2019, 05-28 Regular Formal Format MINUTES
SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING
REGULAR MEETING, FORMAL FORMAT
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley, Washington
May 28, 2019
Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Attendance;
Councilmembers Staff
Rod Higgins,Mayor Mark Calhoun, City Manager
Pam Haley, Deputy Mayor John Hohman,Deputy City Manager
Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Linda Thompson, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney
Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks &Recreation Director
Sam Wood, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director
Arne Woodard, Councilmember Bill Helbig, City Engineer
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Mike Basinger, Economic Development Mgr.
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: Pastor Mathew Larson of Advent Lutheran Church gave the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, staff, and the audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to
approve the agenda.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS n/a
COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS
Councilmember Wood: no report.
Councilmember Peetz: said she attended the Parks &Recreation Open Space Workshop where they talked
about what people want to see regarding parks; attended the Coconuts Tanning Salon 15' anniversary;
visited six lemonade stands for lemonade day; attended the Northwest Motor Sport Grand opening; went
to the Blissful Whisk Bakery grand opening; and attended the Amazon groundbreaking this morning.
Councilmember Woodard: said he attended the Let Freedom Ring event through Greater Spokane Inc.,
(GSI) which honored all branches of the enlisted military; went to the Family Promise Un-gala which
successful fundraiser event raised about $87,000; attended several booths for lemonade aid days; went to
the Chamber's Transportation Committee meeting where our City staff presented the latest information on
the Pines undergrade of the BNSF Railroad, said staff did a good job presenting to a full house; attended
the PACE (Partners Advancing Character Education) awards; and that he attended the American Legion
Memorial Day ceremony at Pines Cemetery.
Councilmember Thompson: said she also attended the Pines Cemetery memorial,which she said was a very
moving event; participated on the Opioid Task Force meeting through the Board of Health, and said they
are looking at legislation that passed for the opioid bill to help with treatment and recovery.
Councilmember Wick: reported that he also attended the PACE awards, and that he sponsored a student
from Summit School; went to some Lemonade Day booths; he extended congratulations to Chamber of
Commerce CEO Lance Beck on the birth of his new baby girl; attended a Memorial Day breakfast hosted
by the Rotary Club; mentioned the BUILD grant,formerly the TIGER grant, kickoff and said this is a very
competitive grant program, and said no one has asked SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council)
Council Regular Meeting: 05-28-2019 Page 1 of 8
Approved by Council: 06-18-2019
for a letter of support; went to the Visit Spokane meeting where they talked about tourism and the TPA
(Tourism Promotion Area) and the different things they now have to do to attract events and conventions,
and that they are working on incentives to bring people to Spokane Valley as it seems all the incentive areas
are for downtown Spokane;he mentioned there is talk about the idea of increasing the TPA$2.00 per night
hotel/motel tax to$5.00 per night,but more research is needed,adding that Liberty Lake has their own TPA
and the idea of having our own TPA might be something to examine.
Deputy Mayor Haley: said she also attended the Parks & Recreation open space meeting; went to several
booths for lemonade day; attended the Lilac Festival Gala where the grand marshal mentioned appreciation
for the community in treating our military so well; and attended her first Justice Task Force meeting.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Higgins reported that he did a ride-along with Deputy Chamberlain, during which there was an
accident where a school bus hit a bicycle rider,said the bike rider was riding up the wrong side of the street
on a rainy cold day; said he visited the victim in the downtown emergency room and he seemed okay; said
he attended a GSI Board meeting;visited some booths on lemonade day; participated in the PACE awards
and mentioned the third grade McDonald Elementary School class he visits monthly; attended a
Transportation Committee meeting; went to a Clean Air Board meeting downtown,where that agency had
a tree planted in recognition of their 501h anniversary; and that he attended a Citizens Alliance for Property
Rights annual dinner where a representative from the Legal Foundation spoke about the current
administration's move to alleviate some parks.
1.PUBLIC HEARING: 2019 Budget Amendment-Chelsie Taylor
After Mayor Higgins explained the process, he opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. Finance Director
Taylor went over the proposed amendments, noting the removal of the sidewalk snow removal equipment
as that will be discussed at a future meeting. Mayor Higgins invited public comments; no comments were
offered and he closed the public hearing at 6:24 p.m.
2. First Reading Ordinance 19-006, 2nd Amendment to 2019 Budget—Chelsie Taylor
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and
unanimously agreed to advance ordinance#19-006, amending the 2019 budget, to a second reading.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any
member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately.
Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent A, enda.
a. Approval of claim vouchers on May 28,2019 Request for Council Action Form Total: $1,247,523.38
b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending May 15,2019: $371,730.12
c.Approval of May 14,2019, Council Meeting Minutes, Regular Formal
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda.
NEW BUSINESS:
4. Second Reading Ordinance 19-004, Comp Plan Amendments Mike Basinger
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded
to approve Ordinance 19-004, Comprehensive Plan Amendments as proposed. Mr. Basinger briefly went
through his PowerPoint explaining the amendments, and noting that this ordinance approves all the Comp
Plan Amendments(CPAs)except it denies CPA-2019-0001 and CPA-2019-0003,as per the direction given
by Council at this Ordinance first reading. Vote by acclamation: In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none.
Motion carried.
5. Second Reading Ordinance 19-005, Comp Plan Zoning Map—Mike Basinger
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded
to approve Ordinance 19-005, Official Zoning Amendments, as proposed.Mr. Basinger said that this is the
ordinance that changes the maps according to the amendments as just approved in ordinance 19-004. Vote
by acclamation: In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried.
Council Regular Meeting: 05-28-2019 Page 2 of 8
Approved by Council: 06-18-2019
6. First Reading Ordinance 19-008 Duplex Density Ordinance—Lori Barlow
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to suspend the rules and approve Ordinance 19-008,
denying Code Text Amendment 2018-0005 as proposed. Ms. Barlow explained that although Council
amended its Governance Manual to include not taking public comments on items that have already had a
public hearing, since this amendment was in process at the time, it was determined Council would hear
public comment only during the first reading. In going through the PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Barlow
explained that the Planning Commission decision was a unanimous vote to recommend denial; further she
explained that Council instructed staff to bring forth this ordinance to deny the requested amendment. Ms.
Barlow stated that staff met with the proponent several times, including prior to the application submittal
and several times after the application was submitted, and tried to work through some misunderstandings
of interpretation.
Councilmember Wick asked if when a code text amendment comes to the Planning Commission, does the
Commission have the ability to change it and must Council accept or reject based on the submission. Ms.
Barlow stated that the Commission does have the ability to change it; that they are a recommending body
so it could be submitted to Council as originally submitted by the applicant,or with modifications,and then
sent to Council with a recommendation to accept or deny. She added that throughout the process staff
highlighted some inconsistencies in the language that were in conflict with our Code,and there were some
grave concerns about the implications with some of the proposal as noted in the background material; that
what was suggested to the Planning Commission was that if they had a desire to move it forward with an
approval, that they provide some direction to staff to work on some specific language to correct some of
the inconsistencies and provide more guidance. Ms. Barlow said that throughout the discussion,there was
no real interest expressed by the Commission for that suggestion; and ultimately after the public hearing
and Commission deliberation, the Commission forwarded their recommendation to Council to deny; she
added that Council has complete discretion in this matter to deny, approve or modify as Council deems
appropriate. Councilmember Peetz said that during the last discussion, Ms.Barlow had mentioned that the
applicant had drafted with this good intentions, and asked about going back and re-wording this. Mayor
Higgins invited public comments.
Ms. Pete Miller, Spokane Valley: said she is happy to hear that Council has complete discretion to keep
working on this; said that she is including her last e-mail for the record that was sent to the Planning
Commission, Planning Department and to the City Council in which they withdrew, at that time, the
requirements for cottage development. She said she sent this e-mail prior to the staffs last presentation to
the City Council and unfortunately, it was not shared with Council at that time; she also included in the
public record request the number of duplex permits as opposed to single family home permits. She stated
that it shows the City of Spokane Valley at 50.7% duplex permits, City of Spokane at 9.9% duplex permits,
and Spokane County at 1.2% duplex permits; said the 50.7% is not caused by attrition as previously stated
by staff; it is also caused by homeowners in our R3 zone surrounded by rentals packing their bags and
moving; she asked what is the matter with this City Council and staff when you seem to be unable to
understand how the current code impacts adjacent homeowner property value, peace of mind and sense of
well-being and security; said the residents in the R3 zone don't seem to be included in the planning process
and that exclusion in itself could be considered an abuse of power; said that at least,that's the way she sees
it; said the City of Spokane, City of Liberty Lake and Spokane County all plan according to the Growth
Management Act; they don't have this problem, so why do we; said the Growth Management Act is a
GUIDELINE; it may not necessarily be law all the time; it states it is a guideline; and it's for counties and
for municipalities; said the GMA is not responsible for this fiasco, the City Council is; and if Council
believes duplex housing or duplex rental is affordable housing in this market, if Council believes that 50.7%
duplex development is acceptable, [3-minute time expires; Mayor permits her briefly continue] said to
Council that if you can't see the current damage, if you can visualize the future in a down economy, a
vibrant City of Spokane Valley based on current housing tends in the R3 zone and fewer vested property
owners,then Council doesn't deserve to be sitting where they are sitting.
Council Regular Meeting: 05-28-2019 Page 3 of 8
Approved by Council: 06-18-2019
Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: she questioned how this fits into the Growth Management Act; said it
was okay when it was developed; said when the R-4 and R-3 zones were put together, it `screwed' the
valley, or at least the R-3 people; said she thinks the staff has a racket going on, said it costs $1850 to do a.
text amendment, that $350 goes to the state, and she asked where does the rest of the money go; said the
comp plan is only supposed to be done once a year, and she asked how many times has this one been done;
said she was told it was only to be done in October, or thereabouts, but we keep amending it; said Ms.
Barlow was asked some questions at the Planning Commission and she never brought back the answers to
those questions, like how many jobs will be brought to the valley from the industrial area; said it seems
there are only two areas in the valley: the R-1 or the R-2 which is the Ponderosa and she asked who is
protecting that area because someone is;said the citizens vote in councilmembers and she'd be the first one
to go to bat for any member of Council,but said this is wrong what Council has done; said people ask how
do we get it back;said the answer is easy: Council makes an amendment and puts the R-4 back where these
things go; said the accessory dwellings that are in her neighborhood that's going to be turned into an
apartment.
Mr. Mark Zielfelder, Spokane Valley: said people are upset as this is happening all across the valley; said
he lives on Herald and there is a proposed development corning in probably next year, of 12 houses across
the street from him, as well as Catholic Charities trying to change the zoning so they canbuild a facility in
there; he read that "the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare
and the protection of the environment;" said he thinks it affects all these things;that he and others put their
`blood, sweat and tears' into these homes and put every penny into their homes, and to have all the rentals
come in; said there have been quite a few older people leave either through retirement or death and have
been replaced by renters and said the renters don't care like homeowners do; said he doesn't think that is
right; said there are certain places where these buildings need to be built and the already established
neighborhoods is not the appropriate place as there is already a crumbling infrastructure that isn't being
maintained; regarding his street, said he spoke with representatives from Modern Electric and there are
1930s concrete asbestos pipes in the ground; said the City won't replace that before they put in this
development; said there needs to be better planning and more updating before developments go on;that we
are doing this in the wrong order and the updates need to be established; and said people need a chance to
be heard more than they are and thinks three minutes isn't fair.
Ms. Nancy Purcell, Spokane Valley: asked that Council consider the duplex density ordinance; said if
Councilmembers were to drive around the valley, they would notice 'now leasing' signs on many
developments, but very few single family homes for sale; said that realtors will tell you it is a seller's
market, but the duplexes being built overtaxes the infrastructure including schools,roads and parks; and as
with the current effort, they allow no room for a yard for children to play; said developers have no
responsibilities for the problems created;said she has been to meetings with developers,and residents living
in the area were told they could object but it would do no good; said residents are told that a landowner can
do what they choose with their property as long as they are within the zoning requirements, and unless
Council makes change to the zoning, there is little a resident can do except watch their home's value
decrease; that by the time people find out about a project, it is well on its way; she said that Ms. Barlow
indicated on May 14,2019,that she believes the increase in duplexes is tied to the economy,not to the fact
that the City Council changed the zoning code in 2017 combining R3 and R4,which opened up a great deal
of the valley for more dense development; that by the charts Ms. Barlow presented, duplex permits went
from 37 in 2017 to 142 in 2018, the year following the code change; which she said is over three times in
one year; that single family residential building permits during that same time went from 129 in 2017 to
138 in 2018; if the change in the number of duplexes being built was truly being driven by the economy,
single family residential permits would also have had a significant increase considering the lack of single
family homes for sale in the valley; she said that valley residents will tell you that part of the appeal of
moving to the valley was larger lots as opposed to the City of Spokane, and she said this is no longer true;
that with the change in zoning in 2017, it would appear that no consideration was given to the character of
neighborhoods that were primarily established, except for an acre or two; with the change, development is
running rampant; said she understands the need for housing, she believes the valley should be encouraging
Council Regular Meeting: 05-28-2019 Page 4 of 8
Approved by Council: 06-18-2019
single family dwellings and home ownership, rather than duplexes and rentals that have no vested interest
in the area; and she asked Council to please consider this proposed change in density requests.
There were no other public comments. City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned three e-mails,which she said have
also been sent to Council and which will be part of this record, adding that she feels there is some confusion
about supporting the ordinance which is really supporting a denial of the proposal; that the e-mails were
from Aim Cuny who is concerned about the issue of duplexes and uncontrolled growth;another from Kevin
Blood who has the same concerns;and a third e-mail from Kieran Sprague,whose e-mail is not clear if they
are for or against the proposal.
Council discussion ensued including comment from Councilmember Wick suggesting this go back to the
applicant to re-phase as some of the concern was how to implement this;and to perhaps give more guidance
to the Planning Commission to come up with recommendations. Councilmember Thompson said she
hesitates if that's the right direction to go back to the applicant; said she wants more single family housing
and is not sure how to get clarification on how best to move forward. City Attorney Driskell said the last
time this came up, Council expressed interest in having more discussion about duplex density, which can
occur, or Council could instruct staff to bring back options to talk about; said he is hesitant to change the
requested amendment in ways that perhaps were never intended.Deputy Mayor Haley said she would prefer
that rather than rework a code text amendment, to further examine the issue of density; and several other
Councilmembers agreed. Mayor Higgins reminded Council that a positive vote on the motion will defeat
this proposal as the ordinance denies the proposal, and approving the Ordinance which denies the proposal,
doesn't mean it will or can't ever come back; adding that starting over again knowing all we know, might
be a better approach. Vote by acclamation on the motion to suspend the rules and approve Ordinance 19-
008, denying Code Text Amendment 2018-0005 as proposed: In Favor: Mayor Higgins, Deputy Mayor
Haley, and Councilmembers Thompson, Wick, Woodard, and Wood. Opposed: Councilmember Peetz.
Motion carried. City Manager Calhoun said he anticipates hearing from Council on this topic during the
Advance Agenda item.
7. Motion Consideration;Bid Award, Browns Park—Mike Stone
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to award the Browns Park 2019 Improvements Project
to Engineering/Remediation Resources Group, Inc., in the amount of$991,050.18 and authorize the City
Manager to.finalize and execute the construction agreement. After Parks & Recreation Director Stone
explained the project and the bids received,as noted in his Request for Council Action form,Mayor Higgins
invited public comments. Ms. Shari Robinson, Spokane Valley: said she drives by Browns Park often; is a
wonderful park and she fully supports this project. There were no other comments. Vote by acclamation:
In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried
8. Motion Consideration: Travel Insurance for Councilmembers—Cary Driskell
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve a change to Governance Manual Chapter
2, §E relating to trip insurance as follows.' "Airline or other trip insurance is discouraged, but may be
permitted when circumstances give rise to a belief that expensive travel plans may need to be altered. The
determination of whether to purchase travel insurance shall be made by the City Manager. " After City
Attorney Driskell briefly explained the issue as noted on his Request for Council Action form, Mayor
Higgins invited public comment.No comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: In favor: unanimous.
Opposed: none. Motion carried.
9. Motion Consideration: Department of Ecology Agreement, Decant Facility—Bill Helbig
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve the Water Quality Combined Financial
Assistance Agreement,for the Spokane Valley Regional Decant Facility Canopy project, between the City
of Spokane Valley and the Department of Ecology, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
finalize and execute the agreement. After City Engineer Helbig briefly explained the project as noted on
his Request for Council Action form,Mayor Higgins invited public comment.No comments were offered.
Vote by acclamation:In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried
Council Regular Meeting: 05-28-2019 Page 5 of 8
Approved by Council: 06-18-2019
10. Motion Consideration: Department of Ecology Agreement, Sprague Stormwater—Bill Helbig
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve the Water Quality Combined Financial
Assistance Agreement for the Sprague, University to Park Stormwater Project, between the City of Spokane
Valley and the Department of Ecology, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to.finalize and
execute the agreement. After City Engineer Helbig briefly explained the project as noted on his Request
for Council Action form, Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Mr. John Harding, Spokane Valley:
started talking about the canopy project and asking what it costs taxpayers, and Mayor Higgins reminded
him that the opportunity passed for comments on the previous agenda item. Mr. Harding then explained
that he wanted to know how much each of these would cost; that he is confused why the state requires us
to do something and we have to pay for it.There were no further comments. Mayor Higgins explained that
there is no requirement from the state, as we made an application for the grant mentioned and Engineer
Helbig confirmed Mayor Higgins statement, and further explained the costs for these items; he said that as
the NPDES(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)guidelines become more stringent,we apply
for grant funds that will help us enhance the water quality. Vote by acclamation: In favor: unanimous.
Opposed: none. Motion carried.
I 1. Motion Consideration: Department of Ecology Agreement,Appleway Stormwater- Bill Helbig
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve the Water Quality Combined Financial
Assistance Agreement for the Appleway Stormwater Improvements, Farr to University project, between the
City of Spokane Valley and the Department of Ecology, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
finalize and execute the agreement. After City Engineer Helbig briefly explained the project as noted on
his Request for Council Action form, Mayor Higgins invited public comment.No comments were offered.
Vote by acclamation: In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried.
Mayor Higgins called for a recess at 7:21 p.m.;he reconvened the meeting at 7:31 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: After mentioning the basics, Mayor Higgins invited public comment.
Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: said that she had never been before a Hearing Examiner before; said
she would ask that the people who speak under this process do so under oath; she said that lying is perjury
and a Class 13 felony; said there is a development in her neighborhood and it seems the valley is telling her
she didn't appeal in time; and she asked, how does one appeal something after it started or if the person
doesn't know what is going on, and she asked how to fix this and how to fix an accessory building; said
people started off to put in an office or storage,and then they amended their development to either an office
or storage, and now, while the property owner originally indicated that the garage would only be home,
office and storage, they have recently contacted the City regarding whether it is possible to amend the
permit and construction would be allowed under the City Code to allow the structure to be an accessory
dwelling unit; she said she wants to know how they got a permit to even run a business out of there, a
construction business; she showed a paper and said this is for car hauling, and it is dated for 2017, still
active, said they are buying cars and there are seventeen connected with this property; said they are not
supposed to be working out of there but they do; she said they got their permit in October 2017 it is now
May 2019; she said the building isn't finished because their employees come here to meet and then leave
so they are not working on the building; she said the day the hearing was held, the employees were busy.
Regarding the City's Code Enforcement Officer, Ms. Howard said that in the Code Enforcement officer's
report,the Code Enforcement Officer included that"traffic violations are not a code enforcement issue and
needs to be reported to law enforcement." Ms.Howard said the Code Enforcement Officer told people they
could park on the street; however, half of her (Ms. Howard's) neighborhood is all no parking. [3-minute
time expires;Mayor permits her to briefly continue]Ms.Howard explained that this past Saturday,so 'they
could get even with me' they threw a big party and they were all in the no parking; with what the Code
Enforcement Officer is supposed to do, said she has two addresses, 11611 East Carlisle, and 11604 East
Carlisle; she said that 11617 burnt down and nothing has been done; and talking about the amendment for
Ms. Pete Miller, she asked Council to please work with Ms. Miller as she put a lot of time into this.
Council Regular Meeting: 05-28-2019 Page 6 of 8
Approved by Council: 06-18-2019
Mr.Erik Johnson,Spokane Valley: said this is regarding EGR-2018-003,specifically Bldg-2019-0463;said
he e-mailed Council and the City Engineer on this project of ten duplexes which went in next to him on his
property on Valleyway; said he has been in the civil engineering industry for over twenty years; said the
building practices on this are in great question; that the first lot being built which is the lot next to him,the
developer put in nine ecology blocks along the fence line using them for a retaining wall; and has retained
two to four feet of dirt with two feet of dirt being exposed; that recent storms have contributed to a lot of
erosion already and he re-stated that this is right next to his property line; said this needs to be a bigger
conversation; that if we are going to allow all these duplexes, we have to have some standards on building
practices; said he has never seen anything as hokey as this retaining wall; said he spoke with City staff and
in quoting staff,stated"we let the developer choose what is best for them in the development."Mr.Johnson
said he watched these people move dirt for over two months, with off-road dump trucks, bulldozers, with
what the City called a civil set, which is four sheets: a cover sheet, an erosion sheet, and two street sheets;
he said there is not one grade of any path of how drainage will be handled once full development is
complete;he said that just because it's not in the Code doesn't mean it should be permitted;developers love
to copy other developers and they find ways to cut corners.
Ms.Shari Robinson,Spokane Valley:said she doesn't know if there is a way to amend about how the public
is notified about large development; said we currently have signs but as you drive by them, you can't see
them or you miss them; she suggested maybe passing out cards to the residents; said she is also excited to
learn that University is going to have bike lanes between 16th and 32nd; said that in speaking with
Councilmember Woodard, she was told it won't be like on 32nd as it will still have four lanes of traffic;
said there is a hazard for children leaving South Pines Jr. High and said she witnessed several children
riding bikes from 22nd across University; said you can't see the kids coming across four lanes and she
suggested flashers similar to the ones on Appleway Trail.
Ms. Nina Fluegal, Spokane Valley: said we had this issue with R-3/R4 serving individual builders,
individual homes; said she also wanted to address the multi-family zoning that was umbrella-ed where you
combine multifamily 1, 2,3 or whatever can fit under the umbrella, and the person who owns the property
can build as much as they can on that with a 50' height restriction,which she said is as far as it can go; she
asked when will this City slow down with this growth; said we can barely manage what we have; that we
don't have enough police officers; she asked why it has to be constant building, especially going up across
the street from a middle school that still doesn't have a cross-walk; she said Broadway is outrageously fast
and no one slows down for those flashing lights; said she wants to hear that the City will address multi-
family development issues;she again stated her proposal to put something in place to charge each apartment
dweller a yearly fee,or charge the builder who makes these as they don't pay the taxes; she mentioned that
every Thursday there are dump trucks and garbage trucks on our roads that only the taxpayers pay to
maintain; and giving builders exceptions or incentives doesn't do the rest of the residents any service.
Mr. Bob West, Spokane Valley: concerning the suggestion of a crossing for the new Jr.High on Broadway,
said he has seen kids running across the street and there is no crossing; said he hasn't been to all of the
schools but it is his understanding that is the only school that has a problem; said this issue hasn't come up
on the Advance Agenda and hadn't been mentioned but it would be nice to address this before there is an
accident.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
12. Regional Veterans Services—Heather Drake, Operations Manager,
Spokane County Regional Veterans Services Center Operations Manager Ms. Heather Drake went over
some of the services provided by the Veterans Center including extended outreach and advocacy and
claims, benefits and employment services; she also noted the importance and value of strategic
public/private partnerships, and the impact of outreach, partnership and community education. Council
thanked her for her informative presentation.
Council Regular Meeting: 05-28-2019 Page 7 of 8
Approved by Council:06-18-2019
13. Spokane County Library District Update—Aileen Luppert, Managing Librarian
Spokane County Library District Managing Librarian Aileen Luppert, and Librarian Diane Brown went
over some of the many facets of the Library District, including statistics on such things as library visits and
number of items checked out; program attendance for children and for adults; they mentioned digital
interaction and sharing of numerous digital resources; they also mentioned the cultural passes for such
places as the Family Museum and Spokane Symphony at the Library; and that their strategic directions
include engagement, stability,and connectedness.Council thanked them for their informative presentation.
14. Annexation—Erik Lamb,Mike Basinger
Deputy City Attorney Lamb and Economic Development Manager Basinger explained that Council had
requested information regarding annexation; and through their PowerPoint, explained the process and
considerations needed when undertaking annexations; that annexation may only occur within the adopted
Urban Growth Area; that although there are several options, the two primary methods are election, voter
initiated and City Council initiated, or direct petition; and that factors to consider include such things as
land use and zoning, whether residents are interested in being annexed, annexation versus ownership, and
financial impacts to the City of annexing or not annexing.
15. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins
Councilmember Wick mentioned the density discussion brought up earlier; that he would like to discuss
duplexes,townhouses,and cottages and their rate of development versus single family. Council concurred.
CounciImember Wick also mentioned the upcoming Farmers Market and of the idea of Councilmembers
taking shifts at a City Booth. Council also concurred on that suggestion. Mr. Calhoun noted he has been
talking with Mr. Stebbins of the JAKT Foundation about having a City booth; and for Councilmembers
participating, suggested a sign-up sheet so as not to have a quorum. Councilmember Wick mentioned
affordable housing and the rebate from the state tax regarding legislation that was recently approved. Mr.
Calhoun noted that our lobbyist Gordon Thomas Honeywell will be addressing House Bill 1406 when they
visit June 18. Councilmember Wick further mentioned discussing construction quality relative to tonight's
public comments. Mr.Calhoun stated that Building Official Jenny Nickerson and/or Development Services
Coordinator Greg Baldwin are working with Mr.Hohman on this issue.Mayor Higgins suggested that topic
be deferred until we see what transpires. Council agreed.
16. Department Reports
The Department Reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
City Manager Calhoun mentioned there will be a second public meeting regarding the Midilome Pavement
Project, on June 5 from 6:30-7:30 p.m. at Chester EIementary School; he also noted the evening June 11
Council meeting is cancelled as Council and staff will be holding the annual budget workshop June 11 in
Council Chambers beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending about 3:30 p.m. Mr. Calhoun noted the AWC
(Association of Washington Cities) Annual Conference will be in Spokane this year June 25-28, and we
are therefore cancelling the June 25th Council meeting; and if needed, can meet Monday, June 24th. Mr.
Calhoun said he hopes to make a definitive decision on the June 24th meeting the week before.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 8:57 p.m.
ATVSTX2 L.R. Higgin or
(4-gar1-4-
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Regular Meeting: 05-28-2019 Page 8 of 8
Approved by Council: 06-18-2019
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
6:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS
SIGN-IN SHEET
YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES
This sign-in sheet is for making comments not associated with an action item on tonight's
agenda. If you wish to comment about an individual action item on tonight's agenda (such a
a otion to approve an ordinance, resolution, or contract) the Mayor will ask for comme s
on i ose items once that item is reached on the agenda.
Please sign in if you wish to make public comments.
NAME TOPIC OF CONCERN YOU YOUR CITY OF IDENCE
PLEASE PRINT WILL SPEAK ABOUT
siP $--aa_e„D an' 0 ke,t'KJ2 Ike
A--)ETE M I LLF - et)vs \, ( `
Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure.
5/28/2019 tAA/
Mr. Mayor council members,
I am including my last e-mail for the record that was sent to the Planning Commission,
Planning Department and to the City Council in which we withdrew the requirements for
cottage development. I sent this e-mail prior to Staff's last presentation to Council and
unfortunately it was not shared with you. of
Also included, is the public record request for the number of duplex permits as opposed to
single family home permits. It shows the City of Spokane Valley at 50.7% duplex permits, City
of Spokane at 9.9 % and Spokane County at 1.2%. That 50.7 % is not caused by attrition as
previously stated by staff— it is also caused by homeowners in our R3 zone surrounded by
rentals packing their bags and moving.
What is the matter with this council and staff when you seem to be unable understand how
the current code impacts adjacent homeowner property value, peace of mind and sense of
security.
The residents in the R3 zone don't seem to be included in the planning process and that
exclusion could be considered an abuse of power.
The City of Spokane, City of Liberty Lake and Spokane County all plan according to the Growth
Management Act. They don't have this problem - - so why do we? The Growth
Management Act is a GUIDELINE for counties and municipalities. The GMA is not responsible
for this fiasco --you are.
If you believe duplex housing or duplex rental is affordable housing in this market,
if you believe 50.7 percent duplex development is acceptable,
if you can't see the current damage being done to vested property owners -financially and
emotionally,
If you can visualize in the future, in a down economy, a vibrant City of Spokane Valley based
on current housing trends in the R3 Zone and fewer vested property owners —You don't
deserve to be sitting in those chairs.
Pete Miller
18124 E Mission Ave.
o4petesake@comcast.net
From: o4petesake@corncast.net
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 11:21 AM
To: 'rhiggins@spokanevalley.org'; 'bwick@spokanevailey.org'; 'bpeetz@spokanevalley.org';
awoodard@spokanevalley.org; 'phaley@spokanevalley.org';
°swood@spokanevalley.org; 'lthompson@spokanevalley.org'
Cc: 'Lori Barlow'; 'eguth@spokanevalley.org'; jhohman@spokanevalley.org';
'planning@spokanevalley.org°
Subject: Re; CTA-2018-0005
Attachments: 2018 charts.PDF
5/10/2019
Mr. Mayor and Council Members,
Prior to your session on Tuesday May 14, we ask you to deliberate our Code Text amendment based on the following:
Staff tells me you're the Boss and there is nothing they can do nothing other than present the language as per their
interpretation.
To simplify things we are withdrawing the Cottage Development portion.
The Duplex requirement remains the same. A clarification, that will simplify another mis-interpretation is: One duplex
per acre applies to one acre or more and should include aggregated properties equaling one acre or more. The
restriction does not apply to properties under one acre and was never intended to be represented as such.
The Townhome requirement remains the same.
Based upon an up to date report from Staff, (attached) duplexes as a percentage of total DU permits for 2018 are now
50.7%. As you look at the charts, I am sure you will take into account the 138 Single Family Residential permits include
R1 and R2 as opposed to 142 Duplex permits, most or all in R-3. According to the Spokane Association of Realtors report
through February, 2019 Single family home inventory is down 16.8%compared to February, 2018. Leads one to believe
they can thank the City of Spokane Valley in large part for lack of single family home inventory.
A special session that includes the Planning Commission would be a wise choice to prevent months of harmful delays for
vested property owners and expedite what should be a logical conclusion.
On behalf of R3'ers,
Pete Miller
(509) 869-6070
1
•
•Duplex as a percentage of total DU permits
50.02,
40.0%
20,05%
7,1 I r
!
Ms _JA mili.J
4-I313 201z .7015 aDIE 2017 2C•15
5pol(Eneilarey Spazne :t SpokeneCountv
Duplex as a pr rte of permits
VealSpokane 4Spokane Spokane C
2013 35% 3.2% 12.1%
2014- 147% 2.3% 13.7%
2015-. 9-,2% 1.9% 14.1%
2016 12.1% 1.7% 4.4%.
2017 223% 2.5% 23%
2018 50:7%
Comparision of Duplex Permits
2013-2018
• 10. •
:120 •
16f1
Ea
e•0
40
20
20:13' 2C;15
2Ci Z17 DNS
SPa.al va • • • pckEneCounr.y
pupi ex Perniits
Y04-r SpOkane\Spokane Spokane County
201a 4 9 76
2014 26 67
2015 17 6 86
2026 24 6 35
;2017 37 8 19 .•
•
2018 .142 28 11 , •
•
Comparison of Single family Residential Permits
2018-2018
t100 •
BCD
6:013
40o
2CC,
12
7.013 2Z1 2015. 2C162017 201
s pawl va"ey pi;r•iri •5pok Erre LT curl ty
$InFnhiIy Resid.enti al
Year :Spokane Spokane 'Spokane County
2013 110 269 551
2014 151 213 421
2015 .167 312 526
2016 175 341 769
2011 12.9: 314 816
2018 iaa256 891 .
Chris Bainbridge
From: Chris Bainbridge
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 4:56 PM
To: 'Angela B'
Subject: RE: Rezoning R3 - NO!
Ok — thanks so much. I have forwarded this to Council and will mention it during tonight's meeting.
From: Angela B [mailto:angecakes@live.com]
Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 4:51 PM
To: Chris Bainbridge<CBainbridge@spokanevalley.org>
Subject: Re: Rezoning R3 - NO!
Yes - thank you!
From: Chris Bainbridge <CBainbridge@spokanevalley.org>
Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 3:46:54 PM
To: 'Angela B'
Subject: RE: Rezoning R3 - NO!
Thank you for your comments. Just so I am sure — are you referring to tonight's agenda item concerning
duplexes?
Chris
From:Angela B [mailto:angecakes@live.com]
Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 3:43 PM
To: Chris Bainbridge <CBainbridge@spokanevalley.org>
Subject: Rezoning R3 - NO!
Hello.
My wife and I live in the Spokane Valley just off of Argonne and we've heard that the valley is considering
changing the R3 Zone so that duplexes and more multifamily housing can be built in our neighborhoods. We
strongly oppose this idea for the following reasons:
1. We don't want to live in densely populated areas which is why a lot of us chose to live in the valley instead
of in the city.
2. We believe more multi-family housing in our neighborhoods would be taxing on our resources such as
water, policing, schools, and public safety.
3. Bringing more people to our neighborhoods will increase the crime rate which has already been growing
significantly with people prowling our neighborhoods at night and there are not enough police (or money in the
budget for police) to handle this as it is!
4. We do not need the increased traffic as there is plenty of congestion on our main roads and parking is
already a significant problem in neighborhoods where people are visiting or staying temporarily with
homeowners.
5. The tax revenue just isn't there for multifamily dwellings in comparison to single family homes.
6. This whole proposition is being driven by outsiders who are looking to make a quick dollar by exploiting our
neighborhoods and destroying the small-town appeal and comfort of our spacious and relaxed neighborhoods. I
constantly receive flyers in the mail and several phone calls from these people wanting to buy my house and I'm
pretty tired of it!
7. There are plenty of multi-family housing options all over the valley as it is and some have sat empty for
months and months... Fill those up first and go build more somewhere else because we don't want to live elbow-
to-elbow in congested neighborhoods full off constantly changing strangers.
8. Passing this proposition will only serve to make greedy investors and the politicians in their pockets richer
while further destroying our dwindling sense of community as the valley grows.
Thank you for your time.
Kevin Blood
(509) 435-7264 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Z
Chris Bainbridge
From: Chris Bainbridge
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 3:42 PM
To: 'Ann Carey'
Subject: RE: May 28 Agenda
You're welcome — so this is for the duplex issue tonight— correct?
From: Ann Carey [mailto:bobandann03@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 3:41 PM
To: Chris Bainbridge <CBainbridge@spokanevalley.org>
Subject: Re: May 28 Agenda
Thanks and thanks!
Ann
Look famous. Be legendary. Appear complex. Act easy. Radiate presence. Travel light. Seem a
dream. Prove real. Mary Ann Sanger
On May 28, 2019, at 2:57 PM, Chris Bainbridge <CBainbridge(a7spokanevalley.org> wrote:
I have also forwarded this to Councilmembers.
thank you — Chris
Christine (Chris) Bainbridge
Spokane Valley City Clerk
10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206
(509) 720-5102 1
This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record
Act, chapter 42.56 RCW
From: Ann Carey [mailto:bobandann03@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 2:49 PM
To: Chris Bainbridge <CBainbridge@spokanevalley.org>
Subject: May 28 Agenda
Hello, I am unable to attend tonight's meeting, but wanted to share my concerns regarding the issue of duplexes
and uncontrolled growth in the City of Spokane Valley. Please pass along this email to the appropriate people.
i
My husband and I only recently (18 months ago) moved to the Valley from the center of Spokane. A primary
decision in moving was to be where it was less crowded. I suspect if the current Council Members and others in
City Hall were asked why they were in the Valley the answer would be similar. We also believed that a newer
city would learn from other communities' mistakes and take a long term, comprehensive approach to growth
and development.
Unfortunately, that has not appeared to be the case. It seems that barely a week will go by without tales of a
developer going into an area zoned for larger single family lots, and asking to change the zoning so that multi-
family homes (or commercial businesses) can be squeezed in where the infrastructure (schools,roads,
sidewalks) may not support it. It is likely the developers have learned that residential land is less expensive
than other available land.
I hope the current City Council Members are not supporting this type of growth solely for the tax payer density
it will create, as that density may not equate to voting population. I hope the current Council members will take
a long-term look at growth in the Valley and do what is right for our community and our established
neighborhoods. Multi-family homes are necessary in a community, but they should be thoughtfully located in
areas previously zoned as such, and in areas that can support the density.
The logo for the City of Spokane Valley shows a creek/river running through trees. It does not show stacks of
duplexes/apartments, surrounded by "sidewalks to nowhere" in areas where peaceful neighborhoods previously
existed.
Please let me know if you have any questions about my concerns.
Thank you.
Ann Carey
11317 E Sundown Dr.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
2
Chris Bainbridge
From: Chris Bainbridge
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 8:21 AM
To: 'Kieran Sprague'
Subject: RE: Response: First Reading Ordinance 19-008 - Duplex Density
Thanks. No need to re-send since I have this clarification.
Chris
Christine (Chris) Bainbridge
Spokane Valley City Clerk
10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206
(509) 720-5102
This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record
Act, chapter 42.56 RCW
From: Kieran Sprague [mailto:KSprague@shba.com]
Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 5:23 PM
To: Chris Bainbridge<CBainbridge@spokanevalley.org>
Subject: Re: Response: First Reading Ordinance 19-008- Duplex Density
Apologies, difficult to read and write on the phone.
Support for the ordinance for the reasons mentioned above. The privately-initiated amendment is what is
opposed. I can redraft my initial email quickly to convey that more accurately
KIERAN SPRAGUE
Government Affairs Director
Phone: 509-532-4990, ext. 31
kspraque cx shba.com
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 5:17 PM -0700, "Chris Bainbridge" <CBainbridReispokanevalley.org> wrote:
To make sure we are all on the same page: Are you for or against the ordinance as written?
From: Kieran Sprague [mailto:KSprague@shba.com]
Sent:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 4:57 PM
To: Chris Bainbridge <CBainbridge@spokanevalley.org>
Subject: Response: First Reading Ordinance 19-008- Duplex Density
Clerk Bainbridge,
I regret being unable to attend the Council meeting this evening- business has taken me outside Spokane
County, Following, here are my thoughts on the Ordinance 19-008.
1
This ordinance and its proposed prohibition of duplex construction, townhomes, ADU's, and further
complicating cottage development in R-3 zones is a step away from the City of Spokane Valley's 2016
Comprehensive Plan. It is stated in the plan on ch.1, pg. 16 that Spokane Valley residents have identified
housing as a key issue, specifically "housing affordability, housing for seniors, and housing diversity", the
latter of which will become a greater issue if this ordinance is passed.
A vote against this ordinance means compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Growth Management Act,
and the recommendation of the Planning Commission's to reject, will help ensure a diverse range of Spokane
Valley residents, current and future, will have a chance to realize the dream of home ownership.
Thanks,
KIERAN SPRAGUE
Government Affairs Director
Phone: 509-532-4990, ext. 31
ksprague[ilshba.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
2