Loading...
CUP-2020-0002 Decision.pdfPage 1 of 12 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER Re: Conditional Use Permit to operate a medical detoxification facility serving up to 12 patients at 10305 E. Montgomery Avenue ) ) ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION FILE NO. CUP-2020-0002 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND DECISION Proposal: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a medical detoxification (“detox”) facility serving up to 12 patients at 10305 E. Montgomery Avenue. Decision: Approved with conditions. FINDINGS OF FACT BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant: Sequoia Detox Center c/o Albert Merkel PO Box 14109 Spokane Valley WA 99214 Owner: Bartlett Farms, LLC 5704 S Mohawk Drive Spokane WA 99206 Property Location: The subject property is located approximately 300 feet east of the intersection of East Montgomery Avenue and North Dartmouth Lane in Spokane Valley, Washington. The property is designated as Tax Parcel No. 45081.0833 and addressed as 10305 E Montgomery Avenue. The property is situated in the NE¼ of Section 08, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Zoning: The property is zoned Industrial District (I). City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (CP) Map Designation: The property is designated as Industrial (I). Site Description: The subject site is 32,077 square feet in size. The site is developed with a 7,540 square foot office building and 15,600 square feet of paved area. The building was constructed in 1990, and the site is completely developed with parking, stormwater drainage facilities, landscaping, and lighting. The property fronts along Montgomery Avenue, which is classified as an Urban Minor Arterial Street. Frontage improvements have been completed along the street and include curb, gutter, and adjacent sidewalk. The building was previously used as an office/warehouse for Bromar Food Brokers. Page 2 of 12 Surrounding Conditions and Uses: The subject property is surrounded in all directions by properties zoned and CP designated as Industrial. The surrounding properties are used for commercial and industrial purposes. Project Description: Sequoia Detox Centers is requesting a CUP to operate a medical detox facility at 10305 E Montgomery Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington. Sequoia Detox Center will provide withdrawal management services for patients that are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol. The patients will arrive at the Sequoia Detox Center to undergo a medically monitored detox, managed by a licensed team 24 hours per day, seven days a week to control withdrawal symptoms. The facility will serve up to 12 patients at a time with the patients sharing a room based on gender. The center will serve men and women ages 18 and older. The average length of stay for each patient would be three to seven days. The patients would be admitted to the facility on the site. Following treatment, the patients would be discharged from the facility and receive follow-up care according to their treatment plan. Visitors would not be permitted. The anticipated number of admissions and discharges is four patients per week. The on-site staff would consist of a Registered Nurse (RN), who would be on site 24 hours per day; and a Licensed Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP), who would be on site 16 hours per week. There would be at least six staff members on duty at all times with a staff-to-patient ratio of 2:1 (2 patients per 1 staff). PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Authorizing Ordinances: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 19 (Zoning Regulations), SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls), the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM), and the Spokane Regional Health District (SRHD) regulations. Notice of Application: Mailed: February 14, 2020 Notice of Public Hearing: Mailed and Posted: May 12, 2020 Published: May 8 & 15, 2020 Public Hearing Date: May 27, 2020 Site Visits: May 26 & 31, 2020 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on March 20, 2020. Any appeal of the DNS was due on April 3, 2020. The DNS was not appealed. Page 3 of 12 Testimony: Exhibits: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Application Submittal 3. Spokane County Building & Planning Director Email 4. Site Plan of Record 5. Determination of Completeness 6. Notice of Application 7. Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) 8. Notice of Public Hearing 9. Agency Comments 10. Public Comments 11. Building Plans The following exhibits were received at the hearing: 12. Planning’s PowerPoint presentation FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS To be approved, the proposed CUP must comply with the criteria set forth in the SVMC and demonstrate consistency with the CP. The Hearing Examiner reviewed the application and the evidence of record with regard to the application and makes the following findings and conclusions: Martin Palaniuk, Planner City of Spokane Valley Building and Planning Division 10210 E Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley WA 99206 Albert Merkel 3927 S. Sunderland Drive Spokane Valley WA 99206 al@alforval.com Jon Schlenske 19202 E. 11th Avenue Spokane Valley WA 99016 Schlenske1@gmail.com Matt Rees 10310 E. Buckeye Lane Spokane Valley WA 99206 mrees@jetseal.com Public commenters/participants: Brad Banks brbanks@intermountainwood.com Tracy Lucas 601 W. Main Avenue, Suite 400 Spokane WA 99201 Jared Silvey 10221 E. Montgomery, Suite A Spokane Valley WA 99206 jared@silveyconstruction.com Page 4 of 12 1. The proposed detox center is allowed as an “essential public facility” in the Industrial District, provided the criteria for a conditional use permit are satisfied. See SVMC 19.60.010 et seq. The Sequoia Detox Center has proposed to operate a drug and alcohol detox facility at a site zoned for industrial use. Patients will check into the facility for a period between three and seven days. See Exhibit 1, p. 7. Once there, the patients will undergo a medically monitored detox, under the care of medical professionals who will assist the patients to manage their withdrawal symptoms. See id. In other words, the facility will provide in-patient medical care and treatment for substance abuse. The Staff has correctly determined that this type of use qualifies as an “essential public facility” (EPF). See Exhibit 1, p. 4. Both state law and local code provisions support the Staff’s analysis. The term “essential public facility” refers to facilities that are typically difficult to site. See Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.200(1); see also Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 365-196-200(9); see also WAC 365-196-550; see also SVMC, Appendix A, Definitions. EPFs include both new and existing facilities and need not be owned by the public to qualify as EPFs. See WAC 365-196-550(1)(b)-(c). Examples of EPFs include airports, state and local correctional facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and “substance abuse facilities,” among others. See id.; see also WAC 365-196-550(1)(d) (specifically including “in-patient facilities, including substance abuse facilities”); see also SVMC, Appendix A, Definitions (same). The uses allowed in each zoning district are set forth in the Permitted Uses Matrix. See SVMC 19.60.010(A). The category of uses entitled “Public/Quasi-Public” includes EPFs. See SVMC 19.60.050. According to the matrix, EPFs are allowed as a regional siting use (designated as “R”) in all zones except Mixed Use (MU) and Parks and Open Space (POS). See id. In other words, an EPF may be allowed in the Industrial District. See SVMC 19.60.040. Such proposals trigger a review under the regional siting process. See id. The City of Spokane Valley has entered into an interlocal agreement relating to the siting of EPFs. See SVMC 19.90.010. Pursuant to that agreement, and in accordance with city code, an application for an EPF must first be submitted to Spokane County. See SVMC 19.90.010(C). The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is responsible for determining whether a specific proposal is an EPF and, if so, its level of significance. See Exhibit 3 (E-mail of J. Pederson, dated May 19, 2020, confirming the BOCC’s decision that the facility is of only local and not regional significance). That process was followed in this case. The City of Spokane Valley has not adopted a local siting process for EPFs, either through development regulations or within its CP. And, as stated above, the regional siting process is not applicable to EPFs of only local significance. However, all EPFs located within the City of Spokane Valley require approval of a CUP pursuant to Chapter 19.150 SVMC. See SVMC 19.90.010(E); Testimony of M. Palaniuk. As a result, the proposed detox center should be considered in light of the criteria applicable to CUPs, in the same fashion as other CUP applications. The Hearing Examiner concludes that an EPF is allowed in the Industrial District, subject to satisfying the requirements for a CUP. Therefore, this criterion is met. Page 5 of 12 2. The conditional use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the character and appearance of the existing or proposed development in the vicinity of the subject property. See SVMC 19.150.030(A)(1). Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA), the CP includes a description of the regional siting process for EPFs in the City of Spokane Valley. See CP, Chapter 7, Capital Facilities & Services. The specific steps of the regional siting process are set forth in SVMC 19.90, as summarized above. The Applicant, with the City’s guidance, followed this process and submitted the proposal to the BOCC of Spokane County for review. See Exhibit 3. In doing so, the Applicant and the City acted consistently with the guidance found in Chapter 7 of the CP. In addition, the broader intent of Capital Facilities Goal CF-G1, which calls for coordination with other jurisdictions to effectively provide facilities and services, was fulfilled. See CP, Goal CF-G1, p. 2-28; see also CP, CF-P19, p. 2-29 (similar). The proposal is also consistent with CP Land Use Goal LU-G2, as determined by the Staff. See Exhibit 1, p. 5. Goal LU-G2 states the City’s objective to provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. See CP, LU-G2, p. 2-23. A center for treating drug addiction certainly provides an important public service. This country is in the grips of an opioid crisis, and alcohol addiction continues to be a pervasive social ill. Services such as the Sequoia Detox Center address a pressing public health need, clearly in line with the intent of Goal LU-G2. Moreover, the proposed use has been classified, under both state and local law, as an “essential public facility” for a reason. Although these types of uses often give rise to objections from neighbors and others, such facilities perform a critical public service that must be accommodated whenever possible. The proposed use will not have a material impact on the character or appearance of the industrial area in which it is located. The detox center will utilize an existing building on a developed site. No changes are proposed for the exterior of the structure. With the exception of supervised and scheduled smoke breaks, the patients will remain inside the building during their stay. See Exhibit 1, p. 7. There will be a security system, but the alarm will only be audible inside the building. See id., p. 8. The police have confirmed that these types of facilities do not result in an increase in calls to the police. See id., p. 6. The traffic anticipated, to and from the facility, is too low to trigger additional traffic analysis. The patients are not allowed to have visitors. See id., p. 8. On this record, the activities will take place inside the facility, out of public view, and without creating any apparent nuisance for anyone in the vicinity. There were two public comments relevant to this issue. One neighboring property owner objected that the detox center would be harmful to its property interests. See Exhibit 10 (Letter of T. Lucas, dated 3-11-2020). The neighbor claimed the proposed use would result in additional traffic flow and associated litter, in particular cigarette butts associated with the clientele. See id. The property owner suggested that the use was better suited to an office zone, since those areas have a higher vacancy rates. See id. Finally, the owner claimed that allowing this “nonconforming use” would make it more difficult to obtain commercial or industrial tenants, thereby lowering the value of the owner’s investment. See id. Another neighboring property owner was especially concerned about crimes such as vandalism and robbery, in the event the facility served patients on an out-patient basis. Page 6 of 12 See Exhibit 10 (E-mail of B. Banks, dated 5-26-2020, 1:23 PM). Even if the facility operated on an in-patient basis, this neighbor thought the CUP should be treated as a temporary approval, subject to revocation in the event there was an increase in crime following approval. See id. Finally, it was suggested that the proposal did not have sufficient parking, given the number of staff and patients anticipated at the facility. See id. The Hearing Examiner does not agree that these concerns warrant additional conditions or denial of this project. On this record, the proposed center will not result in nuisances to the neighbors, such as loitering, vandalism, or littering. The patients will be brought to the facility by family members or others for admission. The patients are very sick and spend most the time there inside the building, coping with their condition. There are smoke breaks, on scheduled basis, each day. However, these breaks take place in a designated area, for limited periods of time, behind fencing, and under staff supervision. The detox center is not a facility with walk-in traffic or open public access. It is a private, secure facility that will operate outside the view of the neighbors. Additionally, the Spokane Valley Police Department (SVPD) did not suggest that this type of facility would trigger an increased need for policing. The Hearing Examiner has no authority to condition or deny this project because other areas of the city have higher vacancy rates. There are no criteria in the municipal code that make approval or denial of this type of proposal turn upon the relative vacancy rates of industrial, office, or other zones. The question, rather, is whether the use is allowed at the proposed location. There is no question that the proposed use1 is allowed in the Industrial District. See Paragraph 1 above. No specific evidence was submitted, backed by data or analysis, establishing that the proposed facility would cause measurable damage to the neighbor’s property interests. Moreover, it is far from clear how an alleged decrease in property value or lease-ability would factor into this decision, given the criteria applicable in this case. The neighboring owner would have to provide much more in-depth information and analysis for the Hearing Examiner to consider this type of claim. Expert testimony would undoubtedly be required. The Hearing Examiner also agrees with Staff that the proposed use will not cause any obvious harm to the existing uses in the vicinity, such as the door supplier, home theater store, floor cleaning business, a window manufacture/installation company, or building material supplier. See Exhibit 1, p. 5. Finally, the facility has sufficient parking. The patients will not be driving to or from the facility, but will be brought to or picked up from the site by family members or others. Testimony of A. Merkel. Only employees will be using the parking on a regular basis. See id. As a result, there is far more parking than is required for this use. See id. Moreover, as stated above, no visitors are allowed, and the facility is not open to the public. No additional parking is required given the nature of the use. The Hearing Examiner finds that this criterion is met. 1 The neighboring owner suggested that the proposal was a “nonconforming use.” See Exhibit 10. This is incorrect. See Appendix A, Definitions, SVMC (defining “nonconforming”). Page 7 of 12 3. The proposal complies with SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls). The site of the proposed use is fully developed. The Applicant will be renovating the interior of an existing, commercial building. However, no changes are being made to the exterior of the structure. Minimal work will be done outside the building. For example, the Applicant will be replacing the existing driveway approaches with approaches that are Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. See Exhibit 1, p. 8. There may also be some modifications to the parking area. See id., pp. 7-8. The Hearing Examiner concludes that the construction work planned at the site will have only nominal environmental effect, and those effects will only occur during construction. Given the type of use being proposed, one would expect that the primary impacts would relate to traffic to and from the site. However, as has been discussed previously, the anticipated effects of traffic are also nominal. Patients will be brought to and picked up from the facility by family members or others. Patients will not be driving to and from the site. Patients will not be leaving during their stay. In addition, no visitors are allowed. The facility is under a 24/7 lockdown with 24-hour monitoring cameras. See Exhibit 1, p. 8. The facility is secure and private. It is not similar to a walk-in clinic, for example. Given these characteristics, it is not surprising that the anticipated traffic is low. In any case, a TGDL was submitted for the project and reviewed by the City Senior Traffic Engineer. See id., p. 4. Based on his evaluation, the expected trips generated during the PM peak hour are below the threshold for further evaluation. See id. The City received a letter from the Spokane Tribe of Indians requesting a Cultural Resource Survey for the project. See Exhibit 1, p. 4. Staff responded to the letter noting that the project did not anticipate any land disturbance activity and asking if the survey was warranted under those circumstances. See id. A written response from the Tribe was not provided. See id. However, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Randy Abrahamson, verbally indicated that if any new site disturbance should occur, then they would request a survey. See id. The Washington State Department of Historical Preservation did not request a survey. See id. The Staff determined that a cultural resource survey was not required as a mitigation measure given the developed nature of the site. See id. The Hearing Examiner agrees with that determination, given the circumstances. On March 20, 2020, the City of Spokane Valley, as the lead agency, issued a DNS for this project. See Exhibit 9. The DNS was based upon a review of the completed environmental checklist, the application, the applicable provisions of the municipal code, a site assessment, and comments from the public and affected agencies. See Exhibit 1, p. 3. There is nothing in this record that would call the City’s threshold determination into question. There was no testimony or other evidence presented at the hearing suggesting that the project would result in significant environmental harms that would not be addressed through standard mitigating measures. In addition, any appeal of the DNS was due 14 days after its issuance. See id. The DNS was not appealed. Testimony M. Palaniuk. As the Staff concluded, the procedural requirements of the SVMC and the SEPA have been fulfilled by the Applicant. Moreover, the proposed use, as conditioned, will not have significant impacts on the environment that are not being addressed by project conditions. As a result, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposal complies with the environment controls set forth in the SVMC. Page 8 of 12 4. The location, size, and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences, and visual screening for the conditional use shall not hinder or discourage the permitted development or use of neighboring properties. See 19.150.030(A)(2). The Sequoia Detox Center proposes to use an existing commercial building as a medical facility. The location, size, and height of the improvements are already established, and there is no evidence that those improvements hinder or interfere with neighboring uses or development plans. Moreover, the renovations necessary to facilitate the use will be to the interior of the building. See Exhibit 1, p. 5. There would be no apparent change to the exterior of the building. See id. There is an area outside the building that will be used for patient smoke breaks. See Exhibit 1, p. 5. However, that area is screened on three sides, mitigating against the potential impact on the neighbors. See id. There is no reason to believe that the proposed use has any effect on the development or use of neighboring properties. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner concludes that this criterion is met. 5. Requested modifications to standards are limited to those which will mitigate impacts in a manner equal to or greater than the standards of SVMC Title 19. See 19.150.030(A)(3). The applicant is not requesting any modifications to the standards. See Exhibit 1, p. 6. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to this case. Irrespective of that, the project is a permitted use in the Industrial District, as described in Paragraph 1 above, and is conditioned upon compliance with the applicable development standards. 6. The conditional use does not conflict with the health and safety of the community. See 19.150.030(A)(4). There is no evidence that the Sequoia Detox Center would conflict with health and safety of the community. On the contrary, the proposed facility contributes to the health of the community by providing inpatient medical care for those suffering with substance addiction. See Exhibit 1, p. 6. Residents will be afforded a secure, safe, and medically supervised location to detoxify. See id. Some substances can pose life-threatening risks when undergoing detox. The facility will be staffed with trained medical professionals who will monitor, administer medication, and provide care to those who are undergoing the detoxifying process. See id. The SVPD indicated on the previous CUP application for Sequoia Detox Centers that other facilities of this type exist in the City and that there is no perceptible increase in calls for service to these facilities. See id. Per the SVPD, there is no reason to believe that a detox center would impact the health or safety of the community or neighborhood. See id. The Hearing Examiner concludes that this criterion is met. Page 9 of 12 7. The proposed location does not result in the detrimental over-concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use, unless the proposed use is deemed a public necessity. See 19.150.030(A)(5). The Staff noted that several substance abuse treatment centers are located in Spokane Valley. See Exhibit 1, p. 6. However, the nearest substance abuse detox centers are Social Treatment Opportunity, located on Montgomery Ave near Argonne Road, and Treat With Care located on Trent Ave east of Argonne Road. See id. Both facilities are approximately 0.7 miles from the site. See id. There are no similar uses adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed detox center. As previously discussed, the neighboring businesses include a door supplier, a floor cleaning business, and a building material supplier, among other things. The installation of the Sequoia Detox Center will not add a detox service to a preexisting collection of similar facilities, either at this particular location or in the area generally. In addition, the Hearing Examiner gives substantial weight to the Staff’s interpretation that approval of the proposed use will not result in an over-concentration2 of such uses within the City. For the forgoing reasons, the Hearing Examiner concludes that this criterion for approval is satisfied. 8. The pedestrian and vehicular traffic associated with the use will not be hazardous or conflict with existing and anticipated traffic in the neighborhood. See 19.150.030(A)(6). A TGDL for the proposed use was prepared by Sunburst Engineering and submitted by the applicant. See Exhibit 1, p. 6. The TGDL was reviewed by the City’s Senior Traffic Engineer and, based on his evaluation, the expected trips generated during the PM peak hour are below the threshold for further evaluation. See id., pp. 6-7. No traffic concerns were raised by the Staff. See id., p. 7. In addition, there was no testimony at the hearing that suggested that pedestrian or vehicular traffic from the Sequoia Detox Center would be hazardous or create conflicts with existing uses. There was one public comment raising a concern about additional traffic. See Exhibit 10. However, that comment did not include any information about the amount of traffic, the nature or type of impacts specifically attributable to the proposal, or any discussion about the potential conflicts with existing traffic. In other words, there was no specific evidence that the proposed use would result in a significant amount of traffic or that traffic hazards or conflicts would arise due to the proposal. Under the circumstances, the Hearing Examiner finds that this criterion is met. 2 Because the project will not result in a “detrimental over-concentration” of a particular use, there is no need to discuss whether the proposed use would nonetheless be allowed as a “public necessity.” That part of the decision criteria is not relevant to this case. Page 10 of 12 9. There are adequate public facilities or services to support the use and the use will not adversely affect public services to the surrounding area or conditions can be established to mitigate adverse impacts on such facilities. See 19.150.030(A)(7). The Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposed use will not result in a discernable increase in the need for public services. The site of the proposed use is a fully developed, commercial property. The site is already served by public infrastructure, such as the sewer system. See Exhibit 1, p. 7. The traffic anticipated from the use is negligible, as previously discussed. See Paragraph 7 above. No specific traffic mitigation measures were required for this project. See Exhibit 1, p. 10. In addition, the SVPD previously advised the City that facilities of this type do not place additional demands on police services. See Exhibit 1, p. 6. The application and SEPA checklist were circulated to numerous departments and agencies for consideration and comment. None of the commenting agencies or departments suggested that public facilities were unavailable or insufficient to support the use. See Exhibit 9 (agency comments). Rather, agency comments were limited to construction details. See Exhibit 1, p. 10. The Hearing Examiner finds that this criterion is met. 10. The Hearing Examiner concludes that additional project conditions are not warranted for this proposal. See 19.150.040. The Hearing Examiner has discretion, pursuant to SVMC 19.150.040, to add various project conditions, depending on the circumstances of each case. The Hearing Examiner concludes that the project conditions proposed by Staff are sufficient to address any concerns about the project. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner declines to add discretionary, additional conditions to this proposal. The Hearing Examiner agrees with the Staff’s analysis regarding other project conditions, and hereby incorporates the Staff’s analysis on this issue. See Exhibit 1, pp. 7-9. DECISION Based on the findings and conclusions above, it is the decision of the Hearing Examiner to approve the proposed CUP for the Sequoia Detox Center with the following conditions: 1. This CUP authorizes the use as generally described in the plans and application documents on file with the Planning Department, at the specified location and for a maximum of 12 patients. Any increase in the number of patients, or change in services provided, will require a modification to this CUP. Other non-substantive changes may be administratively approved by the City. 2. All parking, loading, and maneuvering of all vehicles (patient transport vans, staff, deliveries, and emergency services) is to be accommodated for on the site in question so as to not impact neighboring properties or restrict access/maneuvering in the public way. Page 11 of 12 3. A Building Permit shall be required for the change of occupancy as well as construction/remodel work to be performed in the building and on the site as per the current edition of the International Building Code adopted pursuant to SVMC Title 24. Any changes to the nature of the facility, the types of services being provided, or the ability of all occupants to respond in an emergency with limited or no assistance may require future building permit review for change of occupancy classification. 4. A title notice shall be recorded for the property referencing CUP-2020-0002 decision and the conditions imposed on the use. 5. All permit and recording fees associated with the use are the responsibility of the applicant/owner. DATED this 17th day of June 2020. Brian T. McGinn City of Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner c/o City of Spokane Office of the Hearing Examiner 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd. Spokane WA 99201 509-625-6010 hearingexaminer@spokanecity.org Page 12 of 12 NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Pursuant to Chapter 17.90 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and Chapter 36.70C of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application for a conditional use permit is final and conclusive unless within 21 calendar days from the date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner’s decision, a party with standing files a land use petition in Superior Court pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70C. On June 17, 2020, a copy of this decision will be mailed by regular mail to the Applicant and persons entitled to notice and by verifiable electronic mail to all government agencies under SVMC 17.80.130(4). Pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70C, the date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner’s decision is three (3) days after it is mailed. The date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner’s decision will be June 22, 2020. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DECISION IS JULY 13, 2020. The complete record in this matter is on file during and after the appeal period with the City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department-Building and Planning Division, located at 10210 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206; by contacting staff at (509) 921-1000. Copies of the documents in the record will be made available at the cost set by the City of Spokane Valley. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.