2006, 07-18 Study Session r
AGENDa
CiZ'Y UF SPUKANE YALLEY
CiTY COUNCIL WORkSiiEET
STUDY SESSIDN
TuesdAy, .1uty 18, 2006 6:00 p.m.
ci-l-sr RALL cocrnTcu, cxarBM
L 1707 East Spr•agnc Avenae, Fjrst tloor
(Plrau Tnrn OR Ail Elcctmnic DrFices During the Merting)
UlSCUS.410N LE1DER tiUISJEC'I'lALTlYl1Y - G4AL
Exiplo}ec lntrodin•riu,r. Ueputy Crty c,':,rk Il lt : tssistanl C'arrle Acastu bv Clrrts flalnbridge; Right-*Way
Inspectvr Scan Wullure hy Tom Schnllerrs
1. Neil Kerstcn/Stcvo Worlry nnd Roundnbouts Discussion/Infornuation
Brian Wnlsli, Wa. Statc Dcpt of
Transportatian (15 minutes)
2.1im Nuttenmaier, ticnnamic EDC Quartcs Report QiscussicxtMfarmatian
Dcvc{opment Council (15 minutcs)
3. Tom Schaltens (l5 minutes) Right-of-way Ad Hoc Commiuee Discussion/lnfamiasion
4. Mnrtna Sukup (15 minutes) Revision of Sign Code Committee niscussion/information
~ 5, Cary DriskeU (24 minutei) Impaet fm-s Diacmitsnllnfortnation
6, Mike Connelly (20 minutes) Anncxntion Pinnning Considcrations Discussianitnfrnmatian
7. Mike Cunrnlty (15 minutes) 2aning: 3.5- UR7' 5ittwtionslOplians Discusstanllaformatian
8. Davc Mercier (10 minutcs) 2007 Council Ga1ls DiSCUSSiatJtnformation
9. Ma}mr Wiihite Advance Agenda Addition.s Discussion/Infamtcttiun
lU. Ma}•or Wilhitc Cauncil Chcck in Discussioa/[nfortnation
11. Dave Mercier City Munager Conuncnts Discu.siotv'lnfarmation
~
Nn[r. Uniess otbcnvise noted abosq tbere will be no pubiir commenb it Councfl Studr Sexsinns. Howevar. Councli s1ways rqenca
the rsgfit to nquest information from We pnblic aad tfatt rs apprepriatc
VOiiCE lndividnls pLmniag ta attend dx rr=tmg Rtw mquiro cpccial assiuma: co soaunrnodk phY+iul. bcaring. or crtha imMirmam. l{cmc cannct
he L"liv Cled ei ( 5(MJ19'? 1-l U0O as woo a posalblc so that srrenpmrais mny. Ue mssle-
Stud} `s:slrn 1~:rnda luly 1 R, :~)';n I'age I of 1
~
~ b
iME'ORTAN7' NOTE "I°O COUNCIL:
July 13, 2006
Please note t_hat a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Mr. Walsh of WSDOT will be available for
Council by Monday, July 17, 2006. The lateness of this presentation was unavoidable as Mr. Walsh has
transitioned to employment in anolher department, nnd is dning this presentatinn as a cnurtesy sinee he
agreed to it beforc leaving his previous position. He is endeavoring to get the information to Council as
soon as possible.
. .
~
O
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006 City Manager Sign-off.
Item: Check all that apply: consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
~ information ❑ adm}n, report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TiTLE: WSDOT Presentation on Roundabouts
GOVERNING LEGISLATiON: nla
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: n/a
BACKGROUND: There has been a lot of activity in recent years regarding the use of
roundabouts as an altemative to signalized intersections. Many communities throughout the
U,S. have besn successfully using roundabouts for many ysars. In Washington the City of
Kennewick leads the state with 11 roundabouts. The Ciry of Spokane recently construded a
small roundabout in lieu of a signal at the intersection of Wellesley and 'A' Streets to reduce the
number of collisions. The WSDOT recently constructed a large roundabout on Highway 206
(Mt. Spokane Park Drive) at the Intersection with Bruce Road. This also was to help reduce the
high number of collisions at this intersection.
The Publ+c Works Department earlier this year hosfed a web seminar on 'The Modem
P,oundabout as a Traffic Signa! Alternative' sponsored by the American Society of Cfvil
Engineers. This web seminar, held at CenterPlace, attracted many local and regional engineers
w-ho were interested in this topic. After the web seminar there was discussion with engineers
from both the City of Spokane and the WSDOT regarding their experiences with the design and
public reaction to their rewly constructed roundabouts_
Since there has been a lot of discussfon abaut ths use of roundabouts in the Spokane area, the
Public Works Department was asked to prepare a presentation to Councii on roundabouts.
Brian Walsh, of the WSDOT, is a nationally recagnized expert on roundabouts. Brian has
agreed to provide a presentation on the modem roundabaut as an altemative to signatized
intersections.
OPTIONS: Information only I
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information only
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: n/a
STAFF CONTACT Neil Kersten. Public Works D3rector
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer - Capiial Projects
ATTACHMENTS PreGminary roundabout inforrrai+on
Vl'S17(1'T - V4'hat is a roundabout'' I'age I of 5
. •
Nows I Searsh I Consact WSDOT I WSDOT Hort►
Washington t o; T~.,a,km
•Ti
. , .
ROLINIDABOLITS What is a roundabout?
• YVhat ~s a roundabout %
• Roundabout BsnEFits A roundabout is a circular iniersection
• Washington's where trafic fbws around a center island
Roundabauts Roundabouts are safe, eff~cient and less
• Public Opinion oi costty. Since vehicles entering the
Roundabouts roundabout are required to yield to traffic m -
the circle, more vehicles can move tfirough
the intersection with less delay. The unlque -
one-way, design o( roundabouts atso
accommodates the tuming radius of Large
vehicles, like semf-trucks and buses
How to drive a roundabout I
As a driver approaches a roundabout, there will be a YIELD sign. The driver should slou+
down, watch 4or pedestnans and bicyclists and be prepared to stop if necessary
When the dnv~_i tI;~fCrie V'ir';US !0 GifC.LJId~t'fl;~'fdffii: ;:w iflt 1-:JJj .h.Lt (jGFF`+ fll7j S(~C If
fhQ WSy IS ClEB.'
The roundabout will have ONE WAY signs mounted +n the cenler island. 7ney tielp Uuid
trafric and mdicate that the driver must stBy to the right of the center islend.
Upon passing the stteet pnor tG the desired exit, the dnver should ttim r.in f,is,'her nghc
tum signat and watch for pedestrtans and b6cyclists as heJshe er,its
Travelmg around the central island completes left turr-_
Driving a Mutti-lane roundabout
Get in the correct tane early. Observe pavement '
markings and slgns (For exampte: Use the right lane
to tum at the first right or go straight Use the IeR lane . •
to go straight, make a left tum, or make e U-tum)
~
Give latge trucks (with long trailers) room to take up
both lanes as they approach, circulate and exit the
roundabout
Yield to ALL traffic already in the roundabout, even if LE FT R I G HT
you're only entering the right lane (or outside lane) of LANE LANE
the roundabout
Never pass or change lanes m the roundabout
VMen exiting from the inside lane, chedc the lane next to you and your blind spot to
make sure the outside lene is cfear. Use your tum signaf to let other drfvers know tt►a
you are exiting.
See how to drive a roundabout
http_!l%ti%ti,w.wulot.«3.gov'i'rcjccts'roundabt,utti! 7i 10/2UI)6
WSD()T- V1lhat is a roundabuut" Page ? c►f 5
~
i .
tCitR~jM /.h'••~ f
al • . _
_
R.
\
~
~
~
Graphk Illustratlon deplctJnq traftic Ilow throupA o ►oundabout on State Romb 203 ewu Durell
Thn elements that constitute a roundabout are.
. Yieldad entry - cers erftenng musi wait fvr a gap in the circulating treffic before
entering the roundabout
• Islands separate the entry irom the arcular roadway
• Designated crossing erea for pedastrians
. Designed to be driven at speeds of 15 - 20 miles per hour
. Single or muitiple lanes
Roundabouts are not traffic circles or traffic calming islands
A roundabout is nol lhe same as tt►e oider-style rotary traffic circle like thQSe tound In
some East Coasi and European cities. The main dtfference beMreen older sty{e traffic
cirdes and roundabouts is in haw traffic enters the circle and which vehicfe has the rigM
ot-way. Vlfdh roundabouts, drivers wishfng to enter must yield to vehMcles already {n the
circle. VYth rnany of the older traffic circlea, drivers inside the circle must yield to the
vehicles entenng the circle. Traffic circles quickty clogged up and came to a standstill
when and if many vehicles entered at the same time
http:/i« wtiv.« ticint.wa.govrProjectsr'ruunaabuuts~` 7;' 1 UI_'OOb
c 3of i
W'SUOT - What i5 a rounclatxiut" 1'ap
s" . ~ ~ .
~ P •
r • ~ t
n I
+
•s
i
,
. ~
1'-r:a1 ciL~vr an c;lJcr t:aitic _ii
Roundabouts also differ from traffic calming islands In several ways These small traffFr.;
circles are often used lo slow traffic speeds in residential neighborhoods and reduce
accidents. In adddbn, the ralsed centsr islands are not des+flned to accommbdate Isrge
vehicles and left-tuming traRc, whlch often take the turn in front of the circ;es
t -
~
.
~
r■ .
T= ~
ai , . , •
A local n*{phborhooA trefflc nhninp Island
Roundabouta are dQSigned to accommadate all types of traffic
Large trucks
Roundabouts ara designed to handle fire trucks, buses and vanous s+zes at emergancy
vehiUes, as well as trudc and trailer combinetions. The oenter Island of all single-lane
roundabouts is bUilt with a gradualty sloped and flat curb, called a truck apron, ThEs
apron makes +t easier for inng vehides to make the turnq as demonstrated in the photo
below
fUUflcj.ih)Ulti ir 1Ilr'_~11(Ih
\k'til)() I-\Vhal is a roundabout:•' f'a g. e 4
C.
~
Truck mnd troiier combination mavlnp throvqh a roundabout vrtlfi roar rrhools
crossing over ft truck spron.
Where tttere ara multiple fanes of entry and two or more lanes oi circulating traffic, tha
roundabout is designed with the idea that trucks wili use both lanes to travel thraugh the
roundabout as smoothly as possible. A Vuck approaching a roundabout may sVaddle
batfi ianes, similar to rnaking a livide right tum' at a siandard intersection, provided the
dnver has determinsd i1 is sate to move into the adjacent lane and has signaled their
intentions. When a dmrer ot a cer or small truck approaches a roundabout where a large
truck has stopped to yield to clrculating trafFic, they should drop back behind the truck af
it compfetes its movement through the roundabout and when exiting. The video cflp
belpw demonstrates the tnicfc movement through e two-tene rour►dabout:
Sami _t►v.k_rrwving ihroUgh _roundakot-4 (Windaws Media 758 kb)
SeRi ttuck moving through roundabout (ReaNitleo 3$0 kb)
Pedestriana
Pedestrians may Find trsveling through a roundabout just as safe as through an
intersection with e signal, H not safet. This is due to the fact that vehicles are moving at s
slowar rate of apeed and pedestrians need oniy to cross one directwn of traffic at a time
Cars are required to yiQld to pedestr►ens in the area marlced for pedestrian crossings.
7i 1 U;''11O6
WSINOT - Wliat i-s a rounilaN)utPaLc 5 of 5
.
~
~
`
Pliotograpti courtesy oi Rold Middloton, Inc.
BiCyGI05
A bicyciist can travel through the roundabout as a pedestnan, or in the tircular roadway
with motorized vehrcles. Bicyclists have the same rights and responsibi6tie5 as motoristt
when riding on the roadway Inexpenenced riders may choose to walk their bicyrcles and
usQ the pedestrian crosswalks to get through the roundabout. Some roundabout desEgn! ~
have a ramp onto the sidewalk, wtiich makes it easier for blcyclists to use.
Emergency Vehic{es
When an emergency vehicle approaches an intersection, most drivers get out of the
intersection as quickly as possible and pull to the side. A roundabout is really no
different. If an emergency vehicle enters tfie roundabout witfi lights or sirens on while yo
are in the circle, continue to your intended exit and then pull over to the side af the taad.
If you are approaching a roundabout, pull over if there is room for the emergency vehiclE
to get by; othervvise, continue through the roundabout and pull over after you've exited
the roundabout.
More infortnation
• l.inks and resources to ►ounoaGout mformation and photos from Kansas Stete
University
t3aci: totDp
Copyrhjht W5D01" 0 2045 Trffic a Roads I Search I Contact WSUOT I WSDOT Busirteas I Pmac.y Poiicy I WSOOT Home
~
`'~!)llf:
~Ul(t ,•.ti\\\\.'.',~~ ~it 1\3 ~~~\.'~~(~'~~'CI;Tciillll~,lh(`!ll'. 711
ftoundnhouts {'age I of 3
rCM*.s.C Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington
Working Together for Excel{Qnce in Local Govemment
I'ublished lO/Ui
Roundabouts
Carttents
. Introduction
• Design
. Safety
■ Links
. Roundabouts ►n Washington State
Irttrodudion
Modern raundabouts are alternatives to signalized intersedlons tfiat provide increased safety and
opera[ional effldencies as weil as lower O& M costs. Many of the publications referenced below are
careful bo distingulsh between modem roundabouts and traffic drdes that have some of their
characteNstics. In June, 2000, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) distiiled several years of
research and empirical deslgn into Rglindabout5; dn 10fQrrrraUona! Guide which contains the following
deinlhon:
Roundabout - a circular intersection with yield contro) of all enicring traff'ic, channelized
appruache.s, counter-clockwise circulation, anti appropriate geometric curveture to ensure
thnt travel specds on the circ:ulazory roadway are typicully Icss than 50 km/h (30 mph).
Roundabouts as an intersectfon control are in common use throughout the world, but only (n the last
cfozen years have they gained aaceptance and begun to be used without reservadon in the United
States. This has been mostly due to a lack of objective natlonwide guidellnes on planning,
performance, and design of roundabouts prlor to tfie development of khis FWHA gulde, as is the case
wlth signalfzgd Intersectfons. That rour►dabouts are still somewhat of a novelty in the United States Is
evidenced by tiie (percelved) need for'Now to' guldes on some Web sites of agencies that have
i+istalled roundabouts.
Destgn
(Excernted from Chapter 1(ID1 MB) of RoundabouLs: An Informatlonal Gulde, FHWA)
A roundabout is a type of circular intersectlon, but no[ all clrcular Intersections can be cJassified as
roundabouts. In fact, chere are at least three dlstind types of dreular Intersectlons:
. Rotaries are old-style drevlar Intersec#ions oommdn to the United States prtor to the 1960's. Rotarles
are charaderized by a large dlameter, often In excess of 100 m(300 R). ThIs large diameter typically
results In trave) speeds wltfifn the circulatory roadway that exceed 50 kmJh (30 mph). Tfiey typically
provide little or no horizantal defiection of the paths of through traffic and may even operate
according to the traditlonal yleid-to-the-rlght rule, I.e., circulating traffic yleids to entering trafflc.
. Neighborhood traffic circles are rypically built at the Intersections of local streets for reasons of trafflc
calming and/or aesthetics. The Intersectian approaches may be uncontrolied or stop-controlled. They
do not typically Include raised channellzatlon to guide the approaching drlver onto the circulatory
Iranspoirn umla ixiuts.aspx 7I10;2006
Roundahcwts Pagc 2 of 3
roadway. At some traffic dreles, left-turnfng movements are aliowed to occur to the leR of (dockwise
around) the central Isiand, patentially confllcting wlth other circulatlng traffic.
■ Roundabouts are circular Intersectlons wlth speclfic design and traffic control features. These
features indude yield controi of all entering trafflc, cfiannelized approaches, and appropriate
geometric curvature to ensure [hat travel speeds on the clrcufatory roadway are typlcaily less than
50 km/h (30 mph).
Fflr the purposes of the Guide, roundabouts are categorized according to size and environment to
facllitate discussion of speclflc performance or design lssues. There are six basic categories based on
environment, number of lanes, and slze:
■ Mini-roundabouts
. Urban mmpact roundabouts
■ Urban single-lane roundabouts
. Urban doub{e-lane roundabouts
. Rural single-lane roundabouts
■ Rural double-lane roundabouLs
Multi-lane roundabou[s with rnore than cwo approach lanes are possible, but they are not covered
Safety
[EXCe(7CPd cifld aLjapf.-d ifp611 (n .j,.)/ k.{'j) iJf /i(?:I7t!.3:'i?i:iti: i1!3 fIt«!r!f7df!_)IiJI L-fin~t~, r~~'~dr'~.I
PU~J'1daJ!111Li `lldY lf114]fi_iv~' 'hC Sr+iAY Cii IIiCE=~'`,e1C=~li~fL,
. by e'im+n;iiini: Ur dltr- r!iiy CUrii!ici tyE7i's
. by reducing speed differentials at Intersec.#ior.s
■ by forcing drivers to decrease speeds as they proceed into and chrouyh the intersection.
Reasons for the Increased safety level at roundabouts are:
■ Roundabouts have fewer confllct points in comparison to conventional intersectlons. The potential for
hazardous rnnfilcts, such as right angie and left tum head-on crashes ls eliminated with roundabout
use.
■ S►ngle-lane approach roundabouts produce greater safety benefits than mult(-lane approaches
because of fewer potentiat conflicts between road users, and because pedestrian crossing distances
are short.
■ Low absolute speeds assodated with roundabouts allow drfvers more tlme to react to potentlal
confllcts, also hetping to Improve the safety pert'ormance of roundabauts.
■ Since most road users travel at similar speeds through roundabouts, I.e., have low relative speeds,
crash severity can be reduced compared to some traditionalfy controlled intersections.
■ Pedestrians need only uoss one direction of traffic at a time at each approach as they traverse
roundabouts, as compared witfi unsignallzed Intersectfons. The canFlict locations betweQn veh+cles
and pedestrians are generally not affected by the presence of a roundabout, although conflicting
vehides come from a mare defined path at roundabouts (and thus pedeslrfans have fewer places to
check for conflictfng vehicles). In addltlon, the speeds of motorists entering and exiting a roundabout
are reducEd wicfi good design.
■ As with other crosstngs requiring acceptance of gaps, roundabouts still present visually Impaired
pedestrians.
Unks
■ Design and General Informatlon I
littp://www.mrsc.org/SuhjecL,;/Cranspulrc)unI.l.il)tlut..;itil)\ 7,11i)r'<UOC
ltotindahoutti
• Roundabouts: An Information Guide, Federai Highway Adminlstration,Turner-Fairbank Higliway
ReseaRh Center, June 2000 (see summaries above)
• Madern Round_abouts, New York State Department of Transportatlon
• Rour►dabout5, Oregon State Department of TranspoRatfon
• Roundabauts, Washington State Department af Transportation
• Mvdern Roundabauts, Kittelson and Associates, Inc. - Principa{ Investigator for FHWA's
Roundabouts: An InFarmation Gulde
. TRB Transportation Researcti Circular E-C083: Nadonal Roundabout Conference: 2005 Proceedings
includes presentatlons made dunng the May 22-25, 2005, canference in Vail, Colorado.
. Safety
. Roundabouts: An InformaU9nal Guide Federai Highway Administratlon,Turner-FairUank Highway
Research Center, ]une 2000
• Ghapt±e_r_5 - Safety (M 398 KB)
. Roundabout Fact Sheet, FHWA Research and Technolagy
• Saiety _and Roundabout3, Cfty of Scottsdale, AZ , summarizes Chapter 5 of the Inlorma[ional
Gulde, also Includes Ilnks to anlmated tips for drivfng or walking through a rvundabout
_ound PaRer, AAA Foundatfon, ]uly 25, 2004
. Roundabaut Design; Sdfety and Capacity Backgr
• pperatlonal and Safety Performance of Modern Roundabouts and Other interse_ction Tkpes, New
York State Department of Transportation Roundabouts Praject
. Roundabouts Research Homepage, Kansas State Universlty, Center far Research and Training
. The Effects af Roundabouts on Pedestrfan Safety, (ID 1.4 MB) Prepared for The Southeastern
Transportation Center Unlversity of Tennessee - Knoxvllle by ]ohn R. Stone, Ph.D, KoSok Chae &
Sinsha Pillalamarrl, August 2002
. Cydists and Roundabouts, The Bike Zone, by Howard Peel, A private United Kingdom site.
. Bicycie and Pedestrfan Consideracions_at Roundabauts, (ID 10 KB), Florida Department of
Transpor[ation, September 2000
. Roundabc►uts: 5af+etyTips & Guidelines fpr Dnvers, Bicyclists`and_ Pedestnans (M 190 KB), Refd
Middleton
Roundabouts in Washington State
The Kittefson and Assoc. Modern RoundaOou[s Web.site malntafns a nationwlde database of
roundabouts. WSDOT has a State-wlde_ map showing roundabout locations. Some oF tfie roundabout
projeds in Washington are Ifsted below as well as public information about roundabouts:
■ Projects
• Belli►igham - Cordata Kellog Roundabout Projed, Reld Mlddleton
. Federal Way - Weyerhaeuser Way and S._ 336ih Skreet Raundabout
• King County - I-90 - West Lake Sammamlsh_Rarkway RQundabout RecnnSCnction (WSDOT)
. LaConner - Chllberq Road ROundabo_ut (Reld Mlddleton)
. Monrae - Te-ster Road Rounda_44vt (Reid Mfddieton)
. Port Orchard - Roundabout_at Port Orcfiard (WSDOT)
. Yakima - Frulcvale Boulevard & 5th Ayenue Roundab4ut ProleR
• InstructionalInforrnation
• Glg Narbor - What is a Modern Roundaboui
• Lacey - Driving Modem RounGabout5
• Kennewick - RouncSabout
. Sequlm - ROundabout Informatiqn Paqe
. Sammamish - Roundabout Demonstration - Has an anlmated fnteractlve demonstration of how to
drive through the roundabout
P.eturn to top
http: !%~,,%ti,w.►itrsc.otgiSubjirt~r I'rarispo/roundahouts.;L;px 7?'111;2 O1)ti
Spakane Yalicy Cily Council
Rounaabouc worksnop Prssentat;on
Juty 18, 2046
~
,
- ~ t
.
-
l I
A nd:,
.
• How is the type of Intersectbn Controi chosen?
• Modem Roundabouts: An Ovenriew
• Closing
• (2uestFons?
~ - - I
I
H~•,v I~~ter~..cts~~~ C~~ntr:~l ~ie:~r~iiir~e~~?
• From the technical standpoint, an intersection has a specific
triveUtraffic pattem that the intersection control must
accommodate and do it efficFently.
• There ar8 software models or programs that the volumes and
traffic movements can be inputted. Two measures are
outcomes: average delay per car per approach and average
delay for the entiro lntorsoction. This "delay" in seconds fs
given a letter value of A through F and Is referred to as the
"Level of Service". A is good. F shaws a faiting oparaUon.
• Yhe other dec(ding factor is safety. Is the traffic control
devke (signal, stop stgns ar roundabout) and how i! is applied
to the physical layout of the intersection able to pertortn
saiely?
l 1
Solubon Cn-pcs Sror, (7-,n!r-i
~ •
, ' ~ • A common solution
I
• Recognized by ell
• Requires drtver cholces artd
HIGH SPEED exporience to accept gaps
TRAfFlC
C 1
~
- i.. . , i , . n
~ • ~ry yesr+t of
_ ~ • Sorrns more
vehicles
compared to
stop slgn
_ . - : • • Potential crasA
~ ~It:' . c i«6. sevarlty Is3ues
;3AyY-'~~~•~•r'-- . .
C!n in some
cascs ~9rsvita
~!~`ti • _ - / ~ and c ata mors
conQestlon
_
l I
e;r:,d•- ~•ltir...t•, .1t~? f~z~ . .Sivf! IR,C;~.-,,n.~
j ~
1~~ sr-Q. -stii-~s.~
- - - -
_ - y~_ - _
.ti
r~f~ lr. 1~ ~i
i ~ a - ~
I 1
.
,
Modem Ftoundabouts
- -
r
K- - - •-=..r,++- R-•
ts.
:
~
• 45 second movie clip showing how "Poputar Cultune" laoks
at roundabouts
I
4
t -.4- ' ~ .
• ~f
.
, ` , ~ .
~ ~ , " ;t ~ ,1
i ' ' _ - _
' ~ ~i~ ~ li
- ~
~ :
i~ ~ -
~
i ~ ~
~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ _
_ - ` . -
r, -
, ~
. y~_ f~ Y .
. ~
t
_
~ ~
~t .
~ _
,,,.±wNg-1i~H
. ~ u
~
,
, ~
t . _ ~ ; t~. ' ~
y-'"'~" _ - ~r- ~ ~ . .,i 7 ?
Ir'G` ' _ ~ . c
. _w ~t. . . /i~a . . F
. ft; _ . _ •
f -
~ . - ~ f
. - .
i . _
,
, ; ~
_ ~
r ~ ' ~ , _ _
. ~ ~r .f ~•ti x~ {
• ~ } '
- - t
~ r
t~,
. A~ ~ ` ' _ i„L t~
, ~ ' -
~ ~ > ~ o !ri: .
~ ~ ~ ' T~, a i
, ' • s . . ~ t ~i
r _
i-~ ~i~ ~ , ' ~ " 1 '
~ r ,
~ f ~ I~' #
~ ~
. , u'' ~y f
.r. °;L; ~l ~ ~ ~ ~
~
1 ~ ~
; A, 1
• ~ . 0 ~ ti ' ~ t ~ ,
s. ' , xw
h
' * It r
,Z`.
t
y
- ,
S ~ ~
G `
. v
t
1 •
ae ~ ~ 1
t~~ . .t' k~ ' I
,;j ~d 4 v
'L
Morlem Roundakouts Salaty
Ctossing ccnflicfs eiiminated at rour►dabout _
A
A
►
r ~
~
AlIocating
_ _ . . _ ~ • Spaco and tlma
sounds good
{n tiwory
- - Driver
i judgment and
~ -
~ beFtevior af~Ct
operatlorts and
" safety
~
' , ~ :
Hp = r 1
x
Nocmandy vet's drnth doubles family's grief
1tNhiFkR IATSONft7iE UL5'MP1AN
OLYMPlA Mcl Long was pn his wny homc to fcad tltc cats after visitinu his wif'e in
the haspitnl when he was fatally injurrd in a car accidznt Sundny.
'ihe 80-year-old Ulympin man had sprrtt thc day st !'ravidrnce St. f'eter f Ic,spiuil.
N0cre his 85-ycar-old wife hnd becn taken that morning afler sufTcring u stroke.
Just befarc 5 p.rtn, he Nas driving t►ack tn tfie eoupIc's Falcon Way home when he
stapprd his car ai a ci" op sacu~ on SlenEer-Kinnry Koad, then pulled fanwerd into thr
path of an oncoming pickup that crashed 'mto his drivet sidc dnor Lcros; dit-c1 ai
I larborview Medical Center in Scattfe shortly afterward.
Mcl Long was a Wqrld Wsr II vetcrsn wfio fought in the D•Day buttiei at Normandy
but rarely spcikc of his Army carccr, Cougtilin said.
"{Ie woulJ shru_, his shuuldcn and say. 1 didii't do much - walked on the beaches of
Normandy and follu«ed Paitan's t:uiks intu Grcmany,' " Cuughlin said_
;f
~ ~ -
~
- f
1
r
f
i
l~
Crash et 1 •
Ro f . • • 0 •
s
~ I
, -
-
I
10
' - . ~l ' ' i- ' . •.1~..3i~ t. .
, . . I.' . . .
'lp
~ ~ ~-1~ ,•y
_ - ~
~
I J
'AodErn Rouncfabouts: Traff"FC Oper-ations
Roundabouts versus Signals:
MUTCD Signal Wanant Threshoid
~n f
s+W~ (OOt ~.rt a.n.l
L 1fi
~ 1{.
. . 6. y 9p+Y (~Q'~ rMl Aatsl
~ 12
a ,0
° e
o llMtwmbmA t6v1t Irn
4I - •
2}
Rardroa~ f 10% M11urnI
()n 9U0 000 1 OOq 11100 1200 1 M0 4400 1 E00
Toui wjo. sa..e vown,. (whm) ExMdl 3-7. p 53
Beaa ruiUIWyriol 7(Iaet ~a~Mrunm t111 Yt o¢l
l ~
I I
• This ia a 5 minute ciip on a roundabout near Duvall, WA and
primaHly shows the orderty flow ofi both passenger ram
and large trucksischoots buses traversing the roundabout
~ .i
;
~
.
,
~u ~ _ _ F.
N1
I I
Malttm Rountlabotrts: Pubhc OpiniQn
I TE lournal, Sept 2002 (RYttrnca, et al ) Survey -n x> V0. xnd NV
3~rlra C•~r,.!1'~_s~~ifi
.Io•,~ 3'!"~J
h;; .
t•itYy .
•i-i s1~1~~Jyis~'lUr - ~~:t~3rrf~!•~f~'~:y
DX l.i-Jr) t i~t7~J7%
Modem Raundaba:!'s: Sijmmir'i
• Roundabouta, especially single lane, offei signiRcant documented
safety benefiEa:
: Overall crash raducdon
: Reduction in inJury crashes
• Roundabouts can oporato moro efficiondy than convontional
signalized Intersectlons: especlallY when conaidered on a 24 hour
and annual baais
• Roundabouts have proven posldve access managemer►t benefits
• Roundabouts have naturat traftic calming and gatewsy benefits
• Roundabouta have gained acceptar►ce in many tocattons acrass
cr,e us
. Compacod to a sipnal, roundabouts can offer signiticant annual
savings fo► meirttonance, vehicular oporations, and ir►creased
satety
l~
_ r r. rn c,r F,i.;r.-i;, •i:7 ivtr+ S;:mr. _.',+:1•'~,,; . !r ;
• Irttarsectlon Is part ot an evolving raadway whare travel
pattems are being changed by drivers trying to flnd the
fastest way and interssctfon is currently cortflgured to make
that {ess sate and certafnly leas efficient
: The existing intersecbon configuration does not conform wrth
evolving design principles.
• Adjacsnt public and private access potnts create access
and circutation Issues
~ Over time these acxesses (WiIbur in particular) will continue
to clegrade operations end, potent;ally, safety.
~ Inter;ection treatments should cansider Spokane Valley's
travel patterns
I I
Modan R,nmddwuri in Wnhingtoe Sume
.~N!
~r
• w
.
rr
~i~» ~ •t
•t~ ♦ • t ~
">rn •r ~ ~ r` : A~1r
r~
• ~~t~r ~
• ~ 10~
T~
• ti ~
[ J
I
14
I
4 9 . @ i ' . p 1 5 . • ) . . ? i 1 i . _ _ Z ( ~J .1 I JY s 1 v F A . i : i k . , I 1 i ! . 2 > - ♦ 1-1 ~ ~ '1 4 9 . 0 ~
Spokane Area Economic Development Council
City of Spokane Valley - SerOnd Quarter 2uo6 Key Resiills
1bis year, the EDC has [oc:uszd more than crer on drn°ing Spok-rm p~+m EDC
the groN-th of qvality jabs, and Uusincss invcstment .
in the STokane region. Hcre arc top leve] highliF,hts for Q2 2006: ►.•wr r.~,::..x;...
• The CI)C clased twn business recmitment wins - both locating in Spokane VaileN:
Healthcare Resource Gmup relucsited from Post Fa[ls io Pinecroft Business Park.
'1'he company currcnt}y employs 55 and Hiil immediately add 5o pcsitions.
Guerdsmark, the fuutth largest serurity company in the world, has also opencd an
office. The office currently emplays one, but employ-s rner qo guards throughout the
arca.
• Closed thrc-c husiness recruitment losses (Amulet Manufacturing, NciFtix caU center,
lind Pacific Ettianol).
• The CDC is woriting with a total of 31 ranked ncroitment Ieads (those thnt havc the
Spc,kane area on thcir short list), nine ranked expnnsion leads, and tt8long terni leads.
E3usineases on the leads shod represent 2474 jobs.
• 7'he EDC shrn.,ed Spokane Valley properties and sites 32 tiroes this quarter in clicnt
propasals.
• 7'he CDC closed four expansion leads thls qunrtcr, two of which cit-e located in Spnkane
Valley. The two projerts will generate $9032.00 in new ret+l property taacs for the Gtity
of Spokane VaIley, arui an additianal $ 1g,.}29 ior school dlstrict #356.
- I:aiser Aluminum sav-ecl 5442,900 in sales and use tax exemptions, utiliung Spokane's
Cummunity Empowetmenl Zonc. Thc company will hire seven new employees fnr its
~;.2 millinn cstpital projecL
- I:colite Manufarturing saved $43,000 in sales and use tax exemptions, and wil1 hire tS
emplvyees, two of which come from the Community Fanpowerment Zone for itx
$500,000 capital project.
• Total CEZ projc*cts: $1>74 i,500 in sates and use tau crcxlits hAVe heen granted to Prnmier
ManufacturinF, Kaiser?Uuminum, HollisterSCier, and Fcolite Manufaeturing for their
capital improvemeut prujccts worth $20 millioa These compnnies together will hire an
additional 115 cmployecs, of H-hich 29 HiIl comc frvm the Community F.mpowerment
?.one.
• 33 neH madia hi~~ for Q2 placed, and n totul of 85 so fnr this year.
Lead Type I.ead 3ourre -
■ Inhaund
8 2'3 ■ Dircct Mail
ti ~ , 1 t ❑'I'radeahow
14 p Qther
112 ■ I NFA
18 s crFu
m F'rospect l.ec c) 1 ■ Prospect Levrl 2 n WEI)A
u l.ead l.ong Tcrm D S'ite Selector
2006 Goals include incrcaSing ranked leads by 30096 (an incnease in So leads), incrensing locxl
tiusine.cs outreaeh, and increasing awareness of the Spokane region as a plece to do business
thrnugh earned mrdin.
~
~
~ Awea EDC
' SPOKANE AP.EA ECONOMIC DEvEIONMENT CQUNCIL
t~flt'il)iJ fiJlS_~rtiif. i~(t:~1t'~1; F{:fj ~~'r?P~f ~~1~e'•iij
Spukanc Area EDC Q2 Rcport 2006
Juiye 30, 2o06 ~
The Spoi:unc Area EDC %+urlcs to driti•c lhc grow-th of yualitvji►bs and incestmcnt i❑ the Spul:ane region tlirough
ciirect recruikment of new business and detivery of tooLs and re.saurces to support business ucpansion and
retention.
EDC Iead yeneration urtivfty urauld nof be possible without the support of our municipa( invesiors - Spokane County,
business
('ity vjSpc~kane, C~ty of Spokane Valley, Giiy nf I.iberty lake, City ojC.henet,, City of Mediaa! Lake, and our 300
puMners.
Special thanks for rnuestiny in the econamic health ojour reyion yo tn FfK'Venture Parhiers - Azrista Corp., Itr,F;.
PremeraBlue(rnss, Sctcm.rlffeartMedicalC'.eriler,Spokunelntern~,ri.,,rtsl.lir;~~_~;-t,.~r~,~•1i7~rr "l'he
C(llltl'i1t5:
K(-, niitt1trt2t, I•:xP:1ii,i(.,i :ind Jla; kXlittg [_'I)tiutt:
[...~cl crt•ier~rati„nl.\~ti~it.' K~~~i~rt
k'rciPerlv ancl l.ead tiource RcPo►-t
1'rojectti L7pdntc
. _ . . I
~
~
~ Area EDC
' >Ft.~►'AtJE ARE-A ECONONIC UcVEIOPME•Jt ~%lU'JCIL
"~n,•~nr, =Ci;ni-C irrn,t lN i;rl! _.pr::l a~;r'c~;l
Spokane Area EDC Marketing Recruitment & Expansion Updatc
,iune 30, 2006
N` in Repo rt
• The H:Ix: announr.eci the recruitment of liealtheare Ri~soune Group (HK(;). IiRG is rcio.:ating itc Porst FalLti
nperadons to Spokane Valley. '1'he c1enter curnentty empluys 55 and will be mrning into thc Pinecroft Busines-;
Par]:. The company plans to immediately add 5o positiuns for a total of ioS emplay^ees (sm press relcases
attarhe(i).
• The EIC announoed the cecruitment of Guarcismark. Guardsmark, thc fourlh largest smurity c.ompany in the
world, has opened an office in Spokane Valley at iioi North Argonne. The company currently has oVer .10
guards working thraughout thc area.
•'ftte 1'.DC is worldng with a total of 31 ranked m-entitwni lead5. sncl nint- r:inkcd exTI;imion leads.
• The EDC is wvrkiny, wilh 118 Icmg terrn Icads.
• Amulet Manufacturing, a manufacturcr of excnvator 8r backhoe attachments in Aruata, California chase a
locatian in PosE Falls, Iclaho. The owner curnently tives in Idaho and wxnts tn 1ive claRer to his business. The EDC
introduccxi the rnmpan} to Haskins Stccl, and is now doing business with Amulet Manufacturing. Amulet
MAnufactuiing emploYs go.
• NeMix customer contact center in Sunny-mle, Californin chasc Portland, Oregon for lheir e.cpansion pmjert. 'Clze
site chosen ptovided plug and play optiuns. 'I'he building owner ntso plans to provide all imprcrvements at no rnst
tu the company. There nre currently io call centers in the -6cinity of this huilding, Hith three clasing soon. 'llie
clnsing facilities N-tll pravide a ready-made lnbor paol to drnw employees. Netflix empluy.1; 25i►.
• Paciflc Ethanol, a production aad distributian aompany locatcd in Fresno, (:alifornia, is no longer looldng at thr
Spokane iirea, 1'he company pmfeN a rur.il location 1nd mquirrs aceess tn a mash marltet. Neither pnwer nor
land mst< <,•en competith•e With cur:il :►rr:►~. Pacific Fthannl will emPlm• .1<~.
Inbnund Sitc Visi[ Activit-v
'llie I:DC h8d a total of 8 intx)iind Sitc visi►ati{ins iiiiring the cp uurte-r •~i ruG. }[<<re arr s~m~ex.i~n}~Ic~:
• A New Zcaland metal caatinge company tourod the entire Spokane region ooncentrating mostly um industrial •ilt.~;
and building,s that fit their business nceds. The company currently has a customer base in ths arm and is aLto
lonking at the statc of Oregon for expansion.
• A hosc manufaciurer from CaliCornia vi.Siicd the Spokane area touring both industrial sites and residcntiiil
housing throup,lwut the ~wmmunity.
• A saftwam develapment company is looking at the area far expansion agportunlties, nnd w71 be visiting Spokane
again this aummer, %tith thuught of rclacating in the next severn) ycars. His software solution will bc rrady for
markct this August.
• 7'he 1:UC rerently hostetl an inbuund customer carc center.'fhe client was provided extensne information aa
training, wages, siate legislative climate, labuc raarket factors, and sites. Spokane is on iheir short list; alhcr
Icxadons were not divnlged. The clir.nt would like to lv. operatinna) %idth 150 etnPloyees try the end of ist Quarter
2007.
Outbound Site Vi,sit Acti-0
tv
0
~
~
ALrea EDC _
' ;PbKANE AItEA ECONOMIC DEVEIOPNE!J i ~uc.~':Cll
Drr►,inq FCnnC!mic GrottirJi 'r~rll Spec'd ,1heUd
I'he. FDC had a tutsl of t:} outl}c,untl site: vi-sitaliuri:; cluritig the t{u:urter 2000. Hf•rtir ,►re -.uine ex:iinp1~,!~:
• A pharmaceutical cumpany headquartered in the Repuhlic of Kcirea is planninK to shiR some manufacturing int('
tlie U.S. Stx)karie etma I;DC: has met witb executives uf the campany in Sr.attle on two occasions and has pro%idc-d
lnisiness luc•ation and cost infornZatian. Althuugh the sralc of lhe project and location havc not becn determuicd
by ruanagement, it is antieipated U.S. pnxluc.tion will include both pharmaceuticals and tnedical insWmenL.
• 1'acific Cthnnol, a California-based campany wit6 two ethanol plants under conshvLtion and Hith six tnore
planned, visiteci Spokane and ather Eastcm Washington sites during June. The cvmpany is seeking 30 acn.~ wi t)1
a nule of railrQad hontage for a plant eapected to cmplc►y about 40 penons when fully operalianal. Yrinrip.i1,:
have been favoring rural locations Hfiere land is chexp and nea.rby fecdluts can take high voluines af mash1uft
behind by the procluction proce.ss. Spokaae s initial attniciiveness to the company w-as to achicve a lowe.r :t
deli%•crp cost of eilianol_
• Met v►ith Real Tstate and racilitics manager af a g1oUa1 lelcxommunicalians testing manufactumr tivith rc. unuc-,
in excrss of 7ooM. They are exploring relacating their carparate headquarters out of Silicon VaIley, possibly uito
a different part of C:alifornia. Spokatie is the first out-of-statc rDC to mmt with them.
• Met with a Senior Vice Pcesident uf Operation.s and the Dircxior uf Investor Relatians of a large pharmaceutical
company out of Seattle. 'I'hey will be forming an internal task force to evalnate estaUlishing their oHm
manufacturing facilities. '1'hey currently use a contract manufacturer. The grojeci cottld bc completed In 3-;
yeats. SEokane is tfie only EDC to have met Hith thcm at this junclure.
• In mllabonation with INF4, met with a pmspeci in San Bernardino that foctLses on high-technolaY,y medical
app}icarionG. A tentative meeting is set in Spukane -Mth rompany representatice and meml?ers from the financi:sl
COiIlIIlIIIllt)' Ifl :\rw1~+1'{i. I~lr' ~~F1~y"1'tllllttti I'i'i~llifr.'~ lnt',il 11naf11'l;ll l4lfili't(lat tt'tl :tllcl IIlil1' lllk;il ~ytl(i'I111.1~.
. an.qioin Acti~•ity
• y'rf1,741,500 111 ti.d! ~sS[ILI L5C L.lY CI't-di1:: 11.1\ i• Ii.~ ~ 4mYluiIUi_i Ijl1llLiflg sj)ok:lllc''ti C~ ifllTilUllltN
Empowerment 7.one this year. Several prajecis are in the pipeline, but the EDC recYntly H•urkeci with Prtmicr
Manufacturing, K1i.~;et Altsminum. Hollititer5tier, anJ kcolite Manufacturing. The crndits Hzll allow ihc
companies to reimm::t in lheir capital improvement pmjects worth $2o million. 't'hesc comganies tr,g,~tlit°r wili
him an additional *5 cmployees, of whirh 29 wil) come from t.he (;ommunity F-npoHe.rment T.ane.
• As the Siatc A.SSOCiate Dwetopment OrQ,anization, the E?OC supported the airports CERB applicadon fo!- t Iw :~c•~~
hanger for Empire and Absotute, pro-viding testimom• to the CER.B Board in faror of the project.
• Kaiser has been a{spmwed for a training gtant thmugh the Job Skills Prcvgram fric $?w,noo to etitu•at+• vmP11)Yc<°:,
on thc newcyuipment purchasecl in eonne<•tiom with thp c•ompany's rx}iansion,
Site l.osation Gonsultaas
A total of 16,693 touches wem rnatle lu sile Ic>c.iliun cmn.sultant; fur (12, iitic) a tut.il uf *_jb,+;i su tiir lhi; }c.ir. 1'iecv:ti sc;lt
include monihly electronic neWsletters, 4b pustcacd from site cnnsiiltant poste.3cd seric,., multiple commercial & industri.1l
pmperty highlights, ancl the Pugct Sound Business Journal lnsert on die Spokune reqiun. 1'he i?D(' continuowsly markelti
the 5pokanc region to site scl•ctors and real t-~tate brokcr-; co ket~p the arra 't~~p of rnind.'
Awarencss: Medle and F.AM tou~
• Site Selection Magazi►ie visitccl the state of WashingtUn, and the Spwkinie area. 'llie magazine tuurc:d'1'riumpi)
Cvmposite Systems, YN Air, and joinccl tlte Prospcrity Pactnership and the Governoc fnr lunrh.
• Z'he F..I)C spansonec3 a Pugct Saimd Busincss.Tc}urnal inscrt on the Spakyne trgi(rn antj puhli.;hr(l in May.
~
~
~ Area EDC
~ ;FQKANE AREA ECOtJOMIC C1f V?1_QPHEIJT tGUNCII
i 1t, ~.")!f : i "lll' (_-1i~'.. - rli'! .1ilr':7(1
• The CDC, in collaboralion %-ith the Kegional C:hamber of Cotnmerce, sponwred g Washington 4F.U rnagu.ine
in.sert focusing on the Spokanc region.
• A tota) af 33 earned madia hits were achieved for the second quarter, and a total of 85 so far this year.
• The I:DC sponsored the Eastern Edge program in Rellevne featnring John Shovic and EIWV's G`ybersecurity
Pmgram.
.'11ie EDC cecenth en-sponsoe-ed t he Pugei Sound Business Journal's Fast/Wc4t Allianee Dleeting with the gaal tc►
establish caollaborative relationships with Western Washingtan. Over So busincss, government and educatian
leadeis from around the state attended the Seattle cvent. 'The 1?DC aLsa partieipated in the lagistics of the
Prosperity PArtnm, hip meeting that took placc in Spol:ane.
• Gary Mallon reprasonled the Spokane area at the BIO Trade Shrnv April 11-13th. The event H•iLs held at AlcCnrmick
Place Convention C:enter in Chicago and was attended hy thausands of biotechnology And binsciencce
profes.Sionals, as well as over 2000 exhibitors. '('he three day erent invoM-d visiting ovet go booths and exhihits
including both companies and site selectars.
•'Ihrce tax incentive wvrkshops were held to educatc local btisinesses on tax inctinrive vgdates and how to tnkc
advantage of lower E3usiness & Occapation tax rates. 'i'hc uorkshops were hasted try• the ED(: and Gary Grossmnn
from the UepL of R:etenuc and focrosai on the high-techJResearch & Development cnedita, incentives far the
aerospace industry and the Spokane Community F..mpowerment'Lone.
Marketing Materisls and Website
• The ww-+s lQM website activity cxmtinues to increase. The site is now hosting month}y inom than
300,00o hits; 450 unique users, up fmm qoo in Qi; Sooo visits (navigution through the site) up fmm 4,6oo in
Qi; and ix refemed by Googlc more than 2,050 times A month_
• Z'he Srakane Community Fanpoivennent Zone broxhure is now complebe. The brochure wil! be directty mailed to
local businesses in effotts to market the prvgram to companies that may qualify for benefits.
• a zoob - 2007 manuCncturers directory is underv►-ay and will include Spokane and Kootenai County
manutarturers. T'!us picce is being capublished N7th the Spokane Region:il Chamber uf Commerce.
• Tk.•velapment of a direct mail campaign is underway thnt will targct selected businevses in Northern California for
expansiun or relocadntt to the Spnlcant> mgiun.
InIA_nd Northwesi F,conomic Alliuttce I
Thc Inland Nnrthwest Economic Alliance continues to target Soulhern G1lifarnie prospeGts. Since 2004, INEA has mailed
6x03 packets resulting in:
• 39 4uahfied lerads
. iq salcs missions to date with the accompaniment af partner F[X' orgnnitaiions I
• 124 facc-tn-face sales calls in California
0 13 inbound client visits
A
~
~
EDC
d SPOKANE AREA ECONpMIC DEVEIQPMENT COUN_IL
P/iv!flg tCiv7C>f11iC LifOt4`(f1 - FUP Sp'c'd AflF'rt~l
Q i Q2 - Y'CI)
2006 uartcr 2 2006 2006
Ft,-C;,.uunCi:t tcx> >.;Z
~ FmanFion(Rrtumtian I..md,s - - -10 ~a-
~ - Projed Manner,cnt Le2dS - I s ~4
~ Tatal itankad Lead+ 26 -A-
~
L~rt~ _rn 1 ~.:~1; I 14
it{,:n:;tmer.t Winw - 4
Hc~«uitmetff Lu~r.~ - - 1 , - ~
EiDc►asioa/Rrlrtstion Wins
ExiaasionlRetentian (ix"cs o
I_ Pm+r1lS;ns I t I t
f I
Pn!u~ct I.iti+C~ p
PmTxs.11. Submist:ri 6 -ti
Clieat tiitc Visits (uutbound) 4
Ciir.nt 5tte Nlisib (inbnuttd)
Gintnitet'sSliit.g'icHcxncFufld
~tal Pru'ectS I o $ lu,:-u.oou
P.a_it•icitmrrtl l~in-. t'~(:,1( S KR j
'~1• ii_~ I : _ .i" `
FA:41 'Coun' O 1
l."l Clicnt MeetinSi ~ :k
( uuuMiL,bie Mec<«nF
Propertics shown by City af City of
cluster and locatlon in Counry Gtity of Spukane Spoknne Valley Ciry of Libcrty lake Cheney
_proposals only - 2oo6 _Q2 Q2 42 Q2 Q2
Manufacturing_ 12 ~ - 1L
Tcxhnolo~v , I o l s _ 4_ o 0
_t?.Jistics _ i I I I _ 3-_ o
Icealehcare o _o f. o o
Shared Services 61 6 '
~ _~1
Total Q2 14 _ 10 32 1
~
~
~ Area EDC
~ :PCKANE AafA ECOrJOi-11C DEYEIOPMf-Jt CCIUNUI
Cln~~nz7 ~~ononi,c urnL~'th Fu0
2006 ~
Rccruitment I.ead Saurce Rnnk i Rank z I.ong Tercn Tntnl I I
I ~
Uir~,~ct Mail I I 1 4 :42 ~ 37
InboitnJ I I a _ 9 _ 28 41.
CNE1 2 5 ~ 7 W
CTED I o t ~ 51 b
3
'I'radeshow ! I o I 1 I 12 1
vVCDA I ~ o; i I to 11
thher o I 2_ 16 I 18
Sitc Silm-tor t ~ 0 2 3,
I Tocid I 1 s I 2,3 I 112 143:
SpQkanc Area EDC Project Updatc - Qx
Pr4 t Win
Ovrr 300 puriicipants took part in Gnmerest 2006. 'i'he day and hnlf event tcxok place at the (:onvention t:entcr an(i
included a rnnference, carcer fair nnd tournament, and open pme play. 'The F.llC lead the efforts for tliir cvEn.t, I
cnllnbarating with VPnet, OneI:ighty Nerivorks and I.LIX (Iaberty Lake [ntemet F.xehange). Spa{wne leaders propused
the project to further dcnrelap tbe image of Spokane as one of the most connected comiunnities in the r+vr]d. Gamerest
sho%vases the cutting-edge Massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG) phenamenon and the regional integated
technolcyg• infrastructure.
Was~iWon Sia[gliuioNt' ;on l.one Gt=
I
'!'he Spokane Area EDC rerently led a team in the submjssion of a suocessful appliration for an Innovation 'l•one Grant to
thc Wnshington State I)epartment nf tAmmunity'1'rade and F.cnnomic Dmelopmcnt. Partners in this pivject includcd:
• Washington State Vniveisity, Spokane (W5U Spolcane)
• Sirty
• lnstitute for Systerns Mcdicine (ISM)
• Spokanc ltegional Chamber of Commen:e
• Inland Norlhwest Fiealth Ser%ices (INHS)
• Clty of Spokane
. Spokane Area V1'orldnme pevelopmcnt Council
The Inncn-ation 'l.cine grant encourages local partnershipb to develap policie5 that will encournge public rosources
(funding, skiU btu`lding, infrastruclure, etc.) tovvarcis areas %tith unique concentrations of innrn•ative actbity. "11ie Sjx)kanc
partnership hresenteci the Unncrsity I)istrict as an example of an F.astern Washington innovation -r.one. Final product is
dnc to tlzc statr_ h)- August tq, 2000.
~
~
~
S Area EDC
' S.OR Ar.JF. AREA FCONOMIG DEVElON14ENT COUNCIL
In,; EconowirC Grnta-th Fut! ~pe-t! •1'~t~:~d
ComQrghensive Economic Dcm.,clopmcnt Strate~The Spokane Area EDC: was recent}y notificd thdt the 2005 Gornprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CF.DS)
prepared by the 5polcane Region was rtwiewed and accepteci by the U.S. h:vonomic Development Administrarian. 11ie
document is considered current for the year 2oo6.
7'hc CEDS plan is an analysis of the cucrent eoonomic cc>ndilic,n.5 af Spokane County, and includes a rision :statemeni, an
action plan and measurement5 of suaess. Members of the C[:D5 Committee mpmsent over 40 local organizations and
agencies, aU contributing to the economic development of the regiQn. An imporfant element of the CEDS prcwess inrludes
the subtnissian of projects for inclusion within the CEDS plan. 'I'hese projr.cts arr rc-viev.ed tsy a subrommitire and ranked
for regional priority. 41'hen the CEDS plan is approved, thE-si• prujrrt; ar~, cnnsidrn~d eIiKible for h:Ua fur)ding, and are
considcreci regianal prinrities for nther federal fun(is.
'i'he next version of the CEDS dacument is cxpected at the I:UA i)ftices b}• A4av ,;i, 2007. "I'he I•:DC will cum-ene the IuCal
l'l:DS leam beginning in September.
l'rom 1974 tu 1987, EDA prrnided apprnximately 57,000,000 to the Spukane m-gion fur iulraslruclure impr~~vements.
Since moi, I:DA has rcx;uimd loca] communitic:s to submit a CLllS p13n in order Iv be eligible fur funcling_ Spokunv's,
CEDS plan has becn responsiblc tor gnrnering ovTr $5,0oo,ooo in suppwrt from CI)A during the ]a.hl 5 y-eats. Additioai.ill,
rsne af the projects, the Bialicse] project pmposed lry the Spokane Uoiinty (:urLCen•ation District, hnx been ncitifie.i tli.,t
they are eligible for $2,000,000 in appmpriations which will help with constnu.tion of this project in Spoknne Count%.
W&9 Plains T te
Work on the NTest Plains Strategic Planning Process concinues. 'I'his proceas is expected to cmate 'shovel-ready" sites and
zanes that can be used in tnarketing the region to logistics and m.3nufacturing companie.s that require large parcEls of land
for relocatian and expansion.
During the last quarter, the EllC and Spokanc Caunty havc met wit6local municipalities and sen-ice pcoviders to begin
the proaess of e"orting dnta Inyers from their systems to Spnkane County's GIS program.
Additionnl work needs to bc done by some of the partncrs to prepare the infnrmation for integration. The County has
expressec1 their %.illingness to assist the citic>s uith dev+elopment of specifications for the data loyets, and the EDC will
pro,%ide some fundinK to help with thiq development from a gmnt rec.-eived fmm Forus u.
Rcgional Site Selrctor
A pmject that has benefited from this work in West Plains is the Kegiunal Site Selector. 'i'1►e agreement to mcve forward
on thi.s pmjcrt was mcendy signed by the site selector consoKium pariners, includinb City of Spokane, Spokane County,
Washington State University, M-ista aocl tlie 5pokane Area NDC. In addilion, the City of taherty i.ike has pledged its
cnmmitment to the project. ~-dth cnntinuing discussions planneci Htith ather region:il municipatlities and µartners.
"11m imglementation of the ~,ite selEv-tnr is plann<<d for late 2006/carh, 20x07.
~
~i
Area E°C
KANFALL~ 4 ONOMIC O[NRW►!SlNT CWNCIL
P R ESS R E LE~1S E
. • ~/riving imnanit Gro~+Ui • ~'ukSpccAAhe~d
1-800-SPpKANE ♦ w-ww.spokaneedc.org ♦ 801 W. ftiver.side, Suite 302, Spokanc, WA 99201
FOR IMMEllIATE RELFASE COl~'TACI':
Apri113, 2006 Maria Vanderi,ert, Spokane Arca EnC
(509) 742-9357
rnvandervert(@snokaneedc.ora
Douglas G. I3rierley
, Guardsmark
(206) 243-9774
Securitp Firm Opens Offic.e i.n the Spokane Rcgion
(Spokaiie Nralley, Wash.) - The Spok.ine Area Economic Development Council annpunced today that
Guardsmark, the fourth largest security company in the world, has opened an office in Spokane Valley at
iioi Aiorth tlrgonne.
7he EDC first iiiet w-ith Guardsmark in aoo3: and since then has assistecl the company witli their
expansion process. "The E17C played a valuable role in providi.ng us the necessary coiumunity and site
information. They assisted us in establishing our office a.nd also put us i» touch Mth members of this
' community, which allowed us to move fonvard and hetter serve the many clients and employees we have
l-~ in this region," said Doug Brierley, Manager Business Dcvclopment for Guarc3smark.
Brian Thomson, a graduate of Ccntral Washington UniversiYy, %AIl manage thc new Guardsmark office.
Brian has a degree in Law and Justicc. Guardsmark plans on hiring many more employees as they
expand contracts in the area. The company already employs 500 guards throughout the state, and hires a
highly skilled and stable work fnrce by offering teain membeis an exceptional benefits piiCkage.
Currendy, the company is the largest employer of foraier I'BI agents in the world.
Fotmcletl in 1963, Guardsmark specializes in security sen7ces, investigations, consulting, and background
screening ainong other spGCialized services. Guardsmark LLC revenue for calendar year 200S exceeded
one-half billion dollars, and eaiploys 18,500 nationNvide, szning 400 communitics through 145 offices.
The cotnpany has been featured in numerous publications including Tune lViagazine, 41ta1] Street Journal,
and on the Today Show, and has grown 12% annually witbout acquisitions.
For more informadon about Guaedsmark you can «sit their web site at wMnv.qua rr3smirk_r.nm.
Ahout the Spokane Area Economic Development Cvuncil
The Spnkane Area Economic DeueIopnzent Counct! (F.DC) i.s coni»iitted to driving the growth of quality
jobs and irivestmenr irz the Spokane regfon Chrougft direct recruihnent of nezu business arid deIiUeT•y of
tools und resources to sccpport business expnnsion and reCentton. The FnC is funded by ntore than 300
prfuat( -sector partner•s; Spokane Counhy; j4Tashington SYate Office of Comrrtunfty, 7'rade und Fconomtc
llevelopment; City of Spokane; Gity of Spokane Va((ey; City of Liberty Luke; Gity of tYledtcal l.ake; und
CihJ of Citeney. For- more informahon, visit wtuwsnokarteed,r..pra.
, , ~
~
S'°'`a"eA' PR ESS R ELEASE . uac•nc uu ccm.r~vx o[vuo!ncsrr cou.ui ' ~
OHYfng FmnomkGrowrh • fvOSpe~MAReod •
1-800-SPOKANF ♦ wwxv.spokanccdc.oxg ♦ 801 W. Riversidc, Suite 302, Spokane, WA 99201
FOR IMMEDIA1'E RELEASE CONTACY':
June8, 2oa6 Maria Vandervert, Spokane Area EDC
(509) 742-9357
mvanden,ert(@sDokaneedc.org
Kristina English
Chief Financial Officer
Healfihcare Resource Group
(800) 695-8171
kenizlish(@hrL-Dros.com
Healthcare Resource Gcoup Reloc,ates to the Spokane ltegion
(Spokane, 4Vash.) - The Spolume tlrea F,,conomic Development Counci] announced today that Healthcare
Resouree Gmup (HRG) of Sandpoint, Idaho, is relocating its Past ralls, Idaho operations to the Spol:~ne
regioti. The company will be establishing its OutPartneringT~+ Center in Spokanc Valley to have greater
access to a larger workforce aild pool of experienced candidates.
Healthcare Resource Gmup's OutPaitneringr-t Center pro-6des billing and accounts receivable management services for hospitals and medical facilities. The Ccater eurrently employs 55 and N+ill be ;
moNing into Pinecroft Business Park in July, giving the company more room to expand. Tlle new space ~-u-'►11 a.llow the company to immediately acid So positions for a total of 1o5 employees. In addition, the
location proNides HRG the capability to add approximately 70 more employecs in the future for a total of
i75.
HRG also has regional offices located in Washington and California. Since 1994, the company has grown
to 23o employc.es, and pro,,7des complete revenue cycle and cash enhancEment programs for both large
and small healthcare facilities. 1'oday, Che company serv-ices more than 18o 6ospital and major medical
group clients, and has gi~oNvn 6aR5 in the past three years -,%zth annual revenues in excess of $io million.
IIRG also proNides temporary staffing services to hospital and medical gzoups throughout the Nvestern
LF.S., and is an "employcc-ovvned company," which gives employees a significant benefit by being vested in
6ve years.
The Spokane Area BDC has worked closely with HRG and vdth local organizations including WorkSource
Spol:ane, AH_ANA, and the Community Colleges of Spokane on training options a»d available bilingual
candidates. "The EDC assistecl us Na-ith avariery of rclocation issues inclutting access to training,
eonneeting us tn local veildors and ser«ee providers, and taac incentive options," said Kristina ]bnglish,
CFO of Healthcare Resource Group.
For more information please visit wwtia.hrsnros.com.
About the Spokane Area Economic 17evelopment Coi,utcil
The Spol:ane Area I;conomic Dcvelopment Council (EDC) is committed to dri,.ring the growth of quality
jobs and investment in the Spol:ane reginn through airect recruitment of new business and delivcry of
tools and resources to support business expansion anci retention. The EDC is funded by more than 300 ;
private-sector par[ners; Spokane Cou.nty; Washingtnn State Office of Community, Trade and Economic 1)evelopment; City of Spokane; City of Spol:ane Valley; City of Liberty Lake; Cit), of Medical I.ake; and
City oE Cheney. For more information, visit wtivtiv.snokaneedc.or2.
. #4#
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: 18 July 2006 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
(E information [gadmin, report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Right of Way Ad Hoc Committee Report GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 10.05 Streets, Article II Construction and Activity Within
Right -of- Way
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Ordinance 63, 2003; Spokane City / County Regional
Pavement Cut Policy; Ordinance 06-015. BACKGROUND: Over the last few months Council has heard various presentations
conceming Spokane Valley Municipal Code; Section 10.05 Streets: Article II Construction and
Activity Within Right -of-Way. -
On 11 April Council directed staff to prepare an Ordinance to amend Article II which was
accomplished with Ordinance 06-015, approved at Second Reading on 27June 2006.
Also during that meeting, Council directed staff to form an Ad Hoc Right- of - Way Committee to
~ discuss six questions:
1. Is all work in the right-of way permitted the same or should non-cut permits be able to
gct longer or multi-location permits?
2. Can the City of Spokane Valley franchise holders be exempted from certain permits?
3. How much of the public right of way must be used to cause the City to require an Obstruction Permit?
4. How long can a traffic lane remain obstructed prior to an Obstruction Permit being
req ui red? 5. Do different street types require different consideration for permitting or inspection?
. 6. If permits are waved, how would the city track street obstructions to alert emergency
services, and document any resulting damage to city infrastructure such as street
signs, curbs, sidewalks and pavement?
The committee was formed following Council's direction for membership, and a two hour
. meeting was held on 7 June 2006. Staff facilitated the meeting but the results of the
meeting were truly generated as a consensus response to the six questions posed by Council
by the Ad Hoc Right-of-Way committee. Tonight's report discusses that meeting and will be
presented by three members of the committee.
OPTIONS:
Direct Staff to continue enforcement of SVMC 10.05 Streets, Article II Construction and Activity Within Right -flf- Way as it is currently written. ; l,• Direct Staff to prepare an ordinance to amend SVMC 10.05 Streets, Article'll Construction and
Activity Within Right -of- Way to employ new public policy as directed by Council.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: If Council proposes to amend SVMC, provide staff
with the direction relative to the six questions.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: If Council would reduce ROW Permit requirements that will
not only reduce inspection requirements but will reduce permit fee revenue. Since we are
attempting cost recovery, only, the impact will be negligible.
STAFF CONTACT: Building Official Scholtens
ATTACHMENTS
PowerPoint
List of ineeting attendees.
Welcoming letter for Ad Hoc Committee.
~
SpMa
00
n00*
e
;ooOValley 11707 E Sprague Ave Sufte 106 ♦ Spokane Valley VJA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org
~ . . . . , . - a_~
1 June 2006 Greetings; '
This is a follow up to our phone conversation concerning the Ad Hoc Committee
City Council has requested in order to review the Obstruction Permit
requirements found in the Municipal Code. First, I would like to thank you very much for dedicating this time to our City.
Public involvement is highly vatued by the City of Spokane Valley City Council
and Staff as we work fio serve our citizens.
Although the work proposed is important, I would hope we could reach some
conclusions in a rather short time. Our first meeting is scheduled from 9 a.m.
to 11 a.m. on Wednesday, June 7, 2006, here at City Hall in the City Council
Chambers. If we need a second meeting it is already scheduled at the same
~ time and location for the following Wednesday, June.14. The issues we are charged with discussing center around the Right of Way
Obstruction Permit required by the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Article II,
Construction Work and Activity Within Right-of Way. Our charge is to establish
if that Section needs to be clarified or amended as it relates to non street cut
activifiy. For your reference, I have enclosed a copy of Article II with this letter
highlighting subsection 10.05.080 that mandates permits. If you would care to
view this on the web, the address to our Municipal Code is:
http://www.spokanevalley.orQ/uploads/The Executive Branch - The Citv Manaeer/documents/snokanevallevMC2reducedsize.pdf. .
The questions that City Council requests our consideration are:
1. Is all work in the right-of way permitted the same or should non-cut
permits be able to get longer or multi-location permits?
2. Can the City of Spokane Valley franchise holders be exempted from
certain permits?
3. How much of the public right of way must be used to cause the City to
require an Obstruction Permit? 4. How long can a traffic lane remain obstructed prior to an Obstruction
Permit being required? .
-w . - . .
5. Do different street types require different consideration for permitting
or inspection? -
6. If permits are waved, how would the city track street obstructions to
alert emergency services, and document any resulting damage to city
infrastructure such as street signs, curbs, sidewalks and pavement?
Although other questions may be considered as they relate to this issue, it is
probably wise that we work at these 6 issues first. It may also be wise for us to
first consider some guidelines for our committee to operate under as we meet.
Establishing a simple SOP among the committee may make it possible for us to
move forward as we consider these questions and move toward consensus
results at a faster pace. As a suggestion I would propose the following
guidelines:
1. Everyone is required to participate in the discussion.
2. We must not interrupt, as each of our comments and ideas have
significance.
3. Once we decide on a consensus response, we wilt not revisit or go back
to the issue.
4. We atl vatue a sense of humor and will strive to play nicely.
5. If someone just doesn't agree with the consensus they are welcome to
provide a written minority report to City Council.
6. Our City of Spokane Valley Legal Staff will review our report for City
Councit and may find that our consensus resolution of an issue is not '
appropriate and may recommend that Council not follow any or all of
the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee.
Thanks again for agreeing to participate. I look forward to meeting you on
Wednesday morning.
Please call me at 688.0024 if you have any questions.
. Sincerely,
Tom Scholtens, CBO Spokane Valley Building Official
%
~ Right of Way Ad Hoc - Cammittee Meeting
Spokane Valley City Hall .
June 7, 2006
9am - 11am
Bob Ashcroft
\TOnn Gibbons Consolidatcd Irrigatian L7istrict #19
NTorm's Eacavating consolidatedirrigation@comcast.net
sheila(u;pacway.com
Steven `Vulf
Charlene Kay Waste Managemcnt WSTaO'I' swul f@wm.com
kaycQ,,vsdot.wa.gov
John Hart
Iaave Johnson p~~sta
Qwest john.hart@avistacorp.com
davejohnson2@qwest.com
Ty `Vick
Kevin Wells Spokane County Water 17istrict #3 Vera Water a.nd Power scwd3@cs.com
~ kevin@verawaterandpower.com
Ryan Gapf Patty Shca ComGast Avista
ryan_zapfGu}cable.comcast.com patty.shea@avistacorp.com
Jim Lenox Joe M. vlorgan
Seinco Modern Electric
jlennox@sefaco.com jmm@mewco.cqm
Regina Collier Mikc Baker
ScFnco Modern Electric
reollier@sefnco.com mgb@xnewco.com
-
T.,ouis York Norman L,oftin
Spokatie County Utilities Spokane Va11ey Fire
lyork@spokanecolinty.org loftin@spokanevalleyfire.com
- .e
Right of Way Ad Hoc
Committee Meeting Spokane Valley City Hall
June 7, 2006
9am - llam
vtembers present: Norm Gibbons, Norm's Excavating
. Charlene Kay, WSDOT
Davc Johnson, Qwest
Kevin Wells, Vera Water aaid Power
Rya.n Zapf, Comcast
Jim Leuox, Scfnco
Regina Collier, Sef,~nco
J,ouis York, Spokane County Utilities
I3ob Ashcroft, Consolidatcd Irrigatioii District #19
Steven Wulf, Waste Management
John Harl, Avista
'1 y Wick, Spokanc County ~,T1later llistricl #3
Patty Shea, Avista
Joe M. Morgan, Modeni Elcctric Mike Baker, Modem Elcctric
Norman Loftin, Spokane Valley Firc "
Spokane Valley staff present:
Tom Sehnltens, Builcling Officixl '
Gay Lynn :lamcs, Admuustrativc Assistant
Erik Lacnb, Legal Intern
TZob Lai'ontaine, Adnunistrative Intem ' . Morgan Koudelka, Administrative Analyst
rocl Whitman, Administrative Intern
John Nolunan, SeniQr Development Engineer
'1"om introduced and welcomed everyone involved. 'rhe eurrent anci cxisting Spokanc
Va11ey.Right-of-Way Ordinance was staled anci six questions havE been listed for an Ad
Hoc Conunittce to ciiscuss. It was explained that there would be a need for consensus
among this committee in order to talce thc answers and opinions back to council.
11ie purpose for this meeting was clarified as being centered around the risk managenient
aspect of working in our RQW and protecting our citizens by clear notification and
protection for those needing to perform work in our City ROW. It was also stated that
Chis protection included the City's uivestmEnt in curbs, sidcwalks and pavcment.
j
0 L.isted are the six questions the Spokane Valley City Council directcd the conunittee to
answer:
l. Is all work in the right-of-way permitted the same or should non-cut peruiits be
ablc to get longer or multi-lucation permits?
Consensus was reached to detennine that all ROW perinits should not be treatcd the
same.
It appcared that there was a cietcrmination of either 1).no ROW pernut would be needeci
at al12) a 120W pemul would be ncedeci when traffic «+as obstrueted anci 3) a ROW
permit should be issucd when traffic was not going to be obstructed.
2. Can the City of Spokane Valley franchise holders be cxemPted from certain
permits?
There was consensus that Spokane Valley francluse holclers would/could be exempted
f.YOm obtaining certain perrriits. It was stated that there should be "accommodatinn
language" for business providing a public service such as garbage sErvice, mail de.livery
and other utiliticsto include telecommunications.
Thc idea of a long term or annual perrnit was discussed at tlvs time.
~ If there would be permifis required, thi.s cost would then be passed on to the residents
according to Steven Wolf of `Vaste Viaziagemcnt. Char Kay of WSDOT noled tliat in
some munieipalities a"road wear fee" is often passed on to customers i.n these cascs.
3. How much of the public right-of-way must be used to cause the City to require an
Obstructiun Permit?
. 4. How long can a traffic lane remain obstructeci prior to an OUstruction Permit?
Consensus was reached to delermine that both 93 and #4 wrould dependent upon ane
another.
Whcn the "travel way" is impacted from its nomial dircction a permit would be rcquired.
Sidewalks were also aii issue as far as obstructions in the RO`V and need not be
excluded.
Mobile vs stationary business is a point that needs to bc clazified. IMU'1'CD declaration of
work #4 and -65 needs tn be referenced.
J
i,
5.Do different street types require diffcrent consideration for pc:rmitting or
inspection?
C i onsensus was detcrmined that all streets be treated the samc as far as permitting. It
would not make any differeucc if the work was perfortned in a maiu arterial or ui a cul-
de-sac.
6. If permits are waived, how would the City track strect obstrucNons to alert
emergency services, and document any resulting damage to City infrastructure such
us street signs, curbs, siclewalks, and pavcment?
This question was restated as:
Tf annual or long term permits are issucd, how would the City track street '
obstructions to alert emergency services, and document any resulting damage to
City infrxstructure such as street signs, curhs, sidewalks, and pavement?
There was a consensus that i;iting the MUTCD codes would help in determ.i.ning the
requirements issued along -vvith the permit itself. This should also include a list of whom
to notify of RUW obslructions. This would relate to the purpose of the meeting itsel_f, the
SaCety and acconunodation af those paying for and utilizing the ROW.
Dave Johnson of Qwest made a suggestion that categories or classifications of those
obtaining permits would/could be done in ordcr to cleterIIUne reasonable cost For annual ROW permits if ttus is what the Council decides.
I..ouis York, Spokanc County Utilities, made a comment that seemed to be well received.
Louis wondered if somehow the central dispatch could become associateci in one way or
another with the existing Onc Call system. Thereforc nolifying of emergency locates
which could require ROW obstcuctions.
One clear consensus was determined to explain that the answer to one question would
unpact and change the consensus to a.nother. Therefore, all six questians Nvould need to
be considered as a group, not taken individually or without notice of the others.
,
It was agreed upon that these minules would be seiit to the members via email and there
woiald not be a need for another meeting to be scheduled tmless soinething was not
reported accurately to the'Spokanc Valley City Council. Tom invited any and all
members to be a part o.f this discussion in front nf Council and will noti:fy all incmbers
listed of the time this will be included on the agenda.
This committee meeting was adjourned at l lam.
. ~
Ad Hoc ROW Committee Report
Committee Meeting:
. - 7 June 2006
Ad Hoc ROW Committee Report
• Ad Hoc Committee membership was made
up from the organizations City Council
suggested during the 16 May 2006 City
Council Meeting.
• Six questions were posed to the Ad Hoc
Committee during the 7 June meeting.
Those questions were derived from the 16
May City Council Meeting.
1
Ir"'Ad Hoc ROW Committee Report
• Committee response to the Questions is a
consensus response generated by the
committee, not by City Staff.
• Although City Staff was present, we only
facilitated the discussion, answered
questions and really tried to not influence the
committee's response.
-Ad Hoc ROW Committee Report
• The purpose for this meeting was clarified as
being centered around the risk management
aspect of working in our ROW and protecting
our citizens by clear notification and
protection for those needing to perform work
in our City ROW. It was also stated that this
protection included the City's investment in
curbs, sidewalks and pavement.
2
Ad Hoc ROW Committee Report
• We have three members of the Ad Hoc
Committee to present the answers to the
questions and discuss any follow-up
questions city Council may have.
Ad Hoc ROW Committee Report
• 1. Is all work in the right-of-way permitted the
same or should non-cut permits be able to get
longer or multi-location permits?
• Consensus was reached to determine that all ROW
perrnits should not be treated the same.
• It appeared that there was a determination of either
1) no ROW permit would be needed at all 2) a ROW
permit would be needed when traffic was obstructed
and 3) a ROW permit should be issued when traffic
was not going to be obstructed.
3
FAfi--., Hoc ROW Committee Report
I
• 2. Can the City of Spokane Valley franchise holders be
exempted from certain permits?
• There was consensus that Spokane Valley franchise holders
would/could be exempted from obtaining certain permits. It was
stated that there should be "accommodation language" for
business providing a public service such as garbage service,
mail delivery and other utilities to include telecommunications.
• The idea of a long term or annual permit was discussed at this
time.
• If tfiere would be permits required, this cost would then be
passed on to the residents according to Steven Wolf of Waste
Management.
Ad Hoc ROW Committee Report
R • 3. How much of the public right-of-way must be used to
cause the City to require an Obstruction Permlt?
• 4. How long can a traffic lane remafn obstructed prior to
an Obstructlon Permit?
• Consensus was reached to determine that both #3 and 94
would dependent upon one another.
• When the "travel way" is impacted from its normal direction a
permit would be required.
• Sidewalks were also an issue as far as obstructions in the
ROW and need not be excluded.
• Mobile vs stationary business is a point that needs to be
clarified. ti1UTCD dec!ar?tion c` wo* #4 aid #5 needs to b:
referenced.
J~
4
- Ad !Hoc!ROW Committee Report
• 5. Do different street types require
different consideration for permitting or
inspection?
• Consensus was determined that all streets
be treated the same as far as permitting. It
would not make any difference if the work
was performed in a main arterial or in a cul-
de-sac.
Ad Hoc ROW Committee Report
. 6. If permits are waived, how would the City track atreet
obstructions to alert emergency servicea, and dxument any
resultin9 damage to City infrastructure such aa street slgns,
curbs, sidewalks, and pavcment?
. This question was restated as:
• If annual or tong term permits are issued, how would the City
track street obstructions to alert emergency servicea, and
document any resulting damage to City infrastructure such as
street signs, cufis, sidewalks, and pavement7
• There was a consensus that citing the MUTCD codes would help in
determining the requirements issued along with the peRnit itself. This
should also include a list of whom to notify of ROW obstrudions. This
would relate to the purpose of the meeting itself, the safety and
accommodation of those paying for and utilizing the ROW.
5
-Hoc ROW Committee Report
One clear consensus was determined to
xplain that the answer to one question
ould impact and change the consensus to
nother. Therefore, all six questions would
eed to be considered as a group, not taken
ndividually or without notice of the others.
;
4
~
r
Ad Hoc ROW Committee Report
Questions?
Directions from City Council for Staff?
<
6
.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006
Item: Check all that apply: 0 consent ❑ old business ~ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion: Proposed Revision to the Ad Hoc Sign Committee.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 05-016
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
The City Council adopted Chapter 14.804 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County as interim
regulations governing signage. The provisions were adopted by Spokane County in 2002
following a multi-year effort, which included a study group which submitted recommendations for
action. City Council authorized the formation of an Ad Hoc Sign Committee by motion on April
6, 2004, appointing seven members with two representatives each from the business
community, sign contractors, and citizens as well as one representative from the Planning
Commission on May 25, 2004. The late Mr. Ken Holloway was appointed as a member of the
business community. Ms. Eldonna Gossett, President of the Spokane Valley Chamber, was
replaced Mr. Holloway on September 7, 2004. The Ad Committee was charged with the
"review and update" of the existing regulations.
City Council was briefed on the progress of the Ad Hoc Sign Committee on July 20, 2004. Mr.
David Crosby, Chair of the Committee, reported on the findings of the Committee on October
12, 2004. On December 9, 2004, the Planning Commission met with the Ad Hoc Sign
_Committee in a study session to review the Committee's recommendations. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed amendments on January 13, 2005, and
recommended approval by a vote of 4 to 2 with fhe Chairman not voting. City Council was
briefed on the proposed amendments on January 25, 2005. The proposed ordinance was
advanced to a second reading on March 8, 2005. City Council reviewed the proposed
regulations in Study Session on April 5 and April 26, 2005. The ordinance was further
discussed on May 10 and passed on second reading on June 14, 2005.
BACKGROUND: The Ad Hoc Sign Committee vras appointed to present a balanced review of
the existing sign regulations. The provisions approved by Council included:
"Ths Committee shall consist of seven members including ftvo representatives from the sign rndustry
activety engaged in the instaJlatfon of commercral srgnage, fwo rEpresentatives fmm the Spokane I1a!!ey
Business cammunity, tvvo rierghborhood representatives, and one member of flte Planning Cominission.
The meetings of the Committee shall be open to the public. ThE Committee may sol;crt and recerve
testimony whrch sha!l be inGuded in the minutes of tlie meeting. 7"he Director of Community
DevelopmQnt shalf be an ex-officro member of the Committee wifh the responsibility of recording the
meetrngs, providrng itiiormation requested by the Commrtfee, and provldfng nofics of ineetrngs. The
Comrnittee wtll review and recommend updatos fa the existlng rE+gulaProns."
The City Clerk advertised for persons interested in serving on the Committee. The application
period was extended from April 30, 2004 to May 21, 2004 to encourage participation from
interested citizens. Eight applications were received and six of the eight interested persons
were appointed. The agendas and minutes of all meetings were posted on the City`s vrebsite. .
: , The Committee held twelve 2-hour meetings between June 8, 2004 and November 2, 2044.
Administrative i2eport - Ad hoc Sign Committee
Dimcnsional Standards
Page 2 of 2
The original members of the Committee were polled concerning their interest in continuing:
~ SIGN INDUSTRY: ~ Interest? I
~ Duane R. Halliday ~ Lamar Outdoor Advertisina ~ Yes ~
John L. Johnston ~ Siqn Coto ~ Yes ~
GENERAL BUSINESS: ~ I
Eldonna Gossett
(replacinq Ken Hollav,ay) Spokane Valtsv Chamber of Commerte Yes
' Denny York ~ Yoke's Fresh Markets Yes
~ CITIZENS: (
RaY Perry Retired Fairqrounds Manaqer, Spokane County. I Yes
DavW Quinn Walls that Talk ~ Yes
PLANNING COMMISSION , I
~ David Crasby I American Dream Homes - Broker ~ Yes ~
2,651 flyers were mailed to business licensees on August 16, 2005, notifying them of the
requirements of the ordinance. Enforcement was not actually initiated until February 2006.
Since enforcement has been initiated, Council has considered comments from members of the
public concerning the regulations.
The City Attorney has recommended changes in certain definitions for purposes of clar'rfication.
Included in a preliminary draft are also provisions implementing the 2006-2026 Spokane Valley
Comprehenslve Plan conceming aesthetic corridors and billboards, as well as provisions which anticipate other land use regulations.
City Council direction on the membership and representation of interests on the Committee .
should be considered, including appointment andlor replacement of inembers and the interests
represented.
City Council should also consider providing direction concerning the Committee's
responsibilities for the following:
• Clarification of terms;
• Aesthetic Corridors and billboards;
• Recommendations concerning height, area and spacing of permanent signs,
specifically addressing existing multiple pole signs;
• Prohibition of pennants, streamers and flags other than as temporary signs
• Prohibition of portable signs
• Comments concerning the SpragueJAppleway Sub-area Plan.
OPTIONS: Expand the Committee, replace members no longer interested, reappoint members,
specify interest groups and the proportion of representation and define a scope of review.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: "Staff is directed to revise the membership and
representation pursuant to our discussion and to solicit interest fiom members of the
public interesfed in serving on the Ad Hoc Sign Committee for Council,consideration at
an upcoming council meeting."
BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not applicable.
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS: None. -
3pokane .
. ~I Valley-
Revision to the Ad Hoc Sign
Committee
July 18, 2006
,
Purpose • Seek Council direction on the composition
and charge of the ad hoc Sign Committee
1
Background
• 14.804 of the Spokane County zoning code adopted:
• By County in 2002
• By City as interim regulations 2003 •
• City Council authorized Ad Hoc Sign Committee by
motion on April 6, 2004
• Ad hoc Committee appointed on May 25, 2004.
CQRmpQsitioCI
• Seven member Committee
, • 2 sign industry representatives
• 2 representatives from the bu5iness community
• 2 neighborhood representatives
• One member of the Planning Commission.
• Meetings open to the public.
• Committee may solicit and,receive testimony vrhich shall be included in the
minutes of the meeting.
• Director oi Community Development an ex-officio member responsible for
recording the meetings, providing information requested by the Commiftee,
and providing notice of ineetings.
• Charge: `The Committee vrill reviEw and revommend updates to the existing
regulations.'
- 2
/ Appointmertfi
• City Clerk adveRised for volunFeers • Application period extended from April 30, 2004 to May 21, 2004 to
encourage additional participation
• Eight applications were received
• Six of the eight interested persons vrere appointed.
• All agendas and minutes posted on the City's website
• The Committee held twelve 2-hour meetings between June 8, 2004
and November 2, 2004. .
~ J
HIstary
• City Cauncil briefed on the pragress July 20, 2004
. Chairman provided progress report October 12, 2004
• Joint Planning Commission/Committee mtg. December 9, 2004
• Planning Commission public hearing January 13, 2005
. Planning Commission recommended approval
. City Council briefed January 25, 2005
Ordinance advanced to second reading Pllarch S, 2005
• City Council Study Session April 5, 2405
April 26, 2005
. Council discussion May 10, 2005
• Ordinance passed on second reading June 14, 2005
• 2,651 flyers mailed to business licensees August 16, 2005
• Enforcement initiated February 2006
' 3
Since then...
• Comprehensive Plan adopted revising policies on
billboards and aesthetic corridors
• City Attorney briefed Council on issues raised by
enforcement on June 27, 2006:
• Clarification of terms;
• Prohibition of pennants, streamers and flags other than as
temporary signs
• Prohibition of portable signs
• Signage an element of the Sprague/Appleway Sub-area
Plan
COutlcil QptIQnS
• Expand the Committee
• Replace members no longer interested
• Reappoint members
• Specify interest groups & proportion of representation .
• Define a scope of review
4
/Members
I SIGN INDUSTRY: ~ Intorest?
Duane R. HaIHdeY ~Lmar Outdoor Advertisirva ~ Yes
John L. Jahrcstan ~ Sian C. ~ Ym ~
I GENERAL BUSINESS: I
EfCortna Gossett
(replaanp Ken Holloway) Saotano Vallev Chamber ai Coarimerce Yes
Denny York ~ Yoke's Fres,b f.Cerke!s Yes
CITIZENS:
Rav Peerv ~ Retired Fairarovnds FAanaaer. Snokane CounN. I Yes
Daotd Quinn I VValls lhat Talt ~ Yes
PLANNING COMA1ISSION I
David Crosby ~ American Dream I•{omes - 9roker ~ Yes I
.
~
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: [J consent ❑ old business 0 new business ❑ public hearing
information X admin, report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Presentation on Impact Fees
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 82.02 and RCE 36.70A-
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Information only item for Council in September, 2005.
BACKGROUND: The Council has asked for information at various times on specific means a
city can use to pay for infrastructure impacts resulting from development. Staff previously
drafted and provided a memorandum for the Council that incorporates all of the mechanisms so
that they can be reviewed and considered together.
The Council has asked for additional information, more specifically on impact fees authorized by
Washington's Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, and RCW 82.02. In furtherance of that,
there are a number of attachments for the Council's consideration. Most come from other
jurisdictions that have looked at implementing GMA impact fees, including Clark County and the
cities wifhin it, and Liberty Lake. The attachments are as follows:
1. Memo on infrastructure funding mechanisms from City staff (updated 7-7-06)
2. Table shovuing impact fees for each jurisdiction in Clarlc County for 2006
3. Power Point prepared by Wendy Van Orman of Liberty Lake, presented to the
Steering Committee of Elected Officials for Spokane County
4. 2005 Environmental and Land Use Law Newsletter from the Washington State
Bar Association
5. Article on Development Impact Fee calculation.
Additionally, the Spokane Regional Transportation Council website (SRTC.org) has on iks front
page various studies and technical analyses on this subject. They were not printed and
included because of their size, and because they would represent a lot of duplication with the
items that are included.
OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A
BUDGETlFINANCIAL IMPACTS: Depends upon the choices selected by the Council.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney; Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Memorandum on infrastn,rcture funding mechanisms from staff (updated 7-7-06)
2. Table showing impact fees for each jurisdiction in Clarlc County for 2006
3. Power Point prepared by Wendy Van Orman of Liberty Lake, presented to the
Steering Cornmittee of Elected Officials for Spokane County
4. 2005 Environmental and Land Use Law Newsletter from the Washington State
Bar Association
5. Article on Development Impact Fee calculation.
QT1' O
, . PFka:ne
;oo*Va111ey
11707 E Sprague Ave Stjite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spolcanevalley.org
. . , , , . . . • •~.m. : , . . . . . , , . . .r - - - - ,
-M.-e-m-orandum . To: City Council;
From: Caty P. Driskell, Dcputy Cit'y Aitorney; Nei1 Kerslen, Public tiVorks
Director;
CC: Dave Mercier, City vlanage.r.; and Mike Coiuielly, Ci.ty Attorney,
Datc: September l 3, 2005, updated July 7, 2006
Re: Capital facility :fundi»g mechanisins in Wash_i.ngton
1. W1IAT E1RF THE pP'TIUNS TU P_AY FQR CAPITAL FACILI'1`IE?S
IN1PROVENILN'C S?
A capiial faciliry is a structure, street or utility systern improveuieut, or othe,r long-lasting
major asset, including land. Capital facilities of local governnYents are provided for public
purposes. Under 1ZCW 36.70A.070(3), the cit_y's comprehensive plan must include a capital
f.'acilities plan. 'The capital facil_ities plm1 is prepared For the eutire urba.n growth area. This
poliey Iollows the intcnt of the GMA to helP cities prepare for gro~Nq1i v,rithin their urhan grhwth areas.
C_Tenerally, the primary issuc for capital facilities financing is who is going to fiuid new
facilities necessitated by negative impacts froiii new gro%vkb. One side of the issue argiies tliat
developers, and/or residents vf new development ought to pay for the inereased cleniands on the
entire system. E"urihermorc, thcy believe that newcomers get to iise all of the cw-rent
1LLfC3StCUCtl11'e 4vithout haWing had to pay for it. The counter ip thst ar€unlent is that ncw growth
increases the overall tax base for the community, which .v;11 generate the funds necessary for imprpve.ments to capital faeilitics over titn_e. AS SUCl1, the funcls neec(i;d to finance iuf.i•astructure
imprnvemencs resulting frorn new (and old) development should bc obtaincd tlirougll the general
taxing authoril'y af the City.
1n a very general scnse, auy fee obtained to mitigate impacts of developiilenC can be iermed an "impact fee". Tfi.is memorandum will look at a number o:f ways to mitigatc itnpacts as
- scpai•ate mechmusns. It should be noteci thlt utilization of one of thcse mcchariisms to mitigare
a known impact will precludc usc of the odiers. In ather words, a cit), cannot seek to mitigale che
same impact more than once. Under the Crowth Nlaiage.ttienC Acl (GMA) RCW 36,70A.070(6)(b), local jurisdietions
must adopt and enforc;e ordinances which prolubit development apnrpval if the devclopment
causes the level of service on a Iocally owned trarisportatiou facil.ity to decline, belaw the
1
standard adoptcd in unprovements or strategies to accanunodate the impacts of development are .
nlade concurreiit wilh the development. This requirement is generally referred to as
"concurrency". In short, the impacts of a development must bc rnitigated within a defined
amounl of ti-ine to be allowed. The conctu-reney requirements in GMA do ziot specify how this is
to bc accamplishcd.
Wheu requiremeiits such as develapment eYactions are placed on real property, they will be scrutinized to deterauuc if they qualify as a"taking" under the law. Aii cxaciion is simply
another nariie far requiring payment, in some form, for impacts caused. A tal:ing is Eui act by a
govenuncntal agency that involves a pennanenf physical invasion of pr.ivate property. See,
1Vollcrn v. Califorrria Coastul Cnmm'n, 4$3 U.S. 825; 107 S.Ct. 3141 987) (string cite omineci).
T'he Mvllan Court also stateci tliat a land use, regulation miist `substantially advance state
intcrests", and cannpt result in denyulg the property owner economically viable use of the land.
In a later case, the Uiuted States Supreme Court stated that eYactions will be considered a talcing
iulless they are reasonably. calculated to prevent, or eompensate for, adversc public impacts of
the proposed development. See also, Dvlan v. City af*Tigard, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 2319-20.
As a result of the nuiiierotLs, appr;llate cases oNrer the past t\venty years, there has
developed a tcst to determine if a particular development exaction violatcs the law as bcing a
"lkik]11g". FI1"Sf, the agency niust be able to shaw that thcre 1S il "rational TIeXUS" OP "Tat10llAl
relationship" beriveen the condilian of development imposed and the advcrse impact ot
development. 1`his includcs a shovving by the agency [hat condition nn development is "roughly
proPortional" to the aciverse impact of development. In couung tU this part of the rule, the Dolan Caurt stated that the local agency "must makc some sort of individualized deterni.uiation ehat the
required dedic;ation is rclated both in natur.e and extent (scope) to tlle impacc of ttie proposed
develepment. laolan, at 2319-20. Tn mare general tenns, this ensures that a developer of land
pays 1.heir fair share, but not more.
Several citics in Waslungton havc adopted ordinances tliat atteinpted to ameliorate
identifietl shortfalls in portions of thei.r budgets that can be directly attributed to aew growth by
imposing "development fees". NVhen challenged, some of these or.dinances were cfetermined to
be illegal ta:xes. A twx is illegal if there is no statutory basis for it. One case is c;ited wiih
regularity on this issuc. In Hillis I-Ionles, Inc., v. Snohomish County, 97 Wn2d 804 (1982), the
Vdashington Supreme Court announced a classic tcst for distinguishing bctween an acccptable
cievelopnient fce and azi impern-iissible tax.
"If the primary ptupose of the legislation is regulation ralher than raising revenue,
the legislation cannot be classified as a tax, everi if a burden or charge is imposed. .
7'he characti;riration of the development fees will, lhereforc, turn on a deternunation
of the prunuy purpase of the -fees. If the fees arc mere tools in the regulation of
. land, thcy are not ta.YCS. If, on the other hand, the primary purpose of the fees is to
raise money, the fees are not regulatory, bul fiscal, and lhey arc taxes."
Hillis Hanes, Inc., v. Snairarrrislt Cotinty, 97 Wn.2d at 809. An imPortaiit faccor for the Court in
Hillis was that a seneralized fcc was established for a developmcnt activity, without liaving the ability to perForni a particularizcd anal ysis on a case-by-case basis. 1'he inability to adjust a -
standardiied fee or charge; when it cati be shown by empirical evidence that a development
would not have tlie anticipated 'unpacts, ;s very likely to be stricken down as an illegal ta.c. In
2
ocher words, the amount char;ed was not rouahly proportioual to the impact cause.d. This
-"rough proportionality" analysis, nr somcthulg very similar, will be a recuning thEine throughout
this memorandum.
The various types of exaction mechaclisms a,re as f'allows:
A. '1'ransportltion 13eue.fit nistricts - KCtiV 35.72
B. lmpact Fces
C. State Environmental Yolic}' Ac:Y - RC1V 43.21C
D. Voluntary Nlitigation Abrccments - KCW 82.02.020
E. Local Trauspnrtatiun Act - RC«' 39.92
F. Statc Subdivision flct - RC«' 58.17
C. Local lmprovcmcnY Disrricts
A. I ransportation Benefit nistr•icts - RCW 35.72
1ZCW 35.72 provides a nlechanism whereby local jurisdictions or private partics that
participate financially in providing transportation infrastructure improvements can receivc
reimbursernent from other benefiting properties. Tn ordcr to do sn,. a local jtLrisdiction n-iust
adopt an. ordinance setting forth a proce•ss to follow. Spokane Valley adopted Ordinance 05-010
on Marcli S; 2005, whieh sets forth the procedural requireuien.ts tp f."orm a trwisportation bene-rit
district. "1`his is codified as Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapler 3.75.
i.f' a pcrson develnping property cleteimines, as a condition of developing their property,
ttiat they have to provide sonle cransportation uiiprovemenis; thcy coulcl apply co the City for
fomiation of a transportation benef:it district (17131)). The City may ctioose tn bE a party to such
an aereenienc if it determiues tli1t it would be advantageous f4r malcing ittiprovznients necessary
for the gcneral public. The dcveloper Nvould determine tlie a,rea that would be positively
impacted by the improvement to ascertain the size of: tlie '1"13I7. This would inelucle a
deternunation of the lots Nvitliin the T13D that are likely to be impacted. `l"lie developer woulci
then calculate tlie cost af the improvements for eac•h propcrty likely lo be positivcly impacted by
the improvement (which could faclor in the cotnprehensive plari desibnation of a prapcrty,
zoiung; cunenl uses, fiuhire intended use, size of parcel, prnximity to diE proposed improvements
cuid accesti lo the proposed improvements), vid bow mueh additional traffic capacity the
improvement would eenerate. This would then provide a pro rata cost of ehe improvement for
lots within the '1"BD. 1'roperty awners that would be included in the T$D would bc notitied, and
have opportLinity to objecC to the inclusion or cost calculation. Once the agreement is finalized, it
is recorcled with the Countv, anci is bicidulg on the property o-vvuers in the TBD Cor a pcriod of 15
years. 7"hc ti•iggering event for payment is develc>pment or redevelopment oi" the property. The
enforcement mechanism to ensure payment is thc City ean deny building peinuls until the .
assessment is paid. Thc end resulC NvOuld bc thzt if a property owner submi.ts plans for its
dcvelopment, and the calcullted nLunber of trips is "~X", the city woulcl collecc the per trip cost
for the entity that originally paid for it.
- As another alternative, a city [nay crzale an asscssuient reimbursement area on its own
initiative, withoul the participation oi a private property oNvner, financc the costs oi.'the road or
street improvcments, anci becornc the sole beneficiary of the reimburse•nients that are contributed. 3
lf a city participates in a T131), it may be reimbursed for on]y the costs of i.mprovements
that benefit new developrnene i.n the TBIa. NO city costs for improvernents lhat benefit the
general public niay be reimbursed. lf the City is not garlicipating in the TJ3ll, then the cfevcloper
aaid othcr private partics included in the TB17 will pay the entire cpst of the improvement.
R. Impact rees
Irnpact fees a.rc charges applied to ncw developmcnt to generate revenue for the
construction or espansion of capital facilities located outside the boundaries of new develoPment
(off site) that benefil the contributing devclopment. '1'he tyPe of impact fees that most people
think about when they liear tlus term are those related to the Grovvth Management Act, or "GMA
impact fees". [Jnder RC1V 82.02.050 through .090, jurisdictions that are requireci to comply with
GMA have authority to impose CMf1 impact fccs on new dcvelopment to cover a portion pf the
cost of the public improvenient needed to serve new devclopment. GMA impact fces can be
imposed to f:und only very lunited public improvements: public streets, publicly c~~%,,ried
parks/open spacelrecrealional facililies, schools; and fire protection faciliiies (for citics nol in fire
disiricfs, Nvliich we are). TZC4V 82.02.090,
Pursuant to RCW 82.02.050, GMA impact fees are subjecc tn fotir aciditioual speciGc
limitations. Fu•st, they may only be imposed for systein imprpvements lhat axe "rcasonably .
rclated" lo ttie new clevelopment beiug proposed. Second, they cannpt exceed a proPnrtionatc
share of the tocal costs of those unprovements. °l'hird, the GIvIt'1 impact fees must be uscd i'qr ,
system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new dcvelopinent. !1n important faclor ehat will inciicate this is the geographic proximity of the development to the propcised
improvcment. Thesc firse khree limitations refleet the United States Supreme Colirt's decisions
in the ATaflan a.nd Dolart casES, set forth in the introduction tn tliis memorandum. Fourth, GMA
impaet fees can only be collecled and spent ior projects, that have been identifeci in the City's
aclopted Capital Facilities Plan, N~vhich is part of the City 's Comprelieusivc Plan. The CFP must
identify existing system deficicncies iuld the means for remedying the dericiencies.
Imposition of GNIt1 impact fees must bc done through local ordinance. any such
ordinance must contain factors that must bc considereci in detennining the proportionate share oC
the system improvcrnent costs to be apportioned to private development. Uncler Tt.CW
82.42.060(1), those factors shall include at least: (a) the cost of public f acilitics necessitatcd by new development;
. (b) an adjustment to the cost of the public facilities for past or future payments made or
reasonably atiticipated to bc made by new clevelopment to pay for particular system
unprovements ul the form of user f.ees, debt service paymen.ts, taxes, or other payments
carmarked for or proratable to the particulax systcm im.provement;
(c) the availability of other mEans offunding public facility unprovements;
(d) the cost of'existing public facilities improvcments; and
(e) the metllods by wllich public f•acilities improvements were finaneed.
The City would also be required to establish one or inore rea.sonablc servi.ce areas withui
wfiich it shall calculatE and imposE impact fecs per unit of development. RCW 82.02.060(6).
The easiest way to impleinent this is to use one zone, althou;h it could be argueci that havc only
4
one zone does not represent a"reasonable service area" for a city ttie sire of Spakanc Valley.
'1'!te detcrtninalion of what the rc.a.SOila.Ule service areas are would be made afcer ttie City
conducted an in-depth traffic needs analysis, discussEd belvw. Since IIIIJ Jl1Cl)I!J)'CIYICI2N)7 ivas
originully is.sued in September 2005, the Washington SuprenTe Coiu-t iscued a decision involving
the City of Olyrr;pia, Citv of OIv»znia v. Tarehick iri Jantrury, 2006 The Drebick decision lookecl
at a challenge to Olyrrrpiu's estahlishrnertt of one zorre crs a reaa•onable .service areu. 7'he Court
of 'Appeals ruled tlrrxt havrng orte zone tivas ilat reasonrlble, and that a city is not reqtrired ta
determine if a par-ticzdnr developrr:ent tivoulcl iirzpacF arr intersectiori being funded by 1he impact
fees.. 7he Supr-eme C'ouyt reversed tlze Co:irt oJAppeals lvhich lracl hel.d ntlrcf-wise.
An ordinance must d(so provide a mechaiiism giving credit for the v11ue of any
dedication of land for, itliprovement to, car new canstruction of any system improvements
provided by thc developer to.f:ac.ilities that are identifeci in the City's adop[ed Capital Pacilities .
P1a1, aud which are requu•ed a.s condition of deve]opmLnt of the project by ttie City. RCW
82.02.060(3)
An nrdinance imposing uiipact fecs shall also uiclude a provision whereby the fee eo be
imposEd oi1 a particular developmenc allov,,s cvnsidcrafion 4f a study and data. to adjust the fee if
the data shoNvs thai it is warranted in thaC particulari:ced situation. 1ZCW 82.02.060(3) -(4)
A.s wit17 other measures for miticating irnpacts nf development, the fees collccted cannot
be used to mitigatc existing dcficiencies. 1=lowever, RCW 82.02.060(7) does stale itlat a loeal
ordinance providing for impacc fecs "uiay provide for the unposition of an impact 1.'ee for system
improvement costs previously incurred by the couuty, city or toNvn to the exient that netiv grovAh
ancl development will be served by the previously constructcd iniprovcments prUvided such fee
shall uot be imposed tn rnak-e up !'or any syslern iuipcpvemcnt def eieneies." This appears to
allow a city to impese some portion of impact fees collected Cor previausly constructed
improvEments. '1`his can only occur aiter cace['ul study and documentation to show that the
11location is dir.ectly arnibutablc to neW groNvtli.
Thc decision by a city to adopt an ordinanc.e allowing for GMA impact fees should be
made after cakiue inco consideration the anticipated costs of developing a coniprc.hensive
b1seline study oF existing facilities to a.scertain what cransportation unprovements are recluiced
and the cos[ of thnse requirements. "1'his type vf compl•ehensive baseline snidy is iime
eonsumin~, expensi~~e, aild work intensive. The City can then identify ne~v ar upzraded f~~cilities
needed to acconunodate growth and ptrt them into the ciiy's capilal facilities plan. The projcct
casts for all such projeets in the particulal• rone are calculated, the use allocaled to the general
public is subiractcd, and this prnvides ttie per-unit impaci fec to be applied to new development.
'I'hc fol]owing are some conimon asscriions hotll for and against imposition of impact fces: .
Ar,oiments nuide Uv crtlvocates of imnact fee.s:
- Ensttres lhat new devclopment will pay its fair share (or a[ least a share) of
, infrastruchire developnient costs. hupact fees will nqt pay thc total cost of new or
expanded facilicies. One cominunity rouglily esticnates, that impact fees covered
only about oue-thira of the costs of praviding serviccs, Nvith the reniaining two-
5
thircis of thc cost being met by property ta,tes, user fees, sales taxes and other sources. .
- Fases pressure on ttic commuiuty's Qther fuiancial zesourccs.
- Provides a politically acceptable alternative to property ta:es. Gr.ovvth may be
more political-ty acceptable when impact fees are imposed beeause residcnts
perceive that new home buycrs will pay for their o«i services.
-Avoids de facto moratoria on developincnt lhat result from tax and debt limits
on local government.
- Provides revenue eYCliLsively earmarked for infrastructure. Where there are
concurrcncy requireinent5, may allow developcrs lo proceed with projects instead
of waiting for public facililies to bc conslructed at same fuhire date.
- Correcely calctilated impact fces assess thE developer only for the cost of
providuig infrastruccure for the new development. Developer will know the cost
up front, and have a bctter chaiice of obtainuig financing.
-Allows local gaveituncnt lo coiiunit to constructing puUlic facilicies in a planned
and systematic inanner sin.ce a CIP is requircd for fee imposition. lii Washington
State lhis is inore a tunction of the GM:A. '
Arzuments nrucle bv Opvonents of Imnact Fees:
- Llfrastructure is thc respnnsibility,of the community as a whole, not new
devclopment alonc..
-]3ecause ii7lpact fees are based on the costs of improvemencs, and not ability to
pay, they are inh.erently regressive. Some argue that we are moving toNvards a
society where those who cai pay xuill rECeive socictal benefits, and those who
canr►ot pay will gradual ly bc shut out. -Adverse icnpact on housuig ai-fordability. Drives up the macket pricc qf both new
ancl existing housing.
- Impacl Cees may be used to fitrther no-growth objectives.
- F3y earmarking i.mpact fees revenue, local goverrunents lose flcxibility ui
finaiicing Gapitzl and oiher eYpenditiuzes. Legally, however, thete is not much
choice.
- Impact.fees have potential for abuse by government tinless linuted by carefully
crafted legislation. - If ouc juriscliction has impact fees anei adjoining az-eas do nQt, developmenl niay
' be displaced from one arca to another.
. .
' 6
- The administration of impact fees (calculation, assessmcnt, collectic~n, Cracl~i_ng,
refunding, etc.) may be eapcnsive, eomplicated and tecluucal.
C. State Environmental :k'olicy Act - RCVV 43.21 C
The State Enviroruncntal Policy Act (SEPA), Washington State's most fundanenial
envi.ron.mental law, Nvas enaclecl in 1971 as chaptcr RC`V 43.21 C. Srl'A's basic policy of
inaintaining and irnproving envir.otunental quality is implemented pritnarily through extensive
procedural renuirements desi;ned to insure that gUvernmental agencies give proper eonsideration
of environmental matters ui inztl:ing decisians on actions, whether proposed by private pacties or
the govemmental entities tliemselves that may uiipact the environment.
if itutial governmcncal review of a proposcd actian indicates that the action will have
prabable aiid signiticant adver$e envi.ronuiental impacts, preparation of a detailed cnvironmental
impact statement (EIS) will be reqttirc.d. The procedw-al requirements governing this
environrnental review process are containeci in regulations enacted by the Deparlment nf Ecology
in WF1C 197-1 l..
SEPA grants local jurisdictions wicie-raaging authority to impose rniligalina conditions
relating lo a project's cnvironmenta( unpacts. Many,cities have int:erpreted SEYA's authority fo
iivtiga.te cnvirorimenlal impacts to inchtde auChority to unpose iinpact i'ees to pay fnr the
ittitigz.tion of advGrSe ti-afi:ic liilp1CtS. A c.ily Ur county subject to the Grow'[h llailageTl]eC1L ACt
must havc a sepdrale transpoirtation conetu-rency drdina.nce, but may use SEPA and otlier existing
- _iordinances to implement cotictirrcncy a.S well.
AlthOugh RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b) re.quires local jurisdictions subject to the Gi~~IA to
adopt and enforce h-ai-isportation concurrenay ordinaiices, thc statutes are not specific aboui the
lype of nrdinance nccessary to i.mplecnent concurrency. M,,uiy cities arc adopting separate
coiicitrreney ordinmlces to iinplcmcnt lheir cnncurrency program, but a f'ew a,re relyiug primarily
on SEPA.
NVhether a local jurisdiction chooscs to implement concurrency through its SEPA
regulations or anothe.r pc3ri: oF its code, the development reSulacions sh.ould include specifc
coiYCUrrency language that prohibils development «<hen lc:vi;l of servi.ce staiidards f4r
trausporiation facilities cantiut be rnet. See R.CW 36.70A.070(6)(b). Btit, a municipality pursuing this course must establish a proper foundztion. E1s with any
dcvel4pment exaction, local SEPA policies autliorizing the exezcise of SEPA sub5tantive
autharily must be adoptcd and f"ees imposed must be rationally rclated to impacts ideniified in
tlireshold determination docuinents (pi•imarily environ.mental checklists) or enviramiiental
impact statements. 1^ecs collected uixler SEPA may not duplicate fees collccted under ot.her
sourccs of aulhorit:y.
D. Voliantary ~l~Titigation Agre.cmcnts - RCW 82.112.020
.
- Under 82.02.020; a city can enter inCo ~~oluntary impact mit:igalion agreeuiEnts f4r
payment of fees to mitigate a direct impact thar has bee.n identified as a consequencr of a
prapaseci cievelupment (fee rnust be rationally related to flie identiiieci imPact). Payiiient of feeq
-
. 7
under a voluntary agreement c:an be in lieu of a requirement to dedicatc land for public pirposes, -
or to pay for mitigating a direct impact of a developmeut. rhe term "paymenYD has also been
construed to include the construction of street iuiprovements and 'uistall fire safety eqiupment
improvements. See, Southtivick; Inc., v. City of Lacey, 58 Wn.App. 886 (Div. II, 1990).
The permitting aecncy must be able to establish thdt an i.mpact .f.ee collected pursuant to a
volunta.ry agrecmcnt is "rcasonably neee.ssary as a direct result of the proposed developuieut or
plat," Ftulds collected under voluntary agreements must be held in a reserve account and
capendcd on agreed upon capital iniprovements. Fees inust also be cxpended within fivc years
or be refLmded with interest.
The be5t eaample we have in our Ciry of such voluntary mitigation agreements is the
PinesJMansfield Voluntary Mitigation Agreement approved by the City Council in Febniary;
2005. Thc impacts of cievelppment from a number of developcrs were identified through a
study, a proposed mitigation measure was then idcntificd in conjunction with the various
jurisdictions (cicy, Ceunty and state); and an agrcemcnt was negotiated and approved by the
Parties.
E. Lc:ic<<l TransPortstion Act - RCW 39.92
'1`his one will only be briefly mentioned. Tn essence, this is a separa/e statutory provision .
fpr impact Fees exclusively for transportation infraslructure needs. The LTA imposes other
procedural requireiuents tha.n are folmd tuxier the mare general GvtA unpact fees undEr RCW 82.02.050-490. The L 1 A requires ntunerous minimum standards for the assessment of the fees, such as requireinents for calculation of the f:ees, aiid .f.or the provision of appcal rights for land
ovnicrs on the calculateci Fee am.nunt, authorized tucs for the fees collecteci under tlle LTA, and
requirements for creditiug clevelopers for payment of other fees and dediGations made ui the
developinent process. .
F. State Subclivision Act - RCW 58.17
Washington's statewide subdivision Aet is epntained in RCW 58.17, which granis
authority to local jurisdictions to irnposc rcasonable conditions on the approval of subdivisions.
Specifically, RCW 58.17.110 provides authority for local jurisclictions to require the dedication
of lanci, ar the cUnstructian of public uuprovcments to servc the subdivision. Any conditions that
are imposetl by a city must be for the followuig purposes: open space, drainage, sidewalks,
sCreets/other public ways, transit stops, watcr, sewer, parks and recreation, or schools.
RCW 82.02.020 prohibits taxcs, fecs or charges dn development, bttt spccifically
exempts those imposeci "with.in the proposed plat" so long as the loeal permitting age»cy can
show that the exactions are "reasonably nccessary as a direct result of the proposed subdivision."
RCW 82.02.020. In reading .R.C`V 82.020.020 and RCW 58.17.110 together, local perniitting
agencies can require a subdivision developer to ciedicate land for stieets, parks, open space and
othcr improvements within the Proposed subdivision if it can be sho-vvn that those improvements
are neeessary to serve the actual ueeds of the proposed develapment. The shovving of actual
nccd can be accomplished in the SF1?A analysis, «+hich looks at the anticipated impacts ta the nattual aud built enviroiunents that would result &am the proposed pro.ject.
. 8
G. L•ocallmprovelnerit.l.)istricts
When a capital project is going to provide a benefit that primarily or wholly benefts only
a subset of citizenry; an L117 can be formed as part o.f the project. Gommonly used for projects
such as street improvcments, strect lights, sidewalks, water and sewer systems, and undergrOund
power lines.
Property ovv-uers may pekilion to (-4rm an UTT), or cauncil can pass a resolution of intent to
fonn an LI17 - which inay be blocked by prnperty wvti1ers paying 60% of the cost. Unce wi
infrastruchu-e need is identified, then aii analysis can be peiformed as to an appropriate fix. An
analysis woulci then need to be performcd that wonld show zll the benefited properCie,s. This
would idenciEy the paranzeters of the improvement district. Property ovvners caai pay their share
uP front, but norrnally LID bonds arc issued to pay at lcast pa.rt of tlie project cost. F.ach
properfy wuner'S assessment is equal lo the special bcnefit received by that property.
Propeirty owners make aye.arly paymenl' inln an LID funcl whicYi is used to pay the
pricicipal and interest on debt. If a property oNvner fails to makke two praperty assessments in a
fiill and timelp manner, the city must coirunence foreclosure proceedings. The city's i.,TD
guaranty fund is used lo eover boncl paymenLs; ihis fund is replenishcd through foreclosures.
Under no circumstances can bondholders collect f_i-om the eity's general f`und revenues, Lmless the
city so stipulates. LTL7 bonds are not beneral obligation bonds that are bac.k.ed by the full f-aith
and creclit of the city.
The Cily would neeci tA adnpt an enabling ordinance spelling out the process. `1"he
assessment and i.mppsition oF f'ees On aprpperly can be very contentious. iNearly cvery L1D
project should a.nticipate having property owners who object so strcmgly that the City will be
forced to foreclose on their property in orcler to cnllect the assessed amount. Staff ha,.5
cor►siderable detail on how LIDs can be implemented in the eveut the Council desires more
in.(ormation.
. 9 - -
June 26, 2406 Impact Fecs and System Dcvelopment Charges
BaCtle Ground Fees a.re currenC. Fces from other jurisdictioiis were compiled i.n 2005 and current rates have not been confirmed.
(Single Family Home; 5/8" water meter)
~ Battle Ground ~ Camas ~ Ridgefield ~ Vancouver" ~ Washougal ~ Hazel Dell**" ~
Water SDC ~ $2,210.00 I $1,714.00 $2,000.00 ~ $1,716.00 ~ $2,095.00 $1,194.00 ~
~ Sewer SDC ~ $2,167.00 ~ $2,339.00 $4,000.00 ~ S1,999.00 ~ $2,300.00 $1,898.00 ~
~ Sewzr RFC I $4,444.00 ~ nla ~ nla nla I n1a ~ S4,444.00 ~
Storm SDC ~ $361.00 n/a n/a ~ nla ~ nla
School Impact Fee I $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $3.559.00 $2,421.67 ~ $3,270.22 ~ $1,725.04
Traffic Impact Fee ~ $2,731.28 ~ $2,755.00 $1,943.00 ~ $1,338.68 ~ $775.44 $1,325.72
Parks Impact Fee ~ S2,770.46 ~ $2,290.00 ~ $1,408.00 ~ $2,112.67 $600.00 $1,540.00 ~
~ Fire Impact Fee ~ y$141.4g ~ $400.00 ! n!a ~ n/a $172.90 nla ~
Total $17,825.22 $11,998.00 ~ S12,910.00 ~ $9,588.02 $9,213.56 $12,126.72
Proposed School "
!
Impact Fee (2007) $7,638'.00
~ Total w12007 Fee $22,461.22
Proposed School
Impact Fee (2008) 56,290.00 I ~
Total w/2008 Fee $23,115.22 $11,998.00 $12,910.00 ~ $9,588.02 ~ $9,213.56 ~ $12,126.72
Vanc;ouvor has diflerent districtsw(fth diKerent casts for their impact fees. Averages are taken for ihis exemple.
(School- $1,725, $2,006, $3,540); (I'raffic - $388.86, S1,342.19, $i,504.8a, $ i,618.77); (Purk - 51,884, $2.034, $2,420)
Curron#ly v:orking on establishing a fee.
= Water via CPU, Sewer via 3iDSD, all oiher fees through Clar,t County. PIF is estimated based on numerous park dis:ricis.
IMPACT FEES
.'.:Y_.
,
N~
b< li'' f
What Are Impact Fees?
• Payments of money that a jurisdiction may
require of developers as a condition of
issuance of a building permit or development
approval.
~ Impact fees may be assessed for public
school facilities, publicly owned parks and
open space or recreation facilities, public
streets and roads, or fire protection facitities
in jurisdictions that are not part of a fire
district.
1
I
1
Why Are Impact Fees Used?
• To ensure that adequate facilities are
available to serve new growth and
development.
• Impact fees promote orderly growth and
development by requiring that new
development pay a proportionate share of the
cost of new facilities needed to serve new
growth and development.
Who Can Impose Impact Fees?
• Counties, cities, or towns who are required or
choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 are
authorized to impose impact fees on
development activity as part of the financing
for public facilities, provided that the financing
for system improvements to serve new
development provides for a balance between
impact fees and other sources of public funds.
,
~
How Are Impact Fees Imposed?
~--w_, _ _ . _ - - ~ .
• Through a local ordinance.
~ Impact fees may be collected and spent only for
the public facilities defined in RCW 82.02.090
which are addressed by a capital facilities plan
element of a comprehensive plan that identifies:
- Deficiencies in public facilities serving existing development
and the means by which existing deficicncies will be
eliminated within a reasonable period oF time;
Additional demands placed on existing public facilities by
new development; and
- Additional public facility improvements required to serve
new development.
State Statutes
• Impact Fees
- RCW 82.02 General Provisions
- WAC 365-195-850 Impact Fees
• Growth Management Act (GMA)
- RCW 36.70A Growth Management - Planning By Selected
Counties and Cities .
- RCW 58.17.110 Approval or Disapproval of Subdivision and
Dedication - Factors to Be Considered - Condifiions for
Approval - Finding - Itelease From Damages
- WAC 365-195 Growth Management Act - Procedural Criteria
For Adopting Comprehensive Plans And Development
Regulations
~
~ 3
~ .
Case Studies
. . w~.-- . .
• Clark County
- Traffic, Park, & School Impact Fees
• City of Vancouver .
- Traffic, Park, & School Impact Fees
• City of Monroe
- School Impact Fee
• Issaquah
- School Impact Fee
Clark County Municipal Code -
Chapter 18.65 Impact Fees ~ ~
• Establishment of development service areas.
- Such areas tivill provide a nexus between those paying the fees
and receiving Che benefrts to ensure that those developments
paying impact Fees receive substantial benefits.Overlay service
areas may be established for identified system improvements
designed to serve geographic areas whase boundaries are not
generally contiguous with established areas.
- Additional or revised service areas require amendment to the facilities plan upon consideration of the following factors:
(a) The comprehensive plan;
(b) Standards for adequale public facilities incorporated in the
. capital facilities plan;
(c) The projections for full development as permitted by land
use ordinances and timing of development;
(d) The need for and cost of unprogrammed capital
improvements necessary to support projected development;
(e) Such other factvrs as the board may deem relevant. .
. 4
Clark County continued~--..::
- SErvice areas adjoining an urban grotivth boundary shall be
ad}usted to conform with any change in such boundary.
• Imaosition of imaact fee.
- No building permit shall be issued far a devclopment in a
designated service area unless the imRact fee is calculated and
imposed.
• Calculation of imaact fee.
- The impact fee for a nonresidential development shall be
computed by applying lhe traffic imRact fee formula.
- 7he impact Fee for a residenfial development shall be computed -
by applying the traffic impact fee, park impact fee, and school
impact fee formulas, combining the results; PROVIDED, that the
schaol impact fee camponent shall not apply to housing
exclusively for persons sixty-h^ro (62) years of age or older.
- If the development contains a mix oF uses, the impact fee must
be separately calculated for each type of use.
City of Vancouver Municipal Code -
Chapter 20.97 School Impact Fees .
• Establishment of develonment service areas.
- Service arcas, which may vary by type of public facility, are
eslablished as shown on the Clark Counly Parics Impact Fce
F'rogram and Vancouver Transporkation Impact Fees Program.
• Imaosition of imoact fee.
- ho building permit shall be issued for a development in a
designated service area or overtay service area unless the
impact fee is calculaled and imposed.
• Calculation of impact fee. Since the City of Vancouver is within Clark County, impact fees are calculated in the same manner as Clark County
• 5
City of Vancouver continued
• School Impact Fee - Capital Facilities Plan.
In order for the City to collect School Impact Fees on behalf of a
school district, said school district's Capital Facilities Plan shall be
adopted as a portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan. - PIan.Submitt-al. A school district requesting impact fees shall
submit to the City, and update at least eve .ry two years,
a capital Facilities plan adopted by the school baard and
consisting of the following elements:
1. A"standard of service" which identifies the program year,
class size by grade span, number of classrooms, types of
fatilities, and other factors identifted by the school district.
2. The district's "capacity" over the next six years based upon an inventory of the district's facilities either existing or under
construction and the district's standard of service.
3. A forecast of future needs for school facilities based upon
the district's enrollment projections.
City of Vancouver continued
. . . . . _ . . : . . .
4. At least a six-year financing plan oomponent, updateti as
necessary to maintain at least a six-year forecast period, For
financing needed school facilities within projected funding
levels.
5. Application of the school impact fee formula set out that is
. based upon information contained fn lhe capifial facilifiies
plan. Separate fees shall be calculated for single-family and
multi-family types of dwelling units, based upon the student
' generation rates determined by the district for each type of
dwelling unit. If insufficient information is available for a •
district to calculate a multi-family student generation rate, a
county-wide average shall be utilizEd. 6
City of Vancouver continued
• Planninq Commission Review.
'llie Planning Gommission shall review a school district's capital
facilities plan or plan update in accordance with the following
provisions:
- WhEther the district's forecasting system for enrollment
projections appears reasonable and reliable; and
- WhethEr the anticipated level of state and voter-approved
funding appears reasonable and historically reliable; and
- Whether the standard of service set by the district is
reasonably consistent %tiJth standards set by the
Superintendent of Public Instruction or by other school
districts in communities of similar sacioeconomic profile; and
, - Whether the district appropriately applied the impact fee
formula
City of Vancouver continued
• INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENTS.
- The City of Vanc4uver may enter into an inter-local agrcement avitfi
Clark County to establish a coorcfinated program for the irnposiGon,
collecdon, administration and expenditure of traffic and park impact
fees.
- School impact fees shall nat be colletted on behalf of any school
districfi until such district enters into an inter-local agreement rvith City
af Vancouver provlding For submitral of capital facilities plaiis, funcl
administration, report of expenditure, allocation of risk, and other
appropriate matkers. bVhere Clark County adopts a substantially
similar school impact fee for a district whasc boundaries include
portions of the City af Vancouver, such inter-local agreernent may include the County. Tlie inter-local agreement may include a fee to
cover the City's cost of administering the School Impact Fee Program, . 7
.
City of Monroe Municipal Code -
Chapter 20.07 School Impact Fees
• School Impact Miti4ation Fee Proaram
- Provides the necessary regulatory mechanism for determining
school impact mitigation fees, that a property owner meets the
concurrency provisions of the Comprehensive Plan for
development purposes, and which ensures that adequate public
facilities at acceptable levels of seroice are available to support
the development's impact.
~ School caaital facilities plan. -'I"he Monroe Schaol District's Capital Facilities Plan shall be
included in and shall be oonsidered as apart of the Capital
Facilities Plan element of the City of Monroe Comprehensive
Plan. School mitigation fees shall be based upon the current
City Comprehensive Plan.
City of Monroe continued
• Undatina of school district plan. - The District's plan shall be transmitted to the City at least sixry
(60) days prior to the biannual public hearing date for the
Capital Facilities element oP the City Comprehensive Plan. The
plan must be submitted to the state by the City as a part of the
City Comprehensive Plan review required under GMA,
consequently the District plan must meet any submittal deadline ,
imposed by the State. The City shall notify the District of the
schedule for review of the Capital Facilities element.
- The District shall amend its Facilities Plan on a biannual basis in
conjunction with the City biannual amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. However, the District may amend its
facilities plan on an annual basis if the District finds it necessary
to adjust impact fees. Amendments may not be considered by
the City more tfian once per year unless the District declares, ,
and the City finds, that an emergency exists. The plan shall
require approval by the City Council as an amendment to the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
. 8
City of Monroe continued
- The timing oF amendmEnts to the District school impact fees
shall be c4mmensurate with the current amendment schedule
adopted by Snohomish County. Conformance with the County
schedule is designed to insure a uniform procedural change
throughout both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of
the Schaol Districk.
• Fee determination.
- At the time of development approval the City shall deterinine
whether school impact fees will be due at the time of building
permit issuance. Where such fees are due, the development
approval shall staCe that the payment of school impact fees will
be required prior to issuance of building permits. Thc amount oF
the fee due shall be based on the fe2 schedule in eFfech at the
time oF building permit issuance. Credit amounts and allocation
of credits to bE applied againsk the fees shall be determined at
the time of development approval.
i
City of Issaquah Municipal Code Chapter 3.63 School Impact Fees
• Interlocal aareement between the City and District.
Governing the operation of the school impact fee program and
describing the relationship and liabilities of the parties thercunder.
• Submission of District canital facilities plan and data. On an annual basis, the District shall submit the following materials
to the City Council:
- The DistricYs capital facilities plan adopted by the school board;
- The District's enrollment projections over the next G years, its
current enrollment, and the District's enrollment projections and
actual enrollment from the previous year;
- The District's standard of service;
- The District's overall capacity over the next 6 years, which shall
take into accounfi the available capacity from school facilities
planned by the District but not yet built and be a function of the
District's standard of service as measured by the numher of
students tivhich can be housed in Distnct facilities;
- An inventory of the District's existing facilities.
' • 9
City of Issaquah continued
• To the eactent that the District's standard of service identifies a
deficiency in its eacisting facilities, the District's capital facilities plan
must identify the sources of funding other fihan impact fees, for
building or acquiring the necessary facilities to serve the existing
student population in order to eliminate Che deflciencies within a
reasonable period of time.
• Facilities to meet future demand shall be designed to meet the
adopted standard of service. If sufficient funding is not projected to
be available to fully fund a capital facilities plan which meets the
adopted standard of service, the District's capital facilities plan
should document the reason for the funding gap, and identify all
sources of funding that the Distrfct plans to use to meet the adopted sfiandard of service.
• The District shall also submit an annual report to the City Council
showing the capital improvements which were financed in whole or
in part by the impact fees.
City of Issaquah continued
• In iks development of the financing plan component of the capital
facilities plan, the District shall plan on a 6-year horizon and shall
demonstrate its best efforts by taking the following steps:
- Establish a 6-year financing plan, and propose the necessary
' bond issues and Ievies required by and consistent with that plan
and as approved by the school board consistent with RCV11
28A.53.020, 84.52.052 and 84.52.056 as amended; and
- Apply to the skate for funding, and comply with the state
requiremenCs for eligibility to the best of the District's ability.
• Annual council review.
On at least an annual basis, the City Council shall review the
information submitted by the District. The review shall occur in
conjuncfiion with any update of the capital facilities plan element of
the City's comprehensive plan.
` 10
City of Issaquah continued
• Maintenance of fees collected.
- The impact fee and the application fee shall be collected by
the City, and maintained in separate aaounts. All school
impact Fees shall be paid to the District from the school
impact Fee account monthly. The City shall retain all application fees associated wifih the Ciry's administration of
the impact fee program.
- Impact fees shall be imposed upon development activity in
the City as follows: .
1. $3,924 per single-family residential unit; 2. $705.00 per muftiple-famity residentfal unit.
These fees may be collected by the City from any applicant
where such development activity requires final plat, PUD
approval, issuanoe of a residential building permit or a mobile
home permit and the fee for the lot or unit has not previously
been paid.
Implementation of Impact
Fees in Spokane County
• Ste p i -
Update the Capital Facilities Plan Elements of
the Comprehensive Plans.
• Step 2 - Create the local ordinance for impact fees.
~ Ste p 3 -
Create and sign appropriate interlocal
agreements.
' 12'
. \
City of Issaquah continued
• Imoact Fee Pro4ram Elements.
- 7he City shall impose impact fees on every development
activity in the City for which a fee schedule has been
established.
- Any impact fee imposed shall be reasonably related to tlie
impact caused by the development and shall not exceed a
proportionate share of the cost of system improvements that
are reasonably related to the new development. The impact
fee formula shall account in the fee calculation for future
rEVenues the District will receive from the development
The impact fee shall be based on the capital facilitics plan
, developed by the District and approved by the School Board,
and adopted by reference by the City as part of the capital
facilities element of the comprehensive plan for the purpose
of establishing the fee program.
. City of Issaquah continued • Imnact Fee Calculations.
- Separate fees shall be calculated for single-family and
multifamily lypes of dwelling unit.s, and separate student generation rates must be determined by the District for each
type of dwelling unit.
- The fee shall be calculated on a District-wide basis using the
. appropriale factors and data Co be supplied by the District. - The fee calculations shall also be made on a District-tivide basis
to assure maximum utilization of all school facilities in the
District used currently or within the last z years for instructional
purposes. ,
- The formula provides a credit for the anticipated tax contributions that would be made by the development based on
historical levels of voter support Por bond issues.
- The Formula also provides for a credit for school facilities or sites
provided by a developer which the District finds acceptable.
.
. 11
.
~
Implementation Step 1
• Step i- Update, if necessary, the Capital Facilities
Plan Elements of the Comprehensive Plans of Spokane
County and the Cities or Towns within it to address the
use of impact fees for the following public facilities, as
applicable:
- Public streets and roads; and/or
- Publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation
facilities; and/or
- School facilities; and/or
- Fire protection facilities in jurisdictions that are not part
of a fire district.
Implementation Step 1 continued .
• Impact fees may be collected and spent only for the
public facilities defined in RC41! 82.02.090 which are
addressed by a capital facilikies plan element of a
comprehensive land use plan adopted pursuant to the
provisions of RCW 36.70A.070 or the provisions for
comprehensive plan adoption contained in chapter 36.70,
35.63, or 35A.63 RCW. .
• After the date a county, city, or town is required to adopt .
its development regulations under chapter 36.70A RCW,
continued authorization to collect and expend impact fees
shall be contingent on the counry, city, or town adopting or revising a comprehcnsive plan in compliance with RCW
36.70A.070, and on the capital facilities plan identifying:
. • 13
~ t
Implementation Step 1 continued
- Defciencies in public facilities serving existing development
and the means by wvhich existing deficiencies will kre -
eliminated within a reasonable period of time;
- Additional demands placed on existing public facilities by
new development; and
- AddPtional public facility improvements required to serve new
development.
• If the capital facilities pian of the county, city, or town is
complete other than for the inclusion of those elements
which are the responsibility of a special district, the
county, city, or totivn may impose impact fees to address
those public facility needs for which the county, city, or
town is responsible. , •
r
Implementation Step 2
• Step 2- Create the local ordinance by which impact fees
are imposed.
~ Include a schedule of impact fees which shall be adopted for
each type of development activity that is subject to impact
fees, specifying the amount of the impact fee to be imposed
for each type of system improvement. The schedule shall be based upon a formula or other method of calculating such
impact fees. In determining proportionate share, the formula
or other method of calculating impact fees shall incorporate,
among other things, the following:
14
Implementation Step 2 continued
- The cosr oF public faulities necessitated by new devclopmenfi;
- An adjustment to the cost of the public facilities for past or
future payments made or reasonabiy anticipated to be made by
new developmenh to pay for particular system improvements in
the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, or other
payments earmarked far or proratable to the particular system
improvement;
-'ilie availability of other means oF funding public facilfty
improvements;
- The cost of existing public facilities improvements; and
- The methods by which public facilities improvements wcre
financed; •
i ~
Implementation Step 2 continued
LJ_._.~I ~"IY. . " _ . - . . - . . .
• Ordinance may provide an exemption for low-income
housing, and other development activibes with broad public
purposes, from these impact fees, provided that the impact
fees for such development activiry shall be paid from public
funds other than impacl' fee accounts;
• Ordinance shall provide a credit for the value of any
dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction
of any system improvements provided by the developer, to
facilities that are identified in the capital facilibies plan and
that are required by the county, cifiy, or town as a condition
of approving the clevelopment activiry;
• Ordinance shall allow the county, city, or fiown imposing the
impact fees to adjust the standard impact fee at the time the
fee is imposed to consider unusual circumsfiances in specific
cases to ensure that impact fees are imposed fairly;
15
,
Implementation Step 2 continued • Ordinance shall include a provision for calculating the
amount of the fee to be imposed on a particular
development that permits consideration of studies and
data submitted by the developer to adjust the amount of
the fee;
• Ordinance shall establish one or more reasonable service
areas within which it shall calculate and impose impact
fees for various land use categories per unit of
development;
• Ordinance may provide For the imposition of an impact fee
for system improvement costs previously incurred by a county, city, or town to the extent that new growth and
developrnent will be served by the previously constructed
improvements provided such fee shall not be imposed to
make up for any system improvement deficiencies.
Implementation Step 3
- - - - - . .
~ Step 3- Create and sign appropriate interlocal
agreements.
- Spokane County may enter into an interlocal agreement
with any city or town located within the county to provide
for a coordinated and integrated joint program of impact
. fees for public roads, streets, parks and open spaces
consistent with tfie provision of local ordinance and state
law. - School impact fees shall not be collected on behalf of any
school district until such district entErs into an interlocal
agreement with the jurisdiction(s) providing for submittal
of capital facilities plans, fund administration, report of
expenditures, allocation of risk, and other appropriate
matters.
- 16
.
Environmental & C. T 0 w ~
+ ~Y
Land Use Law
News lett-er 'r~
Fu~lis}28t~ by the E?tvYY'OF'2a2E'T2t(2I Rnft LGT2d U5u LCtG[7 SEVZOfi2 Of tfx Washirrgf.on Stalv Bar Assccladori
Volume 32 Auy;us#?OUS Numbcf2
Section Report Edifor's Message
By Ray .Paolcfla. ELEIL Sectioyy Chabr By YYgyt T. (Tirra) Waitcrson, 1%h~wsIater £di ia-r
rirst of a12, a speci a,l tha.nk you ta program chairs This issue of the New sl etE-c-r iq Ehe annu a] i u n,,Mer issuc
Ad~nmi Gravl.ey aild Shelley K1eip, to Chair-clect ]3arbara baseci priFtcipaJly an writ[en maEerials Frorn presentaHons I
,
Dykes, and to all thc fttcui Ly fnr your efforts in maki n gLhe a t the?005 Enviroxwxenta.l a.nd Lartd Usc Law' Secfiott
h4dyear Aleeting a,nd Sem.inar in May n saccess, 'Ihe Midyear CT.E at Campbeil's Resoa an C"hela.n, Two CLE
#ollowhtg,is abrief sum mazy oE upco~ting ELLTI.. Seclion sessions are represenfed in fhe ~Tes~~sletEeF as Sym.pasi.u.~ts
eveni~s anc! acli~~ities; conlposed aFirxdepen.dent articles by the sessiori presenteis
Exec+zlivc. Camntitfee Nomin ations: '.Ehe elections " that t~SC adaptC{1 f30Il1 t7P,11' Wt'li'tel7 n1alePha]S 3.t7d jpr2S6rtta- ~
kornew n,enibers of kho Execu[ive CaEnmiftee are be€ne, tious. 7"he fi.rst syn.lposzuit inclucics tvs°o articlcs on de~=,A-
condttcEe,d in August by xnai.l-in baiiots. The noitunees opment impact fees 3n Wasbing-ton, one focusing on fees
Il1Cl4'iGLC; c'k4'1tllQP1Zc-d k7;f tZle GYQwdI M24Y18geYCLP1rtt A[E ~iE1d Lhe oGhe.r - .
F~r C'hrrir,elec~~ on non-G'dviA irnpact fe4.q. The socond sygtposiunx uidu'des I
.T twa itr`ticlcs aiA lor_al pmFentimeiSt critical areas ofdinanccs,
NGcha el Rossotf b. Nrorth,~vcst £nlertribal Cotrrt or►e 3ddreSSiYEg the 2jement5 requi,rcd ,far cr.iiicztl areas
Syvteui r,c~.laftons and fi.hcctu•rcnt ro4uld oforclina-nce tipdate,~, tC,e
For hoo opr.n Execu tlz;c Cvnitn.i{-f.es posa~imis: atlker article fricysi ng on thc upda kc expcrie.nce 41 King .
. Caurtty, In adclidori, tlus issue includ8s the annual aver-.
Maia Bel.C.on. AttoFney GiRneral's Office, view of eanvirannlentzd ancE laitd trse Iegislnfive- ac.tivi.tY
L
• : calogy Diviston d Etring ilte 2005 se5s ion_ As A ~vay5, respons~s from'rea,der5
_ ,Sta.cy, 6jardattl, WiLherspoon KeZley, Spokane an any NCV4•sictter content are welcoined and en r:O.ra--ecl:
A-ildy. T.~ne, Lzr.ncross and Hempehnann, Seatcle The Editorial.Boardwitlsoonbedevelopingfiltecnntent
Rog~ bVyr~nc, $r~ti-le City .~lftorney'ti OFfice tar ihe rsext issuc qf ih e Nc~vslei#a.r. Axwyone xvlto ivoul~ iilce
.
iVev Exccu#ivc Contnxittee rFxembers tivil,l take afEice in tO COntri bu t[: aT7 a rEi Gl2 (Or t1.1C . 1lC?C L 1S5 4lC OF ~tFly fLit~lr~,iSSi~ Q,
.
Iate SepteilL'~Er: T'ha~5 t0 P~p T7 Joh[1 ~IofhL', Kaihy or wit.a has queslions, co,runer~t~5, or sajgges~iozis reot~c~ii~ig
Gerla, a.rtd Rod P.rawll FOP l'heLC VsFOrk On the NOrn inaidng ~he 3 N exrs letter, i Es aontcnt, or tb c Ecliiorial Bo~.~~cl, is ertco+1r- .
Co~uttee. InaddiLion, the F_xecutivc Coratn7zCiee vU aged toconkacLeiihernte.orariothermegrberUfthccvirenk
soon 6,11 the vacancy on ttte Coittffdttee crea?-ed by the Ediforial Bqard, as tist~d el:ewhcrc irt tltis NewsIetter_
deparkure of Da'c+i d MearS fc~yn~ Ehc st~.tc tofoui L'hc[acLzlEy Ti~a,~tk ~Fon for ~a~ar ulieresi~ ~rt the ~e~vsletter,_
at-VarAto.nt fzw School, . -MIZEM
F'a li Q uiterly: Ti,e faCl quartei•iy nleetirtg attd CI.B
I w il 1betieldonTJtursd ay,3eptenn.berl5.Fidornlafionwili IIL This ISsite •
fol,lo~v_ - . ;
Adm.2n.i~:trati}'e r aw CLE. The Secti on is ptam'Eltg 2 Syntiposium: Dcvclapirenk 1ntpact Fees C LE ta b e he] d. Octobear 26, 2005, Oil Fhe fOp1C pF pY8CtkCl.Elbx _4 Prim er on Impa cF Fees A uthorir,ecl. by tJte i?vasluMg:on State befor6 Wash~ngfn's adEtiinistrtztive law boards, 117fiiL1d - GYDY.'thManagEnenPAct 2
ing the PoIIutior7 C-ontro~ 1-feanEngs Bokud, ihe Sltore]ines Non-Gb'lr1 futipacr Fees and OtlterNfonedrl Exartio,s 11
Hearirt~ Boa~, f~te Gro~'th Ma.nagerilettt .E~'arings Sya,p~,siceak; GMr~. CriEicai.~rexs Ordinar~ces ' .
Boards, an.d the Farest Practices App2a2s1'ipard. Critical Azeas Orclinanca Updtitas; _ I,-Few Scctinn CJ,a ir, Finally, Barbaea Dykes w;Jl be- .4n oti•Erview ci wut Is Req;assd i9
come Cf►a.ir bf the Sec t= irE Septei-nber. it lZas bee-n my iCing Cokuity's Cridcal.tu-p-as Ordu,m,cc update: -
~i.easu~e to serv~ as ~he ~ect~an ~hair for th~ pas~ ~'C'$l'. TC3nZ C4~nty's #ersp~cave 27
01,rer4licw o; Major Z.egislaton, 20Q3 SESSirn, 33
. . . .
u• u 11 oni d .
SyIIlp0S111II1: Devel.opment Iulpact Fees
~
f1, Pri.r.ner on Impact Fees A.u.th.0'x.i.zed by the Washi,ngton State
Growth Management Act
By 8rent D. Lloyd, Oj`fice of the SnolromisJt County Pruserufor T. Inh•oduction prOVemeitis that are neceaSary #a address the i.mpacts of
T1us article provides an oveiview and zanalysis of the that development ot-i tlyeir own roads, parks, and sdlools,
legal Y•egui.remer;ts for collecting, expeindang, and impos-. These Iz•ush'ations, and the resLilhing pressure to imposc
ingimPactfeesauihorized.bytheWashina anStateGrotivth impact fee;, are the greatestwhen apposifion to the scale,
Manageanent Act ("GM.A"), as eodified at Cliapi•er 36.70A character, or flocation of new development is ivadesprrad,
l2CW and at RCW 82.02.050-.100. SecEion II brief.]y dis- as it often is in rapidly expanding urban areaS.
cusses the purpose of impaci IcES, the conkrnversy sur- Critics c{uestion botl1 the effectivPnP,;s and fairness oI
rounciing theix use, and the lustory that led to the adoption impact fees. Two researchers at the University of Washing-
of GMA-based irnpactfees in 1990. SectiQn Iit surn.marizes ton, for eaample,llave arguEd that the revenue generated
the basic statutory requirements for using GRAA-based by new developinent, and the growing popLalation base it
impact fees. Sectian `1'V discusses sorsle of the inlportant serves, is morc lhan sufEicient to huid both the public
legal issues surrouncLng the use of GNI.A-based impact facilitiesrequired'toserveneNvdevclonmentandthelarger
fees and sumrnarizes the rclevant case Iaw. system i.:nprovements necessitated by new devctopment a
Requirzments that developers pay a portion of those cos.s
Il:- General Background up-front, they argue, nusconstrue housu-vg as a net cost, .
ratl-ier tlkz.n a revenue-generating uivestment. Even if sudl
A. ThePurpaseandPoliticsoflmpactFees revenueseventuallyprovesuffiCienttocoversomeorallof :
`C'he term "impact fee" genE!rally refers to a nlonctary the infrastrurture cnsts, hotivEVer, that money is generally charge on nevv develUpmer►t ihat is imposed by a local not avai.lable ufltil long adter l•hc i.mpacts of new develop-
governnient t4 recottp or offset a prUporfionate stiw-c of inent are felt.
public capital coshs required to fund public faciliticsneces- Several statesacro;s thecetfntTyhave adopteds#atutes
sary to nezv develop.ment.' IFaloact fees are distinct froFn explicitly authorizing impaei fces. rn addition i•o VVashing-
cte<lications or otller u2-kind exactiqns on bLulders -utd ton, these states irfeludc_ Arizana, Califorrua, Colorad~~,
c~e~~elopers impose~l ta initigaie specific imPacts of prop- Delaivare,Georgia,Hawau,Idaho,Ulinois,Indiana,Maine,
erty cfevelopuienfi on pubLic infrastructtLre. Typicatly, im- Maryland, Nevada, \few rIampshu•e, veNy JersEy, Nesv
pact feES are, usccl to fiuld roads, schaois, and park aild r4exico, Ohio, Oregan, Pcnnsylvania,l2hode Isla.nd, Soiakh
recr.eaiionhcilitiesn.ecessitateclbynewbrowl•ha.nddevel- Carolula,Tennessee,Texas,LFtah,Verrnvnt,Virginia,West
opment. Jmpact fees genera.Lly cann4t be used for opera- Vi.rginia, and Wisconsin. T..pcal juristiicCions in a fzw other
tion, maintenance, repair, or replacemeni• of capital Faciti- states, such as l~`forida, rely on thei.r policz power authori-
h~s. . iies to impose intvact feES_ the purpose of unpact fees is to fill fLznding gaps not
adciressec3 by eith@r local ta.Yes aiid user fees or hy other B. History o£ Impact Fees in jNashingtdn
ftuuii.ng sources, such as state and federal gTants. Whi.le Va.ryulg degrees of legal uncertainty have altivays .
these traditional funding mechanisms can be eflectivc in seeaned to surround the use of impact• fees in Washington.
providing faci,lities to senTe particular developments, loca1 Yrioc to 1990, when the Legislature adopted explici.t statu-
governmentsin2ugh-growthmetropolitareareashavegen- tory autllorization for impact fees as part of the GMA,
eraliy fou.nd them to Ue insufficier;t to cover systenl-wide j^Tashington courts -enerally invalic~ated 'unpact fees as
infrastructure cosis associated vaith new residential con- illegal taxes if their prirnary pcu-pose was to genera:e
' sh-tiction. revenuc3and upheld them if t•hei.r }.~u.ipose was to regLdate
InZpact fees arz a regLdarory expr.ession of the poliiical development.° Difficttlty in disbnguishing bettiveen the
philasophy "Let Growth lyay for Growfh." Ttie icnpasilzon twa diseouraged the tise of irnpact f2es, as ciid the b1anEcet
of ifnpact fees on new develop;Fient is popular anlong prol-ibiiioilonulydeveloprnent-related"tac,fee,orcharge"
residFntsinestaUlishedcemzrtunitieswhofeelhheyshould enacled by the L,eggislature in 1982.5A1lthough a lirniEed
not be sadcEled wi.th the bill ;or public facilitiES requi.red to exception was made for "volun" agreement's" in lieu o€
serve new dev-donment ar the larger uzErastructur,e i.m- land declica iion or to mitigate direct project-level impacts,
. 2
bnm 11
the truc volu.n[-ari.ness of such agi-eements tivas frequrnily fAes, svtuch re.Zu.ire sorne kind of uidavidualized assAss-
' challenged on ille grotu°<ds tliat the anly alternative to ment c,fdevelapnlent impacts,Qt,CA-basedi.mpact Fces are
payina the fees was deriial of project approval due to generallyimposedatthepcrmi€ti,ngstagepurstiant•t•oiocal
inadequa te public facilities.6 Continued use of substantive ord'utances t:hat establish a uztiforfft €ee schec?Wc for par-
au r.hority under the Sta#e Envirpnmental Poliey rlct tic,ilar t}pes of cievelopment. These added et#iciencies are
("SEPA°), Chapter 43.21C RCW, to conciitiion cievelop- notNviEhoutcosis,howeyer,asthe developmEi-itandini.Ulc-
ment on tkic paymcnt of "mitigatian fces" added yet an- mentaEion of a GMA-based system requires bu,ilciing-a
other -wrinlcle to the t;ncertazn le;al fabric of pre-GVfA soiid record at t}le legislative ievel and ensu.ri.ng that t11e
irnpact fe2s. fecs a,re i.mposed, eollected, and. exp`nded in eonlpliance
Opposition ta irnpact fees by the c€evelo;:ment com- with several stahFfor;✓ requirements. Subsections III.A.1-5
mia.nify beaan to wane as growth accelerated in the 1480s infi-a su.mmarizes most of these provisFOns, wlule the dis-
and derr4and for new constirucEion increased.' Local gov- cusSFGn in Section N irtfra add.ressES sonle of the legal
• ernmenfs, reluctant to unpose impact fecs fc,r fear of law- issues surrowlding their i.nterpretation.
suits, bceame increasingly vvilling to exerci:,e their clear
legal au}horFty tG sirr+ply deny development applications 1. Aut:horizatiun Limited to Speci.fi.c System
ivhere adequaie facilit?es tivere ilot available or fi.2nded. Improvemuits
Uevelopers ]ikeiti-ise rccognized that pub.lic funds alone TwointporUznt=tafutOryrequii•einentsrestrictthetype
ivEre insufEicient ta Provide the- faeilities and senTices of "pul3lic facilities" that can Ue Itiuic'aed with GA9:A-hased
nece-ssary tn n2ake their plaruled conur►unitles attraceive to impact fees. raast, Gti•if1-based i.n,pact fres ca.n only be used poter►tial homebuyers. Ttus caz(escence oI inCcrests !ed tn , to fiu1d public facilitics "addressed by a capital facilities
the adoptionof cxplicitstafiatory aukhority for impact fees plan elenlent of a comprehensive land use plan[.]°12"Chas
as part. of +he GM,A, adopted in 1990 by Engrossed Substi- reqturement limits the use o€ Glk•Zn-Uascd i.mract fePS to
tlate FfpuSe Bill 2929.1'fie GNLa's core planivng and regu- fundingsystem tmpt'ovetnents, cvhich IlC1N 82.02.090(9) de-
1atoryreqtLirenleniscverecod.ificciinChaptcr36.70r111CW, fines as: .
bul' thc reqiairements for GiyXA-based impact fees 4vere Publicfacilitaesthatareinctudedir►thecapitalfacili-
, ';eparat9ly codified in Chapter 82.02 RCGV, tl-Le excise tax ftes Plan and are desi,gned t-o provide servic,e tp
staftlte. service areas wi t:hin the commLUlity at large, in con-
III. The BasiCS of C;12A-Based Irnpacti Fees h-ast to project uriprovements.
":l''.roject improvemer►ts," on the other hand, are desi,g-ned
A. Suuiuiaryof Statutory Requirenlenis to provide servict lo par[icia.la.r developtnent project5 and
T11c CIMA aui:fiorize-s locaf govern,ments to impose are not ad.ciressed ia, a capital facilities plaiL 13
.impact fees An "development aetivity," hut it.prohibits 'Second, the use of GR~iA-baseccl impact fees is li~-n.ited
usi.ng' impact fees as the sole ine-tns of fluldung pubLic by statutory clefuution to the following facilities: "(a) pub-
faeilities neccssaiy to acconmladatc ncw development.9 licsEreets au1d roads; (b) publicl}= owned parks, open space,
"De<<elopLnetU aetavity" includes a.ny "consGruc:tion or et- ancl recreation €acilihies; (c) school facilities; and (d) fire .
pansioitoEabtiilcl.irtg,strucLijre,or.use,anychangainuse protection€acilitiesinjurisdir,Honsthataaenotpartofafire
oFabuildFngorsEructure,oranychangesin thet:seofland, district."1=Conspicuously absent• h•om ihis def.inition of
that ereates aciclitioria_l ciemand and need for publie facili- "puLlie faciliiics" is ca:pLicit inention of traffie sigiilLs and ties."'°'l'he terin "ianpacr fees" is defuled as: lightina systerns, sidewaLks, donlestic ivater 5ystet-ns, and
Aayntent of ntoneY ~ ~.mPased ia.Pon develoPmene se~~er systcros, a!l of :vt~ich local goveriur~enls are ~-1Lso
f.~ .l p
as a concLition of c7eveloprnent approval to pay for required to plan for and provide unde.r the GMA planning
,
public hcililies needed to senTe netv groiyth and st•at~Lite.-S
develop.ment, and that is reasonably relatecl to the 2. Neecl, ProporEiona.l.ity, and T3enefit
neW devGlopment that r_ceates add.itional demand Several restrictions on G~lIr1•based impact fees are
and necd for public facili.ties, that is a proporrionafe intended to preirent locszl governnlents froen exercisi~ng
share of the cost of the plablic facilifies, a.nd that is #heir impact fee autltorit), in a manner Eha.t Nvould violate
used for facilities that r.easonably benPfit the new thestandardsforexactionsarliciilatcdb theU_S.Su reme
de~~elopm.ent." Court ir~ RTOtlan v. Califor,'tIR COCSiGI CUTT~JTI'Yi, 4:83 U.S. 825
GMrk-uased impact fee systeins have sonle advzn- (1987) and Dolair v. City of T'lgard, 512 U.S. 374, 378 (1994)..
' ta ;es over "volUuztary agreements" and "developcr agree- N1ost inlparl•anlly, the statute provic3es that impact fees:
cnents," iwo pre-GMA mechanisms that are stil.l usecl by (a) slkal or-dy be imposed for systern irraprove-
local govemrnents to help providc .requ.ired facilities that nlenhs thal• arc reasonably related to the new devel-
'directly serve new developments_ iJnlike these pre-GMA opment; ~
3
August 11 o •
(b) shall nat exceed a proportionate share of the (c) Thcavailabi.lityofoffiermearuoffundingpub-
costs of system improvements 11zat arc reasonab[y Lac facility improvenlenb;
related to the new development; and (d) The cost of exisdng piiblic facil.ities amprove-
(c) sha,ll be used for system irnprovemeilts that ments; and .
wi,11 reasonably benefit the new development.16 (e) ThE IIlECEIOCIS by w]-uch public faeilities irn-
These statutory• requirements apply d.irecxly to impact Proi~emenfis ~~er~ fi~ancedj.J'~
fees, as opposed to thc i.,equuremcnts in KC4V 82.02A60 that Second, i.rnpact fee ardiriances must provide a'credit
govern the process to be used i.n determ.i.ni.n; irnpact fees for the value of in-kind contribuhons prexTiously made by
or the rcquirenents in RCW 82.42.070-.080 that goverit the developers through declications of lznd or conkributions to
ad.ministration and use of impact fees. The "reasonszble stein ian ro~~eglenis rruircci as a condifion tp de~~2io '
relation" and "reasonable UeneFt" requirexalentsl7are gen- slII Ent app oval?~ q p
erallysatisfied ivhere inlpact fecs are used to help fu.nd the ~;r.d, i.mpact fee ordinances must authorizc Ihe j~uis-
constniction of new faci,~ities or the addition of capaciiy to ~~on imposing t11e fee to acijust thc st~dard fee amount
existi.n~; facilities'tltrough renovation or exp~uuion. Per- ti1sed on "untzsual circu.Lnsta.nces i.n specific cases #o en-
missible expenditures indtiade traditionxzl bric.k-and-mor-
tarcoitstructionand land acauisition, as ~vel.l as "soft" costs sLU~ that impact fe~s are irnpo;ed fairly."~ Tlus rEquire-
. for desi eerin d ermittin Pur~hasina neces- ment is someti-mes implemented tlzrough a"ciiscou.nt fac-
en~' g' a,np g. ° tor° or "public-private" ratio that reduces the amou,nt of
sary equip.ment and supplies are also generally viewed as the impact fee to a level consistent -.vith what the commu-
satisiyi.ng t}ye statutory requiremeiits, aithough impgct ~ty believes to be the "proper balance beftveen costs paid
fee.5 sha~d noYbe used to purcch~~sc ciisposable items. by the developer and the public"24
Fourth, irnpactfee ord'u~uesnlustprovidc foradjust-
3. Requirements f~r Impact ! ee Ordiriances nients of the standa.rd fee amount baseci on "shidies and
GMA-based iulpacts are 1c~nlin.istcred pu.rsuant to data" submitted by the de~~eloper.'-'Fifth, iutpact fee orcii-
local ordinances that include a fee schedule forall develop- nances Lnust establish "one or more reasonable service
mentacn-vitiessubject i•oinlpachfces, specifyulg theamount
of the fee for e~3ch type of system irriprqvemertit for Nvluch ~~~5~~ to be used in "calculat[inga and im~os[ingl iinpact•
19 fees for various land use categories pcr u.nat of develop-
fees sre imposed. T11e use of an orciiruznce-based systcm ment.1126
makesGt'LA-basedunpactfcesrnorcefficicntfor.hothlocal -C-he statute authorizes impact fee orciinances to in-
governntents a.nd developers than fees assessed tllrough eludettiwootheroptio;lalprovisions..First,ju.risdictionsca.n
SFPA mitigation or voluntary agreeinents, both of wluch provide exemp[ioiis for "low-incomP hausirig, azld other
reyuire an inclividualized determination !'or Each speci,fic devclopmcnt activikies ivi~Y~ broad public ~urpos£s," pro-
dFVelopment on wlvch iYnpaci fees are unpc~se~-i. C.mpact ~;ide~3 that other saurees af publie funds a.re used to cover`
Fc~ ordinances are subject co five statutory requis•em~nt~, ~~5~ ~f required facilities.'-' Second, im~»ct fee ~rdi-
however, ~~hich are designc:d to ensure tYiat t~lese added
efficiencies do not result in tuizeisonablc fee amounts in ~ I1at1ces lt"y p,-ovide fOr tE,e imposition of unpact fees to
cover previo~ly iricurrecl costs for systcni in~prc~vement,s,
excess of the propar€iorlate share of syste~n unprovem~nhs provi.dEd kha t ne~v b ow~th and cEevelopment will be served
~Kribut~able to lh~ d.evelopment, in violati~n of RCW by the previouslp consti°uct,ci improvemenks a,nd that the
82.02.050(3)(b) and, arguably, ti1e consiit•utional standards fee is not used to rnake up €or system deficiencies.23
for developntent exactions.20
.
Fi.ust, "i.n d.etermi.ning proportionate share," thc fee 4 Requiremen~fi For the ilse and AdminisEratiun of
a.mou.nts included in thc impact fce schedule must be Inlpact Fces
baseci on a forrnula Ehal• accounls for a ntmlber of relevant '
factors, including but i1oti linuied to:
a. Accounts and F.xpenditures
(a) The costof public facil.ities necessifated by new Once imp3ct fces have been coUected, tliey must be
developntent; earularked and retained in specia.l i,nterest-bearing ac-
(b) A,n adjustaneni• to the cost of thc public facilikies counts created for ear-h q~e af public facilify for whictl
for past or fut•Lue payments mad.e nr reasonably ' ~lPact fees are colJpcted. Interest earned must be re-
taantici at~d to be made b new develo rnent to na '~'pd in the account anc~ used for fl1e same purposc for
for particu.lar system improvements u the fornt of c~~hich theimpact~fees ~vEre impaseci 30Loca.l nover,-unents
user' fees, debt service payments, taxES, or other arE reqturEd to provide a.nnual reports showi.rig t~1e source
payrr►er►ts earmarked for er proratable to the par- ~d amount of al.l i.mpaci fees eollectecl, earned, and re-
ticular system improvement; ceived, as ~ti~ell as a~,l syst2~ impro~~ementis that were .
financed in whale or in part tllrough im~act fees 31
4
'Lrnpact Fee_~ inust !)e experided or encutnbered fo.r a S. Camgrehensive Pla.r+xxing Rcquirements
pernxissible use withinsi.xyeaTs,~nJ°ssd elay3~'va£Y2YLt'2d P1'io1' to the date3 tzat loc_al ;ovczpn7ents planflin-,
by aa1 "extraord'ustuy icatd compeLling rea~-;cn" that is ex- under the GA~i!'~, were 'req1iFed to adcpt dev clopn-Lent
pZainedin writtcn.FiT dingsad optedbythe rocallegislative regulaLions,:Irr.pactfeescocildbecollcctedan d,~pentfor
body.`Tmpdct Fee~; mustalsob e experEded irtconfo»rrance pUb?tc faci].iries addressed in a capi.tJ] facilides elerr_ent of
witYl khe CalAW f-aC111i1os CleIIlmt Of- C11e COmprehenSfv2 a comprehensive phn. ffowever, followutg the.rcquired.
pdnEelo~ adoptiOn 4f d etFelopirkent i7eQuladon~, "continu ed
anthorization to co]IecE anci expend i:mpad fees" urider
b. Rf±~ncis RCW 82_02,050(4) becamc con6T%ent upan,
Current propert}' mvrters are enkiEled ta a refiund 4f • .
impact fees paid ui cortnection rvittt de~Felopment of their JA]clopki,n ; or r~visirxg a conlprehensi~e p~n ir~
propei~y i{ i11e fees have not becn spen.t o.r encurnbered com.pliance vvfth RCVV 36.70f1,0-70, a,nd pn the capi-
within ttte ti_Dxcfi-am e requ,ixed u,nd er RCW 8Z_02.070(3) on ts I facil`ies pltut identilying=
puhb c far.i,litEes k-ii Lend ed to Lnenefit tl) e d eveloument.1 In (3) J~efiC1eYlCleS]ilpUbliCfdQk1ticSseMEZg e}ClSdClg
' suctt cases, local goverrurtents are requircd ~o pFo vi de d evelapnlertE artcl t.he means by whici1 exisiing dei`i-
IIlc7]ied nOU{'C to pot~n b al Cj4amsr, tS.35 ~efi.;nd S aYe 8ls0 cieiuies wi.l,l be e1EFniitaEed wsflun a rcasonable pe-
r,equared where a]ocal gov errment tera~ulates an impar.t riad of Eme;
reerequireutent, irtv,=iuch caseboifr nlailedand publEShed (b) AdCLfeIOYk'll C1e171"c11}d5 P1nC2d CkR e7C1t1]"Lg pLlbLLC
notice are zeqnu•eci,3" R cftmd claims ntu st b2 submitted fa6liti es by ne;v c~c~elopnt~~t; and
„wzt~uEt nn.e}'ear.frOrn Eh- dafe th2 right ti~ CJ ai~t tli e ~'e#LEnd
ar.iseso.rtltied ate#.hafnotir_etsgiven,wl-dche~,erislater,"p (c) Addattoital pubtic facility imp.rovernents re-
TV h~n refunds are not clatrned wiLhtin a olie-year pcizod, quired to seive new dcvelopm2.-A.45
the local gaveriunenis i-eLaii-t khe in1pact fecs but rr,vst
e7Cp elld tIICIll OIl tile 1L1CLlCd tecf. ]7Ub IkC Fa CW b ea.u B, GiNIA C:oals and r{E!quir2ments for PubT.ic Facil.itics
Dcvelop ers w ha d o n ot p; oceed witli a developn7ent Scvera.l goals and requ.iremenis o.f thc ~IN4A dire-ck
follmving payFnent of an hrtpact fee are automa4csily I ocal {;overrt,.nen[stoensuzethatadequatepublicf-acilities
e,11tikfedto ;I reiund, regardles5 of v~-hether the irapacE fee t•utd sczvices aFe available to serve nu-vv developn,ent.
has beaL expcilCled OY C't1CLLr1lI}Cied c'7SLCEi'ega 1Al C55 Of }IOw Tliese4 alsattdrequircn.-Lenk; providea policy {otutdaiion
ntiuch kime has passed since theka.~a~ pa tc~forthclcgis.lati v~authoriza;~onafGMA-bascdfr~n~~~~.ctfces
' - unxi 2r IRC'W 82_02.050-.090 and k~~~~e pi d.ed judi r.Eal i ntier-
c. "Double-i3ippza,.g' pretation CQilCeIii].Ilg the .CequEremertt5 for cltalle~~gi.~tg
Loca.f-overRment5c~jnraoE"double-dip„bycha_rainga Gj'LviA-based impar-t Fees.16 AEtorneysdeFendirLg the inlpo-
d evel oper boflt GIIUA-based 'unpact fees and SEPA mitiga- o.eTE'rpBCt f-ee& by C4Llll 11e5 a11d CAO eS ShOu ld Con Si d er
tion f-tes for the sajitc inlprovw7enis_'° S E P,A mi figatiqrt ltoW, if ak all, Lhese po]icies and requ irelnertts can be used
feescanbe1asedinconjlinctiOnwithaSepara teGA9A-basecl [osup parkkhci.rialterpzetaEi Arl of ttelocalorstaterequ.ire-
iixtpact ~ee, h o w cver, provided that SEPA miticsdon Fees lriell{5 ai' FSSLIe. A t a nlin]murfi, these GNiA p rovisioi-ks can
are 4zscd cxr.Cu~ivo lyto rundifnprovements,auchwe#lmids usedtohc.lpillu s#rsteth epressure tYtat sEateJLlwplacesoii
Yrtlt1-a [lOil, that are not furtclc.,v by G~1~f.A-based i.mpact ff~es_ Zocal uoverrwtents to ensurc that r,ew developEnent is
scivccl b y a [I2qu~Le pl.iblffi f acili tiess.
c!. 1 rotestand Apppa7 Tlie 'mast far-z-cachi_rig G1V1,.A provision conr_~ernin ;
C~A.A-ba5e[j 3i7lpaCt teeS aY° paid as a cortididon to ihc p,zbbc Facjiitii~s wtd SBYLFICCS. CLIZUI-LO1LLy mlerrecl to as
Lssu2ulce of developmcinr zi ppxvvaJv, 5u Ch a 5 bu i.IC3inor per- :'G oal 12," requu'es tl-ia t compxeh enM ve plar~s an d de ve]-
mits or si.3 bdivis:lOn,~ Ehn t result in a[':ditionnl derr?attd Ior 0 pn7cnt re ;ul 7-tions-
public #-dci].ities," T1te sialvte altows d~vclopeTs to pay Erowethatthnsepublicfacilitiesad-idsenFiccsneces-
iEnpact fees tstdcr written protest in ordeT to obtain a sar F to su ort develo~ ,rtient sh~tll b~ ade t?ate to !
fl 2~F21p~}iT1E'1~~' 2~~7~7~'Ol'~,-2.~JieSU.]J.ld.~31}~ f0 8V4L~. FJiO]2CE L~2- } ~ ~ I
l8Y~?'Jh1~e p 1'e3ei'Vlllrc, [herighttodia!lenge thcim~~o ctfee_ 5czvet.hed°V2lOpmertt8ttY1e Eli1Cthe develapntent
7.'k~e stafiite aiso requ_ires loc~~.! go[~e1T~ulenls to~~xovid.P. an 15 av.~1I.~bie fOT 0~~'up2YtCy 3nd ii52 ~~rikho~~t decreas-
"ad-~n;uLSErafive appeals process Eor thc appcal o{ an im- ing current ~ecvtce ]e4~eis be?o~~ loca~v esEabtished
pacE fee,,, eikher tFuough the sante pzoce: si.~:.~d for appeal- mi~.im~,m staric~ard~. ,
~ing LaZderlying dcvOoprnent aJ:proval or thr0ugh a sepa - W1vle Goa122has been i,nterpreted as i-eqLiirii3g sometl7ii~I
.~'i-a [eproccs.~_43 Locaigovemm ents FrLay also require arbitra- less thRn Fruje~t-?eVO "COnCurC2r~qj" (s.e., pFalubikirxg de- ~
6 oTi of L-npact fee clisputes.' veloprFrent absent adequake facilitics) far all public facili-
ties, it dearly fnxposes a m,i ch greater responsibi, l3ty on
Ioc~l goverruneitis io plan [o.r and provade necevsary pub-
-
- . lic Faci].ikies thart exisL-ed pri.or to adoptior+ of tFie G?vLk.118
~ 5
August 11 viionmental d '
Goal 12 is imPl.emented, in part, through more specifac A. The i.egal Natvre of Impart'Fees:1'axes or Lu1d GMA.requireFnentsforcapitali-cicililiesandtransportation Use Kegulafions?
plannu1,.49 The law is unclear on whether GTvMA-b3sed 'unpact fees
Thc provision of adeqvatepublic facilities afld services are pzoperly consiclered a reguladon ar twz, idthOL1gi1jL:di-
is also ernphasized by the GMA goal of encouraging urban Clal CjE?ClS10riS tiEIld l'O pTOV1de IYlOSE SLi17pOTt fQT f}le 1.3tteT development, wMch rcqui.res comprehensi<<e plans and characierization than the formec.54 Isl general, if the pri-
developnlEnt rcgulatians to "encaurage clevelopment in inaly ptu-pose of impar.t fee-q is to generate revei-iue, tl1ei1
urbanareaswhereadeqtcatepublicftycilitiesandseraicesezlstor ihey are properly characterized as taxes under Washulg-
can Ue prouided in mt ecient manner'0 ton Iaw.55 If, on the oiher haF1d, umpact fees are prinlarily
On.ly in the area of trartisportaYion plannulg dacs the intend.ed to regulate developinEnt, they are nlore properly
GMArequireproject-levelconcurrencyintheform ofioca] characterizedasregulatory innahure.1&
ardinances which prohibit approva.l of development that E1s of this writing, the most thatcan confidentlybe said
would cause decli,nes in local.ly adopted maniinum levels on this issue is that GMA-based impact fees have elEments
oi servic2 tor transportation facilities.51 The reqtured i.n common wiEh both taxes and laitd use replakians and
"concurrency" i5 achieved where the necessary public are thus tieated as a h}=brid of the ttivo under I-Vashington
faalities or impravemenfis, as statetl in the transportatien law. This approach has been charitably ch3raeterized as a
elenlent of the comprehensive plan, axe eid-ier in place at "htnctiona.l a.na lysis,"''but is also vulnerable to the charge
the time development is available for occupancy or that of just "wanting it both ways."
6nancial comrnitments are made to conlplete the taci.l.ities 6Vhether GNLA-based 'unpact fees are characterized as
wiEhin six years.S2 a"tax" or "regularion" ulay-or may not, u.nder a fu.~c-
The codified st•atentett af intent included with the tipnal analysis-have significant ramificati<>ns with re-
provisions on GMA-hased i~.-npact EeeS borrows language spect to specific lega.l issues that Ereque.r~tly arise u1 litiga-
and concept; from the GAZA goals and policies concerning ii.on. Accordi.ngly, thfis issue surfaces in anany oi the cases
public faculties, as well as the statutory "proportionaLity" d.iscussed below.
and "rea.sonableness" requirements diseussed iri subsec- tion A_l, supra. RC4V 82.02.050(1) si•aies ihat•: B. Reasonableness and Proportiona.liry .
It is the uttent of the Le laturE: i~1 Drebick v. City af Olyrri~;in,1 19 tti~n. App. 774,83 P.3cl
~ 332 (2004), the Court of AppeaLs for Division llad.dresscd
(a) to ensure that adequatc Eaci.lities are avaiaable the extent t-o Nvluch RC4V 82.02A50(3) requires an u-npacE
to serve new growth and. development; fee to bc related ta the speci€ic impacts of the development
(b) to promotc orci.czly growth anc3 developrrieilt on which it is i.rnposed. At issue uz Drebick Nvas a GN4t1-
by cstabl,ish,i.ng standards by which counties, cities based unpact fee ordinance for roads that impased a f2e
and towns may requise, by orclinance, dhat iietiv vased on the average cumulakive i.-npacts of all new office
grotvth and developmentpa}' a proportionate sharc • uuildings in the city, without any consideration of the
of tlte mst of new facilities needed to serve new Lndividualized impacts of speeific build'utgs or eveit nar-
rowth and develo rnent- and ro~vly de#ined cat•egoi-ics oF hui.idi.ngs. The trial court up-
~ p ' heldtheimpactfee,holdiriothatitwas"'azlalogotitsto'aCax
(c) to ensure fltat• intpact fcGS are iniposed through and 4-hus tliat the city did not have tn show a 'proportional
established proeedures and criteria so that specific nexus' between its assessment and the traffic-relHtEd ef- developments do nor pay arbitrary fees or duplica- fects of Drebick's speci.fic project."
tive fees for the s3me iengaet.-'13 The Couzt of Appeals reversed on esseiltially tfiree
grpunds. First, it held hhah RCW 82.02.050(3) "caps impact
IV. T.egal Issues Sunounding GMft-13ased [mpact fees" 3.nd found, based on ifis Iegislative history, th-,.it the
Fees phrase "system improveinents reasonably rElated to the
Thc remaini.ng &ecfions qf this arLicle cliscuss same of new d.evelopmeilt" authorized impact fees reasonably re-
thelegalissuesthathavearisenoutofliiigationconcerning lated to the i.ndiviclualized in1pacEs of specitic new devel-
GNiA-ba.sed irnpact fees over tl-ve last several years. How- opments, not the mmttia.trve iulpacts oi all ne-w dcvelop-
ever, giyen fl-Eat many of the legid principles rela king to ment.59Second, the co«rt found that• the key words in RCb>>
irnpact fees apply regarciless of the type of fee at issue, $2.02.050(3)-reason~iUlyrelated,proporiionatcshare,and.
practitioners should also fa,rna,laarue tI,emselves wit11 the reasoriable benEfit-evid.enced the Geggisla€ure's ineent ta
casesulvolving5EC'AmitigationEnsandvoliuitaryagree- follow the "reasonable relationship" test appli2d by the _
. nlents tyhich a1P th.orqvgh.ly discussed by Jeff Webcr's Supremc; Court to the developinent exaction at issue in
1rtide in t},is issue of the Neivsletf•er. Nc+lIcm v. Califorriia Coastal Conirnissron, 483 U.S. 825, 107
S.Ct. 3141, 97 L..Ed.2d 677 (1987).'o Third, the court held
that, basQd on its ovn1 prior holciing thatNollan ar<< L7oliari
apply to exaciions of moncy as wcll as lanci, I7CW
6
Eirivi w_n'Jn . - 11
. 82.02.050(3) must be interpretecl as :equiring t11at i~npact park facilities, fincling ihat lZo indiAdualized assessmeni,
fees Le reasona-bly relaeed tA E}le 1F]Cj7V1Cj1181E"LQd BFYtpactS Of was requ.i.red. .
a parlicular deceiopment in ordPr to be constitutional.61 In tltis auxhor's view, it is inapproPriate tu strictly
7`heDreSeri.eourtleftunarisvrerEd aquestionatleastas apply Ittolrzn anci Dotan io i.unpact fees. 'rhe U.S. Supreine
significai-it as the ones it ansuierccF: Court cautianed aga..i.nst cxtEnd-ing those requirements
beyand the sphere of tracditional Ianci ciedicat;ons i.n Citj of
Neither jDrebick reor the City1 coaltends thai• if state ARvnferey v. L'el lvioi7le Dui~,..Ps at .Vfunterey, LFd., 526 U.S. 657,
law requires the City to delermiile #he uidivici.wal- 119 S. C#.1b24,143 L. Ed.. 2d $$2 (1.999),(15a decision u*luch
ired iFnpacts ot a specific projech, the City did tha tby ti1e Drebick caurt d.istinp5sheri on the gounds that ih
enactingaalorc§u1alcewitllcaEcgoriesnarrow enouerh involvecP tllc autharity to deny, rather tlkZn con(iition, a
to cotisEihite an asscssmcnt of individualized im- developmenk appl.ica4on.6611us author also yciestions
pacts.... We Ieave far anoFher day the question whether the'I"akings Clause o[ fer~~i-a.1 con&titution, even
whet,er a city canperform the necessary assessinent ivhen eonstr.ued braacily, was intencted ta irnposG ;]Ze fype
iegisIRfIJ°1y, by enactu-ig an orciinance with narrow of limifations cantenlpl.ar.ed by Drebicl.'
enotEgh categories, or ta*hctllcr a cit-y m;ast perform
th'e necessa.ry ass6ssment qucsi 1udicinIiy, trirougll a C. Vesting and Tirning Issu.es .
hearing exarrfner or sitnilar afficial.' I,n New Cast7e Investrrierats 7). IfrGertter, 93 Wa1. App. 224,
, 231,989 P.2d 569 (1999), rev. rlenrerl, 140 ~Vn.2d 1019 (2000),
The coELrt's decision in Drebick, tvhich is Pend,inD on the Ccurt of Apprais far Division II rejected hhe axgu.ment
appealbeforethe4VashinglanSupremeCourt,leave-sopen that a development cannot be cliarged the inlpact [ee in
the possibility that careEully cra.fted, narroNvly deFined place at thc time of building pernut issuancc i.f a romplete
categories of development lvould satisfy nexus-propor- prcliminary plat application :vaS submitted prior tp enar.f-
tianality requirernents absent aFi inciividualized inalysis men# of the iinpact fee orctinance. 7'he court basecl its
of development iutpacts. Requiring 1oc31 ~overnments to clecision-on th.rce factors.
"perform the necessary assessment qua'si judicirlly," tlze First, the c0urt Eound ihat intpact Fee ordi.nanceS are
, other possibility indntated by Drzbick woi.:ld null.i,fy the not a"11nd use conkrol" ordi.nanee widdn the meaiZU-Lg of
-clear sta[utory authorization to impose GnAA-Uasecl int- thc ve;;H.na statute, RCt^J 53.17.033, because they do not
pact fees through local ordinanccs,°'' and etfectivcly re- "conrrol" cteveloPment, but merely ina•ease the cost."
qLurc a SCIyA-like an :lysis far all impact fees. Widlout t•hc Second, the eourt noted fl-tah the ori&31 lea slation autFio-
aaministrative efficiencies of an oE•dinance-basec€ system, rizing GM A-based impact fces inclucled aprovision that .
GIvL.A-lsased unpaci €ces would likcly be a lnss attzactive would have provicied for vESHna upoi1 the issu~-utce of a.
option for Iocal govcrnments khan SLf' A-based programs, builciulg pern,it, raffier il1ai1 the liling of a completed
. 13ased on the issues en-iphasized by Division II in ihs applicadon.' :although ihat legislation was veroed for
Drebici: decision, jurisciictions rel}'ing on GMA-based im- other reasoitis, ihe court found that it derraonstrated ti1e
pact fees s1lould closely scrulanize the categories of de vel- LegislaftlrE's intent tha t impact fee orclinances not be sub- opmeilt on which they impose impact fees ancl, if neces- ject to st<-inda.rd vesting requirenlents,70 Third, thc cotiu-t
sary, ncuTOw fhem to include only partiailar types o.f distino-uished impact fees frorn "regulal•ory fees" for pur-
closely rela#ed developmeilts ihat• have sim.ilar levels of poses of vesting on itie grounds chat "tlYej ar2 aalodter
unpact• to the: facilities for ivhich the impact fees arC iul- source of revenue forimprovenlents fJiatvenefit the public
. posed. in oeneral, and l•hey are not tntended to reaulate the
Division ] oi khe Caa.rt of Appeals may riew the parfiictila.r development."''
rcquirements af RO'J 52.02.050(3) less restriclavely than a related issue surfaCed in a.noEher Division II case,
Divisjori II. In 6Vellington Riuer Holfow I_1;C v. King County Pavlaur v. City of Vancouvir•, 1,22 Wil. Alqp. 520,94 P.3d 366
andAiortFzs).ar•e Sch. 17ist No. 07,113 LVn. App. 574,54 P.3d (200A).1'he devPloper in Pr,ulrna cirgLied lhat, because pre-
213 (2002), rev. denied, 149 Wn2d 1014 (2003), Division T li,mina.ry project approval Nvas grantcd prior'to adoption of
upheld thc IFse school impact;ees calculaEed based noton thc city's impact fee ord'u1c-u-icc, the City cou]d not later .
shidentg•eneration rates for new tJeveloprnei-its wathin the inipose impact ;ees as a condiiion to issuing huilding
DistiricE, which were unavailable, hut ratller on compositc permits for t;7at projecr..T71e cotut rejected this a.rgu,ment
rafes for fow othex h'.inb County setaool cti.stracts. Thc cou.rt based os► the intent ai1d w*orciino of the City's i.mpact fee
also held that, under th? "reasonable benefit" standard ordinance.n
rcquired by RCLV 82.02.054(3), ti1e improvements fu.nded Rat3ler Ll1aii relying solcly on the interpretation of the
by CivfA-based ±mpacf fees need not directly benefit khe VaFUOUVer ordina.nce, how-ever, the court alsa inclieated
development on which they were imposecl.6' Similarly, u1 thah state Iaw req+lires jurisdictions to unpose inipact fecs
Uni€ed laevelopniPtttCorp. a. Cifyoflv?iIl Creek,10G4Vn. App. at• lhc permittin; stage, ratller than at lhe limc of prelinu-
651, 26 P.3d 943 (2007), Division f uphelci the City's use of nary approval:
an impact fee £armula ba;ed on per-person cost of new
7 '
August II onme~tal & Land Use Law
RCW 82.02.050 elearly in[ended for devPlopers tp E. 1'rocedural.T.ssues i.n Challen-inj GMA-Rased .
payforl:hei.rshareoEs}'stemirnprovemen4s.lnorder Inipact Fees to accomplish.tlus goal, unpact fees niizt bc i.m- Several challenges to GrIA-based impact fees havc
posed at the timc of buildi.ng pPrmit apptication.13 beel1 brous~.~ht iander the Cand UsQ Pe:ition Ach
Ln support of this holding, the coU.rt cited dicta from the Chapter 36.70C RCW.gD HowevEr, the issue oE whetYtier
New Castle decision which sta#ed that: impact fees are an fact a"lmd usee decision subject to
T UPA's 21-day linutations per.iod ~,as not squarely ad-
[1]he fee calculzted by La CEnter at the ti.me of dressed until this year, when khe Was1vhlgton 5uprentie
preli.rnularyplat approval would bear little relation- Court issucti its lon;-awa.ited decision in James et a!. v.
ship to the ach.i.al irripact of grotivth at the time ttle KitsAp Couirty, No. 73747-9 (Wash. Sup. Crt., slin opin,ion
pernut is issued. Tf the fee were frozen, then netiv filed Ju.iy 7, 2005).
. growt}► cauld take place without thc devcloper pay- The trial court l11 JRrnes issued an order requurulg
ing its fair share for impro-v-ing public facilities.74 FCitsap Couniy to return $3,345,506 in impact fees imposed
duringasevcralye.3rperiodinwhicilitsGNlAcomprehen- 17. Geographic Scope af Impact r'ee Authority sivc plan, i.ncluding the capital facilihics elernent, was
In Nolte v. City of Qiynrpia, 46 jVn. App. 944,982 P.2d fou.nd by the Central Pugel Sot2.nd Growth itifanagernent
659 (1999), the Court of AppeaLs for Division II held that a 1-iearings Board to be unvalid under the GN-IA. Kitsap
govFrnmental entity rnay not exercise inlpact fcc authority County appealed the court's decision on several grounds,
beyond its ;eograp?uc bounciaries. Thc issuc ar.ose out of a including hilure on the part of the developers to challengc
jointPlariniilgagreementbelweentheCity ofOlympiaand the impact fees u.nuer l:UPa and faiture to pay the fees
I1hurston Counry, under w6vc.h the unincorporated por- Lulder protest. Citing to pcior decisions holding that build-
tions of the desia ated urban growtt1 area ("UGt1 wou.ld ing permits and pei-mit• conclitions aze subject to LTJ-I'A, fl1e
be serveci cvith the City's util.ikies a.nd be subject to the court ui jarnes reversed the trial court, holding that:
City's developmcnt standards.T Pursuant to this agxee- Consistent with ouc holdings in Isla Verdc, eVykrzirn,
IItenh, khe County's hezring exanli.r►ec required the devel- and t^'enatchee Sporfsmen, we find that the imposi-
opment to entcrinto a uii.lity extension agreeinent-svith the tion oE impact fees as a cond"ation on the issuance of
City in order to receive Ciry utilities. Thc City's utility a building perrnit is a land use decision and is not
c:xtension agreemen[ reqizised, consistent with state la4v, reviewable unless a party timely chalenges hhat -
that tlie devcloper pay impaet fees in addition t•o ot•he6fecs decision withi.n 27 days of its issuance.91
associated ~~ith t~ie project-level se~ver extension. Ac- .
cordingly, the Ciky charged thc developer the i.mpact fees The court held that unpact fees are inexiricably tied to thE
due under its GMA-based imnact fee ordinance." wldcrlyi.ng bu.ilding perrnit based on the identificakion of
T1ie dEveloper challenged the agreement lhrough a impacts, assessment oI needed facilities, and deteranin3-
d.ecl.arataryjudginentactiort,arguing,armong otherthings, tion of fee au~ount that accurs at the .une of perutit issu-
tiat i•hc City lacl:ed attthority to imposc imnact Eees out- ance.62
side its ulcorporated boundac-ies. Rejectulg the arguulent The developers in james 174id argued that LUPA was
that ehe Caunty, not thc City, imposed the i.mpact Eees by inapplicable because challenges :o the legality of a tax arc
conditionutg plat approval on the utilify exhension agrec- within the orioinal-rather than appellate--jurisdiction of
ment, khe court foLutd that the only potentia l source of t11e superior cou.rt undQr Article N, Seciion b of the Wash-
authorityforlheimpar,tEeeSwasEheCit}'siinpactfeecodc. ington State Constirueion. Although the Jcrmes cnurt ap-
Biit the City's authoritiy, the caurt held, was linuted by the peared to find l•hat challenges to impact fees are withul a.
detinikianof "impactfec" containcdin RCW 82.02.090(3) to superior court's origi,nal juriscliction, Nvhich suggests that
devElopmen4s that the City• has the authority to approve.i9 it views them as t.axes, the eourt nonetheless held that
Sincc the developinent at issue was tocatcd in unincorpo- "substaniialconiplia-nce" witllLiJPAzsrequirEC1 .'bVhileit
rateclThurston Countv, the cocirthcld that the Cou.nty tivas , is clear.fiom lhc cou.rt's rJecision that substaltial compli-
tt1c gover.n,rnental entity with approval authority a.nd, ance requucs strict adherence to d1e 21-day Iinuhalions
thescfo.re, that dte Ciry cottid not lawfu.lly i.mpose impact period, it is not enti.rely clear to what exteivt LUPA's other
Fce-,, on t]1e development.' iequireinents-e.g., tYie sta~►dard of rEVie-vv or the require-
Altlzotcgh hhe tacts ofNolte are sornewhat unusual, the nlent to note an initaal hearing -vill apply to impact fez
catirt's decision ;,trongly suggests that lacal goverilments challenges.
engaged in joi.nt plaatning for iJGAs shotda bc carefi.d to . 7'he James ccurl also held that developers who wanf to
ensure that any poweis coi-LfErred ttnder a.n interlocal pay iiripact fees in order to obtai.n a builciilg permit rnust •
agrecment are consistenl• with state law. clo so iu"ider written prc,test pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4) -
in order to subsequently cha]lenge those feES.'' Pa}rment ufldet• protest does nat re1ievE developers of t11Eir obliga-
tion to challenge ii-nnact fe2s under LUPA, ha-,vever, al- 8
i 'i r. _F, •i 1E
thoug-1,h the cnurt's decis:-on could perhaps be cle-,13-er on requasements of RCW 82.02_050(4) aae subject to consider-
- thispoint_0 . ableunc6rta.in[y.R~gardlessofltawbroaulyorsz;ct]ythai 'Ihe cauut's holdings with respect to LUPA and pay- skatute is read, how ever, it is clear thst GlY1A ~~,paci ree
a3lCRk LLrYd2.r prOEest vde f2 gutd ed }JQtYI by LUIIA.'s pvlir.y o~d,inancesinusibecar6a.lly.Ur4k2d to 3nd stipporiedby a
. suppvrting the finality of kuici use ciecisivns and by the cayrtpreltensivc plan and capital facilities elemcnt,
GM-A 4oa1 of ensuring the availabi]ity of adequafe public Orent Lbyd zs a Oeputtj Prosecuring Attorney ~?s tKe Cbil
racilitiesandseivices,bokh af i~~hi ch ~~ouldbeurtdern~xcc~ Di4isio~~oftJ~eS:~ohor~aishCo~rnt~y Proseculin~Ar€or~~ey'sOf-
3f unpact fecs were s~hject ~o the three-year skattitc of fice, where he adaises tJie Courrty orr land use issues. Hu fur.s
luni Ea bons ap.plie+:i iri pce-LUPA cases_asParis of the caur k`s wri f.ten extcn sivi-2y obo -Lrf th e GMf1 r;7fd hav ditigo lcd GM.A casc:s I
decision may FJso have beerr S-Lzided by the U.S. Distdck befOJ'e the C-v2Ta F Plegef SOi27fd G'f Owtfd 1VaT2AgPu2Pfiit FIL'GP'2~!~S ~i
Cotzr l'sd ecisionknSuridqu ist Hlo:nvs,Inc.,etal. v, S? 2oho?rish Boar-d, as we22 as {ti stateatsd federad courts.
Cou n ty, et a1_, 276 F_ Supp, 2d 1123 (W.W.0_ 2003), a class
a.ctaon lawsuit inspLred by farnrs_ 'I'he S-andqu{st Horrzvs Tfsas articde, which is based on a paper prescr_rcd at rhe ELUL decision, vrhich was ri#ed by the porties aatd amicus irt Sestzon 2005 ls'Itdyeur, rs not inter&d to z41ert the vieuxs of
James, foijnd t},at 'Li.J-PA was applicable to irnpact fee SnoJio:nisl: County-
cttalionges an groLulds simih-rr to those rel.ied oEi in the
fR~MBS{~fC15IOri, 1 idmcsC,~l;chc:la3,'~Oy+kheProgsessio*r flm~actPees,"jo~lrnre? uj:hc P.~~rztn
1 PraNr,P~ h55~u!itfz7n, 53-4 (~.uLw15n 4992)_
2 RkK9~d LMO[C1LI d7Ld DS4']il M4~gc~ A CiFi~tiadi~!l02IEG.V}+ih5GHd FQtiiQGOlff
T, Compre.h(-na]V~ tl'J anRIll~ ISSfleS Gro+~h f.9r,art~erxrxt{SeattE~. Wash., Uni.~ccsity bf Wr4fsij igLOiL,7949)_
7.'he l ea 5t t] ea r of the requiremcnts for G~~f,A-ba~ed a sY Pdc,ar.l 1.. SCtHr, & CE+arl,5 G- GaviSan. "7The Grrn,•th ?.7arwgemcrtt Revo-
]-Ji~on in WasawWon, Fasr, Presc:nr, and ru!„re," ]o U. PirgeJ Smid L 4ev. $67 I
impact fees aro perltaps also Lhe i-nost crifical in terms of (1 9R3),a,923 (4tL,~saMTtrma.lswa,w,sp.:fe,1 M 4'.y, M ?a,r35P.za6a;(1 q.s7i
ensraring i}te ovCral1 legdLty of a.n impact fee program. -~ci H=rrS xonms a. sml,omis.<<47A:,,rry, 97 Wn,2d 804, 650 r-2d 195 09M).
Under RCW 82.022.D50(4), th e authority to coffeckorexpend 4 (ddng mCiLl P12bri[ L~fiJ2fy DIsJf3Ct~~rO_ I, ia} 'K~,zd 265,239,300, 7i¢
impact feestsron dltfOYk2{{Ul1FIl~I&CF.Lj Ux18cf iCt'LO13'7'IeeilYi9 5 Rcwsz.ozad.a(i~u-u),
tw0 5ta{'tYtOTT rCq Li1tCm2Rt5. fi rSt, jOCa 1pveYYIiTLeIl4''S IIlLiS t 6 s..e, zs., Sai.ilaruocF, 17rr, a. larey, 55 kv,h npp. 886, n5 P-2a,71z(1s9o),
„ad4p#[] Or reiriS[e] a OOrYEpYeileflSivC p1ai4 in comphariCe 7 S.r Sa`tle 6: Gaulgar4.sxprcat924,
vvith RCFV 36.70A.070_.,ssSecond, the jiLrisdiction's capiiol e v« I~CW sz.oz_a.~o-_1ao. .
. Fa ciliki_es plan mu st id en' ti#y (a) exisiirtg de#zciencits ar,d 9 RcW 82.01,050(2).
' the mearLs by *rrhich they will IDe addre_ss°d; (b) the de- ta Rcwaz.a"i),
maitds placed an pu.blic €;cilities by 112w ~evelQpIIlPIlt; 11 RciI 82.132-cAC3),
arid (c) khc additional publ.ic facility improvcmcztts re- lz see RCwa~~z.~sof~1- .
quired tb sexve ne sv developntertL." 1 a s-ot Rcw 32_02,a90(6),
.
, 'lhe frial court's deczsion in f arws, wh.ir.h roLUtd ICitsap 14 recW 3L412.090(7)_ ~ r ,
15 5re RCS'd J6,r0,'4-W1-) ~ee adso SeclSon !l_B inf.~a (su=arixiny G~L3A GaaLs
CnEinty liable for about $3.3 miJl,xOn, i5 SO far fhe only court ana remiimrne„t; relst,Li ro j,sbki- Facilfhes).
deCi51Gn 'Lo addre_SS the CornpYellenstve p1ask].ling 1[eqUi,re- 16 RCW- 83.0209X3)(a)+J,
mcntsofRaVB2 _02_050(4),Thefindu-Lg oC liabilityin that ir snr RcW~~z.o5oi31($}mnd (bk
Cd$2, 'hQWC'uePF J.IlB.y 17f.' a I704T i,nelicator {if hOiV Okh$Y 13 SetGra€e Yuan.er.l_,'•FTktpu/y~ acd Qvcrview of ImFaCL FetR in 3Ya!;hir3ton.," .
i« ~na~xxrt Facs ir~ Yr'as~rf~QrJ l-+~lV ~ZCS L1ECT'JilOfl.~ I, x7e,~ 2, 1$~9~,
iurisdir.lionsvroi]dfareieisimilarclwJlenpcsl~ccaus~Ki~ap t~ s~r~[tivsz.~~sa~i),
Co~~t}~s cav~prel) et~s~~~c plan, ir~ciu dzng its capital FdciLE- N sLa secdo„ iv.a. Rifrq, i
tieselcment,wa5 heldtobe inv alidornoncompliantbythe 7-1 'RcWCeflLralPugget SouutdGrow 1:hMzinagen,e-ntHL-aringsBoard aa ROwE,2.oz.nsaCi}. torattiutusuaJl,vko~g periodoftimebegiiuung~Fn1995and 23 x[1VaaOz.oaoi~}- C41~1t1T1Ez3Tlg tQ2QOLD.~0 WhEte I11t5ap COL1I1~y 255(.'FIt]a11 V~`OIl - 24 Taleol3YaJhingtor4Dcpadtnec.kof G4a,mvniky DL'VelG]]menk.Growth }.;8n- CP.~e.~Cl ~i3~ 1~ 18CLC£4~ PiLl~l4l1~~ tp "collect" OY ~+~K~7~11C~'r egei7}ertLLJiuisiot4Pc~'i~egforC~'~F,~. `8~7RpnG4. P.GuJd[rOf~~fp2er F~fjAp.i9t'21,
ek3.S.
irripact f~-es diuingiD uch of th as period, the CaLuify asgucd 23 xev;
khar ROV 82.02.050(4) dici not r-equ ire GrvIA comglia.E, ce in 2e rtOVP,~ az.asa(6k -
ord eriiD "iu7posc"im:Pactf2es.Thi~disdnctionwascriLica.l 2 7 RCvazo2,o6oizl. in Ehe Co~.uzfy's view because, during the peiiod ut w~tich xs FZcVr 82.0LaOM_
ats plan was invaiEd, the County required c{e{Fclopers tv 29 aCW 62,oz.ofa(y),
sign ageeFrients pror.rdsing to impac# fees once its C~'tvtA V) rd-
coinprehp.sive pla, ~ras fiotuld ta be vt-Jid. 31 r'f.
bcica use the Vl8SY13rigkOil SLipIeIIlC CUELrE re Ve rged #he =2 ;ZOIv
ETl21 CQlii' t OFl L' UPA gLOttSkCC5, it C~.ld 1lOt 2dC~YeSS E~le £X~'~ll L' sz.a~n;~[~1~ , -
. af GM.4 comp]i~a.nce xequ~.red by I2CW 82.42,05[}(4) or the ~~cw ez.a-fo~(y],
35 1d,
s~atutory dislinchon bet7ween ijrtposirig impad,fces as _.~s Rcwaa_oz.aao(2).
opposcd to collecti,n - arEd expendirtg, them.'Thcrcfore, the
J7 Rclq
s~,o~a~ofil-
~ ° ' .
August 11 m i
38 RCW 821=60(7)-(2). • 62 1d. et 779 (ernphasis iri origfnal). . .
39 See RCW 82-02.060(3). 63 See RCW 87..(D.O60, .
43 See RCW 3202.100; RCW 4311G065. 64 W'e17P»gtc:i Rixur !•1oUa.u, supra at 567-68. . 41 5u1ZC:'&202.040(1)-(3)..4recentcl<;cisionbythe,Cour!olAppea!e:orDivf.^.Fon 65 NotaL?y,tneCovrlobseived .
U suggests rhnt irnpad fLes sho:ild be collectcci at dse Fnailding pemit ,l.ao , pJthoiigh in a gencral serL.c concenu for proportionaiity anitnate ttie Tal3nas v:hen imp.w= fron develapneni are fairiy certain, rarher than at the t'rme of . Clausc, vre have not extendect she rough-propOrtidnality te3t Of Dnlsxi bpyond
prelimin<vy plat approval. Faatrna u. City af v'a:rcc:-vcs, 122 Wn. App. SZO, 94 tho spedat contezt of exactiocts-1and-use decisions canditio:tiing approval of
P3d 366 (20N1)_ ~
deti~eloprnent on th,? ded.cation of proplly to public use.
42 See RCtU 83.02Z50(4}. Gfy o,/N1e:iPrrey v. Det Monte Uun:., 526 U.S. at 702•7,03 (o:ntirnzs omifted.
43 RC`N 82.t)21J70(5). 66 Se: Drebiek, SLptC 8t 789'7I0.
44 M. 67 Srrgrnern:Fy Ecii•riucl J. Stiil1ivvi, ",1Aakittg ]t Un-'Origi.7al 1nte;,t' and Fer]e;::l
45 RCW 32.0205{4)(a)-(c). Ta}zings Jurisprudcnce,.• 35 Zfrtcn Lcaryu Z.13 (WD3)-
46 S. Jcrncs v. Kitsap Cm,ucty. _ Wn.2d _(20t15), dSscus:ed at SetEaan N.F inJ,-a. oa Nesa CcstPe.98 Wn. App. at 229. .
47 RCW 36.70A.020(I2). 69 ld, at 230 (csting L.iws of 1940, lst liti. Ses::., rJ,. 17, F. a$).
43 SeefndyLhlCVIIhCd C1.D.S,tiQk:l:ltt.i.tiCOtl;dy("Mttlittie!").CPSGMHBCaseNo. 70 Ir!.
993-0616c (Fcnal Dedsion end (Drder, Feb. 9, 2000), at 25-30, ddng Tczpayrs far 71 M; at 235.
Respar^•i!r!e G: awth a. Ci:y of(.lak Hcrhnr, 4VVdC•MH8 Cnse No. 96-2-0002 (Fna!
Dcd9on and Orcle,r, 16, 096), at 10•12. Tb r'avli:rc, I221Nn. App, atS30537. .
49 5t, 1vfcViftie at 27. 73 !d. at 530.
50 RCW 36.70A.A2O(1) (ernp3msis added). 74 Jd• (ciHng ?1em CQ.fle, suprn, at 237).
57 RCW 36.76A.070(6)(b). 75 !v'orfe, % 5'Jn. App. at 946. •
52 Id. 76 Id.
53 Rcwaz.oz.a5a(iKa)-(c). ' n td.
54 The aae ca:e to addaess Lhe issue in the cnnt?xt of GNLA-brsed impact fzes 78 rd• at 953-54.
oondvded9iatirnpaufeesarenlore Enthe natureoltaxes ertlare thusnot"land 79 Id. .
euc con'r+oi cudincnces" (qr purrinw. of the vestina, statute. See !dew Casttr 80 5:e, e. Vr6ick, su~a' P~vli:rn, supra;.y-%d Wr.71in~.urc Ri;ur Hollcrv,su~"'a
/tv['Sfmr.r•t:v.I1t~C•r.Ptr,5S ti4'n.App.~4,~1,939P?d569(1999),reu.dnciedia0 lJ "
SNn.2d1019(7000}.Thc1Ni:.hirZtonSaprrmeCourthasvsedsimilnrrr.asoning 61 Jceits,No.73747-9at17. in conclud"uig thnt non•CMr1 bpsed impaci fees are sa6ject to the 3•yenr s.:+tu te 62 Id. at 19-18.
of limitadaais appiicablc to taxcs, racher than thc 30K1.ay limita tions pcrioc! for
cha ileng.-ig p.-cliJwnary plat approvals. licnderson Hmr:rs v. Cihf of SotF.41,1 Z4 83 fd. aE 21 (holdang tFunt "where «tatutes Yrescribe pro=edures for ttw resalutian of
K`n2d 2410, 6/77 P2d 176 (1944). Buf sa Trimcn DcacPapmrnf u, iCing Coun ty, 124 a p?rkiatlar typc of diSp ate," sulrstsncisl CCmplSance with those procedures s
Wn2d 261, 877 P1d 187 (1994) (holdLrtg that appiication of tie 3-year stahcte of rc{L' imd bCfo:c courC, will exe:cise jvrisdittion and riting FisF-er $ros. Cmp. v_.
]iznita[ions dces mean that impact !ees must necPSSariEy be cansidered taxes). O6Monrrs 5amrr Uist„ 97 4Vn7.c! 227, 230, 643 P.2d 936 ( i96'?), gannr. Reclty, fne_
v. DCp't oj'fZrmnue. 58 W,. App. 7,74, I'.2d z74 (7937).
55 See h':w Castle, 93 Wn. App. at 215 (ctitirsg Caueid o. Cityof Seau(e,727 Wn2d 574,
679,905 P.2c! 324,327 (1995)). 84 Id. at 22-73. -
55 11 3etaase the G3viA requires tnat fadtities neressary to achicve rrdti,-num 85 ne coii rt'S hp::!(ng with: ts{:ett tp I.U-PA cornplianee I; sveeping and does no!
lerelsofsenlces beavailab!etoservenew devetopmenLthisauthorcondudes aPPzar to be limi:ed b cnr.w whe:e a develnper hes chosen to dallerige the
that Gti.A-based Lmpsct fees ptay e substantledFy greater regulatory role than imPosition of 9mpatt Fer without &rst paying thrm and ob lii.ing Euildin,r
:ecs us^.~s~l p~a`susnt to voEuntary a~;reecr~en~. ' p~t. Sa fd. at 17-1 S. t~foreover, sinoe somc of the feC a4 issuc in farcrs vrcrc
paid under tivr.tten protest, the meu4 w•ould not hace zevrrsed ct¢ jsdgar eni of
57 Sce, c.g., 5:rr.dgursf Noma, Pr.c., tf n1. v. Snuicanrirh Ccur.hf, ct eL, 276 RSupp. 2d the trisl crow-t w3th respeci fo all develope±s had it intended to requirz LUPA
1123 (W.tiN.D. 2003} at 112& cornpliance aUy fns tho¢a who d"td not pay uicdee protest.
33 I3rebiek, 119 Wrt App. at 710. 86 id. at 23•24.
54 Id: , t 783-99. 87 Sat Sunr'yccst, 276 P. Supp. 2d at 1125-1127.
60 1d• ~t 764• 88 See RCW 8202.05D(4).
61 Iri. at 784-50 (citing 6,nchzr.2,-.F v. Crhf nf 6atite Grm:nd, 94 LVn. App. 537, 972 Y2d gg See RCW 82.02.050(9)(a)-(c).
941(1499), I03 1h1n App. 727,14 l'3d 772 (2000) a J`'d on othergrnunds, 146 bVn.2d '
90 fams, suyre a! 3.
655, 5 P3d 8E0 (2000)).
.T.N'.,-o]um:aroNFoR XouR Cr rC-NTs
Did you know that easy-to-i).ndersta.nd Pamphlets on a wicie variety of legal topics are available frqrn the WSBA?
Por a very low cost, yoii can pravid.e you.r clients ivith helpfu] inf4rmatio7. Parriphlets cover aw-ide range qf topics:
Alternutiaes io (ouri Dissolulion af Marriage (Divarce) 1earriage Rsvacable Uving Trust
Bankruptry Elder I.aw The Parenting Act Signing Docoments
Communicating wifh Your LaHryer Landlorcl/Tenant Probnie Trusfs
Consulting a Lnyer (awyers' fund far Client Pratection Real Estate Wills
Criminal law Legal fees
Each topic is sotd separately. Pampl-de#s a.re $9•for 25, $15 for 50, $20 for 75, ard $25 for.100.
Yricing for larger quantities is available on requesr. To place you.r order or for more i.n.formaHon, please contact the WSB.4 Service Center at SOt?-44$-ZNSBA Qr .
206-443-LVS13A. Sales tax is applieabie to all in-state orcters. . i'
10
~i n i 1 1
. <<` , . , . . . . fiert21i1I'eqLLLreP-ient5. „ [a ]ny a0v e~1YYLP~l{a1 aCtlOrilllay
~ be concLitioned or delued pul-suant, to th ss chapter_
RCVV 43.21C:060_
N0-n-G MA Trri.paCt fee5 a.x1d Oth.er As further discussed below, ]~CW 82.02.020 prphibits
. loCaljurisdlCklonSFTOD.i impoSi,ng EaxeS,fees,or chargesiDn
M0R 2la,x"y 1EXa Cti.ons developrtcnkacb vity,subjecttocei-tairiexcepiioFts,These
exceptionsincl,aded.ed~r.a' bionsof la3i doreasem el-itsivilltut
Sy 12ff .S_ Weber, 8-ack & Gordnn U P Fhe proposcci dgw eiopmen t or ptat ivh€c3t khe local jurisdic-
tion can demonstrate are reasonably necessary as a direct
l... Lnfruduction resu.ltof;hepEOposeddevelopiz-entorph-i t,artdv olu.nkary
Asd.e{~e]opmentha sstrainedptkbficfaciRiestbxough- agre6ments U1at allow a paymcnti.c lEeu *f dedication of
ou t th e regi on, the issu e o f how to pa y For the infras ,ru ci~re 13nd ol' ts] giitigate a. (ii rer.t inlpaCt tl12 t ha s beBn iden tified
ii er-,essary to accarrunadate groTvth has received consider- as a consec;uence ci; a pFoposed de -,re!opmerttor pla t. RCFV
able attentian from the Ugislaiure arEd khc coEi-zts, 82_82.020 also provides ihat it does riot limi t iocai juzisdac-
Thi- 7990 Growth r`,7anagementAct („C',;MA arnend - tions' abilily 1:a impose fees or chargesun der a variety bE
ment,,;toCYaapter82_42RCW,codifiedatFtM-V 82.02.050 0: speciai-pu.r.pvsestatutes.
au thorize iocal jitrisdsctions to irr►pose irnpacf fees on Bccause RC'GV 82_02.020 is worded as tz prohibilion
ctevelopm°nt activiLy for systenl iulproveinents. Thcsc subjecttoterEai n excep±ions,tle Fk'ltill"COFtLLe dLIfhOIlty (lf
, prgvisionsproviC{f t'7 COII7pT-etleri5'1Fe 5CI~-eIIICf-Oi khe lIllpO- a.r}y) that it c011f2rs is somewhat urtclczu: VJasliingtan
siHort of inlpact fees, fir ptuticular, such fecs must b2 cou,fis r«Ve recop-dzed ih-L t rtCW S2.02_02-0 ;s a source of
intposed by an orcJinancc that meets cEetai.led v:quire- authorfty for tltei[ilposiLion aia fee- in Iaeu bFa d ed ic~atioii
nlents. The- f,~, m sy be collected and sgent nnl}r fpr public uttider I~CW 58,:17.17.0_ .I;n ~":-amen Defrelopmen t Co. v, King
facitities (as defited b}' statuEe) thaf are addressed by a Gvunty, 7.24 Wn_2d 261 (3994), 8 COLLLIty Q-rd]11F7.1-LCe II1ad2
capihl facilidcs elcrnen t of aGMA comprehcnsivc p lan. ;ubdivision approvnl contulgent on dcoUca tion of I an.d for
A;. Th c fces may orJy be nngo5ed for Systern improtFemen#s recreation md open 5pace or payment o# n fee un lieu
th?E ar2 Yef'lSQriably 1'ehi 1ed {u Ellc, Il~iv devC10pII1ei1t aild theFebf_"fh ecourkstated tl'ia k,wluieRCW 58.1.7,110Liidnot .
nla ynotexr.eed aproportEonaEe~hareofth e costofsystem i#seLFauihorize devciopnnenk fees, RC1N $2_02_020 autho-
' mprovemelits ~1~i~ are reasoil~tbly related to llie r~ew de- rized _Lhe CoUnty Eo ~mpqse develapnlent fees irt lieu o#
i
velopment, dedication pursuanE to RCW 58.17.110,
J.~~W 82_02.050 e±seq. re,~ol ve many oFthe mostcruciat V1F1FIl 1'CSpCCt ~Q #Ee5 khdt dre r10t ari lieu Of d ediC3ti0n,
issu2s that Uedeviledjtuisdictioiis EuZd developers dea1`utg somc courrs h ave taken the positior~ titat SE PA provid-2s
tvitYi unpact iees pFZOr bo erractment o[ Eltesc p.roviszons. the authoriEy fnr the impasrkioxt oI iutipact fces, khough
L YowCvErF nlany local juzisclir.tians conti.nue tb impose. ~uch feea rexLLst skill comply wikh RCVV 82.0ZMZ_ .In Castle
En1pad 6ees as a condi tion of developanent approval Latder Horifesaaid Dnelopnzerz t, Taac_ v_ City uf Pri`er, 76 Wn_ A FP-95
auihorityotl-icrtha.nRCW 92_02.05 Oel seq_I\Ioreov u,atfa.ny {7994}, th8 d2vetoper entered an agieenlmtvvith tlte City
local juzisdir.tions irE-tpose otheLr condition,; 0n d2v~lop- b}F ;vYrich tl-te developer agaced to pay a tzaffic impact
nient that require tltie payrrkent of rrti~jney or rrEakLnc, of midgaTionfecirtratuurtFar p rel:1F[+i,naryplatappfova]_T11e
public 1.illp1'OveZ11Cl'1113- 7h15 ardclc discusscs,sigl-O'cant trourt tejected the ic{ea tIktt the impact f~ee was exactecl
caseu addreSSino Ehe vnrfoas pre-GML4 siatLttes th2atdLi Eho- tkndei' 1ZaV 82.02.020. T'h e cou rt hetd thaE RCVV 82_02.D?0
rfze or lunit sitch conditions, indudii-G T'~CW 52,02 .020, didno#aQ~elfauthoriLeiCrtn2Ct fees;Yat1'tei',theLutderlYarag
SFl'11„ and .!'C1hF 58_17.U0, 3s well a,~ si~,iFicant rases sEatuioq autltarity for nutigar.ian of impai:t {ees u9a7xc
a ddressing consi'fEufional lLruta tionso3t sxzch conditions,i fi5arn SFFA_ Howeve-f, RC .W 82.20.020 did -tot prolijbit
voiuntary avreerrtertts tio collect ihe mitigaiion paynaents
It. Statutory I'ramewnrk for Impact Fees and 6O YrdE1g8fe CLYeCt liilpa Ct,
C}klter 'MoneEary Exackions Nanethcfes=, w.here a jurisdtttaon relie5 on its SUA allthOIlt-y tOllllpbvE CUnd]tiOrt30n d24'elOpmPnE, COrnP11-
A., Saurci2str#SfatLi#oryAtiitharity aiZCe withthe precondi 6OnSfpr2x(- rCise OESEPA authOrity
.A Ru[7Lb2Y Of Statl1tes pY0vld2 8L1{h4Y'1I7 jOP llI1p65111g is criticaX, CondjHons of derua!3 under RCW 43.27 C_060
cOnditio;tisondeveloputeni'approv71,O1par dr"u impor- m+xstbebasedupUnpnl'atiesidentif~Ed b.ytheappropriate
tidn[2,~CW 58,17.710{2}a 4lt7iDI1ZC5 kb C1mpO5i#IOu OFCOLI- nV2rnmental 8ut"tOrity aild ]1iCOPpOi-a{'ed lllt0
-ditiojts ar7 thc approval olE Sllbd1V3tL01.lS inc.ludiiig dons, pla-ils or codes wl-~ich are iorinally desigilated as
"[cl]ecUcakion of .land Eo any puhljc hody, provi . sion of possible bases far the exercise of SEi'A authori[7. Far . public ;mprovernerts to serve the subdivision, and f or exarnpie, in Frisk a. Ci~yof7'oer2sbo, 46 Wn, A.pp.7/93 (19M, .
. inipacf fees irrtposed urider RCW 82.02_050 throdgIL a•evaew dzii ied, I OS Wn_?d 1420 (:E987), the Cil~y condi tioned . ~
82,02.050_"2Ssn.ilarly, the Stake Enviror.utentai i'olicy Act builciirtg pcrmiks on payr6en t o; a$?00l;.utit fee -o ;iflance '
PA C'M.apter 43.2 1C RCiAF, provid es that, strbject to ' . ,
I 11 .
August ii ~ park developmentand improvement. a"he courtstated that property owners of recorci at thE timc of the refund;
the ;ees w ere imposed unc€er SLPA, whicll t11e eourt took ho-,vever, iEthc payment i; not Pxpend ecl ,viihin five ' :o authorize ir.nposition of a fee to mitigate spFCific advcrse yca.rs diie tb delay atiributable lo the developer, the
environmcnka.l i,mpacks, as long as the fPes are based nn payment shall be refunded without interest.
policic, ic3.entilied hy the municipaliiy a,nd i,ncorporated Nv cauraty, cihj, tnwn, or other munieipat corporrtion
into its r.eguJations. However, khF Cou,rtheld that there was
nn pol.icy incorpomted into the Ciiy's enviror~mental ordi- s}a~td rPruire any Jrayment rs purd of such a ualur2tary
nances support~ng the fees so the fe~~s ~vere not a va]id r.~~•eementwhicli tlrv eou~tty, crty, towM, orofizermo~nir.i-
exercisc of the City's SF~T':~ po~ve.r. pG1 corporation carlnot estaUlis.i is reasanably r~ec.ssr~ry
as n direcf resuIt of f}.e proposed developmerzt ar plat,..
B. Limitations of RC1N 82.02.020 RCtiV 52.02.020 (emphasis addecl). ln a number of eases,
4Vashington courts have iaYValidated taxes, fees, or charges
1. Prohibition of RCW 82.02.020 agai.nsE Taxes, Fees, that did not fall wathul one of flte sfahitory exceptiOns. See
o.r. Charges on DEVelopment rlctivity that Da 11ot in particular R/LAssociatts, lnc. v. Cigy of Serzftle, 113 Wri2c3
Fall within a Statutary l:xception 902 (1989) and Sr.r: Telnw AJsociQtes v. Cahj af Seattte, 108
RCW $2.02020 prohibits loca] jurisdictions €rorn im- Wn.2d 20 (I9$7).3
posi.ng taxes, fees, or cYiarges An d2velopment activity, except in certain enuulErated siYuatians. RCW 52.02.020 2.' Voluntary I`°ature af AgrEement imder RCIV
provides in pcrtinent part: 82.01020
A number of cousts have adcF ressed the meaningof the
Except as proNrided ia1 RCI-v 82.02.050 tia,rough
term "voluntary" for puiposes of RCW 32.02.020's excep-
8202.(}90, no cotmty, city, town, or other mtuzicipal tioi1 for ~~oluntaiy a~-cements to allo~v a payment ir► lieu of
corpora~ion shal.l impose a.ny tax, fee, or. charge, zdedication af land or ta mitigate 1 c€irect inlpact tl~~t has
Pither direet orinc~irect, o~ the construcEion ~r reeon-
strucrionof resicientialbtuldings,eonunercialbuild- been, 'dentified as a consequence of a dcvLlopment.
in;s; induskzial buildi,ngs, or on a.ny bkher bu,i.ld.i,ng It is c1Ear EhaE a.n agreament to pay a fee in lieu of
or building spaee or appurtenance tltereto, or on the dedicakion meets the test for a voltutitary agrecment. In .C'
.
de~~elopmcnt,subditi-ision,classifieation,orreclassi- rimen Dez~elopment Co. v. Kiitg Cau~2ty, ]24 FVri2d 261
fication of land. IIowever, this section does not pre- (1994}, a County ordinas~ce made subdivision appruvll
ctudededicatimfsofland oreasementswithin theproJwsed conH.ngent on cledicalion of land for recrcation ~.nd onen
deveIoJ~merrt or plat ~u7riclf the courity, ci[y, town, or otjier spaee or payment of a fec in lieu khereof.''he courtheld tYiat
nttanicipal corparatiore cari derrzar~trate are rer~,nnabIy hada cho ce etweendeclicati.ng lanc~orpaying ~ eeinli u
rcecessanj as a drreci restclt of tlte proposed developrnen t or .
of cieclication. Thc Trimen decE;ion would appear to over-
pt`af towlrrGh tlsederfication of landoreasernent is toappdy' rule the Coui•t of Appeals clecision in Pvy Cdub Inveslors
T'}tissPCtiondoesnntprohibitaohaitnrij agreernen€swrth Lrrnrted Partnership v. Cihj nf K¢nrtiewick, 40 Wn t1pp. 524
cauntles, citiPS, towns, nr other rnunir.ipad corporafiorts (1985), reaiew detzicd, 104 Wn.2d. 1006 (19$5), u1 wluch ,
fliat aIlow a payrizznt irz lieu of a desiication of 1and or to _ Division I",]'1 helcl that a park fee inlieu of dedic3tion was not '
rniti,ate a direct impact thrt 1a,s been identified as n voluntaiy, as dcrclopment apProva] was strictly coaldi- tanser{itenee of a praposed d.eaelopirent, subdiuision, or tioned on payment of the fee.) piat. A Iocal governmene sha.l.l. not use such volu,n- In the case of an agxecment to allow a Paymc;nt tU .
tary agr.eements for local off-si#e transpor#atioil im- mitigate a ducct impact, it aPpea.rs that an agreement is
prvvements wiihin the geographic boiandaries of volunr.ary as long as there is some ilegotiation invohTed. in .
the area or areas covered by an adopted transporta- Henrlerson 1-7omes, Inc. a. Cit f of Sot{wJ1, 124 Wn.2d 240
tion program authorizEd by chapter 39.92 12CW. (1994), the cleveloper executed agTeenlents by which they
Any sudl voluneary agrecment is suhject to the agreed to pay a$400 per lot park unpact nutigation fee as
Eollowulg provisions: a condition of prelimunary plat approval. 'Che court .held
l, t'he a yrnent shall Ue held in a reserve accou.nt thattheagreenleniswcrenotvolu.nta.ry,becausetheywere .
ad anay only be expended to fund a capital im- not negotiated as to the i.mpact acnount to be pa.id or how
provement agTeed upon by the partics to mitigatc the fiulcis were to be snent. Rather, the Gty presen#ed the
tihe identified, cli.rect i.rnpact; . developer applicant with the agreeanent at the hearulg ort
his application a.nd told him that, if he did not sign it, t•he
(2)Thepa;Tinentshall beexpendcclulall caseswilhin projectnrobablywoLildUedenied. ~
five.years oE collECtion; and Earlier cases in Division I took a nlor•c permissive
payment no# so expended shall be refunded approach. In Cobb v. SiiojwrnisJt Cou~ity, 6'~ Wn. t1pP. 45:1
(3) Any _
(1992)
tivith i.ntPr.est at ti~e rat~e applied to judg•inents to the , review de~zied, 17.9 Wn2d 1012 (1992), a C~unty
• ordinance i-equucci developers to agree to contrihute to •
12
x i~~ r. F Y k
certain road improvemer,E5 i n Arder to obtaiin prbject ap- park service a-rea. Thc courE Furtfier h,~ld thata siEe-Sped fic I
~1~~OTF{•I1 11~e C~OLLTl1ie14RLL~{7.L~F~~FOlUSZL~{'I~,.sigtplvmca.rt,sfihai sEu~y ~vas r~ot req~.9red to errs~u~e ttak El~e ord`u~uioe's . '
r
th e develooer ttas a ci7 oice behveen payl1lc, fOi' t105e 1'Cc1- SEqU1iCIIleIIt ir.'a 5 ie3$Ort3t1ly F'LeCeSSary aS 2 d1reCt YeSult pf
sortablyneoessarycostswhicltareduectiyattibzitableta thedevelopmer,twhereFlteCotuniy hadcortduc[edasi-LLdy
hhede{Fciopcr'sproject,iDz-losiztgplakapPro{Fal_Si.r,r,kxlarEy, oFparkneedstha#alloivedaprojeciionoftlte need'creaCeci bi VirnvRidgePark AaMofiRCe$ J. 4-Ity 47AjOiLli tfake?'errace,67 by d,e proposed deveZopnlent. Thc court x,otcd that the
VUn_ A PP- 58$ (1992), reviEurden ao_d, 123 Wn.2d 70.16 (I993), County's nssessment of fces i,n liev of dedication wvas
aCity prdirianCp fNLUred on-Site retrea E0.rta 1 rtacilities ui spedfic to the site zrEC! oased on the assessed value of the
multi pIe-famtly developineitts, bLLt a!lowt-~d a pa}mentin amount oEla.nd th af w%, ould have beeii dedi caked_
lieu of provid'un, SLlCb fclCLfitieS. ThC COL'3t hC1d tlat a
payment to n,z6gatc a direct zr.ktpaft did noE nee[i EO be 4. Fees to Nlifigate DixccE,Lrnpacks u.ndcr RC_'W
v otun tary but rath er cou ld be ex tracted as a condition of 82,02.U2{]
apprOval. i~CW $2,02.020 allOwS v oluntary agreerrEeFi ES t0 miii-
gate edreck impar.ts that have been identifi ed 3 s acanse-
3. Pees in Liett of Dedicatioti tutder IZCW 52,0J,020 quex ce af ad evelopment, The local jurisciiciion anust es-
~CW 82.02.020 a]laws voltirttary agreenzenks for a Eab],ishth attYtepaymenkisreasonabiyneccssaryasa clirect
payntent un lieu of a cEeclication o# 1anci, Su ch a fce m ust be re5u]t of t]'ie proposed developntcni'. Th-e following cas2s
reasonably nccessary as a du-ecE result o.f thc propased m ake clear th at fail ure ta tulalyze a developutent's impacEs
developnlen k, in a nurnbcr af cases, coL.rts have held th?t will resul t Li invalidationaFafee,asvwillbising afeeon the
#eesinlicu.ofdedication mustbased.onth 2assessed val ue cumulative impact of mt•uty dcvelopnlents, not jtist Ltte
oft[,e aFnour►totland thatx ould havebeendedicafeciand devclapment subj~ct tn tE,e fee. Hb%vevez, at ]eask i,n tfte
thak khis reqLdTes (aE a inuvnturxt) tliaE thc city actively cave of parks fees, amurvcipality neecl not concluct a site-
considet wir,h khe dcvelopex the dedication of a sp&ciFic specificanaJ}'sisforeachprojeci.:raEher,alarmaha ntnybe
amount Ot land pri Or to dslUng tor a iLs2 lYL 32U Uf C1EC#1Cc1- l1r+~.'d.
tion. [n ~4endersoa7 I-loriiss, lyic. i:f1y of Both.edl, 124 Wn_2d
!n Vi:2 ~ r,7e C'on5€rUt-tioR Cu. v_ City of BothelI, 135 VJn.2cl 240 {1994}, the c[evelopers exccutccE agrccments b}' ivluch
8S3 (1998), ihe City cojtclitioLted approva1 of a subcli.visiozt they agceed topsy a$4QUpef ]otpar;c irnpactmidaati on Eee
on ihe payme,t of aS400 pcr-!ak pa;k fee, wi,i r.h the City asa conditioitofpreliitunaryplahapproval, T11ecoLLrtheld
contcnded w%,a.s aj~c ixt lieu 4t dedi.cation. `1'},e cou.rt held that khe fees ~qalal-ec[ RCW 3102,020, Vqhile tEtc sta#ute
ths# a fee in lieu of dedic:ator+ under RCW 82.02_020 is only f'eqLZ].Ted hjldt ~hC fCe IILiL1gdkC a dLreCt im]7dGt 9d eTlkLE1Cd m
peYYFLlSSl}J12 lf 1t 15 bcISed Oli i'he Vaille Of- iF7.1ld whfCtl tILC a cox7seq uence of th e pi OpOSeCj d2V2l QpYCleYLt, t;i e C Ety d xd.
c?evelopar caW d bc requireLi ta cledicate_ The City ca lcu - r+ota,al}Fze ff ,zimpacis ofpla;r►+ifrs' developme3tts onthe
IaEed th2per-lOttee bas2d pntify-ivid23Vetage l3rid Va1u 2, pai'k SysI'eIll,IiIadditlOn,I:hcCityignored thesLatuiniy
' Bec-duse ihe City dJCl riOt de{'eYmine lll 8 SLEe-SpCC1FiC LT12a11- i:EquELCrn eiI4t5 th3t tli e {ee5b~r-}s2l d m a rp_,~2rVe a CCQZU-stal1d
ner hhc valuc a[ khe land {:hc dcveloper cvu.ld hav° heer+ br,ly be expencled to #und a capital irftprovemefx# agreed
requia-edEndedical-e,d1e cour L h eldthatrl,efeewasinv. al.id_ Liponbytheparaestoari+Agatethejc'.entifiecl.cii~ect impacE.
Te1~CCtillFtb eId YhBte.I'ke r°quirernentth at acityden7onsirate LZCastleHanrssandDeqXIoprnCr2t,.Ta~c.v.Cituof B-rier,76 '
;ltat the fEe is rela 1,eci to tlle {Faluc of tl3c fand lb at m i g11t Wn_ App. 95 (1994), the cleveZoper entered an LLr8emant
otf,cr,-wice beded.icaEedrequi,rev,ataF„i,-imu,-n,thatacity AF1k11LLLe CIty IJy i4rhichtlw dev. efoperagreedtopiyatraffic
prior to asl~tg for a fee ui lieu oF cfe~cation actively impact ntiti-ation Eee in retum for prnlimenary plat ap-
consider {vzth L11c c?evclopei rhe dedicatian of a sper.ific proval_ The Divjs1on I courk stated tltaf, cutder RC-W
ambunt bf la nd_ Th e cou rt found that th e Fecorcl did not 52.0j,020, 5ee5 pLll'SLlc''17k t0 IFOlLlllL'?I'yagreenlen[s are per-
reflectkl'iat theCii'yofBottielleveru~,~itecEil-iedeveloperl'o missibleon]ytopayforimprov emencscea5on a};] yneccs-
dedicateanypar[i+_vJ.aranxatantoflartd ort4Z ttheCi tyI-V er 5ary aS a direct result of tYte proposed developFnent; n,iti- calculatecl the value of a potential dedication;A tlun the gatZOSLfC'eSF}aid IJl1S5uc']SLttOt'1vO1LiFitaNBgI'eCITIejIt Cc11?110E
5vhdiviSEon. The Court eFnpita sizec! t}-ia t the staiLi Ee places be utilized to caireck off-s;kc roadjway d-eficicncies ivhich
tr,ebu.rden citi therri u rkEpa iity, not the develop er, to sl-kow cITe IIOk LIl£ CrSICCt CO.PSL+{ueE1C2 Of Lbe del~elO}7IIlerit, Tle
that the Eee is reasonably in ece~.sary as n direct resLdE of Lhe burden was on the City 4o 5hoiv that the im.pro{Femenis
~A,velopfnent. . werc reasonably r+ecessary to rnitiga t6: th e d,irect impact of
In Tr~meu IJevelopmrnt Co. u, FC~sg County, 124 Wn.2d the developrf~ent_ The courtheld E.tat, ~iiriwe tne }ecs iFt
--.,261{19°4},a~o~~tiyorcLittancen~desub clivisionappro~~a1 questtonwerebas8do~rtthecamula~veim~acto~~~~mber
contirxgent an dedicakioii of laiid for recreation and opcn oF ne+v subdivi4iors. ratlter t-tan on the spect►5r: i.mpact of
spaceo1 paymcntofafee inficurhereof_'Checourtheld Ehat thep]atin qLestioii,{'h~acgTE'eI31F_'llt VlQiclted RCW 82_02.070.
. ihc xequiFemeD t thak the fecs be expended. orily to fund a Trt V;e;v Ridge Fark Associates v, City of MaFr.r7fhO:e Ter-
Capi Ea1. ]m]7.1,4vemeTwt a -Teead upon by the parties was met innce, 67 'KFn. App.5S8 (1992), revi€u? deiiied,l21 Wn_2d i4] 6
wk~e-Te tb e co,lnty eequirecf th e fees to be used tivithu, fYte (1993), a City ordinance required oft-sste recreatianal factti- .
; ° ~ 3 .
August 1 1 "Au • .
ties in multiple-tamiJy dcvElonments, but allowed apay- a for-nula. The cotu-t held Ehat the Gty was entitled to set
Fnent ut lieu of provid,i,ng Such ;acilifies. ThE Division I 3 Fnurtiuiun level of publ.ic parks faciliiies for its citizEns,
court considered.'the fee to €all w-ider the exception fc,r a and the formula was sufficient as a uleans of assessing
payment to mitigate a direct impact identi,fied as a conse- unpact m.itigation requirernents. quenceof theproposed devclopment.'T'he court stated that
the"hasbeenideniified" languageinRCIti'82,02.020meant S. Application of RCW 82_02.020 to ReRuirements for
that the mitigation must have been adopted u.nder the Makuig Off-Sitc I.mprovements
City's 5ElyA Powers, or at least haye been codified. The rLn impoi-ta.nt issue is whether a requirement to pay
court held that the ordinance on its face was sufficiently for/make off-site improvemEnts constitutes a tax, fee or
taiJored to the objective of providing recreafional facililies charge that is prohibited by RCW 82.02.020 ua-dess it falls
for the inhabitants of new developments, and thus ciid not within a sYaYutoiy exccption. At least one coLut has re-
violate RCW 8202.020. garded conditions rectuiri.ng the provision of olf-site im-
1n Cobb v. Srzohalnis3i County, 64 jNIn. App. 451 (1992), provements tied to a speci.ficproperty as falliing outsidc the
reuieu d.eniec1,119 Wn.2d 1012 (1992), a County- ordina.nce prohibition of RCW 82.02.020. In Saut)revick, lnc. v. City of
required developers to agree to -contrihute to ccrtain road Lacey, 58 Wn. App. 896 (7 990), the City imposed condi tions
improvenlents in order to obtain project approval. 1'he on a sitE plim appzoval requiring construction of street
ordinancrprovidedthatdeveloperswhoseprojectswaulci irnprovEments. Thc developer contended that the cond_i-
be servcd by a roacl system thatwatild be ak Level Qf Service tions violated ItCW 82.02.020. The Division ll court held
OS") D followuig campletion of the cievelopIIZent had that the condinoF-ts did notviolate ]ZCW 82.02.020. First, the
to execute a voluntazy agreemEnt by wluch the developer cqnditiions were not a tax, as they were tied to the property
agreed to pay a proportionate share of the c(i,st qf mitiga- in question a.nd not aimed at general social ills. Second, the
tion iniprovemenes. The Ditiision i cburt Yield tt1at the cnnditetan:; were not fees c+r charges. 'I'o holci that the
C_'ou.nty tvas required to show th3t the required inlprove- eonclitionswere fees or cha.rge,s would be ulconsistenh -with
ments cverc rcasonably IlECESSc1YY r0 II11L1gc3fL' t}1F CLfFeCt loeal govcrnnlents' authority, lll'Ede3' SI111lfL5 SUCM 35 SEISA
iutpact of the developYnent. Whilc the court held that the and lZCW 5$.77.110, to unpose conditiCns on dev2loprnent
nutigationschemeprovided.bytheorclinancedidnotonits that are ultended to mitigate the problen-is caused by the -face violate RCVJ 32.02.420, the application of the ordi- partic«lar tase. Thc court stated that RCW 82.02.(r/_0 u<<as
nar►ce viola .ted RCW 82.02A20 becaLise the Cnunty had itotaintedatdevalopment-specificconditionssuchaskhose .
nusintcrpreted the requiremenis of the ordinance ul arriv- impased in this case, but rathcr at the imppsition oE the
i.ng at the requircci amou.nt of mitigation in this case gpneral social costs of developrnent on developers. Thus, .
(specifically, the IaQS calculation should have been nade the cotut helci that RCL17 82.02.020 did not Prohibit the
according to the capacity oI the traffic la,ne in question, not ConditibnS 3t issue. .
the intersectioil as aNvhole, and the proposed devElopment Hoivever, a latcr decf,sion frOcn Division I appeais to
ciid not Confribute any frafCic to the LOS D traffic la-nes). rake a diEferent appraacri. As noted above, in Liniteci De-uel- .
Fulally,in 1.lnitedDeaeioprt.,r►tt Corporafioii v. C:hj ofiV1iII oument Corpnratio?t v. City of Mil1 Creek,l0b Wn. App. 68.1
Geek, 106 417n. App. 681 (2001), review denieri, 145 Wn2d (2001), review deirieci,145 Wn.2d ] QQ2 (2001), the City of Mill
1002 (2001), the City of :Yiill Creek appraved a prelimirtiar}' Crcek apProved a prelirninaiy plaE while requaring the
platcondiEionedonpajmentoftra.ff,icarzdparkmitigation devel4per .o make storm drai,nage improvemenis to'the
fees ancl aLso requi.r.ed the developer to malke storm drain- street adjacent to the subdivision. Relying on RCbV .
age improvcm.ents ta the road adjacent to the subdEr•isio;l4 82.02.020, the c:ourtsh-uck dowm lhis requirement, becausz
Thc developer contended that thc park impact fees ciid not it was ur►disputed that the pla< <vould have'no effert upon
accurately reEleck the impact of the devclopment, because drainagc in the locatidn of the acijacent strcet. The court
the City had not considereci private ;ecreational faciliHes rejected the City's a rgumenY.that• the ad.jacentstreet did not
(which residents could use by viriuc of their membership mcet code requirernents; the code could not justify the
inahomeownexs'associarion)whenmeasu.ring theicnpact cond.ition where the need for the improvements was not
of tl-ie development on public parks, such ehat the impact ctireckly related It-o the plat.
of the development was overstated. The City contended .
that it was not reqLua•ed to conduct a site-specific analysis 6. r'lpplicatio:, uf RCW 82.02.020 to Requirement for
of direct impacts. The City uscd a formula that took into Open Space Set-Asid.e
accou.nE a cornprehensive evaluation of itu parls needs and In 1sIa Uerde htt'! Ho1d ings, 1nc. v. Cit j of Camas, 99 ~Vn.
then applied a populafian-bas2d forrnula to deterntine the App. 7 27 (1999), affirnied, 146 Wn.'Ld 794 (20{}2), when the
additional iinpact onpublic pa.cks represei-tted by thc plat. dFVeloper sought subdivisiort approval the City applieci ; 1fie ]aivision I court u.nheld the City's approach. The c:ourt ari oiduiancc rcqu.irin,s~, the cieeeloper to set aside 30 per- -
held t11at, because the fee was not ullicu of dedication, the cent of the subdivz;ion as open space. Thc developcr _
value oE la.nd was not ax1 issuE and thus no site-specific contended that the set-aside ordunancc was an unconstiltu-
delerntinakioii svas requir€d; rathcr, the CFty co'.lld rely on tional taking under potun v. Ci€~j of T'igard, 512 U.S. 374
14
x i i r ~ r
~ (1994), because t11e set-astde wasnvt roughlyproportianal Nfolla, v, Cadafm2 ia C'oa-itaI Comrnrss:on and Dolan a. City of
Eothesubdivpsi0n'Samp2[tonfhecity'sinventOryOf opett Tiga7d,whi[1'rariseLu-tdeT the'1'akiftQ Clause_ .
space_ The C_'ity mj~o ed that ]here was no takuxt-, becau;.e A~ NroIIdn/Dodan Analysis
tFiare was no reL]ui,rement that tlle dCvelopCi trsns fer ti 1e .
. of tZC set-avade iand; raiher, a.it owncrs' as5ocaa6 4rl w ould I - ATo IIun and I7oIRft Case;~
retain fatle.Tte DivisiortII appcals court rejected th-2 Cii-y's In i'iol2ayr v. CalIfOrni4 CD25.iAF GOTnrni~SaOn, 4,93 U.S. 825
arg-iament, reasoning ihaL ttte orcli,nar7ce required iht- de- (19$7), theCalifomiaCoastalCanuius5i.on hadconrLi~ancd
veloPer' bo declicaLepropeztyiE4-f apubli cber•.eh L.The court approval ta rebui]d a house upa.n the property owztcrs` .
held atat #he City hacl not ~hpw'n rough pTO}7orb.ona.Lity grantutg the public dn easement aCross their bcachFront
between d-~c rcq0 ired exaciioM aatd th c innpact of the pro- property_ In its dec35ion, the Supreme Co,jrt not~,d that
posed devclopmen t, as reqtdred by Dolran. rfl7e courtnoied iequl[iTSc, 3n LutiCOntp2nSat2d coilvey{utce of he easeuxestk
t1w tkheFou crhproporliona].iEyrcquirernenkdidnotrequire outright would he an unconsdtutionz3l taking, and asked
ar; i-n d i vidua7ized d eterma nati ori if art ord.irwmcc a dap ted ~vhe 4hei rcquiring thL easemcnt to be conveyeci a.s a concf.i-
prioftoittephzt8p}7IiCafion impOSed feq Ll1TCLlleD tSrcaSOn- t10rifO.L"i55u,i,ng a 13a1d,L1S~~~i-m3#alteYed,khe 0l1tCt7.nl2-7'he
ably rehatCd t0 [}te imp3Ct Of tYle pIOpoSed dtv PlOpFtierii, CQLU~ ag reecl tlia k a pcrA-Li.t aondi tion that serv°d the sa me
`Fhe coiut Fryu 7d #hat the recard was d~:vnirl nf stu dies or lqgitimate palice-power purpose as a refusa] W fisspje the
farmtilas showing a a:easonablc ielahor~sl'ip be[-stFeen khe Perrn Et shotilcE not be fouE7d.fo be a ta.kin# Ef th 8 refusal to
impact oF flte subdivision a.nd ;}se 30 perce3lt set asacle issue tYte pernut wau]d itoi constittitw a '-dK Ing, 11OWeve-1F
reqOreinent.Tftus,thecourthe]cl tYkaktheordu-kZnceas theconditionw ou3dbeunconstitvb onalif itutkerlyhuilecF
applaed Eo &e subdiviviolx v ialateci tlte Takings C Eau,~e of to fu.rther the erLd nclvanceri as the jtrsEificaLion For the
the FrfLh .A.n1E~ndztent. pxOhibitiovt {i,e., tltere }vas no "essenkial. nexus" betw6erk
T'Me WasYiington Sup.reme C4urt affirmed khe appcaks Ehe C4f1CjStlOIl rt'7I1d th217L1L]tLC k7L1Tp0,&e). rl`he CaLirt held ihat
court decision xegaTdzng the sei-aside canr,b#ion: but on tYtcrewasnon exusbetveent.'l e[ondiiion(re~tiiring con-
OFIieT gOun&- 161C# T74?rdp In V1 Hofd i ng5, Tnc. v_ C'ihj of Ca.totas, v ey ance oF an eas cment over t1'Ee beac_lt) -n d th e pu rpose o1:
146Wn_2d740(2002),T'heSu pFeaneCotu'kiirsthe.ld.khatthe the restickiop on beachlront co.n=teuctiork (pi:okeclin Lhe
.
; set-aside f~ui,reme~t was a t~ix, fee, ar char;~: ~rw ithin tl~e pub.lic`s abaliEy i~o ~~i~s+~ the b eacY,).'I'Ytus, thc c.on c~ition vwas
meaiu~}~, a; 1{CW 82,02,020, xCr~soning that a tax, ~+ee, or ummnstikutional._
chatge could be in kincE,s w811 as un do.1lars, The Stipre.me Irt Doian -o_ C7tij of Trgrwd, 512 xJ.S_ 374 (1994), thc City
' Cou rt then held r.ha t ti,e 30 percenl opcn space set-a~ id e L-onditionecE approval of a build;jtg peiTnit fo.r a store
k~,as noi roaso.nab]y necessay as adi.rect result of tte e?Cpans iOriQali'h~laLkdOwn e r'sdecLication ofthepoF-LLonof
praposcd subdEVis€on ar reasazw#xly necessary ta rnitiQatc her property lying widLin the 100-yea.c floodplain for tm-
a direct impacl iha,t is a consequence oF the proposed p~ovemCFxEof a SforYn dC2tlfk'lge SySL-em 3Yrd dedlCat'ionof a
subdivision, 7"#i(~ Court held tl1ai it vwas not ~ur'rtcient dtat 15-fo4t strip adjacen# to ttae flnodplaut as a pedestrianl
'tl-Le C'itv had Enad e a legisla.hve detemihlation oF the ne%-.-d bieycle palhwa y_ The Supreme Couzt held ttiat b otlt dedi-
Eor subclivisiois tfj pCC]Vlde Clpeil Sk7aCe Set-av3Cjf°r to Fruti- calions satisfied Arodlarr, a5 the r2qtiuYed 11eKi15 C7C15Y,ed.be-
gate[onSCqUencesnfsub divisiol-L deve lopment.'1'he Court tween a legi kimaEe sta lc intuest arkiJ the pernut conckitian
hejd t1iat, LtnrJer $2_02_020, C1eVeIOFJIIIE[1t CoYId ItlQY',$ lllLlSt exc7C' tefI by tIie CIty. T'f12 COurt theri tL11'ilCd k0 wheti,er the-
be tied. to a sper-ific idcn[ified i.mpact of a dev. elopmenk and deQree af the exactions bore the req °1EFeCl Yelat14115111p {Y]
the stahitl~ c?oes rLot permit conditions that satisFy a"rea - khe piojectecl impact of the d evelopiitent, The Cau.rt held
sonably necessary" Sik3ldaTd fOr 8D rtePf developnlent that theFe must be "rouglt piopartionslity,• betwveein tYEe
[o11ecti vely. Lti ilus case, there w•las rio evidencc showiTi~ a exaclioris and the projecLed impacE pt tYfe development
relationsiup betwPen a30 percent opcn space requieement V1'bi.le n0 prer_ise ma thctTn a ti cal calculj{ion was i-rquzred,
and inlpacts of the pY0q)45ed d.CVeJQprnr:!rtt. RakheY, khe t,he Ci tywasreqtdred toim Okesomesoztofindividual,ized
openspacecoftdilianwasuniFnirnly applicd.int},epM~et c2ebernunat+on ff iat the required ded icatian ivas relai+ed
aloLUI E,regardie~ uf thesped{~cnceds crea ted byagi~=en both in riai~Lu~e ~un[~ extenE t0 the i~it~7~iCt Df ~e 7ropO5ed
r~e r~ velopmenk.'rhu~,ffieCo~ut heldthattl,eset- asiclecon- d.cveloprnent, djEion dici nat fal,l i~-Fifftin any excep aon of ROV 52.01020 The Cowt hcicl t}i at in ~his case L•l}e rcqui.red "rough
an d tlierdore v i6afed Ehat kYte sko tute. .4s s ucYi, the Su- pi-oportii~)nality„ c1id. not exist. T}te Court noted tN t i.n-
preme Couzt r]etl.tried to reac€z nce consb tutioltai isstte. czeased imperviouw suFface woulci increase storm w~ter
flotv from Ihc property; Y103,,'eVei',wI'ille keep ln~ th2 fl0od -
, , IYf. CunsF,ikuiional Limifafioxts o€~'1~~lanctary plairk o~?en wo~.id reduce t~te piTssures an the tree~c,
-ExaCf'1on5 City d einanded nok oaly Eo keep ihc floodplaiR f.ree F~om .
r'icop tinuingareaoFcontrovezsyhasbeeniheextentto developi-nentF bUt ahk+ LO liaTFe_~e flVoUw Oy as a public
WYLld-L Lm p8Ct {ee5 c'7SLd GtLLeLS I11031et3Fy 2?C2CL161}S aTe SLkb- gFeP31NViky, which ivas not required ;n tlhe interesf of flaod
ject Eo various conskir.u#ianal iimitations, part1CUlarly Ehe conkrol. With re~speckto ihe pcdcstriaiifbicycle.patiway,
"nexus" and "rough proportionalifyFF rcquirernents of wiuZe klte store exparESion would inc~rease traific, the Ci[y
_ 15
August 11 onmental. & Land
did not demonstrate t}iat the adciitsonal number of velucle na.nce]. 'I"hus, contrary to Sintra's a.r.wments, the and bicycle trips generated by the development was rea- . i\►oilrn ne.YUs test does not apply.
sonably related to ihe required dedication; the City simply
fou.nd that the pzthway cou_ld offcet some of the traffie The Washington Supreme Court reaEfirmed this ap-
demar►d. Thus, the conditions Nvere unconstitutional. proZChinA9argala fissociates v. Cityof Seai-tle,l2:l. ENn.2d 625
2. Washington Cases A.pplying 1Vollan/Dalan ' (1993). ln that case, a Ciiy orclinance required apartment
rlnalysis oiNnerStoreo tertheirbuilcfingsandpa} registratior-i feQS.
Owners who failed to register were precluded fi-om evict-
a. Dedication Cases u1g tenants. Lar►dlorcis contendect that the restriction dn
Washington courts have had little difficulty applying thcir eviction pdwer constituted an uz►cvnstittitional t-ak-
the Nollr.n/0olan analysu to cases ulvolving conditions ing oE property. 71Ye Court hcld that the ordinarzce did not
requa.ring ]andowners to dedicate property as a condition efEect a takialg, as the ordina.nce d.id not deny the owneis c-Lll
for obtzinino developmcnt zpprova.l. En thesF cases, the eco:lonucally viable iise of their properiies nor rzsult jn a
cou.rts have inadE it clcar that they cvil] scrutiniu: tvhether pltysical fiaking. Jn a footnote, the Cotirt stated that "Be-
the cledications mect i~IoIlari and DoIan's nexus and rough cause no perma.nent physical occupation, or 'exaction,'
' prop4rtionality reqlLi.rements. See 13urton v. Clr.rk Courrty, occurred in this cese, the substa}tial nexus test of NoI?an
91 tNTiL App. 505 (1998), revietu derried, 137 Wn.2d 1015 docs not apply." See alsn GuimolYt v. Clarke,121 Wn.2d 586
(1999); Sparks v. Douglas County, 127 Wn.2d 901. (1995); (1993), cert. d.erried, 510 U.S. 1 176 (1994).
Liixernbourg Group,.inc. v. Sitalcarnisfr Counhj, 76 Wn. app. However, some subsequent Court of Appeals cases
502 (1995), reuicwrteniert,127 jNn.2d 1005 (1995); and LlnJirn- suggest a Yvillina ess to apply the NoIlan/DoIan analysis
ited v. Kitsrtp Cuunty, 50 ~Nn. App. 723 (1958), rt-r;iew denied, outside of the dedication context. '
111 Wn.zd 1008 (1953). In Beiuhrrqark Land Co. v. City of Batille Grourisl, 94 Wn.
App. 537 (1999), affirnzed on ottxr groraids, 146 Wn.2d 685)
b. Vionetary Exacdons (2002), Division II of lhe Cotut of Appeals addressed a
Liy contrast, there is uncerl•ainty as to whether the situation in Nvluch the City, as a condition of plat approval,
i\TOllan/Doim7 analysis applics t'o conditions requ.iring the required the devcloper tn make half-street unprovenlents
paymeiltofnloney,asopposedtothededicationofland,as to a street adjoi.ning the subdivision. Traffic studies con- a conciition c!f development approval. RCAV 82.02.050 con- cluded that the increased trafEic from the development on ttins provisions i•hal• ef.fective-ly incorPorate the \joIla»/ thestreetsectionNvheretheCityrequiredtlleinlproventent
Doian nexus and r.ough proportionality requireinents, so would be minimal. Wlule the developrnent would cause
ehat hhe appl='cability of these cases ho i.mpact fees imnosed increases in trafGc, those i,nGrease5 woulcl occur on o:her
u,nder RC4V 32.02.050 et seq. is not a major issue. I-Iowever, sections of street_ T'he court held tfiati the or.di,nance failed ~
whether Noflun and DoIlan apply tp monetary exactions the "nexus" test, becausQ the improvements Gequired of the . '
. may be a sigilificant issue in the case of impact fees ini- developer did not adclress the problcros caused by the
posed under pre-GN4A aurhority. developer. Sunilaray, the court noted thaY the ord'ulance
1n t-,,vo Early post-Na!laii cases, tYie j,Vasl°ung,ton Su- imposed the Ubligatiori to make half-siTeet i.mproverrlents .
prerae Court appears to have rega.rded Nallnn as bei.ng based on the le-i1gt1-i of development adjoining the street, -
limitecl to conditions involvi.na physical occupation of but this did riot necessarily relate to the adclitional u.se the j
property. In Sintrn, Iric. v. Cityof Seuttle,119 Wn.2d 1(1992), developrnent would 'unpose on the street. Thus, the court -
a City ordinance reqturecl developers to either rep]aCe any 11e1d Elti1t the orciinance did not rneet Doiart's reqturealent
low-income housi.ng they destroyecl or pay a fee unto a of rough proportionality. T11e court rejccted the City's . :
housing replacegnent fLu1d. The court revcrsed the ti-ial argurrtent ihat Nodian and Dolr.n did npt apply because the .
cotut's grant of summary judgnlent tFiat no taking had City did not require a d.ed.icatidn of land, only paynleiit of occtu-red, and remanc€ed the casc for a trial on the issue of a fee. ' cvhether the ord'uiai-ice leffi any viable use of the property. T11e Washington Supreme Court ;ranted re•.Tiew and =
In a Eootnote, the cburl sl:ated thak renla.ndeti the casc for reconsideration in lighi of the U.S.
If the public is actually pro-videci with some tise of Supreme Court's_derision in Cihj of 1'✓fonterey a.17et Nlonte
the owner's land, sueh as ,u1 easenlent across it, a Dieia.es. Senchniark Lrinrl Co. v. Caty of Battte Grocrnd, 138
Eal dng.has almc~st eertaie~ly occtured.... Th.is ty-~ac of ~''n.2d'1008(1999).Onre~~~.nc3,t~eDivisionIIheldt~hat~he :
sihiation may properly Ue called a,n "exaction," as L'°lapt proportianality test appliecl noitiviihsranding hhat
oppcased to a"use," case. A.n analysis 4f an exaction the conclition in question exacted money,not land, and the
case focuses on the nexus dest set forth in Nollan... court kherefose ad.hered to its previous decision Beruhrnark
7°his is alot an exaction c3se, however' because izo Land Co. v. Cilij of Bat.tde Ground,lQ3 4Vn. App. 721 (2000).
TheWaslungt~on5upr~.meCourt aafirmed,butonother physical invasion has been effectecl by ti~e [orcli- grottnds. Benchmtai•k Laritl Co. v. Cihj of Battle Graund, 146
16
4 p h~
. ~
Wri2c~ 685 (2002). The COLIl"# dediTEed EO re3[h #he CQllSt1- gr3nt OFBtltIlOIit-y tU trflpo521Ff1p@ CY.FLeS ,vould be roi~sti -
- tuabnalissue,buti.rtsteadh eldthat the conditiondidnot tuiionalzfR CL'V 82.02,050(3)'sr.aponsuchfeesisconsh•ued
satisf-j ttie substantial evideiuce star,c]ard of Chapter 'Lo rnean tYta.t futpact fees irtust be "ieasonably F21aied to'•
56.70C .730(3)(c) RCW.'1'he Court sEated; the iitdivzdua,42ed e.fects of Lhe particular project, but
AS d COild1tiQI1Of Cs2ve1QpIll2nt appYp'Jal, the City (2) il1at tb e grarit Of BUkllOii4`}f }vOUlf] n At be Co1-L5 L'1{tiitiOilaI
requkzed }32nc~~~a i-k #b isri(~u r the cosks of- isilproving if khe cap i,~ consirtted ta rn ean that impact fees nced vnly
streetsborderingiMeLrose Park. Tl-te City argii as that be xelaled fo the cv.nnuladive irnpacrs of aJl new deve.lop_
iiSYgquli'emenilSSti[]pOi'keC~ by Sli bStan bsl ewi d eriCe. me-Yt4, irrespcckive of the iridixiduaLized impatts of the
'rVe cLi.sagrce, ~~or~h .I?a.r.k%~~a~~ did not meet Cily I~~'riicuiar project,
road~~ay standards e~'en beFore E~l~e de~Felopr~nent !~ti ~lonesty r7t Envar~o~xrner~ta2 11~xal~;sis and Legis~tio~~
~-Ee requi~'ed expend~~ure fo.r~treek (F4L~11L) a, Cerstral.Plige~SaundGrowtl:2'vlanage~~ie? 2 t#~e~rings
}'was proposec~, T
Boa
impro~Fe~neftts ~vas ~tok ciirectly related to ;Jhe #ra#fic ~~d, 96 ~Vn 1~.P~- 52~ (199J}, Di~~isivn J o~ the ~o~rt of
O"C11eTa tC[~. 17~+ I:~IE c~.ev~opnler~E_ St~2 Mt2I27' ~1, ~'tl1~ of Ap}~~aIs consic~ere~ a s~hia#ion i.n v~F~~ar~t a cii~ a~opked
Port Arage~es, 38 V,~~r. APP- 904, 910, 691 F,2d 2~9 o.rdi.nanr.es ameiiding its ccitical areas replalions artd
(19M). Rather, the r2rluEred iinprovemcnts would Pol.icies_ Ute caush considered #he rneanin& of thc hcst
rel.ievc, apreexistingdefi Ciency,Inadcii tion,thc traf- availablescience requkren,ent inRCW 36,70A _172 (1) a.nd
fjc stud Ees found tYia t the sub division woii1d have held thdt the sLatute rec{uired t]Zai' evidente ol tbc best
liEEle ko no urtpack on safety {2rrd operation5 on the available science raust Y,e included ui the record. aud must
sectian afi:oadway Bcnrhmark'w a-, seqnired to im- be cansidexed substa.ntiveiyin the d.cvelogmentorcriticai
areas pOl.icies and regula b ons.
prove.
SigrtifFCantly, khe HTAL court hnclrxdeci a d.iscussion of
Pen chtrrrrrh I,and Co. v_ City of Ba I He Grourtd, 146 Wn.2ci at "an imparEant COnStifufional limi#at-cOn on ]oc:al
694-95_ goverr.trTze.-Lt`s discreiion in adopting policies and regLrJa-
This appmadlwoulc{ seem to leave a [ritical questian bons under GNLA."'lle court staked ihat thc policies and
Lutiansvwere+~= ~.~aC,at exactly is the ]egal principle tha,E re- reg~ulai~ons adopEed uutder G2~Lr1 ase in,~xlementec~ only
quires tEte expenditUre far sereel ur4pz•ove.ment5 to be di- when 3pplied toapplicatioi,s forpery,.its. The courtskated
rectly relat+edtokhekraf[icgeite-ratedbythedevelaprneill? thatthenexusrraie pern,,itsonly those eoncliiiansneces.sary '
'Fhe Cotirt's opiruon does not mentioit PCIN 82.02_020. to irut'iga l'c a specEfic adverse ienpack of a propuSat, while
hloreov2r, kA,Itile the CourE'S OpJSIlOil C].te5 A+E2?lPr v_ CYnj Of tlte i-otzgh propor€iorka]ity rcquirement l»uEs the exip-nt of
AorF t? ngeles, 38 Wn, App, 904 (7.984), rrviezv der:ied, 1To the mitigation mcasures W those wl-dch are rou-hly pro-
~1Fn.2c~ :I.~?4. ~:€9$5}, tF~at eE;eFence does not 7~~em to an- portionaL ko the ampact tltey are dcsigx+cd ta rf,i tigste. 'f'[ze
swer the question. Ir► MiIIer, U-Le cozirt relEed on RCFV courE stated Eha t it dedined to adoPt vvhat af termecl as the
. 58,17,110i.nappxovingpla ECOndi Eionsrequirutgprovision U.S. Supreme Cou,rt'~ dicta thaE NoUan and Oo1cn may be
Of ir€rpr0Ve1nertt5 tO 4i1e P08d wkd CQ.RLT]bkj ti 0~ ~o ~mld f01' 8ppJied On]y {O dedICailOZ15 0f land irequired to allow.a
irnpi:overnentstoanotheri-oadandstakedkhat " I;aI neccj[ar developntent Ca1D roceed.'ntecoLLrtsfatedkbatothei condi- I
the unproveT.i,cnts was clearly demons~rafecl, dtrcctly,re- tions exacied to obtaix, dev 81opE-nei1t peimuts da not d.iEfcr ~I
lated to rhe tra#Eic wkxith would be gerteraled by the devel- it.kutcl and nexus a n d rough proporiionali#y hav e conbn-
opr,rL2nt." However, Lhe caurt in Milfn- did not clearl}F uGd. Vi aIJi LLty GtFhen ewluating them _
specilv What legal PrinctplC Wouid requ.ire titie uitprove- rinally, ]ll Sn¢der 7!_ BOf;rd Of COidriky COJTiJ71iSSdOnCrS Of
nlents tb be direCti}F rel atecl bo the U•affic generated by trEe Waf [a WaRa Cnun hj,BSWn.App,371 {1997}, Divui nn'Chree
deVelopmeaA. The cotLrt ut tMidder dad state tlist, under oFtE,e CourtofAppealsaddressed asituatiorL inwtdcYi the
Chapfier 53,17 PCW, i,n ordcr ta prevail the develaper was County graneedprelanun sry p1at approvalwhi.ieimposizxg
rcqui.red EosFt[s~-v that #1te Cit}x's ackions vvere arbitrary ancl a co.rLdi Lion raqufrutc, the cievclopcr to obtsin riaht-4f-xay
capricio us, an d hcld 117at tlie conditEOns werenotal'bitre~l-y over aii acljacent property tin orcEer to provicie adeqLtat-e
a.€td caprczous. access to the developinent. The dcvelaper challe.n -ed the
It shaajld be noied tYiat, even follawing kheWas,din- condiiion as a ta'king, sirce he clic{ not ha ve the po}i-~r tU
t6l-t SUk7IG}ille LouFtr$ d eCf$ki F'L lYl E$nL'hmRJ"k, DivOon II of obiaul propezty ngh#s froirt ihfrd pardes. `Che COur# te-
theCourtofAppealshascoreEinued Lo takethepositfonthat jecteci Lkte developer's argumenk khit t 002f.rt app I ied, since
NaItan axi d. Dol{n apply fo alt exaction of mon°y as weU as the conciitiou d i d not FeqtuFe Lhi lancllorr] to d ed ir.ate a.ny
fo aFt exactOn of Lan d. In Cihj of O~umpiQ v, PTebick, 119 I'Vll, lmtd to 6e county_ See a1so Donwood, Inc, v. Spokane Co-Li n ty,
~ A pp, 7/4 (2004), revi~.c~ g7-anfe~.,152 TvV.n_~?d 1.020 (2004), the 90 ~Vn A.pp. 389 (1498),
Uivision It, .in iTlterpreEirtg ROV 32,02.050, cc:1"aed on tlie
prutci.ple that staMes sllOLLI[1 be COnbtrued as cortstitli- 8. IA'a5hingfOri SubStarikive Due X'rcacesa Doctrine
~ . 6 bnalif~3 ucYta consi'rtFCtionisreasonablypossibleandheld lkz WaSru.YxgL'Oi-~ th c SubSEantive. due prOCBSSdOCEYIrie
{1} that, basec~ on NoFtan azrd Dolan, RC'rV 82.02,050(2)'5; grovides nnottxcr 1.im.itati on on impact fees anci n1on e tary
-
- 17
August 11 onmental & Land
Exactians. To defermine whQther a regialation vaolates In Sint-rrz, hzc. v. Cifyof Seattie,119 Wn2d 1(i992), a City .
substar►tive clue process, courts use a three-part test: ordinancc requ.i.red develUpers ta eitl-Ler replace arry tow- a
(1) whether the reg•ulation is aained at acluevuig a legiti- income housin- they destra}'ed or pay a feE into a hausing
matie public pusposc, (2) wheChcr it uses means that are replacement fiulcl. The couxt hcld that the nrdinance was
reasonably nec.essary to achieve that Purpose, and wlduly oppressivc and violated substantive clue process.
(3) whether it is unduly oppressive on the landowner. See also 1Zohinson v. Cify of Seattfe,119 Wn.2d 34 (1992), cert.
Guirnont P. Clarke, 121 4Vn.2d 586 (1993), cert. deniect, 510 denied, 506 U5.1028 (1992).
U.S. 1176 (1994). I.n spme c3ses, Washin,#On c4urts have
been wiA,in; to inval;clate fees that they believe seek to IV. Conclu.sion
impose on individual property owners Uurdens thaY more Whilc the courts have resolved nlany of the issues that
prqperly should be bome by the puhlic as a wholc. Hou=• arise when local jurisdiciions inlpose conditians qn devel-
ever, in rnany case, Washington coLUts have rejected su.b- opinent requiring the pay-ment oE rnoney or makulg of
stantivc duc process challe,ges to development condi- public unprovenlents, there ace i.mpostant uatiesoived is-
fians. 5ome rePresentative cases include the following. sues E11at conhuuic to be.litigated. L-i par#icul3r, flie Wash-
In Isla Verde Int'! 1-Taiding;, Inc. v. City nf Camas, 146 ing-ton courts' application af the NoItan/Dolan analjtsis to
4Vn.2d 740 (2002), the developPr sought subdivision ap- concEitions requiring the payment of money, as opposed to
proval, and the City icnpo;ed a condifion requirula con- the dedication of lanc3, as a eonclition of clevelnpnlent
stnuctionofasecondaryaccessroad.Thecourtheldthatthe apprOval, rernaiats an unportatt open issue.
seconaary access road requ.i.rement did not constitute a
violation of substantive due proCess. Je%fS. 41'eberisa part►terat f3uck&Gardon LI.P, zuherelwassists
J;n United Deuelopment Corporation v. City of Mil! Creek, cliertts in obtav.ing perniits and approvals for a wide variety af
1.06 Wn. App. 631 (2001), review derrierl, 145 tiNn.2d 1002 developnient proJects. jeff's pt•actice iticluries rejrrQsenting cii-
(2001), the Caty approved a preli.minary Plat conditioned etrts in Iand tcse praceedings befare stnte administratizpe 1roards,
on pay-ment of traffie and park cnitigation fees. The court as well as in larui iise mntters in state court.
rcjected the developer's substantive clueprocess dlallenge
C~l.I1 ~h'lh~lOlllSI I T~us art4cle does not address impaa fecs impasccl unc'er RCti~' 32_~D20.50e1 wq.
to the fees,tlO1~,' (gnificintadd.itional analY51S NOr does th.s artide addrsss procediuM iss;:cs rcin:cd ;a cFuUengung impact
beyond the a,nalysis regardkn; the sufficieney of the City's Fccs, such 3s s:snding. slatule of limiWtions, vescing, ecc. ,
farmula) that the fFes had a legilimate public ptuposc and z S'<M'lkr a. C;.1yoJPorf Angrics, 33 Wn. App. 91M. (1484~ rm, drnird, 703 Wn.M that the mca_ns used ~v~re reasonabl)r• necessar t0 it5 I~4 n9~) ("~''g ItCW 53.17.770 3n approving plat comdiciocxs mc~iiring ,
y provision of improvemenES b ane road and contribution to fwna for improve-
achievement. (The developer ciid not argue that the fees ments to anothc: road).
were unduly oppressivc.) 3 R/L Aaaciatcs, hec. v. Cihy t f _1=tlle, 113 bVn.2d 402 (7969) (striking daivn a Ciiy
ordinana G'iat mqu::ccf owncrs of Ipw-incorne renlal urlte So proAde tanants
InKahunn Land Co. v. Spokane Counhy, 94 jNn. App. 336 wEthrelocatianassistancepriortodemntishSngqrehszigingtheuseoftheL.its); .
(1.999), the Coiinty unposcci conditions on a prelimina.ry SanTe17M0ASSORa.CSU.Ci.'yofS~ttfe,lOpVJn.2d?0(19M (str'king down aCihj,
p:dLnarsne i-equiri.ng that, to demolish low•;n:ome resiae.-+tial hawuig uniLs, a
plat approva] teqla.i.ting the dcvelopcr to build a road and `i,vpe:ty owrter had to reniacz a specified pcrccnhgc af the ho:-s;r.g oz ;
con.neet a sewer through adjoining land owneci by the cantribuEc to the low-u+corne hous[ng replacement fund).
federa.l governrnent. Tlle court rejected the devElOpeTS 4 The court did not spcdnca])y di,cuc.e, whether tkere was a"voluntary agree-
ment" for parposes of ROti' 87-OZ.020. Howcvc:, the develope3 arcd theCity had
ar.gu.znent that the conditions violated substa.ntive due ent?redintoanagrcemcntgovervnp,Ehelargesdevelopmanlolwhichlheplat .
as apv~t. Thal agreeznent pra Jid cd th,: futu: c d~valopme:+t approvals would
pYOCESS. +v be gubjett to the Clty regulations ehen in e;fett An amcnd..-unt ta thas ag; ec•
.LL1 ~'ii.2m0tiL U. CJQ!'kQ, I21 jNn.2d 586 (1993), cLrt. denied, ment for a smeiEer area that included the area of the plai nlso providecl thzt
510 U.S. 1176 (1994), the pla.inHf.f chal.lenged a state law furfherdevelupmertwou]dbesui+jecttoCityrzgWaaans.
requuing that, wtien a mobile ttoine park is closed, tlte park olvner confribute money toivard the tenants' rel4catiOn
costS. The court held khat the law was unduly oppressive ! `
. arid xriolated substantive due process. '
In View Ridge Aurk AssOCantes v. Cihj of ARoxmtlake Ter- SPEAK OUT~
.
race, 67 Wn. AP.P. 588 (1992), review denied, 121Wn.2d 1016
(1993),aCi[yordinancerequireclon-siterecreationalfacili-
Wantecl: Lacvyers to volunteer to ~pe~k ~to
ties ut FnsiltiFle-farn,i.ly dPVelopments, but allovaed a pay-
rnent inlicu of provicJ.ing such faci.lPties. The court laeld t11at sch4als anc~ corrr~mtuufy groups ofi av~ie~ ~f
topics. Farmore in.fo.r.madon about the TA513A
the orcii.na.nce: on itS face was sufEieiently tailored to the 1~
objective of pruvid'u-ig recreatioi-ial facilities for the inhab- speakers bureau cantact Dene Cantcr af. 20b-
3 or denec@wsba.org.
ita.nts of rte4v devclopnlcnts and ~va, not undu.ly oppr.c s- 727-321 g. '
sive. 7'11us, the cotut held that the ordina.nce did not violate ~ ~
substantivc due process. . ~
~e
R~S Article on Dc-velopmcnt Impact hees Pagc 1 of 1,-
TNIFPACT FEES: PRACTTCAL GUI.DE ROR CALCULATiC)N AND ]Ai7'.LE1Y1EN7'X'ATY.()N .
F}-. ~,nriis 1-1. Ross, Fel[o-~x, r1SCE, ancj Scoff lan "1`horpe .
.4 &Ir-acl: Yhe itse of c1e,ielopment impacl fees (BIfi's) lo finance publicfacilitles rrecessuTy ir) crccomn? orlale iaew gruwtlx is
a coracept ihat hrs gainedacceptance xn recentyecrrs. Cal~~forrrir.r and.Floridcl are cun:sidere~ hT many to be rhe Toading
pment of'theory, practir.•al modshy, rrndlegi,dat ronfor- deler•rn ining growth-rclated cosrs and
ar•eas,for the deevelo
c:aleralaling ampact-.fees.for ne►v eonstruction_ 1"w0 me(14ocls of ca1cuTcrtron o,f impcrcrfees ar•e diseussed- incl.ucti,x,,~ arrd
deductive, A lotul o,f?2 polenticrl impact,fees,forpublic facilifa2s 1za ve 6een identt~ed, t'ncludzng- the convenlional wcrter,
5e 4v{~'fr, and srreet i~rr.p(~ctfees, Oiher po~e ntiaT irnpactfees irrclur~e pubhcsafi0?.fcrcdifie.s (po1ice crnrl.Jire), Tibrary, public
ai'l, ctndr,lay-care_fcrcifilies_ 7'h e co nse}uences of ) 2of mvirag ir~7pacdftes to ofl'set fih e cost o}~roviding r.rde}uule-Public
(1Crlitie5 fiOY n£kV ,S;1-awh [7YE fiar-YeCLChing_ Often the JLlIi efL'ctS of'gYOivIb C2r6 nOf edl, o r recogn rzed, kv the corramunity
for- mr.rnyyeai•s_ 7'he cOmmunilv muy,Simply -wcrke up on e doy do clrscover that rhey need to improve ci strsef ar inlerseclrorr
to alfeviate congestiora. .
J3AC~kCr RO UN!} ANll YN'i`RC1UUC'1'1ON
The use o-r developmen t impact fie-es {DIFs) to finance publFC fa cilitics necessaxy to accOnimo date iiew growth is a
coricept #hELt has ~akred accepta3ice bi ceceiit years_ Cal i1'-()mi'H and Florida are considcrcd by tin any to be tl) e lI-,a di.Da aTea s
-for the development oFttrcorY, Practical modcls, and l~eisla.tion for determijibi u grom+Lh-ret a[ed costs and calcialating
unpact fbes #o.r a~e'w c:ozi sftuc[i.on_
ln spile o:F-die ganeTxl accep[auc:e o1''DiFs, many public 0 fl) cia] s; deveI opers, atid thc gem~ra.l populace si:ill d o ai.01:
xLndcrstand thc ba.sis for itnpact fecs. 1 here is a need for a practic~ d.iscus~~i.on. of what types csF facil ities can bc fit7aticcd
W. ;upac;t fees and haw. to calcuJai:e the fees. .
,
PlYiiosophical discussions an thc need for impac# fbcs -tid thc effect oi7. tli.t~ ec-onc}m y o'r Lhe comrTixUi ity may cantinuc
uxdefin.i#ely, F[ovvever, ttie ra[ional e1:or cliargi»g impacL ~ees Is based orr lhe prernise that tic~v developzrxeat sb oilld pay
the costs associated ~vilh grawth. C onversely, the e:xisting residents siloul.d oxily bear i:he cosis o Fimpro v i n g existing
sex-Oces, .
MSTC}1t1CAL Y}-E1tSPLC'1'1VE Xmpact Fces - 1~~hy Nr►w?
.
IlnpacL fees aTeno1: ~um Mue; 1:bey have been used since thc 1920's, as cvidenced by tlie U.S. Departutient of'
C:ammercc's Standa.rd YlaiuzuiL:, Enabli=TAct enac-ted in 1922, {.Lurr et aI. I990)_ IrrEpact fc.e~ ~vcre firs# usecl to inanage
gowtb ar) d urban sprawl _.lFnparlt -fee,~ ffa ve aIso hcen uscd for many ~ear s in utilitaes -md ea1:e)pzi"~e 'rinds irf lbe, I'omi o I`
coancctiorx fees, sysi:ein developmenl cbaTges, Or buy-in Fee.s. . .
7'he resurgence c~f impacL Fees I s cause<1 by seve.ral tactors working in concert to prov.ide J) e~v source" c~l~l~int~l ci.ng
: pra:vide public facilitie s associated witL growth. Tlle revi.val of impa.c;l: -rem 4 aform of: ~rowth coti#ral has aiso Ied ta
.
increased use ofthe fees ac co.rdPig to T.,ibert}F To w,1,hJp, Illinois, superV isor 1'. T. "Mikc" G-rabain (Lurz 198 9)
The taxpayer revoit of th e 19:70s; 1 ed ~y C a] i#`ornia's Propositian 13, has bcen credited ,)Ar.itlx (o)[ bee.u. responsihle .for.,
depending, ora your per.specti,,,e) the Encreasc i ti #`ces charged by.public adencies. The decliPe i.n property i:axes available
1e F7Zoj eCIS .h2..S rESLl] fLd I1"E L}lE agC?1CEeS I 170klllg fOr BlteTIIAt1Ve 50UTCe5 C}F Ie veil.ues, : .
"Chere have also bccn num~rous chsnges u7 #l-ie profile of capital-pzuject spending 0 ver the past yeaTs. http;llwww, r~,venuecost_comliinpjces,htnil 716l2006
RCS Areicle on Developmenl: Tiiipact Fees rage 2oe 12
Nederal spending on capital projects has decreased sigiuficantly in the past lU years. In 198 l, the federal government
suppliec143% of the capital for public-woeks projccts. Eight years later, that figur.e had d.ropped io 27% (L.urz et a1. ?90-0),
a37% reduction in 1"ederal spending. Changes ui technology havic ecmtrihuted to the i.ncreased sophistic;ation of public-worl:s projects. With this new
soPhiscicalion eames added costs that have eroded the financing ability of public agencies.
Changes in envizonmental costs of public projccts have further strainecl the budgeis ofpublic agencies. These cnsts come
in t}ic form of increased regulalion, mitigatinil erpenses, and the most eltisive cost tune. '1"hc public agency can no
longer simply march out in an open field ancl huild a mad or sewer line. The mention. of. enVironmental costs is neither au
endorsement nor criticisrn o:f t:he 1.rend the poiut is that costs havc swcllcd duc to increased environmental
consciousness.
Increased demands iiom the citizens living in the community have, without doubk, resulied 1.1i the i.ncreased cost
associated with public projects. Fspecially i_n urban areas, narrow roads and ttioroughfares without curbs and sidewalks
that were acceptable in the 1950s are no longer acccptable in the 1990s. The flmerican populalion today is more
educated; rnore sophisticatcd and more likely tc> express clesires (and demancls) for better public facilities to elected
c>('f'icials Chan at any time iit the past.
A shi.ft in public poli.cy rega:rciuig the respousibility for providing the inF'rastruefurc t:ar grc>tiqh (irriplying eepnc>mic
groNvth) has slufted from the eommunily at 13rge tp those benef ti.ngfroin the growth. acco.rding to .Paul J3arni; a Denver
builcier (T.urz ei al. 1990).
I'hcse points lcad to the reality that public projec:ts are mor.e expensive today Lhan tliey were ui the past all of tlus
Nvit:hout even slartilig to consider normal 'uiflation of projcct costs. PH1L(;)S(;)PHY OF IN'f:PACT FFFS
1"he prcnuse on wtvch impact fees are based is that developmevt slaould pay for the cost of providing the facilitics
necessary to accommodate growlh (R.echt 1988). The cost of projects needed to support groArdi arc financed with impacl
fees based on some uieasiirement of a dcvelopment's impact on fulure neetis.
Tmpact fees are not intended to be u.sed for opecatiotial expenses or to pay for capital improvernents to correcl Etn eXiscing
deficiency or sliorkf.all.
LEGAI, FRAME•WORK
Several stales have passed statewicie legislation that affects the ability of public agencies to levy impact i,"ees. The
followuia aze some oF the most uoteNvorthy.
Ca.lil'antis. AF3 1600 (Cortese), which becanie effectivc on January 1, 19139, regulates the way that impact fees ar.e
irnposeci on developrnenl Projects. The agency imposin; the fee ulust (1) Identify the ptirposc of the fcc; (2) identiPy the
usc.to Nvhich the fec is to be put, including identi.~Ying the public tacilities to be financed; (3) show a reasonablc
relationslup (neYUS) beriveen the fcc's use and the type of'development projeel; (4) sliow the reasoilable relatioiLSlup
hetvveen the public facility to be constnictcd and the typc nf develapmeni; and (5) account .for and spend the fees
uallected anly [-'ar the purposes and p.rojects specifically uscd ui calculatinb the fce.
Florida. Thc GroNvtli Management Acl or 1985 requi_res ]ocal agencies to ma.ultaui adequate service levels for public>. ,
facilities and prohibits approval of developmcnt that woulci cause a reduction i.n service ]evel. Tlie act also requires dIc
local governmenl to p.rovicie public f'acilities that arc consistcnt with the eommunity's land-use plan. The act does not
htip:/hvwtiv. revenuecost.com/imp_fccs.html 7/6I2006
~C-S r'Lrticle on Development 7mpact Fees Page, 3 of 1;
specifically allow ix-rlpact fees, sirce the courts.kave rured t}xat thq-, auth.o.».ty i:o levy such fee,~ is a-1-"uncticjn (Arhe Florida
Illiriois, A suiglc-paragraph bi11 was adapted by thc leeislaEUrc in 1987 that a11aws collei:tion of tm,nspw.atio3) impact fees ~
(I.,urz 1.9 89). The, bill ;xas so v.qit#en that it affects only two counfies (DuF'a.ge au d LAe}, due to theli.r popul Ltion_
IVew .Tersey_; T..l}e Trwnsportaliou T)~~~ei.upDleut T)isb-ict Ack of 1. 989 atlows lbe creation of teansportation i rnproivemcnt
districts C1"lDs} atid transportation developrnent distrncts (i'DDs) (Stcpanek 1990). '1'he distric#s a,re :Fon-n ed by the New
.Tersey .T.)eparur,eu t of Ti-ail spo.r[ati ojx oj-L. pp, t?#aou of i.acal offi ciais_ T.lxe legi s.laLion provides fo r the de.-velopnient of a
mastcr traffic plai to measure the ex-tent of cxisEing dcficicncfcs and thc impa.ct of future developa1.ej3,t, Tm.paa fees can.
tiieii. be chai-geci Lo devel.opw ent bas~d ox1 spffcAfj c, ini.pac9s au d projects iiecessat}r lp pf!'Sel' the 1 mpact-
`I'exas, 'C"be state ofTcxas has becn crcdited with thc first 1cgislation specificAiy €z1lovFiz,~ cities to ii„pose i,nlpacG i:ees
{Bogard 3 99C}) _ Th e 'I'exas 1Lw, tLnlike o l]ier ~tates' I egisI atio n, spedfi e~, no l on]}' IllC; pFOCe&trC , fOT CalCUIaTi_Clg feCS 1]llt
alsa the formulas to bc tiscd and those itnprovcments tk}at my 6c financcd by iinpa ct fees. T'he la.w bas beez7 dubbed by
Robert T3u.rchell of Rutgers Uuiversity as "prohibition b}f authorization" (Bo~ard 1990),
Othcr states and many iocal governrncnt agencies r~ave adoprcd legislacion a.ffecti.ng impact.fees, 1'he ex.a,mplcs
n1eutioneci Lo-e in Eended olil y ko s]iow 9:baC u-n pac~ f.ees are ixoi: aix isolai:ed iz~~~=ing -Eechnique hul', rather, a nafi«nwide
ti cnd. -
1PNFCIRMATION NFFIIEI) 'f'Q CALG'ULATT i.MPACT FEFS
.Befinre bf-,ginjiing -die ini.pxcW:ee c-al culal;ion. process, kl-kexe are U11:161-nia1:30n. sOurces that muct exiSt or he generaie,d_ 'frtte
e;1f rial data consists of reliahle iri-fo rrnation cm what fih e cOMrnunity M l! loolc likc in the fiititrc (20 or inorc ycars) or at
build-out.
The list o-FpmjecN to he 'r] r1anced with irnpaet fees sho uld be derived f.roni the foI lowing inforination souumcs:
Clrneral pi ans pr coirEprehens~vf~ plan,,, iiicl.ud,in g updaCe,~_ '
z0Tli.f1g, Ma17S.
MaSteY 1]jc'i.E15. .
Mas[ec Fwscilities pjans.
Capita l irnprov[;rnent plttns.
Plan.iiTPg s I-alasl.ics on the 1'u[ure, populatkon, ul tiBxai:e ]ail d use, un(3eveloped paTcel s, aad si.res ur pLrcels will be used lo
de#ermEne the -unount ofgrowth to be arEticipa#ed. Exi-qing land-use and zoning data will piovidc a basis for evaluating
I:lxe, i: S3kUril:i0n _ .
MaSter -Fa cilities plans ib at addTE- s,i tho nlel'h O& o l' pro vid ing service: to ful'ure resideri ts will pravidc the foundati on fbr
Qvjlst,ructin,g a capi ta] impi-overxi.ei3t pi.arx (CTJ°). Tlie u]d51:er fc1Cil]1.3F pJal) sbould idLally 8xielid lo the ul ti ni ate build-o «t
condition ofthe commurtity. EaC11 JJfOJeCC ll1GIUd i-,d 1n CIle C.IY SIIOuid be Clcai'ly 1CIe11t1fied by a ciesciiptive title az• supplemtnta]. descn3ytiaii, The
projecCs slioulcl con:tain ~x cos t est iniate, scb.edule, and locadon. Ax~ allocai on ol''1:be relati ve benefi l beiween. e1Xisiing, useis
au d {i.Rture users sb oul.d ai.so _be pxepareci Ib.r each p.roject. " .
R,'n EJNAL 'NEX'CfS STANUA1W
~ Tb.e utlmnce nexus 1ras beco.nle a:Frequenfl used tezw. :Feared xrK local governm en# circles_ Thc word ;tcrns *0 m, the
htip=l~~~w~~_re~enuecCr~t.ccm~f~n~p_~'eeS_himl 71612006
RCS Article on l7evelopineiit Iinpact F'ccs Pagc 4 of 12
Latin Nvord ncxuin; which rEfErs to a typc of formal contract in Roman law. In Rarnan law, the term ncxuin Ex-pressed the
Cie or obligation involveci in contraccs (Black's 1968). The term nexum was also used interchangeably vvith obliDatr
legal bond obliging pcrformance tuider the law of the lanci. ;
The iise of the ratioual ne:nas standard; or ncxus; has been applied to most laws and eascs pcrtaini.ng to dcvclopmcnt.
Some oF the mosl notable are the Florida Gr~~vth Management Act of 1985, tlie Ranberry case in Utah (Banberry
Development Corporation v. South Jordan City, P.2d 599, Utah 1981), and the infamous Nolan easc in California (Nolan
v. California Coa,stai Commission, 483 U.S. 825, 1987).
The sea.rch for the elusive ne.cus iuay be the snipe hiurt of the 1980s and 1990s. "1'here does not seem to be a clearly
cieEineci cief7nition of what constitutes nexus between development (grow[h) and public facilities (projects). In the cases
whei-e uupact fees have been uivolved, each court appeaes to have a slightly differuig view of what constitutes ne:cus.
There may be va.rying levels of: ability to defend the nexus behween the need for puhli.c :faci.lilies a.nd the impact o.i•'
growth. "1''hc more spccific an agcncy is in dEfining the impact of dcvelopment in how individual projects will mitigate the
ef_fects of'b owth, the more probable the nexus. NVhile the nexus issue is dif_ficult to deii.ne, the rights ofclevelopers are
not.
RI(,:HTS OF DFVELQNrRS
Thc dcvelopcrs, and ultimatcly the cnd usErs, have ceriain rights regarding the devclopment of impact fces.
Developers bave the right to l.ziow Nvhat they ai-e payuig for. linpact fees are a sigiuficfuit portion o:f the cnst of
developing both residenlial (Tduri eC al. 1990) and conamercial properties. Aii Orange County, Cali.t'c>rnia, survey (Lurz
and V1cLcistcr 1990) found at least threc cities tivhcre irnpact fees can exceed $20;000 per dwclling.
A San Francisca Superibr Cpurl recen[ly aFEirmed ihat city's right to imppse S3,100,000 in transi[-impact develoPment
fees on a local cieveloper of a.u office buildiu; (12auber 1990). lhe agency unposing the impact fees sbould be prepared to
be specific about the projccts for which the fecs arc to be uscd.
17evelopers havc the right to cqual treatrncnt. Unc of the comrncnts cxpresscd by developers is the concern diat they bc
treated equally (Huilcelman 1987). In communities Mchour impact fees, developers tire often ae the mcrcy of the local
agency for off-site improvements tn mitigate the impact nf developmenl. An impartant fea[tire of a syscem af well-
defuied impact fee charges is the knowledge that all developers, big ancl sma.ll, Nvill be kreated equitably. As Atlanta
develaper Bob Kem said, "If my development is going io ptit 500 adcliiional cars pcr day on (an a.rterial strect); thcn I
would be A611i.ng to pay a pro rata share wikh nther developers whose projects are going ta Put 10,000 cars per day on that
artery" (Hulk-elman 1987). Jac.k Sorenson, past presideut of the Home iiuilciers A.ssociation o.f. Greater Ghicago, said,
"Builders are the first to acknowlcdgc the nECd for propcr transportation; sewers, water lines and so forth. What buildcrs
want ...zire fees that are fair" (Adams 1989).
17cvelopcrs have a right to l-iiow ttiat the projects for wfucfi thcy have paid 'unpact fees will be built. In the state of
California, local agencies au-e rec{uired ro ma.intain suitable funci accouvting to assure tlaac i.mpact fees are used i"or the uses
i.ntended. Raymond l3ra\vm af BelleVleacie Development Corporation in New.lersey said, "Developers can be plac:atecl by
the knrnuledgc that any fees or serviccs collccted will go to bencfit their projects and not to be siphoried off to aid sorne
other area or agency" (Stcpanck 1990).
Developers have the rinht to support iaipact fees. According to L'uida 1'resez; iulpact fee coordinator fnr Palui F3eacb...
County, Florida, "'Some of the largesl clevelopers in Palm Reac.h Count:y are st.rong supporlers oF the impact fee bee:, '
they recognize that it is a way to maintain the quality nf life,' and as such enhance the valuc of tlieu• propcrty
invcstrncnt" (StcpaiICk 1990).
http://www.revenuccost.com/imp_fEes.htrnl 7/6/2006
RCi Arl:icle oii Developmi~j7t Impa,a lye~s .Page 5 o:F X:
'Developers have the 3-igl) t eo pay f;or improvemeuls Ul ak wilI bei1efj [tbeir de%j elopn,ent_ Develop ers aCso have the right to
c~ - f-.f' 't that tficir paymcnts uill tiot be diverted to -ft nance irnprovements nat relatcd to growth,
~ .
T}v~ `r urms of C'alculation of f rnpact Tccs Inductivc and T]cductivc
Thei-e are L'wo dt~tincl y e L eq Lial ly valj d mefhodologie~ for ca1cul.aCing impacL k'eeinducLive and deduct3'V. e_
I.Dducfive cAcuaatiou ,
1his met-iod c,nploys calaulation af ttie innpact cnst by delermining ttie cost and the capacity of aparticular facLity and
i.cleDiafyi.x,g it a s the.model for a.ll futuri-, fkilities. What is knovai is thc cast ai-id capa city of a particul.ar 1:ki li-ty, what i.s
LUi k-nown is I]Ze b&se amounl that Wi.ll requi.xe use of.'i:be facitikies aiD d, tli us, fihe tOtal ir,agnil'ude nf fihose i'acilifiie~ Lhal' WiI ]
be required.
AS di] BXcll7lFlI E~, accordinuo L'c) the _1"'Fati[)11 LLl Fire Prr)Lectio.r.l A geixcy SCaiiclard5, an urban i(highly urbani?-e,d 3re~) fire ~La Lin
C.911 l1-ieet CLle llee CIS c f FI i'eS1CIeI1t1al p0pUIRtIDiI Of 1 J#040 residcnts; an tirba.n I station c€ux also serve 9;3 75,000 sq f. t
(S 70;938 sq rki) ofconi rn erciallinduslria] space, Or any pro-rata c[) nibiriatio n af res€dential and corntYicrci.1l,
7'J}e cos t and se3-vice capaci.ty of tlxq-, facxlity .is kii.owA., but the arxi.ourit o:F additi.o)aat xe;ideiits and ind uaia]lcOnwiercial
fect at build-out ofithe aoencY ar~: the ulknowns_ Usirfg fihis melhod and assuming land and eonstruction costs to be
wliE'c~j-O-~ C}xroug)).out kli.e s[a[e, i:lie i.mpact i:ee would Pot Valy irGM juTi.SdickzOr3 1:o j uriSclicLipn_
A clvunrrrges of Incfitctive Calculcrtion
77 '-6.1-MAT advartta:e of usi.ng tJ.iis t}-pe of iLnpact fec is that it is absol.ute; w}xe.n 9,375,000 sq tt (57O,938 sq nx) of
cu~~u~crciaL industrial, or ofI"icc spacc or 15,000 resideri ts (or any combination oftkie, two), are added, tlie r~,' will bc
adf,,quaie mOnies :f'br o nj5 urbai1 T. si:aLi.oai_ Howevez', t]_i.e t}'pi.,:~al siai;iou 3.1o ay 3xot ineeL Clie spEcial needS 0f lhe co i-n mura1:}'.
A,,econd advaniiige o:F tlxis met4odology is that irxaj ox ch~uiges Eo geu eral pltlll. gi"ObVtl-k eSEl.mdi~5 d() T][}L 'dfI:ec C Elie
ca,l culations. It ul attcrs little howinlicli residen#ial, cotnmcrcial, or industria! propcrtics a.re cax7sti-Li cted, 7'ike new
developinen~ ei ther reSj den[ia] Or cbnxm rc) al.: AaYL~ i.ls pro- irWa Share O.f Lbe need baSed upon the mOdel _Such a Sy s(enx
is, ltl CffCCt, 8 rio-h 4ilt ir17pact-fCe dCtCrriifflatl0n.
Dascrduarrr.a,,es to Irrducfiive C'alculcre rora
'['h e d i sadvan tages ta tb.is method of tee calculation ~1re tl,reetoid. First, the Fee is bascd on the si:-'.rvtce capa.bilities o!`a
typical rxioclel, genesally a conserva tive one, L'hat does not itrke into considiE:ration unusuA or special neecis of thE~ , com ili Lui liy.
The spccitic needs r~~~ay afrfeci t}Ye cosi oI lhe facilitie.s and; thus; the fee. It the Fire station's seni ce capabilities difCer
sigilifi cant~y ftoni tliat of the »ivdel , Elie f:ee,, collecte-d ma}+ iZOt inaEch thr)s o - needed_ Tllere may ei iher he -too niucl) nioae}'
colJectcd or; -worse yet; not enough fees col lccted to co nstruct the requircd sta#jon. .
Secon d, such ani ethod focun s o-n the i:~nal product, a f;i.re slation o r park, but i gnores ovcrhead vr suppnrt- f;acilj [ies sucb
as fi rc adrn.tnistration offices; parlc maintenance facilitie.s, and vehiclcs_ .
bcfare constrLiction, tlic agcticy irntst dctcrni ine fiaw much af the fitiancing for thc facility i-s to be, paid fro m the
ac~,_ ,:',u2a.tcd i.Frl.pac[ .fecs. T.he rexn ain-i.ng, :fees sl-~oki l.d cozxte iioin othe.r resources_ . '
Detliactive Ca7cu1ation .
h1tp;1fwww.rcvcnuecost.coiilimp_fecsJitml 71612006
fZCS Article ou I7evelopmcnt Impact I;ecs Page 6 of 12
Tlus metliod of calculation involves ca(cula.ting the impact cost by deteini.uung the additional demand on a:facility or
infrastructure from additional population and commcrcial and industrial square footage. '1"he aruotuit of growth is based
upon the agency's geue.ral plan and the zon.i.n; cocies. The specific facilities, identified by a master plan capilal faci:" ;
plan, or policy; ttiat arc needed as a result of growth arE also detennined.
The specifie facilities, includina the cost and any unusual circumstances lhat determine the need for thosc specific
facilitics, arc determuicd. 1"hc potcntial base of undevelopEd propcrty is uscd to distribute the resultiu; costs. The use of
lhi.s melhod explains the di ff.'ezence ot' fees frorn one public agency lo analher public agency. The impact fce calculated by
the dcductivc mcthod is a fiulction of the specii~:~es of gcography and the locally dcfiued levels of service.
1Veed_ for A1ore Def riitive Infor»iation
T"he deductive method reqtures agreatcr lcvcl of dctail than the inductive method of computatiou. Deduccive calculations
requi.re an inimense amount eFplanning i'or the enti.re agency, for both developed anci uncievelQped properties.
As atl eYample, a fue departinent has an adopted standard of a 5-rnui response to a11 fire alann calls. However., part of the
service area may bc very hilly and have esiate lots of l acre (4;047 sq m) each. Anothcr area rnight be flatland; witli fotir
hoines to the net acre. The remzinilig undeveloped 30 acres (121,403 sq ni) of inciustrial azea could be planned Tor thxee municions t'actOries that requi.re a largerfire slaeion :('or. just that srnall area.
"1"o meet the cit}tivide standard of 5-nun response to all residential fires the stations built ui the hilly porkion of the disti-ict
can only serve approximalely 500 hame5, although a statipn in the f;lallanci area can meet the demarids ot some 2,000
homes.
The proposed mtuutions factorics in the caample are special cases and, most likely, would require a response tiuue c ' 1;
than 5 min. The result is that Io suPply the appropriate level of service for each residcntial; corrunercial, or industriai i
the cost w-ill differ for each land use. Advanluge,s of Deductive CulcaJation
Tlle advantage of rhe cieduclive cKalculation vt the impacl fee is the ability I:o accon,modate the urtiqueness of each agency.
The secvice areas are not merely a homogeneous collection of average service areas. '1°he deductive calculation requires
praactivc pla.ntung a.nd est:unatuig aiici may be subject to freaue:ut updati.ng due to changes i.n density, land use, and olher
faclors.
Disadvantag-es of Ueductive C'nlculativn
"1"he disadvantages of this method are several. A considerable amaunt of effort is requireci to gencrate the information
necessa.ry for the impact-fee calculations. Inadvertent omissions orprojects result in inaclequate callection of fees tOr the
facilities.
In addition, dcductively calculated fees require more frequent updates. Conf.usion..f_zom. the development commun.iCy may
also result froin the varia.nee in fee ca.lculation &om agency to agency. For large jurisdictic.ms sueh as a eounty; it may not
be Possible t4 clelermine the clrtent or location of groNvth; thus prcventing the use of ttus inediod of calculation.
Both 'Methuds Are Valid Examples of faciliries that le.nd themselves io induetive c-alculations are sewage-treatment plants; water-trcatmcnt pl_'1 ,
parks; libraries; solid-wastc collcction; and some portions of police, firc, and othcr public facilities. Exa.rnples of facitiues
that lend themsclves to dcductivc calclilations are strccts, scwer collection luies, Nvater distribution liues, street li;htulg,
htrp://w„nv.revenuecostcam/irnp_fces.html 7/6/2006
I
.R.~S Arlicl e An .DevelcxpmenE inipar.t Fees Page 7 o:F l' , starm drainage, aiid fire stations. As in the firc departmimt cxaniple, same i.uftasmic:kuTe U„par.is can be calcxtlated using
niethOd_ '1'ile rf3Su] iS m3y vary c(in iderably ~~"rc>m one rr.Eethod io ttie othcr.
~he C~~~~r~e111~{ell~o~l? .
Ts eilber mellaod cwr.ec0 kNo, s11.kce ei.the)- mt;1tod wou]d T4~Jate the needs and service levels ofthe cainimztiity
ticccssary to rct&ui itihercnt validity. Howev(-,r, the deduc#ive 1net11od wotild xe5ull: 7.rx ali impact fee capable ofproviding I
fiacilitie~ speci:fyc to the co~xmunil}r needs_ '
LoG.r.CArs 'IJ'NITS OF I.iNTPACT
7mpaCt tL1A.t i1eW develOplTleilt i211pail5 ori the pUbi1G ll}fi-a51.iUCtll.l)-, mUSt ~e meaSurEd for eaCh i4'pe A impact #`ce_ "]"he
uP.ilS (br El,ese units of impacl oT:('aclors 0 ould be selected car6i lly tn prvvide a logical uriit of ineastareinent tiiat cEui be
dcfcndccl ifchaliejiged,
.T..ogical uni is o f irripac [ for lraFi'ic, inlpact -fceS might be tied to the traffj c Bencration rate, U5u1g a. nleasurelrxent o:E' tlxe
SqU,-xi'e foo#Figi~ o E`buil.[3i1i a5 fo.r a tt-afJiC. 4-npaCC fee mi.gb t UOt 17e appr01)1-1 atB, Lu,less e.ach type of building had the same
leve] o-F Iraffi c ~encration per square foot.
T1PES OA~ ~~~CMD}MS 1HAL1 k+~T !3E 1"Jll A11C,ELD ,R.4 t1rVAC.R Ft:+ES
'Fhe writers havc idcntificd at least 22 catcgorics of facili#ics that c~u7 bc financed by iu-n pacl: ~'ees b ut have rio l used a11 0f
t1i.e l.}'pes 1 isi:ed kn. pracLice_ Tli.ey axe ofl:ececl as a poteni:ial 1 isffOr the benei;il' of the rcaders.
T~)is no ~Eotibt tfmt civ,a#jvc public of~icials cauld devise others, b~at they ~~fould ~i.kel}+ l~e peralulalions csFthc~se
p~,~')t, ited as fiollo~vs in rio pafticular order_ The wTiters' preferrcd unjts of impact au~e alsa inclu&d.
Streei, ancl Lhoroughf'are f:acilI tie~ LraF!j c generali0n ratel~_
'1 raffic contrat facilities traff'ic gencration rates,
Bridge5 ti-a[y;ic geneTalion rateS_ '
Stort-ri drainagc facilities runoff'coefficicntlitnperviaus area.
Ufili.ty u.ndergrounc~i.ng rxujtixbe.r o£ineGerslse.rvi.ce cc~r)neckions
Stre.et ti,~htirrg traifiic Seneration rates,
S treet trees ancl nwd.ian landscapirig traffic gcneration rates.
Parks and recreaiion fxciliiies population,
Oihcr Public facilities (city hall, civic ccntcr) acreage.
l.aw enforcen7cnt #`aciiities, cquiprncnt, and training respoiiscs.
Hire protection faci]itie.s, cc~-Lfipment, and training incidcnts.
Solid-waale cOltecti0n equ3pnitnt waa(-, gei)eralion rateS.
Solid-was#e disposal f.acilities 'Wa ste 4cleneration rates,
Low- arYd rnoclcratc-income hoLtsing local agency poiicy.
IIistoiic~ preservali.o.ia arA cul1-ural -facitkiaes populati.on_
I-Iai:bors, ports, ard a.i.rports )xi.od al. I,r.arxspo.rlal.ion geReTated_ .
.Public; art, ilo useurr,s, and cultural Tem Lrces poptilatio n_ .
Mass G-an sit:NcilitiE:.s and eq ulpn,ent traffi c gerEeration ratcs.
Day4care facilities squarc footage, of cammerciaUindustei.al. .
N4"'r.9n~{ trcatment alid distribtitiai7 facilities usa-e.
W., ;~~+ater collectiou. and iTenlme)-kt f'aciti.[i.es usage_
Rec6irn ed watcr trcatmi~nt and distribut ion faci litics usngc, .
Elcctric genc.ratio.n aild dAStrFbution fac.ili.ties usa,-,e_
littp;ll~~~v~v.reve~iueco~t.co.mfi~n~~_~ees,h~a~ll 716l2006
RCS Article on Development Impaci Fees Page 8 of 12
IvUI cA7 aRIS oF QuE, snoNABLL ox INvALiu Yi-Vr_PAc T aFE L.S .
f3otli the i.nduclive and deductive met;hods o:f calculating i.mpact f:ees produce pragmatic, valici impact fecs. MalZy ,
agencics have resorted to devisuig unpact fecs that have a questionable relationsbip ta the impact ai' grUwdi an neeucu
facilities.
Scame af the typical fces charged by agencies are bricfly dcscribcd. '1`hc following fees should be queskioned if they ar.e
characterized as impact fees.
Ad-Valorem Fees (Based on Value)
Any impact fec that is bascd on thc appraiscd valuc or estimated construction cost is probaUly a tax. rather lhan a f'ee.
However, lhe fees (or iax) rnay be valid due to slate or local legislation. Thc iaxes may also have been grandfathered or
adopted prior to liuiituig legislation.
Front Footagc Fccs
TmPact (~es basecl on the lineal f'ootage of property bordering on a facilicy such as a street or sewer line may not be valid.
Front faotage fccs may bc valid for rcimbiuscment of,previous constniction but are not appropriate far i.mpact fees.
f lat ltates
Utufonu, sui&,le-value iinpact fees f:or all uses (residential and crmimercial/indu5trial) Woulcl selclom be valid for impaet
f~ees.
Illogical impact Tnclicator or Fdctor
rmpact fees thzt a:re calculated on a f'actor that does nnt make sense ace prohably invalicl. Traffic- signal impact feES bascd
on populakion or .vater impact t'ees based on parcel sizE; (regardlESS o# use) may indieatc invalid fees.
Tmpact-Fee Calculations that Uon't Exist
Some communities simply establish impact fiecs based on thc average or tvpical fees charged by acljacent commun.ities.
Such fees are not based on in•ipact but are solely rnarlcet-drivcn decisions that have uo relationship to neecfecl facilities.
Financing QPcrational Costs
Impact fees collccted and sunply deposited 'uito the ;eueral fiiud or used for operatioiis are qijestionable.lmpaet feeti that
are not lied to a capital improvcment plan or eapital projects list or to a master facility plw may not be valid.
Curing Existin; Shortfall or Condition
Tmpact fees lhat are used for projects that dcal with correcting cYistuig probleins aee not valid. T'hat is not to sa.y that a
project may not bcncfit both existiug and new residents. In the latter case, impact fees sboulcl be utiecl only in direcr
proportion to the benefits realized by future growtli.
13uy-lu Fees .
Fees charged on thc basis that ncw residents and busincsses wTill be usui~ the existiu~ infrastructur~e may not be ~~alid.
Buy-in fees have bccn oftcn compared to country-club initiation fees. A portion of the excess capacity c;ould be
htq)://«,,Nv%v.revenuecosl'.com/imp_fecs.html 7/6/2006
RCS Article on Dcvelopment Impact Fees Page 9 of K
co.usidered in calculating iinpacl fees if the agcncy c:ati show tliai the existing facilities were oversizecl to accornmodate
~ rnc,uttj.
,
Nzonies Not Clsccl t?or Statcd T'urpnscs
Tmpaci fees that arc collccted for one purpose (e.g., kraff:ie si;nals) should not be used :f.nr aoother purposE (e.g., water
trcatuieut and diskribution). 1Monies cnlleetecl for diffcrent types of unpact fees tihould be deposited 'ui separate zccounts.
tiVhen the manies are needed they should bE traiisferred into tbe appropriate capital account.
I:mpact-Fee C<<lculecitions viust Be Reproclucible .
Tlie method U1' caleulaling irnpaci fees shoiild be capable of being reconscructed. If the recalculat:ion of the Fee canncal
rcproduce tLle or.iguial.f.'ee, the calculation melhod ryiay be flawed.
1J1!1=1'LI?viFNTATION CONS[llERATIUNS The pakh lo acioptiom oC in•ipac.[ feES is often lab}rruittii.ue and st:re~vvn Wich the eorpses of «iell- intentione.d public sErvants.
The (bllowirig discussion is tlie result of ilie writers' composile experienec in calcula.tinn and i.mple.rrientation of impact
fces in more tha.tt 20 a„encies. Tlie f:ollo\v7ng ccinsicleracions may not be significant fliciors in sucecssfiIl itnplementa.tion
of impact fees in every cornmunity. `1"hey are offered in the hope thal lhey will be bencficia.l. to othe.rs who travel the
impact-fee paili.
Tlie realizalion nhase. °1"hc calciilation and adoptihn nf impacl fees begins with the ackiiowledgme.nt o!'thc local agcncy
(either the elected pfficials Qr the rnzinagement staff) thAt providi.ng publie f"acilitics neccssa.ry to support. developiiient
c;` )l be financed tli-roueh existuig sources of revenue (tradicional sotLrces of revenue include property taxes, sales and
i_ncvme laxes, business licenses; user charges [usually for iatilities.l, arid state or federal gants). Un:fortunacely
i.n areas of rapid groNvt}i, tliis rcalizatiou may come too lat:e, hul as they say; better late than never.
1"he educZtioti pba5e. Too niany ebmmunities launch unsuccessfiil attempts to implement impact fees. :Eailure to convey
the need Par additional rcvcnucs to the politicians, residenct, developers; and the media is often the reason.
C;ouunu.nica:tion is an essential Part c>1'the e,tlucation procGSS, whicli must include horiest, fortliriaht disctissions o.f. klie
finanCial ability to providc public unprovements. Tt is of"ten nUl feasible to bu.ild capital projecls Nvithpuf riekv sources of
r.evenue.
Li~t oFall current deficiencies and iiiruze needs. Tt is essential to crcate an ulventor.y coniainir►g the iiill raiige of projects
»eetted bcith now and ir► the fufLu-e. Too iliany abencies becomE scarect when they see the list of aU the public
ilnprovement prajeei:s i:hac n7usc be built to achicvc the blueprint envisioned for the cotntntuuty.
1"hc complete l.ist is neeessary to show t4 the devclopers ihat t6ey are only paying for fimire ueeds. By listiii;; Glie
complele liiany of nceds, the agency can. deiuonstral:e thal the impaet fecs will be used exclusively to suppoc-t growttl
induced projects.
ProjecLS that address oiily current ueeds are the responsibiliYy oi'cxisiing residen.ts and should no[ be financcd tivith impact
fecs. l'rojects that serve bolh existi.ng and Future needs should be f:inanced i'rom irnpact fecs ~id odier sources.
13e cautious when attempting io finance facilities that are not current:ly provided with iinpact fees. If iuture needs i.nclude
tliat are nol providecl in the conuluuuty (e.g., a civic thealer where nouc eYists today), i[ may be diFt:icult to
e:'., `sb a need and corresponding nexus.
Special-i.nterest_Qroups. 'Developers and special-uirerest g.xoups should be included in the process carly. '1'herE is notliulg
11.0:/hvWw*.reveriuectast.cornlimp_fecs.httnl 7/6/2046
RC S Articl e on Deve..loprneut Jx-npact Fees .Pa~e 1.0 of. 12
worSe than ha-ving a majc>r spec3a]-in tereSt gro up Show up al' L'be puhlic bearing saying that they did not have arEy notice or
input in Lo kbe deveJop.ment oftlxe imp~i ct fees. The su.tfacu~g of auy broup tJiaE clai.rns tliat they did nok.rece.ive adeauate
notice will alrno st certa" y zesul l' in a continuance o'F l]ie hear.ing. Some o'F L17e potenkial specia]-.interest groups irxcl.``
Ttidividual builders or developcrs.
Builderldeveloper assaciatioiis.
Real.lors.
LnvironmcntaE groups.
Anti-growtti grnups_ .
C:hanber of coIIUnerce.
Plaruiin ~y commission invoMement_ Amazing a.s it ni ay seerrt, the pl anning cornrnission is scldom d i rcctly involved in tb e
.impact-t'ee Setling prOceSS, Th.e wrikexS.h4ve.n.0 expl.auati.o.n for t}xis pbem03n.e11.013, 3xo.r are they wtA_:rIgT to mL+e ar)Y
judgmcnt about thc rncrits of this practicc.
ELi,Vironmental clearances, Wlule the setting af fees for serviccs provided by a publio ageiicy are usually exeinpt finni
environrnental rcgulatio n, the adoption of impact f:ees ma}r require envircmmenlal clearancc. The precursors to impact-Fee
setting, general ox comp.reFensive pla.ns, aud use ofthe fees for capitaL projects are stabj ect to e-nvu-on.m.eDta.l regulation,
The writers have not fc) und arty courl' caSes that w0uid suppOri. lhe nOLipn l'hat the inipact-I'ee sefting process require~;
environniental c1eau:ances. ln the lack of canclusivc cvidencc, agencfcs shoulcE revicw the enviroiunen#a1 reqtairemctits.
T'he agency should rna]ce app~opnate 'fi ndings Lci parl' c>I' Lhe fee %efting Prc~ceSS_
Fnrm~l meefi ng.j- Public bea-ings are normally heI d as paTt o:F I,lxe adoption o[''u ew 'Pees or charges_ fn CaliFornaa, u ot o)n1.Y
is apli blic hearuig requircd but thc basis for calelilation of thc fces must also bc avaiI abl(-. for public inspection bcfore thc
hearuiff. As a inatter of public accvturtabilify, it wotald not be prudent for aii agency to tr}f ta circun-ivent tlie public .
hearing proccss. _ '
.L,eriislakion., Tbe :E'oa-mat a.f oxdina.uces or resolutzons useci to adapt inipact fees vazy accoxding to khe stakukory
requirements of thc statc and local agency. The ]argest variation ma}+ occur not due to any statutc but as a fiuiction of the
ageacy"6 legal c;ounsel_ ()ne agug1cy in tlie st~te of Califorr~i zt adopted a separate vxdinan ce for ea€1h inlpaci i'ee on fihe i
advj.Ge of COl1D5~- 1 tb at C,l}.e i17.Vc"llldzLC1011. pf oll.~ ~ee, COLIJ.d c1ffeCC tl1t, OLhe rS, The, jCe}f to #.}xe orda.nalce ar rescil utioi) is to
.establish E.he nexus for the fec widiin the clocument, or by referencc; io a spec;iEic study or r.epor#..
A.ccoiln.fabU ity- ().nce tbe a.rnpact fees b€►vi~ been i.m.p.lern euted, tbP, re is a need to p covide accw'ate txccountin~ oi• tr.ac.kxr~7 .
of the fees collected and t}xe use oif#.}aosc fees, C:al.ifo.m.Ws AT3 1600 requa.res fees to be &pez,died, n.r committed, watbi.u
fivt~ y~,,ars of thcir collection. Sincc'the law is barely mo years o1d, no one can predict how the courts vi11 rcact to
ab alleiige~; ab0ut vio ]ali0n oi''the i'ive yeax limil_ Fven wi Cliouk d Shatutory requiremeni io expenci the impact fee~; ou.
growth- rela#ed projccts, it wo-ald be prudent to b(-, able to show developers that their rnoney was spcnt on growtYi-rclated
Projects.
RECOMiVMNDAlYONS Y+OR S'CJCCESS
Don't u se unpact #ets as a iu ekh.od af growklx c-oiTtrol, [Jse t}ae irxi.pact kes to cojxbi.bute t17e i:ina.uQ.i.rxg to provide the ptablic
facilities necessary to accomtnodate the grov~th iti thc commuriity. '1'he impact fees should mercly accommodatc the
, growth envisioned in the conununity's general or comprehensive plan. Ifthat grov~rth is inapprapriate, chPUige thc plan_
:De#crinine capital iinprc) v~ment nceds thraugh buiId-out. It is cssential tc) havc c omplcte in#`ornia#ion on capi#al necds.
.h!~az~y C-o.r~.~tunities do.n1ol' .lxave apxacCical cap.ital improvement pla.n i~iat ar~dresses i:h.e pub.l.ic ~'aci~i ty needs ~~r evei:*'.,
next fi ve ycars. Tmpact fee,; based on incomplete C'l I?s wi Il n.ok gen erate suffici ent.reverrues to assure that devalogmpays i#s own way. .
http:/lwww.revenuecost,cornlEn~p_['ees,hlml 716!20[}6
RCS ArticlE on Development Impact Pees Page 1 1 of 1~
Show all calii[al improveincnt needs, iricluding those not beulg f nanced wilh uiipact fees. The ideati:Fc;:ition of projects
n---;;--z-,a_ry to overeome exisune deficie.neies is needed i:o show the developnient community that ihey are nor being asked
tc;, 1`;ect etistulg problems. A corollary is lhac the comuiunity musi deinonstrate that they a,re using inlpact .f.ees
e;cclusively for growtfi-related prpjects. OtLier sources of rcvenue musc be found foi- projects benef ting existuig residents_
T)evelop loug-ianne !'tnanc.ing strategies for projccts not fulanced witfi impa.ct: fees. Projeats ebat are uot financed ivith
impact fees ~N9*11 need ta havc other sources of revenue for constniction. The agency should 2ry to idenCify potcntial
soul-ces c>i'revetiuc that «611 be used ro btailcl nongnowth projects. The extcnt that ihe agency is successful ui identi ('yi.ng
specif:ic sources oE revenue ma}r be att inciicator to the reality of achieving the ultimatc goals o(: the coiiuuunity's general
or coiuprehe.nsivc p1az1.
T)o not atteinpC lo finance operatious or currcnt dcficiencies ,vrit}1 ullpact.f.ees. Impact fees jusliCc:d by the need to offsct
the e:ff:ec[s of growtli should not bc used for operating expenses. To do othervvise would be unetli.ic:al and could r.esulr in a
loss of faitti by the cornrniuuty.
Produce a cornprehclisive i.mpael-fee repoi-t, ircluding rationale an(i calcldations, iliake the report: readily availZble tx> che
public. Perforiiung an extensivc snidy prepares the acency Co anskvcr questions about the way the fccs were calculatcd aiid
the use to w}iich the F'ee.s will be pirt. Ccnnplete documentalion cau be a. powerful fonn of defensc against challengcs to
the agency's ability to itnpose impact fces.
Use the deductivt me.thod oi calculating irnpact fees wllere possible. 7'lle decluctive method requircs detailE.d ini'ormation
about the aclual facilities necessary to seive the cornmuiut), at theoretical build-out. 'I'hc level 01 detail that is needed
lakcs a concerted effort by the agene.y to project.f.acility necds. By using lhe dcductive me.ihod to calculaLe in•ipact fees, an
ap-ene,y can be rea.,onably surc of providing equity; ne:cus, and sufficient fees t() sapport needed capital projects. Tf the
ic,' ~iation is not available for lhe deductive calculations, thcn use clie inductive nlekhod.
\ %
lJpd' ate the unpact _fees periodically. Impact-fiee calculzti.ons shciuld be updated often to ensure t:hat iYie assumpt:ions are
still valid. The projectcd growlh af'the comcuu.nity, the facility neecls, and ilie cost for prnviding those f:aciliiics should be
veri_6ed. RevieNvuig the impact-fec Galculakions togcttlcr witli the caPital 'uvprovement plan or budget would be ideal. At a
minirriuin; tlie imPacl fee•s shoulcl be zeviewed every tNvo years, or wtienever a major change Oeeurs (e.g., major
aruiexacitm or gcnera.l plan revision) ul the community. . APYENI)TX. RFFERLNCLS
Ac:la.ms, L.. (1989). "I_.ea-n to live witli infi-a..St:ructtu•e costs." Professional Bui1.clEr, 54(16), 32.
Black's Law.laiclionary. (1968). R_evised 4th Ld., `VeSL PUbI1S}11t1A CO., Sl'. Paul, Minn.
Rogard, A. (1990). "Jmpact fecs in a sma11 Texas city." Gavernment Fulance Rev., 5(3), 15.
I3ro~vn, G. M. (1944). "Impact fces: l'rivate i`inancuig of publie faciliti.es." F'ennsylwaiiia.n, 27(12), 8.
Hinkeluiau, M. (1987). "C►ood, reasonablc ca~tortion." Business Atlaaita; June, 86. _
Lurz, tiV. H. (1989). "1`he politic:s of aiiri-nroNvth hit the Nlidwe51:: tn ihc, Ch.icaao Subiirbs; builclers Fac;e anti-growth
measures in two counities and the Implicaiions may be nalicmal." 1'rof. Builaer, 54(2), 26.
L~`.. :`6V., F3rady; S., I-Ieinly, D. (1990). "Let A.merica builci." PrAF. Btu.lder anci Remodcler, 55(17), 98. •
Lur.z, W., arid NIcT eister,l7. (1990). "Iiif'r;istructurc: Wlia should pay?" Prof. Ruildcr, 55(7), 112.
httg:l/~~~NrN,,,.revenuecost.com/'uup_i"ees.html 71612006
RCS Ai-ticle on Dcvelopment Irnpact Fees Page 12 of 12
Rauber, C. (1990). "Lcvi Plaza owner must pay transit fee." San Franciseo 1'3usuiess '1'imes, 5(11); Nov. 9,.8.
Recht, J. R. (19$8). "Rose bushes have thorns." 17eve1. Impact Fees, A. C. iNelsan ed., F'lanner.s Press, Chicago, Ill.., ,1.
Stepaziek; S. (1990). "Yaving the road for develop.nlent: Heightened regulation tics proiccts to infrastructure i.mnroveinents." F3uilclings, 84(9), 118.
["Lli.is ar[icle was oribinally prescntecl at the September 9-11, 1991, ASC;E Successfiil Land Managcment II: Managing
anci 1'aying for Growih Conference, held at San 17icgo, CA, and was printed in the September 1992 issue of tlie Journal of
Urban Ylaiuiulg atid lleve(opment.:l
O - Muuigernent SK.ivices Institute, 1992
Back to RCS Develment Impact Fee Page
4j
licvcnuc & CUSt Snecialists
2545 E. Chapman Avenue, Suite 103
Fullerton, CA 92831
(714) 992-9020
1 AX (714) 992-9021
1
http://www.revenuecost.com/imp_fees.hfii.) 7/6/2006
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ olci business ❑ new business public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislafion
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Update on planning considerations for annexations.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.13 and 14; Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan;
Spokane Valley Development Code.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The City of Spokane Valley adopted fhe
comprehensive plan in April of 2006 and will consider the first amendments to that plan in March
and April of 2007. One of the first changes that could be considered is a modification of the
plan to accommodate the increase of anticipated population included in the recently adopted
popula'tion projections adopted by Spokane County. Ultimately this would require annexation of
urban Growth Areas adjacent to the City of Spokane Valley.
- BACKGROUND: See attached materials provided for the June Council Retreat. In
. addition see attached correspondence to Jim Manson re: UGA expansions and the Draft
Interlocal Agreement Regarding Joint Planning provided to the Growth Management
Steering Committee. The Specific ordinance serting forth the process to be followed for
City initiated and site specific proposed changes to the comprehensive plan will be
presented to the council in early September after review by the planning commission.
OPTIONS: Information only.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Review and comment
BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Connelly, Marina Sukup
ATTACHMENTS :
1. Council retreat packet
2. Correspondence to Jim Manson dated June 26, 2006 3. Draft Interlocal Agreement Regarding Joint Planning
' crr~• ~
~i~~ane
,;OOValley 111707 £ Sprague Ave SuiCe 106 0 Spokane Vallel VdA 99206
509.921.1000 0 Fax: 504.921.1008 0 cityhall0spo!{anevalley.arg
~~~o r a n
Xl.d.um
To: Dave Mercier, City R'Ianagcr; Nina Rebor, T)ePuty City Manager;
Mayor:ffiana Wilhite and memhe.r:ti of the CiYy Council
From: - Michael F. ConneUy, City Attorney _
Cc: Marina Sukup, Iairector• o.f.'Community Oevelopment; iNTeil Kcrsfen,
Dii-cctor af Public Worlcs
17aYc: Junc 12, 2006
Annexation - Plannina Considerations
Metfiods of annexation and basic considerations are discussed in a previous memo
dated Fearuary 13th, 2006 and attached as Exhibit 1. Specific steps that should be
taken by the City of Spokane Valley in the next 6 manths to preserve the opportunity
for annexation are set forth below. The County of Spokane has recently adopted their 20 year population forecast which
identifies an anticipated population growth of 118,879 which is an increase of
33,125. Initial estimates iiidicates tiiat fiill in development can absorb a population of
. 22,283. The remainder will require a UGA outside the boundaries of the City limits•.
A summary of the population projections is set forth in'Exhibit 2.
The pracess followed by the Ci4y of Spokane Valley must also fit within the schedule
proposed by Spokane County and the Gro+rith Management Steeriiig Committee. A
copy of Spokane County's tenfiative schedule is attached as Exhibit 3.
The city should also be aware of is the population allocation outside of the City lirnits
tivhich is intended for County growth. Currently the population projections identify
population growth of 66,073 persons, without specifically identifying in which area
development would occur. .Any development adjacent to the City of Spokane Valley
that occurs without a joint planning agreement could result in adverse impacts fo our
transportation system and a reduction in ttie limited sewer capacity available.
1
The following steps should be followed: 1. Specific Annexation Goals and Policies adopted by Council which discuss: when
annexations are necessary and viable, what capital facilities the city would require,
what transportation LOS and identified transportation projects are acceptable, and
what funding opportunities are available. Our current comprehensive plan
addresses this issue as follows:
LUG-97 The Cify of Spokane Valley should continue to coordinate
with Spokane County and neighboring cities for adjacent
urban growfh areas.
Polrcies
LUP-17.1 The City sliould coordrnate with Spokane County to ensure
appropriafe service provision and land developmenf prror fo City
' annexation. Methods fo allow for coordination may include, but arc
not limifed to, execution of an interlocal agreement behveen fhe
. City of Spokane Va!!ey and Spokane County to: .
o Esfablrsh guideliRes for development plan revievv, rmpact fees and SEPA mitigation; and
: Defrne service delivery responsibilifies, level of service standards and capifal facility rmplementation consistenf with
the goals and policies of this !'lan.
LUP-17.2 Thr'ough regional planning efforts, the City af7d County should .
ensure thaf planning rs compafible tn!ith fhe Cities of Spokane and
Liberty Lake. LUP-17.3 The Cify shocrld cantirrue coordinated planning efforfs behvQen
Spokane County, appropriafe fire disfricts, school disfr-icts and _
water service providers to assure managed growth in unban growth
areas. .
More detailed documents from the City of Vancouver and Bellevue are attached
as Exhibit 4.
2. A UGA analysis prepared by the Community Development Department, based •
. on criteria set forfh in Snokane Countv Wide Planninq Policies (CVVPP) which
allocates our population forecast as follows:
a. Capacity in City. ,
b. Capacity in existinq UGAs 2
~
c. Capacity in County Urban Rzserve areas if existing UGAs cannot
accorlimoda#e poUUlation allocation.
3. Open House(s) to discuss potential growth areas and the UGAlcriteria process. 4. Alternative UGA proposals and capital facilities plan updafe' prepared by the
Comrliunity development Department and #he Public Works Deqartment
. respectively.
5. Workshop with Planning Commission.
6. Public Hearing with Planning Commission.
7. Planning Commission's recommendations to City Council. 8. Public Hearing and Decision by the City Council.
9. Reconimendation of City Council forwarded to Steering Cornmittee af Elected
Officials.
10.County may require public hearing on city UGA proposals by their Planning
Commission
- 11. Board of County Commissioners conducts public hearing on UGA proposals.
~
~
I
Ehhibit i, paoe 1 of 3
~Orane ~
. . - V01ey 11707 ~ Sprague l~ve Suite 106 ~ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921. 1000 0 Fax: 599.921. 1003 0 ciC,fiallL~spokanevalley.org
, .
Nordpft n dunr~1
To: Dave Mercier, City Manager; Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager; Mayor Diana Wilhite and
members of the City Council
From: kriike Connclly, City Attorney
CC: Date: Februar/ 13, 2006
Re: Annezatian - 13asic Considerations
1. Tnitiafioti:
a. LA\~D 0`N'E~IOTEI~ PE*TTTIUi~T PROCLSS(RC1~1~ 35ta.14 and 35.13)
` • i. O,.vmers of not le.ss tlian te.n per cent of the dcreage nr not less t:tian ten
per ce.ni of the residcuts Uf the axea (non-code cities) shall notify the
City Council in NaTiting of t:heir iiltensions tn commeuce anne.xation
proceedings.
ii. City counr.il sets a date to accept; reject ar modif.y the proposal.
iii. TF accLpted apetitioi-i is circulatecl and inust be signed by o«ziers ol"a
' tllajbrity of the acreage and a majority of the registered voters.
iv. If the Petitian is cerlified a public hearing is helcl and t]-ie ciiy council,
signs att "Intent to Annex" PeS0lutiOll.
v. tUtice of Intentiou is the.n filed N&6Ch the l3otinClary Review.F3oa1'd, a
decision is made, c9RCj Lf i}lE CjeC1S1011 5LlppOC'tS the 111I1G\atlbll 01E
municipalit.y adopts an ord'uiance effeccuating the change.
b. ELLC'"1'TQ\i P12.OCESS T'(71Z. CODE CITIES, (\jITIAI`I_-'.D F3Y VO'7":I'--IZS
(RC1V 35t1.14.1 10)
i. A pCtition is subuiitted by not less il-ian ] 0 percenc ot the registercd
voters in an arca-. :[f sufficieiii the City Council, xvichin 60 days Shall
accept the petitian.
ii. Oj1cE approved the petition is (iled «tieh the Boarci of C:ounry
Gonmtisaicner. iii. A notice of iniention is then filed with BR13. lf appi-oved by the BU
the decision is sent #o the afl.'ccted municipality. ']'lie City then
' requESts the coiuity audiior to se.t the matter for a sl~ecial election. If a
majarity vote in favor, the aYUiexaiion is aPproved. (Tndebtedness must
ExhibiC 1, p3ge 2 of 2
be approved by 60 Tf approved the City Council adopts dn ordinance eft~ectuating the change. c. ET ECTION PkOC;LSS F0R CQDF, CITTFS, NTTT4TED BY CI'1'Y
C;OiJ\TC1L (FtCW 3 5A.14.015-110.)
i. City CUUncil adopts a resolution calle.d for an election [a be subnutted
to the voters.
ii. Cit-y Coiulcil files a copy of the Resolution «itli the -Board of County
Comrnissioners.
iii. A n4tice of. intention is then filect with the BRB. ti•'aplaroved lly the
BRB ihe decision is seut to the affccted rnunicipality. Tlle C'ity tlien
requests the c.ounty auditor to sct the matter far a special election. If a
majority vote ui favor, the anracxaiion is approved. (Indebtedness must
be approved by 60 TP approved the City Council adopts an
ordinance effectuating tlie chaii~e.
2. An anncxation netition has the best chance of succccdinv if:
a_ The area to be auueYed is within a UGA. (It is pref~.rable that ii be designated
as the City of Spokane Vallcy's UGA but no[ nec;essary.)
b. The City of Spokane Valley has a camprehensive plan that: .
, i. Identifies populations projections that eYCeed the capacity of the existing municipal propzrties.
ii. IdenCilies the area as a Spokmie Valley UGA.
' iii. Contains a capital facility plan that demonstraies the ability of the City
of Spokailc Valley to ser%,e tlie area.
3. If we choo.Se tu identifv ai•eas as fiiture Citv of Snokaric Vallev U(=r.1.'s in
aniicination of future nnnexatioris the fUlluwine, stens are recommended:
a. Pareicipate in Steea-ing Cotwnittee dc:libcrations to ensuro:
i. Adoption of population projections ttiat arc:
1. RealiStiG
2. IdGnt1f"Y Ct10 lleCeSSity fOT g1•owrth outside of our existinU
bounduies. y
. ii. That UGA's are identi f.ied as Cii}j of Spokaue Valley UCi.VJPA's.
iii. The execution of,jouit planning agrecments.
b. Include in the soon to be finalized comprehensive plan, or iu the ordinaiicE .
adopting the plan, the following recent developments:
i. That Spok.ane County has recornmcnded adopting the higla OFIM
PdPulation nuinbers in developino future population projeetions.
, Exhibit 1, page 3 o.f 3
' 'LL, TE7r7f 1]i-0pL'rty adj BCti~t t0 tb 0 C11y Ot 5p0kd]7B V a911ey l1;~5 C}x i$ ]l3 t}le,
'process af being a.iuiexed by Liberty T.,alc.e; tnnpaediig tlle pTovisi on of
sel-vices Mthin the G`ity of Spokanc Va.lley_ .
iii. '.lb at recei,i and anticipated expansion of tlxe current 'LJO A` s by
Spok.aD e Coiutty totai in excess o12 000 ac res; farther inipacti-D~ The
, availability of uece.ssary services_ .
iv_ Tlh aF curren# sigiuficartt d ev. ed opaients u ear ta or adjacent Fo the C;ity af
Spokau e Va]!ey are bei~~ approved w. ith o ut a j oint plmuiuig, .
agreeiueiat betwe-en the SpoLi~e Coxmty; tlie C iiy of Spokane Val] ey .
and the Cit}, o:FLiberty Lakc; and i_ima11y that
v. All of Ehe abave niay mquare a revisioaz o-fbotli the popul.atio-n
pi-ojf-,ckir»}s and designated gowth areas un the immediate future_ 4_
VV.sthin thc nexi' 12 m oxxt l) s, ame.nd the Cif4' o.#-S n«kxne V.9 IIcV°w Co mLMreheU.siV c
Y~~ax t~ iz~clu~le:
a. A Ctty of Spokme Valley [KIA,
b. Popu Zatiou p,-ojections tlYat exceed the capacity exi sting W-itlun the c-urrent
1x,uriic.ipal bouudaaies; ai1d
Q. A capital facilities plun that demonstrates tltial the 'IJCiA°s idelitifi ed for future grawklk ml bf: adCqllately 5~cved by Lhe C1ty ai'' Spokane Valle;f_
~
' Fxhzbkt 2
,
~ E
SPOKjW-' u ~ u y
k3LTTT 1DXQF C='r ANTD PT A1~]N'I.NT G
JnMES L. l+hA1k'~Cl~, T)ZF2ECTOR
TO' ~Abom it M2y Concern: -
i F ROf%A: J€ni Pliansan, Department af Bu ildEng end Pl;~ r~niny Dire '
~ RE: 5-Year Llpdate cf Spokane County Camprehensive PEan and Urban Groww#h Area Boundary
~ As yo4F may bL- a4vare, Spoltan8 Cou niy and lo,al mLii7icapalities are required to Updake th eir respective
i Comprehensive I'lans and Urbar+ GrowiFr Areas by December 1, 2006_
On Pulay 23, 2008, the Baard of County Commissioners, adopted a population allocatioiti for initial planning
purposes Por the 20-year planr-pirig horizon rrom 2006-2U26, This a[Iocation consists of the Offce of
Fi nancial M anagem &~n# (pFNi) irl edium forecas# wi#h ark additional 12,5% bWffer
In response tv the iniEial papula#ion allocatian Ehe €]eparlment oP _
Building ano Planning has prepared e"drafk" mmp illustraEing ~ Co4intv 2006-2026 ADD'L ~
pvtential areas for cansiderativri far Urban GrovAF1 Afea BD4!n4aYy ~ MtiniciPaiity ~ ALLOCATfON ~
modi icatians ta accomrnodate the initial prQjected populaFlOFl ~ Sv ok ane ~197,639 ~
alJvcahion_ As illLpstrated on the a#tachad "drafr[" map, the areas ~ Unincorporated I 66,073 ~
under consideratian fvr pQt°ntial Urban Growth Area Boundary ~
modifications; are shown in red and khase areas are currenfly k1\iR-vay Heiglits I5,066
designed as llrban Reserva per #he aaopted Cornpreher+sive Plan_ ~
Thcsc are~s showr~ in cross-lia#cF~ing are ir,dividual pualic ~Cher+ey ~3,.-89 ~
comments or reyuests related to tF,e Comprehensive Plan land use ~[Deer Park I 2,479 I
i ~ ~ ~
I designatiorrs in the Urban Reserve Areas or adjacent ta ihe c-xisEing FairFeld 212
llrban Growth Area Bwndaries (sae at#ached)_ ~ La#sh ~ 82 ~
i - I Liberky Lake I 15,586 I
1'o fadlitate our deacline ol December 1, 200E ko updaie She Uriaan ~ Medical Lake f 798
Grow#h Area and Spakane County Comprel7ensive Plan we e"uast ~ Millwaod ~ 89
youi~ expedited a'eview of tl7e "draft" map and provide comments as Rockford ~ 239.
Eo yaur aBillty to urovi(Jc services/in.raskriattlFa'e to serve tFre ~ Spanqle N 322 ~
EdentiFed areas consisieni wFth ihe adnp#ed Levels of Se,vica ~Sr)okane ~ 70.235 ~
(LQS) in the S~OOkane C4onty Corr~preF~ensiv8 Plan Gapi#~I Facilitias ~Spokane Valle~Y N 33 1~5 ~
RCan and Countywide Planning Police~ by praviding the information I Waverly 141
an the E~valuation: af PUF71ic Facilities Fomti (see atkached).
~ Cf yQU are not able io provide services consistent with ad❑pk°d Leveis of Ser++ice (LpS) pfease provie-e
, specific commenis as the reason andfor addiuonal needs to serve €n tb e forrn on n ew irrfrastruc#ure Le-g-
neyv F rteriaCs, reservoir, =fc.) th ° ;~ssociated approxirr,ate cvs#, a nd tirnniearne for delivery,
Please forwartE your reviekv camrnenk3 by JUne 29, 2006, To addre5s any questior~s you may have
regarding the "drait" rnap vie have scheduled a meetirrg for J u n c 22, 2 006 at i 0:00 a.r?, in GonPetence Room 26
where s#a ff will be avaiiable ko disctj ss lha "draW m ap and provi6~ additianal cEarification a s needed.
. I reafiz e this is a very short notice but h oIDe you can provida this infon-natioer in Qrd~r ko move forv,+ard with
the upda#e process in a rnanner to accommoda#e our dvadCine of DecembRr i, 2006_
~
a 1026 W. BROADWAY AVENLJT: -SPOkANE, l1+tl 99'260-0{}50
YHOIVE: 509-477-3675 • rAx; 509-477-47(33 • TD)D;509-477-7133
L'xhzbzt 3
2006 - Comprehensive Plan/UGA Update - Regional Planning
w- ' au : ~2'~ur~ . ~ :eau~
'.~i `
,X'.~'.~,+s~';: =•Ax~~ -i°•+'v~ .ru~n' ~ :tv~; fYSC~,
~,~t~~~cl~-~:~~ Hoi ~~,JyC.~
r :r5 %~°.:7~~, '-o ~
S"airing Cor.m:hfco pypuInUan a0o.a!icnc W - op
adoFted Intcrbzd qgreananl M1cpKltlkxJAdap5m Id = hlccling
F'apirti2imi Fflominri 11= FIm-iry7
PC = Plaan'ng Commk:bn
. j BcCG = Counry Coanmi-roncr
CP.O = Crklcal MOns Ordiramc
UGA a Urhnn C.taMh Arco
~C=p i•t.n M.a, 'Yonfna Ma~ OavefuD mup ntlemafMa ~ [ar.dO-nfilvArokri, ~
UCFA
7 ~
I I ~snn~ .
unr,y~
Gapltaf FazIUUes Plaq ~ FL-aoarcM7.xnlury Premrn DmR
1'!
MA i-P-+ I
. 7 I
Rhnrina Cc~mrris3on t•.b~ho t ~
J P• - Coc~slC¢r po4ry aral nKjulumry rorfaiorJ
I Oorna aPan, vy~ • vr w ' o•,~ ,eay.a,. .xr Pacc
tst:yr! /-rcesv~ ~~'a~an ■ \ J ~ ~ c~_._._'_ . F:.e: • /y4T.Cn
!
, I 4liardine P,ogr.ai PC I H~ gp~ .
t ^ l~A~oonn~nalb~
~ ~~n Pul~ftltorir.p
' [tRr,cehcrt:h•c P]rt
, C3:j7$NIGEG`~k'6PIN1 'i
PaRarmarso hloasurumaN °F,PA Rortrv
Ar.pay 1nlatbanlAQ..._.......,.
ConntRianl Rf~7 I V~oa~ Crwim wraa
. ok.PARevIrN IQmft:cpa LsnirplmP~~nlalfoa
I 1 A~Si^d ~ Inleg:o".ed Sepo Hca4ew I Orowttterd ~
I fieglwul PtanR"ng ~^NpM°ondmortin -Qcrroi~ PlnrutLng P,ncf4lry'Znv~p 1~;apTa~r.i Ad.tr,Lnlslcalan -'."iMSitc IJaln[annnro - Publh Paitkipotinn Pmb:.Rtn
' t;IiD nppcah. - Rcalonnl coorotwPon (Ea'tB. °•RTC, vlQ -Small Tawn UGA _(r;~I~l Aw-..,~...:. CVJYW:. '
~ Mnua1 :UrsendTents ~ 14n onn--al amertdsKrja far 20.15 • f'olMnG:d F.nad vse chanqes In Do GAO SJpdato dun fi647 .
oeFmldcred w11h ui:d;Ao pu•i,stvra fo UG4 and Campcchcr.-,iw flCzn ~
FYhlbit 4 ( -
ARrsc. I m~ ac '~F!'bACrz-•Na r len
.:t. . TEEV = gpy -,kZ' • .
?
~ Annexation
- Element
. -,~,f~ 0.
Goal: 7o annex all land vrithin the
Potential Annexation Area expeditiottsly.
~
.
c
77-
.
, 1~. .
..f:. -
O J/ERTfIF'tiV
The p4rnose oi the Annexatfotz Elerr,ent is to pubtic se+vices, in€rastnicwre and utJity exteruPoji,
ensura a smooih transhion Erom couniy to c1sy srxl cownaatiblilry (ssues tn 8eltewe's po;entiai
jliri>c;ictipn v;hen un'snco;pora[ecf larxi is annexed 31171EX3EiQR are3~.
~ io the Ciy.'Phe policies in this clerneni se2 Ctil?riA
and cond{ttor,s tsr censiciering annexation propos- P.nnexation of unirkcorDorteck Ian9 adjaeent to the
als and esfablish aframevar<: for .:ddrassing City b0:leGts ?he City, residen's. an.d propesty
MR
' XIV-i a-1
\`i
1VNe+caticsrrQcrr.^nt of 9dlen. preh_ isi~.~e Plan •
• .,,~142~Oa~ - l2~$/
ovrners. Properry owners and resfdents gain dems wi,hfn the area proposed. •
accew^ to urban services providecd by Be[lewe
simh as enhanced po1ic:e snd firo protection, * In adcfhiors to snnexakion policy, ;his element afso '
bulldlny and land use contrads, anci storm and ostablEshes pvficy guid,:nc€ for Licerfurisdictional
surface wator oordrad. They c:n at9ty parcic(pa?e in cooperaUOn wI?h adjacent cities, Kny Councy, and the locot govemrnent that most d'trecihf afiects special purpose dlstric?s.
thQir IA.-es.
ror the Giry, a77exatfon y+e7ds benefits that incttrt±e POL1C I ES
• the abBi,y to cantrol new devclapment, !7i2ceby
onsurfrw ease of future mainEen,:nce; control of Rra-annexation
impacts at che(r source; and the abiliry Eo extErui
hs boundaries i1 a Eogicsl, ser:ica-flrSented rnan- pOtJCY AN-t. Annex :he iolErnw)ng ereas vrhen
ner. Additiorialty, the Ciiy gains cevenves 3rom rasldents or properry ov:ners requast annFxation:
aieas that alrea&/ enjoy ceratn city serviczs but '
curr2ntly pay rto aaxss or fees to Bellevue. a. Unincarporateci areas in Factor3a. Eastgate,
and east oE the Giry to l.akc Sammaen6sh an:8
Bellcwe's Potentisl Annexation Area was e;iab- the Sphcre cf Influence line %Wth 15saquah. .
, lished in an 3gre2men2 reaahed wi?h the Ciiies of .
lssaqiran and Renton in i979. Thts agreemert b. Tha unlneo:pora¢eq' land adiacent to the EasE
eaentifles a Sphere of In}iuence 12ne to,.vhich these Ghanno! Brlcfgo, kr.cr.vn as Enatai.
three citees wfll exparrJ eventualty !n !he Neovcas,le
a2d. The Sahere of Inilu- ?oLtCr ara-2. AdEttst itye
ence line may be ro-ex- rnunicipal aoaind::rle, with
amined r:hen certain tac- adiacent cixEes ~.:h=.e che
tor~ sueh as de~~eloprnent =f~~'' •T~` existing mun:cipai tound- •
patterns or water, sewer, aries crzure unsen:ceab9e
s?orm water, or irartspor- ~•pockets of 16nd. (ation Setvic~ btntndaries k v~`
diverge from exDactect - , PO1_ICY A1J-3. Mak= the
ctireccFons. Cicys public sEr.Ece anrt
utitiry service arc3s coiri-
Sz r v '
For each of Uiese ciiies. - cscie with tho Petenttal
the area betv~een the • .qnrcexatfon Area, wherQV-
SpM2re ef InOuenc? IinE - r• er mutttally agreeabte.
and the City's current ~ - • boundzr; is i:ROwn as the - ~ pflLICY AM-4. Establish
roten[Fal Annexation Area. preannexatlor zon3rtg Eor - Bellewe's area, shown in ihe eniir8 PoleniiEl Mnex•
F1greAN.i,ultimatelywlli atEon A:ea where practi-
acld apprcximately Four cal. square miles to the Gity,
POUCY AM-S. Respond
A.rvrBxations are iriitfated to communi¢y ir.lUatives '
vihen [he Ciry Cour1C0 v:ith a full ExplanaFeon oi
accepts a petitiarti from a• all methOrys a3 anhexalion,
_ su:ticiant nUntiSer of ctii- - ineluding Ct1P. CCtinlmUnity
zens or aroperty own2:s ' council optiai.
vnirltl a p7'CpJSEd flRflQ%- ~
ation aretL An annexation P0lJCY AK-6. Exiend '
i5 velidate;l zithC+r by sub- 77.L9n QRf~~~~iDn Beflcviro wefea,^:es ,reew resi- 6he serviCe ett3a boui.d-
mGSSlaa of a secona prop- de„zt bui.,,csses jron, crnir.corpora;ed iCing aries orJy if landowners ~
ery cwners potltton or tr/ Catr.,~: (Fvctait~ Squcre ,bfatt) reques4iRg service hae
~ an eiCC?ion Cf ihe resi- , begun thP ann2xa[6ort
XIV-1-7
~ ~a
~ I
' - • :.nncrallo omwr.~ ,Lot~eEe •.rr.p:e~e«Jvc Plen
• aP _(01~ :
~ proce:s or h;;ve mzde priar ag:eemens with thc-, City rnay Inria<e a zo.ifng/spcciai districe
Ciry. s'tidy, should the area be larg=[y ~~nde~-el-
- ~ opcd. Pernv3nen3 zoniW vnou3d F,e basz:i on
POLICY AN-7. MakC every eifort, .v5z[her by the rasulis ofLhe study.
in'eiocal agreernant cr ottier mcChani;an, to
ensure that lanct which lies vr,tti.in Kiny Couni+j's PoSt-Snnexation
jurisdicccmn, but which simuilaneously lies tiyiihin
3ellevue's Potentlal Mne)mtian .4rea, develQpe ppLlCY AN-13. „Rer artnexation, ?rans(e: 211
accoraireg to the Cornpr;,=hans'r,e Pran pol'oc(es or r=_viev authari:y for ali Isnd curentfy unclergciog
cthcr devetopment standards the Clty ai 3ellevve devaloament r9vfev: in King County [o ;he G'rty of
has develeped far these panicular areas. 6etlewe.
POLICY AN-9. Ualize pre-annexa?ion agreements POUCY AiJ-14. ?.4acQ every e~fort to ensure a
only ii immeciia;e annexatio. i C2nnot be reGuired Gr smooth transStion from Coun?y to C[y administra-
is not re,:sonabfe, tion.
F'OlJCYAN-9. Recocr.lze the fnteg;iry oi existing POUCY Atv-1 5. Ctarge aNne;s and res3dents of
or luture aeFyhborhoods end the nee:i for malnr nerdy-annezed, fu:lytievele.ped te:ritory Ordy the
taining log:cal service areas zs a general diraction, sar„a uti1iy upgMirtg costs ior v:hec,7 curceiit .
' when wor:iruj v,vth inci-,ridual annexatlon reqvests. ;esidents are responsible (zxcitriing specd im-
• . pirovemerd cr banefit dis.ricts that rnay bc crest-
POLICY AN-10. Aequfrc urmers ol,lan3 annexing e4),
• io ihe Ciy to be subject to ihelr propor:Eonate
sharo of the Cby's bondeci indebtetfaess. POLlCY AM-16. Esfabllsh c3epzrm=r,ta1 se,^rice
' nersis prEOr to major annexat0ons :hrovgfi nn
~ F'OUCY AN-71. Consuit affectrd citizens, citEes, impact araljss. ?s reve:wes irom each anulex-
specsal pirpose districts, and o.her paries pricr to atfcn area are collected, increase City ;enices io
iinat appiovai o( any anrer.ation. maintain cLcrcent ciq^r:ide sereiees tevels. -
POLlCY AN-12 Establtsh a9propriate zoning POLlCY AtJ-17. Providc nev.9y-anhexed areas
distrf:t clesigra[Fons in YroFo;ed annezatenn areas wi;h the :.ame leve7 oi service enJayed by areas
sising the fo3lcwing criteria: vri;hin the CI[y, while at the s2me tlme not decieas-
ing c~rrent c(y~rr~e ser.4ce 1~+~±s.
s. In annex:~ttQn ajeas ?hat a% substardiwlly
d2vefoped (at least 70q5 ot the lend has been FOUCY AN-18. Coordinate aI1 d?velopment
itm},:cved w&th perrnanent struc?wes, ar !or actKdties ber.veen the Cfiy*and King Courny uithin
' v:hlch developmenl per.nits have been ap- the Poten5a! Annexalion Area. ',1'here passible,
~ proved or p.etiminary ;.+!at or PUO app:otiaal join, cevzlapmenc re~.fiew shoutd occur.
. gramzd). Gty ot Belie,.ve zoning district
des&jnations shauld be applied tr.ai woLdd . Ir+.erjurisdicEi0i121
rnos, neatPy re(lect zhe exis?,ng pan.arn and "
Intensiry of development w?h[n tho annex• ppLICY AN-19. Coordirsata long-range plar,ning
at14"`r°a. anL tlTe development a! cap(tal.imprcwernent
b. In annexafion are2s Eh2t ara largch/ urxievel- programs wi;h adjacent chie:;, speciaJ disuicts, and
King Counr;.
aped (mora t:tan 3a% of ~he tand is .acant or
undevelopeci), Giry of Belle-aue znci(ng district pQUGY AN-20. Establish in;ertocal agreerner,ts,
desipna=ions shauid bo apptied ihat woutd when apprepriatc, benveen the Ciry o( Bellevvv
mast nearEy raBe^t the patte;ns anci (naensi- arxi other jurisdic?ions whicn address possible
=Fes oi land use ivund in tlic Compri:herasive ,Gullon, ta rag6anaI conc=_rns, svch as bui not
' Plan for itie urincorporated county ar2a. tn limited to, ~wer, sanitar/ sewer, storm wa.er
. ~ :h
e event the Corrpreh.ensi~re °!an c`oes not dralnage, utlltry dratnage basins, cran,po.tavon,
proviue fl-jictance withln ft county area, the parks and apen space, dE•ielopmanc refiew, and
- puhiic sa:ety_
~
X1v-3 ~-3
r " -.GS •;:a, I
. . .07-
' ArmexatioY E7c ' mcut-. ~ ~.bf.•8cS!.e pict . zFro ?lan
. a.
POLICY AN-21. Support consofidatfon (by mu'iual cties tivnen thcre is aservico agraemeni tn effpct •
,
agreemen:) ot those par,Eon; a special purpase or vrhen such ts:npo.ary s2rvic° is nc:cessary
servic= cCscric¢s and Kng Caun.ry r+nod Convol hacause ot an ennarganc;.
DEstrieis, sttCh as Wster and Sp+v2c District 787
• and the EastgaEe Sevrer 4istrict, with th-2 Cirj POUCY AN-23. Recagnize exi:sting utility agre--
where the sarvlca district is providing sen2ce ments wc.h adjacent cities, torams, and dis:ricts, vrich9n [he Ciry's corporato bouncary and where, as and ac.knou4edys Eho contfnuation af such agrea-
in the case oi VJater District 117. there are not ments. cnsurz that these agreemerru contain
rmJor coru9@cas w'r.h exfstlng subarea policies. canditfons wh:eti hava the necemry devdopmeru
rcview authority in order m2i.Mzin aeoeptat-1e
POLICY AN-22. Provfde publec serAces and/or senica le^.'e7s to those mur.icip:ilftles. ♦
utlitles wfchhEn .he corporate Ilmlas of adioining
. •
~ xrv-a a-4
. .
i
~
. . ~ ~ ~
~tttsSp ~ r ` ~
L nY dhSi
• ~ u~n
:ierar,u:grnn
- ~ ~ ~ ~•1 ~
, .
I ,.~yf
. ,
y.~ ~J F •~a ` . .
♦ ~j'%n. .i~ r~X
f.iry[imiis(~~~SA)
IJI]il Pmotlat Anma;en
Soa:►:ary I,"l'~`,-j `
Pa1A3d31 JAME7fcn
' L ~ n ~ I ~
~
. 3 ; i •
a ~
Betlevue Potential Annexation Area
1Y.sc~iai:acr ~:kre;resm;~f:nflisn[qtp0~[eEe:atywnrl:~nYlli::athLn:W~:s;e~1
s~e+'G Cns:si:ra or eutt Euaib~ ai ansL~rentAiy~eynlutm et s~l~ oI tlti1 rtuq
o` aeY'y,~r'..y7 C~Kmf. fs W'~'LS ~'~ut Te e~:eis'•itL=s iuT:afy ol Da apu1 ~ln~
~
- i
' Vi.NCOl1VER URF3AP: ARuA PLAN '
ANNEXL"1T.l.Qlr
I?evised March 22, 1993
CHALLFNGES
. C234 AeN'NEXATIpN
• Eocourare C]arfc Coun;y to prtpare for thc efiCCbs of fucvre :uuiCxatians by
re`arising and red'erxur_g iu resources to regional seavice delivery.
C235 kN'NEXATIDN '
' Vancouver shoufd not auncx icrricary beyc+nd its urban growrh boundary, and
CI.3rk Counry should SLfpF761Y AL1J1CXAttCi35 provided ehey are consistent wi[h chc
policics containat in this arenexacion ctement.
C236 AlWEXATION
Vancouver should dirtxt iis rtsowrts toward illc provisinn of uriia.n scn•ices.
r237 Ae1'e\'BXA7I01V
Devclaping arcas•within urban grow:h and idcnzificd anvxation nrczs should
snnex oC commit to acsneX So adjacent, GFics in order to rxeive a full range nC
ciry-provided mban scrvices.
C238 ANNEXATTON
Unineorponted arw that ate atrcady utbaniaat are cttcoiar.:Eed co annex ta the
appropriat- ciry or town in orcler to rcceive urUan s--rviccs.
C239 A:N'NEXr1TTlIN
[cuo;poration of. new eities aed to•a^.i is a lcgal option allowcd for under
Washvyg6 lavi and rnay bc :Qpropr.'ate if an adequate fiD3!)C93I I73SC IS IdGIIGIICd
or ana:zadou is imprxc[irz!_
C240 fLVXE.YATlON
Residen[s oftbe Vancauver Urban C'imwch 1U'ca should !x: inClGtr7ed in an cffecti•:e
pub}ic involvement pcocrss for azu:exaiion.
C20I AiViVEXATTON Frovida zcaess fer each ruident uid proPeny o•.+mer fo any informafion ncctta! co rvaluace and ncakc dxisauns rcE:ted [o th-- ddlivcry of urban Ievels Of service
and bavnciary cbangc. -
• C242 AMNEXAT'ION
Genual, nubtic informztion should bc dcvelo{x:d by boih thc ciry and eouncy for
annezation proposals.
c243 A,N7,vFxA rioN
F..xplore ncw, creativt ways to :.zce tttc transiEion of scrvices in all zrras of
governmcnt and csptciaUy in pub)ic safcty, erar.sportation, p:fbs and recceacipn,
and land use and development.
C244 Aj1r:VCXATION
, Si.ipport t1,: eonsolida[ioce of firc ¢rottction services,
caas A ,~IArxa rro v
Vacteauvtr and Clark Counry should mutually define thcir serv:ce roles based on
[ne Growth Nfanzgement Act, and support the zdherenc; io ih=se roles.
• Faga53
i
VANCOUIfErZ UR9At: ARL- : f'L414
. .
. • •
C246 A,4'eVE;t1171ON "
a sTan~aard sysum, inclLiding cons(stent gnidclincs, foc
Er.~aungc thc us:. of
assrss6ng thc :.uvitc nteds af each praposeri annexarion s;ib-area rus,d thc
r:so-urces ucec.swy to ptovide diose servicss.
C247 AeVA'EYA770V
land use designzaioas for du. 9tuc~oa'poraced uicl unineorpO72Lul are.s of the
Vancouver Lfrbxn Growch Ara sboutd be enrsistanc.
C248 A,1'rVEX4TIQ,\'
' Significa,.t land use dccisions andlor capital in3provemeett prajeCts ,z'itl~in tlic
Vaneouvcr 4~rban Growtt► Are.: should he revicwed by all aiieeced agencis.
C249 kN'NF..U270N
_ $uppori th-- eon-tinuation of joioi eity/co'.:nty ?oliey discussians.
C250 ArVNL• Y4 770,V
Clark Co:iciry shou[d continue to peiform rautine resaintcnazcc of i7nfrasrnieture
and sitnilar puUlie fatilities WiEhin :.n annr.x'iion arta ur,til G°t: effeCiive date of
zhe arnexar.on -
C25I .1NA' .F. k.A7"IO,V
Steeu and raads, inrluding rigttts-of-wav, adjarcait ta !he• land to be anncxcd
' should bc rna3e put of the aunexacion.
C;252 ANA'EXA!lON
- Priornhtacion of aanczatiUn effotts shoufd M bas;d on Vazicouver's ^bit:ry co .
prtrvi+7e a fu31 ranqe of municipa] servaces in a tic2tely and efficieru marutu.
C253 AA`:\'E fi1 T10N
A e:cneiinc for annezation shoniJ be responsivc co the 6nccr:sts of cidrrus, bua
stiould also be bued on ,ruide(incs wfiich wefl caesure thc efici-cm and effeetivc
deih-cry of servicxs to the acwczatian sub-area. 5
C254 .a:<<nBX.arIO,V
Encourge chc annezation of largc areas withouc prccluding individaal property
owncrs from purstiing thc nnnezauon proetss.
Cl» ANA'EXATION
Encourage rhc aration of proposai avauacacian sub-aress that are ea7ixistent wi;h
the spirii ancl intwt of il1e Grwxth h4anagem:nt Act.
CZSC ANNEXATIO:V •
E:ich proposui annezation shall mx; th,: roquit-cmencs of tle: iio,undaty Kevicw
Au, irtcludina ilic prrscrvaiior. of naairaJ neighSarNoeds uid corununisie_<, th= usc
of signific.:n3 physisal baurrdar't:s, and the ucarion or prescrvatio:t of logical
se;vECG areas.
C257 AA`:VEZ1TIOeV
' . Work with resida►tt of ausr.xaUOCi sub-attas to dca_recEine the most effeicnt and
efftrtivC 171:thod COC::rsnexa[ion as p;ovided by statc Eaw.
czs.s AMvr,•XA rro,v
, Ensvice [hae servix ltivds wi[hin the City of Vancouver are not rnlue.ed as a resvlt
of an nnnezation.
C259 hi!'NEXATlOtV
Vancouver anci Clark Cnunry should es[abfish financiai i,copact -.rituia ;or
. ictccitifying the rcv--mucs and exp:ndivures zsso=iatcd with artnexation.
C260 ANNE.YATIAIV . :
Encouragc Clark Counry co prcparc for Lhe cifeecs of fus=.sre aauiexations 55'
reiocusing and RdirtGting 6ts iesources tu regional servicc ddiverJ.
1 ~ a F'age SQ
' , .
RETURN to 5-Year Update Page
- ~
217[}F[~~,;~~a~'~_r~4,-[r~*~-~h~rn~o~ei~3an~~rt#dte
1.Irk~m: t i:uuafh hsras
LE~If.} ~;av L1t{asn R,aun-c ATr4Z
EzmsxS u~.on i nv;-i oc rm-:me e, I_r,:~ t'igisddEzed ft?r Uruncurporated L:GA ~
~ ,~id ?Qb~4 -_6?ti Ftj3ul~,ur. A,li~or~n
: F1LIIm~lY'A ksuGlta{~lt¢~a
lfwwpcrtlScdAeis T)Mrim~ VG.i►
• ~ " Fi•r1.SdsLi{ih=1.lUL
~ f'SSR:~1 t~rhqt rteko ~.-Le■p:
Gtnwd Ata ~ Ydlr'1 CliiA' 13,Q?S
Ya ~ R5R~S79~r~dAl~ p ~ y r~- WCd°l0f081~'~'l39t
4.43Ininrnc Ppepd
lr7k+t~ SI~rM~ . . ~y a E ~ ti ~ lft~rtn ~k€3..
i aJl~V 4'unA~9
i_.U kp Fivc Mi;c 1 rp2
~ ~ ' ' },M1 , ~ I ' Mnb :ufccol]Fl
Villey ~opp UIU - °,'f1
Ililkh.f[~;~v~FT C-► ' . r1:nh v40_yrTt5
~ tI lvt n =4 ~ - { %cupi vrcglrn.:-s,F-a
xo~`~' cX.tiff A~ wwa
. _ ~ -M c as i_ra--k a n 1,19 6
►:o;= V --M-3,05C.
~ , -
vdms Plai~ Spiu - 9,vTi7
- r' ~r
y Po¢v[ffdu¢ Adrabe! = 7d,2ti6
'k . 'V~ + A". ~ . ~ ' ~.irl ~`~I,".~16VT ~.7~F7J9""XT3
1 ~ • ~-I
~k 1~~~Trffit6~'~iw2l - 2yo-N .
i
r-
11,, d.~ ~
' n
IL
/07
4 _ .
, .
-j
y~4AA6
~ ~
~ ~~f Li
. ~ , ~ a• ~ , ti - ~ ~ ~ - ~
a -ti ~
~~li:R,iS 1~•,•~ . , ~ • , ~ IIi's~11ii _ I
r
~ ' 1- ~ ~ ' _ ~ t"~ ~ ~ X ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •
~J_~
ro 0
~
`P = r ~ - • E . . k, .
. / tt +ry • " . . ~ .
i .443 14-!
k
M1mtirt~,f~~ c+rO;:~T,~§ . Tlmaµ+» In ik.5~s~lnae. ~~¢ovminrl.,~hhn; ~ITLuomgrEj.~l
~p~.kar~e Cciunty B►iil~9in,~ & Fl~xnn~ng ,~ed~~~d,M~~,nd ~ ~o~.~R,~,
~+~wdn1!} Rv r_ri a n ~
I m=a:ri J frn•. tlR
~ µ~saw~k ~amrw!
IYy owic
I~
I
Y
" .
~~O~~.YI~e ~
.
va ley
11707 E.SPra9ue Ave. • Suite lOb • 5pokaneValleY,WA 99206
(509) 921-1000 • Fax (509) 921-1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org
-
June 26, 2000
Spokane Co«n4y Division af Building and Plarrning
Jim Manson, Director
1026 West Broadvray
Spokane, WA 99260
RE: Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Updatz Process
Dear Mr. Manson:
Pleass consider this let#er as the City of Spokane Valley's formal response to the
County's distribution of a"draft" Urban GroaAh Area (UGA) expansion map and public
facility evaluation forms.
The Ciry of Spokane Valley requests in writing the County's intent for the red "potential
UGAsL surrounding our City. It appears that the County is considering these areas as
future uninoorporated UGAs. This is a bit confusing because these are areas that will be
evaluated as potential growth areas for the City of Spokane Vallsy.
We also requests in writing the intended process and timeline fhat the County will
employ to adopt nzw Urban Growth Areas as a part of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Update. There are many important milestones in the update process and all jurisdictions
should clearly understand their respective responsibilities.
Spokane Valley will use ths following standard planning process to develop our Urban
Growth Area proposal. 1. Spokane Valley planning staff will prepare a UGA analysis, based on criteria
set forth in the Countywide Planning Policies, specifically Policy ToAic 1-
Urban Grotvth Areas. The City will look to accommodate our allocafed
papulation as follows, in order:
a. Growth capacity inside City limits.
b. Grov,rth capacity in existing UGAs adjacent to Spokane Valley.
c. Urban Reserve Areas . 2. Spokane Vallzy planning staff will conduct open houses in August to initiate
the citizen participation process. The intent of thESe open houses is to begin a dialogue and exchange information with Spokane Valley and '
unincorporated County residents on grovtirth issues..
.
3. Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct workshops and pubiic
hearings on the potential Urban Growth Areas, along with a Draft Capital "
. Facilrties Plan update. The Commission will fonnrard a recommended Urban
Growth Area to the Spokane Valley City Council.
4. City Council may conduct public hearings on fhe Planning Commission's
recommended Urban Growth Area proposal and Capital Facilities Plan.
' Council will forward their UGA proposal to the Steering Committee of Elected
Officials by the end of October, 2006.
The City of Spokane Valley looks forward to continued collaboration on this important
comprehensive plan update.
Best Regards,
Marina Sukup, AICP, Director
Community Development Director
CC: City of Spokane Valley City Council
Dave Mercier, City Manager
. ilAike Connelly, City Attomey
Greg McCormick, Planning Manager
Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner - File
~
r , .
DRA-FT
ILine 2006
~
Interlocal ARreement Reeardinp Joint 1'latinine be[ween Snok3,ne Couirtv and
This agreeciieut is*enter.ed into on the day of ,,~2006, by Spokaue County aud the
City!"1"o«~n of , liereina:~ter ref~Err'iYta as "~1-'arties".
; N-'<<>:
«'here.i~s, a Goal of the Stai:e Growth N4a.nai2e i~ lt' Act is coordination betu'e(:Il
j~ ~
comrr,u~titics ~id jurisctictions ta reconcile cori ~il-c s an r
,v
- . . .
Whcreas, RCW 36.70A.210 setsforthz~~ea-t~~i~,rec{uiri:u :iifs for County-wide Planning Pplicies,
~
ineTueliiib that coucity=wide planhing p :Cr} ies ~.i :ires.s policies for joint couiit}r aild city
pl,mming tijithizt urban growth..;irc"~r nci
NVhcreas, the' Coient ~Wlde Miiiu~p . olis't~ for Spoka.ne Cot2nty adopted pursu7nt to RdV
a
.'i,r,~Ye' 36.70~1.210 corit~rii polr'ca~~= ,f~-o~~c~inC planning process iiit'ended ti) 'resolve issues rcgarding
~ .
how zori.ing, s~: ~{71V.1S1011 ~71C~~(•ll~ler IiiI1CI lIS' c~ppY'O~'aI5 l.11 C~ZSI~ll;iteC~ jOlilt pIai7311.[l~' a.C4aS V~'lIl bE
eoordinatec~, and'~. i'i~ such~~uint pl~.ruut~g may be accqmplished pursut~nt to an iilterlocal
• ~ . .
agreet~ient entered into : ecn %id/or 3.iiiong jurisdictions ancil or spccia.l purpose clistricis, and
Wherr.:Is; the Parties are desircjus ol` r-esolving how zoni_oar; 'subdivision and ot11er land use
approvals uZ de'sigiiated joint planning areas tivill be cooa-dinatecl, and Wlaereas, the Pariies xvis11 to sepa.rate, without prcjudicc to eitiier Party, t1ie'issue of potential
anneXations and the legal authority and right to pursue or oppose sucli annexations irorn fliis
- agrEeiilent and the execution of the saiile; I
Now, ther-efore be it Resolved, to-mards addressing horv zonuig, subdivisi0n and other land use
approvais for joint .planning will be coordinateci and ensure that transportation capacity for
deveaopment is concurrent with the developrne.nt, the Pairtics agree [p cooperative joirit planuing
in desir,;naied areas Pursuant to the fallowing:
l. Legal basis: This ageeinent is entered i»to pursuaut to RCW 36_70A.0I0; 020(3); 210 (3)
(a), (b), (d), and (f); TZCW 39.34; Countvwide Plannina Policies For Sqokane Countv
(F'laiuling Policies) Topic 2, Uvervie«r of Grow-th Management Act (GMA) 1'tequu-emeiits;
Topic 2, Policies (1) and (2); Topic S Transportation, verview of GroN%rt.h Iv.tanagcment.
_s.
(GMA) Requireinents; Glossary Cotmtyvvidc Plannin lic}, Terms; Joint ;Plan.n.ii1g Areas;
. ~ „
the Sookane Cou-ntv Comnrehensivc 1'Ian, and th ~bi'ng hensive Plan of the City/"I`own of .
.
. t:r '.s. .
2_ Intent: It is ihc intenf of the Pa_rties 1) to po L`" e coord'uiated planning for transportation
ai1d developraient stajldards beb~~~.`~~ ~:1; e Y s:_ for the area affected, 2) to ensure
C\'.5 k=
lIIlpt'OVEmGnts t0 mitigate traisport~ i, nir.ny~a~t>SL~ ~lting from developalle_nt a.r~ ~ idcntifie~i
t 5
and such irnprovemenis t~~'-c''"~tructe .~.~mpleted concurrcnt ~vith ihe developcuent, audlor,
~
rr~itigated to t11e exieiC~ihat acle au~ate fim "'u is secureci to pay for thE costs of improvements
. madc nece .ssary x tEensure that cleveloptnent steudards proscribec~.
. a; . . .
~Nnthin the tt".c~e~-t~s allowablc land uses, densitics, streets, sidewalks, curbing, .
drainage ai`'d`t~tilitiES Eirempaiible. . . .
w. .
The Parties dcsire t~%mtly develop and implement developinent rcgulations and procedures
addressing ihe .re-vzew and approval of a.ffected projects ~I7th.in the affected arca. The Parties
also desire eo joititly establisri ancl imp.le.ment devclopmenl re,,ulations mZd procedu.res
boverning the provision of all public facilities uithifl the affectecl area. The Pai-tics ab ee to
carnmit suffcient staff to clraft and fuialize tIESe speci:Cc agreeiilents in a ti.mzly manner. .
3. Area af.fected: Thc agreemenl applies fo dcvelopment proposals within ihe City./T'own of. '
and adjacent (criteriu?) to unincorporated Spokane County Urban Grow-thlJoi7t _
Flan.ning Amas and proposals within unincorporated Spokane County LTrban G.raw~lilJoint
2 .
Pl~,nning Areas adjacerit to tl3e City/l°ovvn of .(O,p`ion: 177e .Pqrties agr-ee
that :SpoMne C'ount'y is not prechudedfrorn establishing its oivn ifzdividual Urban Grolvth
.Area separote fr-om des•igrnated .:oiizt Plunning 11retrs {suggestecl lhis italicized languuge
sjTOuld be modifretl))
4. Prujects af_fected: llus ageement applies to nEtiv developmEnf proposals subject to the Noticc
of Appl_icatiozi requireuients of 1ZC44' 36.70B as acIaptEd by the jurisdiction, includirig
proposals subject to the State Lxiviroiuncnta] 1'olicy Act, tivithin the aFfected area. iNoiace of
Applicatioii, Notice of Hearing ancl 'Notice of I]ecision r~zquized by .R.CW 36.70B and any
znviroii-niental eliecklist, L1S or other environrnental X.nienc required pursua,nt to RCW '
43.2.1C shall b~: pro~fided to the I'1rCieti in accordatlvi'::~ licable re~~latians. '1'he Parties
fiirthe:r agreE they shall provide each other notice;'~ aiid are a11'~ ~ ed aud eiicouraged co attend.
an y build'ua g pcr.init preconstruction conl'e c:iace anci,lT land use ` chaiica.l re~Tiew fneetings.
Such riotice shall be in the ..fptin_ of sta.ndard I10i'~ :rur sueh conferences/meetinhs givzi_i by trie
_ jurisdiction. _ f T ~
a"i`he k'ar~ies shall consulf zlrrfals euklined above prior to issuance of
an}~ fnal L7NS ,.'~%I17i~or s^a€leport to the ~-Tearing F_xamit~e.r in aii aitempt tca
:
xeach a con ~.i sus pos-it:a nlrecoieridation. For SEPA documeirts, the ju.t-isdiction
r
havin~ lead -.~~~ta..tusiircciude ihe cansensu5(collective recouuuendation
' yg-'~Ik
-R ~
anda7ly Illi Sn"fiTions tcon~~it.ions, or ttleir indiviclt7al recommentiations and auy
_fIili~~ating crf unable to xeach. corisensus, as applicablc; for prqjec.ks
pru~~ing to, -:public hearing, both Parties shall uiclude the coiisensus
rccc►iruneiic~atibri iri iheir respeceive staff reporilreco.mniended condiiions oP
~
approval to the I-Iearing Exalluner or othcr appropriate hearing hocly, or, :i:F unable to
agrze, dieir respective recornmetidatioiis.
5_ Tr-ansportation: The Parties recognize that dcvelopYncnt iri eitller of rhe Parties ji.uisdiction
creates potential impacts for intersections and corridors in the adjacent jurisdiction. 1"o ensure
proper plauti.ing and mitigation of developinciit traffic impacts or suFiicient :funds for tliE
~itnpioveillents necessitatecl by the trai'l:ic i.rnpacts o:C~tevelapmeilt, ihe 1'~-ties agrce that:
. 3
a. The Parcies may require the applicant for each a5ectEd developmeat proposa] io
prepare a Traffic lmpact Analysis (l it-1) quanfifyin3 the irnpact of that developnieni
and provide the samv- to the other party. Each jLtrisdiction shall have the opgorhinity
to contributE to the dev-vlopment o:f the scope of such s►ucIy. The :E'arties rnay
mutually agree to waive the rcquirenient for a TIA.
b, 'Y`he Parties siaall require construcrion of inlproveme.nts uecessary to niitigate
identificd dir.ect transportation impacts to take place concurrent tiNitti development
or, alternately; a rccornj-uended con.dition of approval to ttie 'Hearing Examiner pr
other appropriate hea.ring body, requirin; ap~~.riate fnancial contributions for
identifieri direct transportation impacts ident:&etl. The condiuon shall identify the
rimc, maniler and me~.~is of transfercnce c~,~f'~'asiy 4`'ent intended to comPeasate the
~ T
other pa.rty for ideritified trafYic im ac't~, or as Miti~iaon in a ~~fl):i~S, and Pnor tc~
rproval of the projcct.
a
. , a.:.
c_ For thase devclopment projects tivti~:~,. ~nstniction o.f improvements necessary to
mitigate ideutificcl direct ~s -.~~ation ~in, : acts does not take place concunreut wit_h
project c~evelopment,,t;1e-rtieNomaifl~,' I' tl y establis~i a unifoii~ method fqr
~uantifyin a~ ~~`ri~ ~ fir~an contributir~ns .for irnprovemcnts to be made N~vithin
y _ g . ~ .
, 6 years af--tlie tiinc~, w e dev ment is available for occuparicy and use for
~ ~
. .
identifecf dire~~~tr~a~isporunpacis. Thc Parties recognize that to implement
, f'`
[he,~ i re.ei~i_ , orri •in odif.+cation of e~cisting regulations ma}r be reqtured and agzee
. 2k.e sucli ni ~iif~~ ns-ui a timely nianrier alter establislunent of a uuifornx and
~~~r~
. muh~~l~a;►'ee ~ispon mEthocl for quantifying appropriate .financial cotitributiotis.
~
6. :I)evelopment Standarcls: Tlie Parties recognize that lanct u.se devclogmetit in the affected area
«ithout coi-iunon developmen.t regulations could Tnistrate the purpose aiid iritent of this
agi•ecmEnt: aid the procedures e_stablished.
a. 1fie Parties agrec ta assigi dlc necessary staff to rev.iew applicable development
regulations, including but not liuiited to (nrore specificity recornmePaded) zoning
designations, Iandscaping, sigilage, subdivision, road and street standards, bicycle
paths, jogging lanes, trail systems application review procedures 3nd stornwaCer ~
drainage requirernents. Differences shal.l be idcriti:Eied and a conscnsus standard 4
recomrn£ndecl, afler which axy munial reconunendation wi]1 be procPSSeci a.s an
~I ameildment t.o each :Partits D-evelopment Regulations in a lawful manner towarc3s
the cnd of developing uiuforinity in said cieveIopment sta.ndards. Such re'view
s}iould include rEpresentatives frorn the private sectar wh0 IIlay be unpacted. "I'he
proce;s to icientify iuLiividual junsdiciion di:[:ferences slial] conunenee upon sigLun}
of tkus agreenlenf, tivith agoal of cortip]etin; the ideaitificstion ofdi..f.ferznces within
6 iuontlis of simiivg. 1Zeconnnendation for consensus standazds sball .f.ol_low. 1t is
pr.eferred by thz C;ounty rhat consistent consensus standa.rcis be develoPeci azuongst
tJiose jurisdictions generally compiisiug the urba, a~-ea of the Cotaut,~.
l~, 'Che Parties a~ee to confer oli the necessit}~ 'a4~dlor the location of any coiulectoc
streets ancVQr the classific3tion of an}~~r~eet '~a~tt}un or adjacent to a proPosed
~
dcveloprnent or adjacent to the boc~ci"~- ~chvecn t~~ artics. lf agreement is not
, v..
e; positic5i s to tlie Hearing Exan-iiner
Afjfrres ~reachcd boih Parties shall preser~ iv
or otfiex appropriate liea.riug body,
c: The Fa~-ties a.~~ree to Gi ziA~ompr~Ci,.isive P1an/7oning categor.ies, allowablc
~ lant~ uses and densities in L~~~is'%v~. ~t3ave common b4rders tUwards ensuiiiig
a rational lran5i'~wiTri°lan~t in ihoSe areas. Such consullation Sha1l incJude .
~ . cor►suit,ati0n~cin.the c1i:f~catioF~~1°strt:ets and roaciways ori ttie comm~on borders.
7. l~thcr Regul<rn~~.T 11g- ui..tliis agz•eement shall supersecle of negate any existing lajid use
or devclopnregu.tacion . the Pai-ties.
8. Adili"r.ional Agreem'd t 7'he Parcies contemplate fiature .joint planning agreement.s chal• may
relate ta the affected area or otller portians of Spokane County a.nd/or the Cittyi 1"own of
- \TOttung in t.his agrccrnent is intcndecl to prohibit the dcveloprnent of future
agi-cemcnts r.el7l-113g to eit,tiec tlie impacr.s identi:6ed above or olber impacis tbat niay ilow or iri
the.rurure ex~ist. 9. Kights rc:served: Nothing- in these ageernents is intended to ujaive or lhiiit ihe riglits of the
Parties to reyuire rnit:igation :for any impaet as allowed by iede.ral, state or local lav.-s or
- prdinaiices ine:ludino bi1t not lirnitecl to environmerital impacts ooverned by 43.21 C.OlO ec s°q•
5
IU. Chanae in Stanc3arc3s or Ordinatices: A.ny change in the Pa,rkies stanctards or oxd'uiances
relied upon ul this agreEment, or modi.fied ptusuant to this agreement, shall be fonvardcd Eo the
other pa.rty within _ working days of passage. If tbe Parties cannot agree to the
implementation of such standarcfs wichul 30 days the issuE may be set .for mediatioii by eittier
P"•
11. Mecii~►tion of Disputes: .Any disputes arisuzg ftom this agreeincnt, includirig the failure to a?ree as to new standardfi mldlor applicable ordinajICes as set forth ui paragraph t0 above, -
: ar `'i~Tit}iin 3O C~aS'S 0.~ I10~1f1CiltlOil O~ 8
. may beset for mcdiaxion (mutually or by erthei p ty~
. ,
dispute. Prio.x to rnediataon, ihe Parkies, represente ~Xb°kh;,_clecteci oftlcials, s.Llall tirst meet
inforrnall5 T in a.u atternPt to reaeh resolution (ela; n infornza~.: eess).
~
l.'?. X►idemnification and aJiabIIIty.
. ry
a. .Spokane Coimty sha.ll pf`Qt~~~~ve hss, indennufy and defend, at its otivn
expense, (CityClotivn), its el6 ted~c~ oi ted officials, officers, employees ajitl
. agentsJ from a~, = uss",; claii;;i`r da.mabes of aiiy nature ,vliatsoever arising o«x ofi
`t .
Spokaile C-~iinty's pe ~1~Tin~nce~• this agreerrienC, inch~cling clauns by the Spokane
~ .
, County empJo~,: s='rt;kvey ies, excepc for those damaycs caused solely by the
~ -
nc~1~~~;enee~r~=.~v,illtil~ nisconduct of (City/To~vn), its elected and appointed of.ficials, ,
ers, e.mploy~s, ogents. '
b. (Cit~sl ,l~protect, save harmless, indenuiify and defcncl, at its own expeilse:;
Spokane~<~ ty ts elccted and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents;
&orri any Ioss oz claim fcar damages of any natzare whacsoever arising out of
' (City'slTovvn's) perfox-ma1ce of this agreeinent, including claiins by tt7e
. (City/Ta,~vu) employee's ar third parties, except for those damages caused solely by
• the negIigence er willfu] misconduct of 5pokane County, its elected and appointed
officials, officers, emplo}°zes, or agents.
c. ra the event of liability for damages of any nattirc ~vhatsoev€r 'arising oufi of the
performance of ihis Agreemeilt by Spo?cane County and (City/Town), including
c;1aiins by Spokane Cotinty's or (CiEy's/1"own's) oNvn o.fficers, offici~ls; cmployees,
6
i
~l a.geiits, volunteers, or thirci,parties, caused by nr resulting frorn ihc _concurrenc
;
negligerice of Spokane Couraty and (City/Tawn), each .l'a.rties liahility hereuiader
shall only be to the eYtent of that par.ty's neglioence.
d. iNo liabili.ty shail be attacned to Spokane County or (City/7"own) by reason of
cntering uiio this agreement except as exprESSIy pY•ovided herein.
13. Severabiiity: If any provision of this 'agreemcnt or its 'appIicatiori to 'any pezson or
circunstancc is held uiva.lid, the remainder of the provisions aiid/or the application_ nf tj1e
prowisions ta other pei•sons or circumsta.nces shall not be aiTectccl. ln such case ttie pa.c-ties
®R'leemed a~m-ee to nieeC ancl amend this agreement as ma}~ be muhatzlneeessary.
14. Entirc Agrecmcnt: This agreernent constitutcs,/62
entire agz-'r.ient between'thc I'ariies with
respecr to ideniiE~ed prpper[y. This agri.~`~i'~t n~~ be aiiien`ed in ~,~~riting by rnutual
,
. a~,reement of the :~ai-ties h
.
15. I)esignaicd itepresenfa[-ive. The ParEt;s a13t ~pSiliOn) Shall be the
~ . ~.I~
c~esign :ited represer►tative r~ ;~ltid`(.,iy~.~;~a toi• coordination oF Lhis agreenaent artcl for rt;ceiPt
of any cOmmunic<<tio S~ related t}us a~lement a.nd (pasition) sliall be the
designated representativc c►,t~ t~e%Coir .
• •~S r, '
16. .I~ f.fective T)a i, and .T)ura li'iin. 1"his ~igreement sfiall becotzie e:ffective foll~~viri~; [Yie approval
o:~ the aeemen'
gr t t~. che of(~~"-1al• go-crcrning bodies of each of the :Parties hereLo ancl [he signing
o.f the agreement by'Y i' 1}° auihorizeci represcntative of each of the Parties hereto, and shall
Ct,il"131R ttl EffGCt ll[]lGSS teTI11ll28feCj.
QPIIORtS
17 Qnnexations. Tlie Parties tivish to separnte, without prejrrclice io eitl-ier Parry, the issue of
poteY1tia1 arinexations CIP3CI PI7e IB,~al utiihority and ri4lit to pursue vr oppose sarclz aMne.rations
fi-otn tlris agreerrrerlt ancl the exectrtiort of the .S'awe, Providedd, in the irrtei'est of ei1SEll'iPFg,
. coordrnaiion betrveen com7ytu)11IIE's anrl jau-isdictions to i•ecorlcile conjlicts, the City17o1vn
7
agrees to formcrlly consEdlt tivith the CouPity praor to inifiating any annexatians of
unincarpora[etf [rrecr; '
18. Terrnination. Fither• Purty mcry terminate its obligation uncler tliis agreemertt upon 90 days
advance writteji notice to u're other party. .Following a ternrirrution, the caunty anr! Cify crre
responsible for fulftllino nny outsfundirig obligatipns under this agreernent, or amendrrrent
. tliereto, itrcurred prior- tv tlre effective date of fhe lermincrtion.
: .
.
. . r,`, ':i; .
.a
~ 4'•
.i'
} K• .
.,G•,•
" S
J
~ .
iyi. . • i .
. I
.
8
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
.
Meeting Date: July 18, 2006 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public 1iearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
i AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Zoning Presentation - 3.5 - UR 7" Situations and Options
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Ordinance 05-403; Ordinance 06-011 Crossover Matrix; SCC
14.402.100, 14.616, 14.618; Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Chapter Two Land Use,
Section 2.5 Land Use Desi4nations; Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Chapter 10
Neighborhoods; Phase 1 Development Regulations.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The city c4uncil passed Ordinance 05 -003 in
February of 2005. This ordinance rezoned property located north of Mission Avenue, south and
east of the Spokane River and west of Barker road from UR-7 to UR-3.5. In part the ordinance
stafed:
5. The Interim Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan designates the areas as Low
Density Residential. The phase I Development Regulations specifies both UR 3.5
and UR-7" as implementing zones. The Phase 1 repulations do not provide anv
criteria fo help determine which Low Density Residential areas should be zoned
UR-3.5 or UR-7'.
6. Significant testimony in support of the proposed rezone was expressed at the
hearing. Testimony included concerns about the adequacy of roads, parks,
schools and environmental impacts. Lowering the allowed density will lessen the
potential impacts from new development.
7. Property owners may request a site specific rezone back to UR-7* via the
Hearing Examiner process.
8. The zone change will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety
and welfare.
In April of 2006 the ci#y council passed the new comprehensive plan. The pertinent portion of
this plan s4ates as follows:
Land Use Chapter, Section 2.5
The low density Residential (LOR) Comprehensive-Plan designation addresses a
range of single family residential densities from one dwelling unit per acre up to
and including six dwelling units per acre. This designation would be implemented
through a series of ongoing designations as described below.
Implementing zones for the LDR designation will include a series of zones
allowing a range of minimum lot sizes. Exisfinq /ot sizes and communitv
character will be sfronqlv considered when developinq the citv's zoninq man. For
example, areas such as Rotchford Acres and Ponderosa will likely require
minimum lot sizes close to an acre in size. These large lot developments
currently allow for horses and other large animals and have distinct character that
should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. The maioritv of the LDR
desiqnation wilJ provide for densifies ranqinq from four to six dwellinq units per
acre. Tvpical /ot sizes will ranqe from 7,000 io 10,000 square feet...Upon provision ,
of urban services such as water and sewer. and transit services, an increase in
densitv in some areas may be warranted. However, the Citv will adopt strict
crrteria to evaluafe zone chanqes fo ensure that future development is compatible
with the surroundinq neiqhborhood.
See also the Neighborhood Chapter, goal NG-2, policy NP 2.5
Allow zone chanqes with the Low density Residential cafeqorv onlv when specific
criteria are met. Criteria mav include:
- Substantial chanqes within zone chanqe areas
- Clear mapping errors.
- Adequate facilities and services ( e.g. sewer, water capacity)
- Consisfencv with densities in the vicinity of the zone chanqe.
BACKGROUND: ln reviewing zone changes the Hearing Examiner currently applies SCC
14.402.020 which states as follows:
The county may amend this Code when it finds that any of the following applies:
Such amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and .
is not detrimental to the public welfare. 2. Change in economic, technological, or land use conditions has ~
occurred to warrant modification of this Code. (This provision has
been found by Washington courts to be satisfied if the application is
consistent with the comprehensive plan.)
The Hearing Examiner has considered 1 request for a zone change from 3.5 to 7.0 since
• the time fhe zoning designation was changed in February of 2005 vdhich was also filed prior to
the effective date of our new comprehensive plan. That zone change was approved in part due
to the lack of direction contained in the adopted. Spokane County comprehensive plans and
development ordinances. That decision is attached. Future requests for zoning amendments in
the Greenacres area will be required to cornply with the new language set forth above that is
contained in our new comprehensive plan. Such requests may or may not be approved
depending upon the facts presented in each case.
The Staff is currently in the process of developing regulations to implement our new
comprehensive plan and provide a specific basis for selecting between densities in the low
density residential category. These new development provisions should be considered by the
planning commission -in the near future.
OPTIONS: Review and provide direction.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NA •
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Connelly, Marina Sukup
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance 05-003;
2. Ordinance 06-011
3. Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Chapter Two Land Use, section 2.5;
4. Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Chapter 10 Neighborhoods, policy NP 25;
5. SCC Section 14.402.020
6. Hearing Examiner Decision
" ( (
C1TY OF SPQK1s\E VAI_.'LFY
- ' S.1'OK,I\`E COUN'1:`Y, «'ASIi[i\`GTQN
O'Rl)L1TAiNCE N(). 05-003
AiN ORDINA.\zCE OF THT CI1'Y OF SPOK1\.a VALLEY, SPOKAiNE COUNTY WASI-IT\'G7'ON,
A_1VtT'\jD1NG THF .1\jTERli\1 ZONING MAP OF TEE CITY FUTZ PROPER'I'Y LOCATED T°ORTFT
OF MTSSIO\z AVC\fUE, SOUTi-i AND EAS1' OF THL SPOIi.ANF RNEK E1,\rU NVTST Ol' BARK.FR
ftOATa FROt'v1 Uft-7"` TO UR-3.5, A\iD PRUVLL7:1~1G T'OR OT.E3ER NZA'C"T'E1tS P.R.OPERi,Y
R.T'.LA"1"E17 THFRrTO.
11rHFRF.AS, the City of Spokane Valley; incorporated on March 31, 2003 ancl adopted Laud Use
plans ancl regulations as set forth below:
(1) Comprehensive Plan; Capital Facilities Ylan, and Maps as the
Int4rim Comprehensive Plan of tie City through prdinance No. 52;
(2) The Spoka.ne Counri, %oning Cocle as supplementcd and amended
by tlie Phasc I. Development R.cbulations as the Interim Development
Ke;ulations of the Cicy th.mugh Qrdinance No. 53; and
(3) Thc Spokane Cnunty 7otling A9aps as the Tnterim Goning INiaps of
the City [hraugh Ordinance NTa 54;
\1r1-LEREAS, the Interun Spokane Valley Loning Code includes a proc,ess where property owners
rnay initiate an areawide rezone by petition;
~AWR.EIAS, at least 5 l.% of property owners wichin the subject area must sign the petition 'to
initiate the rezone;
WT-1TREAS; on July 1., 2004, the City of Spokane Va1lEy received a sufficicnt Uetition to initiate
an arcativide. rezove for clie north Greenacres neighborhood;
W[CER-Er`1S, consistent NviCh t:hc Washington SCa[c Growth Management Act (GVtA), Spokitne
WUey adopted Public Participation Guidelines ta direct the publie involvement proccss f.or adopting a.nd '
amending cocnprehen5ive plans anci developmeiit regulations;
\NMEREAS, following the application to che Ciry; staff eonciucted an environmendal revicw io
determine the pote.ntial enviroti mental impacts from proposed -r,one change;
1VEERF;AS; after reviewing the Environmental Cliec;klist submitted by Ehe Applicant, staff issued
a]7etertnination of Nonsianificanee (17NS) for t11e proposal, publishecl the DNS in the Va!]e}~ NeNvs
Herald; postc(l the D\zS nn chc site and niailetl t}ie• D\'S to all affected puUlic agencies;
WELT;REAS, the Planning Commission (Commission) conducted a briefin; on fltigust 12, 2004;
to rzview the proposet{ rezone;
WHTR.F aS, notice of the Corr►rnission public hearing Nvas publishetl in the Valley News He•rald
at [east 14 days prior to the hearing;
t7rdinp-ncc 05-003; Greenacres Area-wide Ftczanc REZ-17-04 Psec 1 of 4
• r" i"
\'THE12.EAS, nqtice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners tivitliui 400 feet
of the subjecr property;
W'HEfZEAS; notice of the hearing was posted on the subjc•ct property;
WMERCaS, the Comrnission reccive.d evidencc, inforrnation and a siaff recommendation at a
public hearing on September 23, 2004;
WI-IERErkS, the Commission continued deliberations to October 14; 2004, requesting that staff
prepare a map showing vested developments and propert.ies of inclividuals rec{uesting to be e:celu(ted fTnm
the rezone;
XVHEREAS, on OcCOber 14, 2004; afcer considering the entire rec;ord, the Commission voted 3-3
on a motion to recommend approval of the requested area-,vide rczone;
W~HER,EAS, on November 18, 2004, the Comm.ission reconsidcred the motion to a.pprove the
au-eawide rezone and <<oted 4-3 to recommend approval of die rezone request for the peQperty de,picted in
Attschment A;
WHFREAS, Couneil reviewed the request at their \iovember 30, 2004 meeting and requested
that staff prepare information specific to the status of certain development projects in the area, specifie.ally
requesting informcttion on roads and sewer; and .
%TMK,AS; on 17ecember 14, 2004, Councit reviewed information provided by stafif, considered
the first ordinanc;e reading, imd tabled a motion to approve the rezone; and
WF-TFR.rA.S, on December 21, 2004, Cnuncil remanded the rezone bac;k to the Commission for
dheir written findings of fact and recommendation; ancl
'WHFRrAS, on January 13, 2005, the Commission approvecl Nvritten fmdings of fact, setting fortli
iheir basis for reconunending approval of the propased amendment; and
NOW, THER,EFQRF, the City Coiancil of the City of Spokane Valley do ordaici as follocvs:
Section l. Purnose. The purpose of this Ordinaice is to amend the uiterim Zoning Msl)
adopted du•ough drdinance No. 54 in order to permit the pr4perty describeci herein t:o be uscd in a matter
consistent -with the saine.
Seclinn 2. :Hindinzs. °lhe City Council acl:nowledges tllat the Conimission conducted
appropriate investigation and study, held a public hea'ina on the Application, and recommends approval
of the amer►dmec►t to the Zoning Map set forth in this Ordinance. 'lhe City Council hereby adopts thc
firidings of the Commission, speciFcally that:
l. Spokane Valley conductecl an appropriace envirmmTientiil review itnd tlll SEl'f1 requirements wei-e
mct.
2. Spokanc Valley f'ollowetl it5 Publie Participation Guidelines in processing the propased re•wne,
inclucling adeytiate pi!blic natice of the Commission hearing.
3. The goals arid policies of the Interim Spakane Valley Comprehensive Plan were considered and the
proposed rezone is consistent with the Iliterim Comprehensive Plan.
4. Thc proposed UZt-3.5 zone is eonsistent Nvith surrounding zoning, particularly South of 3\4ission
Avenue. ~Ordinarice 05-003; Greenacres .Area-svide Rezone REZ-17-04 Page 2 of 4
. . { ~
5. ThQ Interi.in 5pakane Va11ey Comprelyensive Plaii dasi&mates the area as Low Dewsity ResirEentia!_
Tlie 1'li:tse 1. Developmcnt reg-alx[ioiis sp ecifies bodi LJR-3 .S ai3d UR-7'" as iiiipI emen[in g zanes, T'hc
.Phase 1 Regtilatroiis dv n.ot provide ttny criteria to hcll) deteria3nc w111CL1 L01'1 De3]SIC}` RC51dei1T]a1
a.i-em should be zoaed UTZ-3,5 or U.R:-7*-
6. SigmiFcant testimony in sLipport of tlie proposed eezone ~va-9' expresscd a# the hep-rings_ Testiinoiiy
itycluaed concErn abotit f]7c ELdequac}' of roflds, parks, sc17ool5 ~ind envuonmcrytal irnpaas. Lowering
chc alloj~red deasiry wEl3 1essea the potenti~il impacts from new development.
7_ FroperL}' owne,rs may request a siEc; SpecEfi c rezone back ta 'UR-71` via tlie RearEng E?s.amio er proces s.
8. -ni e zone r- hmige w i11 not ad versely afFect the pub1ic°s ~cpyeral he~►lth, ~afety and ,~~e.lfare,
SCCtlOn 3. YrOUCCtV- Tjle~ p]`O[]el't}+ which is qubiect io this Ordinnace IS deSCfikd oIl flle
c1tCc1C1lC.(j tkttaC.llII1CIlt rrA".
Seccion 4. Arca wide Re%onc. Pursuant 1;0 Cliapter 14_402 of the I~~~erEm Spokane Vallay
Loning Code, as adopfizd tl7rough Ordinance Nso. 53, Me City of Spokane Vzillc}' interim Zaniitg Ndap is
liereby amended as set forth oii the am+checl !tttsclxruent "A", "fhe. rezone iE gen-arally descr36cc1 as
follows: REL-17Y04
J ocatia«: '1`liat zi rca loca#ed aor[!i of iNtission Avenue; soui;h and east of che Spokane lhiver and west of
Iiarker Roxcl, CUi'1'elii[y -r_.oncd UR-7~,
L7ecision - Chat7gc, propcrty sliown ou Attachmcnl' "A" from U1R-71` #o Uk-3,5
Seccioii 5. Adootion ofi0ther E.avvs. To the e,xtent i:hat any provi~ion oftlye Spok~4170
,lljafl4I1 CC1t.YEn Ced il3 thC aTf8Ched ZOn111~ 14'Iap(3) iS itiecessary
C;oLint}' Code, Ol" c'llly OTbBI' Ic7lv# IU1e Or I'eg
or convanient to is1i the va[idity, eiiforc~,ability or EnUer-prctation of (itc Zoning Alap(s), tlten such
prov ision of i1i e Spokaii e County Cade; or o[her law, i-u le or re,-,uI atian is bereby adopbccl b}+ reference_
Sccl:iun 6. Mao - Conies oa T'ilc-Administr~ttive Action. The ComprebensiVe Plan ~urirh
Mi1p5) fil]{I 7-f111111gMa.p(s) are mainta incd i n the offic;e of tli e C ity C lcrk as well as tli e City DepFirtmen# of
Cqmn7lEnity Devcjopment. The City N1anagcr or designcc, following adoption of this Ordin~lncc, is
atithorizcd to 3i7odil'y (17o Compreliensive Plan MHp a,)d tlie Lonimg -Map En ~t manner consisncnf witli #his
Ord in ance.
SCr,lion 7_ L]abiIi1:,& T11e e,xpress inten# of the City of Spokaiie Valley is that lhe
responsNiity far compliance with t[ic 43rovisions of#his ordinaaice shal] rest 3vii.L1 the pennit applicant aud
th6Lr agents. 'ITLis ordiiiance and its provisioEls are adop[ed widi the expr~,-ss intent [o pi'otect Ylie 11c~i1t17,
safety, and welfare o;f Clie 4cneral ptMblic and ELre not intei7ded to protect any parUular class of individuals
{]F o1`g8111zatlORS.
sk:ciioll S. ScverabiliEv. Tf aiyy sectian, sentence. cl~i u5e nr pluase of this ordinanoc sh all b e
held zn be inva]id or Llfl{:OliStiflltlOllc71 b}' a court of coi33petent jurisdictEan; stieh ittivalidii}' or
unconstitutto1i aliLy slta ll not affect ttjc validify or con sti tutionality of aiyy other sectto n, sentence, clause or
pl7rase of this ordinan ce.
Sccfiog 9. Effective.bate. This Ordinance shall be in fktfl for~e and elFect five (5) days -a,fter
tlie date of publication oI' this 0 rdinaace or a sLtmmzi ry the reof in the oft-1 cial newspap e-r of che C ity-
f..
,
Ord'utancc0l-003' Cireevzr-rv5 A.rea-wide Rc:= nef2.EZ-17-Q4 Pagc 3 oF4
J~
P.qSSED by the City Council this 25' day of January, 20W
tilayor, Diana Willlite
a ~
City Clerk, Christine C3ainbridge
Ap ove~i A ~
l
Deputy CUy Attorney, Driskeli ~
Date of Publica.tion:
r ffec.tivc T)ate:
/
Ordinajice 05-003; Green•^_a•e,S Area-wide R.eZOne RF;,7-17-04 Yagc 4 of 4
;
Vicinity Map
4 ! w
C
c~ r I k ~ I~ ~ ' J~
.f ~ F ~ y' ~f L
,~c~ ~!.'~id ~ - •..1~ ~ . 1
7" r`a ~ I . . -
Slte: .
. I ol
..01 j ~ '
r'.
f ' ~ . II , , . . , ~ ~ I •,!c%X i~ -
. ~
~ -
. . . . . ~ . _ ~ 1~
~ . Q~.. .
J~.~. . . - -
~J ( , t : _ ' . • U
. ~ ~ ~ _'~'.:31dt1
gO
` . ~ . ,r - . ~ " ~ ~3 OF 1 • I.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~dt1S`
_ ~-1-' ' ' ~ y _ ` ' I ' ~
~ E3ao~cSvra~ N . T
T
. _ L~~ 'i.r i r
, . ''L= ~ l:v ,•~r- ,
- _z . . ~ ~ --a U!d;~l.
I* 'A
_ - Ti
. _ . . : . i. ~ : : . . : j
' N
~ Greena.cres Areawide Rezone .
~ August, 2004 ~ ON1
4lley
~ . . ~
RE'L-17-04 Attachment `A'
SPpK4:YR VALLF,Y PLA.,Nt`'LNC`., CONli11TS'STQN
SFO¢kalle Fr.tvnINGS 0:r FAcT
;oo$Valley CRI:LN A(rR.FSAREA\V[DELLFIptN'[:
Rk'•7r.17_04
"~N`HFRLAS, the City of Spokane Va11ey, i,ncorporaied on iMarch 31., 2003 and
adopteti Land Use plans and regulations as set fortEi below:
(1) ComprEhensive Flan, Capital Facilities Plaa, and
Maps as the intezi.m Conlpr.ehensive Plan of the City
tltrough Orcii.nancE r1o. 52; (2) The Spokaiie County 7oninb Codc as supplemented
dnd ac.uended by the Phase I Development 1Kegulations as
the Interini Development kegulations of the City through
Ordinancc No. 53; and
(3) The Spakanc County Zoning ulaps as itie Tnterun
Zon.i.ng Maps oi.' Lbe City througll Ordinance Na. 54;
WHL:R.F_.AS, the Interirn Spol:aue Valley Gotuw.ig Code includes a process -%vbere .
properiy owners rnay i.nitiate an areavOde rczone by petitaon;
WET.FREAS, at ]east 5 1% of property oxNruers NNrithi.u the subjeci: area musr sien the
petitian to iuitiate the rezone;
, WIIEREAS; on J'u1y l, 2004, the City of SpUkane VaIley received a suff.icient
petition ta initiate an are:awide rezone for the norrh G-reenacres neighborhood.;
«rFEREAS, cqnsistent NNith di.e Washington Scate Growth Managc.ment Act
(Gj\,lA), SPokane Valley adoptEtl Fublic Parlicipation Gui.delines to dirc;ct tlle publie
involvement process :Cor adopti.ng and aanenduig compreheiisivi plaus a.nd cteve]opmEnt
regulahons; .
WIIFRE'_AS, fo[lowinu the application to the Ciry; st4f.~' couducted an
environmental review to defermine the pofential cnvironmental impacts from proposed
zone change; `VH.EREA:S, af3er revietiving the Lnvi.ronmental Checlclist suhuukred by the
Applicant, seaff isstied a Deterno.ination of Nonsi~.mifiicance (DNS) for the proposal,
published the 17NTS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS on the site anci mailed the
. Ja-NS to ai]. df,-~ccted public agencies;
WHE12:LAS, the Plann.i.ng Convm.ission condueted a bricfing on F1ugust 12; 2004,
to review the proposvd reco7e; F'1anning Com,mission. Fi,ndi;igs
Greenacres tareaNvide Rezo»e Fa,e 1 of 3
~
WAEREA:S, notice of the Planni,n; Coruini.ssion public heari.ng was publisheci iu
the Valley Ne`vs Hc:ruld at least 14 days prior to the ]iearing;
ZYHER13AS, not;ice of the 7'lannin.g Commission bearing was nlailed to 311
propcrty otvners Within 400 feet of the subject properiy;
NVHER_F.AS, nofice of the hearing was posted on the subject properiy;
«''HEREf1.S, the P]anning Corrlmi_ssion rece.ived evidetlc.e, inforuiatioti and a siaff
;ecoEUniendaiion at a ptiblic hearia.ig on Septcmber. 23, 2004;
NVI-1LRF-4:S, the Commission continued deliberatious to October 14. 2004,
requesling thai staff przpare a map showing vested devel.opments a.nd properties of
iltdividual.s requesting to be excludeci from the rezone;
NVHLRE-AS, an Qcloher 14, 2004, aficr COll51CIenng the entire recard, the
F'lan.ning Commission voted 3-3 an a motiou to recomcnend approval of the requesied
areawidE rezone;
ArH.EREA5; on i\Tovember 1S, 2004, the Plann.iilg Couirrtission reconsidered tlie
rnotion to apprr,ve the areatitiide reione and voted 4-3 to recaiiamenci approval of the
rezone request ~or the praperi), clepicteci i,n Flttachtitent A;
\TOW; 1'HLI2EFORE, Lhe Plaiusi.ng Conim,ission makes the followiug:
FlYl:)TNGS (aF FA(:"C 11N7a CONC.LLjSTQ\iS
1. Couunun.iiy Development staff conciucted an appropriate environ.mental review a.ud
all SLFA requirements were met.
2. Spokane VaI.Jey followed ics Public Participakian Cuideliries in proces5i.n.; the
proposed rzzone, includiug adequate publie notice of the Plwn.i.ng Com.cn.ission
hea.rin.g.
3. l.be Comn-tission eonsidered tbe goais anci policie.s of the Iate.dm Spokane 'Va.llcy
Coinprebensive Plari and the proposed rezoiie is consisient «ith the Interi.m
Compreliensive Plan.
4. 'fhe proposed iJR-15 zone is consistent w-itli su,rrounding zoning, pareicularly south
af ARission Avenue. '
5. Thc lnterim Spokane Valley Cotuprehensive Plati de5ipates the area as T1ow laensity
Resideiieial. Tbc Phase 1 Develqpmcnt regulatians specifies bot:h U-R.-3.5 and UR-7*
; as implementing, zones. 'I`he Phase I R.e;ulations do not pzavidc any criteria to helP
- deternzi.r~e ~~'v.ich Lo1~~ I~eiisiry Residential areas should be zoned UR-3.5 or UlZ-7*.
Flasw.i.n ; Cam_cr~issioiz PuzairiDs
CrE.GnaCre5 At'ea«~ide Rezone PagE 2 of 3
( d
6. Tbe Comm.ission hearct significane teStii2loDy in slipPort of the propflseci rezone.
Tcstumonv i.ncltaded concern about the adequacy of roads, parks, schools aucl
envi.roiunenial ianpacts. Loweiing the allpwcd density «q'll lessen the potential
impacts f.Tom new de.velopment.
7. Properiy ov«ers may request a site specific rerAnc back to iJIZ-7"' via t.t»e Heaiiu~
Exacniaer process.
8. The zone cliange -,vill noe adversely affecr the publ.ic's gePZral health, safcfy and weLfare.
RECOi~IA'.f_EN1llATTON Tiased an thc staterl Findings and Conclusions, the Plaiuii.ng Couniission recornmends
approval of the rezone from IJR.-7* to UR.-3.5 for the property depicted i.n Flttachment A.
David Crosby, Chair natE
. Spokanc Valley PlaLwing Cotnruission
Planning Commission Filzd'Lngs
G-reenacres ~~.r.reaw-ide Rezone Page 3 of 3
~^t
CT"t'Y O.k' SNO.hAl\':F; VALL.EY
S:I.'O:K,r1.NL COUT'17', WASECINCTO\
~ QRDl,1`A\TCE \Tn. 06-01.1
AN Ok2UlNA-RTCL ()F 'lllE CCCY OF SPOKAIN.E VAT,T,,FX, SPOK.-k\`E COLl1i1'Y,
R'AST3.T.NGT0N, A1~!CE'\D.11'G S:POKAN:t; V_ALLEY NTUN1CIFaL CQDF (SV11'.TC) 10.30.060 BY
1tEPLALINC A SECTION pF TITI?~ P.T_iASF 1])}~:.VF.LOY11!LENI fZEGULATI(7\S
SPEC:LY:[CA:GLY SECTION C, I2EVI5[ON T'Q Zp\ING I1f..AP DT.STGNATiONS, Ti\TC:f1Ul:):ING
URI3rtN RESIDCN'I'TAL CA'rrGpRr.N;S MA'I":R11X, _CJl'2BAN COi1'BIERCLaC.JL\llUSTI2IAL
CA'I71;GOI~LL"S -TN9A1'1:2LX,RUR.1L CA'CEGORCES MATRT,Y, R,FSOURCF,.T.,NND CAT.F,G()RTF?S
1'U1I'12IY fIND SECTION iI 7•Q1\'F~ kFCT.,ASST_FfC:r1.`'lUi\T AC'Yl~l'CA'l10\`S, Al~''ll r~OI'Tli~IG
T:Ff_F, 2006 C0111_Y:E2CLLEi\TSIVE YLA\ i117PL•L1IENTr1T'IQN 117ATR.TX TO R.F,FT.,ACF '['FfF:
ABp`'E T,DFN'TT.FTFT) REP:F Af.,E;l') SECTION UF THF: PL-LASE 1 DEVELQPML\' I`
1`tEG ULAT10\°S; AND A-,NYL\DL1'G SECTION 1.4.416.000,NTUM13 H12 O p, US:t± S YETZ :LO T.
1YEiE12LAS, the Cit}• of Spokaiie Vallcy has amendetl SVMC 1030.010 hy repealing the interim comprehensive plan and adopting the City of Spokacic Vallcy Comprehensive Plan; and
W11E12EAS, the City of Spokane Va[]cy is in the pracess of amending its existing development
regulations to be consistent with t11e newly adapted comprehensivc Islan; ajic1
NN'.H -C.f2EAS, the Grovvth NIanageme.nt flct ( R.CW 35.70C et seq.) requires that lancl use applications be
consistent wiili the newly adoptecl comprehensive plan; and
\V13TREAS; clarification is nceded io identify which existing zoning c(assifications are consistent with
which newly addpted comprehensive plan designations; and
- \1rtlEliEAS, some minor changes to exisking -r.oninn eo(ie classifc~~tions and regulations are nece.ssary to
ensure fiufl compliznec with ihe newly adopted comprehensive plan
\'O«', TfT.F.RTFOF.2_H , t.he City of Spokane Vallev hereby ard,3ins as follows:
Section 1.. SVNiC 1030.060 is herby amended by re.pealinb t:hat porlion oF the I'hase 1 De<<elopment ,
Kegulations specit~call), ideiitified as Section f, revisions to mning map designations, including urban
resiciential Ca.CEcbr1e5 matrix; urban commerciaUinduslrial cafegbries matrix, nural categories matrix,
resource Iand catecories matrix and section II zone reclassification applications said provisions at[ached
hereto and by this refe-rence incqrporatcd herein. Secciun 2. SVMC 10.30.060 is herbp further amended by replacing the aforementioncd repealed
provisions by the atloption of the following:
Seciio» Qnc:
Tlte purpose of the followuig matrix is 1:o apply current zoning regulations in a manner which wiil be
cansistent with the .2006 C'omprehensive Plan. Tlie current zoning regulations, with minqr
adjustments, .vill remzin in effect untif the acloptian of the City of Spokane Vallcy Development
Code irnplemenEing the 2006 Cornfirehensive F'lan.
Sect.ion T~vo:
\Tothing in this matrix shaIJ eliminate or affect die enforceability oF conditions of approval or other
special reyuirements of prior zoning amendments or land tisc permits.
i
- Section Three:
The provisions oFthis crossover matri,c shall not app(y to any application deemed vested prior to the
datc of aclopt:ion of this ordinance.
Ordinancr 06-0] 1 Crossover N4atrix Pagc 1 of 3
~
Section Four:
A.pplication for amendmen~~ to wning classifications, plaiined unit 'developments, variances, '
condijional use permits or special permits allowed by speciFc; zoning eate;ories shall be deemed it) -
c;nmplianee with the comprehensive plan if the requested or relied upon zoiiing classification is
consistent with dic: listed cqmprehensive plan designation.
Section Fivc:
Application for development permits other than those se[ forth in Section Four above shal] be
granted if the requested use is consistent with the current zoning classifications and all nther
applicable regulations whether or not they are cnnsistent with the listed comprehensivc plan category
set fart:h in the matriY or the 2006 Comprehensivc Pan viap.
Sectian Six: Comprehensive Plan Implementation matrix
Comprelicnsi-vc Plan Implementation NTatrix
Comp,Plan Catcr,ory 1 Implementins! Gones
T_ow Jaensity Re;iclential Urban Rcsidential-3.5 (LTR-3.5)
Urban Residentia!-7* (UK-7*)
~ Medium 17ensity 12esideniiat Urban Resiclential-7 (UIZ-7)
~ iJrban Residential-12 (UR-l2)
High Density Reside.ntial ' iJrban Resideniial-22 ([JR-22)
~
_
Office Urban Residential 12 (UR-12)
(Limit to off ce uses only)
iJrban Residential 22 (UR-22)
~ ~Limit to offce uses only~
A~ixed Use* ~ Urt;an R.csidential-12 (LTTZ _ 12)
Urban Residential-22 (CFlt-22)
Neighborhood 13usiness (E3-1)
Community Business (B-2)
Light I.ndustrial Q-2)
Corriclor Miied Use* Urban Rcsiclentiat-12'(i1R-12) ~
Urban Residential-22 (l,iR-22)
- Ne.ighborhood J3usi.ness (1-3- I )
CommuniCy 13usiness (13-2)
Lig1it Industrial (I-2)
\'eighborhood Commercial Neighborhood.13usiness (T3- I )
.
Community Commercial ~ Community 13usiness (B-2) ~
.W
Regional Commercia) g
Re ional Business (I3_3) ~
L•ight [ndustrial T ight Jnclustrial (I-2)
. . . . . . _ _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I4eaw lndustrial Hc<ivry Inclustrial (I-3)
_
PubliclQuasi Public Unde.rlying %ones Retnain Unchanged
Qrdinancr. 045-01 I Crossovice Ivlatrix Page 2 of 3
~ F'rovisions of Chapter 14.416 -Number of Uses Per Loc does not apply to properties within these
/r 'Comprehensive Plan designations.
Secrinn 3. SVMC 10.30.060 is further amendeti by the Eoflowing amendment of the adopted zonino code '
Section 14.416.000 as foliows: 14.416.000 ~~Ttimbe.r of Uses Per:f..c►t
There sha(l be no more than one (1) residential dwelling unit per buildable ]Qt unless specifically
pennittcd by the 2one. Thei-e shall be np more than one (1) primary use per buildable {ot unless
specifically perniittecl -by the zone excep[ as exempt.ed in the Comprehensive 1'lan Implementation \-lairix.
Arimary• uses shall be definect as ille fCllowing: l . Kesidcritial use; -
2. Businesslcommercial use; '
3. Industriallmanufacturing use;
4. Public anc! semi-public use; and
5. Miriing.
All other uses shall be considcred set.ondary to these primary uses and Nvill be aflowed unless the
zone pxohibits tliern.
Section 4. Severahilitv, LE any section, sentence, clause nr phrase of fhis Ordinance should be held to
be invalid or uneonstitutional by a court of competent jurisdictioii, such invalidiry or unconstitucionalify shall
not affect the validity ar constitutionalify of ~any other section, se.ntenee, ciause or phrase of this Ondinance.
Section 5. Effective Date. T'liis Ordinance sha11 be ui fiill f~i-ce antl effe.ct fve (a) days aftur
publication of che Ordinanec; or a silmmary thereof, occurs in khe official ne.lvspaper of'the City as provided
by law. •
PASSE17 by the City Council this 2S6 day of April ; 2006.
1.~..1
Mayor, Diana Wilhicc
A
CiiCler}:; Christ.irze f3ainriclge 1 tlpproved as to Form:
_
C-Ae
~ il~e City Rom~ - .
Diftc of 1'ublicatioii: .g - :5 Effe.rtive Dat.e: /1) - 6,7)
T(G,
Orclinance 06-01 l Crossowcr NIatrix Page 3 af 3
Planning Commission Recommended Comprehensive Plan
2.5 Land Use Desiqnations
The land use designations in the SVCP recognize the relationships between broad
pattems of land uses. The designations set forth locational criteria for each specific
class of uses consistent with the long-term objectives of the SVCP. These designations
provide the purpose and intent for specific zoning districts. The location of
comprehensive plan land use designations are shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map (Map 2.1).
2.5.1 Residential
The demand for and development of single-family housing is expected to continus for
the foreseeable future. Single-family development will occur as in-fill development of
vacant or under developed lots scattered throughout existing neighborhoods and as
subdivisions on vacant tracts of land. To address future housing_needs, the Land Use
chapter encourages new techniques for developing single=falnily housing. Such
techniques include clustering, planned unit-developments, lot size averaging, zero lot
line development, accessory dwelling units and special needs housing.
Low Density Residential
The Low Density Residential (LDR)
Comprehensive Plan designation
addresses a range of single family
residential densities from 1 dwelling
unit per acre up to and including
appFex+mate{y~ dwelling units per . ~
acre. This designation would be
implemented through a series of
zoning designations as described
below.
Implementing zoning for the LDR
designation weuldwill include
Re6+d8r~t° l , (o ) --~hiGh--Feta+RB
- ; fiF6t,
4~at-Wef'aspesf#ica1t ~ +l- aU-t~t-s-+R-the-past;
and4a-reta'~ ' . tabJe
at-wefe--plaited
-nrA lets - j.'~. `i' J;+
PendeFesa, t St
~ ° • . .Y, ' 4
AsF6s49Ga -
e€-the-G+ty.a series of zones allowinq =
a ran4e of minimum lot sizes.,
Existino lot sizes and communitu character will be stronalv considered
when develoQinq the Citv's zonina
maq. For examble, areas such as
Rotchford Acres and Ponderosa will
likelv reauire minimum lot sizes ciose
to an acre in size. These larae lot developments currentlv allow for
City of Spokane L'a{ley Con'.prehensive Plan 16 Chapter 2 - Land Use
Planr4n7 Cc)mmiss:cn Rec:~)rnmended Con-rrehen cive Pian
horses and otner larQe animals and have a distinct character that should be oreserved to
' the qreatest extent possible.
The maioritv of the LDR desiQnation n~~~*~Tae^~~dis-tr-ists *h^;a b^ used
willsu4d provide for densities ranging from four to six
dwelling units per acre. Twical lot sizes will ranae from 7,000 to 10.000 souare fee1.
, es
" Some
areas designated as LDR still lack necessary urban seryjpes and infrastructure, mainly
sanitary sewer facilities. Upon provision of urban services, such as water and sewer,
and transit services, an increase in density in some areas may be warranted. However.
the Citv will adoat strict criteria to evaluate Zpne chanQes to ensure that future
develovment is compatible with the surroundinn)i-(04hborhnod.
Medium Density Residential
The Medium Densiry Residenti;31 dcsignation rc:presen;s an oppor;unity to provide a
range of housing types to accommodate anticipated residential growth. The increase in
population, decline in average family size, and increased cost of single-family homes
have created increased demand for new housing types. The Land Use chapter
encourages the development of housing types, such as duplexes, townhouses, and
condominiums in cxisting mul!i-family areas and within rn:xed-uso cj~veln;~rr-.ent in
commercial areas.
Multi-family uses, in larye part, are in areas curreritly LUf18Cj for multip!e-family
development. Zoning will allow densities up to w414-a
ssFFesper. d+f+g defls4y-o€-12 dwelling units per acre w4be-u in
the Medium Density Residential designation. Opportunities for new development vrill
occur through redevelopment and build-out of remaining parcels.
Multi-family residential zones should be used as transitional zoning between higher
intensity land uses such as commercial and office to lower density single family
neighborhoods. Additionally, Medium Densitv Residential e(i areas shou;d ~
be located near services and high capacity transit facilities or transit routcs.
Residential design guidelines that address design and appearance of rr,u~tiple-family
developments should be considered. The primary goal of residential design guidelines is
to develop rniilti:)le-fami,y hOusiny ih,~`. <a` the ~x)mmunity'~ r_.-aracte~ Dnd
appearance.
High Density Residential
This designation provides for existng rnult;-'amily res:d~n;i~+ cJ~~~'clo~inunt :.irvrlupeci at
a density in excess of 12 units per acre. Additionally, High Density Residential (HDR)
designated areas are also located in areas near higher intensity development, such as
City Center. HDR provides housing opportunities for younger, lower income households
in the City who may not yet be able to afford a home of their own. Moreover, this
designation provides housing options for people looking to "downsize" from a single
family dwelling on an individual lot or for those known as "empty-nesters" whose children
have moved out of the household and a large single family home is no longer needed.
Generally, this designation is appropriate for land which is located adjacent to the arterial
; street system served by public transit and is in close proximity to business and
commercial centers.
City of Spokane Valey Con•Yre7ensiv2 Plan 17 Chapter 2- Land Use
~
Planning Commission Recommended Comprehensive Plan
2.5.2 Commercial Designations
Existing commercial areas are auto-oriented and characterized by one-story low ~
intensity development. In the future, tfiese areas will become more intensively
developed and , ' .
pedestrian oriented, and
in some designations,
accommodate housing. ,
Transforming existing .,,S.~•a~•~..,, ~
areas into places where
people want to live, - -
shop, and work require5
changes. Commercial
areas should contain
street furniture, trees,
pedestrian shelters, well
marked crosswalks, and
buildings oriented to and
along the street to
provide interest and
allow easy pedestrian access.
Regional Commercial
The Regional Commercial designation encompasses two major retail areas of the City.
It covers the "strip" retail areas along Sprague Avenue and the large "big box" retail area
found in the Sullivan Road area from Sprague Avenue north to the Interstate 90
interchange and includes the Valley Mall, Fred Meyer, Wal-Mart and others. Regional
Commercial allows a large range of uses. A wide range of development types,
appearance, ages, function, and scale can be found along Sprague Avenue. Older,
single-story developments provide excellent opportunities for redevelopment.
To create retail areas that are aesthetically and functionally attractive, revised
development standards, applied through Regional Commercial zoning and adoption of
Community Design Guidelines, which address design quality, mixed-use, and the
integration of auto, pedestrian, and transit circulation. Site design, modulation, and
setback requirements are also addressed.
Community Commerclal ~
The community commercial ,
classification designates areas
for retail, service and office
establishments intended to
serve several neighborhoods.
. _
Community Commercial areas - -
should not be larger than 15- ~
17 acres in size and should be
located as business clusters
rather than arterial strip
commercial development.
Community Commercial
centers may be designated
through the adoption of the
City cf Spokane Valley Camprehensive Plan 18 Chapter 2- Land Use
F'lan.i .•~c,Go:n n nisS on Cc,r, E;r=-;irf,
~'I
comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan amendments or through sub-area planning.
' Residences in conjunction with business and/or muitifamily developments may be
allowed with performance standards that ensure compatibility.
Neighborhood Commercial
The neighborhood commercial classification designates areas for small-scale ,
neighborhood serving retail and office uses. Neighborhood business areas should not be
larger than 2 acres in size and should be located as business_clusters rather than arterial I
strip commercial development. Neighborhood business centers may be designated
through the adoption of the comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan amendments or
through neighborhood plans.
Auto Mall Overlay
The City of Spokane Valley is home to seiceral major new automobile dealerships.
While these land uses provide a positive _ei~offbmic impact on the community, they can
also have less positive impacts on the aesthetics of the community. Auto dealerships
typically have vast areas of pavement to store new and used vehicles for sale. These
land uses also have unique requirements for landscaping and signage. Unlike many
commercial uses whose stock in trade is contained within a building, it is necessary for
auto dealerships to have their vehicles clearly visible from the street. This makes
traditional street side landscaping (consisting of low yro:%ing. shru!)s and L,ush~~s c.nd
trees) not viable for these uses.
An overlay designation is being suggested rather tnan a zoning ciistrict bPcause ?he
i negative affects on the non-auto dealer uses in thP area will be minimizeci or ciimirated
2.5.3 City Center
The intent of establishing a City Center in Spokane Valley =~~~°~--Y r-~-~
is to create a higher density,
mixed-use designation where
office, retail, government uses,
and residential uses are
concentrated. The City Center
will also be located at one of
the major hubs of the region's
high capacity transit (HCT)
system.
The City Center encourages
higher intensity land uses.
Traditional city centers are
places where diverse office,
retail, and government uses
are concentrated, as well as
cultural and civic facilities,
community services and housing. Nationally, many cities are advocating mixed-use
development in city center core areas for a number of reasons, including:
I
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 19 Chapter 2- Land Use
I
Planning Commission Recommended Comprehensive Plan
• Providing new housing, increasing the range of housing choices, and reducing
dependency on the automobile by bringing work places and residences into close
proximity;
• Providing retail and service needs in close proximity to residential and employment
centers;
• Improving feasibility of a development project. The proximity of urban services
makes housing projects more desirable and a nearby source of consumers help
make a commercial
project more viable.
Residents choose to live in
higher density housing for a
variety of reasons. First,
higher density housing is
more affordable than
traditional singte family
housing. Second, the
convenience and proximity
to work, needed services
and cultural activities is very
desirable for many people.
Finally, many people find
that they do not need a
large, single family detached
house. Given their lifestyle,
they appreciate the low
maintenance and securiry of
higher density living. There is a mutually supportive relationship between higher density
residential uses and commercial and retail activities. The presence of housing the core
area also activates the streets in the city center, day and night.
Concentrating growth in a specific area also y
supports investment in public infrastructure
including the regional HCT system. Existing low density development does not generate sufficient
levels of demand to optimize the retum on
~
investment in transit. Promoting higher density ~
uses within walking distance of transit facilities
will improve the viability of this significant I!
infrastructure investment. Moreover,
concentrating the highest density of development
in the City Center, where a significant number of ■ A~
jo bs an d re si d e n c e s w i l l b e w i t h i n w a l k i n g ,
distance of a transit station, helps reduce the rt"WA,dependency on the automobile and improves
pedestrian mobility. The City Center emphasizes
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit mobility but will not be unfiendly to the use of
automobiles.
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 20 Chaater 2- Land Use
Planning Corrrnissicn Recommended Corrprehensive Pian
, The City Center area will aiso be the central
gathering place for the community - a place where
the whole c,ommunity can congregate and celebrate.
Accordingly, the City Center should include an
~ - outdoor square, park, or commons with amenities
I; such as fountains, sculptures, and unique
landscaping. Other civic amenities or buildings
, - ~ including city hall or a performing arts center could
- be grouped around the core area square or park.
The City currently holds an annual Christmas Tree
'y Lighting Ceremony in_ the area designated as the
~ - { City Center. Additional such events throughout the
year will enhance the feeling of communiry in
~ NSpokane Valley.
An appropriate street networlc is = w •
a critical component of the City
Center. The current network of
collector streets and arterials,
the disjointed grid, and large
block sizes contribute to a lack
of identiry in the City. The
solution is not necessarily to
construct wider streets. Streets
become less efficient as the I _ f ~
1 number of lanes increases.
Building new streets versus -widening existing streets can be
more cost effective, yields ~E~=-•~ _
greater capacity, and will have a
more positive impact on the City Centcr.
Automobiles are likely to continue as a dominant mode of transportation for thr
foreseeable future. A comprehensive network of streets must be developed to distnbu:"=:
this traffic and create more driving choices. To the extent possible, the City shoulc:
connect streets and construct new streets to form a tighter grid system within the City
Center, especially in the core area, by negotiating new public rights-of-way and buildinc;
new streets. This "interconnectivity" serves to shorten and disperse trips, and
consequently reduce travel on existing congested arterials.
Pedestrian and bicycle mobitity is a vital part of the future City Center transportation
system. Improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists should support increases in transit
services and promote the development of the City Center. As the street system is
developed to better accommodate the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, a network of
facilities for people on foot and bikes should be established.
Reducing the size of the street grid, improving auto circulation and creating pedestrian
linkages through larger parcels is critical to establish walking pattems that reduce
dependency on the auto. As individual sites are designed and developed to be more
pedestrian friendly and improved pedestrian linkages are provided, the pedestrian
system will handle an increasing share of trips. Special street design standards should
~ be developed for the City Center. Special standards for extra-wide sidewalks (12 to 20
City af Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 21 Chapter 2- Land Use
~
Planning Commission Recommended Comprehensive Plan
feet in width), pedestrian-scale street lighting, and additional amenities including
benches, trash receptacles,
and landscaped corner
treatments should be included.
r . L', • • .t~ -a~~:
Transforming the existing •Y commercial core area into the ` ~
proposed City Center is an = ~ • ' ~y ~
ambitious task. It requires a
significant transformation from ~
a low-density, automobile
oriented, largely retail area to
.k.s
a higher intensity, more
pedestrian oriented mixed use u "
area. The City Center section 'K'0"
of the Plan acknowledges that
the City Center will take some
time to develop. The City can
facilitate these changes through a series of small steps taken over time. This is
especially true if the steps are consistent with emerging economic, sacial and
demographic trends. As the intent of this Plan, the phasing scenario presented here
accounts for the timing of market projections and future actions.
As noted above, the implementation strategy is keyed to projected trends and regional
planning goals. Its form and character, as envisioned in this Plan, are dramatically
different from anything that now exists in the proposed City Center area. It will take
some time for the development community'to redirect its energy and investments to ,
produce development that responds to the direction of the Plan. The demand for more '
intense development opportunities in the City Center is not forecasted within ths next
few years. In the meantime the City should discourage continued low-scale investment
in this area since new development will take several years to be amortized and delay the
accomplishment of preferred development. As regulations are applied to modest
renovations, it should be possible to gain some basic improvements. However, the City
should not expect full implementation of the vision for the City Center until major
property owners in the area are ready to install long-term, major development projects.
The figures (computer generated as part of the TOD Study) at the beginning of this
SeCtlOn first Show the existing conditions of the City Center; the second figure illustrating
potential redevelopment of the area over time. The pictures are taken from
approximately Farr Road looking east toward the U-City Mall area. The photos do not
necessarily indicate specific recommendations for the area, merely an illustration of how
a viable City Center could evolve through several co4rdinated, incremental steps taken
over time.
2.5.4 Office Designation
Spokane Valley has areas of quality office development. Several developments within
the ArgonnelMullan Couplet, Pines Road, and Evergreen Road corridors embody good
design and are representative of desired future office development. Offics development
will provide new job opportunities within the community.
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 22 Chapter 2- Land Use
Planning Commission Recommended Comprehensive Plan
This comprehensive plan designation is intended primarily for office development with I
limited retail or commercial
uses. Retail and commercial
uses are limited to those that
are cleariy subordinate to the ■ ;
primary office use or the retail s
function primarily serves the ;
office uses in close proximity
to the retail or commercial
use. Primary uses include
medical and dental facilities,
education services, insurance,
real estate, financial
institutions, design firms, and
legal services are representative of this ccrnprehensive plan category.
Areas designated as Office can serve a vane of functions. They can stand alone as
major employment centers. They can also act as buffers or transition areas between I
higher intensity land uses and lower intensity land uses. For example, Office areas can
provide a transition between industrial or commercial uses and residential areas. Office
uses work well for this because they tend to generate less traffic and noise, operate
shorter hours and are often smaller in scale then industrial or commercial areas.
The Office comprehensive plan designation will be implemented through a series of
office zoning districts.
,
devek~ment-th°+ 4,pai}bae with--aCljaseRt--residential-Re+ghbeFhoods:
fa 11,4ij G R=5
T-~rrpivssion . 'ng-d+stFiGt empk}asizes-#+gh quality-offise
rela+l-sUppert
se~u+s~s, 'hese *~-~-s€ deveiepments caraGteFiz:ed uy 4~rg~-Eer~t~~,+s-sfies
GO71i:ieil~f??)-~c~F~SC.af*f{lg OpeF} t?f1~ i.:U•~GIIl~~~>-t;~ !_;t_!:?4:?=?~?f +_{I_1a~Ity yf i~~ (-1rt,,+Jf1=
The-9~~-~Rao,'Ugy -Zeai Fig--desi3ndtion Em,,sh+yh qual4,yL-~cievelGpMef41
T.N.
pp64-6eF.+6 @CN s{o+~-w+#h-the-m+X-f3#-4##~+eB-a-Rd
T
2.5.5 Mixed Use
The concept of "mixed use" has been around for centuries. Prior to the advent of the
automobile and the proliferation of the road and highway system, mixed use was a
predominant urban form. The "rediscovery" of this development type may be due in part
to the negative impacts of sprawl, which have resulted in traffic congestion, decline in air
quality, and inefficient use of resources and infrastructure. Mixed use development has
several potential benefits:
~ • Land and infrastructure resources are used more efficiently;
~
City of Spokane Valley Comprehefisive Plan 23 Cf7apter 2- Lanci Use
Planning Commission Recommended Comprehensive Plan
• Pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods;
• Jobs are located near ~
housing;
• Opportunities to
revitalize commercial ~
corridors; ~
• Opportunities for infill ° ■ -
residential
development (primarily
. ,
in corridors);
• Encourage new
housing and innovative
retail that is less auto
dependent; and
• Compatibility with
existing transit access
along local corridors.
Mixed use may be either "horizontal mixed use" or "vertical mixed use". Horizontal
mixed use means that residential, commercial, office and other uses are adjacent to
each other typically as part of an overall master plan for a site. However, not all projects
within a"Mixed Use" designated area must be mixed use to achieve the goals of this
plan. For example, a new residential only project that is appropriately designed and
located adjacent to an older existing commercial building may help to stimulate
renovation and reuse. This would be a more likely scenario in the Corridor Mixed Use
area rather than the Mixed Use area.
Vertical mixed use means that residential and nonresidential uses are stacked over each
other. Typically, residential uses are placed over ground level retail, offices and/or
restaurant uses. This development type would be more likely to occur in City Center or
in the areas designated as Mixed Use.
Corridor Mixed Use
Corridor Mixed Use is intended to enhance travel options, encourage development of
locally serving commercial uses, multi-family apartments, lodging and offices along
major transportation corridors identified on the Comprehensive Plan Map (Map 2.1).
Corridor Mixed Use recognizes the historical low-intensity, autadependent development
pattem along and focus on a pedestrian orientation with an emphasis on aesthetics and
design. The Corridor Mixed Use designation is primarily used along Sprague Avenue in
order to space the areas designated commercial.
Mixed Use Center
The Mixed Use Center designation would allow for two or more different land uses within
developments under this designation. As described above, mixed use developments
can be either vertical or horizontally mixed and would include employment uses such as
City of Spokane Valiey Comprehensive Plan 24 Chapter 2- Land Use
Planning Commission Recommended Cornprehensive Plan
office, retail and/or lodging along with higher density residential uses and in some cases
~ community or cultural facilities.
Mixed use developments in this designation are characterized by differing land uses
which are developed pursuant to a coherent, approved plan of development.
Compatibility between uses is achieved through design which integrates certain physical
and functional features such as transportation systems, pedestrian ways, open areas or
court yards, and common focal points or amenities.
2.5.6 Industrial Designations Providing for industrial land is important for the econom'ic health of Spokane Valley.
Industrial businesses help drive the local economy and create an economic multiplier
effect throughout the region. Providing an adequate supply of usable land with minimal
environmental constraints and infrastnucture in place helps ensure that Spokane Valley
will be an attractive place for industrial businessies to locate and prosper. (See Chapter
7, Economic Development, for additional=pol icies that encourage_ recruitment and
retention of industrial business.) _
hidust"-Heavy Industry
Heavy industry is characterized by
intense industrial activities which
include, but are not limited to,
manufacturing, processing, - -
fabrication, assembly/disassembly,
freight-handling and similar
operations. Heavy industry may S~THE
have significant noise, odor or ~
aesthetic impacts to surrounding - -
areas.
Commercial, residential and mast
recreational uses should not be
allowed in areas designated for
heavy industry, except for small-
scale ancillary uses serving the
industrial area. The conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be
limited. Limiting incompatible uses ensures a competitive advantage in business
recruitment by providing adequate industrial land supply, reducing land use conflicts and
preventing inflation of land prices. Moreover, allowing a wide variety of commercial,
retail and other uses in the Industrial areas would be in conflict with other portions of this
Plan related to concentrating major commercial growth in nodes at the intersection of
major streets.
ustrial Light Industry
The Light Industry designation is a planned industrial area with special emphasis and
attention given to aesthetics, landscaping and intemal and community compatibility.
Uses may include high technology and other low-impact industries. Light Industry areas
may incorporate office and commercial uses as ancillary uses within an overall plan for
the industrial area. Non-industrial uses should be limited and in the majority of cases be
associated with permitted industrial uses.
City of Spokane VaUey Comprehensive Plan 25 Chapter 2- Land Use
Planning Commission Recorrmended Comprehensive Plan
The Light Industry category may serve as a transitional category between heavy
industrial areas and other less intensive land use categories. The category may also ,
serve as a visual buffer for heavy industrial areas adjacent to aesthetic corridors.
2.5.7 PubliclQuasi-Public
The Public/Quasi-Public
designation is intended to
protect and preserve areas of •
the City devoted to civic, '
cultural, educational, and
similar facilities. These
facilities provide for the social ~
needs of the community as ~:±1
those needs relate to public
services, open space and '
institutions whether they are ~
publicly or privately sponsored
or operated. Moreover, this - - - - " - - - ~
designation provides for and protects parks, open space, and other natural physical
assets of the community. Uses in these areas may include those identified as "Essential
Public Facilities". For an in depth discussion of Essential Public Facilities, please refer
to Chapter 4, Capital Facilities.
2.6 Development Review Process
The Land Use chapter provides the policy foundation for implementing zoning and
development regulations. In developing policy concerning future land use regulations, or
revisions to existing regulations, every effort has been made to instill certainty and
efficiency in the development process. State legislation has focused on developing
streamlined and timely permit processing. Through the following implementation
strategies, the City continues to sfrive to provide an efficient and timely review system.
LUp to
LJJR-65-IntegFate-and stFUstieA-si -u bl+c-44asiruc4uf-&w+th -pP; vate
ess+ble:
2.7 Urban Desiqn and Form
In addition to guiding development, the Land Use chapter also guides the quality and
character of the City's future development pattem through goals and policies related to
the form, function, and appearance of the built environment. These priorities and
implementation strategies, related to quality development, serve and will continue to
serve as a basis from which to develop appropriate implementation measures.
The design of our urban environment has a significant effect on community identity.
Well designed communities contribute to a healthful, safe and sustainable environment
that offers a variety of opportunities for housing and employment. An attractive and well
planned community is invaluable when recruiting new business and industry to an area.
Some of the concepts considered include:
• Community appearance, including signs and placement of utilities;
• Neighborhood considerations in the review of development projects; City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 26 Chapter 2- Land Use
Planning Commission Recommended Comprehensive Plan
NP-2.5 Work with schools and non-profit organizations to identify and address
housing and neighborhood concems.
NP-2.6 Focus economic development activities in areas which support and
enhance continued neighborhood integrity.
NP-2.7 Encourage-tkie development of neighborhoodJsub-area based ~
associations and work with these groups to develop and refine
neighborhood/sub-area plans.
Np-2.8 T-he--S4y-sha4-dDevelop guidelines for neighborhood/sub-area planning
that can be used in tfie creation of neighborhoodlsub-area plans.
Goal
NG-3 Encourage Neighborhood/sub-area _ plannfor commercial,
industrial and mixed use propertiesAo enhance the quality, vibrancy
and character of existing development and to promote the highest
and best use of land.
Policies
NP-3.1 Establish permitting procedures, regulations and incentives that
encourage multi-use areas that integrate a broad range of appropriate
and compatible land use activities and encourage the development and
redevelopment of land in conformance with the SVCP.
NP-3.2 Encourage the remediation of environmentally contaminated sites, to
return the land to productive commercial and industrial use.
NP-3.3 Ensure that commercial development is designed and scaled in a manner
that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.
NP-3.4 Encouraae the developmepl ' of master utilitv, traffic studies and
environmental imoact statement(s) within neiahborhoodlsub-area plans to
ensure timeliness in the orocessina of development aoplications.
Goal
NG-I The-Ci 'll-wWork with-44 neighborhoodslsub- ~
areas to determine the need, if any, and the preferred approach for
outreach activities, in order to maintain the flow of information
between the city and its citizens. -
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 3 Chapter 10 - NEIGHBORHOODS
Chapter :14.402
AMEI`TD12ENITS -Sertion:
• 14.402.000 Inlent . ' 14.402.020 Criteria for Amendment 24.402040 Amend.ment b the Zoni.ng Text l-low Initiated .
14.402.060 Amendment to the Zorwig TeYt Pracedures ,
14.402.080 .4mendment to the Zoning Text XlOtice _
, 14.402100 A-mendment to the Zoning'.Map: How In.itiated
14.402.120 rl.mendmeclt tn ElZe 7onins Map: Procediucr--, .
3.4.402.140, Appcals of the Hearing Body`s action to the Baazd
14..402.160 Amendment to tt►e laning Map: Nobcc
' 14.402_170 A~-ea-w4de~-BlN-=k Anlendntent tn the Zoning Map Initiated hv Areail-ide/$lctick
Rezone. Sub-area Plan, or I`ieifhborhaod Flan. Notic+e (Res.1-0762, datec] August .
. 34, 2001). .
14.402.172 Amendment bi11e %oitine Map I.nitialed bv Countvt~*ide Cornvrchensrve PJan
. , - Adotition or Amend.ment. NoYice (Res.1-Oi62, dated August 11, 2001)
14.402.150 - Board Action on Aiap Axnendinent Appeal or Text Aanend.ment
14.402.000 - Intent '
Following the adoption of the offiaal zuning text and maps, circumstances may ari,;e Ehat maL:e it
clecessary ko revisc •tt►ese doci.unents from fime fo kime. It is the intent of this section to provide the
mechanism whereby this Code map be amended ko effect such reii,sion.
. 14.402.020 Criteria for A.mend.ment
The CaunEy may a»iend th.is Code when it fi:nds that any of the follo~,,-ing apptics: • •
1. Such amendment is cansistent with the Compreheyisive 1'liLn a.ncl is not detrirnen~l to the public
tivelfare; _
2. Change in econontic, technaloaical, or aand ttse conditions has vcctured to ivarrant modafication of
thvs CatIe; ,
' 3. It is fawid that an amendment is necessary to correct an error in this Code; .
_ 4. Tt is found that an aua,endment is necessary to clarify the Etteaning or infent of this Code; , 5. IY is fAUnd that an a'.mendment is necessary to provide for a use(s) that ~v~ts not pre~~iously
adcisessed by ihis Code; or •
, b. Those Zmendments.as deemcd necessarp by the Conunission aiid/or Board as being in the puUlic
interesk ,
14.402040 AmencInient to the 7,anine Tezt- Nnw Tnitiated
A:n amenri.meiit to the text of th.is Code may be initiated by the Board, by the Commission, by the
Department, or by any interested person. In the case of anamenciment initiated by an interested -
person, the Department ;hall collect from. such person a fee as deterniined by the Board which utay
cover normal processing and lcgal notice cost Such an amendaient may be adopted, modified or
deiued by resolution nf thc Board in accordance svikh the procedures specified in Section 14.442.060.
Chapter 14.402 Zoning Code .
• Printed: Nnvember 1998 Page 29 of Spokane County '
• t•~.._1
C '
- CT'~'~.' 01< SPO~\TE V.~LEY :'AR,~TG F~A~`l-Ll~'vER
:[t.B: Applicaiions for a Zone Reclassif cation )
from the UR-3.5 Lone to the UR-7rt ) F'TNDINGS OF CACT,
Lone, and for the Preliminary Plat of ) COnCLUSIQNS OF LA«',
Greenacres Vallcy Esfate.s; ) A\'D DLCT,STON ,
- ~lpplicant: Whipple Consulfing Enginecrs )
)
File No. :Lt137-28-05/SU*B-I3-05
. • ) .
1. SUAttiTE.1.R,Y" UF a)EC1S:f0N
Hearing A'Tatter: A.pplications for a rezdne frotn the UR-3.5 zone ta the U'R-7 zone, aud for a
. preluninary plat. Sumrnary of I)ecision: Approve applicat.ioiis; subject tn conditi.ons of app.roval. The pr.elirninary
plai will expirc on May 26, 201.1. An application to requcst an exfieusion of time for tbe
preliminary plat must be subnutted at least 30 days prior to the expu•ation ciate.
7
II. F.lYDli\GS OF I+'ACT
1. The applications seek approval of a zone reclassification feom the 'Urbau Residential-3.5
. (iJR-3.5) zone to the Urbai Residential-7* (LTR-7*) zonc; on 8.86 acres of land; and a
--preliminary ph-it td subdiiide such acreage into 37 lets for single-fan~i.ly tiwellings and one (1)
. common open space traci.
2_ The site is locat.ed alnng the north side of Tncliana Avenue, immediat.ely n.nrthwest of the
inEcrsection of luci.iana Avenue and Greenacres Roa.d; in the SE of Sectian 7,:I'oumship 25NT,
12.ange 45 EW1i ~.i; Spokane Cotuity; Washington. . 3. The site is cwTently referenced as County tlssessnr's taY parcel nos. 55074.0612,.0616,
.OF 18 and.b619. 77he property, is leeally ciesc-ribed on the prelinvnaiy plat map of record. 'C'Lie
t.bree (3) homes on the site are addi'essed ax 1.8203, 18215 and 1$223 E. IudianaAvenue.
4. Tke applicant is Wbipple Consulting raeineers, lnc.; cloTadd Whipple; 13218 l?. Spragac
tlvenue, Spokaue Vallcy, WA 99216. Thc site owner is PAKEBA, LLC; 601 S. Division Street,
SpAkane, WA 99201. -
5. Un \'ovember 2, 2005, the applica.ut• submitied c:Umplete applications for a zone '
. reclassificatinn and grelimiriaty plafi, including a reiised preliminary plat rnap, to the City
"Department of Corrununity Developrnent iu File TTO. REZ-11-04/SCTF3-08-04. The re~rised
preliminaiy plat map is considered the pre.liniinaiy plat map of record.
- 6. On vlarch 31, 2006, the City Depa-tment of Comrnunity Development-Planniug Divisian issLzed a Dererminatian of Nonsignificance (D1~TS) for the praposal. '1"he D~1S was riot appealed.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-28-05/SLTB-I3-05 Pttge 1
• ' %s --•.i
7. The Heasiug Exaniner conducted a public hearing on the proposal on May 11, 2006. The
notice rcquiremenfs for the public hearing were met. The.Examiner conducted asite visit on. May 9, 2006. The Hearing Bxarniner heard the proposal pursuant to Chapter 10.35 of the Spokane Valley
Yiunicipal Code (SVMC); and the City Hearing Examuner Rules nfPrncedtue.
9. The following persons testified at the public hearing: Ka.ren Kendall, Assaciate Planner
Current Planniug Todd 1Vhipple
City o Spakane Valley Whipple Cousulting Engineers
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite lOb 13218 E. Sprague Avenue
Spok.ane Valley, VVA 99206-6124 Spokane Valley, IVA 99216
Mary Aollarrd
17216 E Baldwixt A.ve
Spokane Valley, «TA 99016-9506
. 10. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the City of Spokane Valley Interun Comprehensive
Plan; Zoning Code, Subdi`isian Ordinance, 2001 Standards for Road and Sewer Constn.iction
' .("Cit), ltoad Standards"), Guideliues for Stormwater Management; tiiunicipal Codc and Critical
Areaw Ordinance; other applicable developmcnt regulations; and prior laTad use decisions iu the
vicinicy 11. The record includes the docume.nts in the project file aL the tune of the public heariug, the
. documEnts and tesumony submitted at the public hearina, and the items talcen notice ofUy the
Fiearing Exami.ner. The Examiner also includes in the recnrd a copy of the preliminary plat map
of record in rile \jo. SLTB-11-04, submitted nn September 13, 2004.
.12. 'C'he site is 8.86 acre,s in size, irregular in shape, and comprised nf four (4) tax parcels. The
. south partion of the szte along Indiana fl.venue is improved tivith three (3) siuglc-famity residences
aud an outbuilding. The property is relatively flat in topography; and is vegetated ivith souie
evergreeu and deciduous trees; and shruUs arlci grasses.
13. The preliminary plat map oF record submitted on NoN~ember 2; 2005 illustraies division of,
the site into 37 lots for single-fanuly dwcllinpsj and one (1) common open space tract of 5;952
square fect_ The Iots .range in size from 6,728 square fect ta 12,482 square feet, with an average
lot size of approxin-iately $,500 square feet. 14. Thc dcnsity (net) of the preliminary plat is 5.02 dwelling units per acre. 1'he existing
. inTprovernents on the site are intended to rcmain, with individual lots created for each of the three
(3) existaag homes on the site.
HE Findings, Conclusions anci JaeCision REZ-28-05/SiJB-13-05 Page 2
- . ~
. ;
.i
; 15. ln#.ernal circulat7ou tivithin the preluiunary plat wrould be provided by a system of public
roads; wllich would access Incliana A.vznuE, and the intersecfion of :Lvciiana tlvenue and
Greena.cres Ftoad; at the soutlleast corner of the si#e. The ins`.en1a1 road system wrould connect in
t«=o (2) locations to tbe interual public roaci syslem currenity planned for the pa-elitninary pla.t
approved iu File No. SU13-11-04; located directly norEh of the site. The intemal road system
would p.rovide a shib road connection ta tbe west houndary of the site, in the narth part di the
preJinunary plat.
16. lu approximately 1994, Spokaiie Cotmty approved an area-wide rezone that reclassified the
zoning of the sifc, aud the other lajid iu the area lying jvest of Barker Road, beriveen Mission Ave.nue an the sou.th anci the Spoka.ne River on the narth, from the Urban Residentia,l-3.5 (UR- ,
3.5) zonc to the Suburban Resideiitial-1 (SR-1) zone of the Couuty 74ning Code. The zouiug of
the land lying south of Mission Avenue; wesi ofBarker Road; rernained zoned LJR-3.5. See
' decisin.n in File No. GF-17-94.
17. In 1999, the preliu-iiuary plat of Flora MeadQ~vs was appr.oved, t.hrough an appeaL to the
State Supreme Court, an nine (9) acres of iand locaced at the northeast eorner of the intersectian
of.i3aldwin A-srenue a.nd Flora ltoad. The prElimuiary plat proposed the division of irsne (9) acres
af'13nd into 31 low for single-family residences, in the ZTR-3,5 zone; at an appr.aaimai.e density
(net) of 4.35 dwelling units per acre. See File No. PE-1706-93. The prelimiuary plat recently
receireci fina] plat apprnvai as Flora Meadows, arid is in the proces.s of being develoPed_
, 1S. Eff'ecii-v~e January 15, 2002= Spokalie County uq)lemented a new comprehensive plan,
Urhan Gro«nh Area (UGA.) boundaries and Ylaase I Dcvelopment Regulations, pursuant to the
Siate Growt~ '-MaDagement Act. See Cour,►ey RcsGlutinn I4OS. 2-0037 and 2-0470.
19. 11ie County Comprehe.nsive Plan designated the site aud neighboring land in the l:ow
Density Fte.sideniial category; and desigaated the land I3ing sauth of iVa:i;sion Elvenue; easr of
:13arker Road, iu the Medium 17ensity Residential category. .
20. The County Phase 1:laevelopmeut :R.egulatians designated the site and other Iand in the arca
in the i.JGA; reclassitied the zorung of the site, anci other land in the area lying wesf of.'Barker
, Road wd zoned SR-1 zone, CO the UR-7* zonc; a1ld retaincd the UR-3.5 zoiii.ng of the land 1}ring
. soutli of Mission A.venue; west of :Barker Roac3, in the area. 21. The Cuunty:Pllase I Development Regula.tions resiricted the resideutial densic_y (net) of land
desiglated in the Low17ensity Residential calcgoiy; and reclassi_fied to the i3P,-7* wne under
. such re.gulations; to six (6) dwelling units per acre.
22. On ?\1arch 31, 2003, the City of Spokanc Valley was incorporated. The site and area are
Iocated in the east port.ion ot the city.
23. Upon i.ncoi-poration, the City of Spokane Valley aclopted by rcfcrence the Cotuity's
cc>mprehensive plau, subdivasion ordinance, zotung code, Phase I Development Regulations,
FE Pindblgs; Canclusiolis and Decisiou RL'G-28-09SCJl3-13-05 Page 3
• ~ . , ;
zoning maps and other development regulations; with certain min4r revisions. The City rctained
the zoninb and c;omprehensive plan designations foi• the site and other ]and in the area. ,
24. The City adopted the designation "UR-7*" to identify UR-7 aoning established under tlle
Coiuiry Phase I llevclopment 1Zegularions, within Nvluch residential densi .ty (net) is lunited to six
(6) dwclling units per acre; and to identi.#'y UR-7 zpriing estaUlished iha-ough rezoning under the
City PhasE I,Deveiopment Regulations, for land designated in the Low Density ResidenLial
category of the City Comprehensive Plan, tivithin which r.esidential densify (n.et) is ]imitied to sis
(6) dwelliug units per acre.
25, On October 12, 2003, tlie Ciry approved a preli.mvnary shoil pldt to diN7dc 3.2 acres locatcci
alang the north side of iV1is_sion.qvenuc, approximately 630 Feet east of Flara Road, into seven (7)
lots for single-family divellings See File Nla. SH!'-12-03. Such pre]izninary shart plat was
finalized as .H.idden Vallcy 2" A.ddition, for lO lots. See County Elssessor's map for the South t/2
of Section 7.
26. C}n Deceinbec 8, 2003, the ilearang Exarrigner approved the prelinlinary platfPLTD of I'lora
Sprines, and a Planned Unit Developmerlt (PLJD) Overlay zone, to divide 9.54 acres of land
located alang Lhe north side of iMission Avenue, approximately 950 feet east of Flara Road and
one-third (1/3) mile southwest Qf the sit.e, into 541ots for single-family dwellings and 1.4 acre.s o.f.
conimon open space; in the UR-7* -r.one. The appxoval required the density (net) of the
pa•elirriinary p1aU'PUD to be reduced frorn 6.46 dzvelling units per acre to six (G) dwelling unifs per
- acre. See Hearing ~~xat~er decisinn in r~ile Na. PE-1921-03/PIJDE-5-03. Such prelinunaiy plat
, recently receii~ed fi.nal plat approval, as lilora Springs PUD, for a tatal af SO lots. See Caunty
Assessor's map for Seciion
27. On March 12, 2004, the Hearing Exaininei- approved a rezone for 7.87 acres of a 8.79-acre
. parcel, locared at the northcast comer af ihe intersection of Barker itoad anci vfission Avenue,
_ fr4m the Community Busiuess (13-2) ?one to the UIZ-7* zone; and appro-ved a preli.minary pla# to
divide such parccl into 21 lots, including 20 lots to accoinraodate a total of 40 t4vo-faznily
(di:plex) dwellin; units on the portion of the parcel rezoned to the iJR-7* zone; and one (1) lot
, for unspecified eommercia] devel.op.ment on the .92-acre poitioLt of ttle parcel retnaining iu the B-
• 2 zone. See Hearing Examincr decisioli iu File \Tn. :17~,7-18-03/SUF3-1 4-03. Such preliu7inary
plai. has received final plat approva1, and has been developed for residential uscs.
•28. On July 20, 2004, the Hcaring Exainuier City approved a prelinninary plat tc) subdiNride 11.59
acres of lavd locaiccl alang Baldtivin :Avenue, behween fhe Flora Meadows f.nal plat on the west
. and Tschu-ley Avenue/'.i`schirley Avenue extended on the east, approximately one-tlurd (1/3) mile
-4vest of the site; uito 55 iots for single-family dwelling;, in. the UR-71= zone. Th.e prelimiriary plat
- had a density (net) of, 5.92 dwelling unats per acre;,with lots rangine from 6;222 square feet to
- l 7,947 square fcet in si7e, aiid ari average lot size of approh-vnately 7,360 square feet. Sec
Hearing Examiner decisian in File N'o. STJB-05-04. Such preliminary plat recenfly received fin;al
plat approva.l as Iliddeu Valley.
HE Fi.ndines, Conclusions aud J7ecision REZ-28-OS/SU13-13-05 page 4
29. On OctUber 26, 2004, the Hearing EYanuner approved the preliminary plat of Fl.ora Estat.es
' (SU13-08-04), to di~iae 3.67 acres of land loeaied at the southeast comer nf the intersection of
Flora Road ancl 'Mi.ssion,Avenue into 18 lots foi- single-fknily dwellings; and a rezoue ofsuch
acreage to the UR-7* zone. lhe preliininary plat has a densify (net) of5.7 dwellin; units per
a.cre•, 1oE siLes rang-jng from 5,587 square feci to 9;928 square feet, and an average lot size of
7;169 square fee#. See Hearing Eaaminer decision iu File \o. RLZ-11-04/SUB-OS-04. •
30. EffcctnTe February 9, 2005, the City approved an area-wide rezone tlaat legislatively
reclassified the iJIt-7a zoning of the site, and the oiher land in the area locatcd narth of Missioii
ANrenue aud easf of Barker Rnad in the area zoned LTR-7*; Eo the LTR-3.5 zoue. See City
Ordinance No. 05-003; a copy of tiv}uch is uicluciecl in Exhibit t`l3.
31. Un 1V.fai•cll 15, 2005, the Hearuig ExamiLter apnrqved a prelii-iiinary plat to divide 3.18 acres
of Iand located along the souih side of Baldwin Avenue, sou'th af'the fuial plat of Hidden Valley
and iiorth afHidcien Valley Z"a Aciciition, inFo 11 lots for smigle-family dweilings, in tlle UR-7* .
zone. ,Such application was submitted prio.r to the effective date of Ciiy Ordinancf; \Io. 05-003.
TbE• prelixnuiary pIat had a density (net) of 4.0 dwelliug units per acre; witll praposed lots rdnging
£rom 8,194 squaa-e feet to 14j69b square feet ui size, and an avei•age lot size of 10,863 square feei.
See decision in RiIc NO. SiJl3-12-04. Sucli prelimiDary platwas xecently finalized as Hidden
Valley k'irsE Addition. 32. Qn April 26; 2005, the Heuing Eaaminer approveci a prelinunary plaf to divide 3.25 acrES of
, land located on the nortti side af Mission Avenue, directly west of Hidden NI'alley 2" Addition,
_ into 13 Jots for single-(.'amily dwellings, in tlie iJR-7* zone, at a density (net) of approximately
5.18 dwelling unifs per acre. See decision in File No. SUB-03-05. On the same datej the Beai•ing
Examincr approved a prelinunary plat to divide 3.02 aci•es aY la.ud lUC;ated along the sauih side of
Baldwin ,4venue, directly northtirest of the preliminary plat appro-ved iu Eil.e No. SUII-03-05, into
' 10 lats for suigle-family dwellings, in the UR-7* zone, at a density (net) of approxinnatsly 4.4
dwelliug uuits. SEe decision in File No. SIJB-OI-OS. The applicalious in t~'ile 1Tas. SUB-OI-OS
- and S1TL3-03-05,1;vere submitted prior tn the effective date of City C7rdinance IN7o. 05-003.
33. On Apri12$, 2005; the HEari.n,a :P-.xaminer approvecl a preluninacy p1ax (`D2 Subdivision") to
divide 9.35 acres located direcs_ly norih of the site, at the southwest conier of. the intersection of
ibfontgomery Avznue aad Rivei-w ay Roacl, into 45 lnts for single-fanuly dtive]lings, in the UTt.-7*
. zone. "t'lic densily (net) of the prelitl}inary plax is 6.0 dtivelling units per aerc. 7'he lots in the
prelumuimy plat range f-om 6;234 squw-e feet to 11,959 square feet in size, tivith a1 average lot
size af 7,265 squai-e feet.. Tlie prelinunary plax apPlication wa.s submitted prior to the effective
ciate of City Orduiance Np. 05-003. See decision in Fi.le 'No. SU'B-] 1-04.
34. (~n i~~qay 1.0, 2006; the Citiy 3dopt.ed :a iie~~~ Comprehensi~c~e 1'lan. 'The Cityis in the process
' of dra~ting uew znning regulations to unplement such plan.
35. The fiua.L plats recently aPproved iu the asea are in v-a.rious sfages of development, with a
lau-ge numb~r of neNv houies already con.stilicted in tihe 1-iidden Valley final plat; and road..~, utiluties
and grad.ing being insialled in the Flidden Nlalley Rirst Addition; llidden Valley 2'd AciditiAU, and
HE Findings, Conclusious and Decision RTZ-23-05ISUB-1 3-05 Page 5 .
. .
F1ora Meadows developments. Neighboring land otheniTise consists of parcels ranging froni one-
faurth (1/4) of dn acre to approximately five (5) acres in size; most oftivhich are developEd with single-faluily dtivellings; along with some assacia#.ed faiming and large aiirnal keeping on acreage
parc,els, ond some undeveloped land.
36. The land locateci east of I3ark.er Road, between the Spokane River and Alission Avenue, is
gencrally develope-d with single-family dwellings at urban densities; on laud zoned UR-3.5 or UR- 7. Some limited commercial uses are found along Barker Road narth of the Interst:ate-90!Barkcr
koad fi-eeway interchange. A couununity leasuing cente.r is located along the east side of Bazker
Road, south of Atission Avenue. Awidc range of commercial uses is found a few iivles west and
sauthwest of the srte, respectivcly; along l3roaciNvay Avenue; Sullivan Road and Sprague Avenue.
37. "l'he Interstate-90/Barkcr Koad interchange is lacated approxiniately two-fhircis (2J3) of a
mile southeast of the sFte. Flora Road Passes o-ver I-90 to the southwest, bui does not ciirectly
. access the Cxeeway at such Incation. Broadway Avcnue extends west fi•om Flora Road; and
provides a route to commcrcial uses localed atong Sullivan Road aud Broadway Avenue (neai•
Sullivan :Etoad), and to Interst:ate 90. Trent Avenue (S:EZ-290), lacated a feNv miles tp the nortli; is
a sfate high-,;vay. ,
33. The Spokanc River lies approximateb, 900 feet northeast of the site; at its closest paint to
the site. The Spok.aue Ceniennial 'Xrail; located ou statc/city parkland, runs along the south side
of the river in the ai-ea. The City of Liherty Lalce lies approximateiy three-fourths (3/4) nvle east
of t11e- site, based on a recent anneYation (eEfect.ivc Apri1.12, 2006) that cxtencied the city limits to Hodges Road eatended, ai the City of Spokane Valley's easterl.y boiindary.
39. 7'he .roads in the area are paved; but generally lack curb and sideNvallc Pnrtions of iVlission
Avenue near Flara Road, and east of Baz•ker .Roa.d, have curb an.cUar sideNvalk. Curb and sidewaik
are required to be installed on puhlic roads wifhin and bordering the :[i.ual plats approved in the
arca between 1999 and 2005.
40. Thc City is cutrently wideniug and impro-,riue Barker Rpad to C.ity sfandard,s i.n the area,
with platis to install a traffic sienal ai the iutersectaoii of Barker Road and Mission Avenue in
2007. Road and pub.lic sewer impravements ai-e curreutly bein5 made to }3aldwin Avenue and
. Flora Road along the fi•ont:age of the Iiidden Va11ey plats and the E'1'lora Meadows Plat. ~-Iii-c Road
was recently extencled between Baldwin Avenue and Nfission Avem2e to the southwest. Puhlic
- sewer ha; be•e.n iustalled in Baldtivin Avenue, behween Flora Raad and Indiana Avenue.
41. Michael Cayle, the ovv-ner of a.6-acre lot located along the north sidc of Zndiaiia Avenue
approximat.ely 80 feet southeast of the site, suUmitted a lette.r ua opposition l•o the proposal.
Coyle objected ta t:lie proposal Uascd on the recent rezone oP the site and land in the area fram the
._iJR-7* zone to the iJ}2.-3. S zoue, unsuitabilitp of the area far dense housing, increased traffic,
incrcased crune, increased pollutian, and lack of adequate funding for public ser.Nices.
, 42. Kurt Pai-ker, the owner caf a. .6-acre lot located 440 fcet sauth of the site, alone the east sicle
o:C Greenacres .Road, slibmitited a lett.er in opposition to the proposal; based on the poor
1-IF Findings, CQnclusions a.nd l7ecision REZ-28-05/SU'B-13-05 Page 6
. . ~ . 1
' •
_ infiasti-ucture in the areri, lack of unp.rovelrent to the subslandard roacis located outside the
prnject baundaries; increased trafFic an nairow roactS, approval of pieceme,al developmeni arad the
" rezoning of Iand to the jJR-7* zone in the area, and other canceims. •
43. Kevin and Sheila Schmidt, the owners of a.5-acre parcel located directly sotath of the site
across ladiana Avcnue, ai the southtivesf coi-ner af the iutersect:ion of lndiana Avenue and
Cn-eenacres R.oad, subrnitted a letter indicatiug tliat their sepfic t.ank, rnay be located in the midclle
of ludia,na Avenuc; and that if the septic tauk is dvlaaged au rendered uuusaUle by the installatinn
of public sewer ui Indiana for the propnsa1, they be cornpensated aud allowed to coranect t.o the
public seNver without cha-gc. The Sclimidt's expi•essed cancern tliat the Public hearing was being
held at a time when peoplE work, requested to see the drainage plans for the proposal, requested
that any floodiug of thcir property by di'ainaae from the proposal be corrected, stated that Indiaria
Avem2e is not capable ofhan.dlinJ the vohame oftra.ff.ic cY•eated Uy additioual developments in the
area, expressed concern khat a bu-d of prey (red-tailed ha-,vk.) nest located nearby, requcsted
installation of a forrri of ba.rr.icade because the proposal would access Incliana ANTemie at a paint
. lying ndrth af the beds-oanu to cheir residence, and rcquested a prcconstl-uction uispection and
protection fi-om any damage that inay occur due to iiiacli.i.nery -used i.o build the development.
44. The only atlier concerns oi opposition expressed regardiiig the propasal were submitted by
. Maiy Pollard, the owner of a 1.6-acre parcel Iocated approxiniately one-haii'(1/'2) nzile Southwest.
of the siEC; along the south side of T3aldwin .ANrenue. Tndiana ' Avenue conaects witli. Bal&vin
avenue approxinla.tely.4 miles west ofthe site, via a 200-foat lone extension of Tsehirley Avenue
; - , &oinnort,b. to sQUlh.
45. n7.aiy i'pllard raised uumerous concerns regarding the proposal; inclut3ine opposition to the
rezone because of the recent rezone of tlie land in the area to the UR-3.5 zone 3t the request of
propirty owners in the area, curlulatjve impacis on sc6aol capacitp from. the proposal aud lai-ge
residential citvelopments plannccl esst of I3ark.er Road; lack of reereational opportunitie.s for
reaidents in the propos al; insufficient study of road iutersections irnpacied by the projeet, failure of
the pr4ject traffic study to consider cumulai7ve traffic unpacts generated by developrnGnts plauLned
east of Barker Zt.o-ad; failtu•e of the pro3ect traffic mialysis to use proper backgroutid ero«di ratie
.for traffic, lack of trautsportation conciuTCncy for project, necd to iinprove lndiana Avenue e.ast to
Barker R.oad fai• the projecf, degradation of the paved surface of ai•ea roadways by con;t3-uction
. traitic, uninitigated traffic iuipacts t4 the 7-90fBarker Road freeway interchatige, narrow.ness of
t.he puUlic roads serVing the proposal, safety hEizard presenteci by skewed alignme•nt. of Cneenacres
Roaci in prelirr-~inaiy plat «<ith existing Cn•eenacres Road to the south, lack of adequate access and
traf'~ric saf'ety dange.rs resulting f,rom road constnzct:ion and closu,re of Barker aud 7ila.ra. Roads,
inadequatc: connectiiity of intc:rnal road system fbr preli.iii.inary plat to exrternal road systeJV; lack
of coordunatiou between public consrruction pr.oject Un Bark.er :42oad and private road
constiuction iri ai•ea, failure of ncw developmenw to cornply wilh A17A requiremcTits for
sidewalks, impacts fi•omraatt constj-uction to cesspool located under pavenaent on Indiana
- Avenue near the site, pflteutia] impact on a reci-tailed haw-k nesting ul large irees alorig Ladiaua
Avcnue near the site, ti-uck fraffic on Barker Road; trucks traveling througli neighborhoods due to
road construciion on :13arker Road, clostire Af Barker lZoaci during iuiprovements ta Barker Road
, bridge dm•ing 2407 dnd 2008, iuipacts to IivEStock on land abutting new cievelopment,
. I-E Fuidings, Coriclusions and Jaecision RF7-28-09SUB-13-05 Pagc 7
cov.struction debr.is blowing onto adjacent properties, construction noise and vibration,
unregulated hours of consti-uction, dust unpacts from road and new home coustruchon; liglzt pollufivn froLn street lights iu new subdivisions; failure to control noxious weeds on consiruc?ion
sites, view impacts and loss of lateral suppart fi-orn raisin ; the grade of land in new subdivisions
tp accommodaie grmrity sewer lines, potential drainage impacts to neighboring properties, loss of
mature trees, impaired sight distanee at the intersectaon of Mission Avenue and Flora Road;
renting of hausiug in nejv subcli,6sions, and other concerns_
46. The City Zoning Cncie authorizes a siie-specific amendment to the City Zoning Map, i.e.
zone reclassification; if the amendmcnt is consisicnt with the Comprehcnsive .Plan and is noi
detrunental to the public ivclfare. See Zoning Codc 14.402.020(l); and refercnce; to Z•oning
Code 14.402.020(1) in7oning Cocie 14.402.020 and Zoning Code 14.402.160.
47. Washington case law requires the proponent of a rezoue to estab]ish, by a prepanderance of
the evici.ence, that the prnposed i•ezone beais a substantial relationship to the public bealth, safety
or gcnei-al welfare; and tkYat a sulystantial change of circumstances has occurred in the area.
:EZoweirer; pa-oof of a substantia] change of circLUiistances is not required if the rezone irnplements
the comprehcnsive pla.n of the local government.
48. Pursuaait to RCW 53.17.0:33, a prelirninaiy plat must be considered under the zoning and
. other development regulations in place at the tiime fully completed application for the prelirninary
plat is subrLutted Under Section 13.300.110 of the City`s application review pracedure,s for
. project permits, a land use application must be rev-iewed uuder the development regulations in
'place when a complete application iar the land use actian is submitted. I`he date of cornplete application for the current P.reluninary plai is November 2, 2005.
49. Tp be approved; the prelinvuary plat must comply rvith applicable develaPment regulatioras;
make apprap.riate provision for the public healtll, safety and general welfare; serve the public usc
. and uiteresti; and make a-ppropriate proNrision for npen spaccs; drainage tivays, st.reets or rpa.ds,
otlaer public ways, pofable wa.t:er supplie.s, Eri3nsit stops; sanitary w&stes, pau-ks wd recreazion,
playp•otmds, schools anci school grounds; critieal areas; firelemergency access, sidewalks for
cliildren who reacl.i school by walkine, and other. relevant. faets and planning fea.tltres. See ItCW
58.17.110, Ciry Subdivision Ordiitancc, and SViVIC Chapter 10.35. .
50. The UR-3.5 zone, wluch currentty applii;s ta the site, is intended to promote areas of
priniacib, single-family resadences in an urbanized neighborhood setting. Such zone permits
single-family hoines, duplexcs and cerkain other uses. The UR-3.5 zone penrits a iiiaYimum
residential dcnsity 0f 4.35 dwelling units per acre.
51. The Phase IDevelopmcnt Regulations requaz a.ll zone reclassificatians to Ue consiatent with
the umplementing zones specified in siich regulations for the Comprehensi<<e Plan designatians thaz
apply to the subject property. The i.mplementing zones for the Lotiv Densiiy Residential category,
in wliich the site is designated, are the i.TR-3.5 zone and the IJTZ-7'" zone. The proposed rezone of
the sitc to the UR-7* zone, accordinely, implements the Low Density Residential category of the
City Tntcrim ComPrehensij-c Plan. .
:H:E Findinu, Conclusians and Decision REZ-28-05/SUB-13-OS Page 8
- 52. The UR-7 zone is intendcci io add to the variety of hausing i~,pes and deusities in urban
areas; a.nd to provide staadards fUr the orderly deitelopment of residential property in a manne.r
t.hat pro-Odes a de.sirable liviag envirpnrnent that is conipatible with suirounding land uses and
assures the protection of preperty values. T.he UR-7 -r.,one permits the deNTeloUment of single-
family homes, dtipleaes; mtdti-fainilp dweIlingas and certain atlaer uses.
Sa. The City Phasc 117evelopment Regulations lulut new residentia] deveiopmeut ou land
rezon.ed to the U'R-7, and designated in the Low Density Residential category of the
Comprehensijre plan, io a maximum density of six (6) dwe.lling units per acre. Such zotung is
refen•ed io as the '`[Jit-7*" zoue. The iJR-7 zCne athci-wise pemuts a density of seven (7)
ciwelling iLnits per ac.re. The minimum lot are3 and nvnimum frontage in the UR-7 zane for a
single-family dwelling arc, respectivety, 6,000 square feet and 65 feec.
54, The UP,-7 ~..c~ne requir•es the insta.llation of -a 6-foot high sight obs, curiug fence, wall or salid
landsca.Pi.ng alang the borde.r of anny U'R-7 zone that abuts private land zoned iJR-3.5. Such
reyui3-ernent is applicable aJong the east and west Uoundaries of the site; and would help buffer
adjacent properties to the easf and west from the liigber densi'ry housing proposed on the site. in
the evenc the preliuunary ~.~iai io the north receives final plat approval, such requu-einent should
not be unposed on the naa-di boundary of the site, becanse the preliiniuaiy plat tn the north was
approveci under the UR-7 1' zone.
55. 1'olicy LT1.,.S.1 and (Uoal IJL.b of the Comprehensi-ve Plan reconmnend the creaEion of tirUan
. areas with a variety and ii~x of housing t}pes aud prices in residentia] areas. Policy 'UL.9.1
. recornmends that residential densities in the Low DE.nsity Reside•ntiai categor}= nf the
Comprehensive Plan range from 1-6 dwelling units per acre. Policy UL.9.2 rec;ommcnds that the
City seek to acbie•ve an aN~erage residential densiry in new deirelopment ofi at lcasfi four (4)
dw-ell.ing units per acre, ihrnugh a mix of densities aizd taousing. "f.he prelirni.nwy plat, which has a
density (riet) of 5.02 dNvellina units per acre, and the pi•oposed .rezone of the site to the [.TR-7*
zone, is consistent «Ti.th such policies.
56. Policy H.3.2 of flie Comprehti.nsive Plan recommends ihat in.6ll development be designed to
preserve the character of the neigbborhood. Uesign standarcls adopfed by the County are
ii-itended to ensiirc iieighborhaod characier and cUmpatibility with adjacent iues. See page UL-1
: of Corl3p.rehensive Flan.
.57. Policy U'I.,.'?. l 1 of the (:otnprehensive Plan proiiiotes the linl:.age of developments `vith ppen
space, p-w-ks, natural area.s aiicl stTect connections. Policy'C.4a-9 of the Cflmpre-hensive Plan
states rhat adequate access to and circulatian withiu xIl developments shail bc maiutain`d for.
einergency sez~-ice and puUlic transportation vehic.les.
58. 1'olicy LJZ..2.14 of the Comprehensive T'lau recoiruiientls that separatea sidewall:s Ue
. , requued on public roads irr all new residential subdivisious. Policy T.3e. ] recommends tltat the
City transpartation nehvnrk pra`ride safe ai.1cl eQnNTcnient bieyelc and walkinb access bet.-wee.n
housing, recreation, sb_opping, schools, commwlity facilities and mass transit access poiuts; and
. , thai ot-tructions and canflicts with pedesii•iau and bicycle inovemenl be ilininuzed.
HE Fandings, Conclus.ions and Decision REZ-28-05/SC.T13-13-05 Page 9
59. Policy UL.2.20 of the Cornprehensive Plan encourages n.ew develapments to be arraugcd in a pattern of cbnnecting streets and blacks to allow people to get around easily by all means of
transportation; but finds that cul-de-sacs and other clased sts-eet systems may be appropriate
undez' certa.i.n circumstances.
60. k'olicy U'L.2.21 recommeneis thhat t.echniques be considered to slow vehicle traffic and reduce
the volume of traffic in residential neighborhoods, giviug due cansideratioii to traffic and
pedusirian saFety, inobility and the transportation policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
.61. Policy T.2.2 of the CUnaprehensive Plan reconuneuds that transportation unprovcments
necded to serve new development be .in placc at the tune new development impacYs occur, or that
a f,tnaucial commitnient, consistent with the City's Capifal Facilities Plan; be.made to complete the
. irnprovement within sia (6) years.
62. Policy T.4a.2 of the Coiiiprehcnsive Plau reeanamends that the capacity of existing roads be
maxiulizcd to miilisnize the need for new or ea~panded roacls, through the use of sigualization,
' improved signage and othet• means.
63. Palicy P0.3.3 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that new developiilent rnitigate a
partion of its direct in-ipacts on the availabitity of parl:s, open space and recredti.on facilities; using
metheds such as dedication of land, donation of labor, donation of equipment and materials, or
entcring into an agreer.nent «ith the County to pro«de for payment of a fee. ,
. 64. Policy CF.9.6 of the Comprehensive Pl:~n encourages the expansion ofschool facility
-capacity at a coanparable rate «rith that of prn-ate residential developmcnt and demographic
trends. Policy CF.9.7 recotrnmends that the adequacy of schonl facilities bc considered whcu rcv7ewing new residential cievelopment.
65. The Staff Report sets forttli pther relevant policies of the Comprehtnsive Plvi. -
6G. The frndings adopt.ed Uy the CiTy Council in approvi.cig Orciinance'No. 05-003, whicli
reclassified the zaniiag of the area from the UR-7 * zone to the 'UR-3.5 zoue, state; in pertinent
part, that the proposed UR-3.5 zoning is consistent wit.h surxowiding zoning, particularly south of
Mission Avenue; the City Phase I Development Reeulat.ions do not proNlde any criteria to help cieteim7ine which land desiguated in l:he Low lDensity Residential calegory of the City Yntcrim
. Comprchensive Plan should be zoned UR-3.5 or Ult--/ significant testimony m support of the
iezone was submitted by proponents of the rezane, uicluding cancems about the adequacy of
, roads, parks, schoals and environmental 'unpacts; lowering the allowed density in the area will
. lessen the impacts fxom neNv development.; and property o«Tners may requesi a site specifc rezone
. back to ttie i1R-7* zone -,ria the T-Iearing Examiner process. 67. Th.e Staff Report found that the proposal is consiste.ni with the City Phase I llevelopment
Regulations and the City l:nterim Cornprehensive Ylan. lfie owners of larid abutting the sitE did
not object ta the proposai. The 9.35 acres lying directly north of the sitc are zoned LFR-7 1`, anci . '
14E Findings, Coiiclusians and DECisxon. REZ-287051SUB-13-45 Page 10
, have received preliminaiy plat approval for dev-elapment similar to the currcnt propasal, but at a
tugher residential density (net) of siY (6) dwelling units per acre. The density (net) of the
pi•elisrinarSr plat, at 5.02 dwelling uniis per acre, under the l.JR-7* cone, is slightly hiebei° then the
residential dsnsity (uet) pernaitted on the site uuder the UR-3.5 zone of 4.35 dwelling units per
acre. 1'he density di.fference.s equate to a diftrence of approximately 5-61ots on tlle 8.86-acre
site.
68. The preluninaiy plat map of record far the preluninary p1aL approved north nf the site in File
No. SU73-11-04, submitted on September 13, 2004; iilustrated connecfion of the internal road
systein in the prelimiDary plat cu itiZonteomery Avenue in twa (2) locations, a connectian to
RivelNvay Road in onc (1) locafion, the cx-t.ension of KnoY Avenue in the south end of the
prelininary plat to the east -and west boundaa-ies of the site, and uo road connections to the south
adjacent to the cui•rent site. See copy of preliminary plat map iucluded in the record by the
Hearing Esaminer. 69. A modification to the prcluninary plat map of record in File Nlo. SUB-11-04 was recentty .
submitted t.o the City DEpartmeiit of Corrrmuni[y Develaprneni. The revised map modifiES the
int.eraal road system in consideration of the current proposal by the Hearing Eaaminer, but retains
the same number oL' ]nts. Sce page 5 of the Exhibit 14 subrniCted by the Department ef
Communinr Development. The reNised mup eliminates the conneccion' to TZivenway Road;
iiiustrates a.n infernal road eateuding from north to south tlu-ough the ~~~est portion of the
. preluivnary plai., from Montgcmery Avenue south to the current site, and illusti-ates an intea-nal
road exrending south tbrough the east partion of the site, f.rom a cu]-de-sac in the north end of't.he
preliminai-,y plat south to the north bounciary of the current site. The revised map alsa illustrates
the ea-tensiou of a road between the cul-de-sac hi the nartheast portion of the preliminaly plat
west to the nartb to south road in the wcsl goi-dall of the preliminary plat; providcs aa east to
west connection 'v.i the soutti portion of the preliminaiy plat between the two north to sauth roads
in the prelinvnajy plat; and removes the conuections af the iuternal road system to the east and
west vounciaries of the site.
70. "1'he net effect of the revised preliminary pla[ map i.n File NfO. ST.IB-11-04; in conjunction.
witb the current preliminary plat proposal; would be f.o pro-,ride a noith to south connection
' . betcveeri Moutgomery Avenue ajid Greenacres Rnad; and to rely on the east to -west roadt in the
ciirreui preliminary plat far ftiture road extensions towarci Long R_oad t.o the west aud $arker
:12oad to the east, respectively.
71. The prel.iminary plai illustrates adequate internal cu-culation aud adequate conneciivicy to the
. road system located outside the site. Spakane County Fu-e District 1 found that access is
adequa#,e in the preliminary Plat.
72. The Cityy 17evelopmeut Engineering Division cQnditions of approval requue the applicanf to
unprove the internal public roads in the preliniEary plat to City staudards, including the
iusta.llation of pavement, curb and siclewalk. Such conditions require the applicant to irnprove
I:ndiana Avenuc along the frontage nf the site, including the installation of actditional pavemcnt
width, antl eurb aud sidewallc. Such conclitions also require the applicaut to mbmit final. cirainage
. . HT F-indings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-28-05/SUB-I3-05 Page 11
i .
. .
and road plans i.n coinpliance with the City Guidelines for Storirnwater Management. The
Guidelines prohibit new development fr•orn uacreasing the volume of drainage discharge.ci onto ~
adjoining property.
73. The applicant, a qualified traffic enginecring f.um, prepared and submitted a ti-affic iuipact
analysis (TU) for the prelimi.nary plat. The TTA focused on PM peak haur conditions at the
intersectson nz Indiana Avenuc and J ong Road, and Tndiana Avenue and Barker Road, as two af
the intersections in the area most impacted by the project, and which were considered
represcntative of most of the raa.cl intersections iu the arca.
74. The TLA took into account the traffic from ail the backgxound developments ihat had been
approved in the area; and properly adopfed a 1% groNv-th rate-for miscellaneous traffic increases
prior to bu.i]dout of the curi•ent proposal; hased oa actual traffic counts taken nver thc ye;ars in the
area. The TT.A properly assumed that devclopments proposed i.n the area that had not yet been
app.roved would be required to analyze and mitigate traffic eenerated Uy such developments, and
talce into cpnsideration cumulative tra.ffic impacts fi•om the current project, if approved, and Qther
approved developrnents in the area. See T1A, and testimony of Todd Whipple. •
75. !he TIA found thaz the site would generate 34 PM peak hour ti-ips; only S% of the PM peak
. hour traffic generdted by t.hhe proposal would travel south on Greenacres Road; to reach Barke.r
Roaci -v1a Vlission 1lvenue, 20% of the .PM peak hour traffic would travel on Indiana Avenue and
Baldwin Avenue letwccn khe site aud Flora Road to the ivesi; and 75% of the PM peak hour trips
would travel on Tudiana Avenue be"veen the sitc and Barker Ttoad to the east.. The TIA found ,
thaz 10% af the 1'M peak how• traffic from tbe project along l3arker Road would travel north on Barker Road, frorn the intersection of 13arker Road and lndiana Avenue; and 65% of the Pv1 peak
holu• traffic .f,TOUi ttie project along Barker Road woulci travel south on Bai-ker Road f.rom such
infersection. .
76. Thc TLA found t.hat ail intersections within the study area were functioning at acceptable
lere.ls of service, and that the pr4ject would not debrade the level of service (L.OS) at any of: tLte
road intersections in tbe az-ea, ai the time of project buildout, belnw J.,OS B; assuruing
signAization of ttie interscction of Barker Roui and Mission Aveuue in 2007. See testimony of Tacid `Phipplc. The City :E7.oad Standards set the minicnum accc,~ptabl.e LOS at simalized
ia.ttersecEions at LOS b, and the miuinitain acceptaUle LOS at unsignalized intersections at LQS E;
for trdnsportation concurrency purposes.
77. The City Public VVorks Depactment-Developmcnt Engineering 1Division accepted the TLA,;
. and properly certi.fied taansport.ation cnncurrency for the preliminary plai, under the City Phase Z
. Development Regulations. The traff.ic mitigation i.mposed by City.Engineering on the proposal
appeais to be zeasanably relatcd anci roughly proportionate t4 khe tra.ffic irnpact of the proposal
on the public road systeni in the area.
78. 'T'hc 1'r.A found that the acCicient rate at the ttivo study inter.sections over t,l.ie most rec;ent 3-
year period f.or which accident in.formation was available was zero or onc-lenth (.1) of the typical
_ accident ttu-eshcald for accidents at an interseclion before traffic mitigatiou is waXranted.
BE Tindings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-28-05/SUB-I3-05 page 12
. .
• 1
. • i
r 79. project oppvnents ciid not submit competent traffic engineering evideuce to rebut the
" conclusions of the TiA for the preliLUinary plat, or to establish that the approval af the proposal
would have any significant adN~erse frafic capacity or safety uTipacts af area road uitersections or
on the public .rnads traveled by project ti•affic.
80. The west edge of the pared pon7on; and the right of wa}=, of prnposEd Crreenacres TZoaci in
the pretinainary plat (except alonb the curve) lies respectively about 7.5 feet auci 12.5 feet tivest of
the easi boundary of the Sclimidt property located to the north across Tndiana Avenue; adjacent to
the right of way for existing Greenacres Road locate.cl south of Indialia Avenue. See preluiiinaiy
plat rnap. 'I"he aerial phato of the area coniained in Ex.iibit #l 4 appears to show the Schmidf
bome l4cated 20-25 feet wesf of the east bot2nda.iy of the Schmict property. There is nn apparcmi
need for a ban•ier to protect the bedrnorm nf the Schmidt property locatect o.n the north side of
the Sclunidt residence.
. 81. Inciiana AvEnue and Greeuacres :L2oad are uaiTOw pa~-ed roads t}lat do not meet City
staudards for pavement width, and due to the lacl: of ctLrb and sidewalk.. However, the applicant
i.udicated that Baldwin rlvenue aud tndiana Avenue (and presumably Tscllirley I2.oad) would be
paved to an increased width af 24 feet between Flora Road a.nd the site, as a result of eatending
public sewer in such roads for the prelinvnary plats approved e,ast o#'the site, and for the current
project if approved. Additional widening, aad the installation of curb and sideu,aLL-, wauld also
occur along the &ontage of such developmenis, and any new developments along such roads that
Ynay Ue approved m the future.
82. County Utilities ccrtified the availability of public sewer to servc the prelinunary plat, and
Canso]idated lrrigation llish-ict vo. 19 cei-tified the availability of public water. '[`he proposal
complies witli the Public sewer and water concurrency requuement-s af the City Phase T
Developnaent REgulafions.
83. Spoka.,ne Cnuney flir Polluiion Control Authority (SCAPCA) conditions of approval require the applicant co cqnip~, with a.tl applicable air quality regulations iu the development flf the
- proposcd subdivisiota, encluding dust emissions during demolition, consfrucfion and esca.vation
prajects. The City Mun.icipal Code makes it aiiuisance to distlzrb the topsoil on propcriy; without
- ta.king measures 't-a suppress anci minimize the blowuig and scattering of dust so as tv unreasonabty disttirb o1' interfea-e with the peace and comfort of neighboring property civnaers.
84. The City .Phase I Development Regulations do not require direct cflticurrency far schools,
parl:s, policE or fire protectinn. Central Valley Sehool Distlict was contacted regasdiaig the proposal, but dirl not submit any corvments.
' $5. The SpokaY!e lribe of Indians commented that the area has a high probability ot'producing
artifiacts and possibly hurnan remains, aud the area has nat been stuveyed fqr sueh i#euis; and
' recommended lhat some shovel testing and survey be performed on the site. Thc State .
Department of tlrchaeology & Hist.oric Preservation cammenfcd that the w-ea ha.s the potential for archaeological resources; three (3) recorded archaeological sites are fouad wiihin one (1) inile
:HC Fmdings, Conc]usions ancl Decision RBZ-28-05/SUB-13-05 Page 13
. ~y
of the site, development af the site as propased would lil-ely descroy any archaeological resources,
and cliscUVery duruig consiruction was not a recomnaended detect.ion method for the resourccs. .
Such agency recammended a professi4nal archaeologica] survey of the site bcfore xny on-site consta-uction, and consultation with the concerned tribe's cultural cammittees aad st.aff.
86. The applicanf objected to being required to conduet an archaeological survey of the site,
cansidering the lack of any emgirical eiidence that archaeological resources a.ctua115, exist on the
propcrfy. The Exxnuner lacks regulatory to require the applicant to conduct such survey where
there is only a possibility of fnding archaeological resources on the site. A standard condition
should bc irnpased requu-ing the applicant to promptly report the presence of any archaeological
resources found on the site during construction, as well as advising that such resources have been
found in the area.
87. Thc applicant iudicated that it amy impose restric-tive covenants on the sale of lots that
prohibit the rentang af homes in the dcvelopment for a 1-year; or other de5.ibnated pcriod of times,
to deter the rental of homes. Tb.e -bxarniner Iaclrs regulatory authoriry to bar the rental of homes
in the subdivision.
8$. The applicant indicat.ed that arrangements would be made for the- Schmidt's cesspooUseptic
tank located in the middle of Tndiana Avenue, if it would be darr►aged by the installation of public
sewer in such road. This is a property issue to be resolved Uetween the Schmidt's, the applicant,
the private contractor insfalling the public sewer for the applicant in lndiana Avenue, and County
Utilities. The Scliuudt's should promptly notify County Utilities (Billy Urhausen, at 477-7298) ef
.this situation.
89. Tbe City IVlunicipal Code requires properi), owners to comply with the maximum .
peraiissible noise levels set farth in Cha.pter 173-60 NYAC, and mak-es it a nuisance to exceed such
noise leve]s. The applicant woiild bc obligated to comply tivith such standards in the development
of the praject.
30. The Laaaniiner cannot assume fhat the applicant will remove the 1Rteral suppQrt, or otherwise
damage, adjacent properties in the development of the sitc. The City M:unicipal Code adopts state .
regulations that prohibit ]ittering on public and private property. Tlus would include litter
gencrated by constilichon sites. The City Ulunicipal requires compliance with ADA requiremcnts
f.b.r work done pursuant to construction pcrmits isst2ed by the City.
9l . The City Crilical Areas ivap does nUt indicate the presencc of arly prinrity wildlife babitat
on or neai the site, with the nearest designated prinrity wildlife habitat beirag located along the
- Spakane River, The City Critical Areas Ordinance does not list the red-tailed hawk as a priority
, species fhat requires protection. . 92. The Exa.miner concurs with the analysis in the Staff Report finding the preliminar_y plat and
' rezonc, as conditioned, to bc co.nsistent with the Coniprehensive Plan and applicable devclopment
1•egulations. HIl: Findings, Conclusions and ]7ecision REZ-28-09SUI3-13-05 Page 14
, ti
, 93. In accorduice ~vith the C;ity Subdi~~isian Ordinac~ce; the c~esign; shape; size and o~-ientation
~ of lots in the preliminary plat are apprApriate for the proposed use of such lots; and the character
- of the area in «rhich the lots are loeated. I31ock dimevsions reflect due regu•d for the neecjs nf
convenienE access; public safety, emergency vehicle access, topoa aphy, roati rnaintenance and
provision of suitable sites for the proposed use. k.oacl alignments in the proposal are designed
-wi'tb appropriate consideration far cYistiug a.ncl planned roaci.s, an#icipated iraffic patterns,
fopop-rapluc and draiuage ctinditions, safety and the proposed use ofi the site.
94. No public agencies objected to the approval af the proposal, as cauciitioncd. The project
tivill not have more than a rnodei-ate effect an the qua.lity af the environment..
95. As oouditioned, the projecC will be reasonably coinpati.ble with neighboriazg land uses, and
will not adversely unpact the puUlic health; safely aud generai tivelfare.
96. Thc proposal has been conditiane,d for compliance witli the UIt-7* zone, the Count), Znning
Code, the County Subdivisihn Ordiuauce, and other applicable development regulations. Nlo
defciencies -with regard to the compliance of the proposal, as conditianed, wit.h applicablc
de-velopmen_.t regLla.tions have been established i.n the record. .
97. Some changes have occtureci in. the w-ca since the zoning of the site and area Nvas
reclassified to the UR-3.5 zone efrective February 9, 2005. Tliis includes approval of the
greluninary plat located to the nortli under it foi-mer UR-7* zAning, revisio.n af the preluni.nary
plat arprovEd to t.he narrh to provide for a wzified roadway systein ivitb the cua•rent prnposal, the
_.finalizing of the Hidden. Valley plat and Hiclden V alley A.ddiLions to the c asr, Uie building out of
• homes iri the ffidden Vallcy plat; the extension of public sewer and cnnmence-meut of rpad and
sewer unprovements a1ong Baldkvin Avenue and Flara Roacij aud the coustniction pf road
improvements atong Barker Road.
,F3ased on the above tinciings of fact, the Hearing BYaminer eneers the followirag:
T.I.T. CONCLITS[ONS OF IsAIN'
1. The proposeci prelinninary plat and zone reclassificatio.n to the UR-7* zone, as conditi.oYaed,
conform to and i;riplement the City's Tncerun Colnprehensive T'lan.
2. The prelirninary plat and dcclicatiou will serve the pub]ic use and interest; and make
apprUpriate provision for the public health, safety and general wel.f.ai-e.
3. The prelirninaiy plat and cieclication Luake appropriate provision for open spaces, roads,
drainage ways, schools and sch4al g•rounds, plnygrounds, parks wid recreation, side«-alks for
children who walk only to school, 21011-IIlOt017Z£d lTansportltion, sanituy wastes, pofi.able water
supplies, easemenis, utilities, platuiine features, and all ottier rele«nt facts as specified in RCN
' •58,17.110 and the City Subdivision Ordinance.
HE Findings, CQnclusions and Decision R.EZ-28-05ISUB-13-05 Page 15
4. The proposed subdivision meets the general desieu requirements specified in Section 12.400.122 bftlle City Subdivision Ordiuance, and other requirements for the approval of
prcliniinwy plals tisted iu Chapte.r 12.400 oFsucb o.rdinance.
5. 'Che proposed rez4ne beai-s a subqantial relaiianship, and will ilot br; detrimental, to the .
public healtti, safety or welfare.
. 6. The procedural requirements of the State E-nvironmental .Policy Act and the Cit}t
Environuiental Ordinancc haN~e been met. The proposal, as conditioned, will not have a
signi.[icant, probable adverse impa.ct on the env-iroriment. -
_ 7. The proposal, as conditioned, coa7plies with the UR-71` zone, the Aquifer Sensitivc Ovcrlay
zone, othcr applicable provisions of tlae City Zoning Code, and other applicable development
revulations. S. Approva] of thhe zone rcclassificatian, as conditionecl, is appropriate uncier Chapter
14.402,020(1) ofthe CityGoning Code.
9, Approval of the zone reclassificaiian. and prel'uni.nary plat is appropriate uuder Chapter
10.35 of the Spokane Vallcy Muaicipal Code; and meets the criteria esiablished by VJasbingtdn
case laNv for app.roving a rezane.
BT. DECTSIO\T
Based on tlie Findings of Fact and Conclusions of,Law abflve, thE applicafi.ons for a
preluninary plaf and zone rccla.ssification are hereby vppraved, subject to thc compliance vith tihe
condiki.ons of approva] of the w6ous agencies specified below.
A.ny conditions of approNta1 of puUlic agencies that have Ueen adder3 or significantly altered
. by #lie Eaarniner are italr.'cizecl. This approval does not w3ive the applicant's obligatian to comply with all othE~-
requirements of other public agencies with jurisdicEian over land developmen[.
CONDITTUNS OF APPROV.AL:
A. . Gcncral
The following are general conditions of aUproval that apply to the preliminary plat and rezone
approval: HB Findings, Conclusio.ns and Decision REZ-28-05/SUTi-13-05 Page 16 '
. .
SPOKANT VALi,:FY COivL1TIJNI'r'Y J7EVl?LQFMENT DLl'AR.TNIFNT - PLAN'I~Tl1i TG
_ Xti7SIQNT
1. 'T`he Spok.ane Valley Interun Zoning ARap shall be tzpdateci th specify au 'Urbari,I:Z.FSidential-
7* (UaZ-71') zone desirnation for Parcel \jos. 55074.0612, 55074.0616, 55074.0618 and
55074.0619.
2. Thc fmal plat shall be developed ui substantial conforrnance with the preliminary plat nial) af
record submitted on Nlovember 2, 2005; and shall have a maximbim of th'v-ty-seven (37) singlc-
family residential lots; unless a change of conditious applicatian is submitted and approvcd after a
public heariug, pursuaut to Section 12.100.120 (Modi.fications) of the ,Spokane Valley Inierinl
Subdivision Ordinance ("Subdi«sion Ordinance").
3. Pursuant t.o Section 12.100.116 (Espiration of Approval) of Oe Subdivisiou Ordiua.nce;
the pretiminaiy plat shall autornatically expire on Mav 25. 2011, unle,ss a Cune eYtension is timely
subiuitted and approved for the preliminary plat. If a request for an extensinn af fime is not ticnely
;ubmitted and approved, the prelirninary plat ex}aixes and is null and vaid.
4. Pursuant tio Scciion 12.100.118 (Extensions of "1'une) of the Subdi-srision Orc3inance, au
3pplication forni and supparting data for a tiIIie eatensiQn rnust be subrnil•ted to the Director at
least ihirty (30) calendar day5 prior ta expiraeion of the prelinsinary plat.
5. Aur;uant to Section 12.100.130 (Enforcement) of the SuUdix4sion Ordinaiice, any saJe;
leasE, or transfer of auy lot or parcel created pursuanc Co the City's SuUdijrision Ordinaucc ihat '
does not conform to the requu-ements of the prelirninary plat appro<<a1 or that occurs ~vithout
approva.l, shall be conside.red a violation of Cliapte.r 58.17 KCN-V, mid shall be rest.rained by
injunctivc act.iou a.i.id s:hall be illegal, as p.roVided in Chapter 58.17 RCW. Fach sale; lease, or
. transfer of each separate Iot or parcel af 1ai1d iu iiolation af any provisian of this ordiuance shall
be deerneci a separa.te and distinci offense.
6. Fxcepf where noCed in condifions of appro-,-,:l, the proposal shali comply with the provisions
, of Chapter 14.61 S(I:Jrban Residential-7) of the Spokane Valley Int.erim Loning Coae ("%onizig
Code"), as amended by tlie CiLy T'hase IDevelopment 12ee«lat.ions, rega.rdinb dtnsiky in the U.R.-
7* zone.
. 7. Pursuant to Section 14.618.375 (Utilities) of the Zoning C:ode, all Latility hardware shall be
. placed uudergr.ound or screened fi-om viexv with a decarac.ive Ulnck w~~ll or landscapiue. Saad
screening shall be as tall as the highest portion of the equiprneut and shall be pennanently
maintained.
_ B. Prior to final nlat apuroval. the aUnlicant or successors iIa interest sball:
HE Find.ivgs, Coriclusions anci.Decision RBZ-28-05/SU]3-13-05 Page 17
~
SPOKANE VALLEY COi~B4UNTI'.l Y D,EVEL,O.AMENIT DEPARTMENIT-PLANfi111G
laN1STQN' .
1. :fn orcier to comply with Seclion 14.618.365 (Walls) of the Zonine Code, the applicant shaD,
prior to fina.l plat approval, construct a six (G)-foot higla coucrete, masonry, or decozative block.
wall, solid landscaping or sight-obscuring fence ("screening") along the e2st and wast baun.daries
of the site. rurEher, the applicanf shall submit a written agreement a.ereeiug that the applicant nr
successars in inicr£:st sba11 continuaiisly maintain in good couditiQn the six (6)-foot high
screening. Fuither, the applicant shall at the sauie, tirne agree tliat at iizne of sale of any and aIl of
the parcels created t.hroLigh the shorE plat action, the applic.ant shall notii'y in writing all buyers of
ihe requircment to ynaintain the six (6)-foot high screening alone the porlion of the propcrty under
their direct contrpl.
2. Pursuant to Sect.ian 12.400,134 (Professiana.l Laud Surveyor) of the Subdivision (7rciinmice,
a final plat shall be subnuttcd and sha11 bc made by or under the supervision of a professioual land
surveyor; who shail ccrti,fy on the final plat thai it is a truc and cqnect representation of the lands actually siuveyed. All surve}rs shall comply with the Survey Recarding ,Act (RCW Cbapter
.58.09), Survey anci Land 17escriprions (1Vi'1C Cbapter 332-130), and the City of Spokane Valley's
" Interirn Standards for R.oad and Sewer Construction, as amended
. 3. Thc submitted fina] plat shall comply with all suUmittal requirements specified in Chapter
12.400 of the Subdivision Ordiuance. ,
4. :Ptusuant to Section 12.400.144 (Filing) of the Subdiiision Orciinance, the City 4f Spokanc
Valley shall record the fiilal plat witli the Spokane County `'luditor's Office, upon receipt of all.
.requu•ecl signatures on the face of the plat; provided that also pursuant to such sectiAn, the
- applicant shall subnut, prior to recordiug, all required recording fees, includi.ng appa•opriate fees
io pay fot the cost at three (3) copies of the recnrded final plat for distribution to the City of
Spolcane Valley Plannin.g, Engineerin~ and Building DivisioTas. 5. Subinit a final plat containing t}1e f.ollowing notc on the face of the plat: "All lots within tLus
plat shall coTliply wit,h the building setback requirements, ma-ximum btiilding height standard;
. max.unum lot cvverage stanclard and otlier applicable lot develnpment stanaards for the UR-7*
zonE, or successor zorie, in effect at the time of building permit application."
SPOKANE VAJ.LEY CONi'Miii ITY llLVELOPMEhiT DE:PAR.TMENT-BU[_LIa.NG
DIVISION
6. A grading pernut shall be subuiitted and issued per City of Spokane Valley M:unicipal
Code (5VMC) Chapter 10.15, A.rti.cle II (Excavation,Fill ancl Gtdcting) prioi to t•eceivine final
plat apprQVal.
Tik? Finciitigs, Conc.lusions and Dccisidn REZ-28-05/SUB-I3-05 Page 18
SPOK.~\''E ~T!~LLEY P~CTB.T_TC IATO~'tK.S .DEV,~~L.QPIKENT DI~PA.IZTT~7EVT-iDE~~LOPMFTNT'C
' ENGI`N"E E 121NCr llTVISI0N' .
7. AProfes3ionai Engineer, licensed in the State nf Washington, shall subniit final sireet and
drainagc plans and a drauaage report, incJuding calculatiaus that confnrm to the 2001 Editian. of
the Spokane County SLandards for Road and Sewer Construct;on (or as aniencied), the 1998
Spol:ane Couniy Guidelines for Sto.nl-nva#er Managemenl (or as amended); Spakane Valley
Stormwater Ordinance 05-013, and all other applicaUle sLmciarcis.
S. Frontage improvements are required for Indiana Avenue. Indiana Aventie is designated a.s a
l.ocal Access Strvet. Fx.isting right-of-cvay consists of 20 feet from centerline to Property
fi-onta'ge. Improveinents required 'uiclude a total of 15 feet of asphalt fi om centerline io propei-ty
frontage, T}pe .B curb and gutter; 10-foof. planter strip, wYd a 5-foot sidewa.Ik. A 13-faut boa•der
easement is required.
9. 'I"he internal sereets shall be designated. as public streets. All streets sha.ll be desi ;med and
construcled iu accoi•dance wit1i the 2001 Spokane Count.y ltoad and Sewer Standards.
10. Final plat language «<ill be determined at the tirnc of fmal plat application. Please contact
Spokane Va11ey kublic `Vorks to obiain this language.
SPOKANTF RE GIONTAL lILALTII llTSTRICT:
- ~
.l 1. The final plat shall be ciesigneti as i:n_dicated on the prelinniri;u•y plat of record andlor any
attacheci shcets as noted.
12. Appropriaic utility easeme.nts sha31 be indicated on copies of the prelixtunar}7 plat of 1'ec4rd
for distribution by the Planning Departrnent to the utility campanies, City of Spoicaue \Talley
l?ublic 'A'orl:s Deparlmcnt, aud the Spokane Regional Hea1t11 :District. 1NTriiten approval af the
easemenLs by the utility conapanies shall be received pri.or to the submittal oi'the final plat.
13. "I'he sewage dispos:tl met;bod s.hall be as authorized by the ]airec;tor of [Jfilities, Spokane
Co witiy.
14. Watec se►-Nrice shall bc coordiuated through the DirECto.r oi'Utilities, Spokalie Gaunfy.
la. Water service shall Ue by an existing public wazer supply tivhen. approved by the Regional
- Engiueer (Spok.ane), State Departuient of Health.
- 16. Prior to filing the fina] plat; the spousor shall present eNldence that the plat Jies withiu the
recorded sci-vice area oFtli e w atcr system proposeci to scp-ve the plat.
17. A plan for water facilitics adequate for ciannestic use, cioniestic irrigation use; aiid fLre
. protection use shall be approveci by the tivater purveyor. Said water plan must have been approvcd
Uy the fire protection district arici the appropriate li.ealih authorities. The health aukharities, wat.er
:CiF k,.indings, Conclusions and laecision REZ-23-051SU13-13-05 1'age 19 •
. j
supplier (purveyor); aad the fire Protection clistrict will certify, prior to the filing of the firaal plaut,
on the f.ace of said water plan that the p13n is in conformance «Tiih their requiremencs ancl will .
adequately satisfy their respecrive needs. Said water plan and certification will be drafted on a
ty-ansparency suita.ble for reproductidn.
1$. The purvc}•'or will also certify prior to filing the final plat ou a capy of said water plan that
appropria.tie contractuai arrangcment5 have been made with the plat sponsor for construction of
the water s}•-stein, in accordance with the approved plan and time schedule. The time schedule
will_ proi-ide, in any case, for completiou of the water system anct inspection by the approgriate
health aut}iorities prior to application for building pcttuits N;riihin the plat. The coutractual aiTangement will inclucie a proNision hniding City of Spokane Valley, Spokane Regional rYealth
District, and the purveyor harmless from claims by any lot purchaser refusEd a iniilding pernut duc
to f.ailure of the plai sponsor to satisfactoi•ily camplete the approved water syst.cm.
19. A puUlic secvcr system ,~vill be madc available for the plat and uidividual service `vill be
prUvrided to each lot prior to sale. llse of individual. on-sitc sewage dispasal systems shall not be
authorized.
20. A statement shall be placed in the dedication to ilze effect that: "A puUlic sewer systein
will be madc available for the plat aud indiNidual service will bc pravided to each lot prior to sale.
Use of individuai on-site sewage disposal systems shall not Ue authUr..i7ed."
21. The cledical:Ury la»"L-uaee on the plat shall staxe: "Use of private welis aud water systems is
pro.lubitecl." .
. 22. The final plat declication shall. contain the following statement: "The public -vvater system;
pu,rsuanr tn the 1Valer Plan approved by county and state health authori.ties, the lacal fire
prptect.iou district, the City of Spokane Valley Building and Safety llepartnient and tivater
purveyor, shall be installed vtithin t,his Subdivision and the applicant shall provide for individual
domestic wate.r ser4ice as weil as fire protection to each lnt prior to sale pf cach lot and prior to
issuance a£ a building pea-mit £o.r each loi."
CITY OF SPOK-A-NE VAI .LEY N1RE DrPARTIvEN"C:
23. If gates are proposed, a"to-sGale" draNving sliall Ue submutted for rejricw of final plat
. application. . •
24. A dctailed water plan is required showing ex-isting/proposed hydrant locations.
. 25. The installation of uew fire hycirants shall be required at the following locations;
a_ Northwesi corner of Greenacres Road and indiana Avenue. . b. No.rtlieast coriier of Aries Road and ulichielli Avenue.
c. Southwest. corncr of Cneenacres Road arid Shannon Avenue. 26. k'i.re apparatvs access roads 20 1'eet io 26 feet wide shall be posted on both sides as "Fire
HE Findings, CUncl.usions and Decision REZ-28-05/SUB-I3-05 Page 20
- ,
• -i r
Lane No Pu-king.
- 27. Addresses sha11 be posted durm,p construction.
ANIISTA UTCI.,1TIbS
. 28. A ten (10)-foot «ride utility casement strip adjacent aud adjoining anci c4ntiguous -,~vith all
priVate mid public roads to inchicied Indiaaa. Utility s-ft-ips are to be located bebind any aud
. separate from sidewalks and planned drainage facilit,ies (boarder easements).
29. Submif a final plat specifyuig the following note on the face of the fiua.l plaf: ""Dry"
. Uciliry easeiuerits sbaNvn au the be.rein tiescrihed plaC arti• hereby dedicated for the use of servin;
utility conipanies for the consiruction, i•econstruction, 7naintenance, protection, inspection and
operatian of their respec'tive "Dry" faciliues, together wiih the right to pzohihit char,iges in &q•ade
that will reduce the~ existing cpverdge ovcr in;tallcd underground facilities and the rig.it to trim
• ancUor remavc trecs, bushes, laudscapine aud to prohibit stl-uccures thai may intiei-fere with the
eonstrlaction, reconsiruction, reliaUilify, maintenance, anci safe operatio» nfsame."
C. Pi-ior to or du1•ine on-site corrstruction the armlicani or successors in interest shall:
SPOK:kN~F~ VAt-LLY CUNiMUNTIT1'' DLVELOY1VLENT DFPART_NKENT-PLANW.~TG
JaNTS10N
, 1. Upon crny discovery af potential or Iaiotivri arclarreologacal resources «t ilie subject
prvper'ty prior to or durirag ficture on-srie construction, ilze developer, COIIt)'QCjOI; artci/or mny
OIIlEY1JQYtdG'S I)2vQlvel i.n const.r-isct.ion shall im»tediatelvi cea.se all an-site constf-ucizon, sla.all uc•t
' f0 ~'Ji"OfG'Cf fhG' pO12J21IClI OY k72014T1 hI81oP1CQl Q)Id CILIIUYQI resaur•ces area fi"OF37 01dtSlCZE 7t1t17LSlOi'!,
and shall noiify, watl2in ri rnaxirraasni pej•rarl of tweqv four (24) hoicy:s fi-om tli.e lirne of discovety,
the City af S'pokane V'alley Cornnturiity Develop»iefzt Departn7.ent of said disrovety.
SPOKANIE VALLEY PUEiLIC R'Ok%S QFI'ARTI\ONT - DENTLLOk'1%MNTT E1zGI1\TEERl~TCr
' i71V1:S:lUiN
2. n Temporaiy Erosinn and Sedimentakioris Coritrol (TESC) plau, greparECi by a Washuigton
Stai.e licensed Professional E-ngineci•, shall bc prepared and suUmirted tvith the site construetiQn
plans. The TESC plan is to folLow 199$ Spakane County Guideliues for Stnrniwater
Managemeut. T.lie 7.113SC strucfures (such as silc ponds, silt traps) are eo be insta.lled priar td the
start of site work, wid the T]:SC measwes are to be implernented and inainfained t}u•oug}.I.out the
. duration of construction and until the site lias stabilized
3. The permiciec is responsible for arranging for all necessary utility adjustinents, relocations;
or improvemcnts as requireci for conipletion of the pro}ect.. The developer needs to confact the
purveyors of cach affected util.ity regarding private service, utility improvement, and any relaear.ion and adjustmeut costs. AJl rigid objects shall be locaf.ecl aut of the clear zone. These
clear zone requirements can be found i.n the Spakane County Ttoaci and Sewer Standards.
• 'HC, F131CIIllgS; Con.clusions anci Illzcisiau REZ-28-05ISLJB-I3-05 Page 21
.
. . .
4. Pernuts are required .f'or any access to nr wark wiihin the iight-of-way of the Spokanc •
Valley roadway system. . 5. Consti-uciian within the proposed public streets annd eascments shall be performed u.nder the
direci supervision of a licensed Washington State Professipnal EngineerfLand Surveyor, who shall
fiu-nish the Cily En.ginecr with "Rct.ard 17rawing' plans and a certification packagc certi.f~6ug all
improvements were installcd to the line,s and grades shown on the appzoved construct.ion plans
and that all disttn•bcd monuments l.iave been replaced. All work is subject to inspeckion and
approval by the City Engineer or by his/her staff. I'he certification package suhmittal shall follow
all applicavle standards. .
SPOKAs~tE CGU\TTY AIR PC7Z,LLITTON CONTRQL AUT'HORITY
6. Dust einissions diuing demolition, construction, and c;xcavation prnjects shall be controlled.
Appropi7aLe nieasures shaD. ulclucie but are nUt limiteci to the usc Ufwater sprays, tai-ps, sprinklers
. or suspension of actiNity during certain weather conditions.
7. Measures 3hdil be taken to avoid the deposition of dirt and nnid'from unpaved surfaces onto
paved surfaces. Yf l7-a.ckiug or spills occur on paved surfaces, measures must be taken immediately
to clean these surfaces.
S. Debris generated as a result of this project shall Ue disposed of Uy means other than buruing. ,
9. If objectionable adois result froin this project, effective cuntrol apparatus and n2easures shall
be tak-en to reduce odors to a min;rr,um.
10. Special attention shall be given to proper maiutenance of die,sel powereci consti-action
equipmeni to reduce the impact of diesel exhaust, a suspeuded carcinogcn.
11. A NTOtice of Cr'onsi:ruction and Application for Approval shall be submitted and approved Uy
.SC.4PCA prioz to the constf•uctiun; installaiti4n, or establishment of an air pollution source. This
includes emergency gencrafars rated ar 500 hp (375 k.NV) or higher, natural gas heatinp equipment
units ratid at 41\43\TBTU/br or higher (iupufi), and heat.ivg equipment tmits fred with other fuels
(e.g. diesel) rated at 1M1~iBTU/hr (input) or higher. Contact SCA~'CA for d 'Nlotice of
Application. 12. A Natice of lntent shall bc submitted to SC.Al'CA prinr to any demolition project or
7sbestos project. An a.sbestos sm-vey mtist be done by au AHER.A accredited building inspector
prior to kbe demoli#ion or renovation nf buildings to detennine if asbestos-containing iiiatcria,l is
present at the site. CQntact SCAPCA for aiNatice of Iutent appl.ic;ation.
Sl'OKA\zE COUiNTY k'ITtE 17TSTR.T,CT rTO. 1
13. A11 sts eet sigras are required to be installed prior to issuance of building peruiits. NF Finciings; C'onclusions aa.td l7ccision REZ-28-05/SU13-13-05 Page 22
a
a.~
~
Q`VEST
14. Submit two (2) ful[ sia:e fina.l plat maps wit}i lot addresscs naEed az►d the senring power
utility design a# lcast six (6) weeks before the developer's andlor buildcr's open utiJity trench date.
WASH1NGTQN STA'l'L llEP.4RTNiP1z'T OF ECOLOG]'
15 Erosion contro] rneasures rnust he in p.lace prior to any clearing, Cn'ading or cUnSiructiqn.
Tliese control measures must he effectivc to pi•event soil from beiaig carried into sui•face water by
siormwaYer runofF Sand; silt, and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are cvnsidered pollutaiits.
16. Tlie applicaut is encoiiragcd to use eonstruction products containine recycled aud nou-toxie
materials whenever possible to reuse and recycle aIl leftnver construction iuaterial,s, aud reduce
waste generated and practice "Crreen Buildi.ng" principals in all aspecfs afthe project. Qthenwise;
the demolicion r,vaste must be disposeti of at a peiinitted solid wasi.e facilitST.
17. Proper ernsian and sediment control practices must be iiseci on the construction sile and
adjacent areas io prevent upland sediments :f.rom entering the nattua.l storm-,vater deainage systein.
All -w•eas disturved or .tlewly created Uy construction acri%,ri#ies must be revti.getateci; use
bioengineering techniques, use elean durabl.e riprap, or some oxher equivalent type of protection
against erosion when other measLires are not practical.
.,18 All dry wells and other injection «<ells irust be registei•ed witZi the Underground'Injection
Conirol Progr•am (U7C).
19. Tary wells can not be used for disposal of :stormwatcr unless a treai7nent dcvicE or all know
available ar,ci reasonable metliods otpreventiou, conTrol aud treatnieut is provided prior to
injecfion a.nd the dischu•ge can meEc the Grnund Water Standarcls.
20. RoutFne inspection and ina.intenance of all sedunent and erosion control devices is
recomnicnded borh during and af'ter devGlopment qf ilie site.
21. laumpsters azici refuse collection coutainers mUst be lcak fi•ce with close fitting covei°s. The
drainagc; fer rc;fuse container and clumpster al-ea.s adjacent ta or aver the Nvater niust be connected
to the sanity sewer or ottie.iivise designed to prevent leachate frouiUein.g discliarged to surface
wa.teis. .
22. On-site septic tank an.d d,ra.i.nfield systen-is are designed to treat and di,spose of domesEic
wastewater or its equivalent onl}r. Conunercial and industria-1 operafiens ciischarging waste other
tlian doniestic tivastewafer to on-site syste.ms iva.y result i.n ground water cont.amination and could
cause the facility oNvner or operaEor to incur severe liabilities.
HE Fiudings, Conclusio.us and Uecision REG-28-05/SU.E3-13-05 Page 23
• DATEll this 26th day c~f May, 2006
C1TY IXE•A.RING EXA11!fTNFR PRO TE11'1
iVlichdel C. Dempscy, WSBA #82V 0
NO'I7CE QF FENAL DE•CISTO\T AND N'OTICE OF RTGfIT TO APPEAL
Pursuanf to Chapter 10.35 of the City of Spokaue Valley Mu,uicipal Code, the decision of
the Hearing Examuier on a combined application fQr a zone reclassi.ft.cation and preluninary plat is
final and conclusive unlcss within fiburteen (14) calendar days frorn the E-xaminer-s written
decision; apart:3, of record aggricved by such decision files an aUpeal with the City Council of the
. City of Spokarae Valley, Cify Ha11, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, in Spokane Va11ey, Was}un,gton.
• Tliis decision was mailcd by certired inail to the Applicant, and by first class rnail io other . parties of record, an May 26; 2006. T.HEAI'PEUAC.• CLOSLYG llA'I`E IS Jl'JNE 9, 2006.
The complcte record in t}.iis matter, including this decision, is Qn file during the appeal
period wi#11 the OfFice of the He,-1ring Fxa.nuner, Third Floor, Public Worl:,.s Building, 1026 RTest
:$rqa&vay Avenue, Spokane, Washingi:vn, 99260-0245, (509) 477-7490. The file may be
. inspecrc;cJ duriug nnnnal working how•s; listed as Vlantiay - Friday of each week, except holidays,
bEfweeai the hours of $:30 a.u1 aud 5:00 p.m After the appeal perind; the file nla}° be inspected
at the Cii.y of Spakane Valley Department of Community Development; Di-,,ision of Cun•ent
- .l?laia.n.ing, 11707 E. Sprague Airenue, Spokane Valley, Wasbington.. Copies of the docunients iu
the recorci Nvill be: made available at the cost set by City uf Spoka.ne Valley Ordinancc,
Yursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, af.fected property ov~r.ners may zequest a chauge iLi iraluation
fbt' property tax: ptuposes notwithst.anding any program of revaluation. '
HE Findi.ng-s, Conclusions aud Decision REZ-28-05lSU,B-13-OS l?age 24 '
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: 07-18-06 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply; Cl consent ❑ old business El new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2007 Council Goals.
During the June 17, 2006 Council/Staff retreat, the following draft goals were formulated:
1. Crmtinue mnnitoring wastewater issues, including governajlce of•' wastewater facilities,
enhanced citizen awareness of optioiis for the fulure and piu-suit of the most efficient and
economical use of allowed wastetivater discharges.
2. Exulore the av3ilxble telecommunications infrastructure that may be accesseci by public
institutions, residents, and businesses within Spokane Valley.
3. Adont a sub-area plan for thc Snrap-ue Corridor and initiate the implementalion of
ackuevable recommenclations.
4. Amend the cumpreliensivc alsn to ret7ect acaornmodation of Snokanc Vallcv pnpulatian
proicctinns within and adjacent to city liinits and to Outline an anneYation policy procedure.
5. Aclont a Strect Master Ylan and draft a fi.nancial straiegy to implcmcnt the plan.
6. I~~stablish denartmental nriorities and incorporate thcm into a sir-year business plan for
each department that includes fnnward looking budget and funding implicatians. 7. Adopt a Uniform .nevelopment Cade that implcments tbe Comprehensive Ylan.
A1so during the Retreat; therc was discussion to amend the FY 2006 Rudgel Cioals as follows:
Draft a weU-defined Street M.aSter f'tan, witli Fuading QpNons, tttat identifies the cutrent condition cif _
city streets and recornmends appropriate improvements and maintenance that preserve the value and stnietural intcgrity of the local transportalion systcrn. lnitiate the Fir-st Phase of the Sur9guc Corridor RevitalizaNon 1'lannin; betwcen University and the
freeway by contracting wil.h a eonsultant t4 design a stratey lhat wquld strengthen the econornic viabilil.y
nf the eorricior.
Continue Munitorin; Sienificant Wastewstee lssuew iricluciing governance of was[ewater facilities,
enhanced citizen awareness of optians for the future wicl pursuit of the most efficient tuid cconomical use
oFallowed wastewater discharbcs.
Maintxin ss Slronfi rmnhasis on Internal ancl Fxternal Cnmmunication utili7,ing the Public
Inf'nrmation Ufficer and clepar[mcnt hcad liositions to enhanee Che quality, titneliness wid accuracy of
internal dialc,gue tmd the inf'ormation provided to citizens about city issues, initialiVGS and wOrk pIanS.
Exnlore and imnlement it records management svstem, includinLi, document sirchiving, clocument
ima Qin p, and all neces.sarv nroaonents which will encompass and manape the entire Cih,'s rccords.
C*oFure 'eNtien . ay-be-ac:cey . .
. es-wii#i"pektine Vttlley,
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Dave Mercier
ATTAC H M ENTS
DRAF`I'
Anv aNcr AGENllA
- For 1'lanning Discussion Purposes Only
: :ts of .Tuly 1.2, 2006 1:30 p.m.
Plea.Se riote this is awork in progress; iteilis are tencaCive
To: Council & Stiff
Hrom: City Manager
Re: Drafl Sc:hedule for Upcoming Couneil Aleetings
Jul* 19.10:00 a.m. Gouncil Chamticrs: Auditor's T;n'tr<ince-.Conferencc
Julv 25, 2006, iteizulsr IVTeetine, 6:00 a:m. [duc date Monday, ,Tuly 1.71
1. YUBLl(: HEARI\'G: Estensinn of UR-1 - Niarina Sukup [1 5 minutes.l
2. Conscnt Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll; jW'17fA ApreemceU:;-WEB l'roprty Lease [S rninutes]
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance for Street Vacation STV O 1-06 - Karen Kendall r5 minutcs]
4.1=irst Reading Proposed Qrdinance Extending UR-1 -Marina Sukup [10 minutes]
S. Motinn Consider<<tion: Revision of Sign Code Coniniittee - Maritia SukuP S minutc:s]
6. IvtoCion Consideration: Jail and Gei3er Agi-eements - Morgan Koudelka [15 minutes]
7. Motion Consideration: Homelessness Resoluiion - Bill Goihmann [10 minutes]
Aclminist.rtjtive Reports:
8. Spokanc CotlnCy Gonseivation DisU•ict - Linda Graham (15 minutcs]
9. Spokane Co. Comrnunieaf:inns Agreement - Ibtorgan ICoudelka . [IU minutes]
Inforrnation Only:
10. pepari:ment Nlonthly Report:.s;
11. UDC Continue(l UpdaCe - Marina $ukup;
12. Response to 1'ublic Ca►nmcnts (estimated mccting: lOp minules*]
August 1. 2006 -NO 11=EH:Tli\`G -NATIONAT, i\T1Gli'1' UUT
AuLusl' S, 2006, ltceular MeetinL, 6:00 a.m. [duc datc IN-ic►nday, Jtiiy 31]
1. Public Hearing: Proposcd Ordinance for $treet Vacation STV 02-06 - iVlike Basinger [l 5 R1IIlUtt;S]
2. Consent tlgenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll [5 minutes]
3. Secand Re.ading Proposed Ordinance for StreeC Vacation S'I'V 02-06 - Mi.ke Basinger (;5 minutes]
4. Sccond Reiiding Proposed Ordinance Extending UR.-1 - Marin<< Sukup [10 minutes]
5. Ivl:otion Consicteration: Spokane Couuty CUmmunications Atrecinent - iVlorgan Koudelkq [10 minute,s]
G. Joint Housing Audi oricv -Yarticipation lnterlocal- Niua ltc~or 5 minutes.]
TOTAL DvIT\iTJTF:S: 60 minutes
Auiusl 15. 2006. Stucv Scssion, 6:00 n.m, jduc dstc A'Ionday, August 71
Siummer crnd part-ti»le employee rntrodr.ictiorzs - 2iflke.IUCksvrT
1. Lstimates on 2006 revenues; preliminaiy 2007 rcvenueslexpenditures - Ken Thdmpson (20 miriutes)
2. tUl Hazard Mitigation Plan Briefing -'1'om Scholtcns • (ZO R11t1UieS)
3. Old Senior Center- Mil:e Jackson (15 minutes)
4. Ayuatics Update.- iM ikc Jackson (15 minutes)
5. Personnel Ordinances and Resolucions Update - Nina Rcgor (15 minutes)
6. Advance Agenda Additions - Maynr Wilhite }
. 7. Council Check-in -1~tayar WiLliite } (5 minutes)
3. City Vianager Comments - Diive vlercier } TOTAI., ti~i_n'V:l'~S: 90 ininutas
Drift Ad~nmce Agencfa 7/12f2006 1:3$ VM Page I nC3
Auaust 22, 2006. Reaular Meeline, 6:00 a.m. [due datc Nlonday, August 141
1. PUBLIC HFARiNC: 2007 Revenues, Including Property Ta-xes
2. Consent Agenda: Minuces; C111R1S, F1yro11 [5 rninutes]
,
3. `'Iotion Consideration: Council Sets Budget Hearings for Oct 10 and (?ct 24 - Ken Thompson [5 miiiutes]
Administrative Reporl's:
4. Presentation of 1'reliminary• BudgeC- Dave Vtercier [50 minutes]
[nfc?rmation Only:
5. Departtnent Reports
6. Response to Public Comments (estimatcd meeting: 60 minutes*]
Auaust 29, 2A06 (no meetina)
SeptemHer 5, 2006 Stuclv Session. 6:00 a.m. (due dxte Monday, August 28]
1. Uutside :9gerrcies Presetilciliotr - Ken 77tarnpson (45 minutes)
2. Advance Agenda Additions - ivfayor Wilhite }
3. Cnuncil Check-in - Mayor Wilhite } (S minutes)
4. City Manager Comments - Dave Mercier } TQTAL NLINU'1'F,S: 50 minutes
Scntember 12, 2006 lteeular Meetine, 6:00 n.m. [due date Monday, Sept 41
1. Consent Agcnda: Minutes; Cl<<ims, Payroll [5 minutes]
2. N'irsC R.cading Comprehensivc Plan Amendment Ordinance - Mike Connclly [15 minutes]
~Wed'nesdav; September 1120[IG, C:onversali~►n Nvith the Co[nmunitv, 6-7 p.mj
Valleypoint at Pines Church, Church Sanctuttry '
Sentembcr 19, 2006 Study $ession, 6:00 p.m. idue date Monday, Sept 111
1. Dcpa.rtniental $uciget Highlights antl Work Pmgrwn 1'resentations (90 minutes)
2. Advance Aaenda Additions - Iviaynr Wilhite }
3. C:ounei) Check-in - Mayor Wilhite } (5 minutes)
4. City Mana~er Cc~rn~nents - Iaave I~~lcrcier } TO"I'AL A~`iTTT'S: 95 minutes
Septcmbcr 26, 2006 Reaular MeelinL-, 6:00 p.in. (due date iN'londay, Sept 181
1. Consent tlgenda: 'Minutes, Claims, Payroll [S minutes]
2. First Reading .Proposcd Oedinance Levying Property 1'ax [10 minutes]
3. First 12cading Proposed Ortfinance Confirming rxcess Property Tax Lcvy [10 minules]
4. Second Retidina Comp►-ehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance - Mike Conne.ll_y (15 minutes]
Adminislrativc RePprts:
5. Fee Ctesolution - K.en 'I'hompson [15 mintites]
Information Qnly:
6. Iaepartment Reports
7. Response to Public Comments [estimated mceting: 40 minutes*1
October 3, 2006 Studv Sessiori. 6:00 p.m. [duc date Monday, Sept 251
1. Advance Agenda Adclitions - Mayor `Vilhite } _ .
2. Council Check-in - Mayor Wilhite } (5 minutes) :
3. City M3nager Com►nents - Dave Mcxcier } TOTAI.. M:CNUTES: minutes
Dra(A Advance Agcnda 7/1712006 1:38 PIM Pagc 2 of 3
October 10. 2006 Rcaular MeetinLy, 6:00 o.m. (clue date Nt.onday, Oct 2J
1. 1'U'}3L:lC FITARINC: 2007 Proposed Budget
2. Consenc Agenda: lvfinutes, Claims,l'ayroll [5 rninutes]
3. Acfrninistrative lteport: Pee Resolution - Ken Thompson
T/uirsiltit~.~Ocfnher 12: 20Qh, Joiilt C~iuirciJ/P.,Iunniire.Co>>>iirissiti~e..Sessio►rfbrSpriic~i~e GorriiforSubii"red
F."xact linie andlllcrce to be anrroiurced later
Oclober 17, 2006 Studv Session. 6:00 p.m. iduc datc Moncla,y, Qct yJ__
l`.Draft llei±elop~ricnt.Cqdz.ltegiil~it'i~ns, .t.itles 17; 1~S, 20 K 21 - Nlarinc~ Stiki.~R' I_0_tilinutesj
2. Advance t~genda ~dditions - lvJayor Wilhite }
3. Council Check-in - Mayor \'Vilhite } (S minutes)
4. City iVlanagcr Comments - Davc Vlercier } TOTAL ntii\TUTES: 155 mintites
October 24, 2006 Reeular McetinE, 6:110 o.►n. [due date Manday, Uct 161
1. .PIJF3i,,TC EiEAlZL\TG: Final I•learing on 2007 Proposed Budget
2. Consent Anenda: Vlinutes, Claims, Payroll [5 rninutes]
3. Nirst Rcading Ordinance Acloption 2007 l'3udnet [10 minutes]
4. Second Readin„ Proposetl Urdinanee Levying E'roperty Ttix [10 rninutes]
5. Sccon<l Rcading Proposec{ Ordinance Confirming F_.xcess Properiy'L'ax T..evy [!p minutes]
6. Proposed Fee IZesolution - Ken Thompson [15 minut:es]
Information Only:
7. Depar-huent 12epbrl's
. 8. Itesponse to Public Comments (cstim.ilecl rneetiug: 50 minutes*)
Uctober 31, 2006 Studv Session 6:00 o.m. (possible itn iireexitlg)
O'I ELCR P Fr'I)I:\`C,-T tiNTD/OR U.13C(7M:1iNIC ISSUESlMFE'I'DNIGS:
Ligli2 Rail
Ctccords managEment
Sec:oncl Reading Proposett Orclinance Adopting 2007 13udget - November 14, 2006
Joint Cotmr.iUPlanning Commission Sessio►1 for Spriigue Corridor Subareit: Tucsday; January 16, 2007
School Traffic Speeds-Neil T:crsten
Pandemic Responsc Strategies -Fire District n 1 Chief vlike Thompson
Prism/PluslPadal (Parcel 17at<i i acator) System - Chris Berg
Cent:ral Valley Schaol District Impttcl Fec Reque.st
Proposeti Sidewalk Ordinance
Sewer Collcctiou Systems - iNeil Kersten
5EI1'A iCigation Strategies - Cary Driskell/Greb McCoi7niclJNeil lherst:en
Planned Unit Development (PIIQ) I'olic}' IsSUes -1vtarina Sukup/Mike Connell}+
L7ale Steclitian, Jerr_y Lenzi - to re•port on ctie \jorth/South Freeway
- CH2M Hill Valley Corriclor FA .Amendment - T'eil Kersten
Accitlent staiislics along i3roadway - October, 2007
Policing 13mphasis Arcas Report - Cal Walker
1;# estirnated meeting eime does not inclucle cime for public commcncs]
qra#t AdN^xnce Agenda 7/1212006 1:38 Pyl Page 3 of 3