council in a few weeks.
9. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos: There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda.
INFORMATION ONLY:
The (10) Department Monthly Reports; and (11) SRTMC Interlocal Agreement were for information only
and were not reported or discussed.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
City Manager Jackson briefly mentioned the Legislative Agenda and said we should know this week
about the funding of Appleway Trail from Evergreen to Sullivan; he also stated that perhaps next week
staff will give an update on some of the numerous marijuana bills; said our proposal regarding lien
authority was increased to include a $5,000 cap but some of the other language was changed which he
said could pose a problem as it limits the ability to declare special assessments over $5,000, which means
that would limit all other cities as well; said he is working with Lobbyist Briahna Taylor on that issue.
Mr. Jackson reminded Council of this Thursday's unveiling of the sculpture of the Dance of the Sun and
Moon, which was donated to us from the Spokane Valley Arts Council.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive
Session for approximately thirty minutes, and that action will be taken upon return to open session.
Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:06 p.m. At approximately 8:14 p.m., Mayor Grafos
declared Council out of Executive Session. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and
unanimously agreed to authorize staff, the City Manager, and the rest of the staff to execute necessary
documents to settle Cingular vs Spokane Valley in the amount of $20, 077.34 Immediately thereafter, it
was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor
II�elV
.- Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 7 of 7
Approved by Council: 04-14-2015
GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS,
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
SIGN -IN SHEET
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTE
Please sign in if you wish to makepublic comments.
NAME
PLEASE PRINT
TOPIC OF CONCERN
YOU WILL SPEAK
YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE
l
,S-3a\
kA l c\Ie ` I� C%
ABOUT l
ev-A--
ed
p^1
I/'vc4meL431
--C \/ arl i sa l Oa .
I
-14 -6
3/3,40 cat -4 - iltri-7 Aga/
LA- CAMij ?'o 1J
(,. A' T,J(1 N(P -T4-XC-k°
/ tkiF_ UALc.7
ToL41c6
I
c o r_
�.�n, -,o z
LikeA
/
6Ct 4thr \it
__('P{ -1---26-c_602_,
. rl.31_Q,
(-'ft',°'4'1
U
Lowe 4,141 ok
1
Please note that once information is entered on this . form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure.
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 24, 2015
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
SUBJECT: Mining Moratorium
Please sign below if you would like to speak at the PUBLIC HEARING.
PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. There may be a time limit for your comments. Any documents
for Council consideration should be provided to the City Clerk for distribution.
NAME
4 PLEASE PRINT
Your City of Residence
0 1 11
.-PCtei C) Yl6--,0
,, JUS(ri
_11nn0 CSC4ciCa�
Y�
k
V;PaN I
P
fl CL24
4
d-CHotC u (
\1 ' VC
'11)--')\14)(-
/S--i--41,,,/
ad k&
ir) ((Alt
r
ori
�J
Sin -- t-
s 0 C,,,r \I 1) c -\--
Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure.
Transportation Revenue Package Testimony
The City of Spokane Valley requests legislative action to address the need for increased
transportation funding in the 2015 Legislative Session, including direct funding for local
transportation needs.
We all recognize that quality transportation infrastructure is an important aspect of economic
development. Yet, local revenues simply cannot support the high cost of bridge and road
construction projects.
The City of Spokane Valley is supportive of the legislature's consideration of the transportation
revenue package that includes Barker Road overpass. The Barker/State Route 290 (Trent)
overpass would open up 500 acres of industrial property for development with a potential
economic output of $2 Billion creating up to 9,800 new jobs in the state.
Recognizing that state, county and city government in Washington all face the immense financial
challenge of maintaining our transportation infrastructure, we support statewide measures to fund
essential projects. The City of Spokane Valley is maximizing their local support for the Barker
Overpass and we have committed a $2.9 million City match for this critical project.
We are deeply appreciative of the past and present funding support from the State of Washington
transportation programs and we offer our support as you consider transportation funding options
to address statewide needs.
Serving the world one child and one community at a time.
Division 46
Spokane Fair & Expo Center - Ag "C"
404 N Havana Spokane Valley, WA
Each child, 3-16 years of age, attending will receive a free
white bike / recreational safety helmet that they can custom
decorate at the event! Helmets will be properly fitted to each
child too! Quantities are limited so first come first served.
Please spread the word and come join
us at this FUN event for the family.
For more info call 953-8696 or email: newbie?@aol.com
Spokan �
jUalley
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org
Memorandum
To:
Mayor and Councilmembers
cc:
Mike Jackson, City Manager; Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
From: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Date: March 26, 2015
Re: Mining Moratorium
The attached materials are those that were handed to me by Spokane County Planning Director
John Peterson. Although Councilmembers each received a copy of the letter at the Council
meeting, I don't believe the attached seven pages from the County's Zoning Code were included
(Chapter 14.620 Mineral Lands).
6til_3
S P O K A N E t1 C O U N T Y
OFFICE OF COUNT' Cal LIIISSIO;\LRS
TODD MIELKE, 1ST DISTRICT • SHELLY O'QUINN, 2ND DISTRICT • AL FRENCI I, 3RD DISTRICT
March 24, 2015
Mayor Dean Grafos
Deputy Mayor Arne Woodard
Councilman Rod Higgins
Councilman Ed Pace
Councilman Chuck Hafner
Councilman Ben Wick
Councilman Bill Bates
City of Spokane Valley
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
mayor councilmembers(aspokanevalley.org
RE: City of Spokane Valley Moratorium adopted under Ordinance No. 15-005
Dear Mayor Grafos and Council members:
The City of Spokane Valley Council will be considering public testimony on Ordinance No. 15-005 on
March 24, 2015, as required under RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390.
The purpose of this correspondence is to share with you certain issues and concerns which Spokane
County has regarding Ordinance No. 15-005 as well as to encourage the Council to consider revision or
repeal of said Ordinance.
As you are aware, and by way of background, entities planning under the Growth Management Act have
certain obligations when updating or revising their Comprehensive Plans and/or development regulations.
The City of Spokane Valley is currently in the early stages of a periodic update of its Comprehensive Plan
and as such is subject to these obligations.
With respect to mineral resources which are the subject of Ordinance No. 15-0004, several provisions of
the Growth Management Act must be followed. They include the following:
• RCW 36.70A.170 Natural resource lands and critical areas—Designations.
(1) On or before September 1, 1991, each county, and city shall designate, where
appropriate:
(c) mineral resources that are not already characterized by urban growth and that
have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals..."
• RCW 36.70A.050 Guidelines to classify agriculture, forest, and mineral lands
and critical areas.
1 1 16 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0100 • (509) 477-2265
March 24, 2015
Page 2
(1) Subject to the definitions provided in RW 36.70A.030, the department shall
adopt guidelines, under chapter 34.05 RCW...to guide the classification of: (a)
Agricultural lands; (b) forest lands; (c) mineral resource lands; and (d) critical areas.
The department shall consult with the dep.! tment of agriculture regarding guidelines
for agricultural lands, the department of natural resources regarding forest lands and
mineral lands, and the department of ecology regarding critical areas....
• RCW 36.70A.060 Natural resource lands and critical areas—Development
regulations.
(1) (a) ...each city within such county, shall adopt development regulations ...such
regulations shall ensure that the use of lands adjacent to agriculture, forest, or
mineral lands shall not interfere with continued use of the designated land for the
production of food, timber or for the extraction of minerals.
A review of the current City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code confirms that
the City of Spokane Valley has not identified or designated resource lands or mineral lands as mandated
under the Growth Management Act nor has it adopted development regulations applicable to resource
lands including mineral lands. Most counties and cities subject to the Growth Management Act have
adopted development regulations protecting mineral lands which at the same time address environmental
issues in conjunction with mining activities.
We bring the above facts to your attention as information to consider in the periodic update of your
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and to provide you with additional options to consider
in taking action on the moratorium adopted in Ordinance No. 15-005 or repealing said Ordinance and
replacing it with an Interim Zoning Ordinance that provides a regulatory framework to address the
impacts of mineral extraction and associated processing.
According to Figure 2.1 of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, 20% of the City of Spokane
Valley land is designated as Heavy or Light Industrial. The premise of the moratorium under Ordinance
No. 15-005 is that existing gravel mining operations are utilizing significant acreage that results in large
open pits when mining is complete and the associated impacts are usually irreversible.
With a significant portion of the City of Spokane Valley designated as Heavy or Light Industrial there
appears to be an adequate supply of land available for industrial use. Moreover, any impacts of mining
may be mitigated by adoption of detailed regulations to address reclamation and other site specific
impacts. As a result of the substantial amount of land designated as Heavy or Light Industrial, the City
has not demonstrated or documented the amount of these lands being utilized or converted for mineral
extraction/processing or the need for the moratorium as the City has not received or accepted any current
applications for mining activity.
To address the perceived conversion of industrial lands to mining and processing activities and to provide
a specific regulatory framework to mitigate the impacts of mineral extraction and processing, we would
strongly advise repeal of the present moratorium and adoption on an Interim Zoning Ordinance that
includes performance standards for mineral extraction, processing, site reclamation, setbacks, etc. This
would address the basis for the enactment of the Ordinance. For example, adoption of Chapter 14.620
(Mineral Lands) of the Spokane County Zoning Code as an Interim Zoning Ordinance will ensure
continued use and development of natural resource lands that do not detrimentally impact the
March 24, 2015
Page 3
environment or surrounding land uses. Adoption of Chapter 14.620 will also afford greater protection to
the environment, preclude penetration of the Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie aquifer, ensure site
reclamation consistent with chapter 78.44 RCW as administered by the Department of Natural Resources,
and serve as a means to protect the rights of current property owners until the City completes an update of
its Comprehensive plan and development regulations consistent with the mandates of the Growth
Management Act.
In summary, we believe that the current moratorium provided for under Ordinance 15-005 will have the
unintended immediate consequence of precluding mineral extraction on Spokane County owned property
in the City of Spokane Valley which includes mineral resources having a life value of approximately
$5,000,000. It will also significantly increase the cost of materials for future road maintenance and
construction impacting the citizens of Spokane County to include the City of Spokane Valley. Finally, it
will impact the County's incentive to partnership with the City to extend public sewer in the Tshirley road
area.
The Board of County Commissioners respectfully requests that the City Council carefully consider the
above observations and:
(1) Repeal Ordinance No. 15-005, or
(2) Repeal Ordinance No. 15-005 and in its place adopt as interim development regulation chapter
14.620 of the Spokane County Code.
Very truly yours,
TODD MIELKE, Chair
2014 Printing
Chapter 14.620
Mineral Lands
14.620.100 Purpose and Intent
The Mineral Lands zone is provided to allow for the quarrying, blasting, reduction, processing and
mining of minerals or materials in urban, industrial, rural, and resource areas.
The Mineral Lands (M) zone is intended to ensure continued development of natural resources
through inclusion of deposits of minerals and materials within this zone reserved for their
development and production, to assure that the best undeveloped mineral and material resources
will not be lost forever by developing of the land for other purposes, to allow for the necessary
processing to convert such minerals and materials to marketable products, and to assure that
mining activities do not detrimentally impact the environment or surrounding land uses.
14.620.200 Types of Uses
The uses for Mineral Lands shall be as permitted in table 620-1, Mineral Lands Matrix. Accessory uses
and structures ordinarily associated with a permitted use shall be allowed. Multiple uses are allowed
per lot. Additional use restrictions may apply pursuant to the Critical Areas Ordinance as amended,
chapter 11.20 of the Spokane County Code. The uses are categorized as follows:
1. Permitted Uses: Permitted uses are designated in table 620-1 with the letter "P". These uses are
allowed if they comply with the development standards of the zone.
2. Limited Uses: Limited uses are designated in table 620-1 with the letter "L". These uses are
allowed if they comply with the development standards of the zone and specific performance
standards in section 14.620.220.
3. Conditional Uses: Conditional uses are designated in table 620-1 with the letters "CU". These
uses require a public hearing and approval of a conditional use permit as set forth in chapter
14.404, Conditional Use Permits. Some of the conditional uses illustrated in table 620-1 are also
subject to specific standards and criteria as required in this chapter under section 14.620.230.
4. Not Permitted: Uses that are not permitted are designated in table 620-1 with the letter "N".
5. Essential Public Facilities (EPF): Facilities that may have statewide or regional/countywide
significance are designated in table 620-1 with the letters "EPF". These uses shall be evaluated to
determine applicability with the "Essential Public Facility Siting Process", as amended.
6. Use Determinations: It is recognized that all possible uses and variations of uses cannot be
reasonably listed in a use matrix. The Director may classify uses not specifically addressed in the
matrix consistent with section 14.604.300. Classifications shall be consistent with Comprehensive
Plan policies.
7. Prohibited Uses: Uses not specifically authorized on mineral lands are prohibited, including, but
not limited to the following.
a. Commercial uses
b. Residential uses
c. Any use not specifically listed and permitted in this section.
Spokane County Page 620 -1
Zoning Code
Mineral Lands
Chapter 14.620
2014 Printing
14.620.210 Mineral Lands Zone Matrix
Table 620-1, Mineral Lands Matrix
Uses
Mineral Lands
Adult entertainment establishment
N
Adult retail use establishment
N
Commercial composting storage/processing
CU
Caretakers residence
L
Forestry
P
General agriculture/grazing/crops, not elsewhere classified
P
Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, on-site
L
Landfill
CU
Landfill, inert waste disposal facility
CU
Public utility transmission facility (EPF)
L
Quarying, blasting and mining
L
Reduction and processing of minerals
L
Sewage sludge land application
CU
Solid waste recycling/transfer site (EPF)
L
Stormwater treatment/disposal
P
Tower
L
Wireless communication antenna array
L
Wireless communication support tower
CU
14.620.220 Uses with Specific Standards
Uses that are categorized with an "L" in table 1, Mineral Lands Matrix, are subject to the corresponding
standards of this section.
1. Caretakers residence
A caretakers residence may include a dwelling that is used and required by mining or quarrying
operations for continuous supervision by a caretaker or superintendent and his immediate family.
2. Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage Facilities, on-site.
a. On-site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall comply with and be subject to
the State's siting criteria adopted pursuant to section 70.105.210 RCW, as administered by
the Washington State Department of Ecology or any successor agency.
b. The hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall be limited to wastes produced or
used on the site.
3. Public utility transmission facility.
a. The utility company shall secure the necessary property or right-of-way to assure for the
proper construction, maintenance, and general safety of properties adjoining the public utility
transmission facility.
b. All support structures for electrical transmission lines shall have their means of access located
a minimum of 12 feet above the ground.
c. The height of the structure above ground shall not exceed 125 feet.
4. Quarrying, blasting and mining
Quarrying, blasting and mining of minerals or materials, including but not limited to, sand and
gravel rock, and clay.
Spokane County Page 620 -2
Zoning Code
Mineral Lands
Chapter 14.620
r
2014 Printing
5. Reduction and processing of minerals
The primary reduction and processing of minerals or materials including, but not limited to,
concrete batching, asphalt mixing, brick, tile, and concrete products manufacturing plants, and
rock crushers and the use of accessory minerals and materials from other sources necessary to
convert the minerals or materials to marketable products.
6. Solid waste recycling/transfer site
a. The minimum lot area is 2 acres.
b. Adequate ingress and egress to and on the site for trucks and/or trailer vehicles shall be
provided.
c. A paved access route on-site shall be provided.
d. The site will either be landscaped (bermed with landscaping to preclude viewing from adjacent
properties) and/or fenced with a sight -obscuring fence as determined by the Planning Director.
7. Tower.
a. The tower shall be enclosed by a 6 -foot fence with a locking gate.
b. The tower shall have a locking trap door or the climbing apparatus shall stop 12 feet short of
the ground.
c. The tower collapse or blade impact area, as designed and certified by a registered engineer,
shall lie completely within the applicant's property or within adjacent property for which the
applicant has secured and filed an easement. Such easement(s) shall be recorded with the
County Auditor with a statement that only the Division of Building and Planning or its
successor agency can remove the easement.
d. Before the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that all applicable
requirements of the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Aviation Administration
and any required avigation easements can be satisfied.
8. Wireless communication antenna array.
a. The use complies with the requirements of chapter 14.822, Wireless Communication
Facilities.
14.620.230 Conditional Uses with Specific Standards and Criteria
Conditional uses are listed in table 620-1 with the letters "CU". Conditional uses require an approved
conditional use permit as set forth in chapter 14.404, Conditional Use Permits. Some of the
conditional uses identified in table 620-1 are subject to the corresponding specific standards as
follows:
1. Commercial composting storage/processing.
a. The use shall be subject to restrictions and conditions, as may be imposed by the Hearing
Examiner under chapter 14.404.
2. Landfill.
a. The minimum lot area is 10 acres.
b. The minimum distance for disposal operations from existing residences shall be 300 feet. This
distance may be reduced provided the adjacent resident provides a signed waiver agreeing to
the reduction of the minimum distance.
c. The applicant shall submit for approval a site reclamation plan and the site shall be
rehabilitated consistent with the plan after disposal terminates.
d. The conditional use permit may be revoked by the Hearing Examiner if the landfill operation is
found in violation of any local, state or federal regulation related to the landfill operation.
e. The use shall be subject to restrictions and conditions, as may be imposed by the Hearing
Examiner under chapter 14.404.
Spokane County Page 620 -3
Zoning Code
Mineral Lands
Chapter 14.620
2014 Printing
3. Landfill — Inert Waste Disposal Facility
a. The minimum lot area is 10 acres.
b. The minimum distance of disposal operations shall be 300 feet from existing residences. This
distance may be reduced provided the adjacent property owner signs a waiver agreeing to the
reduction in the minimum distance.
c. The applicant shall submit for approval a site reclamation plan and the site shall be
rehabilitated consistent with the plan consistent after disposal terminates.
d. Compliance with the standards of the Spokane Regional Health District and the state criteria
for inert landfills adopted pursuant to WAC 173-350-410.
e. The use shall be subject to restrictions and conditions, as may be imposed by the Hearing
Examiner under chapter 14.404.
f. The conditional use permit may be revoked by the Hearing Examiner if the operation is found
in violation of any local, state or federal regulation related to the inert landfill operation.
4. Sewage sludge land application (for agricultural, beneficial purposes).
a. The minimum lot area for application is 5 acres.
b. The minimum distance from any application area to the nearest existing residence, other than
the owner's, shall be 200 feet.
c. The use shall be subject to restrictions and conditions, as may be imposed by the Hearing
Examiner under chapter 14.404.
5. Wireless communication support tower, provided that:
a. The tower complies with the requirements of chapter 14.822, Wireless Communication
Facilities.
b. The use shall be subject to restrictions and conditions, as may be imposed by the Hearing
Examiner under chapter 14.404.
14.620.240 Mining Operations
Conditions for the approval of a proposed mining operation include but are not necessarily limited to
the following:
1. The extraction proposal meets all applicable zoning requirements.
2. The proposed extraction operation is buffered from existing or potential developments within the
vicinity of the proposed operation.
3. An applicant shall prepare and provide an acceptable reclamation plan to the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to obtaining a reclamation permit. The plan shall be
prepared with the standards set forth in RCW 78.44. DNR shall have the sole authority to approve
reclamation plans.
4. After July 1, 1993, no miner or permit holder may engage in surface mining without having first
obtained a reclamation permit from DNR. The permit holder shall comply with the provisions of the
reclamation permit unless waived and explained in writing by DNR.
5. Provide for protection of groundwater and surface water, including wetlands, during and after
operation.
6. Mining shall not be allowed to penetrate the elevation 20 feet above the highest known elevation
of an aquifer within the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer area.
7. The monitoring and clean up of contaminants should be ongoing.
8. A sand and gravel permit shall be obtained, when applicable, from the Washington State
Department of Ecology.
9. A sufficient amount of topsoil or suitable material shall be retained on-site for
revegetation/rehabilitation purposes.
10. The operators shall comply with all existing water quality monitoring regulations of the Washington
State Department of Ecology and the Spokane County Health District.
Spokane County Page 620 -4
Zoning Code
Mineral Lands
Chapter 14.620
2014 Printing
14.620.250 Environment
1. Sound pressure levels, as measured on properties adjacent to Mineral Lands property, shall
conform to the provisions of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Section 173-60-040
Maximum Permissible Environmental Noise Levels for noise originating in a Class C EDNA.
2. Provisions of Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority (SCAPCA) shall be adhered to in the
development of Mineral Lands property. Specifically reference SCAPCA Regulation 1, Section
6.04 Odors and Nuisances; Section 6.05, Particulate Matter and Preventing Particulate Matter
from Becoming Airborne; and Section 6.06, Emission of Air Contaminants or Water Vapor,
Detriment to Persons or Property.
14.620.260 Reclamation Standards
In order to ensure a further use of land used for mining subsequent to the removal of
native materials, the following provisions covering land rehabilitation or reclamation shall be
conformed to.
1. Mined excavations must be reclaimed consistent with the reclamation plan submitted and
approved by DNR under the provisions of RCW 78.44. Reclamation shall proceed simultaneously
with surface mining and upon the permanent abandonment of the quarrying, mining or processing
operation.
2. Upon the exhaustion of minerals or materials or upon the permanent abandonment of the
quarrying, mining or processing operation, all buildings, structures, apparatus or appurtenances
accessory to the quarrying or mining operation shall be removed or otherwise dismantled. All
demolition must be consistent with chapter 3 of the County Code. A maintenance building may be
permitted to remain or be constructed on sites used for storage of road maintenance materials.
3. The legal owner or his agents shall provide the Division with copies of the following documents
prior to development or use of the property.
a. Permits/approved reclamation plans filed with the Department of Natural Resources.
b. Bonds as required by the Department of Natural Resources.
14.620.270 Standards for Mining Within the Spokane Vallev-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Area
In addition to those provisions listed in sections 14.620.220 through 14.620.260 the following
provisions shall apply.
1. Excavation into the aquifer is prohibited within the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer area
as determined by the Division of Utilities. A minimum of 10 feet of undisturbed material shall
remain above the highest known level of the aquifer. If excavation into any aquifer outside this
area is allowed, the operator shall stockpile a sufficient quantity of fill material to backfill a
minimum of 10 feet above the highest known aquifer elevation.
2. The owners of small surface mining sites (as defined in RCW 78.44), in areas of high aquifer
susceptibility, shall obtain the required grading permits from Spokane County.
3. A drainage channel shall be constructed around the active gravel pit area to keep surface runoff
from outside the pit excavation from entering the pit area.
4. Fuel storage areas and service facilities shall incorporate provisions to prevent lubricants and
petroleum products from contaminating either the pit area or drainage channels.
5. No liquid, asphalt, cement, or water used in mixing and truck washing operations shall be
disposed of in the bottom of the pit.
6. A protective 8 -foot -high berm or retaining wall shall be required adjacent to property lines where
the edge of the pit is within 100 feet of a street or railroad right-of-way.
7. The use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and critical materials shall not be allowed within 100
feet of an active pit.
Spokane County Page 620 -5
Zoning Code
Mineral Lands
Chapter 14.620
2014 Printing
14.620.280 Pit Reclamation and Allowable Land Uses
In addition to those standards listed in sections 14.620.220 through 14.620.270 the following
standards shall apply.
1. Reclamation plans for mining sites shall include:
a. The depth of remaining materials between the aquifer high-water mark and the final grade of
the reclaimed site, for surface mining sites inside the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie
Aquifer area.
b. The depth of remaining or backfilled materials between the aquifer high-water mark and the
final grade of the reclaimed site, for surface mining sites outside the Spokane Valley-
Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer area.
c. Physical barriers, as required in section 14.620.270 shall remain.
d. Provisions shall be made for limitation of access to, and activities within, the rehabilitated site
until the use of the land is changed.
2. Subsequent land uses in reclaimed gravel pits within Spokane County may be limited or
specifically conditioned.
14.620.290 Development Standards
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, evidence of compliance with provisions of this Section shall
be provided.
1. Lot Standards: Lot standards are illustrated in table 620-2 as follows:
Table 620-2 — Lot Standards for Mineral Lands
a. There is no minimum frontage for permitted uses on Mineral Lands, but all required access
permits shall be obtained from the County Engineer prior to use of the site.
b. Provided that such mining or quarrying does not impair lateral or subjacent support or cause
earth movements or erosions to extend beyond the exterior boundary lines of the mining
zoned property.
c. If a mining or quarry operation is located adjacent to another mining or quarry operation, the
mining or quarry operation shall be permitted up to the property line.
2. Parking, Signage, and Landscaping Standards:
Parking, signage and landscaping standards shall be as provided in chapter 14.802, Off Street
Parking and Loading Standards; chapter 14.804, Signage Standards; and chapter 14.806,
Landscaping and Screening Standards.
3. Storage Standards
a. The storage of materials and equipment normally associated with farm and agricultural
activities is permitted.
b. All storage (including storage of recyclable materials) on lots not qualifying as a primary
agricultural parcel shall be entirely within a building, or shall be screened from view from the
surrounding properties, and shall be accessory to the permitted use on the site. There shall be
no storage in any of the front yard or flanking street yards.
c. The private, noncommercial storage of 2 junked vehicles shall be allowed, provided they are
completely sight -screened year-round from a non -elevated view with a fence, maintained Type
Spokane County Page 620 -6
Zoning Code
Mineral Lands
Chapter 14.620
Permitted uses
Minimum lot area
5 Acres
Minimum frontage
No Requirement (a)
Minimum yards
For Mining/Quarrying
50 feet — To property lines (b) (c)
For Structures/Buildings
100 feet — From residential zone
50 feet — To property line(s)
a. There is no minimum frontage for permitted uses on Mineral Lands, but all required access
permits shall be obtained from the County Engineer prior to use of the site.
b. Provided that such mining or quarrying does not impair lateral or subjacent support or cause
earth movements or erosions to extend beyond the exterior boundary lines of the mining
zoned property.
c. If a mining or quarry operation is located adjacent to another mining or quarry operation, the
mining or quarry operation shall be permitted up to the property line.
2. Parking, Signage, and Landscaping Standards:
Parking, signage and landscaping standards shall be as provided in chapter 14.802, Off Street
Parking and Loading Standards; chapter 14.804, Signage Standards; and chapter 14.806,
Landscaping and Screening Standards.
3. Storage Standards
a. The storage of materials and equipment normally associated with farm and agricultural
activities is permitted.
b. All storage (including storage of recyclable materials) on lots not qualifying as a primary
agricultural parcel shall be entirely within a building, or shall be screened from view from the
surrounding properties, and shall be accessory to the permitted use on the site. There shall be
no storage in any of the front yard or flanking street yards.
c. The private, noncommercial storage of 2 junked vehicles shall be allowed, provided they are
completely sight -screened year-round from a non -elevated view with a fence, maintained Type
Spokane County Page 620 -6
Zoning Code
Mineral Lands
Chapter 14.620
2014 Printing
I or II landscaped area or maintained landscaped berm. Storage of additional junked vehicles
shall be within a completely enclosed building with solid walls and doors. Tarps shall not be
used to store or screen junked vehicles. Vehicle remnants or parts must be stored inside a
vehicle or completely enclosed building, including doors. Fences over 6 feet in height require a
building permit and/or a zoning variance.
4. Fencing
Six-foot fencing shall be provided and maintained in good condition at all times in the following
locations.
a. Exterior boundary of any portion of any site on which active operations exist.
b. Exterior boundary of any portion of the site which has been mined and not yet rehabilitated.
14.620.300 Resource Activity Notification
All subdivisions, short plats, binding site plans, zone reclassifications, manufactured home park site
plan approvals, variances, conditional use permits, shoreline permits and building permits issued or
approved for land on or within 1,000 feet of lands designated as natural resource land (agricultural,
forest or mineral lands), pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70A.170, shall contain or be accompanied by a
notice. The Public Works Department shall maintain maps of designated natural resource lands. The
notice shall include the following disclosure:
"The subject property is adjacent or in close proximity to designated agricultural, forest or mineral
resource land on which a variety of commercial activities may occur that are not compatible with
residential development. Potential disturbances or inconveniences may occur 24 hours per day and
include but are not limited to: noise, odors, fumes, dust, smoke, insects, operation of machinery
including aircraft, application of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and removal of vegetation.
Agricultural and forestry -related activities which are performed in accordance with local, state and
federal laws shall not be subject to legal action as a public nuisance."
In the case of plats, short plats and binding site plans, notice shall also be included in the plat or
binding site plan dedication
Spokane County Page 620 -7
Zoning Code
Mineral Lands
Chapter 14.620
Spokan' e�'+
.11.0"*valley
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org
Memorandum
To: Mayor and Councilmembers
cc: Mike Jackson, City Manager; Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
From: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk /\I,`
;//>)
Date: March 26, 2015
Re: Mining Moratorium
The attached materials are those that were handed to me by Stacy Bjordahl, of Parsons/Burnett/
Bjordahl/Hume regarding Council's March 24, 2015 Public Hearing on the Mining Moratorium.
PARSONS/BURNETT/BJORDAHL/HUME.LP
Stacy A. Bjordahl
sbjordahl@pblaw.biz
ATTORNEYS
March 24, 2015
City Council
City of Spokane Valley
11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Re: Emergency Moratorium on Mining and Mineral Product Manufacturing
Ordinance No. 15-005
Dear Councilmembers:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City's adoption of an Emergency
Moratorium prohibiting Mining and Mineral Product Manufacturing (Moratorium). This
letter is submitted on behalf of CPM Development Corp. (CPM), which through its related
entities owns and operates four mining sites in the City of Spokane Valley.1 For the reasons
discussed herein, we request that the Moratorium either be repealed or, in the alternative,
be amended to ensure continued uninterrupted operations on each site.
First, we have concerns regarding the Moratorium and its impact upon each of the CPM
sites for various reasons, as well as an overall concern that the City's adoption of an "anti -
mining" ordinance is in direct violation of the Growth Management Act's mandate that
cities and counties designate, preserve, and protect natural resource lands, including
mineral lands.
Second, the City does not have a shortage of industrial land. A moratorium is a drastic
measure and does not appear justified given that the City has an abundance of industrial
land supply. The City's Land Quantity Analysis prepared in September 2010 for the UGA
Update concluded, "[e]ssentially, the City has four times the industrial land needed in tier one
industrial properties alone. In conclusion, the City of Spokane Valley has an adequate supply
of industrial land for the next 20 years." See Exhibit "A" (Land Quantity Analysis for the City
of Spokane Valley, September 2010.) We respectfully request the City Council to repeal the
Moratorium because there is no shortage of industrial land or demonstrated need to
preserve industrial lands pending the City's Comprehensive Plan update.
1 These entities are: Central Pre -Mix, Inland Asphalt and Acme.
505 W. Riverside Ave, Suite 500, Spokane WA 99201 • T (509) 252-5066 • F (509) 252-5067 • www.pblaw.biz
A Limited Liability Partnership with offices es Spokane and Bellevue
City of Spokane Valley City Council
March 24, 2015
Page 2
Finally, the Moratorium may impact CPM's non -conforming rights. As noted in Exhibit B,
CPM has two sites, Sullivan and Park, which are both zoned Heavy Industrial and thus,
appear to be conforming sites. The other two sites, Carnahan and 8th and Havana, are both
zoned residential which does not allow mining; therefore, both of those sites are non-
conforming under Chapter 19.20 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC).
As the holder of legal non -conforming use rights, CPM has the right to continue and conduct
mining and mining related activities pursuant to Section 19.20.060 (B) of the SVMC, which
provides in pertinent part:
B. Continuing Lawful Use of Property.
1. The lawful use of land at the time of passage of this code, or any
amendments thereto, may be continued, unless the use is
discontinued or abandoned for a period of 12 consecutive months.
The right to continue the nonconforming use shall inure to all
successive interests in the property.
While it appears the Moratorium is not intended to affect mining and mining operations
"that were in existence and in continuous and lawful operation as the effective date" of the
Moratorium, there is conflicting language between Sections 2(A) and 2(C). Specifically,
Section 2(A) of the Moratorium expressly prohibits the City from processing a modification
or approval to an existing permit or license without regard to the permitting agency, and
yet Section 2 (C) states that the Moratorium does not affect mining and mining operations
that were in effect prior to the effective date of the ordinance.
In the case of each CPM site, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) may require
changes to the Reclamation Plan which will require the City's Planning Department to sign
DNR Form SM -6. It is our opinion that Form SM -6 would likely constitute either a permit
or license under Section 2(A) of the Moratorium and as such, could not be signed by the
Planning Department as long as the Moratorium is in effect. If the City is unable to sign
Form SM -6, this could potentially cause a site to fall out of compliance with Washington
State Surface Mining rules.
Based upon the above and the stated purpose and intent of the Moratorium not to impact
vested or non -conforming rights, we respectfully request the following amendments be
made to Section 2 of the Moratorium.
Requested Amendments to the Moratorium.
A. The City Council hereby declares an emergency and imposes a moratorium
upon the striamissien, acceptance, process" • :, •• . - - - • - - - • of any
permit applications or licenses by or for new mining and/or related mining site
City of Spokane Valley City Council
March 24, 2015
Page 3
operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral
processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching.
B. [No proposed changes.]
C. The moratorium shall not affect any mining or mining site operations, including
excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and
mineral batching, that were in existence and in continuous and lawful operations
as of the effective date of this Ordinance. Provided further. this moratorium
shall not preclude the acceptance, processing and approval of permits or licenses
required to maintain and operate any mining or mining site operations in
existence and in continuous and lawful operation as of the effective date of this
Ordinance.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment and respectfully request that the
Moratorium either be repealed or, in the alternative, be amended so that existing mining
operations are not adversely impacted or interrupted. If you have any questions regarding
this matter, please contact me.
Thank you for your courtesies.
Sincerely,
PARSONS/BURNETT/BJORDAHL/HU E, LLP
Stacy A. Bj
Encl.
EXHIBIT "A"
City of 4>okane Valley
Urban Growth Area Update
Land Quantity Analysis for
The City of Dokane Valley
September 2010
RB3DENT1AL LAND QUANT1TYANALYSS
The City of Spokane Valley is responsible for developing its own Land Quantity Analysis (LQA)
report to determine the amount of land available within existing urban areas to support
residential and non-residential growth. The Steering Committee of Bected Officialswill use this
quantitative information to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
County -wide Planning Policies direct jurisdictions to utilize the LOA methodology developed by
the Washington Sate Department of Community Trade and Economic Development and from
the guidebook, " Issues in Designating Urban Growth Areas". The Steering Committee of
Bected Officials adopted this methodology on November 3, 1995. 'Misreport analyzes land
quantity using the most current data. The analysis incorporates an aerial photography review
to verify the accuracy of various sources of land use data.
Below is a summary of the City of Spokane Valley's application of the adopted methodology:
Step 1
Identify land that can accommodate future growth.
In determining residential land quantity, these Iandsfall under three categories:
Preliminary and final plats
Ratted lots that have not been built on are considered as available and calculated at one
dwelling unit per lot.
Vacant land
Vacant lands are any lot or parcel that does not contain a structure or building, as determined
from the Assessor's records.
Partially used land
Partially used land island that containsexdsting residential development but is large enough to
be further subdivided based on the current zoning dassification. Partially used residential land
indudes properties that can be subdivided into five (5) or more lots, consistent with the current
zoning classification.
Step 2
Subtract all parcels that your community defines as not developable due to physical
limitation.
In most cases throughout Spokane Valley, land can be developed with mitigating measures.
While recognizing that most land has development potential, certain properties have physical
and/or regulatory constraints, such aswetlands, steep slopes, or regulated shorelines. Some
properties may never develop or may develop at densities less than allowed by zoning.
City of Spokane Valley
Therefore, lands containing physical limitations are not induded in the residential land supply.
These indude the following critical areas deduct ions:
Critical areas deduction
Wetlands Identified wetlands and an associated 100 foot buffer area are
subtracted from land inventory.
Rsh and Wildlife
Geologically Hazardous
Streams and associated riparian area buffers are subtracted from the
land inventory.
Certain geologic units and slopes over 30% are deducted from
available land inventory. The geologic units indude alluvium, mass
wasting deposits and the Latah formation.
The above deductions amount to a 9.6 %reduction of available land supply.
Sep 3
Subtract lands that will be needed for other public purposes.
Land needed for public purposes is addressed in two different ways. In the first case, land that
is necessary for new infrastructure, primarily for road right-of-way, is subtracted from the
acreage figures generated in Sep 1. A 20% reduction is taken from residential land initially
identified as vacant or partially -used for these purposes.
In the second instance, the Spokane County Assessor's property Bass codes and exemptions are
used to identify lands that may appear to be vacant but, in reality, are not available for
residential development. These situations involve both public and private properties owned by
entities such as utility companies, school districts, or parks departments. Table 6 illustrates the
Assessor property use codes and exemptionsthat are deducted from the vacant land supply.
Table 6 - Assessor Exemption Property Use Codes
41 Trans— Railroad
42 Trans— Motor
43 Trans—Aircraft
44 Trans— Marine
45 Trans— Highway
46 Trans— Parking
47 Communication
48 Utilities
49 Trans—Other
City of Spokane Valley
67 Service — Governmental
68 Service — Educational
71 Cultural Activity
72 PublicAssembly
73 Amusement
74 Recreational
75 Rasort- Camping
State Levy Exempt
Public Schools Exempt
76 Park
77 Churches
79 Other Cultural
Cemetery Exempt
DoRInstitut Iona! Exempt
Government Property Exempt
Operating Property Exempt
Step 4
Subtract all parcelswhich your community determines are not suitable for development for
soda) and economic reasons.
Deduction for parcelswith low improvement value
Parcels appraised at Iessthan $500 land value per Assessor's code are removed from the
available land supply.
Deduction for parcelswith high improvement value
Sngle family residential parcels that have an improvement value greater than 3 times the lot
area are considered unlikely to redevelop and are excluded from available land supply.
Step 5
Subtract .. that percentage of land...which you assume will not be available for development
within your plan's20 year time -frame.
In the adopted Land Quantity Analysis Methodology for Spokane County, a technical committee
of elected officials and technical experts determined that a build -out factor of 70%was an
acceptable average countywide, also referred to as a "market factor" . Therefore, the City of
Spokane Valley assumes that approximately 30%of the total land identified will not be available
for development during the 20 -year planning horizon.
Step 6
Build a safety factor
Building a safety factor is considered a local methodology option to be used if a jurisdiction is
not able to monitor land supply and consumption on a regular basis. The City of Sookane Valley
has not employed a safety factor in past studies due to GScapabilities enabling effective
monitoring. Additionally, an amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies in 2008
established a strategy for monitoring population growth and mandating land quantity and
population capacity studieswhen certain growth triggers are met. This strategy is intended to
ensure that adequate land supply will be monitored and maintained throughout the planning
horizon.
Step 7
Determine total capacity.
Assumptions
Residential zones
Low Density:
Medium Density:
High Density:
Available vacant land is calculated at a density of 4 dwelling units per acre
Available vacant land is calculated at a density of 11 dwelling units per acre
Available vacant land is calculated at a density of 22 dwelling units per acre
City of Spokane Valley
Mixed use, commercial and industrial zones
Mixed Use: Within the Mixed Use zone, 25%of available vacant land is counted for
residential use at a density of 17 units per acre.
Light Industrial: No residential use within Light Industrial zones.
Heavy Industrial: No residential use in heavy industrial zones.
Commercial: No residential use in commercial zones.
Population per dwelling unit
Low density residential units are assigned a value of 2.5 residents per household.
Medium density residential units are assigned a value of 2.0 residents per household.
High density residential units are assigned a value of 2.0 residents per household. Mixed use
residential units are assigned a value of 1.5 residents per household.
Aerial Photography Review
Afinal step in the analysis induded a review of recent aerial photography to compare the
results of the GSanalysis to the existing landscape and identify any major errors or anomalies.
The review identified a number of anomalies relating to land determined to be vacant using the
Assessor's property use codes. The LQAwas modified to exdude the identified areas from
lands available for development.
2010 Population Capacity
Table 7 illustrates the 2010 population capacity for the Qty of qookane Valley using the
adopted land quantity methodology and assumptions as described in this report.
Qty of qookane Valley
Vacant and
Partially Used
Land
Net
Developable
Acres
Potential New
Dwelling Units
Pbpuiation
Capacity
Qty of qookane Valley
3,485.43
1,448.72
7,763.84
17,337.49
Asscssor Errors
-46.42
-16.71
-109.69
-239.33
Adjusted Total
3,439.01
1,432.01
7,654.15
17,098.16
Qty of qookane Valley
COM M BRGAL LAND QUANTITY ANALYSIS
On March 15, 1996, the Growth Management peering Committee adopted a methodology for
determining commercial land demand. The following is a summary of the City of Spokane
Valley's commercial land analysis using the adopted methodology. The formula does not take
into account current commercial vacancy rates and current developed commercial property
that is currently under-utilized.
The first step in determining the commercial land demand is to identify a growth factor. The
growth factor is calculated by taking the City of Spokane Valley's official population allocation
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCq and dividing it by the current
population determined by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). The growth factor is
then calculated by the Qty of Spokane Valley's commercial acres currently in use. Table 8
illustratesthe Assessor property use codes used to identify commercial acres in use.
Table 8 —Assessor Commercial Property Use Codes
Code
Description
16
Hotels and Motels
17
Lodging and daycare
46
Automobile parking
52
Building materials, lumber yard, nursery, florist, and farm equipment
53
Shopping centers
54
Grocery stores, convenient stores, and auto body repair
55
Automobile sales and service
56
Apparel, photography, and Laundromats
57
Furniture and equipment
58
Restaurants, fast food, and taverns
59
Miscellaneous retail trade
61
Financial institutions
62
Fersonal services
63
Business services
64
lepair services
65 Professional services
Spokane Valley did not apply a land utilization factor. The adjusted commercial acres of
demand are then calculated by a market factor of 25%to determine the total demand of
commercial acres. The total demand of commercial acres is then subtracted from the
commercially zoned acres resulting in the demand for commercial acreage.
Using this methodology the City of Spokane Valley determined that there was adequate
commercial property for the next twenty years of comrnercial growth (see formula below).
City of Spokane Valley
Population Allocation +Q.irrent
Population
08,956.00
Growth Factor
Current Population
90,21 0.00
= Growth Factor
1.21
Commercial Acres
X in Use = Commercial Acres of Demand
1.21 1,133.56 1,369.11
Land Utilization
Commercial Acres of Demand X Factor
1,369.11
Adj. Commercial Acres of
Demand
1,369.11
1.00
Adjusted Commercial Acres
= of Demand
1,369.11
Commercial Acres Total Vacant Commercial
in Use = Acres of Demand
1,133.56 235.56
Vacant Commercial Acres of
Demand X Market Factor
235.56
.25
Total Commercial Acres of
= Demand
294.45
Total Commercial Acres of Commercial Acres Total Commercial Acres of
Demand + in Use = Demand
294.45 1,133.56 1,428.00
Commercial Acres
Total Comm. Acres of Demand - Zoned
1,428.00 2,638.53
INDUSTRIAL LAND QUANIITYANALYSIS
Additional Comm. Acreage
= needed
-1,210.53
Minus indicates surplus
The industrial employment forecast for 2031 is determined using a ratio method that compares
industrial employment to total population. Ibis forecast is needed to determine the adequacy
of industrial lands to meet the land quantity needs for the 2031 planning horizon. The forecast
and needs analysis involves several steps as follows:
1. Establish a ratio of industrial employment to total Population
The ratio is established using the 2000 census, which indudesdetailed employment data for
industrial employees. The categories considered as industrial include construction,
manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, and utilities. In the year
2000, there were 49,344 people employed in these industrial categories. Snce the land
quantity analysisfocuseson urban growth area needs, rural industries such as agriculture,
aty of Spokane Valley
forestry, and mining are not induded. This number is compared to the total population for
2000 (417,939) to determine a percentage ratio as follows:
10,644 divided by 79,000 = 0.135 or 13.5%
2. Estimate industrial employment for 2010
Estimating industrial employment for 2010 can be achieved by applying the ratio
established in step 1 to the 2010 population for Spokane County. The equation is illustrated
as follows:
2010 population x 0.135 = Industrial employees for 2010
90,210 x 0.135 =12,178 employees
3. Estimate industrial employment for 2031
The UGA update contemplates land use needs for the year 2031. Estimating industrial
employment for 2031 is necessary to determine future industrial employment needs and
can be estimated similarly to step 2. The equation is illustrated as follows:
2031 population x 0.135 = Industrial employees for 2031
108,956 x 0.135 =14,709 employees
4. Estimate the increase in industrial employment between 2010 and 2031
To estimate the increase in industrial employment :imply subtract the current estimate of
industrial employees (2010) from the 2031 estimate for industrial employees:
2031 employees- 2010 employees= increase in employment for planning period
14,709 —12,178 = 2,531 employees
5. Estimate the need for available industrial lands
An industrial lands study was done by Spokane County in 2000. The study provided a
detailed analysis of industrial lands in the unincorporated areas of the County. Research
within that study established a ratio of 16 employees per net acre of industrial land. This
ratio is used to determine the net acres of industrial land needed to meet the employment
needs for 2031:
(16 employees per acre) / 2,531 employees =158 acres
The condusion isthat 138 acres of available industrial land is needed to maintain the
current level of industrial use per capita for the 2031 planning horizon. This condusion is
city-wide and does not indude the industrial land needs for unincorporated UGAs.
Qty of Spokane Valley
In order to evaluate the industrial landswithin the City, staff used an industrial land study
developed in 2000 by a committee composed of representatives from various economic
development, business, and real estate organizations. This committee developed a rating
system to evaluate the marketability of land designated for industrial use. The rating system
utilized Geographical Information Systems (GS data to evaluate the industrial land in terms of
lot size, availability of infrastructure, and environmental limitations. In this study, industrial
land was dassified into five categories or "tiers". Tier one lands were determined to have all
the attributes to be immediately available for development. Tier two and three lands were
classified as being usable within a 20 -year timeframe. Tier four and five lands were considered
constrained with improvement value, size, or critical area limitations, which essential made
them unavailable for development.
Using this methodology, it was determined that there is 839 acres of tier one industrial
property within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley. In addition, there is
250 acres of tier one industrial property currently in a public/quasi-public use. There is no tier
two or three industrial properties located within the City of Spokane Valley. The majority of the
remaining industrial property was dassified as tier four and five considered as land that is « built
out" with little opportunity for redevelopment in the near term. Table 9 summarizes the
industrial land analysis in the City of Spokane Valley.
Table 9: Industrial Land Analysis
Industrial Analysis Acres
Tier 1 838.9046
Tier 1 (P/4P) 250.4862
Tier 4 2349.5993
Tier 4 (P/4P) 2.6502
Tier 5 54.5821
Tier 5 (P/Q-F) 22.9966
Totals 3,519.22
Based on the analysis, the needed industrial land for the 2031 planning horizon is 158 acres.
Currently, the City has839 acres of tier one industrial land. Essentially, the City has four times
the industrial land needed in tier one industrial properties alone. In condusion, the City
Spokane Valley has an adequate supply of industrial land for the next 20 years
PREVIOUS B3ONOM IC STUDI ES & ANALYSTS
The City of Spokane Valley, as part of the planning process for the Sprague-Appleway
Revitalization Ran, conducted economic analyses providing a basis for recommendations in the
Plan. The most recent study performed by Gbbs Planning Group, Inc. in 2007 specifically
examined the economic feasibility of establishing a town center in Spokane Valley. The Gibbs
City of Spokane Valley
study examined three trade area scenarios: 1) Micro Trade Area, 2) Rimary Trade Area, and 3)
100 Mile Trade Area. These trade areas are discussed in more detail below.
Micro Trade Area
This model established the minimal possible trade area for the proposed town center site. The
q:lokane Valley Mall and downtown 800kane were excluded from the trade area (supply side) in
an effort to create the largest possible retail void. It was expected that this model would yield a
strong demand for neighborhood goods and services. However, the Micro Trade Area analysis
indicated an over -supply of all retail categories except for specialty foods such as ice cream,
bagels, and coffee. Overall, the Micro TradeArea2006 retail saleswere reported at $1.29
billion, with a consumer demand of only $738 million. The Micro Trade Area thus had an over-
supply of $550 million per year or approximately 2 million square feet.
Rimary Trade Area
The Rimary Trade Area included most of the qookane Valley region where most of the study
area's (4)okane Valley Town Center) potential shoppers reside. The a:tokane Valley Mall and
surrounding retail were induded in this model; downtown gokanewas exduded from this
model. The estimated Primary Trade Area's overall 2006 retail sales (supply) were $2.23 billion
with total consumer demand (spending) of only $1.46 billion. This resulted in an over -supply of
$805 million per year or almost 3 million square feet surplus retail stores in the Rimary Trade
Area.
100 Mile Trade Area
Due to the relatively remoteness of Spokane, Gibbs' opinion wasthat it is likely that the total
Spokane trade area extends 100 miles or beyond. The 100 Mile Trade Area would account for
the largest potential demand for retail and restaurants in the greater Spokane region. Within
the 100 Mile Trade Area, most categories are over -supplied especially jewelry, sporting goods
and books. Asmall demand was indicated for home furnishing, appliances, electronics, and
limited service restaurants. The overall 2006 retail sales (existing supply) was estimated at
$9.48 billion, while the 2006 overall consumer demand was estimated at $8.17 billion yielding
retail over -supply of $1.31 billion. This results in an existing over -supply of up to 4.7 million
square feet of retail space in the ookane Fegion.
City of Spokane Valley
1
City of Spokane Valley
2010 Re6idertml land quantify a o
City of 4:lokane Valley
11
EXHIBIT "B"
E
{
,
Modifications to Reclamation plan to
inlcude removing the common boundary
between CPM and County property to
maxima¢ethe resources in both mining
permits including but not limited to mining
the Flora Pit Road and the existing house
property.
See Sullivan Road Details Above
3
2
!
43
k
i
§
CPM just purchased the property in
December. DNR Plan is under review and
may require modifications in which the City
would need to sign off.
S.
/&
&
!
!
&
■
!
/{/\\
'�
kƒf
Mining/Industrial
Shop Facilities
Mining
Concrete Production
Shop Facilities
Quality Control
Mining. Recycling
k
e
\\ O. /
{)
ux
\\
r
Medium Density
/k
§)
1CurrentZoning _.
.2
runi
2. 2.
}
Z
60
ft
\'
Mining/Industrial
Asphalt Production
Concrete Production
Shop Facilities
Recycling
kf)
}{// .
kala
it
11
45713.9UU8
45123.9007
45122.9005
45122.9004
45123.9006
45123.9011
45125.9157
45135.9007
45124.9012
45121.9016
45121.9015
35134.9095
35134.9057
35134.9028
35134.9075
35134.9030
35134.9029
35134.3232
35134.9081
35233.9191
35233.9192
35233.0709
• 35233.0513
35233.0710
35233.0604
35233.0605
35233.0606
35233.0607
35233.0608
35233.0609
35233.0505
35233.9176
tf- CO )!k $ §|\
TO
{%
Spkane County Flora Pit
under lease/buy option
Park Road
352:13.300935233!3019
52:13.30093523 3`301J
S . Willamette
33233.1117
)12'115
33232 I:108
i2
11,r/
.5523:A1,100,
,23, A
.3232 4411
32 2
35232
b 35232
352,t2111
msgvAr
rsr.4.
5z19
1 ! .7.2 ; .1 'A ;7C!`.; ;:7,2:7:11.;'.:2
:,....-..*:,),-.1'...:-
-., ,,,,,..-f -g.I.T.,-.774.0..-:_"E —II; ,ff'. .. • •PMEllae
.3522.1 2., C.,1:,•._122.;,....pv-„, _
tfigk4eJ.4.,tgstrir....rit4t ).
*:3522.1'..1b6E:5522.? ' lAt,
.-s,r-.1t47‘4 Vsni:07).7.0•A,- •:
":'''',_,(:)11',:c.1'
, ,,,,,,,,,,.. ,. .‘; : ..--,,t ,7:','''11
,4 .44:-.1 .0,,,,,,...,,i.:,
1-::: .,/-_:•:-. :.---,i :. ..:•;7:iriP.: ';'''. --.-':::':78:,7:6:1,':' _-' '''''• '
Spokane
Valley
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org
Memorandum
To: Mayor and Councilmembers
cc: Mike Jackson, City Manager; John Hohman, Community Dev. Director; Lori Barlow, Planner
From: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk I j„/�-�
Date: March 26, 2015
Re: CPA 2015-0002
The attached materials are those that were handed to me by Mr. Joseph House.
City of Spokane Valley
Community Development Department Planning Division
March 24, 2015
RE; Project Number: CPA -2015-0002
The request for the property located at 1603 N. Flora Rd., Parcel #45124.0203 and 1625
N. Flora Rd., Parcel # 45124.0151 from Low density Residential (LDR) with a Single
Family Residential (R-3) zoning classification to a Mixed Use Center (MUC) designation
with a Mixed Use Center (MUC) zoning classification should be Denied.
At that property location, there needs to be a buffer for the existing single family residents
properties located North of Mission and on the West side of Flora Rd..
There are hundred's of acres already designated (MUC) to the South and West of the
proposed site. So in this area there's no good reason or need for additional Multiple Use
Center (MUC) zoning changes.
This proposed parcel zoning change is the buffer that's needed for the existing residential
properties from the already (MUC) properties.
This proposed property (site specific), Compressive Plan map Amendment needs to stay
Low Density Residential (LDR) with a single Family residential (R-3) zoning
classification for the purpose as the buffer for the existing residential properties and not
be granted Multiple Use Center (MUC) zoning change status.
Jos -p Lynda Hous
7406 E Montgomery Ave (mailing address)
Spokane Valley, WA 99016
Property Owners of properties located adjacent to the proposed re -zone, located at:
1711 N Flora Rd. and
1803 N Flora Ave.
March 24, 2015
RE: Project Number: CPA -2015-0002
We the nnniden°aagrned would request that the Spokane Valllley Council weep the
property at Mora and Mission at the current zoning of R-3 (LDR) shn,igte family
residential and Deny the request to a Mi UC (mixed use corridor)
NAME and ADDRESS:
OttIN
1407/)1,4#0 v111
raiitiell PI k Aik 17 0 (oripi Lytt
r/r/l;n Si‘ it- Id r19 -1S
r I o c6 t 1 l I `f IT r -i « c tocti 74 .
cc_(‘ `Het enc.
,14)4111 `Dikl
CALF
c111`FfAvc.
712
1-7113 L jt
J/Gf4' 'Az
/21 N Coat k I5
0/mi S -kick Lg I5tZ ovti. pr
5a t i IIS Cru nfa1vj 1 i72(0 nr caw Dr
Dix c cc / f L,1 r
c/e, /1/ Zezdar
(7/1
March 24, 2015
RE: Project Number: CPA -2015-0002
We the undersigned would request that the Spokane Valley Council keep the
property at Flora and Mission at the current zoning of R-3 (LDR) single family
residential and Deny the request to a MUC (mixed use corridor)
NAME and ADDRESS:
fo-6--
')
kWrIkAit AVe-- kco-42- vql 7c161,6
1 Do? -,E 136d.)(1,cci fl KACk.n VacL ATI (tc;
'efttI I- 17nzci 6aftuitt Arc ,r20-6,-4-u1,;(jkIL/ crti
S\Z6f17 &J 17e l( cpeo-s- ) LoA ?ooiL
t•-kze.-0 (.01 i3ee....L
E.C. 6,-(441k /(O8 4e,11 511
176-) Aff- 137 II (--
Advejlolikison (-70K N 130/ St- -Crogaii e Vail W A
Ha-fh,f2? /fA),nor( 52wik,u9 V((// -t/ W
C 0 t 7 0, df (9-irck_ sr OM \I ((I_ elgoite
k4(kAAMAN &OA- L-71_0), Alva polo& Uci((e
L.
Vsvi/rei--1‘.6) I;za SV 9 q
r :?°go ilf(t';() a 7 A/ Aro V
TAJOVV)r ce 06 k: ,5v 'co
J-(41/2..5 I70 -&,V Arc 5ff& 14 c- 1/c_ y qg 0, /
i7[27 wt, Etb-c.
LL ge101-LD
637610 6-etrYli4 adlo N 4 (44 711//6
March 24, 2015
RE: Project Number: CPA -2015-0002
We the undersigned would request that the Spokane Valley Council keep the
property at Flora and Mission at the current zoning of R-3 (LDR) single family
residential and Deny the request to a MUC (mixed use corridor)
NAME and ADDRESS.
1?7 j 7te e' (71/ I ,, ��va
IIIc:'
5 c- o i
/ 7/te'fi r
9ei bpi
% 7/"g '= ee7- c
Ober- 4-5
py(lF>r.(O 7 ti) Okaik Ok, k,Qn c O if,
d stn k -uv g4(624•A Nei
'�r�
Ile z E� 1 Dz-A)�, � S1d(4 (1---1-111 0.71`c4
0-44 . CF o (ec,._ \kJ -4 49 0 ( L7
er 114)
......,_r__,2-- ,irt„, )3,,, ,g- ,e2.4.(2..L.,,L.,,6_,<._ = j2:02,,,,
le -,--LS 4, 7 , w
141-(--- 1-'1 17e e; -7 I-. ie--LL-z- ,I, ,,,t, c -k L) ( ,i/-(4zz c-cl
Le'-olgz GGA-rt� /�i,-Q6� b sc- fit( le l -L) 5 17 k.1--
'(\ I c DYE C-1— i l o o A C _hif\-ks ,L.N sV 1ti
C.a.\11 \,,uCf 1 L5ZS 0-eSc kik_ 45 LA SO W%
C1;47 C rfAC 5 /M 2( 0-e-56--)1(11/ 5 L --Al CAcGl AAe 5 wA
Martin Palaniuk
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mary Pollard <marjam17216@msn.com>
Thursday, March 19, 2015 9:55 AM
Martin Palaniuk
. CPA -2015-0002
Hi,
I would like to give my support to the zoning change. I have been in contact with Mrs. Abraham over the last two years,
as well as the original project her mother had intended to utilize this land for as an elderly mobile home community.
Due to the recent construction of huge apartment complexes just down the road, this does create a need for more
storage and Mrs. Abraham needs the change in zoning to build storage facilities. The design of these building should be
roofed to fit in with residential zoning that is along side it, so it doesn't depreciate homes nearby. We have seen many
storage facilities with the traditional or standard gable construction rather than a flat roof that are tidy and convenient
for nearby residents. We appreciate that this change in plan would not inundate the neighborhood with more traffic.
A mobile home community can change ownership and depreciate in value and appearance over the years, as well as the
rules of use implemented by the owners.
Since Spokane Valley code does not prohibit mobile home parks in any residential zoning this change in plan would be
better for North Greenacres Neighborhood.
It would better complement the needs of this neighborhood.
We support the zoning change so Mrs. Abraham can utilize her property as storage facilities.
Thank you,
Mary Pollard
North Greenacres Neighborhood
509 926 8899
17216 E Baldwin Ave.
Spokane Valley, WA 99016
ikcj\bb irok
Martin Palaniuk
From: Appleway Florist & Greenhouse <info@applewayflorist.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:46 PM
To: Martin Palaniuk
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, file no. CPA -2015-0002
Spokane Valley City Council and Staff,
I would like to share my opinion on the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Specifically, the proposed
zone changes for the property adjacent to ours located at 1625 N FLORA RD.
With the large amount of changes in the area surrounding our properties, I would like to show my support
for Patricia Abraham and Jayn Courchaine as they endeavor to better our neighborhood. They have been good
stewards of the land and courteous neighbors and I believe they will continue to be in the future.
I hope you will consider approving their zoning request, as it is my opinion, it is in the best interest of both the
property owner and the surrounding neighborhood.
Thank you,
Monty Lewis
Lewis Properties of Spokane
16913 E Mission Ave
Spokane Valley, WA 99016
509-924-5050
1
Martin Palaniuk
From: Amy Bonwell <amylbon@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 1:15 PM
To: Martin Palaniuk
Subject: Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2015-0002
Attachments: img-150223234635-0001.pdf
Hi Martin,
Attached are the documents discussed. If you could please share these with the City Council it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Amy Hughes
On Thursday, February 19, 2015 8:04 AM, Martin Palaniuk <mpalaniukAspokanevallev.org> wrote:
Amy,
We will be providing an Administrative Report to City Council on March 10 and the First Reading is scheduled
for March 24. Please send me a copy of your documents and I'II be sure to inform council of your opposition
when 1 report to them on the 10th. Public comment will not be taken on the 10th but anyone may speak on the
amendment at the First Reading on the 24th. I would encourage you and your neighbors to appear at the first
reading on the 24th and voice your opposition in person. Appearing in person and speaking on the issue is
your best chance of influencing the council.
Marty
From: Amy Bonwell [mailto:amvlbon(a�yahoo.comj
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 6:57 PM
To: Martin Palaniuk
Subject: Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2015-0002
Hi Martin,
I have collected 18 signatures in opposition to this CPA and will have 3 or 4 more by tomorrow evening. When will this be presented to
the City Council and can I send it directly to you to share with them?
Thank you!
Amy
On Monday, February 2, 2015 4:03 PM, Martin Palaniuk <mpalaniuk(a spokanevallev.orq> wrote:
Amy,
It has not been placed on the City Council agenda for a first reading as of this time. City Council will take
public comments at the first reading. We are taking two amendments through the process and the other
amendment has been held up in the planning commission. The administrative report to City Council has been
scheduled for February 24, 2015 however , public comment will not be taken at that time.
1
Marty
Martin Palaniuk
Planner
City of Spokane Valley
11707 E. Sprague Ave. Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
(509) 720-5031
mpalaniukt spokanevallev.org
From: Amy Bonwell [mailto:amvlbonvahoo.comj
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 3:16 PM
To: Martin Palaniuk
Subject: Re: Comprehensive Pian Amendment CPA -2015-0002
Thanks Martin.
Has the date of the City Council meeting been determined?
Thank you,
Amy Hughes
On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 4:12 PM, Martin Palaniuk <mpalaniuk(c�spokanevalley.orq> wrote:
Amy,
I have attached some material related to the comprehensive plan amendment that is being
considered in your area. As you know the public hearing was held on January 22, 2015 in front of the
planning commission. Your next opportunity to provide public testimony will be when the amendment
goes before the City Council. I will provide you the date and time of that meeting when I have
confirmed the date. I've attached the staff report and a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing that went
out prior to the hearing last week. Please let me know if there is anything else we can do to better
inform you on this issue.
Marty
Martin Palaniuk
Planner
City of Spokane Valley
11707 E. Sprague Ave. Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
(509) 720-5031
mpalaniukcV spokanevalley.orq
2
2/2/2015
To Whom It May Concern,
Attached are the names, addresses & signatures of - homeowners that live in Flora
Estates and oppose CPA -2015-0002. We have highlighted the location of Flora Estates on the attached
map.
We were unable to voice our opposition at the January 22, 2015 public hearing in front of the planning
commission. Please take this letter, and attached signatures, as our formal public testimony.
We oppose this change for a variety of reasons. The primary reason is because there is already a
significant amount of undeveloped MUC (mixed use center) land to the west of our development. We
don't see a need for additional MUC space with the large amount of available land. A secondary reason
for our opposition is the traffic on Flora Rd. There is currently a significant amount of traffic on Flora Rd
and Mission Ave. As the currently undeveloped MUC space is developed, this traffic with increase
dramatically. Our small development, 17 homes, has 21 children under the age of 10. As children do,
they play in our streets (one of our streets, Coach Ln, is a private dead-end street). What is concerning is
the traffic that whips through our neighborhood hoping to avoid the clog at the round -a -bout only to
find out that Coach Ln is a dead-end. We feel having more MUC space will only increase the traffic which
will ultimately increase the risks to our neighborhood, and ultimately our children.
Thank you in advance for considering our public testimony.
Sincerely,
The Flora Estates Homeowners
ECEIVED
FEB 2 3 2015
SPOKANE VALLEY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
U:insme
rueNsa. L.
e.....n: .
..insure
',1l 1 1t 11A ' NY, Di10
.'5b
b.S
:(
. ]
,s
Tills lV
SIka--
tji1
f4(tic.8_ /:3/j Ai f 6'.4c„ -P.
Al ,C,
fd t.�
ta{'nn •
SeCi,t1 1 GaC, W Cr 1-, D,
-,...--x(.5,42,
.i"1r-
_i. ' �,
'°
./6O f
I'! JI 1 '., - , 11
--,,i Io- A
gi,
.1
�/1
G ARM 1. 1 0 '1/
'x>/ .4' /so, N 60,9c,(4 -,pie
01 -VS
//miff";
F 5,7_,,v
o 0
9 i(1iUO rf
/Evil J5'0\ /1/ (-0. 11R.
A Cr 570-c1f7c
30 At t e.
Y � t 1 ) a-3 1 Pn W1.6 ( Atie
Stet 3 ID616.)
( .
11
.h '
* "•% c.
j
AlJ ITk
5: .h j L
1 4....
17 ill ( /i. Maat.' . 1
/ 71)1 �:. !7�,1'1,1e
171 Zc L" r e,-(>C:./el t ., e .
�,i
gI7- ve- lst
..qtr%' .,.. ._ Azi
�r
j.
13 i 4
I re
i, di seek
, vitt
�5 t-)
f-{{tA
1 -a -12 -ti i 41 Avt7
►► .... :.1.
153 Tol,
14
i g , . i`
55 B(ct.ve l (
it-
(1 t O% C ivley.,A AveoY
n � 1 I
a r
3? C i .L
Scf sD
' I •
•Ai ` Cly
tg1%I ?
®
.�J�
00 47,bE
■ r '
■� •�.• '•�",r
telsA,pitz,
0 F It/ ,,..E`1
15.- 3 C =
-' q 1. --:.:3 �
.#7
• f . ` .
1565 C44c.
7O9-Yr'`_52
I A•w'
:3 3izE
tkceti
15,5 rJ co ACi
fl'-%r�zr3
MIIINF1 . wl
f�
17 C3_e'-ey
st6r,
IS / iv. Cc•Ad-[}r,
.-38` 557'
�3 1 ' U
4111
95119. N tet rAch N lam.
501 - 4f11
b Ut �_ i
ii'Mll�
5 ice,,
1soZc&vCa-;c_I.
1:11"1 -`)Yr
25 0,
13:/1700
. 7yJ.,vv_-//Sri
s-.7,-7-„,,,,,://,
995x-:1rrr:/
• -,- 77-1—""-"
:a
:l
.F.
X)
Comprehensive Plan Map CPA -2015-0002
1 LS9t*ELOSS
55073.1134
I 1 '
---<,
,
c,n711655 5
orbin • Ln 11— \-Tril5—-5-677-iT6H 15411.
1 1 rs..;,r4Coi•biri:111
11---11H1
ul
it
• --
0 I
_11
4
8Itt281.55
55182 1417
1_55182.1317
Corbin_L
1 55182 1320
vstruoss
c(1' ap1Ii55073.1_8_0---3----t_1\-'_'zo,......711-L--
›„t,
TschirleyRd --55073 y._i
,.---551 8-2 1.0; - 504
,t.,rT._j8_55182.1220
-_
55073.1801 <:T Tr1 I 55. —
-
r -I [HI,
I r-'- .,T - -7_'.i _y" 12• 1..13r1e,,11,
'
I--NiAi,11rL.R-R,7L
Lii:_i_—Dj157-55,-0-0-_-77—:--3.-3-7-..1-,-5--4='44742-i-11),,i1 Iy1Bi
71_a:rirr17tei!-•,
'"313!, i551820710 I 1 il.".L...1,4'
11.1_1_141TH 7__ifst!
s,-
BII.Sh
1 — L
-. 1. 1I_t‘.'.c6..o...Lach—'1.....4,Lr''i--;Vc
i lET1YrFfTo-A.•L'. t,
I-1ji
5,
5L1-
8t2n.
0912
:I-rL1
'__o-.-iL v
-,—>' .Fl_Rc_____
--
1ir
_418
i. It
----- 1ttt0G
i7toil3!.1S‘---
--
—–
n__----:R-+V
,z1t–
.,----.---,--
----
--'
rC.0.4l
--,I
<nr7ie
'.,
rRCIrD:II1'ee
I1
451240125l/ - i
j____1I—
46--, •
= I 'I! l'••• '"'"''.:-Z \\\ 1
1
, I I-
I
t 1 451,11.0 45
1
.-I
a
r--------- i
1
i .§11- °Isslkir------)
_
-----------__. ------- 1
_________ ----C ------ -------- o
+4
-s-'-'........__,........._,., I I
C:1
*-4
VI....-
45124.0105
1.1
0
0
tl
0
8
.0
0
0
8
31
0
0.
2.-›*
0
0
0
31
0
8
31
5
31
0.
31
0
0
0*3
77,
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Spokane Council Members
FROM: Spokane Valley Hotels
DATE: March 24, 2015
RE: Increase to Hotel/Motel Room Taxes
Background Information
The City of Spokane Valley does not have a venue that facilitates tourism. The hotels have requested
that the city council look at the City of Spokane Valley future taxes going to building tourism facilities
within the City of Spokane Valley.
The City of Spokane Valley Hotel/Motel tax advisory board has unanimously voted to increase our
Hotel/Motel taxes by 1.3%, the maximum remaining under the state tax lid of 12%. If we do not
increase these taxes at this time, we could lose another .3% in April. The City of Spokane just increased
their lodging taxes by 1.3%.
We have consulted with council members and the motion language creates a dedicated fund for these
increased taxes to be held for a future sports venue to be built in the City of Spokane Valley.
Action
The following undersigned City of Spokane Valley Hotels request the council support the motion to
increase the Hotel/Motel taxes by the maximum allowable amount of 1.3% immediately.
Motion
Motion is to pass an additional 1.3% lodging tax to be put into a fund dedicated for a large sporting
venue or venues for tourism facilities that generate overnight guests.
Memorandum with Revisions
City of Spokane Council Members
March 24, 2015
Page 2 01'3
COMFORT INN & SUITES HAMPTON INN & SUITES
Valica Coy Colleen Heinselman
HOLIDAY INN Ex PRESS LA QUINTA INN & SUITES
TodySonote r
MIRABEAU PARK HOTEL &
CONVENTION CENTER
Andy Rooney
OXFORD SUITES
Amanda Rosier
RAMANDA INN
Terry Lin
MY PLACE
Blaire Dinger
QUALITY INN
Jeff Liman
RESIDENCE INN
Kyle McCandless Angela Miller
RODEWAY INN & SUITES SPOKANE HOSPITALITY, LLC.
Terry Gosal
SUPER 8
Lee Cameron
STERI,IIG HOS 'ITA TY, LLC.
Liz Beck Cal Clausen
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Spokane Council Members
FROM: Spokane Valley Hotels
DATE: March 19, 2015
RE: Increase to Hotel/Motel Room Taxes
Background Information
The citizens and the hotels within the City of Spokane Valley have been paying taxes to build and
market venues located in downtown Spokane to facilitate tourism, i.e., the Arena and the Convention
Center. These facilities mainly benefit the City of Spokane.
The City of Spokane Valley does not have a venue that facilitates tourism. The hotels have requested
that the city council look at the City of Spokane Valley future taxes going to building tourism facilities
within the City of Spokane Valley.
The Spokane County Council, in conjunction with the Sports Commission and the Public Facilities
District, is planning a levy lift to increase taxes on all the county citizens, which includes the City of
Spokane Valley citizens, to build a Sportsplex in downtown Spokane. This facility was originally
planned to be located in the City of Spokane Valley. This new Sportsplex, if built, will take more
business away from the City of Spokane Valley.
The City of Spokane Valley Hotel/Motel tax advisory board has unanimously voted to increase our
Hotel/Motel taxes by 1.3%, the maximum remaining under the state tax lid of 12%. If we do not
increase these taxes at this time, we could lose another .3% in April. The City of Spokane just increased
their lodging taxes by 1.3%.
We have consulted with council members and the motion language creates a dedicated fund for these
increased taxes to be held for a future sports venue to be built in the City of Spokane Valley.
Action
The following undersigned City of Spokane Valley Hotels request the council support the motion to
increase the Hotel/Motel taxes by the maximum allowable amount of 1.3% immediately.
Motion
Motion is to pass an additional 1.3% lodging tax to be put into a fund dedicated for a large sporting
venue or venues for tourism facilities that generate overnight guests.
Memorandum
City of Spokane Council Members
March 17, 2015
Page 2 of 2
COMFORT INN & SUITES HAMPTON INN & SUITES
Valica Coy
HOLIDAY INN
Chelsea Atwell
MIRABEAU PARK HOTEL &
CONVENTION CENTER
Andy Rooney
OXFORD SUITES
Amanda Rosier
RAMANDA INN
Colleen Heinselman
LA QUINTA INN & SUITES
Terry Lin
MY PLACE
Blaire Dinger
RESIDENCE INN
Kyle McCandless Angela Miller
RODEWAY INN & SUITES
Terry Gosal
SUPER 8
Liz Beck
Memorandum
City of Spokane Council Members
March 17, 2015
Page 2 of 2
COMFORT INN & SUITES
Valica Coy
HOLIDAY INN
Chelsea Atwell
MIRABEAU PARK HOTEL &
CO/ ► TION CENTER
Andy Rooney
OXFORD SUITES
ON INN& TES.
en Heinselm
LA QUINTA INN & SUITES
Terry Lin
MY PLACE
Blaire Dinger
QUALITY INN
Amanda Rosier Jeff Fiman
RAMANDA INN RESIDENCE INN
;,7') 11(g&i/Z.;&
Kyle McCandless Angela Miller
RODEWAY INN & SUITES SPOKANE HOSPITALITY, LLC.
Terry Gosal
SUPER 8
Liz Beck
Lee Cameron
Memorandum
City of Spokane Council Members
March 17, 2015
Page 2 of 2
COMFORT INN & SUITES HAMPTON INN & SUITES
Valica Coy
HOLIDAY INN
Colleen Heinselman
LA QUINTA INN & SUITES
Chelsea Atwell Terry Lin
MIRABEAU PARK HOTEL & MY PLACE
CONVENTION CENTER
Andy Rooney
"Le Eiaza) rn.
OXFORD SUITES QUALITY INN
Amanda Rosier
RAMANDA INN
Kyle McCandless
Jeff Fiman
RODEWAY INN & SUITES SPOKANE HOSPITALITY, LLC.
Terry Gosal
SUPER 8
Liz Beck
Lee Cameron
March 23, 2015
Dear Mayor Grafos, Council and Staff:
We, the City of Spokane Valley Hotels, understand the time sensitivity of
increasing the Hotel/Motel room tax and wish that we weren't in such a situation
and had more time to plan. However, we want the City Council Members to know
that the City of Spokane Valley Hotels are willing to increase the Hotel/Motel
taxes by the maximum allowable amount of 1.3%. But, we do have some concerns
that we would like to share with you:
➢ The motion is too broad and does not specify a plan. The motion reads that
the additional 1.3% will be put into a fund dedicated for a large sporting
venue or venues for tourism facilities that generate overnight guests.
➢ At this time, with the passing of the additional Lodging Tax of 1.3% we can
only tell our guests paying the tax that the funds are for a sporting venue.
We look forward to working with the city as we undertake plans for a
sporting venue that will add substantial overnight guests for our Spokane
Valley hotels.
➢ We want to be assured there will be sufficient marketing funds given to our
regional marketing organizations to market the new venues from the 2%
Lodging Tax. The motion before you does not allow for any marketing of
the new venue or venues. The past history has been that funds have been
given to organizations that do not generate overnight guests.
➢ It is the understanding of the Hotels located within the City of Spokane
Valley that the newly collected 1.3% Lodging Taxes would only be used for
the stated use in the motion passed by the Tax Advisory Committee.
The past decision to not fund the recipients of Lodging Tax and to start the process
all over again, delaying funding to our crucial marketing partners does not send a
positive message that you are here to support our tourism businesses in the valley.
We, the City of Spokane Valley Hotels, would like to work on solutions with city
staff and council to make sure that we are continuing to increase tourism for the
City of Spokane Valley. We have to be partners.
Sincerely,
City of Spokane Valley Hotels
(( Public Comment for City Council Agenda, March 24, 2015, Item #8, Motion Consideration:
City Hall Architectural Services Contract. ))
My name is Philip L. Rudy. I live at 5647 N. Fruithill Road.
Honorable Mayor, Honorable Members of the City Council.
I am pleased the City Council is moving forward for plans for a new City Hall for the City of
Spokane Valley. The location chosen is excellent for it will improve the neighborhood, and act as an
attraction for further positive economic development of the area.
I am before you tonight to bring your attention to safety concerns I have about traffic flow past the
new City Hall location.
I encourage you to continue Sprague Avenue with only three lanes of west bound traffic from the
Sprague and University intersection. I encourage you to continue the three west bound lanes to
Herald Road, which is one street west of Dartmouth Road. Herald Road is the most western border
street of the proposed new Library.
How can there be greater safety with only three west bound traffic lanes from University to Herald?
(1) Pedestrian traffic coming from the proposed new Library could access the crosswalk at the
intersection at Herald and Sprague. After crossing Sprague they could walk either direction on the
south Sprague sidewalk, and choose to walk south on Dartmouth to Appleway, cross Appleway
where safe and walk to nearby apartments or other close destinations.
(2) Vehicle traffic turning into the new City Hall could make left turns from the southernmost west
bound lane at designated turn areas. The beautiful presentation video made by Architect's West
shows an island between 4 west bound lanes on Sprague Avenue. There is the possibility someone
may think it is safe to make a left turn from the northern two west bound lanes across the southern
two west bound lanes. They could get T -Boned. I highly recommend only three west bound lanes to
Herald for this safety reason. Past Herald Road traffic lanes could resume the present configuration.
(3) If City Council were to establish an East bound lane for Fire Station 1, starting a little west of
Balfour Road extending to University, the response time for emergency calls for people needing
assistance in that direction would be reduced.
The unused remaining width of the southern portion of Sprague Avenue between University and
Herald could be turned into one of the most beautiful landscaped boulevards in the entire Spokane
Valley not to mention, perhaps, the entire County.
In summary, limiting Sprague Avenue to three west bound traffic lanes from University Avenue to
Herald Road would give a higher level of safety to pedestrians crossing Sprague at crosswalks, to
citizens accessing City Hall and those in distress needing emergency response from Fire Station 1 at
Balfour Road.
Respectfully, Philip L. Rudy