Loading...
2016, 12-13 Regular MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday, December 13, 2016 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION: Pastor Matthew Larson of Advent Lutheran Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PROCLAMATION PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. 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 claim vouchers on Dec 13, 2016 Request for Council Action Form Totaling: $6,004,020.05 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending November 30, 2016: $409,664.89 c. Approval of November 8, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Regular 6:00 p.m. Meeting d. Approval of November 15, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session Format e. Approval of November 17, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Meeting, Water Issues f Approval of November 22, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Legislative Meeting g. Approval of November 22, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Regular Formal Meeting Format h. Approval of November 30, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Meeting, Feasibility Study i. Confirmation of Mayoral Appointment of Citizen to the Spokane Housing Authority NEW BUSINESS: 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-018 Comprehensive Plan — Mike Basinger [public comment] 3. Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Funds — Chelsie Taylor [public comment] 4. Motion Consideration: Street Maintenance Contract Renewal — Eric Guth [public comment] 5. Motion Consideration: Street Sweeping Contract Renewal — Eric Guth [public comment] Council Agenda 12-13-16 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 6. City Sponsorship of Potential 2017 Food Event — John Hohman 7. Spokane Valley Arts Council Sculpture — John Hohman 8. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed): 9. Amended Legislative Agenda CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT General Meetinj' Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2nd and 41 Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1st 31d and 5t'—' Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 12-13-16 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 13, 2016 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ® consent D old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 11/17/2016 5690; 5704; 5705; 5707; 39860 $77,954.71 11/17/2016 39861-39914 $3,220,600.67 11/22/2016 39915-39953 $194,829.00 I2/01/2016 39954-39986; 1045388; 1152884; 1176472; 1178214 $2,507,657.68 12/02/2016 39987-39992 $2,977.99 GRAND TOTAL: $6,004,020.05 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists Other Funds 101 — Street Fund 103 — Paths & Trails 105 — Hotel/Motel Tax 106 — Solid Waste 120 - CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121— Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 — Winter Weather Reserve 123 — Civil Facilities Replacement 204 --- Debt Service 301—REET 1 Capital Projects 302 - REET 2 Capital Projects 303 — Street Capital Projects 309 — Parks Capital Grants 310 — Civic Bldg Capital Projects 311 — Pavement Preservation 312 — Capital Reserve 314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects 402 -- Stormwater Management 403 — Aquifer Protection Area 501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 — Risk Management #001 - General Fund 001.011.000.511. City Council 001.013.000.513. City Manager 001.013.015.515. Legal 001.016.000. Public Safety 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 001.018.014.514. Finance 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 001.032.000. Public Works 001.058.050.558. CED - Administration 001.058.051.558. CED -- Economic Development 001.058.055.558. CED — DeveIopment Services -Engineering 001.058.056.558. CED — Development Services -Planning 001.058.057.558 CED — Building 001.076.000.576. Parks & Rec—Adrninistration 001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance 001.076.301.571. Parks & Rec-Recreation 001.076.302.576. Parks & Rec- Aquatics 001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center 001.076.305.571. Parks & Rec-CenterPlace 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 001.090.000.514. General Gov't -Finance related 001.090.000.517. General Gov't -Employee supply 001.090.000.518. General Gov't- Centralized Services 001.090.000.519. General Gov't -Other Services 001.090.000.540. General Gov't -Transportation 001.090.000.550. General Gov't -Natural & Economic 001,090.000.560. General Gov't -Social Services 001.090.000.594. General Gov't -Capital Outlay 001.090.000.595. General Gov't -Pavement Preservation RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 11/17/2016 10:10:58AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5690 11/18/2016 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION Ben70448 101.231.50.03 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: PAYMENT 2,066.00 Total : 2,066.00 5704 11118120116 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben70450 001.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 31,768.58 Total: 31,768.58 5705 /1/1812016 000682 EFTPS Ben70452 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 36,543.22 Total : 36,543.22 5707 11/18/2016 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 457 PL./ Ben70454 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: PAYI 6,376.91 Total : 6,376.91 39860 11/18/2016 000210 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Ben70446 001.231.28.00 HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT: 1,200.00 Total : 1,200.00 5 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 77,954.71 5 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 77,954.71 Page: 1 vchlist 11/17/2016 1:15:52PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: -� Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 39861 11/17/2016 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 57038 57039 39862 11/17/2016 002931 ALL WESTERN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 103568 39863 11/17/2016 003078 ALLWESTTESTING & ENGINEERING 82890 39864 11/17/2016 000135 APA 39865 11/17/2016 004278 ARCHITECTS WEST INC 39866 11/17/2016 000168 BLACK BOX NETWORK SVC 39867 11/17/2016 000673 BUDGET ARBOR & LOGGING LLC 39868 11/17/2016 002572 CINTAS CORPORATION 101794-16102 202975-16102 8778 SPO -088772 11-3205 606217967 606218123 606219251 606220564 606220725 606221861 39869 11/17/2016 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY 54759 39870 11/17/2016 001157 COUNTRY HOMES POWER EQUIP 129453 Fund/Dept 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 101.000.000.542 311.000.221.595 001,143.70.00 001.143.70.00 001.058.056.558 001.090.000.518 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.543 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.543 101.000.000.542 001.013.000.513 101,042.000.542 Description/Account Amount STORM DRAIN CLEANING STREET SWEEPING SERVICES Total: SUPPLIES: SNOWPLOWS 0221 - MATERIALS TESTING Total : Total: MEMBERSHIP 2017: L BARLOW MEMBERSHIP 2017: CSV Total: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - CITY Total: PHONE SERVICE Total: TREE REMOVAL CONTRACT 16-141 Total: SERVICES AT MAINT. SERVICES AT MAINT. SERVICES AT MAINT. SERVICES AT MAINT. SERVICES AT MAINT. SERVICES AT MAINT. WEB HOSTING SUPPLIES: PW SHOP CONTI SHOP: CONT SHOP CONTI SHOP CONTI SHOP CONTI SHOP CONTI Total: Total: Total : 14,151.22 28, 634.23 42,785.45 20.00 20.00 10,040.23 10,040.23 413.00 400.00 813.00 11,661.47 11,661.47 799.76 799.76 18,587.70 18, 587.70 105.13 318.19 117.10 117.98 275.76 117.98 1,052.14 425.00 425.00 5.65 5.65 Page: —r vchlist 11/17/2016 1:15:52PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 39871 11/17/2016 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 39872 11/17/2016 000823 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES 39873 11/17/2016 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 39874 11/17/2016 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 39875 11/17/2016 002920 DIRECTV INC 39876 11/17/2016 004950 EIGHT31 CONSULTING 39877 11/17/2016 003697 ELECTRIC LIGHTWAVE LLC 39878 11/17/2016 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 39879 11/17/2016 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC 39880 11/17/2016 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 39881 11/17/2016 001232 FASTENAL CO 78763408 277175 RE-313-ATB61017114 RE 46 JG6457 L002 29884854795 1028 14249101 4256313 0816-0644 432592 432594 432595 432597 432598 WASPK128282 WAS PK131012 Fund/Dept 001,090.000.548 101.042.000,543 311.000.226.595 303.000.238.595 101.042.000.543 313.000215.594 001.090,000.586 101.000,000.542 303.303.166.595 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 303.000.238.595 101.042.000.542 Description/Account Amount COMPUTER LEASE:001-8922117-0( Total : BOILER/PRESSURE VESSEL INSPE Total : 0226 - APPLEWAY RESURFACING Total : 0238 - SR 27 & MIRABEAU PKWY Total : CABLE SERVICE FOR MAINTENAN Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERNET SERVICE Total : Total : FUEL FOR MAINTENANCE SHOP Total : 0166 -RW SERVICES LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION 0238: PINES/MIRABEAU SUPPLIES: STREET Total : Total : Total: 1,049.27 1,049.27 44.80 44.80 173.34 173.34 31.50 31.50 52.99 52.99 4,500.00 4,500.00 235.52 235.52 524.36 524.36 1,032.06 1,032.06 30.81 40.50 71.10 36.00 64.78 243.19 20.73 100.90 121.63 Page: vchlist 11/17/2016 1:15:52PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 39882 11/17/2016 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 39883 11/17/2016 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. 39884 11/17/2016 003297 HIGGINS, LEWIS ROD 39885 11/17/2016 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO 39886 11/17/2016 000313 INLAND ASPHALT COMPANY INC. 39887 11/17/2016 001016 ITE 39888 11/17/2016 003959 MAX J KUNEY CO 39889 11/17/2016 003251 MDI MARKETING 46481 46482 46483 Fund/Dept 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 001.058.056.558 Description/Account Amount LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION 327361 001.058.057.558 COPIER COSTS 327362 001.058.057.558 COPIER COSTS 327483 001.013.000.513 COPIER COSTS 327484 001.013.000.513 COPIER COSTS 327485 001.013.015.515 COPIER COSTS 327486 001.013.015.515 COPIER COSTS 327489 001.058.050.558 COPIER COSTS 327490 001.058.050.558 COPIER COSTS 327493 001.011.000.511 COPIER COSTS 327494 001.011.000.511 COPIER COSTS 327514 001.076.000.576 COPIER COSTS 327515 001.076.000.576 COPIER COSTS 327528 001.058.057.558 COPIER COSTS EXPENSES 600509981 PAY APP 2 PAY APP 4 41206 PAY APP 25 10601 001.011.000.511 001.090.000.548 311.000.226.595 311.000.221.595 001.143.70.00 303.303.155.595 106.000.230.537 Total : Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SCHEDULE 572DD016 Total : 16-128: 0226 CONSTRUCTION 0221-MCDONALD RD DIET CONSTI Total : 2017 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP: S ME Total : 0155 - SULLIVAN RD WEST BRIDGI Total : ADVERTISING 33.15 85.00 78.20 196.35 26.63 3.00 527.87 49.20 138.31 10.70 96.59 24,08 206.88 33.86 398.60 27.27 6.24 1,549.23 88.10 88.10 745.84 745.84 313,964.65 453,094.28 767, 058.93 299.28 299.28 798,174.11 798,174.11 19,845.00 Page: -� vchlist Voucher List 11/17/2016 1:15:52PM Spokane Valley 5 -- Page: Page: — Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 39889 11/17/2016 003251 003251 MDI MARKETING (Continued) 39890 11/17/2016 005037 MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INC 39891 11/17/2016 000696 MITEL BUSINESS SYSTEM INC 39892 11/17/2016 002203 NAPA AUTO PARTS 39893 11/17/2016 004850 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS, 39894 11/17/2016 000616 NEW HORIZONS COMPUTER PAY APP 5 99175906 766316 HRA PLAN 10065345 LEARNING 34633 39895 11/17/2016 000239 NORTHWEST BUSINESS STAMP INC. 97962 39896 11/17/2016 003900 NORTHWEST PLANT HEALTH CARE 10091 39897 11/17/2016 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 39898 11/17/2016 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER 39899 11/17/2016 005049 PEDERSON, MICHAEL ROY 39900 11/17/2016 000019 PURFECT LOGOS LLC 872052120001 872052310001 875007450001 876523861001 OCTOBER 2016 OCTOBER 2016 44636 Fund/Dept 313.000.215.594 001.090.000.518 101.000.000.542 001.018.016.518 001.018.014.514 001.018.016.518 303.303.156.595 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.018.014.514 Description/Account Amount Total : 19,845.00 0215 -CITY HALL CONSTRUCTION C Total : MITEL SUPPORT RENEWAL Total : SUPPLIES FOR SNOWPLOWS Total : FLEX SPENDING ADMINISTRATION Total : MOC TRAINING: BILL MILLER Total : NAME BADGE CONSULTING SERVICES Total : Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE Total : 001.016.000.586 STATE REMITTANCE 101.042.000.542 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL 001.013.000.513 SIGN Total : 1,274,426.75 1,274,426.75 1,639.55 1,639.55 18.47 18.47 376.00 376.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 28.26 28.26 225.00 225.00 12.40 90.66 10.42 169.43 282.91 37,296.69 37,296.69 1,800.00 Total : 1,800.00 Total: 38.05 38.05 vch l ist 11/17/2016 1:15:52PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 39901 11/17/2016 000675 RAMAX PRINTING & AWARDS [NC 28843 39902 11/17/2016 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 39903 11/17/2016 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY 39904 11/17/2016 000093 SPOKESMAN -REVIEW, THE 39905 11/17/2016 002135 SPRAY CENTER ELECTRONICS [NC 39906 11/17/2016 000257 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE 39907 11/17/2016 004740 THOMSON REUTERS -WEST 39908 11/17/2016 000335 TIRE-RAMA 39909 11/17/2016 003206 VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP 39910 11/17/2016 000964 VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP 39911 11/17/2016 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 39912 11/17/2016 002556 WEATHERNET LLC 50315026 50315071 OCTOBER 2016 464798 239409 L117479 835006801 8080046383 129092 130150 34452617 34477881 52672 2016-31206 FundlDept 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 001.143.70.00 001.016.000.586 001.013.000.513 101.000.000.542 001.090.000.514 001.013.015.515 101.042.000.542 001.058.099.558 001.058.099.558 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 309.000.237.595 101.000.000.542 Description/Account Amount NAME TAG & NAME PLATE Total : COUNTY IT SUPPORT OCTOBER 21 SECURED WEB ACCESS 2017 Total : CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F Total : ADVERTISING ACCT 42365 Total : SUPPLIES: MAINTENANCE SHOP Total : SAO AUDIT OF 2015 SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES Total : Total : OIL CHANGE 2008 F150 40209D ##2' Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HELP DESK TEMP HELP DESK TEMP POSTAGE SERVICES Total : Total : Total : WINTER 2016-2017 WEATHER FOF 37.28 37.28 11,110.19 120.00 11,230.19 542.97 542.97 1,281.00 1,281.00 179.65 179.65 5,772.20 5,772.20 781.32 781.32 36.36 36.36 52,729.30 140,906.81 193, 636.11 930.00 930.00 1,860.00 733.85 733.85 1,750.00 Page: vchlist 1111712016 1:15:52 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 39912 11/17/2016 002556 002556 WEATHERNET LLC (Continued) 39913 11/17/2016 005400 WESTERN PACIFIC SIGNAL LLC 22800 39914 11/17/2016 002363 WESTERN STATES EQUIPMENT CO IN000169244 54 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 54 Vouchers in this report 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Fund/Dept 303.000.238.595 101.000.000.542 Description/Account Amount 0238 - PINES & MIRABEAU Total : 1,750.00 1,667.05 Total : 1,667.05 SERVICE FOR CATERPILLAR Total : 1,005.11 1,005.11 Bank total : 3,220,600.67 Total vouchers : 3,220,600.67 Page: vchlist Voucher List 11/22/2016 11:14:38AM Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 39915 11/22/2016 001081 ALSCO 39916 11/22/2016 004046 AMERICAN ONSITE SERVICES 39917 11/22/2016 003076 AMSDEN, ERICA 39918 11/22/2016 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC LSP01828138 LS P01833585 A-197784 Expenses INV014152 39919 11/22/2016 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9803717 S0150528 39920 11/22/2016 002615 BULLOCK, SUSAN 39921 11/22/2016 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY 39922 11/22/2016 000823 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES 39923 11/22/2016 004538 DOWGIN, MATT 39924 11/22/2016 002308 FINKE, MELISSA 39925 11/22/2016 001732 GREATER SPOKANE SUBSTANCE 39926 11/22/2016 002712 GTFX INC. Expenses 54829 277275 Expenses Nov 2016 Oct 2016 Nov 2016 42829 Fund/Dept 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 001.076.300.576 001.032.000.543 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.013.015.515 001.013.000.513 001.076.302.576 001.013.015.515 001.076.301.571 001.076.301.571 001.090.000.560 001.076.305.575 Description/Account Amount FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC Total : PORTABLE RESTROOMS AT PARK; Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : JANITORIAL SVC: OCT 2016 Total : LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : ELECTRONIC CODE UPDATE Total : BOILER PRESSURE VESSEL INSPE Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : INSTRUCTOR PMT INSTRUCTOR PMT Total : 2016 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSE Total : 20.39 20.39 40.78 144.00 144.00 21.60 21,60 2,501.87 2,501.87 306.84 411.73 718.57 23.05 23.05 97.83 97.83 357.90 357.90 11,05 11.05 675.00 116.25 791.25 955.47 955.47 SERVICE GREASE TRAP AND SUM 164.14 Page: 1 vch list 11/22/2016 11:14:38AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 39926 11/22/2016 002712 002712 GTFX INC. 39927 11/22/2016 005412 HALES, DAVID 39928 11/22/2016 000441 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Oct 2016 (Continued) Expenses 39929 11/22/2016 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 39930 39931 39932 39933 39934 39935 39936 39937 11/22/2016 003185 LAMB, ERIK 1107099 1112047 1114759 Fund/Dept 001.018.013.513 001.076.301.571 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 Expenses 001.013.015.515 001.090.000.518 K765372 001.076.305.575 PRE -COMM 2016-0064 001.058.058.345 11/22/2016 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC December 2016 11/22/2016 001860 PLATT ELECTRICAL SUPPLY 11/22/2016 005413 ROADGLIDE PROPERTIES LLC 11/22/2016 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 11/22/2016 003231 SHERWIN WILLIAMS COMPANY 11/22/2016 004131 SPOKANE CO SOLID WASTE MGMT 7001827 7570894 7577715 001.076.305.575 001.016.000.521 001.076.300.576 1527-3 001.076.305.575 20161103-5491-34457 101.042.000.542 105.000.000.557 11/22/2016 000470 SPOKANE CO, FAIR AND EXPO CENTER 2016 Description/Account Amount Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SUPPLIES FOR REC PROGRAMS Total : MONTHLY CLEANING AT CENTERP EVENT SVCS FOR CENTERPLACE EVENT SVCS FOR CENTERPLACE Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : CITY HALL RENT: DEC 2016 SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 164.14 1,200.77 1,200.77 115.89 115.89 7,136.00 110.62 89.55 7,336.17 11.40 11.40 36,221.75 Total : 36,221.75 Total : PERMIT REFUND PRE -COMM 2016 Total : QUARTERLY PEST CONTROL AT CI MONTHLY SVCS AT PRECINCT: OC MISC PARK REPAIRS Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : TRANSFER STATION CHARGES: P Total : 85.24 85.24 250.00 250.00 353.27 594.43 8,076.59 9,024.29 57.90 57.90 35.20 35.20 2016 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 45,000.00 Page: vchlist 11/22/2016 11:14:38AM Voucher List Spokane Valley l° Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 39937 11/22/2016 000470 000470 SPOKANE CO, FAIR AND EXPO CEI\ (Continued) 39938 11/22/2016 000898 SPOKANE PROCARE INC 550232 39939 11/22/2016 000420 SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DIST Fund/Dept 402.402.000.531 EPH-INV 100020399 001.076.300.576 39940 11/22/2016 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 54836 54988 39941 11/22/2016 003532 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION SOLUT 8010468894 39942 11/22/2016 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL 39943 11/22/2016 001832 SWISHER 1098974 3536521 39944 11/22/2016 002306 TERRELL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MIC 2678 39945 11/22/2016 001472 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES 39946 11/22/2016 005411 THOMPSON, JAMES 39947 11/22/2016 003649 TROPHIES UNLIMITED 39948 11/22/2016 000295 VALLEYFEST 39949 11/22/2016 003175 VISIT SPOKANE 59104738 Expenses 484616 OCT 2016 OCT 2016 Oct 2016 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 101.042.000.542 001.076.305.575 309.000.242.594 001.076.300.576 001.018.013.513 001.076.305.575 001.090.000.550 105.000.000.557 105.000.000.557 Description/Account Amount Total : 45,000.00 2016 ROADSIDE WEED SPRAYING Total: PRE OCCUPANCY INSPECTION BR Total : SEPTEMBER 2016 MONTHLY MAIN OCT 2016 MONTHLY MAINT: PRECI Total : ANSWERING SERVICE FOR CENTE Total : TRANSFER STATION JANITORIAL_ SUPPLIES: CP Total : Total : 0242 -LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Total : J4816-1 MONTHLY DRINKING WATE Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR Total : NAME TAGS FOR CP EMPLOYEES Total : 2016 ECO DEV GRANT REIMBURSI 2016 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB Total : 2,771.43 2,771.43 162.50 162.50 623.61 623.61 1,247.22 39.44 39.44 981.60 981.60 493.44 493.44 423.00 423.00 28.50 28.50 941.66 941.66 12.50 12.50 1,565.28 12,596.14 14,161.42 2016 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMS 13,637.50 Page: vchlist 11/22/2016 11:14:38AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: // Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 39949 11/22/2016 003175 003175 VISIT SPOKANE (Continued) 39950 11/22/2016 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0064623-1518-2 39951 11/22/2016 000066 WCP SOLUTIONS 39952 11/22/2016 000347 WORLEY, STEVE 39953 11/22/2016 000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW 39 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 39 Vouchers in this report 9844169 9844170 9844171 Expenses Oct 21 2016 Fund/Dept 402.402.000.531 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 001.032.000.543 001.076.302.576 Description/Account Amount WASTE MGMT: PW FEE SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT Total : 13,637.50 Total : Total: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : OPERATING EXPENSES AND MAN/ Total : Bank total : 21.60 21.60 681.44 55.55 22.94 759.93 279.14 279.14 53,702.00 53,702.00 194,829.00 Total vouchers : 194,829.00 vchlist 12/01/2016 1: 32 : 53 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley /a Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 39954 12/1/2016 001107 ADVANCEDTRAFFIC PRODUCTS 39955 12/1/2016 004231 BELSBY ENGINEERING 39956 12/1/2016 000796 BUDINGER & ASSOCIATES [NC 39957 39958 39959 39960 39961 39962 39963 12/1/2016 001122 CAMERON-REILLY LLC 12/1/2016 003221 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 12/1/2016 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY 0000016690 0000016717 16336 M14310-19 M16481-2 S16533-1 PAY APP 2 BLA PROJECT 0223 54918 12/1/2016 002469 COMMUNITY MINDED ENTERPRISES 11-30-2016 12/1/2016 000278 DRISKELL, CARY 12/1/2016 004206 EARTHCAM INC 12/1/2016 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC 39964 12/1/2016 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC EXPENSES WS1117167857 1016-0644 1016-0650 1016-0652 1016-0671 Fund/Dept 101.042.000.594 101.042.000.594 001.058.055.558 303.303.155.595 311.000.226.595 303.000.201.595 303.000.238.595 303.000.223.595 001.013.000.513 107.000.000.518 001.013.015.515 303.303.155.595 303.303.166.595 303.000.247.595 303.000.223.595 303.000.247.595 432596 309.000.227.595 Description/Account Amount SMARTSENSOR DIGITAL WAVE RA SMARTSENSOR DIGITAL WAVE RA Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : 0155-SULLIVAN BRIDGE MATERIAL 16-020: 0226 MATERIALS TESTING 16-020E: 0201 -GEOTECHNICAL SEI Total : 16-092: 0238 CONSTRUCTION Total : CCP 0223 BOUNDARY LINEADJ PIN Total : ELECTRONIC CODE UPDATE Total : PEG REIMBURSEMENT Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : CAMERA SYSTEMS W/ MANAGED Total : 0166 -RW SERVICES 0247: 15-073 D RW PROFESSIONA C!P 223: 15-073 E RW SERVICES 0247: 15-073 D RW PROFESSIONA Total : 7,172.03 187.51 7,359.54 1,925.00 1,925,00 4,423.00 3,869.65 3,132.57 11,425.22 98,827.16 98,827.16 105.00 105.00 122.29 122.29 14,000.00 14,000.00 80.51 80.51 900.00 900.00 750.00 765.03 1,112.67 2,257.66 4,885.36 LEGAL PUBLICATION 74.26 Page: ")� vch l ist 12/01/2016 1:32:53PM Voucher List Spokane Valley /3 Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 39964 12/1/2016 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 39965 12/1/2016 002308 FINKE, MELISSA 39966 12/1/2016 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 39967 12/1/2016 002043 HDR ENGINEERING INC 39968 12/1/2016 005417 JANSSEN, GEORGE 39969 12/1/2016 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. 39970 12/1/2016 001944 LANCER LTD 39971 12/1/2016 004926 LE CATERING CO (Continued) 433331 433332 433334 433335 433336 Oct 2016 46516 46517 46518 46520 46521 46532 46533 46547 46548 1200017926 EXPENSES 0104607 0462123 0462125 0462232 0462233 Contract #23 Fund/Dept 001.058.056.558 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 001.013.000.513 001.076.301.571 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 001.058.056.558 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 303.000.239.595 001.058.057.558 101.042.000.542 001.058.057.558 001.013.000.513 001.032.000.543 001.090.000.519 001.058.056.558 Description/Account Amount LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION INSTRUCTOR PMT LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : Total : Total : 0239: 16 -086 -ROW SERVICES Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 2016 TIP MAINTENANCE & UPDATE Total : BUSINESS CARDS BUSINESS CARDS BUSINESS CARDS ENVELOPES Total : CATERING INVOICE: 9/8/16 EVENT 67.94 40.50 36.00 93.22 26.86 338.78 116.25 116.25 38.25 34.00 28.05 101.15 77.35 179.80 148.80 25.00 32.30 664.70 2,850.89 2,850.89 199.00 199.00 1,957.90 1,957.90 95.10 54.07 37,23 292.67 479.07 197.94 Page: '�� vch list 12/01/2016 1:32:53PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3' Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 39971 12/1/2016 004926 004926 LE CATERING CO 39972 12/1/2016 000636 MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN, INC. 0046335 39973 12/1/2016 005115 NB STORMWATER ENGINEERING LLC 0005 39974 12/1/2016 000239 NORTHWEST BUSINESS STAMP INC. 98012 39975 12/1/2016 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 39976 12/1/2016 005050 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC 39977 12/1/2016 003587 PACE, ED 39978 12/1/2016 005215 SONGBIRD CONSULTING LLC 39979 12/1/2016 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 39980 12/1/2016 005416 STRATEGIC GOVERNMENT 39981 12/1/2016 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC (Continued) Fund/Dept 309.000.227.595 402.000.193.531 Description/Account Amount PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSULTING SERVICES 001.018.016.518 NAME BADGE 98024 001.018.016.518 NAME BADGE 876772905001 876772939001 877263827001 880429129002 880429252001 730282 EXPENSES Nov 2016 110100138 51503541 11323 11419 11529 81580 001.076.301.571 001.076.000.576 001.076.304.575 001.018.014.514 001.018.014.514 001.013.015.515 001.011.000.511 001.076.301.571 101.042.000.542 001.016.000.523 001.018.013.513 001.018.013.513 001.018.013.513 001.018.016.518 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES Total : Total: Total: Total : - PARKS PARKS - PARKS - SENI( - FINANCE - FINANCE Total: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : INSTRUCTOR PMT Total : SIGNAL/SIGN/BEACON MAINTENAI NOVEMBER 2016 HOUSING Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 197.94 3,014.52 3,014.52 13,500.00 13,500.00 16.85 16.85 33.70 16.34 241.35 54.77 19.82 11.62 343.90 746.30 746.30 9.72 9.72 675.00 675.00 66,922.65 110,241.18 177,163.83 9,485.72 6,166.67 10,533.37 26,185.76 114.00 Page: -3--- vch list 12/01/2016 1:32:53PM Voucher List Spokane Valley %5 - Page: —44 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 39981 12/1/2016 000419 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC (Continued) 39982 12/1/2016 001472 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES 59104823 39983 12/1/2016 000335 TIRE-RAMA 39984 12/1/2016 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 39985 12/1/2016 000158 WELCH COMER & ASSOC. INC 39986 12/1/2016 000980 WESTERN SYSTEMS INC 1045388 11/29/2016 004324 U.S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 1152884 11/30/2016 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 1176472 11/29/2016 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION 1178214 11/29/2016 004324 U.S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 37 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 8080046171 8080046377 8080046547 52975 2016731 0000031498 DECEMBER 2016 32256.. 9290201017 SPKVLY-83 DEC 2016 325189 Fund/Dept 402.402.000.531 001.058.057.558 402.402.000.531 001.058.055.558 303.000.251.595 309.000.237.595 101.042.000.594 204.204.000.592 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 204.000.000.591 Description/Account Amount DECANT FACILITY Total : Total : TIRE REPAIR/OIL CHANGE 2015 a SERVICE:2005 DAKOTA 40201 D #• OIL CHANGE 2008 COLORADO 402 Total : POSTAGE SERVICES Total : 16-058: CIP 0237 ENGINEERING S\ Total : CABINET/CONTROLLER/MISC EQU Total : LTGO REFUNDING BONDS 2014 Total : LE CONTRACT BILLING NOVEMBE Total : OCTOBER 2016 REVENUE SPLIT F 114.00 117.50 117.50 53.75 720.93 39.40 814.08 146.28 146.28 10,042.59 10,042.59 29,077.05 29,077.05 431,050.00 431,050.00 1,467,372.00 1,467,372.00 2,083.08 Total : 2,083.08 LTGO BONDS 2016 - CITY HALL Total : Bank total : 198,733.76 198,733.76 2,507,657.68 37 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 2,507,657.68 Page: vchlist 12/02/2016 11:16:29AM 42. Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount 39987 12/2/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 5214 Nov 2016 001.032.000.543 RED LION HOTEL 5214 Nov 2016 001.032.000.543 RED LION HOTEL REBATE Total : 522.30 -20.00 502.30 39988 12/2/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 9713 Nov 2016 001.058.051.558 DEPT OF LICENSING 116.00 9713 Nov 2016 001.058.056.558 YOKES FRESH MARKET 38.80 9713 Nov 2016 001.058.056.558 PIZZA HUT 98.43 9713 Nov 2016 001.058.051.558 ASFPM 40.00 9713 Nov 2016 001.058.051.558 ASFPM 40.00 9713 Nov 2016 001.058.051.558 GREATER SPOKANE INC 400.00 9713 Nov 2016 001.058.051.558 GREATER SPOKANE INC 360.00 9713 Nov 2016 001.058.057.558 WA STATE ASSOC OF FIRE MA 200.00 9713 Nov 2016 001.058.051.558 GREATER SPOKANE INC CREDIT -400.00 9713 Nov 2016 001.058.056.558 PIZZA HUT -3.94 Total: 889.29 39989 12/2/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 8573 Nov 2016 001.018.016.518 EVENTBRITE 99.00 8573 Nov 2016 001.018.016.518 CRAIGSLIST.ORG 25.00 8573 Nov 2016 001.018.016.518 CRAIGSLIST.ORG 25.00 8573 Nov 2016 001.018.016.518 FLEET FEET 228.28 Total : 377.28 39990 12/2/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 8557 Nov 2016 001.013.000.513 BEST BUY 98.90 8557 Nov 2016 001.011.000.511 WALGREENS 29.00 8557 Nov 2016 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE CHAMBER Of 90.00 8557 Nov 2016 001.011.000.511 DARCY'S RESTAURANT 209.07 8557 Nov 2016 001.011.000.511 LEADERSHIP SPOKANE 65.00 8557 Nov 2016 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAP 90.00 8557 Nov 2016 001.011.000.511 LEADERSHIP SPOKANE 65.00 8557 Nov 2016 001.011.000.511 CASH & CARRY 17.58 Total : 664.55 39991 12/2/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 8565 Nov 2016 101.042.000.543 HOME DEPOT 50,21 8565 Nov 2016 001.018.014.514 SEARS.COM 50.79 8565 Nov 2016 001.032.000.543 WA ASPHALT PAVEMENT ASSOC 190.00 Page: �I� vchlist 12/02/2016 11:16:29AM /9 Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 39991 12/2/2016 001606 001606 BANNER BANK (Continued) Total : 291.00 39992 12/2/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 8599 Nov 2016 001.076.305.575 INLAND NW BUSINESS ALLIANCE 35.00 8599 Nov 2016 001.076.301.571 DOLLAR TREE STORES 21.74 8599 Nov 2016 001.076.301.571 WAL-MART 107.74 8599 Nov 2016 001.076.305.575 RADIO SHACK 89.09 Total : 253.57 6 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 2,977.99 6 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 2,977.99 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: �� CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 22, 2016 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Pay Period Ending November 30, 2016 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 275,478.89 $ 5,475.00 $ 280,953.89 Benefits: $ 115,872.74 $ 12,838.26 $ 128,711.00 Total payroll $ 391,351.63 $ 18,313.26 $ 409,664.89 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, November 8, 2016 Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Rod Higgins, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Caleb Collier, Councilmember Pam Haley, Councilmember Mike Munch, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Sam Wood, Councilmember Staff Mark Calhoun, City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director John Hohman, Comm & Eco. Dev. Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director Mark Werner, Police Chief Mike Basinger, Economic Develop. Coordinator Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AMENDED AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations — Mike Basinger Mayor Higgins stated that we are here for a public hearing for the draft comprehensive plan and development regulations, and he opened the public hearing at 6:02 p.m. and invited Mr. Basinger to the podium. Mr. Basinger explained that although staff and Council have gone over these issues several times, he will go through the recommendations in detail so members of the public will understand the issues; he explained that this is the legislative update of the comprehensive plan, which we are obligated to perform every eight years. Mr. Basinger explained that we have had four public meetings, twenty-five Council meetings, fourteen Planning Commission discussions, and a public hearing before the Planning Commission followed by Commission deliberations. He stated that when discussing the comp plan with the community, the community was interested in having a focus on the parks and trails; the community wanted to look at the area around the new city hall; wanted to provide for greater variety of housing types; to preserve the character of neighborhoods; locate housing near amenities; and increase business opportunities and reduce barriers. Mr. Basinger then went over the Council goals, which he said were very similar to the community's focus, but that in addition, Council wanted to look at mixed use designations along Trent to consolidate office and garden office or change to corridor mixed use or even consider something else that might work better on those corridors, and expressed an interest in expanding and designating new areas for neighborhood commercial. Mr. Basinger explained the approach to the plan which included an economic development focus, that it be innovative and data driven, easy to navigate with an attractive design, be concise and understandable, and include existing studies and strategic actions. As Mr. Basinger went through his PowerPoint, he explained the land use map and the creation of one multifamily designation as opposed to the medium and the high, and that they included that in areas where there were transit services within about a half -mile walk; said they designated new areas for parks and open space such as the Department of Natural Resources' land by CenterPlace; they looked at the Appleway Trail right-of-way and designated that as parks and open space, and he explained that the intention is in the long term to have it as a lineal park with other amenities within it; said they changed Office to Corridor Mixed Use which Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 1 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT allows multifamily, office, retail and light manufacturing, so those are in those north/south corridors where office used to exist. He said they integrated Community Commercial into Corridor Mixed Use and regional commercial; and designated new areas for neighborhood commercial development, which were at the major intersections and within close proximity to existing neighborhoods. He said they created an industrial mixed use designation along Trent Avenue; and when they did that they heard that some people were interested in doing things like contractor's yards and tow yards in that area; he noted that in that same area along Trent, the option to do multi -family was removed because it's really not walkable and is a pretty high speed corridor, and it made more sense to be offering these types of uses in there, so they opened it up a little to try to get some more business along Trent Avenue. He said industrial designations were consolidated and where there was a light and heavy zone, there is now one industrial zone; transitional provisions were included to lessen those impacts when you are adjacent to residential zones. Further, he explained that mining in our community was examined so language was created in the development regulations to allow existing mining operations to mine within their existing permitted rights; he said one of the things that came out of this is that the existing map has twelve designations and seventeen zones, and the proposed map shows nine designations and eleven zones, thereby simplifying the designations and hopefully making the plan more useable. In putting together the policy document, Mr. Basinger explained that staff looked at the regulations to make sure those are consistent with that policy document; they examined Title 17, Title 19, Title 21, Title 22 and the definitions; a stronger interpretation process was developed in title 17, and the sign requirements for public hearing notices were modified to make sure notice was getting out to the community; said in dealing with large lots, a 400' radius really didn't get the notification desired, so that was modified to give more flexibility in those situations; in looking at the Hearing Examiner's change of conditions, vesting provisions were added; he said a lot of changes were made in Title 19 because Title 19 is actually the zoning and that is what implements the policy document or the comp plan; so that title was reorganized and the zoning district and zoning map were modified to be consistent with the land use map, and the permitted use matrix was modified to do the same; language was incorporated for small dwellings, the density and dimensional standards were modified, and transitional standards were created which are the provisions that will be put in place to help reduce the impacts on adjacent residential zones; and the administrative exceptions were also modified. Further he explained, that in looking at alternative residential development, a chapter was created for those issues; options and standards were provided for non-traditional single-family development; he said some of these already excited in the code and they were re -organized and put into this section; accessory dwelling units already existed, industrial accessory dwelling units was added, cottage developments were added, duplexes already existed, manufactured homes already existed, small residential dwellings was a new section, and townhouses just moved. Mr. Basinger noted that density and dimension standards in the R3 zone were adjusted; the minimum lot size was adjusted to 5,000 square feet, and the minimum lot width and length was eliminated, but the density of six units per acre remained as it was; and he explained that the density cannot be exceeded but these adjustments provides some flexibility for some smaller lots in some circumstances. He said that standards were adjusted in the multi -family residential, and density and building height were eliminated; said it is also important to note that he knows Council has looked at Planning Commission's recommendation and at the multi -family residential and has some insights Council might want to move forward with. Mr. Basinger explained that Council hasn't made any decisions yet just discussions; that staff is aware of those discussions and those will be reflected in what staff brings forward to council. Mr. Basinger said that non- residential dimensions were eliminated except for neighborhood commercial. He showed the chart of "transitional provisions" and explained that the goal is to make sure there is not a very tall building adjacent to a residential zone; he noted landscaping is required there and a 1:1 ratio helps to show that in the diagram; said he think this adds some certainty to know what is built next to residences in certain situations, and that we wouldn't have a 50' tall building ten from the property line, but would be in a position to have scaled back. Mr. Basinger noted that Title 21 created a SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) infill exemption Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 2 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT to promote development, and said we have areas in our city that we looked at, primarily multi -family areas which are identified on the zoning map; said they looked at the transportation network in those areas and identified a certain amount of trips that would be available for trigger improvements, adding that this helps if someone was coming in the door to get development moving a little quicker, so we took advantage of the SEPA exemption; said we also made sure that the critical areas were consistent with the Shoreline Master Plan; said staff spent a lot of time with the Shoreline Master Plan and wanted to spend an equal amount of time to ensure our critical areas ordinance was consistent with that Plan. Mr. Basinger explained that staff updated methods and references to reflect the best available science as required. For Title 22, Mr. Basinger said the design and development standards were examined including standards for off-street parking and loading to make sure those were consistent. Moving to the Planning Commission recommendations, Mr. Basinger explained that they held a public hearing which had eighty-six people testified; concerning the Sprague and Barker area, he said sixty-four spoke against changing that to multi -family residential, and four spoke in support; concerning the 3001 N Pines Road that was to change to mixed use, four were against the change and two supported the change; he said other comments related to supporting elements of the plan such as parks and trails, alternative housing, impact fees, preserving neighborhoods and commercial zoning changes. Mr. Basinger noted that at the Planning Commission's Oct 6, 2016 public hearing, which was continued to October 13, the Commission voted six to one to recommend approval of the 2016 comprehensive plan, supporting development regulations, and zoning map changes. Mr. Basinger noted that although the slides describe the 'City Council Decision," the Council held discussions on the recommendations but no decision was made. Mr. Basinger discussed the following recommendations: (1) Commission recommended adding a policy in Parks and Open Space Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan Update to support xeriscaping, water conservation, and sustainable park management methods in future City park improvement projects. Council discussion included verbiage to allow for the potential inclusion of xeriscaping, water conservation, etc. (2) Commission recommended designating noted parcels (see slide 27) as Single Family Residential and zoning those same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban, R-3. Council's discussion on this was to retain the exiting zone; he said one of the things Council discussed was that there was some entitlement there, that the two properties that were multi -family residential before this started, and that this could be seen on the existing zoning map on slide 28; he said the thought process was they didn't want to take anything away in this particular instance and wanted to keep the existing intact; so Council proposed to keep the two parcels to the north, multi -family and then keep the two parcels to the south single family or R-3. (3) Commission recommended designating the parcels located in the area south of Bow Avenue, west of Barker Road, north of Sprague Avenue, and east of Greenacres Road as Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban, R-3. Council agreed with the recommendation, and Mr. Basinger explained that the idea is that the property shown on slide 30 with the slide line, would go to single family residential R-3. (4) Commission recommended that the applicant for these parcels use the annual amendment process for the proposal to change their parcel from low density residential to Mixed Use and zone the same as Mixed. Council agreed with that recommendation; that the person making the proposal missed the opportunity for the annual review and Council felt it made sense with the school to the north and the steep topography and mixed use across the street. (5) Commission recommended the applicant use the annual amendment process for their proposal to allow a greenhouse/nursery, commercial on the identified parcel. Mr. Basinger explained that this is in the Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 3 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT Ponderosa neighborhood close to Chester Store and a storage facility. Council discussion included considering a code text amendment for future Commission analysis, and to look at how to perhaps put in a nursery or something similar in the Code where it made sense overall throughout the City. (6) Commission recommended amending SVMC 19.40.050 to require that industrial accessory dwelling units be inhabited by the employer or employee of the company at which the industrial accessory dwelling is located. Council discussion was to retain the proposed language in SVMC 19.40.050. (7) Commission recommended removing SVMC 19.40.100 small residential dwellings and small residential dwellings supportive housing and consider through a separate future code text amendment process. Council discussion was to discuss this further and that was where that was left. (8) Commission recommended amending SVMC 19.70.020 and Table 19.70-1, Residential Standards, to provide for a maximum density of 22 units per acre and a maximum building height of 50 feet in the Multifamily Residential zone; which Mr. Basinger explained means that the regulation would go back to what is in the existing code of 22 units per acre and a height of 50 ft. Council agreed with the recommendation and said they felt it was reasonable based on where we have multifamily in the community. (9) Commission recommended amending SVMC 22.70.070(D)(1) to provide that full screening is required when a multifamily or nonresidential project abuts a single family residential zoning district or single family residential use. Mr. Basinger said that the key here is the "or single family residential use." Council amended that to require full screening when a multifamily project abuts a single family residential use in multifamily zones. Mr. Basinger said that the intent was if that use was in a multifamily zone and a multifamily project was coming in, that it made sense to do a little extra landscaping in that situation. Mr. Basinger explained that the next steps are to continue to compile agency comments as received, and continue working with some of the agencies, SRTC in particular; said staff is prepared to modify the documents at Council's direction; and said second reading of the ordinance is currently scheduled for November 22. Councilmember Collier asked for confirmation that the property owner on the north end of Barker and Sprague wants to keep this property at multifamily, and Mr. Basinger confirmed that the owner wants to keep the zoning it has. Deputy Mayor Woodard noted that Chapter 4 Land Use has some discrepancies, and he asked if the regulatory items should be in the development code and not in the comp plan; he said that single family residential is not coordinating with the code; and asked if this would be the appropriate time to at least mention some discrepancies so staff can bring back a final product. Mr. Basinger clarified that Deputy Mayor Woodard is addressing that we have density standards in the policy document and suggests that be in the actual regulations and not the policy document. Deputy Mayor Woodard agreed that was his suggestion, and said that is the way it should be. Mr. Basinger agreed that is a sound suggestion. Mayor Higgins then explained the procedure, and invited public comments. 1. Glenn Weils, Olympia: he thanked Council for taking testimony on the comp plan update and said this is a great chance to plan for the future; said he likes creation of high density multifamily transition areas separating the commercial from single family as it helps manage growth by putting higher density closer to retail centers, which encourages walking and use of transit; said it helps reduce urban sprawl by encouraging development close to the downtown areas, and helps and encourages local businesses by providing more people near the downtown shops; said multifamily projects more urban and more compatible to traffic and congestion much more than single family homes, and transitional zones act as a buffer between commercial centers and single family residences; and that having transitional zones of a higher density is a good planning tool as it provides the opportunity to achieve the ultimate planning ideal where people live, work and play by walking or biking Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 4 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT 2. Lynn Plaggemeier, Spokane Valley: said he talked with the contractor and his staff and asked if the city hall influenced any of the other planning along Sprague; said he has asked this at several different meetings, but never got an answer; said he hears from staff and from council that this city is a complaint -driven city, and would like to know what that means; said he looked through all the past minutes for the last twelve years and there is nothing in there about being a complaint driven city; said he thinks council should publicly tell people what a complaint driven city is. He started to address the proposed utility tax and Mayor Higgins informed him that is for tonight's second public hearing. Regarding the comp plan, Mr. Plaggemeier said our city used to be called a city of home owners, but not anymore; now we are a city of renters. 3. Nina Flugal Spokane Valley: said she has a lot of issues with the plan; that she doesn't believe the umbrella zoning, what she calls umbrella zoning is when you throw everything MF 1 and MF2 into one pot; said it enables many builders to do as they please because they will always find a way around the re -sets; said we don't have enough police officers to sustain all these new people coming into these apartment complexes; said she thinks we only have about six police officers for Spokane Valley and that's not enough; they are already overworked; regarding the zoning on Trent, said she thinks we could run another bus line down on Trent if that was the only option that we had to build more apartments along Trent, then let them overlook the busy street and not ruin a residential area, which was what happened to her house and her area, said the Planning Commission should look into when someone applies for a building permit as a phase one, that common sense will tell everybody that there might be a phase two; while phase one goes on MF 1 with just 12 units per acre; said if their property is bigger than what could be built, then at that time that person needs to apply for high density housing and zoning, and not build what he can and come back and ask for more because it will come in line with the comp plan; said that's just not going to work; said the person bought that property knowing what it was zoned for, and said don't just say 'A' and now you got to say `B' and said that's not going to be acceptable either; said she thinks we have four elementary schools under construction because we already have an overflow of children; now there is a proposal for even more high density which brings even more children; said she lives right next to one; said she never sees anyone take the bus, but sees massive amounts of traffic on her road with no control, and no slowing down; said this road and neighborhood can't sustain any more; that it is enough; and said do not do umbrella zoning. 4. Ian Robertson, Spokane Valley: spoke concerning looking for ways for the working poor to own their own homes as noted in his November 8, 2016 letter; most of which he read; said generally homeowners take better care of property, and said there is only 60% housing for single family residences. 5. Jamie Dodd Fales, Spokane Valley: said she volunteers with Inland NW Fuller Center for housing along with Ian Robertson; said the Fuller Center is a nation-wide organization and that she does a lot of networking across the nation; said all communities are facing the problem of having too many renters and not enough homeowners; she extended compliments to Council for being forward thinking to be planning for this now; said small residential dwelling components have been put on hold but there are institutions ready to give them funding, but they have to know that Council is ready to back that with the change in the code; and she asked Council to make this a good holiday season and put those codes in force before the end of the year. 6. Frank Roberts, Spokane Valley: said that 1934 was last year with the highest spread between the rich and the poor but that last year surpassed that; said we are becoming a nation of two tiers: of haves and have- nots; asked if the zoning is left the way on that piece of property Sprague and Barker, what is the largest amount of buildings that can put on that property. 7. George Kovacs, Spokane Valley: said he lives just around the corner from the Sprague/Barker area and he is concerned now that he sees everything that has gone on with this entire project; said there has never been an outreach to anyone in his community — not from Viking Homes or the builders, and that no one has asked how the people would feel if this is done, or ask what can we do to make this a better Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 5 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT neighborhood; said he hasn't heard anyone ask about how the people feel in the neighborhood; all he's seen is some guy who wants to come in and build a building and put in as many units as he can with no consideration for the schools or services; said every Monday there is a septic truck outside his house that pumps out the sewer lines; said the sewer lines don't go anywhere but he had to pay $3,000 to have someone install a sewer line to his house when he had a perfectly good working septic system, and now we're back here again after two years and we want to do the same thing, and that this time around a lot of people didn't know about the meetings that came up, and said he's glad he did and said people don't want this; said nothing has changed over the last two years that will make anything better for them; said they like their homes and that his house value will go up because there are less apartments than homes; said that a lot of the other apartment complexes, especially the one on Broadway, were set on fire three times before they were burned to the ground and said he's glad they did because when he lived across the street, all he saw was cops there every single day either serving a warrant or looking for a criminal, or other criminal activity going on; said he doesn't see the cops around his new place; said he understands a lot of people want the American dream of owning a home and said there's nothing stopping them from earning it; and if people want to get ahead they will have to put in a little more effort other than looking at what the government can give them because the government isn't here to fix things, but is here to do the things the people need; said the best thing to do is preserve the neighborhood and say no to this thing as it will only cause more problems. 8. Mary Pollard, Spokane Valley: said she supports landscape regulations as it makes the area more desirable, and it should be seen as economic development; said hours of construction have never been addressed; said her neighborhood has been under construction since 2005 and there needs to be respect for the communities; she spoke of no height restrictions regarding fill; said there are three acres of fill next to her, 12 feet high; said there is nothing to prevent someone from putting in yards and yards of fill; concerning backyards of those who have larger parcels, there is a big embankment they never had to finish off so there's Canadian thistle and it's just a weed embankment; said there needs to be something about finishing off landscaping and that it's not just a matter of somebody's ugly backyard; people sometimes use Roundup which has killed some of her trees; said we need to see this community as a family where we all work together; said she thought developers and communities should get together and create a good neighborhood policy as it would be easier to work with the developer and iron out things early on. 9. David Colombo, Spokane Valley: said the valley can't take more traffic; that without taxing citizens to death, there is no budget even in the distant future for roads to catch up with traffic we already have; said you want growth but you can't be talking about future growth, as to him, that's their children; said he took his children out of the valley schools long when he was told the schools couldn't deal with his son who has high functioning autism; said schools can't handle local kids so they bus them out; said this is because of the corruption in the valley when builders can get politicians to change zoning and building codes without real public notice to the people it really affects; said his kids are no longer thinking about putting down roots in the valley; that if Council thinks future growth is a bunch of pot shops and apartments where the families rarely if ever put down future roots, then go ahead; but if that is the case, the real future of the valley is death valley. 10. Stephanie Colombo, Spokane Valley: said she appreciates the Planning Commission listening and giving recommendations, however she understands that Council doesn't want to take away from a community or landowner where it is zoned for high density in the property next to the one changed back to single family, but by leaving it as the high density said it opens it up for the developer to come back every year and try to change that; said she knows it doesn't work, but feels she will be doing this over and over again; said she feels that whole block should be put back as single family as recommended by the Planning Commission; said she likes it was changed back to a limit on the number of houses and height as they had removed that before in the original update; said she hopes Council continues to listen and change that corner to single family, and let all the single family area enjoy being where they are, and not be overrun by all the development. Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 6 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT Patti Muncey came up to speak and said she wanted to speak about the proposed utility tax. Mayor Higgins told her that would be coming up immediately after this hearing. 11. Zeta Smith, Spokane Valley: regarding the Sprague and Barker area, said this will leave that property at least for this year, as single family residential, but she doesn't understand how that one piece of property to the north, stays high density when originally back in 1996 or 1997, it was zoned high density only because the owner was supposed to build a retirement home and then when she didn't build it and we became a city, that property where the mobile homes are just to the north of that was zoned back to medium density, and this property is where there are cattle most of the year, stayed at high density; said she doesn't understand the point of leaving that at high density when it will bring people back here every year or two to fight this problem; said she has lived in her home for 46 years; it is a nice neighborhood without a lot of crime; and she feels that property to the north should be rezoned back down like the Planning Commission recommended; said all the surrounding area to that is single family residential except for a post office and a couple of churches. 12. Cathy Scott, Spokane Valley: said she had a lot of comments, but most of the people already said it; she asked that there be a change to the notification procedure because they weren't notified and said that is a real problem; said in today's paper Councilmember Pace said you have nothing to hide regarding the utility tax, and not underhanded intentions or trying to hide anything; which she said she believes; but that they weren't notified is troubling; said the last time she got a letter in the mail and put up a big sign which was enough to get people involved; this time, nothing; said it took a neighbor to read the agendas and notify people or we would have all missed it; said you do us all a disservice if you don't communicate, and she asked Council to reconsider the lack of notification. 13. Kelly Konkright, Spokane: said he owns the property at 721 N Bowdish in Spokane Valley on the corner of Bowdish and Broadway; said this is the property when you are driving east on Bowdish, it has two older log homes on the right; said the City built up around it; that it is kind of a neat property but it doesn't fit in with the neighborhood anymore; said he bought the property in 2007 to change the character of that property; when he purchased it in 2007 it was zoned multi -family, MF -2; and under the current proposed comp plan amendments, it would be rezoned to neighborhood commercial, so for things like gas stations, car washes, non-medical offices in that part of the neighborhood, and it is all single family residential around it; said he is in the process of trying to sell the property to someone who can develop it as he himself is not in a position to develop it; aid he found someone who is interested in doing that and he would like to see that property get developed and bring that property up on par, and modernize it is more in character with the neighborhood, but he can't do that if it gets rezoned neighborhood commercial; said according to his realtor, it's just not marketable if it gets rezoned neighborhood commercial; said that area already has sufficient neighborhood commercial type uses on Pines, less than a mile away, and a gas station about a half mile away, and a lot of development on Argonne, and said he would appreciate Council keeping it zoned multi -family which is what it has been for years and what it was when he purchased it; and he hopes to get the property developed and improved for the benefit of the surrounding community. 14. Wayne Vinson, Spokane Valley: concerning the area between Bell Road and Sprague and from Greenacres to Barker that was going to be zoned corridor mixed, said he is glad to see it reduced down to multifamily; glad to see on the east side of Barker on that high density parcel; and that he would like to see it disappear and be all multifamily homes in there. 15. Steven O'Meara, Spokane Valley: he as a general contractor in North Idaho, and he has already seen the devastation that this type of move makes; said he moved out of north Idaho to here because of the same reason; he saw the devastation to the family neighborhood, and the building of huge apartment buildings which brought in all the people; said crime started and property values dropped so he moved; and said so Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 7 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT now you're talking about doing it here; said he loves the valley; he lives in an older neighborhood with beautiful homes, and is a great place to raise kids; but now you want to make the same devastation, and said he feels sad and very disappointed and hopes Council makes a great decision as he'd like to consider this his home for the rest of his life. 16. Dennis Crapo, Spokane Valley: said he had requested a piece of property that was on the agenda earlier, Sundown and Bowdish adjacent to the Chester Store, joining the railroad tracks and behind the storage at Dishman Mica Highway and Bowdish, to be included in the amendment, and said he feels it is appropriate to be included now instead of waiting for a year and considered separately; said it is a piece of property right against the railroad tracks, and the adjoining property is the same zoning he is requesting, which is commercial, which would allow him to use it for a nursery. 17. Douglas Florance, Spokane Valley: said that several years ago you rezoned some property, an apartment off Broadway, and he asked Council to please reconsider rezoning places; that since the apartment complex came up, his property value has gone down; said the height of it with having a third floor is they can see right into the back neighborhoods; said crime is up and he had stuff stolen from his front yard; said he thinks Council should seriously consider when rezoning something to make it an apartment complex as it affects people around it; said that several years ago a Councilmember mentioned it was a million dollars just in permits; said that's not much for people who lose the value in their home and lose the trust of the neighborhood; said now he has to keep his garage door closed all the time as there are kids out at 3 a.m. just roaming around; feels crime has increased because of the complex; he sees kids going back and forth from the apartment complex to Fred Meyers; and he asked again for Council to please really consider the consequences of your decisions when you rezone to an apartment complex. 18. Bert Shepard, Spokane Valley: said he lives on Main between Locust and Willow; that years ago someone wanted to enhance their investment and they built apartments right behind the property; said they are within fifteen to twenty of the property; aid apartment dwellers seem to have use of the backyards of those property owners as their own personal trash can; said he found diapers, drug paraphernalia, beer bottles, pop bottles; that most homeowners have a pet and then the pet becomes the target of the people living in the apartment; said if the dog barks, they turn them in and the Humane Society comes out and issues a warning to stop your pet from barking or further action will be taken; said apartment dwellers don't have an investment in the neighborhood; they don't mow laws, rake leaves or paint their house; said he found in the evenings late at night people sitting out on the second level porch, smoking, and when they finished the cigarette, they flip it down in the backyard; said he has been dealing with this since Beginger Place apartments were built; said he has no interest at Barker Road, but does have an interest at Beringer Place Apartments; mentioned the lack of parking for all cars too so the people in the apartments park on the street; some of the cars don't run or have flat tires; they never move; said the police get called and they not a notice on the car. 19. Dallas Williams, Spokane Valley: said he lives at 18903 E Sprague and his home is right next to the house that Viking purchased under the zoning that was there when they purchased it; said no one in this room has a problem with Viking Homes building based on what they purchased the property for the zoning requirements that they bought it under; said he didn't get a notice this time and finds it appalling that it was taken out of the comp plan; he rhetorically asked why do you think people don't trust government; said you have to be transparent; said he found four separate websites that rent apartment complexes; some will try to tell you that there is a shortage of apartments in Spokane Valley but that is incorrect; said there's plenty of property they can purchase; there's a great lot right next to the VFW on Sprague; 5.2 acres; go buy it; build under that current zoning law; said to buy a piece of property and try to ask us to live with their change is appalling; one of the websites he found said there are 384 apartments available in Spokane; no one is saying that people who live in apartments are bad people; said he won't say that; but there are places that they fit and it doesn't fit in this piece of property; said Deputy Mayor Woodard came out on his property Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 8 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT two years ago and sat on his deck and looked at what we're talking about and he said 'Dalls, you're right, it doesn't fit here.' He said that Viking built the homes based on what you purchased the property as; said don't try to backdoor us and get the lady who owns the mobile homes last year to try to get her property changed so you can buy that property from her and backdoor the zoning laws; said that's not right; said you need to listen to these people; we're here for a reason, and we're here again for the third year in a row; said the smartest thing this Council can do is to take the cow pasture that the County changed several years ago and move it back to single family zoning to fit what's already there; said we're proud of our neighborhood and of our families; and what we have and we don't want to lose it but there are places that can be built, that can be bought to build apartment complexes. 20. Chuck Schmidz, Spokane Valley: voiced his concern with cottage development and the size of the car garages limited down to 250 square feet; said that is quite a bit smaller than his pickup and the standard is about thirty-two feet long by twelve foot wide for buildings; said if we could put something like that in for garage sizes to give enough room for a pickup; concerning the permitted use matrix for the transitional housing, says the only conditional one is the multifamily residential; that in looking at the transitional housing like Homeless Vets and Hearth Homes, said it's only one zoning and that seems very restrictive; said there is probably a lot of emotion whether to have R-3 for that or not, but said he thinks that is worth looking at to make it not quite as limited in which zone they can have their transitional housing. 21. Bill Courier, Spokane Valley: said it thought it was a unanimous decision with the Planning Commission instead of the 6-1 to change that cow pasture back; said he heard a couple of times that it would be a downgrade; said in his community a lower zoning is not a downgrading; said a ton of people live across the street from him, the whole section that was going to be put to corridor mixed that are getting downgraded but they are all happy; said it's not a downgrade; said it's a downgrade to her because she spent a lot of money to get it changed; said he read the old '96 documents for about four hours, but it was the intention of building that retirement center which never got built; if you go back and read all that, it was changed for the retirement center; it never got built; so it's twenty years later and you say you don't want to downgrade, but really you're downgrading one hundred people right across the street; the thing is, it's not a downgrade; it's just that she just can't make as much money off it; said he was almost positive the Viking homes land will be kept the way it is; said he thought he heard in the laws that you can't apply for high density property to get your zone changed to high density if you don't have any surrounding and touching you; said if we can change that cow pasture back, he doesn't think it's a downgrade for that community; so far as apartment places, he said if you have so much more land now so it's corridor mixed use that allows apartments to be built, there's no need to put high density in the community like his. 22. Russ Boucher, Spokane Valley: said so here we are again; that one of the main reasons we want it rezoned is so it doesn't touch the existing corner spot on Barker and Sprague; said this is a form of harassment; that he wants to live where he is and not feel he has to sell his house because it can happen next year or the year after; said he talked with the Planning Commission to getting everything zoned that way so we don't have to do this all the time; said you can rezone, upgrade, and downgrade; that he has property that has been downgraded from twenty acres to ten because of conservation rules; said this one is just one of those where we don't have the infrastructure for it, or the sidewalks, or snowplows; said he can just see kids trying to walk to school and then add 300 more kids to that roadway; said traffic is crazy and we need a better handle on what we have going on now; said this is a perfect place to build houses but not apartments; that apartments have their place, but we need to think of where they are going and the effect on surrounding houses; and said he hopes Council goes with the Planning Commission to rezone everything to R3 in that area. 23. Myrna McElwain, Spokane Valley: said that several years ago a friend owned the property on Barker and Sprague, and he sold it to Viking; said they told him at that time that they would not build apartments and would put in single family homes; which she said was not true and not what they planned; they also Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 9 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT put out misleading literature at the meetings; said the apartments would be within walking distance of health facilities and grocery stores but that is not true; said if you're going to walk three miles to Liberty Lake when you have pneumonia in the winter time, that is not her idea of health care within walking distance; said they also stated that the apartments would not be low income apartments but it was stated in their literature and when they were challenged on this, they said it must have been a misprint or typo; said that is a little misleading to think that a construction company like Viking doesn't proofread their paperwork; and she said that this is why we don't believe what we're told as we were misled several times; she said that they are all against apartment buildings on that property; and said she appreciates Council taking the time and deciding not to change the zoning. 24. Shelly Boucher, Spokane Valley: said she appreciate Council taking the Planning Commission recommendation to leave the zoning as residential on Sprague and Barker; said she has lived in that neighborhood since 1970 and it is a great community for residential homes; and she asked Council to please reconsider that other parcel that is multi -family to rezone to residential so we don't have to come back and see you again. 25. Clyde Smith, Spokane Valley: concerning that cow pasture; he said in 1996 the zoning was changed to build an old folks home and said that no one fights an old folks home so everything went through and the zoning was changed; said he feels like he's been duped and like Council has been too; said there's no reason to leave that land twenty years later with a higher zoning; said maybe they just proposed a nursing home to get the zoning changed and increase the property value, but they didn't build what they said they were going to; said he moved to the valley to get away from urban sprawl. 26. Ben Wick, Spokane Valley: spoke concerning a proposed change to neighborhood commercial on Wellesley and McDonald, which he said is his family farm; said some parcels were proposed to go to Neighborhood Commercial and he requested to maybe scale back just to the two parcels right on the corner of McDonald and Wellesley; he explained that they raise llamas and in neighborhood commercial there is no allowance for animal raising; he suggested maybe just limit the Neighborhood Commercial to just the two lots on the corner of McDonald and Wellesley and the Mirabeau Chapel parcel recently included to be rezoned; said there were some comments about how steep it is around there; he said it is steep on the southern border, but on the west side of the property it is even with the neighborhood roads; said a double - sized gate fence is there coming off the property into the neighborhood; said he heard that in the past there was quite a battle over that parcel possibly being rezoned to the same proposal that you see today; there was a lot of discussion and the neighbors came out and there was contentious discussion; he requests Council follow the Planning Commission's recommendation to wait another year to see if that proposal comes forward again; said he participated in the open houses and that parcel wasn't included so the neighborhood wasn't aware that was being discussed at that time and he again requested that continue on and not be included in this round. 27. Jackie Williams, Spokane Valley: said she lives next to the Barker and Sprague lot and is getting tired of being here; that she heard it all except she didn't hear tonight, that at the last meeting at the Planning Commission, she heard Mr. Olson state that the County agreed to allow another 500+ lots right at the top of the area south of Barker which will add more traffic and more people and she asked Council to reconsider rezoning the property north of the Barker Sprague property and put it back to the single family residence. 28. Danielle Coullier, Spokane Valley: stated that her property is known as the island property, although she said she isn't the island as the cow pasture is the island; and she asked Council to please change it to single family. There were no further public comments. City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned some statements that were sent in, and she acknowledged e-mails from Susan Scott regarding the small residential swellings to delete that Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 10 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT portion of the plan; an e-mail from Charles Southern about Barker Road zoning to stay as it is; an e-mail from Addy Mathison and Timothy Blake who are children who live in the Barker area who don't want that to change; and a message from Wayne Vinson about the Barker Road zoning and that he is opposed to that. After confirming there were no other public comments, Mayor Higgins closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Higgins stated that before we start the next public hearing on the proposed utility tax, he called for a ten minute recess at 7:31 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:42 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Transportation and Infrastructure Utility Tax — Chelsie Taylor Mayor Higgins opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Finance Director Taylor explained that the next item on tonight's meeting is a public hearing discussing funding needs for the City's transportation and infrastructure programs; she said the purpose of tonight's meeting is to communicate to Council and citizens the funding challenges for transportation and infrastructure programs that the City is facing; as well as the option of using a utility tax as a potential funding source to meet those challenges; and then for Council to consider public input on this topic. Director Taylor went through the PowerPoint explaining the issue, including a brief background related to funding current and projected future deficits in transportation and infrastructure, as well as a utility tax proposal in 2004 which did not advance to a second reading; she mentioned the various discussions on this issue in 2016, including the March 15, 2016 Council workshop, the June 14, 2016 budget workshop, 2017 budget development discussions in August, September and October, as well as Finance Committee meetings in May, September and October. Ms. Taylor went over the street fund purposes and projections; the pavement preservation fund purposes; and projections for 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 for those combined funds as well as funding needs. Ms. Taylor also explained the utility taxes that are permitted by state law, and revenue estimates for each utility tax for 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5% and 6%, and showed utility tax comparisons for neighboring jurisdictions. City Attorney Driskell then explained the various sections of the draft tax ordinance, adding that the proposal includes repealing the current 6% telephone tax; he also noted that the draft proposal would require that all revenue generated from those utility taxes would be used exclusively for funding City road projects, such as construction, operation, maintenance, preservation, sidewalks, railroad grade separation, and other projects directly related to vehicular and pedestrian transportation. Concerning the last provision, Councilmember Munch asked if a future council tried to change that, or parts of that would that change the whole provision, and Mr. Driskell said a future Council could change that if it wanted to, and that this proposal is similar to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code 3.70 in place now with funds dedicated for road purposes, and he said that those funds have been used for that because there has been a specific need. Mayor Higgins opened the floor for public comments. 1. Bill Gothmann, Spokane Valley: Mr. Gothmann read his prepared statement dated November 8, 2016, applauding Council for facing the legislative obligations and suggesting that Council needs to study the problem and adopt the minimum level of utility tax to meet the need to keep the streets in good condition. 2. Nina Fluegal, Spokane Valley: she asked if the phone tax is gone and replaced with the utility tax, when would each tax come into effect. City Attorney Driskell explained that the imposition of the taxes would be sixty days after adopted. Ms. Fluegal stated then if we kept the telephone tax we'd still have 6% and would need a future increase; and she asked about just doing a 1.2% tax for each instead of 6% for each utility; she said the proposed percentage increase is massive; said several utility companies have contacted citizens urging citizens contact Council because that 6% if passed would be passed through to the customer, which she said is mostly business and home owners; she said people who live in apartments don't have two-thirds of these expenses as they don't usually have water, sewer, or garbage as that is included in their rent payment; said another thing to include might be a multi -family housing tax when they start building instead of giving builders exemptions because it is because of them we have more people, more apartments, and more roads that are being deteriorated like her road; said people who live in apartments don't care if there's a bump on their road or not, but the homeowners care and would have to carry that cost; so she asked, how can we get the apartment complexes and the developers involved. Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 11 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT 3. Bryan St. Clair, Spokane Valley: said he is against the tax as written; said he didn't know about the tax until he received a notice from his utility company; said he pays for a home phone, and now is looking at 6% gas, electric, and water; said he doesn't know if that will all work out for a full 24%, but it's nothing he wants; said the City has a 137 -page business plan that speaks about using or not using reserves, the low debt ratio and how revenue is generated; and he asked Council to look for other ways to generate revenue; said he thinks it would be good to have great roads and that he doesn't want to be a Spokane, but would like more education on how Council proposes to do that, and said he wants to feel comfortable that Council has examined all the options and educated the public so the public knows exactly where the money will be going and what it will be used for; said we heard earlier that 37% of the families in the valley are struggling now and now, you are going to ask other utility companies to put this tax on them; said it will cost the utility companies to put together the requested monthly report; said he appreciates his water and power provider, and is happy they forwarded him the message about this tax; said the telephone tax taxes big companies, and now it will affect the small water and power utility company; said he doesn't want to see bad roads, nor wants to see a big tax increase just because it's an easy way to generate revenue; and he suggested Council look at everything; and he suggested we be unique and not be a 20% tax entity like the City of Spokane; adding that just because it's legal doesn't make it right. 4. Mary Pollard, Spokane Valley: said she represents a lot of people; said they help at a nursing home and she spoke with the nursing home about the idea of paying more utilities, and the nursing home said they would pay less raises and have fewer staff, which means fewer beds; she rhetorically asked since when is asphalt more important than the lives of people; said Council has to weigh the needs of the people and everything they have to do; said we can do less, we can have beautiful roads and do less; said we need to collaborate; said how terrible that we would vote yes for a gas tax but our community isn't getting any help for bridging the valley; so not collaborating has cost the community a lot of money; said many people have no margins; that there have been reports that many people don't have $400.00 in case of an emergency; she asked what can citizens cut who live on social security, and any tax increase equates to less groceries or no medical co -pay or no prescriptions, so they'll stay home because they are sick and they are proud; said this is an "overreaching scandalous kind of thing" that forgets the plight of the human heart; said we don't need asphalt; said she thinks Council's conscience must be awakened because they are so privileged that they have forgotten the struggling people Council serves; said she is very incensed about this; that it has not been rational, Council has not been forthcoming, and Council broke their promises, and the only time Council remembers their promise about no new taxes is when they get called on the carpet about it. 5. April Pollard, Spokane Valley: said she is opposed to this tax; said she is a business owner and a single mom so this hits her at work and at home so it's 12%, and said she doesn't have extra money to spend on extra stuff and it is ridiculous when you are on a fixed income to have a budget to expect to have to spend all this extra money; said why not keep the telephone tax as there are people who will keep their house telephone, and then look into something else besides taking more money out of the pockets of people who are struggling. 6. Joe Tortorelli, Spokane Valley: said he is the Secretary and Executive Director of the Spokane Area Good Roads Association, which is a transportation advocacy group of about 100 area businesses; said he is also a resident here and was amazed in 2009 when the telephone tax was imposed to pay for roads as it is taking one utility to pay for roads; and now the proposal is to tax all other utilities to pay for roads; said about twenty years ago the state legislature created a means for cities to raise funds specifically for road maintenance and preservation, which is a Transportation Benefit District; said in the past years it was proposed for a County -wide TBD, all the other cities agreed except Spokane Valley; said Washington State has the second highest gas tax in the nation at 49.4 cents per gallons, and it was projected that the gas tax revenue would start declining due to more efficient cars, and electric cars; so probably starting next year or the year after, those revenues will also show a decline; he encouraged Council to examine alternate revenue Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 12 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT sources, said a $20 TBD would raise a little over $2 million a year; said they originally proposed a $40 TBD which would raise $20 million for the whole county, then be split based upon the various City participation rates. 7. Rog Repp, Spokane Valley: said it's too bad the schools don't teach civics anymore; said people living in apartments tell him they don't pay those taxes; said he tells them maybe they don't pay the taxes but their landlord does, which affects their rent, but they don't realize that; said he doesn't know if 6% is too much or not; he asked if the Utility Commission has looked into this regarding percentages; said he knows something has to be done, but doesn't know if 6% is the right amount and feels it should be put to the voters. 8. Neil Sullivan, Spokane Valley: said he heard some stories about the 6% tax; when he first heard it, the rumor in the street was it was all about taxing the cell phone 6%; he thanked Council also for cancelling tonight's first reading of the ordinance; said he visited his neighbor, a 95 -year old widow, and he explained that he would come to tonight's meeting to speak about the 6% tax; said he got a letter from the water utility and thought it was just the water; said his widow neighbor is on a fixed income and gets the inflationary rate on social security benefit, and for her to decide how to spend that tax, she would have to decide not to do something else; said this surprises him that it would be on all the utilities, as people rely on the heat of natural gas, especially people on a fixed income; said he believes the streets need to be funded, but a 6% tax from a decreasing base from a telephone, is a huge increase, and he asked Council to please consider maybe doing 1% the first year, and maybe 2% the next, or something that would impact the community less. 9. Katherine Morgan, Spokane Valley: said she is the President and CEO for the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce; she thanked Council for the delay on the consideration of the ordinance; said they look forward to the Chamber facilitating a discussion, as was previously discussed with Council, on December 6th with further details to come; and said she looks forward to the discussion, clarity, and opportunities that are ahead. 10. Bill Courier, Spokane Valley: said he didn't know about this at all; said he has owned a home phone for 15 years or so; the only thing he can see is going from a 6% tax on the phone to multiple 6% seems like a huge jump; said he lives on disability; that when he goes to license a car, or renew the car tabs, that he thought those taxes were for roads. 11. Calvin Brown, Spokane Valley: said he lives in Spokane in the Ponderosa area; said he'd like a clarification; when the lady was reading the reason we are here for this proposal, she mentioned cable TV, but said he doesn't see anything with cable; he rhetorically asked if Council ever considered that investment in street fund activities as proposed is too ambitious and questioned if they aren't going beyond the needs in asking citizens to fill a void so Council can spend the money; he asked if Council has control over the street department, and asked why that department isn't here to talk about this, and that the street department has impressed upon Council that the department needs 'x' number of millions of dollars; and he asked if Council doesn't hold them accountable and why they aren't they here to defend this need that the citizens are being asked to fund through utility taxes; said a reduction in the telephone tax isn't a tradeoff, as cell phones are eating away at landlines anyway and as that is a diminishing resource, Council wanted to replace it with taxes on utilities and presume that the utility rates will stay constant; or he asked, will it be 6% of the present rate; what happens if any of the municipal water departments decide to raise their rates by 30% because Bonneville Water is raising the cost to the water districts; he asked Council why don't you tax cell phone towers as that is where the shortfall is coming from; and if there is a tax on sewer, will there also be a tax on the construction portion of the sewer bill; said he is still paying for the installation of his sewer and he doesn't want to pay tax on top of interest; and he asked Council to consider all those points. Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 13 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT 12. Tony Lazanis, Spokane Valley: said about 60% of the people live week to week or month to month and don't have that extra money; said there are a lot of sources from incoming revenue, like from gasoline, and sales tax; said he hopes that will be enough; said Council is supposed to be a no -tax council and they need to remember that; said 6% tax is pretty high and will hurt a lot of people, particularly those who live week to week or month to month; and said he hopes Council finds the money some other way as he is sure there are a lot of ways to find the money. 13. Stephanie Columbo, Spokane Valley: said the blanket tax on all the utilities seems excessive; if you're trying to replace the phone tax, she suggests Council pick one; maybe start lower and build up; said it seems excessive and high and a little bit of a blindside to just throw it in there and have it kind of kept more executive than for the public; said she appreciates the opportunity to speak; that she feels that as the Mayor calls the names for people to come speak and they aren't coming up to speak, they left because it was crossed out; that the public hearing part for this was going to be next week, and said she' like it to be kept open. Mayor Higgins said that is not correct. She said someone went to speak earlier and the Mayor said that will be on the 15th. Mayor Higgins said he did not say that. She said it seemed like it earlier. 14. Judy Rigby, from the Greenacres area: said she has been assigned by some leaders in her area to visit older senior people, most of them single, and now a lot of them barely making it through, making their own payments, or even get groceries; if the taxes go up it will be serious and will put more problems on the government because they will have to provide something; said there must be ways to cut things back and be more efficient so we don't have to do this; said she doesn't agree with this and thinks it is wrong; and said everything else is raising, and social security has gone down. 15. Andy Kautzman, from the Greenacres area: said when he moved here in 1990 his property tax stayed around $100 a month for several years, and now he's up to about $125.00 a week; and said he is "chasing the same thieves he did many years ago" and that nothing has changed except his taxing; said he had to save up for years to do the sewer, which he paid for; said it seems we are spending more than we are making, and that he sees other ways to save; said there are a lot of costs we could change; and it would be nice to do a different policy from everyone else who is spending and spending. 16. David Columbo, from the Greenacres area: said first of all that this is the first he's heard of this; and whoever's in charge of making sure that notifications are put out needs to be fired because this is getting ridiculous; as far as the roads are concerned, said he sees the same pieces of road year after year being torn up and being paved over; sees perfectly good concrete being torn up and paved over with blacktop, which he said is junk; said he hurt himself over seven years ago; said he was walking when they started the Sullivan Bridge and he asked what is going on because someone is padding their pockets with that; said he would have had a lot more to talk about had he known about this sooner and although it is, it was explained to him that this red section crossed out, that you would have had a lot more people stay whether it was meant for this or not because he said he knows several people that would have probably stayed from the last thing; next, if all these taxes go through; said he understands it needs to be done, obviously we were just talking about how horrible the roads are, but they need to tax the people building these houses, and the roads can't take any more and the apartments they are trying to put in and the roads can't take anymore; they need to start holding the people accountable that is doing the work because he said he is driving over brand new sections of road and said he is bottoming out his four-wheel car; said it is ridiculous; the work is done very shoddy now; said his dad used to be in road construction so he knows a little about where the money goes and how things should be done, and even he said that a lot of these guys should be ashamed that are laying these roads; said the work is being done poorly or wrong as these roads should last a lot longer than they are; and said he hopes that they open this up again for public comment and get some notification out to people, because you'll have an even more packed house as a lot of people will not want this to happen; and said he is definitely opposed to this. Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 14 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT 17. Frank Roberts, Spokane Valley: said he counted 108 business cards in the office; said that would mean that you have 108 supervisors and heads of departments and said why can't we look at streamlining; said he is on a fixed income and if he doesn't have the money to pay for something, then he has to look at ways to trim his budget to meet those needs, and that Council should do likewise, especially when Council came out years ago and said that they wouldn't tax the public, and now all of a sudden; and said he knows Council doesn't have to put it to a public vote but it would be nice if the people Council represented and had a vote in this. 18. Richard Allen, Spokane Valley: said he just learned about this; said he lives by Felts Field, the old road where they didn't touch and the new road where they did, the new road is crappy and wavy; and if you look at the old road, it's straight; said if they were more efficient in what they were doing, maybe cut some of the CEO's high wages and things like that; maybe even bring back the chain gang; get some free labor to cut some of those costs down; said he didn't hear specifically whether it was 6% over all the utilities, or each would be 6%; that wasn't clarified; and if there are downfalls or deficits, what was that caused by; he asked were they doing too much more than they wanted or were they not getting enough revenues; said a lot of things he didn't see; said he thinks they need to be more efficient with what they are doing and spending the money wiser, because it's not their money it's the citizen's money entrusted to Council to do the best job they can. 19. Robert Odell, Spokane Valley: said he got a letter from the water company about this meeting; said when he started work to build up his retirement, he started at $1.83 an hour working for a power company; and now things have gone up and his retirement was built on low wages and the inflation has taken what his retirement would be; said he was a farmer and farming wasn't too good and his wife had to go to college to get an education, and she became a secretary; and just before that she was in an accident and got back injuries and since then she had to be on disability; so he's going to have to pay for this tax from wages that were made back 20-30 years ago; said it seems there should be some other way to get the taxes and make sure the people in these condos pay their share because they use more roadways then he does and on the Ponderosa, it's getting larger and needs another entrance going to the south and pretty soon it will be running into Hallett Road, so there should be a crossing there. 20. Ben Wick, Spokane Valley: said he applauds Council's efforts in trying to take on the transportation and street funding; said he thinks there are other alternatives; said he previously served on the Transportation Committee and served as Chair of the SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council), and participated in numerous meetings in Olympia, and they invited the senators to see our projects when we were applying for grants; while in Olympia seeking grants, there was a lot of discussion and questions if we did a TBD (Transportation Benefit District); he said they wanted to see if we used what they had provided us for transportation funding for those projects in order to score well for grants; he said he thinks options such as the TBD could be more advantageous to our City; he said that when we had those discussions before as a region, the County promised more money to the City of Spokane Valley than what would be generated in the City of Spokane Valley; and he said that would be a way to leverage more dollars from outside the area; said he sees that as a grant more for matching funds; also with the last gas tax increase that occurred in the state legislature, we were actually notified that they had the votes ahead of time, and we were almost going to get our $19 5 million for the grade separation project, but we couldn't get one of our legislators to go sign onto the bill or vote for the package; he said when we brought this up and discussed it at our City Council, we couldn't even get a letter of support from our City Council from the majority of our Council to try to go forward to give support to our legislators to support the package to get the money; so there are other ways and opportunities to go forward with this; and said he'd be happy to share some of those insights. 21. Lynn Plaggemeier, Spokane Valley: said he's grateful to be here tonight and has been educated by many of those speaking tonight; that in looking at this utility tax, people work hard, have large homes, and when Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 15 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT it comes to utility taxes, you are taxing us again; he said property values out of 144 cities, now we are 14th from the bottom; another hidden tax he said, is a hidden tax with the blue waste disposal cans; said homeowners get the bill, but you talk to an apartment dweller and they don't pay that; with the number of apartments that we have in this city per capita, said there is a tremendous impact in transportation, road projects, but we have a line item like 311 preservation of roads, we should know what is maintenance, what is repair, and what is capital; and Council should start looking at having an impact fee on schools as well as on apartments; when we have to rebuild, widen roads, put in traffic circles and lights, who is paying for them? He said the poor property owners are, the renters aren't; and the discrepancy between a tax on a two- bedroom apartment and a two-bedroom house is astronomical and no one is looking at that; another quick way to raise some money he suggested, is everybody in the city government should immediately take a 10% tax cut and he suggested getting rid of unnecessary personnel like community planners. 22. Adam Taylor, Spokane Valley: said he works in social services and finance and was wondering if Council understands the aged population who rely on social security benefits now; said there was no COLA (cost of living allowance) in social security benefits for 2015; said next year they are looking at a "big" .02%; said last year Medicare premiums went up 15%, next Medicare trustees are calling for a 22% increase; he asked Council to please keep this in mind if Council enacts this, and if Council does enact this, to please also enact a measure to allow people for a respite against these taxes for those who can ill -afford them. There were no other public comments. For the record, City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned that she received the following comments concerning the proposed utility tax: an e-mail from Janice Austin opposed to the utility tax, an e-mail from Kathryn Cote opposed to the utility tax; an e-mail from Randall Stevenson opposed to the utility tax, an e-mail from Margaret Mortz opposed to the utility tax, a letter from Carla Barajas opposed to the tax, and a letter from Brenda Grassel opposed to the tax. Mayor Higgins then closed the public hearing at 8:51 p.m. At 8:53 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m. 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-018 Adopting Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations — John Hohman, Mike Basinger After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to advance Ordinance No. 16-018 repealing the existing Comprehensive Plan and certain development regulations and adopting the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update and associated development regulations, to a second reading. Director Hohman explained that if Council chooses to move this forward to a second reading, that tonight he wants to make sure any changes previously discussed have been covered, as well as discuss any changes Council might want based on tonight's hearing; he said a lot of tonight's information is similar to what was heard during the Planning Commission's public hearings, but there was some additional information heard tonight, which staff noted, and which will be discussed tonight; he said staff would also like to take the opportunity tonight for any input from Council which hasn't been discussed previously. Mr. Hohman directed Council's attention to the matrix included in tonight's packet materials, which includes some of the items we know need to be changed based on previous feedback. Mr. Basinger mentioned that during previous discussions with Council, it was noted that Council asked for continued discussion on small residential dwellings, adding that staff also seeks Council direction concerning that topic. Mr. Hohman noted that as part of the previous Council discussions October 25, there was some changes to that section in A and B where they talked about small residential structures, and there were some discrepancies with the building code so staff is planning to clean that up; he said that tonight staff would like to see what direction Council would like to pursue concerning that section C, supportive housing; he said Council heard tonight from Ian Robertson that they are supportive of items that would Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 16 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT provide flexibility; that staff has looked at that and believe that the type of project they referenced likely fits into the cottage housing section, which would leave us with the supportive housing provision; he reminded Council that the Planning Commission recommended that be removed and taken through the process separately in order to provide additional feedback; for example, if a church group would create a transitional step, or support or be responsible for a housing development that would be a transitional development trying to get homeless or other individuals to transition from the streets to this project, with the goal of them hopefully being able to be self-sufficient. Mr. Hohman said we heard a lot of testimony and a some discomfort concerning whether that is something we want for this community; and said staff looks to Council for direction. Councilmember Pace said he thinks a lot of comments about high density housing would apply to the supportive housing, and his understanding is if we take that out as the Planning Commission recommended, cottage homes and smaller dwellings would still be there and would meet the needs of the Fuller Center for their projects as they try to get people to own their own homes; and therefore he suggested taking supportive housing out and don't even bring it back. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he disagreed; said it needs to be removed from tonight's passage, but that it needs to go back through the Planning Commission, get the public to talk about that specifically; and then it if comes back with a recommendation to eliminate it, then Council can discuss that at the time. Councilmember Munch said he agreed with Deputy Mayor Woodard to remove it until we have more information, but not necessarily discard the idea. Councilmember Wood said he agreed with Councilmember Pace. By a show of hands, Councilmembers desiring to remove it but take it up further with the Planning Commission included Mayor Higgins, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Haley and Munch. Concerning the neighborhood commercial, Deputy Mayor Woodard said that there were a couple of pieces brought up, but the one at Bowdish and Broadway — if that would hinder someone from using part of their property; said part of the reason he'd look at Neighborhood Commercial on dead corners, would be to try to get them used in a way not previous used; said he'd hate to be a hindrance to finally having something developed on a piece of land there. To clarify, Mr. Hohman said that is probably an inadvertent change; that it would be a downzoning for that particular property so we could restore that individual's rights on that piece of property if that is Council's direction. Councilmembers nodded in agreement. Mr. Hohman said that staff would bring that multi -family designation back on that piece as the requested. Concerning the other neighborhood commercial property that Mr. Wick spoke to, Mr. Basinger said that has been adjusted and are now in good order, as the old presentation contained an outdated snapshot. Concerning the church property at North Pines, Deputy Mayor Woodard asked for clarification that that piece went through the Planning Commission which recommended not to do that; and Mr. Basinger further clarified that the Planning Commission recommended that piece go through the annual amendment process; Deputy Mayor Woodard said he agreed with that recommendation. Further, Deputy Mayor Woodard noted the piece by the Chester store for a nursery, and he asked if there is a way for that residential zoning, a lot of which is the flood plain, that a text amendment could put that into a permitted use for properties maybe of that size; and said he personally does not want to see that re -zoned. Mr. Hohman said there is a way for staff to craft some guidance regulation that would go through the Planning Commission. Councilmember Munch said he did not agree on the church property because the reason it was taken up is because the property owner wasn't able to petition this year, so we didn't want to cause them such a long delay; but said he agrees with Deputy Mayor Woodard on the nursery property. Mayor Higgins said he thought Council had already agreed with that and Mr. Hohman confirmed that was the consensus from the 25th meeting to look to implement a mixed use zone on that property; and he asked if that remains as Council's view on that property. Council concurred. To reiterate, Mr. Hohman said staff will look at the nursery property as a code text amendment. Mr. Hohman asked Council if there were any other Planning Commission recommendations Council wanted to treat differently from Council's direction provided thus far. Councilmember Pace asked about the Sprague and Barker area and staff confirmed they have already made note of that. Deputy Mayor Woodard interjected and asked if anyone made a note when he asked the question on the consistency Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 17 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT between the comp plan and the development regulations, and Mr. Hohman said he would address that in a minute. Going back to the Barker and Sprague, Councilmember Haley asked if that other piece would still be multi -family, and Mr. Hohman acknowledged that was what Council agreed previously; after hearing the testimony and receiving an e-mail from the property owner of that multi -family property that requested that he maintain that entitlement; and asked if Council wanted to handle that any differently from what has been stated so far; and there were no other suggested changes on the Planning Commission recommendations. Regarding Deputy Mayor Woodard's suggestion, Mr. Hohman said the issue in question is that throughout this process, most of the regulatory items should be kept in the development code, but Mr. Woodard found a reference to density within the land use chapter, chapter 4, and has requested that we retain regulatory items in the actual development code and not in the comprehensive plan, and said staff appreciates Deputy Mayor Woodard catching that. There was Council consensus to keep those separated. Mr. Hohman noted that he heard during testimony a concern of the size of the garages for the cottage homes, and that it seems that 250 square feet might be a little small considering pickup trucks and other vehicles; and that staff can research that and propose a size that might be more reasonable to accommodate trucks. Council concurred. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he heard in testimony something about us being a complaint -driven city; and said that we are not a complaint -driven city, but we do have an enforcement group. Mr. Hohman said that is within his department and within his responsibilities; that about six or seven years ago, the City on a code enforcement item, was predominantly complaint driven, but we haven't been so for a number of years since that time; that when staff is in the community and sees an issue, garbage, or other clear violations of our city code, that issue is brought forward and put through the C.A.R.E.S. (Citizen Action Request online Entry System) process to determine if it is a violation; but that we are not solely complaint -driven. Mr. Hohman noted that in the matrix, there are several items included from WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation), some changes requested by SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) and STA (Spokane Transit Authority), and some from Avista, and said staff wants to make sure those changes are appropriate from Council's viewpoint, and said from a staff point, they all are relatively minor and would help increase the quality of the document. Deputy Mayor Woodard brought attention to SRTC #5, the Transportation Element, policy T -P 1, which states that the City intends to "continue to pursue funding for the Bridging the Valley (BTV) program to reduce rail/vehicle collisions, improve emergency access, eliminate vehicle waiting times, reduce noise, and improve traffic flow" and that "The priority of BTV [Bridging the Valley] projects continues to be evaluated by regional decision makers, especially in light of limited transportation funding resources and the need to secure commitment from the railroads;" Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if they are trying to state that we don't address those issues; he said from a regional standpoint we are not getting any help; so if that is what they are stating, Deputy Mayor Woodard said he disagrees; he said grants have been reduced, and if we aren't going to look for solutions for our citizens, the answer is not in the regional as they have too much to take care of now and can't handle their own; and said he does not agree that we cannot do things on our own. Mr. Basinger said that he feels SRTC's main concern is, that at one time with the Bridging the Valley where we had the Union Pacific Railroad and the Burlington Northern Railroad lines coming together; that that has gone by the wayside in terms of that bigger Bridging the Valley plan that went all the way to Idaho; so we are planning to re- emphasize that we still see the importance of making sure we can get over or under the Burlington Northern lines wherever we need to, and we want to make sure our document supports that; and said that SRTC was just trying to give a little more focus. Mr. Hohman stated that it appears we are good to incorporate those where necessary and there were no objections from Council. Toward the end of the matrix, Mr. Hohman noted that Avista has asked for some minor changes; and noted that staff found some things in Title 19, and upon further review found that we should bring forward a provision for parking in the neighborhood commercial, and said we are looking at exempting any parking requirements up to 3,000 square feet, (the size of the development), but we would have to continue to require ADA (American with Disabilities Act) standards; and asked if those sounded reasonable to include. There were no objections from Council. Mr. Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 18 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT Hohman also noted to have a provision for reducing parking requirements up to 25% for development located near transit services, in order to provide more flexibility. Councilmember Munch said for a business under 3,000 square feet, since we would not require parking spaces on their lot, he asked how that would work on Appleway. Mr. Hohman explained that most of the neighborhood commercial would be on a different street, and said the thought process was, there should be some on -street parking available. Councilmember Haley asked for the rationale in reducing parking requirements up to 25% for a development located near transit services, and asked if staff is assuming that people who reside there would only ride the bus. Mr. Basinger said the idea was that there could be some who would ride the bus so we could lessen the amount of parking requirements needed. Mr. Hohman said this has been modified from several years ago where the standards were relatively high; so it took a lot of area and a lot of parking spaces; and what we did was look at the ratios and dropped them to the lowest requirements around that other jurisdictions had, to make it so there is a minimum, but no maximum, and on most projects, the developer almost always chooses to add more which is a good position for us to be in. Mr. Hohman asked that now that we have gone through the matrix list, are there any other changes Council wishes to discuss and make prior to a second reading. There were no further suggested changes. Mayor Higgins invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular 6 pm Council Meeting: 11-08-2016 Page 19 of 19 Approved by Council: DRAFT Attendance: Councilmembers MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington November 15, 2016 Staff Rod Higgins, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Caleb Collier, Councilmember Pam Haley, Councilmember Mike Munch, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Sam Wood, Councilmember Mark Calhoun, City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director Steve Worley, Capital Improv. Program Mgr John Hohman, Comm & Eco. Dev. Director Gloria Mantz, Development Engineer Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. Proclamation: World Pancreatic Cancer Day Mayor Higgins read the World Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Day proclamation. 1. Marketing Study Update — Gloria Mantz, and Representatives from Atlas Advertising Development Engineer Mantz introduced Mr. Ben White, Atlas Advertising Agency CEO, and she gave a brief history of the company selection process. Mr. White explained that his company's purpose is to work with staff as a partner; said this plan will tell you who you will influence on the way to growth; that the plan tries to optimize that investment and is a tool to serve the future of the community, alongside other tools such as the Comprehensive Plan. He went over the Executive Summary and the desired outcomes shown on page 1 of the Marketing Strategy; he went through the highlights of the document and encouraged Council to interject at any time with comments or concerns. Concerning page 2 and "The Challenge," Councilmember Pace said that although our city government is fairly new, the community isn't and there was identify in the small townships. Mr. White noted the Concurrent Regional Initiatives on page 6 and how those tie into the comp plan and the Chamber's Big 5; said the idea is to think about our role and how to express things associated with marketing; said that naturally there will be some overlap. Mr. White also discussed the "Connecting Strategic Elements" shown on page 15, and said that outcomes led to the brand positioning shown on page 16, and that those items won't say the same thing to people who live here and to visitors; he mentioned the tremendous amount of objectives and targets as shown on page 17, and went through those objectives. Mr. White noted Resource Allocation as shown on page 19, and said they got a lot of input about what should be the focus on the short and near-term goals, adding that a lot changes in five years; said the goal is to help create community vitality, engage the community, attract tourism, and gain an economic development audience; he also mentioned our stimulating industrial area. Mr. White then went over the 6 items of community engagement shown on page 22. After going through the Study, Mr. White moved to the logos. Councilmember Collier asked if he was suggesting a new logo for our City and Mr. White explained that he is not; and that these logos are just for marketing, and he asked for Council input on the logos. Mr. White went over the logos noting not only the different colors and layout, but the fonts as well; that option 1 has some allusions to the river in the orange part, and a modern type face, and is a little more contemporary; and that option 2 has the stronger logo mark and a different set of colors and that it could live by itself, but takes its cues from recreation. Councilmember Pace and Munch said they like the second option better, and Councilmember Munch asked Council Study Session: 11-15-2016 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT where these logos would be used. Mr. White explained that they would be speaking to external audiences and perspective businesses, and could be included on the City's economic development website as well. Councilmember Collier said there is a movement within Spokane Valley to change the name of our city and thus distance ourselves from Spokane. Mr. White said some names have a tremendous amount of meaning, like the word "apple" or "Jefferson County;" and that there are numerous Jefferson Counties throughout the nation; but if someone says "San Francisco" — that could lay claim to the entire place even if just the section referenced is just a small part of that large area, but it all has the central name and the name constantly being marketed by others is Spokane, and that is to our benefit; said if the City's name were changed, Council would have to spend more to get the same benefit and outcome as now; said if this city changed its name it would be exciting, but externally it would have to be built; and said we can discuss this in more detail if Council desires. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he also likes logo option 2; and regarding a name change, said that topic is not his personal focus at the time. It appears that Option 2 was the preferred logo. Moving to the proposed taglines, Mr. White said he feels these are the story lines about this place, and "where tradition meets ambition" is part of that story; and that the second option tells the way the place feels, and said that might play a little more locally than outside; so option 1 is the story of the area and the way the place feels, while option 2 describes the place. Councilmember Pace said option 2 sounds like a sales piece that a marketing person came up with, while the first option feels more organic. Councilmember Wood stated that option 1 was his preference; and Deputy Mayor Woodard said he likes them both and said he has no problem using multiple taglines. Councilmember Collier stated he also likes the first option. Mayor Higgins suggested perhaps having "Spokane" in a different font. Mr. White thanked Council for their input and said this was the kind of discussion he hoped for; and that he will work with staff to incorporate these ideas; adding that the most important part is getting this out to the world. 2. Parks Maintenance Contract — Mike Stone Parks and Recreation Director Stone explained the issue of the parks maintenance contract for 2017, as noted on his November 15, 2016 Request for Council Action form; noting the benefits of having a multi- year contract. City Attorney Driskell added that we have had a one year contract with up to six additional, one-year renewals so the contract is reviewed annually to make sure we are still getting value. Mr. Stone said that each year is a separate contract, but having multiple years allows the contractor to be more stable in making large purchases, maintain a consistent work force, and not need a learning curve every year. Mr. Stone said we have a high standard for our park maintenance and wouldn't want to go backwards; we need someone who has worked on a contract of this size and nature; it is complex and we need and expect levels of service consistent with set standards; said staff hears from citizens about how pleased they are with the quality of maintenance and the appearance of our parks; said for this bid we only received one bid, that from Senske, and said they have an excellent service record, and he recommends awarding the contract to them. The topic of mowing came up with comments about how often to mow, and how high to mow the grass; and Mr. Stone mentioned that we currently do not collect the grass clippings; he said if there is a desire to reduce cost, he asked for direction of what level to make those reductions. Mr. Calhoun said we also must carefully compare cost and customer service, and Mayor Higgins mentioned that Council is getting close to micromanaging in areas where Council ought not be involved. There was also discussion about only having one bidder with Councilmember Munch suggesting there are perhaps six capable contractors in the area; and Councilmember Pace stating his preference to have multiple bidders on every bid, adding that he realizes you can't force a bid and suggested trying to recruit and develop relationships with several qualified vendors. Mr. Stone said that we could market this, but with the standards we set in the bid proposal, there are not five or six companies in this area that could meet the criteria, so we would have to reduce qualifications as well as the level of expectations. There was also brief discussion about the use of fertilizer, and weed control and use of chemicals; with Mr. Stone explaining that we do not use Roundup because of the concern with having citizens exposed to that. Mr. Stone noted that we have staffing requirements for the contractors, that we need two certified arborists, a certified trapper, someone with backhoe certification, etc., and putting all that together narrows the field. Mr. Stone mentioned that Council Study Session: 11-15-2016 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT although we only received one bid, more than one company picked up the bid package. Mr. Stone stated that from a management point of view, managing multiple contractors would be a nightmare and would take his job to another level; said now we can call Senske at 2 a.m. to repair a fence or work on the irrigation system and that Senske employees understand how to respond; said Senske works very well with the public, so it's not just grass and irrigation. Mr. Calhoun noted that when this comes back, staff will provide figures to give Council a sense of the cost increases over time with Senske, and said they are usually very modest increases each year and that they provide a spectacular service. Councilmember Munch said for the future, perhaps the animal trapper or other aspects of the package, could be separated out. Council concurred to bring this back for a motion at the next Council meeting. Mayor Higgins called for a recess at 7:32 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:41 p.m. 3. CenterPlace Catering Contract — Mike Stone After Mr. Stone went over the information in his November 15, 2016 Request for Council Action form concerning the Food Services Contract for CenterPlace, there was Council consensus to place this contract on the November 22 Council Agenda to consider a motion to award the contract to Le Catering for 2017. 4. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) Recommendations — Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Taylor went over the information on her November 15, 2016 Request for Council Action form outlining the background of the hotel/motel tax and the Advisory Committee, and the recommendations for funding allocations as a result of the October 20, 2016 Lodging Tax meeting. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the options for Council for funding recommendations are that Council may choose to make awards to all, some, or none of the recommended candidates in the amounts recommended by the Lodging Committee, or could send the entire group of recommendations back to the Committee for re- review. Ms. Taylor noted that this is set for a motion consideration at the December 13, 2016 Council meeting. Councilmember Pace spoke concerning the funds for Visit Spokane and stated that he isn't sure what we get for those funds. City Manager Calhoun said for Visit Spokane and the Sports Commission, they are generally organizations for the Spokane Region; he encouraged Council to examine these requests, adding that apparently they made a good enough case for the LTAC to provide them with those funds. Councilmember Munch said that he met with Cheryl Kilday a few weeks ago and he brought up his concern with the funding issue; said they have to keep two sets of books and account for where the money is spent; and that they are mainly a marketing tool. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he doesn't understand the recommendation to the Museum, as the only thing they do is bring people to see who we are and said he hopes this amount doesn't cripple them financially this year; said that the Sports Commission said they put 20,000 rooms together at $2.00 a night but said they don't really bring a lot of room nights as the hoteliers support them as there is no other "game"; said compression doesn't happen in the valley anymore; that the HUB does most of their own promoting and they don't replenish the lodging tax revenues, the "heads in beds" do; and said he feels some of these recommended amounts are out of proportion. Councilmember Wood said the hoteliers supported them, that they are positive and encouraging; and said the committee meeting was positive and upbeat. Councilmember Collier said he would like to see more funds awarded to the Museum and asked if Council could send this back. Ms. Taylor said that is Council's choice, but it would require another forty-five day waiting process. Council agreed to bring this forward as planned. 5. Barker Overpass Design — Eric Guth, Steve Worley Mr. Guth and Mr. Worley went through their PowerPoint presentation concerning the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation Project, including a description of the project and that it is part of the larger Bridging the Valley project which all began prior to our City's incorporation; said SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) is the lead agency, but this project included many stakeholder agencies in Washington and Idaho, and that we joined in 2003; they explained the use of the federal funds, how complete the designs are for the grade crossings, and that the "30%" design plans have been on hold since 2004 waiting for federal funding; they mentioned our City's unsuccessful numerous attempts at obtaining Council Study Session: 11-15-2016 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT TIGER and FASTLANE grants, but that we have been encouraged to resubmit; said for the proposed final design, $720,000 in federal funds have been earmarked and we risk losing the funds if we don't use them; that we need to provide an additional $300,000 for a total complete design cost of $1,020,000; said we have advertised for a consultant and received two responses, with the team of David Evans and Associates selected as most qualified. Mr. Worley noted that there has been a gap of twelve years since we had the "30% Design" completed and that substantial changes have occurred since then, as noted on his slide #12, which he said boils down to that now that "30%" design is really only about 10% design. Mr. Worley explained the proposed final design and the major tasks needed, including updated cost estimates, as well as future calls for projects for which we could apply to assist in these costs. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked about the road going up to Monte Vista, and whether we have an agreement with the property owner and Mr. Worley said we don't have an agreement with any property owner. Deputy Mayor Woodard also asked that it appears we will have to connect with that Monte Vista Drive but if we don't and let the property owner who can develop all that put in his road, how much savings would that be. Mr. Worley said he did not know and said he doesn't know if we could get away without putting in that north leg and that is one of those things they will look at in the design; and said the reason there is a question about whether we could get away without doing that, is the part of the DOT (Department of Transportation) design requirements; said that the ramp that comes from the bridge over Trent, the on-ramp to the west of Trent, that ramp has a certain distance requirement from Barker to Trent, and if that distance of that ramp extends to where the current entry to where that subdivision is, there might be several ways to accomplish that; he said he has been in contact with Spokane County because our city limit is right on that line west of Trent; that we'd like to coordinate with the County and maybe even have them participate financially in the connection of that north leg of that interchange. Mr. Worley noted that a new traffic analysis will have to be conducted since traffic has increased over the years. Councilmember Collier asked about the property on the northwest black line running through it (as shown on the slide), and asked if we have been in contact with the property owner and how much does this encroach upon their property. Mr. Worley explained that it does not; that when SRTC did the original plans, they had a very extensive public involvement process and all the grade crossings were presented to the public so property and business owners came to the open house and were aware of what the proposed plans were, but he explained, we haven't made individual contact with anyone except with the property owners related to the Wellesley realignment. Councilmember Collier also asked if the property owner wants it done and is going off the old plans, it doesn't look like he loses much, but with the new plan, it looks like we are cutting into it considerably. Mr. Worley asked if he was referring to the northwest corner of the interchange, and Councilmember Collier replied that he was. Mr. Worley said that all of these things related to going through the final design and through the right-of-way process if we get the funding to do it; all of those issues will get taken care of and we will deal with each individual property owner and determine the impacts, and have appraisals done. Mr. Guth added that it is a steep hillside and where you see the road is a developable park; so most of this will be going up that hill to that road; said the connection does have some impact to that subdivision, but it gives them better access than what they have now. Mr. Worley went through the proposed final design information including the tasks not included, the fee estimate, the schedule and possible future grant opportunities. Mr. Worley also noted the major tasks needed as well as those tasks not included with this effort, and explained that this does not complete the design process; said that there will also be some WSDOT involvement; that this doesn't address any of the limited access requirements that WSDOT will put on this project; said now the fee estimate for the scope is about $1.3 million, which is about $300,000 more than originally anticipated, and doesn't get us as far as we thought it would. Mr. Worley said that the plan is to get a contract with the consultant by December, they'd complete the scope by October of next year to get us to about 50% design, then we have to go through the environmental and BNSF approval process, as well as future grant opportunities like FASTLANE, and said he believes there will be another call for TIGER grants next year, but we don't know yet what the federal government will do; said SRTC will be coming out with a call for projects for STP funds as well. Council Study Session: 11-15-2016 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT Mr. Worley explained the options for moving forward are to move forward with the proposed scope and fee, or reduce the scope to fit the current budget. Councilmember Wood suggested moving forward with the proposed scope and fee, and maybe get it done as fast as possible. Mr. Calhoun added that we have funds earmarked for this project. There was Council consensus to move ahead with option 1 to move forward with the proposed scope and fee. 6. 2017 FASTLANE Grant Opportunity — Eric Guth Public Works Director Guth explained the FASTLANE II Call for Projects as noted in his November 15, 2016 Request for Council Action; and recommended staff submitting both projects, but submitting them separately in the small category. After brief discussion about the funding and the projects in general, Council concurred that staff bring these back next week for a recommendation to pursue the funding grants, as well as if the offer presents itself, to join in the coalition for the larger project category. At approximately 8:50 p.m. it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to extend the meeting to 9:15 p.m. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 8. Browns Park Lease Update This item was for information only and was not reported or discussed. 9. Council Check-in — Mayor Higgins Councilmember Pace sand that he and Councilmember Wood have been meeting weekly on Wednesdays at the McDonald's at U -City, studying the Municipal Code and reviewing the development regulations for the comp plan process; said after this comp plan process is over, that they will start all over again; he invited the public and said he also sent out Facebook invitations; also noted that Councilmembers Collier and Munch have been discussing lobbying resolutions for the TPP based on feedback from the public hearing, to include both pros and cons; and are also working on the second amendment sanctuary city idea. 10. City Manager Comments — Mark Calhoun Mr. Calhoun noted that the second reading of the comp plan has been moved to December 13 in order to give ample time for SRTC to make its review. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session: 11-15-2016 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT Attendance: Councilmembers MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington November 17, 2016 Staff Rod Higgins, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Pam Haley, Councilmember [arrived 8:36 a.m.] Mike Munch, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Sam Wood, Councilmember Sam Wood, Councilmember Absent: Caleb Collier, Councilmember Mark Calhoun, City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Gabe Gallinger, Development Services Mgr. Eric Guth, Public Works Director John Hohman, Comm & Eco. Dev. Director Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Adam Jackson, Assistant Engineer Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Henry Allen, Development Engineer Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Others in attendance: East Spokane Water District #1 representative Spokane County Water District #3 representatives Irvin Water District #6 representatives Carnhope Irrigation #7/Hutchison Irrigation #16 representative Consolidated Irrigation District #19 representative Modern Electric Water Company representatives Vera Water and Power representatives Attorney Joe Carroll Lobbyist Chelsea Hager, of Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmembers Haley and Collier. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmembers Haley and Collier. Overview: Discussion Topics – Mark Calhoun City Manager Calhoun explained that the purpose of today's meeting is to hear information concerning various issues concerning water and water rights, and noted that copies of today's packet of information are available on the shelf; and said free discussion is encouraged. 1. Department of Ecology, Instream Flow Rules – Henry Allen After self -introductions of those in attendance, Development Engineer Allen gave background information about instream flow rules; said that while all waters are public, they can't be owned but people can get a right to use them based on an appropriation for a beneficial use; said that the "first in time" gets the right in use and first in, has seniority over all the rights that become effective afterwards; he mentioned the 1949 Water Flow Policy and read excerpts from RCW 77.57.020 about "Review of permit applications to divert or store water—Water flow policy." Mr. Allen explained that the 1967 Minimum Water Flows and Levels Act (Ch. 90.22 RCW) sets forth a process for protecting instream flows, and that the Department of Ecology must develop a state water plan and that it may establish minimum water flows or levels for streams for the Council Special Meeting Minutes 11-17-2016 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT purpose of protecting fish, game, birds or for recreational or aesthetic values of public waters; and he spoke about the impact of the instream flow rules. By February 2015, he explained, the Instream Flow Rule was adopted for the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer which applies to surface and ground water, including the Spokane River, and he referenced the graph included in the handout materials. He also explained that the first in time first in right means that the older or senior water right may operate to the exclusion of junior water rights, which lead to discussion about the shutting off juniors and any enforcement, or lack thereof. Councilmember Wood spoke of water banking and said the County takes over those rights and dishes them out as needed. Mr. Joe Carroll stated that the County is looking into that with the Little Spokane WIRA water shed, but not for our Spokane Valley area. There ensued discussion about water banking in other areas. [Water banking is the practice of forgoing water deliveries during certain periods, and "banking" either the right to use the forgone water in the future, or saving it for someone else to use in exchange for a fee or delivery in kind. It is usually used where there is significant storage capacity to facilitate such transfers of water.... In the United States, water banking is typically regulated and managed at the state level. Wikipedia] 2. Supreme Court Case — Whatcom County v. Hirst — John Hohman and Cary Driskell Mr. Hohman addressed the "Van Ness Feldman" handout concerning the Whatcom County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Case Summary;" said this case is being studied intensely and the impacts to Spokane County are being observed, and that we are working to determine any impacts to our City; said there will be more discussion with the water districts; that this issue is being monitored and there was an appeals court decision overturned in October on a previous case that the GMA took against Whatcom County, which requires the county to play an expansive role in water quality; and he mentioned that the County is trying to determine how to implement this; he noted that the Court's decision would "require individual building permit applicants to commission a hydrogeological study to show that their very small withdrawal does not impair senior water rights, and then have the local building department evaluate the adequacy of that scientific data." Mr. Hohman said that we don't know how this impacts the water district operations, and that Mr. Tadas Kisielius from Van Ness Feldman will be giving an in-depth presentation on this issue at the November 22, 2016 Council meeting. There was brief discussion about the effects, if any, on a public water purveyor with Mr. Carroll mentioning that he has not heard anything from the Department of Ecology looking at the public water purveyors. 3. Legislative Clarification of Water Provider's Water Rights — Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell spoke of a proposed bill from Senator Padden which would allow a cleaner process for those water rights traditionally used for municipal purposes designated as irrigation, and allow more assurances for water providers. Mr. Carroll said he and the water purveyors appreciate the City getting behind this; said the instream flow rule is a water right and time is critical as any rights issued before that have priority over the instream flow rule, and any after that are subject to the priority of the instream flow rule; said it is important to keep these rights and to convert irrigation rights to municipal rights; he said the bill went through the Senate Committee but died in the house committee; concerning connectivity, said the Supreme Court says that constitutes impairment and they will enforce the instream flow rule very strictly against anyone who might have a subsequent right. Ms. Hager said the session in Olympia is set to convene January 9, but before that there will be some meetings with senate legislators as they work to get support of other legislators for this bill, and mentioned that she will be meeting with them to see if they'd be willing to sign on; she said that Senator Padden is the sponsor and that he has some bipartisan support and between now and January 9, she and Ms. Murray will continue to meet with legislators, members of the Department of Health, the Department of Ecology, and others to gage the reception they might receive, to address concerns and work through any potential problems the might face; she said that in the last session the bill died, but now that the bill is re -drafted and narrowed to this specific area and the use of the aquifer, there is reason for the legislators to support this; she also mentioned there will be continued discussion of the Hirst case. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked about possible water purveyor's letters of support and Ms. Hager replied that she will maintain a consistent message, and if others want to help, she encourages conversation Council Special Meeting Minutes 11-17-2016 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT with the City, adding that this City will be sending letters of support to the legislators. City Manager Calhoun added that letters of support can be routed through our office to either Mr. Driskell or himself, and that he and/or Mr. Driskell will get the letters forwarded to our lobbyist. Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested soliciting support letters from large users, like Kaiser. Councilmember Wood asked about a letter we previously sent and Mr. Calhoun said he believes we did, and that staff could forward that to each water district to use as a template for their own letter. Mr. Driskell said this has been added to the City's legislative agenda. 4. Spokane Valley Utility Tax Proposal - Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Taylor went through the "Transportation & Infrastructure Funding -Utility Taxes" presentation, including the background noting the various previous meetings held that included the topic, the function and status of Street Fund #101 including the current telephone utility tax and projections of revenues and budgets; the purpose and status, as well as projections of revenues and budgets for Pavement Preservation Fund #311, and the combined funding needs from those funds for the next few years. Ms. Taylor explained how and which utilities can be used for tax purposes, and of projected revenues from those individual utilities with a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6% tax, and she compared our current telephone tax and proposed taxes with neighboring jurisdictions. Mr. Calhoun interjected that some of the funds could also be used for some grade separation projects, such as Barker and Trent, Pines and Trent, Sullivan, and elsewhere. City Attorney Driskell then went through the various sections of the proposed utility tax ordinance. A question was asked about the rationale for removing the current phone tax and Mr. Calhoun explained that we selected the utility that was least reliable; and in the late 1990's and early 2000's, phone utility tax climbed dramatically as people were adding cell phones to their already existing landlines; but about 2009 people started dropping their landlines at an annual rate of about 5%, and said funding is likely more stable with another utility tax. [It was noted that Mayor Higgins left the meeting at about 9:38 a.m.] Deputy Mayor Woodard said that there are some utilities that hit everyone, and some landlords have implied they will raise rents to cover taxes; said it was felt that a more broad base would be a more fair process in order to make as small a sacrifice to any one person or company, as possible. Councilmember Pace added that this is just a straw proposal and studies have not yet been concluded; that some members of Council ran on a platform of no new taxes, but a need has arisen and he doesn't feel as bad with eliminating one tax and replacing it with another; but again said he feels there needs to be a lot more studying of the issue. Councilmember Wood said he ran on the platform of "no new taxes" as be believes in smaller taxes and less regulations; that he is against this the way it is drafted now and said he would not vote for this going forward; said that doesn't mean something isn't needed for road preservation, but that this needs more study; said he received over one hundred e-mails, most of which were against the tax; said we need to study this and determine what level road condition the public is willing to accept; that we want good roads and don't want to end up like Spokane, but we need to be more transparent and need some town hall meetings and not rush into this now, and look at places to cut costs; he said grade separations are a top priority and he realizes grants for those projects are difficult to acquire, and agreed more study is needed. Mr. Kelly Williamette of Spokane County Water District #3 asked if there are options other than a utility tax; said that formerly he was a public works director, that streets are a daunting task and there's generally not much money for streets; and he asked if Council has examined a TBD (Transportation Benefit District); said the City of Spokane has one; that there are things that can be done without a public vote; also mentioned the 2/10th of 1% sales tax increase that was passed by citizens; said revenues from a TBD must by law, go to streets, and can even be used for snow removal and maintenance. Mr. Bryan St. Clair of Modern Electric Water said he is also a former Public Works Director and supports what Mr. Williamette said; he mentioned our City's business plan and the need for the public involvement process; said roads need to be done but it doesn't need to be 6% on everything; he also asked why overlay McDonald when it was one of the better streets, and now with the continuation of the trail, McDonald will have to be cut into again. Mr. Williamette Council Special Meeting Minutes 11-17-2016 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT spoke again concerning a TBD; said there are limits on a TBD but having a 6% increase all at once is outrageous; said things can be phased in and done gradually, and he encouraged Council to explore other options; said there needs to be some sort of relationship between the roads and the tax; that the physical reality of their customers is only part of them are in this City, that there are no databases or geographical information and said it would takes months or years to create such data; also mentioned that the legal issue on taxing of other municipalities wasn't settled; said we need to work on this together and in advance; and said it never makes sense to go all at once and have big impacts on the customers. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that Council has been as transparent as anyone can be when no one will cover anything; said the publication was distributed that goes to all businesses and households which included information about this issue; and he thanked the water districts for sending out their letter, and said maybe they could help us get out future messages. Councilmember Haley said she is personally opposed to the tax; said she received 403 e-mails and a lot of the public agreed with her. Councilmember Munch said that Council needs a lot more public input from citizens; that this is a big issue and he is generally an anti -tax raising person, and feels all options have not been exhausted, but that this is an issue to study; or perhaps the City could cut services elsewhere. City Manager Calhoun said that the message is loud and clear that we need to go back to the beginning and walk through how we arrived at this point; said he feels there are a range of options, including the option of doing nothing; and said the levels of service could be adjusted accordingly if there is no tax; said we still have issues on reconstruction as well as pavement preservations and street construction needs, and could do a prioritization program if that is Council's desire; or we could be patient to wait for grants. Concerning a TBD, Mr. Calhoun said the finance committee did discuss it and we can impose our own TBD up to $50.00 per tag, incrementally over forty-eight months, and that would generate about $3 million, which is half of what is needed, or we could impose a voter approved sales tax of 2/10"' of 1% which would amount to about $4.5 million, both of which the finance committee did not favor as it would put the vendors at a competitive disadvantage; said that someone mentioned the banked capacity of about $550,000 in property taxes, and said that would be a nice start but would be a far cry from what is really needed; said the finance committee also went through all those discussions and that will come back to full Council from the beginning, and work our way through, including community involvement, and said this issue will be a process through the balance of next year. Mr. Carroll mentioned that the figures don't have a reduction for governmental fire flow; mention from Ms. Taylor that more discussion is needed and this is not the end product. City Attorney Driskell said 6% was a true analysis; that the City of Spokane collects a tax on the tax and grosses it up three times, and that our figures did not do that; he also noted that staff realizes the water districts might not have GEO coding to see who is in and outside the City limits, and said the City could send assistance as we have that information, and that we could help on implementation issues as well. Mr. Jim Lande mentioned that keeping the phone tax would be the thing to do. The idea of council manic bonds was mentioned and Mr. Calhoun explained that those are not voted on by the public, and only by imposing the full 6% would we get the $1.7 million excess and apply that to pay off the bonds for the grade separation projects, otherwise, said the issue of bonds has not been contemplated. 5. Abandoned Utility Infrastructure — Cary Driskell Via his Power Point presentation, City Attorney Driskell gave background on the topic of non -abandonment of utility facilities in public rights-of-way; he went over the City's goal of adopting regulations to make each utility provider financially responsible for removing facilities in the public rights-of-way, to reduce risk of project delay and cost to all citizens; said facilities more than three feet underground aren't likely to impact road projects; and facilities that create or are likely to create a risk of damage or are a life, health, or safety rick, would have to be removed; otherwise, he explained, if the City needed to pay for the removal, the City would be subsiding several independent districts, some of which are private, adding that our City and the County have provisions in their interlocal agreements that neither jurisdiction would subsidize the other. Mr. Driskell concluded that all this will help the City stretch its scarce road fund resources while Council Special Meeting Minutes 11-17-2016 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT ensuring compliance with Washington law. [It was noted that Mayor Higgins returned to the meeting at about 10:19 a.m.] Councilmember Wood said that this wouldn't be something where the City would require immediate removal, and Deputy Mayor Woodard added that it would only involve those abandoned facilities in the way of a project. Mr. Driskell agreed and said if there would be no impact, then the facilities would not need to be removed. Mr. Kevin Wells of Vera Water and Power asked if this would be retroactive, and how would one determine who owns what; that there are abandoned pipes in their areas with sometimes fourteen people doing irrigation, said there's no way to determine who owns what. Mr. Driskell said we would have to talk about that in more detail but we want to avoid cost and delays so we would be asking for assistance from utility companies to get that needed information for general planning purposes; and said the real issue is, it costs money. [Councilmember Munch left the meeting at 10:31 a.m.; and Councilmember Wood left at 10:33 a.m.] Mr. Carroll asked if the City would be increasing costs overall by implementing this and speculated if that is really that much of a cost factor; said the ordinance speaks of "temporary" as well as the concept of leaving those facilities in if they are under three feet. Mr. Driskell stated that ultimately if the facilities belong to the district, then they are the districts and as such, the district should pay for the removal; said if we do not encounter the facilities, then there would no impact and no cost. Mr. Carroll mentioned that sometimes they put in the new and test them while the old line remains; to which Mr. Driskell replied, if it would make more sense not to pull those out, that would be a matter of choice for the district, but regardless, those are not appropriate costs for the City. Mr. Driskell and Mr. Carroll continued their discussion including whether this is a unique practice, and that Mr. Driskell said he feels the Courts would support the district paying for the removal as that is not a novel concept. Mayor Higgins stated that he feels we can work together on these issues, and that it would be something we need to have in place, but that it likely won't get used. In response to a comment about sewer, Mr. Driskell explained that Spokane County provides sewer and the City doesn't have anything to do with that as it is run entirely independent of our City. Mr. Carroll said he feels we all have a lot more in common than not, and said he appreciates the City setting this up as everyone can work together to reduce costs for the citizens. Mr. Calhoun agreed and said there is a lot more to be discussed, especially on those last two topics, and that we will do our best to incorporate the public and the utilities in future discussions. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10:52 a.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Special Meeting Minutes 11-17-2016 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES Special Legislative Meeting Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:30 p.m. — 5:00 p.m. City of Spokane Valley City Hall, Second Floor Conference Room 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Spokane Valley, Washington Attendance: Spokane Valley Council Mayor Higgins Deputy Mayor Woodard Councilmember Haley Councilmember Pace Absent: Councilmember Collier Councilmember Munch Councilmember Wood Staff John Hohman, CED Director Cary Driskell, City Attorney Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Steve Worley, Senior Engineer, CIP Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk Others in Attendance: Senator Mike Padden, Representatives Bob McCaslin and Matt Shea, Lobbyist Briahna Murray and others. Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Koudelka call the roll. All Councilmembers were present except for Councilmembers Collier, Munch and Wood. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmembers Collier, Munch, and Wood. Mayor Higgins welcomed the group to the meeting and Community and Economic Development (CED) Director Hohman introduced the topics on the agenda. 1. Support Legislation Clarifying Valley Water Providers' Water Rights — Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell gave a brief overview of Senator Padden's Water Rights Bill and Senator Padden said that Representatives Shea and McCaslin will both introduce essentially the same bills. Ms. Murray said she has been holding meetings with other legislators in bringing the bill forward and they hope the Department of Ecology will sign on as well. She said overall it has been a great team effort. 2. Transportation Funding Request — Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation Project — Eric Guth Public Works Director Guth referred everyone to the brochure in the packet materials for the Bridging the Valley project which, he said, we have seen difficulty in funding in the past. He said the railroads are no longer interested in doing the project but it continues to be one of Council's highest priorities for moving transportation. Mr. Guth said that fifty-five trains a day go through the Barker crossing, including nineteen oil trains, and currently that railroad intersection receives a failing grade. He said there are five -hundred acres of undeveloped industrial properties around the intersection making the project important from an economic development aspect as well as a safety aspect. He said that with the expected increase in unit oil trains, the number of trains through that intersection could exceed one -hundred trains per day. He said that with a grade separation and bridge over Trent and the BNSF railroad, we would be able to close two at - grade crossings. Special Council Meeting, State Legislators 11/22/2016 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT He said another aspect to the project is the realignment of Wellesley, which involves some right-of-way requirements that he said we are waiting for further design to identify. He said he does not think the project will affect the cemetery and we are seeking partnership from Spokane County on the project. Senator Padden asked to be kept informed of the infrastructure plan to see if we may be able to get more federal funds. He said legislators are not necessarily looking at new projects but instead are looking at moving existing projects up on the time line. Rep. Shea asked if other options were considered for the Barker railroad crossing. Mr. Guth said the study found that due to the grade differences of Trent, Barker, and the railroad tracks, an overpass was the preferred option. Rep. Shea asked why we are not addressing the Pines crossing first and what determined the priorities because he said he thinks he would want to look at addressing the Pines crossing first. Mr. Guth said the original idea with moving forward on the Barker crossing was due to the significant amount of undeveloped land in that area, the need to address the safety issue of the current crossing, and the amount of freight movement through that intersection. He said that partnering with FMSIB (Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board) allows us to get more funding for this project. Additionally, he said the Pines crossing does not have as much of a freight component, which could limit our funding options, although he said there is some opportunity for development in that area. Mr. Guth said the City has applied for and been denied TIGER grants for the Barker crossing the past three years now and he is hopeful our next application will be successfully awarded. He said they have incorporated the Pines crossing into the grant application for new FASTLANE federal funds and added that our Council feels both projects are very important. Sen. Padden said there are so many needs with other projects in Spokane County, including future development and construction of a new high school which will increase traffic. CED Director Hohman said another thing putting pressure on the City to improve the Trent and Barker crossing is a large manufacturing company we are trying to recruit that would bring one - hundred fifty jobs to the area and increase our tax revenue. 3. Funding Appleway Trail Park Amenities — Mike Stone Parks and Recreation Director Stone said the City has allocated funds for the remaining 3.25 miles of the trail, but initially to get the project started, the City funded in full the first mile of the 4.25 mile trail. He said the first mile has limited amenities and we have heard from the public that it does not look like what they were expecting. He said it is not landscaped or irrigated and Council has added this project to its legislative agenda to make improvements to the first mile of trail. Mr. Stone said in previous discussions with Sen. Padden, the senator said he was concerned with the price tag of the amenities and he did not think a linear park was where the state should spend its money. Mr. Stone referred the group to the list of improvements in the packet to show the different elements of the improvements and asked for the input of the Senator and Representatives to pare down the list and to help the City come up with a number that can be supported by Council, the Senator and our Representatives. Rep. McCaslin said there are a lot of weeds on the trail and the trees appear to be one species which could be problematic because if one were to get diseased, he said it could destroy them all. He said he would encourage development of the trail because he would also like to encourage businesses to locate along the trail and he said if the City can overcome some of those problems he would be happy to support the project. CED Director Hohman said the Comprehensive Plan scheduled for adoption on December 13, 2016, will hopefully include a change in that area providing for a higher density use that would in turn increase the use of the trail. Ms. Murray said capital funding is highly competitive and recommended that projects have support from the City and its legislators in order to compete well for those funds. Rep. McCaslin said he thinks if a project draws business it will compete well. Rep. Shea said he would support more trees, benches, and some landscaping but not wall-to-wall turf and requested the proposal be revised to include only the top landscaping items from the current list for reconsideration. Director Stone said he will revise the proposal for reconsideration. 4. Protect Local State -Shared Revenues — Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Taylor said the City is requesting the cap on liquor revenue be restored to the 50/50 shared relationship between the state and local governments and added that we appreciate the efforts being made in this area. Ms. Murray said the bill essentially took an account that was previously split 50/50 between Special Council Meeting, State Legislators 11/22/2016 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT the local governments and the state to an approximate split of 30/70 respectively, and local agencies will receive diminishing returns. She said the bill that has been drafted for the next session increases the revenue split back to the previous 50/50 shared relationship, but does so slowly over time so as not to have as much impact to the state as it would if it were reinstated all at once. She said we recognize the challenge the state is faced with balancing its budget, but she said this has historically been a shared account. Sen. Padden said that with the growth experienced and new spending, there is not enough money to meet the needs and balance the budget. Rep. Shea said there appears to be significant revenue coming from the marijuana industry but he does not think the revenue is seen in the community. Ms. Murray said that when the initial distribution levels were set up, very little was set for the local level. Rep. Shea asked if anyone is looking at this and Ms. Murray stated that currently she knows of two Representatives and said she would be happy to work with them to bring something forward. 5. Protect Businesses by Reforming State Regulatory Burden — Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell said addressing the regulatory burdens of the Labor and Industries program and the Business and Occupation tax is another priority of our Council. He said this legislative item would recur on our Legislative Agenda year to year and on-going into the future so as to offer continued Council support to the legislators. Sen. Padden said testimonials from local businesses would make a difference in their ability to sell the changes to other legislators. He said Spokane Valley has a good attitude about being business friendly, but it would be helpful if the City would provide specific examples of how these taxes impact businesses. Ms. Murray said it is challenging to pass regulatory reform measures so we would like to look at bite -size pieces of reform that we can get signed and focus our efforts in achieving tangible successes. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Special Council Meeting, State Legislators 11/22/2016 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, November 22, 2016 Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Rod Higgins, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Caleb Collier, Councilmember Pam Haley, Councilmember [arrived 6:51 p.m.] Ed Pace, Councilmember Sam Wood, Councilmember Absent: Councilmember Munch Staff John Hohman, Comm & Eco. Dev. Director Cary Driskell, City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director Mark Werner, Police Chief Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Al Hulten from Valley Assembly Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, staff and the audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Deputy City Clerk Koudelka called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Munch. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Munch from the meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: N/A COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Haley: no report. Councilmember Pace: said he attended the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) and SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) Board meetings, the Spokane Valley Chamber annual meeting, and the first Sidewalk Task Force meeting to address clearing the sidewalks of snow. Councilmember Wood: said he attended the Spokane Valley annual convention where he heard we can expect some growth in the valley; he also attended the Liberty Lake Chamber of Commerce meeting where they talked about the sports complex, and dealing with the river and other resources. Councilmember Collier: said he toured the HUB Sports facility. Deputy Mayor Woodard: said he went to the Connect meeting and said another is scheduled at Progress Elementary in November to view a variety of schools and what they are doing. He said he went to the meeting for the Euclid from Flora to Barker Sewer and Paving project, the annual Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce meeting and the Big 5 meeting at Liberty Lake. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Higgins reported that he attended the Washington State Department of Transportation meeting to discuss the progress of the North/South freeway, concluding with no resolution. He said he also attended water meetings, a Greater Spokane Inc. meeting, and the annual Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce meeting. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 11-22-2016 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT PROCLAMATION: Small Business Saturday Mayor Higgins read the proclamation and encouraged citizens to support small businesses. PUBLIC COMMENTS: After Mayor Higgins went over ground rules for public comments, he invited general public comments. Mr. Tony Lazanis, resident of Spokane Valley: said last week Steve Worley spoke about Barker, but he wants to mention that Pines has more traffic and the City should do Pines before it does Barker. Mr. Steve O'Meara, resident of Spokane Valley: said the roadwork done in front of his house is "really nice" on 8th Avenue but the issue has been with people driving too fast on McDonald. He said a week ago when he got home, students got off the bus on McDonald and one kid crossing the street nearly got hit by a car going too fast. He said they need a four-way stop or a traffic signal at 8th and McDonald. Mayor Higgins asked if the bus driver left the Stop sign out while the kids crossed the intersection. Ms. Andrea O'Meara, on behalf of Mr. O'Meara, said that kids are crossing the street after the bus leaves. Mr. Frank Roberts, resident of Greenacres: said he read an article in the paper that the Council proposed to increase utility taxes by six percent without a vote of the taxpayers and he said that would be a monumental increase on all utilities, not just the landline phone tax. He said he is generally against taxes and the six percent proposed would actually be more than six percent. He said with the hiring of a new city manager, the City increased the pay of the new city manager in excess of $30,000 to $175,000 and that does not represent the best interests of the city. He said he called and asked for a computer printout of all City management employee wages and he was told the request must be submitted in writing. He said he will submit a request in writing and find out how much everybody makes and how much everybody spends. Ms. Katherine Morgan, President and CEO of Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce: said she appreciates the opportunity to engage in a community conversation about the proposed utility tax and said the Chamber is hosting its meeting on Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at Spokane Valley Tech. 1. 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 claim vouchers on Nov 22, 2016 Request for Council Action Form Totaling: $5,123,048.14 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending November 15, 2016: $383,426.09 c. Approval of November 1, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session Format d. Approval of November 8, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Special 4:30 p.m. Meeting e. Approval of November 8, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Special 5:00 p.m. Meeting It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 2. Motion Consideration: Parks Maintenance Contract — Mike Stone It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve the 2017 Park Maintenance contract to Senske Lawn and Tree Care in the amount of $758,310.01 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the contract. Parks & Recreation Director Stone said the history of this contract process and the bid package details were discussed with Council at last week's meeting. He said after advertising the project, we only received one bid, which was from our current vendor. Going back to 2005, the increase in the contract has been between zero to two percent except for the years when the contract was amended to add services so this has been a good contract over the years with this vendor. Councilmember Collier asked what the cost would be if we went to an organic weed killer. Mr. Stone responded that he did not find out the answer to that; however, the weed killer Senske uses is fifty percent organic. He said the contract is for Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 11-22-2016 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT one year with up to two three-year renewals. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 3. Motion Consideration: CenterPlace Catering Contract — Mike Stone It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to award the 2017 CenterPlace Food and Beverage Services contract to Le Catering and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the contract. Parks and Recreation Director Stone reminded Council that this item was discussed last week with Council outlining the process. He said we received three respondents to the RFP and conducted interviews with all three, which included a taste test. He said the interview panel unanimously agreed to move forward with Le Catering. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 4. Motion Consideration: 2017 FASTLANE Grant Opportunity — Eric Guth It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to authorize staff to apply for FASTLANE II grant funds for the Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation project and the Pines Rd (SR-27)/BNSF Grade Separation project, and to apply for FASTLANE II grant funds through the GNCC if the GNCC elects to submit five grade separation projects together in one multi -state grant application. Public Works Director Guth said the FASTLANE II grant is the second in the five-year program, of which ten percent of the funds will be recommended for their small project category and the rest of the funds will be used for the large project category. He said our proposals fall into the small project category, which has a smaller dollar amount available. He said the GNCC has decided not to pursue grant funds at this time because they felt they did not have the adequate time and resources necessary, but he said he is hopeful they apply for the 2018 grant. He said staff recommends we submit grant applications for the Pines and Barker overpass projects. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 4a. Added Item: City Hall Holiday Closure It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to close City Hall at noon on Wednesday, November 23, 2016, to allow staff time to prepare for their Thanksgiving holiday. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins invited public comments. Nina Fluegal, resident of Spokane Valley: said she is looking for clarity in comparing commercial zoning to multi -family zoning. She asked what the likelihood would be if a property is zoned commercial that the person could put apartments there as well and she said the City should establish infrastructure and attract businesses before allowing apartments go up. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 5. State Supreme Court Decision: Whatcom Co. vs. Hirst — John Hohman, Tadas Kisielius Community and Economic Development Director Hohman introduced Tadas Kisielius of Van Ness Feldman who is the lead consultant for our Comprehensive Plan update and is heavily involved with land use and water issues. He said Mr. Kisielius will provide Council with background on water law and give specifics on the case of Whatcom County v Hirst, which has changed the obligations of local jurisdictions. Mr. Kisielius went through his presentation and invited questions. 6. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Councilmember Wood said he would like staff to provide Council with an administrative report on road preservation PCI and how it is calculated, with numbers included that show the differences if the PCI is maintained at 70, 60 and 50 levels and showing the cost of each. He said he has seen it before but he would like to see it again. Mr. Hohman said the City Manager is working on bringing this material back to Council on a future agenda. City Attorney Driskell said this topic will be part of the December 6, 2016 meeting the Chamber is hosting as part of the utility tax proposal and Mr. Hohman said he thinks we are looking to have Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 11-22-2016 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT presentations at other community forums and workshops as well as council meetings, and that this will be a focus throughout 2017. INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed): The (7) Department Reports; (8) Street Maintenance Contract Renewal; (9) Street Sweeping Contract Renewal; and (10) Consultant Agreement Design Barker Rd/BNSF Separation Project were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Community and Economic Development Director Hohman said we received TIB funds for Sullivan/Euclid/Conklin Intersections, the reconstruction of Mission from Flora to Barker and sidewalk installation on 32nd from SR -27 to Evergreen and that we received funding for the Department of Commerce's environmental permitting grant. He mentioned our consultant is continuing to work on the new City logo and he passed around two samples for Council to review. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 11-22-2016 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES Special Joint Meeting Spokane Valley City Council, Liberty Lake City Council, and Spokane County Board of County Commissioners Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:00 p.m. — 5:00 p.m. CenterPlace Regional Event Center, Room 109 2426 N Discovery Place, Spokane Valley, Washington Attendance: Spokane Valley Council Rod Higgins, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Caleb Collier, Councilmember Pam Haley, Councilmember Mike Munch, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Sam Wood, Councilmember Staff Mark Calhoun, City Manager John Hohman, CED Manager Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Gloria Mantz, Development Engineer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Liberty Lake Council Steve Peterson, Mayor Hugh Severs, Council Member Dan Dunne, Council Member Shane Brickner, Council Member Jessica McGuire, Council Member Katy Allen, City Administrator Board of County Commissioners Shelly O'Quinn, Chair Josh Kerns, Commissioner Mayor Higgins called the Spokane Valley meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Munch. As it was understood that Councilmember Munch would be attending the meeting, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Munch until he arrives. The Liberty Lake meeting was also called to order. Commissioner O'Quinn then called the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.; noting in attendance Commissioner Kearns, and the absence of Commissioner French. [Councilmember Munch arrived at 3:15 p.m.] 1. Welcome & Review of Meeting Agenda — Shelly O'Quinn Commissioner O'Quinn welcomed everyone to the meeting to hear about the feasibility/economic impact study results, which study she said has been a long time in the making, and which was the result of the City of Spokane Valley, the City of Liberty Lake, Spokane County, the Central Valley School District, and the Sports Commission's collaborative efforts to procure the services of the Conventions, Sports & Leisure International (CSL) company to complete the study, the purpose of which was to consider a potential sports complex on land located within the City of Liberty Lake near the HUB Facility, and for potential major enhancements to Spokane County's existing Plante's Ferry Sports Stadium Facility. After everyone in the room introduced themselves, Commissioner O'Quinn introduced Spokane County Parks, Recreation & Golf Director Mr. Doug Chase who introduced Mr. Bill Krueger, Principal with CSL, a leading advisory group and planning firm specializing in this type of study. Mr. Krueger, with the aid of his PowerPoint presentation, explained that this study began in the early part of the year, and that the full report can be seen at the County's website; he gave some of his background as well as that of his company, and said that event facilities are his company's specialty. Mr. Krueger said the charge given to him was, do we need something new and if so — what, and to include statistics, costs, etc., in examining two concepts: the Plantes Ferry location, and the HUB Development. He explained about the two initial concepts and went into the Phase 1 and Phase 2 study components, which were market demand Special Joint Meeting Regarding Feasibility Study 11-30-2016 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT analysis, and cost/benefit analysis respectively. Mr. Krueger stressed that there was no pre -ordained outcome. He went over some of the demographics of the population in the County, as well as the market hotels throughout Spokane County; for the local market conditions, he showed statistics of the triangle field organizations in Spokane County, as well as the multipurpose field organizations in the County; his map of the baseball/softball facilities in the County showed the number of youth and adult fields in each of the facilities, and mentioned the number of fields close to Spokane Valley. Mr. Krueger noted the comparable triangle facilities summary showing the facility, location, year opened, construction cost, and number of triangle fields. As part of their best practices approach to the facilities access notion, he noted the market demand analysis and the various organizations they contacted across the nation; and then went through the Market Demand Conclusions for Plante's Ferry and the HUB, as shown on page 73 of the study; said his conclusion is that thirteen fields are needed for soccer at Plante's Ferry; and the challenge is for both entities to perhaps consolidate a management plan and suggested perhaps issuing an RFP (request for proposal) for both. He noted the unmet demands of the HUB for the fields, and with the mixed age groups, said he feels eight fields are not enough and prefers twelve more; said the benefit of those additional fields means they could accommodate 100 -team tournaments, but the additional fields would expand the footprint. Going back to Plante's Ferry, of those thirteen soccer fields, said that two would be turf and eleven grass and mentioned some of the advantages with using turf; he noted the estimated development cost for each with Plantes Ferry at $5,861,000 and the HUB at $27,800,000. Mr. Krueger also went over the utilization and attendance summary for each facility and again, mentioned the idea of a unified management system. He went over the financial operations including the management fee to keep the high quality of the facilities, and discussed the economic impact benefit versus the cost; said he feels both projects are feasible and suggested bidding out the RFP for management as he feels private management would be something to examine. Commissioner O'Quinn stated that Spokane Valley gets the greatest benefit of both of these entities, and that the School District is committed to the overall maintenance and operation of the HUB. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that Spokane Valley is still waiting for reports which should be included as part of their December 13 meeting. City Manager Calhoun noted that Spokane Valley has applied for and received an $80,000 grant for an in-depth study of six projects, and as noted, these will be reviewed with Council at the December 13 Council meeting. There were some general questions and comments, with City Administrator Allen asking what would be the next steps for elected officials. Commissioner O'Quinn said she will be curious to see what Spokane Valley determines, because if Spokane Valley is not part of this, then the projects are likely off the table; said all partners are needed, which prompted Councilmember Wood to ask at what level should each partner participate, and whether each partner's share would be equal. Mr. Calhoun stated that Spokane Valley talked about the additional 1.3% lodging tax which equates to about $377,000 to serve as debt for the $6 million, but if the projects are $34 million, that leaves many million unfunded and said the Spokane Valley community is wrestling with development costs. Commissioner O'Quinn said that there are several new elected officials around the table, and the issue is, we don't have enough facilities in our community; said she appreciates the consultant's report today, but that no decisions will be made today. Councilmember Wood mentioned that the issue is, how to pay for this and that Spokane Valley is struggling with things like road preservation. Mayor Peterson said one way to pay for this would be to impose an admissions tax for events; said a new revenue source is needed and his Council passed a 5% admissions tax, which is disposal income; but Councilmember Wood mentioned that a large amount of tax would be needed in order to substantially affect the multimillion dollar shortfall. Commissioner 0' Quinn mentioned that an admissions tax has been talked about, but there was nothing other than discussion. City Administrator Allen recommended forming a task force after Spokane Valley hears the results of their study, to examine alternatives and look at funding options. Councilmember Pace said he feels an admissions tax would not be feasible since it would generate so little funds. [It was noted that Councilmember Collier left the meeting at 4:50 p.m.] After thanking everyone for attending today's meeting, Commissioner O'Quinn recommended this group meet again after Spokane Valley's December 13 meeting, at which time discussion could be held concerning the idea of a task force to examine funding ideas. Special Joint Meeting Regarding Feasibility Study 11-30-2016 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. Spokane Valley's Council meeting adjourned at 4:52 p.m., after which it was moved and passed by the City of Liberty Lake to adjourn, as well as Spokane County. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Special Joint Meeting Regarding Feasibility Study 11-30-2016 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 13, 2016 Department Director Approval: n Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA TITLE: Motion Consideration: Confirmation of Mayoral Appointment to Spokane Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Created in 1971, the Spokane Housing Authority (SHA) is dedicated to increasing safe, affordable housing and providing opportunities to persons experiencing barriers to housing. Annually, SHA provides housing assistance to over 5,000 families of low income through a combination of tenant -based rental assistance, SHA -owned apartment communities, and scattered site housing. The slogan of the SHA is "Providing Housing — Improving Lives." A six -member Board of Commissioners, jointly appointed by the Mayor of Spokane, County Board of Commissioners, and the Mayor of Spokane Valley governs the Authority. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Spokane Valley Resolution 03-033 declaring need and authorizing the SHA to exercise authority within Spokane Valley, and Spokane Valley Resolution 03-047 setting out the operational rules for the Authority. Since the Housing Authority is established by state law, the appointment of a commissioner is made by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. According to the SHA bylaws, this appointment must be jointly and unanimously made by the Mayor of Spokane, Spokane County Board of Commissioners, and the Mayor of Spokane Valley. During the August 23, 2016 Council meeting, Mayor Higgins recommended and the Council confirmed, the appointment of Richard Seibert to the SHA. That appointment motion was made contingent upon the confirmation by the Board of County Commissioners and the Mayor of the City of Spokane. After Mayor Higgins appointment of Mr. Seibert last August, we were later advised that both the Board of County Commissioners and the Spokane Mayor appointed Mr. Larry Johnson. Since this must be a unanimous appointment, Mayor Higgins recommends the appointment of Larry Johnson to the SHA. BACKGROUND: Mayor Higgins intends to appoint Larry Johnson to the Spokane Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. OPTIONS: Move to confirm the appointment. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to confirm the Mayoral appointment of Larry Johnson to the Spokane Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, for a five-year term beginning upon appointment confirmation by the Board of County Commissioners and upon the Mayor of the City of Spokane, and expiring March 15, 2021. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: none STAFF/COUNCIL CONTACT: Mayor Higgins ATTACHMENTS: Application from Larry Johnson mmisai® SPOKANE }i ti') lviySpoknne— City f Iall 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd, Spokane, WA 99201 509-625.6250 Aplicatiorr For Committees/Boards/Commissions The information provided on this questionnaire will be used by the Mayor and City Council in considering your appointment, Please complete each section, if applicable. 1urzaw$ .11), cl:1II% POSITION APPLYING FOR; Spokane [lousing Authority Board - Resident Commissioner Applicant's Name: L. k_.( -)k -u-\1 scc Nk Residence Address: a-A.co! V V l 1 l) RA,' 1 6 5 " `+t 1, ` Mailing Address: Email: SN\NE, as b 0/A Home Phone 541'70 { `moi &A Cell Phone: S M E How long have you been a continuous resident of the City of Spokane? / 2 YRS Are you registered to vote in the City of Spokane? k(.5 Have you ever used or been known by any other name? (*) EDUCATIONAL HIISTORY l k J High School: ?� L SC I„,i�\E.�1 I4 Gsck O® Address: Diploma Earned: G E. b Col lege/University: Address: CnMM• C t IE.6E Degree Earned: A4 r s, EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Present or Last Employer: f-1. A R . P Address: E N1\SSrONi Position: VOTER Previous Employer: CSR 10th al oR. CNTER Position: Address: Phone: V(`., it, NI 1Ee K Phone: Dates: Dates: REFERENCES The following individuals are qualified to comment on my capabilities. Please identify one personal and one professional reference. Name: Mal lin] LE E Relationship:6d 11 36 P Phone: j� �n I ` rcMlo�S\AEN i Name: -R iCeq NA l "G� Relationship: t+�VtSof-, Phone: City of Spokane Application for CommitteesBoards/Commissions October 2019 MySpakane City !loll 808 W. Spokane Falls nlvd, Spokane, WA 99201 509.625-6250 Application For Committees/Boards/Commissions Tile information provided on this questionnaire will be used by the Mayor and City Council in considering your appointment. Please complete each section, if applicable. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Describe your civic involvement in the Spokane community. VM k.)N \.EaKc--- s RO D - COMM ON l l q N- A-(4, kl,vocTE A. A RP e Nq1oy P- SEN1&5 , f CR/04 aNIcR t l CE.ki M' -R Describe why you are interested in serving on this Committee/Board/Commission. Tc) PE _ie TCS T-6 KC C(*CERiAS 0 CoIL�MUNfiY TO INA1LIi u a kk T1,, ,-r CaA T€R_ Ea abler To ciagEss kEM Describe how your specific experience makes you qualified for this particular Corrunittee/Board/Conu-nission. T Li 1i. t N S ,l Eloi t MG NO l koiz+Tr Y (40051 NG a ) OT 4\ Cos i may NeEcl a f 1 Tl ori a -c___ c2 cEvi\4s EYTER,LE ACEd N}E-. A lSS UNDERSTANDING OF APPLICtATION I, ' L. , certify that I have read and understand ail questions and statements contained in this application, further, that all statements I have made herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that if selected for a position to serve on a Committee, Board, or Commission, that I will be required to attend a majority of the meetings held. I understand that if selected for a position to serve, that I will be subject to the City's Code of Ethics set forth in Chapter 1.04 of the Spokane Municipal Code. I understand that applications are subject to the Washington State Public Records Act, which provides an exemption from public inspection and copying of certain personal infommtion as set forth in the Act. 1 understand this application authorizes a reference check and hereby authorize any individual, company, or institution with whom I have been associated to furnish the City of Spokane any pertinent information concerning my employability which they may have on record or otherwise. I do hereby release the individual, company, or institution and all individuals connected therewith from all liability for any damages whatsoever incurred in furnishing such information. NOTE: Infomiation contrary to State law- of st discri in 1' n s notisoughtor utilized. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT; tI /��W—Cfi4J DATE: 7`"/ /6 PLEASE RETURN A HARD COPY & F THIS FORM TO THE MY SPOKANE SERVICE DESK City of Spokane Application for Committees/Boards/Commissions October 2014 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 13, 2016 Department Director Approval: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading, Ordinance 16-018 Adopting Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On November 8, 2016, City Council held a public hearing and a first reading on the Comprehensive Plan, Draft EIS, and associated development regulation amendments. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(1), the City of Spokane Valley is required to conduct an update of its comprehensive plan and development regulations every eight years. The City of Spokane Valley's update is due no later than June 30, 2017. On September 29, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and associated development regulation amendments. The September 29, 2016 public hearing was continued to October 6, 2016. At the public hearing, 86 people provided written and verbal comments. A summary of the public comments is included with this report. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission began deliberations. On October 13, 2016, the Planning Commission continued its deliberations on the Comprehensive Plan Update, Draft EIS, and associated development regulation amendments. After deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend City Council approve the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and amendments to the zoning map, and amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 17 and 19, chapters 21.20, 21.40, 22.50, 22.70, and 22.130, and Appendix A, and Draft EIS, with the changes agreed to by Planning Commission at its October 6, 2016 and October 13, 2006 meetings. On October 25, 2016, staff provided the City Council, an overview of the Comprehensive Plan, Draft EIS, and development regulation amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. The discussion included the changes recommended by the Planning Commission at its October 6 and October 13, 2016 meetings as part of its voted recommendation. City Council directed staff to develop a summary sheet identifying the recommended changes to the Draft Comprehensive Plan, Draft Development Regulations and Draft EIS based on the Planning Commission's recommendation and agency comments received to date. On November 8, 2016, City Council conducted a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan, Draft EIS, and associated development regulations. The Council received 28 oral public comments. Several other comments were received in writing prior to the public hearing and those were also provided to City Council at the public hearing for their consideration. A copy of the minutes from the November 8, 2016 public hearing is included with this RCA. On November 8, 2016, City Council had a first reading of Proposed Ordinance No. 16-018. At the first reading, City Council considered the public comments received and the recommended changes from Planning Commission and staff. City Council directed staff to make changes to the Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulation amendments for the second reading. The changes requested by City Council have been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations. The changes are described in Section 2(G) of proposed Ordinance No. 16-018. Staff will provide an overview of the changes requested by City Council. OPTIONS: Approve Ordinance No. 16-018, with or without further amendments; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 16-018 repealing the existing Comprehensive Plan and certain development regulations and adopting the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance No. 16-018. The attachments to the ordinance are included in a separate notebook. o Attachment A to Proposed Ordinance No. 16-018 - Comprehensive Plan and integrated Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) o Attachment B to Proposed Ordinance No. 16-018 - Development Regulations (Titles 17 and 19 SVMC, chapters 21.20, 21.40, 22.50, and 22.70 SVMC, Appendix A, and amendments to SVMC 22.130.040) Minutes from the November 8, 2016 public hearing Land Use Map Zoning Map Draft CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 16-018 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, REPEALING THE EXISTING CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; REPEALING TITLES 17 AND 19, INCLUDING THE ZONING MAP, OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTERS 21.20, 21.40, 22.50, AND 22.70 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, AND APPENDIX A OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE; ADOPTING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE; ADOPTING UPDATED TITLES 17 AND 19, INCLUDING THE ZONING MAP, OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTERS 21.20, 21.40, 22.50, AND 22.70 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, AND APPENDIX A OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE AS REQUIRED FOR ITS 2016 UPDATE PURSUANT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT; AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 22.130.040 AS PART OF THE SAME; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 06-010, on April 25, 2006, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted its Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and associated maps as the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Spokane Valley; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 07-010, on June 5, 2007, the City adopted Title 24 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 07-015, the City adopted Titles 17 through 22 of the SVMC on September 25, 2007, which, combined with Title 24 of the SVMC, are the City's development regulations that govern and regulate land use, zoning, and building development within the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(1) and RCW 36.70A.130(5), the City is required to review, and if necessary, revise its Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations to ensure the Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations comply with the requirements of chapter 36.70A RCW (the GMA). The GMA refers to the review as an update and the City is required to complete its update by June 30, 2017 and every eight years thereafter; and WHEREAS, on November 17, 2014, the City initiated its process to review and revise, as necessary, the Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations as required by the GMA. The City has developed its updated 2016 Comprehensive Plan (the Comprehensive Plan Update) and updated Titles 17 and 19, including the Zoning Map, of the SVMC, and chapters 21.20, 21.40, 22.50, 22.70, 22.130, and Appendix A of the SVMC (together the Development Regulation Amendments); and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, which requires the City to include in its Comprehensive Plan Update an analysis of the population allocated to the City, on November 4, 2015, the Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) recommended the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) utilize a population forecast consistent with the Washington State Office of Financial Management medium forecast for 2037 and to allocate the population to cities, towns, and unincorporated urban growth areas consistent with the recommendation of the Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC). The PTAC had previously recommended a population allocation of 14,650 for the City. On August 3, 2016, the BoCC considered and adopted the population forecast and allocation recommended by the SCEO pursuant to Spokane County Resolution No. 16-0553. The City was allocated an estimated 2017-2037 population of 14,650; and Ordinance 16-018: 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Update Page 1 of 11 Draft WHEREAS, as part of the City's update, the City conducted a land capacity analysis and analyzed the population allocation made by the BoCC. The City has determined it has capacity for a 2017-2037 population of 21,852 under the Comprehensive Plan Update and that it has sufficient land capacity and availability to meet the BoCC population allocation; and WHEREAS, as part of the City's update, it conducted a Transportation System Existing Conditions Report, Existing Conditions -Housing and Economic Trends Report, Retail Improvement Strategy, and Tourism Strategy to assist with development of the Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments meet the requirements of the GMA as described in detail below in the Findings, including but not limited to consideration of natural resources, inclusion of mandatory elements, consistency internally and with Countywide Planning Policies, concurrency, and consideration of required planning actions to accommodate projected population growth through 2037; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2016, the City notified the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 providing a 60 -day notice of intent to adopt the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.035 and RCW 36.70A.140 require the City to "establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans"; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2015, the City adopted a public participation program for the Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments; and WHEREAS, since November 17, 2014, the City conducted 45 public meetings, which included meetings for community visioning, acceptance and review of citizen action requests (CARs), discussion of the City's land quantity analysis, discussion of the Transportation System Existing Conditions Report, Existing Conditions -Housing and Economic Trends Report, Retail Improvement Strategy, and Tourism Strategy, discussion of water resource inventory and planning issues, consideration of alternative housing types, a joint City Council -Planning Commission workshop, public open house, properly noticed public hearing by Planning Commission on September 29, 2016 and October 6, 2016, and a properly noticed public hearing by the City Council on November 8, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City has received 140 public comments from citizens and agencies regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all comments received; and WHEREAS, the City is required to comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) set forth in chapter 43.21C RCW et seq. and chapter 197-11 WAC in adopting the City's Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments; and WHEREAS, on January 29, 2015, the City issued a Determination of Significance for the Comprehensive Plan and associated Development Regulation Amendments; and Ordinance 16-018: 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Update Page 2 of 11 Draft WHEREAS, pursuant to SEPA and the Determination of Significance, the City issued the non - project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) on September 16, 2016. The non -project Draft EIS is integrated with the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to WAC 197-11-210. The Draft EIS was sent to agencies listed in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIS and made available to the public for comment as required pursuant to WAC 197-11-455; and WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-455, the City has considered all comments to the Draft EIS and incorporated responses within the Final EIS, to be issued concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments; and WHEREAS, the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to adopt the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments as required pursuant to the GMA. Section 2. Findings. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments. The City Council has read and considered the Planning Commission's findings. The City Council incorporates the preceding recitals and adopts them as findings, as if incorporated herein. Additionally, the City Council hereby makes the following findings applicable to the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments: A. Mandate to plan under the GMA and to complete a periodic update: The City is required to plan under the full mandates of the GMA as of the date of its incorporation on March 31, 2003. Accordingly, the City is required to review and, if necessary, revise its Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations to ensure they comply with the requirements of the GMA. The Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments meet the City's requirement to conduct the required update. B. Compliance with SEPA (chapter 43.21C RCW and chapter 197-11 WAC): 1. The City conducted an environmental review of the Comprehensive Plan Update and the Development Regulation Amendments pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), and chapter 197- 11 WAC. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-210, the City integrated its environmental review under SEPA with the update to ensure that environmental analyses under SEPA occurred concurrently with and as an integral part of the City's planning and decision making under GMA. 2. On January 29, 2016, the City made a Determination of Significance for the Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments in accordance with SEPA requirements. 3. Pursuant to the Determination of Significance and SEPA, the City issued the non -project Draft EIS September 16, 2016. 4. On September 16, 2016, the Draft EIS was sent to agencies listed in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIS and made available to the public for comment pursuant to WAC 197-11-455. 5. Pursuant to SEPA, the City accepted public comment on the Draft EIS concurrently with the public comment period on the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments until November 15, 2016. Ordinance 16-018: 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Update Page 3 of 11 Draft 6. The City has prepared and included responses to the comments received on the Draft EIS in the Final EIS. A Final EIS is being issued concurrently with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments pursuant to WAC 197-11-230. 7. The Final EIS includes concise analysis of alternatives and addresses the environmental impacts associated with the planning decisions set forth in the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments. The Final EIS considers mitigation of those significant impacts identified as a result of the Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments. The City has considered the impacts and mitigation identified in the EIS in the development and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments. The Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments incorporate the mitigation identified within the issued Final EIS and are consistent with and meet all SEPA requirements. C. Public Participation: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.140, the City has provided opportunities for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments that included broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion communication programs, information services and consideration and response to public comments. These opportunities included the following specific steps: 1. The Planning Commission conducted and/or participated in the following meetings: a. Visioning meetings on January 23, March 4, and April 15, 2015; b. Planning Commission study session, public hearings, and recommendation of Citizen Action Requests on April 23, May 14, and June 8, 2015; c. Joint City Council and Planning Commission interactive workshop on May 3, 2016; d. Planning Commission study sessions on various components of the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments on April 28, May 12, May 26, June 9, June 23, July 14, July 28, August 11, and August 25, 2016; e. Open house for the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development Regulation Amendments, and Draft EIS on September 8, 2016; f. Planning Commission study session on the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development Regulation Amendments, and Draft EIS on September 22, 2016; Planning Commission public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development Regulation Amendments, and Draft EIS on September 29 and October 6, 2016; and h. Planning Commission deliberation and recommendation on Comprehensive Plan Update, Development Regulation Amendments, and Draft EIS on October 6 and October 13, 2016. 2. The Planning Commission received 32 written and 54 oral public comments on September 29 and October 6, 2016. All comments received up to October 6, 2016, were duly considered by the Planning Commission. 3. The Planning Commission deliberated on all provisions of the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development Regulation Amendments, and Draft EIS in open public meetings on October 6, 2016, October 13, 2016, and adopted findings supporting its recommendation on October 20, 2016. 4. The City Council conducted and or participated in the following meetings: a. Kickoff on November 17, 2014; g - Ordinance 16-018: 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Update Page 4 of 11 Draft b. The City Council considered the public participation program on December 16, 2014 and adopted the public participation program on January 6, 2015; c. Visioning meetings on January 23, March 4, and April 15, 2015; d. Meetings to review and consider the CARS on June 2, 2015 and June 9, 2015; e. Discussion of various components of the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments on June 30, 2015, July 21, 2015, October 6, 2015, November 17, 2015, December 1, 2015, March 1, 2016, March 29, 2016, April 12, 2016, June 7, 2016, June 17, 2016, June 28, 2016, July 12, 2016, July 26, 2016, August 9, 2016, and August 30, 2016; f. Joint City Council and Planning Commission interactive workshop on May 3, 2016; g - Open house for the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development Regulation Amendments, and Draft EIS on September 8, 2016; h. Administrative report on Planning Commission's recommendation for the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments on October 25, 2016; i. Public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development Regulation Amendments, and Draft EIS on November 8, 2016; First reading of Ordinance No. 16-018 on the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development Regulation Amendments, and Draft EIS on November 8, 2016; and k. Second reading of Ordinance No. 16-018 on Comprehensive Plan Update, Development Regulation Amendments, and Final EIS on December 13, 2016. 5. City Council received 28 oral public comments at the public hearing on November 8, 2016. Additionally, several comments were received prior to the public hearing which were incorporated and included as part of the record considered by City Council. In total, the City has received 140 public comments. All comments received by the City have been included in the record and have been duly considered by the City Council. D. Review by Washington State Department of Commerce: Pursuant to GMA requirements, the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development Regulation Amendments and Draft EIS were submitted to Commerce on September 16, 2016. E. Comprehensive Plan Update and Final EIS Findings: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 and SVMC 17.80.140, the City Council makes the following findings with regard to the Comprehensive Plan Update and Final EIS: 1. Consistency with County -Wide Planning Policies: a. Spokane County (the County) has adopted its Countywide Planning Policies as a regional framework for comprehensive planning pursuant to the GMA. b. The Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments are consistent with the County's Countywide Planning Policies. Each chapter of the Comprehensive Plan Update includes references to applicable Countywide Planning Policies. 2. Consideration of Natural Resource Lands: a. The City has not changed its designation of agricultural and forest resource lands pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170. The City does not have lands that meet the designation criteria for agricultural or forest resource lands. b. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.131, the City has reviewed its mineral resource lands designations as part of the update. Specifically, the City has requested and reviewed data from the J - Ordinance 16-018: 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Update Page 5 of 11 Draft Washington State Department of Natural Resources (Department of Natural Resources) relating to mineral deposits within the City. While the City has existing mining and mineral extraction operations within the City limits, any lands with mineral deposits within the City are already characterized by urban growth and do not meet the RCW or WAC criteria for having long-term significance for the extraction of minerals. Accordingly, designation of such areas as mineral resource lands pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 is not appropriate as further described in the Comprehensive Plan Update. 3. Consideration of Critical Areas: a. Pursuant to RCA 36.70A.130(1)(c), the City considered and updated its critical areas regulations. Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan Update is entitled "Natural Environment Element" and designates critical areas within the City, including wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water. b. The designation of critical areas in Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan Update incorporates best available science and complies with guidelines in chapter 365-195 WAC. Section 1.5 of the Final EIS describes recent efforts that occurred as part of the City's adoption of its Shoreline Master Program to identify, designate, and protect critical areas as they relate to shoreline areas in accordance with best available science. The documents and science used to ensure no net loss of ecological function of critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction represent best available science for protection of critical areas, and were used as a foundation to designate and protect critical areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction as part of this update in order to meet GMA requirements. 4. Required Elements of the Comprehensive Plan; Compliance with GMA: a. The Comprehensive Plan Update includes all elements required by the GMA: - Economic Development Element - Land Use Element - Transportation Element - Housing Element - Capital Facilities Element - Private and Public Utilities Element - Parks and Open Space Element Further, as described above, the City has included the Natural Environment Element, which includes required consideration of natural resource lands and critical areas. In 2015, the City adopted its Shoreline Master Program pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, which is also considered in the Natural Environment Element chapter. The Shoreline Master Program is adopted and incorporated by reference in the Natural Environment Element. b. The Comprehensive Plan Update is internally consistent. The relationship of each chapter to other chapters is addressed in "The Comprehensive Planning Framework" section of Chapter One, Introduction and Vision. c. The Comprehensive Plan Update and each Element is consistent with and includes the standards and requirements of the GMA. d. The Comprehensive Plan Update meets the requirements of the City's required periodic review pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 and WAC 365-196-610. Ordinance 16-018: 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Update Page 6 of 11 Draft 5. Concurrency: The Transportation Element and Capital Facilities Element require that new development be served with adequate facilities and services at the time of development or within a specified time frame and further calls for the implementation of a concurrency management system for transportation, water, and sewer facilities. Growth, existing and future levels of service, concurrency, and financing are all considerations addressed. 6. Urban Growth Areas: a. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(1)(c), the City analyzed the population allocated to the City from the most recent ten-year population forecast by the Office of Financial Management. Specifically, consistent with Countywide Planning Policies, in 2009, the County allocated to the City a portion of the growth projected within the County. Subsequently, in 2013, the County adopted a different population projection that was greater than the projection adopted in 2009. The County's resolution adopting its new population projection was challenged and the Growth Management Hearings Board invalidated the resolution. In 2015, the Court of Appeals upheld the Growth Management Hearings Board decision. In November 2015, the SCEO voted to recommend a new population forecast consistent with the Washington State Office of Financial Management medium forecast for 2037 and to allocate the population to the cities, towns, and unincorporated urban growth areas consistent with the recommendation of the PTAC. The PTAC had recommended allocating a population of 14,650 to the City. The City initially based its review of growth on the population allocation recommended by the SCEO. Subsequently, on August 3, 2016 the BoCC adopted the population forecast and allocation recommended by the SCEO pursuant to Spokane County Resolution No. 16-0553. The City has determined that it has sufficient land capacity and availability to meet projected growth under the County's 2009 allocation, the SCEO's 2015 recommended allocation, and the population allocation for the City adopted by the BoCC. b. The City, in the development of the Comprehensive Plan Update, reviewed the densities allowed under the City's existing plan and those proposed in the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments and confirmed that the City can accommodate the projected population growth under either scenario. Accordingly, the City does not propose expanding urban growth areas to accommodate its population. The City has considered and included policies within the Comprehensive Plan Update to assess opportunities to annex lands within the existing urban growth areas. 7. Land Use Maps: The Comprehensive Plan Update includes a detailed map identifying all categories of land use within the City and its urban growth area boundaries (the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map). 8. Relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment: The City has considered the effect of the Comprehensive Plan Update upon the physical environment, open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; the impact on neighborhoods and compatibility with and consistency of all land uses within the City; the adequacy and impact on community facilities, including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; the benefit to City and region; the quantity and location of various types of land uses and density and demand for such land; the current and projected population within the City; and the anticipated cumulative effect of each Element within the Comprehensive Plan Update. The City Council finds the Comprehensive Plan Update bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. F. Development Regulation Amendments and Final EIS Findings: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 and SVMC 17.80.150, the City Council makes the following findings with regard to the Development Regulation Amendments and Final EIS: Ordinance 16-018: 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Update Page 7 of 11 Draft 1. Consideration of Natural Resource Lands and Critical Areas: a. The City does not have lands that meet the designation criteria for agricultural or forest resource lands and has not changed its designations. b. Although the City has existing mining and mineral extraction operations, the City has determined that designation of mineral resource lands is not appropriate at this time, as further described in the Comprehensive Plan Update. While the City has not designated any mineral resource lands, the Development Regulation Amendments do contain provisions to allow the continuation of the existing mining and mineral extraction operations. Additionally, the City inquired with the Departments of Natural Resources and Commerce for any new or modified model development regulations for mineral resource lands, and none were provided or identified. c. The City has designated critical areas. The Development Regulation Amendments include amendments to chapter 21.40 SVMC, Critical Areas to protect such critical areas pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060. The amendments to chapter 21.40 SVMC incorporate best available science and comply with chapter 365-195 WAC. 2. Required Development Regulations: Upon adoption of the Development Regulation Amendments, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code shall be consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Development Regulation Amendments are consistent with the requirements of the GMA and meet the requirements of the City's required periodic review pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 and WAC 365-196-610. 3. Land Use Maps: The Development Regulation Amendments include a detailed map consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map identifying all land use zoning within the City. 4. SVMC 17.80.150: a. The City Council finds the Development Regulation Amendments are consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan Update. b. The City Council finds the Development Regulation Amendments bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. G. Modifications to the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments: During its deliberations on October 6 and October 13, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the identified areas of focus that came from the community visioning sessions, City Council goals, and public comments, as well as other considerations, and recommended several modifications to the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments. Further, since release of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments, staff identified clarifications and other minor modifications to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments. Finally, the City Council also considered the identified areas of focus that came from the community visioning sessions, City Council goals, and public comments, as well as other considerations. Based upon consideration of all proposed modifications and comments, the City Council has considered and determined to take the following actions in the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments as described in further detail below: 1. Add a policy in Chapter 2 - Parks and Open Space Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan Update to support xeriscaping, water conservation, and sustainable park management methods for upgrades and new parks. This change allows the City to set an example for its citizens through water conservation and usage on publicly -owned parks property. Ordinance 16-018: 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Update Page 8 of 11 Draft 2. Designate parcels 55173.1018, 55173.1005, 55173.1019, and 55173.1020 as follows: Parcels Original draft proposed designations and zoning Planning Commission recommended designations and zoning City Council designations and zoning 55173.1018 Multifamily Residential (MFR); Multifamily Residential (MFR) Single Family Residential (SFR); Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) Single Family Residential (SFR); Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) 55173.1005 Multifamily Residential (MFR); Multifamily Residential (MFR) Single Family Residential (SFR); Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) Single Family Residential (SFR); Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) 55173.1019 Multifamily Residential (MFR); Multifamily Residential (MFR) Single Family Residential (SFR); Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) Multifamily Residential (MFR); Multifamily Residential (MFR) 55173.1020 Multifamily Residential (MFR); Multifamily Residential (MFR) Single Family Residential (SFR); Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) Multifamily Residential (MFR); Multifamily Residential (MFR) A large number of the total public comments received during this process have been related to the four parcels identified above. The majority of the public comments related to these parcels reflect a desire to designate the four parcels as SFR and R-3 to maintain the current character of the neighborhood. Further, the comments stated the concern that the traffic infrastructure currently is not sufficient to meet impacts from multifamily within the area. City Council desires to maintain Multifamily designations on parcels 55173.1019 and 55173.1020 to allow future multifamily development. 3. Designate the parcels located in the area south of Bow Avenue, west of Barker Road, north of Sprague Avenue, and east of Greenacres Road as Single Family Residential (SFR) and zone the same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban (R-3). These parcels are adjacent to the parcels described in (G)(2) above, and until the traffic infrastructure is improved, an SFR designation and R-3 zoning is appropriate in this area. Further, the current uses are primarily single family homes and so this change will maintain the character of the neighborhood. 4. Maintain SVMC 19.40.050 as originally proposed with no requirement that industrial accessory dwelling units be inhabited by the employer, operator, or employee of the company at which the industrial accessory dwelling is located. These are likely to be limited in number and impact due to the limited number of industrial dwelling units allowed per industrial project. 5. Remove SVMC 19.40.100 (small residential dwellings and small residential dwellings — supportive housing) and other small residential dwelling and small residential dwelling — supportive housing provisions in Title 19 SVMC, and reserve the text amendment for future consideration when opportunities and potential impacts of the code change are better analyzed and understood. City Council acknowledges this is a new type of residential use for the City that may present unique opportunities in the future and therefore warrants further study and consideration. However, this type of residential use raises questions and its impacts are not sufficiently understood at this time, nor is it required to accommodate the population allocation or provide affordable housing opportunities in the City. Accordingly, it is appropriate to analyze this issue further and give more detailed attention to the potential impacts, benefits, and appropriate regulations for such use. Ordinance 16-018: 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Update Page 9 of 11 Draft 6. Amend proposed SVMC 19.70.020 and Table 19.70-1, Residential Standards, to provide for a maximum density of 22 units per acre and a maximum building height of 50 feet in the Multifamily Residential (MFR) zone. This change will provide further buffer between single family residential and commercial zones and uses by limiting the multifamily density and multifamily building height to the current density and height standards. 7. Amend proposed SVMC 22.70.070(D) adding language to provide that full screening is required when a multifamily project abuts a single family residential use in multifamily zones. This change will further protect single family residential uses from impacts of multifamily, regardless of which zone the single family use is in. There are numerous single family uses in multifamily zones. 8. Designate parcel 45091.9100 as Mixed Use (MU) and zone the same parcel as Mixed Use (MU). The City Council believes the project is consistent with development in the surrounding area and the topography is a natural buffer. 9. Approve minor modifications and grammatical corrections as proposed by City staff. These provide continuity with the other portions of the SVMC and clarify certain provisions within the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulations. 10. Designate parcel 45163.0193 as Multifamily Residential (MFR) and zone the same parcel as Multifamily Residential (MFR). This change will retain the existing designation and zoning. All of these recommended changes are within the range of alternatives in the Final EIS and will either not create additional impacts or will reduce impacts identified therein. Section 3. Comprehensive Plan Repeal. The City Council hereby repeals the existing Comprehensive Plan, as initially adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 06-010 and as most recently amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 16-006. Section 4. Comprehensive Plan Update Adoption. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the City Council hereby adopts the Comprehensive Plan Update as set forth in Attachment "A." Section 5. Repeal of Certain Development Regulations. The City Council hereby repeals Titles 17 and 19 SVMC, including the Zoning Map, and chapters 21.20, 21.40, 22.50, 22.70, and Appendix A of the SVMC. Section 6. Adoption of Certain Development Regulation Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the City Council hereby adopts the updated Titles 17 and 19 SVMC, including the Zoning Map, chapters 21.20, 21.40, 22.50, 22.70, and Appendix A of the SVMC as set forth in Attachment "B." Section 7. Amendment. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the City Council hereby amends SVMC 22.130.040 and chapter 9 of the Street Standards as also set forth in Attachment "B." 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. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Ordinance 16-018: 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Update Page 10 of 11 Draft PASSED by the City Council this 13 day of December, 2016. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Ordinance 16-018: 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Update Page 11 of 11 =11 *Wane iiey i Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan DRAFT NOVEMBER 2016 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. Acknowledgments CITY COUNCIL Rod Higgins, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Pam Haley Ed Pace Caleb Collier Sam Wood Mike Munch PLANNING COMMISSION Kevin Anderson Heather Graham James Johnson Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos Michelle Rasmussen CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY STAFF Mark Calhoun, City Manager John Hohman, Community Development Director Mike Basinger, Senior Planner Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Chaz Bates, Economic Development Specialist Gloria Mantz, Development Engineer Sean Messner, Senior Traffic Engineer CONSULTANT TEAM Van Ness Feldman Community Attributes Inc. Fehr and Peers AECOM • • Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction & Vision 1-7 Chapter 2: Goals, Policies & Strategies 2-19 Chapter 3: Economic Development 3-37 Chapter 4: Land Use 4-55 Chapter 5: Transportation 5-69 Chapter 6: Housing 6-95 Chapter 7: Capital Facilities & Public Services 7-111 Chapter 8: Public & Private Utilities 8-133 Chapter 9: Parks, Recreation, & Open Space 9-143 Chapter 10: Natural Resources 10-151 Table of Maps Figure 1: Spokane Valley and the Greater -Spokane Region 1-8 Figure 12: Retail Land Use Concentrations & Trade Areas 3-49 Figure 14: Community Assets and Tourism Opportunities 3-51 Figure 16: Future Land Use Map 4-62 Figure 19: Employment Density vs. Housing Density 5-73 Figure 20: Where Spokane Valley Employees Live 5-74 Figure 21: Where Spokane Valley Residents Go to Work 5-75 Figure 24: Spokane Valley's Transportation Network 5-78 Figure 26: Existing Pedestrian Facilities 5-80 Figure 27: Existing and Recommended Bicycle Facilities 5-81 Figure 28: Existing and Recommended Transit Facilities 5-83 Figure 29: Average Daily Traffic for Spokane Valley 5-86 Figure 31: Existing LOS for Spokane Valley Roadways 5-89 Figure 32: Average Daily Traffic for Spokane Valley, 2040 5-90 Figure 33: Level of Service for Spokane Valley, 2040 5-91 Figure 45: Fire and Water Districts 7-116 Figure 46: Schools and School Districts 7-117 Figure 51: City of Spokane Valley Hydrology 10-156 Figure 52: Priority Species and Habitat Areas 10-161 Figure 53: Geological Hazards 10-163 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. CHAPTER 1 Introduction &Vision Introduction Spokane Valley is a city of approximately 94,000 people in eastern Washington, only 10 miles from the Idaho border. It is bordered by Liberty Lake to the east, Millwood to the north and Spokane to the west, and the Spokane River and Interstate 90 bisect the City on an east -west axis; as the ninth -largest city in Washington State, it is an integral part of the greater Spokane region (Figure 1). Though Spokane Valley incorporated relatively recently—in 2003—it is already a major retail destination and a recognized employment center that offers opportunity to visitors and residents alike. Figure 1. Map of Spokane Valley and the Greater -Spokane Region Source: Community Attributes Inc. (2016) r4,. Location al Spokane Valley In the Region Munloipal Boundaries .f✓�'i Y.514'yl lrtve cv.—.I111 ,A, riaydir Ai rway Ho7ghts Fairchild rif Note: for the purposes of this document, "Spokane Valley" and "the City" refer to the incorporated City of Spokane Valley. In certain parts of this document, particularly those dealing with the history of the region, "the Spokane River valley" and "the valley" refer to a larger area related to lowlands surrounding the upper reaches of the Spokane River. 1-8 As one of Washington's larger and faster growing cities, Spokane Valley is required to regularly update its Comprehensive Plan. This document includes the required update while referencing several other City plans and policies to guide growth and development for the next 20 years. This chapter, as an introduction to the updated Comprehensive Plan, contains some background about Spokane Valley's past and present, an overview of the comprehensive planning process and relevant legal frameworks, and a statement of the City's vision for the future. About Spokane Valley A brief history of the Spokane region and Spokane Valley is essential to understanding the demographic and economic trends and community priorities that underpin this planning effort. NATIVE POPULATIONS AND EARLY SETTLEMENT The Spokane Rivervalley has been inhabited for thousands of years. The earliest residents of the valley (a geographic expanse roughly stretching from the river's source at Lake Coeur D'Alene to the current location of the City of Spokane) were members of the Spokane, Coeur D'Alene, and Kalispel tribes of the Interior Salish peoples. These tribes harvested, hunted, and fished throughout the area and valued the stock of trout and salmon in local rivers and streams. They also traded extensively, which frequently brought them into contact with other tribes from the region, including the Nez Perce and Palouse. Furthermore, the valley's topography allowed the Spokane River to run broad and flat, creating a natural corridor for foot traffic and bringing diverse groups together. In 1849, Antoine Plante, a French-Canadian trapper and voyageur, arrived and built a cabin at a popular crossing of the Spokane River. By 1851 he had opened an outpost of the Hudson's Bay Company and established a ferry service, marking the first permanent non-native settlement of the valley. U.S. Army Captain John Mullan came to know Plante while building a military road through the region, and documented the quality of the ferry operation. As additional settlers, including Steven Liberty, William Newman, William Spangle, Joseph Moran, and Addison Dishman, arrived in the decades following Plante's settlement, new homes, businesses, and infrastructure projects were developed to accommodate the growth. Many of these early inhabitants have given their names to prominent natural features and built landmarks in and around present-day Spokane Valley. keturn to Table of Contents COMMUNITY SNAPSHOT • Land Area: 38.5mi2 • Population: 94,160 • Total Employment: 50,944 • Key Industries (Employment) > Retail Trade (9,650) > Health Care/Social Assistance (8,205) > Manufacturing (6,848) • Median Age: 38.4 • Educational Attainment > High School or Higher: 91.9% > Bachelor's or Higher: 20.9% • Median HH Income: $48,274 Sources: Washington OFM (2016); U.S. Census ACS (2014); U.S. Census LEND (2014) // 1-9 /, i REFERENCES KEY • 9-114 in plan Refers to other section O 1-10 Refers to other Spokane Valley plans and official documents Refers to other non -Spokane Valley references for further reading For more information on Spokane Valley's history, see: HistoryLink.org Essay No. 10,119. With the opening of the first transcontinental railroad in 1883, the valley received an influx of new settlers, many of whom were miners looking to capitalize on the discovery of silver in northern Idaho. Immigration and settlement took on new tones in 1895, when a local water company was formed to irrigate the valley with water from nearby lakes. In 1900, when Albert Kelly dug a deep well, he found an underground river that would later become known as the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. In short order, the Modern Electric Water Company and the Vera Electric Power and Water Company formed to pump and distribute this newfound and abundant source of water, thereby enabling large-scale agriculture. Apple trees became the predominant crop and by 1922, there were 1.6 million apple trees growing in the Spokane River valley. These trees were so prominent that the primary road between Spokane and Coeur D'Alene became known as Apple Way—a precursor to today's Appleway Boulevard. An 1860 watercolor by James Madison Alden depicts `Plante's Crossing" on the Spokane River, near present-day Spokane Valley. The early agricultural townships that spring up with the advent of irrigation and the maturation of agriculture were called Opportunity, Veradale, Trent, Dishman, Yardley, and Greenacres, among others. These communities retain i their unique histories and identities today, with only Millwood choosing to incorporate (in 1927) prior to the larger amalgamation of the communities as the City of Spokane Valley in 2003. DECLINING AGRICULTURE, RISING INDUSTRY As apple crops faced increasing competition from Wenatchee and Yakima, the valley began an economic transition. Though the area's orchards were being replanted with other crops or converted to non-agricultural uses as early as 1926, a deep freeze in 1955 sealed the fate of the apple industry in Spokane Valley. Timber harvesting became more prominent as a local industry, and spinoff enterprises like matchstick and paper manufacturing emerged. The rapid growth of the Spokane region continued through the early 20th century, and the expansion of electricity allowed continued economic innovation. When, prior to World War II, the federal government decided to build an aluminum manufacturing facility (the Trentwood Aluminum Rolling Mill) in the valley, widespread industrialization ensued. Government warehousing facilities were constructed as part of an Naval Supply Depot in 1942, anchoring an industrial area that would eventually become the Spokane Business and Industrial Park. Robust growth in the decades following World War II led to concerns about the environmental impacts of new development, especially on water quality in local lakes and the underground aquifer. A waste management plan and sewer system were established by Spokane County in 1983, but concerns about water quality are ever-present and represent a key policy issue to this day. SPOKANE VALLEY TODAY Spokane Valley today reflects its history as a collection of disparate agricultural communities, and the long-lasting drive for annexation between 1963 and 2003 is further evidence of the diversity of opinion surrounding the valley's future. Nevertheless, steady growth continues to push Spokane Valley forward. Between 2003 and 2014, Spokane Valley's population grew by almost 11%. Compared to county and statewide annual growth rates during the same time period, Spokane Valley grew at a slightly slower pace: 0.9%, compared to 1.1% in Spokane County and 1.2% statewide. By 2037, the City is expected to accommodate 14,650 new residents. Spokane Valley's economy is intrinsically tied to the larger regional economy, and despite a major recession that began in 2008, total employment in Spokane County increased by 8,200 jobs between 2005 and 2014 (Figure 2). Before the impacts of the recession were realized, the ten-year high was 208,900 jobs in 2007. The Spokane Valley economy, like the County economy, has taken several Return to Table of Contents years to recover lost ground and regain momentum. Nevertheless, the local economy has several strong anchors and is poised for further growth. The top three employment sectors in Spokane Valley are retail, health care and social assistance, and manufacturing. In 2014, these three industries together accounted for 48.4% of employment in the City. Demographic and economic trends that are relevant to future policy in Spokane Valley are further explored in the individual plan elements. The Comprehensive Planning Framework Spokane Valley is updating its Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW. The Comprehensive Plan is the City's official statement regarding its vision for future growth and development over the next 20 years. A comprehensive plan is a required document for the largest and fastest-growing cities and counties in Washington State, and these documents must be periodically updated. This 2017 update of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan is the first legislative update since 2006. Figure 2. Total Employment by Industry Sector, Spokane County, 2005-2014 Source: Community Attributes Inc. (2016) 250000 200,000 150.000 100.000 50,000 0 1-12 g 0, 0, O ' o w - ■ Ag/ Reso urc es ;, Construction ■FIRE m Manuf dturing ■ • Retail ■ Government Services There are several important sources of information that form the Comprehensive Plan, including GMA-required elements, linkages to the Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County (CWPPs), other local plans and policies, input from citizens and other stakeholders, and identified best practices based on established knowledge and recent trends. This section discusses each of these sources to establish a framework for the Comprehensive Plan. THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT The GMA was passed into law in 1990 by the Washington State Legislature. It is intended to prevent uncoordinated and unplanned growth, to maintain sustainable economic development, and to protect highly cherished quality of life. The act requires select cities and counties in Washington to protect critical areas and resource lands, encourage urban growth within designated urban growth areas (UGAs), prepare and regularly update comprehensive plans and implement them through capital improvements and development regulations. Spokane Valley is required to plan under GMA mandates, and this Comprehensive Plan is guided by the statutory goals and requirements of the GMA (WAC 365-196-400). Required and Optional Elements For cities and counties fully planning under GMA, there are a number of required elements, though jurisdictions may include other optional elements at will. The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan includes the following elements: • Economic Development • Land Use • Transportation • Housing • Capital Facilities • Public and Private Utilities • Parks and Open Space • Natural Environmer (includes by reference shoreline goals and policies from the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that was previously approved and adopted pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW) For more information on GMA and the legal aspects of planning, see: "A Short Course on Local Planning: Resource Guide" at www.connnnerce.wa.gov. 1-13 For more information on CWPPs for Spokane County, see the 2011 update at www.spokanecounty.org 1-14 In this Comprehensive Plan, each element is given its own chapter. The chapters are mutually reinforcing, and—individually and in sum—meet the requirements of the G MA. The following section summarizes the requirements of the G MA by element, and more detailed information about GMA requirements is provided in each element chapter. COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES FOR SPOKANE COUNTY Because the GMAapplies to cities and counties, the act places a strong emphasis on regional coordination. Under the GMA, counties work with cities to produce population projections and to allocate anticipated population growth to local UGAs. One of the fundamental duties of cities under GMA is therefore to demonstrate adequate capacity, under adopted development regulations, to accommodate the growth allocated to their UGAs. Furthermore, counties must adopt countywide planning policies that provide direction to cities on how to address certain regional priorities. The cities, in turn, must ensure that their comprehensive plans are consistent with the applicable countywide planning policies. The CWPPs for Spokane County last updated in 2011, includes a statement of principles that asserts the regional importance of continued citizen participation, preservation of neighborhood character, protection of the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, support for ethnic diversity, differentiation of urban and rural character, sustainable economic growth, and the protection of private property rights. Each element in this Comprehensive Plan discusses the planning context for relevant issues and includes reference to applicable Spokane County CWPP. OTHER PLANS AND POLICIES This Comprehensive Plan update is informed by the findings of the 2015 Housing and Economic and Transportation System existing conditions reports. These findings are interspersed, as appropriate, in their respective elements. Two other plans that were recently completed also function as guiding documents for the City's economic development efforts and Comprehensive Plan update, and are briefly described below. Retail Improvement Strategy In 2015 and 2016, the City commissioned a retail improvement strategy to provide direction for Spokane Valley's efforts to improve local retail options. Key focus areas in the strategy include: maintaining and improving the quality of existing retail centers, filling retail vacancies, pursuing differentiation from competing markets, defining the local retail experience, incorporating innovative retail projects in catalytic private developments, and promoting neighborhood -scale retail options that are accessible by walking, biking, and driving. These focus areas are reflected in the goals, policies, and strategies contained in this Comprehensive Plan. Tourism Strategy In 2015 and 2016, the City commissioned a strategic plan to improve existing efforts to drive tourism and support the hospitality industry. Themes from the strategic plan include: participation in regional tourism and event promotion efforts, a focus on outdoor recreation and natural amenities, infrastructure investments that improve the City's "curb appeal", an emphasis on fami- ly -friendly events and amenities, and improved branding and marketing of local programs and destinations. RIGOROUS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Citizen participation in community planning efforts is a valued part of the democratic process, and can include organization and advocacy, political service, event attendance, voting, and other practices. The Comprehensive Plan relies on input from citizens and stakeholders, and after Spokane Valley adopted a Public Participation Program, hundreds of people participated in the engagement process to provide robust input, and their feedback was essential. The following goals for public and stakeholder participation were identified at the outset: • Enhance the quality of and support for the Comprehensive Plan through meaningful public and agency participation in the preparation of the Plan update. • Balance the interests of our community with the interests of the state and region. • Identify issues early and evaluate options for resolution during the planning process. • Comply with all state laws and regulations related to public participation. Engagement activities included three open house workshops to support visioning, numerous City Council and Planning Commission meetings, a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop to refine draft goals and policies, Return to Table of Contents Retail Improvement and Tourism strategies are located on the City's website at www.spokanevalley.org. 1-15 The "Vision Wall" allowed participants to express their vision for Spokane Valley. Map -based activities gave participants an opportunity to offer recommendations for specific places in the city. Stickers were used to track community preferences on critical issues. 1-16 a thorough process to evaluate citizen -initiated amendment requests (CARs) and a public meeting to present the draft plan. Public involvement is ongoing and the City expects that citizens will remain involved in this update and future revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. The vision activities helped staff understand citizen priorities and develop themes to guide policy development. Those themes are presented below. Community Character The citizens and other stakeholders who participated in the visioning workshops felt that community character was important and should be an emphasis of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the feedback from these workshops encouraged the City to focus on the new City Hall and create special places, define and improve the identity of the community, expand, maintain, and leverage local trail systems, parks, and other critical amenities. Economic Opportunity Participants reaffirmed the importance of economic opportunity for all Spokane Valley residents, urged the City to support existing commercial and industrial areas, use public facilities to create economic development opportunities, and leverage community assets for broad economic benefit. Participants also felt it was important that the City maintain its current policy of fiscal responsibility and tackle concerns over code enforcement. Housing Housing is a key issue for many Spokane Valley residents and participants in the visioning workshops highlighted housing affordability, housing for seniors, and housing diversity as important challenges for the City to address. Participants also expressed an interest in having close, convenient access to amenities in neighborhoods and the preservation of the character of the City's neighborhoods. Transportation Participants affirmed that the Level of Service policy is working for transportation in Spokane Valley, but asked the City to improve multimodal connections and transportation safety, to focus on maintenance of infrastructure and the integration of new technology, to ensure freight mobility and safety, and to invest in the appearance of streetscapes and the character of the community's transportation corridors. AGENCYAND JURISDICTION OUTREACH In addition to the public involvement process, the City extensively coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions and key agencies in the development of this Comprehensive Plan update. City staff worked with the City of Spokane, Spokane County, the Town of Millwood, and Liberty Lake on regional land use planning and growth allocations that informed the growth scenarios considered with this Comprehensive Plan Update. Additionally, City staff coordinated with WSDOT and surrounding jurisdictions on potential transportation improvements, transportation level -of -service impacts, and coordination on major regional projects like the North Spokane Corridor project and Barker Road interchange improvements. Toward a Vision for Spokane Valley The City has an adopted statement that represents the community's vision and guides its planning and economic development efforts for the 20 -year planning period. That vision was vetted and reaffirmed by citizens and other stakeholders throughout the community engagement process. Through that process, several key themes related to the vision were also identified, which are listed below and incorporated into the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. /. A community of opportunity where individuals and families can grow and play and businesses will flourish and prosper. return to Table of Contents 1-17 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 1-18 CHAPTER 2 Goals, Policies & Strategies Return to Table of Contents Goals and Policies The statutory goals and requirements of the GMA, Ch. 36.70A RCW, guide the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This chapter presents the City's goals, policies, and strategies that will achieve the GMA goals and requirements and guide the City's efforts in realizing the community's vision. For the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan, goals are broad statements of purpose, policies provide specific direction to City staff, and strategies represent initial, concrete actions to direct implementation. Strategies are not binding components of the Comprehensive Plan, but rather offer opportunities for action and linkages to other plans and policies. Economic Development 2-21 Land Use 2-23 Transportation 2-25 Housing 2-27 Capital Facilities and Public Services 2-28 Public and Private Utilities 2-30 Parks and Open Space 2-31 4 Natural Resources 2-32 2-20 Economic Development GOALS ED -G1 Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. ED -G2 Create and cultivate a City brand that supports economic growth and leverages existing community, economic, and natural assets. ED -G3 Balance economic development with community development priorities and fiscal sustainability. ED -G4 Collaborate with relevant economic development stakeholders, including the business community, to grow a strong and healthy regional economy. ED -G5 Support and encourage the development of a strong workforce that is globally competitive and responds to the changing needs of the workplace. ED -G6 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability. POLICIES ED -P1 Work collaboratively with the private sector to support catalytic development projects that are consistent with the City's vision. ED -P2 Identify and encourage business and employment growth in new and innovative industries and occupations. ED -P3 Encourage businesses that provide jobs and grow local markets. ED -P4 Promote key retail, office, and industrial opportunity sites, as identified in the City's economic development studies and other planning documents (e.g. Certified Sites). ED -P5 Promote Spokane Valley as a great place to work, visit, and do business. ED -P6 Promote the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties, particularly those with potential to serve as a catalyst for economic development. ED -P7 Implement strategies that are intended to create new attractions and events that assert Spokane Valley's presence as a tourist destination. Return to Table of Contents STRATEGIES > Undertake a comprehensive branding process to create and market an identity for Spokane Valley that sells the City's inherent assets to would-be residents, employers, and visitors > Participate in regional tour- ism -promotion efforts and increase the City's presence in regional events > Evaluate the return on investment of potential tourism anchors and allocate available funds according to the findings 2-21 STRATEGIES > Consider using GIS and web -based technologies to assist business development > Intensify targeted retail recruitment efforts > Evaluate local interest in the creation of a Business Improvement District > Conduct a market analysis and initial business planning fora local farmers' market 2-22 ED -P8 Provide and maintain an infrastructure system that supports Spokane Valley's economic development priorities. ED -P9 Invest in long-term improvements to make the City a more attractive tourist destination. ED -P10 Enable the creation and retention of home-based businesses that are consistent with neighborhood character. ED -P11 Leverage federal, state, and regional economic development resources and programs for City economic development purposes. ED -P12 Leverage community assets (e.g. trails, natural amenities, and facilities) to grow the local economy. ED -P13 Implement strategies that are intended to sustain Spokane Valley's existing high value and high volume tourism segments. ED -P14 Pursue opportunities for creating public-private partnerships that will advance the City's economic development goals. ED -P15 Pursue technology-based solutions that improve assistance to businesses. ED -P16 Support local educational institutions in the development of educational and training programs that meet the needs of businesses. ED -P17 Engage local businesses to understand their needs and to assist in future growth. ED -P18 Provide positive, accessible, and customer -oriented City and public services. Land Use GOALS LU -G1 Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU -G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. LU -G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity. LU -G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. POLICIES LU -P1 Enable neighborhood -scale commercial uses in residential areas. LU -P2 Support unique, high-quality, and locally -owned retail in appropriate locations. LU -P3 Preserve the public natural features and amenities that make Spokane Valley attractive to residents and business owners. LU -P4 Enable the creation of common open spaces in neighborhoods. LU -P5 Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. LU -P6 Support neighborhood efforts to sustainably cultivate produce. LU -P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. LU -P8 Ensure that neighborhoods are served by safe and convenient motorized and non -motorized transportation routes. LU -P9 Provide supportive regulations for new and innovative development types on commercial, industrial, and mixed-use land. LU -P10 Ensure that freight -intensive operations have convenient access to designated truck routes and intermodal terminals. LU -P11 Support the remediation of environmentally -contaminated sites to return the land to productive use. Return to Table of Contents i STRATEGIES > Streamline permitting procedures based on feedback from business and landowners, developers, etc. Evaluate parking standards and reduce the amount of required parking if feasible Collaborate with the private sector to ensure the succesful redevelopment of vacant land at Mirabeau Point i 2-23 LU -P12 Maintain a robust supply of productive industrial land. LU -P13 Work collaboratively with landowners and developers that seek to provide mixed-use residential projects. LU -P14 Enable a variety of housing types. LU -P15 Encourage development in commercial and mixed-use zones by reducing parking requirements. LU -P16 Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas. LU -P17 Enable voluntary efforts by local home and business owners to improve energy performance and produce or use sources of renewable energy. LU -P18 Enable public open spaces. LU -P19 Identify and assess opportunities to annex lands within the UGAthat will benefit Spokane Valley. 2-24 Transportation GOALS T -G1 Ensure that the transportation system and investments in transportation infrastructure are designed to improve quality of life or support economic development priorities. T -G2 Ensure that transportation planning efforts reflect anticipated land use patterns and support identified growth opportunities. T -G3 Strive to reduce the number of serious injury/fatality collisions to zero. T -G4 Provide for safe and efficient freight mobility. T -G5 Maintain and enhance a comprehensive multimodal transportation system that promotes, supports, and improves the safe, efficient, and reliable movement of people, vehicles, and goods. POLICIES T- Pl. T- P2 Continue to pursue funding for the BNSF mainline separation projects of Bridging the Valley program to reduce rail/vehicle collisions, improve emergency access, eliminate vehicle waiting times, reduce noise, and improve traffic flow. Consider neighborhood traffic and livability conditions and address potential adverse impacts of public and private projects during the planning, designing, permitting, and construction phases. T -P3 Ensure that a robust street preservation program is funded and implemented. T -P4 Support voluntary efforts to beautify local and regional transportation corridors. T- P5 T- P6 Restrict high-speed traffic from residential neighborhoods. Work collaboratively with developers to ensure that areas experiencing new development are well served by motorized and non -motorized transportation options. T -P7 Provide access to sources of current information about transportation options in Spokane Valley and the region. T -P8 Support local, regional, state, and federal transportation safety programs. Return to Table of Contents STRATEGIES > Coordinate transportation planning efforts with other jurisdictions to ensure that Spokane Valley retailers and neighborhoods are well served > Identify and fund key areas for beaufication and coordinate capital improvement projects > Work with Spokane Transit Authority (STA) to provide bus shelters at strategic locations > Seek opportunities to continue to fund grade separations on Pines Road and Barker Road 2-25 T -P9 Provide and maintain quality street, sidewalk, and shared -use path surfaces that provide a safe environment for all users. T -P10 Develop a citywide trail system that provides improved access and linkages between Spokane Valley's existing trails, neighborhoods, and community amenities. T -P11 Designate appropriate freight corridors to ensure that streets/ intersections are designed to safely accommodate trucks and other modes. T -P12 Provide alternate truck routes to minimize the effects of congestion in major commercial and industrial areas. T -P13 Evaluate opportunities to improve multimodal connectivity in all transportation planning projects. T -P14 Identify and implement opportunities to improve data collection and performance monitoring for transportation in Spokane Valley. T -P15 Encourage all Commute Trip Reduction employers in the City to achieve travel reduction goals. T -P16 Provide a supportive transportation network for expansion of general aviation and freight uses at Felts Field. T -P17 Use transportation demand management techniques and technologies to move people, vehicles, and goods safely and efficiently throughout the City's transportation system. T -P18 Invest in infrastructure beautification, including landscaping, art, and walking paths. T -P19 Coordinate with Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) and Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency on actions to reduce vehicle air pollution emissions through regular vehicle inspections and to lobby federal agencies for appropriate air pollution standards that balance public health and economic growth. T -P20 Consider evaluating multimodal level of service for citywide planning efforts, particularly focusing on the quality of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. 2-26 GOALS H -G1 H -G2 H -G3 Housing Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels. Allow convenient access to daily goods and services in Spokane Valley's neighborhoods. POLICIES H -P1 Support voluntary efforts by property owners to rehabilitate and preserve buildings of historic value and unique character. H -P2 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative housing types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, pre -fabricated homes, co -housing, cottage housing, and other housing types. H -P3 Support the development of affordable housing units using available financial and regulatory tools. H -P4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families needing assistance from social and human service providers. Return to Table of Contents STRATEGIES > Identify low- and moderate - income housing needs > Continue to evaluate new housing typologies to meet market needs 2-27 STRATEGIES • Identify needed capital facilities improvements that are critical to economic development • Update wayfinding and signage for the entire City, and incorporate a consistent aesthetic or theme based on the outcome of the City's branding process Execute a citizen -supported vision for the redevelopment of the area surrounding the new City Hall Improve new and existing access points to the Spokane River • Establish criteria for prioritization of capital investments • Establish a Facilities Condition Index (FCI) to provide information for planned maintenance with set priorities and cost estimates i 2-28 GOALS CF -G1 Capital Facilities Coordinate with special districts, other jurisdictions, and the private sector to effectively and affordably provide facilities and services. CF -G2 Provide public facilities and services necessary to promote Spokane Valley's economic development goals and community priorities. CF -G3 Ensure efficient and cost-effective public safety and emergency services. CF -G4 Pursue a diverse set of capital funding sources. POLICIES CF -P1 Seek a balance between the quality and cost of providing public facilities and services. CF -P2 Optimize the use of existing public facilities before investing in new facilities. CF -P3 Coordinate the construction of public infrastructure with private development to minimize costs. CF -P4 Require adequate emergency vehicle road access and water supply/ pressure for new development within the City. CF -P5 Coordinate with a fire services provider to disseminate information about fire -wise development to property owners and land developers. CF -P6 Ensure that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service standards. CF -P7 Maintain a comprehensive emergency management plan that meets the needs of the City and coordinates with regional emergency planning efforts. CF -P8 Coordinate sewer planning with Spokane County. CF -P9 Support continued planning for domestic water needs. CF -P10 Require new development to connect to public sewer and water. CF -P11 Identify opportunities to reduce waste and increase recycling in City facilities and at City -sponsored events. CF -P12 Plan and build infrastructure to support the development of high quality retail and commercial projects. CF -P13 Coordinate with school districts in land use planning processes. CF -P14 Coordinate with school districts to use school facilities as community centers and public facilities where appropriate. CF -P15 Evaluate a variety of capital funding sources including, but not limited to, grants, local improvement districts, latecomer agreements, and impact fees to fund projects and programs. CF -P16 Plan and coordinate the location of public facilities and utilities in potential annexation areas. CF -P17 Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions in developing capital improvement programs. CF -P18 Ensure that adequate library services are available. CF -P19 Collaborate with Spokane County jurisdictions in determining the best locations for public and private essential public facilities. CF -P20 Prioritize public investments necessary to support catalytic economic development and redevelopment projects. CF -P21 Support State legislative and municipal water system efforts to convert irrigation rights to municipal water rights. CF -P22 Reassess the Land Use Element and relevant goals and policies if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs. Return to Table of Contents STRATEGIES Extend sewer infrastructure to support industrial development Extend water infrastructure to support industrial development 2-30 GOALS U -G1 Public and Private Utilities Coordinate with utility providers to balance cost-effectiveness with environmental protection, aesthetic impact, public safety, and public health. POLICIES U -P1 Promote the efficient co -location of new utilities. U -P2 U -P3 U -P4 U -P5 U -P6 U -P7 U -P8 Promote the development of citywide communication networks using the most advanced technology available. Promote the undergrounding of utility distribution lines. Coordinate with utility service providers to prevent obstructions to regional utility corridors. Require the placement of cellular facilities, substations, and antennas in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on adjacent land uses and utilizes existing structures. Coordinate with utility providers to ensure that sizing, locating, and phasing of utility systems are appropriate for planned growth. Participate in regular updates of the Inland Northwest Regional Pavement Cut Policy. Encourage the construction and maintenance of utility, communications, and technology infrastructure that will help attract business and industry. Parks and Open Space GOALS P -G1 Develop, grow, and maintain a diverse and accessible park, recreation, trail, and open space system that enhances community character. P -G2 Recognize and support local artists. POLICIES P -P1 Support performing arts, community events and relevant facilities. P -P2 Acquire land for the development of parks or the preservation of open space within the City's boundaries and adjacent UGAs. P -P3 Using the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, periodically assess recreational facilities to identify potential gaps and improvements. P- P4 Implement innovative strategies for park maintenance, park safety, and park accessibility to reduce operating costs. P -P5 Design parks and community facilities to provide easy access for pedestrians, bicycles, autos, and public transit. P -P6 Seek grants, private land donations, and other funding sources for land acquisition and recreational facilities development. P -P7 Identify and protect regional open spaces and natural areas to form a connected network of active and passive recreation areas. P -P8 Plan for access to parks, trails, and other open spaces in all neighborhoods. P -P9 Support the inclusion of artwork from local artists in public places. P -P10 Support the voluntary inclusion of common open space and public art in new development. P -P11 Partner with public and private entities to encourage, sponsor, and support a range of public activities and special events within appropriate open spaces. P -P12 Identify opportunities to transform land located in neighborhoods into pocket parks. Return to Table of Contents STRATEGIES > Leverage the Appleway Trail to improve adjacent business opportunities and create spillover effects > Seek funding to develop north -south trail connections between key east -west corridors > Evaluate the feasibility of constructing a whitewater course on the Spokane River > Evaluate the feasibility of developing a public park along the Spokane River > Evaluate the feasibility of an arts venue in Spokane Valley > Identify locations to incorporate public art in new developments or City facilities 2-31 STRATEGIES > Expand the trail network in the former "Walk in the Wild Zoo" property i 2-32 4 Natural Resources GOALS NR -G1 Pursue flood hazard reduction while providing predictability for landowners. NR -G2 Protect the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie sole source aquifer from contamination and maintain high quality groundwater. NR -G3 Ensure that Critical Areas and Shoreline Master Program regulations are based on best available science and are consistent with required environmental policy. NR -G4 Regularly update stormwater management plans for sensitive riparian areas. NR -G5 Enhance riparian and large wooden areas throughout the City on public lands. NR -G6 Review, as appropriate and based on changing circumstances, the need for mineral resource land designation within the urban setting of the City. POLICIES NR -P1 Model and delineate floodplain/floodway boundaries to correct inaccurate delineations. NR -P2 Prepare and/or regularly update watershed plans for Chester Creek, Glenrose Channel, Saltese Creek, Forker Draw, and Central Park Basin. NR -P3 Prepare an accurate, updated map of areas expected to be inundated by a 100 -year flood, particularly in the Spokane River, Forker Draw, and Glenrose Channel areas. NR -P4 Work with state agencies to improve natural resource inventory data within the City. NR -P5 Coordinate with regional collaborators to protect and improve regional water quality. NR -P6 Ensure that emergency response resources are available in the event of a spill. NR -P7 Educate the public about the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie and Spokane River's susceptibility to contamination. NR -P8 Maintain compliance with state underground injection control and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. NR -P9 Ensure that wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and critical aquifer recharge areas are identified, designated, and protected. NR -P10 Maintain stormwater plans to include inventory and maintenance of stormwater facilities. NR -P11 The City has determined that a mineral resource land designation is not appropriate at this time, but the City will enable existing mineral extraction and mining operations that are currently in lawful operation within the City. Return to Table of Contents Strategies for Implementation The strategies included on the previous pages are compiled here for reference. For each strategy, the implementation matrix provided below also explores the relationship between each strategy and the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan, designates lead staff or organization for implementation activities, outlines a time table for completion, and provides a rough sense of relative priority. Though the strategies are not mandatory for the City, they are an important window into Spokane Valley's approach to the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and they merit continued evaluation by City staff. STRATEGY Legend • Economic Development • Land Use • Transportation • Housing • Capital Facilities • Public & Private Utilities • Parks & Open Spaces • Natural Resources PRIMARY LEAD & RELATED ELEMENT(S) TIMING PRIORITY ELEMENT PARTNERS Undertake a comprehensive branding process to create and market an identity for Spokane Valley that sells the City's inherent assets to would-be residents, employers, and visitors Continue participation in regional tourism -pro- motion efforts and increase the City's presence in regional events Evaluate the return on investment of potential tourism anchors and allocate available funds according to the findings Consider using GIS and web -based technologies to assist business development Intensify targeted retail recruitment efforts Evaluate local interest in the creation of a Business Improvement District 2-34 • Economic Development • Economic Development • Economic Development • Economic Development • Economic Development • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Economic • • • Development E.D. Division; Visit Spokane E.D. Division; ValleyFest, Visit Spokane, Sports Commission E.D. Division; Visit Spokane 2017 HIGH Ongoing HIGH 2018 HIGH E.D. Division 2018 HIGH E.D. Division; Consultant E.D. Division; Spokane County 2019 MEDIUM 2019 MEDIUM STRATEGY PRIMARY LEAD & RELATED ELEMENT(S) TIMING PRIORITY ELEMENT PARTNERS Conduct a market analysis and initial business planning for a local farmers' market Streamline permitting procedures based on feedback from business and landowners, developers, etc. Evaluate parking standards and reduce the amount of required parking if feasible Collaborate with the private sector to facilitate the successful redevelopment of Mirabeau Point Coordinate transportation planning efforts with other jurisdictions to ensure that Spokane Valley businesses and neighborhoods are well served Identify and fund key areas for beautification and coordinate capital improvement projects • Economic Development • Land Use • Land Use • Land Use • Transportation • Transportation Work with STA to provide bus shelters at strategic • locations Transportation Seek opportunities to continue to fund grade separations on Pines Road and Barker Road Identify low- and moderate -income housing needs Continue to evaluate new housing typologies to meet market needs Identify needed capital facilities improvements that are critical to economic development Update wayfinding and signage for the entire City, and incorporate a consistent aesthetic or theme based on the outcome of the City's branding process Execute a citizen -supported vision for the redevelopment of the area surrounding the new City Hall • Transportation • Housing Housing • • • • • E.D. Division; Spokane Regional Health District Building and Dev. Services Building and Dev. Services • • • • • E.D. Division Public Works; • • v• adjacent jurisdictions, STA • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • Capital • • Facilities • Capital • • • Facilities • Capital Facilities Return to Table of Contents Public Works; WSDOT Public Works; STA Public Works; Chamber of Commerce, GSI E.D. Division; Spokane Housing Authority ED Division; Homebuilders Association E.D. Division and Public Works E.D. Division; Downtown Partnership 2019 MEDIUM Ongoing HIGH 2017 LOW 2017 HIGH Ongoing HIGH Ongoing HIGH 2020 MEDIUM 2020 HIGH 2024 LOW 2024 LOW 2017 HIGH 2020 LOW • • • • • E.D. Division 2020 MEDIUM 2-35 STRATEGY PRIMARY LEAD & RELATED ELEMENT(S) TIMING PRIORITY ELEMENT PARTNERS Improve new and existing access points to the Spokane River Establish criteria for prioritization of capital investments Establish a Facilities Condition Index (FCI) to provide information for planned maintenance with set priorities and cost estimates • Capital Facilities • Capital Facilities • Capital Facilities • • • • • • • • • • • • Parks; • Department of 2020 MEDIUM Ecology • Administration 2022 MEDIUM • Administration 2022 MEDIUM Extend sewer infrastructure to support industrial • E.D. Division; 2022 HIGH development Public and • • • • Spokane County Private Utilities Extend water infrastructure to support industrial development Leverage the Appleway and Centennial Trail to improve adjacent business opportunities Seek funding to develop north -south trail connections between key east -west corridors Evaluate the feasibility of constructing a whitewater course on the Spokane River Evaluate the feasibility of developing a public park along the Spokane River Evaluate the feasibility of an arts venue in Spokane Valley Identify locations to incorporate public art in new developments or City facilities Expand the trail network in the former "Walk in the Wild Zoo" property 2-36 • E.D. Division; Public and • • • • Consolidated 2022 HIGH Private Utilities Irrigation District • E.D. Division; Parks and Open • • • • adjacent 2018 MEDIUM Space businesses • Parks; Resource Parks and Open • • • • Conservation 2020 LOW Space Office • E.D. Division; Parks and Open • • • • Department of 2017 HIGH Space Ecology • Parks and Open Space •• • • E.D. Division 2017 MEDIUM • Parks and Open • • • Space • Parks and Open Space • Natural Resources E.D. Division 2017 MEDIUM • • • • • E.D. Division 2018 LOW Parks; Department 2020 LOW • • • of Natural Resources CHAPTER 3 Economic Development keturn to Table of Contents /. REFERENCES KEY • x-xx 3-38 Refers to other section in plan Refers to other Spokane Valley plans and official documents Refers to other non -Spokane Valley references for further reading Introduction WHYTHE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT IS IMPORTANT Economic development creates living wage jobs, builds valued community amenities, and generates additional municipal revenues that can be used to maintain service levels, infrastructure, and facilities. All other Comprehensive Plan elements play a role in attracting and retaining companies, increasing their productivity, and growing the local and regional economy. In that sense, the Economic Development Element is integrative and depends on effective land use regulations, quality parks and recreation amenities, efficient transportation infrastructure, reliable utilities and infrastructure, affordable housing opportunities, sustainable resource management, and responsible fiscal policy. Put simply, economic development is intertwined in all of the City's services and roles and is reliant on a dynamic and thoughtful approach to land use planning. Proactive and innovative economic development efforts are responsible for attracting, recruiting, and retaining office, industrial, and commercial and residential uses within a city. This element is therefore focused on harnessing market forces to encourage the implementation of Spokane Valley's vision. The Economic Development Element therefore provides a comprehensive overview of Spokane Valley's economy, sets policy direction for economic growth, and identifies strategies, programs, and projects to improve the economy. PLANNING CONTEXT Economic development is one of the fundamental goals under the GMA. As a whole, the Economic Development Element attempts to merge the efforts of the public and private sectors—the public sector has the ability to mold and influence development, but it is often the private sector that implements the community vision through private investment. Moreover, the GMA stipulates that the Economic Development Element promote economic opportunity for all citizens, particularly individuals who are unemployed or otherwise disadvantaged. Lastly, the GMA also prescribes a balance between economic growth and the efficient use of land and natural resources, which means that economic development efforts must be based in sustainable planning paradigms. The Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) for Spokane County build upon the statewide economic development goals by calling for additional cooperation between regional stakeholders, including adjoining eastern Washington and northern Idaho counties. Engagement with the widespread community fosters economic development in central business areas, and facilitates collaboration in planning for housing and regional transportation facilities. In the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, the City acknowledged that the local economy is largely dependent on retail and service sectors. That iteration of the Comprehensive Plan focused on the diversification of the City's economy and increasing economic stability. Continued efforts are needed to achieve these goals and to create positive externalities in housing, transportation, and other related areas. Current Conditions Spokane Valley has a diverse economy with a robust retail sector. Understanding this economy is essential to identifying challenges and opportunities for economic development in the City. SPOKANE VALLEY'S ECONOMIC DRIVERS Spokane Valley's share of jobs by sector is comparable to Spokane County as a whole (Figure 3). Both the City and the County economies are dominated by services, accounting for 54% and 56% of jobs in Spokane County and Spokane Valley in 2014, respectively. The City and the County also had similar shares of jobs in the wholesale trade, transportation, utilities, and construction sectors. Compared to Spokane County overall, Spokane Valley had a notably larger share of retail jobs in 2014-15% versus 20% in the City. Looking at the County as a whole, which provides important context for local data, the number of jobs in Spokane County remained steady despite some minor fluctuations between 2005 and 2014 (Figure 4). The difference between the nine-year high and low -2008 and 2010, respectively—was approximately 13,000 jobs. In 2014, the County had a total of 205,700 jobs. In addition to minimal fluctuation in the number of jobs in the County, the mix of employment also remained relatively constant between 2005 and 2014. During the nine years represented in the data, the number of service jobs increased by more than 9,700 and government jobs increased by 1,400. In contrast, Countywide manufacturing and construction jobs decreased by 2,000 and 1,700, respectively. Focusing on Spokane Valley, the top three employment sectors in the City were retail, health care and social assistance, return to Table of Contents 8% 2 9 7% 99 Figure 3. Share of Jobs by Sector, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2014 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics QCEW (2014) I00% 90% 8096 706 60% 50% 4096 30% 20% 106 0% ■ Ag/Resources me FIRE • lviartufacturins isConstruction • WTU • RetailTrade Services Spokane County Spokane Valley Note: Above employment is delineated by 2 -digit NAICS, where 'FIRE' represents Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate activities and 'WTU' represents Wholesale Trade, Transportation, and Utilities activities. The `Services' sector encapsulates 13 different 2 -digit NAICS that include service industries related to transportation, warehousing, and utilities as well as professional, educational, and health care services, among others. Figure 4. Total Employment by Industry Sector, Spokane County, 2005-2014 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics QCEW (2014) Jobs 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 3-40 rh-3iv rr ) m+ n) w ra` 8 8 8 8 8 U5 O+ - C4 'D Q W hJ i) $► ■ Age. Re sources Construction ■ FIRE • ManufacturinE I•TU • RetaiI • Government ■ Services and manufacturing. In 2014, these three industries together accounted for 48.4% of employment in the City. Employment gains and losses are excellent regional economic indicator and provide a sense of the region's economic trajectory. Unemployment in the U.S. Census -defined Spokane -Spokane Valley metropolitan statistical area (MSA) mirrored many regions of the state over the last decade, with a dramatic loss of jobs starting in 2008 and a steady, if not consistent, recovery beginning around 2011 (Figure 5). At the peak of the recession, 27,300 individuals were unemployed (in 2010), accounting for an unemployment rate of 10.4%. In 2015, the unemployment rate was comparable to the 2004 rate -6.6% in 2015 compared to 6.8% in 2004. Spokane Valley has a major retail presence in the region, which includes a diverse range of establishments. In terms of the number of establishments within the City, the largest percentage (19%) of retail offerings in Spokane Valley are food service and drinking places (Figure 6). Miscellaneous store retailers (representing a broad mix of typically smaller -footprint retailers) and motor vehicle and parts dealers also accounted for sizable portions of Spokane Valley's retail mix -13% and 12%, respectively. Another valuable economic indicator is taxable retail sales, which is not only a good measure of a City's retail environment, but also benefits municipal revenues. Motor Vehicles and Parts is the largest retail spending category in Spokane Valley measured by retail sales per capita (Figure 7). General Merchandise stores are also a major spending category within the City, representing purchases made at national -brand and big -box retailers like Target and Fred Meyer. These two categories combined represent two-thirds of all retail sales in Spokane Valley. For comparison, General Merchandise stores also generate significant taxable retail sales in the City of Spokane. However, the largest spending category in the City of Spokane is Food Services and Drinking Places, thus illustrating a stark difference in terms of retail offerings between the two cities. REAL ESTATE MARKET CONSIDERATIONS Between 2007 and 2016, commercial square footage in Spokane Valley increased by roughly 700,000 square feet (Figure 8). Industrial square footage has increased nominally, with development in retail and office -zoned space driving the commercial growth in the City. Return to Table of Contents Figure 5. Average Unemployment by Year, Spokane -Spokane Valley MSA, 2005-2014 Source: Washington State Employment Security Department (2015) Jobs 30000 0A1 8 0.09 210''60 17660 0.07 0.05 0,03 0.01 -0.01 ra N.) N.) ra r ▪ r.0 r-' F.) IQ a 1-1 • IQ w imam Total Unemployment Unemployment Rate Office Historically, office rents in Spokane Valley have been higher compared to Spokane County (Figure 9). In the first quarter of 2016, however, the City's average office rent was slightly lower than in the County—roughly $14 compared to about $16 per square foot. Similarly, the vacancy rate for office buildings in Spokane Valley has been much higher and more volatile than the countywide vacancy rate for office property. Immediately after the 2008-2009 recession, the Spokane Valley office vacancy rate jumped from about 20% to over 32% and remained at that level until the third quarter of 2009. Since then, the office vacancy rate has fluctuated between 17% and 25%. Conversely, the office vacancy rate across the County has generally remained between 10% and 13%. High vacancy indicates there may be an oversupply of office space in Spokane Valley. To address this oversupply, the City's existing areas zoned exclusively for office may be modified to allow a broader range of market-driven uses. 3-42 Figure 6. Retail Establishment Mix, Spokane Valley. 2015 Source: Hoovers (2015) • Food Services & Drink ing Places 1.02 0.02 0,013 Mise StOre Retailers =v Motor Vehicles Parts and Dealers 111 Performing Arts, Spectator 5Ft2rrts S Related Industries MI Food & Beverage Stores Clothing & C.lotliengAccessories Stores 111 Building tvl aterial & Gardening Fr,uiwen t Supplies Dealers El Sporting Goods. Hohti.yr, Rank & MJsic Storrs ▪ F urnittire & Hr me Furnishings Stores • Flectronits & Appliance Stores ▪ .CCOnirnOdation ▪ ige l#h& Personal Care Stores ▪ Narts#ore lietallers General Mercharelse Stores Gas StatIans Industrial Industrial vacancy in Spokane Valley has been volatile compared to the County overall. (Figure 10). Between 2009 and 2012, the vacancy rate in the City was subject to considerable seasonality—the rate peaked in the first two quarters and dipped in the final two of the year. Additionally, between the latter half of 2012 and the end of the 2015, the industrial vacancy rate in the City dropped from 15% to 5%. In the first quarter of 2016, the rates countywide and in the City were 3% and 5%, respectively. Industrial rents have historically been lower in Spokane Valley compared to the County. Between 2013 and 2015, industrial rents in Spokane Valley and the County remained within $0.50 of each other per square foot. By the first quarter of 2016, the countywide rent was a little over a $1 per square foot higher than in Spokane Valley. While still low compared to the County, industrial rents in Spokane Valley have generally been rising incrementally since 2010, with the exception of a drop in early 2015. Despite indications of demand, with rising rents and dropping vacancy, Spokane Valley has seen little new industrial development since 2008. This may indicate that current new demand is utilizing excess existing space, and that new industrial development may occur if these trends continue. There is Return to Table of Contents a significant quantity of vacant and underutilized industrial land, concentrated mostly in areas formerly designated exclusively heavy industrial. Vacant land in both industrial designations accounts for 46.4% of Spokane County's total commercial and industrial capacity, climbing to 68.2% when including underutilized industrial land. By updating industrial designations to be more flexible, the City can be more competitive in attracting new businesses that may have previously been limited in finding space appropriate for their needs. Figure 7. Retail Sales per Capita by Retail Type, Spokane Valley, Spokane, and Washington State, 2014 (2014$) Source: WA Department of Revenue (2014) Retail Type Motor *hick. and Parts General Merchandise Clothing and Clothing =11 $944 Accessories Sporting Goods, Hobby.Book and Music euilding Material and Garden Eq uPprnent GasollneStatlons M Istel laneous RRl�rillrS, Nonstare Reta Iters EtC'CteUre its a nil A pitC+k F d5a'rviit, sansl()iiirking Place3 Fur nitire and Home Furrxi shin gs Atom modati on I-wd and St4tragt Stowe Per :.rrn IngA rt s, Spectator Sports Heath and Ptex ulCi# 3-44 $3,134 ■ Spaicane Va fey 5pckme ■ Washri or Sr ie + as t Mir.ckw w S Taxable Retard Sales Per Capita Retail Spokane Valley features several major retail centers along Sprague Avenue and 1-90, including the Spokane Valley Mall, with additional retail space spread throughout the City along arterial streets. Although the City is home to a number of larger format retailers and major national brands are well represented, the most prevalent type of retail in terms of locations and space are smaller scale restaurants, bars and other miscellaneous retailers. Almost half of Spokane Valley's food service establishments are considered fast food restaurants. Figure 8. Commercial Square Footage by Type, Spokane Valley, 2007-2016 Source: CoStar Group (2016) Square Feet Millions • Office 1Ix'rdlustriat ■Retail 12 10 8 4 2 0 9,1 9, 9,4 9.4 9.5 9.5 9,6 9.7 9.7 9.8 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2076 Between 2007 and the first quarter of 2016, the rent associated with retail space was lower in Spokane Valley than it was in Spokane County as a whole (Figure 11). At its lowest, in the first quarter of 2007, the retail rent in Spokane Valley was roughly $2.50 per square foot cheaper than in Spokane County overall. From 2007-2011, retail vacancy rates in Spokane Valley were higher than the County overall. However, after spiking at 11% in 2012, vacancy has dropped to 6%, below the countywide vacancy rate. Retail rents in Spokane Valley have also been climbing since 2013, and while they remain slightly lower than the countywide rate, the countywide rate has been relatively flat. These two points in tandem indicate a demand for more retail space within Spokane Valley. Despite this demand, there are areas where retail space is underdeveloped or in poor condition. Return to Table of Contents Figure 9. Office Rents and Vacancy Rates, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2007-2016 Source: CoStar Group (2016) Rent per Rate $25 $20 $15 $10. 0,a $5 VacanCty Countywide Rent 0,4 Spokane Valley Ren Countywide vacancyliate 0,35 S pnka ne Valley Vacancy Rate 0.3 0,25 0.2 0,15 0.05 S0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 The retail sector in Spokane Valley employed more than 9,600 individuals— almost 19% of total employment—in 2014, making it the largest industry by employment in the City (though not all of these employees are Spokane Valley residents). Spokane Valley's retail is spread throughout the City's major travel corridors where larger clusters are anchored by big -box retailers, such as Target, Costco, Fred Meyer, and Home Depot as well as the Spokane Valley Mall (Figure 12). Previous trade capture analyses (which measures the ability of local retailers to capture local spending power) indicate that Spokane Valley's retail establishments draw shoppers from throughout the region and demand for retail space is strong. At the same time, the local retail market is dominated by centers anchored by big -box tenants and retail sales have been relatively slow to recover from the recession. The community also desires more small scale, neighborhood retail establishments, which may struggle to compete with existing national chains. Generating "more rooftops" through increased residential density near commercial areas can help support neighborhood retail by increasing local demand. 3-46 Figure 10. Industrial Rents and Vacancy Rates, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2007-2016 Source: CoStar Group (2016) Rent per Rate $6 $5 $4 $3 CountywdrieRent a?14,12n7 2 Cauntywidcvacancy Rate Spokane Valley Vacancy Rate $1 S0 0 2001 2008 20D9 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Tourism Spokane County has a significant tourism industry and tourism represents a major component of the regional economy. For example, direct visitor spending in Spokane County in 2015 was $947 million, generating $322 million in earnings, 10,040 employees, $23 million in local taxes, and $41 million in state taxes. Although many well-publicized tourism amenities and events are associated with the neighboring City of Spokane, the Spokane Valley's ability to attract visitors and outside spending is an important component of the local economy. In Spokane Valley, employment in sectors related to tourism and visitation accounted for a larger share of overall employment than in the City of Spokane or Spokane County -31% compared to 23% and 26%, respectively (Figure 13). Overall employment in tourism -related sectors is much less in Spokane Valley than in Spokane and Spokane County. However, the share of total employment is much greater. In Spokane Valley, this is due to a thriving retail trade sector, representing more than 18% of total employment in the City; the food and drinking services sector also represents a larger portion of overall employment in Spokane Valley than in Spokane or Spokane County. Return to Table of Contents The Capital Facilities Element identifies • specific improvements 7-132 slated for industrial areas. The Spokane Valley Mall is a major retail destination for the region. 3-47 Figure 11. Retail Rents and Vacancy Rates, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2007-2016 Source: CoStar Group (2016) Rent per Rate 'vacancy $14 0.12 $12 0.1 $10 0.08 $8 0.06 $6 Countywide Rant 0.04 $4 Spok nc Valley Tent Countywide Vacancy Rate $2 Spokane V2ilay Vacancy Rata 0.02 $0 0 2007 2005 2009 2010 2011 2012. 2013 2014 2015 Spokane Valley's environment and natural resources are some of the most valuable tourism assets the City has to offer. Critical recreation amenities include the Spokane River, mountain bike parks at Camp Sekani, hiking trails in Dishman Hills, the Appleway and Centennial Trails, Mirabeau Park, and more distant features such as Mt. Spokane and Lake Coeur D'Alene. These recreation amenities draw numerous visitors each year, and provide a distinctive identity for Spokane Valley destinations. The Spokane River/Centennial Trail corridor provides a major recreational opportunity for regional visitors, and the new Appleway Trail extensions present opportunities to link recreational amenities with businesses along East Sprague, the City Hall site, the Heritage Museum, and other community resources. Additionally, there is a significant amount of meeting space at CenterPlace, which is utilized for conferences and major gatherings. Many amenities and facilities lack connections, a notable example being the lack of lodging facilities within a walkable distance of CenterPlace or the Spokane County Fairgrounds. Spokane Valley's restaurants and retail offerings are essential amenities for visitors. Visitors seeking convenience or a more curated experience turn to the clustering of retail and services around other tourist draws. The geographic distribution of these amenities can provide insight into successful existing concentrations as well as areas that may be in need of amenities for tourists and residents alike. Many of these amenities are represented on the map in Figure 14. 3-48 Figure 12. Map of Retail Land Use Concentrations & Trade Areas, Spokane Valley, 2016 Source: Spokane County Assessor (2015); Community Attributes Inc. (2016 EM ■ ✓' rSryCaCFt`WcilbY',t ]II Ant walrriol'1 SUP8rCenteri tiv E MksKv Aro Liberty Lees I rr.drt Fred Melees CoMotW i1rr,Pr1/ Horne QepolILowe IUniveetlily ShappiN Conrur E 1;61111 ileer 27 Pt Muni�ipti l ®Cundntiet !co., Retail Uses - r.1! I= Al edbei kite v.tlYecdat sn � ','1X1ArchoryM Truants f � - / The Spokane Valley Mall is a major retail draw for the region, and has a wide capture area that draws visitors to the community. The East Sprague Avenue corridor offers a significant number of retail options, including a notable number of locally -owned businesses. The restaurants located near the highway, particularly on North Sullivan Road, focus on limited service options that are co -located with an array of lodging options. Return to Table of Contents os 1 x 3Mlles 3-49 Figure 13. Tourism -Related Employment, Spokane Region, 2014 Source: WA Employment Security Department (2015) Employment 250,000 ■ 200,000 All Other Employment Tourism- Related Employment de 161,820 150.000 100.000 124,140 31'16 50,000 0 21,980 15,120 MIIFICT1.;71111 Spokane Va Iley 37,680 Spokane Jurisdiction 26% 205,680 161,760 Spokane County Approach to the Economic Development Element CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Developing and Disseminating a Brand Many stakeholders have suggested that the City lacks a cohesive, marketable identity for economic development purposes. A branding process is currently underway, but this creates both the challenge and the opportunity to disseminate this brand, incorporating it into City marketing and promotional materials and building regional traction. 3-50 Figure 14. Map of CommunityAssets and Tourism Opportunities Source: Community Attributes Inc. (2016) E Mhduaon=,e Spokane Business Si Industrial Park Spokane County x Fairgral rids C M434..00iiue Liberty LAIN €13.cudw.n x.r -Spokane Valley llh;ary -SpokaneVanerihtei'itageMuseum p. Air 161tP14.4.r. Spokane Volley Assets & Opportunities s _I 1+lunitipnl BOundsriei 72 SlrJi ale S':at reol _.,0 ,0 Area ILICA — Di5t Shared 11.19 C Path Gromsed ares,red use Pali gr Pudic°choc[1341 at PriaaleSchool 13?) :ane Val ler Rag' mars F.ar�s=PecrNr("Pen Spec. f ! _ _ ArSSeU 'Labeled) F2'ra¢'Ava rarxv"+xa�x �'r = Leveraging Interstate 90 Access Spokane Valley has strategic access to Interstate 90, as well as proximate air and container freight and rail terminals. Furthermore, the City has an ample supply of industrial and commercial land, some of which is located within a 325,000 square foot Foreign Trade Zone in the Spokane Industrial Park on SR 290. Spokane Valley has an opportunity to continue to leverage these assets when recruiting businesses to the City and should compete strongly for regional industrial development. Return to Table of Contents 2 3 Kies 0 3-51 COMMUNITYAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES Expanding Tourism Offerings Detailed market data indicate that there is an opportunity to improve capture of Spokane Valley's existing high-volume and high-value tourist segments while expanding to reach new customer bases. This requires investment in local amenities and the development of new attractions. Ongoing strategic planning for tourism in Spokane Valley can complement this update of the Comprehensive Plan and provide suggestions for targeted investments with high return -on -investment for the City and its residents. Capitalizing on Outdoor Recreation The prevalence of outdoor recreation options should be an economic advantage for the City, in addition to a quality of life feature. The area's vast hiking, biking, climbing, fishing, and skiing options should drive overnight stays in the City, and strategic investments in recreation infrastructure, as well as marketing of local assets, can bolster economic development efforts. Improving the Retail Cluster Retail is a leading sector for Spokane Valley, but many residents feel that the City lacks smaller, neighborhood -oriented and locally -owned retail and dining options. Updates to the development regulations will provide retailers with additional flexibility, but the City can increase its efforts to grow and attract new and unique retail options that differentiate Spokane Valley from other cities in the area. Supporting Commercial Growth The City of Spokane Valley serves as a major regional employment center and should continue to do so. There is opportunity to capture regional growth and to encourage development of high quality industrial, flex, and office space to attract new companies looking for more affordable and strategically located space to grow and expand in. The City should focus on positioning itself as a cost effective alternative in the region and identify areas where office and commercial development can complement each other and take advantage of the City's unique suite of amenities. 3-52 BEST PRACTICES Engaging Partners and Stakeholders Spokane Valley's economic development priorities rely, in part, on regional events and attractions. Beyond these attractions, though, attempts to work with local and regional economic development partners and other stakeholders, including the local business community, may be a force -multiplier for the City's economic development efforts. Return to Table of Contents THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 3-54 return to Table of Contents /. REFERENCES KEY • x-xx 4-56 Refers to other section in plan Refers to other Spokane Valley plans and official documents Refers to other non -Spokane Valley references for further reading Introduction WHY THE LAND USE ELEMENT IS IMPORTANT Land use regulations determine what can be built, at what density, and in which location. In considering Spokane Valley's anticipated growth over the next 20 years, the Land Use Element provides a framework to accommodate future development while enhancing the community's quality of life. In many ways, the assumptions in the Land Use Element form the basis for growth -related planning found in the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING CONTEXT The GMA establishes the Land Use Element as the required foundation to the Comprehensive Plan. This chapter includes a map that designates the proposed general distribution, general location, and extent of various uses of land. Additionally, it identifies population densities and building intensities for new land use designations, and is designed to accommodate estimates of future population growth. More specifically, the GMA requires cities to regulate the location and intensity of land uses, and to establish a framework that can accommodate 20 years of anticipated growth within a specified urban growth area. Specific regulations are included in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) that implement the Land Use Element. The City's previous Comprehensive Plan focused on encouraging more compact, diverse forms of commercial and residential development. This goal signaled a transition from a purely suburban, auto -oriented development pattern to one that fosters more diverse, mixed-use neighborhoods. At the same time, this goal has not been fully realized; an economic recession and continued market support for single family housing has slowed the transition. However, community members reaffirmed a desire for more compact and convenient residential and commercial centers, where diverse amenities are located nearby. To continue moving toward this vision and to meet the goals of the GMA, this Comprehensive Plan streamlines zoning and development regulations to allow greater flexibility in commercial and mixed-use zones and maximize responsiveness to the local market. Current Conditions Modern Spokane Valley, which was incorporated in 2003, began as a diffused collection of agricultural communities. Residential areas were characterized by large lots, and commercial areas cropped up along highways and major arterials that connected residents to other towns throughout the Spokane River valley and, later, up and down the Interstate 90 corridor. This original rural development pattern persists today, with single family homes and auto -oriented commercial uses predominating. Though development patterns in the City are changing, future land use patterns evolve from this historic point of departure. Typically, individual development projects financed and built by private landowners and developers compose the large majority of urban areas, but those development projects are constrained by the land use and zoning regulations adopted by public entities. These regulations balance the need to protect the health, safety, and public welfare of residents with the constitutional duty to maintain individual liberties. Broadly, adopted regulations respond to demographic, economic, and market trends to align Spokane Valley's land use framework with current and anticipated conditions. CONTINUED POPULATION GROWTH Development in the Spokane River valley predates Spokane itself, beginning thousands of years ago with people of the Interior Salish tribe. In the 19th century, several fur trading settlements also grew along the Spokane River. After the area was irrigated in the early 20th century, Spokane Valley's orchards thrived, and the population grew, creating townships like Opportunity, Veradale, Greenacres, and Dishman. Several of Spokane Valley's current neighborhoods take their names from these early communities. In years when agricultural production waned, local farmers began to sell land for housing development. When population growth rapidly accelerated following World War II, the majority of Spokane Valley's remaining orchards were replaced with housing and low -intensity commercial development. This decentralized suburban growth pattern continued through incorporation in 2003. Today, the City offers a mix of residential and commercial uses, including office, retail, and industrial properties. Commercial uses are located primarily along major arterials, particularly Sprague Avenue, Argonne Road, Mullan Road, Sullivan Road, and Pines Road. The residential neighborhoods between these Return to Table of Contents Figure 15. Current Land Use by Acreage, Spokane Valley Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2015 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 5.6 6,5% 14.86 18.2, ExemptlUtilities ■ Mu Iti-family ■ Industrial Vacant Land • General Commercial • Single Family Residential Economic Development • Element contains 3-41 additional real estate data. 4-58 corridors consist largely of single family dwellings. At the same time, the City is poised to become more urban, with a growing stock of multifamily housing. Single family residential is still the City's dominant land use, encompassing 49.7% of its area. Almost 15% of the City's land is characterized as vacant. Figure 15 provides a breakdown of land use by acreage for major land use categories. Spokane Valley has experienced steady, but modest population growth since its incorporation, growing at a rate of about 1% per year. The City's estimated 2016 population was 94,160 according to the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM), making Spokane Valley the ninth -largest city in Washington. Under the GMA, Spokane County makes a projection of the total countywide population and employment in 2037, and allocates anticipated population growth to its incorporated cities. The cities, in turn, must then adopt regulations that can accommodate this allocated growth. The County's current population allocation assumptions anticipate Spokane Valley's modest growth pattern to continue, resulting in a 2037 population of 109,913 in Spokane Valley. Growth may occur steadily over time or in concentrated bursts; annexation, for example, often accelerates overall growth. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS As noted earlier, private businesses and residents are typically responsible for the financing and construction of the development projects that execute the City's land use vision. Therefore, there are several market-based factors that affect the way a city grows. As Spokane Valley sees renewed interest in development opportunities after the Great Recession, these factors become increasingly important in understanding how land use regulations affect development opportunities. Generally, new real estate products have infiltrated many cities in the United States over the last several years. These products, which are less challenging to finance and build now than they have previously been, require that regulations offer flexibility to developers that hope to create innovative projects. The following sections describe some of these innovations for each major use category, though additional real estate data is located in the Economic Development Element. The changes described below may or may not be clearly visible in Spokane Valley, but many are also consistent with the themes espoused by City residents during the stakeholder engagement process. Residential Many Spokane Valley residents have expressed a desire to maintain a stock of large -lot single family homes, and adopted zoning and development regulations ensure that this typology will continue to be available within the City. However, the largest shift in housing over the last decade has been renewed interest in multifamily development. This shift is a response to demand for apartments from young and old alike. Often, younger people value the flexibility of rental agreements (compared to the long-term commitment of a mortgage); older individuals increasingly seek to downsize to minimize property maintenance requirements. Both populations have developed a well-documented preference for living in close proximity to amenities like arts and entertainment, restaurants, parks and open spaces, public transportation, and even employment centers. This requires higher -density housing in centrally -located areas. Multifamily housing doesn't meet the needs of every consumer, however. For individuals and families that require the space of a single family home but still want some of the neighborhood amenities mentioned above, new housing products offer a compromise. Specifically, traditional neighborhood or new urbanist development styles have increased in popularity. These styles are characterized by well-connected streets that are safe for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles, varied housing types at moderate densities and robust public spaces. In Spokane County, Kendall Yards offers the most prominent example of this type of development, though Spokane's Perry District also illustrates some of these concepts. To improve access to amenities and affordability for residents, detached single family products like cottages and tiny homes are also on the rise. These small units typically offer a private space that shares a yard and are designed to increase densities in existing single family neighborhoods while blending in with the architectural scale and character of the neighborhood. These increased densities, in turn, improve the feasibility of small-scale, neighborhood -serving retail projects like coffee shops and corner stores. Retail Retail uses are also changing in response to some of the trends described above. As consumers increasingly prefer to live close to certain amenities, retailers are rewarded for embracing more urban models. This trend is visible across all retail scales, from the corner store to the regional mall. In fact, many shopping malls across the country have undergone extensive remodeling efforts to create a network of internal, pedestrian -oriented streets and to add Return to Table of Contents housing opportunities. The Spokane Valley Mall is still a retail anchor for the region and is very effective in its current form, but anecdotal evidence from malls in other cities suggests that, over time, some of the City's retailers may look to find spaces that are more easily accessible to consumers. Land use and zoning regulations must offer the flexibility to accommodate this range of retail development styles. Office Office development is increasingly shaped by two conflicting trends: many employees want to work in lively, connected areas that offer nearby food and entertainment, while others are using advances in telecommunications to work outside of and away from their offices. The market has responded by building offices in concentrated mixed-use hubs, where workers can meet social and professional goals, but also by developing new typologies, like co -working spaces, that provide a place for telecommuting workers to gather and share the use of conference facilities, printers, and other expensive equipment. Again, providing flexibility in the land use code will allow landowners and developers to respond to these emerging market demands. Industrial For many reasons, industrial uses still remain less integrated into the fabric of surrounding neighborhoods. However, many modern industrial uses no longer resemble the smokestack -adorned factories typical of 20th century industry, and industrial employees also have many of the same desires as their office -bound peers. One way that new industrial development has responded to these changes is through the development of self-contained industrial campuses. These campuses offer a well-maintained and landscaped environment that rewards workers and attracts prospective tenants; noxious and unsightly economic activities are well -screened, and workers are provided with some retail amenities so that they don't need to leave the campus to meet their daily needs. More discreetly, existing industrial areas have also begun accommodating non -industrial uses that are compatible with industrial operations. For example, breweries require on-site production, but often have a tasting room that offers retail sales; small, independent furniture manufacturers may choose to sell directly to customers out of a workshop or warehouse; a garment manufacturer may consolidate repair, distribution, and retail in one facility. Though these changes are already occurring in an ad-hoc manner, it is becoming increasingly important to address mixed -industrial districts in land use regulations. 4-60 FUTURE LAND USE PATTERNS In light of stakeholder input and these macroeconomic trends, as well as GMA requirements, the City is revising its land use regulations to implement the community's vision, increase flexibility for landowners and developers, and respond to market opportunities. These changes are discussed in detail in the following section. Changing Designations, Increasing Flexibility Spokane Valley desires a safe, clean, and vital community, and its residents also value fiscal responsibility, economic growth, and flexibility for the business community. These preferences very clearly inform the changes to the land use code that are advanced in this Comprehensive Plan. Nevertheless, changes must first and foremost accomplish the mandates of the GMA, which relies on the concept of channeling expected growth into existing urban areas. The revised land use regulations therefore provide a physical framework for the City's goals of expanding housing choices and enhancing neighborhood character while minimizing barriers to development and meeting GMA goals and requirements. Some previous designations have been merged, and additional land uses have been allowed in new areas of the City. The Comprehensive Plan is required to include a future land use map, which depicts these land use patterns (Figure 16). Calculating Land Capacity To meet GMA requirements, Spokane Valley must demonstrate that there is sufficient capacity within its UGA to accommodate future development. To assess the City's theoretical development capacity, a Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) has been completed. The table in Figure 18 details the results of the LCA, providing calculations of buildable land, dwelling unit capacity, and population capacity for each of the zoning designations that will change with this Comprehensive Plan update. Spokane Valley has estimated capacity for 21,852 residents and 9,784 homes, giving it sufficient capacity to meet its 2037 growth target of 14,650 additional residents. The LCA is performed by first identifying developable parcels - vacant, partially -used, and underutilized. Next, parcels which cannot be developed due to physical, environmental, or social reasons are removed. After applying a safety factor, the capacity is estimated, and is shown in "Net Developable Acres" in Figure 18. However, out of total development capacity, partially -used Return to Table of Contents Figure 16. Future Land Use Map Source: City of Spokane Valley (2016) E Fw.1 a+'* i/4 / and underutilized parcels may be more expensive or otherwise less feasible to develop than vacant land. A significant portion of Spokane Valley's current capacity is in underutilized and partially -used land. Spokane Valley currently has 4,349 acres of commercial and industrial land capacity, with the greatest concentration in its Industrial designation. There is a higher portion of vacant land across these designations compared to residential designations. Lind 4J Mrrniprf IFoJn{1rri{", LOW UM.GIrSiBrofir o r;r • The designations depicted in the Future Land Use Map are also described in detail in Figure 17. 4-62 0 0.4 1 O Figure 17. Future Land Use Designation Descriptions, Spokane Valley DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION Single Family Residential (SFR) Multifamily Residential (MFR) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Regional Commercial Corridor Mixed -Use (CMU) Mixed Use (MU) Industrial Mixed -Use (IMU) Industrial (I) Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (POS) Single Family Residential (SFR) addresses a range of single family residential densities. This designation would be implemented through a series of zoning districts that would allow a range of minimum lot sizes. Multifamily Residential (MFR) allows for multifamily development. Generally, this designation is located near business and commercial centers, the arterial street system, and public transit. The implementing zone would protect the single family designation through transitional standards. Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designates areas for small-scale neighborhoods serving retail and office uses. Neighborhood business areas should not be larger than two acres in size, and should be located as business clusters rather than arterial strip commercial developments. Regional Commercial (RC) allows a large range of uses. A wide range of development types, appearance, ages, function, and scale. It covers the "strip" retail areas along Sprague Avenue which includes the automobile dealerships located along the western end of the Sprague Avenue corridor and the "big box" retail area found in the Sullivan Road area from Sprague Avenue north to the Interstate 90 interchange, and includes the Spokane Valley Mall and Wal-Mart. Corridor Mixed -Use (CMU) allows for light manufacturing, retail, multifamily, and offices along major transportation corridors. CMU recognizes the historical low -intensity, auto -dependent development pattern. It is primarily used along Sprague Avenue, and the north -south arterials. Mixed -Use (MU) would allow for two or more different land uses within developments under this designation. Mixed-use developments can be either vertical or horizontally mixed, and would include employment uses such as office, retail, and/or lodging along with higher density residential uses, and in some cases community or cultural facilities. Industrial Mixed -Use (IMU) allows for light manufacturing, retail, offices, and lighter industrial types of uses such as contractor yards. Industrial (I) would allow all types of industrial development like manufacturing, processing, fabrication, assembly, disassembly, and freight -handling. Those industrial uses that may have significant noise, odor, or aesthetic impacts, are subject to buffering and transitional provisions. Non -industrial uses should be limited to preserve industrial land viability but ancillary uses should be permitted to serve the industrial uses. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (POS) is intended to provide area for parks, open space, and other natural physical assets of the community netar, , 4-63 Figure 18. Residential Land Capacity, Spokane Valley Source: City of Spokane valley (2016) NET POTENTIAL POTENTIAL ZONING DEVELOPABLE NEW DWELLING POPULATION ACRES UNITS INCREASE Corridor Mixed -Use 1,073 502 753 Industrial 3,456 1 3 Multifamily 717 3,062 6,124 Mixed Use 169 575 863 Single Family 6,891 5,643 14,109 Total 13,199 9,784 21,852 Managing Land Use Compatibility Streamlining the land use regulations will, at times, allow different development types to locate in close proximity to each other. The City recognizes that without proper planning, this could create the potential for incompatibility between adjacent parcels. To manage this challenge and facilitate integration, the City is advancing a series of transitional standards that require development to respond to nearby properties. For example, an apartment building that is built near single family homes may be required to meet additional regulatory standards. The specific transitional provisions are included in the revisions to the SVMC. These standards will ensure that Spokane Valley's neighborhoods and commercial corridors continue to demonstrate quality and character. Approach to the Land Use Element CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES There are a number of challenges and opportunities that have shaped goals and policies for land use in Spokane Valley. These provide some reasonable limits as to what the market can be expected to provide moving forward, as well as some opportunities to improve performance. Encouraging Neighborhood -Scale Commercial Development Spokane Valley currently lacks small scale, walkable neighborhood commercial areas, and the community has expressed a strong desire to encourage this type of development, but it faces significant barriers. 4-64 First, Spokane Valley's commercial areas are dominated by national "big box" chains which draw regional shoppers. Small, independent retailers may not be able to compete with these larger retailers, and will depend upon local shoppers, often on foot or on bike, instead of the regional shoppers driving in to the national chains. This requires a greater density of households in the immediate proximity of small retail areas, and Spokane Valley's residential areas near commercial corridors do not yet have this density. In addition to making sure there are sufficient people living near retail areas, the streetscape can provide enjoyable places for people to walk and gather. With wide street widths and large parking areas oriented on the street side, Spokane Valley's commercial areas are often not pedestrian friendly. Planning for neighborhood retail should work in concert with planning for open space, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements. The City's 2016 Retail Improvement Strategy (RIS) provides a number of aspirational strategies for expanding the types of retail provided in Spokane Valley. While the City is not obligated to implement the recommendations of the RIS, it offers opportunities to encourage economic development that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Attracting New Development In New Areas In several areas of the City, parcels are underdeveloped and redevelopment has been slow to occur, particularly along Sprague Avenue. Sprague Avenue is part of the Sprague/Appleway Urban Transportation Corridor as identified by the SRTC. Urban Transportation Corridors are corridors suitable for multimodal travel and can accommodate higher -density mixed use development. SRTC encourages jurisdictions to plan for land use growth along these corridors. Increasing the development intensity along the Sprague Avenue corridor is a key feature of the City's land use strategy. In certain industrial areas there is a good supply of vacant land, but very little new development. In all of these cases, there are certain economic realities preventing new development at this time. By allowing greater flexibility in its zoning, and allowing more mixed-use development along commercial corridors, the City is laying the groundwork to unlock the potential of these underper- forming neighborhoods. Return to Table of Contents The Transportation Element includes specific recommenda- • tions for multimodal 5-77 planning, which reinforces land use planning for physical activity. The Parks and Open Space Element • focuses on improved recreation opportunities for Spokane Valley residents. 9-148 4-66 Creating Catalytic Development The development of a new City Hall for Spokane Valley represents an opportunity to generate additional private development. Development regulations must allow for the appropriate mix of uses and the intensities that would create unique and diverse place surrounding City Hall. City Hall development would also further the goal to increase development activity on the Sprague Urban Transportation Corridor by providing a strong public investment in the corridor. Furthermore, the City has other large developable sites that offer opportunities to advance the City's vision and spur economic development. Land use regulations should provide the flexibility needed to find partners to lead private development that is consistent with the City's vision, particularly on these large, strategically -located sites. COMMUNITYAND ECONOMIC PRIORITIES Supporting Economic Vitality and Diversity • Support neighborhood retail. The market trend indicating demand for more retail space is mirrored by the community's desire for an increased number of neighborhood amenities. Spokane Valley residents reported significant demand for walkable retail options within the community, both to enhance the quality of life and develop distinctive neighborhood identities. • Support a mix of land uses. Spokane Valley's industrial areas are an important economic resource for the City, and should be supported. At the same time, land uses should be flexible to allow for changes in market demand and innovative development approaches. Maintaining Strong Quality of Life • Enhance local identity. The community has expressed a desire to develop more unique neighborhood character. This includes encouraging the types of development that support small, independent businesses, including mixed uses and greater density of housing in certain areas. At the same time, the quality of the City's single family neighborhoods must be preserved. • Celebrate valued public spaces and facilities. The Centennial Trail, which runs through the City, is a treasured local amenity. Improving access to and amenities on the trail and other public facilities will help strengthen a sense of community, along with encouraging physical activity. New open spaces are welcomed, and create a more beautiful city. The Spokane River, and other natural features, are important to the community. BEST PRACTICES Protecting Natural Resources Land use patterns must not exhaust the capacity of local resources. Specifically, water -related resources and air quality are explicitly tied to land use patterns and the behaviors they engender. Promoting Health and Wellness Promoting physical activity is important and land use patterns affect the extent to which people choose to walk or bike for transportation and leisure. The Land Use Element increases mixed-use designations and residential designations, thereby bringing people into closer proximity to their destinations and giving them better opportunities to walk and bike in Spokane Valley. Creating Public Space Public spaces are important community amenities and allow residents to create meaningful social connections. The City has an opportunity to improve existing public spaces and create new spaces with the ongoing redevelopment of public properties and through revisions to the development regulations. Return to Table of Contents /, • 10-156 Water -related issues are explored in greater detail in the Natural Resources Element 4-67 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 4-68 CHAPTER 5 Transportation Keturr, t,, 1T. /. REFERENCES KEY • x-xx in plan Refers to other section 5-70 Refers to other Spokane Valley plans and official documents Refers to other non -Spokane Valley references for further reading Introduction WHYTHE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT IS IMPORTANT Spokane Valley's diverse mix of land uses requires a robust and well-planned transportation network so that people can travel efficiently for work, shopping, medical, recreational, and other uses. This chapter summarizes the existing state of the transportation system and identifies future challenges related to continued demographic and economic growth. This analysis is a required component of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and identifies how the transportation network and the surrounding land uses influence the way people travel and how convenient that travel is for local residents, workers, and visitors. Based on this analysis and an extensive public outreach component, challenges and opportunities for the transportation network are identified that will be addressed as part of the ongoing Comprehensive Plan update. PLANNING CONTEXT The Transportation Element is shaped by several important state and regional laws and policies, as described below: • The GMA identifies transportation as one of the required elements of a Comprehensive Plan. The GMA encourages efficient multimodal transportation systems that are consistent with the land use assumptions in the Comprehensive Plan, identify level of service standards, forecast future transportation growth, identify new projects, and coordinate with other Comprehensive Plan elements to identify a feasible financing strategy. • CWPP are defined by Spokane County, SRTC, and local jurisdictions. Related to transportation, the CWPP require that jurisdiction plans be consistent with each other, and include roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, rail, and air facilities. Additionally, the Transportation Element shall identify a transportation concurrency standard to ensure growth and transportation investments are synchronized. • SRTC Congestion Management Program (CMP) identifies several corridors of regional importance in Spokane County, including the Interstate 90, Argonne/Mullan, and Sullivan Road corridors in Spokane Valley. The CMP defines a set of strategies to address and manage congestion on these major corridors. The CMP is intended to encourage economic vitality, maximize the use of existing infrastructure, improve travel choices and access for all residents, and improve safety. • Horizon 2040 is the Metropolitan Transportation Plan developed by SRTC. Horizon 2040 is a long-term, multimodal "blueprint" for transportation aimed at meeting the mobility needs of the area through 2040. It is based on projections for growth in population, housing, and jobs and considers all modes of transportation, such as private vehicles, public transit, bicycling, walking, freight movement, rail, and air travel. As this Transportation Element was prepared, close attention was paid to these overarching laws and policies to ensure that Spokane Valley's transportation system and vision are integrated and coordinated with the regional transportation network. Current Conditions TRAVEL PATTERNS IN SPOKANE VALLEY AND THE REGION Since incorporation in 2003, the City has witnessed significant growth in population and employment. With more people living and working in the City, there are also more people traveling to and from Spokane Valley on a daily basis. On face, these general trends emphasize the importance of investing in transportation infrastructure and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies, but understanding how people currently travel to and through the City is also important to establish planning frameworks that respond efficiently to future transportation challenges. One of these frameworks relates to the arrangement of uses throughout the City, and is represented in the City's land use map. For example, clusters of commercial land uses are likely to generate higher traffic volumes during peak morning and evening travel times, while retailers may attract additional trips on weekends, when many workers use their discretionary time for shopping, dining, and entertainment. Residential uses, at the other end of the spectrum, may prefer to be located away from major transportation corridors, or may have infrastructure needs that scale with residential densities. In this way, there is a dynamic relationship between land use patterns and transportation networks, with each affecting the development of the other. Other planning frameworks detailed in the elements of the Comprehensive Plan (e.g. capital Return to Table of Contents facilities planning, economic development strategies) also espouse a similarly dynamic relationship with transportation. Based on current land use patterns, population densities in Spokane Valley tend to be higher south of Interstate 90 and between Argonne Road and Sullivan Road. However, some areas north of Interstate 90 and east of Sullivan Road have areas with dense housing as well. In some cases, these areas are part of larger Census tracts that include parcels of undeveloped land, leading to lower population density area -wide. Employment -generating uses in Spokane Valley are generally concentrated at major Interstate 90 interchanges, in the Spokane Business and Industrial Park and industrial areas south of Felts Field, and in and around the Spokane Valley Mall. The jobs in areas north of Interstate 90 tend to be more industrial in nature while south of Interstate 90 office and retail jobs are more prevalent. The map in Figure 19 illustrates the relationship between residential and commercial land use patterns. The map in Figure 19 provides some context for how land use patterns affect travel patterns in Spokane Valley, and it implies that transportation challenges may be alleviated when there are opportunities to live and work in transit -ac- cessible or other concentrated mixed-use clusters. However, many residents live outside Spokane Valley but commute to jobs within the City and vice versa. For these residents and workers who need to make regular trips into and out of Spokane Valley, the locations that they travel to and from are important context for decision makers as they prioritize improvements to transportation infrastructure. The maps in Figures 20 and 21 represent data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics dataset, and illustrate the number of all Spokane Valley residents that commute to jobs in other places, as well as all Spokane Valley workers who live in other places. In 2014, approximately 38,800 people commuted into Spokane Valley for work, approximately 22,800 City residents commuted out of the City for work, and about 13,800 residents stay in the City for work. Where clear transportation corridors emerge for these commuting workers, effective transportation planning is particularly important. This travel pattern highlights the need for network development, as the freeway system alone cannot accommodate this demand in the future. Travel demand strategies will also be an important aspect in dealing with increasing traffic. To understand how well current transportation infrastructure responds to these land use patterns, this element will explore and assess the various components of Spokane Valley's transportation network. 5-72 Figure 19. Map of Employment Density vs. Housing Density, Spokane Valley, 2015 Sources: WA OFM (2015); WA ESD (2015); Community Attributes Inc. (2016) ,' • 4 • E mkM' i s. i Wooslnn & Employment DensitY ddvnicipal Boutidar ie swi 74'4". MAW). ifft1.111GIINVOTAT.0..;.:�;'. TSF,VA SPOCe Housing Type ▪ 5410e unir ▪ rwo.to. kUr Unit f,rr°-Pdus Ubit * !iYr,Y-14,01'1'Il�r' Employment l9e gsity 1• •.cl_. nfrr C. ,rr STM': 41�" 1. •• a4 !! SPOKANE VALLEY'S TRANSPORTATION NETWORK A transportation network includes infrastructure to support several modes of transportation, including motor vehicles like cars, motorcycles, and buses, as well as bicycles and walking. For the network to function efficiently, investments must be targeted to ensure that residents and workers have multiple transportation options that offer affordable and effective ways to get around the area. Return to Table of Contents ▪ } • o or . A....{ 5-73 Figure 20. Journey to Work: Where Spokane Valley Employees Live, 2014 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2014); Community Attributes Inc. (2016) Employees' Place of Residence • • - Munlopat Bou ndaries Q..=,A=r eV( 177 ety re Arial - r_ -a do -. Y:. w. e- 1. r.e k ; Fr{ 1— mo *01 4* Airwrary. i$ is ■ '' 1110*1 R feirchi Id Air FOree Base 5cok"*.19'. a• • � l E 0 • IP s}g 6 �,•phgl rx i 44. Vt71:f-^ �s ry s mare 6allt cirA:Ilns 1 C 1 j 6 : S , .y The U.S. Census Bureau tracks how Spokane Valley residents travel to work—a statistic known as mode share. As shown in Figure 22, 80.4% of Spokane Valley residents drove to work alone (SOV), while an additional 10.7% carpooled (HOV, 3.1% of Spokane Valley workers rode public transit to work. Of the remaining 5.8% of workers who reside in Spokane Valley, most worked from home while others walked, biked, took taxis, rode motorcycles, or used other means. 5-74 Figure 21. Journey to Work: Where Spokane Valley Residents Go to Work, 2014 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2014); Community Attributes Inc. (2016) 1 Residents' F' or of Work pal Elccpunthcrim. 4.1VIct•c,, 4acci Las' r . tot : .•16 j4.ed ' •It • , 7 Rilhdrucm .4, • E. Fro L. rm. 4.411 Airway licreicts j .1641r411 Ficiittli Ph Force liain'rpli914 I 3in.._.410. krpert. r .10...'! I 'f(f ,1 `::' Functional Classification Of Roadways Streets function as a network. The efficiency of a street network is dependent upon how the streets are able to complement each other to serve different trip types. A gridded network typically provides improved connectivity for all forms of transportation by reducing the distance necessary to travel and providing alternative routes. 5-75 Return to Table of Contents Streets are described by a functional classification, which is a system of categories for streets and highways based on the character of service they are intended to provide. A proper balance of road classifications is necessary to effectively serve a mix of land uses and modes of travel. Spokane Valley currently classifies its roadways into principal arterials, minor arterials, collector arterials, and local streets. Descriptions and examples of these classifications are located in Figure 23. Figure 22. Spokane Valley Transportation Mode Share Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2014) Li% -,0. % ■ SOV HOW Other • Transit • Walk Bike In general, the roadway network in central and south Spokane Valley is composed of gridded streets, a reflection of the urban form typical during Spokane Valley's early development. Outside the major commercial corridors, the network is primarily connected via principal and minor arterials, with large gaps between streets and many unconnected residential cul-de-sacs and loop roads. This layout of large blocks creates a less friendly environment for walking, bicycling, and public transit since it can greatly increase the distance between a home and a destination or transit stop. The map in Figure 24 depicts Spokane Valley's roadways by classification, as well as other critical transportation infrastructure. 5-76 Figure 23. Functional Classification of Roadways ROADWAY TYPE DESCRIPTION / PURPOSE EXAMPLE Interstate/ Highway Provide high speed, free flow travel between regional destinations. Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collectors Arterial Local Streets A roadway that serves through trips and connects Spokane Valley with the rest of the area. • Interstate 90 • E. Trent Ave. • Pines Rd./ SR 27 • E. Sprague Ave. Minor arterial streets provide inter -neighborhood connections, transit access, and serve • E. Broadway Ave. both local and through trips. Can accommodate pedestrian and bicycle travel if there are • S. Evergreen Rd. sidewalks and bike lanes/paths. • E. 16th Ave. Collectors distribute trips between local streets and arterials. Can be good for pedestrian and bicycle travel if there are sidewalks and bike lanes/paths. Local streets provide circulation and access within residential neighborhoods. Good for bicycle and pedestrian travel. Pedestrian Facilities Residents and visitors in Spokane Valley walk as part of their daily travel for many reasons. Children attending school, commuters taking the bus or connecting with a carpool to get to work, and senior citizens making midday trips all require safe pedestrian amenities. Sidewalks, crosswalks, curb ramps, and small curb radii are all key features in creating a safe and welcoming environment for people to walk. Furthermore, research suggests that people are more likely to walk to their destinations when those destinations are within a reasonable walking distance and when the trip offers an engaging and aesthetically pleasing, strolling environment. To that end, providing buffers between sidewalks and lanes of traffic, such as landscaping or on -street parking, can also increase safety and comfort for pedestrians, particularly on arterial streets. The images in Figure 25 show some of these features on Spokane Valley streets. Return to Table of Contents • Vista Rd. • E. 4th Ave. • E. 24th Ave. • E.ValleywayAve. • Long Rd. 5-77 Figure 24. Spokane Valley's Transportation Network Source: City of Spokane Valley (2016); Community Attributes Inc. (2016) Frl[r F',rld 0 u k. Spokane Valley 1i Trarepertation Network Murviripal e.oundaaies Suri4CE Trur l ilipn by 0615$ 5-78 ee»c. Nikr 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 11 • • vitro iar 6 rIr.I li 4.6 2 uerrti urar hWrf 0 Sidewalks are present on both sides of most principal and minor arterials in Spokane Valley as well as some collectors. The City has also prioritized providing sidewalks near schools, libraries, transit locations, and trailheads. While quiet residential streets may not require sidewalks for a safe pedestrian environment (with the exception of key routes to schools), some arterials lack sidewalk coverage, such as Mission Avenue, 4th Avenue, and Adams Road. Plans for adding to the sidewalk network generally focus on filling existing gaps on arterials. In addition to sidewalks and crosswalks along streets, Spokane Valley also has paved shared -use paths for pedestrians and bicyclists. The Centennial Trail provides a dedicated east -west connection along a shared -use path. The trail korPO� �i !Path 1 1• ka etl S:deo;.:. L.. ith Co. Figure 25. Photos of Existing Pedestrian Facilities in Spokane Valley Source: Fehr and Peers (2015) Pedestrian Bulb Out is part of a regional connection through Spokane and to the Washington -Ida- ho state border. The new Appleway Trail provides an additional east -west corridor for pedestrians and bicyclists along the former Milwaukee Railroad right-of-way. Spokane Valley is actively working on extending the Appleway Trail, and the City has also identified other opportunities for shared use paths along former and active rail lines. Spokane Valley has a well-developed grid of arterial streets spaced roughly one-half mile apart, which is typical of communities built in the post -World War II era. While this system is efficient for vehicle travel, crossing major streets like Sprague Avenue or Pines Road can be difficult on foot or bike since signalized crosswalks are spread far apart. Additionally, crossings of Interstate 90 and Trent Avenue are limited and are often located at busy interchanges or intersections. These gaps in safe crossing locations isolate parts of Spokane Valley and lead to people driving for short trips that they could typically make on foot or via transit. The map in Figure 26 illustrates a range of pedestrian facilities in Spokane Valley, as well as recommended improvements from the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program, which is the City's adopted long-term bicycle and pedestrian plan. Existing Bicycle Facilities Similar to sidewalks, bicycle facilities are an important element in the transportation network that provide a safe and identifiable bicycling Return to Table of Contents environment. Bicyclists in the Spokane Valley can utilize a variety of facilities, including shared -use paths, bike lanes, and bike friendly routes to reach their destination as shown in Figure 27. However, gaps in the network create an environment in which cyclists must navigate through vehicle traffic or difficult arterial crossings to complete their journey, decreasing safety for motorized and non -motorized travelers alike. While the City has trails and bike lanes that form a spine of north -south and east -west connections, some of these facilities are not continuous and require bicyclists to merge in and out of traffic. Figure 27 also shows Spokane Valley's long-term plan for the bicycle network to address the gaps described above. Figure 26. Map of Existing Pedestrian Facilities Sources: City of Spokane Valley (2016); Community Attributes Inc. (2016) /4<.7 : Awo Mato L.lb.. ,:jAhr011a, 004 Fal, 4'L L 2R, r.. Spokane V ltey PedestrianNetwork Municipal gound1riei PedC$Griir9 Ntlwprki 5-80 CARTIOR Click to open interactive map! n.s The existing roadway geometry in many parts of Spokane Valley includes wide lanes, on -street parking, and a high number of driveways, which make many bicyclists feel uncomfortable riding in the street. Some corridors, such as Sprague Avenue and Mission Avenue, have striped bike lanes but also high vehicle speeds and volumes. Public Transit Public transit, provided by STA via buses and vans, serves as a key component of the transportation network that connects residents with employment centers, public places, and regional destinations. Many Spokane Valley residents and employees use public transit for trips around and outside of the City. Figure 28 highlights the route and stop coverage of STA in Spokane Valley. Additionally, the map highlights the Pence -Cole Valley and Mirabeau Point transit centers and park-and-ride facilities that provide links to the regional transit system. Figure 27. Map of Existing and Recommended Bicycle Facilities Sources: City of Spokane Valley (2016); Community Attributes Inc. (2016) ��+�wllls e fxi�ting& PrapOserI 13iNo.(wbrk . .71091 Piaundari,-., Bikeway Elenrvn„ % h4 Return to Table of Contents 0 a 1 2 3 mien 5-81 STA operates one frequent bus route between downtown Spokane and Spokane Valley that runs every 15 minutes during weekday peak and day times. This route, number 90, is the second busiest route that STA operates, with nearly 3,300 passengers on an average weekday. STA also has five basic routes serving Spokane Valley and providing connections to Spokane, Millwood, and Liberty Lake. Two express routes provide direct, high-speed connections between downtown Spokane, the Valley Transit Center, and Mirabeau Point Park -and -Ride. These routes serve 7,000 riders per day during the week and cover most of Spokane Valley's major destinations, including the Spokane Valley Mall, the University Shopping Center, the Valley Hospital Medical Center, the Argonne Village Shopping Center, the Spokane Industrial Park, and many area schools. Movement of Freight Freight and goods movement is a vital element of the transportation network. Everyone is directly impacted by how goods are delivered to distribution centers, stores, and homes. Spokane Valley is central to a high volume of freight movement owing to the City's major retail and industrial properties. Trucks move millions of tons of freight via Interstate 90 and Trent Avenue throughout the region and across the state. Several arterials in Spokane Valley also support high levels of freight traffic, including Argonne Road, as well as portions of Sprague Avenue, Appleway Boulevard, Sullivan Road, Fancher Way, and Broadway Avenue. These corridors are all rated at T1 or T2 based on the annual freight tonnage they support. Enough freight travels over many other arterials and some collectors to qualify them as T3 freight corridors. These classifications are based on the following amount of goods: • T-1: More than 10 million tons per year. • T-2: Between 4 to 10 million tons per year. • T-3: Between 300,000 to 4 million tons per year. Spokane Valley has street design standards that support freight movement and are consistent with SRTC's regional freight network. Any proposed changes to access or roadway design along the regional freight network are reviewed to ensure they do not hinder freight movement. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad (UP) operate the primary rail lines within the City. Both companies have 5-82 Figure 28. Map of Existing and Recommended Transit Facilities Sources: City of Spokane Valley (2016); Community Attributes Inc. (2016) Spokane Valley PubIIc Transportation Munkipal titourrbries rya Cir Urban GrOMP Are,) .1 ..A; Parks. Recrnatim & °Oen Salic High Pirr®ranceTransitNel work moo, dungy±, Area /F. connections to the Washington -Idaho border while BNSF's route represents the company's main transcontinental line connecting the West Coast to Chicago and the Midwest. These rail lines help form the industrial corridor north of 1-90 that supports many jobs in Spokane Valley, in addition to the UP line that runs north of Sprague and along Dishman-Mica Road south through the City limits. To support freight mobility and improve safety at railroad crossings, the SRTC developed the Bridging the Valley (BTV) project in 2006. The ultimate goal of BTV is to separate vehicle traffic from train traffic in the 42 -mile corridor between Spokane, Washington and Athol, Idaho. The separation of railroad and roadway grades in this corridor—which includes 75 railroad/ Return to Table of Contents RFs• 6 6f 1 2 3 11.141. 5-83 roadway crossings—is intended to promote future economic growth, improve traffic movement, and traffic safety. BTV is integrated into the Horizon 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. While BTV is a long-term, unfunded project, Spokane Valley continues to strongly support the grade separation projects of the BNSF mainline at major roads like Park, Pines, and Barker. Aviation Most air travel in the Spokane Region is handled through the Spokane International Airport, located between Spokane and Airway Heights. Felts Field, a general aviation airport, is located at the north end of Fancher Way at the western edge of Spokane Valley. Felts Field currently handles about 59,000 annual take -offs and landings and is served by a number of charter services. In 2007, the City adopted development regulations to establish an airport overlay zone to protect Felts Field from encroachment from incompatible uses. The airport overlay zone imposed height restrictions, land use restrictions, noise impact restrictions on certain uses, and provided for the continuing presence of lawful non -conforming uses. The Comprehensive Plan does not purport to modify the allowable uses within the airport overlay zone and the City intends to maintain the airport overlay zone protections as part of the updated development regulations that are ancitipated to be adopted in conjunction with this Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, the City has met GMA requirements related to general aviation airports. Motor Vehicles Most Spokane Valley residents (about 90%) use motor vehicles as their primary mode of transportation to work. Moreover, many non-resident travelers pass through Spokane Valley via Interstate 90 or park at the Pence -Cole Valley Transit Center or Mirabeau Point Park -and -Ride and take public transit into Spokane. The analysis of Spokane Valley's congestion for motorists is based on traffic counts collected in 2014. Each of the major roadways in Spokane Valley was evaluated based on its ability to accommodate P.M. peak hour demand with its existing width and lane configuration. Figure 30 displays average daily traffic counts. The corridors were scored into one of six level of service (LOS) categories based on the volume of traffic they support during the P.M. peak hour compared to typical volume thresholds for urban arterial roadways. Levels from LOS A to LOS F correspond to a range of completely uncongested to highly -congested 5-84 conditions. Figure 29 describes the LOS definitions laid out in Chapter 16 of the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010), which is the methodology applied to Spokane Valley's transportation network. The LOS standards that must be met within the City are as follows: • LOS D for major arterial corridors: > Argonne/Mullan between Trent Avenue and Appleway Boulevard. > Pines Road between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue. > Evergreen Road between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue. > Sullivan Road between Wellesley Avenue and 8th Avenue. > Sprague Avenue/Appleway Boulevard between Fancher Road and Park Road. • LOS D for signalized intersections not on major arterial corridors. • LOS E for unsignalized intersections (LOS F is acceptable if the peak hour traffic signal warrant is not met). Figure 29. Level of Service Definitions Source: Highway Capacity Manual (2010) LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION A Free-flowing conditions. B Stable operating conditions. C Stable operating conditions, but individual motorists are affected by the interaction with other motorists. D High density of motorists, but stable flow. E Near -capacity operations, with speeds reduced to a low but uniform speed. F Over capacity, with long delays. For the arterial corridors, individual intersection LOS results will be monitored, but intersection LOS will not form the basis for evaluating transportation concurrency or SEPA impacts. Rather, the corridor LOS along its entire length will form the basis for evaluating the performance of these congested corridors. The rationale for evaluating corridor LOS is to align with the SRTC CMP and to acknowledge that while some intersections along the corridor Return to Table of Contents /. Additional detail about the City's LOS policies, as well as its ability to • pay for transportation improvements, is located in the Capital Facilities Element. 7-118 i 5-85 may operate at LOS E or F conditions, the overall corridor performance will be improved to be LOS D overall. This approach avoids the severe cost and property impacts associated with some intersection improvements, when other more cost-effective approaches could be employed elsewhere on the corridor. The LOS for major arterial corridors should be analyzed using the methodology defined by the SRTC as part of the CMP or similar method approved by Spokane Valley. Figure 30. Average Daily Traffic, Spokane Valley Sources: City of Spokane Valley (2016); Community Attributes Inc. (2016) ; Fehr and Peers (2016) r Most Recent ADT In Year M iii[�i-,lid Eiounsiaren, Nrr'rrv.5rc'.e .}��,"t:5-.•r� �I`,y�rr•., Yew of Most Recent Count 5-86 ,n o, G 0.A 1 2 Mow iir.31 A key question that often comes up is why the City's Transportation Element would reduce the LOS standard in some places. The answers aren't simple. While Spokane Valley is committed to mobility for all, there are practical considerations related to cost constraints, right-of-way limitations, and additional multimodal requirements that the City may not be in position to provide. Furthermore, the State's concurrency requirement means that the City must be able to maintain its stated LOS policy in order to allow for development. Setting an LOS standard that is unrealistic for the above reasons puts Spokane Valley in jeopardy of being able to permit development, which would be counter to the economic development goals outlined in this Comprehensive Plan. As highways of statewide significance (HSS), Interstate 90 and the ramp intersections with local streets, have LOS standards set by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The City's LOS standards do not apply to these State facilities. While the City's LOS standards are based on intersection operations, it is impractical to calculate intersection LOS for the hundreds of intersections around the City. Therefore, as is typical for many Comprehensive Plan Transportation Elements, LOS is summarized at the street -segment level. In general, the intersections along the street segments can be expected to operate at the same LOS as the segment. Spokane Valley's roadways generally operate with moderate congestion on some arterials during the P.M. peak hour. Interstate 90 can be congested during peak hours, and some motorists may choose to take City streets instead of Interstate 90 to avoid congestion. This overflow can lead to congestion on roadways that serve interchanges, such as Argonne Road, MuIlan Road, Pines Road (SR 27), Sprague Avenue, Sullivan Road, and Barker Road. Except for these few instances of more severe congestion, most roadways operate within Spokane Valley's LOS standards. Figure 31 shows the existing LOS results for Spokane Valley. These congestion levels around the City are fairly common for suburban arterials during the PM peak hour. The delay will be disruptive fora brief portion of the day, but is also indicative of a well -used roadway network. Principal arterials that operate at LOS A through C during the peak period may be a sign of an overbuilt system, which can be costly for a community to construct and maintain. These large, underutilized streets also can be a deterrent for other modes because of high speeds, perceived safety concerns, and difficulty crossing. Return to Table of Contents Figure 31. Existing Level of Service for Spokane Valley Roadways, 2015 Sources: City of Spokane Valley (2016); Community Attributes Inc. (2016) ; Fehr and Peers (2016) /,, Spokane VaNay 4atw1 of Service F-0UT» ipal O[7Wn4inv5 I=1`iu, Existing LOS .d 1 5-88 . G 0.6 1 Y 7 In addition to evaluating current conditions, this Transportation Element forecasts future traffic volumes assuming the development described in the Land Use Element. Figure 32 shows the forecast (year 2040) average daily traffic (ADT) on the streets in Spokane Valley. Overall, traffic volumes are expected to increase as there is additional development both in Spokane Valley and the surrounding communities. Growth in traffic is expected to be particularly pronounced in the southern and eastern sections of the City. In addition to growth in vehicle traffic, there is also expected to be significant growth in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit usage in the future. In fact, due to the planned expansions of the non -auto infrastructure, we anticipate somewhat higher growth rates for non -auto modes compared to auto traffic, which Figure 32. Forecast Average Daily Traffic for Spokane Valley Roadways, 2040 Sources: City of Spokane Valley (2016); Community Attributes Inc. (2016) ; Fehr and Peers (2016) E &(a0.ay 12004) 151.245 i M 52104 3204 g 2743 3fdQ f Uotti 2530 414X0 8 h E9ina V Boa _ 2940Daily Traffic Forecad Municipal Boundaaies 2345 SOO • 12143 [�$^ 237Uo loo 580v5 $ 27300 74EO1 }800 f_"3 hy�q 1.0.4 7709 7.7n3 M.'W 2,1 .650 2044:146.01- - yy44,: /�+-. i3;� G.L4�J _.. ;76'1 1.:.3X) � 18.,x): IXyi ! .12 COI (XI wtMa 64," is consistent with the expectations of Horizon 2040, the transportation and land use vision. Figure 33 shows the 2040 LOS conditions on Spokane assuming completion of the improvement projects listed in Impact Statement prepared for the Comprehensive Plan. 2040 conditions is forecast to be similar to today's condition is committed to managing traffic congestion in the future. SRTC's long range Valley's roadways the Environmental As shown, LOS in as Spokane Valley Return to Table of Contents 6,66,6 • C 1116 1 } aka 11E1/ 5-89 Figure 33. Forecast Level of Service (LOS) for Spokane Valley Roadways, 2040 Sources: City of Spokane Valley (2016); Community Attributes Inc. (2016) ; Fehr and Peers (2016) Krox LiNiLify OASifisfield Mllu • . IrcIzal span a c NW:Way ,111 Isi ra9;1.7 ik*dti Spokane Valley Level of Servlice Municipal BOitotlanes. 14IK Thor 2044) LOS Community Ih M(i)tion 5-90 Mlles 421111 nfro, 0 0.5. 1 3 Approach to the Transportation Element CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES In the spring of 2015, Spokane Valley hosted a series of public meetings to solicit feedback from the public on a variety of topics, including the performance of the transportation system. During this public feedback period, the City collected considerable feedback on what parts of the transportation system is working well, transportation problems/concerns, and what Spokane Valley's transportation future should look like. This feedback, combined with the results of the existing conditions analysis, highlights challenges and opportunities for the transportation system, as listed below. Improving Transit Accessibility STA provides public transit in Spokane Valley. However, transit service is minimal in parts of the City, requiring that people drive to reach their destinations. Several members of the public expressed a desire for more extensive transit coverage. Relieving Traffic Congestion The public identified concerns over traffic congestion in some corridors, including Argonne Road, Pines Road, Sullivan Road, and Barker Road, particularly around the Interstate 90 interchanges. Despite some traffic congestion around freeway interchanges, many residents consider the Spokane Valley's LOS policy to be working well - successfully balancing traffic congestion, access needs, and costs to build and maintain the system. Overall, it is the City's policy to consider strategies such as transportation demand management, access restrictions, design modifications, transit enhancements, and intelligent transportation systems prior to adding new lane capacity to the system, particularly for single -occupancy vehicles. COMMUNITYAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES Increasing Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity Many residential streets do not have curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. While some streets are low-volume and may not need these features, key access routes to schools, transit stops, and civic buildings could benefit from enhancements. Return to Table of Contents Spokane Valley has a strong pedestrian and bicycle plan. The City has been aggressively expanding the trail network by leveraging regional and federal funding. Long blocks and high traffic speeds can make it difficult to cross major streets like Sprague Avenue or Sullivan Road. This makes traveling by transit, walking/biking to stores, or traveling to parks and schools difficult. Supporting Economic Development The City has a robust grid of major streets and can support a considerable amount of additional private development. Good connections to the national freeway and railway network also support economic development opportunities. The City's economic development initiatives requires a transportation network that is efficient and safe and that reflects desired development patterns. There are strong economic development opportunities on Sprague Avenue. This is an Urban Transportation Corridor, as defined by SRTC, and both the City and the Region see Sprague Avenue as an area with higher density development supported by a strong multimodal transportation network that includes high-performance transit, better bicycle/pedestrian connections, and convenient auto access to new infill development. Accommodating Freight Operations The region's position on a major freight rail corridor increases the risk of train collisions and delays caused by at -grade crossings. Continuing to invest in rail infrastructure, especially where train and other freight operations interact directly with other travel modes, is essential. Enhancing Streetscapes Several members of the public identified desired improvements to the City's "streetscape," which includes landscaping, building frontages, medians, etc. Suggestions to improve the streetscape included more street trees, building frontage improvements/more private landscaping, and "gateway" features in medians and public spaces on the side of streets. 5-92 BEST PRACTICES Modernizing Infrastructure Identifying any infrastructure that needs or will need updating or replacement prior to the point at which those investments become critical will allow Spokane Valley to budget accordingly and find funding to avoid infrastructure failures. In an era when many pieces of infrastructure have aged and budgets are constrained, this planning is valuable to the City, its residents, and employees. Maintaining Cost Effectiveness Compared to other cities in the region, residents highlighted the good state of repair with respect to street and bridge maintenance. This results in lower overall costs to reconstruct streets and more opportunities to invest in other City priorities. The City will continue to prioritize street and bridge maintenance and will continue to make informed decisions about budgeting and capital expenditures. Linking Multimodal Systems The effectiveness of a transportation network may be limited by deficiencies in the connections between transportation modes. Identifying and fixing places where there are safety concerns, a lack of facilities, or missing "last mile" connections will ensure that Spokane Valley's network functions cohesively and efficiently for all users. Return to Table of Contents THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 5-94 0101110\iZeturnNoT\aabbleeofCont Introduction WHYTHE HOUSING ELEMENT IS IMPORTANT Housing is an important component of the economic infrastructure of a community because it ensures a balance of land uses and complements employ- ment -generating uses by providing opportunities for workers to live near their jobs. The availability of housing types that match Spokane Valley's job profile and enhance the livability of local neighborhoods is therefore an important competitive advantage for economic development. The Housing Element leverages key data to inform the development of goals and policies, which will set a course toward the City's vision of quality, affordable housing for all Spokane Valley residents. PLANNING CONTEXT The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) stipulates that the housing element serves to encourage the availability of affordable housing to residents of all economic backgrounds, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage the preservation of existing neighborhoods. Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) for Spokane County for housing are consistent with these requirements and place additional emphasis on promoting accessibility for residents to commercial and transportation REFERENCES KEY centers. • Refers to other section In previous planning efforts, the City acknowledged the abundance of single jx xx in plan family housing, and focused on expanding housing options for residents while increasing the availability of multifamily housing units centrally located to Refers to other Spokane employment centers and commercial amenities. Additionally, Spokane Valley jSV Valley plans and official aimed to increase the prevalence of mixed-use retail and residential throughout documents the City's neighborhoods with the overarching goal of limiting auto -dependen- cy and improving housing affordability. Refers to other j Onon -Spokane Valley The Housing Element works in tandem with other elements in this references for further Comprehensive Plan. It includes a data -rich narrative to document existing reading conditions that affect housing availability, cost, and quality. These include demographic trends and market conditions. The findings indicate challenges and opportunities for housing in Spokane Valley, and ultimately anchor the goals and policies presented in Chapter 2. 6-96 Current Conditions Spokane Valley has a similar demographic composition as Spokane County overall. The population in the City will continue to grow in size, and it is anticipated that the population will continue to "age"—meaning that the share of the population 65 and older will increase disproportionately compared to other age segments. Both the average household size and the proportion of households with children are decreasing in Spokane Valley. Additionally, the apartment vacancy rate in the City and County are comparably low, and lease rates for apartments are steadily increasing. Taken together, these recent trends indicate that demand for single family dwellings is decreasing in relation to demand for multifamily units. The key data from this section are summarized below. • The majority (60%) of housing units in Spokane Valley are single family dwellings built prior to 2000 (Figure 41). • Spokane Valley's housing growth has been modest, but steady since it incorporated in 2003, growing at a rate of about 1% per year. About 6,000 new residences were added to Spokane Valley's total housing stock between 2003 and 2015 (Figure 41). • Spokane Valley's population is aging. Between 2005 and 2014, the proportion of the population over the age of 75 increased by 2%, from 5% to 7%. The City's aging trend parallels that of the County—the share of the population 65 or older totaled 15% in 2014 in both Spokane Valley and Spokane County (Figure 35). • Compared to Spokane County as a whole, the number of households with children is decreasing more rapidly in Spokane Valley. The percentage of the City's households with children decreased by 5.6%—from 35.6% to 30%—between 2005 and 2014, while the proportion of households with children in the County dropped by 1.5% during the same time period (Figure 35). • The median household income in Spokane Valley was over $2,000 less than the average countywide annual earnings. Additionally, almost a third of Spokane Valley's residents earned between $25,000 and $50,000 annually in 2014 (Figure 38). Return to Table of Contents • Residents in both Spokane Valley and Spokane County are cost -burdened, meaning that their housing costs account for more than one-third of their income. Renters and homeowners are notably cost -burdened, however, there is a much larger proportion of cost -burdened renters than homeowners, 51% of renters and 26% of homeowners in both locales spend a third or more of their monthly budget on rent or mortgage payments (Figure 39). • The vacancy rate for apartments in the City is low and rents are increasing. According to an apartment market survey executed by the Runstad Center for Real Estate Studies at the University of Washington, the average rent for apartments of any size in Spokane Valley was $827 per month. Furthermore, the average rent for a one -bedroom, one -bathroom apartment was $812 per month. The overall vacancy rate for apartments in Spokane Valley was notably low -0.8% (Studies, 2016; Figure 43). • The City has historically allowed, and continues to allow, other types of housing to meet community needs, in compliance with state law. These housing options include government -assisted housing, manufactured housing, group homes, and foster care. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS The demographic makeup of an area informs the market demand for housing size, type, location, and mix. For example, cities with large numbers of households with children will have high demand for single family housing near schools. Similarly, housing demand in locations with higher proportions of single, young adult populations will be skewed towards smaller, multifamily units proximate to employment centers. As the population of an area evolves over time, the housing market must also adjust to match the needs of its residents. Increasing Population and Continued Growth The population in Spokane Valley is growing at a slightly slower rate than the countywide population. Spokane Valley experienced almost 11% growth between 2003 and 2014 compared to the County's 13% population increase during the same time period. By 2037, the City is projected to have 14,650 additional residents. Though increasing population is clearly linked to demand for housing, population trends are only briefly summarized in this element, and more detailed data is contained in the Land Use Element. 6-98 Cities, counties, and regions can grow through natural increases (i.e. when births outstrip deaths) and by in -migration. Countywide, births and deaths remained stable between 2005 and 2015 (Figure 34). Therefore, recent fluctuations in population are largely attributable to people moving to and from the County. These "non -natural" fluctuations are referred to as net residual migration, and have been the driving force behind population growth and loss within Spokane County since at least 2005. Figure 34. Population Change by Natural Increase and Net Residual Migration, Spokane County, 2005-2015 Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management (2015) 9.500 8.500 7.500 6.500 5,500 4,500 3,500 7.500 1-500 i 00 -5000 4,4 0 Population ■ Net Residual Migration (Change) • Natural Increase lBirths- Deaths) 424 O 1a. i.' 1,4 u+ 41. C .44 44414 e 462 )0(.) 1006 20D/ 2008 1009 2:710 2011 ?)12 )013 2014 2015 An Aging Population Overall, Spokane Valley's age segmentation closely resembles that of Spokane County. One notable trend in both the City and the County is that the population is aging. The share of the population 65 or older totaled 15% in 2014 in both Spokane Valley and Spokane County (up from 10% and 12%, respectively, in 2005) (Figure 35). This trend is reflected in younger age segments as well, with the residents 19 or younger dropping from 31% (2005) to 26% (2014) in Spokane Valley. The decreased prevalence of children in Spokane Valley brings the City in line with the larger County, where 25% of the population is 19 or younger. The City, therefore, does not have a significantly larger family presence than the County as a whole. These trends suggest decreasing demand for large, detached single family homes and increased demand for the types of housing that are both desirable and affordable to smaller households, including empty -nesters that may be less inclined to maintain larger properties. Nevertheless, the City will still need to provide excellent facilities, such as schools, for families with children. Return to Table of Contents Figure 36. Average Household Size, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2005-2014 Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey (2014) AREA 2005 2014 Spokane Valley Spokane County 6-100 2.47 2.44 2.39 2.45 Even with increased demand for smaller and attached housing products, new single family homes will continue to be developed throughout the County. However, data suggests that even as all of Spokane County ages, Spokane Valley's population is aging at a particularly fast rate. Multifamily units and smaller, attached single family housing products may therefore be comparatively attractive investments in Spokane Valley for housing developers that are active in the greater Spokane region. This finding is also supported by the fact that while Spokane Valley's average household size has slightly decreased since 2005, the average household size throughout Spokane County has increased (Figure 36). Figure 35. Distribution of Population by Age Segment, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2005 and 2014 Source: Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey (2005-2014) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% O% 30% 20% 1096 0% 5 7 2005 2014 Spokane Valley 2005 2014 Spokane County 75+ 65-74 50-64 40.49 30-39 20.29 5-19 Under 5 Income and Housing Affordability In 2005, the median household income in Spokane Valley was roughly $4,000 lower than that of Spokane County as a whole (Figure 38). In 2014, that difference narrowed—there was just over a $2,000 difference in median household income between Spokane Valley and Spokane County. Median household income has therefore grown at a faster rate in Spokane Valley than in Spokane County. Despite this trend, median household income in Spokane Valley is still lower than in Spokane County as a whole by about $2,200. The share of residents within each income bracket has also remained consistent during this time period in Spokane Valley, while in Spokane County there has been a marked decrease in the percentage of households making less than $25,000 (from 36% to 25%) and a significant increase in the number of households making $50,000 or more (from 38% to 51%) (Figure 37). This may suggest that residents of the County are experiencing increased upward mobility, or that the County has seen an influx of wealthy residents. This change could also be attributed to the City's older population retiring, and subsequently not growing their annual income. In any case, the fact that increases in median household income in Spokane Valley have not lifted a significant number of households into higher income segments indicates that Spokane Valley's housing must remain affordable to a wider range of income levels. One of the goals of the GMA is to provide Washington residents with affordable housing options. According to federal and state guidelines, a household is considered cost burdened when 30% or more of its gross income is spent on housing (including rent or mortgage and utility costs). Figure 37. Income Distribution of Households, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2005-2014 Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey (2005-2014) 100% 90% 80% 70% 6,0% 50% 409E 30% 20% 109E 149E 129E 21% 2 2.5% 14% 22% 22 28% 24% 2005 2014 Spokane Valley 25% 25% 2005 201A Spokane County ■ $100.000+ . $ 75,a00 - $100A00 $ ,000- $75,000 • 525OOQ- $.L O (Xx) ■ Lessthar Renters and homeowners in both the City and the County are notably cost - burdened -36% and 35% in 2014, respectively (Figure 39). The percentage of cost -burdened households in Spokane Valley increased by 1% between 2005 and 2014, while the proportion in the County rose by 3% during the same time period. This suggests that other locales in Spokane County are disproportion- ately driving the increase, but that affordability challenges persist within the City. Return to Table of Contents Figure 38. Median Household Income, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2005-2014 Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey (2014) $60,000 $40.000 30.000 $20,000 x+10.000 $0 20.05 2014 'a19Cy 200'5 20 14 S POkarli: cc7LJllr , 6-101 Figure 39. Cost -Burdened Households by Type, Spokane Valley, 2005-2014 Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey (2005-2014) 50% 35% 54% 40 26% 30% 20% 10 51% ■ Overall ■ °Avers ■ Renters 2005 2014 2005 2014 Spokane Valley Spokane County In both the City and the County, there is a much larger proportion of cost -burdened renters than homeowners. In Spokane Valley, however, the share of cost -burdened renters decreased from 54% in 2005 to 51% in 2014 while the percentage of cost -burdened homeowners remained constant. The opposite occurred on the countywide scale—the share of cost -burdened renters increased slightly, from 50% to 51%. The proportion of cost -burdened homeowners countywide also increased by 4%. Given that median household incomes are increasing throughout the County, this indicates that the average home price is increasing in Spokane County at a faster rate than in Spokane Valley. Though renters are disproportionately cost -burdened, data suggest that Spokane Valley and Spokane County residents are increasingly more likely to rent than buy their housing unit. In the City, the share of renter -occupied housing increased from 35% to 40% between 2005 and 2014. This trend is visible countywide (34% to 38%), as well as nationwide (Figure 40). Several demographic and economic factors—not least the Great Recession—have shifted consumer preferences toward renting, particularly in urban areas. 6-102 Figure 40. Owner and Renter -Occupied Housing, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2005-2014 Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey (2005-2014) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 5096 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 65% 3596 2005 2014 Spokane Valley 2005 2014 Spokane County ■ Owner Occupied Housing *Renter Occupied Housing THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING IN SPOKANE VALLEY While demographic and economic characteristics of Spokane Valley's population provide insight into the demand for housing products in the City and the region, the existing supply of housing in the area is essential to identifying challenges and opportunities facing current and prospective Spokane Valley residents. The City currently contains about 50,700 total dwelling units. Almost 30,000 of those dwellings were built prior to 1980 (Figure 41). Roughly 15%, or 7,845 units, of the total housing stock was built after 2000. Spokane Valley's housing growth has been modest, but steady since it incorporated in 2003, growing at a rate of about 1% per year. Approximately 6,000 new residences were added to Spokane Valley's total housing stock between 2003 and 2015. This is consistent with the aforementioned data illustrating the age of housing units, which reports a limited number of dwellings built after 2000. Return to Table of Contents Spokane Valley's neighborhoods are characterized by a predominance of single family homes. 6-104 Figure 41. Housing Units by Type and Year Built, Spokane Valley, 2013 Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey (2005-2013) 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10.000 8,000 6,000 4.000 2.000 0 11,916 17,604 13.363 Mobile Homes ■ 24 Units ■ 1 Unit 7,845 Built Before Built 1960 to Bu1lt 1980 to Built 2000 or 1960 1979 1999 REAL ESTATE CONSIDERATIONS late Though the Great Recession negatively impacted the feasibility of real estate development projects throughout the country, financing for new development is once again available and development activity is again increasing. Macroeconomic conditions will always affect local development trends, and are important since private development will drive any new additions to housing stock in Spokane Valley and the region. Multifamily units, in particular, were difficult to finance in many market areas, and the graph in Figure 42 illustrates this difficulty, as there were no multifamily units constructed in Spokane Valley between the third quarter of 2009 and the second quarter of 2012. Since the third quarter of 2012, however, the multifamily development pipeline has been relatively robust. Market data also show that, though multifamily vacancy rates are more volatile in the City than in the County, rates in both geographies are quite low. Vacancies spiked to almost 15% in Spokane Valley in 2009, but have since decreased and have remained between 4% and 6% since mid -2010 (Figure 43). Spokane County, as a larger geography, is more insulated from the volatility found in smaller markets; still, vacancies increased during and immediately after the recession, but have since stabilized at about 4%. These rates indicate a tight rental market regionally and potentially suggest unmet demand for multifamily products. Even the aforementioned spikes in vacancy appear to be Figure 42. Multifamily Housing Units Delivered by Quarter, Spokane Valley, 2005-2016 Source: CoStar Group (2016) 350 • Units Delivered 300 250 200 176 150 100 144 256 66 50 0.4 28 0 ' 324 27 250 188 135 135 attributable to concentrated periods of multifamily development, rather than insufficient demand; though vacancy increased by two percentage points in Spokane Valley in early 2015, several hundred units had been delivered in the months prior, and the rapid return to 4% vacancy suggests healthy absorption of the units delivered. The average apartment rent in Spokane Valley was roughly $100 lower than Spokane County's average rent between 2000 and 2008. Since early 2009, the average rent in Spokane Valley and Spokane County have been generally aligned. As of the first quarter of 2016, the average apartment rent for both areas was approximately $800 per month. Return to Table of Contents LI1 6-105 Figure 43. Apartment Rent and Vacancy Rates, Spokane Valley and Spokane County, 2000-2015 Source: CoStar Group (2016) $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $340 $200 $100 $O Cnu.ntywlde Rent 5pnk7no VAlk.y RPn9 Countywide VrearNcy P ; r. Spokane Valley Vacancy Rate n a n, ws &I w.) • rK wa n.a n o r a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ▪ 0 0 C 0 0 O Q O 4w O O vl Q CID O ▪ �- �tai Approach to the Housing Element CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Several challenges and opportunities arise from a careful analysis of these housing data. The following summarize obstacles and impediments to quality, affordable, and diverse housing options, as well as arising opportunities to improve housing in Spokane Valley, and underpin goal and policy development in the Housing Element. Providing For Cost -Burdened Residents While the proportion of cost -burdened Spokane Valley renters decreased between 2005 and 2014, more than one-third of all residents—owners and renters together—qualified as cost -burdened in 2014. This suggests a substantial need for more affordable housing units in the City, with a focus on affordable rental units. Smaller multifamily units are less expensive than stand-alone single family units, and an increase in their availability could alleviate some of the cost -burden Spokane Valley residents are currently facing. 6-106 More than 50% of Spokane Valley households earned less than $50,000 in 2014. For households earning $25,000 per year, rent and mortgage expenses should be less than $694 per month; at $50,000 annually, housing costs must be less than $1,389 per month. According to an apartment market survey executed by the Runstad Center for Real Estate Studies at the University of Washington, the average rent for apartments of any size in Spokane Valley was $827 per month in 2016, though two and three bedroom units likely exceed this cost by a significant margin. Moreover, when affordable housing units are located further from employment centers and daily needs, like grocery stores, pharmacies, gas stations, restaurants, and other retailers, transportation costs for residents increase significantly through car ownership, insurance requirements, and gasoline purchases. These facts point to the need for affordable housing within walking distance of retailers, employers, and transportation hubs. Creating Options For Non -Family Households As the number of households with children decreases, the demand for smaller housing options will likely increase in Spokane Valley and the County overall. Quality higher -density housing products, such as apartments, condominiums, townhouses, tiny homes, or backyard cottages, would be viable opportunities for residents without children and retirees and may offer the added benefit of increasing affordability for workers in retail and services. Accommodating An Aging Population Aging individuals experience a decrease in mobility—many are unable to drive or don't feel comfortable operating a vehicle as their reflexes and eyesight worsen. As a result, aging populations are more reliant upon transportation services and shorter commute times to amenities and health services. Additionally, increasing age often requires homeowners and renters to downsize because of health concerns, physical mobility restrictions, and/or reductions in income (University, 2014). Taken together, the aforementioned forces urge consideration of denser housing opportunities in close proximity to jobs, retail amenities like grocery stores and banks, and public transportation. Return to Table of Contents COMMUNITYAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES Responding To Community Preferences The housing stock in Spokane Valley is weighted toward single family units (61%). Low apartment vacancy rates and high rents indicate market demand for more multifamily units. Residents echoed the market status with a community desire for innovative types of multifamily housing, such as cottage housing, tiny homes, and accessory dwelling units. Improving Housing Diversity and Affordability ENCOURAGE THE CREATION OF MIXED-USE DESTINATIONS Regionally, Kendall Yards in Spokane has aroused interest as a relatively new style of development that embraces many of the tenets of a movement called new urbanism. Residents, as well as investors, have indicated interest in this type of development, which could anchor new regional retail, attract overnight visitors, amplify positive publicity, and create new mixed-use housing options. IMPROVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Substantial portions of the renter and homeowner population are cost -burdened by rent and mortgage payments. An increase in multifamily housing options would reduce the average rent for these units countywide, improving the livelihood of cost -burdened residents. Furthermore, providing housing options that meet the needs of local employees is critical to ensuring that local companies continue to have access to capable workers. ENSURE A RANGE OF HOUSING OPTIONS FOR RESIDENTS As the City's population ages and the proportion of households with children continues to decrease, the demand for smaller housing options will increase. During conversations with Spokane Valley residents, the desire for new housing typologies—including cottages and tiny homes—repeatedly arose. From an economic development standpoint, these typologies densify existing single family neighborhoods while enhancing neighborhood character, and therefore provide a captive audience for neighborhood -serving retailers that create new jobs in the community and draw visitors from nearby towns. 6-108 Neighborhood Character ENHANCE DISTINCTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER The SpokaneValley community expressed a strong desire for more neighborhood amenities, such as non -chain restaurants, boutiques, and local entertainment. These commercial features thrive in walkable, high density residential communities and may best be provided through mixed-use development, where multifamily units can improve the financial feasibility of the development project. BEST PRACTICES Coordinate with Human Services Housing for individuals and families with a need for human services is important. Planning for these housing types in appropriate areas will reduce barriers to access for these services and may improve the quality of life for those individuals and families. Incorporating Density, Improving Walkability Coordinating housing development with planning for commercial uses, transportation improvements, and public space can create vibrant places with high-quality, high-density housing options. Walkable places have been shown to create economic benefits for cities and residents alike, and these walkable destinations may help diversify and improve the City's stock of for -rent multifamily housing. Return to Table of Contents THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 6-110 CHAPTER 7 Capital FaciIities & Public Services Keturr, t,, 1T. /. REFERENCES KEY • x-xx in plan Refers to other section 7-112 Refers to other Spokane Valley plans and official documents Refers to other non -Spokane Valley references for further reading Introduction WHY THE CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT IS IMPORTANT The Capital Facilities Element helps the City manage its investments related to facilities needed for growth, and responds to specific Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements. The element relies on a Capital Facilities Plan (CFP), which helps the City use its limited funding wisely and efficiently, and ensures that facilities are in place when growth occurs. The CFP includes a six-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) with estimated costs and proposed methods of financing. The plan also anticipates needed investments to support the City's economic development initiatives. PLANNING CONTEXT The GMA, specifically RCW 36.70A.070 (3) (a), identifies public facilities that are required to be inventoried. WAC 365-196-415 provides guidance as to which capital facilities should be included in the inventory. At a minimum, they should include water systems, sanitary sewer systems, stormwater facilities, reclaimed water facilities, schools, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection facilities. Identified facilities must have a minimum standard Level of Service (LOS), include an inventory, needs assessment, and include or reference the location and capacity of needed facilities. Transportation standards are the only facilities required to have a concurrency mechanism, although a local government may choose to adopt a concurrency mechanism for other facilities. The Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County (CWPP) contain a number of goals and policies regarding capital facilities and the provision of urban services. This Element is consistent with the CWPP and the adopted regional LOS standards. This Element acts as a reference to all the various capital facility plans, comprehensive plans, capital improvement and investment programs, inventories, and studies that together represent the planning and financing mechanisms required to serve the capital facility needs for the City. The City's approach to capital facilities planning is unique in that special purpose districts and other private utilities provide many of our services. The City, however, provides capital facilities for municipal buildings, streets, parks and recreation, and stormwater. This Capital Facilities Element therefore provides information about the City's facilities, but also references the functional plans of each external service provider. The Element contains an inventory of capital facilities and service providers, and existing and future LOS for each type of capital facility. Current Conditions The City owns and manages a number of capital facilities including roads, parks, police facility, regional event center, a City Hall and a street maintenance facility. There are a number of capital facilities that serve the City of Spokane Valley that are managed by other entities (see table below). In these cases, the City coordinates with the responsible governing bodies and organizations to ensure consistency between capital facility plans. This collaborative review covers the construction of new facilities, improvements to existing facilities, the levels of service provided by those facilities, and the sources of revenues and financing of needed facilities. SUMMARY OF EXISTING FACILITIES The following (Figure 44) is a summary inventory of capital facilities providing services within the City of Spokane Valley and references corresponding functional plans and maps. Capital facilities belonging to privately -owned utilities serving the City (electrical, natural gas, liquid or other gas pipelines, and telecommunication) are discussed in the Utilities Element of the Plan. Figure 44. Summary Inventory of Capital Facilities Source: City of Spokane Valley (2016) FACILITIES INVENTORY DESCRIPTION FUNCTIONAL PLANS AND MAPS Water The City of Spokane Valley does not own or operate a public water supply system. Spokane Valley residences and businesses receive water from special purpose districts, associations, and public and private corporations. The Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) identifies service boundaries, establishes minimum design standards and promotes the consolidation of regional water resource management. The Board of County Commissioners or the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) provide updates to the CWSP. Spokane Valley supports regional water supply planning, water use efficiency programs and plans, watershed planning, wellhead protection plans, water quality plans, and planning for reclamation and reuse. Return to Table of Contents • Spokane County CWSP • Map of Water Districts and Wellheads 7-113 FACILITIES INVENTORY DESCRIPTION FUNCTIONAL PLANS AND MAPS Sewer Transportation Stormwater Law Enforcement Libraries Parks and Recreation 7-114 Spokane County Environmental Services provides sewer service in Spokane Valley. In 2009 an interlocal agreement was adopted which established a wastewater management advisory board and gave Spokane County the exclusive authority to provide sewer service to the City of Spokane Valley. Transportation capital facilities include streets, bridges, pathways, and sidewalks. Spokane Valley is responsible for about 439 miles of public roads. Overall, there are approximately 125 miles of major roadways (arterials and collectors) and 314 miles of local roadways, encompassing over 81,000,000 square feet of asphalt and concrete surfacing. The Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) lists all the transportation projects the City of Spokane Valley plans to pursue over the next six years. Spokane Valley coordinates with other agencies, including Spokane County and the WSDOT, when developing the TIP. In addition, the future transportation project list identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIS illustrates the types of projects that may be necessary by 2040 to maintain acceptable LOS in Spokane Valley. Stormwater runoff in Spokane Valley flows to a combination of public and private facilities. The City created a Stormwater Utility to maintain over 18,000 stormwater facilities that support City -owned right of way and properties. Private property owners are responsible for the maintenance of stormwater facilities that retain and infiltrate stormwater collected from their site, or as part of development agreements and easements. The Stormwater Utility updates a Six -Year Stormwater Capital Improvement Program that lists projects that the stormwater utility plans to pursue in the near future. New development and redevelopment projects are required to meet the current standards set forth in the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual, which ensures that runoff is treated and properly disposed of. The Spokane Valley Police Department provides a safe environment for the citizens, businesses, and visitors of the City of Spokane Valley through a contractual agreement with the Spokane County Sheriff's Department. This unique contracting relationship allows for the sharing of resources, allowing both agencies to operate at peak efficiency without duplicating services. • Spokane County Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan • Map of Sewer Service • Transportation Improvement Plan • Map of Arterial Street Plan • Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual • Stormwater Utility Capital Improvement Program • UIC Assessment and Retrofit Map • Stormwater Discharge Map • Interlocal agreement or contract for services The Spokane County Library District (District) provides library services in Spokane Valley. The District is a municipal corporation established by voters in 1942 under • Spokane County Library Capital provisions of RCW 27.12.040. This independent special purpose district provides Improvement Plan public library services to the unincorporated county and affiliated municipalities. The Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department provides for a wide range of recreational opportunities available to residents and visitors. City parks, school play fields, trails, County parks, and conservations areas are all within close vicinity to Spokane Valley residents. • Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan FACILITIES INVENTORY DESCRIPTION FUNCTIONAL PLANS AND MAPS Solid Waste Fire and Emergency Services Public Schools City -Owned Facilities Private haulers licensed by the Washington Utility and Transportation Commission • Spokane Valley Solid Waste (W.U.T.C.) through contracts provide solid waste services in Spokane Valley. Management Plan Spokane Valley Fire Department (SVFD) and Spokane County Fire District No. 8 provide fire protection, rescue, and emergency medical services (EMS) in the City of Spokane Valley. • SVFD Strategic Plan SVFD serves over 90% of the City, while District 8 serves a few small areas in the southern part of the City. Both districts serve the City with a full range of fire suppression and EMS. Four public school districts provide service within Spokane Valley: East Valley, West Valley, Central Valley, and Spokane School District 81. Spokane Valley must coordinate with each district to ensure consistency between the City's plan and school districts' plans. Specific information on school district facilities including, but not limited to, enrollment, classroom size, service standards, and financing is contained in each Plan school district's strategic plan. • Map of School Districts • Map of Fire Districts • CVSD Strategic Plan • EVSD Strategic Plan • WVSD Strategic Plan • Spokane Public Schools Strategic The City maintains other capital facilities including satellite police precinct, regional • City of Spokane Valley Capital event center, city hall and a street maintenance facility (see descriptions below). Facilities Plan 4�� v>, \OO\ eturn • to Table of Conteh`§ 7-115 Manairnpkaorint V p(rrlmt Ira Figure 45. Map of Fire Districts Source: City of Spokane Valley (2016); Community Attributes Inc. (2016) Fire District 9 rivatvegdpil wrigailail Di*k1 lx r Ynne.oae krripalaa Diark Ci+IIRI1614 Rriisetion dt • i • I mnwia Ora..ae....o. Fleki Olwlkl•6 Bold, ah. Cwri—. WPif Nikki IP4 China rcr Liberty Lak■ [i1{Irii Wi!M ,y. Sp,okan a Valley Fire • (27 w.d.i iInly.m. In.;I 1 r v/LLE LYuiyrr PNn<R • ■ Ss . Esamor, Wm. 17M.kR*,! — Firs and Warr Distrkt MuniCipad Elcianciaries .w 3, 63 di 'Cell 7-116 6410.1 6hr 11 of Fire District 8 Merle 4It il... Inh.mva LI.INrf■ii Click to open interactive map! hirYc�11011 The maps (Figures 45 and 46) depict the facilities related to fire and emergency services and public schools that are located in the City. CITY -OWNED FACILITIES This section of the CFP includes civic buildings such as government offices, community centers, and entertainment facilities. As a relatively new City, incorporated in 2003, Spokane Valley does not have a significant inventory of community facilities. Figure 46. Map of Schools and School Districts Source: City of Spokane Valley (2016); Community Attributes Inc. (2016) Spokane '#61 est /,‘Flefir EastValin .�nnmlary '�.2 East atley #361 Av E_., Mi?dlr• GI ti tnatrk, ELvnu ai uy Lak. Cer7i r.;3I Valley #3S6 Ufteaie ' M6Ehk4 EhtffklrIlLinr l—rre5i?a:itzoSdk•r rrra,1 School DEstrics, Schools, & 5 t. Routes to Scliool 1t+'uLII ii J�`J:Y1 sem. .1,Ariei Sc#'Iaa15 in 301 BCCI S[udefRS VrCthar58W5tudcr'.'. CenterPlace Regional Event Center CenterPlace is located at 2426 North Discovery Place, near Mirabeau Park. It is a 54,000 square foot regional event center and houses the Senior Center, as well as the Parks and Recreation Office. Street Maintenance Facility The City of Spokane Valley Street and Stormwater maintenance facility is located at 17002 East Euclid Avenue. The facility houses plow trucks, stormwater and traffic signal parts, liquid and granular deicing material, and other street maintenance equipment. Return to Table of Contents r�Y C 7-117 Police Precinct The Police Precinct is located at 12710 East Sprague Avenue. The building is approximately 21,779 square feet in size. The District Court operates a courtroom out of the building, using 2,503 square feet. The County pays a lease and maintenance charges for this facility. The building also contains office space, kitchen, locker room and bathroom, maintenance garage, gym, court ticket counter, police counter, conference room, and roll call room. There is also a shop and garage in a separate structure. Dedicated Spokane Valley personnel and some support staff are housed at the Precinct. Most of the investigative personnel and support staff are housed at the Public Safety Building in Spokane. The old holding area is now used for breathalyzer tests, probation meetings, recorded interviews, and additional office space. Ongoing Projects The City Hall site is 3.38 acres located at the southeast corner of Sprague Avenue and Dartmouth Street. The structure is 65,172 square feet. The building will be three stories above grade totaling 47,485 square feet. The first floor will be 18,553 square feet, the second floor will be 15,155 square feet and the third floor is 13,777 square feet. The building will have a full basement of 17,687 square feet. The construction of City Hall will be complete by August 31, 2017. The City will move in to the new building in September 2017. The total project cost for City Hall is approximately $14,150,000. The City is using $6,300,000 from the general fund and $7,850,000 in net Limited Tax General Obligation bond proceeds. The bonds will be repaid over a 30 -year period in roughly equal annual installments. The average annual bond repayment is $399,888, which is $34,712 less per year than the City's current annual lease payment for the current City Hall space at the Redwood Plaza located at 11707 East Sprague Avenue. MEETING AND EXCEEDING STANDARDS Level of Service (LOS) is the adopted standard used to measure the adequacy of services. LOS relates to the types of services rendered. For capital facilities, LOS standards determine what improvements or new facilities are necessary to support anticipated growth. These standards inform the public, developers, and decision -makers about the quality or quantity of a facility or service. An LOS standard is a tool to measure the performance of a capital facility. A capital facility operating at or above the established LOS indicates no need for 7-118 improvements or new facilities. A facility operating below the established LOS is an indication that there may be a need for improvements, or a need for new facilities, or re-evaluation of the LOS. The following table (Figure 47) below provides the regional LOS for water, sewer, transportation, stormwater, law enforcement, libraries, parks, street cleaning, public transit, fire, and schools. Local jurisdictions may choose higher standards. Figure 47. Regional LOS Summary for Capital Facilities Source: Spokane County; additional sources indicated in table FACILITIES REGIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD Water Sewer Domestic Water Supply - Minimum Levels of Service for storage capacity and flow shall be consistent with the Washington State Department of Health requirements and the Spokane County CWSP requirements (where applicable). System Design - Minimum Levels of Service for pipe sizing, flow rate, and systematic grid development shall be consistent with the Washington State Department of Health requirements and the Coordinated Water System Plan requirements (where applicable). Fire Flow - Fire flow rate and duration as well as fire hydrant specifications and spacing shall be consistent with local fire authority requirements or the Fire Code, whichever is more stringent. Incorporated areas will be provided with wastewater collection and transport systems in accordance with the adopted sewer concurrency requirements of the jurisdiction. Unincorporated urban growth areas will be provided with wastewater collection and transport systems in accordance with the requirements for sewer concurrency as set forth in Spokane County's Development Regulations. Collection systems and transport systems will be designed for peak flow conditions so that overflows, backups, and discharges from the system do not occur under normal operating situations. Specific design criteria shall conform to the requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology and local regulations. Wastewater collection and transport systems will convey wastewater to centralized wastewater treatment facilities. Centralized wastewater treatment and effluent disposal facilities will be planned, designed, and constructed to provide effluent that does not adversely impact the quality of surface or groundwater of the State of Washington. Planning and design for wastewater treatment and effluent disposal facilities will be based on 20 -year projections of population growth and current water quality criteria as established by the Washington State Department of Ecology. (Centralized wastewater treatment facilities shall be a part of a sewage system owned or operated by a city, town, municipal corporation, county, political subdivision of the state, or other approved ownership consisting of a collection system and necessary trunks, pumping facilities, and means of final treatment and disposal and approved or under permit from the Washington State Department of Ecology.) Transportation Maintain travel corridor time as established by Spokane Regional Transportation Council. 7-119 FACILITIES REGIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD Stormwater Law Enforcement Flooding of property outside designated drainage -ways, de facto drainage -ways, easements, flood zones, or other approved drainage facilities during the design precipitation or runoff event prescribed in the standards of the governing local agency or jurisdiction shall be prevented within the reasonable probability afforded by such standards. Impact to buildings and accessory structures shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable by evaluating the effects of a 100 -year rain event, and implementing measures to ensure that the runoff attendant to such an event is directed away from such buildings and accessory structures. Any stormwater discharge to surface or groundwaters must meet federal, state, and local requirements for water quality treatment, stormwater runoff, and infiltration. Each jurisdiction shall specify in its Comprehensive Plan a level of police protection that addresses the safety of its citizens. Libraries Each jurisdiction will specify its own LOS Parks Each jurisdiction will specify its own LOS Solid Waste Solid waste processing will meet Federal and State regulations, including maintaining any required facilities licenses. Street Cleaning Public Transit Fire and Emergency Services Each jurisdiction within the non -attainment area shall develop and use a street cleaning plan, coordinating with Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority (SCAPCA) as the oversight agency, to meet mandated Particulate Matter dust standards. Each jurisdiction's street cleaning plan will describe the programs and methods to be used to reduce particulate matter emissions from paved surfaces. Each plan shall address but not be limited to the following: 1. Street sweeping frequency and technology to be employed. 2. Factors for determining when and where to initiate street sweeping following a sanding event, with the goals of expeditious removal when safety and mobility requirements have been satisfied. 3. Sanding reduction goal. 4. Sanding materials specifications to be employed. 5. Locations, application rates and circumstances for use of chemical de-icers and other sanding alternatives. 6. Identification of priority roadways (over 15,000 average daily traffic count). Jurisdictions within the Public Transit Benefit Area (PTBA) shall have policies consistent with the LOS adopted by the Spokane Transit Authority Board of Directors. Urban areas jurisdictions in excess of 5,000 population, or once a population of 5,000 persons is achieved, shall be served by a fire district with at least a (Washington Survey and Rating Bureau of Insurance Services Office) Class 6 Insurance Rating or better. For the purposes of GMA minimum Levels of Service, Class 6 or better shall be based on the ISO Grading Schedule for municipal fire protection, 1974 edition, as amended, by using the fire district, fire service communication, and fire safety control portions of the grading schedule. The total deficiency points identified in these portions of the ISO or Washington Survey and Rating Bureau schedule shall not exceed 1,830 points. All jurisdictions, regardless of size, shall ensure that new development has a Fire Flow and hydrant placement per the International Fire Code adopted by that jurisdiction. Urban areas must be within five road miles of an operating fire station that provides service with a "Class A" pumper, unless structures are equipped with fire sprinkler(s) that are rated in accordance with the edition of the International Fire Code adopted by the jurisdiction, and is located within five road miles of an operating fire station that provides service with a Class "A" rated pumper. Urban areas shall be served by a state certified basic life support (BLS) agency. Urban areas should be served by an operating basic lifesaving unit within 5 miles; and an operating advanced life support unit within six miles or 10 minutes' response time for those jurisdictions with urban areas in excess of 5,000 in population; and basic life support and advanced life support transport service. Public Schools To be determined by individual school district CFP. 7-120 The City has adopted the following LOS standards (Figure 48), which in some cases exceed the regional LOS standards described in the preceding table. Figure 48. Spokane Valley LOS Summary for Capital Facilities Source: City of Spokane Valley FACILITIES SPOKANE VALLEY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD Water Meet the minimum Regional LOS Sewer Public Sewer required for new development • LOS D for major arterial corridors: • Argonne/Mullan between the town of Millwood and Appleway Boulevard • Pines Road between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue • Evergreen Road between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue • Sullivan Road between Wellesley Avenue Transportation' and 8th Avenue • Sprague Avenue/Appleway Boulevard between Fancher Road and Sullivan Road • LOS D for signalized intersections not on major arterial corridors Stormwater Law Enforcement Libraries Parks Solid Waste Street Cleaning Public Transit Fire and Emergency Services Public Schools • LOS E for unsignalized intersections (LOS F is acceptable if the peak hour traffic signal warrant is not met) Meet the minimum Regional LOS No minimum LOS adopted Library District to set LOS 1.92 acres per 1,000 residents Meet the minimum regional LOS Meet the minimum regional LOS Meet the minimum regional LOS Meet the minimum regional LOS School Districts to set LOS 1.1-90 is a HSS facility under the jurisdiction of WSDOT. Maintain WSDOT adopted LOS standards on 1-90 and the ramp terminal intersections with city streets. keturn to Table of Contents A full discussion of LOS for transportation • 5-89 facilities is located in the Transportation Element. i 7-121 Notably, the City does not apply LOS standards to the City -owned facilities described in an earlier section of this Element. Instead, the City is developing an asset management system that will allow the City to produce recommen- dations for the maintenance of City -owned facilities. Also notable is the fact that the City, pursuant to state law, considers the adequacy of water supply (in addition to minimum LOS) prior to issuance of a building permit or other land actions (e.g. rezonings, subdivisions). FUNDING FUTURE PROJECTS The GMA requires that budgeting decisions be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The 6 -year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a significant component of the Financing Plan. It includes a list of projects, when they will begin, how much they will cost, and how they will be funded. Both the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan are adopted by reference and each identify capital improvements and the financing for those improvements. Both plans are adequately funded to maintain the adopted LOS. The new City Hall building is the only other capital improvement proposed within the next six years and the financing for that project is identified under ongoing projects. For all other facility types, the City will continue to coordinate with relevant service providers identified above. These providers are responsible for maintaining adopted levels of service and the financing of improvements. The improvements and financing for those providers are not repeated here. Current Funding Sources The City is limited in its ability to finance all desired capital facility projects. Options must be available for addressing funding shortfalls or adjustments to lower the levels of service for public facilities. In deciding how to address a particular shortfall, the City will need to balance current needs versus future growth requirements and existing deficiencies versus future expansions. If funding shortfalls occur, the City will have the following options available to balance the budget: 7-122 • Increase revenues, • Decrease LOS standards, • Decrease the cost of the service or facility, • Decrease the demand for the service or facility, • Some combination of the above. Frequently -used sources of funds for the maintenance or expansion of capital facilities in Spokane Valley include current revenues, bonds, federal grants, state grants and loans and others. Those sources are included, with added detail, in Figure 49. Approach to the Capital Facilities Element CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Ensuring Street Maintenance State law requires cities to submit a TIP showing the sources and amount of funding for transportation improvement projects planned for the upcoming six-year period. Projects included on a TIP represent the City's intent to fund and construct transportation projects and both state and federal agencies require projects to be included in a TIP in order to be eligible for grant funding. The City can currently finance its six-year TIP, though decisions will need to be made by the City's leadership to ensure that the City can maintain, in the long-term, the high quality street infrastructure that exists today. The City has the challenge of maintaining the quality of the existing street system. The City has approximately 439 miles of paved roadways within its entire network. Overall, there are approximately 125 miles of major roadways (arterials and collectors) and 314 miles of local roadways, encompassing over 81,000,000 square feet of asphalt and concrete surfacing. At an average replacement cost for a typical roadway approaching $859,000 per mile, not including the value of the land, the City has over $375 million invested in its paved roadway network. Return to Table of Contents Figure 49. Funding Sources for Capital Improvements Source: City of Spokane Valley FUNDING CATEGORY FUNDING SOURCE Current Revenues Bonds Federal Grants State Grants/Loans Other 7-124 • General Fund (sales tax, fees, property tax, state -shared revenues, etc.) • Utility Tax for Street Maintenance • Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) • Impact Fees • Stormwater Utility and Aquifer Protection Area Fees • Non -voted General Obligation • Voted General Obligation • Revenue (payable from a particular utility or enterprise) • Local Improvement District (Assessment Bonds) • Surface Transportation Program • Bridge Replacement Funds • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) • Land and Water Conservation Fund • Community Development Block Grants • Aquatic Lands EnhancementAccount(ALEA) • Transportation Improvement Account • Centennial Clean Water Fund • Public Works Trust Funds • Resource and Conservation Office (RCO) • Arterial Street Fund (Motor Fuel Tax) • Urban Arterial Trust Account (UATA) • Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account • Hazardous Bridge Replacement • Community and Economic Revitalization Board • Water Pollution Control Fund • Developer Contributions • Donations • Local Improvement Districts Preservation of the existing street systems has become a major concern for the City due to the limitation of current funding. In an effort to identify solutions for maintaining the City's street infrastructure, the City hired a consultant to analyze the condition of the streets and provide solutions for pavement management. Pavement management is the process of planning, budgeting, funding, designing, constructing, monitoring, evaluating, maintaining, and rehabilitating the pavement network to provide maximum benefits with available funds. Decisions will need to be made on the desired LOS and acceptable amount of backlog, including deciding on an acceptable Overall Condition Index (OCI) level for City streets. Establishing the target OCI will allow the City to decide on the appropriate annual budget for street maintenance expenditures. The financial impact of allowing the network OCI to drop by allocating fewer resources toward preservation efforts will increase costs in future years when streets may need to be fully restored. Deferred maintenance can save some money in years of significant financial constraint; however, that deferred maintenance usually comes at a higher cost later on. Deferring needed maintenance can also reduce the lifespan of the investment. Every year the City underfunds street maintenance it ultimately costs more to rehabilitate in future years. Coordinating Water Districts The City does not own or operate a public water supply system. Spokane Valley residences and businesses receive water through special purpose districts, associations, and public and private corporations. The Coordinated Water System Plan identifies service boundaries, establishes minimum design standards and promotes the consolidation of regional water resource management. All future development must demonstrate that there is adequate water and fire flow for the proposed use. The City relies on groundwater from the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer for its water needs. Groundwater rights determine the pumping capacity. Currently, some water purveyors serving the City are close to or exceeding their allocated water rights. The City is collaborating with water districts to derive solutions such as adjudication, the formation of a water authority, the conversion of irrigation water rights to municipal water rights, or the inclusion of irrigation water rights when evaluating water supply capacity. Return to Table of Contents The City will need to continue to coordinate with the water purveyors and DOH to ensure there is an adequate supply of water for current and anticipated demand. On the capacity side, the City will continue to coordinate on the development of strategies to ensure there is adequate water capacity to serve anticipated levels of development. Furthermore, the City will not issue building permits or land actions if the applicant is unable to demonstrate adequate water availability. Managing Coal and Oil Transportation Most of the coal delivered to U.S. consumers and for foreign export is transported by railroads. Citizens and local governments in Washington State are concerned about the impacts of increased rail traffic going through their communities and the impacts of proposed coal and oil export facilities. In Washington State, new oil terminal facilities are proposed in Vancouver and Grays Harbor, and the state's five existing refineries from Tacoma to Ferndale are planning to expand. The five coal export terminals proposed for Washington and Oregon could add dozens of trains per day to the City's railways. The new terminals and increased transport can obstruct and delay vehicles at rail crossings, extend the travel times of emergency responders, and block access to hospitals, schools, businesses, and neighborhoods. Heavy coal trains damage rails with their pressure and clog the pores of gravel under tracks, reducing wet ballast permeability and stability increasing the risk of derailment of other hazardous and explosive freight. Currently, approximately 150 to 175 trains move through the City daily. If all of the proposed coal export terminals are built, as many as 47 coal trains could be added to the daily total over the next two decades. Half of the trains would be full of coal heading to the ports. The other half would be empty going back to Wyoming and Montana to pick up more coal from the Powder River Basin. This increase in rail traffic further necessitates Bridging the Valley (BTV). The BTV project will separate vehicle traffic from train traffic in the 42 -mile corridor between Spokane, Washington and Athol, Idaho. The separation of railroad and roadway grades would improve safety, reduce congestion, assist in eliminating whistle noise, improve air quality, and enhance economic development. It may benefit the City to continue to pursue strategic investments in the near term in order to avoid costlier investments in the future. 7-126 Siting Essential Public Facilities The GMA requires the Comprehensive Plan to include a process for identifying and siting Essential Public Facilities (EPF). According to the GMA, no local comprehensive plan may preclude the siting of EPF. The GMA defines EPF as those "that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities, and state or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020." The regional process provides for a review process with a location analysis. Public involvement takes place throughout the process with public comment periods as well as public hearings. The review process requires the applicant for an EPF to assume responsibility for the bulk of the analysis and processing of the proposal. The analysis includes two parts. First, an analysis of functional criteria of all potential sites is conducted to select the highest-ranking 10 semi-finalist sites. Second, these 10 semi-finalist sites are analyzed using more qualitative criteria and resulting in selection of at least three preferred sites. Both analyses include public comment periods. Next, the BoCC conducts a public hearing on the preferred site list to allow for further public comment, identify strategies to address any issues associated with particular sites, and rank the finalist sites. The BoCC ranking is advisory to, but not binding on the applicant. Last, the applicant, after selecting a specific site, will work directly with a local jurisdiction and its regulatory requirements to permit construction and operation of the EPF. The regional siting process is based on a coordinated inter -jurisdictional approach, which in combination with consistent development regulations among the jurisdictions will implement the requirement of equitable distribution of EPF of a statewide or regional/countywide nature. COMMUNITYAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES The following improvements are not required of the City, but rather are aspirational and represent opportunities to fulfill citizen desires and advance ongoing economic development efforts. Return to Table of Contents Funding New Facilities and Services New growth creates a demand for new and expanded public facilities and services, and the City must find ways to pay for these facilities and services. Impact fees may represent one opportunity to raise the necessary funds. The GMA authorizes local governments to impose and collect impact fees to partially fund public facilities to accommodate new growth, and these fees can be used to pay for new or expanded facilities (but cannot be collected to address existing infrastructure deficiencies). The GMA allows impact fees to be assessed on the following: • Public Streets and Roads. • Public Parks. • Schools. • Open Space. • Fire Protection Facilities. • Recreation Facilities. Impact fees provide an opportunity for the City to fund future facilities by distributing the costs of new development proportionally as development occurs. Many builders and developers are impact fee proponents because they know that impact fees add predictability to the development approval process and create a "level playing field" between them and their competitors. They also know impact fees replace less fair negotiated exactions. According to recent national surveys, about 60% of all cities with over 25,000 residents and almost 40% of all metropolitan counties use some form of impact fees. The City may consider enacting impact fees to add predictability and a more balanced funding mechanism for capital facilities. Sustaining Investment In Trails The City has invested in the development of the Appleway Trail. The first phase constructed a shared use path along the abandoned Milwaukee Railroad corridor. The corridor parallels Sprague Avenue, approximately two blocks to the south, through the heart of Spokane Valley's commercial district. In 2008, the City constructed 1.2 miles of this path from Corbin Road to the east City limits. The City is scheduled to construct Pines to Evergreen and Sullivan to Corbin in 2017. 7-128 The project will provide a route for non -motorized travel along Spokane Valley's principle east -west commercial arterial, connecting Pence -Cole Valley Transit Center, business districts, schools, and multifamily housing. The pathway will connect to Sprague Avenue by way of signage, side street routes, and connections directly to businesses. The path will include arterial crossings with pedestrian HAWK beacons, medians, and pedestrian rapid flashing beacons at the higher traffic volume locations. Connecting the Appleway Trail to Sprague Avenue and the commercial assets along the corridor is a great opportunity and can generate a range of expected benefits for the local community. The City may pursue this opportunity by continuing to make connections to the businesses along the Sprague Avenue corridor from the Appleway Trail. The City will benefit from increase sales taxes and nearby retail businesses will benefit from increased spending. Providing Infrastructure For Industrial Development The role of government and the relationship with business has changed considerably since the recession. Policymakers have begun to focus many of their efforts on understanding and supporting business development. The City recognizes that industrial development is necessary to increase economic prosperity in our community. INDUSTRIAL IMPROVEMENT AREA The City has identified an area located in the northeast portion of the City that is appropriate for quality industrial development. The City is coordinating infrastructure improvements, and continued planning for relevant facilities and services is essential to achieving the City's vision. To date, the City has coordinated with economic development partners at the state and local levels to facilitate a new Union Pacific spur just east of Barker Road and north of Euclid Avenue. The spur will allow for rail access to approximately 500 acres of industrial land. The City is also working with Spokane County to facilitate the expansion of sewer service to the same area. Ultimately, the City would like to work with the property owners to create certified sites for new industrial development. Return to Table of Contents BARKER ROAD GRADE SEPARATION The existing intersection at Barker Road and Trent Avenue has a LOS of "F" due to high traffic volumes and proximity to the at -grade crossing. This failing LOS rating restricts development of 500 acres of nearby industrial -zoned land and 75 acres of residential -zoned land. Without improvement, the crossing will experience continued increases in vehicle and rail conflicts, eroding the quality of life in nearby residential areas and impeding economic growth. This project proposes an overpass over BNSF's tracks an Trent Avenue, as well as other roadway access improvements. The Barker Road crossing is one of 57 high-priority projects for the BNSF mainline separation projects of the BTV program. BNSF's tracks currently carry approximately 55 scheduled trains a day, a figure that will increase substantially to serve a projected expansion in agricultural production, natural resources, and other sectors. The estimated project costs are $36 million. The City is not currently able to pay these costs. The investment in infrastructure will allow the land to support economic development at a much higher intensity. The economic and tax impacts of that higher level of development are estimated as follows stemming from the construction and occupation of industrial developments. • $2 billion in total economic output in the state ($980 million in direct impacts). • 9,800 new jobs supported in the state (3,300 direct job impacts). • $12.3 million in new general fund taxes to the City (25 -year present value at 4%). • $50.8 million in new general fund taxes to Washington State (25 -year present value at 4%). PINES ROAD IMPROVEMENTS This $18 million project proposes to reconstruct Pines Road to pass under existing BNSF tracks. To accommodate this, Trent Avenue will also be lowered. This project will allow the City of Spokane Valley to request closure of the University Road railroad crossing one mile to the west. The closure would further improve public safety by reducing the possibility of rail -vehicle collisions at this intersection. BNSF's tracks currently carry approximately 55 scheduled trains a day, a figure that will increase substantially to serve a projected expansion in agricultural production, natural resources, and other sectors. In 2016, the project cost is estimated to cost $18 million. 7-130 Supporting Retail The City's capital investments often set the stage for and entice private investment. There is a significant amount of retail space in Spokane Valley, with retail uses clustered along Sprague Avenue and Appleway Boulevard, as well as many of the City's north -south corridors like Argonne Road and Sullivan Road and the area near the Spokane Valley Mall. The City recognizes supporting current retail and future, catalytic development projects requires continued investment in local infrastructure. The City may consider input from retailers and other business owners when prioritizing capital projects, investing in the appearance of key gateways and planning for multimodal access to retail centers. Furthermore, the City could also consider infrastructure improvements in areas with higher housing densities, especially those lacking public infrastructure that would support neighborhood -scale retail development. Ongoing City -funded projects, such as City Hall, also offer opportunities to create the conditions for new retail development. BEST PRACTICES Capital facility plans are blueprints for the future; they identify economic, land use, and infrastructure development and/or redevelopment, which may include transportation, housing, and public facilities. These plans include broad community participation to ensure the City is planning and identifying the jurisdictional needs for the future. Regular updates are imperative to determine development and infrastructure needs as local conditions change. Emphasizing Preventative Maintenance Future updates to the Comprehensive Plan and other related plans will consider addressing preventive maintenance. A component of effective maintenance typically includes preventative maintenance at regularly scheduled intervals to prevent premature failure and to maximize the useful life of our facilities. The City may therefore benefit from establishing a baseline for a comprehensive preventive maintenance program. Return to Table of Contents THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 7-132 CHAPTER 8 Public & Private Utilities Return to Table of Contents REFERENCES KEY • x-xx in plan Refers to other section Refers to other Spokane Valley plans and official documents Refers to other non -Spokane Valley references for further reading 8-134 Introduction WHYTHE UTILITIES ELEMENT IS IMPORTANT Spokane Valley residents rely on facilities and services that help define their quality of life. These facilities include those provided by several privately - owned utilities in the region. Although these utilities are privately owned and regulated at either the state and/or federal level, coordinated planning at the local level is essential to ensure that adequate utility service is available to all citizens. Sanitary sewer and potable water are typically considered "utilities"; however, for purposes of the City's Comprehensive Plan, sewer and water are addressed in the Capital Facilities Element of this Plan. This Element addresses electrical service, natural gas, and telecommunications utilities. The Utilities Element is an opportunity to identify ways of improving the quality of services provided within the City. The City will use this element to identify priorities and develop implementation strategies to ensure that provision of utilities is properly coordinated with land use. PLANNING CONTEXT The GMA requires cities to prepare a Utilities Element that generally describes the location of existing and proposed utilities, and the related capacity. This Element must be internally consistent with all other appropriate elements of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. At a regional level, the Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) provide a regional policy framework to achieve the overall goals of the GMA. The CWPP were coordinated by the Spokane County Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) and adopted by the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners. A Regional Utility Corridor Plan was prepared by the Spokane County Regional Utility Technical Committee and adopted in 1995 by the SCEO to insure the CWPP's were met. Many utilities that operate within the region are planned and regulated at higher levels. Privately and publicly -owned electrical, natural gas, and land line telephone utilities are regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC). Wireless telephone communication companies are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Cable television companies are regulated by the FCC and the Communications Acts of 1934 and 1996. Utilities must have a franchise agreement to place utilities in the public right of way. Franchise agreements give each utility the non-exclusive right to provide its category of service within the City. Current Conditions This section provides information related to the current providers of electrical service utilities and telecommunications utilities in Spokane Valley. ELECTRICAL SERVICE UTILITIES There are currently five providers of electrical services serving Spokane Valley. These include the Bonneville Power Administration, Avista Utilities, Vera Water & Power, Modern Electric Water Company, and Inland Power and Light. This section introduces each company and provides an overview of services. Bonneville Power Administration The BPA is a federal agency under the U.S. Department of Energy that markets wholesale electrical power and operates and markets electrical transmission services in the Pacific Northwest. Although BPA is part of the U.S. Department of Energy, it is self -funding and covers its costs by selling its products and services. BPA markets wholesale electrical power from 31 federal hydroelectric projects in the Columbia River Basin, one non-federal nuclear plant and several other non-federal power plants. The dams are operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. BPA manages over 15,000 circuit miles of transmission lines and owns 261 substations. Return to Table of Contents i O 8-136 Additional information can be found on Avista's website at: www.avistautilities.com The IRP and additional information on the process is available on Avista's website at www. avistautilities.com/ inside/resources/irp The hydroelectric projects and the electrical system are known as the Federal Columbia River Power System. Approximately 28% of the electric power used in the Spokane Valley region comes from BPA. BPA's transmission system accounts for approximately three-fourths of the high-voltage grid in its service territory and includes major transmission links with other regions. BPA's service territory covers 300,000 square miles and includes Idaho, Oregon, Washington, western Montana, and small parts of eastern Montana, California, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. BPA operates a 500kV line just north of the existing City limits. Additionally, BPA operates the Trentwood substation and 115kV transmission lines within the City. Avista Utilities Avista Utilities is involved in the production, transmission, and distribution of energy. Avista provides energy services and electricity to customers in eastern Washington, northern Idaho. Avista Utilities is an operating division of Avista Corporation and is the principal electricity provider in the City. Avista is statutorily obligated to provide reliable electricity service to its customers at rates, terms, and conditions that are fair, just, reasonable, and sufficient. To determine how to best meet the future electric needs of its customers, Avista produces an Electric Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The IRP looks ahead 20 years to identify resource strategies and portfolios that will cost-effectively meet customers' long-term needs. The Electrical IRP is refreshed in odd years, as required by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission and the Idaho Public Utilities Commission where Avista has customers. The most recent IRP and additional information on the process are available on Avista's website at www.avistautilities.com/inside/resources/irp Vera Water & Power Vera Water and Power (Vera) is a publicly -owned utility that supplies water and electricity to the Veradale area. Vera currently operates three substations in Spokane Valley. A new substation located on the corner of Sullivan Road and 16th Avenue is under construction with a target energize date of 2016. Approximately 3,000 customers will be moved to the new substation to ensure the district's electric system is safe and reliable. Vera purchases the majority of its power from the BPA which is then distributed to its customers through an underground and overhead electrical distribution system. Vera takes delivery of power from BPA at the substations indicated above. Vera serves over 10,500 electric customers in the City. In June 2016, Vera introduced a Community Solar Project to customers choosing to purchase "blocks of power" and share in the cost of building a solar electric project. Community solar participants are eligible to receive Washington State production credits through June 2020. After 2020, the renewal of the state incentives is up to the Legislature. Modern Electric Water Company Modern Electric Water Company (MEWCO) is a nonprofit, customer -owned corporation that provides water and electricity to approximately 10,000 customers in the Opportunity neighborhood of Spokane Valley. MEWCO purchases power from BPA and currently is in an agreement to purchase all its electrical power from BPA through September 30, 2029. MEWCO's mission is to provide reliable, economical, and safe electric and water distribution services. Its goal is to make the City of Spokane Valley more attractive to businesses looking to locate and expand here by offering the lowest rates in the area. MEWCO's electrical supply system consists of three substations including the Locust station, located south of Interstate 90 on the west side of Locust Street; Nelson station, located south of 4th Avenue, east of Walnut; and the Opportunity station located at MEWCO main office site on Pines Road, north of Broadway. Inland Power & Light Inland Power & Light (Inland) serves electrical customers in 13 counties in eastern Washington and northern Idaho and is the largest electric cooperative in the state. Inland currently purchases all its power from BPA. Inland's customer base has grown to over 39,000 customers with a relatively small number located in the southern portion of the City. Inland is a member -owned company focused on providing safe, reliable electricity at affordable rates. Return to Table of Contents /, /, O Additional information on services and processes can be found on Vera's website at www.verawatera n d pow- er.com. Additional information on services and processes can be found on MEWCO's website at www.mewco.com. %//////////////////////////// 8-137 i 8-138 Additional information on services and processes and the most recent IRP can be found on Inland's website at https://www. inlandpower.com. NATURAL GAS SERVICE Avista Utilities Avista Utilities also operates and maintains the natural gas distribution system serving Spokane Valley, and is the only provider of natural gas in the City. Avista provides natural gas to customers in eastern Washington, northern Idaho, and parts of southern and eastern Oregon. For more information, please visit www.avistautilities.com. The Pacific Northwest receives natural gas from various regions of the United States and Canada. Natural gas is transported throughout the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho via a network of interstate transmission pipelines owned and operated by Northwest Pipeline Corporation. Natural gas delivery from Williams Pipeline is via Avista's distribution system. To determine how to best meet the future natural gas energy needs of its customers, Avista produces a Natural Gas IRP. The IRP looks ahead 20 years to identify resource strategies and portfolios that will cost effectively meet customers' long-term needs. The IRP is refreshed in even years as required by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, and the Oregon Public Utility Commission. Telecommunications Utilities Telecommunications is the transmission of information in the form of electronic signals or other similar means. The telecommunications section focuses on telephone, wireless communications, Internet, and cable television. Landline Telephone System Telephone service is offered through two main providers, although service is available through various cable companies. CenturyLink Communication, Inc. (CenturyLink) provides telecommunication service to the Spokane Valley planning area as regulated by WUTC. CenturyLink's facilities may be aerial or buried, copper or fiber. Comcast also offers wired phone service to the Spokane Valley area. Comcast utilizes existing telecommunications infrastructure for this service. Comcast is regulated by the WUTC. It is anticipated that additional upgraded facilities will be needed to handle the growing demand. However, due to advances in technology, additional capacity is easily and quickly added to the system. Wireless Telephone System The City is served with a number of wireless communication service providers. Currently, these services rely on ground-based antennae and often co -located. Expansion of the wireless system is demand driven; therefore, wireless providers maintain a short response time and a tight planning horizon. Providing wireless service involves adapting to changing technologies, which may make current forms of receivers obsolete. Cable Television and Internet Service Internet service is available through multiple providers. CentruryLink and Comcast are the primary cable television and Internet providers. CenturyLink provides Internet service via telephone lines and Comcast provides Internet service via cable. However, numerous cable providers serve the area, and generally, include Internet access service options. The City supports increasing the availability of improved telecommunica- tions services throughout the City. The City encourages new telecommuni- cations technology that balances the costs and benefits of health and safety, aesthetics, the environment, and the economy. In most cases, telecommuni- cations services will use existing utility corridors and public rights-of-way, and will be able to provide services to all parts of the City. The City encourages the shared use of space for telecommunication infrastructure projects within the street right-of-way and for telecommunication infrastructure opportunities. The City's infrastructure investment and aesthetic quality should be protected from unnecessary degradation caused by the construction of telecommunica- tions infrastructure. Approach to the Public and Private Utilities Element CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Developing and Supporting New Technologies New technology offers new opportunities to bring high speed Internet access to the City. Ensuring that quality, affordable Internet connectivity is available will further the City's goal of economic growth. The City will need to work to ensure that there are not excessive visual impacts and that access is not limited to select areas of the City. A balanced permitting process will help encourage deployment of high speed telecommunications infrastructure while protecting neighborhood character. Return to Table of Contents Maintaining Utility Infrastructure Some of Spokane Valley's utilities infrastructure is aging and will require repairs and replacement over the next 20 years. The costs of replacing utility infrastructure may be substantial for each utility and may take years for planning and implementation. Each utility has strategies and plans for funding and building the necessary improvements. Accommodating Future Demand Increased demand will require investment to build new facilities. As demand increases, which may be a likely outcome of continued population and employment growth, non -City utility providers will need to plan for new or improved facilities and residents may turn to providers for expertise in energy efficiency. Protecting Neighborhood Character It is important to ensure that new and expanding utility facilities are sensitive to neighborhood character. Some utilities have the potential to create significant incompatibilities with Spokane Valley neighborhoods. Such sensitivity factors as proximity to residential neighborhoods, visual access, and expansion within or beyond an existing facility border should be considered in identifying potential incompatibilities. COMMUNITYAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES Accommodating New Development Ongoing economic development efforts will lead to new private development projects in Spokane Valley. For these projects to be viable, utilities must ensure sufficient capacity and reliable delivery for future tenants. Spokane Valley's focus on catalytic projects also involve development at scales that may require explicit utilities planning. Investing In Key Corridors Economic development relies on selling Spokane Valley to potential business owners, employees, and residents. The aesthetic appearance of gateways and corridors is one component of these marketing efforts. Substations, overhead wires, and other quotidian components of utilities infrastructure can affect 8-140 the experiential quality of Spokane Valley's neighborhoods and commercial areas. Therefore, to the extent possible, the City should support efforts by private utilities to locate infrastructure in practical but unobtrusive areas. This may involve the continuation of current efforts to limit the placement of telecommunications facilities within rights-of-way. BEST PRACTICES Undergrounding Utilities Undergrounding utilities is a best practice in utilities planning and the City is interested in this process. The City should support efforts by private utilities to underground utilities infrastructure and should include undergrounding in future franchising negotiations. Evaluating Life -Cycle Costs In evaluating both public and private investments in utilities infrastructure, the City should encourage decision -makers to assess the life -cycle costs of the proposed improvements. Life -cycle cost analysis will ensure that decisions are based on a long-term assessment and will help the City maintain fiscal responsibility. Encourage Sustainability Tracking Increasingly, private utilities are providing tools to customers to track usage and make informed decisions about their consumption. This can save money for individual consumers, but also improves the long-term sustainability of the City's available resources. Support Use Of Renewable Resources The Energy Independence Act applies to utilities providers with over 25,000 customers and requires covered companies to obtain 15% of their electricity from qualified renewable resources by 2020. Many providers have incorporated these targets into their IRPs, and the City may support these providers in their efforts to meet and exceed renewable energy standards. Return to Table of Contents THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 8-142 CHAPTER 9 Parks, Recreation, & Open Space keturn to Table of Contents /, REFERENCES KEY • x-xx 9-144 Refers to other section in plan Refers to other Spokane Valley plans and official documents Refers to other non -Spokane Valley references for further reading Introduction WHY THE PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT IS IMPORTANT The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space, Element provides the backbone to building formal and informal public spaces that support resident and visitor leisure time. The Element provides a formal statement of the City's priorities as they relate to parks, recreation, open space, and art. Parks add to the quality of life for residents and to the value of nearby neighborhoods. The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space in conjunction with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan provide the full range of urban living. PLANNING CONTEXT The City has an adopted Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan. The PROS Plan was developed to comply with the Washington Recreation and Conservation Office's planning guidelines in order to maintain grant eligibility. The PROS Plan was also based on an extensive public engagement program that included stakeholder interviews, workshops, an open house, and a survey. The PROS Plan provides the direction, goals, policies, and implementation measures for parks and recreation within the City. The PROS Plan is adopted within this Comprehensive Plan by reference, and is included as an appendix of this document. The GMA requires cities to consider as part of the development of their comprehensive plans the goal to "Retain open space, enhance recreation opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities." The GMA, in RCW 36.70A.070(9), also requires a Parks and Recreation Element be included in comprehensive plans. Specifically, the GMA requires the element to include: • Estimates of park and recreation demand for at least a 10 -year period. • Evaluation of facilities and service needs. • Evaluation of intergovernmental coordination opportunities to provide regional approaches for meeting park and recreation demand. However, the requirement to include a Parks and Recreation element in the Comprehensive Plan is conditioned on the State Legislature providing funding. As of 2016, the Legislature has not provided such funding. The City adopts by reference the City of Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan as amended, which meets the GMA the mandates listed above. While not required of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element, the GMA, in RCW 36.70A.160, requires that cities identify open space corridors, including land useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails, and critical areas. While the Natural Environment Element identifies wildlife habitat and critical areas, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies the Spokane River, drainage corridors, and the Centennial and ApplewayTrails as recreation assets. Current Conditions Spokane Valley's parks system consists of developed formal parks, undeveloped natural areas, and trails. Throughout the City there are a mix of park types available for residents and visitors, including neighborhood, community, large urban parks, and special use areas like pet parks, equestrian facilities, and a dance hall. The City also has a very small number of undeveloped sites to meet future recreational need. The City's adopted PROS Plan provides a full accounting of the City's park system, levels of service standards, park users, and improvement priorities. The PROS Plan also includes a financing plan that identifies how to pay for the improvements. Figure 50 provides a summary of the park system, identifying the park type and available amenities. The PROS Plan provides additional detail about each park and/or area. The PROS Plan not only identified the exiting physical conditions and inventory of park facilities within the City, it also used an extensive public process to identify park needs. Some to the key findings from the PROS Plan are identified below to illustrate the support the community has for parks, recreation, and open space. • Partnership - The City Parks and Recreation Department maintains an excellent relationship with schools and private sports program providers. The Parks and Recreation Department should continue these mutually beneficial relationships and work towards developing joint use agreements with the schools. Return to Table of Contents The PROS Plan is available at www. spokanevalley.org. 9-145 Figure 50. Summary of Park Conditions Source: City of Spokane Valley LEGEND Y Park Component Exists - Component Not Present P Swimming Pool S Splash Pad Softball Fields Multi -Use Fields Swimming Pool (P) Splash Pad (S) Open Play Areas Tennis Courts Sand Volleyball Courts Basketball Courts Playground Areas Shelter Buildings Picnic Areas Restrooms Pathway / Trails Natural Areas Pond / Fishing Area Indoor Facilities Art Installation Equestrian Facility NEIGHBORHOOD PARK Balfour Park (2.8 acres) - - - Y - Y - Y - Y Y - - - - - - Browns Park (8.2 acres) Y Y - Y - Y - Y Y Y Y - - - - - - Castle Park (2.7 acres) - - - Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - Edgecliff Park (4.7 acres) Y Y - Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y - - - - - - Greenacres Park (8.3 acres) - Y S Y - - - Y Y Y Y Y - - - - - Terrace View Park (9.2 acres) Y Y P Y - - Y Y Y Y Y - - - - - - COMMUNITY PARKS Sullivan Park (16.1 acres) - - - Y - - - - Y Y Y - Y - Y - - Valley Mission Park (24 acres) Y Y P Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y - - - - - Y LARGE URBAN PARKS Mirabeau Point Park (42.0 acres) • Discovery Playground • Mirabeau Meadows • Mirabeau Springs S Y - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - Y - SPECIAL USE FACILITIES CenterPlace (13.6 acres) - - - - - - - - - - Y - - - Y - - Park Road Pool (2.0 acres) - - P - - - - - - - Y - - - - - - Western Dance Hall (Sullivan Park) - - - - - - - - - - Y - - - - - - TRAILS AND LINEAR PARKS Centennial Trail - - - - - - - - - - Y Y Y - - - - Appleway Trail NATURAL OPEN SPACE AREAS Myrtle Point Park (31.1 acres) - - - - - - - - - - - Y Y - - - - UNDEVELOPED LANDS Valley Mission Park South (7.2 acres) Balfour Park Extension (8.4 acres) 9-146 • Spokane River - The Spokane River is an asset to the community and while there are a number of access locations, additional access should be considered to realize the full potential. Consideration for increased connectivity between parks via the river and water trail is important. • Neighborhood Parks - Providing park access to neighborhood kids should be the Parks and Recreation Department's "highest calling." Ensuring that all areas of the community have park land accessible should be an important priority. • Economic Development - Access to parks or trails provides development and investment incentives, and most people like to live and/or work near parks. The City should consider taking advantage of sports -related tourism by providing tournament quality facilities such as artificial turf and lighting. The City should also consider creating a set of park sign standards to help "brand" the Parks and Recreation Department. • Facility Types - Generally the type of facilities available are adequate. However, some facilities such as the horse arena at Valley Mission Park and the Western Dance Hall may be under -used and some modern facility types such as skate parks and pet parks are unavailable. The City should consider new modern facility types and perhaps repurposing older facility types. • Acquisition - As the City becomes more urban, there will be an increased need for parkland especially to underserved areas. The amount of parkland available is inadequate to meet present and future needs, especially as it relates to open space and athletic fields, but also important is parkland with unique natural features or natural resources. • Management - Parks managed by the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department are highly satisfactory to Spokane Valley residents. Residents also felt the parks are clean and well-maintained. • Design - Park design should be flexible and be able to adapt to foreseeable changes in recreating needs and/or desires. Return to Table of Contents /, • 10-155 Critical areas and associated buffers, as described in the Natural Resources Element, supplement the open space networks described in this chapter. Discovery Playground is a valued community amenitiy. 9-147 The Centennial Trail is an active shared -use path that residents value. 9-148 Approach to the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES The PROS Plan does not specifically identify challenges and opportunities; however, based on the public process used in developing this plan in conjunction with the needs analysis and goals of the PROS Plan, several challenges and opportunities can be identified. Enhance Outdoor Recreation The City of Spokane Valley offers unmatched access to the Spokane River. The majority of the nearly 10 miles of shoreline is publically owned, most this ownership is by Washington State Parks. The Centennial Trail offers a paved shared -use path that is grade separated for most of the Spokane River's path through the City. Increased formal access points to the Spokane River, like at Myrtle Point near CenterPlace, as well as increasing opportunities for north -south connections to the Spokane River and Centennial Trail is an important opportunity for this plan. Support Sports And Leisure Activities Youth sports is important to the City of Spokane Valley. There are two major youth sports activity centers near the City of Spokane Valley, Plante's Ferry and the Hub. Plante's Ferry offers outdoor sports with soccer and softball fields and the Hub offers indoor sports, volleyball, and basketball. Additionally, the City owns and operates eight sand volleyball courts and uses its established relationships with local school districts to support and supply youth sports activities. While some opportunities exist to provide additional fields locally, the City also supports improvements and expansions of regional sports centers like Plante's Ferry and the Hub. Develop Tourist Attractions The City of Spokane Valley owns a few unique recreation assets that are underused or undeveloped, like the horse arena at Mission Park, vacant property adjacent to Balfour Park, or vacant shoreline lands. Identifying opportunities for these sites is a priority and each could help expand the City's tourist attractions like a visitor's center, farmers' market, or a whitewater course with associated park. Make Recreation Space Accessible The City of Spokane Valley was developed at suburban densities, an important feature loved by residents. While the City has a number of neighborhood scale parks, there are areas that don't have access to park land, especially in the north part of the City. Opportunities for neighborhood scale parks are limited, so smaller scale park facilities may offer park space to residents. Additionally, the non -motorized travel network is limited and providing non -motorized access to parks will continue to be a challenge in the future. COMMUNITYAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES Parks are often an immediate top -of -mind thought when residents think of services the City provides, and improving and maintaining them are typically a priority for residents. Parks and recreation are often an introduction to the community for visitors, and these amenities encourage visitors to stay longer. Thus, parks, recreation, open space, and the arts play a key role in being both a community priority, from a resident's perspective, and an economic development priority, from a tourist perspective. Improve the City's Image and Identity Parks and recreation facilities can be a sales pitch for the community to visitors, and the quality of these facilities and inherent recreation assets can therefore improve the image of Spokane Valley and build its brand. The following priorities represent opportunities to use parks, recreation, and open spaces to strengthen the City's image: • Strengthen and improve Spokane Valley's image and identity by improving the City's key gateways, similar to the improvements made at Sprague Avenue and Appleway Boulevard near 1-90. Take advantage of public property to create a sense of place, letting visitors and residents know they've arrived in the City of Spokane Valley. • Leverage local and regional assets like the Centennial and Appleway Trails, the Spokane River, and community parks. Ensure that the goals and policies take advantage of regional recreational assets that visitors and residents use, and find ways to enhance their use and extend visitor stays. • Expand the City's role in existing events, regionally and locally. Look for ways to increase exposure for local destinations that are overlooked or underused. Promote expanded athletic events held in and around the City. Return to Table of Contents • Grow Spokane Valley's market share of tourism by investing in new tourist attractions that support the recreational and open space assets and values of the City. • Enhance and develop opportunities to support the local and regional arts. BEST PRACTICES Coordinate with Recreation Providers Coordinating efforts and investments with other recreation providers may ensure efficient service provision where possible, and also offers an opportunity to expand the City's network of recreation -related open spaces. Use Multifunctional Infrastructure Where possible and when feasible, investing in infrastructure pieces that play more than one role can increase the return on the City's investment and decrease maintenance costs. 9-150 () CHAPTER 10 Natural Resources return to Table of Contents REFERENCES KEY Introduction WHYTHE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT IS IMPORTANT The Natural Environment Element combines several environmental topics, including critical areas (wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas), surface water quality and quantity, shorelines, and air quality. The diversity of Spokane Valley's natural environment is illustrated by ecosystems that range from the foothills of Mt. Spokane to the low-lying Rathdrum Prairie floodplains along the Spokane River. This diversity supports a broad spectrum of wildlife, from the moose of Mt. Spokane to the interior red -band trout in the Spokane River. Throughout the region, lakes, rivers, wetlands, and associated riparian areas provide linkages and corridors for wildlife. Spokane Valley's natural environment also includes the Spokane Valley/Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer (SVRP), one of the most productive aquifers in the United States. Spokane Valley's economic development success in recent years is partially attributable to natural amenities that make the area beautiful and supply it with an array of recreation opportunities. The purpose of this chapter is to coordinate planning efforts to protect, preserve, and enhance this unique natural environment. By ensuring the availability of clean air and water and preserving critical areas and natural features, Spokane Valley will continue to grow as a healthy, sustainable, and inviting community. • Refers to other section PLANNING CONTEXT X -XX in plan Refers to other Spokane Valley plans and official documents Refers to other non -Spokane Valley references for further reading 10-152 Balancing the conservation and protection of the natural environment with population growth, economic development goals, and increasing recreational access is a key purpose of statewide planning rules and regulations. Direction is provided through statewide planning goals, the GMA, and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Statewide Planning Goal 10 (RCW 36.70A020) instructs jurisdictions to: "Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water." The GMA requires local governments to adopt ordinances that limit development in and near environmentally sensitive areas, which it refers to as critical areas. Critical areas include wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas. During municipal incorporation in 2003, the City adopted Spokane County's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) as an interim measure to regulate development in and near critical areas and thereby comply with the GMA. The City has prepared an updated CAO to provide regulations that are specific to the City's unique natural environment. This Natural Environment Element of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan provides the foundation for the CAO and other municipal plans and regulations, and provides context for the establishment of goals and policies related the City's natural environments. Notably for Spokane Valley, all lands within the City are already characterized by urban growth, limiting the City's obligations under RCW 36.70A.170. The only resource lands extant in the City are mineral resource lands, which have been designated and are discussed in this element. Pursuant to the GMA, the City is required to designate natural resource lands and critical areas. Critical areas are discussed in more detail below. With regard to natural resources, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170, the City is required to designate "where appropriate...[a]gricultural lands...[f]orestlands...[and] [m] ineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals...." Further, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, the City is required to adopt development regulations to ensure conservation of mineral resource lands designated pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170. During its first update, the City did not designate any mineral resource lands and further, it has not designated any mineral resource lands since 2006. However, the consideration of mineral resource land designation is an important one for the City, as the City currently has several existing active surface (sand and gravel) mines. These take up significant acreage and even with appropriate reclamation planning, create long-term impacts that can limit or preclude future industrial, commercial, or other productive use of the site, even after the mine closes. Although the City has existing mines and desires to allow those uses to continue, the City has determined not to designate any mineral resource lands at this time as such designation is not appropriate due to the extensive urban characteristics surrounding the mines and the wide availability of the gravel within the region as described further below. 10-153 Return to Table of Contents Current Conditions The majority of Spokane Valley is developed for residential, commercial, or industrial uses. Above ground, undeveloped natural areas within the City are generally located along the Spokane River and local streams, including associated riparian areas and wetlands. Natural, undeveloped areas are also found on forested cliffs and steep slopes, open areas between the Spokane River and Trent Avenue east of Millwood, and public parks such Mirabeau Point Park and Sullivan Park. These natural environments provide important recreational and scenic amenities to the City, as well as habitat for fish, birds, and terrestrial wildlife. Additionally, the majority of the City is underlain by an extensive, sole -source aquifer that provides high quality drinking water and provides some return flows to the Spokane River. The aquifer moves through alluvium deposited by historic flood events. These layers of sand, gravel, clay, and silt provide mineral resources, which are actively mined at various gravel quarries within the City. Natural areas are protected by various federal, state, and local plans or laws. This section describes the current condition of natural areas in the City within the context of these laws, which regulate critical areas, surface water, air quality, and shoreline areas. MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS The City has undertaken an extensive review process to determine the availability, need, and appropriateness for mineral resource designation and protection within the City. It has conducted interviews with stakeholders; reviewed mineral resource needs due to estimated future construction utilizing information obtained from USGS, Department of Natural Resources, stakeholders, WSDOT, and Spokane County; reviewed access to and availability of mineral resources through materials provided by the Department of Natural Resources; and has analyzed the current urban characteristics surrounding the existing mines within the City. Based on data from the Department of Natural Resources, the City currently has 18 permitted surface mines with five of them having an active status and the remainder an inactive status. The permitted area of the active mines totals 465 acres. The mined sand and gravel is used extensively in construction projects around the region. Reclamation for the closed mines generally consists of landscape planting and some reshaping of the slopes. Several of the mines have deep excavations that have exposed the SVRP Aquifer. The 10-154 areas around the open mines generally consist of urban areas with developed industrial and heavy commercial uses, although one newer mine (Eden Pit No. 55-06) has open land to its north that is currently zoned for industrial use. All but one (Eden Pit No. 55-06) of the existing active mines have been in operation since the City's incorporation. Other than permitting mining in the heavy industrial zone, the City has not had additional protective regulations for the mines as it did not designate any mineral resource lands in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. Due to the urban growth immediately surrounding the mines, additional protections for mining could likely negatively impact other existing industrial and commercial uses. The mines within the City are but a small part of the extensive approximately 73 active mines within the County. Mining is common throughout the region due to the extensive deep flood deposits of high quality sand and gravel and similar alluvium that compose SVRP Aquifer which are easily accessed due to the typically very thin overburden. Additionally, there are numerous rock mines within the County. These flood deposits extend from Lake Pend Oreille on the east to the West Plains west of the City of Spokane. Accordingly, there are adequate options for gravel mining outside of the City and indeed such mining has and is already occurring. CRITICAL AREAS Per the GMA, jurisdictions are required to protect critical areas through the adoption of policies and regulations. Critical areas include: (a) wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for domestic purposes; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas. Spokane Valley recognizes the importance of protecting the ecological functions and societal values provided by critical areas. These natural systems play valuable roles in stormwater disposal, flood prevention, and water quality preservation, as well as provide recreational opportunities. Protection of critical areas makes economic sense because the alternative is development of expensive engineered systems for protection from floods and geological hazards and for purification of drinking water, or regulations that are restrictive and expensive to implement, as necessary to restore declining populations of sensitive species. 10-155 Return to Table of Contents WETLANDS There are few wetlands in the City (Figure 51); however, each plays a valuable role in providing aquatic habitat, preserving water quality, and maintaining water storage. Wetland types in the City include marshes, prairies, shrublands, forests, and vegetated ponds. By storing floodwaters, wetlands reduce flooding and downstream erosion, trap and absorb sediments, and help protect water quality. Furthermore, wetlands discharge water to aquifers and streams, help replenish groundwater, and maintain base flows of surface water systems. In addition to these water quality and water storage functions, wetlands also provide habitat that is locally limited for birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, Figure 51. Map of City of Spokane Valley Hydrology Sources: City of Spokane Valley (2016); Community Attributes Inc. (2016); AECOM (2016) E rRanAw. Hydrological Zones & Flood Hazard �S�9r 1 .;x. Flow I-Iw.arp Z r c - 10-156 insects, and occasionally fish. Most wetlands within the City are associated with streams, Shelley Lake, or historical mining. They tend to be most affected by runoff from adjacent roadways and developed residential and commercial lands. Wetland quality is assessed by a wetland rating system developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology in 2004. In planning for development in or near wetlands, the City strives to ensure that the critical functions of wetlands are not impacted, or, if impacts cannot be avoided, that they are compensated for elsewhere as part of the development project. FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS Frequently flooded areas are lands in the floodplain subject to a one -percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. These areas include, but are not limited to, streams, rivers, lakes, sink areas, major natural drainageways, and wetlands. They are natural physical features of a watershed that play an important role in stormwater storage and disposal. Maintenance of the natural function of these areas protects residences, structures, and infrastructure and reduces the need to construct flood control facilities. These areas are designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the 100 -year floodplain and are shown in Figure 49. The City supports improved modeling of floodplains and floodways that minimize constraints on affected land uses. The City actively works to facilitate floodplain mapping updates. The City regulates floodplain development in accordance with chapter 21.30 SVMC Floodplain Regulations. Any development on a parcel located within a special flood hazard area requires a floodplain permit. Areas with known floodplain issues include Forker Draw and the Glenrose drainage area. Spokane County is actively working to reduce flooding in the Glenrose Watershed, which presents an opportunity for coordinated flood hazard reduction. SURFACE WATER Water quality and quantity influences the domestic, economic, and recreational quality, and maintains the natural environments of Spokane Valley. Historically, clean water has been taken for granted. As growth and development have increased, so have problems associated with maintaining water quality and quantity. Industry, business, agriculture, commercial, and residential development all contribute to reduced water quality and quantity. To ensure that water quality and storage capacity are maintained as the City continues to grow and develop, a comprehensive approach must be taken to ensure future water quality and quantity. 10-157 r<eturn to Table of Contents i 10-158 Additional information about the Spokane River Water Quality Improvement Projects is available at: http://www. ecy.wa.gov/programs/ wq/tmdl/spokaneriver/. Spokane Valley has a limited number of surface water bodies, which include the Spokane River and Shelley Lake. The Spokane River provides the region with significant economic, recreation, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic value. The Spokane River is included in the State's "303d" inventory as having impaired water quality for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorod- ibenzo-p-dioxin, lead, and zinc within Spokane Valley. To address these issues, the Washington Department of Ecology and other agencies have ongoing water quality improvement projects in the Spokane River, and the Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force was established in January 2012. There are currently Total Maximum Daily Load projects for dissolved oxygens, dissolved metals, and PCBs. The use of the Spokane River as a receiving water for sewage effluent discharges and stormwater runoff makes it an important resource for waste assimilation. The increased impervious area resulting from development changes the amount and the quality of runoff water. If left unmanaged, discharges of stormwater can cause flooding and water quality degradation, especially in water bodies like the Spokane River that are already impaired. Long-term solutions to stormwater problems require creative problem solving on a case-by-case basis. In areas where development has already occurred, much of the natural stormwater system may be altered so that it no longer functions effectively. In these areas, stormwater regulations should target redevelopment, voluntary treatment enhancements, wetland conservation, and capital improvements in City treatment facilities. In areas where wetlands are filled or natural drainageways are altered, the cost of replacing natural water quality treatment functions with engineered stormwater treatment facilities can be substantial. In currently developing areas where stormwater disposal has not yet become a problem, it is important to preserve the natural drainageways and pervious characteristics of the landscape to prevent problems from occurring as a result of future development. SHORELINES Waters with a mean annual flow of greater than 20 cubic feet per second (in the case of flowing water) or an area greater than 20 acres (in the case of standing water) are considered Shorelines of the State and are subject to the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Within the City, the Spokane River and Shelley Lake are the only two Shorelines of the State managed under the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The extent of SMP jurisdiction includes the body of water together with an adjacent strip of land 200 feet wide, measured landward from the ordinary high water mark (common high water line of stream or lake). Note that other waters within the City, including Saltese Creek and Chester Creek, although not regulated under the City's SMP, are important water resources and are protected under the City's CAO regulations as fish and wildlife habitat. The SMP also protects any additional critical areas within shoreline areas. This Comprehensive Plan does not propose changes to the SMP. The GMA (RCW 36.70A.480) requires that cities include the goals and policies of the adopted SMP in the Comprehensive Plan. The City's comprehensive SMP update was approved by the Department of Ecology in August 2015. The update revised the existing shoreline program, including the goals, policies, regulations, shoreline environment designations (SEDs), administrative procedures, and definitions. Due to the length of the SMP goals and policies, they are adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan and can be viewed on the Department of Ecology's website. However, this section describes the overarching goal of the SMA, and the SEDs in an effort to summarize the plan for managing the City's shorelines. The overarching goal of the SMA is to prevent the inherent harm in uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines. Shorelines are among the most ecologically productive and fragile of environments in the City. The intent of the City's SMP is to foster reasonable and appropriate use of the shorelines while protecting their natural character, preserving the ecology and resources, improving public access, and increasing recreational opportunities for the public. The SEDs developed for the SMP are based on existing land use patterns, the biological and physical character of the shoreline, and the goals and aspirations of the City. SEDs are analogous to zoning designations for areas within the shoreline jurisdiction. SEDs provide a uniform basis for applying policies and use regulations within each designation, and SEDs are intended to encourage appropriate uses and activities while providing for protection and restoration of shoreline ecological functions. It is anticipated that reasonable standards, restrictions, and prohibitions on shoreline developments will be instituted as shoreline regulations. This is necessary so that shoreline development will reasonably protect existing uses and shoreline character and ensure "no net loss" of shoreline ecological functions is achieved. Characteristics and general management policies for each of the designations can be found in the SMP. Spokane Valley is unique in its application of shoreline regulations with regard 10-159 Return to Table of Contents Additional information is available at the Spokane Valley -Rath - drum Prairie Aquifer Atlas - available at: http://www. spokanecounty.org. 10-160 to riparian setbacks. Rather than applying generic shoreline setback widths as other cities have done, riparian setbacks in Spokane Valley are based on existing or potential high-quality shoreline resources that should be conserved to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS The SVRP Aquifer supplies potable water to most of the residents of Spokane County. The aquifer and associated recharge areas underlie the entire City of Spokane Valley. The aquifer begins in northern Idaho between Spirit Lake and the south end of Lake Pend Oreille. The aquifer flows south and west under Spokane Valley and downtown Spokane. The aquifer then turns north and discharges into the Little Spokane River. Aquifer deposits range from 150 feet to more than 600 feet in depth. Due to concerns regarding the maintenance of water quality of the aquifer, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated the SVRP Aquifer a "Sole Source Aquifer" in 1978. The aquifer was only the second in the nation to receive such a designation. Although the aquifer provides high quality drinking water, it is highly susceptible to contamination due to the underlying geology of the area, which consists of sandy, gravelly glacial outwash that allows surface water to infiltrate rapidly. The aquifer is dynamic, with close to one billion gallons of water flowing into and out of the system each day. The Spokane River provides about 49% of the aquifer inflow and 59% of the aquifer outflow. The Spokane River stretch through Spokane Valley is primarily a gaining reach, where the river gains water from the aquifer. Since 1977, 50 monitoring wells in Washington and 28 wells in Idaho have been installed to monitor the impacts of land surface activities over the aquifer. The primary concern in the aquifer has been nitrate, which may cause health problems above certain levels in drinking water. Septic systems, fertilizer, and stormwater are typically major contributors to elevated nitrate levels in the aquifer. Ongoing programs, including stormwater management and installation of sewers, have decreased nitrate levels in the aquifer. Monitoring efforts indicate that contaminants have reached the aquifer; however, the aquifer water quality remains very good.' FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Fishing and the observation of wildlife are valued recreational activities that contribute to the local economy and quality of life in Spokane Valley. Priority fish and wildlife habitat areas, as designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Figure 52), are considered critical areas and are necessary for both native resident and seasonal migratory animal species. Habitat conservation areas may include open areas with species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, migration corridors, and habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alteration, such as cliffs, talus, and wetlands. Chester Creek and Saltese Creek do not fall within the state's shoreline jurisdiction, but they contain valuable riparian habitat that provides shade, food, and cover for fish and wildlife species. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources Water Typing maps identify these streams as containing fish. These streams, and other unnamed drainages generally infiltrate into the ground before reaching the Spokane River above ground. This means that they Figure 52. Priority Species and Habitat Areas Sources: City of Spokane Valley (2016); Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Community Attributes Inc. (2016) _.. _ URBAN Ste. w NATUWAL Oahe SPACE {'LIFr;irwrrs 614 f URA UPLN Misoin Rre Lake E 143+u.kw E{ Ilse ECu.n, 000 la95r of /Al/ ES w4+ rif UVrd URBAN MAI I.R{AriWFN S19pr.t NORTHWEST WHrrE.17J1 ED DCCA Prharity HabltUEi and5pedes ROCKY M[HFNI.gIPI 'Tan hpm E'.,„rr.",ar.CS ELK Qx<,M.2.1 e. a;r:,i'_.r _._ tar Zr•e..t^.'wca :JCw`• hi SPAIN return to Table of Contents RIXKY PIM reAIN' LZ K Y3 7. Click to open interactive map! 4 ITITE•T fli W0EE' 10-16] provide important aquifer recharge functions and that, if contaminated, they could contaminate the aquifer. Urban landscaping, parks, and open spaces supplement fish and wildlife habitat areas by providing cover, food, or nest areas for a wide variety of wildlife. The loss of natural wildlife habitat to urban development can be partially offset by landscaping that includes a variety of native plants that provide food and shelter for wildlife. GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS Geologically hazardous areas are areas that because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquakes, or other geological events are not suited for development. Geologically hazardous areas include both erosion and landslide hazard areas where one or more of the following exist: • A slope of 25% or greater. • Soils identified by the Natural Resource Conservation Service as having a severe potential for erosion. • Hydraulic factors such as existing on-site surface and groundwater or changes in hydraulic factors caused by proposals that create a severe potential for erosion or landslide hazard. • Areas that historically have been prone to landslide, which include active fault lines, areas adjacent to lakes, streams, springs, or any one of the following geologic formations: alluvium, landslide deposit, or Latah formation. • Areas of uncompacted fill. • Areas that are unstable as a result of rapid stream or stream bank erosion. Figure 53 depicts the location of geologically hazardous areas within and adjacent to Spokane Valley. AIR QUALITY Air quality in the Spokane Valley region is affected by both human and natural causes. Human activities, including automobile use, wood stove use, and industrial and agricultural operations generate airborne substances that can affect air quality. In addition, the entire region has been affected substantially by windblown dust from the central portion of the state. The Spokane Valley 10-162 Figure 53. Map of Geological Hazards Sources: City of Spokane Valley (2016); Community Attributes Inc. (2016) Fella hick rMn.io L'+7aian+rrr Alf . a } Littwly laic 5 { Yr,� 7� ;) S r F T1Eh Mw. 6 {tisizerds F.oniuy.il BuundMie% �Tl� `Y>ri�r ifiFr I "I Sca[i^C :'i d,i �.�IC'�'+ .� �",ice^ Area.x''41; .._,...may A 6 is also a natural basin in which air pollution is trapped and concentrated by an occasional temperature inversion (a situation in which lighter warm air overlies heavier cool air). A variety of air pollution control strategies have been employed across the region. The strategies include auto emission inspections, restrictions on open burning, wood stove certification and restriction on wood stove use when pollution levels are high, oxygenated fuels for cars, road paving, use of chemical deicers as an alternative to road sanding, and others. These measures combined with cleaner -burning cars have significantly improved the region's air quality. However, traffic volumes continue to increase, which could lead to degradation of air quality in the future. Air quality is inextricably linked to land use and transportation patterns. The Return to Table of Contents i 3 10-163 challenge presented to the region is to balance land use, transportation, and air quality in such a way that the community can continue to grow and prosper without compromising quality of life. Approach to the Natural Resources Element CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES The primary challenge for Spokane Valley is to protect the City's natural environment while allowing for human use and economic growth. Without established codes and policies for the designation and protection of important natural resource areas, developers may not see the benefit of protecting natural resources, incorporating LID measures, and preserving valuable ecological functions such as water storage and treatment. Challenges specific to the City include: • Maintaining water quality and flows in the Spokane River. • Preventing contamination of the City's high quality groundwater and providing for adequate aquifer recharge. • Managing stormwater to minimize flooding and the impairment of surface waters. • Ensuring adequate protection of natural resources while supporting new development. • Developing resource conservation plans based on limited or inaccurate natural resource inventory data layers. • Maintaining air quality as the population increases. Managing Mineral Resource Lands Due to the urban development that has occurred within the City adjacent to the existing mines and the wide availability of the mineral resource outside of the City, the City has determined to not designate mineral resource lands at this time. However, it is a priority of the City to continue to allow the existing mines to continue to operate within their existing property, as such use has occurred historically without negatively impacting surrounding industrial uses and it contributes to the City's economy. 10-164 Conservation of Resources Conservation land uses provide opportunities to benefit both humans and fish and wildlife. For example, protecting wetlands and natural habitats will benefit fish and wildlife as well as human recreational opportunities. Managing stormwater runoff, aquifer recharge areas, and geologically hazardous areas will also help reduce the potential for property damage and protect drinking water quality. A protected and healthy natural environment can also attract new businesses by offering desirable aesthetics and recreation opportunities. Specific opportunities include: • Partnering with county and state government partners to pool watershed and stormwater planning resources. • Mineral resources are sufficiently abundant within the region such that the industry can continue to prosper within the City without the need to designate lands solely for this land use. • The City has the opportunity to develop updated data inventory layers, including wetland and stream mapping, and fish presence assessments. • Planning for habitat conservation and restoration in public parks and open spaces can improve aesthetics and habitat quality for local native wildlife. • Improved floodplain delineation mapping may free up developable land uses that are no longer constrained by the cost of floodplain insurance. COMMUNITYAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES Leveraging Natural Assets The community and economic development priorities can be strategically linked to natural environment protections. A healthy, robust natural environment can improve the quality of life, which will attract new businesses and residents. Development should not be allowed to encroach into critical areas, and effective measures should be encouraged to minimize impacts to water quality and quantity. 10-165 Return to Table ofContenrs BEST PRACTICES Incorporating Stormwater Best Management Practices Incorporating best management practices in stormwater is cost effective and good for water and habitat quality. In the upcoming years, local codes and ordinances will need to incorporate these practices, including low impact development measures, in order to receive a municipal stormwater permit from the Department of Ecology. Mineral resource land designation The City has determined to not designate mineral resource lands at this time. The City will continue to allow the existing mines to operate within their existing property through development regulations. 10-166 Appendix A: SEPA Analysis FACT SHEET NAME OF PROPOSAL The 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and supporting Development Regulations PROPONENT City of Spokane Valley LOCATION The City of Spokane Valley is located in eastern Spokane County between the City of Spokane and the City of Liberty Lake. It is generally located by the coordinates: 47°39'28" N 117°14'52" W. The planning area consists of the City of Spokane Valley's municipal boundaries, totaling approximately 39 square miles. ACTION TAKEN The adoption of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan update and supporting development regulations to meet Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements for periodic updates. EIS ALTERNATIVES Two action alternatives meeting the City of Spokane Valley's objectives were analyzed in the Draft Comprehensive Plan/DEIS: Citizen Focus (Alternative 2) and Community Prosperity (Preferred Alternative), and as required by SEPA a No Action Alternative. All the alternatives would accommodate the City's population allocation for 2037 of 14,650 for a total 2037 population of 109,913 without the need for an urban growth area expansion. The action alternatives are described in detail in Appendix A of the Comprehensive Plan/FEIS. Community Prosperity (Preferred Alternative), assumes the implementation of the Citizen Focus Alternative, the preservation of the Low Density Residential designation as presented in the No Action Alternative, and the implementation of community priorities developed in the public visioning process. The key features of this Alternative include: • Rename five land use designations. • Consolidate four land use designations (Medium Density Residential, Office, Community Commercial and Light Industrial) into appropriate existing land use designations. • Create one new land use designation (Industrial Mixed Use). • Create transitional zoning provisions to protect single-family zones from multi -family, commercial, mixed use, and industrial zones. • Allow for a 5,000 square foot lot size in the R-3 zone but retain six units per acre density in order to allow infill within City's unique development pattern. • Propose a corridor Level of Service (LOS) standard in addition to existing intersection LOS standards. Citizen Focus Alternative, assumes the implementation of the Citizen -Initiated Amendment Requests (CARs) related to Land Use Map changes. The CARs process allowed community members to propose changes to the adopted Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Map or to existing policy language. All of the CARs considered for this Alternative are site-specific future Land Use Map amendments. As part of the analysis some of the CARs were expanded to include nearby parcels to avoid creating unique islands of a land use designations. This Alternative also proposes changes to the existing policy framework. The key features of the proposed changes include: • Eliminate redundancies and to create clear and concise policy statements. • New policies to support the City's economic development initiatives. • Allow for a 5,000 square foot lot size in the R-3 zone but retain the six units per acre density in order to allow infill within City's unique development pattern. • Propose a corridor LOS standard in addition to existing intersection LOS standards. The No Action Alternative assumes that existing land use designations and regulations would remain in effect, the existing zoned -density in the City would not be increased and the existing UGA boundary would remain unchanged. This Alternative assumes that development would occur within the City in a manner consistent with previously adopted plans and policies. LEAD AGENCY City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99216 SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL Mike Basinger, AICP, Senior Planner 509-720-5331 mbasinger@spokanevalley.org REQUIRED APPROVALS AND/OR PERMITS The following approvals are required for approval of the Comprehensive Plan, associated development regulation amendments, and DEIS: • Spokane Valley City Council - Adoption. • Spokane Valley City Council - Issue Final EIS. While not necessary for approval for the Comprehensive Plan, the following processes are also required: • Spokane Regional Transportation Council - Transportation Element - certification. • Washington State Department of Community Development - coordination of state comments. • City of Spokane Valley - development and building permit review for any future development proposals. AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS EIS This City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan/FEIS has been prepared under the direction of the City of Spokane Valley, as SEPA Lead Agency. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS Per WAC 197-11-635, this Draft Comprehensive Plan/FEIS builds upon and incorporates by reference the following environmental documents: • City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Draft and Final Supplemental EIS, November 4, 2005 • City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program, September 3, 2015 DATE OF ADOPTION AN ISSUANCE OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/FEIS December 13, 2016 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE DRAFT EIS • Added a policy to support xeriscaping, water conservation, and sustainable park management methods. • Designated parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 as Single Family Residential (SFR) and zone the same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) from Multiple Family. • Designated the parcels located in the area south of Bow Avenue, west of Barker Road, north of Sprague Avenue, and east of Greenacres Road as Single Family Residential (SFR) and zone the same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) from Corridor Mixed Use. • Removed SVMC 19.40.100 (small residential dwellings and small residential dwellings - supportive housing) provisions in Title 19 SVMC. • Amended proposed SVMC 19.70.020 and Table 19.70-1, Residential Standards, to provide for a maximum density of 22 units per acre and a maximum building height of 50 feet in the Multifamily Residential (MFR) zone. • Amend proposed SVMC 22.70.070(D) adding language to provide that full screening is required when a multifamily project abuts a single family residential use in multifamily zones. • Designate parcel 45091.9100 as Mixed Use (MU) and zone the same parcel as Mixed Use (MU). • Minor updates per comments from the Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane Regional Transportation Council, and Spokane Transit Authority. • Minor modifications and grammatical corrections as proposed by City staff. AVAILABILITY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/FEIS AND SUPPORTING REGULATIONS Notice of Availability and copies of the Comprehensive Plan/FEIS and supporting development regulations have been distributed to agencies, organizations, and individuals noted on the Distribution List (Section 3.3 of this document). The complete 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan, FE IS, and supporting regulations are available for download at the project website: www.spokanevalley.org/CP. Copies of these documents are also available for public review at the following location: Spokane Valley City Hall 11707 East Sprague Avenue Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives No Action 6 Citizen Focus Alternative 6 Community Prosperity Alternative 7 1.1: Economic Welfare Analysis 10 Priority Infrastructure Investment 10 Site Certification 10 Retail and Tourism 10 Mitigation Measures 11 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 11 1.2: Land Use Analysis 12 Land Use Patterns 12 Land Use Designations and Zoning 13 Preservation of Neighborhoods 19 Mitigation Measures 20 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 20 1.3: Transportation Analysis 21 Roadway Travel 21 Non-motorized Travel 28 Public Transit 29 Freight and Rail Travel 30 Highways of Statewide Significance 30 Mitigation Measures 30 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 33 1.4: Housing Analysis 35 Housing Location 35 Housing Affordability 37 Housing Capacity 39 Mitigation Measures 40 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 40 1.5 Natural Environment 41 Mitigation Measures 42 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 42 Section 2 Environmental Impact Summary: 43 2.1 Alternative Comparison Matrix 43 Section 3: Notices 52 3.1 Determination of Significance and Scoping 52 3.2 Draft EIS and Document Availablity 54 3.3 Distribution List 56 Section 4 Response to Comments 58 4.1 Comments and Responses on the Scope 58 4.2 Comments and Responses on the DEIS 58 SECTION 1: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES The City of Spokane Valley proposes changes to its Comprehensive Plan map, designations, and policies are proposed in order to achieve the City's long-range planning vision as articulated in Chapter 1 of the Comprehensive Plan. This appendix provides a summary and concise impact analysis of two action alternatives: Citizen Focus (Alternative 2) and Community Prosperity (Preferred Alternative), and as required by SEPA a No Action Alternative. All the alternatives would accommodate the City's population allocation for 2037 of 14,650 for a total 2037 population of 109,913 without the need of an Urban Growth Area expansion. Each of the alternatives is discussed briefly below. No Action The No Action Alternative assumes that existing adopted policy, land use designations, zoning districts, and regulations would remain in effect for the next 20 -years. This alternative assumes that the City of Spokane Valley would develop in a manner consistent with previously adopted plans and policies. EV .. .■r Ai mes a ie, . .� :az .. MI m� � ' ~Ii Figure 1: No Action Alternative Map Citizen Focus Alternative The Citizen Focus Alternative assumes the implementation of Citizen -Initiated Amendment Requests (CARs). The CARs process allowed community members to propose changes to the adopted Comprehensive Plan's Land Muse Map or to existing policy language. There were a total of twenty-six CARs proposed for the City's consideration. After review by the Planning Commission and City Council, twenty-three of the CARs were passed through to be considered during the formal comprehensive plan update process. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 6IPage All of the site specific land use map amendment requests are considered as part of this alternative. Additionally, the various text amendment requests that were forward for consideration are also considered as part of both the Citizen Focus and Community Prosperity alternatives. As part of the process for the site specific amendments, a few of the CARs were expanded to include nearby parcels to increase the feasibility of the proposed land use change and to avoid creating islands of a land use designations. The CARs as considered in this alternative can be seen in Figure 2. This alternative assumes that land use designations outside of the CARs shown in Figure 2 would not change. The insets show the future land use designations around the CARs to provide context only. CR 0014-0015 LWRIOC CAR 15.7 LDRIO HDR CAR 15• 004 .0.07 0tv CAW arJC NI Community Focus Alternative corwrwm... Kart waonnm.. eon= • ,. Use ,« u,. Commoner om w CAR 75-0.016 MDR to 1DR 7.1 Figure 2: Citizen Focus Alternative In addition to the Land Use Map changes, this alternative also proposes significant changes to the existing policy framework, as presented in Chapter 2 of the draft Comprehensive Plan. The majority of the changes are intended to eliminate redundancies, create clear and concise policy statements, and enhance the readability of the comprehensive plan. Additional changes to the policy framework are directed at supporting the City's economic development desired initiatives. Community Prosperity Alternative The Community Prosperity Alternative is the City's preferred alternative and is reflected by the proposed comprehensive plan and supporting regulations, it includes the policy changes presented in Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan. The alternative includes the map amendments of the Citizen Focus alternative, except where the request was for an Office designation those were changed to Corridor Mixed Use. The alternative preserves the Low Density Residential designation, including density limitations as presented in the No Action. Finally, the alternative proposes a set of goals, policies, and actions that implement the community priorities developed in the public visioning process and refined through ajoint Planning Commission and Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 7 I P a g e City Council workshop. The proposed draft Comprehensive Plan and supporting regulations proposed for the update are the clearest reflection of the proposed changes. The Community Prosperity Alternative assumes significant changes beyond the existing conditions. The alternative proposes: renaming four land use designations, eliminating four land use designations, and creating one new land use designation. Table 1 shows the relationship between the existing and proposed land use designations, showing which designations are being renamed, eliminated, or created. Table 1: Existing to Proposed Land Use Designations Existing Land Use Designations (2006) Proposed Land Use Designations (2016) Low Density Residential Single Family (name change) Medium Density Residential (eliminate) Single Family (name change) and Multifamily (name change) High Density Residential Multifamily (name change) Office (eliminate) Corridor Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use Community Commercial (eliminate) Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Regional Commercial Regional Commercial Mixed Use Center Mixed Use (name change) Industrial Mixed Use (new) Light Industrial (eliminate) (Consolidated to Industrial) Heavy Industrial Industrial (name change) Parks and Open Space Parks and Open Space Generally, most of the designations that are proposed to be eliminated are being re -designated, for example, the new Industrial designation consolidates the existing Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial designations, and the Office and Community Commercial designations are proposed to be designated Corridor Mixed Use. Figure 3 shows the proposed alternative and how the consolidations and designation changes apply to the City of Spokane Valley. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 8 I P a g e 1 Community Prosperity Anemative OCity M seakane valley r aed Lae NOlelacalY ® Nava yorhond Con,marcui Repa.i Com metal FrNes Lard use lisp 2017 Single Famly _ udn.Fs,mey jer earwa.eered u,. _ Wduamai Muco Use nducmm _ Pana and Open Sone Figure 3: Community Prosperity Alternative In addition to the changes to the Land Use Map, this alternative also proposes changes to the existing policy framework. The majority of the changes are intended to eliminate redundancies and to create clear and concise policy statements. Additional changes to the policy framework are directed at supporting the City's economic development desired initiatives. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 9 I P a g e 1.1: Economic Welfare Analysis Under all of the EIS Alternatives, Spokane Valley would experience increased development in order to accommodate new residents and jobs. It is expected that all alternatives would see the same general increase in employment. However, it is expected that the Community Prosperity alternative with its strategic focus on economic development would see increases industrial development and related employment. While the Citizen Focus alternative would have similar policy changes as the Community Prosperity alternative, the lack of corresponding Land Use Map changes would likely limit increases in industrial development. In an effort to be concise, where impacts are similar they are discussed together, and differences between the alternatives are noted. Priority Infrastructure Investment No Action, Citizen Focus, and Community Prosperity Alternatives Infrastructure investment is expected to progress as it has in the past, consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, capital improvement program, and transportation improvement program. In addition to being consistent with adopted plans and programs, the Community Prosperity and Citizen Focus alternatives include strategic actions that target infrastructure investment opportunities and identify potential partnerships. These alternatives also provide mechanisms to help the City prioritize improvements. Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan identifies that funding is adequate to meet future needs. It also identifies community and economic development priorities that are not necessary capital projects but rather aspirational to further the City's economic development initiatives. These policy changes are likely to increase development, especially with land use map changes proposed in the Community Prosperity alternative. Specific infrastructure improvements may need to be evaluated under a separate SEPA process. Site Certification No Action Alternative The No Action alternative assumes that the existing policy framework will not change. The existing policy framework does not contain policy support or guidance to develop a certified sites program or process, as such, the No Action alternative is likely to see the same amount of industrial development that is consistent with past trends, but less than what would be anticipated under either of the other alternatives. Citizen Focus and Community Prosperity Alternative As part of the new goals and policies and strategic actions the City will work toward identifying appropriate third party certification for industrial sites at the north-eastern edge of the City. It is likely that the site certification would increase the desirability of the industrial land in the area. Under the Community Prosperity alternative the north-eastern industrial area is proposed to be designated Industrial which would allow heavy manufacturing, processing, and assembly types of uses. Under the Citizen Focus alternative, sites may be certified but the area would retain the Light Industrial designation, which would allow the same development type as the No Action alternative. Retail and Tourism No Action Alternative The No Action alternative assumes that the existing policy framework will not change. However, in 2016 the City completed two studies, one focused on retail and one on tourism; both these studies included a number of goal, policies, and strategies on improving the retail and tourism sectors within the City. Under the No Action alternative, both of these studies would not be incorporated into the comprehensive plan; however, it is possible that under a separate process the strategies and related actions may be implemented but Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 10 I P a g e without an overall context provided in the Comprehensive Plan which could result in duplicative unnecessary investment. Citizen Focus and Community Prosperity Alternative Both the Citizen Focus and Community Prosperity alternatives propose policy changes that include the incorporation of the goals, policies, strategies and related actions of two recent studies: Retail Improvement and Tourism Improvement. The Retail and Tourism studies include a goals, policies, strategies, and related actions to improve the retail and tourism sectors of the City's economy, which are likely to increase demand and development in these sectors. While each of the studies calls for some fairly specific actions, none of the actions are detailed enough the warrant a detailed analysis of their impacts. However, a second phase of the Tourism study will conduct a feasibility analysis on specific projects, which if developed may require a separate SEPA analysis. Mitigation Measures Each of the proposed alternatives, in varying degrees, contribute to the economic welfare of the City. The preferred alternative proposed as presented in the Comprehensive Plan has an overall positive impact on the economic welfare of the City and no mitigation measures are proposed to address those impacts. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on land use are expected with implementation of the mitigation measures. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 11 I P a g e 1.2: Land Use Analysis Land Use Patterns No Action and Citizen Focused Alternative The land use patterns for both the No Action and Citizen Focus alternatives are similar. Based on past trends since the adoption of the comprehensive plan in 2006 and the existing conditions reports completed as part of this comprehensive plant, the City of Spokane Valley would expect the following: • Continued new office development within the Mixed Use Center designation along the Spokane River corridor. • Continued high vacancy rates for commercial/office space in the Office designation along the major north -south arterials. • Continued development within the Regional Commercial designation especially along Indiana Avenue around the Spokane Valley Mall and the Auto Row area along Sprague Avenue. • The Community Commercial designation along Sullivan Road is likely to see continued development. • The Corridor Mixed Use is likely to see continued slow and steady improvements along Sprague, and increased development near the proposed City Hall building at Sprague and Dartmouth. • The Medium Density Residential designation and corresponding zone is likely to see very little development. • The City will likely see increased requests to amend the Land Use Map from Medium Density to High Density. • The High Density designation is likely to seen increased development as demand increased for this housing typology. • The Citizen Focus alternative is likely to see increased multiple family development east of Sullivan Road on Broadway Avenue and around McDonald Road of north 4th Avenue. • Without changes to the low density residential development standards the Low Density Residential designation would likely continue to see small isolated infill development, at a slower pace than adjacent jurisdiction with more flexible standards. Community Prosperity Alternative The land use patterns for the Community Prosperity alternative is similar to both the No Action and Citizen Focus alternatives in terms of overall intensity but there are several distinct differences. The differences identified below assume the implementation of the supporting regulation changes discussed in the Additional Elements of the Environment of this analysis. Under this alternative, the City of Spokane Valley would expect the following: • Continued new office development within the Mixed Use designation along the Spokane River corridor. • New multi -family and mixed use development along the major north -south arterials, south of Sprague Avenue between the Appleway Trail and 4th Avenue; and near Broadway Ave and Shamrock Road • Continued development within the Regional Commercial designation especially along Indiana Avenue around the Spokane Valley Mall and the Auto Row area along Sprague Avenue. • Continued commercial development along Sullivan Road consistent with past development patterns. • Increased development near the proposed City Hall building at Sprague and Dartmouth. • Increased industrial development in the north-eastern corner of the City. 1 Existing Conditions Housing and Economic Trends, September 2015 and Transportation System Existing Conditions, August 2015 Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 12 Wage • An increased number of single-family home infill developments with the implementation of more flexible development standards; however, the overall allowed density will remain unchanged. Land Use Designations and Zoning Land Use Conversion The land use conversion section discusses land use designation changes (for example, changing Office to Corridor Mixed Use), but does not involve changes from one type of land use to another (from single family residential to an office). However, while it is recognized that a change of land use designation can imply a change in an allowed use, this section keeps the level of detail at the appropriate planning level -- that is, general levels of intensity and use types. No Action and Citizen Focus Alternative Both the No Action and Citizen Focus alternatives assume that the currently adopted land use designations from 2006 would remain. Table 2 provides a summary of those land use designations. Table 2: No Action and Citizen Focus Land Use Designations Designation Low Density Residential (LDR) Description The Low Density Residential (LDR) Comprehensive Plan designation addresses a range of single - family residential densities from one dwelling unit per acre up to and including six dwelling units per acre. This designation would be implemented through a series of zoning designations that would allow a range of minimum lot sizes. Medium Density Residential (MDR) The Medium Density Residential designation represents an opportunity to provide a range of housing types to accommodate anticipated residential growth. Zoning will allow densities up to 12 dwelling units per acre in the Medium Density Residential designation. Multi -family residential zones should be used as transitional zoning between higher intensity land uses such as commercial and office, to lower density single family neighborhoods. Additionally, Medium Density Residential areas should be located near services and high capacity transit facilities or transit routes. High Density Residential (HDR) This designation provides for existing multi -family residential development developed at a density in excess of 12 units per acre. Additionally, High Density Residential (HDR) designated areas are also located in areas near higher intensity development. Generally, this designation is appropriate for land which is located adjacent to the arterial street system served by public transit, and is in close proximity to business and commercial centers. Offices are permitted in the High Density Residential areas. Regional Commercial (RC) Regional Commercial allows a large range of uses. A wide range of development types, appearance, ages, function, and scale. It covers the "strip" retail areas along Sprague Avenue which includes the automobile dealerships located along the western end of the Sprague Avenue corridor and the "big box" retail area found in the Sullivan Road area from Sprague Avenue north to the Interstate 90 interchange, and includes the Valley Mall and Wal-Mart. Community Commercial (C) The community commercial classification designates areas for retail, service and office establishments intended to serve several neighborhoods. Community Commercial areas should not be larger than 15-17 acres in size and should be located as business clusters rather than arterial strip commercial development. In addition, light assembly or other unobtrusive uses not traditionally located in commercial zones may be allowed with appropriate performance standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses or zoning districts. Neighborhood Commercial (NC) The neighborhood commercial classification designates areas for small-scale neighborhoods serving retail and office uses. Neighborhood business areas should not be larger than two acres in size, and should be located as business clusters rather than arterial strip commercial developments. Office (0) This comprehensive plan designation is intended primarily for office development with limited retail or commercial uses. Retail and commercial uses are limited to those that are clearly subordinate to the primary office use, or the retail function primarily serves the office uses in close proximity to the retail or commercial use. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 13 Wage Designation Description Corridor Mixed- Use (CMU) Corridor Mixed-use is intended to enhance travel options, encourage development of locally serving commercial uses, multi -family apartments, lodging and offices along major transportation corridors identified on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Corridor Mixed-use recognizes the historical low -intensity, auto -dependent development pattern, and focuses on a pedestrian orientation with an emphasis on aesthetics and design. The Corridor Mixed-use designation is primarily used along Sprague Avenue. Mixed-use Center (MUC) The Mixed-use Center designation would allow for two or more different land uses within developments under this designation. Mixed-use developments can be either vertical or horizontally mixed, and would include employment uses such as office, retail and/or lodging along with higher density residential uses, and in some cases community or cultural facilities. Compatibility between uses is achieved through design which integrates certain physical and functional features such as transportation systems, pedestrian ways, open areas or court yards, and common focal points or amenities. Light Industry (LI) The Light Industry designation is a planned industrial area with special emphasis and attention given to aesthetics, landscaping, and internal and community compatibility. Uses may include high technology and other low -impact industries. Light Industry areas may incorporate office and commercial uses as ancillary uses within an overall plan for the industrial area. Non -industrial uses should be limited and in the majority of cases be associated with permitted industrial uses. The Light Industry category may serve as a transitional category between heavy industrial areas and other less intensive land use categories. Heavy Industrial (HI) Heavy industry is characterized by intense industrial activities, which include, but are not limited to, manufacturing, processing, fabrication, assembly/disassembly, freight -handling, and similar operations. Heavy industry may have significant noise, odor or aesthetic impacts to surrounding areas. Parks and Open Space (POS) The Parks and Open Space designation is intended to protect parks, open space, and other natural physical assets of the community. Citizen Focus Alternative Table 3 summarizes the CARs the amount of acres by land designation changes; it only shows only those designations where land is converting from one designation to another designation. The rows show the existing comprehensive plan designation and the columns show the proposed comprehensive plan designations. Using Low Density Residential as an example, 40.39 acres are converting to High Density Residential, 4.03 acres to Commercial, and .75 acres to Corridor Mixed Use for a total of 45.17 acres of Low Density Residential converting to another designation. This alternative proposes a total of 72.27 acres of change to the Land Use Map. All of the proposed changes are from a less intense designation to a more intense designation with most the land area changing from the Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 141 P a g e Table 3: Changes to Existing Comprehensive Plan Designations in Acres for Citizen Focus Alternative Community Prosperity Alternative The Community Prosperity Alternative proposes eight land use designations described in Table 4: lame 4: l.ommunity rrosperlty Alternative Lana use uesignations Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation Total High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Corridor Mixed Use c al a Low Density Residential 40.39 0.0 4.03 0.75 45.17 o. E c L.) ° c c Sao In In w D Medium Density Residential 18.39 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.39 Office 3.41 0.78 1.37 3.15 8.71 Total 62.19 0.78 5.4 3.9 72.27 Community Prosperity Alternative The Community Prosperity Alternative proposes eight land use designations described in Table 4: lame 4: l.ommunity rrosperlty Alternative Lana use uesignations Designation Description Single Family Residential (SFR) Allows for single-family development with densities ranging from 1- 6 dwelling units per acre. This designation has three zoning districts that have a range of minimum lot sizes. Multifamily Residential (MFR) Allows for multi -family development, near commercial centers, arterial streets, and public transit lines. The implementation includes transitional standards to protect the single-family designation. Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Allows for the development of small-scale retail and office uses while allowing for single family homes. Located within neighborhood areas along arterials, the size of development and types of businesses are intended to serve nearby residents. Regional Commercial Allows for range of commercial development. It includes areas like Auto Row along Sprague, the Valley Mall, and areas along arterials near Interstate 90. Generally, the development in these areas serve the region. Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Allows for uses like light manufacturing, retail, multifamily, and offices along major corridors. Corridor Mixed-use recognizes the historical low -intensity, auto -dependent development pattern along Sprague Avenue, and the north -south arterials. Mixed Use (MU) Allows for a mix of uses, either vertical or horizontally mixed. Includes uses like office, retail, lodging, and residential. Mixed Use is generally located near the Spokane River and Centennial Trail. Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) Allows for light manufacturing, retail, offices, and light industrial types of uses like contractor and towing yards. The Industrial Mixed Use is located along Trent Avenue. Industrial (I) Allows for industrial development like manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, and freight - handling. Implemented by one zone and transitional and buffer standards to protect adjacent non -industrial areas from impacts. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (POS) The purpose of this district is to protect and provide for parks, open space, and other natural physical assets of the community. Table 5 summarizes how the existing land use designations relate to the proposed land use designations of the Community Prosperity alternative. It shows how the existing land use designations are allocated to the proposed designations in acres. The next sub -sections provide an analysis of Table 5. Designation Name Changes The Community Prosperity proposes changing the name of four existing land use designations: • Low Density Residential (LDR) 4 Single Family Residential (SFR) Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 15IPage • High Density Residential (HDR) 4 Multiple Family Residential (MFR) • Mixed Use Center (MUC) 4 Mixed Use (MU) • Heavy Industrial (HI) 4 Industrial (I) The proposed name changes are not expected to result in substantial impacts as the allowed uses, intensity of uses, and density are expected to remain the same as the No Action alternative. However, the new Multiple Family Residential designation is expected to have density increases, in locations in close (1/4 mile) to transit, parks and open space, and other daily goods. The expected densities are expected to be similar to existing densities (22 units per acre). Impacts from this density will be mitigated through transitional zoning provisions; additional analysis of the density increase are evaluated under the Transportation and Housing sections of this analysis. Designation Eliminations The Community Prosperity alternative proposes to eliminate three existing land use designations, shown in Table 5 as blue shaded rows with underlined text. The three designations proposed for elimination are: Medium Density Residential (MDR), Office (0), and Community Commercial (C). The following bullets summarize the reasoning and expected impacts of these eliminations: Medium Density Residential (MDR) • The elimination of the Medium Density Residential designation is based on the Housing and Economic Trends Existing Condition Report. The report identified four policy considerations: o Allow housing types not currently allowed in the MF -1 zone o Rezone /designation to allow higher densities o Support additional housing types by adjusting minimum lot size, setbacks, lot width, and other development o Use the multi -family tax exemptions in the MF -1 zone • While some form of the above policy considerations are incorporated into the Community Prosperity alternative, the biggest and most encompassing change was incorporating approximately 606 acres of MDR into the higher intensive designations of MFR, RC, CMU, MU, and IMU. • The change to higher intensive uses is expected to allow multiple family development on property. • Areas of the MDR designation where existing development patterns are single family houses but more intensive in terms of density, around 12 units per acre, were designated LDR. • The designation to LDR is not expected to have any significant impacts as LDR is less intensive than MDR Office (0) • The elimination of the Office designation is based on the Housing and Economic Trends Existing Condition Report. The report identified the following relevant policy considerations: o The existing vacant land in the 0 designation is likely not suitable for new office development based on sites used for past office development projects o Change policy or regulations to allow other types of uses such as residential uses • The Community Prosperity alternative proposes to designate nearly all of the 0 designation to CMU and a much smaller amount to RC. • The change to CMU is expected to increase development within the north -south corridors, most likely with multi -family development. While this is an increase in development the intensity similar to an office type of development • The change to RC is not expected to have any significant impacts and was done to avoid creating stand-alone land use islands where Office was adjacent to RC. Community Commercial (C) • The elimination of the C designation is proposed as part of a larger effort to simplify and streamline the Comprehensive Plan. The C designation was incorporated into CMU or RC. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 16 I P a g e • A major difference between the C and the CMU is that the implementing zoning district in CMU allows some light industry and multiple -family development and the C zone does not. In the implementing zone for RC allows for entertainment uses and the C zone does not. • Another difference is the allowed height in the C zone it is 35 feet and in the RC the allowed height is 100 feet and in the CMU it is 50 feet. • Differences in use are addressed through zoning standards, and height are addressed with transitional provisions. • Most of the C designation was located at Sprague and major arterials; most of these areas are developed, so these areas are not likely to see new development. • The change of C to CMU and RC is not expected to have any significant impacts because of the similarity of allowed uses and the already intensive development at C locations. Light Industrial (LI) • The elimination of the LI designation is proposed as part of a larger effort to simplify and streamline the Comprehensive Plan. The LI designation was eliminated and its land incorporated into Heavy Industrial (HI), Regional Commercial (RC), and Industrial Mixed Use (IMU). • Areas where the LI designation was incorporated into HI, proposed as the new Industrial (1) designation, would allow previously prohibited uses: Animal processing/handling; Beekeeping - commercial; Assembly -heavy; Manufacturing -heavy; Power plant; Processing -heavy; Railroad yard, repair shop and roundhouse. • About %2 of the LI to I change is around the Montgomery Avenue industrial area. The area is characterized by a diverse range of existing industrial uses. Another main area of conversion is near Felts Field Airport and west of Park Road between 1-90 and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe mainline, which is also characterized by variety of industrial types of uses. • Another areas of LI to I conversion is in the northeastern corner of City. This area is mostly vacant, except for major solar energy operation and is adjacent to heavy industrially zoned land and between two main rail lines. • The areas already characterized by industrial development may see slow development, but the vacant industrial land is likely to see a marked increase in development. • The new Industrial (1) designation is subject to transitional provisions to protect adjacent lower intensive designations and other Federal and State regulations, including but not limited to: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and stormwater regulations. • The transitional provisions will protect these lower intensity designations through setbacks, screening, and height limitations. • Vacant industrial land in the north-east portion of the City will likely see increased development with improved sewer access. Additional Designation Considerations A few of the changes identified in Table 5 warrant additional discussion: • There are 6 acres of LDR land proposed to be designated I. The change could be categorized as a housekeeping amendment as the changes eliminated pockets of LDR in former Light Industrial areas (now Industrial). It's not expected this change will create significant impacts and with the implementation of transitional provisions to protect lower intensity designations. • The Community Prosperity alternative converts approximately 53 acres of Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) to Parks and Open Space (POS). This change is a result of converting the publically owned property identified for the Appleway Trail to POS. This area is part of the planned Appleway Trail and is publically owned, and would not significantly impact available acres of CMU lands. • Approximately 100 acres of Mixed-use Center (MUC) is being converted to Parks and Open Space (POS). This change is a result of designating Department of Natural Resources land near Mirabeau Park. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 171 P a g e • Approximately 150 acres of CMU is proposed to be designated to the new Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation, which is described in Table 4. Generally, the new designation would allow CMU types of uses and more industrial types of uses like contractor yards. The I M U is expected to not allow multiple family uses. The IMU designation is limited to the Trent Avenue corridor. • The 12 acres of LDR that was designated as POS is City owned land that serves as a drainage way. The change more accurately the long-term intended use of the property. The change is not expected to have significant impacts on single-family available lands. • Approximately 27 acres of Low Density Residential (LDR) is being converted to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). This change is a result of the community priorities. However, the NC zone allows single-family development as an outright permitted use, so it's not expected this change would result in significant impacts. • Other minor changes reflect housekeeping adjustments to eliminate spilt land use designations or zoning; the changes align land use designations to property lines and/or adjustments to create logical boundaries for designations. 1 GIJle D. aullllllcity ul LGIIU Ube IJeb1611G11u11 1.11G1 gcb - Community r ubfJCl Ily Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designations SFR MFR NC RC CMU MU IMU 1 POS Total LDR 10,460 248 27 57 11 1 15 12 10,831 MDR 255 360 24 153 34 826 u, o HDR 4 767 3 16 8 798 RI 5 u, O 6 391 397 ai in c cti FL NC 7 9 16 C 133 336 469 71 aci t IL' L. E 0 RC 628 22 650 CMU 16 690 150 52 908 U bo c MUC 543 100 643 wLI 2 48 972 1,022 HI 1 3,048 3,049 POS 2 430 432 Total 10,736 1,375 37 809 1,666 590 199 4,021 594 20,027 Numbers have been rounded to the next nearest whole number Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 18 Wage Population and Employment Residential and Commercial Land Capacity No Action, Citizen Focus, and Community Prosperity Alternatives Based on the Land Quantity Analysis2 completed for the periodic update of the comprehensive plan, the City has a capacity for an additional 9,076 housing units and 19,980 additional people. The City has adopted an initial population target of 14,650 as recommended by Steering Committee of Elected Officials for Spokane County. Given the estimated 2037 capacity (19,980) and the projected growth (14,650) the City of Spokane Valley can accommodate its projected population in all of the alternatives. The City can accommodate its projected growth within its jurisdictional boundaries. However, both the Citizen Focus and Community Prosperity alternatives propose policy it identify and assess opportunities to annex lands within the UGA, and that such expansions should be planned for. The City has no formal target or allocation for employment; however, the City has as part of its periodic update conducted an analysis of available commercial and industrial Iands2. The analysis identified approximately 1,250 acres of buildable acres within the City. Approximately 46 percent of that area is industrial land on the City's north-east side. While vacancies in industrial land have been decreasing, it's expected that the existing supply of undeveloped industrial land can accommodate future demand, and the policy changes regarding office and commercial land are also expected to meet future demand. Community Prosperity Alternative The Community Prosperity alternative proposes various land use designation changes as discussed earlier. These changes while significantly simplifying the implementation of the plan, increase the estimated residential capacity by almost 4,000 people. Most of the increase results from changing a portion of the Medium Density Residential designation to the new Multi -Family Residential designation. The remainder is the result of changing Office, which prohibits multiple family development to Corridor Mixed Use which allows multiple family development. The increase in capacity is not expected to have significant impacts. Preservation of Neighborhoods No Action Alternative The No Action alternative assumes that the currently adopted policies and regulations would remain unchanged. The existing regulatory framework provides for a relational set -back for multifamily housing adjacent to residential zoning or uses. In part, it requires an additional foot of setback for every foot above 25 feet starting at the setback line. Citizen Focus and Community Prosperity Alternative Both the Citizen Focus and Community Prosperity alternatives would result in significant policy changes that include policies, strategic actions, and potential regulations to preserve the character of neighborhoods, and allow for amenities in proximity to neighborhoods. The following are the key features of the Citizen Focus and Community Prosperity alternatives to preserve neighborhoods: • Both alternatives include transitional provisions to manage the interface of higher intensity designations and zones to lower intensity designations or zones. While these provisions are included in the Citizen Focus alternative, without the land use map changes associated with the Community Prosperity alternative their use within the context of the Citizen Focus alternative would likely be minimal. • Under both Citizen Focus and Community Prosperity alternatives the allowed density would remain at 6 units per acre for all LDR implementing zones except for the R-1 which is 1 unit per acre. 2 ECONorthwest Memorandum, June 24, 1015, Subject: Spokane Valley Residential Land Capacity Needs Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 19 I P a g e • The Community Prosperity alternative proposes a change in the zoning regulations that consolidates the current R-3 and R-4 zones into a new zone, which would allow a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, which would allow greater flexibility and promotes reinvestment in single family neighborhoods. However, the current density of 6 dwelling units per acre, the same as No Action and Citizen Focus alternatives, would remain. • The Citizen Focus alternative does not propose a change in minimum lot sizes, which would likely limit infill development and encourage the aggregation lots to accommodate infill development. • The Citizen Focus alternative assumes the preservation of the Multi -family 1(MF-1) zone as it exists, which includes areas that have established single-family residences. Under the Citizen Focus alternative these area could redevelop at 12 units per acre. • The Community Prosperity alternative assumes that the established single-family residential areas are designated single-family, preserving the existing neighborhood. • The Community Prosperity alternative designates multiple family development where services like transit and daily goods are available. Mitigation Measures • Transitional zoning provisions that protect lower intensity designations from impacts of higher intensity designations. • Streamline the permitted use matrix to ensure that uses from eliminated designations and their related zoning districts are permitted in new and/or consolidated designations and zoning districts. • Updated supplementary standards to require additional controls in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on neighborhoods are expected with implementation of the mitigation measures. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 20 1 P a g e 1.3: Transportation Analysis Under all of the EIS Alternatives, the City of Spokane Valley would experience increased development in order to accommodate new residents and employment in the City. This new development would have impacts on the transportation network, which is primarily dominated by the automobile but also accommodates walking, biking, and public transit. These impacts would result in additional needs for transportation facilities and improvements. However, the alternatives differ in scope, intensity and locations for these improvements. This section summarizes the operations and characteristics of the transportation system under the different alternatives. In general, the analysis focuses on the difference between the No Action and the Community Prosperity Alternatives since they represent the least intense and most intense development alternatives, respectively. Modeling results were evaluated for the Citizen Focus Alternative and they were found to be very similar to the Community Prosperity Alternative, although with slightly less traffic generation/roadway travel impact. A description of the existing transportation conditions is summarized in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and in the Transportation Existing Conditions Report.3 Roadway Travel Roadway travel impacts are assessed using the Level of Service (LOS) concept4. For small projects, LOS is often calculated at intersections. However, for large -area plans such as a comprehensive plan, it is a corridor LOS is often used to summarize conditions. This analysis uses a combination of corridor and intersection LOS. Intersection LOS analysis was focused at the busiest signalized intersections for PM peak hour conditions, the busiest time of the day. Table 6 identifies the intersections and corridors analyzed for this EIS. Table 6: Study Intersections and Corridors Intersection Type of Traffic Control 1- Argonne Rd/Trent (SR 290) Signal 2 - Pines Rd/Trent (SR 290) Signal; (assumes BNSF grade separation and reconfigured intersection by2037) 3 - Pines Rd/Mirabeau Pkwy Signal 4 -Sullivan Rd/Wellesley Ave Signal (a new traffic signal is assumed by 2037) 5 - Sullivan Rd/Trent (SR 290) WB Signal 6 - Sullivan Rd/Trent (SR 290) EB Signal 7 - Argonne Rd/I-90 WB Ramp Signal; (a new southbound lane approaching the intersection and three -lane overpass of 1-90 assumed by 2037) 8 -Argonne Rd/I-90 EB Ramp Signal; (a new southbound lane approaching the intersection and three -lane overpass of 1-90 assumed by 2037) 9 - Mullan Rd/I-90 WB Ramp Signal 10 - Mullan Rd/I-90 EB Ramp Signal 11- Pines Rd/Mansfield Ave Signal 12 - Pines Rd/Indiana Ave Signal 13 -1-90 WB Off Ramp (Pines Interchange)/Indiana Ave Signal 14- Pines Rd/I-90 EB Ramps Signal 15 - Pines Rd/Mission Ave Signal 16 - Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave Signal (a new traffic signal is assumed by 2037) 17 - Mirabeau Pk /Indiana Ave Signal 18 - Evergreen Rd/Indiana Ave Signal 19 - Evergreen Rd/I-90 WB Ramps Signal 3 Transportation Systems Existing Conditions, August 2015, submitted by Fehr & Peers 4 The definition of LOS from 2010 Highway Capacity Manual is in the Transportation Element Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 21IPage Intersection Type of Traffic Control 20 - Evergreen Rd/I-90 EB Ramps Signal; (assumes additional southbound left turn lane by 2037 21- Mission Connector/Mission Ave Side -street stop 22 - Sullivan Rd/Indiana Ave Signal; (assumes dual westbound left turn land by 2037) 23 - Sullivan Rd/I-90 WB On Ramp Roundabout 24 - Sullivan Rd/I-90 EB Ramps Roundabout 25 - Sullivan Rd/Mission Ave Signal 26 - Sullivan Rd/Broadway Signal 27 -1-90 WB Off Ramp (Sullivan)/Indiana Ave Signal 28 - Barker Rd/Mission Ave Signal 29 - Barker Rd/I-90 WB Ramp Signal 30 - Barker Rd/I-90 EB Ramp Signal 31- Fancher Rd/Broadway Signal 32 - Thierman Rd/Broadway Signal 33 -1-90 WB Ramp/Broadway Signal 34 -1-90 EB Ramp/Broadway Signal 35 - Argonne Rd/Broadway Signal 36 - Mul Ian Rd/Broadway Signal 37 - Carnahan Rd/8th Ave Signal or roundabout (by 2037) 38 - Fancher Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 39 - Thierman Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 40 - Thierman Rd/Appleway Blvd Signal 41- Dishman Mica Rd/Appleway Blvd Signal 42 - University Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 43 - University Rd/Appleway Blvd Signal 44 - Pines Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 45 - Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 46 - Sullivan Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 47 - Barker Rd/Appleway Blvd Signal 48 - Barker Rd/Sprague Ave Signal or roundabout (by 2037) 49 - SR 27/16th Ave Signal 50- Bowdish Rd/Dishman Mica Rd Si:nal Corridor Segment Argonne/Mu IIan Between Trent and Appleway Pines Road Between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue Evergreen Road Between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue Sullivan Road Between Wellesley Avenue and 8th Avenue Trent Avenue Between Argonne Road and Barker Road Sprague Avenue/Appleway Between Fancher Road and Park Road For the purposes of this analysis, impacts to roadway travel are based on whether LOS exceeds the thresholds established in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which uses both corridor and intersection LOS. To evaluate LOS, the results of the Spokane Regional Transportation Council's (SRTC) regional travel demand forecasting model were used to forecast ADT and peak hour intersection volumes. The regional travel model works by estimating the trip generation (for vehicles and transit) from land use inputs that are varied for each of the alternatives. The horizon year for the regional travel demand forecasting model is 2040 which reasonably corresponds to the 2037 horizon date for the Comprehensive Plan update. Corridor LOS Corridor LOS is evaluated using average daily traffic (ADT) volume thresholds shown in Table 7, it uses the average LOS conditions along the length of the entire corridor being measured. Corridor LOS acknowledges that some intersections may experience greater congestion than the corridor as a whole. Using the Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 22 1 P a g e thresholds below, the length -average ADT -to -LOS D volume threshold ratio is calculated. So long as the ratio is less than or equal to 1.00, the corridor is defined as operating at LOS D or better. Table 7: Roadway Corridor Level of Service ADT Thresholds Average Corridor Daily Traffic Threshold Number of Through Lanes on Number of Through Lanes on Two -Way Streets* One -Way Streets Level of Service 2 Lanes 4 Lanes 6 Lanes 2 Lanes 3 Lanes 4 Lanes 5 Lanes A -B <2,780 <5,050 <7,350 <3,030 <4,410 <5,700 <6,910 D 2,780- 5,050- 7,350- 3,030- 4,410- 5,700- 6,910- C 5,570 10,100 14,700 6,060 8,820 11,410 13,830 5,570- 10,100- 14,700- 6,060- 8,820- 11,410- 13,830- D 14,490 28,200 41,800 16,920 25,080 32,440 39,330 14,490- 28,200- 41,800- 16,920- 25,080- 32,440- 39,330- E 18,800 34,100 48,900 20,460 29,340 37,950 46,010 F >18,800 >34,100 >48,900 >20,460 >29,340 >37,950 >46,010 * All two-way streets assume the presence of a median/turn lanes. Per Florida DOT's implementation of the HCM, a 5 percent capacity factor increase is applied to roads with medians or turn lanes. Source: 2010, Highway Capacity Manual; 2013 Florida Department of Transportation Q/LOS Handbook; 2016 Fehr & Peers. Intersection LOS Intersection LOS was analyzed using Highway Capacity Manual methods in the Synchro 9 software package. Intersection LOS is based on average control delay, which is the amount of delay caused by the traffic signal/stop sign and the queues that form at signals. The LOS thresholds for signalized and unsiganlized intersections are shown below. Table 8: Intersection Level of Service Control Delay Thresholds Level of Service Signalized Intersection: Seconds of Unsignalized Intersection: Seconds Control Delay of Control Delay A 0-10 0-10 B 10-20 10-15 C 20-35 15-25 D 35-55 25-35 E 55-80 35-50 F > 80 >50 Note: Delay for LOS evaluation is averaged across all movements for signals and all -way stop -controlled intersections. The highest -delayed approach is evaluated for side -street stop -controlled intersections. Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. Roadway Network Impacts of Changing the LOS Standard The proposed Comprehensive Plan, and Citizen Focus alternative, uses both corridor and intersection LOS which is different than the No Action alternative which uses only intersection LOS. In general, the proposed LOS policy allows for additional congestion at certain intersections along the designated Major Arterial Corridor. This approach to a comprehensive arterial congestion analysis is consistent with the SRTCs regional transportation planning policies and the Congestion Management Process that happens to overlap with several corridors. The implications of the LOS policy change are also described below, although the overall assessment of roadway travel performance is assessed using the new LOS policy included in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Using corridor or area -wide arterial LOS is common in built out areas where there is less available right-of- way to constantly expand intersections and roadways. For example, at a built -out intersection like Sullivan Road and Sprague Avenue, maintaining LOS D conditions would require dual -left turn lanes on all approaches resulting in substantial impacts to adjacent businesses and properties. Now consider this type of widening at all intersections that do not meet the LOS D threshold shown in Table 9 and the City would face a significant challenge related to the cost and right-of-way impacts of maintaining LOS D conditions Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 23 I P a g e everywhere in the community. Thus, the impacts of changing the LOS policy to consider corridor and intersection LOS allows some additional congestion at intersections but to reduces land use, maintenance costs, and capital costs of providing ever -larger transportation infrastructure. No Action Alternative The results of the No Action roadway travel LOS analysis is summarized in the following tables and figure. Table 9: No Action Alternative Intersection PM Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Delay LOS 1- Argonne Rd/Trent (SR 290) 105 F 2 - Pines Rd/Trent (SR 290) 53 D 3 - Pines Rd/Mirabeau Pkwy 38 D 4 - Sullivan Rd/WellesleyAve 13 B 5 - Sullivan Rd/Trent (SR 290) WB 15 B 6 - Sullivan Rd/Trent (SR 290) EB 3 A 7 -Argonne Rd/I-90 WB Ramp 23 C 8 -Argonne Rd/I-90 EB Ramp 25 C 9 - Mullan Rd/I-90 WB Ramp 20 C 10 - Mullan Rd/I-90 EB Ramp 54 D 11- Pines Rd/Mansfield Ave 33 C 12 - Pines Rd/Indiana Ave 43 D 13 -1-90 WB Off Ramp (Pines Interchange)/Indiana Ave 21 C 14 - Pines Rd/I-90 EB Ramps 44 D 15 - Pines Rd/Mission Ave 47 D 16 - Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave 28 C 17 - Mirabeau Pkwy/Indiana Ave 16 B 18 - Evergreen Rd/Indiana Ave 25 C 19 - Evergreen Rd/I-90 WB Ramps 22 C 20 - Evergreen Rd/I-90 EB Ramps 15 B 21- Mission Connector/Mission Ave 13 C 22 - Sullivan Rd/Indiana Ave 55 D 23 - Sullivan Rd/I-90 WB On Ramp 12 B 24 - Sullivan Rd/I-90 EB Ramps 33 C 25 - Sullivan Rd/Mission Ave 17 B 26 - Sullivan Rd/Broadway 47 D 27 -1-90 WB Off Ramp (Sullivan)/Indiana Ave 36 D 28 - Barker Rd/Mission Ave 55 D 29 - Barker Rd/I-90 WB Ramp 10 A 30 - Barker Rd/I-90 EB Ramp 41 D 31-Fancher Rd/Broadway 55 D 32 - Thierman Rd/Broadway 30 C 33-1-90 WB Ramp/Broadway 42 D 34 -1-90 EB Ramp/Broadway 10 A 35 - Argonne Rd/Broad way 30 C 36 - Mullan Rd/Broadway 18 B 37 - Carnahan Rd/8th Ave 23 C 38 - Fancher Rd/Sprague Ave 57 E 39 - Thierman Rd/Sprague Ave 22 C 40 - Thierman Rd/Appleway Blvd 178 F 41- Dishman Mica Rd/Appleway Blvd 29 C 42 - University Rd/Sprague Ave 26 C 43 - University Rd/Appleway Blvd 18 B 44 - Pines Rd/Sprague Ave 82 F 45 - Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave 53 D 46 - Sullivan Rd/Sprague Ave 61 E 47 - Barker Rd/Appleway Blvd 40 D 48 - Barker Rd/Sprague Ave 16 B Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 241Page Intersection Delay LOS 49 - SR 27/16th Ave 70 E 50 - Bowdish Rd/Dishman Mica Rd 25 C Note: Italicized intersections are part of a Major Arterial Corridor. LOS impacts for Major Arterial Corridors are not assessed for individual intersections, but along the entire corridor. Table 10: No Action Alternative Major Arterial Corridor PM Peak Hour LOS Results Corridor Corridor Average ADT/LOS D Capacity Ratio LOS Argonne/Mu IIan between Trent and Appleway 0.57 D Pines Road between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue 0.96 D Evergreen Road between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue 0.80 D Sullivan Road between Wellesley Avenue and 8th Avenue 0.95 D Trent Avenue between Argonne Road and Barker Road 0.82 D Sprague Avenue/Appleway between Fancher Road and Park Road 0.76 D Li loft florid SII I 1 .111 SpOlune Vaaey level a 5<reke 1.4.wwvud Boonthew, -..o r,K Cxeit.+on 2040 Ahcrnrli, tl 05 1 Is491 Figure 4: No Action Alternative Roadway Segment LOS Results As shown in the data above, under the No Action Alternative, significant adverse roadway travel LOS impacts are expected at the following intersections and roadway segments: • SR 27/16th Avenue • Mission Avenue between Barker Road and Liberty Lake Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 25 Wage • Barker Road between Euclid Avenue and 1-90 • Sullivan Road south of 24th Avenue • 32nd Avenue between SR 27 and Evergreen Road There are other intersections and roadway segments that are operating at LOS E or F, as shown in Table 9, but these locations are subject to the proposed corridor LOS standard. If the existing intersection only LOS were considered, then these additional locations would fail to meet the intersection only LOS standard, and require additional mitigation. Citizen Focus Alternative and Community Prosperity Alternative While there are slight differences in land use assumptions between the Citizen Focus Alternative and the Community Prosperity Alternatives, in terms of travel demand and roadway travel impacts, the two alternatives are very similar. In all cases, the delay/LOS under the Community Prosperity alternative is slightly worse than the Citizen Focus alternative, so the results of the Community Prosperity alternative are used to summarize potential roadway impacts for both Alternatives. The results of the Community Prosperity alternative roadway travel LOS analysis is summarized in tables and figure below. Table 11: Community Prosperity Alternative Intersection PM Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Delay LOS 1 -Argonne Rd/Trent (SR 290) 109 F 2 - Pines Rd/Trent (SR 290) 54 D 3 - Pines Rd/Mirabeau Pkwy 41 D 4 - Sullivan Rd/WellesleyAve 9 A 5 - Sullivan Rd/Trent (SR 290) WB 40 D 6 - Sullivan Rd/Trent (SR 290) EB 3 A 7 -Argonne Rd/I-90 WB Ramp 23 C 8 -Argonne Rd/I-90 EB Ramp 26 C 9 - Mullan Rd/I-90 WB Ramp 20 C 10 - Mullan Rd/I-90 EB Ramp 49 D 11- Pines Rd/Mansfield Ave 33 C 12 - Pines Rd/Indiana Ave 44 D 13 -1-90 WB Off Ramp (Pines Interchange)/Indiana Ave 21 C 14 - Pines Rd/I-90 EB Ramps 44 D 15 - Pines Rd/Mission Ave 47 D 16 - Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave 28 C 17 - Mirabeau Pkwy/Indiana Ave 16 B 18 - Evergreen Rd/Indiana Ave 25 C 19 - Evergreen Rd/I-90 WB Ramps 23 C 20 - Evergreen Rd/I-90 EB Ramps 15 B 21- Mission Connector/Mission Ave 15 C 22 - Sullivan Rd/Indiana Ave 62 E 23 - Sullivan Rd/I-90 WB On Ramp 15 B 24 - Sullivan Rd/I-90 EB Ramps 35 C 25 - Sullivan Rd/Mission Ave 16 B 26 - Sullivan Rd/Broadway 49 D 27 -1-90 WB Off Ramp (Sullivan)/Indiana Ave 38 D 28 - Barker Rd/Mission Ave 53 D 29 - Barker Rd/I-90 WB Ramp 11 B 30 - Barker Rd/I-90 EB Ramp 43 D 31- Fancher Rd/Broadway 57 E 32 - Thierman Rd/Broadway 18 B 33-1-90 WB Ramp/Broadway 40 D 34 -1-90 EB Ramp/Broadway 5 A 35 - Argonne Rd/Broad way 30 C Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 261 Page Intersection Delay LOS 36 - MuIlan Rd/Broadway 19 B 37 - Carnahan Rd/8th Ave 28 D 38 - Fancher Rd/Sprague Ave 62 E 39 - Thierman Rd/Sprague Ave 32 C 40 - Thierman Rd/Appleway Blvd 195 F 41- Dishman Mica Rd/Appleway Blvd 29 C 42 - University Rd/Sprague Ave 47 D 43 - University Rd/Appleway Blvd 21 C 44 - Pines Rd/Sprague Ave 82 F 45 - Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave 54 D 46 - Sullivan Rd/Sprague Ave 61 E 47 - Barker Rd/Appleway Blvd 39 D 48 - Barker Rd/Sprague Ave 16 B 49 - SR 27/16th Ave 74 E 50 - Bowdish Rd/Dishman Mica Rd 28 C Note: Italicized intersections are part of a Major Arterial Corridor. LOS impacts for Major Arterial Corridors are not assessed for individual intersections, but along the entire corridor. Table 12: Community Prosperity Alternative Major Arterial Corridor PM Peak Hour LOS Results Corridor Corridor Average ADT LOS Argonne/Mullan between Trent and Appleway 0.58 D Pines Road between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue 0.96 D Evergreen Road between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue 0.82 D Sullivan Road between Wellesley Avenue and 8th Avenue 0.97 D Trent Avenue between Argonne Road and Barker Road 0.84 D Sprague Avenue/Appleway between Fancher Road and Park Road 0.78 D Lan/ Lair Spokane Valiey level of Serrke .•e Co'g'ce+t.c.+ 2040 Comm...wN .4*isv Mtt*Ria(1.*' metiatOrn) Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives e MI $ 271Page Figure 5: Community Prosperity Roadway Segment LOS Results eaa 2900 x azoo 10501 1 rn.an sy c..e _ ......__ f0 1[I 10400 11001 1x201 1n00 13000 207D0 90:11 _.. 2 O] 2101 N. Ic€30 i rn ass ,...• 32+10 a4OOO an 000 2 1€,O.. 3.20j s3 27O 25W 2500 MU 2MUa 3800 WO, aLJO 3100 4000 4801 5303 3+00 _ M 8 8 - 2040 Daily Traffic Forecast Municipal Boundaries Parks. Recreation. ari10Den Spares 2040 ADT 3C 4000 6.001 - 14,0X - 14.001 2..0OO - 28 Cr : :7:"K70 Figure 6: Community Prosperity Volume Map j� 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles 101/ As shown in the tables and figure above, under the Community Prosperity alternative, significant adverse roadway travel LOS impacts are expected at the fol lowing intersections and roadway segments: • Fancher Road/Broadway • SR 27/16th Avenue • Mission Avenue between Barker Road and Liberty Lake • Barker Road between Euclid Avenue and 1-90 • Barker Road between Sprague Avenue and 8th Avenue • Flora Road between Indiana Avenue and Broadway • Sullivan Road south of 24th Avenue • 32nd Avenue between SR 27 and Evergreen Road There are other intersections and roadway segments that are operating at LOS E or F, as shown in Table 9, but these locations are subject to the proposed corridor LOS standard. Under the proposed corridor LOS standard, these locations do not constitute a roadway travel LOS impact. Mitigation measures to address the roadway travel impacts are listed at the end of this chapter. Non -motorized Travel In 2011, Spokane Valley adopted the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program, a long-term plan that identifies a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network and a strategy to implement the improvements over time. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 28 I P a g e Over the past several years, Spokane Valley has been implementing the program through the construction of new multi -use trails, bike lanes, signage, and sidewalks. No Action, Citizen Focus, and Community Prosperity Alternatives Each of the alternatives include policy support to continue implementation of the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program including connections to the regional trail network. However, the No Action alternative would continue its policy support through an independent element. Both the Citizen Focus and Community Prosperity alternatives integrate the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program into the plan where appropriate, generally the Transportation Element, but other elements like Land Use, Economic Development, and Housing may include related components. All alternatives would continue implementing development standards and City funding priorities for non - motorized project implementation are the same for all alternatives. Overall, the infrastructure to support non -motorized travel and the resulting environment for biking and walking is expected to improve for all alternatives by 2037. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified for non -motorized travel for any alternative and no mitigation measures are necessary. Public Transit Public transit in Spokane Valley is provided by the Spokane Transit Authority (STA), which is a regional agency that provides transit throughout the Spokane metropolitan area. STA has a comprehensive long- range plan for transit called Connect Spokane. This document outlines a vision for transit in the region, goals/policies related to transit service, and a map of future high performance transit routes. Spokane Valley supports transit through policies to maintain reasonable roadway operations, commute trip reduction programs5, and planning/permitting support for transit infrastructure projects. This type of support would continue for all three alternatives, however, the land use patterns have different implications as described below. Overall, all the alternatives would result in a beneficial outcome for transit service in Spokane Valley and no mitigation measures are necessary. No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative, growth would continue following past trends. The high density residential zones along Sprague Avenue and Pines Road north of 1-90 would likely see continued development. The area around the new City Hall area is likely to see additional development activity as well. As noted in the land use section, substantial single-family infill development is not expected. The additional higher -density development is expected to have beneficial impacts on transit by encouraging additional ridership on existing and planned transit routes. Citizen Focus Alternative The Citizen Focus alternative is very similar to the No Action alternative in terms of development impacts to transit. Under this alternative, there is somewhat greater potential for transit -supportive development along the Sprague Avenue corridor because of rezoning from medium to high density residential. Community Prosperity Alternative The Community Prosperity alternative closely aligns with the land use/transit goals of Connect Spokane by emphasizing infill development and higher density mixed-use development along existing and planned transit routes. Specifically, the areas along the major north -south arterials, south of Sprague Avenue between the Appleway Trail and 4th Avenue; and near Broadway Ave and Shamrock Road will see more transit -supportive development than the other alternatives. These areas roughly align with STAs proposed High Performance Transit network and existing transit centers. 5 Spokane Valley has an adopted Commute Trip Reduction Implementation Plan Update: 2015-2019 that outlines a series of actions that the Valley will coordinate with CTR employers to assist in meeting city-wide mode share goals. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 291 P a g e Freight and Rail Travel Spokane Valley is situated along major national freight corridors for both trucks and trains. The City of Spokane Valley is also home to a substantial number of manufacturing and distribution facilities that rely on freight corridors, these areas are generally located between 1-90 and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks. No Action, Citizen Focus, and Community Prosperity Alternatives All the alternatives include policy support to continue the implementation of key elements from Bridging the Valley, a major freight and safety enhancement proposal for the Spokane Region. Specifically, Spokane Valley supports the continued efforts to grade separate the BNSF mainline from major roadway crossings like Pines Road and Barker Road. Grade separation projects enhance the speed and reliability of rail freight by reducing the number of conflicts with vehicle traffic. All alternatives also have policies to maintain reasonable roadway operations to ensure access between businesses and the national freight networks. As noted in the Roadway Travel section above, the Citizen Focus and Community Prosperity alternatives include a revised LOS standard this change is not expected to have a substantial impact on freight travel as most freight movement occurs outside of the peak commute period. Overall, there are no significant adverse impacts to freight and rail travel anticipated for any of the alternatives. No mitigation is necessary beyond the measured identified for roadway travel identified in the mitigation measures. Highways of Statewide Significance Spokane Valley has one highway of statewide significance (HSS), I-90, that runs through the City. While the Valley's LOS policies do not apply to HSS facilities, the GMA requires that the Comprehensive Plan EIS evaluate the performance of the HSS facilities within Spokane Valley. This section summarizes the results of the I-90 analysis. No Action, Citizen Focus, and Community Prosperity Alternatives LOS for freeway segments are also defined by the Highway Capacity Manual. WSDOT has a LOS D standard for the freeways within the urban Spokane area. Below is the 2040 PM peak hour LOS result for 1-90 just east of Argonne/Mullan, where the freeway narrows to three lanes in each direction: Table 13: Freeway LOS Results: Segment between Argonne/Mullan and Pines Road — 2040 PM Peak Hour Alternative PM Peak Hour Volume Density (vehicles per lane LOS per mile) Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound No Action 4,845 4,586 29.9 28.0 D D Citizen Focus 4,877 4,590 30.1 28.0 D D Community Prosperity 4,930 4,591 30.5 28.0 D D As shown in Table 13, all freeway segments are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS and no significant adverse impacts to HSS facilities are expected. No mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures This section summarizes the mitigation measures identified to address the roadway travel impacts described above. While no impacts or mitigation were defined for transit, pedestrian, bike, or freight modes, it is important to recognize that the City is expected to continue investing in these modes, often with grants and funds from state, regional, and federal sources. Therefore, future Transportation Improvement Plan lists are likely to include improvements for these modes and projects like the mitigation measures outlined below. Based on the results of the roadway travel impacts, a mitigation measure project list, Table 14, has been identified to reduce the significance of the roadway travel impacts. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 30 I P a g e Table 14: Mitigation Project List Intersections Description Fancher/Broadway Widen to include east and westbound left -turn lanes and remove split phase Argonne/Trent Add a second westbound left -turn lane SR 27/16th Ave Widen to include east and westbound left -turn lanes and remove split phase Theirman/Appleway Optional intersection reconfiguration: remove one lane of eastbound approach on Appleway; do not allow left turns off Appleway or right turns off Sprague; Sprague and Appleway through movement timed to run concurrently; extend Davis St through between Sprague and Appleway (southbound only with bike lane). The final configuration of this intersection will be determined as part of the North Spokane Corridor project. Barker/Sprague Signalize intersection/roundabout Evergreen/32nd Signalize intersection/roundabout Bowdish/32nd Signalize intersection/roundabout Sullivan/Indiana Add a second westbound left -turn lane 4th/Pines Intersection Improvements (e.g., traffic signal, turn lanes, access control, etc.) 4th/Ever:reen Intersection Im.rovements (e.:., traffic si: nal, turn lanes, access control, etc.) Roadway Segment Description 8th (Havana to Park) Widen to urban 3 -lane standards Carnahan (8th to city limit) Widen to 3 -lane urban section Sullivan (24th to city limit) Widen to 5 -lane urban section Barker (Euclid to Appleway) Widen to 5 -lane urban section Mission (east of Barker) Widen to 4 -lane urban arterial with turn lanes at key intersections 32nd (SR 27 to Evergreen) Widen to 4 -lane urban arterial with turn lanes at key intersections Sullvan (Kiernan to Wellesley) Widen to 5 -lane urban section Barker (Appleway to city limits) Widen to 3 -lane urban section Flora (Indiana to Sprague) Widen to urban 3 -lane section; consider limiting left -turn access between Indiana and Broadway Mission (Flora to Barker) Widen to 3 -lane urban section Conklin (Broadway to Sprague) Widen to 3 -lane urban section Valle wa (Adams to Flora) Widen to 3 -lane urban section Transportation System and Demand Management (Non - Capacity Projects) Description Intelligent Transportation Systems Continue implementing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), which include signal coordination, adaptive signal control, incident reporting, and other technologies. Coordinate with the Regional Transportation Management Center. Commute Trip Reduction and Transportation Demand Management Programs Implement the Spokane Valley Commute Trip Reduction Implementation Plan Update: 2015-2019. Work with employers to provide information, marketing materials, training, and support to reduce drive -alone commuting to workplaces in Spokane Valley. Coordinate with Spokane Transit Authority Continue to work with Spokane Transit Authority to implement transit service improvements, including High Capacity Transit on major corridors in Spokane Valley to provide other options to driving. Encourage Infill and Higher Density Development As identified in the Land Use Element, infill and higher density development is envisioned along many of the Valley's major arterial and transit routes. This development generates fewer auto trips than comparable lower density development that is not near transit and other commercial uses. Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Continue to implement the non -motorized transportation network identified in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Program to provide other options to driving in the community. With the improvements listed in Mitigation Project List table, intersection and roadway segment operations improve. Table 15 summarizes the intersection LOS and Figure 5 summarizes the roadway segment LOS results for the Community Prosperity alterative with mitigations. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 311Page Table 15: Community Prosperity Alternative with Mitigation - Intersection PM Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Delay LOS 1- Argonne Rd/Trent (SR 290) 96 F 2 - Pines Rd/Trent (SR 290) 54 D 3 - Pines Rd/Mirabeau Pkwy 41 D 4 - Sullivan Rd/WellesleyAve 9 A 5 - Sullivan Rd/Trent (SR 290) WB 40 D 6 - Sullivan Rd/Trent (SR 290) EB 3 A 7 -Argonne Rd/I-90 WB Ramp 23 C 8 -Argonne Rd/I-90 EB Ramp 26 C 9- Mullan Rd/I-90 WB Ramp 20 C 10 - Mullan Rd/I-90 EB Ramp 49 D 11- Pines Rd/Mansfield Ave 33 C 12 - Pines Rd/Indiana Ave 44 D 13 -1-90 WB Off Ramp (Pines Interchange)/Indiana Ave 21 C 14 - Pines Rd/I-90 EB Ramps 44 D 15 - Pines Rd/Mission Ave 47 D 16 - Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave 28 C 17 - Mirabeau Pkwy/Indiana Ave 16 B 18 - Evergreen Rd/Indiana Ave 25 C 19- Evergreen Rd/I-90 WB Ramps 23 C 20 - Evergreen Rd/I-90 EB Ramps 15 B 21- Mission Connector/Mission Ave 13 C 22 - Sullivan Rd/Indiana Ave 48 D 23 - Sullivan Rd/I-90 WB On Ramp 13 B 24 - Sullivan Rd/I-90 EB Ramps 35 C 25 - Sullivan Rd/Mission Ave 16 B 26 - Sullivan Rd/Broadway 48 D 27 -1-90 WB Off Ramp (Sullivan)/Indiana Ave 38 D 28 - Barker Rd/Mission Ave 53 D 29 - Barker Rd/I-90 WB Ramp 11 B 30 - Barker Rd/I-90 EB Ramp 43 D 31- Fancher Rd/Broadway 27 C 32 - Thierman Rd/Broadway 29 C 33-1-90 WB Ramp/Broadway 52 D 34 -1-90 EB Ramp/Broadway 5 A 35 - Argonne Rd/Broad way 30 C 36 - Mullan Rd/Broadway 19 B 37 - Carnahan Rd/8th Ave 28 D 38 - Fancher Rd/Sprague Ave 62 E 39 - Thierman Rd/Sprague Ave 32 C 40 - Thierman Rd/Appleway Blvd 24 C 41- Dishman Mica Rd/Appleway Blvd 29 C 42 - University Rd/Sprague Ave 47 D 43 - University Rd/Appleway Blvd 21 C 44 - Pines Rd/Sprague Ave 82 F 45 - Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave 54 D 46 - Sullivan Rd/Sprague Ave 65 E 47 - Barker Rd/Appleway Blvd 39 D 48 - Barker Rd/Sprague Ave 16 B 49 - SR 27/16th Ave 34 C 50 - Bowdish Rd/Dishman Mica Rd 29 C Note: Italicized intersections are part of a Major Arterial Corridor. LOS impacts for Major Arterial Corridors are not assessed for individual intersections, but along the entire corridor. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 321Page nn 5e, Pari Fens Field Spokane Valley Leel of Service Municipal Boundaries 2040 LOS Community Prosperity with Mitigation Kn ans field Miraheau 11 uchd n Oana �.., roadwayi T11y ,• P�RI � pP�aey LL c ❑nnnyan. neral Arca OnVrwn wan wrvnnw 41h &ih 44th 32nd 16th 241h reor /ev Figure 7: Community Prosperity Roadway Segment with Mitigation LOS Results 0 0.5 3 Moka As shown in Tables 15 and Figure 5, with the mitigations in place only the segment of Flora Road between Indiana Avenue and Broadway is expected to operate at LOS E conditions, exceeding the City's LOS threshold. All of the intersections that are outside of the Major Arterial Corridors operate at LOS D or better and several of the intersections on the Major Arterial Corridors also have LOS improvements, although capacity enhancements will only be implemented to address safety concerns or after other non - capacity solutions are evaluated. Addressing the LOS E condition on Flora Road would be an expensive project, as it would require replacement of the bridge over 1-90 and close coordination with WSDOT. A close evaluation of the ADT on this segment shows that it is just over the LOS E threshold and some minor modifications to the roundabouts at Flora Road/Indiana Avenue and Flora Road/Broadway, along with some strategic access management along the corridor could result in LOS D conditions. These types of solutions should be evaluated before any widening be considered. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The mitigation measures described above would result in Spokane Valley meeting the new proposed LOS standard, with the possible exception of Flora Road between Indiana and Broadway. However, with the intersection improvements and access control described above, it is probable that that segment could also be managed to maintain LOS D conditions overall. While this mitigation strategy generally meets the new LOS policy, it is important to note that the new LOS policy allows for some additional peak hour congestion and thus roadway travel impacts compared with the current LOS policy. As noted in Table 15, there are some intersections on the Major Arterial Corridors that Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 33 I P a g e cannot operate at LOS D conditions without substantial and expensive intersection widening projects that would have a major impact on surrounding property owners. While the City of Spokane Valley may ultimately pursue some additional widening at these locations, it is not in the best interest of the City to have a policy that compels such expensive and disruptive intersection construction projects. Therefore, we find that the change in LOS policy could result in a significant and unavoidable adverse impact to roadway travel for all alternatives. We believe that the tradeoff in accepting slightly more peak hour traffic congestion is justified based on the cost savings, improvement to urban form, and reduced property owner impacts. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 341 P a g e 1.4: Housing Analysis Under all Alternatives the City of Spokane Valley would experience additional development in order to accommodate new residents and jobs. The new development would lead to new housing both single-family and multifamily as compared to existing conditions. The impacts related to housing are discussed in more detail in the following sections. The impacts are expected to be similar for the No Action and Citizen Focus alternatives; any differences between these two alternatives are noted. Housing Location No Action and Citizen Focus Alternative Under the No Action and Citizen Focus alternatives, future housing would be accommodated by existing designations: Low Density Residential - LDR (6 units per acre), Medium Density Residential - MDR (12 units per acre), High Density Residential - HDR (22 units per acre), Corridor Mixed Use - CMU (22 units per acre), and Mixed Use Center - MUC (22 units per acre). Table 6 shows the number of acres by designation that accommodates housing for the No Action and Citizen Focus alternatives. It also shows as a percentage of total land, including non-residential designations, which can accommodate housing. The Citizen Focus alternative removes land from the LDR and MDR designations (identified in italics) and adds land to the HDR and CMU designations (identified in bold), for additional information see the Land Use Conversion section of this document. Table 14: Housing Designations Comparison No Action and Citizen Focus Designation No Action Acres No Action % of Total Citizen Focus Acres Citizen Focus % of Total LDR 10,866.89 54% 10,821.72 54% MDR 826.64 4% 808.25 4% HDR 796.46 4% 858.65 4% CMU 836.28 4% 840.18 4% MUC 692.55 3% 692.55 3% Figure 4 shows those designations that accommodate housing. The No Action alternative assumes that the location of existing designations that accommodate housing would remain the same. The Citizen Focus alternative assumes minor increase of CMU (about 4 acres) and a bigger increase in HDR (about 62 acres). The location of these increases are adjacent to higher intensity designations, so the impacts to are minimal. The majority of HDR increase in the Citizen Focus alternative is proposed along Broadway Avenue east of Sullivan Road, the exact location of this change can be found in the land use section above and its transportation impacts are discussed in the transportation section. New single-family dwellings would continue to be added on vacant lands and on partially developed lands where lots can be further subdivided. No new areas are designated for single-family development. It's not expected any significant impacts would result from the location of housing. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 35 I P a g e MEM er limo. d i r 4 r PP Na TAW- Houwnu Mnlgnallons Ho Action and Chiron Focus �cl�ns'adsPO CWIde 411 Cannwehenia re Plan C eaign>tlitm 111111 Figure 8: Housing Locations No Action and Citizen Focus Alternatives Community Prosperity Alternative Under the Community Prosperity alternative, future housing would be accommodated by the following designations: Single Family Residential - SFR (6 units per acre), Multiple Family Residential - MFR, Corridor Mixed Use - CMU, and Mixed Use- MU. The Community Prosperity alternative assumes that there would not be a density limit in the MFR, CMU and MU designations in locations with access to services like open space and parks and public transit. Table 7 shows the number of acres by designation that accommodates housing for the Community Prosperity and No Action alternatives. It also shows as a percentage of total land, including non-residential designations, which can accommodate housing. It shows increased acreages in bold and decreased acreages in italics. The Community Prosperity alternative MFR designation includes all existing HDR and most MDR, but as the table indicates the amount of land designated multiple family in the Community Prosperity alternative is lower than the No Action alternative. However, the Community Prosperity substantially increases the amount of CMU, which allows multiple family development. It's likely the CMU designation will see increased multiple family development. Table 15: Percentage of Land for Residential Use Community Prosperity Designations (2016) Acres of No Action Designations (2006) Total Acres of Total Single Family Residential (SFR) 10,921 54% Low Density Residential (LDR) 10,867 54% Multiple Family Residential (MFR) 1,261 6% Medium Density Residential (MDR) 827 4% High Density Residential (HDR) 796 4% Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 36IPage Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) 1,621 8% Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) 836 4% Mixed Use (MU) 684 3% Mixed Use Center (MUC) 693 3% Source: City of Spokane Valley, 2016. Figure 5 shows the locations of those designations that accommodate housing. The Community Prosperity alternative is similar to the No Action and Citizen Focus alternatives in where housing is allowed; however, the Community Prosperity alternative designated major north -south corridors (Argonne, Pines, and Evergreen) as CMU. This change from Office to Corridor Mixed Use, opens those corridors to multiple family development where it was previously prohibited. Another new multiple family location is along 4th Avenue near Havana. New single-family dwellings would continue to be added on vacant lands and on partially developed lands where lots can be further subdivided. No new areas are designated for single-family development, these areas are seen in Figure 5 as yellow. It's not expected any significant impacts would result from the location of housing. xo .mc w>tgnanons Comrnun+tx o,ocpenlr i.., 2016 CompRpensnn Flap Dnivnaaona Figure 9: Community Prosperity Housing Locations Housing Affordability One of the goals of GMA is to provide Washington residents with affordable housing options. In general attached dwellings are often more affordable than single-family detached dwellings. All the alternatives would add single-family and multifamily dwellings in Spokane Valley, but the Citizen Focus and Community Prosperity alternatives would provide more opportunity for multifamily dwellings as discussed below. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 37 Wage No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, residential development would continue in accordance with the trends of the existing Comprehensive Plan. Residential development would likely intensify in the future as compared to exiting conditions as partially used or vacant lots were developed. However, the No Action Alternative would provide less residential development than under either the Citizen Focus or Community Prosperity alternatives. Most the development would occur as single -use, lower density residential development than under the action alternatives. Citizen Focus Alternative Under the Citizen Focus alternative, residential development would generally be similar to the No Action alternative with a few exceptions. Figure 6 shows those areas that the Citizen Focus alternative changes the designation from the No Action alternative to increase multiple family housing opportunities. The Citizen Focus alternative proposed approximately 62 acres of new HDR designated land, at 22 units per acre this could potentially result in 1,364 dwelling units over the No Action alternative. In addition to multiple family opportunities, the Citizen Focus alternative also includes policy changes to allow for a variety of housing types, like tiny homes, cottage homes, accessory dwelling units. There are also policies to reduce the minimum lot size in a new zone called SFR -3, a consolidation of the existing R-3 and R- 4 zones. While the policy does not increase density it's expected that the decreased lot size enhances flexibility and would increase the number of single family lots developed in the City and increase affordability. Community Focus Alternative M. Use Cam,ar Commun." eviwnorclal Cm.r.rc01l Lor OrMtiry R.rur.r I.Irl.sn O4 R1 S W - H.wr I.e�.ar I. Hon D...q' R..a.nt. ® CAR 15-0012 HDR W CAAU N CAR 15.002 Lf]R 10 CM U i 0 `5-7111 010.0611 MDR to HDR 1 Figure 10: Citizen Focus Multiple Family Expansions Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 38 Wage Community Prosperity Alternative Under the Community Prosperity alternative, single-family residential development would generally be similar to the No Action alternative. Like the Citizen Focus alternative, the Community Prosperity alternative includes policies to reduce the minimum lot size in a new zone called SFR -3, a consolidation of the existing R-3 and R-4 zones. While the policy does not increase density it's expected that the decreased lot size enhances flexibility and would increase the number of single family lots developed in the City and increase affordability. The Community Prosperity includes the eliminating the MDR designation and allocating portions of that designation into other residential and mixed use designations. Table 8 shows the relationship of residential land between the Community Prosperity and No Action alternatives. The table shows a loss of 362 acres multiple family land; however, the alternative has an increase of 785 acres for the Corridor Mixed Use designation, which allows multiple family development. It is not expected that all of the new CMU land would develop with multiple family type development, but it's likely that CMU will see an increase in multiple family development especially where it took the place of Office. Another policy change assumed by this alternative is the removal of density limitations for multiple family development. Instead where multiple family development is allowed the MFR, CMU, and MU designations, a set of transitional provisions would drive the number of units developed. For the sake of analysis the analysis - especially transportation, assumes up to 40 units per acre. Table 16: Community Prosperity Acres for Residential Uses Comparison Community Prosperity Designations (2016) Acres No Action Designations (2006) Acres Difference Single Family Residential (SFR) 10,921 Low Density Residential (LDR) 10,867 54 Multiple Family Residential (MFR) 1,261 Medium Density Residential (MDR) 827 (362) High Density Residential (HDR) 796 Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) 1,621 Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) 836 785 Mixed Use (MU) 684 Mixed Use Center (MUC) 693 (8) Housing Capacity No Action and Citizen Focus Alternatives Based on the Residential Land Capacity Needs°, the No Action and Citizen Focus alternatives have an estimated population capacity of 19,980 and estimated dwelling unit capacity of 9,076. The City has adopted a population target of 14,650 as recommended by Steering Committee of Elected Officials for Spokane County. The No Action and Citizen Focus alternatives have a potential surplus of 2,697 dwelling units within the 20 - year planning horizon. This estimate is based on a total estimated housing need of 6,379 (3,962 single family and 2,417 multiple family) in 2037, and a total capacity of 9,076 dwelling units, and the following assumptions: • 14,650 people will need housing by 2037 • 2.5 people per single family unit and 2.0 people per multiple family unit • 67% of future dwelling units will be single family (based on 2016 Office of Financial Management estimates) • 33% of future dwelling units will be multiple family (based on 2016 Office of Financial Management estimates) 6 ECONorthwest Memorandum, June 24, 1015, Subject: Spokane Valley Residential Land Capacity Needs Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 39 I P a g e Table 17: Estimated Housing Capacity for the No Action and Citizen Focus Alternatives Forecast Need Percent Share People / Unit Population (2037) of Housing Forecast Need Housing (2037) Single Family 14,650 67% 2.5 3,962 Multiple Family 14,650 33% 2.0 2,417 Community Prosperity Alternative The Community Prosperity alternative estimates population capacity of 21,852 and estimated dwelling unit capacity of 9,784. The higher capacity is due to the conversion of Medium Density Residential to designations that allow higher densities (this change is discussed in the land use section of this analysis). Using the same population target and assumptions identified in No Action and Citizen Focus alternatives, the Community Prosperity alternative has a potential surplus of 3,405 housing units (total capacity 9,784 minus total estimated need 6,379). Mitigation Measures Proposed changes to the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan land use map, land use designations, goals, policies to address potential housing impacts include: • The adoption of residential housing options that allow a diverse range of housing types, including cottage housing, accessory dwelling units, tiny homes. • Amended residential development standards to support infill and redevelopment opportunities. • Adopt policies to support ongoing work efforts with partner agencies to provide housing services for special populations such as those living in poverty, the elderly, disabled, and mentally ill. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant impacts on housing are expected with implementation of the mitigation measures. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 40 1 P a g e 1.5 Natural Environment Under all of the EIS Alternatives, the City of Spokane Valley would experience increased development in order to accommodate new residents and employment in the City. This new development could have impacts on various elements of the natural environment including: earth; air; water; and plants and animals.. This section includes a brief discussion of these additional elements of the environment and the potential impacts resulting from development that occurs pursuant to each of these alternatives. This section considers each of the elements of the natural environment as a group and at a level of detail appropriate to the scope of this non -project proposal. The Natural Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan describes existing conditions of the elements of the natural environment in the City. In summary, the majority of Spokane Valley is already developed for residential, commercial, and industrial uses, leaving only limited opportunities for unaltered natural environment. Majority of the undeveloped areas within the City are located along the Spokane River and local streams including associated riparian areas and wetlands. There are about 326 acres within the shoreline buffer, approximately 60 percent of this area is publically owned and maintained as public open space. These elements of the natural environment that constitute the majority of the undeveloped and unaltered natural environment in the city are located in the shoreline and are more specifically described and evaluated in the City's extensive analysis prepared for the 2015 Shoreline Master Program Update. The relevant documents include the City's Shoreline Master Program, dated September 3, 2015 and the following supporting documents: Inventory and Characterization Report, dated September 7, 2010; No Net Loss Report, dated May 31, 2013; and Cumulative Impacts Analysis, dated September 26, 2014. These documents are incorporated by reference and are made available for public review at the Spokane Valley Planning Department, City Hall 11707, East Sprague Ave #106. In summary, these documents describe the elements of the natural environment within the riparian corridor of the Spokane River and the extensive state ownership of many of those areas. They explore in detail the Spokane River in segments and characterize ecological functions of the natural elements of the environment within each segment (including biodiversity, native plant and animal community integrity, etc.). The Shoreline Master Program and its associated supporting documents, which are unchanged by the underlying proposal, ensure no net loss of existing ecological functions and values. Accordingly, the Shoreline Master Program is the regulatory mechanism that provides adequate protection for the majority of the undeveloped areas within the City. More generally, the Natural Environment Element of the draft Comprehensive Plan describes existing air quality conditions and designates and identifies the location of specific elements of the natural environment throughout the city, including: wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and surface water bodies. The location of these critical areas were part of the evaluative process for land use map and development regulation changes proposed in the preferred alternative. As described below, it is not anticipated that development pursuant to any of the alternatives will have significant adverse impacts on the natural environment, in light of the existing conditions of the natural environment in the City. Additionally, development pursuant to the Citizen Focus and Community Prosperity Alternatives will be consistent with updated development regulations, including critical areas regulations that are expressly designed to protect those aspects of the natural environment. No Action Alternative Development under the No Action Alternative would continue under existing policies and development regulations. The alternative would continue to see increases of residential, commercial, and industrial development over present conditions. This alternative assumes no changes to the existing development regulations, including the critical area regulations, which under the other alternatives have been updated to include best available science. However, the Shoreline Master Program, adopted in 2015 would protect critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction, where the majority of undeveloped areas exist. The existing Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 41 Page critical areas ordinance under current code that currently applies in areas outside of the shoreline jurisdiction is a holdover from the City's incorporation in 2003 and has not been updated to incorporate best available science. Citizen Focus and Community Prosperity Alternatives New development under the Citizen Focus and Community Prosperity alternatives would occur under a new set of development regulations. Residential, commercial, and industrial development is expected to intensify in the future as compared to exiting conditions and the No Action alternative. In addition to minor housekeeping amendments, the alternatives include the following amendments to the development regulations, which have been described earlier in this environmental review: • Updated critical area regulations to incorporate best available science. • Transitional provisions to protect lower intensity uses from higher intensity uses that include setbacks, buffering, and high limitations. • State Environmental Policy Act Categorical Infill exemption for multi -family and mixed use development in four areas: Carnahan InfilI Area, Mirabeau InfilI Area, East Sprague InfilI Area, and East Broadway Infill Area. • Streamlined permitted use table with supporting supplementary standards. • Residential housing options to allow for a variety of housing types and a diversity of housing design and development to ensure compatibility with surround single-family development. • Eliminating density limitations in the MFR, CMU, and MU implementing zones to provide for greater flexibility. Development pursuant to these regulations will accommodate projected population growth. That development is unlikely to have significant adverse impacts to the natural environment because the regulations facilitate development in appropriate locations that are already characterized by development where the natural environment has been altered previously. For example, development that would qualify for the infill exemption would occur, by definition, on underutilized and underdeveloped lots that are within areas of existing development. Similarly, elimination of density limitations to provide for greater flexibility will increase development in altered areas, outside of the natural environment. Most importantly, any development will be consistent with updated critical areas regulations that incorporate best available science and are designed to mitigate impacts to the natural environment, for example, development in the Carnahan InfilI Area where there is identified flooding issues. Mitigation Measures Both the Citizen Focus alternative and the preferred alternative proposed as presented in the Comprehensive Plan and supporting development regulations accommodate projected growth while mitigating any impacts to the natural environment, in particular through adoption of updated critical areas regulations. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. While the No Action alternative would allow development in altered areas and would continue to protect the majority of the unaltered natural environment in the City through the existing shoreline master program, it does not include the updated critical areas regulations (including best available science) that would apply outside of the shoreline and provide important mitigation. Finally, under any alternative, many development projects, especially those of a larger scale, will trigger project -level SEPA review in which the lead agency can evaluate impacts of the specific development be evaluated when project details are proposed. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant impacts on the natural environment are expected with the mitigation measures identified. Section 1: Concise Summary of Alternatives 42 I P a g e SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY: 2.1 Alternative Comparison Matrix Alternatives Section 2: Environmental Impact Summary: Alternative Comparison Matrix 431Page No Action Citizen Focus Community Prosperity (Preferred) ECONOMIC WELFARE Infrastructure investment and priority Infrastructure investment is expected to progress as it has in the past consistent with adopted plans, policies and programs. Similar to No Action but includes strategic actions to target investment opportunities and infrastructure improvements. Same as Citizen Focus. Site Certification No change to the existing policy framework, which does not have policy support for a Certified Sites program. New policies and actions that support pursuing a Certified Sites program in the City's north-east industrial area. Same as Citizen Focus and creating a single industrial designation, which would allow for more industrial uses in Light Industrial areas. See Section 1 for related mitigation measures. Retail and Tourism Strategies Existing policy framework will remain the same. Recent retail and tourism policies and strategies studies would not be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Includes significant policy changes to incorporate the policies and strategies of recent retail and tourism studies, which are likely to increase retail and tourism related development. The tourism study will recommendations for several site specific project that may need separate SEPA analysis. Same as Citizen Focus. Section 2: Environmental Impact Summary: Alternative Comparison Matrix 431Page Alternatives No Action Citizen Focused Community Prosperity (Preferred) LAND USE/ PLANS AND POLICIES Land Use Patterns Land use patterns would continue as provided for in the 2014 Comprehensive Plan (initially adopted in 2006). The 2014 plan continued with the core values of neighborhood preservation growing and preserving the economy, and responsive and consistent regulations. The land use patterns will continue with low density residential uses predominately to the south with a mix of commercial development along Sprague Ave. The underused office corridors along Argonne and Pines north of Sprague would remain as office. Along the south side of river from Pines to Flora would continue as the major hub for mixed use commercial on the north side of the river would continue as the major industrial center. Higher density residential would continue mixed throughout the city generally adjacent to commercial and office uses especially south of Sprague. Similar to No Action with very minor site specific changes. The land use patterns are generally similar to both No Action and Citizen Focus alternatives with a couple notable differences. The first difference is allowing non -office development in the underperforming office corridors. Another difference is increasing the density of multi -family development south of Sprague. With the implementation of associated zoning provisions, this alternative will also see increased single-family infill development; however, this development will be at the same density of the No Action and Citizen Focus alternatives. Land Use Designations and Zoning Section 2: Environmental Impact Summary: Alternative Comparison Matrix 44 Wage No Action Citizen Focused Community Prosperity (Preferred) This alternative assumes no change from the 2006 adopted future land use and zoning map. Similar to the No Action alternative with about 72 acres converting from a lower intensity designation to higher density designation, nearly 86% of the change is converting from low density single-family (6 units per acre) or medium density multifamily (12 units per acre) to high density multifamily (22 units per acre) The Community Prosperity proposes several changes to the future land use and zoning map. The changes are summarized, below: • Name Changes - some of these changes are a consequence of combining designations (light and heavy industrial become Industrial). Other Mixed Use Center changed to reflect the intent better (Mixed Use). • Designation Elimination - an effort was made to eliminate redundancies, streamline wording, and remove inefficiencies. The Office and Commercial designations changed to Corridor Mixed Use and the Medium Density Residential (a multi -family designation) changed to Multi - Family Residential • New Designation - a new Industrial Mixed Use designation was created to accommodate the industrial like character along Trent Avenue (changed from Corridor Mixed Use) • Other Changes - this alternative designated the Appleway Trail as Parks and Open Space and similar housekeeping changes like removing split designations. Population Section 2: Environmental Impact Summary: Alternative Comparison Matrix 451 Page Alternatives No Action Citizen Focus Preferred TRANSPORTATION Roadway Travel Section 2: Environmental Impact Summary: Alternative Comparison Matrix 46 Wage No Action Citizen Focused Community Prosperity (Preferred) Population Allocation/ Target The No Action Alternative accommodates the City's 20 year population allocation of 14,650 for a total population of 109,913 in 2037. Same as No Action. Same as No Action. Preservation of Neighborhoods The existing regulations and protections for neighborhoods would remain the same; these include a relational setback which requires building heights to be stepped back from the property line. Includes new regulations to protect lower intensity designations from higher intensity designations, for example, single family from multi- family. These regulations build on the existing relational setback adding buffers and screening and/or allowing smaller buildings along property line in effort to protect neighborhoods. The same as the Citizen Focus alternative, and the use of the Categorical Infill exemption where services are available and higher intensity development is planned for and can be accommodated. Alternatives No Action Citizen Focus Preferred TRANSPORTATION Roadway Travel Section 2: Environmental Impact Summary: Alternative Comparison Matrix 46 Wage Section 2: Environmental Impact Summary: Alternative Comparison Matrix 471Page The No Action alternative would result in LOS impacts at the following intersections and roadway segments: The Citizen Focus alternative would result in LOS impacts at the following intersections and roadway segments: Same as Citizen Focus alternative • SR 27/16th Avenue • Fancher Road/Broadway • Barker Road/Sprague • SR 27/16th Avenue Avenue • Barker Road/Sprague • Mission Avenue between Avenue Barker Road and Liberty • Mission Avenue between Lake Barker Road and Liberty • Barker Road between Lake Euclid Avenue and 1-90 • Barker Road between • Sullivan Road south of 24th Euclid Avenue and 1-90 Avenue • Barker Road between • 32nd Avenue between SR Sprague Avenue and 8th 27 and Evergreen Road Avenue • Flora Road between Indiana There other intersections and Avenue and Broadway roadway segments that are • Sullivan Road south of 24th operating at LOS E or F, as shown in Avenue Table 9, but these locations are • 32nd Avenue between SR subject to the proposed corridor 27 and Evergreen Road LOS standard. If the existing intersection only LOS were There other intersections and considered, then these additional roadway segments that are locations would fail to meet the operating at LOS E or F, as shown in intersection only LOS, and require Table 9, but these locations are additional mitigation. subject to the proposed corridor LOS standard. Mitigation measures to address the roadway travel impacts are listed at the end of this chapter. Non -motorized Travel Section 2: Environmental Impact Summary: Alternative Comparison Matrix 471Page Section 2: Environmental Impact Summary: Alternative Comparison Matrix 481Page The No Action alternative would continue support of non -motorized travel through the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program as an independent element of the Comprehensive Plan. Implementation of that element will continue through the construction of new multi -use trails, bike lanes, signage, and sidewalks. The Citizen Focus alternative would continue the support of non - motorized travel similar to the No Action alternative, however, the components of the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program have been incorporated into other various elements of the Comprehensive Plan notably the Transportation Element and the Economic Development Element. Same as Citizen Focus alternative. Public Transit Growth would continue consistent with past trends with higher density residential development occurring along Sprague and Pines Road north of 1-90. However, development is likely to occur at a slower pace since new higher density multiple -family development would require an associated rezone request. However, these areas are generally along existing and planned transit routes. Freight and Rail Mobility Includes policy support for implementing Bridging the Valley, a major freight and safety enhancement proposal for the Spokane Region that aims to reduce the number of conflicts with vehicle traffic. Includes policies to maintain roadway operations to ensure access between businesses and the national freight networks. Same as No Action alternative. Same as Citizen Focus alternative. Section 2: Environmental Impact Summary: Alternative Comparison Matrix 481Page Alternatives Section 2: Environmental Impact Summary: Alternative Comparison Matrix 49 Wage No Action Citizen Focus Preferred HOUSING Housing Location Future housing would be accommodated by the existing designations in their existing locations. The majority of land within, 54% is designated Low Density Residential followed by4% Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Corridor Mixed Use. Mixed Use Center is 3% of - MUC (22 units per acre). There is a one-to-one relationship between comp plan designations to zoning districts for all designations except Low Density Residential which has four implementing zones R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4. Generally the same as the No Action alternative but with minor shifts from one designation to another. These shifts include reducing Low Density Residential by about 45 acres and reducing Medium Density Residential about 20 acres and increasing High Density Residential by about 61 acres and Corridor Mixed use by about 4 acres. The alternative also includes policy changes that reduce the number of Single Family zones to three (R-1, R- 2, and R-3), and in the R-3 zone allow for a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet but retain the density limit of 6 units per acre. (This change accommodates the unique development pattern of the City allowing for easier infill development.) The Community Prosperity alternative several changes to streamline the comprehensive plan and implementing regulations: • Rename the High Density Residential to Multiple Family Residential (MFR). • Eliminating the Medium Density Residential designation, and absorbing the majority of designation into the new MFR designation. • Reduce the number of multiple family zones to one. • Reduce the number of single family residential zones to three (R-1, R-2, and R-3) • Allow for a 5,000 square foot lot size in the R-3 zone but retain the 6 units per acre density. (This change accommodates the City's unique development pattern for infill development.) Housing Affordability Section 2: Environmental Impact Summary: Alternative Comparison Matrix 49 Wage No Action Citizen Focus Preferred NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Section 2: Environmental Impact Summary: Alternative Comparison Matrix 50 Wage The development of housing and the This alternative would provide for This alternative would be similar to provision of housing would occur affordable housing similar to the No the Citizen Focus but would provide under the existing policy Action alternative in regards to substantially more multiple family framework. While residential single family development but development by converting most of development would continue, vacant and partially used lots would would see increased multiple family development in areas that were Medium Density Residential to a higher density multiple family likely continue to be a challenge to designated High Density Residential designation and a mixed use single family development. The from other designations. designation. Medium Density Residential designation which is not marketable under existing standards would likely remain vacant. In general it's expected housing affordability would be reduced. This alternative includes policy changes to allow for a variety of housing types like tiny homes, cottage housing, and accessory dwelling units. This alternative also includes policy changes that would allow for a smaller minimum lot size but retain the density limit of 6 units per acre. (This change accommodates the unique development pattern of the City allowing for easier infill development.) Housing Capacity There is a potential surplus of 2,697 dwelling units within the planning horizon. Based on a total estimated housing need of 6,379 for 2037 and a total capacity of 9,076 dwelling units. Same as No Action This alternative has a higher total dwelling unit capacity of 9,783 due to the conversion of Medium Density Residential to a higher allowed density and Office to Corridor Mixed Use which allows multiple family dwellings. Therefore there is greater has a potential surplus than the other alternatives - 3,404 housing units (total capacity 9,783- total estimated need 6,379). No Action Citizen Focus Preferred NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Section 2: Environmental Impact Summary: Alternative Comparison Matrix 50 Wage Development would continue under existing policies and development regulations, including the critical area regulations, which is a holdover from the City's incorporation in 2003 and has not been updated to incorporate best available science would not include updates to include best available science. However, the Shoreline Master Program, adopted in 2015 would protect critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction. In addition to the No Action alternative, this alternative proposes a new set of development regulations that include the following: • Updated critical area regulations to incorporate best available science. • Transitional provisions to protect lower intensity uses from higher intensity uses that include setbacks, buffering, and high limitations. • SEPACategorical Inn! exemption for multi -family and mixed use development in four areas • Streamlined permitted use table with supporting supplementary standards. • Residential housing options to allow for a variety of housing types and a diversity of housing design and development to ensure compatibility with surround single-family development. • Eliminating density limitations in the MFR, CMU, and MU implementing zones to provide for greater flexibility. Same as Citizen Focus alternative Section 2: Environmental Impact Summary: Alternative Comparison Matrix 51IPage SECTION 3: NOTICES 3.1 Determination of Significance and Scoping •09 S1*jiS%.11I jUalley DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS Description of Proposal The Proposal Is the upea le of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Pian to meet Growth Management Act Requirements for periodic update by June 30, 2D17_ The Comprehensive Plan's inventory, goals, policies, and future land use map are anticipated to he updated, including the following chapters: natural environment, land use, economic development, parks, housing, capital facilities, utilities, and transportation. It's expected that the goals and policies of the 2016 shoreline rn ter program will be irleurporaLed into the Plan. The update will also incorporate recent studies on retail recruitment and touri5ir and lodging_ Proponent city of Spokane Valley Location of Proposal The planning area consists of the City of Spokane Valley and its associated urban growth area, approximately 3E. square miles. The City of Spokane Valley is located in eastern Spokane County, further located by the coordinates; 47`4G 24" N 117'11'22" Ud_ Lead Agency City of Spokane Valley EIS Required The City of Spokane Valley, as the lead agency, has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment, An erwiron menta I impact statement (EI Si is required under RCW 43.210.030 (2)(c} and will be prepared_ An EIS that evaluates planning -level proposals, such as changes to a city comprehensive plan, Is referred to as a programmatic EIS. ,4 programmatic EIS does not evaluate the impacts associated with a specific development project; rather, it contains broader, planning level analyses that enriphasize cumulative i;nJd.ts, policy -level alternatives, and program -level mitigation measures. The City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan LJpdale EIS will cm" tain programmatic analyses Of potential Significant impacts associated with adoption of the EISAlter natives. IndividuaI development projects occurring under the policies of the updated Comprehensive Plan will be subject to any SEPA review required by state, county, and city regulations. Arens of Change Key amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that will be considered include but are not limited to: ▪ Cd ntalidatian of the Neighborhoods Element into the Housing Element and Land Use Element. • Consolidation of the Bike and Pedestrian Element Into the Transportation Element. • Policy to support the community's desire for improved connections and safety for bicycles and pedestrians. • Incorporation of the Shoreline Master Program's Goads and Policies. • identification of the water system plans from the water districts serving the City of Spokane Valley and incorporation of relevant water plan information into the comprehensive plan. • Incorporation of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan by reference, • Changes to the Future Land Use Map and/or existing,, Land use designations, Generally the expected changes are for the Multi -family, Office, and Mixed Uses designations, and may include redesignation of property, changes to allowable intensity/ density, changes In sup owlet] use:, Section 3: Notices 521 P a g e + Polity to support multi -family development In areas served by transit + Changes to the Residential designations that increase opportunity for infill development. • Policy to support small -stale housing types especially Accessary Dwelling Units, Micro -housing units, Cottage Style Housing, and other types of small-scale housing_ • Changes in the Neighborhood Commercial designation that would support neighborhood -oriented commercial uses. + Changes to the tndustrial designations that account For modem industrial type uses such as dean technologies and manufacturing_ * Policy that improves quality, compatibility and aesthetics of new development so that existing neighborhood character is preserved_ ▪ Policy to support the creation of special/ unique places that focuses on CCHTIMunity character and streetscapes. • Policy to support regional. and local economic development strategies, including Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce Big 5 Initiatives and retail recruitment and tourism strategies. * Policy to support and prioritize improvements to enhance freight mobility. • Reorganization of the Plan to improve readability and efficiency, • Other updates as required by the periodic review requirement of the Revised code of Washington 36.70X130 Elements of the Enwlrorlment The lead agency has preliminarily identified the fallowing elements for analysis In the EFS! Trcinspcutertrar,, lend Use, llousirrg, acrd Economic Wel)rore. Scoping and Commenting Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS, You may ronarnent an alternatives, mitigation measures, probable s gnificant adverse Impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required_ Comments on the scope of the EIS must be received on or before 5:00 pm February 29, 3016. The following options are available to provide comments on the scope: 1.1 vie email to Larl Barlow at tbarlow@spvkanevalley,org or 2) In writing to Lori Barlow, City of Spokane Valley, 11707E Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA. 99215, See City of Spokane Valleys website (w1 ti ookanewalley.orgi Comprehensive Plan Update under the Community and Economic Development Departmeaat's webpage for additional Information an the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Platy Update process {www,sookanevallew_oriz}. Appeals An appeal of this determination shall he sutirnittt d to the cnmmuni;y and Economic Development Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date Issued_ The appeal mus' he written and specific factual objections made to the City's threshold determination, Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17,90 Appears, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adapted Fee Schedule shall be paid at the time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 147-11440, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshcId determination. Responsible Official John Hohrnan, Community and Economic Development Director SEPA Official City of Spokane valley 11707 E Sprague Ave suite 146 Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Date' ./--2,5f • 6 Signature: Section 3: Notices 531 P a g e 3.2 Draft EIS and Document Availablity NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILITY OFTHE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY I)R.1I T 21117-2037 CONIPREIIE \S11'11 PIAN .1ND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ST.VtI \IENT (DEIS) AND SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Notice is hereby given that the City of Spokane Valley has issued the Draft 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan and Draft Environmental hnpact Statement (DEIS) and supporting development regulations. The Comprehensive Plan and DEIS are an integrated document and are available for public review and comment. The updates are intended to meet the City's mandated periodic update requirements. The City of Spokane Valley is the Lead Agency for the DEIS. The analysis was undertaken to meet the direction of the State Environincntal Policy Act (SEPA). The non -project DEIS evaluates the environmental impacts of two action alternatives and a no -action alternative. PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan addresses property within the City. LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley DRAFT CONTENTS: The City prepared an update to the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and supporting development regulations to meet its periodic update requirements. Ili. Comprehensive Plan and DEIS are an integrated document non -project programmatic Draft EIS. 'Mc Comprehensive Plan evaluates growth and land use for a 20 veal- planning horizon. The DEIS reviews potential impacts of proposed goals, policies, alternative land use plans, and other features of the Comprehensive Plan at a non -project. programmatic level of analysis. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / DEIS DATE OF ISSUANCE: September 16, 2016 REVIEW PERIOD: Following the issuance of the Draft Comprehensive Ilan and DEIS, a 60 - day comment period commences. The public and other reviewers are invited to comment on the draft document. You may submit written comments on the document no later than 5:00 p.m. November 15, 2016. All written continents must be received by that date and time. Written comments via rnail or email must he submitted to: Community and Economic Development Department 11707 East Sprague Ave.,. Suite 106 Spokane Valley. W.A 99206 flmail: nihasingercispokanevaliey_org Please mote that comments received in response to the draft document. including naiucs and addresses (d those who comment, will he considered part ofthe public record on this proposed action and will he available for public inspection. Section 3: Notices 541 P a g e PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED: September 22, 2016 - 6:00 p.m. (Planning Commission scheduled) November X, 2016 - 6:00 p.m. (City Council scheduled) DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The complete 2016-2036 Comprehensive Plan and DEIS are available for download at the project website: www. spokaneval I ey. orglCP. Copies of these documents are also available for public review at the following location: Spokane Valley City Hall 11707 East Sprague Avenue Suite 106 Spokane Vallee. W. 199206 Copies are also available for purchase upon advanced notice far th.e cost of printing (estimated at $12) from the City_ of Spokane Valley at 1 1707 ] .a t Spra uc . \ e_, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206. If you have special accommodation needs, please contact the City of Spokane Valley at (509)- 921-1000. SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Mike Basinger, AICP, Senior Planner CITY CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Senior Planner DATE: September 16, 2016 Carrie Koudeika, CMC Spokane Valley Deputy City Clerk PUBLISH: 9-16-2016 Section 3: Notices 551 P a g e 3.3 Distribution List City of Spokane Valley City Officials Mayor and City Council Planning Commission City Manager City Clerk City Attorney Other Agencies Local City of Liberty Lake City of Spokane County Spokane County Fire District No. 1 Spokane County Fire District No. 8 Spokane County Building and Planning State Department of Archeology & Historic Preservation Department of Resource and Conservation Department of Commerce Department of Ecology & SEPA Register Tribal Spokane Tribe of Indians Federal Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) - Seattle District Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Region X National Marine Fisheries Service - NOAA Utilities CenturyLink Avista Utilities Comcast Inland Power & Light Consolidated Irrigation District No. 19 East Spokane Water District No. 1 Model Irrigation District No. 18 Modern Electric Water Company Media Spokane Valley Herald Schools Central Valley School District No. 356 East Valley School District No. 361 Other Spokane County Joint Aquifer Board Spokane Regional Health District Spokane Regional Transportation Council Spokane Transit Authority Spokane County Library District Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency Community and Economic Development Director Human Resources Director Finance Director Parks & Recreation Director Police Chief Public Works Director City of Millwood Spokane County Division of Utilities Spokane County Water District No. 3 Department of Fish & Wildlife Department of Natural Resources Department of Transportation Department of Health U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Seattle District U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (N RCS) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Region X Vera Water and Power Trentwood Irrigation District Hutchinson Irrigation District Carnhope Irrigation District Irvin Water District Orchard Avenue Irrigation District #6 City of Spokane Water Service Spokesman Review West Valley School District No. 363 Holiday Trailer Court Kaiser Aluminum Pinecroft Mobile Home Park Spokane Business & Industrial Park Section 3: Notices 561 P a g e Section 3: Notices 57 1 P a g e SECTION 4 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 4.1 Comments and Responses on the Scope No comments were received on the scope of the EIS. 4.2 Comments and Responses on the DEIS # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response 1 Arthur, Andrew I do not agree with changing anything without a proper notice, and vote by the people that live in the area. Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Public Notice - The City provided notice and opportunities for public comment consistent with local and state regulations and the City's public participation program. 2 Arthur, Ashley This is me, my voice, saying "no" or disapproving of this "land use designation" of apartments and no restrictions building heights. Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Section 4: Response to Comments 581 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response Building Heights - The City Council directed staff, after public testimony, to change the proposed Multiple Family zone (MFR) to include a maximum height limit of 50 feet and a maximum density of 22 units per acre. These maximum limits are the same as the existing zoning code for High Density Residential (MF -2) that was adopted in 2006. See Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.020. 3 Calvin, Casandra and Dawud, Jamal Against the land use and zoning change at the corner of Sprague and Barker, for the following reasons: • The area has always been a residential neighborhood, and apartments do not fit in with the rest of the community • Difficulties with traffic on Barker, that adding over 100 new residents will make the congestion so much worse. • The schools are bursting at the seams, even with the new addition to Greenacres Elementary it isn't going to add enough room for an apartment building Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Traffic - The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. Schools - As part of the development and coordination of the proposed plan all the school districts, including Central Valley School District 356 Section 4: Response to Comments 591 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response were notified of the draft plan. No school district indicated an inability to serve projected population and meet adopted level of service standards. Additionally, in 2015, the Central Valley School District passed a construction bond and received a grant to reduce class size, the projects include a new elementary school and related boundary adjustments, which increase Central Valley School District's capacity. 4 Rambo, Jay Support of the changes to the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the proposed re -zoning (and corresponding permitted uses) for the commercial zoning designations. N Comment noted 5 Clark, Marshall Supports the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan and related re- zoning for commercial designations. N Comment noted 6 Colombo, Barbara I am opposed to the rezoning of the corner of Barker and Sprague into high density residential, and the corridor mixed use moving further back from Appleway into residential areas. Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. 7 Cote, Kathryn !writing this to give my concerns on the rezoning of land on the corner of Sprague and Barker. My concern is: • Apartments will increase traffic and bring in crime. • Decreased property values. Y Traffic - The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a Section 4: Response to Comments 601 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. Crime - There is no conclusive evidence that multi -family designations, like the Multiple Family Residential, increase crime. The available data illustrates a greater connection between socio-economic status and crime than between high-density multiple family housing and crime. (Jianling Li and Jack Rainwater, "The Real Picture of Land - Use Density and Crime: A GIS Application"). Property Values - Changes to land use designations can increase or decrease property values. However, there is no conclusive evidence that multi -family designations, like the Multiple Family Residential, diminish property value. In fact, there is evidence that homes that are not located in multifamily areas appreciated at an average annual rate of 3.59 percent between 1987 and 1997, compared with a higher appreciation rate of 3.96 percent for houses near multifamily buildings. For the 1997-1999 period, the figures were 2.66 percent and 2.90 percent, respectively. (National Association of Home Builders,"Multifamily Market Outlook," Washington, DC, November 2001, pp. 3-4.) Another study looked at data from the 2000 US Census and compared house values in those communities with the share of multifamily housing in those communities. The conclusion: working communities with multifamily dwellings actually have higher property values than other types of working communities; in fact, "the high multifamily areas had the highest home values, the mixed -stock areas the next highest, and the single-family areas had the lowest." (Alexander von Hoffman, Eric Belsky, James DeNormandi, and Rachel Bratt, "America's Working Communities and the Impact of Multifamily Housing," Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2004.) 8 Crapo, Request to designate and rezone N Comment noted - Section 4: Response to Comments 611 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response Dennis property to CMU, NW of Sands and Bowdish and south to railroad tracks. This proposal is not currently under consideration. After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to not change the land use designation and zoning. 9 Currier, Danyel Barker road is not ready for one more car let alone 300. On a more personal note, my house is on one acre directly in the middle of this if this were to happen it would destroy my home that we have worked so hard for. Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Traffic - The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. 10 Mr & Mrs McLean I would like to say NO to apartments in our neighborhood! Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). Section 4: Response to Comments 621 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Comment noted 11 Neldon, Mitchell Concerns regarding a rezoning provision that involves a parcel of land at the corner of Sprague and Barker Roads. • Surrounding this property are single family homes. Allowing development of two or three story apartments would be psychologically devastating for the effected families. • There are no grocery stores within walking distance for tenants. • Public transportation is not available to individuals with disabilities, elderly persons or anyone else who does not have access to private transportation. Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Neighborhood Character - The proposed plan and supporting development regulations include Transitional Regulations (Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.75) that reduce potential impacts of higher intensity uses to lower intensity uses. Daily Goods - comment noted Public Transit - The intersection of Sprague and Barker is approximately 1/4 mile from Spokane Transit Authority route 98, which has approximate %2 hour weekday service and 1 hour weekend and holiday service. The intersection is also within the Paratransit Service Area which offers door-to-door service for clients that meet eligibility requirements 12 Nelson, Doug I live across from Sprague and Barker property and I didn't receive any notice and there were no signs on the property letting neighbors know that the zoning was going to be changed. Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Section 4: Response to Comments 631 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Public Notice - The City provided notice and opportunities for public comment consistent with local and state regulations and the City's public participation program. 13 Petersen, Larry R No to the apartments on the corner of Sprague and barker and any more changes to the land use regulations. Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Comment noted 14 Phillipson, Andy I am NOT in favor of high density housing Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Infrastructure and Growth - in our area. Traffic is a killer and I have not seen this city comply with the requirement of GMA is so far as infrastructure keeping up with growth Section 4: Response to Comments 641 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response The development of the comprehensive plan, including the Land Use, Transportation, and Capital Facilities elements considered available public services. Further, the City in Spokane Valley Municipal Code 22.20 requires concurrency review for projects. Traffic - The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. 15 Riley, Meghan No to changing farm land to apartments. For areas where apartments are common, there are usually higher incidence of crime, vandalism, etc. I urge those in charge to please realize as a whole, this community does not want these zonings. A park for our families? Yes. A few single family houses? Sure. But apartments? No. A strip mall? Absolutely not. Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. New "Special District" such as Historical Rural Agricultural Conservation District" / Preserve Rural Character or Farm Land - The proposed plan and supporting regulations do not anticipate these "districts". Further, the City is obligated to plan under the Growth Management Act ("GMA"), ch. 36.70A RCW. Under that law Spokane Valley is by definition an urban growth area which is required to support urban development at urban densities. To the Section 4: Response to Comments 651 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response extent that the comment requests that the City encourage rural development or rural densities within the UGA, the suggestion is inconsistent with the GMA. 16 Schultz, Kevin Do not allow zoning for multi -story apartments to be approved for the northeast corner of Barker and Sprague. • Traffic on Barker is already pushing the capacity of the 4 -way stop at the intersection. • Schools and Barker road beyond their intended capacities. Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Traffic - The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. Schools - As part of the development and coordination of the proposed plan all the school districts, including Central Valley School District 356 were notified of the draft plan. No school district indicated an inability to serve projected population and meet adopted level of service standards. Additionally, in 2015, the Central Valley School District passed a construction bond and received a grant to reduce class size, the projects include a new elementary school and related Section 4: Response to Comments 661 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response boundary adjustments, which increase Central Valley School District's capacity. 17 Southern, Charles and Janice We are the current owners of parcel # 55173.1019 located on Barker Road. We are in favor of the new comprehensive plan and zoning changes. We assume that the plan will address the traffic on Barker Road and especially the intersection of Sprague Ave. and Barker Road. Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Traffic - The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. 18 Walton, Matthew Barker Road is currently under tremendous pressure from the current traffic flow and with the opening of Chapman Rd as a through road several years ago combined with the continued expansion of Morningside Heights, Barker doesn't need more traffic. In fact, I would argue that adding multi -residential zoning will unnecessarily increase the traffic congestion of South Barker Rd, Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes Section 4: Response to Comments 671 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response create additional gridlock on the 1-90 westbound onramp from Barker and create safety issues. Our neighborhood also doesn't need new high-density housing. With high-density housing comes additional short term traffic, increases in crime and a population which is generally "transient," meaning tenants who are not interested in setting down roots in their community and getting to know their neighbors. This will fundamentally change the Greenacres area in a way that will damage what makes this our home. this change. Traffic - The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. Comment noted 19 Willis, Ann We don't agree on the rezoning. Comment noted 20 Frederiksen, Daniel and Cassandra Reject a request to change the zoning of the property at 4 North Barker Road - Parcel #55173.1005. • Central Valley School District is stressed and struggling to keep up with the rapid development in the area an unplanned apartment complex would impact the quality of the schools. • Public facilities and services necessary to support development are present without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. • Development of two and three-story buildings would be inconsistent with the single family character of the area and cannot be mitigated by the bulk standards in the SVMC. Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Schools - As part of the development and coordination of the proposed plan all the school districts, including Central Valley School District 356 were notified of the draft plan. No school district indicated an inability to serve projected population and meet adopted level of service standards. Additionally, in 2015, the Central Valley School District passed a construction bond and received a grant to reduce Section 4: Response to Comments 68 I Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response • The location is not conducive to multifamily development since the nearest commercial services and public transit stop is approximately 1,000 feet to the north. • The proposed amendment would increase densities from 6 dwelling units per acre up to 22 dwelling units per acre. • The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the intent of the HDR land use designation, which is to act as a buffer between residential uses and higher intensity land uses such as commercial or office uses. class size, the projects include a new elementary school and related boundary adjustments, which increase Central Valley School District's capacity. Traffic - The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. Neighborhood Character - The proposed plan and supporting development regulations include Transitional Regulations (Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.75) that reduce potential impacts of higher intensity uses to lower intensity uses. Public Transit - The intersection of Sprague and Barker is approximately 1/4 mile from Spokane Transit Authority route 98, which has approximate %2 hour weekday service and 1 hour weekend and holiday service. The intersection is also within the Paratransit Service Area which offers door-to-door service for clients that meet eligibility requirements High Density Residential Designation - The High Density Residential (HDR) designation is proposed to be replaced with the Multifamily Residential (MFR) designation. Accordingly, the intent of the HDR designation is not relevant to the proposal under consideration. Moreover, the "intent" to which the commenter refers is actually taken from the Medium Density Section 4: Response to Comments 691 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response Residential (MDR) designation from the current comprehensive plan ("Multifamily residential zones should be used as transitional zoning between higher intensity land uses, such as commercial and office, to lower density single-family neighborhoods"). The current proposal eliminates the MDR designation and implementing zone, Medium Density Residential (MF -1). Additionally, the MDR designation was not considered under any alternative for the property at Sprague and Barker. While the property at Sprague and Barker is not inconsistent with the MFR description and purpose, the City Council directed staff to retain the existing Low Density Residential and R-3 zone for this proposal considered for adoption. 21 Ewasko, Brian Anthony Reject a request to change the zoning of the property at 4 North Barker Road - Parcel #55173.1005. • Central Valley School District is stressed and struggling to keep up with the rapid development in the area an unplanned apartment complex would impact the quality of the schools. • Public facilities and services necessary to support development are present without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. • Development of two and three-story buildings would be inconsistent with the single family character of the area and cannot be mitigated by the bulk standards in the SVMC. • The location is not conducive to multifamily development since the nearest commercial services and public transit stop is approximately 1,000 feet to the north. • The proposed amendment would Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Schools - As part of the development and coordination of the proposed plan all the school districts, including Central Valley School District 356 were notified of the draft plan. No school district indicated an inability to serve projected population and meet adopted level of service standards. Additionally, in 2015, the Central Valley School District passed a construction bond and received a grant to reduce class size, the projects include a new elementary school and related boundary adjustments, which increase Central Valley School District's capacity. Schools - As part of the development and coordination of the proposed plan Section 4: Response to Comments 701 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response increase densities from 6 dwelling units per acre up to 22 dwelling units per acre. • The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the intent of the HDR land use designation, which is to act as a buffer between residential uses and higher intensity land uses such as commercial or office uses. all the school districts, including Central Valley School District 356 were notified of the draft plan. No school district indicated an inability to serve projected population and meet adopted level of service standards. Additionally, in 2015, the Central Valley School District passed a construction bond and received a grant to reduce class size, the projects include a new elementary school and related boundary adjustments, which increase Central Valley School District's capacity. Neighborhood Character - The proposed plan and supporting development regulations include Transitional Regulations (Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.75) that reduce potential impacts of higher intensity uses to lower intensity uses. Public Transit - The intersection of Sprague and Barker is approximately 1/4 mile from Spokane Transit Authority Route 98, which has approximately 1/2 hour weekday service and 1 hour weekend and holiday service. The intersection is also with the Paratransit Service Area which offers door-to-door service for clients that meet eligibility requirements. 22 Smith, Clyde and Zita Against the rezone at Sprague and Barker. • The traffic on Barker Road is already very heavy and at peak hours it can back up at least a quarter mile or more. With high density multifamily buildings, basically large apartment buildings, the traffic would become horrendous. • The Central Valley School District (Greenacres Middle and Elementary, and Central Valley High Schools) are already overcrowded due to so many students living in this area. • High density multifamily Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Traffic - The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the Section 4: Response to Comments 711 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response development is inconsistent with the mostly peaceful quiet single family residential area. • Lack of commercial shopping services and medical facilities nearby. Property north Sprague and Barker (V. Southern) • We feel this piece of property should be rezoned back to low-density and the other piece with the mobile homes also rezoned to low density Building Heights • Do not eliminate the building heights projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. Schools - As part of the development and coordination of the proposed plan all the school districts, including Central Valley School District 356 were notified of the draft plan. No school district indicated an inability to serve projected population and meet adopted level of service standards. Additionally, in 2015, the Central Valley School District passed a construction bond and received a grant to reduce class size, the projects include a new elementary school and related boundary adjustments, which increase Central Valley School District's capacity. Neighborhood Character - The proposed plan and supporting development regulations include Transitional Regulations (Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.75) that reduce potential impacts of higher intensity uses to lower intensity uses. Property north of Sprague and Barker (V. Southern) Rezone parcels 55173.1019 and 55173.1020 to SFR. No change is proposed for these two parcels. The currently adopted zoning is HDR and the proposed zoning is MF. Building Heights - The City Council directed staff, after public testimony, to change the proposed Multiple Family zone (MFR) to include a maximum Section 4: Response to Comments 721 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response height limit of 50 feet and a maximum density of 22 units per acre. These maximum limits are the same as the existing zoning code for High Density Residential (MF -2) that was adopted in 2006. See Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.020. 23 Vinway This new comprehensive plan has Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - / proposed a zone change for me at 117N. After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff 34 Barker to a Corridor Mix Use. I strongly oppose this change. to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the • We have a traffic problem, • Overcrowding of schools, • The closest shopping is 2 miles away. • Emergency responders have a hard time getting down Barker Road Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). • Keep the Medium Density Residential in the Sprague and Barker area - including the area west of Barker to The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Greenacres Road. Traffic - The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. Schools - As part of the development and coordination of the proposed plan all the school districts, including Central Valley School District 356 were notified of the draft plan. No school district indicated an inability to serve projected population and meet adopted level of service standards. Additionally, in 2015, the Central Valley School District passed a construction bond and received a grant to reduce Section 4: Response to Comments 731 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response class size, the projects include a new elementary school and related boundary adjustments, which increase Central Valley School District's capacity. Medium Density Residential - Preserving the existing Medium Density Residential designation and MF -1 zoning was considered under two of the No Action and Citizen Focus alternatives. The preferred alternative eliminated the Medium Density Residential designation and associated MF -1 zone based on the Housing and Economic Trends Existing Condition Report. No change to the preferred alternative regarding the Medium Density Residential designation MF -1 zone has been made. 24 Krajack, Scott The parcel of land at the northeast corner of Barker and Sprague matches all of the criteria set by City of Spokane Valley staff, to be zoned for higher density residential development. This criteria is consistent with all of the parcels being proposed for this land use. Supports the Transitional Setbacks as proposed by draft code. Y Comment noted 25 Lathan, Athlan and Rachelle Opposed to the comprehensive plan and zoning change on the corner of Baker and Sprague to Multiple Family based on the following potential issues: • The city and county are currently experiencing staffing shortages in law enforcement. The proposed zoning plan would increase population and crime without sufficient law enforcement to handle such possibility. • The intersection of Barker and Sprague cannot handle the existing Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Traffic - Section 4: Response to Comments 741 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response traffic and poses a safety issue for pedestrians and children walking to school. • The last and most crucial issue is our schools. Our children are already attending overcrowded school, and the elementary schools and the middle school in our community currently DO NOT have the capability to hold any more students. The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. Schools - As part of the development and coordination of the proposed plan all the school districts, including Central Valley School District 356 were notified of the draft plan. No school district indicated an inability to serve projected population and meet adopted level of service standards. Additionally, in 2015, the Central Valley School District passed a construction bond and received a grant to reduce class size, the projects include a new elementary school and related boundary adjustments, which increase Central Valley School District's capacity. Emergency Responders (Police and Fire) - As part of the development and coordination of the proposed plan both fire protection and law enforcement were provided notice of the proposed plan and supporting regulations. No service provider indicated an inability to serve the projected population and land use and meet adopted level of service standards. 26 Olson, Ryan I support the zone change of the parcel of land at the northeast corner of Sprague and Barker in the Spokane Valley to multifamily. • This intersection is a very busy intersection in the Spokane Valley Y Comment noted Traffic - The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated Section 4: Response to Comments 751 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response and it needs to be fixed. I believe that a traffic Tight will be the best solution at Barker and Sprague. • Multifamily at this site will require the installation of sidewalks, curbs and improvements to the intersection and along the property boundaries which are much needed along with providing additional funds to help improve the Barker and Sprague intersection. for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. Infrastructure and Growth - The development of the comprehensive plan, including the Land Use, Transportation, and Capital Facilities elements considered available public services. Further, the City in Spokane Valley Municipal Code 22.20 requires concurrency review for projects. 27 Alexander, Kim Opposes the comprehensive plan and zoning change at Sprague and Barker single home residential zoned areas into multiuse zoning areas to be used for building businesses or high density apartments or condos or plats. • Congestion is already at an all-time high with traffic on Barker road at a standstill in mornings and afternoons into the evening; unsafe roads (see I- 90 Barker Exit • Lack of public notification for public input about the 20 year growth plan • School over -crowding- leading to restructuring of school districts causing student displacement from home areas and more bussing • Insufficient public services including, police and fire protection, safe thoroughfares for pedestrians, students who must walk to school, Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Schools - As part of the development and coordination of the proposed plan all the school districts, including Central Valley School District 356 were notified of the draft plan. No school district indicated an inability to serve projected population and meet adopted level of service standards. Additionally, in 2015, the Central Valley School District passed a construction bond and received a grant to reduce class size, the projects include a new elementary school and related boundary adjustments, which increase Central Valley School District's capacity. Section 4: Response to Comments 761 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response bicyclers and wildlife; sewer, and, water; solid waste/landfill problems; proper drainage for run off leading to flooding; road repair/maintenance; parks/greenspace • Increase in water pollutants; increase of air pollution, heat sinks from impervious surfaces, increase in ozone and CO2 during air emissions • Lake of projection for wildlife and natural area (wetlands) • Lack of public mass transit to new areas with increased population densities; • A distinct change of the face of the area from farming/agricultural/rural to over -crowded urban sub -urban city life; and decreased single family residential property values with increased high density often subsidized complexes Create a "Special District" such as a "Historical Rural Agricultural Conservation District" to disallow urban growth. Opposed to charging people a use tax to ride their bicycles on the roads of the City of Spokane Valley to pay for road repairs etc Traffic - The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. Non -motorized Transportation - The proposed plan identifies recommended pedestrian and bicycle improvements, Sprague Avenue and Barker Road near and at their intersection are identified for non -motorized improvements. Neighborhood Character - The proposed plan and supporting development regulations include Transitional Regulations (Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.75) that reduce potential impacts of higher intensity uses to lower intensity uses. Public Transit - The intersection of Sprague and Barker is approximately 1/4 mile from Spokane Transit Authority route 98, which has approximate %2 hour weekday service and 1 hour weekend and holiday service. The intersection is also within the Paratransit Service Area which offers door-to-door service for clients that meet eligibility requirements Emergency Responders (Police and Fire) - As part of the development and coordination of the proposed plan both fire protection and law enforcement were provided notice of the proposed plan and supporting regulations. No service provider Section 4: Response to Comments 771 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response indicated an inability to serve the projected population and land use and meet adopted level of service standards. Infrastructure and Growth - The development of the comprehensive plan, including the Land Use, Transportation, and Capital Facilities elements considered available public services. Further, the City in Spokane Valley Municipal Code 22.20 requires concurrency review for projects. Public Notice - The City provided notice and opportunities for public comment consistent with local and state regulations and the City's public participation program. Natural Environment including Wildlife - The proposed Comprehensive Plan and supporting development regulations include updated critical areas regulations that incorporate best available science and are designed to mitigate impacts to the natural environment by development (Spokane Valley Municipal Code 21.40). Critical areas include wetlands, critical wildlife habitat, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazard areas, and critical aquifer recharge areas. Any new development will be subject to these updated critical areas regulations. New "Special District" such as Historical Rural Agricultural Conservation District" / Preserve Rural Character or Farm Land - The proposed plan and supporting regulations do not anticipate these "districts". Further, the City is obligated to plan under the Growth Management Act ("GMA"), ch. 36.70A RCW. Under that law Spokane Valley is by definition an urban growth area which is required to support urban development at urban densities. To the extent that the comment requests that the City encourage rural development or rural densities within the UGA, the suggestion is inconsistent with the GMA. Section 4: Response to Comments 781 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response Bicycle Road Tax - The proposed plan and supporting regulation do not propose a tax on bicycle use, comment noted. 28 Torres, Oscar Request to change the Land Use designation on parcel 45091.9100 (known as the International Church Foursquare Gospel) from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use N Comment noted. This request was included in the final land use map of the comprehensive plan. 29 Crace, Courtney Disapprove of the proposed Land Use Designation change at the corner of Sprague and Barker as the proposed land use is inconsistent with the neighborhood character, overcrowding of people, increased traffic, depreciated home values, impeding natural wildlife Keep builders and developers out of Greenacres/Saltese Flats uplands, Valleyford, Mica and away from all of the gorgeous rural areas our city has to offer. There needs to be restrictions on who can buy, and what can be built; and apartments, businesses and housing developments should be banned. The land should be kept in large acre parcels with strict building guidelines for homeowners only. Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Traffic - The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. Neighborhood Character - The proposed plan and supporting development regulations include Transitional Regulations (Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 4: Response to Comments 791 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response 19.75) that reduce potential impacts of higher intensity uses to lower intensity uses. Natural Environment including Wildlife - The proposed Comprehensive Plan and supporting development regulations include updated critical areas regulations that incorporate best available science and are designed to mitigate impacts to the natural environment by development (Spokane Valley Municipal Code 21.40). Critical areas include wetlands, critical wildlife habitat, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazard areas, and critical aquifer recharge areas. Any new development will be subject to these updated critical areas regulations. New "Special District" such as Historical Rural Agricultural Conservation District" / Preserve Rural Character or Farm Land - The proposed plan and supporting regulations do not anticipate these "districts". Further, the City is obligated to plan under the Growth Management Act ("GMA"), ch. 36.70A RCW. Under that law Spokane Valley is by definition an urban growth area which is required to support urban development at urban densities. To the extent that the comment requests that the City encourage rural development or rural densities within the UGA, the suggestion is inconsistent with the GMA. Other comments noted 30 Lafrance, Rod If I'd known of the meeting, I would have been a speaker at the meeting. Yes, I am against apartments at that location. Do what's right! A simple R4 zone. Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes Section 4: Response to Comments 801 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response this change. 31 Chalpin, Blair Concerned about the proposed high density multi -family changes to the areas north east of Barker and Sprague, and the changing the entire block north west of Barker and Sprague to mixed use commercial is quite alarming. Opposed to the removal of limits on the number of units and structure height on any area zoned High Density. Both Sprague Avenue and Barker Road are severely undersized for the existing volume of traffic, and these roads cannot support continued increases in traffic brought by proposed zoning changes like this. Also obvious is area schools cannot accommodate more children, especially the special needs segment. Lastly, the changes are not in character with the existing neighborhoods. A continued overdevelopment of rural Greenacres without the necessary infrastructure is not good planning. Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Traffic - The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. Schools - As part of the development and coordination of the proposed plan all the school districts, including Central Valley School District 356 were notified of the draft plan. No school district indicated an inability to serve projected population and meet adopted level of service standards. Additionally, in 2015, the Central Valley School District passed a construction bond and received a grant to reduce class size, the projects include a new elementary school and related boundary adjustments, which increase Central Valley School District's capacity. Section 4: Response to Comments 811 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response Building Heights - The City Council directed staff, after public testimony, to change the proposed Multiple Family zone (MFR) to include a maximum height limit of 50 feet and a maximum density of 22 units per acre. These maximum limits are the same as the existing zoning code for High Density Residential (MF -2) that was adopted in 2006. See Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.020. Neighborhood Character - The proposed plan and supporting development regulations include Transitional Regulations (Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.75) that reduce potential impacts of higher intensity uses to lower intensity uses. Comment noted 32 Kaiser, Suzan Against the land use change at the northeast corner of Sprague and Barker. The roads in this area are already hard to manage, the roundabout concept seems to escape those that do travel these roads as it is and to add more traffic to this already congested area is not something I want to see happen. The construction is already a huge bottle neck and unwelcome congestion point, adding changes that are not well signed or navigated. I have lived in this area for Tess than 2 years and the amount of traffic, drugs, theft and general road rage and racing has doubled in this short time. It is not easy to get police to respond as it is to issues, adding more unwelcome issues to this area is unwarranted. I have no interest or desire in seeing more Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Traffic - The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles Section 4: Response to Comments 821 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response apartments to house additional traffic and riff raff added to this area. existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. Crime - There is no conclusive evidence that multi -family designations, like the Multiple Family Residential, increase crime. The available data illustrates a greater connection between socio-economic status and crime than between high-density multiple family housing and crime. (Jianling Li and Jack Rainwater, "The Real Picture of Land - Use Density and Crime: A GIS Application"). Emergency Responders (Police and Fire) - As part of the development and coordination of the proposed plan both fire protection and law enforcement were provided notice of the proposed plan and supporting regulations. No service provider indicated an inability to serve the projected population and land use and meet adopted level of service standards. Comment noted Section 4: Response to Comments 83 1 P a g e # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response 33 Werden, Gene My home is located within 400 feet of the above property. I would like the zoning on the subject property to remain the same as it is now. There are no sidewalks on E. Sprague near Barker road available for school children or other foot traffic. There are no bicycle lanes. Vehicle traffic is backed up several times at that intersection every day, with no signal or roundabout. There are no curbs on Barker Road. The schools are crowded. Adding high density housing adds to the problems. Under construction, new, near -new, and existing multi -family units are plentiful in Spokane Valley. We could use more entry level single family residences. Balanced residential growth for Spokane Valley is more valuable than just higher numbers of units. Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Traffic - The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. Schools - As part of the development and coordination of the proposed plan all the school districts, including Central Valley School District 356 were notified of the draft plan. No school district indicated an inability to serve projected population and meet adopted level of service standards. Additionally, in 2015, the Central Valley School District passed a construction bond and received a grant to reduce class size, the projects include a new elementary school and related boundary adjustments, which increase Central Valley School District's capacity. Section 4: Response to Comments 841 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response Non -motorized Network (Sidewalks and Bike Lanes) - The proposed plan identifies recommended pedestrian and bicycle improvements, Sprague Avenue and Barker Road near and at their intersection are identified for non -motorized improvements. Single family housing type - The proposed plan provides opportunity for single-family development types; it keeps the majority of land use (54%) as SFR which is equal to existing land use and zoning. Section 4: Response to Comments 85 1 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response 33 Dodd, Janie - Fuller Center • Request some type of provision to consider clusters (villages) for the working poor/homeless to have a single low payment to be inclusive for the entire village. Suggest a cost per village of small residential clusters and cottages be totaled into one "package" along with a check sheet of what you (the City) will need for each cluster. Including the cost of recording a deed restriction required in 19.40.040(C)2. • Request that a group of inspectors specifically trained for these "clusters or villages" and we have the same inspector throughout our entire process. • Request that any "changes" be given in a written form similar to a change order process. Then, if the next inspector were to disagree, this, too, would be put in writing and our organization could take the different assessments to a city moderator for a 24 hour turn around with a final decision. • Include provisions to allow small residential dwellings to have an ADU. • Suggest increasing the maximum building size of cottage units to 900 sq. feet. • Support the optional varied height, size proportionality, orientation, roof lines, doors, windows and building materials. • Development standards for N Comments noted. The entire section of 19.40.100 Development Standards - All provisions related to small residential dwellings have been removed from the supporting regulations. The proposed plan and supporting regulations do not propose any changes to existing fee structure, amount of fees, or processing for inspections. Changes to these elements are not proposed at this time. The size of cottage style housing has been increased to 900 square feet. All homes are subject to the same energy code. Section 4: Response to Comments 861 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response Manufactured homes on individual lots, B3, are required to have an R Factor/energy code as to the State Energy code. We hope this requirement is consistently required for all homes in Spokane Valley. • The setbacks in Table 19.40-2 should be consistently given for all types of homes. Section 4: Response to Comments 87 1 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response 34 23 Vinson, Wayne And Vinway (email) This new comprehensive plan has proposed a zone change for me at 117 N. Barker to a Corridor Mix Use. From Apple way to Sprague on Barker, Barker to Greenacres RD. I strongly opposes this change, for the following: • We have a traffic problem, • Over -crowding of schools, • The closest shopping is 2 miles away, • Emergency responders have a hard time getting down Barker RD. • Bus stop is at Appleway and Barker on the Northwest corner. As for future use of the land along Appleway Ave. East or West of Barker that is the old railroad line which is now the Appleway Trail. The only building going up in this area maybe mini strip malls. Only after removal of the Appleway trail and even at that there will be very little parking. In short there is will be no big development in this area for years and years. There is no need to rezone this property at this time. Please keep this area the same at medium density residential. Make both West: Greenarces RD to Barker RD, Bow RD to Sprague and East of Barker the same Medium Density residential and this includes that High Density property between Apple way and Sprague East of Baker RD Repeat Letter from Vinway above. Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - The parcels to the northeast of the Sprague Avenue and Barker Road intersection (parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005) have been changed from the proposed Multiple Family Residential to Single Family Residential. This change reverts those parcels back to the existing (adopted) Land Use Designation and zoning (SFR and R-3). Traffic - The existing and projected traffic impacts were analyzed in the DEIS integrated with the proposed plan (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). The recommended plan shows the Sprague and Barker intersection with a level of service (LOS) B. These LOS standards meet or exceed the adopted LOS of D. Emergency Responders (Police and Fire) - As part of the development and coordination of the proposed plan both fire protection and law enforcement were provided notice of the proposed plan and supporting regulations. No service provider indicated an inability to serve the projected population and land use and meet adopted level of service standards. Schools - As part of the development and coordination of the proposed plan all the school districts, including Central Valley School District 356 were notified of the draft plan. No school district indicated an inability to serve projected population. Public Transit - The intersection of Sprague and Barker is approximately 1/4 mile from Spokane Transit Authority route 98, which has approximate %2 hour weekday service and 1 hour weekend and holiday service. The intersection is also within the Paratransit Service Area which offers door-to-door service for clients that meet eligibility requirements Section 4: Response to Comments 881 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response Medium Density Residential - Preserving the existing Medium Density Residential designation and MF -1 zoning was considered under two of the No Action and Citizen Focus alternatives. The preferred alternative eliminated the Medium Density Residential designation and associated MF -1 zone based on the Housing and Economic Trends Existing Condition Report. No change to the preferred alternative regarding the Medium Density Residential designation MF -1 zone has been made. 35 Konkright, Kelly Requests that the City Council keep 721 N. Bowdish Road zoned for multi -family housing rather than the Neighborhood Commercial designation currently proposed in the Comprehensive Plan Update. There simply is not a market for Neighborhood Commercial uses on this lot. It is in the middle of a residential neighborhood, and there are sufficient NC -type services a few blocks to the south on Sprague Avenue, approximately one (1) mile to the east on Pines Street, and to the west along Argonne/Mullan Road. The only realistic way to re -develop this property is under multi -family zoning, which it has always had while I have N After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for 721 N. Bowdish from Neighborhood Commercial, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Multiple Family Residential and zone the same parcel Multiple Family Residential (MFR). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Section 4: Response to Comments 891 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response owned the property. 36 Scott, Susan In the matter of 19.40.090 Development standards -small residential dwellings, in particular Section C. supportive housing, I would ask that you following the Planning Commission's recommendation to delete this portion of the plan for further consideration through a future code text amendment. After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the supporting development regulation 19.40.090 Development standards - small residential dwellings that would resolve the Commenter's concerns, consistent with the recommendation by the Planning Commission. 37 Nelson, Doug Want an investigation as to why the 2 northern parcels At Sprague and Barker (55173.1019 and 55173.1020) are zoned high density (with no restrictions). Against the Planning Commission's recommendation. When the parcel was zoned high density by Spokane County there were severe restrictions as to the type of building and the purpose of the building. Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Building Heights - The City Council directed staff, after public testimony, to change the proposed Multiple Family zone (MFR) to include a maximum height limit of 50 feet and a maximum density of 22 units per acre. Section 4: Response to Comments 901 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response These maximum limits are the same as the existing zoning code for High Density Residential (MF -2) that was adopted in 2006. See Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.020. 38 Blake, Timothy I have autism. I don't want apartments to be built in front of my house because there will be too many people for our neighborhood and bully's too. My concerns are there would be more traffic and it would be unsafe for children like me because there would be bad people. More pollution and sound would cause the beautiful outdoors to be ruined and swinging wouldn't be relaxing. It would be a much smarter idea to add in a park because the neighborhood has no parks Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Traffic - The DEIS analyzed the existing traffic conditions as well as the projected traffic impacts from the Multiple Family Residential designation that had been proposed in the DEIS that was circulated for public comment (see Section 1.3 Transportation Analysis). Following changes proposed by Council since the public comment period, the proposal currently under consideration designates the parcels as Single Family Residential, which most closely resembles existing traffic conditions. Nevertheless, under all alternatives, the Sprague and Barker intersection is projected to function with a level of service (LOS) B. This LOS standard meets or exceeds the adopted LOS of D. 39 Mathison, Addy I am afraid that bad people will live in the apartments that could be built. I am concerned the animals will run out of habitats. Maybe instead of building apartments you could build me a playground Y Sprague Avenue and Barker Road Land Use Map Changes - After considering public testimony, the City Council directed staff to revise the portion of the comprehensive plan in a manner that would resolve the Commenter's concerns. Specifically, the Council's revision would change the land use designation for parcels 55173.1018 and 55173.1005 from Multiple Family Residential, as had been proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan Section 4: Response to Comments 911 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response that was circulated for public comment, to Single Family Residential and zone the same parcels Single -Family Urban (R-3). The proposal currently under consideration by the Council includes this change. Natural Environment including Wildlife - The proposed Comprehensive Plan and supporting development regulations include updated critical areas regulations that incorporate best available science and are designed to mitigate impacts to the natural environment by development (Spokane Valley Municipal Code 21.40). Critical areas include wetlands, critical wildlife habitat, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazard areas, and critical aquifer recharge areas. Any new development will be subject to these updated critical areas regulations. 40 Beecher, David Well maybe it's about time for me to get involved with politics. I do know one thing, you and your people (City Hall ) are out of touch with the people in the City of Spokane Valley. I think it's time to drain the swamp and go back to county government. You should listen to the people, so for the next council meeting I would suggest changing the meeting to a place to hold the crowd that will show up. You don't hold the same values your taxpayers do. How can you represent these people when there is no districts? And this is the best part, when asked about a situation the previous Mayor said it was above his pay grade. Above his pay grade what kind of answer is that? I will tell you, drain your swamp. Isn't Social Media Great. Comment noted Section 4: Response to Comments 921 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response How about I show you how it works. Lets start stirring the swamp! AGENCY COMMENTS STA 1 The draft policy to, "Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers," is a sound policy that will allow more people to benefit from the community's transit investments. The draft plan also further recognizes the need to prioritize sidewalks near transit stops and other uses that generate a Targe number of pedestrian trips, improve multimodal connectivity, and work with STA to provide bus shelters at strategic locations. Spokane Transit is supportive of this language as well as proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map that propose mixed-use and multifamily designations near existing and planned transit lines. Comment noted 2 Require site design to provide accessible pedestrian connections (sidewalks or pathways) for the most direct route possible between multifamily and commercial buildings and adjacent bus stops No change made as no changes are proposed to the street standards at this time and we do not have design standards in the code. Non -motorized Network (Sidewalks and Bike Lanes) - The proposed plan identifies recommended pedestrian and bicycle improvements, Sprague Avenue and Barker Road near and at their intersection are identified for non -motorized improvements. 3 Allow for a reduction in the amount of Council has recommended changes to address this concern at the Section 4: Response to Comments 931 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response required off-street parking for sites located near transit lines with service every 15 minutes or more often for twelve hours or more each regular weekday. conclusion of the public comment period. The current draft under consideration includes changes to Title 22.50 to address the suggestion made by the Commenter. 4 Design planned arterials to accommodate future bus service. This includes considering the locations of bus stops in the design of landscaping and swales to avoid costly retrofits later or creating a barrier to the introduction of service. Plan for safe and convenient pedestrian crossings at regular intervals on these streets. Current proposal does not include any proposed changes to existing street standards. 5 Street connectivity, defined as densely spaced streets that connect with one another to form a street grid of shorter blocks, facilitates more direct travel, placing more area within walking distance of a stop, limit cul-de-sacs or closed-end street designs to circumstances in which barriers prevent full extensions. If full street connection is prevented, then provide bicycle and pedestrian access ways approximately every 300 to 500 feet. Comment noted, connectivity standards exist in the current street standards except for elements related to bikes and pedestrians. Current proposal does not include any proposed changes to existing street standards. 6 Connectivity between bike lanes and transit lines, especially in low-density industrial areas is important. Local bike networks should connect with existing transit lines and be free of barriers such as curbs or fences. No change made as no changes are proposed to the street standards at this time. 7 Encourage the placement of buildings on sites in a way that limits the distance a pedestrian will have to walk across parking lots from adjoining streets. Comment noted. The changes proposed now allow buildings to be built to the street creating the potential for shorter walking distances. Section 4: Response to Comments 941 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response WSDOT Page Number WSDOT Comment Response 1 5-76 Need to add language here. This travel pattern highlights the need for network development as the freeway system alone cannot accommodate this demand in the future. Travel demand strategies will also be an important aspect in dealing with traffic increases. Council has recommended changes to address this concern at the conclusion of the public comment period. The current draft under consideration includes the following change to the comprehensive plan to address the suggestion made by the Commenter. "This travel pattern highlights the need for network development, as the freeway system alone cannot accommodate this demand in the future. Travel demand strategies will also be an important aspect in dealing with increasing traffic." 2 5-88 Need to revise map. Map is not clear as some of the busiest corridors like Sullivan and Sprague show little or no traffic in certain locations. This is a result of no 2015 traffic count being available in that area. Suggest that the map also use previous years traffic counts to reflect more data. Also a different color needs to be used to reflect where no data is available. Council has recommended changes to address this concern at the conclusion of the public comment period. The current draft under consideration includes an updated map to address the suggestion made by the Commenter 3 5-89 Need to add "For Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) that WSDOT sets the LOS standard. Please contact WSDOT for current LOS standards". Council has recommended changes to address this concern at the conclusion of the public comment period. The current draft under consideration includes changes to the comprehensive plan and address the suggestion by the Commenter to clarify the HSS LOS standard. 4 7-123 Need to add statement: 1-90 is a HSS facility under the jurisdiction of WSDOT. Maintain WSDOT adopted LOS standards on 1-90 and the Ramp Terminals Council has recommended changes to address this concern at the conclusion of the public comment period. The current draft under consideration includes the following change to the comprehensive plan to address the suggestion by the Commenter. ""1-90 is a HSS facility under the jurisdiction of WSDOT. Maintain WSDOT adopted LOS standards on 1-90 and the ramp terminal intersections with city streets." Comments - EIS Document - WSDOT 5 18 The identified improvements need to be called out in the table. For instance the Council has recommended changes to address this concern at the conclusion of the public comment period. The current draft under Section 4: Response to Comments 95 I Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response roundabout that will be constructed at the Barker Interchange, improvements to Pines and Mission, etc. consideration includes updates to Table 6 to identify planned and likely improvements. 6 19 What is the corridor length being proposed? What is shown in the table # 6 does not seem consistent with the maps in Chapter #5 of the Comp. Plan. Suggest the interchange area with 1-90 be its own corridor. For instance on Pines this could be from Mission on the south side to Indiana on the north side. Council has recommended changes to address this concern at the conclusion of the public comment period. The current draft under consideration includes updates to Chapter 5 of the comprehensive plan to update the tables/maps to be consistent with the corridor lengths in the EIS, the lengths in Table 6 are correct. 7 19 Believe this should refer to Table 7 Council has recommended changes to address this concern at the conclusion of the public comment period. The current draft under consideration includes an updated reference to address the suggestion made by the Commenter. 8 22 The projected LOS seems higher than what is found in the field for Sullivan, Pines and potentially Barker. Council has recommended changes to address this concern at the conclusion of the public comment period. The current draft under consideration includes an updated table title to be clearer. SRTC 1 3 The Introduction Element indicates a robust public, jurisdiction, and agency involvement process (p. 1-17). For improved consistency with the GMA, the Transportation Element should describe the City's process for outreach to other jurisdictions and agencies as it relates to transportation LOS and land use impacts. Council has recommended changes to address this concern at the conclusion of the public comment period. The current draft under consideration includes new section in Chapter 1 that includes a description of the agency outreach process. Section 4: Response to Comments 961 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response 2 3 The EIS Transportation Analysis section (p. 25) states that it supports CTR programs and the Transportation Element policy T -P15 states that the City will "Encourage all Commute Trip Reduction employers in the City to achieve travel reduction goals." To improve consistency with the GMA, both documents should reference the City's Commute Trip Reduction Implementation Plan Update: 2015-2019 and demonstrate its commitment to its CTR program in terms of improved coordination, assisting with identifying infrastructure and cultural barriers to meeting state -mandated CTR goals, assisting with marketing and public outreach, and promoting community leader support. Council has recommended changes to address this concern at the conclusion of the public comment period. The current draft under consideration includes an updated policyT-P15 and added a footnote to page 25 of the EIS to reference the Commute Trip Reduction Implementation Plan Update: 2015-2019. 3 4 Horizon 2040 identifies the segments of Sprague Avenue and Appleway Boulevard that travel through Spokane Valley as part of an Urban Transportation Corridor (UTC) (p. 4-37 of Horizon 2040) and encourages local jurisdictions to address future planning related to the corridors. The City's Land Use and the Transportation elements do not address this corridor. During the 2017 update to Horizon 2040, SRTC will consider the value of keeping this UTC segment in the plan. Council has recommended changes to address this concern at the conclusion of the public comment period. The current draft under consideration includes updated language related to the Sprague/Appleway UTC in the Land Use Element, see page 4-65 under Attracting New Development in New Areas; page 4-66 Creating Catalytic Development and in Transportation Element page 5-92, Supporting Economic Development. 4 4-5 The Transportation Element states that "The rationale for evaluating corridor LOS is to align with the SRTC CMP" (p. 5-89), that its policy is to "Use transportation Council has recommended changes to address this concern at the conclusion of the public comment period. The current draft under consideration includes an updated transportation mitigation list that includes the City's ongoing non -capacity strategies to address Section 4: Response to Comments 971 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response demand management techniques and technologies to move people, vehicles and goods safely and efficiently throughout the City's transportation system." (policy T -P17, p. 2-28), and that "Overall, it is the City's policy to consider strategies such as transportation demand management, access restrictions, design modifications, transit enhancements, and intelligent transportation systems prior to adding new lane capacity to the system, particularly for single -occupancy vehicles." (p. 5-94). Of the 20 proposed mitigation projects to address roadway LOS impacts, 13 are lane addition or road widening projects and 7 are intersection treatments. To improve consistency with Horizon 2040 and pursuant to the CMP, the Transportation Element mitigation project list should also list additional non - capacity adding strategies considered in addition to lane addition or road widening strategies. mobility along congested corridors. 5 5 The Transportation Element, policy T -P1 states that the City intends to "Continue to pursue funding for the Bridging the Valley (BTV) program to reduce rail/vehicle collisions, improve emergency access, eliminate vehicle waiting times, reduce noise, and improve traffic flow." From the regional perspective, Bridging the Valley is a long-term, unfunded project. Further, as stated in Horizon 2040 (p. 2-10), "The priority of BTV projects continues to be evaluated by regional decision makers, especially in Council has recommended changes to address this concern at the conclusion of the public comment period. The current draft under consideration includes and amended T -P1 to clarify the continued importance to the City to pursue funding for BNSF mainline separation projects. The policy now reads: "Continue to pursue funding for the BNSF mainline separation projects of Bridging the Valley program to reduce rail/vehicle collisions, improve emergency access, eliminate vehicle waiting times, reduce noise, and improve traffic flow." Section 4: Response to Comments 981 Page # Name Comment Sprague and Barker Response light of limited transportation funding resources and the need to secure commitment from the railroads." Ecology 1 Floodplain regulations and goals for future improvement are well described in the document. Referencing SVMC Chapter 21.30, Floodplain Regulations, in the CAO and Comp Plan is Ecology's recommended practice. One minor comment on Comp Plan page 10-159, Frequently Flooded Areas section: Figure 49 is referenced for the location of the floodplain, when it should be Figure 51. Council has recommended changes to address this concern at the conclusion of the public comment period. The current draft under consideration include updated figure numbers and cross - references. Section 4: Response to Comments 99 1 Page Title 17 GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapters: 17.10 Authority 17.20 Purpose 17.30 Application, Violation, and Penalty 17.40 Rules of Construction 17.50 Code Interpretation 17.60 Consistency with Comprehensive Plan 17.70 Severability 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures 17.90 Appeals 17.100 Compliance and Enforcement 17.110 Fees and Penalties Chapter 17.10 AUTHORITY Sections: 17.10.010 Adoption authority. 17.10.010 Adoption authority. The City adopts Titles 17 through 24 SVMC pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020 and RCW 35A.14.140, and further in compliance with chapter 36.70A RCW (the Growth Management Act) and chapter 365-196 WAC. Chapter 17.20 PURPOSE Sections: 17.20.010 General. 17.20.020 Liability. 17.20.010 General. The regulations have been established in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, general welfare, and protection of the environment of the City. They have been designed to reduce traffic congestion; to reduce the threat of fire, panic, and other dangers; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements; to safeguard community character; to encourage land uses in areas suitable 1 for particular uses; to conserve the value of property; and to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the City. 17.20.020 Liability. Title 17 SVMC shall not be construed to relieve or lessen the responsibility of a person owning, building, altering, constructing, or moving a building or structure, or developing a parcel or parcels of property as defined in SVMC, nor shall the City or an agent thereof be held as assuming such liability by reason of inspection authorized in Title 17 SVMC or a certificate of inspection issued by the City or any of its agencies. Chapter 17.30 APPLICATION, VIOLATION, AND PENALTY Sections: 17.30.010 General. 17.30.010 General. All development and use of land within the corporate limits of the City shall conform to all of the requirements of the SVMC, unless specifically exempted herein or by the operation of law. All violations of Titles 17 through 24 SVMC are hereby determined to be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare and are hereby declared public nuisances. Further, any person who willfully or knowingly causes, aids, or abets a violation pursuant to the SVMC, by any act of commission or omission, is guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition to any other remedy allowed by law, the City may seek to prosecute such misdemeanor and upon conviction, the person shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or incarceration for a term not to exceed 90 days. Each week (seven consecutive days) such violation continues shall be considered a separate misdemeanor offense. Chapter 17.40 RULES OF CONSTRUCTION Sections: 17.40.010 General. 17.40.020 Specific. 17.40.010 General. All provisions, terms, phrases, and expressions contained in the SVMC shall be construed to implement the intent and meaning of the City Council. 17.40.020 Specific. A. Computation of Time. The time within which an act is to be done shall be computed by excluding the first and including the last day. Although, if the defined period of time would expire on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the time period is extended until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. In the computation of time, the standard calendar shall be used. The following time -related words shall have the meanings ascribed below: 1. "Day" means a calendar day, unless working day is specified. 2. "Week" means seven calendar days. 3. "Month" means a calendar month. 4. "Year" means a calendar year. 2 B. Conjunctions. Unless the context clearly indicates to the contrary, conjunctions shall be interpreted as follows: 1. "And" indicates that all connected items, conditions, provisions, or events shall apply. 2. "Or" indicates that one or more of the connected items, conditions, provisions, or events shall apply. 3. "Either/or" indicates that the connected items, conditions, provisions, or events shall apply singularly but not in combination. C. Delegation of Authority. Whenever a provision appears requiring the head of a department or some other officer or employee to do some act or perform some duty, it is to be construed to authorize the head of the department or other officer to designate, delegate, and authorize subordinates to perform the required act or duty, unless the terms of the provision or section specify otherwise. D. Nontechnical and Technical Words. Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language, but technical words and phrases and such others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law shall be construed and understood according to such meaning. E. Number. A word indicating the singular number may extend and be applied to several persons and things. The use of the plural number shall be deemed to include any single person or thing, unless the context clearly indicates the contrary. F. Public Officials, Bodies, and Agencies. All public officials, bodies, and agencies to which reference is made are those of the City, unless otherwise indicated. G. Shall and May. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not discretionary. The word "may" is permissive. H. Tense. Words used in the past or present tense include the future as well as the past or present, unless the context clearly indicates the contrary. Text. In case of any difference of meaning or implication between the text of the SVMC and any illustration or figure, the text shall control. Chapter 17.50 CODE INTERPRETATION Sections: 17.50.010 Purpose. 17.50.020 Procedure. 17.50.030 Criteria. 17.50.020 Appeal of Code interpretation. 17.50.010 Purpose. The Director shall have the authority to make written interpretations when necessary for clarification or to resolve conflicts within Titles 17 through 24 SVMC, Zoning Map, arterial road map, prior conditions of approval, or prior administrative interpretations pursuant to SVMC 17.50.020. All requests for formal interpretations shall be made in writing. The interpretation shall be made by the Director. The Department shall maintain a file of all written interpretations. 3 17.50.020 Procedure. A. Code interpretations shall be processed as a Type I decision pursuant to SVMC 17.80.030. B. The Director may make an interpretation when (1) he or she determines such an interpretation is necessary for City implementation of the SVMC, or (2) when requested by a person as set forth in SVMC 17.50.020(C). C. Any person whose property, residence, or business, is or will likely be impacted by a project may submit a written request for a Code interpretation to the Director, provided that a Code interpretation related to any pending project application that is requested by a person other than the project applicant or property owner shall not be considered unless it is requested within 60 days after an application has been determined to be complete or prior to the conclusion of the public comment period, if any, whichever is later. D. A request for a Code interpretation shall include the following: 1. The provision of Titles 17 through 24 SVMC, Zoning Map, arterial road map, conditions of approval, or prior administrative interpretation for which an interpretation is requested; 2. Why an interpretation of each provision is necessary. If the requestor is a person whose property, residence, or business is or will likely be impacted by a project, the requestor shall submit an explanation as to how the project is or will likely impact that person's property, residence, or business; and 3. Any reasons or material in support of a proposed interpretation. 17.50.030 Criteria. The Director shall base his or her interpretations on: 1. The defined or common meaning of the words of the provision; 2. The general purpose of the provision as expressed in the provision; and 3. The logical or likely meaning of the provision viewed in relation to other related applicable provisions and the Comprehensive Plan. 17.50.040 Appeal of administrative interpretation. A formal interpretation may be appealed pursuant to the provisions of chapter 17.90 SVMC, Appeals. Chapter 17.60 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Sections: 17.60.010 Implementation of Comprehensive Plan. 17.60.010 Implementation of Comprehensive Plan. The regulations of the SVMC are intended to implement the City's official Comprehensive Plan and, as such, may be amended from time to time. A copy of the Comprehensive Plan shall be kept in the office of 4 the City Clerk, and it shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours or on the City's website. Applications for rezoning any land use action shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 17.70 SEVERABILITY Sections: 17.70.010 Severability. 17.70.010 Severability. The sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, and phrases of Titles 17 through 24 SVMC are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, or section of Titles 17 through 24 SVMC shall be declared unconstitutional, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, or sections of the SVMC to the extent permitted by law. Chapter 17.80 PERMIT PROCESSING PROCEDURES Sections: 17.80.010 Purpose and applicability. 17.80.020 Types of development applications. 17.80.030 Assignment of development application classification. 17.80.040 Exempt activities. 17.80.050 Development application requirements. 17.80.060 Final decision authority. 17.80.070 Required application procedures. 17.80.080 Pre -application conference. 17.80.090 Counter -complete determination. 17.80.100 Fully complete determination. 17.80.110 Notice of application. 17.80.120 Notice of public hearing. 17.80.130 Final decision. 17.80.140 Type IV applications — Comprehensive Plan amendments, development agreements associated with a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and area -wide rezones. 17.80.150 Type IV applications — Text amendments to the SVMC. 17.80.160 Optional consolidated review process. 17.80.170 Vesting of applications. 17.80.010 Purpose and applicability. A. Purpose. The purpose of chapter 17.80 SVMC is to establish standardized decision-making procedures for reviewing development and land use applications within the City. Chapter 17.80 SVMC is intended to: 1. Assure prompt review of development applications; 2. Provide for necessary public review and comment on development applications; 3. Minimize adverse impacts on surrounding land uses; 4. Encourage flexibility and innovation in the design and layout of development proposals; and 5. Ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. 5 B. Applicability. Chapter 17.80 SVMC applies to all development applications identified in the SVMC. 17.80.020 Types of development applications. Land use and development applications are classified as follows: A. Type I procedures apply to permits and decisions issued administratively; B. Type 11 procedures apply to administrative actions that contain some discretionary criteria; C. Type 111 procedures apply to quasi-judicial permits and actions that contain discretionary approval criteria; D. Type IV procedures apply to legislative matters. Legislative matters involve the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy; E. Exempt applications defined in SVMC 17.80.040. 17.80.030 Assignment of development application classification. A. Assignment by Table. Land use and development applications shall be classified pursuant to SVMC Table 17.80-1 below: Table 17.80-1 — Permit Type and Land Use Application Type Land Use and Development Application SVMC Cross - Reference Type I Accessory dwelling units 19.40 Administrative determinations by Director, public works director, or building official Multiple Administrative exception 19.140 Administrative interpretation 17.50.010 Boundary line adjustments and eliminations 20.80 Building permits not subject to SEPA 21.20.040 Floodplain development 21.30 Grading permits 24.50 Home business permit 19.65.180 Shoreline letter of exemption 21.50 Record of survey to establish lots within a binding site plan 20.60.040 Right-of-way permits 22.130.100 Site plan review 19.130 Temporary use permit 19.160 Time extensions for preliminary subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan 20.30.060 Type 11 Alterations — Preliminary and final subdivisions, short subdivisions, binding site plans 20.50 Binding site plan — Preliminary and final 20.50 Binding site plan — Change of conditions 20.50 6 Table 17.80-1 — Permit Type and Land Use Application Type Land Use and Development Application SVMC Cross - Reference SEPA threshold determination 21.20.060 Shoreline conditional use permit 21.50 Shoreline nonconforming use or structure review 21.50 Shoreline substantial development permit 21.50 Shoreline variance 21.50 Short subdivision — Preliminary and final 20.30, 20.40 Preliminary short subdivision, binding site plan — Change of conditions 20.30 Wireless communication facilities 22.120 Type III Conditional use permits 19.150 Planned residential developments 19.50 Plat vacation 20.70.020 Preliminary subdivision — Change of conditions 20.50 Subdivisions — Preliminary 20.30 Variance 19.170 Zoning Map amendments (site-specific rezones) 19.30.030 Type IV Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments (text and/or map) 17.80.140 Area -wide Zoning Map amendments 17.80.140 Development Code text amendments 17.80.150 B. Assignment by Director. Land use and development applications not defined in SVMC Table 17.80-1 shall be assigned a type based on the most closely -related application type by the Director, unless exempt under SVMC 17.80.040. When more than one procedure may be appropriate, the process providing the greatest opportunity for public notice shall be followed. C. Shoreline letters of exemption, shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits, shoreline variances, and shoreline nonconforming use or structure review shall be processed pursuant to the procedures set forth in chapter 17.80 SVMC, subject to any additional or modified procedures provided in chapter 21.50 SVMC Shoreline Regulations, including submittals, completeness review, notices, hearings, and decisions. D. Except as provided in Table 17.80-1, change of conditions for permits shall be processed the same as the original permit type. 17.80.040 Exempt activities. A. Exemptions. Unless specified elsewhere in Title 17 SVMC, the following development activities are exempt from the procedural requirements of chapter 17.80 SVMC: 1. Normal or emergency repair or maintenance of public or private buildings, structures, landscaping, or utilities. 2. A change of any legally established use is exempt; unless the change of use requires: a. An increase in the number of parking spaces provided; b. A conditional use permit under chapter 19.150, SVMC Conditional Use Permits; c. A site plan approval under chapter 19.130 SVMC, Site Plan Review; or d. Review by SEPA. 3. Final subdivisions, short subdivisions, and binding site plans. 4. Building permits that are not subject to SEPA. 5. On-site utility permits not obtained in conjunction with a specific development application including, but not limited to, sewer hook-ups, water hook-ups, right-of-way permits, and fire department permits. 6. Sign permits. 7. Interior remodeling and tenant improvements unless site plan review is required under chapter 19.130 SVMC, Site Plan Review. B. Other Regulations. Applications exempt pursuant to SVMC 17.80.040 remain subject to all other applicable standards and requirements of the SVMC. 17.80.050 Development application requirements. A. Application Forms. All applications shall be made on forms provided by the Department. The Director shall have authority to modify application forms. B. Submittal Information. All applications shall include the information required in applicable provisions of the SVMC as identified in SVMC Table 17.80-2 and other additional information required by the Department. C. Land use and development applications shall be signed by the owner(s) of the property. D. Fees. Fees as required by chapter 17.110 SVMC, Fees and Penalties. 17.80.060 Final decision authority. The final decision for application type shall be made by: A. Type I — the Department. B. Type II — the Department. C. Type III — the Hearing Examiner. D. Type IV — the City Council preceded by a recommendation by the Planning Commission. 17.80.070 Required application procedures. The required procedures for Type I, II, and III applications are set forth in SVMC Table 17.80-2 below. The specific procedures required for Type IV applications are set forth in SVMC 17.80.140 and 17.80.150. 8 Table 17.80-2 — Permit Type and Land Use Application Application Type Pre- application conference 17.80.080 Counter- complete determination 17.80.090 Fully complete determination 17.80.100 Notice of application 17.80.110 Notice of public hearing 17.80.120 Final decision and notice 17.80.130 I 0 X X N/A N/A X *11 **O X X X N/A X III X X X X X X X Required 0 Optional N/A Not Applicable *Does not apply to SEPA threshold determinations. Refer to SVMC 21.20.070(6)(2) for noticing requirements. **Except for short subdivisions and binding site plans which require a pre -application meeting. 17.80.080 Pre -application conference. A. Purpose. To provide the City and other agency staff with a sufficient level of detail about the proposed development; to enable staff to advise the applicant of applicable approvals and requirements; to acquaint the applicant with the applicable requirements of the SVMC and other laws; and to identify issues and concerns in advance of a formal application. B. Pre -Application. Type 11 and 111 applicants shall schedule a pre -application conference and provide information requested in advance of the meeting. C. Pre -Application Waivers. The Director may waive the pre -application conference if determined that the proposal has few development -related issues, involves subsequent phases of an approved development, or is substantially similar to a prior proposal affecting substantially the same property. 17.80.090 Counter -complete determination. A. Determination and Application Content. Prior to accepting an application, the Department shall determine whether the application is counter -complete. A counter -complete application shall contain all information requested in the applicable form. Review for counter -complete status does not include an evaluation of the substantive adequacy of the information in the application. B. Incomplete Application. If the Department determines that the application is not counter - complete, the application shall be rejected and the applicant advised of the information needed to complete the application. C. Counter -Complete Application. Counter -complete applications shall be accepted for review for fully complete determination. 17.80.100 Fully complete determination. A. Determination. Once a counter -complete application has been accepted, the Department shall, within 28 calendar days, provide a written determination delivered by mail or in person to the applicant that the application is fully complete, or if incomplete, a list of what is required to make the application complete. Upon receipt of the requested material, the Department shall conduct another review and respond as set forth above. The names of agencies of local, state, or federal governments that may have jurisdiction over some aspect of the application to the extent known by the City shall be provided to the applicant. 9 B. The City shall notify the applicant whether an application is fully complete or what additional information is necessary within 14 calendar days after the applicant has submitted any additional information identified by the City as necessary for a complete application. C. Incomplete Application. If the necessary information is not provided by the applicant within 60 days, the Department shall: 1. Reject and return the application; 2. Issue a decision denying the application, based on a lack of information. The applicant may reinitiate the fully complete review process without additional fees; provided, that the required information is provided by a date specified by the Department; or 3. The applicant may withdraw the application by submitting a request in writing and may be entitled to the return of up to 80 percent of the fees submitted. D. Fully Complete Application. Once the Department determines that an application is fully complete, the Department shall, within 14 calendar days, issue a notice of application pursuant to SVMC 17.80.110. E. Request for Additional Information. A fully complete determination shall not preclude the City from requesting additional information, studies, or changes to submitted information or plans if new information is required, or substantial changes to the proposal occur. F. Revocation. An application's fully complete status may be revoked if the Department determines that the applicant intentionally submitted false information. In the event an applicant's fully complete status is revoked, the applicant shall lose any rights granted pursuant to SVMC 17.80.170. 17.80.110 Notice of application. A. Contents. The Department shall issue a notice of application within 14 calendar days after an application is determined fully complete. 1. All notices of applications shall include the following: a. The case file number(s), the date of application, and the date a fully complete application was filed; b. A description of the proposed project and a list of project permits included with the application, as well as the identification of other permits not included in the application, to the extent known to the City; c. The proposed SEPA threshold determination, if applicable; d. The identification of any existing environmental documents that may be used to evaluate the proposed project; e. Statement of the public comment period. A statement that the public has the right to comment on the application, receive notice of the decision, and request a copy of the decision once made, and a statement of any appeal rights; f. The name of the applicant or applicant's authorized representative and the name, address, and telephone number of a contact person for the applicant, if any; 10 g. A description of the site, including current zoning and nearest road intersections, sufficient to inform the reader of its location and zoning; h. A map showing the subject property in relation to other properties or a reduced copy of the site plan; The date, place, and times where information about the application may be examined and the name and telephone number of the City representative to contact about the application; and j. Any additional information determined appropriate by the Department. 2. In addition to the requirements listed in subsection (A)(1) of SVMC 17.80.110, a Type 11 notice of application shall state: a. That failure of any party to address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity may result in the denial of the application; b. That all evidence relied upon by the Department to make the decision shall be contained within the record and is available for public review, and that copies can be obtained at a reasonable cost from the Department; c. That, after the comment period closes, the Department shall issue a Type II notice of decision. 3. In addition to the requirements listed in subsection (A)(1) of SVMC 17.80.110, a Type 111 application shall state: a. That a staff report shall be available for inspection at least seven days before the public hearing, and written comments may be submitted at any time prior to the closing of the record for the public hearing. B. Distribution of Notice of Application. The notice of application shall be published in an appropriate regional or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal and sent to the following persons by regular mail: 1. The applicant; 2. All adjacent property owners of record as shown on the most recent property tax assessment roll; 3. Any governmental agency entitled to notice; and 4. Any person filing a written request for a copy of the notice of application. C. Type I Exception. A notice of application is not required for Type I applications. D. Comment Period. The Department shall allow 14 calendar days for Type 11 applications and 30 calendar days for Type 111 applications after the date the notice of application is mailed and posted on the subject property, for individuals to submit comments. Within seven calendar days after the close of the public comment period, the Department shall mail to the applicant a copy of written public comments, including e-mail communications timely received in response to the notice of application, together with a statement that the applicant may either submit a written response to these comments within 14 calendar days from the date the comments are mailed or waive the response period. If the applicant desires to waive his right to respond to the comments, such waiver shall be provided to the Department in writing. The Department, in making its 11 decision on the application, shall consider written comments timely received in response to the notice of application and timely written responses to those comments, including e-mail communications, submitted by the applicant. 17.80.120 Notice of public hearing. A public hearing is required for Type III applications. A. Content of Notice of Public Hearing. Notices of public hearing shall contain the following information: 1. The application and/or project number; 2. Project summary/description of each project permit application; 3. The designation of the hearing body; 4. The date, time, and place of the hearing and a statement that the hearing will be conducted in accordance with the rules of procedure adopted by the hearing body; 5. General project location, vicinity, address, and parcel number(s), if applicable; 6. The name of the applicant or applicant's authorized representative and the name, address, and telephone number of a contact person for the applicant, if any; 7. The SEPA threshold determination, or description thereof, shall be contained in the notice, along with any appropriate statement regarding any shared or divided lead agency status and phased review and stating the end of any final comment period; 8. A statement regarding the appeal process; and 9. The date when the staff report will be available and the place and times where it can be reviewed. B. Distribution of Notices of Public Hearing. Notices of public hearing shall be mailed, posted, and published at least 15 days prior to the hearing date and shall be distributed as follows: 1. Notice by Mail. All property owners within 400 feet of the subject property by first class mail. Where any portion of the property abutting the subject property is owned, controlled, or under the option of the project property owner, then all property owners within a 400 foot radius of the total ownership interest shall be notified by first class mail. Property owners are those shown on the most recent Spokane County assessor's/treasurer's database as obtained by the title company no more than 30 calendar days prior to the scheduled public hearing. In addition, notice shall be sent to the following: a. Agencies with jurisdiction (SEPA); b. Municipal corporations or organization with which the City has executed an interlocal agreement; and c. Other persons outside of the 400 foot radius who the City determines may be affected by the proposed action or who requested such notice in writing. Examples of considerations for determining when to provide notice to other persons who may be affected include, but are not limited to, circumstances such as large neighboring properties which limit the number of properties receiving notice within the 400 foot radius, known or likely public interest in the 12 project due to the size of the project or likely substantial adverse impacts of the project on the neighboring properties, and other similar considerations. Failure to send public notice to other persons beyond the 400 foot radius shall not be considered inadequate public notice. 2. Notice by Sign. A sign a minimum of 16 square feet (four feet in width by four feet in height) in area shall be posted by the applicant on the site along the most heavily - traveled street adjacent to the subject property. The sign shall be provided by the applicant. The sign shall be constructed of material of sufficient weight and reasonable strength to withstand normal weather conditions. The sign shall be lettered and spaced as follows: a. A minimum of two-inch border on the top, sides, and bottom of the sign; b. The first line in four -inch letters shall read "Notice of Public Hearing"; c. Spacing between all lines shall be a minimum of one inch; and d. The text of the sign shall include the following information in a minimum of one - inch letters: Proposal; ii. Applicant; File number; iv. Hearing (date and time); v. Location; and vi. Review authority. 3. Notice by Publication. Publish one notice in an appropriate regional or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal. 17.80.130 Final decision. A. Timeline to Make Final Decision — Type I. The Department shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Type I application within 60 calendar days after the date the application was accepted as fully complete, unless accompanied by a SEPA checklist. Time spent by the applicant to revise plans or provide additional studies or materials requested by the City shall not be included in the 60 -day period. An applicant may agree in writing to extend the time in which the Department shall issue a decision. The Department's decision shall address all of the relevant approval criteria applicable to the development application. B. Timeline to Make Final Decision — Type II and 111. The final decision on a Type II and 111 application shall be made not more than 120 calendar days (90 days for subdivisions) after the date a fully complete determination is made. This period shall not include: 1. Time spent by the applicant to revise plans or provide additional studies or materials requested by the City; 2. Time spent preparing an environmental impact statement; 3. Time between submittal and resolution of an appeal; or 13 4. Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the City in writing. C. The timeline for all final decisions shall be subject to any changes pursuant to SVMC 17.80.170(G). D. Contents of Final Decision. The final decision on Type 11 and 111 applications shall contain the following information: 1. The nature of the application in sufficient detail to apprise persons entitled to notice of the applicant's proposal and of the decision; 2. The address or other geographic description of the subject property, including a map of the site in relation to the surrounding area, where applicable; 3. The date the decision shall become final, unless appealed; 4. A statement that all persons who have standing under chapter 17.90 SVMC, Appeals may appeal the decision; 5. A statement in boldface type briefly explaining how an appeal can be filed, the deadline for filing such an appeal, and where further information can be obtained concerning the appeal; 6. A statement that the complete case file, including findings, conclusions, decisions, and conditions of approval, if any, is available for review. The notice of final decision shall list the place, days, and times where the case file is available and the name and telephone number of the City representative to contact about reviewing the case file; 7. A statement of the facts demonstrating how the application does or does not comply with applicable approval criteria; 8. A statement of the basis of decision pursuant to the SVMC and other applicable law; 9. The reasons for a conclusion to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application; 10. The decision to approve or deny the application and, if approved, conditions of approval necessary to ensure the proposed development will comply with applicable law; and 11. The date the final decision is mailed. E. Notice of the Final Decision. All final decisions shall be sent by regular mail to the following: 1. The applicant; 2. Any governmental agency entitled to notice; 3. Any person filing a written request for a copy of the notice of application or the final decision; and 4. Any person who testified at the hearing or who provided substantive written comments on the application during the public comment period and provided a mailing address. 17.80.140 Type IV applications — Comprehensive Plan amendments, development agreements associated with a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and area -wide rezones. 14 A. Initiation. Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones may be initiated by any of the following: 1. Property owner(s) or their representatives; 2. Any citizen, agency, neighborhood association, or other party; or 3. The Department, Planning Commission, or City Council. B. Applications. Applications shall be made on forms provided by the City. C. Application Submittal. 1. Applicant Initiated. Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones shall be subject to a pre -application conference, counter -complete, and fully complete determinations pursuant to SVMC 17.80.080, SVMC 17.80.090, and SVMC 17.80.100. The date upon fully complete determination shall be the date of registration with the Department. 2. Non -Applicant Initiated. After submittal of a non -applicant -initiated application, the application shall be placed on the register. D. Register of Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Area -Wide Rezones. The Department shall establish and maintain a register of all applications. E. Concurrent and Annual Review of Register. 1. Sixty days prior to November 1st in each calendar year, the City shall notify the public that the amendment process has begun. Notice shall be distributed as follows: a. Notice published in an appropriate regional or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal; b. Notice posted on all of the City's official public notice boards; and c. Copy of the notice sent to all agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions with an interest. 2. All registered applications shall be reviewed concurrently, on an annual basis and in a manner consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2). Applications registered after November 1st of the previous calendar year and before November 1st of the current calendar year shall be included in the annual review. Those registered after November 1st of the calendar year shall be placed on the register for review at the following annual review. 3. Emergency Amendments. The City may review and amend the Comprehensive Plan when the City Council determines that an emergency exists or in other circumstances as provided for by RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a). F. Notice of Public Hearing. Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. 1. Contents of Notice. A notice of public hearing shall include the following: a. The citation, if any, of the provision that would be changed by the proposal along with a brief description of that provision; 15 b. A statement of how the proposal would change the affected provision; c. A statement of what areas, Comprehensive Plan designations, zones, or locations will be directly affected or changed by the proposal; d. The date, time, and place of the public hearing; e. A statement of the availability of the official file; and f. A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the Planning Commission and to appear at the public hearing of the Planning Commission to give oral comments on the proposal. 2. Distribution of Notice. The Department shall distribute the notice pursuant to SVMC 17.80.120(B). G. Planning Commission Recommendation — Procedure. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall consider the applications concurrently, and shall prepare and forward a recommendation of proposed action for all applications to the City Council. The Planning Commission shall take one of the following actions: 1. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposal should be adopted, it may, by a majority vote, recommend that the City Council adopt the proposal. The Planning Commission may make modifications to any proposal prior to recommending the proposal to City Council for adoption. If the modification is substantial, the Planning Commission must conduct a public hearing on the modified proposal; 2. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposal should not be adopted, it may, by a majority vote, recommend that the City Council not adopt the proposal; or 3. If the Planning Commission is unable to take either of the actions specified in subsection (G)(1) or (2) of SVMC 17.80.140, the proposal will be sent to City Council with the notation that the Planning Commission makes no recommendation. H. Approval Criteria. 1. The City may only approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide Zoning Map amendments if it finds that: a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 16 2. The City shall also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: a. The effect upon the physical environment; b. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; e. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; g. The current and projected population density in the area; and h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. City Council Action. Within 60 days of receipt of the Planning Commission's findings and recommendations, the City Council shall consider the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission concerning the application and may hold a public hearing pursuant to City Council rules. The Department shall distribute notice of the City Council's public hearing pursuant to SVMC 17.80.120(B). All annual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall be considered concurrently. By a majority vote of its membership, the City Council shall: 1. Approve the application; 2. Disapprove the application; 3. Modify the application. If the modification is substantial, the City Council shall either conduct a public hearing on the modified proposal; or 4. Refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. In the event there is a tie or less than a majority vote of the membership of the City Council in favor of one of SVMC 17.80.140(1)(1)-(4), such a vote shall be considered a vote against the motion, the motion shall fail, and no further action shall be required by the City Council, although City Council may take such other action as it deems appropriate. J. Transmittal to the State of Washington. At least 60 days prior to final action being taken by the City Council, the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) shall be provided with a copy of the amendments in order to initiate the 60 -day comment period. No later than 10 days after adoption of the proposal, a copy of the final decision shall be forwarded to Commerce. 17.80.150 Type IV applications — Text amendments to Titles 17 through 25 of the SVMC. A. Initiation. Text amendments to Titles 17 through 24 of the SVMC may be initiated by any of the following: 1. Property owner(s) or their representatives; 2. Any citizen, agency, neighborhood association, or other party; or 17 3. The Department, Planning Commission, or City Council. B. Applications. Applications shall be made on forms provided by the City. C. Application Submittal. 1. After submittal of an applicant -initiated application, the application shall be subject to a pre -application conference, counter -complete determination, and fully complete determination pursuant to SVMC 17.80.080, SVMC 17.80.090, and SVMC 17.80.100. 2. After submittal, the application shall be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda. D. Notice of Public Hearing. Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. 1. Contents of Notice. A notice of public hearing shall include the following: a. The citation, if any, of the provision that would be changed by the proposal along with a brief description of that provision; b. A statement of how the proposal would change the affected provision; c. The date, time, and place of the public hearing; d. A statement of the availability of the official file; and e. A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the Planning Commission and to appear at the public hearing of the Planning Commission to give oral comments on the proposal. 2. Distribution of Notice. The Department shall distribute the notice to the applicant, newspaper, City Hall, and the main branch of the library. E. Planning Commission Recommendation — Procedure. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission shall take one of the following actions: 1. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposal should be adopted, it may, by a majority vote, recommend that the City Council adopt the proposal. The Planning Commission may make modifications to any proposal prior to recommending the proposal to City Council for adoption. If the modification is substantial, the Planning Commission must conduct a public hearing on the modified proposal; 2. If the Planning Commission determines that the proposal should not be adopted, it may, by a majority vote, recommend that the City Council not adopt the proposal; or 3. If the Planning Commission is unable to take either of the actions specified in subsection (E)(1) or (2) of SVMC 19.80.150, the proposal shall be sent to City Council with the notation that the Planning Commission makes no recommendation. F. Approval Criteria. The City may approve amendments to the SVMC if it finds that: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and 18 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. G. City Council Action. Within 60 days of receipt of the Planning Commission's findings and recommendations, the City Council shall consider the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission concerning the application and may hold a public hearing pursuant to City Council rules. The Department shall distribute notice of the City Council's public hearing pursuant to SVMC 17.80.120(B). By a majority vote, the City Council shall: 1. Approve the application; 2. Disapprove the application; 3. Modify the application. If modification is substantial, the City Council must either conduct a public hearing on the modified proposal; or 4. Refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. In the event there is a tie or less than a majority vote of the membership of the City Council in favor of one of SVMC 17.80.150(G)(1)-(4), such a vote shall be considered a vote against the motion, the motion shall fail, and no further action shall be required by the City Council, although City Council may take such other action as it deems appropriate. H. Transmittal to the State of Washington. At least 60 days prior to final action being taken by the City Council, the Commerce shall be provided with a copy of the amendments in order to initiate the 60 -day comment period. No later than 10 days after adoption of the proposal, a copy of the final decision shall be forwarded to Commerce. 17.80.160 Optional consolidated review process. A. Optional Consolidated Review Process. This optional process provides for the consideration of all discretionary land use, engineering, and environmental permits issued by the City if requested in writing from the applicant. Permit decisions of other agencies are not included in this process; but public meetings and hearings for other agencies may be coordinated with those of the City. Where multiple approvals are required for a single project, the optional consolidated review process is composed of the following: 1. Pre -Application Meeting. A single pre -application meeting will be conducted for all applications submitted under the optional consolidated review process. 2. Determination of Completeness. When a consolidated application is deemed complete, a consolidated determination of completeness will be made pursuant to SVMC 17.80.100. 3. Notice of Application. When a consolidated application is deemed complete, a consolidated notice of application will be issued pursuant to the provisions of SVMC 17.80.110. 4. Comment Period. The consolidated application shall provide for one comment period for all permits included in the consolidated application. 5. The City shall issue a decision(s) for Type I or Type 11 permits prior to scheduling a public hearing for any companion Type 111 permit. Appeals of administrative permits that are part of a consolidated application will be heard in a single, consolidated open record appeal hearing before the Hearing Examiner on the same agenda as the companion Type 111 application. 19 6. Notice of Public Hearing. A single notice of public hearing will be provided for consolidated permit applications. The notice shall include the Type III permit to be heard and any open record appeals of administrative portions of the consolidated application. 7. Notice of Decision. The Hearing Examiner shall issue a single notice of decision regarding all Type I and Type II appeals and all Type III project permit applications subject to a public hearing. 17.80.170 Vesting of applications. A. Purpose. The purpose of SVMC 17.80.170 is to implement local vesting regulations that are best suited to the needs of the City and consistent with state law. B. Vested Rights. Except for rezones, an application for a land use or development application type set forth in Table 17.80-1 shall be considered under the development regulations in effect on the date a fully complete application is filed, pursuant to SVMC 17.80.100. C. Vested Rights for Subsequent Building Permits or Land Disturbing Activity Permits. Building permit or land disturbing activity permit applications that are filed subsequent to and related to a prior development permit or application of the type listed in SVMC 17.80.170(C)(1-14), shall be considered under the development regulations in effect at the time a complete application listed in SVMC 17.80.170(C)(1-14) is filed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.100. 1. Accessory dwelling unit; 2. Boundary line adjustment or elimination; 3. Floodplain development; 4. Site plan; 5. Binding site plan; 6. Shoreline substantial development permit; 7. Shoreline conditional use permit; 8. Shoreline nonconforming use or structure review; 9. Shoreline variance; 10. Shoreline letter of exemption; 11. Short subdivision; 12. Conditional use permit; 13. Planned residential development; and 14. Subdivision. However, an applicant filing a complete application for any subsequent building permit or land - disturbing activity permit application shall only have such rights as described herein if it is submitted prior to the expiration date of the permit(s) or approval(s) applied for in the application types listed in SVMC 17.80.170(C)(1-14). 20 D. Development Regulations. For the purpose of SVMC 17.80.170, "development regulation" means those provisions of Titles 17 through 22 SVMC that exercise a restraining or directing influence over land, including provisions that control or affect the type, degree, or physical attributes of land development or use. For purposes of SVMC 17.80.170, "development regulation" does not include fees or procedural regulations. E. Applicability of Current Building Code. A complete building permit application shall always be subject to that version of Title 24 SVMC in effect at the time the building permit application is submitted. F. Rezones Not Acquiring Vested Rights. Notwithstanding any other provision in SVMC 17.80.170, any application dependent on approval of a rezone application shall not acquire vested rights to any particular development regulations until the underlying rezone is approved. At that time, the application dependent on approval of a rezone shall be considered under the development regulations in effect at the time the underlying rezone is approved. G. Waiver of Vested Rights. At any time during the processing of an application, an applicant may voluntarily opt to have all applications for a project be governed by development regulations in effect on a date later than the date provided pursuant to SVMC 17.80.170(B) -(F). The applicant may exercise that option by delivering a written and signed waiver to the Department stating that the property owner agrees: 1. To waive all rights provided pursuant to SVMC 17.80.170(B) -(F) and any related vested rights claim they may have with the application; 2. To have all applications for the project be governed by all development regulations in effect on the date of delivery of the waiver, subject to the limitations set forth in SVMC 17.80.170(B) -(F); 3. That any change or modification to the project required or desired pursuant to new development regulations may result in a new determination of whether the application is still fully complete based upon the changes. In the event the application or project is changed such that it is no longer fully complete, the applicant shall provide such information as is required to render the modified application fully complete and the applicant shall agree to reset the time period for permit review and processing to the date the modified application is determined to be fully complete; and 4. That any change or modification to the project may require additional review and processing, revised public notice, and additional public hearings as required pursuant to chapter 17.80 SVMC. In the event an applicant delivers a written and signed waiver meeting the requirements of SVMC 17.80.170(G)(1)-(4), the application shall be considered under the development regulations in effect on the date of delivery of the waiver or, if necessary, the new date a modified application is determined fully complete, and any other subsequent building permit or land disturbing activity permit applications subject to SVMC 17.80.170(C) shall be considered under the development regulations in effect on the date of delivery of the waiver, or if necessary, the new date a modified application is determined fully complete. Chapter 17.90 APPEALS Sections: 17.90.010 General. 17.90.020 Effective date of final decisions. 21 17.90.030 Standing. 17.90.040 Time for and contents of an appeal to the Hearing Examiner. 17.90.050 Appeal review process for Hearing Examiner. 17.90.060 Hearing Examiner appeal hearing procedures. 17.90.070 Time for and contents of an appeal to the City Council. 17.90.080 Appeal review process for City Council. 17.90.090 City Council appeal hearing procedures. 17.90.010 General. A. Appeals and Jurisdiction. All final decisions shall be appealed to the authority set forth in SVMC Table 17.90-1. Specific procedures followed by the Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner, and City Council are set forth in Appendix B. Table 17.90-1 — Decision/Appeal Authority Land Use and Development Decisions Appeal Authority Type I and II decisions Hearing Examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further appeal to superior court (chapter 36.70C RCW) Building permits Hearing Examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further appeal to superior court (chapter 36.70C RCW) Type III decisions except Zoning Map amendments Superior court (chapter 36.70C RCW) Type III Zoning Map amendments City Council (SVMC 17.90.070); further appeal to superior court (chapter 36.70C RCW) Type IV decisions Superior court Matters subject to review pursuant to RCW 36.70A.020 Growth Management Hearing Board Shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits, and shoreline variances Shoreline Hearings Board (RCW 90.58.180) Compliance and enforcement decisions (chapter 17.100 SVMC) Hearing Examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further appeal to superior court (chapter 36.70C RCW) 17.90.020 Effective date of final decisions. A. Type I final decisions and building permits become effective on the day after the appeal period expires unless an appeal is filed, in which case the procedures of chapter 17.90 SVMC shall apply. The applicant and owner have the right to waive their appeal rights, and in such cases where a waiver is submitted in writing to the Department, the Type I decision is considered final on the day it is signed by the Director or designee or on the day the waiver is approved, whichever is later, unless a party other than the applicant owner has standing to appeal. B. Type II, III, and IV final decisions become effective on the day after the appeal period expires, unless an appeal is filed, in which case the procedures of chapter 17.90 SVMC shall apply. 17.90.030 Standing. A. Type I Decision. The following parties have standing to appeal a Type I decision: 1. The applicant and the owner of the property to whom the decision is directed; and 2. The adjacent property owners whose interests are a required part of the application approval. 22 B. Type 11 Decision. The following parties have standing to appeal a Type 11 decision: 1. The applicant and owner of the property to whom the decision is directed; 2. Any party for whom written notice is required; and 3. Any other party who participates in the decision process through the submittal of substantive written comments. C. Type 111 Decision. The following parties have standing to appeal a Type 111 decision: 1. The applicant and the owner of the property to whom the decision is directed; 2. Any other person aggrieved or adversely affected by the decision, or who would be aggrieved or adversely affected by a reversal or modification of the decision. A person is aggrieved or adversely affected within the meaning of these rules only when all of the following conditions are present: a. The decision has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person; b. That person's asserted interests are among those that the Hearing Examiner was required to consider when the decision was made; c. A reversal or modification of the decision in favor of that person would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to that person caused or likely to be caused by the decision; and d. The appellant has exhausted his or her administrative remedies by being a party of record to the decision below. A "party of record" means a person who appeared at the public hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, or who submitted substantive written comments in the matter prior to the closing of the record for the hearing. 3. The Director. D. Type IV Decisions. Type IV decisions are legislative decisions and may be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board or a court of competent jurisdiction as allowed by law. E. Compliance and Enforcement Decisions. The following parties have standing to appeal a compliance and enforcement decision: 1. The party or owner of property subject to an appeal; and 2. The complainant if a written request is made to be notified of the City's response to the complaint filed by the complainant. 17.90.040 Time for and contents of an appeal to the Hearing Examiner. A. Appeal to Hearing Examiner. Any appeal to the Hearing Examiner shall be received no later than 14 calendar days after written notice of the decision is mailed. Receipt of a complete appeal submittal shall stay the original decision until a final decision on the appeal has been reached. The appeal shall include: 1. The case number designated by the City and the name of the applicant; 23 2. The name and signature of each petitioner or their authorized representative and a statement showing that each petitioner has standing to file the appeal under chapter 17.90 SVMC. If multiple parties file a single petition for review, the petition shall designate one party as the contact representative; 3. The specific decision and specific portions of the decision or determination being appealed, and the specific reasons why each aspect is in error as a matter of fact or law; 4. Evidence that the specific issues raised on appeal were raised during the period in which the record was open; 5. The appeal fee as identified in chapter 17.110 SVMC, Fees and Penalties. The fee may be refunded, either wholly or partially, only if the appellant requests withdrawal of the appeal in writing at least 14 calendar days before the scheduled appeal hearing date; 6. A person responsible for a Code compliance/enforcement violation who successfully appeals the City's administrative determination of a violation shall be refunded the appeal fee within 45 days. 17.90.050 Appeal review process for Hearing Examiner. A. Appeal Review Process. 1. All complete appeals submitted and allowed pursuant to these rules shall be scheduled for review at a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner within 90 calendar days from the date of submission. Further extensions are permitted upon mutual agreement of the appellant, the applicant, and the Department. 2. Notice of the appeal hearing shall be mailed to the applicant and the appellant, if different than the applicant. 17.90.060 Hearing Examiner appeal hearing procedures. A. Hearing Procedures. All appeals to the Hearing Examiner shall be conducted in the manner set forth in Appendix B. B. Scheduling of Hearings. 1. The Department, in coordination with the Hearing Examiner, shall prepare an official agenda indicating the dates and times that matters will be heard. The official agenda shall comply with all time limits set forth in RCW 36.70B.110. 2. When practical, minor applications, such as a variance or matters that take less time, shall be heard at the beginning of the day's agenda. 3. The Hearing Examiner may consolidate applications involving the same or related properties for hearing. C. Notice of Hearing — Effect of Notice. 1. Each public notice required for the hearing of an application shall conform to applicable statutory and ordinance requirements. The notice should contain a statement that the hearing will be conducted in the manner set forth in Appendix B. 2. Failure of a person entitled to receive notice does not affect the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner to hear the application when scheduled and render a decision, if the notice was properly mailed and posted. 24 3. A person is deemed to have received notice if the person appears at the hearing, or submits written comments on the merits of the application, and the person fails to object to the lack of notice promptly after the person obtains actual knowledge of the hearing date. 4. If required notice is not given and actual notice is not received, the Hearing Examiner may reschedule the hearing or keep the record open on the matter to receive additional evidence. D. Staff Reports on Applications. 1. The Department shall coordinate and assemble the comments and recommendations of other City departments and commenting agencies, and shall make a written staff report to the Hearing Examiner on all applications. 2. At least seven calendar days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing, the staff report shall be filed with the office of the Hearing Examiner and mailed by first class mail or provided to the applicant. At such time, the Department shall also make the report available for public inspection. Upon request, the Department shall provide or mail a copy of the report to any requesting person for the cost of reproduction and mailing. 3. If the staff report is not timely filed or furnished, the Hearing Examiner may at his/her discretion continue the hearing, considering the prejudice to any party and the circumstances of the case. 4. The Hearing Examiner may make recommendations to the Department on the format and content of staff reports submitted to the Hearing Examiner. E. Site Inspections. 1. The Hearing Examiner may make site inspections, which may occur at any time after the staff report on an application has been filed with the Hearing Examiner and before the Hearing Examiner renders a final decision. The Hearing Examiner need not give notice of the intention to make an inspection. 2. The inspection and the information obtained from it shall not be construed as new evidence or evidence outside the record. If an inspection reveals new and unanticipated information, the Hearing Examiner may, upon notice to all parties of record, request written response to such information or reopen the hearing to consider the information. 17.90.070 Time for and contents of an appeal to the City Council. All appeals to the City Council shall be closed -record appeals and shall follow the procedures and conduct as set forth below: A. Appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision to the City Council must be: 1. Filed with the City Clerk within 14 calendar days from the date the final decision of the Hearing Examiner was mailed; 2. Accompanied by the appeal fee identified by chapter 17.110 SVMC, Fees and Penalties; 3. Accompanied by the separate transcript/record deposit fee identified by chapter 17.110 SVMC, Fees and Penalties; and 25 4. Submitted on a form obtained from the City Clerk. B. The appeal form submitted by the appellant shall contain the following information: 1. The file number and a copy of the decision; 2. The name and mailing address of the appellant; the name and mailing address of the appellant's attorney, if any; and the name of the applicant, if different than the appellant; 3. Facts demonstrating that the appellant has standing to appeal; 4. A separate and concise statement of each error alleged to have been committed; 5. A separate and concise statement of facts upon which the appellant relies to sustain the statement of error; and 6. A request for relief, specifying the type and extent of relief requested. C. Upon receipt of the written appeal form and payment of the appeal fee, the City Clerk shall forward a copy of the appeal and the transcript/record deposit fee to the Hearing Examiner. D. The appeal shall be dismissed by the City Council if: 1. It is filed by a person without standing to appeal; 2. The City Council does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal; 3. It is not timely filed; 4. The appeal fee or the transcript/record deposit fee was not timely paid; 5. The appellant failed to timely pay the costs incurred by the Hearing Examiner in preparing the verbatim transcript and certified record, after being billed for such costs; or 6. It is not filed in accordance with the procedures set forth in these rules. All motions to dismiss a defective appeal shall be filed within 15 calendar days from the filing date of the appeal, except for a dismissal under subsection (D)(5) of SVMC 17.90.070. The City Council may dismiss an appeal under subsection (D)(5) of SVMC 17.90.070, upon receiving written notification from the Hearing Examiner that the appellant failed to timely pay the costs incurred by the Hearing Examiner for the appeal after being billed for such costs. E. The Hearing Examiner shall have 30 calendar days from the filing date of the appeal to prepare a verbatim transcript of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner and a certified copy of the documents in the record, and to bill the appellant for the costs incurred. The City Council may authorize a longer time, at the Hearing Examiner's request, for unusually large records or transcripts. 1. If the Hearing Examiner, the appellant, and the applicant (if different than the appellant), agree, or upon order of the City Council, the verbatim transcript and/or record may be shortened or summarized to avoid reproduction or transcription of portions of the record that are duplicative or irrelevant to the issues raised by the appeal. 2. Upon completion of the transcript and record, the Hearing Examiner shall bill the appellant for all costs incurred by the Hearing Examiner in preparing the verbatim transcript and certified record. The appellant shall pay the balance above and beyond 26 the deposit fee within seven calendar days from the date the bill was mailed or provided to the appellant. 3. Upon the appellant's payment of the bill for the cost of the transcript and record, the Hearing Examiner shall, by the next business day, deliver a copy of the appeal, verbatim transcript, and certified record to the City Clerk. The Hearing Examiner shall also provide to the City Clerk a list of the names and mailing addresses of the applicant and the parties of record to the hearing before the Hearing Examiner. 4. The City Clerk shall furnish copies of the transcript and record to the applicant, if different than the appellant, all members of the City Council, and the city attorney. The Hearing Examiner, upon request, will furnish copies of the transcript and record to the appellant, the applicant (if different than the appellant), and other entities that may request one at the cost of reproduction. 5. If the City Council dismisses the appeal on procedural grounds, the appellant shall reimburse the Hearing Examiner for the balance of the costs incurred by the Hearing Examiner in preparing the transcript and record as of the date of the dismissal, if any. 17.90.080 Appeal review process for City Council. The City Council, at its next regular meeting following receipt of the transcript and record from the Hearing Examiner, shall schedule a closed -record hearing on the appeal. A. The City Council shall schedule the appeal hearing no sooner than 30 calendar days from the date the transcript and record were received from the Hearing Examiner. B. The City Council may approve a later hearing date upon agreement of the applicant. C. The appellant, or a party of record in opposition to the appeal, may provide input as to the hearing date only in person at the meeting, or by submitting a letter to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. D. The City Clerk shall mail notice of the time, place, and date of the hearing to the appellant, the applicant (if different than the appellant), and all parties of record to the hearing before the Hearing Examiner within five calendar days from the date the appeal hearing was scheduled. E. Closed -record appeals before the City Council shall be concluded within 60 days from the date the transcript and record are received by the City Clerk, unless the applicant agrees in writing to a longer period. 17.90.090 City Council appeal hearing procedures. All appeals to the City Council shall be conducted in the manner set forth in Appendix C. Chapter 17.100 COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT Sections: 17.100.010 Purpose and scope. 17.100.020 Relationship to Growth Management Act. 17.100.030 Enforcement, authority, and administration. 17.100.040 Repealed. 17.100.050 Procedures when probable violation is identified. 17.100.060 Service — Notice and order and stop work order. 17.100.070 Training and rulemaking. 17.100.080 Obligations of persons responsible for Code violation. 27 17.100.090 17.100.100 17.100.110 17.100.120 17.100.130 17.100.140 17.100.150 17.100.160 17.100.170 17.100.180 17.100.190 17.100.200 17.100.210 17.100.220 17.100.230 17.100.240 17.100.250 17.100.260 17.100.270 17.100.280 17.100.290 17.100.300 17.100.310 17.100.320 17.100.330 17.100.340 Determination of compliance. Voluntary compliance agreement — Authority. Voluntary compliance agreement — Contents. Failure to meet terms of voluntary compliance agreement. Notice and order — Authority. Notice and order — Effect. Notice and order — Contents. Notice and order — Supplementation, revocation, modification. Notice and order — Administrative conference. Notice and order — Remedies — Suspension, revocation, or limitation of permit. Notice and order — Remedies — Denial of permit. Notice and order — Remedies — Abatement. Stop work order — Authority. Stop work order — Effect. Stop work order — Remedy — Civil penalties. Stop work order — Remedy — Criminal penalties. Civil penalties — Assessment schedule. Civil penalties — Duty to comply. Civil penalties — Community service. Civil penalties — Waivers. Civil penalties — Critical areas. Cost recovery. Collection of civil penalties, fees, and costs. Abatement. Code compliance abatement fund — Authorized. Judicial enforcement — Petition for enforcement. 17.100.010 Purpose and scope. Chapter 17.100 SVMC sets forth the enforcement procedures for violations of the following: A. Nuisances (chapter 7.05 SVMC); and B. Violations of any provisions of SVMC Titles 17 through 24. 17.100.020 Relationship to Growth Management Act. Chapter 17.100 SVMC is adopted as development regulations pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW (GMA). 17.100.030 Enforcement, authority, and administration. A. In order to discourage public nuisances and otherwise promote compliance with applicable Code provisions, the City may, in response to field observations, determine that violations of Titles 17 through 22 SVMC and Title 24 SVMC, have occurred or are occurring, and may: 1. Enter into voluntary compliance agreements with persons responsible for Code violations; 2. Issue notice and orders, assess civil penalties, and recover costs as authorized by chapter 17.100 SVMC; 3. Require abatement by means of a judicial abatement order, and if such abatement is not timely completed by the person or persons responsible for a Code violation, undertake the abatement and charge the reasonable costs of such work as authorized by chapter 17.100 SVMC; 28 4. Allow a person responsible for the Code violation to perform community service in lieu of paying civil penalties as authorized by chapter 17.100 SVMC; 5. Order work stopped at a site by means of a stop work order, and if such order is not complied with, assesses civil penalties as authorized by chapter 17.100 SVMC; 6. Suspend, revoke, or modify any permit previously issued by the City or deny a permit application as authorized by chapter 17.100 SVMC when other efforts to achieve compliance have failed; and 7. Forward a written statement providing all relevant information relating to the violation to the office of the city attorney with a recommendation to prosecute willful and knowing violations as misdemeanor offenses. B. The procedures set forth in chapter 17.100 SVMC are not exclusive. These procedures shall not in any manner limit or restrict the City from remedying or abating violations of Titles 17 through 24 SVMC and chapter 7.05 SVMC in any other manner authorized by law. C. In addition to, or as an alternative to, utilizing the procedures set forth in chapter 17.100 SVMC, the City may seek legal or equitable relief to abate any conditions or enjoin any acts or practices which constitute a Code violation. D. In addition to, or as an alternative to, utilizing the procedures set forth in chapter 17.100 SVMC, the City may assess or recover civil penalties accruing under chapter 17.100 SVMC by legal action filed in Spokane County district court or superior court by the office of the city attorney. E. The provisions of chapter 17.100 SVMC shall in no way adversely affect the rights of the owner, lessee, or occupant of any property to recover all costs and expenses incurred and required by chapter 17.100 SVMC from any person causing such violation. F. In administering the provisions for Code compliance, the City shall have the authority to waive any one or more such provisions so as to avoid substantial injustice. Any determination of substantial injustice shall be made in writing supported by appropriate facts. For purposes of SVMC 17.100.030, substantial injustice cannot be based exclusively on financial hardship. G. The City may, upon presentation of proper credentials, with the consent of the owner or occupier of a building or premises, or pursuant to a lawfully issued court order, enter at reasonable times any building or premises subject to the consent or court order to perform the duties imposed by the SVMC. It is the intent of the City Council that any entry made to private property for the purpose of inspection for Code violations be accomplished in strict conformity with constitutional and statutory constraints on entry, and the holdings of the relevant court cases regarding entry. The right of entry authorized by chapter 17.100 SVMC shall not supersede those legal constraints. H. The City may request that the police, appropriate fire district, Spokane Regional Health District, or other appropriate City department or other non -city agency assist in enforcement. 17.100.040 Guidelines for Departmental responses to complaints. Repealed by Ord. 12-027. 17.100.050 Procedures when probable violation is identified. A. The City shall determine, based upon information derived from sources such as field observations, the statements of witnesses, relevant documents, and data systems for tracking violations and applicable City Codes and regulations, whether or not a violation has occurred. As 29 soon as the City has reasonable cause to determine that a violation has occurred, the violation shall be documented and the person responsible for the Code violations promptly notified. B. Except as provided in subsection C of SVMC 17.100.050, a warning shall be issued verbally or in writing promptly when a field inspection reveals a violation, or as soon as the City otherwise determines a violation has occurred. The warning shall inform the person determined to be responsible for a Code violation of the violation and allow the person an opportunity to correct it or enter into a voluntary compliance agreement as provided for by chapter 17.100 SVMC. Verbal warnings shall be logged and followed up with a written warning within five days, and the site shall be reinspected within 14 days. C. No warning need be issued in emergencies, repeat violation cases, cases that are already subject to a voluntary compliance agreement, cases where the violation creates or has created a situation or condition that is not likely to be corrected within 72 hours, cases where a stop work order is necessary, or when the person responsible for the Code violation knows, or reasonably should have known, that the action was a Code violation. D. Notice and orders should be issued in all cases in which a voluntary compliance agreement has not been entered. E. The City shall use all reasonable means to determine and proceed against the person(s) actually responsible for the Code violation occurring when the property owner has not directly or indirectly caused the violation. F. If the violation is not corrected, or a voluntary compliance agreement is not entered into within 30 days of notification by the City, a notice and order or stop work order should be issued. Stop work orders should be issued promptly upon discovery of a violation in progress. 17.100.060 Service — Notice and order and stop work order. A. Service of a notice and order shall be made on a person responsible for Code violation by one or more of the following methods: 1. Personal service of a notice and order may be made on the person identified by the City as being responsible for the Code violation, or by leaving a copy of the notice and order at the person's house of usual abode with a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there; 2. Service directed to the landowner and/or occupant of the property may be made by posting the notice and order in a conspicuous place on the property where the violation occurred and concurrently mailing notice as provided for below, if a mailing address is available; or 3. Service by mail may be made for a notice and order by mailing one copy, postage prepaid, by ordinary first class mail to the person responsible for the Code violation at his or her last known address, at the address of the violation, or at the address of the place of business of the person responsible for the Code violation. The taxpayer's address as shown on the tax records of Spokane County shall be deemed to be the proper address for the purpose of mailing such notice to the landowner of the property where the violation occurred. Service by mail shall be presumed effective upon the third business day following the day upon which the notice and order was placed in the mail. B. For notice and orders only, when the address of the person responsible for the Code violation cannot be reasonably determined, service may be made by publication once a week for two consecutive weeks in an appropriate regional or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal. Service by publication shall be deemed complete at the expiration of the time prescribed for 30 publication. A notice and order served by publication shall be signed by a Code compliance officer, shall include the dates of the publication, and shall contain a brief statement of the nature of the action and how it can be remedied. C. Service of a stop work order on a person responsible for a Code violation may be made by posting the stop work order in a conspicuous place on the property where the violation occurred or by serving the stop work order in any other manner permitted by chapter 17.100 SVMC. D. The failure of the City to make or attempt service on any person named in the notice of violation, notice and order, or stop work order shall not invalidate any proceedings as to any other person duly served. 17.100.070 Training and rulemaking. The City shall adopt procedures to implement the provisions of chapter 17.100 SVMC, and specifically the guidelines set out in chapter 17.100 SVMC describing reasonable and appropriate protocols for investigating Code violations. 17.100.080 Obligations of persons responsible for Code violation. A. It shall be the responsibility of any person identified as responsible for a Code violation to bring the property into a safe and reasonable condition to achieve Code compliance. Payment of civil penalties, applications for permits, acknowledgement of stop work orders, and compliance with other remedies do not substitute for performing the corrective work required and having the property brought into compliance to the extent reasonably possible under the circumstances. B. Persons determined to be responsible for a Code violation pursuant to a notice and order shall be liable for the payment of any civil penalties and abatement costs. 17.100.090 Determination of compliance. After issuance of a warning, voluntary compliance agreement, notice and order, or stop work order, and after the person(s) responsible for a violation has come into compliance, the City shall issue a written determination of compliance. The City shall mail copies of the determination of compliance to each person originally named in the warning, voluntary compliance agreement, notice and order, or stop work order. 17.100.100 Voluntary compliance agreement — Authority. A. Whenever the City determines that a Code violation has occurred or is occurring, the City shall make reasonable efforts to secure voluntary compliance from the person responsible for the Code violation. Upon contacting the person responsible for the Code violation, the City may enter into a voluntary compliance agreement as provided for in chapter 17.100 SVMC. B. A voluntary compliance agreement may be entered into at any time after issuance of a verbal or written warning, a notice and order, or a stop work order and before an appeal is decided. C. Upon entering into a voluntary compliance agreement, a person responsible for a Code violation waives the right to administratively appeal, and thereby admits that the conditions described in the voluntary compliance agreement existed and constituted a Code violation. D. The voluntary compliance agreement shall incorporate the shortest reasonable time period for compliance, as determined by the City. An extension of the time limit for compliance or a modification of the required corrective action may be granted by the City if the person responsible for the Code violation has shown due diligence or substantial progress in correcting the violation, but circumstances render full and timely compliance under the original conditions unattainable. Any such extension or modification must be in writing and signed by the authorized representative of the City and person(s) who signed the original voluntary compliance agreement. 31 E. The voluntary compliance agreement is not a settlement agreement. 17.100.110 Voluntary compliance agreement — Contents. The voluntary compliance agreement is a written, signed commitment by the person(s) responsible for a Code violation in which such person(s) agrees to abate the violation, remediate the site, and/or mitigate the impacts of the violation. The voluntary compliance agreement shall include the following: A. The name and address of the person responsible for the Code violation; B. The address or other identification of the location of the violation; C. A description of the violation and a reference to the provision(s) of the ordinance, resolution, or regulation which has been violated; D. A description of the necessary corrective action to be taken and identification of the date or time by which compliance must be completed; E. The amount of the civil penalty that will be imposed if the voluntary compliance agreement is not satisfied; F. An acknowledgement that if the City determines that the terms of the voluntary compliance agreement are not met, the City may, without issuing a notice and order or stop work order, impose any remedy authorized by chapter 17.100 SVMC, enter the real property and perform abatement of the violation by the City, assess the costs incurred by the City to pursue Code compliance and to abate the violation, including reasonable legal fees and costs, and the suspension, revocation, or limitation of a development permit obtained or to be sought by the person responsible for the Code violation; G. An acknowledgement that if a penalty is assessed, and if any assessed penalty, fee or cost is not paid, the City may charge the unpaid amount as a lien against the property where the Code violation occurred if owned by the person responsible for the Code violation, and that the unpaid amount may be a joint and several personal obligation of all persons responsible for the violation; H. An acknowledgement that by entering into the voluntary compliance agreement, the person responsible for the Code violation thereby admits that the conditions described in the voluntary compliance agreement existed and constituted a Code violation; and An acknowledgement that the person responsible for the Code violation understands that he or she has the right to be served with a notice and order, or stop work order for any violation identified in the voluntary compliance agreement, has the right to administratively appeal any such notice and order or stop work order, and that he or she is knowingly and intelligently waiving those rights. 17.100.120 Failure to meet terms of voluntary compliance agreement. A. If the terms of the voluntary compliance agreement are not completely met, and an extension of time has not been granted, the person responsible for the violation may, without being issued a notice and order or stop work order, be assessed a civil penalty as set forth by chapter 17.100 SVMC, plus all costs incurred by the City to pursue Code compliance and to abate the violation, and may be subject to other remedies authorized by chapter 17.100 SVMC. Penalties imposed when a voluntary compliance agreement is not met accrue from the date that an appeal of any preceding notice and order or stop work order was to have been filed or from the date the voluntary compliance agreement was entered into if there was not a preceding notice and order or stop work order. 32 B. The City may issue a notice and order or stop work order for failure to meet the terms of a voluntary compliance agreement. 17.100.130 Notice and order — Authority. When the City has reason to believe, based on investigation of documents and/or physical evidence, that a Code violation exists or has occurred, or that the terms of a voluntary compliance agreement have not been met, the City is authorized to issue a notice and order to any person responsible for a Code violation. The City shall make a determination whether or not to issue a notice and order within 30 days of determining that a violation exists, or within 10 days of the end of a voluntary compliance agreement time period which has not been met. 17.100.140 Notice and order — Effect. A. A notice and order represents a determination that a violation has occurred, that the party to whom the notice is issued is a person responsible for a Code violation, and that the violations set out in the notice and order require the assessment of penalties and other remedies that may be specified in the notice and order. B. The City is authorized to impose civil penalties upon a determination by the City that a violation has occurred pursuant to a notice and order. C. Issuance of a notice and order in no way limits the City's authority to issue a stop work order to a person previously cited through the notice and order process pursuant to chapter 17.100 SVMC. 17.100.150 Notice and order — Contents. The notice and order shall contain the following information: A. The address, when available, or location of the violation; B. A legal description of the real property or the Spokane County tax parcel number where the violation occurred or is located, or a description identifying the property by commonly used locators; C. A statement that the City has found the named person(s) responsible for a violation and a brief description of the violation(s) found; D. A statement of the specific provisions of the ordinance, resolution, regulation, public rule, permit condition, notice and order provision, or stop work order that was or is being violated; E. A statement that a civil penalty is being assessed, including the dollar amount of the civil penalties, and that any assessed penalties must be paid within 14 days of service of the notice and order; F. A statement advising that any costs of enforcement incurred by the City shall also be assessed against the person to whom the notice and order is directed; G. A statement that payment of the civil penalties assessed under chapter 17.100 SVMC does not relieve a person found to be responsible for a Code violation of his or her duty to correct the violation and/or to pay any and all civil penalties or other cost assessments issued pursuant to chapter 17.100 SVMC; H. A statement of the corrective or abatement action required to be taken and that all required permits to perform the corrective action must be obtained from the proper issuing agency; 33 A statement advising that, if any required work is not commenced or completed within the time specified by the notice and order, the City may proceed to seek a judicial abatement order from Spokane County superior court to abate the violation; J. A statement advising that, if any assessed penalty, fee, or cost is not paid on or before the due date, the City may charge the unpaid amount as a lien against the property where the Code violation occurred if owned by a person responsible for a violation, and as a joint and several personal obligation of all persons responsible for a Code violation; K. A statement advising that any person named in the notice and order, or having any record or equitable title in the property against which the notice and order is recorded, may appeal from the notice and order to the Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of service of the notice and order; L. A statement advising that a failure to correct the violations cited in the notice and order could lead to the denial of subsequent Spokane Valley permit applications on the subject property; M. A statement advising that a failure to appeal the notice and order within the applicable time limits renders the notice and order a final determination that the conditions described in the notice and order existed and constituted a violation, and that the named party is liable as a person responsible for a violation; N. A statement advising the person responsible for a Code violation of his/her duty to notify the City of any actions taken to achieve compliance with the notice and order; and 0. A statement advising that failure to comply with the notice and order may be referred to the office of the city attorney for appropriate legal action. 17.100.160 Notice and order — Supplementation, revocation, modification. A. The City may add to, revoke, in whole or in part, or otherwise modify a notice and order by issuing a written supplemental notice and order. The supplemental notice and order shall be governed by the same procedures and time limits applicable to all notice and orders contained in chapter 17.100 SVMC. B. The City may issue a supplemental notice and order, or revoke a notice and order issued under chapter 17.100 SVMC: 1. If the original notice and order was issued in error; 2. Whenever there is new information or change of circumstances; or 3. If a party to an order was incorrectly named. 17.100.170 Notice and order — Administrative conference. An informal administrative conference may be conducted by the City at any time for the purpose of facilitating communication among concerned persons and providing a forum for efficient resolution of any violation. Interested parties shall not unreasonably be excluded from such conferences. 17.100.180 Notice and order — Remedies — Suspension, revocation, or limitation of permit. A. The City may suspend, revoke, or modify any permit issued by the City whenever: 1. The permit holder has committed a violation in the course of performing activities subject to that permit; 34 2. The permit holder has interfered with the authorized representatives of the City in the performance of his or her duties related to that permit; 3. The permit was issued in error or on the basis of materially incorrect information supplied to the City; 4. Permit fees or costs were paid to the City by check and returned from a financial institution marked nonsufficient funds (NSF) or canceled; or 5. There is a permit or approval that is subject to sensitive area review, and the applicant has failed to disclose a change of circumstances on the development proposal site which materially affects an applicant's ability to meet the permit or approval conditions, or which makes inaccurate the sensitive area study that was the basis for establishing permit or approval conditions. B. Such suspension, revocation, or modification shall be carried out through the notice and order provisions of chapter 17.100 SVMC and shall be effective upon the compliance date established by the notice and order. Such suspension, revocation, or modification may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner using the appeal provisions of chapter 17.100 SVMC. C. Notwithstanding any other provision of chapter 17.100 SVMC, the City may immediately suspend operations under any permit by issuing a stop work order. 17.100.190 Notice and order — Remedies — Denial of permit. A. The City may deny a permit when, with regard to the site or project for which the permit is submitted: 1. Any person owning the property or submitting the development proposal has been found in violation of any ordinance, resolution, regulation, or public rule of the City that regulates or protects the public health, safety, and welfare, or the use and development of land and water; and/or 2. Any person owning the property or submitting the development proposal has been found in violation and remains in violation of the conditions of any permit, notice and order, or stop work order issued pursuant to any such ordinance, resolution, regulation, or public rule. B. In order to further the remedial purposes of chapter 17.100 SVMC, such denial may continue until the violation is cured by restoration, accepted as complete by the City, and by payment of any civil penalty imposed for the violation, except that permits or approvals shall be granted to the extent necessary to accomplish any required restoration or cure. 17.100.200 Notice and order — Remedies — Abatement. In addition to, or as an alternative to, any other judicial or administrative remedy, the City may use the notice and order provisions of chapter 17.100 SVMC to order any person responsible for a Code violation to abate the violation and to complete the work at such time and under such conditions as the City determines reasonable under the circumstances. If the required corrective work is not commenced or completed within the time specified, the City may seek a judicial abatement order pursuant to chapter 17.100 SVMC. 17.100.210 Stop work order — Authority. The City is authorized to issue a stop work order to a person responsible for a Code violation. Issuance of a notice and order is not a condition precedent to the issuance of the stop work order. 35 17.100.220 Stop work order — Effect. A. A stop work order represents a determination that a Code violation has occurred or is occurring, and that any work or activity that caused, is causing or contributing to the violation on the property where the violation has occurred, or is occurring, must cease. B. A stop work order requires the immediate cessation of the specified work or activity on the named property. Work activity may not resume unless specifically authorized in writing by the City. C. A stop work order may be appealed according to the procedures prescribed in chapter 17.100 SVMC. D. Failure to appeal the stop work order within 20 days renders the stop work order a final determination that the civil Code violation occurred and that work was properly ordered to cease. E. A stop work order may be enforced by the City police. 17.100.230 Stop work order — Remedy — Civil penalties. A. In addition to any other judicial or administrative remedy, the City may assess civil penalties for the violation of any stop work order according to the civil penalty schedule established in SVMC 17.100.250. B. Civil penalties for the violation of any stop work order shall begin to accrue on the first day the stop work order is violated and shall cease accruing on the day the work is actually stopped. C. Violation of a stop work order shall be a separate violation from any other Code violation. 17.100.240 Stop work order — Remedy — Criminal penalties. In addition to any other judicial or administrative remedy, the City may forward to the office of the city attorney a detailed factual background of the alleged violation with a recommendation that a misdemeanor charge be filed against the person(s) responsible for any willful violation of a stop work order. 17.100.250 Civil penalties — Assessment schedule. A. Civil penalties for Code violations shall be imposed for remedial purposes for violations identified in a notice and order or stop work order, pursuant to the following schedule: Notice and orders and stop work orders — basic initial penalty: $500.00. B. Additional penalties shall be added where there is: 1. Second violation: $500.00. 2. Each subsequent violation (three or more): $1,000. 3. Economic benefit to person responsible for violation: $5,000. C. Civil penalties shall be paid within 20 days of service of the notice and order or stop work order if not appealed. Payment of the civil penalties assessed under chapter 17.100 SVMC does not relieve a person found to be responsible for a Code violation of his or her duty to correct the violation and/or to pay any and all civil penalties or other cost assessments issued pursuant to chapter 17.100 SVMC. D. The City may suspend civil penalties if the person responsible for a Code violation has entered into and fulfilled all requirements of a voluntary compliance agreement. 36 E. Civil penalties assessed create a joint and several personal obligation in all persons responsible for a Code violation. F. In addition to, or in lieu of, any other state or local provision for the recovery of civil penalties, the City may file for record with the Spokane County auditor to claim a lien against the real property for the civil penalties assessed under chapter 17.100 SVMC if the violation was reasonably related to the real property. Any such lien can be filed under chapter 17.100 SVMC if, after the expiration of 30 days from when a person responsible for a Code violation receives the notice and order or stop work order (excluding any appeal), any civil penalties remain unpaid in whole or in part. 17.100.260 Civil penalties — Duty to comply. Persons responsible for a Code violation have a duty to notify the City in writing of any actions taken to achieve compliance with the notice and order. For purposes of assessing civil penalties, a violation shall be considered ongoing until the person responsible for a Code violation has come into compliance with the notice and order, voluntary compliance agreement, or stop work order, and has provided sufficient evidence of such compliance. 17.100.270 Civil penalties — Community service. The City is authorized to allow a person responsible for a Code violation that accumulates civil penalties as a result of a notice and order, or for failure to comply with the terms of a voluntary compliance agreement, to voluntarily participate in an approved community service project(s) in lieu of paying all or a portion of the assessed civil penalties. Community service may include, but is not limited to, abatement, restoration, or education programs designed to clean up the City. The amount of community service will reasonably relate to the comparable value of penalties assessed against the violator. The rate at which civil penalties are worked off under SVMC 17.100.270 is $10.00 per hour. The City shall take into consideration the severity of the violation, any history of previous violations, and practical and legal impediments in considering whether to allow community service in lieu of paying penalties. 17.100.280 Civil penalties — Waivers. A. Civil penalties may be waived or reimbursed to the payer by the City under the following circumstances: 1. The notice and order or stop work order was issued in error; 2. The civil penalties were assessed in error; 3. New material information warranting waiver has been presented to the City since the notice and order or stop work order was issued; or 4. As appropriate to resolve litigation. B. The City shall state in writing the basis for a decision to waive penalties, and such statement shall become part of the public record unless privileged. 17.100.290 Civil penalties — Critical areas. A. The compliance provisions for critical areas are intended to protect critical areas and the general public from harm to meet the requirements of chapter 36.70A RCW (the GMA), and to further the remedial purposes of chapter 17.10 SVMC. To achieve this, persons responsible for a Code violation will not only be required to restore damaged critical areas, insofar as that is possible and beneficial, but will also be required to pay a civil penalty for the redress of ecological, recreational, and economic values lost or damaged due to their unlawful action. 37 B. The provisions of SVMC 17.100.290 are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other penalty, sanction, or right of action provided by law for other related violations. C. Where feasible, the owner of the land on which the violation occurred shall be named as a party to the notice and order. In addition to any other persons who may be liable for a violation, and subject to the exceptions provided in chapter 17.100 SVMC, the owner shall be jointly and severally liable for the restoration of a site and payment of any civil penalties imposed. D. Violation of critical area provisions of SVMC means: 1. The violation of any provision of chapter 21.40 SVMC, Critical Areas, or of the administrative rules promulgated thereunder; 2. The failure to obtain a permit required for work in a critical area; or 3. The failure to comply with the conditions of any permit, approval, terms and conditions of any sensitive area tract or setback area, easement, covenant, plat restriction or binding assurance, or any notice and order, stop work order, mitigation plan, contract, or agreement issued or concluded pursuant to the above-mentioned provisions. E. Any person in violation of chapter 21.40 SVMC, Critical Areas, may be subject to civil penalties, costs, and fees as follows: 1. According to the civil penalty schedule under SVMC 17.100.250; provided, that the exact amount of the penalty per violation shall be determined by the City based on the physical extent and severity of the violation; or 2. The greater of: a. An amount determined to be equivalent to the economic benefit that the person responsible for a Code violation derives from the violation, measured as the total of: The resulting increase in market value of the property; ii. The value received by the person responsible for a violation; The savings of construction costs realized by the person responsible for a Code violation as a result of performing any act in violation of chapter 21.40 SVMC, Critical Areas; or b. Code compliance costs incurred by the City to enforce chapter 21.40 SVMC, Critical Areas. 17.100.300 Cost recovery. A. In addition to the other remedies available under chapter 17.100 SVMC, upon issuance of a notice and order or stop work order the City shall charge the costs of pursuing Code compliance and abatement incurred to correct a Code violation to the person responsible for a Code violation. These charges include: 1. Reasonable Legal Fees and Costs. For purposes of SVMC 17.100.300, "reasonable legal fees and costs" shall include, but are not limited to, legal personnel costs, both direct and related, incurred to enforce the provisions of chapter 17.100 SVM as may be allowed by law; 38 2. Administrative Personnel Costs. For purposes of SVMC 17.100.300, "administrative personnel costs" shall include, but are not limited to, administrative employee costs, both direct and related, incurred to enforce the provisions of chapter 17.100 SVMC; 3. Abatement Costs. The City shall keep an itemized account of costs incurred by the City in the abatement of a violation under chapter 17.100 SVMC; and 4. Actual expenses and costs of the City in preparing notices, specifications, and contracts; in accomplishing or contracting and inspecting the work; and the costs of any required printing, mailing, or court filing fees. B. Such costs are due and payable 30 days from mailing of the invoice. C. All costs assessed by the City in pursuing Code compliance and/or abatement create joint and several personal obligations in all persons responsible for a violation. The office of the city attorney, on behalf of the City, may collect the costs of Code compliance efforts by any appropriate legal means. D. In addition to, or in lieu of, any other state or local provision for the recovery of costs, the City may, after abating a violation pursuant to chapter 17.100 SVMC, file for record with the Spokane County auditor to claim a lien against the real property for the assessed costs identified in chapter 17.100 SVMC if the violation was reasonably related to the real property, in accordance with any lien provisions authorized by state law. E. Any lien filed shall be subordinate to all previously existing special assessment liens imposed on the same property and shall be superior to all other liens, except for state and county taxes, with which it shall share priority. The City may cause a claim of lien to be filed for record within 90 days from the later of the date that the monetary penalty is due or the date the work is completed or the nuisance abated. The claim of lien shall contain sufficient information regarding the notice and order, a description of the property to be charged with the lien, the owner of record, and the total of the lien. Any such claim of lien may be amended from time to time to reflect changed conditions. Any such lien shall bind the affected property for the period as provided for by state law. 17.100.310 Collection of civil penalties, fees, and costs. The City may use the services of a collection agency in order to collect any civil penalties, fees, costs, and/or interest owing under chapter 17.100 SVMC. 17.100.320 Abatement. A. Emergency Abatement. Whenever a condition constitutes an immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare or to the environment, the City may summarily and without prior notice abate the condition. Notice of such abatement, including the reason for it, shall be given to the person responsible for the violation as soon as reasonably possible after the abatement. B. Judicial Abatement. The City may seek a judicial abatement order from Spokane County superior court to abate a condition which continues to be a violation of SVMC where other methods of remedial action have failed to produce compliance. C. The City shall seek to recover the costs of abatement as authorized by chapter 17.100 SVMC. 17.100.330 Code compliance abatement fund — Authorized. All monies collected from the assessment of civil penalties and for abatement costs and work shall be allocated to support expenditures for abatement, and shall be accounted for through either creation of an account in the fund for such abatement costs, or other appropriate accounting mechanism. 39 17.100.340 Judicial enforcement — Petition for enforcement. A. In addition to any other judicial or administrative remedy, the office of the city attorney, on behalf of the City, may seek enforcement of the City's order by filing a petition for enforcement in Spokane County superior court. B. The petition must name as respondent each person against whom the City seeks to obtain civil enforcement. C. A petition for civil enforcement may request monetary relief, declaratory relief, temporary or permanent injunctive relief, and any other civil remedy provided by law, or any combination of the foregoing. Chapter 17.110 FEES AND PENALTIES Sections: 17.110.010 Master fee schedule. 17.110.010 Master fee schedule. All fees and penalties for development permits, Code interpretations, violations of provisions of Title 17 SVMC or allowed appeals shall be set forth in the City Master Fee Schedule. A copy of this schedule shall be available at the Department. 40 Title 19 ZONING REGULATIONS Chapters: 19.10 Authority 19.20 Establishment of Zoning Districts 19.25 Nonconforming Uses and Structures 19.30 Changes and Amendments 19.40 Residential Development Options 19.50 Planned Residential Developments 19.60 Permitted Uses 19.65 Supplemental Use Regulations 19.70 Density and Dimensions 19.75 Transitional Regulations 19.80 Adult Uses 19.85 Marijuana Uses 19.90 Essential Public Facilities (EPFs) 19.100 Historic Preservation 19.110 Special Overlay Zones 19.120 Repealed 19.130 Site Plan Review 19.140 Administrative Exceptions 19.150 Conditional Use Permits 19.160 Temporary Use Permits 19.170 Variances 19.180 Newly Annexed Areas Chapter 19.10 AUTHORITY Sections: 19.10.010 Adoption authority. 19.10.020 Applicability. 19.10.010 Adoption authority. Title 19 SVMC is established pursuant to Section 11, Article XI of the Constitution of the State of Washington, RCW 35.63.080, chapter 35A.63 RCW, and chapter 36.70A RCW. 1 19.10.020 Applicability. Title 19 SVMC shall govern the occupation, use erection, alteration, removal, demolition, or conversion of any and all buildings, structures, and land located within the corporate limits of the City. Sections: 19.20.010 19.20.015 19.20.020 19.20.030 Chapter 19.20 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS Zoning districts. Zoning districts purpose. Zoning district map. Zoning district boundary considerations. 19.20.010 Zoning districts. The City has established the following zoning districts: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Single -Family Residential Single -Family Residential Single -Family Residential Multifamily Residential Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial Regional Commercial Industrial Industrial Mixed Use Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Map Symbol Zoning District R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU P/OS 19.20.015 Zoning districts purpose. Single -Family Residential Estate Single -Family Residential Suburban Single -Family Residential Urban Multi -family Residential Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial Regional Commercial Industrial Industrial Mixed Use Parks/Open Space A. R-1 — Single -Family Residential Estate. Preserves the distinct character of existing single-family large lot development, while allowing for a limited number of large animals. B. R-2 — Single -Family Residential Suburban. Preserves existing single-family development patterns, while allowing for development that is similar in size and scale to the surrounding neighborhood. C. R-3 - Single -Family Residential Urban. Allows for single-family residential development at an urban density that provides flexibility and promotes reinvestment in existing single-family neighborhoods. D. MFR — Multifamily Residential. Allows for multifamily housing located near business and commercial centers, the arterial street system, and public transit. Adjacent single-family zones are protected through transitional standards. 2 E. MU - Mixed Use. Allows for two or more different land uses within developments. Mixed-use developments can be either vertical or horizontally mixed, and could include employment uses such as office, retail, and/or lodging along with higher -density residential uses, and in some cases, community or cultural facilities. Adjacent residential zones are protected through transitional standards. F. CMU - Corridor Mixed Use. Allows for light manufacturing, retail, multifamily, and offices along major transportation corridors. Adjacent residential zones are protected through transitional standards. G. NC - Neighborhood Commercial. Allows for small-scale neighborhood retail and office uses while allowing for single-family development. H. RC - Regional Commercial. Allows a broad range of retail, wholesale, service, and other compatible uses, with a wide range of development types. Adjacent residential zones are protected through transitional standards. I — Industrial. Allows all types of industrial development such as manufacturing, processing, fabrication, assembly, disassembly, and freight -handling. Transitional standards protect adjacent non -industrial zones are from industrial uses significant noise, odor, or aesthetic impacts. J. IMU - Industrial Mixed Use. Allows retail, office, light manufacturing, and other light industrial uses such as contractor yards. Transitional standards protect adjacent non -industrial zones are from industrial uses that have significant noise, odor, or aesthetic impacts. K. P/OS — Parks/Open Space. Protects and provides for parks, open space, and other natural physical assets of the community. 19.20.020 Zoning district map. The boundaries of the zoning districts established herein are shown on the Zoning Map of the City and adopted as part of the SVMC. The Zoning Map shall be filed in the office of the City Clerk. The Director shall maintain and update the Zoning Map with any changes that the City Council may approve. 19.20.030 Zoning district boundary considerations. In determining the boundaries of any zoning district the following rules shall apply: A. When following the features below, zoning boundaries shall be construed as following: 1. The centerline of streets, highways, or alleys; 2. Platted lot lines; 3. City limits; 4. Railroad lines; or 5. The centerline of all creeks, streams, or drainage ways; B. When public right-of-way is vacated by official action of the City Council, the zoning district adjoining each side of such public right-of-way shall be automatically extended to its midpoint and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the extended districts; 3 C. Where the location of streets or alleys on the ground differ from the streets or alleys as shown on the Zoning Map, the location of the streets or alleys on the ground shall control; D. Zoning Map distances shall be determined by the scale of the map; E. The zoning district applied to property adjacent to the right-of-way shall extend to the centerline of the right-of-way; and F. When there is a question as to how or whether property is zoned that cannot be resolved by SVMC 19.20.030(A - E), the property shall be evaluated pursuant to chapter 19.180 SVMC, Newly Annexed Areas. Chapter 19.25 NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES Sections: 19.25.010 Applicability. 19.25.020 Continuing lawful use of property. 19.25.030 Nonconforming structures. 19.25.040 Completion of permanent structures. 19.25.010 Applicability. A. Legal nonconforming uses and structures include: 1. Any use which does not conform with the present regulations of the zoning district in which it is located that was in existence and in continuous and lawful operation prior to the adoption of Title 19; 2. Any permanent structure in existence and lawfully constructed at the time of any amendment to Title 19 SVMC, which by such amendment is placed in a zoning district wherein it is not otherwise permitted and has since been in regular and continuous use; 3. Any permanent structure lawfully used or constructed that was in existence at the time of annexation into the City and which has since been in regular and continuous use; 4. Existing legally -established single-family residential uses located in a nonresidential zoning district. B. Structures or uses deemed nonconforming only pursuant to the SMA (chapter 90.58 RCW) and the City SMP (chapter 21.50 SVMC, Shoreline Regulations) shall comply with the provisions of SVMC 21.50.160. 19.25.020 Continuing lawful use of property. A. The lawful use of land at the time of passage of Title 19 SVMC, or any amendments hereto, may be continued, unless the use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of 12 consecutive months; except that any nonconforming use discontinued as a result of foreclosure or judicial proceedings, including probate, shall be permitted to continue for a period not to exceed 24 months. The right to continue the nonconforming use shall transfer to all successive interests in the property. Discontinuance of a nonconforming use shall commence on the actual act or date of discontinuance. B. A nonconforming use that is abandoned or discontinued shall not be replaced with another nonconforming use. 4 C. A nonconforming use which has not been abandoned or discontinued may be replaced with a conforming use or another nonconforming use when the use meets the following criteria: 1. The new use is not less conforming than the prior use. This determination shall be made by the Director 2. The proposed use does not place a greater demand on transportation and other public facilities than the original use; and, 3. The proposed use does not adversely impact the use of neighboring property. D. A nonconforming use in residential zones may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original lot and any adjacent lot having the same ownership as the lot at the time the use on the original lot became nonconforming, if: 1. The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater than the original use; 2. The expanded use does not adversely impact the use of neighboring property; 3. Any transfer of ownership on adjacent lots was made concurrently with the transfer of ownership of the lot on which the nonconforming use is located as part of a single transaction; and 4. The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on adjacent lots that would not otherwise exist. E. A nonconforming use in a nonresidential zoning district may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original lot and any lot adjacent to the original lot, if: 1. The original lot and the "expansion" lot are in the same zoning district; 2. The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater than the original use; and 3. The expanded use does not adversely impact the use of neighboring property. F. Residential lots made nonconforming relative to dimensional requirements shall be deemed conforming if the use is allowed in the respective zoning district. G. Nonconforming uses that do not provide the required number of off-street parking spaces pursuant to current standards shall not be required to meet parking standards. H. Any nonconforming use damaged by fire, flood, neglect, or act of nature may be replaced if: 1. Restoration of the use is initiated within 12 months; and 2. The damage represents less than 80 percent of market value. Any nonconforming use changed to a conforming use shall not be permitted to convert to a nonconforming use. 19.25.030 Nonconforming structures. A nonconforming structure may be expanded in accordance with the following: 5 A. The expansion or alteration does not change the occupancy classification under adopted building Codes; B. The expansion or alteration does not create additional nonconformity with respect to building setbacks or lot coverage; additions to nonconforming structures shall meet setbacks required within the zoning district; C. The number of dwelling units does not increase so as to exceed the number of dwelling units permitted within current regulations; D. Off-street loading and/or parking, stormwater facilities, and landscaping shall be provided for the alteration or expansion in accordance with chapter 22.50 SVMC; and E. Nonconforming structures damaged by fire, flood, neglect, or act of nature may be replaced if: 1. Restoration of the structure is initiated within 12 months; and 2. The damage represents less than 80 percent of market value of the structure. 19.25.040 Completion of permanent structures. Compliance with chapter 19.25 SVMC shall not require changes to the plans, construction, or designated use of a structure for which: A. A building permit has been issued or a site plan approved by the City or County prior to incorporation of the City or the effective date of Title 19 SVMC; or B. A substantially complete application for a building permit was accepted by the building official on or before the effective date of the Title 19 SVMC; provided, that the building permit shall comply with all applicable regulations on the date that the application was filed and the building permit is issued within 180 days of the effective date of chapter 19.25 SVMC. Chapter 19.30 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS Sections: 19.30.010 Comprehensive Plan text and map amendments. 19.30.020 Area -wide rezones. 19.30.030 Site-specific Zoning Map amendments. 19.30.040 Development regulation text amendments. 19.30.010 Comprehensive Plan text and map amendments. A. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a), proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan shall only be processed once per year except for the adoption of original subarea plans, amendments to the SMP, the amendment of the capital facilities chapter concurrent with the adoption of the City budget, in the event of an emergency, or to resolve an appeal of the Comprehensive Plan filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board. B. Comprehensive Plan text and map amendments are classified as Type IV development applications and shall be processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140. 19.30.020 Area -wide rezones. A. Area -wide rezones shall be considered only in conjunction with updates to the Comprehensive Plan text and maps to ensure full consideration of the cumulative effects of all changes. 6 B, Area -wide rezones are classified as Type IV development applications and shall be processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140. 19.30.030 Site-specific Zoning Map amendments. A. Site-specific Zoning Map amendment requests may be submitted at any time. Site-specific Zoning Map amendments are classified as Type 111 development applications and shall be processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140. B. All site-specific Zoning Map amendment requests shall meet all of the following criteria: 1. Meet the requirements of chapter 22.20 SVMC, Concurrency; 2. Be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation; 3. Bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, and welfare; 4. Be warranted in order to achieve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan or because of a need for additional property in the proposed zoning district classification, or because the proposed zoning classification is appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property; 5. Be adjacent and contiguous (which shall include corner touches and property located across a public right-of-way) to property of the same or higher zoning classification; 6. Not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and 7. Have merit and value for the community as a whole. 19.30.040 Development regulation text amendments. Requests to amend Titles 17 through 24 SVMC may be submitted at any time. Text amendments are classified as Type IV development applications and shall be processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150. Chapter 19.40 ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS Sections: 19.40.010 Purpose. 19.40.020 Relationship to other SVMC provisions. 19.40.030 Development standards — Accessory dwelling units. 19.40.040 Development standards — Industrial accessory dwelling units. 19.40.050 Development standards — Cottages. 19.40.060 Development standards — Duplexes. 19.40.070 Development standards — Manufactured homes on individual lots. 19.40.080 Development standards — Manufactured home parks. 19.40.090 Reserved. 19.40.100 Development standards — Townhouses. 19.40.110 Community buildings and community space. 19.40.120 Homeowner's or property owner association required. 19.40.010 Purpose. 7 The purpose of chapter 19.40 SVMC is to provide alternative residential development options to traditional single-family dwellings and multifamily dwellings. These standards provide opportunities changing composition of households and the need for smaller, more diverse, and often, more affordable housing choices. Providing for a variety of housing types also encourages innovation and diversity in housing design and site development, while ensuring compatibility with surrounding single-family residential and non-residential development. 19.40.020 Relationship to other SVMC provisions. A. Title 19 SVMC, Zoning Regulations. The standards of chapter 19.40 SVMC modify and supplement the standards in other provisions of Title 19 SVMC. In the event of a conflict between the standards in chapter 19.40 SVMC and other requirements of Title 19 SVMC, the provisions of chapter 19.40 SVMC shall govern. B. Chapter 17.80 SVMC, Permit Processing Procedures. Alternative residential development is allowed in the zoning districts shown in the permitted use matrix in SVMC 19.60.050. 19.40.030 Development standards — Accessory dwelling units. A. Site. 1. An ADU may be developed in conjunction with either an existing or new primary dwelling unit; 2. One ADU, attached or detached, is allowed per lot; and 3. One off-street parking for the ADU is required in addition to the off-street parking required for the primary dwelling unit. B. Building. 1. The ADU shall be designed to meet the appearance of a single-family residence and shall be the same or visually match the primary dwelling unit in the type, size, and placement of the following: a. Exterior finish materials; b. Roof pitch; c. Trim; and d. Windows, in proportion (relationship of width to height) and orientation (horizontal or vertical); 2. The entrance to an attached ADU shall be located on the side or in the rear of the structure or in such a manner as to be unobtrusive in appearance when viewed from the front of the street. Only one entrance may be located on the facade of the primary dwelling unit in order to maintain the appearance of a single-family residence; 3. The ADU shall not exceed 50 percent of the habitable square footage of the primary dwelling unit, nor be less than 300 square feet; 4. The footprint of the ADU shall not exceed 10 percent of the lot area or 1,000 square feet, whichever is greater; and 5. The ADU unit shall not have more than two bedrooms. 8 C. Additional Development Standards for ADUs. 1. ADUs shall be located behind the front building setback line and placed on a permanent foundation; 2. ADUs shall preserve all side yard and rear yard setbacks for a dwelling unit pursuant to Table 19.70-1; 3. ADUs shall not be allowed on lots containing a duplex, multifamily dwelling, or accessory apartment contained within the principal structure; and 4. Existing detached accessory structures may be converted into detached ADUs; provided, that all development standards and criteria are met, including side yard and rear yard setbacks. D. Other. 1. The owner, as established by the titleholder, shall occupy either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU as their permanent residence for six months or more of the calendar year and at no time receive rent for the owner -occupied unit. The application for the ADU shall include a letter from the owner affirming that one legal titleholder lives in either unit, meeting the requirement of owner occupancy. 2. Prior to issuance of occupancy, a deed restriction shall be recorded with the Spokane County auditor to indicate the presence of an ADU, the requirement of owner occupancy, and other standards for maintaining the unit as described in the SVMC. 3. Home businesses are prohibited in the ADU. 4. Approval of an ADU may be revoked if the ADU is no longer in compliance with the development standards and criteria outlined in the SVMC. 5. The owner may cancel an ADU's registration by filing a letter with Spokane County auditor. The ADU may also be cancelled as a result of an enforcement action. 6. Cargo shipping containers and similar enclosures are not a permitted accessory structure in any residential zoning district. 19.40.040 Development standards — Industrial accessory dwelling units. A. Site. 1. An industrial ADU may be developed in conjunction with either an existing or new building; 2. The maximum number of allowed industrial ADUs is 10 per site; and 3. One off-street parking for each ADU is required in addition to the off-street parking required for the primary use. B. Building. 1. The ADU, excluding any garage area, is prohibited on the first floor of the building; and 2. The ADU unit shall not have more than two bedrooms. 9 C. Permit Type. Industrial accessory dwelling units shall require approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to chapter 19.150 SVMC. 19.40.050 Development standards — Cottage development. A. Site. 1. The design of a cottage development shall take into account the relationship of the site to the surrounding areas. The perimeter of the site shall be designed to minimize adverse impact of the cottage development on adjacent properties and, conversely, to minimize adverse impact of adjacent land use and development characteristics on the cottage development; 2. The maximum density shall be two times the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone; 3. Where feasible, each cottage that abuts a common open space shall have a primary entry and/or covered porch oriented to the common open space; 4. Buildings shall meet the following minimum setback standards: a. 20 -foot front yard setback; b. 10 -foot rear yard setback; and c. 5 -foot side yard setback; 5. Common open space is required and shall meet the following criteria: a. 400 square feet of common open space per cottage; b. Setbacks and private open space shall not be counted towards the common open space; c. One common open space shall be located centrally to the project with pathways connecting the common open space to the cottages and any shared garage building and community building; d. Cottages shall surround the common open space on a minimum of two sides of the open space; and e. Community buildings may be counted toward the common open space requirement; 6. One and one-half off-street parking spaces for each cottage is required. B. Building. 1. Cottages shall not exceed 900 square feet, excluding any loft or partial second story and porches. A cottage may include an attached garage, not to exceed an additional 300 square feet. 2. The building height for a cottage shall not exceed 25 feet. 10 3. The building height for any attached garage or shared garage building shall not exceed 20 feet. 4. Buildings shall be varied in height, size, proportionality, orientation, rooflines, doors, windows, and building materials. 5. Porches shall be required. C. Other. 1. Accessory dwelling units are prohibited. 2. All other SVMC provisions that are applicable to a single-family dwelling unit shall be met. D. Permit Type. Cottage development shall require approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to chapter 19.150 SVMC. E. Title 20 SVMC, Subdivision Regulations. The design requirements of SVMC 20.20.090 are waived. 19.40.060 Development standards — Duplexes. Duplexes shall meet the minimum lot size per dwelling unit, setback standards, maximum lot coverage, and building height standards shown in Table 19.70-1. 19.40.070 Development standards — Manufactured homes on individual lots. A. Pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.21.684, the City does not discriminate against consumers' choices in the placement or use of a home that is not equally applicable to all homes. This section applies only to manufactured housing units placed on individual lots. B. Homes built to 42 U.S.C. 70 Sections 5401 through 5403 standards (as they may be amended) are regulated for the purposes of siting in the same manner as site -built homes, factory -built homes, or homes built to any other state construction or local design standard; provided, however, that the manufactured home shall: 1. Be set upon a permanent foundation, as specified by the manufacturer, and that the space from the bottom of the home to the ground be enclosed by concrete or an approved product which can be either load-bearing or decorative; 2. Comply with all local design standards, including the requirement for a pitched roof with a slope of not less than 3:12, applicable to all other homes within the neighborhood in which the manufactured home is to be located; 3. Be thermally equivalent to the state energy code; and 4. Otherwise meet all other requirements for a designated manufactured home as defined in RCW 35.63.160. C. This section does not override any legally recorded covenants or deed restrictions of record. D. An existing single -wide manufactured home may be replaced with a new single -wide manufactured home when replacement is initiated within 12 months of the date of damage which represents less than 80 percent of market value, or removal of existing habitable manufactured home. 11 E. Manufactured homes with dimensional features that match or closely match the predominant manufactured home type within a manufactured home subdivision may be placed in the manufactured home subdivision without regard to the age of the manufactured home. 19.40.080 Development standards — Manufactured home parks. A. Manufactured home parks shall require approval of a binding site plan and site plan review pursuant to Title 20 SVMC, Subdivision Regulations, and chapter 19.130 SVMC, Site Plan Review. B. Manufactured home park density shall be consistent with the zoning classification they are located in not to exceed 12 units per acre. A minimum of five manufactured home spaces shall be required per park. C. Manufactured home parks shall provide at least 10 percent of the gross area of the park for common open space for the use of its residents. D. Each manufactured home space shall have direct frontage on a public or private street. E. The minimum setbacks shall be pursuant to Table 19.40-1. Table 19.40-1 Manufactured Home Park Minimum Setbacks (in Feet)' 'Greater setback shall control. 19.40.090 Reserved. 19.40.100 Development standards — Townhouses. A. In zero lot line developments approved as part of a planned residential development, zero setbacks along one side are allowed, provided a two -foot maintenance easement is recorded as part of the subdivision plan. B. Townhouses located on individual lots, shall meet minimum rear, front, and side yard requirements (where applicable), minimum area requirements, maximum lot coverage, and building height requirements shown in Table 19.70-1. Townhouses are subject to the following requirements: 1. No more than six dwelling units shall be attached in one continuous row or group; 12 Minimum setback from the property lines of individual in park spaces Minimum setback from the boundary of the manufactured home park Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Right -of -Way Manufactured homes 5 5 5 10 10 20 Patio covers, decks, landings, awnings 5 5 5 5 5 20 Carports 5 5 5 5 5 20 'Greater setback shall control. 19.40.090 Reserved. 19.40.100 Development standards — Townhouses. A. In zero lot line developments approved as part of a planned residential development, zero setbacks along one side are allowed, provided a two -foot maintenance easement is recorded as part of the subdivision plan. B. Townhouses located on individual lots, shall meet minimum rear, front, and side yard requirements (where applicable), minimum area requirements, maximum lot coverage, and building height requirements shown in Table 19.70-1. Townhouses are subject to the following requirements: 1. No more than six dwelling units shall be attached in one continuous row or group; 12 2. Townhouse unit shall not be constructed above another townhouse unit; 3. There shall be a side yard on each side of a contiguous row or group of dwellings of not less than six feet; 4. Townhouses included in a condominium development may limit the lot to the building footprint; provided, that the yard area shared in common with all units is equivalent in area to the yard required by the underlying zone. 19.40.110 Community buildings. Community buildings are encouraged in cottage developments. Community buildings shall meet the following criteria: A. Community buildings shall be clearly incidental in use and shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. B. Community buildings shall be no more than 20 feet in height. C. Community buildings shall be commonly owned and maintained by the property owners. 19.40.120 Homeowner's or property owner association required. In a cottage development or manufactured home park, a property owners' or homeowners' association shall be established for the purpose of ownership, maintenance, and management of open spaces, common areas, and buildings, and private streets as required by the provisions of the SVMC. Chapter 19.50 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS Sections: 19.50.010 Purpose. 19.50.020 Where permitted. 19.50.030 Permitted uses. 19.50.040 Relationship to other SVMC provisions. 19.50.050 Development standards. 19.50.060 Open space standards. 19.50.070 Administration. 19.50.080 Homeowners' or property owners' association required. 19.50.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of chapter 19.50 SVMC is to: A. Encourage imaginative design and the creation of permanent open space by permitting greater flexibility in zoning requirements than is generally permitted by other sections of the SVMC; B. Preserve or create environmental amenities superior to those generally found in conventional developments; C. Create or preserve usable open space for the enjoyment of the residents; D. Preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural characteristics of the land including, but not limited to, topography, natural vegetation, waterways, and views; E. Encourage development of a variety of housing types; and 13 F. Provide for maximum efficiency in the layout of streets, utility networks, and other public improvements and infrastructure. 19.50.020 Where permitted. Planned residential developments (PRDs) are permitted in all residential zoning districts in the City. 19.50.030 Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in a PRD; provided, that they meet the standards and criteria established in chapter 19.50 SVMC: A. Those uses permitted as a matter of right in the underlying zoning district; B. Residential developments of all types as defined by chapter 19.50 SVMC; and C. As a secondary use, uses permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district may be permitted in a PRD of 10 acres or larger. 19.50.040 Relationship to other SVMC provisions. A. Title 19 SVMC, Zoning Requirements. The provisions of chapter 19.50 SVMC pertaining to land use of the underlying zoning district shall govern the use of land in a PRD. The specific setback, lot size, height limits, and other dimensional requirements are waived and the regulations for PRDs shall be those indicated in SVMC 19.50.050. B. Title 20 SVMC, Subdivision Requirements. A PRD shall be exempt from the specific design requirements of Title 20 SVMC except that when any parcel of land in a PRD is intended for individual ownership, sale, or public dedication, the subdivision and procedural requirements of Title 20 SVMC and applicable state laws pertaining to subdivision, conveyance of land, and the preparation of maps shall be followed. C. Chapter 17.80 SVMC, Permit Processing Procedures. A PRD is a Type III permit type and shall require a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner consistent with the provisions of chapter 17.80 SVMC. 19.50.050 Development standards. The following standards shall govern the administration of chapter 19.50 SVMC: A. Relationship of PRD Site to Adjacent Areas. The design of a PRD shall take into account the relationship of the site to the surrounding areas. The perimeter of the PRD shall be designed to minimize adverse impact of the PRD on adjacent properties and, conversely, to minimize adverse impact of adjacent land use and development characteristics on the PRD. B. Site Acreage Minimum. The minimum site shall be five acres. C. Minimum Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of the SVMC do not apply in a PRD. D. Density. The Hearing Examiner may authorize a dwelling unit density up to 20 percent greater than that permitted by the underlying zone, rounded to the nearest whole number. E. Maximum Coverage. Lot coverage shall not exceed the percentage permitted by the underlying zone. F. Landscaping Required. All common open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant and approved by the Hearing Examiner. Natural 14 landscape features which are to be preserved, such as existing trees, drainage ways, rock outcrops, etc. may be accepted as part of the landscaping plan. G. Setback and Side Yard Requirements. 1. Setbacks from the exterior boundary line of the PRD area shall be comparable to or compatible with those of the existing development of adjacent properties, or, if adjacent properties are undeveloped, the type of development which may reasonably be expected on such properties given the existing zoning. 2. Setbacks or Side Yards Between Buildings. The standard setbacks and yard requirements between buildings may be waived in a PRD. Buildings may have common walls. H. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with chapter 22.50 SVMC, Off-street Parking and Loading Standards. Secondary Use Limitations. 1. Commercial uses shall comply with chapter 19.30 SVMC, Site Plan Review. Site plans shall be included in the application for the PRD; 2. The gross floor area of the commercial use shall not exceed the product of 50 square feet multiplied by the number of dwelling units within the development; and 3. Construction of at least 35 percent of the residences in the PRD shall be completed before issuing any building permits for the construction of commercial uses, except this shall not prohibit a sales office. 19.50.060 Open space standards. Each PRD shall dedicate at least 30 percent of the gross land area for common open space for the use of its residents. Common open space areas shall meet the following criteria: A. Location. The open space shall be entirely within the PRD and within reasonable walking distance of all dwelling units in the PRD. Where practical, the common open space shall be located adjacent to other established or planned park and recreational areas in adjacent developments, schools, or City parks; provided, that such dedication would increase the overall benefit to the residents of the PRD and conform to other criteria in SVMC 19.50.060. B. Access. All dwelling units within the PRD shall have legal access to the proposed common open space at the time of final PRD approval. Private or access streets, trees, or other landscaping may separate the common open space area; however, access may not be blocked by major obstacles such as arterial, collector streets, or significant natural features such as rivers, streams, or topographic features. Active recreational open space areas shall have reasonable access from street frontages. C. Types of Open Space. 1. Land dedicated for open space shall be usable for either greenbelts that serve as a buffer between land uses, using existing vegetation, or an aesthetic amenity such as boulevard trees, active recreational activities, or for protecting critical areas. 2. Except as provided in SVMC 19.50.060(C)(4), a minimum of 30 percent of the required common open space area shall be suitable for active recreation. The topography, soils, 15 hydrology, and other physical characteristics of the active recreation area shall provide a dry, obstacle -free space in a configuration which is suitable for active recreation. 3. The percentage of active recreational areas may be increased to as high as 50 percent if it is determined that anticipated recreational needs require a larger percentage. In increasing this percentage, the following standard shall be used: the ratio of one acre to 125 residential units. 4. The percentage of active recreational area may be decreased to as low as 15 percent if it is determined that: a. Inclusion of buffers or critical areas better meet the open space needs of the residents of the PRD; or b. A higher percentage would lead to the detrimental grading or other disturbance of the natural setting. D. Open space area shall not include: 1. Accessory buildings and areas reserved for the exclusive use and benefit of an individual tenant or owner; 2. Public rights-of-way, private streets, residential driveways, parking areas, loading or storage areas, or setback areas; 3. Floodplain (100 -year), flood -prone areas, drainage easements, natural drainage areas, or creeks. E. Implementation. The open space area shall be dedicated in common to the property owners within the plat or to a property owners' or homeowners' association. Maintenance and operation of the open space shall be the responsibility of the property owners' or homeowners' association. 1. The City may choose to accept dedication, maintenance, and operation responsibilities when the common open space area is in the public interest and complies with at least one of the following: a. Is greater than 10 acres; b. Is adjacent to an established or future City park or school grounds; c. Is an access to a body of water greater than three acres in size; or d. Is a critical area. 2. The dedication shall be identified on the PRD plan. F. Improvements. The following improvements to the open space area may be required prior to final approval of the PRD: 1. Removal of construction debris and hazards; and 2. Rough grading and establishment of grass cover over those portions of the site suitable for playfields. G. Equivalent Facilities. When proposed open space areas do not meet the criteria for dedication in chapter 19.50 SVMC, such land may be improved by grading, filling, landscaping, or with 16 installation of recreation equipment so as to be equivalent in result to the intent of chapter 19.50 SVMC. The Director shall determine if the proposal is equivalent based on the following guidelines: 1. The proposed land and improvements shall create recreational opportunities generally equivalent to or greater than the land required for the residents within the PRD; and 2. The proposed land and improvements shall not significantly disturb or alter a critical area, unless otherwise allowed by the City. H. Stormwater Facilities. Stormwater facilities may be allowed by the City as open space subject to the following criteria: 1. The stormwater facility shall drain fully within 72 hours after a storm event unless the facility is designed as an aesthetic amenity; 2. The side slope of the stormwater facility shall not exceed 3:1 unless slopes are existing, natural, and vegetated; 3. If the stormwater facilities are located adjacent to or near a natural, year-round stream or wetland, these systems shall be left in natural or near -natural condition; 4. The stormwater facilities shall be landscaped in a manner which is both aesthetic and able to withstand the inundation expected; 5. The stormwater facility shall not be fenced or otherwise rendered unsuitable or unavailable for recreation use during dry weather; and 6. In the case of joint use of open space for stormwater and recreation, the homeowners or homeowners' association shall be responsible for maintenance of the stormwater facilities. Rights and Duties. The owners of open space shall have the following rights on the common open area, subject to restrictive covenants or other restrictions: 1. The right to locate recreational facilities, such as tennis courts, swimming pools, picnic tables, and fireplaces (accessory to picnic tables) for the exclusive use of residents of the PRD and their guests; 2. The right to locate pedestrian, bicycle, and bridle paths; 3. The right to protect and maintain the common space area or to correct a hazardous condition posing a threat to life or limb; 4. The right to regulate access to the open space land and the duty to maintain it. 19.50.070 Administration. A. Building permits and other required permits for the development of property under the provisions of chapter 19.50 SVMC, shall be issued only when, in the opinion of the Director, the work to be performed meets the requirements of the final plan and program elements of the PRD. B. Minor and Major Adjustments. 1. Minor adjustments may be made and approved by the Director when a building permit is issued. Minor adjustments are those which may affect the precise dimensions or siting of 17 buildings, but which do not affect the basic character or arrangement of buildings approved in neither the final plan, the density of the development, or the open space requirements. Such dimensional adjustments shall not vary more than 10 percent from the original. 2. Major adjustments are those which, in the opinion of the Director, substantially change the basic design, density, open space or other requirements of the PRD. When, in the opinion of the Director, a change constitutes a major adjustment, a building, or other permit shall not be issued without prior review and approval by the Hearing Examiner of such adjustment. C. Parties Bound. Once the preliminary development plan is approved, all persons and parties, their successors, heirs, or assigns, who own, have, or will have by virtue of purchase, inheritance, or assignment, any interest in the real property within the proposed PRD, shall be bound by the conditions attending the approval of the development and the provisions of chapter 19.50 SVMC. 19.50.080 Homeowners' or property owners' association required. In a PRD, a property owners' or homeowners' association shall be established for the purpose of ownership, maintenance, and management of open spaces, common areas, and private streets as required by the provisions of the SVMC. Chapter 19.60 PERMITTED USES Sections: 19.60.010 General. 19.60.020 Use categories. 19.60.030 Uses not listed. 19.60.040 Explanation of table abbreviations. 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. 19.60.010 General. A. Uses allowed in each zoning district are shown in SVMC 19.60.050, Permitted uses matrix. B. Uses within shoreline jurisdiction are also subject to additional use restrictions pursuant to chapter 21.50 SVMC, Shoreline Regulations. 19.60.020 Use categories. Uses are assigned to the category that describes most closely the nature of the use. Uses have been classified into general use categories and subcategories. Definitions and examples are provided in SVMC Appendix A, Definitions. 19.60.030 Uses not listed. A. If a use is not listed, the Director shall have the authority to allow uses that are similar to a use category or use listed in SVMC 19.60.050 Table 19.60-1, subject to the same review procedures as the similar use. B. Accessory uses. The Director shall have the authority to allow accessory uses when they are subordinate to, or incidental to, the primary use on the same lot and permitted within the zoning district. 18 C. Temporary uses. Temporary uses are permitted for a limited period of time or pending the occurrence of an event pursuant to chapter 19.160 SVMC, Temporary Use Permits. 19.60.040 Explanation of table abbreviations. The following describe the abbreviations used in SVMC 19.60.050, Permitted uses matrix: A. Permitted uses are designated with a "P." Permitted uses are allowable uses within a zoning district. B. Conditional uses are designated with a "C." Conditional uses are authorized pursuant to chapter 19.150 SVMC, Conditional Use Permits. C. Regional siting uses are designated with an "R." Regional siting uses are of statewide or regional/countywide significance. They are authorized pursuant to chapter 19.90 SVMC, EPFs. D. Uses subject to supplemental use regulations are designated with an "S." The Supplemental regulations are set forth in chapter 19.65 SVMC and shall apply to the corresponding supplemental uses listed in SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted use matrix. E. Prohibited uses are designated with a blank cell. 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. 19 Residential Mixed -Use Commercial Industrial Parks and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Agriculture and Animal Animal processing/handling P Animal raising and/or keeping S S S S S S Animal shelter S P P Beekeeping, commercial P Beekeeping, hobby S S S Community garden S S S S S S S Greenhouse/nursery, commercial P P P Kennel S S S S P P Orchard, tree farming, commercial P P Riding stable P P C Communication Facilities Radio/TV broadcasting studio P P P P Repeater facility P P P P P P P P Telecommunication wireless antenna array S S S S S S S S S S Telecommunication wireless support tower S S S S S S S S S S Tower, ham operator S S S S S S S S S S Community Services Community hall, club, or lodge P P P P P P P 19 20 Residential Mixed-Use Commercial Industrial Parks and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Church, temple, mosque, synagogue and house of worship P P P P P P P P Crematory P P P P Funeral home P P Transitional housing C Day Care Day care, adult P P P P P P P P P P Day care, child (12 children or fewer) P P P P P P P P P P Day care, child (13 children or more) C C C P P P P P P P Eating and Drinking Establishment P P P P P P S Education Schools, college or university P P P Schools, K through 12 P P P P P P P P Schools, professional, vocational and trade schools P P P P P P Schools, specialized training/studios P P P P Entertainment Adult entertainment and retail S Casino P P P Cultural facilities P P P P Exercise facility S S S S Off-road recreational vehicle use P P Major event entertainment P P P Racecourse P P P P Racetrack P P Recreational facility P P P P P P Theater, indoor P P P Group Living Assisted living/convalescent/nursing home P P P P Community residential facilities (6 residents or less) P P P P P P Community residential facilities (greater than 6 residents under 25) P P P Dwelling, congregate P P P Industrial, Heavy Assembly, heavy P Hazardous waste treatment and storage S S Manufacturing, heavy P Processing, heavy P Mining S 20 21 Residential Mixed -Use Commercial Industrial Parks and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Industrial, Light Assembly, light P P P P P Manufacturing, light P P P Processing, light P P Recycling facility S S S S Industrial service P P Lodging Bed and breakfast P PP P P Hotel/motel P P P P Recreational vehicle park/campground S Marijuana uses Marijuana club or lounge Marijuana cooperative Marijuana processing S S Marijuana production S S Marijuana sales S S S Medical S P P P P P Office Animal clinic/veterinary S S S S S Office, professional P P P P P P P Parks and Open Space Cemetery P P P Golf course P PP P P P P P Golf driving range 0 0 0 0 P C P P P Parks P PP P P P P P P Public/Quasi-Public Community facilities P PP P P P P P P P P Essential public facilities R R R R R R R R R Public utility local distribution facility S S S S S S S P P P S Public utility transmission facility S SS S S S S S S S S Tower, wind turbine support S S S S Residential Dwelling, accessory units S S S S S S S S Dwelling, caretaker's residence S S S S S Dwelling, cottage S S S S Dwelling, duplex P P P P Dwelling, industrial accessory dwelling unit S S Dwelling, multifamily P P P Dwelling, single-family P PP P P P P 21 22 Residential Mixed -Use Commercial Industrial Parks and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Dwelling, townhouse S S S S S Manufactured home park S S Retail Sales and Service P P S P P S S Transportation Airstrip, private P P Battery charging stations S S S P P P P P P P S Electric vehicle infrastructure P P P P P P P Heliport P P Helistop C C P Parking facility- controlled access P P P P P Railroad yard, repair shop and roundhouse P Transit center P P P P P Vehicle Services Automobile impound yard P P Automobile/taxi rental P P P P P Automobile parts, accessories and tires P P P P P Automobile/truck/RV/motorcycle painting, repair, body and fender works P P P P Car wash P P S P P P Farm machinery sales and repair P P P Fueling station P P S P P P Heavy truck and industrial vehicles sales, rental, repair and maintenance P P Passenger vehicle, boat, and RV sales, service and repair P P P Towing P P P P Truck stop P P Warehouse, Wholesale, and Freight Movement Auction house P P P Auction yard (excluding livestock) P P Catalog and mail order houses P P P P P Cold storage/food locker P P Freight forwarding P P Grain elevator P P Storage, general indoor P P S P P P Storage, general outdoor S S S S P P Storage, self-service facility P P P P P P Tank storage, critical material above ground S S 22 Chapter 19.65 SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS Sections: 19.65.010 Purpose. 19.65.020 Agriculture and animal. 19.65.030 Communication facilities. 19.65.040 Eating and drinking establishment. 19.65.050 Entertainment. 19.65.060 Industrial, heavy. 19.65.070 Industrial, light. 19.65.080 Lodging. 19.65.090 Marijuana Uses. 19.65.100 Medical. 19.65.110 Office. 19.65.120 Public/quasi-public. 19.65.130 Residential. 19.65.140 Retail sales and service. 19.65.150 Transportation. 19.65.160 Vehicle services. 19.65.170 Warehouse, wholesale, and freight movement. 19.65.180 Uncategorized uses. 19.65.010 Purpose. The supplemental use regulations address standards for certain uses which require additional controls in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The regulations in chapter 19.65 SVMC supplement the building and site development standards found in chapter 19.70 SVMC, Density and dimensions. 19.65.020 Agriculture and animal. A. Animal raising and/or keeping. Where permitted, the keeping of poultry and livestock, excluding swine and chickens, is subject to the following conditions: 1. Minimum Lot Requirements. a. In residential zones, the lot shall equal or exceed one gross acre in area, except as set forth in SVMC 16.65.020(A)(7) and SVMC 19.65.020(A)(9). b. In mixed-use zones with legally -established residential uses, the lot shall equal or exceed one gross acre in area. 2. The keeping of swine is prohibited. 23 Residential Mixed -Use Commercial Industrial Parks and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Tank storage, critical material below ground S S S Tank storage, LPG above ground S S S S S S Warehouse P P P P P Wholesale business P P P P P Chapter 19.65 SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS Sections: 19.65.010 Purpose. 19.65.020 Agriculture and animal. 19.65.030 Communication facilities. 19.65.040 Eating and drinking establishment. 19.65.050 Entertainment. 19.65.060 Industrial, heavy. 19.65.070 Industrial, light. 19.65.080 Lodging. 19.65.090 Marijuana Uses. 19.65.100 Medical. 19.65.110 Office. 19.65.120 Public/quasi-public. 19.65.130 Residential. 19.65.140 Retail sales and service. 19.65.150 Transportation. 19.65.160 Vehicle services. 19.65.170 Warehouse, wholesale, and freight movement. 19.65.180 Uncategorized uses. 19.65.010 Purpose. The supplemental use regulations address standards for certain uses which require additional controls in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The regulations in chapter 19.65 SVMC supplement the building and site development standards found in chapter 19.70 SVMC, Density and dimensions. 19.65.020 Agriculture and animal. A. Animal raising and/or keeping. Where permitted, the keeping of poultry and livestock, excluding swine and chickens, is subject to the following conditions: 1. Minimum Lot Requirements. a. In residential zones, the lot shall equal or exceed one gross acre in area, except as set forth in SVMC 16.65.020(A)(7) and SVMC 19.65.020(A)(9). b. In mixed-use zones with legally -established residential uses, the lot shall equal or exceed one gross acre in area. 2. The keeping of swine is prohibited. 23 3. Any permanent or temporary structure housing poultry or livestock including, but not limited to, any stable, paddock, yard, runway, pen, coop, hutch, or enclosure, or any manure pile, shall not be located within 75 feet from any dwelling. 4. Permanent or temporary structure housing poultry or livestock including, but not limited to, any stable, paddock, yard, runway, pen, coop, hutch, or enclosure, or any manure pile, shall not be located within the front yard setback or be closer than 10 feet from any side property line. 5. The keeping of animals and livestock is limited as follows: a. Not more than three horses, mules, donkeys, bovines, llamas, or alpacas shall be permitted per gross acre; or b. Not more than six sheep or goats shall be permitted per gross acre; or c. Any equivalent combination of SVMC 19.65.020(A)(5)(a) or (b). 6. Small Animals/Fowl. A maximum of one small animal or fowl (excluding chickens), including duck, turkey, goose, or similar domesticated fowl, or rabbit, mink, chinchilla, or similar animal, may be raised or kept per 3,000 square feet of gross lot area. In addition, a pen, shed, coop, hutch, or similar containment structure shall be constructed prior to the acquisition of any small animal/fowl and shall be kept a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line and five feet from side and rear property lines. 7. In residential areas, the keeping of chickens is subject to the following conditions: a. A maximum of one chicken may be raised or kept per 2,000 gross square feet of lot area, with a maximum of 25 birds allowed; b. The keeping of roosters is prohibited; c. Pens, coops, hutches, or similar containment structures shall be kept a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line and five feet from side and rear property lines; d. Pens, coops, hutches, or similar containment structures shall be kept a minimum of 25 feet from dwellings on neighboring properties; and e. All chickens shall be contained within the subject property. 8. Stables, paddocks, yards, runways, pens, coops, hutches, enclosures, structures, pastures, and grazing areas shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. 9. In residential areas, hobby beekeeping is subject to the following conditions: a. The number of beehives shall be limited to one beehive per 4,356 gross square feet of lot area; b. Beehives shall be set back a minimum of five feet from a side or rear property line and 20 feet from the front property line; c. A flyaway barrier shall be provided that is at least six feet high and consists of a solid wall, solid fencing material, dense vegetation, or combination thereof, that is parallel to the side or rear property line(s) and extends beyond the beehive(s) in 24 each direction that bees are forced to fly at an elevation of at least six feet above ground level over the property lines in the vicinity of the beehives; d. Beekeepers shall maintain an adequate supply of water for bees located close to the hives; and e. The beekeeper shall be certified by the Washington State Beekeeper's Association. B. Animal shelter. In the CMU zone, animal shelters shall comply with the following conditions: 1. Not have outside runs; 2. Provide human supervision in any outdoor areas; 3. Be located along an arterial; and 4. Demonstrate compliance with noise standards for a commercial noise source as identified by WAC 173-60-040. C. Community garden. Produce may be sold pursuant to RCW 36.71.090 as adopted or amended. D. Kennels, doggie day care facilities, and kennels associated with veterinarian clinics. Where permitted in commercial and mixed-use zones, these uses shall comply with the following conditions: 1. Not have outside runs or areas; 2. Provide adequate soundproofing for structures housing animals pursuant to chapter 173- 60 WAC; 3. Provide one parking space for every 10 animal confinement areas; and 4. Demonstrate compliance with noise standards for a commercial noise source as identified by WAC 173-60-040. 19.65.030 Communication facilities. A. Telecommunication wireless antenna array. Telecommunication wireless antenna arrays shall comply with the provisions of chapter 22.120 SVMC, Wireless communication facilities. B. Telecommunication wireless support tower. Telecommunication wireless support towers shall comply with the provisions of chapter 22.120 SVMC, Wireless communication facilities. C. Telecommunication wireless support towers located in a residential or multifamily zoning district requires a conditional use permit pursuant to chapter 19.150 SVMC. D. Tower, ham operator. 1. A building permit for the private tower is required; 2. The applicant shall submit a site plan showing the height and location of the private tower; 3. The applicant shall furnish a copy of the tower manufacturer's construction and erection specifications; 25 4. The private tower shall be erected in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications; 5. The applicant shall demonstrate the impact area (that area in all directions equal to the tower's height above grade) is completely on his/her property. Up to one-half of the tower's impact area in distance may be administratively approved if located on adjacent property pursuant to the administrative exception process contained in chapter 19.140 SVMC; or, if the applicant has secured the appropriate easements for all property within the tower's impact area if not entirely within his/her ownership. Such easements shall be recorded with the Spokane County auditor with a statement that only the City may remove the recordation; 6. A residence shall be on the same site as the private tower, except for a private repeater facility or remote base operations; and 7. The height limitation of the zone shall not be exceeded without approval of a variance or administrative exception as either may respectively pertains. D. Tower (does not include wireless communications support tower) provided: 1. A conditional use permit pursuant to chapter 19.150 SVMC is approved; 2. The tower base shall be enclosed by a fence not less than six feet in height with a locking gate; 3. The tower shall have a locking trap door or the climbing apparatus shall stop 12 feet above the ground; 4. The tower collapse or blade impact area shall lie completely within the applicant's property or within an adjacent property for which the applicant has secured and recorded an easement(s) for all property in the tower's impact area; and 5. Before issuance of a conditional use permit, the applicant shall have demonstrated all the applicable requirements of the FCC, FAA and any required avigation easements can be satisfied. 19.65.040 Eating and drinking establishment. A. Espresso establishment. In the P/OS zone, espresso establishments shall be permitted as an accessory use. B. Mobile food vendors. 1. Mobile food vendors shall obtain permission of the property owner to operate on the premises; 2. Mobile food vendors shall obtain the appropriate health certificates and permits; and 3. Mobile food vendors shall operate on designated paved areas wand not interfere with parking or internal circulation. 19.65.050 Entertainment. A. Adult entertainment and retail. Adult entertainment and retail uses shall comply with the provisions of chapter 19.80 SVMC, Adult Uses. 26 B. Exercise facility. Exercise rooms and facilities not open to the public and accessory to uses permitted outright are allowed in the MFR, MU, CMU, NC, RC, IMU, and I zones. 19.65.060 Industrial, heavy. A. Hazardous waste treatment and storage. Hazardous waste treatment and storage shall comply with the provisions of SVMC 21.40.060 through SVMC 21.40.063. B. Mining. Existing mining operations may continue to operate and expand within the boundaries of an approved mining operation that, as of the date of SVMC 19.65.060(B), was in continuous and lawful operation, or which had received a Washington State Department of Natural Resource County or Municipality Approval for Surface Mining Form. New mining operations are prohibited. 19.65.070 Industrial, light. A. Recycling facility. 1. In the CMU and RC zones, all recyclable materials and equipment shall be contained indoors; 2. All activities shall meet the noise requirements of SVMC 7.05.040(L); 3. In the CMU and RC zones, dangerous or hazardous materials as defined in Appendix A shall not be recycled or processed on site; 4. In the CMU and RC zones, screening in SVMC 22.70.070(E) shall be required when adjacent to an existing residential use or residential zoning district; and 5. In the CMU and RC zones, the site shall have frontage on an existing arterial or state highway and access will be limited to such frontage. 19.65.080 Lodging. A. Recreational vehicle park/campground. 1. The maximum net units per acre shall be 15; 2. Recreational vehicle stalls shall average 1,500 square feet; 3. Accessory uses including management headquarters, recreational facilities, restrooms, dumping stations, showers, laundry facilities, and other uses and structures customarily incidental to operation of a recreational vehicle park are permitted as accessory uses; 4. A minimum of 15 percent of the gross site area shall be set aside and developed as common use areas for open or enclosed recreation facilities. Recreational vehicle stalls, private streets, storage, utility sites, and off-street parking areas shall not be counted as meeting this requirement; and 5. The recreational vehicle park shall meet all Spokane Regional Health District and City regulations regarding sewage and water. 19.65.090 Marijuana Uses. All marijuana uses shall comply with the provisions of chapter 19.85 SVMC, Marijuana Uses. 27 19.65.100 Medical. A. Medical/dental clinic. 1. Primary access shall be from an arterial in the MFR zone; and 2. Floor area shall not exceed 20 percent of the lot square footage in the MFR zone. 19.65.110 Office. A. Animal clinic/veterinary. 1. Animal clinics and veterinary clinics shall serve only small animals in the NC zone. 2. No burning of refuse or dead animals is allowed. 3. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with noise standards for a commercial noise source as identified by WAC 173-60-040. 4. All run areas shall be enclosed and supervised. 19.65.120 Public/quasi-public. A. Public utility local distribution facility. 1. The utility company shall secure the necessary property or right-of-way to assure for the property construction, continued maintenance, and general safety to the property adjoining the public utility transmission facility; and 2. The facilities shall be compatible with the surrounding uses either by distance, landscaping, buffering, screening, or design, as determined by the Director. B. Public utility transmission facility. 1. The utility company shall secure the necessary property or right-of-way to assure for the property construction, continued maintenance, and general safety to the property adjoining the public utility transmission facility; 2. All support structures for electric transmission lines shall have their means of access located a minimum of 10 feet above ground; 3. The facilities shall be compatible with the surrounding uses either by distance, landscaping, buffering, screening, or design, as determined by the Director; and 4. The height of any structure above ground shall not exceed 125 feet. C. Tower, wind turbine support. 1. Requires the approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to chapter 19.150 SVMC; 2. The tower base shall be enclosed by a fence that is at least six feet in height and has a locking gate; 3. The tower shall have a locking trap door or the climbing apparatus shall stop 12 feet above the ground; 28 4. The tower collapse or blade impact area shall lie completely within the applicant's property or within an adjacent property for which the applicant has secured and recorded an easement(s) for all property in the tower's impact area; and 5. Before issuance of a conditional use permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all the applicable requirements of the FCC, FAA, and any required avigation easements can be satisfied. 19.65.130 Residential. A. Accessory structures. The combined building footprint of all accessory permanent structures in residential zoning districts shall be: 1. Up to 1,000 square feet for parcels up to 10,000 square feet in size; or 2. Up to 10 percent of the lot size for parcels greater than 10,000 square feet in size. B. Dwelling, accessory units. Accessory dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. C. Dwelling, caretaker's residence. A caretaker's residence is limited to custodial, maintenance, management, or security of a commercial property and is only allowed accessory to another permitted use on site. D. Dwelling, cottages. Cottages shall comply with the provisions of chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. E. Dwelling, duplex. Duplex dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. F. Dwelling, industrial accessory dwelling units. Industrial accessory dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. G. Dwelling, townhouse. Townhouse dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. H. Manufactured homes on individual lots. Manufactured homes on individual lots shall comply with the provisions of chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. Manufactured home park. Manufactured home shall comply with the provisions of chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. J. Recreational vehicles. 1. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as permanent or temporary dwelling units in any residential zone, except as permitted pursuant to chapter 19.40 SVMC; 2. A recreational vehicle shall not be parked within a required front yard setback for more than 15 consecutive days and not more than 30 days cumulative in any 12 consecutive months; and 3. Guests may park and/or occupy a recreational vehicle while visiting the occupants of a dwelling unit located on the same lot for not more than 30 days in one consecutive 12 - month period. 29 19.65.140 Retail sales and service. A. Appliance sales/service. Retail appliance sales may be accessory in the I zone, only if manufactured and/or assembled on premises. B. Bakery, retail. Retail bakeries in the I zone are limited in floor area to 10 percent of the gross leasable floor area (GLFA) of the building, not to exceed 1,000 square feet. C. Building supply and home improvement store. Floor area limited to 50,000 square feet or less in the NC zone. D. Department/variety store. Department/variety stores are limited in floor area to 50,000 square feet or less in the NC zone. E. Equipment rental shop. In the P/OS zone, equipment rental shops shall be permitted as an accessory use. F. Food sales, specialty/butcher shop/meat market/specialty foods. Specialty/butcher shop/meat market/specialty foods stores shall be limited to no more than 25,000 square feet of net retail space in the NC zone. G. Gift shop. Gift shops in the P/OS zone may be permitted as an accessory use only. H. Grocery store. Grocery stores shall be limited to no more than 25,000 square feet of net retail space in the NC zone. Hardware store. Floor area limited to 50,000 square feet or less in the NC zone. J. Market, outdoor. Outdoor markets shall be the only outright permitted retail sales and service use in the P/OS zone. K. Secondhand store/consignment sales. Secondhand store/consignment sales shall have frontage on an arterial with a minimum floor area of 15,000 square feet. Such uses shall be limited to a single tenant. 19.65.150 Transportation. A. Battery charging station. Battery charging stations are allowed only as accessory to a permitted use in the R-1, R-2, R-3, and P/OS zones. 19.65.160 Vehicle services. A. Car wash. Car washes are limited to a single bay in the NC zone. B. Fueling station. Fueling stations are only permitted as an accessory use in the NC zone. 19.65.170 Warehouse, wholesale, and freight movement. A. Storage, general indoor. 1. General indoors storage is only permitted as an accessory use in the NC zone. 2. In the NC zone, all storage shall be within an enclosed building, except that retail products which are for sale or rental may be displayed outdoors during business hours 30 only, so long as the display does not occur within any required border easement, drainage swale or easement, clearview triangle, or public right-of-way. B. Storage, general outdoor. 1. Outdoor storage areas shall be paved. 2. In the RC zone, outdoor storage shall be screened by a sight -obscuring fence pursuant to SVMC 22.70.070(C)(1); except that no screening is required for the following: a. Retail products which are for sale or rental and displayed outdoors during business hours only, so long as the display does not occur within any required border easement, drainage swale or easement, clearview triangle, or public right- of-way. b. Vehicles, machinery, and other similar items normally displayed for sale, lease, or rent may be displayed if these items are in working condition and not placed within border easements or public right-of-way. 3. In the MU and CMU zones, outdoor storage shall be screened by a sight -obscuring fence pursuant to SVMC 22.70.070(C)(1); except that no screening is required for the following: Retail products which are for sale or rental and displayed outdoors during business hours only, so long as the display does not occur within any required border easement, drainage swale or easement, clearview triangle, or public right-of-way. C. Tank storage, critical material above ground. Tank storage shall comply with the provisions of SVMC 21.40.060 through SVMC 21.40.063. D. Tank storage, critical material below ground. Tank storage shall comply with the provisions of SVMC 21.40.060 through SVMC 21.40.063. E. Tank storage, LPG above ground. Tank storage shall comply with the provisions of SVMC 21.40.060 through SVMC 21.40.063. 19.65.180 Uncategorized uses. A. Home Businesses. The following supplemental regulations apply to all home businesses. 1. Applicability. Any person, group, or entity conducting a "for profit" enterprise from a location whose primary use is a residence shall obtain a home business permit. A home business may only be established in a residence that has been legally permitted. Businesses may be exempt from the home business permit fee, as established by the master fee schedule, if all of the following criteria are met: a. There are no proposed exterior alterations to the residence or any accessory structure(s) which change the residential character of the property; b, Goods and commodities associated with the business are not delivered to the premises; c. There are no business customers visiting the premises; d. There are no signs or window displays on the property related to the business; and 31 e. Any employee(s) engaged in the business shall live in the residence. 2. Home businesses are permitted as accessory uses, except as indicated by SVMC 19.65.180(A)(3) incidental to the property's primary use as a residence, subject to the following requirements: a. Business owner shall be primary resident; b. Property shall retain a residential appearance and character; c. All storage shall be enclosed within the residence or accessory structure; d. There shall be a limit of two employees not residing on the premises engaged in the home business; e. One unlighted sign placed flush against the exterior wall of the primary structure not exceeding four square feet in area is permitted; f. There shall be no window display nor shall sample commodities with the exception of flowers and produce grown on the premises be displayed outside the building(s); g. The hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; h. The home business use shall not create electronic interference including, but not limited to, interference with radio, satellite reception, telephone, or television reception, nor generate measurable levels at the property line of noise, dust, smoke, odor, or glare. The business activity shall not generate solid waste in volume or type which is not normally associated with residential use unless specifically permitted; j. Loading docks and mechanical loading devices are not permitted; Traffic or parking of vehicles shall not be generated in greater volumes than normally expected in a residential neighborhood. Parking shall be accommodated within the required off-street parking on private property; and k. Uses which are detrimental to the existing residential appearance and character are not allowed as home businesses. 3. Specific uses which are not permitted as home businesses include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Adult retail use establishment; b. Adult bookstore or adult entertainment establishment; c. Auto repair; d. Auto body repair; e. Cabinet making; f. Kennel or stables; 32 g. Large appliance/electronics or equipment repair or service; h. Manufacturing and/or related storage; Restaurants/drinking establishments; j. Small engine repair; k. Truck hauling and/or tow storage yard; Vehicle sales; m. Welding or metal plating shops; and n. Wholesale or retail sales. B. In -ground swimming pool. The vertical wall of all in -ground swimming pools shall be located behind the front yard setback and at least five feet from all other property lines. All pools shall be secured in accordance with the requirements of the Title 24 SVMC. Temporary fencing is required during excavation. Chapter 19.70 DENSITY AND DIMENSIONS Sections: 19.70.010 Purpose. 19.70.020 Residential standards. 19.70.030 Mixed-use and nonresidential standards. 19.70.040 Setback designation and measurement. 19.70.050 Additional standards. 19.70.010 Purpose. The purpose of chapter 19.70 SVMC is to establish density, dimensional, and design standards to define the buildable area, provide flexibility in project design, and maintain compatibility between adjacent uses. 19.70.020 Residential standards. Residential development shall meet the standards shown in Table 19.70-1. Standards for alternate residential development are set forth in chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options and standards for planned residential developments are set forth in chapter 19.50 SVMC, Planned Residential Developments. Table 19.70-1 — Residential standards 33 R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR(') Minimum Front and Flanking Street Yard Setback 35' 15' 15' 15' Garage Setback(2) 35' 20' 20' 20' Rear Yard Setback 20' 20' 10' 10' Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 5' 5' Open Space N/A N/A N/A 10% gross 33 19.70.030 Mixed-use and nonresidential standards. A. Development in the RC, CMU, MU, IMU, and I zones shall meet the requirements set forth in Title 24 SVMC and chapter 19.75 SVMC, Transitional Regulations. B. Nonresidential development in the NC zone adjacent to residential uses shall comply with the following dimensional standards: 1. Maximum building height of 35 feet; 2. Minimum front yard setback of 15 feet; 3. Minimum side yard setback of 10 feet; and 4. Minimum rear yard setback of 10 feet. 19.70.040 Setback designation and measurement. A. Except as provided in SVMC 19.70.040(B), each lot shall contain only one front setback and only one rear setback. Any other setback shall be considered a side setback. B. Where lots have double frontage, running through from one street to another, the required front yard shall be provided on both streets. C. The Director is authorized to designate front, rear, and side setbacks. In situations where the Director cannot establish a front and rear setback due to the orientation of the lot, the Director shall establish these setbacks based upon orientation of the lot as compared to surrounding lots and to any existing development pattern. All other setbacks shall be defined in relation to the established front and rear setback. 34 R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR(') area(3) Lot Size (4) 40,000 sq. 10,000 sq. 5,000 sq. ft. N/A Maximum Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 60.0% Density 1 du/ac 4 du/ac 6 du/ac 22 du/ac Building Height(5) 35' 35' 35' 50' (1) Where MFR abuts R-1, R-2, or R-3 zones, development shall comply with the provisions of chapter 19.75 SVMC, Transitional Regulations. (2) Attached garages, where the garage door does not face the street, may have the same setback as the primary structure. (3) Open space requirement does not apply to single-family development in the MFR zone. In the CMU and MU zones, multifamily development shall provide open space pursuant to SVMC 19.70.050(G). (4) Single-family residential development in the MFR zone shall have a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Only one single-family dwelling shall be allowed per lot. (5) The vertical distance from the average finished grade to the average height of the highest roof surface. 19.70.030 Mixed-use and nonresidential standards. A. Development in the RC, CMU, MU, IMU, and I zones shall meet the requirements set forth in Title 24 SVMC and chapter 19.75 SVMC, Transitional Regulations. B. Nonresidential development in the NC zone adjacent to residential uses shall comply with the following dimensional standards: 1. Maximum building height of 35 feet; 2. Minimum front yard setback of 15 feet; 3. Minimum side yard setback of 10 feet; and 4. Minimum rear yard setback of 10 feet. 19.70.040 Setback designation and measurement. A. Except as provided in SVMC 19.70.040(B), each lot shall contain only one front setback and only one rear setback. Any other setback shall be considered a side setback. B. Where lots have double frontage, running through from one street to another, the required front yard shall be provided on both streets. C. The Director is authorized to designate front, rear, and side setbacks. In situations where the Director cannot establish a front and rear setback due to the orientation of the lot, the Director shall establish these setbacks based upon orientation of the lot as compared to surrounding lots and to any existing development pattern. All other setbacks shall be defined in relation to the established front and rear setback. 34 D. The setback shall be measured from the property line unless there is a border easement. In which case, the setback shall be measured from the border easement. E. Setbacks, when adjacent to a private street or driveway easement, shall be measured from the inner edges of the street or driveway and are established pursuant to Table 19.70-1 except the flanking street which is five feet. 19.70.050 Additional standards. A. Structure intrusions into setbacks are prohibited except: 1. The ordinary projections of window sills, belt courses, cornices, and other architectural features projecting not more than 12 inches and roof eaves projecting not more than 24 inches. 2. Minor features of a structure, such as chimneys, fire escapes, bay windows no more than 12 feet long and which cantilever beyond the foundation of the structure, uncovered stairways, wheelchair ramps, and uncovered decks or balconies, may extend into a required setback up to 20 percent of the depth of the setback. However, these features may not be within three feet of a lot line when a setback is required. 3. Attached mechanical equipment such as heat pumps, air conditioners, emergency generators, and water pumps are allowed to project not more than 24 inches into the side or rear setback only. 4. Fences that meet the requirements set forth in SVMC 22.70.020. 5. Walkways and driveways, including parking in the driveway, are allowed in the front yard setback of R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones only. 6. Canopies, marquees, awnings, and similar features in mixed-use or nonresidential zones may fully extend into a front yard setback subject to the requirements of Title 24 SVMC. B. Supporting member of any garage, carport, portable carport, or other automobile storage structure shall not be located within the required front yard. C. Accessory structures shall not be erected within five feet of any rear or side property line, or be located within the front yard or any public or private easement. D. Where applicable, structures shall not be erected to a height in excess of that permitted by SVMC 19.110.030, Airport hazard overlay. E. In R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones, cooling towers, roof gables, chimneys, and vent stacks may extend for an additional height, not to exceed 40 feet, above the average finished grade of the building. Water stand pipes and tanks, church steeples, domes and spires, and school buildings and institutional buildings may be erected to exceed maximum height requirements; provided, that one additional foot shall be added to the width and depth of front, side, and rear yards for each foot that such structures exceed the required height. F. Open space required pursuant to Table 19.70-1 shall be accessible to all residential units and shall be suitable for active and passive recreational purposes, subject to the following: 1. The required open space area shall not include required yards, parking areas, required landscaped areas, stormwater facilities, or required spacing between structures; 35 2. The amount of open space may be reduced by up to 25 percent where at least two of the following amenities are provided: a. Play or sports courts; b. Playgrounds with equipment; c. Trails or pedestrian walkways not required for access to residential units or parking areas; d. Swimming pools; e. Gazebos; or f. Clubhouses; 3. The required open space shall not be reduced by more than 50 percent. G. In mixed-use zoning districts, projects with residential components shall provide 210 square feet of open space per dwelling unit conforming to the requirements of SVMC 19.70.050(F) and eligible for reduction for improvements on the same basis; provided, that: 1. The requirement does not apply to the development of less than 10 new dwelling units; 2. Additional open space is not required for residential development located within 1,300 feet of a public park; and 3. A fee in lieu of land dedication may be assessed for the development of public parks and open spaces to meet the needs of the residents of the mixed-use zoning districts. Council will determine this assessment and review it on an annual basis. H. Residential development in nonresidential zones shall comply with the density and dimensional standards of the MFR zone in Table 19.70-1, except single-family development in the NC zone, which shall comply with the density and dimensional standards of the adjacent single-family residential zone. Where the NC zone abuts multiple single-family residential zones, the zone with the higher density shall apply. Where there are no single-family residential adjacencies to the NC zone, the density and dimensional standards of the R-2 zone shall apply. New development exceeding three stories in height shall be served by paved service lanes that are at least 16 feet in width. J. The following design standards apply to all outdoor lighting in residential zones: 1. All new development shall provide lighting within parking lots, along pedestrian walkways, and accessible routes of travel. 2. Lighting fixtures shall be limited to heights of no more than 24 feet for parking lots and no more than 16 feet for pedestrian walkways. 3. All lighting shall be shielded from producing off-site glare, either through exterior shields or through optical design inside the fixture, and shall not emit light above 90 degrees. 4. Street lighting installed by the City or other public utilities is exempt from SVMC 19.70.050(J). 36 K. Principal or accessory structures shall not be located within the clearview triangle pursuant to chapter 22.70 SVMC. Chapter 19.75 TRANSITIONAL REGULATIONS Sections: 19.75.010 Purpose. 19.75.020 Applicability. 19.75.030 Transitional regulations. 19.75.040 Ground level transitional use limitations. 19.75.010 Purpose. The purpose of chapter 19.75 SVMC is to establish transitional development regulations along zoning district boundaries, specifically where properties of more intensive zoning abut less intensively -zoned properties. 19.75.020 Applicability. A. General. 1. The ground level setback requirements shall apply to any portion of a property located in the: a. MFR, RC, CMU, or MU zone that abuts a property located in the R-1, R-2, or R- 3; or b. I or IMU zone that abuts any property not zoned I or IMU. 2. The upper level setback requirements shall apply to any portion of a property located in the MFR, RC, CMU, MU, I, or IMU zones. 3. Nonresidential development in the NC zone adjacent to residential zones shall comply with the provisions of SVMC 19.70.030(B). B. Exemptions. Wireless communications facilities are not subject to chapter 19.75 SVMC. C. The application of transitional regulations may be modified by the Director consistent with chapter 19.75 SVMC. 19.75.030 Transitional regulations. A. General. The transition shall be provided in the form of a ground level setback of 10 feet, or the applicable setback pursuant to chapter 19.70 SVMC, Density and Dimensions, whichever is greater, and an upper level setback as provided in SVMC 19.75.030(A)(2) and illustrated in Figure 19.75-1. 1. All transitional ground level setback areas shall be landscaped pursuant to the provisions of SVMC 22.70.070. 2. Upper level setback calculation. 37 a. Starting at a height of 15 feet at the boundary of an R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone, the building height may be increased at a ratio of one foot of height for every one foot of horizontal distance from the nearest R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone boundary. Figure 19.75-1 provides a graphic illustration of this requirement. b. Where the protected zone boundary is the centerline of a right-of-way, the horizontal distance calculation in SVMC 19.75.030(A)(2)(a) shall be measured from the property line of the zone providing protection. Figure 19.75-1 provides a graphic illustration of this requirement. Figure 19.75-1 I cl I al rnl 0 N I J I 45' 35' 15' Protected Zones 13' min. Zones Providing Protection setback B. The following regulations shall apply to the ground level transitional setback areas: 1. Outdoor sales, outdoor seating, or outdoor displays or signage are prohibited within 30 feet of any R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone. 2. Parking, drive aisles, and/or queuing areas in the RC, CMU, MU, IMU, and I zones are prohibited within 20 feet of any R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone. All parking and drive aisles shall be landscaped and screened pursuant to SVMC 22.70.050 and SVMC 22.70.070. 3. Loading areas in the RC, CMU, MU, IMU, and I zones are prohibited within 30 feet of any R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone. 4. Any mechanical equipment, building vents, and exhausts within the transitional setback areas shall be visually screened pursuant to SVMC 22.70.070. All building vents and mechanical equipment exhausts shall be directed away from adjacent R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone. 5. All outdoor lighting in the transitional setback areas shall be shielded and not produce off- site glare pursuant to SVMC 22.60.030 and shall be limited to 16 feet in height above grade. 19.75.040 Ground level transitional use limitations. A. In the MFR zone ground level transitional setback areas, only the following uses are permitted: 38 1. Open space and landscaping. 2. Outdoor recreation areas accessory to residential uses. 3. Parking and parking structures. 4. Club houses. B. In the ground level transitional setback areas of RC, CMU and MU zones, only the following uses are permitted: 1. Open space and landscaping. 2. Pedestrian pathways. 3. Outdoor recreation areas accessory to permitted uses on site. C. In the ground level transitional setback areas of the I and IMU zones, the following uses are prohibited within 20 feet of a NC, RC, CMU, or MU zone: 1. Agriculture and animal uses located outside of an enclosed building; 2. Heavy industrial uses conducted outside of an enclosed building; 3. Warehouse, wholesale and freight movement uses outside of an enclosed building; and 4. Transportation uses located outside of an enclosed building. D. In the ground level transitional setback areas of the I and IMU zones, the following uses are prohibited within 30 feet of a R-1, R-2, R-3, or MFR zone: 1. Agriculture and animal uses; 2. Heavy industrial uses; 3. Warehouse, wholesale and freight movement uses outside of an enclosed building; 4. Transportation uses located outside of an enclosed building; and 5. Outdoor storage accessory to any of the above uses unless visually screened pursuant to SVMC 22.70.070. Chapter 19.80 ADULT USES Sections: 19.80.010 Purpose. 19.80.020 License required. 19.80.030 Adult use development standards. 19.80.010 Purpose. In the development and adoption of chapter 19.80 SVMC, the City recognized that there are adult entertainment uses which, due to their very nature, have serious objectionable operational characteristics, particularly when located in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools, thereby having a 39 deleterious impact upon the quality of life in the surrounding areas. It has been acknowledged by courts and communities across the nation that state and local governmental entities have a special concern in regulating the operation of such businesses under their jurisdiction to ensure the adverse secondary effects of the establishments are minimized. Chapter 19.80 SVMC is intended to protect the general public health, safety, and welfare through the regulation of the operations and licensing of the adult entertainment devices, premises, and personnel of adult entertainment establishments. The provisions of chapter 19.80 SVMC have neither the purpose nor effect of imposing a limitation or restriction on the content of any constitutionally -protected, sexually - oriented, or explicit communicative materials, or communicative performances. The regulations set forth herein are intended to prevent and control health, safety, and welfare issues, the decline in neighborhood conditions in and around adult entertainment establishments, and to prevent dangerous and unlawful conduct associated with these facilities. Chapter 19.80 SVMC may not be construed as permitting or promoting obscene conduct or materials. 19.80.020 License required. Licensing requirements for adult uses are contained in chapter 5.10 SVMC, Adult Entertainment Establishments. 19.80.030 Adult use development standards. A. There shall be five existing acres of contiguous (includes across streets) zoning classified Regional Commercial. B. The use shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line of the use listed in SVMC 19.80.030(B)(1-6). Distance shall be measured from the nearest property line of the adult retail use establishment or adult entertainment establishment(s) to the nearest property line of the following pre-existing uses: 1. Public library; 2. Public playground or park; 3. Public or private school and its grounds of kindergarten to twelfth grade; 4. Nursery school, mini -day care center, or day care center; 5. Church, convent, monastery, synagogue, or other place of religious worship; 6. Another adult use subject to the provisions of SVMC 19.80.030. C. An adult retail use establishment or adult entertainment establishment(s) shall not be located within 1,000 feet of an urban growth area boundary or within 1,000 feet of any of the following zones: 1. R-1, Single -Family Residential Estate; 2. R-2, Single -Family Residential Suburban; 3. R-3, Single -Family Residential; 4. MFR, Multifamily Residential; 5. MU, Mixed Use; 6. CMU, Corridor Mixed Use; or 40 7. NC, Neighborhood Commercial. Chapter 19.85 MARIJUANA USES Sections: 19.85.010 Marijuana production standards. 19.85.020 Marijuana processing standards. 19.85.030 Marijuana retail sales standards. 19.85.040 Other licensed or registered marijuana uses prohibited. 19.85.050 Marijuana production and processing in residential zones. 19.85.010 Marijuana production standards. A. Marijuana production shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana production facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in Title 28A RCW; 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in chapter 27.12 RCW; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.010: a. Any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document, plan, or program adopted by the Council; and b. The Appleway Trail; or 4. a. Any facility or building designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the Council as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term that identifies such facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location; or b. CenterPlace. B. Marijuana production in the RC zone shall only be permitted indoors. 19.85.020 Marijuana processing standards. A. Marijuana processing shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana processing facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in Title 28A RCW; 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in chapter 27.12 RCW; 41 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.020: a. Any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document, plan, or program adopted by the City; and b. The Appleway Trail; or 4. a. Any facility or building designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the City as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term that identifies such facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location; or b. CenterPlace. B. Marijuana processing in the RC zone shall be limited to packaging and labeling of usable marijuana. 19.85.030 Marijuana retail sales standards. A. New marijuana sales shall not be permitted within any zoning districts. B. Marijuana sales uses in existence and in continuous and lawful operation prior to July 27, 2016, shall not be deemed nonconforming and shall be permitted as a legal use subject to the following: marijuana sales shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana sales facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Centennial Trail; 2. Appleway Trail; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in Title 28A RCW; 4. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in chapter 27.12 RCW; 5. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document, plan, or program adopted by the Council shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.030; or 6. a. Any facility or building designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the Council as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term that identifies such facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location; or b. CenterPlace. 19.85.040 Other licensed or registered marijuana uses prohibited. Marijuana production, marijuana processing, and existing marijuana sales shall be permitted pursuant to SVMC 19.85.010, SVMC 19.85.020, and SVMC 19.85.030. All other commercial and non-commercial licensed or registered marijuana uses are prohibited within all zoning districts of the City. This prohibition 42 includes, but is not limited to, marijuana clubs or lounges and marijuana cooperatives. This prohibition does not apply to home growing or processing of marijuana by qualified patients or designated providers in residential zoning districts as set forth in SVMC 19.85.050 and in compliance with state law. 19.85.050 Marijuana production and processing in residential zones. Washington state law authorizes qualified patients and designated providers to produce marijuana and to process marijuana in dwellings, residences, domiciles, and similar housing units under limited circumstances and with limited processing methods. Subject to applicable federal, state, and local laws, any owner, lessor, or leasing agent may request or require disclosure of a renter or lessee's desire to produce or process marijuana within a rented or leased dwelling unit. In addition to compliance with any applicable state or federal laws and regulations, lawful production or processing of marijuana by any person in a dwelling, residence, domicile, or other similar housing unit shall be subject to all locally - applicable land use, development, zoning, and building regulation requirements including, but not limited to, all applicable requirements set forth in Titles 17 through 24 SVMC as the same are now adopted or hereafter amended, and the following regulations: A. Any home production or processing of marijuana by any person pursuant to state law shall not be permitted outside of the dwelling or accessory structure; B. Any home production or processing of marijuana by any person or allowed by state law in a dwelling or accessory structure shall be enclosed, blocked, or sight -screened from the public right-of-way and from adjacent properties so that no portion may be readily seen by normal unaided vision or readily smelled from such locations. Accessory structures shall be permanent structures enclosed by a roof and walls on all sides and connected to a permanent foundation. For purposes of SVMC 19.85.050, accessory structures shall not include cargo containers, recreational vehicles, or other similar types of structures. Accessory structures shall be completely opaque in addition to necessary site -screening; C. Home processing of marijuana shall not involve any combustible method and shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws and rules, including all standards adopted by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board; and D. Production or processing of marijuana by any person pursuant to state law in a dwelling or accessory structure shall only be allowed in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. Chapter 19.90 ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES (EPFs) Sections: 19.90.010 Facilities of regional/statewide significance. 19.90.020 Local siting procedures. 19.90.010 Facilities of regional/statewide significance. The City is signatory to an interlocal agreement relating to the siting of EPFs of statewide and regional significance in accordance with RCW 36.70A.200. A. EPFs having statewide significance are major facilities that provide a needed public service affecting, or potentially affecting, residents and/or property located in two or more Washington state counties and may be included on the Washington State Office of Financial Management list of EPFs. These facilities include, but are not limited to, regional transportation facilities, such as commercial and military airports; freeways, highways, and beltways; state correctional facilities; secure community transitional facilities; state social services; state parks; and state higher educational facilities. 43 B. EPFs having regional/countywide significance are local or interlocal facilities providing a needed public service affecting, or potentially affecting, residents and/or property located in two or more Spokane County jurisdictions. They include, but are not limited to, general aviation airports; county correctional facilities; regional transportation system; public transit maintenance and operational facilities; regional solid waste disposal/recycling/composting/handling facilities; community colleges; regional wastewater treatment facilities; arenas, stadiums, and other entertainment facilities; and regional social and health services such as in-patient hospitals, mental health facilities, and substance abuse treatment centers. Chapter 19.60 SVMC, Permitted Uses, identifies those facilities subject to the regional/statewide siting process. C. Application for EPF siting shall be made through the Spokane County department of planning and building in accordance with the adopted procedures of Spokane County. D. Following ranking of sites by the board of county commissioners, the applicant shall work directly with the City to meet the regulatory requirements for the construction and operation of the facility under the plans and regulations that were in effect at the time of initial application under the regional siting process. E. All EPFs located within the City require approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to chapter 19.150 SVMC, Conditional Use Permits. F. Spokane Valley shall require EPFs approved through the regional process to meet all local requirements except those expressly obviated as a result of the process. The City shall consider all information submitted as part of the regional siting process. 19.90.020 Local siting procedures. EPFs having local significance are facilities providing a needed public service affecting, or potentially affecting, only residents and/or property within the jurisdiction in which they are located. The City includes such facilities in the Comprehensive Plan as "community facilities," including, but not limited to, fire stations, police stations, child care facilities, public libraries, community parks, recreation facilities, community centers, local social services, and elementary, middle, and high schools. Chapter 19.100 HISTORIC PRESERVATION (Reserved) Chapter 19.110 SPECIAL OVERLAY ZONES Sections: 19.110.010 Repealed. 19.110.020 Repealed. 19.110.030 Airport hazard overlay. 19.110.040 Pipeline hazard overlay. 19.110.010 Repealed. Repealed by Ord. 16-_ 19.110.020 Repealed. Repealed by Ord. 11-010. 44 19.110.030 Airport hazard overlay. A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of the Airport Hazard Overlay (AO) zone is to reduce the potential for airport hazards, because: 1. Airport hazards endanger the lives and property of users of landing fields and persons in the vicinity of Felts Field; 2. Airspace obstructions and incompatible land uses impair the utility of an airport and diminish the value of the public investment therein; and 3. Preventing the creation or establishment of incompatible land uses and airport hazards protects the public health, safety, and general welfare, and promotes the most appropriate use of land. B. Applicability. The AO zone applies to areas surrounding Felts Field, as established herein. Chapter 19.110 SVMC shall apply to all lands, buildings, structures, natural features, and uses located within the AO zoning district as depicted on the maps, except that the provisions of chapter 19.110 SVMC shall not apply to any use that is defined as an aviation use. All uses and activities are at all times subject to the underlying zoning district. Where the requirements and restrictions imposed by the AO zone conflict with the requirements of the underlying zoning district, the more restrictive requirement shall apply. s 011 1^1014WITA.. bf�.M ACE "35TAL IO kiinfr ELEVATION CONICAL Iliffithe4 600 Yrs r w.Po c''rovlfr, C. Air Hazard Height Restrictions. Except as otherwise provided herein, no building or structure shall be erected, altered, or maintained so as to project or otherwise penetrate the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 airspace surfaces shown on the Airport Hazard Map attached to the ordinance codified in SVMC 19.110.030 and made a part hereof for all purposes. Such applicable height limitations are hereby established for each of the zones as follows: 45 1. Primary Surface. A surface longitudinally centered on a runway. The primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of the runway and is 1,000 feet wide. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. 2. Precision Instrument Runway Approach Zone. Slopes 50 feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the primary surface and extending to a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet along the extended runway centerline; thence slopes upward 40 feet horizontally for each foot vertically to an additional horizontal distance of 40,000 feet along the extended runway centerline. 3. Transitional Zones. Slopes seven feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the sides of and at the same elevation as the primary surface and the approach surface, and extending to a height of 150 feet above the airport elevation which is 1,952 feet above mean sea level. In addition to the foregoing, there are established height limits sloping seven feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the sides of and at the same elevation as the approach surface and extending to where they intersect the conical surface. Where the precision instrument runway approach zone projects beyond the conical zone, there are established height limits sloping seven feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the sides of and at the same elevation as the approach surface, and extending a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet measured at 90 -degree angles to the extended runway centerline. 4. Horizontal Zone. Established at 150 feet above the airport elevation or at a height of 2,102 feet above mean sea level. 5. Conical Zone. Slopes 20 feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the periphery of the horizontal zone and at 150 feet above the airport elevation and extending to a height of 350 feet above the airport elevation. A 5URFACE SLOPE KEY ✓ Y dY tam 1• 110141 E t • rhi!YM.i• YYY'hAYiY viuwrMr Our' 46 D. Height Exceptions. Structures shall not be constructed, altered, or maintained in the regulated air space area except as follows: 1. Any structure or object that would be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial character or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater height; 2. Any air navigation facility, airport visual approach or landing aid, aircraft arresting device, or meteorological device, of a type approved by the FAA with a fixed location and height; and 3. Structures necessary and incidental to airport operations. E. Airport Land Use Restrictions. The six airport land use compatibility zones established by the WSDOT Division of Aviation guidelines are based on federal aviation accident data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and are shown on the airport land use compatibility zone map attached to the ordinance codified in SVMC 19.110.030 and made a part hereof for all purposes. 1. Prohibited Uses in All Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones. a. Any use that creates or causes interference with the operations of radio or electronic facilities at the airport or with radio or electronic communications between airport and aircraft; b. Any use or lighting that impairs a pilot's ability to distinguish between airport lights and other lights, or that creates glare affecting pilot vision, or otherwise impairs visibility in the vicinity of the airport. All lighting shall be "cut-down" and fully shielded; c. Any use that endangers the landing, taking off, or maneuvering of aircraft; d. Any use which attracts birds in any manner affecting airport operations such as garbage, recycling, and stormwater facilities; e. Special function land uses for which the significant common element is the relative inability of the people occupying the space to move out of harm's way such as K — 12 schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and other similar uses; f. High intensity land uses which are characterized by a potential to attract dense concentrations of persons to an indoor or outdoor area, even for a limited period of time. Such uses include: Amusement parks and fairgrounds; ii. Box retail; Convention/exhibit halls, major auditoriums, and theaters; iv. Stadiums and arenas; v. Temporary events attracting dense concentrations of people — fairs, circuses, carnivals, revival meetings, sports tournaments, conventions, but not including events for which exposure to aviation safety hazard is a well-known expectation (air shows, airport open houses, pilot meetings, etc.). 47 2. Land uses in airport land use compatibility zones are further regulated as follows: Table 19-110-1 — Airport Land Use Compatibility Prohibited Uses Prohibited Uses Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones 1 2 3 4 5 6a 6b Single -Family Residential • • • Maximum Densit ** y n/a n/a 1 du/5 acres 1 du/2.5 acres n/a 1 du/2.5 acres or underlying zone"ax«) 1 du/2.5 acres or underlying zone"a-02) Manufactured Housing Parks ••• Multi -family Residential ••• Schools ••• Parks and Playgrounds ••• Hospitals ••• Nursing Homes ••• Day Care ••• Churches ••• Hazardous Materials Storage • • Flammable Materials Storage • • Incinerators ••• Overhead Utilities ••• High Intensity Uses • • • Prohibited Uses ** Density Limited (1) Must comply with a minimum of one of the following criteria: a. The site had water or sewer stubs installed for future development prior to the adoption of the City initial airport hazard overlay regulations on February 28, 2006, by Ordinance No. 06-002; b. Consistent with adjacent (not across public rights-of-way) property sizes for proposed development; or c. More than one residence is located on a property, excluding any residence used at one time for a dependent relative, may develop property consistent with underlying zoning to make conforming. (2) All final short subdivisions and final subdivisions located within Zone 6 of the AO shall contain the following dedication language on the face of the plat: "These lots are located in an Airport Hazard Overlay that may be subject to increased noise levels." 48 3. Avigation easements/title notice/covenant shall be required as a condition of the issuance of any permit for construction, reconstruction, or expansion of any structure located within any airport land use compatibility zone. Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones Source: California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, recommended by Washington Department of Transportation, Aviation Division. 4. Substantial noise impacts (over 65 Ldn) at Felts Field are confined to airport property. In the event of changed conditions authenticated by the Spokane Airport Board, the following uses will be prohibited within areas where noise levels exceed 65 Ldn: a. School. b. Church. c. Hospital. d. Manufactured home park. e. Child day care center. f. Nursing home. g. Parks and playgrounds. 5. Nothing in chapter 19.110 SVMC shall diminish the responsibility of project proponents to submit a notice of construction or alteration to the FAA if required in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace." 49 F. Nonconforming Uses. 1. Regulations Not Retroactive. The regulations prescribed herein shall not be construed to require the change of use, nor the removal or alteration of any structure or tree not conforming to the regulations as of the effective date of the ordinance codified in chapter 19.110 SVMC; provided, however, that the owner of any existing nonconforming structure or tree is required to permit the installation, operation, and maintenance of such markers and lights as shall be deemed necessary by the Director of airport operations. 2. Nonconforming Uses Abandoned or Destroyed. Whenever the Director determines that a legal nonconforming tree or structure has been abandoned, destroyed, or damaged by more than 80 percent, no permit shall be issued or granted that would allow such use, structure or tree to exceed the applicable height limit or otherwise deviate from the zoning regulations. G. Permits and Variances. 1. No building permit shall be issued for any prohibited use, or for any structure or obstruction which exceeds the air hazard height restrictions adopted herein. 2. An application for a permit for the construction of a building, structure, use, subdivision, short subdivision, binding site plan, or other development located within the AO zone shall submit a site plan which includes the elevation of the site above mean sea level, and the height of any proposed structure. 3. Additional Notice. Any building permit or land use action including plats, short plats, subdivisions, and binding site plans within the AO zone shall contain the following notice: Notice is herein provided that this property is located within the Airport Hazard Overlay Zone of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, and is subject to restriction on height and use pursuant to SVMC 19.110.030 Airport Hazard Overlay Zone as it may be amended from time to time. 4. Variances. Any person desiring to erect or increase the height of any structure, or permit the growth of any tree, or use of property, not in accordance with the regulations prescribed herein may apply to the Department for a variance; provided, however, that the application shall be accompanied by a determination from the FAA as to the effect of the proposal on the operation of air navigation facilities and the safe, efficient use of navigable airspace. A copy of the application shall be furnished to the Director of airport operations for review and comment. Final determination on the variance shall be made by the Hearing Examiner following notice and hearing. 19.110.040 Pipeline hazard overlay. The following regulations shall only apply to the pipeline facilities identified on the Zoning Map: A. The regulation of development, including construction, excavation or fill, or installation of roads and utilities is intended to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of citizens and the protection of private property. B. Pipeline hazard areas shall extend 500 feet from the centerline of any existing or future pipeline, whether or not such pipeline is located within a recorded easement or is included in a "blanket" or "open" easement. 50 C. The construction, excavation, fill, or installation of underground utilities or drainage facilities within the area of pipeline hazard shall require consultation with the pipeline operator prior to the issuance of any permit. If applicable, the pipeline operator shall identify the location and depth of cover required to protect the pipeline. D. No permanent or temporary accessory structures, retaining walls, patios, swimming pools, or on- site waste disposal systems shall be permitted within 25 feet of any pipeline. E. No permanent or temporary structures designed for human habitation or occupancy shall be located within 50 feet of any pipeline. F. Utility poles, guy wires, or anchors shall not be placed within 10 feet of the pipeline. G. For new construction, the City may require the lowering or relocation of the pipeline as a condition of the issuance of any permit. Chapter 19.120 Repealed Chapter 19.130 SITE PLAN REVIEW Sections: 19.130.010 Purpose. 19.130.020 Permit type. 19.130.030 Applicability. 19.130.040 Decision criteria. 19.130.050 Conditions. 19.130.010 Purpose. The purpose of chapter 19.130 SVMC is to ensure efficient and safe land development, compatible use of land, compliance with Title 22 SVMC, Design and Development Standards, and adequate water supply, drainage, and other utilities. 19.130.020 Permit type. Site plan review is classified as a Type I development application and shall be processed in accordance with SVMC 17.80.070. 19.130.030 Applicability. A building permit or land disturbing permit shall not be issued for the following unless a site plan review is approved or approved with conditions by the Department: A. Any land disturbing activity unless exempted pursuant to SVMC 24.50.020; B. Any commercial development; C. Any industrial development; D. Any multifamily development that includes three or more units; E. Any alternative residential development pursuant to SVMC 19.40.030; and F. Any development in single-family residential zones. 51 19.130.040 Decision criteria. Prior to approving any building or permit for land disturbing activities, the proposal shall: A. Conforms with all applicable provisions of the SVMC and all other applicable law; and B. Conforms to the conditions required by the Department, Hearing Examiner, or Council. 19.130.050 Conditions. The site plan shall be drawn to an acceptable scale and include all necessary information as required by the Department including, but not limited to landscape and lighting plans as required pursuant to chapter 22.070 SVMC and chapter 22.60 SVMC. Chapter 19.140 ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIONS Sections: 19.140.010 Purpose. 19.140.020 Permit type. 19.140.030 Allowed exceptions. 19.140.040 Decision criteria. 19.140.010 Purpose. The purpose of chapter 19.140 SVMC is to allow for minor deviations from Code requirements. 19.140.020 Permit type. An administrative exception is classified as a Type I permit and shall be processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.070. 19.140.030 Allowed exceptions. An administrative exception may be approved for the following when consistent with the criteria in SVMC19.140.040: A. Yard setback where the deviation is for 10 percent or less of the required yard. B. Building height where the deviation is for 10 percent or less of the maximum building height. Additional building height may be granted to the equivalent height of adjacent buildings in areas where the maximum building height is generally exceeded. C. Minimum lot area where the deviation is for 10 percent or less of the required lot area. D. Maximum building coverage where the deviation is for 10 percent or less of the maximum building coverage. E. Up to one-half of a private tower's impact area off of the applicant's property. F. Flanking street yard setbacks; provided that: 1. At the time the lot was legally created, it was zoned under a zoning classification of the pre -January 1, 1991, Spokane County zoning ordinance, and subsequently on January 1, 1991, a new zoning classification from the zoning code of Spokane County, Washington, was assigned to the lot; and 52 2. Any flanking yard setback deviation granted under this section shall not exceed the required flanking street setback standards of the pre -January 1, 1991, zoning classification of the subject property. G. Any improved property rendered nonconforming through voluntary dedication of right-of-way, the exercise of eminent domain proceedings or purchase of right-of-way by the City, county, state, or federal agency. H. Provisions in SVMC 20.20.090 that conflict with the intent of Title 19 SVMC as determined by the Director. 19.140.040 Decision criteria. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny administrative exceptions based on the following criteria: A. The administrative exception does not interfere with or negatively impact the operations of existing land uses and all legally permitted uses within the zoning district it occupies; B. The exception may not increase density beyond what is currently allowed within the zoning district; C. The exception shall not be contrary to conditions imposed by any other associated land use action, for example, a Hearing Examiner decision, or conditions associated with the applicable short plat approval; D. The exception shall not conflict with other local, state, or federal laws; and E. The exception does not adversely impact the public health, safety, and welfare within the City. Chapter 19.150 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Sections: 19.150.010 Purpose. 19.150.020 Permit type. 19.150.030 Decision criteria. 19.150.040 Conditions. 19.150.010 Purpose. The purpose of chapter 19.150 SVMC is to establish criteria for determining the conditions under which a use(s) is permitted within a zoning district. Certain uses are classified as conditional uses because of their size, infrequent occurrence, special requirements, possible safety hazards or detrimental effects on surrounding properties, and other similar reasons. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is subject to specific review during which additional conditions may be imposed to assure compatibility of the use with other uses in the vicinity. A request for a CUP may be denied where it cannot be clearly demonstrated that the requested use will be compatible with other permitted uses in the vicinity of the proposed conditional use. 19.150.020 Permit type. CUPs are classified as Type 111 permit applications and shall be processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.070. 19.150.030 Decision criteria. A. A CUP may only be granted if the applicant demonstrates that: 53 1. The conditional use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the character and appearance of the existing or proposed development in the vicinity of the subject property; 2. The location, size, and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences, and visual screening for the conditional use shall not hinder or discourage the permitted development or use of neighboring properties; 3. Requested modifications to standards are limited to those which will mitigate impacts in a manner equal to or greater than the standards of this title; 4. The conditional use does not conflict with the health and safety of the community; 5. The proposed location does not result in the detrimental over -concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use, unless the proposed use is deemed a public necessity; 6. The pedestrian and vehicular traffic associated with the use will not be hazardous or conflict with existing and anticipated traffic in the neighborhood; and 7. There are adequate public facilities or services to support the use and the use will not adversely affect public services to the surrounding area or conditions can be established to mitigate adverse impacts on such facilities. 19.150.040 Conditions. A. In approving a CUP, the Hearing Examiner may stipulate conditions including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Control of use; 2. Greater front, side, or rear yard setbacks than the minimum standards of the zoning district within which the subject property is located; 3. Special landscaping, screening, fencing, signing, off-street parking, public transit, and/or high occupancy vehicle facilities or any other general development standards; 4. Right-of-way or easement dedications and/or streets and drainage improvements necessary as a result of the proposed use; 5. Limited vehicular ingress and egress; 6. Control of noise, vibration, odor, glare, and other environmental considerations; 7. Restricted hours of operation; 8. Duration or time limitations for certain activities; and/or 9. Any other reasonable restrictions, conditions, or safeguards that will uphold the intent of the SVMC and the Comprehensive Plan and mitigate any adverse impact upon the adjacent properties by reason of use, extension, construction, or alteration allowed. B. A CUP may be suspended or revoked if, after a public hearing with notice as provided in SVMC 17.80.070, the Hearing Examiner finds that a grantee or their successors in interest fail to comply with the conditions or restrictions included in the CUP. 54 Chapter 19.160 TEMPORARY USE PERMITS Sections: 19.160.010 Purpose. 19.160.020 Permit type. 19.160.030 Applicability. 19.160.040 Decision criteria. 19.160.050 Conditions. 19.160.010 Purpose. The purpose of chapter 19.160 SVMC is to regulate certain temporary uses of property which are not otherwise regulated by other City ordinances or regulations. 19.160.020 Permit type. Temporary use permits (TUPs) are classified as a Type I permit and shall be processed pursuant to the provisions of SVMC 17.80.070. 19.160.030 Applicability. The Department may issue a TUP for the types of temporary uses as listed in SVMC 19.160.040. 19.160.040 Decision Criteria. A. Interim Uses. The Department may issue a TUP to allow an owner, developer, contractor, tenant, lessee, or other occupant to conduct an otherwise permitted use on their property at the same time they are improving the property to the required City standards pursuant to the following conditions: 1. The TUP may be issued for a period up to six months and may be extended for an additional three months if the applicant has acted in good faith towards compliance of the original permit. 2. The Department may issue the permit only if the proposed use is consistent with the following findings of fact: a. The request is reasonable and there is no other practical alternative; b. Adverse impacts associated with the temporary use are appropriately mitigated and such temporary use will not cause a hazard to the occupants or to neighboring properties; c. A hardship is involved that cannot otherwise be reasonably resolved; and d. A performance surety in the amount of any required improvements shall be posted guaranteeing the completion of the project. B. Seasonal Uses and Short-term Recreational and Economic Development Uses. The Department may issue a TUP to allow sales of seasonal goods in any nonresidential zone for a period not to exceed six months in any 12 -month period. The use may not meet the standards normally associated with a permanent use if the Department finds that the temporary use is consistent with the following: 1. The use shall be consistent with the permitted uses in the zone; 55 2. The use shall be an appropriate use of the property pending the permanent long-term use; 3. The use shall not result in significant traffic, parking, drainage, fire protection, or other adverse impacts that cannot be appropriately mitigated; 4. The use shall provide a sanitary facility if the Department determines it is necessary to do so; and 5. Failure to comply with the conditions of the permit shall result in suspension or revocation of the TUP. C. Temporary Uses Associated with Construction Permits. The Department may issue a TUP for activities associated with construction projects including, but not limited to, equipment storage yards, job shacks, materials storage yards, or living quarters which are not otherwise permitted outright by City ordinances or regulations. The Department may issue a TUP if it finds the proposal is consistent with the following: 1. The use shall not pose a hazard or be a detriment to the surrounding area; 2. The use shall not result in significant traffic, parking, drainage, fire protection, or other adverse impacts; 3. The temporary use shall be reviewed every six months to determine if the temporary use is still valid, if not the Department shall terminate the TUP; and 4. The temporary use shall be vacated upon completion of the associated construction project or pursuant to SVMC19.160.030(C)(3). 19.160.050 Conditions. The Department may include any conditions deemed necessary in order to reasonably mitigate any adverse impacts anticipated from a requested TUP. Chapter 19.170 VARIANCES Sections: 19.170.010 Purpose. 19.170.020 Permit type. 19.170.030 Decision criteria. 19.170.040 Limitation on authority. 19.170.050 Time limitation. 19.170.060 Time extension. 19.170.010 Purpose. A purpose of chapter 19.170 SVMC is to provide a mechanism by which the City may grant relief from the provisions of the SVMC where practical difficulty renders compliance with the provisions of the SVMC an unnecessary hardship, where the hardship is a result of the physical characteristics of the subject property, and where the purpose of the SVMC and of the Comprehensive Plan can be fulfilled upon granting of the variance. 19.170.020 Permit type. Variances are classified as a Type III permit and shall be processed pursuant to the provisions of SVMC 17.80.070. 56 19.170.030 Decision criteria. The Hearing Examiner may approve, or approve with modifications, an application for a variance from the provisions of the SVMC if: A. The variance for the subject property does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and the zone in which the property is located; B. The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the subject property, to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the land use zone in which the subject property is located; C. The granting of the variance is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located; D. The special circumstances of the subject property make the strict enforcement of the provisions of the SVMC an unnecessary hardship to the property owner; E. The special circumstances of the subject property are not the result of the actions of the applicant or a predecessor in interest; F. The variance is the minimum necessary to fulfill the purpose of a variance and the need of the applicant; G. The variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning Code; and H. The variance is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. 19.170.040 Limitation on authority. The Hearing Examiner may not grant a variance to: A. The regulations establishing the allowable uses in each zoning district; B. Any procedural or administrative provisions of the SVMC; or C. Any provision of the zoning Code which, by the terms of that Code, is not subject to a variance. 19.170.050 Time limitation. A variance automatically expires and is void if the applicant fails to obtain a building permit or other necessary development permit and substantially completes improvements allowed by the variance within 18 months of the effective date of the variance. 19.170.060 Time extension. Upon application of the property owner, the Hearing Examiner may extend a variance, not to exceed one year, if: A. Unforeseen circumstances or conditions necessitate the extension of the variance; B. Termination of the variance would result in unreasonable hardship to the applicant, and the applicant is not responsible for the delay; and C. The extension of the variance will not cause substantial detriment to existing uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 57 Chapter 19.180 Newly Annexed Areas Sections: 19.180.010 Newly annexed areas. 19.180.010 Newly annexed areas. Upon annexation of property, in the absence of a pre -established zoning designation therefor, the Council shall, within the annexation ordinance, establish an interim classification for the property on the City's Zoning Map. The interim zone shall be consistent with the annexation area's Comprehensive Plan designation. If an interim zoning district is established, it shall be in place no longer than 12 months unless otherwise provided by ordinance. The process for establishing an interim zoning district shall meet the requirements of RCW 36.70.795. For all property classified in the interim zone, the Department shall commence all steps necessary to establish an official zoning classification pursuant to the procedure described in SVMC 17.80.140. 58 Chapter 21.20 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT Sections: 21.20.010 Purpose. 21.20.020 Designation of responsible official. 21.20.030 Lead agency determination and agency responsibilities. 21.20.040 Categorical exemptions. 21.20.050 Environmental checklist. 21.20.060 Threshold determination. 21.20.070 Threshold determination — Determination of nonsignificance (DNS). 21.20.080 Threshold determination — Mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS). 21.20.090 Optional DNS process. 21.20.100 Threshold determination — Determination of significance (DS). 21.20.110 Environmental impact statement (EIS). 21.20.120 Environmental impact statement — Preparation. 21.20.130 Commenting. 21.20.140 Using existing environmental documents. 21.20.150 SEPA agency decisions, conditions, and appeals. 21.20.160 Definitions. 21.20.170 Forms. 21.20.010 Purpose. Chapter 21.20 SVMC implements the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.120, and Chapter 197-11 WAC. 21.20.020 Designation of responsible official. For those proposals for which the City is lead agency, the responsible official shall be the Director. The responsible official shall make the threshold determination, supervise scoping and preparation of any required EIS, and perform any other function assigned to the lead agency or responsible official. 21.20.030 Lead agency determination and agency responsibilities. A. When an application is filed for a nonexempt action or the City initiates a nonexempt action, the responsible official shall determine the lead agency for that proposal pursuant to WAC 197-11- 050 and WAC 197-11-922 through WAC 197-11-940, unless a lead agency has been previously identified or the responsible official is aware that another department or agency is in the process of determining the lead agency. B. When the City is not the lead agency for a proposal, all departments of the City shall use and consider as appropriate either the DNS or the final EIS of the lead agency in making decisions on the proposal. No City department shall prepare or require preparation of a DNS or EIS in addition to that prepared by the lead agency unless the responsible official determines a supplemental environmental review is necessary under WAC 197-11-600. C. If the City, or any of its departments, receive a lead agency determination made by another agency that appears inconsistent with the criteria of WAC 197-11-922 through WAC 197-11-940, it may object to the determination. Any objection must be made to the agency originally making the determination or the City must petition the Department of Ecology for a lead agency determination under WAC 197-11-946 within the 15 -day time period. Any such petition on behalf of the City shall be initiated by the responsible official. D. The responsible official is authorized to make agreements as to lead agency status or shared lead agency's duties for a proposal under WAC 197-11-942 and WAC197-11-944. 1 E. The responsible official shall require sufficient information from the applicant to identify other agencies with jurisdiction. 21.20.040 Categorical exemptions. Categorical exemptions are set forth in WAC 197-11-800. A. Application. If a proposal fits within any of the exemptions set forth in SVMC 21.20.040, the proposal shall be categorically exempt from the threshold determination requirements of WAC 197-11-720, except as follows: 1. The proposal includes an activity that is not exempt under WAC 197-11-908, Critical areas; 2. The proposal is a segment of a proposal that includes a series of actions, physically or functionally related to each other, some of which are categorically exempt and some of which are not; or 3. The proposal includes, or is a part of, a series of exempt actions that are physically or functionally related to each other and that together may have a probable significant adverse impact in the judgment of an agency with jurisdiction. B. Flexible Thresholds. The City adopts the following exempt levels for new construction pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1)(c): 1. For single-family residential dwelling units, up to 30 dwelling units. 2. For multifamily residential dwelling units, up to 60 units. 3. For barn, loafing shed, farm equipment storage, produce storage, or packing structure buildings, up to 40,000 square feet. 4. For office, school, commercial, recreational, service, or storage buildings, up to 30,000 square feet of gross floor area and with associated parking facilities designed for up to 90 parking spaces. This exemption includes stand-alone parking lots. 5. For landfills and excavations, up to 1,000 cubic yards. C. Exemptions for Infill Development. In order to accommodate infill, the City establishes the following exempt levels and procedures for construction of residential developments, mixed use, and commercial nonretail developments pursuant to RCW 43.21C.229: 1. Carnahan Infill Development: Up to 698 new dwelling units and commercial development that does not exceed 65,000 square feet in size (excluding retail uses), so long as the total P.M. peak hour trip generation does not exceed 433 trips for all combined land uses. 2. East Sprague Infill Development: Up to 282 new dwelling units and commercial development that does not exceed 65,000 square feet in size (excluding retail uses), so long as the total P.M. peak hour trip generation does not exceed 175 trips for all combined land uses. 3. Mirabeau Infill Development: To qualify for an exemption, this area is subject to participation in a voluntary developer agreement based on a Mirabeau traffic study conducted by the City. 2 4. East Broadway Infill Development: Up to 852 new dwelling units and commercial development that does not exceed 65,000 square feet in size (excluding retail uses), so long as the total P.M. peak hour trip generation does not exceed 582 trips for all combined land uses 5. Procedure for use of infill development categorical exemptions. In addition to the procedures in SVMC 21.20.040(D), the following procedures govern the use of infill development categorical exemptions: a. In determining whether or not an infill development proposal is exempt, the Department shall consider a traffic analysis based on the quantity of development units and the related applicable trip generation and the applicable trip generation for nonresidential uses; b. The traffic analysis shall be included with any application for a permit, license, certificate, or other approval. The traffic analysis shall follow Traffic Analysis guidelines as set forth in Chapter 3 of the Spokane Valley street standards SVMC 22.130.040; c. Developments that qualify for this SEPA exemption are still subject to chapter 22.20 SVMC, Concurrency. The maximum number of dwelling units and P.M. peak hour trips exempted pursuant to SVMC 21.20.40(C) — (F) apply to the cumulative development in the infill development areas. Development will be allowed under this exemption up to the point that all trips in the trip bank have been taken, unless denied by concurrency; and d. Upon approval of the proposal, the Department shall document the change in total available trips. These exempt levels are not applicable once the total available trips have been utilized. D. Procedure for use of categorical exemptions. The agency or applicant may proceed with the exempt aspects of a proposal prior to conducting environmental review of the nonexempt aspects of a proposal; provided, that the requirements of WAC 197-11-070 are met. E, Written Findings. The lead agency is not required to document that a proposal is categorically exempt; however, the lead agency may note on an application that a proposal is categorically exempt or place such a determination in the agency's files. 21.20.050 Environmental checklist. A. A completed environmental checklist shall be filed prior to or at the same time as an application for a permit, license, certificate, or other approval not categorically exempt. A checklist is not needed if the City and the applicant agree an EIS is required, SEPA compliance has been completed, or SEPA compliance has been initiated by another agency. B. For private proposals, the City will require the applicant to complete the environmental checklist. For public proposals, the department initiating the proposal shall complete the environmental checklist for that proposal. During the review of the environmental checklist, the staff will review and if necessary return the checklist to the applicant for revisions and/or additional information. City staff may also make minor changes or additions to the environmental checklist. C. For projects submitted under an approved planned action under WAC 197-11-164 and WAC 197- 11-168, the City shall use its existing environmental checklist form or may modify the environmental checklist form as provided in WAC 197-11-315. The modified environmental checklist form may be prepared and adopted along with, or as part of, a planned action 3 ordinance, or developed after the ordinance is adopted. In either case, a proposed modified environmental checklist form must be sent. 21.20.060 Threshold determination. A threshold determination is required pursuant to WAC 197-11-310. Within 90 days of issuing a letter of completeness for the application and environmental checklist, the responsible official shall either make a threshold determination or notify the applicant that a DS is likely and indicate the areas of likely impact. The applicant may request that the decision be postponed for an additional 30 days to allow the responsible official to evaluate mitigation measures proposed by the applicant. The responsible official shall grant such extension, if requested. 21.20.070 Threshold determination — Determination of nonsignificance (DNS). A. The responsible official may issue a DNS pursuant to WAC 197-11-340 if there will be no probable significant adverse impacts from a proposal. The lead agency shall prepare and issue a DNS substantially in the form provided in WAC 197-11-970. B. When a DNS is issued for any of the proposals listed in subsection SVMC 21.20.070(B)(1), the requirements of this subsection shall be met. The requirements of this subsection do not apply to a DNS issued when the optional DNS process set forth in SVMC 21.20.090 is used. 1. An agency shall not act upon a proposal for 14 days after the date of issuance of a DNS if the proposal involves: a. Another agency with jurisdiction; b. Demolition of any structure or facility not exempted by WAC 197-11-800(2)(f) or WAC 197-11-880; c. Issuance of clearing or grading permits not exempted under SVMC 21.20.040; d. A DNS under WAC 197-11-350(2) or (3) or WAC 197-11-360(4); or e. An action related to the requirements of the Growth Management Act. 2. The responsible official shall send the DNS and environmental checklist to agencies with jurisdiction, the Department of Ecology, affected tribes, and each local agency or political subdivision whose public services would be changed as a result of implementation of the proposal, and shall give notice pursuant to SVMC 21.20.130(A). 3. Any person, affected tribe, or agency may submit comments to the lead agency within 14 days of the date of issuance of the DNS. 4. The date of issue for the DNS is the date the DNS is sent to the Department of Ecology and agencies with jurisdiction and is made publicly available. 5. An agency with jurisdiction may assume lead agency status only within the 14 -day comment period pursuant to WAC 197-11-948. 6. The responsible official shall reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain or modify the DNS or, if the responsible official determines that significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS and/or supporting documents. When a DNS is modified, the lead agency shall send the modified DNS to agencies with jurisdiction. C. The lead agency shall withdraw a DNS if: 4 1. There are substantial changes to the proposal so that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts; or 2. There is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposal's probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or 3. The DNS was procured by misrepresentation or lack of material disclosure; if such DNS resulted from actions of an applicant, any subsequent environmental checklist on the proposal shall be prepared directly by the lead agency or a consultant at the expense of the applicant. D. If the lead agency withdraws a DNS, the lead agency shall make a new threshold determination and notify other agencies with jurisdiction of the withdrawal and new threshold determination. If a DS is issued, each agency with jurisdiction shall commence action to suspend, modify, or revoke any approvals until the necessary environmental review has occurred (WAC 197-11-070). 21.20.080 Threshold determination — Mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS). A. The responsible official may issue a MDNS based on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to or clarification of the proposal made by the applicant in a manner consistent with WAC 197-11-350. B. An applicant may request in writing early notice of whether a DS is likely under WAC 197-11-350. The request must: 1. Follow submission of a complete permit application and environmental checklist for a nonexempt proposal for which the Department is lead agency; and 2. Precede the agency's actual threshold determination for the proposal. C. The responsible official or a designee shall respond in writing to the request for early notice within 14 days unless otherwise agreed to. The response shall: 1. Be in writing; 2. State whether the City currently considers issuance of a DS likely, and if so, indicate the general or specific area(s) of concern leading the City to consider a DS; and 3. State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to mitigate the indicated impacts, revising the environmental checklist and/or permit application as necessary to reflect the changes or clarifications. D. The City's written response under the subsections above shall not be construed as a DS. In addition, preliminary discussions of clarifications or changes to a proposal, shall not bind the City to consider the clarifications or changes in its threshold determination. E. When an applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal, along with a revised or amended environmental checklist, the responsible official shall base the threshold determination on the changed or clarified proposal. 1. If the responsible official indicated specific mitigation measures in the response to the request for early notice and the applicant changed or clarified the proposal to include those specific mitigation measures, the responsible official shall issue and circulate a DNS pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2). 5 2. If the responsible official indicated areas of concern but did not indicate specific mitigation measures that would allow the issuance of a DNS, the responsible official shall make the threshold determination, issuing a DNS or DS as appropriate. 3. The applicant's proposed mitigation measures (clarifications, changes, or conditions) must be in writing and must be specific. 4. Mitigation measures which justify issuance of a mitigated DNS may be incorporated in the DNS by reference to agency staff reports, studies, or other documents. F. A MDNS is issued either under WAC 197-11-340(2) requiring a 14 -day comment period unless otherwise established by agency procedure and public notice pursuant to SVMC 21.20.130, or under WAC 197-11-355, which may require no additional comment period beyond the comment period on the notice of application. G. Mitigation measures incorporated in the MDNS shall be deemed conditions of approval of the permit decision and may be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit or enforced in any manner specifically prescribed by the City. 21.20.090 Optional DNS process. A. If the City has a reasonable basis for determining significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely, it may use a single integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and the likely threshold determination for the proposal. If this process is used, a second comment period will typically not be required when the DNS is issued; refer to subsection SVMC 21.20.090(D). B. If the lead agency uses the optional DNS process specified in subsection SVMC 21.20.090(A), the lead agency shall: 1, State on the first page of the notice of application that it expects to issue a DNS for the proposal and that: a. The optional DNS process is being used; b. This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal; c. The proposal may include mitigation measures under applicable codes, and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation measures regardless of whether an EIS is prepared; and d. A copy of the subsequent threshold determination for the specific proposal may be obtained upon request. In addition, the lead agency may choose to maintain a general mailing list for threshold determination distribution. 2. List in the notice of application the conditions being considered to mitigate environmental impacts, if a MDNS is expected. 3. Comply with the requirements for a notice of application in chapter 17.80 SVMC and public notice in SVMC 21.20.130(A). 4. Send the notice of application and environmental checklist to: 6 a. Agencies with jurisdiction, the Department of Ecology, affected tribes, and each local agency or political subdivision whose public services would be changed as a result of implementation of the proposal; and b. Anyone requesting a copy of the environmental checklist for the specific proposal. C. If the lead agency indicates on the notice of application that a DNS is likely, an agency with jurisdiction may assume lead agency status during the comment period on the notice of application pursuant to WAC 197-11-948. D. The responsible official shall consider timely comments on the notice of application and take one of the following actions: 1. Issue a DNS or MDNS with no comment period using the procedures in subsection SVMC 21.20.090(E); 2. Issue a DNS or MDNS with a comment period using the procedures in subsection SVMC 21.20.090(E), if the lead agency determines a comment period is necessary; 3. Issue a DS; or 4. Require additional information or studies prior to making a threshold determination E. If a DNS or mitigated DNS is issued under subsection SVMC 21.20.090(D)(1), the lead agency shall send a copy of the DNS or mitigated DNS to the Department of Ecology, agencies with jurisdiction, those who commented, and anyone requesting a copy. A copy of the environmental checklist need not be recirculated. 21.20.100 Threshold determination — Determination of significance (DS). If the responsible official determines that a proposal may have a probable significant adverse environmental impact, the responsible official shall prepare and issue a DS substantially in the form provided in WAC 197-11-980. The DS shall contain the informa