The URL can be used to link to this page

2013, 03-05 Study Session AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday,March 5,2013 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue,First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL ROLL CALL ACTION ITEM: 1. Eric Guth Small Works Projects Bids Motion Consideration [public comment] NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2. Lori Barlow,Tadas Public Access Plan Review, Shoreline Discussion/Information Kisielius Master Program 3.John Hohman Sign Code Discussion Discussion/Information 4. Scott Kuhta Townhouses in Neighborhood Commercial Discussion/Information CTA 01-13,Proposed Amendment to SVMC 19.120 5. Steve Worley CMAQ/TA Grant Projects Discussion/Information 6. Eric Guth,Inga Note Sprague Avenue On-Street Parking Discussion/Information 7.Mark Calhoun City Hall Lease Amendment Discussion/Information 8.Mayor Towey Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 9. Information Only (will not be reported or discussed): (a)Finance Department Monthly Report (b)Preservation Projects Update (c)Response to Citizen Comment Regarding Crime Statistics 10.Mayor Towey Council Check in Discussion/Information 11.Mike Jackson City Manager Comments Discussion/Information ADJOURN Note: Unless otherwise noted above,there will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions. However,Council always reserves the right to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. During meetings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council,the Council reserves the right to take"action"on any item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term"action"means to deliberate,discuss,review,consider,evaluate, or make a collective positive or negative decision. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical,hearing,or other impairments,please contact the City Clerk at(509)921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Study Session Agenda,March 5,2013 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 5, 2013 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Stormwater Utility 2013 Small Works Projects, Phase 1 - Bid Award GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 90.48, Chapter 173-200 WAC, Title 33 U.S.C. 1251-1376; Storm and Surface Water Utility: SVMC 3.80; PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Project is included with adopted 2013 budget. Bid results were presented to council at February 19, 2013 council meeting. BACKGROUND: In September 2012 Stormwater Utility staff prepared plans and specifications for two small projects for the repair of flooding arterials (caused by failing drywells) on Pines Road (just south of Broadway Ave.) and Dishman Mica Road (just south of Appleway Blvd.). The two projects were combined and put out to bid through the City's Small Works Roster process. This advertisement for bids received no responses. The bid package was immediately advertised again and one bid was received in the amount of $249,975 which was substantially higher than the engineer's estimate. The singular bid was rejected, with the thought that more favorable bids and more participation would be received in early 2013. Staff advertised the Projects for bid again in January through the Small Works Roster process, and again received only one bid for $216,208.02. However, this bid is approximately $34,000 less than the bid received in 2012. Although this bid is higher than our estimate it is still well within the budget of $290,000. Additionally, the flooding project for Pines Road is time sensitive, because WSDOT is planning an asphalt overlay of Pines Road from Trent Avenue to 32nd Avenue with anticipated construction in late summer of 2013. The Pines Road drainage issue needs to be repaired prior to WSDOT paving the roadway. Generally, these small stormwater projects are approved by the City Manager, who has up to $200,000 in contract authority. But because this bid exceeds that approval threshold staff is requesting Council approval for this award. OPTIONS: 1) Award the Stormwater Utility 2013 Small Works Projects Phase 1 to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder or 2) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we Award the Stormwater Utility 2013 Small Works Projects Phase 1 to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Cat's Eye Excavating, in the amount of$216,208.47. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2013 Stormwater Utility budget includes $290,000 for Stormwater Utility small works maintenance projects. Remaining funds not used for this contract will be used for other smaller-scale projects, to be bid later in 2013. STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth, Public Works Director; Ryan Brodwater, Assistant Stormwater Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulation, Stormwater Utility 2013 Small Works Projects, Phase 1 BID TABULATION SPol Stormwater Utility 2013 Small Works Projects, Phase 1 awe Valley' BID OPENING DATE February 8, 2013, 10:00 A.M. Engineer's Estimate Cat's Eye Excavating. ITEM ITEM Unit QUOA131�r11f Unit.Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost ..- .��,v....�.�.,... -g :Y$= - frY["e te'�. 3i hQ�'y -' y_ Yf - -Y.Mfr..s'-..,.�y.. .......:........ ,.• _ r..., m .: e , 5h., '.; . ,,, a,�Siir"'�e enft ;-'.iR•p ,r • • �,,. , 4 ,,.._ )1;A . e q -`:o 'nr=:r,: z>: �'^"t:'�� g,.,�t?„�9 d�.� 7 d�f„pr- s.rk' �:; !.-� .� �a �+. �°!x"_ x v;a-t.� r ,e5� k��?� �� 3.re ,n r�r 3 'C xc:<- ,.a;4}�r p' >".`�: 4...wa 4 ta'E 4, r.'�'1-','fir Ff'� 9°f S ti�rzrY} ' .a°}s,... fz°r. f 3 w ,, E f„, .,.5�`y'.:',.4,,.?e#� ,,;,,,s" r`, :� -f, - 9„ 1,54 . .k i ,. 3,- t.:.�z* '10. rp ern 1 :,4 .� s �l �_ .4.d,h_"I- T�.e .:.t`�.,.55< . ..e ..:l' .b .:fiKam,� i'!1` S lf. �.� FL �i'`r,2+ d�,� ,,,'�� F.f.'✓3: _.f SY+�i k t" F� �:��f Hn�-;�:: 3'>y.;'; „� � ..��,.• ,S�3 t e .�,r AP:'-:3^' � �3.s. ,�._r t_� .y ��- .�, ,,�. � L. � t�,av+S ,� Y'jS .�.�'..��::"'?>:`�a.•..�vu." ';� �ui ,r .#u:3��. -/. .a?. i.>•,u'...�d .p,r �'. '.r <-.M,. 1 x.. X�x.- .�h,"„.z. �� `; R � y f �i.�.3�.�.,ra;�; a�.=�ia r��a��ua.. .�,,.,�' �"'i.".•a,�r�i,. '<`•<. au..,><, ��?.wr. .&i� z3x.ir.,x,--lly.r r,qr urt�r�'�h��5rti�k;<�'.�.o73sw�:�� §`�u",�i� El, 'e4r:.:Wt1rv�Sr 1':eiz��r�'��,tiv:'Rv!ot,.rr: 1 MOBILIZATION,SCHEDULE A LS 1 $ 9,026.60, $ 9,026.60 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00: 2 .CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING LS 1 $ 500.00. $ 500.00 $ 3,349.50 $ 3,349:50 3 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN DAY 2 $ 200.00 $ 400.00 5 1,000.00 .5 2,000.00 4 SEQUENTIAL ARROW SIGNS DAY 10 $ 200.00 $ 2.000:00 :$ 200.00 $ 2,000.00. 5 SPCC PLAN LS 1 $ 200.00. $ 200.00 $ 4,000.00. $ 4,000.00 6 SAWCUT ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT LF-IN 760 $ 1.00 $ 760.00 .$ 0.45 '$ 342.00 7 REMOVE PCC.CURB AND GUTTER LF 30 $ 3.00 $ 90.00 $ 12.28. $ 368.40 8 REMOVE PCC SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY APPROACH SY 17 $ 8.00 $ 136.00. $ 7.82 .$ 132.94 9 REMOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SY 545 $ 5.00 5 2,725.00, $ 6.98' $ 3,804.10. 10 _REMOVE EXCAVATION SAFETY SYSTEM LS 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,116.50. $ 1,116.50. 11 ABANDON DRYWELL IN PLACE EACH 3 $ 500.00 .$ 1.500.00. $ 474.51 $ 1,423.53 12 PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWELL,TYPE B EACH 3 $ 3,500.00 .$ 10,500.00 $ 2,231.88 $ 6,695.64 13 CONCRETE INLET TYPE 1 EACH. 4 $ 1,000.00';$ 4,000.00 .$ 2,009.70 $ 8,038.80 14. CATCH BASIN TYPE 2.48 INCH DIAM. EACH 2 $ 2,500.00 -$ 5.000.00 $ 2,233.00 $ 4,466.00 15 DUCTILE IRON SEWER PIPE,10 IN.DIAM. LF 110 $ 50.00 $ 5,500.00 :$ 60.29 $ 6,631.90 16. SOLID WALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE,10 IN.DMAM. LF 260 $ 45.00. $ 11,700.00 $ 33.50 $ 8,710.00 17 STORM DRAIN ENCASEMENT LF 30 $ 10.00 $ 300.00 $ 50.24 5 1,507..20 18 SPILL CONTROL SEPARATOR EACH 2 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 5 334.95 $ 669.90 19 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB,TYPE A LF 30 8, 30.00 5 900.00 $. 68.66 :$ 2,059.80 20 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK SY ,. 17 $ 40.00. .$ 680.00 $ 142.24-'$ 2,418.08 21 PROTECT 8 ADJUST EXIST.UTILITY STRUCTURE TO GRADE EACH 2 $ 500.00 5 1,000.00, $: 418.69 :$ 837.38.: 22 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE,-8 IN.DEPTH SY 545 $ 25.00 $ 13,625.00 .$ 29.54 $ 16.09130. 23 HMA CL 1/2-INCH,PG 70-28,0.67 FT.DEPTH SY 545 $ 50.00. -;$ 27,250.00 $ 70.00`.$ 38,150.00 Mrie vA�k_ ��+rs•-_ .w,��s„�zryti ��¢�,?'a� �s` �='$.. ,:' ;a ,- .:��.,,. §. ..,..-.. .w�r �.�rak. . aI; - - 1011: Q-: b c`�: ' n-a`.4»117,4>.V'� M r, ,. .• 'P SS :r s->.: G'Stp, '";new}fix� ?a-! „.,,yr.'„a a x"F€�tak .sau,gar,-r a Ewa Y;.: a- �, L ... ,F g• '1q ;•r, e r ?: a i'.v x .7 •�e x F� y� �+ r"c ' s �ax,wd,.,,.-s,«aac�wo "'i,Al ii.:xa:`" ..:, :., r.��.s:`;' - 41t.,1--nl"' Yl.,1 r- 2�..-.},N.6.g.,',-6 �s r. .c-. °a``.,iii 4�u3 �'r��fk S:sx°>ssr� � T.A.-s4 ^°z wwrzS7,n_ a y'4.:'`n'c"3 is s¢n}e r".µ�".J p€1g`.„4.;wl'rf�q .z+7 � Engineer's Estimate ITEM TOTAL ITEM Unit QUANTITY I Y Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost a- 3. 1'. r,-; .,re °»r:>'h�'It',';Yit hS,aN% •.,ti i'^'x4...?.„x,rang :M ,....;Y.. .. ;, 7`_. FU t,rz,;??-}, •:r r« a rR-. a -sxn ett e ° � � � �:.��, �lti�.,e�44�' � .��kf � - r. ��: ""� �+�� `. "`�"�a tik.',„(n'Z��:i u, �.��.,;r"�u`,r,$�,� F�.s3„��'�re?�j1 a'�? ;�t>�2 E1 kt�'i,Y"r "- .. �'�re 4 a #00•40-. r 1;. :0,,,,, y�1 .i• y.v' ^.:f-Re ?1:' -t-:.[u.. 3 a,�€:.r„`:..�:`}ra. Jt + " .t � ', ��. wx.�� --Y-fir n E> �'-•'�'� -'�' k� � ¢ lk�Y£.-Y"�. xs„4¢- j� 15��'z.r �yx�w��.. �4t..d .�.„�a �g rfww•�� , h}PF 1.' v, , ,.€ �< S° ;'$ r- ^�e ra'1�n r r nr„" o t '9"-..z�.z„�. .�r�...s t h.� ��s;•z). '} >'ia.q.o;;:*f,.-z-hss� .�3..6 �"•<d�.s�s:+p .;��, �.e,..�<", -�w.�su.� "fir'r r.L;^ nJ � � d ± w,4.7x�:n< '.:�x..a 9 s� 9�, r. `e>,:;.,r�i t+ ,wd w.,.-:., e r".a '�„�.1s�., ?-.1�, y,.€�:,tr.�.} g:z K4"t, .,f�g ,- < � c GNU�k:a°�- €Y ." ,:�'4. X��x.�:�?,�zr ,.F,F.;rr5V.a7�.;,u_�,.hre#;�,1 ,�.;s:4.: �a.``-r',-�'�t��t.�d .�'.�.r��...;a�,d.��• . ': .- "�LE�t-�,`d. 4rv:.� F�w��.Ez� .: �',�,,.�-a.,.s w�;y a7�,;��,3x:.ba��'�W vaF.;.Y��s ,a:s.,..�?�`ti'�kw- Fz.,:..:.;ti 't.,,�r�:i?i'k.>,�;<'�,{-i{ 1 MOBILIZATION,SCHEDULE B LS 1 $ 5,699.04 $ 5,699.04 $ 8,000.00 $. 8,000.00 2 CONSTRUCTION.SURVEYING LS 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 3,349.50 .$ 3,349.50 3 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL LS _ 1 $ 10,000.00 5 10.000.00 $ 22,000.00. .$ 22.000.00 4 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN DAY 2 $ 200.00. $' 400.00 $ 1.,116.50. $ 2,233.00 5 SPCC PLAN LS 1 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 $; 500.00 ,S 500.00 6 SAWCUT ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT LF-IN 60 $ 1.00 $ 60.00 :$ 0.45 $. 27.00 7 REMOVE PCC CURB AND GUTTER LF 20. $ 2.00 5 40.00 :$ 44.66 $ 893.20 8 REMOVE PCC SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY APPROACH SY 6 $' 8.00 $ 48.00 $ 15.63 5 93.78 9 REMOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SY 500 $ 5.00 $ 2,500.00 $. 8.00 .$ 4,000.00 10. TRENCH EXCAVATION SAFETY SYSTEM LS ,, $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,116.50 $ 1,1116.50 11 ABANDON DRYWELL EACH 2 $: 500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 362.86 $ 725.72 12 PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWELL,TYPE B EACH 1 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 2,231.88 $ 2,231.88 13 . CONCRETE INLET TYPE.1 EACH 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,009.70 $ 2,009.70 14 CATCH BASIN TYPE 2,48 INCH DIAM, EACH 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,233.00 .$ 2,233.00 15 DUCTILE IRON SEWER PIPE,10:IN.'DIAM. LF 60 $ 50.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 60.29 $ 3;617.40 16 SOLID WALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE,12 IN.DIAM. LF 10 $ 45.00 $ 450.00 $. 50.24 $. 502.40 17 STORM DRAIN ENCASEMENT LF 10 $ 10.00 $.. 100,00 .5 44.66 $ 446.60 18 SPILL CONTROL SEPARATOR EACH 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 334.95 $ 334.95 19 CEMENT.CONCRETE CURB,TYPE A. LF 20 $ 30.00 $ 600.00 $ 68.66 $ 1,373.20 20 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK SY 6 $ 40.00 $ 240.00 $ 142.24 $ 853.44 21 PROTECT&ADJUST EXIST.UTILITY STRUCTURE TO GRADE EACH 2 , $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 418.69 $ 837.38 22 PCCP TRANSVERSE JOINT WEDGE LF 60 $ 100.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 94.90 $ 5,694.00 23 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE,8 IN.DEPTH SY 500 $ 25.00 $ 12,500.00. $ 19.03 $ 9,515.00 24 HMA.CL.112-INCH,PG 70.28,0.50 FT.DEPTH SY 500 -$ 45.00; $ 22;500,00 $ 39.56 $ 19,780.00 25 TRAFFIC ISLAND LF 80 $ 20.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 22.33 $ 1,786.40 26 PAVEMENT MARKING RESTORATION. LS 1 $ 500.00 $ . 500.00. $ 2,233.00 $ 2,233.00 Ate.. 'ye a . ,,.e s ' .v' we - -4 a a�aI ar ., k,4,„4}a• '?' x-itata '^-,4g:'..,,, : .. `- n;,,,AO-g.m a 4:i;; ., i' '. a 4�r °rr.„t! kss ,', rv.:4€ ., ';;,'•.wa�". ;;f >•,:,,,,, 4,t,gr5:�� r.:, Total of COMBINED Ern:ded Amount for Schedules A and B $176,229.64 : $216,20$.02 1 Mobilization%of total 6.01% Proposal Form Yes Contractor's Administrative Information Yes Bidder Qualification:Statement Yes Representations and Certifications 4 *-,r, Yes Bid tab includes correction of Bidder extension error(s)for bid Item(s): ,O 0 N/A Ckillk ON 1 tv ONA . ',. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date, March 5, 2013 Department Director Approval: Q Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update -- Draft Public Access Plan GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Numerous discussions regarding local implementation of the Shoreline Management Act under RCW 90.58. BACKGROUND: The URS Corporation Consultants, assisted by City staff, have completed a Draft Public Access Plan for the Shoreline Master Program Update. The Public Access Plan is the fifth phase of the Shoreline Update Process, and is an elective component of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Protecting public access to the State's shorelines is one of the three major policies of the SMA, and public access to publicly owned shorelines is a preferred use. The Washington Administrative Code (WAC 173-26-221(4)(b)) identifies the principals and standards that must be addressed in SMPs. However, WAC 173-26-221(4)(c) also notes that a jurisdiction may develop master program provisions for an effective public access system, rather than addressing public access on a site-by-site basis. The Public Access Plan provides an evaluation of the existing public accesses to the City of Spokane Valley's (COSV) shorelines, a description of existing recreational uses, and recommendations to improve both public access and public recreational uses within the shoreline jurisdiction. It will be incorporated into the SMP and is supported by other SMP elements. This plan is intended to be a coordinated planning document that can be used to support planning efforts of other agencies responsible for recreational opportunities in the shoreline, including the City Parks Department and Washington State Parks. The Planning Commission review was completed over two meetings beginning on January 10, 2013. A public hearing was conducted on January 24, 2013, and deliberations were completed that night. The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend acceptance of the draft Public Access Plan, with minor changes to the plan that eliminated text regarding number of Centennial Trail users, clarified that improvements were intended for non-motorized boats, and minor clarifications to Table 5.2. Those changes have been incorporated into the Planning Commission Draft. Attorney Tadas Kisielius also completed a review of the Draft Public Access Plan to identify areas where the draft plan may exceed, meet, or fall below the state guidelines. He provided input that was incorporated into the draft during the development stage. However, subsequent to the Planning Commission review, Mr. Kisielius has recommended that language discussing Shelley Lake public access be revised to reflect that there were no additional access opportunities at the lake. His comments are attached. Mr. Kisielius will be present at the meeting to discuss his review of the document and answer questions. Staff will present an overview of the process completed, discuss the Draft Public Access Plan, and highlight issues covered by the Planning Commission. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Planning Commission Draft Public Access Plan Attachment B: Tadas Kisielius email dated Feb. 25, 2013 Attachment C: Comments Chris Guidotti, WA State Parks, email dated December 13, 2012 Jamie Short, DOE, email dated December 12, 2012 Randy Abrahamson, Spokane Tribe of Indians, December 4, 2012 Chris Guidotti, WA State Parks, email dated November 30, 2012 Paul Knowles, Spokane County Parks, email dated November 29, 2012 Michael Stone, City of Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation, email dated Nov. 29, 2012 Attachment D: Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2013 January 24, 2013 Attachment E: Power Point Presentation Attachmnent A M PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN (Planning Commission Recommended DRAFT) City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update December 31, 2012 (Original Draft) January 24, 2013 (Planning Commission Reconmtendation) 4o 4 # - '4. . k Y,+ , lr.Pite...:1 ..„ il ‘-- "t, ',....„er , .„ ,..„. _,: . + ,.. 3 !, ir., . rk" .11' .1', A op, .,.' .. . ' ' ' "` ' *A#4 chliqf-,.• 0`,. , - A � 9 ..4 r. , , , k t + y Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Spokane Valley City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 Prepared by: URS Corporation 920 N. Argonne Road, Suite 300 Spokane Valley, WA 99212 URS Project Number 36310035 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. INTEGRATION WITH OTHER COMMUNITY PLANS 4 2.1 Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan 4 2.2 Washington State Parks 5 2.4 Spokane River Forum 6 2.5 Friends of the Centennial Trail 7 3. PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USES 8 4. SHORELINE CONDITIONS 12 4.1 Segment 1 — Upstream City Limits to Flora Road 12 4.2 Segment 2--Flora Road to Trent Avenue 13 4.3 Segment 3 Trent Avenue to Coyote Rocks .. 15 4.4 Segment 4--Orchard Avenue Area 15 5. PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN 17 6. IMPLEMENTATION 21 Tables Table 3-1: Shoreline Access within the COSY Table 3-2: Typical Shoreline Uses within the COSV Table 5-1: Proposed Shoreline Access Improvements Table 5-2: Proposed Direct River Access Improvements Table 5-3: Proposed Future Shoreline Day Use Areas Figures Figure 3-1: Existing Public Access Figure 3-2 Major Use Areas Figure 5-1 Public Access Plan Planing Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan,January 24, 2013 i Acronyms COSV City of Spokane Valley DNR Washington Department of Natural Resources Ecology Washington Department of Ecology GIS Geographical Information Systems OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark RCW Revised Code of Washington ROW Right-of-Way RSP Riverside State Park SCD Spokane Conservation District SMA Shoreline Management Act SMP Shoreline Master Program SRCT Spokane River Centennial Trail State Parks Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission URS URS Corporation(author) WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Planning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan,January 24, 2013 11 SECTIONONE INTRODUCTION 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Summary Shoreline public access is one of the major policies of the SMA. Public access to the shoreline includes the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations. This document provides an evaluation of the existing public accesses to the City of Spokane Valley's (COSV) shorelines, a description of existing recreational uses, and recommendations to improve both public access and public recreational uses within the shoreline jurisdiction, This Public Access Plan is part of the COSV's Shoreline Master Program Update (SMP) and is supported by other elements of the SMP. This plan is intended to be a coordinated planning document that can be used to support planning efforts of other agencies responsible for recreational opportunities in the shoreline, including the City Parks Department and Washington State Parks. As described in this plan, the public currently enjoys significant access opportunities in the COSV due to public ownership of a large percentage of the shorelines and because of the existing recreational infrastructure within the river corridor. While existing access and recreational uses are abundant, this plan identifies opportunities to improve existing accesses for both shoreland and direct river users as well as identifies areas suitable for low intensity development of new user areas. Within the COSV the public is provided with direct access to much of the Spokane River corridor which includes State Park land, the Spokane River Centennial Trail (SRCT), and the Spokane River. This plan addresses the public's ability to access to the river corridor including the SRCT, as well as direct, physical access to the Spokane River, itself. Much of the land within the river corridor is owned by Washington State Parks and is classified and managed for "Resource Recreation". The Resource Recreation classification requires that recreational use and development be in balance with sustainable natural resource protection. As described below, this balance promotes public access to the shorelines but limits those opportunities to access the shoreline to planned locations to maintain the integrity of the trail and the natural surroundings. The rights of navigation and water dependent uses are protected. Portions of the SRCT and the Spokane River Water Trail' (proposed) are located within the COSV's shoreline jurisdiction. Both trails are promoted as regional trails that link to adjacent jurisdictions and benefit the entire region. Protection of natural resources and the visual character of the river corridor is important to attract users to these regional trails. This plan does not include Shelley Lake because the lake is privately owned and surrounded by private property and the Homeowners Association has indicated that they would like to continue to limit access such that there are no existing or potential opportunities for public access to the The Spokane River Trail is a proposed water trail stretching from the headwaters of the Spokane River to its confluence with the Columbia River. The Spokane River Trail was proposed by the Spokane River Forum in 2010 to promote river use and protection. URIS Planning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan, January 24, 2013 1 SECTIONO .E INTRODUCTION Lake, The Central Pre-mix and Flora Road gravel pits identified in the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report, URS, 2010 will not be regulated as shorelines of the state until operations cease. Potential future uses of the Sullivan Road gravel pit are discussed as they are relevant to future public access within the river corridor. Public access and uses were determined based on the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS, 2010), the Shoreline Advisory Group meetings, and discussions with user groups and property owners including State Parks, Spokane Canoe and Kayak Club, the Northwest Whitewater Association, Friends of the Centennial Trail, COSV Parks and Recreation Department, and the Spokane River Forum. Additionally, where available, staff reviewed planning documents drafted by these various organizations, Field trips were performed during the summer of 2012 to verify information about existing public access and potential access opportunities. This plan was circulated for public comment and public hearings will be held. 1.2 Statutory and Regulatory Framework The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) states that: "The public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible... " (ROT' 90.58.020). Additionally, the SMA indicates that: "Alterations of the natural conditions of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for. . .development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state," (RCW 90.58.020). In addition, increased public access is an important element of shoreline planning for Shorelines of Statewide Significance like the Spokane River (WAC 173-18-360; RCW 90.58.020; WAC 173-26-250). Consistent with these goals, the SMA requires local jurisdictions to include a public access element in their SMP that makes "provisions for public access to publicly owned areas" and a recreational element "for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities, including but not limited to parks, tidelands, beaches, and recreational areas;. . ." RCW 90.58.100. According to Ecology's regulations, "Public access includes the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations.." WAC 173-226-221(4)(a). Shoreline public access 'basic principles included in WAC 173-26-221(4)(b) are: • Promoting the right to access waters held in public trust while protecting property rights and public safety. • Protecting the rights of navigation and space needed for water-dependent uses. URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COS V Public Access Plan, January 24, 2013 2 SECTIONONE INTRODUCTION Protecting the public's opportunity to enjoy physical and aesthetic qualities of the shorelines. i Regulating design, construction and operation of permitted uses to minimize interference with and enhance the public's use of the water. According to Ecology's regulations, the COSV "should plan for an integrated shoreline area public access system that identifies specific public needs and opportunities to provide public access." The planning process "shall also comply with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations that protect private property rights." WAC 173-26-221(4)(c). This plan implements these various statutory and regulatory requirements. In addition to this plan, the COSV will adopt regulations governing public access. URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COSY Public Access Plan,January 24, 2013 3 SECTIONTWO INTEGRATION WITH OTHER COMMUNITY PLANS 2. INTEGRATION WITH OTHER COMMUNITY PLANS In general, public access planning guides public acquisition and development efforts in a systematic way to achieve a usable network of public access, parks, and other public sites. The following plans were reviewed to ensure that the shoreline planning process is coordinated with existing public access and recreation plans. 2.1 Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan The COSV Parks and Recreation Master Plan provides the foundation for the City's park and recreation programs. In summary, the Plan provides the following guidance and policies related to the Spokane River corridor. The City Parks department adopted the current draft in April 2006 and is scheduled to update the Parks Plan starting in the fall of 2012. The current parks plan provides a summary of the Needs Assessment (Chapter 5) of the 2004/2005 Household Recreation Survey. The survey had several key findings related to the river corridor including: • Residents indicated that acquiring additional land along the Spokane River was very important. • The SRCT is considered to have the third highest "usage" of various recreation areas in the Valley. • 31% of the respondents stated they do not use park facilities. • When asked what projects should have priority, acquisition of riverfront property and development of a city-wide trail system were cited most often. Chapter 2 of the Parks and Recreation plan provides key findings and policies related to the river corridor that recognize the relationship between the river as a natural resource and the recreational opportunities and seek to protect the resource while managing, maintaining and expanding recreational opportunities. These are summarized below. "Several natural resource areas in Spokane Valley are important for recreation. These lands may be environmentally sensitive and have limited development potential, but they are often conducive to park, open space, and recreation uses. The most notable natural resource is the Spokane River and its adjoining riparian corridor and flood zone."(P&R Plan, page 2-1.) • Policy 2-C: Seeks to protect or preserve significant natural resource for present and future generations. o Objective 2-C (1): seeks to acquire riparian corridors where feasible to protect these natural resources and to offer potential sites for trail development. o Objective 2-C (2): Develop effective natural resource management plans for significant natural areas within parks and other City-owned or controlled lands to ID management priorities and to guide development and restoration decisions. URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COSY Public Access Plan,January 24,2013 4 SECTIONTWO INTEGRATION WITH OTHER COMMUNITY PLANS a Objective 2-C (3): Directly and /or cooperatively acquire and protect land within the flood zone of the Spokane River and other drainage corridors. Plan park and recreation facilities and public access to these areas where appropriate. Chapter 6 of the Parks and Recreation plan provides recommendations for improvements to the city park system that includes the following elements related to the river corridor. • Develop a comprehensive trails system utilizing the SRCT along the Spokane River as the backbone element. • Sullivan Park: Provide "better access and a viewpoint to the Spokane River", • Mission Avenue Trailhead: This site should be developed into a formal trailhead including parking, staging area and kiosk. • Myrtle Point: Develop a master plan for this park; develop an access from the south; consider a boat launch; develop a picnic area; develop a paved trail from the CT to this site. Under 6.6 Riverfront Access, the Plan states the Spokane River offers a unique recreation resource to the City. Attempts should be made to acquire additional property as it becomes available. Barker Bridge is an example of a potential site that could offer a boating access point. (P&R Plan, pg 6-43). 2,2 Riverside State Park Classification and Management Plan Washington State Parks prepared the Park Classification and Management Plan (C.A.M.P.) for Riverside State Park in March 2005. Riverside State Park is a 14,000 acre park along the Spokane and Little Spokane rivers. The SRCT is managed by Riverside State Park staff as an extension of the Park. In general the C.A.M.P. seeks to balance recreation opportunities with ecosystem protection, Because State Parks shares management of the SRCT located outside Riverside State Park, most of the SRCT is not covered in the CAMP plan. Even though the C.A.M.P. plan does not directly address the portion of the SRCT within the COSV, the plan provides guidance on how this section of the SRCT will be managed. Relevant portions of the CAMP plan are summarized below. • Park-Wide Recreational Resource/Facility Issues and Management Approaches Issue (Table 5) Interpretation and environmental education (760PW-R1): Programmatic Activities: Park staff should coordinate with region staff and the agency Interpretive Supervisor to solicit cooperation of local school districts, higher education institutions, museums, and other organizations and individuals to develop and implement an enhanced environmental education and historical/cultural education program for RSP. An Interpretive Center within Riverside State Park should be used as a hub of a linked system of interpretive signs and kiosks distributed throughout Riverside State Park and the SRCT. Such a linked system of interpretation could develop a thematic context URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan, January 24, 2013 5 SECTPONTWO INTEGRATION WITH OTHER COMMUNITY PLANS focused on the past 12,000 years of changing land-use patterns along the Spokane River Valley. • Centennial Trail Sub-area Tssues and Management Approaches (Table 8): Protection of wildlife habitat/natural ecosystems (760CT-N2): Land Classification: Those lands outside of RSP proper and within the trail corridor itself or development areas for trailheads, parking, etc. are classified as Resource Recreation, which requires that recreational use and development be in balance with sustainable natural resource protection. • Appropriate recreational uses (760CT-R2): Land Classification: The trail corridor itself, outside RSP proper, including sufficient areas for development of trailheads, parking, restrooms, and other ancillary facilities as necessary is classified as a Recreation Area so as not to limit development of trail uses and amenities. Park Policy: Park planning and management should attempt to accommodate the following existing and potential uses to a level that is consistent with protection of park natural and cultural resources and provided standards for recreational experience are met: walking, cycling, in-line skating, skating, running/jogging, wheel chair use, dog walks on leash, equestrian uses (where adjacent), nature viewing, baby strolling, fishing, river access, organized events, canoe/kayak put-in, picnicking, community links (trails), comprehensive interpretive program, CT extensions, • Maintenance, preservation, and improvement of facilities (760CT-R3): Park Recreational Resource Management Program: Capital Projects: 1) Resurface trail. 2) Develop trailhead at Sullivan Road, 3) Provide drinking fountains where feasible. 4) Explore the feasibility of building a parallel soft trail for equestrian use. 5) Comprehensive interpretation project for the entire trail, including potential for interpretive signs, brochures, and programs. In addition to the policies articulated in the CAMP, we understand that State Parks discourages uncoordinated, multiple trail access points, both formal and informal. State Parks prefers to limit access points to planned locations in order to maintain the integrity of the trail and of the natural surroundings and to facilitate the flow of traffic along the trail. State Parks has articulated this goal in conversations with COSV staff and has taken this position in response to specific development projects that have requested access to parks property or the SRCT. 2.4 Spokane River Forum The Spokane River Forum is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that creates materials, events and activities to promote regional dialogs and partnerships for sustaining a healthy river system while meeting the needs of a growing population. The Spokane River Forum is leading the effort to create a Spokane River Water Trail that will begin at the discharge of Coeur D'Alene Lake and extend to the confluence of the Columbia River. The Spokane River Forum has identified areas within the COSV shorelines as river access areas for the regional Spokane URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan,January 24, 2013 6 SECTIONTWO INTEGRATION WITH OTHER COMMUNITY PLANS River Water Trail. The major areas identified include direct river access at Barker Road, Sullivan Road, and at the Centennial Bridge (Plantes Ferry/Coyote Rocks). The Spokane River Forum identified other significant access points as part the Spokane River Water Trail including Sullivan Hole beach, Mission Avenue, and Mirabeau Point. 2.5 Friends of the Centennial Trail The Friends of the Centennial Trail promote and coordinate activities and improvements along the regional CT. Within the COSV desired projects include improving the parking areas at Barker Road and Mission Avenue by paving and landscaping in order provide more attractive and safe parking facilities and to reduce the cost of maintenance. An equestrian area and trail system on the north bank has been part of CT planning since early in its inception but is no longer a high priority. In general, access and public use of the CT is considered good within the city limits. Friends of the CT indicated that it was important not to disrupt traffic flow along the trail in order to provide for safe, nonhazardous trail use. Multiple trail access points, both formal and informal are discouraged and will need to be reviewed by State Parks early in the design process. URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan,January 24, 2013 7 SECTIONTHREE PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USES 3. EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USES A goal of the COSV and of the SMA is to preserve the existing levels and quality of public access in the COSV. Public access to the Spokane River shorelines within the COSV is considered good and appears to meet the needs of the majority of users. According to the most recent recreation survey of the Spokane River system' use along the Spokane River was considered to have sufficient amenities and was reported as not crowded, even though other sources estimate a high volume of use of the River Corridor associated with the SRCT3. The 2004 recreational survey evaluated the entire river system as well as Lake Coeur D'Alene and Lake Spokane and does not specifically distinguish the portion of the Spokane River in the COSV. However, its general conclusions are applicable to the portion of the River in the COSV. Additionally, the survey's assessment of the abundant recreational opportunities is reflected in information provided by several local interest groups summarized in Section 2, above. Recreational opportunities benefit from the large percentage of public ownership within the river corridor. The 2006 City Parks and Recreation Plan shows that linear parks within the COSV, including the SRCT, are only slightly deficient with a need for an additional of 0.7 acres in 2005 and an estimated 60 acres in 2025 to meet the desired level of service of 1.36 acres per 1,000 residents`. In addition, discussions with user groups indicate that existing access is generally good, though improvements to accommodate specific user groups are needed. Important areas providing public access to the river corridor are shown in Table 3-1 and on Figure 3-1. There are many informal paths from private property that are used by residents to access the SRCT and the river that are not included in the table. In addition to these existing access points, there are two potential access points described later in the document that may be appropriate locations for development of future access to the river and the SRCT. Table 3-1 Existing Access to the River Corridor within the COSV Access SRCT River Spokane Parking Ownership Description Access Access River Trail Barker Yes Yes Yes Yes SP - south, Gravel Parking lot on south side for Road COSV -- CT access. Limited parking on north bridge at north side boater access. Flora Road Yes Yes, No No COSV/SC South side- used by neighborhood. limited North side parking limited, no signage. Mission Yes Yes, Yes Yes COSV Gravel right of way used by Ave limited neighborhood and local/regional kayakers to access CT, river, and Sullivan Hole. Sullivan Rd Yes Yes, Yes Yes SP/COSV Formal city park owned by SP/ limited managed by COSV. Access 2 Recreation Facility Inventory and User Surveys Report Spokane River Project,No,2545,prepared by Louis Berger for Avista,2004. 3 Friends of the Centennial Trail website,http://www.spokanecentennialtrail.org/ °COSV Park and Recreation Master Plan,2006 Table 5.1. URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan,January 24, 2013 8 SECTIONTHREE PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USES improvements planned with new bridge. Mirabeau Yes Yes, Yes Yes SP Scenic and a popular location to Point limited access the CT and river. Trent Yes No No Yes SP CT access where Trent Avenue Avenue crosses the river. Parking is informal in public ROW. Plantes Yes Yes, Yes Yes SP Parking within SC and included due Ferry limited to its importance for river access at the west end of the COSV. Notes: 1. SP =State Parks ownership,COSV=City of Spokane Valley ownership, SC—Spokane County. The paved, ADA accessible SRCT Trail begins at the Idaho state line and ends at Nine Mile Falls, Washington with a length of 37 miles of which 11 miles are within the COSY. The SRCT path generally follows the contours of the Spokane River, allowing access for many types of outdoor non-motorized recreational activities. The SRCT provides the public opportunities for walking, running, and biking and provides a means to access adjacent areas (fields and woods) that have informal trails and support activities such as binding, fishing and quiet aesthetic enjoyment of the river corridor. Along much of its length within the SRCT the SRCT is separated from adjacent private properties either by vegetated buffers and/ or high banks. These natural surroundings contribute to the aesthetics of the river corridor and help to screen adjacent development and uses. The natural surroundings are appropriately interrupted at a limited number of access points. Generally, most activities occur or are accessed from the south bank since access to the north bank is limited with the exception of Sullivan Park. Direct use of the river includes fishing, swimming, boating and summertime floating. Boating and floating activities require river put-ins and take-outs in order to run the river. The Spokane River Water Trail, promoted as a regional trail, has identified put-ins and take-outs along the river from Coeur D'Alene Lake to the Columbia River. Four of these regionally important river accesses are located within the COSY. The Barker Road, Mission Avenue, Sullivan Road, and Mirabeau Point accesses are used for direct river access during warm weather. The Plantes Ferry access was lost when Upriver Drive was realigned and now boating use is limited downstream of Mirabeau Point. The Spokane River Forum and State Parks are in the process of acquiring funding to replace the Plantes Ferry access. Within the COSY are located three popular local and regional kayak park and play features known as Sullivan Hole, Mini-Climax Wave and the Zoo Wave. Fishing occurs throughout the length of the river but during summer the area between Sullivan Road and Mirabeau Point is popular due to cold aquifer water entering the river. Table 3-2 provides a summary of typical uses found within the river corridor. Figure 3-2 shows the location of significant use areas. Table 3-2 Existing Shoreline Uses within the COSV Use Location Public ADA Access Notes URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan,January 24,2013 9 SECTIONTHREE PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USES Access (1) CT Uses(hike,bike) Along the Good Good Trail related activities. CT Swimming River Good Generally poor Informal, non-regulated swimming at dispersed beaches. No ADA accessible beach, few amenities at beaches. Dispersed uses --- --- --- Protection of adjacent land uses and natural areas is important for these activities, -Fishing River Good Generally poor -Birding Wood/Fields Good Good along trail -Quiet Wood/Fields Good Good along trail Floating River Good Difficult Includes inner-tubing and recreational summer rafting. Whitewater Boating River Good Boat access improvements are needed to advance the Spokane River Water Trail including ADA access at major put-ins if possible. -Barker Road --- Good Possible Access good, parking needs to be retained and expanded at this high use area. Improvements to boat access could make this site ADA compliant. -Sullivan Road --- Moderate Difficult Erosion has occurred on the slopes due to high use and no defined paths. Improvements are expected when the new Sullivan Road Bridge is constructed. -Mirabeau Point --- Good Possible River access is good for small boats. A long steep path to climb for larger boats and rafts. A dirt road exists to the river that could be used for vehicle or ADA access. -Plantes Ferry --- Poor Possible Boating activity for rafts and larger boats is limited due to no access. Currently there is a proposal to construct a ramp near the CT parking lot. Kayak Park and Play River -Mini-Climax --- Moderate No Access is by a steep eroding bank. Better Wave path to river is needed. -Sullivan Hole --- Good No A good example of a multi-use feature on the river. Popular with floaters, boaters, swimmers, fishermen and kayakers. Accessed from Mission Road. -Zoo Wave --- Difficult Possible The least used of the kayak park and play spots due to Iack of vehicle access. Notes: 1. ADA access is a non-technical evaluation of the possibility of adding ADA compliant access for the various uses. Public access on the north shore is limited to public right of ways, the Barker Road boat put-in, and Sullivan Park. There are many old dirt roads and informal trails within the shoreline jurisdiction that are used for hiking, mountain biking and by fisherman to access fishing areas. Use is more limited than on the south shore, in part because much of the adjacent land is zoned URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COS V Public Access Plan, January 24, 2013 10 SECTIONTHREE PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USES industrial and there are few user amenities such as the SRCT. Access is considered adequate along the north shore for current and anticipated future uses. While public access is generally good on the south bank there are few user amenities to provide user services or to attract users to the river corridor beyond the SRCT and the river access uses described in Table 3-2 above. User amenities can include public facilities and services such as public bathrooms, water fountains, benches, picnic areas, and parking as well as potential commercial uses such as private bike and boat rentals, shuttle service and restaurants. URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COS V Public Access Plan,January 24, 2013 11 SECTIONFOUR SHORELINE CONDITIONS 4. SHORELINE CONDITIONS Shorelines included in this evaluation include the portions of the Spokane River corridor that are located within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley. This includes shorelines from the eastern City boundary(River Mile [RM] 91) to the western City boundary (RM 81.5), excluding the area within the Town of Millwood (RM 82.1 to RM 83.4). The evaluation is divided into the four river segments used for the Shoreline Inventory. 4.1 Segment 1 — Upstream City Limits to Flora Road Character of the River Corridor: The river corridor through this segment is a mix of residential and open space. Areas on the north side of the river include residential and industrial uses. The south side of the river is predominately single family residential. In many areas the residential uses are separated from the public uses by high steep banks or vegetated buffers. This segment provides some isolation and urban wilderness for trail and river users. The river contains many of the whitewater rapids that make the Spokane River a popular summer float. In the residential areas there are many informal trails used to access the SRCT and for neighborhood swimming and fishing areas. It is considered by many users as a very attractive part of the SRCT and river. Since much of the shorelines are already developed the character of the river corridor is not expected to change substantially. Access and Use of the River Corridor: Access to the river corridor occurs predominately at Barker Road and to a lesser extent Flora Road on both the north and south sides of the river. Eden Road (closed City right-of-way) is used for neighborhood access, Recreational use is relatively heavy with access provided by the Barker Road SRCT parking area on the south bank and the Barker Road Boat Launch on the North bank, The existing parking appears adequate for both SRCT use and at the north bank boat launch. The Barker Road access is easily accessible from 1-90 and Trent Avenue. The nearest commercial area for user services (food, drink, gas) is near the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection with additional services at Harvard Road in Liberty Lake (gas, restaurant, hotel). The KOA campground is located approximately 0,5 miles north of the Barker Road Bridge. Key Use Areas: Key use areas are: • Barker Road Bridge where the gravel SRCT parking area (south side) and the boat launch (north side) are popular destinations for users. Parking and access is adequate for current users. • Flora Road (North) North shore area east of Flora Road is an area used by hikers and fisherman to access the river. Parking is limited. • Flora Road (South) Direct river access at Flora Road is used as a small boat launch, for swimming, fishing, and neighborhood SRCT access. Parking is very limited. Planning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan, January 24,2013 12 SECTIONF OUR SHORELINE CONDITIONS 4.2 Segment 2 — Flora Road to Trent Avenue Character of the River Corridor: The river corridor through this segment is a mix of isolated wooded areas, expansive fields and commercial development. This river segment is generally adjacent to large parcel mixed uses on south side and industrial uses on the north side with an area of existing residential use on the south (portion of Greenacres). Much of the land is currently undeveloped. Recreational use is heavy through this river segment and includes SRCT trail uses, fishing, boating and floating. It is anticipated that additional commercial/mixed use development will occur adjacent to the shoreline jurisdiction. Future development will likely result in increased use of the river corridor and additional access requirements to service future developments. This segment provides some isolation and an urban wilderness experience for trail and river users but is expected to change as the area is developed and becomes more urbanized. Access and Use of the River Corridor: Access to the river corridor predominately occurs at Mission Avenue, Sullivan Park and Mirabeau Point. Other access points include E. Indiana Road, a public right of way near the Walt Worthy office building, Spokane Mall access, and the Trent Avenue access. Use of these access points is limited due to limited parking, little historical use, or lack of signage. Mission Avenue is an important access used by kayakers to access the popular Sullivan Hole park and play area. Sullivan Park is a formal city park located on the north side of the river. Sullivan Park is easily accessible from I-90 and Trent Avenue. Mission Avenue and Mirabeau Point are both used to access the river corridor but are more difficult to find due to lack of signage. All of these areas are close to the Spokane Valley Mall which can provide services (food and drink) to users of the river corridor. Mirabeau Point is convenient to services on Pines and Trent Avenues while Mission Avenue is convenient to the Spokane Valley Mall and the Hanson development located east of the mall. Key Use Areas: Key use areas within this segment include both river corridor access and specific high use areas. River Corridor Access: • Mission Avenue is used by the neighborhood to access the SRCT. The Mission Road access is used for direct river access for fishing and swimming and is very important to local and regional kayakers to access the Sullivan Hole play spot. Much of the nearby property is zoned mixed use, Currently (year 2012) approximately 200 apartments are being constructed on a portion of the property adjacent to this access. It is anticipated that the increased population will increase use in this area. • Sullivan Road provides access to Sullivan Park on the north side of the river and the Spokane Valley Mall on the south side of the river. Sullivan Park is a major shoreline access point used for day use (picnicking and swimming), for direct river access, and for parking to access the SRCT, located on the south side of the river requiring users to cross Sullivan Bridge. The proposed Sullivan Bridge improvements will provide safe pedestrian access and improvements for direct river access. Designated SRCT parking URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan,January 24,2013 13 SECTIONFOUR SHORELINE CONDITIONS and trail signage does not exist at the Spokane Valley Mall but trail users do park there to access the SRCT. • Mirabeau Point provides an important access to the SRCT and the river. Activities at Centerplace introduce visitors to the river corridor. Parking, trail and river access are adequate at Mirabeau Point. • The Trent Avenue access can be improved, Trent Avenue is a high traffic area and this access is minimal signed and not very attractive for users. With improvements this area could become an important area to access the SRCT. River Corridor Use Areas: • Sullivan Hole is the most popular kayak play spot on the river. Nearby is the Mini- Climax wave used by kayakers at higher river flows. The area has seen increasing multi- use activities including fishing, swimming and picnicking. Upstream of Sullivan Hole, on the north side of the river is located a large sandy beach that is currently only accessible from the water or by foot. In the future, when the Sullivan Road gravel pit is closed access to this beach may be feasible along the existing gravel pit access road. • Mission Avenue is a high use area for river access. Development of nearby properties will bring increased use to this area. Currently many users access the river down a steep, eroded trail right by the access. Signage and low intensity development (picnic tables, benches and signage) at the nearby old "Lions Park" would provide an appropriate day use area. • A popular beach is located downstream of Sullivan Park on the north side of the river. This beach is accessible from Sullivan Park. Development of a trail and signage would be appropriate to direct users to this area. • The Zoo Wave is a kayak park and play area located downstream of the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge and upstream of Mirabeau Point. There is no parking and the feature is typically accessed when running the river. The south shoreline adjacent to the Zoo Wave is a large flat river bench that is suitable for day use and may be an appropriate area to construct ADA access. • Mirabeau Point is a high use area that is suitable for development of low intensity day uses to help direct users to low impact areas. Suitable development might include better definition of the trail system, fencing, development of an overlook and picnic areas, Additional planning to protect these areas while maintaining uses will be required by City and State parks. • Fishing is popular between Sullivan Bridge and Mirabeau Point. Informal trails lead to the fishing areas. Future Use Areas: During this review of river corridor access and users the following areas were noted as possible areas that could benefit access to the SRCT and the river in the future. • Completion of mining activities at the Sullivan Road gravel pit is not expected in the near future but when completed a 160 acre cold water lake will exist, This lake is a window into the Spokane aquifer and uses will need to be limited to protect the region's water supply. The combination of a large lake adjacent to the river corridor provides an URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan,January 24, 2013 ' 14 SECTIONFOUR SHORELINE CONDITIONS opportunity to increase access to the north side of the river; including the large beach by Sullivan Hole and for economic development of the strip between the lake and the river. • The undeveloped land east of Mirabeau Point is zoned mixed use. Additional access close to the Union Pacific railroad Bridge should be considered when developed. A new SRCT/river access near this location would provide access to the SRCT, the Zoo Wave and adjacent day use area, and linkage to the COSV Millwood trail currently under design, • There is no direct SRCT access from the Pinecroft property. Depending on the type of development an additional public access point may be appropriate for users in this area to access the SRCT. 4.3 Segment 3 --Trent Avenue to Coyote Rocks Character of the River Corridor: The river corridor through this segment is characterized by well vegetated, high steep bank, decreasing in elevation at Myrtle Point, Plantes Ferry and Coyote Rocks. Myrtle Point park is an undeveloped park owned by the COSV is located in this river segment. Through much of this segment river corridor uses are isolated from the adjacent uplands. Due to the steep banks and the Myrtle Point Park, the character of this segment is not expected to substantially change. Access and Use of the River Corridor: Through much of this segment the COSV has jurisdiction on only the south bank. Land uses along this segment include the City's Myrtle Point Park and the Coyote Rocks residential development. Recreational use is relatively heavy at the beaches by Coyote Rocks with access from the Plantes Ferry SRCT parking lot is located on the north bank (Spokane County jurisdiction). The only legal access to the south bank from within the COSV is at Trent Avenue. Access from the residential areas to the south is difficult due to the lack of public parking and a legal access to the SRCT and Myrtle Point. The nearest commercial area for services (food, drink, gas) is along Trent Avenue. Most users enter this area from the north side Plantes Ferry Parking lot. Key Use Areas: Key use areas are: • Myrtle Point is located on the south bank of Plantes Ferry and is undeveloped. The area is used for swimming and fishing. The area should remain as a conservation area due to its connection with the highlands to the north but is appropriate for development of low intensity day uses such as picnicking and swimming. Access to the area from neighborhood to the south should be improved and the area has been identified as needing boat access to fill in a gap of the Spokane River Trail. • The Trent Avenue access has potential to direct users to the river corridor. Trent is a high traffic road and an inviting entrance to the river would be suitable here. 4.4 Segment 4— Orchard Avenue Area Character of the River Corridor: URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan, January 24,2013 15 SECTIONFOUR SHORELINE CONDITIONS The river in this segment is impounded by Upriver Dam and is lake like. Through this segment the COSV has jurisdiction on only the south bank. This segment is almost entirely residential. The residential properties extend to the river and are generally fully developed to the waters edge. Access and Use of the River Corridor: Uses include swimming, fishing and boating. This is the only shoreline within the COSV that is suitable for docks and motor boats. There is no public access located in this area of the city. Key Use Areas: • There are no public key use areas within this segment. URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan, January 24,2013 16 SECTIONFIVE PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN 5, PROPOSED SHORELINE ACCESS AND USER IMPROVEMENTS As described above, the Spokane River corridor has significant existing public access opportunities. Based on current information, these existing access opportunities are adequate to meet demand for current and anticipated future uses. This section addresses improvements to existing access and new access areas that may be proposed. When identifying potential future access improvements, the COSV acknowledges the efforts of Washington State Parks and the City Parks department to balance development of recreational opportunities against preservation of the natural environment that is important to the recreational experience. Accordingly, COSV seeks to implement the preferred approach of Washington State Parks and Friends of Centennial Trail goal of limiting proliferation of uncoordinated, multiple access points and instead focusing improvements on existing access points or developing new day use areas or access points at select, appropriate planned locations. The proposed improvements described below have been developed from comments received at public meetings and from communications with user groups and with park managers. Proposed improvements are consistent with proposed shoreline Environmental Designations, existing park management plans, and the preservation of high-quality conservation areas. Improvements to existing access areas and for the development of future use areas will need to comply with the Goals, Policies, and Regulations as adopted by the City. Figure 5-1 shows the location of these proposed improvements. Improvements to Existing Shoreland Access Access to the SRCT is good. Improvements to existing access points can include improvements to the existing parking areas to reduce maintenance, provide stormwater treatment, and provide ADA access. Additionally, improvements on existing access points can address other issues such as improved signage, ADA compliance or construction of new amenities at appropriate locations including public bathrooms, water fountains, benches, picnic areas, and paved parking. Table 5-1 provides a summary of proposed improvements to existing access areas commonly used to access the SRCT and the land within the shoreline. Table 5-1 Proposed Shoreland Access Improvements Access Proposed Improvements Barker Road - Pave, landscape and provide stormwater treatment for the existing gravel SRCT parking area, South Parking area and SRCT trail access are ADA accessible though the slopes to and on the trail appear to be steep. Barker Road - Increase parking for non-motorized direct river access. Purchase of additional property may be North necessary to provide sufficient parking when Barker Road is widened. Consider an ADA compliant path to the river put-in. Mission Ave Pave, landscape and provide additional parking, including ADA parking. Bathroom/changing room would be helpful. Sullivan Park Parking and amenities are sufficient, Provide a non-motorized river put-in/takeout when the new bridge is constructed. Due to the steepness of the bank an ADA compliant access to the river will URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan,January 24, 2013 17 SECTIONFIVE PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN be difficult to construct and maintain. Mirabeau Parking and ADA access are good. Park Trent Avenue Pave, landscape,bathroom, signage for trail access. Myrtle Point Provide public access and parking from the south side. Improvements to Existing Direct River Access Direct river access is used for river floating, fishing, swimming, and kayak park and play activities. Floating the river is a popular activity for summertime innertubers and the whitewater community which includes kayakers, canoeists, and rafters. Existing boat accesses are not ADA compliant and it is difficult to launch larger rafts and drift boats using a trailer. The lack of a useable takeout at the west side of the city near Plantes Ferry/Coyote Rocks creates an impediment to boat use on the river. Table 5-2 provides a summary of proposed non-motorized access improvements that benefit river users. Table 5-2 Proposed Direct River Access Improvements Access Proposed Improvements Barker Road - See Table 5-1 and 5-2. North Mission Ave See Table 5-1 and 5-2. Sullivan Park Access to the river is difficult and high use has resulted in erosion. Provide better access for direct river uses. Mirabeau Park _ Access and signage adequate for use. Myrtle Point Support user groups and State Parks to identify and construct a non-motorized boat launch /Plantes Ferry in this area. URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan,January 24, 2013 ' 18 SECTIONFIVE PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN Spokane River—Future Use Areas Trail and river use is expected to increase in the future as populations increase and vacant land is developed within or adjacent to the shoreline jurisdiction. It may become appropriate to improve public access opportunities to address any unmet demand for access or to compensate for impacts to existing access opportunities. Any development of future access areas will need to be coordinated with both City and State Parks and located and designed consistent with the COSV's SMP. If additional new access areas are requested they must be designed for public access, including parking and signage. When considering potential future access improvements, the COSV will balance development of recreational opportunities against preservation of the natural environment that is important to the recreational experience. Consistent with Parks policies, COSV will limit proliferation of uncoordinated, multiple access points and seek to focus on new day use areas or access points at select, appropriate planned locations identified below. Table 5-3 includes proposed access improvements that have been identified as suitable areas to improve access to popular shoreline use areas while protecting more sensitive areas. The proposed new day use areas are located in disturbed areas or areas subject to development pressure that are suitable for development of low impact day uses. Low impact development of these sites, utilizing existing trails and dirt roads can be accomplished with little ecological impact to the shorelines, The development of these low intensity user areas will benefit the shoreline environment by directing shoreline users to areas that minimize disturbances to the shoreline vegetation. Table 5-3 Proposed Future Shoreline Day Use Areas Access Proposed Improvements Eden Road Currently used as neighborhood access. If the river bench alongside the river is developed into a day use area, opening Eden Road and providing parking is warranted. In the past the Greenacres neighborhood has rejected proposals to make this a formal SRCT access. Mission Potential day use area at"Lions Park". Provide picnic tables,benches and improve signage. Ave/Lions Park Mirabeau-East New parking and access near the UP RR bridge to support access to the Zoo Wave and a potential day use area located on the river bench near the Zoo Wave. Mirabeau Park. Provide day use area along heavily used rock and river,picnic tables and benches. Pinecroft Provide public parking and public access to the SRCT at the Pinecroft subdivision if warranted by development uses. Myrtle Point Provide/stabilize beach access,provide a day use area. Spokane River—Economic Development New development along or adjacent to the river corridor such as restaurants, recreational equipment stores, and similar enterprises attracts users and provides needed services. There are limited services available near the shorelines and potential development of gathering places at or near busy road corridors (Barker Road, Sullivan Road, Mirabeau Point, or Trent Avenue) could URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan, January 24, 2013 19 SECTIONFIVE PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN provide services for shoreline users. The shoreline is a sensitive environment with lots of public use and oversight. Any future development within the shoreline will need to be located in appropriate areas to avoid net loss of shoreline ecological functions and any ecological impacts associated with a new development will need to be mitigated. Planning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan,January 24, 2013 20 SECTIONSIX IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 6. IMPLEMENTATION Public access improvements within the shoreline may be proposed by applicants including public agencies. These voluntary public access improvements if requested and constructed as part of a proposed development should be consistent with this plan and with the SMP and must benefit the community. New shoreline public access should be integrated into the platting and site development planning process. In general, the COSV chooses to implement the approach of Washington State Parks and Friends of SRCT of discouraging uncoordinated, multiple access points, and, instead, focusing any improvements on existing or planned locations identified in this document in order to maintain the integrity of the river corridor, the SRCT and its natural surroundings and to facilitate the flow of traffic along the SRCT and Spokane River. Areas identified in this plan for access and use improvements are located in part on public lands. Implementation of proposed access improvements will therefore require that the COSV coordinate with State Parks. It is expected that any planning and implementation of publically funded improvement projects will be coordinated through each parks capital improvement plan. In addition to voluntary improvements proposed by applicants, state shoreline regulations require private projects to provide public access in certain circumstances. However, the regulations acknowledge limitations on the requirement to provide public access. First private projects are not required to provide access on-site when a public access plan supports more effective public access opportunities. As identified above, this plan identifies planned locations for future access to discourage proliferation of multiple uncoordinated accesses such that on-site access will not typically be required unless consistent with the improvements identified in this plan. Second, private projects are not required to provide access if the requirement would violate constitutional or other legal limitations. The most critical constitutional limit on development conditions requiring public access is the doctrine of "regulatory takings," which requires local government to show a "nexus"5 and "rough proportionality"6 for such conditions (also known as the "Nollan/Dolan" analysis). These principles, which originated under a federal constitutional takings analysis, have similarly been applied in a Washington constitutional context. Based on these constitutional principles, access can be required of private property owners in the 5 The City must show that an"essential nexus"exists between a Iegitimate state interest and the permit condition. The focus here is on the nature of the permit condition and the need to show that its nature is related to an adverse impact of the proposed development. 6 To comply with the requirement of"rough proportionality,"the City must show that the degree of the exactions demanded by the permit conditions bears the required relationship to the projected impact of the proposed development. The focus here is on the degree of the permit condition and the need to show that its degree is related to the extent of the adverse impact. 'Public access conditions may raise other constitutional issues, such as substantive due process and equal protection,but the takings evaluation outlined above typically addresses most issues related to public access. A publication providing guidance on these and other legal issues has been produced by the Washington Attorney General's Office. Public access policies and regulations proposed by the City should be evaluated under the takings framework described in the Attorney General Guidance to satisfy the requirements of RCW 36.70A.370. URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan,January 24, 2013 21 SECTION SIX IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY shoreline context if demand for access exceeds current capacity8 or if existing access opportunities are impaired.9 As described earlier, it is not anticipated that development within the shoreline will create a demand that exceeds existing capacity because existing access to the shorelines within the COSY is generally good and current information suggests that these existing access opportunities are adequate to meet demand for current and anticipated future uses. However, if a private project proposes to remove or impact existing public access (physical or visual), then the City will typically impose a condition related to public access to mitigate this impact to a degree similar to the impact to existing public access that is created by the proposed project. B For example,if a private project increases the demand for public access to shorelines,then the City can typically impose a condition related to public access to mitigate this impact,again, to a degree that is proportional to the amount of increased demand. 9 For example,if a private project proposes to remove or impact existing public access(physical or visual),then the City can typically impose a condition related to public access to mitigate this impact to a degree similar to the impact to existing public access that is created by the proposed project. IURS Planning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan,January 24, 2013 22 FIGURES URSPlanning Commission Recommended Draft COSV Public Access Plan,January 24,2013 Attachment B Va iNess Feldman Millennium Tower 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 GordorxDerr Seattle,Washington 98104 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 206-623-9372 P 206-623-4986 F SEATTLE, WA • WASHINGTON, DC MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Tadas Kisielius DATE: February 25, 2013 RE: Potential Shelley Lake Revision to Public Access Plan In addition to the revisions to the public review draft of the Shoreline Public Access Plan that were recommended by the Planning Commission, the City Council may also want to consider a revision to the introductory discussion of Shelley Lake in Section 1.1. The change will clarify the City's public access planning for Shelley Lake, but does not substantively change the City's approach with respect to public access to the Lake expressed in the public review draft. Currently, the draft language concludes that there are "no existing or potential opportunities for public access"to Shelley Lake. However, the current draft also suggests that "the plan does not include" Shelley Lake. While it is correct that the plan does not propose any additional public access to the privately owned lake, it is technically incorrect to state that the plan"does not include" Shelley Lake; rather, through the planning process we understand staff considered Shelley Lake but determined that there were no additional public access opportunities at the lake. Accordingly, the Council could consider changes that more accurately characterize the planning related to Shelley Lake: This plan does-not ineInde Shelley Lake is also within the COSV's shoreline jurisdiction. be cruse she-The lake is privately owned and surrounded by community private-property that is managed by and the Homeowners Association. Public access to the shorelands and lake is available and adequate for the immediate Shelley Lake community, including a paved pedestrian trail around the majority of the lake and moormg posts for non-motorized watercraft. has indicated that they would like to continue to limit access such that tThere are no existing or potential opportunities for other public access to the Lake. 41398-2 The Seattle Office of Van Ness Feldman,LLP Attachment C Chris Bainbridge From: Mike Stone Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 1:39 PM To: Lori Barlow Subject: Public Access Element of the SMP Hi Lori, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Public Access Plan. In general, it seems accurate and I have no issues or concerns with it. I do have a couple of edits or suggestions that you may wish to consider. 1. The table of contents refers to the "Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan" It really should read Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 2. On Page 3 the second paragraph, it acknowledges discussions with user groups and property owners. The Valley Parks and Recreation Department is not listed and I believe that they should be. 3. On Page 6 under Section 2.1, again, the Parks Plan is referred to as "comprehensive" and it should read "master". 4. On Page 8 under the footnotes, again the word comprehensive should be replaced with master. 5. On Page 9 in the table at the top of the page, under Plantes Ferry description the letters SC are used. Yet the key does not include SC. Perhaps they were meant to be CS instead. That is all my edits. Thanks again. Michael D Stone, CPRP Director of Parks and Recreation City of Spokane Valley 2426 N. Discovery Place Spokane Valley, Washington 99216 509-720-5400 509-688-0188 Fax mstoneOspokaneval ley.orq Chris Bainbridge From: Knowles, Paul [PKNOWLES©spokanecounty.org] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:11 AM To: Lori Barlow Cc: Bottelli, John Subject: RE: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update -Technical Review Group Hi Lori! Thanks for the email! I have a few initial comments: 1. Figure 5-1 "Public Access Plan": I'm assuming that"Boat Launch" means non-motorized?The wording is a little misleading and could be changed to specify type of launch. 2. All figures: Your maps (figures) end at the eastern boundary of Millwood, but exclude the portion of the CoSV's shoreline west of Millwood. Any reason why? Otherwise, looks good! Best, Paul Knowles Park Planner Spokane County Parks (509) 477-2188 From: Lori Barlow [mailto:lbarlow@spokanevalley.orq] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:42 AM To: 'Short, Jaime (ECY)'; Lindsay, Robert; 'divenkad @DFW.WA.GOV'; 'Jacob.McCann @dnr.wa.gov'; Mike Stone; 'Bekkedahl, Robin'; 'randya @spokanetribe.com'; 'Dave Lamb'; 'Walt Edelen/Spokane County Conservation District'; Guidotti, Chris (PARKS); 'greg.griffith @dahp.wa.gov'; Steve Worley; Cooke, Kevin; 'khall@landscouncil.org'; Wright, Jo Anne; 'Ray.Oligher @cityofmillwood.org'; Pederson, John; Knowles, Paul; 'roylene.rides-at-the-door @wa.usda.gov' Cc: 'Patrouch, John' Subject: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update - Technical Review Group The City of Spokane Valley is in the process of updating the Shoreline Master Program. At this time the Draft Public Access Plan has been completed by our consultant, URS Corporation. Since you, or your agency, have jurisdiction or technical expertise in this area, the document is being submitted to you for review. The attachments contain the Draft Public Access Plan and Figures. Please review the documents and provide written comments not later than December 13, 2012. Comments may be mailed to me @ 11707 E Sprague Ave., Suite 106, Spokane Valley WA 99206 or emailed to Lbarlow @spokanevalley.org, If you would like to comment, but feel that you need more time to do so, please let me know your expected target date. If you would like a hard copy of the material, one will be provided upon request. The City's public participation plan requires that each component developed for the plan be reviewed by the Technical Review Group, presented to the public at an open house, reviewed by the Planning Commission, including a public hearing, and accepted by resolution by the City Council. Once all the components of the SMP are completed, the individual documents will be packaged together and the formal adoption process will begin with Planning Commission 1 review, public hearing and Council Review. It is our goal to identify and work through issues as each component is developed, rather than at the end of the process. If you have any questions about the materials, or process, I may be reached at the contact information below.Thank you for your participation Lori Ballow, A!CP Senior Planner-Community Development City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-720-5335, Direct 509-921-1008, FAX www.s poky n eva I I ey.orq (Contents of this email and any reply are subject to public disclosure) 2 Chris Bainbridge From: Short, Jaime (ECY) [JSHO461 @ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:28 AM • To: Lori Barlow Cc: Sikes, Jeremy (ECY) Subject: RE: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update -Technical Review Group Hi Loh, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your draft Public Access Plan. Overall, I think your team did an excellent job cataloging existing access opportunities as well as future needs along the river corridor. One recommendation 1 have is in regards to the Proposed Shoreline Access and User Improvements in section five. It would be helpful to link the recommendations in table 5-1 to the applicable goals/policies by adding a paragraph that describes the proposed improvements within the policy framework. I'm thinking specifically of the following: O 4.6 Parking Facilities for Public Access O 4.7 Parking Facilities not a Primary Use O 4.8 Impacts of Parking Facilities o 9.5 Natural Vegetative Buffers O 10.4 Public Access Maintenance and Improvements O 10.6 Design of Access Measures O 12.25 Measures to Protect Ecological Functions o 12.45 Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities O 12.47 Aesthetic Impacts of Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities I also suggest the following edit on page 25 to maintain consistency with WAC 173-26: However, if a private project proposes to remove or impact existing public access (physical or visual), then the City can will typically impose a condition related to public access to mitigate this impact to a degree similar to the impact to existing public access that is created by the proposed project. As always, feel free to give me a call if you have any questions. Thanks! —Jaime Jaime Short Shoreline Planner WA State Dept of Ecology 4601 N. Monroe Spokane, WA 99205 509.329.3411 From: Lori Barlow [mailto:Ibarlow@sookanevalley.orq] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:42 AM To: Short, Jaime (ECY); Lindsay, Robert (DOHi); Divens, Karin A (DFW); McCann, Jacob (DNR); Mike Stone; 'Bekkedahl, Robin'; 'randya @spokanetribe.com'; 'Dave Lamb'; 'Walt Edelen/Spokane County Conservation District; Guidotti, Chris (PARKS); Griffith, Greg (DAHP); Steve Worley; 'kcooke @spokanecounty.org'; 'khall @landscouncil.org'; 'jwright@spokanecity.org'; 'Ray.Oligher @cityofmillwood.org'; `jpederson @spokanecounty.org'; 'pknowles @spokanecounty.org; 'roylene.rides-at-the-door @wa.usda.gov' i Cc: 'Patrouch, John' Subject: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update -Technical Review Group The City of Spokane Valley is in the process of updating the Shoreline Master Program. At this time the Draft Public Access Plan has been completed by our consultant, URS Corporation. Since you, or your agency, have jurisdiction or technical expertise in this area,the document is being submitted to you for review. The attachments contain the Draft Public Access Plan and Figures. Please review the documents and provide written comments not later than December 13, 2012. Comments may be mailed to me @ 11707 E Sprague Ave.,Suite 106, Spokane Valley WA 99206 or emailed to Lbarlow @spokanevallev.org. If you would like to comment, but feel that you need more time to do so, please [et me know your expected target date. If you would like a hard copy of the material, one will be provided upon request. The City's public participation plan requires that each component developed for the plan be reviewed by the Technical Review Group, presented to the public at an open house, reviewed by the Planning Commission, including a public hearing, and accepted by resolution by the City Council. Once all the components of the SMP are completed, the individual documents will be packaged together and the formal adoption process will begin with Planning Commission review, public hearing and Council Review. It is our goal to identify and work through issues as each component is developed, rather than at the end of the process. If you have any questions about the materials, or process, I may be reached at the contact information below. Thank you for your participation Lori Nr[ow, AICP Senior Planner- Community Development City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-720-5335, Direct 509-921-1008, FAX www.spokanevalley.org (Contents of this email and any reply are subject to public disclosure) 2 Chris Bainbridge From: Guidotti, Chris (PARKS) [Chris.Guidotti @PARKS.WA.GOV] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 11:28 AM To: Patrouch, John Cc: Lori Barlow Subject: RE: Spokane Valley Public Access John, Sorry for the tardy response, I have been out of the office. You did indeed clearly, concisely, and accurately capture State Park's stance on trail access points. Chris Guidotti Riverside Area Manager 9711 W Charles Rd. Nine Mile Falls, WA 99026 (509) 465-5064 From: Patrouch, John [mailto:john.patrouch©urs.com] Sent: Tue 11/13/2012 9:56 AM To: Guidotti, Chris (PARKS) Cc: Lori Barlow (lbarlow@spokanevalley.org) Subject: Spokane Valley Public Access Good Morning Chris, I wanted to check the validity of the following paragraph that we have included in the draft Public Access plan. I received most of the information from Kaye and wanted to check with you to confirm that this is the position of state parks. Thanks for your help. In addition to the policies articulated in the CAMP, we understand that Washington State Parks discourages uncoordinated, multiple trail access points, both formal and informal. State Parks prefers to limit access points to planned locations in order to maintain the integrity of the trail and of the natural surroundings and to facilitate the flow of traffic along the trail. Parks has articulated this goal in conversations with COSV staff and has taken this position in response to specific development projects that have requested access to parks property or the Centennial Trail[ John C. Patrouch, PE URS Corporation 920 N.Argonne Road,Suite 300 Spokane Valley,WA 99212 Direct 509-944-3819 office 509-928-4413 john.patrouch@urs.com [CONE I RM This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient,you should not retain,distribute,disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies. 1 Chris Bainbridge From: Guidotti, Chris (PARKS) [Chris.Guidotti @PARKS.WA.GOV] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 11:14 AM To: Lori Barlow Subject: Shoreline Master Program - Public Access Plan Lori, Thank you for providing a copy of the draft public access plan for our review. After thorough review I would like to say that I believe the plan does a good job of balancing public recreational needs with resource protection. The inventory seems to be thorough and accurate and does a good job of identifying public access opportunities in Spokane Valley. You have Washington State Park support for the public access plan as drafted. On a side note, Riverside is now somewhere around 14,000 acres since we now manage the northern half of the Columbia Plateau Trail as well as a bunch of land for DNR and Avista on Lake Spokane. Chris Guidotti Riverside Area Manager 9711 W Charles Rd. Nine Mile Falls, WA 99026 (509) 465-5064 1 December 4, 2012 Lori Barlow Senior Planner RE: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master program update Ms. Barlow: Pursuant to RCW 27.53.060 Its hard to believe that cultural resources wasn't even mention once in this shoreline plan. As you already know the Spokane Tribal use of this area was extensive in years prior to arrival of euro-Americans, clearly this area was a place of great cultural and economic importance to our tribe. The Spokane Tribe of Indians does express interest in projects that impacts cultural resources and Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP). There are archaeology sites that have been gathered and sent to the SHPO office that may be eligible for the National Register. While surface evidence or artifacts and human remains may be sparse alter years of non- Indian occupation and development, evidence below the surface may still be in place and artifact and human remains may be entering the site through hydrological processes, and other means. The Spokane Tribe recommends a cultural survey and sub-surface testing and that an archaeologist monitor all earth moving activity and construction & staging areas, This project must cautiously be planned with the following qualifying provisions. 1. That an Inadvertent disturbance plan be implemented into the scope of work, 2. An archeologist monitoring all excavation activity. 3. Redesign the site to avoid further impacts to all archaeology sites. 4. You will need to consult with the Spokane Tribe to resolve issues to protect the sites. If question arise, contact my office at (509) 258—4315. Sincerely, Randy Abrahamson Tribal Historic Preservation Officer. Spokane Tribe of Indians P.O. Box 100 Wellpiiiit WA. 99040 Attachment D Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers— City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. January 10, 2013 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF Bill Bates-Chair x lJ John I-Iohman, Community Development Director Joy Stoy—Vice-chair x iv Cary Driskell-Attorney Robert McCaslin x r Lori Barlow—Senior Planner Rod Higgins x Steven Neill x l� Christina CarJsen x r I{evin Anderson x r Mary Swank, secretary Chair Bates introduced and welcomed the new commissioners, Christina Carisen, Robert McCaslin and Kevin Anderson. Chair Bates stated the rules and procedures for the election of officers 2013. Chair Bates opened for planning commission chair. Commissioner Stoy nominated Commissioner Bates for Chair. Nominations were closed. Vote was unanimous. Chair Bates opened for planning commission vice-chair. Commissioner Higgins nominated Commissioner Stoy for Vice-Chair. Nominations were closed. Vote was unanimous. Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. The motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Higgins made a motion to approve the 12-13-2012 minutes as presented. The motion was passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner McCaslin -no reports. Commissioner Carlsen—attended meeting on Monday for orientation. Commissioner Higgins—attended the bridge presentation last evening and orientation. Commissioner Stoy—attended orientation. Commissioner Neill--no reports Commissioner Anderson—attended orientation. Chair Bates—no reports. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Mr. Holumn welcomed the new Commissioners, and thanked them for attending the orientation. He stated that the Community Development Dept. is in the midst of staffing changes. City Council approved the 2013 Business Plan and that resulted in moving two planners from the Planning Division to the permit center. It additionally created two permit facilitator jobs that will replace the permit specialists with more knowledge to do over the counter plan reviews. He mentioned that City's marketing campaign and the article in the latest copy of the "Inlander." The article was favorable. We continue our efforts to build on momentum to be the best permit center and the best staff in the region. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. New Business: Study session: Shoreline Master Program Senior Planner Lori Barlow provided an overview of the Draft Public Access Plan, the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act and the guidelines, and coveted the content of the Draft Plan, She highlighted the public access definition, SMA and WAC regulations, and following points of the Plan: Plairning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6 o Public access offers the general public the opportunity to reach, touch and enjoy the water's edge, to travel and view the water from shoreline and adjacent locations. o SMA requirements in RCW 90.58.100(2) (b) (c) and the WAC requirements (173-26- 221-4) which explain how we are to meet the goals and policies of the SMA. o Section One — The Introduction identifies the purpose of the plan and the context for development which is that the city currently has adequate access due mostly to public land ownership and the Centennial Trail. o Section Two — Integration with other Community Plans, highlights the other relevant community plans that were considered in the development of this plan. o Section Three — Public Access and Public Uses, provides an inventory of the existing public access and uses, and describes ownership, river and trail access, and parking lot conditions and the typical locations of uses o Section Four— Shoreline Conditions, describes shoreline conditions by breaking the river corridor into 4 segments and discusses the character of land use and vegetation, access and use of the corridor, and the key use area. This section also introduces future use areas. o Section Five — Proposed Shoreline Access and User Improvements, describes proposed improvements to existing and future access and use areas o Section Six — Implementation Strategy identifies that access and improvements can be voluntary if proposed by a developer and consistent with the Public Access Plan, or required of a development if the development impairs an existing public access or creates a demand for public access that doesn't currently exist. Improvements are designated on publicly owned lands, and assumed to be provided for within the capital improvement budgets of the state and/or local agencies. It was noted that the access being discussed as part of the Sullivan Bridge replacement project is identified in the plan as a proposed improvement. Commissioner Stoy asked whether or not the City met the SMA requirement for public access. Ms. Barlow responded that — we are taking advantage of the alternative approach, which is to develop a public access plan which looks at public access along our whole corridor rather than at a project by project basis. We believe this plan meets that requirement. Commissioner McCaslin asked about the acquisition of property for parking. Ms, Barlow noted that the plan identifies a deficiency in parking at The North Barker Road access site and recommends that additional parking be contemplated. Because these improvements would be on public property, funding would be part of the state or city budgeting process. This plan does not bind the city to acquire land. Mr. Holtman said the Public Works Dept frequently purchases properties for right of way projects. I would assume if there was parking to be acquired it would be done by the Public Works Department. We handle it with a consultant who handles appraisal and negotiations on fair market value. If there is an opportunity for us to buy, it is presented to the property owner; we are prohibited from paying anything less than fair market value. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 Discussion followed regarding the type of boat tamp proposed at Sullivan Park. Jolm Patrouch, URS Corp noted that the bank at Sullivan Park is very steep, and that the access would be for kayaks and canoes etc... Chair Bates asked if parking lot paving would trigger ADA requirements. Mr. Patrouch responded that part of the parking areas are supposed to be ADA compliant. However, the one at Barker Road south looks too steep to be ADA compliant. I don't think it is a state requirement for river access improvements, unless you get state or federal money. The Shoreline Advisory Group expressed an interest in being able to put disabled vets .in the boats. If it can be implemented, it is desired by the community. Ms. Barlow mentioned that on Wed. Jan 16, an open house was scheduled. The public hearing will follow on January 24, and Tadas Kisielius will be present for questions. At that time the Planning Commission will be asked to make a recommendation to Council. Other items discussed included a clarification as to whether future trails would be required to be paved. Ms. Barlow noted that a trail can be as informal as a foot path, and that nothing in the Plan requires trails to be paved, Mr. Patrouch noted that motor boats are launched at a boat ramp at State Line and at the airport; during the spring, Millwood and Orchard Avenue area boats are put in at Felts Field once a year and taken out once a year. The City does not have any formal boat ramps. Commissioner Anderson asked if the shoreline management rules would apply to State Parks if they want to do something to the shoreline. Ms. Barlow explained that anytime there is any project or development proposed within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark, then it is within shoreline jurisdiction, and it is regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. It doesn't make a difference if the property is publicly owned or the project is publicly funded, It is still subject to the Shoreline Master Program rules, Commissioner Anderson asked if somebody wanted to access the trail would you have to get permission from State Parks to put a trail off of their trail onto the river for access. Ms. Barlow responded yes. Swimming access issues were discussed and Cary Driskell, City Attorney clarified that the city has water safety regulations that require floatation devices when entering the river. If the Planning Commission is interested I will look at that and get back to you. I don't think the city would put up signs for a swimming hole. Ms. Barlow noted that the Plan doesn't recommend a swimming area, but rather notes it as a typical use occurring along the river corridor. Commissioner Anderson asked if there is any way we can coordinate the use of the Harvard Road Access as part of this program when you know Myrtle Point someday will have a boat ramp. That way you would have ramps at both ends that could handle kayaks, raft, drift boats and you don't have a fight in the middle of never having it work. Mr. Patrouch responded that we are working with the Spokane River Forum and talking about Harvard Road as a river trail spot for drift boats, kayaks etc. The Spokane River Forum is working on funding to replace the old access at Myrtle Point. The best recreational run is from Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6 Barker to Sullivan Rd. We need access at those areas. We will never be able to bring in big motor or drift boats. Commissioner Bates asked how much of the shorelines are.city owned, state owned and private owned, Ms. Barlow responded that over 60 percent of the shoreline is publicly owned. It is predominately state owned. I will bring information back to you. Discussion on motor boats followed noting that they are prohibited in most of the reaches of the river. They are only allowed from the westerly city limits to Centennial Trail Bridge; regulations and speed limits apply. Mr. Driskell noted that the speed limits and wake zones eliminate motor boat use in most areas of the river, Ms. Barlow noted that the timeline for the public access plan would coordinate with the SMP, and it is a 20 year period. The Chair declared a ten minute break which began at 7:20pin Use Manufactured Home Discussion: Community Development Director John Hohman discussed issues related to manufactured home regulations. He noted that on November 8, 2012 staff proposed a change to the zoning regulations that would allow used manufactured homes to be placed in manufactured home subdivisions. This discussion is intended to be a follow-up to determine if the Planning Commission believes that staff should approach City Council to discuss if used manufactured homes should be allowed city wide. The current regulations allow a manufactured home to be placed on any residential lot, but require the home to be new. This is applied across the board to individual lots and to manufactured home subdivisions. When we discussed manufactured homes on individual lots throughout the city, the Commission was deadlocked. The consensus was to wait until the new members came on board to have the discussion, We have had a few individuals over the Iast few years request the code be amended. to allow used manufactured homes tlu•ouglrout the city. Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan discusses affordable housing, inventories and other elements that help guide housing decisions, and Chapter 10 discusses protecting and preserving the character of neighborhoods. Affordable housing is an issue throughout the city. However, you also need to consider if this action would impact established neighborhoods. The City has not requirements relating to manufactured home condition. The home may be in good repair, or not. How would the surrounding residents feel about that? Manufacturing housing legislation was also discussed, and it was noted that the city code is in compliance with state law as it is currently written. Legislation allows cities to regulate the age of manufactured homes. Mr. Holunan clarified that a manufactured home in a subdivision would typically involve a privately owned lot. A manufactured home park would be a single underlying property owner and the properties leased to the person owning the manufactured home. We do have several subdivisions throughout the city that were anticipated to be manufactured home subdivisions. The Commissioners discussed potential impacts of placing an older used manufactured home in an established neighborhood, the difference between a mobile.home, constructed prior to 1976, and a manufactured home constructed to a different standard subsequent to 1976, and the fact that the code does not regulate aesthetics or manufactured home condition. Commissioner Neill noted that he supported allowing used manufactured homes and establishing an age limit. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 Commissioner McCaslin stated his concern about limiting the homes due to age and supported allowing homes newer than 1976. I support manufactured homes in communities to allow affordable housing. Commissioner Higgins indicated he did not think this was a major issue. The fear is someone putting an older home in a new development. That's not likely to happen since they have HOA's, Mr, Holtman stated that more than 90 percent of manufactured homes are never moved after placement.He suggested that the Code consider condition, rather than age. The Commission agreed unanimously that staff should discuss a code text amendment with City Council to allow used manufactured homes to be placed on all residential lots? Commissioner Anderson also noted that the 1976 date should be the baseline, but aesthetics should be considered Commissioner Stoy noted that lots that are going to be affordable are not going to be in major developments. I don't have a problem with that as long as it is newer that 1976. But upkeep is suggestive. Commissioner Higgins stated that the— 1976 date"Fits quite well." Chair Bates noted that the Comprehensive Plan mentions affordable housing.We have an obligation to look at these things. Mr. Holtman indicated that staff will move forward with the discussion. • Password and email address discussion. • Ms. Barlow explained how to access email for the Commissioners. If you need any assistance contact Greg Bingamen. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER XL There T was nothing�for the good of the order. XL ADJOURNMENT There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. 2 Bill Bates, Chairperson • • ��. • Mary Swank,PC Secretary Date signed r /2 4r43 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. January 24, 2013 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF Bill Bates-Chair r r Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Joe Stoy—Vice Chair r r Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McCaslin 1;, r Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Rod Higgins p r Steven Neill r Christina Carlsen r r Kevin Anderson r Cari Hinshaw, secretary IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Stay made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Neill made a motion to approve the January 10, 2013 and January 7, 2013 minutes as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Scott Kuhta: Reminded the Planning Commission about the sign code update from last year, and stated that our Code enforcement officers have been helping Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 5 businesses understand the new sign code. Mr. Kuhta mentioned that 2 or 3 folks showed up to the City Council meeting Tuesday, January 22, 2013 to express some concerns about sign regulations. He stated that John Hohman will be bringing a report back to the City Council March 5th, if any of the Planning Commission was interested in going. Mr. Hohman will be speaking on the enforcement activity, and how we have been helping the community with the regulations, also the possibility of revisiting the sign code regulations. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: No unfinished business. B. New Business: Public Hearing: Shoreline Master Program Update — Draft Public Access Senior Planner Lori Barlow opened the Public Meeting explaining the purpose of the meeting and further stating the hope for this process is that the Planning Commission will forward a recommendation to council for approval. Ms. Barlow introduced Mr. Tadas Kisielius who is the special Iegal counsel for this project and Mr. John Patrouch who is with URS Corporation. Both were there to answer questions. Ms. Barlow provided the comments from the agencies that responded to the Plan: Department of Ecology, Washington State Parks, Spokane County Parks Department, Spokane Valley Parks and Rec, and Spokane Tribe of Indians. Ms. Barlow stated that with the exception of the Spokane Tribe of Indians the comments were fairly minor in nature. Ms. Barlow reviewed the response e-mail from Randy Abrahamson of the Spokane Indian Tribe. Mr. Abrahamson stated "I can't believe you didn't consider cultural resources etc...." Ms. Barlow stated that Mr. Abrahamson's letter was sent on a misunderstanding. And she further stated that Mr. Abrahamson did not understand that what he was asking for is just one piece to the Shoreline Master Plan. Ms. Barlow stated that they have addressed cultural resources in our goals, policies and they are currently addressing those in our development regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that Mr. Abrahamson comment letter does stay as part of the record, but he doesn't have any issues to this particular element, it was a bit of a misunderstanding in terms of what he was looking at. Ms. Barlow reported that to date there have been no public comment and they did make some changes to the technical review draft. As it became the public review Ms. Barlow stated they issued a public review draft, notices, and made it available for review and received no comments. Ms. Barlow had an open house on January 16, 2013. The turnout was rather low. Ten people attended and there were no real concerns from the persons that did attend. The Public Hearing was addressed. Ms. Barlow made a short recap of the Public Access Plan. Here are the things she went over: • Plan Review Summary • What is Public Access Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 • WAC Requirements (173-26-221-4) • What does Public Access look like • Public Access Plan • Section One- Introduction • Section Two- Integration with other Community Plans • Section Three- Public Access and Public Use • Section Four- Shoreline Conditions • Section Five- Proposed Shoreline Access and User Improvements • Section Six- implementation Strategy • Draft Public Access Plan Development and Review Process Ms Barlow closed her presentation and asked if there were any questions. Chair Bates and Planning Commissioner Neill still had concerns about the e-mail comments from Randy Abramsom. Mr. Tadas Kisielius reiterated that the Public Access document is not intended to address what Mr. Abramsom comments were about. Mr. Kisielius stated that Mr. Abramsom concerns are for development regulations which will be addressed later at the appropriate date and time. After a brief discussion and no public comment Chair Bates closed the public meeting at 6:45 PM. Mr. Kisielius was open for questions, he discussed protecting public access and went thru and highlighted the benefits of the Public Access Plan. Which are as stated below: • Allows us to capture the nature and beauty. Also gives the recognition for great public access • Helps to protect the natural surroundings of the river corridor, long stretches of the centennial trail • Another benefit is to coordinate so you preserve that amenity. This also gives flexibility or relief for development and property owners. Mr. Kisielius also touched up on implementation on section 6. This was handed out in the PowerPoint presentation by Planner Ms. Barlow. Mr. Kisielius closed with asking if there were any questions. Chair Bates stated that a motion on the floor needed to be made prior to the discussion. So the motion was put on the table. Commissioner Stoy moved to accept the Shoreline Master Program Public Access Plan as presented by staff. A second was made. Chair Bates asked if there were any discussion. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Anderson proposed three amendments to the main motion for the proposed Shoreline Master Program Update Public Access Plan. • To remove from page 8 the sentence: including an estimated 2 million uses in 2008 on the SRCT • To add the word existing to the top of table on page 10, table 3-2 • To add the word float boats for boat ramps on page 18, table 5-2 • To add motorized boats for Myrtle Point since this is intended for a true boat ramp Jolm Patrouch informed Commissioner Anderson that Myrtle Point is a non motorized access. Commissioner Stoy moved to amend the main motion previously on the table for the Shoreline Master Program Public Access Plan to incorporate the three modifications that were discussed. 1. To remove from page 8 the sentence: (including an estimated 2 million uses in 2008 on the SRCT). 2. To add the word existing to the top of table on page 10, table 3-2. 3. To add the word Mon-motorized boats for boat ramps on page 18, table 5-2 for Sullivan Park and Myrtle Point. This was passed unanimously. Chair Bates asked if there was any discussion on the amended motion and asked for all in favor for the amended motion. This was passed unanimously. Chair Bates asked if there was any discussion on the main motion. There was none and this was passed uncrnimoiusly. Study Session: Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code CTA-01-13 Planning Manager Scott Kuhta opened by saying; the amendment is proposing to add townhouses back into the Permitted Use Matrix for the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. Mr. Kuhta stated that the Permitted Use Matrix was amended last year. One of the changes was to remove townhouses from the Neighborhood Commercial Zones. Mr. Kuhta talked to a gentleman who expressed interest in developing townhouses on property zoned Neighborhood Commercial. Prior to purchasing the property, the individual saw that townhouses were a permitted use in the zone. Mr. Kuhta stated that he reevaluated it and believes that townhouses fit ok in the neighborhood commercial zone. Mr. Kuhta stated that the Comprehensive Plan includes policies that support townhouses, specifically that there is a policy that talks about mixed uses in the neighborhood centers. Mr. Kuhta explained a townhouse is a single family unit with at least three units attached, up to six Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 total, in each block and developed on individual lots. This is a specific development type. Commissioner Anderson needed some explanation about the lots. Mr. Kuhta explained that six units would be on their own lot and would have their own front and back yard. Town houses are different than duplexes. They are 3-6 units attached, all on their own platted lots. They are connected with a zero lot line. Chair Bates wanted to know if they have the same regulations as far as height and setbacks. Mr. Kuhta informed Chair Bates that they are the same regulations that you would find for all residential development in the zone that they are in. Mr. Kuhta discussed how there is a provision in the Code that says townhouses are developed and separate platting process for town houses. Commissioner Carlsen asked if the lot was big enough to split into lots to have town houses built. Mr. Kuhta stated that this property is small that and that it would be limited. The Neighborhood Commercial zones are meant to be smaller areas. This proposal allows the market to work a little bit if retail isn't working. It allows flexibility in such a way that it wouldn't be sitting vacant. Mr. Kuhta proceeded to say that the proposal is to put the P back under Neighborhood Commercial and to add the reference condition. Commissioner Stoy mentioned the residential requirements and asked if the minimum would be met on that particular property. Mr. Kuhta stated that if they can't they will have to look at something else. But they still need to meet the required setbacks. Mr. Kuhta explained that a Neighborhood Commercial zone does not specify minimum lot size because there are no other residential uses that are allowed there. There are no residential standards, so Mr. Kuhta stated he will look into this and bring back some information to the public hearing to see if that is something of concern. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. XI. ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:32 pm. Bill Bates, Chairperson Can Hinshaw, PC Secretary Date signed Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN City Council Meeting March 5, 2013 Plan Review Summary 2 MI AI ilk ilk TRG and Public Review Completed Open House #5 January 16, 2013 Shoreline Master Plan Public Access Open Hons•111 WS, P TRG Comments: Public Access DOEPublic access offers the general public the opportunity to touch and enjoy the water's edge,to travel on the waters of th 1/4/ and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locatio, o/i„• ^ WA State Parks -dhp 4.r@ Protecting public access to the States shore)Ines Is • „o,,,,, -�ry�. 4t/O,y4�•SS my major policies of the Shoreline Management Act(SMA} ` ` .,,77904 °tlFg73o Tare In Spokane County Parks g °°H. �? • V ''',:.>.".4,„ yt, ie M =b` ° �` �nCOSV Parks and Recreation � /� ` � v', a y a a Spokane Tribe of Indians N..if• .4„ 'h ,, n Public Comments Y ..y. n��„ � �V3, tr �{ 4,V,y h � yam , M1i 4' °47” y`k' 4y". n None Received X . °° �'` a. 'The public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be presencd to the greatest extent feasible...' RCW 90.59.020 What is Public Access? : . .. , 1t 'tie Public access offers the g eneral - = , public the opportunity to reach, T, - touch, and enjoy the water's edge, , _,,,,. . to travel on the waters of the state, _......„..„,„ --4,. and to view the water and the i,. The public 's opportune shoreline from adjacent locations' to enjoy the physical and (WAC 173-26-221 (4). aesthetic ualities o q of Protecting public access to the natural shorelines of the State's shorelines is one of three state shall be preserved to major policies of the Shoreline the greatest extent I p �� n m nt (SMA). feasible. . . (RCW 90.58.020). Ma age A t e c WAC Requirements? ( 173 - 26 - 221 -4 • F a_ ■ Establish standards to protect and enhance physical and visual public on public lands . Require public development to include public access measures Should increase amount and diversity of ti ,e access consistent with natural character, ocal governments may property rights, public rights and safety, develop a public access plan that addresses SMA Require public access and provide objectives for public access standards for dedication improvements and not require specific public access standards in in private water-enjoyment, water- the SMP. related, and nonwater-dependent uses An alternative to requiring and subdivisions of 4 lots or more public access on a project by project basis. Note: Exceptions in the WAC apply ....... 1 . . VANN-IC/ Common Types .. i. A. 3pes ir •ve - Trails VO° - Floats i Docks Cr. - ._ - Promenades ... PCiCSS - Bridges , .,. .. , I P-'-''IL. - Street Ends ._.„ . —. ._ad! .........- - Boat ramps — - —4 - _......„ -Ala .. . _ Other Types :- Visual Access . _ -Viewing Towers -Views from an overpass -Views of prominent shoreline trees — Cultural Access - Interpretative - - Educational , . - . - Historical -- it- AR011e- ' v - . '- Public Access Plan 1 - Introduction PURL' A CeE pLAN Show/ -te Valley 2 - Integration with other master „..,,A.,.„„,,..,.;., :.,„,„ m Uplat Communit Plans . . y .. • ' 4_ , 3 - Public Access and , i.,,i,,,,,, ,:, . r.,,,,, ..„, ,,,,,,,....,„ . , . . .,, .: .„At: 4 l Public Uses ..X Nr tb* 4 - Shoreline Conditions �n� Sl'ak E. PA, 'F:[7„li .Y 4Oft7 auak°51� i "1°”6ns 'nunrty pay&�oPinsnr De 5 - Public Access Plan �s Department 6jbk�� ',euw<rF,'p4 yWGef 30,0,35 6 - Implementation Strategy Section One - Introduction Purpose: Evaluate Existing Public Access What's not Included? Describe Existing Recreational uses Shelley Lake and the Recommendations to improve both Gravel Pits (limited to Shoreline Jurisdiction) Context: Public currently has significant access Coordinated y g Planning Document opportunities (Ownership and Trail) • Protection of natural resources visual COSV, agencies character of the river corridor is other partners to important to attract users • • • • planning Based on Inventory and Characterization - fforts to increase Report, SAG meetings, discussions with recreational user groups, property owners and field opportunities trips Section Two — Integration with other Communit y Plans —=- Friends of the s pi= Spokane Spokane RIVER jValley g Riverside II r��ic pork foandation ■ C Found c entennial — D • Focus: } E for Park 0 C '� Maintain V � 0- E I T R A I L o sa) LL a L N N N (extension — Health o N Recrea •ark 0 •• Promote C y CD 0 Pro re t c 'c and .> River g to c N coordinate System for Users c CD activities 0 0 'i • V p and a .—i 'V v' m V) U •N -0 along t t C3 CD Trail V Li Public access planni i uides p- rc acquisition and development = --:`' in a systematic way to achieve a usable network of public access, parks, and other public sites. Section 3 — Public Access Table 3-1 Existing Access to the River Corridor within the COSV (Excerpt) N Ti , H Cl) Cl) c, a) ct . c) c . o ,-- u Description -(C c/) -< P4 -< " 4.71' ci) .p4 0 Barker Yes Yes Yes Yes SP- Gravel Parking lot on Road south, south side for CT COSV — access. Limited parking north on bridge at north side Access Sites boater access. Flora Road Sullivan Road Trent Ave. Mission Ave. Mirabeau Point Plantes Ferry Fi ure 3 - 1 Existing Public Access on Spokane River — East ,0 , - . _ . -_____,.... _ -- „,--. .,, ,.. . , ._ ii ., , __, , _=.„,...-,, ,,,,, . 7..., P 7 . ' id.;' ' .. AY.... ` Y rte. EUGLIRAVE - --- * 4 .1 I i I ,; ,-t, . • PM,ilk..i. . . . ELICLO AVE . la _ r 4 FI , f Barker-North .,i Flora-North River Access r F- r River Access ��, may. ,I. Sullivan Park ,+ 41 r Barker-South Centennial Trail/ `` '� Centennial Trail Flora-South r. . d River Access — Centennial Trail Access - :; G Access iiiing. ,._. a. _---. II i w' - k • e Centennial Trail/ I River Access Section 3 - Public Access and Public Uses Table 3-2 Typical Shoreline Uses within the C SI.- Use Location Public ADA Access Notes Access (1) CT Uses e, bike) Along the Good Good Trail related activities. CT Swimming River Good Generally poor Swimming at dispersed beaches_ No ADA accessible beach: few amenities at beaches. Centennial Trail — Whitewater Boating hiking/biking Barker Road, Sullivan Swimming Road, Mirabeau Point, Plantes Ferry Fishing/girding Kayaking Floating Mini Climax Wave, Sullivan Hole, Zoo Wave Section 3 - Public Access and Public Uses Q . { ' 9 J,' r S" s3 t # .' 4.-!-;....--...•w_Air e Fan ,r r ? tt e . ..e {t l�`I,'h €'�. I 'i.2, -- 71_ . Y b I `. 4 r!. 1 y� " . _ Gq - - 2 y - .r - _l e .r 4" r.. „ t�� a risk--V... • ‘ r. . ' y'�} w e +.f ... •1 .°i ce' , Sather Hale Beall - s. s ■ y Stater Pit Beat' A • �' '�j ati - r �a �1 PiV CMrea[Ware r � � _ a, 6. Y _ A "ter=,J�71"ri Q• - --, -- :. s • .. _ _ _ ' - �`. _ter l^ ._ T F Map Features Centennial Ma I Figure 3-2 Major Use Areas Spokane River JutsShcdion E3cundaries 1011s Existing Public Access Reaeetion Sites Section 4 — Shoreline Conditions 13 ik Mink ilk ilk 4 Segments Conditions - - A - • • Upstream City • Character of the • Sullivan Road Limits to Flora Road River Corridor Gravel Pit — • Flora Road to Trent • Access and Use of increase access to Avenue the River Corridor north side of River • Trent Avenue to • Key Use Areas • East of Mira beau Coyote Rocks Point — near Union • Orchard Avenue Pacific Railroad Area Bridge • River and Trail access • Pinecroft Property • Access to Trail Section Five — Proposed Shoreline Access and User Improvements 14 Topics Addressed D Improvements Existing access opportunities are adequate to meet demand for current and future uses. to Existing Supports and Implements WA Parks, Centennial Shoreland Trail and the City Parks Dept Philosophy Access Balance development of recreational opportunities against preservation of the natural env. Improvements Limit proliferation of uncoordinated, multiple access to Existing points Direct River Focus improvements on existing access points or Access develop new day use areas/access points at select sites Spokane River Proposed improvements are consistent with — Future Use proposed shoreline Environmental Designations, existing park management plans, and the Areas preservation of high-quality conservation areas. Section Five — Shoreland Access Improvements to Existing Sites (Table 5. 1 ) ai V Q O c � a) H o en I— Q m Oth • 11 11 • Barker Rd-South V Barker Road - Purchase Additional North property for parking Mission Ave AI AI Additional parking Sullivan Park ADA River access Mirabeau Park Adequately improved Trent Ave. Signage needed Myrtle Point Parking/Access Section Five — Proposed Direct River Access Improvements to Existing Sites (Table 5.2) Ak LI . Barker Road - Purchase Additional North It property for parking; Steep Slopes to trail Mission Ave Additional ADA parking Sullivan Park ADA Boat Ramp (Consider) Myrtle Point Boat launch needed in Area Section Five — Proposed Future Shoreline Day Use Areas (Table 5.3) 17 ik Access Areas v Eden Road Suitable areas to improve access while protecting El Mission Ave/Lions Park sensitive areas ❑ Mirabeau — East Suitable for low impact uses u Mirabeau Park Utilize existing trails/dirt roads reducing impact to ❑ Pinecroft shoreline Myrtle Point Benefit the shoreline environment by directing users to areas to minimize shoreline disturbance Section 5 — Public Access Plan Map F. o1 - y Day Use Area _ - -d" +T ' . . F. p , II., 5i: i • - .jF 1 im Eden Road _ :' 'I, -r F. - - Day Use Area a Pitecroft T ` A IlivrA-:-. ,.'.. S a Y • ; ■ • ` • )_(Failure Access) •" is .' 4 1_ w . 4=1• y ' pt.s, , .4 tiv k s . Sdivan Road '1 ' r,$•.. , Mirabeau Faidt Gravel Pit - .. (Fuure)t. 4•- Day Use Area • n Barran Nolo Barter Road-North. kGFaheau East o" (Beach Acorns (Increase Parkilg, ! F Day Use Area ��' Tubule) ADA Accessible Beat Launch' - , . (Future) � p .. I, r 1 �1 . rfi i t 416111 t o��-•o i P r- _ F. ._ ` Sullivan Park - s% I. 4 . '- - {Provide Baat Launch) ., - - a:26 1 ti r Mission Read .* .`•. . ��} I` sky, , Day Use Area • ^4 .. '. +._± l Lion's Fart ve, ncrease Par1Y ath y f , • - , .- L' • l bay Use Fora u[a 2} Y.. .. - . o`L am t•Figure 5-1 Public Access Plan Section Six — Implementation Strategy 19 Voluntary ❑ Proposed by applicants or ❑ eas are located included as Part of Public Lands (State a • Development City) ❑ Must be Consistent with this Funded and coordinated through each parks Plan and SMP capital improvement Plan Required of Private Proje City may impose a condition to mitigate • If demand for access exceeds impacts to a degree current capacity; or similar to the impact to • If existing access opportunities existing public access are impaired (removed or eated by project impacted) Draft Public Access Plan Development and Review Process 20 — ____ Staff and Consultant Role/ Process Develop Restoration Plannin g Commission Review I Plan Develop r 1 Draft Study Session Restoration I Council Review 1 —, w Site Map Public Hearing r (January 24) J Conduct Public Comment Accept by Resolution jj Open House Recommend L to Council (January 16) k, V 1l '�B.fr..• . I . .T: i4fr - � •y+y. e�r 9 ",g`I•:il - - ;,y i' `! i%j .0 • . ..._ .,i. ' I +l2 .t I`tl, ,.`' I' - • -- __ - _ .-.. a ,.. • .. i „ J_i y .'_ t . mo ,_ �- - e w .T '",..-, a.+. r,' _ V. , •f k4-,.r r � ' � —I ° 1 � .� 'Y :' s y : a.. yA,' ' , ;--", ",e ! �Plante's Ferry t H + `' _ mo _ �_Centennial Trail/ „4_, " �'U, 9a•4 ": .. , River Access e i - _ • .A=••-. ' -' - ' .•;1 x 1 '� rr R ___, -'• ,., ' � '�iQ° .fi A �, 1 _ r� . 1 _ L— , — 0 • � f �/ _ 6 •�sf ,i I Eu AV . u J 'Trent Ave . r. \ , EUCLID AVE r p r• Centennial Trail Access r • a : a ' ` r l tC � : :'loop s �� .c.:1,.., -, r : rr a I _,'`.- - }' ,., Eucuo A/E _ - - �.� Mirabeau Point •� BEN rr � � .m ?n 1 _ Centennial Trail Access/ — t .r 1/1' �: ,�• ■ _...c.,;%;;',,,,,- -„, +� r �Y�r ,��r r .. XI. Ail µ ` _ : Barker-North w r� + State Park Flora North I St •1 e Acces� i •* - .'. .jy River Access IilA,Riv • o♦ --” /alga Ir" „ 0- • -vole . al. 1 _., .0 !' ill � " �+� ti r }a- , _ J Barker-South Sullivan Park _ �,,„ I �; � '° M ;• 1 '�'N 's INDIANA E Centennial Trail/ " ' Centennial Trail r-- = >Y -� Flora-South . „;.. . . .-: River Access Access m Centennial rail Access :' ` 1�f , a a T Acc nilik ,I — ...".'-'T "� �+.:. MISSION AVE - I' ,(A 1 a :' i As.- .-a�J-Iii t .•A=' a �� a. ' - V.i f- :- y r - r y ... '.. ' Y, V f. „R A' • i. • - MISSION AVE rn_ •jr• .� r . :.- ••..f \ , .. _ i� ... MY - I' t II H a V .-.. , ,_ „r4 ,.., `-MISS/0\ - _��:;-' ■ - .,.� ;.i ,,,, .� '1-. v ,tl' f y, , h yF ` H L r, _ i+ t y. 4 ve u4 r ■ _ r.: ••-' _ _ r. I Mission Ave • rt q " , - t _---- • ' , _ !, ;; ntennial Tr __ h V-• j i.r •,.y ,_ ,h ;s • , River Access —_e____� _ _ i r yy l , iiiiiiiiL____1 _ Ce a' T : ''. i - _ ' C-.... - F1f 7148 ;ill f.• ( _ , .I VAV AVE -` - ,:.. e�.,� ii � - ., , y' I, , I■ BROAD' +� i ^.Y r 11 •�' - -I'\ ' ' . f I.. r •. _ .al u � - - • i_ - 'Y r f :a �.� _ - AV AVE -. -.... ,, - v 7• 1 Map Features N Figure 3-1 Existing Public Access Centennial Trail w'CIN;r: City Spokane Valley �, Cit of Spokane Valle Jurisdiction Boundaries s Public Access Plan Lot Lines Shoreline Master Program Update Existing Public Access 0 3000 6000 November 2012 UMFeet Myrtle Point r City Park ', ti° i - + ' Coyote Rocks , .,, + • „ x _v . , . Swimming Area Y r' ®,. ,• ' t c —1i i1 Iii ■ - - er- -1 . _ , 1 ._ ____ ' �� I � +' Vin 4 i` -: . ` . •. ^ I.,_ _ - • r-... " 'EUCLID AVE - r. u M • ... , i'` t n ,ulwe w I ,� ` �■ ■ r. PNE ,x°Y r z=w. 4 # 4� :S Mirabeau Point ��e ,• l �® ' ?.� , - c a. ��t_ .. . r\EN . .• 4 1:F ,; " v � - r _Mill ` _ 1/ \ "°I...341-7-- 1 ►! .', G y i n 4 �' ' \, Zoo Wave ,� `�'' �/ �I11►�/��, ��d ii i - „, +■ - i' _, Sullivan Hole Beach �� • F '` � i' T n 1 ' , .�ND� fi _ ,G Y ,r �wr�: t e ,u { i I Flora Road Beach p - I, w ,, ice" North&South j+r. ' ,11 ,` F , 'i .• Sullivan Park Beach n \�, hi ♦ t „ , 4MmClimaxWave Park• - : ,. ,_ 11111 ttt � 1 *iv.. _ o : � r`��I I ' a oe " MA _ e- e ,— H I MISSION AVE - Sullivan Wave t , 4,C oft s' !N _ Y. is _ r tit..` ♦. - I •: _ - MISSION AVE ( �r� , -,�:�, 4 • -L ' 'ylt3 I i�a. t■ �' 1.: .. y. rki r • ' yam, :' -L, �. i:�._ �' �3'^r„'. s- ...ey'r tF' ': d n. - ice.s ' �' 1.k. I /, ,N- ,, • Mlsslomave._ � I . I 1_ f' r�, , •r`�,:1' h410 1V 'P, 1 '.1",.... t r.r P �.+_,Y, ~-'� `/ Y ` 9 , f' T \ - • • • r-.. , to i ffliiiiir- G 11 1 9 r`.. M. 1 , rF i .. J . .• �r •r- u 4�:_ - - . - . I + ":'..,'_1. • . , 1 • Rif., ,- , }} Map Features N Figure 3-2 Major Use Areas Centennial Trail Wiz' City of S r Y Sppokane okane Vaall l y le Jurisdiction Boundaries s Public Access Plan Lot Lines Shoreline Master Program Update Existing Public Access 0 3000 6000 November 2012 UMRecreation Sites Feet ' - - ,-, T ,.y. ' ,-. .: -1 -.....,,,,1 .. __ •. �- 4-,,, . 7 _ - ti ffs ., ' - .7- {\,7 -4 r A; ' 4' v a `L 3 r` � J — r. Public Access r Myrtle Point •, -,•_. -ti ar - From the South Day Use Area , .' {r 6 " `. •,i✓ v • Plante's Ferry a y,t'. r I 11 �--�f�~ * . ..-N, : 1 r- " sue 'ri . • - Boat Launch r • (Others) _ ' . ' •?-_ ' 1 Iii A ,'k a ' V'A y f 44. s�-- � I � ry� ! d _ 5 a -'• ..MS.- . � 'I — r - -- • del,! r ,,.,- Ir �. _ Eden Road 1 A,. aU Day UTrent Ave t )ae Moir .... -- " (F ID AVE'„,,,., .L. pinemft ...1_t � Future Access ,,3tl'f !:!;!".! .a ,, .N F - ,. :I ..as �,• i-yf�.1 VV * .. III 11 Sullivan Road 11 . ,,� ior_y _ - �. 1 ' , .� :; Gravel Pit i Mirabeau Point;,, ; Barker Road,•. , `� -� i' is i r Sullivan Hole,:'. !i.. <� Parking,Mirabeau East $' (Increase Pa ing, a «` c '', Beach Access•- ' . Day Use Area { ADA Accessible Boat Launch) ¢, �' ,�I _ '• 'I' ., - ., (Future) :,,, ► / (Future) - �:« �-• � l�r 1 _ INDIANA AVE i' .•i0.,� - - _—_.- _Ill r - r try @ i _ Barker Road South• . _ -- - .� �� (Pave and Landscape) \ui_ VI IIIH . ;__ Sullivan Park Beach_ ____. ,:, i MISSION AVE t. :_:I:.T •, (P rovide Boat Launch) ,'i 4 _ ' i >t. .*,..--Ifs.,,,. 1�A r_t tmssloN avE _ _ !'r 1 -g .' h / i rW —! Day Use RArea i1i z' Mission I \ I' - `-1 Yom' - ! , - / 3 P Y —'Sr..- •' i 7 I ;1�. It �v.-or MS,oN -�1(Pave, Increase Parking, Bathrooms) ql;s y•, .,y, - .' �.. 'r ifi .�1y li ry', - - i r.» ,��T t,A'��7��._ t % Day , - ( - --• Lion's Park - - - ,,� ,,,. se Area S i � . 1 . y, �p 1 . I � }z•z i !. - ,. - � r ': ^° � _• - t 'd 1. _. ' w. r 'FtL MY •'• .. , wl — '� BROADNIAV AVE ..., s , ,-,�; s - - '�h■ ,I r '�, _ _ ...:.� 1As •wi•.: _pqm_-. - -- _ .rl,.. .- , - .. • - +.- i' err ' - d .� ` . ^ 1 • _ F +r r � r � �' s -'17-1,,, IJ ':..: p 1 �'. !.?. � .. BROADIVAV AVE _ �` ' _ '. _ y{, , t`. .7 i II - I 1•8 ' ,i �, •,_ '•.l,. ,..�. . 'I •{.i - 1 - 1 A�1 I� - . _°I 'r r - ' 1' . ' / 1 ' 1 , . M■ .- Map Features N Figure 5-1 Public Access Plan ' Spokane River — Centennial Trail w r City of S pokane Valley Jurisdiction Boundaries s Public Access Plan Lot Lines I I I Shoreline Master Program Update Access Boundaries 0 3000 6000 November 2012 Existing Public Access Feet UM CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Review Meeting Date: March 5, 2013 Department Director Approval Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ®new business ❑public hearing ❑ information ® admin.report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Sign Code GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 22.110 BACKGROUND: In July of 2011 the City Council requested staff review the sign regulations to provide relief for area businesses. After an eleven-month process, the City Council made the following amendments to SVMC 22.110 Sign Regulations • Allowed wall signs in multifamily complexes • Increased the number of freestanding signs for businesses on large lots • Allow monument signs for all institutional and commercial uses along any street frontage • Allow limited off-premise directional signs • Increase allowable temporary signs • Allow on-premise A-frame signs • Require electronic signs to have automatic dimming capability In 2012, the Community Development Department began a proactive educational/code enforcement process with businesses to highlight the changes to the code. Staff will review the 2012 code changes and discuss the educational/enforcement process. Potential minor revisions to the code will be suggested. OPTIONS: Retain the existing code as written or request staff to move forward with revisions. STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation SVMC 22.110 Sign Code Regulations 1 of 1 Spokane Sign Code Update Report John Hohman, Community Development Director Spokane j�dlley" Sign Code Update Topics for Discussion • Review of 2012 Sign Code Revision Process • Overview of 2012 Changes • Highlights of 2012 Public Education/Code Enforcement Process • Issues with 2012 Code • Potential Code Revision Ideas CITY QF Oahe Sign Co de Update Goals of the 2012 Update • Revise the code to provide additional permanent and temporary signage opportunities for businesses • Clarify signage requirements rI,MI#w 1,Z ratite TI, rwrnial•POIP 4t rs'` - — - t_ `I �linm�"r k. lmr :— SINTER SPECIAL fi OIL AND FILTER CRAM IMP ' «aM f&, • fill fif 3 SjO1iii ' 'e Sign C de U date alle p Y 7P w' i •g •4 'k ' ,!� as A J 'a n V % !i' it.10 ie. . .A. , rte ' , Pia LEF yw,..r TUB dllI '� - , 411* 4 Spokane jValley" Sign Code Update 2012 Sign Code Revision Process • July 2011 — Overview of sign code • Aug. 2011 — Council requested additional information • Oct. 2011 — Council authorizes amendment process • Dec. 2011 — Jan. 2012 — Staff developed revisions with help from local sign companies • Jan. 2012 — PC Study Session • Jan. 2012 — PC Public Hearing, additional information requested Spokane j�dlley" Sign Code Update 2012 Sign Code Revision Process • Feb. 2012 — PC deliberations/recommendation to Council • Feb. 2012 — PC approved findings • Mar. 2012 — City Council Study Session, Admin report • Apr. 2012 — City Council Reg. Meeting First Reading of Ordinance • Apr. 2012 — City Council Reg. Meeting Second Reading of Ordinance, passed with changes • May 2012 — Ordinance effective Spokane Sign Code Update jVailey Overview of 2012 Code Revisions • Allow wall signs for Multifamily Complexes • Increased the number of free-standing signs per arterial • Allow monument signs for all institutional and commercial uses on any street • Allow limited off-premise directional signs • Increased allowable temporary signs • Allow on-premise A-frame signs • Require electronic signs to have automatic dimming capability Spokane j�dlley" Sign Code Update Public Education/Code Enforcement Process • Mailed 3228 information letters and brochures to businesses using our registration database • Letter notified businesses of changes • Brochure focused on temporary signage opportunities • Conducted on-site visits with businesses. Additional brochures were handed out Spokane jvalley" Sign Code Update Follow-up Process • Initial visit to hand out brochure, answer questions and ask for compliance within two weeks • Second visit — verbal warning • Third visit resulted in a written warning if the non-complying signs were not removed. Written notice asked for compliance within 30 days • Proceed with standard enforcement processes if the business was still out of compliance Spokane jvalley" Sign Code Update Statistics • 3228 letters and brochures mailed out • 300 businesses visited with sign code issues • 53 verbal warnings given • 18 written warnings dispensed • 0 notice and orders issued to date Spokane j�dlley" Sign Code Update Issues with 2012 Code • Very few actual problems • Portable signs — reader boards • Temporary banners • Location • Number Spoka.00°N..„ ne j�dlley" Sign Code Update Potential Code Revision Ideas • Reader boards for certain businesses • Provide flexibility for location of temporary signs • Allow additional temporary banners • Define engineering for sign height and size CITY QF p Okane Sign Code Update Y Discussion ,,, t Ca414-° damilliPtERNI q, 10 CIS_„ 1 � . THE ID 4 �. -�. t 104011:11.19,Is i4+ . / , -.a a � - {-. . �rte' ! . ° �ilw r _ =t1 lie ic------- 16 , . Hornell < j. > Chapter 22.110 SIGN REGULATIONS Sections: 22.110,010 Purpose, intent and scope. 22.110.020 Prohibited signs. 22.110.030 Permit required. 22.110.040 Number, general regulations for permitted permanent signs. 22.110.050 Permitted temporary signs. 22.110.060 General provisions applicable to all signs. 22.110.070 Comprehensive sign plan. 22.110.080 Aesthetic corridors. 22,110.090 Sign location and front setbacks. 22.110.100 Sign area calculation. 22.110.110 Maintenance of signs. 22.110.120 Existing nonconforming signs. 22.110.130 Billboards. 22.110.010 Purpose, intent and scope. Signage regulations are intended to promote commerce, traffic safety and community identity while improving the visual environment of residential, commercial and industrial areas, This code regulates permanent, temporary, and portable signs. (Ord. 07-015§4, 2007). 22.110.020 Prohibited signs. The following signs are prohibited: A. Signs which by coloring, shape, wording or location resemble or conflict with traffic control signs or devices; B. Signs that create a safety hazard for pedestrian or vehicular traffic; C. Flashing signs; D. Portable signs; except A-frame signs specifically allowed pursuant to SVMC 22.110.050(I); E. Signs located within the public right-of-way, except official signs and except bus benches placed pursuant to an agreement with the City; F. Signs attached to or placed on a vehicle or trailer parked on public or private property; provided, that this provision shall not be construed as prohibiting the identification of a business or its product on a vehicle operating during the normal course of business; G. Signs obstructing visibility within any clearview triangle as established in Chapter 22/0 SVMC; H. Billboards except when permitted as provided in SVMC 22.110.130; Page 1 of 9 I. Off-premises signs, except off-premises directional signs allowed pursuant to SVMC 22.110.040(D); J. Temporary signs unless specifically allowed pursuant to SVMC 22.110.050; K. Abandoned signs and sign structures. (Ord. 12-013 § 1, 2012; Ord. 07-015§4, 2007). 22.110.030 Permit required. A. Other than for those uses listed in subsection B of this section, a sign permit is required for all allowed permanent signs, temporary signs, unless otherwise specified, and billboards. B. Permits are not required for on-premises official signs; seasonal decorations; merchandise displays; point-of-purchase advertising displays; national and state flags; flags of a political subdivision; notice signs, pennants and streamers without advertising copy; symbolic flags of nonprofit institutions dedicated to public service; legal notices required by law; barber poles; historic site designations; commemorative monuments/plaques; gravestones; advertising copy affixed to phone booths; donation and recycling containers; lettering or symbols applied directly onto or flush-mounted magnetically to a motor vehicle operating in the normal course of business; political signs supporting political issues, candidates or ballot measures; replacement of copy on signs otherwise permitted; name plates with less than four square feet of copy area; directional signs with less than four square feet of copy area; and murals containing no copy. C. Permit applications shall include a site plan that provides the following information: 1. The location of the affected lot, building(s) and sign(s); 2. The scale of the site plan; 3. A scaled drawing of the proposed sign or sign revision, including size, height, copy, structural footing details, method of attachment and illumination; 4. The location of all existing signs on the site including size and height; 5. For signs subject to spacing regulations, the location of neighboring signs on adjacent properties; 6. Approved sign plan, if applicable; and 7. Tax parcel number where proposed sign will be located. (Ord. 12-013 § 1, 2012; Ord. 09-010 § 1, 2009; Ord. 07-015§ 4, 2007). 22.110.040 Number, general regulations for permitted permanent signs. A. Permitted permanent signs shall comply with the requirements of Table 22.110-1. (SEE ATTACHED) No more than the maximum numbers of either freestanding pole signs or monument sign structures are allowed per parcel. Page 2 of 9 B. In addition to the permanent signs allowed pursuant to Table 22.110-1, a single decorative emblem (or standard) constructed of durable vinyl with a thickness of not less than 13 mil for every 50 feet of frontage shall be allowed. The lowest horizontal member of the bracket shall be located at a height of not less than seven feet above the adjacent grade. C. Where three or more single businesses agree to share a single sign structure, an additional 20 percent of copy area shall be allowed up to a maximum of 250 square feet, D. Off-Premises Directional Signs. It is the intent of this section to allow the limited placement of off- premises directional signs by co-locating on an existing conforming monument sign, freestanding sign, or building wall. The business locating on an existing sign must conform to the following criteria: 1. The business must be located on a private easement or local access street; 2. The business and proposed sign must be located in a commercial, office or mixed zone area; 3. Text shall be limited to the business name, logo, and a directional arrow and may include certain advancing language as"next right"; 4. The sign must be located on the nearest collector or arterial. If a business has double frontage, staff will review this unique situation to determine if two directional signs are warranted; 5. Sign area is limited to 15 square feet; this shall not be construed to allow the on-premises sign to increase its sign area; and 6. If the business using an off-premises directional sign leaves its location, the business must remove the sign within 60 days. 7. If the site has no existing signage or buildings, then a freestanding sign meeting the requirements above may be allowed. (Ord, 12-013 § 1, 2012; Ord. 09-010 § 1, 2009; Ord. 07- 015§4, 2007). 22.110.050 Permitted temporary signs. Except as otherwise described under this section, no permit is necessary for temporary signs. Temporary signs are not allowed to continually advertise goods, services or events on a site; permanent signs shall be used for that purpose. A. A temporary sign advertising a special event, sale, promotion, opening of a new business or opening of a business under new management may be displayed and must be removed at end of use, event or condition. B. Number of Temporary Signs. No more than one such sign shall be allowed at any one time for a use, except as permitted below. C. Signage shall be limited to 32 square feet in size. Page 3 of 9 D. All temporary signs must be made of durable materials and shall be well maintained. Signs are not well maintained if they are frayed, torn, or broken, or the legibility thereof has materially deteriorated. Unmaintained signs will be required to be removed. E. Banner signs must be attached to the facade, wall or window of the building which includes the business which they advertise. F. Additional banners or temporary signs advertising a special event, sale, promotion, opening of a new business or a business under new management are allowed by temporary permit for a period of time not to exceed 60 days a maximum of two times in any calendar year. G. Pennants, balloons, and streamers may be displayed in conjunction with the special event signage allowed in subsection F of this section, but must be removed at the conclusion of the event or within 60 consecutive days. H. Temporary signs shall not endanger the public safety and shall be removed or relocated if the building official determines that a sign is unsafe. I. A-Frame Signs. Business will be allowed a maximum of one sandwich board or A-frame sign. These signs are in addition to other temporary signs allowed through subsections A through H of this section, and are subject to the following conditions: 1. Size. The area of the sign shall not exceed nine square feet per side in size and shall not exceed three feet in any dimension. 2. Maintenance Standards. Signs shall be constructed out of materials able to withstand extreme weather conditions. Such materials may be metal, finished wood, chalkboard, whiteboard or plastic. Signs and copy should be of professional quality. Permanent lettering for the business name and logo are required on the sandwich boards. Owners of sandwich board signs shall be required to keep their signs in an intact, reasonably legible, and well maintained manner. Sandwich boards are not well maintained if any part thereof is broken; letters or graphics are completely or partially missing or obstructed; or the legibility thereof has materially deteriorated. 3. Display Time. Signs may only be displayed during business hours. If business hours continue past daylight hours, precautions should be taken to place the sign in a lighted area. This shall not be construed to allow the wiring of a sign for lighting. 4. Location. Signs shall not be placed in a location which is within the clearview triangle, as defined in SVMC 22.70.020(C), or any other location which will impede vehicular traffic. Further, such signs shall not be placed in a manner which will block or otherwise obstruct the safe use of sidewalks, building entrances or stairs by pedestrians. J. Temporary on-premises commercial signs are allowed without permit when posted in conjunction with the alteration, construction, sale or lease of real property. Such signs shall not exceed 16 square feet in copy area or seven feet in height. All such signs shall be affixed to either the ground or a permanent structure by rope, wire, or a mechanical device. Page 4 of 9 K. Open House/Directional Signage. A-frame signs may be used as open house/directional signs and shall be allowed on each access street to the property. Signs shall be placed so as not to interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic, shall be used only when the property is open for inspection, shall be unlit, and shall be limited in size to five square feet and limited in height to three feet above grade. (Ord. 12-013 § 1, 2012; Ord. 07-015§ 4, 2007). 22.110.060 General provisions applicable to all signs. A. All signs illuminated with exterior lighting shall have lighting confined to the sign, and positioned and shielded to minimize impacts to the surrounding area(s). Gooseneck reflectors and lights are permitted on permanent freestanding and wall signs; provided, that lighting or glare does not extend beyond the property line. B. Electronic signs shall be permitted on the same basis as other signs, subject to the requirements of Table 22.110-1. All electronic message centers (EMCs) are required to have automatic dimming capability that adjusts the brightness to the ambient light at all times of the day and night. Written documentation that the EMC is equipped with the automatic dimming device shall be submitted with the sign permit application. C. A roof-mounted sign may be substituted for an allowed freestanding sign; provided, that the height of the sign structure may not exceed the maximum height requirements of the zoning district in which the sign is located. D, Signs located within the airport hazard area shall conform to the location and height regulations set forth in SVMC 19.110.030, Airport Hazard Overlay zone. E. No sign shall be erected, relocated or maintained in a manner that prevents the free ingress or egress from any door, window or fire escape. F. No sign shall be attached to a standpipe or fire escape except official signs. G. Any sign erected or maintained within five feet of public rights-of-way shall be smooth and free of nails, tacks and wires. H. All signs shall be maintained in good repair pursuant to SVMC 22.110.110. I. No sign shall block the view of fire protection equipment from approach. (Ord. 12-013§ 1, 2012; Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). 22.110.070 Comprehensive sign plan. Commercial development, shopping centers, industrial parks, mixed use developments, and hotel conference centers exceeding five acres in size may seek approval of a sign plan specific to the proposed development. The director may approve a comprehensive sign plan that allows deviations from the strict interpretation of spacing, height and area requirements when the following is demonstrated: A. The plan provides adequate signage for all proposed uses; and B. The plan limits the number of freestanding sign structures; and Page 5 of 9 C. The total copy area of all signage does not exceed the amount which would otherwise be permitted. Any conditions imposed to secure approvals shall be binding on the applicant, his successors and assigns. Modifications/amendments to the approved sign plan shall require reapplication and approval by the director. If the applicant and director cannot come to an agreement as to a comprehensive sign plan or a modification/amendment to the same, the director's decision may be appealed to the hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 17.90 SVMC. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). 22.110.080 Aesthetic corridors. A. The standards applicable to monument signs shown on Table 22.110-1 shall apply to parcels adjacent to aesthetic corridors designated in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan: 1. State Route 27 (16th Avenue south to City limits); 2. State Route 27 (Mansfield Avenue to Trent Avenue); 3. Appleway Boulevard (south side only from Park Road to Dishman Mica Road); 4. Appleway Avenue (Barker Road to Hodges Road); 5. Dishman Mica Road (8th Avenue south to City limits); 6. 32nd Avenue within the City limits; 7. Mirabeau Parkway(Pines Road to Indiana Avenue). B. Only monument signs as shown on Table 22.110-1 shall be allowed with designated aesthetic corridors. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). 22.110.090 Sign location and front setbacks. A. Monument signs exceeding three feet in height shall be setback 10 feet from the front property line and outside any border easement; provided, that the requirements of Chapter 22.70 SVMC, Fencing, Screening and Landscaping, (clearview triangles) have been met. B. Freestanding signs with structural supports less than two feet in width, with copy area placed at a height of seven feet or more above grade, may be located at the property line; provided, that the requirements of Chapter 22.70 SVMC, Fencing, Screening and Landscaping, (clearview triangles)of the Spokane Valley uniform development code have been met. Freestanding signs with structural supports of more than two feet shall be set back not less than 10 feet from the front property line or border easement. C. All temporary signs, except inflatable signs, shall be located at least five feet from public rights-of-way. D. Inflatable signs shall be set back at least 10 feet from public rights-of-way. E. All signs shall meet the vertical and horizontal clearance requirements of electric utilities. Page 6 of 9 F. All new freestanding signs shall be located in a landscaped area in accordance with SVMC 22.70.030(J). Landscaping should ensure that signs are not blocked or obscured by trees or bushes. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.110.100 Sign area calculation. A. Sign area for wall signs shall be no more than 25 percent of the two-dimensional area of a building's elevation, excluding eaves and gables. Refer to Table 22.110-1, FETE'S PRO GOLF - .slt♦a IN __ =t=- --- ____ .__lles ■__— Figure 22.110-1 SIGN Maximum Height Minimum Height Property Lino Figure 22.110-2 Harder A ISIGNI S1GN2 t D2 Setba_k S!G.V k L3 R-opo tyLrc Figure 22,110-3 B. The sign area of a freestanding sign for a single business shall be calculated as shown in Figure 22.110-2. The sign area of a freestanding sign identifying multiple businesses shall be computed by adding together the total area(s) of all signs as shown in Figure 22.110-3. Refer to Table 22.110-1 for minimum and maximum height requirements. C. The sign area for multiple-sided signs shall be calculated as follows: 1. The total sign area for a two-sided sign shall be calculated using a single surface of a sign with messages on both sides; Pa f Page 7a 9 2. The sign area for a three-sided sign shall be the sum of all surfaces where two or more signs share a single structure; 3. The gross surface area of both faces of a V-shaped sign; 4. The copy area of a monument sign. D. For irregularly shaped signs, the sign area is calculated by enclosing the extreme limits of the sign by no more than four rectangles. The sum of the area of the rectangles shall be the gross surface area. The maximum allowable area is reduced by 10 percent for the second and each subsequent rectangle used in €1 ) A VCIOVIR .,; b C - D the calculation, illustrated below. 1. Conventional Measurement. Total area = a times b. 2. Sum of Rectangles. Total area = (Area A+Area B + Area C + Area D). (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.110.110 Maintenance of signs. A. All signs shall be maintained in good repair. The director shall have the authority to revoke any permit for signs that are tattered, torn, faded or otherwise in disrepair, and may require the removal of flags, pennants and streamers which are torn, discolored or in disrepair. B. All signage shall be maintained by the business owner, or person in possession of the property on which the sign is located. Maintenance shall be such that the signage continues to conform to the conditions imposed by the sign permit. C. Any damaged sign structure shall be repaired within 30 days of notice. D. Any signage which has been damaged to such extent that it may pose a hazard to passersby shall be repaired or removed within 48 hours of notice. E. Any abandoned sign shall be removed by and at the expense of the property owner within 60 days of notice. F. Any abandoned sign support structure shall be removed within 36 months by the owner or lessee of the premises upon which the sign is located. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). Page 8 of 9 22.110.120 Existing nonconforming signs. Any permanent sign made nonconforming as a result of the adoption of these regulations may be repaired, but not structurally altered or made more nonconforming in any way. If the sign is removed in order to make repairs, it shall be replaced within 60 days, or any nonconforming rights are terminated. Thereafter, the sign shall conform to the requirements of this chapter. Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, any sign or signs for which a temporary permit has been issued by the City shall be permitted to remain at the location or locations authorized by the permit for as long as the permit is valid and all the requirements of the permit have been met. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.110.130 Billboards. A. New billboards shall be prohibited; provided, however, that existing billboards may be replaced at another location with a structure and copy area of equal or smaller size in mixed use and nonresidential zoning districts except(NC) Neighborhood Commercial zoning districts as follows: 1. Replacement billboards shall not exceed the height limit in the underlying zoning district, with a maximum height limit of 50 feet in any zone; 2. No replacement billboard shall exceed 672 square feet in copy area; 3. Any replacement billboard may not be placed less than five feet from the property line. No portion of the sign shall extend beyond the property line; 4. No billboard may be located within 1,000 feet of another billboard on the same side of the street. Any replacement billboard shall be offset from any billboard on the opposite side of the street by not less than 250 feet. Offset distance shall be measured from a point perpendicular to and along the alignment of the roadway; 5. The owner of the billboard shall file a complete inventory of all billboards located within the City, including date erected, height, size and location; 6. Issuance of a permit for billboard replacement shall be accompanied by a permit for the destruction or removal of the billboard to be replaced; and 7. Any billboard that is not replaced within 60 months following the issuance of a demolition/removal permit shall not be replaced. B. Replacement billboards shall not be permitted along designated aesthetic corridors. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). Hone 1[ < 11 > Page 9 of 9 r Table 22.110-1—Location,Height and Copy Area Requirements Maximum Copy Copy Side Number Copy Area Area(ft2) Yard Permit Land Use Zoning District Height Additional Provisions per Area (ft2)/Lot /Lot Setback Required (ft.) Parcel (ft2) Frontage Frontage (ft-) <100ft. >100ft. iii} +r` ;ebt ' r1�*�"{r °�'xpg;'� r,lr x'S'cd:t ,u? g All off:e6:, °p. @:, ajh �4" F �. y". lye, , k l �`erg � � a � r �..nC "�r9' ��., � X31 l,�§ ;<z 'tip- �rwk-.;� ri4^i:vyai kl pfi,irk �: t ' S+n !� y!M ,y8 - t. }F:�:h €a : .�.s .9, E,. ., ,Y.,.),��:��iyN� *Yegt `�p3{tii�;Y��r r Si Atom.. 9r:, °,.. . ::J•.00: ,,:,?N" 45,07 4..�4 gfiy°^'� 0:41 ,, d q: . s� ,s r4r�:m x�'%1� .&�h is t:��e�a�s ��.,s�.,.A Multifamily Complex All Zones * * * * * Y One sign up to 20 sq.ft. Residential Institutional' * * * n/a n/a n/a Y *25%of wall area Zones Residential Single Business 1 n/a 60 n/a n/a n/a t Y Zones All Mixed Use and *25%of wall area per Nonresidential n/a * n/a n/a n/a Y Nonresidential building Zones o ' �0,!1,� �K3, _ ,v p' 3 i , S A ,y �t i i f x ..., : .., dafittaS 1 If Va a � i � " ppe1 � , 44. .. :. Subdivision/Area *One per 200 ft.of street Name/Multifamily All Zones 1* 10 32 n/a n/a n/a Y frontage and 1 for each Complex/Institutional' additional 200 ft.or fraction Single Business 1 20 100 n/a n/a 5 Y thereof in nonresidential Neighborhood r zones.Additional signs Multi-Business Business(NC) Complex Zones 1* 20 n/a 100 n/a 5 y allowed on a multi-business - complex site may all be free- Single Business Mixed Use and 1* 30 n/a 100 200 5 Y standing;additional signs Nonresidential allowed on a single business Multi-Business Zones(except 1* 40 250 n/a n/a 5 Y parcel shall be monument Complex NC) signs All Nonresidential Nonresidential 1 50 250 n/a n/a 5 Y *Adjacent to 1-90 only Freeway* Zones �£ `-,g. a z�F t�' ��ru�y 3li-�st7� I '#�y a��di r y' 3 ;,:�:3'�z��'3 -fit -.��' s ad- �i.r uF � 4 M' 2,xf2€,;ry. b�fi#� r, ak. x3 d Fi . Irk ,,; ' °r ymaye "�b�^ y ti��'`:1'-s�r''£ � �p:=i>°,es ,' c•..: 2-[ < �..t ..x M.., °1):, t s's P} h?�te<. :s...� d .F: .. . x i �£'a Subdivision/Area Name/Multifamily All Zones 1 10 32 n/a n/a n/a Y Complex/Institutional' *Per street frontage Neighborhood Single Business 1* 7 75 n/a n/a 5 Y Multi-Business Business(NC) Complex Zones 2* 7 90 n/a n/a 5 Y Single Business All Mixed Use 2* 7 90 n/a n/a 5 Y and Multi-Business Per street frontage Nonresidential 2* 7 150 n/a n/a 5 Y Complex Zones ' ' ye' ,, £dF 9` � e ,V X "; k m 6 p '''''l ,} : ,y.r t,m IMEN t , ni, s ` }i . ' il C !:-. r Directional All Zones n/a n/a 4 n/a n/a n/a N Name Plates All Zones 1 n/a 4 n/a n/a n/a N 1. Institutional includes nonprofit,religious or public uses,such as a church, library,public,or private school,hospital,or government owned or operated building,structure,or land used for public purposes. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 5, 2013 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report - CTA-01-13 — Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone as a permitted use. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council amended Chapter 19.120, Permitted and Accessory Uses, on September 25, 2012. BACKGROUND: On September 25, 2012, City Council adopted significant changes to Chapter 19.120, Permitted and Accessory Uses, mainly to the office and mixed use zones. Most of the changes expanded the uses allowed in these zones. One change was to remove Townhouses as a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone. The current proposal would once again make Townhouses a permitted use in the NC zone. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on January 24, 2013, followed by a public hearing on February 14, 2013. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the proposed amendment (see Attachments). The Planning Commission will approve their Findings of Fact on February 28, 2013. OPTIONS: Proceed to first ordinance reading; send back to Planning Commission for further review; or direct staff further. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Proceed to first ordinance reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta, AICP, Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed Text Amendment B. Staff Report to Planning Commission C. Draft Planning Commission Findings D. Planning Commission Minutes E. Presentation Attachment A—CTA-01-13: Proposed Text Amendment to Neighborhood Commercial Zone CTA-01-13 Proposed Changes allowing Townhouse Development in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone Schedule of Permitted Uses as Reference Conditions Appendix 19-A _ o 13 c N 0 i V V V Q A L O C a) MO a) 0 .c R N cn tea; 7 -aa aa)i .cE EE of Y0 a) 0 N M v a) c a� � 2) E E E a) E i R i 2 LL LL Q a) O N to ,F O O O O a) O t4 a N X X X X 2 2 z 2U 0m 0 0 zU tic) (Yu acn P P P 814 Dwelling,townhouse P P P 19.60.070(8)(3) 19.60.070 B. 3. Projects with residential components shall provide 210 square feet of open space per dwelling unit conforming to the requirements of SVMC 19.40.020(E) and eligible for reduction for improvements on the same basis; provided that: a. The requirement does not apply to the development of less than 10 new dwelling units; and b. Additional open space is not required for residential development located within 1,300 feet of a public park Attachment A—CTA-01-13: Proposed Text Amendment to Neighborhood Commercial Zone Table 19.60-1 —Commercial Development Standards Office Commercial Mixed Use Industrial GO 0 NC** C RC CC* CMU* MUC* I-1 1-2 Minimum Front Yard Setback 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Minimum Flanking Street Setback 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Minimum Side and Rear Yard Adjacent to a 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 35 35 Residential Use or Zone Maximum Building Height(in feet) 45 100 35 35 100 Unlimited 50 60 40 65 * Except as otherwise required ** Townhouse development in the NC zone shall comply with setback and building height standards in the R-4 zone found in Table 19.40-1 Attachment A—CTA-01-13: Proposed Text Amendment to Neighborhood Commercial Zone Table 19.40-1 —Residential Zone Dimensional Standards (In Feet) R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MF-1 MF-2 PRD Single-Family Lot Area/Dwelling Unit 40,000 10,000 7,500 6,000 3,600 2,000 Underlying zone Duplex Lot Area/Dwelling Unit 6,000 5,000 Lot Width 80 80 65(4) 50 45 20 30 Lot Depth 100 90 90 80 80 80 50 Minimum Front and Flanking Street Yard Setback 35 15 15 15 15 15 15 (2)(3) Garage Setback(2)(3) 35 20 20 20 20 20 20 Rear Yard Setback(1)(3) 20 20 20 20 10 10 15 Side Yard Setback")(3) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Open Space 10%gross area Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 60.0% Maximum Building Height(In Feet) 35 35 35 35 40 50 Underlying zone ATTACHMENT B COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Siokane PLANNING DIVISION alle STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-01-13 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 7, 2013 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 14, 2013,beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley,Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A city initiated text amendment to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.120, Permitted Use Matrix, to allow Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone as a permitted use. PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106, Spokane Valley,WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment as put forth. STAFF PLANNER: Scott Kuhta,AICP,Planning Manager, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to SVMC 19.120, Permitted and Accessory Uses and Table 19.60-1 —Commercial Development Standards A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date Pre-Application Meeting: N/A Application Submitted: N/A Determination of Completeness: N/A Published Notice of Public Hearing: 2/1/2013 and 2/8/2013 Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies: 1/22/13 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-01-13 2. PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposal is to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.120,Permitted Use Matrix, and Table 19.60-1, Commercial Development Standards, to allow Townhouses as a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zone. On September 25,2012,City Council adopted significant changes to the Permitted Use Matrix,mostly by expanding permitted uses in office and mixed use zones. One change was to remove Townhouses as a permitted use in the NC zone. This was the only residential use permitted in any of the commercial zones and it appeared to staff to be a mistake when the original Permitted Use Matrix was adopted. Staff has re-evaluated this change and now recommends adding Townhouses back as a permitted use in the NC zone. The Comprehensive Plan supports mixed use residential and commercial in neighborhood centers and adding Townhouses as a permitted use would allow some flexibility for NC zoned properties to have a residential component. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)defines Townhouses as follows: Dwelling, townhouse:A single-family dwelling unit constructed in groups of three or more attached units in which each unit extends from foundation to roof open on at least two sides. SVMC 19.40.020 establishes the following standards for Townhouse development: 1. a.Attached single-family dwellings, including duplexes and townhouses located on individual lots, shall meet minimum rear,front and side yard requirements (where applicable), minimum area requirements, and maximum lot coverage and building height requirements shown in Table 19.40-1. Townhouses are subject to the following requirements: i. No more than six dwelling units shall be attached in one continuous row or group; ii. No townhouse unit shall be constructed above another townhouse unit; iii. There shall be a side yard on each side of a contiguous row or group of dwellings of not less than six feet; iv. Townhouses included in a condominium development may limit the lot to the building footprint;provided that the yard area shared in common with all units is equivalent in area to the yard required by the underlying zone. Proposed Setbacks and Building Height The Neighborhood Commercial zone specifies the following standards for all development: Minimum Front Yard Setback -20 feet Minimum Flanking Street Setback—20 feet Minimum Side and Rear Yard Adjacent to a Residential Use or Zone—20 feet Maximum Building Height(in feet)-35 feet Page 2 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-01-13 Staff proposes using the R-4 development standards for setbacks and building heights for Townhouse developments in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone: Front and Flanking Street Setbacks- 15 feet Garage Setback—20 feet Rear Yard Setback-20 feet Side Yard Setback—5 feet Maximum Building Height-35 feet B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions)of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment, if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive plan goals for encouraging a mix of commercial and residential uses in neighborhood centers,maintaining a flexible and consistent regulatory environment, and preserving and protecting neighborhoods. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: Land Use Goal -1 Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. Land Use Policy LUP-1.3 Review and revise, as necessary, existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units and in-fill development. Land Use Goal LUG-2 Encourage a wide range of housing types and densities commensurate with the community's needs and preferences. Land Use Goal LUG-4 Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's neighborhoods. Land Use Policy LUP-4.4 Encourage Mixed-use residential and commercial and office development in Neighborhood Commercial designations where compatibility with nearby uses can be demonstrated. Housing Goal HG-1: Encourage diversity in design to meet the housing needs of the residents of the community and region. Housing Policy HP-1.1: Consider the economic impact of development regulations on the cost of housing. Page 3 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-01-13 Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,predictability and clear direction. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity,consistency and predictability. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.2: Review and revise as necessary,existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units, and in-fill development. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health,safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will provide increased housing options and provide flexibility for infill residential development. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Public noticing was conducted as set forth in SVMC 17.80 for a Type IV application and has been deemed sufficient for this proposal. No concerns noted. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): c. Public noticing was conducted as set forth in SVMC 17.80 for a Type IV application and has been deemed sufficient for this proposal. No concerns are noted. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria,recommends the proposal to allow Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial zones. Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION February 28,2013 The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval. Background: 1. Spokane Valley development regulations were adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28,2007. 2. The city-initiated code text amendment proposes to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.120, Permitted and Accessory Uses and Table 19.60-1-Commercial Development Standards, to allow Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC)Zone as a permitted use. 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 14, 2013 and voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the amendment to City Council. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150F Approval Criteria a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Finding(s): i. Land Use Goal LUG-1 Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. ii. Land Use Policy LUP-1.3 Review and revise, as necessary, existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units and in-fill development. iii. Land Use Goal LUG-2 Encourage a wide range of housing types and densities commensurate with the community's needs and preferences. iv. Land Use Goal LUG-4 Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's neighborhoods. v. Land Use Policy LUP-4.4 Encourage Mixed-use residential and commercial and office development in Neighborhood Commercial designations where compatibility with nearby uses can be demonstrated. vi. Housing Goal HG-1: Encourage diversity in design to meet the housing needs of the residents of the community and region. vii. Housing Policy HP-1.1: Consider the economic impact of development regulations on the cost of housing. viii. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,predictability and clear direction. ix. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT x. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.2: Review and revise as necessary, existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units, and in-fill development. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Finding(s): i. Allowing Townhouses in Neighborhood Commercial zones will provide flexibility for property owners to develop their property with uses other than office or commercial. ii. The amendment will provide increased housing options and more opportunity for infill residential development. iii. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment are furthered by ensuring that the City's development regulations are consistent with goals and policies in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 2. Conclusion(s): a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.150F. b. The Growth Management Act (GMA) stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends City Council adopt the proposed city- initiated code text amendments to SVMC 19.120, Permitted and Accessory Uses and Table 19.60-1- Commercial Development Standards. Approved this 28th day of February,2013 Bill Bates,Chairman ATTEST: Can Hinshaw,Planning Commission Secretary Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 Attachment D Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers— City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. January 24, 2013 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF Bill Bates-Chair Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Joe Stoy—Vice Chair Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McCaslin !4 Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Rod Higgins Steven Neill Christina Carlsen Kevin Anderson 7 Cari Hinshaw, secretary IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Neill made a motion to approve the January 10, 2013 and January 7, 2013 minutes as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Scott Kuhta: Reminded the Planning Commission about the sign code update from last year, and stated that our Code enforcement officers have been helping Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 5 Attachment D businesses understand the new sign code. Mr. Kuhta mentioned that 2 or 3 folks showed up to the City Council meeting Tuesday, January 22, 2013 to express some concerns about sign regulations. He stated that John Hohman will be bringing a report back to the City Council March 5th, if any of the Planning Commission was interested in going. Mr. Hohman will be speaking on the enforcement activity, and how we have been helping the community with the regulations, also the possibility of revisiting the sign code regulations. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: No unfinished business. B. New Business: Public Hearing: Shoreline Master Program Update — Draft Public Access Senior Planner Lori Barlow opened the Public Meeting explaining the purpose of the meeting and further stating the hope for this process is that the Planning Commission will forward a recommendation to council for approval. Ms. Barlow introduced Mr. Tadas Kisielius who is the special legal counsel for this project and Mr. John Patrouch who is with URS Corporation. Both were there to answer questions. Ms. Barlow provided the comments from the agencies that responded to the Plan: Department of Ecology, Washington State Parks, Spokane County Parks Department, Spokane Valley Parks and Rec, and Spokane Tribe of Indians. Ms. Barlow stated that with the exception of the Spokane Tribe of Indians the comments were fairly minor in nature. Ms. Barlow reviewed the response e-mail from Randy Abrahamson of the Spokane Indian Tribe. Mr. Abrahamson stated "I can't believe you didn't consider cultural resources etc...." Ms. Barlow stated that Mr. Abrahamson's letter was sent on a misunderstanding. And she further stated that Mr. Abrahamson did not understand that what he was asking for is just one piece to the Shoreline Master Plan. Ms. Barlow stated that they have addressed cultural resources in our goals, policies and they are currently addressing those in our development regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that Mr. Abrahamson comment letter does stay as part of the record, but he doesn't have any issues to this particular element, it was a bit of a misunderstanding in terms of what he was looking at. Ms. Barlow reported that to date there have been no public comment and they did make some changes to the technical review draft. As it became the public review Ms. Barlow stated they issued a public review draft, notices, and made it available for review and received no comments. Ms. Barlow had an open house on January 16, 2013. The turnout was rather low. Ten people attended and there were no real concerns from the persons that did attend. The Public Hearing was addressed. Ms. Barlow made a short recap of the Public Access Plan. Here are the things she went over: • Plan Review Summary • What is Public Access Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 Attachment D • WAC Requirements (173-26-221-4) • What does Public Access look like • Public Access Plan • Section One- Introduction • Section Two- Integration with other Community Plans • Section Three-Public Access and Public Use • Section Four- Shoreline Conditions • Section Five- Proposed Shoreline Access and User Improvements • Section Six- Implementation Strategy • Draft Public Access Plan Development and Review Process Ms Barlow closed her presentation and asked if there were any questions. Chair Bates and Planning Commissioner Neill still had concerns about the e-mail comments from Randy Abramsom. Mr. Tadas Kisielius reiterated that the Public Access document is not intended to address what Mr. Abramsom comments were about. Mr. Kisielius stated that Mr. Abramsom concerns are for development regulations which will be addressed later at the appropriate date and time. After a brief discussion and no public comment Chair Bates closed the public meeting at 6:45 PM. Mr. Kisielius was open for questions, he discussed protecting public access and went thru and highlighted the benefits of the Public Access Plan. Which are as stated below: • Allows us to capture the nature and beauty. Also gives the recognition for great public access • Helps to protect the natural surroundings of the river corridor, long stretches of the centennial trail • Another benefit is to coordinate so you preserve that amenity. This also gives flexibility or relief for development and property owners. Mr. Kisielius also touched up on implementation on section 6. This was handed out in the PowerPoint presentation by Planner Ms. Barlow. Mr. Kisielius closed with asking if there were any questions. Chair Bates stated that a motion on the floor needed to be made prior to the discussion. So the motion was put on the table. Commissioner Stoy moved to accept the Shoreline Master Program Public Access Plan as presented by staff A second was made. Chair Bates asked if there were any discussion. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 Attachment D Commissioner Anderson proposed three amendments to the main motion for the proposed Shoreline Master Program Update Public Access Plan. • To remove from page 8 the sentence: including an estimated 2 million uses in 2008 on the SRCT • To add the word existing to the top of table on page 10, table 3-2 • To add the word float boats for boat ramps on page 18, table 5-2 • To add motorized boats for Myrtle Point since this is intended for a true boat ramp John Patrouch informed Commissioner Anderson that Myrtle Point is a non motorized access. Commissioner Stoy moved to amend the main motion previously on the table for the Shoreline Master Program Public Access Plan to incorporate the three modifications that were discussed: 1. To remove from page 8 the sentence: (including an estimated 2 million uses in 2008 on the SRCT). 2. To add the word existinj to the top of table on page 10, table 3-2. 3. To add the word non-motorized boats for boat ramps on page 18, table 5-2 for Sullivan Park and Myrtle Point. This was passed unanimously. Chair Bates asked if there was any discussion on the amended motion and asked for all in favor for the amended motion. This was passed unanimously. Chair Bates asked if there was any discussion on the main motion. There was none and this was passed unanimously. Study Session: Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code CTA-01-13 Planning Manager Scott Kuhta opened by saying; the amendment is proposing to add townhouses back into the Permitted Use Matrix for the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. Mr. Kuhta stated that the Permitted Use Matrix was amended last year. One of the changes was to remove townhouses from the Neighborhood Commercial Zones. Mr. Kuhta talked to a gentleman who expressed interest in developing townhouses on property zoned Neighborhood Commercial. Prior to purchasing the property, the individual saw that townhouses were a permitted use in the zone. Mr. Kuhta stated that he reevaluated it and believes that townhouses fit ok in the neighborhood commercial zone. Mr. Kuhta stated that the Comprehensive Plan includes policies that support townhouses, specifically that there is a policy that talks about mixed uses in the neighborhood centers. Mr. Kuhta explained a townhouse is a single family unit with at least three units attached, up to six Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 Attachment D total, in each block and developed on individual lots. This is a specific development type. Commissioner Anderson needed some explanation about the lots. Mr. Kuhta explained that six units would be on their own lot and would have their own front and back yard. Town houses are different than duplexes. They are 3-6 units attached, all on their own platted lots. They are connected with a zero lot line. Chair Bates wanted to know if they have the same regulations as far as height and setbacks. Mr. Kuhta informed Chair Bates that they are the same regulations that you would find for all residential development in the zone that they are in. Mr. Kuhta discussed how there is a provision in the Code that says townhouses are developed and separate platting process for town houses. Commissioner Carlsen asked if the lot was big enough to split into lots to have town houses built. Mr. Kuhta stated that this property is small that and that it would be limited. The Neighborhood Commercial zones are meant to be smaller areas. This proposal allows the market to work a little bit if retail isn't working. It allows flexibility in such a way that it wouldn't be sitting vacant. Mr. Kuhta proceeded to say that the proposal is to put the P back under Neighborhood Commercial and to add the reference condition. Commissioner Stoy mentioned the residential requirements and asked if the minimum would be met on that particular property. Mr. Kuhta stated that if they can't they will have to look at something else. But they still need to meet the required setbacks. Mr. Kuhta explained that a Neighborhood Commercial zone does not specify minimum lot size because there are no other residential uses that are allowed there. There are no residential standards, so Mr. Kuhta stated he will look into this and bring back some information to the public hearing to see if that is something of concern. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. XI. ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Bill Bates, Chairperson Cari Hinshaw, PC Secretary Date signed Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 Attachment D Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers— City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. February 14, 2013 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF Bill Bates-Chair Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Joe Stoy—Vice Chair Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Steven Neill Kevin Anderson r ' Christina Carlsen r E Robert McCaslin p r Cari Hinshaw, secretary Commissioner Neill was excused from the Planning Commission Meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner McCaslin made a motion to approve the January 24, 2013 minutes as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner McCaslin stated that he attended his father's memorial in Olympia. Chair Bates stated that applications are being accepted by March 4, 2013 for the vacant Planning Commission seat. March 12, 2013 the City Council decides who will take the seat. Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3 VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Scott Kuhta reviewed the Commission's Advanced Agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: There was no unfinished business. Public Hearing: Opened at 6:14 PM. Seeing no one testified the Public Hearing closed at 6:20 PM. B. New Business: Planning Manager Scott Kuhta provided an over view of CTA-01-13, a proposal amendment to allow Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial zone. Mr. Kuhta reviewed the proposed setbacks and maximum height standards for Townhouses in the NC zone, specifically that the standards in the R-4 would be used. The following sections would be amended if approved: 1. 19.60.070 Supplemental Permitted Use Regulations. 2. Table 19.60-1 Commercial Development Standards. 3. Table 19.40-1 Residential Zone Dimensional Standards (in feet). Commissioner Carlson asked about lot coverage standards. Mr. Kuhta stated that the NC zone does not have maximum lot coverage standards and that the open space, storm water, parking and setbacks would limit lot coverage. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that the R-4 zone requires a minimum 5-foot setback while the regulations in 19.40-1 specify a 6-foot minimum setback and asked which one is correct. Mr. Kuhta responded that the 6-foot setback would be between the Townhouse buildings and the 5 foot setback would be from the adjacent lot. Mr. Anderson then asked why the definition of a Townhouse states that it must have 3 attached units while the standards in 19.40-1 says 6 units attached together. Mr. Kuhta responded that the two sections must read together, that a Townhome must have at least 3 units attached by definition and not more than 6 units attached per the standards in 19.140-1 Commissioner Anderson then inquired about the zoning difference between a Townhouse and a duplex. Deputy City Attorney Erik lamb stated a duplex is a single building on one lot. A town house is a separate lot and separate ownership. Chair Bates had concerns that if a developer came to the city and wanted to put townhouses in a Neighborhood Commercial zone that we would have to go thru this whole process again. Mr. Kuhta reassured Chair Bates that once the permitted use is put back in the code, then the property owner would only need a building permit. Commissioner Anderson was curious why the legends are different colors on the Municipal map and zoning maps. Mr. Kuhta stated he will take a look at that and make sure it's consistent within the map. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 Commissioner Carlsen made motion to allow Townhouses houses in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone as a permitted use. Planning Commission voted unanimously 5-0 to recommend approval of CTA-01-13. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. X. ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Bill Bates, Chairperson Cari Hinshaw, PC Secretary Date signed Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 simaf\ """'.•"""'.•. Department of Community Development jYalle Planning Division City Council Administrative Report March 5 , 2013 City Initiated Code Text Amendment SVMC19. 120 — Permitted and Accessory Uses (CTA-01 - 13) Department of Community Development s ..Y; �"pokane Valk Planning Division .�: .4. g Proposed Amendment Schedule of Permitted Uses 0 -0 Reference Conditions Appendix 19•A x u n c P c D n 7m i3 > E 9 Vq7 m CI) zE EE of inm m- 0 LC D a ci 5 5 z 5U OD U' 0 ZO 00 Mu D ) 1 N 1 P P P 8 14 Dwelling, townhouse P P P 19.60.070(Bj3; 19.60.070 B. 3. Projects with residential components shall provide 210 square feet of open space per dwelling unit conforming to the requirements of SVMC 19.40.020(E) and eligible for reduction for improvements on the same basis; provided that: a. The requirement does not apply to the development of less than 10 new dwelling units; and 2 b. Additional open space is not required for residential development located %,vithin 1,300 feet of a public park CITYHALL@ 5POKANEw` r,E e Department of Community Development s ,_,^ Spokane Valle Planning Division Proposed Amendment Table 19.60-1 — Commercial Development Standards Office ommercial Mixed Use Industrial GC) 0 NC L1 C RC COI I ':_:r. L_ 1MUC - 1-. Minkniuiri Front Yard etbat-: 20 20 20 20I 20 20 v 20 20 20 Minimum Flanking Street etbu c-. 20 20 20 21d 20 20 v v 20 20 nimui-i Side and Rear Yard Adjacent to a 2v 20 20 20 20 20 �v 20 35 Residential Use or Zone Maximum Building Height (in feet) 45 100 35 35 1 1001 Unlimited I SC 1:_;3 40 * Except as otherwise required A` Townhouse development in the NC zone shall complv with setback and building heicih: standards in the zone found in Table 1 9.40- 1 VI,•7:,---.7 00,\..... CITYHA L L@ SPOKANE,/ Department of Community Development 11MINP11111111111111.„. ..,_ ,..„ Srliiikane . Planning Division Table 19.4D-1 —Residential Zone Dimensional Standards (In Feet) . . 1 1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 IMF-1 NIF-2 F RD Single-Family Lot Area/Dwelling Unit 40,000 10,000 7,702 6,000 3.,:IDO 2 020 Underlying zone Duplex Lot Area/Dwelling Unit 1 1 1 ,.,002 5,000 1 1 Lot Width P'::' 80 .6.!5 50 47' 2:' 30 Lot Depth 1::° '-'1° 'DO 80 '='° "='-' -- 50 F.." n mum Front and Flanking Street Yard Setback 35 •5 -5 •5 I 5 15 7. Garage Setback r-'". 35 20 20 20 2° '-;r1 20 Rear Yard Setback i 20' 20 20 20 10 10 15 Side Yard Setback'I" 5 •5 5 , 5 5 Open Space 10%gross area , Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 600% Maximum Building Height (in Feet) 35 35 35 35 40 50 Underlying 4one ______ Department of Community Development �"" jUalle Planning Division , Townhouse Definition SVMC - Appendix A Dwelling, townhouse : A single-family dwelling unit constructed in groups of three or more attached units in which each unit extends from foundation to roof, open on at least two sides. 5 S"pokane Department of Community Development 11M1111 Valle Planning Division Townhouse Standards SMVC 19.40.020( 1 ) a. Attached single-family dwellings, including duplexes and townhouses located on individual lots, shall meet minimum rear, front and side yard requirements (where applicable), minimum area requirements, and maximum lot coverage and building height requirements shown in Table 19.40-1 . Townhouses are subject to the following requirements: i. No more than six dwelling units shall be attached in one continuous row or group; ii. No townhouse unit shall be constructed above another townhouse unit; iii. There shall be a side yard on each side of a contiguous row or group of dwellings of not less than six feet; iv. Townhouses included in a condominium development may limit the lot to the building footprint; provided, that the yard area shared in 6 common with all units is equivalent in area to the yard required by the underlying zone. wY ■ , .} 1 1 1 =ra 2fr'l5 I Spokane Valley I ; Zoning I ,arw,.,. LLL ...r.'A+.I I I �:y I • I si+'a I I ty of i J E I r 3 „'..;• `•" h 5pikkAne I _,. ^''' Legen€! a — - - - -7, . s" E-,=. a- o _I ---i R-1 CMU ' .. �1 V 1 jJf�Hllll l� _ ` ' ,,,. `-.. t 1,5 r " $j R-2 MUC qk R-3 NC `' y.aZ` '..p. ¢ °raY.A.).• CIO Yom .` i . ` ,y _-'`- - CIO br- i EM= R-4 C f v '4i r j5 - 1 ,F`•`•n...._r Llbf[Y'1V a.a� E � ! a ffc mob— r Crke ' MF 1 - RC if �- t= ill-- `41 +�+ ---'--•--- ' �.�, m ..: " 4mlg az•r•—Lt-s., •-Ra F.-r a,. a'`\ !. .` I`s`..i.,,- - - I "`° GO 1 '+ s _�.a...� . , tid 1t.,r in-,:-,::.. A.._,ti mad -1 9ti .Pr---74.Z.. f ..._._ -I--- ; f PI OS "'.T3 31, '1-,............y.c e �a amy '.-.° - zr.... r -'-:' t �` . My at_f_ "15-15 craws L t sI A . - a:w,.� nr+tA"' x�.aw,{$ -- t~.{.gyp� .k _ ti.. OMA...._r .n A. �5 na•n -_ ° --- IL 1,I•• - —�a �y� Av. tl9±t.hn' 4J y,Y,Ain- TIC,A.. : � L9hT A. I _i. .1, _ r 4 [ 2 fifer,r�'s s_ news.. !1 -�-- ---F - - •., -A... E ems.. — Ia,w,. .°a,A,.. ens. !/. ..��'/rL'. —_I - - - - - - -, . i E E.l -_I Y z xr A. a�M � e VIM M.i � i 11 I E. _4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �'+ ar __I-_ _ _--- _ _ _ _ _ g e I I r 11, I 3.. $ i u sr i --� Ir 1rt ,. ' I I ,/"� 'ri �I r ig.ownoi4 4' [ role„ �"I I I i. r I ,l /rf% I I I I 0 as I Mks rr I -- r i f l f J .:rfr I I, I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I p. 'K I v°!I•' sI 7' I I ADM. fkeaSrarsw1 ism Miami.am Mad rp ii pYrdb.,rwctel t, r'F y °L' I ! I aswca exdo wns Mahn.al May nw,xr 2443 ? w.-I 2ii44 I 244 Lam! +...�7+Y •iF I I -_I-. r I I cfo.mt.elu,44el,aaLry.A.ill..NJ.aJWam sh:u a:.a.•.� I -' I. fo.99±....1.114-1121.e e{lerz uninePoll..4NIA.w I I IY _. I I rs ,p.,e>.rya.+uU S.�+P+ •..tf rejs21-J1xw _—_ _ _ __—— _ _ ——— _ _ _ _ _ __ —— _ _I—— - ry„A.,y.Irra•..°w+"•4.3...ua®slr fcr.��ir� o Spokane Department of Community Development s Valle Planning Division Questions ? 8 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 5, 2013 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2013 SRTC CMAQ/TA Calls for Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adopted the 2013-2018 Six Year TIP (Transportation Improvement Plan) on June 26, 2012. Info Memo in February 19th, 2013 Council Packet. BACKGROUND: The Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) is scheduled to issue a 2013 Call for Projects on March 1st, 2013 for the allocation of federal transportation funding for both the Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) and Transportation Alternatives (TA) programs for the years 2013-2016. This call for projects is the result of Congress' passage of a new federal transportation bill called Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). Approximately $20 million in CMAQ funding and $2.3 million in TA funding will be available for the Spokane region for the next four years. Pre-applications for the CMAQ program are due Monday April 1st, 2013. A short-list of approved CMAQ projects will be selected. Final project applications for both the CMAQ and TA programs will be due Tuesday, April 30th, 2013. Copies of the draft application forms are included for additional information. A summary of each program is shown below. Approx. Funds Available 45% $9 Million Traffic Flow Improvements Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), Intersection or corridor improvements (turn lanes, signal coordination, Traffic Management Center) Travel Demand Management 40% $8 Million Commute Trip Reduction, Bike & Pedestrian, Transit, carpool/vanpool programs, public education and outreach activities, travel demand management programs PM10 15% $3 Million Paving gravel roads, street sweepers, Diesel Engine retrofits or fleet upgrades Total $20.0 Million Key CMAQ Scoring Criteria: • Air Quality Benefit (60 pts) —What is the projected benefit? Cost-benefit ratio? • Economic Vitality (10 pts) — Improves access to key destinations or major transportation routes and/or hubs. Population/Employment density. • Cooperation & Leadership (15 pts) — Is project consistent with regional and local planning documents? Agency coordination and cooperation? Public involvement? • Stewardship (15 pts) —Minimizes impacts to environment, ability to advance, previous funding? Does it serve low income and/or minority populations? TA Summary % Approx. Funds Available 100% $2.3 Million Eligible Project Activities: • Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities • Vegetation management practices in ROW • Historic Preservation • Preservation of abandoned RR corridors for bike/pedestrian •ro.ects Key TA Scoring Criteria: • Economic Vitality (15 pts) — Improves access to pedestrian generators, commercial centers, city/regional centers, transit access. Consistent with adopted local economic development/revitalization plan. Population/Employment density. • Cooperation & Leadership (10 pts) — Is project consistent with regional and local planning documents? • Stewardship (10 pts) — Minimizes impacts to environment, ability to advance, previous funding? • Quality of Life (10 pts)— Does it include elements that contribute to quality place making? Does it support health promoting transportation options? • Choice and Mobility (30 pts) —Add or improve pedestrian facilities? Add or improve bicycle facilities?, Improve Transit Access?, Expand modes of transportation?, Does it serve low income and/or minority populations? • Safety (20 pts) — Does it address known accidents and/or safety hazards? • Bonus (3 pts) — Demonstrated community support? Staff has been evaluating the proposed CMAQ and TA grant criteria to identify potential city projects to review with council. Information staff uses to develop this draft list of projects includes: • The 2013-2018 Six Year TIP • ITS Plan • Bike and Pedestrian Plan Possible CMAQ Projects: 1. Appleway Trail, (University to Evergreen) 2. Appleway Trail, (Evergreen to Corbin) 3. Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Projects a. Sullivan Corridor ITS (1-90 to SR 290(Trent)) 4. Sidewalk Infill Projects, Phase 2 5. Park Rd Sidewalk (200-ft south of Sinto to Indiana) 6. Pave Gravel Roads Possible TA Projects: 1. Appleway Trail, (University to Evergreen) 2. Sullivan Rd. Sidewalk (4th to 16th) 3. Park Rd Sidewalk (200-ft south of Sinto to Indiana) 4. Bowdish Rd. Sidewalk Phase 1 (8th to 12th) 5. Bowdish Rd. Sidewalk Phase 2 (12th to 16th) The CMAQ/TA Call for Projects will also be the first application cycle that SRTC will require the completion of the new Safe and Complete Streets Checklist form to be completed with each project application. The checklist was developed last year by SRTC as a threshold requirement for future projects to ensure that a `holistic' approach to street and non-vehicle projects is considered during project development A copy of the Safe and Complete Streets Checklist has also been attached for your information. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Project costs are currently being developed in more detail for each project. The city's match on federally funded projects is typically 13.5% of the total project cost. The match for pedestrian projects is 20%. A review of the projected REET funds through 2016 indicates sufficient funds to provide the city's match for the recommended projects. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer Inga Note, P.E. — Senior Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Draft CMAQ Applications Form; Draft TA Application Form; Safe and Complete Streets Checklist SRTC 14843 Almost Final DRAFT y1f,{,!!!:;eyf.,!lnr7n stn?fnlfo,Cowni 2014-2017 Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) Project Application PROJECT TITLE: Agency or Organization Phone Number Contact Person Email Address jc"a�"'"' .,.'„�.r"f„�-:' '- :"�,r -r^�''.'ar";�'" �r '�-' ,-...�` '''y�' ��ka--w � i^--✓ir„ '!.rr",z.,....`°.�"' * ;_,. �., .� _'° .71"x'�/,� �' ._..� _.__..., ._...,,,. u_ _ :� �,.�. __.r_ .�.. ..� :..,�G:i;,..,;,?,.�'d:,.w,._m:�.�....:..r .�...._r..`;... ...,. �:.,.-. >ar......,.__,..,.-.-�-,....:>,.-.... .:..ate.-�..._-• Type of CMAQ Project Traffic Flow Improvements ❑ Intelligent Transportation Systems(traffic signal synchronization,traveler information,traffic signal control systems, incident management programs, etc.) ❑ Traditional Traffic Flow Improvements(HOV lanes,channelization,etc.) ❑ Other CMAQ eligible traffic flow project Travel Demand Management ❑ Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Programs ❑ Transit Improvements ❑ Carpooling and Vanpooling ❑ Public Education and Outreach Activities ❑ Other CMAQ eligible travel demand management project PM,o Reductions ❑;Paving Dirt Roads ❑'Purchasing Street Sweepers 0 Diesel Engine Retrofits ❑Other CMAQ eligible PMto reductions project Project Location Project Description (2000 character max.) Include the project scope, length, purpose,and brief comparison of existing and proposed conditions. Please describe how or why the project relates to the transportation system(functional, proximity, or impact). Projects must be primarily for transportation purposes rather than recreational purposes. Projects lacking a functional,proximity or impact linkage to the transportation system are not eligible. SRTC Congestion Mitigation &Air Quality Project Application FFY 2014-2017 I Complete Streets Checklist ❑ Submitted ❑ Project Exempt q 4 �A i !TR. :z .., i..z w..�.4j,. PE RW CN Other Estimated obligation date(mldlyy) Estimated completion date(mldlyy) � w% � xa„ ,--°, '; � -. .,....f-.�_„��.n.. �r'a� r �� tip, ,,,,'.".. ,-.rz j r��'�✓^`� .r� ';'�� ,.r ., - „-G'a�, 'v;.',�,.,'":�'�"^-,,�,� Please provide a vicinity map and a signed Project Endorsement Form attached to this application. SRTC Staff ['Vicinity map ['Endorsement ..-�?... *gaill b ! mw-s"`G `�t.A�:.T .r ru : :.:c-'.;'._n n, ✓ .;V N to S, f J W_• .,.F. f. .v..... .:': .._.'.r2.. S;,:.�` �,;,' r y_.TN-_,.::. A. Previous obligations(all fund sources,all phases) $ Funding is requested for the following B. Requested CMAQ Funds $ phases (check all that apply): C. Other secured federal funds,source: $ D.Secured state funds,source: $ ❑ Preliminary Engineering/Design E. Secured local funds,source: $ El Right-of-way F. Secured private funds,source: $ ❑ Construction G.Total Estimated Cost of Project(All Phases)[A through F] $ ❑ Other(planning, etc.) Cost summary notes(if additional explanation is needed). Describe the commitment of matching funds and other funds or the status of obtaining the proposed matching funds. (Note:matching funds must be available at the time of fund obligation). What is the design life of this project? The project sponsor must indicate that the project,once completed,will be maintained for the life of the project. Please complete the appropriate supplemental application form for the project type(see Appendix A) ❑ Submitted SRTC Congestion Mitigation &Air Quality Project Application FFY2094-2097 2 b.��.....--i- ..6-I':::::i'ZLT IM E.....-.....-...»........»........... :::::::::Y.::....:::::::;;::;;;::;:::;';'::.".......» »... .«»......».....«...».....».«..»........«...............»......».....:»...«........ Please describe how the project enhance connections to existing employment centers,key destinations(Le.employment centers, schools, parks, retail,city/regional centers and attractions), major transportation routes and/or transportation hubs (including transit). ,.iW'e� y' ^�.- ,., .ire-.� „-- ^w'"�•.%9 .v, ', ",. -:.,�//r ./, .�s.a� �F °�Ys.y-; Project is located within an area of existing development. (Density of housing/jobs in proximity) y,. ba., y ...:'..gsr � F y ss.,"� N✓c' :.�.� '.�-> �' ��' i�.�t'u 1 t f I 1 O fti I J 1I [i�0t„l AMAX E` y r i e m- 'l ,.x..v ✓'.ia.r,-}-"i,C... �' A..r ^:.,'-- AT4r" �..ww -r'1- °f '` The project is listed in SRTC's 2011-2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan as: ❑A planned improvement(specifically listed in Section 4,pages 12-17); 5 ❑An unfunded transportation need (specifically listed in Section 4, pages 18-19); 3 ❑The project is not specifically listed, but is consistent with the goals and policies of the MTP(as 1 described in Section 1). Cite the page number and text that indicates consistency with the MTP: The project is listed in a local agency long-range plan or capital improvement program as: ❑A programmed or planned improvement(specifically listed). Plan/program and page number: 3 ❑An unfunded transportation need(specifically listed). Plan/program and page number: 1 1 ❑ The project is not specifically listed in a plan or program, but is consistent with the goals and policies of the plan or program.Cite the page number and text that indicates consistency with the plan or program: The project is listed in an approved regional(SRTC)plan: ❑Spokane Regional Pedestrian Plan Date&Page 3 0 Spokane Regional Bike Plan Date&Page 3 ❑ Spokane Regional ITS Architecture Plan, Implementation Plan Date&Page 3 ❑ Other(Please Explain): Date&Page 3 c ize. x - r -gi _ :. - : - ;`ry t f a Y v { Is the project a joint venture between multiple jurisdictions and/or agencies(including private and/or financial partnerships)? If so, please describe: p, ,r,1,p r _ ,-'x Please describe the extent to which the project has been reviewed by the public or other agencies(public meetings, environmental review, legislative actions,etc). SRTC Congestion Mitigation &Air Quality Project Application FFY 2014-2017 3 ,✓r'". �'r-°,.�xr � ,:,:.rt: �ci a ".u-. y,� .,,,.,,4� ; � „ .. �.a ,.wr.r,, „ ,,.:- .r°w '-,..r r s -may �:"^-y ...,'. � ter,. t.,,.;. Does the project improve the environment or minimize the environmental impact of the facility above and beyond current design standards(i.e. use of recycled materials,innovative storm water treatment, use of drought tolerant vegetation,etc.)?If so,please describe. k _ Y ' = ..-.�, :-s '' .,,%. .,. r «s�N.;-..,.WFtmd.°.- µ .:": , ^. ..- ^r'�','�r�-5 �..'� '_�: u,tvz2xc.� ...= d_N Describe the status of the project. [' Environmental documentation(NEPA)is complete&approved,or categorically excluded (CE) 5 ❑ Right-of-way plans approved 1 ❑ Right-of-way acquisition is complete,or not needed 5 point 5 [' Design is 30%complete maximum 1 [' Design is 60%complete 2 [' Design is 90%complete 3 Project status notes. Please indicate if there any circumstances that could delay this project and if there are any critical timelines associated with this application(e.g. right of way acquisition,environmental documentation,other funds needed for full funding). ffY y Has the project received federal funding from SRTC in the past? r;c'1.r.,:9 b.:F>.,. -X-..f ;�.. dk` .,:=.�z'rs._.n:. .,.:s._7,:„. r.:.:".�,;` - -,,: � ✓„.r',r,te,,r �."a,:-:- .sue.rx��r..rrs :,rf.r, Project serves low,income and/or minority communities;provides a new or enhances an existing transportation choice to the transportation disadvantaged. Project must start/end/go through a Census tract with higher than County-average proportions of low income and/or minority populations. SRTC Congestion Mitigation &Air Quality Project Application FFY 2014-2017 4 2014-2017 SRTC Transportation Alternatives (TA) Project Application �.1e4,ndr PROJECT TITLE: GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION_ : Agency or Organization Phone Number Contact Person Email Address Project Location Project Description(include the project scope,length,purpose,and brief comparison of existing and proposed conditions): Please describe how or why the project relates to the transportation system(functional,proximity,or impact). Note: Projects must be primarily for transportation purposes rather than recreational purposes. Projects lacking a functional, proximity or impact linkage to the transportation system are not eligible. PE RW CN Other Estimated obligation date(mld/yy) Estimated completion date(rnldlyy) Please provide a vicinity map,signed Project Endorsement Form,and Complete Streets Checklist, SRTC Staff ❑Vicinity map ❑Endorsement ❑Complete Streets Checklist A, Previous obligations(all fund sources,all phases) $ Funding is requested for the following B.Requested TAP Funds $ phases(check all that apply): C.Other secured federal funds,source: $ ❑Preliminary Engineering/Design D. Secured state funds,source: $ ❑ Right-of-way E.Secured local funds,source: $ ❑ Construction F. Secured private funds,source: $ ❑Other(planning,etc.) G. Total Estimated Cost of Project(All Phases) [A through F] $ Cost summary notes(optional). Please indicate if this project has received partial funds through a past SRTC Call for Projects. The project sponsor must verify that the project,once completed,will be maintained for the life of the project(include estimated life of project). Ec0NONHc UITAEIT1f rt -- 15 PiS ti `m Please describe how the project enhances connections to existing key destinations(i.e. employment centers,city/regional centers and attractions,schools,or parks)or major transportation routes and/or transportation hubs(including transit). Include the distance from the project location to any referenced key destinations. Note: Project must be located within %2 mile(pedestrian project)or 3 miles(bicycle project)of a key destination. 4 Is the project consistent with an adopted local economic development/revitalization plan? If so, please cite the plan and the page number that indicates the project is consistent with the plan. Project is located within an area of existing development. Please refer to the 2010 Population/Employment Density map to identify the density of the project location. Check all densities that apply to the project location(if it traverses more than one density type,an average score will be given). ❑Average density 2 ❑Above average density 4 ❑ High density 6 COOPERATION AND LEADERSHIP_ .- Please indicate the project's consistency with regional and local plans. Check one box only: The project is listed in SRTC's 2011-2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan as: ❑A planned improvement(specifically listed in Section 4, pages 12-17); 5 ❑An unfunded transportation need (specifically listed in Section 4, pages 18-19); 3 ❑The project is not specifically listed,but is consistent with the goals and policies of the MTP(as described in Section 1). 1 Cite the page number and text that indicates consistency with the MTP: Cg The project is listed in a local agency long-range plan or capital improvement program as: ❑A programmed or planned improvement(specifically listed). Plan/program and page number; 3 z ❑An unfunded transportation need(specifically listed). Plan/program and page number: 1 ❑The project is not specifically listed in a plan or program, but is consistent with the goals and policies of the 0 comprehensive plan,Cite the page number and text that indicates consistency with the plan: The project is listed in an approved regional(SRTC) plan: ❑Spokane Regional Pedestrian Plan Page 3 ❑ Spokane Regional Bike Plan Page 3 ❑ Spokane Regional ITS Architecture Plan, Implementation Plan Page 3 ❑ Other: Page 3 Is the project a joint venture between multiple jurisdictions and/or agencies?If so, please describe: 2 E ' Please describe the extent to which the project has been reviewed by the public or other agencies(public meetings, 3 environmental review, legislative actions,etc), Si Pit E1lItARpSHIIP _ _ lU Does the project improve the environment or minimize the environmental impact of the facility above and beyond current 3 design standards(i.e. use of recycled materials,innovative storm water treatment, use of drought tolerant vegetation, air quality benefit,etc.)? If so,please describe. Describe the status of the project. ❑ Environmental documentation(NEPA)is complete&approved,or categorically excluded(CE) 3 ❑ Right-of-way plans approved 1 ❑ Right-of-way acquisition is complete,or not needed 3 ❑ Design is 30%complete 5 point max. ❑ Design is 60%complete 2 ❑ Design is 90%complete 3 Project status notes. Please indicate if there any circumstances that could delay the project and/or if there are any critical timelines associated with this application(e.g.right of way acquisition,environmental documentation,other funds needed for full funding). Has the project previously been awarded partial funding through a SRTC Call for Projects? 2 QUALITY OF LIFE. 1... O PTS Does the project include design elements that contribute to qualit - If so, please check all that apply: 5 ❑ Lighting ❑ Unusual or unique surfaces (pavers or stamped) ❑ Bicycle parking ❑ Public art ❑ Benches, bus shelters ❑ Garbage/recycling receptacles ❑ Traffic calming measures ❑ Ballards ❑ Landscaping,pots/planters,tree grates ❑ Other design elements,please describe: ❑ Raised or uniquely treated crosswalks Does the project support health-promoting transportation options for people of all abilities and ages(walking,biking,transit, 5 safe routes to school,etc.)?If so, please describe. CHOICE AK/MOBILITY- _._3O PTS Will the project add or improve pedestrian facilities(ADA requirements,crossings, completes a gap, extends connection,eliminates barriers,vegetated buffers,width>5 ft, pedestrian islands,etc.)? If so, please describe. 7 Is the facility on a designate i"cycl" a route? If yes,will the project add or improve bicycle facilities(lanes, pavement markings, signage, completes a gap,ex en s connection,eliminates barriers,etc.)?if so,please describe. 7 Has the project been coordinated with STA or other transit operators?If so, please describe. 1 Does the project improve transit access? If so, please describe. Project must be within 1/2 mile(pedestrian projects)or 3 miles(bicycle projects)of a transit stop. Include the distance -- from the project location to the closest transit stop. If the project improves transit access,how many buses per day traverse the facility? Number of buses(include both inbound and outbound) ❑ 1-30 buses per day 3 ❑ 30+buses per day 6 Project encourages or allows for the shared use of infrastructure for multiple users(i.e. new shared use path,or the til addition of facilities for a new user group on an existing facility). 4 Project serves low income and/or minority communities or establishes a new or enhances an existing transportation choice to the transportation disadvantaged. Please refer to the 2010 Environmental Justice map to determine whether the project is located in an area of disproportionately high percentages of low income and/or minority residents. Please check all classifications that apply to the project location(if it traverses more than one classification,an average score will be given). 5 ❑ Average proportion of low income 1 ❑ Average proportion of minorities 1 ❑ Above average proportion of low income 3 ❑ Above average proportion of minorities 3 ❑ High proportion of low income 5 ❑ High proportion of minorities 5 SAFETY_... :.. ZQ PTS es Does the project address an existing safety concern(s)?If yes, please indicate the existing safety concern(s). ❑ Collisions involving pedestrians, bicyclists ❑ Lack of separated facilities for user groups ❑ Lack of safe pedestrian crossing ❑ High volumes/speeds on facility ❑ Other safety concern: Does the project address the existing safety concern(s)via the one or more of the following strategies? ❑ Provides sidewalks/walkways and curb ramps ❑ Add signage directed to improve safety concern ❑ Provides bike lanes, markings,signage ❑ Install/improve traffic and bike/pedestrian signals ❑ Implement roadway narrowing measures ❑ Provide crosswalk enhancements(including striping, refuge islands, ❑ Add traffic calming improvements raised medians) ❑ Includes a safety education program(for Safe Routes to ❑ Other safety improvements consistent with NCHRP 500: School Projects only) } Provide the location and details for bicycle andpedestrian collisions on the project facility for the three most current years available.This information can be obtained from the Statewide Travel&Collision Data Office(STCDO). Fill out a separate row for each collision. Provide information on the location,collision type, severity,contributing circumstances,and the primary countermeasure to eliminate or mitigate the collision (countermeasure must be consistent with project scope). SRTC staff will use this information to assign points(0-10)on a sliding scale. . __.. �. ..:s x t^ : S� �: i� f� m� rs�an I �; � :r j � ,..,.€:I.:'�[� C,. Y�r. n g i C vrn V Y.m p t,�. o'e.... a� �. ','.., y.;"�;r t�e.• g g / -..,.t..3. A}i ` , � 1 / S � . � `.E��.,� [ 's a i.2 r ?. _* E `� saF t' e = .f�:Tprappyrcpicycksvpooestrop"Ci} #,� a n3 }�: � �� i � y '�'� $ € N.? SiA ;-0 t ri„b� I�.1 • �o,x 1 , �q[� t .I ��_ § . . a . ' _ s � T� � �, �'R. fa�u � A�"�„, � ��P ma wne easu _ „3 S vh f.�. f�°, 2r h i ]�J, & �..a H..!. ' kill."rl a, E,4 �.t�Y �.f €S IT,•.g�r .� � i 3 ;,1 3 �P �s.� = f r#R�'!x� : t ti +- �� } i-b Yr s sl:A€� ,#. 3i=3ial.13N i7r, � 3_:),�1 i10004111010701,014.,:70:rovovatioe ds c ry e 0o ,1i � r " n .0 r es < Fa I�t s� . � �Et ald at �t t�Y ��:o,,), a�. , E�,i.: 1,� �ys co€ s,sen th a I ect sca e t, � � r �� : i� ` �� i.r ? v� , a1S�_ iS' �� $ �� i. < N . �� . , Y „ ;h , , B �J ,: : �S�. f��.h !,a[sk rz: ,1,_ 4 s ;. r # r . , „�.6 S k . h F 4t� s >� ! ` 3 f� 1..�<.. �,: 1 �»,>�<,.;..b . , ':. ex. Grand Blvd at 13Th Ave Pedestrian 1 0 Driver—failure to yield right-of-way Signed crosswalk Collision Involving A.Total Number Br Factor C.Accident Cost Annual Benefit (A x B) (Sum of Column C 120 years) Injuries $375,000 Fatalities $4,400,000 TOTAL(Sum of Column A) TOTAL(Sum of Column B) TOTAL(Sum of Column C) Bonus FoiNrs Does the project have partial funding (local,state,or federal)secured?If so,please indicate the percentage of the total project cost that is already secured. ❑ 0-5% 1 ❑ 5-10% 2 ❑ 10%+ 3 Project has demonstrated community support(letters of support from stakeholder groups and/or local jurisdictions/agencies), 3 APPENDIX C. SAFE AND COMPLETE STREETS POLICY& CHECKLIST POLICY FOR SAFE AND COMPLETE STREETS Approved by the SRTC Board on September 13,2012 Purpose This Safe and Complete Streets Policy is written to incorporate the needs of all users into the design and construction of roadway projects funded through the Spokane Regional Transportation Council. Users include, but are not limited to, people of all ages and abilities who are motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and school bus riders, motorcyclists, freight providers, emergency responders and adjacent land users. This policy applies to projects funded through SRTC and new projects requested to be included in the TIP. The Safe and Complete Streets concept is an initiative to design and build roads that adequately accommodate all users of the transportation system.This concept anticipates that appropriate features be included so that all modes of transportation can function safely and independently in current and future conditions. A Safe and Complete Streets Policy can be adapted to fit local community needs and used to direct future regional transportation planning. Such a policy should incorporate community values and qualities including environment, aesthetics, historic and natural resources as well as safety and mobility. This approach demands careful multi- modal evaluation for all transportation projects. This policy will act as a stand-alone policy until incorporated into the 2013 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Goals 1. To ensure that the regional decision-making process routinely considers the safety and convenience of all transportation users during planning and programming; 2. To maximize mobility and access to opportunities for all area residents; 3. To recognize the need for flexible Safe and Complete Street solutions to fit within the context(s) of communities in our diverse rural, suburban and urban region; 4. To create a comprehensive, integrated and connected transportation system that supports transportation choices and strengthens access to and use of transit; 5. To create attractive places that can make businesses more accessible and appealing and increase retail sales and commercial activity; 6. To encourage healthy, active living through walking, biking and transit use while reducing transportation system demand, mobile source emissions and vehicle miles travelled. Policy Statement SRTC encourages project sponsors to achieve a safe, balanced, affordable, multi-modal and equitable transportation system by implementing Safe and Complete Streets with context- sensitive solutions within our diverse urban, suburban and rural communities. Each project will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. SRTC encourages local jurisdictions to adopt and implement Safe and Complete Streets policies. Applicability The SRTC Safe and Complete Streets Policy shall apply to the following: Call for Projects Any roadway construction or reconstruction projects that will use federal funding through an SRTC Call for Projects including planning, design, right-of-way acquisition, construction or construction engineering. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Any programming activities conducted by SRTC for projects seeking inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program after the adoption of the Safe and Complete Streets Policy. Process When SRTC issues a Call for Projects for roadway projects or a project with any funding source is to be programmed in the Transportation Improvement Program, the project sponsors will be required to complete the SRTC Safe and Complete Streets Checklist (see Attachment 1) to document how the needs of users were considered in the process of planning and/or designing the project for which the funds are requested. For projects that do not accommodate all users, project sponsors must document why the project is being proposed as designed. The answers to the checklist will determine if a project is exempt from this Safe and Complete Street Policy or regarded to be in compliance with this Policy and therefore be approved. If a project is neither approved nor exempt with this policy, the project will be determined incomplete or denied. If certain information required in the checklist is not known at the time of the project submittal, the project sponsor shall provide general detail on the required submittal information, but shall state, "Specific information has not yet been determined." If the project is programmed into the TIP, the project sponsor shall update SRTC as part of its regular reporting and participate in the checklist process once the necessary information is available. All TIP projects will be required at some point to complete a Safe and Complete Streets Checklist and be either approved or exempted from the checklist process or risk being removed from the TIP. Project Review SRTC will review the project checklist prior to being submitted to the TIP or a Call for Project Process. Roadway projects listed in the TIP and Call for Projects shall clearly be labeled that they meet the Safe and Complete Streets policy, by being approved or exempted. Conversely, if the project does not meet the intent of this policy, the project checklist could be denied. The process is outlined below. Final appeal decisions will be made by the SRTC Board. SRTC Safe & Complete Streets Process 1 Applies for Applies for Staff Review Checklist Checklist (1 Week) Exemption Approval I i I I Request Request Denied Approved i l Opportunity for Appeal Sponsor Sponsor Modifies Appeals Application (1 Week) (1 k) I i Appeal Appeal Review&Resolution Denied Granted 7 (1 Week) Sponsor Modifies Opportunity for Modification Application > (1 Week) Appeal Appeal SRTC Board Decision Denied Granted > (1 Week)-by email or Board meeting V Required Step SRTC Completes Process Optional Step Project Sponsor Reporting Once a project is programmed into the adopted TIP the project sponsor shall submit written status reports to SRTC committees pursuant to the biannual project tracking process. Project Description Changes The project sponsor shall report to SRTC immediately if a significant change to the roadway project is warranted, especially in the case of any change affecting the project's accommodations for one group of users. SRTC will review the requested change(s) to the project and determine if the change(s) affects the intent as detailed by the approved project descriptions. If a roadway project is determined to no longer meet the intent of this policy, the SRTC Policy Board shall consider removing the project from the TIP until such time that the project is brought into compliance with the Complete Streets Policy or is exempted. Evaluation To assist with evaluation of this policy, SRTC will use performance measures to help encourage meaningful progress in the region. Performance measures will include, but not be limited to, miles of sidewalk and bicycle network added to the regional transportation system. Implementation 1. Beginning with TIP and call for project applications submitted after adoption of this policy, project sponsors will adhere to this policy. 2. This policy will act as a stand-alone policy until it is incorporated into the 2013 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Attachment 1 SRTC Safe and Complete Streets Checklist PROJECT TITLE: JURISDICTION/AGENCY: PROJECT LOCATION: CONTACT NAME: CONTACT PHONE:( CONTACT EMAIL: Recent federal, state, and regional policies call for routine consideration of all transportation users in the planning, design, and construction of all transportation projects. The SRTC Safe and Complete Streets Policy calls for the creation of this checklist. In accordance with the SRTC Safe and Complete Streets Policy, project sponsors applying for regional transportation funds and all projects that need to be included in the Transportation Improvement Program that entail construction or reconstruction must complete this checklist to document how the needs of all transportation users were considered in the process of planning and/or design of the project. For sponsors of projects that do not accommodate all transportation users, the project sponsors must document the reason(s). Screening Criteria: Is this project located where pedestrian or bike traffic is prohibited AND transit does not currently operate nor is planned to operate in the next 15 years? NO If YES, the checklist is not required. If NO, please complete the checklist. Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) projects are only required to answer questions I.a and I.b. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE Project Description a. Please provide a project description. Project Purpose b. Please describe the project purpose. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS Project Area a. What features for vehicles, transit operations,transit access, pedestrians and bicycles are included on the current facility and on facilities that it intersects or crosses? (Attach photo) b. If there are no existing transit access, pedestrian or bicycle facilities, how far from the proposed project are the closest parallel facilities? c. Please describe any particular transit access, pedestrian or bicycle uses or needs along the project corridor which you have observed or about which you have been informed? d. What existing challenges could the proposed project address for transit operations and access, pedestrian and/or bicycle travel or safety in the vicinity of the project? e. Is transit operated or planned to operate in the project area? f. If yes,will the project accommodate access to transit for transit users? Demand g. What trip generators (existing and future) are in the vicinity of the proposed project that might attract transit customers, walkers, or bikers? Are these employees, students, visitors or others? Collisions h. In the project design, have you considered collisions involving vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists along the route of the facility? If so, what resources have you consulted? Plans a. Do any adopted plans call for the development of transit access or service, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities on, crossing, or adjacent to the proposed facility/project? If yes, list the applicable plan(s) and section(s). b. Is the proposed project consistent with these plans? Policies, Design Standards&Guidelines c. Are there any local, statewide or federal policies that call for incorporating transit users, pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities into this project? If so what are they and have these policies been followed? d. Does the project meet street, vehicle, transit, pedestrian and/or bicycle facility applicable design standards or guidelines? If not, please explain why. e. If there have been any stakeholder or public meetings during which the proposed project has been discussed, what comments have been made regarding features for all modes of travel? IV. THE PROJECT Project Scope a. What features, if any, are included for traffic calming, place-making, transit operations, transit access, pedestrians and/or bicyclists in the proposed project design? (Attach design diagrams if available) Hindering Pedestrians or Bicyclists b. Will the proposed project remove an existing transit access, pedestrian, or bicycle facility, or block or hinder transit access, pedestrian movement or bike travel? If yes, please describe situation in detail. c. If the proposed project does not incorporate both pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or if the proposed project would hinder pedestrian or bike travel, list the reasons why the project is being proposed as designed. i. Cost(What would the cost of the transit access, pedestrian and/or bike facilities add to the total project cost? Proportion of total project cost?) H. Right-of-way(Is the right-of-way necessary to add facilities for all modes of travel unavailable? Did an analysis lead to this conclusion?) iii. Other(Please explain.) Construction d. How will transit operations, access for transit, pedestrians and/or bicycles be maintained during project construction? Ongoing Maintenance e. What agency will be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the facility and how will this be budgeted? CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 5th, 2013 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Sprague Avenue On-Street Parking GOVERNING LEGISLATION: n/a PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: n/a BACKGROUND: Council requested a discussion on the possibility of adding on-street parking to sections of Sprague Avenue. The presentation will provide information on this concept. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer; Eric P. Guth, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation . . • SPRAGUE AVE PARKING : iiiii I 040 1 , • "IP- , TOYOTA- I P ,, ..■ -0. ' is . , . 00 i 1111 —, _7---- ..--.__ _ I- . 1 F , -111rellir 1"- -ffil ': • , _, .1. 4'.1:?•• i , . ,- _ ' I 0 I gt.,V. ..,;,. ., .-- -- 71 41krli. $ . 7411a- • • . 1., ., ---L OP.. l ____ — — ' ;LOW,' f' .. •■.... ''. d: • ---'''..4.411‘4‘ 0.•1 6' '..' . -dr .001.- - ,- tt _ , • . ,._ . __ __ . ..,4,... March 5th 2013 Inga Note, P.E. Preferred Parking • Lanes 10 ft or 11 ft wide • Speeds 30 mph or less • Low traffic volume • Few intersections (driveway or side street) • Adequate sight distance PR _ -- -11-1 ,„....polupwri I r- , 1 P ,� __ r ,I i- m pr- . 11, H 4: • MINI _ _ Jik a 1 - ... i 51•M F .-'_ .r moo ..* .a ... +x.—. .w- - - :,_ s$. 6 .� - ___---.0. .tee 2013GoogIR IFDriveway and side-street conflicts Pr & erred Parking C • Small building setback i r c - Compact building . , I . : • Com g p w !h ; density (i.e. close spacing 1111 ' . :-...%. - Pr-or shared wall) Or r • Street orientated 7 - k' • --- buildings —` g • Planting strip with trees r ,. • Enforcement . • Demand . ©2013Gaogle isting Sp ParkIng . _ vitt — uaa MIN n1 @•4nnN i , cm= II 1•111M1 ' WEIN '2013GoogIe ▪ 200' in length ▪ Light daytime use - minimal stopping in lane o Low volumes in south lane of Sprague ▪ No Driveways! Add C� '1 Street Parki .. m - , ...-----air------. - _....4„„ _ , ._ - ,. , App.-- ----1---- - -,Ipprow-aMer '''. ei i f9r1 11-, ff._ \ y ilt Clear-view triangle for 35 mph no parking! To maintain sight distance for 35-40 mph approach speeds, parking would not be allowed within 175 feet of a driveway. Add Parking Crash Rates for Street Types Crash Rate/Mile/Site or Speed Fatal Severe Minor PDO All <35 mph 0 11.1 47.7 231.1 289.9 Parking 35-40 mph 0.7 29.0 89.7 222.8 342.1 <35 mph 0 28.0 48.3 192.0 268.2 No Parking 35-40 mph 0.2 17.2 44.7 114.8 177.0 Source: "Reassessing On-street Parking", Transportation Research Record 2046 "a low-speed environment for on-street parking appears to be critical in ensuring safe use" How to make it safe ? 1. Change the road character to lower speeds • Remove lanes • Narrow the lanes (10-11 feet) • Small building setbacks • Vegetation 2. Separate the parking • Remove travel lanes • Use a parking access lane 3. Provide parking on side streets Characteristics of a One -way Street wit On - Street P , _ , _ . I, .t 4 -. . _ -- 'ftp ,_-r- 1 - - _.M.gniMOMIM.r.Mi- ' :"4a 1104. . Buildings 1111 11111111111111 close to street Street trees MIIM■IMP . ,ate �� +, i __.--------milk. . /.46 . -, ,, 10' lanes No 7/ Driveways .-----------' - '2013Google Stevens Street in Spokane Access Lane Concept Urban style • . . - .7, - , .4 a. -;Ilit•:- ---°''''•"'7° Ali -. I ri : 1:... .,0', ..! 1 r'• -'1-';'''' 1110. ...ii• ...... ,.: 1111114rj• 0* ' illi V •.-.k - IT - -.. ,1' , 1-1 phir,a-i. A 1 t • ; i 1 lial; , T 4641■11fie■a II.la a . . l'A 4i 1 . - Ilif-.01 ,aims YN.1:7 ,' La; 1- .7 ° i nia"11'llcilit i .L. 2°' 4001 0 gE it, del: _. FALEI I rrA714 ri A 0 C 0 7••■■••1 - — IIMAIIIII6 :111 •- i . r I ''' - i . __. . . a -s_ i I • I , I . , '- .• •-....z.,, • - • -, , . . . Access Lane Concept suburban style • I Jo" - _ ,_ ,,_ _ !iv..,i , iiii"V" M r I. - d.c w 'ti. p re=II , ti .mss ,t ©2013Google Public ROW or easement on private property . . ,_ , . . Side t r�ee Parking _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ , , ___ a_ ._,_ _ _ __i_._ tip.F *. _( -_ — _ I, -'f. nom .IMINt % i wart _ _ .. © 01? L;nngli 1st Avenue ' 1 111111111111141PIPITIPI 1:Millling. a 1 i . .f e ,, — i i ©2013 Goo gle ©2013 Goo gle Sargent Road Sipple Road Options o Under existing conditions additional on-street parking on Sprague is not recommended. • Speed • Driveway conflicts • Collision risk o Conduct corridor parking study to evaluate other options? • Access lane parking • Side street parking • Other? CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 5, 2013 Department Director Approval: X Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information © admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: City Hall Lease Extension GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: The City entered into an initial lease with Northwest Christian Schools for City Hall space at the current site in January 2003 and the lease was subsequently extended with the current extension running for the three-year period April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2013. The City currently leases a total of 28,236 square feet of space including: • 22,646 square feet in the Clocktower Building (housing all City services except the permit center) where we currently pay $18.30 per square foot per year for an annual total of $414,433.68. • 3,290 square feet in the side building which houses the Permit Center where we currently pay $14.93 per square foot per year for an annual total of$49,109.40. • 2,300 square feet in the side building which serves as warehouse space where we currently pay $4.37 per square foot per year for an annual total of$10,053.12. • All totaled, our annual cost in this final year of the lease will equal $473,596.20. • An additional charge we incur is a quarterly common area maintenance (CAM) charge that totals approximately $5,000 to $6,000 per year. Recognizing our lease term is set to expire on March 31, 2013, we have been in discussions with Northwest Christian Schools property manager, Web Properties, regarding a lease extension, and have arrived at the following terms: • A 4-year lease extension running from April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2017. • A per square foot reduction of 18.4% in the first year of the lease extension which results in a first year savings to the City of$73,596.24. • A 2% increase in the lease cost in each of the 3 subsequent years. • The City will have the option to terminate the lease at the end of the 36th month (March 31, 2016) by providing at least 6-months prior written notice to NW Christian Schools (by September 30, 2015). In the event the City exercises this option we will pay $34,680 to NW Christian Schools upon termination, which is equivalent to one lease payment computed at the third year rate). • NW Christian Schools will pay 50% of the cost of materials and labor for carpet replacement with the City paying the remaining 50% plus all costs associated with moving and replacing furniture. OPTIONS: This is a discussion topic that requires no decisions be made at this time. 1 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action is required at this time, however staff seeks Council concurrence to return to the March 12, 2013, Council meeting for motion consideration to approve the lease extension contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2013 General Fund Budget includes $495,000 for the lease of City Hall, which represented a 3% increase over the 2012 Budget of $480,000. Assuming the lease is approved by Council the actual lease cost will be $95,000 less. The actual savings will be somewhat less because we will still be assessed the common area maintenance (CAM) fee. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun ATTACHMENTS: • Comparison of the financial impact of the current lease to the proposed lease extension. • Draft copy of the proposed lease extension contract. 2 \\SV-FS2\Users\mcalhoun\City Departrnents\Finance\City Hall\city hall lease amounts CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2/22/2013 Lease of City Hall Space from Northwest Christian Schools Comparison of Current Lease with Lease Extension Current Lease Square Current Lease Rate Cost per Square Foot _ Expires March 31,2013 I Footage Monthly I _ Annual Monthly L Annual Premises Leased Suites101, 103, 104, 105, 106,304 22,646 $ 34,536.14 $ 414,433.68 $ 1.53 $ 18.30 Suite B-3 3,290 4,092.45 49,109.40 1.24 14.93 Suite B-4 (warehouse) 2,300 837.76 10,053.12 0.36 4.37 28,236 $ 39,466.35 $ 473,596.20 1.40 16.77 4 Year Lease Renewal - April 1,2013-March 31, 2017 - Per square foot reduction of 18.40%in first year of lease. - 2%increase per year in each of the 3 subsequent years. - City will have the option to terminate the lease at the end of the 36th month (March 31, 2016) by providing at least 6-months prior written notice(by September 30, 2015)to NW Christian Schools. In the event the City exercises this option we will pay$34,680 to NW Christian Schools upon termination(this is equivalent to one lease payment computed at the third year rate). - NW Christian Schools will pay 50%of the cost of materials and labor for carpet replacement with the City paying the remaining 50%plus all costs associated with moving and replacing furniture. Year 1 Square Proposed Lease Rate Cost per Square Foot April 1,2013 through March 31, 2014 Footage Monthly I Annual Monthly ]I Annual Premises Leased Suites101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 304 22,646 $ 29,169.25 $ 350,031.00 $ 1.29 $ 15.46 Suite B-3 3,290 3,456.50 41,478.00 1.05 12.61 Suite B-4 (warehouse) 2,300 707.58 8,490.96 0.31 3.69 28,236 $ 33,333.33 $ 399,999.96 1.18 14.17 $ 6,133.02 $ 73,596.24 =saved in initial year Year 2 April 1,2014 through March 31,2015 Premises Leased Suites101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 304 22,646 $ 29,752.64 $ 357,031.68 $ 1.31 $ 15.77 Suite 3-3 3,290 3,525.63 42,307.56 1.07 12,86 Suite B-4(warehouse) 2,300 721.73 8,660.76 0.31 3.77 28,236 $ 34,000.00 $ 408,000.00 1.20 14.45 $ 5,466.35 $ 65,596.20 =saved in second year Year 3 ,April 1,2015 through March 31, 2016 Premises Leased Suites101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 304 22,646 $ 30,347,70 $ 364,172.40 $ 1.34 $ 16.08 Suite 3-3 3,290 3,596.14 43,153.68 1.09 13.12 Suite B-4 (warehouse) 2,300 736.16 8,833.92 0.32 3.84 28,236 $ 34,680.00 $ 416,160.00 1.23 14.74 $ 4,786.35 $ 57,436.20 =saved in third year Year 4 April 1, 2016 through March 31,2017 Premises Leased Suites101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 304 22,646 $ 30,954.66 $ 371,455.92 $ 1.37 $ 16.40 Suite 3-3 3,290 3,668.06 44,016.72 1.11 13.38 Suite B-4 (warehouse) 2,300 750.88 9,010.56 0.33 3.92 28,236 $ 35,373.60 $ 424,483.20 1.25 15.03 $ 4,092.75 $ 49,113.00 =saved in fourth year NW Christian School Numbers l4SY--FS2I Usersl ncalhoini Cityy DeparhrrenlslFiaance lCify HaIIICOSV Lease Extension Apr 12013 to Mar 312017.docx LEASE EXTENSION & EXPANSION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of March,2013,by and between CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,whose mailing address,is 11707 East Sprague,Spokane Valley, Washington 99206,(hereinafter referred to as"Lessee"),and NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, a nonprofit corporation,(hereinafter referred to as"Lessor"); WHEREAS,The City Of Spokane Valley,as Lessee,and Northwest Christian Schools,as Lessor, entered into a Lease Agreements and renewals for Suites 101, 103, 104, 105, 106,304, Suite B-3 and B-4 warehouse space as noted below,a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A;"and WHEREAS,the term of the Leases expires on March 31st,2013. WHEREAS,The Lessee desires to continue said lease for an additional Four(4)Years beyond the end of its current term under the same terms and conditions set forth in said lease,as amended herein. NOW,THEREFORE,for and in consideration of the recitations set forth,the terms and provisions herein contained,and the mutual benefits to be derived here from,the parties do hereby contract,covenant and agree as follows: 1. Extension of Lease. The Leases,attached hereto as Exhibit"A"and incorporated herein by reference,is hereby renewed for a Four(4)Year term,beginning on April 1,2013 and terminating on March 315`,2017. The Lessee covenants and agrees to comply with all the terms and conditions of said Lease, as herein amended,and to be bound thereby and to pay all rent in the manner therein provided. 2.Premises Leased. Lessee is leasing 22,646 square feet within the Clocktower Building,noted as follows: Suites 101,103, 104, 105, 106 and 304.As well as Suite B-3 consisting of 3,290 square feet of office space and B-4,2,300 square feet of warehouse space in the west wing building. All as shown on Exhibit"B"attached hereto. 3. Amendments to Lease. Lessee and Assignee hereby agree to amend certain provisions under the Lease as follows: a. NNN Charges. Property Taxes,Utilities, Maintenance,Insurance,Administrative& Common Area Maintenance shall continue to be paid by Lessee for Suite B-4 as follows:2,300 sq. ft.of 42, 672 total CAM sq.ft,or 5.389%of building premises. CAM charges are billed quarterly. b. Rent: Monthly rent for the period of April 2013 through March 2014 shall be as follows: Clocktower Suites: $29,169.25 13-3: $ 3,456.50 13-4(base rate): $ 707.58 Total Monthly Rent: $33,333.33 Monthly rent for the period of April 2014 through March 2015 shall be as follows: Clocktower Suites: $29,752.64 B-3: $ 3,525.63 B-4(base rate): $ 721.73 Total Monthly Rent: $34,000.00 1 Is: 41ST'-FS24Userslmcalhounlclty Departu:entslFinanceCieyHal1ICOS1'Lease Extension Apr 12013 to Afar 312017.docx Monthly rent for the period of April 2015 through March 2016 shall be as follows: Clocktower Suites: $30,347.70 B-3: $ 3,596.14 B-4(base rate): $ 736.16 Total Monthly Rent: $34,680.00 Monthly rent for the period of April 2016 through March 2017 shall be as follows: Clocktower Suites: $30,954,66 13-3: $ 3,668.06 B-4(base rate): $ 750.88 Total Monthly Rent: $35,373.60 c. Option to Terminate. Lessee shall have the option to terminate this lease at the end of the 36th month(March 2016)by providing at least Six(6)months prior written notice to Lessor. Lessee shall pay$34,680.00 to Lessor upon termination for the right to exercise this option. d. Carpet Replacement. Lessee may request that some or all of the carpets be replaced in the leased premises. In that event,Lessor and Lessee shall work together as to timing and locations to be re-carpeted. The Parties shall split the cost evenly of the materials and labor to remove and replace the carpet,however the Lessee shall pay for all cost associated with moving and replacing furniture. Lessee shall use chair matts to protect the new carpet once installed. Except as modified herein all other terms and conditions of said Lease shall remain in full force and effect. 4. Waivers,Modification or Amendment. No waiver,modification or amendment of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing,and no waiver or indulgence by either party or any deviation by the other party from full performance of this Agreement shall be a waiver of the right to subsequent or other full,strict,and timely performance. 5. Merger Clause. This Agreement and the Lease Agreement attached as Exhibit A express the full and final purpose and agreement of the parties and will not be qualified,modified or supplemented by course of dealing,usage of trade,or course of performance. There are no verbal agreements which qualify, modify or supplement this Agreement. 6. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more parts,each of which shall be deemed an original,but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 2 Is: 1 VF321UsersltnicalhoinilCit yDeparinientsTinancelCityHal1tCOSVLeaseEx tensionApr1 2013Ia Afar 312017.docx IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have set their hands this day of 2013. LESSOR LESSEE NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY BY: BY: ITS: BY: ITS ITS: Executed On Executed On ADDRESS FOR NOTICES AND RENT ADDRESS FOR NOTICES Northwest Christian Schools,Inc. City of Spokane Valley C/o WEB Properties,Inc. 11707 E. Sprague Suite 106 P 0 Box 21469 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane,WA 99202 3 Is: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of February 28,2013; 8:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings Wed,March 6,2013-Mayor Towey's State of the City Address(special meeting) 12:00— 1:00 p.m. 2nd Floor Community Room, Spokane Valley Mall, 14700 E Indiana Avenue AND 6:00 p.m.—7:00 p.m., CenterPlace Auditorium, March 12,2013,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon March 4] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Amended 2013 TIP—Steve Worley (10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes; Interlocal Agreement,Purchasing) (5 minutes) 3. Proposed Resolution 13-001: Acceptance of SMP Public Access Plan—Lori Barlow (10 minutes) 4.Motion Consideration: CMAQ/TA Grant Projects—Steve Worley (10 minutes) 5.Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Sullivan Rd Street Preservation—Steve Worley (10 minutes) 6.Motion Consideration: Lease Amendment, City Hall—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 7.Mayoral Appointments: Committee Appointments for Councilmember Higgins—Mayor Towey(10 min) 8.Mayoral Appointments: Appointment of Planning Commissioner—Mayor Towey (10 minutes) 9.Admin Report: Appleway Beautification—Eric Guth 10.Admin Report: Update on Initiative 502 (marijuana)Implementation—Erik Lamb (15 minutes) 11.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 95 minutes] Sat,March 16,2013,10 a.m. to 4 p.m.—Spokane Valley 10th Anniversary/Birthday Celebration March 19,2013, Study Session Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,March 11] 1.Update,Public Defender Caseload Limits—Erik Lamb,Morgan Koudelka (15 minutes) 2. Economic Development—Mike Jackson,John Hohman (40 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 60 minutes] March 26,2013,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,March 18] 1.March Community Recognition,Presentation of Key and Certificate—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Proposed Ordinance 1st reading, 19.120,Townhouses in Neighborhood Commercial—Scott Kuhta(20 min) 4.Motion Consideration: Amended 2013 TIP—Steve Worley (15 minutes) 5. Information Only: Dept Reports; Planning Commission Minutes [*estimated meeting: 45 minutes] April 2,2013, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,March 25] 1. Overview Property Crimes and Other Police Statistics—Chief VanLeuven (30 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 2/28/2013 10:56:53 AM Page 1 of 2 April 9,2013,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 1] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Proposed Ordinance 2nd reading, 19.120,Townhouses in Neighborhood Commercial—Scott Kuhta(20 min) April 16,2013, Study Session Meetin2 Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 8] 1.Advance Agenda April 23,2013,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 15] 1.April Community Recognition,Presentation of Key and Certificate—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 4. Information Only: Dept Reports; Planning Commission Minutes April 30,2013, Study Session Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [clue Mon,April 22] 1.Advance Agenda May 7,2013, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 29] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) May 14,2013, Study Session Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, May 6]] 1.Advance Agenda May 21 2013,Formal Meetin2 Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 13] 1.April Community Recognition,Presentation of Key and Certificate—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 4. Information Only: Dept Reports;Planning Commission Minutes May 28,2013, Study Session Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 20] 1.Advance Agenda OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: ADA Transition Plan Public Safety Contract,Proposed Amendment Appleway Landscape Improvements Revenue Policy, Cost Recovery Arts Council Solid Waste Analysis Bidding Contracts(SVMC 3.—bidding exceptions) Speed Limits(overall system) Budget,2013 amendment Spokane Valley Day at the Fair(Sept 10,2013) Budget workshop for 2014(early June?) SRTC Interlocal (amended) CDBG(spring 2013) Stormwater Capital Projects Coal Train EIS Regional Transportation Issues Crime Reporting TIP(June,for six yr 2014-2019) Future Acquisition Areas Gateway,Regional MOU *time for public or Council comments not included Governance Manual Manufactured Home Zoning PEG Funds (Education) Draft Advance Agenda 2/28/2013 10:56:53 AM Page 2 of 2 Spokane 1Talley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509,921.1008 • cityhall®spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager From: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director 1" Date: February 25, 2013 Re Finance Department Activity Report State of Washington Mandated Account Number Conversion All cities, counties and special districts across the State of Washington account for and report on financial activity based upon rules established by the State Auditor's Office that are in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). In 2011 the State Auditor's Office began a project to update the chart of accounts that is laid out in the Budgeting, Accounting and Reporting System (BARS) Manual, and beginning in the summer of 2012, municipalities across the State were provided with a materially updated chart of accounts. Finance staff have been working with Tyler/Eden (our financial management software vendor) to create a cross reference that ties the account numbers we have historically used with the new account numbers we will begin using in early 2013. The "behind the scenes" portion of the project was completed by the end of 2012 and the actual implementation occurred on January 1, 2013. We anticipate this will be an ongoing project through the first half of 2013 as we refine the account numbers we are using. 2012 Yearend Work We continue to work on closing the 2012 Books and hope to have this process complete by mid-March. This process typically continues into the month of March each year because we continue to receive additional information pertaining to both revenues and expenditures (particularly construction related activity). Following the closing of the books we will begin the process of preparing our annual financial report which will be finished by the end of May. We hope to have the State Auditor's Office on site by early June to begin the audit of 2012. City Hall Lease The City's lease from Northwest Christian Schools for City Hall space expires on March 31, 2013 and we have been engaged in negotiations with Web Properties for a lease extension. We plan to update the Council on this topic by way of an Administrative Report to be delivered at the March 5, 2013 Council meeting. Vehicle Purchase The 2013 Budget included $50,000 for the replacement of two S10 pickups used in the Community Development Department. Using the vehicles being offered through the Washington State Purchasing Contract as a template for the development of bid specifications, we contacted local dealerships and ultimately received the lowest quote from Gus Johnson Ford 14SV-FS21UserslmcalhounlFrnance Activity Reports1201212012 12 PRELIM!NARY.docx Pagel for the purchase of two Ford Escapes. These have been ordered and we anticipate they will arrive sometime in March. Bond Refinancing We are in the process of updating the Preliminary Official Statement for our bond underwriter, D.A. Davidson. Once this is approved we will work with D.A. Davidson to arrange a rating presentation and ultimate sale of the bonds and our bond attorney to begin the process of drafting a bond ordinance. Budget to Actual Comparison Report (pages 5— 17) A report reflecting 2012 Budget to Actual Revenues and Expenditures for those funds for which a 2012 Budget was adopted and subsequently amended is located on pages 5 through 17. It's important to keep in mind that the figures included are preliminary and we anticipate they will continue to change as a result of the fact we continue to receive invoices related to 2012 expenditure activity as well as some additional revenues. We will follow-up with Final 2012 figures once the books are closed. We've included the following information in the report: • Revenues by source for all funds, and expenditures by department in the General Fund and by type in all other funds. • A breakdown between recurring and nonrecurring revenues and expenditures in the General Fund #001, Street O&M Fund #101, and Stormwater Fund#402. • The change in fund balance including beginning and ending figures. The beginning fund balance figures are those that are reflected in our 2011 Annual Financial Report. • Columns of information include: o The 2012 Budget as adopted and subsequently amended on October 30, 2012. o December 2012 activity. o Cumulative 2012 activity through December 2012. o Budget remaining in terms of dollars. o The percent of budgeted revenue collected or budgeted expenditures disbursed. A few points related to the General Fund #001 (page 5): Recurring revenues collections are currently at 102.66% of the amount budgeted with 100.00% of the year elapsed. • Property taxes are paid to the Spokane County Treasurer's Office in two installments each year on April 30 and October 31 and then remitted to the City primarily in May and November with a smaller portion remitted in June and December. Our 2012 collections were within .09% or$9,777 of the amount budgeted, • Sales tax collections finished the year at $1,217,377 or 8.57% greater than budgeted. • Criminal justice sales taxes finished the year at $86,302 or 7.19% greater than budgeted. • Public safety sales taxes finished the year at $65,948 or 8.35% less than budgeted. • Gambling taxes have thus far finished the year at $544,543 or $95,457 (14.92%) less than budgeted. We currently anticipate that by the time we close the 2012 books we will receive additional monies from some late payers. • Franchise Fee and Business Registration revenues are received in the month following a calendar year quarter. These have finished the year at $1,213,102 or$52,898 (4.18%) less than budgeted, • State shared revenues are composed of State of Washington distributions that include items such as liquor board profits, liquor excise tax, streamlined sales tax mitigation and criminal justice monies. These have finished the year at $2,087,861 or $253,561 (13.82%) greater than budgeted. 11SV-FS24Userslmcalhounl.Finance Activity Reports1201212012 12 PRELIMINARYdocx Page 2 • Service revenues are largely composed of building permit and plan review fees as well as false alarm fees and right of way permits. These have finished the year at $1,556,801 or $256,801 (1915%) greater than budgeted. • Fines and forfeitures revenues are composed of monthly remittances from Spokane County with payments made in the month following the actual assessment of a fine. These have finished the year at $1,269,641 or$630,359 (33.18%) less than budgeted. • Recreation program fees are composed of revenues generated by the variety of parks and recreation programs including classes, swimming pools (in-season), and CenterPlace. These have finished the year at $627,994 or$57,994 (10.1%) greater than budgeted. Recurring expenditures are currently at $33,056,869 or$1,603,531 (4.63%) less than budgeted. Investments (page 18) Investments at December 31st total $48,425,855 and are composed of$43,389,339 in the Washington State Local Government Investment Pool and $5,036,516 in bank CDs. Total Sales Tax Receipts (page 19) • For 2012, total sales tax receipts are $17,437,732 including general, criminal justice and public safety taxes. This figure is $596,285 (3.54%) greater than for the same 12-month period in 2011. Including the latter half of 2011, sales taxes have shown an impressive increase but an increase of just 1.31% in the March 2012 remittance and a decrease of 2.49% in the August remittance is a reminder that the economic recovery may still be tenuous. • When comparing 2011 and 2012 receipts for the months of May through July you'll note that 2 of the 3 months reflect reductions from the previous year. The decreases were expected and are the result of a 2011 Department of Revenue tax amnesty program that was in place for the three-month period ending April 30, 2011, in which nearly 8,900 business (state- wide) paid $320.7 million in state and local back taxes. Of the total, $56.8 million was local tax that was forwarded to counties and cities beginning with the May 2011 sales tax distribution and concluding with the July 2011 distribution. Unfortunately the Department of Revenue was unable to provide information on how much this actually generated for the cities or from which businesses. Consequently we have no way of determining how much the City of Spokane Valley benefited from the program. Economic Indicators (pages 20 —22) The following economic indicators provide information pertaining to three different sources of tax revenue that provide a good gauge of the health and direction of the overall economy. 1. Sales taxes (page 20) provide a sense of how much individuals and businesses are spending on the purchase of goods. 2. Hotel I Motel taxes (page 21) provide us with a sense of overnight stays and visits to our area by tourists or business travelers. 3. Real Estate Excise taxes (page 22) provide us with a sense of real estate sales. Page 20 provides a monthly history of general sales tax receipts (not including public safety or criminal justice) beginning with the first remittance received in May 2003. • Compared with calendar year 2011, 2012 collections have increased by $576,969 or 3.89%. • Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at $17.4 million and dropped off dramatically in the subsequent three years. Page 21 provides a monthly history of hotel/motel tax receipts beginning with the first remittance in May 2003. • Compared with calendar year 2011, 2012 collections have increased by $32,401 or 7.08%. IISV-FS21UsersUncalhounIcinance Activity Reports1201212012 12 PRELIMINARY.docx Page 3 • Collections peaked in 2007 and 2008, dropped off in 2009 (although significantly less than the drop in sales taxes) and are currently ahead of the highs of 2008. Page 22 provides a monthly history of real estate excise tax receipts beginning with the first remittance in March 2003. • Compared with calendar year 2011, 2012 collections have increased by $224,956 or 23.41%. • Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at nearly $2.6 million, decreased precipitously in 2008 and 2009, and appear to have leveled off in 2010 and 2011. Debt Capacity and Bonds Outstanding (page 23) This page provides information on the City's debt capacity, or the dollar amount of General Obligation (0.0.) Bonds the City may issue, as well as an amortization schedule of the bonds the City currently has outstanding. • The maximum amount of G.O. bonds the City may issue is determined by assessed property values determined by the Spokane County Assessor. The 2012 assessed value for 2013 property taxes is $6,921,825,295. Following the City's December 1, 2012 bond payment, the City has $7,690,000 of nonvoted G.O. bonds outstanding which represents 7.41% of our nonvoted bond capacity, and 1.48% of our total debt capacity for all types of bonds. • The $7,690,000 of bonds the City currently has outstanding is part of the 2003 nonvoted (LTGO) bond issue. Of this amount: o $6,130,000 remains on bonds issued for the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds are repaid with a portion of the 1/10 of 1% sales tax that is collected by the Spokane Public Facilities District. o $1,560,000 remains on bonds issued for road and street improvements around CenterPlace. The bonds are repaid with a portion of the real estate excise tax collected by the City. 11SV-FS21UserslmcalhounlFinance Activity Reports1201212012 12 PRELIMINARY.docx Page 4 P:IFinancelFor City Council\Council Monthly Reports1201212012 12 31 report PRELIMINARY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2012 2012- Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December Dec.31 Remaining Budget '#001 -GENERAL FUND I [RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Property Tax 10,808,900 565,435 10,799,123 (9,777) 99.91% Sales Tax 14,210,000 2,672,769 15,427,377 1,217,377 108.57% Criminal Justice Tax 1,200,000 218,942 1,286,302 86,302 107.19% Public safety Sales Tax 790,000 122,599 724,052 (65,948) 91.65% Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 640,000 93,395 544,543 (95,457) 85.08% Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,266,000 299,383 1,213,102 (52,898) 95.82% State Shared Revenues 1,834,300 460,709 2,087,861 253,561 113.82% Service Revenues 1,300,000 105,886 1,556,801 256,801 119.75% Fines and Forfeitures 1,900,000 193,985 1,269,641 (630,359) 66.82% Recreation Program Fees 570,000 23,235 627,994 57,994 110.17% Miscellaneous&Investment Interest 305,000 46,190 216,096 (88,904) 70.85% Transfer-in -#101 (street admin) 39,600 3,300 39,600 0 100.00% Transfer-in -#105(him tax-CP advertising) 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 100.00% Transfer-in -#402(storm admin) 15,000 1,250 15,000 0 100.00% Total Recurring Revenues 34,908,800 4,837,080 35,837,493 928,693 102.66% Expenditures City Council 386,249 29,214 340,995 45,254 88.28% City Manager 631,667 50,031 583,251 48,416 92.34% Legal 434,798 35,558 443,081 (8,283) 101.91% Public Safety 22,000,000 2,948,143 21,867,433 132,567 99.40% Deputy City Manager 658,884 37,256 429,964 228,920 65.26% Finance 1,047,107 81,475 920,813 126,294 87.94% Human Resources 230,231 20,166 212,079 18,152 92.12% Public Works 901,519 61,479 647,169 254,350 71.79% Community Development-Administration 323,743 23,841 304,103 19,640 93.93% Community Development-Engineering 680,796 70,083 684,650 (3,854) 100.57% Community Development-Planning 994,245 90,297 834,611 159,634 83.94% Community Development-Building 1,260,454 114,446 1,187,494 72,960 94.21% Parks&Rec-Administration 263,128 24,401 258,415 4,713 98,21% Parks&Rec-Maintenance 803,700 125,465 757,314 46,386 94.23% Parks&Rec-Recreation 229,811 14,393 206,895 22,916 90.03% Parks&Rec-Aquatics 442,250 7,083 439,296 2,954 99.33% Parks&Rec-Senior Center 92,961 6,297 86,198 6,763 92,72% Parks&Rec-CenterPlace 1,119,357 113,552 1,110,938 8,419 99.25% General Government 1,840,500 263,861 1,423,170 417,330 77.33% Transfers out-#502(insurance premium) 319,000 26,583 319,000 0 100.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 34,660,400 4,143,624 33,056,869 1,603,531 95.37% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 248,400 693,455 2,780,624 2,532,224 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues n/a 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 0 0 0 #DIV/Ol Expenditures Contingency/Emergency(1%of recur exp) 346,600 0 0 346,600 0.00% Transfers out-#303 89,500 0 64,750 24,750 72.35% Transfers out-#309(park grant match) 100,000 14,583 106,250 (6,250) 106.25% Transfers out-#311 (100%)$26million) 2,045,203 2,045,203 2,045,203 0 100.00% Building permit software purchase 81,692 0 86,229 (4,537) 105.55% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 2,662,995 2,059,786 2,302,432 360,563 86.46% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (2,662,995) (2,059,786) _ (2,302,432) 360,563 Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (2,414,595) (1,366,331) 478,192 2,892,787 Beginning fund balance 28,045,203 28,045,203 Ending fund balance 25,630,608 28,523,395 Page 5 P:IFinancelFor City Council\Council Monthly Reports1201 21201 2 12 31 report PRELIMINARY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2012 2012 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December Dec.31 Remaining Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS I #101 -STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 1,897,800 300,547 1,846,990 (50,810) 97.32% Investment Interest 5,000 633 4,056 (944) 81,12% Insurance Premiums&Recoveries 0 0 12,014 12,014 #DIV/0! Utility Tax 3,000,000 447,203 2,735,469 (264,531) 91.18% Miscellaneous Revenue 0 1,693 1,843 1,843 #DIV/O! Total Recurring Revenues 4,902,800 750,076 4,600,372 (302,428) 93.83% Expenditures Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 522,142 63,180 572,350 (50,208) 109.62% Supplies 72,200 80,195 533,996 (461,796) 739.61% Services&Charges 3,310,321 211,503 2,565,862 744,459 77.51% intergovernmental Payments 847,000 95,919 722,688 124,312 85.32% Interfund Transfers-out-#001 39,600 3,300 39,600 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers-out-#103(MVFT) 0 0 0 0 #DIV/OI Interfund Transfers-out-#501 (plow replace.) 100,000 8,333 100,000 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Streets Misc.projects 0 0 0 0 #DIVIO! Total Recurring Expenditures 4,891,263 462,430 4,534,494 356,769 92.71% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 11,537 287,646 65,878 54,341 [NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grants 0 47,259 203,585 203,585 #DIV/01 Utility Taxes 0 15 15 15 #DIV/0! Interfund Transfers in-#001 0 0 0 0 #DIV/Of Interfund Transfers in-#122 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Interfund Transfers in-#302 0 6,717 9,734 9,734 #DIV/O! Interfund Transfers in-#402 0 0 0 0 #DIVIO! Miscellaneous 0 18,173 20,558 20,558 #DIVIO! Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 72,164 233,892 233,892 #DIVIO! Expenditures Bridge/Street Maintenance 0 0 1,402 (1,402) #DIVIO! Interfund Transfers-out-#303(Evergreen Rd) 500,000 12,815 455,453 44,547 91.09% Grant financed capital 0 29,135 69,544 (69,544) #DIVI01 Capital Outlay 40,000 0 18,000 22,000 45.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 540,000 41,951 544,400 (4,400) 100.81% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (540,000) 30,213 (310,508) 229,492 Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (528,463) 317,859 (244,630) 283,833 Beginning fund balance 2,489,734 2,489,734 Ending fund balance 1,961,271 2,245,104 Page 6 P:IFinance\For City Council\Council Monthly Reports1201212012 12 31 report PRELIMINARY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2012 2012 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December Dec.31 Remaining Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued 102-Arterial Street Fund Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 Expenditures Interfund Transfers-out-#303 207,447 0 207,447 0 100.00% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 #DIVI0! Total expenditures 207,447 0 207,447 0 100.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures (207,447) 0 (207,447) 0 Beginning fund balance 207,447 207,447 Ending fund balance 0 0 #103-PATHS&TRAILS Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 8,000 7,790 7,790 (210) 97.38% Investment Interest 0 11 67 67 #DIVI01 Total revenues 8,000 7,801 7,857 (143) 98.21% Expenditures Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 #01V10! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 #01V10! Revenues over(under)expenditures 8,000 7,801 7,857 (143) Beginning fund balance 56,084 56,084 Ending fund balance 64,084 63,941 #105-HOTEL I MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 430,000 69,733 490,004 60,004 113.95% Investment Interest 700 125 592 (108) 84.57% Total revenues 430,700 69,858 490,596 59,896 113.91% Expenditures interfund Transfers-#001 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 100.00% Tourism Promotion 540,200 112,720 511,756 28,444 94.73% Total expenditures 570,200 142,720 541,756 28,444 95.01% Revenues over(under)expenditures (139,500) (72,862) (51,160) 31,452 Beginning fund balance 257,932 257,932 Ending fund balance 118,432 206,772 Page 7 P:1Finance\For City Council\Council Monthly Reports1201212012 12 31 report PRELIMINARY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2012 2012 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December Dec.31 Remaining Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #120-CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 700 0 0 (700) 0.00% Total revenues 700 0 0 (700) 0.00% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! Revenues over(under)expenditures 700 0 0 (700) Beginning fund balance 350,787 350,787 Ending fund balance 351,487 350,787 #121 -SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 10,000 1,564 9,103 (897) 91.03% Total revenues 10,000 1,564 9,103 (897) 91.03% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Revenues over(under)expenditures 10,000 1,564 9,103 _ (897) Beginning fund balance 5,432,428 5,432,428 Ending fund balance 5,442,428 5,441,531 #122-WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 700 152 883 183 126.14% Subtotal revenues 700 152 883 183 126.14% Expenditures Reserve for Winter Weather 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 #DIV101 Revenues over(under)expenditures 700 152 883 183 Beginning fund balance 502,005 502,005 Ending fund balance 502,705 502,888 #123-CIVIC FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 2,000 361 2,099 99 104.95% Interfund Transfer-4001 397,000 33,063 397,000 0 100.00% Total revenues 399,000 33,444 399,099 99 100.02% Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 #DIVIO! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 #DIVIO! Revenues over(under)expenditures 399,000 33,444 399,099 99 Beginning fund balance 2,004,848 2,004,848 Ending fund balance 2,403,848 2,403,947 Page 8 P:1Finance\For City CouncillCouncil Monthly Reports1201212012 12 31 report PRELIMINARY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2012 2012 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December Dec.31 Remaining Budget [DEBT SERVICE FUNDS #204-DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 432,320 0 432,320 0 100.00% Interfund Transfer-in-#301 92,652 0 92,652 0 100.00% Interfund Transfer-in-#302 92,651 0 92,651 0 100.00% Total revenues 617,623 0 617,623 0 100.00% Expenditures Debt Service Payments-CenterPlace 432,320 36,427 432,647 (327) 100.08% Debt Service Payments-Roads 185,303 15,325 185,186 117 99.94% Total expenditures 617,623 51,752 617,833 (210) 100.03% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 (51,752) (210) 210 Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 (210) Page 9 P,\FinancelFor City Council\Council Monthly Reports1201 21201 2 12 31 report PRELIMINARY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2012 2012 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December Dec.31 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #301-CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 Taxes 475,000 89,594 654,264 179,264 137.74% Investment Interest 400 234 1,204 804 301.00% Total revenues 475,400 89,828 655,468 180,068 137.88% Expenditures Interfund Transfer-out-#204 92,652 0 92,652 0 100.00% Interfund Transfer-out-#303 363,627 (2,334) 255,659 107,968 70.31% Interfund Transfer-out-#307 0 (1,203) (1,203) Total expenditures 456,279 (3,537) 347,108 107,968 76.07% Revenues over(under)expenditures 19,121 93,365 308,360 72,100 Beginning fund balance 772,072 772,072 Ending fund balance 791,193 1,080,432 #302 SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REST 2-Taxes 475,000 89,591 531,442 56,442 111.88% investment Interest 2,000 303 1,762 (238) 88.10% Interfund Transfer-in-#307 0 0 4,393 4,393 #DIVf0! Total revenues 477,000 89,894 537,597 60,597 112.70% Expenditures Interfund Transfer-out-#101 0 6,717 9,734 (9,734) #DIV/01 Interfund Transfer-out-#204 92,651 0 92,651 0 100.00% Interfund Transfer-out-#303 1,448,059 261,557 983,669 464,390 67.93% Interfund Transfer-out-#307 0 (173,470) (173,470) 173,470 #DIV101 Total expenditures 1,540,710 94,804 912,584 628,126 59.23% Revenues over(under)expenditures (1,063,710) (4,910) (374,987) (567,529) Beginning fund balance 1,630,303 1,630,303 Ending fund balance 566,593 1,255,316 Page 10 P:1FinancelFor City CouncillCouncil Monthly Reports1201212012 12 31 report PRELIMINARY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2012 2012 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December Dec.31 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #303 STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 7,828,118 951,035 3,683,274 (4,144,844) 47.05% Developer Contribution 275,000 0 760,768 485,768 276.64% Miscellaneous 0 0 1,650 1,650 #DIV/0! Spokane County Reirnb.48th&Sundown 0 65,901 65,901 65,901 #DIVIO! Interfund Transfer-In-#001 89,000 0 64,750 (24,250) 72.75% Interfund Transfer-!n-#101 0 12,815 455,453 455,453 #DIV/01 Interfund Transfer-in-#102 0 0 207,447 207,447 #DIVI01 Interfund Transfer-in-#301 363,627 (2,334) 255,659 (107,968) 70.31% Interfund Transfer-in-#302 1,448,059 261,557 983,669 (464,390) 67.93% Interfurid Transfer-in-#310 0 140,139 140,139 140,139 #DIV/01 Interfund Transfer-in-#311 811,000 27,073 299,027 (511,973) 36.87% Interfund Transfer-in-#402 0 94,404 113,014 113,014 #DIV/0! Total revenues 10,814,804 1,550,590 7,030,751 (3,784,053) 65.01% Expenditures 005 Pines/Mansfield,Wilbur Rd.to Pines 463,312 120 45,956 417,356 9.92% 060 Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrade SRTC 06-31 802,792 5,405 109,948 692,844 13.70% 061 Pines(SR27)ITS Imporvement SRTC 06-26 1,766,201 5,338 196,503 1,569,698 11.13% 063 Broadway Ave Safety Project-Pines 0 0 1,747 (1,747) #DIV/01 065 Sprague/Sullivan 0 0 (7,240) 7,240 #DIV/0! 069 Park Road Reconstruction#2 0 0 1,019 (1,019) #DIV/01 106 West Ponderosa/48th&Sundown STEP 0 1,266 138,303 (138,303) #DIV/01 112 Indiana Avenue Extension 0 270 53,791 (53,791) #DIV/01 113 Indiana/Sullivan PCC Intersection 0 0 1,435 (1,435) #DIV/01 115 Sprague Ave Resurfacing-Evergreen to Sullivan 1,582,000 29,424 2,825,760 (1,243,760) 178.62% 123 Mission Ave-Flora to Barker 300,000 0 109 299,891 0.04% 141 Sullivan&Euclid FCC 26,289 171 8,720 17,569 33.17% 142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 138,150 109 1,255 136,895 0.91% 145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail 447,000 0 3,834 443,166 0.86% 146 24th Ave Sidewalk-Adams to Sullivan 278,520 0 43,091 235,429 15.47% 148 Greenacres Trail-Design 60,000 0 2,816 57,185 4.69% 149 Sidewalk Infill 398,250 128,108 530,347 (132,097) 133.17% 151 Green Haven STEP 0 92,149 93,459 (93,459) #DIV10! 154 Sidewalk&Tansit Stop Accessibility 182,290 99,390 233,859 (51,569) 128.29% 155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 600,000 395,546 949,390 (349,390) 158.23% 156 Mansfield Ave.Connection 738,000 8,420 21,996 716,004 2.98% 157 Temporary Sullivan Bridge Repairs 200,000 31 192,039 7,961 96.02% 159 University Rd/1-90 Overpass Study 284,000 4,585 5,336 278,664 1.88% 160 Evergreen Rd Pres. 16th-32nd 959,000 24,457 1,677,723 (718,723) 174.95% 166 Pines Rd. (SR27)&Grace Ave. Int.Safety 0 (105) 0 0 #DIVI01 167 Citywide Safety Improvements 0 563 841 (841) #DIV/0! 168 Wellesley Ave Sidewalk&Adams Rd Sidewalk 0 25,661 27,137 (27,137) #DIV10! 169 ArgonnelMullan Safety Indiana-Broadway 0 (258) 0 0 #DIV/0! 170 Argonne road: Empire Ave-Knox Ave. 0 (285) 0 0 #DIV/0! 171 Sprague Ave ADA Curb Ramp Project 0 5,214 10,429 (10,429) #DIV/0! Contingency 1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000 0.00% Total expenditures 10,725,804 825,579 7,169,602 3,556,202 66.84% Revenues over(under)expenditures 89,000 725,011 (138,851) (7,340,255) Beginning fund balance 73,646 73,646 Ending fund balance 162,646 (65,205) Page 11 P:IFinancelFor City Council\Council Monthly Reports12012i2012 12 31 report PRELIMINARY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2012 2012 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December Dec.31 Remaining Budget 'CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #304-MIRABEAU PROJECTS FUND Revenues Other Miscellaneous Revenue 0 0 0 0 #DIV101 Investment Interest 14 8 47 33 335.71% Total revenues 14 8 47 33 335.71% Expenditures Capital Outlays 44,361 44,390 44,390 (29) 100.07% Transfers 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 Total expenditures 44,361 44,390 44,390 (29) 100.07% Revenues over(under)expenditures (44,347) (44,382) (44,343) 62 Beginning fund balance 44,347 44,347 Ending fund balance 0 4 #307-CAPITAL GRANTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 0 0 183,535 183,535 #DJV101 Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 #DIV10? Interfund Transfer-in-#301 0 (1,203) (1,203) (1,203) #DIV/0? Interfund Transfer-in-#302 0 (173,470) (173,470) (173,470) #DIV10! Total revenues 0 (174,673) 8,862 8,862 #DIVIO? Expenditures 068 Interfund Transfer-out-#302 0 0 4,393 (4,393) #DIV/0l 088 Broadway-Moore to Flora 0 0 4,469 (4,469) #DIV/0! Total expenditures 0 0 8,862 (8,862) #DIV/0! Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 (174,673) 0 17,724 Beginning fund balance 147 147 Ending fund balance 147 147 Page 12 P:Winance\For City CouncillCouncil Monthly Reports1201212012 12 31 report PRELIMINARY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 'Budget Year Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2012 2012 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December Dec.31 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #308-BARKER BRIDGE FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Developer Contribution 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Interfund Transfer-in-#302 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0l Total revenues 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Expenditures #DIV/0! Bridge Reconstruction 0 0 0 0 #DIVl0! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 0 #309-PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 Interfund Transfer-in-#001 129,202 14,583 106,250 (22,952) 82.24% Interfund Transfer-in-#304 44,361 0 0 (44,361) 0.00% Investment Interest 0 140 845 845 #DIV/O! Total revenues 173,563 14,723 107,095 (66,468) 61.70% Expenditures 079 Greenacres Park 0 0 10,642 (10,642) #DIVIO! 165 Terrace View Park Play Equipment 120,000 61,811 166,933 (46,933) 139.11% 172 CenterPlace South Landsscape Development 73,563 (42,972) 38,365 35,198 52.15% Contingency 50,000 0 0 50,000 0.00% Total expenditures 243,563 18,839 215,940 27,623 88.66% Revenues over(under)expenditures (70,000) (4,116) (108,845) (94,091) Beginning fund balance 411,151 _ 411,151 Ending fund balance 341,151 302,306 Page 13 P:\Finance\For City Council\Counci!Monthly Reports 1201212012 12 31 report PRELIMINARY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget Year Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2012 2012 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December Dec.31 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #310-CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Spokane County Reimb.48th&Sundown 78,500 0 0 (78,500) 0.00% Spokane County Library Dist.Pring Prop. 744,048 5,909 7,577 (736,471) 1.02% Investment Interest 6,000 397 5,349 (651) 89.15% Total revenues 828,548 6,306 12,926 (815,622) 1.56% Expenditures 164 Capital-West Gateway at Thierman 120,000 69,227 88,559 31,441 73.80% Acquisition of Sprague Property 2,500,000 0 2,501,668 (1,668) 100.07% Prof,Svc related to purchase of Pring Prop 30,000 818 29,109 891 97.03% STEP Greenhaven 118,000 0 0 118,000 0.00% STEP-48th&Sundown 173,500 0 0 173,500 0.00% Interfund Transfers-out-#303 0 140,139 140,139 (140,139) #DIV/O! Total expenditures 2,941,500 210,154 2,759,475 182,025 93.81% Revenues over(under)expenditures (2,112,952) (203,878) (2,746,549) (997,647) Beginning fund balance 3,856,624 3,856,624 Ending fund balance 1,743,672 1,110,075 #311 -STREET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 2011+ Revenues Miscellaneous 0 0 300 300 #DIV/0! Interfund Transfers in-#001 (xx°%>.26mm) 2,045,203 2,045,203 2,045,203 0 100.00% Investment Interest 2,200 0 0 (2,200) 0.00% Total revenues 2,047,403 2,045,203 2,045,503 (1,900) 99.91% Expenditures 162 2012 Street Preservation 2,818,883 54,499 1,734,448 1,084,435 61.53% 174 2013 Street Preservation 0 30,024 30,024 (30,024) #DIV/0! Interfund Transfers-out-#303-Sullivan 200,000 31 192,039 7,961 96.02% Interfund Transfers-out-#303-Evergreen 111,000 27,043 106,988 4,012 96.39% Total expenditures 3,129,883 111,597 2,063,499 1,066,384 65.93% Revenues over(under)expenditures (1,082,480) 1,933,606 (17,996) (1,068,284) Beginning fund balance 1,084,681 1,084,681 Ending fund balance 2,201 1,066,685 Page 14 P:1FinancelFor City Council\Council Monthly Reports1201212012 12 31 report PRELIMINARY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 1oa0A For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2012 2012 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December Dec. 31 Remaining Budget ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402-STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Stormwater Management Fees 1,750,000 125,301 1,834,740 84,740 104.84% Investment Interest 5,000 447 2,601 (2,399) 52.02% Miscellaneous 0 0 57 57 #DIV/0! Total Recurring Revenues 1,755,000 125,748 1,837,398 82,398 104,70% Expenditures Wages/Benefits 1 Payroll Taxes 438,614 32,962 373,893 64,721 85.24% Supplies 32,540 1,448 12,158 20,382 37.36% Services&Charges 1,242,720 152,867 1,034,748 207,972 83.26% Intergovernmental Payments 23,000 0 24,422 (1,422) 106.18% Interfund Transfers-out-#001 15,000 1,250 15,000 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers-out-#502 1,567 131 1,567 0 100.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 1,753,441 188,658 1,461,788 291,653 83.37% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 1,559 (62,910) 375,610 374,051 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 153,667 0 64,838 (88,829) 42.19% Interfund Transfers-in 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! Total Nonrecurring Revenues 153,667 0 64,838 (88,829) 42.19% Expenditures Capital-various projects 400,000 11,286 32,571 367,429 8.14% Interfund Transfers-out-#303 0 94,404 113,014 (113,014) #DIV/0! Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 400,000 105,690 145,585 254,415 36.40% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (246,333) (105,690) (80,747) 165,586 Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (244,774) (168,600) 294,862 539,636 Beginning working capital 2,382,660 2,382,660 Ending working capital 2,137,886 2,677,522 Page 15 P:IFinancelFor City Council\Council Monthly Reports1201212012 12 31 report PRELIMINARY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures ,Elapsed= 10a.o% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2012 2012 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December Dec.31 Remaining Budget LNTERPRISE FUNDS-continued #403-AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 500,000 237,593 510,934 10,934 102.19% Sprague swale Upgrades-DOE Grant 686,622 0 96,290 (570,332) 14.44% Investment Interest 2,500 0 0 (2,500) 0.00% Total revenues 1,169,122 237,593 607,224 (561,898) 51.94% Expenditures Sprague swales 1,171,411 229,003 1,133,211 38,200 96.74% Total expenditures 1,171,411 229,003 1,133,211 38,200 96.74% Revenues over(under)expenditures (2,289) 8,590 (525,987) (600,098) Beginning working capital 417,326 417,326 Ending working capital 415,037 (108,661) Page 16 P:1Finance\For City Council\Council Monthly Reports1201212012 12 31 report PRELIMINARY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2012 2012 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December Dec.31 Remaining Budget INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS #501 -ER&R FUND Revenues lnterfund Transfer-in-#001 0 1,612 19,344 19,344 #DIV/0! Interfund Transfer-in-#101 (plow replace.) 100,000 8,333 100,000 0 100.00% Investment Interest 0 264 1,498 1,498 #DIV/0! Total revenues 100,000 10,209 120,842 20,842 120.84% Expenditures Computer replacement lease 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Software/Hardware replacement 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0l Vehicle Replacement 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Revenues over(under)expenditures 100,000 10,209 120,842 20,842 Beginning working capital 932,335 932,335 Ending working capital 1,032,335 1,053,177 #502-RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 2 9 9 #D1V/0! lnterfund Transfer-#001 319,000 26,583 319,000 0 100.00% Total revenues 319,000 26,585 319,009 9 100,00% Expenditures Services&Charges 319,000 1,542 266,387 52,613 83.51% Total expenditures 319,000 1,542 266,387 52,613 83.51% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 25,043 52,622 (52,604) Beginning working capital 30,590 30,590 Ending working capital 30,590 83,212 Page 17 P,1FinancelFor City CouncillCouncil Monthly Reports1201212012 12 31 report PRELIMINARY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2/25/2013 Investment Report For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31, 2012 Total LG!P* BB CD 2 BB CD 3 Investments Beginning $ 41,293,369.92 $ 3,036,515.74 $ 2,000,000,00 $ 46,329,885.66 Deposits 2,087,713.29 0.00 0.00 2,087,713.29 Withdrawls 0.00 0.00 (3,501.65) (3,501.65) Interest 8,255.93 0.00 3,501.65 11,757.58 Ending $ 43,389,339.14 $ 3,036,515.74 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 48,425,854.88 matures: 6/28/2013 11/4/2013 rate: 0.65% 0.29% Earnings Balance Current Period I Year to date Budget . 001 General Fund $ 30,676,653.16 $ 5,635.39 $ 77,643.24 $ 145,000.00 101 Street Fund 2,083,856.72 357.45 3,780.45 5,000.00 103 Trails & Paths 37,911.92 6.46 61.62 0.00 105 Hotel/Motel 412,862.68 70.39 537.55 700,00 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 332,958.41 0.00 0.00 700.00 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 5,182,061.99 883.47 8,422.31 10,000.00 122 Winter Weather Reserve 502,652.20 85.70 816.95 700.00 123 Civic Facilities Replacement 1,194,873.22 203.71 1,942.01 2,000.00 301 Capital Projects 774,633,35 132.06 1,102.11 400.00 302 Special Capital Projects 1,002,793.36 170.96 1,629.82 2,000.00 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 12,815.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 304 Mirabeau Point Project 26,469.68 4.51 43.02 0.00 307 Capital Grants Fund (26,469.68) 0.00 0.00 0.00 309 Parks Capital Project 490,313.82 79.08 783.99 0.00 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 1,316,183.86 224.39 5,175.92 6,000.00 311 Street Capital Improvements 2011+ 2,045,202.63 0.00 0.00 2,200.00 402 Stormwater Management 1,480,853.21 252.46 2,406.80 5,000.00 403 Aquifer Protection Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,500.00 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 874,136,97 149.03 1,383.26 0.00 502 Risk Management 5,091.93 0.87 8.28 0.00 $ 48,425,854.88 $ 8,255.93 $ 105,737.33 $ 182,200.00 *Local Government Investment Pool Page 18 P:1Finance\For City CouncillCouncil Monthly Reports1201212012 12 31 report PRELIMINARY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2/20/2013 Sales Tax Receipts For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31, 2012 Month Difference Received 2011 2012 February 1,658,132.70 1,792,084.16 133,951.46 8.08% March 1,130,948.29 1,145,747.45 14,799.16 1.31% April 1,149,418.90 1,208,053.80 58,634.90 5.10% May 1,451,954.28 1,440,245.01 (11,709.27) (0.81%) June 1,345,333.29 1,325,266.87 (20,066.42) (1.49%) July 1,415,961.55 1,458,841.23 42,879.68 3.03% August 1,520,766.09 1,482,908.83 (37,857.26) (2.49%) September 1,448,728.86 1,470,215.17 21,486.31 1.48% October 1,464,653.60 1,558,848.71 94,195.11 6.43% November 1,463,313.06 1,541,210.69 77,897.63 5.32% December 1,381,684.76 1,523,377.53 141,692.77 10.26% January 1,410,552.03 1,490,932.65 80,380.62 5.70% 16,841,447.41 17,437,732.10 596,284.69 3.54% Sales tax receipts reported here reflect remittances for general sales tax, criminal justice sales tax and public safety tax. The sales tax rate for retail sales transacted within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley is 8.7%. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the vendor to the Washington State Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to the various agencies that have imposed the tax. The allocation of the total 8.7% tax rate to the agencies is as follows: - State of Washington 6.50% - City of Spokane Valley 0.85% - Spokane County 0.15% - Spokane Public Facilities District 0.10% * - Crminial Justice 0.10% * - Public Safety 0.10% * 2.20% local tax - Juvenile Jail 0.10% * - Mental Health 0.10% * - Law Enforcement Communications 0.10% * - Spokane Transit Authority 0.60% 8.70% Indicates voter approved sales taxes In addition to the .85% reported above that the City receives, we also receive a portion of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety sales taxes. The distribution of those taxes is computed as follows: Criminal Justice: The tax is assessed county-wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 10% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the County and the cities within the County. Public Safety: The tax is assessed county-wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 60% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County. Page 19 11SV-FS21Userstmcalhoun\Tax Revenue\Sales Taxt2012tsales tax collections through 12 2012 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2/1412013 Sales Tax Collections- December For the years 2003 through 2012 lik 4-t... 2012 to 2011 Difference 2003 1 2004 I 2005 I 2006 I 2007 I 2008 1 2009 I 2010 I 2011 I 2012 $ % January 0 1,145,888 1,367,929 1,572,609 1,759,531 1,729,680 1,484,350 1,491,059 1,460,548 1,589,887 129,339 8.86% February 0 962,431 917,747 1,068,743 1,155,947 1,129,765 1,098,575 963,749 990,157 1,009,389 19,232 1.94% March 0 909,472 1,015,573 1,072,330 1,196,575 1,219,611 1,068,811 1,018,468 1,015,762 1,067,733 51,971 5.12% April 0 1,080,745 1,322,070 1,371,030 1,479,603 1,423,459 1,134,552 1,184,137 1,284,180 1,277,621 (6,559) (0.51%) May 519,943 1,263,176 1,159,647 1,392,111 1,353,013 1,243,259 1,098,054 1,102,523 1,187,737 1,174,962 (12,775) (1.08%) June 747,486 1,123,171 1,212,663 1,362,737 1,428,868 1,386,908 1,151,772 1,123,907 1,248,218 1,290,976 42,758 3.43% July 821,741 1,301,359 1,377,753 1,555,124 1,579,586 1,519,846 1,309,401 1,260,873 1,332,834 1,302,706 (30,128) (2.26%) August 1,306,427 1,162,356 1,395,952 1,405,983 1,516,324 1,377,943 1,212,531 1,211,450 1,279,500 1,299,678 20,178 1.58% September 1,390,452 1,160,787 1,372,081 1,487,155 1,546,705 1,364,963 1,227,813 1,191,558 1,294,403 1,383,123 88,720 6.85% October 1,172,591 1,274,680 1,520,176 1,526,910 1,601,038 1,344,217 1,236,493 1,269,505 1,291,217 1,358,533 67,316 5.21% November 963,163 1,091,721 1,095,566 1,369,940 1,443,843 1,292,327 1,155,647 1,139,058 1,217,933 1,349,580 131,647 10.81% December 973,505 1,085,827 1,286,191 1,366,281 1,376,434 1,129,050 1,070,245 1,141,012 1,247,920 1,323,189 75,269 6.03% Total Collections 7,895,308 13,561,613 15,043,348 16,550,953 17,437,467 16,161,028 14,248,244 14,097,299 14,850,409 15,427,377 576,969 3.89% Budget Estimate 9,100,000 11,000,000 12,280,000 16,002,000 17,466,800 17,115,800 17,860,000 14,410,000 14,210,000 14,210,000 Actual over(under)budg (1,204,692) 2,561,613 2,763,348 548,953 (29,333) (954,772) (3,611,756) (312,701) 640,409 1,217,377 Total actual collections as a%of total budget 86.76% 123.29% 122.50% 103.43% 99.83% 94.42% 79,78% 97.83% 104.51% 108.57%© %change in annual total collected n/a 71.77% 10.93% 10.02% 5.36% (7.32%) (11.84%.) (1.06%) 5.34% 3.89% Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of December 20,000,000 _-December 18,000,000 - 7 November 16,000,000 -— - o October 14,000,000 - -- - -September 12,000,000 10,000,000 ■August 8,000,aQO III IIII .- a July � `June 6,000,000 P:f .__ e May M.4,000,000 :tea: - '-'-' Vat* w r ■April 2,000,000 _ 1 March 0 r , •February 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Page 20 11SV-FS211.1serslmcalhoun\Tax RevenuelLodging Tax120121105 hotel motel tax through 2012 12 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2/14/2013 Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts through- December Actual for the years 2003 through 2012 rO 1`-- 2012 to 2011 Difference 2003 1 2004 I 2005 J 2006 ] 2007 _ 2008 1 2009 I 2010 I 2011 I 2012 $ % January 0.00 16,993.58 20,691.03 20,653.49 25,137.92 28,946.96 23,280.21 22,706.96 22,212.21 21,442.32 (770) (3.47%) February 0.00 18,161.04 19,976.81 20,946.09 25,310.66 24,623.06 23,283.95 23,416.94 22,792.14 21,548.82 (1,243) (5.46%) March 0.00 18,182.01 22,828.15 24,308.48 29,190.35 27,509.99 25,272.02 24,232.35 24,611.28 25,654.64 1,043 4.24% April 0.00 26,897.82 29,748.41 34,371.82 37,950.53 40,406.02 36,253.63 39,463.49 38,230.49 52,130.37 13,900 36.36% May 11,527.32 16,440.37 29,017,66 32,522.06 31,371.01 36,828.53 32,588.80 34,683.32 33,790.69 37,478.44 3,688 10.91% June 32,512.11 53,284.01 35,330.35 34,256.71 36,267.07 46,659.88 40,414.59 39,935.36 41,403.41 43,970.70 2,567 6.20% July 38,580.48 42,120.26 43,841.82 49,744.62 56,281.99 50,421.37 43,950.26 47,385.18 49,311.97 52,818.60 3,507 7.11% August 54,974.74 43,649.84 46,852.10 45,916.16 51,120.70 50,818.35 50,146.56 54,922.99 57,451.68 57,229.23 (222) (0.39%) September 30,718.23 39,390.66 46,746.18 50,126.53 57,260.34 60,711.89 50,817.62 59,418.96 58,908.16 64,298.70 5,391 9.15% October 36,960.11 33,004.62 34,966.85 38,674.17 43,969.74 38,290.46 36,784.36 41,272.35 39,028.08 43,698.90 4,671 11.97% November 23,044.56 32,176.61 26,089.36 36,417.11 36,340.64 35,582.59 34,054.79 34,329.78 37,339.36 39,301.22 1,962 5.25% December 28,825,30 23,142.70 31,740.18 29,147.15 31,377.41 26,290.11 27,131.43 26,776.84 32,523.19 30,432.13 (2,091) (6.43%) Total Collections 257,142.85 363,443.52 387,828.90 417,084.39 461,578.36 467,089.21 423,978.22 448,544.52 457,602.66 490,004.07 32,401 7.08% Budget Estimate 419,000.00 380,000.00 436,827.00 350,000.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 512,000.00 380,000.00 480,000.00 430,000.00 Actual over(under)budg (161,857.15) (16,556.48) (48,998.10) 67,084.39 61,578.36 67,089.21 (88,021.78) 68,544.52 (22,397.34) 60,004.07 Total actual collections as a%of total budget 61.37% 95.64% 88.78% 119.17% 115.39% 116.77% 82.81% 118.04% 95.33% n/a %change in annual total collected n/a 41.34% 6.71% 7.54% 10.67% 1.19% (9.23%) 5.79% 2.02% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of December 600,000.00 December 500,000.00 - November s October 400,000.00 - September SIM- - ■August 300,000.00 ■July - . a .June ■ 200,000.00 i[May ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ •ii M March 100,000.00 ■ arch ,?-, IS—. -Iir - - ■. ■ •February ■ ■ ■ ■ 0.40 January 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Page 21 11SV-FS21Users\mcalhounhTax Revenue\REE112 0 1 21301 and 302 REET through 12 2012 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 1 11 512 0 1 3 1st and 2nd 1/4%REET Collections through December Actual for the years 2003 through 2012 ris 2012 to 2011 Difference 2003 I 2004 I 2005 I 2006 I 2007 I 2008 I 2009 I 2010 I 2011 1 2012 $ January 0.00 119,387.05 147,819.56 243,894.16 228,896.76 145,963.47 55,281.25 59,887.08 64,128.13 46,358.75 (17,769) (27.71%) February 0.00 83,795.78 128,082.35 172,154.72 129,919.79 159,503.34 45,180.53 64,121.61 36,443.36 56,114.56 19,671 53.98% March 0.00 195,121.93 198,013.09 182,065.71 263,834.60 133,513.35 73,306.86 86,204.41 95,879.78 71,729.67 (24,150) (25.19%) April 112,721.05 144,167.21 192,012.44 173,796.61 211,787.08 128,366.69 81,155.83 99,507.19 79,681.38 86,537.14 6,856 8.60% May 136,982.04 155,089.15 240,765.59 306,871.66 222,677.17 158,506.43 77,463.58 109,624.89 124,691.60 111,627.22 (13,064) (10.48%) June 159,923.98 177,702.06 284,268.67 226,526.64 257,477.05 178,202.98 105,020.98 105,680.28 81,579.34 124,976.28 43,397 53.20% July 156,636.66 197,046.43 209,350.53 2,104.30 323,945.47 217,942.98 122,530.36 84,834.48 79,629.06 101,048.69 21,420 26.90% August 198,506.47 171,521.07 280,881.50 451,700.06 208,039.87 133,905.93 115,829.68 72,630.27 129,472.44 106,517.19 (22,955) (17.73%) September 190,932.75 176,002.43 214,738.94 188,066.23 165,287.21 131,240.36 93,862.17 75,812.10 68,019.83 63,516.73 (4,503) (6.62%) October 155,243.97 199,685.81 244,590.31 211,091.20 206,442.92 355,655.60 113,960.52 93,256.02 61,396.23 238,094.79 176,699 287.80% November 115,054.43 217,019.02 190,964.73 141,729.09 191,805.53 147,875.00 133,264.84 72,021.24 74,752.72 104,885.99 30,133 40,31% December 111,788.66 173,502.55 159,381.40 161,285.23 179,567.77 96,086.00 71,365.60 38,724.50 65,077.29 74,299.65 9,222 14.17% Total distributed by Spokane County 1,337,790.01 2,010,040.49 2,490,869.11 2,461,285.61 2,589,681.22 1,986,762.13 1,088,222.20 962,304.07 960,751.16 1,185,706.66 224,956 23.41% Budget estimate 1,127,112.00 1,680,000.00 4.006,361.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 760,000.00 800,000.00 950,000.00 Actual over(under)budget 210,678.01 330,040.49 (1.515,491.89) 461,285.61 589,681.22 (13,237.87) (911,777.80) 202,304.07 160,751.16 235,706.66 Total actual collections as a%of total budget 118.69% 119.65% 62.17% 123.06% 129.48% 99.34% 54.41% 126.62% 120.09% 124.81% %change in annual total collected n/a 50.25% 23.92% (1.19%) 5.22% (23.28%) (45.23%) (11.57%) (0.16%) 23.41% Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of December 3,000,000.00 December - n November 2,500,000.00 — - -- - is October 2,000,000.00 - -:September • •August 1,500,000.00 ]u Iy ---1 - -- =June 1,000,000.00 - u May ■ ■ ■ r •■April 500,000.00 — ter y 7 March MN _ •February 0.00 , , � � IJanuary 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Page 22 \\SV-FS2\Users\mcalhoun\Bonds\debt capacity CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 2/22/2013 Debt Capacity 2012 Assessed Value for 2013 Property Taxes 6,921,825,295 Maximum Outstanding Remaining Debt as of Debt ok Capacity _ 12/31/2012 Capacity Utilized Voted (UTGO) 1.00% of assessed value 69,218,253 0 69,218,253 0,00% Nonvoted (LTGO) 1.50% of assessed value 103,827,379 7,690,000 96,137,379 7,41% Voted park 2.50% of assessed value 173,045,632 0 173,045,632 0.00% Voted utility 2.50% of assessed value 173,045,632 0 173,045,632 0.00% 519,136,896 7,690,000 511,446,896 1.48% 2003 LTGO Bonds Road & Period Street Ending CenterPlace Improvemen s Total 12/1/2004 60,000 85,010 145,000 12/1/2005 75,000 90,0.0 165,000 12/1/2006 85,000 90,001 175,000 Bonds 12/1/2007 90,000 95,001 185,000 Repaid 12/1/2008 95,000 95,001 190,000 12/1/2009 105,000 100,001 205,000 12/1/2010 110,000 100,000 210,000 12/1/2011 120,000 105,000 225,000 12/1/2012 130,000 110,000 240,000 870,000 870,000 1,740,000 - 12/1/2013 140,000 115,000 255,000 12/1/2014 150,000 120,000 270,000 12/1/2015 160,000 125,000 285,000 12/1/2016 170,000 130,000 300,000 12/1/2017 180,000 135,000 315,000 12/1/2018 220,000 140,000 360,000 12/1/2019 250,000 145,000 395,000 12/1/2020 290,000 150,000 440,000 12/1/2021 325,000 160,000 485,000 Bonds 12/1/2022 360,000 165,000 525,000 Remaining 12/1/2023 405,000 175,000 580,000 12/1/2024 450,000 0 450,000 12/1/2025 490,000 0 490,000 12/1/2026 535,000 0 535,000 12/1/2027 430,000 0 430,000 12/1/2028 340,000 0 340,000 12/1/2029 295,000 0 295,000 12/1/2030 280,000 0 280,000 12/1/2031 240,000 0 240,000 12/1/2032 190,000 0 190,000 12/1/2033 230,000 0 230,000 6,130,000 1,560,000 7,690,000 7,000,000 2,430,000 9,430,000 Page 23 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 5, 2013 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2013 Street Preservation Projects Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: March 27, 2012 council approved the Pavement Management Plan Update for 2011; October 30, 2013 council approved the 2013 Budget which included $2.054 million for street preservation projects in 2013. BACKGROUND: Council approved the Pavement Management Plan Update for 2011 which included a list of recommended street preservation projects for 2013. Council also approved the 2013 Budget which included $2.054 million for street preservation projects in 2013 and the list of proposed projects was included in the budget. The proposed projects have been arranged into the following three phases: • Phase 1: Sullivan Road — Indiana to Euclid Sullivan Road — Euclid to Trent • Phase 2: Sprague Ave— Herald to University Sprague Ave (EB only) — Havana to Fancher Sprague Ave — Fancher to Thierman Argonne Road — Sprague to Broadway • Phase 3: Carnahan Road — 8th to City Limit 8th Ave — McKinnon to Fancher Here are a couple of highlights regarding this year's preservation projects: 1) Splitting the projects into three bid packages allows us to: • Monitor the current bid prices for this type work • Ensure the provided budget is not exceeded • Provide an opportunity for more than one contractor to be awarded this paving work 2) Federal grant funds were received from SRTC for the Phase 2 projects. These grants will pay for 86.5% of those total project costs. The Phasel project was put out for bid Friday, February 22. The bid opening is scheduled for Friday, March 8. Staff proposes to bring the bid results to council for award on March 12. OPTIONS: Information only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Council approved $2.054 million in the 2013 Budget for the 2013 Street Preservation projects. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer ATTACHMENTS: List of 2013 proposed Pavement Preservation Projects. Fund: 311 Pavement Preservation Fund Spokane Valley 2013 Budget 311 -Pavement Preservation(continued) Based upon recommendations in the Pavement Management Plan Update 2011 along with field verification by Public Works staff we are recommending the following preliminary project list of pavement preservation projects for 2013: STREET FROM TO Sullivan Road Indiana Avenue Euclid Avenue Carnahan Road 8th Avenue End Sprague Avenue* Herald Road University Avenue Sprague Avenue Farr Road Herald Road 8th Avenue McKinnon Road Fancher Road Argonne Road Sprague Avenue Broadway Avenue Sprague Avenue(EB Only)* Havana Street Fancher Road Sprague Avenue Fancher Road Dollar Road Sullivan Road Euclid Avenue Trent Avenue *These are projects recommended by SRTC staff for grant funding. If construction bids are lower than our estimates or if grant money is received, then the following list of projects would be recommended for additional pavement preservation projects in 2013: STREET FROM TO Appleway Blvd Thierman Park road 32nd Avenue University Avenue Bowdish Road Blake Road Saltese Road 24th Avenue Saltese Road 16th Avenue McDonald Road 24th Avenue Pines Road McDonald Road Park Road Valleyway Avenue Broadway Avenue Adams Road** Sprague Avenue 2nd Avenue Adams Road** 2nd Avenue 4th Avenue **These are projects eligible for CDBG funding Please note: Further investigation,testing and evaluation will be necessary to finalize these lists. 77 S1Ô1 ;S1...L Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager and Members of Council From: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Date: March 5, 2013 Re: Response to Public Comment—Crime Rate Public Comment at the January 22, 2013 Council Meeting (From Council Meeting Summary) Lynn Plagemeier, 11708 E 19th: spoke about the crime rate in Spokane; said he belongs to an international/national travel clubs and is often asked if it is safe to come to this region; said we're worse than Tacoma and Yakima; that a National Insurance Institute ranked us 5th in the nation for stolen vehicles; said citizens, schools and others need to start meeting to push to eliminate at least 90% of the crime which lends to bad PR for our region; said he doesn't recommend Spokane any more for businesses; said we need a focus group. State and National Trends According to the National Insurance Crime Bureau(NICB), the Spokane Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which is comprised of all of Spokane County, had the fourth highest stolen vehicle rate in the country for 2011 at 551.75 stolen vehicles per 100,000 residents. This rate is higher than Yakima MSA (529.95/5t1), and Seattle/Tacoma/Bellevue MSA (445.83/121h). As a region, the Spokane MSA rate increased from 473.24 in 2009, to 586.35 in 2010, and dropped to 551.75 in 2011. According to NICB, the number of vehicle thefts nationally decreased 3.3%from 2010 to 2011 and at the end of 2011 were at their lowest rate in 45 years. 2012 numbers have not been released. The Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority reports that vehicle thefts in Washington State decreased 43% from 2005 to 2011. Page 1 of 5 The FBI reports that through the first 6 months of 2012 the number of stolen vehicles was up 1.7% over the previous year country-wide and up 8.1% in the west region. This reverses the trend which, according to the FBI, saw a reduction in nation-wide stolen vehicles of 35% between 2007 and 2011. Local Trend Chart 1: Stolen Vehicle Rate (Per 100,000 people) Comparison 1200 1000 800 ■Spokane 500 ■Spokane Valley 400 •Spokane MSA 200 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Source:FBI Uniform Crime Report and National Incident Based Reporting System Ranking of Stolen Vehicles in Washington State, pursuant to FBI Statistics (UCR/NIBRS 2012 reporting): 1. Seattle 3,400 (Pop. 618,209) 1 Tacoma 2,125 (Pop. 201,510) 3. City of Spokane 1,778 (Pop. 212,194) 4. Everett 925 (Pop. 104,635) 5. Vancouver 868 (Pop. 164,329) 6. Kent 789 (Pop. 93,861) 7. Yakima 660 (Pop. 92,496) 8. Auburn 600 (Pop. 71,281) 9. Renton 558 (Pop. 92,354) 10. Burien 487 (Pop. 33,836) 11. Spokane Valley 471 (Pop. 91,163) According to the Spokane Valley Police Department the majority of stolen cars are being utilized as transportation by drug users. This coincides with property thefts which are also largely committed by drug users. The most popular models of cars stolen are older model imports that are easily accessed by the tools of the trade. Page 2 of 5 Contributing factors to stolen vehicles are failure to lock vehicles, leave car running unattended, and parking in unlighted, hard to see locations. According to the Washington State Patrol, 1 out of every 5 cars stolen is started with a key that was left in the vehicle. Chart 2. 2011 United States Property Crime Rate(Crimes per 100,000 people)Comparison 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 •2011 PROPERTY CRIME 1000 RATE 0 Cr` Source:FBI Uniform Crime Report and National Incident Based Reporting System However, when looking at another important crime category, violent crimes, the chart below shows that the Spokane MSA and Spokane Valley fare very yell when compared to the rest of the nation. Chart 3. 2011 United States Violent Crime Rate(Crimes per 100,000 people)Comparison 800 700 illtitt 600 500 400 300 200 ■2011 VIOLENJTCRIME 100 RATE 0 try P tih ,p a c4 ,at` `, z7 ,�e C.`C Source:FBI Uniform Crime Report and National Incident Based Reporting System Page 3 of 5 Spokane Valley Police Department -Proactive Strategies • Coordinate with newly re-formed Washington State Patrol Stolen Vehicle Task Force • Utilizes automatic license plate reader to scan license plates and find vehicles that have been reported stolen. • Use data analysis to pinpoint hotspots and increase patrols in these areas. • Send officers to respond to each stolen vehicle report in order to: o Gather accurate information o Assess trends o Provide education to help prevent future crimes • Work with pharmacies to ensure identification requirements are properly implemented and theft of precursor chemicals is limited. Conclusion After reducing the annual number of stolen vehicles in Spokane Valley by more than 60% from 2006 to 2009, the number of stolen vehicles is again on the rise. The majority of stolen vehicles are the result of drug users who use these vehicles as transportation. The recovery rate of stolen vehicles in Spokane Valley in 2011 and 2012 is greater than 75%meaning the overall loss is low compared to the number of vehicles stolen. However, the loss and inconvenience is a substantial impact to our citizens that is not taken lightly. Chart 1 above illustrates that Spokane Valley is doing better combating vehicle theft than Spokane County as a whole but Chart 2 illustrates that the region as a whole, including Spokane Valley has a property crime problem when compared to the rest of the country. Chart 3 above shows that Spokane County and especially Spokane Valley are safer communities than average communities across the country when looking at violent crime rates. Mr. Plagemeier is correct; high crime rates are detrimental to economic development and tourism and even though Spokane Valley has had success curbing crime such as vehicle theft, we are often judged as a region and we must work with are neighboring jurisdictions to reduce crime throughout the County. As of 2013 the Spokane MSA will include Kootenai County so will we have the added challenge of working across state boundaries. Criminal Justice System Improvements Much of the criminal activity in Spokane Valley and the region as a whole is based upon underlying conditions present in the offender such as drug addiction, lack of education resulting in a lack of employment opportunities, financial mismanagement, untreated mental health issues, relationship and anger control issue, and other issues. Law Enforcement is apprehending offenders and recovering stolen property but the goal is to reduce the number of crimes committed and this has to be achieved by the Criminal Justice System as a whole, including the Courts, the Prosecutor, Public Defender, and Detention Services. • Diversion programs that address the driving factors behind the crime • Utilization of technology to deter crime while allowing offenders to work and contribute toward the local economy. Page 4 of 5 Regional Collaboration • Participation in the Regional Criminal Justice System Review • Meeting with Criminal Justice Leaders from jurisdictions around the County • Sharing of information and ideas with other jurisdictions • Pursuit of regional strategies to reduce system costs, focusing on law enforcement and prevention, rehabilitation and reduction of recidivism, enhancing safety and reducing loss in the community. What Can Citizens Due to Prevent Auto Theft(From Washington State Patrol) • Never leave your keys in your car... Don't make it easy to steal! • Never hide a second key on the car. • Lock your car. • Park in a well-lighted area. • Don't leave valuables in plain sight. • Use anti-theft devices like car alarms, locking bars, and kill switches. • Never leave the motor running while running a quick errand. • Completely close car windows. Next Steps • Utilize all possible City and Sheriff's Office outlets to educate the public • Provide detailed updates to Council on crime trends in Spokane Valley, crime reduction strategies, and tracking numbers/performance measurements. • Develop and implement criminal justice strategies that increase efficiency and address the underlying causes of crime. Page 5 of 5