2015, 11-17 Study SessionAGENDA
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET
STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, November 17, 2015 6:00 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor
(Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting)
DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY
GOAL
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL:
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Erik Lamb
2. Cary Driskell, Erik
Lamb
3. Cary Driskell, Erik
Lamb
4. Erik Lamb
Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-020
Adopting Marijuana Findings of Fact [public comment]
Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-021
Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC) 2.65 [public comment]
Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-022
Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC) 3.30 Purchasing [public comment]
Adopt Ordinance
Adopt Ordinance
Adopt Ordinance
First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-023 Advance to 2nd Reading
Findings of Fact, Moratorium Extension [public comment]
5. Lori Barlow Comprehensive Plan Docket [public comment]
Motion Consideration
NON -ACTION ITEMS:
6. Katherine Morgan,
Chamber President
Chamber of Commerce, Big Five
7. Lori Barlow Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Final
Adoption
8. Marty Palaniuk Spokane Valley Municipal Code Text
Amendment 2015-0005, for Consistency with
9. Eric Guth, Sean Spokane Regional Transportation
Messner Management Center Interlocal Agreement
10. John Pietro
11. John Hohman, Lori Barlow
12. Mayor Grafos
Community Minded TV Agreement
Comprehensive Plan Legislative Review
Advance Agenda
13. Information Only: (will not be discussed or reported):
(a) Street Maintenance Contract Renewal; (b) Street Sweeping
14. Mayor Grafos
15. Mike Jackson
ADJOURN
Study Session Agenda, November 17, 2015
Council Comments
City Manager Comments
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
SMP
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Contract Renewal
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Meeting Date:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
November 17, 2015 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading of proposed Ordinance No. 15-020 adopting findings
of fact for Ordinance No. 15-017 and the establishment of a moratorium on all new licensed or
registered marijuana uses.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.390; RCW 69.50 (Initiative 502 has been codified
as RCW 69.50) and WAC 314-55; RCW 69.51A; SVMC Title 19.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-017 on
October 6, 2015. City Council adopted regulations regarding restrictions on recreational
marijuana on July 22, 2014. City Council adopted a moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses
on December 9, 2014. City Council conducted a public hearing on the moratorium on October
27, 2015 and first reading on November 10, 2015.
BACKGROUND: The City adopted regulations governing the zoning, buffers, and other land
use restrictions on recreational marijuana production, processing, and retail stores in July 2014.
Such regulations were based, in part, on the laws and regulations then in place under chapter
69.50 RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC. Those laws and regulations limited the total number of
retail stores within the City to three and set a state-wide cap on total production space.
On December 9, 2014, the City Council adopted a moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses to
allow the State to come forward with what the City anticipated to be medical marijuana
legislation in 2015 and to allow the City time to develop appropriate regulations regarding
medical marijuana as well as any increase in licenses that might result from the State's 2015
marijuana legislation.
As anticipated, the State adopted comprehensive marijuana legislation in 2015 that (1)
reconciled the medical and recreational marijuana markets by establishing a "medical marijuana
endorsement" that retail licensees will be able to obtain to sell medical marijuana to qualified
patients and designated providers, while also making unlicensed collective gardens illegal by
July 1, 2016, (2) expanded the amount of marijuana production that may be conducted state-
wide to accommodate the needs of marijuana retailers with medical marijuana endorsements,
(3) created "cooperatives" which must be registered by the Washington State Liquor and
Cannabis Board (the "WSLCB"), and (4) created a new license for common carriers to deliver
and transport marijuana between licensed marijuana producers, processors, and retailers and
created a new marijuana research license for permitees to produce, process, and possess
marijuana for certain limited research purposes. Further, as part of its 2015 legislation, the
State required an increase in the number of marijuana retail licenses to "accommodate the
medical needs of qualifying patients and designated providers" and directed the WSLCB to
promulgate rules and regulations for setting the number of increased retail licenses, accepting
new retail license applications and accepting applications for medical marijuana endorsements.
In conjunction with the State adopting its 2015 marijuana legislation, City staff developed
proposed changes to account for the newly reconciled medical marijuana and recreational
marijuana market, including the potential increase in retail licenses. The process of developing
City amendments included a discussion with City Council on potential amendments on August
18, 2015. The Planning Commission was scheduled to conduct a study session on potential
amendments on September 24, 2015.
However, on September 23, 2015, the WSLCB issued, effective immediately, its Emergency
Rules #15-18 (the "WSLCB Emergency Rules") to amend chapter 314-55 WAC to provide for
(1) the WSLCB to begin accepting marijuana retail license applications on October 12, 2015,
with the limit on the number of marijuana retail licenses to be set at a later date, (2) the WSLCB
to begin accepting applications for medical marijuana endorsements, and (3) the state cap on
maximum marijuana production space to be set at a later date. Concurrently with the issuance
of its Emergency Rules the WSLCB also issued its Proposed Rules #15-17, which are subject to
ongoing public comment prior to final adoption in late 2015 or early 2016, and pursuant to which
the WSLCB also provided that the limit on the number of marijuana retail licenses and a state
cap on marijuana production space will be set at a later date.
Though the City is developing its comprehensive marijuana amendments, neither Planning
Commission nor the City Council would have been able to fully consider and develop
comprehensive marijuana policy decisions giving adequate consideration to the State's 2015
marijuana legislation, or to adopt such City amendments prior to October 12, 2015 when the
WSLCB began accepting and processing additional marijuana retail licenses.
Given the uncertainty surrounding the unknown final number of retail uses and production space
and the appropriateness of current City regulations to account for such an unknown increase, as
well as to prevent potential vesting of uses that may ultimately be inconsistent and incompatible
with the City's final regulations, Staff believed a moratorium was appropriate on all licensed and
registered marijuana uses. A moratorium allows the City to develop appropriate regulations to
give full consideration to the State's 2015 marijuana legislation, the WSLCB's emergency and
proposed rules, and to account for the increases in retail stores and production space.
RCW 36.70A.390 authorizes the City to adopt a moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses
without conducting a public hearing and without utilizing the City's standard approval process
through the Planning Commission and multiple readings by City Council. A moratorium
preserves the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by
intervening development. After adoption of the moratorium, the City Council must conduct a
public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days and adopt findings of fact for the moratorium.
Additionally, the proposed moratorium includes a work plan and so will be effective for 365 days
from the date of adoption. After adoption of the moratorium, final regulations would be
proposed and processed through the City's standard process, including a proposal to the
Planning Commission, Planning Commission recommendation to City Council, and multiple
readings by City Council. The final regulations must be adopted prior to the expiration of the
moratorium.
Pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.390, on October 6, 2015, City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 15-017, which establishes a moratorium on the submission, processing,
modification, or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for licensed or registered
marijuana use. Licensed or registered marijuana use is defined as all marijuana producers,
processors, retailers, including licensed retailers seeking medical marijuana endorsements,
researchers, delivery or transportation by common carrier between licensed facilities,
cooperative, or other use that is required pursuant to chapters 69.50 RCW and 69.51A RCW
and chapter 314-55 WAC to be licensed or registered with the WSLCB. The moratorium does
not apply to personal use or personal medical use by qualified patients. The moratorium applies
upon its effective date so it would not impact ongoing operations of existing licensed businesses
at this time. However, it will limit unlicensed collectives seeking retail licenses until such time as
the final regulations are adopted. Further, Ordinance No. 15-017 set a public hearing for
Tuesday, October 27, 2015, established a work plan, adopted preliminary findings of fact, and
established an effective period of 365 days for the moratorium. Finally, Ordinance No. 15-017
was designated as a public emergency and was effective upon adoption.
The work plan is already underway and on October 22, 2015, the Planning Commission
conducted its first study session on marijuana regulation options.
Staff has conducted SEPA review and determined the ongoing moratorium to be categorically
exempt from SEPA pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(19).
Pursuant to state law and Ordinance No. 15-017, the City Council conducted a public hearing
on the moratorium on October 27, 2015. City Council heard comments from 11 interested
parties. As required by state law, the City Council is now considering the findings of fact
justifying the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-017 and the establishment of the moratorium.
The City will continue on the work plan in working through development and adoption of
appropriate City marijuana regulations.
OPTIONS: Move to approve Ordinance No. 15-020, with or without amendments; or take other
action deemed appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 15-020, adopting
findings of fact justifying the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-017 and the establishment of a
moratorium on new licensed or registered marijuana uses.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A.
STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 15-020
Ordinance No. 15-017
Notice of Public Hearing published on October 9, October 16, and October 23, 2015 in the
Spokane Valley News Herald.
Minutes of October 27, 2015 public hearing.
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 15-020
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT JUSTIFYING THE ADOPTION
OF ORDINANCE NO. 15-017 AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MORATORIUM ON
ALL NEW MARIJUANA PRODUCERS, MARIJUANA PROCESSORS, MARIJUANA
RETAILERS, MARIJUANA RESEARCHERS, MARIJUANA TRANSPORT AND
DELIVERY USES, AND MARIJUANA COOPERATIVES, LICENSED BY OR
REGISTERED WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR AND CANNABIS
BOARD, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of
Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and
other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations
governing land uses within the City; and
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a
moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a
public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim
official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim
zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the
governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department.
If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the
governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map,
interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not
longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related
studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or
interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing
is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;" and
WHEREAS, a moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method
by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be
rendered moot by intervening development; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a
moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a
public hearing, provided the City conducts a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days of the date
of adoption of the moratorium; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, on October 6, 2015, the City
adopted Ordinance No. 15-017 establishing a moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, processing,
modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for any new licensed or registered
marijuana use; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220, RCW 36.70A.390 and Ordinance No. 15-017, on
October 27, 2015, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-017
and the establishment of a moratorium on new licensed or registered marijuana uses; and
WHEREAS, City Council heard testimony from 11 interested parties during the public hearing;
and
Ordinance 15-020 Page 1 of 6
DRAFT
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, the City Council is required to
adopt findings of fact after conducting the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows:
Section 1. Findings of Fact. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, on
October 27, 2015, the City Council conducted a public hearing on Ordinance No. 15-017 and the
establishment of a moratorium on new licensed or registered marijuana uses. The City Council hereby
adopts the following as findings of fact in support of Ordinance No. 15-017 and the establishment of a
moratorium on new licensed or registered marijuana uses:
1. Since 1970, federal law has prohibited the manufacture and possession of marijuana as a
Schedule I drug, based on the federal government's categorization of marijuana as having a "high
potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in
medically supervised treatment." Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005); Controlled Substance Act, 84
Stat. 1242, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
2. Initiative Measure No. 692, approved by the voters of Washington State on November 3,
1998, and now codified as chapter 69.51A RCW, created an affirmative defense for "qualifying patients"
to the charge of possession of marijuana.
3. In 2011, the Washington State Legislature considered and passed ESSSB 5073 that, among
other things, (1) authorized the licensing of medical cannabis dispensaries, production facilities, and
processing facilities; (2) permitted qualifying patients to receive certain amounts of marijuana for
medicinal purposes from designated providers; (3) permitted collective gardens by qualifying patients
whereby they may, consistent with state law, collectively grow marijuana for their own use; and (4)
clarified that cities were authorized to continue to use their zoning authority to regulate the production,
processing, or dispensing of marijuana under ESSSB 5073 and chapter 69.51A RCW within their
respective jurisdictions.
4. On April 29, 2011, former governor Christine Gregoire vetoed the portions of ESSSB 5073
that would have provided the legal basis for legalizing and licensing medical cannabis dispensaries,
processing facilities, and production facilities, thereby making these activities illegal.
5. On November 6, 2012, voters of the State of Washington approved Initiative Measure No. 502
("I-502"), now codified in chapters 69.50, 46.04, 46.20, 46.21, and 46.61 Revised Code of Washington
("RCW"), which provisions (1) decriminalized possession and use of certain amounts of marijuana and
marijuana paraphernalia; (2) amended state laws pertaining to driving under the influence of intoxicants
to include driving under the influence of marijuana; and (3) established a regulatory system licensing
producers, processors, and retailers of recreational marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older, and
required the Washington State Liquor Control Board (now the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis
Board, and hereinafter referred to as the "WSLCB") to adopt procedures and criteria by December 1,
2013 for issuing licenses to produce, process, and sell marijuana.
6. On August 29, 2013, the United States Department of Justice issued a memo providing
updated guidance on marijuana enforcement in response to the adoption of I-502. Several ongoing
federal enforcement priorities were outlined, including prevention of crime and preventing distribution of
marijuana to minors. Further, the memo provided that the Department would not seek ongoing
prosecution of marijuana providers, users, and local officials in states that authorized marijuana, provided
that those state and local governments "implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement
systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health, and other
Ordinance 15-020 Page 2 of 6
DRAFT
law enforcement interests. A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and
procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice."
7. On July 22, 2014, the City adopted Ordinance No. 14-008, which established in chapter 19.85
of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") and SVMC 19.120.050 regulations, zoning, buffers,
and other limitations on marijuana producers, processors, and retail sellers licensed under chapter 69.50
RCW, but which did not regulate unlicensed marijuana uses.
8. The City's regulations were premised, in part, upon the laws and regulations then in effect
(chapter 69.50 RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC), that allocated a total of three marijuana retail licenses
within the City and provided a maximum limit on marijuana production space.
9. On December 9, 2014, the City adopted Ordinance No. 14-021, adopting a moratorium on the
establishment of new unlicensed marijuana uses in order to allow the City to consider any marijuana -
related legislation adopted as part of the 2015 Washington State Legislative Session and to develop
comprehensive marijuana regulations incorporating such changes.
10. The moratorium adopted by the City on December 9, 2014, did not impact existing licensed
or unlicensed marijuana facilities and did not prohibit the City from processing applications related to
licensed marijuana producers, processors, and retailers because the City had already adopted regulations
for such uses that were premised, in part, upon the laws and regulations then in effect (chapter 69.50
RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC), that allocated a total of three retail licenses within the City and provided
a maximum limit on marijuana production space.
11. As of October 27, 2015, the City had 19 licensed marijuana producers, 21 licensed marijuana
processors and three licensed marijuana retailers located within its boundaries. The City believes all three
licensed marijuana retailers are operational and are selling marijuana at their locations within the City.
The City processed five business registrations related to medical marijuana in 2013 and 10 business
registrations in 2014 prior to the adoption of the moratorium. The City does not know how many
unlicensed medical marijuana stores are currently in operation.
12. In 2015, the Washington State Legislature adopted the "Cannabis Patient Protection Act,"
Laws of 2015, ch. 70, and additional comprehensive marijuana -related regulations pursuant to Laws of
2015, ch. 4 and other enacted legislation (collectively, the "2015 Marijuana Legislation").
13. As part of the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, the State (1) reconciled the medical and
recreational marijuana markets by establishing a "medical marijuana endorsement" that retail licensees
will be able to obtain to sell medical marijuana to qualified patients and designated providers, while also
making unlicensed collective gardens illegal by July 1, 2016, (2) expanded the amount of marijuana
production that may be conducted state-wide to accommodate the needs of marijuana retailers with
medical marijuana endorsements, (3) created "cooperatives" which must be registered by the WSLCB,
and (4) created a new license for common carriers to deliver and transport marijuana between licensed
marijuana producers, processors, and retailers delivery/transportation and created a new marijuana
research license for permitees to produce, process, and possess marijuana for certain limited research
purposes.
14. As part of the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, the State required an increase in the number of
marijuana retail licenses to "accommodate the medical needs of qualifying patients and designated
providers" and directed the WSLCB to promulgate rules and regulations for setting the number of
increased retail licenses, accepting new retail license applications and accepting applications for medical
marijuana endorsements.
Ordinance 15-020 Page 3 of 6
DRAFT
15. On September 23, 2015, the WSLCB issued, effective immediately, its Emergency Rules
#15-18 (the "WSLCB Emergency Rules") to amend chapter 314-55 WAC to provide for (1) the WSLCB
to begin accepting marijuana retail license applications on October 12, 2015, with the limit on the number
of marijuana retail licenses to be set at a later date, (2) the WSLCB to begin accepting applications for
medical marijuana endorsements, and (3) the state cap on maximum marijuana production space to be
increased to an amount to be set at a later date.
16. On September 23, 2015, the WSLCB also issued its Proposed Rules #15-17, which are
subject to public comment, and which, as of October 27, 2015, provided that the limit on the number of
marijuana retail licenses and state cap on marijuana production space will be set at a later date.
17. Pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane
Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other
regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing
land uses within the City.
18. RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium,
interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing
on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control,
shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or
interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body
received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing
body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body
shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning
ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six
months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing
such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official
control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and
findings of fact are made prior to each renewal."
19. A moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by
which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be
rendered moot by intervening development.
20. RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium,
interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing.
21. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-017, City Council adopted a work plan to address the issues
involving the City's regulation and establishment of licensed and registered marijuana uses.
22. The City has already begun the work plan and the City's Planning Commission conducted its
first study session to develop comprehensive marijuana regulations, including regulations to govern
medical and recreational marijuana, on October 22, 2015. Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct
a second study session and take public comment on November 12, 2015.
23. Although the City has begun the work plans established in Ordinance No. 14-021 and
Ordinance No. 15-017, the Planning Commission and City Council would not have an opportunity to
fully consider and develop comprehensive marijuana policy decisions that give adequate consideration to
2015 Marijuana Legislation, or to adopt such City regulations, prior to October 12, 2015 when the
WSLCB began accepting and processing additional marijuana retail licenses.
Ordinance 15-020 Page 4 of 6
DRAFT
24. Between October 12 and October 27, 2015, and after the date of the adoption of the
moratorium on licensed and registered marijuana uses, the City received 19 business license endorsement
requests for marijuana -related businesses seeking a marijuana -related license from the WSLCB.
25. New proposals for additional marijuana retail licenses that began being submitted on October
12, 2015, pose an imminent threat to the public health and safety as they may create incompatible land
uses subject to the City's existing regulations which were premised, in part, on a total of three marijuana
retail stores and a state cap on the maximum amount of marijuana production space, without allowing the
City to fully consider the impacts of the 2015 Marijuana Legislation or the WSLCB Emergency Rules
and proposed rules. Further, allowing an unknown number of marijuana retail licenses to vest or be
located within the City prior to completion of the City's review and development of its marijuana zoning
and land use regulations impairs the City's ability (1) to give full consideration to the 2015 Marijuana
Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, WSLCB proposed rules, and potential increase in marijuana
retail stores and marijuana production space, (2) to develop a reasoned approach to the public health,
safety, and welfare impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, WSLCB
proposed rules, and the potential increase in marijuana retail stores and marijuana production space, and
(3) to adopt appropriate comprehensive zoning and land use regulations governing medical and
recreational marijuana based upon the impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency
Rules, and WSLCB proposed rules.
26. Additional time is necessary for Planning Commission and City Council (1) to give full
consideration to the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, WSLCB proposed rules, and
potential increase in marijuana retail stores and marijuana production space, (2) to develop a reasoned
approach to the public health, safety, and welfare impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB
Emergency Rules, WSLCB proposed rules, and potential increase in marijuana retail stores and marijuana
production space, and (3) to adopt appropriate comprehensive zoning and land use regulations governing
medical and recreational marijuana based upon the impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation,
WSLCB Emergency Rules, and WSLCB proposed rules.
27. Washington State law, including RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, authorizes the
City to adopt a moratorium, provided the City conducts a public hearing on the moratorium within 60
days of the date of adoption of the moratorium.
28. The City has authority to establish a moratorium concerning the establishment and operation
of licensed or registered marijuana uses as a necessary stop -gap measure: (1) to give full consideration to
the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, WSLCB proposed rules, and potential
increase in marijuana retail stores and marijuana production space, (2) to develop a reasoned approach to
the public health, safety, and welfare impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency
Rules, WSLCB proposed rules, and potential increase in marijuana retail stores and marijuana production
space, (3) to adopt appropriate comprehensive zoning and land use regulations governing medical and
recreational marijuana based upon the impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency
Rules, and WSLCB proposed rules, and (4) to avoid applicants possibly establishing vested rights
contrary to and inconsistent with any revisions the City may make for its rules and regulations.
29. A moratorium provides the City with additional time to review and amend its public health,
safety, and welfare requirements and zoning and land use regulations related to the establishment and
operation of new licensed or registered marijuana uses.
30. The City properly published notice of the public hearing on the moratorium on October 10,
October 16, and October 23 in the Valley News Herald, the City's legal publication.
Ordinance 15-020 Page 5 of 6
DRAFT
31. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 and Section 4 of Ordinance No. 15-017,
the City Council conducted a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance 15-017 and the establishment
of a moratorium on new licensed or registered marijuana uses on October 27, 2015.
32. The City Council received testimony from 11 interested parties who spoke at the public
hearing. The City Council has given due consideration to all public testimony received.
33. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-880, the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-017 and the ongoing
moratorium is exempt from the requirements of a threshold determination under the State Environmental
Policy Act.
34. The adoption of Ordinance No. 15-017 and the establishment of a moratorium on new
licensed or registered marijuana uses is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
35. The City Council finds that the moratorium imposed and established by this Ordinance is
necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety, public property and public
peace
Section 2. Duration. The moratorium set forth in Ordinance No. 15-017 shall be and remain
in effect for a period of 365 days from its effective date, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the
City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to
RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390.
Section 3. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to
the effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance shall be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause,
or phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after
publication of this Ordinance or summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley
as provided by law.
Passed by the City Council this day of November, 2015.
ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 15-020 Page 6 of 6
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 15-017
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE
COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF ALL NEW MARIJUANA PRODUCERS, MARIJUANA
PROCESSORS, MARIJUANA RETAILERS, MARIJUANA RESEARCHERS,
MARIJUANA TRANSPORT AND DELIVERY USES, AND MARIJUANA
COOPERATIVES, LICENSED BY OR REGISTERED WITH THE WASHINGTON
STATE LIQUOR AND CANNABIS BOARD, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING
THERETO.
WHEREAS, since 1970, federal law has prohibited the manufacture and possession of marijuana
as a Schedule I drug, based on the federal government's categorization of marijuana as having a "high
potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in
medically supervised treatment." Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005), Controlled Substance Act, 84
Stat. 1242, 21 U.S.C. 801 et sec]; and
WHEREAS, Initiative Measure No. 692, approved by the voters of Washington State on November
3, 1998, and now codified as chapter 69.51 A RCW, created an affirmative defense for "qualifying patients"
to the charge of possession of marijuana; and
WHEREAS, in 2011, the Washington State Legislature considered and passed ESSSB 5073 that,
among other things, (1) authorized the licensing of medical cannabis dispensaries, production facilities, and
processing facilities, (2) permitted qualifying patients to receive certain amounts of marijuana for medicinal
purposes from designated providers, (3) permitted collective gardens by qualifying patients whereby they
may, consistent with state law, collectively grow marijuana for their own use, and (4) clarified that cities
were authorized to continue to use their zoning authority to regulate the production, processing, or
dispensing of medical marijuana under ESSSB 5073 and chapter 69.51A RCW within their respective
jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, on April 29, 2011, former governor Christine Gregoire vetoed the portions of ESSSB
5073 that would have provided the legal basis for legalizing and licensing medical cannabis dispensaries,
processing facilities, and production facilities, thereby making these activities illegal; and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012, voters of the State of Washington approved Initiative Measure
No. 502 ("I-502"), now codified in chapters 69.50, 46.04, 46.20, 46.21, and 46.61 Revised Code of
Washington ("RCW"), which provisions, (1) decriminalized possession and use of certain amounts of
marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia; (2) amended state laws pertaining to driving under the influence of
intoxicants to include driving under the influence of marijuana; and (3) established a regulatory system
licensing producers, processors, and retailers of recreational marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older,
and required the Washington State Liquor Control Board (now the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis
Board, and referred to herein as the "WSLCB") to adopt procedures and criteria by December 1, 2013 for
issuing licenses to produce, process, and sell marijuana; and
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2013, the United States Department of Justice issued a memo providing
updated guidance on marijuana enforcement in response to the adoption of 1-502. Several ongoing federal
enforcement priorities were outlined, including prevention of crime and preventing distribution of
marijuana to minors. Further, the memo provided that the Department would not seek ongoing prosecution
of marijuana providers, users, and local officials in states that authorized marijuana, provided that those
state and local governments "implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will
Ordinance 15-017 Page 1 of 6
address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health, and other law enforcement
interests. A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and procedures on paper; it
must also be effective in practice;" and
WHEREAS on July 22, 2014, the City adopted Ordinance No. 14-008, which established in chapter
19.85 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") and SVMC 19.120.050 regulations, zoning,
buffers, and other limitations on marijuana producers, processors, and retail sellers licensed under chapter
69.50 RCW, but which did not regulate unlicensed marijuana uses, including medical marijuana; and
WHEREAS, the City's regulations were premised, in part, upon the laws and regulations then in
effect (chapter 69.50 RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC), that allocated a total of three marijuana retail
licenses within the City and provided a maximum limit on marijuana production space; and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2014, the City adopted Ordinance No. 14-021, adopting a moratorium
on the establishment of new unlicensed marijuana uses in order to allow the City to consider any marijuana -
related legislation adopted as part of the 2015 Washington State Legislative Session and to develop
comprehensive marijuana regulations incorporating such changes; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium adopted by the City on December 9, 2014, did not impact existing
licensed or unlicensed marijuana facilities and did not prohibit the City from processing applications related
to licensed marijuana producers, processors, and retailers because the City had already adopted regulations
for such uses that were premised, in part, upon the laws and regulations then in effect (chapter 69.50 RCW
and chapter 314-55 WAC), that allocated a total of three retail Licenses within the City and provided a
maximum limit on marijuana production space; and
WHEREAS, to date, the City has 19 licensed marijuana producers, 21 licensed marijuana
processors and three licensed marijuana retailers located within its boundaries. All three licensed marijuana
retailers are operational and are selling marijuana at their locations within the City. The City processed
five business registrations related to medical marijuana in 2013 and 10 business registrations in 2014 prior
to the adoption of the moratorium; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, the Washington State Legislature adopted the "Cannabis Patient Protection
Act," Laws of 2015, ch. 70, and additional comprehensive marijuana -related regulations pursuant to Laws
of 2015, ch. 4 and other enacted legislation (collectively, the "2015 Marijuana Legislation"); and
WHEREAS, as part of the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, the State (1) reconciled the medical and
recreational marijuana markets by establishing a "medical marijuana endorsement" that retail licensees will
be able to obtain to sell medical marijuana to qualified patients and designated providers, while also making
unlicensed collective gardens illegal by July 1, 2016, (2) expanded the amount of marijuana production that
may be conducted state-wide to accommodate the needs of marijuana retailers with medical marijuana
endorsements, (3) created "cooperatives" which must be registered by the WSLCB, and (4) created a new
license for common carriers to deliver and transport marijuana between licensed marijuana producers,
processors, and retailers delivery/transportation and created a new marijuana research license for permitees
to produce, process, and possess marijuana for certain limited research purposes; and
WHEREAS, as part of the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, the State required an increase in the number
of marijuana retail licenses to "accommodate the medical needs of qualifying patients and designated
providers" and directed the WSLCB to promulgate rules and regulations for setting the number of increased
retail licenses, accepting new retail license applications and accepting applications for medical marijuana
endorsements; and
Ordinance 15-017 Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2015, the WSLCB issued, effective immediately, its Emergency
Rules #15-18 (the "WSLCB Emergency Rules") to amend chapter 314-55 WAC to provide that (1) the
WSLCB will begin accepting marijuana retail license applications on October 12, 2015 and it will not set
a limit on the number of marijuana retail licenses until a later date, (2) the WSLCB will begin accepting
applications for medical marijuana endorsements, and (3) the state cap on maximum marijuana production
space is removed and will be set at a later date; and
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2015, the WSLCB also issued its Proposed Rules #15-17, which
will be subject to public comment, and pursuant to which the WSLCB has provided that it will not set a
limit on the number of marijuana retail licenses or a state cap on marijuana production space until a later
date; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane
Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other
regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing
land uses within the City; and
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a
moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a
public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim
official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning
ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing
body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the
governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing
body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning
ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six
months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing
such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official
control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and
findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;" and
WHEREAS, a moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method
by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be
rendered moot by intervening development; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a
moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a
public hearing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-880, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the
requirements of a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, the City is in the process of developing
comprehensive medical and recreational marijuana regulations. However, the Planning Commission and
City Council will not have an opportunity to fully consider and develop comprehensive marijuana policy
decisions that give adequate consideration to 2015 Marijuana Legislation, or to adopt such City regulations,
prior to October 12, 2015 when the WSLCB will begin accepting and processing additional marijuana retail
licenses; and
WHEREAS, new proposals for additional marijuana retail licenses that may be submitted
beginning October 12, 2015, pose an imminent threat to the public health and safety as they may create
incompatible land uses subject to the City's existing regulations which were premised, in part, on a total of
Ordinance 15-017 Page 3 of 6
three marijuana retail stores and a state cap on the maximum amount of marijuana production space, without
allowing the City to fully consider the impacts of the 2015 Marijuana Legislation or the WSLCB
Emergency Rules. Further, allowing an unknown number of marijuana retail licenses to vest or be located
within the City prior to completion of the City's review and development of its marijuana zoning and land
use regulations impairs the City's ability (1) to give full consideration to the 2015 Marijuana Legislation,
WSLCB Emergency Rules, and currently uncapped increase in marijuana retail stores and statewide
maximum marijuana production space, (2) to develop a reasoned approach to the public health, safety, and
welfare impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, and the currently
uncapped increase in the number of marijuana retail stores and statewide maximum marijuana production
space, and (3) to adopt appropriate comprehensive zoning and land use regulations governing medical and
recreational marijuana based upon the impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation and WSLCB
Emergency Rules; and
WHEREAS, additional time is necessary for Planning Commission and City Council (1) to give
full consideration to the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, and currently uncapped
increase in marijuana retail stores and statewide maximum marijuana production space, (2) to develop a
reasoned approach to the public health, safety, and welfare impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation,
WSLCB Emergency Rules, and the currently uncapped increase in the number of marijuana retail stores
and statewide maximum marijuana production space, and (3) to adopt appropriate comprehensive zoning
and land use regulations governing medical and recreational marijuana based upon the impacts from the
2015 Marijuana Legislation and WSLCB Emergency Rules; and
WHEREAS, Washington State law, including RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, authorizes
the City to adopt a moratorium, provided the City conducts a public hearing on the moratorium within 60
days of the date of adoption of the moratorium; and
WHEREAS, the City has authority to establish a moratorium concerning the establishment and
operation of licensed or registered marijuana uses as a necessary stop -gap measure: (1) to give full
consideration to the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, and currently uncapped
increase in marijuana retail stores and statewide maximum marijuana production space, (2) to develop a
reasoned approach to the public health, safety, and welfare impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation,
WSLCB Emergency Rules, and the currently uncapped increase in the number of marijuana retail stores
and statewide maximum marijuana production space, (3) to adopt appropriate comprehensive zoning and
land use regulations governing medical and recreational marijuana based upon the impacts from the 2015
Marijuana Legislation and WSLCB Emergency Rules, and (4) to avoid applicants possibly establishing
vested rights contrary to and inconsistent with any revisions the City may make for its rules and regulations;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the moratorium imposed and established by this Ordinance
is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety, public property and public
peace.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows:
Section 1. Preliminary Findings. The City Council hereby adopts the above recitals as
findings of fact in support of this Ordinance.
Section 2. Moratorium Established.
A. The City Council hereby declares and imposes a moratorium upon the submission,
acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for any new
licensed or registered marijuana use.
Ordinance 15-017 Page 4 of 6
B. For purposes of this moratorium, "licensed or registered marijuana use" means any
marijuana producers, marijuana processors, marijuana retailers, including any licensed retailer seeking a
medical marijuana endorsement, marijuana researcher, marijuana delivery or transportation by common
carrier between licensed facilities, marijuana cooperative, or other use that is required pursuant to chapters
69.50 and 69.51A RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC to be licensed by or registered with the WSLCB.
C. This moratorium shall not affect, and "licensed or registered marijuana use" shall not
include any personal possession or use of marijuana, marijuana -infused products, marijuana extracts,
marijuana concentrates, marijuana oils, or other form of product containing or derived from marijuana and
intended for human use by any person pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW or by any qualifying patient or
designated provider pursuant to chapter 69.51A RCW.
D. Nothing herein shall affect the processing or consideration of any existing and already -
submitted complete land -use or building permit applications that may be subject to vested rights as provided
under Washington law, or any processing or consideration of any land -use or building permit for a
marijuana producer, marijuana processor, or marijuana retailer that has, as of the date of this moratorium,
already received its license from the WSLCB and which permit application is for a modification or renewal
at the existing location listed on that license for that marijuana producer, processor, or retailer.
Section 3. Work Plan. The following work plan is adopted to address the issues involving
the City's regulation of, and the establishment of licensed or registered marijuana uses:
A. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission is hereby authorized and directed to
hold public hearings and public meetings to fully receive and consider statements, testimony, positions, and
other documentation or evidence related to the public health, safety, and welfare aspects of licensed or
registered marijuana uses.
B. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission is hereby authorized and directed to
work with City staff and the citizens of the City, as well as all public input received, to develop proposals
for regulations pertaining to the establishment of licensed or registered marijuana uses, giving full
consideration to the 2015 Marijuana Legislation and WSLCB Emergency Rules, and which regulations
may provide provisions restricting or limiting unlicensed marijuana use up to and including bans, to be
forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration.
Section 4. Public Hearing. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and 36.70A.390, the City Council
shall conduct a public hearing on October 27, 2015 at 6:00 p.rri., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, at the City of Spokane Valley City Hall, 11707 East Sprague, Spokane Valley, 99206, City Council
Chambers, to hear and consider the comments and testimony of those wishing to speak at such public
hearing regarding the moratorium set forth in this Ordinance.
The forth this d l 1 +
Section 5. Duration. moratorium set in �ili5 Ordinance shall b:, in effect as C the
date of this Ordinance and shall continue in effect for a period of 365 days from the date of this Ordinance,
unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of
appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390.
Section 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to the
effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this Ordinance.
Ordinance 15-017 Page 5 of 6
Section 8. Declaration of Emergency: Effective Date. This Ordinance is designated as a
public emergency necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare and therefore shall take
effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council.
Passed by the City Council this 6th day of October, 2015.
Dean Grafos, Ma or
ATTES
Cliristine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication: C tt L L/7( 46-
E ffe ctive
6Effective Date: October 6, 2015
Ordinance 15-017 Page 6 of 6
SUPERIOR COURT of WASHINGTON for SPOKANE COUNTY
In the Matter of
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
City of Spokane Valley
October 27, 2015
Marijuana Moratorium
STATE of WASHINGTON
County of Spokane
AFFIDAVIT of PUBLICATION
NO.
LEGAL NOTICE
MICHAEL HUFFMAN being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that he is the EDITOR of the Spokane Valley News
Herald, a weekly newspaper. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior
to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a weekly newspaper in Spokane
County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of
publication of said newspaper, which said newspaper had been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of
the State of Washington in and for Spokane County. That the following is a true copy of a Legal Notice as it was published in
regular issues commencing on the 9th day of October, 2015, and ending on the 23rd day of October, 2015, all dates inclusive,
and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period:
City o: Spokane Valley
Notice of Public Hearing
Pursuant to FCW 35A.63.220 and
26.70A300. and Section 4 of Ordinance
15-017. the Spokane Valley City Counel
wig conduct a public hearing Tuesday,
October 27, 2015, beginning at 5:00 p.m.
oras soon thereafter as possible, to receive
public input on the City's moratorium upon
the'estaotishment 01 all new marijuana
producers. marijuana processors, marijuana
retailers, marrprana researchers, marijuana
transport and delivery uses, end marijuana r11:I I I I
cooperatives, icenaed by or registered with t%,. c /////
• the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis \ A1� /
Board.' The moratorium was adopted :\ ........c•`�'//
pursuant 10 Ordinance 15-017, a copy al
rt' •••• lQ N £ •.• //
which is available upon request to the City V SS Xp� \
Clerk, and is also cn the City's website at \/ \ . '5%
crvmspokanevalley.org. Public input may ) /4. 0�
be made in person or in writing. Written 1 0 ��T A�1�J r
comme r$ should be submitted to the City •I O 1 •• p
Clerk and must be received prior to 5:00 • �+
p.m. October27. 2015. The public hear- Ps fBUG : O
Ing will be held in City Counol Chambers, • V
11707 Fast Sprague Avenue, Spokane n • • >l w
Valley. WA. 99206. NOTICE Individuals %` e•Y \C3 e° C.1
plannigtoattend themeeting who require 12")....•e. 05.16' •• .. .0::.special askance to accommodate physi• r f . ......... `,\ `�
cal, hearing, or other impairments. please 1!"......" `, \
as
contact
as CitposyiCe Clerk
at that(09) 720-5102
2 51022 ir, �ents qii ! IW PS 0
maybe made.
Christine Bainbridge, MMC
Spokane Valley City Clerk
Publish Dates: October 9. 16 and 23.
2015
SUB. :. -• • s,' WORN to before me
This 23rd da of October, 2015
State of Washington
County of Spokane
I certify that I know or have satisfactory, evidence that
Michael Huffman is the person who appeared before me,
and said person acknowledged that he signed this
instrument and acknowledged it to be his free and
voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the
instrum�tt
Jolene Rae We 1tz
Title: Notary Public
My appointment expires: 05-16-2019
Staff has conducted SEPA review and determined the ongoing moratorium to be categorically
exempt from SEPA pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(19).
Pursuant to state law and Ordinance No. 15-017, the City Council conducted a public hearing
on the moratorium on October 27, 2015. City Council heard comments from 11 interested
parties. As required by state law, the City Council is now considering the findings of fact
justifying the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-017 and the establishment of the moratorium.
The City will continue on the work plan in working through development and adoption of
appropriate City marijuana regulations.
OPTIONS: Move to approve Ordinance No. 15-020, with or without amendments; or take other
action deemed appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 15-020, adopting
findings of fact justifying the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-017 and the establishment of a
moratorium on new licensed or registered marijuana uses, to a second reading.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A.
STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 15-020
Ordinance No. 15-017
Notice of Public Hearing published on October 9, October 16, and October 23, 2015 in the
Spokane Valley News Herald.
Minutes of October 27, 2015 public hearing.
EXCERPT FROM OCTOBER 27, 2015 COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES:
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Marijuana Moratorium — Erik Lamb
Mayor Grafos opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Lamb went over the
background of the marijuana recreational/medical reconciliation, all as noted on his October 27, 2015
Request for Council Action form, including the Planning Commission's considerations of this issue, and
the effect of this moratorium, including what it would not affect; he explained that the moratorium will
have an impact on getting a new license as those applying will have to wait until permanent regulations are
adopted. Mr. Lamb said this moratorium would not have an impact on personal use. Mr. Lamb also noted
that state law allows this moratorium to be adopted without advance notice provided a public hearing is
held within sixty days; and said notice of tonight's hearing was published October 9, 16 and 23. Mayor
Grafos invited public comment.
1. Paul Lugo: said he feels the moratorium is almost pointless as the City passed the moratorium and there
were applications in process, but the City ignored those for the last four to six months as they have been
operating against the moratorium and they continue to produce and nothing's been done about it.
2. Jason Dixon: said he resides in Otis Orchards but owns a business on Indiana and his service is
exclusively medical marijuana; said this is all about the merger of medical and recreational marijuana and
he has an interest in preserving small business, and being anti -small business is anti-American; said there
are no limits on how many stores can sell beer and wine; and by doing this moratorium it opens the doors
to the black markets; said the amount of shops is already limited by state legislation; there are only five to
six medical dispensaries and once this all "pans out" it'll only mean five to six more shops; he asked Council
to lift the moratorium to save families and businesses; said brick and mortar businesses should be allowed
to receive their licenses as they will check for identification, as opposed to having this on the black market.
3. Pam Lemon: said she is involved in both medical and recreational businesses; has a mother who has
Alzheimer's and the research is very important; and she urged Council to look into the research.
4. Sean Green: said he is a business owner in Spokane Valley and as a business owner, is asking for help;
said the actions in the moratorium have a negative impact on his business; that it is Council's job to
represent the public and make informed decisions on behalf of the public; said the public doesn't want these
moratoriums; that over the last nineteen meetings, forty-seven people stood up against these moratoriums,
and fourteen asked to support two moratoriums; said if Council was doing its job, these moratoriums
wouldn't be in place; said there is no reason why a policy couldn't be addressed tonight as there is a room
full of people, and suggested everyone make some policy and clean up old business before the election.
5. Tara Harris: said she is a City citizen and has health concerns of the City and the citizens; that patients
now mostly are older people seeking legitimate safe medication as they are tired of taking opiates and
narcotics; said there is not a lot of good information out there for tourisms or those who are just now looking
into this; said we need to make sure they have access to those medications; that some patients find what
they need in recreational stores, but they are being taxed for that; said these people are desperate; that this
business supports tourism and is a great opportunity to promote these businesses as it will bring in a plethora
of resources and businesses buying supplies, food and gasoline; said it is a very valuable asset.
6. Linda Thompson: said she is with the Greater Substance Abuse Council and speaks in support of the
moratorium; said recreational marijuana works because we were able to take time to see how this works;
that she talks to citizens and it is very important to have voices heard; that there were lots of promises from
I502 and not all have been realized; said there are some funds from the Department of Health prevention
but not many; said there is very little prevention to be spread across this state as they talk to young people
about being drug free; said the retail system works and we know what's in that product, and that we want
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 10-27-2015
Approved by Council: 11-10-2015
to make sure the medical works the same way; that this was done very quickly by the Cannabis Board; and
said that there will be rules and regulations in the end and that she and others are talking to state legislators.
7. Justin Johnson: said he owns a medical shop here in town and has several hundred customers; said he is
against the moratorium and wants to see the medical and retail combined but done in a safe manner and
doesn't want to see these people back out on the streets; that he applied for a retail license here in Spokane
Valley; and said that most of his customers are fifty-five or older.
8. Scott Phillips: said he has a medical dispensary in the Valley; that he paid all the state and federal taxes
and followed all the rules with the Cannabis board; that he understands Council doesn't want stores
everywhere; but they are licensed and were here before the recreational stores, and said he doesn't see a
problem why they can't remain where they are; that his patients will have to go to the retail store or the
black market and the retail stores are not educated like the medical stores are; said his customers don't want
to get the wrong medicine, and don't want to go to a recreational store and stand next to someone who just
wants to get high; the medical stores are there to help people and he thinks the medical shops that are
following all the rules should have first consideration.
9. Nina Fluegal: said she lives in Spokane Valley; that she is not anti -pot but doesn't want Spokane Valley
to be the center of pot for Washington State, or even Spokane; said we haven't addressed the property
owners that will be near these places; that we need limits and the more limit the more control; said we are
trying to attract tourists and there are many who don't want to be next to marijuana stores.
10. Stephanie Feick: said she lives in Spokane; the medical dispensaries are already established here in the
Valley and it is important to keep in mind those already established stores.
11. Jaynes Johnson: said he lives in Spokane Valley; that the October 6 Council minutes had a statement
that the surgeon general hasn't supported medical marijuana; said that is easily researched and that
statement should be corrected; said when he was 19 and 20 years old, that he wasn't limited on alcohol
access and that is what we're looking at as it only takes a few minutes to drive across city limits; suggested
Council let the market factors work and if Council lifts the moratorium, there can be better control about
where the retail outlets will be.
There were no further public comments. Mayor Grafos closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. and called
for a short recess; he reconvened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 10-27-2015
Approved by Council: 11-10-2015
Meeting Date:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
November 17, 2015 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading of proposed Ordinance 15-021 amending chapter
2.65 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) relating to establishment and use of credit cards
and credit accounts.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 2.65 SVMC.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council heard an initial administrative report on
October 6, 2015, a second administrative report on October 20, 2015, and a first reading on
November 10, 2015.
BACKGROUND: The City has existing contracting and purchasing provisions, the majority of
which are primarily set forth in chapters 3.35, 3.40, 3.45, and 3.50 Spokane Valley Municipal
Code (SVMC). However, use of credit cards is set forth in chapter 2.65 SVMC. The City
undertook the review process of its purchasing and contracting regulations and procedures to
determine if further efficiencies could be found through revisions, to make the SVMC more user-
friendly for purchasing and contracting, and to ensure continued compliance with state and
federal requirements. Staff have proposed revising numerous SVMC contracting provisions as
part of that comprehensive purchasing and contracting review process. The majority of the
proposed changes are contained in Title 3 SVMC, and are addressed in proposed Ordinance
15-022, a companion to this Ordinance. Proposed Ordinance 15-021 contains several
proposed changes in chapter 2.65 SVMC relating to establishment and use of credit cards and
credit accounts.
The effective date is being set for May 1, 2016. This will give staff sufficient time to train all
employees on the new purchasing and contracting requirements in order to ensure compliance
once the new regulations, procedures, and policies become effective.
OPTIONS: (1) Move to approve Ordinance 15-021, with or without further amendments; or (2)
take other action as appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to approve proposed Ordinance 15-021
amending chapter 2.65 SVMC relating to establishment and use of credit cards and credit
accounts.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A.
STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; Cary Driskell, City Attorney, Chelsie
Taylor, Interim Finance Director, Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager.
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 15-021 amending chapter 2.65 SVMC relating to
establishment and use of credit cards and credit accounts.
Page 1 of 1
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 15-021
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 2.65 SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT AND USE OF CREDIT ACCOUNTS; AND OTHER
MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, Title 39 RCW authorizes a city to adopt policies and procedures within its
jurisdiction for contracting and purchasing, including the use of credit accounts; and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley previously adopted provisions to provide for use of
credit cards, codified in chapter 2.65 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC); and
WHEREAS, following an extensive analysis and reorganization of all City SVMC and
administrative provisions relating to purchasing, and in furtherance and contemplation of substantial
revisions to the SVMC relating to purchasing, the City has determined that it is appropriate and necessary
to revise the SVMC provisions relating to use of credit cards to include provisions for credit accounts and
to increase efficiency for both staff and the public with which the City contracts while utilizing credit
cards and credit accounts.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as
follows:
Section 1. Intent. The City of Spokane Valley declares that the intent of this Ordinance is to amend
chapter 2.65 SVMC relating to credit cards and credit accounts.
Section 2. Amending chapter 2.65 SVMC. Chapter 2.65 SVMC is amended as follows:
2.65.010 Definitions.
A. As used in this chapter, the term "credit card" means a card or device issued under an
arrangement pursuant to which the issuer (credit card company) gives to the card holder (the
City4 the privilege option toe€ obtaining credit from the issuer, usually at the point of sale.
B. As used in this chapter, the term "credit account" means an account established with a vendor
under an arrangement whereby the vendor extends to the City the option to obtain credit to
purchase goods from the vendor prior to payment.
C. As used in this chapter, the term "City Manager" means the City Manager or designee.
2.65.020 Issuance, use and control of credit cards.
The City adopts the following system for the issuance, use, and control of credit cards by City
officials and employees.
A. The City Managerfinance director is authorized to obtain City credit cards under the following
system, which provides for the distribution, authorization, control, credit limits, and payment of
bills through the use of the credit cards by City officials and employees.
Ordinance 15-021 Page 1 of 3
DRAFT
1. Issuance and Use. Credit cards may be issued to the City of Spokane Valley and used
by City officials and authorized employees for purchasing goods, supplies, and other
items from vendors or incurring registration, training, or travel expenses in connection
with the performance of their duties on behalf of the City.
2. Authorization and Control. Upon authorization from the eCity Manager manager or
designee, City employees may obtain credit cards from the finance directorCity Manager
who shall maintain a ledger of the individual receiving the credit card, including the date
the card was received. City Ceouncil members may obtain credit cards from the finance
directorCity Manager. The finance directorCity Manager shall implement accounting
controls to ensure the proper use of credit cards and credit card funds.
3. Credit Limits. The credit limit shall not exceed $510,000 per card.
4. Payment of Bills. The finance directorCity Manager shall establish a procedure for
the prompt payment of all credit card bills on or before the due date.
5. Unauthorized Charges. No official or employee shall use the City -issued credit card
for non -City business purposes. No charge(s) shall exceed amounts established and
available in the City budget.
6. Cash Advances. Cash advances on credit cards are prohibited.
B. Expenses incident to authorized travel may be charged to a City -issued credit card provided
the official or employee returns to the City with credit card receipts in accordance with the City
travel policies and procedures. An expense reimbursement form is also requireddesired. If
certain credit charges are disallowed as a result of audit or City policy, such charge mustshall be
repaid to the City, with the City having the right to withhold funds payable to the official or
employee up to the amount of the disallowed charge including interest at the rate charged by the
credit card company.
C. The Ceity Mfflanager is authorized to revoke the use of any ehargecredit card issued and
immediately require the surrender of the credit card. The city Mmanager may deliver a
revocation order to the charge card company with the City not being liable for any future costs
incurred after the date of revocation.
D. _The Ceity Mmanager is authorized to adopt any additional rules or policies necessary to
implement these provisions of the ordinance codified in this section.
2.65.030 Establishment, use, and control of credit accounts.
The City adopts the following system for the establishment, use, and control of credit accounts by
City employees.
A. The City Manager is authorized to establish City credit accounts under the following system,
which provides for the authorization, control, credit limits, and purchase of goods through the use
of the credit accounts by City employees.
1. Establishment and Use. Credit accounts may be established by the City of Spokane
Valley and used by City authorized employees for purchasing goods, equipment, and
supplies from vendors for City purposes.
Ordinance 15-021 Page 2 of 3
DRAFT
2. Authorization, Application, and Control. Upon authorization from the department
director, City employees may apply to vendors to establish credit accounts. All
applications shall be signed by the City Manager. The City Manager shall implement
accounting controls to ensure the proper use of credit accounts.
3. Credit Limits. The credit limit shall not exceed $10,000 per account.
4. Payment of Bills. The City Manager shall establish a procedure for the prompt
payment of all credit account bills on or before the due date. All credit account bills shall
be paid within the same fiscal year in which the bill was incurred.
5. Unauthorized Charges. No employee shall use a City credit account for non -City
business purposes. No charge(s) shall exceed amounts established and available in the
City budget.
B. The City Manager is authorized to suspend the use of any credit account or to suspend any
employee from using credit account(s).
C. The City Manager is authorized to adopt any additional rules or policies necessary to
implement these provisions.
Section 3. Severability. If any part of chapter 2.65 SVMC is declared unenforceable, invalid, or
unconstitutional, such unenforceability, invalidity, or unconstitutionality shall not affect the
enforceability, validity, or constitutionality of the remainder.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on May 1, 2016, before which the City
shall publish the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City.
Adopted this
ATTEST:
day of ,2015.
City of Spokane Valley
Dean Grafos, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 15-021 Page 3 of 3
Meeting Date:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
November 17, 2015 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second reading of proposed Ordinance 15-022 repealing chapters
3.35, 3.40, 3.45, and 3.50 SVMC; amending SVMC 3.30.030; adopting new chapters 3.35, 3.40,
3.41, 3.42, 3.45, 3.46, 3.47, 3.48, and 3.49 SVMC.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Numerous chapters of Title 39 RCW, including chapter 39.04
RCW, chapter 39.08 RCW, chapter 39.12 RCW, and chapter 39.80 RCW; numerous chapters
of Title 3 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), including chapter 3.35 SVMC, chapter 3.40
SVMC, chapter 3.45 SVMC, and chapter 3.50 SVMC.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council adopted comprehensive contracting and
purchasing regulations in 2007. City Council heard an initial administrative report on October 6,
2015, a second administrative report on October 20, 2015, and a first reading on November 10,
2015.
BACKGROUND: The City has existing contracting and purchasing provisions which are
primarily set forth in chapters 3.35, 3.40, 3.45, and 3.50 Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC). These chapters govern general contracting authority for the City Manager, certain
bidding requirements for public work contracts, acquisition and disposition of real property, use
of the small works roster, procurement of architectural and engineering services in conjunction
with the requirements of state law, and non-public work purchases or contracts for services and
public work contracts less than $50,000. The City undertook a review process of its purchasing
and contracting regulations and procedures to determine if further efficiencies could be found
through revisions, to make the SVMC more user-friendly for purchasing and contracting, and to
ensure continued compliance with state and federal requirements.
Staff is now presenting the results of the review and discussions of a comprehensive proposal
to revise numerous sections of Title 3 SVMC related to purchasing and contracting. The
changes proposed to Title 3 SVMC were discussed in detail with Council at its October 6 and
October 20 meetings.
Pursuant to the discussion on October 20, staff made amendments to the proposed draft
ordinance incorporating Council's requested changes to raise the level to $15,000 under which
no competitive process is required, but is still recommended. The threshold amount is not
required by state law and so Council may set this at an amount it feels is appropriate.
The effective date is being set for May 1, 2016. This will give staff sufficient time to train all
employees on the new purchasing and contracting requirements in order to ensure compliance
once the new regulations, procedures, and policies become effective.
OPTIONS: (1) Move to approve Ordinance 15-022 with or without further amendments; or (2)
take other action as appropriate.
Page 1 of 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to approve proposed Ordinance 15-022
repealing chapters 3.35, 3.40, 3.45, and 3.50 SVMC; amending SVMC 3.30.030; and adopting
new chapters 3.35, 3.40, 3.41, 3.42, 3.45, 3.46, 3.47, 3.48, and 3.49 SVMC.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A.
STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; Cary Driskell, City Attorney, Chelsie
Taylor, Interim Finance Director, Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager.
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Ordinance 15-022 repealing chapters 3.35, 3.40, 3.45, and 3.50 SVMC; amending
SVMC 3.30.030; adopting new chapters 3.35, 3.40, 3.41, 3.42, 3.45, 3.46, 3.47, 3.48, and 3.49
SVMC.
Page 2 of 2
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 15-022
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE (SVMC) 3.30.030
RELATING TO A PETTY CASH; REPEALING CHAPTERS 3.35, 3.40, 3.45, AND 3.50 SVMC;
ADOPTING CHAPTER 3.35 SVMC RELATING TO GENERAL CONTRACT AUTHORITY,
ADOPTING CHAPTERS 3.40, 3.41, AND 3.42 SVMC RELATING TO CONTRACTING FOR
PUBLIC WORK; ADOPTING CHAPTERS 3.45 AND 3.46 SVMC RELATING TO
CONTRACTING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES; ADOPTING CHAPTERS 3.47 AND 3.48
SVMC RELATING TO PURCHASE OF GOODS; ADOPTING CHAPTER 3.49 SVMC
RELATING TO ACQUISITION/DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY AND DISPOSITION OF
PERSONAL PROPERTY; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, Title 39 RCW authorizes a city to adopt policies and procedures within its
jurisdiction for contracting and purchasing; and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley previously adopted provisions in the Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC) to provide for contracting and purchasing on behalf of the City; and
WHEREAS, following an extensive analysis and reorganization of all City Code and
administrative provisions relating to purchasing, the City has determined that it is appropriate and
necessary to revise the SVMC provisions to reflect changes in state law and to increase efficiency for
both staff and the public with which the City contracts.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as
follows:
Section 1. Intent. The City of Spokane Valley declares that the intent of this Ordinance is to repeal
chapters 3.35, 3.40, 3.45, and 3.50 SVMC in their entirety; to amend SVMC 3.30.030; and adopt new
chapters 3.35, 3.40, 3.41, 3.42, 3.45, 3.46, 3.47, 3.48, and 3.49 SVMC.
Section 2. Repealing Chapters 3.35, 3.40, 3.45, and 3.50 SVMC. Chapters 3.35, 3.40, 3.45, and
3.50 SVMC are hereby repealed in their entirety.
Section 3. Amending SVMC 3.30.030. SVMC 3.30.030 is amended as follows:
3.30.030 General fund petty cash account established.
The Ceity Mfaanager or designee is hereby authorized to establish a general fund petty cash
account in such amounts as the Ceity Mmanager may from time -to -time, in writing, determine
necessary for the efficient handling of the purposes for which the accountfund is established, but
not to exceed $1,000. This accoungeftEl is established to facilitate minor authorized
disbursements and the making of change. _The accountfund shall be administered by the city
manager, finance director or designees of the same, in accordance with adopted administrative
policiesrules or policies providing for such lawful administration.
Ordinance 15-022 Page 1 of 16
DRAFT
Section 4. Adopting chapter 3.35 SVMC. A new chapter 3.35 SVMC is hereby adopted as follows:
3.35.005 Definitions.
The terms defined in this section shall apply to SVMC 3.35, 3.40, 3.41, 3.42, 3.45, 3.46, 3.47,
3.48, and 3.49 and shall have the following meanings:
"Architectural and engineering services" means professional services rendered by any person,
other than an employee of the City, contracting to perform activities within the scope of the
general definition of professional practice in Chapter 18.08, 18.43, or 18.96 RCW.
"Bid" means an offer submitted by a bidder to furnish services, labor, supplies, materials, goods,
equipment, and other property in conformity with the specifications, delivery terms, and
conditions, and other requirements included in the invitation for bids or otherwise required by the
City.
"Bid bond" means a bond or other appropriate bid proposal deposit as approved in advance by the
City, the purpose of which is to provide security to the City in the event the successful bidder
fails to enter into a contract with the City.
"Bidder" means a firm or individual who regularly maintains a place of business, transacts
business, solicits business, or maintains an inventory of merchandise for sale in, and whose
business is registered with the City and who submits or has submitted a bid to the City.
"Bidding" means the procedure used to solicit quotations on price and delivery from prospective
suppliers of contractual services, materials, goods, and equipment which can be through either a
formal or informal competitive bid process.
"Capital equipment" means any equipment of the City having an initial value of $5,000 or more
and an estimated useful life of three or more years.
"Change orders" and "requests for additional work" mean a request for additional or alternative
services, work or procurement where there are changed conditions, a requirement that extra work
or service be performed, or such other circumstances that necessitate a modification to the
contract, and where such additional or alternative services, work, or procurement is in the best
interest of the City.
"City Manager" means the City Manager or designee.
"City property" means any property or equity interest in real or personal property held or owned
by the City.
"Consultant" means any person providing professional services to the City who is not an
employee of the City.
"Contractual services" means services provided by professional and general service contracts to
accomplish a particular project or service.
"Person" means any individual, organization, group, association, partnership, firm, joint venture,
corporation, or any combination thereof.
Ordinance 15-022 Page 2 of 16
DRAFT
"Public work" has the meaning set forth in RCW 39.04.010, as adopted or may be amended.
"Purchase" means the acquisition of supplies, materials, goods or equipment, and other property.
"Purchase order" means a written authorization calling on a vendor or supplier to furnish
supplies, materials, goods, equipment, and other personal property to the City with a promise for
payment to be made later.
"Purchasing agent" means a person who purchases supplies, materials, goods, equipment, and
other property on behalf of the City.
"Requisition" means a standard form providing detailed information as to quantity, description.
estimated price, possible vendors, fund account, signature, and other information necessary to
make purchasing decisions.
"Responsible bidder" means a bidder who meets the requirements set forth in RCW 39.04.350 as
adopted or may be amended. Additionally, a bidder shall prove by experience or information
furnished to the satisfaction of the City Manager that current financial resources, production or
service facilities, service reputation and experience are adequate to make satisfactory delivery of
supplies of acceptable quality, equipment, or contractual services and who has not violated or
attempted to violate any provision of this Chapter. In addition to price, the City shall take into
account the following when determining the responsible bidder:
1. The ability, capacity, and skill of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the
service required;
2. The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience, and efficiency of the bidder;
3. Whether the contractor can perform the required work within the time specified by the
City;
4. Quality of the contractor's performance under previous contracts with the City or other
governmental entity; and
5. The previous and existing compliance by the contractor with laws relating to contracts
or services with the City.
The five supplemental criteria described above shall be included in the documents for all bids so
prospective bidders may be aware of such supplemental criteria. The City may include additional
supplemental criteria as provided in RCW 39.04.350 for particular projects as is determined
necessary.
3.35.010 Contract authority.
A. The City Manager is authorized to enter into contracts, contract modifications, or change
orders without City Council approval when the aggregate amount of the contract and all existing
contract amendments or change orders does not exceed $200,000, except pursuant to SVMC
3.35.010(C).
B. Any contract, contract amendment, and/or change order in excess of the City Manager's
authority shall require prior approval of the City Council.
C. On contracts for which prior City Council approval is required and received, the City Manager
shall have authority to execute any amendments or change orders which, when aggregated, are
less than 15 percent of the original contract amount, or up to $200,000, whichever is less.
Ordinance 15-022 Page 3 of 16
DRAFT
D. The City Council Finance Committee is authorized to approve change orders on short notice
that are in excess of the amounts authorized in SVMC 3.35.010(C), in circumstances where such
a change order is necessary to avoid a substantial risk of harm to the City. In such an event, the
City Manager shall provide appropriate information to the City Council at its next regular
meeting setting forth the factual basis for the action.
E. Change orders shall only be approved if they are for additional or alternative services, work or
procurements that are within the scope of purpose and intent of the original bid and contract.
3.35.020 Rules and policy.
The City Manager may develop rules, policies, and procedures to implement this chapter.
3.35.030 Administration.
Under the direction of the City Manager, the contracting and purchasing procedures shall be
administered pursuant to chapters 3.35 through 3.49 SVMC and other applicable laws, including
all applicable state and federal laws. The City Manager shall have the responsibility to:
A. Administer and maintain the contracting process and the purchasing system according to the
rules and regulations established or authorized by applicable ordinances and statutes.
B. Coordinate the negotiation, purchase, and disposition of all City supplies, materials, and
equipment in consultation with City staff.
C. Seek to obtain a competitive price on all City contracts or purchases by bidding, submitting
requests for proposals and qualifications, using a Small Works Roster, Consultant Roster, and
Vendor List, or negotiating on such contracts or purchases as appropriate, unless otherwise
specifically excluded in chapters 3.35 through 3.49 SVMC.
D. Prescribe and maintain such administrative policies, procedures, and forms as are reasonably
necessary to implement chapters 3.35 through 3.49 SVMC.
E. Coordinate the inspection of all City -purchased equipment to ensure conformance with
specifications.
F. Ensure that the Small Works Roster(s), Consultant Roster(s), Vendors List(s), and other
records needed for the efficient operation of the purchasing system are maintained.
G. Maintain the property inventory and fixed asset systems of the City.
H. Determine the need for any routine preventive maintenance contracts on various pieces of
equipment, and to establish and maintain said maintenance contracts.
I. Periodically prepare a comprehensive list of surplus, worn out, or obsolete City -owned
equipment. Items which cannot be used or reassigned to another department shall be
recommended for disposal pursuant to SVMC 3.49.020.
3.35.040 Prohibited practices.
Ordinance 15-022 Page 4 of 16
DRAFT
The following types of purchasing and bidding practices are hereby prohibited and may result in
disqualification of the bid, proposal, or procurement quote:
A. Collusion Among Bidders. Any agreement or collusion among bidders, prospective bidders,
vendors or prospective vendors to either buy or sell or fix prices in restraint of free competition.
Such bidders or vendors may be subject to exclusion from future bidding or procurement
processes with the City when determined by the City Manager to be in the best interests of the
City.
B. Disclosure of Formal Bid Contents. Any disclosure of information contained in the sealed bid
prior to bid opening. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, all bids submitted by
bidders taking advantage of any information revealed contrary to SVMC 3.35.040 shall become
null and void.
C. Gratuities. In accordance with high standards of behavior, the acceptance of any gift or
gratuity in the form of cash, merchandise, or any other thing of value by an official or employee
of the City from any bidder, vendor or contractor, or prospective bidder, vendor, or contractor.
D. Employee -Owned Businesses. Obtaining City goods or services from businesses in which
City officials, employees, or their immediate family members have a majority ownership interest
or otherwise exceed the "interests" pursuant to chapter 42.23 RCW.
E. Sale of Materials and Supplies. The City acquiring goods or services for any private party, or
selling its materials or supplies to City officials, employees or the public except when such
materials have been declared surplus and disposed of pursuant to chapter 3.49 SVMC.
Section 5. Adopting chapter 3.40 SVMC. A new chapter 3.40 SVMC is hereby adopted as follows:
3.40.010 Competitive bidding — Public work in excess of $300,000.
For public work contracts in excess of $300,000, the following competitive bid process shall be
used. When using federal funds, the City shall also comply with all mandatory federal
requirements.
A. Publication of Notice. Sealed bids shall be invited by a single publication in a newspaper of
general circulation at least 13 days before the date and time set for receiving such bids, and shall
include an estimate of the probable cost, together with a description of the work, and shall state
that plans/specifications may be obtained from the City, and include the manner, place, date, and
time for submitting a bid to the City. The City Clerk shall also post notice of the request in a
public place.
B. Rejection of Bids. The City Manager may reject, without cause, any and all bids and may re -
advertise for bids pursuant to the procedures herein described. If no bids are received on the first
call or any subsequent re -advertisement, the City Manager may negotiate a contract with a
contractor at the lowest cost possible to the City.
C. Performance and Payment Bonds. Before entering into a contract for any public work or
work by contract on which prevailing wage is required to be paid, regardless of the amount of
such contract except as provided below, a performance bond and a payment bond shall be
required in such amounts as are reasonably necessary to protect the best interests of the City and
to ensure complete, proper and full performance of the contract and full payment of all laborers,
Ordinance 15-022 Page 5 of 16
DRAFT
mechanics, and subcontractors and material suppliers. A performance bond and a payment bond
shall be required on all public work projects pursuant to RCW 39.08.010 through 39.08.030, as
adopted or amended. Performance and payment bonds shall be released upon completion of all
necessary performance and payment conditions.
For public works and works by contract on which prevailing wage is required to be paid under
$35,000, solely at the contractor's option, the City may, in lieu of requiring payment and
performance bonds, retain 50% of the contract amount until the later of 30 days after final
acceptance or until receipt of all necessary releases from the Washington State Department of
Revenue, the Employment Security Department, and the Washington State Department of Labor
and Industries and settlement of any labor, material, or tax liens filed pursuant to chapter 60.28
RCW. Retainage in lieu of payment and performance bonds shall only be used for contracts
where the requirement of bonds substantially increases the cost of the contract.
D. Bid Bonds. As a condition of bidding, a bid bond in the amount of five percent of the bid
amount shall be required. Such bid bond shall be required on all formally bid public work
construction projects, and shall be due at such time as the bid is submitted to the City. When the
contract is let, all bid bonds shall be returned to the bidders except that of the successful bidder,
which shall be retained until a contract is entered into and a bond to perform the work furnished
as provided above. If the successful bidder fails to enter into the contract in accordance with the
bid within 10 days from the date at which the bidder is notified of bid award, the bid bond shall
be forfeited.
E. Award of Bid. Except as otherwise provided herein, the City will accept the bid of the lowest
responsible bidder.
F. Award to Other Than Low Bidder. When the bid award is not given to the lowest responsible
bidder, a full and complete statement of the reasons shall be prepared by the City Manager and
placed in the City file relating to the transaction.
3.40.020 Exemptions to competitive bidding requirements.
The following types of purchases are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. The factual
basis for any purchase deemed exempt pursuant to SVMC 3.40.020(A) -(C) shall be filed with the
contract with the City Clerk and shall be open to public inspection.
A. Sole Source or Equipment Repair. Purchases which by their nature are not adapted to
competitive bidding, such as purchases which are clearly and legitimately limited to a single
source, and contracts to repair equipment owned by the City which may be more efficiently
accomplished by a certain person or firm with previous experience on the equipment.
B. Special Facilities or Market Conditions. Purchases involving special facilities or market
conditions that generally relate to acquisition of unique facilities that may be specially
manufactured or not otherwise generally available. Special market conditions may require
immediate acquisition based upon a favorable offer, including, but not limited to, liquidation
sales, public or private party offers, and similar circumstances where the acquisition can be
obtained at below-market value.
C. Emergency Public Work Projects. In the event that an emergency should arise which requires
immediate action on the part of the City to protect the health, safety, or welfare of the citizens of
the City and where it is not possible to timely adhere to the bidding practices set forth above, the
Ordinance 15-022 Page 6 of 16
DRAFT
person authorized by state law or otherwise designated by the City Council to act in the event of
an emergency may declare an emergency situation exists, waive competitive bidding
requirements, and award all necessary contracts to address the emergency situation. If a contract
is awarded pursuant to this subsection without bidding due to an emergency, a written finding of
the existence of an emergency shall be made by the governing body or its designee and duly
entered of record no later than two weeks following the award of the contract.
For purposes of this subsection, an emergency means unforeseen circumstances beyond the
control of the City that either: (1) present a real immediate threat to the proper performance of
essential functions; or (2) will likely result in material loss or damage to property, bodily injury,
or loss of life if immediate action is not taken.
D. Auction. The purchase of supplies, materials, or equipment not exceeding a cost of $200,000
through auctions conducted by the government of the United States or any agency thereof, any
agency of the state of Washington, any municipality or other government agency, or any private
party, may be authorized by the City Manager if the item may be obtained at a competitive cost.
E. Exchanges. By mutual agreement, the City may exchange supplies, materials, services, or
equipment with other public agencies.
Section 6. Adopting chapter 3.41 SVMC. A new chapter 3.41 SVMC is hereby adopted as follows:
3.41.010 Small Works Roster.
The City Clerk shall maintain one or more Small Works Rosters comprised of contractors who
(1) have requested to be on the roster, and (2) are properly licensed or registered to perform
contracting work in the state of Washington. A Small Works Roster may be used in lieu of
formal sealed competitive bid procedures to award contracts for public work where the estimated
cost of the Work is $300,000 or less. Small Works Rosters shall be maintained pursuant to the
laws of the state of Washington as now enacted or hereafter amended.
3.41.020 Creation of separate Small Works Rosters.
The City may elect to establish Small Works Rosters for different specialties or categories of
anticipated work with such rosters making distinctions between contractors based upon such
specialties or work.
3.41.030 Maintenance of Small Works Roster.
Small Works Rosters shall be maintained as follows:
A. At least once per year, the City Clerk shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation a
notice of the existence of the Small Works Roster(s) and soliciting the names of contractors for
such Small Works Roster(s). The City Clerk shall place on each Small Works Roster the names
of qualified contractors who respond to the published notice requesting to be included on each
Small Works Roster. Thereafter, the City Clerk shall add to each Small Works Roster the names
of contractors who submit a written request and appropriate records.
B. In order to be included on a Small Works Roster, the contractor shall supply information on a
contractor qualification form developed by the City. The contractor qualification form shall
Ordinance 15-022 Page 7 of 16
DRAFT
include, at a minimum, the name, address, e-mail address and phone number of the contractor, the
contractor's Washington registration number, the contractor's insurance company, the
contractor's bonding company, and the contractor's area or areas of work.
3.41.040 Use of Small Works Rosters.
A. The City may utilize a Small Works Roster when seeking to construct any public work or
improvement with an estimated cost including labor, material, supplies, and equipment, of
$300,000 or less.
B. Procedures shall be established for securing quotations from contractors on the appropriate
Small Works Roster to ensure that a competitive price is established and to award contracts to the
lowest responsible bidder, as provided in SVMC 3.41.040(C). Invitations for bids shall include
the scope and nature of the work to be performed as well as materials and equipment to be
furnished. Detailed plans and specifications need not be included in the invitation. Quotations
shall be invited from all appropriate contractors on the appropriate Small Works Roster.
C. When awarding a contract for work from a Small Works Roster, the City shall award the
contract to the lowest responsible bidder. However, the City reserves the right under applicable
law to reject any or all bids and to waive procedural irregularities in the bid or bidding process.
D. The City may receive bids in writing, which may be submitted electronically. The time and
date of receipt shall be recorded to ensure all bids are presented in a timely fashion for review and
consideration. After expiration of the time and date for submission of all bids or quotations, the
City shall review the bids submitted and either offer a contract to perform the public work or
reject all bids.
E. The City shall post on the City's website a list of the contracts awarded pursuant to chapter
3.41 SVMC at least once every year. The list shall contain the name of the contractor or vendor
awarded the contract, the amount of the contract, a brief description of the type of work
performed or items purchased under the contract and the date it was awarded. The list shall also
state the location where the bid quotations for these contracts are available for public inspection.
F. A contract awarded from a Small Works Roster under this Chapter need not be advertised in a
legal newspaper of general circulation. Immediately after an award is made, the bid quotations
shall be recorded, open to public inspection, and available by telephone inquiry.
G. Performance and Payment Bonds. Before entering into a contract for any public work or
work by contract on which prevailing wage is required to be paid, regardless of the amount of
such contract except as provided below, a performance bond and a payment bond shall be
required in such amounts as are reasonably necessary to protect the best interests of the City and
to ensure complete, proper and full performance of the contract and full payment of all laborers,
mechanics, and subcontractors and material suppliers. A performance bond and a payment bond
shall be required on all public work projects, as provided for and in the manner set forth in RCW
39.08.010 through 39.08.030, as adopted or amended. Performance and payment bonds shall be
released upon completion of all necessary performance and payment conditions.
For public works and works by contract on which prevailing wage is required to be paid under
$35,000, solely at the contractor's option, the City may, in lieu of requiring payment and
performance bonds, retain 50% of the contract amount until the later of 30 days after final
acceptance or until receipt of all necessary releases from the Washington State Department of
Ordinance 15-022 Page 8 of 16
DRAFT
Revenue, the Employment Security Department, and the Washington State Department of Labor
and Industries and settlement of any labor, material, or tax liens filed pursuant to chapter 60.28
RCW. Retainage in lieu of payment and performance bonds shall only be used for contracts
where the requirement of bonds substantially increases the cost of the contract.
Section 7. Adopting chapter 3.42 SVMC. A new chapter 3.42 SVMC is hereby adopted as follows:
SVMC 3.42.010 Public work equal to or less than $40,000 for one trade and $65,000 for two
or more trades and treater than $15,000.
When entering into a contract for public work equal to or less than $40,000 if only one trade or
craft is involved, or $65,000 if two or more trades are involved, but greater than $15,000, the
responsible department shall obtain three or more proposals for the public work required, select
the lowest responsible proposal, and maintain a record of the process followed. Alternatively, the
department may utilize the Small Works Roster and process pursuant to chapter 3.41 SVMC. If
less than three proposals are received, City staff shall not be required to resubmit for additional
proposals, but shall select from the proposals submitted. If no proposals are received, City staff
shall not be required to resubmit for additional proposals, but may negotiate with any available
contractor.
SVMC 3.42.020 Public work equal to or less than $15,000.
When entering into a contract for public work in an amount equal to or less than $15,000, the
responsible department is encouraged, but is not required, to use a competitive bidding process,
including obtaining three proposals pursuant to SVMC 3.42.010, or using the Small Works
Roster and process pursuant to chapter 3.41 SVMC. If a competitive process is not utilized, the
responsible department shall seek to achieve maximum quality at minimum cost by making an
award based on its experience and knowledge of the market.
SVMC 3.42.030 Exception to selection processes.
If a situation should arise which requires immediate action on the part of the City to protect the
best interests of the City or the health, safety or welfare of the citizens of the City, and where it is
not possible to timely adhere to the procedures set forth in SVMC 3.42.010 and SVMC 3.42.020,
the selection procedures set forth in chapter 3.42 SVMC may, with prior approval of the City
Manager, be waived by the department director, and the contract may be awarded without
following the procedures set forth in SVMC 3.42.010 and 3.42.020. The circumstances giving
rise to such waiver shall be documented in writing.
SVMC 3.42.040 Performance and payment bonds.
Before entering into a contract for any public work or work by contract on which prevailing wage
is required to be paid, regardless of the amount of such contract except as provided below, a
performance bond and a payment bond shall be required in such amounts as are reasonably
necessary to protect the best interests of the City and to ensure complete, proper and full
performance of the contract and full payment of all laborers, mechanics, and subcontractors and
material suppliers. A performance bond and a payment bond shall be required on all public work
projects, pursuant to and in the manner set forth in RCW 39.08.010 through 39.08.030, as
adopted or amended. Performance and payment bonds shall be released upon completion of all
necessary performance and payment conditions.
Ordinance 15-022 Page 9 of 16
DRAFT
For public works and works by contract on which prevailing wage is required to be paid under
$35,000, solely at the contractor's option, the City may, in lieu of requiring payment and
performance bonds, retain 50% of the contract amount until the later of 30 days after final
acceptance or until receipt of all necessary releases from the Washington State Department of
Revenue, the Employment Security Department, and the Washington State Department of Labor
and Industries and settlement of any labor, material, or tax liens filed pursuant to chapter 60.28
RCW. Retainage in lieu of payment and performance bonds shall only be used for contracts
where the requirement of bonds substantially increases the cost of the contract.
Section 8. Adopting chapter 3.45 SVMC. A new chapter 3.45 SVMC is hereby adopted as follows:
3.45.010 Consultant Roster for Architectural and En2ineerin2 Services.
Annually, or in response to specific projects or work as set forth below, the City shall encourage,
through notice published in a newspaper of general circulation, architectural and engineering
firms to submit a statement of qualifications and performance data which can be used to select
firms that provide services to the City. The City Clerk shall maintain the Consultant Roster for
Architectural and Engineering Services, to be called the "Consultant Roster for Architectural and
Engineering Services" or such other title as may be appropriate, and shall further maintain all
statements of qualifications submitted, all of which shall be available for public inspection. The
City Manager shall establish procedures for the maintenance and use of the Consultant Roster.
3.45.020 Selection Process — Consultant Roster for Architectural and En2ineerin2 Services
for contracts up to $100,000; Request for Qualifications for contracts over $100,000.
A. For contracts up to $100,000, the City may use the Consultant Roster for Architectural and
Engineering Services, or may use the formal request for qualifications process pursuant to SVMC
3.45.020(B), to select a consultant.
B. For contracts over $100,000, the City shall, at least 13 days prior to contracting for
architectural or engineering services, publish a notice stating the specific project or scope of work
or announce generally the category or type of professional services required. The notice shall
contain the name and address of a City representative who can provide information and details on
the request for qualifications or request for proposals.
3.45.030 Procurement of architectural and engineering services.
A. The City shall utilize the following process for procurement of architectural and engineering
services:
1. If the City elects to use the Consultant Roster for Architectural and Engineering
Services, the City shall review the current statements of qualifications on file with the
City Clerk, and shall conduct discussions with one or more firms regarding anticipated
scope of services and the consultant's ability to provide such services. If the City elects
to use a combination of consultants from the Consultant Roster for Architectural and
Engineering Services and a more formal request for qualifications process, the City shall
review both current statements on file and statements submitted in response to the notice
for the request for qualifications.
Ordinance 15-022 Page 10 of 16
DRAFT
2. If the City elects to use the more formal request for qualifications process, the City
shall review statements submitted in response to the notice pursuant to SVMC
3.45.020(B) and shall conduct discussions with one or more firms regarding anticipated
scope of services and the consultant's ability to provide such services.
3. The City may conduct interviews with the top three qualified consultants on non -
federally funded projects. The City shall conduct interviews with the top three qualified
consultants on federally funded projects.
B. The City shall select the most highly qualified firm to provide the services based upon the
criteria set forth below and in the request. The evaluation criteria include, but are not limited to:
1. The ability of the firm to provide the requested services;
2. The scope of work or methods to furnish the services;
3. Qualifications, experience, and references;
4. Performance under previous contracts with the City; and
5. Such other information as deemed relevant.
After identification of the most highly qualified firm, the City shall request a fee proposal from
the firm and thereafter proceed to negotiate a contract at a price which is determined by the City
to be fair and reasonable. In making this determination, the City shall evaluate the estimated
value of the services, the scope, complexity, and nature of the request. If the City is unable to
negotiate a fair and reasonable price for services, negotiations shall be terminated and the next
most qualified firm shall be selected.
C. When the parties have reached a fair and reasonable price, and depending upon the amount of
the contract, the City Manager, or when appropriate the City Council, shall review and, if they so
choose, authorize the contract. During the negotiation process, the selected firm shall not contact
any member of the City Council to discuss the fee for services unless otherwise authorized.
The City reserves the right to cancel any request for qualifications or proposals. The request for
qualifications or proposals shall not be deemed an offer of contract nor shall any firm be entitled
to recover any cost associated with preparing a response.
3.45.040 Emer2encv and limitation.
Nothing contained herein shall limit or prevent the City from procuring architectural or
engineering services in the event of an emergency. Chapter 3.45 SVMC shall be expressly
limited to the professional services identified herein.
Section 9. Adopting chapter 3.46 SVMC. A new chapter 3.46 SVMC is hereby adopted as follows:
SVMC 3.46.010 Contracts for Services.
A. Chapter 3.46 SVMC shall not apply to architectural and engineering services, the
procurement of which is governed by SVMC 3.45.
Ordinance 15-022 Page 11 of 16
DRAFT
B. When entering into a contract for services where the contract is expected to exceed
$100,000 or is expected to be effective for more than one year, a competitive selection process
shall be used. This process may include a "Request for Qualifications" or "Request for
Proposals" process or formal competitive bidding procedures pursuant to SVMC 3.40.010.
C. When entering into a contract for services where the contract is not expected to exceed
$100,000, is expected to be greater than $15000, and is not expected to be effective for more than
one year, the responsible department shall obtain three or more proposals for the services
required, select the lowest responsible proposal, and maintain a record of the process followed.
The responsible department may use the Consultant Roster pursuant to SVMC 3.46.020 to obtain
proposals. When contracting for services which have historically and traditionally been
considered professional services, such as attorneys and accountants, the responsible department
may, when determined to be in the best interest of the City, obtain such services by negotiation
without obtaining three proposals.
D. When entering into a contract for services where the contract is not expected to exceed
$15,000 and is not expected to be effective for more than one year, the responsible department is
encouraged, but is not required, to use a competitive selection process, such as obtaining three
proposals pursuant to SVMC 3.46.010(C). If a competitive process is not utilized, the responsible
department shall seek to achieve maximum quality at minimum cost by making an award based
on its experience and knowledge of the market.
SVMC 3.46.020 Consultant Roster for Non -Architectural and Engineering Services.
Annually, or in response to specific projects or work as set forth above, the City shall encourage,
through notice published in a newspaper of general circulation, non -architectural and engineering
firms to submit a statement of qualifications which can be used to select firms that provide
services to the City. The City Clerk shall maintain the Consultant Roster for Non -Architectural
and Engineering Services, to be called the "Consultant Roster for Non -Architectural and
Engineering Services" or such other title as may be appropriate, and further shall maintain all
statements of qualifications submitted, all of which shall be available for public inspection. The
City Manager shall establish procedures for the maintenance and use of the Consultant Roster for
Non -Architectural and Engineering Services.
SVMC 3.46.030 Exception to selection processes.
If a situation should arise which requires immediate action on the part of the City to protect the
best interests of the City or the health, safety or welfare of the citizens of the City, and where it is
not possible to timely adhere to the procedures set forth in SVMC 3.46.010, the selection
procedures set forth in this chapter may, with prior approval of the City Manager, be waived by
the department director, and the contract may be awarded without following the procedures set
forth in SVMC 3.46.010. The circumstances giving rise to such waiver shall be documented in
writing within 14 days.
Section 10. Adopting chapter 3.47 SVMC. A new chapter 3.47 SVMC is hereby adopted as follows:
SVMC 3.47.010 Purchases of 2oods greater than $40,000.
Ordinance 15-022 Page 12 of 16
DRAFT
A. When making a purchase of goods, equipment, or supplies in excess of $40,000, the
responsible department shall, at least 13 days prior to purchasing such goods, publish a notice of
request for bids stating the written specifications of the goods required and desire of the City to
purchase such goods. The notice shall contain the written specifications, the date for submitting
bids, and name and address of the City representative who can provide information on the request
for bids. Upon receipt of the written bids, the City shall select and purchase the goods from the
vendor submitting the lowest bid; provided that such bid meets all specifications provided in the
notice. When determining the lowest bid, the City may take into account sales tax revenues
received by the City, shipping, and transportation costs. All purchases of goods in the amount of
$1,000 or more shall comply with SVMC 3.48.030.
B. For purposes of SVMC 3.47.010, the threshold limits shall only apply to a single good,
piece of equipment, or supply item.
SVMC 3.47.020 Purchases of 2oods equal to or less than $40,000 and greater than $15,000.
A. When making a purchase of goods, equipment, or supplies equal to or less than $40,000,
but greater than $15,000, the responsible department shall obtain three or more quotes for the
goods, equipment, or supplies required, select and purchase the goods from the vendor submitting
the lowest quote, and maintain a record of the process followed. Alternatively, the department
may utilize the Vendor List and process set forth in chapter 3.48 SVMC. The department may
consider quotes by any vendor with which the City has a vendor account as one of the three
required quotes. City staff may take verbal quotes and reduce them to writing. When
determining the lowest quote, the City may take into account local sales tax revenues, shipping,
and transportation costs. If less than three quotes are received, City staff shall not be required to
resubmit for additional quotes, but shall select from the quotes submitted. All purchases of goods
in the amount of $1,000 or more shall also comply with SVMC 3.48.030.
B. For purposes of this section, the threshold limits shall only apply to a single good, piece
of equipment, or supply item.
SVMC 3.47.030 Purchases of 2oods equal to or less than $15,000.
When purchasing goods, equipment, or supplies in an amount equal to or less than $15,000, the
responsible department is encouraged, but is not required, to use a competitive selection process,
including obtaining three quotes pursuant to SVMC 3.47.020, or using the Vendor List and
process set forth in chapter 3.48 SVMC. The responsible department shall contact vendors at
least once annually to establish prices on common items that may be purchased in bulk. Such
prices may be used when determining the threshold limits for purposes of chapter 3.47 SVMC. A
City department may aggregate a group of common items so long as each of such items
individually are less than $15,000. Any individual items greater than $15,000 shall be bid
pursuant to SVMC 3.47.010 or SVMC 3.47.020. If a competitive process is not utilized, the
responsible department shall seek to achieve maximum quality at minimum cost by making an
award based on its experience and knowledge of the market. All purchases of goods in the
amount of $1,000 or more shall also comply with SVMC 3.48.030.
SVMC 3.47.040 Exception to purchase processes.
If a situation should arise which requires immediate action on the part of the City to protect the
best interests of the City or the health, safety or welfare of the citizens of the City, and where it is
Ordinance 15-022 Page 13 of 16
DRAFT
not possible to timely adhere to the procedures set forth in SVMC 3.47.010 through SVMC
3.47.030, the purchasing procedures set forth in this chapter may, with prior approval of the City
Manager, be waived by the department director, and the purchase may be made without following
the procedures pursuant to SVMC 3.47.010 through 3.47.030. The circumstances giving rise to
such waiver shall be documented in writing within 14 days.
Section 11. Adopting chapter 3.48 SVMC. A new chapter 3.48 SVMC is hereby adopted as follows:
3.48.010 Use of Vendor List.
A Vendor List is authorized and maintained for the purchase of goods, equipment, and supplies in
an amount less than $40,000. The Vendor List shall be maintained by the City Clerk.
3.48.020 Advertising for Vendor List.
At least annually, the City shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation a notice of the
existence of a Vendor List for purchases of goods, equipment, and supplies and solicit the names
of vendors who wish to be added to the list. The City Manager shall establish policies and
procedures to ensure that a competitive price is established and for purchasing from the Vendor
List.
3.48.030 Purchase orders.
Purchase orders shall be used for the purchase of goods, equipment, and supplies with a
cumulative cost of $1,000 or more per purchase. The responsible department shall receive prior
written approval from the City Manager for the use of a purchase order to purchase goods,
equipment, and supply items in an amount greater than $20,000. All purchase orders shall be
accompanied by any applicable vendor bid or quote documentation. No purchase order is
required for the purchase of assets or consumable goods when required as part of pre -approved
projects, for services, or for utility payments by the City. The City Manager shall establish
policies and procedures governing the use of purchase orders.
Section 12. Adopting chapter 3.49 SVMC. A new chapter 3.49 SVMC is hereby adopted as follows:
3.49.010 Acquisition of real property.
The City Manager is authorized to negotiate the purchase of real property, which shall be based
upon a fair -market value appraisal of the property. The City shall not pay more than fair -market
value for any real property, except as may be approved by the Washington State Department of
Transportation on behalf of the City for road construction projects. Final approval of any
purchase of real property shall be obtained from City Council prior to purchase; provided City
Council may delegate authority for approval and purchase to the City Manager or City staff as
may be appropriate.
3.49.020 Disposition of City property.
A. Declaring Real and Personal Property Surplus. The decision to declare City property surplus
shall rest solely with the City Council. Personal property with a value of less than $10.00 is
declared to be of de minimis value and exempt from this provision. Employees of the City shall
not be allowed to purchase surplus property from the City.
Ordinance 15-022 Page 14 of 16
DRAFT
1. Upon a finding by a department director that the City property is surplus to
departmental use, the City Manager shall provide notice of potential disposition to other
City departments. If any department director desires to acquire and use the proposed
surplus City property, the property may be transferred to the requesting department
director, or other authorized representative.
2. If no request for the use of proposed surplus property is received from staff, notice and
recommendation of the proposal to declare the City property surplus shall be given to the
City Council. The City Council may pass a resolution declaring the City property
surplus.
3. The City Council may declare City property surplus upon one or more of the
following criteria:
a. The City has or anticipates no practical, efficient, or appropriate use for the
property.
b. The purpose served by the property can be accomplished by use of a better,
less costly or more efficient alternative.
c. The purpose served by the property no longer exists as determined by a change
of policy or practice.
d. The property is damaged, inoperable or obsolete and the cost of repairing the
same is uneconomical or impractical.
B. Sale of Property. Following passage of a resolution declaring City property surplus, City
property shall be sold or disposed of in accordance with the following:
1. The City Manager may dispose of surplus personal property by public auction, bid, or
other method of sale on terms deemed to be in the best interests of the City.
2. Surplus personal property which is unsellable because of obsolescence, wear and tear,
or other reasons may be dismantled, if necessary, and sold as scrap.
3. For surplus real property, the City Manager shall secure a market value appraisal and
proceed to sell the same by public auction or through other procedures the City Manager
deems to be in the best interests of the City.
C. Trade of Real Property. Real property may be traded under the following conditions:
1. If the City Manager determines that the disposal of real property declared surplus
under this section could realize greater benefit to the City through consideration other
than cash, the City Manager may invite prospective purchasers to tender consideration of
cash and/or property. Upon receipt of a bid or offer tendering in-kind consideration, and
prior to accepting such bid or offer, the City Manager shall make a report setting forth the
benefits of such a transaction. This report shall be made to the City Council at a formal
meeting and shall be open to the public.
2. Before accepting any bid or offer containing in-kind consideration, an adequate
appraisal shall have been made by a qualified independent appraiser.
Ordinance 15-022 Page 15 of 16
DRAFT
3. If the City Council finds that the bid or offer containing the in-kind consideration has
more value or benefit to the City than any other bid or offer submitted, the City Manager
may accept the bid or offer containing in-kind consideration.
D. Lease of Public Property. The City Manager may authorize the lease or sublease of any
property, including real property, under such terms and conditions as the City Manager may deem
desirable, fair and appropriate, either by use of negotiations or bidding in the best interests of the
City. Leases of real property shall not be granted for a period of more than five years, unless
otherwise authorized by the City Council.
Section 13. Severability. If any part of SVMC 3.30.030, or chapters 3.35, 3.40, 3.41, 3.42, 3.45, 3.46,
3.47, 3.47, 3.48, or 3.49 SVMC is declared unenforceable, invalid, or unconstitutional, such
unenforceability, invalidity, or unconstitutionality shall not affect the enforceability, validity, or
constitutionality of the remainder.
Section 14. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on May 1, 2016, before which the
City shall publish the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City.
Adopted this
ATTEST:
day of , 2015.
City of Spokane Valley
Dean Grafos, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 15-022 Page 16 of 16
Meeting Date:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
November 17, 2015 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First reading proposed Ordinance No. 15-023 adopting a six-month
renewal and extension of the City's moratorium on all marijuana uses other than those licensed
by the Washington Liquor Control Board and adopting related findings of fact.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.390; RCW 69.50 (Initiative 502 has been codified
as RCW 69.50) and WAC 314-55; RCW 69.51A; SVMC Title 19.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Staff has provided numerous administrative reports
on the legalization of marijuana since March, 2013. City Council adopted regulations regarding
restrictions on recreational marijuana on July 22, 2014. City Council adopted a moratorium on
unlicensed marijuana use on December 9, 2014. City Council adopted a moratorium on new
licensed or registered marijuana uses on October 6, 2015. City Council conducted a public
hearing on the renewal on November 10, 2015.
BACKGROUND: The City adopted regulations governing the zoning, buffers, and other land
use restrictions on recreational marijuana production, processing, and retail stores in July 2014.
Such regulations were based, in part, on the laws and regulations then in place under chapter
69.50 RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC. Those laws and regulations limited the total number of
retail stores within the City to three and set a state-wide cap on total production space.
While the City considered and adopted regulations governing recreational marijuana, it did not
initially adopt regulations related to unlicensed medical marijuana due to the uncertainty
surrounding the potential for State regulations and to the uncertain status of unlicensed medical
marijuana under RCW 69.51A. Given the uncertainty surrounding marijuana uses not licensed
by the Washington Liquor Control Board (now the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board, and
hereinafter referred to as the "WSLCB"), the lack of regulation over such uses, and the shift
towards more medical marijuana activities that the City was experiencing in 2014, staff believed
a moratorium was appropriate on all marijuana uses not licensed or regulated by the WSLCB in
order to allow the City time to research appropriate final regulations, up to and including bans
over such unlicensed marijuana uses, to limit the potential for abuse of such uses, and to further
limit access of marijuana to minors.
On December 9, 2014, pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, the City Council adopted a
moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses to allow the State to come forward with what the City
anticipated to be medical marijuana legislation in 2015 and to allow the City time to develop
appropriate regulations regarding medical marijuana as well as any increase in licenses that
might result from the State's 2015 marijuana legislation. Ordinance No. 14-021 provided for the
moratorium to last "for a period of 365 days from the [effective date], unless repealed, extended,
or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate
findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390."
As anticipated, the State adopted comprehensive marijuana legislation in 2015. During an
extended session, the State adopted legislation that (1) reconciled the medical and recreational
marijuana markets by establishing a "medical marijuana endorsement" that retail licensees will
be able to obtain to sell medical marijuana to qualified patients and designated providers, while
also making unlicensed collective gardens illegal by July 1, 2016, (2) expanded the amount of
marijuana production that may be conducted state-wide to accommodate the needs of
marijuana retailers with medical marijuana endorsements, (3) created "cooperatives" which
must be registered by the WSLCB, and (4) created a new license for common carriers to deliver
and transport marijuana between licensed marijuana producers, processors, and retailers and
created a new marijuana research license for permitees to produce, process, and possess
marijuana for certain limited research purposes. Further, as part of its 2015 legislation, the
State required an increase in the number of marijuana retail licenses to "accommodate the
medical needs of qualifying patients and designated providers" and directed the WSLCB to
promulgate rules and regulations for setting the number of increased retail licenses, accepting
new retail license applications and accepting applications for medical marijuana endorsements.
As required pursuant to Section 3 of Ordinance No. 14-021, throughout 2015, the City has been
working through the work plan to consider the 2015 State legislation and to develop and adopt
comprehensive City marijuana regulations. The process of developing City amendments
included a discussion with City Council on potential amendments on August 18, 2015. The
Planning Commission conducted its first study session on potential amendments on October 22,
2015.
However, on September 23, 2015, the WSLCB issued, effective immediately, its Emergency
Rules #15-18 (the "WSLCB Emergency Rules") to amend chapter 314-55 WAC to provide for
(1) the WSLCB to begin accepting marijuana retail license applications on October 12, 2015,
with the limit on the number of marijuana retail licenses to be set at a later date, (2) the WSLCB
to begin accepting applications for medical marijuana endorsements, and (3) the state cap on
maximum marijuana production space to be set at a later date. Concurrently with the issuance
of its Emergency Rules the WSLCB also issued its Proposed Rules #15-17, which are subject to
ongoing public comment prior to final adoption in late 2015 or early 2016, and pursuant to which
the WSLCB also provided that the limit on the number of marijuana retail licenses and state cap
on marijuana production space will be set at a later date.
Given the uncertainty surrounding the unknown final number of retail uses and production space
and the appropriateness of current City regulations to account for such an unknown increase, as
well as to prevent potential vesting of uses that may ultimately be inconsistent and incompatible
with the City's final regulations, the City Council adopted a moratorium on new licensed or
registered marijuana uses on October 6, 2015. This additional moratorium contains the same
work plan requirement for the City to develop and adopt comprehensive marijuana regulations.
The City continues to work through the required work plans for both moratoriums. Planning
Commission is scheduled to have second and third study sessions on the development of
comprehensive marijuana regulations on November 12, 2015 and December 10, 2015.
However, due to the extended length of the 2015 State Legislative session, the issuance of the
WSLCB's Emergency Rules, and the adoption of the moratorium on new licensed or registered
marijuana uses, the City will not complete the work plan and develop and adopt comprehensive
marijuana regulations by December 9, 2015, when the moratorium on unlicensed marijuana
uses expires. Accordingly, staff believes a six-month renewal and extension of the moratorium
on unlicensed marijuana is appropriate to allow the City to complete the development and
adoption of its comprehensive marijuana regulations.
RCW 36.70A.390 authorizes the City to adopt a six-month renewal and extension of an existing
moratorium, provided the City first conducts a public hearing and adopts findings of fact
justifying the renewal and extension of the moratorium prior to such renewal. Further, Section 3
of Ordinance No. 14-021 expressly recognizes the City's authority to renew and extend the
moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses.
Pursuant to state law, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the renewal of the
moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses on November 10, 2015. City Council heard
comments from two interested parties. As required by state law, the City Council is now
considering the adoption of the renewal and extension of the moratorium on unlicensed
marijuana uses, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, for a period of six
months, and related findings of fact.
The City will continue on the work plan in working through development and adoption of
appropriate City marijuana regulations.
OPTIONS: Move to advance to a second reading, with or without further amendments.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance No. 15-023, adopting a
renewal and extension of the moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses for a period of six
months and adopting related findings of fact, to a second reading.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A.
STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance No. 15-023
Ordinance No. 14-021
Copy of published notice of public hearing from October 30 and November 6, 2015
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 15-023
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE RENEWAL AND EXTENSION OF THE
MORATORIUM ON ALL UNLICENSED MARIJUANA USES, ORIGINALLY
ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 14-021, FOR A PERIOD OF SIX
MONTHS, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT JUSTIFYING THE RENEWAL
AND EXTENSION OF THE MORATORIUM ON UNLICENSED MARIJUANA USES,
AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of
Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and
other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations
governing land uses within the City; and
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a
moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a
public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim
official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim
zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the
governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department.
If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the
governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map,
interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not
longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related
studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or
interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing
is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;" and
WHEREAS, a moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method
by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be
rendered moot by intervening development; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the renewal of a
moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control for one or more six-
month periods if a public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, on December 9, 2014, the
City adopted Ordinance No. 14-021 establishing a moratorium upon the submission, acceptance,
processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for unlicensed marijuana
use; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5 of Ordinance No. 14-021, the moratorium shall remain in
effect "for a period of 365 days from the [effective date], unless repealed, extended, or modified by the
City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to
RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390;" and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220, RCW 36.70A.390, on November 10, 2015, the City
Council conducted a public hearing on the renewal and extension of the moratorium on unlicensed
marijuana uses, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, for a period of six months; and
Ordinance 15-023 Page 1 of 6
DRAFT
WHEREAS, City Council heard testimony from two interested parties during the public hearing;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, the City Council is required to
adopt findings of fact after conducting the public hearing and prior to renewing the moratorium.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows:
Section 1. Findings of Fact. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220, RCW 36.70A.390, and Section
5 of Ordinance No. 14-021, on November 10, 2015, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the
renewal and extension of the moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses, originally established pursuant to
Ordinance No. 14-021, for a period of six months. The City Council hereby adopts the following as
findings of fact in support of the renewal and extension of the moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses,
originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, for a period of six months:
1. Since 1970, federal law has prohibited the manufacture and possession of marijuana as a
Schedule I drug, based on the federal government's categorization of marijuana as having a "high
potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in
medically supervised treatment." Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005); Controlled Substance Act, 84
Stat. 1242, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
2. Initiative Measure No. 692, approved by the voters of Washington State on November 3,
1998, and now codified as chapter 69.51A RCW, created an affirmative defense for "qualifying patients"
to the charge of possession of marijuana.
3. In 2011, the Washington State Legislature considered and passed ESSSB 5073 that, among
other things, (1) authorized the licensing of medical cannabis dispensaries, production facilities, and
processing facilities; (2) permitted qualifying patients to receive certain amounts of marijuana for
medicinal purposes from designated providers; (3) permitted collective gardens by qualifying patients
whereby they may, consistent with state law, collectively grow marijuana for their own use; and (4)
clarified that cities were authorized to continue to use their zoning authority to regulate the production,
processing, or dispensing of marijuana under ESSSB 5073 and chapter 69.51A RCW within their
respective jurisdictions.
4. On April 29, 2011, former governor Christine Gregoire vetoed the portions of ESSSB 5073
that would have provided the legal basis for legalizing and licensing medical cannabis dispensaries,
processing facilities, and production facilities, thereby making these activities illegal.
5. On November 6, 2012, voters of the State of Washington approved Initiative Measure No. 502
("I-502"), now codified in chapters 69.50, 46.04, 46.20, 46.21, and 46.61 Revised Code of Washington
("RCW"), which provisions (1) decriminalized possession and use of certain amounts of marijuana and
marijuana paraphernalia; (2) amended state laws pertaining to driving under the influence of intoxicants
to include driving under the influence of marijuana; and (3) established a regulatory system licensing
producers, processors, and retailers of recreational marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older, and
required the Washington State Liquor Control Board (now the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board
and hereinafter referred to as the "WSLCB") to adopt procedures and criteria by December 1, 2013 for
issuing licenses to produce, process, and sell marijuana.
6. On August 29, 2013, the United States Department of Justice issued a memo providing
updated guidance on marijuana enforcement in response to the adoption of I-502. Several ongoing
federal enforcement priorities were outlined, including prevention of crime and preventing distribution of
marijuana to minors. Further, the memo provided that the Department would not seek ongoing
prosecution of marijuana providers, users, and local officials in states that authorized marijuana, provided
Ordinance 15-023 Page 2 of 6
DRAFT
that those state and local governments "implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement
systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health, and other
law enforcement interests. A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and
procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice."
7. On July 22, 2014, the City adopted Ordinance No. 14-008, which established in chapter 19.85
of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") and SVMC 19.120.050 regulations, zoning, buffers,
and other limitations on marijuana producers, processors, and retail sellers licensed under chapter 69.50
RCW, but which did not regulate unlicensed marijuana uses.
8. Unlike recreational licensed marijuana production, processing, and retail sales under chapter
69.50 RCW, all other marijuana uses, including medical marijuana and businesses offering "private"
marijuana consumption or "vaping," remained unlicensed marijuana uses that were largely unregulated
and were not subject to review, licensing, or enforcement by the WSLCB or other State or local agency.
9. The City believed the Washington State Legislature was likely to propose and consider
legislation on medical marijuana in its 2015 Legislative session, but the City could not determine what
that legislation may have provided or whether it would in fact be passed.
10. As of October 28, 2014, the City had processed business registration endorsements for at
least 18 medical -marijuana related businesses within the City, all of which provide marijuana outside of
the licensing, regulation, and enforcement of the WSLCB, none of which were or are licensed marijuana
producers, processors, or retail outlets under chapter 69.50 RCW, and none of which were or are subject
to the City's regulations under SVMC 19.85 or SVMC 19.120.050.
11. On December 9, 2014, the City adopted Ordinance No. 14-021, adopting a moratorium on
the establishment of new unlicensed marijuana uses in order to allow the City to consider any marijuana -
related legislation adopted as part of the 2015 Washington State Legislative Session and to develop
comprehensive marijuana regulations incorporating such changes.
12. The moratorium adopted by the City on December 9, 2014, did not impact existing licensed
or unlicensed marijuana facilities and did not prohibit the City from processing applications related to
licensed marijuana producers, processors, and retailers because the City had already adopted regulations
for such uses that were premised, in part, upon the laws and regulations then in effect (chapter 69.50
RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC), that allocated a total of three retail licenses within the City and provided
a maximum limit on marijuana production space.
13. Pursuant to Section 3 of Ordinance No. 14-021, the City of Spokane Valley Planning
Commission was directed to conduct public hearings and public meetings to consider the impacts of
unlicensed marijuana uses, and to work with City staff and citizens of the City to develop proposals for
regulations pertaining to the establishment of unlicensed marijuana uses, which regulations may include
provisions restricting or limiting unlicensed marijuana use up to and including bans, to be forwarded to
the City Council for its consideration.
14. The 2015 Washington State Legislative session began on January 12, 2015, and was
extended through a third special session that concluded on July 10, 2015.
15. In 2015, the Washington State Legislature adopted the "Cannabis Patient Protection Act,"
Laws of 2015, ch. 70, and additional comprehensive marijuana -related regulations pursuant to Laws of
2015, ch. 4 and other enacted legislation (collectively, the "2015 Marijuana Legislation").
16. As part of the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, the State (1) reconciled the medical and
recreational marijuana markets by establishing a "medical marijuana endorsement" that retail licensees
Ordinance 15-023 Page 3 of 6
DRAFT
will be able to obtain to sell medical marijuana to qualified patients and designated providers, while also
making unlicensed collective gardens illegal by July 1, 2016, (2) expanded the amount of marijuana
production that may be conducted state-wide to accommodate the needs of marijuana retailers with
medical marijuana endorsements, (3) created "cooperatives" which must be registered by the WSLCB,
and (4) created a new license for common carriers to deliver and transport marijuana between licensed
marijuana producers, processors, and retailers delivery/transportation and created a new marijuana
research license for permitees to produce, process, and possess marijuana for certain limited research
purposes.
17. As part of the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, the State required an increase in the number of
marijuana retail licenses to "accommodate the medical needs of qualifying patients and designated
providers" and directed the WSLCB to promulgate rules and regulations for setting the number of
increased retail licenses, accepting new retail license applications and accepting applications for medical
marijuana endorsements.
18. On September 23, 2015, the WSLCB issued, effective immediately, its Emergency Rules
#15-18 (the "WSLCB Emergency Rules") to amend chapter 314-55 WAC to provide for (1) the WSLCB
to begin accepting marijuana retail license applications on October 12, 2015, with the limit on the number
of marijuana retail licenses to be set at a later date, (2) the WSLCB to begin accepting applications for
medical marijuana endorsements, and (3) the state cap on maximum marijuana production space to be
increased to an amount to be set at a later date.
19. On September 23, 2015, the WSLCB also issued its Proposed Rules #15-17, which are
subject to public comment, and which, as of October 27, 2015, provided that the limit on the number of
marijuana retail licenses and state cap on marijuana production space will be set at a later date.
20. Due to the WSLCB Emergency Rules, and in order to maintain the status quo to allow the
City to (1) give full consideration to the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, WSLCB
proposed rules, and potential increase in marijuana retail stores and marijuana production space, (2)
develop a reasoned approach to the public health, safety, and welfare impacts from the 2015 Marijuana
Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, WSLCB proposed rules, and the potential increase in marijuana
retail stores and marijuana production space, and (3) adopt appropriate comprehensive zoning and land
use regulations governing medical and recreational marijuana based upon the impacts from the 2015
Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, and WSLCB proposed rules, the City established a
moratorium on new licensed or registered uses on October 6, 2015 pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-017.
21. Although the City has begun the work plans established in Ordinance No. 14-021 and
Ordinance No. 15-017, the Planning Commission and City Council will not have an opportunity to fully
consider and develop comprehensive marijuana policy decisions that give adequate consideration to 2015
Marijuana Legislation, or to adopt such City regulations, prior to the termination of the moratorium on
unlicensed marijuana uses established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021 unless such moratorium is
renewed and extended for a six-month period.
22. Pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane
Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other
regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing
land uses within the City; and
23. The renewal of the moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses, originally established pursuant
to Ordinance No. 14-021, for a six month period provides the City with additional time to review and
amend its public health, safety, and welfare requirements and zoning and land use regulations related to
the establishment and operation of unlicensed marijuana uses.
Ordinance 15-023 Page 4 of 6
DRAFT
24. RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium,
interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing
on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control,
shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or
interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body
received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing
body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body
shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning
ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six
months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing
such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official
control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and
findings of fact are made prior to each renewal."
25. A moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by
which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be
rendered moot by intervening development.
26. RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the renewal of a moratorium, interim
zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control for one or more six-month periods if a
public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal.
27. The City properly published notice of the public hearing on the renewal and extension of the
moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, for a
period of six months, on October 30, and November 6, 2015 in the Valley News Herald, the City's legal
publication.
28. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, on November 10, 2015, the City
Council conducted a public hearing on the renewal and extension of the moratorium on unlicensed
marijuana uses, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, for a period of six months.
29. The City Council received testimony from two interested parties who spoke at the public
hearing. The City Council has given due consideration to all public testimony received.
30. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-880, the renewal and extension of the moratorium on unlicensed
marijuana uses, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, for a period of six months is
exempt from the requirements of a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act.
31. The renewal and extension of the moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses, originally
established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, for a period of six months is consistent with the goals and
policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
32. The City Council finds that the renewal and extension of the moratorium on unlicensed
marijuana uses, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, for a period of six months is
necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety, public property and public
peace.
Section 2. Renewal and Extension. The moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses,
originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, is hereby renewed and extended for a period of
six months from December 9, 2015, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after
subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and
RCW 36.70A.390. As part of the renewal and extension of the moratorium, the City shall continue to
work through the work plan established pursuant to Section 3 of Ordinance No. 14-021.
Ordinance 15-023 Page 5 of 6
DRAFT
Section 3. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to
the effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause,
or phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after
publication of this Ordinance or summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley
as provided by law.
Passed by the City Council this day of December, 2015.
ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 15-023 Page 6 of 6
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 14-021
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ALL
MARIJUANA USES OTHER THAN MARIJUANA PRODUCERS, MARIJUANA
PROCESSORS, AND MARIJUANA RETAIL SALES AS LICENSED BY THE
WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD PURSUANT TO CHAPTER
69.50 RCW AND REGULATED BY CHAPTER 19.85 SPOKANE VALLEY
MUNICIPAL CODE AND SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
19.120.050, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, since 1970, federal law has prohibited the manufacture and possession of marijuana
as a Schedule I drug, based on the federal government's categorization of marijuana as having a "high
potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in
medically supervised treatment." Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005), Controlled Substance Act, 84
Stat. 1242, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq; and
WHEREAS, Initiative Measure No. 692, approved by the voters of Washington State on
November 3, 1998, and now codified as chapter 69.51A RCW, created an affirmative defense for
"qualifying patients" to the charge of possession of marijuana; and
WHEREAS, in 2011, the Washington State Legislature considered and passed ESSSB 5073 that,
among other things, (1) authorized the licensing of medical cannabis dispensaries, production facilities,
and processing facilities, (2) permitted qualifying patients to receive certain amounts of marijuana for
medicinal purposes from designated providers, (3) permitted collective gardens by qualifying patients
whereby they may, consistent with state law, collectively grow marijuana for their own use, (4) and
clarified that cities were authorized to continue to use their zoning authority to regulate the production,
processing, or dispensing of marijuana under ESSSB 5073 and chapter 69.51A RCW within their
respective jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, on April 29, 2011, former governor Christine Gregoire vetoed the portions of
ESSSB 5073 that would have provided the legal basis for legalizing and licensing medical cannabis
dispensaries, processing facilities, and production facilities, thereby making these activities illegal; and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012, voters of the State of Washington approved Initiative
Measure No. 502 ("I-502"), now codified in chapters 69.50, 46.04, 46.20, 46.21, and 46.61 Revised Code
of Washington ("RCW"), which provisions, (1) decriminalized possession and use of certain amounts of
marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia; (2) amended state laws pertaining to driving under the influence
of intoxicants to include driving under the influence of marijuana; and (3) established a regulatory system
licensing producers, processors, and retailers of recreational marijuana for adults 21 years of age and
older, and required the Washington State Liquor Control Board (the "LCB") to adopt procedures and
criteria by December 1, 2013 for issuing licenses to produce, process, and sell marijuana; and
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2013, the United States Department of Justice issued a memo
providing updated guidance on marijuana enforcement in response to the adoption of I-502. Several
ongoing federal enforcement priorities were outlined, including prevention of crime and preventing
distribution of marijuana to minors. Further, the memo provided that the Department would not seek
ongoing prosecution of marijuana providers, users, and local officials in states that authorized marijuana,
provided that those state and Local governments "implement strong and effective regulatory and
enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public
Ordinance 14-021 Page 1 of 5
health, and other law enforcement interests. A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust
controls and procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice;" and
WHEREAS, the LCB has established a comprehensive regulatory scheme for the licensing,
operation, and enforcement of recreational marijuana production, processing, and retail sales shops under
chapter 314-55 WAC; and
WHEREAS, in 2014, the Washington State Legislature considered, but did not adopt E3SSB
5887 that would have reconciled the comprehensive state regulatory scheme for recreational marijuana
under I-502 and the lack of regulatory oversight and controls over medical marijuana under chapter
69.51A RCW; and
WHEREAS, the possession of medical marijuana, operation of collective gardens, and services
provided by designated providers remain illegal under chapter 69.51A RCW and Cannabis Action
Coalition v. City of Kent, 180 Wn. App. 455 (2014), cert. granted, with such activities only entitled to an
affirmative defense; and
WHEREAS, RCW 69.50.445 prohibits the opening of a package containing marijuana, useable
marijuana, or a marijuana -infused product, or consumption of marijuana, useable marijuana, or a
marijuana -infused product "within view of the general public," but does not otherwise regulate operation
of any "private" marijuana consumption facility, "vaping" of marijuana extracts or oils, or other
unlicensed marijuana operations; and
WHEREAS, unlike recreational licensed marijuana production, processing, and retail sales under
chapter 69.50 RCW, all other marijuana uses, including medical marijuana and businesses offering
"private" consumption or "vaping," remain unlicensed marijuana uses that are largely unregulated and are
not subject to review, licensing, or enforcement by the LCB; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature is likely to propose and consider legislation on
medical marijuana in the upcoming 2015 Legislative session, but the City cannot determine what that
legislation may provide or when or if it will be passed; and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley Police have informally documented 45 marijuana -related
crimes since November 13, 2013, with at least 30 of those involving persons under the age of 21; and
WHEREAS on July 22, 2014, the City adopted Ordinance No. 14-008, which established in
chapter 19.85 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") and SVMC 19.120.050 regulations,
zoning, buffers, and other limitations on marijuana producers, processors, and retail sellers licensed under
chapter 69.50 RCW, but which did not regulate unlicensed marijuana uses; and
WHEREAS, as of October 28, the City had at least 18 medical -marijuana related businesses
registered within the City, all of which provide marijuana outside of the licensing, regulation,
enforcement of the LCB, none of which are licensed marijuana producers, processors, or retail outlets
under chapter 69.50 RCW, and none of which are subject to the City's regulations under SVMC 19.85 or
SVMC 19.120.050; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of
Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and
other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations
governing land uses within the City; and
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a
moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a
Ordinance 14-021 Page 2 of 5
public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim
official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim
zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the
governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department.
If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the
governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map,
interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not
longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related
studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or
interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing
is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;" and
WHEREAS, a moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method
by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be
rendered moot by intervening development; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a
moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a
public hearing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-880, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the
requirements of a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act; and
WHEREAS, the lack of regulatory oversight at any level over unlicensed marijuana uses, such as
medical marijuana collective gardens, designated providers, and "private" marijuana consumption
businesses, (I) creates a market for marijuana that is inconsistent with the highly regulated market
established by licensed producers, processors, and retail sales by the LCB, (2) allows increased access to
marijuana by minors, and (3) creates a risk to the public health, safety and welfare because of the lack of
regulatory oversight and potential for abuse; and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, the City Council adopted its 2015-2017 Legislative Agenda,
which included an item wherein the City Council stated it would "support the reconciliation of the
recreational and medical marijuana statutes," "support development of one system that would regulate
medical and recreational marijuana, (including the elimination of medical marijuana), in Washington
State," and would "support State regulations which close gaps within current legislation: Vaping, edibles,
oils, and `private' consumption/facilities; and under age possession and consumption;" and
WHEREAS, additional time is necessary to allow the City to conduct appropriate research to
analyze the allowance, siting, and necessary Land -use regulations for unlicensed marijuana uses under
existing state law, and to determine what, if any, regulations may be passed by the Washington State
Legislature in the upcoming 2015 legislative session regarding unlicensed marijuana uses and the impact
of such laws on unlicensed marijuana uses within the City; and
WHEREAS, a moratorium will provide the City with additional time to review and amend its
public health, safety, and welfare requirements and zoning and land use regulations related to the
establishment and operation of unlicensed marijuana uses; and
WHEREAS, Washington State law, including RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390,
authorizes the City to adopt a moratorium, provided the City conducts a public hearing on the moratorium
within 60 days of the date of adoption of the moratorium; and
WHEREAS, the City has authority to establish a moratorium concerning the establishment and
operation of unlicensed marijuana uses as a necessary stop -gap measure: (1) to provide the City with an
Ordinance 14-021 Page 3 of 5
opportunity to study the issues associated with allowing, siting, and regulating unlicensed marijuana uses,
including determining what, if any, regulations are passed by the Washington State Legislature in the
upcoming 2015 legislative session and the impacts of those laws upon unlicensed marijuana uses; (2) to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley by avoiding and
ameliorating negative impacts and unintended consequences of additional unlicensed marijuana; and (3)
to avoid applicants possibly establishing vested rights contrary to and inconsistent with any revisions the
City may make for its rules and regulations as a result of the City's study of this matter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the moratorium imposed and established by this
Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety, public property
and public peace.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows:
Section 1. PreIiminary Findings. The City Council hereby adopts the above recitals as
findings of fact in support of this Ordinance.
Section 2. Moratorium Established.
A. The City Council hereby declares and imposes a moratorium upon the submission,
acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for
unlicensed marijuana use.
B. For purposes of this moratorium, "unlicensed marijuana use" means the production,
growing, processing, manufacturing, extraction, infusion into edible solids, liquids or gummies, allowing
consumption on the premises of, sale, distribution, or delivery of marijuana, marijuana -infused products,
extracts, concentrates, oils, or any other form of product containing or derived from marijuana and
intended for human use by any business, association or other for-profit or not-for-profit establishment,
including but not limited to collective gardens, designated providers, medical marijuana dispensaries, or
private marijuana "vaping," smoking, or consumption clubs; provided, however, "unlicensed marijuana
use" shall not include any marijuana producer, marijuana processor, or marijuana retailer that has
received and holds a valid marijuana producer, marijuana processor, or marijuana retailer license from the
Washington Liquor Control Board pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC; provided,
further, if a building permit for work within a business is necessary in order for a business to obtain a
valid marijuana license from the Washington Liquor Control Board under chapter 69.50 RCW, the City
may accept and process such permit prior to the applicant receiving its license from the Washington
Liquor Control Board.
C. "Unlicensed marijuana use" does not and shall not include any personal possession or use
of marijuana, marijuana -infused products, marijuana extracts, marijuana concentrates, marijuana oils, or
other form of product containing or derived from marijuana and intended for human use by any person
pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW or by any qualifying patient pursuant to RCW 69.51 A.040.
D. Nothing herein shall affect the processing or consideration of any existing and already -
submitted complete land -use or building permit applications that may be subject to vested rights as
provided under Washington law.
Section 3. Work Plan. The following work plan is adopted to address the issues involving
the City's regulation of, and the establishment of unlicensed marijuana uses:
A. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission is hereby authorized and directed to
hold public hearings and public meetings to fully receive and consider statements, testimony, positions,
Ordinance 14-021 Page 4 of 5
and other documentation or evidence related to the public health, safety, and welfare aspects of
unlicensed marijuana uses.
B. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission is hereby authorized and directed to
work with City staff and the citizens of the City, as well as all public input received, to develop proposals
for regulations pertaining to the establishment of unlicensed marijuana uses, which regulations may
provide provisions restricting or limiting unlicensed marijuana use up to and including bans, to be
forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration.
Section 4. Public Hearing. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and 36.70A.390, the City Council
shall conduct a public hearing on January 27, 2015 at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, at the City of Spokane Valley City Hall, 11707 East Sprague, Spokane Valley, 99206, City Council
Chambers, to hear and consider the comments and testimony of those wishing to speak at such public
hearing regarding the moratorium set forth in this Ordinance.
Section 5. Duration. The moratorium set forth in this Ordinance shall be in effect as of the
date of this Ordinance and shall continue in effect for a period of 365 days from the date of this
Ordinance, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearing(s)
and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390.
Section 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to
the effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause,
or phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 8. Declaration of Emergency: Effective Date. This Ordinance is designated as a
public emergency necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare and therefore shall
take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council.
Passed by the City Council this 9th day of December, 2014.
Al -TES
•r
--City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved as ite orm:
Office
�e
ttorney
Date of Publication: December 12. 2014
Effective Date: December 9. 2014
Dean Grafos M.yor
Ordinance 14-021 Page 5 of 5
SUPERIOR COURT of WASHINGTON for SPOKANE COUNTY
In the Matter of
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
City of Spokane Valley
November 10, 2015
(Extension of marijuana moratorium)
STATE'of WASHINGTON
County of Spokane
AFFIDAVIT of PUBLICATION
NO.
LEGAL NOTICE
MICHAEL HUFFMAN being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that he is the EDITOR of the Spokane Valley News
Herald, a weekly newspaper. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior
to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a weekly newspaper in Spokane
County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of
publication of said newspaper, which said newspaper had been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of
the State of Washington in and for Spokane County. That the following is a true copy of a Legal Notice as it was published in
regular issues commencing on the 30th day of October, 2015, and ending on the 6th day of November, 2015, all dates
inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period:
City of Spokane Valley
Notice of Public Hearing
Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and
36.70A.390, the Spokane Valley City
Council will conduct a public hearing
Tuesday, November 10, 2015, beginning
at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as pos-
sible, to receive public input on extending
the City's moratorium upon the "establish-
ment of all marijuana uses other than
marijuana producers, marijuana processors,
and marijuana retail sales as licensed
by the Washington State Liquor Control
Board pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW
and regulated by chapter 19.85 Spokane
Valley Municipal Code and Spokane Valley
Municipal Code section 19.120.050," as
originally established pursuant to Ordinance
No. 14-021. The moratorium was adopted
pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, a copy
of which is available upon request to the City
Clerk, and is also on the City's website at
www.spokanevalley.org. Public input may
be made in person or in writing. Written
comments should be submitted to the City
Clerk and must be received prior to 5:00
p.m. November 10, 2015. The public hear-
ing will be held in City Council Chambers,
11707 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane
Valley, WA, 99206. NOTICE: Individuals
planning to attend the meeting who require
special assistance to accommodate physi-
cal, hearing, or other impairments, please
contact the City Clerk at (509) 720-5102
as soon as possible so that arrangements
may be made.
Christine Bainbridge, MMC
Spokane Valley City Clerk
Publish Dates: October 30, and November
6, 2015
BSCRIBED and SWORN to before me
This 6th day of November, 2015
State of Washington
County of Spokane
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
Michael Huffman is the person who appeared before me,
and said person acknowledged that he signed this
instrument and acknowledged it to be his free and
voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the
instrument.
tri
Jorene_Rae Wentz
Title: Notary Public
My appointment expires: 05-16-2019
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: November 17, 2015 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration - 2016 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment
(CPA) Docket
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The Growth Management Act (GMA) RCW 36.70A.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None.
BACKGROUND: The Growth Management Act (GMA) allows local jurisdictions to update
comprehensive plans no more than once each year. The City codified this process in Section
17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The deadline for Comprehensive
Plan Amendment requests was October 31, 2015.
The City did not anticipate opening the 2016 amendment cycle as it would have conflicted with
the projected timeframe to complete the Comprehensive Plan update. However, since the
update process was delayed, the annual amendment cycle was advertised to allow for
applicants to make application whose timing may be affected by the prolonged timeline.
Comprehensive Plan Amendments are divided into two categories - map amendments and text
amendments (including charts, tables and graphics). Comprehensive Plan amendments may
be privately initiated or proposed by City Council or staff. Most privately initiated amendments
deal with land use changes. The City received one privately initiated map amendment from
AVISTA Corporation. See Attached Docket.
OPTIONS: Approve the proposed 2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket as submitted
or modified
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve the 2016 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Docket
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A.
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner
Attachment: 2016 Comprehensive Plan Docket
City of Spokane Valley
2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket
PRIVATELY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
File Number
Map or Text
Summary of Amendment
CPA -2015-0001
Land Use
Map 2.1
Request to change 6 parcels owned by AVISTA Corporation
from Low Density Residential to Light Industrial at the
intersection of Elizabeth and Montgomery Road
Updated 11/2/15
Comprehensive Plan Map
35121.5501
35121.5502
35121.5601
35121.5901
35121.6001
E Marietta Ave
LDR
E Carlisle Ave
z
E Montgomery Ave
E Mansfield Ave
0
z
Sj 'd&
.Val ley
CPA -01-16
Applicant: Avista
Parcel #: 35121.5501 - .5502
35121.5601-.5602
35121.5901-.6001
Request:
Change the Comprehensive Plan reap from LDR to
LI; subsequent Rezone from R-2 to 1-2
ti
Vicinity Map
35121.5502 I'
Spokane
Valley'
CPA -01-16
Applicant: Avista
Parcel #: 35121.5501 - .5502
35121.5601 - .5602
35121.5901-.6001
Request:
Change the Comprehensive Plan map from LDR to
LI; subsequent Rezone from R-2 to 1-2
ti
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: November 17, 2015 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Chamber of Commerce: "Big Five"
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND: Chamber President Katherine Morgan will give Council an update on the
Chamber's "Big Five."
OPTIONS: Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion
Igo01
FORTHE
GREATER
SPOKANE
,VALLEY
Driven by the Greater Spokane
Valley Chamber of Commerce
Gr
Outdoors
Promoting and protecting the vitality
of the outdoors.
Greater Goods
Promoting the pp -
Greater
Greater Spokane Valley
as an emerging leader
in high-tech manufacturing.
ruing
Integrating business and
education to create the
workforce of the future.
Greater I_•
Greater Cures
Growing medical research
from concept to cure.
Building an enterprising
identity for the Greater
Spokane Valley region.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: November 17, 2015 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Shoreline Master Program (SMP) — Final Adoption
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approved by Ordinance No. 14-020 to send to the
Department of Ecology for review.
BACKGROUND: The City conducted a comprehensive SMP update consistent with the SMA
and its implementing guidelines (WAC 173-26) to develop its 2015 SMP. The SMA requires
that local government conduct a local review and approval process prior to submitting the SMP
to Ecology for state review and approval. The City adopted Ordinance No 14-020 on
December 9, 2014 approving the 2015 SMP and formalizing the City's process. The Ordinance
recognized that the 2015 SMP would not be in effect until approved by Ecology.
The 2015 SMP was submitted to Ecology for review on March 2, 2015. Ecology conducted a
comment period from April 20, 2015 through May 20, 2015 and received two comment letters.
However, both were submitted after the comment period had closed. The City opted to
respond to the comments. On August 20, 2015 Ecology approved the document as submitted
and the document became effective on September 3, 2015. Ecology's approval was followed
by a 60 day appeal period on the final approval, and no appeals were received.
At this time, the City must complete the process to replace the existing SMP which is currently
set forth in Chapter 21.50 SVMC, by adopting the 2015 SMP approved by Ecology.
Concurrently, to avoid confusion, the City will repeal prior ordinances and resolutions that
accepted drafts of various parts of the 2015 SMP which were submitted to Ecology. The
shoreline regulations, which are Chapter 4 of the 2015 SMP, will be located in the Municipal
Code as Chapter 21.50, while the 2015 SMP is a stand-alone document, similar to the Parks
and Recreation Master Plan. The Comprehensive Plan update will incorporate the 2015 SMP
as a new Chapter.
OPTIONS: Consensus to proceed to first reading at a future council meeting, or take other
action deemed appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to proceed with first reading at the
December 8 council meeting.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: SMP
Attachment B: Department of Ecology Approval Letter — August 20, 2015
Attachment C: Findings and Conclusions for Proposed Comprehensive Update to the City of
Copies of the Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program are available from the City Clerk
STATE CirWA!itNC TQN
DEPARTMENT OE ECOLOGY
PO &ox47Gi}0 Olyntpra, l'VA 9+1504-7600 d 360 -4U -006T
711 for t4ashiro, ion Relay Service Persons Lvirfa . speech cfisa bifiiy cii call 877-83.3-6341
August 20, 2015
The Honorable Dean Grafos
City of Spokane Valley
11707 EAST Sprague Ave, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 992Q6
RE.CEivr
ri1
vl•'r9M1-I� hal 1 het}
ti. � l.}i•tLr°,i r 1' DE EI.0. r.1E
Re: Final Ecology Approval of City of SpolsaueValley's Comprehensive Shoreline Master
Program Update
Dear Mayor Grafos:
The Department of Ecology (Ecology) is pleased to announce final approval of the City of Spokane
Valley's (City) Shoreline Master Program. (SMP) update. Congratulations to you, the Planning
Commission, the Community Development Department staff, and the Spokane Valley community
for completing this comprehensive update. Ecology finds the City's SMP is consistent with the
policy and procedural requirements of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and the SIM?
Guidelines,
Ecology, therefore, approves the City's comprehensive SMP update as submitted. The enclosed
Attachment A, Findings and Conclusions document provides more information about our decision.
This is Ecology's final action end there will be nu further inodi fcaticrns to the proposal.
The SNIP is effective 14 days from the date of this letter. This I4 -day period was established by
legislative action in :1;11 and is iiit udcd to provide lead time for the City to prepa're to implement
the new SMP.
Ecology is required etl '!(:till Lha_ ih . .l°. +'.a i1N1i} _iaa3 received falai app.rovzl.
The pubiicatio.. i l L. l LAI„ heg1r a 61,,-d y 21",' p.:::11 period. We 4'.'i]I
provide a copy of the .is records.
If you have any questions, please contact our regional planner, Jaime Short, at (509) 329-3411 or
Jaime. short(acv.wa.gav
S inc ere]y,
'vlai a 0. E ellon
Director
Enclosures by Certified IvIai1(7012 101.0 0003 3028 41091
cc: Lori Barlow, City of Spokane Valley
3
ATTACHMENT A: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE, UPDATE TO THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
SMF Submittal accepted March 12, 2015, Ordinance No.2014-020
Prepared by mime Short on August 5, 2015
Brief Description of Proposed Amendment:
The City of Spokane Valley has submitted a comprehensive update to their Shoreline Master Prop am
(SMP) to comply with Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and SMF Guidelines requirements. The
updated master program submittal contains locally tailored shoreline management policies, regulations,
environment designation maps, and administrative provisions. Additional reports and supporting
information and analyses noted below, are included in the submittal.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Neecl for amendment. The proposed amendment is needed to comply with the statutory deadline for a
con,pb-elaot'sive update of the City's local Shoreline Master Program pursuant to RCW 90-58.080 and
100. This amendment is also needed for compliance with the pluming attd procedural requirements of
the SMP Guidelines contained in WAC 173-26 and 27. The original City SMMP was approved by
Ecology in 1975 when the Valley was still part of unincorporated Spokane County. When Spokane
Valley incorporated in 2003, it adopted the County's existing SMP. The SMP has never heel,
comprehensively updated. This SMP update is also needed to provide consistency- betwrc ? i rho
updated SMP and the environmental protection and land use management policies and piac:tices
provided by the City's Critical Areas Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, This comprehensive SMP
update is intended to entirely replace the City's existing SMP.
Amendment History, Review Process: The city indicates the proposed SMP arendmeirts originated
from a local planning process that began in the fall of 2009. The record shows that the City formed a
Citizens Advisory Group that met 7 tires between January and June of 2011. All meetings were open
to the public. The Planning Commission met 29 times to consider and evaluate the SMP between
October 2409 and October 2014. The record shows that 5 public meetings and open houses were held
between November 2009 and January 2013.
The Planning Commission held a hearing on October 9, 2014. Affidavits of publication, provided by
the City indicate notice of the hearing was published. on September 19 and 26, 2014, in the Spokane
Valley New Herald.
Between the fall of 2009 arid the fall of 2014, the City Council met 33 times to consider and evaluate
the SMP. A hearing was held on November 17, 2014. Affidavits of publication provided by the City
indicate notice of the hearing was published on October 31 and November 14, 2014, in the Spokane
Valley News Herald.
With passage of Ordinance 14-020, on December 9, 2014, the City authorized staff to forty rd the
proposed amenclments.to Ecology for approval,
1
The proposed SMP amendments were received by Ecology for state review and verified as complete
on March 12, 2015, Notice of the state comment period was distributed to state task foi'c.e members
and interested parties identified by the City on April 3, 2015, in compliance with the requirements of
"PAC 73-26-120. The state comment period began on April 20 and continued throu;h Mav 20 2015.
Two organizations submAted comments an the proposed amendments after the close of the public
comment period. Ecology sent the written comments it received to the City on May 27. On July 13,
the City submitted to Ecology its responses to issues raised during the state comment period. After a
thorough evaluation ofthe issues raised, the City determined while one minor discrepancy was noted,
no substantive changes to the SMP were necessary (see Attachment B). Ecology agrees with the
City's cetenniiiatian,.
Consistency with Chapter 90.58 RCW: The proposed amendment has been reviewed for
Co:lSistQricy with the policy of RCW 90.58,020 and the approval criteria of RCW 90.58.090(3), (4) and
(5). The City has also provided evidence of its compliance ritth SMA procedural requirements for
.lil�lidingtheir SMP contained in RCW 90.58.490(1) and (2).
Consistency with "applicable guidelines" (Chapter 1.73-26 WAC, Part 111): The proposed
i..riendmcra has been reviewed for compliance with the requbements of the applicable Shoreline
Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through 251 and 173 -?.6-024 definitions). This
included review ofa SMP Submitta1 Checklist, which was corn7lctcil by `he City.
Consistency with SEPA Requirernents: The City sub .71H. ru_I i.lt.7+; o k EPA, compliance ir.
foul ofa SEPA checklist and issued a Deterriiinab ori No .I . I • :inti (1 )NS) for
SNIP amendments onNovember 3, 2014. Acco:d'i . to tl_..c ail i:h •ir 01' ] l:~lit.::ion,
SEPA determination was published in the Spc:+i,-E-vc Vr' Jr>,, Nov,: II rrr/r! can Novethl€'c; 4.
Ecology did not comment on the DNS.
Other Studies or Analyses supporting the SMP update: Ecology >'llh'n reviewed the fbl]crwing
reports, studies, map portfolios and data prepared for the Cir}, i;. +.II1 c,rr ,,i Il]i' S) _i1r+':rr lent:
These supporting documents include:
▪ a Oc.Vol,tr ? . 2009 public 2r7volvenuuntplan,
d ll Stpt.zi7? ler- 7, 2L) () shorehne inventory (m.61 cht-mgc!cri:N.,i(;H.
• Cd De i'ng!.. .,- 1 i, 2012 restoration plan,
r`:.2, I3public access plan
1, ..'r + : ro AT:,t T,oss report,
• L.vr ! .r . ,r: rd;;:.; 26, 2014 cumulative hnpcacts analysis,
Sloninl it° ':11' 1 kilt Raised During The Public Review Process:
cilli .;e of the C'.l`r`'S SNIP +.ipdite, there were, € +not., r]s i- 1. '[l tl1-n t'. Ii:, 'v i'l:,;:l. I (" I1! 1'l4:
ti:).�i;:.ult.'• _Li°,•kr. At C+1-..' ti77le, a develop. is had proposu1L to install appf°oxLltlatJy: C 111 an
13:-eviotu.ly had none. The cll:C;Fi ]: ].i 1i li 1w:e.rentio 17l Mill cool r_7ie :l value 1111€I `.;'fl ll:; 1]ii is wtrc
cl:':1'.:. reed tibcr.i: the cumulative i:frt ;t. those fitoeks would na-,:e °''.'e:' ti:.i .:' .c navigalio::
A lengthy debate, i i . City
� selt1 1 C)11 ti l _..rlDp.ro act l tlL::t 4.°'1: iu tr r. t..' •:i're stud ::! .. c site. —
both 1771". up'. -an l :r'_Cl il] LS', " :'. }Ii :1 t1' i]^ 1.1 order to [lc.tiioo fiat that .c:tyrrtt in a
loss of Eco:Of;]c 1 fare. LOIi 1il!;" 11:r;1€'t r +1"Il']7i] 1'iiL- is use of filo \.'iter_ .l,�l. I: 17.111` { rlllf : lx:l' 111anti
the requirement in law to optimally implement the SMA on the Spokane River while maintaining a
level of flexibility the City desired to address local conditions.
Summary of Issues Identified by Ecology as Relevant To Its Decision:
Two editorial issues were identified during the development of this findings document that do not
affect the implementation of the SMP but should be noted. There is a small section under the
Wetlands provisions, Chapter 21.50.520(0)(1) SVMC, that is ari artifact of the original Critical Area
regulations which were incorporated into an earlier draft of the SMP_ The bnlleted list of: exceptions
applies to a section that is nc longer part of this program and therefore will not affect the
implementation of sound wetland buffer provisions. The City will include an administrative note in
their file that makes it clear to all staff that the section in question is immaterial. Given the irrelevance
of this specific section, a required change to the program to ensure consistency with RCW 50.58 and
WAC 173-26 is not necessary.
The second issue is a misquote of RCW 90.58.030(3)(e)(vii). The final draft of the SNIP was
generated while changes from the 2014 legislative session were still being codified. There eves a
misunderstanding that the threshold for new dock exemptions had risen from ten thousand to I'.' .ii y
thousand dollars. Instead, the change to the RCW raised the monetary threshold for rkplac omie,:t docks
to twenty thousand dollars, but left the threshold for new docks at ten thousand dollars. Mc City s
aware of the error and has already implemented the correct language on a new dock appliction
processed udder their current SMP. Given that these legislative changes are made from time, to time
and WAC 173-27-140 requires permits be implemented'consistent with RCW 90.58, this l7;ci°rc:r
is editorial in nature and does not affect the accurate implementation of the City's SMP, '1i:crmioi : no
change is regnired.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
After review by Ecology of the complete record submitted alit' ,ill comments received, Ecology
concludes that the City's proposed comprehensive SMP update is consistent with the policy and
standards of RCW 90.58.020 and RCW 90.58.090 and the applicable SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26-
171. through 251 and .020 definitions). This includes a conclusion that approval of the proposed SMP
contains sufficient policies and regulations to assure that no net loss of shoreline ecological functions
will result from implementation of the new updated master program(WAC 173-26-201(2)(c).
Ecology concludes that those SMP segments relating to shorelines of siatewILlc igiii f cance provide
for the optimum implementation of Shoreline Management Act policy (RC .' 9C.5....090(5).
Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the requirements of RCW 90.58,100 regarding the
SMP amendment process and contents.
Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the requirements of RCW 90 58.130 and WAC
173-26-490 regarding public and agency involvement in the SMP update and amendment process.
Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the purpose and intent of the local amendment
process requirements contained in WAC 173-26-100, including conducting open houses and public
hearings, notice, consultation with patties of interest and solicitation of comments from tribes,
government agencies and Ecology.
3
Ecology concludes that the City has complied with requirements of Chapter 43.210 RCW, the State
Environmental Policy Act
Ecology concludes that the City's comprehensive S ': P upd:°rtz submittal to Ecology was complete
pursuant to the requirements of 'NAL 1 =.!; : 10 and WAC 173-26-201(3)(a) and (h) requiring a
SMP Submittal Checklist.
Ecology concludes that it has cornp.i .: irli the prDcccluca; rer_Sulits for state review andapprova1
of shoreline master program amend_tlenta as Sot forth in RCM 5,tr 5S_0c9O and WAC 1.73-26-120.
Ecology concludes that the City has chosen no_ to exi: circ its cel}'ion pursuant to RCW
90.58.030(2)(d)(li) to increase shoreline jurisdiction to include bufrcr areas of critical areas within
shorelines of the state. Therefore, as required by RCW 3li_ 7' A.4 0(6), for those designated critical
areas Evith buffers that extend beyond SMA jurrs1ctiou, critical area and its associated buffer shall
continue to be regulated by the City's critical areas or'd:naoce. 11 such cases, the updated SMP shalt
also continue to apply to the designated critical area, Int pot .711e poll ion of the buffer area that lies
outside of SMA jurisdiction. All remaining des; aria; i critical ;;'roti (with buffers NOT extending
beyond SMA jurisdiction) and their buffer areas °;hall bo r°::gulr.L td s olcJy by the SMP.
DECISION AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Based on the preceding, Ecolo 'y ned [Ili proi7o d amendments cOi i:i3'e,7ciisi 'c1,-' updating
the SMP are consistent wviili yii r..'I 11' ' ..iaii::12:.m .n, Act policy, the applicable guidelines anc:.
implementing rules. Ecology app: '; alof L1: is rnl,c tic:L1 H3nUltdiEc,its',.vitt; rc-clu.K.eci changes is
14 days from Ecology's f :11 ,7C.ti._ : -L])l)roving :I,.% arL.1 :aLtil:nCDL
4
Exhib f 2 AppendixA-1
APPENDIX A-1
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DEFINITIONS
A. General Provisions,
The definitions provided herein are supplemental to the definitions provided in Appendix A and
only apply for use with the City's SMP, including chapter 21,50 Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC). Solely for purposes of the City's SMP, if a conflict exists between these definitions and
definitions in Appendix A, the definitions in Appendix A-1 shall govern. The definition of any
word or phrase not listed in Appendix A-1 which is ambiguous when administering the SMP
shall be defined by the City's Community Development Director, or his/her designee, from the
following sources in the order listed:
1. Any City of Spokane Malley resolution, ordinance, code, or regulation;
2. Any statute or regulation of the State of Washington;
3. Legal definitions from the Hearings Board, from Washington common law, or the
most recently adopted Blacks Law Dictionary; or
4. The most recently -adopted Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.
B. Definitions.
Accessory or appurtenant structures: A structure that is necessarily connected to the use
and enjoyment of a single-family residence, including garages, sheds, decks, driveways,
utilities, fences, swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, tennis courts. installation of a septic tank
and drainfield, and grading which does not exceed 250 cubic yards and does not involve
placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the 01-1WM.
Agricultural activities: Relating to the science or art of cultivating soil or producing crops to
be used or consumed directly or indirectly by man or livestock, ar raising of livestock. The terra
has the full meaning as set forth in WAC 173-26-020(3)(a) as adopted or amended.
Amendment: A revision, update, addition, deletion, and/or reenactment to an existing SMP.
Applicant: A person who files an application for permit under the SMP and may be the owner
of the land on which the proposed activity would be located, a contract purchaser, or the
authorized agent of such a person.
Aquaculture: The culture or farming of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants and animals.
Associated wetlands: Those wetlands (see 'Wetlands' definition) that are in proximity to and
either influence, or are influenced by, a lake or stream subject to the SMA,
Average grade levels The average of the natural or existing topography of the portion of the
lot, parcel, or tract of real property which will be directly under the proposed building or
structure; provided that in case of structures to be built over water, average grade level shall be
the elevation of OHWM. Calculation of the average grade level shall be made by averaging the
elevators at the center of all exterior walls of the proposed building or structure.
Best Management Practices (BMPs): Site-specific design strategies, techniques,
technologies, conservation and maintenance practices, or systems of practices and
management measures that minimize adverse impacts from the development or use of a site.
Bioengineering: Project designs or construction methods which use living plant material or a
combination of living plant material and natural or synthetic materials to establish a complex root
grid within the bank which is resistant to erosion, provides bank stability, and promotes a
healthy riparian environment. Bioengineering approaches may include use of wood structures
or clean angular rock to provide stability.
Page i of 8
Exhibit 2
Appendix .4 • f
Boating facilities: Boating facilities include boat launches, ramps, public docks, commercial
docks, and private docks serving more than four residences, together with accessory uses such
as Americans with Disabilities Act -compliant access routes, boat and equipment storage, user
amenities such as benches and picnic tables, and restroom facilities.
Buffer or Shoreline buffer: The horizontal distance from the OHWM or critical area which is
established to preserve shoreline or critical area functions by limiting or restricting development.
See Appendix A-2, Shoreline Buffers Map. Permitted development and activities within buffers
depend on the type of critical area or resource land the buffer is protecting.
Clearing: The destruction or removal of ground cover, shrubs, and trees including, but net
limited to, root material removal and/or topsoil removal.
Commercial uses: Those uses that are involved in wholesale, retail, service, and business
trade. Examples of cornmercial uses include restaurants, offices, and retail shops.
Conditional use: A use, project, or substantial development which is classified as a conditional
use or is not classified within the SMR
Degrade: To impair with respect to some physical ar environmental property or to reduce in
structure or function.
Development: A use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging;
drilling; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of
obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal
public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the SMA at any stage of water
level.
Development regulations: The controls placed on development or land uses by the City,
including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, building codes, critical areas ordinances, all
portions of the SMP other than goals and policies approved or adopted under chapter 90.58
RCW, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan
ordinances together with any amendments thereto.
Dock: A floating platform over water used far moorage of recreational or commercial watercraft.
Dredging: The removal of sediment, earth, or gravel from the bottom of a body of water, for the
deepening of navigational channels, to mine the sediment materials, to restore water bodies, for
flood control. or for cleanup of polluted sediments
Ecological functions or Shoreline functions: The work performed ar role played by the
physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic
and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural ecosystem.
Ecology: Washington State Department of Ecology.
Ecosystem -wide process; The suite of naturally occurring physical and geologic processes of
erosion, transport, and deposition; and specific chemical processes that shape landforms within
as specific shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of habitat and the associated
-ecological functions,
Enhancement: Alteration of an existing resource to improve its ecological function without
degrading ether existing functions.
Exemption or Exempt development: Exempt developments are those set forth in WAC 173-
( -MO rind RCW 90.58_030(3)(e), RCW 90.58,140{4,}, F C:W 9-.:;3.147, ROW 90.58.355, and
E:C}."d 90.58.515. See also "Shoreline exemption, letter of
. xhibtt 2
Appendix A-1
Feasible: An action, such as a project, mitigation measure, ur preservation requirement, which
meets all of the following conditions:.
t. The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been
used in the past in similar circumstances, or studies or tests have demonstrated
in similar circumstances that such approaches are currently available and likely
to achieve the intended results;
2. The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose;
3. The action does not physically preclude achieving the project's intended legal
use; and
4. In cases where the SMP requires certain actions unless they are infeasible, the
burden of proving infeasibility is on the applicant. In determining an action's
infeasibility. the City may weigh the action's relative public costs and public
benefits, considered in the short- and longterm time frames.
Fill: The addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining structure, or other
material to an area waterward of the OHWM, in wetlands, or on shorelands in a manner that
raises the elevation or creates dry land. Depositing topsoil in a dry upland area for landscaping
NI -poses is not considered a fill.
Flood hazard reduction: Measures taken to reduce flood damage or hazards. Flood hazard
reduction measures may consist of nonstructural measures, such as setbacks, land use
controls, wetland restoration, dike removal, use relocation, biotechnical measures, and
stormwater management programs, and of structural measures, such as dikes, levees,
revetments, floodwalls, channel realignment, and elevation of structures consistent with the
National Flood Insurance Program.
Footprint: That area defined by the outside face of the exterior walls of a structure.
Forest practices: Any activity relating to growing, harvesting, cr processing timber, including,
but not limited to, uses defined in RC1 V 75.09.020.
Grading: The movement or redistribution of the soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, or other
material on a site in a manner that alters the natural contour of the land,
Habitat: The place or type of site where a plant or animal lives and grows.
Habitat enhancement: Actions performed within an existing shoreline, critical area, or buffer to
intentionally increase or augment one or more ecological functions cr values, such as increasing
aquatic and riparian plant diversity or cover. increasing structural complexity, installing
environmentally compatible erosion controls. or removing non -indigenous plant or animal
species.
Hearings Board: The Shoreline Hearings Board established by the SMA
Height: Height is measured from average grade level to the highest point of a structure;
provided that television antennas, chimneys, and similar appurtenances shall not be esed in
calculating height; provided further that temporary constructions equipment is excluded from th s
calculation.
In -stream structure: A structure placed by humans within a stream or river waterward of the
OHWM that either causes or has the potential to cause water impoundment or cause the
diversion, obstruction, or modification of water flow. In -stream structures may include those for
hydroelectric generation, irrigation, water supply, flood control, transportation; utility service
transmission, fish habitat enhancement, recreation, or other purpose.
industrial uses: Facilities for processing, manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, and storage of
finished or semi -finished products.
Page 3 of 8
Exhibit 2 Appendix-
Landward!
4ppi dix
Landward! To, or towards, the land in a direction away from a water body,
May. The action is acceptable, provided it conforms to the provisions of this SMP.
Mining: The removal of sand, gravel, soil, minerals, and other earth materials for commercial
and other uses.
Mitigation or Mitigation sequencing; To avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse impacts.
Native: For the purposes of this SMP, "native" means a plant or animal species that naturally
occurs in Spokane County, or occurred in Spokane County at the time of Euro -American
exploration and settlement. beginning in the early 19th century.
No net loss: The standard for protection of shoreline ecological functions established in RCW
36.7OA 480 as adopted or amended, and as that standard is interpreted an an en -going basis
by courts, the Growth Management Hearings Board, or the Hearings Board. The concept of
net loss" as used herein. recognizes that any use or development has potential or actual, short-
term or long-term impacts which may diminish ecological function and that through application
of appropriate development standards and employment of mitigation measures in accordance
with mitigation sequencing, those impacts will be addressed in a manner necessary to assure
that the end result will not cumulatively diminish the shoreline resources and values as they
currently exist. Where uses or development that impact ecological functions are necessary to
achieve other objectives of RCW 90.58,020, the no net Toss stardard protects to the greatest
extent feasible existing ecological functions and tailors avoidance of new impacts to habitat and
ecological functions before implementing other measures designed to achieve no net bass of
ecological functions.
Nonconforming structure: A structure within the shoreline which was lawfully constructed or
established within the application process prior to the effective date of the SMA or the SMP, or
amendments thereto, but which does not conform 10 present regulations or standards of the
SNP.
Nonconforming use: A shoreline use which was lawfully established or established within the
application process prior to the effective date of the SMA or the SMP. or amendments thereto.
but which does not conform to present regulations or standards ot the SMP.
Non water -oriented uses: Any uses that are not water -dependent, water -related, or water -
enjoyment as defined by the SMP,
Off-site mitigation: To replace wetlands or other shoreline environmental resources away from
the site on which a resource has been impacted by en activity.
Ordinary high water mark (OHWIUf); The mark that will be found by examining the bed and
banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual,
and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from
that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, t971, as
it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits
issued by the City, provided that in any area where the OHWM cannot be found, the OHWM
adjoining freshwater shall be the line of mean high water.
Pier: A fixed platform over water used for moorage of recreational or commercial watercraft.
Priority habitats and species: Habitats and spk,r,ieti desicinr ted by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife as requiring protec'ive measures fat -their survival due to
population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal
importance. Priority species include State Endangered, 1 nreatened, Sensitive, and Candidate
Page 4 qf'8
Exltrbif
species; animal aggregations (such as bat colonies) considered vulnerable: and species of
recreational, commercial, or tribal importance that are vulnerable. Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife maintains maps of known locations of priority habitats and species in
Washington State.
Provisions: Policies, regulations. standards, guideline criteria, or environment designations.
Public access: The ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, tc
travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent
locations.
Public facilities: Facilities and structures, operated for public purpose and benefit, including,
but not limited to, solid waste handling and disposal, water transmission lines, sewage treatment
facilities and mains, power generating and transfer facilities, gas distribution lines and storage
facilities, storrnwater mains, and wastewater treatment facilities
Qualified professional: A person who, in the opinion of tate Director, has appropriate
education, training and experience in the applicable field to generate a report or study required
in this SMP.
1. For reports related to wetlands, this means a certified professional wetland
scientist or a non -certified professional wetland scientist with a minimum of five
years' experience in the field of wetland science and with experience preparing
wetland reports.
2. For reports related to critical aquifer recharge areas, this means a
hydrogeologist, geologist, or engineer, who is licensed in the State of
Washington and has experience preparing hydrogeologic assessments.
3, For reports related to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas this means a
biologist with experience preparing reports for the relevant type of habitat.
4. For reports related to geologically hazardous areas this means a geotechnical
engineer or geologist, licensed in the State of Washington, with experience
analyzing geologic, hydrologic, and ground water flow systems.
5. For reports related to frequently flooded areas this means a hydrologist or
engineer, licensed in the State of Washington with experience in preparing flood
hazard assessments_
6. For reports related to cultural and archaeological resources and historic
preservation, this means a professional archaeologist or historic preservation
prcfessi anal.
RCW: Revised Code of Washington.
Recreational use: Commercial and public facilities designed and used to provide recreational
opportunities to the public_
Residential use: Uses for residential purpose.
Restore, restoration, or ecological restoration: The reestablishment or upgrading of
unpaired ecological shoreline processes arfunctions. This may be accomplished through
measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures,
and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for
returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre -European settlement conditions.
Riparian area: The interface area between land and a river or stream. The area includes plant
and wildlife habitats and ccmmunities along the river margins and banks.
Setback or shoreline setback: The minimum required distance between a structure and the
shoreline buffer that is to remain free of structures.
Shall: An action that is mandatory and not discretionary.
Page 5 of 8
Exhibit' 2 Appendix A-)
Shorelands or shoreland areas: Those lands extending landward fur 200 feet in all directions
as measured on a horizontal plane from the oFiWM; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas
landward 200 feet from such floodways: and all wetlar7ds associated with the streams and lakes
which are subject to the provisions of the SMA and the SMP; all of which will be designated as
to location by Ecology.
Shoreline exemption, letter of: Documentation provided by the City that proposed
development qualifies as an Exempt Development (as that term, is defined herein) and that the
proposed development is consistent with chapter 21.50 SVMC and other local and state
requirements, including the State Environmental Policy Act as adopted or amended when
applicable.
Shoreline jurisdiction and shoreline areas: All "shorelines of the state andl'shorelands",
Shoreline Management Act (SMA): The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 as set forth in
chapter 90.58 RCW as adopted or amended_
Shoreline Master Program (SMP): The comprehensive use plan applicable to the shorelines
of the state within the City, including the use regulations, together with snaps, goals and policies,
and standards developed in accordance with he policies enunciated in RCW 90.58.020.
Shoreline modifications: Those actions that modify the physical configuration or qualities of
the shoreline area, usually through the construction of a physical element such as a dike,
breakwater, pier, weir. dredged basin, fill, bulkhead, or other shoreline structure. They can
include other actions, such as clearing, grading, or application of chemicals.
Shoreline permit(s): Means any substantial development. variance, conditional use permit, or
revision authorized under chapter 21.50 SVMC and chapter 90.58 RC1.
Shoreline stabilization: Actions taken to prevent or mitigate erosion impacts to property or
structures caused by shoreline processes such as currents, floods, or wind action. Shoreline
stabilization includes, but is not limited to, structural armoring approaches such as bulkheads,
bulkhead alternatives, and nonstructural approaches such as bioengineering.
Shoreline substantial development permit: A permit required by the SMP for substantial
development within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Shorelines: All of the water areas of the state, including reservoirs, and their associated
shorelands, together with the lands underlying them, except (a) shorelines of statewide
significance; (b) shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual
flow is 20 cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream
segments; and (0) shorelines on lakes less than 20 acres in size and wetlands associated with
such small lakes.
Shorelines of statewide significance: Has the meaning as set forth in RCW 90.58.030(2)(f)
as adopted or amended.
Shorelines of the state: The total of all 'shorelines" and 'shorelines of statewide significance"
within the state.
Should: An action which is required unless there is a demonstrated, compelling reason based
on policy of the SMA and the SMP, against taking the action.
Substantial development: Any development of which the total cast or fair market value
exceeds $0,416, or any development which materially interferes with the normal public use of
the water or shorelines of the state. The current thresholds will be eeljested for inflation oy the
State Office of Financial Management every five years, beginning from ,July 1, 2007.
Page 6 of8
(; iibi7 2 /ipp<Mdix 4-1
Temporary impact. Impacts to a critical area that are less than one year and expected to be
restored following construction.
Transportation facilities: Facilities consisting of the means and equipment necessary for the
movement of passengers Qr goods_
Upland: Generally described as the dry land area above and landward of the OHWNI,
Utilities: Services and facilities that produce, convey, store or process power, gas, sewage,
water, stormwater, communications, oil, and waste.
Variance: A process to grant relief from the specifc bulk, dimensional, or performance
standards through submission of a shoreline varianoe, A variance is nota means to change the
allowed use of a shoreline.
Viewing platform: A platform located landward of the DMA/Mused for viewing pleasure.
WAC: 1r'Vashhngton Administrative Code_
Water -dependent use: A use or portion of a use which cannot exist in a location that is not
adjacent to the water and which is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its
operations.
Water -enjoyment use: A recreational use or other use that facilitates public access to the
shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use: or a use that provides for recreational use or
aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general
characteristic of the use and which through location, design, and operation ensures the public's
ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline_ in order to qualify as a
water -enjoyment use. the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline -oriented
space within the project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline
enjoyment.
Water -oriented use: A use that is water -dependent. water -related, or water -enjoyment, or a
combination of such uses.
Water quality: The physical characteristics of voter within the shoreline jurisdiction, including
water quantity. hydrological, physical, chemical, aesthetic, recreation -related, and biological
characteristics.
Water quantity: The flow rate and/or flow volume of stormwater or surface water_ Where used
ir the SNIP, the term "water quantity' refers to uses andfor structures regulated under the SMP
affecting water quantity, such as impermeable surfaces and stormwater handling practices..
Water quantity, for purposes of the SMP, does not mean the withdrawal of groundwater or
diversion of surface water pursuant to RCVV 90.03.250 through 90.03.340.
Water.related use: A use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a
waterfront location but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location
because.
1.
The use has a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival
or shipment of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or
2. The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water -dependent uses
and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive
anchor more convenient.
Wetlands: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted far life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not
include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland sites, including, but not
Page 7 of 8
Exhfb it 2 Appendix A-1
limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities,
wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands
created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a
road, street, or highway_ Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created
from non -wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands_
Page 8 01'8
Exhibit 2 Chapter 21.50 Shore erre Reguicugorrs
CHAPTER 21,50 -SHORELINE REGULATIONS
Shoreline Permits, Procedures, and Administration
21.50.010 Applicability, Shoreline Permits, and Exemptions
To be authorized, all uses and development activities in shorelines shall corriply the City of
Spokane Vai'ley"s (City) Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and the Shoreline Management Act
(SMA) pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(1). All regulations applied within the shoreline shall 4
liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which they have been
enacted.
21.50.020 Applicability
A. The $MP shall apply to all shere'lands, shorelines, and waters within the City that fall
under the jurisdiction of chapter 90.58 RCW. The Shoreline Designations Map is shown
in Appendix A. These include:
1. Lands extending 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWMM1) of waters
that fall under the jurisdiction of chapter 90.58 RCW, in all directions as
measured on a horizontal plane;
2. Fioodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such
floodways,
3. Critical areas within the shoreline and their associated buffer areas; and
4. Lakes that are subject to the provisions of the SMP, as may be amended,
B. Maps depicting the extent of shoreline jurisdiction and shoreline designations are for
guidance only. They are to be used in conjunction with best available science, field
investigations, and an -site surveys tca accurately establish the location and extent of the
shoreline jurisdiction when a project is proposed. All areas meeting the definition of a
shoreline or a Shoreline of Statewide Significance, whether mapped or not, are subject
to the provisions of the SMP. Within the City, Shelley Lake is considered a Shoreline of
the State and is subject to the provisions of the SMP. The Spokane River is further
identified as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance.
The SMP shall apply to every person, individual, firm, partnership, association,
organization, corporation, local or state governmental agency, public or municipal
corporation, or other non-federal entity that develops, owns, leases, or administers
lands, critical areas, or waters that fall under the jurisdiction of the SMA.
D. Hazardous substance remedial actions pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed
order issued pursuant to chapter 70.1050 RCW are exempt tram all procedural
requirements of the SMP.
E. Development may require a shoreline permit in addition to other approvals required from
the City, state, and federal agencies.
F. The SNIP" shall apply ,,vhether the propose=d develooment or activity is exempt frorn a
sh:r line nerrnit or not_
�� firn icsns re'evant to the Si111P are set fork. in Appendix A-1. If any conflict occurs
betti °c. n thy, definitinrns found in Appendix A.1, and Appendix A, the definition provided
in Appendix :endix .A -'I shat govern.
Page I of 61
r._.x-Jii(arl 2 C/ amer 21.501 Shoreline Regirtal�oru
H. When the provisions set forth in SVMC 21.50 conflict with other provisions of the SMP or
with federal or state regulations; those which provide more substantive protection to the
shoreline shall apply.
21.50.030 Administrative Authority and Responsibility
A The City Manager has designated the Community Development Director (Director) as
the City's shoreline administrator, who shall carry out the provisions of the SMP and who
shall have the authority to act upon the following matters!
1, Interpretation, enforcement, and administration of the SMP;
2. Modifications or revisions to approved shoreline permits as provided in the SMP;
and
3. Requests for tetters of Exemption.
B. The Director shall ensure compliance with the provisions of the SMP for all shoreline
permits and approvals processed by the City pursuant to SVMC 21.50.100, 21.50.110,
21.50.130, and 21.50.140.
C. The Director shall document all project review actions in the shoreline jurisdiction in
order to periodically evaluate the cumulative effects of authorized development on
shoreline conditions, pursuant to WAC 173-25-191(2)(a)(iii)(D).
CI. The Director shall consult with Ecology to ensure that any formal written interpretations
are consistent with the purpose and intent of chapter 90.58 RCI' and the applicable
guidelines of chapter 173-25 and 173-27 WAC.
21.50.040 Types of Shoreline Permits
Developments and uses within the shoreline jurisdiction may be authorized through one or more
of the following:
A. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, pursuant to SVMC 21.50,100, for sebstantial
development.
B. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.130, for projects identified in
SVMC 21.50,190 or uses not specified in the SMP.
C, Letters of Exemption, pursuant tc SVMC 21,50,120, for projects or activities meeting the
criteria of RCW 90.58.030(3)(e) and WAC 173-27-040(2).
ID. Shoreline Variance, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140.
21.50.050 Development Authorization Review Procedure
A. Complete development applications and appeals shall be processed pursuant to SVMC
17.80 Permit Processing Procedures, SVMC 17.90 Appeals. and with any specific
process requirements provided in SVMC 21.50 including:
1. Submittals;
2, Completeness review,
3. Notices;
4. Hearings:
5. Decisions; and
G. Appeals.
B. The following procedures shall also apply to development authorizations within the
shoreline jurisdiction:
1. The public comment period for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits shall
be 30 days, pursuant to WAC 173-27-110
Page 2 of 61
Exhibit 2 Chapter 21.50Shoreline Regula i'ns
2. The public comment period for limited utility extensions and shoreline
stabilization measures for bulkheads to protect a single-family residence and its
appurtenant structures shall be 20 days, pursuant to 1NAC 173-27-120.
3. For limited utility extensions and bulkheads fora single-family residence, a
decision shall be issued within 21 days frarn the last day of the comment period,
pursuant to WAC 173-27-120.
4. The effective date of a shoreline permit shall conform to WAC 173-27-090 and
shall be the latter of the permit date, or the date of final action on subsequent
appea s of the shcreline permit, if any, unless the Applicant notifies the shoreline
administrator of delays in other necessary construction permits,
5 The expiration dates for a shoreline permit pertaining to the start and completion
of construction, and the extension of deadlines for those dates shall conform to
VVAC 173-27-000 and are:
a Construction shall be started within two years of the effective date of the
shoreline permit;
b. Construction shall be completed within five years of the effective date o'
the shoreline permit;
A single one-year extension of the deadlines may be granted at the
discretion of the Director; and
d. The Director may set alternative permit expiration dates as e condition of
the shoreline permit if just cause exists.
The decision and the application materials shall he sent to Ecology after the local
decision and any local appeal procedures have been completed, pursuant to
WAG 173-27-130.
7, For Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Ecology shall file the permit
without additional action pursuant to WAC 173-27-130.
8. For Shoreline Conditional Use permits and Variance decisions, Ecoioay shall
issue a decision within 30 days of the date of filing, pursuant to WAG 173-27-130
arid WAC 173-27-200.
9. The appeal period to the Shorelines Hearings Beard of an Ecology action shall
be 21 days from the date of filing fora Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit, or the issue date of a Shoreline Conditional Use permit or Variance
decision, pursuant to WAC 173 27 190.
10. The Shorelines Hearings Board tihrr I Follow the :Tiles governing that body,
pursuant to chapter 90,58 RCW.
C. Development applications shall be reviewed for conformance with SVMC 2-l_50 180
through 21.50.560.
21.50.060 Authorization Decisions - Basis for Action
A. Approval or denial of any development or use within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be
based upon the following:
1. Danger to life and property that would likely occur as a result of the project
2. Compatibility of the project with the critical area features on, adjacent to, ar near
the property, shoreline values and ecological functions, and public access and
navigation;
3. Conformance with the applicable development standards in SVMC 21 50;
4. Requirements of other applicable local, state, or federal permits or
authorizations;
5. Adequacy of the irforrnation provided by the Applicant ar available to the
Director; and
Page 3 01
Exhibit 2 Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Regulafiorrs
6. Ability of the project to satisfy the purpose and intent of the SNP_
B. Based upon the prcjoct evalu tior . the Director shall tare ore, of the following actions:
1. Approve the c.ievlol r -ori or use;
2. Approve the d .veIoprn r11 c. -,r use with coriltr:ns, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.070;
or
3. Deny the development or use,
C. The decision by the Director on the development or use stall include written findings and
conclusions stating the reasons upon which the decision is based.
21.50„070 Conditions of Approval
When approving any development or use, the Director may impose conditions to:
A. Accomplish the purpose and intent of the SMP;
B. Eliminate or mitigate any negative impacts of the project on critical areas, and on
shoreline functions;
C. Restore important resource features that have been degraded or lost on the project site:
D. Protect designated critical areas and shoreline jurisdiction from damaging and
incompatible development; or
E. Ensure compliance with specific development standards in SVMC 21.50.
21.50.080 Prohibited Activities and Uses
The following activities and uses are prohibited in all shoreline designations and are not eligible
fora shoreline permit, including a Conditional Use or Shoreline Variance See Table 21 50-1
and Table 21.50-2.
A. Uses not allowed in the underlying zoning district;
B. Discharge of solid wastes, liquid wastes: untreated effluents, or other poterttially harmful
materials;
C. Solid waste or hazardous waste landfills;
D. Speculative fill:
E. Dredging or dredge mater,al disposal in wetlands;
F Dredging or dredge material disposal to construct land canals or small basins for boat.
moorage or launching, water ski landings, swimming holes, or other recreational
activities;
G. Commercial timber harvest or other forest practices;
H. Agriculture and aquaculture;
Non water -oriented Industrial Uses and Mining; and
The construction of breakwaters, jetties, groins, or weirs_.
Page 4 of 61
Exhibit 2 Chaptr r 21,50 Shordine Regulations
21.50.090 Minor Activities Allowed Without a Shoreline Permit or Letter of Exemption
The SMP applies to the following activities, however, they are allowed without a shoreline permit
or Letter of Exemption:
A. Maintenance of existing landscaping Sincluding paths and trails) or gardens within the
shoreline, including a regulated critical area or its buffer. Examples include mowing
lawns, weeding, harvesting and replanting of garden crops, pruning, and planting of non-
invasive ornamental vegetation or indigenous native species to maintain the general
condition and extent of such areas. Removing trees and shrubs within a buffer is not
considered a maintenance activity. See SVMC 21.50.260 for regulations regarding
vegetation removal. Excavation, filling, and construction of new landscaping features
are not considered a maintenance activity and may require a shoreline permit or letter of
exemption.
B. Minor maintenance and/or repair of lawfully established structures that do not involve
additional construction, earthwork, or clearing. Examples include painting, trim or facing
replacement, re -roofing, etc. Construction or replacement of structural elements is not
covered in this provision. but may be covered under an exemption in SVMC
21.50.110(B).
C. Cleaning canals, ditches, drains, wasteways, etc. without expanding their original
configuration is not considered additional earthwork, as long as the cleared materials are
placed outside the shoreline jurisdiction, wetlands, and buffers.
D. Creation of unimproved private trails that do not cross streams cr wetlands and which
are Tess than two feet wide and do not involve placement of fill or grubbing of vegetation.
Planting cif native vegetation.
F. Noxious weed control outside of buffers pursuant to SVMC 21.50,110(M) except for area
wide vegetation removal/grubbing.
C. Noxious weed control within vegetative buffers. if the criteria listed below is met. Control
methods not meeting these criteria may still apply for a restoration exemption, or other
authorization as applicable:
1. Hand removal/spraying of individual plants only; and
2. No area -wide vegetation removal/grubbing.
H. Pruning, thinning, or dead or hazardous tree removal pursuant to SVMC 21.50.250(C),
21.50.100 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Required
A. Classification Criteria - A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required for any
substantial development unless the use or development is specifically exempt pursuant
to SVMC 21.50.090 or 21.50.110.
B. Process - Shoreline Substantial Development Permits shall be processed as a Type 11
review pursuant to SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures, subject to the
exceptions set forth in SVMC 21.50.050.
C. Decision Criteria - A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit may be issued when all
applicable requirements of the SMA, WAC 173-27, and the SMP have been met.
Po e5of61
:x!'i?be
Chapter 21.50 ShareiFne Regulations
21.50.110 Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
The activities listed below are exempt from the requirement to obtain a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit pursuant to WAC 173-27-040. These activities still require a letter of
exemption and may require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline Variance, or other
development permits from the City or other agencies.
If any pari of a proposed development is not eligible for a Letter of Exemption, then a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit is required for the entire proposed development project.
Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms
of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemptions from the Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit.
A. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value does not exceed $6,416 or
as adjusted by the State Office of Financial Management, if such development does not
materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or Shorelines of the State.
For purposes of determining whether or not a Shoreline Substantial Development Ferret
is required, the total cost or fair market value shall be based on the value of
development as defined in RCW 90.68.030(2)(c)_ The total cost or fair market value of
thedevelopment shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed, or found
labor, equipment, or materials.
B. Normal maintenance or repair of existing legally -established structures or developments,
including damage by accident, fire, or elements.
1. Normal maintenance includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, ur
cessation from a lawfully established condition.
2. Normal repair means to restore a development to a state comparable to its
original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration,
location, and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay ar
partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to the
shoreline resource or environment.
3. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where
such replacement is:
a. The common method of repair for the type of structure or development
and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the
original structure or development including but not limited to its size,
shape, configuration, location, and external appearance; and
b. The replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline
resources ar environment.
C. Construction of a normal protective bulkhead common to residential lots:
1. A normal protective bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural
developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the OHWM for the sole
purpose of protecting an existing residence and appurtenant structures from loss
or damage by erosion_
2. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if constructed for the purpose of
cecating dry land, When a vertical or near vertical wall is being constructed or
recL.nstructed, not more than ane cubic yard of fill per one foot of wall may be
used as backfill.
3. When an existing bulkhead is being repaired by construction of a vertical wall
fronting the existing wall, it shall be constructed no further waterward of the
existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings. When a
Page 6of61
E.xh?. it 2
Chapter 21.50 S orelr'ne Regulations
bulkhead has deteriorated such that an OHWM has been established by the
presence arid action of water landward of the bulkhead then the replacement
bulkhead must be located at or near the actual °HWM.
4. Beach nourishment and bioengineered erosion central projects may be
considered a normal protective bulkhead when any structural elements are
consistent with the above requirements and when the project has been approved
by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFVV).
D. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements.
An "emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the
environment that requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full
compliance with Chapter 21.50.
1. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent
protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective
structures are deemed by the Director to be the appropriate means to address
the emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation the new
structure shall be removed or any permit that would have been required, absent
an emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 ROW, WAC 173-27, or the SMP, shall
be obtained.
2. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies and requirements
of chapter 90.58 RCVV and the SMP. As a general matter, flooding or other
seasonal events that can be anticipated and may eccur but that are not imminent
are not an emergency
E. Construction or modification of navigational aids such as charnel markers and anchor
buoys.
Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-family
residence cr appurtenance for their own use or for the use of their family, which
residence does not exceed a height o` 35 feet above average grade level, and which
meets all requirements of the City. other than requirements imposed pursuant to chapter
90.58 RCVV. Construction authorized under this subsection shall be located landward of
the OHWM.
G. Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for
the private non-commercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-
family or multiple -family residence. A dock is a landing and monrege facility for
watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage facilities, or other
appurtenances. This exception applies when the fair market value of the dock does not
exceed $20,000, but if subsequent construction having a fair market value exceeding
$2,500 occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, the subsequent
construction shall be considered a substantial development.
H. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or
other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an
irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including
return flow and artificially stored ground water from the irrigation of lands
I. The marking of property lines or comers on state-owned lands, when such marking does
not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water.
Page 7of61
Exhibit 2 Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Regulations
J. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities
existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a
part of an agricultural drainage or diking system,
K. Any project with a State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council certification from the
governor pursuant to RCW 80.50.
L. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an
application for development authorization under this chapter, if
1. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of surface Ovate s;
2. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment inchidin g
but not limited to fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, tivater quality, and aesthetic
values;
The activity does not involve the installation of any structure and upon
completion of the activity the vegetation and land r;orf of ale site are.
restored to conditions existing before the activity; and
4, The Applicant first posts a performance surety acceat:aE,la to the CH -4 to ensure
that the site is restored to pre-existing conditions.
M. Removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW 117.26.020, through
the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control published
by the Department of Agriculture or Ecology jointly with other state agencies under RCW
43,21C
N. Watershed restoration projects as defined in WAC 173.27.040(2)(0). The Director shall
determine if the project is sabstantially consistent with the SMP and notify the Applicant
of such determination by letter.
C A puk[ic or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish
passage as reviewed by VVDFW and all of the following apply:
1 The project has been approved in writing by the WDFVV;
2 The project has received hydraulic project approval by the WDFW pursuant to
chapter 77.55 PCW; and
3. The Director has determined that the project is substantially consistent with the
SMP and shall notify the Applicant of such determination by letter,
21.50.120 Letter of Exemption
A, The proponent of an activity exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
shall apply for a Letter of Exemption. All activities exempt from the requirement for a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall use reasonable methods to avoid
impacts to critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction_ Being exempt from the
requirements fora Shoreline Substantial Development. Permit does not give authority tc
degrade a critical area, or shoreline, or ignore risk from natural hazards
B. The Director shall review the Letter of Exemption request to verify compliance with the
SMP and shall approve or deny such Letter of Exemption.
C. If a Letter of Exemption is issued, it shall be sent to Ecology, the Applicant, and a copy
retained by the City.
Page 8 of 61
Exhibit 2 C'Ji r ter 2 !-J O ,Showling Regal:Wags
D. A Letter of Exemption may contain conditions and/or mitigating conditions of approval to
achieve consistency and compliance with the provisions of the SMP and the SMA.
E, A denial of a Letter of Exemption shall be in writing and shall list the reason(s) for the
denial.
21.50.130 Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
A. Classification Criteria - Shoreline conditional uses are those uses within the shoreline
jurisdiction identified in Table 21.50-1 Shoreline Use Table, which require a Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit.
B. Unclassified uses not specifically identified in Table 21.50-1 may be authorized through
a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, provided the Applicant can demonstrate consistency
with the requirements of SVMC 21.50.
Process - A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit shall be processed as a Type 11 review
pursuant to SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. The Director shall be the final
authority for the City, whose recommendation is then forwarded to Ecology Ecology
shall have final approval authority pursuant to WAC 173-27-200.
D. Decision Criteria - The Director's decision on a conditional use shall be based upon the
criteria set forth in SVMC 19.150.030 and 21.50.060 Conditions and Requirements,
together with the criteria established below. The Applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Director that the development meets all of the following criteria
1. The use is consistent with the policies of PCW 90.58.020;
2. The use will rot interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines;
3. The use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other permitted
uses in the area;
4. The use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment
designation in which it is located; and
5. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
E. Consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like
actions in the area. For example, if Shoreline Conditional Use Permits were granted for
other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist for similar uses and
impacts, the total cumulative effect of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent
with the policies of RCVV 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to
the shoreline environment,
F, The burden of proving that the project is consistent with the applicable criteria shall be
upon the Applicant.
21.50.140 Shoreline Variance
A. The purpose of a Shoreline Variance is to grant relief to specific bulk or dimensional
requirements set forth in SVMC 21.50 where extraordinary or unique circumstances
exist relating to the property such that the strict irnplernentation of the standards would
impose unnecessary hardships on the Applicant, or thwart the policies set forth in the
SMA and the SMP.
When 2 development or use is proposed that does not meet requirements of the bulk,
dimensional, ,and/or performance standards of the SMF', such development may only be
Page 9 cif 6!
Exhibit 2 Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Reguiarions
authorized by approval of a Shoreline Variance, even if the development or use does not
require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
C. process - A Shoreline Variance shall be processed as a Type 11 review pursuant to
SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. Each request for a Shoreline Variance
shall be considered separately and prior to any decision on a development application.
Any decision to approve or conditionally approve the development will include and
specifically cite only those variances approved for inclusion with the project.
D, When a Shoreline Variance is requested, the Director shall be the final authority for the
City. The Director's determination shall be provided to Ecology for review. Ecology shall
have final approval authority of Shoreline Variances pursuant to RCW 90,58.140(10).
E. Decision Criteria -To qualify for a Shoreline Variance, the following shall be required:
1. Demonstrate compliance with the criteria established in SVMC 21,50 030
Authorization Decisions - Basis for Action.
2. A Shoreline Variance request for a development or use located landward c}f
OHWM, or landward of any wetland shall cite the specific standard or condition
from which relief is requested and be accompanied by evidence that
demonstrates the variance is consistent with all of the items below:
a. That the strict application of a standard precludes, or significantly
interferes with, reasonable use of the property;
b_ That the hardship described in subsection (a) is specifically related to the
property, and is a result of unique natural or physical conditions, such as
irregular lot shape, size, or natural features which do riot allow compliance
with the standard. The site constraint shall not be the result of a deed
restriction, a lack of knowledge of requirements involved when the property
was acquired, or other actions resulting from the proponent's own actions;
c. The project is generally compatible with other permitted or authorized uses
in the project area, with uses planned for the area under the
Comprehensive Plan and the SMP, and will not cause adverse impacts to
the area;
d. The requested variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege
not enjoyed by other properties in the area, and the variance is the
minimum necessary to afford the requested relief; and
e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
3. A Shoreline Variance request for a development or use located waterward of the
OHWM. or within any wetland shall cite the specific standard or condition frcni
which relief is requested and be accompanied by evidence that demoestietee the
variance is consistent with all of the items below:
a. That the strict application of a standard would preclude all reasonable use
of the property;
b. That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under
subsection (2)(b) through (e) of this section; and
c. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be
adversely affected,
4. In the granting of any Shoreline Variance, consideration shall be given to the
cumulative impact of additional requests for like variances in the area. For
example, if Shoreline Variances were granted to other developments andlar uses
in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the variances shall also
Pa.f.TO FO of -61
Exhibit 2
Cf Ater 2 50 Shoreline Regulations
remain consistent with the policies of the SMA and SMP and shall not cause
substantial adverse impacts to the shoreline environment_
F. The burden of proving that a proposed variance meets the criteria of the SMP and VVAG
173-27-170 shall be on the Applicant, Absence of such proof shall be a basis for denial
of the application,
21.50.150 Nonconforming Development
A. Classification Criteria — A use, structure, appurtenant structure, or lot is nonconforming if
it was legally established but is inconsistent with a subsequently adopted regulation or
regulations. Lawful uses, structures, appurtenant structures, and lots that are deemed
nonconforming are subject to the provision of this section.
Process and Decision Criteria
1. Decisions on projects that require review under this section shall be made
pursuant to SVMC 21.50.060 Authorization Decisions - Basis for Action and the
following criteria.
2. Legal nonconforming uses and structures shall be allowed to continue with no
additional requirements except as otherwise addressed in this section.
3. Nonconforming Uses.
a. Additional development of any property on which a nonconforming use
exists shall require that all new uses conform to the SMP,
b. Intensification or expansion of nonconforming uses that will not result in
an increase of nonconformity shall be allowed and will be processed
under these nonconforming provisions as a Type II review, pursuant to
SVMC Title 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures.
c. Change of ownership, tenancy, or management of a nonconforming use
shall not affect its nonconforming status provided that the use does not
change or intensify.
d. If a nonconforming use is converted to a conforming use, a
nonconforming use may not be resumed.
e. Conversion from one nonconforming use to another may only be
approved through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit pursuant to SVMC
21.50.130(E) if the fol lowing additional criteria are met:
i. The property is located within a residential or conservancy
shoreline environment:
The replacement use is either of a similar intensity to the previous
nonconforming use, or is more conforming with the intent of the
applicable Shoreline Environment Policies; and
iii. The impacts to the shoreline ecological functions from the existing
use are reduced by changing the use.
When the operation of a nonconforming use is discontinued or
abandoned for a period of 12 consecutive months, the nonconforming use
rights shall expire and the future use of such property shall meet all
current applicable regulations of the SMP.
g. If a conforming building housing a nonconforming use is damaged, the
use may be resumed at the time the building is repaired, provided a
permit application for the restoration is received by the City within 12
months following said damage.
Page 11 q(61
Exhil)u
Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Reguialicns
h. Normal maintenance and repair of a structure housing a nonconforming
use may be permitted provided all work is consistent with the provisions
of the SMP.
i. Legally established residences are considered conforming uses,
4. Nonconforming Structures.
a. A nonconforming structure may be maintained or repaired, provided such
improvements do not increase the nonconformity of such structure and
are consistent with the remaining provisions of the SMP.
b. Alterations to legal nonconforming structures that:
Will result in an increase of nonconformity to the structures.
including expanding within the buffer, may be allowed under a
Shoreline Variance pursuant to SVMC 21.50 140; or
ii Do not increase the existing nonconformity and will otherwise
conform to all other provisions of SVMC 21.50 are allowed without
additional review.
c. A nonconforming structure that is moved any distance within the shoreline
jurisdiction shall be brought into conformance with the SMP.
d, A damaged nonconforming structure may be reconstructed or replaced,
regardless of the amount of damage if:
The rebuilt structure or portion of structure does not expand or
modify the original footprint or height of the damaged structure
unless:
e1) The expansion or modification does not increase
the degree of nonconformity with the current
regulations; and
(2). The reconstructed or restored structure will not
cause additional adverse effects to adjacent
properties or the shoreline environment;
11. It is not relocated except to increase conformity or to increase
ecological function, in which case the structure shall be located in
the least environmentally damaging location possible;
The permit application to restore the development is made within
12 months of the date the damage occurred; and
iv. Any residential structures, including multi -family structures: may
be reconstructed up to the size, placement, and density that
existed prior to the damage, so long as other provisions of the
SMP are met.
5. Nonconforming Lots. Legally established nonconforming, undeveloped lots
located landward of the C7HVVM are buildable, provided that all new structures or
additions to structures on any nonconforming lot must meet all setback, height,
and other construction requiremerts of the SMP and the SMA,
21.50.160 Minor Revisions to Approved Uses or Developments
A. Classification Criteria - Minor revisions to a project that have been approved under a
shoreline permit are allowed in certain circumstances.
1, Changes that are not substantive are not required to obtain a revision and may
be allowed as part of the original shoreline perrmit. Examples include, but are not
limited to, minor changes in facility orientation or location, minor changes in
structural design that do not change the height or increase ground floor area, and
minor accessory structures such as equipment covers or small sheds near the
main structure.
Page 12 of 61
Exhibit 2 Chapeer 21.50 Shoreline Reprintrons
2. Substantive changes are those that materially alter the project in a manner that
relates to its conformance with the shoreline permit and SMP requirements.
Such changes may be approved as a minor revision if:
a_ The Director determines that the proposed revision and all previous
revisions are within the scope and intent of the original shoreline permit;
b. The use authorized with the original shoreline permit does not change:
c. The project revision does not cause additional significant adverse
environmental impacts;
d. No new structures are proposed; and
e. The criteria in SVMC 21.50.150(A)(3) are met.
Substantive changes shall comply with the fallowing to be approved as a minor
revision:
a. No additional over -water construction shall be involved, except that pier,
dock, or swimming float construction may be increased by 10 percent
from the provisions of the original shoreline permit;
b. Lot coverage and height approved with the original shoreline permit may
be increased a maximum of 10 percent if the proposed revisions do not
exceed the requirements for height or lot coverage pursuant to SVMC
21.50.220 Dimensional Standards and SVMC Title IP Zoning
Regulations; and
c. Landscaping may be added to a project without necessitating an
application for a new shoreline permit if the landscaping is consistent with
permit conditions (if any) and SVMC 21.50_
4. Substantive changes which cannot meet these requirements shall require a new
shoreline permit. Any additional shoreline permit shall be processed under the
applicable terms of this chapter.
B. Process - Requests for minor revisions to existing shoreline permits shall be erocessed
as a Type l review, pursuant to SVMC Title 17.$0 Permit Processing Procedures.
Parties of record to the original shoreline permit shall be notified of the request for
revision, although a comment period is not required. A minor revision fora project within
shoreline jurisdiction shall follow state filing. appeal, and approval standards pursuant to
VAC 173-27-100 Revisions to Permits.
C. Decision Criteria - Decisions cn minor revisions shall be pursuant to SVMC 21.50.060
Authorization Decisions — Basis for Action.
21.50.170 Enforcement
A. Enforcement of the SMP, including the provisions of SVMC 21.50, shall be pursuant to
SVMC 17.100. Nothing herein or within SVMC 17.100 shall be construed to require
enforcement of the SMP and SVMC 21 50 in a particular manner or to restrict the
discretion of the Director in determining how and when to enforce the SMP and SVIviC
21.50: provided all enforcement shall be consistent with the policies of the SMP and
SVMG 21.50.
B. Upon a determination that a violation of the SMP, including SVMC 21.50, nos occurred.
no further development may be authorized unless and until compliance with any
applicable shoreline and development permit or process conditions and requirements of
SVMC 21.50 have been achieved to the satisfaction of the Director.
Page 13 of61
Exhibit 2 Chapter 21.54 Shoreline Regari '(f :)7t.
C. For violations affecting a critical area, the party(s) responsible for the violation and the
owner shall meet the following minimum performance standards to achieve the
restoration requirements, as applicable:
1. A restoration plan shall be prepared and address the following°
a. Restoration of historical structural and functional values, including water
quality and habitat functions;
b. Ensure that replacement soils will be viable for planting and will not create
a less fertile growing conditions;
Replacement of native vegetation within the critical area, and buffers with
native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the
site in species types, sizes, and densities;
d,. Replication of the historic functions and values at the location of the
alteration;
e. Annual performance monitoring reports demonstrating compliance with
mitigation plan requirements shall be submitted for a minimum two-year
period; and
F, As -built drawings and other information demonstrating compliance with
other applicable provisions of the SMP shall be submitted.
2. The following additional performance standards shall be met for restoration of
frequently flooded areas and geological hazards and be included in the
restoration plan:
a. The hazard shall be reduced to a level equal to, or less than, the pre -
development hazard:
b. Any risk of personal injury resulting from the alteration shall be eliminated:
and
c. The hazard area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation
sufficient to minimize the hazard.
3. The Director may, at the violator's expense, consult with a Qualified Professional
to determine if the plan meets the requirements o= the SMP. Inadequate plans
shall be returned to the violator for revision and resubmittal.
Page= 14 ofb1
E.zlarhrf 2 Chaplet- 21.30 Shoreline Regulations
4.1 Shoreline Regulations
21.50.180 General provisions
A. General Regulations.
1. Regulations in SVMC 21.50.180 through 21.50.290 are in addition to the specific
use regulations in SVMC 21.50.300 through 21.50.450 and other adopted rules,
including but not limited to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the Spokane
Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Spokane Valley Street Standards, and the
Spokane Regional Stcrmwater Manual, as adopted er amended.
2. All permitted and exempt projects within the shoreline jurisdiction shall ensure
that the no net Toss of ecological functions standard is met, SVMC 21.50.210 No
Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing and SVMC 21,50.260 Shoreline Vegetation
Conservation contain appropriate methods to achieve no net loss of shoreline
ecological function The City may also condition project dimensions, location of
project components on the site, intensity of use, screening, parking requirements,
and setbacks, as deemed appropriate.
3. All shoreline uses and modifications shall obtain all necessary permits from the
appropriate localstate, and federal agencies and shall operate in compliance
with all permit requirements.
Deviations from regulations may be granted through a Shoreline Variance, which
requires approval by both the City and Ecology. Shoreline modifications listed in
Table 21.50-2 as "prohibited" are not eligible for consideration as a Shoreline
Variance
5. New prc;jents, including the subdivision of land and related construction of single-
family residences, are prohibited when the use or development requires
structural flood hazard reduction or other structural stabilization measures within
the shoreline to support the proposed or future development.
6. When a proposal contains two or more use activities, including accessary uses,
the most restrictive use category shall apply to the entire proposal.
Structures, uses, and activities shall be designed and managed to minimize
blocking, reducing, or adversely interfering with the public's visual access to the
water and the shorelines from public lands which are within the shoreline
jurisdiction and excluding public roads.
8. Structures and sites shall be designed with landscaping, vegetated buffers,
exterior materials, and lighting that are aesthetically compatible with the shoreline
environment.
9. When a study is required to comply with SVMC 21.50, it shall be performed by
Qualified Professional registered in the State of Washington.
10. All clearing and grading activities shall comply with SVM[ 24.50 Land Disturbing
Activities, Adherence to the following is required during project construction:
a. Materials adequate to immediately correct emergency erosion situations
shall be maintained on site;
All debris, overburden, and other waste materials from construction shall
be disposed of in such a manner so as to prevent their entry into a water
body. Such materials from construction shall not be stored or disposed of
on or adjacent to Shorelines of the State;
The shoreline buffer shall be clearly marked on the ground prior to and
during Construction activities to avoid impacts to the buffer; and
d. Infrastructure used in. on, er over the water shall be constructed using
materials that do not contaminate the water or interfere with navigation.
Paler 15 of 6!
Exhibit 2
Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Reg:ddtrnt
B. The City may consult with agencies with expertise or jurisdiction over the resources
during the review of any permit or process to assist with analysis and identification of
appropriate performance measures that adequately safeguard shoreline and critical
areas.
The Director may consult with a Qualified Professional to review a critical areas report
when City staff Zack the resoiirCES or expertise to review these materials. The City may
require the Applicant to pay for or reimburse the City far the consultant fees.
21.50.190 Shoreline Uses Table
A. Uses and activities are categorized within each shoreline environment as allowed,
permitted, conditional use, or prohibited, as defined in this section. This priority system
determ nes the applicable permit or process, administrative requirements. and allows
activities that are compatible with each shoreline designation. Procedures and criteria
for obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Letter of Exemption,
Shoreline Conditional LJse Permit, and Shoreline Variance are set forth in SVMC
21.50.040. These uses shall also meet the requirements of SVMC Title 19 Zoning
Regulations.
B. The following terms shall be used in conjunction with Shoreline Use and Modification
Tables provided in SVMC 21.50.190 and SVMC 21.50.200.
Allowed Use: These are uses that are exempt from the shoreline permit review process
and do riot require submittal of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or
Letter of Exemption application. Projects or uses shall be reviewed to ensure
that all requirements contained in SVMC 2150 are met, Building permit
applications or site plans are the general method of review.
Permitted Use: These are uses which are preferable and meet the policies of the
particular shoreline environment designation_ They require submittal of a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit ora Letter of Exemption application.
An exemption is subject to an administrative approval process; a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit requires public notice, comment periods, and
filing with Ecology.
Conditional Use: A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is intended to allow for flexibility
and the exercise of judgment in the application of regulations in a manner
consistent with the policies of the SMA and the SMP.
Prohibited: These are uses which are viewed as inconsistent with the definition, policies,
or intent of the shoreline environmental designation. For the purposes of the
SMP, these uses are considered inappropriate and are not authorized under any
permit or process.
Tabie 21.50-1 - Shoreline Uses, below, shall be used to determine the permit or process
required for specific shoreline uses and activities within the shoreline jurisdiction
Table 21.50-1: Shoreline Uses
Page 16of61
Exhibit 2
Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Regarlarrons
SHORELINE USES
Shoreline Residential
— Upland
Shoreline Residential
— Waterfront
Urban Conservancy
Urban Conservancy
— High Quality
Aquatic
Ajriculturat Activities
Aquaculture
Boating Facilities (Including
launches, ramps, public/commercial
docks, and private docks serving more
than four residences)
N/A
P
C
Commercial Use
Water -dependent
Pa
P3
C
Water -related and water -enjoyment
P2
P2
P2
C
Non water -oriented
F}2,3
Forest Practices
Industrial Use
Water -dependent
P
[
C
Water -related and water -enjoyment
P
Non water -oriented
P3
In -stream Structures
As pert of a fish habitat
enhancement project
N/A
P
P
P
P
Other
NIA
P
P
P
Mining
Parking Facilities
As a primary use
As an accessory/secondary use
P
P
P
C
Recreational Use
Water -dependent
P
P
P
P
P
Water -related and water -enjoyment
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
e4
P
C
Non water -oriented
Trails and walkways
P
P
P
Cs
P
Residential Use
Single-family
A
A
A A
Single-family residential
accessory uses and structures
A
A
A A
Multi -family
P
P N P s
Page 17 of 61
hib11-
Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Regtrla:ions
Private docks serving one to four
single-family residences
NVA
P
P
P
Accessory Dwelling Units
P
P ! P
P
Transportation Facilities
New circulation routes related to
permitted shoreline activities
P
P
C
C
Expansion of existing
circulation systems
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
New, reconstructed, or maintenance of
bridges. trail, or rail crossings
Public Facilities and Utilities
Public facilities
C
C
C 1
1C
Utilities and utility crossings
C
C
C
C
C
Routine maintenance of existing
utility corridor and infrastructure
A
A6
Ae
Pa
A6
KEY: A= Allowed
Applicable
Notes:
' For Boating Facilities within the aquatic environment, the adjacent upland environment as set
forth on the City Environment Designation Map shall govern (i.e,, if the aquatic environment is
adjacent to Shoreline Residential - Waterfront designated shorelines, the use would be
permitted)
2 Commercial uses are allowed in the Shoreline Residential - Upland, Shoreline Residential..
Waterfront and Urban Conservancy Environments only if the underlying zoning of the property is
Mixed Use Center,
'Permitted only if the applicable criteria in SViVIC 21.50.320(B)(1) or 21.50.330(B)(1) are met
4 Non water -oriented recreation uses are prohibited in Urban Conservation - High Quality
Shorelines except limited public uses that have minimal or low impact on shoreline ecological
functions, such as the Centennial Trail and appropriately -scaled day use areas which may be
allowed through a Conditional Use Permit,
5 Modifications, improvements, or additions to the Centennial Trail are permitted in the Urban
Conservancy - High Quality Environment.
'A Letter of Exemption is required if the maintenance activity involves any ground disturbing
activity.
7A letter of Exemption is required_
P= Permitted C= Conditional Use Blank« Prohibited WA= Not
21.50.200 Shoreline Modification Activities Table
Table 21.50-2, Shoreline Modification Activities, below, shall be used to determine whether a
specific shoreline modification is allowed in a shoreline environment. Shoreline modifications
may be permitted, approved as a conditional use, or prohibited, pursuant to SVMC 2':.50.190.
Shoreline modifications shall also meet the requirements of SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations.
Page 18 of 61
L hJh rr
Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Regulations
Table 21.50-2: Shoreline Modification Activities
SHORELINE MOI IFICATION.c°
ACTIVITY
as
EK
TJ
N Liz
T
1
c
cb
Li C
/may
-'
2 c
t�'
co 1
u
C
c
0
C
e5
'
u
0 73
0 0
C
In Cm
z
D 1
CS
co
e
Shoreline/Slope Stabilization
Structural, such as bullheads
P
P
1
Nonstructural, such as sail
bioengineering
P
P
P
Piers and Docks
Piers
N/A
P
C
1
Viewing Platforms
P
P
P
Docks
N/A pl P
C
Dredcjing and Fill
Dredging
C
C
C
C
Fill
C
C
C
C
Shoreline Habitat and Natural
Systems Enhancement Projects
P
P
P
P
P
Groins and Weirs
N/A
C
C
C
KEY: P= Permitted C= Conditional Use Blank= Prohibited NIA= Not Applicable
' For these uses within the aquatic environment, the adjacent upland environment as set forth
on the Environment Designation Map shall govern (i.e., if the aquatic environment is adjacent to
Shoreline Residential - Waterfront designated shorelines, "hard" shoreline stabilization
measures would be allowed by Shoreline Substantial Development Permit).
21.60.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing
A. Applicability. This section applies to alC shoreline activities, uses, development, and
modifications, including those that are exempt from a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit.
B. Standards.
1. All projects shall result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The
requirement for no net loss may be met through project design, construction, and
operations. Additionally, this standard may be achieved by following the
mitigation sequencing pursuant to SVMC 21.50.21 O(B)(4) and SVMC 21.50.260
Shoreline Vegetation Conservation. The City may condition project dimensions,
location of project components on the site, intensity of use, screening, parking
requirements, and setbacks, as deemed appropriate to achieve no net loss of
shoreline ecological function.
2, Required mitigation shall not exceed the level necessary to ensure that the
proposed use or development will ensure no net Toss of shoreline ecological
functions.
3. Mitigation sequencing pursuant to SVMC 21,50.210(B)(4) is required when
specified in these regulations or for projects that:
Exhibll 2 Chapter 21.561 Shoreline Regulations
a Involve shoreline modifications;
b. Request a buffer or setback reduction pursuant to SVMC 21.50.230
Shoreline Buffers and Building Setbacks;
Are located within a wetland or its buffer; or
d. Vlfill have significant probable adverse environmental impacts that must
be avoided or mitigated.
4. Mitigation measures shall be applied in the following order:.
Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action;
b. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation by using appropriate technology;
c, Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment;
d. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations;
e. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing. or providing
substitute resources or environments; and
f. Monitor the impact and the compensation projects and take appropriate
corrective measures, as needed.
21.50.220 Height Limit Standards
A. Applicability. This section applies to all neva or redeveloped primary and residential
accessory structures.
Standards.
1. The maxirnum height lirnit for all new or redeveloped primary structures shall be
35 feet.
2. The maximum height limit for single-family residential accessory or appurtenant
structures shall be 25 feet.
3. These height limit standards may be altered through a Shoreline Variance
pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140.
21,50.230 Shoreline Buffers and Building Setbacks
A. Applicability, This section applies to all new construction, new and expanded uses, and
modifications. Shoreline buffers are shown on the City Shoreline Buffer Map in
Appendix. A-2 Shoreline Buffers.
B. Standards,
1. Unless otherwise specified in SVMC 21.50, buffers shall be maintained in
predominantly natural, undisturbed, undeveloped, and vegetated condition.
2. The shoreline buffer shall be clearly marked on the ground prior to and during
construction activities to avoid impacts to the buffer.
3. Shoreline buffers for new and expanded uses may be reduced up to 25 percent
by the Director if the buffer widths have not been reduced or modified by any
other prior action and one or more of the following conditions apply:
a. Adherence of the buffer width would not allow reasonable use;
b. The buffer contains variations in sensitivity to ecological impacts due to
existing physical characteristics; i.e. the buffer varies in slope, soils, or
vegetation. This shall be supported by a Habitat Management Plan
developed in conformance with SVMC 21.50,540(E)(2); or
Page 20 of 61
Exhibit 2 Chapter 21.50Shorellne Regadeaf'ons
c. Where shoreline restoration is proposed consistent with the City's
Restoration Plan.
4. Building Setback from the shoreline buffer shall be as shown in Table 21.50-3:
Table 21.50-3 Buffer Building Setbacks
Ehvi onrncnt Urban Urban Shu.elir!e Shoreline
Conservancy Conservancy - Residential -
Hi7`; i.aalitV Upland Waterfront
Setback 10 foot 15 foot 0 foot ' ;cot '
' A 15 -td!, -)t stitbeuk t jrii the shoreline butler shell be required for any.
subdivision. binding site plan, or planned reF;ide.7.i ill develapr en- i the
Shoreline Residential -- Upland and Shoreline l-.<; ;id Hilal Waterircnt
designations.
5. Front, rear, and side setbacks and lot coverage shall conform to the SVMC Title
19, Zoning Regulations.
21.50.24❑ Flood Hazard Reduction
A. Applicability. This section applies to development proposals:
�. Intended to reduce flood damage or hazard;
2. To construct temporary or permanent shoreline modifications or structures within
the regulated floodplains or floodways; or
3. That may increase flood hazards.
Standards.
1. All proposals shall conform to SVMC 21.30 Floodplain Regulation, SVMC
21.50.340, In -stream Structures and SVMC 21.50.410 Shoreline Modifications.
2. The following uses and activities may be allowed within the floodplain OF
floodway.
a. Actions or projects that protect or restore the ecosystem -wide processes
and/or ecological functions;
b_ New bridges, utility lines, and other public utility and transportation
structures, with appropriate mitigation, where no other feasible alternative
exists;
c. Repair and maintenance of an existing legal structure, utility corridor, cr
transportation structure, provided that such actions do not increase flood
hazards to other uses;
d. Modifications, expansions, or additions to an existing legal use, and
e. Measures to reduce shoreline erosion.
3. Natural in -stream features such as snags, uprooted trees, or stumps shall be left
in place unless an engineered assessment demonstrates that they are causing
bank erosion or higher flood stages.
21.50.250 Public Access
A. Applicability. This section applies to all new projects by public and private entities.
B. Standards.
1. Public access shall be consistent with the City's SMP Public Access Plan.
Page 2) of 61
Exhibit 7 Charter 21.50 Shoreline Regulations
2. Public access may only be required as a condition of approval of a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit or Conditional Use Permit to the extent allowed
by law and in a manner consistent with the City's Public Access Plan, and only in
the fallowing circumstances:
a. The use or development is a public project; or
The project is a private use or development and one of the following
conditions exists:
The project impacts, interferes with, blocks, discourages, cr
eliminates existing access;
ii. The project increases or creates demand for public access that is
not met by existing opportunities or facilities; or
The project impacts or interferes with public use of waters subject
to the Public Trust Doctrine.
Public access shall not be required for activities qualifying fora letter of
exemption or new single-family residential development of four cr fewer units.
A.k developments, including shoreline permits or letter of exemption applications,
.,which require or propose public access shall include a narrative that identifies:
a impacts to existing access, including encroachment, increased traffic, and
added populations;
b. The access needs of the development consistent with those described for
similar projects in the Public Access Plan, Section Four; and
c. The proposed location, type, and size of the public access.
5. When public access is required pursuant to SVMC 21.50.25O(B)(2)(b), the City
shall impose permit conditions requiring public access that are roughly
proportional to the impacts caused or the demand created by the proposed use
or development.
6. Prior to requiring public access as a condition of approval of any shoreline permit
or letter of exemption pursuant to SVMC 21.5C.25O(B)(2)(b), the Director shall
determine and make written findings of fact stating that the use or development
satisfies any of the conditions in SVMC 21.5O.250(B)(2)(b) and that any pubic
access required is roughly proportional to the impacts caused or the demand
created by the proposed use ar development.
7. ' hen public access is required ar proposed, the following shall apply:
a. Mitigation sequencing shall be required to mitigate adverse impacts
resulting from the public access.
Visual access to the shoreline may be established if any vegetation
removal is pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation
Conservatio n.
c. Public access sites shall be connected to the nearest public street or
other public access paint.
d. Future trails on private property, including trail extensions and new
access points, shall incorporate enhancement and restoration measures
and be contained within a recorded easement.
Required public access sites shall be fully developed and available for
public use at the time of occupancy or use of the project or activity.
f. Public and private entities may establish user regulations, including hours
of operation, usage by animals or motorized vehicles, and prohibited
activities, such as camping, open fires, or skateboarding. Such
restrictions may be approved by the Director as part of the permit review
process.
Page 22 of 61
Exhibh 2 Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Regraicrlioaas
g. Public access improvements shall include provisions for disabled and
physically impaired persons where reasonably feasible.
h. Signage associated with public access shall be pursuant to SVMC
21.50.380 Signs and Outdoor Lichting, and SVMC 22,110 Sign
Regulations.
21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation
A. Applicability. Vegetation conservation measures are required for all projects that
propose vegetation removal.
B. Standards.
1. A vegetation management plan shall be submitted for projects that propose to
remove either of the following within the shoreline jurisdiction:
a. One or more mature native trees greater than 12 inches in diameter at
chest height: or
b. More than 10 square feet of native shrubs am/or native ground cover at
any one tirne by clearing, grading, cutting, burning, chemical means, or
other activities,
2. When required, a vegetation management plan shall contain the following:
a. A site plan showing:
The distribution of existing plant communities in the area proposed
for clearing andfor grading;
ii. Areas to be preserved:
Areas to be cleared; and
iv_ Trees to be removed.
b. A description of the vegetative condition of the site that addresses the
following:
Plant species;
ii. Plant density;
Any natural or man-made disturbances;
iv. Overhanging vegetation;
v. The functions served by the existing plant community (e.g., fish
and wildlife habitat values, slope stabilization); and
vi. The presence and distribution of noxious weeds.
c_ A landscape plan showing:
Proposed landscaping, including the species, distribution, and
density of plants; the plan should be pursuant to SVMC
21.50.26O(B)(3)(b), if applicable; and
ii. Any pathways or non -vegetated portions, and the materials
proposed.
3. Projects that propose to remove native vegetation within a shoreline buffer shall
meet the following standards:
a. The Applicant must demonstrate to the Director's satisfaction that the
proposed vegetation removal is consistent with SVMO 21.50.210 No Net
Loss and Mitigation Sequencing, and that avoidance is not feasible;
b. Vegetation shall be replaced per the following:
1:1 area ratio for herbaceous vegetation;
ii. 2:1 stem ratio for shrubs and saplings; and
3:1 ratio far trees greater than 12 inches diameter at breast height
or 2:1 ratio if tree stock is five years old or greater. For native
Page 23 of 61
Exhibit 2 Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Regulation
trees greater than 16 inches diameter at breast height,
replacement tree stock shall be at least five years old;
c. All removed native plants shall be replaced with native vegetation;
removed ornamental plants may be replaced with similar species;
d. Applicant shall submit a vegetation management plan consistent with
SVMC 21_5O_260(B)(2) that demonstrates compliance with the standards
of SVMC 21.5O_263(B)(3); and
e, Projects that propose a pathway or trail in the shoreline buffer shall meet
the additional following standards:
Pathways and trails that are roughly parallel to the CHWM may he
allowed if:
(1) It is a public non -motorized multi -use equestrian or
pedestrianJbike trail;
(2) It is located at the landward edge of the shoreline buffer
with the following exceptions:
(a) When physical constraints. public, safiT.ty c.:i i::erns.
or public ownership limitations merit other*rise; o.r
(b) When the trail will make use of ar cs:iat nc:,
constructed grade such as those formed by an
abandoned rail grade, road, or utility.
Pathways, trails, and river crossings that are perpendicular to the
water, and lead to the OHWM, shall be sited in a location that has
the least impact to shoreline ecological functions with mitigation
sequencing pursuant to SVMC 21.54.210. Previously altered or
disturbed locations shall be preferred.
All pathways and trails shall be located, constructed, and
maintained so as to avoid, to the maximum extent possible,
removal and other impacts to perennial native vegetation,
including trees, standing snags, farbs, grasses, and shrubs,
consistent with he vegetation management plan.
iv. Alternatives to impervious paving should be considered and are
encouraged.
Total trail width, inclusive of shoulders, shall be the minimum
width necessary to achieve the intended use and shall not exceed
14feet.
vi. Disturbed areas (outside of the designated trail and trail
shoulders) shall be re -vegetated with native vegetation consistent
with the vegetation management plan.
vii. Public, non -motorized multi -use equestrian pedestrianlbike trails
shall only be allowed in the shoreline buffer for the Urban
Conservancy -High Quality environment designation to connect to
or from (in phases or otherwise) an existing regional multi -use
non -motorized trail and only pursuant to SVMC 21,50.260(B)
viii. Encroachments in the buffer allowed by the exceptions listed
above shall be the minimum necessary to provide for the
permitted use_
4. A performance surety may be required as a condition of shoreline permit
approval to ensure compliance with the SMP. The performance surety shall be
substantially in the same form and for the same coverage as provided for in the
City's Street Standards as adopted ar amended.
Page 24 of 6.1
bit 2 Chapter 21, 50 Shoreline Rego! tions
Projects that require a critical areas report pursuant to SVIV1C 21.50.490 shall
incorporate any specific vegetation conservation measures identified in the
critical areas reports for the identified critical areas. Any application of
pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or other chemicals proposed in conjunction with
the vegetation removal ' r management activities shall be addressed by the
report_
C. Minor vegetation conservation activities allowed without a shoreline permit or letter of
exemption_
Pruning and thinning of trees or vegetation on public or private land for
maintenance, safety, forest health, and view protection if the criteria listed below
are met:
a. No native vegetation is removed. including thinning;
b, Pruning of native vegetation shall not exceed 30 percent of a tree's limbs.
Tree topping shall not occur:
c. Native shrubs shall not be pruned to a height less than six feet
d. Pruning eny vegetation waterward of the OHWM is prohibited; and
e. Pruning of any vegetation and thinning activities associated with non-
native plants shall ensure the continued survival of vegetation.
Whenever possible, pruning and thinning activities conducted to maintain or
create views shall be limited to areas dominated with non-native vegetation and
invasive species. Pruning and thinning on public land to establish a view for
adjacent properties shall be prohibited unless written approval From the
Washington State Parks Riverside Area Manager is given.
2. Pruning and thinning within a utility corridor by the utility service provider of both
native and nun -native trees and vegetation shall be allowed when the following
criteria are met:
a. Reasonable measures to reduce the adverse effects of the activity are
implemented; and
b. No net loss of buffer functions and values occur
3 Dead or hazardous trees within the shoreline buffer that pose a threat to public
safety or a risk of damage to private or public property may be removed if a letter
from a certified arborist or Qualified Professional is submitted that confirms the
tree is dead or is hazardous and includes:
a. Remove] techniques;
b. Procedures for protecting the surrounding area: and
c_ Replacement of native trees, if applicable_ W:icrc po.ss1b1c, r7az id trees
within the shoreline buffer shall be turned into crags.
2t50.270 Water Quality, Stormwater, and Non -Point Pollution
A. Applicability_ This section applies to all projects that add any pollution -generating
;MIF: -.7;1' i; 1.Is surfaces. This standard supersedes the regulatory threshold specified in the
Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual_ which is applicable outside the shoreline
B. Regulations.
1 . All activities shall comply with the SVNIC 22.150 Stormwater Managernont
Regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency's Underground Inlecticn
Control program, the Eastern Washington Phase 11 Municipal Stormwe er Perri-
Page
erir
Page 25 of 61
Exhibit 2 Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Reg.ticrtk'trs
requirements, applicable total maximums daily loads laws and regulations, and
other water cleanup plans.
Use of chemicals for commercial or industrial activities shall be pursuant to
SVMC 21.50.530(C).
Herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers, and pesticides shall not be applied within 25
feet of a water body, except by a Qualified Professional n -acconk:nce with state
and federal laws.
21.50.280 Archaeological and Historic Resources
P. Applicability. This section applies to:
1. Projects with archaeological and historic resources on site that rare either
recorded at the Washington State Department of ,Archeology and I listrr;ic::
Preservation (I AHP), or Spokane County;
2. Projects where archaeological and historical resources have been inadvertently
uncovered; or
3. Permit applications that contain a ground-cisturbing component.
B. Standards.
1. Archaeological sites are subject to chapter 27.44 RCVV Indian Graves and
Records and chapter 27.53 RCW Archaeological Sites and Records,
Development or uses that may impact such sites shall comply with WAC 25-48
as well as the regulations of this section,
2. A cultural resources site survey Of assessment prepared by a Qualified
Professional is required for all shoreline permit applications that contain a
ground -disturbing component if the proposal meets the criteria below, which may
be determined through review of Spokane County andfor IJAHP resources:
a. The project is on property known to contain archaeological. historic, or
cultural resources; or
b. The project is in an area snapped as having the potential for the presence
of archaeological, historic, or cultural resources.
3. When required, the cultural resources site survey or assessment shall:
a Use standard procedures and methods to assess the potential far
presence of archaeological, historic, or cultural resources that could be
impacted by the project,
b. Provide appropriate recommendations for protecting and preserving the
archaeological, historical, or cultural resources;
c. Make an inventory of buildings or structures over 50 years in ago located
within the project area in a DAHP Historic Property Inventory Database
entry; and
d. Record archaeological sites located withir the project area on DAHP
Archaeological Site Inventory Forms,
4. When required, the cultural resources site survey orassessment shall be
circulated to DAHP and affected tribe(s). The Director shall consider CUinnte.)ts
from DAHP and affected tribe(s) prior to approval of the: survey or assessment.
Based on the cultural resources site survey or assessment, the application may
be conditioned to ensure that such resources are protected_
5. If archaeological, historic, or cultural resources are inadvertently discovered or
uncovered during excavation, the Applicant shall immediately stop work on that
portion of the project site and notify the City. The Applicant may be required to
prepare a cultural resources site survey or assessment pursuant to SVMC
21.50.280(B)(3), after coordinating with DAHP.
Page 26 4'61
Exhibit 2
C'lrrrpler 21.50 Shorelhrm Regulations
21.50.290 Gravel Pits
A. Applicability. This section applies to existing and active gravel pit operations inclLding
but not limited to known gravel pits located at 2010 North Sullivan Road and 220 North
Thierman Road,
Standards, Active gravel pits are not regulated as Shorelines of the State until
reclamation is complete and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources
terminates the Surface Mine Reclamation Permit. Proposed subsequent use of mined
property shall be consistent with the provisions of the Urban Conservancy Environment
unless a different environmental designation is established through an amendment
pursuant to WAC 173-26-201.
21.50.300 Specific Shoreline Use Regulations
Applicability. The regulations in SVMC 21.50.300 through 21.50.450 apply to specific common
uses and types of development to the extent they occur within the shoreline jurisdiction.
21.50.310 Boating Facilities
A. Applicability. This section applies to new and existing boating facilities,
B. Standards.
1. Boating facilities shall:
a Be allowed only for water -dependent uses or for public access;
b. Be limited to the minimum size and height necessary to achieve the
intended purpose of the facility; and
c. Incorporate measures for cleanup of accidental spills of contaminants.
2. Public boating facilities shall be located only at sites identified in the Public
Access Plan.
All new boating facilities shall incorporate public access when required key the
Public Access Plan and SVMC 21.50.250 herein.
4. New launch rarnps shall be approved only if public access is provided to public
waters which are not adequately served by existing access facilities because of
location or capacity_ Documentation of need shall be required from the Applicant
prior to approval pursuant to SVMC 21.50.250 Public Access,
5. Existing boating facilities may be maintained and repaired pursuant to SVMC
21.50, provided the size is not increased.
6, In addition to the regulations above, boating facilities shall comply with SVMC
21.50.320 Commercial Use, SMVC 21.50.360 Recreational Development and
Use, and SVMC 21.50.430 Piers and Docks, as applicable.
21.50.320 Commercial Use
A Applicability. This section applies to all commercial uses.
F3 Standards.
1. New non water -oriented commercial uses shall be prohibited, except within the
Urban Conservancy Environment, where such uses may be permitted if:
a. The use is part of a mixed-use project that includes water -dependent
uses; and
Page 27of61
ExhTb it 2 Chapter 21.50 ShaFeir+re ReguialiONS
b. Provides a significant public benefit, such as public access or ecological
restoration; or
The site is physically separated from the shoreline by another parcel or
public right-of-way_
2. New commercial uses shall comply, with the following criteria:
a. Windows, breezeways, and common areas should be oriented towards
the shoreline or recreational amenities on the site:
b. Buildings should provide at least one main entry that orients toward the
shoreline, not including a service entry;
c, Architectural features that reduce scale shall be incorporated, such as
pitched roofs, offsets, angled facets, and recesses;
d. Building surfaces on or adjacent to the water shall employ materials that
minimize reflected light;
e. Building mechanical equipment, noise generating systems, vents, utility
cebinets, and small scale service elements shall be incorporated into
building architectural features, such as pitched roofs. VVhere it is not
possible to incorporate into architectural features, a landscaping screen
consistent with SWAM 22.70.030(C) shall be utilized;
f. Screening and buffering, or other visual screen consistent with the
building exterior material and celors, shall be provided that conceals view
of such equipment from the shoreline;
g- Commercial uses shall be screened from any adjacent residential uses by
providing a Type I -Full Screening Buffer pursuant to SVMC 22.70
Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping;
h. Landscaping within the shoreline setback area shall incorporate native
plant materials;
Loading decks and maintenance facilities shall be located away from the
shoreline to minimize visual, noise, or physical impacts on the site, street,
adjacent public open spaces, and adjacent properties; and
j. A site plan and landscaping plan shall be submitted showing all the
applicable items listed in SVMC 21.50.32O(B)(2).
3. Commercial wireless communication facilities shall not be allowed within the
shoreline jurisdiction.
4. Horne occupations shall be allowed within the Shoreline Residential - Upland and
Shoreline Residential - Waterfront designations pursuant to SVMC 19.40,140
Home Occupations,
21.50.330 Industrial Use
A. Applicability. This section applies to all new Industrial uses, including uses involved in
processing, manufacturing, assembly, and storage of finished or semi -finished goods
and food products.
B. Standards_
1. New non water --oriented industrial uses shall be prohibited, except within the
Urban Cnnservancy Environment, where such uses may be permitted if the use
is part of a mixed-use project that includes water -dependent use and:
a. Provides a significant public benefit such as providing public access and
ecological restoration; or
Page 28 of 61
1.l1tibrr
Chapter 2/.50 S,Joreime Regulations
The site is physically separated frons the shoreline by another parcel or
public richt-of-way.
2. Industrial development shall be located, designed, constructed. and operated to
avoid visual irnpactto users of the Spo+ane River and Centennial Trail.
3. New industrial uses shall comply with the requirements of SVMC 21.50.320(B)(2)
and (3).
4, Noise associated with operations or equipment, including volume, repetitive
sound, or beat, shall be muffled or otherwise controlled so that it is not audible at
a distance over 30 feet from the Iandvvard boundary of a buffer.
21.50.340 In-Strearn Structures
A. Applicability. This section applies to all projects proposing in -stream structures.
8. Standards.
1. In -stream structure Shall conform with the requirements of the U.S. Array Corps
of Engineers, WDFW, SVMC 21.50240 Flood. Hazard Reduction, SVMC
21.50.270 Water Quality, Storrnwater and Non -Point Pollution, SVMC 21.50_41a)
General Regulations for Specific Shoreline Modifications: and any other
applicable federal, state, and local requirements.
2. In -stream structures shall provide for the protection and preser'f t of
ecosystem -wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural rusourccs pursuLint
to WAC 173-26-241(3)(g).
21.50.350 Parking Facilities
A. Applicability_ This section applies to all new parking facilities.
B. Regulations.
1. A parking facility is permitted only if:
a. It directly serves a permitted shoreline use, including the Centennial Trail,
direct river access, and use areas; and
b. It is not the primary use; for example, it cannot be a stand-alone parking
facility.
2. Parking facilities serving individual buildings within the shoreline jurisdiction shall
be located"
a. Landward from the principal building being served; or
b. Within or beneath a structure_
3. Parking facilities shall be screened from the shoreline and less intense adjacent
land uses by providing a Type I - Full Screening Buffer pursuant to SVMC
22.70.030[B) Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping. A majority of the plant
materials proposed to meet the vegetation mix requirements shall be native
plants.
4. Parking shall be pursuant to SVMC 22.5D Off -Street Parking and Lading
Standards_
5. Private projects, excluding single-family residential projects, whi H leciude public
access features shall dedicate parking stalls for public use that are in addition tc
the number of parking stalls necessary to serve the proposed development
pursuant to SVMC 22.50 Off -Street Parking and. Loading Standards:
Projects shall provide and dedicate additional parking for public use.
Applicants shall either use a presumptive standard of ore additional
space for public parking for every 25 parking spaces required to serve the
proposed development or provide an assessment of public access need
Page 29of61
Exhibit 2 Chapter 21.50 S1a°reline Regulations
which supports a different ratio. Any proposal to change from this
presumptive standard shall be approved by the Director, which approval
shall be based upon the unique factual circunnstances of the development
and surrounding shoreline uses;
b. Spaces that are dedicated for public use shall be marked with appropriate
signage; and
c. Stalls dedicated for public use shall be near the public access point.
27.50.300 Recreational Development and Use
A. Applicability. This section applies to public and commercial shoreline recreational
facilities and uses, including but not limited to trails, viewing platforms, swimming areas..
boating facilities, docks. and piers,
B. Standards,
1 lion water_oriented recreation uses are prohibited in Urban Conservation High
Quality Shorelines except limited public uses that have minimal or low impact on
shoreline ecological functions, such as the Centennial Trail and appropriately -
scaled day use areas,
2. Water -oriented recreational structures, limiters to boat launches, ramps, public
docks or piers, commercial docks or piers, and private docks serving more than
four residences may be allowed waterward of the shoreline buffer and setback.
3. Water -oriented recreational structures, limited to access routes, boat and
equipment storage, viewing platforms, amenities such as benches, picnic tables
and similar facilities for water enjoyment uses, including those related to the
Centennial Trail shall be allayed within the shoreline buffer and setback area
provided:
a. Structures are located outside of an Urban Conservancy - High Quality
area;
b. Structures are not located in. on, or over water; and
c. Structure height limit is less than 15 feet.
4. All recreational development shall provide:
a. Non -motorized and pedestrian access to the shoreline pursuant to SVMC
21.50.250 Public Access;
b. Landscaping, fencing, or signage designed to prevent trespassing onto
adjacent properties;
c. Signs indicating public right of access to shoreline areas, installed and
maintained in conspicuous locations at the point of access and the
entrance; and
Buffering cf such development and uses from incompatible adjacent land
uses pursuant to SVMC 22.70.030 Screening and Buffering. and Table
22.70-2 - Buffers Required by Type, as applicable_
5. Recreational development and uses shall be pursuant to SVMC 2'1.50.310
Boating Facilities, SVMC 21.50.320 Ccrnmercial Use, and SVMC 21.50,430
Piers and Docks, as applicable.
27.50.370 Residential Development and Use
A. Applicability.
1. This section applies to single-family and multi -family structures, Tots, and parcels.
2. Residential uses also include accessory uses and structures normally associated
with residential uses including, taut not limited to, garages, sheds, decks,
driveways, fences, swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, and tennis courts.
Page 30 el 61
Exhibit 2 Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Regulaeians
Clearing, grading, and utilities work associated with residential use are subject to
the regulations established for those activities.
B. Standards,
1. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is not required for construction by
an owner, lessee, orcontract purchaser of a single-family residence, provided,
any such construction of a single-family residence and all accessory structures
meet the requirements of the SMP_
2. Residential development, including single-family structures, shall be required to
control erosion during construction, Removal of vegetation shall be minimized
and any areas disturbed shall be restored to prevent erosion and ether impacts
to shoreline ecological functions pursuant to SVI'C 21.50.260.
3. New residential development, including accessory uses and structures, shall be
sited in a manner to avoid the need for structural improvements that protect such
structures and uses from steep shapes and shorelines vulnerable to erosion,
including bluff: walls and other stabilization structures,
4. New over -water residences and floating homes are prohibited.
5. New single-family residential accessory structures, excluding accessory dwelling
units, may be located waterward of the shoreline setback provided that all of the
following criteria are met:
a. The combined building footprint of all accessory structures does not
exceed 10 percent of the lot area;
b. Structures are located outside of critical areas, their associated buffers,
and the shoreline buffer; and
c. Structures are set no closer than five feet to any side or rear property line.
6. New attached or detached accessory dwelling units shall:
a. Be Located landward of the shoreline buffer and outside of all critical
areas and their buffers:
ia. Be pursuant to SVMC 19.40,100 Accessory Dwelling Unit; and
Obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
New residential developments of four or more lots shall cornply with the following
'equirements:
a. The shoreline buffer shall be shown art the plat and permanently marked
on the ground with methods approved by the Director;
b. A site plan shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit
application showing the project elements described in SVMC
21.50.370(B)(3); and
c. Provide a project narrative describing how the project elements are being
met.
Exterior lighting associated with single-family residences, such as pathway
lighting and lighting directed at landscaping features, is permitted within the
setback area so long as it is directed away frorn the shoreline.
g. Recorded plats shall include language that states that pursuant to SVMC
21.50.230, use and development within the defined shoreline buffer area is
prohibited. Title notices shall be recorded with each newly created parcel with
the restrictive language.
10_ New fences shall meet the requirements of SVMC 22.70 Fencing, Screening and
Landscaping.
11. Fences are prohibited in the following areas:
a Shoreline buffers;
b. Critical areas; and
Page 31 of 51
Exhibit 2 Chapter 21.50Shoreil ' ?ie nrfrrrrrorrs
c. Waterward of the OHM.
21.50.380 Signs and Outdoor Lighting
A. Applicability. This section applies 10 any commercial, industrial, or 9dv iisinc s qn
directing attention to a business, professional service, community site. tcility, or
entertainment conducted or sold, and all outdoor lighting, except those asscciated with
residential use and public street lighting.
B. Standards,
1. All signs shall comply with SVIVIC 22.110 Sign Regulations; variances from these
regulations may be granted pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140 Shoreline Variances_
2. Signage, including kiosks and directional signage to commercial uses or
recreation areas, related to, or along, the Centennial Trail, is allowed without a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit provided_
a, Signage is consistent with the SMP, the City's Parks and Recreation
Master Plan, and any applicable master plan of Washington State Parks;
and
b. Signage proposed within a buffer area shall not:
1. Exceed 15 square feet in area;
ii. Exceed six feet in height;
Be illuminated unless warranted by safety factors; and
iv, A building permit is obtained, if required.
3. Outdoor lighting shall comply with SVMC 22.60 Outdoor Lighting Standards.
4. New permanent outdoor lighting is prohibited within the shoreline buffer.
5. Pedestrian -oriented lighting, along walkways and paths shall be allowed within
the shoreline setback area if:
a. The purpose of the Tight is safety;
b. Lighting structure height is not greater than 12 feet; and
c, Lighting fixtures are downward directed and fully shielded.
Ail outdoor lighting shall be oriented away from the shoreline and adjacent uses
using directional lighting or shielding_
21.50.390 Transportation Facilities
A. Applicability. This section applies to structures and developments that aid in land, air,
and water surface movement of people, goods. and services. They include roads and
highways, bridges, bikeways, heliports, rail, and other related facilities. Trails are
addressed in SVMC 21.50.254 Public Access.
Standards.
1. Nev road and bridge construction and expansion of existing roads and bridges
shall only be Iodated within the shoreline jurisdiction upon approval by the
Director when deemed necessary for the good of the community, or when
deemed related to, and necessary to support permitted shoreline activities.
2 When allowed, transportation facilities shall be:
a. Consistent with an approved private project or applicable City plans,
including the City's Transportation Improvement Plan, Public Access Plan
and Restoration Plan;
b. Located on the landward side of existing structures or uses, and
Be designed to minimize clearing, grading, and alteration of natural
features. Roadway and driveway alignment should follow natural
contours and minimize width.
Page 32 of 61
I::tihibrt 2 Chapter 21,50 Shoreline Regulatibrms
To the extent consistent with federal jurisdiction, new rail lines and corridors or
expansion of existing rail lines and corridors shall be allowed only for the purpose
of connecting to existing rail lines or rights-of-way. New rail lines, including
bridges, shall be constructed within existing rail corridors or rights-of-way.
To the extent consistent with federal jurisdiction, new rail lines shall be
constructed so that they do not compromise the public's ability to access the
shoreline safely.
21.50.400 Public Facilities and Utilities
A, Applicaoility. This section applies to all public facilities and utilities, This section does
not apply to on-site utility features serving a primary use, such as water, sewer, or gas
lines to a development or residence, These utility features are considered "service
utilities" and shall be considered part of the primary use.
B. Regulations,
1. New public facilities and utilities may only be allowed pursuant to Shoreline
Conditional Use permit and if they meet the following conditions:
a. Address conflicts with present and planned land and shoreline uses
through site design or configuration, buffers, aesthetics, or other methods;
and
b. identify the need to site within shoreline jurisdiction and why it is not
possible to locate outside of the shorelirie jurisdiction.
New wastewater and stormwater curtails shall not be allowed.
Routine maintenance, replacement, and minor upgrades of existing utilities shall
be allowed; provided that if the activity involves ground disturbance or is located
in the Urban Conservancy - High Quality Environment, then such maintenance,
replacement, and minor upgrades shall only be allowed by Letter of Exemption.
If existing high-quality vegetated areas, as noted in the Shoreline Inventory and
Analysis, are disturbed by maintenance activities in Urban Conservancy - High
Quality designated shorelines, mitigation pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210 No Net
Lass and Mitigation Sequencing, shall be required
4. Transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power lines,
cables, and pipelines, should be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction.
5. New utility corridors shah be prohibited within the Urban Conservation — High
Quality Environment.
6, New over -water utility crossings are allowed within existing utility corridors_
7. New or expanded service utilities shall:
a. 13e located underground, unless placement underground results in more
damage to the shoreline area;
b. Utilize low impact, low profile design, and construction methods; and
c. Restore any areas disturbed to pre -project configurations, replant with
native species, and maintain until the newly planted area is established.
8. Stormwater pipe systems shall not be allowed within the shoreline buffer.
21.50.410 General Regulations for Specific Shoreline Modifications
,, Applicability. SVMC 21.5141 J through 21.50.450 apply to all shoreline modifications_
Shorelinemodification activities are structures, including in -stream structures, or actions
that modify tine physical configuration ar qualities of the shoreline area.
B. General shoreline modification standards,
1. All shoreline modification applications shall also comply with:
Page 33 of 61
Exhibit 2
Chapter- 21.50 Shoreline Regulations
a. SVMC 21.30 Floodplain Regulations;
b_ SVMC 24.50 Land Disturbing Activities; and
c. Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines (WWDFW, Ecology and
Transportation, 2003 as adopted or amended)_
2. All shoreline modification activities shall ensure that the no net loss of ecological
function standard is met.
3 Structural shoreline modifications within the regulated floodplain, geologically
hazardous areas, and in -stream shall only be allowed where it can be
demonstrated that nonstructural measures are not feasible cr the proposed
activities are necessary to:
a, Support or protect a legally existing shoreline use or primary structure
that is in danger of loss or substantial damage;
b. Reconfigure the shoreline or channel bed for an alloyed water -dependent
use; or
c. Provide for shoreline mitigation or enhancernent purposes.
4. All shoreline modifications within the regulated floodplain and in -stream, with the
exception of docks proposed on the Spokane River that are located west of the
City ofliillwaad, shall provide the following:
a. Site suitability analysis that justifies the proposed structure;
b. A Habitat Management Plan prepared by a Qualified Professional that
describes:
The anticipated effects of the project on fish and wildlife habitat
and migration areas;
ii. Provisions for protecting in -stream resources during construction
and operation; and
Measures to compensate for impacts to resources that cannot be
avoided.
c. An engineering analysis which evaluates and addresses.
The stability of the structure for the required design frequency;
Changes in base flood elevation, floodplain width, and flow
velocity;
iii. The potential for blocking or redirecting the flow which could lead
to erosion of other shoreline properties or create an adverse
impact to shoreline resources and uses;
iv. Methods for maintaining the natural transport of sediment and
bedload materials;
v Protection of water quality, public access, and recreation; and
vi. Maintenance requirements.
21.50.420 ShoreltnefSlope Stabilization
A. Applicability, This section applies to shoreline modification activities for shoreline and
slope stabilization projects, including structural and nonstructural measures.
B. Standards.
1. Nonstructural measures are the preferred method for slope and shoreline
stabilization.
2, Nonstructural measures may include building setbacks, relocation of the
structure to be protected, groundwater management, and planning and
regulatory measures to avoid the need for structural stabilization.
Page 3-4 ofa!
Exhibit 2 Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Regulations
3. Structural stabilization measures may include hard surfaces such as concrete
bulkheads or less rigid materials, such as vegetation, biotechnical vegetation
measures, and riprap-type stabilization.
4. New structural shoreline modifications require a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit.
New structural stabilization measures may be allowed under the following
circumstances:
a, To protect existing primary structures, public facilities and utilities, and the
Centennial Trait Priorto approval, a geotechnical investigation shall:
Demonstrate that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion
by currents or waves: and
ii. Evaluate on-site drainage and address drainage problems away
from the shoreline,
b. To protect new non water -dependent uses from erosion, when all of the
following apply:
The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions;
ii. Nonstructural measures are neither feasible nor sufficient;
An engineering or scientific analysis demonstrates that damage is
caused by natural processes; and
iv. The stabilization structure shall incorporate native vegetation and
comply with the mitigation sequencing in SVMC 21.50.210 No Net
Loss and Mitigation Sequencing,
c. To protect water -dependent development from erosion when all of the
following apply-.
The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions;
ii. Nonstructural measures are neither feasible nor sufficient; and
The need to protect primary structures from damage due to
erosion is demonstrated through a geotechnical report_
d. To protect restoration and remediation projects when all of the following
apply:
The project is conducted pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCA,
Model Toxics Control Act; and
ii. Nonstructural measures are neither feasible nor sufficient,
Unless otherwise exempt from shoreline permit requirements, replacement of an
existing shoreline stabilization structure may be approved with a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit, provided the structure remains in the same
location and the outer dimension changes by 10 percent or less, However, a
Shoreline Corditionat Use Permit shall be required if existing shoreline
stabilization measures are relocated or the outer dimension changes by more
than 10 percent.
7. All new or replaced structural shoreline stabilization measures shall provide:
a. Design plans showing the limits of construction, access to the
construction area, details, and cross sections of the proposed stabilization
measure, erosion and sediment controls, and re -vegetation of the project
area; and
b. An engineered report that addresses the purpose of the repair,
engineering assumption, and engineering calculations to size the
stabilization measure,
8. A replacement structure shall not encroach wateneerd of the OHWM, unless all
of the following apply:
a. For residences occupied or constructed prior to January 1, 1992;
Page 35 of bi
E,xhr'hir 2 Chapier 21.50 Shoreline Regularians
b. There are overriding Safety or environmental concerns:
c. The replacement structure shall abut the existing shoreline stabilization
structure; and
d. The Department of Natural Resources has approved, if applicable, the
proposed projA,2t i it is c••n sta-e-owned aquatic lands.
21.50.430 Piers and Docks
A. Applicability. This section applies to theconstruction or expansion of piers and docks
constructed ^raterward of the CHWM.
B. Standards_
1 Piers and docks designed for pleasure craft only, and for the private
noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single and
multi -family residences, shall require a Letter of Exemption. Any other dock or
pier permitted under the SMP requires a Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit.
2, Piers and docks serving more than four residences and public or commercial
piers and docks shall comply with SVMC 21.50.310 Boating Facilities, Public or
commercial piers and docks shall comply with SVMC 21.50 360 Recreational
Development and Uses.
3, New piers and docks shall only be allowed for water -dependent uses or public
access. A dock associated with a single-family residence and designed and
intended as a facility for access to watercraft is a water -dependent use.
4. New piers and docks shall be the rninirnum size necessary based upon a needs
analysis provided by the Applicant. However, the size shall not exceed 55 feet in
length measured perpendicularly from the QHVVM. Total deck area shall not
exceed 320 square feet.
5. The City may require modifications to the configuration of piers and docks to
protect navigation, public use, or ecological functions.
6, Wood treated with toxic compounds shall not be used for decking or for in -water
components_
7. Existing lega'ily established docks, piers, or viewing platforms may be repaired or
replaced in accordance with the regulations of the SMP. provided the size of he
existing structure is not increased,
8. Piers and docks proposed on the Spokane River and located east of the City of
Millwood shall comply with SVMC 21.50.410(8)(4) and the following additional
criteria:
a. The site suitability analysis shall demonstrate that:
i. The river conditions in the proposed location of the dock, including
depth and flow conditions, will accommodate the proposed dock
and its use; and
ii. Any design to address river conditions will not interfere with or
adversely affect navigability.
b_ The Habitat 'Management Plan for any such docks shall demonstrate that
the proposed dock will not result in a net loss of ecological functions, and
shall include an analysis of the cumulative impact of additional requests
for like actions in the area.
Y. A new pier or dock accessory to residential development within the shoreline
located east of the City of Millwood, and west of the Centennial Trail Pedestrian
Bridge, shall provide joint use or community dock facilities, when feasible, rather
than allowing individual decks for each residence. Application materials shall
Page 36 of `61
Exhibit 2 Chapter 2 LSO Shoreline ReguicztiOnS
include eecurnentativn cf the applicant's efforts to explore feasibility of and
interest in a. joint use dock with owners of any residential lots immediately
adjacent to the applicant's sites. Such documentation may include copft-,s <)l
certified letters sent to owners of the immediately adjacent properties listc•d on
title Any proposal for a joint use dock shall include in the application n Materials a
legally enforceable joint use agreement or other legal instrument, notice of which
must be recorded against title of the properties sharing the dock prior to deck
construction. The joint use agreement shall, at a minimum, address the
following.
a. Apportionment of construction and maintenance expenses;
b. Easements and liability agreements; and
c. Use restrictions.
21.50.440 Dredging and FtII
A. . ,pplheability.. This section applies to shoreline modification activities for projects or uses
proposing dredging, dredge material disposal, or fill wateneard of the (:FI I!``llel
Regulations.
t, Dmdging and dredge material disposal is prohibited unless associated ,Ipith
:comprehensive flood management solution, an environmental cleanup plan; a
habitat restoration, fish enhancement project, or when considered suitable under,
and conducted in acccrdance with, the Dredged Material Management Program
of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. These projects
require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
2. Fill shall be allowed only when necessary to support the following uses (a
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is required unless stated otherwise):
a. Water -dependent uses:
b. Public access;
c. Cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as pari of an
interagency environmental cleanup plan; these proposals may be exempt
from a shoreline permit of any type by the Model Toxics Control Act;
d. Expansion or alteration of transportation facilities. These proposals shall
also demonstrate that alternatives to fill are not feasible and require a
ShorelineSubstantial Development Permit;
e. A mitigation action; and
f. An environmental restoration or enhancement project.
21.50.450 Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects
A. Applicability_ This section applies to all shoreline habitat and natural system
enhancement projects.
B. Standards.
1. Shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement projects are encouraged.
These projects shall:
a. Obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or a Letter of
Exemption;
b.
Demonstrate that the main project purpose is enhancing or restoring the
shoreline natural character and ecological functions by establishing the
restoration needs and priorities; and
c. Implement the restoration plan developed pursuant to WAC 173 -2E -
201(2g and with applicable federal and state permit provisions.
Page 37 of 6)
Exhibir 2 Chapeer 21.50 Shoreline Regarloflons
4.2 Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations
21.50.460 General - Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations - Applicability
A. SVMC 21.50.460 through 21.50.560 apply to critical areas and their buffers that are
completely within the shoreline jurisdiction as well as critical areas and their buffers
located within, but extending beyond the mapped shoreline jurisdiction boundary.
Regulated critical areas include: wetlands, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARAs),
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs), geologically hazardous areas,
and frequently flooded areas, pursuant to WAC 1.73-26-221(2) and (3), and WAC 365-
196-485.
B. This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within the shoreline jurisdiction
of the City, whether or not a shoreline permit or other authorization is required, No
person. company, agency. or other entity shall alter a critical area or its associated buffer
within the shoreline jurisdiction except as consistent with the purposes and requirements
of the SMP.
21.50.470 Maps and Inventories
A. The approximate Location and extent, f known critical areas are depicted on the Critical
Areas and Priority Habitats Map updated and maintained by the Community
Development Department. The Critical Areas and Priority Habitats Map is a reference
tool, not an official designation or delineation. The exact location of a critical area
boundary shall be determined through field investigation by a Qualified Professional,
B. In addition to the Critical Areas and Priority Habitats Map, City staff may review
additional reference materials to determine whether a proposed development has the
potential to affect a critical area within the shoreline jurisdiction. Reference materials
may include, but are not limited to the following as adopted or amended:
1. Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Survey for Spokane
County, Washington. 2012;
2. USGS 7.6 Minute Series Digital Elevation Model:
S. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Spokane County, Washington and
Incorporated Areas, July 5, 2010;
4. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory;
5. Aerial photos;
6. WDFW Priority Habitats and Species and Wildlife Heritage Maps and Data; and
7_ City critical area designation maps.
21.50.480 Exemptions from Critical Area Review and Reporting Requirements
A. Activities exempt from critical area review and reporting requirements shall ensure no
net loss of shoreline ecological functions pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210. Exempt
activities shall be conducted consistent with performance standards identified in SVMC
21.50.180 through 21.50.450, including mitigation sequencing.
B. Any incidental damage to or alteration of a critical area or their buffers resulting f'om
exempt activities shall be restored, rehabiliialed, or replaced at the expense of the
responsible party within one growing seasc"
C. The following activities are exempt from critical *:red re'rie'.v and rupoding requirements:
1. Conservation or enhancement of mat VC '' got=jnlori
Page 38 of 61
Exhibit 2 Chapter 2 L 50 Shoreline Regulations
2. outdoor recreational activities which de not involve disturbance of the resource
or site area, including fishing, hunting, bird watching, hiking, horseback riding,
bicycling, and natural trail use.
3. Education, scientific research, and surveying.
4. Normal and routine maintenance and repair of:
a, Legally -constructed existing irrigation and drainage ditches, utility lines
and right-of-way, and appurtenances;
b. Facilities within an existing right-of-way and existing serviceable
structures or unproved areas, not including expansion, change in
character or scope, or construction of a maintenance road. The
exemption includes the necessary vegetation management that keeps the
existing right-of-way clear from hazard trees: and
c. State or City parks, including noxious weed control and removal of hazard.
trees where the potential for harm to humans exists.
5. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the
elements.
6. Routine maintenance, repair, and minor modifications Ouch as construction of a
balcony or second story) of existing structures where the modification does not
extend the structure further into or adversely impact the functions of the critical
area.
T.
In Category Ill or IV wetlands only, stormwaterdispersin outfalls and bioinfiltration
swales located within the outer 25 percent of the buffer provided that no other
location is feasible.
21.50.490 Critical Area Review
A_ All clearing, uses, modifications. or development activities within a shoreline critical area
or its buffer shall be subject to review under SVMC 21.50 unless specifically exempted
under SVMC 21.50.480.
R. Applicant shall identify in the application materials the presence of any known or
suspected critical areas on or within 200 feet of the property fine.
C. If the proposed project is within or adjacent to a critical area, or is likely to create a net
loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain a critical area, the City shall:
1. Require and review a critical area report for each applicable critical area; and
2, Determine if the proposed project adequately addresses and mitigates impacts to
the critical area and is consistent with the requirements of the SMR
21.50.500 Critical Area Report Requirements for all Critical Areas
A. When required by SVMC 21.50.490(C), the Applicant shall submit a critical area report
subject to the requirements of tills section and any additional reporting requirements for
each critical area, as applicable.
S. Critical area reports for two or more types of critical areas shall meet the report
requirements for each relevant type cf critical area.
C. All critical area assessments, investigations, and reports shall he completed by a
Qualified Professional.
At a minimum, all critical area reports shall contain the following:
1. The name andcontact information of the Applicant, a description of the proposal,
and identification of the permit(s) requested;
Page 39 of 61
J Ttierir 2 Chapter 2l 50 Shoreline Regulations
The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and
documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site;
3. A statement from the Qualified Professional certifying that the report moc:s tho
critical area requirements;
4. A description of the nature, density, and intensity of the proposed use or activiey
in sufficient detail to allow analysis of such proposal upon identified critical area;
List of all references used and all assumptions made and relied upon..
6. A scaled site plan showing:
a. Critical areas and theft buffers;
1] Ordinary high water mark;
G. Proposed and existing structures and related infrastructure;
d. Clearing and grading limits;
e. Impervious surfaces;
t. Location of temporary andlor permanent construction signage and
fencing to protect critical areas and their buffers;
g. Topographic contours at two foot intervals;
h. Fill and material storage locations;
Proposed and existing drainage facilities and stormwater flow arrows; and
j. Title, date, scale, north arrow, and legend;
7. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, water bodies, and critical
areas associated with buffers located on site, adjacent to, and within 200 feet of
proposed project areas. If buffers for two contiguous critical areas overlap (such
as buffers for a stream and a wetland), the wider duffer shall apply;
8. A mitigation plan which contains a description of the application of mitigation
sequencing and offsetting of impacts pursuant to SVMC 21.50,210 No Net Loss
and Mitigation Sequencing;
9. Erosion and sediment control plan and drainage plan, as applicable for
conformance with SVMC 24.50;
1 0. Cast estimate for required mitigation when a financial surety is required pursuant
to SVMC 21.50.510;
11. A discussion of the performance standards applicable to the critical area and
proposed activity; and
12. Moriitoring plan pur--dant to SVIv'1C 21.50.510(D) when mitigation is required.
The Director may modify the required cantcnts .ii :ho scope of the required critical area
report to adequately evaluate the potentiall impacts Find rectiiir d nlitiga ion. This may
include requiring more or Tess informatics and -:lc.ic,ressioo only that part of a _site affected
by a development proposal.
21.50.510 Mitigation
A. Applicants shall follow the mitigation sequencing put fcyih in SVMC 21.50.210 No Net
Loss Mitigation and Sequencing.
B. All impacts to critical areas and their buffers likely °c' result in a net loss of . for ;l re.
ecological functions necessary to sustain the critical area shall cue rvitr.gateci consistent
with appropriate state and federal guidelines,
C, Unless specifically addressed in specific critical area sections, compensatory mitigation
may be provided by any of the following means, in order of preference:
Page 4'0 6:f 61
Exhibit
Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Reguiotioiis
1. Except as provided in SVMC 21.50I.510(C)(2)(a), adverse critical area impacts
shall be mitigated on or contiguous to the development site through resource
expansion, enhancement, protection, or restoration.
Off-site mitigation.
a. Off-site mitigation may be allowed if an Applicant demonstrates that
mitigation on or contiguous to the development proposal site cannot be
achieved and that off-site mitigation will achieve equivalent or greater
ecological functions,
b. When off-site mitigation is authorized, priority shall be given to the
fallowing locations within the same drainage sub -basin as the project site:
Mitigation banking sites and resource mitigation reserves.
ii. Private mitigation sites that are established in compliance with the
requirements of SVMC 21,50.510(C)(2) and approved by the
Director.
Offsite mitigation consistent with Selecting Wetland Mixigatior
Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Eastern Washington)
(Publication ##10-00-07, Olympia, WA, November 2010 as adopted
or amended).
c. The Director shall maintain a list of known sites available for use for off-
site mitigation projects.
3. Title notices shall be recorded against the affected parcels for on-site mitigation,
and easements shall be recorded for off-site mitigation, to avoid impacts iron -
future development or alteration to the function of the mitigation. The mitigation
site shall be permanently preserved
D. Monitoring,
1. The Applicant shall monitor the performance of any required mitigation and
submit performance monitoring reports, as specified in the applicable permit
conditions,
2. When required, the monitoring plan shall:
a. Demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the SMP and specific
permits and approvals;
b. Describe the objectives and methods for monitoring and quantifying;
c. Provide results with an estimate of statistical precision:
d. Identify the length of monitoring and reporting requirements,
e. Recommend management actions based upon the monitoring results;
and
f. Address the length of the mitigation consistent with the following:
Mitigation monitoring shall be required fora minimum of two years
for temporary impact restoration and rtp to 10 years for
compensatory mitigation; and
ii.
lithe mitigation objectives are not obtained within the initial
monitoring period, the Applicant shall remain responsible for
restoration of the natural values and functions until the mitigation
goals agreed to in the mitigation plan are achieved.
E. Sureties,
1. Performance and maintenance=;rirtil.,s shall bE: req ireci -Torn all private persons
and entities required to provide .eitigatioe iii. a ritaintcnar.r. C,Iar .
Page 41 of 6.1
Exhibit 2 Chupeer 21.50 S rare/r'ne Regu/at ons
2. The performance surety shall be in substantially the same form as provided for in
the City's Street Standards as adopted or amended_
3. A performance surety shall be submitted prior to issuance at a Shoreline
Substantial Development. Conditional Use Permit, or Grading Permit. The surety
shall include costs to cover for construction and vegetation, annual maintenance
for a five-year period, and 25 percent contingency fee.
4. The performance surety shall be released when the fallowing conditions have
been met:
a. The installation of the required mitigation is approved by the City; and
b. The Applicant has submitted a warranty surety pursuant to SVMC
21.5OE510(E)(5),
5. All projects with required mitigation shall submit a warranty surety to ensure the
success of the mitigation project before certificate of occupancy, final plat
approval, or as required by the City. The warranty surety shall be for 40 percent
of the total mitigation construction and planting costs and annual maintenance/
monitoring for five years, including but not limited to: costs for the maintenance
and replacement of dead or dying plant materials; failures due to site preparation,
plant rnaterials, construction materials; installation oversight, monitoring,
reporting, and contingency actions expected through the end of the required
monitoring period.
6. The warranty surety shall remain in effect for five years from the release of the
performance surety or a timeframe as otherwise determined by the Director.
The Applicant shall have a Qualified Professional inspect the mitigation site
within 30 days of the expiration of the warranty. Any deficiencies noted shall be
repaired prior to the release of the surety. If the inspection is not conducted
and/or the deficiencies are not repaired, the warranty surety shall be renewed by
the Applicant until all deficiencies are corrected. The City shalt conduct an
inspection prior to releasing the warranty surety.
7 If any deficiencies identified while the warranty surety is in effect are not
corrected in the time frame specified by the Director, the City may choose to
conduct the necessary repairs. The City shall then either invoice the Applicant or
collect from the surety for all costs for the related work, plus a $500
administrative fee.
The Director may approve alternative mitigation provided such mitigation is based on the
most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available and
provides an equivalent or better level of protection of shoreline ecological functions than
would be provided by the strict application of the SVMC 21.50. The Director shall
consider the following for approval of an alternative mitigation proposal:
1. The Applicant proposes creating or enhancing a larger system of natural areas
and open space in lieu of preserving many individual habitat areas.
2. There is clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the proposed
site.
3. The approved plan contains clear and measurable standards for achieving
compliance with the specific provisions of the plan.
21.50.520 Wetlande - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations
P.. `,pl li�shii ty This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within or adjacent
to v,oetlancls, unless specifically exempted by SVMC 21.50.480.
E. Design]t.ir.n, d.=:lineation, and classification.
Page J2 f 61
)Axhlfhii 2 Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Regeiaf r`ons
1. Wetlands are those areas that are inundated ar saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated sail conditions. Wetlands generally include, but are not limited to,
swamps, marshes, bogs, ponds, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include
thane artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland sites, including,
but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals,
detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, and landscape amenities, or
those wetlands created after July 1, 1990 that were unintentionally created as a
result of the construction or a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include
those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland areas to mitigate
the conversion of wetlands.
2. Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries shall be determined
through a field investigation ley a Qualified Professional in accordance with the
1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Regional
Supplement to The Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West
Region (September 2008). Wetland delineations are valid for five years, after
which the City shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is
necessary.
3. Classification. Wetlands shall be rated by a Qualified Professional according to
the Ecology wetland rating system as set forth in the Washington State Wetland
Rating System for Eastern Washington ((Ecology Publication #04-064)15,
November 2010 as adopted or amended). The wetland categories are generally
defined as follows:
a. Category! (scores of 70 points ar more): Wetlands that perform many
functions very well. These wetlands are those that:
Represent a unique or rare wetland type;
ii. Are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands;
Are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that
are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or
iv. Provide a high level of function.
b. Category 11 (scores between 51-89 points): Forested wetlands in the
flcadplains of rivers ar wetlands that perform functions well.
c. Category 111 (scores between 30-50 points): Wetlands that have a
moderate level of functions. These wetlands have boon disturbed in
some way and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural
resources in the landscape than Category H wetlands.
d. Category IV (scores fewer than 30 points): These wetlands have the
Icwest level of functions and are often heavily disturbed but have
important functions that need to be protected.
4. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to any illegal modifications.
C. Wet l an d buffers.
1. Applicability. These buffer provisions apply to all wetlands that.
a, Are not associated with riparian areas or buffers:
b. Do not contain habitat identified as essentialfor local populations of
priority species identified by VVDFW or Natural Heritage plant species
identified by the VVQNR;
c. Are not a vernal pool;
d. Are not an alkali wetland; and
e. Do not contain aspen stands.
Page 43 6161
Exhibit 2
Ch Ur 21.50 Shoreline Regudation.s
Except as otherwise specified or allowed in SVMC 21.50,520(C)(1), wetland
buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition,
3. Buffer widths,
a. All buffers widths shall be measured perpendicularly from the ��ctland
boundary as surveyed in the field.
b. The total buffer width shalt be calculated by adding the standard and t. 7e
additional buffer widths together.
c. The standard buffer widths in Table 1-50 - 4 are based on the ca--:acr,.
of wetland. In order to qualify for the standard buffer widths in Table 1;
the measures in Table 21.50 - 5 shall be implemented, where applic ;hie
to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses on the wetlandts}
d. Additional buffer widths listed in Table 1 shall be added to the standard
buffer widths based on the habitat score for the wetland.
Table 21.50-4:
Buffer Requirements
Wetland
Wetland Standard Buffer
Category Width
Cate+Or
Additional
Buffer Width if
Wetland Scores
21-25 Habitat
Points
Additional
Buffer Width if
Wetland Scores
26-29 Habitat
Points
Additional
Buffer Width if
Wetland Scores
>36 Habitat
Points
100 feet
. 5 feet
iU feet
40 feet
Add 15 feet
Add 45 feet
Add 75 feet
Add 15 feet
Add 30 feet
Add 45 feet
Add 60 feet
Add 75 feet
N!A
4. Increased buffer widths.
If measures listed in Table 21.50-5 are not implemented, then the
standard buffer widths in Table 21.50-4 shall be increased by 33 percent.
b. Buffer widths may be increased on a case-by-case basis when the
wetland is used by a plant or animal species listed by the federal
government or the state as endangered, threatened, candidate, sar,si! e,
monitored, or documented priority species or habitats, or essential or
outstanding habitat for those species or has unusual nesting 0r -cstinp.
sites. The buffer increase should be determined by the Qualitic
Professional in the critical areas report.
a.
N A N!A
N!A
Table 21.50-5: Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands
Disturbance
Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights
• Direct lights away from wetland
Page 44of61
Luhr`bit 2 Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Regulations
Disturbance
Noise
Cl e iir!w l Uses
•5 crnl',vater runoff
Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Locate activity that generates noise away from
wetland
If warranted, enhance existing buffer with nature
vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source
For activities that generate relatively continuous,
potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy
industry or mining, establish an additional 10 foot
heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent
to the niter wpti rtirt hriffer_
Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within
150 feet of wetland
Apply integrated pest management
■ Route all untreated runoff away from wetland while
ensuring wetland is not dewatered
• Retrofit substandard stormwater facilities
• Prevent channelized flow that directly enters the
buffer
• Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer
new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human disturbance
Use privacy fencing or plant dense, thorny
vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to
discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate
for this area
Dust
Use best management practices to control dust
Disruption of corridors or
connections
Maintain connections to off-site areas that are
undisturbed
Vegetation alteration
• Protect and maintain native plant communities in
buffers
5, Buffer averaging,
a. Buffer averaging to improve wetland protection may be allowed when all
of the following conditions are rnet:
The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that
affect its habitat functions and the buffer is increased adjacent to
{Fie higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of
the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or
less sensitive portion;
ii. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area
required without averaging; and
The buffer at its narrowest point is not less than either 75 percent
of the required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for
Category III and 30 feet for Category IV, whichever is greater.
Page. 45 of 61
Exhibit 2 Chapter 21,50 Shoreline Regulations
b. Duffer averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be allowed
when all of the following are met:
There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be
accomplished without buffer averaging;
The averaged buffer will net result in degradation of the wetland's
functions and values as demonstrated by a critical areas report:
III. The total buffer area after averaging is equal or greater to he area
required without averaging; and
iv. The buffer at its narrowest point is not less than either 75 peccant
of the required width or 75 feet for Category I and II. 50z:ei for
Category 111 and 30 feet for Category IV, whichever is Oreatcr-
6. Signs and fencing.
a, Temporary.
The outer perimeter of wetland buffers and the clearing limits shall
be signed and fenced to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will
occur during construction.
ii. Temporary signs and fencing shall be placed prior to beginning
permitted activities and maintained throughout construction.
b. Permanent.
The Director, at his/her sole discretion, may require installation of
permanent signs and/or fencing along the boundary of a wetland
or buffer_
ii. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel -coated metal face
and attached to a metal post or another non -treated material of
equal durability. Signs, if required by the Director, shall be posted
at an interval not less than one per lot, and which shall be
maintained iri perpetuity by the property owner_ The obligation to
maintain permanent signs shall be recorded against the property
in a form acceptable to the City.
The signs shall be worded as follows or with alternative language
approved by the Director:
Protected Wetland Area
Do Not disturb
Contact the City of Spokane Valley
Community Development Department
Regarding Uses, Restrictions, and Opportunities for Stewardship
iv. Permanent fence shall be installed and maintained around the
wetland buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may
be introduced on site.
v_ Fencing shall be constructed and rnaintained in a manner that
minimizes impacts to the wetland and associated habitat and
designed so as to not interfere with species migration, including
fish runs.
D. Mitigation,
1. Mitigation ratios.
!'age 46 Of 6 !
Exhibit 2 Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Rulatians
Impacts resulting from alteration to wetlands shall be mitigated using the
ratios specified in Table 21.50-6 below.
Table 21.50-6: Wetland Mitigation Ratios'
Wetland
Category
Category I
Creation or
Re -
Rehabilitation Enhancement
8:1 16:1
Category II
Category 111
3:1
6;1
12:1
2:1
4:1
6:1
Categ�ory IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1
Refer to Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, I -al- 1: Agency
Policies and Guidance, (Ecology Publication # 06-06-011 a March
2006), for further information on welland creation, re-establishment,
b. Impacts to buffers shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. Only fully vegetated
buffer areas will be included in mitigation calculations. Lawns, walkways,
driveways, and other mowed or paved areas shall be excluded from
buffer area calculations..
c. Credit/Debit Method. As an alternative to the mitigation ratios provided in
'Table 21.50-6, the Director may allow mitigation based on the
"credit/debit" method developed by the Ecology in Calculating Credits and
Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Eastern Washington:
Final Report (Ecology Publication #11-06-015, August 2012, as adopted
or amended).
2. Wetland mitigation banks.
a. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved as off-site
mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when:
i. The bank program is certified under state rules;
tl. The Director determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides
appropriate compensation for the authorized impacts; and
The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and
conditions of the certified bank instrument.
b. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall be consistent
with replacement ratios specified in the certified bank instrument.
c. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to
compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the
certified bank instrument. In some cases, the service area of the bank
may include portions of more than ane adjacent drainage basin for
specific wetland functions
d, When applying for a wetland mitigation bank, the Applicant shall prepare
a Wetland Mitigation Credit Use Plan that documents consistency with
these criteria and shows how the identified wetland type and associated
functions will be compensated far by purchase of the credits.
Design.
a. Design of wetland mitigation proiects shall be appropriate for its
landscape position. Corr, Pers atory mitigation shall result in the creation,
restoration, or enhancement of a wetland that matches the geomorphic
setting of the site.
Page 47 of 61
Exhibit 2
Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Regar'arfons
b. The design of a wetland that has a different Cowardin or
hydrogeomorphic classification than the impacted wetland may be
justified if supported by a demonstrated need for, or scarcity of, the
wetland type being designed,
4. Timing_
a_ Compensatory mitigation is encouraged to be completed prior to activities
that will disturb wetlands.
b. Compensatory mitigation shall be completed no later than immediately
following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the action or
development. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce
impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora.
c. The Director may authorize a one-time delay of mitigation when the
Applicant provides a compelling written rationale for the delay with
recommendations from a qualified wetland professional if the delay shall
not:
Create or perpetuate hazardous conditions;
ii. Create environmental damage or degradation; or
Be injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public.
E. Additional critical area report requirements tor wetlands.
1. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.56.500, wetland
reports shall include:
a. Documentation of any fieldwo-k performed on the site, in huninc heat not
limited to field data sheets fo' crylin :tions; lrlrrctlr r7 a ssessme- s, ratings,
or baseline hydrologic data;
b. A description of the iotlrcdolaaies used to c^nciuct the ..ve. and
delineations, function assessments, or impact analyses including
references;
For each wetland identified on site, adjacent to and within 200 feet of the
project site, provide:
Required buffers;
ii. A professional survey from the field delineation that identifies:
Wetland rating;
Hydrogecrnorphic classification;
Cowardin classification of vegetation communities;
On-site wetland acreage; and
Ecological function of the wetland and buffer.
Note: The above shall be based on entire wetland complexes, not
only the portion present on the proposed project site.
iii. Estimates of acreage and boundary for the entire wetland area
where portions of the wetland extend off-site;
iv. Description of habitat elements;
v. Soil conditions based on site assessment and sail survey
information; and
vi. The following information shall be provided to the extent passible
(1) Hydrologic information such as location and condition of
inlet/outlets (if they can be legally accessed);
(2) Estimated water depths within the wetland; and
(3) Estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues
algal mats, drift lines, flood debris, etc.);
d. A description of the proposed actions and survey and an arialysis of site
development alternatives, including a no -development alternative;
Page 48 of d.1
Exhibit 2 Chapter- 21.50 Shoreline Regitlaticeru
e. An assessment of the probable impacts to the wetlands and buffers
resulting from the proposed development, including:
An estimation of acreages of impacts to wetlands and buffers
based on the field delineation;
ii. Impacts associated with anticipated hydroperiod alterations from
the project and
iii. Impacted wetland functions;
f. A description of how mitigation sequencing was applied pursuant to
SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing;
g- A discussion of mitigation measures, proposed to preserve existing
wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded by the current
proposed land -use activity;
h, Methods to protect and enhance on-site habitat and wetland funct cans;
A site plan, drawn to scale, with the fallowing information:
Delineated wetland(s) and required buffer(s) for an -site wetlands
as well as off-site critical areas that extend onto the project site,
ii. Areas of proposed impacts to wetlands andfor buffers (include
square footage estimates);
Proposed stormwater management facilities and outlets for the
development, including estimated areas of intrusion into the
buffers of any critical areas; and
j. A mitigation plan, If required.
21.50.530 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations
A. Applicability. This section applies to the following developments and uses when
proposed within designated CARAs:
1. Underground and aboveground storage tanks;
2. Vehicle repair and service uses, including automobile washers;
3. Chemical treatment. storage, and disposal facilities;
4. Hazardous waste generating uses;
5. Injection wells, not including Class V or injection wells for stormwater
management;
6. Junk and salvage yards;
7. Cr -site sewage systems;
8. Solid waste handling and recycling facilities;
9. Surface mines;
10. Uses of hazardous substances, other than household chemicals for domestic
applications;
11. Projects having the potential to adversely impact groundwater; and
12. Work within a wellhead protection area.
Designation and classification.
1. CARAs are those areas with a cr:ticel recharging effect on aquifers used for
potable water as defined by WAC 365-194-039(2). CARAs have prevailing
geologic conditions associated with infiltration rates that create a high polential
for contamination of ground water resources or contribute significantly to the
replenishment of ground water.
2, Aquifer recharge areas are rated as having a high, moderate, or low susc.nptibility
based on a scientific analysis of soils, hydraulic conductivity, :inriu•A rainfAl the
depth to aquifers, the importance of the vadcse zone, and wellhead proter..tion
Page -19 of6l
Ex-hthit 2 Chapter 21.50 Shot -dine Reg:dations
information. The entire shoreline jurisdiction, as well as the entire City, is
identified as a high susceptibility CARA.
Performance standards.
The uses listed in Table 21.50-7 shall be conditioned as necessary to protect CARAs in
accordance with the applicable state and federal regulations.
Peig,e F) of �fi /
Exhrbre 2
Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Regulations
Table 21.504: Statutes, Regulations, and Guidance
Pertaininto Ground Water impacting Activities
Activity -
Statute — Regulation — Guidance
Above Ground Storage Tanks
WAC 173-303-640
Automobile Washers
WAC 173-216; Best Management Practices
Manual for Vehicle and Equipment Vfasowater
Discharges(WQ-R-g5-O56
Below Ground Storage Tanks
WAC 173-360
Chemical Treatment Storage and Disposal
Facilities
WAC 173-303-300
Hazardous Waste Generator (Boat Repair
Shops, Biological Research Facility, Dry
Cleaners, Furniture Stripping, Motor Vehicle
Service Garages, Photographic Processing,
Printing and Publishing Shops, etc.}
WAC 173-3D3-300
Injection Wells
40 CFR Parts 144 and 146;WAC 173-218
Junk Yards and Salvage Yards
Vehicle and Metal Recycles -- A Guide far
Implementing the Industrial Stormwater General
NPRES Permit Requirements (94-146)
On -Site Sewage Systems (Large Scale)
WAC 246-272B
On -Site Sewage Systems (` 14,500 galfday)
WAC 246-272A, Local Health Ordinances
WAC 173-304
Solid Waste Handling and Recycling
Facilities
Surface Mining
WAC 332-18
Additional performance standards for storage tanks that store hazardous substances or
waste.
All storage tanks shall'
1, Comply with Title 24 SVMC Building Code and fire department requirements;
2. Use material in the construction or lining of the tank that is compatible with the
substance to be stored;
3. Not allow the release at a hazardous substance to the ground, groundwater, or
surface water;
4. Prevent releases due to corrosion or structural failure for the operational life of
the tank; and
5. Be protected against corrosion and constructed of noncorrosive material or steel
clad with a noncorrosive material.
Alt new underground storage tanks shall include a built-in secondary containment
system that prevents the release or threatened release of any stored substances.
All new aboveground storage tanks shall include a secondary containment structure and
tweet either of the criteria below:
1. If the secondary containment is built into the tank structure, the tank shall be
placed over a sealed impervious pad surrounded with a dike. The impervious
padfdike shall be sized to contain the 10 -year storm if exposed to the weather; or
2. If the tank is single walled, the tank shall be placed over a sealed impervious pari
surrounded with a dike_ The impervious pad/dike shall have the capacity to
contain 110 percent of the largest tank plus the 10 -year storm if exposed to the
weather.
Page 51of6)
&hlb!$ 2 Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Regrrinions
F. Additional performance standards far vehicle repair and servicing. Vehicle repair and
servicing must be conducted over impermeable pads and within a cowered structure
capable of withstanding normally expected weather conditions.
Additional standards for chemical storage.
1. All chemicals used shall be stored in a manner that protects them from weather.
Secondary containment shall be provided, On-site disposal of any critical
material or hazardous waste shall be prohibited.
2. All developments and uses shall provide a narrative and plan to show how
development complies with the regulations and performance standards in SVMC
21.50.530(0-F), or prepare a hydrogeological assessment in accordance with
SVMC 21.50.53O(H).
3. Proposed developments and uses that are unable to satisfy the performance
standards in SVMC 21,50.530(C -F), shall submit a hydrogeological assessment
report.
In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, hydrogeological
assessments shall include:
1. Available geologic and hydrogeological characteristics of the site, including
groundwater depth, flow direction, gradient, and permeability of the unsaturated
zone;
2. Diiscussicn of the effects of the proposed project on groundwater quality and
quantity;
3. A spill plan that ides tifies equipment and/or structures that could fail, resulting in
an impact. Spill plans shall include provisions for regular inspection, repair,
replacement of structures and equipment that could fail, and mitigation and
cleanup in the event of a spill: and
4. Best management practices proposed to be utilized.
21.50.540 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas - Shoreline Critical Area
Regulations
A Applicability This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within designated
FWEIGAs.
B. Designation.
1. The shoreline buffer as mapped by the City, which protects riparian habitat, and
the waters and land underneath the Spokane River are FHCAs. The City
protects shoreline functions of these through the Shoreline Suffer established in
SVMC 21 50.230 and the vegetation conservation standards in SVMC 21.50.260.
2. Additionally, all areas meeting one or more of the following criteria, regardless of
any formal identification, are hereby designated FVVHCAs:
a. Areas where state or federal designated endangered, threatened, or
sensitive species have a primary association;
b. State priority habitats and areas associated with state priority species, as
identified by the VVSDFW and are updated periodically; and
c. State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas,
Natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas are
defined, established, and managed by WDNR.
Page 52 of 6)
Eihdblr 3
Chapter 21.50 Shorefin.2 Regufrrlfoas
Performance standards. AH development and uses shall be prohibited within FWHCAs
designated in SVMC 21.5C.540(H)(2), except in accordance with this section, Buffers
shall be required only far FWHCAs described under SVMC 21.54,540(B)(2), excluding
Priority Habitats. Buffer requirements shall be based on the recommendations of the
FVVHCA critical area report. Buffers shall not exceed 100 horizontal feet from the edge
of the FVVFICA.
1, General.
a. A FWFICA may be altered only if the proposed alteration of the habitat or
the mitigation proposed does not create a net loss of the quantitative and
qualitative shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain the
FVVHCA.
b. No plant, wildlife, or fish species not indigenous to the region shall be
introduced into a FVVHCA unless authorized by a state or federal permit
or approval.
c. Contiguous functioning habitat corridors are preferred to minimize the
isolating effects of development on habitat areas.
d. Vegetation,
Vegetation shall be maintained in its natural state and shall be
disturbed only as minirnally necessary for the development; and
ii, Riparian vegetation shall not be removed unless there are no
other alternatives available_ When it is necessary, only those
areas of vegetation that are absolutely unavoidable may be
cleared, and shall be re -vegetated with natural riparian vegetation
as soon as possible.
e. The subdivision and short subdivision of land shall comply with the
following provisions:
Land that is located wholly within a FWHCA or its buffer may not
be subdivided;
ii Land that is located partially within a FVVHCA or its buffer may be
divided provided that an accessible and contiguous portion of
each new lot is located outside of the habitat conservation area or
its buffer; and
iii. Access roads and utilities serving the proposal may be permitted
within the F'NHCA and associated buffers only if the City
determines that no other feasible alternative exists and when
consistent with the SMP.
f. The project may be conditioned to minimize or mitigate any potential
adverse impacts. Conditions may incllude: but are not limited to, the
following:
Establishment of buffer zones;
ii. Preservation of critically important vegetation, including
requirements for re -vegetation of disturbed areas with native
plants;
Vegetation screenings to reduce the potential for harassment from
people and/or dcmesticated animals;
iv, Limitation of access to the habitat area during critical times of the
year;
v. Fencing to protect wildlife and deter unauthorized access;
vi. Dedication of all or part of the required open space to fish and
wildlife habitat conservation; and
vii. Seasonal restriction of construction activities
Page 53 of 61
Exhibit 2 Chapter 21, 50 Shoreline Regulations
2. FWHCAs with endangered, threatened, or sensitive species.
a. No development shall be allowed within a FVVHCA or buffer where state
or federal endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary
association without state and federal consultation and approval from
VV❑FW and US Fish and Wildlife Service (LJSFWS), respectively.
b. Approval for alteration of land or activities adjacent to a FVVHCA having a
primary association with state or federally endangered, threatened, or
sensitive species shall not occur prior to consultation with the Vl.1DF.
c. Bald eagle habitat shall be protected consistent with:
WAC 232-12-292, Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules;
and
ii. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which may require a
permit obtained from the USFWS.
D. Mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring for FWHCAs designated in SVMC
21.50.54003)0).
1. Mitigation sites shall be located:
a. Preferably to achieve contiguous functioning habitat corridors that
minimize the isolating effects of development on habitat areas; and
b. Within the same aquatic ecosystem as the FWHCA disturbed.
2. Where necessary, a permanent means of irrigation shall be installed for the
mitigation plantings. The design shall meet the specific needs of riparian and
shrub steppe vegetation and be prepared by a Qualified Professional and/or
landscape architect.
3. Mitigation shall be installed no later than the next growing season after
completion of site improvements, unless otherwise approved by the Director.
4. Mitigation sites shall be maintained to ensure that the mitigation and
mariagement plan objectives are successful.
5. Maintenance shall include corrective actions to rectify problems, include rigorous,
as -needed elimination of undesirable plants, protection of shrubs and small trees
from competition by grasses and herbaceous plants, and repair arid replacement
of any dead plants.
Planting areas shall be maintained so they have less than 20 percent total non-
native/invasive plant cover consisting of exotic andfor invasive species. Exotic
and invasive species include any species on the state noxious weed list, or
considered a noxious or problem weed by the Natural Conservation Services
Department or local conservation district,
The Applicant shall monitor the performance of any required mitigation and
submit performance monitoring reports to the City consistent with the fallowing;
a. Mitigation sites shall be monitored for five years.
b. Monitoring reports shall be submitted by a Qualified Professional:
i. One year after mitigation installation;
ii. Three years after mitigation installation; and
Five years after mitigation installation.
c. The Qualified Professional shall verify whether the conditions of approval
and provisions in the fish and wildlife management and mitigation plan
have been satisfied.
d. Mitigation planting survival shall be 100 percent for the first year, and BO
percent for each of the four years following.
Page 54 of61
ExInbit 2 Chaplet. 21.50 Shoreline Regulrnlons
Additional critical area report requirements for FVVHICAs designated in SVMC
21.50.540(B)(2).
1, Report Contents. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC
21.50.500, FWHCA reports shall include:
a. Habitat assessment, including'
Detailed description of vegetation on and adjacent to the project
area;
ii Identification of any species of local importance, priority habitats
and species, or endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate
species that have a primary association with habitat on or
adjacent to the project area, and assessment of potential project
impacts to the use of the site by the species;
A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management
recommendations, including VVDFVV habitat management
recommendations, that have been developed for species or
habitats located on or adjacent to the project area;
iv. A discussion of measures, including mitigation sequencing.
proposed to preserve existing habitats or restore any habitat that
was degraded prior to the current proposed land use activity-
v.
ctivityv v. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect
habitat after the project site has been developed, including
proposed monitoring and maintenance programs..
2. Any proposal in a FWHCA or within 1,320 feet from a priority species den er no-st
site that the Director (in consultation with the 1DFW) determines is likely to have
an adverse impact on a FWHCA or associated species shall provide a Habitat
Management Plan, including:
A plan, drawn to scale, that identifies:
The 'location of the proposed site
ii. The relationship cf the site to surrounding topographic and built
elements;
The nature and intensity of the proposed use or activity;
iv. Prcposed improvement(s) locations and arrangements:
v. The location of the OHWM, shoreline jurisdiction, and riparian
habitat area boundary lines,
vi. The legal description and the total acreage of the parcel:
vii. Existing structures and landscape features including the name
and location of each; and
viii. The location of priority habitat types or priority species point
locations within 1,320 feet of the proposal;
b. An analysis of the impact of the proposed use or activity upon FWHCAs
or associated species and riparian habitat area;
c. A mitigation plan that may include, but is rot limited to:
i. Establishment of perpetual buffer areas;
ii. Preservation and/or restoration of native flora;
Limitation of access to habitat area;
iv. Secsona I restriction of construction activities;
v. Clustering of development and preservation of open space;
vi. Signs remarking :habitats or habilA a -e as;
Use of low impact develop-ncnt t-;.rlri a:LA's;
Paw. 55 clfi!
Ex/21'h? 2 Cfaapeer ?/,50 t irureithe Regulation,'
viii. Recorded deed, plat, binding site plan, or planned unit
development covenant, condition, or restriction legally establishing
a riparian habitat area for subject property;
ix. Conservation or preservation easements; and
x, Dedication or conveyance of title of a riparian habitat area to a
public entity far the purpose of conservation; and
A summary of consultation with a habitat biologist with the WDFW. If the
habitat management plan recommends mitigation involving federally
listed threatened cr endangered species, migratory waterfowl, or
wetlands, the IJSFWS shall receive a copy of the draft habitat
management plan and their review comments shall be included in the
final report. The Director shall have the authority to approve habitat
management plans or require additional information.
21.50.550 Geologically Hazardous Areas - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations
A. Applicability.
1. This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within designated
geologically hazardous areas.
2. Applications tor development within the shoreline jurisdiction shad) identify if it is
located within a geohazard area as designated on the City Critical Areas and
Priority Habitats Map. The Director rnay require additional information based on
the criteria in SVMC 21.50,550 tc identify unmapped geohazards if application
material and/or a site visit indicate the potential for geohazard.
B. Designation and classification_
1 Areas susceptible to erosion, sliding earthquake, or other geological events are
designated geologically hazardous areas in accordance with WAC 365-190-120,
Geologically Hazardous Areas.
2. Categories,
a. Erosion hazard areas are identified by the NRCB as having a "moderate
to severe," "severe," or "very severe" rill and inter -rill erosion hazard_
Erosion hazard areas also include areas with slopes greater than 15
percent.
b_ Landslide hazard areas are subject to landslides based on a combination
of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas
susceptible because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope, slope
aspect, structure, hydrolcgy, or other factors and include the following:
Areas of historic failures, including:
(1) Areas delineated by the MRCS as having a significant
limitation for building site development; and
(2) Areas designated as quaternary slumps, earthflows,
mudflows, lahars, or landslides on maps published by the
United States Geological Survey or WDNR;
li. Areas with all of the fallowing characteristics:
(1) Slopes steeper than 15 percent;
(2) Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively
permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable
sediment or bedrock; and
(3) Springs or groundwater seepage;
Page 56 if6I
ExhPbit 2
Chapter 21.50 Shorelrrre Regutcrtiorrs
iii, Areas that have shown movement during the holocene epoch
(from 10,000 years ago to the present) or which are underlain or
ccvered by mass wastage debris of this epoch;
iv. Slopes that are parallel or subparallel to planes of weakness (such
as bedding planes, joint systems, and fault planes) in subsurface
materials;
v. Slopes having gradients steeper than SO percent subject to rock
fall during seismic shaking;
vi. Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision,
stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action, including
stream channel migration zones;
vii. Areas that show evidence of, or are at risk from snow avalanches;
Areas located in a canyon or on an active alluvial fan, presently or
potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or catastrophic
flooding; and
ix. Any area with a slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical
relief of 10 or more feet except areas composed of bedrock. A
slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured
by averaging the inclination over at least 10 feet of vertical relief.
c. Seismic hazard areas are subject to severe risk of damage as a result of
earthquake induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement or
subsidence, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. One indicator cf
potential for future earthquake damage is a record of past earthquake
damage.
C. Standards applicable to all geologic hazard areas.
1. Any development or uses proposed within 50 feet of a geologic hazard area shall
prepare a critical areas report satisfying the general critical area report
requirements in SVMC 21.50.500 and the additional standards for Geologic
Hazard Areas in SVMC 21.50.550(E).
2. Development or uses within geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers
shall only be allowed when the proposed development or use:
a Does not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent
properties beyond pre -development conditions;
b. Does not adversely impact other critical areas;
c. Is designed so that the hazard is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal
to or Tess than pre -development conditions; and
d. Is determined to be safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by
a Qualified Professional.
3. New development that requires structural shoreline stabilization over the life of
the development is prohibited, except in instances where:
a. Stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses consistent with SVMC
21_50,420(B)(5);
b_ No alternative locations are available;
c. Shoreline modifications do not negatively affect other critical areas
pursuant to SVMC 21,50,460; and
d. Stabilization measures conform to WAC 173-26-231, Shoreline
Modifications.
E7. Standards applicable to erosiori and landslide hazard areas.
Page 57 of 6)
Echrbrr 2 Clicp er 21.50 Sharelre Rept&ions
1. Development within an Erasion or Landslide Hazard Area andfor buffer shall be
designed to meet the following basic requirements unless it can be demonstrated
that an alternative design that deviates from one or mere of these standards
prov.des greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other provisions of the
s1'vtp_ The requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that
require regular and periodic maintenance to maintain their level of function:
a. Development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide
occurrences below the limits of 1.5 tor static conditions and 12 for
dynamic conditions. Analysis of dynamic conditions shall be based an a
minimum horizontal acceleration as established by the Uniform Building
Code as adopted or amended;
b. Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically
hazardous areas and other critical areas;
c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural
contour of the slope and foundations shall be tiered where possible to
conform to existing topography;
d. Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most
critical portion of the site and its natural Iandfcrms and vegetation;
e. The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for
increased buffers on neighboring properties;
f. The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural
slope area is preferred ever graded artificial slopes; and
g. Development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage.
2 Buffers from all edges of Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas.
a. The minimum buffer shall be equal to the height of the slope or 50 feet,
whichever is greater.
b. The buffer may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet when e Ouellied
Professional demonstrates that the reduction will aclecinetoly protect the
proposed development, adjacent developments and uses, and the subject
critical area.
c. The buffer may be increased where the Director determines a larger
buffer is necessary to prevent risk of damage to proposed and existing
development.
3. Removal of vegetation from an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area andlor buffer
shall be prohibited unless as part of an approved alteration plan consistent with
SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation.
4. New utility lines and pipes shall be permitted only when the Applicant
demonstrates that no other practical alternative is available. The line or pipe
shall he located above ground and properly anchored and/or designed so that it
will continue to function in the event of an underlying slide_
5. Stormwater conveyance shall be allowed only when the pipe design includes a
high-density polyethylene pipe with fuse -welded joints, or similar product that is
technically equal or superior.
6, New point discharges from drainage facilities and roof drains onto or upstream
from Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas shall be prohibited except as follows.
a. If it is conveyed via continuous storm pipe downslope toe point where
there are no erosion hazards areas downstream from the discharge;
b. If it is discharged at flow durations matching pre -developed conditions,
with adequate energy dissipation, into existing channels that previously
conveyed stormwater runoff in the pre -developed state; or
Page 58 of 61
Exhibit 2 Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Reg eatrorrs
If it is dispersed or discharged upslope of the steep slope onto a Ica/ -
gradient undisturbed buffer derncnstrated to be adequate to infiltrate ail
surface and stormwater runoff, and where it can be demonstrated that
such discharge will not increase the saturation of the slope.
r . Division of land in Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas and associated buffers is
subject to the fallowing:
a. Land that is located wholly within a designated Erosion or Landslide
Hazard Area or an associated buffer shall not be subdivided.
b. Land that is located partially within a designated Erosion or Lands'.ide
Hazard Area or an associated buffer may be subdivided. provided that
each resulting lot has sufficient buildable area outside of the Erosion or
Landslide Hazard Area and buffer to accommodate reasonable
development without impacting the critical area or requiring structural
stabilization consistent with SVMC 21.50.180(B)(5) General Provisions_
c. Access roads and utilities may be permitted within an Erosion or
Landslide Hazard Area and associated buffers if the City determines that
no other feasible alternative exists.
8. On-site sewage disposal systems, including drain fields, shall be prohibited within
Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas and associated buffers
E. Additional critical areas report requirements for geologically hazardous areas reports.
In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50 500, geologca:ly
hazardous area reports shall include:
1. A site plan showing the following:
a. The location of springs, seeps, or other surface expressions of
groundwater on or within 200 feet of the project area or that have
potential to be affected by the proposal;
b. The topography, in two -foot contours, of the project area and all hazard
areas addressed in the report; and
c. The following additional information for a proposal impacting an Erosion
Hazard or Landslide Hazard Area:
The height of slope, slope gradient, and cross section of the
project area;
ii. Stermwater runoff disposal location and flow patterns; and
The location and description of surface water runoff.
2. A geotechnical study that addresses the geologic characteristics and engineering
properties of the soils, sediments, andfor rock of the project area and potentially
affected adjacent properties, including:
a. A description of the surface and subsurface geology, hydrology, soils, and
vegetation found in the project area and in all hazard areas addressed in
the report;
b. A detailed overview of the field investigations; published data and
references; data and conclusions from past assessments of the site, and
site specific measurements, test, investigations, or studies that .s, oporl
the identification of geologically hazardous areas;
c. Site history regarding landslides, erosion, and prior grading;
d. A description of the vulnerability of the site to seismic and other geologic
events;
e. Proposals impacting an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area shall include
the following additional information:
A description of the extent and type of vegetative cover;
Page 59 of 61
Exhibit 2 Chap eer• 2 I.50 Shoreline 1 egarlaik n
ii. An estimate of Toad capacity including surface and groundwater
conditions, public and private sewage disposal systems, fills and
excavations, and all structural development;
An estimate of slope stability and the effect construction and
placement of structures will have on the slope over the estimated
life of the structure;
iv. An estimate of the bluff retreat rate that recognizes and reflects
potential catastrophic events such as seismic activity or a 100
year stonn event;
v. Consideration of the run -out hazard of landslide debris andfor the
impacts of landslide run -out on down slope properties;
vi. A study of slope stability including an analysis of proposed angles
of cut and fill, and site grading;
Recommendations for building limitations, structural foundations,
and an estimate of foundation settlement; and
viii. An analysis of proposed surface and subsurface drainage, and the
vulnerability of the site to erosion;
A detailed description of the project, its relationship to the geologic
hazards), and its potential impact upon the hazard area, the subject
property, and affected adjacent properties;
g. Recomniendaticns for the minimum no -disturbance buffer and minimum
building setback from any geologic hazard based upon the geotechnical
analysis;
h, A mitigation plan addressing how the activity maintains or reduces the
pre-existing level of risk to the site and adjacent properties on a Tong -term
basis (equal to or exceedirg the projected lifespan of the activity or
occupation);
Proposals impacting an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area shall include
the following additional information:
i. An erosion and sediment control pian prepared in compliance with
requirements set forth in SVMC 22.150 Stormwater Management
Regulations; and
ii. Drainage plan for the collection, transport, treatment, discharge,
and recycle of water;
j. Location and methods of drainage. surface water management, locations
and methods of erosion control, a vegetation management and replanting
plan. or other means for maintaining Tong -term soil stability; and
k. A plan and schedule to monitarstorrnwater runoff discharges from the
site shall be included if there is a significant risk of damage to
downstream receiving waters due to:
Potential erosion from the site;
ii. The size of the project; or
iii. The proximity to or the sensitivity of the receiving waters,
3. A geotechnical report, prepared within the last five years for a specific site, and
where the proposed land use activity and surrounding site conditions are
unchanged, may be incorporated into the required critical area report. The
Applicant shall submit a geotechnical assessment detailing any changed
environmental conditions associated with the site.
21.50.560 Frequently Flooded Areas - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations
Page 60 Cif 6I
Exhibit 2 Chagter 21.30 Shoreline Regulations
A. Incorporation and applicability. SVMC 21.30 Floodplain Regulations are incorporated by
reference herein and apply to all uses, activities, and structures within frequently flooded
areas_
Additional critical areas report requirements for frequently flooded areas. In addition to
the critical area report requirements in VMC 21.50.500, critical area reports for
frequently flooded areas shall include:
1. A site plan showing!
a_ All areas of a special flood hazard within 200 feet of the project area, as
indicated on the flood insurance map(s);
b. Floodplain (100 -year flood elevation), 10- and 50 -year flood elevations.
floodway, other critical areas, buffers, and shoreline areas; and
c. Elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures. and
the level to which any nonresidential structure has been flood proofed.
Alterations of natural watercourses shall be avoided, if feasible. If
unavoidable, the critical area report shall include:
1. A description of and plan showing the extent to which a
watercourse will be altered or relocated;
ii. A maintenance plan that provides maintenance practices for the
altered or relocated portion of the watercourse to ensure that the
flood carrying capacity is not diminished and downstream or
upstream properties are not impacted; and
iii. A description of how the proposed watercourse alteration
complies with the requirements of FVVHCAs, the Philp, and other
applicable state or federal permit. requirements.
Page 51 of 61
Ordinary High Water Line ^•^•^^^ ^ Centennial Trail
Shoreline Master Program
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: November 17, 2015
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent
❑ information
Department Director Approval
❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
E admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SMVC) Text Amendment
(CTA -2015-0005)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND:
On December 9, 2014 the City Council approved Ordinance No. 14-020, adopting the Shoreline
Master Program (SMP) in order to submit the document to the Department of Ecology for review
and approval. The Department of Ecology approved the document on August 21, 2015 and it
became effective September 3, 2015. The new SMP contains procedural changes and definitions
that are not consistent with the current SVMC. CTA -2015-0005 corrects the inconsistencies
with the following changes:
1. Modifies or eliminates definitions in SVMC — Appendix A that are inconsistent with the
SMP;
2. Identifies, establishes and revises permit types and processes for shoreline permits;
3. Clarifies the appeal authority for shoreline permits;
4. Removes Shoreline Conditional Use permits from the matters heard by the Hearing
Examiner; and
5. Minor code compliance housekeeping.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment on September 10, 2015.
Following public testimony and deliberation, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward the
amendment to City Council with a recommendation to approve.
OPTIONS: Consensus to proceed with the first reading scheduled for December 8, 2015; or
take other action as appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to proceed with first ordinance
reading.
STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Power Point Presentation
2) Staff Report CTA -2015-0005
3) PC Findings and Recommendation
4) PC Meeting Minutes 8-27-15
5) PC Meeting Minutes 9-10-15
6) PC Meeting Minutes 9-24-15
1 of 1
SOokane
lhdl ley
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
,NNS
G DIViSIN
Administrative Report
November 17, 2015
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update
Amendments
Spokane Valley Municipal Code
Title 17, Title 18 and Appendix A
Spokane
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
,c...a .
G DIVISION
Background
• Ordinance No. 14-020 adopted the Shoreline
Master Program (SMP) December 17, 2014
• Department of Ecology approved the updated
SMP August 21, 2015
• Updated SMP became effective September 3,
2015
Spokane
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Purpose of Amendments
Update the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to
reflect changes in the updated Shoreline Master
Program
Code compliance housekeeping
SVMC Changes
• SVMC Appendix A — Definitions
• SVMC 17.80 — Permit Processing Procedures
• SVMC 17.90 - Appeals
• SVMC 18.20.030 —Powers and Duties
SVMC Appendix A
• Deletes shoreline specific definitions that are
included in the Shoreline Master Program
definitions.
Appendix A - Definitions
Included in the
new SMP and
eliminated from
the SVMC
Definition
Ecological functions or Shoreline functions
Nonconforming use, shoreline
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)
Shoreline restoration
Shoreline substantial development
Water -dependent
Water -related
Appendix A - Definitions
Revised in the new
SMP and
eliminated from
the SVMC
Definition
Ecological function, no net loss of
Landfill, shoreline
Shoreline environment
Shoreline protection
Appendix A - Definitions
Obsolete and
removed from the
SVMC and new
SMP
Definition
Water -related industry
8
Spokane
Thal ley
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NN
NG DIVISION
SVMC 17.80.020
• Modify Table 17.80-1 - Permit Type and Land
Use Application by adding four new permit
types and eliminating one.
• Add language to identify procedures that may
apply in SVMC 21.50
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TLANN
G Div sI N �.
SVMC 17.80-1 Permit Types and Land Use Application
Type 1
Home occupation permit
10,40,140
Shoreline letter of exemption
21.50
Minor modifications of development agreements
10.30.015(1)
Record of survey to establish Tots within a binding site plan
20.60.040
Right-of-way permits
22.130.100
Shoreline exemption (dock
21.50
permit permit
Site plan review
10,130
Temporary use permit
10,160
Time extensions for preliminary subdivision, short subdivision or binding site plan
20.30,060
SVMC 17.80-1 Permit Types and Land Use Application
Type 11
Alterations — Preliminary and final subdivisions, short subdivisions, binding site
plans
20,50
Binding site plan — Preliminary and final
20,50
Binding site plan — Change of conditions
20,50
SEPIA threshold determination
21.20.060
Shoreline conditional use permit
21,50
Shoreline nonconforming use or structure review
21.50
Shoreline substantial development permit
21.50
Shoreline variance
21.50
Short subdivision — Preliminary and final
20.30, 20.40
Preliminary short subdivision, binding site plan — Change of conditions
20.30
Wireless communication facilities
22.120
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TLANN
G Div1SI N
SVMC 17.80-1 Permit Types and Land Use Application
B. Assignment by Director. Land use and development applications not defined in SVMC Table 17,88-1 shall
be assigned a type by the director, unless exempt under SVMC 17,80.048, When one or more than one
procedure may be appropriate, the process providing the greatest opportunity for public notice shall be
followed,
C. Shoreline letters of exemption, shoreline substantial development permits. shoreline conditional use permits.
shoreline variances, and shoreline nonconforming use or structure review shall be processed pursuant to the
procedures set forth in SVMC 17.80, subject to any additional or modified procedures provided in SVMC 21.58,
including submittals. completeness review, notices, hearings. and decisions.
SVMC 17.90
• Modify Table 17.90-1 — Decision/Appeals
Authority to specify permits that are appealed
to the Shoreline Hearings Board.
• Compliance and enforcement housekeeping
SVMC 17.80 Permit Types
Shoreline development substantial
Shoreline Hearings Board (RDA' 90 58.180)
pirmit.Shareline
development permits. Shoreline conditional use permits. and
Shoreline variances
es
Compliance and enforcement decisions (Chapter 17.100
.Appeal authorityHearin'g Examiner (SVMC
SVMC)
17.90.0401: further appeal to superior court
(Chapter 36.700 RCM
Notice and order of violation
Hearing examiner (SVMC 17.90.0.10): further
appeal to superior court
14
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SVMC 18.20.030 Powers and duties
• Remove "Conditional use permits and
variance under the shoreline master program"
from matters the hearing examiner shall hear.
• Add "Shoreline letter of exemption appeals"
Spokane
lhal ley
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
,NNI
NG DIVISION
SVMC 18.20 Hearing Examiner
5. The hearing examiner shall hear the following matters:
a. Variances:
b. Conditional use permits:
c. Special use permits;
d. Shoreline letter of exemption appeals ;onditionaF use permits and variances under the
shoreline master program;
e. Preliminary plats;
f. Appeals from any administrative decision of the department of community development
or the building official in the administration or enforcement of the Spokane Valley Uniform
Development Code or other land use code or regulation:
Spokane
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
L.
Questions?
17
SIMlime
.0001444alley
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DivIsioN
STAFF REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION (REVISED)
C'TA-2015-0005
STAFF REPORT DATE: September 3, 2015
HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: September 10, 2015, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City
Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101,
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206.
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: City -initiated Code Text Amendment to update Spokane Valley Municipal
Code (SVMC) 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. Table 17.80-1 — .Permit Type and Land Use
Application; SVMC l7.90 Appeals; SVMC 18.20 Hearing Examiner, Section 18.20.030 — Powers and
Duties SVMC Appendix A Definitions. The changes are designed to achieve consistency between the
SVMC and the Shoreline Master Plan and to remove duplicative compliance and enforcement language.
PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 E Sprague Ave,
Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
Title 17 General Provisions.
summAptv or RECOMMENDATION: Forward the proposed amendment to City Council will] a
recommendation to approve.
STAB I, PLANNER. Martin Palaniuk, Planner, Community and Economic Development Department
REVIEWED BY: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner, Community and Economic Development
Department
ATTACHMENTS:
P, Mbit 1' Proposed text amendment to SVIVIC Title 17. 18. and Appendix: A
A. 1 A(:1N{;ROUND [is FORMATION
1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVI`VIC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The
following summarizes application procedures for the proposal
Process
Date
Pre -Application lwleeting.:
WA
Application Submitted: NJA
Determination of Completeness: N/A
SEPA Determination: Issued August 14, 2015
Notified Department of Commerce:
August 3, 2015
Published Notice of Public Raring:
August 21 & 28, 2015
Seiit Notice of Public 1 -Tearing to staff/agencies:
August 12, 2015
CTA-2015-DC05
Page 1 el 4
DRAFT —September 0. 2015
Sli1ff ftc•p,rt CTA -2015-0005
2, PROPOS...I Ii•i k(:Ttoi;Nit:
C)rt I]teceiii h.I fir. 20 I:- 11 iii]proti'e,1 l-ii_''41. ail opt: r1,' the .Shoreline
Master 1'ri.:..grins �. w1:'} in oriel. I �'.Jhntit the dm iIrlaL' :C 1.k.1 I lcp.9I Iiilc!:1 cif
E coloL\ (D017) Iur re -, On a LIFT:Jh[ 21, 21)1 I)1)1. ii-r:"a'Ovcd the. 4J(..0111-(1)1.
an effective dale of Septclt I;e r '''115. Th S'w MC must b4 ors?4Ii!;L'[I 1ck be con4i;t...:111. i'Ii 111c
permit procedures and definitions contained in the updated SMP.
The updated SNAP contains a Definitions section with \voril t nt arc specific to ifi SMI'" 1!ruler
1irc I _1pi'.,cd :LIr1L`ikime*J1t, those •'r i'ds are removed Fro.r', lint S\.'\.1f' . pp:L1d.x ,'\ I) Iittmons.
`yards 1Ippl.STP and the S'w w:1i wt'il1 remain in Sv. 11 : , .}_ cnLlix.4-
I)efinitions. 'l ilc c changes L:r4 1211ccted iii the alncildrieru to Appendix A - 1:}, l iriiiir.rrr4,
The updated SMP also identities permit processes for several shoreline permits in:Iik in rr I11e
shoreline leiter of. Nt.i.ip1ii 11. ,dl4aelitic condi [ia.r;a1 use, sl-sorciiii StJliti[ lntt.Jl 11cw Iopnicn1, and
shoreline variance lyL:i•iiul
Pcrrn its are reviewed and appro-o..id based oft iIi ;i_ i LIlmiit type classification in SviV1C: 17.110.
1cu' permit tyI:e,i; ' I''j11c': 1, 11, [II, or iV, The review and rlpproval
pI.11ti.essfor each type ofperrr: 1 i dlf4ri.:iL Lull becoluJ- increasingly more complex.
I le I:roposed amendment classitics it shoreline letter of exemption as a Type l permit. Shoreline
1 IIL r:,
01 are issued to a project or action exempt from a slloi•eIinc substantial
clevel1)pIlki1r per -mit. Projects are reviewed and conditioned admini ii;itlti'eIy and in most cases
a.rt not }L lw:ect to DOE review. Because the decision-making authority is admit'istrel iw ;Ind the
)0[ review is limited, the appeal authority is the HEX.
"Tic proposed amendment classifies shoreline substantial development permit. ;Iica1"cliii eiir[al1e .
ctr:e'.
diorclinc. conditional use permit as Type 11 permits. Shoreline Conditi1 1:L\?,•'.11
rtt} l,Sr.cr be heard by the I-IEX with, the change reflected in the amendment to SVM:: clr;Jl,lcr-
18.?ii 1 I, :Ir#I, ; I t,llrliner Powers and Duties. The rationale for this chan:;vt is that the final
authorit, I,r tilit,i line Conditional Use permit is DOE. The City provides Iheir '.xicaI elcci::ion
falter 11 plib.ic e irn:ne:iit period arid forwards it to DOE who halls the aulllr'.rit} i r :. it j. ;Lf1pr1^ve,
ear coed lionall ' approve the local decision. The HEX in this cClst at is .J Ii LirIIsary layer to
the permitting system without providing significant benefit to protecting the environment,
SV MC chapter 21.50 is the Shoreline Master Pkii contains IdcIiticlnal procedures that
apply is ,a shoreline 17_x11111 kt:yoiid twat provid i(1 s\ NIC 17.811_ Additional Ianiiinaiie was
tidei.L;cl to SV\•1C 17.8:1 1, t: 1 1;iLL1 Li-ICI,h.i 1Ii i 1i 10-0 dcld1L10nal procedures are contained witlain
ilii; SNIP and willAl!,.;r al:I1l'y '.o tlt4 r ]t >lefins perltrits.
The proposed amendmenits will modify SV1' tC Titles 17, 18 and Appendix A as follows:
Al.-pcndix A Definitions, eliminate the Following definitions as they ate no longer accurate or
contained within the definitions section of the SMP:
1. Ecoloc'icaI function, no riet loss of;
2. L`.:nll1 is:t11urti.tionsorshorelinefunctions;
3. LalILlli1], ,Liorclinc,
4. Nonco°lloaning, irso ;Ir,arcli:re;
5, Qrrlin.uy high-wvJ1L'L nr,Ir1 i()I IVt ] i1
6. Shore.I ill *'
7{t."Il k'lliilLlil 'Il[;
holvl
vie
8. SlLlnn..1 11e r w?;+rill is n„
9. Shoio1.i e Iapl:le,i;;
10. 1 iLLt'r,1_:] ;Ililcili,
t'::av 2. ofd
Staff Report i • 1.°, ;'.0 15-0005
11. Water -related;
11. Watcr-related industry.
SVMC 11,50.030, Tabic 17.80-1 —Permit Type and 1-aInd 1.1;i: 1;,I,li . rion: Add •-[
Exemption" and remove "Shoreline permit exemption (coo,:'; ".v°riiiit}'" 1:rr)n1 ion of
the table; Add "Shoreline Conditional Use Permit", "S1toreline nonconforming use or stracture
review, and "Shoreline Variance" to the Type [I section of the table
SVMC 17.80.030(C) was added to clarify that additional or modified procedure provided in
SVMC 21.50 may apply.
SVMC 17.90 Table 17.90-1 Decision/Appeal Authority was modified to specify the shoreline
permits that are appealed to the Shoreline Hearings Board. Compliance and enforcement
language was modified.
SVMC 18.20.030 Powers and Duties: Eliminate "Conditional Ilse permits and variances under
the shoreline master program" from the matters the hearing examiner will hear and add "shoreline
letter of exemption appeals".
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT
AMENDMENT
1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spot rice V:il[c • Municipal Code
a. Findings:
SVMC I7.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text \.mLn,1-11E I1; pin oval t ri;�ri.1
i. The City may approve Municipal t_ , (I: I :.r anlwrl1iI1 C si_ illi C'irirl'; that
(1) The proposed text amendment ft, c:o:r-,kta.i1r the :[,[ale, bile provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan;
Staff Analysis: Chapter 8 - Natural Environment Elenier P[1c
Plan includes the vials and policies of ill4• Shoreline \•'l twr i'rti 1:1rn :, i,al :Ina
policies of tllc Cor11prolionsive :111;Ciif[:11Ci11ti are consiste'ti; .'.IIIb 111,' Y.41}
and bec,ar A Clip go,ils and policies of tlic `t[1' art: rnit:luded as pat!, :Incl pc'i;ck
the Ccrmllpre[i nsive Plan the.y ties therefore- consistent with both.
(2) The [,ropk-isecl [inienrinieent €i :irs zt .-Substantial relation to public he:117'.h. safety.
pi 1'»;i on nftl:c environment;
Stasff A n:rlvsi.w: ! he amendments are consistent with the Shoreline -1.1sc1
iS 10 ii.txre,t in the shoivlinc_ prctitrrt 1110 ii iilr rl
eliar.l.:tetof tl1c: she}r•c.irlc_ advoc ;no long tcrni over stiCl 1 i;;:'I11 ber1cI it- ['~r•;}tei.t t[
rc oi:rccs and cc.o1ov of the s11orCline, ir:c.rc a;e public- ;ic ss to pu[,Ii,:Iy 4',',rted
sI1,;I::lllie areas, and increase llul.,[it" re,:ft, l.rl(„I1II ,'nI,;`rrIr+,ii1i•', in sha"L`li 1;` arms. For
this ➢C 1t•: ii the amendments bc:i r4'lmirTIS - 11Ct1',
-7r•(1tectikn of thc cnviromment.
b. Coric111siun1.t:
The prr,[,o-A amendment is consistent with the approval criteri;l Lc;nt.3inticl in flit ,tip" MC.
2. Finding and Coc] .:lesions Specific to Public Comments
a. Findings:
No public comments have been received to date.
b. Conclnsion(a):
Page 3 of 4
Staff Report CTA -2015 -GIM
Public noticing Ii::s ri1r, L.':! for CT.A-2U15-t}UO5 as of the date of this report.
3. Finding and Could usi& ns Spccilic to Agency Comments
a. Findings:
No agency comments have been received to date,
b. Conclusion(s):
()\=1?1;:'11.1. (: I!N(.:LI� JoN
p . po!igid code text amel7tlIFIL I,1 is 'itll 1Ii : _'omprehensive Plans policies and goats.
1). STAFF 3i T:t'OM ir. DA.TJt1'N
COITCil with a recoI11I11ettdat10f1 to approve.
r;r•e4of4
FINDINGS ,All RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SPOKANE f,l.l'1 f'L NNINii COMMISSION FOR CTA -2015-6005
Scptclui1c•r- 24, 2017
These findings are consistent with the Plan niri t't,n[It7 :c,ir n', decision to rec,altlini:i d tiplrrr,lv.,1-
Backgrountl:
Spokane Valley development regulations wert<' {td.iptcd in September 2007 and L!ie riiL +rn
October 28, 2U07.
CTA -2015-0005 is a nti irliii led 1.d,Li - `I`c.x:. Amendment to upclnte: S1lnl,ilticV .!Ic Muni.ip.lI i' r3L
MC) .1.80 Permit f't-ocessinl: 1'I-c,cticltlr-. Table 1 r.SC} I' I;11;[ Iyi,L' And 1-;1r1c I. tti
/\pplic tic'[1. f'I(.: 1 '.�itJ :'Appeals; S\ 1vli. I. -0 11e;arir]S r rllllia' L•: tie•n I
itiid Duties: .\1 polidix A — Defin111L1i', 117e chang..!: lL Cl .til nc I LSi a :':li'�'ti '4':`11 1 ttil'4:4'
'.)L:''.4CUIt L;1L' S\ N•1t. ;'.: L -IiL ,'kiordi1.4' Miistcr l"1'il 'I'il[I1.
Tho I"1til;l"II.ig Colti[lrltitil":ill ii cid heaiH.ng and Qotiducted deliberations 011 .'LI iiLi :{i, .111i,
111. L'Liulning COMM[- ".:u'i ti,1iL:11 64) L., rcE ;[nrnend approval to City Council.
Planning Commission Findings:
1, Compliance with SYNC 17.80.150F Approval Criteria
a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with 11Nc Applicable prov'i;;ions tai
the Comprehensive Plan;
Finding(s):
Chapter 8 - Natural Environment Element .f it i Comprehensive 1`lan inc Inc es the cloak lnc'_ poi ic'.c of
the Shoreline Mlsler I}I'if l'ar77 (SNIP) as w�cl, l iancl pot c.c c 1`t11c C:'amoreh,cilsiA.t: 1' zirr. .l -Lt 1�-1:1i'�t�5cd
amendments arc consistent' •lih the Sl<•1]' as 1i12 goals and 11[.,li e.ti oi'rhe SMP arc included as Lcals told
policies of the Ccmpreltensiac Plan. "rim sllflL'iLLlI1H ijtr}are there t: re consisleut with the Cotnp:•chcnsive
Plan. The amendments are consistent with the l }1Lrawing Comprehensive Plan poLi+<ics:
Land LTse Policy -13J: Maximize efficiency of the development review process by continuously
evaItinting the permitting process and modrl'Ylrlg as appropriate.
l i iicltnie Policy EDP -7J : Evaluate, monitor and improve development standards to promote
compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are
equitable, cost-effective, and expeditious.
Economic Policy EDP -7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency
and predictability.
b, T]ic proposed City -initiated amendment bears. a substantial relation to public health, safety,
,, ellrare, and pr i .i.:.tit •l1 : f the environment.
Findings):
Fhc .am4r,-Illi "Iltti ,1rc coniiiisTnt with the Shoreline Master Program where the pti pose is pl-+�Ict
1}t:ltili� intcrest in t1iishore] :l' ,.1Er;:tiervethe natural character of the shoreline, advocate long tern]
over short term benefit, protect .Ile resources and ecology of the shoreline, mere:a:<c pub' to
Access to
publicly own:clh:�I:]ilrc i -e L and increaser public recreational opportul,ritil:; in ,;;Ir>rc'IiriL ,I r.:1s. For
Illi -L It -i7. ;`Ir 111L.':IIli�7l'.Illle[i1.; bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, v: L: f, -r<:. rut -i I:wc,t4°c.tion
ot tI1L neut.
I'i'rlar�.Ca 1.1d R. rn[r:�r�"-•r�:�:r-.r��5tc•"t t. l,.• Sl...:.rr•r. ...:i1. I'L nrrri,�,' eoni;.,rsion—GTA-201.5-0005 L',1.;!•- -
2. Cu i4,tl1w):
.l E II�r SIta. '-.]i !LC 1-Inii,1L;cntcnt fact stipLll.l:.°w 10.,:.;11 <l Iy.:L'iilllell s shall amend 1kir i.i i .l'r 1:iograt:i
H.111ill Itscs ul lltl: flr'I'e!in . of :Iik :,;tate consi:4a I I .a'i11r llfe tequir?ud elements 01 `:f_
1 uicl ling: ,IIIt.11icd by the t ;p::irilnc'111 ..I 1 '.lo y,
1:+l 1 Ill' yc'itl, zintl l7 711w1 "a o] tris 1114: City's Coir prc1ter1s i c
r� _
Cf Spokisle \. iL't,
11' 4 l",r.11)l}lll ll: I':'r411 iliohs are dcsi�ir4cL1 �.' :1;11JI Ir'�L I l":;l' City's Cup pmitoiN
Plan and 111 e f +r.2 11:1tst be con- stent 14'Irl± 111 l
The proposed tux!. ;:iirik...n0Etwirt is CC IYZ .l::ill 7'.']ll 111:'. 1.."11,, C orit1f''tllecr.sivc Plan :l*lil iI:i
approval criteria contained in SVtvIt,'
1-Z C[)sfifliend.ltittlis:
hu (.Lin11 HSS]Ol1 City ColunLil :�tii�l l :_7. per :11Li :Ld
:iriIiiIJrlt.lit. to SVMC l +_ r.1 IFt'r,tiii �tf-[IC ...;Iliir �r�.?{:1.-1:1.11"t'-.. l:il?iv I :'-$4-1 —Permit Tyre and Land L,iie
`�11171ic,11�a,tz; SVMC 17.{?;I :tltp.als. \ AAAC 18.20-030 _ Pov ,'ra and Duties; S `MC Appendix A
i7E1iiilil tls.
Approved this 24Ii dm), e>r SC:ls(elnlll'r. 20115
.l11L• 4111} (la itirr ati
ATTEST
DC'n[ln.i riorton,Admiltking iv1.::itit:lrll
Pm,,,10•!!^i.aiations ofthe Spokane Va[1ey Planning Commission- CTA -20154 CO
Page x. f2
Chairman Stoy called the
pledge of allegiance. Ms.
Kevin Anderson
Heather Graham
Tim Kelley
Mike Phillips
Susan Scott
Joe Stay
Sam Wood
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall,
August 27, 2015
meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the
Heath took roll and the following members and staff were present:
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Marty Palanil.d<, I'I,jnner
1) tiini.j Horror! AilininiArOtive Assistant
I::;i,.: Is=,7 17, `;neon rry of tate Commission
Commissioner Y7oad moved r :. '
_ .. �"'�' .�� 'rr� 'Pi--�i a'i�-":174 r, I:�. c,;:rc
favor", zero against, tint: mori ,:, �,....,:
Commissioner firooti l+-: '++� .i.[+4' . 2015 11f i)i+A�, � ."..` a': -ntii'.; ti'•/ .17
Commission approved
minutes rr.rth a vote on the h,; iir, j:' 7 {)+•, aero ug:c;,,sr.
COMMISSION REPORTS: [1:7:5•:,14 0.1 Ile attended the Traders Club Meetings.
Commissioner Wood attended the Painted Hills i'lc:; -, =.::tinn A.s•;,,ciution meeting, as well as the Spokane
Home Builders Association Government Affairs Mcntin;. `1 13e otkr Commissioners had no reports.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
Planner Marty Palaniuk reported the Shorcli:r= l+iz«rur Prognxn, (SNIP) has been approved by the
Department of Ecology and will take effect Septe inner fl, ''i}l . October- 1, 2015 the city of Rockford is
holding a. short course an local planning 6:00 p.m. - 9.0[i :: in, at the Rcc::I;Ford Council Chambers.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
Study Session CTA -2015-0005 Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
Chapter 1.7.80 Permit Processing Procedures, Table 17.80-1 — Permit Type and Land Use
Application; SVMC Chapter 18.20 Hearing Examiner, Section 18.20.030 — Powers and Duties;
SVMC Appendix A, Definitions.
Planner Marty Palaniuk gave a presentation to the Commission outlining the proposed amendments
to SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures, Table 17.80-1 Permit Type and Land Use
Application; SVMC Chapter 18.20 Hearing Examiner, Section 18.20.030 Powers and Duties; SVMC
Appendix A, Definitions. These are amendments to the SVMC to provide consistency and reflect
changes in the SMP. There is some code compliance housekeeping included in this amendment.
Within Appendix A staff deleted the shoreline specific definitions from the development code. If one
of the definitions were to change staff would only need to update one document. Mr. Palaniuk listed
the definitions that had been deleted. The prc csed amendment will also modify Chapter 17.50,
Table 11.80-1, which is a table of all the permits the City processes, and clarifies what type of permit
applies to each land use application- The SMP establishes the process for the following permits: a
shoreline letter of exemption; a shoreline conditional use permit; a shoreline variance; and a
substantial development permit. Additional barn_ .iage will be added to tate end of this section to call
outany procedures and processes within the SMI' chat may assn supply to the permit. Within the table:
• added a shoreline letter of exemption;
• deleted shoreline permit exemption, a dock permit,
• added a shoreline conditional use permit, a sale}rcli rn nonconforming use/structure review,
and shoreline variance to the table in Type II permits.
OB -27-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 2.
In Section C if anything in the SMP applies to a specific permit as far as processing then that
protocol will be followed One area would be under decision, when one of these permits is issued it is
subject to Department of Ecology review, The amendment will also modify Chapter 17.94 Decision
and Appeals which calls out to whore the shoreline permits will be appealed. There are proposed
changes to the code enforcement section. Commissioner Stoy asked if the Shoreline Hearing Board
is the Hearing Examiner ar if it is a differeatt entity_ Mr. Palaniuk replied that it is a different entity.
The amendment calls out the specific permits that will be reviewed by the Shoreline Hearing Board.
This amendment also modifies SVMC 18.20.030 Powers and Duties of the Hearing Examiner. Staff
removed the conditional use permits from the SMI' From matters that the Hearing Examiner will hear
and add shoreline letter of exemption.
Commissioner Kelley asked if the approval authority for a permit is determined by type; is this
information from an old or new procedure. Mr. Palen iuk replied the approvals are the ova :r is right
now and will remain the same. The addition of Shoreline Permits to Type 11 is the only change. Mr.
Kelley asked if these permits will be approved by the Department. Mr. Palaniuk stated tltn." is correct
but any shoreline permit will require Department of Ecology review and they have the oppartLant t..
return it to the City or approve it.
Commissioner Wood inquired about the logic behind the Hearing Examiner no longer ht.arinE
shoreline conditional ase permits and variances under the shoreline master program. . Originally the
Hearing Examiner under the former SMP heard shoreline conditional use permits. It was decided that
a public hearing was not required for that approval since it goes through the Department z;nd then ort
to Department of Ecology, which has a public comment section. Mr. Driskell stated this was dente to
streamline the process, and not duplicate the process. Mr. Wood clarified the Ideara[rg Examiner's
decision on conditional use permits would not be binding because Departrrre[li of Ecolog,' could
change that ruling.
Mr. Wood asked for clarification of administrative approval and department approval. Mr. Palaniuk
clarified that administrative approval would be done with the Senior Planner end Department
approval would be done by the Department Director.
Conunissioner Graham asked about when the opportunity was for public comment period on
shoreline conditional use permits. Mr. Palairiril: responded a notification is placed in the official
newspaper. Commissioner Stoy asked why the Hearing Examiner would need to hear the appeal ofa
building permit. Mr. Driskell clarified citizens need to have the ability to appeal the determination or
issuance of a building permit if they felt it was issued in error (it they are opposed to the building,
they need an avenue to challenge it. . They would appeal that to the Hearing Examiner and they
could appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision to Superior Court.
Commissioner Anderson asked if it was passible to recommend approval of the amendment tonight
since it is housekeeping issue. Mr, Palaniuk clarified that it is a proposed amendment to the SVMC
which requires a public hearing; it could not be moved forward then. The public hearing has been
noticed for September 10. Mr, Driskell further clarified the need to follow the stated process.
Commissioner Wood asked if the conditional use permits outside the SMP will still be heard by the
Hearing Examiner. Mr, Falaniuk stated this portion of the SVMC is not being changed.
GOOD OF THE ORDER: Nothing presented.
ADJOURNMENT: There being n0 other business the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Joe Stoy, Chairperson
Elisha Heath, Secretary
� ,--- ''❑ 1 ICI
Date signed
O8-27-15 Planning Cornraission Minutes P.].L.c 2 art
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers- Cite Hall,
September 10, 2015
Chairman Sty called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.rn. Commissioners, staff and audience stocd for the
pledge of allegiance. Ms. Heath tool; roll and the followi rtg members and staff were present:
Kevin Anderson Erick Lamb City Attorney
Heather Graham, absent excused Lori Barlow} Senior Planner
Tirn Kelley Marty Palaniuk, Planner
Mike Phillips
Susan Scott
Joe Stay
Sam Wood Elisha Heath, Secretary ache Commission
HgarLirg ri'O Obieciiaii'. Com.wis+1!•,wet` Gr'ahanr was excirsed,frorin Th2i 2•. Ffr. 1 .,I,'I' i. ;rd :.:,F .'!;f s'0�7
Moved to cpprowe the SepiL' 1.'?e r 10, 2015 agenda. The vote OiT 2r);.. d!i .'t: r. IP " ; ti'r.x
the motion passes.
Co imissioner Anderson lrroi J 1 . (!t'c1' 7.r ;he August 27, 2015 7ninrri.'.1' :r`. ", e,Serrtet. .17?.' r,di;dliF+. S' i7n
approved miinutes Ivith a ye, ~ .'? 0.:0 dril.r10.11 0f .six in favor, zero against,
Ci iiriissIC31V REP0l:'I
CommissionerWood. ilia p...!1..zni.,2 1I.}rne Bui.Jeis Assc';i.i i.i:1 °..i.:'. ar.cr:
The other Commissioners had 110
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported the Shoreline Master Pro'graltil i:SMP). LL jai i ,
2015. October 1, 2015 the city of Rockford is holding a short course 011 1;,c:11-,ii.noi I, -,7111I
pin. at the Rockford Council Chambers.
PUBLIC COMMENT;
Dan Pavelich, 4311 S. Madison Road: Mr. Pavelich stated his residence is adjacent to the former
Fainted Hills Golf Course and he is nut a resident of Spokane Valley, rather Spokane County within the
400 foot buffer for the proposed development. He stated that he wanted to attend to become familiar with
the Planning Commission members. Mr. Pavelich thanked Ms. Barlow, staff and others at the City for
cooperation extended to his group when requesting a significant amount of information. He thanked the
members of the Planning Commission for their service to the City.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
Public Hearing: CTA -2015-0005 Proposed Amendment to Spakarrc Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC) Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures, Table 17.80-1 - Permit Type and Land Use
Application; SVMC Chapter 18,211 Hearing Examiner, Section 15.20.030 - Powers and Duties;
SVMC Appendix A, Definitions_
Chairman Stay (opened the Public Hearing at 6:11 p.m.
Planner Marty Palaniuk gave a presentation to the Commission cutliuirrg the proposed amendments
to SVIVIC 17.80 Permit Pncessing Procedures, Table 17.80-1 Permit Type and Land Use
Application; SVMC Chapter 18.20 Hearing Examiner, Section 18.24.030 Powers and Duties} SV MC
Appendix A, Definitions. Amend the SVMC to provide consistency with the newly adopted
Page l cd'
09-10-15 Pinnning Commission tvlirrutos
Shoreline Master Program (SMP). There are also some code compliance housekeeping items
included in this amendment. Within Appendix A staff deleted the shoreline specific definitions from
the development code. if one of the definitions were to change staff would only need to update one
document. 11s. Palaniuk listed the definitions that had been deleted. The proposed amendment will
also modify Table l 7.$0-1, which is a table of all the permits the City processes, and clarifies what
type of permit applies to each. land use application. The SMP establishes the process for the
following permits: a shoreline letter of exemption; a shoreline conditional use permit; a shoreline
variance; and a substantiai development permit. Additional language is proposed to be added to the
end of Chapter 17,80 to call out any procedures and processes within the SMP that may also apply to
the permit.
Within the table;
• added a shoreline Letter of exemption;
• deleted shoreline permit exemption, a dock permit;
• added a shoreline conditional use permit, a shoreline noneonfornning usefstracture review,
and shoreline variance to the table in Type II permits.
In Section C Mr, Paiartiuk highlighted the additional language which clarifies if anything in the SIvMP
applies to a specific permit as far as processing then that protocol will be followed The amendment
will also modify Chapter 17..90 Decision and Appeals authority which calls out that the shoreline
permits will be appealed to the Shoreline Hearings Board. Commissioner Wood asked for
clarification of the Shoreline Hearing Board. Ms. Barlow stated that the Shoreline Hearing Board is
a state appointed board. Mr. Lamb further explained that the SMP is a state mandate with strict
guidelines to follow including using the Shoreline Heating Board as the appeal authority. It is
composed of three permanent Shoreline Hearing Board employees, members of the Association of
Counties, Association of Washington Cities and the Commissioner of Public Lands, Comirrission
Wood asked if the Hearing Exansiner was previously the appeal authority. Mr. Lamb explained that
the Code previously identified the Shoreline Hearing Board; the proposed change is a change to
shoreline permits in the SMP, Commissioner Wood asked if shoreline permit appeal decisions would
be made regionally and not locally. Ms. Barlow clarified that the appeals have always gone to the
Shoreline Hearings Board and will continue to do so.
Powers and Duties of the Hearing Examiner previously included conditional use permits and
variance permits. They will now be administratively reviewed by the Department followed by
Department of Ecology. The addition of shoreline letter of exemption, appeal to the ditties of the
Hearing Examiner. Mr. Palaniuk clarified that the Hearing Examiner will be hearing appeals of
shoreline letters of exemption, and not making the decision on shoreline letters of exemption.
Chairman Stoy opened the floor to public comment, hearing none the Public Hearing was closed at
6:25 p.m.
Commissioner Anderson heaved to approve CiA-W015-0005 Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal
Code (SVMC) Chapter 17.80 Per -rah Processing Procedures, Table 17.80.1 — Permit Type and Laud Use
Application; SVMC Chapter 18.20 Hearing Examiner, Section 18..20.030 — Powers and Duties; SV7viC
Appendix A, Definitions, as presented; Motion seconded and opened for discussion,
Commissioner Wood stated that he prefers for things done in the community to be approvecl by us and
not the state. He asked for verification that the process was required by state law, and that it ti"ui 1 1
changed, N1r. Lamb stated that is correct. Chairman Stoy reminded the Commission that i:iL
which is going to the state level is an appeal not the issuing of the permit. Ms. Barlow furtl-,Lr
on who might file an appeal to a decision on a pernnit.
Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification that tie only, change from Study Sessiou i11cui,c:.I
presentation was the addition of the word appeals in SVMC 18.20 "Shoreline letter of eNra L! :ice i
appeals", Mr, Palaniuk stated yes and he expanded that the additional text in the staff report was i:.
provide more explanation.
Chairman Roy called fol. the vote on the motion was six i+i favor. zero against, the ?notion passes.
09.10-15 Planning Cottimissinn Minutes Page 2 of 3•
GOOD OF THE ORDER: Nothing presented.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned 4( 6:3O p.m.
Joe Stoy, CLlairpersc Date signed
Elisha Heath, Secretary
09-10-15 planning Commission Mirages Pap 3 of �'
APPROVED Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers —City Rall,
September 24, 2015
Chairman Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood For the
pledge of allegiance. Ms. Heath took roll and the following members and staff` were present:
Kevin Anderson
Heather Graham
Tim Kelley
Mike Phillips
Susan Scott
Joe Stoy
Sam Wood
Erik Lamb City Attorney
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Lli .. l I<: tl., Secretary of the Commission
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve thr. r: ,: t:, ?::'WIMP' 24, 2015 agenda as presented. The
vote on the =lion was .seven infavor, zero crgeliast, diwi+i'.i
Commissioner Anderson nroved to accept rhe 11'171er '.S irr f;r{'.5'v?7ted The Commission
approved minutes with a Vote on the rnoizo17 of seven rrr favor, zero
o
COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Kelley reported he atrcr,,k.I r1is: ? rwt:ki.s Club Meeting.
The other Commissioners had no reports,
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported staff v.. ill a pdatee City Council on the Comprehensive Plan Update a.
the October Get' City Council meeting.
Deputy City Attorney Erik Larnb explained the arncndmmi to the~ agenda removed the study session for
CTA -2015-0006 due to the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board released rules, including
emergency rules, which need to be included in the study scssiart_
PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments.
COMMISSION HUSiNESS:
Planning Cornnrission Findings: CTA -2015-0005 Proposed Amendments to Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures, Table 17.811-1 — Permit
Type and Land Use Application; SVMC 1S.20.P30 — Hearing Examiner Powers and Duties; SVMC
Appendix A, Definitions.
Commissioner Anderson moved 10 approve the findings offa t for CTA -2015-0005 Amendment to SYMC
Chapter 17-80, Table 17.80-1 — Permit Type and Lcvrd Use Application; SVMC 18.20.030 — }leaning
Examiner Powers and Duties; SVMC Appendix A, Definitions, as presented.
The vote was seven in favor, zero against, the motion passes.
GOOD OF TRE ORDER:
Commissioner Phillips inquired about the Comprehensive Plan being complete by the end of December
2015. Ms. Barlow replied that the Comprehensive Plan would likely not be completed by the end of the
year since the population allocation number has not been received from Spokane County, which is needed
to move forward.
Commissioner Anderson asked haw many of the chapters in the Comprehensive Plan are affected by the
population allocation number- Ms. Barlow stated that the population allocation was critical for the Land
Use Plan, the Capital Facilities Plan as well as Transportation Element. Staff is working an several of the
chapters while waiting for the population allocution_
0-2i-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 al
Commissioner Wood inquired about the reason for the delay on the population allocation number. Mr,
Lamb explained the County established a number Several years ago, however they were challenged.
because of how high the number was. Ultimately, the County ended up losing the challenge in appeals
court which required them to redo the process. Commissioner Wood asked if the Clty could establish the
population allocation number independently. Mr. Lamb stated no, that the County is mandated to
establish the number,
ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the mooting was adjourned at 6:16 p,m.
P Stoy, C airperso
Elisha Heath, Secretary
in 1(27_ �
Date signed.
09-24-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 oft
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: November 17, 2015
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business
❑ information ® admin. report
Department Director Approval:
❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center Interlocal
Agreement Amendment No. 2
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Informational memorandum on SRTMC Interlocal
Agreement Amendment 1, March 24, 2015; and motion to approve April 14, 2014; the
agreement ends December 31, 2015.
BACKGROUND: Planning for the Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center
(SRTMC) began in 1998 and led to the development of an interlocal agreement between the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Spokane County, Spokane Transit
Authority (STA), City of Spokane, and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC).
The original intent of the SRTMC was to provide a multi -jurisdictional control facility for the
partnering agencies to enhance and support advanced transportation management capabilities.
The SRTMC was to serve as a hub for regional transportation communications and to provide a
seamless coordination of intelligent transportation system (ITS) devices, including traffic signals,
across agency boundary lines.
As of today, the City of Spokane Valley has 44 traffic signals, 10 cameras, and one dynamic
message sign on the ITS network. All of our equipment first communicates with the SRTMC and
is then relayed to City Hall for use by City Traffic Engineering staff. The City installed fiber optic
lines and hardware in City Hall in 2014, which connect to the City's fiber backbone in Sprague.
This will be utilized to develop the City's Transportation Operations Center schedule in 2015.
Currently the SRTMC provides a website that is open to the general public. The website
contains information about specific corridors and has real-time video feeds from cameras
throughout the Spokane region.
The SRTMC has an Operating Board that consists of technical members from each of the
partner agencies. The Operating Board is responsible for reviewing and approving SRTMC
activities and has monthly board meetings. These board meetings are generally technical in
nature and involve discussion of future ITS planning and implementation projects and strategies
as well as the reviewing of previous monthly activities, invoices, and billings.
The center operates 24/7 for 365 days a year, and has done so since 2003. The SRTMC relies
on federal grant funding, yearly member contributions, and WSDOT directed funds. The City's
contribution is $15,000 per year. The federal grants and member contributions fund the SRTMC
Manager, the IT Manager, two operators, software maintenance contracts, operation of the
website, and daily hardware maintenance and functions for the center.
Several developments in the region have occurred since 1998. The SRTC has opted to no
longer be the lead agency as of January 2015, primarily due to the SRTMC performing
operating duties versus planning duties.
Another development that occurred was the incorporation of the City of Spokane Valley, which
created a new entity not originally contemplated in the original interlocal. Therefore, an
amendment to the original agreement is required.
In light of the recent changes made, and after many discussions and board meetings, it was
agreed to set a trial period with the changes in the WSDOT SRTMC management and board
member of one (1) year. Member contributions were not collected during this trial period,
therefore there is no cost to the City in 2015. The trial period that ends December 31, 2015 is
established to ascertain if the SRTMC and the SRTMC Operating Board will function as
intended beyond the trial period. The first amendment to the original interlocal is proposed,
which essentially added the City of Spokane Valley as an official partner of the SRTMC and
identified WSDOT as the lead agency. That amendment No. 1 ends December 31, 2015.
Agreement No. 2 would run through December 31, 2017, which gives WSDOT additional time to
develop a new interlocal moving forward. There would be no cost to the City in 2016. The City
will need to decide by August 1st whether or not to continue the agreement into 2017 at which
time a fee of $15,000 is likely.
OPTIONS: Discussion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: n/a
STAFF CONTACT: Sean Messner, Senior Traffic Engineer
Eric Guth, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS: Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 1, and Original SRTMC Interlocal (1998)
AGREEMENT NO. GCA 1450, AMENDMENT NO. 2
This Ant,.. -;1d i11t:.11t No, 2 to Agreement. k6}. (i( -A 1 I " is made and entered into between the
Wash ` Luw Department of Trak,]; 7I i;61icii i °"'.4'"l)OT"), Spokane County, the City of
Spokane, t:1L ?Silltho;!f1: ( '1'ii. ,i '.lt. i:,ltl' rFf.S1:::ott 6r., -'alley ("COS V -
the Spokane 1' "`?I[lli:6] i 111ti17o1 iat',..11r I r 11i:6i r It 1 t i, collcct]V`I}'
a1141 r114.!ividitilly rt'lerre:d 1,, :is: iI1L' "Pa:tl.' . 111c 1:%tlt: ezirt.'rcd into tllt' !1'cdoe.1] \,0J1-c'clltcii
if_''', ] •'[' 0 on October 1, 1`}e.j :incl ',ltl..11clli: 1:1 .`:t . 1 on April 30, 2015 la< ;Ll11 t1ded. tllc
r\y reemewnt").
Back�.rourid
11 HOS n0-0: Ixeri determined that d c 11tt.-1]ocal .\.grcctrioni [etL1Lrreed above shall beamcnlicd to
extend the len in ili•:, r 6i.1.2 1i111L' for a new illierlowal ,1 ;rct,rnen1 to be written.
Ai-neriiIrn_'11t No 2 to Anreerneiit
1. Section 12 shalt be rcic41 t:l yc,rd:
The SRTC, City of Spokane. COSY, \VSDGT, or STA. may terminate
membership ir: t:1.2 C l i •i{ C„ ;.:6i„ yc.-ittc ii notice to ilre SRTIVIC B< wd Chair by August 1$' of
any year, with termination clic ctivt Decembti I 2.1 ofthr yLW in which /It r[!LL' is given.
From the d tw DI -Amendment No. 2, a period thin wr7c[ti December 31.2111 7 is established to
allow the Parties to enter into a new SR I`P4 C Intel -local Agreement. it lI i 4 'ctii. a Heti •
interlocal ngr .erncnt is not icaehctl, .,\incndmer1t No. 2 E1nd the Interlocal : `,greemen1 1tn I
terminate r,il 1)cccrnb r 11, 2017_ Arnenrlruent No. 2 SI TMC and SRT'v1C Operating
Board to continue upGr i.ing ais i join( venturc [''i1•e.11_':==I1 1) .'eeriber 31, 2017 and tis otherwise
a;.,reed by the Far:res.
2. ['his Amendment No. 2 shall become effective on the date last signed below arid shall remain
in •I1 ct Laltii December 31, 2017, unless terminated sooner or extended as provided herein.
3. All other teens and con liti<;ri- !;if" die 1 itcrlocai Ag.rcciilcnt shall remain in lull force and
c; LLci except as modified by this 11:L,Ir-.dni ent No. 2.
1. 1 his Amendment No. 2 mny be executed in any number of counki-parts_ eticlt of which, when
t:c.ceuted and delivered .c.r die other Parties, shall be an original, bit such counterparts shall
li; r •@11LT' Constitute but OT rt rid the s".11111".
Page 1 o13
\A -113P,101'. L1uiiie:.; heveto
Parry's last
STA1 E. OF WAS111(1TON
DEPARTMENT OF "IRAN SPORTATION
13 y:
Keith A. Metcalf, P.E.
Eastern Region, Regional Administrator
)1.<..22),H.. C01.1\ TY
Dlir I 1,1) coLird of County
J1mTnssionoi-,:1.,,,,pokane. County.
Washingtoi.: Lois day of -20 S .
By:
Shelly O'Quthn, Vice -Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM By:
Al Frencli, Commissioner
By:
Frank Hruban, Assistant Attorney Crencial
ATTEST:
Date: By:
Clerk of the Board
Date:
Page 2 of 3
CITY OF SPOKANE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
By: By:
Date: Date:
ATTEST: ATTEST:
By: By:
City Clerk City Clerk
Date: Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM APPI <''1-,]I. r' .10 I 01 rl
By: Iii:
Assistant City Attorney
Date: Date;
SPOKANE REGIONAL SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY
TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
By: By:
Date: Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM
By: By:
SRTC Attorney Spokane Transit Authority Attorney
Date: Date:
Page 3 of3
AGREEMENT NO. GCA 1450, AMENDMENT NO. 1
This Arrtendmcnt No. 1 to agreennent No. GCA 1450 is made and eij ra Alto among the
Washtt. :c}:} t il4' 'pJrtl?1.!rn i-i1..I I'Nlvr{i "1alii7::r, hereafter the "W.,;1 -.)t Spokane Coon l'' . the
City of SpokarlL_ ti.V.A.. the '.i11i'kane 1.A"), {'il_. [11 i5 rk inc \. ziIIc.y CV( .1 V and. the Spo1{,tl[lc I�w`. F.lillrill Transportation asportation { +'l:rl;'rJ1 -SR V( ), refc[-F C, to :ts the
and individually rel -erred Lk) as the 'Party-.
\^1IFR X S. lk Parties previously entered ini':T 1;11 r -`the .t :yeeri '111.") 11T1
October 1, 1998, which created the Spokane Reg,ionai lira: l.1{1rr: ti .x t tt'rns Cc-tt{•r Operating
Board ("Operating Board"), and
WHEREAS, SRTC was not a signatory to the agreement and has requested to be added as an ex
officio party to the agreement, and
WHEREAS, COSY was incor1: oral{ 1 .} 1.."_0f.13 ii d • :_s riot a 11t:r1. Lt' 'Fc T r-c2nn nt, but
is now being added as a Party, and.
`+'I-1EREAS. the Parties ng rec to add COS\ ,i- a Party and father desire to cliantiti of the
Spokane Regional Irantspor°tation Systems Center ()pertiling Board to tht Spokane
I ralt7s17nrtait.icl[t Management Center (SR..I 41C) Oper sting Board, and
'.? I-IEREA.S., it i.ts ri s -;.LF - to amend the ttrtI.1ccr tr:l t to add the COSV nncl to the name of
the Operating Board to SR"I NC Operating EEoa:.1, and
\ 1IER]-:AS, SRTC wishes to cliinin.tic its arklrni;listr:ftive duties ul(lct' the iwe,ri nt. and
WI-IEREAS, a trial period is deemed necessary to evaluate the effectivoiles of this agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to cfla.pter 39.34 RCW, the above reciuk a r -c i:t: in por-ated herein as
if set forth below, and in consideration of the terms, 17,:t`1L1t't17ar:.c
contained herein, or attached and incorporated and made a part hcrco f ,
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
A2.rccriiclit GCA 1450 ,''the agrccmcnt'--1, pursuant to Section I1, is hereby amended as follows:
1. If not othcrwisc *addressed_ Jnr_; ri ler'ances to a regional transportation systems corse: will be
changed to Spokane Ret~ional .1.ra nsl,ortati(„rt Man erttent Center. Any reference to-FF:A21 '<•vi11 he
changed to MAP21.
'. The City of Spokane Valley ("COS ") is hereby made a Party to the agreement. COSV
aigreess to be bound by and shall comply with ail of the terms contained in die al,;r orient, inc=luding
this r'lrnendrnci71 1' -lo, 1 with the exception that member fund: will not be collected throu2]7 the tcrnr
ol'this Amendment No 1.
Page 1 of
3. Section 1 is deleted in its entirety and is replacer with the following:
A voluntary association and j4:Fiin `:-)crctrd, comprised of professional representatives of the SRTC (ex
olliciu, non-voting iTI2t.lbcri. Sp k:ine the. C'it ' of Spokane, COSV, WSDOT, and STA, is
Ile:reby created aI7:' Tall be kiii,iw.,.n the Spokane Fe ir)n ll Transportation Management Center
(SrTMC) Operati:w Board. Al: [ ferences to the Operatirqi. be a reference to SRTMC
13n.'trd.
4. Section 2 is deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the following:
Recognizing that coordinated system management of transportation facilities of Spokane
County, the City of Spokane, COSV, WSDOT and STA, are necessarily iritcrwovin Gtl}cl
interdependent and that the interests of all citizens will best be served by a c.00rdinatt:d and
cooperative transportation system, the SRTMC Operating Board is csLa;:ilished to facilitate
such appropriate coordination and cooperation and to provide for cnntinuing area wide
transportation system management and traffic surveillance.
The SRTMC Operafin_p 11,0ard is not alithorized to in any way supersede the authority vested
in the SRTC, Spokane County, City of XI Ci4<It'e. COSY, WSDOT, STA, or firkin: members,
if any, hut i. Intt`nd[:! Ill [rtt`..;t ifla: p:L`rilltt]w]_L's or federal transportation Legislation? requiring
the dev't lcrt in,i`nt of an i.'it. i rr:iidt cOngetition manag.ctr..s.:l?I to ]nanagc ixistmng tral'Itc
congestion ai:d help to prevent new congestion from occurring_
5. Sections 4 k deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
The SRTMC Operating Board's jurisdictional area.. sIiail1 consist of all incorporated and
unincorporated areas cif i oIit:Il County WEi.slyingion ;ttl[1 ilt.ly include contiguous areas
across the county or Stats boundaries as clecmcel appropriate by the SWIM(.' Operating
Board, and whieli meet tltc criteria of State andifor Federal Transportation Legislation.
WSDOT tray further utilize the SRTMC for traffic operations management throe }Il the
entire Eastern Region arid ti01 coordinator with other v, -hick may have operational
ratio:nal
areas extending outside the S9..TNIC jurisdictional area_ 'Tick work will be t'ttli:lcJ1
WSDOT and not through use of member fonds or :iss0c.ittted with the !...;RIMC.
6. Section 5 reference to 'lninsl?c:rl itiu i zYxrLltc'r will b c''' tris l t4i ENL:C.t]t.ve
Director.
7. Section 7 is deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the following:
The staff as necessary to conduct work pro rams of the SRTMC consistent with this agreement
shall be arranged for by the SRTMC Operating Board in coordination vri tli the member
.Jurisdictions. The jointly funded staff shall serve tinder the direction of the SRTMC Operating
Board, and shill be responsible for conduct Mil tics nec:ess iry to carry out the work program as
directed by the SRTMC Operating, Board- porfhrtnin,r work duLic outside the SRTMC
jurisdictional area for WSDOT will be funs tci s.t'kIw law WSDOT.
]'aioc 2 of' 5
The SRTMC Operating Board will consider and approve as appropriate application(s) for or
acceptance of any graws to carry out i ri'}wlloii. sL:t Iorih Iii - c1 ion 3 hereirr.il;ovc. ikrf.'.vid u.
'iciwever, in inS1 iiice - 11Lre 4t grant app+li tiltit)si it}i? t ''e subinhicd prior to 11ic next 1C ..ul it ly
sciiedirlccl rnectin ' 1 a' i!ic 4 )I,E°:-Ltiug Board tiul:[l that timely SRTMC Operal:E}_:: i?,itard.
approval cannot be obi i ,'il„lic: 'ran., application "nay still be submitted with approval t [ thy ch.iir
and vice -chair of the SR 1'N41C Opp ale Board.
l:rpIc,Vees assirTned to the SR.TMC shall be hired and dischargedi by their respective ageticic;.
Thi, SRI \IC support services such as requisitioning and purchasing, payment of expenditures,
ae punting, computer processing, and others as deemed necessary will be provided by WSDOT.
Legal
1v51]C:]T-
Legal counsel will be contracted out as agreed by the SRTMC Operating Board.
insurance will be provided for employees by their respective agencies.
8_ Section 8_ paragraphs 2 and 3, are deleted in til ii _:i 1i:tit, r'I:i,l rcpt c i.d ;.k -i.1-: 1hc: is lli}k, inpl:
The work program shall be approved by November 1 of the prccedinv' year. The work pry} °:,:lr:attcl
budget of the SRTMC may be amended by a majority vote of the SR` N,IC Operating Board,
provided such amendment is within the funding authorized for use of the SRTMC.
The SRTMC Operating Board, in conjunction with the SRTMC Manager, wi1:1 develop detailed
work and financial plans with nee• isurable milestones. Both this performance crlfthe SRTMC
Dpetating Board and tI_c ' Manager will be evaluated .: °irHh:' !Ii r}}ilr' tiinc . With
consideration of the perform ,1n4c LtV, the Operating Board :'4ill Celle oil cnntinuir}.;,, the
agreement during the Oki- 01Operations Board meeting acid rnay direct the SRTMC
Manager to begin prcrltation X11 ilio. 2016 Financial. Plan, Work Program, and Budget. The 2016
Financial Plan, Wor:c I}; -c "r.tlri. z;riil Budget shall be submitted by the SRTMC Mara[ er to the
Dperating Board by November 1, 2015.
WSDOT shall accept the relnaining member funds from the SRTC to ba expended_ flit rill til i
of )pciaiinv.1i1,..Lard through the term of this Amendment 1\`:i_ 1_ Member luncl Lot
ifilir.ti�l 4[ilt i:}L the tQrrr u[i\rti,endnierrt No„ 1 shall he returned by WSDUI. to men -111,J :Tel -icy
,'L1'. member funds will be collc'cIL :telt; .lt:t] 11]� icrrrl of Amcndlirc:;u No. 1
'45 S O 1 1111 report on riltrl,l) r funds regular!), tii ili.c sp,Tmc i.)p;,ii fling Board_
9. Section {). 1';.n,..graplis 1, 2, 3 and 4 are deleted in their entirety and replaced with the
Iiil 11)1\ in4;
Ia is anticipated that most projects and programs of the SRTMC Operating Board will involve
.tencfits toils members, No cos[ti Shall be divided amongst the members through the tern} ort]iis
',,i}or}c,:}icnt No. 1 un]ess unanin. usapproval is Operating Board; provided
spall not be roticircd tit make ani, I-ili;.nci;ll uonfrihulion to the SR.IIVIC Operaiing Board.
.\ii ;1c1{litional ;ryenc:, joinini2 l:lit +k. I' '](. f }penning 1 lard as ti 'ii mhe.r through the term of
A1rrv'rlki tient NI 0, 1 thali not Hi: .0 ]Nelle ar financial coritribtilio:i lo the. SRTMC.
MC.
Page 3 45
WSDOT rntly make expenditures in aceordatnoc with the approved SRTMC budget and work plan
as approval b ' Lhe SRTMC {}t'til''Ci .t: tili,llC:- !Matt maintain ;'C'L;i_'rrcl5 c11 exp4:r'iditUreS, and shall
report ]L.;:.-Llarlyto the SRTMC Uperatirl' l>o.rrd 0. t,ctivity.
Payntel-i of all claims shall I1w ,el~•15r..r, d do pilin.° by Inc P.i'MC Operating ward. Such claims,
with prC+i;wr dt'i:l i .lii+..ns ti.Ion be ccr:I.Licd for payment by WSDOT.
10. 217,- :E t,°llirtt4.
11. :tion I.2 i l �� li7ilcl t. The SRTC, City of Spokane, Spokane County, COSV,
11';1 �(► ] . 11. SFA, may terminate txt :ntbership in the SRTMC by giving written notice tcy the
` R-1MC Board Chair.
r\ trial 1}wr:,lwl it ll ti11E1 I 015 is established to ascr'r(tlin If th St.',:'K'1C iiid tllc
X1:.1 f li L)pordtilig Board vdil1 function is intended beyond the trial period. This agreement will
ic.:117 irt;tie on peeLoriber 31, 2015. Depending 011 1Flc nutcoine (i}peratiorls Board vote
I elc:renced in sect on 8 :ll-.o,t e.:.,.L:Amendment No. 7 would imvr to he completed by November 1,
15. This Amendrm.-: It No. 2 world aI1c.v i l% S1 "1-[ A1C and SI: "I MCC Operating Board to continue
of r?tlll-F_ cir instead set a tinll':1!l.': nid i!irei:tion is dissolve the and to logically
11.`;nl:'lll.de Pic current structure.
11 tllc, agreement ends, WSDOT will expend the following grant funds as deemed appropriate by the
S1TMC Operating Board:
1) All ran that wereob1ig:JAL:d prior to J.:T.- u:r.,' 1-
2) if the SRI M( 7'01 'i-}19 STI' Non -Roadway want titled SRTMC
Operations and \1tlir'itL._rl.lncoc sS1 � 7, C?(); :i! I oc returned to SR I'C-
Fctillowi11t, cnrnpli_tion ,11: ilc iris 1 and 2 above, WSDOT would notify SKIT. C. tli;n 7117}` e.111 11 u1 r� 111
funds held by W S.DU f will be retuned to SRTC.
There is nothing restricting any agency from!' i:l Cri tiilll l lr llul pcH.: -; til•.:
SRTMC.
12. Scc t io n 1 1 s r..11 Relations is added:
Individually, each Pm..ly shnl! protect, deitll.1, indemnify, and s.:11,r. each other its
o1llc crs, officials, employees, and mom:: :1i11n any and all coin,;, i t:ii!i-s j1l i,' '7t!'_t ;110i/07—awards of
�17r;14L_, resithinc f1i1111 the n r,,ti ,.'ii[ t1t:Ls or omissions hilts and
a4 cnis S1,.2ti.ng within the sc 'pi of '1=c.ir C !1rIoyine!ll',i11:: arising out of Lir in connection with the
performance of this agreement.
In the event of liability for dam _ es, arising out ii1 1'odlly injury 10 17L' i'114 ur d: 1T;:i.t"ti 1 propcip,
caused hv or resulting Cron) 1ti:: concurrent i eg..1.eC:wt' [loci: 1;1;111 one Party_
officials, employees. and :LE (11S. an individual l',rrisr- lial ilii it rcr:ulder shall bL- only 10 tae t\.tcilt
Page 4 of5
lh;11. Is Iii.[:
Tiik forthc pu-IN-Ise 01
[E;t:
expirl[ion or if,2:ininaLiiLni
;Ind [1-1,11
1111111/111i? 11.1111Strial
thINiiiIini Iiilinlitcd
Thu i)Lovision,s UI (his .liii sIiJi sur'iv
13. A11 and conditions of -agreement remain in full force and effect except as
modi ried by 111iE,. Amendment No. 1.
14_ This. Amentimern No. I may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which: when
so executed and delivered to the other Parties, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall
together constilute 5L11. LIIIC and the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 as of the
Party's date last signed below.
Page 5 of 5
AN INTERLOCAL AGR FRMENT AMONG SPOKANE REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, SPOKE COLTNTY, CITY OF
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON STATE 'DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, AND SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY, TO
FORM A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYT.EMS CENTER'
OPERATING BOARD, ]DEFINE [YS ORGANIZATION AN[)
AUTHORITY, AND ESTABLISH A RECU!o'°-:AL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS CENTER JURISDICTIONAL ARt EA_
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 15day
1998, among the Spokane Regional Tran potation Council (SRTC), a puf kt_ lir,
created by interlocal agreement, Spokane County, the City of Spokane., the Was:Ii;igtot1
State Department afTransportation (WSDOT), and Spokane `1'ra : H.Authority (STA).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 39.34 RCW, two or more
public entities may jointly cooperate between each other to perform functions which each
may individually perform; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, l;' 9',Lf,, the President of the United States signed the
Transportation. Efficiency '\ -t oaf the ;; l' Century (TEA21), which provided authorization
for highways. figh •r_iv 'safely, and mass transportation; and enunciated a policy statement
"[t]o develop a Nati,> iat 1rite:mc dal Transportation System that is economically efficient,
::-nrfiroz;El .tatt.11,r .;tt:�,1 prnvide..s the foundation for the nation to compete in the global
wconorrc and wilt cop IL: ;snd goods in an energy em tient manner;" and
WHEREAS, federal transportation legislation requires the establishment, by
agreement between the Governor of the State ofWasl:nston and ur t of eenera1 purpose
local government, of a Metropolitan Planning, Grganifar.ion (.,.['tl'f :t:ir l organization in
cooperation rich the State of Washington shall develOp pians and programs
for urbanized areas of Washington State; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above referenced stag Lied federal Laws and Federal
Transportation legislation, the above referttnced entities are iicirirDus of establishin a
regional transportation systems center to c .rry out respor hilitie o'.'ided
Transportation legislation as well as c5'.h,er t.spc,nsib [it +-s ckge E lir, by the
.Transportation Systems Center Operation I1o2rd.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is specifically a!rvcrj the, l.trcto
follows;
Section 1: NAME
1
GCA1450
A governing body, comprised of prrlt+-; signal representatives of the SRTC,
Spokane County, the City ::+!" Spokane, WSDOT, and ST& is hereby created and shall he
known as the Spokane l.e€ iuilal Transpoi i.ation Sy31Prns Center Operating Hoard, referred
to hereinafter as the "Opera[int Boa T
Section 2 PURPOSL
Recognizing that'; coordinated ti.:in mtnsgerlent of transportation facilities :of
Spokane County, the City of Spokane, WSDOT, and STA, are necessarily inter' 'ot `rt and
interdependent and that the into' ests of all citizens Will best be served by a coordinated and
cooperative transportation system, this Operating Board is established to Irrci._t s : such
appropriate coordination and cooperation and provide for contir,lai;l{; wide
transportation system management and surveillance.
The Operating Board is not authorized to in any way supersede the authority
�vcstcd in the SRTC, County, City, WSDOT, STA or Other Members, but is intended 10
mc,ct the prerequisites of Federal Transportation legislation requiring the development of
n 1 il,tc•.,r ?ed congestion management system to manage existing traffic congestion and
hr.lp to prevent new congestion from occurring
Section 3:
POWERS AND FUNCTiONS
The functions, responsibilities, and powers of Operating Board shall be as follows:
(at To perform the functions of the Transportation Systems Center for thea
=lc:tropolitan area, including those functions sed k l th it the TF -A21 legisl,tL,on of
1998 and the Federal Register as' it presently nxists, or as ii n7; lis 1 :rtsirafl+:r
Ian.Jifled
implementing TE 1; as well as whidi nit:}` 1JL rtcl.:trb: l
It1::Inaf ( by Federal Transportation
(b) Lo prepil!!.' and `tip{I°cltt a Cci,n)Ieh(-nsic,_. Systenn
Operating Plan {tied ]:{,6.".'`' I{SXI% I : ramps. atll'.)rl 1n€.1 ]t'.iitt •'tarlli ;c i;Cot Pi acii,
(c) To administer regional transportation projects and programs that facilitate
operations of the Transportation Systems Center considering only those projects
which have been approved by the SRTC Board and which are consistent with the
adopted Regional Transportation Plan_
(d) i :Jatticitaato is ?lit: c;ttl1 ct!on .ir,rl Tn,t r_e11anc:c. ,, r :tnsportatian related
data bases gaud 11 al.s;iot[ation related in ur;�taticr:.
(cl To contract with the WSDOT or 01.1-: : appr4pi otic (r'it 1 e in ore' r to meet
requirements of State and/or Federal Tran.;lr.rt-lti.7 t Ir- l.stittn.
2
GCAl45Q
To perform such other transportation systems management related
functions as the Operating Board may hereinafter determine to be in the best
interests of the Transportation Systems Center,
The SRTC, or any of the rvicmbers hereto, may receive grants-in-aid from the
State or Federal Government or any other department or agency and may accept gifts for
the purpose of this Agreement,
Sc.r.tinr7 u.a.iio'AI,ANO 1\if;tROPOLITANAREA
DUI NET)
11Y".::rrIt:II tzoLlie j�.:ri4ciiv:ti.�:,,3] area shall conv;i:;t of all incorporated and
.Ir:irr.:orpc`ralecl a1e3s of Spcl ani.: [;t .tt':'.! ',rVashingtort, and ma,..) ir[::10u'11: c•.: rttiguous areas
fr�,i•ia5 the. coUrtiy Cr state bouttcL ri :s .s Ji ;4rne?J appropriate, and , ilii � rvct the criteria
of State andlor Federal Transportatic n is ;i lotion.
Section S: GOVERNING BODY AND OFC[CCRS
The governing body of the Operating Board s]iall ct i ',i.;t o,,c oprescnta.tive
from each of the Member agency/jurisdiction and tart ca.: r; Belo reyrt .c ;r:,.tive from SRTC'
staff: Each representative shall hold a position that [Las authority to tn.: ke decisions related
to traffic operations for their respective agency/jurisdiction. T]i.c. `RTC representative
shall be appointed by the Transportation Manager,
Alternate Operating Board representatives may serve in the absence of the
designated representative so long as the alternate representative has similar authority to
act on behalf -of the appointing Member's parent agency_ All alternate Operating Board
representatives must serve in the same or higher capacity as the regularly designated
representative as defined hereinabove.
Officers of the Operating Board shall include a chair and vice -chair, who shall be
elected h- i71ajority vote of the Operating Board. Officers shall serve a one year term.
The (1 -.air shall alternate amortg representatives ofthe Operating Board.
Section 6: MEETINGS
Th: cii),2rcttit:L. Board shall hold regular meetings_ The Chair may earl a special
e session or shall call a special meeting at the request of a majority of
tr-Iti,; Operating
t}era'ting
The C'p ratinf nolrd shall adopt rules for the conduct of its business consistent
with this Agit :r.n ..nt and such rules shall prescribe, among other matters, the place of
rneetings arid the methods of providing reasonable notice to Members thereof Such rules
3
GCA] 450
shall be adopted and may be amended by a majority vote (75°%o r-atiri;:atinn of the Member
bodies) of the total Operating Board, or by amendment to this Agrce.11lc-nt
herein_
All meetings of the Operating Board shall be open to the public as required l,.y
Chapter 42.30 RCW_ A quorum for the purpose of transacting business shall car,F.ist, ar. <1
minimum, of three Operating Board mei; I: cis. All recommendations,. motions or 0t her
actions of the Operating Board shall be opt . d I;.., a favorable vutc of a majority of tllo;e
present. All Operating Board representative :> including officers shall be entitled to one
vote.
Section 7: ST.Ai?F AND SUPPORT
The staff[ as or,nclry.rct rhe work programs of the Operating Board
consistent with this A Frc.cink-ni he provided by SRTC in addition to staff provided et
the discretion of ti -c r 7crrrl:r.; irur isdictior.; . The staff shall serve under the direction of the
Operating Board, and X17{i!I L .. rcr:pr)nabLI for conducting activities necessary ra ;airyout
the work program <uid purpose of the Operating Board. The Operating Board will submit
to the SRTC Beard fti:•r 2pproval, application(s) for or acceptance of any grants to carr.
out, those functions set forth in Section 3 hereinabove. Provided, however, in instances
where a grant application must be submitted prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting
of the Operating Board so that timely Operating Board approval cannot be obtained, the .
grant application may still be submitted with approval of the chair and vice -chair of tla
Operating Board.
Employees assigned to the Transportation Systems Center shall be hired and
discharged by their respective agencies.
The Operating [ card support services such as requisitioning and purchas:nn,
pa -in -lent of expenditures, accounting, computer processing, legal counsel, and n-laea�
deemed rte':. Sar; wi11 be provided by the SRTC.
Section 8: WORE PROGRAM AND ANNUAL BUDGET
The Operating Bo2rci shall prepare and adopt a rroiioscd ,.t;:rl_ program
budget for each calendar year. The de.tarlcd annual `-work i:rer'rtir".t shall 1, 9. `rccift W.or
projects to be uadcrta'ketr as pare of the Transportation Systems Center.
The Operating Board shall submit the proposed wtrrl,: l,rr,i ;an} and 6;3(1p ),1.
SRTC Board by August 1 of the preceding year. Approval or rejection of ;a.rr: , L'ld ..r;: 1: +
each Iviember shall be provided to the Operating Board by Novyrir1J€r
The annual budget andlor work program of ft Operttt.i! 13�,a ru:i neat• ;r :enr :tinct
by vote ofthe SRTC Board, provided such Joe!.:. :rcpt i egirn : dditis:::.r1
4
GCA1450
appropriation, or by the joint approval of the Operating Board -And .Nlcm,ers where such
amendrrmer,t does require additional budget appropriation. Atter a1J;i1 rIvi1 Of 111,C Operating
Board Budget, no Member may terminate or withhold bts sfsa!e clurirf; tilt year For which
it v gas allocated,
Section 9: ALLOCATION OF COSTS, AI PR(JI'RL'. TIONS, AND
EXPEND RES
It is anticipated that most projects and programs of the Operating Board will
involve benefit to its Members. Costs of the annual budgeted expenditures shall be
divided among the Members as determined by the Operating Board and as agreed to by
the Members and SRTC Board. Any additional agency joining the Operating Board as a
Member, shall contribute as determined by the Operating Board and approved by the
iviembcrs and SRTC Board. Additional contributions to the Operating Board budget may
be made to accomplish projects and programs deemed to be of particular pertinence or
benefit to one os mare of the Member agencies.
Each handing Member approving the proposed Operating Board budget shall
submit its payment on or before January 20 of the budget year which it has approved. The
funds of such joint operatiofi shall be deposited with the SRTC; and such deposit shall be
subject to the same audit and fiscal controls as the public treasury where the funds are so
deposited. The funds shall be used in accordance with the adopted budget and work plan.
The SRTC may make expenditures in accordance with the approved Operating
Board budget and work plan and shall maintain records of expenditures and report
regularly to the Operating Board on budget activity.
Payment of all claims shall be signed by the SRTC Transportation Manager and
approved monthly by the SRTC Board. Such claims, with proper affidavits required by
law, shall then be certified for payment by the City or as arranged by the SRTC.
Section 10: INTER-RELATIONS/1TP BETWEEN OPERA TLHCT BOARD,
AND MEMBER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS
Member traffic engineering departments shall continue their respective functions as
provided by charter and/or State law, including preparation of traffic control plans, to
which the Regional Transportation Systems Center plans shall be coordinated. The
Region Transportation Systems Center and may administer or implement such plans as
may be agreed by the Member agency and the Operating Board.
The successful execution of Transportation Systems Center duties and
responsibilities in preparing a Regional Transportation Congestion Management System.,
in coordination with local plants, requires comprehensive transportation managetnent plans
be prepared and remain up to date by the City and County of Spokane, WSDOT and STA
for their respective jurisdictions,
5
GCA 1450
Sectiiort I. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the Members.
Section 1.2: TEI INATIION
The City of Spokane, Spokane County, WSDOT, or STA, may terminate
membership in the Operating Board by giving written notice to the Operating Board prior
to August 1 of any year for the following year.
Section 13: PRIOR WRITTEN AGREEMENTS
This Agreement shall supersede any prior agreements establishing a jointly
developed transportation system center.
Section 14: EFFECTIVE DATE
The effective date of this At,e,-,nr:rzs ,711:111 he October 11, 1998. Provided,
however, upon execution by the Mti...ufl:t=r ; Clic r. nv rring body of the Operating Board
may meet for the purpose ,7 i' %.;iring a::.riori s), . ucli, ac.tion(s) to be effective January 1,
999.
b
GCA ilSO
TN WITNESS j. .. OF, the Members hereto have entered into this
Agreement on the dt3 '�,,rth herein above.
ca ."
ATTTEST.
E
D. p,Ity Cie&
J)OAW OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF .Pi,_;ti G WA HINOTON
ATTEST
13y
City Clerk
Cm' OF SPOKANE
r
Approved:
City h,14inagrr
Approved as to Form:
Assistant City Attorney
WAS1-i-9NGTQN STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKANE TRAW'SIT AUTHORITY
OF TRANS PORT ON
East C i R Pton Ad Ititstt' t )r r
Lia ngtot) Stale—pa of i rF rlsp.orta1i jn
AJTROVED AS TO FORM
DatC
7
By: 1�
Assuan
itiarrtcy Gon :ral
Chair
GCA 1450
fl' WJTNESS WHEREOF, thG Mernbei-s hereto have entered into this
r.,ruc,7_cnt on the day and year set forth herein above.
ATTEST:
)3y :1
City Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
CITY OF SPOKANE
or
roved:
Cityanagcr
Apprrlved as to fcrrn:
{� !fit crf
Citv
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT SE'C?K.:k; }_ TRANSIT U At THOiTUT{
OF TRANSPORTATION
Paste,rn. Region Ad.Lmnistraion for Chani
State Department cfTransportation
APP. U' EjO AS TO FORM
rfr: l /1( — 1 71 /10
�r
r -
/
Alton -Ley General
7
GCA1450
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Members hereto have entered into this
Agreement on tete day and year set forth herein above.
All LEST:
T3y
Deputy Clerk
ATTEST:
By
City Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ClThr OF SPOKANE
Mayor
Approved:
City Manager
Approved as to form:
Assistant City Attorney
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY
OF TRANSPOR" ON
Region A�. iirsastrator .-r
un t,te Sta f ut)artauta of Ttanspor ;tioa
APPROVED AS TO FORM
As 'mut Attorney GoricraI
7
Gra ig ExecutivP Di rector
GCM 450
Meeting Date:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
November 17, 2015 Department Director Approval: ❑
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Community Minded Television (CMTV) Public Access Agreement
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Comcast Franchise Agreement Ordinance 09-034
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of Comcast Franchise, December 1,
2009; Authorized City Manager to execute agreement with CMTV, May 10, 2011
BACKGROUND: The Council adopted Ordinance 09-034, which approved the franchise
agreement between Spokane Valley and Comcast so that Comcast may place its cable facilities
in the City's right-of-way so it can operate its business. One of the requirements of the
franchise (a contract granted by ordinance) is for Comcast to provide funding to the City for
capital purchases associated with the creation and broadcasting of public, educational, and
governmental (PEG) programming. The PEG fee is the equivalent of $0.35 per subscriber per
month which Comcast passes on to its subscribers.
The City initially advertised for a public access channel manager in April of 2011. One response
was received at that time from CMTV. An agreement with CMTV was executed May 10, 2011
and expires December 31, 2015. Staff recommends extending the agreement for five years.
The City Attorney advises us that this does not need to be re -advertised.
CMTV and the Spokane County Library District are currently developing an agreement whereby
CMTV would make video and editing equipment available to the Library so that it may develop a
studio/media lab at the Valley Branch for producing community content featuring people, events,
history etc. specific to Spokane Valley, as well as instructional videos for starting businesses,
and obtaining permits from the City. Staff anticipates recommending at a later date that
additional appropriations from PEG fund 107 be made available to CMTV to support these
expanded efforts once their capital needs are determined.
OPTIONS: Consider for the December 8 Council meeting, moving to authorize the City Manager
to execute the agreement with Community Minded Television to act as the sole broadcaster of
public access content on Comcast Channel 14, request an RFP process, or eliminate public
access broadcasting support.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION. Consensus to move forward with motion
consideration on December 8.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No General Fund dollars will be used—only funds from
PEG fund 107 will be utilized. $12,000 has been requested by CMTV for use during 2016.
STAFF/COUNCIL CONTACT: John Pietro, Administrative Analyst
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Agreement
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
Community -Minded Television
THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Spokane Valley, a code city of the State of
Washington, hereinafter "City," and HIP of Spokane County dba Community -Minded Enterprises,
hereinafter "CMTV," jointly referred to as "parties."
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has obtained certain channel resources and capital
financing as a result of a franchise renewal (franchise) with the local cable operator, Comcast of
Pennsylvania/Washington/West Virginia, LP, ("Comcast"); and
WHEREAS, the franchise documents include the franchise Ordinance and a side letter. For
convenience, Section 13 of the Franchise affecting channel resources is attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, CMTV agrees to provide community programming identified in Section 13 of the
franchise.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. DESIGNATION OF CMTV AS CHANNEL MANAGER. The City designates CMTV as
Channel Manager of the channel reserved in Exhibit A. This designation terminates if the franchise
terminates or expires. The designation is in the nature of a quit -claim authorization, to the extent of the
City's power and authority to make such designation, without any promises or warranties. Section 1 and
2 comprise the entire obligations of the City under this Agreement, notwithstanding any other provision.
The failure to provide at least 16 hours each day on average over each calendar week of broadcasting
shall be considered a material breach of this Agreement.
2. GRANT FROM PEG FEE SOURCE.
a. For each year of the agreement the City will notify CMTV by October 31 of the preceding year
the amount of PEG funds projected to be distributed, if any. The actual amount of funding
available shall be determined by the actual PEG contributions provided to the City by Comcast.
Any additional funds would be subject to the same requirements as the original PEG fee grant
contained herein.
b. With respect to the PEG fee grant, CMTV shall be solely responsible for satisfying any
expenditures and/or documentation requirements of Comcast set forth in Exhibit A (to the extent
applicable), and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any loss or liability for
CMTV's failure to satisfy any applicable requirements set forth therein. Under no circumstances
shall the City be independently liable to CMTV for payment of any additional funds in the event
of a reduction of money payable by Comcast to the City. Nothing herein limits CMTV's option
to apply for additional PEG funding or creates any obligation on the part of the City to accept
such applications.
c. Within 90 days, upon request, CMTV shall provide Comcast with appropriate documentation
showing expenditures for PEG capital use of the previous year's PEG funding and showing the
budgeted use of the current year's PEG funding. In the event CMTV cannot demonstrate that
PEG funding was used or budgeted for PEG capital needs consistent with franchise requirements,
Public Television Contract Page 1
it is responsible to reimburse the City any reduction in PEG funding obligations by Comcast
under Exhibit A under this or any future PEG fee grant source.
d. If CMTV fails to complete the Agreement through the end of the term, CMTV will return any
equipment with useful life remaining or pay the remaining value or any equipment to the City.
The remaining value will be determined be applying straight-line depreciation to the asset and
determining the remaining value at the time CMTV stops providing service. With the City's
authorization, the equipment may be transferred to another designated PEG content provider.
3. PAYMENT. CMTV acknowledges and is accustomed to the practice of being held accountable
for achieving deliverables associated with grant funds. Because these funds are restricted to capital
expenditures, CMTV understands the City's concern about protecting the grant resource in case of CMTV
non-performance. The funds shall only be available for reimbursement following qualifying expenditures
by CMTV. Reimbursements shall only be made from PEG funds received from Comcast. The City
receives quarterly PEG payments from Comcast. The City will provide CMTV with the current available
balance upon request. Reimbursement requests shall include invoices, proof of payment, and a signed
PEG Reimbursement Certification identified in Exhibit B. Approved reimbursements shall be made
within 30 days of request.
4. ASSIGNMENT. CMTV shall not assign this Agreement without prior written consent. Any
Assignee shall accept all terms and conditions of this Agreement in writing as a condition of the
assignment.
5. CMTV ACCEPTANCE. CMTV accepts the City's designation as Channel Manager and all
responsibilities express and implied in connection therewith. CMTV agrees to manage and operate the
channel for programming of community interest consistent with this Agreement and its Proposal,
reserving editorial content control to CMTV. To the extent as may be required by law, CMTV agrees to
develop viewpoint neutral community access rules for its users. It is not the purpose or intent of this or
any other provision of this Agreement to create a public forum or open microphone for the channel.
CMTV is an independent contractor for all purposes of this Agreement and not an agent or employee of
the City in any respect.
6. SOLE RESPONSIBILITY. Except as provided elsewhere in this Agreement, CMTV is solely
and separately responsible for all channel operations, equipment financing, budget, management, and
programming Nothing in this Agreement limits CMTV's ability to seek protection from programmers or
others as between itself and third parties.
7. COMCAST/FRANCHISE REQUIREMENTS.
a. CMTV is responsible to meet any reasonable signal quality or technical requirements of
Comcast. In case of dispute, the City reserves the right to determine the issue, consistent with the
Franchise and this Agreement.
b. CMTV understands that the City and Comcast may mutually agree upon an implementation
and enforcement of policy directive and terms of use requirements.
c. CMTV guarantees that all users of any channel resources or channel facilities, obtained
pursuant to this Agreement shall assume responsibility for the content of programming prepared
at such channel facilities and/or cablecasts on the subject channel. Clearance for use of
copyrighted material shall be the sole responsibility of CMTV and/or the access user. CMTV
promises to implement any use requirements required by the City and Comcast related to the
protection of copyrighted material. CMTV shall likewise require that all CMTV
Public Television Contract Page 2
programmers/channel users indemnify and hold Comcast and the City harmless from all loss or
liability, including the costs of legal defense from programming or use of facilities, channel(s) or
access time by the user.
d. Failure to comply with the provisions of this section shall constitute a material breach of this
Agreement.
e. CMTV shall accommodate Comcast's reasonable needs for use of parental control devises.
The City reserves the right to determine any disputes.
8. ANNUAL REPORT. CMTV shall present in writing an annual report to the City on its yearly
activities from the previous calendar year no later than May 1 each year. The report shall include the
following information:
a. A financial report of all channel operations and expenditures for the most recently completed
fiscal year.
b. A summary of all programming, including hours presented and weekly programming schedules
(may be summarized), for the previous calendar year
c. A detailed list of each expenditure made the prior calendar year, including the cost and purpose
to which the equipment is being used, for all equipment expenditures reimbursed by the City.
d. An itemized capital budget request for the subsequent calendar year.
e. Proof of compliance with all Comcast/Franchise requirements above mentioned, including:
i. Confirmation that CMTV meets Comcast's reasonable signal quality or technical
requirements and a statement that there are no pending disputes regarding the same.
ii. A current copy of CMTV's policies and use requirements if changed from previous
year.
9. TERM/NOTICES.
The Agreement takes effect January 1, 2016, and expires December 31, 2021; PROVIDED:
It automatically expires if the current franchise expires or is otherwise terminated or substantially
modified for any reason unless extended in writing by the City.
It may be terminated without any requirement of showing cause by either party, upon at least 90 days
written notice; PROVIDED the City may terminate the Agreement upon a lesser notice period if it
reasonably determines that it is exposed to any loss or liability because of continuation of the Agreement.
Additionally, failure to comply with the minimum daily broadcast requirements set forth in Section 1
shall be considered a material breach subject to termination on 10 days' notice.
Notices shall be given as follows:
To City:
City Manager
11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
To CMTV:
General Manager
25 West Main Avenue, Suite 436
Spokane, WA 99201
Public Television Contract Page 3
Public Television Contract Page 4
10. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. CMTV shall, at its sole expense, defend, indemnify and
hold harmless City and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits,
liability, loss, costs, attorney's fees and costs of litigation, expenses, injuries, and damages of any nature
whatsoever relating to or arising out of the wrongful or negligent acts, errors or omissions in the services
provided by CMTV, CMTV's agents, subcontractors, subconsultants and employees to the fullest extent
permitted by law, subject only to the limitations provided below.
CMTV's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City shall not apply to liability for damages arising
out of such services caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of City or City's agents or employees.
CMTV's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City against liability for damages arising out of
such services caused by the concurrent negligence of (a) City or City's agents or employees, and (b)
CMTV, CMTV's agents, subcontractors, subconsultants and employees, shall apply only to the extent of
the negligence of CMTV, CMTV's agents, subcontractors, subconsultants and employees.
CMTV's duty to defend, indemnify and hold City harmless shall include, as to all claims, demands, losses
and liability to which it applies, City's personnel -related costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and the
reasonable value of any services rendered by the office of the City Attorney, outside consultant costs,
court costs, fees for collection, and all other claim -related expenses.
CMTV specifically and expressly waives any immunity that may be granted it under the Washington
State Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW. These indemnification obligations shall not be limited in
any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation or benefits payable to or for
any third party under workers' compensation acts, disability benefit acts, or other employee benefits acts.
Provided, that CMTV's waiver of immunity under this provision extends only to claims against CMTV by
City, and does not include, or extend to, any claims by CMTV's employees directly against CMTV.
CMTV hereby certifies that this indemnification provision was mutually negotiated.
11. INSURANCE. CMTV shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance
against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with
the performance of the work hereunder by CMTV, its agents, representatives, employees or
subcontractors.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance. CMTV shall obtain insurance of the types described below:
1. Automobile liability insurance covering all owned, non -owned, hired and leased
vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01
or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall
be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage.
2. Commercial general liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00
01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors
and personal injury and advertising injury. City shall be named as an insured under
CMTV's commercial general liability insurance policy with respect to the work
performed for the City.
3. Workers' compensation coverage as required by the industrial insurance laws of the
State of Washington.
B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance. CMTV shall maintain the following insurance limits:
Public Television Contract Page 5
1. Automobile liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury
and property damage of no less than $1,000,000 per accident.
2. Commercial general liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than
$1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate.
C. Other Insurance Provisions. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain,
the following provisions for automobile liability and commercial general liability insurance:
1. CMTV's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City. Any
insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by City shall be in
excess of CMTV's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
2. CMTV shall fax or send electronically in .pdf format a copy of insurer's cancellation
notice within two business days of receipt by CMTV.
D. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best
rating of not less than A:VII.
E. Evidence of Coverage. As evidence of the insurance coverages required by this Agreement,
CMTV shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates to the City Clerk at the time CMTV returns
the signed Agreement, which shall be Exhibit C. The certificate shall specify all of the parties
who are additional insureds, and shall include applicable policy endorsements, and the deduction
or retention level. Insuring companies or entities are subject to City acceptance. If requested,
complete copies of insurance policies shall be provided to City. CMTV shall be financially
responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self-insured retentions, and/or self-insurance.
12. BUSINESS REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT. Prior to commencement of work under this
Agreement, CMTV shall register with the City as a business.
13. RECORDS. The State Auditor or City or any of their representatives shall have full access to and
the right to examine during normal business hours all of (entity)'s records with respect to all matters
covered in this Agreement. Such representatives shall be permitted to audit, examine, and make excerpts
or transcripts from such records and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, and
record of matters covered by this Agreement for a period of three years from the date final payment is
made hereunder. Any records relating to this Agreement may be subject to Washington's Public Record
Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW.
14. NON-DISCRIMINATION. No individual shall be excluded from participation in, denied the
benefit of, subjected to discrimination under, or denied employment in the administration of or in
connection with this Agreement in violation of State or Federal laws relating to discrimination.
15. ANTI -KICKBACK. No officer or employee of the City of Spokane Valley, having the power or
duty to perform an official act or action related to this Agreement shall have or acquire any interest in the
Agreement, or have solicited, accepted or granted a present or future gift, favor, service or other thing of
value from or to any person involved in this Agreement.
16. NO SEPARATE ENTITY; AMENDMENTS. No separate legal entity, partnership or joint
venture is created by this Agreement. This Agreement is binding on the parties and their heirs,
successors, and assigns. This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual written agreement.
17. OWNERSHIP OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. The City and CMTV hereby acknowledge
Public Television Contract Page 6
that this Agreement shall not constitute a "work made for hire agreement" as that term is defined under
the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.0 § 101 et seq. Additionally, the City expressly acknowledges and agrees that
CMTV shall own all right, title, and interest in and to all intellectual property created or obtained by
CMTV during the time it operates as Channel Manager. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall
restrict CMTV from licensing, sublicensing, assigning, or otherwise disposing of CMTV's Intellectual
Property Rights. "Intellectual Property Rights" means all intellectual property rights throughout the
universe, whether existing under statute or at common law or equity, now or hereafter in force or
recognized, including but not limited to: (i) copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks, patents, inventions,
designs, logos and trade dress, "moral rights," mask works, publicity rights, privacy rights and any other
intellectual property and proprietary rights; and (ii) any application or right to apply for any of the rights
referred to in clause (i), and any and all renewals, extensions and restorations thereof.
18. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. Except to the extent that this Agreement recognizes and
confirms certain rights of Comcast under the franchise, this Agreement is solely between the City and
CMTV, and there are no third party beneficiaries to this Agreement.
19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT/SEVERABILITY. This is the entire agreement. In the event any
provision of this Agreement should become invalid, the rest of the Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect unless agreed in writing by the parties.
Dated:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ATTEST:
City Manager City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Office of the City Attorney
AGREED TO BY COMMUNITY MINDED
TELEVISION
Dated:
Signed:
For CMTV
Title:
Public Television Contract Page 7
Federal Tax I.D. No.
Section 12. Rates.
1. Throughout the term of this Franchise Agreement and upon request by the City, the Grantee
shall provide an updated rate card to the City that details applicable rates and charges for Cable Services
provided under this Franchise Agreement. This does not require the Grantee to file rates and charges
under temporary reductions or waivers of rates and charges in conjunction with promotional campaigns.
2. Grantee shall provide a minimum of thirty (30) days' written notice to the City and each
Subscriber before changing any rates and charges.
3. City may regulate rates for the provision of Cable Service provided over the System in
accordance with applicable federal law, in particular 47 C.F.R, Part 76 subpart N. In the event the City
chooses to regulate rates it shall, in accordance with 47 C.F.R. § 76.910, obtain certification from the
FCC, if applicable. The City shall follow all applicable FCC rate regulations and shall ensure that
appropriate personnel are in place to administer such regulations. City reserves the right to regulate rates
for any future Cable Services to the maximum extent allowed by law.
Section 13. PEG and Local Programming.
1. Commencing on the effective date of this Franchise Agreement, Grantee shall make available
one (1) full-time Non-commercial multi jurisdictional PEG Channel (the "Government Channel") for
future activation and joint use by the City, the City of Spokane and/or Spokane County for governmental
access programming. The City shall provide Grantee with a minimum of forty-five (45) days prior
written notice of an initial meeting to develop an implementation plan for activation of the Government
Channel.
2. Grantee has historically delivered all PEG Channels available on its Cable System to its
customers in the City whether or not such Channels were directly controlled by the City. Commencing
on the effective date of this Franchise, and throughout the term of this Franchise, Grantee shall deliver
those PEG Channels with whom the City has contracted for service, up to a maximum of six (6)
Channels. Grantee shall continue to deliver those PEG Channels so long as the City's contracts are valid
and the PEG Channels have content to distribute. The City shall provide copies of all PEG Channel
contracts, and contract renewals, to Grantee within thirty (30) days of execution.
3. The City acknowledges that Grantee provides additional benefits to PEG programming needs
beyond the requirement listed above. This is accomplished through the inclusion of other regional PEG
programming within the regional Channel line-up that services the Franchise Area. The Grantee will
endeavor to provide the Subscribers in the Franchise Area with the other regional PEG Channels so long
as the PEG programmers offer them for use on the Cable System.
4. All PEG Channels provided to Subscribers wider this Franchise shall be included by Grantee
subject to applicable law. For all PEG Channels not under Grantee's control, Grantee shall insure that
there is no material degradation in the signal that is received by Grantee for distribution by Grantee over
the Cable System.
5. The City shall be responsible for all programming requirements for the Government Channel,
including but not limited to scheduling„ playback, training, staffing, copyright clearances, and equipment,
maintenance and repair, unless responsibility for administering the Government Channel has been
designated to a third party, which shall then become responsible for all programming requirements under
this section.
6, The Grantee shall provide the PEG Channels as part of the Cable Service provided to any
Subscriber, at no additional charge. If Channels are selected through a menu system, the PEG Channels
Ordinance 09-034 Comcast Cable Franchise Page 9 of 27
•4 A
shall be displayed as prominently as commercial progranuning choices offered by Grantee. Comcast will
use reasonable efforts to minimize the movement of City -designated PEG Channel assignments and
maintain common Channel assignments for compatible PEG programming.
7. At such time as the Grantee converts its Basic Cable Service Tier from an analog to a digital
format, the City's PEG Channels will be carried on the digital platform and Grantee shall install, at its
sole cost, such headend equipment to accommodate such Channels. Such PEG Channels shall be
accessed by Subscribers through use of standard digital equipment compatible with Grantee's Cable
System.
8. Within ninety (90) days of Grantee's acceptance of the Franchise, Grantee will remit to the
City as a capital contribution in support of PEG capital requirements: (1) one hundred fifty thousand
dollars ($150,000) and (2) an amount equal to thirty five cents ($0.35) per Subscriber per month to be
paid to the City on a quarterly basis for the life of the Franchise, Grantee will recoup the initial one
hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) in an amount equal to twenty five cents ($0.25) per Subscriber
per month until the amount is recovered in full. To be clear, during the recovery period, the Grantee will
remit to the City an amount equal to ten cents ($0.10) per Subscriber per month until the recovery of the
initial PEG capital contribution is completed. After completion of the initial PEG capital contribution
recovery, the Grantee will remit the entire thirty five cents ($0.35) per Subscriber per month to the City
until the fifth year of the Franchise. Upon the fifth year anniversary date of the Franchise term, if the
Grantee accepts the full continuation of the ten (10) year term, the Grantee will remit to the City, within
ninety (90) days of the anniversary date, another upfront PEG capital contribution payment of one
hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), which will be recovered, recouped, and remitted to the City in
the same manner as the initial PEG capital contribution payment.
The City shall allocate all amounts under this subsection to PEG capital uses exclusively. Grantee shall
not be responsible for paying the PEG capital contribution with respect to gratis or bad debt accounts.
Consistent with 47 C.F.R. § 76.922, Grantee may, in its sole discretion, add the cost of the PEG capital
contribution to the price of Cable Services and to collect the PEG capital contribution from Subscribers.
In addition, consistent with 47 C.F.R. § 76.985, all amounts paid as the PEG capital contribution may be
separately stated on Subscribers' bills as a City of Spokane Valley PEG capital contribution. Upon
Grantee's written request and due as agreed upon by both parties, the City shall provide the Grantee with
documentation showing expenditures for PEG capital use of the previous fiscal years' PEG capital
contribution and showing the budgeted use of the current year's PEG funding. In the event the City
cannot demonstrate that PEG capital funding was used or budgeted for PEG capital needs, Grantee's PEG
funding obligations going forward shall be reduced by an equivalent amount.
9. Within ninety (90) days of request, the Grantee shall provide an estimate of costs associated
with the construction and activation of one return path capable of transmitting Video Programming to
enable the distribution of the City's specific government access programming to Subscribers on the multi -
jurisdictional PEG Channel. The return line shall run from a location to be determined by the City to the
Grantee's Facilities. Within two hundred seventy (270) days of the City's directive, the Grantee shall
Construct and activate a return line in accordance with the cost estimate previously provided. The City
agrees to pay the costs of the return line within sixty (60) days of Construction / activation and receipt of
an invoice from the Grantee.
Section 14. Institutional Network Connections. Upon request of the City, the Grantee shall
investigate and provide the City a plan with a cost estimate based on either a managed network or the
most cost efficient connection utilizing current technology to accommodate the City's reasonable
broadband capacity needs for a non-commercial connection between the City's facilities. For the
purposes of this section, non-commercial means private network communications from and among the
Ordinance 09-034 Comcast Cable Franchise Page 10 of 27
Spanclkane
EXHIBIT B
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall®spokanevalley.org
Public, Education, and Governmental (PEG) Funding Reimbursement Certification
I certify that the reimbursement request dated in the amount of is for
qualifying capital expenditures utilized for the provision of PEG broadcasting services to the
City of Spokane Valley and that PEG contributions from other jurisdictions have not been
utilized to pay for the items contained within the request.
Signature Title
Company/Agency Date
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: November 17, 2015 Department Director Approval:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Update — Steering Committee of Elected Officials'
Recommendation to Board of County Commissioners on Population Allocation
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Growth Management Act (GMA) RCW 36.70A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: Per RCW 36.70A.130(1), every county and city in the state is required to
conduct an update of its comprehensive plan and development regulations every 8 years. The
City of Spokane Valley's update is due no later than June 30, 2017.
On October 6, 2015, staff updated the Council on the ongoing population allocation process
which has led to a delay in the Comprehensive Plan update project. At that time, the Planning
Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) had developed a recommendation for the population
forecast and allocation for the 2017 to 2037 planning horizon based on the Office of Financial
Management (OFM) medium series forecast. Dave Andersen, from the Washington State
Department of Commerce, participated in the discussion regarding the forecast.
On November 4, the PTAC recommendation was presented by County staff to the Steering
Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) at a public hearing. (See attached report and
recommendation). Staff will provide an overview of the SCEO meeting and discuss the next
steps of the population allocation process.
OPTIONS: N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Director and Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Report and Recommendation to the Steering Committee of Elected Officials by the Planning
and Technical Advisory Committee
Report and Recommendation to the Steering Committee of Elected Officials
Planning Technical Advisory Committee
Population Forecast and Allocation
Periodic Update under the Growth Management Act
2017 to 2037
Public Hearing, November 4, 2015
Planning Technical Advisory Committee
Planning Technical Advisory Committee to
the Steering Committee of Elected Officials
City of Airway Heights
Derrick Braaten, Planner
City of Cheney
Brett Lucas, Senior Planner
City of Deer Park
Roger Krieger, Community Dev. Director
City of Liberty Lake
Amanda Tainio, Planning& Building
Services Manager
City of Medical Lake
Doug Ross
City of Millwood
Tom Richardson, AICP, Comm. Dev.
Director
City of Spokane
Louis Meuler, Senior Planner
Jo Anne Wright, Senior Planner
City of Spokane Valley
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
SCEO Hearing - November 4, 2015
Spokane County
John Pederson, Planning Director
Steve Davenport, AICP, Senior Planner
Spokane Regional Transportation
Council
Amanda Mansfield
Kevin Shipman, GIS Analyst
Kevin Wallace, Executive Director
Ryan Steward
Spokane Transit Authority
Karl Otterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
Kathleen Weinand
Commerce (formerly CTED)
Dave Andersen
Fairchild Air Force Base
Alec Young, Community Planner
Ronald Daniels, Deputy Base Civil
Engineer
Kenneth Walters, Chief of Engineering
Department
2
Planning Technical Advisory Committee
Introduction
The Revised Code of Washington Chapter RCW 36.70A.130(5)(c) requires periodic
review of city and county comprehensive plans, development regulations and urban
growth areas to ensure the plans and regulations comply with the requirements of the
Growth Management Act. The next review is required to be completed by June 30, 2017
and will cover the planning horizon from 2017 to 2037. The last periodic review and
update of the urban growth areas was completed on July 18, 2013 (BCC Resolution
2013-0689). The 2013 update covered the planning period from 2011 to 2031 and
included extensive studies and review.
A first step in this process is to adopt population forecasts and allocations to provide
a target for determining the adequacy of comprehensive plans and urban growth areas
including planned capital facilities (water, waste water treatment, schools, parks, public
safety, etc.) and transportation facilities. Forecasts and allocations are adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners following recommendations by the Planning Technical
Advisory Committee (PTAC) and the Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO).
The PTAC is tasked by the Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) to provide
staff support and recommendations to the SCEO concerning regional planning efforts
(CWPP Policy Topic 1, Policy 5). The PTAC includes staff from Spokane County and
Cities within the County, along with staff from Spokane Regional Transportation Council
(SRTC) and the Spokane Transit Authority (STA). The Planning Technical Committee
met on a regular basis between March and October of 2015 to research and develop
population forecasts for Spokane County.
The forecasts in this report rely on data from the Washington State Office of
Financial Management (OFM) and the census. OFM provides countywide population
forecasts to assist Counties in Growth Management planning. The PTAC used OFM
data to identify a range of future populations based on the accuracy of past forecasts by
OFM
Summary of Recommendation: The PTAC is recommending a population forecast
equivalent to the 2037 medium OFM forecast of 583,409 with growth for cities and towns
based on historic growth patterns.
SCEO Hearing — November 4, 2015 3
Planning Technical Advisory Committee
Population Forecast
Background
A forecast of future population growth has been developed by the Planning
Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) for consideration in the 2017 Comprehensive
Plan review process. The forecast was a collaborative effort involving discussions over
the course of several months. Several sources of data were used in developing the
estimates including Census data, Washington State Office of Financial Management
(OFM) projections and population studies by Spokane County. This PTAC
recommendation is intended to provide a reasoned forecast of population combining
historic growth patterns with forecasts of countywide populations provided by OFM.
Assumptions and Methodology
Washington State Office of Financial Management
Two sets of data from the Washington State Office of Financial Management
(OFM) were used in this study. The first data set is from OFM's Projections of the
Resident Population for the Growth Management Medium Series, May 2012. The
projections provide a county -wide population forecast for each year out to the year 2040
including a low, medium and high forecast.' The OFM forecasts were used to establish
a county -wide population number for 2017 and 2037 relying on the medium OFM
forecast as the most likely outcome.
The second set of OFM data is the Office of Financial Management, April 1, 2015
Population of Cities, Towns and Counties. Each year OFM produces a population
estimate that is primarily used for determining distribution of state revenues. The OFM
estimate relies on past census data and local analysis of growth. The estimates include
the County as a whole and a population for each jurisdiction. OFM's data was used in
this report to establish a population for the year 2015.
1 RCW 43.62.035
SCEO Hearing — November 4, 2015 4
Planning Technical Advisory Committee
Developinq a Range of Most Likely Population Outcomes for 2037
The PTAC has analyzed past accuracy of OFM forecasts to develop a likely
range of population outcomes for the 2017 to 2037 population horizon. OFM provides
GMA forecasts every five years and the forecasts developed in 2002, 2007 and 2012
were used to analyze the accuracy of the OFM medium series forecasts. Reviewing the
2002 and 2007 forecasts shows that the OFM medium forecast has predicted actual
population for future years within 1.7% of actual population for every target year
examined. This range of accuracy was used to develop a range of 2037 population
forecasts that provides a range of reasonably likely outcomes based on past
performance. The calculations and range of population outcomes is shown in Table 1
and 2 below.
Table 1 shows a comparison of past OFM forecasts to actual population in the county for
various forecast years. This provides an assessment of how closely actual population
has tracked prior forecasts. Actual population has ranged from 1% above the OFM
Medium forecast in 2010 to 1.7% below the OFM Medium forecast in 2015. OFM has
predicted a slightly higher population than actual in more years than they have predicted
a slightly lower population. This provides a range of population forecasts that are
reasonably likely based on the performance of past forecasts and forms the basis for the
range recommended by the PTAC. This comparison suggests that it is very likely that
the 2037 population of Spokane County will be between 573,770 and 589,418.
Table 1
Comparing Office of Financial Management Population Estimates to Actual Growth
OFM Medium Series — Spokane County
Historic OFM Forecasts 2005 2010 2015 2037
2002 OFM forecast 441,068 466,417 496,981
2007 OFM forecast 466,724 496,513
2012 OFM forecast 489,491 583,409
Actual Population (OFM and Census) 438,249 471,221 488,310
Accuracy of OFM Forecasts 2005 2010 2015 2037
2002 OFM forecast -.6% 1% -1.7%
2007 OFM forecast 1% -1.7%
2012 OFM forecast -.2%
SCE() Hearing — November 4, 2015 5
Planning Technical Advisory Committee
Table 2
Range of most likely Population Outcomes for Spokane
County
2037
Forecast at Maximum Range (1% above OFM Medium) 589,418
Forecast at OFM Medium 583,409
Forecast at Minimum Range (1.7% below OFM Medium) 573,770
Forecasting Population for Cities and Towns
Once a countywide forecast is established, the next step is forecasting in which
jurisdiction in the county growth will occur. Washington State Office of Financial
Management (OFM) forecasts do not provide population projections for individual cities
and towns. The analysis contained herein provides a forecast of population growth for
2017 and 2037 for each jurisdiction within Spokane County and for the rural area. The
allocations assume that growth patterns in the future will be roughly the same as growth
patterns occurring in the period from 2003 to 2015. The forecasts use the growth rate for
each city or town between the years 2003 and 2015 to predict future growth. These
growth rates are established as a percentage of total urban growth area growth for the
2003 — 2015 timeframe as shown in Figure 1. The growth rate is then applied to
anticipated county -wide growth of the urban growth area for the 2017-2037 planning
horizon.
Rural Area Growth Forecast
The PTAC recommendation assumes that 21% of future growth will occur in rural
Spokane County (Outside the UGA). This assumption is based on a study conducted by
Spokane County in 2012 titled, "Spokane County Population Study, October 2012". The
study conducted a detailed analysis of rural growth using building permit data over a five
year period and concluded that 21% of all growth in the County is occurring in the rural
area. Past assumptions of rural growth have ranged from 20 to 25% of county -wide
growth.
SCEO Hearing — November 4, 2015 6
Planning Technical Advisory Committee
Figure 1 — Population Growth as a % of Total Urban Growth, 2003-2015
Palouse
Towns 0.2%
Spokane
Valley
22%
Unincorporated
UGA 22%
Spokane
31%
Millwood
0.3%
Airway
Heights 8%
_Cheney 4%
Deer Park 2%
Liberty Lake
Medical 9%
Lake
1.5%
SCE() Hearing — November 4, 2015 7
Planning Technical Advisory Committee
Table 3 shows the range of likely population outcomes using the maximum (1% above) and
minimum (1.7% below) range of forecasting accuracy in Table 2. Population forecasts for cities
and towns are established by applying historic growth trends for cities and towns based on
overall county population totals.
Table 3 - Range of Population Forecasts Based on Accuracy of Past OFM Forecasts
Jurisdiction
2037 2037 2037
Population Population Population
Forecast Estimate Forecast
Minimum Medium Maximum
drift OFM Drift
1.7% below 1% above
OFM OFM
Medium Medium
Spokane County 573,770 583,409 589,418
Unincorporated Spokane County 173,125 176,780 179,059
Unincorporated UGA 66,486 68,117 69,134
Unincorporated Rural 106,639 108,663 109,925
Urban Growth Area 467,131 474,746 479,493
Incorporated Spokane County 400,645 406,629 410,359
Airway Heights 13,698 14,298 14,671
Cheney 14,438 14,776 14,986
Deer Park 5,185 5,325 5,412
Fairfield 656 660 663
Latah 195 195 195
Liberty Lake 15,206 15,909 16,348
Medical Lake 5,931 6,042 6,111
Millwood 1,932 1,947 1,958
Rockford 470 470 470
Spangle 287 288 288
Spokane 234,306 236,698 238,189
Spokane Valley 108,233 109,913 110,960
Waverly 108 108 108
SCE() Hearing - November 4, 2015 8
Planning Technical Advisory Committee
Planning Technical Committee Recommendation
The Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) recommends adoption of the
following forecast and allocation for the 2017 to 2037 planning horizon. The
recommendation utilizes the Office of Financial Management (OFM) medium series
forecast for 2037 and applies the historic growth rate from 2003 through 2015 to forecast
the future population of cities, towns and the unincorporated urban growth area. The
population allocation in the last column is simply the 2037 forecast minus the 2017
population. The PTAC recognizes that adoption of a population forecast within the
maximum/minimum values illustrated in Table 3 would be viable alternatives.
Table 4 - PTAC Recommendation, 2037 Forecast and Allocation
Jurisdiction
2017
Population
Estimate
2037
Population
Forecast
2017 - 2037
Population
Allocation
Spokane County
Unincorporated Spokane
County
Unincorporated UGA
Unincorporated Rural
Urban Growth Area
Incorporated Spokane County
Airway Heights
Cheney
Deer Park
Fairfield
Latah
Liberty Lake
Medical Lake
Millwood
Rockford
Spangle
Spokane
Spokane Valley
Waverly
SCE() Hearing - November 4, 2015
499,348
144,903
53,893
91,010
408,338
3 54, 445
9,071
11,827
4,110
620
195
9,780
5,072
1,808
470
281
215,839
95,264
108
583,409
176,780
68,117
108,663
474,746
406,629
14,298
14,776
5,325
660
195
15,909
6,042
1,947
470
288
236,698
109,913
108
14,224
17,653
66,408
52,184
5,226
2,949
1,215
40
0
6,129
970
139
0
7
20,859
14,650
0
9
Planning Technical Advisory Committee
Data Sources
The following data sources were used in the development of this report:
1. Washington State Office of Financial Management, Projections of the Resident
Population for the Growth Management Medium Series, 2012
2. Washington State Office of Financial Management, Projections of the Resident
Population for the Growth Management Medium Series, 2007
3. Washington State Office of Financial Management, Projections of the Resident
Population for the Growth Management Medium Series, 2002
4. Spokane County Department of Building and Planning, Spokane County Population
Study, October, 2012
5. Washington State Office of Financial Management, Intercensal estimates 2000-2010
6. Washington State Office of Financial Management, April 1, 2015 population of cities,
towns, and counties for the allocation of selected state revenues
SCEO Hearing — November 4, 2015 10
DRAFT
Steering Committee of Elected Officials
Meeting Minutes
November 4, 2015
MINUTES OF THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
STEERING COMMITTEE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS
November 4, 2015
VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dean Grafos, Chair, City of Spokane Valley
Steve Peterson, Vice -Chair, Mayor City of Liberty Lake
Todd Mielke, Spokane County Commissioner
Shelly O'Quinn, Spokane County Commissioner
Al French, Spokane County Commissioner
Jon Snyder, Council Member City of Spokane County
Jill Weiszmann, Council Member, City of Cheney
Kevin Freeman, Mayor City of Millwood
Rod Higgins, City of Spokane Valley
NON VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT:
Sharon Colby, Fire District #3
Chris Bell, Citizen at Large
STAFF:
John Pederson, Director Spokane County Building and Planning
Steve Davenport, Senior Planner, Spokane County Building and Planning
Staff and interested parties as shown on the attached copy of the sign -in sheet.
1. Call to Order
Chair Dean Grafos called the meeting to order at 1:49 p.m.
2. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
John Pederson, Director of the Spokane County Planning Department, stated pursuant to the Steering
Committee Interlocal Agreement, a new Chair and Vice Chair need to be elected by the Steering Committee.
Nomination by Commissioner French to elect Mayor Steve Peterson, City of Liberty Lake, for the
position of Chair. Second by Kevin Freeman. Motion carried unanimously.
The nomination for Vice Chair was moved until such time as Commissioner O'Quinn arrived at the meeting.
Nomination by Mr. Peterson to elect Commissioner Shelley O'Quinn, Spokane County Commissioner,
for the Vice Chair position. Second by Mr. Snyder. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Public Hearing: 2017 GMA Update, Population Forecast and Allocation
1
DRAFT
Steering Committee of Elected Officials
Meeting Minutes
November 4, 2015
Mr. Pederson, Spokane County Planning Director, stated the last update for the Urban Growth Area (UGA)
was in 2012. Mr. Pederson explained the Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) was created in
1994 following the County's adoption of the Growth Management Act. Mr. Pederson stated the Planning
Technical Advisory Committee (known as PTAC) has prepared a report and a recommendation for the
population forecast and allocation for the 2017 periodic update to 2037 for the Steering Committee's
consideration and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
Steve Davenport, Senior Planner, Spokane County Department of Building and Planning, provided a report
and a Power Point presentation of the Planning Technical Advisory Committee's (known as PTAC)
Population Forecast and Allocation — Periodic Update under the Growth Management Act 2017 to 2037
(Exhibit A). Mr. Davenport submitted the entire file into the record including the public notice, PTAC report
and all written correspondence received prior to the hearing. (Exhibits B, C, and D).
Mr. Davenport stated the Revised Code of Washington RCW 36.70A.130(5)(c) requires periodic review of
city and county comprehensive plans, and that development regulations comply with the requirements of the
Growth Management Act. The next review is required to be completed by June 30, 2017 and will cover the
planning horizon from 2017 to 2037. Mr. Davenport explained the first step in the process is to adopt
population forecasts and allocations to provide a target for determining the adequacy of comprehensive plans
and urban growth areas including planned capital facilities and transportation facilities. Forecast and
allocations are adopted by the Board of County Commissioners following a public hearing and
recommendation by the Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO).
Chair Dean Grafos interrupted as Spokane County Commissioner Shelley 0' Quinn joined the meeting.
Mr. Davenport explained the forecasts in the report rely on data from the Washington State Office of
Financial Management (OFM) and the census. Mr. Davenport stated OFM provides countywide population
forecasts to assist Counties in Growth Management planning and PTAC used OFM data to identify a range of
future populations based on the accuracy of past forecasts by OFM. Mr. Davenport explained that PTAC is
recommending a population forecast equivalent to the 2037 medium OFM forecast of 583,409 with growth
for cities and towns based on historic growth patterns.
Chair Grafos asked for public testimony.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Paul Kropp, testified the Steering Committee's role is to set the stage by adopting a set of County wide
planning policies. Mr. Kropp recommended to the members that they should adopt the PTAC's
recommendation as quickly as possible and present them to the Board of County Commissioner. Mr. Kropp
stated that he is an officer for the Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County (Exhibit B) but he is speaking
for himself and not the letter.
Abigail Hansen, Gonzaga Land Use and Environmental Law Clinic, testified that her Clinic agrees with all
the letters submitted and urges adoption of the recommendation by the PTAC.
Kitty Klitzke, Spokane Program Director for Futurewise, stated that Futurewise supports the
recommendation by PTAC (Exhibit D) as they feel it is accurate and affordable.
There being no further comments, public testimony was closed.
DISCUSSION
2
DRAFT
Steering Committee of Elected Officials
Meeting Minutes
November 4, 2015
The members discussed the data sources, possible review of additional data sources, larger timeframe and how the
data was obtained and used by the OFM. Dave Anderson, Washington Department of Commerce, was available
to answer questions.
Motion by Mr. Snyder to adopt PTAC's recommendation. Second by Mr. Higgins. Chair Grafos stated there
is a motion to adopt PTAC's numbers as presented today.
Vote on Motion: The motion carried by a vote of 6 to 3 with Spokane County Commissioners French,
Mielke and O'Quinn voting nay.
4. Public Comment
Chair Grafos called for any public comments. There were no public comments.
5. Set Next Meeting Date
Staff did not anticipate any further meetings for the remainder of the year.
There being no further business before the Steering Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:23 p.m.
Barb Aubert, Clerk
Approved:
Dean Grafos, Chair
3
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
as of November 13, 2015; 8:30 a.m.
Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative
Council & Staff
City Clerk, by direction of City Manager
Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
November 24, 2015 — no meeting (Thanksgiving week)
December 1, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. (packets distributed Wed Nov 25) [due
ACTION ITEM:
1. 2nd Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-023 Findings of Fact, Moratorium Extension — Erik Lamb
NON -ACTION ITEMS:
2. Fee Resolution for 2016 — Chelsie Taylor
3. Code Enforcement Update — Luis Garcia
4. Historic Preservation — Karen Kendall
5. Street Maintenance Contract Renewal — Eric Guth
6. Street Sweeping Contract Renewal — Eric Guth
7. Hauling Uncovered Loads —Cary Driskell
8. City Hall Update — John Hohman
9. Advance Agenda
10. Info Only: (a) Dept Reports (normally due for Nov 24 mtg); (b) Bike Helmets
11. Executive Session: RCW 42.30.110(1)(g) Performance Review of a Public Employee
[*estimated meeting: 125 minutes]
December 8, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. First Reading Ordinance adopting SMP — Lori Barlow
Fri, Nov 201
(10 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, Nov 30]
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
3. First Reading Ordinance Amending SVMC, Consistency w/ SMP (CTA 2015-0005) — M.Palaniuk(10 min)
4. Motion Consideration: SRTMC Interlocal Agreement — Eric Guth, Sean Messner
5. Motion Consideration: Street Maintenance Contract Renewal — Eric Guth
6. Motion Consideration: Street Sweeping Contract Renewal — Eric Guth
7. Motion Consideration: LTAC Allocations —Mark Calhoun
8. Motion Consideration: Councilmember Gothmann to Participate via Telephone Jan 5 mtg
9. Motion Consideration: Legislative Agenda — Mike Jackson
10. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
(10 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 95 minutes]
December 15 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Dec 7]
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Second Reading Ordinance adopting SMP — Lori Barlow (10 minutes)
2. Second Reading Ordinance Amending SVMC, Consistency w/ SMP (CTA 2015-0005) — M.Palaniuk(10
min)
3. Proposed Resolution Repealing Previous Resolutions of SMP — Lori Barlow
4. Proposed Fee Resolution for 2016 — Chelsie Taylor
NON -ACTION ITEMS:
5. City Hall Update — John Hohman
6. Advance Agenda
December 22, 2015 —no meeting
Draft Advance Agenda 11/13/2015 11:32:20 AM
(10 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 60 minutes]
Page 1 of 2
December 29, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. City Hall Update — John Hohman
2. Advance Agenda
3. Info Only: Department Reports (normally due for Dec 22 meeting)
[due Mon, Dec 21]
(15 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 20 minutes]
January 5, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Council Officer Elections for Mayor and Deputy Mayor — Chris Bainbridge
2. City Hall Update — John Hohman
3. Advance Agenda
[due Mon, Dec 28]
(15 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 35 minutes]
January 12, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Mayoral Appointments- Planning Commissioners — Mayor
3. Mayoral Appointments: Councilmembers to various Committees/Boards — Mayor
4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
January 19, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. City Hall Update — John Hohman
2. Open Public Meeting Act Training — Cary Driskell
3. Advance Agenda
January 26, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Mayoral Appointments: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee — Mayor
3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
4. Info Only: Department Reports
*time for public or Council comments not included
OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS:
Avista Electrical Franchise
Coal/Oil Train Environmental Impact Statement
False Alarm Program
Oath of Office to Elected Officials (Dec 29 or Jan 5)
Sidewalks and Development
Sports Facilities Interlocal Agreement
Draft Advance Agenda 11/13/2015 11:32:20 AM
[due Mon, Jan 4]
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 20 minutes]
[due Mon, Jan 11]
(15 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 20 minutes]
[due Mon, Jan 18]
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 20 minutes]
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: November 17, 2015 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Street and Stormwater Maintenance Contract Renewal — 2016 Option
Year
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Motion to execute the Street and Stormwater
Maintenance Contract on 10/14/2014
BACKGROUND: This contract consists of asphalt repair, roadway shoulder repair and grading,
gravel road grading, crack sealing, sidewalk and path repair, guardrail repair, fencing repair,
drainage structure repair and installation, curb, gutter and inlet repair and installation, and other
related work.
City staff prepared a Request for Bids in 2014. The City received four bids and Poe Asphalt
was the low bidder. The 2016 option year will be the first of four option years that may be
exercised by the City.
Per the contract specifications, the hourly labor rates will change based on the State of
Washington Labor and Industries prevailing wage updates. Prevailing wages are required on
this contract as the work is considered a "Public Work." The increases for the 2016 prevailing
wages range from 0%-1.94% ($0.0-$.75 per hour) based on the specific job classifications. We
estimate the increases will increase the total labor costs by about $6,000. However, we are not
proposing an increase in the total contract amount. This labor increase will be absorbed
through changes to the work plan.
Equipment and material rates stay constant for each option year exercised.
Poe has provided a good level of service throughout the 2015 contract year and staff
recommends exercising the 2016 option year contract.
OPTIONS: Information only
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information only
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This contract will be funded by the approved 2016 Budget
and will be brought to Council December 1st as an administrative report, and December 8 for
motion approval consideration.
STAFF CONTACT: Eric P. Guth, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: November 17, 2015
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business
information ❑ admin. report
Department Director Approval:
❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Street Sweeping Service Contract — 2016 Option year
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Motion to award the Street Sweeping Services
contract on 2/10/2015.
BACKGROUND: In 2015, City staff prepared a Request for Bid for Street Sweeping Services.
One bid was received from AAA Sweeping. The proposal was reviewed by staff and found to
be responsible and acceptable. The 2016 option year will be the first of four option years that
may be exercised by the City.
The contract specifications note that the City and Contractor may negotiate a rate increase for
each option year. This increase shall be no more than the percent change in the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI -U) or 3%, whichever is less. The CPI -U is 0% for this
period, and therefore there will be no increase in the hourly rates for the 2016 option year.
AAA Sweeping has provided a good level of service throughout the 2015 contract year and staff
recommends exercising the 2016 option year contract.
OPTIONS: Information only
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information only
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This contract will be funded by the approved 2016 Budget,
and will be brought to Council December 1st as an administrative report, and December 8 for
motion approval consideration.
STAFF CONTACT: Eric P. Guth, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS: