HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-13 PC AGENDA PACKETSookane
jUalley
Notice and Agenda For Regular Meeting
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Thursday, November 13, 2025, at 6:00 p.m.
Remotely via ZOOM meeting and In Person at
Spokane Valley City Hall located at 10210 E Sprague Avenue
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Regular Spokane Valley Planning Commission meeting will be held November 13, 2025,
beginning at 6:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in Council Chambers at Spokane Valley City Hall located at 10210 E Sprague Avenue,
Spokane Valley, Washington. The propose of the meeting is to consider the items listed below on the Agenda.
NOTE: Members of the public may attend Spokane Valley Planning Commission meetings in -person at City Hall at the address
provided above, or via Zoom at the link below. Members of the public will be allowed to comment in -person or via Zoom as described
below:
If making a
comment via Zoom, comments must be received by 4:00 pm, the day of the meeting. Please email plammne(/Dspokanevallevv
or call the Planning Commission Secretary at 509-720-5110 to be added to the Zoom speaker list. Otherwise, comments will be
in -person at the meeting, as noted on the agenda below:
LINK TO ZOOM MEETING INFORMATION:
httlis://spokanevalley.zoom.us!/87146597722
One tap mobile
US:+12532158782„87146597722#or+13462487799„87146597722#US
Meeting ID: 871 4659 7722
AGENDA:
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 23, 2025
6. COMMISSION REPORTS
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
S. PUBLIC COMMENT: Thus an opportumbjor thepublic to speakon any subject except items listed aspublic comment
opportunity orpublic hearing as comments will be taken when those items appear on the agenda.
9. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a. Discussion: CTA-2025-0002 Reconsideration and Findings of Fact— Wireless Communication
Tower Height (Presented by Lori Barlow and Adam Knight)
10. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
11. ADJOURNMENT
Regular Meeting Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Spokane Valley City Hall
October 23, 2025
I. Chairman Robert McKinley called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held in
person and via ZOOM meetings.
H. The Commissioners and staff stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. Administrative Assistant Denise Mclain took attendance, and the following members and staff were
present:
Michael Kelly
Kelly Konlnright, City Attorney
Bob McKinley
Steve Roberge, Planning Manager
Emily Meyer - Absent
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
John Robertson
Adam Knight, Associate Planner
Justin Weathermon
Jonny Solberg, IT Specialist
Ann Winkler
Denise Mclain, Administrative Assistant
Dan Wilson - Absent
There was a consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Commissioner Wilson and
Commissioner Meyer from the meeting.
IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kelly moved, and it was seconded, to approve the agenda for October 23,
2025. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the
motion passed.
V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kelly moved, and it was seconded, to approve the meeting minutes as
presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the
motion passed.
VI. COMMISSIONER REPORT: There were no reports from the commissioners.
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Steve Roberge, Planning Manager, asked if the Planning
Commission signed up for the Comprehensive Plan Update. He reported that the next meeting would
be an open house style similar to Community Conversations that the City Council is doing. The
planning department will highlight draft land use scenarios. The open house will run from S:OOpm to
6:OOpm, with the regular meeting to follow.
Commissioner Kelly voiced his concern over the strain on resources and where the limit to our city's
utility capacity lies.
10-23-2025 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment offered.
Di. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a. Public Hearing: CTA-2025-0002—Wireless Communication Tower Height
Chairman McKinley opened the public hearing at 6:1 Opm.
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner, introduced Adam Knight, Associate Planner, and presented the
code text amendment regarding wireless communication tower height. Ms. Barlow gave a
review of the process, the approval criteria, and notified the commission that the next
meeting would be Findings of Fact. She reviewed the current issue with the wireless
communication tower regulations and why City Council has decided to have the Planning
Commission review the proposed amendment.
Chairman McKinley asked about extending the height to anticipate future needs. Ms. Barlow
responded that the current need is 100 feet, and we are trying to meet their needs based on
current designs. She also confirmed that a permit for a new tower has been filly vested with
the building department under the temporary emergency ordinance. Ms. Barlow shared three
possible options for the Planning Commission to consider for recommendation to the City
Council.
Mr. Knight presented a comparison of neighboring jurisdictions and the height allowances in
each zoning district.
The commissioners discussed the variance application process, the conditional use permit
process, and clarification on the defirition of a regional emergency provider.
Chairman McKinley closed the public hearing at 7:OOpm.
The commissioners deliberated options and discussed current regulations. There was a
consensus to consider leaving the regulations as they are.
Commissioner Weatherman moved, and it was seconded, to retain the current code
regulations and deny CTA-2025-0002 as it was presented. There was no discussion. The vote
on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed and the motionpassed.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Kelly thanked the staff for the work they put into the
presentation. Commissioner Roberston also thanked the staff. Chairman McKinley voiced his hope
that the next meeting would have a good turnout at the open house.
XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Winkler moved, and it was seconded, to adjourn the meeting at
7:12 p.m. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed.
10-23-2025 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3 of 3
Bob McKinley, Chairman Date Signed
Denise n
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: November 13, 2025
Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ study session ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: CTA-2025-0002 Findings of Fact: Wireless Communication Tower Height
Amendment
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.90.150 and 19.30.040.
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: Study Session October 9, 2025; and Public Hearing
October 23, 2025.
BACKGROUND: CTA-2025-0002 is a city -initiated code text amendment to amend chapter 22.120
Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to increase the tower height limit when the tower is used by a
regional organization for first responder communication. Current regulations limit the tower height to 60
or 90 feet depending on the zoning district. The Code Text Amendment (CTA) would increase the tower
height to 100 feet, with an additional 20 feet for an antenna may, for a total combined height of up to 120
feet, if the operator is a regional organization providing emergency communication. Pursuant to SVMC
19.30.040 modification to SVMC Titles 17 through 24 are classified as a Type IV development application
and require the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation to City Council.
Wireless Communication Towers are allowed in all nonresidential zoning districts so long as the
requirements of chapter 22.120 SVMC and SVMC 19.65.030 Communication Facilities are met. A
conditional use permit is required if the tower is proposed in a residential or multifamily zone. Generally,
the requirements address application requirements, design standards, including aesthetics, setbacks, and
height limits.
On July 29, 2025, City Council adopted Ordinance 25-013, as an emergency interim ordinance increasing
the height limits for communication towers used by regional facilities for first responder communication.
The ordinance stipulated that these interim regulations would be in effect for 190 days unless repealed,
extended or modified by the City Council.
The Council directed the Planning Commission consider an amendment to the tower height limit related to
first responder communication towers consistent with SVMC 17.90.150 and provide a recommendation for
a permanent code. On October 9, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a study session on the
amendment. On October 23, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and following
deliberations voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council deny the proposed CTA resulting in no changes
to the SVMC.
Subsequent to the public hearing while developing the findings of fact, staff determined it prudent to
highlight the following information that may affect the decision of the Planning Commission.
1. If the tower regulations are not permanently modified to allow emergency communication towers
to be up to 100 feet tall (120 feet with antenna), then it creates a possibility that the region could
be without emergency communications for a period of time. While Spokane Regional Emergency
Communications (SREC) submitted a complete application to construct the tower and is therefore
"vested" under the interim regulations, there are scenarios under which SREC could possibly lose
these vested rights.
RPCA CTA-1005-0000 Pagel of 3
For example, if SREC needs to significantly redesign the tower prior to construction, then it may
need to submit a new permit application for the tower. If this were to occur after the interim
emergency regulation expires, then SREC could lose any vested right to build atower up to 100
feet tall.
Assuming the tower is constructed under the current interim regulations, the tower will be a non-
conforming use if the current SVMC is not amended. As such, if 90 % or more of the tower were
to be damaged, then SREC would not be able to replace it with another tower of the same height
due to SVMC 19.25.020(G) and .030(E). Rather, SREC would have to either (a) seek a variance —
issuance of which is not guaranteed, or (b) purchase an alternate site and construct a new tower
(and potentially again relocate the call center). Under either scenario, the impact on regional
emergency communication services could be substantial.
Since not having emergency communication services available for any period of time —much less
an extended period of time — presents a threat to the health, safety and welfare of persons in the
region, staff recommends the Planning Commission consider adopting permanent tower
regulations that would enable SREC to construct towers up to 100 feet in height (120 feet with
antenna) in the event an incident occurs which .
The interim emergency regulation adopted by Council is limited to regional emergency
communication towers. Aside from the City of Spokane, SREC is the only operator of regional
emergency communication services and provides emergency communication services for the
Spokane County Sherriff s Office, Spokane Valley Police Department, local fire districts, and
other local emergency services providers. SREC has indicated that the 100 feet tall master
communications tower is the only tower it anticipates erecting within the City. Accordingly,
amending the SVMC to allow emergency communication providers to construct towers
exceeding the current height limitation will not result in the proliferation of 100 feet tall towers
throughout the City.
While the City expects the SC SO (and by extension SVPD) and other emergency service
providers will continue to be served by SREC, the recent breakdown of the relationship between
the City of Spokane and SREC is a reminder that regional relationships can unexpectedly dissolve
over time. In the future, for various reasons that cannot be foreseen, it is possible that providers of
emergency services may need the ability to construct their own towers in other locations within
the City for first -responder emergency communications. Were this to occur, the City and/or
Spokane Valley Fire Department will need to be able to erect their own emergency
communication towers and may need to do so quickly. Permanently amending the tower
regulations to allow for 100 feet tall emergency communications towers would facilitate the rapid
establishment of such communication towers (were it to become needed) without having to first
initiate the lengthy variance and/or code text amendment processes — processes that are not
guaranteed to give the authorization needed to provide essential emergency communication
services.
3. Emergency communications are avital government service protecting the health, safety and welfare
of the public. Requiring emergency communication providers to overcome barriers (such as
applying for a variance or code text amendment) in order to construct necessary communication
facilities can expose the public to dangers that are orders of magnitude greater than the dangers
such barriers are intended to mitigate against (for example, a danger to life is greater than the desire
to preserve neighborhood aesthetics).
Although the Planning Commission has already passed amotion to recommend that the City Council deny
CTA-2025-0002, the Planning Commission may reconsider their previous action if a motion to reconsider
RPCA CTA-2025-0002 Page 2 of 3
CTA-2025-0002 is made by a Planning Commissioner and supported by a second. Should this occur,
deliberations would follow where the Planning Commission could discuss the merits of reconsidering the
item. Following deliberations, the Planning Commission would vote on the motion to reconsider. If the
vote fails, the original motion to recommend that the City Council deny the CTA moves forward. If the
vote to reconsider passes, than a new motion must be made to begin the process for anew recommendation.
To support either path chosen by the Planning Commission, staff have prepared two findings of fact (FOF)
documents to address each situation. FOF version one formalizes the action taken by the Planning
Commission on October 23, 2025, that recommends denial of CTA-2025-0002. FOF version two reflects
a recommendation from the Planning Commission to approve CTA-2025-0002. Both are draft documents
and subject to change based on the discussion and outcome of the meeting. Staff will discuss the new
information at the meeting and is prepared to guide the Planning Commission through the process
MOTION:
If the Commission reconsiders CTA-2025-0002: Move to reconsider the CTA-2025-0002.
If the Planning Commission chooses to reconsider the CTA, then the next recommended motion
would be: Move to recommend approval of CTA-2025-0002 and approve Findings and
Recommendation for CTA-2025-0002.
If the Commission does not reconsider CTA-2025-0002: Move to approve the Findings and
Recommendation denying CTA-2025-0002 and recommending no changes to the municipal code.
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner and Adam Knight, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1) CTA-2025-0002
2) Findings of Fact CTA-2025-0002 denying and recommending no changes to SVMC
3) Findings of Fact CTA-2025-0002 recommending approval and changes to SVMC
RPCA CTA -1005-0000 Page 3 of 3
Draft CTA-2025-0002
Chapter 22.120
WII2ELESS COMMUNICATION FACILPPIES
Sections:
22.120.010 Put -pose and intent.
22.120.020 Permits and exemptions.
22.120.030 Required application submittals.
22.120.040 Design standards.
22.120.050 Landscaping.
22.120.010 Purpose and intent.
These standards were developed to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and minimize visual
impacts on residential areas, while furthering the development of wireless communication services. These
standards were designed to comply with the Telecommunication Act oft 996. The provisions of Chapter
22.120 SVMC arc not intended to and shall not 6e interpreted to prob ibit or to have the effect of
prohibiting wireless communication services. Chapter 22.120 SVMC shall cover all wireless
communication services other than small cell services, which are regulated pursuant to Chapter 22.121
SVMC.
22.120.020 Permits and exemptions.
Where a transmission tower or antcnos support structure is located in a zoning district which allows such
use as a permitted use activity, administrative review and a building permit shall be required, subject to
the project's consistency with the development standards set forth in SVMC 22.120.040. In instances
where the use is not allowed as a permitted use activity, a conditional use permit and building permit shall
be required in addition to a demonstration of consistency with all required development standards..
Exemption: Wireless radio utilized for temporary emergency communications in the event of a disaster is
exempt from the provisions of SVMC 22320.020 and shall be permitted in all zones.
22.120.030 Acquired application submittals.
All applications for wireless antenna arrays and wireless communication support towers shall include the
following:
A. A letter signed by the applicant stating that all applicable requirements of the FCC, the FAA, and any
required avigation easements have been satisfied.
B. A scaled site plan clearly indicating the location, type and height of the proposed tower, antennas, on -
site land uses and zoning, adjacent land uses and zoning, adjacent roadways, proposed means of access,
setbacks from property lines, elevation drawings of the proposed tower, the equipment structure, fencing,
buffering and the type of stealth technology which will be utilized. The full, detailed site plan shall not be
required if the antenna is to be mounted on an existing stmctm'e.
C.'the applicant shall have performed and provided a photographic simulation of the proposed facility
from all affected properties and public rights -of -way.
D. The applicant shall provide copies of any environmental documents required by the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
M 2025-0002 7
Ch. 22.120 SVMC-Draft
E. The applicant shall have demonstrated eftbrt to collocate on an existing support tower or other
structure. New support towers shall not be permitted within one mite of an existing support tower unless
it is demonstrated that no existing support tower or other structure can accommodate the proposed
antenna array. The City reserves the right to retain a qualified consultant, at the applicant's expense, to
review the supporting documentation for accuracy.
F. Evidence to demonstrate that no existing support tower or other structure can accommodate the
proposed antennn array may consist of the following:
1. No existing support towers or other structures are located within the geographic areas required to
meet the applicant's engineering requirements.
2. Existing support towers or other structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's
engineering requirements.
3. Existing support towers or other structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support the
applicant's proposed antenna array and related equipment.
4. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on
the existing support towers or other structures, or the antenna on the existing support towers or other
structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna.
G. The applicant of a new tower shall provide a signed stalemenl staling the applicant has provided notice
to all other area wireless service providers of its application to encourage the collocation of additional
antennas on the structure.
A. A signed statement from the owner and/or landlord to remove the facility or obtain another permit for
the facility within six months of when the facility is no longer operating as part of a wireless
communication system authorized and licensed by the FCC.
1. proof that all the necessary property or easements have been secured to assure for the proper
construction, continued maintenance, and general safety of the properties adjoining the wireless
communication facility
22.120.040 Design standards.
The support tower, antenna army, and supporting electrical and mechanical equipment shall be installed
using stealth technology. Stealth technology applies to all personal wireless service facilities, including,
without limitation, antennas, towers and equipment structures. For any facility, stealth technology means
the use of both existing and future technology through which a personal wireless service facility is
designed to resemble an object which is already present in the local environment, such as a tree,
streetlight, or traffic signal. It also includes:
A. For personal wireless service support towers:
1. If within existing trees, "stealth technology" means:
a. The tower is to he painted a dark color;
b. Is made of wood or metal; and
c. A greenbelt easement is required to ensure permanent retention of the surrounding trees.
CTA 2025-0002 2
Ch. 22.120 SVMC—Draft
2. Stealth technology for towers in a more open setting means that they must have a backdrop (for
example, but not limited to, trees, a hillside, or a structure) on at least two sides, be a compatible
color with the backdrop, be made of compatible materials with the backdrop, and that architectural or
landscape screening be provided for the other two sides. If existing Irees are the backdrop, then a
greenbelt easement is required to ensure permanent retention of the surrounding Imes.
3. Antennas shall be integrated into the design of any personal wireless service tower to which they
are attached. External projections from the tower shall be limited to the greatest extent technically
feasible.
4. For rooftop antennas or antennas mounted on other structures:
a. For omnidirectional antennas 15 feel or less above the roof, stealth technology means use of
color compatible with the root structure or background;
b. For other antennas, stealth technology means use of compatible colors and architectural
screening or other techniques approved by the City.
B. For antennas mounted on one or more building facades, stealth technology means use erector and
materials such that the facility has architectural compatibility with the building. It shall he mounted on a
wall of an existing building in a configuration as flush to the wall as technically possible and shall not
project above the wall on which it is mounted.
C. For equipment structures, stealth technology means locating within a building, or if on top of a
building, with architecturally compatible screening. An underground location, or above ground with a
solid fence and landscaping, is also considered stealth technology.
D. Advertising or display shall not be located an any support tower or antenna array; however, the owner
of the antenna array shall place an identification plate indicating the name of the wireless service provider
and a telephone number for emergency contact on the site.
E. No artificial lights other than those required by the FAA or other applicable authority shall be
permitted. All security lights shall be down -shielded, and installed to be consistent with Chapter 22.60
SVMC.
F. The facility shall be enclosed by a sight -obscuring secured fence not less than six feet in height with a
locking gate. No barbed wire or razor wire shall be permitted.
G. The support tower foundations, equipment shelters, cabinets or other on -the -ground ancillary
equipment shall be buried below ground or screened with a sight -obscuring secured fence not less than six
feet high. The requirement for a sight -obscuring fence may be waived provided the applicant has secured
all on -the -ground ancillary equipment in a locked cabinet designed to be compatible with and blend into
the setting, and the means of access for the support tower is located a minimum of 12 feet above the
ground.
H. All support structure(s) for wireless communication antennas shall have their means of access located
a minimum of eight feet above the ground unless the requirement for a fence has been waived.
I. The supporttower shall meet the minhnnn primary structure setback requirements for the underlying
Woe.
J. Support towers shall not be permitted inside a public park, public monument or private holding located
within a public park or public monument.
CTA 2025-0002
Ch. 22.120 SVMC—Draft
K. The height of the support tower m• antenna array above grade shalt not exceed the maximum height
identified in Table 22.120-1. The height of a support tower shall include antenna, Base pad, and other
appurtenances and shall he measured from the finished grade of the parcel.
Table 22.120-1— Tower Height Limitations
Zone
Antenna Array
Support Tower
R-1, Single -Family Residential Estate
20 feet above the zoning
height limitation or 16
60 feet!
R-2, Single -Family Residential Suburban
R-3, Single -Family Residential Urban
MFR, Multifamily Residential
feet above existing
Mixed Use (MU)
structure
Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Regional Commercial (RC)
20 feet above the zoning
height limitation or 20
20 feet higher than the
nmximnm height.
Industrial Mixed Use (IMU)
feet above existing
allowed in the zone or
Industrial (I)
80 feet whichever is
structure
less�u
'Wireless communication services, including transmission towers or antenna suonoR structures, that are
used by a regional organization for first responder communication shall be allowed to be a height of an
to 100 feet for the tower and up
to an additional height of 20 feet for the antenna array attached to the
tower, for a total combined height up to 120 feet.
'�2An additional 20 feet in height for each additional antenna array collocated on the suppot tower, Lip to
s maximum lower height of 100 feet, including the height of all sanctions.
22.120.050 Landscaping.
Refer to Chapter 22.70 SVMC for landscaping requirements applicable to the underlying zoning district.
CTA 2025-0002
Ch 22.120 SVMC- a -off
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
CTA-2025-0002 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. Spokane Regional Emergency Communications (SREC) operates the regional 911 call center that
serves the City and Spokane County. SREC has been located at a facility it leases from the City of
Spokane. SREC's lease terminates at the end of 2025, and Spokane has elected to not renew SCREC's
lease.
2. Consequently, SREC is relocating its call center and master communications tower to property it owns
in Spokane Valley. To continue to provide regional emergency communication services for the region
the SREC must construct its master emergency wireless communications tower at the new site swittiy.
3. SREC has identified that to provide reliable continuous emergency communications services
throughout the region, the communications tower must be at least 100 feet high with the antenna may
able to extend up to 20 feet above the tower. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.120.040
prohibits tower heights from exceeding a maximum height of 60 feet, with an additional 20 feet allowed
for antenna army attached to the tower.
4. On July 29, 2025, City Council adopted Ordinance 25-013, as an emergency interim ordinance
increasing the height limits for communication towers used by regional facilities for first responder
communication. The ordinance stipulated that these interim regulations would be in effect for 180
days unless repealed, extended or modified by the City Council.
5. CTA-2025-0002 is a city -initiated code text amendment (CTA) to increase the tower height limit
identified in chapter 21.120 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) up to 100 feet with an additional
20 feet for an antenna when the tower is used by a regional organization for first responder
communications, and other related matters.
6. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on
October 23, 2025. The Commissioners voted 5-0 (with two commissioners absent) to recommend that
City Council deny CTA-2025-0002 and recommending no changes to the municipal code.
Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation:
1. 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 amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies of
Comprehensive Plan:
i. LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors.
ii. CF-GE Ensure efficient and cost-effective public safety and emergency services.
iii. CF-P7 Maintain a comprehensive emergency management planthat meets the needs of the city and
coordinates with regional emergency planning efforts.
iv. U-P2 Promote the development of citywide communication networks using the most advanced
technology available.
Findings and Ree.m datims of Ne Spokane Valley Plammg Commissim CTA-2025-0002 Page 1 0f2
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, we fare and
protection of the environment. Hoieveq the planrnirg Commission also finds that:
i. The proposed amendment would allow the increase in toner height in both non-
commercial and commercial zones, and that if needed, an applicant has the ability —
in non -emergency situations —to apply for a variance to the [over height provided
they demonstrate variance requirements we met.
u. SREC's need for additional height is not due to an expansion of their current
operating system, but because they are forced to relocate. The existing conditions of
the new location cause the need for additional toner height, and it is unlikely that
SREC or another regional emergency communications provider will need an
additional tmver at this height at a different location in the future.
m. SREC has not indicated afuture need for additional tmvers that meet or do not meet
the current height limit regulations.
iv. SREC has submitted a buildingpermit for the construction of a 100-foot-tall tmver
that is vested under the regulations established by ORD 25-013. The permit is
complete and vested. The construction of the 100-foot-tall toner can proceed, and no
further emergency presently exists.
v. The construction of the tmver eliminates the need for the additional toner and
antenna height increase, as each occurrence and the specific needs of the site cannot
be anticipated, and may not be addressed by the proposed CTA.
vi. There is no evidence that arty further requests will be mode for a tmver height
increase by a regional providerfor the purpose of emergency communications.
Findings: The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety and
welfare or the environment.
Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC
17.90.150 (F), but a permanent amendment of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code is not absolutely
necessary.
2. Recommendation:
For the reasons stated above, the Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends that City Council
deny CTA-2025-0002.
Attachment: Exhibit 1 — Proposed Amendment CTA-2025-0002
Signed this 13th day of November 2025
Planning Commission
ATTEST
Denise McClain, Office Assistant
Findings and Recommendations of Ne Spokane V alley Planning Commission CTA-2025-0002 Page 2 cf 2
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
CTA-2025-0002 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. Spokane Regional Emergency Communications (SREC) operates the regional 911 call center that
serves the City and Spokane County. SREC has been located at a facility it leases from the City of
Spokane. SREC's lease terminates at the end of 2025, and Spokane has elected to not renew SCREC's
lease.
2. Consequently, SREC is relocating its call center andiraster communications towers to property it owns
in Spokane Valley. To continue to provide regional emergency communication services for the region
the SREC must construct its master emergency wireless communications tower at the new site swiftly.
3. SREC has identified that to provide reliable continuous emergency communications services
throughout the region, the communications tower must be at least 100 feet high with the antenna army
able to extend up to 20 feet above the tower. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.120.040
prohibits tower heights from exceeding a maximum height of 60 feet, with an additional 20 feet allowed
for antenna army attached to the tower.
4. On July 29, 2025, City Council adopted Ordinance 25-013, as an emergency interim ordinance
increasing the height limits for communication towers used by regional facilities for first responder
communication. The ordinance stipulated that these interim regulations would be in effect for 180
days unless repealed, extended or modified by the City Council.
5. CTA-2025-0002 is a city -initiated code text amendment (CTA) to increase the tower height limit
identified in chapter 21.120 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) up to 100 feet with an additional
20 feet for an antenna when the tower is used by a regional organization for first responder
communications, and other related matters.
6. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on
October 23, 2025. The Commissioners voted 5-0 (with two commissioners absent) to recommend that
City Council deny CTA-2025-0002.
7. On November 13, 2025, the Planning Commission voted to to reconsider CTA-2025-0002.
and subsequently voted to to recommend that City Council adopt CTA-2025-0002.
Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation:
1. 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 amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies of
Comprehensive Plan:
i. LU-G2 Provide forlanduses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors.
ii. CF-GE Ensure efficient and cost-effective public safety and emergency services.
iii. CF-P7 Maintain a comprehensive emergency management plan that meets the needs of the city and
coordinates with regional emergency planning efforts.
Findings and Recoov mdatioos of Ne Spokane V alley Planning Co=issim CTA-2025-0002 Page 1 of 2
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
iv. U-P2 Promote the development of citywide communication networks using the most advanced
technology available.
b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, we fare and
protection of the envirorvnent.
Findings: The proposed amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare,
and protection of the environment. SREC operates the regional 911 call center that serves the city,
Spokane County and other areas in the region. SREC will be locating their 911 call center and
emergency communications tower to a site within the Spokane Valley City limits. They have
demonstrated that to provide continuous and reliable emergency communication they require a
wireless communication tower that is 100 feet in height. The code text amendment ensures that
emergency communication services can be provided ensuring the continuation of emergency
services while limiting the opportunity for additional towers to be constructed at the increased
height.
While SREC is currently vested under the interim emergency Ordinance No. 25-013, reasonably
foreseeable circumstances could arise that would cause SREC to lose that vested right. For
example, absent a permanent amendment to the SVMC, SREC would lose its vested right to build
a tower up to 100 feet tall if 80 % or more of the master communications tower were to be
damaged in the future. See SVMC 19.25.020(G) and .030(E). Requiring SREC to seek a variance
to rebuild the tower would cause significant delay in re-establishing emergency communication
services and, if the variance were denied, would fiuther disrupt emergency communication
services during the time it takes SREC to identity, purchase, and develop a new location.
Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC
17.90.150 (F).
2. Recommendation:
For the reasons set forth above, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed code
text amendment to increase the height limit for wireless communication towers identified in chapter
22.120 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) when the tower is used by aregional organization for
first responder communications, and other related matters is consistent with the requirements of SVMC
17.80.150(F) and the Comprehensive Plan.
Attachment: Exhibit 1 —Proposed Amendment CTA-2025-0002
Signed this 13°i day of November 2025
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST
Denise McClain, Office Assistant
Findings and Recommendations of Ne Spokane V alley Planning Commission CTA-2025-0002 Page 2 of 2