Loading...
2010, 02-16 Study Session MinutesMINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington February 16, 2010 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst Dean Grafos, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Absent: Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting. 1. Greater Spokane, Inc (GSI) Fourth Quarter Report — Robin Toth GSI's VP for Economic Development Robin Toth gave an overview of GSI's fourth quarter report of activities, which covers the time period of October 1 to December 31, 2009; she explained about the recruitment activities, business retention and expansion activities, industry engagements, business development project, strategic engagements, and workforce and education activities, as noted in her accompanying PowerPoint presentation. 2. Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Interlocal Agreement — Glenn Miles Stan Schwartz SRTC Manager Glenn Miles and legal counsel Stan Schwartz gave some history and update on the SRTC in general and of the draft proposed amended Interlocal Agreement. Mr. Miles started by explaining the history and function of the SRTC, including legal statutory authority and core functions of an MPO (metropolitan planning organization), and steps for transportation planning. Attorney Stan Schwartz went over the draft interlocal and the reasons for the proposed changes, as noted in his accompanying February 2, 2010 letter from Spokane City Assistant City Attorney Michael Piccolo. Mr. Schwartz explained the key issues and said the attorneys will get together to discuss council ideas which will be merged back into the document, and said they will again brief Council prior to action being taken on the interlocal. Mr. Schwartz also explained the rationale behind section 5 setting out the governing body and officers. Mr. Miles added that the last time member dues were established was in 2003 when Spokane Valley incorporated. Mr. Schwartz brought Council's attention to Section 8 of the interlocal, which addresses the work program and annual budget, and said that the second added sentence was directed at the small cities, and that if they were not previously required to contribute, they'll be given written notice of one year, which allows an entity to opt out, but he said if too many opt out, there would be a budget problem. Mr. Schwartz mentioned that Section 10 states that SRTC can acquire property, either personal or real, but the extent for acquiring real property is restricted to use for transportation related purposes only. Mr. Schwartz explained that the next SRTC Board meeting is scheduled for March 11; that they are trying to get comments from Spokane Valley, and merge any comments into this document, and circulate it once more to all entities; stating that the hope is to have enough common ground for a satisfactory agreement in April. In response to Council question, Mr. Schwartz said he would send the Council a copy of the prior agreement for comparison purposes. Council Meeting Minutes: 2 -16 -2010 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: 02 -09 -2010 3. Wastewater Management — Neil Kersten/Bruce Rawls Public Works Director Kersten introduced Spokane County Utilities Director Bruce Rawls, and explained that Mr. Rawls has worked long and hard to get ready for the wastewater needs and capacities, that it is a very complicated issue, and said Mr. Rawls has brought several staff with him tonight to help explain the issues. Mr. Rawls said he has reported to council many time to discuss wastewater issues, and that at the end of November, he met with then Mayor Munson and Mr. Mercier, who recommended Mr. Rawls give an overview of the program and related issues to the new councilmembers. Per their accompanying PowerPoint, Mr. Rawls and his staff discussed some of the history and upcoming issues involved with the septic tank elimination program (STEP) including information about the City /County collaboration on those STEP projects; wastewater capacity; Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL); the Water Reclamation Facility including mention of pumping stations, pipelines, schedule, costs, and potential uses for Class A reclaimed water; the highlights of planning to date, the Reclaimed Water site layout plan; the building of the treatment operations facility and water resource center; the conveyance system; anticipated project schedule and current anticipated costs; Saltese Flats wetland project, including mention of Saltese Creek, Shelley Lake, and Steen Pit and of the potential benefits and feasibility study showing various options and concept designs and project status; the Wastewater Policy Advisory Board (WPAB), which was created last July by interlocal agreement and includes two councilmembers, two Commissioners, and one citizen at large, who is former City Councilmember Dick Denenny. Mr. Rawls said that it is anticipated the sewer program construction will be completed in 2011; that there are about 35,000 customers of which approximately 70% reside in Spokane Valley. Mr. Rawls also mentioned that after notice to the citizens, the monthly rates went from $27 to $40, and another large increase is expected next year•, that this is an expensive problem but it is necessary to take care of water quality. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:50 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:07 p.m. 4. Holcim Access Agreement — Cary Driskell Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that the City inherited park property at Myrtle Point, and that approximately one acre of that property is contaminated with cement kiln dust (CKD) as a result of a cement factory that was operated on the property immediately south of the site, owned by Holcim. Mr. Driskell said that Holcim acknowledges its responsibility to address the contamination, and is working with the City and the Washington State Department of Ecology, and also with Waste Management in a pilot project to use soils to keep heavy metals from migrating in landfills; and that based on this, the City entered into an access agreement so Holcim and Waste Management could take the sample. Mr. Driskell said Holcim has been trying to work with the property owner between the City's property and the public road, and that the process is close to finalization, but Holcim has requested some additional time to complete access, and collecting the soil samples for the test, and that with this amendment to the Access and Indemnity Agreement, the City would grant Holcim the right to access the City property to conduct the CKD excavation and related activities, and to repair, rebuild, or replace the damaged fencing; and that this agreement would expire no later than July 31, 2010. There was Council consensus for staff to move this forward and place on the next council's consent agenda. 5. Cable Advisory Board - Morgan Koudelka Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained that the Regional Cable Advisory Board was created via a memorandum of understanding among Spokane County, the City of Spokane, and Spokane Valley on September 13, 2003; that there are eleven board members, three of whom are appointed by the our City, two by the City of Spokane, and two by Spokane County; and that the Board only reached a quorum once in 2009; and that due to the lack of interest and moreover, that the Board's ability to address unresolved subscriber complaints has not been used by the public, perhaps in part because Spokane Valley is accessible via a phone number printed on every subscriber's monthly bill; and that Comcast has a good history of customer service, that neither we nor the CAB regulates rates, and that overall interest has waned. Mr. Koudelka said that Spokane County's staff liaison has indicated they will recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, that the County withdraws from the Board; and Mr. Koudelka is presenting that option now before Council for their consideration; and that such withdrawal must be done Council Meeting Minutes: 2 -16 -2010 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: 02 -09 -2010 via a resolution. There was council consensus to bring forth a resolution at the next council meeting for council consideration to withdraw from the Cable Advisory Board. 6. Council Broadcasting — Grey? Bingaman and Morgan Koudelka Mr. Koudelka explained that staff wants to ensure Council is aware of the available resources and potential options, and to gather Council's input on what additional information is desired concerning any broadcasting of council meetings. Mr. Koudelka explained that Council adopted the cable franchise last December, and within that franchise, Comcast agreed to pay the equivalent of 35¢ per subscriber per month toward the capital reimbursement that goes toward public, educational, and governmental (PEG) broadcasting; he said that equates to approximately $92,000 annually; also in the franchise agreement is $150,000 lump sum payment to occur which would be entirely recovered through Comcast by diverting some of the 35¢ per month per subscriber fees; and said we continue to receive the 10¢ per month per subscriber; which is approximately $440,000 of potential capital funding over a five -year contribution period; and said the cable operator has an opportunity to opt out after five years should there be an opportunity for a federal or state franchise agreement; and if not, the agreement would continue and repeat in a second five years. Mr. Koudelka explained that qualifying expenditures are capital items such as equipment and construction used to record and broadcast PEG broadcasting over the Comcast channels. Further, Mr. Koudelka explained, staff has looked at contracting with the provider in the past where Comcast would do everything, but Comcast said they did so, they would need to have the capital expenditures segregated from the operational expenditures. Mr. Koudelka said that other revenue we receive from Comcast includes 5% of Comcast's gross revenues as a franchise fee, which is approximately $1 million dollars annually; and with the new agreement, Comcast agreed to provide a $10,000 up -front payment to defray costs for auditing should the City choose to do so. Mr. Koudelka said we have received other requests for this funding, from the Cable Advisory Board for Learning and Education (CABLE), of $63,000 in annual capital contributions; and Community Minded Television (CMTV) which currently provides public access programming over the system, and they have requested $74,000 in annual capital contributions; and said staff recommends making a decision for our needs prior to making decisions for other entities. Mr. Koudelka said a community survey was conducted in 2009, which has been incorporated into the City's business plan, and he went over the results of that survey as noted in his PowerPoint presentation; adding that at the time of the survey, we were not broadcasting our council meetings. In response to council questions concerning the $150,000, Mr. Koudelka said we have not received those funds yet; and if we determine not to use the funds, Comcast has a right to review our expenditures at the end of the year, and if they believe we are not properly using those funds, Comcast could withhold an equivalent amount in subsequent years, and if we never used the funds, there is not a mechanism in the cable franchise which addresses returning the 35¢ to the subscribers, adding they have not started to collect that 35¢ from the estimated 22,000 users; that we have asked Comcast for notification of when that might start. Councilmember Grafos said it was mentioned that Comcast would be giving the City $150,000, but said isn't that really a tax or an increase in fees from Comcast; as concerning the $150,000, Comcast advances those funds upfront to the City, then they go back and charge the 35¢ to their subscribers; and Mr. Koudelka confirmed Comcast will recover that from their customers and it is not currently being assessed. Councilmember Grafos said in addition, they are now charging the 5% franchise fee; and Mr. Koudelka explained that 5% franchise is in effect now. Mr. Grafos said in addition to the tax increase or fee increase, or that 35¢, they are putting limitations on the way those funds can be used; that those funds can only be used for channel 14, or for the learning and education channels. Mr. Koudelka said there are three, the governmental broadcasting which would be our council meetings, and channel 14 is the public access and there are several channels which are educational programming; and he confirmed those costs cannot be used for staffing purposes, but only for equipment; which Mr. Koudelka explained, is according to an FCC interpretation. In response to further question from Councilmember Grafos, Mr. Koudelka said both surveys were statistically valid, which means their sample size was approximately 400 or large enough to assume a small margin of error; and he said that the citizen survey was not related to Comcast customers, but just Spokane Valley citizens, and the cable survey included everyone and included a Council Meeting Minutes: 2 -16 -2010 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: 02 -09 -2010 question if the respondent was a Comcast subscriber. Councilmember Grafos asked if the city has the option of rescinding the 35¢ or the 5% fee and going back to a lower rate for the customer; or are we "stuck with this because the prior Council approved it ?" Mr. Koudelka said he doesn't know if there is an inability to change this, and such answer would require a legal review; and Councilmember Grafos said he would like to see if that is a possibility; and Mr. Koudelka said staff could research that information for Council. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said no one is being discriminated against except the people who would be paying the 35¢, as not everyone has Cable so they don't pay the fee; and he commented on the lack of clarify of the current re- broadcasting of the Council meetings on Channel 14; he said he could support this if it were city -wide, as it would be just about the same basis in fact when we send out our "hot sheet" which only goes to part of the citizens; and said there are a "bunch of people left out." IT Specialist Greg Bingaman then spoke concerning the technical aspects of broadcasting council meetings, and asked Council to keep in mind what it is they hope to accomplish with broadcasting, to only provide broadcasting of Council meetings, or perhaps broadcast something more similar to what Channel 5 currently broadcasts. Mr. Bingaman said one option is to continue what we are now doing and said that the broadcasting quality is provided by the SVBA (Spokane Valley Business Association) through an arrangement with Community Minded Television; that there are some limitations on where the cameras can be placed within the council chambers, but if this were an internal broadcast, we would have better camera locations to make the broadcast better; and said regarding audio, this council chamber was not designed with television broadcasting in mind, so the current audio feed CMTV is using is more of a complimentary hookup to allow them better audio then just picking up sound from the camera's microphones; and said if council wanted to broadcast, a better audio system could be installed. Mr. Bingaman went over the options, including what the current set -up entails; that the meetings are re- broadcast the following Monday at 7:30 p.m. on the public access channel 14; that the cost of the current production is approximately $1400 monthly which provides for one camera operator, some post- editing, and one hour of replay; although Mr. Bingaman said they have been replaying the video up to about an hour and a half as a courtesy; but if we wanted to cover meetings of two or three hours each, the cost would be approximately $2,000 monthly. Another option, Mr. Bingaman said, would be to broadcast the meetings live which means we could negotiate with City Channel 5 for broadcasting with them; we could use the multi jurisdictional channel reserved by Comcast but not currently active, which would be shared with the City of Spokane, us, and Spokane County; or we could possibly negotiate with Community Minded Television to broadcast on their public access channel; within our city limits, we could replace Spokane's City Channel 5 with our own channel; we could broadcast across the Internet; or we could choose not to broadcast. Mr. Bingaman said each option could include a myriad of options, but tonight he seeks guidance from Council on which option to pursue. Councilmember Gothmann distributed and referred to his handout entitled "excerpts from Feb. 2008 survey" which survey he conducted among cities in Washington state which broadcast their council meetings; and said out of 54 cities, he received 26 responses, and referenced the mrsc.org website for the complete text of comments. In the spirit of disclosure, Councilmember Gothmann said that he has made donations to Community Minded Television; and that he joined SVBA last month for the first time because they were cooperating with CMTV. Councilmember Gothmann then read some of the comments contained on his handout dated 2- 14 -10. Councilmember Gothmann said he recommends we continue with Community Minded TV to do the delayed broadcast; and if we desired, other elements could be added later. Councilmember Gothmann asked if we have been getting the $1 million annually from Comcast prior to the negotiation of this contract. Mr. Koudelka said yes, that we inherited the franchise agreement between the County and Comcast when we became a city, and that was part of the franchise agreement. In response to the question if we have franchise contracts with other utilities, Mr. Koudelka said yes, but we don't receive fees; that the Cable franchise is different as it is governed by the FCC which has Council Meeting Minutes: 2 -16 -2010 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: 02 -09 -2010 oversight of the franchise fees, and said there are limitations in Washington State concerning what can be recovered on other franchises. Councilmember Gothmann said he assumes the 10¢ a month can only be used for capital equipment, and Mr. Koudelka confirmed that is correct. Councilmember Gothmann said it is his understanding there is federal legislation pending to allow PEG funds to be used for capital and operational funds, and he asked if Mr. Koudelka was aware of any such pending legislation; and Mr. Koudelka said he is not; that the last he heard is that the interpretations of the FCC on the Federal Cable Act were being disputed legally by several organizations including those representing municipalities; but the outcome is unknown. Councilmember Grafos asked Mr. Bingaman what he would anticipate the monthly staffing fees would be to implement this program; and Mr. Bingaman said an estimate would be difficult as it would depend on what level of information they wanted broadcast, but for something similar to what is being done now on a taped - relay, Mr. Bingaman said costs are minimum; if we wanted to provide our own city channel, would have a greater cost and therefore greater participation; which is one of the questions staff has for council now, is what does council wish to pursue; and that any operational cost would likely come out of the general fund. Councilmember Grafos said in that case, it would basically be a tax increase. Mr. Bingaman said from his research, the typical city of similar size, running a full channel of twelve to eighteen hours of daily programming, usually has either one or one and a half, full time staff. In response to Councilmember Dempsey's question concerning broadcasting on the Internet; Mr. Bingaman said it is possible; but the advantage using cable would be that a lot of the hardware would be covered; as those PEG franchise funds could not be used just for broadcasting on the Internet, and an option could include doing both; and Councilmember Dempsey said she would like to have the Internet included as a possible option. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting to 9:30 p. m. Mayor Towey said he couldn't give a recommendation unless he knows the start-up costs, the annual maintenance, and where the funds would come from; and he asked if it were possible to get a general idea of those costs for the six options mentioned in the materials tonight. Mr. Bingaman said he can explore those options and do the research, but said it will take some time to gather that information. Acting City Manager Jackson said staff seeks council's recommendation on how to proceed on this topic; and if there is general consensus to explore all the options, staff can certainly do that. Councilmember Gothmann then stated some of the startup costs and other costs as noted on his handout; keeping in mind that the capital costs would be none as that would be supplied by Comcast, and he reminded Council that we receive $1 million annually from Comcast, and this would represent less than 2% of that contract; so the start up cost using our current method would be none, the operational cost would be $1,320 monthly, and the capital cost would be none. Councilmember Grafos said that the $1 million dollars we receive from Comcast has nothing to do with the $150,000 getting over the 35¢; but that is the franchise fee being paid now, and which we were getting before we were broadcasting. Councilmember Gothmann agreed with that statement, but said he suggested if we are getting $1 million from Comcast, what are we using that for; and said that a reasonable expense out of that $1 million would be to use it for the purpose of TV. Councilmember Grafos said those funds are going into the general fund, and there is about a $20 million deficit coming up, we're in the red, and there are wants and needs for the city; and he said that's why he's sure Mayor Towey would like to explore all the possibilities and the cost. Councilmember Gothmann said he feels that is a great idea, but corrected Mr. Grafos in that we do not have a deficit. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he strongly suggested we express to Comcast that we do not want that $150,000 passed on at this time, and also suspend the 35¢ at this time, and go from there. Mr. Jackson asked if Council wanted to do that prior to exploring all the options; and Deputy Mayor Schimmels said yes, that he thinks this could go on forever; and said he would hate to "go down the road after the gate's open, collect money on false pretenses;" and he suggested stopping now since we can't decide on this, to move on and go from there. Council Meeting Minutes: 2 -16 -2010 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: 02 -09 -2010 Councilmember Dempsey said she feels there is not agreement on this; and Deputy Mayor Schimmels responded that that was her problem, and her question; but that he was stating a fact. Councilmember Dempsey asked what fact he was stating, and Mr. Schimmels said he would suspend the 35¢. Councilmember Dempsey said this is a proposal and not a fact; to which Mr. Schimmels replied that she could call it whatever she chose to; it's 35¢ and is a tax on the viewers, and he said he was directing that to staff. Deputy City Attorney Driskell said to clarify, he understands there is a request for the legal department to examine the options of doing an amendment to the agreement; and Mr. Driskell recommended that research be conducted before council considers making other options, so that Council has all the necessary information to make such decision. There was no council objection. To clarify, Mr. Jackson said staff will bring back to council, the options of not accepting the $150,000 and Comcast not charging the 35¢ fee to the subscribers, and to further explore costs associated with all the options. Councilmember Grassel said she feels this is a good idea, and said she would like to see an option perhaps on the Internal, or maybe even U -Tube; and said we could probably find some "fat" in our current budget to cover minimal costs; that she has some ideas of areas in our budget that could be reduced to help cover this, if this is what citizens would like to see; and said perhaps we could ask staff what areas in our current budget could be reduced to cover these costs. Mr. Jackson said to clarify, he understands Council desires that staff bring back information on the options, and what mechanisms there are to consider turning down the $150,000 and declining the 35¢ subscription fee; and there were no Council objections. In addition, Mr. Jackson asked if council would like staff to pursue some basic costs or a range of costs on all the options, including the option of using just the Internet; and again, there were no objections from Council. 7. Paveback — Neil Kersten and Mike Jackson Public Works Director Kersten said that as mentioned during his presentation at the retreat, there are several options to the paveback issue; that we would simply not do the paveback and just have the County do the trench work; or we could do the paveback at the two inches over the four inch base, which is what we have been doing since incorporation; or use the standards that were just passed which requires three inches over six inch base, which would bump the cost to about $2.5 million and the County have would have another $900,000 in costs; and he said that each option takes into consideration the approximate $330,000 Community development Block Grant funded to be deducted from the costs; and said that we could waive the new standards for the paveback of the STEP projects if council desired. After brief discussion and mention that Council does not want to pass an additional expense to the public, and that the STEP program is almost complete, that still will bring forth a motion and an agreement for next week's council consideration to fund the remaining STEP projects and to use the former standards; and that the funds to be used to complete the paveback will be taken from the Civic Facilities fund. 8. Police Precinct Commander Position — Mike Jackson Acting City Manager Jackson said that as a result of last week's presentation requesting consideration of adding a precinct commander position, he met with the representatives of the Sheriff's Office and with Police Chief VanLeuven to discuss options but they have not come up with a suitable solution; that one alternative suggested by the Sheriff's Office is to consider adopting a new cost plan which he said, we anticipate will be adopted in April or May; but said that staff doesn't agree to adopt that as the components were not reviewed or agreed to; or an option would be to move 1.5 positions from the Valley precinct and begin to fund some other grant position which was funded by the county in the past; and the Sheriff and Undersheriff said that would not work for the County; that all believe a second -in- command is necessary at the Valley precinct and such would be included in final negotiations; and that if council wants to fund the position, it would be a direct expenditure, and if so, staff could draft a Memorandum of Understanding to fund the position at an annual cost of $152,706, and that if council approves this option, the police department would begin recruitment as soon as the funding for the position is authorized by Council. Mr. Jackson said all involved agreed with the need to be cognizant of not letting the cost increase over time, and of how to approach the negotiation of the new contract, that we need to have those discussions, and he would look for an opportunity in the new contract to offset this position. There was Council Meeting Minutes: 2 -16 -2010 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: 02 -09 -2010 Council consensus of the need to fund the position, and Council therefore asked staff to bring a Memorandum of Understanding to the next council meeting for council's consideration. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting an additional fifteen minutes, to 9:45 p.m. 9. Advance Agenda — Mayor Towey There were no suggested changes to the advance agenda. 10. The Triangle Property near 16608 Broadway the Capital Projects Future List, and the Community Service Program were for information only and were not reported or discussed. 11. Council Check -in — Mayor Towey Councilmember Gothmann said he lives in the Ponderosa area, and that based upon a recent court decision relative to development in Ponderosa, that perhaps it is time for this city to issue a moratorium to building in the Ponderosa. Deputy City Attorney Driskell said he would research that issue and bring information back to council for their consideration. Councilmember Grafos said that at last week's winter retreat, there was a heated discussion about zoning and at that time he turned in about thirteen letters from property owners having problems with our building permit department or having problems with zoning and the changes in the zoning since we incorporated, and he said he now has five more of those letters to turn in for the record, from people having problems with the SARP (Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan) Zoning; that one is from the Elephant Boys Boating Store which lost their zoning; the other is from the Plant Farm which is trying to work with the building code department which is requiring some information from them; the other is from the three largest sign companies in the City who feel that our zoning is too restrictive; and said he would like to put these five letters in the record for council's review. 12. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson Acting City Manager Jackson asked Council if there is a desire to support the public record legislation as noted on the draft amended legislative agenda; that this legislation would make it possible for a municipality to direct people to a website; that this has been done in the past but it appears that in some cities, citizens ask staff to look it up; that this legislation would provide for voluntary confirmation to clarify requests, and he asked if Council were amenable for him to submit this to our lobbyist. There was no council objection. Mr. Jackson also mentioned that the lobbyist has submitted our request for $318,000 for funding at the intersection of Sprague and Sullivan, and he hopes to have information on that by the end of the week. 13. Executive session It was announced there would be no executive session. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes: 2 -16 -2010 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: 02 -09 -2010 Excerpts from Feb. 2008 Survey — Populations are in parentheses See Complete Text of Comments at: www. mrsc .org /GovDocs /S72TvMtgSrvy.pdf Bill Gothmann 2 -14 -10 Auburn Mayor Pro -Tem Sue Singer (50,470) Many more people are interested in what we are doing. Strangers approach me regularly to comment that they saw me on TV. DuPont Councilmember Jennifer Crouse (7045) 1 was not expecting so many people to watch, and I was often surprised by people commenting that they had seen me on tv. I would strongly urge you to do this, Ellensburg Mayor Nancy Lillquist (17,220) 1 am frequently surprised by how many people watch the proceedings. Enumclaw Mayor Pro -Tem Kevin Mehelona (11,320) It has been surprising to find out how many households do watch our council meetings - either live or delayed broadcast. Everett Council President Brenda Stonecipher, (101,800) ... we have received praise for our recent addition to live- casting. Kelso Mayor David Fucher, (11,840) My advice would be to embrace this Kirkland Mayor James Lauinger (47,890) We hear regularly that citizens get a substantial amount of public knowledge from our televised meetings. Viewing is fairly high, too. Lynnwood WA Council President Loren Simmonds (35,490) To the best of our knowledge, 25 -30% of our citizens watch the delayed video ... Our current budget for TV broadcasts is about $15,000 per year. It is worth every penny in my opinion. Pasco Mayor Joyce Olson (50,210 -- by phone) More people are now watching the meetings. We are closer to our constituents. New people are seeing the meetings. Redmond Council President Nancy McCormick (50,680) 1 view having the meetings televised (and webstreamed as of a little over a year ago) a huge plus for our citizens, a very positive experience. Go for it, especially as a newer City. Richland Mayor John Fox (45,070) It's surprising to me how many people watch and comment on it. Seatac Mayor Ralph Shape (25,530) 1 would urge any city to do this because the public benefit is so great.... We have not yet purchased cameras for a permanent installation. There is a local company which we contract with who comes in each meeting, sets up the cameras, makes the recording and then we play it on our local TV channel. Seattle Council President Richard Conlin (586,200) 1 would encourage you to go full steam ahead — it is a great way to build better city- community relations. Tumwater Mayor Pro -Tem Pete Kmet (13,340) I'd certainly encourage you to consider broadcasting meetings. I think it has helped us connect with our community. Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard (160,800) 1 am a huge advocate for televising our meetings as a way to better connect with our community. At any given time, our surveys indicated that at least a quarter of our cable subscribers watch and depend on Council meetings being televised. �)-_ 16 Recent email Comments from Citizens of Spokane Valley on Televising Council Meetings 12/2/09 E/donna Shaw With the new arrangement with Comcast, given the government channel, is there a possibility that we will see the council meetings televised? I am thinking that the time has come. 12/29/09 Monte Nesbitt. I hope this gains momentum. 1/4/10 Brenda Grasse/ I think this is a great idea and certainly appreciate the SVBA for doing this. 1/6/10 Larry Gants Thank you in your efforts to accomplish this. Unfortunately, some of us do not have Comcast; is it possible that the meetings could be placed on tape or DVD and made available at the Library? Of course, the best way is for us to get up off our couches and attend the meetings. 1/6/10 Mona and Ron We will be watching Ch. 14 Monday night.... thanks to you. 1/6/10 Joe Dawson Also, I want to thank you and Dick Behm for advocating for, and securing, telecasts of the council meetings. I intend to watch them. 1/10/10 Renate Fischer Thank you Bill, we will be watching! 1/10/10 Karin Morris Thanks Bill, I'm interested to see it- although I don't have cable! 1/10/10 Jock Swanson Bill, Sunshine is good. Good luck and Happy New Year. 1/11/10 Connie Nelson Congratulations Bill! I'm all for transparency, but also for accessibility. To those with mobility issues, caused by either finances or physical problems, this is just one more opportunity for them to participate in community life. Good job! 1/11/10 Gene Cohen I particularly like the fact that the council meetings are now going to be broadcast Monday evenings. 1/11/10 John Tyson Thanks, Bill and I have said to you before that I think your openness -in- government is commendable. 1/19/10 Monte Nesbitt: The DVD's are a good idea. Thanks. GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS � .r�) W CINDY ZEHNDER Vice President 1201 Pacific Ave., Suite 2100 • Tacoma. WA 98401 Ph: (253)620 -6639 • Cell: (360)970 -9661 • Fax: (253)620 -6565 E -mail: czehnder @gth- gov.com • Website: www.gth - gov.com Additional Offices: Washington, D.C. & Seattle �e w � � ty r am m, t ���.�;�x�ii- ���+� �t��Y ,1!auy'�a(r�k^Yn�E�d�imlP +a�rYN.M,�Y,il5sii u..`��}.��'d��'.i��h�, -_. �: _.. _ .. _ 1�d` 4!' �yR�# 54915PPN. Ik; �' S9N',' tdt^ r. �" hR�Ct?R+ 93slaw�;#" fs'@ lM�. �Ctmesiw:, �5�mavw�mero 'rmwma+mursw,-axano+ +a -a DOUGLASS P R O P E R T I E S O 00 h 00 V O d a y 0 N Co a m 0 January 11, 2010 Dean Grafos 16120 E Sprague Veradale, WA 99037 RE: 12606 E Sprague Avenue, Elephant Boys Boating Store Dear Mr. Grafos, P Here is information regarding the sale of boats on our property located at 12606 E Sprague Ave in the Spokane Valley. I want to make you are aware of the situation about the zoning of the boat sales and what determines the "mixed Use Avenue" retail zone. If you wish to discuss this further please contact me directly. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Harla ouglass Hdd m /-6 /J Pz www.spokane- rentals.com ' Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Civil and Transportation Engineering December 29, 2009 W.O. No. 09 -681 City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Attn: Kathy McClung, Director, Community Development Re: 12606 E Sprague Avenue Elephant Boys Boating Store Appeal of an Administrative Determination Dear Sirs, Lj RECEIVED DEC 3 2009 HARLAN D. DOUGLASS We are in receipt of your letter dated December 15, 2009 wherein you have administratively determined that "New Boat Sales" are not allowed in the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone. We disagree and feel that the prohibition was strictly for "Used Vehicle Sales " . We believe that the current use, Elephant Boys Boating store (new boat sales and service) is allowed in the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone. Therefore, per this letter and payment of the applicable fee ($1,050.00) we choose to appeal that decision to the Hearing Examiner for further consideration. Should you have any questions related to this action do not hesitate to call with any questions at 893 -2617. Sincer y, Todd R. Whipple, PE President Enc: Appeal Application, Supplemental Sheet, Dec. 15 2009 CSV Decision (copy) Cc: Joe Delay, Attorney Harlan Douglass, Property Owner Andrew Worlock, Planner File. 2528 N. Sullivan Rd. - Spokane Valley, WA 99216 A PO Box 1 566 - Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509 - 893 -2617 - Fax 509 - 926 -0227 So6e �"CITY OF nVeL,- jVa1le APPEAL APPL ATION SVMC 17.90.070 Community Development — Planning Division 11703 E Sprague Ave Suite B -3 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.688.0197 ♦ Fax: 509.688.0037♦ planning@spokanevalley.org (Please check the applicable type of appeal you are requesting) ❑ SEPA ❑ SHORELINE ❑ CONSTRUCTION ® ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ❑ COMPLIANCE NOTICE OF VIOLATION ❑ OTHER PART I — APPLICATION INFORMATION APPELLANT NAME Whipple Consulting Engineers,inc.; Attn: Todd R. Whipple, PE MAILING ADDRESS 2528 N. Sullivan Road CITY: Spokane Valley I STATE WA ZIP: 99216 PHONE 893 -26 17 FAx: 926 -0227 CELL 995 -2939 EMAIL: twhipple@whipplece.com REPRESENTATIVE (IF DIFFERENT THAN APPELLANT OR ATTORNEY) REPRESENTATIVE NAME Delay Curran Thompson Pontarolo & Walker, P.S.; Attn: Joe Dela MAILING ADDRESS 601 W. Main Street, Suite 1212 CITY: Spokane I STATE WA ZIP: 99201 PHONE 455 -9500 FAx: 623 -1446 CELL n/a I EMAIL: n/a APPLICANT (IF DIFFERENT THAN APPELLANT OR ATTORNEY) APPLICANT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL: PART it — REASON FOR APPEAL ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER SUBMIT RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. State the facts demonstrating the appellant has standing to appeal. 2. Submit a separate and concise statement of each error alleged to have been committed. 3. Submit a separate and concise statement of facts upon which the appellant relies to sustain the statement of error. CODE APPEAL APPLICATION Page 1 of 2 EFFECTIVE 01/27/09 S pokane jValley PERIOD AS SPECIFIED IN THE FINAL DECISION ALONG WITH THE FOLLOWING: • Required fee • File number and a copy of the decision. 21 Reasons for appeal, as required in Part II, on a separate sheet of paper. ATTENTION: Please be advised that if you file an appeal of a project determination, you are responsible for mailing a public notice to area residents within a 400 -foot boundary around the applicant's project site. The notices mailed to parcels which are adjacent to the project site need to be sent by Certified Mail - Returned Receipt Requested. You are required to obtain a listing of the names and addresses of those people within 400 feet from a title company. You are required to post a sign on the project site. We will provide you with a public notice packet, which includes all of the information you will need in order to complete this process. Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: PLUS Number: File #: CODE APPEAL APPLICATION EFFECTIVE 01/27/09 Page 2of2 THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY WITHIN THE APPEALABLE December 2t 39 Appeal Application - Re: Elephant Boys Boating Store Appeal of Administrative Determination — Supplemental Sheet Page 1 of 3 SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET— PART II REASON FOR APPEAL 1. Facts demonstrating the appellant has standing to appeal: Standing to appeal a Type I decision, as provided in SVMC 17.90.030, is given to the following parties: "1. The applicant and the owner of property to whom the decision is directed; and 2. The adjacent property owners whose interests are a required part of the application approval." On December 15, 2009, the City of Spokane Valley Director of Community Development mailed a letter containing a written interpretation of zoning issues regarding the Elephant Boys Boating Store to Mr. Todd Whipple, President, Whipple Consulting Engineers whose business address is 2528 N. Sullivan Road, Spokane Valley, 99216. Whipple Consulting Engineers is the representative of the owner of the property located at 12606 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA (the Property) upon which is located the business known as "Elephant Boys Boat Store." A copy of the Director of Community Development's letter is attached to this appeal. Therefore, based on the facts as outlined above, the appellant, Whipple Consulting Engineers has standing to appeal. 2. Statement of error alleged to have been committed: The error of the Director of Community Development (the "director") is her conclusion that the business use conducted by Elephant Boys Boat Store at their place of business at 12606 E. Sprague Avenue falls exclusively under the category of "vehicle sales" and that such use is not permitted in the Mixed Use Avenue Zoning District under the Sprague and Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan. 3 Statement of facts upon which the appellant relies to sustain the statement of error: The property which is the subject of this appeal is located at 12606 E. Sprague Avenue, on the south side of Sprague Avenue, east of Pines Road. It is rectangular in shape and contains approximately 3.78 acres and approximately 260 feet of frontage on Sprague Avenue. It is developed with a 35,000 +/- single story retail building and approximately 115,000 s.f of paved parking area. In the vernacular of the commercial real estate industry, the property would be characterized as an older "medium box" retail facility. It is typical of the development pattern on the south side of Sprague Avenue, between Pines and Evergreen Roads. The Elephant Boys business sells boats, boating accessories and parts, and provides service and repair from the property. There is some outdoor display and storage which is within a fenced and screened portion of the parking area. Most of the stock on hand is smaller fishing and hunting boats. These types of boats are commonly sold from sporting good stores that have a focus on hunting, fishing and outdoor activities and may also be found at "big and medium box warehouse retail" stores. The Elephant Boys also maintain an offsite warehouse and a second retail facility (in the City of Spokane) which is not a part of, nor subject to the director's interpretation or this appeal. The property and surrounding areas are within the Sprague and Appleway Subarea Plan (the "Subarea Plan "). According to the City of Spokane Valley website, the "Sprague and Appleway Subarea Plan has been a multi -year effort to revitalize the Sprague / Appleway corridor, to improve opportunities for economic success and create an attractive place for people to live, work and play." The culmination of this effort was the adoption of the Subarea plan on June 16, 2009. The zoning changes to implement the subarea plan become effective on October 15, 2009. December 2L )9 Appeal Application - Re: Elephant Boys Boating Store Appeal of Administrative Determination — Supplemental Sheet Page 2 of 3 Figure 2.1, the District Zones Map, of the Subarea Plan shows the Property and the adjoining properties immediately east and west as being within the Mixed Use Avenue District Zone. The property to the south is the old railroad corridor now owned by Spokane County and is outside of the Subarea Plan. For those properties fronting on Sprague Avenue, the Mixed Use Avenue District Zone accommodates a variety of uses including "Mixed Use Avenue" retail uses, office uses, lodging uses, light industrial uses, civic and cultural uses and residential uses. Rather than providing an exhaustive list of uses permitted within a given zone such as is found within the Spokane Valley Zoning Code, the Subarea Plan takes a much more generalized approach to regulation of building use. As the director says in her letter, "the listing of permitted and prohibited uses in the code was not intended to be all inclusive, but to identify the types of uses allowed or not." This accomplishes two goals for the City: 1) it provides the desired flexibility necessary to achieve the City's objectives for creating economic opportunities to revitalize the corridor and, 2) it allows the City to focus on the form of the built environment rather than the use as the means to achieve the ends. This type of regulation is often referred to as "form- based" code and is much different than the traditional zoning code, requiring a completely separate and distinct set of regulations. That is why the Subarea Plan was adopted completely separate from the existing zoning code and requires a different approach to its interpretation. For the retail components of the Mixed Use Avenue District Zone, the code provides the following list of permitted and prohibited uses: c) Mixed Use Avenue Retail i) Permitted Uses: (1) "Medium Box" Commercial Sales & Services including the following: (a) Establishments selling or servicing Large Scale Goods such as party goods, art supplies, sporting goods, auto parts, electronics or appliances, outdoor accessories, furniture, home furnishings, hardware, and home improvements stores. (b) Commercial services such as miscellaneous Repair Service uses with no outdoor storage, including plumbing services, laundry services, cleaning and janitorial service and supplies, vacuum cleaning and sewing repair and rental shops, etc. (c) Print and Graphics Supply and Service, including typesetting, lithography, graphics and art services, etc. (d) Big Box and Medium Box Warehouse retail, restaurant supply retail, and warehouse scale buying club retail. (e) Warehousing is permitted as an accessory to retail or light industrial use. The total area of a building to be used for warehousing may not exceed 30% of the total floor area. (2) Drive -in / Drive -up Fast Food Restaurants and espresso stands. (3) Gas stations and auto repair shops. (Gas station may be exempt from 2.2.3. Minimum Building Height Regulations and 2.2.12. Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (4) Convenience Stores (5) Veterinary clinics and "doggy day care" facilities. (6) Pawn shops, check cashing stores and casinos. (7) Funeral homes. ii) Prohibited Uses: (1) Full service restaurants (2) Used vehicle sales. December 2f J9 Appeal Application - Re: Elephant Boys Boating Store Appeal of Administrative Determination —Supplemental Sheet Page 3 of 3 Although, according to her letter, the director concludes that the Elephant Boys Boat Store is a use that falls under the category of "vehicle sales ", there is no definition of "vehicle sales" provided within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code nor definition of boats as "vehicles" and the Elephant Boys Boat Store could just as easily be categorized as a permitted use under the "medium box" retail category because it operates from a "medium box" retail building and because it involves the sales of large scale goods which are consistent with those uses that are listed as examples of uses that are permitted: "sporting goods, auto parts, appliances, outdoor accessories, hardware and home improvement stores etc. From an operational and land use perspective, the Elephant Boys Boat Store is much more consistent with the medium box retail environment of the Mixed Use Avenue District than the "auto -row" environment of the Gateway Commercial District as is suggested by the director. Further, because the Mixed Use Avenue Retail specifically identifies " used vehicle sales as a prohibited use, there is an implicit presumption that other types of "vehicle sales" are permitted in the Mixed Use Avenue retail category. If this were not the case, the prohibited use would have been "all vehicle sales" not just "used vehicle sales" and there would be no reason to make a distinction and single out used vehicle sales. But a distinction was made and one can only conclude it was done for the purpose of identifying the specific type of vehicle sales that could not be permitted under any circumstance. Consequently, it would follow that other types of "vehicle sales" might be allowed if they were otherwise consistent with the use and form based elements of the Plan relative to the specific zoning category such as is the case with the Elephant Boys Boat Store and the Mixed Use Avenue District. In conclusion, we believe that the Mixed Use Avenue District zone does not categorically preclude all vehicle sales; that the Elephant Boys Boat Store, being consistent with all other permitted retail uses within the zone is a type of use that meets the intent and purpose of the Mixed Use Avenue District Zone and should be allowed; and, that to limit a use such as the Elephant Boys Boat Store to only the Gateway Commercial zones ( "auto- row ") as the director suggests would be in contradiction of the facts as outlined above and inconsistent with the intent of the Subarea Plan. February 11, 2010 Council Member Dean Grafos City Of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Spokane Valley, WA 99206 d rg, afos a()spokanevalley.org Re: City of Spokane Valley Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP) Dear Councilman Grafos: We represent the three largest electrical sign companies in the greater Spokane area. This letter is to inform you of some concerns that we have regarding the SARP and with doing business in the City of Spokane Valley. It is our opinion that these concerns create a difficult environment in which to conduct business in City of Spokane Valley. Our first concern is with the interpretation of the code by members of the City's building and planning departments. There seems to be much uncertainty caused by the subjectivity of the SARP sign code. One example of this would be the interpretation of 2.6.2 Sign Type Regulations Section 6) a) viii under Freestanding Sign Standards that reads, "A single unornamented pole support design topped by a can sign typical of a commercial strip shall not be used." There can be two different interpretations of this, either a sign pole with ornamentation can be used or that no single pole sign designs can used. Currently the City is interpreting that to mean that signs must have at least two pole supports. Many existing properties would not have sufficient area to have a double pole sign and therefore would not be able to have a pole sign. Another issue is that currently, business signage must conform to SARP even though the buildings and streetscapes may not conform to the SARP within the lifetime of the business proprietor. Very little of the SARP applies to existing buildings built prior to implementation of SARP. This puts the business community in Spokane Valley at a definite disadvantage over competing businesses in other municipalities. Permit application submittals in the City of Spokane Valley are excessive compared to other municipalities. The City currently requires a landscaping plan attached to the permit application. There are no clear guidelines on what constitutes landscaping at the base of a sign. In one instance in the Valley, a business has put several inches of dirt on top of the asphalt and surrounded it with paving stones. In another situation, a landscaping plan was required to obtain a permit for awnings on a building. These seem to be subjective interpretations of the code as well. It is our professional opinion that the signage required under the SARP plan is not sufficient to ensure a healthy business environment. We propose that the City vote to revert to the sign code that was in place prior to the SARP adoption. 9 Page 2 February 11, 2010 Thank you for your time. Please feel free to contact us if we can help in any way. Sincerely, Steve Wineinger President ProSign Inc. 10021 E Knox Ave Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509.927.3925 steve@prosigninc.com Nicol Whipple President Baldwin Signs 6409 N Pittsburg PO Box 6819 Spokane, WA 99217 509.489.9191 nicol(cbaldwinsians.com John Johnston Sign Corp. 111 N Vista Rd Ste 6 Spokane Valley, WA 99212 509.535.2913 signcorpsales @icehouse. net Fax sent by : 5834582717 9v% m a I kv a WITHERSP00N KELLEY RECEIVED 01 -22 -19 13:20 Pg: 9/5 OFriCE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY HC C 14 7 009 M1CFUEL F, CONNEL. - CITY ATTORNEY WITHE98POON, KELLF- , ARY p' DRISKELL • DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY & DAVENPORT TOOLE 11707 East Sprague Avenue Suite 103 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509,688.M35 4 Fax: $04.688.02991 cityattamsysspokenevalley.org December 11, 2009 F.J. Dullanty, Jr. Witherspoon, Kelley, Davenport & Toole 422 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 1100 Spokane, WA 99201 RE; Temporary Greenhouse Dear Rick, � I have reviewed the a -mails between yourself, your client and the City of Spokane Valley staff: Apparently, you are relying upon a statutory exception to building permit requirements set forth in WAC 51.50.007. I agree that this code provision does exempt "temporary growing structures used solely for the commercial production of horticultural plants including ornamental plants, flowers, vegetables, and fruits..." from compliance with the International Building Code. However, it does not exempt the proposed land development from the specific provisions of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Specifically, the Uniform Development Cade comprised of chapter 17 -24 of the SVMC. I have attached a copy of the legislative history for this particular provision. In pertinent part it states: The intent of the legislation was that local jurisdictions would continue to have authority to determine where they could be located. For example, the legislation was not intended to modify local land use and zoning requirements." The specific provisions of the UDC that are applicable are as follows: SVMC 17.30.010 states in pertinent as follows: All development of and use of Iand within the corporate limits of the City shall conform to all of the requirements of this code, unless specifically exempted herein or by the operation of law. SVMC 19.10.020 Further states as follows; Applicability. This section shall govern the occupation, use, erection, alteration, removal, demolition or conversion of any and all buildings, structures, and land located within the corporate limits of the City of Spokane Valley. Fax sent by : 5094582717 WITHERSPOON KELLEY 01 -22 -10 13:20 Pg: 5/5 1 The specific provision applicable to your clients' property is chapter 19.130, which requires a site plan review to ensure that the locetion of the building meets Current zoning requirements. Let me know if you have any questions, Very truly yours, 464 Michael F. Connelly End: legislative history cc: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director Cxreg McCormick, Planning Manager Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner Fax sent ty 5894582717 WITHERSPOON KELLEY 81 -22 - 10 13:19 Pg: 215 WITX3ERSPOON9 IaLLEY, DAVENPORT & TOOLE A PROMSSIaNAL SERVICB COVOU IO ATTORNEYS A C01JN8=FS 7100 V .& BANK HVIID'NO Coma W&UM MIM rem M S ar pp y0MD w' WLDM 06 roasu)10 O1TJC11 tftllw'R�r &yZWQRMto POVLA ,OMWMF+W 422 WESTMVHi=RAVEMJE TON 99101. ouitcasara,td.eon�w��� • SpQRANf+. 0340 IOltaariNar>DUL/V 4146 D Do i 4M U�Yla001 TliTh&M 1>O3� - R9� T�kpho 6245265 r. tm11m 1t76 PM p0Y,UWU Put: (509) 456 -2721 ($ ) 45 December 14, 2009 Mike Connelly City Attorney 11707 E . Sprague, Suite 106 City of Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Temporary Greeuhouses AWN 4 oa.. . IJnY� � ywY.ry 0 N +t 0 . 0 M o . , Dear Mike: Thank you for your letter of December 11, 2009, including the second page on the legislative history with respect to the exemption of "temporary greenhouses" from the applicability of the International Building Code. We would also request that you provide us with g copy of page 1 of the legislative history as well. We agree with your analysis that the City of Spokane Valley continues they o ave 3ur with respect to the location of temporary greenhouses, comply with the local zoning code. That has never been the issue. To our knowledgf, Creach Greenhouse complies with the appropriate zoning code requirements, and we are unaware of any specific violation with respect to their compliance that may exist. Again, our question is not the applicability of local land use regulations, but rather our question has to do with what peMlit 19130 uired by Creech (`,rreerilmouse that would trigger site plan review pursuant to SVC Please note that SVC 19.130 "Applicability" relates to the issuance of a "building permit." Since no building permit is required, SVC 19.130 is not applicable. Additionally, SVC 19.130.030' which relates to criteria discusses the approval and issuance of a building permit. Clearly, this section would indicate that SVC 19,130 is not applicable since the issuance of a building permit is not at issue. Again,'our question is, "where in Spokane Valley Mm, cipal Code does it say that a site plan must be submitted when no permit is required." or0 �w M Fax sent by : 5094582717 WITHERSPOON KELLEY 01 -22 -10 13:20 Pg: 3/5 Mike Coolly , es ember 14, 2009 page 2 1 providcd that the City indicates where a Ala would bo most happy to r 'omP y' t is involved. P ermit for a site plan is roquirod when no buildiu� p Thank you for your belp and 000polation Very truly yours► _A7 EERSPdON, yELLEY, DAY OPT & LE, P.S i . CTLLANTY� FJ A1kwb cc: Clients 80059814;1 �.P. ley- Building Division 11 703 E Sprague Avenue Suite B -3 Spokane Valley, WA 9920 NOTICE Address THIS S : RUt . PURUtFENANT SPACE IS NAPPROVED FOR OCCUPANCY FANCY BY PEOPLE OR MERCHANDISE DO NOT OCCUPY 1 Contact the City of Spokane Valley wilding Division for occupancy requirements J POSTED THIS � L C 7 ----� 7 — DAY OF 20_y> Building ]nspect0r 7�t;� _ i v Phone Number TAG TO BE REMOVED ONLY BY BUILDING INSPECTO WA ,s . January 8, 2010 Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley City Counsel Member 16120 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA. 99037 Dear Mr. Grafos, / —i My name is Rick Mayo, I pastor Cornerstone Pentecostal Church in Spokane Valle. Recently and in view of an impending building project on our new property, Y bank appraisal done on our new property, Greenacres rd. and I -90 in Spokane Valle a Y This project has been 5 years in the making and we were depending on this appraisal to reflect our investment and planning to receive Bank financing. What came back to us was mildly shocking. Not just because of a devastating hit to the overall project due to lowered economy but, the value of our land. It was brought to my attention that our property had been "re- zoned" without my knowledge, consent or approval thus affecting the value of this land. I am appealing to YOU to look into this matter and reverse this re zoning. I am not sure how my neighbors feel about the re zone. However, seeing that we are building a multi million dollar project, this act by the city counsel without permission or notification appears to be grossly unfair at best and presumptuous at worst. Thank you for your time. Si Pastor Risk Cornerst yo Pentecostal Church A • Copyright © 1988 -2003 Microsoft Corp. and /or its suppliers. All rights reserved. http / /www.microsoft.com /streets © Copyright 2002 by Geographic Data Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. © 2002 Navigation Technologies. All rights reserved. This data includes information taken with permission from Canadian authorities © 1991 -2002 Government of Canada (Statistics Canada and /or Geomatics Canada), all rights reserved. Washington, United States, North America f r ilk : ✓. . � _ 4m �., ►t 7 � t r� sa P S r What is Spokane Regional Transportation Council? Dnics to Be Coveret History of SRTC Legal /Statutory Authority February 25, 2010 :7 Originally Spokane Regional Planning Conference 1966 Spokane Metropolitan Transportation Study (SMATS) 1972 August 15, 1984 became Spokane Regional Council Transportation Planning Historic Preservation Washington State Energy Code Centennial Trail Coordination Re- organized October 12, 1993 to Spokane Regional Transportation Council to focus on federal transportation planning required under Title 23 and Title 49 and state transportation planning requirements under the Growth Management Act Re- organized in 2003 to include City of Spokane Valley as a member to the SRTC Board February 25, 2010 '7 U.S.0 Title 23 and Title 49 requiring areas over 200,000 population to establish and maintain a transportation planning process: 1. Regional Vision and Goals 2. Alternative Improvement Strategies (Operations and Capital) 3. Evaluation and Prioritization of Strategies 4. Development of Transportation Plan 5. Development of Transportation Improvement Program 6. Project Development 7. Systems Operation February 25, 2010 �i A i +hnritxi �1 U.S.0 Title 23 Section 134 and Chapter 53 Title 49 Policy. It is in the national interest to (1) encourage and promote the safe and efficient management, operation, and development of surface transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs of people and freight and foster economic growth and development within and between States and urbanized areas, while minimizing transportation- related fuel consumption and air pollution through metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes identified in this chapter; and (2) encourage the continued improvement and evolution of the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes by metropolitan planning organizations, State departments of transportation, and public transit operators as guided by the planning factors identified in subsection (h) February 25, 2010 I U.S.0 Title 23 and Title 49 requiring areas over 200,000 population to establish and maintain a transportation planning structure: Each metropolitan planning organization that serves an area designated as a transportation management area, when designated or re- designated under this subsection, shall consist of (A) local elected officials; (B) officials of public agencies that administer or operate major modes of transportation in the metropolitan area; and (C) appropriate State officials. February 25, 2010 (h) Scope of Planning Process.= (1) In general.— The metropolitan planning process for a metropolitan planning area under this section shall provide for consideration of projects and strategies that will — (A) support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency; (B) increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non - motorized users; (C) increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non - motorized users; (D) increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight; (E) protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns; (F) enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; (G) promote efficient system management and operation; and (H) emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. February 25, 2010 1. Establish a setting: Establish and manage a fair and impartial setting for effective regional decision- making to achieve a common transportation vision in the Spokane Metropolitan Area. �" February 25, 2010 2. Identify and evaluate alternative transportation improvement options: Use data and planning methods to generate and evaluate alternatives. Planning studies and evaluations are included in the Unified Planning Work Program or UPWP. February 25, 2010 3. Prepare and maintain a Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP): Develop and updat a long -range transportation plan for the metropolitan area covering a planning horizon of at least twenty years that fosters (1) mobility and access for people and goods, (2) efficient system performance and preservation, and (3) strives fo sustainability and enhances the livability of the region. February 25, 2010 O W 10 4. Develop a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): Develop ashort-range (four- year) program of transportation improvements based on the long -range transportation plan; the TIP should be designed to achieve the area's goals, using spending, regulating, operating, management, and financial tools. February 25, 2010 5. Involve the public: Involve the general public and other affected constituencies in the four essential functions listed above. A technical advisory committee (TTQ may then provide recommendations to the board on specific strategies or projects. An advisory committee may also provide technical analysis, specialized 4A knowledge, and citizen input on specific issues. It is common for an MPO to have a Technical Advisory Committee and Citizen Advisory Committee, and to have subcommittees on specific issues such as Environmental Justice Bicycle Issues and Travel Demand Modeling Those involved in metropolitan transportation planning should reach out to stakeholders (TAQ to inform them of critical issues facing their regions and provide them opportunities to contribute ideas and offer input. This is especially important in early and middle stages of the process, especially while the plan and the TIP are being developed. Special attention should be paid to those groups that are under represented or have been under served in terms of the expenditure of transportation dollars. (Environmental Justice) February 25, 2010 aal /5tatutory Authc ', "!ha I "Jh I Time I I UpC ate Dcvelc>ps? Appravres? Horizon conte Reauireme -ts l9PWP MTV' TIP LRSTP STIP F .Ah RCW 47.80 Regional Transportation Planning Organizations The legislature finds that while the transportation system in Washington is owned and operated by numerous public jurisdictions, it should function as one interconnected and coordinated system. Transportation planning, at all jurisdictional levels, should be coordinated with local comprehensive plans. Further, local jurisdictions and the state should cooperate to achieve both statewide and local transportation goals. To facilitate this coordination and cooperation among state and local jurisdictions, the legislature declares it to be in the state's interest to establish a coordinated planning program for regional transportation systems and facilities throughout the state. [1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 53.] February 25, 2010 14 A 01_�� 47.80.020 Regional Transportation Planning Organizations The legislature hereby authorizes creation of regional transportation planning organizations within the state. Each regional transportation planning organization shall be formed through the voluntary association of local governments within a county, or within geographically contiguous counties. Each organization shall: (1) Encompass at least one complete county; (2) Have a population of at least one hundred thousand, or contain a minimum of three counties; and (3) Have as members all counties within the region, and at least sixty percent of the cities and towns within the region representing a minimum of seventy -five percent of the cities' and towns' population. In urbanized areas, the regional transportation planning organization is the same as the metropolitan planning organization designated for federal transportation planning purposes. [1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 54.] February 25, 2010 =O K Each regional transportation planning organization shall have the following duties: (1) Prepare and periodically update a transportation strategy for the region. The strategy shall address alternative transportation modes and transportation demand management measures in regional corridors and shall recommend preferred transportation policies to implement adopted growth strategies. The strategy shall serve as a guide in preparation of the regional transportation plan. (2) Prepare a regional transportation plan as set forth in RCW that is consistent with county -wide planning policies if such have been adopted pursuant to chapter RCW, with county, city, and town comprehensive plans, and state transportation plans. February 25, 2010 Baal /5tatutory Authc Each regional transportation planning organization shall have the following duties (cont'd): (3) Certify by December 31, 1996, that the transportation elements of comprehensive plans adopted by counties, cities, and towns within the region reflect the guidelines and principles developed pursuant to RCW , are consistent with the adopted regional transportation plan, and, where appropriate, conform with the requirements of RCW (4) Where appropriate, certify that county -wide planning policies adopted under RCW and the adopted regional transportation plan are consistent. (5) Develop, in cooperation with the department of transportation, operators of public transportation services and local governments within the region, a six -year regional transportation improvement program which proposes regionally significant transportation projects and programs and transportation demand management measures. February 25, 2010 17 Each regional transportation planning organization shall have the following duties (cont'd): (6) Designate a lead planning agency to coordinate preparation of the regional transportation plan and carry out the other responsibilities of the organization. (7) Review level of service methodologies used by cities and counties planning under chapter RCW to promote a consistent regional evaluation of transportation facilities and corridors. (8) Work with cities, counties, transit agencies, the department of transportation, and others to develop level of service standards or alternative transportation performance measures. 18 February 25, 2010 Each regional transportation planning organization shall have the following duties (cont'd): (9) Submit to the agency council on coordinated transportation, as provided in chapter RCW, beginning on July 1, 2007, and every four years thereafter, an updated plan that includes the elements identified by the council. Each regional transportation planning organization must submit to the council every two years a prioritized regional human service and transportation project list. February 25, 2010 6a u otatutu .80.026 Relationship to Comprehensive Plans... Each regional transportation planning organization, with cooperation from component cities, towns, and counties, shall establish guidelines and principles by July 1, 1995, that provide specific direction for the development and evaluation of the transportation elements of comprehensive plans, wher such plans exist, and to assure that state, regional, and local goals for the development of transportation systems are met. These guidelines and principles shall address at a minimum the relationship between transportation systems and the following factors: Concentration of economic activity, residential density, development corridors and urban design that, where appropriate, supports high capacity transit, freight transportation and port access, development patterns that promote pedestrian and non - motorized transportation, circulation systems, access to regional systems, effective and efficient highway systems, the ability of transportation facilities and programs to retain existing and attract new jobs and private investment and to accommodate growth in demand, transportation demand management, joint and mixed use developments, present and future railroad right -o corridor utilization, and intermodal connections. February 25, 2010 E73I*-% &nv%irry LI Policy Topic 5 is key February 25, 2010 Transportation planning includes a number of steps: Monitoring existing conditions; Forecasting future population and employment growth, including assessing projected land uses in the region and identifying major growth corridors; Identifying current and projected future transportation problems and needs and analyzing, through detailed planning studies, various transportation improvement strategies to address those needs; Developing long -range plans and short -range programs of alternative capital improvement and operational strategies for moving people and goods; Estimating the impact of recommended future improvements to th transportation system on environmental features, including air quality; and Developing a financial plan for securing sufficient rev cover the costs of implementing strategies. February 25, 2010 TiT��TF ri7i7i a N ra Project Development Systems Operations February 25, 2010 Regional Vision a4 Goats- i Alternate Improvement Operatio Capt:ta{`�� t Evaluation & Prioritization of Strategie _ au z # m T Development of Transportation Plan u+ s� %1 De went of Transportatio Improvement Programs En a Project Development Systems Operations February 25, 2010