The URL can be used to link to this page

2019, 06-24 Special Regular MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING FORMAL FORMAT Monday, June 24, 2019 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 10210 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PROCLAMATIONS: Smoke Ready Communities Day 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on June 24, 2019 Request for Council Action Form Total: $1,916,126.67 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending June 15, 2019: $ 363,964.02 c. Approval of Resolution 19-010 Re -opening 10th Avenue NEW BUSINESS: 2. Mayoral Appointment, Interim Planning Commissioner — Mayor Higgins [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 3. Street Vacation 2019-0001, Industrial Area — Mike Basinger 4. Street Vacation 2019-0002, Baldwin Ave, Glenn Road — Connor Lange 5. Code Text Amendment 2019-0002: Marijuana Transportation — Erik Lamb 6. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed): 7. Department Reports CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Council Agenda 06-24-19 Special Meeting, Formal Format Page 1 of 1 Sp�k1iii fl Val ley 'l0 roctamation Smoke Ready Communities Day WHEREAS, wildfire season is already underway in Washington State; and WHEREAS, three of the last four summers, the Spokane region dealt with poor air quality for weeks due to wildfire smoke; and WHEREAS, smoke from wildfires can be hazardous to the health of our residents, especially people with heart disease or breathing problems, pregnant women, people over the age of 65, and children; and WHEREAS, annual preparations for wildfire smoke impacts can help Spokane Valley residents mitigate the effect of wildfire smoke on their health and daily routines. These steps include talking to their health care provider about their health risk, taking steps to keep their indoor air cleaner, sharing existing cleaner air spaces in their homes with neighbors, and limiting outdoor activity when air quality is poor; and WHEREAS, Spokane Valley businesses can also help mitigate the impact of wildfire smoke by ensuring they have high-quality air filters on their HVAC systems to improve indoor air quality, and taking the necessary precautions to protect the health of their employees and customers; and WHEREAS, all residents should check the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency website or Airnow.gov for air quality updates, and use the activity guidelines provided by the Spokane Regional Health District to ensure their safety during periods of poor air quality; and WHEREAS, by ensuring our region is Smoke Ready, we can protect the health and safety of all of our residents. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Rod Higgins, Mayor of Spokane Valley, on behalf of the Spokane Valley City Council and the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley, hereby proclaim June 26, 2019 as Smoke Ready Communities Day in the City of Spokane Valley; and I encourage organizations, businesses and individuals to do their part to be Smoke Ready to protect the health and safety of all of our residents. Dated this 24th day of June, 2019. L.R. Higgins, Mayor CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 24, 2019 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS 06/12/2019 8215-8237 06/12/2019 47793-47832; 7064990 06/18/2019 47833-47873 06/18/2019 47874-47904 06/19/2019 8238-8259 TOTAL AMOUNT $3,912.00 $165,546.81 $203,089.25 $1,541,433.61 $2,145.00 GRAND TOTAL: $1,916,126.67 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists #001- General Fund 001.011.000.511. City Council 001.013.000.513. City Manager 001.013.015.515. Legal 001.016.000. Public Safety 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 001.018.014.514. Finance 001.0I8.016.518. 001.040.041. 001.040.042. 001.040.043. 001.076.000.576. 001.076.300.576. 001.076.301.571. 001.076.302.576. 001.076.304.575. 001.076.305.571. 001.090.000.511. 001.090.000.514. 001.090.000.517. 001.090.000.518. 001.090.000.5I9. 001.090.000.540. 001.090.000.550. 001.090.000.595. Human Resources Engineering Economic Development Building Parks & Rec—Administration Parks & Rec-Maintenance Parks & Rec-Recreation Parks & Rec- Aquatics Parks & Rec- Senior Center Parks & Rec-CenterPlace General Gov't- Council related General Gov't -Finance related General Gov't -Employee supply General Gov't- Centralized Serv. General Gov't -Other Services General Gov't -Transportation General Gov't -Natural & Eco. General Gov't -Pavement Preser. 001.090.000.560. General Gov't -Social Services 001.090.000.594 General Gov't -Capital Outlay Other Funds: 101 — Street Fund 103 — Paths & Trails 105 — Hotel/MoteI Tax 106 — Solid Waste 120 -- CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121 — Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 — Winter Weather Reserve 204 — Debt Service 301 — REET 1 Capital Projects 302 —REET 2 Capital Projects 303 — Street Capital Projects 309 -- Parks Capital Grants 310 — Civic Bldg. Capital Projects 311 — Pavement Preservation 312 — Capital Reserve 314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects 402 -- Stormwater Management 403 — Aquifer Protection Area 501 — Equipment Rental & RepIacement 502 — Risk Management RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist 06/12/2019 3:40:57PM Voucher List Page: 1 Spokane Valley Bank code : Voucher pk-ref Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 8215 6/12/2019 007153 567 WORKSHOPS PARK REFUND 001237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 216 52.00 Total : 52.00 8216 6/12/2019 007263 ABRAHAMSON, DEBORAH PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND: WE 120.00 Total : 120.00 8217 6/12/2019 007264 ALBERT, HERBERT PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: TERRACE VIEV 76.00 Total : 76.00 8218 6/12/2019 007265 BAILEY, STEFON PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM/: 500.00 Total : 500.00 8219 6/12/2019 007266 BRADLEY, JESSE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 REFUND DANCE CLASS 95.00 Total : 95.00 8220 6/12/2019 007267 CENTENNIAL REAL ESTATE INVEST. PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 205 52.00 Total : 52.00 8221 6/12/2019 007268 CYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME, 300.00 Total : 300.00 8222 6/12/2019 007269 FLETCHER FINANCIAL GROUP PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 212 52.00 Total : 52.00 8223 6/12/2019 007270 JABUWE, RICKSON PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF PA 75.00 Total : 75.00 8224 6/12/2019 007271 KARSTETTER, JAN PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: TERRACE VIEV 75.00 Total : 75.00 8225 6/12/2019 007272 KROHN, KRISTOPHER PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 480.00 Total : 480.00 8226 6/12/2019 007273 LANCTOT, BETH PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PL 75.00 Total : 75.00 8227 6/12/2019 007274 LENKER, MICHELLE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS PARI' 75.00 Page: 1 vchlist 06/12/2019 3:40:57PM Voucher List Page: 2 Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 8227 6/12/2019 007274 007274 LENKER, MICHELLE (Continued) Total : 75.00 8228 6/12/2019 007275 LOWMAN, JENNIFER PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND - WI, 120.00 Total : 120.00 8229 6112/2019 007276 MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSN PARK REFUND 001.23T10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MEQ 300.00 Total : 300.00 8230 6/12/2019 007277 NIELSEN, AMY PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY Pi. 75.00 Total : 75.00 8231 6/12/2019 006626 PARKS, TYLER PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PI_ 75.00 Total : 75.00 8232 6/12/2019 007278 SALMON, ANGELA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND: MIRABE, 550.00 Total : 550.00 8233 6/12/2019 006606 SPOKANE GYMNASTICS PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 8234 6/12/2019 005107 TIFFANY, ERICA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 8235 6/12/2019 001452 VALLEY BIBLE CHURCH PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 300.00 Total : 300.00 8236 6/12/2019 006831 VALLONE, BAILEY PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS PARI' 75.00 Total : 75.00 8237 6/12/2019 007223 WATSON, CARLEY PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND - WI" 240.00 Total : 240.00 23 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 3,912.00 23 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 3,912.00 Page: 2 vchlist 06/1212019 3:27:45PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47793 6/12/2019 000648 ABADAN REPROGRAPHICS 47794 6/12/2019 006937 ADVANCE AUTO PARTS 47795 6/12/2019 002931 ALL WESTERN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 47796 6/12/2019 000796 BUDINGER & ASSOCIATES INC 47797 6/12/2019 003122 CALHOUN, MARK 47798 6/12/2019 000429 COFFMAN ENGINEERS 47799 6/12/2019 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 47800 6/12/2019 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 47801 6/12/2019 000278 DRISKELL, CARY 47802 6/12/2019 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 47803 6/12/2019 007252 ENVIROCONSULTING LLC 47804 6/12/2019 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 103151 103152 103372 1921-285610 108286 L19113-1 June 2019 19043499 59534703 RE-313-ATB90514083 RE-313-ATB90514092 EXPENSES 4288662 052119SpoV 528250 Fund/Dept 311.000.269.595 303.000.276.595 311.000.287.595 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 403.000.286.595 001.013.000.513 001.090.099.594 001.040.043.558 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 Description/Account Amount PRINTING & BINDING PRINTING & BINDING PRINTING & BINDING Total : SMALLTOOLSIMINOR EQUIP: STRI Total : SUPPLIES: MAINTENANCE SHOP Total : 0286-GEOTECH Total : MONTHLY AUTO ALLOWANCE FOR Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MAY 2019 FLEET FUEL BILL. Total : Total : REIMBURSE TRAFFIC SVCS REIMBURSE ROADWAY MAINTiTR Total : 001.013.015.515 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 001.040.041.543 FUEL FOR MAINTENANCE SHOP Total : 101.042.000.543 SERVICE CALL- MAINTENANCE SF Total : 1,683.21 992.51 1,018.87 3,694.59 42.46 42.46 239.09 239.09 565.00 565.00 400.00 400.00 5,870.00 5,870.00 1,922.02 1,922.02 13,353.49 23,174.52 36,528.01 51.91 51.91 2,551.07 2,551.07 200.00 200.00 309.000.296.594 ADVERTISING 48.18 Page: vch list 06/12/2019 3:27:45PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: L% --- Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47804 6/1212019 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 47805 6/12/2019 001232 FASTENAL CO 47806 6/12/2019 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 47807 6/12/2019 005474 FREIGHTLINER NORTHWEST 47808 6/12/2019 002043 HDR ENGINEERING INC 47809 6/12/2019 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY 47810 6/12/2019 003185 LAMB, ERIK 47811 6/12/2019 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP (Continued) 529201 531506 532201 533085 533086 533087 533088 533090 533091 I DLE W 140903 49910 49942 49943 49944 49945 49946 PC001448261:01 1200191535 S PO R 03368240 EXPENSES 419 462 480 Fund/Dept 309.000.296.594 303.000265.595 303.000.265.595 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.040.043.558 001.013.000.513 101.042.000.542 303.000.265.595 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001,013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.040.043.558 101.000.000.542 303.000.273.518 101.000.000.542 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 Description/Account Amount ADVERTISING ADVERTISING ADVERTISING LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION SUPPLIES: STREET ADVERTISING LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : Total : Total : SUPPLIES: MAINTENANCE SHOP Total : 0273 - DESIGN SERVICES REPAIR #209 Total : Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45.75 69.52 66.00 46.61 34.76 53.72 26.86 67.94 36.34 495.68 29.89 29.89 147.20 52.70 59.50 39.10 28.05 76.50 403.05 9.80 9.80 18,545.79 18, 545.79 2,368.80 2,368.80 26.10 26.10 46.59 279.50 473.00 Page: �£�' vchlist 06/12/2019 3:27:45PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47811 6/12/2019 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 47812 6/12/2019 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 47813 47814 47815 47816 47817 47818 47819 47820 47821 6/12/2019 000058 OMA 6/12/2019 007154 PAINE HAMBLEN LLP 6/12/2019 005049 PEDERSON, MICHAEL ROY (Continued) 499 283684449001 310844905001 310845380001 316338575001 317449694001 320022506001 323071553001 A500163 375726 MAY 2019 6/12/2019 005109 PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORP US419166 6/12/2019 007262 PNW BUILDING FORENSICS LLC 6/12/2019 007133 PRUNTY, CAITLIN 6/12/2019 003407 RIGHT! SYSTEMS [NC 6/12/2019 004535 SHRED -IT USA LLC 6/12/2019 006773 SMARSH 3 EXPENSES SI -161128 8127408067 I N V00512472 Fund/Dept 001.013.015.515 001.040.041.543 001.040.041.543 001, 040.041.543 001.040.041.543 001.040.041.543 001.040.041.558 001.076.000.576 001.018.016.518 001.013.015.515 101.042.000.542 402.402.000.531 001.090.000.513 001.013.015.515 001.090.099.594 001.090.000.518 001.011.000.511 Description/Account Amount PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES: ENGINEERING, OFFICE SUPPLIES: ENGINEERING OFFICE SUPPLIES: ENGINEERING, OFFICE SUPPLIES: ENGINEERING, OFFICE SUPPLIES: ENGINEERING, OFFICE SUPPLIES: ENGINEERING, OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE Total : EMPLOYEE PHYSICAL EXAMS Total : CONTRACT ATTORNEY SERVICES Total : DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL PICTOMETRY CONNECT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : Total : Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : WHOLE ROOM UPS FOR CITY HAL Total : DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION Total : 107.50 906.59 50.58 273.53 147.27 30.27 8.90 45.92 36.47 592.94 700.00 700.00 700.00 700.00 675.00 675.00 2,395.80 2,395.80 2,000.00 2,000.00 54.30 54.30 32, 614.96 32,614.96 156.30 156.30 TEXT MESSAGING ARCHIVING CO: 356.06 Page: -f vchlist 06/1212019 3:27:45PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47821 6/12/2019 006773 006773 SMARSH (Continued) 47822 6/12/2019 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE MAY 2019 47823 6/12/2019 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 47824 6/12/2019 002540 SPOKANE HOUSE OF HOSE INC. 47825 6/12/2019 004740 THOMSON REUTERS -WEST 47826 6/12/2019 006846 US LINEN & UNIFORM INC 47827 6/12/2019 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 47828 6/12/2019 003210 WEST CONSULTANTS INC. 47829 6/12/2019 002651 W000ARD, ARNE 47830 6/12/2019 001885 ZAYO GROUP LLC 47831 6/12/2019 001885 ZAYO GROUP LLC 47832 6/12/2019 001885 ZAYO GROUP LLC 51504909 51504910 746226 840381272 2350737 2354551 2358395 2362172 2365992 67606 011858 EXPENSES 2019060005522 2019060003578 2019060025710 Fund/Dept 001.040.043.558 101.042.000.542 001.040.043.524 101.042.000.542 001.013.015.515 101.042.000.543 101.042.000.543 101.042.000.543 101.042.000.543 101.042.000.543 311.000.290.595 001.040.043.558 001.011.000.511 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 Description/Account Amount RECORDING FEES Total : Total : WORK CREW INVOICE APRIL 2019 WORK CREW INVOICE APRIL 2019 Total : SUPPLIES: STREET SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES Total : Total : SUPPLIES: MAINTENANCE SHOP SUPPLIES: MAINTENANCE SHOP SUPPLIES: MAINTENANCE SHOP SUPPLIES: MAINTENANCE SHOP SUPPLIES: MAINTENANCE SHOP Total : POSTAGE SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT INTERNET Total : Total : Total : Total : NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE DAF Total : 356.06 1,244.00 1,244.00 6,347.00 419.80 6,766.80 63.15 63.15 821.97 821.97 30.66 30.66 30.66 30.66 30.66 153.30 299.17 299.17 269.49 269.49 155.30 155.30 626.70 626.70 498.86 498.86 INTERNET SERVICE 242.10 Page: �r vchiist 06112/2019 3:27:45PM Voucher List Page: 7 •- Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor invoice 47832 6/12/2019 001885 001885 ZAYO GROUP LLC (Continued) 7064990 6/5/2019 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER MAY 2019 41 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 41 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount Total : 242.10 001.016.000.512 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES Total : 39, 310.76 39,310.76 Bank total : 165,546.81 Total vouchers : 165,546.81 Page: vch1ist 06/18/2019 12:36:18P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: (-I ^� Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47833 6/18/2019 000150 ALLIED FIRE & SECURITY 47834 6/18/2019 001081 ALSCO 1544349 LSP02174156 LSP02179242 LSP02184274 47835 6/18/2019 007176 BILLS HEATING & AIR CONDITION! BLD -2018-1627 47836 6/18/2019 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 0057786 0059880 47837 6/18/2019 001137 COLLIER, BRANT Expenses 47838 6/18/2019 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION #19 May 2019 May 2019 47839 6/18/2019 001770 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO 47840 6/18/2019 000795 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING INC. 47841 6/18/2019 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST#1 47842 6/18/2019 002308 FINKE, MELISSA 47843 6/18/2019 004813 FIRST CHOICE COFFEE SERVICES S9253363.001 361153 May 2019 June 2019 245114 Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 001.016.016.521 001.016.016.521 001.016.016.521 001.040.043.322 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 101.042.000.542 402.402.000.531 001.076.300.576 001.016.016.521 001.076.305.575 402.402.000.531 001.076.301.571 001.076.305.575 Description/Account Amount SECURITY MONITORING AT CENTE Total : FLOOR MATS FOR PRECINCT FLOOR MATS FOR PRECINCT FLOOR MATS AT PRECINCT Total : PERMIT REFUND: BLD -2018 -1627 -- Total : LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : UTILITIES: MAY 2019 UTILITIES: MAY 2019 PARKS AND C Total : REPAIR AND MAINT SUPPLIES FOF Total : RECYCLING COLLECTION AT CP Total : WATER CHARGES FOR MAY 2019 Total : INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT Total : 138.88 138.88 24.14 24.14 24.14 72.42 61.00 61.00 497.28 497.28 994.56 265.24 265.24 554.11 1,053.67 1,607.78 465.52 465.52 27.50 27.50 2,342.93 2,342.93 168.75 168.75 COFFEE SERVICE AT CENTERPLA' 114.86 Total : 114.86 Page: vch list 06/18/2019 12:36:18P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: —2 - Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47844 6/18/2019 006347 HELMETS R US INC 47845 6/18/2019 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6 47846 6/18/2019 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 47847 6/18/2019 006729 JAKT FOUNDATION 47848 6/18/2019 005472 JOHNSON, JOHN 47849 6/18/2019 000472 LAWTON PRINTING 47850 6/18/2019 004926 LE CATERING CO 47851 6/18/2019 001002 M & L SUPPLY CO INC 47852 6/18/2019 000157 MOAT, BRIAN 47853 6/18/2019 000881 OXARC INC 47854 6/18/2019 005238 PHILLIPS, CHAD 56537 May 2019 1382838 1384298 1393533 1393536 2019 2019 Expenses 45269 E01674 E01742 5100386475.001 Expenses 30679722 Expenses Fund/Dept 001.090.000.518 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 105.000.000.557 001.090.000.560 402.402.000.531 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.000.576 Description/Account Amount BICYCLE HELMETS FOR SCOPE PI 2,997.82 Total : 2,997.82 UTLITIES: PARKS AND CPW MAY 2, Total : EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE APRIL 2019 MONTHLY CLEANING EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE Total : 2019 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 2019 SOC SER/ECO DEV GRANT R Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : RETRACTABLE BANNER Total : E01674: INLAND EMPIRE GARDEN/ E01742: PARKS MASTER PLAN Total : 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : 101.042.000.543 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 001.076.305.575 LATE CHARGE FOR INVOICE 402.402.000.531 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 19.84 Total : 19.84 Total : Total : 446.06 446.06 84.28 7,849.60 43.40 43.40 8,020.68 650.30 12,356.49 13,006.79 17.34 17.34 340.86 340.86 204.64 38.12 242.76 413.46 413.46 18.50 18.50 2.00 2.00 Page: �� vchlist Voucher List 06118/2019 12:36:18PM Spokane Valley i!% Page: `3 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47855 6/18/2019 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 47856 6/18/2019 002592 PURE FILTRATION PRODUCTS 47857 6/18/2019 007047 RITTER, GLENN 47858 6/18/2019 000415 ROSAUERS FOOD & DRUG CENTER 47859 6/18/2019 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 47860 6/18/2019 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 47861 6/18/2019 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 47862 6/18/2019 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 47863 6/18/2019 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 47864 6/18/2019 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 47865 6/18/2019 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 47866 6/18/2019 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST #3 V211029 54445 Expenses 09-1432066 9112920 9182418 9182444 9182457 9183694 3550.422 3550.431 3550.378 3550,366 3550.426 3550.420 May 2019 Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 001.076,305.575 001.040.041.543 001.076.305.575 001.076.300.576 001.076.300.576 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 101.042.000.542 Description/Account Amount SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : CONTRACT MAINT: APRIL 2019 CONTRACT MAINT: PARKS MAY 20 ROADSIDE LANDSCAPING SVCS: r 895 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE MISC ROAD SVCS: POTHOLES SIG Total : 001.013.015.515 FILING FEE 001.013.015.515 FILING FEE 001.013.015.515 FILING FEE 001.013.015.515 FILING FEE 001.013.015.515 FILING FEE 001.013.015.515 FILING FEE Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : 402.402.000.531 WATER CHARGES FOR MAY 2019 / 206.07 206.07 75.58 75.58 12.50 12.50 37.97 37.97 64,858.54 64,858.54 8,420.82 531.43 191.66 138,860.99 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 389.45 Page: vchlist 06/18/2019 12:36:18 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: // '4-' Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47866 6/18/2019 000324 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 (Continued) 47867 6/18/2019 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 58525 47868 6/18/2019 002306 TERRELL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MIC 3572 3579 3604 47869 6/18/2019 007159 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 47870 6/18/2019 003649 TROPHIES UNLIMITED 47871 6/18/2019 007120 TSHIMAKAIN CREEK LABORATORY 47872 6/18/2019 003175 VISIT SPOKANE 47873 6/18/2019 000066 WCP SOLUTIONS 41 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 41 Vouchers in this report 493036594 898315 9000380 9000473 9000509 10898 11185582 11229407 Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 001.076.000.576 309.000.296.594 001.076.000.576 001.016.016.521 001.076.305.575 001.076.300.576 001.076.300.576 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 Description/Account Amount Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: WORK Total : 19-017A CENTERPLACE WEST LAV 0296 -ENG & ARCH. SVCS EDGECLIFF PARK SWINGS Total : SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT Total : NAME TAGS FOR CENTERPLACE Total : ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING AT PAF ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING AT PAF ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING AT PAF Total : 2019 VISITOR MAP Total : JANITORIAL SUPPLIES FOR CP SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : 389.45 75.14 75.14 1,750.00 25,935.44 532.53 28,217.97 380.28 380.28 30.49 30.49 25.00 25.00 25.00 75.00 400.00 400.00 1,023.85 78.41 1,102.26 Bank total : 203,089.25 Total vouchers : 203,089.25 vchlist 06/18/2019 1:55:07P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47874 6/18/2019 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 64660 64661-A 47875 6/18/2019 006403 AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS [NC Finance Charge 47876 6/18/2019 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 241537 47877 6/18/2019 004439 BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS INC 47878 6/18/2019 003122 CALHOUN, MARK 47879 6/18/2019 000101 CDW-G 47880 6/18/2019 000143 CITY OF SPOKANE 47881 6/18/2019 002920 DIRECTV INC 47882 6/18/2019 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 47883 6/18/2019 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 27287928 EXPENSES SND7216 IN -032874 36350813465 533851 533852 533853 533854 533855 49956 49957 49958 49959 49960 FundlDept 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 101.042.000.542 402.402.000.531 001.076.305.575 001.013.000.513 001.090.000.518 001.040.043.558 101.042.000.543 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 Description/Account Amount STORM DRAIN CLEANING STREET SWEEPING Total : VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLI Total : SUPPLIES: STORMWATER Total : PHONE SERVICE AT CENTERPLAC Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : LENOVO THINKVISION T23D - LED Total : HEARING EXAMINER - INTERLOCA Total : CABLE SERVICE FOR MAINTENAN Total : LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : 45,922.48 96,500.02 142,422.50 19.56 19.56 29.38 29.38 474.47 474.47 63.28 63.28 3,770.77 3,770.77 1,460.00 1,460.00 71.24 71.24 34.50 29.23 83.74 60.83 78.21 286.51 73.60 34.00 93,50 69.70 90.10 Page: �t� vchlist 06118/2019 1:55:07PM /15 Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47883 6/18/2019 001447 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC (Continued) 47884 6/18/2019 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL May19 1042 47885 6/18/2019 000313 INLAND ASPHALT COMPANY INC. 47886 6/18/2019 006328 KREM-TV 47887 6/18/2019 002948 NA DEGERSTROM 47888 6/18/2019 002203 NAPAAUTO PARTS 47889 6/18/2019 000662 NATL BARRICADE & SIGN CO 47890 6/18/2019 007280 PATTERSON, MARCI 47891 6/18/2019 002424 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL 47892 6/18/2019 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. 47893 6/18/2019 005968 PRECISE MRM LLC PAY APP 1 PAY APP 2 Fund/Dept 001.011.000.511 311.000.284.595 311.000.252.595 5-2019 SUMMARY BILL 001.040.042.558 PAY APP 1 1351-349929 102995 103851 EXPENSES 3308932830 46099 46100 46101 46102 46103 303.000.279.595 101.042.000.542 001.040.041.543 001.040.041.543 001.013.000.513 001.090.000.518 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 402.402.000.531 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 I N200-1021343 101.042.000.542 Description/Account Amount Total : GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SERVIC Total : 0284 -CONSTRUCTION 0252 -CONSTRUCTION ADVERTISING 0279 -CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIES: STREET Total : Total : Total : Total : SAFETY EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES: CPW ENGINEERING Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : LEASE CONTRACT 2969758001 Total : STREET & STORMWATER MAINTEI STREET & STORMWATER MAINTEI STREET & STORMWATER MAINTEI STREET & STORMWATER MAINTEI STREET & STORMWATER MAINTEI Total : DATA PLAN Total : 360.90 4,593.99 4,593.99 98,272.47 306, 956.72 405,229.19 12,635.00 12,635.00 209,808.50 209,808.50 58.01 58.01 26.14 109.77 135.91 130.44 130.44 1,067.10 1,067.10 68,431.95 417,368.94 10,746.16 77, 390.82 12,781.17 586,719.04 275.00 275.00 Page: �� vchlist 06/18/2019 1:55:07PN1 Voucher List Spokane Valley q Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 47894 6/18/2019 006773 SMARSH 47895 6/18/2019 007281 SPIRIT PRUNERS LLC 47896 6/18/2019 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 47897 6/18/2019 004131 SPOKANE CO SOLID WASTE MGMT 47898 6/18/2019 000093 SPOKESMAN-REV1EW, THE 47899 6/18/2019 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 47900 6/18/2019 000295 VALLEYFEST INV00512472 2213 50318564 20190605-5491-40377 0000004900 3415807727 3415807731 3415807732 3415807733 1224 47901 6/18/2019 007231 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY 2055955 47902 6/18/2019 002501 WHITE BLOCK COMPANY 47903 6/18/2019 002497 WILBERT PRECAST INC 47904 6/18/2019 000842 WM WINKLER COMPANY 31 Vouchers for bank code :. apbank 0262166 -IN 0262167 -IN 1086134 PAY APP 1 Fund/Dept 001.011.000.511 402.000.279.595 001.011.000.511 101.042.000.542 309.000.296.594 001.013.000.513 001.040.043.558 001.040.043.558 001.090.000.519 001.011.000.511 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 303.000.278.595 Description/Account Amount TEXT MESSAGING ARCHIVING CO: Total : CIP 0279: ROOT EXCAVATION Total : COUNTY IT SUPPORT MAY 2019 Total TRANSFER STATION CHARGES: CI Total : ADVERTISING ACCT 42365 Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES: CITY MGR OFFICE SUPPLIES: COMM. DEV. OFFICE SUPPLIES: COMM. DEV. KITCHEN SUPPLIES Total : VALLEYFEST BREAKFAST TICKET Total : SERVICES: MAINTENANCE SHOP Total : SUPPLIES: STORMWATER SUPPLIES: STORMWATER SUPPLIES: STORMWATER 0278 -CONSTRUCTION Total : Total : Total : Bank total : 356.03 356.03 450.00 450.00 17,233.85 17,233.85 10.00 10.00 1,570.04 1,570.04 348.29 32.78 824.74 85.40 1,291.21 225,00 225.00 128.50 128.50 659.69 160.38 820.07 473.72 473.72 149,264.40 149, 264.40 1,541,433.61 Page: _3— vchlist 06/19/2019 7:22:30AM Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 8238 6/19/2019 007282 AGA, JENNIFER PARK REFUND 001237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 8239 6/19/2019 007283 ANDERSON, CANDICE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PL 75.00 Total : 75.00 8240 6/19/2019 007284 ANIDREP, ANIROSE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: TERRACE VIEV 75.00 Total : 75.00 8241 6/19/2019 004002 ARC OF SPOKANE, THE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME, 75.00 Total : 75.00 8242 6/19/2019 007285 BEAL, LISA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 8243 6/19/2019 007286 CHACON, SAMANTHA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND: WK 120.00 Total : 120.00 8244 6/19/2019 007287 COLLINS, SARAH PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 8245 6/19/2019 007288 DAVITA SPOKANE VALLEY PARK REFUND 001.237,10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 8246 6/19/2019 007289 HALL: MARY PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIREABEAU MI 75.00 Total : 75.00 8247 6/19/2019 005341 HOSSAIN, DR AWLAD PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF PA 75.00 Total : 75.00 8248 6/19/2019 007290 MARTELL, LAURIE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 8249 6/19/2019 007291 MOE, SHELMARIE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 8250 6/19/2019 007292 NOACK, THERESA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME, 75.00 vchlist 06/19/2019 7:22:30AM //{ Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 8250 6/19/2019 007292 007292 NOACK, THERESA (Continued) Total : 75.00 8251 6/19/2019 007293 NORRIS, ALI PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: TERRACE VIEV 75.00 Total : 75.00 8252 6/19/2019 007294 PELTIER, JOANN PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PL 75.00 Total : 75.00 8253 6/19/2019 007295 QUEEN, CARRIE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 8254 6/19/2019 007296 RIMA, CYNDI PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS PARR 75.00 Total : 75.00 8255 6/19/2019 007297 ROBERTS, DESTINY PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 8256 6/19/2019 007298 SCHAEBERLE, RYAN PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 300.00 Total : 300.00 8257 6/19/2019 007299 SCLERODERMA FOUNDATION PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME, 300.00 Total : 300.00 8258 6/19/2019 007300 SMEBY, KELLI PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS PARK 75.00 Total : 75.00 8259 6/19/2019 007301 SUNRISE PTO PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: TERRACE VIEV 75.00 Total : 75.00 22 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 2,145.00 22 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 2,145.00 Page: —2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 24, 2019 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Pay Period Ending June 15, 2019 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Gross: $ 299,903.48 $ Benefits: $ 64,060.54 $ Total payroll $ 363,964.02 $ Council Total $ 299,903.48 $ 64,060.54 $ 363,964.02 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 24, 2019 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: Resolution 19-010 Re -opening 10th Avenue. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11.020. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council heard an administrative report on the proposed resolution and re -opening of a portion of 10th Avenue on June 18, 2019. BACKGROUND: On October 20, 1989, neighboring citizens petitioned to have 10th Avenue vacated between Bannen Road and Best Road. The petitioners believed that 10th Avenue should be vacated because the right-of-way (ROW) was routinely not used by the public and the adjoining property to the south was farmland. On February 27, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County denied the vacation of 10th Avenue and temporarily closed 10th Avenue to through traffic between Bannen Road and Best Road pursuant to Spokane County Resolution No. 90-0225. The resolution stated that the vacation was denied because the road was needed for future road purposes and that the public would not benefit by the vacation. On October 19, 2018, the preliminary plat application for the 12th & Best Subdivision (File No. SUB -2018-0007) was submitted to the City of Spokane Valley to subdivide an 8.94 acre parcel into 43 single-family residential lots. The preliminary plat is bounded by 10th Avenue to the north and 12th Avenue to the south with proposed Bannen Road and Best Road extending through the plat. The preliminary plat map illustrated the extension of 10th Avenue from Bannen Road through Best Road to the east plat boundary. On April 9, 2019, the City of Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner approved the preliminary plat application for 12th & Best Subdivision (SUB -2018-0007), although the opening of 10th Avenue was not provided for as part of that process. Spokane County Resolution No. 90-0225 provides that the temporary closure of 10th Avenue remain in effect until otherwise ordered by the Board of County Commissioners. Under state law, 10th Avenue, like all other public roads in the City, transferred to the City upon incorporation. Accordingly, the action to open the road must now be taken by the City Council. Staff has provided proposed Resolution No. 19-010 to open 10th Avenue for Council's consideration. OPTIONS: Move to approve Resolution No. 19-010 re -opening a portion of 10th Avenue to vehicular traffic from Bannen Road to Best Road. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Resolution No. 19-010 re -opening 10th Avenue to vehicular traffic from Bannen Road to Best Road. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Chad Riggs, P.E. Senior Engineer; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 19-010 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 19-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, OPENING THE PORTION OF 10TH AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN BANNEN ROAD AND BEST ROAD TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, 10th Avenue is a public right-of-way that is located within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County approved Resolution No. 90-0225 and temporarily closed 10t1 Avenue right-of-way between Bannen Road to the west and Best Road to the east to vehicular traffic; and WHEREAS, a preliminary plat application for the 12th & Best Subdivision (File Number SUB - 2018 -0007) was submitted to the City of Spokane Valley that provides for the closed portion of 10th Avenue as an access to the proposed internal street system; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020, the City has the authority to lay out, establish, open, alter, widen, extend, grade, pave, plan, establish grades, or otherwise improve streets within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that opening the closed portion of 10t1 Avenue to vehicular traffic is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: The City Council hereby opens 10th Avenue right-of-way from the east right-of-way line of Bannen Road to the west right -of way line of Best Road of Tally Ho Subdivision, a plat of Tract 148 of Vera, located in the South 1/2 of Section 23, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.M., to vehicular traffic. 10th avenue as described herein shall be improved pursuant to the conditions of approval for preliminary plat SUB -2018-0007 and the City shall have no obligation for maintenance until such time as the improvements are installed and accepted by the City. Adopted this 24th day of June, 2019. City of Spokane Valley L.R. Higgins, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution No. 19-010 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 24, 2019 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Mayoral Appointment: Interim Planning Commissioner GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code 18.10 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: n/a BACKGROUND: Due to an extended absence of a Planning Commissioner, and based on the need to have the Planning Commission with full membership, it has been determined by the City Manager and related staff, that it would be prudent to appoint an interim Planning Commissioner. According to SVMC 18.10, members of the Planning Commission shall be nominated by the Mayor and confirmed by a majority vote of at least four members of the City Council. Planning Commissioners shall be selected without respect to political affiliations, and shall serve without compensation. A vacancy announcement was posted on the City's webpage, and was published weekly in May and two weeks in June in the Valley News Herald, the Spokesman Review and in the Exchange The deadline to submit an application was 4:00 p.m. Monday, June 17, 2019. OPTIONS: Confirm or not confirm, the Mayor's recommendation for appointment to the Planning Commission. If the Mayor's recommendation is not confirmed by Council, the matter can be postponed and/or the process can be re -instituted. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to confirm the Mayor's nomination for interim appointment to the Planning Commission, of Raymond Friend, for a term beginning immediately upon appointment, and expiring December 31, 2019. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: n/a STAFF CONTACT: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: Applications from Raymond Friend, Trevor Greentree, Diane Meredith -Gordon 4Jllei ltl 4lF�O1t;dr, Return completed form to City Clerk: 4000 Valley. Spokane Valley City Hall CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: 509-720-5102 cbainbridge ct spokaneval ley.org [Note: To meet an application deadline, applications may be faxed or e-mailed. However, the Clerk's office will need an original, signed application prior to appointment. One application per position please. DO NOT SUBMIT AN APPLICATION UNLESS THERE IS AN OPENING. OPENINGS ARE POSTED ON THE CITY'S WEBPAGE AND ADVERTISED IN TI -IE LOCAL NEWSPAPERS. Call the City Clerk if you have questions.] RECEIVED Application Force for Committees/Boards/Commissions JUN 0 6 2019 I AM INTERESTED IN SERVING ON THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEE: [Check one box; note requirements] 64Planning Commission __. Must he a Spokane Valley resident. (See chapter 18.10 SVMC) Terms are for three years. Applicants are selected without respect to political affiliations, and serve without compensation. [ ] Lodging Tax Advisory Conunittee (LTAC) - Need not be a Spokane Valley resident. (See chapter 3.20 SVMC) Terms are for one or two years. Committee consists of five members: One Councilmember: appointed by the Mayor, confirmed by the Council. Two who represent a business required to collect the tax (hotels, motels, etc.). Two involved in funded activities (such as a non-profit organization to increase tourism). Identify the business or organization you represent [ ] Spokane County Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (HCDAC) HCDAC includes two Spokane Valley residents; terms not to exceed three years. Spokane Valley appointment pending final approval by Spokane County Board of Commissioners. Spokane County Application and Supplemental Application also required. [ ] Spokane County Human Rights Task Force —Terms are for four years. Must be a resident of Spokane Valley. The Board currently meets 2' Tuesday of each month, 3:30 to 5:00 at Catholic Charities, 12 E 5th Spokane. [ ] Spokane Housing Authority (SHA) — regional committee, five members. Terms are five years. One individual directly assisted by the Authority, jointly appointed by Spokane Mayor, Spokane Valley Mayor, and Chair of Board of County Commissioners. Two individuals who work or reside within Spokane City limits. One individual who works or resides in unincorporated Spokane County. One individual who works or resides within Spokane Valley City limits. Check with the City Clerk concerning a vacancy on this committee. [ ] Tourism Promotion Area, Hotel Advisory Committee (aka Hotel/Motel Association) — Terms are for three years. Spokane Valley appoints two members, and one ex -officio (a member of Council). All nominees must be operators or employees of lodging business within Spokane County. [ ] Other: Name (please print): Ei YM10t(} t� M, fZ f A) Complete residence address: / 2.8 /4/ iE /.s-T� UJr, Siadep ct O4 LLc: +! 77z Street City Zip Code Complete mailing address (if different from above address): Length of time residing at current address: / y�z U.S. Citizen?,[5tes [ ]no WA State registered voter? [dyes [ ]no What is your preferred way for us to contact you: [Note: If you have an unlisted phone number, or do not wish your e- mail address made public, do not include that information. Once this document is submitted to the City, it becomes subject to public disclosure.] [ ] Home Phone: [ ] Work phone: [ ] Cell Phone: 33) •- 3 /3 $ 0 9 1 [ ] Other message phone: [ ]E-mail address: (please print clearly): AM TQI'I'D 3e 64 Regular mail to residence or mailing address shown above EMPLOYMENT: (Please start with most recent) 1. [ ] present [k]' previous Name of employer:1�/1_C f j/ c.. GA -5 c.-1, fi / / ri a.71-" Cif) Address: 7? AiZALF .3%- s„4-/./ /',2a,v�..SC <%4 , Phone: Position held: Ad f Or , .-- ,,, ,pates of employment: 'D4-- 2/ / �X - a e) 46— 2. [ ] present H previous Name of employer: U 5 Awv y Address: Position held: Pc -2 3. [ ] present [ ] previous Name of employer: Address: Phone: Dates of employment: /96 s— ♦ % 7 c Phone: Position held: Dates of employment: 4. [ ] present [ ] previous Name of employer: Address: Phone: Position held: Dates of employment: EDUCATION: Name of high school 41$ ;/1-44 444 Diploma or GED: fie yes [ ] no Trade school/college/university: Name of School C4LMO ✓A 4 Si/ Diploma: yes [ ] no Degre Trade school/college/university: Name of School Diploma: [ ] yes [ ] no Address: & /2,i'/ c-4 Address: ,,QA z7 .VA or certification earned: j3 if /Y0Amar/ri„e,vT- Other relevant certifications/Licenses: Address: Degree or certification earned: VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE: Name of social, fraternal, organizations, etc. 1. [ 4 current [ ] previous !-d iL/AX/cd✓ /x,35.._ 3. [ ] current [ ] previous 4. [ 1 current [ ] previous 2. [X] current [ ] previous V j W. PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. Local, state, or national government boards, committees, or commissions on which you serve or have served. /7' 2J s%�; C/4 . eidiva &l6 �. j �:v1, `, , z. /9 9/-- Oa s� % U 2-4 �T,['i? c A .A•fiI Yv,2 .2 etiv - 2 ei Z_ 1. [ 1 current )] previous 2. [ ] cun-ent he.1 previous 3. [ ] current [;e4 previous 4. [ 1 current [ ] previous 5. [ 1 current [ ] previous REASONS for applying for this committee, commission, board: /lase 7I a/7y t)y' /4,5"y' M0 il/ a% / L�jee1/, z c Ti( 5%1d7 G..2N.i/, Alyn 62M,17-.4 By signing this application, I certify under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that all information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further state that my appointment would not represent a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest with the duties of this position. I understand this l'cation is subje to disclosure pursuant to chapter 42.56 RCW. Signature Date Signed Spokan e�`� i Malley, Application Form for Committees/Boards/Commissions Return completed form to City Clerk: Spokane Valley City Hall 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: 509-720-5102 cbainbridt;ela?spokanevallcv.ora Fax: 509-720-5075 Application may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed. Please do not send an application via text message attachment. One application per position please. DO NOT SUBMIT AN APPLICATION UNLESS THERE IS AN OPENING. Openings are generally advertised in the local newspapers, and posted on the City's Webpage at litm://www.snokanevallcy.org/voluntcer Feel free to call the City Clerk if you have questions. I AM INTERESTED IN SERVING ON THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEE: [Check one box; note requirements] [ X 1 Planning Commission — Must be a Spokane Valley resident. (See chapter 18.10 SVMC) Terms are for three years. Applicants are selected without respect to political affiliations, and serve without compensation. [ ] Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) - Need not be a Spokane Valley resident. (See chapter 3.20 SVMC) Terms are for one or two years, Committee consists of five members: One Councilmember: appointed by the Mayor, confirmed by the Council. Two who represent a business required to collect the tax (hotels, motels, etc.). Two involved in funded activities (such as a non-profit organization to increase tourism), Identify the business or organization you represent [ ] Spokane County Housing and Cotnmunity Development Advisory Committee (I-ICDAC) HCDAC includes two Spokane Valley residents; terms not to exceed three years. Spokane Valley appointment pending final approval by Spokane County Board of Commissioners. Spokane County Application and Supplemental Application also required. [ ] Spokane County Human Rights Task Force — Terms are for four years. Must be a resident of Spokane Valley. The Board currently meets 2nd Tuesday of each month, 3:30 to 5:00 at Catholic Charities, 12 E Soh Spokane. [ ] Spokane Housing Authority (SHA) — regional committee, tive members, Terms are five years. One individual directly assisted by the Authority, jointly appointed by Spokane Mayor, Spokane Valley Mayor, and Chair of Board of County Commissioners. Two individuals who work or reside within Spokane City limits. One individual who works or resides in unincorporated Spokane County. One individual who works or resides within Spokane Valley City limits. Check with the City Clerk concerning a vacancy on this committee, [ ] Tourism Promotion Area. I lotel Advisory Committee (aka Ilotel/Motel Association) —Terms are for three years. Spokane Valley appoints two members. and one ex -officio (a member of Council). All nominees must be operators or employees of lodging business within Spokane County. [ ] Other: Name (please print): Trevor Greentree Complete residence address: 1519 S Oberlin Rd Street Spokane Valley 99206 City Zip Code Complete mailing address (if different from above address): Length of time residing at current address: U.S. Citizen? [ X ]yes [ ]no WA State registered voter? [ ]yes [ ]no What is your preferred way for us to contact you: [Note: If you iu7ve an phone Burn befi'. or do not wish your e- mail address made public, do not include that information. Once this document is submitted to ilio City. it becomes subject to public disclosure.] [ ] Home Phone: [ ] Work phone: [X ] Cell Phone: 8645933515 [ ] Other message phone: [ ] E-mail address: (please print clearly): Tgreentree@lawschool.gonzaga.edu [ ] Regular mail to residence or mailing address shown above EMPLOYMENT: (Please start with most recent) 1. [ ] present [ X ] previous Name of employer: United States Air Force Address: Phone: Position held: Senior Airman (occupation Emergency Management) Dates of employment: Jan 2012 — Jan 2018 2. [ ] present [ ] previous Name of employer: Address: Phone: Position held: Dates of employment: 3. [ ] present [ ] previous Naive of employer: Address: Phone: Position held: Dates of employment: 4. [ ] present [ ] previous Name of employer: Address: Phone: Position held: Dates of employment: EDUCATION: Name of high school Woodmont High Diploma or GED: [ X ] yes [ ] no Address: 2831 W Georgia Rd, Piedmont, SC Trade school/college/university: Name of School University of Maryland University College Address: 1616 McCormick Dr. l,ar o. MD Diploma: [ X ] yes [ ] no Degree or certification earned: Bachelors in Political Science Trade school/college/university: Name of School Gonzaga School of Law Address: 721 Cincinnati St, Spokane, WA Diploma: [ ] yes [ X ] no Degree or certification earned: Other relevant certifications/licenses: FEMA ICS -100,300,400 and several other certifications that correspond with city involvement during a crisis. VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE: Name of social, fraternal, organizations, ete. 1. [ ] current [ ] previous 2. [ ] current [ ] previous 3. [ ] current [ ] previous 4. [ ] current [ ] previous PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. Local, state, or national governrnent boards, committees, or commissions on which you serve or have served. 1. [ ] current [ ] previous 2. [ ] current [ ] previous 3. [ ] current [ ] previous 4. [ ] current [ ] previous 5. [ ] current [ ] previous REASONS for applying for this committee, commission, board: I want to help my comrnunity in any way that I can. I believe that I have a unique set of skills that I have developed from my time in the military. I also believe the knowledge that I am gaining in law school will be useful. By signing this application, I certify under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that all information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief 1 further state that my appointment would not represent a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest with the duties of this position. 1 understand. this application is subject to disclosure pursuant to chapter 42.56 RCW. yt-gzit&ex, 6/17/2019 Signature Date Signed Wikane Eley Application Form for Committees/Boards/Commissions Return completed form to City Clerk: Spokane Valley Lily I fall 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: 509-720-5102 .' nuhul.lec:rrspukml.lvlllcl,illy Fax: 509-720-5075 Application may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed. pk•ase do not send an appllitlliotl via le\t I11e,5alC attachment. One application per position please. i)O NOT SUBMIT AN APPLICATION IIsLESs THERE IS AN OPENING. Opeeings are generally advertised in the local newspapers. and pasted on the City's \Cehpage at i,' r1 Feel free to Call the City Clerk iI You have questions. 1 AM INTERESTED iN SERVING ON THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEE: [Clteck one box; note reyuirenicnts] [ I laniti1 Cottunission — . Iu l be a Spokane Valley resident, (See chapter 15.10 SVh1C) Tern], err for three years. Applicants are selected without respect to political affiliations. and serve without compensation. [ 1 1.0d aim!. lax Advisory Committee (LT AC) - Need not be a Spokane Valley resident. (See chapter 3.20 SVMC) Terms are for one or two years. Committee consists of live members: One C'ouneilntember: appointed by the \payor, confirmed by the Council. Two who represent a business required to collect the lax (hotels. motels, etc.). Tau involved in lauded activities (such as a non -plot -it organization to increase tourism). Identi(\' the Inl,ine•, tar ala Ull? t11ni you replc.ent [ ] Lipokatie County l lottsiuL_ :Ind Community Development .Advisory C'utttntittee (IICDAC) 1-ICDA.L' includes two Spokane Valley residents: terms not to exceed three years. Spokane Valley appointment pending final approval by Spokane County Board or Commissioners. Spokane County Application and Supplemental Application also required. 1 1 Spokane County human Rights Task Farce — Terms are for four years Must be a resident of Spokane Valley. The Board cnlrenlly aleck „'; Ftie.sday of each month. 3:30 to 5:00 at (':cholic Charities. 1 2 1 511 Spokane. [ 1 Spokane 1)uus it Authority (411:\)— regional committee, live members. terms are five years. One indiv' ida,i1 directly assisted by the Authority. jointly appointed by Spokane Mayor. Spokane Valley Mayor, and Chair of Board of County Commissioners. Two individuals who hark or reside 0 ail i Spxlkane limits One Indllidllal W110 1111110., lir resides in u111110nrpolated 4...me County. One individual trio works or resides with it' Spokane Valley City linin.. Cheek With 1.1111 ('ire (71.0k ranr,11111/L` a l'001111:1' 01111ris c onrruinel . lourisnt 1'tcnuuticln l�lrll. l told _\ lvir,tiry Committee (aka Hotel 1Intel Association) --Terms are for three years. Spaikaue Valley app,,iuls m o in,:mbers, and one ex -officio {a menthe' ol'Council?. All nominees must be lgierallll, or employee', of lodging business a ithali Sp,t,zirr.2 County. [ ] Other: Name (please print): Diane MeredithGordon Complete residence address: 3108 N Coleman Rd Spokane Valley WA 99212 Street City Zip Code Complete mailing address (if different from above address): same as above Length of time residing at current address: about 19 years U.S. Citizen? [xlycs ( Ino WA State registered voter? [x ]yes [ jno Whitt is your preferred yvay for us to contact you: (Note: 11 you hm~e an unlisted phone 'norrher•, Or do not wish ruur e- mail address Made public, du n(11 iuc•htarc Nuri itllor•nurticnt, Once Mrs document is stthntiued to the Citi•, it becomes subject 10 public disclosure,/ [ 1 Home Phone: 1 J Work phone: { Cell Phone: 1 1 Other message phone: j N E-mail address: (please print clearly): Ix j Regular mail to residence or mailing address shown above EMPLOYMENT: (Please start with most recent) 1. [x] present [ 1 previous Name of employer: Self employed DMGordon Consulting Address: 3108 N Coleman Rd Spokane Valley WA 99212 - Phone: 6 years Position held: Owner Dates of employment: 2. [ 1 present [x] previous Name of employer: Carclon Outreach Address: 157 S Hc:vard St #40S Spokane WA 99201 Position held: Director CBO Solution 3. [ ] present [x] previous Name of employer: self employed Smart Cookies Consulting Address: 3108 N Coleman Rd Spokane Valley WA 99212 Phone: Dates of employment: 5 Years Phone: Position held: owner Dates of employment: 5 years 4. [ 1 present 1 ] previous Name of employer: Address: Phone: Position held: Dates of employment: EDUCATION: Name of high school Northwest Christian Diploma or GED: [X j yes 1 1 no Address: Trade school/college/university: Name of School EWU Address: Diploma: [ ] yes [ x] no Degree or certification earned: Trade school/college/university: Name of School wsu Address: Diploma: [ 1 yes [ x1 no Degree or certification earned: Other relevant certifications/licenses: VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE: Name of social, fraternal, organizations, etc. I . 1 ] current [x] previous teaching Sunday school, 3-4 year olds 2. [ 1 current [x 1 previous playing organ and piano for church services 3. [X] cUft'enl [ 1 previous teachinglmentoring beekeeping for STEM program, girl scout programs, beginner beekeepers, beekeeping biog 4. [X] current [ ] previous volunteering at county fair at inland Northwest Beekeepers Association booth PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. Local. state, or national government boards, committees, or commissions on which you serve or have served. 1, [ ] current 1X1 previous WA/AK HFMA (healthcare financial management association) 2. [ ] current 1 ] previous 3. [ ] current 1 ] previous 4. [ ] current [ 1 previous 5. [ ] current [ 1 previous REASONS for applying for this committee, commission, board: I can contribute as a new voice for the city of the Valley on the future of the city. I think we should be planning at least 10 years into the future for what will inevitably happen as our region/city grows, rather than hope it all stays the same and get caught behind the 8 ball By signing this application. l certify under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that all information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further state that my appointment would not represent a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest with the duties of this position. I understand this application is subject to disclosure pursuant to chapter 42.56 RCW. 6-/6// Signature Date Signed CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 24, 2019 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 Vacation 2019-0001, Industrial Area GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.140, Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35A.47.020 and RCW 35.79. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On April 9, 2019, City Council approved Resolution 19- 005 initiating the street vacation process, and Resolution 19-006 setting a Planning Commission Public Hearing for May 23, 2019. BACKGROUND:. On May 23, 2019, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of STV -2019-0001 to the City Council. This request is being initiated as part of the City's Economic Development Program. The rights of way, as they currently exist, are not needed and limit the usability of the adjacent parcels. None of the ROW contain any city facilities or utility improvements. Adequate vehicular access will be provided at the time of development. The ROW includes 1,266 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road. The ROW width is 30 feet on Tschirley Road, 30 feet on Long Road, 30 feet on Rich Avenue, and 30 feet on Greenacres Road. The vacation will remove physical barriers that may impede future development. The intent is to allow underutilized industrial land to be considered for future development. The area of vacation is located northwest of the intersection of Barker Road and Euclid Avenue adjacent to eleven parcels: 55065.0107, 55061.9062, 55065.0105, 55065.0190, 55065.0171, 55064.0169, 55064.0170, 55065.0170, 55064.1107, 55064.9030 and 55061.9066. OPTIONS: Consensus to proceed with first ordinance reading as proposed or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to proceed with a first ordinance reading at the July 9, 2019 Council meeting. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Presentation 2. Signed Planning Commission Findings 3. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission 4. Approved Planning Commission meeting minutes Northeast Industrial Area City Initiated Street Vacation STV -19-0001 June 24, 2019 Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Street Vacation • Tschirley ROW • Long ROW Greenacres ROW Rich ROW E Garland Legend Proposed Vacations Affected Parcels Spokane Valley Boundary 2 Process: Formal Application Submittal Study Session 4-25-19 U Public Hearing 5-23-19 Findings of Fact cs 6-13-19 Admin Report 6-24-19 18' Reading 7-9-19 2nd Reading 7-23-19 Conditions satisfied Staff Review Record Ordinance and Record of Survey Today Planning Commission Findings The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved. The vacation is expected to have no impact on the general public as surrounding parcels currently do not use ROW for access The ROW is not required for current or future public access The City is constructing a new road (Garland Avenue) between Flora Road and Barker Road to service new industries in the area The construction of Garland Avenue will provide access to future development, and the existing ROW as presently configured will not provide a greater use or need 5. No objections have been received 4 Questions Spokane._,_. �� Va11ey� Mike Basinger, AICP Economic Development Manager FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E) the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval of File No. STV -2019-0001. A. Background: 1. Chapter 22.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), governing street vacations, was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. 2. STV -2019-0001 is a City -initiated street vacation proposing to vacate 1,266 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road. The Right of Way (ROW) width is 30 feet on Tschirley Road, 30 feet on Long Road, 30 feet on Rich Avenue, and 30 feet on Greenacres Road. 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on May 23, 2019. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of STV -2019-0001 to the City Council. B. Planning Commission Findings: Compliance with SVMC 22.140.030 I . Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public? The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved. The vacation is expected to have no impact on the general public as surrounding parcels currently do not use the ROW for access. 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access? The subject ROW is currently vacant land not being utilized for public access and is not required for fitture public access. 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public? The City of Spokane Valley is constructing a new road (Garland Avenue) between Flora Road and Barker Road that will provide access to Mum development in the area. 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists? The construction of Garland Avenue will provide access to fixture development and the existing ROW as presently configured will not provide a greater use or need. 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public? No objections were received. C. Conclusions: The findings confirm that the criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV -2019-000I Page I of 2 D. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve STV -2019-0001. 1. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcels (55065.0107, 55061.9062, 55065.0105, 55065.0190, 55065.0171, 55064.0169, 55064.0170, 55065.0170, 55064.1107, 55064.9030 and 55061.9066) as shown on the record of survey. 2. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a Record of Survey (ROS) shall be prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Washington. The ROS shall include an exact metes and bounds legal description specifying any applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services. 3. The surveyor shall locate a monument at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the Spokane Valley Street Standards. 4. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining each side of the street or alley to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall be subject to the regulations of the extended districts. 5. The ROS and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 6. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Approved this 13th day of June, 2019 .arrii se J Chairiian ATTEST &167/00 Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV -2019.0001 Page 2 oft Spokane 4 .. Valley COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FILE No: STV -2019-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE: May 23, 2019 FILE NO: STV -2019-0001 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: City initiated street vacation for 1,266 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road. The ROW width is 30 feet on Tschirley Road, 30 feet on Long Road, 30 feet on Rich Avenue, and 30 feet on Greenacres Road. STAFF: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager; 509.720.5331; mbasinger{spokanevalley.org PROPOSAL LOCATION: The portion of right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located northwest of the intersection of Barker Road and Euclid Avenue adjacent to eleven parcels (55065.0107, 55061.9062, 55065.0105, 55065.0190, 55065.0171, 55064.0169, 55064.0170, 55065.0170, 55064.1107, 55064.9030 and 55061.9066), further defined as follows: that portion of Tschirley Road located in the West half of Section 6, Township 25 North, Range 45 East, W.M, in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume T of Plats, page 6, lying north of the easterly extension of the North line of Tract 61 of said West Farms Irrigated Tracts, said street being between Tracts 57 and 58 and a portion of Tract 62; and that portion of Long Road located in the East half of Section 6, Township 25 North, Range 45 East, W.M. in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume T of Plats, page 6, lying north of previously vacated street (by County vacation number 2093) said street being between Tracts 55 and 56 and between Tracts 63 and 64 and a portion of Tract 67; that portion of Rich Avenue further located in the East half of Section 6, Township 25 North, Range 45 E., W.M., Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume T of Plats, page 6, being the north 20 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 6, said street being north of and adjacent to Tract 54, and Tract 55; that portion of Greenacres Road located in the East half of Section 6, Township 25N., Range 45E., W.M. in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume T of Plats, page 6, lying north of the westerly extension of the North line of Tract 76 of said West Farms Irrigated Tracts, said street being east of and adjacent to Tract 54, Tract 65, Tract 66 and a portion of Tract 75, in Spokane Valley, Washington. BACKGROUND: On April 9, 2019 the City Council passed Resolution 19-005 initiating the vacation of four unimproved rights-of-way (ROW) and Resolution 19-006 setting the public hearing date with the Planning Commission. This request is being initiated as part of the City's Economic Development Program. The rights of ways, as they currently exist, are not needed and limit the usability of the adjacent parcels. None of the ROW contain any city facilities or utility improvements. Adequate vehicular access will be provided at the time of development. The ROW includes 1,266 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road. The ROW width is 30 feet on Tschirley Road, 30 feet on Long Road, 30 feet on Rich Avenue, and 30 feet on Greenacres Road. The vacation will remove physical barriers that may impede future development. The intent is to allow underutilized industrial land to be considered for future development. This request is being initiated as part of the City's Economic Development Program. The rights of ways, as they currently exist, are not needed and limit the usability of the adjacent parcels. The vacation will remove physical barriers that may impede future development. The intent is to allow underutilized industrial land to be considered for future development. Page 1 of 4 The proposed vacation will eliminate public ROW access to parcel 55061.9060 Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 20.20.090.F states "Every lot shall have direct access to a paved public street, private street or an easement for a private driveway." The owner may consolidate the parcels, reconfigure the parcels with a Boundary Line Adjustment, or create an easement for access as proposed in the recommended conditions. Adequate vehicular access will be provided at the time of development. APPROVAL CRITERIA: 1. SVMC — Title 20 (Subdivision Regulations) 2. SVMC — Title 21 (Environmental Controls) 3. SVMC — Title 22 (Street Vacations) 4. City of Spokane Valley Street Standards ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Aerial Map Exhibit 3: Resolution I9-005 and Resolution 19-006 Exhibit 4: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 5: Agency Comments I. PROPERTY INFORMATION Size and Characteristics of proposed vacation: The ROW consists of 1,266 feet on Tschirley Road, ] ,565 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road. The ROW width is 30 feet on Tschirley Road, 30 feet on Long Road, 30 feet on Rich Avenue, and 30 feet on Greenacres Road. Adjacent Comprehensive Plan Designation: Industrial (I) Zoning Adjacent to ROW: Industrial (I) Adjacent Land Use(s): All eleven parcels abutting the four ROW are vacant. 11. STAFF ANALYSIS OF STREET VACATION PROPOSAL A. COMPLIANCE WITH SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE (SVMC) TITLE 22.140.030 Findings: 1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public? The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved. The vacation is expected to have no impact on the general public as surrounding parcels currently do not use ROW for access. 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access? The subject ROW is currently vacant land not being utilized for public access and is not required for current or future public access. 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public? The City of Spokane Valley is constructing a new road (Garland Avenue) between Flora Road and Barker Road to service new industries in the area. Page 2 of 4 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists? The construction of Garland Avenue will provide access to future development and the existing ROW as presently configured will not provide a greater use or need. 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public? No objections or public comment has been received. Conclusions: The findings confirm criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met. 13. COMPLIANCE WITH SVMC TITLE 21 — ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS The Planning Division has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 and SVMC 21.20.040 from environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). II1. PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: A Notice of Public Hearing signs was posted on the property on April 25, 2016 and public hearing notices were mailed to all petitioners of the vacation the same as the eleven parcels abutting the four ROW on the same day. Notices were posted in the Spokane Valley Public Library, City of Spokane Valley main reception area and CenterPlace Event Center on April 25, 2016. Lastly, the notice was published in the Spokane Valley Herald and Exchange on April 26, 2019 and May 3, 2019. Staff received no public comment(s). Conclusion(s): Staff concludes that adequate public noticing was conducted for STV -2017-0001 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. No concerns were raised in public comment received. IV. AGENCY COMMENTS Notice was provided to agencies and service providers. Comments are attached as exhibits to this staff report. Conclusion(s): Spokane Valley Fire Department provided a response stating that they completed a review of the proposed vacations and have no comments. V. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS Staff concludes that STV -2019-0001 as proposed is generally consistent, or will be made consistent, through the recommended conditions of approval based on the approval criteria stated herein. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request to vacate 1,266 feet by 30 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet by 30 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet by 30 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet by 30 feet of Greenacres Road subject to the following conditions. Page 3 of 4 1. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcels (55065.0107, 55061.9062, 55065.0105, 55065.0190, 55065.0171, 55064.0169, 55064.0170, 55065.0170, 55064.1107, 55064.9030 and 55061.9066) as shown on the record of survey created and recorded with Spokane County Auditor's Office. 2. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Washington, including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be completed. 3. The surveyor shall locate a monument at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the SVSS. 4. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the industrial district. The adopting Ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. 5. The record of survey and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor, 6. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Page 4 of 4 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall April 25, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Timothy Kelley, absent - excused Robert McKinley Michael Phillips, absent - excused Michelle Rasmussen, absent - excused Matt Walton Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Robin. Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioners Kelly, Rasmussen and Phillips were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 25, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor; zero opposed, and the motion passed V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 11, 2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was.four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he attended the last few City Council meetings. Commissioner Johnson also attended the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force executive committee where they discussed considering a region wide leadership meeting. He is pleased to be a part of this team that is looking out for human rights in the area and is excited to be a part of the coming changes. VH. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: CTA -2019-0001, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 22 and Appendix A, regarding addressing standards. Planner Karen Kendall provided a brief overview of the amendment and discussed the procedural guidelines for the proposed text amendment to SVMC `title 22 and Appendix A. Ms. Kendall explained that this meeting is to finalize the recommendation from the Conrunission. Following public comment at the public hearing held. April 11, 2019 the Commission deliberated and voted six in favor and zero opposed to approve CTA -2019- 0001 as presented and forward a recommendation to the City Council. 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6 There was no further discussion. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CTA -2019-0001 Planning Commission Findings of Fact recommendation as presented to the City Council. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. ii. Study Session: STV -2019-0001, a proposed street vacation of a portion of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road in the Northeast Industrial Area. Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation to the Commission outlining the Northeast Industrial Area City Initiated Street Vacation. Ms, Barlow explained that this area is located between Flora Road and Barker Road and is South of Trent Avenue. The proposed vacations are the unimproved Right of Ways (ROW) of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Greenacres Road and Rich Avenue that connects Long Road with Greenaeres Road. Ms. Barlow noted that this property is predominantly owned by one property owner. However, there is one parcel located off of Rich Avenue with a separate property owner. Mr. Barlow highlighted this being a_ City Initiated Street Vacation the City is working to ensure there is easement access for the property that would be affected by the vacation, Staff stated that these ROW's are not necessary as all parcels will have access off of Garland Avenue once construction is completed. Ms. Barlow provided brief background information on the Garland Avenue project that was also a City initiated proposal. The proposal is currently undergoing environmental review and is expected to begin construction soon. It should be completed by the end of 2019. Ms. Barlow continued, that there is not an application on file at this point, and it is uncertain how the properties will be reconfigured. It is anticipated that once development is considered the property owner will come forward with a Binding Site Plan (BSP) to r identify access points to the properties in the development. Commissioner Walton asked if there will be a stipulation on the property owner to continue providing access for emergency services off of Garland Avenue. Ms. Barlow spoke to the BSP review process at which time parcels would be divided up and access points would be determined prior to development occurring. Ms. Barlow added this proposal has been routed to all agencies, and the Spokane Valley Fire Department advised they would manage situations as development occurs. Commissioner Johnson asked if the access will be maintained by the City. Ms. Barlow explained that if done through the 135? it would be a private street maintained by the property owners. Garland Avenue is a public road and would be maintain by the City. Commissioner Johnson spoke about the amount of property involved and asked if there would be any monetary compensation to the City. Ms. Barlow explained that is not being forwarded as a recommendation as this is a City initiated proposal with no expectations of reimbursement from the property owner. Ms. Barlow concluded that the current ROW may be an impediment to the future development. The City is trying to make this area more adaptable for future developments. iii, Study Session: CTA -2018-0006, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affordable housing. O4-25-2019 Planning Cotnmission Minutes Page 3 of 6 Ms. Barlow provided background information into the privately initiated Code Text Atnendment (CTA) Ms. Barlow corrected the numbering error to be CTA-2018-0006 not CTA-2019-0006. Ms, Barlow advised this proposal was originally submitted in 2018, , then revised and resubmitted earlier in 2019. Ms. Barlow advised that staff had reviewed the application for environmental impact and a determination of non-significance was issued March 29, 2019. The notice of public hearing was posted in the newspaper as well as on the City's website. Ms. Barlow clarified that this proposal is a CTA which is not site-specific, therefore on site posting requirements do not apply. Ms. Barlow clarified procedural requirements. The Commission is conducting the study session, and the public hearing is scheduled for May 9, 2019. Once a recommendation is made by the Planning Commission, it will be formalized in the Findings of Fact scheduled for May 23, 2019. Ms. Barlow highlighted a recent change the City Council has made to the Governance Manual. The Council will no longer take public comment on items that have had a public hearing by the Planning Commission during their review process. Ms. Barlow stressed that the opportunity for public comment will only be during the Planning Commissions public hearing. Once that hearing is closed, there will be no further opportunity for public comment. Ms. Barlow continued, the proposals intent is to allow multifamily in the residential (R-3) zone as long as it meets supplemental regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that currently multifamily is not allowed in the R-3 zone. Multifamily is only allowed in multifamily residential and both rnixed use zones. Ms. Barlow continued that this proposal would change the Permitted Use Matrix SVMC 19.60.050 by adding an "S" indicating multifamily could be allowed but subject to supplemental use regulations. Ms. Barlow described that this proposal would add supplemental language to SVMC 19.65.130 stating that multifamily could be allowed if it complies with Chapter 19.40 of SVMC Alternative Residential Development Options. Newly added section 19.40.035 identifies that multifamily in the R-3 zone would be allowed if specific criteria are met for applicability, site and building standards and other related agreements. Ms. Barlow continued that in order for a development to utilize this section of the code at least 51% of the units proposed must be used for affordable housing. Commissioner Johnson asked how the City would monitor that the 51%n is being maintained? Ms. Barlow explained that this would be part of the agreement section. An agreement would be signed and recorded with the County, that during the lifetime of the project they would maintain 51% of the units as affordable housing units. Ms. Barlow continued that similarly during multifamily application review with affordable housing units the applicant provides evidence that the units meet an affordable housing standard. Commissioner Johnson asked what is included in affordable housing costs? Ms. Barlow stated it refers to the Federal definition that annual housing costs shall not exceed 1/3 of a families' annual income and is calculated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Commissioner. Johnson asked if the percentage included utilities, etc., or just the direct housing cost. Ms. Barlow said she was uncertain and that she will provide that information at the next meeting. Ms. Barlow explained some of the criteria. Key criteria would require the property to be a single parcel, under single ownership. The parcel uses must include a church, school and the multifamily units all located on one parcel at least 10-20 acres in size. Ms. Barlow continued that the entire site can be used to calculate the six dwelling units per acre as the maximum density allowed in the R-3 zoning district. Currently the R-3 zone does not allow multifamily development but does allow single family development at a density of six dwelling units per acre. Ms. Barlow explained this amendment proposes to utilize the 04-25-2019 Planning Cotnmission Minutes Page 4 of6 entire site to calculate what could have been allowed for single family development, but then allows the units to be clustered in the form of a multifamily development. The proposal intends to maintain the density. For example, if you have a 10-acre parcel allowing six dwelling units per acre it would allow for 60 single family residential dwelling units. The proposal would allow you to develop a site that has a school and church with 60 single family dwelling units in a multifamily complex which would still maintain the density that is established within the R-3 Zone. Commissioner Walton asked how many 10-20 acre parcels are in the valley that would qualify. Ms. Barlow advised she did provide analysis in the staff report and used a query that identified a church on the property and any adjacent properties owned by same owner. Staff did find through this query that there are 75 church sites in the city and of those 75, 25 of them fit within the 10-20 acres. Only one site had a church, school, and fit the criteria. However, a site could be developed. Commissioner Walton asked how many vacant parcels meet the criteria that do not currently have a school/church combination? Ms. Barlow concluded it would be difficult to compile that information as properties could be aggregated. Ms. Barlow continued that on site the school, church and multifamily may share parking and open space to help prevent overbuilding. Commissioner Kasclunitter asked for clarification if parking can be used for open space. Ms. Barlow advised that would not be the case and explained how the City would calculate need during the review process for uses to share without building additional parking spaces. There was some additional discussion related to the intent, and that the hours of operation vary for each use with some concern of overflow street parking. Ms, Barlow mentioned the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process would allow the opportunity to determine adequate parking and what "share "specifically means. Commission Johnson asked if staff knows of any advantage to limiting the size of this development to 20 acres, and why require both a church and a school? Ms. Barlow reminded the Commission that this is a privately initiated CTA and that during the public hearing the applicant can address questions as to what their intent may be. Ms, Barlow continued with other criteria that applies when specific circumstances exist, such as natural amenities shall be incorporated into the site, buildings, including parking structures, shall have design continuity to look as if they are part of a campus, pedestrian areas shall be delineated and protected to provide clear areas for pedestrian activity. Ms. Barlow continued with development standards and noted that the proposal identified that it must meet residential standards in the dimensional and standards table 19.70-01, which includes building height of 35 feet, and setbacks, to maintain the surrounding character already in place. Ms. Barlow continued that the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet is not applicable. Ms. Barlow continued that the density is still applicable 6 dwelling units per acre and lot coverage of 50% or greater. However, that should not be an issue with lot sizes of 10-20 acres. Ms. Barlow explained other requirements would be agreements to ensure compliance and that the conditions will run with the land and will not transfer with the owner. The agreement would be specific to the land, and that the affordable housing component will remain for the life of the project, Lastly, Ms. Barlow concluded this would be processed as a type three permit that requires a CUP. Ms. Barlow gave an overview of the CUP process and advised the permit would be considered by the hearing examiner, requires public notice, a public hearing, and can be denied or conditioned. Ms. Barlow explained that through the Hearing Examiner process 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 uses that may have unanticipated impacts could be conditioned to mitigate those impacts, or the permit could be denied completely. Mr. Walton asked for clarification how this would run with the land? Would the City put a covenant on the property moving forward? Should the 10-20-acre property have affordable housing built on one portion and later wanted to sell off the undeveloped portions of the property would they be able to do so as they utilized the 10-20 acre and max number of units. Ms. Barlow said agreements would be recorded and the site would be bound to the agreement; in theory property could be sold off it wasn't needed to meet the minimum requirements of the criteria. Commissioner Walton asked if they have 20 acres and they only use the minimum 10 acres and build 60 dwelling units could they create a secondary project within the 20 acres and use the additional 60 dwelling units available to them? Ms. Barlow explained that yes, the CUP process would allow for that. Ms. Barlow gave an example that if someone came in with a proposal of 20 acres and only proposed to build to a density that is less than max, they could come back and ask for modification to CUP. Commissioner Walton asked if they chose to use a portion of property and the dwelling units available to them which would only utilize half of the property, and sell 10 acres of the overall portion, is that locked in since they applied under the 20 acres. Ms. Barlow explained the City would have to review what the original capacity to determine if they had extra land to eliminate from the site and still meet the conditions. Ms. Barlow highlighted that if a CUP is granted that is identifying all criteria are met it is the baseline to determine what they could do moving forward. The process may require the Hearing Examiner revisit the CUP Commissioner Johnson asked how would the City know if someone decides to sell five acres. Ms. Barlow advised the criteria defines this would have to be one parcel under single ownership. The owner would have to go through segregation process in order to divide off a piece of land. The City would be involved in that process and would be aware of the underlying CUP, and the encumbrances recorded with County Auditor. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of a comment made by Ann Fritzel with the Commerce Department and read a statement from her comment: "affordable housing gross density of 6 units per acre on the five-acre parcel". Commissioner Johnson provided a Birdseye view and zoning map of the only viable location that fits all of the criteria. He explained that there are five parcels that would be owned by the entity. Commissioner Johnson stated he has dealt with Catholic Charities and their hearts are always in the right place. He continued explaining that if the five parcels depicted on the map are converted to one single parcel there would not be much room left for development. He continued the three parcels on Walnut Road, the parcel facing Far Road, and on Valleyway Avenue are all somewhat developed. The only parcel remaining without development must be the five acres referenced by Ms. Fritzel. Commissioner Johnson continued that the 17 acres combined could develop 103 dwelling units on that five-acre parcel and asked if that would make this a high density development in an R-3 zone with no transitional requirements? Ms. Barlow explained that transitional regulations are not required, however a CUP would be required. Ms. Barlow continued that if it were to show impacts such as a three story building backed up to single family residence with obvious conflict some transitional regulations could be required by the Hearing Examiner. Ms. Barlow explained the development in question does have 5 pieces of property however they could aggregate and reduce the size or increase the size. She added that it is difficult not to focus on the one existing opportunity, but it is not our only focus as there is no proposal at this time. Commissioner Johnson wanted to make sure the commission is considering the worst case scenario. Should this move forward and be approved by the City Council, it does become 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 less probable that public testimony will be taken due to it already been approved. Commissioner Johnson's concern also lends to public notification and hopes the applicant contacts the neighboring properties. Commissioner Walton asked if there is anything that would prevent the applicant from applying for a rezone to multifamily residential to meet R-3 zone criteria? Ms. Barlow explained they couldn't apply for a rezone due to land use designation. A rezone could be considered through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, however that process is only allowed on an annual basis Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on approved land use regarding cottage developments being allowed in the R-3, multifamily and both mixed use zones? Ms. Barlow explained cottage developments are allowed in those zones and at twice the underlying density of the R-3 zone. A cottage development could be proposed in the R-3 zone with up to 12 dwelling units per acre and it is required to be aggregated around the site to speak to open space requirements. Commissioner Johnson asked if that is calculated on the aggregate land and the entire parcel. Ms. Barlow stated it is assumed that it is on the entire site and only being used for cottage development. There was discussion regarding affordable housing and it was noted that there is no affordable housing component in cottage development. Commissioner McKinley asked if this proposal conflicts with the previous density related Duplex CTA proposed in the R-3 zone that the Commission voted against? Ms. Barlow explained the Duplex CTA was attempting to limit the number of duplexes that could be allowed on a per acre basis. Currently attached and detached single family development is allowed in the R-3 zone as long as you meet the minimum lot size. The previous Duplex CTA was limiting the number of duplexes developed even if the minimum lot size was met. The CTA being reviewed tonight is proposing to add a use that is not currently allowed in the R-3 zone. The only commonality is the R-3 zone component. X. GOOD Or THE ORDER: Commissioner Johnson encouraged the Commission to bring items to share for the Good of the Order as he feels it is important. Commissioner Johnson read aloud a heartfelt statement he wrote illustrating his sentiments of pride and concerns for his hometown the City of Spokane Valley. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 p.m. The vote on the motion was foto' in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed 411P1C--- James Johnson, Chairman Date signed .S�9/Zo/7 t Robin Hutchins, Secretary Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers -- City Hall May 23, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. M. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Timothy Kelley Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Robert McKinley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Michael Phillips, absent - excused Connor Lange, Planner Michelle Rasmussen, absent - excused Matt Walton Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioners Phillips and Rasmussen were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the May 23, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to amend the May 9, 2019 minutes to correct the misspelling of his last name on page 8 from Walter to Walton. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported on May 14, 2019 he attended the Spokane County Hunan Rights Task Force executive committee to discuss the confluence of leadership meeting where it was determined that meeting will be a long range plan. He also attended the City Council meeting and expressed his concerns for the lack of accurate representation by the 4th legislative district and requested a more diverse invocation at the City Council meetings. On May 21, 2019 he attended the Spokane County Human Right Task Force regular meeting where they received rapid response training. The training was to prepare for public acts of hate received through a portal developed by the task force to report hate crimes. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger advised that after the first reading with the City Council of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments the Council agreed with all of the Planning Commission's recommendations. Mr. Basinger added that Comprehensive Plan Amendment. CPA -2019-0003 that had no recommendation from the Planning Commission was denied by the City Council. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. Chair Johnson asked the Commission for a consensus on standardizing a three-minute tithe limit for all public comment excluding proponent comments. A standard three- minute (fine limit was concluded to be essential in keeping order. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of9 There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: CTA-2018-0006, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affordable housing and multifamily development. Senior Planner Lori Barlow summarized the Findings of Fact for the privately initiated code text amendment (CTA). The intent of the amendment is to allow multifamily (MF) development as a conditional use in the residential R-3 zone subject to specific criteria. This proposal came before the Planning Commission on two prior occasions. A study session was held on April 25, 2019 and a public hearing on May 9, 2019. After hearing considerable public testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated and voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council. Ms. Barlow explained that the Findings of Fact formalize the pivotal actions and capture the Planning Commission's recommendation and vote. Ms. Barlow concluded that as this item moves forward to the City Council there will be no further opportunity for public comment unless the Council takes specific action to do so. Commissioner Walton stated this CTA was one of the more contentious items reviewed in his time with the Conunission. He appreciated the public for their participation and the deliberation from the Commission. He added that despite the struggles the Commission may have had in moving forward he felt this was the correct outcome and is in support of the Findings of Fact. Co,nrnissivner Walton moved to approve Findings of Fact CTA-2018-0006 as presented. There was no discussion The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. ii. Public Hearing: STV-2019-0002, a privately initiated street vacation of a portion of Glenn, University Roads and Baldwin Avenue. Planner Connor Lange provided a presentation outlining the privately initiated application to vacate unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road. Mr. Lange explained the right-of-ways (ROW) are located between 1-90 to the north, Nora Avenue to the south and further bordered by Overland Avenue to the west. Mr. Lange provided procedural overview advising the application was submitted March 8, 2019, the study session was conducted on May 9, 2019, and tonight the public hearing is being held. Mr. Lange advised the majority of the property surrounding the proposed ROWs to be vacated are owned by Circle M Properties. The applicant feels the request will allow for maximum use of abutting properties and that a right of way connection for an overpass is not feasible at University Road. Mr. Lange highlighted a study done in 2015 reviewed the feasibility for an overpass crossing at University Road, the project was determined to be costly and not viable at the time. However, it is unknown if a project on University Road may provide a greater level of service in the future. Due to future development, staff is recommending an amendment to the proposal by removing University Road from the vacation proposal. Mr. Lange advised that all required notices have been satisfied. Notice was posted at CenterPlace, City Hall and the library. Notice was also posted in the newspaper of record on two separate occasions, Written notice was provided to the owner's adjacent to the 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 unimproved portions of University Road and Baldwin Avenue and signs were posted at the end ()leach street to be vacated, Mr. Lange advised that in processing a street vacation, staff reviews a number of criteria for approval to determine if the street is still required for public access. Staff does not anticipate that either Baldwin Avenue or Glenn Road would serve any public use and are still part of the recommendation from staff to vacate. Mr. Lange added that there has been a request for both ingress/egress and sewer easements that have been added as a recoirunended condition of approval. Staff also reviews conditional changes and feels University Road may provide a public benefit in the future should an overpass be proposed. There were no public objections during the comment period. Commissioner Kelley asked for clarification pertaining to University Road and what the City was asking. Mr. Lange advised the City would like to retain University Road and not allow it to be vacated in order to preserve it for future projects. Commissioner Johnson referenced an einaiI from Jen Brunner requesting a 20 -foot public sanitary sewer easement and asked where that would be located. Mr. Lange advised that is yet to be determined however; it would most likely be along the proposed access point parallel to Baldwin Road. Chair, Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:20 PM Todd Whipple; 212 N Pines Road: Mr. Whipple stated the retention of University Road by the City was a surprise to his client. He advised that when his client had come to him asking about this piece of property, they had done their research before purchasing. He cautioned his client not to purchase the property until they had clarification concerning the crossing at University Road from the City that they had located in the 1985 SR90 Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Whipple continued that during their Pre - Application meetings they brought the University Road crossing information to the City's attention and were advised by City staff to move forward and vacate University Road, now they have changed their mind. Mr. Whipple advised the customer has done a considerable amount of work, provided plans to the City and had received a grading permit. He added that the grading permit restrictions specified that until the street vacations were approved they were not to do any work on the ROWs. He explained that it became too difficult to maneuver around the property and then the customer had to stop the project. Staff has taken University Road out of the proposal completely. Mr. Whipple stated they received correspondence that the City would entertain a license agreement in order to use the property as if it were vacated to protect the possible future public improvements while the City retains ownership. Mr. Whipple asked the Planning Commission to maintain the University Street Vacation in order to give them time to go before the City Council with a request for a license agreement to use University Road ROW while the City retains ownership. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Whipple, if the license agreement is obtained and years down the road the City decided to build a bridge, at whose expense would it be to remove the work they had done? Mr. Whipple advised it would depend on the license agreement and would most likely be the responsibility of Circle M Properties. Mr. Whipple gave some details into what they have done and hope to do. He advised they would grade to highway elevation to create the access road between the two distinct properties on either side and explained their road would be well below University Road. Mr. Whipple gave details into building a crossing structure over 1-90 and stated the work they have and will do should not affect future bridge development. He added they would be willing to work with the City in regards to abutment and girder locations at that time. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 Commissioner Kaschrnitter asked that if the access road they would build is lower than University Road and should a bridge be built; would the bridge have to be longer in order to accommodate? Mr. Whipple explained that may be the case adding that currently there isn't enough ROW to widen University Road. He explained that University Road is 50- feet wide and building a 45-foot road to go over 1-90 would require walls straight up and down. He explained that would be cost prohibitive and would be cheaper to build girders and a deck. Commissioner Walton asked for clarification that should it be decided to move forward as amended and University Road is retained how would that impact what they are currently doing until they obtain the license, Mr. Whipple advised the work would stop and could potentially kill the project. They will need to enter on one side and exit on the other due to the size of equipment they use in order to move their materials. if they cannot use University Road, then they purchased a piece of property they can't use. He added that they are moving their corporate headquarters to this site, losing University Road was a big deal and losing the license agreement would be detrimental. Patrick J Mitchelli, 4107 E Broadway Avenue; Mr. Mitchelli explained Mr. Whipple covered all of their concerns. He added that before purchasing the property they made sure University Road would be able to be vacated and explained that if that is no longer the case that will put their business in a tough spot. Mr. Mitchelli added that directly across from University Road is the junk yard and stated that isn't going anywhere in the near future. Justin Fabio, 302 N Walnut Road; Mr. Fabio asked if the traffic was going to run north of University Road and where it would exit. It was determined that the street would run north af University Road, through Circle M Properties and would exit onto Raymond Road. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 6:39 PM Commissioner Johnson asked staff why they concluded to remove University Road from the proposal and creating a license agreement. Mr. Basinger stated staff recognized that there may be a potential use for University Road sometime in the future adding that not knowing when that might happen the license agreement is an appropriate means to move forward. He highlighted that currently Circle M Properties is located on prime retail property on Pines Road and them moving would open that property to better uses. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb spoke to the license agreement terms stating the City can require that the applicant's improvements are subject to the City putting in a future project. He added that the license agreement would allow Circle M Properties to use the property while the City retains control to build a future project. It was determined the license agreement details do not require Planning Commission action. Commissioner Kelley spoke about his experience driving truck while serving in the United States Army and how difficult they are to turn around in small spaces. He is concerned for the applicant's future as they invest their funds and work for a number of years and then the City builds a bridge, Commissioner Johnson advised that in the early 1990's he was involved in a two-year long process with Spokane County where an overpass was discussed for University Road trying to mitigate the traffic flow on Argonne Road. At the time, the bypass would start near Bigelow Gulch Road, above Hutton settlement, across the river and to University Road, he is unsure if that is still the long range plan. An interchange at University Road is not feasible at this time however, an overpass may be needed in twenty years. Commissioner 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 Johnson is opposed to leaving University Road in the proposal and is in support of the amendment presented by staff, Commissioner McKinley asked staff if the City would have eminent domain rights. Mr. Lamb explained that if in fact University Road was vacated the City would have eminent domain. The City could either purchase or condemn the property and it would be a matter of retaining the right to do so in the future or the City may feel comfortable enough not to develop and willing to pay the cost in the future if necessary. Currently it is City property and should a bridge be developed at a later date the City would have all rights to the property. Commissioner Walton stated the possibilities in cost associated with repurchasing or condemning the property and the legal implication are concerning. He added that looking at the future and how approvals impact the valley as a whole he feels the City needs to leave all possible mechanisms in place. Commissioner Kaschmitter stated she feels the license agreement will help and is in favor of it. She also agrees there may be a need for a bridge in the future. Commissioner Walton moved to approve STV -2019-0002 for Baldwin Road and Glenn Road with the removal of University Roadfrom the street vacation application as amended by staff Commissioner Kelley advised in looking at the map it appears there are four structures that would have to be reproved in order build a bridge at a later date. He added that he is opposed to the motion and feels the street vacation for University Road should remain. Commissioner Walton advised he understands where the proponent and applicant stand as it seems the City changed their mind late in the process. He added that in doing so staff was looking to do what's right for the future of the City and feels the City was well within the right to make the change as the vacation had not yet occurred. He strongly urges City Council to consider the license agreement to run concurrent as it continues to move forward. Commissioner Walton added that he can't, in good conscience, support the promise to obtain licensure if the vacation is approved and is in support of the motion as it stands. Commissioner Kaschmitter agreed with Commissioner Walton, Commissioner McKinley supports the motion and also agreed with Commissioner Kelly regarding the structures that would need to be removed. The vote on the motion was four in favor, one opposed with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, and the motion passed iii. Public Rearing: CTA -2019-0002, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 19.60, Chapter 19.85 and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations on licensed marijuana transportation businesses. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:57 PM Mr. Lamb provided a presentation outlining the code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transport operators to operate within the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Lamb provided background into Washington Initiative 1-502 that passed in 2,412 legalizing marijuana in Washington State. The City responded with adopting comprehensive regulations for the allowable state license uses to be production, process and retail stores. As part of the regulations the City Council adopted a provision 19.85.040 that prohibits all other uses within the City of Spokane Valley. In the fall of 2018 the City had a citizen 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 inquiry from a license transporter hoping to do business in the City. Staff presented an administrative report to the City Council and the Council gave consensus to bring a proposal forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Lamb continued that transportation is only between the licensed production, process, retail stores and research facilities and is not for home delivery. The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) oversees the licensing and licensed transporters are subject to WSLCB requirements. Mr. Lamb continued that license marijuana transporters are required to have a physical location or office to store their fleet and state law prohibits them from storing marijuana in an office or physical location. State requires transportation logs and manifests in keeping with the state mandate that marijuana be suitably tracked from seed to sale. Mr. Lamb explained the product is transported in secured compartments, required to be attached to the vehicle or vehicle body and are locked at all times. Delivery has to be made within 48 hours from the time of pick up as there may be an instance where the marijuana is left in the vehicle overnight. Commissioner Johnson asked about shorter stops such a dinner and lunch breaks. Mr. Lamb advised it is allowed to be in the vehicle in a secured compartment no matter the length of the break. Commissioner Kelley asked if a truck could be stored in a storage facility or garage? Mr. Lamb advised that is an option, adding that under state law the product cannot be stored in an office and there is no mandate that the vehicle has to be stored in a garage or storage facility. Mr. Lamb added that state law prohibits licensed marijuana transporters from being within 1,000 feet of enumerated sensitive uses such as schools, playgrounds, public transit and libraries. Mr. Lamb gave an example that currently under state law a marijuana shop could be built near an empty park like property with no current use. The City's buffers already in place prohibit marijuana shops from being built within 1,000 feet of vacant uses in order to prohibit non -conforming uses. Mr. Lamb addressed the questions posed by the Corn nission during the study session starting with the transportation of live plants. Transporting live plants is allowed in a secured compartment, those compartments could be metal partitions, cages or shatter proof acrylic to allow the plant to stay alive. Mr. Lamb added that the vehicle transporting the live plants must be windowless to the maximum extent possible. Mr. Lamb addressed advertising concerns advising state law prohibits advertising on or in private vehicles to limit the draw of attention. Mr. Larnb addressed the question regarding being stopped by law enforcement and identifying themselves. Transporters are required to keep a binder with their license details in the vehicle at all times to easily provide to law enforcement. Transport vehicles under the law are considered to be an extension of the licensed prernises and can be stopped and inspected at any time. Mr. Lamb concluded that staff identified potential impacts to be traffic; as there are no restriction on fleet size, odor; as marijuana will be kept in vehicles, and crime; also due to marijuana being kept in vehicles. WSLCB is not aware of any complaints regarding odor or any break-ins to transport vehicles. Mr. Lamb concluded that this proposal is to allow licensed transporters in the Regional Commercial (RC), Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Industrial (1) zones as this will address traffic issues by placing them near arterials. The proposal includes the City buffers related to vacant school, library and City properties and also requires a lockable enclosure for the fleet if they are in the RC zone. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Kelley asked what the definition of Regional Commercial zone is. Mr. Basinger explained that RC zones are for commercial regional uses located throughout I- 90 along high traffic exits like the Spokane Valley Mall. Mr. Basinger added the enclosure suggested are due to the fact that there would be a lot of individuals shopping in these zone. The City wants to ensure the vehicles and products are stored properly. Kevin Lynch, 722 W Wedgewood; Mr. Lynch advised there are other transport companies in the state that already stay the night in the City of Spokane Valley during transport. He spoke to the topic of smell advising the product is vacuum sealed for packaging, then placed in sealed totes and then in a compartment in the van preventing odor. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Lynch if he currently ships live plants? Mr. Lynch advised he does periodically as it is 1 % of his business. He added that per state law the vehicle that ships live plants cannot have any windows as Mr. Lamb had mentioned. Commissioner Walton asked Mr. Lynch to describe what a law enforcement interaction would look like. Mr. Lynch explained that his staff are required to wear ID badges to prove they are an employee. He continued that the binder carried in the vehicles as mentioned before include their common carrier license, business License, insurance card and affidavit. There is a manifest and invoice in the primary tote that can be provided to law enforcement when requested. Mr. Lynch explained that it can range from law enforcement knowing the business being conducted before even making contact with them to being asked to provide all documents in the vehicle and in the totes. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Lynch why the information isn't offered to the officer and it was explained that would be breaking the chain of custody due to the seed to sale laws. Mr. Lynch added that by law he does not have to prove to law enforcement what is being transported in the totes unless instructed to do provide documentation. Commissioner Walton asked Mr. Lynch what impacts the City's request to have a secure enclosure would have on his business? Mr. Lynch advised it does add to cost. He stated that he is a proponent of the request as it will make his staff, drivers, product and vehicles more secure. He added that buildings are hard to find and cost ranges from $1,800 to $2,500 dollars a month, it is also difficult to find a landlord that will rent to him. Mr. Lamb addressed the discussion pertaining to law enforcement stops highlighting that there is a preemption prevision in state law that WSLCB provides all operations of the licensed uses. The City would not be able to ask for any additional forms of identification or supplemental documentation, Commissioner Walton asked staff why the City chose to exempt Appleway trail from the 1,000 -foot exclusion zone? Mr. Lamb advised that the City Council does provide a prohibition on retail sales within. 1,000 feet of Appleway trail to prevent the end users from using the trail. Council felt it appropriate to exempt Appleway trail due to its extent across the City and crossing multiple zones. Mr. Lamb added the limitations in place such as production staying indoors and no chemical processing. This was a compromise for business rights and property rights verses the trail and its beneficial use by citizens. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 Commissioner Walton stated he was intrigued by this proposal due to the attitudes and state adoption of marijuana usage across the country. He feels it's a good idea to stay at the cutting edge of the process within state guidelines and state law, adding that the City wants to promote growth of all kinds. Commissioner Walton likes the proposal and feels there is a good compromise in the adoption of the enclosures and is in support. Commissioner Kelley explained his understanding of the process due to an acquaintance having a similar business and how it operated. Commissioner Kelly explained he feels this will attract criminals that want to steal the trucks and the product. Commissioner Kelly stated he does not appreciate the confrontational attitude toward law enforcement. He added that having been part of this first hand, landlords have the right not to lease to businesses they feel will be a detriment to the conununity. Commissioner Kelly believes there is a lot of crime attracted to and associated with marijuana businesses and is concerned for people's safety. Commissioner Walton move to approve CTA -2019-0002 as presented. Commissioner Kelley reminded the Commission that when I-502 was first presented, the marijuana grow, production and retail facilities were voted down by the Commission, He added that Ms belief is that if the legalization of marijuana would have been brought to the vote of the people of Spokane Valley it would not have passed and he is greatly opposed. Commissioner Walton thanked Commissioner Kelley for the background. He added that he is in support as the City allows this type of business and are staying on the cutting edge. Commissioner Walton advised that location and regulations have addressed many concerns. Commissioner Walton continued one of his primary considerations was to understand how this business is being perceived by local law enforcement and appreciated the perspective from the proponent as well as Commissioner Kelley's position. The vote on the motion was four in favor, one opposed with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, and the motion passed. iv. Public Hearing: STV -2019-0001, proposed street vacations of a portion of Tshirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road in the Northeast Industrial Area. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 7:40 kin. Mr. Basinger provided a presentation to the Commission outlining the Northeast Industrial Area City Initiated Street Vacation. Mr, Basinger provided background advising on April 29, 2019 City Council initiated the Street Vacation and set a public hearing with the Planning Commission, On April 25, 2019 a study session was conducted and tonight the public hearing is being held. Mr.. Basinger explained this area is located in the Northeast Industrial Area were the City has taken action to advance development. The City rezoned the property to allow a broader variety of industrial uses, extended the sewer from Sullivan Road to Barker Road and have adopted a planned action ordinance to streamline development. The proposed street vacations will further prepare the area for development. Mr. Basinger advised Garland Avenue will provide access for future development. He added that the current ROW may be an impediment for a large industrial user to developed in the future. Mr. Basinger continued, the proposed vacations are the unimproved Right of 05-23-2019 PlannigCommissionMIIIUtes Page 9of9 Ways (ROW) of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Greenacres Road and Rich Avenue. Public notice was posted and mailed on April 25, 2019, posted in the Valley Herald and the Exchange on April 26, 2019 and May 3, 2019 and signs were posted on each end of proposed vacation areas. There have been no public or agency comments to date. Mr. Basinger added that the City has been working with Consolidated Irrigation District as they would like to loop their water system. The City will have an easement in place once Tschirley Road ROW is removed to accommodate for their loop. Staff is requesting the approval to vacate the ROWs subject to the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Basinger provided a list of the conditions. Vacated property will be transferred into the abutting parcels, if approved the area will be surveyed to identify applicable easements. There was some discussion regarding a Pre -Application meeting that determined there would be a land locked parcel once the ROWs are vacated. However, the applicants are proposing to apply for a boundary line elimination to make one parcel mitigating this issue. Mr. Basinger concluded that the zoning will be extended to include the vacated ROWs, a survey will be recorded and all conditions will be fully satisfied prior to transfer of title. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 7:49 p. in. Commissioner Walton moved to approve STV -2019-0001 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Kasclunitter thanked the public for their comments.. Commissioner Walton spoke about his reflection on the previous meeting and overall dedication from the Commission and community. He thanked Commissioner Kelley for reminding himself and staff of his passion in allowing the public to have their free speech. Commissioner Walton apologized to the Commission and members of the public if his comments felt as if they were dissuading the public from speaking as that was not his intent. Commissioner Walton concluded with thanking the Commission for their dedication. Mr. Basinger added currently the Planning Commission is the forum where comments will be received, so it is with utmost importance they are heard. It is also important to forward a recommendation that synthesizes the Commission's vote and he appreciated the Commissions service. Commissioner Johnson stated he concurred with Commissioner Walton and also appreciated being a part of this team. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Conunissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:5.5 p.m. The vole on the motion was jive in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. e.:0/5/4a/7 James Johnson, Chairtnan Date signed .1)4411, - Robin Hutchins, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 24, 2019 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent n old business n new business n public hearing n information ® admin. report n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report — Street vacation of a portion of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.140; Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35A.47.020 and RCW 35.79 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: At the April 9, 2019 City Council meeting, a public hearing date was set with the Planning Commission for May 23, 2019. BACKGROUND: The City received an application on March 8, 2019, from Whipple Consulting Engineering representing Circle M Family Properties, requesting to vacate the unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road. The total area requested to be vacated for Baldwin Avenue (669 feet in length) is 40,144 square feet, for University Road (225 feet in length) approximately 12,926 square feet, and for Glenn Road (19 feet in length) approximately 878 square feet. The right-of- way widths are 50-60 feet. The property owner has identified the following reasons for making the request: 1. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and not maintained; 2. The vacation will allow maximum use of abutting properties because parcels 45093.1519 and 45084.0401 owned by Circle M Family Properties accounts for the majority of ownership along the unimproved right-of-ways; and 3. Interstate 90 intersects University Road and Glenn Road to the north hindering future right-of- way connection; and Baldwin Avenue right-of-way is offset from the constructed Baldwin Avenue to the west, which prohibits connection. A 2015 study by Fehr & Peers evaluated the feasibility of an overpass connection at University Road. The study examined the cost of the project in comparison with level of service that would be provided by the improvements. Due to the relatively high cost and low level of service an overpass at University Road would provide, other alternative projects were chosen to be completed. However, recent discussions among City staff regarding the University Road right -of way concluded that the University Road right-of- way may provide potential public benefit if a pedestrian or vehicle access crossing becomes viable in the future. Therefore, due to these recent discussions, it is the City's recommendation to remove the vacation of University Road from the proposal. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on May 9, 2019 and a public hearing on May 23, 2019. Following public testimony and deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the amended proposal (as described above) to vacate Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road but retain the right-of-way for University Road. The findings and recommendations were approved by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2019. SVMC Section 22.140.040 directs City Council to consider the Planning Commission's findings, conditions and/or limitations appropriate to preserve the public use or benefit, the division of the vacated RCA Administrative Report for STV -2019-0002 Page 1 of 2 right-of-way among abutting property owners, and lastly whether to require compensation for the right- of-way and when it is to be paid. Council established Resolution 07-009 to provide parameters on requiring compensation. Within the Resolution, Section 1(Policy); states "The cost for property received as a result of a vacation initiated by an adjacent property owner shall equal 50% of the appraised value of the vacated property received" Section 1.1.a allows the property values to be averaged, if value of adjacent properties differs. The table below includes the analysis for associating an estimated appraised value for the vacated property. Parcel Number Appraised Market Value (2019) Lot Size in Square Appraised Value per Square 2 2 Feet ft Foot ft 45093.1519 $32,940 131,745 2 Average appraised value per ft Square feet of Baldwin Avenue & Glenn Road Appraised value for the area of street vacation 50% of appraised value Subtracting amount paid for application processing 1 $0.25 $0.25/1 = $0.25 2 41,022 ft 2 41,022 ft x $0.25 = $10,255.50 $10,255.50 x 50% = $5,127.75 $5,127.75 - $ 1,365.00 = $3,762.75 Estimated value of Baldwin Avenue & Glenn Road = $3,762.75 Therefore, 50% of the appraised value for the unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road minus the application fees total $3,762.75. Section 1.4 of Resolution 07-009 allows City Council to take an alternative approach, if it is determined the public interest is better served. Options for Council consensus will be presented at the first ordinance reading to be held on July 9, 2019. OPTIONS: Consensus to proceed with first ordinance reading as proposed; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consensus to proceed with a first ordinance reading at the July 9, 2019 Council meeting. STAFF CONTACT: Connor Lange, Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. PowerPoint Presentation 2. Signed Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation 3. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission, including exhibits 4. Approved Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 9, 2019 5. Approved Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 23, 2019 6. Resolution 07-009 RCA Administrative Report for STV -2019-0002 Page 2 of 2 Circle M Properties Street Vacation SN -2019-0002 City Council Administrative Report June 24, 2019 Spokane ��Ualley Process: Formal Application Submittal • U Public Hearing 5-23-19 Findings of Fact cs 6-13-19 Study Session 5-9-19 Admin Report 6-24-19 18' Reading 7-9-19 2nd Reading 7-23-19 Conditions satisfied Today Staff Review Record Ordinance and Record of Survey � C "C citC.7 023 cit *Wane Valley Vicinity Map N a 0G' University Road, Baldwin Avenue & Glenn Road street vacation • 11360.00' E IND RD J 90 . 20• TT REDRESSED 0. STREET VACAroN 30• �' APPROXIMATELY NE 12.926 s.-. TAX PARCEL #45093 1519 ger 6091X �a 9 90' //,,//rr..// (INDIANA AVENUE?) ROP05Ec sTR_ET Y- •NA??-ozNA/SALT iii E MISSION :' E SHEET ox 2 3 I 4 I 5 : 6 I I a I R B IA 11 12 13 I I I I I I I I I14� 0 MISSION RIDGE, 2ND ADDITION I NORA AVENUE I M155100 RIDGE FIRST ADDI'T'ION EXHIBIT PROPOSED STREET VACATION BALDWIN AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY, WABHINOTON TAX PARCEL #450912401 SULLIVAN ADDITION 4WCE Spokane . Valley 3 Proposed Street Vacation: APPLICANT'S REASON FOR REQUEST: ➢ Unimproved and not maintained ➢ Allow maximum use of abutting properties ➢ Majority of ownership is same owner ➢ No feasible future right-of-way connection Spokane _.Valley 4 City's Recommended Proposal Change: Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road still to be vacated Retain University Road CITY'S REASON FOR CHANGE: ➢ Fehr & Peers (2015) evaluated feasibility of overpass connection at University Road. ➢ Right-of-way could provide public benefit in the future. ➢ City recommends retaining University Road. SOokan e Valley 5 Planning Commission Recommendation: Voted 4-1 to approve (with 9 conditions) the amended proposal to vacate Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road but retain University Road. Spokane .Valley City Council Considerations: ➢ Planning Commission findings; ➢ Conditions and/or limitations deemed appropriate to preserve public use or benefit; ➢ Specifies which portion of street goes to abutting property owners; and ➢ Feasibility to require compensation based upon Resolution 07-009. Spokane ��Ualley 7 Estimated Value of Vacation per RES 07-009: 45093.1519 Appraised Market Value (2019) $32,940 of Size in Square 2 131,745 2 Average appraised value per ft Square feet of Baldwin Avenue & Glenn Road Appraised value for the area of street vacation 50% of appraised value Subtracting amount paid for application processing eet ft Appraised Value per Square 2 of ft $0.25 $0.25/1 = $0.25 r 2 41,022 ft 2 41,022 ft x $0.25 = $10,255.50 $10,255.50 x 50% = 5 127.75 $5,127.75 - $ 1,365.00 = $3,762.75 Estimated value of Baldwin Avenue & Glenn Road = $3,762.75 Spokane .Valley 8 1 ti . e-. r•• = , F+-11 sir,. ., art T RECUFFTFD � r VAC AT. ON As'19HIYIVIA.'LL '2.926 S._ T r y` ,'..c9 %' • : , r 1i3 r'1' — A if t',� AN DIANA f'- NA A V [ r /` r r rdr lr drlr-/'FFFrf_{ x r r If r r dr'FF t'€rrr -'r•F`r'I`fs�s'I•�, I• r'2 I. C,�r�.^� n.f ? R`x n OF' 7a•9 -T-E c• • rdf.fr''..r e{LL6+� •r'�i r. iiQ 1.'r �'+.rr}{.. LFY /ilRi� '4 .`7 .'r f F r f .!,''�". r d 1 4 rFp irl F C] ' ti{AC.AT1 OII LI KM TS PROPOSED 5.0 FF' FROM E'ID OF PIC ri IP PRCI\/EkAEINT ATO .eA .4 VEi'v'{.e' eC,,)17N r<wlw t v r,s•r Ar?r,1T-.l Fav 66 P.O 012 too �7' .Ossi- 1 9 st r r e -s n v Ft A VI ru. r'r r3Y- TE2w DALE: r ' 1 04' i€ E � IIlaIT PRDRID EQ STREE [ V. C" V1DNJ El LCOWI N.' A.' "El 1'4 LIQ E W H I r 1 I3 I ] r.r 'r-- 1 X ?-'ILII 0.1 6[7`..k1 _ 763 DETENT PON Spokane _Valley 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION ST \--21119-0002 - Street vaeaticm or a portion of Baldwin Avenue, University Road And Glenn Road Ptirstian to SVNI(: 1 7.X0.1 OIL: Plano in2 amsicler the propw-al preparc r431Wald Z.1 to:oruitcridation I.e., 11R: C.1p,.. Council lollovvino the public hcaring. The following, rindings are COnSiStC111 With till2 Planning l2<inrimission recontrocndation. Buck' ii 1. !AC, ,1.111L! Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), governing street vacations, was adoptc.1 i Scii:i2:1,I)cr 2007 and became effective on October 2E, 2007. 1 ; 1 -Le pr.vate.v-.n.u,ned street VaCation, STV -2019-0002, proposes to vacate unimproved sections of A \iii 6(o) Ecogili), University Road (225 feet 111 length) and Glenn Road (19 feet in 11 I I 1:11Htiliv. pirperlv nr7,ticed )ottrin nit Tl; o :.::() I t) :aryl L'eroducitld a .11Mr1li Lomirlissiol; io ri::D..1)11.1end olHic (1:rorn stall) to vacate .\ eml: but 1 L 1 rover-fliv B. Planning Commission Findings: COmpliance with SVM 27,140.030 11ialli111112 Coinunis,:ion revicw and recommendation Finthrig(s): V1/4:110.114.1' ch.,:ilooe u.se or vacliiion t Arci:t or :ilkv better serve. the public? TIE: Elfin pI'(11,1 u.nimptoved at- located ‘v;thin the Coolly?. Fx.vironmcntal p_aliN.a.1 an: eascracni! 1:)r: hc: :ippliCallt Siar:C11 Ilwapplicalioa Plamials that an wookl to provide ftiturc ft-.) pateel 45093.2401. Aventic oNpect......Li to have no iMpet 011 r1,11111', ',.;r10.111H)S, ,.1.:fr,711.1V do riouse way iter access, However. Tais-:.ii:on of 1:riiversify .Rold1ii I tLflhi.J T. irivict the Therefore. City rc ii thC ri.„1-11 l.-oF.vay for pro.1,2.ct liL rc unforeseen at 2_ Whether the street or alley is no I .411TgUl- Thc ;s:ohject right-or-wa.!.... Ls urimprcrold rid site is if,ordered 1:3y conneci on for Ba:cIwin Av1111e. HiI rid SCC'. ion Lloivcrsity Idd ri:211 rinirecl tor pohhc R. or politic acecss? not lielm:2.11r1 izutl i,-1111,11[. provid,.-:-; 1 1,1 F way could law.: id,: -.,:..tehtizd 5'.'as ever : 111,:r I •,.C111 ..).1711:11 Iy 1 .H.3 'A'114.•011(.1' !hi; xubsiitelti9lre (}1'..1lic'rL arid (id -Ivy -cut public a`<'ma1' ►k'rulil 1rt rltlI'e' ttvcf'ul in ills piddle:? [ iil'IfC :ILLUS is riotrLccCILEI '.E1 11El�:llti;l 144.,t19i4` IIA' lli'(7lrt. :;1: H.117[4'I1C's' Hill .L Ill TI��_l1t- ',`';It ticce.ws and 11"I, inaj,'I'It5' .11t ' li ,';I:ap .;i�l[l�? ll'la' LLIIIriY19rL;t ti.l I'!!.Il? tll°'•`:alb' I ",t I'.tiil ll}' (_'ire -le' '1 1'c1111�1}' Vi I:LriICS. "MT:: Iin H ! Ll TO i 1,2ni l}11`71'[' Al] ]Ilw!1'C'S4'0!;!'C',Sti $IC44 •� :'i1S4311fail viii! 1)e_ en;;.I1C'. 1971- 17:91-;a:1 '15093 .7,101. \Vtrc'thcr cowl sr! change in the f' tit re as to l i' n ides a greater use cr° ne d than tlr-c'scnilx t"tiitits:r 1711 tltC` co11;1n.LliC'11:: ve plan it is 11c1 n:iticipated that ::11Evi Cs W i:1 occur itl the IYllltrc' llr;:l a,llllti r' .lairs lilt` 1.:,c (d.the Baldv\•in . v.nue 11r (,!term R xtd right -1 1'-t'a':l4' 111tii:a4S!.-Cd 111 the IlaCkgI f.}LInd ccLit?il 6itive_I-srli' Road has 1tctt.!L1HI1 [+ �C !'1 l' L LI�,eIL'I 111 rl li' t.ian currently C'\]til.ti. The right-of-way could prot'idt' Whir('I LlllliC "Ic!YE ",1 with<i ,?-dcstriati orvelIIC:It: L3CC'i wti ovurrass, Whether objections to the llrolko4e_d vacation arc I]l.ulc toy owners of Ilri%•ate properly t,`w,clusii of petit ill:ec'r°.i :donning the strict lir altey or other c'rI]ilic' li L:i 1 'Ll;'L'Iiet s or Ink_it]IJCrs DI the „C:11Lt'al public.? 1ti,.7 1rI11 L.1101. ±[ :?:-r1711 UL ;lll( I1t was I'4L-Clle° 'd. (.. ('t>'nclusion: ''lli.' I'l1i 1lls'ti (71.1-1 Frill CI'Itc'.:M SSC': I{`i-Ill in S MC 22..14c.i.O.30I14;rc been met. D. IZeromi rclicltaticrl: Planning Commission 1-cc-in-lin—Kidd ; (`i.;y t'�1L,11(`1. 4tiilr:-t]ve (he rl.11me nded proposal 1f 63alclkti is Avenue and Glen:l IZ !,l l 11111 r Iain the rii lli. '0i way i4Yr t!IIive 'iI Road sul-ILU'1 I01IIt pl.rlf7ll�lGlr, 1. In iiial '',,'f r1. 11 ;I]rs`�- : ,ll:c'itiE slw ^:if tlic N1I-uc,1 vacation (File tJ,l_ S 11—V-?{.) I 9-[11J02). incltic:1nt: all Lo'llali1i )Il 'ic'I'"1t 11x111 h: >:ii1'nli11i Lo the City for rcvicw within 00 iia4; follok,'int the effective chic 2.. l'llf vacated i1ropc'r:•, :;I ;111 t;:l.'15l'C'.i i ed into the abutting parcel (45093.1519) as shown or the record) of survey crc,Y1 ;c1 .n -.i recorded with Simk,t ie County Auditors ( i`#i4r pursuant to condi.l.lori 8. }, -11c Following casenie 's shall be estalalislled- Submit record -mu; Ilunlht r f9 Y r.:u.ord of survey and lvritiL'.II cIt.74 un'ICllt:li1+.111 t)t casement fc'1; C.iYv ver-iti Liilll. sl. .'All 'i:!Xt.'i(I14.' I["•i'• `i�'tilll Il`tIS+C; fl,..;[t`�� to ;I '.11}lIC 4i1 -:;:et :3r oxistiL1`_' Clrl'.'c'I L .I11C-11t prior LES 12IYil1t:'1i i}1'i ?I' CIs s ;ell 11 : rL'c,7nl IHIR'C through a I1r7111IJ.lry !'H ;I:l.ILIStI11 :J1t or 2rl casement '.ic c.rtlrlt. i1 li' pi 'S 1 14 iic[k_'i; to [J!LCl /1.51.0:',..:41.) 1 . b. A11 cii tlL]LMl it{:i;42pt[1b14 ID i',1.Z.tllit IA:11111v .:I11'iron m i_a1'tl 41 'ILLti IE1r Access to public sC\vf,lr tc. serve'. Iiar c:I 15093.1 101. 1f, parecl .4509:x. i'' I i.; [ f x14,! i4lrrted with an adjacent parcel that has acct... Ir .he sanitary s .v. r ,r -;.[cru. Il, t<1icIi1ei1l is 1"t E llil' il. 4. Fnllotiviii ills City Council's passage fthe CSI d H II14k' Anr..r..'t iiaLi. the ti1u e1 vacation, a record of s1:r's i.v ':7i'tIlc area to be v.9t',Itcd. pr4'.p,Er4r! tl4' I!. rt_,i,tc r4K 'Il ..;; I:r 111 the S-Laie Washington, iI ILI4�!Et:! :111 '!nd bounds 1'-A''_1 ilc-;(_I ipl io i. ;..`14' .` I.L't iIyLillzd any :lila <III applicable C.I E'rllCII1 . 1i"I' <..:11i,1i;tcL::.r., repair cilli) IilEllrlt': n;u1..e .r Lw, i III".; and future rttiliLic aiiii services, shall be 4tllr, 1i°I ii `oly the proponent to the (''1', V1HIi;I{ a.'I'. or dt'siin cc, for :-ev'iew. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Comnrssion STV -2019-0002 Page 2 of 3 5 The surveyor shall locate a montaucin a-t the intersection of the center-Lille ibc street or riL,ht-or-wo,...iii 1111L vvith Eh(' standainik ,..:-.;.!:.11!isiled by die !--;VH, 6, All direct ,,:osts of taL: Haft-ALT ir.c. vacated :stic. Irii pi ihIi to private ow:ILI:41u), iii;Audiug but rat to, Lille compLirty. r,:uorLling fees s!;;111, L. pruit p:oponcm.t. The City shili not assume any Jimancid for any J‘.!r costs for tile oftitic. cii.-;-.riet designation 0:Lit: pr.:)cl ties adjoining the street to be vacated be C[C11Cled ior. ji inchitted 111 1;k: IIi :".10,TICC101111 1.]:(2 clistOkt incl.r,-;P:c 01.1H applic•Aa iv,..:ord of survey and eel-(illedr..)y iI LTflCe shaii bc recorded by thc r1 c)f the Sp:ikane, County Alid 9. Mi.iis of Council autlioriii:ton shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by FILL: C. Approvail this 13th itt). of June, 2(119 °- 1 Si)l) ELS II, i I 111:tii ATTEST / • L.21 Deannit Horton" Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations o F the Spokane Valley ?tanning Commission STV-26,1g-DIDO2 ?age 3 of 3 Spakar�e 4.0°Valley COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING & PLANNING STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FILE: STV -2019-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE: May 16, 2019 FILE NO: STV -2019-0002 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Request to vacate unimproved sections of Baldwin Avenue (669 feet in length), University Road (225 feet in length) and Glenn Road (19 feet in length). The right-of-way widths vary ranging from 50 to 64 feet. STAFF PLANNER: Connor Lange, Planner, Community & Public Works PROPERTY OWNER: Circle M Family Properties LLC; 2123 N Pines Road; Spokane Valley, WA 99216 PROPOSAL LOCATION: The portion of right-of-ways proposed to be vacated are located between Interstate 90 (north) and Nora Avenue (south) and adjacent to three parcels (45093.1519, 45084.0401 and 45084.1314) further located in the SW quarter of the SW quarter of Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane Valley, Washington BACKGROUND: The City received an application on March 8, 2019 from Whipple Consulting Engineering representing Circle M Family Properties, requesting to vacate the unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road. The total area requested to be vacated for Baldwin Avenue is 40,144 square feet, for University Road approximately 12,926 square feet and for Glenn Road approximately 878 square feet. The property owner has identified the following reasons for making the request: 1. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and not maintained; 2. The vacation will allow maximum use of abutting properties because parcels 45093.1519 & 45084.0401 owned by Circle M Family Properties accounts for the majority of ownership along the unimproved right-of-ways; and 3. Interstate 90 intersects University Road and Glenn Road to the north hindering future right of way connection; and Baldwin Avenue right-of-way is offset from the constructed Baldwin Avenue to the west, which prohibits connection. A 2015 study by Fehr & Peers evaluated the feasibility of an overpass connection at University Road. The study examined the cost of the project in comparison with level of service that would be provided by the improvements. Due to the relatively high cost and low level of service an overpass at University Road would provide, other alternative projects were chosen to be completed. However, recent discussions among city staff regarding the University Road right-of-way concluded that the Staff Report and Recommendation STV -2019-0002 Page 1 of 11 May 15, 2019 University Road right-of-way may provide potential public benefit if a pedestrian or vehicle access crossing becomes viable in the future. Therefore, due to these recent discussions it is the City's recommendation to remove the vacation of University Road from the proposal. The site does not contain any city facilities or utility improvements. All improvements stop at the edge of the pavement for University Road which will remain as dedicated right-of-way. Although the majority of the lots are owned by one entity a vacation of the right-of-way would leave parcel number 45093.2401 without access for both ingress/egress and sanitary sewer. Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 20.20.090.E "Every lot shall have direct access to a paved public street, private street, or an easement for a private driveway." The application states that an ingress/egress easement would be established to allow access to University Road across parcel 45093.1519 that is owned by Circle M Family Properties. Spokane County Environmental Services has requested a 20 foot public sanitary sewer easement in lieu of the public right of way. APPROVAL CRITERIA: 1. SVMC — Title 20 (Subdivision Regulations) 2. SVMC — Title 21 (Environmental Controls) 3. SVMC — Title 22 (Street Vacations) 4. City of Spokane Valley Street Standards ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Aerial Map Exhibit 3: Application Material Exhibit 4: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 5: Agency Comments I. PROPERTY INFORMATION Size and Characteristics of proposed vacation: The unimproved right of way area is approximately 40,144 square feet for Baldwin Avenue, 12,926 square feet for University Road and 878 square feet for Glenn Road. The entirety of the subject right of way is unimproved and covered in grass and weeds. Adjacent Comprehensive Plan Designation: Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Adjacent Zoning: Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Adjacent Land Use(s): Parcel 45093.1519, 45084.0401 and 45093.2401 are all vacant. Parcel 45084.1314 is Tract C of the University View Estates Planned Unit Development which is utilized for drainage and is planted with grass. Staff Report and Recommendation STV -2019-0002 May 15, 2019 Page 2 of 11 II. STAFF ANALYSIS OF STREET VACATION PROPOSAL A. COMPLIANCE WITH SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE (SVMC) TITLE 22.140.030 Findings: 1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public? The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and no utilities are located within the right- of-way. However, Spokane County Environmental Services requested an easement for sanitary sewer. The applicant stated in the application materials that an ingress/egress easement would be created to provide future access to parcel 45093.2401. The vacation of Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road are expected to have no impact on the general public as surrounding parcels currently do not use the right-of-way for access. However, the vacation of University Road has potential to impact the general public. As referenced above in the Background section, the right-of-way could provide future public benefit and therefore, staff recommends the City retain the University Road right-of-way for projects that are unforeseen at this time. 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access? The subject right-of-way is unimproved and not being utilized for public access. The site is bordered by Interstate 90 to the north which provides no reasonable means of connection for Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road. However, as referenced in the Background section University Road right-of-way could provide potential future public benefit if a pedestrian or vehicle access crossing was ever proposed. 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public? Public access is not needed in this area because no properties currently utilize the right-of- way for access and the majority of ownership along the unimproved right-of-way is owned by Circle M Family Properties. There is no need for a new and different public way. An ingress/egress access easement will be required to ensure access for parcel number 45093.2401. 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists? Based on the comprehensive plan it is not anticipated that changes will occur in the future that would require the use of the Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road right-of-way for public access. However, as discussed in the Background section the vacation of University Road has potential to provide a greater use than currently exists. The right-of-way could provide future public benefit with a pedestrian or vehicle access overpass. 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public? No objections or public comment has been received. Conclusions: Staff Report and Recommendation STV -2019-0002 Page 3 of 11 May 15, 2019 The findings confirm criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met. B. COMPLIANCE WITH SVMC TITLE 21 — ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS The Planning Division has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(2)(i) and SVMC 21.20.040 from environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: No public comments have been received following the notice of public hearing issued, mailed and posted on April 19, 2019. A Notice of Public Hearing sign was posted on the property April 19, 2019 in three separate locations and public hearing notices were mailed to all owners adjacent to the right-of-ways being vacated. Notices were posted in the Spokane Valley Public Library, City of Spokane Valley main reception area and CenterPlace Event Center on April 19, 2019. Lastly, the notice was published in the Spokane Valley Herald on April 19, 2019 and April 26, 2019. Conclusion(s): Staff concludes that adequate public noticing was conducted for STV -2019-0002 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. IV. AGENCY COMMENTS Notice was provided to agencies and service providers. Comments were received from the following agencies and are attached as exhibits to this staff report. Where necessary, comments have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval in Section V. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Spokane Valley Public Works Yes 4-19-19 Spokane Valley Fire District No.1 Yes 4-18-19 Spokane County Environmental Services Yes 5-10-19 Spokane Regional Health District No Avista Utilities Yes 3-4-19 Spokane Transit Authority No City of Spokane Valley Police Department No Century Link Yes 3-4-19 Comcast Yes 3-1-19 Modern Electric Water Company Yes 5-10-19 WA Archaeology and Historic Preservation Yes 4-23-19 WA Department of Transportation No Staff Report and Recommendation STV -2019-0002 May 15, 2019 Page 4of11 Spokane County Division of Utilities No Findings: Notice of application was routed to jurisdictional agencies, utilities, and public districts for review and comment. On April 19, 2019 comments were received from Ryan Kipp (Spokane Valley Traffic Engineer) which did not recommend the approval of the vacation for University Road due to the potential future public benefit of an overpass at University Road. Spokane County Environmental Services submitted comments on May 10, 2019 that requested a 20 foot sanitary sewer easement for vacant parcel 45093.2401 because it will no longer have any access to the public right-of-way. No other substantive agency comments have been received to date. Conclusion(s): Staff concludes that jurisdictional agencies, utilities, and or public districts have no concerns regarding the proposed street vacation for Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road. V. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS Staff concludes that STV -2019-0002 as proposed is generally consistent, or will be made consistent, through the recommended conditions of approval based on the approval criteria stated herein. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request to vacate a 669.08 foot unimproved portion of Baldwin Avenue and 19.90 feet of Glenn Road subject to the following: 1. Initial work to satisfy conditions of the street vacation (File No. STV -2019-0002), including all conditions below shall be submitted to the City for review within 90 days following the effective date of approval by the City Council. 2. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcels (45093.1519, 45084.0401 and 45084.1314) as shown on the record of survey created and recorded with Spokane County Auditor's Office pursuant to condition 8. 3. The following easements are required to be established. Submit recording number on record of survey and written documentation of easement for City verification. a. All existing lots shall have access to a public street or existing driveway easement prior to finalization. Parcels shall be reconfigured through a boundary line adjustment or an easement shall be created to provide access to parcel 45093.2401. b. An easement acceptable to Spokane County Environmental Services for access to public sewer to serve parcel 45093.2401. If, parcel 45093.2401 is consolidated with an adjacent parcel that has access to the sanitary sewer system, no easement is required. 4. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Staff Report and Recommendation STV -2019-0002 Page 5 of 11 May 15, 2019 Washington, including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be submitted by the proponent to the City Manager, or designee, for review. 5. The surveyor shall locate a monument at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right- of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the SVSS. 6. All direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated street from public to private ownership, including but not limited to, title company charges, copying fees, and recording fees shall be paid by the proponent. The City shall not and does not assume any financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title. 7. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the districts. The adopting Ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. 8. The record of survey and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 9. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Staff Report and Recommendation STV -2019-0002 Page 6 of 11 May 15, 2019 EXHIBIT 1 Staff Report and Recommendation STV -2019-0002 Page 7 of 11 May 15, 2019 1 r E IND 1P,P is RD r K441-, T EXHIBIT 2 Staff Report and Recommendation STV -2019-0002 Page 8 of 11 May 15, 2019 EXHIBIT 3 Staff Report and Recommendation STV -2019-0002 Page 9 of 11 May 15, 2019 Spokane galley. STREET VACATION APPLICATION SVMC 22.140 Community Development -- Planning Division 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 50.720.5310 $ Fax: 509.688.0037 ♦ planninty®spokanevallev.ore STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted:.` / �� 11 Received by: PLUS #: File #: '`�- Fee: nc, PART I- REQUIRED MATERIAL RECEIVED -THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED" MAR U 8 2019 ❑ Completed Application Form ❑ Application Fee ❑ Notice of Application Packet (17.80.110) Adjacent Property(les) Sue # �� REV. ❑ Written Narrative - A written narrative describing the reasons for`Tfie -proposerl-street- .vacatur._ physical lim.ts of the proposed street vacation and the public benefit of the proposed street vacation. ❑ Written Correspondence from Utility Purveyors Telephone Cable Electric Other (Specify ) Water District Fire District Gas Utility Sewer Utility PERMIT CENTER © Vicinity Map - Submit a map showing the general area of the proposed vacation ❑ Record of Survey, if available, for the subject street anchor al ey proposed for vacation, and abutting properties. streets and alleys within 100 'eet on all sides of the proposed vacation. ❑ Written Evidence of all easements, allowances or reservations, if available, pertaining to the street and/or alley proposed for vacation. PART II - APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT NAME: Whipple Consulting Engineers, Brett Griffith MAILING ADDRESS: 21 S. Pines Road CITY: Spokane Valle PHONE: 509-893-2617 FAX: STATE: WA ZIP: 99206 CELL: J EMAIL: bgriffith . whi lece.com PROPERTY OWNER No. 1: Circle M Family Properties, Brandon Michielli MAILING ADDRESS: 2123 N. Pines Road CITY: Spokane Valley PL -15 V1.0 STATE: WA Zip: 99216 Page 1 of 3 SOlane 1�Bey STREET VACATION APPLICATION PHONE: 509-928-3255 FAx: CELL: EMAIL: brandon@spokanelandscai PROPERTY OWNER No. 2: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: PHONE: Fax: CELL: EMAIL: If more than two (2) abutting property owners, include information and written authorization on a separate sheet of paper for each. NAME OF SIRE T/ALLEY TO BE VACATED: Baldwin Avenue & Glenn Road & University Road DIMENSIONS OF STREET/ALLEY TO BE VACATED: Baldwin = 60' wide, University E. ROW to Glenn W.ROW I Glenn = 60' wide, Baldwin 5. ROW to 1-90 S. ROW / University = 50' wide, 1-90 S. ROW -225.50' south SQUARE FEET OF STREET/ALLEY TO BE VACATED: -53.948 S.F. ABUTTING TAX PARCEL No(s).: 45093.1519, 45084.0401 & 45084.1314 ADDRESSES OF ABUTTING PARCELS: Unknown addresses ZONING DESIGNATION: Corridor Mixed Use THE FOLLOWING IS CRITERIA EVALUATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN FORMULATING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS SHALL BE ANSWERED IN A DETAILED MANNER; 1. How DOES A CHANGE OF USE OR VACATION OF THE STREET/ALLEY IMPROVE SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC? 2. Is THE STREET OR ALLEY NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR PUBUC USE OR PUBLIC ACCESS? EXPLAIN. 3. WOULD SUBSTITUTION OF A NEW ANDIOR DIFFERENT PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC? EXPLAIN. 4. How WILL USE OR NEED FOR THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY BE AFFECTED BY FUTURE CONDITIONS? EXPLAIN. 5. WILL EASEMENTS BE RETAINED FOR ALL UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES? THE REQUESTED VACATION IS LOCATED IN THE SERVICE AREA OF WHAT UTILITY COMPANIES. (SPECIFY)? 6, DOES THE RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDE STORMWATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES (SPECIFY)? PLEASE NOTE: PER RCW 35.79.040 (TITLE TO VACATED STREET/ALLEY), THE PROPERTY WITHIN A PUBLIC STREET OR ALLEY VACATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BELONG TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS, ONE-HALF (1/2) TO EACH. THEREFORE, PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SIGN THE STREET VACATION APPLICATION. PL -15V1.0 Page 2of4 e.net sWane ..Valley STREET VACATION APPLICATION PER RESOLUTION 07-009 OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY. THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CHARGES FOR STREET/ALLEY VACATION PURSUANT TO RCW 36.79.030 PART III - AUTHORIZATION %y� (Signature of owner or authorized representative) I, R( of it )1C-1)kE: `�I • (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this NOTARY SEAL NOTARY (Date) day of MOVC,VI 2019 OTAIY SIGNAT kE Notary P.abiic in and for the' State of Washington Residing at: C4 vI Q C -fr"x k` 1 My appointment expires: p_ 3Z 0 LEGAL OWNER NO, 1 AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement: authorize G /(1 owner of the above described property do hereby regarding this application. to represent me and my interests in all matters LEGAL OWNER NO. 2 AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s). the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; PL -15 V1.0 Page 3 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY STREET VACATION APPLICATION - NARRATIVE 1. How does a change of use or vacation of the street/alley improve service to the public? A. change of use or vacation of this street will improve service to the public because the street is geographically separated from the City of Spokane Valley by Interstate -90 from the North and a large slope from the south just north of Mission Ridge 2" Addition, and should have been vacated when 1-90 was extended through the area. This vacation would also increase tax revenue (Land Use Tax) for the City, turning public right-of-way into taxable land. 2. Is the street or alley no longer required for public use or public access? (Explain) The subject street is no longer required for public use or public access. Parcel #45093.2401 is essentially land -locked with no reasonable means of access. The proposed project plans to provide a utility easement to Parcel #45093.2401, therefore access will also be provided through a proposed drive aisle of the project. Parcel #45093.1519 has access from University Road. The City has also mentioned no interest for an overpass at University Road over I-90. Current road improvements also stop South of Baldwin Avenue, at the proposed vacation limits per the exhibit attached. 3. Would substitution of a new and/or different public right-of-way better serve the public? (Explain) No, a substitution of a new/different public right-of-way would not better serve the public due to the geographical separation (as explained in Question #1) and no interest to the City of Spokane Valley (as explained in Question #2). 4. How will use or need for this right-of-way be affected by future conditions? (Explain) The use/need for this right-of-way will not be affected by future conditions because WCE already has a "conditioned" project. 5. Will easements be retained for all underground and overhead utilities? The requested vacation is located in the service area of what utility companies? (Specify) No easements were found in the subject area; therefore, no easements will be retained for underground/overhead utilities. Utility companies servicing the subject area include: County Sewer, Modern Electric Water, Century Link, Comcast, Avista_ (Refer to correspondence with Utility Purveyors included in application packet). 6. Does the right-of-way include stormwater drainage facilities? (Specify) No, the right-of-way does not include any stormwater drainage facilities. Page 1 Project ,9Met -ocx, RECEIVED MAR 0 8 /019 CSV PERMIT CENTER SUB # REV. # �� Ryan Andrade From: Ryan Andrade Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 1:47 PM To: 'Chris Wafstet; Bryan StClair; 'Harvey, Traci'; 'Depner, Colin'; 'mark.welch@centurylink.corn'; 'bryan_richardson@comcast.com'; john.luse@avistacorp.com'; 'michael.truex@avistacorp.com' Cc: Save Whipple (save@whipplece.com); Brett Griffith Subject: 2207 - Circle M Street Vacation Attachments: 2207-STREET-VACATION-MAP-030119.pdf All, Attached is a PDF showing an exhibit of a proposed street vacation we are proposing for the Circle M Landscape Yard project located at 10620 E Baldwin Avenue in Spokane Valley. Can we please get correspondence from you regarding this vacation, on whether you are good with it or not? Also, if you happen to have any easements or easement documents in this area could you send those to us as well? If you do not have any easements, then no need to worry about sending us anything for that. Let me know if you have any questions with this. Thank you, Ryan Andrade, EIT Civil Engineer Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Phone: 509.893.2617 1 Fax: 509.926.0227 WCE Whipple Consulting Engineers 1MCEprewars Land dTewe iprrw n svrv�ce 1w g cress: Laced Surveying. Chat Sauces*, and Traffic Eniineenng, Land Manning and Landscape Arc, ,, r c turf, tf South purr Rood • Spokane Volley WMI{MrCr ellen IJ 1 Project = "tc -tZo 1 RECEIVED MAR 08 1019 CSV PERMIT CENTER SUB # REV. Ryan Andrade From: Koschalk, Robb <Robb.Koschalk@avistacorp.cam> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 3:34 PM To: Luse, John; Davis, Blake; Byus, Dave; Ryan Andrade Cc: Save; Brett Griffith Subject: RE: [External] 2207 Circle M Street Vacation To All: There are no gas facilities that would be affected by the vacation of Baldwin. No objections. Robb Koschalk, Customer Project Coordinator 1411 E Mission Ave MCC -060, Spokane, WA, 99202 P 509.495.2034 1 C 509.280.7383 www .avista ub1Itie5.[orn tne.r what$ brinw Call b.1on you From: Luse, John Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 3:09 PM To: Davis, Blake <Blake.Davis@avistacorp.com>; Byus, Dave <Dave.Byus@avistacorp.com>; Ryan Andrade <randrade@whipplece.com> Cc: Save <save@whipplece.com>; Brett Griffith tbgriffith@whipplece.com>; Koschalk, Robb <Robb.Koschalk@avistacorp.com> Subject: RE: [External] 2207 - Circle M Street Vacation 1 will differ to Robb for the gas response. Thanks, John Luse Customer Project Coordinator Anthin3TC` P 50!:),195 22,67 C 50 795 '3 l'Do rr.r roan Miro CM bow pm From: Davis, Blake Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 2:36 PM To: Byus, Dave <Dave.Byus@avistacorp.coma; Luse, John <John.Luse@avistacorp.coma; Ryan Andrade tra nd rade@whipplece.com> Cc: Save <save@whipplece.coma; Brett Griffith <bgriffith@whipplece,coma; Koschalk, Robb <Robb. Koschalk@avistacorp.coma Subject: RE: [External] 2207 - Circle M Street Vacation To All, No objections from the Avista electric side. Thank you Blake Davis Customer Project Coordinator ARI WISTA email {Includina any attachments) rn2'y p:1Ca' c.onfldentidi an7 privileged in1crm3tiorl and unauth ri2ry discIcsuiE . r u5E Ln,eJ Ir you are doi intended rec=piens pleaSe nCCi1y the z.ender and de.ete this ernagl ^rpm your L,vs.tern Thank veu From: Byus, Dave Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 1:47 PM To: Luse, John <John.Luse@avistacorp.coma; Ryan Andrade crandrade@whipplece.com. Cc: Save save@whipplece.coma; Brett Griffith <bgriffith@whipplece.coma; Koschalk, Robb <Robb.Koschalk@avistacorp.com>; Davis, Blake <Blake.Davis@avistacorp.com> Subject: RE: (External] 2207 Circle M Street Vacation Ryan,. I reviewed the area of Baldwin Ave you are wanting to vacate and have no issues with the request. I believe Modern Electric is the primary service provider for electricity and Avista is the primary service provider for gas. We dont have any gas facilities installed in this portion of Baldwin Ave. I could not locate any easements other than the utility dedication from the original Sullivan Addition plat which 1 have attached. Unless John, Robb, or Blake have an issue with something 1 have overlooked I would not oppose this request to vacate this section of Baldwin Ave 2 Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks Dave Byus Real Estate Representative pue.diit P 509 495 2013 C 509 993 7851 vv , avistautiklws corn Trw,, ornad includni. dill• a1'achmenls-:i ma, contain Confderltal and privileged Inforniation.:and unauthorized disclosure or use Is prohibited If you are not an intended recvient please notify the sender grid delete thr5 email from yc;'J' syvern Thank you From: Luse, John Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 10:25 AM To: Ryan Andrade <randrade@whipplece.com>; Byus, Dave <Dave.Byus@avistacorp.com> Cc: Save ‹save@whipplece.com>; Brett Griffith <bgriffith@whipplece.com>; Koschalk, Robb <Robb.Koschalk@avistacorp.con>; Davis, Blake <Blake.Davis@avistacorp.com> Subject: RE: [External] 2207 - Circle M Street Vacation Ryan, I believe the gentleman you are looking for would be Dave Byus. Dave is the Avista Real Estate Rep for the area. Dave, are you aware of this vacation or have any insight for Ryan? Thanks, John Luse Customer Project Coordinator utV TSTA P 500 495 2967 r. 50 7+15'9150 _;lp:;ivvoiv avr_',•i 3 From: Ryan Andrade [mailto:randrade@whipplece.com] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2019 1:47 PM To: Chris Wafstet «cwafstet@mewca.com>; Bryan StClair <BStClair@mewco.com>; Harvey, Traci <HarveyT@SpokaneValleyFire.com>; Depner, Colin <CDFPNER@spokanecounty.org>; mark.welch «c centurylink.com; bryan richardson@comcast.com; Luse, John <John.Luse@avistacorp.com>; Truex, Michael <Michael.Truex@avistacorp.com> Cc: Save <saye@whipplece.com>; Brett Griffith <bgriffith@whipplece.com> Subject: [External] 2207 - Circle M Street Vacation All, Attached is a PDF showing an exhibit of a proposed street vacation we are proposing for the Circle M Landscape Yard project located at 10620 E Baldwin Avenue in Spokane Valley. Can we please get correspondence from you regarding this vacation, on whether you are good with it or not? Also, if you happen to have any easements or easement documents in this area could you send those to us as well? If you do not have any easements, then no need to worry about sending us anything for that. Let me know if you have any questions with this, Thank you, Ryan Andrade, EIT Crvrl Engineer Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Phc' e: 509.893.2617 1 Fax: 509.926.0227 WCE Whipple Consulting Engineers WCE pnovries Larxl Detatior r setvtces ,n fOnamog areas Land Sun/eying. Ctvi. Structural ,rnd Tree En gtneerrng, Land Pl.tlit nix); And Landscape Armiechoe USE CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER Do not click on links or open attachments that are not familiar. For questions or concerns, please e-mail phishing@avistacorp.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addresseefsl and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or an agent of the intended recipient, or if this message has been addressed to you in error. please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. 4 Ryan Andrade From: Welch, Mark <Mark.Welch@CenturyLink.com> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 1:S3 PM To: Ryan Andrade Subject: RE: 2207 - Circle M Street Vacation Hi Ryan, Looks like we have no facilities in the area of your project. Let me know if you need any more information... Thanks! o' o it N OBERLIN LN w z Z Mark Welch Engineer II 904 N. Columbus St., Spokane, WA, 99202 tel: 509.835.4604 cell: 509.703.2705 mark weIchcc,.._`}z centurylink Corn ,f 11, ►' CenturyLink. From: Ryan Andrade [mailto:randrade@whipplece.com] Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 1:47 PM To: Chris Wafstet; Bryan StClair; Harvey, Traci; Depner, Colin; Welch, Mark; bryan_richardson@comcast,com; john.luse@avistacorp.com; michael.truex@avistacorp.com Cc: Save; Brett Griffith Subject: 2207 - Circle M Street Vacation All, Attached is a PDF showing an exhibit of a proposed street vacation we are proposing for the Circle M Landscape Yard project located at 10620 E Baldwin Avenue in Spokane Valley. Can we please get correspondence from you regarding this vacation, on whether you are good with it or not? Also, if you happen to have any easements or easement documents in this area could you send those to us as well? If you do not have any easements, then no need to worry about sending us anything for that. Let me know if you have any questions with this. Thank you, Ryan Andrade, EIT Civil Engineer Whipple Consult,nc Engineers. inc. Phone: 509.893.2617 1 Fax: 509 926.0227 IWC E Whipple C OnSUItIncJ Er1c ,nee!S WCE prowxies Land dewiJc rnent wrwes in the ro'kwwng areas. Land Sur erty, Structural 411,0 Tr trtie Ervoleerrrg. Land P7arul.ny and tnrarlsc ape Arcr<4rcluee. This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments. 2 Ot. COMCAST March 1, 2019 Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. ATTN: Ryan Andrade 21 5 Pines Rd Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Vacation of right of Way. Circle M Street Vacation Comcast has reviewed the vacation request. We have no objections to the vacation. If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, ,71 fir• ., ,_ a 1 L. 13t-yan RiLhardsoti Contractor Coordinator for Comcast Cable, Spokane (509)755-4717 r 1717E Buckeye Spokane, WA 99207 www.comcastccrperation.com W a., o to 0 Ni .,r N F � 14.00' IF ``c.1 1 e - 3O a L=50.34', R-11360.00' CITY REQUESTED STREET VACATION APPROXIMATELY 12,926 S.F. INTERSTATE- .90 TAX PARCEL #45093.1519 64.0' B + IN AVENUE (INDIANA AVENUE? ) //7////////i7, / //////77///////,//7/ PROPOSED STREET VACATION APPROXIMATELY 41,022.45 S.F. VACATION LIMITS PROPOSED 5.0 FEET FROM END OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 669.08' TAX PARCEL #45093-1519 19.90'0i6 2b' 60' 3 o NORA AVENUE 5 6 17 { I 9 10 11 12 VIII 13 MISSION RIDGE 2ND 'ADDITION 11 MISSION RIDGE FIRST ADDITION PROJ #: 18^2297 DATE: 03-0B-19 DRAFTED BY: BAG REVIEWED BY TRW SCALE: 1 "= f D D' SHEET 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT PROPOSED STREET VACATION BALDWIN AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON TAX PARCEL #45093.1519 b 9-32/ 0_ I-90 0DETENTION POND TAX PARCEL ##45093.2401 SULLIVAN ADDITION JWP WHIPPLE CONSLILTM4G ENGINEERS 21 S PINES ROAD SPOKANE VALLEY. WA 99246 PH: 569-993-2617 FAX 509-9260227 Project # RECEIVED MAR 0 8 2019 CSV PERMIT CENTER i I Spokane 4000 Val ley MEMORANDUM NOTICE OF APPLICATION MAILING PACKET Project RECEIVED TO: Title Company FROM; Department of Community Development, Planning Division SUBJECT: Notice of Application Owner/Taxpayer List MAR 0 8 2019 CSV PERMIT CENTER SUB # REV.: Please furnish a Ijst of the owners and taxpayers o: record of all properties adjacent to the proposal (or total adjoining ownership, including optioned land, to the extent known) as outlined on the accompanying Spokane County Assessor's map(s). FILE No, : PART III TITLE COMPANY AND APPLICANT CFJTIFICATION TITLE COMPANY CERTIFICATION I do hereby certify that the following list of names and addresses, consisting of the attached pages from the Spokane County Assessor's or Treasurer's most current computer records, is to the best of my knowledge correct. I also certify I have provided loan numbers, if possible. when the owner is listed as a finance company. Signed by: Debbie Richardson Date: 2/19/2019 For rl- ompany Official) Spokane County Title it:vn-,,,any Name) APPLICANT CFRTIFICATION I, the applicant or agent for the applicant, have verified the attached ownership list with the attached Assessor's map(s) and find that all tax parcel numbers adjacent to the project site, including owned or optioned land as shown on the Assessor's map(s) have been listed by the Title Company. Applicant: J Hr♦ PPL CoNStiLAW& rAir&r,iEEeS Signed byeVte— 'Ir'', r4,;rrr; Date: 3 - PL -33 V1.0 Page 3 of 45084.0401 Circle M Family Properties LLC 4107 E Broadway Spokane, WA 99202 45093.2401 Thomas Flake 4729 View Dr Everett, WA 98203 45084.1314 University View Estates Pud Owners Assoc 1806 N Oberlin Rd Spokane Valley, WA 99206 45093.1519 Circle M Family Properties LLC 4107 E Broadway Spokane, WA 99202 EXHIBIT 4 Staff Report and Recommendation STV -2019-0002 Page 10 of 11 May 15, 2019 Community & Public Works Department Building & Planning Division NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING THE SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS SENDING THIS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ALL PETITIONERS (IF ANY) AND ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING THE STREET PROPOSED TO BE VACATED BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT RECORDS FROM THE SPOKANE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OR TREASURER'S OFFICE. You ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE LAND USE APPLICATION LISTED BELOW: HEARING DATE: May 23, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. HEARING LOCATION: Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, City Hall, 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206. REVIEW AUTHORITY: Spokane Valley Planning Commission STAFF: Connor Lange, Planner; (509) 720-5332; clange@,spokanevalley.org. FILE NUMBER: STV -2019-0002 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Request to vacate unimproved sections of Baldwin Avenue (669 feet in length), University Road (225 feet in length) and Glenn Road (19 feet in length). The right-of-way widths vary ranging from 50 to 64 feet. PROPOSAL LOCATION: The portion of right-of-ways proposed to be vacated are located between Interstate 90 (north) and Nora Avenue (south) and adjacent to three parcels (45093.1519, 45084.0401 and 45084.1314) further located in the SW quarter of the SW quarter of Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane Valley, Washington APPLICANT: Whipple Consulting Engineers (Attn: Brett Griffith); 21 S Pines Rd; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 OWNER: Circle M Family Properties LLC; 2123 N Pines Road; Spokane Valley, WA 99216 HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEALS: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to Planning Commission rules of procedure. Interested persons may testify at the public hearing and may submit written comments and documents before or at the hearing. The Planning Commission may limit the time given to speakers. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the proposed amendment to the Spokane Valley City Council. Appeals shall be pursuant to SVMC 19.90 Appeals ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Planning Division has reviewed the proposal/project and has determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 and City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC); Title 21 (Environmental Controls) from environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). STAFF REPORT AND INSPECTION OF FILE: A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days prior to the hearing at Spokane Valley City Hall, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday -Friday, excluding holidays. Send written comments to the City of Spokane Valley Department of Community and Public Works, 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206; Attn: Connor Lange, File No. STV -2019-0002 SPECIAL ASSISTANCE: Individuals planning to attend the public hearing who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 720-5102 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. EXHIBIT 5 Staff Report and Recommendation STV -2019-0002 Page 11 of 11 May 15, 2019 To: Connor Lange CC: From: Jenn Bruner Date: Friday, May 10, 2019 Planning/Building Subject STV -2019-0002 Stage: Final Phase: Vacate sections of Baldwin, University, Address: Baldwin and University CO01 Comment: Because the street vacation would leave a parcel that will not have access to public sewer, a sanitary sewer easement, with a width acceptable to the Environmental Services Department, will be required for parcel 45093.2401. A 20' public sanitary sewer easement will be required in lieu of using the public right of way that is to be vacated. Connor Lange From: Chris Wafstet <cwafstet@mewco.com> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 1:39 PM To: Connor Lange Subject: RE: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Connor: Modern Electric Water Co does not have any facilities (electric or water) that would be impacted by the vacation process. If the owner has any requirement for new infrastructure and/or the relocation of any existing infrastructure in and around the project site, they will need contact us (MEWCo) to initiate the new construction procedure. Any other questions, please let me know. Thank You GIS Operator Modern Electric Water Company Phone: (509) 928-4540 Direct: (509) 755-9006 cwafstet@mewco.com COMPANY reliably serving the Spokane Valley since 1905 From: Connor Lange <clange@spokanevalley.org> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 1:30 PM To: Chris Wafstet <cwafstet@mewco.com>; jbruner@spokanecounty.org; CKnudson@spokanecounty.org; CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org Subject: FW: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Good afternoon all, I am working on my Staff Report for the street vacation south of 1-90 for portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road. I didn't see in the application materials where either Spokane County Environmental Services or Modern Electric had provided a response to Ryan Andrade and didn't see any comments during the Agency Comment period. I am just checking to make sure that SC Env. Services & Modern doesn't have any facilities that would be impacted by the vacation process. Thank you From: Connor Lange Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 3:53 PM To: Bill Helbig <bhelbig@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips<cphillipsPspokanevalley.org>; Ray Wright 1 Connor Lange From: Wardlaw, Dennis (DAHP) <dennis.wardlaw@dahp.wa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 9:47 AM To: Connor Lange Subject: RE: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Hi Conner, DAHP has no concerns with this project, Regards, Dennis Dennis Wardlaw, M.A. Transportation Archaeologist Dept. of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 111UCapitol Way South, Suite 30 Olympia, WA 98501 Voice: 360'386'3085 Cell: 360-485-5014 „Aplease consider the environment before printing this email From: Connor La nge <clangespokanevalley.org> Sent: Friday, April 19'Z01910:3SAK8 To: SEPA (DAHP) <sepa@dahp.wa.gov> Subject: FW: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Please review the attached proposal to vacate a portion of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road between Interstate 90 (north) and Nora Avenue (south). Comments are requested by Thursday, May 2, 2019. Thank you From: Connor Lange Sent: Thursday, April 18 2019 3:53 PM To: Bill HeIbig <bhelbig@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips <cphillips@spokanevalley.org>; Ray Wright <nwhght@spokanevaUey.org>;ShaneAdt<sadtuDspokanevaUey.org>;TradHanxey<han*ey @spokaneva|leyfre.com>; Spokane Valley Fire (inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com) <inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com>; CKnudsonVDspokanecounty.org;CBEPNER@spokanecountVorg;lb/uner@spokanecountyurg' <ibruner@spokanecounty.org>; 'Paul Savage' <psavage@srhd.org>; Chris Wafstet (Modern Electric) <cwafstet@mewco.com>; figAg@wsdot.vva.gov;`N3tterstnom@spukanetransit.cono' <KOtteotronn@spokanetransit.cono>;dave.byus@avbtacorp.com;Karen.5toddard/karen.stoddard@century|ink.conn\ <karen.stoddard@centurylink.com>; bryan richardsonff@cab\e.comcast.com;Christine 1 Connor Lange From: Chad Phillips Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 8:57 AM To: Connor Lange Cc: Ray Wright; Ryan Kipp; Bill Helbig; Shane Arlt; Chad Riggs; Aaron Clary Subject: RE: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Connor Stormwater has no concerns with the proposed vacations. Existing stormwater facilities are in place at end of current roadway improvements. Thanks Chad Chad Phillips, P.E. I Engineer, Stormwater 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720 - 5013 I cphillips@spokanevalley.org This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Connor Lange Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 3:53 PM To: Bill Helbig <bhelbig@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips <cphillips@spokanevalley.org>; Ray Wright <rwright@spokanevalley.org>; Shane Arlt <sarlt@spokanevalley.org>; Traci Harvey<harveyt@spokanevalleyfire.com>; Spokane Valley Fire (inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com) <inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com>; CKnudson@spokanecounty.org; CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org; jbruner@spokanecounty.org; Paul Savage <psavage@srhd.org>; Chris Wafstet (Modern Electric) <cwafstet@mewco.com>; figgg@wsdot.wa.gov; KOtterstrom@spokanetransit.com; dave.byus@avistacorp.com; Karen. Stoddard (karen.stoddard@centurylink.com) <karen.stoddard@centurylink.com>; bryan_richardson@cable.comcast.com; Christine <CMCMAHONCHASE@spokanecounty.org>; Grepp@spokanecounty.org; crjohnston@spokanesheriff.org; Wardlaw, Dennis (DAHP) <dennis.wardlaw@dahp.wa.gov>; Stephanie.Jolivette@dahp.wa.gov Subject: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Hello all, Please review the attached proposal to vacate a portion of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road between Interstate 90 (north) and Nora Avenue (south). Comments are requested by Thursday, May 2, 2019. Thank you Connor Lange I Planner 10210 E. Sprague Avenue 1 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 1 Connor Lange From: John Hohman Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 4:46 PM To: Connor Lange; Ryan Kipp Cc: Jenny Nickerson; Ray Wright Subject: RE: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Connor, I suggest that you incorporate a statement such as " Staff recommends the City retain the University right of way for future needs that are currently unforeseen" or something similar. I believe this is a safe position for us to take. Thanks, John From: Connor Lange Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 3:04 PM To: Ryan Kipp <rkipp@spokanevalley.org>; John Hohman <jhohman@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Jenny Nickerson <jnickerson@spokanevalley.org>; Ray Wright <rwright@spokanevalley.org> Subject: RE: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Hello Ryan & John, I am requesting some clarification regarding the comments made on April 19th from Traffic for the Street Vacation (STV - 2019 -0002). It was my initial interpretation based on feedback I received that the Fehr & Peers study demonstrated that the cost of the University overpass was significant based on the level of service it would actually provide. Therefore, not making it feasible. I am preparing my staff report for the Public Hearing to Planning Commission and want to clear up the record regarding the University Road overpass issue. At this point it appears the application complies with appropriate portions of SVMC and I could recommend approval to the PC. However, without amended comments from Traffic my recommendation would exclude University Road from the proposal to be vacated? If the position of the city is that the University Road overpass scenario is infeasible then I would request updated comments from Ryan stating that Traffic has no issues with the vacation going forward as is. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you From: Ray Wright Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 9:06 AM To: Connor Lange <clange@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Ryan Kipp <rkipp@spokanevalley.org> Subject: FW: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Connor, please see Ryan's Traffic comments below. Thank you, Ray 1 From: Ryan Kipp Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 8:33 AM To: Ray Wright <rwright@spokanevalley.org>; Bill Helbig <bhelbig@spokanevalley.org>; Shane Arlt <sarlt@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips <cphiilips@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Riggs <criggs@spokanevalley.org> Subject: RE: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Traffic would not recommend the vacation of University ROW. There are have numerous discussions in the past of there being some type of overpass over 1-90. Traffic would be okay with the vacation of the ROW of Baldwin. However are there any requirements for there being some type of turn around on University? Rya n From: Ray Wright Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 4:04 PM To: Ryan Kipp <rkipp@spokanevailey.org> Subject: FW: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting FYI From: Connor Lange Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 3:53 PM To: Bill Helbig <bhelbig@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips <cphillips@spokanevaliev.org>; Ray Wright <rwright@spokanevalley.org>; Shane Arlt <sarlt@spokanevalley.org>; Traci Harvey<harveyt@spokanevallevfire.com>; Spokane Valley Fire (inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com) <inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com>; CKnudson@spokanecounty.org; CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org; ibruner@spokanecounty.org; Paul Savage <psavage@srhd.org>; Chris Wafstet (Modern Electric) <cwafstet@mewco.com>; figgg@wsdot.wa.gov; KOtterstrom@spokanetransit.com; dave.byus@avistacorp.com; Karen. Stoddard (karen.stoddard@centurylink.com) <karen.stoddard@centurylink.com>; brvan richardson@cable.comcast.com; Christine <CMCMAHONCHASE@spokanecounty.org>; Grepp@spokanecounty.org; criohnston@spokanesheriff.org; Wardlaw, Dennis (DAHP) <dennis.wardlaw@dahp.wa.gov>; Stephanie.Jolivette@dahp.wa.gov Subject: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Hello all, Please review the attached proposal to vacate a portion of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road between Interstate 90 (north) and Nora Avenue (south). Comments are requested by Thursday, May 2, 2019. Thank you Connor Lange 1 Planner 10210 E. Sprague Avenue 1 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5332 1 clane@spokanevallev.org This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. 2 April 18, 2019 City of Spokane VaIley 1O21OE.Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 - r; ' ' 1, !Mk BRYAN COLLINS, FIRE CHIEF 2120 N. Wilbur Spokane Valley, VWA002O6 (509) 928-1700 Main (509) 892-4125 Fax krava|leyMre.com RE: GT\/ -2019-0002 OFSPOKANE VALLEY Between 1-90 and Nora Avenue — Badwin Avenue; University Road & G!enn Road The Spokane Valley Fire Department has completed a review for the above referenced projectand has no comments on the Street Vacation. AH specific fire department requirements shall be conditioned on future commercial permits. f there are any questions please do not hesitate to caIl. Sincerely, Traci Harvey Fire Protection Engineer Spokane VaIIey Fre Department Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall May 9, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 11. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the l:hllowing members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle, Kaschmittcr, absent - excused Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Timothy Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McKinley Connor Lange. Planner Michael Philips Michelle Rasmussen Matt Walton Robina Hutchins. Office. Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioner Kasclunittcr \v -as excused foam the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissii.mer Walton moved to amend the May 9, 2019 agenda.. The motion was to add item i.a. Findings ,and Recommendations for CTA -2018-0005 to review and correct an error. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and ihe 'notion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 25, 2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the rumor passed VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he did iaut attend any City Council meeting however he did watch the televised meetings. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: 'There was no administrative report. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. Tl iere was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: La. Amended Findings and Recommendations for CTA -2018-0005 Senior Planner Lori Barlow cxpIained that staff recognized a discrepancy in the Findings and Recommendations for CTA -2018-0005 being forwarded to the City Council for review at the Tuesday May 14, 2019 meeting. The Commission denied the request, however the discrepancy found was in the last sentence of the introductory paragraph of the Findings and Recommendations. The language struck from the Findings and Recommendations read "The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation -mem". The language was changed to accurately reflect the Commission's action by striking the last six words of the sentence. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minute Page 2 of 12 Commissioner Walton moved to approve the amended Findings of Fart for CTA -2018- 0005 us presented. nte'd. Commissioner Walton explained the intent was to correct the language in order to reflect the deliberation and vote, he was in favor of the adopted language. 1 he vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the rrrnliorr passed i. Public Hearing: CTA -2018-0006, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affurdahle housing and multifamily development. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:08 Ms. Barlow provided background information into the privately initiated code text amendment (CTA). Ms. 13arlow advised thatstaff reviewed the application for environmental impact and a deteiniination ofnon-sig_iiiicance was issued Mare.li 29, 2019. The notice of public hearing was posted in the newspaper as well as on the City's website. Ms. Barlow clarified that this proposal is a CTA which is not site-specific, therefore on site posting requirements did not apply,. Ms. Barlow continued that the Commission conducted a study session of this proposal on April 25, 2019 and are conducting the public hearing to consider public comment. Ms. Barlow highlighted a reedit changc the City Council made to the Governance Manual. The Council will no longer tale public comment on keens that have hal a public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission. Ms. Darlow stressed that rile opportunity for public comment will only be during the Planning Commissions public Bearing. Once a recommendation is made by the Planning Commission, it would he formalized in the Findings of Fact scheduled for May 23, 2019. Ms. Barlow continued, the proposals intent is to alio ,w multifamily (MF) in the residential (R-3) zone as long as it meets supplemental reginations. Ms. Barlow explained that currently inullilamity is only allowed in multifiiniiIv residential and both mixed rise zonas. This proposal would change the Permitted Use Matrix SVMC 19.60.05() by adding an "S" indicating multifamily could be allowed but subject to supplemental use regulations. Nils. Barlow described that this proposal would add supplemental language to SVMC 19.65.130 stating that multifamily could be allowed if it complies with Chapter 19.10 of SM(_' Alternative Residential Development Options. The newly added section. 19.40.0 75 ident.ihes that multifamily in the R-3 zone would be allowed if specific criteria are met for applicability, site and builditic, standards and other related agreements. Ms. Barlow continued that in order for a development to utilize this section of the code at least 51 %o of llie units proposed must be used lair Li [fordable housing. Ms. Barlow continued the property must be a single parcel under single ownership. The. parcel uses 'mist include a church, school arid multifamily units all located oii a site at least 10-20 acres in size. Ms. Barlow continued that the entire site can he used to calculate the six dwelling units per acre as the maximum density allowed in the R-3 zoning district. Currently the R-3 zone does suit allow multifamily development but does allow single family development at a density of six dwelling units per acre. Ms. Barlow explained this amendment proposes to utilize the entire site to calculate wvliat could have been allowed for single Family development, but then allows the units to be clustered in the form of a multifamily development. For example, if you have a 10 -acre parcel allowing six d.wcll ing units per acre it would allow for 60 single family residential dwelling units. The proposal would allow you to develop 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 12 a site that has a school and church with 60 dwelling units in a multifamily complex which would maintain the density that is established within the R-3 Zone. Ms. Barlow advised the school, church and multifamily may share parking and opal space to help prevent overbuilding. Ms. Barlow continued highlighting other criteria that Applies when specific circumstances exist, such as natural amenities will be incorporated into the site, buildings that include parking structures shall ha ye design continuity to look as if they are part of a campus and pedestrian areas shall be delineated and protected. Ms. Barlow continued with development standards and noted that the proposal identified that it must meet residential standards in the Dimensional and Standards Table 19.70-01, which includes a building height limit of 35 feet, and setbacks, to maintain the surrounding character. Ms. Barlow continued that the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet is not applicable since the criteria requires the lot size has to be 10-20 acres in size. The development must provide at least 10% of. the gross area of the site for open space. Ms. Barlow explained other requirements would he agreements to ensure compliance with all criteria for the lift of the project. The conditions will run with the land and will not transfer with the owner. Ms. Barlow continued this would be processed as a Type III Permit that requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and gave an overview of the process. Ms. Barlow explained that through the CUP process uses that may have unanticipated impacts could be conditioned by the Hearing Examiner to mitigate those impacts, or the permit could be denied completely. Ms. Barlow highlighted the items discussed by the Commission during the study session. As part of the proposal at least 51% of the units proposed must be used for affordable housing and it was asked what that figure included. Ms. Barlow explained the federal standard for affordable housings definition includes housing and utilities. The other item discussed was pertaining to the number of existing sites in the City that could support this proposal. Stairs analysis within the staff report identified 75 properties within the City owned by churches. Out of'those 75 sites, 25 of them are in the R-3 zone and two of those properties meet the 10 acre minimum criteria. Of those two sites one has both a school and a church. Ms. Barlow explained that this information shows a snap shot in time as all err .unnstances could change. Ms. Barlow added that these regulations are not limited to existing churches and schools, the regulations state that if multifamily were to be allowed in the R-3 zone it would have to be in conjunction with a church and a school. Anyone could aggregate land and propose a development with a church, school and multifamily component. Ms. Barlow explained the City's GIS specialist queried single property owners within the R-3 zone that would meet the criteria and identified eight sites. If this proposal were adopted this could appy to those eight sites owned by a single property owner within the R-3 zone. Ms. Barlow highlighted procedural recommendations and urged the Commission to consider the public comments provided. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was a determination as to why the limit was 20 acres? Ms. Barlow advised the applicant may be able to address that question. Ms. Barlow stressed that this proposal is not a City initiated proposal and has been proposed by Catholic Charities, the City is processing the request. Commissioner Johnson asked if the City has a definition of a church and a school in order to determine if anyone could open a church and one grade level school and meet the criteria. Ms. Barlow explained the City does have a definition for schools, this proposal does not identify as a public or private school. However, it is assumed to he private as it is associated with a church. It was determined the City has a definition for church and it was read aloud. It was concluded the City would automatically defer er to the City's definition if the language was not provided in the 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 12 proposal. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of nonprofit not being identified in the definition and it was concluded that either profit based or nonprofit organizations could apply. Commissioner McKinley asked for clarification that currently only one site fit the criteria; it was concluded to be accurate. There was discussion that a property could exceed the maximum and only utilize the amount the property needed; but property could also be aggregated to fit the criteria. Ms. Barlow added that the City received three additional comments, from Daniel and Deborah Hipple, Sara Goulart and Kim Helm. Each comment stressed they are in opposition and all live within close proximity to the St. Vianney church site. Johnathan Mallahan Vice President of housing for Catholic Charities of Eastern Washington provided an informational video depicting Catholic Charities m_ssion. Mr. Mallahan spoke about the need for affordable housing for seniors. Mr. Mallahan explained that Catholic Charities strives to develop the support of communities and bring dignity to vulnerable individuals. He explained Catholic Charities bus a variety of programs that provide basic needs to include food, security, access to employment, counselling and housing. Ile continues that Catholic Charities provides over 1,300 units of affordable housing throughout Easter Washington that serves seniors, families, homeless and farmworkers. Mr. Mallahan explained Catholic social teachings believe that individuals deserve basic human dignity that these project provide. Mr. Mallahan touched on other developers and explained that their mission may be different than Catholic Charites. Mr. Mallahan explained they have been transparent to surrounding neighbors and will do what they can to mitigate any impacts. Mr. Mallahan discussed discriminating to one population and explained that natural limits dictate who can be served on a campus with a church and a school. He went on to explain you couldn't put a low barrier housing project ones parcel that has a school as you wouldn't be able to attain funding. Adding that it wouldn't be in compliance as you have to accept individuals into those project with criminal history and with a school on site that wouldn't be appropriate. Lastly, Mr. Mallahan continued that seniors often times downsir.e due to retirement and income changes and this would allow seniors to stay in the community they are accustom to. Mr. Mallahan stated this proposal is in keeping with the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding affordable housing. IIe addressed housing costs stating they have increased by 29% with only a 6% household income increase. This will push individuals out of housing and is disproportionate to seniors due to fixed incomes. Catholic Charities would like to afford seniors the opportunity to age in place, reduce the frequency of moving and explained the importance of the onsite social services affording the assistance to help seniors to live independently. Mr. Mallahan concluded by thanking the Commission and stated that if this proposal passes Catholic Charities will prucccd with applying for funding and a CUP for development. Commissioner Walton identified for the record that he knows Mr. Mallahan as they attended Gonzaga University together. Commissioner Walton stated he has no affiliation with Catholic Charities and did not intended to recuse himself from deliberation. Commission Johnson also advised he has worked with Catholic Charities and Rob McCann is a member of the Spokane County I-Iuman Rights Tasks force with him. Commissioner Johnson does not have reason to support the charity other than their ultimate goals and is viewing the proposal and how it would affect other properties within the City. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 12 Commissioned Kelley asked the applicant if the main goal is intended for Senior Citizens then why isn't it stated as such? Mr. Mallahan explained that listing a specific population. in code could be a liability and a violation of fair housing standards. Deputy City Attorney Eric Lamb explained that the Office of the City Attorney would also have concerns with listing specific protected classes whether based on disability or age, the City does not discriminate and does not want to discriminate. Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant why they chose the 51% as the number of units to be low income? Mr. Mallahan advised that is a common standard with public funding and aids in obtaining funding. Commissioner Johnson also asked what the reason was for limiting to 20 acres? Mr. Mallahan explained the internet was to narrow the amount of land that this would apply too, but at this time realized that the upper limit didn't add value to this proposal. Commissioners Johnson asked about parking and the overflow concerns with overlap of those at home during church services. Mr. Mallahan explained that parishioners typically traveling to attend the services would now be living on site and attending the services with no additional parking impacts. Commissioner Johnson asked staff if there was a way to limit or encourage additional parking? Ms. Barlow explained those items would be worked out through the CI JP process. Ms. Barlow stressed how the CUP process is the tool to address unanticipated impacts that the Hearing Examiner would review. Commissioner Johnson asked about shared space and asked what the applicants vision was? Mr. Mallahan explained that this project is an appropriate context for shared as well as separate space for the school. Commissioner Johnson stated his concerns for open space and security issues for the school. Ms. Barlow explained that security measures would be put in place by the owner and operator of the schools. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of nonprofit or for-profit business and his concern is the entities that might take advantage of the locations that staff identified. Mr. Mallahan stated that naturally the 51% requirement provides a disincentive to develop for-profit. Net operation income potential for a property with 51% affordability is limited and drives down the revenue, those developers would find less cumbersome opportunities in other areas of the City. Commissioner Johnson asked if the applicant would be opposed to 60% and Mr. Mallahan advised they would not. Commissioner Walton asked staff if the City currently asks for trip generation studies within the MFR zone if they exceed density? Ms. Barlow explained lllal (rip generation studies are required based on the number of trips generated during peak hour traffic. If a project is expected to generate more than 10 peak hour trips a study would be required. Nis. Barlow added that concurrency is also required as part of the study from the City's Senior traffic engineer. Commissioner Walton asked the applicant to explain the application process. Mr. Mallahan explained they are a fair housing provider and everyone is welcome to apply. He continued that there is ability within the fare hosing rules to have communities that serve senior populations exclusively. The applicant would have to be 62 years of age or older, they perform a background and credit check to ensure a safe environment and that the applicant has the ability to afford the housing. Mr. Mallahan noted not each property would use the same criminal bucicf;round check standards depending on location. Commissioner Walton asked if citizenship was required as part .of the population served were farmworkers? Mr. Mallahan advised that is not a part of the process. Kathi Lankford, Walnut Road; Ms. Lankford stated she lives directly across the street from the site. She understands the need for affordable housing however feels it needs to be in the right area, not in an R-3 zone. Gary Graupner, 10219 F Valleyway Avenue; Mr. Graupner advised his largest concern is the same now as it was before, traffic impacts. He stated that between Felts Road and 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 12 Harold old Road their will a new development of thirteen houses. Ile does not want to see Valleyway Avenue become another Broadway by making Valleyway Avenue a through street from Argonne Road to University Road. He asked that they find another location and is opposed. Mark Zielfelder, 417 N Harold Road; Mr. Zie11elder explained that his concerns sire the same as they were 8 years ago. He is concerned about traffic. impacts and for the infrastructure. He works for the City of Spokane Water and stated the water infrastructure would not be able to support this project and gave examples as to why. Ile feels there are too many variables that need to be looked at. Ile added that no one wants to see the removal of the Walnut trees to accommodate for sidewalks. Mr. /iclfelder stated the video presented showed that the project was clearly in a commercial zone not in a neighborhood, 'Phomas Dixon, 608 N Farr Road; Mr. Dixon explained the church is in his backyard, 1 -lc and his wife chose to buy in this area due to the character and location. Ile is concerned with trial lis iIaapacts. He advised he supports Catholic Charities however is opposed to this proposal. Linda Dixon, 608 N Farr Road; Mrs. Dixon explained this is the second time they have gone through this. Mrs. Dixon continued they live in a great neighborhood and do not want to see this neighborhood ruined. She added they didn't know this was happening until last night when someone put a note on their door. Michael Lehman, 9920 E Broadway; Mr. Lehman was concerned with the unknowns and that there were no studies being done regarding trafi is or water.. I le found i1 hard to believe there were no adverse impacts. He continued that he was thankful for the video presented but felt it was terrible as it proved to be in a commercial zone with access to public transit, none of these items would be aecessiblc; on Walnut Road. He feels there are too many unanswered questions and is opposed Ken Marks 10001 E Broadway Ave; Agrees with Mr. Lehman Dave Fod.e, 124 N Walnut Roadd; Mr. Fode explained that current zones protect us from situations like these. He feels this would decrease his property value and also agrees with the concerns for the infrastructure. Christine Fode, 124 N Walnut Road; Mrs. Fode explained she mored to the area because she liked the street. She. was shocked to receive a letter dated April 3O ' from Catholic Charities and St. Vianney Church. She is not opposed to affordable housing; she is opposed to the CTA as the zoning needs to stay Single Family. Joann Maxfield, 205 N Walnut Road; She agrees with all public comments and it mostly concerned with traffic. Sandy Holder, 9814 E Valleyway, Ms. Holder agrees with all public comments and expressed her concerns for property valises going down and the unknowns. Ms. llolder is concerned with traffic impacts should Valleyway Avenue be opened up. She has a deaf child and is concerned for the safety of those with disabilities. She is also concerned with overflow parking as the church holds events a few tinges a year where they block off the street. She is opposed to this proposal and suggested relocating this to a commercial property. Sadie Lieuallen 12. N Walnut Roast, Ms. 1:ieuallen agrees with all public comments and is opposed. Ryan llieualIen, 123 N Walnut Road, agrees Mss. Licuallen. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of t2 Levi Strauss, 302 N Walnut Road, Mr. Strauss explained that eight years ago it was determined to he a bad idea and still is. He continued that parking and traffic are tiIie?lily a probleimm .as the current students get dropped oft' <lnrl picked up by their parents. liar. Strauss continued that Catholic ('purities is big business trying to make money \v'ith no respect for the. neighborhood, Nil. Strauss continued that this monstrosity k too big and doesn't lit and asked the commission not to instituiionaIiiv.e the neighborhood, Mr. Strauss c-oncluded that he had a problem with Commissioner Walton not recusing himself. Chair Johnson reminded the audience to remain respectful to all those in the room. Commissioner Walton stated he fE11 it important that the Commission is1r1'oft'.vviulial and appreciated the statement in terms r.1/ elle audience. Commissioner I'I'(:Ilum pointed out that the Commission is allowing extended public comment rather than litiiitiiig t011117iC.'iil.`+ to three-miinttes that they have the ability to do. Ile reminded the a1u/ience that if they are repeating comments to keep thein sttct'illr't- Karen Stroud, 302 N Walnut Road; Ms. Stroud stated she received a letter lett on her front door regarding this meeting. 1-Ier concern is that. the church already creates a lot of traffic from the school and is also conccrricd with parking and is opposed. Claudia Nelson, 707 N Walnut Road; Ms. Nelson ;stated that she and Mr. Kuder agree with all comments, it is hard to get out onto Walnut Road as it is and they are opposed. Tim Bieber, 312 N Farr Road; Mr. Bieber oxplaincd I.lc will use the same statement he used eight years ago. Tlic founders of the valley built Walnut Street to symbolize a hub of the valley and created building restrictions to protect it. Mr. Bieber stated we have to re pect unwritten constitution. Mr. Bieber stated he doesn't 1Lwrn1 to nioVe out of the neighborhood as it's worth keeping pure. Mr. Bieber added that if this proposal is approved it will destroy the neighborhood and he is opposed. Shelly Stevens, South Hill; Ms. Stevens explains she aro longer lives on Walnut Road prriially due to the proposal eight years ago and she gave details into the trials the neighborhood had. Ms. Stevens reminded the Commission that Rob McCann advised all o€'the City council members to resign based on their decision to deny the previous request. Ms. Stevens explained the ti1''.•'n suggested does apply to idr-prolit builders as long as they are a low income property for a speci lie number ofveiir.s. Ms, Stevens added that this is about money, and stated that St Vianney is listed in barrki npley. Ms. Stevens added that she could not believe Rob McCann wasn't present and sent someone, else. C'otnmi.s•sioner Walton wanted to reiterate that public comments needed to be directed to the dais, lie -felt it unfortunate that while tc.,ii.ir)ir'y fir&- ht,:li ii'ith strong opinions that members of the audience would get personal cilld askc,/ a...urin that those comments be directed to the dcri.v. ('otiliiiissioner Kelley stated he (elf /hut el'e }gone present knows ri'hclt Commissioner Walton just .said. He agreed that Nom(' in://nduals iilav have been cC rrieei away due to emotion and added that Commissioner ' 1// 1's. constant interrupting or comments li'heo someone .streaks to the issue is intimidcarlr1 ;. Ile told Commissioner 3'cthon that he fuels he needs to ,stand down as the ciudiunee knows what the l ule,ss are and awe doing a goodjob at holding hack emotions and stated lay had heard e,ioui'Ji. Commissioner Walton nioi'i d jar a tl ice-iriinilte recess. with no second the motion tailed ./O)- the lack of a second Daniel Hippie, 313 N 11';illnut Road; Mr. Hippie explained that he has the most to lose otit of anyone due to where he is located. He continued by thanking the Commission for representing the public and hearing what is being said. Mr. Hippie advised he had done some calculations and advised that within 10-20 acre.; there could be 76 units however, this 05-09-20 9 Flaming Commission Minutes Page 8of12 proposal is talking about one acre within the property. Mr. Hippie asked the Commissioners if this were going to happen a few feet from where they live would they he attending the meeting on the other side'? Rick Woods, 608 N Walnut Road; Mr. Wood explained that he works downtown one block away from the l lottsc of Charity. Ile is concerned that the type of individuals he sees at work will move into his neighborhood and is strongly opposed. Robert Popendicic, 426 N Walnut Road; Mr. Popendick lives directly across the street and stated the traffic is already a problem. He added that his concern is also the infrastructure. He heard the school is in bankruptcy and if it goes under does it disqualify the property From being built'.' He's also concerned that they are using this building to keep the .school funded and feels that is wrong. Mike Gleason, 5211 N Allen Place; Mr. Gleason advised he does not live in the arca and was there in support of the Hippie's at 313 N Walnut Road. Mr. Gleason stated he has been in the real estate business for 28 years and has a 10 unit building in Browns Addition. Ile gave examples of his average rent to be $750.00 and has two vacancies. Mr. [ ileason asked the Commission if they lived in the neighborhood would they want a 76 unit building aeross the street? Jan Rulea, 3218 N Elton Road; Ms. linea used to own a horns at 9802 E Valleyway Avenue. She too is concerned with what the buildinte will look like, traffic problems and wviih the water and sewer. There have been problems with the SGwver l?elor4. Nis. Rulca is also concerned with the possibility of extending, Vnlleyway Avenue, she is opposed. Todd Shucks, 116 N Walnut; Mr. Shucks is opposed to the proposal. Chair Johnson closed tin. public hewing a1 8:04 PM Commissioner Rasmussen asked staff about the concerns she hcard regarding water and how the City reviews water uses? Ms. Barlow explained that this proposal is to consider the legislative action to snake a change to our code. The request is to allow for a development like this to be proposed and Catlhi_xlic Charities is being transparent with their hope to move forward. Ms. Barlow explained that during review of an application, regencies with jurisdiction would be contacted, including the water and sewer purveyors. ['currently there. is no project tinder review therefbrc diose items have not been looked at. Mr. Lamb added that during review of an application the City etas~ have water eoncurrency requirement. The applicant would Have to demonstrate that there is adequate water for the project and would have to obtain ,a e.crti licate of water coneut'rcncv from. the specific water agency before being allowed to move Forward, Commissioner Johnson asked if the letter provided by Catholic Charities was a requirement? Ms. Barlow explained that it was not a requirement and Catholic Charities took it upon themselves in an et'fbrt to be transparent with the surrounding neighbors. C'ornmissioncr Walton stated it is clear by the turn out that there is strong opinion and a lot of good valid concerns were brought up, Commissioner Walton added he can symaipathize that if something like this were to happen in his neighborhood he would be 00 the other aisle in the audience. Ile added that there are a lot crt unanswered questions lar the proposal and that the. C'omtnission were revieww•ing a zoning change that would allow any ala1alicant to apply. Ile added that he understands how difficult it may be to focus on the broad implications when currently there is only one property that fits the criteria, Commissioner Walton continued that he is on the fence as he has strong concerns related to the. for-profit entity could come forward, the definition of a church provides some issues moving forward end the idea of a school on the property is the 1110si limiting tactor. Commissioner Walton 05-(19-21719 Nonnilig ( rlcnissirrn Ni. nllte:r. 12 continued continued that he struggles that this is a narrowly tailored idea. He concluded that there are zones within the Valley that are more conducive to this type of development, however asking a church to purchase property in these areas does put .t burden on thclll due to cost. Conlniissioner Walton thanked the public for testifying. Commissioner McKinley thanked Catholic Charities for the presentation and the public for their comments. He stated his concerns are due to only one property currently fitting the criteria and he cannot support this due to its small pinpointed scope. Commissioner Kelly stated he can't support the proposal, because it goes against the code. Commissioner Kelley stated the question should be, is the Commission willing to build a 76 -unit apartment complexes in an R-3 zones. He is opposed. Commissioner Rasmussen thanked the public for coming and for their comments. Commissioner Rasmussen is concerned with what this could open up in other R-3 zones. She is concerned that public transit infrastructure isn't in place and is also concerned with increased traffic due to delivery trucks and visitors. Commissioner Rasmussen added that nothing has changed since last time the prraposal was denied by both the Commission and Council. Commissioner Rasmussen also mentioned this is not entirely in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan that states we will retain a resemblance of what Spokane Valley is. She understands growth and progress and the City has to find affordable housing hug does nut feel that the R-3 zone is the right location. Commissioner Johnson thanked Catholic Charities for listening to the Commission and providing public notice. He added that he has worked with Catholic Charities and i1 the Commission was not locking at a Valley wide change he may have different considerations. He is concerned with the opportunity fill- individuals whom may not be as neighborly as (_zttholic Chrites. He is also concerned with parking and overflow. He agrees that this type- crl multifamily construction project would not tit in the R-3 zone and is opposed. Commissioner McKinley irrle moved to recommend corn mend do nial of CT/1-201S-0006 to the City Council. No further discussion. The tote on the motion ii as six ill javror, zero opposed, and the motion passed. Study Session: STV -2019-0002, a proposed street vacation of a portion of Baldwin Avenue. Planner Connor Lange provided a presentation outlining the privately initiated application to vacate unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road. Mr. Lange explained the vacation is located between I-90 to the north, Nora Avenue to the South aild further boarded by Overland Avenue to the west. Mr. Lange provided procedural overview advising the application was submitted March 8, 2019, the study session is being conducted, the public hearing is scheduled for May 23, 2019 and the 1 findings o (' Fact is scheduled for June 13, 2019. Mr. Lange Lidvised that in processing a street vacation stall reviews connectivity, traffic volume, future developmentei and access. Potential conditions to consider would be utility and easement access. remo' a I of the portion of the street vacated ilnd design 01 construction improvements. Mr. Lange advised the request is to vacate 669 feet of Baldwin Avenue, 225 of University Road Lind 19 feet of Glenn Road ranging in widths from 50-64 feet with no known easements in the area to be v:lt:rte.d. The request will allow for maximum use of abutting properties owned by Circle 'v1 properties. Mr. Lange advised that 1-90 prevents future connection with the unimproved rights of ways. He highlighted a study done in 2015 that 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 12 reviewed the potential for a pedestrian overpass at University Road and the study concluded the cost was too significant. Commissioner Johnson advised that in the early 1990's he was on a citizen advisory committee for Pasadena park were they developed a number of traffic solutions to include a bypass that would tie in with University Road and asked if this was no longer the case? Mr. I,angc concluded this to be correct as the costs were too significant to warrant the bypass and not feasible. Commissioner Johnson asked if there is a permit issued? Mr. Lange advised a determination of non -significance was issued on March 15, 2019 for the grading work and an engineered grading permit was issued April 25, 2019 for grading work to be completed at the Circle M Properties landscape yard. ii. Study Session: CTA -2019-0092, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 19.6, Chapter 19.85 and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations on licensed marijuana transportation businesses. Mr. Lamb provided a presentation outlining the code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transport operators to operate within the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Lamb provided background into Washington Initiative 1-502 that passed in 2012 legalizing marijuana in Washington State. The City responded with adopting comprehensive regulations for the allowable state license uses. The three primary license uses were production to allow growing, process to make the product usable and retail to purchase the product. As part of the regulations the City Council adopted a provision 19.85.040 that prohibits all other uses within the City of Spokane Valley. In the fall of 2018 the City had a citizen inquiry from a license transporter hoping to do business in the City. Staff presented an administrative report to the City Council and the Council gave consensus to bring a proposal forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Lamb advised this is a City initiated amendment even thout.l2 it \\ as brought to our attention by a citizen. Mr. Lamb continued explaining that state law was amended after the initial adoption to allow license marijuana transporters. Transportation is only between the licensed production, process, retail stores and research facilities not for home delivery. The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) oversees the licensing as such, licensed transports are subject to WSLCB requirements. Mr. Lamb continued that license marijuana transporters are required to have a physical location or office to store their fleet and state law prohibits them from storing marijuana in the office or physical location. The operator or vehicle are considered a common carrier and must obtain Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission common carrier permits that regulate commercial travel over public right of ways and state highways. State requires transportation logs and manifests in keeping with the state mandate that marijuana be suitably tracked from seed to sale as the state has a robust system duc to Federal prohibition. Mr. Lamb explained the product is transported in secured compartments, required to be attached to the vehicle or vehicle body and are locked at all times. Delivery has to be made within 48 hours from the time of pick up as there may be an instance where the marijuana is left in the vehicle overnight. M.r. Lamb cLddeo@ that state law prohibits licensed marijuana transporters from being within 1,000 feet of enumerated sensitive uses such as schools, playgrounds, public transit and libraries. Mr. Lamb continued that staff has identified potential impacts to be traffic; as there are no restriction on fleet size, odor; as marijuana will be kept in vehicles, and crime also due to marijuana being kept in vehicles. WSLCB is not aware of any complaints regarding odor or any break-ins. Mr. Lamb added that during the development of this proposal staff was 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 12 cognizant of other uses transported that might entice crime such as beer, money and jewelry however; marijuana is treated differently. Mr. Lamb concluded that this proposal is to allow licensed transporters in the Regional Commercial (RC), Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) awl Industrial (I) zones as this will address traffic issues by placing them near arterials. The proposal includes the City buffers related to vacant school, library and City properties. Mr. Lamb gave an example that currently the vacant property across the street from the City Hail is owned by the Library with the intent to build a library. Under the current state law, a marijuana shop could be built near the vacant property as there is no library on the site. The City's buffers already put in place for marijuana producers and processors would not allow for non -conforming uses to be built. The proposed amendment also requires a lockable enclosure for the fleet if they are in the RC zone. Mr. Lamb concluded with an illustration of the proposed amendments adding marijuana transporters to the Permitted Use Matrix 19.60.050 subject to supplemental regulations in the RC, IMU and I zone. This will also add them to 19.85.040 established buffers to prevent nonconforming marijuana shops being built near a school or library to be constructed at a later date. This will also prohibit them from being within 1,000 feet of CenterPlace or City Hall. Subsection B states they trust have a lockable enclosure and a marijuana transporter definition has been added to Appendix A in order to track with statutory requirements. Commissioner R ism ussen asked about the transportation of immature plants and that the products must he in sailed packages and is wondering how immature plants are transported and how that might affect the odor? Mr. Lamb advised that plants are allowed to be transported however there may be additional requirements that he will research and provide at the public hearing. Commissioner Walton asked about firearm carrying stipulations and wanted clarification if that was a state law? Mr. Lamb advised that is state law. Commissioner Walton asked how transport vehicles will be identified and if markings or advertising of the vehicle was a requirement? Mr. Lamb stated he is not aware 01 any state law or regulations that requires them to identify they are a delivery however; there are businesses that do advertise the use. Commissioner Walton asked how local or state law enforcement will interact with the transporters and how they identify themselves? Mr. Lamb advised they are a licensed marijuana transporter and it is a lawful use under state law and would be treated as such once the driver demonstrated his transporter license credentials. Commissioner McKinley asked if this business is specific to transporting with no other components such as production and it was concluded to the case. Mr. Lamb added that there are over 20 producers/processors and 3 retailers in the City. In speaking with WSLCB they have 17 or 18 statewide licensed marijuana transporters at this time. Commissioner Johnson spoke about the City not having these types of restrictions for alcohol, nicotine, oxycodone or opioids and Mr. Lamb stated that was correct but could not speak to the Federal or State restrictions. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner McKinley stated he supported Commissioner Kelley in his earlier statement regarding interrupting the speakers during the public hearing. He recommended that in the future with a large crowd the Commission should put a three- minute time limit on the comments to reduce emotion. Commissioner Walton stated that when emotions are high it is important to remember that rules and process arc in place for a reason. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 12 He felt the outcome of the Commission was clear, that audience participation was greatly valued. 1E -Ie stressed that i r there was any idea that what he was saying was meant to dissuaded the public from speaking he strongly hustles back. He added that the incivility c.f the Commission members toward each other should he avoided at all times as they are there for the sane purpose. He appreciated that it 11'ati hiflllght to his attention that it, was concern and he did not interrupt any speaker at any time. Ile thanked the member; of the Commission for conducting a fair and dedicated meeting. Commissioner Kelley added that [`:hair Johnson did an excellent .job at running the meeting and gave direction when appropriate. Commissioner Johnson stated he didn't feel as though any of the Commissioners weren't civil. Ile understood the points and felt as though Commissioner Walton was supporting Idni in keeping order. Commissioner Johnson read a statement illustrating that your be l i efs do not change the reality. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner McKinley moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:57 p.m. The vote an the ,notion was .s•ir infi7vor, zero opposc!d trod the motion passed. James Johnson, Chairman kri-c Robin Hutchins, Secretary Date signed Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers -- City Hall May 23, 2019 L Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III, Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Timothy Kelley Robert McKinley Michael Phillips, absent - excused Michelle Rasmussen, absent - excused Matt Walton Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Connor Lange, Planner Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioners Philips and Rasmussen were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the May 23, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to amend the May 9, 2019 minutes to correct the misspelling of his last name on page 8 from Walter to Walton. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was jive /Fr favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported on May 14, 2019 he attended the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force executive committee to discuss the confluence of leadership meeting where it was determined that meeting will be a long range plan. He also attended the City Council meeting and expressed his concerns for the lack. of accurate representation by the 4h1 legislative district and requested a more diverse invocation at the City Council meetings. On May 21, 2019 he attended the Spokane County Human Right Task Force regular meeting where they received rapid response training. The training was to prepare for public acts of hate received through a portal developed by the task force to report hate crimes. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger advised that after the first reading with the City Council of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments the Council agreed with all of the Planning Commission's recommendations. Mr. Basinger added that Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2019-0003 that had no recommendation from the Planning Commission was denied by the City Council. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. Chair Johnson asked the Commission for a consensus on standardizing a three-minute time limit for all public comment excluding proponent comments. A standard three- minute time limit was concluded to be essential in keeping order. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of9 There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Findings of Fact: CTA -2018-0006, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affordable housing and multifamily development. Senior Planner Lori Barlow summarized the Findings of Fact for the privately initiated code text amendment (CTA). The intent of the amendment is to allow multifamily (MF) development as a conditional use in the residential R-3 zone subject to specific criteria. This proposal came before the Planning Commission on two prior occasions. A study session was held on April 25, 2019 and a public hearing on May 9, 2019. After hearing considerable public testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated and voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council. Ms. Barlow explained that the Findings of Fact formalize the pivotal actions and capture the Planning Commission's recommendation and vote. Ms. Barlow concluded that as this item moves forward to the Laity Council there will be no further opportunity for public comment unless the Council takes specific action to do so. Commissioner Walton stated this CTA was one of the more contentious items reviewed in hi . time with the Commission. He appreciated the public for their participation and the dc_iberation from the Commission. He added that despite the struggles the Commission may have had in moving forward he felt this was the correct outcome and is in support of the Findings of Fact. Commissioner Walton moved to approve Findings of Fact CTA -2018-0006 as presented. There was no discussion The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. ii. Public Hearing: STV -2019-0002, a privately initiated street vacation of a portion of Glenn, University Roads and Baldwin Avenue. Planner Connor Lange provided a presentation outlining the privately i nitiated application to vacate unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Itolc1 Lind Glenn Road. Mr. Lange explained the right-of-ways (ROW) are located between 1--90 to the north, Nora Avenue to the south and further bordered by Overland Avenue to the west. Mr. Lange provided procedural overview advising the application was submitted March 8, 2019, the study session was conducted on May 9, 2019, and tonight the public hearing is being held. Mr. Lange advised the majority of the property surrounding the proposed ROWs to he vacated are owned by Circle M Properties. The applicant feels the request will allow for maximum use of abutting properties and that a right of way connection for an overpass is not feasible at University Road. Mr. Lange highlighted a study done in 2015 reviewed the feasibility for an overpass crossing at University Road. the project was determined to be costly and not viable at the time. However, it is unknown if a project on University Road may provide a greater level of service in the future. Due to future development, staff is recommending an amendment to the proposal by removing University Road from the vacation proposal. Mr. Lange advised that all required notices have been satisfied. Notice was posted at CenterPlace, City Hall and the library. Notice was also posted in the newspaper of record. on two separate occasions. Written notice was provided to the owner's adjacent to the 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 unimproved portions of University Road and Baldwin Avenue and signs were posted at the end of each street to be vacated. Mr. Lange advised that in processing a street vacation, staff reviews a number of criteria for approval to determine if the street is still required for public access. Staff does not anticipate that either Baldwin Avenue or Glenn Road would serve any public use and are still part of the recommendation from staff to vacate. Mr. Lange added that there has Leen a request for both ingress/egress and sewer easements that have been eidded as a recommended condition of approval. Staff also reviews conditional changes and feels University Road may provide a public benefit in the future should an overpass be proposed. There were no public objections during the comment period. Commissioner Kelley asked for clarification pertaining to University Road and what the City was asking. Mr. Lange advised the City would like to retain University Road and not allow it to be vacated in order to preserve it for future projects. Commissioner Johnson referenced an email from Jen Brunner requesting a 20 -foot public sanitary sewer easement and asked where that would be located. Mr. Lange advised that is wet to be determined however; it would most likely be along the proposed access point parallel to Baldwin Road. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:20 PM Todd Whipple; 212 N Pines Road: Mr. Whipple stated the retention of University Road by the City was a surprise to his client. He advised that when his client had come to him asking about this piece of property, they had done their research before purchasing. He cautioned his client not to purchase the property until they had clarification concerning the crossing at University Road Prean the City that they had located in the 1985 SR90 I?nvironnental Impact Statement, Mr. Whipple continued that during their Pre - Application meetings they brought the University Road crossing information to the City's attention and were advised by City staff to move forward and vacate University Road, now they have changed their mind. Mr. Whipple advised the customer has done a considerable amount of work, provided plans to the City and had received a grading permit. He added that the grading permit restrictions specified That until the street vacations were approved they were not to do any work on the ROWs. Ile explained that it became ton difficult to maneuver around the property and then the customer had to stop the project. Staff has taken University Road out of the proposal connplctcly. Mr. Whipple stated they received correspondence that the City would entertain a license agreement in order to use the property as if it were vacated to protect the possible future public improvements while the City retains ownership. Mr. Whipple asked the Planning Commission to maintain the University Street Vacation in order to give them time to go before the City Council with a request for a license agreement to use University Road ROW while the City retains ownership. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Whipple, if the license agreement is obtained and years down the road the City decided to build a bridge, at whose expense would it be to remove the work they had done? Mr. Whipple advised it would depend on the license agreement and would most likely he the responsibility of Circle M Properties. Mr. Whipple gave some details into what they have done and hope to do. He advised they \Ao_ilcl grade to highway elevation to create the access road between the two distinct properties on either side and explained their road would be well below University Road. Mr. Whipple gave details into building a crossing structure over 1-90 and stated the work they have and will do should not affect future bridge development. He added they would he willing to work with the City in regards to abutment and girder Locations at that time. 05-23-2E119 Planning Commission MMutes. Page 4 of 9 Commissioner Kaschmitter asked that if the access road they would build is lower than University Road and should a bridge be built; would the bridge have. to be longer in order to accommodate? Mr. Whipple explained that may be the case adding that currently there isn't enough ROW to widen University Road. He explained that University Road is 50 - feet wide and building a 45 -foot road to go over 1-90 would require walls straight up and down. He explained that would be cost prohibitive and would be cheaper to build girders and a deck. Commissioner Walton asked for clarification that should it be decided to move forward as amended and University Road k retained how would that impact what they are currently doing until they obtain the license. Mr. Whipple advised the work would stop and could potentially kill the project. They will need to enter on one side and exit on the other due to the size of equipment they use in order to move their materials. If they cannot use University Road, then they purchased a piece of property they can't use. He added that they are moving their corporate headquarters to this site, losing University Road was a big deal and losing the license agreement would be detrimental. Patrick J Mitchelli, 4107 E Broadway Avenue; Mr. Mitchelli explained Mr. Whipple covered all of their concerns. He added that before purchasing the property they made sure University Road would be able to be vacated and explained that if that is no longer the ease that will put their business in a tough spot. Mr. Mitchelli added that directly across from University Road is the junk yard and stated that isn't goirig anywhere in the near future. Justin Fabio, 302 N Walnut Road; Mr. Fabio asked if the traffic was going to run north of University Road and where it would exit. 11 was determined that the street would run north of University Road, through Circle M Properties and would exit onto Raymond Road. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 6:39 PM Commissioner Johnson asked staff why they concluded to remove University Road from the proposal and creating a license agreement. Mr. Basinger stated staff recognized that there may be a potential use for University Road sometime in the future adding that not knowing when that might happen the license agreement is an appropriate means to move forward. He highlighted that currently Circle M Properties is located on prime retail property on Pines Road and them moving would open that property to better uses. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb spoke to the license agreement terms stating the City can require that the applicant's improvements are subject to the City putting in a future project. He added that the license agreement would allow Circle M Properties to use the property while the City retains control to build a future project. It was determined the license agreement details do not require Planning Commission action. Commissioner Kelley spoke about his experience driving truck while serving in the United States Army and how difficult they are to turn around in small spaces. He is concerned for the applicant's future as they invest their funds and work for a number of years and then the City builds a bridge. Commissioner Johnson advised that in the early 1990's he was involved in a two-year long process with Spokane County where an overpass was discussed for University Road trying to mitigate the traffic flow on Argonne Road. At the tithe, the bypa s \tinuld start near Bigelow Gulch Road, above Hutton settlement, across the river and to University Road, he is unsure if that is still the long range plan. An interchange at University Road is not feasible at this time however, an overpass may be needed in twenty years. Commissioner 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 Johnson is opposed to leaving University Road in the proposal and is in support of the amendment presented by staff. Commissioner McKinley asked staff if the City would have eminent domain rights. Mr. Lamb explained that if in fact University Road was vacated the City would have eminent domain. The City could either purchase or condemn the property and it would be a matter of retaining the right to do so in the future or the City may feel comfortable enough not to develop and willing to pay the cost in the future if necessary. Currently it is City property and should a bridge be developed at a later date the City would have all rights to the property. Commissioner Walton stated the possibilities in cost associated with repurchasing or condemning the property and the legal implication are concerning. He added that looking at the future and how approvals impact the valley as a whole he feels the City needs to leave all possible mechanisms in place. Commissioner Kaschmitter stated she feels the license agreement will help and is in favor of it. She also agrees there may be a need for a bridge in the future. Commissioner Walton moved to approve STV -2019-0002 for Baldwin Road and Glenn Road with the removal of University Road from the street vacation application as amended by staff Commissioner Kelley advised in looking at the map it appears there are four structures that would have to be removed in order build a bridge at a later date. He added that he is opposed to the motion and feels the street vacation for University Road should remain. Commissioner Walton advised he understands where the proponent and applicant stand as it seems the City changed their mind late in the process. Ile added that in doing so staff was looking to do what's right for the future of the City and feels the City was well \5.itllirt the right to make the change as the vacation had not yet occurred. Ile strongly urges (`ily Council to consider the license agreement to run concurrent as it continues to move forward. Commissioner Walton added that he can't, in good conscience, support the promise to obtain licensure ii'the vacation is approved and is in support of the motion as it stands. Commissioner Kaschmitter agreed with Commissioner Walton. Commissioner McKinley supports the motion and also agreed with Commissioner Kelly regarding the structures that would need to be removed. The vote on the motion was four in favor, one opposed with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, and the motion passed. iii. Public Hearing: CTA -2019-0002, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 19.60, Chapter 19.85 and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations on licensed marijuana transportation businesses. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:57 PM Mr. Lamb provided a presentation outlining the code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transport operators to operate within the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Lamb provided background into Washington Initiative 1-502 that passed in 2012 legalizing marijuana in Washington State. The City responded with adopting comprehensive regulations for the allowable state license uses to he production, process and retail stores. As part of the regulations the City Council adopted a provision 19.85.040 that prohibits all other uses within the City of Spokane Valley. In the fall of 2018 the City had a citizen 05-23-2019 Planniii . Commission. n. MintaLs Page 6 of 9 inquiry from a license transporter hoping to do business in the City. Staff presented an administrative report to the City Council and the Council gave consensus to bring a proposal forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Lamb continued that transportation is only between the licensed production, process, retail stores and research facilities and is not for home delivery. The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) oversees the licensing and licensed transporters are subject to WSLCB requirements. Mr. Lamb continued that license marijuana transporters are required to have a physical location or office to store their fleet and state law prohibits them from storing marijuana in an office or physical location. State requires transportation logs and manifests in keeping with the state mandate that marijuana be suitably tracked from seed to sale. Mr. Lamb explained the product is transported in secured compartments, required to be attached to the vehicle or vehicle body and are locked at all times. Delivery has to be made within 48 hours from the time of pick up as there may be an instance where the marijuana is left in the vehicle overnight. Commissioner Johnson asked about shorter stops such a dinner and lunch breaks. Mr. Lamb advised it is allowed to be in the vehicle in a secured compartment no matter the Icngth of the break. Commissioner Kelley asked if a truck could be stored in a storage facility or garage? Mr. Lamb advised that is an option, adding that under state law the product cannot be stored in an office ice and there is no mandate that the vehicle has to be stored in a garage or storage facility. Mr. Lamb added that state law prohibits licensed marijuana transporters from being within 1,000 feet of enumerated sensitive uses such as schools, playgrounds, public transit and libraries. Mr. Lamb gave an example that currently under state law a marijuana shop could be built near an empty park like property with no current use. The City's buffers already in place prohibit marijuana shops from being built within 1,000 feet of vacant uses in order to prohibit non -conforming uses. M. Lamb addressed the questions posed by the Commission during the study session starting with the transportation of live plants. Transporting live plants is allowed in a secured compartment, those compartments could be metal partitions, cages or shatter proof acrylic to allow the plant to stay alive. Mr. Lamb added that the vehicle transporting the live plants must be windowless to the maximum extent possible. Mr. Lamb addressed advertlsing concerns advising state law prohibits advertising on or in private vehicles to limit the draw of attention. Mr. Lamb addressed the question regarding being stopped by law enforcement and identifying themselves. Transporters are required to keep a binder with their license details in the vehicle at all times to easily provide to law en fiyrc:emcnt. Transport vehicles under the law are considered to be an extension of the licensed premises and can be stopped and inspected at any time. Mr. Lamb concluded that staff identified potential impacts to be traffic; as there are no restriction on fleet size, odor; as marijuana will be kept in vehicles, and crime; also due to marijuana being kept in vehicles. WSLCB is not aware of any complaints regarding odor or any break-ins to transport vehicles. Mr. Lamb concluded that this proposal is to allow licensed transporters in the Regional Commercial (RC), Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Industrial (1) zones as this will address traffic issues by placing them near arterials. The proposal includes the City buffers related to vacant school, library and City properties and also requires a lockable enclosure for the fleet if they are in the RC zone. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Kelley asked what the definition of Regional Commercial zone is. Mr. Basinger explained that RC zones are for commercial regional uses located throughout 1- 90 along high traffic exits like the Spokane Valley Mall. Mr. Basinger added the enclosure suggested are duc to the fact that there would be a lot of individuals shopping in these zone. The City wants to ensure the vehicles and products are stored properly. Kevin Lynch, 722 W Wedgewood; Mr. Lynch advised there are other transport companies in the state that already stay the night in the City of Spokane Valley during transport. He spoke to the topic of smell advising the product is vacuum sealed for packaging, then placed in sealed totes and then in a compartment in the van preventing odor. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Lynch if he currently ships live plants? Mr. Lynch advised he does periodically as it is 1% of his business. He added that per state iaw the vehicle that ships live plants cannot have any windows as Mr. Lamb hacl mentioned. Commissioner Walton asked Mr. Lynch to describe what a law enforcement interaction would look like. Mr. Lynch explained that his staff are required to wear ID badges to prove they are an employee. Ile continued that the binder carried in the vehicles as mentioned before include their common carrier license, business license, insurance card and affidavit. There is a manifest and invoice in the primary tote that can be provided to law enforcement when requested. Mr. Lynch explained that it can range from law enforcement knowing the business being conducted before even making contact with them to being asked to provide all documents in the vehicle and in the totes. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Lynch why the information isn't offered to the officer and it was explained that would be breaking the chain of custody due to the seed to sale laws. Mr. Lynch added that by law he does not have to prove to law enforcement what is being transported in the totes unless instructed to do provide documentation. Commissioner Walton asked Mr. Lynch what impacts the City's request to have a secure enclosure would have on his business? Mr. Lynch advised it does add to cost. 1-1c stated that he is a proponent of the request as it will make his staff, drivers, product and vehicles more secure. IIc added that buildings arc hard to find and cost ranges from $1,800 to $2,500 dollars a month, it is also difficult to find a landlord that will rent to him. Mr. Lamb addressed the discussion pertaining to law enforcement stops highlighting that there is a preemption prevision in state law that WST,CI3 provides all operations of the licensed uses. The City would not be able to ask for any additional forms of identification or supplemental documentation. Commissioner Walton asked staff why the City chose to exempt Appleway trail from the 1,000 -foot exclusion zone? Mr. Lamb advised that the City Council does provide a prohibition on retail sales within 1,000 feet of Appleway trail to prevent the end users from using the trail. Council felt it appropriate to exempt Appleway trail due to its extent across the City and crossing multiple zones. Mr. Lamb added the limitations in place such as production staying indoors and no chemical processing. This was a compromise for business rights and property rights verses the trail and its beneficial use by citizens. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing al 7:23 p.m. 05-23-201) Nanning Cumin k ion Minutes Page 8 or 9 Commissioner Walton stated he was intrigued by this proposal due to the attitudes and stale adoption of marijuana usage across the country. 1-1e feels it's a good idea to stay at the cutting edge of the process within state guidelines and state law, adding that the City wants to promote growth of all kinds. Commissioner Walton likes the proposal and feels there is a good compromise in the adoption of the enclosures and is in support. Commissioner Kelley explained liis understanding of the process due to an acquaintance having a similar business and how it operated. Commissioner Kelly explained he feels this will attract criminals that want to steal the trucks and the product. Commissioner Kelly stated he does not appreciate the confrontational attitude toward law enforcement. He added that having been part of this first hand, landlords have: the right not to lease to businesses they feel will be a detriment to the community. Commissioner Kelly believes there is a lot of crime attracted to and associated with marijuana businesses and is concerned for people's safety. Commissioner Walton move to approve C7.4-2019-0002 as presented. Commissioner Kelley reminded the Commission that when I-502 was first presented, the marijuana grow, production and retail facilities were voted down by the Commission. He added that his belief is that if the legalization of marijuana would have been brought to the vote of the people of Spokane Valley it would not have passed and he is greatly opposed. Commissioner Walton thanked Commissioner Kelley for the background. Ile added that he is in support as the City allows this type of business and are staying on the cutting edge. Commissioner Walton advised that location and regulations have addressed many concerns. Commissioner Walton continued one of his primary considerations was to understand how this business is being perceived by local law enforcement and appreciated the perspective from the proponent as well as Commissioner Kelley's position. The vote on the motion was four in favor, one opposed with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, and the motion passed. iv. Public Hearing: STV -2019-0001, proposed street vacations of a portion of Tshirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road in the Northeast Industrial Area. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Basinger provided a presentation to the Commission outlining the Northeast Industrial Area City Initiated Street Vacation. Mr. Basinger provided background advising on April 29, 2019 City Council initiated the Street Vacation and set a public hearing with the Planning Commission. On April 25, 2019 a study session was conducted and. tonight the public hearing is being held. Mr. Basinger explained this area is located in the Northeast Industrial Area were the City has taken action to advance development.. The City rezoned the property to allow a broader variety of industrial uses, extended the sewer from Sullivan Road to Barker Road and have adopted a planned action ordinance to streamline development. The proposed street vacations will further prepare the arca for development. Mr. Basinger advised Garland Avenue will provide access for future development. He added that the current ROW may be an impediment for a large industrial user to developed in the future. Mr. Basinger continued, the proposed vacations are the unimproved Right of 0.5:23-2019 Hr/hunlg t:otiunis ioJ :\•tlnLile:; Page 9 01 '9 Ways (ROW) of Tsai Hey Road. 1.orlg Road. (.;rcenacres Road and Rich Avenue. Public notice was posted and mailed on April 25, 2019, posted in the Valley Herald and the Lxchange on April 26, 2019 and May 3. 2019 and signs were posted on each end of proposed vacation areas. There have been no public or agency comments to date. Mr, Basinger added that the City Lias been working with Consolidated irrigation District as they would like to loop their water system. The City will have an casement iii place once "lschirley Road ROW is removed to accommodate for their loop. Staff is requesting the approval to vacate the ROWS subject to the conditions in the stag report. Mr. Basinger provided a list of the conditions. Vacated property will he transferred into the abutting parcels, if approved the alrea will be surveyed to identify applicable casements. 1'lici•c was some discussion regarding a Pre -Application meeting that determined there Would be a land locked parcel once the ROWS are vacated. I-lowever, the applicants are proposillg in apply for a boundary line elimination to slake one parcel Illillz,;itiT1t this [sS1IC. Mr. I- isingel' concluded that ti -e zoning dvi11 he extended to include the vacated ROWS, a survey will be recorded and all conditions \ki11 he fully satisfied prior to transfer of title. Chair .Irrhrtson closed the public hnur irtg at 7.'49 p.m. (.'c'rrrrrrix.sir.+ii r Walton moved to approve STV -2019-0001 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. GOOI) OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Kasehwitter thanked the public for their comments, Commissioner Walton spoke about his reflection on the previous meeting and overall dedication from the Commission and community. He thanked Commissioner Kelley for reminding hiniself' and staff` ail. his 1 ission in alloying the public to have their 'sec speech. Commissioner Walton apologized to the Coi11nmission and members or the public i1 his comments felt as if they weic dissuading the public from speaking. as that was not his. intent. C'.oninaissionci' Walton concluded with thanking the Commission for their dedication. Mr. Basinger added currently the. Planning Commission is the. forum where comments will he received, so it is with utmost importance they are heard. it is also important to forward a recommendation that synthesizes the Commission's vote and he appreciated the Commissions service. Commissioner Johnson stated he concurred with Commissioner Walton and also appreciated being a part of this team. XL ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p.m. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the anotias passed 6/5/1ze2/7 James Johnson, Chairman Date signed Robin Hutchins, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 07-009 RESOLUTION ADOPTING POLICIES FOR IMPOSING VACATION CHARGES PURSUANT TO RCW 36.79.030 WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has the authority to vacate roadways and right of ways pursuant to RCW 36.79.030; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has the authority to charge for said vacations in an amount that does not exceed 50 % of the full appraised value or for the full appraised value of the area vacated where the street or alley had been part of a dedicated right of way for over twenty five years or if the property was acquired at public expense; and WHEREAS; the City of Spokane Valley wishes to establish a policy by which they determine the amount to be charged the benefited property owners of any such vacation. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING POLICY: SECTION 1. Policy. 1. The cost for property received as a result of a vacation initiated by an adjacent property owner shall equal fifty per cent (50%) of the appraised value of the vacated property received. a. The appraised value shall be the same as the value of an equivalent portion of property adjacent to the proposed vacation as established by the. Spokane County Assessor at the time the matter is considered by the City Council. b. If the value of adjacent properties differs, then the average of the adjacent property values per square foot will be used. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), the applicant shall pay the above- described fee only to the extent that it exceeds the cost charged by the City of Spokane Valley to initiate the vacation process, exclusive of any surveying or engineering costs that may be incurred by the applicant. 3. This charge shall be paid subsequent to council action and prior to recording the vacation with the Spokane County Auditor. 4. The City Council shall reserve the right: to deviate from this policy upon the adoption of written findings of fact that demonstrate that the public interest shall be best served by an alternate approach. SECTION 2. This Resolution shall be in full force and effective immediately upon adoption. Resolution 07-009 Street Vacation Charges Page 1 of 2 Adopted this 10t day of July, 2007. Diana Wilhite, Mayor ATTEST: hristine Bainbridge, Ci Clerk Approved a$o Form: Office oZ the City ttorney Resolution 07-009 Street Vacation Charges Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 24, 2019 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: CTA -2019-0002 — proposed amendments to allow licensed marijuana transporters. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; RCW 69.50 (codifying Initiative 502); WAC 314-55-310; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040; Chapter 19.85 SVMC; SVMC 19.60.050. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted comprehensive marijuana regulations in 2016. On November 20, 2018, Council heard an administrative report and gave consensus to have the Planning Commission hear a proposal to allow marijuana transporters in the City. BACKGROUND: In 2016, the City Council adopted comprehensive marijuana regulations governing all licensed and registered marijuana use within the City which are set forth in chapter 19.85 SVMC. As part of those regulations, the City Council determined to allow licensed marijuana production, marijuana processing, and the existing three marijuana retailers within certain zones of the City and subject to a number of other requirements. Understanding that in the future, there could be additional rule changes by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) or other types of marijuana uses authorized by the State Legislature, City Council adopted a prohibition on all other licensed and registered marijuana uses in the City. This prohibition is set forth in SVMC 19.85.040. Thus, the prohibition acts as a proactive measure to allow measured review of new uses prior to them being allowed, rather than having to rely on a reactive approach such as through a moratorium. Pursuant to RCW 69.50.382 and .385, and rules promulgated by the WSLCB in WAC 314-55- 310, applicants may receive a license to operate as a licensed marijuana transport business to transport marijuana and marijuana products between other licensed marijuana producers, processors, and retail stores. A marijuana transportation license requires that the license holder have a physical location as the primary business location, that all vehicles for the business be permitted by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission as common carriers, that the license holder carry certain insurance, and that the license holder maintain detailed records of the marijuana items being transported, including clear documentation of the chain of custody for each delivery. WAC 314-55-310(2-4). Only the licensee or employees of the licensee who are at least 21 years old may transport any product. Id. Marijuana must be in sealed containers in a locked storage unit within the vehicle. Live plants may be transported. Id. Pursuant to direction from City Council, staff developed proposed regulations to allow licensed marijuana transport uses within the City for Planning Commission consideration. Specifically, the proposal will amend SVMC 19.60.050 (the permitted use matrix), chapter 19.85 SVMC, and Appendix A. The proposed regulations are similar in form to the City's regulations for licensed marijuana producers, processors, and retail stores. The proposed regulations allow marijuana transport businesses to be located in the Regional Commercial (RC), Industrial Mixed Use (IMU), and Industrial (I) zones. In the RC zones, the transport business must have a lockable enclosure to keep in the fleet, as the WSLCB rules allow transporters to have marijuana in the vehicles for up to 48 hours, and staff understand that there are instances where transporters will have marijuana in the vehicles overnight. Further, as with the production and processing uses, the proposed regulations have added buffers to certain sensitive uses in addition to those set forth by the State. These buffers prohibit marijuana transport uses from being within 1,000 feet of undeveloped school, library, and City property (other than stormwater and ROW), and prohibit such uses from being within 1,000 feet of City Hall and CenterPlace. After conducting a public hearing on May 23, 2019, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend that City Council approve the proposed marijuana transporter amendments. OPTIONS: Consensus to proceed with first reading at a future council meeting; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to proceed with first reading at a future council meeting. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: A. Presentation B. Proposed amendments to SVMC 19.60.050, chapter 19.85, and Appendix A C. Minutes from May 9, May 23, and June 13, 2019, Planning Commission meetings D. Findings and Recommendation adopted by Planning Commission on June 13, 2019 E. Staff Report CTA 2019-0002: Marijuana Transport Amendments Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley June 24, 2019 City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney r osed MarijuanaTransport Amen Backgrou nd City regulations: SVMC 19.85.040 prohibits all marijuana uses except for licensed marijuana production, processing, and the three existing retail shops. Prohibits Marijuana Transport Businesses. Citizen inquiry in fall of 2018 to allow marijuana transport business. City Council direction to forward proposal to Planning Commission that would allow marijuana transport businesses. ments: City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney State law Licensed Marijuana Transport Uses RCW 69.50.382 and 69.50.385 and WAC 314-55-310: Authorize licensed marijuana transport businesses. ONLY transport marijuana and marijuana products between licensed marijuana producers, processors, retail stores, and research facilities. NO home delivery. Subject to WSLCB licensing. Must have physical location (e.g., an office). No marijuana allowed at the location (inside the office) . City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney ate law —Licensed Marijuana Transport Uses RCW 69.50.382 and 69.50.385 and WAC 314-55-310 continued: Considered a "common carrier," so must also get UTC common carrier permit. Vehicle markings? - no advertising permitted. Transportation logs and manifests required. Secured compartments that are attached to vehicle body. Live plants - in metal partitions, cages, or shatterproof acrylic. Must be windowless (other than windshields and windows necessary for driving) . All deliveries must be made within 48 hours from the time of pick-up. Note: This means that marijuana may be in vehicles onsite overnight. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney State law -- Licensed Marijuana Transport Uses Prohibited from being within 1,000 feet of: School; Playground; Recreation center; Child care center; Public park; Public transit center; Library; or Game arcade. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 5 Traffic. No restrictions on fleet size. Odor. Marijuana may be kept in vehicles. WSLCB was not aware of any complaints regarding odor. Crime? Marijuana may be kept in vehicles. WSLCB was not aware of any break-ins to vehicles. General office use impacts equivalent to other office uses. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney sed Amendmerits Generaily: Allow marijuana transporters in RC, IMU, and I zones. Addresses traffic issues and limits impacts on residential and mixed -uses. Additional City buffers for vacant school, library, and City property (other than swales, ROW, and Appleway Trail) . Consistent with City regulations for marijuana production and processing. Requires lockable enclosure for fleet in RC zone. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Proposme=ndrnents Amend SVMC 19.60.050 to allow marijuana transport uses in Permitted Use Matrix. C'hapter 19.60 Pei miffed Uses 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 8 Residential Alined Use Commercial Industrial Parks and Open Space R-1 R-2 R -J MFR AIC CMF NC RC IMIT I POS 8x8 Lodging Sed and breakfast P P P P P Hatelimotel P P P P 5 Recreational vehicle park/campground S Marijuana Uses Marijuana club or lounge Marijuana cooperative Marijuana processing S S Marijuana production S S Marijuana sales 5 5 S Marijuana transporter 5 5 5 Medical 5 P P P P P 1,1 City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 8 Proposme=ndrnents Amend SVMC 19.85.040 to establish buffers and limits for marijuana transport uses. 19.85.040 Marijuana transporter standards. A. Marijuana transporter uses shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana transporter facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in chapter 27.12 RCW; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.040: a. Any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document, plan, or program adopted by the City; and b. The Appleway Trail; or 4. a. Any facility or building designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the City as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term that identifies such facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location; or b. CenterPlace. B. Marijuana transporter uses in the RC zone shall include a lockable enclosure for any vehicles used for marijuana - related transport. Such enclosure shall be subject to applicable setback, transitional, and screening requirements. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 9 Proposed Amendments Add definition for "marijuana transporter" to Appendix A. Marijuana transporter: A common carrier engaged in marijuana -related transportation or delivery services licensed for such. marijuana -related transportation or delivery, all as provided pursuant to chapter 59.0 RCF and rule promulgated thereunder, as now adopted or hereaifer amended. Marijuana transporters shall only include common carriers providing marijuana -related transportation en -ices between licensed marijuana producers, marijuana processors, marijuana researchers, and marijuana retailers and shall not include any residential deli'very or delivery to end-users_ City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney ro Planning Commission Recommendation Conducted public hearing on May 23, 2019. Voted 4-1 to recommend City Council approve proposed amendments. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Questions? City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 12 EXHIBIT 1 CTA 2019-0003 Draft Marijuana Transporter Amendments Chapter 19.60 Permitted Uses 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. Page 1/5 Chapter 19.85 MARIJUANA USES 19.85.010 Marijuana production standards. A. Marijuana production shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana production facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter 27.12 RCW; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.010: a. Any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document, plan, or program adopted by the council; and b. The Appleway Trail; or 4. a. Any facility or building designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the Council as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term that identifies such Facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location; or Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Parks and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IRM 1 POS Lodging Bed and breakfast PP PP P Hotel/motel P P P P S Recreational vehicle park/campground S Marijuana Uses Marijuana club or lounge Marijuana cooperative Marijuana processing S S Marijuana production S S Marijuana sales S S S Marijuana transporter 5 S S Medical S P P P P P *** Chapter 19.85 MARIJUANA USES 19.85.010 Marijuana production standards. A. Marijuana production shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana production facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter 27.12 RCW; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.010: a. Any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document, plan, or program adopted by the council; and b. The Appleway Trail; or 4. a. Any facility or building designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the Council as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term that identifies such Facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location; or EXHIBIT 1 CTA 2019-0003 Draft Marijuana Transporter Amendments b. CenterPlace. B. Marijuana production in the RC zone shall only be permitted indoors. Page 2/5 19.85.020 Marijuana processing standards. A. Marijuana processing shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana processing facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter 27.12 RCW; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.020: a. Any storrnwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document, plan, or program adopted by the City; and b. The Appleway Trail; or 4. a. Any facility or building de i an,itccl or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the City as "Spokane Valley City Hail" or other similar term that identifies such facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location; or b. CenterPlace. B. Marijuana processing in the RC zone shall be limited to packaging and labeling of usable marijuana. 19.85.030 Marijuana retail sales standards. A. New marijuana sales shall not be permitted within any zoning districts. B. Marijuana sales uses in existence and in continuous and lawful operation prior to July 27, 2016, shall not be deemed nonconforming and shall be permitted as a legal use subject to the following: marijuana sales shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana sales facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Centennial Trail; 2. Appleway Trail; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; 4. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter 27.12 RCW; 5. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document, plan, or program adopted by the council shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.030; or 6. a. Any facility or building designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the council as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term that identifies such facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location; or b. CenterPlace. EXHIBIT 1 CTA 2019-0003 Draft Marijuana Transporter Amendments Page 3/5 19.85.040 Marijuana transporter standards. A. Marijuana transporter uses shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana transporter facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in chapter 27.12 RCW; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.040: a. Any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or richt-of-way in any document, plan, or program adopted by the City; and b. The Appleway Trail; or 4, a. Any facility or building designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the City as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term that identifies such facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location: or b. CenterPlace. B. Marijuana transporter uses in the RC zone shall include a lockable enclosure for any vehicles used for marijuana - related transport. Such enclosure shall be subject to applicable setback, transitional, and screening requirements. 19.85.0450 Other licensed or registered marijuana uses prohibited. Marijuana production, marijuana processing, and -existing marijuana sales, and marijuana transporters shall be permitted pursuant to SVMC 19.85.010, 19.85.020, and 19.85.030, and 19.85.040. All other commercial and noncommercial licensed or registered marijuana uses are prohibited within all zoning districts of the City. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, marijuana clubs or lounges and marijuana cooperatives. This prohibition does not apply to home growing or processing of marijuana by qualified patients or designated providers in residential zoning districts as set forth in SVMC 19.85.0650 and in compliance with state law. 19.85.0560 Marijuana production and processing in residential zones. Washington state law authorizes qualified patients and designated providers to produce marijuana and to process marijuana in dwellings, residences, domiciles, and similar housing units under limited circumstances and with limited processing methods. Subject to applicable federal, state, and local laws, any owner, lessor, or leasing agent may request or require disclosure of a renter or lessee's desire to produce or process marijuana within a rented or leased dwelling unit. In addition to compliance with any applicable state or federal laws and regulations, lawful production or processing of marijuana by any person in a dwelling, residence, domicile, or other similar housing unit shall be subject to all locally applicable land use, development, zoning, and building regulation requirements including, but not limited to, all applicable requirements set forth in SVMC Titles 17 through 24 as the same are now adopted or hereafter amended, and the following regulations: A. Any home production or processing of marijuana by any person pursuant to state law shall not be permitted outside of the dwelling or accessory structure; 13. Any home production or processing of marijuana by any person or allowed by state law in a dwelling or accessory structure shall be enclosed, blocked, or sight -screened from the public right-of-way and from adjacent properties so that no portion may be readily seen by normal unaided vision or readily smelled from such locations. Accessory structures shall be permanent structures enclosed by a roof and walls on all sides and connected to a permanent foundation. For purposes of SVMC 19.85,0560, accessory structures shall not include cargo containers, recreational vehicles, or other similar types of structures. Accessory structures shall be completely opaque in addition to necessary site -screening; EXHIBIT 1 CTA 2019-0003 Draft Marijuana Transporter Amendments Page 415 C. Home processing of marijuana shall not involve any combustible method and shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws and rules, including all standards adopted by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board; and D. Production or processing of marijuana by any person pursuant to state law in a dwelling or accessory structure shall only be allowed in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS A. General Provisions. 1. For the purpose of this code, certain words and terms are herein defined. The word "shall" is always mandatory. The word "may" is permissive, subject to the judgment of the person administering the code. 2. Words not defined herein shall be construed as defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. 3. The present tense includes the future and the present. 4. The singular number includes the plural and the singular. 5. Use of male designations shall also include female. B. Definitions. *** Manufacturing, petroleum and coal products: The manufacture of asphalt paving, roofing and coating, and petroleum refining. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Marijuana club or lounge: A club, association, or other business, for profit or otherwise, that conducts or maintains a premises for the primary or incidental purpose of providing a location where members or other persons may keep or consume marijuana on the premises, whether licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board or not, or such other similar use pursuant to RCW 69.50.465, as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana cooperative: A marijuana cooperative formed pursuant to Chapter 69.5 IA RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. A marijuana cooperative is comprised of up to four qualifying patients or designated providers and formed for the purposes of sharing responsibility for acquiring and supplying the resources, and producing and processing marijuana for the medical use of the members of the marijuana cooperative. Marijuana processing: Processing marijuana into usable marijuana, marijuana -infused products, and marijuana concentrates; packaging and labeling usable marijuana, marijuana -infused products, and marijuana concentrates for sale in retail outlets; and sale of usable marijuana, marijuana -infused products, and marijuana concentrates at wholesale by a marijuana processor licensed by the State Liquor Control and Cannabis Board and pursuant to Chapter 69.50 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder, as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana production: Production and sale of marijuana at wholesale by a marijuana producer licensed by the State Liquor Control and Cannabis Board and pursuant to Chapter 69.50 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder, as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana sales: Selling usable marijuana, marijuana -infused products, and marijuana concentrates in a retail outlet by a marijuana retailer licensed by the State Liquor Control and Cannabis Board, along with any applicable other use allowed as part of the marijuana sales pursuant to an endorsement associated with marijuana retail including, but not limited to, marijuana sales with a medical endorsement, operation of a marijuana club or lounge pursuant to an EXHIBIT 1 CTA 2019-0003 Draft Marijuana Transporter Amendments Page 5/5 endorsement, or delivery of marijuana that may require an endorsement, all as provided pursuant to Chapter 69.50 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder, as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana sales with medical endorsement: Marijuana sales and medical marijuana sales by a marijuana retailer licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board that has been issued a medical marijuana endorsement pursuant to Chapter 69.50 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder, as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana transporter: A col -ninon carrier engaged in marijuana -related transportation or delivery services licensed for such marijuana -related transportation or delivery, all as provided pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder, as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana transporters shall only include common carriers providing marijuana -related transportation services between licensed marijuana producers, marijuana processors, marijuana researchers, and marijuana retailers and shall not include any residential delivery or delivery to end-users. Marijuana uses, category: Marijuana uses conducted in compliance with state law, including but not limited to Chapters 69.50 and 69.51A RCW and rules promulgated thereunder, as now adopted or hereafter amended. Market, outdoor: A temporary or seasonal location where produce and agricultural products including, but not limited to, pumpkins, Christmas trees and firewood, as well as crafts and other items, are offered for sale to the public. See "Retail sales and services, use category." *** Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall May 9, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter, absent - excused Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Timothy Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McKinley Connor Lange, Planner Michael Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Matt Walton Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioner Kaschmitter was excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to amend the May 9, 2019 agenda. The motion was to add item i.a. Findings and Recommendations for CTA -2018-0005 to review and correct an error. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 25, 2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he did not attend any City Council meeting however he did watch the televised meetings. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i.a. Amended Findings and Recommendations for CTA -2018-0005 Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained that staff recognized a discrepancy in the Findings and Recommendations for CTA -2Q18-0005 being forwarded to the City Council for review at the Tuesday May 14, 2019 meeting. The Commission denied the request, however the discrepancy found was in the last sentence of the introductory paragraph of the Findings and Recommendations. The language struck from the Findings and Recommendations read "The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation that-G--ity deptt amendment". The language was. changed to accurately reflect the Commission's action by striking the last six words of the sentence. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Paige 2 or 12 Commissioner Walton moved to approve the amended Findings of Fact for C7A-2018- 0005 as presented. Commissioner Walton explained the intent was to correct the language in order to reflect the deliberation and vote, he was in favor of the adopted language. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed Public Bearing: CTA-2018-0006, a proposed text atnendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affordable housing and multifamily development. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6.'08 p.m. Ms. Barlow provided background information into the privately initiated code text amendment (CTA). Ms. Barlow advised that staff reviewed the application for environmental impact and a determination of non-significance was issued March 29, 2019. The notice of public hearing was posted in the newspaper as well as on the City's website, Ms. Barlow clarified that this proposal is a CTA which is not site-specific, therefore on site posting requirements did not apply. Ms. Barlow continued that the Commission conducted a study session of this proposal on April 25, 2019 and are conducting the public hearing to consider public comment. Ms. Barlow highlighted a recent change the City Council made to the Governance Manual. The Council will no longer take public comment on items that have had a public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission. Ms. Barlow stressed that the opportunity for public comment will only be during the Planning Commissions public hearing. Once a recommendation is made by the Planning Commission, it would be formalized in the Findings of Fact scheduled for May 23, 2019. Ms. Barlow continued, the proposals intent is to allow multifamily (MF) in the residential (R-3) zone as long as it meets supplemental regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that currently multifamily is only allowed in multifamily residential and both mixed use zones. This proposal would change the Permitted Use Matrix SVMC 19,60,050 by adding an "S" indicating multifamily could be allowed but subject to supplemental use regulations. Ms. Barlow described that this proposal would add supplemental language to SVMC 19.65.130 stating that multifamily could be allowed if it complies with Chapter 19.40 of SVMC Alternative Residential Development Options. The newly added section, 19.40.035 identifies that multifamily in the R-3 zone would be allowed if specific criteria are met for applicability, site and building standards and other related agreements. Ms. Barlow continued that in order for a development to utilize this section of the code at least 51% of the units proposed must be used for affordable housing. Ms. Barlow continued the property must be a single parcel under single ownership. The parcel uses must include a church, school and multifamily units all located on a site at least 10-20 acres in size. Ms. Barlow continued that the entire site can be used to calculate the six dwelling units per acre as the maximum density allowed in the R-3 zoning district. Currently the R-3 zone does not allow multifamily development but does allow single family development at a density of six dwelling units per acre. Ms. Barlow explained this amendment proposes to utilize the entire site to calculate what could have been allowed for single family development, but then allows the units to be clustered in the form of a multifamily development. For example, if you have a 10-acre parcel allowing six dwelling units per acre it would allow for 60 single family residential dwelling units. The proposal would allow you to develop 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 12 a site that has a school and church with 60 dwelling units in a multifamily complex which would maintain the density that is established within the R-3 Zone. Ms. Barlow advised the school, church and multifamily may share parking and open space to help prevent overbuilding. Ms, Barlow continued highlighting other criteria that applies when specific circumstances exist, such as natural amenities will be incorporated into the site, buildings that include parking structures shall have design continuity to look as if they are part of a campus and pedestrian areas shall be delineated and protected. Ms. Barlow continued with development standards and noted that the proposal identified that it must meet residential standards in the Dimensional and Standards Table 19.70-01, which includes a building height limit of 35 feet, and setbacks, to maintain the surrounding character. Ms. Barlow continued that the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet is not applicable since the criteria requires the lot size has to be 10-20 acres in size. The development must provide at least 10% of the gross area of the site for open space. Ms. Barlow explained other requirements would be agreements to ensure compliance with all criteria for the life of the project. The conditions will run with the land and will not transfer with the owner. Ms. Barlow continued this would be processed as a Type III Permit that requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and gave an overview of the process. Ms. Barlow explained that through the CUP process uses that may have unanticipated impacts could be conditioned by the Hearing Examiner to mitigate those impacts, or the permit could be denied completely. Ms. Barlow highlighted the items discussed by the Commission during the study session. As part of the proposal at least 51% of the units proposed must be used for affordable housing and it was asked what that figure included. Ms. Barlow explained the federal standard for affordable housings definition includes housing and utilities. The other item discussed was pertaining to the number of existing sites in the City that could support this proposal. Staff's analysis within the staff report identified 75 properties within the City owned by churches. Out of those 75 sites, 25 of them are in the R-3 zone and two of those properties meet the 10 acre minimum criteria. Of those two sites one has both a school and a church. Ms. Barlow explained that this information shows a snap shot in time as all circumstances could change. Ms. Barlow added that these regulations are not limited to existing churches and schools, the regulations state that if multifamily were to be allowed in the R-3 zone it would have to be in conjunction with a church and a school. Anyone could aggregate land and propose a development with a church, school and multifamily component. Ms. Barlow explained the City's GIS specialist queried single property owners within the R-3 zone that would meet the criteria and identified eight sites. If this proposal were adopted this could apply to those eight sites owned by a single property owner within the R-3 zone. Ms. Barlow highlighted procedural recommendations and urged the Commission to consider the public comments provided. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was a determination as to why the limit was 20 acres? Ms. Barlow advised the applicant may be able to address that question. Ms. Barlow stressed that this proposal is not a Cityinitiated proposal and has been proposed by Catholic Charities, the City is processing the request. Commissioner Johnson asked if the City has a definition of a church and a school in order to determine if anyone could open a church and one grade level school and meet the criteria. Ms. Barlow explained the City does have a definition for schools, this proposal does not identify as a public or private school. However, it is assumed to be private as it is associated with a church. It was determined the City has a definition for a church and it was read aloud. It was concluded the City would automatically defer to the City's definition if the language was not provided in the 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 01'12 proposal. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of nonprofit not being identified in the definition and it was concluded that either profit based or nonprofit organizations could apply, Commissioner McKinley asked for clarification that currently only one site fit the criteria; it was concluded to be accurate. There was discussion that a property could exceed the maximum and only utilize the amount the property needed; but property could also be aggregated to fit the criteria. Ms. Barlow added that the City received three additional comments, from Daniel and Deborah Hippie, Sara Goulart and Kim Helm. Each comment stressed they are in opposition and all live within close proximity to the St. Vianney church site. Johnathan Mallahan Vice President of housing for Catholic Charities of Eastern Washington provided an informational video depicting Catholic Charities mission. Mr. Mallahan spoke about the need for affordable housing for seniors. Mr. Mallahan explained that Catholic Charities strives to develop the support of communities and bring dignity to vulnerable individuals. He explained Catholic Charities has a variety of programs that provide basic needs to include food, security, access to employment, counselling and housing. He continues that Catholic Charities provides over 1,300 units of affordable housing throughout Easter Washington that serves seniors, families, homeless and farmworkers. Mr. Mallahan explained Catholic social teachings believe that individuals deserve basic human dignity that these project provide. Mr. Mallahan touched on other developers and explained that their mission may be different than Catholic Charites. Mr. Mallahan explained they have been transparent to surrounding neighbors and will do what they can to mitigate any impacts. Mr. Mallahan discussed discriminating to one population and explained that natural limits dictate who can be served on a campus with a church and a school. He went on to explain you couldn't put a low barrier housing project on a parcel that has a school as you wouldn't be able to attain funding. Adding that it wouldn't be in compliance as you have to accept individuals into those project with criminal history and with a school on site that wouldn't be appropriate. Lastly, Mr. Mallahan continued that seniors often times downsize due to retirement and income changes and this would allow seniors to stay in the community they are accustom to. Mr. Mallahan stated this proposal is in keeping with the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding affordable housing. He addressed housing costs stating they have increased by 29% with only a 6% household income increase. This will push individuals out of housing and is disproportionate to seniors due to fixed incomes. Catholic Charities would like to afford seniors the opportunity to age in place, reduce the frequency of moving and explained the importance of the onsite social services affording the assistance to help seniors to live independently. Mr. Mallahan concluded by thanking the Commission and stated that if this proposal passes Catholic Charities will proceed with applying for funding and a CUP for development. Commissioner Walton identified for the record that he knows Mr. Mallahan as they attended Gonzaga University together. Commissioner Walton stated he has no affiliation with Catholic Charities and did not intended to recuse himself from deliberation, Commission Johnson also advised he has worked with Catholic Charities and Rob McCann is a member of the Spokane County Iluman Rights Tasks force with him, Commissioner Johnson does not have reason to support the charity other than their ultimate goals and is. viewing the proposal and how it would affect other properties within the City. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 12 Commissioner Kelley asked the applicant if the main goal is intended for Senior Citizens then why isn't it stated as such? Mr. Mallahan explained that listing a specific population in code could be a liability and a violation of fair housing standards. Deputy City Attorney Eric Lainb explained that the Office of the City Attorney would also have concerns with listing specific protected classes whether based on disability or age, the City does not discriminate and does not want to discriminate. Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant why they chose the 51% as the number of units to be low income? Mr. Mallahan advised that is a common standard with public funding and aids in obtaining funding. Commissioner Johnson also asked what the reason was for linniting to 20 acres? Mr. Mallahan explained the Internet was to narrow the amount of land that this would apply too, but at this time realized that the upper limit didn't add value to this proposal. Commissioners Johnson asked about parking and the overflow concerns with overlap of those at home during church services. Mr. Mallahan explained that. parishioners typically traveling to attend the services would now be living on site and attending the services with no additional parking impacts. Commissioner Johnson asked staff if there was a way to limit or encourage additional parking? Ms. Barlow explained those items would be worked out through the CUP process. Ms. Barlow stressed how the CUP process is the tool to address unanticipated impacts that the Hearing Examiner would review. Conunissioner Johnson asked about shared space and asked what the applicants vision was? Mr. Mallahan explained that this project is an appropriate context for shared as well as separate space for the school. Commissioner Johnson stated his concerns for open space and security issues for the school. Ms. Barlow explained that security measures would be put in place by the owner and operator of the schools. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of nonprofit or for-profit business and his concern is the entities that night take advantage of the locations that staff identified. Mr. Mallahan stated that naturally the 51% requirement provides a disincentive to develop for-profit. Net operation income potential for a property with 51% affordability is limited and drives down the revenue, those developers would find less cumbersome opportunities in other areas of the City. Commnissioner Johnson asked if the applicant would be opposed to 60% and Mr. Mallahan advised they would not. Commissioner Walton asked staff if the City currently asks for trip generation studies within the MFR zone if they exceed density? Ms. Barlow explained that trip generation studies are required based on the number of trips generated during peak hour traffic, If a project is expected to generate more than 10 peak hour trips a study would be required. Ms. Barlow added that concurrency is also required as part of the study from the City's Senior traffic engineer. Commissioner Walton asked the applicant to explain the application process. Mr. Mallahan explained they are a fair housing provider and everyone is welcome to apply. He continued that there is ability within the fare hosing rules to have communities that serve senior populations exclusively. The applicant would have to be 62 years of age or older, they perform a background and credit check to ensure a safe environment and that the applicant has the ability to afford the housing. Mr. Mallahan noted not each property would use the same criminal background check standards depending on location. Commissioner Walton asked if citizenship was required as part.of the population served were farmworkers? Mr. Mallahan advised that is not a part of the process. Kathi Lankford, Walnut Road; Ms. Lankford stated she lives directly across the street from the site. She understands the need for affordable housing however feels it needs to be in the right area, not in an R-3 zone. Gary Graupner, 10219 E Valleyway Avenue; Mr. Graupner advised his largest concern is the same now as it was before, traffic impacts. He stated that between Felts Road and 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 12 Harold Road their will a new development of thirteen houses. He does not want to see Valleyway Avenue become another Broadway by making Valleyway Avenue a through street from Argonne Road to University Road. He asked that they find another location and is opposed. Mark Zielfelder, 417 N Harold Road; Mr. Zielfelder explained that his concerns are the same as they were 8 years ago. He is concerned about traffic impacts and for the infrastructure. He works for the City of Spokane Water and stated the water infrastructure would not be able to support this project and gave examples as to why. He feels there are too many variables that need to be looked at. He added that no one wants to see the removal of the Walnut trees to accommodate for sidewalks. Mr. Zielfelder stated the video presented showed that the project was clearly in a commercial zone not in a neighborhood. Thomas Dixon, 608 N Farr Road; Mr. Dixon explained the church is in his backyard. He and his wife chose to buy in this area due to the character and location. 14e is concerned with traffic impacts. He advised he supports Catholic Charities however is opposed to this proposal. Linda Dixon, 608 N Farr Road; Mrs. Dixon explained this is the second time they have gone through this, Mrs. Dixon continued they live in a great neighborhood and do not want to see this neighborhood ruined. She added they didn't know this was happening until last night when someone put a note on their door. Michael Lehman, 9920 E Broadway; Mr. Lehman was concerned with the unknowns and that there were no studies being done regarding traffic or water. He found it hard to believe there were no adverse irnpacts. He continued that he was thankful for the video presented but felt it was terrible as it proved to be in a commercial zone with access to public transit, none of these items would be accessible on Walnut Road. He feels there are too many unanswered questions and is opposed. Ken Marks 10001 E Broadway Ave; Agrees with Mr. Lehman Dave Fade, 124 N Walnut Roadd; Mr. Fade explained that current zones protect us from situations like these. He feels this would decrease his property value and also agrees with the concerns for the infrastructure. Christine Fade, 124 N Walnut Road; Mrs. Fode explained she moved to the area because she liked the street. She was shocked to receive a letter dated April 30th from Catholic Charities and St. Vianney Church. She is not opposed to affordable housing; she is opposed to the CTA as the zoning needs to stay Single Family. Joann Maxfield, 205 N Walnut Road; She agrees with all public comments and it mostly concerned with traffic. Sandy Folder, 9814 E Valleyway, Ms. Holder agrees with all public comments and expressed her concerns for property values going down and the unknowns. Ms. Holder is concerned with traffic impacts should Valleyway Avenue be opened up. She has a deaf child and is concerned for the safety of those with disabilities. She is also concerned with overflow parking as the church holds events a few times a year where. they block off the street. She is opposed to this proposal and suggested relocating this to a commercial property. Sadie Lieuallen, 123 N Walnut Road, Ms. Lieuallen agrees with all public comments and is opposed. Ryan Lieuallen, 123 N Walnut Road, agrees with Mrs. Lieuallen. 05-09-2()19 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 12 Levi Strauss, 302 N Walnut Road, Mr. Strauss explained that eight years ago it was determined to be a bad idea and still is. FIe continued that parking and traffic are already a problem as the current students get dropped off and picked up by their parents. Mr. Strauss continued that Catholic Charities is big business trying to make money with no respect for the neighborhood. Mr. Strauss continued that this monstrosity is too big and doesn't fit and asked the commission not to institutionalize the neighborhood. Mr. Strauss concluded that he had a problem with Commissioner Walton not recusing himself. Chair Johnson reminded the audience to remain respectful to all those in the room. Commissioner Walton stated he felt it important that the Commission isprofessional and appreciated the statement in terms of the audience. Commissioner Walton pointed out that the Commission is allowing extended public comment rather than limiting comments to three -minutes that they have the ability to do. He reminded the audience that if they are repeating comments to keep them succinct. Karen Stroud, 302 N Walnut Road; Ms. Stroud stated she received a letter left on her front door regarding this meeting. Her concern is that the church already creates a lot of traffic from the school and is also concerned with parking and is opposed. Claudia Nelson, 707 N Walnut Road; Ms. Nelson stated that she and Mr. Kuder agree with all comments, it is hard to get out onto Walnut Road as it is and they are opposed. Tim Bieber, 312 N Farr Road; Mr. Bieber explained he will use the same statement he used eight years ago. The founders of the valley built Walnut Street to symbolize a hub of the valley and created building restrictions to protect it. Mr. Bieber stated we have to respect unwritten constitution. Mr. Bieber stated he doesn't want to move out of the neighborhood as it's worth keeping pure. Mr. Bieber added that if this proposal is approved it will destroy the neighborhood and he is opposed. Shelly Stevens, South Hill; Ms. Stevens explains she no longer lives on Walnut Road partially due to the proposal eight years ago and she gave details into the trials the neighborhood had. Ms. Stevens reminded the Commission that Rob McCann advised all of the City council members to resign based on their decision to deny the previous request. Ms. Stevens explained the 51% suggested does apply to for-profit builders as long as they are a low income property for a specific number of years. Ms. Stevens added that this is about money, and stated that St Vianney is listed in bankruptcy. Ms. Stevens added that she could not believe Rob McCann wasn't present and sent someone else. Commissioner Walton wanted to reiterate that public comments needed to be directed to the dais. He felt it unfortunate that while tensions are high with strong opinions that members of the audience would get personal and asked again that those comments be directed to the dais. Commissioner Kelley stated he felt that everyone present knows what Commissioner Walton just said. He agreed that some individuals may have been carried away due to emotion and added that Commissioner Walton 's' constant interrupting or comments when someone speaks to the issue is intimidating. He told Commissioner Walton that he feels he needs to stand down as the audience knows what the rules are and are doing a good job at holding back•emotions and stated he had heard enough. Commissioner Walton moved for a three-minute recess, with no second, the motion failed for the lack of a second Daniel Hippie, 313 N Walnut Road; Mr. Hippie explained that he has the most to lose out of anyone due to where he is located. He continued by thanking the Commission for representing the public and hearing what is being said. Mr. Hippie advised he had done some calculations and advised that within 10-20 acres there could be 76 units however, this 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 12 proposal is talking about one acre within the property. Mr. Hippie asked the Commissioners if this were going to happen a few feet from where they live would they be attending the meeting on the other side? Rick Woods, 608 N Walnut Road; Mr. Wood explained that he works downtown one block away from the House of Charity. He is concerned that the type of individuals he sees at work will move into his neighborhood and is strongly opposed. Robert Popendick, 426 N Walnut Road; Mr. Popendick lives directly across the street and stated the traffic is already a problem. He added that his concern is also the infrastructure. He heard the school is in bankruptcy and if it goes under does it disqualify the property from being built? He's also concerned that they are using this building to keep the school funded and feels that is wrong. Mike Gleason, 5211 N Allen Place; Mr. Gleason advised he does not live in the area and was there in support of the Hippie's at 313 N Walnut Road. Mr. Gleason stated he has been in the real estate business for 28 years and has a 10 unit building in Browns Addition. He gave examples of his average rent to be $750.00 and has two vacancies. Mr. Gleason asked the Commission if they lived in the neighborhood would they want a 76 unit building across the street? Jan Rulea, 3218 N Eton Road; Ms. Rulea used to own a home at 9802 E Valleyway Avenue. She too is concerned with what the building will look like, traffic problems and with the water and sewer. There have been problems with the sewer before. Ms. Rulea is also concerned with the possibility of extending Valleyway Avenue, she is opposed. Todd Shucks, 116 N Walnut; Mr. Shucks is opposed to the proposal. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 8:04 PM Commissioner Rasmussen asked staff about the concerns she heard regarding water and how the City reviews water uses? Ms. Barlow explained that this proposal is to consider the legislative action to make a change to our code. The request is to allow for a development like this to be proposed and Catholic Charities is being transparent with their hope to move forward. Ms. Barlow explained that during review of an application, agencies with jurisdiction would be contacted, including the water and sewer purveyors. Currently there is no project under review therefore those items have not been looked at. Mr. Lamb added that during review of an application the City does have water concurrency requirement. The applicant would have to demonstrate that there is adequate water for the project and would have to obtain a certificate of water concurrency from the specific water agency before being allowed to move forward. Commissioner Johnson asked if the letter provided by Catholic Charities was a requirement? Ms. Barlow explained that it was not a requirement and Catholic Charities took it upon themselves in an effort to be transparent with the surrounding neighbors. Commissioner Walton stated it is clear by the turn out that there is strong opinion and a lot of good valid concerns were brought up. Commissioner Walton added he can sympathize that if something like this were to happen in his neighborhood he would be on the other side in the audience. He added that there are a lot of unanswered questions for the proposal and that the Commission were reviewing a zoning change that would allow any applicant to apply. He added that he understands how difficult it may be to focus on the broad implications when currently there is only one property that fits the criteria. Commissioner Walton continued that he is on the fence as he has strong concerns related to the for-profit entity could come forward, the definition of a church provides some issues moving forward and the idea of a school on the property is the most limiting factor. Commissioner Walton 05.09.2019 Planning Conttnission Minutes Page 9 of 12 continued that he struggles that this is a narrowly tailored idea. He concluded that there are zones within the Valley that are more conducive to this type of development, however asking a church to purchase property in these areas does put a burden on them due to cost. Commissioner Walton thanked the public for testifying. Commissioner McKinley thanked Catholic Charities for the presentation and the public for their comments. He stated his concerns are due to only one property currently fitting the criteria and he cannot support this due to its small pinpointed scope. Commissioner Kelly stated he can't support the proposal, because it goes against the code. Commissioner Kelley stated the question should be, is the Commission willing to build a 76 -unit apartment complexes in an R-3 zones. He is opposed. Commissioner Rasmussen thanked the public for coming and for their cointnents. Commissioner Rasmussen is concerned with what this could open up in other R-3 zones. She is concerned that public transit infrastructure isn't in place and is also concerned with increased traffic due to delivery trucks and visitors. Commissioner Rasmussen added that nothing has changed since last time the proposal was denied by both the Conunission and Council, Commissioner Rasmussen also mentioned this is not entirely in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan that states we will retain a resemblance of what Spokane Valley is. She understands growth and progress and the City has to find affordable housing but does not feel that the R-3 zone is the right location. Commissioner Johnson thanked Catholic Charities for listening to the Commission and providing public notice. He added that he has worked with Catholic Charities and if the Commission was not looking at a Valley wide change he may have different considerations. He is concerned with the opportunity for individuals whom may not be as neighborly as Catholic Charites. He is also concerned with parking and overflow. He agrees that this type of multifamily construction project would not fit in the R-3zone and is opposed. Commissioner McKinley moved to recommend denial of CTA -2018-0006 to the City Council, No further discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. Study Session: STV -2019-0002, a proposed street vacation of a portion of Baldwin Avenue. Planner Connor Lange provided a presentation outlining the privately initiated application to vacate unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road. Mr. Lange explained the vacation is located between 1-90 to the north, Nora Avenue to the South and further boarded by overland Avenue to the west. Mr. Lange provided procedural overview advising the application was submitted March 8, 2019, the study session is being conducted, the public hearing is scheduled for May 23, 2019 and the Findings of Fact is scheduled for June 13, 2019. Mr. Lange advised that in processing a street vacation staff reviews connectivity, traffic volume, future developments and access. Potential conditions to consider would be utility and easement access, removal of the portion of the street vacated and design or construction improvements. Mr. Lange advised the request is to vacate 669 feet of Baldwin Avenue, 225 of University Road and 19 feet of Glenn Road ranging in widths from 50-64 feet with no known easements in the area to be vacated. The request will allow for maximum use of abutting properties owned by Circle M properties. Mr. Lange advised that 1-90 prevents future connection with the unimproved rights of ways. He highlighted a study done in 2015 that 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 12 reviewed the potential for a pedestrian overpass at University Road and the study concluded the cost was too significant. Cornrrrissioner Johnson advised that in the early 1990's he was on a citizen advisory committee for Pasadena park were they developed a number of traffic solutions to include a bypass that would tie in with University Road and asked if this was no longer the case? Mr. Lange concluded this to be correct as the costs were too significant to warrant the bypass and not feasible. Commissioner Johnson asked if there is a permit issued? Mr. Lange advised a determination of non -significance was issued on March 15, 2019 for the grading work and an engineered grading permit was issued April 25, 2019 for grading work to be completed at the Circle M Properties landscape yard. ii. Study Session: CTA -2019-0002, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 19.6, Chapter 19.85 and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations on licensed marijuana transportation businesses. Mr. Lamb provided a presentation outlining the code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transport operators to operate within the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Lamb provided background into Washington Initiative 1-502 that passed in 2012 legalizing marijuana in Washington State, The City responded with adopting comprehensive regulations for the allowable state license uses. The three primary license uses were production to allow growing, process to make the product usable and retail to purchase the product. As part of the regulations the City Council adopted a provision 19.85.040 that prohibits all other uses within the City of Spokane Valley. In the fall of 2018 the City had a citizen inquiry from a license transporter hoping to do business in the City. Staff presented an administrative report to the City Council and the Council gave consensus to bring a proposal forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Lamb advised this is a City initiated amendment even though it was brought to our attention by a citizen. Mr. Lamb continued explaining that state law was amended after the initial adoption to allow license marijuana transporters. Transportation is only between the licensed production, process, retail stores and research facilities not for home delivery. The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) oversees the licensing as such, licensed transports are subject to WSLCB requirements. Mr. Lamb continued that license marijuana transporters are required to have a physical location or office to store their fleet and state law prohibits them from storing marijuana in the office or physical location. The operator or vehicle are considered a common carrier and must obtain Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission common carrier permits that regulate commercial travel over public right of ways and state highways. State requires transportation logs and manifests in keeping with the state mandate that marijuana be suitably tracked from seed to sale as the state has a robust system due to Federal prohibition. Mr. Lamb explained the product is transported in secured compartments, required to be attached to the vehicle or vehicle body and are locked at all tinges, Delivery has to be made within 48 hours from the time of pick up as there may be an instance where the marijuana is left in the vehicle overnight. Mr, Lamb added that state law prohibits licensed marijuana transporters from being within 1,000 feet of enumerated sensitive uses such as schools, playgrounds, public transit and libraries. Mr. Lamb continued that staff has identified potential irnpacts to be traffic; as there are no restriction on fleet size, odor; as marijuana will be kept in vehicles, and crime also due to marijuana being kept in vehicles. WSLCB is not aware of any complaints regarding odor or any break-ins. Mr, Lamb added that during the development of this proposal staff was 05.09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 12 cognizant of other uses transported that might entice crime such as beer, money and jewelry however; marijuana is treated differently. Mr. Lamb concluded that this proposal is to allow licensed transporters in the Regional Commercial (RC), Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Industrial (I) zones as this will address traffic issues by placing them near arterials. The proposal includes the City buffers related to vacant school, library and City properties. Mr. Lamb gave an example that currently the vacant property across the street from the City Hall is owned by the Library with the intent to build a library. Under the current state law, a marijuana shop could be built near the vacant property as there is no library on the site. The City's buffers already put in place for marijuana producers and processors would not allow for non -conforming uses to be built. The proposed amendment also requires a lockable enclosure for the fleet if they are in the RC zone. Mr. Lainb concluded with an illustration of the proposed amendments adding marijuana transporters to the Permitted Use Matrix 19.60.050 subject to supplemental regulations in the RC, IMU and I zone. This will also add them to 19.85.040 established buffers to prevent nonconforming marijuana shops being built near a school or library to be constructed at a later date. This will also prohibit them from being within 1,000 feet of CenterPlace or City Hall. Subsection B states they must have a lockable enclosure and a marijuana transporter definition has been added to Appendix A in order to track with statutory requirements. Commissioner Rasmussen asked about the transportation of immature plants and that the products must be in sealed packages and is wondering how immature plants are transported and how that might affect the odor? Mr. Lamb advised that plants are allowed to be transported however there may be additional requirements that he will research and provide at the public hearing. Commissioner Walton asked about firearm carrying stipulations and wanted clarification if that was a state law? Mr. Lamb advised that is state law. Commissioner Walton asked how transport vehicles will be identified and if markings or advertising of the vehicle was a requirement? Mr. Lamb stated he is not aware of any state law or regulations that requires them to identify they are a delivery however; there are businesses that do advertise the use. Commissioner Walton asked how local or state law enforcement will interact with the transporters and how they identify themselves? Mr. Lamb advised they are a licensed marijuana transporter and it is a lawful use under state law and would be treated as such once the driver demonstrated his transporter license credentials. Commissioner McKinley asked if this business is specific to transporting with no other components such as production and it was concluded to the case. Mr. Lamb added that there are over 20 producers/processors and 3 retailers in the City. In speaking with WSLCB they have 17 or 18 statewide licensed marijuana transporters at this time. Commissioner Johnson spoke about the City not having these types of restrictions for alcohol, nicotine, oxycodone or opioids and Mr. Lamb stated that was correct but could not speak to the Federal or State restrictions. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner McKinley stated he supported Commissioner Kelley in his earlier statement regarding interrupting the speakers during the public hearing. He recommended that in the future with a large crowd the Commission should put a three- minute time limit on the comments to reduce emotion. Commissioner Walton stated that when emotions are high it is important to remember that rules and process are in place for a reason. 05.-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 12 He felt the outcome of the Commission was clear, that audience participation was greatly valued. He stressed that if there was any idea that what he was saying was meant to dissuaded the public from speaking he strongly pushes back. He added that the incivility of the Commission members toward each other should be avoided at all times as they are there for the same purpose. He appreciated that it was brought to his attention that it was concern and he did not interrupt any speaker at any tune. He thanked the members of the Commission for conducting a fair and dedicated meeting. Commissioner Kelley added that Chair Johnson did an excellent job at running the meeting and gave direction when appropriate. Commissioner Johnson stated he didn't feel as though any of the Commissioners weren't civil. He understood the points and felt as though Cominissioner Walton was supporting him in keeping order. Commissioner Johnson read a statement illustrating that your beliefs do not change the reality. XI. ADJOURNIVMIENT: Commissioner McKinley moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:57 p.m. The vote on the motion was six in fervor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chairman "P)tl1thn,J Robin Hutchins, Secretary ..S`z 3/4" Date signed Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers -- City Hall May 23, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III, Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Timothy Kelley Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Robert McKinley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Michael Phillips, absent - excused Connor Lange, Planner Michelle Rasmussen, absent - excused Matt Walton Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioners Phillips and Rasmussen were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the May 23, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in fervor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to amend the May 9, 2019 minutes to correct the misspelling of his last natne on page 8 from Walter to Walton. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion. was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported on May 14, 2019 he attended the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force executive committee to discuss the confluence of leadership meeting where it was determined that meeting will be a long range plan. He also attended the City Council meeting and expressed his concerns for the lack of accurate representation by the 4111 legislative district and requested a more diverse invocation at the City Council meetings, On May 21, 2019 he attended the Spokane County Human Right Task Force regular meeting where they received rapid response training. The training was to prepare for public acts of hate received through a portal developed by the task force to report hate crimes. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger advised that after the first reading with the City Council of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments the Council agreed with all of the Planning Commission's recommendations. Mr. Basinger added that Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2019-0003 that had no recommendation from the Planning Commission was denied by the City Council. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. Chair Johnson asked the Commission for a consensus on standardizing a three-minute time limit for all public comment excluding proponent comments. A standard three- minute time limit was concluded to be essential in keeping order. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of Thele was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Findings of Fact: CTA-2018-0006, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affordable housing and multifamily development. Senior Planner Lori Barlow summarized the Findings of Fact for the privately initiated code text amendment (CTA). The intent of the amendment is to allow multifamily (MF) development as a conditional use in the residential R-3 zone subject to specific criteria. This proposal came before the Planning Commission on two prior occasions. A study session was held on April 25, 2019 and a public hearing on May 9, 2019..After hearing considerable public testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated and voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council. Ms, Barlow explained that the Findings of Fact formalize the pivotal actions and capture the Planning Commission's recommendation and vote. Ms. Barlow concluded that as this item moves forward to the City Council there will be no further opportunity for public comment unless the Council takes specific action to do so. Commissioner Walton stated this CTA was one of the more contentious items reviewed in his time with the Commission. He appreciated the public for their participation and the deliberation from the Commission, He added that despite the struggles the Commission may have had in moving forward he felt this was the correct outcome and is in support of the Findings of Fact. Commissioner Walton moved to approve Findings of Fact CTA-2018-0006 as presented. There was no discussion The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed, ii. Public Hearing: STV-2019-0002, a privately initiated street vacation of a portion of Glenn, University Roads and Baldwin Avenue. Planner Connor Lange provided a presentation outlining the privately initiated application to vacate unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road. Mr. Lange explained the right-of-ways (ROW) are located between I-90 to the north, Nora Avenue to the south and further bordered by Overland Avenue to the west. Mr. Lange provided procedural overview advising the application was submitted March 8, 2019, the study session was conducted on May 9, 2019, and tonight the public hearing is being held. Mr. Lange advised the majority of the property surrounding the proposed ROWs to be vacated are owned by Circle M Properties. The applicant feels the request will allow for maximum use of abutting properties and that. a right of way connection for an overpass is not feasible at University Road. Mr. Lange highlighted a study done in 2015 reviewed the feasibility for an overpass crossing at University Road, the project was determined to be costly and not viable at the time. However, it is unknown if a project on University Road may provide a greater level of service in the future. Due to future development, staff is recommending an amendment to the proposal by removing University Road from the vacation proposal. Mr. Lange advised that all required notices have been satisfied. Notice was posted at CenterPlace, City Hall and the library. Notice was also posted in the newspaper of record on two separate occasions. Written notice was provided to the owner's adjacent to the 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 unimproved portions of University Road and Baldwin Avenue and signs were posted at the end of each street to be vacated. Mr. Lange advised that in processing a street vacation, staff reviews a number of criteria for approval to determine if the street is still required for public access. Staff does not anticipate that either Baldwin Avenue or Glenn Roacl would serve any public use and are still part of the recommendation from staff to vacate. Mr. Lange added that there has been a request for both ingress/egress and sewer easements that have been added as a recommended condition of approval. Staff also reviews conditional changes and feels University Road may provide a public benefit in the future should an overpass be proposed. There were no public objections during the comment period. Connnissioner Kelley asked for clarification pertaining to University Road and what the City was asking. Mr. Lange advised the City would like to retain University Road and not allow it to be vacated in order to preserve it for future projects. Commissioner Johnson referenced an email from Jen Brunner requesting a 20 -foot public sanitary sewer easement and asked where that would be located. Mr. Lange advised that is yet to be determined however; it would most likely be along the proposed access point parallel to Baldwin Road. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:20 PM Todd Whipple; 212 N Pines Road: Mr. Whipple stated the retention of University Road by the City was a surprise to his client. He advised that when his client had come to him asking about this piece of property, they had done their research before purchasing. He cautioned his client not to purchase the property until they had clarification concerning the crossing at University Road from the City that they had located in the 1985 SR90 Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Whipple continued that during their Pre- Application meetings they brought the University Road crossing information to the City's attention and were advised by City staff to move forward and vacate University Road, now they have changed their mind. Mr. Whipple advised the customer has done a considerable amount of work, provided plans to the City and had received a grading permit. He added that the grading permit restrictions specified that until the street vacations were approved they were not to do any work on the ROWs. He explained that it became too difficult to maneuver around the property and then the customer had to stop the project. Staff has taken University Road out of the proposal completely. Mr. Whipple stated they received correspondence that the City would entertain a license agreement in order to use the property as if it were vacated to protect the possible future public improvements while the City retains ownership. Mr. Whipple asked the Planning Commission to inaintain the University Street Vacation in order to give them time to go before the City Council with a request for a license agreement to use University Road ROW while the City retains ownership. Connnissioner Kelley asked Mr. Whipple, if the license agreement is obtained and years down the road the City decided to build a bridge, at whose expense would it be to remove the work they had done? Mr. Whipple advised it would depend on the license agreement and would most likely be the responsibility of Circle M Properties. Mr. Whipple gave some details into what they have done and hope to do. He advised they would grade to highway elevation to create the access road between the two distinct properties on either side and explained their road would be well below University Road. Mr. Whipple gave details into building a crossing structure over 1-90 and stated the work they have and will do should not affect future bridge development. He added they would be willing to work. with the City in regards to abutment and girder locations at that time. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 Commissioner Kaschmitter asked that if the access road they would build is lower than University Road and should a bridge be built; would the bridge have to be longer in order to accommodate? Mr. Whipple explained that may be the case adding that currently there isn't enough ROW to widen University Road. He explained that University Road is 50- feet wide and building a 45-foot road to go over 1-90 would require walls straight up and down. He explained that would be cost prohibitive and would be cheaper to build girders and a deck. Commissioner Walton asked for clarification that should it be decided to move forward as amended and University Road is retained how would that impact what they are currently doing until they obtain the license. Mr. Whipple advised the work would stop and could potentially kill the project. They will need to enter on one side and exit on the other clue to the size of equipment they use in order to move their materials. If they cannot use University Road, then they purchased a piece of property they can't use. He added that they are moving their corporate headquarters to this site, losing University Road was a big deal and losing the license agreement would be detrimental. Patrick J Mitchelli, 4107 E Broadway Avenue; Mr. Mitchelli explained Mr. Whipple covered all of their concerns. He added that before purchasing the property they made sure University Road would be able to be vacated and explained that if that is no longer the case that will put their business in a tough spot. Mr. Mitchelli added that directly across from University Road is the junk yard and stated that isn't going anywhere in the near future. Justin. Fabio, 302 N Walnut Road; Mr. Fabio asked if the traffic was going to run north of University Road and where it would exit. It was determined that the street would run north of University Road, through Circle M Properties and would exit onto Raymond Road. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 6:39 PM Commissioner Johnson asked staff why they concluded to remove University Road from the proposal and creating a license agreement. Mr. Basinger stated staff recognized that there may be a potential use for University Road sometime in the future adding that not knowing when that might happen the license agreement is an appropriate means to move forward. He highlighted that currently Circle M Properties is located on prime retail property on Pines Road and them moving would open that property to better uses. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb spoke to the license agreement terms stating the City can require that the applicant's improvements are subject to the City putting in a future project. He added that the license agreement would allow Circle M Properties to use the property while the City retains control to build a future project. It was determined the license agreement details do not require Planning Commission action. Commissioner Kelley spoke about his experience driving truck while serving in the United States Army and how difficult they are to turn around in small spaces. He is concerned for the applicant's future as they invest their funds and work for a number of years and then the City builds a bridge. Commissioner Johnson advised that in the early 1990's he was involved in a two-year long process with Spokane County where an overpass was discussed for University Road trying to mitigate the traffic flow on Argonne Road. At the time, the bypass would start near Bigelow Gulch Road, above Hutton settlement, across the river and to University Road, he is unsure if that is still the long range plan. An interchange at University Road is not feasible at this time however, an overpass may be needed in twenty years. Commissioner 05-23-2019 (Tanning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 Johnson is opposed to Ieaving University Road in the proposal and is in support of the amendment presented by staff. Commissioner McKinley asked staff if the City would have eminent domain rights. Mr. Lamb explained that if in fact University Road was vacated the City would have eminent domain. The City could either purchase or condemn the property and it would be a matter of retaining the right to do so in the future or the City may feel comfortable enough not to develop and willing to pay the cost in the future if necessary. Currently it is City property and should a bridge be developed at a later date the City would have all rights to the property. Commissioner Walton stated the possibilities in cost associated with repurchasing or condemning the property and the legal implication are concerning. He added that looking at the future and how approvals impact the valley as a whole he feels the City needs to leave all possible mechanisms in place. Comtnissioner Kaschmitter stated she feels the license agreement will help and is in favor of it. She also agrees there may be a need for a bridge in the future. Commissioner Walton moved to approve STV -2019-0002 for Baldwin Road and Glenn Road with the removal of University Road from the street vacation application as amended by staff' Commissioner Kelley advised in looking at the map it appears there are four structures that would have to be removed in order build a bridge at a later date. He added that he is opposed to the motion and feels the street vacation for University Road should remain. Commissioner Walton advised he understands where the proponent and applicant stand as it seems the City changed their mind late in the process. He added that in doing so staff was looking to do what's right for the future of the City and feels the City was well within the right to make the change as the vacation had not yet occurred. He strongly urges City Council to consider the license agreement to run Concurrent as it continues to move forward. Commissioner Walton added that he can't, in good conscience, support the promise to obtain licensure if the vacation is approved and is in support of the motion as it stands. Commissioner Kaschmitter agreed with Commissioner Walton, Commissioner McKinley supports the motion and also agreed with Commissioner Kelly regarding the structures that would need to be removed. The vote on the motion was four in favor, one opposed with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, and the motion passed. iii. Public Hearing: CTA -2019-0002, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 19.60, Chapter 19.85 and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations on licensed marijuana transportation businesses. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:57 PM Mr. Lamb provided a presentation outlining the code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transport operators to operate within the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Lamb provided background into Washington Initiative 1-502 that passed in 2012 legalizing marijuana in Washington State. The City responded with adopting comprehensive regulations for the allowable state license uses to be production, process and retail stores. As part of the regulations the City Council adopted a provision 19.85.040 that prohibits all other uses within the City of Spokane Valley. In the fall of 2018 the City had a citizen 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Mlnutes Page 6 or'9 inquiry from a license transporter hoping to do business in the City. Staff presented an administrative report to the City Council and the Council gave consensus to bring a proposal forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Lamb continued that transportation is only between the licensed production, process, retail stores and research facilities and is not for home delivery. The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) oversees the licensing and licensed transporters are subject to WSLCB requirements. Mr. Lamb continued that license marijuana transporters are required to have a physical location or office to store their fleet and state law prohibits them from storing marijuana in an office or physical location. State requires transportation logs and manifests in keeping with the state mandate that marijuana be suitably tracked from seed to sale. Mr. Lamb explained the product is transported in secured compartments, required to be attached to the vehicle or vehicle body and are locked at all tunes. Delivery has to be made within 48 hours from the time ofpick up as there may be an instance where the marijuana is left in the vehicle overnight. Commissioner Johnson asked about shorter stops such a dinner and lunch breaks. Mr. Lamb advised it is allowed to be in the vehicle in a secured compartment no matter the length of the break. Commissioner Kelley asked if a truck could be stored in a storage facility or garage? Mr. Lamb advised that is an option, adding that under state law the product cannot be stored in an office and there is no mandate that the vehicle has to be stored in a garage or storage facility. Mr. Lamb added that state law prohibits licensed marijuana transporters from being within 1,000 feet of enumerated sensitive uses such as schools, playgrounds, public transit and libraries. Mr. Lamb gave an example that currently under state law a marijuana shop could be built near an empty park like property with no current use. The City's buffers already in place prohibit marijuana shops from being built within 1,000 feet of vacant uses in order to prohibit non -conforming uses. Mr. Lamb addressed the questions posed by the Commission during the study session starting with the transportation of live plants. Transporting live plants is allowed in a secured compartment, those compartments could be metal partitions, cages or shatter proof acrylic to allow the plant to stay alive. Mr. Lamb added that the vehicle transporting the live plants must be windowless to the maximum extent possible. Mr. Lamb addressed advertising concerns advising state law prohibits advertising on or in private vehicles to limit the draw of attention. Mr. Lamb addressed the question regarding being stopped by law enforcement and identifying themselves. Transporters are required to keep a binder with their license details in the vehicle at all times to easily provide to law enforcement. Transport vehicles under the law are considered to be an extension of the licensed premises and can be stopped and inspected at any time. Mr. Lamb concluded that staff identified potential impacts to be traffic; as there are no restriction on fleet size, odor; as marijuana will be kept in vehicles, and crime; also due to marijuana being kept in vehicles. WSLCB is not aware of any complaints regarding odor or any break-ins to transport vehicles. Mr. Lamb concluded that this proposal is to allow licensed transporters in the Regional Commercial (RC), Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Industrial (I) zones as this will address traffic issues by placing them near arterials. The proposal includes the City buffers related to vacant school, library and City properties and also requires a lockable enclosure for the fleet if they are in the RC zone. 05-23-2019 Planning Cominission Minutes Page 7 or Commissioner Kelley asked what the definition of Regional Commercial zone is. Mr. Basinger explained that RC zones are for commercial regional uses located throughout 1- 90 along high traffic exits like the Spokane Valley Mall. Mr. Basinger added the enclosure suggested are due to the fact that there would be a lot of individuals shopping in these zone. The City wants to ensure the vehicles and products are stored properly. Kevin Lynch, 722 W Wedgewood; Mr. Lynch advised there are other transport companies in the state that already stay the night in the City of Spokane Valley during transport. He spoke to the topic of smell advising the product is vacuum sealed for packaging, then placed in sealed totes and then in a compartment in the van preventing odor. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Lynch if he currently ships live plants? Mr. Lynch advised he does periodically as it is 1% of his business. He added that per state law the vehicle that ships live plants cannot have any windows as Mr. Lamb had mentioned. Commissioner Walton asked Mr. Lynch to describe what a law enforcement interaction would look like. Mr. Lynch explained that his staff are required to wear ID badges to prove they are an employee. He continued that the binder carried in the vehicles as mentioned before include their common carrier license, business license, insurance card and affidavit. There is a manifest and invoice in the primary tote that can be provided to law enforcement when requested. Mr. Lynch explained that it can range from law enforcement knowing the business being conducted before even making contact with them to being asked to provide all documents in the vehicle and in the totes. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Lynch why the information isn't offered to the officer and it was explained that would be breaking the chain of custody clue to the seed to sale laws. Mr. Lynch added that by law he does not have to prove to law enforcement what is being transported in the totes unless instructed to do provide documentation. Commissioner Walton asked Mr. Lynch what impacts the City's request to have a secure enclosure would have on his business? Mr. Lynch advised it does add to cost. He stated that he is a proponent of the request as it will make his staff, drivers, product and vehicles more secure. He added that buildings are hard to find and cost ranges from $1,800 to $2,500 dollars a month, it is also difficult to find a landlord that will rent to him. Mr. Lamb addressed the discussion pertaining to law enforcement stops highlighting that there is a preemption prevision in state law that WSLCB provides all operations of the licensed uses. The City would not be able to ask for any additional forms of identification or supplemental documentation. Commissioner Walton asked staff why the City chose to exempt Appleway trail from the 1,000 -foot exclusion zone? Mr. Lamb advised that the City Council does provide a prohibition on retail sales within 1,000 feet of Appleway trail to prevent the end users from using the trail. Council felt it appropriate to exempt Appleway trail due to its extent across the City and crossing multiple zones. Mr. Lamb added the limitations in place such as production staying indoors and no chemical processing. This was a compromise for business rights and property rights verses the trail and its beneficial use by citizens. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 7:23 p. in. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 Commissioner Walton stated he was intrigued by this proposal due to the attitudes and state adoption of marijuana usage across the country. He feels it's a good idea to stay at the cutting edge of the process within state guidelines and state law, adding that the City wants to promote growth of all kinds. Commissioner Walton likes the proposal and feels there is a good compromise in the adoption of the enclosures and is in support. Commissioner Kelley explained his understanding of the process due to an acquaintance having a similar business and how it operated. Commissioner Kelly explained he feels this will attract criminals that want to steal the trucks and the product. Commissioner Kelly stated he does not appreciate the confrontational attitude toward law enforcement. He added that having been part of this first hand, landlords have the right not to lease to businesses they feel will be a detriment to the conununity. Commissioner Kelly believes there is a lot of crime attracted to and associated with marijuana businesses and is concerned for people's safety. Commissioner Walton move to approve CTA -2019-0002 as presented. Commissioner Kelley reminded the Commission that when 1-502 was first presented, the marijuana grow, production and retail facilities were voted down by the Commission. He added that his belief is that if the legalization of marijuana would have been brought to the vote of the people of Spokane Valley it would not have passed and he is greatly opposed. Commissioner Walton thanked Commissioner Kelley for the background. He added that he is in support as the City allows this type of business and are staying on the cutting edge.. Commissioner Walton advised that location and regulations have addressed many concerns. Commissioner Walton continued one of his primary considerations was to understand how this business is being perceived by local law enforcement and appreciated the perspective from the proponent as well as Commissioner Kelley's position. The vote on the motion was four in favor; one opposed with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, and the motion passed. iv. Public Hearing: STV -2019-0001, proposed street vacations of a portion of Tshirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road in the Northeast Industrial Area. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Basinger provided a presentation to the Commission outlining the Northeast Industrial Area City Initiated Street Vacation. Mr, Basinger provided background advising on April 29, 2019 City Council initiated the Street Vacation and set a public hearing with the Planning Commission. On April 25, 2019 a study session was conducted and tonight the public hearing is being held. Mr. Basinger explained this area is located in the Northeast Industrial Area were the City has taken action to advance development. The City rezoned the property to allow a broader variety of industrial uses, extended the sewer from Sullivan Road to Barker Road and have adopted a planned action ordinance to streamline development. The proposed street vacations will further prepare the area for development. Mr. Basinger advised Garland Avenue will provide access for future development. He added that the current ROW may be an impediment for a large industrial user to developed in the future. Mr. Basinger continued, the proposed vacations are the unimproved Right of 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 Ways (ROW) of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Greenacres Road and Rich Avenue. Public notice was posted and mailed on April 25, 2019, posted in the Valley Herald and the Exchange on April 26, 2019 and May 3, 2019 and signs were posted on each end of proposed vacation areas. There have been no public or agency comments to date. Mr, Basinger added that the City has been working with Consolidated Irrigation District as they would like to loop their water system. The City will have an easement in place once Tschirley Road ROW is removed to accommodate for their loop. Staff is requesting the approval to vacate the ROWs subject to the conditions in the staff report, Mr. Basinger provided a list of the conditions. Vacated property will be transferred into the abutting parcels, if approved the area will be surveyed to identify applicable easements. There was some discussion regarding a Pre -Application meeting that determined there would be a land locked parcel once the ROWs are vacated. However, the applicants are proposing to apply for a boundary line elimination to make one parcel mitigating this issue, Mr. Basinger concluded that the zoning will be extended to include the vacated ROWs, a survey will be recorded and all conditions will be fully satisfied prior to transfer of title. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 7:49 p, m. Commissioner Walton moved to approve STV -2019-0001 as presented There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in, favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Kasclunitter thanked the public for their comments. Commissioner Walton spoke about his reflection on the previous meeting and overall dedication from the Commission and community. He thanked Commissioner Kelley for reminding himself and staff of his passion in allowing the public to have their free speech. Commissioner Walton apologized to the Commission and members of the public if his comments felt as if they were dissuading the public from speaking as that was not his intent. Commissioner Walton concluded with thanking the Commission for their dedication. Mr. Basinger added currently the Planning Commission is the forum where comments will be received, so it is with utmost importance they are heard. It is also important to forward a recommendation that synthesizes the Commission's vote and he appreciated the Commissions service. Commissioner Johnson stated he concurred with Commissioner Walton and also appreciated being a part of this team. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p.m. The vote on the motion was five in f avor, zero opposed, and the notion passed. ,7 p,/,;.5/7.e2/7 James Johnson, Chairman Date signed Robin Hutchins, Secretary Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall June 13, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Timothy Kelley Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Robert McKinley Conner Lange, Planner Michael Phillips, absent - excused Michelle Rasmussen Matt Walton, absent - excused Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioners Philips and Walton were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve the June 13, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five 1111C -war, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve the May 23, 2019 minutes. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Rasmussen attended the Chester Creek pavement preservation presentation given by the City. She was impressed by the proactive approach and the high level achieved in reaching out to the community. Commissioner Johnson attended the Inlander Volume music festival on the 31St of May and 1st of June, he was amazed at the quality and variety of music by local musicians. He also attended the Spokane County Human Right Task Force on the 11 th of June were they discussed a media release pertaining to their hate crimes portal and how to gather hate crime data from higher education entities. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger gave an update of the Barker Road and Garland Avenue projects. He highlighted that the City has been working on Barker Road for two weeks and have installed 1,000 feet of the 3,700 -foot sewer line total. Mr. Basinger advised USDOT awarded the City a $1.25 million dollar grant for the Pines Road BNSF grade separation project. The City has secured $5.1 million dollars in project funding that puts the City in a position of 100 percent for design and 80 percent for right of way acquisitions. Mr. Basinger advised the Parks and Recreation Department will be holding a workshop on Thursday June 20, 2019 from 6:00-7:30 p.m. at CenterPlace conducted by Chaz Bates. Mr. Basinger concluded with items coming before the City Council to include the Pines grade separation design, an administrative report on Catholic Charities Code Text Amendment (CTA) and a request for a pavement management ad hoc committee to represent the community as a whole. 06-13-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: STV -2019-0002, a privately initiated street vacation of a portion of Glenn Road, University Road and Baldwin Avenue. Mr. Lange explained the Findings of Fact reflected the process and decision the Commission made regarding STV -2019-0002, the privately initiated street vacation of a portion of Glenn Road, University Road and Baldwin Avenue. Mr. Lange advised the Commission conducted a public hearing on May 23, 2109. After deliberations the Commission voted four in favor and one opposed to forward a recommendation of approval of the amended proposal to the City Council. The amendment was to vacate a portion of Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road while retaining University Road. Mr. Lange advised there was a scrivener error related to a parcel number that has been corrected. There was some discussion regarding a scrivener error of the Commission's vote in the Findings of Fact that reflected an incorrect vote of five to one, the correct vote being four to one. Commissioner Rasmussen moved to amend the Findings of Fact STV -2019-0002 to reflect the correct vote from five to one, to four to one. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve Findings of Fact STV -2019-0002 as amended. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. ii. Findings of Fact: CTA -2019-0002, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 19.60, Chapter 19.85 and Appendix A to allow and provide regulation on licensed marijuana transportation businesses. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb summarized the Findings of Fact for the proposed code text amendment CTA -2019-0002, allowing licensed marijuana transport businesses to operate within the City with certain (imitations. Mr. Lamb explained the Commission conducted a public hearing on May 23, 2019. After deliberations the Commission voted four in favor, one opposed to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council. Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve Findings of Fact CTA -2019-0002 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. iii. Findings of Fact: STV -2019-0001, proposed street vacations of a portion of Tshirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue and Greenacres Road in the Northeast Industrial Area. Mr. Basinger summarized the Findings of Fact for the City initiated street vacation STV - 2019 -0001, a proposed street vacation in the Northeast Industrial Area. Mr. Basinger explained the Commission conducted a public hearing on May 23, 2019. After deliberations the Commission voted five in favor, zero opposed to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council. Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve Findings of Fact STV -2019-0001 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner McKinley advised that his wife lost her father on Memorial Day. In light of Father's Day, he encouraged everyone to spend time with their families as you never know when it will be the last. Commissioner Rasmussen apologized for missing the last meeting and the miscommunication. Commissioner Johnson spoke about a 06-13-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 speech Jon Stewart gave to Congress regarding the 911 Victims Compensation Fund. Commissioner Johnson feels it is of utmost importance that all countries take care of their first responders and is abhorrent when that does not occur. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:20 p.m. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chairman Date signed Robin Hutchins, Secretary FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA -2019-0002 Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E) the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. Background: 1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13, 2016, with December 28, 2016 as the effective date. 2. CTA -2019-0002 is a City -initiated text amendment to chapter 19.60 SVMC, chapter 19.85 SVMC and Appendix A. The proposal is to amend chapters 19.60 and 19.85 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and Appendix A by (1) amending the permitted use matrix to allow licensed marijuana transportation uses in the RC, IMU, and 1 zones, subject to additional supplemental regulations; (2) adding supplemental regulations to set buffers between marijuana transportation uses and certain sensitive uses, and requiring marijuana transportation uses in the RC zone to provide a lockable enclosure for fleet vehicles, and (3) adding a related definition for "marijuana transporter". 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on May 23, 2019. The Commissioners voted 4-1 to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Recommended Modifications The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments presented by staff in CTA -2019-0002. 2. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) Approval Criteria a< The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan: Findings: The proposed text amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. ED -G 1: Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. ED -G6: Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability. ED -P2: Identify and encourage business and employment growth in new and innovative industries and occupations. LU -G1: Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU -P5: Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. LU -P9: Provide supportive regulations for new and innovative development types on commercial, industrial, and mixed-use land. LU -P10: Ensure that freight -intensive operations have convenient access to designated truck routes and intermodal terminals. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA -2019-0002 Page 1 of 2 b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: The proposed amendment will allow compliance with state law and allow state -licensed marijuana transport businesses to locate within the Spokane Valley while separating such uses from identified sensitive uses and the City's existing and future residential uses. Further the amendment will allow transportation businesses near transportation infrastructure. 3. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 4. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve CTA -2019- 0002. Attachments: Exhibit 1 — Proposed Amendment CTA -2019-0002 Approved this 13th day of June, 2019 mes Jo n on, Chairman ATTEST Dea a Horton, Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane valley Planning Commission CTA -2019-0002 Page 2 of 2 Spokane Valley COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING & PLANNING STAFF REPORT AND RECOIVIlVIENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA -201.9-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE: May 3, 2019 BEARING DATE AND LOCATION: May 23, 2019, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A city initiated text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to amend chapter 19.60 SVMC, chapter 19.85 SVMC and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations governing the zoning and limits on licensed marijuana transportation businesses and to add related definitions. PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Ave, Spokane Valley, WA 99206. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSION: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to chapters 19.60 and 19.85 SVMC and Appendix A are consistent with minimum criteria for review and approval. STAFF: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendments to chapters 19.60 and 19.85 SVMC and Appendix A. A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date SEPA Determination May 2, 2019 Published Notice of Public Hearing May 3, 2019 and May 10, 2019 Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies May 8, 2019 Department of Commerce 60 -day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment April 17, 2019 PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposal is to amend chapters 19.60 and 19.85 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Appendix A by (I) amending the permitted use matrix to allow licensed marijuana transportation uses in the RC, MU, and I zones, subject to additional supplemental regulations; (2) adding supplemental regulations to set buffers between marijuana transportation uses and certain sensitive uses and requiring marijuana transportation uses in the RC zone to provide a lockable enclosure for fleet vehicles, and (3) adding related definition for "marijuana transporter". Background on Existing Regulatory Framework. Recreational marijuana was legalized within Washington State with the passage of Initiative 502 (I-502) in November 2012. In response to State legislation, the City undertook an expansive process to identify appropriate marijuana regulations to address recreational, medical, and home growing of marijuana within the City. The City has adopted chapter 19.85 SVMC to govern the siting and restrictions for licensed marijuana uses. Currently, the City allows licensed marijuana production, licensed marijuana processing, and three licensed marijuana retail stores within the City. State law provides 1,000 foot buffers between licensed marijuana facilities and several sensitive uses, including schools, libraries, and public parks, but excludes trails and undeveloped school or library property. In response, the City has adopted additional local buffer limits, prohibiting licensed marijuana uses from being within 1,000 feet of undeveloped school, library, and City property, excluding City rights-of-way and swales. Further, the City prohibits marijuana uses from being within 1,000 feet of City Hall and CenterPlace. Finally, the City prohibits marijuana retail shops from being within 1,000 feet of the Appleway Trail and Centennial Trail. Marijuana uses require licensing by the Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB), and such licensing includes strict operational requirements, including security measures, employee background checks, traceability measures to ensure no illegal distribution of marijuana, and clear operational plans for such businesses. The State has preempted the City from imposing restrictions that impose upon the ability of the WSLCB to license such businesses, but statutory and case law makes it clear that the City may still impose reasonable land use restrictions, including zoning on marijuana businesses. In addition to allowing certain licensed marijuana uses, the City has expressly prohibited all other marijuana uses, including marijuana collectives, marijuana clubs, and any future marijuana use that the State may authorize. The City does allow some home growing for medical purposes pursuant to state law. See SVMC 19.85.040. In late 2015, the State adopted RCW 69.50.382 and 69.50.385, which authorize licensed common carriers to transport marijuana (i.e., marijuana transporter) between licensed marijuana producers, processors, retailers, and researchers. Further, the WSLCB has adopted regulations to implement the marijuana transporter authorization in WAC 314-55-310. The requirements for marijuana transporters include the following relevant provisions: 1. Marijuana transporters may transport marijuana, useable marijuana, marijuana concentrates, immature plants or clones, marijuana seeds, and marijuana infused products solely between licensed marijuana businesses. No home delivery is authorized by these provisions. 2. Marijuana transporter is considered a "common carrier" and subject to applicable "common carrier" regulations, including necessary Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission common carrier permits. 3. No firearm carrying or usage by employees unless the employee has a private security guard license. 4. Must have a physical location for operations and insurance. 5. Must keep printed transport manifest with the product at all times. 6. Transportation log documenting chain of custody for each delivery, including driver and vehicle used. 7. Drivers must be at least 21 years old. 8. Marijuana and marijuana products must be in sealed packages, which cannot be opened during transport. Page 2 of 4 9. Marijuana and marijuana products must be in a locked, safe and secure storage compartment that is secured to the inside body/compartment of the transportation vehicle. 10. All deliveries must be made within 48 -hours from the time of pick-up. Impacts Generally, marijuana transportation businesses will be similar to other delivery services. The WSLCB requires a physical location, which generally means an office for the operator to keep business records and schedule deliveries. The operator will maintain a fleet of delivery vehicles, which to date generally include vans, although there is no restriction on the size of vehicle. Marijuana is not permitted to be kept on site in the physical location, so there is no risk associated with the office use. However, since deliveries are allowed to take up to 48 hours, marijuana may be inside of the locked compartments within the vehicles at the physical location overnight until the delivery is made the next day. This could pose potential odor or increased risk of break-ins to the vehicles. Further, there is no limit on fleet size and so there could be potential traffic impacts to neighboring areas. Given the similarity of office use and the combination of the unique aspect of marijuana, staff propose zoning uses similar to other allowable marijuana uses within the city. This will allow the use in the RC, IMU, and I zones, which will allow flexibility in use, but also ensure that the potential impacts that stern from the traffic, as well as the unique aspects of the marijuana product, are minimized on surrounding mixed-use and residential zones. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO Tin MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria r. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment, if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals by protecting residential areas, encouraging diversity among commercial uses, maintaining a flexible and consistent regulatory environment, and promoting compatibility between adjacent land uses. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: ED -G 1: Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. ED -G6: Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability. ED -P2: Identify and encourage business and employment growth in new and innovative industries and occupations. LU -G 1: Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU -P5: Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. Page 3 of 4 LU -P9: Provide supportive regulations for new and innovative development types on commercial, industrial, and mixed-use land.. LU -P10: Ensure that freight -intensive operations have convenient access to designated truck routes and intermodal terminals. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis: The proposed amendment will allow compliance with state law and allow state -licensed marijuana transport businesses to locate within the Spokane Valley while separating such uses from identified sensitive uses and the City's existing and future residential uses. Further the amendment will allow transportation businesses near transportation infrastructure. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA -2019-0002 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. In the absence of public comments, staff makes no conclusions. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No substantive agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): In the absence of substantive agency comments, staff makes no conclusions. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. D. STAFF CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in Section A, the proposed code text amendments are consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 4 of 4 To: From: Re: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of June 20, 2019; 11:30 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 July 2, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue June 251 ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Potential Grant — Adam Jackson (10 min) NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Visit Spokane Deliverables & Lodging Tax Award — Meg Winchester, Jamie Rand 3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 35 minutes] July 9, 2019, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue July 21 Proclamation: Parks and Recreation Month 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. First Reading Ordinance 19-009 Street Vacation 2019-0001, Industrial Area — Mike Basinger (10 mins) 3. First Reading Ordinance 19-010 Street Vacation 2019-0002, Baldwin Ave, Glenn Rd— C. Lange (10 min) 4. First Reading Ordinance 19-011 Marijuana Transportation — Erik Lamb 5. New Employee Report — John Whitehead 6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 45 minutes] July 16, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Council Goals/Priorities for use of Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) Funds - 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins July 23, 2019, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. Proclamation: Nick Mamer Days 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance 19-009 Street Vacation 2019-0001, Industrial Area — Mike Basinger (10 mins) 3. Second Reading Ordinance 19-010 Street Vacation 2019-0002, Baldwin Ave, Glenn Rd— C. Lange (10 min) [due Tue July 91 C.Taylor (15 min) (5 minutes) [due Tue July 161 4. Second Reading Ordinance 19-011 Marijuana Transportation — Erik Lamb 5. Admin Report: Police Department Quarterly Report — Chief Werner 6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 7. Info Only: Department Reports (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 50 mins] July 30, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue July 231 ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion: Council Goals/Priorities for Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) funds-C.Taylor (10 min) NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Proposed 2019 TIP Amendment #2 — Adam Jackson 3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 25 mins] August 6, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. — Meeting cancelled Councilmembers attend National Night Out August 13, 2019, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amended 2019 TIP — Adam Jackson 2. Proposed Resolution Adopting Amended 2019 TIP — Adam Jackson 3. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 4. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [due Tue Aug 61 (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting 30 mins] Draft Advance Agenda 6/20/2019 10:26:53 AM Page 1 of 2 August 20, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. 2020 Budget: Estimated Revenues & Expenditures — Chelsie Taylor 2. Council Draft 2020 Budget Goals — Mark Calhoun 3. Potential and Pending Projects — Mark Calhoun 4. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins August 27, 2019, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 3. Info Only: Department Reports [due Tue Aug 131 (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 50 mins] [due Tue Aug 201 (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: mins] Sept 3, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 271 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) Special Meeting: Friday, September 6, 2019, Spokane County Council of Governments, 9:30 a.m. to Noon, Spokane Co. Fair & Expo Center; Conference Facility, 404 N Havana Street Sept 10, 2019, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [due Tue Sept 31 (5 minutes) (5 minutes) Sept 17, 2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 101 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) Sept 24, 2019, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 3. Info Only: Department Reports *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Affordable Housing SHB 1406 Appleway Trail Amenities Camping in RVs Crisis Co -response team funding Donation Recognition Duplexes, Townhouses, Cottages Graffiti Health District Re SV Stats Land Use Notice Requirements Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt. Naming City Facilities Protocol New Employee Qrt Rpt (Jan, April, July, Oct) Park Lighting Park Reg. Ord. amendments PFD Presentation Police Dept. Qtr Rpt (Jan, April, July, Oct) Draft Advance Agenda 6/20/2019 10:26:53 AM [due Tue Sept 171 (5 minutes) (5 minutes) Right -of -Way process Safe Routes to School Sign Ordinance Snow Removal: Streets, Sidewalks Spokane Co Conservation District -Vicki Carter St. Illumination (ownership, cost, location) St. O&M Pavement Preservation Studded Snow Tires Utility Facilities in ROW Vaping Water Districts & Green Space Way Finding Signs Page 2 of 2 City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2019 - 05/31/2019 Page Title 1 Cover Sheet 2 Pre -Application Meetings Requested 3 Online Applications Received 4 Construction Applications Received 5 Land Use Applications Received 6 Construction Permits Issued 7 Land Use Applications Approved 8 Development Inspections Performed 9 Code Enforcement 10 Revenue 11 Building Permit Valuations Printed 06/03/2019 13:42 Page 1 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2019 - 05/31/2019 Pre -Application Meetings Requested A Pre -Application Meeting is a service provided to help our customers identify the code requirements related to their project proposal. Community & Public Works Department scheduled a total of 11 Pre -Application Meetings in May 2019. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Land Use Pre -Application Commercial Pre -App Meeting Commercial Pre -App Land Use Pre -Application Meeting Monthly Totals Annual Total To -Date: 71 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 9 9 9 14 4 4 7 4 13 13 Printed 06/03/2019 13:42 Page 2 of 11 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oct Nov Dec 0 0 0 0 0 0 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2019 - 05/31/2019 Online Applications Received Community & Public Works Department received a total of 233 Online Applications in May 2019. 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Trade Permit 111.1 Sign Permit —`ry Right of Way Permit Reroof Permit Pre -Application Meeting Request Demolition Permit Other Online Applications Approach Permit Approach Permit Demolition Permit Other Online Applications Pre -Application Meeting Request Reroof Permit Right of Way Permit Sign Permit Trade Permit Monthly Totals Annual Total To -Date: Printed 06/03/2019 13:42 1,003 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 7 21 34 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 33 46 64 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 110 101 127 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 212 153 173 232 233 Page 3 of 11 0 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2019 - 05/31/2019 Construction Applications RecP,--4 Community & Public Works Department received a total of 515 Construction Applications in May 2019. 600 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial - New Commercial - TI Residential - New In Other Construction Permits Commercial - New Commercial - TI Residential - New Commercial - Trade Residential - Trade Residential - Accessory Demolition Sign Other Construction Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 28 23 8 6 1 0 21 16 7 15 14 0 0 0 5 10 21 13 31 0 0 0 15 6 10 12 13 0 0 0 0 40 22 35 47 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 10 14 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *9 *6 *8 *12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *13 *4 *9 *12 *5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *271 *214 *227 *336 *338 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 397 309 333 463 497 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To -Date: Printed 06/03/2019 15:48 1,999 Page 4 of 11 *Includes Online Applications. 85 125 1461 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2019 - 05/31/2019 Land Use Applications Received Community & Public Works Department received a total of 140 Land Use Applications in May 2019. 150 100 50 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment Short Plat Preliminary l Long Plat Preliminary Binding Site Plan Preliminary Final Platting Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Administrative Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits oundary Line Adjustment hort Plat Preliminary ong Plat Preliminary inding Site Plan Preliminary inal Platting r oning Map/Comp Plan Amendment -tate Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) dministrative xception/Interpretation ther Land Use Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 5 2 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 5 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 8 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 115 125 119 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 onthly Totals Hirt! o r' mem Annual Total To -Date: Printed 06/03/2019 15:48 636 Page 5 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2019 - 05/31/2019 Construction Permits Issued Community & Public Works Department issued a total of 458 Construction Permits in May 2019. 600 400 200 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial - New Commercial - TI Residential - New ® Other Construction Permits Commercial - New Commercial - TI Residential - New Commercial - Trade Residential - Trade Residential - Accessory Demolition Sign Other Construction Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1 12 14 15 8 4 10 18 5 11 40 29 26 6 16 7 5 10 11 0 0 0 20 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 6 17 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 8 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8 6 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 247 194 209 331 308 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 onthly Totals 338 269 305 Annual Total To -Date: Printed 06/03/2019 15:51 1,829 Page 6 of 11 OF 111P Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2019 - 05/31/2019 Land Use Applications Approved Community & Public Works Department approved a total of 36 Land Use Applications in May 2019. 60 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment Short Plat Preliminary Ein Long Plat Preliminary Binding Site Plan Preliminary Final Platting Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Administrative Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits Boundary Line Adjustment Short Plat Preliminary Long Plat Preliminary Binding Site Plan Preliminary Final Platting Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Administrative Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 40 43 45 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 42 41 "Wo moi Annual Total To -Date: Printed 06/03/2019 15:51 211 Page 7 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2019 - 05/31/2019 Development Inspections Performed Community & Public Works Department performed a total of 1479 Development Inspections in May 2019. Development Inspections include building, planning, engineering and ROW inspections. 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 2018 2017 2017 2018 2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 1,134 799 1,115 1,510 1,420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,053 1,023 1,561 1,484 1,776 2,005 1,606 1,676 1,465 1,556 1,247 982 967 779 1,356 1,351 1,726 1,680 1,374 1,760 1,461 1,630 1,381 1,114 Printed 06/03/2019 15:52 Page 8 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2019 - 05/31/2019 Code Enforcement Code Enforcement Officers responded to 76 citizen requests in the month of May. They are listed by type below. Please remember that all complaints, even those that have no violation, must be investigated. 100 50 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CE -Stop Work Order Environmental General Nuisance - Property Complaint, Non -Violation CE -Stop Work Order Complaint, Non -Violation Environmental General Nuisance Property 2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 11 31 41 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 13 18 22 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 55 24 50 67 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To -Date: Printed 06/03/2019 15:52 272 Page 9 of 11 Revenue 2019 Trend 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2019 - 05/31/2019 Community & Public Works Department Revenue totaled $243,779 in May 2019. 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 Jan 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Feb Mar Apr -+� 2019 2018 - Five -Year Trend May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals $162,701 $231,361 $308,846 $210,262 $243,779 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 x$1,156,949 $148,196 $129,428 $224,427 $201,128 $266,240 $190,344 $165,307 $214,059 $183,920 $202,755 $157,915 $135,238 $193,214 $127,869 $224,540 $223,783 $235,713 $163,706 $261,083 $364,042 $254,117 $272,071 $204,526 $169,814 $185,045 $153,153 $153,939 $237,444 $318,163 $274,897 $156,278 $144,167 $159,789 $202,869 $250,078 $173,009 $2,408,831 $213,319 $191,658 $383,912 $196,705 $371,319 $243,029 $128,848 $271,684 $252,268 $207,849 $150,902 $133,482 $2,744,975 $74,775 $108,328 $161,174 $187,199 $123,918 $117,453 $162,551 $162,864 $99,587 $181,791 $99,627 $102,195 1,581,462 $74,628 $66,134 $198,571 $160,508 $282,086 $152,637 $117,776 $127,540 $153,838 $149,197 $84,442 $97,689 11,665,046 $2,218,958 $2,694,478 Printed 06/03/2019 16:08 Page 10 of 11 Building Permit Valuation 2019 Trend 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2019 - 05/31/2019 Community & Public Works Department Building Permit Valuation totaled $29,388,126 in May 2019. 40, 000, 000 30, 000, 000 20, 000, 000 10, 000, 000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec --•- 2019 2018 -• Five -Year Trend Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals $5.66M $22.21M $19.46M $12.43M $20.56M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $80.32M $10.15M $13.28M $21.64M $15.34M $24.66M $19.20M $11.50M $18.72M $16.08M $12.64M $21.96M $8.08M $12.84M $6.72M $27.60M $7.87M $9.55M $26.26M $29.25M $25.44M $20.69M $21.88M $25.46M $6.70M $23.82M $18.37M $6.98M $31.20M $35.66M $35.64M $9.78M $9.05M $8.88M $10.05M $67.10M $16.78M $7.97M $28.14M $55.63M $10.10M $36.76M $19.11M $7.07M $41.60M $33.68M $9.13M $7.76M $5.52M $2.93M $10.71M $8.07M $18.60M $6.73M $7.53M $5.05M $8.06M $5.15M $14.42M $5.86M $5.08M bit8.19M $3.18M $2.45M $9.90M $8.92M $34.58M $7.44M $6.37M $9.47M $12.01M $7.74M $3.60M $6.30M Printed 06/03/2019 16:08 Page 11 of 11 treet Maintenance treet Sweeping torm Drain Cleaning Snow- On Call Operators Landscaping Weed Spraying Emergency Traffic Control Litter and Weed Control State Highway Maintenance Traffic Signals, Signs, Striping Dead Animal Control Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 05/01/19 — 05/31/19 MAINTENANCE Agreements for Services Adopted and In Operation * Budget estimates ** Does not include May Contract Name Contractor Contract Amount Total % of Contract Expended Expended Poe Asphalt AAA Sweeping„Pr AAA Sweeping Multiple Senske TBD Senske Geiger Work Crew WSDOT Spokane Cou LN. Mike Pederson $1,561,663.00 $490,200.00 $202,587.50 $765,000.00 $134,877.83 $0.00 $10,000.00 $70,000.00 $265,000.00 $670,000.00 $20,000.00 $239,888.26 $105,629.93 $60,680.23 $237,653.33 $16,841.64 $0.00 $3,801.84 $23,065.70 $65,583.72 $150,725.59 $4,100.00 15.36% 21.55% 29.95% 31.07% 12.49% 0.00% 38.02% 32.95% 24.75% 22.50% 20.50% IMEMIMEEE Citizen Requests for Public Works - May 2019 Request Submitted In Progress Resolved / Waitin: Broken Sprinker CPW Projects Dead Animal Removal General Street Maint Gravel Shouldering Hazard on Street Illegal Dumping - Objects Illegal Dumping - Report a Pothole Sidewalks - non snow --�� Street Sweeping Vegetation / Weeds SOLID WASTE STORMWATER Damag Totals 3 11 2 19 1 5 12 2 14 2 12 11 4 15 23 16 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 8 1 0 0 1 11 2 18 1 5 12 1 14 2 12 9 4 7 22 16 1 STREET MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for May 2019: • Poe Asphalt — Gravel shoulder maintenance. Cracksealing continued on arterials. Completed asphalt overlays on Progress from 4th to Sprague, Dickey from Knox to Mansfield and Mansfield from Dickey to Eastern. Reconstructed a section of asphalt on Adams south of 24th, and 40th east of Pines, patched Pines, Thierman, 26th, and completed a residential overlay on Glenn Road between 32nd and 29th. Began stormwater repair work throughout the City. • AAA Sweeping—Arterial sweeping, sidewalk and concrete median cleaning and continued with residential sweeping. • AAA Sweeping Vactor Contract — Cleaning arterial catchbasins and drywells, sidewalk underdrains and swale inlets. • Geiger Work Crew — Litter Pickup, tree trimming and cutting dryland grass along city right of ways and swale properties. • Pothole patching WASTEWATER Status of the process can be monitored at: http://www.spokaneriver.net/, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/geographic/spokane/spokane river basin.htm, http://www.spokanecounty.org/utilities/WaterReclamation/content.aspx?c=2224 and http://www.spokaneriverpartners.com/ STORMWATER UTILITY The following is a summary of City Stormwater Utility activities for May 2019: • Received Council approval to execute agreement with the Dept. of Ecology for Drywell Appleway — Farr to University Stormwater Improvements, Sprague Ave., University to Park Stormwater Improvements, and Decant Phase III Canopy projects. • Interviewed for stormwater internship positions. • Continue updating MS4 mapping to separate NPDES and UIC regulated facilities. • Completed annual Public Education and outreach effort with training of 5th graders at Liberty Lake County Park in participation with Spokane County and Central Valley School District. • Continue internal review of NPDES Permit implementation plan. • Continued annual management and/or participation of the following service contracts: o Senske — swale maintenance o AAA Sweeping — Spring Sweep o AAA Sweeping — Storm Drain Cleaning • Continue development of 2019 Small Works contract — Pervious Gravel Shoulders. • Continued working on the following tasks: o Responded to stormwater related issues, 20 sites. 2 o Stormwater action requests for small works and maintenance projects 2019. Current status to date is shown below: Stormwater Project Requests (Incl. Public and In -Staff Requests) May - 19 Total Requests Logged Since 2009: 471 2019 Completed Projects: Completed Projects 2009-2019: Locations not warranting work: 1 205 163 Total Project Backlog: 103 Remaining Projects Assigned for 2018-2020 Small Works: Maintenance: Large Capital: 59 33 11 Unfunded Projects Large Capital: 6 DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING The following is a summary of Development Engineering activities for May 2019: • Assisted Building and Planning Division with preparation of design requirements for (6) Commercial and (5) Land Use Pre -Application meetings. • Prepared multiple Recommended Conditions of Approvals for preliminary plats and Dedication Languages for final plats. Reviewed multiple final plats and submittal packages to record final plats. • Reviewed civil plans and drainage reports for Engineered Grading Permits associated with commercial and land use projects. Coordinated with private Engineers and Developers. • Reviewed civil plans for the following projects: o North Pines Professional Building o 12th & Carnahan Apartments o Spokane Federal Credit Union o Hanson Center East Pond Reduction o Garland Avenue Extension o Chas Health Parking Lot o TAPA Business Park— Lot 10 o Horizon Middle School Renovations o 12th & Best Subdivision —43 lots o TAPA Business Park— Lot 2 o 12509 E. Mirabeau Pkwy— Pinecroft Building o Vistas at Belleaire — Phase 1— 69 lots o 8th & Carnahan Pit o Trentwood Elementary School Parking Lot Expansion 3 o Murphy Apartments o TAPA Business Park — Purfect Action Lots 12 — 14 o Woodruff Short Plat — 8 lots o Euclid Office Building Parking Lot Modification o Spokane Elite Dance Studio o Skyline at Flora Subdivision —15 lots o Bonner Short Plat — 3 lots • Met with citizens and developers in Permit Center to answer inquiries and discuss design requirements for potential commercial and land use projects. • Conducted preconstruction meetings, performed site visits, prepared punch lists, reviewed surety estimates, and reviewed and approved construction certification packages to finalize final plats and to issue commercial building certificates of occupancy. 4 CAPITAL PROJECTS slibkane �i1Jal ley Public Works Projects Monthly Summary - Design & Construction May -2019 Project # Design &Construction Projects Funding Proposed Ad Date Bid Open Date %Complete Estimated Construction Completion Total Project Cost PE I CN Street Projects 0143 Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation (PE & ROW) FHWA - STP(U) TBD TBD 60 0 12/31/22 $ 5,215,702 0249 Sullivan & Wellesley Intersection Improv (PE & ROW) FHWA - STP(U) 05/03/19 05/24/19 60 0 12/31/20 $ 1,370,000 0265 Wellesley Sidewalk Project FHWA-CMAQ 05/24/19 06/14/19 100 0 12/31/19 $ 886,367 0267 Mission SW- Bowdish to Union TIB - SP 03/01/19 03/22/19 100 0 12/31/19 $ 2,196,922 0276 Barker Rd Widening - Euclid to Trent COSV 03/22/19 04/12/19 100 0 12/31/19 $ 2,625,000 0278 Wilbur Sidewalk - Boone to Broadway CDBG 03/15/19 03/29/19 100 40 06/30/19 $ 476,997 0279 Knox Ave Sidewalk: Hutchinson to Sargent CDBG 03/22/19 04/05/19 100 56 06/30/19 $ 339,245 0295 Garland Avenue Extension COSV 04/05/19 04/19/19 100 0 12/31/19 $ 2,900,000 Street Preservation Projects 0252 Argonne Resurfacing: Broadway to Mission FHWA - STP( U) 10/05/18 10/26/18 100 95 07/01/19 $ 843,151 0269 Evergreen - Mission Connector to Indiana FHWA - STP(U) 04/05/19 04/26/19 100 95 12/31/19 $ 802,050 0284 Argonne Rd. Pres - Val leyway to Broadway COSV 03/01/19 03/15/19 100 45 06/30/19 $ 288,000 0287 University Pres-Dishman-Mica to 16th TIB - UAP 03/01/19 03/22/19 100 0 12/31/19 $ 4,095,000 0290 2019 Local Access Streets (Midilome) COSV 03/29/19 04/12/19 100 0 12/31/19 $ 1,600,902 Traffic Projects 0293 2018 CSS Citywide Reflective Signal BP 0294 Citywide Reflective Post Panels Parks Projects 0268 Appleway Trail -Evergreen to Sullivan HSIP N/A N/A 10 0 12/31/20 $ 180,000 HSIP N/A N/A 0 0 12/31/20 $ 78,000 FHWA-STP(U) 06/28/19 07/19/19 90 0 12/31/20 $ 2,395,000 Project # Design Only Projects Funding Design Complete Date % Complete Total Project Cost PE Street Projects 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 0223 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF &Trent 0259 North Sullivan ITS Project 0273 Barker/I-90 Interchange 0275 Barker Rd Widening - River to Euclid 0291 Adams Sidewalk Infill Project COSV 12/31/20 COSV TBD FHWA-CMAQ 02/01/18 WSDOT TBD COSV 12/31/20 TIB - SP TBD 7 25 99 30 30 0 $ 142,021 $ 1,710,000 $ 914,209 $ 900,000 $ 220,000 $ 507,051 Street Preservation Projects 0285 Indiana Ave Pres - Evergreen to Sullivan COSV TBD 50 $ 70,400 0286 Broadway Preservation: Havana to Fancher COSV TBD 65 $ 100,000 0292 Mullan Preservation: Broadway -Mission COSV TBD 0 $ 75,000 Stormwater Projects 0198 Sprague, Park to University LID Dept of Ecology 03/01/20 30 $ 20,000 5 TRAFFIC BNSF Request for Presignals for R/R crossings at Park and Vista The City's Community and Public Works group was contacted by BNSF to discuss the results of their investigation on required clearance times at the dual railroad tracks crossing Park and Vista south of Trent (SR -290). A new standard establishing clearance times has been developed by BNSF & Texas DOT and adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration. Under the new criteria, at these locations the clearance times are inadequate. Because of the spacing between the tracks and the distance to the Trent intersections, not enough time can be added to the traffic signal phases to provide reasonable clearance times. BNSF concludes that a pre -signal is necessary to stop traffic before entering the railroad crossing zone, ensuring that vehicles do not stop on the tracks at the crossing. The City maintains that BNSF's solution places all the delay at the crossing on the motorist, that there doesn't appear to be a problem today in that no train -vehicle collisions have taken place at either crossing over the last five years, and that a pre -signal system is a mandated solution for locations that don't appear to have a problem. At this time, the City has requested a queuing and traffic engineering study by the railroad to substantiate and warrant their solution. R/R Quiet Zone Request across Mirabeau Pkwy & Indiana The City's Community and Public Works and the City's Economic Development groups were approached by a developer who may have an opportunity to build a hotel north of the Union Pacific R/R tracks at Mirabeau Pkwy. According to the developer, a hotel would be feasible, even along the tracks, but the crossing would need to be designated as a quiet zone before a hotel would be built. The City met with the developer and helped scope out the work with his consulting engineer who has experience working with UP and preparing engineering studies to obtain quiet zone status. The developer and his consultant will conduct the study at the Mirabeau crossing and then the City will work with the UP Railroad to possibly implement the quiet zone at this crossing. Pine Valley Ranch, Manufactured Home Park The City's Traffic group is currently working with a private developer, Spokane County, and WSDOT on a proposed application of a 300 unit manufactured home park (rentals) proposed between 32nd and 40th Avenues fronting the west side of SR -27. The Traffic Scoping meeting has been held with the public and a Trip Generation and Distribution Letter has been approved. The developer and his engineer will be working on a Traffic Impact Analysis to provide with his SEPA application expected by the end of June. 6 PLANNING AND GRANTS Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Program FY19 On April 17, the BUILD program announced its 2019 call -for -projects. It is anticipated that on June 4th, 2019, City Council will authorize the City Manager to apply for the Pines Road/BNSF Grade Separation Project with a total project cost of $29 million. Applications are due July 15, 2019 and awards are anticipated by November 12, 2019. Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Call for Projects In June, 2019, it is anticipated that TIB will announce its annual call for projects. Projects are due in August, 2019. The City typically applies for funding from the Urban Arterial Program and the Sidewalk Program. Staff will bring forward potential projects for the TIB program in June or July. Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program The program is for highway -rail grade crossing improvement projects and the City is eligible for funding for the preliminary engineering (PE) phase of the project. In June and July, 2018, the City submitted funding applications to the Federal Rail Administration's (FRA) CRISI Program for fiscal years (FY) 17 and 18, respectively. The City submitted a total PE phase request of $1,246,500 with a City -match of $1,246,500 (50% match), for a total PE phase cost of $2,493,000. CRISI FY17 awards were announced; however, the City was not successful in its application. CRISI FY18 awards are expected in summer 2019. 2020-2025 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) The City is required by RCW 35.77.010 to prepare and, after holding a public hearing, adopt a comprehensive transportation program for the ensuing six calendar years. This plan must be submitted to the Washington State Department of Transportation by June 30th of each year. Adoption of the 2020-2025 Six -Year TIP occurred on June 4, 2019. Pavement Management Update Public Outreach & Education Staff has been formulating a plan for public outreach over the summer/fall of 2019 in an attempt to gather public input on what the City's long-term pavement condition should be and what are acceptable funding mechanisms to support such a plan. Outreach will involve public meetings, social media, videos/commercials, and potential interaction with stakeholder groups. More information will be provided as the public outreach program is developed. 7 Spokane 4.0 Valley Memorandum FINANCE DEPARTMENT Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5000 • Fax: (509) 720-5075 • www.spokanevalley.org To: Mark Calhoun, City Manager From: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Date: June 19, 2019 Re: Finance Department Activity Report — May 2019 Following is information pertaining to Finance Department activities through the end of May 2019 and included herein is an updated 2019 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures through the end May. 2018 Year-end Process The 2018 books were closed in April and the annual financial report was completed in May. The State Auditor's Office arrived on site at the beginning of June and are currently working on completing the single audit and financial statement portions of the audit. We do not expect the audit to be completed before the end of the summer. 2019 Budget Amendment #2 As we have progressed through 2019 the need for a number of budget amendments has arisen. Council review will take place at the following meetings: • May 14 Admin Report • May 28 Public Hearing • May 28 First reading on proposed ordinance amending the 2019 Budget • June 4 Second reading on proposed ordinance amending the 2019 Budget 2020 Budget Development The 2020 Budget development process began in the Finance Department in early March, and on April 81h we sent detailed budget requests to all departments to complete by mid-May. By the time the budget is scheduled to be adopted on November 121h, the Council will have had an opportunity to discuss the budget on eight occasions including three public hearings. • June 11 Council budget workshop • August 20 Admin report on 2020 revenues and expenditures • September 10 Public hearing #1 on the 2020 revenues and expenditures • September 24 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2020 Budget • October 8 Public hearing #2 on 2020 Budget • October 22 First reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2020 Budget • November 12 Public hearing #3 on the 2020 Budget • November 12 Second reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2020 Budget P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201912019 05 31.docx Page 1 Budget to Actual Comparison Report A report reflecting 2019 Budget to Actual Revenues and Expenditures for those funds for which a 2019 Budget was adopted is located on pages 5 through 17. Because we attempt to provide this information in a timely manner, this report is prepared from records that are not formally closed by the Finance Department at month end or reconciled to bank records. Although it is realistic to expect the figures will change over subsequent weeks, I believe the report is materially accurate. We've included the following information in the report: • Revenues by source for all funds, and expenditures by department in the General Fund and by type in all other funds. • A breakdown between recurring and nonrecurring revenues and expenditures in the General Fund, Street O&M Fund and Stormwater Fund. • The change in fund balance including beginning and ending figures. The beginning fund balance figures are those that are reflected in our 2018 Annual Financial Report. • Columns of information include: o The 2019 Budget as adopted o May 2019 activity o Cumulative 2019 activity through May 2019 o Budget remaining in terms of dollars o The percent of budgeted revenue collected or budgeted expenditures disbursed A few points related to the General Fund #001 (page 5): Recurring revenues collections are currently at 38.10% of the amount budgeted with 41.67% of the year elapsed. • Property tax are paid to Spokane County in two installments each year on April 30 and October 31 and are then remitted to the City primarily in May and November with lesser amounts typically remitted in June and December. Property taxes received thus far in 2019 are $5,816,941 or 48.26% of the amount budgeted. • Sales tax collections represent only four months of collections thus far because taxes collected in May are not remitted to the City by the State until the latter part of June. Collections are currently at $7,394,310 or 32.27% of the amount budgeted. • Gambling taxes are at $115,415 or 29.82% of the amount budgeted. Gambling taxes are paid quarterly with second quarter payments due by July 31St • Franchise Fee and Business Registration revenues are typically received in the month following a calendar year quarter. So far in 2019 we have received $320,868 or 26.21% of the amount budgeted. • State shared revenues are composed of State of Washington distributions that include items such as liquor board profits, liquor excise tax, streamlined sales tax mitigation and criminal justice monies. Most of these revenues are paid by the State in the month following a calendar quarter. Through May we've received remittances totaling $561,916 or 29.42% of the amount budgeted. • Fines and forfeitures revenues are composed of monthly remittances from Spokane County with payments made in the month following the actual assessment of a fine and false alarm fees. Through May we've received remittances through the month of April with receipts of $350,394 or 32.49% of the amount budgeted. P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201912019 05 31.docx Page 2 • Community and Public Works service revenues are largely composed of building permit and plan review fees as well as right of way permits. Revenues are currently at $1,090,886 or 57.95% of the amount budgeted. • Recreation program revenues are composed of revenues generated by the variety of parks and recreation programs including classes, swimming pools (in -season), and CenterPlace. Currently, revenues total $366,821 or 58.34% of the amount budgeted. Recurring expenditures are currently at $14,141,586 or 33.73% of the amount budgeted with 41.67% of the year elapsed. Investments (page 18) Investments at May 31 total $71,646,579 and are composed of $66,565,223 in the Washington State Local Government Investment Pool and $5,081,356 in bank CDs. Total Sales Tax Receipts (page 19) Total sales tax receipts reflect State remittances through May and total $8,359,389 including general, criminal justice, and public safety taxes. This figure is $329,690 or 4.11% greater than the same four-month period in 2018. Economic Indicators (pages 20 — 22) The following economic indicators provide information pertaining to three different sources of tax revenue that provide a good gauge of the health and direction of the overall economy. 1. Sales taxes (page 20) provide a sense of how much individuals and businesses are spending on the purchase of goods. 2. Hotel / Motel taxes (page 21) provide us with a sense of overnight stays and visits to our area by tourists or business travelers. 3. Real Estate Excise taxes (page 22) provide us with a sense of real estate sales. Page 20 provides a 10 -year history of general sales tax receipts (not including public safety or criminal justice) with monthly detail beginning January 2010. • Compared with calendar year 2018, 2019 collections have increased by $288,813 or 4.06%. • Tax receipts reached an all-time high in 2018 at $22,642,856, besting the previous record year of 2017 when $21,089,134 was collected. Page 21 provides a 10 -year history of hotel/motel tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2010. • Compared with calendar year 2018, 2019 collections have increased by $16,679 or 11.33%. • Collections reached an all-time high in 2018 of $646,976, exceeding the previous high set in 2017 of $615,980. Page 22 provides a 10 -year history of real estate excise tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2010. • Compared with calendar year 2018, 2019 collections have decreased by $54,274 or 5.93%. • Collections reached an all-time high in 2018 of $3,800,432, exceeding the previous high set in 2017 of $3,007,573. P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201912019 05 31.docx Page 3 Debt Capacity and Bonds Outstanding (page 23) This page provides information on the City's debt capacity, or the dollar amount of General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds the City may issue, as well as an amortization schedule of the bonds the City currently has outstanding. • The maximum amount of G.O. bonds the City may issue is determined by the assessed value for property taxes which for 2019 is $9,351,389,045. Following the December 1, 2018 debt service payments, the City has $12,270,000 of nonvoted G.O. bonds outstanding which represents 8.75% of our nonvoted bond capacity, and 1.75% of our total debt capacity for all types of bonds. Of this amount: o $4,645,000 remains on bonds issued for the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds are repaid with a portion of the 1/10 of 1% sales tax that is collected by the Spokane Public Facilities District. o $730,000 remains on bonds issued for road and street improvements around CenterPlace. The bonds are repaid with a portion of the real estate excise tax collected by the City. o $6,895,000 remains on bonds issued for construction of the new City Hall. The bonds are to be repaid with General Fund revenues. Street Fund Revenue Sources (pages 24 and 25) The last two charts reflect a history for the two primary sources of revenue in Street Fund #101. These include: • Page 24 provides a 10 -year history of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2010. o Compared with calendar year 2018, 2019 collections have decreased by $41,475 or 6.41%. o Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at just approximately $2.1 million, and subsequently decreased to a range of approximately $1,857,000 to $2,072,000 in the years 2011 through 2018. • Page 25 provides a 10 -year history of Telephone Utility Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2010. o Compared with 2018, 2019 collections have decreased by $64,856 or 10.82%. Unlike tax revenues collected by the State and remitted monthly, these taxes are paid to the City directly by the service provider. Consequently there is not a "clean cutoff' in terms of when a vendor pays the tax. o Tax receipts peaked in 2009 at $3,054,473 and have decreased each year since due to what we suspect is the reduction in land lines by individual households. o The 2019 Budget is set at $1,700,000. We will watch actual receipts closely as the year progresses. o The City has hired a consultant to perform an audit of providers who pay the telephone utility tax. The audit will assess whether providers are accurately remitting all taxes owed to the City, and the consultant will be paid on a contingent basis out of revenues recovered from the telephone providers. Three audits have been completed, and the City has received payments totaling $398,865 which is comprised of recovered revenue plus interest and penalty fees. Per the contract with the consultant, the City paid $99,716 or 25% of the amount recovered. P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201912019 05 31.docx Page 4 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports \2019\2019 05 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Five -Month Period Ended May 31, 2019 #001 - GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2019 41.67% 2019 Budget Actual Actual through Budget May May 31 Remaining % of Budget Revenues Property Tax 12,054,400 5,100,192 5,816,941 (6,237,459) 48.26% Sales Tax 22,917,000 1,955,470 7,394,310 (15,522,690) 32.27% Sales Tax - Public Safety 1,081,900 90,589 348,561 (733,339) 32.22% Sales Tax - Criminal Justice 1,944,000 162,291 616,518 (1,327,482) 31.71 % Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 387,000 96,059 115,415 (271,585) 29.82% Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,224,000 9,988 320,868 (903,132) 26.21% State Shared Revenues 1,909,800 0 561,916 (1,347,884) 29.42% Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties 1,078,500 99,891 350,394 (728,106) 32.49% Community and Public Works 1,882,300 238,840 1,090,886 (791,414) 57.95% Recreation Program Revenues 628,800 46,600 366,821 (261,979) 58.34% Miscellaneous Department Revenue 1,500 171 21,094 19,594 1406.29% Miscellaneous& Investment Interest 358,200 87,611 332,509 (25,691) 92.83% Transfers in - #105 (h/m tax -CP advertising) 30,000 0 0 (30,000) 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 45,497,400 7,887,702 17,336,233 (28,161,167) 38.10% Expenditures City Council 612,359 65,988 275,874 336,485 45.05% City Manager 964,527 70,436 348,226 616,301 36.10% City Attorney 618,756 53,852 243,636 375,120 39.38% Public Safety 25,927,488 2,005,066 9,388,796 16,538,692 36.21% Deputy City Manager 271,044 19,442 139,588 131,456 51.50% Finance / IT 1,427,700 109,802 557,673 870,027 39.06% Human Resources 305,843 23,641 119,257 186,586 38.99% City Hall Operations and Maintenance 291,894 28,864 99,511 192,383 34.09% Community & Public Works - Engineering 1,841,617 142,524 715,566 1,126,051 38.86% Community & Public Works - Econ Dev 1,030,737 60,331 335,932 694,805 32.59% Community & Public Works - Bldg & Plan 2,281,474 173,772 896,656 1,384,818 39.30% Parks & Rec - Administration 340,120 22,685 115,998 224,122 34.11% Parks & Rec - Maintenance 893,500 2,003 235,262 658,238 26.33% Parks & Rec - Recreation 254,818 10,130 60,429 194,389 23.71% Parks & Rec - Aquatics 491,153 3,227 9,573 481,580 1.95% Parks & Rec - Senior Center 102,907 0 16,778 86,129 16.30% Parks & Rec - CenterPlace 956,332 52,216 334,272 622,060 34.95% General Government 1,348,950 29,479 248,560 1,100,390 18.43% Transfers out - #204 ('16 L TGO bond debt service) 401,250 0 0 401,250 0.00% Transfers out - #309 (park capital projects) 160,000 0 0 160,000 0.00% Transfers out - #311 (Pavement Preservation) 972,300 0 0 972,300 0.00% Transfers out - #501 36,600 0 0 36,600 0.00% Transfers out - #502 (insurance premium) 390,000 0 0 390,000 0.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 41,921,369 2,873,459 14,141,586 27,779,783 33.73% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 3,576,031 5,014,243 3,194,647 (381,384) Page 5 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2019\2019 05 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Five -Month Period Ended May 31, 2019 #001 - GENERAL FUND - continued NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Transfers in - #106 (Repymt of Solid Waste) Miscellaneous Budget Year Elapsed = 2019 41.67% 2019 Budget Actual Actual through Budget May May 31 Remaining % of Budget 40,422 0 0 (40,422) 0.00% 0 0 5,000 5,000 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 40,422 0 5,000 (35,422) 12.37% Expenditures General Government - IT capital replacements 107,000 0 73,902 33,098 69.07% Public Safety (carpet & workstation replacement) 50,000 0 0 50,000 0.00% Public Safety (full facility generator) 0 0 0 0 0.00% Community & Public Works (Retail Recruitment) 25,000 0 20,000 5,000 80.00% General Government (City Hall generator) 0 0 82,842 (82,842) 0.00% Transfers out - #122 (replenish reserve) 120,000 0 0 120,000 0.00% Transfers out - #309 (Browns Park restroom & othe 1,160,000 0 0 1,160,000 0.00% Transfers out - #312 7,109,300 0 0 7,109,300 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 8,571,300 0 176,744 8,394,556 2.06% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (8,530,878) 0 (171,744) 8,359,134 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (4,954,847) 5,014,243 3,022,903 7,977,750 Beginning fund balance 36,817,956 36,817,956 Ending fund balance 31,863,109 39,840,859 Page 6 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2019\2019 05 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Five -Month Period Ended May 31, 2019 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #101 - STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2019 41.67% 2019 Budget Actual Actual through Budget May May 31 Remaining % of Budget Revenues Telephone Utility Tax 1,700,000 126,455 536,121 (1,163,879) 31.54% Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax 2,092,300 143,475 602,900 (1,489,400) 28.82% Multimodal Transportation 132,200 0 33,167 (99,033) 25.09% Right -of -Way Maintenance Fee 70,000 0 2,501 (67,499) 3.57% Investment Interest 6,000 230 2,386 (3,614) 39.77% Miscellaneous Revenue 10,000 0 466 (9,534) 4.66% Total Recurring Revenues 4,010,500 270,160 1,177,540 (2,832,960) 29.36% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 1,057,744 70,215 473,215 584,529 44.74% Supplies 113,300 4,122 52,103 61,197 45.99% Services & Charges 2,326,974 325,901 608,718 1,718,257 26.16% Snow Operations 497,200 58,697 661,337 (164,137) 133.01% Intergovernmental Payments 855,000 49,703 151,842 703,158 17.76% Transfers out - #501 (non -plow vehicle rental) 21,250 0 0 21,250 0.00% Transfers out - #501 (plow replace.) 77,929 0 0 77,929 0.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 4,949,397 508,639 1,947,216 3,002,181 39.34% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures (938,897) (238,478) (769,675) 169,222 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Insurance proceeds (traffic signal cabinet) 0 0 6,453 6,453 0.00% Transfers in - #122 120,000 0 0 (120,000) 0.00% Transfers in - #312 907,544 0 0 (907,544) 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 1,027,544 0 6,453 (1,021,091) 0.63% Expenditures Misc 0 991 991 (991) 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 0 991 991 (991) 0.00% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,027,544 (991) 5,462 (1,022,082) Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures 88,647 (239,469) (764,213) (852,860) Beginning fund balance 784,972 784,972 Ending fund balance 873,619 20,759 #103 - PATHS & TRAILS Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax Investment Interest 8,800 605 2,543 (6,257) 28.90% 400 14 50 (350) 12.57% Total revenues 9,200 619 2,593 (6,607) 28.19% Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0.00% Transfers out - #309 (Appleway Trail - Sullivan to C 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 9,200 Beginning fund balance 5,417 Ending fund balance 14,617 619 Page 7 2,593 5,417 8,010 (6,607) P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2019\2019 05 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Five -Month Period Ended May 31, 2019 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2019 41.67% 2019 Budget Actual Actual through Budget May May 31 Remaining % of Budget #104 - TOURISM FACILITIES HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel Tax 390,000 36,540 99,155 (290,845) 25.42% Investment Interest 7,000 3,546 14,079 7,079 201.12% Transfers in - #105 275,000 0 0 (275,000) 0.00% Total revenues Expenditures Capital Expenditures Total expenditures 672,000 40,086 113,233 (558,767) 16.85% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 672,000 40,086 113,233 (558,767) Beginning fund balance 1,918,072 1,918,072 Ending fund balance 2,590,072 2,031,305 #105 - HOTEL / MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest Total revenues 600,000 59,117 163,880 (436,120) 27.31% 2,000 738 2,543 543 127.17% 602,000 59,855 166,423 (435,577) 27.65% Expenditures Transfers out - #001 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00% Transfers out - #104 275,000 0 0 275,000 0.00% Tourism Promotion 350,000 4,000 21,752 328,248 6.21% Total expenditures 655,000 4,000 21,752 633,248 Revenues over (under) expenditures (53,000) 55,855 144,671 (1,068,825) Beginning fund balance 277,929 277,929 Ending fund balance 224,929 422,600 3.32% #106 - SOLID WASTE Revenues Solid Waste Administrative Fees 225,000 11,139 92,423 132,577 41.08% Solid Waste Road Wear Fee 1,500,000 128,095 522,347 977,653 34.82% Investment Interest 1,300 1,818 5,616 (4,316) 432.03% Total revenues 1,726,300 141,052 620,387 1,105,913 35.94% Expenditures Transfers out - #001 40,422 0 0 40,422 0.00% Transfers out - #311 1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000 0.00% Education & Contract Administration 185,878 2,746 11,873 174,005 6.39% Total expenditures 1,726,300 2,746 11,873 1,714,427 0.69% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 138,306 608,513 (608,513) Beginning fund balance 431,359 431,359 Ending fund balance 431,359 1,039,872 Page 8 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2019\2019 05 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Five -Month Period Ended May 31, 2019 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued #107 - PEG FUND Revenues Comcast PEG Contribution Investment Interest Total revenues Budget Year Elapsed = 2019 41.67% 2019 Budget Actual Actual through Budget May May 31 Remaining % of Budget 76,000 0 19,958 56,042 26.26% 0 184 736 (736) 0.00% 76,000 184 20,695 55,305 27.23% Expenditures PEG Reimbursement - CMTV 40,100 0 0 40,100 0.00% Capital Outlay 31,000 0 0 31,000 0.00% Total expenditures 71,100 0 0 71,100 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 4,900 184 20,695 (15,795) Beginning fund balance 84,831 84,831 Ending fund balance 89,731 105,526 #120 - CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest Transfers in 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Operations Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 300,000 300,000 Ending fund balance 300,000 300,000 #121 - SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest Transfers in 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Operations Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 5,500,000 5,500,000 Ending fund balance 5,500,000 5,500,000 #122 - WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 5,000 879 3,567 (1,433) 71.34% Transfers in - #001 120,000 0 0 (120,000) 0.00% Subtotal revenues 125,000 879 3,567 (121,433) 2.85% Expenditures Snow removal expenses 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00% Transfers out - #101 120,000 0 0 120,000 0.00% Total expenditures 620,000 0 0 620,000 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures (495,000) 879 3,567 (741,433) Beginning fund balance 503,070 503,070 Ending fund balance 8,070 506,637 Page 9 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2019\2019 05 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Five -Month Period Ended May 31, 2019 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Budget Year Elapsed = 2019 41.67% 2019 Budget Actual Actual through Budget May May 31 Remaining % of Budget #204 - DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 432,150 88,575 88,575 (343,575) 20.50% Transfers in - #001 401,250 0 0 (401,250) 0.00% Transfers in - #301 82,475 0 0 (82,475) 0.00% Transfers in - #302 82,475 0 0 (82,475) 0.00% Total revenues 998,350 88,575 88,575 (909,775) 8.87% Expenditures Debt Service Payments - CenterPlace 432,150 88,575 88,575 343,575 Debt Service Payments - Roads 164,950 12,475 12,475 152,475 Debt Service Payments -'16 LTGO Bond 401,250 120,625 120,625 280,625 20.50% 7.56% 30.06% Total expenditures 998,350 221,675 221,675 776,675 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 (133,100) (133,100) (1,686,450) Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 (133,100) Page 10 22.20% P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2019\2019 05 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Five -Month Period Ended May 31, 2019 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #301 - CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 - Taxes Investment Interest Total revenues Budget Year Elapsed = 2019 41.67% 2019 Budget Actual Actual through Budget May May 31 Remaining % of Budget 1,000,000 92,660 401,423 (598,577) 40.14% 22,000 5,066 20,764 (1,236) 94.38% 1,022,000 97,726 422,186 (599,814) 41.31% Expenditures Transfers out - #204 82,475 0 0 82,475 0.00% Transfers out - #303 504,172 0 0 504,172 0.00% Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 734,300 0 0 734,300 0.00% Transfers out - #314 50,000 0 0 50,000 0.00% Total expenditures 1,370,947 0 0 1,370,947 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures (348,947) 97,726 422,186 (1,970,761) Beginning fund balance 2,480,268 2,480,268 Ending fund balance 2,131,321 2,902,454 #302 - SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 2 - Taxes Investment Interest 1,000,000 92,660 401,422 (598,578) 40.14% 25,000 6,403 26,448 1,448 105.79% Total revenues 1,025,000 99,062 427,870 (597,130) 41.74% Expenditures Transfers out - #204 82,475 0 0 82,475 0.00% Transfers out - #303 167,434 0 0 167,434 0.00% Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 734,300 0 0 734,300 0.00% Total expenditures 984,209 0 0 984,209 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 40,791 99,062 427,870 (1,581,339) Beginning fund balance 3,240,220 3,240,220 Ending fund balance 3,281,011 3,668,090 Page 11 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2019\2019 05 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Five -Month Period Ended May 31, 2019 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2019 41.67% 2019 Budget Actual Actual through Budget May May 31 Remaining % of Budget #303 STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 5,084,281 0 111,687 (4,972,594) 2.20% Developer Contribution 1,535,700 0 0 (1,535,700) 0.00% Transfers in -#301 504,172 0 0 (504,172) 0.00% Transfers in - #302 167,434 0 0 (167,434) 0.00% Transfers in - #312 4,584,400 0 0 (4,584,400) 0.00% Investment Interest 0 0 586 586 0.00% Total revenues 11,875,987 0 112,273 (11,763,714) 0.95% Expenditures 123 Mission Ave - Flora to Barker 5,000 18,542 24,944 (19,944) 498.88% 142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 12,500 42 313 12,187 2.51% 166 Pines Rd. (SR27) & Grace Ave. Int. Safety 5,000 111 1,344 3,656 26.88% 201 ITS Infill Project Phase 1 (PE Start 2014) 5,000 0 1,397 3,603 27.94% 205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 35,700 3,856 3,856 31,844 10.80% 247 8th & Carnahan Intersection Improvements 45,000 0 (155) 45,155 -0.34% 249 Sullivan & Wellesley Intersection 1,167,287 10,304 46,651 1,120,636 4.00% 251 Euclid Ave Reconstruction Project 5,000 0 2,703 2,297 54.06% 258 32nd Ave Sidewalk-SR27 to Evergreen 5,000 0 0 5,000 0.00% 259 North Sullivan ITS Project 730,000 539 2,753 727,247 0.38% 265 Wellesley Sidewalk Project 382,000 5,135 15,344 366,656 4.02% 267 Mission Ave Sidewalk 420,000 331 7,220 412,780 1.72% 273 Barker/I-90 Interchange 500,000 11,755 37,997 462,003 7.60% 275 Barker Rd Widening - River to Euclid 310,000 3,411 3,443 306,557 1.11% 276 Barker Rd Widening - Euclid to Garland 3,346,000 24,062 59,376 3,286,624 1.77% 277 Barker Rd Widening - Garland to Trent 54,000 0 0 54,000 0.00% 278 Wilbur Sidewalk - Boone to Broadway 354,500 17,513 44,457 310,043 12.54% 279 Know Ave Sidewalk: Hutchinson to Sargent 294,000 15,604 42,216 251,784 14.36% 281 Highland Estates Connector 200,000 2,618 17,396 182,604 8.70% 287 University Pres - Dishman Mica to 16th 0 73,957 78,913 (78,913) 0.00% 291 Adams Sidewalk Infill Project 0 73 432 (432) 0.00% 293 2018 CSS Citywide Reflective Signal BP 0 34 34 (34) 0.00% 294 Citywide Reflective Post Panels 0 0 150 (150) 0.00% 295 Garland Avenue Extension 3,000,000 892 4,934 2,995,066 0.16% Contingency 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 0.00% Total expenditures 11,875,987 188,779 395,720 11,480,267 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 (188,779) (283,447) (23,243,981) Beginning fund balance 66,906 66,906 Ending fund balance 66,906 (216,541) Note: Work performed in the Street Capital Projects Fund for preservation projects is for items such as sidewalk upgrades that were bid with the pavement preservation work. Page 12 3.33% P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2019\2019 05 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Five -Month Period Ended May 31, 2019 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued #309 - PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds Transfers in - #001 Transfers in - #103 (Appleway Trail) Transfers in - #312 (Appleway Trail) Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures 227 237 268 280 282 296 Appleway Trail - Pines to Evergreen Appleway Trail - Sullivan to Corbin Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan Appleway Trail Amenities: Univ. - Pines Browns Park Sand Volleyball Courts Browns Park 2019 Construction Improvements Browns Park Restroom Swing Sets Resurface Discovery Park Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance Budget Year Elapsed = 2019 41.67% 2019 Budget Actual May Actual through May 31 Budget Remaining % of Budget 572,308 1,320,000 0 14,788 0 0 0 0 0 0 96,226 0 0 0 24 (476,082) (1,320,000) 0 (14,788) 24 16.81% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,907,096 0 96,250 (1,810,846) 5.05% 0 5,000 72,500 509,595 0 1,000,000 160,000 25,000 40,000 0 0 20,954 367,444 1,115 12,897 0 0 0 0 16,256 45,752 495,478 1,249 15,413 0 0 0 0 0.00% (11,256) 325.11% 26,748 63.11% 14,117 97.23% (1,249) 0.00% 984,587 1.54% 160,000 0.00% 25,000 0.00% 40,000 0.00% 1,812,095 95,001 39,294 402,410 134,295 #310 - CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Transfers out Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 9,000 (402,410) 1,508 574,148 (477,898) 39,294 (438,604) 6,120 1,237,947 (3,048,794) 31.68% (2,880) 68.00% 9,000 1,508 6,120 (2,880) 68.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 9,000 857,737 866,737 1,508 6,120 857,737 863,857 (2,880) Note: The fund balance includes $839,285.10 paid by the Library District for 2.82 acres at the Balfour Park site. If the District does not succeed in getting a voted bond approved by October 2017 then the City may repurchase this land at the original sale price of $839,285.10. Page 13 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2019\2019 05 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Five -Month Period Ended May 31, 2019 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2019 41.67% 2019 Budget Actual Actual through Budget May May 31 Remaining % of Budget #311 - PAVEMENT PRESERVATION FUND Revenues Transfers in - #001 972,300 0 0 (972,300) 0.00% Transfers in - #106 1,500,000 0 0 (1,500,000) 0.00% Transfers in - #301 734,300 0 0 (734,300) 0.00% Transfers in - #302 734,300 0 0 (734,300) 0.00% Grant Proceeds 1,820,000 0 29,920 (1,790,080) 1.64% Investment Interest 0 7,633 28,141 28,141 0.00% Total revenues 5,760,900 7,633 58,060 (5,702,840) 1.01% Expenditures Pre -Project GeoTech Services 50,000 0 22,125 27,875 44.25% Pavement Preservation 7,238,200 0 0 7,238,200 0.00% 248 Sprague Street Pres - Sullivan to Corbin 0 878 5,893 (5,893) 0.00% 252 Argonne Resurfacing: Broadway to Indiana 0 147,982 169,480 (169,480) 0.00% 254 Mission - McDonald to Evergreen 0 0 2,387 (2,387) 0.00% 256 University Rd Pres - 24th to Dishman Mica 0 0 2,831 (2,831) 0.00% 257 University Rd Pres - 16th to 24th 0 0 3,009 (3,009) 0.00% 267 Mission SW - Bowdish to Union 0 815 25,649 (25,649) 0.00% 269 Evergreen - Mission Connector to Indiana 0 5,823 43,249 (43,249) 0.00% 284 Argonne Rd. Pres - Valleyway to Broadway 0 2,571 13,573 (13,573) 0.00% 285 Indiana Ave Pres - Evergreen to Sullivan 0 5,480 14,970 (14,970) 0.00% 286 Broadway Preservation: Havana to Fancher 0 303 18,579 (18,579) 0.00% 287 University Pres - Dishman Mica to 16th 0 653 2,369 (2,369) 0.00% 290 2019 Local Access Streets (Midilome) 0 4,334 25,890 (25,890) 0.00% 292 Mullan Preservation: Broadway -Mission 0 2,629 8,386 (8,386) 0.00% 297 2019 SCWD#3 Street Preservation 0 180 303 (303) 0.00% Total expenditures 7,288,200 171,648 358,693 Revenues over (under) expenditures (1,527,300) (164,015) (300,632) Beginning fund balance 4,637,315 4,637,315 Ending fund balance 3,110,015 4,336,683 6,929,507 (12,632,347) 4.92% #312 - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in -#001 7,109,300 0 0 (7,109,300) 0.00% Investment Interest 50,000 15,780 65,721 15,721 131.44% Total revenues 7,159,300 15,780 65,721 (7,093,579) 0.92% Expenditures Transfers out - #101 907,544 0 0 907,544 0.00% Transfers out - #303 4,584,400 0 0 4,584,400 0.00% Transfers out - #309 14,788 0 0 14,788 0.00% Total expenditures 5,506,732 0 0 5,506,732 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 1,652,568 15,780 65,721 (12,600,311) Beginning fund balance 8,974,920 8,974,920 Ending fund balance 10,627,488 9,040,641 Page 14 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2019\2019 05 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Five -Month Period Ended May 31, 2019 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued #313 - CITY HALL CONSTRUCTION FUND Revenues Investment Interest Budget Year Elapsed = 2019 41.67% 2019 Budget Actual Actual through Budget May May 31 Remaining % of Budget 0 154 625 625 0.00% Total revenues 0 154 625 625 0.00% Expenditures Transfers out - #312 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 154 625 625 Beginning fund balance 87,636 87,636 Ending fund balance 87,636 88,261 #314 - RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 3,750,000 0 114,047 (3,635,953) 3.04% Investment Interest 0 1,284 6,349 6,349 0.00% Transfers in - #301 50,000 0 0 (50,000) 0.00% Total revenues 3,800,000 1,284 120,396 (3,679,604) 3.17% Expenditures 143 Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation 3,800,000 124,431 411,966 3,388,034 10.84% 223 Pines Rd Underpass 900,000 6,402 15,745 884,255 1.75% Total expenditures 4,700,000 130,833 427,711 4,272,289 9.10% Revenues over (under) expenditures (900,000) (129,550) (307,315) (7,951,893) Beginning fund balance 1,036,455 1,036,455 Ending fund balance 136,455 729,140 Page 15 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2019\2019 05 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Five -Month Period Ended May 31, 2019 ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402 - STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2019 41.67% 2019 Budget Actual Actual through Budget May May 31 Remaining % of Budget Revenues Stormwater Management Fees 1,890,000 797,045 945,015 (944,985) 50.00% Investment Interest 20,000 5,299 18,273 (1,727) 91.37% Total Recurring Revenues 1,910,000 802,344 963,288 (946,712) 50.43% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 502,325 33,189 164,452 337,873 32.74% Supplies 10,700 1,515 5,452 5,248 50.95% Services & Charges 1,236,575 166,485 209,008 1,027,567 16.90% Intergovernmental Payments 37,500 0 18,447 19,053 49.19% Vehicle Rentals - #501 12,750 0 0 12,750 0.00% Office Furniture & Equipment 0 0 491 (491) 0.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 1,799,850 201,190 397,851 1,401,999 22.10% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 110,150 601,155 565,438 455,288 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 106,000 0 54,909 (51,091) 51.80% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 106,000 0 54,909 (51,091) 51.80% Expenditures Capital - various projects 335,160 0 223 334,937 0.07% 193 Effectiveness Study 10,000 0 0 10,000 0.00% 252 Argonne Resurfacing: Broadway to Mission 0 34,886 34,886 (34,886) 0.00% 267 Mission SW - Bowdish to Union 65,000 151 2,421 62,579 3.73% 278 Wilbur Sidewalk - Boone to Broadway 24,600 3,118 6,086 18,514 24.74% 279 Knox Ave Sidewalk: Hutchinson to Sargent 25,240 4,931 12,319 12,921 48.81 % Watershed Studies 100,000 0 3,374 96,626 3.37% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 560,000 43,086 59,309 500,691 10.59% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (454,000) (43,086) (4,400) 449,600 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (343,850) 558,068 561,038 904,888 Beginning working capital 2,216,210 2,216,210 Ending working capital 1,872,360 2,777,248 Note: Work performed in the Stormwater Fund for preservation projects is for stormwater improvements that were bid with the pavement preservation work. #403 - AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 460,000 0 0 (460,000) 0.00% Grant Proceeds 317,200 0 2,717 (314,483) 0.86% Investment Interest 10,000 3,232 13,126 3,126 131.26% Total revenues 787,200 3,232 15,844 (771,356) 2.01 % Expenditures Capital - various projects 832,600 757 4,543 828,057 0.55% Total expenditures 832,600 757 4,543 828,057 0.55% Revenues over (under) expenditures (45,400) 2,474 11,301 (1,599,414) Beginning working capital 1,840,005 1,840,005 Ending working capital 1,794,605 1,851,306 Page 16 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2019\2019 05 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Five -Month Period Ended May 31, 2019 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Budget Year Elapsed = 2019 41.67% 2019 Budget Actual Actual through Budget May May 31 Remaining % of Budget #501 - ER&R FUND Revenues Interfund vehicle lease - #001 30,000 0 0 (30,000) 0.00% Interfund vehicle lease - #101 21,250 0 0 (21,250) 0.00% Interfund vehicle lease - #101 (plow replace) 77,929 0 0 (77,929) 0.00% Interfund vehicle lease - #402 12,750 0 0 (12,750) 0.00% Transfers in - #001 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) 36,600 0 0 (36,600) 0.00% Investment Interest 9,500 2,269 9,210 (290) 96.95% Total revenues Expenditures Equipment Repair & Maintenance Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning working capital Ending working capital 188,029 2,269 9,210 (178,819) 4.90% 20,000 438 785 19,215 3.92% 20,000 438 785 19,215 3.92% 168,029 1,290,971 1,831 8,426 (198,034) 1,290,971 1,459,000 1,299,397 #502 - RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0.00% Transfers in - #001 390,000 0 0 (390,000) 0.00% Total revenues 390,000 0 0 (390,000) 0.00% Expenditures Auto & Property Insurance 390,000 0 349,527 40,473 89.62% Equipment Repair & Maintenance 0 0 (733) 733 0.00% Unemployment Claims 0 0 22,831 (22,831) 0.00% Total expenditures 390,000 0 371,625 18,375 95.29% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 (371,625) (408,375) Beginning working capital 263,778 Ending working capital 263,778 263,778 (107,847) SUMMARY FOR ALL FUNDS Total of Revenues for all Funds Per Revenue Status Report Difference Total of Expenditures for all Funds Per Expenditure Status Report 90,725,228 90,725,228 9,520,103 9,520,103 21,893,453 21,893,453 96,653,436 4,750,651 19,112,219 96,653,436 4,750,651 19,112,219 Total Capital expenditures (included in total expenditures) 27,096,882 903,618 1,917,473 Page 17 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2019\2019 05 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Investment Report For the Five -Month Period Ended May 31, 2019 Beginning Deposits Withdrawls Interest Ending 001 General Fund 101 Street Fund 103 Trails & Paths 104 Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel 105 Hotel/Motel 106 Solid Waste Fund 107 PEG Fund 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 Winter Weather Reserve 301 Capital Projects 302 Special Capital Projects 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 309 Parks Capital Project 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 311 Pavement Preservation 312 Capital Reserve Fund 313 City Hall Construction Fund 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects 402 Stormwater Management 403 Aquifer Protection Fund 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 Risk Management "Local Government Investment Pool 6/12/2019 LGI P" UMPQUA CD #9731 UMPQUA CD #0689 Total Investments $ 63, 968,140.17 $ 3, 035, 525.76 $ 2, 045, 830.26 $ 60,146,128.50 2,461,336.86 0.00 0.00 2,461,336.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 135,746.39 0.00 0.00 135,746.39 $ 66,565,223.42 $ 3,035,525.76 $ 2,045,830.26 $ 71,646,579.44 matures: 6/28/2019 11/15/2019 rate: 2.30% 2.85% Balance Earnings Current Period Year to date Budget $ 38,668,679.82 $ 79,710.74 113,006.32 230.45 6,855.83 13.98 1,738,618.97 3,545.56 361,708.20 737.63 891, 478.34 1,817.99 90, 320.96 184.19 0.00 0.00 5, 500, 000.00 0.00 430, 927.51 878.79 2,484,245.13 5,066.12 3,139,561.86 6,402.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 739, 385.95 1,507.83 3,742,865.56 7,632.82 7, 737, 992.73 15, 780.08 75, 543.88 154.06 629, 543.14 1,283.83 2,598,669.77 5,299.46 1,584,725.46 3,231.73 1,112,450.01 2,268.62 0.00 0.00 296,313.84 $ 300,000.00 2,386.21 6,000.00 50.28 400.00 14,078.56 7,000.00 2,543.38 2,000.00 5,616.41 1,300.00 736.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,567.09 5,000.00 20,763.93 22, 000.00 26,447.58 25,000.00 586.08 0.00 23.93 0.00 6,120.42 9,000.00 28,140.80 0.00 65,720.85 50, 000.00 625.34 0.00 6,349.09 0.00 18,273.24 20,000.00 13,126.49 10, 000.00 9,210.21 9,500.00 0.00 0.00 $ 71,646,579.44 $ 135,746.39 $ 520,680.08 $ 467,200.00 Page 18 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2019\2019 05 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Sales Tax Receipts For the Five -Month Period Ended May 31, 2019 Month Received 2018 2019 6/12/2019 Difference February 2,353,128.35 2,530,639.23 177,510.88 7.54% March 1,744,900.00 1,861,849.29 116,949.29 6.70% April 1,757,754.18 1,758,550.64 796.46 0.05% May 2,173,916.87 2,208,350.09 34,433.22 1.58% 8, 029, 699.40 June 1,991,560.58 July 2,115,585.73 August 2,328,306.22 September 2,238,047.38 October 2,280,671.98 November 2,272,076.06 December 2,196,294.60 January 2,170,652.01 8,359,389.25 25,622,893.96 8,359,389.25 329,689.85 4.11% Sales tax receipts reported here reflect remittances for general sales tax, criminal justice sales tax and public safety tax. The sales tax rate for retail sales transacted within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley is 8.9%. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the vendor to the Washington State Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to the various agencies that have imposed the tax. The allocation of the total 8.9% tax rate to the agencies is as follows: - State of Washington 6.50% - City of Spokane Valley 0.85% - Spokane County 0.15% - Spokane Public Facilities District 0.10% * - Criminal Justice 0.10% - Public Safety 0.10% * 2.40% local tax - Juvenile Jail 0.10% * - Mental Health 0.10% * - Law Enforcement Communications 0.10% * - Spokane Transit Authority 0.80% * 8.90% Indicates voter approved sales taxes In addition to the .85% reported above that the City receives, we also receive a portion of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety sales taxes. The distribution of those taxes is computed as follows: Criminal Justice: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 10% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the County and the cities within the County. Public Safety: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 60% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County. Page 19 ■ 1 • CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Sales Tax Collections - April For the years 2010 through 2019 January February March April Collected to date P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Sales Tax\2019\sales tax collections 2019.xlsx 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 1 2016 1 2017 1 2018 1 2019 1,491,059 1,460,548 963,749 990,157 1,018,468 1,015,762 1,184,137 1,284,180 1,589,887 1,671,269 1,677,887 1,732,299 1,863,225 1,992,273 2,078,412 1,009, 389 1,133, 347 1,170, 640 1,197,323 1,316, 682 1,369, 740 1,536, 252 1,067, 733 1,148, 486 1,201, 991 1,235,252 1,378, 300 1,389, 644 1,564, 282 1,277,621 1,358,834 1,448,539 1,462,096 1,640,913 1,737,933 1,926,551 2,240,908 1,648,657 1,549,275 1,955,470 5/31/2019 2019 to 2018 Difference ok 162,496 7.82% 112,405 7.32% (15,007) (0.96%) 28,919 1.50% 4,657,413 4,750,647 4,944,630 5,311,936 5,499,057 5,626,970 6,199,120 6,489,590 7,105,497 7,394,310 288,813 4.06% May 1,102, 523 1,187, 737 1,174, 962 1,320,449 1,400,956 1,373,710 1,566,178 1,564,119 1,762,119 0 June 1,123,907 1,248,218 1,290,976 1,389,802 1,462,558 1,693,461 1,641,642 1,751,936 1,871,077 0 July 1,260,873 1,332,834 1,302,706 1,424,243 1,545,052 1,718,428 1,776,653 1,935,028 2,053,961 0 August 1,211,450 1,279,500 1,299,678 1,465,563 1,575,371 1,684,700 1,746,371 1,877,899 1,980,940 0 September 1,191,558 1,294,403 1,383,123 1,466,148 1,552,736 1,563,950 1,816,923 1,946,689 2,019,198 0 October 1,269,505 1,291,217 1,358,533 1,439,321 1,594,503 1,618,821 1,822,998 1,898,067 2,005,836 0 November 1,139,058 1,217,933 1,349,580 1,362,021 1,426,254 1,487,624 1,652,181 1,768,817 1,925,817 0 December 1,141, 012 1,247, 920 1,323,189 1,408,134 1,383, 596 1,441,904 1,664, 983 1,856, 989 1,918, 411 0 Total Collections 14,097,299 14,850,409 15,427,377 16,587,617 17,440,083 18,209,568 19,887,049 21,089,134 22,642,856 7,394,310 Budget Estimate 14,410,000 14,210,000 14,210,000 15,250,000 16,990,000 17,628,400 18,480,500 19,852,100 20,881,900 22,917,000 Actual over (under) budg (312,701) 640,409 1,217,377 1,337,617 450,083 581,168 1,406,549 1,237,034 1,760,956 (15,522,690) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 97.83% 104.51 % 108.57% 108.77% 102.65% 103.30% 107.61 % 106.23% 108.43% n/a % change in annual total collected (1.06%) 5.34% 3.89% 7.52% 5.14% 4.41% 9.21% 6.04% 7.37% n/a % of budget collected through April 32.32% 33.43% 34.80% 34.83% 32.37% 31.92% 33.54% 32.69% 34.03% 32.27% % of actual total collected through April 33.04% 31.99% 32.05% 32.02% 31.53% 30.90% 31.17% 30.77% 31.38% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of April 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 1 April 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 • April ■ March • February • January Page 20 ■ CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts through - Actual for the years 2010 through 2019 January February March April Total Collections P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Lodging Tax\2019\105 hotel motel tax 2019.xlsx 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 1 2016 1 2017 1 2018 1 2019 6/18/2019 2019 to 2018 Difference 22,707 22,212 21,442 24,185 25,425 27,092 31,887 27,210 28,752 31,865 3,113 10.83% 23,417 22,792 21,549 25,975 26,014 27,111 27,773 26,795 28,878 32,821 3,943 13.65% 24,232 24,611 25,655 27,739 29,384 32,998 34,330 31,601 31,906 40,076 8,170 25.61% 39,463 38,230 52,130 40,979 48,246 50,455 52,551 52,242 57,664 59,117 1,453 2.52% 109,820 107,846 120,776 118,878 129,069 137,656 146,541 137,848 147,200 163,879 16,679 11.33% May 34,683 33,791 37,478 40,560 41,123 44,283 50,230 50,112 51,777 0 June 39,935 41,403 43,971 47,850 52,618 56,975 55,060 60,637 62,048 0 July 47,385 49,312 52,819 56,157 61,514 61,809 65,007 69,337 71,865 0 August 54,923 57,452 57,229 63,816 70,384 72,697 73,700 76,972 79,368 0 September 59,419 58,908 64,299 70,794 76,100 74,051 70,305 80,173 79,661 0 October 41,272 39,028 43,699 43,836 45,604 49,880 55,660 56,631 61,826 0 November 34,330 37,339 39,301 42,542 39,600 42,376 46,393 47,090 52,868 0 December 26,777 32,523 30,432 34,238 33,256 41,510 33,478 37,180 40,363 0 Total Collections 448,545 457,603 490,004 518,672 549,267 581,237 596,374 615,980 646,976 163,879 Budget Estimate 380,000 480,000 430,000 490,000 530,000 550,000 580,000 580,000 580,000 600,000 Actual over (under) budg 68,545 (22,397) 60,004 28,672 19,267 31,237 16,374 35,980 66,976 (436,121) Total actual collections as a % of total budget % change in annual total collected % of budget collected through April 118.04% 95.33% 113.95% 105.85% 103.64% 105.68% 102.82% 106.20% 111.55% n/a 5.79% 2.02% 7.08% 5.85% 5.90% 5.82% 2.60% 3.29% 5.03% n/a 28.90% 22.47% 28.09% 24.26% 24.35% 25.03% 25.27% 23.77% 25.38% 27.31% % of actual total collected through April 24.48% 23.57% 24.65% 22.92% 23.50% 23.68% 24.57% 22.38% 22.75% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of April 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 April 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 ■ April • March • February • January Page 21 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 1st and 2nd 1/4% REET Collections through April Actual for the years 2010 through 2019 January February March April Collected to date May June July August September October November December Total distributed by Spokane County Budget estimate Actual over (under) budget Total actual collections as a % of total budget % change in annual total collected % of budget collected through April % of actual total collected through April P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\REET\2019\301 and 302 REET for 2019.xlsx 2010 1 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 1 2018 1 2019 59,887 64,122 86,204 99,507 64,128 36,443 95,880 79,681 46,359 56,115 71,730 86,537 56,898 155,226 72,172 90,377 61,192 67,049 81,724 105,448 96,141 103,508 165,868 236,521 104,446 83,583 220,637 205,654 153,661 124,514 282,724 169,060 239,437 146,892 310,562 218,842 120,809 199,209 193,913 347,528 309,720 276,133 260,740 6/18/2019 2019 to 2018 Difference (118,628) 52,317 (116,649) 128,686 (49.54%) 35.62% (37.56%) 58.80% 374,673 315,412 602,038 614,321 729,959 915,733 861,459 (54,274) (5.93%) 109,625 105,680 84,834 72,630 75,812 93,256 72,021 38,725 124,692 81,579 79,629 129,472 68,020 61,396 74,753 65,077 111,627 124,976 101,049 106,517 63,517 238,095 104,886 74,300 116,165 139,112 128,921 117,150 174,070 117,806 78,324 75,429 198,870 106,676 208,199 172,536 152,323 123,505 172,227 117,682 165,748 347,421 217,375 202,525 179,849 128,833 129,870 157,919 192,806 284,897 248,899 231,200 178,046 253,038 186,434 164,180 202,734 248,768 449,654 472,420 187,348 207,895 229,800 278,995 646,397 277,424 302,941 261,626 259,492 584,792 263,115 288,912 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 962,304 1,380,000 (417,696) 960,751 780,000 180,751 1,185,707 875,000 310,707 1,321,650 975,000 346,650 1,567,429 1,100,000 467,429 2,131,578 1,400,000 731,578 2,353,822 2,000,000 353,822 3,007,573 2,000,000 1,007,573 3,800,432 3,000,000 800,432 861,459 2,000,000 (1,138,541) 69.73% 123.17% 135.51% 135.55% 142.49% 152.26% 117.69% 150.38% 126.68% n/a (11.57%) (0.16%) 23.41% 11.47% 18.60% 35.99% 10.43% 27.77% 26.36% n/a 22.44% 35.40% 29.80% 38.43% 28.67% 43.00% 30.72% 36.50% 30.52% 43.07% 32.19% 28.74% 21.99% 28.35% 20.12% 28.24% 26.10% 24.27% 24.10% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 April 2010 2011 2012 2013 April 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 ■ April • March • February • Ja nua ry Page 22 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Debt Capacity\2019\debt capacity 2019.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Debt Capacity 2018 Assessed Value for 2019 Property Taxes 9,351,389,045 Voted (UTGO) Nonvoted (LTGO) Voted park Voted utility 1.00% of assessed value 1.50% of assessed value 2.50% of assessed value 2.50% of assessed value Maximum Outstanding Remaining Debt as of Debt ok Capacity 12/31/2018 Capacity Utilized 93,513,890 140,270,836 233, 784, 726 233, 784, 726 701, 354,178 0 93,513,890 12, 270, 000 128, 000, 836 0 233,784,726 0 233,784,726 12,270,000 689,084,178 0.00% 8.75% 0.00% 0.00% 1.75% Bonds Repaid 2014 LTGO Bonds 12/1/2014 12/1/2015 12/1/2016 12/1/2017 12/1/2018 225,000 175,000 185,000 190,000 230,000 135,000 125,000 130,000 130,000 135,000 360,000 300,000 315,000 320,000 365,000 0 0 75,000 150,000 155,000 360,000 300,000 390,000 470,000 520,000 1,005,000 655,000 1,660,000 \ 380,000 2,040,000 12/1/2019 255,000 140,000 395,000 160,000 555,000 12/1/2020 290,000 140,000 430,000 165,000 595,000 12/1/2021 320,000 145,000 465,000 170,000 635,000 12/1/2022 350,000 150,000 500,000 175,000 675,000 12/1/2023 390,000 155,000 545,000 180,000 725,000 12/1/2024 430,000 0 430,000 185,000 615,000 12/1/2025 465,000 0 465,000 95,000 660,000 12/1/2026 505,000 0 505,000 00,000 705,000 12/1/2027 395,000 0 395,000 2 5,000 600,000 12/1/2028 300,000 0 300,000 2 5,000 515,000 12/1/2029 245,000 0 245,000 220,000 465,000 12/1/2030 225,000 0 225,000 225,000 450,000 Bonds 12/1/2031 180,000 0 180,000 235,000 415,000 Remaining 12/1/2032 130,000 0 130,000 240,000 370,000 12/1/2033 165,000 0 165,000 250,000 415,000 12/1/2034 0 0 0 260,000 260,000 12/1/2035 0 0 0 270,000 270,000 12/1/2036 0 0 0 280,000 280,000 12/1/2037 0 0 0 290,000 290,000 12/1/2038 0 0 0 305,00 305,000 12/1/2039 0 0 0 315,00 315,000 12/1/2040 0 0 0 330,000 330,000 12/1/2041 0 0 0 340,000 340,000 12/1/2042 0 0 0 355,000 355,000 12/1/2043 0 0 0 365,000 365,000 12/1/2044 0 0 0 375,000 375,000 12/1/2045 0 0 0 390,000 390,000 4,645,000 730,000 5,375,000 6,895,000 12,270,000 5,650,000 1,385,000 7,035,000 7,275,000 14,310,000 Page 23 4/22/2019 Road & LTGO Bonds Period Street 2016 LTGO Grand Ending CenterPlace Improvements Total Bonds Total 12/1/2014 12/1/2015 12/1/2016 12/1/2017 12/1/2018 225,000 175,000 185,000 190,000 230,000 135,000 125,000 130,000 130,000 135,000 360,000 300,000 315,000 320,000 365,000 0 0 75,000 150,000 155,000 360,000 300,000 390,000 470,000 520,000 1,005,000 655,000 1,660,000 \ 380,000 2,040,000 12/1/2019 255,000 140,000 395,000 160,000 555,000 12/1/2020 290,000 140,000 430,000 165,000 595,000 12/1/2021 320,000 145,000 465,000 170,000 635,000 12/1/2022 350,000 150,000 500,000 175,000 675,000 12/1/2023 390,000 155,000 545,000 180,000 725,000 12/1/2024 430,000 0 430,000 185,000 615,000 12/1/2025 465,000 0 465,000 95,000 660,000 12/1/2026 505,000 0 505,000 00,000 705,000 12/1/2027 395,000 0 395,000 2 5,000 600,000 12/1/2028 300,000 0 300,000 2 5,000 515,000 12/1/2029 245,000 0 245,000 220,000 465,000 12/1/2030 225,000 0 225,000 225,000 450,000 Bonds 12/1/2031 180,000 0 180,000 235,000 415,000 Remaining 12/1/2032 130,000 0 130,000 240,000 370,000 12/1/2033 165,000 0 165,000 250,000 415,000 12/1/2034 0 0 0 260,000 260,000 12/1/2035 0 0 0 270,000 270,000 12/1/2036 0 0 0 280,000 280,000 12/1/2037 0 0 0 290,000 290,000 12/1/2038 0 0 0 305,00 305,000 12/1/2039 0 0 0 315,00 315,000 12/1/2040 0 0 0 330,000 330,000 12/1/2041 0 0 0 340,000 340,000 12/1/2042 0 0 0 355,000 355,000 12/1/2043 0 0 0 365,000 365,000 12/1/2044 0 0 0 375,000 375,000 12/1/2045 0 0 0 390,000 390,000 4,645,000 730,000 5,375,000 6,895,000 12,270,000 5,650,000 1,385,000 7,035,000 7,275,000 14,310,000 Page 23 4/22/2019 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Motor Fuel (Gas) Tax Collections - April For the years 2010 through 2019 January February March April Collected to date P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue \MVFT\2019\motor vehicle fuel tax collections 2019.xlsx 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 1 2016 1 2017 1 2018 1 2019 161,298 145,869 140,486 161,721 154,792 146,353 141,849 165,019 159,607 135,208 144,297 153,546 146,145 145,998 135,695 156,529 152,906 148,118 131,247 156,269 152,598 145,455 140,999 157,994 163,918 163,037 145,537 167,304 150,654 164,807 138,205 168,000 162,359 175,936 139,826 168,796 148,530 181,823 131,009 144,080 6/18/2019 2019 to 2018 Difference ok (13,829) (8.52%) 5,887 3.35% (8,817) (6.31%) (24,716) (14.64%) 609,374 608,013 592,658 584,367 588,540 597,046 639,796 621,666 646,917 605,442 (41, 475) (6.41%) May 158,119 154,700 144,670 151,595 156,850 156,259 171,829 174,211 193,986 0 June 168,146 158,351 159,827 167,479 161,965 164,872 157,737 174,838 144,308 0 July 164,221 165,398 160,565 155,348 157,805 168,205 177,427 177,019 194,267 0 August 176,869 153,361 164,050 173,983 172,308 186,277 177,567 195,780 205,438 0 September 175,067 173,820 171,651 195,397 173,299 174,505 194,640 184,342 180,874 0 October 164,475 158,889 153,022 133,441 160,539 161,520 166,369 163,780 158,062 0 November 168,477 160,461 162,324 164,303 165,871 181,771 176,178 194,814 199,282 0 December 143,257 124,714 138,223 142,140 141,298 153,338 152,787 154,298 148,960 0 Total Collections 1,928,005 1,857,707 1,846,990 1,868,053 1,878,475 1,943,793 2,014,330 2,040,748 2,072,094 605,442 Budget Estimate 1,900,000 1,875,000 1,905,800 1,868,900 1,866,400 1,867,700 2,013,400 2,048,900 2,061,100 2,101,100 Actual over (under) budg 28,005 (17,293) (58,810) (847) 12,075 76,093 930 (8,152) 10,994 (1,495,658) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 101.47% 99.08% 96.91 % 99.95% 100.65% 104.07% 100.05% 99.60% 100.53% n/a % change in annual total collected 0.07% (3.65%) (0.58%) 1.14% 0.56% 3.48% 3.63% 1.31% 1.54% n/a % of budget collected through 32.07% 32.43% 31.10% 31.27% 31.53% 31.97% 31.78% 30.34% 31.39% 28.82% % of actual total collected through April 31.61% 32.73% 32.09% 31.28% 31.33% 30.72% 31.76% 30.46% 31.22% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of April 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 April 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 April March February January Page 24 1 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Telephone Utility Tax Collections - April For the years 2010 through 2019 January February March April Collected to date P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Telephone Tax\2019\telephone utility tax collections 2019.xlsx 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 2016 1 2017 1 2018 1 2019 234,622 266,041 264,175 254,984 241,357 230,366 245,539 238,561 193,818 261,074 234,113 229,565 217,478 216,552 223,884 214,618 210,777 205,953 208,206 206,038 177,948 212,845 174,738 214,431 182,167 173,971 177,209 171,770 162,734 163,300 162,536 157,285 130,196 164,060 158,416 146,519 136,615 132,538 138,727 126,455 6/18/2019 2019 to 2018 Difference 6,419 4.93% (31,522) (19.21%) (19,689) (12.43%) (20,064) (13.69%) 1,019,822 955,823 918,570 872,532 830,974 779,962 705,117 645,855 599,191 534,335 (64,856) (10.82%) May 255,056 236,985 227,469 129,270 210,010 187,856 174,512 161,506 149,434 0 June 251,880 239,013 234,542 293,668 210,289 187,412 170,450 156,023 150,780 0 July 250,593 244,191 226,118 213,078 205,651 190,984 174,405 157,502 147,281 0 August 246,261 349,669 228,789 211,929 205,645 185,172 171,909 150,644 148,158 0 September 240,111 241,476 227,042 210,602 199,193 183,351 170,476 155,977 141,290 0 October 238,500 237,111 225,735 205,559 183,767 183,739 166,784 153,075 142,925 0 November 247,848 240,246 225,319 212,947 213,454 175,235 166,823 151,208 139,209 0 December 236,065 236,449 221,883 213,097 202,077 183,472 168,832 161,115 140,102 0 Total Collections 2,986,136 2,980,963 2,735,467 2,562,682 2,461,060 2,257,183 2,069,308 1,892,905 1,758,370 534,335 Budget Estimate 2,800,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,900,000 2,750,000 2,565,100 2,340,000 2,000,000 1,900,000 1,700,000 Actual over (under) budg 186,136 (19,037) (264,533) (337,318) (288,940) (307,917) (270,692) (107,095) (141,630) (1,165,665) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 106.65% 99.37% 91.18% 88.37% 89.49% 88.00% 88.43% 94.65% 92.55% n/a % change in annual total collected (2.24%) (0.17%) (8.24%) (6.32%) (3.97%) (8.28%) (8.32%) (8.52%) (7.11%) n/a % of budget collected through April 36.42% 31.86% 30.62% 30.09% 30.22% 30.41% 30.13% 32.29% 31.54% 31.43% % of actual total collected through April 34.15% 32.06% 33.58% 34.05% 33.76% 34.55% 34.08% 34.12% 34.08% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of April 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 1 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 April 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 • April • March • February • January Page 25 Mark Werner Chief ofPolice Spokane Valley Police Department Accredited Since 2011 Services provided in partnership with the Spokane County Sherds Office and the Community, Dedicated to Your Safety. Ozzie Knezovich Sheriff TO: Mark Calhoun, City Manager FROM: Mark Werner, Chief of Police DATE: June 18, 2019 RE: Monthly Report May 2019 In August 2016, we switched from UCR to NIBRS classification, which means we went from reporting based on a hierarchy to reporting all the crimes for each incident. Consequently, comparing crime statistics before August 2016 to crime statistics after that timeframe is not recommended using the data provided in the attached charts and graphs. ADMINISTRATIVE: Chief Werner attended the Joint Public Safety Leadership meeting with other command staff from local law enforcement in early May. He also attended the Spokane Regional Communications Policy Board Meeting. The month of May brings the annual Law Enforcement Memorial Ceremony, honoring all officers who have died in the line of duty in the State of Washington. The Spokane County Sheriff's Office, Spokane Police Department and other regional law enforcement agencies welcomed members of the community and media to attend the 32nd Annual Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Ceremony at the Public Safety Building's cul-de-sac. As of this year, there will be 327 names engraved on the memorial, with the additions of: • Officer Diego Moreno, Kent Police Department (End of Watch: July 22, 2018) • Detective Derrick W. Focht, Kent Police Department (End of Watch: April 7, 2017) • Special Agent Timothy A. Ensley, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (End of Watch: June 24, 2018) In 2017, a new K-9 Memorial was dedicated honoring all K -9s who died or were killed in the line of duty in Washington. There are 24 names engraved on this memorial. The evening before the Law Enforcement Memorial, at 8 p.m., a Candlelight Ceremony was held at the memorial, which was open to the community as well. The Spokane Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Project is a non-profit that relies strictly on donations for the upkeep and maintenance of this memorial. Donations may be made out to LEOMP, and mailed to 924 W. Sinto Ave. Spokane, WA 99201-2540. Page 1 In mid-May, Chief Werner and others from local law enforcement attended the Law Enforcement Appreciation Breakfast, hosted by the Chaplains Office. Our own Sergeant H.J. Whapeles spoke at the breakfast, sharing his thoughts and encouragement after being a gunshot victim at a SWAT response to a domestic violence situation. Chief Werner attended quarterly in-service training at the Sheriff's Training Center in mid-May. Chief Werner, along with other command staff from local law enforcement and fire, attended the SREC Governing Board/Policy meeting. A week-long First Level Supervisor Training was attended by Chief Werner in late May. This is CJTC mandatory training for all supervisors and is required by accreditation standards. SHERIFF'S COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING EFFORT (SCOPE): In the month of May, S.C.O.P.E. participated in: • S.C.O.P.E. Basic Training (1 new volunteer) • Broadway Elementary School Bike to School Day • Valleyfest Cycle Celebration Meeting • Valleyfest Park Meeting • Crime Stoppers Meeting • Spokane Garden Expo • S.C.O.P.E. Moving Forward Valley Meeting (Edgecliff, University, Trentwood and West Valley S.C.O.P.E. stations) • East Valley Community Coalition Meeting • Underage Drinking/Drug Prevention • GSSAC Coalition Meeting May 2019 Volunteers Hours per Station *Includes estimated volunteer service hours that are provided in the City of Spokane Valley. These two locations cover both Spokane Valley and the unincorporated portion of the county. Location # Volunteers Admin Hours L.E. Hours Total Hours Central Valley 7 109.5 45 154.5 East Valley* 24 260 561.5 821.5 Edgecliff 10 138 23 161 Trentwood 5 98.5 71.5 170 University 24 350.5 107 457.5 West Valley* 19 361 85 446 TOTALS 89 1,317.5 893 2,210.5 Volunteer Value ($30.46 per hour) $67,331.83 for May 2019 SCOPE members assist the Sheriff's Office and Spokane Valley Police Department each month by placing speed radar boards throughout Spokane County and Spokane Valley in conjunction with the Traffic Unit, in an effort to reduce speed in locations that have been identified by law enforcement or brought to their attention by the community as having excessive speeding vehicles. For the month of May, the radar board was placed at a total of 17 locations; 9 utilized the radar trailer with data recorder, and 8 utilized radar gun and reader board. Locations included three by Scope North and five by Scope East. Page 2 The SCOPE Latent Fingerprint Team was given 79 cases for the month of May. Out of those 79 cases, 54 were from crimes in Spokane Valley. The team located fingerprints on 18 vehicles; 15 of those were Spokane Valley cases. S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 74 on -scene hours (including travel time) in May, responding to crime scenes, motor vehicle accidents and providing traffic control; 14 hours were for incidents in Spokane Valley. There was one special event in May, namely the Torchlight Parade in downtown Spokane where volunteers contributed hours of traffic control. Total volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training, stand-by, response and special events is 1,508; total for 2019 is 7,564. Abandoned Vehicles SCOPE DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT Mar 2019 Apr 2019 May 2019 Tagged for Impounding 46 73 45 Cited/Towed 1 0 3 Hulks Processed 17 21 10 Total Vehicles Processed 166 196 150 Yearly Total of Vehicles Processed 403 599 749 SCOPE DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT City of Spokane Valley # of Vol. # of Vol. # of Hrs. # of Disabled Infractions Issued # of Warnings Issued # of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 2 12 2 7 0 February 2 13.5 5 3 0 March 3 15 3 20 0 April 1 2 0 2 0 May 2 4 1 3 0 YTD Total 11 46.5 11 35 0 Spokane County # of Vol. # of Hrs. # of Disabled Infractions Issued # of Warnings Issued # of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 2 3.5 1 1 0 February 4 28 9 11 0 March 5 20.5 4 17 0 April 3 21 5 9 0 May 7 27 2 21 0 YTD Total 21 100 21 59 0 Page 3 OPERATIONS: Arrested, Booked, Right Back Out on the Streets of Our Community: Spokane Valley Investigative Unit (SVIU) Detectives found themselves investigating a well-known address with well-known suspects committing the same crimes. Area residents reported the short-term traffic and disruption to their neighborhood. SVIU Detectives did the investigation and made the arrests, but unfortunately, three of the six suspects were released on their own recognizance at their first appearance in court and went right back out on our streets. The other three were kept in custody due to their Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) holds or additional unrelated charges. These suspects include a 14 -time and 11 -time convicted felon, felons with Washington State DOC warrants and one suspect with three arrests in the last year. So far, investigators have seized two vehicles, $2,450, heroin, and approximately 3/4 of a pound of methamphetamine. The 51 -year-old male suspect is an 11 -time convicted felon to include charges of Manufacture/Delivery of Controlled Substances, Possession of Controlled Substances, Unlawful Possession of a Firearm and Rendering Criminal Assistance. He also has eight misdemeanor convictions (Obstructing, Resisting Arrest, Making False Statements, Theft, Reckless Driving, and other driving violations). History of Suspect's Residence on N. Farr Road: On March 22, 2018, SVIU Detectives arrested, the suspect for Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver -Heroin and two counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver -Methamphetamine. At that time, his bond was set at $60,000. The suspect pleaded guilty to lesser crimes (conspiracy to deliver) and received a sentence of 56 days. SVIU initiated a Chronic Nuisance Investigation into the suspect and his residence located in the 600 block of N. Farr Rd. in February of 2019, due to ongoing complaints of short-term traffic, drug dealing, noise, and junk vehicles by citizens in the neighborhood. On March 12, 2019, the suspect was personally served several Chronic Nuisance Property Notices under Spokane Valley Municipal Code 7.00.050 to cease and desist all criminal activity occurring at the address. SVIU Detectives continued to conduct surveillance of the residence to identify criminals and crimes occurring there. Investigators confirmed the heavy amount of short-term traffic and drug dealing. On April 27, 2019, Investigators arrested a 14 -time convicted felon, a 51 -year-old male, for a felony Washington State DOC Escape Community Custody warrant when he left the residence, driving a Dodge truck. This suspect was booked on new criminal charges of Possession of a Controlled Substance -Methamphetamine, Drive While Suspended 3rd Degree, Obstructing and Reckless Driving at the conclusion of the traffic stop. On the morning of April 29, 2019, Investigators arrested a 23 -year-old male suspect in relation to the home on N. Farr Rd. for Possession of a Controlled Substance -Methamphetamine and Possession of a Controlled Substance -Heroin. He was booked into the Spokane County Jail, but released the next day on his Own Recognizance (OR) by Spokane County Superior Court Commissioner Steven Grovdahl at first appearance. Page 4 SVIU Detectives continued their surveillance throughout the day in an attempt to disrupt the criminal activity occurring at the location. At approximately 4:30 p.m., the first male suspect was arrested for four counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver -Methamphetamine. He was booked into the Spokane County Jail for four counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver -Methamphetamine. Investigators also seized two vehicles and over $2,450 in currency from the suspect. The next day at first appearance, Spokane County Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys argued for a bond on the four felony Delivery of Controlled Substance charges; however, Spokane County Superior Court Commissioner Steven Grovdahl released the suspect on his Own Recognizance (OR). A search warrant was executed at his residence on N. Farr Rd. and detectives located and seized heroin, drug paraphernalia, scales, documentation of drug dealing, proceeds from drug dealing and approximately 3/4 of a pound of methamphetamine. Also contacted at the residence during the execution of the search warrant: 27 -year-old female suspect: She initially gave a false name, but upon learning her true identity, investigators arrested her for a felony Washington State DOC warrant for Theft 2nd Degree. She was also charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance -Methamphetamine, Possession of a Controlled Substance - Heroin and Providing False Information. She was booked into the Spokane County Jail on a Washington DOC hold. Twenty-eight year-old female suspect: She was arrested for Possession of a Controlled Substance - Methamphetamine and booked into the Spokane County Jail. She was released on her Own Recognizance (OR) following her first appearance in front of Spokane County Superior Court Commissioner Steven Grovdahl the next day. Numerous investigation -related vehicles drove through the area during the execution of the search warrant with one stopping. Detectives recognized the passenger of the vehicle, a 27 -year-old male suspect, and he was arrested for a felony Washington State DOC warrant for Possession of a Controlled Substance. He was booked into the Spokane County Jail on a Washington State DOC hold. NOTE: Three of the five listed above who were arrested were subjects also arrested in March 2018 from that search warrant at the exact location SVIU Investigators appreciate the cooperation and diligence of the neighborhood in reporting suspicious activity to Crime Check. The information provided by citizens was instrumental in identifying wanted fugitives frequenting the area and specifically this problem house. During this lengthy investigation, SVIU Detectives and Spokane Valley Deputies worked an extensive amount of hours of surveillance and patrol work to disrupt the criminal activity of these suspects, which ultimately led to their arrests. We ask citizens to please do not be discouraged by this outcome knowing some of the very same suspects, including the landlord, spent one day in jail after being charged with a felony and, in some Page 5 cases, multiple felony crimes. We understand citizens are frustrated, but we need citizen help and continued support to not only address the crimes occurring at the residence, but in other areas of Spokane Valley and Spokane County. This is an ongoing investigation and additional charges are expected. SIRR Team Investigating Deputy Involved Shooting North Cherry Street: Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputies responded to a disorderly male who was reported to be very high and running around children playing near one of the apartment buildings. The male ignored deputies, failed to follow commands, and fled on foot into a wooded area. When the first deputy caught up to the male, near what appears to be a homeless camp, the deputy reported the male was making threats, and almost immediately, shots had been fired. Deputies began life-saving efforts, but unfortunately, the male was pronounced deceased at the scene. In early May, at approximately 5:25 p.m., Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputies responded to the report of a disorderly male at an apartment complex located in the 2800 block of N. Cherry Street in Spokane Valley. The caller stated the male was running in between children playing on the east side of the complex and appeared to be very high. The initial information indicates two deputies arrived at the location at 5:35 p.m. and attempted to contact the male who ignored them as he walked away. The male failed to follow commands as he went through a hole in the fence and ran toward the wooded area east of the complex where one of the deputies caught up to the male near what appears to be a homeless camp. The deputy reported, via his radio, the male was making threats, and saying something was in his packet just before the deputy advised shots had been fired and requested medics. The deputies began life-saving measures until they were relieved by Spokane Valley Fire personnel. Despite everyone's efforts, the male was pronounced deceased at the scene a short time later. The Officer -Involved Protocol was enacted, and SIRR Team investigators responded to conduct the investigation and process the scene for evidence. As per standard protocol, the deputy was placed on paid administrative leaving pending the outcome of the investigation. The Spokane County Medical Examiner's Office will release the name of the decedent at a later date when appropriate. The SIRR Team is comprised of multiple agencies in eastern Washington, including the Spokane Police Department, Washington State Patrol, Spokane County Sheriff's Office and Spokane Valley Police Department. The Spokane Police Department is the case managing agency in this incident. All future communications regarding this investigation will be sent via the SIRR Team. Once the SIRR Team investigation is complete, the case will be forwarded to the Spokane County Prosecutor's Office for review. The Spokane County Sheriff's Office later released the name of the deputy involved in the Officer Involved Shooting (OIS) incident. Deputy Joseph Wallace was hired by the Spokane County Sheriff's Office on January 2, 2015, and is currently assigned to the Spokane Valley Precinct Patrol Division. He is a current member of the SWAT Team, a Sheriff's Office Reality Based Training Instructor and a Field Training Officer (FTO) where he assists and trains new deputies who have graduated the Basic Law Enforcement Academy. Deputy Wallace served in the United States Marine Corps from 2009 to 2013 active duty and in the reserves until 2018. He obtained the rank of Sergeant, assigned to a Special Operations Reconnaissance Unit prior to joining the Sheriff's Office. In 2016, Deputy Wallace received a Sheriff's Office Certificate of Appreciation for his professionalism and dedication as a Deputy in the Patrol Division. Juvenile Driver Charged with DUI & Vehicular Assault after Crash: Spokane Valley Deputies, investigating a two -car injury collision, charged one of the drivers, a 16 -year-old female, with Driving Under the Influence and Vehicular Assault. In late May, at approximately 5:50 p.m., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to the intersection of E. Sinto Ave. and N. Dick Rd. for a reported Page 6 two -car injury collision. Deputies learned the juvenile female driver, with two juvenile passengers, was traveling north on Dick Rd., approaching the intersection of Sinto. Her vehicle collided with the victim's vehicle, driven by an adult male, as it traveled westbound through the intersection. During the subsequent investigation, including an uninvolved witness statement, the suspect driver was traveling approximately 40 to 50 mph in a posted 25 mph zone and hit the victim vehicle, which was estimated to be traveling at or near the speed limit. Deputies smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the suspect's vehicle. After being advised she was suspected of driving a vehicle while impaired and of her rights, the juvenile driver admitted to smoking marijuana approximately two hours before the crash and agreed to perform field sobriety evaluations. She also explained they were late to pick up a friend, and she was driving too fast. She tried to stop to avoid the collision with the victim's vehicle, but was unable to stop in time. Probable cause was established to charge the suspect driver with Driving Under the Influence and Vehicular Assault due to the "substantial" injuries (broken bone and concussion) suffered by one of the passengers in the suspect's vehicle, and the victim driver. A search warrant to obtain a sample of the suspect driver's blood was obtained and served. After being medically cleared, the driver was transported and booked into the Spokane County Juvenile Detention Center for DUI and Vehicular Assault. As we approach prom and graduation season, and the warm days for summer, we urge drivers to think about their safety and the safety of everyone else traveling on our roadways. Think of everyone's family, friends, and consider the devastation, the possible loss of life your decision to drive under the influence or impaired may cost all of us. Please, make a plan, be safe, and never drive drunk or high. Elderly Female Attempts to Assault Neighbors, Stabs One Victim in the Chest with a Knife - Spokane Valley Deputies responded to a call of a woman, armed with a knife, attacking people. They arrived to find a group of citizens had disarmed and detained the 67 -year-old suspect. One of the persons who helped was stabbed in the chest during the incident. He was treated at the hospital for an approximate one -inch deep stab wound and later released. In late May, at approximately 5:20 p.m., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to a report of a suspect armed with a knife was attacking people at an apartment complex located in the 9900 block of E. 16th Ave. in Spokane Valley. While in route to the location, deputies were advised citizens had disarmed the suspect and were detaining her. They also learned one person had reportedly been stabbed in the chest during the altercation. Arriving deputies learned the 67 -year-old female suspect has been having mental health issues, which seem to be worsening over the last few days where she had threatened others in the complex. Deputies took custody of the suspect who was yelling obscenities, calling people vulgar names and screaming, "I'm not the killer!" She kicked at deputies and was not cooperative. The adult male victim stated he had heard the suspect outside yelling. Knowing she has had mental health issues and done this in the past, he went outside to see what was happening, but she had already gone back into her apartment. Several minutes later, he heard honking outside and heard the female yelling again. He walked out on his balcony to investigate and observed her holding a shovel in one hand and a steak knife in the other. She was only a few feet away from another resident who was sitting in her car, honking the horn. To the victim, it appeared the suspect was preparing to assault the other person, whom she had threatened in the recent past. He ran down to try and help, but she started to head back to her apartment when she saw the victim. The victim and another male resident ran after the suspect, fearing she had just attempted to assault the other resident with a shovel and knife. They caught up to her at her front door. She had dropped the shovel, but still held the knife in her hand. When they tried to detain the female suspect, she stabbed at the men wildly with the knife, stabbing the victim once in the chest. Eventually, they restrained the suspect, disarmed her, and waited for deputies to arrive. At the conclusion of the investigation, deputies arrested the female and transported her to the Spokane County Jail where she was booked for two counts of Assault 2nd Page 7 Degree. The victim was treated at a hospital for an approximate one -inch stab wound to his chest and later released. Domestic Violence Argument Escalates -Male Shoots at Female: Spokane Valley Deputies and Major Crimes Detectives, investigating a domestic violence incident, learned the male suspect fired his handgun into the windshield of the victim's car. The victim ducked as the suspect fired through the windshield and struck the headrest where the victim's head had been just before he fired. The suspect was arrested and charged with Assault 1St Degree (DV). In late May, at approximately 9:30 p.m., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to multiple calls reporting a wide array of information from hearing an argument to hearing a gunshot and vehicles speeding away. Deputies arrived at the location in the area of E. Valleyway and N. Bolivar and secured the scene. They contacted a 28 -year-old male sitting on the porch of a residence. A witness explained he heard a "commotion" outside and what sounded like a gunshot. When he looked outside, he observed the suspect standing in the middle of Valleyway. The suspect approached the front door of the residence, rang the doorbell, and yelled for help. The male suspect said he had shot a car and that he had a gun, which he placed under the doormat on the porch. The suspect put a backpack down and asked for 911 to be called as he sat down where he waited for deputies to arrive. Deputies also contacted an adult female, later determined to be the victim, sitting in the driver's seat of her vehicle, when they arrived. As she was being detained, deputies observed she was bleeding. She stated she had been shot and medical treatment was provided for several small cuts to both her arms, but no significant wounds were located. During a medical assessment of the victim, it was determined the cuts to her arms, superficial and non -life-threatening, were likely caused by the windshield glass shattering when the suspect shot at her. The victim stated she has been dating the suspect for the last few years and he began to be physically abusive about one year ago. Today, she picked him up after work, and they were driving home. She said the suspect was already in a bad mood and he began yelling at her, screaming in her ear. She pulled over to the side of the Valleyway and got out of the car. When the suspect got out as well, she jumped back in and tried to drive away, but he was able to get back inside. He began grabbing her and twisted her arm, causing her pain. Then, the suspect got out of the vehicle and sat on the hood, making it so she couldn't leave. She pulled forward a little and applied the brakes hard, causing him to fall off the hood to the ground. The suspect stood up, faced the vehicle, and drew the pistol he wore on his hip in a holster. The victim said when she saw the gun, she feared for her life and immediately ducked as he fired. She put the car in reverse and backed up at a high rate of speed, stopping down the block. During an examination of the victim's vehicle, deputies observed what appeared to be a bullet hole through the driver's side of the windshield. They also located what appeared to be fragments of a bullet lodged in the driver's seat headrest, next to an apparent bullet hole. The suspect was advised of his rights and declined to make a statement, although he did make several spontaneous and unsolicited statements to the effect of, the victim tried to run him over and dragged him with the car. He also stated he feared for his life and that he wasn't aiming at the victim; he was aiming for the engine to disable the vehicle. Major Crime Detectives also responded to the scene to assist with the investigation. The injuries observed to the suspect were not consistent with being drug or struck by a car, nor was there any evidence obtain thought the investigation that would suggest the suspect was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. The suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Assault 1st Degree (DV). Major Crimes Detectives Investigate after Suspect (a 26 -Time Convicted Felon) Flees: A suspect led Spokane Valley and Spokane County Sheriff's Deputies in a pursuit, during which time deputies observed a female exit the vehicle. Detectives are investigating whether the female was forced from the vehicle and a victim of a crime or if she exited on her own. Pursuing deputies observed the suspect digging around inside the car and believe he may have been armed. The Page 8 suspect was captured after a foot chase and was arrested without incident for Attempting to Elude a Police Vehicle and for a felony, WA State Department of Correction (DOC) Escape Community Custody warrant. Additional charges are possible as this investigation continues. At the end of May, just after 8:10 a.m., Spokane Valley Deputies attempted to contact the occupants of a suspicious vehicle on 2nd Ave., between Havana and Freya. The 42 -year-old male driver and 26 -time convicted felon drove away at a high rate of speed in an attempt to elude. As the suspect led deputies toward north Spokane, he was observed reaching and digging around inside the vehicle and deputies believed a handgun was observed. In the area of the 4100 block of E. 2nd Ave., a female exited the still -moving vehicle with deputies stating it appeared she was forced out. Additional assisting deputies, Spokane Police Department (SPD) Officers and medical personnel responded to check the condition of the female and obtain her statement. The suspect continued to dig around inside the vehicle as he tried to evade capture. Deputies lost sight of his vehicle near Nevada and Wellesley and discontinued the pursuit. With several deputies and officers in the area, the suspect was observed fleeing on foot near Nevada and Everett. Deputies and SPD Officers quickly established a containment perimeter as others gave chase on foot; the suspect's escape routes faded rapidly. He was captured and taken into custody near Sanson and Nevada. Spokane County Major Crimes Detectives were called to the scene to assist with the investigation as deputies and officers began checking the area for any items of evidence that may have been discarded or hidden by the suspect. The female passenger was contacted and did not need medical care. She told investigators she was not thrown out of the vehicle, but got out on her own. Further, she stated she was not a victim in the incident and did not want to pursue charges. The suspect was found to be a 26 -time convicted felon (attempt to elude, possession stolen property, robbery, possession of a controlled substance, burglary, theft) and had an active felony DOC warrant for his arrest. He was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Attempting to Elude a Police Vehicle and his felony warrant. The suspect's vehicle was seized pending a search warrant being authored by Major Crimes Detectives. This investigation continues, and additional charges are possible. Spokane County Sheriff's Deputy Moman Honored / Let Freedom Ring 2019 First Responder of the Year Award: Spokane County Sheriff's Office Deputy Daniel Moman was named the "Let Freedom Ring 2019 First Responder of the Year" by Greater Spokane Incorporated and the Spokane Lilac Festival Association. Deputy Moman was selected to receive this award for his outstanding work as a deputy in addition to his dedication while implementing and serving as a member of the Spokane County Mental Health Field Response Team. This team consists of Deputy Moman, trained in Crisis Intervention, and Mental Health Professional Holly Keller, a Master -Level Clinician. Partnered as co -responders in a patrol car, they respond to potential mental health-related calls to improve mental health field response. In mid-May, Spokane County Sheriff's Deputy Daniel Moman learned his work as a first responder, and specifically his work implementing and being a member of the Spokane County Mental Health Field Response Team was being recognized. At the 63rd Annual Let Freedom Ring Awards Event, Greater Spokane Incorporated and the Spokane Lilac Festival Association selected Deputy Moman as the 2019 Let Freedom Ring First Responder of the Year. After receiving this honor, Deputy Moman was quick to point out he wasn't alone and recognized his co -responder and partner, Master -Level Clinician and Mental Health Professional Holly Keller. Deputy Moman said he was truly honored to be nominated and accept the award representing the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. Regarding the Mental Health Response Team, he said the partnership with Frontier Behavioral Health (FBH) has been vital for the success of the mental health co -responder program. Deputy Moman specifically credits the help and support of his co -deployed partner, Mental Health Professional (MHP) Holly Keller. "We work together in partnership with the same goals for response and outcomes. We speak each other's language and are a bridge between law enforcement and the mental health field. This has created a Page 9 unique partnership to help people in our community who are in crisis." Sheriff Knezovich stated, "We are extremely proud of the hard work and professionalism of Deputy Moman. He and his partner, MHP Holly Keller, are providing an invaluable service to the citizens of Spokane County. The partnership with Frontier Behavioral Health is a good first step as we try to face our mental health crisis head-on. However, let's be clear, despite the success of this program, treating mental health on the street is a result of a failed mental health system and puts law enforcement, citizens, and those suffering a mental health crisis at risk." Spokane County Mental Health Field Response Team was first deployed in late November of 2018 after the Spokane County Sheriff's Office was awarded an $89,000 grant to expand its mental health field response capabilities. The funds were awarded by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) as a part of a $1 million program established by the Washington State Legislature. A total of eight grants were awarded to law enforcement agencies in both western and eastern Washington. Mental health is the number one public safety issue facing Washington and people experiencing a mental health crisis are not necessarily committing crimes, but communities continue to rely on law enforcement to respond to these mental health crises. The Mental Health Field Response Team focuses on sending help where help is needed. This co -responder team is a partnership that promotes positive interactions between the public and law enforcement, thereby reducing the possibility of the need to use force, which improves public safety overall. Instead of booking someone into jail or involuntarily detaining a person in need and releasing them to a hospital, they might be connected with available services or diverted to a more appropriate facility. It can often take hours for a deputy to get a bed at local hospitals for a person in crisis who has been involuntarily detained for being a danger to themselves or others. The strength of this team is its ability to spend more time resolving a crisis and when possible, connect persons who are in crisis with appropriate services based on their needs. The team's goal is to increase the level of service during all levels of crisis while returning patrol deputies to service as quickly as possible. Since the team's inception in November 2018 through the end of April 2019, Deputy Moman and MHP Holly Keller, as a co -responder team, have contacted almost 300 (297 persons in active crisis) persons. These contacts saved an estimated 14,248 minutes of patrol time, meaning it freed up other patrol deputies usually needed to handle this type of response, which allowed them to respond to additional calls for service. During their contacts, the co -responder team provided the specific help needed to the person in crisis without the need to use force beyond applying handcuffs when the situation dictated the need. VIP Program — In early April, the Sheriff's Office launched the VIP Program on the Sheriff's internet page. The program is a voluntary surveillance camera registration program. We are asking citizens and business owners to go to the web site and register their surveillance camera systems with the Sheriff's Office. We do not have live feed, just information on the system and contact information for the owner of the video system. Once the citizen is registered, the location is loaded in the Sheriff's Regional Intelligence Group's crime map and law enforcement can access the information for the purpose of giving deputies/detectives a starting point to look for video evidence of incidents, alleviating the deputy/detective having to go door-to-door to canvas the area. It also gives the deputy/detective contact information for the request of video surveillance footage, if the business is closed or the citizens are not home. We appreciate the partnership with the community and look forward to making this a success. Welcome Two New Lateral Deputies: On May 1st, two new lateral deputies were commissioned by Undersheriff Nowels: Craig Cupo and Joshua Pratt. Deputy Cupo is 34 years old, married and the father of two young children. He comes to us from the Las Vegas Metro Police Department where he served since 2014. Prior to starting his law enforcement career with LVMPD, he served on active duty Page 10 with the US Air Force from 2009-2014. He is currently a Captain in the US Air Force Reserves, with the 27th Spec. Ops. Security Forces Squadron. He holds a Master's Degree in National Security Studies and a Bachelor's Degree in Criminal Justice. Deputy Pratt is 36 years old, married and father of two children. He was born and raised in southern California, and comes to us from the Los Angeles Police Department. He was with the LAPD since 2006, and was assigned to the Patrol Division, working a "foot beat" in an underprivileged housing area. Please welcome these new deputies to our agency. Fourth Annual SWAT Team Fundraiser for Sally's House: The Spokane County Sheriff's Office SWAT Team raised over $6000 during this year's fundraiser for Sally's House. This year they raised funds by putting together the official 2019 SWAT Team calendar and their efforts shined, with the help of some photography by Tina McQuitty, surpassing last year's fundraising total. This afternoon, they spent some time with the children and presented Sally's House and Salvation Army staff with the donation. This is the fourth year the SWAT Team has raised funds to help Sally's House, a well deserving emergency receiving facility for children (2-12 years of age) who have been removed from their home due to abuse, neglect, abandonment or criminal activity. When you hear about a SWAT Team, it brings to mind intense situations where well-trained deputies arrive with specialized equipment as they work toward resolving an extremely dangerous, possibly life- threatening situation or serve a high-risk warrant and apprehend an armed, violent offender, but not today. In May, our team spent some time with the children at Sally's House and the staff of the Salvation Army. They also presented a check for $6,160, a donation they raised as a team, to help Sally's House provide the wonderful and much-needed assistance and stability to children in our community. They decided four years ago that they wanted to work together to give back to our community. The first year, they raised funds internally and choose to donate the $1,000 to Sally's House, a place for children in need, a place for them to be safe. After meeting the children and seeing the smiles on their faces as they looked at the equipment and asked questions, they wanted to do more in true SWAT Team fashion. The second year, the idea grew, and the Fund "Razor" event emerged, leading to a fun way to get others involved. The Fund "Razor" became an event where Lieutenant Jay McNall and Sergeant Mike Zollars volunteered to shave off their beloved mustaches as motivation for Team Members to sell raffle tickets. In 2017, the SWAT Team donated $3,500 to Sally's House. In 2018, the Fund "Razor" raffle brought the entire Team's fashionable hairstyles into play. They asked supporters to donate and vote to select a member of the team who would win a free opportunity to shave their head completely bald. The popular vote revealed Sergeant Whapeles as the winner of the free, and complete haircut, raising $5,635 for Sally's House. This year, after rethinking the potential loss of their own hair, they decided to go with the 2019 SWAT Team calendar, and as usual, they found a way to succeed, surpassing 2018's efforts. We are incredibly proud of the hard work, dedication, and professionalism of our SWAT Team and we thank them for their hard work and desire to always be willing to help no matter the need. LOCK ITEMS IN YOUR TRUNK OBSERVE CARS SHOULD KEEP GARAGE AND REPORT NEVER RUN DOORS CLOSED UNATTENDED Page 11 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Burglary Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 January 55 51 33 February 53 26 20 March 42 33 37 April 49 36 35 May 47 34 57 June 59 29 July 51 44 August 56 51 September 78 38 October 37 48 November 32 49 December 33 47 Grand Total 592 486 182 * IBR Offense: Burglary/Breaking & Entering 220 Produced: 6/19/2019 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Murder NonNeg Manslaughter 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 JANUARY FEBRUARY S V a 2 CC a ■ • • > W > E- < z J In D a SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER X2017 —M-2018 —A-2019 Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 January February March April May June 1 July 1 August September October November 1 December Grand Total 2 1 *IBR Offense: Murder/Non-Negligent Manslaughter 09A Produced: 6/19/2019 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts I BR Classification: Identity Theft Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 January 9 20 19 February 24 16 10 March 22 13 13 April 16 22 19 May 32 21 13 June 19 17 July 23 14 August 13 14 September 17 13 October 15 21 November 19 23 December 25 16 Grand Total 234 210 74 *IBR Offense: Identity Theft 26F Produced: 6/19/2019 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Fraud Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 January 26 69 65 February 36 46 32 March 37 59 63 April 43 55 55 May 53 67 56 June 57 65 July 61 65 August 53 62 September 66 49 October 64 60 November 54 56 December 43 60 Grand Total 593 713 271 * IBR Offense: Fraud - Credit Card/ATM 26B, Fraud - False Pretenses/Swindling/Con Games 26A, & Fraud - Impersonation 26C Produced: 6/19/2019 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: DUI Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 January 22 21 32 February 26 18 21 March 33 39 21 April 18 13 27 May 19 33 18 June 28 23 July 26 15 August 24 28 September 19 37 October 24 33 November 18 31 December 20 22 Grand Total 277 313 119' * IBR Offense: DUI 90D Produced: 6/19/2019 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Drugs Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 January 19 42 51 February 30 38 42 March 30 64 58 April 37 56 67 May 23 36 40 June 20 56 July 21 57 August 26 43 September 25 33 October 24 52 November 39 41 December 25 48 Grand Total 319 566 258' * IBR Offense: Drug Equipment Violations 35B & Drugs/Narcotics Violations 35A Produced: 6/19/2019 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Theft From Motor Vehicle Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 January 99 75 48 February 104 32 43 March 94 78 70 April 130 62 120 May 78 69 141 June 107 66 July 97 106 August 69 87 September 118 85 October 70 104 November 52 112 December 70 70 Grand Total 1088 946 422 * IBR Offense: Theft From Motor Vehicle 23F Produced: 6/19/2019 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Motor Vehicle Theft Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 January 44 36 34 February 37 24 22 March 44 28 19 April 42 27 30 May 27 24 33 June 28 24 July 41 39 August 36 18 September 43 26 October 40 31 November 34 45 December 28 29 Grand Total 444 351 1381 * IBR Offense: Motor Vehicle Theft 240 Produced: 6/19/2019 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Robbery Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 January 3 6 3 February 6 2 8 March 7 5 4 April 3 6 4 May 2 8 6 June 1 3 July 4 7 August 1 6 September 4 6 October 4 5 November 3 3 December 1 4 Grand Total 39 61 25 * IBR Offense: Robbery 120 Produced: 6/19/2019 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Assault Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 January 96 84 71 February 95 62 62 March 78 100 74 April 90 88 68 May 93 80 87 June 93 102 July 95 112 August 73 84 September 92 76 October 87 82 November 84 78 December 84 88 Grand Total 1060 1036 362 * IBR Offense: Aggravated Assault 13A & Simple Assault 13B Produced: 6/19/2019 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Theft Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 January 205 238 238 February 199 165 188 March 214 208 212 April 203 202 208 May 235 230 229 June 251 223 July 236 236 August 222 213 September 213 194 October 237 234 November 219 198 December 198 251 Grand Total 2632 2592 1075 * IBR Offense: Theft - All Other 23H, Theft - Pocket -Picking 23A, Theft - Purse -Snatching 23B, Theft - Shoplifting 23C, Theft From Building 23D, Theft From Coin -Operated Machine 23E, & Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories 23G Produced: 6/19/2019 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Rape Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 January 9 16 3 February 2 4 2 March 3 8 3 April 7 6 5 May 9 10 1 June 2 7 July 6 5 August 5 3 September 2 3 October 7 1 November 1 6 December 4 7 Grand Total 57 76 141 *IBR Offense: Rape - Forcible 11A, Sodomy - Forcible 11B, Sexual Assault with Object - 11C Produced: 6/19/2019 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Counterfeiting Forgery Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 January 9 18 22 February 11 10 13 March 20 24 17 April 20 22 12 May 26 21 10 June 15 15 July 21 15 August 14 17 September 20 14 October 18 11 November 9 20 December 9 14 Grand Total 192 201 741 *IBR Offense: Counterfeiting/Forgery 250 Produced: 6/19/2019 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Destruction Damage Vandalism Month Count Year 2017 2018 2019 January 159 146 124 February 148 95 67 March 136 121 121 April 173 127 144 May 139 142 159 June 143 140 July 178 141 August 149 132 September 160 155 October 119 165 November 131 155 December 105 125 Grand Total 1740 1644 615 IBR Offense: Destruction/Damage/Vandalism 290 Produced: 6/19/2019 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420