Loading...
2016, 01-19 Amended Study Session AMENDED AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday,January 19,2016 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue,First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL A. Sheriff Knezovich Current Spokane Valley Police Dept Immigration Discussion/Information Practices and Policies 1. Erik Lamb Mining Moratorium Discussion/Information 2. John Hohman City Hall Update Discussion/Information 3. Chief VanLeuven Police Reaccreditation Report Discussion/Information 4. Cary Driskell, Council Training Open Public Meeting Discussion/Information Erik Lamb Act;Public Records Act 5.Mike Jackson Draft Comment letter Re Tesoro Savage Discussion/Information Energy Distribution Terminal Facility 6.Mayor Higgins Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 7. Mayor Higgins Council Comments Discussion/Information 8.Mike Jackson City Manager Comments Discussion/Information ADJOURN Study Session Agenda January 19,2016 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 19, 2016 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing [' information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative report on six-month renewal of moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing, originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance No.15-013 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.390; RCW 36.70A; SVMC 19.120.050. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted a moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing on February 24, 2015, and adopted findings of fact on April 28, 2015. Council repealed and replaced the original moratorium on mining pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013 on June 30, 2015, and adopted findings of fact for the replacement moratorium on August 25, 2015, pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-015. City Council heard an administrative report on a potential six-month renewal on December 8, 2015, and conducted a public hearing on a potential six-month renewal on January 5, 2016. BACKGROUND: The City adopted a moratorium on mining and mining site operations on February 24, 2015, as set forth in Ordinance No. 15-005, and subsequently adopted findings of fact justifying the moratorium on April 28, 2015, pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-009. In order to ensure full notice and opportunity for public involvement regarding the moratorium, on June 30, 2015, the City adopted Ordinance No. 15-013 to repeal Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009 and to re-establish the moratorium and provide for another public hearing on the moratorium on mining and mining site operations. The City subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 15-015 on August 25, 2015, to adopt findings of fact justifying the reestablishment of the moratorium. Pursuant to Section 5 of Ordinance No. 15-013, the moratorium was established with a term that lasts "until 11:59 p.m. on February 23, 2016, unless repealed, extended, or modified by City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390." As discussed during the administrative report on December 8, 2015, and the public hearing on January 5, 2016, the City does not anticipate it will complete its Comprehensive Plan update by February 23, 2016, and so City staff have recommended a six-month renewal of the moratorium. Pursuant to State law, the City is authorized to adopt a six-month renewal of an existing moratorium, provided the City first conducts a public hearing and adopts findings of fact justifying the renewal of the moratorium prior to such renewal. The City Council has conducted a public hearing on the renewal of the moratorium. During the public hearing, Council heard testimony from two interested parties, both of whom requested that the moratorium not be renewed, or if it were renewed, that it be renewed with a modification to list parcels that were excluded from the moratorium's applicability. Further, both parties requested that the property commonly known as the "Eden Pit (Pit #55-06)," owned by Spokane County, be excluded from the moratorium. Spokane County has taken steps towards applying for permits for certain proposed activities at the Eden Pit. In 2012, Spokane County obtained a Washington State Department of Natural Resources County or Municipality Approval for Surface Mining Form (referred to as an SM-6 Form) relating to the Eden Pit. The current status of the Department of Natural Resources approval is not known. Page 1 of 2 City Council further had some brief discussion during the public hearing of potentially making such modifications to the moratorium as part of the renewal. Staff is now providing this administrative report to receive direction from Council on whether the necessary findings of fact should be modified to more fully capture Council's desire that the moratorium not impact existing businesses and that the Eden Pit be considered as part of those existing businesses. As discussed in the prior administrative report and public hearing, the moratorium may be renewed with modifications if Council desires. However, if Council desires to modify the moratorium, staff strongly recommends that it be done in general "use" terms in a manner similar to what is already included in Section 2(C) of Ordinance 15-013 rather than on a "parcel-by-parcel" basis as suggested in the public comments. Section 2(C) excludes mining operations "that were in existence and in continuous and lawful operations as of the effective date of...Ordinance [15-013]." Staffs suggestion is to help ensure the moratorium does not inadvertently become a form of site-specific regulation, which may happen if done on a parcel- by-parcel basis. Inadvertent conversion of the moratorium to quasi-development regulations could expose the City to legal challenges. Such challenges could claim that the City's standard requirements for development regulation review and adoption were not followed in this case. Once Council has given staff direction on whether to include any modification as part of the findings of fact and renewal, staff will come back to Council with draft findings of fact and a draft renewal in the form of two ordinances for Council's consideration. Those will be subject to public comment as part of the standard first- and second-reading process prior to approval. Information on the background of the moratorium, the process leading to the need for the renewal, and the public comments received during the public hearing are attached to this RCA for Council's review. OPTIONS: Discussion. Staff is seeking Council direction as to whether to include modifications in the findings of fact and renewal of the moratorium on mining. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus and direction to staff as to whether to include a modification to expand the existing business exclusion under the moratorium. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; John Hohman, Community and Economic Development Director; Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 15-013 Ordinance No. 15-015 RCA from January 5, 2016 public hearing Draft minutes from January 5, 2016 public hearing Copy of public comments received during January 5, 2016 public hearing and on January 8, 2016 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-013 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON MINING, MINERAL PRODUCT MANUFACTURING,REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS. 15-005 AND 15-009, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. • WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley ("City") is in the process of developing its 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update;and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington. Constitution, the City is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police,sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City;and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoring map, interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;"and WHEREAS,a moratorium enacted wider RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be thwarted or rendered moot by intervening development;and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing, provided the City conducts a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days of the date of adoption of the moratorium;and WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-880, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act;and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 RCW, the City is required to designate "where appropriate...[m]ineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals";and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060,the City is required to adopt development regulations to assure conservation of mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170;and WHEREAS,the City has not designated any mineral resource lands within its boundaries nor has it developed regulations specific to mineral resource lands;and Ordinance 15-013 Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") 19.120.050, mining is currently a permitted heavy industrial processing use within the heavy industrial(1-2)zone;and WHEREAS,the City's currently adopted Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies for the appropriate development of industrial lands, including the following: Goal LUG-10: Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses. LUP-1 1.2: Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited to ensure an adequate land supply;and WHEREAS, the City has existing gravel mining operations within its industrial zone taking up significant acreage, which result in large open pits once the mining use is completed. Once a mine is opened, the impacts on the land may be irreversible even with appropriate reclamation planning. These impacts are permanent and can limit future industrial or other productive use of the site, even after the mine closes;and WHEREAS,the City has a finite amount of available undeveloped industrial land;and WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update Process, the City will analyze and complete an inventory of available industrial lands and review designation and regulation of mineral resource lands in order to reach a reasoned policy decision in the interest of public health, safety and welfare that addresses (a) consideration of where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate within the boundaries of the City, and (b) whether mining and mining site operations, including excavation,mineral product manufacturing,mineral processing,stockpiling, and mineral batching,are compatible when undertaken on industrial lands and/or elsewhere within the City;and WHEREAS, additional time is necessary to allow the City to continue the development and completion of its Comprehensive Plan Update, including the determination of what the City's long-term goals are with regard to mining and mining site operations within its jurisdictional limits;and WHEREAS,new proposals for mining and mining site operations that may be submitted pending the completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update process would pose an imminent threat to public health and safety because they can permanently alter the built environment and limit the City's choices in the exercise of its land use authority, thereby thwarting the Comprehensive Plan Update process and impairing the City's ability to reach a reasoned policy approach related to industrial land capacity, determining where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands would be appropriate, and determining what the City's long-term goals and policies are with regard to mining and mining site operation;and WHEREAS,a moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing will maintain the status quo by prohibiting issuance of City permits and licenses for new mining operations beyond those presently vested while the City undertakes development and completion of its Comprehensive Plan Update, including giving due consideration to the determination of where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate and determining what the City's long-term goals are with regard to mining and mining site operations within its jurisdictional limits;and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-005, imposing and establishing a moratorium on submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any Ordinance 15-0 13 Page 2 of permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or related mining site operations,such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing,stockpiling,and mineral batching;and WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 4 of Ordinance No. 15-005,the City Council set March 24,2015 at 6:00 p.m.at City Hall as the date,time and location for a public hearing on the moratorium;and WHEREAS,on March 6,2015,a summary of Ordinance No. 15-005 was published in the Valley News Herald, the City's newspaper of general circulation, which summary included the statement "Section 4 sets March 24,2015 as the date for a public hearing";and WHEREAS,there were articles regarding the moratorium and pending public hearing prior to the public hearing that were published in local newspapers that included reference to the public hearing on the moratorium;and WHEREAS, the agenda for the meeting on March 24, 2015, which included reference to the public hearing on the moratorium, was posted on the City's website and provided to members of the City's agenda packet distribution list via email in advance of March 24,2015;and WHEREAS,on March 24,2015,the City Council conducted a public hearing on the moratorium imposed and established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-005 and received written testimony from two interested parties and six interested parties spoke at the public hearing;and WHEREAS, on April 28,2015, after giving due consideration to the public testimony received, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-009 adopting findings of fact justifying the moratorium on mining established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-005;and WHEREAS, though public information and notice was provided of the public hearing,there was no formal publication of notice of the public hearing in the City's official newspaper as is the City's practice;and WHEREAS, repeal of Ordinance No. 15-005 and Ordinance No. 15-009 and re-establishment of an emergency moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations with a new public hearing preceded by new and more broadly disseminated public notice is appropriate to ensure full notice and opportunity for interested parties to provide comments on the moratorium;and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the moratorium imposed and established by this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety,public property and public peace. NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of tlx:City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Preliminary Findings. The City Council hereby adopts the above recitals as findings of fact in support of this Ordinance. Section 2. Moratorium Established. A. The City Council hereby declares an emergency and imposes a moratorium upon the submission,acceptance, processing,modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing,stockpiling,and mineral batching. Ordinance 15-013 Page 3 of 5 B. Nothing herein shall affect the processing or consideration of any existing and already- submitted complete land-use or building permit applications that may be subject to vested rights as provided under Washington law. C. This moratorium shall not affect any mining or mining site operations, including excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, that were in existence and in continuous and lawful operation as of the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 3. Work Plan. The following workplan is adopted to address the issues involving the City's consideration and regulation of mining A. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") is hereby authorized and directed to hold public hearings and public meetings to fully receive and consider statements,testimony,positions,and other documentation or evidence related to the public health,safety, and welfare aspects of mining uses. Specifically, the Planning Commission shall consider mining in its consideration and deliberations for the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update and shall develop proposals for mining and mining site operations within the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update to be forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration. The schedule for the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update process is included in the City's Public Participation Program, adopted by the City Council on January 6, 2015,which identifies phases of the Comprehensive Plan Update process and anticipated meeting dates relevant to each of the phases. B. Upon adoption of the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update,the Planning Commission shall work with City staff and the citizens of the City, as well as all public input received, to develop proposals for regulations pertaining to mining and mining site operations to be forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration. Section 4. Public Hearing. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and 36.70A.390,the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on July 28, 2015 at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the City of Spokane Valley City Hall, City Council Chambers, 11707 East Sprague, Spokane Valley,99206,to hear and consider the comments and testimony of those wishing to speak at such public hearing regarding the moratorium set forth irk this Ordinance. Section 5. Duration. The moratorium set forth in this Ordinance shall be in effect as of the date of this Ordinance and shall continue in effect until I I:59 p.m.on February 23,2016,unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 3630A.390. Section 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to the effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 7. Repeal. Ordinance No. 15-005 and Ordinance No. 15-009 are hereby repealed in their entirety and shall be without any force or effect as of the effective date of this Ordinance as set forth in Section 9 below. Section 8. Severability. If any section,sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,sentence,clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 9. Declaration of Emergency: Effective Date. This Ordinance is designated as a public emergency necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare and therefore shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council. Ordinance 15-013 Page 4 of 5 Passed by the City Council this 30th day of June,2015. Dean Grafos,Mayor .....---/' A 'FES f -v,,,,,) yr / �-r�,, i I/'` City Clerk,Christine Bainbrid 1 Approved as o Form: (7a :Nom,i 1;f1 J � Date of Publication / .>Z v1'� Office of the y Attorney Effective Date:June 30,2015 Ordinance 15-013 Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-015 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT JUSTIFYING THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 15-013 AND THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NOS. 15-005 AND 15-009 AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A MORATORIUM ON MINING, MINERAL PRODUCT MANUFACTURING,AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley ("City") is in the process of developing its 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update;and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article I I, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City;and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. if the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;"and WHEREAS,a moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A,390 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development;and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing,provided the City conducts a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days of the date of adoption of the moratorium; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, on June 30, 2015,the City adopted Ordinance No. 15-013 establishing a moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching and repealing Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009;and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220, RCW 36.70A.390, and Ordinance No. 15-013, on July 28, 2015,the City Council conducted a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-013 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation,. mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching and the repeal of Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009;and Ordinance 15-015—Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, two written comments were submitted prior to the public hearing. At the public hearing,City Council heard verbal testimony from five interested parties. Further, at the public hearing, four persons who testified submitted written comments and one person submitted a flash drive with three electronic documents and five video recordings of portions of City Council meetings held on February 24, 2015,March 24,2015,April 14,2015,April 28,2015,and June 30,2015;and WHEREAS,pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390,the City Council is required to adopt findings of fact after conducting the public hearing. NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390,on July 28,2015,the City Council conducted a public hearing on Ordinance No. 15-013 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling,and mineral batching and the repeal of Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009. The City Council hereby adopts the following as findings of fact in support of Ordinance No. 15-013 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching and the repeal of Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009: 1. On February 24, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-005, imposing and establishing a moratorium on submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing,mineral processing,stockpiling,and mineral batching. 2. Pursuant to Section 4 of Ordinance No. 15-005, the City Council set March 24, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.at City Hall as the date,time and location for a public hearing on the moratorium. 3. On March 6, 2015, a summary of Ordinance No. 15-005 was published in the Valley News Herald, the City's newspaper of general circulation, which summary included the statement "Section 4 sets March 24,2015 as the date for a public hearing." 4. There were articles regarding the moratorium and pending public hearing prior to the public hearing that were published in local newspapers that included reference to the public hearing on the moratorium. 5. The agenda for the meeting on March 24,2015,which included reference to the public hearing on the moratorium, was posted on the City's website and provided to members of the City's agenda packet distribution list via email in advance of March 24,2015. 6. On March 24, 2015,the City Council conducted a public hearing on the moratorium imposed and established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-005 and received written testimony from two interested parties. Six interested parties spoke at the public hearing. 7. On April 28, 2015, after giving due consideration to the public testimony received,the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-009 adopting findings of fact justifying the moratorium on mining established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-005. 8. Though public information and notice was provided of the public hearing,there was no formai publication of notice of the public hearing in the City's official newspaper as is the City's practice. 9. Repeal of Ordinance No. 15-005 and Ordinance No. 15-009 and re-establishment of an emergency moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations with a new public hearing Ordinance 15-015—Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 2 of 5 preceded by new and more broadly disseminated public notice is appropriate to ensure full notice and opportunity for interested parties to provide comments on the moratorium. 10. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 RCW, the City is required to designate "where appropriate...[m]ineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals." 11. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, the City is required to adopt development regulations to ensure conservation of mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170. 12. The City has not designated any mineral resource lands within its boundaries nor has it developed regulations specific to mineral resource lands. 13. Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") 19.120.050, mining is currently a permitted heavy industrial processing use within the heavy industrial(1-2)zone. 14, The City's currently adopted Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies for the appropriate development of industrial lands,including the following: Goal LUG-Id: Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses. LUP-11.2: Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited to ensure an adequate land supply. 15. The City has existing gravel mining operations within its industrial zones taking up significant acreage, which result in large open pits once the mining use is completed. Once a mine is opened, the impacts an the land are usually irreversible even with appropriate reclamation planning. These impacts are permanent and can limit future industrial or other productive use of the site,even after the mine closes. 16. The City has a finite amount of available undeveloped industrial land. 17. Pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, the City is in the process of developing its 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update. 18. Pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, the City will analyze and complete an inventory of available industrial lands and review designation and regulation of mineral resource lands in order to reach a reasoned policy decision in the interest of public health, safety and welfare that addresses(a) consideration of where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate within the boundaries of the City, and(b)whether mining and mining site operations, including excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, are compatible and appropriate when undertaken on industrial lands and/or elsewhere within the City. 19. The current work program for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update anticipates that a draft Comprehensive Plan will be completed by the end of 2015. 20. New proposals for mining and mining site operations that may be submitted pending the completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update process would pose an imminent threat to public health and safety because they can permanently alter the built and natural environment and limit the City's choices in the exercise of its land use authority, thereby thwarting the Comprehensive Plan Update process and impairing the City's ability to reach a reasoned policy approach related to industrial land Ordinance 15-015—Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 3 of 5 capacity, determining where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands would be appropriate, and determining what the City's long-term goals and policies are with regard to mining and mining site operation. 21. Pursuant to Article 11, Section II of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws,"which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City. 22. RCW 36.70A.390 provides that"A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department if the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal" 23. A moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development. 24. RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing, provided a public hearing is held within 60 days of the adoption of the moratorium. 25. A moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing will maintain the status quo by prohibiting issuance of City permits and licenses for new mining operations beyond those presently vested while the City undertakes development and completion of its Comprehensive Plan Update, including giving due consideration to the determination of where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate,and determining what the City's long-term goals and policies are with regard to mining and mining site operations within its jurisdictional limits. 26. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013, City Council adopted a work plan to address the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. 27. Staff has completed SEPA review of the moratorium and has determined the moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations under Ordinance No. 15-013 is categorically exempt from threshold determination and EIS requirements pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197-11- 800(19). 28. On July 28,2015,City Council conducted a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance 15- 013 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation,mineral product manufacturing,mineral processing,stockpiling,and mineral batching and the repeal of Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009. 29. Two written comments were submitted prior to the public hearing. At the public hearing, City Council heard verbal testimony from five interested parties. Further, at the public hearing, four persons who testified submitted written comments and one person submitted a flash drive with three Ordinance 15-415—Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 4 of 5 electronic documents and five video recordings of portions of City Council meetings held on February 24, 2015, March 24,2015, April 14, 2015, April 28, 2015,. and June 30, 2015. The City Council has given due consideration to all public testimony received. 30. The adoption of Ordinance No. 15-013 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. 31. The City Council finds that the moratorium imposed and established by Ordinance No. 15- 013 is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety, public property and public peace. Section 2. uration. The moratorium set forth in Ordinance No. 15-013 shall be and remain in effect as of the effective date of Ordinance No. 15-013 and shall continue in effect until 11:59 p.m.on February 23, 2016, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearings)and entry of appropriate findings of fact,pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. The duration of the moratorium set forth in Ordinance No. 15-013 is expressly intended to preserve in continuous force and effect the moratorium established in Ordinance No. 15-005 notwithstanding the repeal of said Ordinance No. 15-005. Section 3. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to the effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 4. Severability. If any section,sentence,clause,or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section S. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this 25"day of August,2015. ATT Dean Grafos,Mayo r 1 City Clerk,Christine t ainbridge Appr. ,ed ash Fo / Office oft Ci rney Date of Publication: Effective Date: 9— Ordinance 15-015—Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 5, 2016 Department Director Approval: LE Check an that apply: © consent ❑ old business ❑ new business 1 pubic hearing information ❑admin. report 0 pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public hearing on a six-month renewal of moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing, originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance No.15-013 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.390; RCW 35.70A; SVIC 19.120.050. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council adapted a moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing on February 24, 2015 and adopted findings of fact on April 26, 2015. Council repealed and replaced the original moratorium on mining pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013 on June 30, 2015, and adopted findings of fact for the replacement moratorium on August 25, 2015 pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-015, BACKGROUND: The City adopted a moratorium on mining and mining site operations an February 24, 2015, as set forth in Ordinance No. 15-005, and subsequently adopted findings of fact justifying the moratorium on April 28, 2015, pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-009_ In order to ensure full notice and opportunity for public involvement regarding the moratorium, on June 30, 2015, the City adapted Ordinance No. 15-013 to repeal Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009 and to re-establish the moratorium and provide for another publichearing on the moratorium on mining and mining site operations. The City subsequently adopted Ordinance No, 15-015 on August 25, 2015 to adapt findings of fact justifying the reestablishment of the moratorium. Pursuant to Section 5 of Ordinance No. 15-013, the moratorium was established with a term that lasts "until 11:59 p.m. on February 23, 2013, unless repealed, extended, or modified by City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCN 35A.63.220 and ROW 36.70A.390." Background on need formoratoriwn Importantly, RCW 36.70A.170 requires the City to designate "where appropriate...[m]ineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals." Further, RCW 36.70A.060 requires the City to adopt development regulations to assure conservation of mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170. In 2003, the City originally adopted by reference the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan as its interim Comprehensive Plan. The City's interim Comprehensive Plan included certain mineral resource designations_ In 2005, the City adopted its Comprehensive Plan. In the 2005 Comprehensive Plan, the City did not designate any mineral resource lands, and it has not designated any since 2006. However, the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies for the appropriate development of industrial lands, including the following: Goal LUG-10: Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses. Page 1 of 4 LUP-11.2: Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited to ensure an adequate land supply. Although the City did not designate mineral resource lands in its Comprehensive Plan, it did adopt development regulations permitting mining within the 1-2, Heavy Industrial Zone. This was due, in part, to the fact there are several existing gravel mining operations in the City, which take up significant acreage and result in large open pits once the mining use is concluded. One of the unique features of mining is the permanent impact on the land where it is sited. Once a mine is opened, the impacts of the mine on the land are usually irreversible even with appropriate reclamation planning. These impacts can mean that the land may be permanently removed from other future available industrial uses, even after the mine closes. With the City's zoning regulations, proposals for new mines and mining operations submitted during the Comprehensive Plan Update process could be permitted on industrial lands, thereby limiting the City's choices on how to plan for industrial uses and mining operations in the future. With that in mind, City Council determined it is appropriate to maintain the status quo by prohibiting new mining operations while the City undertakes its Comprehensive Plan review to determine (1) whether and where mineral resource land designation may be appropriate, and (2) if mining is an appropriate use of the City's undeveloped land given the unique permanence of mining. City Council specifically provided an exception in the moratorium so that it would not impact current lawful operations of any existing mining site. Work Plan; Comprehensive Plan Update process In order to adequately consider whether and where mineral resource land designation and mining may be appropriate within the City, City Council established a work plan directing the City as follows: A. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") is hereby authorized and directed to hold public hearings and public meetings to fully receive and consider statements, testimony, positions, and other documentation or evidence related to the public health, safety, and welfare aspects of mining uses. Specifically, the Planning Commission shall consider mining in its consideration and deliberations for the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update and shall develop proposals for mining and mining site operations within the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update to be forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration. The schedule for the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update process is included in the City's Public Participation Program, adopted by the City Council on January 6, 2015, which identifies phases of the Comprehensive Plan Update process and anticipated meeting dates relevant to each of the phases. B. Upon adoption of the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update, the Planning Commission shall work with City staff and the citizens of the City, as well as all public input received, to develop proposals for regulations pertaining to mining and mining site operations to be forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration. Section 3 of Ordinance No. 15-013. Pursuant to the mandates set forth in the Growth Management Act and Section 3 of Ordinance No. 15-013, the City has continued working through the Comprehensive Plan update throughout 2015. However, the City was delayed for a portion of 2015 in working through its Comprehensive Plan Update while waiting for the future population forecast and allocation from the Steering Committee of Elected Officials ("SCEO") and Spokane County Board of County Page 2 of 4 Commissioners ("BoCC"). On November 4, 2015, the Planning Technical Advisory Committee ("PTAC") provided a recommendation to the SCEO which utilized the Office of Financial Management medium series forecast for 2037 and applied a historic growth rate from 2003 through 2015 for forecasting purposes. The SCEO considered the PTAC recommendation and voted 6-3 to recommend to the BoCC the population forecast and allocation recommended by the PTAC. The BoCC has not acted upon the SCEO recommendation. The population allocation is critical to the City's development of its Comprehensive Plan Update as it provides the basis for planning for future growth and assessing appropriate land use quantities to meet future growth needs. Due to the delay in recommendation and adoption of the population allocation, the City has not completed its Comprehensive Plan Update and staff does not anticipate the City will complete the City's Comprehensive Plan Update by February 23, 2016. As part of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update process, the City is undertaking a comprehensive review of existing land inventory and all existing and desired land uses. Further, the City is analyzing and considering the economic and physical impacts of mining on land within the City. Appropriate recommendations for mineral resource land designations and, if necessary, related development regulations for mining, will result from this activity. To date, work on the Comprehensive Plan update has included staff and consultant work in preparing analyses of certain portions of the updated Comprehensive Plan. It also included a broad public process to accept citizen-specific Comprehensive Plan Update requests, called "Citizen Amendment Requests" (CARs). The CARs went through a review process from April through June 2015 by the Planning Commission, followed by a recommendation to City Council to include them for consideration in the Comprehensive Plan Update. The City Council considered the CARs and ultimately approved several CARs in the Comprehensive Plan update for further analysis and consideration. One CAR approved for further consideration was a request submitted by CPM Development Corporation ("CPM") to include a new chapter creating Mineral Resource Lands goals, policies, and designation criteria and a corresponding map amendment to designate four sites as a Mineral Resource Land Overlay on the City's Official Comprehensive Plan Map. Further, City staff have been working through geologic, economic, and GIS data, as well as information from the Washington Departments of Commerce and Natural Resources, to review and analyze the appropriateness of mineral resource land designation within the City. Renewal Since the City does not anticipate it will complete the Comprehensive Plan Update by February 23, 2016, when the moratorium expires, staff recommends a renewal of the moratorium for a six-month period. RCW 36.70A.390 authorizes the City to adopt a six-month renewal and extension of an existing moratorium, provided the City first conducts a public hearing and adopts findings of fact justifying the renewal and extension of the moratorium prior to such renewal. Further, Section 5 of Ordinance No. 15-021 expressly recognizes the City's authority to renew and extend the moratorium. A moratorium renewal will preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development. As part of the renewal, the City Council may consider renewing the moratorium as-is or renewing it with modifications that Council may deem to be appropriate given input from the public hearing. Staff has determined the moratorium renewal to be categorically exempt from SEPA pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(19). Pursuant to state law and Ordinance No. 15-013, the City Council is conducting a public hearing on the moratorium renewal. At the public hearing, the City Council will take public comment and at a subsequent meeting consider findings of fact for the moratorium renewal, prior to considering adoption of the renewal. The City continues to work through the City's Page 3 of 4 Comprehensive Plan update, including consideration of whether and where mineral resource land designation may be appropriate. OPTIONS: Conduct public hearing. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Conduct public hearing. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; John Hohman, Community and Economic Development Director; Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 15-013 Ordinance No. 15-015 Maps of existing mining pits (operational and non-operational) Notice of Public Hearing published on December 11, 18, 25, 2015 in the Spokane Valley News Herald. Notice will be published on January 1, 2016, but is not available in time for inclusion with the materials for this meeting. Page 4 of 4 DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, January 5, 2016 In the absence of a mayor, City Clerk Bainbridge called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Staff Rod Higgins, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Mark Calhoun,Deputy City Manager Dean Grafos, Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Ed Pace, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Sam Wood, Councilmember John Hohman, Community&Econ. Dev Dir. Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Pro Tem Mike Stone, Parks&Recreation Director Erik Guth, Public Works Director Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Darrell Cole,Living Hope Community Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Members from Boy Scout Troop 456 led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present with Councilmember Gothmann participating via telephone conference call. 1. ELECTION OF COUNCIL OFFICERS: Chris Bainbridge After City Clerk Bainbridge explained the process of electing council officers, as noted in the Council's Governance Manual,Ms. Bainbridge opened the floor for nominations. Councilmember Wood nominated Mr. Higgins. Councilmember Gothmann nominated Mr. Hafner. There were no further nominations and the nominations were closed. Each Councilmember completed a ballot, and the ballots were collected by City Clerk Bainbridge.Once they were collected,Ms.Bainbridge asked Councilmember Gothmann for his vote, and he indicated his vote was for Mr. Hafner, and Ms. Bainbridge completed his ballot. The results of the ballots were those voting for Mr.Higgins included Councilmembers Higgins, Wood,Woodard, and Pace.Those voting for Mr. Hafner included Councilmembers Hafner, Grafos, and Gothmann.Mr.Higgins received the majority of votes and was therefore declared the Mayor. Ms.Bainbridge asked Mayor Higgins if he wished to conduct the voting for Deputy Mayor or if he preferred she do so, and he asked that she continue. Ms. Bainbridge called for nominations for Deputy Mayor. Councilmember Pace nominated Councilmember Woodard for Deputy Mayor.There were no further nominations,and the nominations were closed.Since there was only one nomination,votes were conducted by a show of hands,with all votes being cast for Mr. Woodard; hence, Mr. Woodard was declared the Deputy Mayor. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve the agenda. It was then moved by Councilmember Pace and seconded, to amend the agenda to place a new business item after the Consent Agenda-a resolution declaring that Spokane Valley is not a sanctuary city. There was discussion about the amendment and whether it was out of order, with Councilmember Gothmann stating that the resolution is something our City already does,and Councilmember Hafner stating that Council has not had an opportunity to discuss this,and that the expectation is to approve this resolution immediately. There was further discussion about the resolution itself, with Council discussion ultimately moving back to the amended motion on the floor. Vote on whether to amend the motion:In Favor:Deputy Mayor Woodard, Mayor Higgins, and Councihnembers Pace, and Wood. Opposed: Councilmembers Gothmann, Grafos, and Hafner. Motion passed. Vote on the amended motion to approve the agenda as Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT amended: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Woodard, Mayor Higgins, and Councilmembers Pace, Wood and Gothmann. Opposed: Councilmembers Grafos and Hafner. Motion passed INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Higgins gave special recognition and thanks to Troop 456 for leading tonight's Pledge of Allegiance. COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Hafner reported that he attended former Councilmember Wick's going away reception, which he said was very well attended,and he thanked Mr.Wick again for his service.Councilmember Pace mentioned the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) meeting and their discussion of a proposed sales tax increase, which he said he opposed. Councilmember Grafos said he also attended the reception for Mr. Wick and too expressed his thanks for Mr. Wick's service. Councilmember Gothmann said he attended Mr. Wick's reception, and mentioned that Councilmember Hafner had been chosen Citizen of the Year by the Chamber of Commerce. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he also attended Mr. Wick's reception and that it was well attended. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Higgins also extended his thanks to Mr. Wick; and mentioned attending a regional Eagle Scout gathering where 250 from the region were tapped to be eagle scouts. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins invited public comments. Mr. Rob Lee: said he owns a home here in Spokane Valley; spoke about his concerns with policing; he read most of his written statement and stated that"something doesn't seem right with the police department here in the valley;"and asked why for example, the police chief never speaks to the media but only does so through Sheriff Knezovich; said the shade of patrol cars should match the uniforms to make it easier to identify valley officers; and said he would like a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the various public safety contracts so people will know whether public funds are returning actual services,and said he wanted to know more about the cost of doing business with another local government entity now, in the past, and where those costs might land in the future,which he said would mean an in-depth review and cost analysis of the police, prosecutor, and many contracts with Spokane County. Mr.Tony Lazanis: said some decisions don't come from Council but come from staff or the Chief and he hopes future decisions come forward; said he got a bill from the police chief for $25.00 and that he was penalized $10.00 for a false alarm, but he only had one in 20 years; said all taxpayers pay for the police and said the City should look outside the police department for serving alarms. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Mining Moratorium Renewal—Erik Lamb Mayor Higgins opened the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Lamb went over the background of the mining moratorium as noted on his January 5, 2016 Request for Council Action form; reiterated that this would not impact existing lawful operations that were in operation the day of the moratorium; said staff is aware of several Central Pre-mix owned and operated sites, and one Spokane County site; said there have been no permit applications received to-date regarding mining; said staff continues working through the Comprehensive Plan process,and as part of that process,staff was accepting Citizen Amendment Requests (CARs); one of which was approved by Council for further consideration, which was submitted by CPM Development to include a new chapter creating Mineral Resource Lands goals, policies, and designation criteria and a corresponding map amendment to designate four sites as a Mineral Resource Land Overlay on the City's official comprehensive plan map. Mr. Lamb said that since the City does not anticipate completing the Comprehensive Plan Update by February 23, 2016, when the moratorium expires, staff recommends a six-month renewal. Mr. Lamb mentioned that one of the reasons for the delay with the comp plan, is we have not been provided the population allocation by the County, which number is critical to the City's development of the Plan Update as it provides the basis for planning future growth and assessing appropriate land use quantities to meet future growth needs. There was brief Council discussion about the possibility of modifying the moratorium if necessary, and Mr. Lamb said the ordinance and findings should be before Council within two to three weeks and Council could move it forward to modify the moratorium if desired. Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT Mr.John Pederson, said he is speaking on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, and he presented documents to the City Clerk for Council,which reiterates the County's previous testimony;said he supports the Council's actions and desire to modify the moratorium as originally adopted,said it did impact the Eden County Pit Site,and asked that the moratorium be revised to specifically reflect the intent,that if the intent was not to impact any of the existing mining operations that were in existence or had vested rights, they ask that the moratorium be amended to specifically identify which parcels, by parcel number or exhibit or by map,that are exempt from the moratorium,and said he would provide those two parcel numbers tonight that reference the Flora and the Eden Pit Sites; said they have vested rights to operate those sites and it would be advantageous to modify the moratorium to reflect those parcels that are categorically exempt from the moratorium; said they support the designation and the ongoing work of staff and Mr. Hohman,and our coordination with him in assisting in identifying appropriate resource lands, and said they believe the County pit site should be designated accordingly, and asked that they be exempted in a revised moratorium. He handed documents to the City Clerk,which had been submitted previously. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that the Flora site was ongoing and therefore not subject to the moratorium, and Mr. Pederson responded that the County feels it should be enumerated in the moratorium as exempt just for clarity purposes so there is no question about the site; and further in response to Councilmember Gothmann's questions, Mr. Lamb replied that the Flora pit is an active site that was in lawful and continuous operation as of the date of the moratorium and therefore would not be subject to the moratorium. Stacy Bjordahl: said she was speaking on behalf of Central Pre-Mix Development Corp, and she read portions of a January 5, 2016 letter to Spokane Valley Council, signed by John Shogren, Vice President/General Manager of Central Pre-Mix Development Corporation: "Dear Mayor and Council Members: First of all, I would like to apologize for not being present at this evening's hearing to provide oral testimony. We did not receive notice of the hearing and only heard of it through representatives of Spokane County; otherwise, I would have rearranged my travel and work schedule to ensure that I could be present for this important meeting. We are surprised that an extension of the moratorium is under consideration as we were told in previous meetings and in discussions with members of this Council and building trade groups that no such extension would be needed or granted, beyond the year of study since the initial passage of the moratorium that will have occurred by mid-February. It does not seem that the justification for an extension of the moratorium is material to the study, designation and protection of mineral resource lands. Any small percentage change in population projection will not materially change the fact that there are more than 839 acres of Tier One industrial lands within the City of Spokane Valley and that only 158 acres are needed to meet the 2031 planning horizon; this is over 4 times the need of industrial land.'Even if a small percentage of industrial land was needed to accommodate future residential growth, there is still excess capacity of industrial land supply not only in the City of Spokane Valley but Spokane County as a region. We are concerned that Staff continues to make statements that secondary use of mined land is limited, especially given the many examples we have testified to previously, including: high end residential developments,commercial, light and heavy industrial and probable conservation sites. Not only does this fly in the face of the facts of beneficial secondary usage but further discounts the fact that all development for city growth is dependent on an economically viable source of aggregates. While we appreciate that the Staff Report to Council states existing, entitled and vested sites are exempt from the moratorium,we request that if the moratorium is extended, it be modified to include an exhibit specifically listing and formally excluding the existing,entitled or vested sites from this process.We have included that list attached as Exhibit A to this letter which includes our approved aggregate reserves at Tschirley. . . . . In closing,we do not support an extension of a moratorium that has already been in place for almost a year for all of the reasons outlined above as well as those previously testified to orally and in writing at the previously hearings. If the moratorium is extended, we request it be modified as described in Exhibit A. Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue."['City of Spokane Valley Land Quantity Analysis for Urban Growth Update-September 2010,previously submitted on March 24,2015.] (Copies of the letter and attachments were handed to the City Clerk for distribution to Council.) Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT There were no further comments.Councilmember Grafos stated that as we move forward we should exclude the Eden Pit from the moratorium, as he prefers not to take a chance that we are harming an existing business, and would therefore like to modify the moratorium so Eden and Central Pre-Mix are excluded. Councilmember Hafner and Gothmann agreed. Councilmember Pace said we should keep the moratorium until the comp plan is done,that nothing has changed and there were good reasons for doing the moratorium in the first place.Deputy Mayor Woodard said he wants to study the letter from Ms.Bjordahl and he wants to keep an open mind as to what it is we are trying to do and why; said the biggest concern is we are not finished with the comp plan, which was being delayed due to the needed population allocation. Councilmember Grafos added that if we are going to be business friendly, he sees no reason why they should not be excluded. Mayor Higgins closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of vouchers listed on Jan 5,2016 Request for Council Action Form Totaling: $1,993,878.75 b. Approval of Payroll for period ending December 15, 2015: $334,943.83 c. Approval of December 1, 2015 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes d. Approval of December 8, 2015 Special Council Meeting Minutes e. Approval of December 8, 2015 Regular Council Meeting Minutes It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. Mayor Higgins called for a ten-minute recess at 7:01 p.m.; he reconvened the meeting at 7:13 p.m. ADDED ITEM: Action Item: Resolution Declaring that Spokane Valley is not a sanctuary city. It was moved by Councibnember Pace and seconded by Councilmember Wood to adopt a resolution declaring that the City of Spokane Valley is not a sanctuary city. Councilmember Pace said people confuse the City of Spokane and our city all the time; that the City of Spokane said they are a sanctuary city; said this issue has been brought up three times over the past year and never made it to the agenda; said he is not anti-immigrant or anti-immigration,but this is about honoring and enforcing the existing immigration laws, and said some cities don't do that. Councilmember Pace read the resolution into the record: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON, DECLARING THAT THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY IS NOT A SANCTUARY CITY.WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley puts public safety as the number one priority for our City; and WHEREAS, supporting our law enforcement community in their efforts to maintain law and order toward the end of a high level of public safety is a priority of the executive and legislative branches of our City Government; and WHEREAS,cooperating with County,State and Federal law enforcement agencies is an important part of maintaining law and order and public safety; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City Council that the City of Spokane Valley is not a sanctuary city which means the City Police department will ask for proof of legal residence in the United States when appropriate and City employees are not discouraged from asking for proof of legal residence as appropriate when conducting City business.NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: 1 —The City of Spokane Valley is not a sanctuary city. 2 —The City of Spokane Valley Police Department is directed to assist other law enforcement agencies in enforcing U.S. immigration laws. 3 — Police officers and Sheriff's deputies, when operating within City limits, and City employees are hereby directed to require proof of legal residence in the U.S.when it is appropriate as part of doing their assigned jobs." Councilmember Pace said in determining what"when appropriate"means, it is appropriate as part of doing their assigned jobs, and that is up to the City Manager, City Attorney and Police Chief to determine what exactly that means. Councilmember Gothmann said he took an oath of office prior to taking his position as a Councilmember, and said this is not needed; said law enforcement also took an oath, and if someone is an illegal immigrant, law enforcement would call the border patrol, so they are already doing this; said Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT he doesn't see a problem we are trying to solve; said we already have clear rules; and as a point of order, said this resolution is out of order. Mayor Higgins ruled that this is not out of order and Councilmember Gothmann challenged his decision. A vote on the challenge resulted in Councilmembers Grafos, Hafner and Gothmann in favor of the challenge, and Mayor Higgins, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Wood and Pace opposed to the challenge. The challenge was defeated. Councilmember Grafos said that this City is different because we don't have politics in the legislative branch and this brings in politics instead of having a common sense government; said we are profiling people and not everyone in the city agrees with these politics. Deputy Mayor Woodard said resolutions are done to make emphasis and re-clarify what should already be done as common practice and if people don't have documentation, they shouldn't be here, and countered that this is not profiling. Mayor Higgins said this is a simple statement that we are committed to obeying and enforcing our laws as they already exist. Councilmember Hafner said this is not a police state and staff should not have to make a determination about whether to ask about immigration status; said it is the wrong message to the community, is extremist and profiling is against the law and he swore to uphold the laws of the state, nation and city; said this is a disgrace to do this and it doesn't gain anything.Deputy Mayor Woodard said people are screaming that this city take this position, a declaration that we will uphold the law. Councilmember Pace said his wife was a political refugee from Vietnam, and she was a legal immigrant; that this is about illegal immigration, and said his wife doesn't like illegal immigrants and is frustrated with the government for not enforcing immigration laws, and that this will give businesses some sense of security that we are law abiding. Vote by Acclamation in favor of the Resolution:Mayor Higgins, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Wood and Pace. Opposed to the Resolution: Councilmembers Hafner, Grafos, and Gothmann. Motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 4. Tesoro Crude Oil Terminal Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Mike Jackson Via his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Jackson explained that Tesoro Savage Petroleum Terminal, also known as Vancouver Energy, has applied for a Site Certification Agreement to construct and operate a new crude oil terminal capable of receiving an average of 360,000 barrels of crude oil daily; that the crude oil would be unloaded at the proposed facility from trains, stored on site, and loaded into marine vessels at a marine terminal located at the Port of Vancouver in Clark County, Washington;that according to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), an average of four unit trains would arrive and leave for the proposed facility daily for an annual total of 2,290 one-way train trips; and said the trains would pass through Spokane Valley. Mr. Jackson mentioned some of the environmental concerns, such as air quality, transportation,noise, and water resources;said that currently up to fifty trains daily cross Barker Road, and if all potential crude-by-rail'facilities are built,the numbers would exceed 57 weekly loaded unit trains by 2020, and 113 weekly loaded trains by 2035. Mr. Jackson noted that the air quality would be impacted, as vehicle idling hours would increase while vehicles waited at the at-grade crossings; he spoke of the increased impact to transportation which could also increase the rate of accidents and fatalities to pedestrians or motorists. Mr. Jackson noted the cost for grade separations, the noise and safety impact, emergency response issues, and the effect and impact of economic development. Councilmember Pace asked if there is any way to regulate rail traffic through our city, by perhaps a utility tax on oil trains; and Mr. Jackson said he is not aware of any as the trains are primarily controlled by the federal government. Councilmember Pace asked if we know about any other, equally dangerous commodities coming across our aquifer and Mr.Jackson said more research would be needed but he did recall hearing something about legislation requiring disclosure of the rail car contents. Councilmember Grafos said this should be a majority priority of our city; said we will never be on a federal list to solve these problems, and at some point, we need to "put our money where our mouth is" and look for a way to fund these crossings one at a time; said this would be a major economic impact if there were problems with the oil trains; said our city is cut in half by those train tracks and that we should look at this issue as an economic driver and examine some options. Councilmember Pace said the first priority is public safety so we need to identify the risk and have good plans for dealing with any of the risk;said infrastructure Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT is our second priority and we need to pick which crossing, and figure out how to make it happen, and he mentioned the idea of a ballot measure. 5.Advance Agenda—Mayor Councilmember Pace said based on citizen input,he wants to schedule council discussions in study sessions to explore developing a citizen oversight committee for all public safety functions of our city,and all of our public safety contracts including police,jail,public defender, the courts, etc., and have the Mayor appoint a one-year ad-hoc committee with about three to five citizens appointed who have no connection with law enforcement; plus have the City Attorney and a volunteer attorney from the Center for Justice; said they would study all the available information on public safety,including police reports and issues from citizens, employees, police, and councilmembers, and report monthly to the Council in writing and in person, and the Council would decide which items to give to the City Manager as administrative, and which would be legislative policy.Further,Councilmember Pace said the committee members should be given investigative authority over those contracts as there are still incidents where citizens question police behavior,and that this gives the public an opportunity to scrutinize how our government is being run. Councilmember Grafos said as a follow up to these public meetings concerning the trains, he would like to get a list of the people attending those meetings and have public meetings as we did on our parks. Councilmember Hafner said he would like to reevaluate the voting process for bonds as there will be times when Council needs to take a stand, whether it be a County levy lift or other bond issue. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would like the historic preservation plan motion brought back for reconsideration rather than distract the efforts of the Planning Commission from the comp plan, and said he wants more time to consider the issue. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Mr. Jackson asked if the Mayor and Deputy Mayor would be available Monday at 3:00 p.m. to discuss the advance agenda, and there were no objections. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:38 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 5, 2016 PUBLIC HEA IN SUBJECT: Mining Moratorium Please sign, below if you would like to speak at the PUBLIC IE+AIDING. MIT N.A. E AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, There may be a time limit for your comments. Any documents for Council consideration should be provided to the Cite Clerk for distribution. NAME Your City of Residence PLEASE PRINT -.\014VA I 'A -1 ( Lir • L Please note that once irr.for o ion is entered on this form,it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. 1/4 „ tfi-44 Loi E -- ..#1„,:„., o u NT Y a in (if)t rtoNt.H% DIsrltvA Sw!!•., 2H)Dis RI( 3RD )I5O! May 14.2015 Planning Commissioner Kevin Anderson Planning Commissioner Heather Graham Planning Commissioner Tim Kelley Planning Commissioner Mike Phillips Planning Commissioner Susan Scott Planning Commissioner Joe Stoy Planning Commissioner Sam Wood Spokane Valley Planning Commission 11707 E.Sprague Avenue,Suite 101 Spokane Valley,Washington 99206 RE: City of Spokane Valley Citizen Initiated Amendment Request Review, Application Nci. CAR-2015-00I8 Dear Planning Commissioners: The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission will be considering public testimony on CAR-2015- 0018 on May 14,2015,as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan update. The purpose of this correspondence is to encourage the Commission to consider other areas to be designated as Mineral Resource lands consistent with the Growth Management Act RCW 36.70A.170. As you are aware of and by way of background, the City of Spokane Valley adopted a moratorium (Ordinance #15-009) on February 24. 2015, precluding new mining activities. At the March 24, 2015, public hearing on the moratorium, the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners submitted the attached comments. The attached comments explained that entities planning under the Growth Management Act had certain obligations when updating or revising their Comprehensive Plans and/or development regulations including designation of mineral resource lands. Specifically, RCW 36.70A.170(1)(c)states: (1) On or before September 1, 1991. each county. and each city, shall designate where appropriate: (e)Mineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals;and RCW 36.70A.050 provides guidelines to classify agricultural, forest. mineral lands,and critical areas and requires consultation with the Washington State Department or Natural Resources and other stakeholders. i 16 W I 13k0,ADV AY AV Spok tki,v,:um; o (n26:1-0100 (509) 77 2765 Spokane Valley Manning Commissioners May 14,2015 Page 2 RCW 3&.70A.060 requires cities to adopt development regulations to assure conservation of agriculture. forest.and mineral lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170 and: RCW 36.70A.060(1)(a) ... Such regulations shall assure that the use of lands adjacent to agricultural, forest, or mineral resource lands shall not interfere with the continued use. in the accustomed manner and in accordance with best management practices, of these designated lands for the production of food,agricultural products,or timber.or for the extraction of minerals. The current City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code does not identify or designated resource lands or mineral lands as mandated under the Growth Management Act or adopted development regulations applicable to resource lands including mineral lands. We bring the above factors to your attention as information to consider in periodic update of your Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and in consideration of CAR-2015-18. We have reviewed CAR-2015-18 and after such review fully support the applicant's request that the City of Spokane Valley adopt a new Comprehensive Plan chapter and associated goals and policies to designated mineral resource lands of long-term commercial significance; a corresponding map amendment designating mineral resource lands; as well as a new section of Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)that includes specific regulations for mining activities. In addition, we respectfully request that additional properties owned h) Spokane County be designated as mineral resource lands. These properties are illustrated on the enclosed maps and are identified as the Flora Road Pit (Pit #5412) located on Assessor's Parcel #4512L9015 and the Eden Pit (Pit #55-06) located on Assessor's Parcel #55065-0190. Both of these properties meet the criteria under the Growth Management Act for designation as resource lands of long-term commercial significance and prior to creation of the City of Spokane Valley were designated by the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and official zoning map as Mineral lands. In summary. we reiterate our previous comments on the moratorium adopted in Ordinance No. 15-009 and urge you to designate the above-referenced Spokane County properties as mineral lands of long term commercial significance as part of your periodic review and update of your Comprehensive Plan. Very truly yours. 1 044- 1061) MlEI.KE.Chair O'QUIN4,Vice Chair AL FRENCH,C mniissioner Enclosures J ti , 441;1 YPW:, Mardi 7,1,7015 VM ELECTRONIC MAIL, Meyer Dean Grains Deputy Mayor Arne Wontivirti Councilman Rod Higgins Councilman Ed Pace Councilman Chuck Hafner COMICH1009 Ben Wiel Councilman Bill Bates City of Spokane Valley 1170'7 E.Sprague Avenue,Suite 10C. Spokane Valley,Washington 9920(i RE: Cio.of Spokane Volley itiormorinin ci,.opreci under Ordinance Yr?, 15-005 Dear Mayor Grafos and Council members: The City of Spokane Valley Council will be considering public testimony on Ordinance No. 15-005 on March 24, 2015,as required tinder RCW 35A,53.220 and RCW 36,70A.390. The purpose of this correspondence is to shale with you certain issues and concerns which Spokane County has regarding Ordinance No. 15-005 as well as to encourage the Council to t:onsidci revision or repeal of said Ordinance. As you are aware, and by way of background,entities planning wider the Growth Management Act have certain obligations when updating or revising their Comprehensive Plans and/or development regulations, The City of Spokane Valley is curt ently in die early stages of a periodic update of its Comprehensive Plan and as such is subject to these obligations. With respect to mineral resources which arc the subject of Ordinance No. 15-0004, several provisions of the Growth Management Act must be followed. Hwy include the following: • Itt.„'W 36.70.4.170 Nnturui resource lands and criticid ;trees -Designvlions (I) On or below September 1, 1991, each county, and city shall designate. when:. appropriate: (C) mineral iesources tha true not already chin acterized by UI 1i growth and that have long tenn significance lot the extinction of minerals...- RCW 36,70A.050 Guidelines to classify tigrietilinre, forest, rind mineral hinds and critical nrens , , March 24,2015 Page 2 (I) Subject to the definitions provided in RW 36.70A.030, the department shall adopt guidelines, under chapter 34.05 RCW...to guide the classification of: (a) Agricultural lands;(h) forest lands;(c)mineral resource lands;and(d)critical areas. The department shall consult with the department of agriculture regarding guidelines for agricultural lands,the department of natural resources regarding forest lands and mineral lands,and the department of ecology regarding critical areas.... RCI'V 36.70A.060 Natural resource lands and critical areas—Development regulations. (1) (a) ...each city within such county, shall adopt development regulations ...such regulations shall ensure that the use of lands adjacent to agriculture, forest, or mineral lands shall not interfere with continued use of the designated land for the production of food, timber or for the extraction of minerals. A review of the current City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code confirms that the City of Spokane Valley has not identified or designated resource lands or mineral lands as mandated under the Growth Management Act nor has it adopted development regulations applicable to resource lands including mineral lands. Most counties and cities subject to the Growth Management Act have adopted development regulations protecting mineral lands which at the same time address environmental issues in conjunction with mining activities. We bring the above facts to your attention as information to consider in the periodic update of your Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and to provide you with additional options to consider in taking action on the moratorium adopted in Ordinance No. 15-005 or repealing said Ordinance and replacing it with an Interim Zoning Ordinance that provides a regulatory framework to address the impacts of mineral extraction and associated processing. According to Figure 2.1 of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,20%of the City of Spokane Valley land is designated as Heavy or Light industrial. The premise of the moratorium under Ordinance No. 15-005 is that existing gravel mining operations arc utilizing significant acreage that results in large open pits when mining is complete and the associated impacts are usually irreversible. With a significant portion of the City of Spokane Valley designated as Heavy or Light Industrial there appears to be an adequate supply of land available for industrial use. Moreover, any impacts of mining may be mitigated by adoption of detailed regulations to address reclamation and other site specific impacts. As a result of the substantial amount of land designated as Heavy or Light industrial,the City has not demonstrated or documented the amount of these lands being utilized or converted for mineral extraction/processing or the need for the moratorium as the City has not received or accepted any current applications for mining activity. To address the perceived conversion of industrial lands to mining and processing activities and to provide a specific regulatory framework to mitigate the impacts of mineral extraction and processing. we would strongly advise repeal of the present moratorium and adoption on an Interim Zoning Ordinance that includes performance standards for mineral extraction, processing, site reclamation, setbacks,. etc. This would address the basis for the enactment of the Ordinance. For example, adoption of Chapter 14.620 (Mineral Lands) of the Spokane County Zoning Code as an Interim Zoning Ordinance will ensure continued use and development of natural resource lands that do not detrimentally impact the March 24,2015 Page 3 environment or silt roundiug. land uses. Adoption of Chapter 14.670 will also afford greater protection to the environment, preclude penetration of the Spokane Valley Rathdruni Prairie aquifer, ensure site reclamation consistent with chapter 78.44 RCW as administered by the Department of Natural Resources, and serve as a means to protect the rights of current property owners until the City completes an update of its Comprehensive plan and development regulations consistent with the mandates of the Growth Management Act. In summary, we believe that the current moratorium provided for under Ordinance 15 0(15 will have the unintended immediate consequence of precluding mineral extraction on SpoLatie County owned property in the City of Spokane Valley which includes mineral resources having a life value of approximately $5,000,000. It will also significantly increase the cost of materials for future road maintenance and construction impacting the citizens of Spokane Comity to include the.City of Spokane Valley. Finallyit will impact the County's incentive to partnership with the City to extend public sewer in the Tshirley road area. The Board of County Commissioners respectfully requests that the City Council carefully consider the above observations and: (1) Repeal Ordinance No. 15-005,or (2) Repeal Ordinance No. 15.005 and in its place adopt as inte,Mr development regulation chapter 14.620 of the Spokane County Code Very truly yours. I TODD M1ELKFL.Chair SI IELLY O'OptNIN, Vice Chair AL FR ;NCI I,Commissioner DIvISSoI`'' G ENGIN c - ,, INC AND ROADS DwiS?oY4J OF 'i"111 l Ui5.iC \\Yal S DE,rm -kiEi'?s Mayor Dean Grafos ViA ELECTRONIC MAIL Deputy Mayor Arne Woodward mavdor".councilmembers@a sokanevalley.org Councilman Rod Higgins Councilman Ed Pace Councilman Chuck Hafner Councilman Ben Wick Councilman Bill Bates City of Spokane Valley 11707 E.Sprague Avenue,Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 RE: City of Spokane Valley Moratorium adopted under Ordinance No.15-013 Dear Mayor Grafos and Council Members: The City of Spokane Valley Council will be considering public testimony on Ordinance No. 15-013 on July 28, 2015 as required under RCW 35A,63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. We would like to make a part of the record for the July 28, 2015 meeting the testimony given by Deborah Firkins and John Pederson for Spokane County at the Planning Commissioner Meeting on June 8,2015 in regards to CAR-2015-0018 and the March 24,2015 meeting of the Spokane Valley City Council on Ordinance No. 15-005 along with the letters submitted by the County at both meetings. This proposed Moratorium is quite detrimental to Spokane County and as a result, to the cities of Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake as well. Spokane County currently owns two parcels that were zoned as mineral lands while said parcels were under the County's comprehensive planning jurisdiction. The first parcel is Flora Pit(parcel number 45121.9015);Spokane County acquired this property August 12, 1965 and has operated it as a pit site with a District Shop and the Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS) Office. Flora pit has been continually mined over the last 50 years, When the City's initial mining moratorium came into effect,the County was in the process of setting terms for the sale of this property to Central Premix for their operations, which would have been a mutual benefit to both parties. The present Moratorium presents a major stumbling block for the long-term viability of publicly-owned mineral aggregate production for public projects, and also undermines steps already taken by Central Premix to consolidate their operations in the Flora area. If the County retains ownership of Flora Pit, we will continue to mine the property, taking out an average of 25,000 cubic yards per year for the next 3-4 years;after that,the County will have no remaining mineral resources to utilize in the east-central county area, substantially increasing the costs to public infrastructure projects as well as eliminating the ability for Spokane County to offer the sale of mineral aggregate resources to the cities of Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake for their own municipal projects. 1026 \X1E 'r BLo/r i."'AVENUE SPOKAN=E, WA 99260-0170 Plio,£m: (509) 477-3600 F..x: (509) ei77 655 k 'l'DI : 509-477-7 H3 The second parcel is Eden Pit located approximately 1,600 feet north of the intersection of Eden Street and Euclid Avenue (parcel number 55065.0190). This property has been zoned for mining since 1980. The County has been preparing this site for mining activity for a number of years. An Environmental Assessment, which included a Cultural Resource Survey, has been completed for the site. Spokane County also completed SEPA review for mining 39 acres of the 44 acre site, and a Determination of Non significance was issued December 2012. We currently have an application for a mining permit under review by the Department of Natural Resources which includes SM-6(surface Mining permit application) signed by the City of Spokane Valley in August 2012. This site is estimated to be capable of providing mineral aggregate products for the next 65 years, (based on removing approximately 25,000 cubic yards per year). The Eden Pit site is critical to the County's immediate and long-range transportation programs. It is ideally situated within the east-central County, reducing the resources and subsequent costs required to transport mineral aggregates to project locations. The County's standard cost for hauling gravel is approximately 18.6%per mile per cubic yard,which makes it necessary to have pit sites that are in close proximity to the areas they serve. Minimizing material transport distances also reduce traffic congestion,fuel consumption, and air pollution. It is also important to recognize that not all mineral resource sites are created equal. An important aspect for County pit sites is that the material taken from the pit must meet or exceed the State Specified Gravel Standards. At the Flora Pit, 60% of the material removed meets those standards. Based on testing of the Eden Pit Site, it's been determined that 80%of the material removed will meet the State Specified Gravel Standards. Other mineral sites in nearby areas have not achieved this high of a usable material percentage as the Eden Pit, making it a highly prized production site for mineral aggregates. The appraisal that the County had commissioned from John Sweitzer Company, Inc., dated April 15, 2013 stated that the rock "in place" was worth $2,718,250. This value would be lost if this property is not protected as a mineral resource. We appreciate your time and consideration of our continued request for designating and protecting both the Flora and Eden Pit Sites,as referenced above,as mineral resource lands. Very truly yours, / Mitchell S.Reister,P.E. Spokane County Engineer Eden Pit No. 55-06 __ -- ..... 1--: -- _ _ -, — .-..1.1E,... ..... = _ ...-: ,, -E•!.-131;5:IL i'`.. i -.1... --:: ... I, - !:'.r.e.:.4.E.•1.ki i --;:. - i ....= sr _ — ...: ..:...: .... _ _ 1• n --.t. :a. - - -- • l --"cr - - ._ I ti 582 9 0 ugromiiimeasi 291.45 582.9 Feet Ingresmatic--1 4 It This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is far reference only.Data layers that appear an this map may or may not be accurate,current.or otherwise reliabia. i ,..e>.` F^ or 3!t Aeria, r F 4;_•;1 9163° ^lam I -r C 46_en,,, _ LE_ „9,,- . t 15'y` _ - . . r° .r A - 45127.UL'oi -°P..+,° ' r gy11% ° -.-L.5. ; -. - ¢ 550173.0324 s 7 J i.• ° ° 9 -.'-.1 , t 4 C ' i .. _ le LI 5 L?t_9315 1 4` , '` 49 �- t r: • j 4"l, iy1 R' r. AA! .... A5125.7157 ` ' a 55071.U}25 1. s 9r,. 1 4�.1"4.- . y& +�'I . _ 14 ,,- 4 45115.9 2{ '" a51�1.901b - 551175. 13 ° $y. eLL: : : - LI 12-0.9171 Z 21 Air 25'6.77 523.5 Feel TMA map isUser gpgrimMFAI sialM_outnun from an[nlemel mfpryng Me Jn4 is for referent*Only.!Taller avers[hal appear on lhrs neap m.ry Or+ti,yy rio!kro occur.,°.g currerr, cormiherw 5e rCIIatIa, • - __ _!'. 1111 F3` -_ __ ___ - _ - - - - - - - +Tlr:ft:i s f• '..._ — — - __ _x��F.t-__ -- _ ! aS. _ _ __ Li _ _ _ __ _ .e.4.-F--:: _ ......=t72-7- __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ ___ - __ _ ___ clic S 3°� -_a_ _ _ - _ x - - - - __----_e, ___ _x. -- - _ _ x _-_ _ _ _ _ -__ r. :_ : _ _ -- ___ _ _ __ __ _ •__ 'Cr.,-_7.- ____ ___ _ _ �_ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ _ -.=.;-,y- _-._f________ 1260.7 0 81015 7000.7 Fn<i 0 "tv,mop".a tvrt.wr. 11,1,oytryl M1xn 11'.lMe'n,t 0,.111+0 M tp.iehre,t,^M/DJ'a toy..'na:aryCa,fn!,wi nvio miry rt rm...m!!'+rfewe'.canon r otmem+tn tr4Mve ' Surplus Parcel No. 4512t9015 - i_ its_`'f �' _ -__ --- - - - _ _ c -- 'II zip x - _ 4__ _ _ _ _.;-_24,7,7:7---'--:. ___ - _- - _ _a _ ly _ _ _ ::.,...4....-_ -:1.'- _ _ _ __ _ 5 _ - --__ _ _ _ _ _ ,,-:.-_-1.1_ ma E. �' :t- - J. -_ _ _ __ _ _ - —__=.fi=--__ _ _ ?-,2 '_i _ _ _ _ ?S_25'al x til _ _ __ ___- _-" __,L, -- j.• = 5- - ;Sr.;,;'--_ 1 '12 1 ei_£1_ _ Llii __ t�. ___ :--r, ---- -_ P ___ _ _ -_ _' _- _ - _ '1'F f ____- _ _ 1741 - - ▪- _-__-__— W----20: nil ? f�. v. - fir__ s'.-t: __-- -='_ �. • _ _ _▪ _ _ _____ __ t j.r _ __ ---:--_i=i =.:tii€..:72.'_.::27.•• ____ _ ��f.r mak: _ _ - _ _ '� :17:A.-E._ Pe __:__-_ _ _ _-__ _ -=_ = --_z_---__ ?c' -;-:-._--::..--,--.:;;;;;:-_7-71.7 -7--__ '_- - - 3 �_.!_c. 1i= - _ ' ->_ - _ ... ______-_____ -; - _ '-_ii. _ _ F-. : __ x"33 `r? _ _ -- _ r.-_ x E. S, - _ - - sill Y _ .- rr. "' __ _ _ _ycx SR=i; li' 2.045.0 0 1,022.52 2.045.0 Feet COUNTY OR MUNICiPALI TY WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF APPROVAL FOR i biq,0� atural Resources SURFACE MINING rwW':�Ni t'mx w�dfJ�NnPoT:�. .-- (FormSM-6) NAME OF COMPANY OR INDIVIDUAL APPLICANT(S) TOTAL ACREAGE AND DEPt H OF PERMIT AREA Same as name of the exploration permit holder. (Type or print in ink.) (Include all acreage to be disturbed by mining,setbacks,and buffers, and associated activities during the life of the mine.)(See SM-8A.) Spokane County Public Works Total area disturbed will be 43.7 _ acres Division of Engineering&Roads Maximum vertical depth below pre-mining topographic grade is 42 feet Maximum depth of excavated mine floor is 1990 feet relative to mean sea level COUNTY Spokane_ MAILING ADDRESS No attachments will be accepted.Legal description of permit area: 1026 West Broadway Avenue —1/4 1/4 Section Township Range Spokane,WA 99260 W � 6 25N ____ 45E Telephone (509)477-3600 Proposed subsequent use of site upon completion of reclamation Industrial Signature of compare -presentative or Individual applicant(s) Name and title of company representative (please print) Date signed 4111149""':::: Robert R.Brueggeman,P.E. 1°„re ., County Engineer F/Av .40 TO S .COMPLETED:BY rim APPROPRIATE.E.COUNTY.ORMUNICIPALIT' . Please answer the following questions'yes'or`no'. 'Yes i No i 1. Has the proposed surface mine been approved under local zoning and land-use regulations? / i 2. Is the proposed subsequent use of the land after reclamation consistent with the local land-use plan/designation? f When complete,return this form to the appropriate Department of Natural Resources regional office. Name of planning director or administrative official (please print) Address John Hohman, P.E. 11707 E. Sprague Ave Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Signature cif/ y---7____ Title (please print) Community Development Director Telephone Date iiiilDNR Reclamation Permit No. 509-720-5300 8/15/2012 e-qFttnlll2!Munici t litpssns+LtSMfl_3a1aae01tSi1__ _ e .___ .. _ __ .__ v_ tPM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Oldcastie CORPORATE OFFICE•5111 E BROADWAY•SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 99212 Materials P,0 BOX 3366•SPOKANE,WA 99220-3366•OFFICE (509)534-6221 • FAX (509)536-3051 January 5. 2016 City of Spokane Valley Mayor and Council Members 11707 E. Sprague Ave.. Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Public Hearing on Extension of Mining Moratorium Dear Mayor and Council Members: First of all, I would like to apologize for not being present at this evening's hearing to provide oral testimony. We did not receive notice of the hearing and only heard of it through representatives of Spokane County; otherwise, I would have re-arranged my travel and work schedule to ensure that I could be present for this important meeting. We are surprised that an extension of the moratorium is under consideration as we were told in previous meetings and in discussions with members of this Council and building trade groups that no such extension would be needed or granted, beyond the year of study since the initial passage of the moratorium that will have occurred by mid-February. It does not seem that the justification for an extension of the moratorium is material to the study, designation and protection of mineral resource lands. Any small percentage change in population projection will not materially change the fact that there are more than 839 acres of Tier One industrial lands within the City of Spokane Valley and that only 158 acres are needed to meet the 2031 planning horizon: this is over 4 times the need of industrial land'. Even if a small percentage of industrial land was needed to accommodate future residential growth, there is still excess capacity of industrial land supply not only in the City of Spokane Valley but Spokane County as a region. We are concerned that Staff continues to make statements that secondary use of mined land is limited, especially given the many examples we have testified to previously, including: high end residential developments, commercial. light and heavy industrial and probable conservation sites. Not only does this fly in the face of the facts of beneficial secondary usage but further discounts the fact that all development for city growth is dependent on an economically viable source of aggregates. While we appreciate that the Staff Report to Council states existing, entitled and vested sites are exempt from the moratorium, we request that if the moratorium is extended, it be modified to include an exhibit specifically listing and formally excluding the existing, entitled or vested sites from this process. We have included that list attached as Exhibit A to this letter which includes our approved aggregate reserves at Tschirley. City of Spokane Valley Land Quantity Analysis for Urban Growth Update-September 2010,previously submitted on March 24,2015. CPM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Oldeastie CORPORATE OFFICE•5111 E BROADWAY•SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 99212 IL P Material P 0 BOX 3366•SPOKANE,WA 99220-3366•OFFICE:(509)534-6221 •FAX (509)536-3051 In the event the City determines through its separate Comprehensive Plan update process that new mining sites are appropriate in industrial areas, CPM supports reasonable aggregate site development standards such as: setbacks, landscaping and an approved beneficial secondary use consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for all new sites. We have been involved and worked with numerous jurisdictions throughout the region on the development and adoption of such standards and would look forward to engaging in the same process with the City of Spokane Valley if invited to do so. Finally. CPM once again points out that there is not an aggregate versus industrial land conflict. a. There is no shortage of industrial lands. h. There are no new applications for sites pending. c. Several formally mined sites have been and will continue to return to available lands for residential, commercial and industrial development with the net effect in the near term of further expanding available developable sites. In closing, we do not support an extension of a moratorium that has already been in place for almost a year for all of the reasons outlined above as well as those previously testified to orally and in writing at the previously hearings. If the moratorium is extended, we request it be modified as described in Exhibit A. Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue. Respectfully, John Shogren Vice President/General Manager Central Pre-Mix Development Corporation 21 EXHIBIT"A" Requested Modification to the Moratorium Ordinance No. 15-0013. Section 2: A. [No proposed changes.] B. [No proposed changes.] C. The moratorium shall not affect any mining or mining site operations, including excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, that were vested or in existence and in continuous and lawful operations as of the effective date of this Ordinance, which sites are listed in "Exhibit A." Provided further,this moratorium shall not preclude the acceptance, processing and approval of permits or licenses required to maintain and operate any mining or mining site operations of those sites listed in "Exhibit A." Site Parcel# Sullivan Road 45123.9008 45123.9007 45122.9005 45122.9004 45123.9006 45123.9011 45125.9157 45135.9007 45124.9012 45121.9016 Spokane County Flora Pit 45121.9015 Park Road 35134.9095 35134.9057 35134.9028 35134.9075 35134.9030 35134.9029 35134.3232 35134.9081 Carnahan 35234.9099 8th&Havana Quarry 35233.9191 35233.9192 35233.0709 35233.0513 35233.0710 35233.0604 35233.0605 35233.0606 35233.0607 35233.0608 35233.0609 35233.0505 35233.9176 Tshirley(Eden) 55065.0190 Erik Lamb From: Chris Bainbridge Sent: Friday,January 08.2016 1:12 Pm To: 'GSenner@spokanecounty.Org' Cc: Cary Driskell; Erik Lamb; Mike Jackson;Arne Woodard; Bill Gothmann; Chuck Hefner; Dean Grafos; Ed Pace; Rod Higgins; Samuel Wood;Carrie Koudelka Subject: FW: Spokane County letter RE: Public Hearing for Extension of Mining Moratorium Attachments: 2016_Letter_Hearing for Extension Mining Moratorium.pdf Importance: High I am writing to acknowledge that I just now received your e-mail and attached Metter,and by copy of this e-mail, am sending that to our legal department,our City Manager, and our Councilmernbers. Tha n k you. Christine (Chris) Bainbridge Spokane Valley City Clerk 509-720-5102 From: Benner,Ginger [mento:GsennerPsookane[.raunty.orgj Sent:Friday,January 08,2015 11:52 AM To:Rod Higgins‹rhigRins(e sr bkanevalleyt erg>, Chris Bainbridge‹CbilintAirlgepspokane►ralle►t.ort;> Cc: Chamberlain,Monty<MCharnberlain saokanecounry.ori}; Firkins, Deborah <DFirkins9spokanecounty.ar >; Reister, Mitch<MREl5TER s okanecount .or > Subject:Spokane County letter RE: Public Hearing for Extension of Mining Moratorium Importance:High Good Morning, Please find attached a letter from Mitchell S. Reister, Spokane County Engineer, regarding the Public Hearing for Extension of Mining Moratorium. A hard copy will follow in the mail_ Thank You, (41.gerr . Staff Assistant II Spokane County Engineering& Roads 509477-7407 glen ner s akanecount or Tell us about your experience here with our Customer Service Survey' SL 6 oWY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT January 8.2016 City of Spokane Valley Mayor and Council Members 11707 E. Sprague Ave,Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 RE: Public Hearing an Edension of Alining Moratorium Dear Mayor and Council Members: Thank you for listening to CPM Development Corporation's and. Spokane County's concerns with regard to the designation of Mineral Resources and your moratorium on mining within your jurisdiction. As has been acknowledged by everyone, any Comprehensive Plan requires the accommodation of Mineral Resource Lands. Mineral Resource Lands provide the building blocks for development including roads and buildings,among other items. While. we appreciate your Staff Report stating that existing, entitled and vested sites arc exempt from the moratorium, we request that if the moratorium is extended it he modified to include all exhibit specifically listing and formally excluding the existing,entitled,or vested sites. Spokane County believes that Spokane County Assessor Parcel No. 45121,9015, commonly referred to as the Eden Ph Site (Tschirley Property), should be included in the exhibit of existing entitled,or vested sites for the following reasons: (1) Spokane County obtained an SM-6(Surface Mining Permit) signed by the City of Spokane Valley in August of 2012. (2) Spokane County completed all environmental reviews for reining of the Property, (3) Spokane County pursued acquiring the mineral rights on this Property owned by Central Pre-Mix appraised at$450,000. Spokane County also believes that Spokane County Assessor Parcel No.4$121.9015, commonly referred to as the Elora Mining Site, should also be included in the exhibit of existing, entitled, or vested sites as that property has been in active use as a mining site since 1965. • 1 026 Vim BROADWAY AVENUE - SPOKANE, WA 49260-0170 PHONE: (509) 477-360U - Luc; (509) 477-7655 " TDD: 504-477-7133 City of Spokane Valley Mayor and Council Members January 8.2016 Page 2 Finally, we also request that both 13[10l-tics be added to any future Camp Plan as Mineral Resource Lands. Spokane County is an excellent steward of its resources. We commit to dev-clop our FAen Pit Site to include landscaping. berms, and setbacks. The final reclamation will be consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan requirements for Industrial development. We will not be mining into the water table and will allow for partial above grade and below grade future site development, This type of development has been accomplished in numerous areas around the country thereby securing the future value of the land for redevelopment. In conjunction with our development we will, if requested by the City, enter into a Development Agreement as authorized under RCW 36.7013.170 ei sect. Thank you fur your thoughtful cnnsidcrition of our requests set forth in this letter, Respectful ly, Mitchell S.Reister, County Engineer CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 1-19-16 Department Director Approval Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑ new business ❑public hearing ❑ information ® admin.report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: City Hall Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Multiple meetings, Council retreat 02-17-15; Administrative Report 03-17-15, Motion Consideration 03-24-15, Study Session 09-15-15, Motion Consideration 09-29-15, Interior Discussion 11-18-15, Heating and Cooling Discussions on 12-1-15 and 12-15-15, Interior and Exterior Discussion 12-29-15. BACKGROUND: Developing options for a permanent City Hall building has been a Council budget goal for the past several years. Earlier this year, the City closed on 3.38 acres of property at the former University City Mall site. At the February 17, 2015 Council workshop, staff discussed the selection process for architectural firms to design the building. At the March 17, 2015 Council meeting staff updated the Council on the selected design firm and discussed the draft professional services agreement for the project. At the March 24, 2015 meeting, the Council authorized the City Manager to contract with Architects West to design the site and building. The architect team conducted a public meeting on May 6, 2015 and met with councilmembers and staff to finalize the program and discuss design parameters for the building. The project team updated the Council on the design process and displayed two potential concepts on September 15, 2015. Council indicated a preference for one of the concepts which was approved on September 29, 2015. Interior color and material options were discussed on November 18, 2015 and a general heating and cooling discussion was held on December 1, 2015. A general discussion on interior and exterior details occurred on December 29, 2015. The discussion tonight will update Council on the status of the design. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City Hall construction project is anticipated to cost $14.4 million including land acquisition, design services, and construction. STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Community and Economic Development Director ATTACHMENTS: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 19, 2016 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Spokane Valley Police Department Accreditation GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Informational BACKGROUND: Provide background on the WASPC (Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs) Reaccreditation of the Spokane Valley Police Department OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: n/a STAFF CONTACT: Chief Rick VanLeuven ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation .--- 0 L,i c Spokane Valley Police Accreditation 2015 .. , . _ . .. .. ,. .. , WA' " ",0.-• ,Ir °434,' .. . ---....... -,' ,„ k.- --, ', .t.: • t, .:. . . . i:i...,•.,,'. ,,ia•s - C- – -. • Alf ... _._ . ::r'.-4:,:-_:----,,;.—z:,_:::• --' ‘• if. • a' , AL _ ;,, , S.POKANE. :-AVLEY SPOKANE COUNTY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT P0LICE 12710 ...,.. ___ ,..... .. ,.• _, ..._.,.. .,..,,,..,. ..,.., .,..-, . . . . , . ,...,, ..... iiiiii 4 '. 1 ".' .., ..,,,,,.--1:7,-.i.. - . .. ' . L - P.,..''' 4 '744,T,"'"fX`Ao-----...."•-,'' '-'1°',,,,.... --', -„------„---y6;4.7„:;,--- .e.,, „. ,. , „...t ,_-;-i„.,.... - .,-- .....- . ,...A,,-4, .- .ak.,431,..iii,is,2 715r .,,, 1..,.:,f-'..411,4$' ' - '--,' -" 7-7-''''''-t-''' '4.4- ''''•:100.,'''''t".:'P,3",(Alol,,i,- .'--- -.;ftri,7.r. 4 ,:;,---;4,.,_,.: ,4, .- ',.,• ' ".-,' : ,,,,,,,,i;.*,,, ro4i,ki--;:.„,,,.,;....,...'4.....-.-,, .4'4''..:,,V'.,,e+?,','.,:t11, ,.4^,.Q.,..: :-.''',. ..41,0i.',,4,.... .4'''.;444..4"" ,Irk)... , 1-nifriZ#,-*;:;S-'.',,..'f-'1:::"'..,,,--:4-„'4.,:':.,,`,W.:Fv;',:_,,,„,4 ;-:::,,,,„,7',,,,:„..,'„:7. ,:!,,,:','','1,.,r'.2..,:';t. i•-.: ,,,!, A.,•,,,, , ..._ .,, . Jo*. • . ''',;g1.Mitklki4;24-r;,,,,;::;- —' i,,, ti:,.;r' t..-.K“: '''' -. 't-- •('' itlif$00416441 ,... '1'' ,. , -,..:.1„; 41,.,„',104* k, ...,* . . - ... . .,..... . , . 0LIc� Background on Accreditation • The purpose of law enforcement agency accreditation is to WA professionalize the law enforcement industry by providing a review process for agencies to be certified as operating under industry best practices and standards. • In 1976 the Association was directed by the Washington State Legislature to develop standards and goals for Washington State Law Enforcement. The Association has maintained an operational accreditation program since that time. • The current accreditation program was created in 2007 and is overseen by the Accreditation Committee, Accreditation Commission, and Board of Directors. — The Committee is responsible for maintaining accreditation standards. — The Commission is responsible for reviewing accreditation on-site reports and making recommendations to the Board of Directors. — The Board of Directors is responsible for conferring accreditation. 2 Purpose of Accreditation: sporicti4i • To increase public confidence in the agency WA • To increase credibility • To provide a systemized agency self-assessment • To broaden perspectives • To intensify administrative and operational effectiveness • To ensure recruitment, selection, and promotion processes are fair and equitable • To strengthen understanding of agency policies and procedures by agency personnel • To improve agency morale and pride • To decrease susceptibility to litigation and costly civil court settlements • To potentially reduce liability insurance costs • To provide state and local recognition of professional competence 3 ar c,csL' . 1_-, Accreditation assesses the agency's ability to meet the 131 standards, oRi'—'17/a1Xaddressing 18 major law enforcement areas as established by the Svne Association's Accreditation Committee. WA , - Goals and Objectives — Role and Authority — Use of Force — Management, Staffing, Organization & Utilization of Personnel — Records Management — Information Technology — Unusual Occurrences — Health and Safety ,� e — Fiscal Management — Recruitment and Selection — Training — Performance Evaluation — Code of Conduct — Internal Affairs — Patrol Function — Investigative Function — Evidence and Property Control Function 4 — Prisoner Security ,,; oLir vka 2003 • A lot of time and effort went into the preparation for the accreditation , well over a year, to provide proof for the WASPC standards, which are best practices for continuous improvement. • During the Accreditation On-Site , the Accreditation Team had only three recommendations that SVPD needed to improve upon , one of which was done that same afternoon . 5 V° ''<t> Benefits to the Community sirksivati-e;) -40% • Credible framework for evaluation of policy and procedures ; • Highlights agency capability and competency; • Improved management procedures; • Increased employee morale ; • Enhanced planning and innovation ; • Reduces agency risk and exposure ; • Improves agency and community relations; and , • Solid foundation for agency to build upon . 6 SVPD Earns Reaccreditation at y • - Spokane Valley Police Department was recently awarded reaccreditation by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC), and still remains the first and only contract law enforcement agency in Washington State to earn that honor. The reaccreditation process occurs every four years to insure the agency is operating under best practice and policies. This is the first reaccreditation for the Spokane Valley Police Department following its initial accreditation in 2011. • During the on-site assessment and evaluation phase, the on-site assessment team, a group of assessors from law enforcement agencies across Washington State confirms the agency's ability to meet the WASPC accreditation standards. The assessors review agency files for policies and procedures as well as documentation (proofs) showing the agency is operating under the direction of those policies and procedures. Assessors also interview agency members to gather additional information. As part of the WASPC on-site process, assessors are encouraged to note areas where improvement can be made. • In the Accreditation Commission review phase, the WASPC Director of Professional Services or the on- site review team leader, the chief administrator of the agency seeking accreditation, and the departmental accreditation manager may appear before the Accreditation Commission to determine if they have met the standards and the on-site review team has done a complete job. The Accreditation Commission then 7 forwards its recommendations to the WASPC Board of Directors for final consideration. c L c. SVPD Earns Accreditation (cont.) at ey WA Al 03 • During the reaccreditation phase, agencies repeat the entire process. The reaccreditation process is significantly less cumbersome, if agencies institutionalize the accreditation philosophy and keep agency policies, procedures and records up to date. To maintain accreditation, agencies must be reaccredited every four years. • Since the Spokane Valley Police Department is a contract agency of the already-accredited Spokane County Sheriff's Office, it could have been considered already accredited. Chief Rick Van Leuven wanted to take the extra step of vetting the department on its own merits to show citizens and the Spokane Valley City Council, that we're going above and beyond. • Becoming accredited ensures the department's policies are up-to-date and can reduce liability and insurance costs. We are a more competent, professional agency for doing so. It really should increase the public confidence in our agency. • The Spokane Police Department provides evidence and records management for the Spokane Valley Police Department and participated in the accreditation process. There was zero non- compliance in both those areas. 8 bLIc Vpoltin a LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ACCREDITATION AWARD IN RECOGNMON DF TIO: WA SPOKANE VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT .rm..m Noa'ember 16'On • Only 56 agencies out of approx. 300 in the State of Washington are accredited . • Of the 39 Sheriff's Offices in the State of Washington , only 10 are accredited , with SCSO being 1 of those 10. • SVPD joins SCSO and Spokane PD as accredited law enforcement agencies in Spokane County. • SVPD is the first and largest contract-law enforcement agency in the state to become accredited through WASPC standards. 9 Spoitine WA X03 Questions ?? CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 19, 2016 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Record Act and Open Public Meeting Act training. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapters 42.56 RCW (PRA) and 42.30 RCW (OPMA). PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: Staff will provide training on the City's obligations under Washington's Public Record Act under chapter 42.56 RCW, and Washington's Open Public Meeting Act under chapter 42.30 RCW. OPTIONS: N/A. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint presentation. Public Record Act and Open P Meeting Act Cary Driskell City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley January 19, 2016 City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney TheVUblic Record Act - RCW 42 . 56 Historical b Adopted in 1972 by Initiative 276. Codified by Legislature under RCW 42.17. Re-codified by Legislature in 2005, RCW 42.56. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 2 Strongly worded mandate - statute "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments they have created." RCW 42.56.030 City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney " Public Record " definition Relevant portion of definitions states as follows: "Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney " Public Record " definition Most important parts are: (1) "writing"; (2) "relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function"; and (3) "owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency". City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney "Writing " - electronic E-mails; Tweets; Text messages; Transitory postings on Facebook and other social media; Meta-data; and Police/security video. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 6 Agency duty to respond Local governmental entities are mandated to adopt and enforce reasonable rules governing how the agency shall respond to requests. RCW 42.56.100. Spokane Valley has done that through adoption of SVMC 2.75. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney j. Agency " best practices" 1. Entity management attitude; 2. Training; 3. Prioritizing requests; 4. Tracking requests; 5. Effective monitoring; 6. Central point of contact in the agency; 7. Visible signage; 8. Transparency and communication; 9. User-friendly website; 10. Good records management and information technology; 11. Appropriate copying charges; 12. Using the installment method for large requests; 13. Communicate agency appeal process for record denials; and 14. Documenting the request process. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 8 Prompt res onse required p Must respond within 5 business days by: (1) providing the record (may be on line); (2) acknowledging that the [agency] has received the request and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the [agency] will require to respond to the request; or (3) denying the record request. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 9 Location of record Location not critical factor, nature of record is what is critical (relates to conduct of government or performance of governmental or proprietary function). Personal computer or phone of staff or Council. In possession of third party contractor. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney tY:> t from disclosure — a orney y client privileged information RCW 42.56.070(1) contains what is commonly referred to as the "other laws" exemption to disclosure. It specifically states in pertinent part that "each agency . . . shall make available . . . all public records unless [exempt under the PRA] or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records." RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) states that "[a]n attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment." City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Information notexa m- les protected p Council and employee names; Council and employee salary; Council and employee benefits; Employee vacation/sick time used; Council and employee work e-mail address; and employee length of service. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 12 Penalties RCW 42.56.550(4) provides that it "shall be within the discretion of the court to award such person an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for each day that he or she was denied the right to inspect or copy said public record." g how much of a fine to assess is based on two steps: (1) count the number of days the party was denied access to the records, and (2) determine the appropriate per day penalty, up to $100 per day depending on the nature of the denial. No daily penalty for each document - Yousoufian v. Sims, 152 Wn.2d 451 (2004). The prevailing party is entitled to "reasonable attorney fees" and costs of suit. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Determininghow muchpenalty Good faith? Zink v. City of Mesa, 140 Wn. App. 328 (2007) - large and frequent record requests by former Mayor materially interfering with operation of clerk's office. Trial court was sympathetic ("substantially complied", full compliance amounted to "practical impossibility", the requests "amounted to unlawful harassment"). Court of Appeals disagreed, finding strict compliance required, not substantial. Penalty and fees of $246,000. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Questions on the PRA? City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney i5 The en Public MeetingAct City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney i6 The Open Public Meetings Act Washington State law enacted in 1971. Set forth in Revised Code of Washington 42.3o et seq. Applies to all city and town councils, and many subordinate city and town boards and committees. Applies to planning commissions, lodging tax advisory committees. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney ,j, Purpose of OPMA Governments "exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business." RCW 42.30.010. "Thedeo le of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.' Id. "The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the riht to decide what isgood for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. Id. p p "The people insist on remainin informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.' Id. Goal is transparency and public trust. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney OPMA requirements OPMA requires that: All meetings of the governing body be open to the public. All actions taken by such bodies be done at meetings that are open to the public. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney What is a " meeting " ? There must be a "meeting" in order to trigger the requirements of the OPMA. "Meeting" means meetings at which action is taken; "Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions; Physical presence not required. Majority (quorum) implicates "meeting" rules. "Serial meetings" may collectively add up to a "meeting." City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney =s:i What is a " meeting " ? ( cont . Email communications can constitute a meeting which violates the OPMA if it goes back and forth. Solely receiving information is not a violation. Responding to email could be a violation depending on the circumstances. It is not necessary that a governing body take "final action" (a vote) for a meeting to be subject to the OPMA. Discussion regarding City matters is "action." Requires a public meeting if a quorum of members are present for the discussion. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Procedural Requirements for Meetings Outlined in detail in the Governance Manual. Some general requirements: Notice (depends on the time of meeting); Open to public unless an executive or closed session; Votes cannot be by secret ballot; Member of public cannot be forced to give their name or other information as condition of attendance (can condition a person's ability to speak at the meeting on providing information). City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney What is not a " meeting " ? What is not a meeting: If City matters are not discussed, then the gathering is not a "meeting" subject to OPMA (even if a quorum is present). Examples: Social gatherings if City business is not discussed; Gatherings before or after official action (such as the time prior to Council meetings) so long as City business is not discussed; Meetings of other government agencies (BoCC, chamber of commerce), so long as the Council/Commission members do not discuss City business amongst themselves. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 2, OPMA exemptionsexce tions and p No City business = OPMA not implicated. If no official business of City is transacted, OPMA does not apply. Public perception is a separate consideration from what is legal. Active preparation for litigation. Executive sessions: 11+ specific circumstances, defined by statute Closed session (OPMA simply does not apply) RCW 42.30.140 (quasi-judicial matters and collective bargaining issues) City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 2 Executive sessions Four common examples: • Interviewing candidates for appointed positions (City Manager); • Discussing applicant qualifications for open Council position; Considering the job performance of an employee; Considering the acquisition of real property where the discussion, if public, could increase the price; • Discussions with legal counsel about litigation-related matters. No final decisions allowed in executive sessions City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney OPMA p enalties Effect of penalty The penalty for a violation of the act is direct: any action taken in violation of the OPMA is null and void; "Any person" may bring the action in superior court. Individual liability. $100 penalty if they attend with knowledge that the meeting is in violation of the Act. City or City Council liability. Liable for all costs, including reasonable attorney fees. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Questions on OPMA? City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 27 Fairness Doctrine Appearance of City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 28 Appearance of Fairness doctrine Doctrine requires government decision-makers to conduct hearings and make decisions in a way that is fair to others in appearance and fact. Test for fairness: would a fair minded person in attendance believe that: everyone was heard who should have been heard, and the decision-makers were impartial and free from outside influences? Applies only to quasi-judicial matters and not to legislative ones. RCW 42.36.010. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Examples ofquasi -judicial actions . Quasi-judicial (handled by City Hearing Examiner): Subdivision approvals; • Preliminary plat approvals; • Conditional use permits; • Variances; Rezones of specific parcels; and Discretionary zoning permits if hearing required. Not quasi-judicial: Adoption, amendment, or revision of comprehensive plans; Adoption of area-wide zoning ordinances; and Adoption of area-wide zoning amendments. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney io Appearance of Fairnessapplied Disqualifies decision-makers from the quasi-judicial decision-making process who: have prejudged the issues; have a bias in favor of one side in the proceeding; have a conflict of interest; or cannot otherwise be impartial. Prohibits "ex parte" communications between a decision-maker and a proponent or opponent of the matter being decided during the pendency of a quasi-judicial proceeding. RCW 42.36.060. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Questions on Appearance of Fairness ? City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 32 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 19, 2016 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Comment Letter Regarding Tesoro Savage Energy Distribution Terminal Facility GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) is conducting its review process as outlined in Chapter 80.50 Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Title 463 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) for the proposed Tesoro Savage Vancouver Energy Distribution Terminal. In accordance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), EFSEC is the state lead agency and has issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for your review and comment PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council conducted a public hearing January 12, 2016 to allow for citizen comment on the proposed facility. Approximately eleven citizens comments, and two written letters were added to the record. BACKGROUND: Tesoro Savage Petroleum Terminal, also known as Vancouver Energy, has applied for a Site Certification Agreement to construct and operate a new crude oil terminal capable of receiving an average of 360,000 barrels of crude oil per day. At the proposed Facility, the crude oil would be unloaded from trains, stored on-site, and loaded onto marine vessels at a marine terminal located at the Port of Vancouver in Clark County, Washington. Marine vessels would then deliver the crude oil to refineries primarily located on the US West Coast. According to the Draft Environmental Impact statement (DEIS), an average of four unit trains would arrive and depart for the proposed Facility each day for a total of 2,290 one way train trips per year by unit trains comprised of 120 crude oil tank cars. Occasionally a fifth train may arrive within a 24 hour period. The Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) makes the assumption that the Bakken would be the likely source of oil and that Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) would be the carrier. The trains would pass through Spokane Valley. The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council is conducting its review process for the proposed Facility. The public comment period begins when the DEIS (draft environmental impact statement) is issued. A minimum thirty-day comment period is required by SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act). The comment period began November 24, 2015, was originally scheduled to end January 8, 2016, but the applicant agreed to extend the comment period to end January 22, 2016. A public meeting had been originally scheduled for January 7, 2016, at CenterPlace Regional Event Center, but was changed to January 14, 2016. Since Council has not had an opportunity to formulate a viewpoint, staff has drafted a letter for Council's consideration, addressed to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council as part of their comment period, which ends January 22, 2016. OPTIONS: Council discretion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to send a letter of comment to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council voicing Council's stance on the proposed facility. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS:PowerPoint Presentation. (A draft comment letter will be distributed separately.) Stiokane Draft Environmental Impact Statement Vancouver Energy Distribution Terminal Facility at the Port of Vancouver, WA Spokane Overview: valley Tesoro Savage Petroleum Terminal has applied for a Site Certification Agreement to construct and operate a new crude oil terminal capable of receiving an average of 360,000 barrels of crude oil per day. This will increase the amount of crude oil transported through Spokane Valley. Average of 4-5 unit trains/day westbound loaded/eastbound empty totaling 8 — 10 trips per day through Spokane Valley Total of 2,920+ one -way train trips per year passing through Spokane Valley 120 sole purpose crude oil tank cars/train, 7,800 feet long Study assumes Bakken Crude transported via Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad �miC utxz 4*1 [ 2 ) 444 �... Environmental Resources/ jVa Hey Issues Analyzed in Draft EIS : Earth Resources Historic and Cultural Resources Air Quality Transportation Water Resources Public Services and Utilities Terrestrial Vegetation Noise Terrestrial Wildlife Land and Shoreline Use Aquatic Species Visual Resources Energy and Natural Resources Recreation Environmental Health 3 Spokane Existing �Va11ey BNSF Train Traffic 0 e .,g ' if*N Currently, up to 56 trains per day (392 per47.6: week) cross the Barker Road/ SR290 ,:' r intersection. p _ y 19 trains per week are unit oil trains -If all potential crude-by-rail facilities are built -.. out, oil train numbers are estimated to exceed: 57 weekly loaded CBR unit trains by 2020 113 weekly loaded CBR unit trains by 2035 - if - . � Estimates predicted to be "much higher" with °'°$ ,. crude export. -` � fpfp 1 ,_� aM ;� ; _ There are multiple potential projects in iifi, -� , __ addition to Vancouver Oil Terminal that would #y` " I, add additional train traffic to Spokane Valley. [ 4 �:L Spokane Existing cont. : 4,1,00Valley BNSF Crossings in City of Spokane Valley Park Road Crossing — At Grade Vista Crossing — At Grade Fk CoArgonne/Trent - Underpass University Crossing — At Grade, TRa KS Existing Quiet Zone - Pines Road — At Grade - Evergreen — At Grade Sullivan/Trent - Overpass r Flora Road — At Grade [ 5 Barker Road — At Grade ,--\.....„ Primary RR Crossingssp kavalle y . arillutr-Awb'',. .- B-8 rr IBI, 'I .Er,i, 4 14,- Afti•+ipolcane __, -40..,Atli c -l -IIx �--- � irli -- rr.ii sor eta e,--~ 1 .4155Ent 11 ,ter twill ,�: � ' AES■. Iii • :. M .d".-41Cli 10 gt ` . Ma rm'a' iii■ 1i3E111F 1 IMIlinimitma EG i�g IIFIEE" ' i �Ir�w F11 --�' ■- ..f iizaam�m ms mar-1rm i i i --..:-. ■�� mmpod'2"Mniblemm p. BO "� �- ■�11„C ■�raMEMIMIN � Fromri.A �1h- ��� �,�11■"�Tr1i MEMAIN '�sz ,:r"":�"` �_ , := ! i Ism1._; i -wrzuranz ��■■d■ ice ,—�.■ !MIN PI ' „- .3 4... `s: .iii..vie-�I■1■�C =I. =RIM=�. i.,f. WI( .. BNSF Line - i - :®1111.=1,4rAE '' •'w [ 6 J ., _ -.?:C3 UP Liffe a:`i�F� �iiair�IWO s l4RR7�9�■eh� i'• Iff 5 Spokane Impacts : it Quality valley Vehicle idling while delayed at at-grade crossings could increase emissions to a level that would represent an additional impact to local air quality *Congestion from this project alone would create the following estimated emissions output at the 7 at-grade crossings. 78.54 metric tons of nitrogen oxide (Nox) • ,,, 2.94 metric tons of volatile organic compound (VOC) % r 2.24 metric tons of particulate matter (PM) 9,377.20 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) ( / 7 * Estimate based on 2015 Tiger Grant for Barker Overpass. Spokane Impact: At Grade Daily Train Traffic Increase: 7 at Grade Crossings X 8 trains daily = 56 unit train crossings daily Annual Train Traffic Increase: 56 unit train crossings/day x 365 = 20,440 unit train at grade crossings annually *Grade Separated Daily Train Traffic Increase: 2 Grade Separated Crossings X 8 trains daily = 16 unit train crossings daily Annual Train Traffic Increase: 16 unit train crossings/day x 365 = 5,840 unit train 411"--Ht grade separated crossings annually - Total Train Traffic Increase = 26,280 crossings annually [ 8 ) *DEIS describes heightened risk for elevated train crossings Spokane Impact : Try Rail Transportation (3.14.3.2; pg. 3.14-26) Figure 3.14-7 shows locations of at grade crossings having Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)* of 2,500 or more if I •- { Barker — 5,100 vehicles Pines - 16,000 vehicles (DEIS says 11,000) ae' 11 \_ } ' University — 2,662 'f AI I 1 Park Road — 6,682 - - At Grade Crossing Delays (pg. 3.14-24) Train 7,800' long @20 MPH = 5 minutes/train X 8 trains = 41 minutes/day 41 minutes/day/crossing X 7 at grade crossings = 287 minutes/day 287 minutes/day X 365 days/year = 1,746 hours of gate down time/year DEIS identifies moderate to major impacts to motorists from delays. *Barker Rd. is included here but for some reason was omitted from Figure [ 9 3.14-7 of the EDIS. Cumulative S""okane Valley Rail o rtati o n2 -9(executive summary 6.2. ES / ) The total number of trains that would be added to the system if all the identified existing and future projects were permitted and operated is 155 unit trains or 310 round trips/week Unknown if these would all come through Spokane Valley The additional rail traffic ... "could increase the rate of accidents and fatalities to pedestrian trespass or , motorists at at-grade crossings �� ,,I 10 Spokane Cost for Grade Separations : valley Barker Rd. Pines Rd.I Park Rd. Sullivan Rd. Total: Overpass Underpass Overpass Improvements Bond Issue $29,784,000 $17,527,752 $19,372,778 $16,473,451 $83,157,981 Amt. Annual Bond $1,828,486 $1,076,056 $1,189,325 $1,011,331 $5,105,198 Pmt. Amt.* *Estimated interest rate of 4.5% Bond issue costs of 2.0% Bond repayment of 30 years [ 11 ) Spokane Walley 4 ))) Impact: Noise Subtracting 1 existing quiet zone = Additional 17,520 train horns/year Two Long — One Short — One Long — Repeated as necessary until locomotive clears the crossing. (17,520 X 4 = 70,080) Locomotive Horns must be sounded 15-20 seconds before entering all public grade crossings, but not more than 1/4 mile in advance Engineer may do more based upon their judgment Train horns must be between 96-110 Decibels 12 Spokane Impact: Safety valley Potential for increased risk for oil train fire/ explosion Reduction of emergency access to residents & businesses with amount of train traffic at crossings City in Quebec was low population density yet suffered the highest number of deaths resulting from an oil train fire. Potential fires are devastating no matter where they occur. It is a false premise to categorize by population density. The volatility of Bakken Crude is similar to diesel or gasoline. "It has been described as looking like" "two-stroke oil mixed with gasoline." (pg. 407, Washington Marine and Rail Oil Transportation Study) C13 ] Spokane Emergency valley Greater Spokane Emergency Management _, wsAra Local planning efforts Fayette County,West Virginia Alert and Warning '4.— 1r ' t ' Evacuations r i. , ', . Sheltering of victims *4 , �`` Mass Care ! '"! -... 4. BREAKING NEWS ,tl Police EXPLOSION & OIL SPILL AFTER TRAIN DERAILS cm 3:37 PM PT Fire arm. BOSTON,MA CURRENT AIRPORT DEEA.YS ' GROUND DELAYS +r Loan Ground Delays CPxe ' 11111 „: � Ir Fire Department/Medical Facility Response Preparedness (4.6.4.3) June 2014 survey by Washington State Military Department "even the most metropolitan, best-equipped departments consider themselves ill prepared to respond to a crude-by-rail (incident) with related explosion and/or fire incident." Public Works [ 14 Spokane Impact: Economic Deve1opmenth1ey Potential negative impact to development of vacant parcels due to increased proposed train traffic. Property values could be impacted near train crossings. Increased wait for commerce traffic at crossings. Oil train demand may impact transport of other goods that have direct economic impact on COSV. ....BNSF mainline capacity and operating protocols are continually being challenged." (Pg. 175 Washington Marine and Rail Oil Transportation Study. Lower quality of life resulting from noise and potential safety concerns. [ 15 1 J Spokane Spokane Valley Grade Separations: Council Adopted Goals: Continue to work with state and federal legislators for possible financial assistance for the Barker Road Bridge Grade Separation. Develop a strategic plan for funding and completion of all grade separation projects COSV State & Federal Legislative Agenda: Transportation Funding Request — Bridging the Valley & Barker Road/ BNSF Grade Separation (overpass/ underpass). Pines Underpass Barker Grade Separation was part of our last 2 Tiger Grant Applications. NLC Federal Legislative Agenda: Invest in Local Transportation Priorities AWC State Legislative Agenda: Transportation: Adopt a multi-modal transportation package that addresses [ 16 city needs Spokane Comments : valley Draft EIS Statement presents issues and problems without tangible solutions Governor's report doesn't list Spokane Valley as a priority. What confidence does the COSV have to see enhancements? COSV has been unsuccessful at funding requests from the state and federal government. No known direct benefits to City of Spokane Valley if this project is approved Scope of DEIS is overly broad i.e. from Washington/ Idaho border to Vancouver, WA, down the Columbia River and along the Pacific Coast Some elements do not seem to be adequately addressed i.e. very [ 17 J 1 limited discussion on alternatives. Barely addresses shipping by truck. Spokane Comments Cont valley DEIS leaves out Spokane Valley in list of "Municipalities" DEIS references and relies on Washington State 2014 Marine and Rail Oil Transportation Study. COSV had numerous comments on the State study The State study prioritized by population and the City of Spokane Valley was not listed as a priority or even "potentially at risk" 18 Spokane Comments Cont valley Excerpt from Washington State Marine and Rail Oil Transportation Study (pg. 341-343) "Because there is no mandate for railroads to develop comprehensive plans or ensure the availability of necessary response resources, carriers have effectively placed the burden of remediating environmental consequences of an accident of local communities along their routes. This is particularly true when a tank railcar incident occurs with a subsequent fire/explosion event coupled with potential evacuation due to the danger that may be present from fire and toxic fume emissions." "Bakken crude is highly flammable and easily ignited at normal temperatures by heat, static discharges, sparks or flames." [ 19 1 Spokane Public nValley City of Spokane Valley Public Hearing Tuesday, January 12, 2016 Public Comments at CenterPlace Thursday, January 14, 2016 Written Comments due Friday, January 22, 2016 [ 20 ) Summary: Tesoro Savage DEIS .,•••oValley Increase of 4-5 unit trains/day westbound loaded/eastbound empty totaling 8 — 10 trips per day through Spokane Valley Total increase of 2,920+ one -way train trips per year passing through Spokane Valley Total Train Traffic Increase = 26,280 crossings annually 1,746 hours of gate down time/year 17,520 train horns/year. Two Long — One Short — One Long — Repeated as necessary until locomotive clears the crossing. (17,520 X 4 = 70,080) Train horns must be between 96-110 Decibels If all potential crude-by-rail facilities are built out, oil train numbers are estimated to exceed: 57 weekly loaded CBR unit trains by 2020 113 weekly loaded CBR unit trains by 2035 [ 21 Estimates predicted to be "much higher" with crude export. DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of January 14,2016; 11:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress;items are tentative To: Council& Staff From: City Clerk,by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings January 26,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Jan 18] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.First Reading Ordinance 16-001 Vacating 3rd Avenue—Karen Kendall (10 minutes) 3.First Reading Ordinance 16-002 Mining Moratorium Findings of Fact—Erik Lamb (10 minutes) 4.First Reading Ordinance 16-003 Extending Mining Moratorium—Erik Lamb (15 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 6. Info Only: (a) Dept.Reports; (b)Amended 2016 TIP [*estimated meeting: 45 minutes] (AWC City Action Days, Olympia, Wa. -Jan 27-28) February 2,2016,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Jan 25] 1.Amended 2016 TIP—Steve Worley (10 minutes) 2. Sidewalks and Development—John Hohman (25 minutes) 3. City Hall Update—John Hohman (15 minutes) 4.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 55 minutes] February 9,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Feb 1] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Amended 2016 TIP—Steve Worley (10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance 16-001 Vacating 3rd Avenue—Karen Kendall (10 minutes) 4. Second Reading Ordinance 16-002 Mining Moratorium Findings of Fact—Erik Lamb (10 minutes) 5. Second Reading Ordinance 16-003 Extending Mining Moratorium—Erik Lamb (10 minutes) 6. Proposed Resolution Amending 2016 TIP—Steve Worley (5 minutes) 7.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 55 minutes] February 16,2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Feb 8] 1. City Hall Update—John Hohman (15 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] February 23,2016,Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Feb 15] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Mayoral Appointments: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee —Mayor Higgins (10 minutes) 3.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 4. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes] March 1,2016, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Feb 22] 1.Accomplishments Report—Mike Jackson (45 minutes) 2. City Hall Update—John Hohman (15 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) March 8,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Feb 29] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 1/14/2016 1:35:35 PM Page 1 of 2 March 15,2016,Workshop, 8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m. (no evening mtg)Council Chambers [due Mon,Mar 7] March 22,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Mar 14] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 3. Info Only: Department Reports March 29,2015, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Mar 21] 1. City Hall Update—John Hohman (15 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) April 5,2016, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Mar 28] 1. City Hall Update—John Hohman (15 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) April 12,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Apr 4] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) April 19,2016,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Apr 11] 1. City Hall Council Chambers 2.Advance Agenda April 26,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Apr 18] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 3. Info Only: Department Reports May 3,2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Apr 25] 1. City Hall Update—John Hohman (15 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) May 10,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 2] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) May 17,2016, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 9] 1. City Hall Council Chambers 2.Advance Agenda May 24,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 16] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 3. Info Only: Department Reports May 31,2016, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 23 1. City Hall Council Chambers 2.Advance Agenda *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Avista Electrical Franchise SRTMC Agreement(June/July 2016) AWC Conference(June 21-24) TIP 2017-2022(May/June) Blake Street Sidewalk Uncovered/unsecured loads Ordinance 15-023 (expires June 9,2016) Draft Advance Agenda 1/14/2016 1:35:35 PM Page 2 of 2