Loading...
2018, 07-31 Study SessionAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT (with some action items) Tuesday, July 31, 2018 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10210 E Sprague Avenue (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Second Reading Ordinance 18-014 Comp Plan Amendment — Lori Barlow [public comment] 2. Second Reading Ordinance 18-015 Comp Plan Amendment, Zoning Map — Lori Barlow [public comment] 3. Second Reading Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Wireless Franchise Agreement — Cary Driskell [public comment] 4. Second Reading Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Fiber Franchise Agreement — Cary Driskell [public comment] 5. Motion Consideration: Council Goals/Priorities For Lodging Tax — Chelsie Taylor [public comment] DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL NON -ACTION ITEMS: 6. Mike Basinger, and Scott VonCannon of Retail Strategies 7. Bill Helbig 8. Inspector Lyons 9. Councilmembers Wick and Peetz 10. Mayor Higgins Retail Recruitment Plan Minor Stormwater Property Acquisition (Barker Road) Quarterly Police Department Report Recap of Association of Washington Cities Yakima Conference Advance Agenda Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information 11. Information Only (will not be reported or discussed): Growth Management Planning Report 12. Mayor Higgins 13. Mark Calhoun Council Check in Discussion/Information City Manager Comments Discussion/Information 14. Executive Session: Review the Performance of a Public Employee [RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)] ADJOURN Study Session Agenda, July 31, 2018 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 31, 2018 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 Proposed Ordinance 18-014; 2018 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Admin. Report — July 17, 2018; Ordinance first reading — July 24, 2018 BACKGROUND: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 establishes an annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle that runs from November 1 st to October 31' of the following year. The Planning Commission considers applications during the following spring, with a decision by City Council generally occurring in late spring/early summer. The Community and Public Works Department received four privately initiated requests for site- specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. In addition, the City proposed two site specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment receive a zoning classification consistent with the new land use designation. On February 8, 2018, the Planning Commission was briefed on the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPAs), and a public hearing was conducted on February 22, 2018. The public hearing was closed at that time. On February 16, 2018 an appeal of the Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) issued for CPA - 2018 -0003 was received by the City. Pursuant to Chapter 17.90 SVMC appeals related to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) decisions are heard by the Hearing Examiner (HEX) and subject to a public hearing. Due to the SEPA appeal it was determined that the public hearing scheduled for February 22, 2018 in front of the Planning Commission would be conducted, but that deliberations or further action would be deferred until such time as the HEX ruled on the SEPA appeal. On March 27, 2018 the HEX conducted the appeal hearing. On April 17, 2018 the HEX issued a decision that denied the SEPA appeal. At the May 10, 2018 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission reviewed and deliberated on each of the proposed CPAs. The following recommendations to the City Council were voted on: CPA -2018-0001 The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2018-0001. CPA -2018-0003 The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to forward to City Council a recommendation of denial of CPA -2018-0003. CPA -2018-0004 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2018-0004. 1 of 2 CPA -2018-0005 The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2018-0005. Note: Commissioner Phillips recused himself due to a conflict of interest. CPA -2018-0006 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2018-0006. An Administrative Report was presented to City Council on July 17th. No public comment was taken at that time. The Council agreed by consensus to accept the Planning Commission Recommendation on each of the proposed amendments. OPTIONS: Move to approve the ordinance with or without further amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance 18-014, Comprehensive Plan Amendments. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner Karen Kendall, Planner ATTACHMENTS: Power Point Presentation 1) Draft Ordinance 18-014 2) Staff Report CPA -2018-0001 3) Staff Report CPA -2018-0003 4) Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 5) Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 6) Staff Report CPA -2018-0006 7) PC Meeting Minutes 2-08-18 8) PC Meeting Minutes 2-22-18 9) PC Meeting Minutes 5-10-18 10) PC Meeting Minutes 5-24-18 2 of 2 Martin Palaniuk, Planner Micki Harnois, Planner DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-014 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, through Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 16-019, the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and maps as the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Spokane Valley (the Comprehensive Plan); and WHEREAS, comprehensive plans may be amended annually pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 of the Growth Management Act (GMA); and WHEREAS, amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan may be initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), citizens, or by the Community and Public Works Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of all properties in the City that are consistent with land use map designations; and WHEREAS, the City adopted public participation guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides that amendment applications shall be received until November 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, applications were submitted by the applicant, owner, or by City staff to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for the purpose of beneficially using the property described herein; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Environmental Protection Act (chapter 43.21C RCW) (SEPA) and chapter 21.20 SVMC, staff conducted an environmental review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2018, after reviewing the environmental checklists, staff issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for each of the proposals, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, and where appropriate posted the DNS on the sites and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2018 and February 9, 2018, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2018 notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners within 800 feet of the subject properties; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2018, notice of the Commission hearing had been posted on all the subject properties; and Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 of 12 DRAFT WHEREAS, on February 8, 2018, the Commission conducted a study session to review the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2018, an appeal of the DNS issued for CPA -2018-0003 was received by the City. Pursuant to chapter 17.90 SVMC, appeals related to SEPA decisions are heard by the Hearing Examiner (HEX) and subject to an appeal hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2018, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 of the City's intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2018, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, the HEX conducted the appeal hearing; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2018, the HEX issued a decision that denied the SEPA appeal; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2018, the Commission deliberated and voted to forward CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 to Council with a recommendation for approval; and CPA -2018-0003 to Council with a recommendation for denial with written findings of fact setting forth the bases for such recommendations to Council; and WHEREAS, CPA -2018-0002 was withdrawn by the applicant and CPA -2018-0007 was withdrawn by the City; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2018, Council conducted a briefing to review the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2018, the Council concurred to place CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA - 2018 -0005, and CPA -2018-0006 in an ordinance for consideration of approval and to place CPA -2018- 0003 in the ordinance for consideration of denial; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2018, Council considered a first ordinance reading to approve CPA -2018- 0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 and to deny CPA -2018-0003; and WHEREAS, on July 31, 2018, Council considered a second ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendments for CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 and to deny CPA -2018-0003. 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 amend the Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. Findings. The Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, and the Council hereby approves the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan map and text, with the exception of CPA -2018-0003, which is denied. The Council has read and considered the Commission's findings. Council's findings specific to each proposed amendment are contained in Section 4 below. The Council hereby makes the following general findings applicable to all proposed amendments: Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 2 of 12 DRAFT General Findings: 1. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C (SEPA), environmental checklists were required for each proposed Comprehensive Plan map and text amendment. 2. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and a threshold determination was made for each proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 3. On February 2, 2018, Determinations of Non -Significance (DNS) were issued for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. 4. On February 2, 2018, the DNS's were published in the City's official newspaper, the Valley News Herald, pursuant to chapter 21.20 SVMC. 5. The procedural requirements of SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. 6. On February 7, 2018, individual notices of public hearing for the proposed site-specific map amendments were, or had been previously, mailed to all property owners within 800 feet of each affected site. 7. On February 7, 2018 each site subject to a proposed site-specific amendment was, or had been previously, posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. 8. On February 2, 2018 and February 9, 2018, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald 9. On February 20, 2018, the Washington State Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 10. The procedural requirements in SVMC 17.80.140 for the amendment process, including public participation, notice, and public hearing requirements have been met. 11. On February 16, 2018, an appeal of the DNS issued for CPA -2108-0003 was received by the City. 12. On February 22, 2018, the Commission held a public hearing on each of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. After receiving public testimony the public hearing was closed. 13. On March 27, 2018, the HEX conducted the appeal hearing. 14. On April 17, 2018, the HEX issued a decision that denied the SEPA appeal. 15. On May 10, 2018, the Commission deliberated and voted to forward CPA -2018-0001, CPA - 2018 -0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 to Council with a recommendation for approval, and CPA -2018-0003 to Council with a recommendation for denial. CPA -2018- 0002 was withdrawn by the applicant and CPA -2018-0007 was withdrawn by staff. No action was taken on either item and no recommendation was forwarded to the Council from the Commission. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 3 of 12 DRAFT 16. The Commission adopted findings for CPA -2018-0001 and CPA -2018-0003 through CPA - 2018 -0006. Such findings were presented to Council. Specific findings for each Comprehensive Plan Amendment request are contained in Section 4, below. 17. The Commission and Council have reviewed the proposed amendments concurrently to evaluate the cumulative impacts. The review was consistent with the annual amendment process pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW. 18. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of CPA -2018-0003, are consistent with GMA and do not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. Section 3. Property. The properties subject to this Ordinance are described in Attachment "A" (2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Maps). Section 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment "A" (2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Maps). The Comprehensive Plan amendments are generally described as follows: Mau Amendments: File No. CPA -2018-0001: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Single -Family Residential (SFR) with a Single -Family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning classification to a Multifamily Residential (MFR) designation with a Multifamily Residential (MFR) zoning classification. Applicant: Robin R & Lori R Petrie, 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99216- 0928. Amendment Location: Parcel No(s). 45153.2801, 45153.2835, and 45153.2836; addressed as 12402 East Valleyway Avenue and 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, located 300 feet east of the intersection of Valleyway Avenue and Pines Road (SR Hwy 27), further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment are promoted by standards established by the state and the City's regulations. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Allows opportunity for growth in an area with adequate public facilities. b. Creates opportunity for a range of residential uses and densities to develop in a neighborhood adjacent to commercial and high density residential uses. 3. The amendment provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. The properties on Pines Road were previously zoned Office (0) which curtailed retail uses. During the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update, the Office designation was eliminated and the designation was changed to CMU, which expanded the opportunity for a variety of retail and office uses. The proposed three parcels, which are adjacent to the CMU designated parcels, are designated as SFR for single family uses. The MFR would allow for a range of residential uses, including multifamily and single family, and would allow office uses consistent with the existing uses. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 4 of 12 DRAFT 5. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 6. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. No significant effects upon the physical environment are expected if the property develops consistent with the MFR zone. 8. There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. 9. Development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations will ensure compatibility with the existing residential neighborhood. 10. The City addressed adequacy of community facilities through capital facilities planning. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City ensure that facilities and services meet the minimum level of service standards. This is implemented through chapter 22.20 SVMC, Concurrency. At the time of development, a Trip Generation Letter or Traffic Impact Analysis will likely be required, and appropriate safety mitigation measures considered to mitigate actual development impacts. Currently, the site is served with all utilities and improved public roads. 11. The proposed site-specific map amendment should not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The site has traditionally been residential, and the regulations ensure that future development will be compatible with the existing residential uses in the immediate area. A higher density of residential housing near retail areas will support retail uses. 12. The subject property would have an insignificant effect on the amount of land designated for both SF and MFR and/or the potential population increase. 13. If development did occur to meet all development standards in the MFR zone, a maximum of 46 residences would be allowed, with a projected population density of 53 persons per acre within the proposed amendment area. Considering the existing development of two single family residences, and the available area for new development, maximum density will not likely be achieved. Directing density to areas near transportation corridors and commercial areas is consistent with the intent of the MFR designation. 14. The amendment will have no substantive impact on other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan since the property will remain residential is use. 15. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 16. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 17. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 18. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Council Decision: Change the designation for parcel numbers 45153.2801, 45153.2835, and 45153.2836 to Multifamily Residential (MFR). File No. CPA -2018-0003: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Suburban (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Amendment Location: Parcel number 45333.1807; located west of the Y intersection of East Sands Road and South Bowdish Road, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 5 of 12 DRAFT Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment is generally not served by the proposed amendment. Land use and the regulation of land uses are inherently related to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The City is required by the GMA to identify and protect Critical Areas. The majority of the site is located within a floodplain. A Type F stream is located north of the site in the railroad right-of-way and would require buffering for protection. The soil on the site is classified as an alluvium soil made up of finely granulated silt and clay deposits from water flow. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. The request generally does not conflict with the goals. The request allows development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services are available. Environmental regulations ensure that critical areas are adequately protected while balancing the land owners right to develop the property. With regard to the portion of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan not affected by the amendment, the request is not consistent with the intent of the CMU land use designation as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. The amendment does not respond to any substantial changes since the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. Growth has been continuous in the area, with the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way serving as a dividing line between residential and commercial land use designations. 4. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 5. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. A thorough analysis of land use quantity and needs was completed during the City's 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan. Deficiencies in the plan were addressed as part of the update and land use changes were implemented in this area that addressed those deficiencies. There is adequate commercial and industrial property to accommodate future growth. 6. The change in land use would allow a more intense development of the property. The CMU designation is the most versatile of the commercial/mixed use designations, allowing uses ranging from light manufacturing to single-family dwellings. If commercial development occurs, the site could transition from open field of grasses, trees and shrubs to asphalt parking areas, stormwater treatment areas, and buildings with commercial landscaping. The maximum building height in the CMU zone is regulated through the application of transitional setbacks and would be limited by the proximity of the surrounding residential uses. A residential density standard does not exist in the CMU zone and multi -family development would be limited by the physical factors imposed by the site. 7. The site is currently dedicated and utilized as a drainage easement for the stormwater associated with Sundown Drive. Any development that would occur on the site would require compliance with Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls to limit the impact to both the floodplain and to the riparian area along Chester Creek. Modifications to the floodplain may be undertaken through a floodplain map revision process with FEMA. Chester Creek is considered a type "F" Stream in the location of the proposed CPA. The stream would require the necessary buffers and protection. 8. The areas south and west of the site are residential neighborhoods comprised of single family homes. The density of the homes ranges from one single family home per acre to four single family homes per acre. The lot sizes are generally between 10,000 and 40,000 square feet. The neighborhood is separated from the CMU land uses along Dishman-Mica Road by the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and tracks. The change would not be compatible with the low-density single family residential neighborhood that exists adjacent to the site. 9. The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a city-wide basis through capital facilities planning The City determined that there is adequate transportation Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 6 of 12 DRAFT infrastructure to meet transportation concurrency in this area. The site is located within the service area for Spokane County Water District #3 and is currently served with water. Spokane County Environmental Services serves the site with sewer. 10. The City of Spokane Valley updated its Comprehensive Plan in 2016 with considerable public outreach. Analysis and public input with regard to the land use needs and requirements of the Ponderosa neighborhood, Dishman-Mica corridor, and the City in general were considered at that time. Appropriate changes in land use designations and zoning were undertaken at that time to address any needs or deficiencies identified in the update process. 11. The Comprehensive Plan underwent a legislative update in 2016. As part of the 2016 update, CMU land use was designated along the Dishman-Mica corridor in the vicinity of the proposed amendment. In the south Dishman-Mica area, near the proposed amendment site, there is over 24 acres of undeveloped CMU zoned property. 12. Spokane Valley has experienced steady, but modest population growth since its incorporation, growing at a rate of about 1% per year. It is assumed that the site characteristics will limit the number of dwelling units to below the maximum density. Light manufacturing, office or retail development would not add to the population density. The development of the property will not have a significant impact on the population density. 13. Overall the amendment would have no substantive effect on other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. 14. For the reasons set forth herein, the proposed amendment is not consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.140(H) and the Comprehensive Plan. Council Decision: Deny the request to change the designation for parcel number 45333.1807 to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). File No. CPA -2018-0004: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Applicant: Heather Bryant, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201. Amendment Location: Parcel number 45212.1348; located in the SE corner of 7th Avenue and University Road, further located in the NW 1/4 of Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. Infrastructure in the form of roadways, parking, sewer, water, schools, and fire protection, is built through the course of development that will protect and serve the public health, safety, and welfare. The site has no environmentally sensitive areas. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. The amendment allows opportunity for growth in a centralized area with adequate public facilities, and creates opportunity for small scale businesses to develop in a neighborhood oriented commercial area within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. The request does not conflict with any other GMA goals. 3. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. This property and the property located adjacent to the south are under the same ownership. The southern property was zoned NC during the 2016 update however site characteristics constrain its development. Access to any neighborhood commercial development would be more easily accommodated if access can be gained from the amendment site. 4. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 7 of 12 DRAFT 5. The proposed amendment does address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update specifically sought to identify areas into which NC zoning could be clustered. The Comprehensive Plan identifies neighborhood areas served by arterial roadways. The parcel located adjacent and south of the subject parcel was identified and zoned as NC as part of the 2016 update. The amendment would allow the full use of this parcel and expand the NC zone. 6. The site will likely transition from a residential use with residential driveways, trees, lawn, and buildings to a commercial building with parking structures, commercial landscaping, and stormwater treatment areas. The transition would have some impact on the physical environment. 7. The site does not contain any streams, rivers or lakes. There will be negligible impact on the open space areas. 8. The commercial uses allowed in the NC zone are limited and are intended to be of a scale that is compatible with a neighborhood. A Neighborhood Commercial development is purposefully limited to reduce impacts to neighboring residential uses. Development standards will limit the height and location of any new commercial use. A positive impact would be created if the property is developed with a use that serves the surrounding residential uses. 9. Neighborhood commercial use will likely have minimal impact on parks, recreation or schools. No impacts are anticipated. 10. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update sought to increase the neighborhood commercial nodes. Providing a neighborhood commercial use within a residential neighborhood will provide both economic opportunity and a neighborhood amenity. 11. As part of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update, areas with the densities to support neighborhood scale retail were identified. The parcel adjacent and south of the subject parcel was identified as a suitable site and designated for neighborhood commercial land use and zoning as part of the 2016 update. Sloping terrain limits this site however. 12. The addition of a neighborhood retail development is not anticipated to increase or decrease the population or density in the area. The change will have no impact on population density. 13. The NC designation would support many of the Economic Development, Land Use, Transportation, and Housing goals. It would have little effect on the Capital Facilities and Public Services, Public and Private Utilities, Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources elements of the Comprehensive plan. 14. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 15. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 16. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 17. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Council Decision: Change the designation for parcel number 45212.1348 to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). File No. CPA -2018-0005: Proposal: City -initiated site specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to expand the NC designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR), and the associated zoning of NC and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Applicant: City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 8 of 12 DRAFT Amendment Location: As modified by City Council, parcels 46353.9035 and 46355.9038; located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. The affected parcels are inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two different sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, properties designated NC were expanded and designated on portions of parcels associated with CPA -2018-0005. 4. The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created parcels burdened by two different sets of development regulations. 5. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 6. There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non -project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. 7. The site contains designated critical areas that include a Type F stream on the northwest corner of parcel 46351.9049, and parcels are located within a 100 -year floodplain. FEMA has accepted the conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) to modify the boundaries and remove the floodplain from the majority of the site. SVMC 21.40 Critical Areas will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. 8. The existing land use designation of NC for the proposed amendment was evaluated and placed on the property through the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The amendment corrects the minor mapping error and eliminates split zoned parcels. The corrections are minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA -2018-0005 parcels are vacant and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all applicable City and State requirements as it relates to adjacent uses. 9. The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. 10. The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. 11. The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. As discussed in the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan the neighborhood -scale commercial development is Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 9 of 12 DRAFT limited in the City. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan update designated a portion of parcels NC associated with CTA -2018-0005. 12. The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment have an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. 13. The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is correcting a mapping error. 14. During the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, the owner sought and received a boundary line adjustment (BLA) for the five parcels affected by the amendment. The BLA changes the impact of the amendment from affecting five parcels to affecting two parcels, although the total area affected remains the same: parcel no. 46353.9035 and 46355.9038. The two parcels reflect the same area previously affected. The Council hereby finds that modifying the proposed amendment to accurately reflect the new parcel numbers is appropriate. Further, the Council finds that the modification is not a substantial modification since the amendment remains the same except for the change in parcel numbers and no further action is required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(1)(3). 15. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 16. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 17. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 18. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Council Decision: Expand the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning on Parcel numbers 46353.9035 and 46355.9038 to eliminate the split designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR), and the associated zoning of NC and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). The Council approves modifying the proposed amendment from parcels 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, and 46354.9127 to parcels 46353.9035 46355.9038 due to a BLA that occurred during the Comprehensive Amendment process. File No. CPA -2018-0006: Proposal: City -initiated site specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to expand the Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of IMU and Single Family Residential (SFR, and the associated zoning of IMU and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Applicant: City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206. Amendment Location: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. The affected parcel is inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two different sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 10 of 12 DRAFT a. Provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, the land use designation IMU was created and applied to parcel associated with CPA -2018-0006 to capture the existing diverse uses and focus future infill development along Trent Avenue. 4. The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created a parcel burdened by two different sets of development regulations. 5. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 6. There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non -project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. 7. There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas associated with CPA - 2018 -0006. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, nor are there known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. 8. The City initiated amendment corrects a minor mapping error to eliminate a split zoned parcel. The correction is both minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA -2018-0006 parcel is fully developed and a swale is constructed within the split zoned portion of land designated SFR. 9. The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. Currently the site is served with all utilities and public streets. 10. The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. 11. The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. Residential uses allowed in the IMU designation are incidental and subservient to any commercial or industrial uses. 12. The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment has an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. 13. The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment corrects a mapping error. 14. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 15. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 16. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 17. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 11 of 12 DRAFT Council Decision: Expand the Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation on parcel number 45015.1409. Section 5. Copies on File - Administrative Action. The Comprehensive Plan (with maps) is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the City's Department of Community and Public Works. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is authorized to modify the Comprehensive Plan in a manner consistent with this Ordinance, including correcting scrivener's errors. Section 6. Liability. The express intent of the City is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall rest with the permit applicant and their agents. This Ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations. Section 7. 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 8. 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 as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of July, 2018. ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 12 of 12 Comprehensive Plan Map [illy pokane CPA -2018-0001 Owner: Petrie, Robin & Lori/ Green, Audrey Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: Citizen initiated proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan map from SFR to MFR; subsequent Rezone from R-3 to MFR Comprehensive Plan Map Spokane �.•s Valley CPA -2018-0003 Owner: Dennis & Melissa Crapo Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: Privately iuNirrtori silo -specific ('unrprehrrn'irn Plan Map and %nirilg A fop rrnrerr(hnerit reyuexling fn c/rang& rlre C wnyre1mi%ive Pfinr Lem( (Ire Lrecignalionfr•onr Lurr Ui'r+v'ir1 Idesirlerrnal (11)10 with a Snrw/o fool h, Residential Suburban District (i ) ncr� chis iluralon to Cori ulor rico' (r Ali 1)dec. ihnationwith a Cori olor k dfJ (1)classification 40 (IStudy Area d 11 Wmu1V 4's„�,y im1 uu1„,1plyr.,,,r. pIsuli uuuuuuuum 1 E 8th Ave Comprehensive Plan Map Spokane �,,.•� Valley CPA -2018-0004 Owner: Steve & Tresa Schmautz Pareel##: See Map Address: See Map Request: Prlxaael! ruhirxrd Site-specific Cumprehensme Phar 1.1 q aari /rmrng"dap amendment rcqrrrs[iag 10 change the f rn,o,ehitastrr' 1'liut land lls.• Designation/rani Siht.:Iti ramify hecideiriial(51R) with a Single jianilt Ncrideirrial Urban JJistricl (R-3) znnmg chcitsrJit alir,a rn \J/bol (anr0Iercial drs ienaiirrrr with a Nrrg{hhnrhood (arnarercial (NC') ar nig;e clrr.a,a!icrrtinn Comprehensive Plan Map Spokane Valley (_1'A-2018-0005 Owner: Parcels: Address: Five Fifty, LLC 46353.9035, 46355.9038, Unknown Request:, City initiated proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning ofparcel Comprehensive Plan Map Spokane �• Valley CPA -2018-0006 Owner: MPR Spokane, LLC Parce!#: See Map Address: See Map Request: City initiated proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IME9 designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel Spokane j�alley 2018 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments City Council Meeting July 31, 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process IN ■ a Environmental Determination Notice of Public 0) 0 1 Planning Commission Study Session 2-2-18 Public Hearing 2-22-18 Deliberations 5-10-18 Findings of Fact 5-24-18 Administrative Report 7-17-18 V C 0 O Ordinance 1St 0 Reading 7-24-18 U Ordinance 2n Reading 7-31-18 Today Privately Initiated Map Amendment CPA -201 8-0001 Micki Harnois, Planner The Planning Commission voted six to one to recommend approval. This is reflected in Ordinance 18-014 and 18-015 CPA -2018-0001 Project Number: Applicant: Owners: Proposal: i CPA -2018-0001 Robin Petrie Robin R & Lori A Petrie Audrey N Green Change the land use designation from SFR to MFR and the zoning from R-3 to MFR 3 1� 2: ; E Sprap a Ave Opp artur5iiy j _, Aye E :2: Project Site CPA -2018-0001 a a 2 Displaying aSurrounding uses wE = Commercial W _ 'CC L = Multifamily L ' = CPA -2018-0001 Privately Initiated Map Amendment CPA -201 8-0003 Marty Palaniuk, Planner The Planning Commission voted six to one to recommend denial. This is reflected in Ordinance 18-014 and 18-015 CPA -2018 0003 0 Project Number CPA -2018-0003 Applicant: Whipple Consulting Engineers Owners: Dennis & Melissa Crapo Proposal: Change the Land Use Designation from SFR to CMU and the zoning from R-2 to : . I .14 .r. 1.. 4:!Th . : - r. Project Site CPA -2018-0003 Privately Initiated Map Amendment CPA -201 8-0004 Marty Palaniuk, Planner The Planning Commission voted seven to zero to recommend approval. This is reflected in Ordinance 18-014 and 18-015 CPA -2018-0004 il 0 Project Number CPA -2018-0004 Applicant: Owners: Proposal: Heather Bryant Steve & Tresa Schmautz Change Land Use Designation SFR to NC and the zoning from R-3 to NC City Hall I . U !E , Project Site X t r 3 a: E 7 S3 7 .t. ir Zli pr .7.1 :1: vi :EE ti .0 _. ._ r 03 Y. ..: ., •R f : CPA -2018-0004 City Initiated Map Amendment CPA -2018-0005 Karen Kendall, Planner The Planning Commission voted six to zero to recommend approval. This is reflected in Ordinance 18-014 and 18-015 13 CPA -2018-0005 0 Project Number Project Site CPA -2018-0005 Applicant: City of Spokane Valley Owners: Five Fifty, LLC Proposal: Expand the NC designation & zoning to eliminate split zoning of the parcels currently designated SFR and NC and zoned R-3 and NC. A.OwentAve -5 Hgh Sc hool ir 4 „LjupVy nlicarMr5,+!!.. SiOarj, .1_1r1Anri lirentwood , E CPA -201 8-OOC. Q J Q ctW Q 1 City Initiated Map Amendment CPA -201 8-0006 Karen Kendall, Planner The Planning Commission voted seven to zero to recommend approval. This is reflected in Ordinance 18-014 and 18-015 CPA -2018-0006 16 Project Number CPA -2018-0006 Applicant: Owner: Proposal: City of Spokane Valley MPR Spokane, LLC Expand the IMU designation & zoning to eliminate split zoning of the parcels currently designated SFR and IMU and zoned R-3 and IMU. East Valley High S:hool E_60,sIWalksh-Sa$ . Trentwood IZ rn _F] KI Pr 11 ' H' Wsh aoh. -E-FTnort' E -u? fail R a "r Frith ?war_ z EE Industrial ParkA""-St;t v, i-ut..L. irai «ai i4 E:Itdus$i8I Park B St r15en n] x0 a C N r' .Ea Project Site E ri. cl t f4; p J`nixn Paclfi�: CPA -2018-0006 Trent Avenue (SR 290) DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-014 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, through Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 16-019, the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and maps as the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Spokane Valley (the Comprehensive Plan); and WHEREAS, comprehensive plans may be amended annually pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 of the Growth Management Act (GMA); and WHEREAS, amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan may be initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), citizens, or by the Community and Public Works Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of all properties in the City that are consistent with land use map designations; and WHEREAS, the City adopted public participation guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides that amendment applications shall be received until November 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, applications were submitted by the applicant, owner, or by City staff to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for the purpose of beneficially using the property described herein; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Environmental Protection Act (chapter 43.21C RCW) (SEPA) and chapter 21.20 SVMC, staff conducted an environmental review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2018, after reviewing the environmental checklists, staff issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for each of the proposals, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, and where appropriate posted the DNS on the sites and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2018 and February 9, 2018, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2018 notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners within 800 feet of the subject properties; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2018, notice of the Commission hearing had been posted on all the subject properties; and Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 of 12 DRAFT WHEREAS, on February 8, 2018, the Commission conducted a study session to review the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2018, an appeal of the DNS issued for CPA -2018-0003 was received by the City. Pursuant to chapter 17.90 SVMC, appeals related to SEPA decisions are heard by the Hearing Examiner (HEX) and subject to an appeal hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2018, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 of the City's intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2018, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, the HEX conducted the appeal hearing; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2018, the HEX issued a decision that denied the SEPA appeal; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2018, the Commission deliberated and voted to forward CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 to Council with a recommendation for approval; and CPA -2018-0003 to Council with a recommendation for denial with written findings of fact setting forth the bases for such recommendations to Council; and WHEREAS, CPA -2018-0002 was withdrawn by the applicant and CPA -2018-0007 was withdrawn by the City; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2018, Council conducted a briefing to review the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2018, the Council concurred to place CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA - 2018 -0005, and CPA -2018-0006 in an ordinance for consideration of approval and to place CPA -2018- 0003 in the ordinance for consideration of denial; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2018, Council considered a first ordinance reading to approve CPA -2018- 0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 and to deny CPA -2018-0003; and WHEREAS, on July 31, 2018, Council considered a second ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendments for CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 and to deny CPA -2018-0003. 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 amend the Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. Findings. The Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, and the Council hereby approves the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan map and text, with the exception of CPA -2018-0003, which is denied. The Council has read and considered the Commission's findings. Council's findings specific to each proposed amendment are contained in Section 4 below. The Council hereby makes the following general findings applicable to all proposed amendments: Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 2 of 12 DRAFT General Findings: 1. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C (SEPA), environmental checklists were required for each proposed Comprehensive Plan map and text amendment. 2. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and a threshold determination was made for each proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 3. On February 2, 2018, Determinations of Non -Significance (DNS) were issued for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. 4. On February 2, 2018, the DNS's were published in the City's official newspaper, the Valley News Herald, pursuant to chapter 21.20 SVMC. 5. The procedural requirements of SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. 6. On February 7, 2018, individual notices of public hearing for the proposed site-specific map amendments were, or had been previously, mailed to all property owners within 800 feet of each affected site. 7. On February 7, 2018 each site subject to a proposed site-specific amendment was, or had been previously, posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. 8. On February 2, 2018 and February 9, 2018, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald 9. On February 20, 2018, the Washington State Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 10. The procedural requirements in SVMC 17.80.140 for the amendment process, including public participation, notice, and public hearing requirements have been met. 11. On February 16, 2018, an appeal of the DNS issued for CPA -2108-0003 was received by the City. 12. On February 22, 2018, the Commission held a public hearing on each of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. After receiving public testimony the public hearing was closed. 13. On March 27, 2018, the HEX conducted the appeal hearing. 14. On April 17, 2018, the HEX issued a decision that denied the SEPA appeal. 15. On May 10, 2018, the Commission deliberated and voted to forward CPA -2018-0001, CPA - 2018 -0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 to Council with a recommendation for approval, and CPA -2018-0003 to Council with a recommendation for denial. CPA -2018- 0002 was withdrawn by the applicant and CPA -2018-0007 was withdrawn by staff. No action was taken on either item and no recommendation was forwarded to the Council from the Commission. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 3 of 12 DRAFT 16. The Commission adopted findings for CPA -2018-0001 and CPA -2018-0003 through CPA - 2018 -0006. Such findings were presented to Council. Specific findings for each Comprehensive Plan Amendment request are contained in Section 4, below. 17. The Commission and Council have reviewed the proposed amendments concurrently to evaluate the cumulative impacts. The review was consistent with the annual amendment process pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW. 18. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of CPA -2018-0003, are consistent with GMA and do not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. Section 3. Property. The properties subject to this Ordinance are described in Attachment "A" (2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Maps). Section 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment "A" (2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Maps). The Comprehensive Plan amendments are generally described as follows: Mau Amendments: File No. CPA -2018-0001: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Single -Family Residential (SFR) with a Single -Family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning classification to a Multifamily Residential (MFR) designation with a Multifamily Residential (MFR) zoning classification. Applicant: Robin R & Lori R Petrie, 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99216- 0928. Amendment Location: Parcel No(s). 45153.2801, 45153.2835, and 45153.2836; addressed as 12402 East Valleyway Avenue and 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, located 300 feet east of the intersection of Valleyway Avenue and Pines Road (SR Hwy 27), further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment are promoted by standards established by the state and the City's regulations. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Allows opportunity for growth in an area with adequate public facilities. b. Creates opportunity for a range of residential uses and densities to develop in a neighborhood adjacent to commercial and high density residential uses. 3. The amendment provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. The properties on Pines Road were previously zoned Office (0) which curtailed retail uses. During the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update, the Office designation was eliminated and the designation was changed to CMU, which expanded the opportunity for a variety of retail and office uses. The proposed three parcels, which are adjacent to the CMU designated parcels, are designated as SFR for single family uses. The MFR would allow for a range of residential uses, including multifamily and single family, and would allow office uses consistent with the existing uses. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 4 of 12 DRAFT 5. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 6. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. No significant effects upon the physical environment are expected if the property develops consistent with the MFR zone. 8. There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. 9. Development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations will ensure compatibility with the existing residential neighborhood. 10. The City addressed adequacy of community facilities through capital facilities planning. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City ensure that facilities and services meet the minimum level of service standards. This is implemented through chapter 22.20 SVMC, Concurrency. At the time of development, a Trip Generation Letter or Traffic Impact Analysis will likely be required, and appropriate safety mitigation measures considered to mitigate actual development impacts. Currently, the site is served with all utilities and improved public roads. 11. The proposed site-specific map amendment should not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The site has traditionally been residential, and the regulations ensure that future development will be compatible with the existing residential uses in the immediate area. A higher density of residential housing near retail areas will support retail uses. 12. The subject property would have an insignificant effect on the amount of land designated for both SF and MFR and/or the potential population increase. 13. If development did occur to meet all development standards in the MFR zone, a maximum of 46 residences would be allowed, with a projected population density of 53 persons per acre within the proposed amendment area. Considering the existing development of two single family residences, and the available area for new development, maximum density will not likely be achieved. Directing density to areas near transportation corridors and commercial areas is consistent with the intent of the MFR designation. 14. The amendment will have no substantive impact on other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan since the property will remain residential is use. 15. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 16. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 17. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 18. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Council Decision: Change the designation for parcel numbers 45153.2801, 45153.2835, and 45153.2836 to Multifamily Residential (MFR). File No. CPA -2018-0003: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Suburban (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Amendment Location: Parcel number 45333.1807; located west of the Y intersection of East Sands Road and South Bowdish Road, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 5 of 12 DRAFT Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment is generally not served by the proposed amendment. Land use and the regulation of land uses are inherently related to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The City is required by the GMA to identify and protect Critical Areas. The majority of the site is located within a floodplain. A Type F stream is located north of the site in the railroad right-of-way and would require buffering for protection. The soil on the site is classified as an alluvium soil made up of finely granulated silt and clay deposits from water flow. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. The request generally does not conflict with the goals. The request allows development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services are available. Environmental regulations ensure that critical areas are adequately protected while balancing the land owners right to develop the property. With regard to the portion of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan not affected by the amendment, the request is not consistent with the intent of the CMU land use designation as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. The amendment does not respond to any substantial changes since the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. Growth has been continuous in the area, with the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way serving as a dividing line between residential and commercial land use designations. 4. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 5. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. A thorough analysis of land use quantity and needs was completed during the City's 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan. Deficiencies in the plan were addressed as part of the update and land use changes were implemented in this area that addressed those deficiencies. There is adequate commercial and industrial property to accommodate future growth. 6. The change in land use would allow a more intense development of the property. The CMU designation is the most versatile of the commercial/mixed use designations, allowing uses ranging from light manufacturing to single-family dwellings. If commercial development occurs, the site could transition from open field of grasses, trees and shrubs to asphalt parking areas, stormwater treatment areas, and buildings with commercial landscaping. The maximum building height in the CMU zone is regulated through the application of transitional setbacks and would be limited by the proximity of the surrounding residential uses. A residential density standard does not exist in the CMU zone and multi -family development would be limited by the physical factors imposed by the site. 7. The site is currently dedicated and utilized as a drainage easement for the stormwater associated with Sundown Drive. Any development that would occur on the site would require compliance with Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls to limit the impact to both the floodplain and to the riparian area along Chester Creek. Modifications to the floodplain may be undertaken through a floodplain map revision process with FEMA. Chester Creek is considered a type "F" Stream in the location of the proposed CPA. The stream would require the necessary buffers and protection. 8. The areas south and west of the site are residential neighborhoods comprised of single family homes. The density of the homes ranges from one single family home per acre to four single family homes per acre. The lot sizes are generally between 10,000 and 40,000 square feet. The neighborhood is separated from the CMU land uses along Dishman-Mica Road by the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and tracks. The change would not be compatible with the low-density single family residential neighborhood that exists adjacent to the site. 9. The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a city-wide basis through capital facilities planning The City determined that there is adequate transportation Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 6 of 12 DRAFT infrastructure to meet transportation concurrency in this area. The site is located within the service area for Spokane County Water District #3 and is currently served with water. Spokane County Environmental Services serves the site with sewer. 10. The City of Spokane Valley updated its Comprehensive Plan in 2016 with considerable public outreach. Analysis and public input with regard to the land use needs and requirements of the Ponderosa neighborhood, Dishman-Mica corridor, and the City in general were considered at that time. Appropriate changes in land use designations and zoning were undertaken at that time to address any needs or deficiencies identified in the update process. 11. The Comprehensive Plan underwent a legislative update in 2016. As part of the 2016 update, CMU land use was designated along the Dishman-Mica corridor in the vicinity of the proposed amendment. In the south Dishman-Mica area, near the proposed amendment site, there is over 24 acres of undeveloped CMU zoned property. 12. Spokane Valley has experienced steady, but modest population growth since its incorporation, growing at a rate of about 1% per year. It is assumed that the site characteristics will limit the number of dwelling units to below the maximum density. Light manufacturing, office or retail development would not add to the population density. The development of the property will not have a significant impact on the population density. 13. Overall the amendment would have no substantive effect on other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. 14. For the reasons set forth herein, the proposed amendment is not consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.140(H) and the Comprehensive Plan. Council Decision: Deny the request to change the designation for parcel number 45333.1807 to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). File No. CPA -2018-0004: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Applicant: Heather Bryant, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201. Amendment Location: Parcel number 45212.1348; located in the SE corner of 7th Avenue and University Road, further located in the NW 1/4 of Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. Infrastructure in the form of roadways, parking, sewer, water, schools, and fire protection, is built through the course of development that will protect and serve the public health, safety, and welfare. The site has no environmentally sensitive areas. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. The amendment allows opportunity for growth in a centralized area with adequate public facilities, and creates opportunity for small scale businesses to develop in a neighborhood oriented commercial area within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. The request does not conflict with any other GMA goals. 3. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. This property and the property located adjacent to the south are under the same ownership. The southern property was zoned NC during the 2016 update however site characteristics constrain its development. Access to any neighborhood commercial development would be more easily accommodated if access can be gained from the amendment site. 4. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 7 of 12 DRAFT 5. The proposed amendment does address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update specifically sought to identify areas into which NC zoning could be clustered. The Comprehensive Plan identifies neighborhood areas served by arterial roadways. The parcel located adjacent and south of the subject parcel was identified and zoned as NC as part of the 2016 update. The amendment would allow the full use of this parcel and expand the NC zone. 6. The site will likely transition from a residential use with residential driveways, trees, lawn, and buildings to a commercial building with parking structures, commercial landscaping, and stormwater treatment areas. The transition would have some impact on the physical environment. 7. The site does not contain any streams, rivers or lakes. There will be negligible impact on the open space areas. 8. The commercial uses allowed in the NC zone are limited and are intended to be of a scale that is compatible with a neighborhood. A Neighborhood Commercial development is purposefully limited to reduce impacts to neighboring residential uses. Development standards will limit the height and location of any new commercial use. A positive impact would be created if the property is developed with a use that serves the surrounding residential uses. 9. Neighborhood commercial use will likely have minimal impact on parks, recreation or schools. No impacts are anticipated. 10. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update sought to increase the neighborhood commercial nodes. Providing a neighborhood commercial use within a residential neighborhood will provide both economic opportunity and a neighborhood amenity. 11. As part of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update, areas with the densities to support neighborhood scale retail were identified. The parcel adjacent and south of the subject parcel was identified as a suitable site and designated for neighborhood commercial land use and zoning as part of the 2016 update. Sloping terrain limits this site however. 12. The addition of a neighborhood retail development is not anticipated to increase or decrease the population or density in the area. The change will have no impact on population density. 13. The NC designation would support many of the Economic Development, Land Use, Transportation, and Housing goals. It would have little effect on the Capital Facilities and Public Services, Public and Private Utilities, Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources elements of the Comprehensive plan. 14. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 15. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 16. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 17. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Council Decision: Change the designation for parcel number 45212.1348 to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). File No. CPA -2018-0005: Proposal: City -initiated site specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to expand the NC designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR), and the associated zoning of NC and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Applicant: City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 8 of 12 DRAFT Amendment Location: As modified by City Council, parcels 46353.9035 and 46355.9038; located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. The affected parcels are inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two different sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, properties designated NC were expanded and designated on portions of parcels associated with CPA -2018-0005. 4. The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created parcels burdened by two different sets of development regulations. 5. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 6. There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non -project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. 7. The site contains designated critical areas that include a Type F stream on the northwest corner of parcel 46351.9049, and parcels are located within a 100 -year floodplain. FEMA has accepted the conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) to modify the boundaries and remove the floodplain from the majority of the site. SVMC 21.40 Critical Areas will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. 8. The existing land use designation of NC for the proposed amendment was evaluated and placed on the property through the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The amendment corrects the minor mapping error and eliminates split zoned parcels. The corrections are minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA -2018-0005 parcels are vacant and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all applicable City and State requirements as it relates to adjacent uses. 9. The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. 10. The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. 11. The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. As discussed in the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan the neighborhood -scale commercial development is Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 9 of 12 DRAFT limited in the City. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan update designated a portion of parcels NC associated with CTA -2018-0005. 12. The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment have an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. 13. The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is correcting a mapping error. 14. During the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, the owner sought and received a boundary line adjustment (BLA) for the five parcels affected by the amendment. The BLA changes the impact of the amendment from affecting five parcels to affecting two parcels, although the total area affected remains the same: parcel no. 46353.9035 and 46355.9038. The two parcels reflect the same area previously affected. The Council hereby finds that modifying the proposed amendment to accurately reflect the new parcel numbers is appropriate. Further, the Council finds that the modification is not a substantial modification since the amendment remains the same except for the change in parcel numbers and no further action is required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(1)(3). 15. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 16. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 17. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 18. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Council Decision: Expand the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning on Parcel numbers 46353.9035 and 46355.9038 to eliminate the split designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR), and the associated zoning of NC and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). The Council approves modifying the proposed amendment from parcels 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, and 46354.9127 to parcels 46353.9035 46355.9038 due to a BLA that occurred during the Comprehensive Amendment process. File No. CPA -2018-0006: Proposal: City -initiated site specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to expand the Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of IMU and Single Family Residential (SFR, and the associated zoning of IMU and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Applicant: City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206. Amendment Location: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. The affected parcel is inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two different sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 10 of 12 DRAFT a. Provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, the land use designation IMU was created and applied to parcel associated with CPA -2018-0006 to capture the existing diverse uses and focus future infill development along Trent Avenue. 4. The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created a parcel burdened by two different sets of development regulations. 5. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 6. There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non -project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. 7. There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas associated with CPA - 2018 -0006. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, nor are there known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. 8. The City initiated amendment corrects a minor mapping error to eliminate a split zoned parcel. The correction is both minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA -2018-0006 parcel is fully developed and a swale is constructed within the split zoned portion of land designated SFR. 9. The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. Currently the site is served with all utilities and public streets. 10. The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. 11. The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. Residential uses allowed in the IMU designation are incidental and subservient to any commercial or industrial uses. 12. The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment has an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. 13. The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment corrects a mapping error. 14. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 15. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 16. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 17. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 11 of 12 DRAFT Council Decision: Expand the Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation on parcel number 45015.1409. Section 5. Copies on File - Administrative Action. The Comprehensive Plan (with maps) is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the City's Department of Community and Public Works. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is authorized to modify the Comprehensive Plan in a manner consistent with this Ordinance, including correcting scrivener's errors. Section 6. Liability. The express intent of the City is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall rest with the permit applicant and their agents. This Ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations. Section 7. 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 8. 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 as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of July, 2018. ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Ordinance 18-014: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 12 of 12 Comprehensive Plan Map [illy pokane CPA -2018-0001 Owner: Petrie, Robin & Lori/ Green, Audrey Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: Citizen initiated proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan map from SFR to MFR; subsequent Rezone from R-3 to MFR Comprehensive Plan Map Spokane �.•s Valley CPA -2018-0003 Owner: Dennis & Melissa Crapo Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: Privately iuNirrtori silo -specific ('unrprehrrn'irn Plan Map and %nirilg A fop rrnrerr(hnerit reyuexling fn c/rang& rlre C wnyre1mi%ive Pfinr Lem( (Ire Lrecignalionfr•onr Lurr Ui'r+v'ir1 Idesirlerrnal (11)10 with a Snrw/o fool h, Residential Suburban District (i ) ncr� chis iluralon to Cori ulor rico' (r Ali 1)dec. ihnationwith a Cori olor k dfJ (1)classification 40 (IStudy Area d 11 Wmu1V 4's„�,y im1 uu1„,1plyr.,,,r. pIsuli uuuuuuuum 1 E 8th Ave Comprehensive Plan Map Spokane �,,.•� Valley CPA -2018-0004 Owner: Steve & Tresa Schmautz Pareel##: See Map Address: See Map Request: Prlxaael! ruhirxrd Site-specific Cumprehensme Phar 1.1 q aari /rmrng"dap amendment rcqrrrs[iag 10 change the f rn,o,ehitastrr' 1'liut land lls.• Designation/rani Siht.:Iti ramify hecideiriial(51R) with a Single jianilt Ncrideirrial Urban JJistricl (R-3) znnmg chcitsrJit alir,a rn \J/bol (anr0Iercial drs ienaiirrrr with a Nrrg{hhnrhood (arnarercial (NC') ar nig;e clrr.a,a!icrrtinn Comprehensive Plan Map Spokane Valley (_1'A-2018-0005 Owner: Parcels: Address: Five Fifty, LLC 46353.9035, 46355.9038, Unknown Request:, City initiated proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning ofparcel Comprehensive Plan Map Spokane �• Valley CPA -2018-0006 Owner: MPR Spokane, LLC Parce!#: See Map Address: See Map Request: City initiated proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IME9 designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel ATTACHMENT 2 sproluiied.re\ftft, ...„0•0Valley COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING Co1V I'IESSION CPA -2018-0001 S•rnlef" REPOR`r DATE: February 15, 2018. 1-M.nRING 11.-Vn AND LOCATION: February 22, 2018, beginning at 600 p.m_, Spokane Valley City Hall { 01.!11, 3,' 1, IIbI ;, 10214 East. Sprague Avenue, Spot:Amu V.:11Icy, 99206. 111.11r{•1 Number: .11}lrlic�ilitlli lit' uripition �..4:.co l ii r.11 Applicant/Ow Iii Owner: Date of _'i plic5itinii: 1).irc' 1}c't{ I'nrini:ll Complete S1;I11 Contact: CPA -201X rli►:) N.e..f.ine!-1 IL' l.aitid 1Jse. 1)_;;i:irralion 1'r: lii tiiii: ; 1 ;7ini1t' l L'= iilt 1 11;11 (SLR) wi1I tiint.lc l'arliil� Itt:;itlullii:ll . i.:117: 1 )I`•II IL:; \'lilliithini[ 1tt.�wl4'.i:l!.1;}11 1:1,11..10 1'':IrcuI Nv(;;), t1(11i'ti7:-,; d 12107 i':I:.:1 li 1 "5ti';1 k'( I11tL: 11t1.1 12,1 I ( I \' ILL.'vway Akt, Ill:t. Lillk,'c IiIiii Fr�:tl ('d111) Icct eaSt Of [IIL II!lt`r L'.L l: )i1 of \':III.. %vity AVL 111 L' ;ilii) Pini Road ? �� 1 Iwv 27), fun li7t.i:iw"41 in tlll• ScL--I.iol': '5,'1 Iasi, lit iIlaiii.:ttc .Vlc l i;liaii, (,'tsilliL'}`. �'ElSLlll6l:',i . .t1 f1'ctrq'i.e,, 121 I. ;4 1:I1>;I '.'ills:r ��::r, .1t -:1112, Npolflr'' ';I [c1, \'k" rti i 97..1 t! -4)97g 7 k5; �: 4'4'.I '�i 1 i.� .5.1 and -15 '..}S36 `lily v N (imen: 1'''Il)2 1`.m1 Avcnut:., :tislli4 Valley, WA 991:..16 1)1)6 i (k}iEri:cl 4515128€ 1) 2.:..117 i. ILli11,4.:r 1 �.. .IE'..1111;'.ly 11, 2018 C "1i .1c1 l.! ll'IY(}iti Plann :r, (5:19) 770-5S32 mharnoisJJs. A1'1'1{[)t :tl" f:l{1T1CRrA: S1ii)katllc a1L } (.'01111}I: ilcrisivc Plan, Title 17 Spok ino Vali. y' Municipal Code W.) General ProviSians, Talc 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations, and 'title 21 SVNIC Errv'ironmcntal ( t*Illr,,'ii . 1':xliibit 1: Application F.xiiil)ii 2: V ciuity Flap 1`"xhibit 3: Aerial INlap 1?xhibit 4: Coiupircllcnsive PInt r 111) I;xpiibit 5; Zoning 'Map 1i;xhibit 6: CoijYlelcic 1)ctcrl11ill:}1,itlil 7: SI,P.1 ('11L'Hditii I':hili llil. 8: 1',!l''irtuilllVn:2SI 1 );`1.:rll l ETi itls?17 I".. 1111 i1 Ek. 1.Ji 1i t 411 I'lIl llc' 1 ii.'.Ell II' I:•:Ilillil Hi: r' ,a11i v{'intik :5iis. A. BACI(G1tOU 1) 1I 141.)I .AT1014 The :L (nl)rclicrisiVS, 1'11`.ti Map and Zi.lninl , Map ililli'.i1LitliC`.EY1. i5 al privately liii:Yt-3il I LIIIi:si_ Ii E;II YII 'l liie Coniprcliciitiive Ilan Land U.sc l)4>itn iliclrl :iurn .41 1'. with an It-"; s.[7tiill c.la5 ilii::illir1 a M1.'1 designation with ii M1', zoning.i.i:t'tilI :111[117_ l.S.Thi ;and 1.()1'1 Petrie e alri Ill{C11.13-1V111.C11.13-1V111.p7ril}i, l!f. tiw-1 of Ie Parcel No(s). 45153.2S35 and .-.151.S3.2836, and Audrey" (:;r.cii iN the cryvM.ar of l':ii 'I No. 1ti ; .53.2:-.1'01. On Staff Report CPA -2018-0001 August 4, 2015 the site was subject to short plat File# SHP-2015-0007 which received preliminary approval for four lots large enough for duplexes. This occurred prior to the adoption of the revised 2016 development standards. Currently the property is zoned to allow single-family residences including duplexes. The change of zoning from R-3 to MFR would allow for multifamily dwellings and commercial uses such as professional offices and self-service storage facilities. The application meets the procedural criteria. 1. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size and Characteristics: The combined, area of all parcels is 2.1 acres. The site is relatively flat with residential landscaping. There are no critical areas in the amendment area or vicinity. Comprehensive Plan: SFR Zoning: R-3 Existing Land Use: Two single-family residences with outbuildings exist on the site. 2. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING, AND LAND USES: North Comprehensive Plan —MFR Zoning —MFR Existing Land Uses — Single -Family residences, Apartments South Comprehensive Plan —SFR and MFR Zoning — R-3 and MFR Existing Land Uses — Single-family residences, Apartments. East ' Comprehensive Plan — SFR Zoning — R-3 Existing Land Uses — Single-family Residences West Comprehensive Plan — Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning — Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Existing Land Uses —Professional offices, auto repair, personal services, retail sales, church. 3. APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Pre -Application Meeting: 10-10-17 Application Submitted: 10-18-17 Date of Complete Determination: 1-11-18 SEPA Determination of Non -Significance Issue date 2-2-18 End of Appeal Period for DNS: Not Appealed 2-16-18 Date of Posted Notice of Public Hearing 2-7-18 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: 2-2-18 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: 2-6-18 Implications: A rezone of the parcels to MFR would allow a broader range of uses, including multifamily residential, (up to 22 dwelling units per acre), professional offices and self -storage facilities. The land use designation and zoning west of the site on Pines Road (SR Hwy 27) is Corridor Mixed Use which attracts higher intensity commercial uses, the closest which is abutting the site on the west. Additionally a parcel abutting the project site on the south is zoned MFR and is developed Page 2 of 8 SI Li Rcport CPA -2018-0001 IV1.LICIL11 1Lise. A change in designati(m would allow for development similar to 1/SL'5 abutimg both south and north,. allows rot- siitglo-family residential development at an urban density that provides hc.ip,k1H)rhoods. The rvIlT Aming ror H11111 11(}!.1tiilir, 1at.011 Heal: NI.1:-.:-.:1.'L;!•,.7; arid commercial cc:liters, the v.nerinl ..;.trect systcir .:ind roll it, bud ,LLS are conforming uniclur tho MJI zoning as they are outriOn pu1111ii1L.d. Future dcvelcImionl- under the [v zone would aiiov, the construction of multifamily buildings at limxiintm! noi.1.11.1 IS I [inns L1K huildingher9.111 1o35 fuct_ 'Ike density ill27 ;ET 1it i 11:ywyd Lfl ilie v1I R zone and the Iii IiIv die R-3 zone is 6 clm.:11iwc, wills per acre. All same. in 2.;cicil Y.IIiI1L iiiiii IIIc following I ii1114.7 isrc viLick icompArnh nI iIiccicwelopmeni retinkenicnts ioi- R-3 and MFR Development Standard Comparison Lot Maximums Lot Minimums Minimum Setbacks Lone Building Height Coverage Width Depth Front/Flanklig Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Garage R-3 35 ft 5 0% NJA N/A development 1\i/A 15 ft. 10 ft. s ft. 201 MFR 1 Where !Oft, MFR abuts R-1, R-2, 60% or R-3 zones, NiA shall comply 15 ft. with Transitional 10 ft. Regulations 5ft. 201 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Fursui.int to Tii (1!nvironi1ental Ccifirc1W.„1'-:\., I'd 1 _ .cm. zr2(.^.111,..v lifl eierinilft1 prop:ysal Int IL.1 have a probable mlyurse Jfl1Ik tn! kiivirontneniikl impact Statement under 1‘.."'( tc.). The ktrilding ;.)ilkPlanning llYiori isiied I)ciiiiriaticr af Non-Signiri...7.,Hiee Cor thy OLL Fcbruary 2, 2018. The (letulnination was made after revii.,v 0l. uotrplciA envirohiAcntaL checklist, ilia il 1'). 21, and 72 SVMC..., a site assilk:u% and agency comments, and ()diet- liic wiili 1IK. leod agency. 2. 1.:0nclusion(s): rhc proe,,:claral requirements of the State Filv.wiline:m!I Volicy and Fide. 2" have been IN1)11N-GS AND CONC LUSIONS SPTC11.11.7 '1'1) 111 Ii C0M1I1K1111:ASI L Ii ,AN 1NIEN1)541KNT AND:REZONE,: 1. Compliance with Title 17 ((eneral 'Provisions) of the Spokane 'Valley NIunicipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Approval Criteria Page 3 of 8 Staff Report CPA -2018-0001 The City inay approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis: The proposed MFR designation allows for multifamily development. Generally this designation is located near business and commercial centers, the arterial street system and public transit. The Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) designation is located along Pines and is intended to serve light manufacturing, retail, multifamily, and office uses along major transportation corridors. These uses presently exist in the vicinity of the amendment area to the west, north and south. The MFR would allow high density residential and office uses consistent with those in the immediate area. Adjacent residential zones would be protected through transitional standards. The amendment area is located within the service boundaries of Spokane County Environmental Services Department and Modern Electric Water Company. Other utilities such as gas, telephone and garbage are to be provided by franchise utility providers in conformance with applicable City standards and requirements. Spokane Valley Fire Department provides fire protection services; Police services are provided by the City of Spokane Valley. All services are available at the time of development. The site has no critical. areas or designated natural resources. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment are promoted by standards established by the state and the City's regulations. (2) 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; Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity for growth in an area with adequate public facilities, and creates opportunity for a range of residential uses and densities to develop in a neighborhood adjacent to commercial and high density residential uses. The request does not conflict with any other GMA goals. MFR allows for a broader range of allowed uses. MFR is generally located near business and commercial centers, the arterial street system and public transit. The City's Comprehensive Plan requires that residential neighborhoods be protected from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. Transitional regulations protect single family uses where residential zones abut more intensive zones to mitigate the impacts of higher intensity uses. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not conflict with any portion of the City's adopted Plan not affected by the amendment. (3) 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; Analysis: One significant change has occurred in the area of the proposed amendment. The properties on Pines Road located 300 feet west of the site were previously zoned Office (0) which curtailed retail uses. During the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update the Office designation was eliminated and the designation was changed to CMU which expanded the opportunity for a variety of retail and office uses. The proposed three parcels, which are adjacent to the CMU designated parcels, are designated as SFR for single family uses. The MFR would Page 4 of 8 Staff Report CPA -2018-0001 allow for a range of residential uses, including multifamily and single family, office uses consistent with the existing uses. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The amendment does not correct a mapping error. (4) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis: There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. No significant effects upon the physical environment are expected if the property develops consistent with the MFR zone. (2) The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; Analysis: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis: The height standards in single-family residential and multifamily zoned property vary by fifteen feet from a maximum of 35 feet in single family residential and a maximum of 50 feet in multifamily residential. The table in Section 3 provides a comparison of the development standards for each zone. SVMC Chapter 19.75 Transitional Regulations addresses setbacks where properties of more intensive zoning abut less intensively zoned properties. This would apply to the side yards on the east property line of the two eastern parcels as they would be abutting the R-3 zone (upon approval of the MFR designation of the parcels). These regulations will also apply to uses in the established setbacks in the MFR zone that are associated with multifamily dwelling development. Development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations will ensure compatibility with the existing residential neighborhood. The use of fencing and screening will provide visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; Analysis: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. A level of service standard is identified for each of the city services. Policy CF -P6 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City ensure that facilities and services meet the minimum Level of Service standards. This is implemented through chapter 22.20 SVMC Concurrency. Page 5 of 8 Staff Report CPA -2018-0001 (5) The City's Senior Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposal and generally found that future development at the maximum density allowed under the R-3 zone would generate 13 pin peak hour trips and 120 daily trips. Future development at the maximum density allowed under the proposed MFR zone would generate, 29 pm peak hour trips and 307 daily trips. Both Pines Road (SR Hwy 27) and Valleyway Avenue have adequate capacity to absorb the increase in traffic. However, south bound turn movements onto Pines during the p. m. peak hour traffic may be impacted. At the time of development a Trip Generation Letter or Traffic Impact Analysis will likely be required and appropriate safety mitigation measures considered to mitigate actual development impacts. No trip generation letter is required at this time. Currently the site is served with all utilities and improved public roads. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis: The proposed site-specific map amendment should not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The site has traditionally been residential and the regulations ensure that future development will be compatible with the existing residential uses in the immediate area. The MFR will allow the maximum development of the property compatible with the uses allowed and create greater opportunity for infill development.. Maximizing the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas is consistent with the intent of the MFR designation. A higher density of residential housing proximal to retail areas will support retail uses. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: As shown in Figure 15 of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan, 5.6 percent of the land in the City is designated as Multifamily which is 10 percent of all residential zoned land. Figure 18 shows the residential land capacity for all land uses in 2016. It reflects that there is a net 717 acres for potential multifamily development with a city wide population increase of 6124 persons. The 2.1 acres would have an insignificant effect on the amount of land designated for both SFR and MFR and/or the potential population increase. (7) (8) The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: The current density within the single family residential urban district (R-3) is six dwelling units per acre. Based on 2.4 persons per household, the projected population density would be 15 persons per acre. If development did occur to meet all development standards in the MFR zone a maximum of 46 residences would be allowed with a projected population density of 53 persons per acre within the amendment area. Currently two single family residences are located on the site. Considering the existing development and the available area for new development, maximum density will not likely be achieved. Directing density to areas near transportation corridors and commercial areas is consistent with the intent of the MFR designation. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendment will have no substantive impact on other aspects of the plan since the property will remain residential in use. Conclusion(s): For the reasons outlined above the proposed amendment is consistent with SVMC 17.80.140(H). Page 6 of 8 Staff Report CPA -2018-0001 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings: The Multifamily Residential designation provides for multifamily development. The amendment does not introduce a new designation, nor introduce new uses, into the neighborhood, but reduces the immediate conflict between the corridor mixed use and low density residential uses. Transitional regulations will mitigate impacts between residential zones. The amendment is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Policy LU -P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. Policy LU -P14 Enable a variety of housing types. Policy LU -P16 Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas. Goal H -G1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. 3. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The GMA and the City's Comprehensive Plan require that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The area is currently served with public water and sewer. Valleyway Avenue will provide transportation access. As previously stated this road is classified as a local access street according to Map 3.1 of the City's adopted Arterial Street Plan. Spokane Valley Fire Department will provide fire protection service, the City of Spokane Valley Police Department will provide police service. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any public comments to date. 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted at this time. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: The following agencies were notified and commented as indicated. Comments are attached. Staff has not received any agency comments of concern to date. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering Yes 1-10-18 City of Spokane Valley Police Department No Page 7 of 8 Staff Report CPA -2018-0001 Spokane Valley Building and Planning No Spokane County Environmental Services Department Yes 1-26-18 Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency No Spokane County Regional Health District No Spokane Transit Authority (STA) Yes 2-6-18 Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) No Spokane Valley Fire Department Yes 1-8-18 Washington State Dept of Ecology (Olympia) No Washington State Dept of Ecology (Spokane) No Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife No Washington State Department of Natural Resources No Washington State Department of Transportation Yes 2-12-18 WA Archaeological & Historic Preservation No Avista Utilities No Central Valley School District #356 No Century Link No Comcast No Modern Electric Water Company No Spokane Tribe of Indians No 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. F. CONCLUSION: For the reasons set forth in Section C (1 and 2) the proposed amendment to change the land use designation from SFR to MFR, and the associated zoning from R-3, to MFR is consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(H) and with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 8 of 8 pokane .0001°Val1ey. e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted. -----.1 PLUS #: Received by: Fee: 1 1660 File #: 0:PP — 7,-0 17- 0001 PART II - APPLICATION INFORMATION P Map Amendment; or 0 Text Amendment APPLICANT NAME: [263 1,1.... ..,.4... , paisce. I 11:2-- Ats-ts-a, 2,636 NA MAILING ADDRESS: ) .2- Li 1 ,C,., g Va 11.02:y Li...)ay i 2, /4- (52__ g CITY: iski/.%„,a_. \GS1 ILO STATE:U.) ZIP: Cig STATE: 4 ZIP: rt.2-1 Z i PHONE:551.cici 1 -717: 71 Lt-02--r,Q. p m-914.f.AGL. CELL: EMAIL: q /Ikea 1'4A) PROPERTY OWNER : Al 5' 15-3 'ZIA% PARCEL NO.: .4-61453 - libtarc.Q__t *I-- le 6- N.Q..0111/4.— I '45-163 -21301 MAILING ADDRESS: i 2, /4- (52__ g irct_11,Q_LLuci)f Crrv: 5 ZONING DESIGNATION: 1 3 STATE: 4 ZIP: rt.2-1 Z PuouE: R_ Fax: CELL: EMAIL: SITE ADDRESS: 1 2-(f1 C g \/(34-1142yi..9.-41 Al 5' 15-3 'ZIA% PARCEL NO.: .4-61453 - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: A-151T3---ItZttit.) GM/ Develoornent Enda PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: OCT 1 9 2017 ZONING DESIGNATION: 1 3 Prr-..!r•ci -4.:' In R_ Name PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT (attached full explanation on separate sheet of paperfl: 0 k 40 -413 6r."" VM1/11.4..‘ i-eS ering PL -06 V1.0 Page 3 of Spokane Valley 1, re\, made truthfully aro th ✓cQ ..fl COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART 111- AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) p c �� , (print name) swear that the above res oases best of my knowledge. pm I Q.' —Fro 5 /53 , 3 4' 515 M 7-23 S naure) STATE OFWASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE NOTARY 16 Ga (Dat-) >1, SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this / day of deAte-1 , 202.7 NOTARY SEAL CHRISTINE M. BAINBRIDGE NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 29, 2019 NOTARY SIGNATURE Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at:�i��� "�, 3( My appointmentexpires: LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I, ALLAINQ y G-Ne._211,, owner of the above described property do hereby authorize Pizbisk\_, to re resent me and my interests in all matters r 115.153 LE3 1 regarding this application. PL -06 V1.0 1D -10-'17 Page 5 of Spokane r Valley . COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION •�"'" e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted. ---'4 PLUS #: 1r�c' Received by:_____ ' Fee: 1 p (bO f Cb File #: ('.,P/c- (1 PART 0 — APPLICATION INFORMATION 0 Map Amendment; or 0 Text Amendment C APPLICANT NAME: li .i P RA 1.'44.r N:..e 1 ,4 L- `a 15- ', Zoe% .45153 i.55- MAILING ADDRESS: 1 2A 1k, F Y t lky way CITY:'1 :0 EMAIL: STATE' ZIP: 99. (:) �� PHONE: 551 " CR 1 ' `j + : I�QP�rp CELL: EMAIL: q m -9t. t t I.,CA/ Pati �Q--.1.._ PROPERTY OWNER : ft �. 6- � .145-753 ,2Eot { MAILING ADDRESS: ! 2, 1462-- E \c. t LQ -tit -u CITY: 5 , - STATE: ilekif ZIP: 1 IZ I ✓ PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL: SITE ADDRESS: 1 2_'"i C', g(&t v PARCEL NO.: /451 ,, 7....t:35— COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: `USV [Jeve1oorne;ii Ermine PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: OCT 19 201? ZONING DESIGNATION: R 3 ,-,,,J..,,.;,,,, Nam PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: in J UUe�11(tai=fr=___ BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT (attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper : 0 l , C : g e— 7,.-f0 t's.L.\ t -e5 ering PL -06 V1.0 Page 3 of Spokane Valley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART Ill — AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) , (print name) swear affirm that the above res o ses are made truthfully anis to thf best t�C,.2 5' j 36 If %t5(63 w z. � ` t of my knowledge. Fez 1 /6 7 1. J S na ure) STATE OFWASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this NOTARY SEAL CHRISTINE M. BAINBRIDGE NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 29, 2019 NOTARY (Dat-) 41 74 deAr-Je< day of , 20Z7 NOTARY SIGNATURE Notary Public in and for the State of Washington r,- Residing at: ,� ��j 4/%41 ,;(/-'� 1:/// My appointmentexpires: LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the' applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I, ffuA 6"2 y t�i°`�-� �, owner of the above described property do hereby authorize 146 tom, to re resent me and my interests in all matters � ( 115153 :7-801 regarding this application. 1i% -Dcx. 10 -0-1147 x-{14 PL -06 V1.0 Page 5 of *Wane lley. SEPA CHECKLIST SVMC 21.20 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240 • Fax: (509) 720-5075 ♦ permitcenter aspokanevallev.ore STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: File #: PLUS #: PART 1- REQUIRED MATERIAL *"THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED'* ❑ Completed SEPA Checklist ❑ Application Fee 04 Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 8'/s" by 11" or 11" by 17" size Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHFCKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). PL -22 V1.0 Page 1 of S"" okane A Eley, SEPA CHECKLIST For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. • A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of roposed project, if applicable 2. Name of applicant: 12.-013 3. Address and phone n mp r of applicant and conta t person• 2_-{ 16 E Vck.l y a. ; $po 1�,t1 5-6 g l '`7�" b " 4. Date checklist prepared: /0116.,/n 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): lV� )1 6161 7-1C 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connec ed with this proposal? If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be preparedirectly related to this proposal. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. iu6 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. it) f 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) ft PL -22 V1.0 Page 2 of Spokane Valley, SEPA CHECKLIST 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. VC11 WCty (X44- 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? 06 The general Sewer Service Area? y Priority Sewer Service Area? (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. PL -22 V1.0 a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). N R- 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? too 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? NR Page 3 of cmu4. _. Spokane Valley b. Stormwater SEPA CHECKLIST 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? D011+ KI\OLJJ 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. 100 B. ENVIRONMENTALELEMENTS 1) Earth a. General description of the site (check one): D( .flat, ❑ rolling, ❑ hilly, ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other b. What is the steepest sloe on the site (approximate percentslope)? �Q c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. 9...Nckve.1 d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? 3 If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. (UR f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? +0 bQ.. dQ+ rvt.i, 2 C u„ j,or ' PL -22 V1.0 bcL l` - p QiN4' + 1 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 4 of Spokane fey• h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 0 A- 2) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that mayaffect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: ru /4- 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. n �, 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N)6 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 5 of Spokane Valley, 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? location on the site plan. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY if so, note 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. oo 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. P c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. �- \Q. ca �,` �>r���-�tti�.c� (A,poi) 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. it* d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: N-& d2P1441i1 PL -22 V1.0 Page 6 of rnrur _. Spokane Va11ey� 4) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: aldermap , aspen, aspen, Ger l evergreen tree:j, - : - , pine, other 0 shrubs [SO -grass 0 pasture 0 crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other 0 water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other D other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance ve etatioq on the site,;if any: ��� b 2..�1�ULfeit, 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: 129. birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ❑ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: PL -22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 7 of S�"'"kane Valley 6). Energy and natural resources SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heatin , manufacturing, qtc. bd2_ .r\ 4 , u ori bc..1 a� fivy b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. luo c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control bcck energy impacts, if any: 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe 1t� 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. A) 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: tu b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? vv 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: lam'` PL -22 V1.0 Page 8 of *Wane Valley 8). Land and shoreline use a. What i the current use of the site and adjacent properties? b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. c. Describe any structures on the site. A rt d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? rCC e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R-3 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? 116D9- A) ft If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? R g. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? n If so, specify. 1 �O i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 1• Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: PL -22 V1.0 (t) f ' Page 9 of Spokane a1lery 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-inc me housing. 46 be, . c Ctec 1 b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 10 !t c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? b� c4C1-"e. upeeL b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? tl c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 1V� SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 11). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? b ��tf -ci b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? kng c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? ik d. Proposed measures to reduce or control Tight and glare impacts, if any: PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of 14 Spokane Malley' SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate viciniiv? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunpities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Yu ti 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next tothe site? If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to thesite. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: v 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. tPtit‘ \ QS 11.0 b. Is site currently served by public transit? approximate distance to the nearest transit �stgp? M Q `ZOO -42.-- -t If not, what is the c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the proj cteli mate? i7 e..- er r~ I --Q6\ 40e0 PL -22 V1.0 Page 11 of Spokane d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indiQate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. b,Q._ a Q.7 -F -g VNI,W1 iVaa up b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. f 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: electricity, IX natural gas, [water, (- refuse service, [ telephone, IN sanitary sewer, ❑ septic system, ❑ other - describe b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. fk SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: 10 6 ( I 7 PL -22 V1.0 Page 12 of *name Valley SEPA CHECKLIST Date Submitted: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? N !� a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Iv a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for govemmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? IVA a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? fun PL -22 V1.0 Page 13 of Spokane ...00Va11ey' are SEPA CHECKLIST a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: IO I16 (7 Signature: Please print or type: Proponent: P4,13 Address: 1244 i 6 E. V?Lli.axtuay,Wko.G'iQ,V& RQ((W�14- Phone: 50q Ctq (" 2-G L 5 CrCZIC, Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL -22 V1.0 Page 14 of Spokane vti Valley. Planning Division COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT SCHEDULE DISCLAIMER: This schedule is informational only. Actual decision-making timeframes may vary for each application. Pre -Application Meeting (Required) 1 Formal Application Submittal 1 Completeness Determination w r COMPLETE INCOMPLETE 1 Applicant notified of an incomplete application. Review resubmittal and deem complete. i Comp ete Incomplete c_\41 c)c( Application and SEPA Checklist is routed to staff and agencies for review. SEPA Decision (Post and Publish with a 14 calendar day comment & appeal period) Notice of Public Hearing publishes in the Valley Herald, City's website and sent to staff, agencies and parties of record. If a map amendment is proposed the site is posted with a sign and property owners within 400 feet are notified by mail. (15 day comment period) i Study Session (informational item) with Planning Commission 1 Public Hearing with Planning Commissionk) -Study-Session (informational it m) with City Council u�;rtil"roe;\ 1st reading of Ordinance with City Council 2"d reading and decision of Ordinance with City Council Ordinance signed and published in newspaper. Ordinance is effective 5 calendar days after publication. FL -04 V1.0 Page 1 of 1 Spokane 'alley COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION SVMC 17.80.140 10210 E Sprague Avenue 4 Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-5075 ♦ permitcenterespokanevallev.org Year ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS The City of Spokane Valley is accepting applications for map and text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows Comprehensive Plan amendments only one time per year. Any interested person, organization, agency or business may submit suggestions, proposals, or requests to the City for changes to the Comprehensive Plan, including maps and text. PROCEDURES 1. Application Period. Applications are due by November 1st of each year to be considered during the next calendar year amendment cycle. Submittals received after the deadline will be considered during the next annual amendment cycle. 2. Staff Review and Report. Spokane Valley Planning Staff will review all applications and will prepare a report and recommendation to the Spokane Valley Planning Commission. The report will analyze how each proposal addresses amendment criteria established by Spokane Valley City Council. All application documents and staff reports will be available for public review. 3. Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct a formal public hearing on all proposed amendments. The Commission will consider amendments individually and will examine the cumulative impacts of all amendments collectively. The Commission will prepare one recommendation to the Spokane Valley City Council, including findings on each individual proposed amendment. 4. City Council Review and Decision. Within 60 days of receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, City Council may choose to adopt the individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to substantially modify a proposal, they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. 5. Notice. Each year, the City will provide notice of the annual amendment cycle at least 60 days prior to the application deadline via display ads in local newspapers, email to interested parties and on the City's website. Notice of public hearings and public meetings will be provided to the public as set forth in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. At a minimum, notice will be provided to surrounding properties within 400' for site-specific Land Use Map amendments at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Notice will also be posted on-site at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Legal notice will also be published in the newspaper. 6. Appeal Procedures. City Council decisions on Comprehensive Plan amendments may be appealed to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board within 60 days of publication of notice of adoption, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.290(2). 7. Staff Contact. Questions may be directed to Lori Barlow, Senior Planner (Ibarlow(cr�spokanevallev.orc) or Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager (skuhta(a�spokanevallev.orq), 509- 921-1000. PL -06 V1.0 Page 1 of 4 Spokane Valley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART 1- REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE PLANNING DIVISION WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR APPLICATION IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** A.} Submit the following forMkP AMENDMENTS: PI - re -Application Meeting Request (include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) $$, Completed Application Form .1011,11/Application and SEPA Fee I(/ SEPA Checklist: One (1) copy of completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Checklist, including option Non -Project Action supplemental form. (Note: Any previous environmental documents that are relevant to this project should be included and may be adopted by reference.) Notice of Public Hearing packet for 400 foot notification. (Please note: DO NOT submit the notice of public hearing packet until you have been contacted by the City. Addresses must be current within 30 days of the Planning Commission public hearing.) ❑One (1) copy of a narrative describing the following: 1. State the reason for the Comprehensive plan Map Amendment. 2. Describe how the proposed changed meets the approval criteria below; 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 RCW 36.70A 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; and e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Describe how the proposal addresses the following specific factors; 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. Submit the following for TEXT AMENDMENTS: ❑ Pre -Application Meeting Request (include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) ❑ Completed Application Form ❑ One (1) copy of the text proposed to be changed, showing deletions by strikethrough and additions by underline. ❑ One (1) copy of a narrative describing the following: 1. Why the change is needed and the potential land use impacts if approved; 1. Describe how the proposed changed meets the approval criteria below; 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 RCW 36.70A 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 beyondthe property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; and PL -06 V1.0 Page 2 of SOlane'� jValley� APPLICANT ADVISORY WATER CONCURRENCY Public water in Spokane Valley is provided by water districts or irrigation districts.. These entities are not related to the City. Any statement by the City of Spokane Valley relating to water concurrency will be based exclusively on information provided by the water purveyor for a given area as the .. owner/operator of the water facility. Spokane Valley has not performed any independent analysis as to the existence or non-existence of water capacity, and specifically makes no representations as to the accuracy of the water capacity information provided by any water purveyor. Therefore, applicants for development approvals' should carefully consider the adequacy of water availability at an early stage of planning developments in the City of Spokane Valley. Please read, sign and date on the bottom of this page. If you have any questions, call John Hohman, Community Development Director, at (509) 720-5300. Please return one (1) signed copy to the City Planning Department. The City of Spokane Valley November 21, 2005 Distribution: applicants, public, news media By siznink this document, you are only acknowledging that you received a copy of this document. fatt:.41 Signature that document was received Date Project File Number/Name "Development approvals" include subdivisions, short plats, binding site plans, manufactured home park site development plans, planned unit developments, zoning reclassifications, and conditional use permits that would permit an increased amount of water to be used on the site. PL -26 V1.0 Page 1 of 1 The property, currently zoned R3, is bordered on the south by MFR zoning, across the street on the north is MFR zoning, west is commercial and east is zoned R3. The property is on Valley Way just east of Pines road, so it has great access to the freeway and other main roads, (Sprague, McDonald). There is a local gas station/ convenience store across Pines. A car wash, restaurants (Denney's, Little Euro, Taco Time, Ron's, etc.) within walking distance. There are other drive to restaurants in the area and grocery stores. Gyms, hair salons, nail places also. Auto repair/tire shops on Pines. There isa chiropractor and dentist within walking distance. The valley hospital is in a short driving distance up Pines. A school is just up the road on Broadway for families with children. There is shopping on Sprague and Pines (Walgreens). The city bus stop is at the corner of Pines and Valley Way. There are banking building in the area, also. The property has easy access to a lot of business and transportation, which should bring in tax revenue to the city. The increase in traffic will be minimal, as your traffic person has told me. The change will buffer the property to the east from the commercial property on the west corner. EXHIBIT 2 UF' -2U-1 -UUU"I vicinity iviap E111cnigUlletY:Ar: 6 ▪ E KR% Ave c. ,.f ll,J•� Ass E Awe ▪ E iSw11+7 Arc tr A47 r' =7 w 7 V a 2 z at cc i4 z E Nixao Ln l i s itun a i N Walnut Rd E-1 Flwry�r:^ L+11,1,II E M Raymrnd Rd '_IhfCl dVirsit/:Rd E3iditvt; N FFi#rc#Rd r , d, LL -a c+ E Sth et 0 6. = SP x CC L ti. VI Cl. Y49 CC L:LIS.C� 1 .45 —CC.ham_. PT Er e E a- EllthLn m. xi r. oa tia m s. Int 2 t. llif E,i.iON 9 '-FI'UFwy ;E'NrraAva E Vissiort.zner A.:- E. :E. h11]cred Are $p4Iia11e Vali4y E Glr Are J- € 1erlhA-2d 7 ur ' I. .I it it 7 :v E Br&tdri.ay'Ai,e E Oli t A04 e-KE;1A4in"Are ESpaaliuAra E 1st Are C Hack RN E2nd• Lri 4th Ave cc o E71ILA'4• S 4. �.•. r. .HHCI1I.Rd CIL iE th Ave E:.1141 AYE% El ZthAi a NDIaka Rid N MarnarRd Ck ni r Rd a N Bonn -an Rd 1 Writ 44t Flit ▪ E 2nd Are m Lei z ta z m L Lith. Le E � rn W fh IJ,) E 411 Int 3ulli4aicRd February 14, 2018 1:36,112 _® 1.2 L1 2 _ __ __ :CL,'-rr,e, Ircerrln.p. ircrerEntP Com..EE c -tiyzti Us#I , �v'rr, Hems.a, NL, O 1rrart. . 7JETI, Fsrr China {Hong Kc lgj. S.VISSESIpc. Map fs-- ^Sr1eaMaptnrtrittitots, and tie GIS User G4rr7r.-ryy 1tF_b AppBUid EXHIBIT 3 Cokane ..„00 Valley ( TA -2018-11111)1 C er: Petrie, Robin & Lori/ Greon, Audrey Parcel#: See Map Address: See Mep Requel: subvi-rfnch Rezonefrom R-3 1(.., 141,•R EXHIBIT 4 Comprehensive Plan Map 45153.2836 12416 E VALLEYWAY AVE 45153.2801 12452 E VALLEYWAY AVE 45153.2835 12416 E VALLEYWAY AVE Spokane ...,00* Valley A-2018-0001 Owner: Pe I' ?. et31?. ocroy Parcel#; See fLot) Address: See Map 14.el nes 1."'VO.Vrii she hiwp/Pa.:n AfFR; sub.copesit EXHIBIT 5 Zon ng Map "%In El w Ave 45153_2801 12402 E VALLEYWAY AVE Study Area 1 45153.2836 12416 E VALLEYWAY AVE 45153.2B35 12416 E VALLEYWAY AVE Spokane Valley CPA -2018-0001 Owner: Potrie, Robin & Lori Green, Audrey Parcel# See Map Address: See. Map MEMO& 11E‘l Requtl 1:ac.E1 (E) E CHE•drpri'.1Ern.vivE7 mop SEL1i r 1E4P'n sr.fh.verponi Rezone fr.( ?Pi /Li 11P Ilk EXH Spokane Valley - COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING .& PLANNING DIVISION DETERMINATION OF ;COMPLETENESS REVIEW 10210 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 + Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5240 ♦ Fax: 509.720:5375 4.planning@spokanevalley.org Project Number: CPA -2018-0001 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the land use designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Multifamily Residential (MFR) and the zoning from Single-family Residential Urban (R-3) to Multifamily Residential (MFR). Location: Parcel No(s). 45153.2801, 45153.2835 and 45153.2836; addressed as 12402 East Valleyway Avenue and 12416 East Valleyway Avenue; located approximately three hundred (300) feet east of the intersection of Pines Road (SR Hwy 27) and Valleyway Avenue, further located in the SW '/ of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Property Owner(s): Robin R & Lori A Petrie, 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Audrey N Green, P 0 Box 14063, Spokane Valley, WA 99214-0063 Applicant: Robin Petrie, 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Date of Application: October 18, 2017 Date of Complete Determination: January 5, 2018 Staff Contact: Micki Harnois, Planner (509) 720-5332 mharnois@spokanevalley.org Date Issued: January 5, 2018 Signature: n j c : (a4M .64.) YOUR APPLICATION IS: Complete The required components of the application are present. The materials provided thus far are judged by the Building & Planning Division to meet the procedural submission requirements and the information is sufficient for continued processing even though additional information may be required or project modification may be undertaken subsequently. The Determination of Completeness does not preclude the Building & Planning Division from requesting additional information or studies either with this notice or subsequently if new information is required or substantial changes in the proposed action occur. The issuance of the Determination of Completeness shall not be constructed to mean that any of its application components have been approved. EXHIBIT 7 Spokane Valley, SEPA CHECKLIST SVMC 21.20 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-5075 ♦ permitcenter@spokanevalley.ora STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: PLUS #: Received by: /% File#: (-,1 a6I/Z--000f PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** ❑ Completed SEPA Checklist ❑ Application Fee Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 8'/2" by 11" or 11" by 17" size Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). PL -22 V1.0 Page 1 of Spokane Valley' SEPA CHECKLIST For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable 11 2. Name of `applicant: • Rc f P±N'- 3. Address and phone n m r of pplicant and conta t person' 22.4 1 E ¥a t Y i 5po 'La I t 5oi - ` P 4. Date checklist prepared: 16/r) 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 4 6)6 41qz-14 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. N 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. IVO 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. i 1t 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) PL -22 V1.0 Page 2 of Spokane Valley' SEPA CHECKLIST 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Vq.W6L1. c - (31/19-S 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? (06 The general Sewer Service Area? '.(25 Priority Sewer Service Area? (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. PL -22 V1.0 a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). NR 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? to() 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. Nft 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? N f� Page 3 of Spokane Valley b. Stormwater SEPA CHECKLIST 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? pc�t�i * Rj\ocj 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. 100 B. ENVIRONMENTALELEMENTS 1) Earth a. General description of the site (check one): '(,.flat, ❑ rolling, ❑ hilly, ❑ steep slopes, [1 mountainous, other 0 b. What is the steepest slope n the site (approximate percentslope)? c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. 9,..NsAive.1 d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. to f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? g. If so, generally describe. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? b.Q— dQ+N4&&Qc LpOr b PL-22 V1.0 ti Page 4 of EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Spokane Valley- . Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: p. 2) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. tar b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: ru it 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. to 0 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. I ,Pc 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. ro SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 5 of Spokane Valley° 5) Does the proposal He within a 100 -year floodplain? location on the site plan. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY If so, note 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. vuo 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. tofPt c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Ut. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. fi 0 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: PL -22 V1.0 Page 6 of Spokane Valley 4) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder map , aspen, Ger f:A. evergreen tree:6, eda , pine, other ❑ shrubs -grass ❑ pasture ❑ crop or grain ❑ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other n other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? ft c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. A) d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance ve etatio!rk on the site,,if any: 40 b ' .1v+ b C( 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: `[cis birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ❑ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. 1\20 d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: PL -22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 7 of Spokane Valley' 6). Energy and natural resources SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heatin , manufacturing, qtc. ev\ vt/Ltiwo, ut.pon-- beg' to\ Ili b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. 0 c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: b dr— tv-u&x.10 ON-- oek.k 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe 1V h 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: rq b. Noise r 1 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? tv 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. to 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: t i PL -22 V1.0 Page 8 of Spokane Valley 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? act Jaceitri` H E i4 QzS' b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. roiac c. Describe any structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g - If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?IA " h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? n �� If so, specify. I i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? j• Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 5M 0 i -.0 I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: PL -22V1.0 Afft— Page9 of pokane Valley. SEPA CHECKLIST 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-inc me housing. cA.e, er-IAA-11' ber&A b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 1) 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? � °► -t Vaa U1/4 -P c' b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: iv -A EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 11). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? -1-0 el-ev• vv1/4.--trA.Q.& Fed b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off-site sources of Tight or glare may affect your proposal? tv d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: INA 1 PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of 14 Spokane Valley. 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. P c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next tothe site? If so, generally describe. ( 6 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to thesite. P c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 1T h SEPA CHECKLIST 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. b. Is site currently served by public transit? approximate distance to the nearest transit st p? i\ 0 O 4 - If not, what is the EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the proj cteli inate? e— Q._ ,Q1,p,,ilL 40k 096c“. PL -22 V1.0 Page 11 of arra Spokane Valley. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indi ate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: to F`1 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, Renerally describe.) aet-Qt•-•fAA-IN0A 1 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.iv j 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: (.electricity, CA, natural gas, [water, refuse service, [1, telephone, X sanitary sewer, 0 septic system, ❑ other - describe b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: PL -22 V1.0 /01 16 (f Page 12 of Spokane Valley SEPA CHECKLIST Date Submitted: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? iPt a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Iv F a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? ru PL -22 V1.0 Page 13 of Spokane, Valley are SEPA CHECKLIST a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? � y a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: 1 ff 6 (7 Signature: Please print or type: Proponent:P-66 Address: 1 G V\aLliz2.-\/(soayVrct it 6. DJ a Phone: 50 CI ' C?(:( Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL -22 V1.0 Page 14 of EXHIBIT 8 Spokane Valley. ,'-OMMUNITY Pj RMINAT �YUBLIC' ANNtING 'ORKS. DEPARTMENT IVISON ., 10210'E Sprague Ave •Spokane Valley WA 99206 i9 720 5240. •Fax 509,720,5075 planning@spokaneva11ey4 FILE NUMBER: CPA -2018-0001 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the land use designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Multifamily Residential (MFR) and the zoning from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Multifamily Residential (MFR). PROPOSAL LOCATION: Parcel No(S). 45153.2801, 45153.2835 and 45153.2836; addressed as 12402 East Valleyway Avenue and 12416 East Valleyway Avenue; located approximately three hundred (300) feet east of the intersection of Pines Road (SR Hwy 27) and Valleyway Avenue, further located in the SW '/a of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington APPLICANT: Robin Petrie, 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 PROPERTY OWNER(S): Robin R & Lori A Petrie, 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Audrey N Green, P 0 Box 14063, Spokane Valley, WA 99214-0063 LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley, Community & Public Works Department Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 19, 21 and 22, site assessment, and comments from the public and affected agencies. This information is available to the public on request. DETERMINATION: This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on his proposal for 14 days from the date below. STAFF CONTACT: Micki Harnois, Planner, (509) 720-5332, mharnois@spokanevaIley.org RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner, DATE ISSUED: February 2, 2018 SIGNATURE: APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community & Public Works Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and make specific factual objections to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with SVMC 17.90 Appeals, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Scheduled shall be paid at time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) File No. CPA -2018-0001 February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 1 stiolcane"" 4000%lky. COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORICS DEPARTM ,NT BUILDING & PLANNING DIVISION DATE: February 2, 2018 Prepared By: Ivli °1:J C l ii'�t.5ir•- I'1..1 tip LEAD AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW 10210 F Sprague Ave • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.52A° Fax: 509.'720,5075 • planning@spokancvallcy.org A. li.ACKGROITND I'r"ai jec:l i u rt4lal r •, CPA -2.01 I)cstrilltiiFli: 1Ir :.111;1i�a1 111 ilia In'i‘ :On Jlcl;,,i'.'.° I'{:ill Nlrip :inc: .c1l.11I '.1:11 vinic`-ftlllncni reci u:•aingtoChan:....: Ilii t'c�LYrpreI1 11.i�. I'1:1I1 I.aritl Il;.1 I)e.ii°,ri i1.ir�ri It'c}t11itt{k I :Itlii ft::,i 1�1�1:;11 ISI 1� 1 '. ilir :iingle- I:!ni i l . I.�:,icfcr:ri it 1)11):01 I )is11 i :i I: ') n,n:rl; c l . i l i._:ri is:rl I.; ,`,' 1111. air'rily lac= :;I;. li:il (till l :1 tic-,i��1.,11_s,ri ti/i11: ,I �vlII [if,l;tlily lit islwnti;. 1 I'll i ) / ):IiI �',IS: ilii :iii�.•1; l H l 1' ' ' - I S.i „?t;U J , I;i l 5"...5 :11Ic1 ,' . .. r :r c �.,[}�i4t4{FII: :��:,, lh ti i`1 � � a � i �: sl ll' -,tic•.`! 12,102 i\ k cnriu and 124 1 c, 1 ".r.,i \ aill.'.vway i\..': r1.Le•; IL1_.1iLLI ,y' I,r:} cin�tttely Ilie 11,.k11.11 ..:(1 (.0:)0) i _. _: i 1St. Of the inie.r,', as ion and :iv A't't,`I!: c, lwriiicr lfoc:heel 111 the SW I `,. IIS\air,llils : c;rl , I':..i4•,1. 44 Last,'4Villanlettu Meridian., S17.-ikane ;117 [ic.trll: 12 hir I'a,[ri._ w : if 1 WA 91./2.16 1'i-cai .rt ' (1►w°ner( I: lac:lain I t Lori r1 V:lit, y:�:1w Valley, WA ')1)2. I fr Aucl""c.y lel (() ;:., 1..1(142.z.„ :1:'Iti;iii �' rllc '_ 4r','1 L)9.,.I.I 06 2. REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS OF SECTION 14 OP PART A. (BACKGROUND) FOR CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA (CARA) d AQUIFER SENSITIVE AREA (ASA) `1 i re. City o'' SIu1'.c,Iiie Valley lies in the CIitical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA). The proposed site- S1r t:i:1 tt111i1 r_11iri;ak.L plan map amendment will not lead to any impacts to the aquifer. No concerns l5. 1'.N \' I I3[ 1N MENTAL : ELEMENTS MENTS 1. i ,`ii: ISI' t .it c.I, li:,l : I.,it.::; lli 4i Lc `,� I17i7clrwrtl}ylrt i flat 1-Vitl1 approximately ane: Tureen'. .S101-10._ S(1{15 111.C11.1& I !Ic)l'the sire N\Ilio:li Will hi.: covcred villi impar -oils :-:iit'liiees will bc; determined during the building permit process alley future construction. No coiic'crns notal. 2. AIR This is a non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and Spokane Regional Clean Air Authority requirements to minimize air impacts. No concerns noted. Lead Agency Environmental Checklist Review CPA -2018-0001 February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 3 3. WATER Surface The SEPA Checklist states that the site is not located near a surface water body nor will there be any discharge to a surface water body. The property is not located within a 100 -year floodplain pursuant to Panel No. 53063C0590D of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) [Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 6, 2010). No concerns noted. Ground The Checklist states no groundwater will be withdrawn or discharged. No concerns noted. Water Runoff The Checklist states that stormwater will be addressed at the time of building permit review. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Regional Stormwater Manual. No concerns noted. 4. PLANTS The Checklist states current vegetation consists of deciduous trees including maple, evergreen trees including fir and cedar and grass. No concerns noted. 5. ANIMALS The Checklist states birds have been observed on the site. No concerns noted. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES Staff notes the proposal is a non -project map amendment and utility approvals will be required at the time of building permit review. No concerns noted. 7A. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS The proposal is a non -project map amendment. No health hazards are identified. No concerns noted. 713. NOISE Staff notes traffic noise in the vicinity is from surrounding commercial and residential uses and Pines Road (SR Hwy 27) located approximately three hundred (300) feet west of the proposed amendment. No concerns noted. 8. SHORELINE AND LAND USES Staff notes that the two single family structures and outbuildings on the properties will remain. Uses adjacent to the properties include single family residential use to the east, professional offices, auto repair, personal and retail services and a church exist west of the site between the property and Pines Road (SR Hwy 27), single family use and apartments are located north and south of the subject property. The proposed amendment would change the designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) zoning classification to a Multifamily Residential (MFR) designation with a Multifamily Residential (MFR) zoning classification. No concerns noted. 9. HOUSING This is a non -project map amendment. The two existing housing units will remain. No concerns noted. 10. AESTHETICS The proposal does not affect any existing structures or views. Building height limits would be increased from 35' up to 50'. No concerns noted. Lead Agency Environmental Checklist Review February 2, 2018 CPA -2018-0001 Page 2 of 3 11. LIGHT AND GLARE This is a non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. No concerns noted. 12. RECREATION There are no recreational opportunities in the immediate vicinity. No concerns noted. 13. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION The SEPA Checklist states that it is unknown at this time. No concerns noted. 14. TRANSPORTATION This is a non -project map amendment. The site fronts Valleyway Avenue to the north. No parking, access to the frontage street, vehicular trips or transportation impacts are being reviewed at this time. Future project(s) proposed on the site will be analyzed by the City of Spokane Valley traffic engineer and Washington State Department of Transportation and transportation concurrency will be required prior to issuance of future building permits. No concerns noted. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES Spokane Valley Fire Department is the fire protection service provider for the City of Spokane Valley, and the police service provider is the City of Spokane Valley. The Spokane Transit Authority (STA) provides public transit service within the City of Spokane Valley. The subject's property is located within the boundaries of the Central Valley School District #356. No concerns noted. 16. UTILITIES The subject's property is located within the service boundaries of Spokane County Environmental Services Department (sewer) and Modern Electric Water Company. Other utilities such as electricity, telephone and garbage are to be provided by franchise utility providers in conformance with applicable City standards and requirements. No concerns noted. REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS The non -project review is a tool to help the lead agency evaluate the environmental consequences of a non -project proposal and to provide information to decision -makers and the public. After reviewing the supplemental sheet for non -project actions, the City has determined the proposed amendment is not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. There are no significant changes in land use, density, or the built environment anticipated as a direct result of the adoption of the comprehensive plan amendments. If adopted, the comprehensive plan amendments will mitigate adverse impacts on the environment on a project -specific basis. Furthermore, proposed projects resulting from these amendments must comply with all applicable regulations. Lead Agency Environmental Checklist Review February 2, 2018 CPA -2018-0001 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 9 SilokaneVaHey COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING & PLANNING DIVISION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 10210E Sprague Ave Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5240 . Ex: 509.720.5075 . planning@spokanevalleyorg I)ine of Notice: February 7, 2018 Pursuant to Skine Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.120, Notice of Public Fearing, the Building & Pianaing Division is sending notice to all property owners within 800 feet of the subject property. Public Hearing Date and Time: February 22., 2018, beginning at 6.10 111,111. Hearing i_oc.ltion: Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, City Hall Pro•ert Number: Applixation Description: Location: Applicant: Propuriy /tel(s): k 1 privALuly 11.;in in)ir (Si 1;)1Y1v11.11tilmni:, qvIt'10 :Hui the zoning rtvin l'muttv 1..1-1Ktil l'ar-L-A21 1515:1,2801_ 151.5:1 53.21-06:. 12.102 .F.a...;1 Avoi1ic::.,111;1 17.116, Valkty,........Lry Avenue; loctut.clopproxinuitely tly:ec taunt' ri..(1 (..10+..))L1 Uj tlic iOcrsec.t ion or Koial 11w). 7.7) further located in 11te YOI ./1 L;cdion:1 1own:•41up 25 :\Thrilt. Nast, VvillanitAto 1ciiNpolole ()unity, W:..isitilocdi Petrio, 12116 1:;.1!-..1 Aycrinc, Spol;nia• WA ':+9..?..1 1:01.i A l'etrie, 1211(1 .A.\-c_Aine,Spokano WA ,.),.)7'.1) \iidi...' N 1, 0 1.10(.3,pi>L1icV:Llley, WA 1P)2! '1-11063 ()d...:.11,..1. 1 N, 2C. I 7 I hitv nE Application: Pak' Oeicrinined Staff Contact: 1V1icki I ( :O)) ilIiiit f-IcAring Val1L-y Loild.121 the Itulriri pm -sum -if 16 tho CcurIn1s!tion laturostc:1 JL..i1 1i1' :11 1.1(41riat. and (1.0k_Tilil!ILL- 17C rote or 111:L.114,. 1):;11,11114.t. the tinic givon to speakers. '111c Planr.ir, oiturb...sion iI1lorwaa. rcL:cniu)ieini.:iiiklr Hitt the Spokane Valley (H.y itHl. NL 11( Hauls planning to att..2rici the who special ttssistance tO •Or oilier irTmairrrwmk. (.the (121.k at (509) 921-1000 as wi aspol7.-thIc 1 I m-rangeini_ntmay be made. is, staff report vil1 he a.vtii1:11)11, 161 iri.mccC on seven (7) calendar clay!-; trerorc hearing at the Com 'orI S'poltarte Valley C.i.ty 'kill, 10:3_10 SpruLnle 8100 pm, Monday holidar-L Scud. 1.-N,:inen cotrimc,1118, to V;illeyC2(1;1111...111ily \.Vorks EXHIBIT 10 Siniokane' .0001FVa11eyx Community & Public Wijrk. IDoimr-iiiient .02:0 9920..6 Phone: (509) 77(..---1)00 • Fax: (ici))'/.11.2-c075, Memorandum To: Prom Micld Harnois, Planner Chad Rigs. Senior Engineer Date: January 10, 201 k3 Re; CPA -2017-0001 Viilleyway Comprehensive. Plan Amendment SEPA Checklist Review Comments Doveloymc:it 1 Iiii Fi1.has rcvic),:vvid llie SITA Cliockl i1 ii (.1'A-20 7-000. to cham},c the conipiehcimiv 1 i1ion lrui' nIi Family 1(k:tliia1 (SFR) to Multi Family RcEdcrilial (1v11:1,1). We [Lave: no time. All conclitiont; cleFerrcd of huikliiigi);.:rriiit appl BF -DEPT SPO # NE VALLEY Y FIRE DEPARTMENT Est. 1940 Bryan Collins, Fire Chief 2120 N. Wilbur Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone (509) 9284700 FAX (509) 892-4125 www.spokanevalleyfire.com January 8, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: CPA -2017-0001 Technical Review Comments The Spokane Valley Fire Department has completed a review for the above referenced project and has no comments on the SEPA checklist. Sincerely, :., ://Tfy Traci Harvey Fire Protection Engineer Spokane Valley Fire Department Q:\Dept Data Unshared\Prevention Unshared\Plats\Shorties\2017\Comp Plan Amendments\CPA-2017-0001 Harnis.docx Mary Moore From: Figg, Greg <FiggGcwsdot.wa.gov> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 2.36 PM To; Lori Barlow Cc: Ray Wright Subject: RE: CPA -2018-0001 Draft Staff Report To PC (004) ejI comments Lori, The Washington State Department of Transportation also requests that a trip generation and distribution letter be provided for this project. It is our understanding that the City of Spokane Valley Public Works Department has requested this letter as well. This letter will give us a better idea of the level of traffic that will be generated and the intersections that it will utilize. Based on this letter we will be able to determine if further analysis is needed or not. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project, Sincerely, Greg Fig Development Services Manager WSDOT Eastern Region (5C9) 324-5199 figgg@wsdot,wa.gov From: Lou NIIwA, Semi: I i'ir1Q:'r lirrrry9, 20155;34 PM To: hi ry N( l.r,r:,on<jnickersori@spokarievallev.org>; Chaz Bates <cbates(spokanevalley.arg>; Mike Basinger cnibasirrger@ spokar evalley.ors>; John Hohrnan <ihohrnan c spokanevailev.arg> Cc: Gloria Mantz < mentzC sgokaxie +alley,ors>, Ray Wright <rwright@spokanevallev.org>; Martin Pa&aniuk ‹mpaIaniuk spokanevallev.org>; Doug Powell <dpowell ►spokanevalley.orr>; Chad Riggs <criggs@spakanevalley.or >; Erik Lamb <elamb@spokanevalley.org>; Cary Driskell <CDriskell spakanevalley.org> Subject: CPA -2018-0001 Draft Staff Report To PC (004) ejI comments All, Attached) is Micki's staff report ;r Fr (-)A 701.8-0001. The request is to change the land use designation from SFR to MFR. Let Micki or I know if you would like to discuss anything, otherwise, please provide comments by Feb. 13 (Tuesday]. Thanks— Lori x To: Micki Harnois (City of Spokane Valley - Community Development) CC: From: Jim Red (Spokane County - Environmental Services Dept) Date: Friday, January 26, 2018 Planning/Building #: Subject: CPA -2018-0001 Stage: Comprehensive Phase: Address: SSO9 As per the development regulations/zoning code of the governing authority as amended, a wet (live) sewer connection to the area -wide Public Sewer System is to be constructed. Sewer connection permit is required. Commercial developments shall submit historical and or estimated water usage prior to the issuance of the initial building permit in order to establish sewer fees. All existing uses, not currently connected to the sanitary sewer system, are required to be connected. SEJohdneTrdnI February 6, 2018 M.S. Micki Harnois, Planner City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Arniendment 201S-0001 Dear Ms, Harnais, Spokane Transit is in receipt of the SI -PA chec:lcikl. ind associated docuiii.:rlts for the above referenced project. The proposed land use designation change (Single Family Residential{SE,Iij vdith a Single-family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning rlassihical.iort to Residenti.il (MFR) designation vdith a Multifamily Residential (MFR) zoning classification) will ikeiy result in an increased demand for transit and a supportive pedestrian environment at this location_ SIA currrmtly+ has stops at the intersection of E. Valleyway Ave. and N. Pines Pd., less than 350' from the identified .sites. Should this proposed land use plan designation change be adopted, STA requests that the following be considered at the time of development: • Safe arzd :oPVeninnI. pe:ie Irian crossings of N. Pines Road • Completing , network on the south side of E. Valleyway from thrs site to the existing sidewalk • Improved AiDA bus sto.s it erseclirirn of E. Valleyway Ave and N. dines Rd. STA's most recent bus stop design s-t7r,e:l,7rsis; i l.ze: fo;Ird at httris:llvirwwr.spoltarnetransrt.cornJprajects- plans,/bus-stop-design-standards Please let me know if you have any questions about these comments or requests, It is important to STA to continue to coordinate on changes to our respective plans. We value your efforts to include us in this process. Karl Otterstrorn, AICP Director of Planning r Dcvclnpment 328 -RIDE s )alcsn etrinsic.cam TTY 154;-•i327 1 73CAV ilnrJn0 Avpr,Ur, 509,325.4004 Si961s:inn,tiY,itking[cri 797.; -?6.9 509,32.5.4038 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF '1""e\a'a jUalley. COMMUNITY & PLBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA -2018-0003 STAFF RI. PoR'[• I)A'I'1?: February 15, 201S 11EAR iN'( rl'.AND I.o(•A I tO'4: Fohrilnry 22. 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council C;hambr;rs, [0210 J ast Spt'ri,l.u;: Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. Project Number: Applic.ii awl 1) c^Nel it liicril: Location: Applicant: Owner 1 Dalt' 111':Allllli�:IIIr11): Date lic'l4'riuiiii i1, 4:IIII111It;1e: Staff Contact: +-1,A 2.0 14 4.1.1 1 l,0 the Lallfl I `0111 I;,csicicntial (SFR) [;+ ['4.rri41,1: ti.Nc..cl I .tic il'`i411 t:l'��III�.t• Il°c: 4}Eiill �, 17i Irki I1'01)1'in ,1e 1'aumily 1 c:;;Cel Iirll :';ulrrl,.Hui Mixo l l::,i• CIVIL:) I't°i&..I 111111ll i. '7.;"7 i_1, SCI : 1~);::.{Iecl tic.•;+ Ortho, Y iiiI.tj- ccl.iun i f 1•1. S':1 11'; I.,oad loo lied in the SW V. of Sc:cic:[t 33, Tor' 111 il):?` ti1,5r.1), litll;;c I' l.;i;i, W111;I1I'e1ic iwl�ridian, 1,'):.5 ti;111r�' 4'41111.t4�, 14' ir-dling[r5:1.. 1 '11ii11s1 i'{>1).-}41I[iIi i I.n::tic 5rti, 21 ` I'in ; 1<c!, ~1::51<;inti; Valley, WA 1 3c: r1+iti z , Iclissei Crrpo, 2602 N IIc:y, 9'12Ir, 4)c 7..017 lariirti 2,r: l s 1i1s1ri I';11niA, 1'lillutci' ('r))) 7-.7'..(1,-5031 m alatliilk(a spnkanevnlley.org APPROVAL CR1'1`ERIA: Spokane Va11uy C,IInip:'oIi i sive Plan, Tit.lo 17 Spokane Vi 11ct 'I+II1;E.;;,;11 Cok (SVIVIC) Genera] Provisions, Titic 19 SVM Zoning RcL},llizilliors, and Title 21 ,S ''MC [•.!iL'ir(rini;`11[:I1 Controls. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Application Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit 3: Ccs: llllrcll::itsive Plan Map Exhibit 4: Zon hip Ma Exhibit 5: Comp:Q.1e 1)cterlitiita:iii tt Exhibit 6: SETA C lilrck�Is1 1:xhibif 7: E71: .r;11iiciil 1 ),;f.crrninatioti E''xIiiI tt 8: (>1 I'1a151i. 1 Ieuri]ig Exhibit 9: A2,.'1;c'y {!11`.111! rtt 1`xhihit 10: Public Comments Exhibit 11: Critical Areas Map A. lkt'kciz11)1 1) INw[)u1ti1A-I The sits: til)eCi[ ic'. { ,i,11 1nl:lll l til'. r t`Iri i\1,1') ;1':1,{i 1,4-alilrlr 1411) iii:iciidmcnt i8 a privulciy initiated request to 41+41+l. til4 1 .;ii1<l 1! c: 1 h_`Si ptltii..:.1ti :.,1c1 iD C.liange the Zoning District from R [c) Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 The site is a vacant parcel located southwest of Chester Creek and Dishman Mica Road in the Forest Meadows neighborhood. The Union Pacific Railroad runs adjacent to the parcel along the northeast boundary. The railroad right-of-way is approximately 150 feet wide with the railroad tracks situated in the center and Chester Creek along the south side of the tracks and adjacent to the site. A commercial use consisting of a self-service storage facility is located on the northeast side of the railroad right of way. The self-service storage facility is situated between the railroad right-of-way and Dishman Mica Road. Bowdish/Sands Road crosses over Dishman Mica Road into the site area and provides access to the site along the east boundary. Single-family homes in the Forest Meadows 1st Addition subdivision are located along the west boundary of the parcel. Single-family homes in the short plat SHP-09-10 have been recently constructed along the south boundary of the site. The subject parcel is Lot 7 of this short plat. Short plat SHP-09-10 was approved in April, 2011. The plat divided 7.66 acres into six single family residential lots and a single drainage easement. At the time of the plat an environmental review was undertaken due to the presence of critical areas on the site. A mitigated determination of non -significance was made on March 16, 2011 and noticed as required. The determination was not appealed. According to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), the project site included Freshwater Emergent (PEM1F) and Freshwater Forested/Shrub (PSS1C) wetlands. Biology, Soil & Water, Inc (BSW), 3102 N Girard Road, Spokane Valley, WA 99212, conducted a comprehensive Critical Areas study and submitted a report, dated August 12, 2010. The BSW study conducted numerous test holes to determine soil type and hydrologic characteristics of the site. The study concluded that the wetland area mapped in the NWI as a PEM1F wetland was not a wetland. It also concluded the area mapped as a PSS1C wetland on the NWI map as somewhat excessively drained soils was not a wetland. The study further concluded hydrologic conditions on the site do not meet the wetland criteria. A "Type F" stream is located along the north boundary of the property within the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The actual location of the south Bankfull Width of Chester Creek was surveyed in the field and plotted on the subject site plan map included as a part of the BSW report. (see Exhibit 11) According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, dated July 6, 2010 a significant portion of the site lies within the 100 -year floodplain. A narrow strip of land running along the north boundary of the property is located within the floodway and would preclude development. (see Exhibit 11) The final plat of SHP-09-10 includes a drainage easement across the west 15 feet of Lot 4 of the plat to allow the flow of drainage from Sundown Drive onto the subject parcel. As part of the plat, the entirety of Lot 7, the subject parcel, was designated as a blanket drainage easement to be used for storing and treating stormwater. The plat dedication language states that no modifications can be made to the boundaries of the drainage easements without the approval of the City and that engineering calculations would be required for any modifications to the blanket drainage easement consisting of Lot 7, the subject parcel. (see Exhibit 11) Implications: The rezone of the site to CMU would allow a broader range of uses to include light manufacturing, retail, office and multi -family uses. Any change in the land use designation to the parcel would have implications for existing uses. Impacts to the property and surrounding properties are likely to occur whenever the current undeveloped use transitions to a use other than a vacant undeveloped lot. Impacts associated with commercial or light manufacturing are generally more intense than impacts caused by single family residential development. If redevelopment to a commercial or light manufacturing use were to occur, the adjacent residential uses could experience impacts. Impacts may include greater lot building coverage, greater building heights, and increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic into and out of the site. Transitional building height and setbacks, screening, and landscaping would reduce the impacts to adjacent residential properties. Page 2 of 12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 Tile (?AIT is n.tonded to allow for light minitilaeauing, arid oEliccs along lo.lior ornirN),Iritqiodt the hisiorical attW-(1p-z_11(.1L2111. ucTir patternS. h iinariEy ti;:1slng SpraF,,,Lie Avunue. north -S011111 cli-Nc1opirical ir. z, adiacui. in a resiclontiAl ie is subject to transitional ut,..(lift:u JR.!: impsel to IhC residential iusus and Ike rieiphilorliooc.1. A inaximitin Li 1ciLIi H not hot is lin-lite:I Jy titc... transitional requireic.erGs. For arty 1.tivitli)11i1uili iii 11.1,2 it:N111zoile R-1, R-2, (IT R-3 zone, a minimum ground lover of 10 feet is LeILHIed L11Liii, 1 1 EricNiiildiug mu:4 1)c seiba.ck at a ratio onu tool ror every toot of.114..-:...nt. O.:11 :-Eodt.'mriart pai Irways, o3id outdoor reoroinion nrcm act.:nc.:•-:sury arc titwly1sc portnitted withii L Ulu groill-Klic..wel setback jj jhu. M L A::iiiI ;v. i!1 cr li iv iiIt vuIdre:iiiire screening, loading vanild Ix proilibited within 3t: equipment, within transitirmill wouLl require scrcening. All outdoor !Alt:. ',.rrciii-niEorial set...lacks kvould l&shkl,:l ;And Iiinil1I Eo 16 iiLT.-.1iti.-111. storimvitor .y,Id oon-gi!--.1ut1t The following table provides a comparison of the development R-2 & Crdr Development Standard Comparison Lot Maximums Minimum Setbacks Zone Building Height C: ()ye! age Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Garage Density R-2 35 ft. 50%, 15 it 20 ft. CMU 10 11. 10 ft.* 5 ft. 10 20 ft. N/A 4 die s/acre N/A ciOjaccrif re.cidiffrliitri hsc. Vii01'VIVTV INI.010,1A11{).N: 1'1“n: Existing 1,...clutd Use: .11K: 16,1, o: 5.85 aerit.6 in size.Inc proport,,'IS with ii-L.:tt,s andhrubs 1kr Mc. RS:W CHI ioal A rotts 1 2016) Ike site .tiocs not have wctkintls.. Thc lochlod ilIi tlic ElooLiphin, wahtFi riortls io,..2,a.ed in the ricloilviny. Single- Family Re:-icioraial F•.1111-mirl-ron (R-2) Vacant rproperlAcIcac1I blanket iirdinage eascineril part ol short phit SE 1I(:'9- ! 0 of 12 Staff Report . SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING, AND LAND USES: CPA -2016-0003 North Comp Plan: CMU Zoning: CMU Land Uses: Union Pacific Railroad track and right-of-way, Commercial (self- service storage) South Comp Plan: SFR Zoning: R-2 Land Uses: Residential East Comp Plan: CMU Zoning: CMU Land Uses: Commercial and residential West Comp Plan: SFR Zoning: R-2 Land Uses: Residential Note: A 150 -foot wide Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way is located adjacent to the property along the northeast boundary of the property. 2. APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Pre -Application Meeting: October 26, 2017 Application Submitted: October 26, 2017 Date of Complete Determination: January 5, 2018 End of Appeal Period for DNS: Not Appealed . February 16, 2018 Date of Posted Notice of Public Hearing January 31, 2018 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: February 2, 2018 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: February 6, 2018 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) SVMC, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Building and Planning Division issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposal on February 2, 2018. The determination was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Titles 19, 21, and 22 SVMC, a site assessment, public and agency comments, and other information on file with the lead agency. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled. Page 4 of 12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis: Land use and the regulation of land uses are inherently related to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Community infrastructure is designed and built in response to the development of property which in turn is dictated by the land uses that are permitted through the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. All services are available or will be required to serve the site as development occurs. The City is required by the GMA to idents and protect Critical Areas. Critical Areas include Frequently Flooded Areas, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, Geologically Hazardous Areas, and Wetlands. The majority of the site is located within a floodplain. A Type F stream is located north of the site in the railroad right-of-way and will require buffering for protection. The soil on the site is classified as an alluvium soil made up of finely granulated silt and clay deposits from water flow. Alluvium soils are generally loosely consolidated and hold moisture. Any development on the site would require compliance with Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls. (2) 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; Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services are available. Environmental regulations ensure that critical areas are adequately protected while balancing the land owners right to develop the property. The request does not conflict with other GMA goals. The request is not consistent with the intent of the CMU land use designation. (3) 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; Analysis: The subject property was created through a short subdivision process that was completed in 2012. Prior to the subdivision in 2012 the site was unplatted property and existed in its natural state. Single-family homes have been built adjacent to the site as part of that short subdivision. The properties located west and south of the site in the Forest Meadows neighborhood were subdivided and developed with single family homes in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way is located along the northeast boundary of the property. The right-of-way is 150 feet wide along the boundary and contains a railroad track bed and a set of tracks. Chester Creek flows along the southwest side of the tracks within the railroad right-of-way and is confined to a banked channel. Page 5of12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 A self-service storage facility is located northwest of the site side on the opposite side of the railroad right-of-way.. The storage facility was permitted and constructed in the mid to late 2000's. The gas station and convenience store located east of the site at the southeast corner of Dishman Mica Rd. and Bowdish Rd. was constructed in the mid 1990's. The zoning of the subject property was changed from agricultural to single family at the time of the Forest Meadows 2"d Addition subdivision in the early 1980's. It has remained as a single family zone since that time. The commercially zoned properties located northeast of the site have undergone several zone changes since incorporation in 2003. The property was zoned B-2 under the City's interim zoning, Community Commercial (C) from 2007 to 2016 and Corridor Mixed Use from 2016 to present. The amendment does not respond to any substantial changes since the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. Growth has been continuous in the area with the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way being a dividing line between residential and commercial land use designations. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The proposed amendment does not respond to a mapping error and would not correct any error. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. (5) Analysis: Between 2007 and 2016, commercial square footage in Spokane Valley increased roughly 700,000 square feet. The vacancy rate for office buildings in Spokane Valley has been much higher and more volatile than the countywide vacancy rate for office property. High vacancy indicates there may be an oversupply of office space in Spokane Valley. Spokane Valley 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. General commercial land use makes up 18.2% of the City's land use. The proposed amendment does not address a deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. A thorough analysis of land use quantity and needs was completed during the City's 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan. Deficiencies in the plan were addressed as part of the update and land use changes were implemented in the area that addressed those deficiencies. There is adequate commercial and industrial property to accommodate future growth. ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis: The change in land use would allow a more intense development of the property. The CMU designation is the most versatile of the commercial/mixed use designations and permits a wide range of uses. The uses range from light manufacturing to single-family dwellings. If commercial development occurs the site will transition from open field of grasses, trees and shrubs to asphalt parking areas, stormwater treatment areas and buildings with commercial landscaping. The maximum building height in the CMU zone is regulated through the application of transitional setbacks and would be limited by the proximity of the surrounding Page 6of12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 residential uses. A residential density standard does not exist in the CMU zone and multi family development would be limited by the physical factors imposed by the site. (2) The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; Analysis: The site is currently dedicated and utilized as a drainage easement for the stormwater associated with Sundown Drive. The site is undeveloped and covered with grasses, shrubs, and trees. It is a low lying area adjacent to Chester Creek and part of the Chester Creek floodplain. The terrain associated with the single-family lots located south of the site was raised to lift them and remove them from the floodplain area. Any development that would occur on the site would require compliance with the Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls to limit the impact to both the floodplain and to the riparian area along Chester Creek. Modifications to the floodplain can be undertaken through a Map Revision process with FEMA. Chester Creek is considered a type "F" Stream in the location of the proposed CPA. The stream will require the necessary buffers and protections outlined in SVMC 21.40.032. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis: The areas south and west of the site are residential neighborhoods comprised of single family homes. The density of the homes ranges from one single family home per acre to four single family homes per acre. The lot sizes are generally between 10,000 and 40,000 square feet. The proposed change to CMU would allow multi family development and a wide range of commercial and light industrial uses to occur on the property. The CMU is intended to provide for these uses along major transportation corridors, recognizing the historical low -intensity, auto -dependent commercial development patterns. The CMU zone has no density limit, height limit or lot coverage maximums. Development consistent with the CMU standardscould be significantly different in character and scale from the low density residential uses. The neighborhood is separated from the CMU land uses along Dishman Mica Road by the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and tracks. The SFR land use is the only use located south and west of the railroad right-of-way in this area. The railroad right- of-way serves as an organic boundary separating the SFR land use from the CMU land use along Dishman Mica Road. The change would not be compatible with the low-density single family residential neighborhood that exists adjacent to the site. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; Analysis: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Policy CFP -9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. SVMC 22.20 requires concurrency review when an application is submitted. Future development projects will be evaluated to determine if the impacts of the development will meet the Level of Service set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. At the time of development, or redevelopment, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. Page 7 of 12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 A Trip Generation and Distribution Letter was submitted as part of the application that contemplated the highest intensity of uses for the site. The information was reviewed by the City's Senior Traffic Engineer. It was determined that the higher density would account for an estimated 845 new trips throughout a typical day over the lower density residential use. During the peak hours there would be an expected additional 14 new a.m. peak hour trips and 56 new p.m. peak hour trips. In reviewing the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan traffic model at the Dishman Mica and Bowdish Road intersection, the Level of Service (LOS) calculations indicate that the intersection will operate at a LOC C during the pm peak period. Adding the new pm peak hour trips that would be generated for this land use to the model continues to give a LOS C. By granting the change to CMU, a delay of about 3.5 seconds on average would be added to every vehicle using the intersection. It was determined that there is adequate transportation infrastructure to meet transportation concurrency. The site is located within the service area for Spokane County Water District #3 and is currently served with water. Spokane County Environmental Services serves the site with sewer. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis: The City of Spokane Valley updated their Comprehensive Plan in 2016 with considerable public outreach. Analysis and public input with regard to the land use needs and requirements of the Ponderosa neighborhood, Dishman Mica corridor, and the City were considered at that time. Appropriatechanges in land use designations and zoning were undertaken at that time to address any needs or deficiencies identified in the update process. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: The Comprehensive Plan underwent a periodic, legislative update in 2016. The 2016 update relied on information in the Existing Conditions Report and the Retail Improvement Strategy to inform the need and location of commercial and mixed use land uses. As part of the 2016 update, CMU land use was designated along the Dishman Mica corridor in the vicinity of the proposed amendment. The Comprehensive Plan has identified 1,073 net developable acres of land within the City that are available in the CMU zone. In the south Dishman Mica area, near the proposed amendment site, there is over 24 acres of undeveloped CMU zoned property. (7) The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: Spokane Valley has experienced steady, but modest population growth since its incorporation, growing at a rate of about I% 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. 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. According to the COSV Retail Improvement Strategy Report the population density for this area ranges from 21-50 people per ten acres in the vicinity of the site to 11-20 people per ten acres south of the site. Northeast of Dishman Mica Road the population density is more than 50 people per 10 acres. If the 5.86 acre site was to develop at a density of 22 dwelling units per acre then an additional 128 dwelling units Haight be expected. However, it is assumed that the site characteristics will limit the number of dwelling units to below the maximum density. Light Page 8of12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 manufacturing, office or retail development would not add to the population density. The development of the property will not have a significant impact on the population density. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: Overall the amendment would have no substantive effect on other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Conclusion(s): For the reasons outlined above the proposed amendment is not consistent with SVMC 17.80.140(H). 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Findings: The 2016 Comprehensive Plan was informed by the 2015 Housing and Economic and Transportation System Existing Conditions report, the Retail Improvement Strategy Report, and the Tourism Strategy Report. The City conducted in-depth analysis of the land use needs as part of the update. The Existing Conditions Housing and Economic Trends report provided an in-depth analysis of the existing conditions which include population and demographics, housing, land base, and economic and development trends. The report also analyzed the zoning issues for multi -family, mixed use, office and neighborhood. The Retail Improvement Strategy completed a Trade Area Analysis and Retail Trade Capture Assessment and developed a retail strategy and action plan. Changes made to the land use during the 2016 update are in consonance with that analysis and the comprehensive plan goals, policies, and strategies. The area south and west of the proposed amendment site is entirely low density SFR land use. The neighborhood is separated from the. CMU land uses along Dishman Mica Road by the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and tracks. The SFR land use is the only use located south and west of the railroad right-of-way in this area. The railroad right-of-way serves as an organic boundary separating the SFR land use from the CMU land use along Dishman Mica Road. Designating CMU land use southwest of the railroad right-of-way, adjacent to the SFR land use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The 2016 update included changes to the CMU land uses in the vicinity of the proposed amendment. Those changes were deemed adequate to provide the CMU land use needs at the time of the update. Additional change to the CMU land use in this area is not consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. Conclusion(s): The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update was developed with considerable public input and an in- depth, focused analysis of land use quantities and deficiencies. The 2016 update responded to the identified deficiencies with considerable land use changes in the Dishman Mica corridor. Those changes were deemed sufficient to address land use needs for the foreseeable future. Additional CMU property is not necessary. 3. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The area is currently served with adequate transportation, water, and sewer facilities. (See section 4 above) Page 9 of 12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff received the following public comments to date. Comments received after the date of this report will be provided to the Planning Commission at the February 22 meeting. Name Comment Maleah Christensen Opposes the amendment; concerned about flooding, drop in property values, and traffic. Colleen Shubin Opposes the amendment; concerned about flooding and impacts to the neighborhood. Holly & Kreg Woodbridge Oppose the amendment; concerned about flooding, traffic, crime, and impacts to schools. Jenny & Ed Yake, 4003 S Forest Meadow Oppose the amendment; concerned about flooding, believes displacement of the floodplain by development may create flooding on his property, concerned about traffic, wildlife, and school impacts. Patrick Miller, The Millers Oppose the amendment; concerned about home values and traffic; cites the available CMU properties on Dishman Mica Road. Cindy Gleesing, 4225 S Bowdish Rd Opposes the amendment; concerned about impact to the neighborhood, traffic, property values, and quality of life. Kay Boger Opposes the amendment; concerned about flooding. Keith Opposes the amendment; does not feel the development is appropriate. Richard Schultz Opposes the amendment; concerned about flooding; feels commercial development is not appropriate. Concerned Ponderosa Family Opposes the amendment; concerned about school overcrowding, increase in crime, home values; does not feel multi -family is appropriate for the neighborhood. Scott Henderson Opposes the amendment; does not like the idea of apartments and rezone for this area. Mike Reents Opposes the amendment; concerned about drainage, traffic, property values, school crowding, increased crime, increased noise and loss of privacy. Molly Kinghorn, 4041 S Ridgeview Dr. Opposes the amendment;. concerned about traffic, school crowding, drainage of Chester Creek; feels that single family residential is appropriate. Darby Jacobs Opposes the amendment; concerned about traffic, fire safety; does not feel multi -family or commercial development is appropriate. Page 10 of 12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 Mr. & Mrs. R.W. Bravinder Oppose the amendment; feels the change is not appropriate for the neighborhood; concerned about flooding and traffic. Tamara Perrin Opposes the amendment; concerned about schoolcrowding, house values, and traffic. 2. Conclusion(s): Notice of Public Hearing (NOPH) was published on February 2, and 9, 2018. The NOPH was posted on site on January 31, 201 and mailed on February 6, 2018 to residents within an 800 foot radius. Pursuant to Section 17.80.120.B. Lc the City determined it was appropriate to increase the radius from 400 feet to 800 feet due to the likely public interest in the proposed amendment. All comments have been reviewed and considered. The comment letters are included in Exhibit 10 of this staff report. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: The amendment application was routed to jurisdictional agencies, utilities, and public districts for review and comments. Agency comments are attached in Exhibit 9. The following agencies submitted written comments for the proposal: Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Spokane Valley Senior Traffic Engineer Yes January 10, 2018 City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering Yes January 10, 2018 City of Spokane Valley Building & Planning City of Spokane Valley Parks & Recreation Spokane Valley Fire Department Yes January 5, 2018 City of Millwood City of Liberty Lake City of Spokane City of Spokane Valley Police Department Spokane County, Building and Planning Spokane County, Environmental Services Yes January 12, 2018 Spokane County, Clean Air Agency Spokane County, Fire District No. 1 Spokane County, Fire District No. 8 Spokane County Regional Health District Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency Spokane Aquifer Joint Board Spokane Transit Authority (STA) Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Washington State Dept of Commerce Washington State Dept of Ecology (Olympia) Yes January 18, 2018 Washington State Dept of Ecology (Spokane) Washington State Dept of Fish & Wildlife Yes January 8, 2018 Washington State Dept of Natural Resources Washington State Dept of Transportation Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission Page 11 of 12 Staff Report CPA -2016-0003 WA Archaeological & Historic Preservation Avista Utilities Inland Power & Light Modern Electric Water Company Central Valley School District #356 East Valley School District #361 West Valley School District #363 Century Link Comcast Model Irrigation District #18 Consolidated Irrigation District #19 East Spokane Water District #1 Vera Water & Power Spokane County Water District #3 Spokane Tribe of Indians 2. Conclusion(s): Agency comments generally contemplated future development and no substantive issues were identified. F. CONCLUSION: For the reasons set forth in Section C (1 and 2) the proposed amendment to change the land use designation from SFR to CMU is not consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(H) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 12 of 12 EXHIBIT Spokane Valley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: PLUS #: &Ot - Received by: _ Fee: /560 60 4/350 $ 4 File #: CPA - Z01a dODOY CcrA -20 11 -000 PART 11— APPLICATION INFORMATION 0 Map Amendment; or ❑ Text Amendment APPLICANT NAME: Whipple Consulting Engineers MAILING ADDRESS: 2528 N Sullivan Rd CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99216 PHONE: 509-893-2617 FAX: 509-926-0227 CELL: EMAIL: info©WhippleCE.com PROPERTY OWNER : CRAPO, DENNIS A & MELISSA MAILING ADDRESS: 2602 N SULLIVAN RD CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99216 PHONE: {509) 924-8964 FAX: CELL: EMAIL: SITE ADDRESS: Bowdish Rd and Sands Rd Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PARCEL No.: 45333.1807 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Corridor Mixed Use ZONING DESIGNATION: R2 PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: CMU BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT (attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper): We are requesting a Comprehensive Plan Change and Zoning Reclassification frornR2. Single Family Residential to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) as is on the north side of the Union Pacific Railroad Tracts. The land is now vacant with trees, shrubs, grasses and, weeds. PL -06 V1.0 Page 3 of 4 Spokane Valley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART 11I -- AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) ,o,i , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) /75 '? (Date) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this E (AY) day of ©cam, , 20 fl NOTARY SEAL ``00%211111M% `,`%%%�.VSON AA/01110, '��,'. F y : Spokane VaileyM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION SVMC 17.80.140 Community Development - Planning Division 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 1 Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5310 ♦ Fax: 509.688.0037 ♦ planning®spokanevalley.org Year 2017 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS The City of Spokane Valley is accepting applications for map and text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows Comprehensive Plan amendments only one time per year. Any interested person, organization, agency or business may submit suggestions, proposals, or requests to the City for changes to the Comprehensive Plan, including maps and text. PROCEDURES 1. Application Period. Applications are due by November 1st of each year to be considered during the next calendar year amendment cycle. Submittals received after the deadline will be considered during the next annual amendment cycle. 2. Staff Review and Report. Spokane Valley Planning Staff will review all applications and will prepare a report and recommendation to the Spokane Valley Planning Commission. The report will analyze how each proposal addresses amendment criteria established by Spokane Valley City Council. All application documents and staff reports will be available for public review. 3. Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct a formal public hearing on all proposed amendments. The Commission will consider amendments individually and will examine the cumulative impacts of all amendments collectively. The Commission will prepare one recommendation to the Spokane Valley City Council, including findings on each individual proposed amendment. 4. City Council Review and Decision. Within 60 days of receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, City Council may choose to adopt the individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to substantially modify a proposal, they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. 5. Notice. Each year, the City will provide notice of the annual amendment cycle at least 60 days prior to the application deadline via display ads in local newspapers, email to interested parties and on the City's website. Notice of public hearings and public meetings will be provided to the public as set forth in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. At a minimum, notice will be provided to surrounding properties within 400' for site-specific Land Use Map amendments at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Notice will also be posted on-site at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Legal notice will also be published in the newspaper. 6. Appeal Procedures. City Council decisions on Comprehensive Plan amendments may be appealed to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board within 60 days of publication of notice of adoption, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.290(2). 7. Staff Contact. Questions may be directed to Lori Barlow, Senior Planner (Ibarlow(@sookanevallev.orq) or Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager (skuhta(a7sookanevallev.oro), 509- 921-1000. PL -06 V1.0 Page 1 of 4 Spokane Valley. COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL "THE PLANNING DIVISION WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR APPLICATION IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED*' A. Submit the following for MAP AMENDMENTS: ® Pre -Application Meeting Request (include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) ❑ Completed Application Form ❑ Application and SEPA Fee ❑ SEPA Checklist: One (1) copy of completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Checklist, including option Non -Project Action supplemental form. (Note: Any previous environmental documents that are relevant to this project should be included and may be adopted by reference.) ❑ Notice of Public Hearing packet for 400 -foot notification. (Please note: DO NOT submit the notice of public hearing packet until you have been contacted by the City. Addresses must be current within 30 days of the Planning Commission public hearing.) ❑ One (1) copy of a narrative describing the following: 1. State the reason for the Comprehensive plan Map Amendment. 2. Describe how the proposed changed meets the approval criteria below; 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 RCW 36.70A 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; and e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Describe how the proposal addresses the following specific factors; 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. B. Submit the following for TEXT AMENDMENTS: ❑ Pre -Application Meeting Request (include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) ❑ Completed Application Form ❑ One (1) copy of the text proposed to be changed, showing deletions by str-ikethreugh and additions by underline. ❑ One (1) copy of a narrative describing the following: 1. Why the change is needed and the potential land use impacts if approved; '1. Describe how the proposed changed meets the approval criteria below; 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 RCW 36.70A 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; and PL -06 V1.0 Page 2 of 4 AWC E Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. October 24, 2017 W.U. No. 2.017-1904 City of Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave., Suite 106. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Attn: Ray Wright Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Bovvdish Change trorn Low Density Residential (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Bowdlsh Road & Sands Road Planning Level Traffic (Trip) Distribution Letter Dear Ray: Per the City of Spokane Valley requirernents, we have prepared a planning level trip generation and distribution letter for the 5.85 acre +/- residential property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Bowdisb Road & Sands Road. This letter will establish the potential trip generation and distribution for the change ofland use from Low Density Residential to (R-2) to Corridor Mixed i 1sc (CMU) for the subject property as shown on Figure 2, Site Plan, and determine if further study may be required. This report will follow the standards fur doing traffic distribution letters as :oL uircd by the City of Spokane Valley, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Thr planning level project proposes to change the current land use code designation from Low Density Residential (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). The subject property is approximately 5.86 acres +1- of developed land. The project site is currently =develop cif The existing land use is Low Density Residential (R-2) which has a maximum density of ,4 residential units per acre, per Table 19.704. Under the current land use designation, the subject property can be developed into 23 single family residential lots. With access from Bowdish Road The proposed 7.orii nix, i:; Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) which has a mixture of potential land uses that are allowed Under tire. City of Spokane Valley Municipal code (Chp. 19.60,050)_ It is anticipated that the 1tigliC:,st and (best land use for the subject property. Would include a 15,000 sf (15.0 ksf) retail store w tl7 o0 apartments above. VICINITY/ SITE PLAN The site is listed on the current comprehensive plan as Low Density Residential and currently zoned as R-2, The site lies on a portion of the SW 1/4 of Section 33, T.25N., R.44B., W.M. 2528 N. Sullivan Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99215 PO Box 1566 ^ Verada.le, UVP. 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 Fax 509-926-0227 Civil, Structural, Traffic, Survey, Landscape Architecture and Entitlements Bowdish CPA change From LDR (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Traffic Distribution Letter October 24, 2017 Page 2 within the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington. A vicinity map is included as Figure 1 and a preliminary copy of the Site Plan is included as Figure 2, please see the Appendix. The parcel number for the site is 45333.1807. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Trip Types The existing land use is residential, and the proposed land uses are commercial and residential landuses. ITE has developed data regarding various trip types that all developments experience. These are found in several places, however, for this analysis the Trip Generation Manual 9"' Edition as well as the Trip Generation Handbook were used to develop the criteria for this analysis. Generally, all existing and proposed developments will be made up of one or more of the following trip types: new (destination) trips, pass -by trips, diverted trips, and shared (internal trips). In order to better understand the trip types available for land access a description of each specific trip type follows. New (Destination) Trips - These types of trips occur only to access a specific land use such as a new retail development or a new residential subdivision. These types of trips will travel to and from the new site and a single other destination such as home or work. This is the only trip type that will result in a net increase in the total amount of traffic within the study area. The reason primarily is that these trips represent planned trips to a specific destination that never took trips to that part of the City prior to the development being constructed and occupied. This project will develop new trips. Pass -by Trips - These trips represent vehicles which currently use adjacent roadways providing primary access to new land uses or projects and are trips of convenience. These trips, however, have an ultimate destination other than the project in question. They should be viewed as customers who stop in on their way home from work. An example would be on payday, where an individual generally drives by their bank every day without stopping, except on payday. On that day, this driver would drive into the bank, perform the prerequisite banking and then continue on home. In this example, the trip started from work with a destination of home, however on the way, the driver stopped at the grocery store/latte stand and/or bank directly adjacent to their path. Pass -by trips are most always associated with commercial/retail types of development along major roadways. Therefore, for this project pass -by trips will be considered. Diverted (Linked) Trips - These trips occur when a vehicle takes a different route than normal to access a specific facility. Diverted trips are similar to pass -by trips, but diverted trips occur from roadways, which do not provide direct access to the site. Instead, one or more streets must be utilized to get to and from the site. For this project, because of the many different routes that can be taken to and from the site, we believe that these would be difficult to track and verify. Therefore, no diverted trips were acknowledged for this analysis. Bowdish CPA change From LDR (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Traffic Distribution Letter October 24, 2017 Page 3 Shared Trips - These are trips which occur on the site where a vehicle/consumer will stop at more than one place on the site. For example, someone destined for a certain shop at a commercial site may stop at a bank just before or after they visit the shop that they went to the site to visit. This trip type reduces the number of new trips generated on the public road system and is most commonly used for commercial developments. Determining these trip types is more difficult to quantify and without specific guidance are usually determined by engineering judgment on a project by project basis. Although some shared trips between land uses may occur with this project, there is no supporting data to justify a large shared trip reduction. Therefore, to be conservative no shared trips were credited for this project Intermodal trips (non -Vehicle) Pedestrian Trips — When a residential or hospitality land use is located within close proximity of complimentary land uses such as, shops, restaurants, offices, or event centers, some vehicular trips will be replaced by pedestrian trips. The decision for residents/guests to drive or walk to their destination is dependent upon several factors and variables. The first may be trip length or distance; the second may be the route, typically the crossing of a large roadway without signalized crosswalks or other safe crossing facilities would be a deterrent; the third may be parking at the destination; and fourth may be the weather as rain or snow conditions may deter pedestrian activity. For this project pedestrian trips will not be considered Bowdish CPA change From LDR (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Traffic Distribution Letter October 24, 2017 Page 4 Trip Generation Characteristics for the Proposed Project As noted earlier, trip generation rates are determined by use of the Trip Generation Manual, 9''' Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to determine the number of trips generated during the PM Peak Hour. The purpose of the Trip Generation Manual is to compile and quantify empirical trip generation rates for specific land uses within the US, UK and Canada. Existing Land Uses For the existing Single Family residential land use, the highest and best use of 23 single family residential lots will be used therefore land Use Code (LUC) #210 will be used. The potential trips generated by the single family residential land use are shown in Table 1. Table 1- Trip Generation Rates for LUC # 210 — Single Family Detached Housin No. of Dwelling AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vol. @ 0.75 trips per Directional Distribution Vol. @ 1.00 Directional Distribution Units Unit o 25% In 75 /o Out trips per Unit o 63% In 37% Out 23 17 4 13 23 14 9 Average Daily Trip Ends (ADT) 8 Dwelling Units Rate ADT 23 9.52 219 Proposed Land Uses For the proposed Multi Family Residential land use, the highest and best use of 100 multi -family residential land uses will be used therefore Land Use Code (LUC) #220 Apartment will be used. The potential trips generated by the multi -family residential land use are shown on Table 2. Table 2- Trip Generation Rates for LUC #826 Specialty Retail Center Thousand Square Feet KSF AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips N/A Directional Distribution Vol. @ 2.71 Trips/KSF Directional Distribution In Out 44% In 56% Out 15.0 - - - 41 18 23 Pass -by 8 4 4 _ r New 33 14 19 Average Daily Trip Ends (ADT) 20% Pass -by Per Engineering Judgement KSF Rate ADT 15.0 44.32 665 Bowdish CPA change From LDR (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Traffic Distribution Letter October 24, 2017 Page 5 220 — Apartment Trip Generation Comparison Since the existing single family residential land use trip generation is proposed to be replaced by the proposed Multi Family Residential trip generation, the difference in trips generated is shown on Table 4 --- . ..--r -------- ----- -----■------. Land Use Code (LUC) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. of Dwelling Units AM Peak Hour Vol. @ 0.51 trips per Directional Distribution Vol.. @ 0.62 irectional Distribution tripsper Unit 65% In 35% Out Unit 20% In 80% Out 60 31 6 M 25 38 25 13 Average Daily Trip Ends (ADT) 38 KSF Rate ADT 100 6.65 399 Trip Generation Comparison Since the existing single family residential land use trip generation is proposed to be replaced by the proposed Multi Family Residential trip generation, the difference in trips generated is shown on Table 4 --- . ..--r -------- ----- -----■------. Land Use Code (LUC) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vol. per LUC Directional Distribution Vol. per LUC Directional Distribution In Out In Out LUC 826 Specialty Retail (Proposed)- - - 33 14 19 1 LUC 220 Apartment (Proposed) 31 6 25 38 25 13 LUC 210 Single Family Residential <17> 14 <4> 2 <13> 12 <23> 48 <14> 25 <9> 23 Difference Average Daily Trip Ends (ADT) < > indicates Subtraction of number ! Land Use Code (LUC) Rate ADT LUC 826 Specialty Retail (Proposed) 665 399 LUC 220 Apar twent (Proposed) LUC 210 Single Family Residential <219> Difference 845 As shown on Table 4 the additional trips of the Corridor Mixed -Use land uses are anticipated to generate a total of 14 additional trips in the AM peak hour with 2 additional trips entering the site and 12 additional trips exiting the site. In the PM peak hour, the Mixed -Use land use is anticipated to generate a total of 56 additional trips, with 29 additional trips entering the site and 27 additional trips exiting the site. The anticipated average daily trips to/from the proposed Mixed -Use land uses are 845 trips. TRIP DISTRIBUTION It is anticipated that the subject property is accessed via Bowdish Road. The roads anticipated to be used by the additional trips generate by a development of the subject property are listed below. Bowdish CPA change L`rnr:i LUR (R-2) to Corridor Mixecl Use (CMU) Traffic Distribution Leiter October 24, 2017 Page 6 Bowdish Road is a northfsouth, two-way, 2 -lane. minor arterial serving a large residential area south of Interstate 90. 13owdish Road mins south from Mission Avenue, and crosses several major arterials, until it intersects with Sands Road. Bowdish Road, between Mission Avenue and ❑ishman-Mica Road is a two-lane roadway. South of Dishrnan-Mica Road, Bowdish Road crosses the Union Pacific Railway and becomes a local access roadway. Sands Road branches off of Bowdish Road and continues the arterial to 440 Avenue. Tlowdish Road is posted at 25 MPH on the local access portion, and is posted on the mieor:Aerial as 35 MPH. Considering many factors such as the surrounding transportation facilities, typical colintuting patterns, existing development in the area, and the Al )'1' of surrounding roadways the traffic for the proposed development is anticipated {t:; ii,llows, 5% to/from the south on Bowdish Road, and 95% to/from the north on Bowdi,h 96 -lad, Where the trips will follow existing traffic patterns at the intersection ofT)islellaii- MiL i Road & Bowdish Road. Conclusions and Recommendations It is anticipated that a change of land use to Mixed tlsc would generate 14 additional AM peak hour trips and 48 additional PM peak hour trips. Based on the number of trips generated the location of the project and an understanding of the operation of intersections within the area, we believe that if the change is approved that there would be no impact from this project on the surrounding transportation system. Additional at the time of any "real" project the "real" project would be reviewed for trti [itis imreiL:t at that time. Therefore, based upon the analysis provided and a working knowle 1p t: 01 in the area we recommend that the comprehensive plan map amendment be allowed Le movc ibrwrard without further analysis. Should you have any questions related to this document please do not hesitate to call at 893- 2617. TRW/bng enol: Appendix (Vicinity Map, Site Plan, Trip list %) cc: Sponsor File APPENDIX 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. Trip Distribution by Percent 4. Misc. Information 1T, Y _r L Inks 1.u�. • • A. E. L- -41711 r. PROD SITE � n E 43rdfn'.'}. i 1: -1.:1r.1 Chest'er i vi I NOT TO -SCALE • PROJ #•: 17- 9a4 DATE: 1 O I a2 Oi 1 7 u RAWr,I : 6N I APPROVED: TRW CPA TRIP EENERATIfN & IDITRIELITIDNJ BDWDISH CPA RflWIT) I-1 RDAD r SANAS ROAD SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP 4WCE WHIPPL CONELJT)143 EnCANEERS OWL ANC TRi.NtSPORTATlO i 1 ENGINEER:NG 252E 14CtRTN SULLIVAN ROAD SPOKANE VA4r, INSHIN;TON 5821 i PH. 502.4a3,251T FA% -..7111-975.0227 RCY,J #: 1'7.1 904 DATE: S 0/20/1 7 D RAW NI ; EI N .APPROVED: TWN CPA TRIP GENERATlC]N at DISTRIBUTION BDWDISH CPA RDWD1SH RaAD & SANDS ROAD s OKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTDN WCE 'hpl EF'I.li i;UNSIIr.➢INC ENGINEERS CIL'z_11r+R T11LM7PLIl1f4T IC PI EMYJINEEP"HL3 2b2LINORT1.1SULLI A /4.64) vf,I LEY, WASHINGTON 09216 Pli MI .n99.7761'I FAX: 5105-926-0227 TRIP GENERATION TOTAL IN OUT AM PEAK 14 2 12 PM PEAK 48 25 23 BOWDISH ROAD AM(2/11) PM(24/22) 95% BOWDISH ROAD 5% AM(0/1) PM(1 /1) W NOT TO SCALE PROJ #: 17-1904 DATE: 10/20/1 7 DRAWN: BNB APPROVED: TRW CPA TRIP GENERATION�//&DISTRIBUTION B D YY D' S H CPA BOWDISH ROAD & SANDS ROAD SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON FIGURE 3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 4WC E WHIPPLE CONSULTING' ENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 2528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROAD SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON 99216 FH: 509.893-2617 FAX: 509-926-0227 Photo 1 — Property Frontage — Boy., dish Road looking North Photo 2 — Intersection of Dishman-Mica Road & Bewdish Road, Looking North 1.1*it1i 1 f41/0r • { • • r_7 r 4WCE Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Narrative: Parcel: 45333.1807 October 23, 2017 The Comprehensive Plan Amendment for parcel 45333.0807 is to change the land use and zoning from R2 (Single Family Residential) to CMU (Corridor Mixed Use), consistent with the property north of the Railroad tracks. The subject parcel is approximately 5.86 acres and is accessed via Dishman Mica Rd to Bowdish Road, south Sands Road. The parcel fronts Bowdish Road, on the east property line, for approximately 175 feet, which is the access point for this lot. The north property line adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad is 940 feet. The west property line is approximately 525 feet adjacent to single family lots ranging from .42 to .85 acres and a 2.25 acre vacant lot owned by the City of Spokane Valley, which is adjacent to the Railroad tracks. The south property line is approximately 685 feet adjacent to single family lots ranging from .30 of an acre to .80 acres. All lots were created per SHP-09-10. See exhibit 1. The following services will be provided by the utilities listed. Electricity will be. supplied by Avista. Natural gas will be provided by Avista. Comcast will provide cableTV. And telephone will be provided by Centurylink. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Man. The parcel is adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad Track and with all the noises associated from the tracks to the subject site is not contusive to single family housing. This is consistent with the owner's experience in developing and selling Tots in the Ponderosa East Subdivision, laying south of and adjacent to the same railroad line. With the amendment there will also be a buffer between the tracks and the existing single- family lots. The physical environment will need to be mitigated to make the land amenable for permitted Corridor Mixed -Use development. The site falls into the Chester Creek flood plain, but not within the floodway and with the correct mitigation the site can be raised for permitted and allowed uses, thus improving the stream bed for birds and mammals to thrive. The impacts on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhood will be minimal with the buffering required and this space being a buffer for those who live close by. 2528 N. Sullivan Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99216 A PO Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 • Fax 509-926-0227 Civil, Structural, Traffic, Survey, Landscape Architecture and Entitlements This request is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. A. Goal LUG -4. Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's neighborhoods. This amendment is consistent with this goal through the implementation of the policies as outlined below. a. LUP-4.1. integrate retail developments into surrounding residential areas with attention to quality design and function. This amendment allows for street upgrades to the entrance of the neighborhood. The location of this corridor mixed-use site will have minimal impact to the layer residential development being place adjacent to the existing railroad right of way. b. LUP-4.2. Encourage pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood shopping and services. This change will take advantage of existing pedestrian and bike route to the Chester Store and Bowdish/Sands Road and Dishman Mica Road currently utilizing the existing railroad crossing. c. LUP-4.4. Encourage Mixed -Use residential and commercial and office development in Neighborhood Commercial designations where compatibility with nearby uses can be demonstrated. Integrate retail developments into surrounding residential areas with attention to quality design and function. This amendment allows for an unusable and difficult to market lot to add mixed use near the train tracks. d. LUP-4.5. Ensure compatibility between mixed-use developments and residential areas by regulating height, scale, setbacks, and buffers. This amendment to buffer the residents for the train tracks and adding mixed use to the area. e. LUP-4.7. Develop design guidelines that encourage quality design and pedestrian and vehicle circulation in commercial, office an Mixed-use development. This amendment allows for Corridor Mixed -Use to be a positive action in this neighborhood. B. Goal LUG -9. Encourage the development of mixed-use areas that foster community identity and are designed to support pedestrian, bicycle and regional transit. This amendment is consistent with this goal through the implementation of the policies as outlined below. f. LUP-9.2 The mix of land uses allowed in either the Corridor Mixed-use or Mixed-use Center designation should include: a. A variety of housing types including apartments, condominiums, town houses, tow - family and single-family dwellings on small Tots. b. A full range of retail goods and series including grocery stores, theaters/entertainment, restaurants, person services and specialty shops. c. Public/quasi-public uses and /or open space: d. Professional Office and other employment oriented uses; and e. Commercial uses that require large land areas by have low employment density and are anti-dependent, such as lumber yards, plant nurseries, warehouses, and auto dealerships, should be prohibited for either Mixed-use category. This amendment allows for a variety of dwellings, shops, and or services. C. Goal LUG -14. Improve the appearance and function of the built environment. This amendment is consistent with this goal through the implementation of the policies as outlined below. g. LUP-14.3. Establish standards for the scale and intensity of commercial, retail and industrial signage that protects views and minimize signage clutter while allowing adequate business identification. This amendment allows the neighborhood to keep it's identify without the clutter of signage and keeps Corridor Mixed Use encroachment with are surrounding the Railroad close to the Dishman Mica Arterial. D. Goal LUG -16. Provide a street system that connects neighborhoods. This amendment is consistent with this goal through the implementation of the policies as outlined below. a. LUP-16.1. Encourage new developments, including multifamily projects, to be arranged in a pattern of connecting streets and blocks to allow people to safely get around easily by foot, bicycle, bus, or car. This amendment allows for upgrades to Bowdish and Sands along the site and can extend frontage upgrades for connectivity, allowing for circulation across the frontage or the property. b. .LUP-16.2. Develop street, pedestrian path and bike path standards that contribute to a system of fully connected routes. This amendment can extend to the boundaries for connectivity allowing for circulation across the site frontage. The following provision of the development codes allows for the proposal: a. Per the Amended Comprehensive Plan Map, the subject parcel is located in the Corridor Mixed Use zone. b. Per SVMC Chapter 19.70.030, Mixed-use, the lots will comply with the dimensional standards shown in Table 19.70-1. Front yard setback will be 15 ft. minimum, rear yard setback of 10 ft. minimum, and side yard setback of 10 ft minimum. Driveways and off-street parking areas shall be paved with hard surface material. c. Per SVMC Chapter 19.60 Permitted Uses, Corridor Mix -Use are a permitted use in the CMU zone. d. Per SVMC Chapter 22.20, Concurrency, certificates of water and sewer availability have been submitted with the application. With regards to traffic, a Trip Generation and Distribution Letter has been submitted detailing the anticipated changes to traffic as a result of the project. e. Per SVMC Chapter 22.50.020, Vehicle Parking, each unit will have a minimum of two off-street parking spaces. f. Per SVMC Section 22.130.070, Development Transportation Improvements, the streets will be improved and built to current City of Spokane Valley street standards. g. Per SVMC, Chapter 22.150, Stormwater Management Regulations, the project will be designed such that post -development storm water will be treated and disposed of by methods approved in the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual. EXHIBIT 2 J.viap' .rn-cam 10-JlJL, W41 FliSompENN•I 1 � I I II min i■III Inn ■■i■ DLIII !Bl MINIUM hams emit17 Ian • ■.r■I 11111■; 1111:i C 111111■ ma F �? + As°,e 411 NM= 11111111I11', punning Wi' 1, 1 Ids I =t. Afl3 1l z• 122 r�i� �' ■11I� rl i, z 11'i: .- PA. Z7 tir 411-1 E 11 1 P64124Atin • 1E-si NMI th A. • 11 LeJ MEI -- i !'MI , ill =11 M� 7 El; R. c,, € G I 1 M �mowi`1• I a-�'. ■■M WO. E_ i -Bill � gniziesei Ma =MI MN 1Ng.di InatIkAMII 1l�I j11I1u1 11LI111 ..1I1u■11■ row ns' 1111 i'1I1 ■u 111. Fire _ iI1 1110 ■ ■11s• Aga •�1 �i■fBit • Iii• ■■1■h Altiviak mix ®� . %VIA l'` 1111 11111Ii�-;11i1 I4 fAllies pi ‘rtri, 1111111i�1��u1i . ktrEs Ln =PI 1!"1am 11111 ■■ !J A� ■1• n 't � a,��!■ 11111 ,111111. tl II 11119 ri rut% 11�IIII : ■4 11au '-' 41111 .4 to \v.' ■1■ Dire t IIVIOW714, JR' c th-PFA J1111I#A 4/Iii n► Fir [}intricl• 1 4i AMR/ r�Q 0] 1���1l111 7.4 E itfr University High F Chester 1. Elementary 1 F. Th id Horizon Middle iii i. E L pr. r E Sioux Cri EXHIBIT 3 Comprehensive Plan Map E4 sAv Study Area 45333.107 I VACANT LAND Spokane .0,00 Valle y :VA -2.0 1 8-01013 Owrier: Ourilits Sri 1117.A.P 4) Request: urr? :mum: EXHIBIT 4 Zoning Map f Spokane ..„00 Valley CPA -2018-0003 Owner: Dennis & cissa Crapo Parceltt; See Map Address: See Map Prf pa,,v quibffi .4.i,', aryl •C- .1.11.!.; fj:Vii,Vdf.111;'111 1,001 fl 7.41101y Ay, ,)117 ,Li[t 11) I AI))) . • t..11114 0))). .. 014)4 '• ). • )14,11111.11.1.)..; '111111' 1. . )1)1 riliNNikt (15 • .1f 'II) •.°00'000.11,41.:1,01011 AO° 111 00' ' 1 11 11,1 1,v 11 1)1111110111)1111,11)/Ii(01)), t) iii 1111)t'' 1gt t11 ),)) „ t) „ ,)(,w,, di) )3 t .„),)111 "tir•r),),!,i' , 1 ,,,,)).0.9,,.).)0'....,.....1 „.,„, ..).1,10 1 ''111.' Y11(1,1.1 ,, • 0)••• ' ') I) .11))1 A . • ' • 1.10,..),i,' .0,1 ,,,wit •,.. ., )...)$..t. 001 .1 '1)1 ,,cii(11(1111,,„.. ,,..,),111.• )' 14. ,tly ' 'r7*". • ').'Jit. - . 1041 NOY 1 )11; • 14 • "t11} 1) 111 )1, Spokane Valley. COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING & PLANNING DIVISION DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS REVIEW 10210 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5240 ® Fax: 509.720.5375 ® planning@spokanevalley.org spokanevalley.org Project Number: CPA -2018-0003 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single-family Residential Suburban District (R-2) zoning classification to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) designation with a Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zoning classification. Location: Parcel numbers 45333.1807; located W of the Y intersection of East Sands Road and South Bowdish Road, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Applicant: Whipple Consulting Engineers, 21 S Pines Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Owner: Dennis & Melissa Crapo; 2602 N Sullivan Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Date of Application: October 26, 2017 Date of Complete Determination: January 5, 2018 Staff Contact: Martin Palaniuk, Planner (509) 720-5031 mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org Date Issued: January 5, 2018 Signature: YOUR APPLICATION IS: Complete The required components of the application are present. The materials provided thus far are judged by the Building & Planning Division to meet the procedural submission requirements and the information is sufficient for continued processing even though additional information may be required or project modification may be undertaken subsequently. The Determination of Completeness does not preclude the Building & Planning Division from requesting additional information or studies either with this notice or subsequently if new information is required or substantial changes in the proposed action occur. The issuance of the Determination of Completeness shall not be constructed to mean that any of its application components have been approved. • EXHIBIT 6 Spokane Valley,. STAFF USE ONLY SEPA CHECKLIST SVMC 21.20 Community Development — Planning Division 11703 E Sprague Ave Suite 8-3 ♦ Spokane Vattey WA 99206 509.720.5310 ♦ Fax: 509.688.0037 ♦ ptanning@spokanevattev.org Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: PLUS #: File #: ►t PART 1- REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** Completed SEPA Checklist ® Application Fee ® Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 8'/Z" by 11" or 11" by 17" size ® Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give. the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. PL -22 V1.0 Page 1 of 14 Spokane Valley SEPA CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable Comprehensive Plan Change Bowdish and Sands 2. Name of applicant: Dennis and Melissa Crapo CIO Whipple Consulting Engineers 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 2528 N Sullivan Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 - Todd R Whipple, PE phone:509-893-2617 4. Date checklist prepared: October 11, 2017 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 2017 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? Yes If yes, explain. Upon successful implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zone Change to immediately implement and develop a project consistent with the revised zone. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.A previous Short Plat SHP-09-10 was prepared, this SEPA checklist, Application form, Trip Generation Letter, and Narrative. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? None known If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. This Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concurrent Zone Reclassification. Once the site is rezoned then a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Project Specific SEPA, Building Permits, Water Plans, Sewer Plans, Storm Drain Plans, Street Plans, UIC registrations, Street Permit, Utility Permit, Street Obstruction Permit, Street Tree Plan, etc... PL -22 V1.0 Page 2 of 18 Spokane _" Valley SEPA CHECKLIST 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.)The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification proposes to change 5.86 acres from R2 (single family residential) to CMU (Corridor Mixed Use), see exhibits 2 and 3. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.The subject parcel is located on the west side of the intersection of Bowdish Road and East Sands Road, just south of East Dishman Mica Road, with appoximatley 275 linear feet of frontage on Bowdish Road, located on portions of Southwest 114, Section 33, Township 25N, Range 44E, W.M. Spokane County Parcel Number 45333.1807. 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? Yes The general Sewer Service Area? Yes Priority Sewer Service Area? Yes (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). Project does lie within the ASA in the City of Spokane, per Figure 6-1 Aquifer Sensitive Area from the SRSM, as well as the high susceptibility area of CARA, per Figure 6-2 of the SRSM. Stormwater disposal methods will be consistent with Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM), which may include grassed percolation areas, evaporation ponds, drywelis and gravel galleries depending upon specific soil types encountered at the locations of the proposed facilities at time of a specific project. Anticipated rate will be appropriate for the design option chosen. At this time the volume is unknown. Because the system will follow the SRSM there will be a dead storage component of 0.5' in each swale or pond area that should limit direct discharge of items used in the home as well as firefighting activities. PL -22 V1.0 Page 3 of 18 Spokane Valley. SEPA CHECKLIST 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? The CMU zoning may anticipate chemicals, but the future project for this site has not been chosen. 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. Applicable BMP's will be used during construction to contain any leaks or spills as they occur. 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? Once the CMU zone has been developed there may be chemicals stored,and spills associated with CMU volumes will be handled on-site per the facility spill prevention and clean- up plan. b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? Unknown at this time. 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. Yes, stormwater will be discharged into the ground. No potential impacts are anticipated at this time and the future discharge will be as allowed in the SRSM. The existing stream bed will not receive an new stormwater. PL -22 V1.0 Page 4 of 18 Spokane Valley. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1) Earth a. General description of the site (check one): ® flat, ❑ rolling, ❑ hilly, 0 steep slopes, 0 mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?Less than 5% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. NRCS classification is Endoaquolls and Flluvaquents, 0-3% slopes, and Urbanland- Phoebe, disturbed complex 3-8 % slopes. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? Yes If so, describe. A site review does indicate the presence of these types of soils, additionally, the City of Spokane Valley maps show unstable or erodible soils on the subject site. Therefore, during plan preparation of a specific project the site Geotech will note the presence of these specific types of soils and an acceptable manner by which to deal with them, see exhibit 5. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. In a future project there may be grading proposed for streets, site, and building pads. The grading would involve removal of organics, preparation of street subgrade and preparation of building pads. This will occur over the entire buildable portion site. Although quantities are unknown at this time, we would anticipate the movement of approximately 15,000 to 20,000 cy. Any import or export of material shall be from/to a preapproved source/destination and coordinated with the City of Spokane Building and Planning Department. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? During site preparation for a future project, some minor erosion from wind and rain may occur during construction, but would be mitigated through the use of appropriate BMPs. The existing seasonal streambed may be mittigated to provide more buiding space. The subject site will be stabilized by paving, concrete, buildings and landscaping. If so, generally describe. PL -22 V1.0 Page 5 of 18 Spokane Valley,. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?60%-70" h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: During site preparation for a future project, on-site grading shall be consistent with approved grading and temporary erosion sediment control plans. Use of appropriate BMPs during construction and the stabilization of disturbed soils by paving, concrete, buildings and landscaping following construction. 2) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During site construction, for a future project, some fugitive dust could be expected, although the intent of the permits would be to control this instance. Additionally, a future project may create exhaust fumes from construction equipment, etc. At the completion and occupancy of a future project, construction air emissions may occur, exhaust machinery and vehicles. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? None known. If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: All future site development shall comply with Spokane Regional Clean Air (SRCAA), construction related requirements. Future tenants may require additional review through SRCAA. 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes. The site is in a Flood plain, see exhibit 4, which may be mitigated so the SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 6 of 18 pokane Valley property can be buildable. Chester Creek a seasonal streambed is adjacent to the Railroad tracks. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, although this is a non -project section Chester Creek does lie within 200 -feet of the subject site. Future projects will need to take this into consideration. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Future work within the flood zone AE is anticipated. Indicate the source of fill material.To be determined at time of flood zone mitigation, if at all possible. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? No Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Future work within the flood zone AE is anticipated. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? Yes. If so, note location on the site plan. See exhibit 7. SEPA CHECKLIST 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? No. If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No, stormwater treatment is required pursuant to the SRSM. All future runoff will be treated in the catchment areas before discharged. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Yes. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. As noted previously, a future project will be developed following the requirements for stormwater as outlined in the SRSM. Additional measures, if any, will be added if required during the design and approval process with the City of Spokane and any other affected agencies. PL -22 V1.0 Page 7 of 18 Spokane ao Valley° 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.There will be no water material discharged into the ground from septic tanks. . c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? The source of runoff from this site after completion of design for this propery, will be from the constructed elements of the design. The intent is to convey stormwater to catchments or pond areas to treat and discharge the treated stormwater (as required by the SRSM) to the underlying soils, via swales, ponds, drywells, galleries, etc. Will this water flow into other waters? No. If so, describe. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? No. Runoff will be treated in the catchment areas before entering ground water. The site does not contribute to any surface waters. If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: As noted previously, the project will be developed following the requirements for stormwater as outlined in the SRSM. Additional measures, if any, will be added if required during design and as approved by the City. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 4) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ®deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ® evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ® shrubs PL -22 V1.0 Page 8 of 18 Spokane Valley ® grass O pasture O crop or grain O wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other 0 water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ® other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? CMU projects usually take up a large amount of space. Most of the vegetation may be removed. The seaonal streambed may be mitigated allowing for more vegetation. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.Unknown. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: With on proposed project at this time, measures to preserve or enhance vegetaion is unknown. The seasonal streambed would be the best place to mitigate. 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Eg mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: 0 fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List, any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.Unknown. SEPA CHECKLIST c. Is the site part of a migration route? Yes If so, explain.The area is listed as Rocky Mountain Elk habitate, but the site is surrounded by homes and the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks. Consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife may be required to create a project consistenant with this designation, see exhibit 6. PL -22 V1.0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 9 of 18 CITY Spode Valley' d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:With no proposed project, the measures to preserve or enhance wildlife is unknown. 6). Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas will be used by future site-specific projects for heating, air conditioning and lighting. Additionally, solar, wind and other sources of power would be available for future projects. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The future construction of a CMU site should not affect solar energy on adjacent properties. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal?. List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Final building plans shall demonstrate compliance with the commercial provisions of the Washington State Energy Code (WSEC). 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal?Unknown. If so, describeOnce a project specific plan is developed a new SEPA will need to be completed. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.None known 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Does not apply, at this time as this is a non - project section. b. Noise SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of 18 Spokane Valleyx ) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?Typical noises associated with the Railroad Track: train whistles and the sounds of the train cars traveling past the site, with collector street traffic, commercial uses, and residentail uses adjacent or nearby. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. For a future CMU project, short term noises from construction would be anticipated. Long term noise would be typical traffic and occupant noises associated with CMU areas. Future construction noise is anticipated to occur during daylight hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Future construction restricted to hours allowed by City code. 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?The subject site is currently undeveloped. b. The property to the north is adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad and further north is Corridor Mixed Use mini storage. The property to the east is a single family lot with the north portion currently vacant, which is the portion of land adjacent to the subject site. c. The properties to the south and west are approximatly 1/3 of an acre single family homes and a vacant lot to the northwest of the subject site which is owner by City of Spokane Valley. d. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Unknown. e. Describe any structures on the site. No structures are on the site. f. Will any structures be demolished? N/A If so, what? SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 11 of 18 Spokane Valley' g. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R2, Single -Family Residential h. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? CMU Corridor Mixed Use. i. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?Unknown. j. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area?Yes If so, specify.Aquifer Sensitive Area, flood plain, Chester Creek floodwater and Elk migration route. k. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? This is unkown at this time with not project selected. I. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None m. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A n. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Develop to applicable zoning code development standards at time of specific project development. 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.Does not apply. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.Unkown at this time. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 12 of 18 Spokane P.. Valley G. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:Unknown at this time. 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Maximum height as allowed by code, 35 feet. Future project exteriors may be one of the following or a combination; wood, brick, aluminum, lap siding (wood/concrete/vinyl) with cultured or natural stone, windows, doors, asphalt shingles or metal roofing, those materials common to house construction within the Spokane region . b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Yes, views will be altered by future development. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Final site and building plans shall be developed cohesive with related design standards of the City of Spokane Valley Zoning Code, 2 stories with marketable attributes. 11). Light and glare a. What type of Tight or glare will the proposal produce? Unknown What time of day would it mainly occur? The subject site will be illuminated at night consistent with the City of Spokane Valley zoning codes and standards. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Yes, ambient light affect. SEPA CHECKLIST G. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Exterior lights from the adjacent residential and commercial uses in the area and Train lights. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: See comment to 11a. PL -22 V1.0 Page 13 of 18 Spokane Valley. 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There is an existing bike lane running south on Bowdish and at the the intersection of Bowdish and Sands, turns onto Sands Road. There are 2 public parks within 1 mile of the site, Castle Park and Brown's Park. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? None anticipated. If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None at this time. 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? No If so, generally describe. None identified by WISAARD search. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None, other than those requird by City of Spokane Valley Code, Washington State, and/or Federal Law. 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Dishman Mica Road; Bowdish Road and Sands Road. There are no plans at this time Show on site plans, if any. b. Is site currently served by public transit? No. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Spokane Transit Route 97, 0.80 miles to the north at the intersection of Bowdish Road and 32"d Avenue. SEPA CHECKLIST PL -22 V1.0 Page 14 of 18 Spokane .._ Valley c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? Unknown. How many would the project eliminate? None. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? There may be upgrades to Bowdish Road. If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Unknown at this time. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? None anticipated If so, generally describe. Existing Union Pacific Railroad line. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? See the attached Trip Generation and Distribution Letter. If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This project is anticipated to generate 845 average daily trips. The project is anticipated to generate 14 AM peak hour trips and 48 PM peak hour trips. These rates were developed from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook and the Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None at this time as they are project specific impacts. 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? Unknown. If so, generally describe. Unknown at this time. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Unknown at this time. 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: ® electricity, ® natural gas, ®water, ® refuse service, ® telephone, ® sanitary sewer, 0 septic system, ® other - describecable TV. SEPA CHECKLIST b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the PL -22 V1.0 Page 15 of 18 Spokane Valley. immediate vicinity which might be needed. The following utilities are known at this time to be service providers adjacent to or within the immediate area. 1. Avista — Gas 2. Avista/ — Electricity 3. CenturyLink — Telephone 4. Comcast / Other — Cable TV 5. Spokane County Utilities — Sewer 6. Consolidated Water District #19 — Water SEPA CHECKLIST C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. 1 understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: tis lezel it? D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Yes, as the current site is undeveloped, development will increase stormwater runoff, vehicle emissions and site related noise, however, the allowed uses will be restricted on to produce, store or release toxic/hazardous substances. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Through cordination, CC&R's and proper site management. PL -22 V1.0 Page 16 of 18 Spokane Valley SEPA CHECKLIST 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The future site will be graded, which will remove plants. There are no fish or marine life onsite. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: The grading will remove most if not all plant material on the site. The stream bed should be mitigated to a more healthy condition. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This site will not likely to deplete energy or natural resources. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The owner will use Energy Star equipment and has the option to use wind or solar energy. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wildemess, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The site is surrounded by homes and businesses and by mitigating the existing stream bed will more likely than not have game birds on that portion of the property. a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Mitigation of the stream bed. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are There are no existing plans as of yet for this property. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The Corridor Mixed Use is unknown at this time. There are utilities on or close to the site. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No measures at this time. PL -22 V1.0 Page 17 of 18 Spokane Valley SEPA CHECKLIST 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Any project on this site must follow local, state and fenderal laws for the prtection of the environment. E. SIGNATURE 1, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon t 's check Date: 1 //;7 Please print or type: Proponent: Signatur 44,0,%6 6 Yl (-4he,zi�' `�j / k1 >. Address: Z?ZA ,if- `5J/(IVB- J �'j , V41 ` ' /6 z Phone: � ZCe /7 1 Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL -22 V1.0 Page 18 of 18 EXHIBIT 7 0"ift, s'�I' Col 1MUNITV & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT NT PLANNING DIVISION DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE 10210 E Sprague Ave • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720,5240* Fax: 509.72.0.5075 • plunningia spokanevalley,org FILE NUMBER: CPA -2018-01J03 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the land use designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and the zoning from Single Family Residential Suburban (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). PROPOSAL LOCATION: Parcel number 45333.1807; located W of the Y intersection of East Sands Road and South Bowdish Road, further located in the SW 'A of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington APPLICANT: Whipple Consulting; Engineers, 21 5 Pines Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 OWNER: Dennis & Melissa Crapo, 2602 N Sullivan Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley, Community & Public Works Department Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that this piopeisal docs not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Staten L,-:111. (I,IS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a c(ini:,leicri cnvironenent tl checklist, the application, Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 19, 21 and 22, site assessment, and comments from the public and affected agencies. This information is ava i 1113k. to the public on request. DETERMINATION: This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will nut act on his proposal for 14 days from the date below. STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palanitak, Planner, (509) 720-503 I , mpalanink@spokanevalley.org RESPONSIBLY- OFFICIAL: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner f DATE ISSUED: February 2?�.11 8 SIGNATITRL;.!-���..&I-tr>-‘) APPEAL: An appeal of this detenuinotion shall he submitted to the Community & Public Works Department within fourteen (14) calendar clay's after the date issued. The appeal must be written aid make specific factual objections to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with SVMC 17.90 Appy :'ils_ and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Scheduled shall be paid at title ;;f:iprcal submittal, Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final 11 -ay... -.:hold d tLrnlilt:ition. Cal' .1, spoicanc Valley 1cuticul iii h'on-Siprtiticancc CONN 11;e No. CPA- t;1 x-c,i0 i February 2, 2018 Page I of 1 EXHIBIT 8 Sfiblianeii,•••OValler� COMMUNITY & PUTtLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING & PLANNING DIVISION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 10210 E Sprague Ave • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509,720.5240 • Fax: 509.720.5D75 • planning@spokanevalley.org Date of Notice: February 7, 2018 Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80A20, Notice of Pubic Hearing, the Building &. Planning Division is sending notice to all property owners within 800 feet of the subject property. Public Hearing Date and Time: February 22, 2418, beginning at 6:Q0 p.m. Hearing Location: Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, City Hall Project Number: CPA -2018-0003 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Lund Use Designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single-family Residential Suburban District (R-2) zoning classifrcation to Corridor Mixed Use (CM1J) designation with a Corridor Mixed Use (CMH) zoning classification. Parcel number 45333.1807; located W of the Y intersection of East Sands Road and South Bowdish Road, further located in the SW 'Js of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Locirtieu: Applicant(s): Whipple Consulting Engineers, 21 S Pines Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Owner(s): Dennis & Melissa Crapo; 2602 N Sullivan Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Date of A licatian; October 26, 2017 Date Determined Complete January 5, 201S Staff Contact: Martin Paluniuk, Planner (509) 720-5031 mpalaniuk okanevalle}`.° Hearing Procedures: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to the Planning Commission rules of procedure. Interested persons may testify at the public hearing and may submit written comments and documents before or at the hearing. The Planning Commission may limit the time given to speakers. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Cc,uri il_ NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting vvhe require special assistance to accominadatR lilrysic.ai_ hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon ay possible so that pis rangements may be mate. A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days before the hearing at the Community & Public Works Department, located at the Spokane Valley City Hall, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, between 5:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday -Friday, excluding holidays. Send written comments to the Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department. Con-iprehense Land Use Designation 'Aro I' 111 MF NC MU CMU • RC January 31, 2018 Zoning R1 1/;.. R2 R3 • POS "14641106;_ii f Project Site IMLJ 1:4,514 0 °Ann VT'S 1 C I 0,05 C.1 0.15 rrt ; L km VOniCine. ItC6t. tAnrferOr Ce<CTIV5C-t. %et LI 1.1.4 al-4.re EXHIBIT 9 #100"s, Spo'lrane .000Via Community & Public Works Department 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokzne Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5000 • Rix.; (509)72C-5075 • www.spokanevaney.org 1111111M1111111111111111101111.111k Memorandum To: Marty Pa laniuk, Planner From: Chad Riggs, Senior Engineer Date: January 10, 2018 Re: CPA -2018-0003: Flowdish and Sands Road Comprehensive Plan Amendment SEPIA Checklist Review Comments 1)eveloprrient 1;'_11.1;incoritig has reviewed the k for CPA -2018-0003 to c11!tw,.,2[Lw cornpfdleip.dvc Ccirridor IJke (CrVit1). ,j(i not S1:PA contains a hhiikci IiiII1L,C Cascnient 4] 11'. -OL) -10 flu. I (1Hposul. The .pliit .iczLion ".Afr) wr)(iiiic.-..fem-n /0 of hiCf‘h" 1.1-L11,,olif prior z.iro.,"o12o.1 r), Engir),,i7 Eolcirlofiohs k."-;yarl. rc tqq.e.iLf eascf)kv).1 (1 or f.;.14.ruk).,kl'cc Shect 2)", apithcait should Kc maiL. altmaion dud siipporting ch.-cArrapst cakiliatioits win be requirL...c..1 for ..orty to thebinnket drainapc, L:_..nserrierit. All conditions vi11 be deferred to the timt.; of plai. bulkiltiz permit application_ To: Martin Palaniuk (City of Spokane Valley - Community Development) CC: From: Jim Red (Spokane County - Environmental Services Dept) Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 Planning/Building #: Subject: CPA -2018-0003 Stage: Comprehensive Phase: Change land use from LDR to CMU Address: SS09 As per the development regulations/zoning code of the governing authority as amended, a wet (live) sewer connection to the area -wide Public Sewer System is to be constructed. Sewer connection permit is required. Commercial developments shall submit historical and or estimated water usage prior to the issuance of the initial building permit in order to establish sewer fees. All existing uses, not currently connected to the sanitary sewer system, are required to be connected. SS12A Applicant shall submit expressly to Spokane County Environmental Services Department "under separate cover", only those plan sheets showing sewer plans and specifications for the public sewer connections and facilities for review and approval. Commercial developments shall submit historical and or estimated water usage as part of the sewer plan submittal. Prior to plan submittal, the developer is required to contact Chris Knudson or Colin Depner at 477-3604 to discuss the details of the sewer plans. Once submitted, the sewer plan may require revised and or additional plat comments to be addressed. January 10, 2018 CPA -2018-0003 Review of Trip Generation & Distribution Letter TEDL dated October 24, 2017 Parcel No. 45333.807 A planning level Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TIDL) was submitted to the City c( Spokane Valley for a proposed land use change from Low Density Residential (R-2) to Corridor Mixed [Jse (CM Ll) if the 5.86 acre -/- parcel is developed to CMU, the higher density would account for an estimated 845 new trips throughout a typical day over Row flensity Residential. During the peak hours, we would expect there to be an additional 14 new a.m. peak hour trips and 56 new p.m. peak hour trips. In reviewing the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan traffic model at the Dishman Mica and eawdish Road intersection, LOS calculations indicate that the intersection will operate at a LOS C during the pm peak period. Adding the new pm peak hour trips that would be generated for this land use to the model continues to give a LOS C. By granting the CPA, a delay of about 3 2 seconds on average would be added to every vehicle using the intersection. Based on the information submitted in the Tetter combined with the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan traffic model, the City of Spokane Valley has determined that there is adequate transportation infrastructure to meet concurrency at time of building permit for this CPA. Attached are intersection capacity analysis to support the conclusions in this response, No pass -by trips were credited at this time for this analysis us recommended in the letter. Adequate street capacity exists ut pa s -by consideration. In the future, at time of permit, the applicant may submit a project specific Tj D and request a pass -by trip exemption. Ra Wright, PE Sr. -Engineer, Traffic City of Spokane Valley HCIV1 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 45: Bowdish & Oishman rnica Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (uph) Future Volume (vph) ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (S) Lane Util. Factor Fri Fit Protected Said. Flow {prat} Flt Permitted Ss ti, Flaw (perm) Peak-hcur 'actor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR ked.lct'an (vph) 1,nrie Group Flow (vph} leavy Vehicles (°%) Tu:'n Type Protected Phases Perrnitted Phases Actuated Green, G (S) 0.8 Effective Green. g (s) 0.8 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.01 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 Lane Grp Cap {vph} 14 Ws Ratio Prot 0.01 vas Ratio Perm vire Ratio 0.79 Uniform Delay, di 40.0 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 135.6 Delay (s) 175.6 Level of Service P Approach Delay (i) Approach LDS Intersection Summary ECL 111 10 10 1700 4.0 1.00 1.00 0,95 1482 0.95 1482 0.95 11 0 11 99 Prot 1 HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume 10 Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) intersection CapaortyUtilization Analysis Period (rein) Description: 2015 counts c Critical Lane Group 4 EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL 470 110 35 210 30 60 470 110 35 210 30 50 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 6.0 4.0 5.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1515 1442 1489 1.00 0,95 1.00 1515 1442 1489 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 495 116 37 221 9 0 0 5 602 0 37 248 9% 9°% 12% 12% NA Pro NA 6 5 2 46.3 462 0.67 6.0 4.0 865 c0.40 0.70 12.3 1.00 4.6 18.9 0 19.7 B 3.2 3.2 0.04 4.0 4.0 56 c0.0S 0.66 3$_4 1,00 27.8 66.1 49.2 49.2 061 5.5 4.0 X04 0.17 0.27 7.5 1,00 0.7 6.2 A 15.6 B 0.95 0.95 32 53 0 0 0 0 12% i% Perm 4 at NBT NBR SBL 120 40 15 120 40 15 1700 1700 1700 5.0 1.00 0.97 0.99 1559 0.84 1332 0.95 126 11 210 NA 4 16.5 16.5 0.20 5.0 4.0 271 o0 16 0.77 30.5 1_[15 13.6 44.1 D 44.1 ID 0.95 0.96 42 16 0 0 0 t} 5% 5°% Perm 4 1/1012018 4, SLIT SBR 4 r 150 10 157 10 1700 1700 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 10°0 0.85 1.00 1.00 1612 1376 0.96 LOG' 1561 1376 0.95 0.95 158 11 4 9 174 2 5% 5% NA Perm 4 4 16,5 16.5 16,5 16.5 0.20 0.20 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 317 2B0 0.11 a,00 0.55 001 28.9 25,7 1.00 1.00 2.4 0.0 31,3 26.7 C C 31.0 c 24.5 RCM 2000 Level of S rvIce 0.70 81.0 Surn of lost lirne (s) %, ICU Level of Seraice 15 G 15,0 G COSY Network BSonnen ro80 kotric 't(liAtia Synchs 9 Report Page 1 ry -lei i. HCIVI Signalized intersection Capacity Analysis 45: Bowdish & Dishman mica P4tiouement EBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 10 170 Fohrr Ve!,irne (vph) 10 410 Ideal Flow I;vb-ijal) 1700 1700 Tatar Lost time +s) 4.0 6.0 Lang Utit. Facto; 1.00 1.00 Frl 1.00 0.91 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flaw (prole) 1482 1507 Fit Permitted 0-95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1482 1507 Peak -hour factor, PHp 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow {uph) 11 495 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 Lane Group Flaw (vph) 11 626 Heav Vehicles % 9%G 9% Turn Type Prot NA Protected Phases 1 0 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 45.8 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 45.8 Actuated gfC Ratio 0.01 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 Vehicle Extensions 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 14 852 v/$ Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.42 vds Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.79 0.73 . Uniform Delay, d1 40.0 13.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 135.6 5.6 Delay (S) 175.6 18.7 Level of Sege F B Approach Delay (s) 21.3 Approach LOS C Intersection Sumo aary E13T EBR WBL HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Description: 2015 counts c Critical Lame Group 135 700 0.96 142 0 0 96 43 43 1700 4.0 1.00 1,00 0.95 1442 0.95 1442 0.95 45 0 45 12% Prot 5 3.0 3.0 0.04 4.0 4.0 4- 4VBT 210 210 1700 5.5 1.00 098 1..00 1489 1.00 1489 0.95 221 6 247 12% NA 2 48.5 48.5 0.60 5.5 4.0 53 891 c0.03 0.17 0.85 38.8 1.00 72.D 110.8 F 28.1 0.75 01.0 76,7% 15 COSY Network BSonnen 1-0-o 1)M1 oealc ir 0.2E 7.8 1,00 0.8 8.6 A 24.0 C WBR NEL 30 58 30 58 t700 1700 0.95 0.95 32 61 0 0 0 0 12% 5% Perm 4 HCM 2030 Level of Service Sum of Inst time (s) ICU Leval of Service NBT 444. 120 120 1700 5.0 1.00 0.98 0.99 1558 0.79 1246 0.95 125 10 219 NA 4 17.2 17,2 0.21 5,0 4.0 264 c0.18 0.83 30.5 1.00 19.7 50.1 60.1 D NBR SSL 40 15 40 15 1700 1700 0,95 0.95 42 16 0 0 0 0 5% 5% Perm 4 15,0 1/10/2018 SBT SUR 4 7 162 10 162 10 1It70 1700 5.0 5.0 1,00 1.00 1,00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1612 1376 0.97 1.fl4 1565 1376 0 95 0.95 171 11 0 9 187 2 5% 5% NA Perm 4 4 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 0.21 0.21 5,0 5.0 4.0 4.0 332 292 0.12 0.00 11.56 0,01 25,5 25.2 1.00 1.00 2,1 0.0 31,2 25.2 c c 20.9 C sync -Imo 9 Report Page 1 SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT Est. 1940 Bryan Collins, Fire Chief 2128 PJ. Wilbur Spokane Valley, WA 99286 Phone (509) 926-1788 FAX (5O9) 892-#125 www.ipoirsituvalleytire.com November 9, 2017 City of Spokane Valley 1021C E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA gg2Q5 RE: CPA -2017-0003 Technical Review Comments The Spokane Valley Fire Department has completed a review For the above referenced project and has no comments an the SEPA checklist, Specific fire department requirement shall be conditioned on future permits. Sincerely, Traci Harvey Fire Prctention Engineer Spokane Valley Fire Department O:'Bcpt Pala UnsharedtpreventiQn UnsharedlPlats�Stiorties�2D1 ; ,f:r-P ti(:P,\-;-() ilk •lo:;Y STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 4607 N' Monroe Stree(• Spokane, Washington 992(J5-1295 • (5(J9)329-3400 January 18, 20718 Mr: Martin Palaniuk Iiniinci City ol Spokane Valley 11707 I. SIan gue Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Crapu Ilan :°imcnt rnekIL/ one Rc:cl ati i icati(ni, 1'`ilc '+' (..l'h-2018-{0{}11 Item: LII: Th.nik you tor Lie (11aporti:lllty 1(1 coinuie It (11' Llle NotiL'.i i)f Application and antieipatod. 1)el-ruin...aion or Nor:sitm;rlil7L:nnce rL'•i,L1riIillg the proposal ti) uhangc: 5.86 :'.L' -lam. 11X1'1'. liliy.l� 1 ;1n'sil I.Li:;i,l r:ti II (12) tc Corridor Mixed Use ((`\ .IJ) liar ['Attire (level upiri m 'I'rY:>pc}nent.: Dena I ,(".i.i, :l C.'.re113i7}. The I)uI)LL1'tincat o[ I.cology (L',coIo ?i) [MS 1L'\ ie\A'l'Sl I[ic- C.C)t'•Llll.t`IlI`3 and submits the ccmmc,UU : V1':lkr auditPiro !rain--Sliannt1I1'arisor 50') 329-3610 Prt)per c:cltil[1C1 an.' Li;erhalti:tlt Ctii1rol pr2-.!Ctic'-Lei iiuis[ he used on the cony:inic..Lim IIL: i 11ti ikCll'ttl'(,`.111 :iltrl. to prt`VLFC7t upland til`I.11:ltci i.; from) surfaceLla.le','li'i,wider. L{1L::r: swill r\\',.ties(ir(l! Il roles •ili 1-krovic'L rcille'-rc111t-nts. Also TL i[7 to the St{iCllllwtlter Managenie2t Manual for Eastern Washin •to11 hound ut: htt.:llwww.ec.wa ovd,+romramsiw•lsturinwater/eastern manualtmanual.htrnl_ ground disturbed by construction activities must ALL. stabilized. When appropri ile, rise native vegetation typical of the site. All new dry wells and other injeetior welIs iiiu.ltit 11 regisic'rcd with the itindcr.}round Injection Control program Oil() ;i I }c:j7,:i liii� n[ c,[' 1.:colcii5.y prior to use. A n cl, cll Gllatt'hw. from the well(s) must comply viik IIk ` :'equircrrtcnt (nonendangerment standard) at I li.7 i,i,t oI' \viicr l;il lc., Cc nlEiet the Eastern Regional Office LTIC Coordinator, l.lv'la 1)t.rcn ii s at (509) 3518 or via email at Llyn.Doremust ecy_wa_gov, You may also go 1 htt liwvmr.ee .vvaov/•ro• rams.{w•f, mclwtrluiclreaistrationIre infa.html for registration forms and further information. Mr. Martin Palaniuk January 18, 2018 Page 2 ` 'L1ri111...vlilcr rininfFinny contain increased levels ofgrease, °il.s, sediment, and other - tor111.,A, Ilc•r I3,e!--141,11;:4.'_ Illl'•]1'- Prac•t.ccs (BM E's) ,,-;lull_Lltl bc i11s1.n11cd and 771111iIISlI'.i`tt •;f, Ina] ;1111 iEltiS`k'.:".I"IsL'. 11'311 `.'t ir)IirL]I)L'lil1cly (reale(' 14: remove L=1cse y4111L;417i`l .`.. i Ii[,LILi11L' I`i :1tL`.'•d1111'Iti :,11c1 111,11J1tL'I':ll1L'4' 1:1 1.1 4'I'uSion and ticLlil]LL ]tl control 'lest Vhili7:iy.clre 11 Practices (1.3MIs) are I`4',C:.111'inEcI'IiLet] both L-lLlriii . G1:1ii c1.111-4. d vt:lilpr7li::11. Of the site. S1[71'n-rwate1`Pollution Prevent ion 1'I;;11 1411' the pr:,,jc`c:1 ,illy Cll`.i Ifo_ l't'tll.li"'t't' ;mid .tilifilll(: be developed hyiI qualiiit'iI pL•1;:[11i4 1 I'[r:;li.ll :Jrlt] 4t:11:115C..l)l i.til'i,'."47l 11 L'. 111('•• In the 1711]]! must be iu111)1eliler1Lc:: I)FL ]- tr) an C- l !0`11; -9%!(lirll7., r,1' c.(r;Nt.r,k...1.it)17. I '.L, L: rontunl. .r . mcasures must171, effectiVC L{) prevent ;�';)II 11+; 1i t1L;°r]f? al -vied lith) .tid.krlacC ill l' I:•}: ;slt]r111.w•tlit'r 1[111[11"I'. s[.Ilil, Sill lltil tit?il t';Ill Lh111'rrgL` ilCIL1.3Eif'. kt;': 711,°:1 ;11111 are considered poi lutil1ii . 1 1 y ti l he 71�in IIu�L ]:� .1 1,•I,;ic1, .: ,I�, I�Ic�c1��;.,;rr � Llut`il7 the S.t.:i!-‘traction period. Proper- cI@: I'71)S;.1I tili'f clll lr'L:C Ita11. del]rls :11Lk?il tic 111 such 11 Frrnmer i`.Cil7rli]I Y c1 - the Mill.1.1r1:11 :a1.[lr11-1watL"`•i t]I.4i11di e S il.C.111 Or c;1111. -:L: water c11LI:11111 ak F1"Ihk ik:]1 tl C,tlrl;Ct Wale I 1 )lin7.11sters and refuse collier:lion :ci 1 I]IYcrti L1111.;1171o, t:ol rLrtiii]li I'7r111:fI7xoI'l7L1t., 11t9111L'tIk111g. and nave (:11as1' I1 Viii. covers. men dl.t: t'r;tti1t` 17:.11 17;; plekcd up immediately and returnee] do t11c container and the area properly cleaned. The lOpc: ioi (II i1 co]1-IrCIL.Li '1 :ate that disturbs one litre L)r inure of total land ?ll tl. i11Ld which has ur 'v ]11Z1ti °. �1 ciir;� ll:n i,t ol'storniwater to aSurlrlcc. 1.'iltCr 1.11' Lo. a storm setae:, must appl V I1C' +'11yr4'I'1 '" uiid(': 1 ).'11:trllnciii Li. 1....eulogy's B%1. iIiiiL t rclferal Perini( li}r StormwaieI 1 )1.,...nIr*s Asst.}e1::.(.LI 1,V.I ti (`S?C1sI.ruction 1i )k `neck of Silts w'1c.rc less 111'1111 1711.' zl':rC L)l tL7lill 1intid arC:1:1 wi 11 I)L' llIS11.1117Ld 7111,1L1 Iti1, 11}1;1v 1f Il7l: l'i111, 1C"lltidYL:II 111:11'+ II i I.`4 'y)Ill t irl sL I:.l[LL.l plan C}1l}'I}11', In( 111-';:41c' pore Lli,'ll] 17114 IL'.I' `. \• 111 eviznio:r=ly ht' dis1L1rl)cd. i)ise.nari,e- ty1 'il(01',1:1".%die: 1"14111' without a permit is iilc t'1 ;1.1[1 ;I iity he subject to enforcentenL itl llt)il 11 1i1:': 1 )L:1}Isrllllt'11l or. Ecology. If any soil ar grotlllil 1',';'LL : tu1'1;u )il3JL 111" I s;llcil','li ".d1 r: -.A2 oil ills: H 1e c ull11]'1:1] info}]'ml.al1S711 is u.pp.1eaht may be I't&ELli,.0. IG' ::Il :i'_IL cicltlllion..I w:Lltlii`1 :".11"l reports 1171 1L1Llll7 , 17LIt Iii )i limited ;o, temporary eni ii111 C1I14.I ti4tllill{lli C011l]'01 plans. IL sturrnwaleL' polluiioll ..1rc"vL'lillon liar, i] wilc inap Ll list of known c nt1t]1n1i11;nlr.tc •.1 jl lr t;717ct lalrtirtiClrl', tlllil +ie:ptkl I`11I111d a11,1 1 finer nli'rniation about the cont'lriI.i]r;Yrlts. Application should be made at least 60 clays prior to commencement of construction activities. A permit application and related documents are available online at: http:+//www.ecy.wa.govlprcurarslwq(storrnwater/construction; or by contacting the Water Quality program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504- 7600; (360) 407-6401. Mr. Martin Palaniuk January 18, 2018 Page 3 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Ecology's comments are based upon information submitted for review. As such, they do not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations that must be obtained or legal requirements that must be fulfilled in order to carry out the proposed action. If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments, please contact the appropriate staff listed above. Department of Ecology Eastern Regional Office (Ecology File #: 201800082) cc: Todd Whipple, PE, Whipple Consulting Engineers (for Dennis and Melissa Crapo) Mary Moore From: Lawlor, r, Jeffrey J ([4 6) <Jeffrey.I.awlorghdfw.wa.gov> Sent; Monday, January 8, 2018 7:43 AM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: F'N: Request for Comments CPA -2018-0003 Attachments: 5EFA Documents CPA-2017-0003,pdf Martin Palaniuk- Thank you for the o1portunity to comment on CPA -2018-0003- BowdishfSands Rd Comp Plan Amendment. Please let the record show that Chester Creek is considered a type "F" Stream in the location of the proposed CPA. The stream should be afforded the necessary buffers and protections as outlined in the Cities CAO. If there is a need to install a crossing on this stream as part of future development then a hydraulic project approval will be required by WDFW. Thank you. Jeff Lawlor Assistant Regional Habitat Program Manager 2315 N Discovery Place Spokane Valley ti's'. 99216-1566 50g-392-1001 N321 j ffrey.Iawlor[tu dfw.wa.gov From: 5EPAtJcsk (DFW) Sent: Friday, January S, 2018 3:17 PM To: Lawlor, Jeffrey J (EFW) Subject: 1=W: Request for Comments CPA -2018-0003 Sent From SERA inboK Kelly StiII 1 WDFM! Habitat Customer Service Specialist 1 361902,2422 1 Keliy.stilt dfw.wa,gov Th+s e.,rnoh and your response may be sub.(rt td pubre drsck sure, Frani: Martin Palaniuk [maiIto:nipalaniuk[u sPokarnevailey.erR1 Sent Friday, January 5, 2018 3:11 PM To: 'Avista Dave Byus' <dove.bvus@avistacarp.com>,'Central Valley School District #356' < roweil cvsd.or 'CenturyLink' <Karen.Stoddard[icenturykink.cam>;'Chris Johnston' <cr' ohnstonCsaokanesheriff.vrg>; 'Chris Knudson' <CKinudson@`pokanecounty.arg>r Anderson, Cindy (ECY) <CYAN461C}ECY.WA.GQV};'City of Liberty Lace' <atainin@libertylakewa.gov>;''City of Spokane Tirrell Black'<tblackjasookanecity_org>;'Colin Depner' <CDEP9 Ef pspokanecountv.vrg>;'Comcast' <brvan richirdsonC cable.corncast.com};'Consolidated Irrigation District 419' <consolidatedirrigationt Comcast,net>; Mary Moore <rnmoore@soic kanevallerr,or ,>; Doug Pmvell <d.erg›; 'East Spokane Water District #1.' <distl comcast.net>; 'East Valley School District f#361' <srnithL0C evsd.ore>;'Environmental Services Judy Green' <lagreen(c3spakarrecvuntV.org>; 'Inland Power 8.. Light' <connieniginlandpawer.cQm>; McCann, Jacob (ECY) <JMCA461@o ECY.WA.GOV>; Mary Moore <mmoone@spokanevalley ori›;'Mike Makela'<NiakelaM@sooktanevalleyrfire,com>; Mike Stone 1 <rnstone[spnkanevallev.org>; 'Model Irrii;.ition Ai let ,'f th' <jin1@modirr.arg>; 'Modern Electric Water Company' <rnoder mewco.cor t>; Patndde, Brian (PARKS) w=t rian-.Patncrderr PARKS.lh1, .GOV>;'Randy Myhre' <Randy.myhre@avistatorp.corrt>;'Spokane Ae4.r.f 'r Joint Board' <info#ospokaneart uifer,c'rg>;'Spokane County Fire District i' ' <bwalkup@scfd8.org>; 'Spokane. y Planning & Building' ‹jpedersora spokanecountv.arg>;'Spokane Coiiri.,Y, 1J1 ifities' <Lred spukanecounty.org>; '` t1 : cane County Water District #3' <scwd3@corncast.net>; 'Spokane Fief i:3r�:7i (. 1p;i, Air Agency' <awestbvqsookanet:pdanair.orw>;'Spokane Regional Health District' <1 sava a srhd. rg>; 'Sp t, )rRegional gional Transportation Council' <rstewart@SRTC.ore>;'Spokane Transit Authority' <kutitir , in@spokanetransit.com>;'Spokane Tribe of Indians' <randya@spokanetribe.corn>;'Tom Richardson City raf Millwood' <tom.rfchardson[c millwoodvoa.us>; Harvey, Traci <harreyt scokarrevalleyfire.conn>;'Vera Water & Power' <kwells@ver: waterandpower.corm>; CCM GMU Review Team <reviev�rtearn comrnerce.wa.Rov>; Kmrhler, Gretchen (DAMP) <Gretchen.Kaehler 7D.A.HP.wa.$av>; ECY RE SEPA REGISTER <separet;ister a@ecy.Wa.Eov>; SEPADesk OW) <SEPAdesk dfw.wa,gov>; EJNR RE NORTHEAST REGION <rortheast.region a dnr.wa.gov>; Caidotti, Chris ;PARKS) -Chris.Guidotti PARKS.WFA.GOV>; 'WA Transportation' <Fi G.{wsdot,wa.gov>; 'West Valley School District #363' <brian.liberg(a wvsd.org> Subject: Request for Comments CPA -2018-0003 All, Please review the attached Environmental Checklist and associated materials for the following project: Project Name: Bowdish/Sands Road Comprehensive Plan Amendment File 4: CPA -2018-0003 Site Address: Not addressed. Parcel No. 45333.1807 located west adjacent to the Bowdish Road and Sands Road intersection. Please submit writ.. ' r'::i'i fl rrl4or mail, by January 19, 2018 CO. 5:00 p.m.. My contact information is listed below and n<:ti::i care Thank you. Marty Martin Palaniuk Planner 10210 E. Sprague Avenue 1 Si,o!wii V �Iley WA 992DS (509) 720-5031 1 rnoalaniuk(ospokanevalley car SOokane This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. 2 crrrc�e COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Spee PLANNING DIVISION Valley- REQUEST alleyREQUEST FOR COMMENTS - ROUTING MEMORANDUM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW DATE: January 5, 2018 TO: Interested Parties, City Departments, and Agencies with Jurisdiction FROM: Martin Palaniuk, Planner 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PH: 509.720.5031 E-MAIL: mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org SUBJECT: CPA -2018-0003 - Bowdish/Sands Road Comp Plan Amendment SEPA Checklist for: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and the zoning from Single Family Residential Suburban (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). LOCATION: Parcel number 45333.1807; located W of the Y intersection of East Sands Road and South Bowdish Road, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Please review the attached SEPA Checklist and submit written comments via mail, facsimile, mail or in person by January 19, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. to the attention of the staff person identified above. The City of Spokane Valley is the lead SEPA agency for the environmental review of the above referenced project. If additional information is required or needed for your department or agency to comment please contact the Planning Division. If no comments are given by the date indicated above, it is assumed that there are no comments relative to the environmental review. The determination will be based on the existing information. 10201 E. Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley, WA • 99206 • (509) 720-5000 • Fax (509) 720-5075 Spokane Valley e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: PLUS #:� X� �` i 66 -'350 sit deceived by: �� Fee: File#: C?AoZdm-oIoi Cc 2011 -coo ) PART II — APPLICATION INFORMATION (1 Map Amendment; or I Text Amendment APPLICANT NAME: Whipple Consulting Engineers MAILING ADDRESS: 2528 N Sullivan Rd CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99216 PHONE: 509-893-2617 FAX: 509-926-0227 CELL: EMAIL: Info@WhippleCE.com PROPERTY OWNER : CRAPO, DENNIS A & MELISSA A MAILING ADDRESS: 2602 N SULLIVAN RD CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99216 PHONE: (509) 924-8964 FAX: CELL: EMAIL: SITE ADDRESS: Bowdish Rd and Sands Rd Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PARCEL No.: 45333.1807 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Corridor Mixed Use m gr € '$ ZONING DESIGNATION: WI Development Engineering R2 PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: CMU OCT 2 6 2017 Project it: - BRIEFLY BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT (attacihext full explanation on separate sheet of paper): We are requesting a Comprehensive Plan Change and iAlli eelassific-ation-frornR2, Single Family Residential to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) as is on the north side of the Union Pacific Railroad Tracts. The land is now vacant with trees, shrubs, grasses and weeds. PL -06 V1.0 Page 3 of 4 Spokane Valley, COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART 111- AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) 1 �-el ncs C.--(qp2) , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. ignature) STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE NOTARY Len SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this '— NOTARY SEAL ‘%%►►►uIfl it iii ii Pa-Allpi `` 1. • • NOTARY PUBLIC® : COMM. EXPIRES : OCT.12, 2020 ° 0 A/4./ RY SIGNATURE /n //-7 (Date) day of -"tom Notary Public in and for the State of Washington C.C.),/r1A-1,\ Residing at: , 20 11 My appointment expires: Vck . `7-‘ 7,02D LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I, , owner of the above described property do hereby authorize _ to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. PL -06 V1.0 Page 4 of 4 4WC E Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Narrative: Parcel: 45333.1807 October 23, 2017 The Comprehensive Plan Amendment for parcel 45333.0807 is to change the land use and zoning from R2 (Single Family Residential) to CMU (Corridor Mixed Use), consistent with the property north of the Railroad tracks. The subject parcel is approximately 5.86 acres and is accessed via Dishman Mica Rd to Bowdish Road, south Sands Road. The parcel fronts Bowdish Road, on the east property line, for approximately 175 feet, which is the access point for this lot. The north property line adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad is 940 feet. The west property line is approximately 525 feet adjacent to single family lots ranging from .42 to .85 acres and a 2.25 acre vacant lot owned by the City of Spokane Valley, which is adjacent to the Railroad tracks. The south property line is approximately 685 feet adjacent to single family Tots ranging from .30 of an acre to .80 acres. All lots were created per SHP-09-10. See exhibit 1. The following services will be provided by the utilities listed. Electricity will be supplied by Avista. Natural gas will be provided by Avista. Comcast will provide cableTV. And telephone will be provided by CenturyLink. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel is adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad Track and with all the noises associated from the tracks to the subject site is not contusive to single family housing. This is consistent with the owner's experience in developing and selling lots in the Ponderosa East Subdivision, laying south of and adjacent to the same railroad line. With the amendment there will also be a buffer between the tracks and the existing single- family lots. The physical environment will need to be mitigated to make the land amenable for permitted Corridor Mixed -Use development. The site falls into the Chester Creek flood plain, but not within the floodway and with the correct mitigation the site can be raised for permitted and allowed uses, thus improving the stream bed for birds and mammals to thrive. The impacts on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhood will be minimal with the buffering required and this space being a buffer for those who live close by. 2528 N. Sullivan Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99216 PO Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 • Fax 509-926-0227 Civil, Structural, Traffic, Survey, Landscape Architecture and Entitlements Spokane Va11ey STAFF USE ONLY SEPA CHECKLIST SVMC 21.20 Community Development - Planning Division 11703 E Sprague Ave Suite B-3 0 Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5310 + Fax: 509.688.0037 0 planning@spokanevalley.org Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: PLUS #: File #: PART I -- REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** ® Completed SEPA Checklist ® Application Fee ® Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 81/2" by 11" or 11" by 17" size ® Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. PL -22 V1.0 Page 1 of 14 **Wane Valley SEPA CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable Comprehensive Plan Change Bowdish and Sands 2. Name of applicant: Dennis and Melissa Crapo CIO Whipple Consulting Engineers 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 2528 N Sullivan Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 - Todd R Whipple, PE phone:509-893-2617 4. Date checklist prepared: October 11, 2017 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 2017 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? Yes If yes, explain. Upon successful implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zone Change to immediately implement and develop a project consistent with the revised zone. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.A previous Short Plat SHP-09-10 was prepared, this SEPA checklist, Application form, Trip Generation Letter, and Narrative. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? None known If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. This Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concurrent Zone Reclassification. Once the site is rezoned then a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Project Specific SEPA, Building Permits, Water Plans, Sewer Plans, Storm Drain Plans, Street Plans, UIC registrations, Street Permit, Utility Permit, Street Obstruction Permit, Street Tree Plan, etc... PL -22 V1.0 Page 2 of 18 Spokane:: Valley' SEPA CHECKLIST 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.)The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification proposes to change 5.86 acres from R2 (single family residential) to CMU (Corridor Mixed Use), see exhibits 2 and 3. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.The subject parcel is located on the west side of the intersection of Bowdish Road and East Sands Road, just south of East Dishman Mica Road, with appoximatley 275 linear feet of frontage on Bowdish Road, located on portions of Southwest 1/4, Section 33, Township 25N, Range 44E, W.M. Spokane County Parcel Number 45333.1807. 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? Yes The general Sewer Service Area? Yes Priority Sewer Service Area? Yes (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). Project does lie within the ASA in the City of Spokane, per Figure 6-1 Aquifer Sensitive Area from the SRSM, as well as the high susceptibility area of CARA, per Figure 6-2 of the SRSM. Stormwater disposal methods will be consistent with Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM), which may include grassed percolation areas, evaporation ponds, drywells and gravel galleries depending upon specific soil types encountered at the locations of the proposed facilities at time of a specific project. Anticipated rate will be appropriate for the design option chosen. At this time the volume is unknown. Because the system will follow the SRSM there will be a dead storage component of 0.5' in each swale or pond area that should limit direct discharge of items used in the home as well as firefighting activities. PL -22 V1.0 Page 3 of 18 *Wane Valley' SEPA CHECKLIST 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? The CMU zoning may anticipate chemicals, but the future project for this site has not been chosen. 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. Applicable BMP's will be used during construction to contain any leaks or spills as they occur. 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? Once the CMU zone has been developed there may be chemicals stored,and spills associated with CMU volumes will be handled on-site per the facility spill prevention and clean- up plan. b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? Unknown at this time. 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. Yes, stormwater will be discharged into the ground. No potential impacts are anticipated at this time and the future discharge will be as allowed in the SRSM. The existing stream bed will not receive an new stormwater. PL -22 V1.0 Page 4 of 18 Spokane ., Valley' B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1) Earth a. General description of the site (check one): ® flat, n rolling, n hilly, n steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?Less than 5% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. NRCS classification is Endoaquolls and Flluvaquents, 0-3% slopes, and Urban land - Phoebe, disturbed complex 3-8 % slopes. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? Yes If so, describe. A site review does indicate the presence of these types of soils, additionally, the City of Spokane Valley maps show unstable or erodible soils on the subject site. Therefore, during plan preparation of a specific project the site Geotech will note the presence of these specific types of soils and an acceptable manner by which to deal with them, see exhibit 5. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. In a future project there may be grading proposed for streets, site, and building pads. The grading would involve removal of organics, preparation of street subgrade and preparation of building pads. This will occur over the entire buildable portion site. Although quantities are unknown at this time, we would anticipate the movement of approximately 15,000 to 20,000 cy. Any import or export of material shall be from/to a preapproved source/destination and coordinated with the City of Spokane Building and Planning Department. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? During site preparation for a future project, some minor erosion from wind and rain may occur during construction, but would be mitigated through the use of appropriate BMPs. The existing seasonal streambed may be mittigated to provide more buiding space. The subject site will be stabilized by paving, concrete, buildings and landscaping. If so, generally describe. PL -22 V1.0 Page 5 of 18 *Wane Spokane Valley. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?60%-70" h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: During site preparation for a future project, on-site grading shall be consistent with approved grading and temporary erosion sediment control plans. Use of appropriate BMPs during construction and the stabilization of disturbed soils by paving, concrete, buildings and landscaping following construction. 2) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During site construction, for a future project, some fugitive dust could be expected, although the intent of the permits would be to control this instance. Additionally, a future project may create exhaust fumes from construction equipment, etc. At the completion and occupancy of a future project, construction air emissions may occur, exhaust machinery and vehicles. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? None known. If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: AH future site development shall comply with Spokane Regional Clean Air (SRCAA), construction related requirements. Future tenants may require additional review through SRCAA. 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes. The site is in a Flood plain, see exhibit 4, which may be mitigated so the SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 6 of 18 Spokane w�K_ Valley. property can be buildable. Chester Creek a seasonal streambed is adjacent to the Railroad tracks. i 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, .although this is a non -project section Chester Creek does lie within 200 -feet of the subject site. Future projects will need to take this into consideration. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Future work within the flood zone AE is anticipated. Indicate the source of fill material.To be determined at time of flood zone mitigation, if at all possible. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? No Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Future work within the flood zone AE is anticipated. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? Yes. If so, note location on the site plan. See exhibit 7. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? No. If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No, stormwater treatment is required pursuant to the SRSM. All future runoff will be treated in the catchment areas before discharged. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Yes. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. As noted previously, a future project will be developed following the requirements for stormwater as outlined in the SRSM. Additional measures, if any, will be added if required during the design and approval process with the City of Spokane and any other affected agencies. PL -22 V1.0 Page 7 of 18 Spokane Valley 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.There will be no water material discharged into the ground from septic tanks. . c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? The source of runoff from this site after completion of design for this propery, will be from the constructed elements of the design. The intent is to convey stormwater to catchments or pond areas to treat and discharge the treated stormwater (as required by the SRSM) to the underlying soils, via swales, ponds, drywells, galleries, etc. Will this water flow into other waters? No. If so, describe. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? No. Runoff will be treated in the catchment areas before entering ground water. The site does not contribute to any surface waters. If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: As noted previously, the project will be developed following the requirements for stormwater as outlined in the SRSM. Additional measures, if any, will be added if required during design and as approved by the City. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 4) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ® deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ® evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ® shrubs PL -22 V1.0 Page 8 of 18 Spokane Valley. grass n pasture El crop or grain n wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other n water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? CMU projects usually take up a large amount of space. Most of the vegetation may be removed. The seaonal streambed may be mitigated allowing for more vegetation. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.Unknown. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: With on proposed project at this time, measures to preserve or enhance vegetaion is unknown. The seasonal streambed would be the best place to mitigate. 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: ® birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ® mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.Unknown. SEPA CHECKLIST c. Is the site part of a migration route? Yes If so, explain.The area is listed as Rocky Mountain Elk habitate, but the site is surrounded by homes and the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks. Consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife may be required to create a project consistenant with this designation, see exhibit 6. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 9 of 18 Spokane Valley Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:With no proposed project, the measures to preserve or enhance wildlife is unknown. 6). Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas will be used by future site-specific projects for heating, air conditioning and lighting. Additionally, solar, wind and other sources of power would be available for future projects. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The future construction of a CMU site should not affect solar energy on adjacent properties. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal?. List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Final budding plans shall demonstrate compliance with the commercial provisions of the Washington State Energy Code (WSEC). 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal?Unknown. If so, describeOnce a project specific plan is developed a new SEPA will need to be completed. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.None known 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Does not apply, at this time as this is a non - project section. b. Noise SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of 18 Spokane Valley. 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?Typical noises associated with the Railroad Track: train whistles and the sounds of the train cars traveling past the site, with collector street traffic, commercial uses, and residentail uses adjacent or nearby. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. For a future CMU project, short term noises from construction would be anticipated. Long term noise would be typical traffic and occupant noises associated with CMU areas. Future construction noise is anticipated to occur during daylight hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Future construction restricted to hours allowed by City code. 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?The subject site is currently undeveloped. b. The property to the north is adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad and further north is Corridor Mixed Use mini storage. The property to the east is a single family lot with the north portion currently vacant, which is the portion of land adjacent to the subject site. c. The properties to the south and west are approximatly 1/3 of an acre single family homes and a vacant lot to the northwest of the subject site which is owner by City of Spokane Valley. d. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Unknown. e. Describe any structures on the site. No structures are on the site. f. Will any structures be demolished? N/A If so, what? SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 11 of 18 Spoka ne ValleyK g. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R2, Single -Family Residential ( , f SEPA CHECKLIST h. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? CMU Corridor Mixed Use. i. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?Unknown. j. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area?Yes If so, specify.Aquifer Sensitive Area, flood plain, Chester Creek floodwater and Elk migration route. k. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? This is unkown at this time with not project selected. I. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None m. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A n. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Develop to applicable zoning code development standards at time of specific project development. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.Does not apply. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.Unkown at this time. PL -22 V1.0 Page 12 of 18 CIT' oe Spokane Valley c. Proposed measures to any:Unknown at this time. 10). Aesthetics a. reduce or control housing impacts, if What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Maximum height as allowed by code, 35 feet. Future project exteriors may be one of the following or a combination; wood, brick, aluminum, lap siding (wood/concrete/vinyl) with cultured or natural stone, windows, doors, asphalt shingles or metal roofing, those materials common to house construction within the Spokane region . b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Yes, views will be altered by future development. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Final site and building plans shall be developed cohesive with related design standards of the City of Spokane Valley Zoning Code, 2 stories with marketable attributes. 11). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? Unknown What time of day would it mainly occur? The subject site will be illuminated at night consistent with the City of Spokane Valley zoning codes and standards. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Yes, ambient light affect. c. What existing off-site sources of Tight or glare may affect your proposal? Exterior lights from the adjacent residential and commercial uses in the area and Train lights. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: See comment to 11a. SEPA CHECKLIST PL -22 V1.0 Page 13 of 18 Spokane Valley 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There is an existing bike lane running south on Bowdish and at the the intersection of Bowdish and Sands, turns onto Sands Road. There are 2 public parks within 1 mile of the site, Castle Park and Brown's Park. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? None anticipated. If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None at this time. 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? No If so, generally describe. None identified by WISAARD search. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None, other than those requird by City of Spokane Valley Code, Washington State, and/or Federal Law. 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Dishman Mica Road; Bowdish Road and . Sands Road. There are no plans at this time Show on site plans, if any. b. Is site currently served by public transit? No. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Spokane Transit Route 97, 0.80 miles to the north at the intersection of Bowdish Road and 32nd Avenue. SEPA CHECKLIST PL -22 V1.0 Page 14 of 18 Spokane Valley c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? Unknown. How many would the project eliminate? None. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? There may be upgrades to Bowdish Road. If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Unknown at this time. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? None anticipated If so, generally describe. Existing Union Pacific Railroad line. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? See the attached Trip Generation and Distribution Letter. If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This project is anticipated to generate 845 average daily trips. The project is anticipated to generate 14 AM peak hour trips and 48 PM peak hour trips. These rates were developed from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook and the Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None at this time as they are project specific impacts. 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? Unknown. If so, generally describe. Unknown at this time. SEPA CHECKLIST b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Unknown at this time. 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: ® electricity, ® natural gas, ®water, ® refuse service, ® telephone, ® sanitary sewer, C septic system, ® other - describecable TV. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the PL -22 V1.0 Page 15 of 18 Spokane Valley. immediate vicinity which might be needed. The following utilities are known at this time to be service providers adjacent to or within the immediate area. 1. Avista — Gas 2. Avista/ — Electricity 3. CenturyLink — Telephone 4. Comcast / Other — Cable TV 5. Spokane County Utilities — Sewer 6. Consolidated Water District #19 — Water SEPA CHECKLIST C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: 1 ^i D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Yes, as the current site is undeveloped, development will increase stormwater runoff, vehicle emissions and site related noise, however, the allowed uses will be restricted on to produce, store or release toxic/hazardous substances. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Through cordination, CC&R's and proper site management. PL -22 V1.0 Page 16 of 18 Spokane Valley SEPA CHECKLIST 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The future site will be graded, which will remove plants. There are no fish or marine life onsite. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: The grading will remove most if not all plant material on the site. The stream bed should be mitigated to a more healthy condition. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This site will not likely to deplete energy or natural resources. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The owner will use Energy Star equipment and has the option to use wind or solar energy. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodpiains, or prime farmlands? The site is surrounded by homes and businesses and by mitigating the existing stream bed will more likely than not have game birds on that portion of the property. a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Mitigation of the stream bed. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are There are no existing plans as of yet for this property. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The Corridor Mixed Use is unknown at this time. There are utilities on or close to the site. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No measures at this time. PL -22V1.0 Page 17of18 Spokane Valley SEPA CHECKLIST 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Any project on this site must follow local, state and fenderal laws for the prtection of the environment. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon t 's check Date: to/ -74//7 Please print or type: Proponent: c14,ff?,& 6) Yds (14h e Address: i�'J A - '�-ct%�IV dr ,26/2 5(40, V� ?log, Phone: /7 Signatur Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL -22V1.0 Page 18of18 EXHIBIT 10 A Mary Moore From: Richard Bravinder <yoandme2@msn.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 7:32 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: Bowdish and Sundown Zoning Changes We are writing to protest the proposed zoning change and possible development at the intersection of Bowdish and Sundown in Spokane Valley AKA Sundown Sands Development. This proposed change appears to have bee ramrodded thru the system with no consideration for the people who will be most affected by it. From the homeowners who's land sits adjacent to the proposed rezone and were told that there would be no development in the area, to the local residents who have bought into the area because of the type of lifestyle they sought and found, to the future sellers and buyers who's property values will be negatively impacted, and the neighborhood standards both aesthetic and financial, all of these are the losers. It is difficult to understand how a development can be built on an area that is adjacent to and part of a flood prone area, a creek runoff that often floods across the roads and is so out of sync with the community and neighborhood style. There is an enormous traffic congestion problem in this area already especially when it comes to emergency evacuation issues such as the fire storms we have experienced and the increased traffic that will occur from the upcoming Harvest Center expansion. This proposed development will only lead to further congestion problems with the potential for death and/or injury to people seeking safety. The voters of the Valley recently changed the makeup of our city council with the intent to have people on it who were more concerned about the residents than developer dollars. This will be their first opportunity to show we the voters how you our represenativities respect our desires. We urge you to honor our faith in you and reject this zoning change. Respectively: Mr. & Mrs. R. W. Bravinder 4115 S. Sunderland Dr. Spokane Valley 1 Mary Moore From: Cindy Gleesing <j.gleesing@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 6:34 AM To: Lori Barlow Subject: Ponderosa project I am writing to complain about the proposed Bowdish and East Sands Rd project in the Ponderosa area. This project should not take place. Zoning should NOT be changed. This project would cause a huge impact to our neighborhood. Our road system can not handle this project!!! Property values would decline. The impact to our neighborhood and quality of life would be substantial. Do not allow this to happen. Cindy Gleesing 4225 S Bowdish Rd Sent from my iPhone Mary Moore From: Maleah Garn <MaleahGarn@msn.com> Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018.9:05 AM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: CPA- 2018-0003 Mr. Palaniuk, I am emailing concerning the changing of the plot of land from residential to corridor mixed use. I am concerned about the area any way, it seems to flood every year. If this land changes from residential to corridor mixed use the price value on houses in the area will go down, where we all just got notified that they went up this last year that seems to send mixed messages to us home owners. Please think twice before letting this happen. That corner is already a little wonky and then to put in more traffic for commercial businesses or apartments it could be very dangerous. I just wanted to voice my concern for this as I am unable to attend the public hearing on the 22nd. Thanks for reading my email. Maleah Christensen 1 Mary Moore From: avasmommy19@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 11:22 AM To: Lori Barlow Subject: Bowdish and sundown To whom it may concern, I am writing in hopes that myself, and many more in my neighborhood can shed some light on this devastating proposal to develop this land. To be completely honest I was opposed to even building the new houses that are now there because of the wildlife and the enormous flooding issues we already have on that Targe piece of land. Our neighborhood is clean, safe and beautiful and I cannot express how much I oppose ANY sort of commercial building OR apartments. Our school ponderosa elementary is already crowded enough. Not to mention how much traffic and potential crime this will add to our area. 1 don't care how "nice" or "upscale" apartment complexes can be there is always crime. We have had three major for storms in the ponderosa, this also poses a safety concern for us as building any new apartments will make it harder for any of us to get out since there could potentially new building on a main access road. We only have TWO of those to get in and out of ponderosa. I am not willing to let Mr. Crapo's greediness affect the safety of my family all because he wants to develop land that shouldn't be developed in the first place. WE as a community will not stand for it. The wildlife and flooding issues is also a huge concern. This land needs to remained untouched from any new potential buildings. For the safety of our community and the wildlife as well. Thank you, Holly and Kreg Woodbridge Sent from my iPhone 1 Mary Moore From: Scott H <scotteye74@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 6:35 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: Re: CPA- 2018-0003 Thank you for sending this to me. I see there is a traffic study done. But can I ask what, if anything is being done to address access to the Ponderosa neighborhood? Currently there are only two access points to serve the area. Does the city have any plans to limit development until such time as more access is provided? Are there currently any limits are in place? Can you please advise me where to look in the SVMC to find out where traffic volumes are addressed for this area. I do plan to create a letter stating my disapproval of this plan but I would like to have as much information as I can prior to doing so. When does the comment period end? In the narrative on page 4, Item a, under "The following provision of the development codes allows for the proposal" it states that there is a plan in place by the city to amend the current comprehensive plan and change the parcel to CMU anyway. Can I please get a copy and or link to that map? If the city plans to amend this anyway does that mean that it may be rejected now then the City is going to change it anyway and there is nothing we can do about it? I see LUG goals and LUP goals often referenced can you also advise me as to where these are located? Thank you, Scott Henderson 10115 E 48th Ave Spokane Valley, WA 99206 If my professional signature is attached to the previous email and either email will become part of the record please remove the LandTek signature and add it as shown above. This is for me personally, LandTek LLC is not involved. I have switched to my personal email for further inquiries. On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Scott Henderson <shenderson@landteksurveyors.com> wrote: Scott Henderson LandTek LLC 619 N Madelia St. Spokane, WA 99202 P: (509)926-2821 F: (509)926-276 Forwarded message From: Martin Palaniuk <mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org> Date: Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 8:22 AM Subject: RE: CPA- 2018-0003 To: Scott Henderson <shenderson@landteksurveyors.com> Cc: Carrie Koudelka <coudelka@spokanevalley.org> Scott, 1 There has not been a specific proposal for this site. Should the request to rezone be approved then any of the uses in the CMU zone would be permitted. Per your request, I have attached a copy of the application documents. I am in the process of developing the staff report. The Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on the proposal February 22, 2018 at 6:00 PM at the Spokane Valley City Hall. I would encourage you to submit written comments. Let me know if you have any additional questions. Marty Martin Palaniuk I Planner 10210 E. Sprague Avenue ( Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5031 1mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org lne Valley This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Scott Henderson[mailto:shenderson@landteksurveyors.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 5:12 PM To: Martin Palaniuk <mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org> Subject: CPA- 2018-0003 Hey Marty, First off this is for me personally, and is not work related at all. I live up in this neighborhood so I am just a concerned citizen. Can you forward me any public information on this project CPA -2018-003 (Bowdish and Sundown). I am curious what/how this project is being proposed. I will likely be one of the many that dislikes the idea of apartments and/or rezone here. Thank you for your time, Scott Henderson LandTek LLC 619 N Madelia St. Spokane, WA 99202 P: (509)926-2821 2 F: (509)926-2736 3 Mary Moore From: Scott Henderson <shenderson@landteksurveyors.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 5:12 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: CPA- 2018-0003 Hey Marty, First off this is for me personally, and is not work related at all. I live up in this neighborhood so I am just a concerned citizen. Can you forward me any public information on this project CPA -2018-003 (Bowdish and Sundown). I am curious what/how this project is being proposed. I will likely be one of the many that dislikes the idea of apartments and/or rezone here. Thank you for your time, Scott Henderson LandTek LLC 619 N Madelia St. Spokane, WA 99202 P: (509)926-2821 F: (509)926-2736 1 Mary Moore From: Heidi <htaylor1013@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 3:24 PM To: Lori Barlow Subject: Bowdish and Sands Rd Parcel Change Request City Council Chambers 10210 E. Sprague Ave RE: CPA -2018-003 Dear City of Spokane Valley, This letter is to express objection to file number: CPA -2018-003, located at Bowdish and Sundown to change the parcel from Low Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use. It has been a dream of mine to live in Ponderosa since I was a child. That dream came true the summer of 2017 and I move my family and two children to Ponderosa. I have always felt that Ponderosa is a great place to raise a family, due to the excellent schools, neighborhood support/involvement and low traffic area. The request to change this parcel to Corridor Mixed Use would be detrimental to the City of Spokane Valley, specifically the Ponderosa, for the following reasons: Schools are already overcrowded. The current ballot is asking us to vote yes to building another high school. Currently the high schools are 1,100 students past capacity. We cannot guarantee that voters will vote yes, thus not solving the overcrowding problem, which is both unproductive and a safety concern. If Diamond Rock is allowed to build on this property and condos/apartments are put here, that means a mass amounts of residents and many with children, adding to the school overcrowding. Diamond Rock already has made their mark on Ponderosa, across from Redeemer Lutheran on Schafer Road. These condo/apartments have been added to the apartment -free Ponderosa area. To add another one intersection over, is unnecessary and irresponsible. If this parcel allowed to be changed to Corridor Mixed Use, the potential of petty crimes/theft increases. There are often petty thefts in the area of Ferret Drive and Coleman, in Ponderosa. Multiple dwelling residences, will increase the population in this area, subjecting our community to crime/theft against our protest. Resale value of the homes in this area will decrease for all in this area. The poor homeowners who recently purchased homes on the block of Sundown and Bowdish would have terrible value. 1 have heard from many that they were promised that the area behind their home was "protected" and "would never be built upon". Our Fire District insurance coverage would increase due to multiple residential dwellings. The above are just a few issues that changing the parcel located at Bowdish and Sundown from Low Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use would cause. Please take our concerns into consideration and deny the request of change. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Concerned Ponderosa Family Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 Mary Moore From: Darby Jacobs <darby@jacobspatio.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 10:02 AM To: Lori Barlow Lori, My Name is Darby Jacobs, My wife Connie and I live at the corner of 48th and Skipworth, we really think there should not be development at the corner of Sundown and Bowdish, besides it being a wetlands, the traffic in the area couldn't handle it, there are only 2 roads out of the ponderosa, Shaffer and Bowdish, if there is an emergency [forest fire] those 2 road could hardly handle the traffic that would have to come out of it with the homes up there now, much less adding a whole new apartment or multifamily homes to it. Hope you chose wisely, Darby Jacobs Jacobs Custom Living 16023 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane, WA 99037 509-926-4230 509-924-3916 fax www. jacobscustomlivinz com 1 Mary Moore From: Kay Boger <kboger08@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 4:00 PM To: Lori Barlow Cc: Jerald Boger Subject: Parcel number_45333.1807 Hello Ms. Barlow, I am concerned about the change in plans to Commercial mixed use for this area. Since the houses have been built and water has been diverted, the small creek running next to the railroad tracks rises to the rail. Could you please send me the link for the proposed development? Sincerely, Kay Boger 509.994.4283 kboger08@gmail.com 1 Mary Moore From: Keith <klmcos@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 3:43 PM To: Lori Barlow Subject: Diamond Rock Zone Change and Development- Bowdish and Sands Rd Area. Lori, Why are developers allowed to continually overdevelop areas with mass housing such as condos and apartments? We home owners move into areas free of such developments. With more traffic congestion and increased potential for crime, as it usually happens with lower income housing, what benefits are us home owners who live in the area gaining? I am referring to the zone change and development happening by Diamond Rock in the Bowdish and Sands Rd area. I oppose this development and will be at the meetings. Thanks Keith Have a Great Day! 1 Mary Moore From: Molly Kinghorn <mkkinghorn@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 5:12 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: Building in Dishman Mica - Bowdish Area Please do not approve the re -zoning of land at Sundown and Bowdish near Dishman-Mica. This area is already being targeted for too much commercial and apartment buildings. The increase of traffic will be awful and the impact to already crowded schools needs to be addressed. Apartments were just finished up next to Albertsons on 32nd. A huge apartment project is planned for the prior Painted Hills golf course. Barney's on Dishman-Mica is planning multiple retail buildings. Please consider keeping this area of our neighborhood as single family lots. The Chester creek also can't be ignored. It is dry a portion of the year, but has a lot of water at this time of year. We shouldn't keep trying to push this water elsewhere - such as into homeowners basements. Please don't re -zone this land. Molly Kinghorn 4041 S Ridgeview Dr Spokane Valley WA 99206 1 Mary Moore From: Patrick <ptmiller1619@netscape.net> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 10:57 AM To: Lori Barlow Subject: Land use change on sands road We currently live in the ponderosa area and have recently been informed that a five acre parcel on sand rd. is being reviewed for land use changes. We would love to see the acreage stay zoned as R-2 and not CMU. Rezoning this property is unnecessary and will be very damaging to our home values. Looking at the project size and how much traffic this will create. Their is no way that sands intersection and Bowdish rd before the bridge crossing the creek can handle the traffic increase. We have many commercial Tots available for purchase on Dishman mica near Chester store and harvest food that can be developed for small community businesses. Please don't allow this changed in land use to be approved. The Miller's Sent from my iPhone 1 Mary Moore From: Lori Barlow Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 11:56 AM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: FW: Land use change on sands road Please include in the PC packet. Thanks - Lori Lori Barlow, AICP City of Spokane Valley (509)720-5335 Original Message From: Patrick[mailto:ptmiller1619@netscape.net] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 10:57 AM To: Lori Barlow <Ibarlow@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Land use change on sands road We currently live in the ponderosa area and have recently been informed that a five acre parcel on sand rd. is being reviewed for land use changes. We would love to see the acreage stay zoned as R-2 and not CMU. Rezoning this property is unnecessary and will be very damaging to our home values. Looking at the project size and how much traffic this will create. Their is no way that sands intersection and Bowdish rd before the bridge crossing the creek can handle the traffic increase. We have many commercial lots available for purchase on Dishman mica near Chester store and harvest food that can be developed for small community businesses. Please don't allow this changed in land use to be approved. The Miller's Sent from my iPhone 1 Mary Moore From: Mike Reents <Mike.Reents@nationalbeef.com> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 1:17 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: CPA -2018-003 Hi Marty, Thank you for your time today on the phone and explaining to me the change in zoning. My wife and I just bought our home in the neighborhood this summer, had I known the owner of the property behind me was going to ask for the change in zoning I would have never purchased the property. The dirt road put in this summer does not allow for drainage from my property which worries me. I am also concerned about too much traffic, devaluation of my property values, overcrowding of the schools, increased crime rates, noise levels, and lack of privacy as this would be built in my back yard. Thanks, Mike Reents Field Marketing Manager National Beef Mobile: (509) 499-5129 Fax(509) 922-6462 Toll Free:1-800-449-2333 (8712) National Beef Packing Company LLC 12200 North Ambassador Drive, Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64163 1 Mary Moore From: RICHARD SCHULTZ <rschultz2006@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 5:16 PM To: Lori Barlow Subject: SVMC 19.70.050 Bowdish & East Sands Project in the Ponderosa area I have lived in the Ponderosa area for 26 years . This area has been under water all most every year I have lived here. I believe that rezoning this area to commercial is not fair to our community and to the people that would purchase unknowingly in this area and be flooded out. The Maps and Photos presented at the meeting on Feburary 8th were not up to date and deceiving to some one that is not familiar to this area. The Photos presented were before the 5 houses were built. this is deceiving. this is not an honest indication of this area today. I am against rezoning this area for commercial use. Thank You Richard Schultz Mary Moore From: colleen s <clb2653@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 4:20 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: proposed building at bowdish and sundown Dear Sir I am writing to voice my opposition to this proposed build site. The zoning definitely should not be changed from residential to corridor mixed. Too many families will be affected by this change. It is also along a creek that has seasonal flooding. Please consider the people that live in this area, we chose these neighborhoods because of how family oriented they are. Please don't ruin our neighborhood. Sincerely Colleen Shubin Spokane Valley resident 1 Mary Moore From: Tami Perrin <tamiperrin@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 4:47 PM To: Lori Barlow; Martin Palaniuk; Planning Subject: CPA 208-0003 To Mr. Barlow, Mr. Palaniuk and Commissioners, am very concerned about the proposed zone changes in the Ponderosa neighborhood. This is not a good or safe place to put apartments or businesses. That area can get congested from trains that are right next to the land. There are only a couple roads in and out of the Ponderosa, so this would cause a concern for safety as well. Dennis Crapo has built the houses that are also on that land and promised them that they would not put anything behind them. This would lower their values of their new homes, and I feel it's very dishonest of Dennis to do this. Another concern I have is for the schools' capacities. Chester Elementary was just remodeled and they already ran out of room for their kindergartners so Ponderosa Elementary is housing all their kindergarten classes. Our new school would not have room for another apartment complex of families along with the current growth, and we would have overcrowding again. Horizon Middle school is overcrowded as well and would be the middle school for that area. Please take the time to go out and see this area so you can understand the issues that are not being presented by Diamond Rock construction as they have already presented maps that were outdated to not show the current houses on that land. I am not opposed to growth and building. We are excited to see Barney's plan to add more businesses, on their land, that are in the appropriate place, with great traffic flow, and will not decrease the value of the neighborhood. That is the right way to do things. Thanks for your time and consideration on this issue. Sincerely, Tamara Perrin 1 Mary Moore From: avasmommy19@gmail.com Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 6:07 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: Proposal to build on sundown and bowdish To whom it may concern, I am writing in hopes that myself, and many more in my neighborhood can shed some light on this devastating proposal to develop this land. To be completely honest I was opposed to even building the new houses that are now there because of the wildlife and the enormous flossing issues we already have on that large piece of land. Our neighborhood is clean, safe and beautiful and I cannot express how much I looked ANY sort of commercial building OR apartments. Our school ponderosa elementary is already crowded enough. Not to mention how much traffic and potential crime this will add to our area. I don't care how "nice" or "upscale" apartment complexes can be there is always crime. And WE as a community will not stand for it. The wildlife and flooding issues is also a huge concern. This land needs to remained untouched from any new potential buildings. For the safety of our community and the wildlife as well. Thank you, Holly and Kreg Woodbridge Sent from my iPhone 1 Mary Moore From: Jenny <j_lundberg@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 8:12 AM To: Martin Palaniuk; Lori Barlow Subject: Bowdish and Sundown Hello, I live at 4003 S Forest Meadow, and I just want to send this email to express my concerns for the land being built on at Sundown and Forest Meadow. That entire area floods every year, so I'm not even sure how those homes were approved to be built. Since those homes were built, we have even worse flooding behind our house from the creek. I looked into getting flood insurance to prepare for these new homes and the possible Painted Hills development, and was told there is nothing I can do since I am not in a flood zone. If my home floods after these developments, I will not be covered. How is this not an issue? The water needs to go somewhere if it can't flood on that FLOOD PLAIN anymore at Bowdish and Sundown. Traffic on the corner of Sundown and Bowdish is already horrible. It's a high traffic area and people that tend to speed. There are always walkers in that area too, so I can see this creating all sorts of issues. Where is our wildlife going to go if you continue taking away their habitat? I see deer and moose in that field often. It's a shame someone would consider taking that away. We moved to this area for the wildlife and nature. Traffic on Dishman Mica will be impacted from this, as well as fire evacuations from Ponderosa. This is not okay! Our schools are already overcrowded. Ponderosa was created to have homes on bigger lots, not homes on top of each other or multi unit housing. Also, we feel like our house values will go down. Please do not allow this to go through. Thank you, Jenny Yake and Ed Yake Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone i EXHIBIT 10 B Mary Moore From: cctlbuech <cctlbuech@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 3:59 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: Development in Ponderosa Dear Mr. Palaniuk; Many in our neighbor strongly oppose the proposed building on the corner of Bowdish and Sundown in the neighborhood of Ponderosa. Also known as project number CPA 2018-2003. Applicants Dennis and Melissa Crappo. As our neighborhood of single family homes continues to grow traffic at our two entrances are already having a negative effect. Any development at this location effectively blocks 1 of the entrances. As this neighborhood has a history of catastrophic fires with subsequent evacuation of the neighborhood blocking one of our only two entrances will place all who live here at risk. This property completed flooded last year during spring thaw when Chester creek overflowed its banks and covered Bowdish and the railroad tracks. Increased crime and increasing the population will continue to erode the quality of our already maxed out elementary school. These are all reasons that any development on this site should not be allowed. There are few neighborhoods left in Spokane Valley that have not seen multi -family homes shoe -horned into whatever available real estate is left. Statistics prove out that communities that have a higher percentage of multi -family units vs single family homes also have increased crime and transient population. We need to look ahead at what our true priorities for the city of Spokane Valley are. A cohesive, positive COMMUNITY that is a safe place to raise our children and grandchildren or a crime ridden, high density, overpopulated, burdened schools providing substandard education, with too much traffic? Not the future those of us with a true vision for our community want to see. Please say no to any development on this property. Thank you Cynthia Becklund 10522 East Ferret Dr Spokane Valley Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S7. 1 Mary Moore From: Kathy Catalano <KathyC@witherspoonkelley.com> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 12:12 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: RE: Reference CPA -2018-0003 I am writing in support of all the Spokane Valley residents who are fighting Diamond Rock Construction on his zoning changes, excessive building, etc. Diamond Rock is encroaching on homeowners' enjoyment of their homes by literally building apartments/duplexes in their backyards. I know this for a fact as he has already done it to me (side of my house), and is literally doing it again (behind my house). So now the lovely view I once was able to enjoy is now gone and I get to stare at duplexes and traffic up and down the street and semi -trucks literally on the side of my house because they have nowhere else to park. This company and its owner Dennis Crapo needs to stop. He is ruining the close knit neighborhoods we maintain in the Valley and should not be permitted to make the Valley literally an apartment complex. I will be attending the meeting this evening (it's my understanding there is a city council meeting). I must say, individuals that are speaking of this meeting and our council are quite unimpressed with the council it seems and feel that the citizens of Spokane Valley go unheard. Kathy Catalano Word Processor 1 Witherspoon • Kelley KathyC(c�witherspoonkelley.com 1 vCard 422 W. Riverside Ave, Ste 1100 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 624-5265 (office) (509) 458-2728 (fax) witherspoonkelley.com Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and nay be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient. unauthorized use. disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error. please immediately notify the sender by return email, and delete the original message and all nopies from your system. Thank you. 1 Mary Moore From: Jill Collier <jill_gir102@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 1:30 PM To: Planning; Martin Palaniuk Subject: Sundown and Bowdish zone change Dear Commissioners and Mr. Palaniuk, My name is Jill Collier and I am writing in response to the proposed zone change to the parcel on Sundown and Bowdish from single family residence to CMU. My property overlooks the parcel in question and I am opposed in the strongest of ways to this proposed change. The Ponderosa neighborhood is one that is known for its rural and more secluded feel. A CMU land designation would go completely against the character and integrity of the neighborhood. Aside from the increased noise, traffic and general disturbances to the neighborhood commercial businesses and multi -family housing brings to a neighborhood, the residents in close proximity would no doubt see a decrease in property value as well as decrease in quality of life in our peaceful neighborhood. It is misleading of the petitioner to imply a CMU would fit the nature of the neighborhood because there are similar nearby zone designations when in reality the neighborhood is set back away from commercial properties and the surrounding businesses we do have are small, locally owned businesses with minimal sound or traffic impact. The entrance to the property is also located on a stretch of Bowdish road that is not as busy an arterial as the more northern stretch of road would imply. Again, this area is protected and set back into a single family home neighborhood, divided by railroad tracks, trees and the Chester Creek. My greatest concern for the zone change is the precedent that would be set for the rest of the neighborhood. Having a CMU located within an R2 with considerably sized lots sets the precedence to divide up other larger parcels changing the entire feel of the neighborhood. Sadly, the owner of the parcel in question has already given us the residents a glimpse of what a CMU would feel like when he utilized this property as a private landfill over the last 2 summers. Our neighborhood was filled with a horrid stench as day after day landscaping trucks and trailers would dump Targe loads of garbage and compost onto this property. This broken trust leads me to believe should the city approve the zone change, our neighborhood will be doomed to more encroachment of unwanted activity and inappropriate build up. When the planning commission revised the comprehensive plan last year, there seemed to be a sense of importance on preserving neighborhoods while allowing for expansion of private properties in more fitting areas along major corridors. I believes strongly, this zone change would go against the intentions and hard work of balancing growth and families that the commission has diligently set forth. Thank you all for your time and service and please do not allow the zone change. Sincerely, Jill Collier 1 To: Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department RFC: i_ FEB 2 o 2018 SPOKANE VALLE? COMMUNITY DEVELOPri -• In regards to the Re -zoning of the panel of land shown in the enclosed notice. am a long time resident of the Ponderal neighborhood and have great concerns of the re -zoning of this property, to mixed use from a low density residential use. This land was once designated as a wet lands, and was changed to residential use. Since then (6) new homes were built, and this last parcel was designated to have ane single residence built. The owners have been bringing in fill dirt for a couple of years, but the land is still lower than the creek bottom which borders the property. If the bank of the creek should fail, or if the creek should be blocked up and cause an overflow this land would be 10` to 15' below water_ 1s there a variance of how close anything can be developed next to the creek? Street access is another big issue. Where this property would have access is in a very busy intersection and visibility to any an coming traffic would surely cause accidents to happen. Finally I would ask that you keep our Ponderosa neighborhood strictly a "Residential Area" and this parcel of land be used as such. Concerned resident of the Ponderosa neighborhood. COMM JNITY &PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CI1 ti C1F BUILDING & PLANNING DIVisior1 kane elle IOT10E OF PUBLIC HEARING 107.10 E Sprague Ave • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509,720.5240 • Fax: 509.7205075 • planningcspokanevalley.org Date of Notice: February 7, 201$ Pursuant to Spokane Valley ME,aicipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.120, Notice of Public Hearing, the Building & Planning Division is sending notice to all property owners within 800 feet of the subject property. Public Hca ring Date and Time: February 22, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Hearing Location: Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, City Hall Project Number: CPA -2018-1003 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Pian Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Low Density Rcsidertti rl (LDR) with a Single-family Residential Suburban District (R-2) zoning classification to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) designation with a Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zoning classification. Location: Parcel number 45333.1807; located W of the Y intersection of East Sands Road and South Bowdish Road, further located in the SW 'fa of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Applicant(s); Whipple Consulting Engineers, 21 S Pines Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Owner(s): Dennis & Melissa Crapo; 2602 N Sullivan Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Date of Application: October 26, 2017 Date Determined Complete January 5, 2018 Staff Contact: Martin Palatiiuk, Planner (509) 720-5031 malan't s rrkneuallev.orrr Hearing Procedures: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to the Planning Commission rules of procedure. Interested persons may testify at the,public hearing and may submit written comments and documents before or at the hearing. The Planning Commission may limit the time given to speakers. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. NOTICE Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, bearing, cir other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon as possible: so that arrangements :nay be made. A staff report will be available for inspection severs (7) calendar days before the hearing at the Community & Public Worts Department, located at the Spokane Valley City Hall, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, between 8:04 am and 5:00 pm, Monday -Friday, excluding holidays. Send written comments to the Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department. Comr-ehense Land Use DesHHlation 415 Project Site . nuarjr 31 2018 Zoning N MF 'MU R1 NC 1 SPO<.=,rIE 1/ALLEY cor.1r.iu Nrry 'It LC=°.it li R2 MU R3 CMU r POS RCr��. RECEIVED FEB 2 0 20181 1:4 5144 t t-- o 5 KM &man: er. Citra18Y, ihee E7ircb? KAscra Rtt% CMS.Avrt.= C;3. ulas& r* - Sri C ' 114 Mary Moore From: Dan Williams <ffdwilliams@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 1:15 PM To: Martin Palaniuk; Lori Barlow Subject: CPA -2018-003 Attachments: 11401 E. Sundown Drive.docx; 11401 E. Sundown drive diagram.pdf Letter attached concerning the re -zoning of the land behind address 11401 E. Sundown drive. Thank you, Dan Williams To whom it may concern: My name is Dan Williams. My wife and I purchased a home at 11401 E Sundown Dr. on February 3. The next day a sign was posted for a SEPA determination and notice of public hearing comprehensive plan amendment to rezone the area behind our home from single family residential to corridor mixed use. My understanding of this is that rather than a home being built, the builder wants to place either apartments or some other form of commercial structure in this area. I have a few concerns with this. First is that during the purchase of our home we were informed by the builder's realtor that they could not build directly behind us as it was zoned as wetland. With this in mind, my wife and I agreed to purchase this home knowing that information. I understand that this is hear say as all's have is a diagram that was both shown to us during an open house and then again later via email. My next concern even though my family is new to the community is the access to these said apartments will only have one route, off of Bowdish. In the event of potential flooding or a fire how are these multiple units supposed to evacuate? I wanted to let you know in writing that my wife and I will be very displeased if the City of Spokane Valley chooses to approve this re -zoning. My wife plans to attend the meeting held tonight February 22nd to voice her concerns, I am unable to attend because I am working. If you have any questions, please feel free to call or email me. Thank you for your time. I have sent an attachment of the diagram that was shown to us when we attended an open house. Dan Williams 509-954-2926 ffdwilliams@gmail.com .roor cao r► AO. .iro► .ura .iron► .room... .o.ro..► .00noru MO, .000rnoo\r ouo► .00r0000rr MOW .rorr000000rr r 11111111W .�00000uror.rr o. -. osis.n: ioo or. inoororronr.. .__.. oo.. rioou.ou. =: aoo o oo roorn. rir.mrmormrmrr. u00000rumuouomn Front L Left *Main Floor Wall Height to be 109 1/8" *Second Floor Wall Height to be 97 1/8" *All window headers, door headers & beams to be 2-2x10 u.n.o. Back SOINENIMMISIMONVinirallOOSISAMVAMINIMMIII Nwrvuswn+'sair++sa.-. Braced Wall Methods CS-WSP: Continuous Sheathing GB: Gypsum Board PFG: Portal Frame 800# Hold Down Device Main Floor: 1057 sf. Second Floor: 973 sf. Garage: 686 sf. Total Cond: 2030 sf. Right Energy Credits Required: 3.5 Provided: 3.5 3a - 95% Gas Fumace =1.0 4 - Heating Components in conditoned space = 1.0 5c - Electric heat pump water heater =1.5 2 0 N W of 6 SHP-09-1 '` UO cr rA) em fst V 6/29/2017 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' 2.0 Main Floor *Main Floor Wall Height to be 109 1/8" *Second Floor Wall Height to be 97 1/8" *All window headers, door headers & beams to be 2-2x10 u.n.o. Second Floor a Braced Wall Methods CS-WSP: Continuous Sheathing GB: Gypsum Board PFG: Portal Frame 800# Hold Down Device Main Floor: 1057 sf. Second Floor. 973 sf. Garage: 686 sf. Total Cond: 2030 sf. Energy Credits Required: 3.5 Provided: 3.5 3a - 95% Gas Furnace = 1.0 4 - Heating Components in conditoned space =1.0 5c - Electric heat pump water heater = 1.5 Lot 6, SHP 09-10 6/29/2017 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' 3.1 Gonerele Patio 45 35 I' .6. 4--6.4' ( 6' 6 7.11 6' 2-60505L F145L46010 Temoms Above 6066511 g6lau Deer } '¢ Lu, Fm Ba S. a n 1= ... a 11./b010 re mom Above Neck 2 X10 Fluor legs t Gmet Room ®16•es. 47 NH Yddl — '1 F 8t16'XT618 !*i:1 t5D c6n r6^ 3'0' 76. 1 1 -' rtla Um 501100 variable c — „ _J rpt ti✓ ! o� Electric ea Heat i Famed Air Yieler Femme H Pump X •—•—•10.."1" OInINT speed whole house m exhaust 6n 6 - 1 . 60101 - —Nave -T_ 20 min. rated doff i 3'0• m 340565H wt2010 3 c uA seIFO 5419 hinges i r Transoms Above ^ � y> o m Fd 51J6•X176LB Bottom of beam on bedma0 Garege Gaveled Concrete Porch '^ :g I I G.xVOHD I 2.202 HeaderI '1----- r 1 1 I I 16'x 0. OHO 6 I 2.702 Header 10' 20' 4 11 45 Main Floor *Main Floor Wall Height to be 109 1/8" *Second Floor Wall Height to be 97 1/8" *All window headers, door headers & beams to be 2-2x10 u.n.o. Second Floor a Braced Wall Methods CS-WSP: Continuous Sheathing GB: Gypsum Board PFG: Portal Frame 800# Hold Down Device Main Floor: 1057 sf. Second Floor. 973 sf. Garage: 686 sf. Total Cond: 2030 sf. Energy Credits Required: 3.5 Provided: 3.5 3a - 95% Gas Furnace = 1.0 4 - Heating Components in conditoned space =1.0 5c - Electric heat pump water heater = 1.5 Lot 6, SHP 09-10 6/29/2017 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' 3.1 ••••••••,.• • •••••*..., • -'•-•••:•:.. „ • • • 2 .1•,.•••••••• • ••. • \ Nps.„.•%•""\o'N• (A. Cvl • -•-• • • . • ••••. .,. ........ s......,, . . ..,.. i ......., `,FS....:,... .,. . ,. 4.,,,.. • .... .. ' ...',:'2:::".:•- ,.. .....:?............ / COSTING NON I ..-••••:••Zi*, N.W. 1/4 SECTION 33,TOWNSHIP 25N., RANGE 44E., W.I EASING/PROPOSED FLOODWAY • - • •.• \ • • • • 01110•00... FOR FULL LEGEND SEE SHEET C0.0 / •'`,••`..,11.". 7 nil) EAL 1. 1 • N \ • • • • • .C) • Ye.S • • It • • • • \*•• PROPERTY BOUNDARY UNE ' •LDALTS OF PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED TOP OF PAVEMENT SPOT ELEVATION • EXISTINCTOP..CFPAVEMENT SPOT ELEVATION • DOSILNG STORM CULVERT AS SNOW . PROPOSED STORM CULVERT 02.990149 DLISTING STORM DRAINAGE CATCH BASIN • • ‹. „r***:, • 0 • •-:•••• DONE • °WI ® COiLSTRI ®EXTEND 0 FRONDE • • • • \ •••• •••••-.. '11.•:;,:. ....._ .... ,-...:-.II•Es-z-r, ,.&,..kz,,..1..„ ••:,-,z;-.;4:-..!••-1/4-4,-.. -7L-- •'•••., '.\-\:•'z"..1.,-; '''''‘•• . . • , N.', '`.....1. '•••• • ' N....N. ':::ii 11 .-.1..t . / 1 i 1 . .. I . V s ' • ' 1111I . --'TI 1. \ IN 1/ " • • . • • • • • •\ • • • • • • •• EXISTING' 100 YR • • F1090j1AI9 \ . • :‘,„. • LOT • 1 • 1 • t '1 / f• • ( / PROPOSED 10d Yrt 1 7 0 / • FLOOD PLAIN / / 1 4'• • • / l'or.f / 43 / 1 4 .....-2005-- . .....____ .. “, ZIP -4 ,..........,==2akl . 0 VI , s...., , • • -, .,..._, . • , ,,,‘,1% e • ;,,,c,, f • , ...,„ oo, \ ?---'1•• • ”- - - \ • \ 1 I \ \ i I • • \ . i I • •1.„. • , • . • • I I • • L.--1 \ . . 7').•••-• • • ' . \ • . \ \• • \ • • • • -, • • L. I •...1 1 • I , • ti .-11.1.-- ••., 1 I 1. ' ' , • • 1 • • . 1 E. 1 1i1 9 • • \ / "A 1 C - , 1 i • 1F 2.. I / 7...IF'-k- • ). I 1‘ I• • I • • • C./ ix •.• . al tois/ •4\ — , aPogr 7.500 CY ---...... • ' \ • . ( \ \ , , , I \ STRUCTU FILL ,--...,.. _/ I l v \ , . 1 Ig.., 113O3 \\ [ .4. 11307 1 \.„ E. 11311 I, t. E. 11317. 1 E 11321 1 .E 11401) \ •LOT • 1 ..X,c:,),_ \ LOT \ ; LOT ..../..- ----.LPT, 1 LOT 2.0011.. • I.Fr....,,, :‘ 1 , <,,, \2 \ I , \3,„1_,_ „... 4 •••-„,‘ L ..... ?„..._ i ...........-7-0 . . \ ‘ - \ t • \ i f.— 1 1 .... !,-, -"------4:-. \ ,, :.. ,„../ \ • • \ I \ \ \ • • _1 1-1.....• \ --., , ., . 4 -r- 1 1 --. • : 57/ 1 ‘ \I . \ \ ‘1.41 .. .1 , j. ,tr 1 • • I .1 ' • :„:„ ., .71.091 ELIN____}.„,:•••"'-'11 lit ...--_.../ I '',..,. „ 1 -- - . ' ',1`........ • • t . /./ i' "•-........___±...........e.,/./,- - ...„ • . Iv,- t D .. I .„.;,111.s .. i_ ,..L./-.!_,„, • . N.....0`' 1 '," - -,-- laillliMANNIEBIOMI • --•••••-•s-_____-;...,\.. , --- ...t • •••,,- ..S. • -- SUIVIDcp.,----....-Z \ '4•1 . • . , :.. . . . • , . . '.. . 0 • .,,se r -t •t-ei. 1". : . ,.., SITE GRADING PLAN ' ' SCALE 1•••="40. • GRAPHIC SCALE. . • G F -so; • . • • • 1401 • REA . • • • • • 80 Sundawn D "� •� .4 g0 61 3.1523 3.1522 3.9163 5 First American 40 E. Spokane FaIPs Blvd Spokane, WA 99202 Phone: 609456.0550 Fax: 866.537..9602 Um. v in 41 17r1 X11 This map/plat Is being furnished as an ald in locating the herein described land in relation to adjoining streets, natural boundaries and other land, and Is not a survey of the land depicted. Except to the extent a policy of title Insurance is expressly modified by endorsement, if any, the company does not Insure dimensions, distances, location of easements, acreage or other matters shown thereon. geoAdvantage Mary Moore From: Deanna Horton on behalf of Planning Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 7:40 AM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: FW: Concerning Project Number CPA -2018-0003 Deanna From: Dar and Steve [mailto:darsteve@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 5:39 AM To: Planning Subject: Concerning Project Number CPA -2018-0003 To whom it may concern: We would like to add our names to the list of residents of the Ponderosa area, who are opposed to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesting the change from Low Density Residential to a Corridor Mixed - Use designation of Parcel number 4533.1807. Our concerns include; 1. Irreparable Damage to the Environment: The encroachment of buildings and roads into what is obviously a wet -land that should not be disturbed. This would have a negative impact upon wildlife and the over all esthetics of the Ponderosa area community. It would destroy the beauty of this area. 2. Noise and Light Pollution: The effect that a Corridor Mixed Use Designation, which would allow any number and kind of use of the parcel and the ensuing construction activity projects that will follow, is a very frightening prospects to Ponderosa residents. One of the many reasons we live in this area is the peace and quiet that it provides us. 3. Significant Increase in the Amount of Traffic: More businesses, construction and/or residential dwellings such as apartment complexes in the Corridor Mixed Use parcel, will only add to the traffic congestion on the already too -narrow Dishman-Mica Road and Ponderosa residential streets. For example, in the event of an emergency (such as a wildfire evacuation that has happened on more than one occasion) this increase in traffic will lead to an extremely dangerous situation! Too many cars and not enough escape routes in the event this should happen. Please hear our concern! This request for a change in zoning is a BAD idea and we are firmly opposed to it! We plead for the Spokane Valley City Council not to allow this to happen! Steve A. Zwicker G. Darlene Donoian/Zwicker 1 Mary Moore From: Deanna Horton on behalf of Planning Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 7:39 AM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: FW: CPA -2018-0003 Bowdish Road and Sands Road Deanna From: STEVE & MELODY LUNDEN [mailto:slunden@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:27 PM To: Planning Subject: CPA -2018-0003 Bowdish Road and Sands Road Planning Commissioners and staff, oppose the amendment CPA -2018-0003 Bowdish Road and Sands,Road. I am writing to express my concerns with the proposed change in zoning. As a longtime resident of the Ponderosa neighborhood, since 1991, I have seen a variety of changes to our neighborhood, some positive and some negative. The change in zoning proposed for the parcel in questions is problematic for a variety of reasons. First, the majority of the site is located within the floodplain. The new residences that were recently built had fill brought in to raise the elevation. The area in question was to provide for an area for the storm water from Sundown to drain via a blanket drainage easement. If the parcel is filled, that drainage area would be lost. Second, the request to change zoning is not consistent with the GMA Comprehensive Plan. Sufficient CMU acreage is available within the city limits as currently configured to provide for future growth. Additionally, the railroad right-of-way has been a dividing line or organic boundary between residential and commercial land use designations as referenced in the staff reports. This change would not be compatible with our neighborhood. There is no viable reason to change the zoning based on these two factors. Third, high density development would add substantially to the traffic that crosses the UP rail crossing in the morning where school buses must stop at the crossing. This would cause delays and impact to us as we travel to work. Traffic has been a considerable problem when evacuations are required due to wildfires. With only two public entrances and exits to the neighborhood, it is a problem. The third 1 chained access is only opened by the Fire Department and may not be available as it is secured via lock and chain in an emergency. To conclude, I would request that the change in zoning be rejected due to the flood plain, drainage, traffic and that, by the City's own report, the added CMU acreage is not needed. This would not fit in our neighborhood and would violate the natural boundary provided by the UP Railroad right-of-way between the Single Family Residential from Corridor Mixed Use. Thank you for your consideration of my opinion. Sincerely, Steven M. Lunden 4221 S Hollow St. Spokane Valley WA 99206 2 Mary Moore From: Maleah Christensen <maleahgc@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 3:27 PM To: Lori Barlow; Martin Palaniuk; Planning Subject: CPA 208-0003 To Ms. Barlow, Mr. Palaniuk, and Commissioners, As I am unable to attend the public meeting on February 22 concerning CPA208-0003; I thought I would send my thoughts and views in writing ahead of time. I am concerned with changing the zoning of single family to CMU in the Ponderosa neighborhood at Sundown and Bowdish Road. Changing it can bring in a lot of unwanted traffic. I bought a house adjacent to a Diamond Rock development that changed prior to our moving in. We didn't know that everyone who lived in those 24+ townhouses all had to drive past our home to get to their's. The sign at the end of the street says dead end, but really it isn't. I wish I had known before we bought our home how much traffic there would be. For the new homes just built in that same area, they were under the impression that there would be residential homes built there. If anything else goes there it will decrease their home value and views. Which is sad, when we were just notified this last summer that housing appraisals had gone up. In an emergency situation (fire or such) there are only two ways out of the Ponderosa area. To add more congestion on now both of these exits doesn't seem safe or prudent. Emergency crews will have a hard time getting to the incidents when everyone is trying to get a way from them. Along the lines of disasters, the area is known for its potential of flooding pretty much every year. That doesn't seem wise to make it worse with adding apartments or commercial businesses there. How are we to keep the water flowing away from existing homes if we pile up dirt in the wrong places and have more issues. I would am excited about what Barney's is trying to do with their property. I fully support more companies to come and bring revenue to the area, but not at the expense of tax payers and home owners. There are many places business can lease or own; there are plenty of apartment/duplexes that people can rent. What was hard for us was finding a home we could purchase and put down roots in the area. Changing this plot of land will continue to hinder families from be permanent community members. Temporary housing doesn't fix that problem. Please take the time to consider the impact this will have on the neighborhood and the community if you are to pass this, listen to the voice of your voters. Take the time to consider if you were one of those new houses how you would feel. Thank you for taking the time to read my email. Sincerely, Maleah Christensen 1 Mary Moore From: Deanna Horton on behalf of Planning Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 7:55 AM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: FW: Proposed Ponderosa zoning change Deanna Original Message From: ajmoglia@gmail.com [mailto:ajmoglia@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 12:07 PM To: Planning <planning@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Proposed Ponderosa zoning change Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > Please add this to your list of letters fighting against: > cpa-2018-0003 We have lived in this area for 18 years and moved here because of its semi rural area, wildlife, quietness, and uniqueness of being a neighborhood yet space around us. > This zoning change would kill the natural wildlife habitat ( which is in a natural flood zone) crazy how an ordnance can change what is natural, safety of our neighborhood, increase in traffic and noise. > I encourage you to vote NO for this ordnance. > See you at the February 22nd meeting at 6pm. > Thanks for your time. > Joyfully, > Al and Marylou Moglia > 509-842-8112 > Sent from my iPad Mary Moore From: Lance Verity <Isvertandcompany@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 9:13 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Cc: ibarlow@spokanevalley.org Subject: Comments on CPA -2018-0003 Attachments: Runoff Weirsjpg; Traffic speeds evening jpg; Traffic speeds morning jpg; Vehicle view on south bound traffic Bowdish jpg; Weirs jpg Ref: CPA -2018-0003 General: Well here we are again, the Chester Drainage area is again under assault from a development squarely within its boundaries. Unnecessary developments within wetland/drainage areas are a terrible use of land. Infringing on these natural areas puts any structure in these areas at risk. CARA/ASA: Without a doubt every person within the Spokane Valley already knows about the wetlands within and around the proposed building area. Every vehicle that passes by this area via the Dishman-Mica Roadway, most assuredly sees the flooded fields and Chester creek. What they probably don't know is the function of this wetland and how it's connected to the Sole Source aquifer beneath them. These wetlands must be recognized as a structure unto themselves and how they function within the Chester Drainage area. Indeed this wetland must be considered as an extension of the Chester Drainage area. To keep the effective purpose of the wetlands (filtering and percolation) the size and location must be retained. Safe Practices: Unfortunately the individuals purchasing homes in this area will be at risk from potential flooding. Each year Spokane and Spokane_ Valley witnesses increasing water through runoff; mainly because of rain on snow events. Spokane has committed millions of dollars in retaining runoff in temporary storage (CSO) tanks. Grassy swales and dry wells are not significant replacements for the naturally developed drainage and wetlands of the Spokane Valley. If you think Spokane Valley doesn't have any such structure or will ever need it see attachments. Water will go where it wants; it follows the path of least resistance. Time is on its side. Reference attachments: 1. Weirs 2. Run off Weirs Traffic management for safety: The traffic into and out of the "Ponderosa" area has only two locations, through either the Bowdish/Dishman Mica intersection or the Schafer/ Dishman Mica intersection. If this development is completed, the entrance to the property will have to be utilizing South Bowdish road at the curve. The south bound traffic on Bowdish road will have a very limited time to respond to exiting vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. As shown on the attached overlaid satellite photos, evening speeds at this curve are approaching or equal to the speed of traffic on Bowdish/Dishman. The following scenario was formulated for a vehicle traveling 40 MPH during evening hours on Bowdish road; referencing attachment # 3. At 40 mph Travel time for 220ft = 3.75 sec 1 Reaction time = 1.5 sec Reaction distance = 88ft Vehicle stop distance =80ft Total reaction and vehicle stop distances = 168ft 220-168 = 52ft and 2.25 sec to spare. While most drivers are attentive and not impaired I am concerned about cell phones and the fact that on Feb 9th an attendant at Chester gas station and myself pushed a stalled vehicle off the tracks nearby. Whether the diver was impaired or what, I thought it was a very unsafe place to park at 6:50 in the morning. Reference attachments: 1. Traffic Speeds Morning 2. Traffic Speeds Evening 3. Vehicle view south bound Bowish Road Thank you, Lance Verity 710-6593 4222 South Hollow Str Spokane Valley lsvertandcompany@gmail.com 2 Mary Moore From: Sharee Tucker <sheeye7@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 9:43 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: Project for 7th & University Hello Martin, This is Sharee & Shawn Tucker and We are residents on 7th street. We oppose this initiative because it is a family neighborhood. On our street alone, there are at least 6+ houses with multiple children ranging from infancy to young teenagers. Our street is a safe pathway away from traffic for kids to wall< to school, therefor seeing many more children walking to and from school from 6th & 4th street, using our road. While kids are at school, I (Sharee) walk my toddlers with a group of women who also have babies/toddlers. If you have had kids, then you would know how attentive you must be with them. Now imagine a steady flow of cars, SUVs, and trucks passing by. This would be no easy feat to take a walk with our kids. We also have quite a few elderly people who enjoy the relaxed climate of our community. If we increase traffic, this will bring a higher sense of commotion and urgency. Please take into consideration all of our amazing residences here on 7th street: parents, children, nurses, city workers, and teachers. We work hard to provide a safe haven for the things we value most: FAMILY. Sincerely, Sharee & Shawn Tucker P.S. I was planning on attending the meeting, but I must a attend a mandatory meeting that will last until 6:00 downtown. I will still drop by directly after my meeting in case this one is still going. Sent from my iPhone F ' E. 81h,A4eE _ _ r3'ik1LC L Light House nermgcoglexori•fracr'..4-.G14e.:= 11T 1 Siracle ua*,a���c1:•[Oti] tttpv.,,r villAygoogle.corrtirri ac-- ww,gocsileccrli . f Mary Moore From: Meg Williams <meg jwilliams@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 7:52 AM To: Lori Barlow; Martin Palaniuk Subject: CPA -2018-0003 Attachments: house.pdf To whom it may concern; My name is Megan Williams. My husband and I just closed on a home at 11401 E Sundown Dr on February 3. The next day a sign was posted for a SEPA determination and notice of public hearing comprehensive plan amendment to rezone the area behind our home from single family residential to corridor mixed use. My understanding of this is that rather than a home being built the builder wants to place either apartments or some other form of commercial structure in this area. I have a few concerns with this. First is that during the purchase of our home we were informed by the builders realtor that they could not build directly behind us as it was zoned as wetland. We were given a plot map which I have attached showing where they stated they had planned to continue with other homes. Please see the 3rd page of the attached document. This deception was used to secure the purchase of our home as we had disclosed that we would not buy it if it was only going to continue to have been developed. I understand that this is hear say as all's have is a diagram that was both shown to us during an open house and then again later via email. My next concerns even though my family is new to the community is the access to these said apartments will only have one route, off of Bowdish. In the event of potential flooding or a fire how are theses multiple units suppose to evacuate? I plan on attending the meeting on the 22nd to continue to voice my concerns but wanted to let you know in writing that my husband and I will be very displeased if the City of Spokane Valley chooses to approve this rezoning. Thank you for your time. -Megan Williams 509-671-0717 11401 E Sundown Dr Spokane Valley, WA 99206 .111111511MIW AMMO. AMMO,' AMMOSOMOMMEMMS ./uov ./luuorru/u!. .u//MM, iOrrOO!!!/rr/r/O. uuu► .///uouuuo/uuo. mu► .uouuuruuuuonr igallk. nom rrrrMEMS. �.iurrurumurrrrrOSrm Front sewrwssa 11111.11.1111� ri_1ibI = • Left *Main Floor Wall Height to be 109 1/8" *Second Floor Wall Height to be 97 1/8" *All window headers, door headers & beams to be 2-2x10 u.n.o. m N . wrwww wwa ,1111/41 met-, ..saswrrWV MOO I MVP • fir. n. rawaseermaararnmars snsssaCass- aasaswssrwwa2r wwwr�nwwnsr��wr Back Braced Wall Methods CS-WSP: Continuous Sheathing GB: Gypsum Board PFG: Portal Frame 800# Hold Down Device Main Floor: 1057 sf. Second Floor: 973 sf. Garage: 686 sf. Total Gond: 2030 sf. Right Energy Credits Required: 3.5 Provided: 3.5 3a - 95% Gas Fumace = 1.0 4 - Heating Components in conditoned space = 1.0 5c - Electric heat pump water heater = 1.5 0 0 w EikilMIUMMC 6/29/2017 SCALE: Vs" = 1' 2.0 Main Floor *Main Floor Wall Height to be 109 1/8" *Second Floor Wall Height to be 97 1/8" *All window headers, door headers & beams to be 2-2x10 u.n.o. Second Floor 10+ Braced Wall Methods CS-WSP: Continuous Sheathing GB: Gypsum Board PFG: Portal Frame 800# Hold Down Device Main Floor: 1057 sf. Second Floor. 973 sf. Garage: 686 sf. Total Gond: 2030 sf. Energy Credits Required: 3.5 Provided: 3.5 3a - 95% Gas Fumace = 1.0 4, Heating Components in conditoned space = 1.0 5c - Electric heat pump water heater =1.5 Lot 6, SHP 09-10 �1V0� 0 it ,ES, .:p 444 in If 'Z 0 V 6/29/2017 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' 3.1 Concrete Patio 45' 2 35 b 1 6 t'r 6 9.11 6 1 24 0 2b605031.Mc SLm o < u96010Treoms Above : 606853 Gies Boor . §f 111 g 1 A F 1 m9 1 o w/6010 ransom Above Nook s3X 10 tie= Joists 1 6reatRoom i ®ib'me. 442. HI c Steil 4 ?Ft a m �'/ E § 2 2111'X1' MB 3'.1' A��VVV �,�II c a E m E 5.3•sra 0. en MCIOnT of al Plates intu' 10' �' aan ! b.-6. .. a �'n� si 70 5. INGO ��� {IIIIII m 521 � 111 3'0' 5'0' 25. 1 104i' I 501100 drnvartobk 1121 Meet= LmHtPun= t Forged Nr Pinter Nina= Hen =rang t e speed whole house ! �\IF _ m ?v exhouelfan 6 _' A \1'a 3'P I�i o1Br. 20 =tune= door I1t 3'0' �I m 5-20565Hw1010 o ug slid sing hinges i Transoms Above ^ y y C aee — — = a 5 1i X1T0LB Bottom of beam on by of wall Garage m l i _ Govm= Gomel. Porch 'n 1 Nk Cx B. OHO I 2-2412Heed= 12 r I I 16'x 8.OHD I_._1 Zr �I 2O42 Hea4m 0 20' 4 11' 45 Main Floor *Main Floor Wall Height to be 109 1/8" *Second Floor Wall Height to be 97 1/8" *All window headers, door headers & beams to be 2-2x10 u.n.o. Second Floor 10+ Braced Wall Methods CS-WSP: Continuous Sheathing GB: Gypsum Board PFG: Portal Frame 800# Hold Down Device Main Floor: 1057 sf. Second Floor. 973 sf. Garage: 686 sf. Total Gond: 2030 sf. Energy Credits Required: 3.5 Provided: 3.5 3a - 95% Gas Fumace = 1.0 4, Heating Components in conditoned space = 1.0 5c - Electric heat pump water heater =1.5 Lot 6, SHP 09-10 �1V0� 0 it ,ES, .:p 444 in If 'Z 0 V 6/29/2017 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' 3.1 . \ • N.W. 1/4 SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 25N., RANGE FOR FULL LEGEND SEE SHEET CO.O EXISTING/PROPOSED FLOODWAY . • • • • I PROPERTY BOUNDARY UNE • •OMITS OF PROPOSED CONCRE1E ▪ 1977.10 • PROPOSED TOP OF PAVEMENT SPOT ' ELEVATION • • ▪ F1977.101 COSTING TOP OF PAVEMENT SPOT ELEVATION • .. E7051ING STORM CULVERT AS SHOWN \ t\ • • • • kI • • • • t .1 Il • IV \ •••• • • • l • • • \ \ 1-`--•1 \\ •\\\ \ I 1. \\ \\ . •\ \\ I• \ 0\\ °: \ \ \ \ • • • • • • \\ • \ • • \• `\ 622IWG•loci 'YR \ FLOC PLAIN •\ . \• \ ' \ \\ a 1. ot __A 1 • i•;• • I \1 1 E 11219 r1 ,1 rt'}1 • 1 ' 1 \ V 2009• .., 1 } I\-- X 1 7 \ P v�1 J jE.11303 `\ 11307 LAT \ LOT \ 1 1 \ • 2 1 } \1 • \ • \\, \ \ 1 \ \• \ 1 . \\• LOT 7 • I 1I �II •1LL1 tCITS 1-6 1 SSTRU? J. 0 FILL "^` \\• E. 11311 It, E. 11317 \ LOT ly_ --ted OT `\3,x..'`11 4..\ • 1li- 1`1• • 1 • 1 \ • 11, rI ! I1 /I PROPOSED 10d 711 \ FL000 PLAIN1 1 1 / 1 . PROPOSED STORM CULVERT AS.SHOWN 6221190 STORM DRAINAGE CATCH BASIN • 44E., W.I GONE O CONSIR1 DETAIL F 0 191 0 EXTEND ® PROVIDE f• • r 1, \ E. 11321 1 .E 11401 /1 LOT �QC�'.. •LOT/ • orf. 1 \' \\ •! A \ \\ I • .r-1! f•A, \\\• I t 1 1 \• \ 1 1 ! •1 k ]` 0 00 7R 111/ \ 11 l , 1\ j}t \ 11,I1 • / /� \� 1.k 1' \ •1. \ \ • \ S t . , • 1 . \ • • j - •I • • .., , i{/ _J SITE GRADING PLAN ' • SUNDpWNpR E 0u, i • r: $ ,94:, Ii ' O • SCALE 1•=40• GRAPHIC SCALE. ' / DI SI Gc NOT • RFA 5 t M e R r First America, 40 E. Spokane Falls Blvd Spokane, WA 99202 Phone: 609458-0550 Fax: 886.537.,9802 This map/plat is being famished as an aid In locating the herein described and in relation to adjoining streets, natural boundaries and other and, and is not a survey of the land depicted. Except to the extent a policy of title Insurance is expressly modified by endorsement, if any, the company does not insure dimensions, distances, location of easements, acreage or other matters shown thereon. geoAdvantage EXHIBIT 10 C Barney's Harvest Foods 11205 E. Dishman-Mica Road Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2U CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY PONDEROSA COMING SOON! VILLAGE The Ponderosa area is growing and Barney's wants to be part of that growth. In 2018, the Bamey's Center will begin growing into Ponderosa Village, We want this multi -use center to be a welcome addition to our community. What features does the Ponderosa area need? Are you interested in locating a business in the Ponderosa Village? Barney's wants to hear from you and get your feedback. Stop by our Customer Service counter and fill out a feedback form. OR you can log on at'.vww.hanresffoodsnw.com/bameys-survey/ and give us your opinion that way. Ether way, you'll be entered. AD completed forms will be entered into a drawing for as $250 Gift Certificate on January 20, 2018. Please give us your thoughts and watch Ponderosa Village become a reality. Thank you so much_ We truly appreciate your business! The Management & Staff of Barney's Harvest Foods PRSRT STD US Postage PAID Spokane, WA Permit #91 roiL 2r9f2018 FEMA Flood Map Service Center L Search By Address Chariges to this FIRM Revisions (0) Amendments (3) Revalidations (0) You can chose a new flood map ar 1n' v(' `lie location pin by selecting a different location on the dccator map belo r or b ent&ring a new location in the search fled above. NOTE: Meese be sure to (=nage popups jar this site. irk 1.7 • FE3 22 Z9.13 DIV OF SPOIcANE VALLEY MAP FAME'S OTHER ARIAS GENERAL STRUCTURES at real path nrelrBDI ;'ra Digital Data !Wadable i U1-n7apped }40 4:P E.4 Afea or Minimal Floud Hazard Lpr.1R5 Area at tJnaetermtnec Flood Ilar.sta =? Culti•et1 of Storm Sewer ;111111mm Letiiee. D! e, or F1o13d4a41 httntlimsmfernsmpkrp❑rtalfsearch7ActdressCluery=11511%20E%2esunriowrf/e2Odr.%2QSpaksne%2Ovalley%2C%20wa.#searrhreaullsancher 2!3 7 cti 2 1r4'' S , 1 My name is Shawn Johnson, I live at 11311 E Sundown, directly bordering the lot we are discussing this evening. We purchased our home from the Creeppos/Diamond rock in Oct of 2016. At that time our understanding was that the lot behind us would be ONE single family home, there was even a sign at the development showing it vvas a single lot. We specifically asked if our home was in a flood zone, we were told it was not. However we have since learned it IS in a flood zone, which explains the ankle deep water frequently in our back yard. I fear that ANY development of the lot in question would only cause even more water to rise in our yard, potentially causing all manner of problems, including structural damage. Had we been made aware of either of these issues prior to purchase, we would never have even considered purchasing the home_ Our place was chosen with great care, as we were downsizing, looking for a neighborhood with a bit of nature, our last home_ We felt in love with the Ponderosa neighborhood, the people and the park like area. We can only hope that the value of our home is riot severely depreciated, as. I believe it will be, and we will try to sell immediately if rezoning is approved hoping the Toss isn't too significant. We have NO desire to live next door tin anything commercial andf or multifamily, retail, or Tight manufacturing Yes, the property belongs to the Creppos and l understand their desire to use it. Maybe in this case, the best use of the lot is to donate it to the city as a park area, or allow the neighborhood to purchase the lot at a fair market value, which I understand has been attempted at a price far higher than its current value. Clearly I do NOT support rezoning, in fact 1 don't support development of this lot at all. We have watched deer, eagles, geese, ducks, quail, hawks, even a moose and her calf use this property. To take that away from not only the wildlife and birds, but from all the people who enjoy the beauty and serenity of this place feels wrong. It gives financial gain to only a few at the expense of the many, I hope that we are bigger than that, I need to believe there are still some things more important than money. Thank you for your time 22 2N8 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 02/22/2018 To: Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department fry $r, '-- �,d �_0 -jt r, L1I'J, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY We plead with you to keep the single family zoning for our area. When we purchased our house, the Train reason we chose the Ponderosa was because it was uniformly single family residences. Even though the properties had a higher cost, we liked the large lots and the privacy it brought, and don't want this changed for our backyard_ The area in question is listed as a flood zone. As building has increased upstream in the Painted Hills area we have noticed in the last couple of years that the area across from Harvest Foods on Dishman Mica has becorne a pond of water (as it currently is today) that stays for most of the summer, The houses that were recently built adjoining the and in question had quite a bit of sail brought in to prat them on a higher level. We are concerned that if this also occurs for the area being discussed it will cause new issues for current home owners_ Attached are some photos of what it looked like when this area flooded in 1997. Additionally, the roads into the Ponderosa are already restrictive enough without adding an extra Toad on them. When the fire occurred in the Dishrrnan Hills in 2008, area from Dishman Mica to 44th was asked to evacuate, the houses above 44`h were not. It took us 1 hour to go two blocks and we are the one of the closer houses to Dishman Mica. Building has continued to occur in the upper area of the Ponderosa and there is still only 2 roads, llowdish and Schafer, that provide an entrance/exit. Changing from single family zoning will only exacerbate this problem, Dar/le and Beverly Thorn 1j..1101,1111., ' 212 2;,•72,• • . • ••,•• • . ci 00(6 Cc 1,(Zik ci 6'11 To: Spokane Valley City Council Frorn: Dave and Kay West Re: Building on Designated Flood Plain Date: 2-22-18 FE3 2 2 2313 CIT? CF SPOKAN VA? L P'1 Thank You for the opportunity to address a critical and very important issue that will affect many people. We know that you will honor all opinions and will came to a decision that will be benificial from a financial and safety concern for all people in the affected area: Le property value and increased traffic. My wife and I reside at 5.4007 Forest Meadow Dr. that borders the Chester Flood Plain, Every year_We.receive flood .water_up_on_ uLpropectyisee attached picture frorn water diverted up stream from 1.15. ifthese proposed mining changes and building permits are approved, the water that would normally be absorbed in those areas will he diverted to the field behind us and ultimately encroach on our property and intoour home. Please feel tree to visit our property to see exactly the risk of flooding we face. Thank You for your service to our community. e ectfully ubmitted: Dave and Kay West February 13, 2018 Cary P. Driskell City Attorney 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 • RECEIVED is OTY OF .GP- LEGAL 1twi-.'.r J , Re: Protective Covenants of Old Orchard Subdivision (copy enclosed) Recorded 2/23/54 ,as No. 223697B as amended by Amendment to Dedication dared 4/09/54 recorded 5/19154 as No. 240866B Dear Mr, Driskcll: We are homeowners at 10719 E. 8111 Avenue in Spokane Valley (parcel no. 45212.1350) and recently received a Notice of Public Hearing in the mail. The hearing pertains to an attempt to alter the restrictive covenants that have been in place in oar subdivision since 1954. We met with Martin PaCarniuk, planner, last week to discuss the upcoming hearing and were advised that the parcel located at the comer of eland University was removed from the restrictive covenants in 2016. We request that you review this matter and advise us how this occurred. And we would like a copy of the minutes from that hearing. We and other neighbors never saw a sign of a hearing and never received notice in the mail. We want to know if this is correct and if so, please explain in detail the process that was taken to remove the covenants. We request your response prior to the hearing on February 22" Please be advised that Stere Schmautz, owner of parcels 45212.1348 and 45212.1349, and applicant for the upcoming hearing previously attempted to alter the restrictive covenants in 1997 and was denied. At that time we and several neighbors opposed this alteration. Sino. that time, we and our neighbors know of no other attempts to alter the covenants. The restrictive covenants have been in place for almost 64 years and per paragraph P of the covenants, they axe binding "unless by a vote of the majority of the then resident owners of the lots it is agreed to change the covenants in whole or in part." it is our understanding there is no agreement. Please advise immediately if your understanding is different. It is also our understanding that the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) also provides that an application to alter a subdivision "shall contain the signatures of the majority of those persons having an ownership interest in lots, tracts, parcel sites or divisions in the subject subdivision or portion to be altered. If the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were tiled at the time of approval ofthc subdivision, and the application for alteration would result in the violation of covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the vacation of the subdivision or binding site plan, or • • portion thereof." SVMC 20.60.010 Again, there is no agreement and one owner's desire to violate the covenants should not be allowed to take precedence over the binding restrictive covenants and wishes of the majority of homeowners. Without "an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants" the Building & Planning Division lacks authority to consider the application. SVMC 20.60.020 To our knowledge, there is only one property owner, Steve Schmautz, in our subdivision in agreement to change the restrictive covenants that have been in place for 64 years. Mr. Schmautz does not live in our subdivision and wants to use his property for commercial purposes. We live in a residential subdivision and do not want to incorporate commercial property into it. Commercial property will decrease all residential property owners' home values, increase traffic, and increase crime. As you know, the protective covenants are a recorded document on all parcels in the Old Orchard Subdivision. The property owners have relied on these covenants for many years. Paragraph Q of the covenants states: "If the parties hereto, or any of them, or their heirs or assigns, shall violate or attempt to violate any of the covenants herein, any other person or persons owning real property situated in this subdivision may prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting to violate any such covenant to restrain or prevent him or them from doing so, to recover damages or other dues for such violation; or both." We intend to follow this provision if it is warranted. Please let us know the current zoning for parcels 45212.1348 and 45212.1349 owned by Steve Schmautz and if either of them is no longer protected by the restrictive covenants, we request detailed information as to how this was accomplished because it is in direct violation of the notice provisions in the SVMC. Please consider this letter as our filing of a written request for a copy of the notice of application and the final decision. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, .441-4C q"'a-Q--/g-dudi- 8ebert 10719 E. 8th Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 926-7227 Enclosure cc (w/encl.): Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department Mark Calhoun, Spokane Valley City Manager Martin Palaniuk, Planner Heather Bryant/Steve and Tresa Schmautz Date of Notice: February 7, 2018 Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.120, Notice of Public Hearing; the Building & Planning Division is sending notice to all property owners within 80p0 -feet of the subject property. Public Hearing Date and Time: February 22, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Hearing Location: Spokane Valley City Counncikhambers, City Hall Project Number: 'Applitii ' CPA -2018-0004 "11're-vp1tation o O ifioi5: . j & i privaC;ely-irtiti ieti'siW:specificio np n ivetlan- Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-f'pmily Residential Urban District (R 3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning classification. Environmental Determination: The City issued a Determination,o£Non-significance (INNS) on February 2, 2018 pursuant Its the,$ta'le Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and chapter 21.20:Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Parcel numlier45212.1348; located in the $E corner of 7'h Avenue and University Road, further -located .in,the.NW'/ of Section 21, Township 25 INjorth; Range 44 Fast, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Location: Applicant(s): Heather.Bryaht, 108 N Washington, uSuife,500, Spokane, WA 99201 Ovv let sjs, r, i "'Steve '&;Tresa Schmautz, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spolane, WA 99201 Date of Application: October 30, 2017 'Date Determined Complete ' January 5, 2018 Staff Contact Martin Palaniuk, Planner . , (509) 720-5031 ynpalaniulc@svoktutevallev.org Hearing Procedures: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to the Planning Commission rules of procedure. Interested persons may testify at the public hearing and may submit written comments and documents before or at the hearing. The Planning Comr ission may limit the time given to speakers. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to acegmmodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at.(509) 921-1000 as soots as possible so that arrangements inay be made.. . A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days before the hearing 'at the Community & Public Works Department, located at the Spokane Valley City Hall, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday -Friday, excluding holidays. Send written comments to the Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department. Provisions contained in Plat and Dedication of Old Orchard Subdiv- ision, filed for record February 23, 1954F, recorded in Book 3 of Plats, page 11; as follows; PROTECTIVE COVENANTS: A. As a condition of acceptance of this Plat by the Spokane County Planning Commission, no lot in this subdivision. shall be sold until such lot ie furnished a°- domestic water ,supply. S. All late in• this' sizbdivioion shall be classified and known as Residential Lats.. C. None 2,ut metro structure's Shall be erected upon • any- lot ..p this sub- ' ' d1`viston - , D. I(ot mare than'one structure Shim be erected upon any lot, except that' one detacbed‘garage'shall be permitted. E. Orly single-family dwellings shall be permitted in this subdivision. -(See exception- below).. F. No rebidential structure shah be -erected having less then,1000 square feet of Tloor space upon the ground floor, exclusive. of car- ports; breezeways, patios, porches or•other area not designed for indoor living quarters.' •. G. 'BD residential structure sbsi1 be.erected. nearer than 30 feet to• the front property line of any lot, nor any detached garage nearer than ..;55 feet, z or- s ala .any reeidence'be nearer a s .de_.propex''.ty;. ine then- 10 feet, land AIL other construction shall corifornn in ail respects to the building regulations of Spo ane CotintY. , r R. Any structure erected shall be complete as to external aipearance, including finisher painting, and shall be connected, to public sever or 'septic- tank within six,.qionths from date of cosml*ement of con- struction,.. . . 1. No basement, garage,; tax i ler;, or • other tetuparary stiUcture, fixed, mobile or portable, may be occupied or used ae living quarters at any ti mP . J. No advertising, sign, billboard, poster or public notice may be erected or displayed on any lot or roadside adjacent thereto, excepting such sign or signs of modest and reasonable size used only to offer for sale real estate lying within this plat. K. If any lot or lots in this subdivision be further subdivided, re- arranged,, or portion or portions thereof incorporated with any other lot or lots, or portion or portions thereof, such subdivision or re- arrangement shall not result in any parcel of land of less than 8800 square feet in area, and not less than 70 feet of frontage on a road, remaining after such rearrangement, nor shall any such rearrangement be permitted that will leave any structure or structures on adjoining parcel or• parcels with less front,,side or rear clearance than that outlined above. L. No business, industry or commerce shall be permitted within this subdivision. M. As a condition of acceptance of this plat, no structure shall be erected upon Lot 2 in Block 5 until such time that the owner or owners shall have acquired such additional and adjoining land to permit con- struction of a'structure that will comply with the clearances outlined above and provisions of the Spokane County Planning Commission. Such structure may be used as a community club or civic center. • • -2- N. The covenants above relating to size and location of structures, and number of structured on any lot shall not be invoked against any structure in this subdivision completed prior to the date of execution of this instrument. P. These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and persona claiming under them until January 1, 1979, and are automatically extended for successive ten-year periods thereafter, unless by a vote of the majority of the then resident owners of the lots it is agreed to charge the covenants in whole or in part. az, If the parties hereto, or any of them, or their heirs or assigns, shall violate or attempt to violate any of the covenants herein any other person or persons owning real property situated in this subdivision may prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting to violate any such . covenant to restrain or prevent him or them from doing'so, to recover damages• or' other dues for such violation, 6r both. 28 Block 2 are sub- ..11110 ub- Lots, 1, 2, & 3, Block 3, and ;gots 6, 7, , 27 "`" ject to right -of -'say for irrigation pipe line. R. None of the covenants mentioned above shall apply to Block 3 of this Plat. • By instrument dated April 9,1954. recorded in Book 49 of Mise. records, page 571, Protective Covenant "10. was amended to read as follaur . • No residefntial struoture shall be erected having less than 850 • square feet -of floor apace upon the ground floor, exclusive of oar ports, breezeways, patios, porches or other area not designed far indoor living quarters. Pirbiit: Viawer [Fiat Image Search F es1 ul.t Type a question for help ; 21-25-44-2 )LD ORCHARD SUB . IS a� R9CT 191, CONI roti. MUM as T4v T' ales =UM tvtlr,NtCS 1189"2e40 % 240.04 3 Oast•, A,7ed 1,42.0 Pratt a a 1f40 Y'Er OCtelq N •Ketreir 1,INEOC Mit MAI •alar NE19"2�00.e cuvlr 2D3.42 4tSitt trt 1 ?TN iUliSOS, I.4 —L-- % ern Ma-1mm Lams Wie bt TUE CO EesN1$ 4E4,01E, *50►& 41.4tL arm, rq etv:a: LAT. Actlitet g it av Art 74 91X14 110.rt AU ft 111 """14,10,„„„„,A,„ nun uuuuu firmuumuuPY9�IY y '! e'"'awlgy� ,,kt ��fY�rynll�l�uuuuiuuum9911N„ „ ,,, aN 1 I �uuumr u a„: !I v(I Ili P 1 ';I;1Ca II� II; Iw, II I 'lllWal,{ I' L Illll'','y mll aI',A ll �'” Ym1IIVin p 111, ( 11 411 IINI, „ III \ 'I'lll� r�'IYb" pl l 101 II '' Im 11111191 ��1 II. II II �II,I,,, IIIIY�I'�rj I Ilhma� �, 1�II Iq'i 1 ti n BI' duiIw 1, IYJI!" I drWv ylll� yu d' IIII w ulll'iiG'iii 11dl)l I�u q'�ha u.. d� 1� Illulmollp!' ' ' I II ,,,, tid"°Il Idyl j. r I 1 ,d1°rll III ' II ," 0111 P II I 441 I . I P !wr,H1 J Ig1m,„ X11 III 11 . c'. { IVI'' 4 I 111NII . III II N 111,°' Uloid ,,' Iil,l 'III � 1, 1 "JI !)1,/,'....,:/t1." „11 VNII'1",' 1 0 ' w' Ir (U tt: i II uflrevN I IIII d'1` !PI � ' I �+✓"LP'd .'NI IIItir M11J�do " 11,f;al', IIII" Itir', 1114 Ifl;�rc W�I rrr JP I � dl m IIII I I u „, � °Ifi�l Y" Nu 14" d hl Ip ' anPtf Vp4Y ..,` mlk� 'w' ar II I1r II (IIII rl 'lu , .. �� ""u•° IIIIIIIIa ;II dY' � uu Il'u1(.1t IIYIu r , lu v'Ivd, III (IIIIIIII ,),,,„41'''4,1,J1.1 I.( I ") IIII /I�� I'v,r" wty �Illld �°•I �r`'' III I, ' °'� ,, ' , Iluu�P M 111 (' III!I INdp+ I V „II ��I� nllll,�P, Ilbl�ldl tt,��'11 II I IIN" III I,JI1 �, r '.'r Mme l oIUa IS}", if}f 4 fdll L.. 1„ 1 fi,. 11 II 1 II1 �Ilwl„ II � 4 II 4' I411 "1"' is IhI I I dp m l "pp,,, mwm ; Im, 'I1" II w r I. Fm IIII IM,Nn IYI hV,l1 111t/tt111 NIII'611',�,A I,1' �W ''(fin IIII Dull tiall�au tifillll� IN 111 'r 11'1 hiumrq II° 1 PIy1 III dm,bmdm, 111 Illiiii'i'I' it M ni,rll I, r rill..m N'''ull I IrP:/;'(1 (plfp1111 I, I uuuuu 'M1I III I IIuvn SIU iu 1,11','1),) nl P'1 'III rrr G, IIIuI,N 1 Il II ,Ill u^,,f11IM'+ lull' 11/11 Ih) (I IG v/Y �'),. , 1... . , Il I I,I I" tl III 4M.,11:44 M9,' I d, ll . I'r "' U;+SII''11(t' q l' /1,/,1, i .riIIcaiJ rens iviap L /k-zu.Id-uuu,5 4.5 33 1304 w 17. N3.1003 45333, 1008 45333 1001 45333..1202 Fs 45333.1 !DOS 45 333.1011 45333. ski 45333.1101 4533.111O2 45333.1529 0333.1528 T M 0. in eC V+. 'MI' ..--.--- . Ci Irt CTI.rir Cr, February 14, 2018 Parcel NumbersiWEBPADAL Parcels !1a1IeyAddrPts 1:2x257 O 0.0175 0.035 A ti• , • U d.43 0.06 0.07 mi 0-12 f.SR FERE, DeLarrna MaixroyIrdia. f)p n51rc1Map- €arttbrb GIS LAIN' enfFFAiJFtily 1^CC PppBuid ATTACHMENT 4 Spokane Walley COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING & PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA -2018-0004 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 15, 2018 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 22, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. Project Number: CPA -2018-0004 Application Description: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Location: Parcel number 45212.1348; located in the SE corner of 7th Avenue and University Road, further located in the NW '/a of Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Applicant: Heather Bryant, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 Owner: Steve & Tresa Schmautz, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 Date of Application: October 30, 2017 Date Determined Complete: January 5, 2018 Staff Contact: Martin Palaniuk, Planner, 10210 E Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) General Provisions, Title 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Application Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit 3: Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 4: Zoning Map Exhibit 5: Complete Determination Exhibit 6: SEPA Checklist Exhibit 7: Environment Determination Exhibit 8: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 9: Agency Comments Exhibit 10: Public Comments A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment is a privately -initiated request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of parcel 45212.1348 from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). The contiguous parcel to the south is also owned by the Schmautz Family and is zoned NC. The topography on the site affects the access from 8th Avenue to the vacant NC -zoned parcel, and due to the small size of the parcel it is not conducive to commercial development. In order to increase the area that will allow NC development, the zoning must be consistent across the entire parcel. To do so will require Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 a change to the land use designation through a comprehensive plan amendment. The parcel size could be adjusted to accommodate neighborhood commercial development if the zoning is consistent between the two properties. The site underwent a rezone in 1997 from a UR 3.5 zoning designation that allowed a maximum density of 4 dwelling units per acre to UR 22 which allowed a maximum density of 22 units per acre. The Hearing Examiner approved the rezone but limited the density to 14 units per acre and limited the maximum building height to 35 feet. During the 2016 update of the Comprehensive Plan both parcels owned by the Schmautz Family Trust were re -designated and rezoned. Parcel 45212.1348 was designated SFR, with an R-3 zoning district, and parcel 45212.1349 was designated NC, with an NC zoning district. An additional parcel on the west side of University, and under separate ownership, was also redesignated and rezoned to NC. Noticing for the Comprehensive Plan update process, public meetings, open houses and public hearings was completed consistent with the SVMC and Growth Management Act (GMA) (chapter 36.70A RCW). Individual notice to property owners was not completed, and not required, for the legislative action. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size and Characteristics: The property consists of a single parcel 37,090 square feet in size with frontage on 7'h Avenue to the north, University Road to the west, and 8th Avenue to the south. Comprehensive Plan: Single Family Residential (SFR) Zoning: Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) Existing Land Use: Single family residential and the uses normally associated with a use of this type. A home and detached garage have been constructed on the property. Access is taken from 7th Avenue through a private driveway situated between the two buildings. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING, AND LAND USES: North Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) South Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) East Zoning: Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) West Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) IMPLICATIONS: The rezone of the site to Neighborhood Commercial would allow a broader range of uses including retail and office uses. Since the parcel is currently developed with a single-family home, any change in designation to the parcel would have implications for future development. Impacts to the properties will not occur unless the current residential use transitions to a commercial use under the NC zoning designation. If redevelopment to a commercial use were to occur, the adjacent residential uses could experience impacts. Impacts may include greater lot building coverage and increased vehicle and Page 2 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 pedestrian traffic into and out of the site. Building setbacks, screening, and landscaping would likely mitigate the impacts to some degree. The Neighborhood Commercial zone is intended to provide an amenity that serves the neighborhood. In addition to retail and office uses, the NC zone allows some low intensity commercial uses such as medical office, day care, and community hall, club or lodge. Nonresidential development in the NC zone that is adjacent to a residential use is subject to dimensional standards intended to reduce the impact to the residential uses and the neighborhood. Building height in the NC zone is limited to 35 feet which is consistent with the maximum height permitted in the residential zones. Ten -foot side and rear yard setbacks would be imposed in addition to a 15 -foot front yard setback. Additionally, parking or drive aisles would require screening, loading areas would be prohibited within 30 feet of the residential zone, and mechanical equipment, building vents, and exhaust within transitional setback areas would require screening. All outdoor lighting in the transitional setbacks would be shielded and limited to 16 feet in height. Landscaping, parking, and on-site treatment of stormwater would also be required consistent with the development regulations. The following table provides a comparison of the development requirements for both zones. R-3 & NC Development Standard Comparison October 18, Lot Maximums Minimum Setbacks Density Zone Building Height Coverage Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Garage R-3 35 ft, 50% 15 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. 20 ft. 6 du's/acre NC 35 ft. N/A 15 ft. 10 ft.* 10 ft.* N/A Same' *!f adjacent to a residential use. 'Shaft comply with the density of adjacent single family residential zone. APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Pre -Application Meeting: October 18, 2017 Application Submitted: October 30, 2017 Date of Complete Determination: January 5, 2018 SEPA Determination of Non -Significance Issue date February 2, 2018 End of Appeal Period for DNS: Not Appealed February 16, 2018 Date of Posted Notice of Public Hearing February 7, 2018 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: February 2, 2018 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: February 7, 2018 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) SVMC, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(e). The Building and Planning Division issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the Page 3 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 proposal on February 2, 2018. The determination was made atter review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Titles 19, 21, and 22 SVMC, a site assessment, public and agency comments, and other information on file with the lead agency. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis: Land use and the regulation of land uses are inherently related to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Community infrastructure is designed and built in response to the development of property which in turn is dictated by the land uses that are permitted through the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. Infrastructure in the form of roadways, parking, sewer, water, schools, fire protection, etc., is built to protect and to serve the public health, safety, welfare and to protect the environment. The site has no environmentally sensitive areas. (2) 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; Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity for growth in a centralized area with adequate public facilities, and creates opportunity for small scale businesses to develop in a neighborhood oriented commercial area within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. The request does not conflict with any other GMA goals. (3) 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; Analysis: This property and the property located adjacent to the south are under the same ownership. The southern property is zoned NC. The development of the southern adjacent NC zoned parcel is constrained by the site topography. 8th Avenue and University Road are elevated approximately four to six feet above this parcel making access to the parcel challenging from an engineering and construction perspective; requiring a steep entry approach. University Road slopes downward as it travels northward past the site and is at the same elevation as the site at the north boundary. Access to any neighborhood commercial development would be more easily accommodated if access can be gained from the northern site. Page 4 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The amendment is not in response to a mapping error and would not correct any error. (5) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update specifically sought to idents areas into which NC zoning could be clustered. The Comprehensive Plan identifies neighborhood areas served by arterial roadways. The parcel located adjacent and south of the subject parcel was identified and zoned as NC as part of the 2.016 update. That parcel has some difficulties associated with access and is limited. The parcel cannot be made larger through a boundary line adjustment. Doing so would create a split -zoned parcel due to the underlying zoning. The amendment would allow the full use of the parcel and expand the NC zone. ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior.to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis: The change to NC will allow neighborhood commercial development of the property. The site will likely transition from a residential use with residential driveways, trees, lawn, and buildings to a commercial building with parking structures, commercial landscaping, and stormwater treatment areas. Traffic will likely increase with the commercial development. The transition would have some impact on the physical environment. (2) The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; Analysis: Any stormwater associated with commercial development will be retained and treated on the site. The site does notcontain any streams, rivers or lakes. The open space areas associated with the required residential front, rear, flanking, and side yards will likely transition to parking or commercial landscaping areas. However there will be negligible impact on the open space areas. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; (3) Analysis: The applicant submitted a Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL) as part of the application. Based on the City Senior Traffic Engineer's analysis of the TGDL, the higher density of a commercial use would likely add an additional 208 new trips throughout a typical day. The site would likely draw vehicle traffic from the pass- through traffic already found on 7th Avenue and University Road. Topography makes any traffic on or off of 8th Avenue unlikely. The commercial uses allowed in the NC zone are limited and are intended to be of a scale that is compatible with a neighborhood The uses are intended to serve needs normally associated with a neighborhood. A Neighborhood Commercial development is purposefully limited to reduce impacts to neighboring residential uses. Development standards will limit the height and location of any new commercial development and together with landscaping and screening standards, will reduce the impacts to adjacent residential uses. A positive impact would be created if the property is developed with a use that serves the surrounding residential uses. Page 5 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; Analysis: Neighborhood commercial use will likely have minimal impact on parks, recreation or schools. Generally the use does not generate a need for those facilities. As noted earlier the uses permitted within the NC zone are smaller in scale and suited for neighborhoods. University Road and 86 Avenue are both designated as Urban Minor Arterials. Minor arterial streets provide inter -neighborhood connections, transit access, and serve both local and through trips. No impacts are anticipated. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis: As noted earlier, the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update sought to increase the neighborhood commercial nodes. Consumers increasingly prefer to live close to certain amenities. Providing a neighborhood commercial use within a residential neighborhood will provide both economic opportunity and a neighborhood amenity. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: The Existing Conditions Housing and Economic Trends Report completed by ECONorthwest in September, 2015, identifies a lack of small-scale, neighborhood oriented commercial areas within walking distance to many of the residential areas in the City. Based on comments received throughout the public engagement process, it was clear that the community desired more small-scale retail uses in neighborhoods. As part of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update, areas with the densities to support neighborhood scale retail were identified. The land use designations and zoning were changed for these sites during the update. The parcel adjacent and south of the subject parcel was identified as a suitable site and designated for neighborhood commercial land use and zoning as part of the 2016 update. Sloping terrain limits this site however. The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: Spokane Valley has experienced steady, but modest population growth since its incorporation, growing at a rate of about 1 % per year. The City's population density is currently 2,414 people per square mile. The addition of a neighborhood retail development is not anticipated to increase or decrease the population or density in the area. The change will have no impact on population density. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The NC designation would support many of the Economic Development, Land Use, Transportation, and Housing goals. It would have little effect on the Capital Facilities and Public Services, Public and Private Utilities, Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources elements of the Comprehensive plan. Conclusion(s): For the reasons outlined above the proposed amendment is consistent with SVMC 17.80.140(H). 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. The NC use designates area for small-scale neighborhoods serving retail and office uses. Ideally the areas are no larger than two acres in size and are located as business clusters. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan update identified the NC zone as underserved and identified and designated for areas NC. (5) (7) (8) Page 6 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan. 3. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The area is currently served with the same services that are . described above under the concurrency discussion. Model Irrigation District #18, Spokane County Environmental Services, Spokane Valley Fire District, and Central Valley School district provide water, sewer, and fire protection and schools services in this area. Urban services are available. Specific site needs will be addressed at the time a development is proposed for the site b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff received the following public comments to date. Comments received following the date of this report will be provided to the Planning Commission at the February 22, 2018 meeting. Name Comment Scott Smith, 10819 E 8"1 Ave Opposes the amendment; feels there is already enough vacant commercial areas, prefers the site remain residential. Ray and Jane Sebert, 10719 E 8th Ave Oppose the amendment; cite the covenants contained in the original plat restrict commercial uses on the site; feel traffic safety at the intersection of 8th and University is an issue; feel commercial will not maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. Mike Irmer, 10806 E 8' Ave Oppose the amendment; cites the covenants; does not want multi- family development. Albert Keith Jonas Hiner, Ph. D. and Kathleen "Kitty" E. Brudos, 10824E 8th Ave "Oppose the amendment; concerned about increased crime; home values; cite the abundance of commercially zoned areas. Justin Braid Wanted information of the amendment; stated the neighbors have historically opposed multi -family development. Lonny & Nancy Green, 10715 E 7t'1 Ave Oppose the amendment; concerned about traffic, increased noise, and loss of home value; prefers single family development. 2. Conclusion(s): Notice of Public Hearing (NOPH) was published on February 2, and 9, 2018. The NOPH was posted on site on February 7, 2018 and mailed on February 7, 2018 to residents within an 800 foot radius. Pursuant to Section 17.80.120.B.1.c the City determined it was appropriate to Page7of9 Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 increase the radius from 400 feet to 800 feet due to the likely public interest in the proposed amendment. All comments have been reviewed and considered. The comment Ietters are included in Exhibit 10 of this staff report. The comments from Mr. and Mrs. Sebert were directed to the Office of the City Attorney. The response from the City Attorney will be provided to Planning Commission once it is completed and provided to the Seberts. Notably, the Seberts have identified existing covenants that they have indicated prohibit certain commercial development. Pursuant to Washington law, the City does not enforce private restrictive covenants. Private parties may enforce such covenants. Accordingly, staff has not taken a position on the applicability of the covenants to any future development. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any agency comments of significance to date. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Spokane Valley Senior Traffic Engineer Yes January 18, 2018 City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering City of Spokane Valley Building & Planning City of Spokane Valley Parks & Recreation Spokane Valley Fire Department Yes January 8, 2018 City of Millwood City of Liberty Lake City of Spokane City of Spokane Valley Police Department Spokane County, Building and Planning Spokane County, Environmental Services Yes January 11, 2018 Spokane County, Clean Air Agency Spokane County, Fire District No. 1 Spokane County, Fire District No. 8 Spokane County Regional Health District Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency Spokane Aquifer Joint Board Spokane Transit Authority (STA) Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Washington State Dept of Commerce Washington State Dept of Ecology (Olympia) Washington State Dept of Ecology (Spokane) Washington State Dept of Fish & Wildlife Washington State Dept of Natural Resources Washington State Dept of Transportation Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission WA Archaeological & Historic Preservation Avista Utilities Inland Power & Light Modern Electric Water Company Page 8 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2018-0004 Central Valley School District #356 East Valley School District #361 West Valley School District #363 Century Link Comcast Model Irrigation District 1118 Consolidated Irrigation District #19 East Spokane Water District #1 Vera Water & Power Spokane County Water District #3 Spokane Tribe of Indians 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. - F. CONCLUSION: For the reasons set forth in Section C (1 and 2) the proposed amendment to change the land use designation from SFR to NC is consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(H) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT Spokane bailey' e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. COMPREH ENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: 0-0 Received by:_22Z1A-- Fee: 7 /60e PLUS #: File #: ©&/ 7 —006/ PART 11-- APPLICATION INFORMATION "Map Amendment; or ❑ Text Amendment APPLICANT NAME: Heather Bryant MAILING ADDRESS: 108 N Washington, Suite 500 CITY: Spokane STATE: WA ZIP: 99201 PHONE: 509.481-0899 FAX: CELL: EMAIL: heather(sdsrealty.com PROPERTY OWNER : Steve/Tresa Schmaulz MAILING ADDRESS: 108 N Washinglon, Suite 500 CITY: Spokane STATE: WA ZIP: 99201 PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL: SITE ADDRESS: 721 S University RD PARCEL NO.; 45212.1349 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Urban PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Neighborhood Commercial ZONING DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Urban f_ '+ J U 11-,\ N _ '.' ;LLE'{ tvf {v`l U N 1 I y DE:'v E L["3i' '4I Iw j1l j PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: Neighborhood Commercial BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT (attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper): The owners, Steve and Tresa Schmautz, of the parcel located at 721 S. University Rd are proposing a Comprehensive plan Map Amendment to have This parcel (45212.1348) zoning be changed to neighborhood commercial. PL -06 V1.0 Page 3 of L.L 111•. ..;ii i.gi�'1 J 12 1 2017 Spokane VaIley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART Ill - AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) i, k,-Ek4-J\G ralf147(print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are rade truthfully and to the best o my knowledge. (Signature) STATE OFWASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE 1007/P0/4 (Date) NOTARY SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this f N day of �c��-� 20 NOTARY SEAL NOTARY SIGNATURE C111itiilliiiiuI1111iiIlllillllliiiiliihIINllliJotary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary Public E. Y State of Washington = 14 CARLOS A. HERRERA esiding at: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES F. JUNE 01, 2019 r5111111111111111111111€i11111111IIIltlt11111u EI My appointmentexpires: LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: if the applic snot the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; V\ect,tin utz`1-61 ave.-1— regarding this application. owner of the above described property do hereby authorize to represent me and my interests in all matters PL -06 V1.0 Page 5 o€ ,i' Spokane 40,E%alley COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION SVMC 17.80.140 10210 E Sprague Avenue 1 Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240 1 Fax; (509) 720-5075 1 permiteenter@spokanevallev.org inamimmsmmap Year /970/7 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS The City of Spokane Valley is accepting applications for map and text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows Comprehensive Plan amendments only one time per year. Any interested person, organization, agency or business may submit suggestions, proposals, or requests to the City for changes to the Comprehensive Plan, including maps and text. PROCEDURES 1. Application Period. Applications are due by November 18tof each year to be considered during the next calendar year amendment cycle. Submittals received after the deadline will be considered during the next annual amendment cycle. 2. Staff Review and Report. Spokane Valley Planning Staff will review all applications and will prepare a report and recommendation to the Spokane Valley Planning Commission. The report will analyze how each proposal addresses amendment criteria established by Spokane Valley City Council. All application documents and staff reports will be available for public review. 3. Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct a formal public hearing on all proposed amendments. The Commission will consider amendments individually and will examine the cumulative impacts of all amendments collectively. The Commission will prepare one recommendation to the Spokane Valley City Council, including findings on each individual proposed amendment. 4. City Council Review and Decision. Within 60 days of receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, City Council may choose to adopt the individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to substantially modify a proposal, they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. 5. Notice. Each year, the City will provide notice of the annual amendment cycle at least 60 days prior to the application deadline via display ads in local newspapers, email to interested parties and on the City's website. Notice of public hearings and public meetings will be provided to the public as set forth in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. At a minimum, notice will be provided to surrounding properties within 400' for site-specific Land Use Map amendments at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Notice will also be posted on-site at least 14 days prior to any public hearing. Legal notice will also be published in the newspaper. 6. Appeal Procedures. City Council decisions on Comprehensive Plan amendments may be appealed to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board within 60 days of publication of notice of adoption, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.290(2). 7. Staff Contact. Questions may be directed to Lori Barlow, Senior Planner (Ibarlow cC�.spokanevallev.oro) or Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager (skuhta(spokanevallev.orq), 509- 921-1000. PL -O6 V1.0 Page 1 or4 *Wane Valley' COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART 1 REQUIRED MATERIAL "THE PLANNING DIVISION WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR APPLICATION IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** A. Submitthe following forIVlAP AMENDMENTS: .E1 Pre -Application Meeting Request (include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) El Completed Application Form ❑ Application and SEPA Fee SEPA Checklist: One (1) copy of completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Checklist, including option Non -Project Action supplemental form. (Note: Any previous environmental documents that are relevant to this project should be included and may be adopted by reference.) ❑ Notice of Public Hearing packet for 400 -foot notification. (Please note: DO NOT submit the notice of public hearing packet until you have been contacted by the City. Addresses must be current within 30 days of the Planning Commission public hearing) One (1) copy of a narrative describing the following: 1. State the reason for the Comprehensive plan Map Amendment. 2. Describe how the proposed changed meets the approval criteria below; 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 RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change inconditions 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; and e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Describe how the proposal addresses the following specific factors; 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. B. Submit the following for TEXT AMENDMENTS: ❑ Pre -Application Meeting Request (include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) ❑ Completed Application Form ❑ One (1) copy of the text proposed to be changed, showing deletions by striket#r-oughand additions by underline. ❑ One (1) copy of a. narrative describing the following: 1. Whythe change is needed and the potential land use impacts if approved; 1. Describe how the proposed changed meets the approval criteria below; 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 RCW 36.70A 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 beyondthe property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; and PL -06 V1.0 Page 2 of `e-mail TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 30, 2017 TO: Heather Bryant, SDS Realty PROJECT: 721 S University Road Rezone Dear Ms. Bryant: Thank you for contacting Sunburst Engineering regarding this project. Spokane Valley always requires a trip generation and distribution letter for a rezone. The document created under this proposal will determine the number of trips generated by the site, and in general ways determine where it will go. The trip generation and distribution letter describes the project, the reason for the letter (such as rezone, building permit, etc.) and examines the traffic generated by it and then describes in general ways where the traffic would be distributed. These characteristics will be built upon if subsequent traffic impact analysis become necessary. Once a draft of the completed trip generation and distribution letter is ready for review, a copy will be emailed to you and/or whomever you designate for review. After you have reviewed and approved the document, it will be submitted. During this review please let me know of any changes you would like to the document:I am requesting a budget of $1,000.00, lump sum, to prepare the letter and will bill you after it has been submitted. 1 anticipate being able to have a draft of the letter ready for you to review within five working days from when the signed proposal has been received. If these terms are acceptable, please sign below and e-mail this proposal back to me. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call and thank you for this opportunity to work with you. Proposal acceptance: Date: 101 f9ci7 From the desk of... Phone (509) 924-2155 16402 E Valleyway Ave Ann L. Winkler, P.E. Fax (509) 228-9440 Spokane Valley, WA 99037 Sunburst Engineering Narrative for 721 S University proposal of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2018 Narrative: The owners, Steve and Tresa Schmautz, of the parcel located at 721 S. University Rd are proposing a Comprehensive plan Map Amendment to have this parcel (45212.1348) zoning be changed to neighborhood commercial. The proposed change would allow both parcels owned by Steve and Tresa Schmautz to be zoned to neighborhood commercial. Parcel # 45212.1349 located at 729 S University was changed to neighborhood commercial in 2017; while the proposed parcel was zoned R-3. Due to the current parcel boundary lines, as well as topography of the parcel, having 721 S University zoned neighborhood commercial allows for a more cohesive master plan in the future. The proposed amendment bears a relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment by allowing the parcel(s) to be developed in such a way as to allow for small-scale neighborhood -serving retail and office uses such as those identified in the Spokane Valley 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. The proposed amendment appears to be consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A, especially in regards to creating a coordinated and planned growth plan. Although the proposed amendment would affect a portion of the City's adopted plan, it is felt that since with the owner of the adjacent property to the south and partial west is the same, it would be a benefit to the overall plan. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in the current zoning of the parcel completed in 2017; where their adjacent parcel (729 S University) was changed to neighborhood commercial while 721 S University is R-3. Amending the current zoning allows for the property to develop business(s) that fit within a close-knit community. Adding services to the neighborhood within walking distance. The proposed amendment of changing the parcel from R-3 to NC would have minimal impact to the physical environment or effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes. The goal would be to eventually develop an area that blends into the community in use and visual impact. The proposed amendment of changing the parcel from R-3 to NC would increase the compatibility with adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed amendment would have limited impact on the community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation and schools. Small scale neighborhood shops often increase sense of community and loyalty for those within the neighborhood. Should the parcel be developed, the current vision is to develop small scale business that would bring missing elements to the neighborhood at time of planning and development. This development could potentially bring in more jobs to the local neighborhood, but not significantly increase traffic congestion or noise. Increasing this area to neighborhood commercial could add another buffer between the traffic along University Rd. EXHIBIT 2 V 1L uh1 Ly 1V1Q�J t. C t1'GV Z U'UUU` F Spy iE6.th a rib alley ve 1 E 7th Ave .x f1I -c_ES.th.Aue D^ 111.x: •.6t .A.v.e D E 2nd Ave E l st `Av_e E 4th Ave a —C E_$.tlihL.ud—• „1. .3rd -Ave 11111 .- um11111 7th UM 1E1119 Ave,", Ot Ave 11 111111 Central Valley Early Learning Ce E-13.th-Ave -13th A..e 1 hil■ J ■ ■ 0 E11thLn illlllII_..J��y ■■1111■■ ■ 11, li cElro, Ln Nem !MEW E 35th.Awe 1 E 9.th Ave _LOth Ave IE..L.th.A, !e E_L2th.Ave 111111 1 ,■_E.1;4.th Ave E 6th./tor_e l I I Opportuni 1Lth.P xe . —1, Elementary 1 E_l4th Ln �lr ■ IME w ■' IMME ■ m 1 1 1 EXHIBIT 3 Comprehensive Plan Map E 7th Ave JStudy Area 45212.1348 721 S UNIVERSITY RD E 8th Ave *Wane OP okane ,i... Valley CPA -2018-0004 Owner: Steve & Tresa Schmautz Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: Privately inilraled site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting In change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single family Residential (SPR) with a Single-family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning classification 10 Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning classification EXHIBIT 4 Zoning Map E 7th Ave Study Area 45212.1348 721 S UNIVERSITY RD E 8th Ave Spokane .0.0 Valley CPA -2018-0004 Owner: Steve & Tresa Schmautz Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: Privately initiated sire -specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting 10 change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Comtrtercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (N() zoning classification EXHIBIT 5 spokan� .000valley° COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING & PLANNING DIVISION DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS REVIEW 10210 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane valley WA 99206 509.720.5240 ♦ Fax: 509.720.5375 i ptanning@spokanevalley.org spokanevalley.org Project Number: CPA -2018-0004 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning classification. Location: Parcel number 452I2.1349; located in the SE corner of 7t1' Avenue and University Road, further located in the NW E/4 of Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Applicant: Heather Bryant, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 Owner: Steve & Tresa Schmautz, I08 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 Date of Application: October 30, 2017 Date of Complete Determination: January 5, 2018 Staff Contact: Martin Palaniuk, Planner (509) 720-5031 mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org spokanevalley.org Date Issued: January 5, 2018 Signature: (%1, Va-71;(.1Z YOUR APPLICATION IS: Complete The required components of the application are present. The materials provided thus far are judged by the Building & Planning Division to meet the procedural submission requirements and the information is sufficient for continued processing even though additional information may be required or project modification may be undertaken subsequently. The Determination of Completeness does not preclude the Building & Planning Division from requesting additional information or studies either with this notice or subsequently if new information is required or substantial changes in the proposed action occur. The issuance of the Determination of Completeness shall not be constructed to mean that any of its application components have been approved. 111111111 001111111111.111.000 1„(11,1,1„11' 111101,0111111101, e.4,1 01, rr II : U W �VN: lul III,. 1,111,114 00000 , .. l~'ui51 l a •<<.. � n , Illi, j ar lr�o ) lIN ii 1} l� Iill � i 111111111 l UU 111 Illll 111 ml 111111111111"1111 11111. . Ill �m�l qIlPuS lmnuIII11�1�jm1����UlUl�ui�Iaim OIL 1� lm 4[!).}.), 1 1V 1 1.!J130 I�r��uUI�I�li0mm l ��°JJ(j�iISfNI ���uu�5m�55�'io m m0I�isIrYi th W�uuu�u u.. u III iU„tUu�o:�d�"uu4111' 1111 11111111 1.111 mm ui o em41Juii '110111111,1,Imm 1111111111".. Imlu�' l�_l� hiulu— lmliul l� i �m'mol _Im �uVll���o�omp l Ylb���w�iu Im lu mu IIII 1111111111111 NNuu lu uu1[1111111111m1111 I l Im t 1111 N l l I1111II IIII �mlm Ivor SETA CHECKLIST SVMC 21.20 10210 E Sprague Avenue 1 Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240 4 Fax: (509) 720-5075 4 pernnitcenter ct.spokanevalley,org STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted:,—. 1 Received by: Fee: '. . C) PLUS #: File It: 7b/ 7"0DD/ PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL. -"THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED"* Completed SEPA Checklist E Application Fee 1 F ❑ Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 8W by 11" or 11" by 17" size 4:)fs.. th • e ❑ Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering:,::,!' , PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST; f The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to ?=:'a; consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. JNSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS; This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. in most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS; Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). PL -22 V1.0 Page 1 of i.1.I 11latiliT alley VA�1 SEPA CHECKLIST For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable 721 Rezone to 729 Neighborhood Commercial 2. Name of applicant: Steve!Tresa Schmautz. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 708 W Cliff Dr. Spokane. WA Heather Bryant 509-481-0899 heather@sdsrealty.com (owner representative) 4. Date checklist prepared: October 2017 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley- Planning 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Nothing planned at this time. Proposal to change zone of 721 S. University parcel to be same as 729 S. University during 2017's review period. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Nothing planned at this lime; 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No know applications 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. No know applications 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project desoription.)Nothing planned at this time. Proposal to change zone of 721 S. University parcel to be same as 729 S. University during 2017's review period. Propsat would increase functionality and cohesiveness In boundary lines and topography PL -22 V1.0 Page 2 of *Mane ,alley' .rrr"� SEPA CHECKLIST 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 721 S University Rd: Spokane WA; Parcel # 45212.1348 primarily on the corner of 7th Ave and University Rd. with a portion of it running south towards 8th Ave. 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? Yes The general Sewer Service Area? UnknowrPriority Sewer Service Area?Unknown(See: Spokane County's n tlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement PartA. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). No changes to current systems 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? No changes to current land use; chemical storage etc. 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out ofdisposal systems. No changes to disposal methods; any future changes will follow proper disposal guidelines as provided by environmental agencies 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? None identified at this time PL -22 V1.0 Page 3 of SEPA CHECKLIST b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? None identified at this time 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? if so, describe any potential impacts. No change to current B. ENVIRONMENTALELEMENTS 1) Earth a. General description of the site (check one): ❑ flat, 0 rolling, ❑ hilly, D steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percentslope)? +1- 3-8% estimate c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. gravely ashy loam d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. unknown e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. No change to current f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No change to current g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No change to current; potentially 50-75% EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 4 of "fan h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: No change to current; would use decorative natural features if needed in future SEPA CHECKLIST 2) Ai r a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. No change to current b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No change to current c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: No change to current 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. N/A 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? No Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. PL. -22 V1.0 Page 6 of ne P. Ma11ey. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 1 OO -year floodplain? location on the site plan. No If so, note 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? if so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? No Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No change to current c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? No change to current Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. No change to current 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? No generally describe. If so, d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: No change to current SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 VI.0 Page 6 of 4) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ❑ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ® shrubs FRI grass ❑ pasture El crop or grain ❑ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other 0 other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed oraltered? No change to current c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: No change to current; any future changes would include native vegitation; preferably draught tolerate, low water consumption 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: unknown ❑ birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ❑ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. unknown c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. unknown d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: No change to current PL22V1.0 Pagel of S "Mane P Malley. 6). Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. No change to current; future electric and/or natural gas b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: No change to current; future would include LED fixtures energy efficient items 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? No If so, describe 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No change to current 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: No change to current b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from thesite. None 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None PL -22 V1.0 Page 8 of %Bey. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Rezone Neighborhood commercial (729 S. University; residential home b.. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. Existing housing and outbuildings d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not for this proposal and/or planned in near future e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R3 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single family Residential g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? No If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? No change to current j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? No change to current k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: No change to current 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: No change to current PL -22 VI.0 Page 9 of Snrxtt ane Pa Valley, 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No change to current b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No change to current: potentially 1; middle income c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: No change to current SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Nothing planned at this time; estimate tallest point 161/block or metal siding b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Nothing planned at this time Any potential building would be setback in potentially similar location as existing building(s) c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Nothing planned at this time Any potential changes would incorporate landscaping and natural elements to keep cohesiveness of community; and work into the new 'Appleway Trail' feel 11). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Nothing planned at this time Any potential changes would photocell lighting directed to highlight vegetation and walk- ways for safety b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: photocell lighting directed to highlight vegetation and walk- ways for safety PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of 14 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Appleway Trail b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next tothe site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to thesite. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. University Rd/ 7th Ave; small portion of 8th Ave Foresee potentially traffic off of 7th Ave or property directly on to University to avoid congestion at corner of 8th and University b. Is site currently served by public transit? No If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? 7 Blocks c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the projecteliminate? No change to current PL -22 V1.0 Page 11 of Spokane d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? if so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No change to current; potential change from private to public e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No change to current; unknown expansion at this time; any discussions have been proposing small scale business to serve community homes Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: No change to current any future work would involve work with traffic control and civil to reducelcontrol 9. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: ieiectricity, ® natural gas, ®water, ® refuse service, ® telephone, ❑ sanitary sewer, 0 septic system, ❑ other - describe b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. No change to current C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: PL -22 V1.0 Page 12 or SiT6kane ,��tlley� Date w L4, SEPA CHECKLIST Submitted: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for protect actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater Intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1.. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air, production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? No Change to current; a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? No Change to current; a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fishi, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? No Change to current; a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourcesare: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? No Change to current; a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: .5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No Change to current; PL -22 V1.0 Page 13 of SEPA CHECKLIST a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? If parcels developed for neighborhood commercial, may see minor increase in traffic a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Evaluating best routes for traffic to move In/out of proposed property should the current land be developed for business use 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No known conflicts E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: Signature: Please print or type: Proponent: Address: Phone: Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL -22 V1.0 Page 14 of EXHIBIT 7 .001/alley COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT .) PLANNING DIVISION DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE 10210 E Sprague Ave • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5240 • Fax: 509.720.5075 • planning@spokanevalley.org FILE NUMBER: CPA -2018-0004 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning classification. PROPOSAL LOCATION: Parcel number 45212.1349; located in the SE corner of 76' Avenue and University Road, further located in the NW 'A of Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington APPLICANT: Heather Biyant, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 OWNER: Steve & Tresa Schmautz, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley, Community & Public Works Department Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 19, 21 and 22, site assessment, and comments from the public and affected agencies. This information is available to the public on request. DETERMINATION: This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on his proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on February 16, 2018. STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planner, (509) 720-5031, mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner DATE ISSUED: February 2, 2018 SIGNATURE: 4il%4 APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community & Public Works Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and make specific factual objections to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shalt be conducted in conformance with SVMC 17.90 Appeals, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Scheduled shall be paid at time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) File No. CPA -2018-0004 February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 1 FILE NUMBER: CPA -2018-0004 COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE 10210 E Sprague Ave • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.7205240 - Fax: 509.720.5075 • planning�;rr spokanevalley.org PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning classification. PROPOSAL LOCATION: Parcel number 45212.1348; located in the SE corner of 7°i Avenue and University Road, further located in the NW %4 of Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington APPLICANT: Heather Bryant, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 9920I OWNER: Steve & Tresa Schmautz, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley, Community & Public Works Department Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 19, 21 and 22, site assessment, and comments from the public and affected agencies. This information is available to the public on request. DETERMINATION: This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the Lead agency will not act on his proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on February 16, 2018. STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planner, (509) 720-5031, mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner r ll DATE ISSUED: February 2, 2018 SIGNATURE: 1 !f l 'l (Z•L 4 .''D J APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community & Public Works Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and make specific factual objections to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with SVMC 17.90 Appeals, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Scheduled shall be paid at time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) File No. CPA -2018-0004 February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT *Wane COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING & PLANNING DIVISION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 10210 E Sprague Ave • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5240 • Fax: 509.720.5075 • planning@spokanevalley.org Date of Notice: February 7, 2018 Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.120, Notice of Public Hearing, the Building & Planning Division is sending notice to all property owners within 800 feet of the subject property. Public Hearing Date and Time: February 22, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Hearing Location: Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, City Hall Project Number: CPA -2018-0004 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning classification. Environmental Deterinination: The City issued a Determination of Non -significance (DNS) on February 2, 2018 pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and chapter 21.20 Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Location: Parcel number 45212.1348; located in the SE corner of 71h Avenue and University Road, further located in the NW 1/4 of Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Applicant(s): Heather Bryant, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 Owner(s): Steve & Tresa Schmautz, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 - Date of Application: October 30, 2017 Date Determined Complete January 5, 2018 Staff Contact: Martin Palaniuk, Planner (509) 720-5031 palaniukgspokanevalley.org Hearing Procedures: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to the Planning Commission rules of procedure. Interested persons may testify at the public hearing and may submit written comments and documents before or at the hearing. The Planning Commission may limit the time given to speakers. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. 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. A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days before the hearing at the Community & Public Works Department, located at the Spokane Valley City Hall, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday -Friday, excluding holidays. Send written comments to the Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department. Comprehensive Plan Map 45212.1349 729 S UNIVERSITY RD Spokane „...0 Valley CPA -2018-0004 Owner: Steve & Tresa Schmautz Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: Privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Pram Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-family Residential Urban District (R•3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (N9 zoning classification EXHIBIT 9 January 18, 2018 CPA -2018-0004 Review of Trip Generation & Distribution Letter TGDL dated November 15, 2017 Parcel No. 45212.1348 A planning level Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL) was submitted to the City of Spokane Valley for a proposed land use change from Urban Residential (R3) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). If the 0.85 acre +1- parcel is developed to NC, the higher density would account for an estimated 208 new trips throughout a typical day over R3. During the peak hours, we would expect there to be an additional 31 new a.m. peak hour trips and 16 new p.m. peak hour trips. In reviewing the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan traffic model at the intersections of 4th and University and 8th and University, level of service is predicted to be at LOS B for the intersection of 8th and University and LOS A for the intersection of 4th and University during the pm peak period. Adding the new pm peak hour trips that would be generated for the new land use to the Comprehensive Plan traffic model indicate no change in LO5 for either intersection with little to no added delay. Based on the information submitted in the letter combined with the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan traffic model, the City of Spokane Valley has determined that there is adequate transportation infrastructure to meet concurrency at time of building permit for this CPA. Attached are intersection capacity analysis to support the conclusions in this response. No pass -by trips were credited at this time for this analysis as discussed in the letter. Adequate street capacity exists without pass -by consideration. In the future, at time of permit, the applicant may submit a project specific T +L a `d request a pass -by trip exemption. y right, ' E Sr. ngineer, Traffic City of Spokane Valley HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: University & 8th Movement EBL Lane Configurations '1 Traffic Volume (vph) 58 Future Volume (vph) 58 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1700 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Fri 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 Satd. Flow (prat) 1538 Fit Permitted 0.63 Satd. Flow (perm) 1026 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 61 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 61 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.7 Effective Green, g (s) 15.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 5,5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 155 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 vlc Ratio 0.39 Uniform Delay, di 38.2 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 Delay (s) 39.9 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Description: 2005 counts c Critical Lane Group 1/17/2018 4/ EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR T 4+ li ft '1 +I 88 65 13 58 17 26 260 9 45 526 77 88 65 13 58 17 26 260 9 45 526 77 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1516 1454 1538 3062 1553 3046 1.00 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1516 1376 1538 3062 1553 3046 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 93 68 14 61 18 27 274 9 47 554 81 31 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 130 0 0 83 0 27 282 0 47 629 0 5% 5% 13% 13% 13% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA 4 8 5 2 1 6 8 13.7 13.7 5.0 65.8 6.0 66.8 15.2 15.2 5.0 66.8 6.0 67.8 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.67 0.06 0.68 5.5 5,5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 230 209 76 2045 93 2065 c0.09 0.02 0.09 c0.03 c0.21 0.06 0.56 0.40 0.36 0.14 0.51 0.30 39.3 38.3 45.9 6.1 45.6 6.5 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.82 0.89 1.14 3.1 1.2 2.8 0.1 4.1 0.4 42.5 39.5 49.4 5.1 44.5 7.8 D D D A 0 A 41.8 39.5 9.0 10.4 D D A B 17.4 0.37 100.0 49.6% 15 HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service B 12.0 A COSV Network r BSonnen f 11 O Ir \ Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3217: University & 4th/4th Movement EBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 33 Future Volume (vph) 33 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1700 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frt 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1553 Flt Permitted 0.72 Satd. Flow (perm) 1170 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 35 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 35 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.5 Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s)_ 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 105 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 00.03 vlc Ratio 0.33 Uniform Delay, d1 42.7 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 Delay (s) 44.6 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Description: 2005 counts c Critical Lane Group 1/17/2018 C k- 4\ t t `� l EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 26 26 1700 4.0 0.95 0.91 1.00 2840 1.00 2840 0.95 27 33 30 4% NA 8 7.5 9.0 0.09 5.5 3.0 255 0.01 0.12 41.9 1.00 0.2 42.1 D 43.0 0 34 34 1700 0.95 36 0 0 4% 10 10 1700 4,0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1538 0.71 1156 0.95 11 0 11 5% Perm 4 7.5 9.0 0.09 5.5 3.0 104 0.01 0.11 41.8 1.00 0.4 42.3 0 21 21 1700 4.0 0.95 0.91 1.00 2784 1.00 2784 0.95 22 35 25 5% NA 4 7,5 9.0 0.09 5.5 3.0 250 0.01 0.10 41.8 1.00 0.2 42.0 0 42.0 D 36 36 1700 0.95 38 0 0 5% 15 15 1700 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1553 0.36 581 0.95 16 0 16 4% pm+pt 5 2 72.8 72.8 0.73 4.0 3.0 446 0.00 0.03 0.04 3.7 1.30 0.0 4.9 A 11) 328 328 1700 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3099 1.00 3099 0.95 345 1 349 4% NA 2 70.4 71.9 0.72 5.5 3.0 2228 0.11 5 5 1700 0.95 5 0 0 4% 111 118 118 1700 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1553 0.51 838 0.95 124 0 124 4% pm+pt 1 0.16 4.4 1.33 0.1 6.1 A 6.0 A 6 81.5 81.5 0.82 4.0 3.0 733 c0.01 0.13 0.17 2.0 0.72 0.1 1.5 A ++ r 743 29 743 29 1700 1700 4.0 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3106 1389 1.00 1.00 3106 1389 0.95 0.95 782 31 0 7 782 24 4% 4% NA Perm 6 75.1 76.6 0.77 5.5 3.0 2379 c0.25 0.33 3.7 0.75 0.3 3.1 A 3.0 A 6 75.1 76.6 0.77 5.5 3.0 1063 0.02 0.02 2.8 2.16 0.0 6.0 A 8.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service 0.33 100.0 ' Sum of lost time (s) 45.0% ICU Level of Service 15 A 12.0 A COSV Network BSonnen 1 • h 1\kroi,i\l,Ntc`l v2 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Sunburst ENGINEERING November 15, 2017 W.O. No. 1718 Raymond Wright, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer City of Spokane Valley, Public Works 10210 E Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 16402 E. Valleyway Ave Spokane Valley, WA 99037 (509) 924-2155 sunburstengr.com RE: Trip Distribution Letter for Zone Change of 721 S. University Road Dear Ray: I have been contacted by Heather Bryant of SDS Realty to complete a trip distribution letter for 721 S University Road. A rezone of this 0.85 acre property is proposed from R3, Urban Residential to NC, Neighborhood Commercial' The neighboring parcel at 729 S University (0.38 acres) is already zoned NC. It is also is under the same ownership. No site plan is attached to this rezone. The site presently has a duplex on it which will be removed as a part of this development. The neighborhood commercial zoning was included in the zoning code for parcels where local businesses would appeal to the surrounding residents. The corner of 8th / University is a good location for this use and having this zoning on these two parcels creates a site big enough to attract locally oriented businesses. Access to the site is allowed to University Road, a principle arterial with sidewalks on both sides. Bicycles are also allowed on it. There are currently two sidewalk drops to accommodate this access, but no driveways have been connected to these proposed access points. The current residence is accessed from 7th Avenue, and a driveway is also present to 8th Avenue. The current zoning allows six residential units per acres and the site is big enough for five residences. If the site was fully developed as allowed under the existing zoning, it would generate 4 trips in the a.m. peak hour, 5 trips in the p.m. peak hour and 50 trips during an average day. Trip Distribution Letter for 721 S University Rezone November 15, 2017 Page 2 The site is likely to accommodate 7,400 square feet of building, just under 20% of the lot size. It is assumed the building would be partly in use as offices and partly as retail. There is also an interest by the owner to develop some housing on the site in accordance with the neighborhood commercial zone. The trip generation characteristics of the site once rezoned are expected to be represented by the characteristics found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Manual, Trip Generation, 9th Edition using several land use categories: Specialty Retail (Land Use Category 826), General Office Building (Land Use Category 710) and Apartments (Land Use Category 220). This manual is a nationally recognized resource for determining trip generation for these and other land uses. Estimates of weekday trip generation rates and volumes for the a.m. peak hour, p.m. peak hour and on a daily basis are summarized on the following tables. 71�Q y4 lAIV \� Table 1 -Trip Generation Characteristics for Retail KSF 7 A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ` AdT Vol @ 6.84 Trips per KSF Directional Distribution Vol @ 2.71 Trips per KSF Directional Distribution Vol @ 44.32 Trips per KSF 48% In 52% Out 44% In 56% Out 3.7 25 12 13 10 4 6 164 The pass -by trip rate during the a.m. peak hour is estimated at 60% (15 trips) and during the p.m. peak hour is estimated at 34% (3 trips), Table 2 -Tri Generation Characteristics for Office\ (i -u t 1 0• KSF p A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ADT Vol @ 1.56 Trips per KSF Directional Distribution Vol © 1.49 Trips per KSF , Directional Distribution Vol @ 11.03 Trips per KSF 88% In 12% Out 17% In 83 Out 3.7 6 5 1 6 1 5 41 Trip Distribution Letter for 721 S University Rezone November 15, 2017 Page 3 Table 3 - Trip Generation Characteristics for Apartments � LU Units • A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ADT 1 Vol @ 0.51 Trips per Unit Directional Distribution Vol @ 0.62 Trips per Unit Directional Distribution Vol @ 6.65 Trips per Unit 20% In 80% Out 65% In 35% Out 8 4 1 3 5 3 2 53 When combined, the site will generate 35 a.m. peak hour trips, 21 p.m. peak hour trips and 258 trips on an average day. Some of these trips will be pass -by / diverted and internal trips. When discounting the number of trips generated under the existing zoning, the site generates 31 additional trips in the a.m. peak hour (16 new/destination trips), 16 trips in the p.m. peak hour and 208 trips on an average day. No nearby intersections will experience 20 or more additional trips in either peak hour as a result of the rezone. Distribution of new (destination) vehicle traffic generated by the site was based on likely routes to and from the building, existing geometric characteristics of the transportation system and other factors to be 70% south on University Road, and 30% north on University Road, and is shown graphically on Figure 1. Two bus routes run on University Road along the site frontage. The Valley Transfer Center is located four blocks north of this site at 4th / University, providing access to the greater Spokane area_ Sidewalks and bike lanes are also available on University. Therefore, trips by bus or other forms of alternative transportation should be expected and could make up 5 - 10% of the trips to/from this site. Trip Distribution Letter for 721 S University Rezone November 15, 2017 Page 4 I look forward to your review of the information in this letter and please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Sunburst Engineering, PS 1,41„, Ann L. Winkler, P.E. Traffic Engineer encl. cc: Heather Bryant, SDS Realty file 11/15/17 w o vs i 1}t — { • • i_Liii ; tl •1 -fp 4 l li; I .i• L=td =ra fl:1 :x114. r•r F111uC.nf�S •i• ,••' h �:+.".+x:11•;'' 1 Graphic Provided by Spokane County Scout Sunburst ENGINEER 1 NG 16402 E Valleyway Ave Spokane Valley, WA 99037 (509) 924-2155 www,sunburstengr.com 721 S University Zone Change Trip Distribution Letter Figure 1 Vicinity Map / Trip Distribution Map To: Martin Palaniuk (City of Spokane Valley - Community Development) CC: From: Jim Red (Spokane County - Environmental Services Dept) Date: Thursday, January 11, 2018 Planning/Building #: Subject: CPA -2018-0004 Stage: Comprehensive Phase: Change from LDR to NC Address: SSO9F Facilities on the site are currently connected to sewer, however depending on the nature of the new use and or expansion; additional facilities may also need to be connected. Therefore, a sewer connection and inspection may be required. Commercial developments shall submit historical and or estimated water usage prior to the issuance initial building permit of the project in order to establish sewer fees. A sewer plan maybe required. Applicant should contact Colin Depner at 509-477-3604 concerning this. SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT Est. 1940 Bryan Collins, Fire Chief 2120 N. Wilbur Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone (509) 928-1700 FAX (509) 892-4125 www.spokanevalleyFre.com January 8, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: CPA -2018-0004 Technical Review Comments The Spokane Valley Fire Department has completed a review for the above referenced project and has no comments on the SEPA checklist. Specific fire department requirement shall be conditioned on future permits. Sincerely, Traci Harvey Fire Protection Engineer Spokane Valley Fire Department Q:\Dept Data Unshared\Prevention Unshared\Plats1Shorties120181Comp Plan Amendment\CPA-2018-0004 Palaniuk.docx EXHIBIT 10 A Mary Moore From: Deanna Horton on behalf of Planning Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 3:37 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: FW: Attn Marty: Project planned for 7th and University Would you like to respond to his questions?. Deanna Original Message From: Justin Braid [mailto:justin.braid@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 11:54 AM To: Planning <planning@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Attn Marty: Project planned for 7th and University I live on 7th and our neighborhood is interested in what is planned for 7th and University. We saw the white sign but was unable to understand what "low density housing means". if there is an apartment planned on going in, we would like to know when the public meeting is planned so we can formally contest it as 15+ households on 7th avenue have contested another planned apartment house on 6th and Bowdish in the recent years. Thank you for your time and assistance. Sincerely, Justin Braid 808-284-7305 1 February 13, 2018 Cary P. Driskell City Attorney 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 FEB C,i niIN CITYpFQ SPOKANE DEPARTMENT PO P E ''A L L E Y Re: Protective Covenants of Old Orchard Subdivision (copy enclosed) Recorded 2/23/54 as No. 223697B as amended by Amendment to Dedication dated 4/09/54 recorded 5/19/54 as No. 240866E Dear Mr. Driskell: We are homeowners at 10719 E. 8th Avenue in Spokane Valley (parcel no. 45212.1350) and recently received a Notice of Public Hearing in the mnil. The hearing pertains to an attempt to alter the restrictive covenants that have been in place in our subdivision since 1954. We met with Martin Palaniuk, planner, last week to discuss the upcoming hearing and were advised that the 'parcel located at the corner of 8th and University was removed from the restrictive covenants in 2016. We request that you review this matter and advise us how this occurred. And we would like a copy of the minutes from that hearing. We and other neighbors never saw a sign. of a hearing and never received notice in the mail. We want to know if this is correct and if so, please explain in detail the process that was taken to remove the covenants. We request your response prior to the hearing on February 22nd. Please be advised that Steve Schmautz, owner of parcels 45212.1348 and 45212.1349, and applicant for the upcoming hearing previously attempted to alter the restrictive covenants in 1997 and was denied. At that time we and several neighbors opposed this alteration. Since that time, we and our neighbors know of no other attempts to alter the covenants. The restrictive covenants have been in place for almost 64 years and per paragraph P of the covenants, they are binding "unless by a vote of the majority of the then resident owners of the lots it is agreed to change the covenants in whole or in part." It is our understanding there is no agreement. Please advise immediately if your understanding is different. It is also our understanding that the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) also provides that an application to alter a subdivision "shall contain the signatures of the majority of those persons having an ownership interest in lots, tracts, parcel sites or divisions in the subject subdivision or portion to be altered. lithe subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of approval of the subdivision, and the application for alteration would result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the vacation of the subdivision or binding site plan, or portion thereof." SVMC 20.60.010 Again, there is no agreement and one owner's desire to violate the covenants should not be allowed to take precedence over the binding restrictive covenants and wishes of the majority of homeowners. Without "an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants" the Building & Planning Division lacks authority to consider the application. SVMC 20.60.020 To our knowledge, there is only one property owner, Steve Schmautz, in our subdivision in agreement to change the restrictive covenants that have been in place for 64 years. Mr. Schmautz does not live in our subdivision and wants to use his property for commercial purposes. We live in a residential subdivision and do not want to incorporate commercial property into it. Commercial property will decrease all residential property owners' home values, increase traffic, and increase crime. As you know, the protective covenants are a recorded document on all parcels in the Old Orchard Subdivision. The property owners have relied on these covenants for many years. Paragraph Q of the covenants states: "If the parties hereto, or any of them, or their heirs or assigns, shall violate or attempt to violate any of the covenants herein, any other person or persons owning real property situated in this subdivision may prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting to violate any such covenant to restrain or prevent him or them from doing so, to recover damages or other dues for such violation, or both." We intend to follow this provision if it is warranted. Please let us know the current zoning for parcels 45212.1348 and 45212.1349 owned by Steve Schmautz and if either of them is no longer protected by the restrictive covenants, we request detailed information as to how this was accomplished because it is in direct violation of the notice provisions in the SVMC. Please consider this letter as our filing of a. written request for a copy of the notice of application and the final decision. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Al` vielekr -�-eL - Ra and Jane Sebert 10719 E. 8th Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 926-7227 Enclosure cc (w/encl.): Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department Mark Calhoun, Spokane Valley City Manager Martin Palaniuk, Planner Heather Bryant/Steve and Tresa Schmautz iS. +I ut,thi-0la SiFf� tH� /26J -A'.;' Date of Notice: February 7, 2018 • Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.120, Notice of Public Hearing; the Building & Planning Division is sending notice to all property owners within 800 feet of the subject property. Public Hearing Date and Time: February 22;2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Hearing Location: Spokane Valley City Council Cha :bees, City Hall Hearing Procedures: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to the Planning Commission rules of procedure. Interested persons may testify at the public hearing and may submit written comments and documents before or at the hearing. The Planning Cominission may limit the time given to speakers. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. 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 arrangeznents inay be made. . A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days- befcsre the hearing at the Community & Public Works Department, located at the Spokane Valley City Hall, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, between 8:00 ant and 5:00 pm, Monday -Friday, excluding holidays. Send written comments to the Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department. Project Number: • CPA -2018-0004 -TIS"-alp-ii"eatro plr`lsat cscr�ptiibn:. - • . tea. pYiva .ittiattad'site spec% • Map and Zoning Map amendmerit requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-family Residential Urban. District (R-3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with aNeighborhood Commercial (NC)zoning classification. Environmental Determination: . The City issued a Determination of Non-signxftcance (DNS) on February 2, 2018 pursuant t� rite Stafe�Enviroihmental Policy Acf'(SEPA) and chapter, 21.20 :Spokane Valley Municipal Code., Location: • Parcel number 45212.1348 •Iooatecl•9n the SE comer o 1th Avenue and University Road, further located In the NW Vl of Section. 21, Towaship 25 Narh,, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian,. Spokane County, Wallington Appliearlt(s): ,, 'leather Bry t; 108 N WashiVitoii, Strife 500, Spokane, WA 99201 Owne43, :, . • . Steve 8'Tiara: Sohmautz; 108 N Washington,. Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201 • Date of Application: October 30, 2017 .Date Determined Complete January 5, 2018 Staff Contact: • Martin Palaniuk, Planner , . (509) 7205031 mnataniuk@snokanevalleugg . Hearing Procedures: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to the Planning Commission rules of procedure. Interested persons may testify at the public hearing and may submit written comments and documents before or at the hearing. The Planning Cominission may limit the time given to speakers. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. 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 arrangeznents inay be made. . A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days- befcsre the hearing at the Community & Public Works Department, located at the Spokane Valley City Hall, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, between 8:00 ant and 5:00 pm, Monday -Friday, excluding holidays. Send written comments to the Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department. Provisions contained in Plat and Dedication of Old Orchard Subdiv- ision, filed for record February 23, 1954, recorded in Book 3 of Plats, page 11, as follows: P o ECTIV COVENANTS: A. As a condition of acceptance of this Plat by the Spokane County P..an ±ng Commiasi.on, no lot in this subdivision..shall.be sold until such lot is furnished t domestic water.supply. r . B. All Iota: in• this subdivision shA1l .be classified and known ae Resiaentis.1 Lots•. . C. Ione tut net atructures 'shall be erected upon -any lot in this sub- - c .orison: D. N'o% mire than'one atruettre bhs.11 be erected upon any lot, except that bi e • detac ae'rl garage "shai3. be permitted. . E. bniy angle -family dwellings shall be permitted in this subdivision. (See exception. ,- F: Iia reaidextitial structure shall be.erected having less than:1000 square feet of f I oor 'space upon the ground: floor, exclus; .Ve. of car- ports; breezeways, patios, porches or'other area•not desired for indoor living quarters:- G. .No residential. =structure s''1 i 1 be .erected -nearer tiara 30 ,feet to - the front property line of any lot, nor any detached garage nearer than X55 •deet, nor, shall:.a y residence -be nearer a de„ props :- y .line than. 10 feet, : a d a1 L other q.anstructian sha1 : conf orM in all rs'spects to the building regulations of Spokane. OoUiaty. H. Any structure erected 0101 be complete as to external appearance, including finished painting-, and shall, ,%e_ connected_ to public sewer . or septic' tank within six, months from date of coinm0cement of con- • at`ruction,.• I. . No. basement, garage, trailer, or ,other temporary etr€ict re,, fixed, mobile or portable, may be occupied or used as`living quarters at•any time. J. No advertising. sign, billboard, poster or public notice may be erected or displayed on any lot or roadside adjacent thereto, excepting such sign or signs of modest and reasonable size used only to offer for sale real estate lying within this plat. K. If any lot or lots in this subdivision be further subdivided, re- arranged, or portion or portions thereof incorporated with any other lot or lots, or portion or portions thereof, such subdivision or re- arrangement shall not result in any parcel of land of less than 8800 square feet in area, and not less than 70 feet of frontage on a road, remaining after such rearrangement, nor shall any such rearrangement be permitted that will leave any structure or structures on adjoining parcel or -parcels with less front,,side or rear clearance than that outlined above. L. No business, industry or commerce shall be permitted within this subdivision. M. Aa a condition of acceptance of this plat, no structure shall be erected upon Lot 2 in Block 5 until such time that the owner or owners shall have acquired such additional and adjoining land to permit con- struction of a structure that will comply with the clearances outlined above and provisions of the Spokane County Planning Commission. Such structure may be used as a community club or civic center. -2- R. The covenants above relating to size and location of structures, and number of structured on any lot shall not be invoked against any structure in thin subdivision completed lrrior to the date of execution of this instrument. •P.' These covenants Are to run•w.ith the land and shall be binding on all parties and persons claiming under them until danuary'l, 1979, and ate automatically extended for successive ten-year periods thereafter, unless by a. vote of the majority of the then resident owners of the lots it is agreed to change the covenants in whole or in part. Q. If the parties hereto, or any of them, or their heirs. or assigns, shall violate or attempt to violate any of the covenants herein, any other person or persons owning real property situated in this subdivision may prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person'or persons violating or attempting to violate anysuch covenant to restrain -or 'prevent him or them from, doing so„ to recover damages' or- other dues for such violation r 2 both.& 28 Block 2 ax's sub- ject Lots, 1, 2, & 3, Block 3, and D ots 6, 7, 26, 7 ""— to right-of-way for irrigation pie line. - to Block 3 of { R. Mine yo�f the covenants mentioned above shall apply nr� Ma Plat. By instrument dated April 9,1954 recorded in Boolc 4.9 of Mise, 'records, page '571* Proteettre Covenant "r was ementded to read as folloWs. ' No residential structure shall be erected having leas than 854 'ggnar' feet -of floor apace ' upon• the ground floor, exclusive or car ports, breezeways, patioso• porohea or other area not designed for indoor living quarters. Public Viewer - [Mat Image Search Results] 7171 r, __ 1 : • 1 •;, • •~Vita 21-25-44-2 Type a question For help 1 • • OLD ORCHARD SUB . nit.,Lt?k1.. 11!. „•r.:.st�.: sfli,trFi: 0.112 En x'4.2 EY Albs 2.2:2cs.p' ta.” a- BCs9 _ 1 R•r71[s = . 1 a' 2 E ` 1 e2 40 e1.3+ a sat 2O % w ags nr.�v� wFOR t Sy1r - 8 I n LYM4G i— a• sarrar20`Y1agTmb tr ariz9.64,8! )1..... '2......,,,...- , . � .. 6 T 11 ....r .21346115 AOT 128 ARE. = rr, • • • ta.14 /°47l . ' . i 7411 222t 2019,4f 19 i t-0 13 I 12 It E6 8 t i d, r\\ 6 3 i s 3 1 g '� m . 4 f �� . lie _ 3 T t i r # S'1TtI n� g 46 ...,.?A° • *k t..4. -�w.. A is7it j , - � r° gn C.w r \ • RP r4FR g .,P 8 1, a 0! F zf `g t !: 3 ( FS' yi lc� ht n t r V 1t a 1a r 19 2n 2] E2 Ra - 21C E6 26 �28 29 t nn!t �V.97} �. •. - 97 7_10.T3R7 77::5 c • •.....¢ 1 t 7TH ptv.7a .. T.H. 41 a 4 3 StiMe. a, s }fit Y 3 2� 1 •BLbClc 3 ?D . ..,.,.2y \ tt99 22 coq 4 34c.1 o 2i:r2c 1>1 iA 32 .restr P .�1 a • not its.ta3 nit 70391dIDDE c2004). .42.411 • FRAC? t9R 342 .602r28- NOaldlt,RmOF t 1i .504 AF MD t:99i2u40FE 203.42 wawa• WFIt�}.0¢ 0_,,•„.. 9 n:?..g-sx'4'L ...,.,.a.; ,A_t.r•, Y. '2cyt4,11w.i.,4,,.Com:.;I<14. 121.;:tE •--�-- PLATTE= 7PI1lLa1Y LIHES • �THTS=•.t "Nb i'tY,F W\'ha �•f.'�'t �f�, .. - ` . •Y .. _ • Al.! •-• c4■ • . . i7 R.Cc%ae ne.maxims itti KIRED ROME SKILL apmx 12.21.2eac: PLAT. cpca • l Mary Moore From: nancy green <nanclonn2@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 11:12 AM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: File # CPA -2018-0004 I am writing this e mail to oppose the change of parcel #45212.1349 S.E.corner of University Rd.and 7th. Ave.from single family residential to neighborhood commercial. feel that it will lower my property value and create more traffic and noise than is already present. would rather see new houses built and keep this area residential as it was intended to be. Thank You, Lonny and Nancy Green 10715 E.7th.Ave. 1 Mary Moore From: Mike Irmer <mike@foglepump.com> Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 10:19 AM To: Martin Palaniuk Subject: 7th ave. University project Dear Martin, I am writing you in concern for the seventh ave. and university residential change project. I am not for any changes and do not want multi home dwellings crammed into the small area that is being planned on changing. I was told we were notified 2016 of a sign change on 8th but never saw no such changes. There is a old orchard Platt covenant that I hope you can see and adhere to. I hope this helps with an upcoming decision. I can be contacted by email if you have questions or don't understand my rambles. I am also with Ray Sebert on this issue. Sincerely Mike Irmer 1 Mary Moore From: Scott A. Smith <starlinerscott@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 5:50 PM To: Martin Palaniuk Cc: rjsebert@q.com Subject: commercial zoning on university I have grown up where 1 now reside, my parents owned the house before I did. I am asking PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE ANY ZONING ON UNIVERSITY ROAD !!!! There are plenty of available commercial spots now that are vacant and creating a commercial zone where there is no need for any is INSANE! Look at all the available spots on Sprague or Appleway or go to Pines or major thru streets and realize we already have plenty of room for commercial and there is no need to create any here. The Zoning on University is residential and should remain that way. I would be happy to petition or sign anything to help let the valley planning know that is what people want here. Scott Smith 10819 E 8th Spokane valley, Wa. 99206 Mary Moore From: CenturyLink Customer <rjsebert@q.com> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 10:57 AM To: Martin Palaniuk; Ray Sebert Subject: File No: CPA -2018-0004 To Martin Palaniuk, We are concerned and writing about File No: CPA -2018-0004 by 7th Ave and University Road, where it has been petitioned for a change from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. 1. First of all there is a Protective Covenant in the Neighborhood of Old Orchard Sub, File Number 0183 Recording date 02/23/1954. The Old Orchard Sub is 6th Ave to 9th Ave, and University Road to Pierce Road are included. The area is all residential and we would like it to stay that way. 2. We were told in our meeting with you on Tuesday, Feb. 6th that the lot at 8th and University Road had been changed in 2016. Is that the lot at 8th Ave, East of University or West of University Road? We would like to know how that change happened if East of University because there was never a sign in the lot and there were no letters written to the local land owners. We have checked with quite a few neighbors and none of them saw a sign or received a letter either. 3. We have lived at our address since 1963 and over the years we have seen a great number of accidents, as it is a very dangerous intersection. People speed down 8th Ave past our house at a good speed to make the light. And with the hill at University going South and the obstruction of view going west or east on 8th Ave, and with people trying to make the light, it is so very dangerous. 4. We do not need any more traffic in the area than what Single Family Residents would create. Anything commercial has the opportunity to create a situation for Crime, Theft, and Drugs in our neighborhood. There are plenty of Neighborhood Commercial Business Places within a few blocks of 8th and University. 5. Since the owners of the original plats had the fore sight to create the Protective Covenants, we feel that it is our job to continue on to protect the neighborhood from any Commercial Business. Thank you for your consideration. Ray and Jane Sebert 509-926-7227 10719 E 8th Ave Spokane Valley, WA 99206 EXHIBIT 10 B RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2018 City of Spokane Valley: Attn. Martin Palaniuk. clrr OF SPOKANE VALLEY The signatures below are a list of people that can not make the meeting in regards to File No: CPA -2018-0004. They are against changing the property from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. Print Name: kA irCi 30.C-tCSO' l Sign Name: LIA41- Address/Phone Number: j -a 13 6 trim Ave, Print Name: ka. Jt Sign Name: Address/Phone Number: i 6 7,2 3 it :LivFe Print Name: An tC� Sign Name: Address/ Phone Number: to 5 ti £ A& - Print Name: /-- %,*. Sign Name: Address/ Phone Number: /Q 1 Print Name: Sign Name: Address/Phone Number: CAA el c Cu Uri�rnts€, w t iic rets 41., c e L)er44 5 411 /1C -i Jo() () 14° i,5ecT7d11 RECEIVED FEB 222013 _ . 14 , v..: 1 e. i 6ee-A en r-5 tueU vCY. 104` per' oict s �4 r 1 4'en1r ' W G� 4�r W t f 1 (A ciii al- ret .z2,2.oc To coL0 AJC c6iflcrn ; Foo-..- 5(614' fir:, /'./+er t'_di)cpros 4'2- pgrceA cti41 72.1. Soon . - fr) ail ei ler t›,cS-e.fe- an . T r�SC V1P�j 0.0 qC On ‘ver1.1-3 : p6rciA numa-er 115-4.1'2.-, rAys'.,:71 2 -LC 1 DCks:11p+(� V vac Sa\PActufa F -c . SC_I/��1/tC .U`�i -Z 4-ocLaAc� . '+' t. o , n ?. `' C ' 'r -.,5,aper :50\816 - ti,,, l� R .stc�eALc,. j orkr - , C c i ,'�'1 .,0..e 1 U�. iiinke i 1 c9+ o r' car c 5 u L (: 1 u 15, , n C C) V e AC'4 \ n e, ' z �. . SIM- pl CII -es `.* OA L s.LDf1fi� (e.` ' -Dahl t (\i (.0.6k.v, ci (� •I U a')d(r J 1 vat 5-t- or- s'' ec. (1-1/t CO.rrl A ,. ilk S kci\ to 1 -- c ; - -ih , `� O L v S S v L S'1 Pu .Q.,ies ' A) 0 \c3 S u):es5 M ecce 561 C. t, ;,s CO v d•)c:trrci- ' bt c e. r m i fetc) u..A- A iuN --t-Li 5(,Lc \ i sr o NQS V (AA --.6 e; - d '.-e_.0._.i L°f S`j U 9 « os 1, , 884rs 11 t.) t�.6.t ti,,fts --. 'ilk- e;\ s[ ,ce 'i Lien kakiG d U asr-ee_ L'' pp. W*\ e troiesd " ese were L)5 --A en 164) 4 -LC coo (1 6.06\r --s GAL,N4 r ece p cJ( 12(0 +Le, C., S l n;- .0 a e cctiv\o `o i. Ol(11'e.`-` .,e011 V- 0 v l5 ll' C_,), r- t-"(.:. s SA`Cit`Y CR><C e ; W I n o `t' � - cc;,,fin s( irtAot " , j oiyeA :Lop cor-5 4645 c,ii 11 N11/6,5 it, --Ack ;,i. q / , ,qc(1,65,5 ► ,,,,1`e Lo,„,,u) r b s iiia\e.-mi t (. 1100/C5 Lick= I i �'e >v re- _ _Lv e 5 4 -1\a -k- t3.e 'l�' aL' A U e- 4`7 ac -ti I:5 0 dc. 41'h c0- dti't C.t n el ve,`n 1 c_ CAA el c Cu Uri�rnts€, w t iic rets 41., c e L)er44 5 411 /1C -i Jo() () 14° i,5ecT7d11 O'w\ 1 1 r C) 5e aCci05S `/ 11ce 14 , v..: 1 e. i 6ee-A en r-5 tueU vCY. 104` per' oict s �4 r 1 4'en1r ' W G� 4�r W t f 1 (A ciii al- tf 4. V c/l Mo;`e_ 4-- f -f r i c Cool pvn " 0 ,--- Foo-..- 5(614' Le. .06 V'°tG V,\( d1'? l/f\fV&C"-S tri and. 4 `e. 41`6---- Se- co Feer �•1 V1P�j 0.0 qC 19 Arke ectiehalk 4Le. owners (-200tok ksoi\S .50e etiv%11 14.swres keepo cAs),01 44\-.- ot-P-60/01(i1 ateq, t e, klArlaikkAlr,S 6 e 44v6 0 f -ea ii-te !ivy ildwina Act°1— Atto e»1( 0 .:e- a rev 54-0. 1 % s is Ls .4// kkilqq-- /6 FA, Ie 0 itszed . GY -Gtil •=f --t re. 6 ." ebni 61 eP-C\ 9 ( -51-Or-Ss [Awe. triC17.0s6 u ebiwole-r-CIQA Vell‘cl•e,s, ("Vet- sc_L) Vi•ek3. im.4 oec lqiver A JIso,_c e5.5 ifj'A,f' FA -6(y1 ?arku1n )ekt 1/(ql -0 . Q iN. e f (,_16.-iikck±S______eitmpfl Foi\e, il,e.-e., . ck 7 Wild, 03111 et:51 't 7 'iPt"e. itues IS 7 WO 4 c,,,,cts i Lim, i'-oce.o.-- toi'in q 14 ik- .0141 otr-InV-vb Ls 013 OLA -4L1-- G4-0ert pr0'Pes5/01%4 61r-FiceSi 50qs‘_ exte_ ..1A C 4Afve_ i ci --'-- n Is al dwect cA Ak.o(es54//q /0'4 74.i5.. -bp chqoje_ 'Kt, -oiokt\A, LoU44--- we_ (-bA-- o-7:- culf‘c.,A- i.s.i61 4--- iveraso-A 30 nie:ea. N., t‘e,?5e.s 44Actl--- titxis areei co --e_ ivioi-e_ sulk, -V441i1 woo\d Le_ close k) .4e.„.. coiyotei--00. t e_eotki)A, qiorn sr -450 e, 6,4- tat, (.- i\.. a.r\ e-51-0,(d(ts[id I A en i(L af4100a,, (?-3 4-eaCte01141e& 'frb:14, aAck &c\ sk-o t-) e A 7 ' r -r ve 00 e-- ,567-1V--2.--:ZG71 : . • •11,1\ co Stioliane „osOValleyt OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CARY P. DRISKELL - CITY ATTORNEY 10210 East Sprague Avenue $ Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5105 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-5095 ♦ eityattomey@spokanevalley.org spokanevalley.org February 16, 2018 Ray and Jane Sebert 10719 East 8u' Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Letter dated February 13, 2018 regarding restrictive covenants related to CPA -2018- 0004 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sebert: Thank you for providing the above referenced letter to Mr. Driskell. I am responding on behalf of our office. Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2018-0004 is a privately initiated comprehensive plan amendment and associated zoning change submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Shmautz. They are seeking to amend the land use designation and zoning for the parcel located at 721 South University (parcel no. 45212.1348) from Single Family Residential (with an R-3 zone) to Neighborhood Commercial (with a NC zone). They also own a second southern parcel located at 729 South University (parcel no. 45212.1349) that is currently designated Neighborhood Commercial under the Comprehensive Plan and which has an associated NC zoning designation. CPA -2018-0004 is in the midst of the City's Annual Comprehensive Amendment process and a public hearing with the Planning Commission is scheduled for February 22, 2018, at 6 pm at City Hall. You have indicated that the two subject parcels are located within the Old Orchard Subdivision and that they are subject to numerous "protective covenants," a copy of which was provided with your letter. To date, we have received no information or other evidence that the covenants have been amended other than as outlined in the recorded document that you provided. We have not received any information indicating an agreement to otherwise modify the restrictive covenants at this time. From the outset, it is important for me to convey that the City does not enforce privately enforceable restrictive covenants like those that you have provided. The City has no authority under Washington law to enforce or invalidate restrictive covenants. See Viking Props. Inc. v. Hohn, 155 Wn.2d 112, 130 (2005). Accordingly, the City will not enforce such covenants and they are not part of the criteria for land use decisions such as comprehensive plan amendments or associated zoning changes like CPA -2018-0004. To the extent covenants are valid and enforceable, it is up to private owners within subdivisions, such as yourselves, to enforce those covenants. You may wish to contact • • legal counsel for any legal questions regarding the validity, applicability, and enforceability of the covenants at issue in this case. In your introductory paragraph, you have asserted that the parcel was "removed from the restrictive covenants in 2016." 1 believe there may have been a misunderstanding in your discussions with Mr. Palaniuk, as the City does not have authority to unilaterally remove the parcel from the restrictive covenants. Instead, in 2016, the City adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and associated zoning map through the passage of Ordinance No. 16-018. During that process, 729 South University was designated and zoned Neighborhood Commercial. The 2016 Update was required under the Growth Management Act (chapter 36.70A RCW) and went through an extensive two year process of review, public input, and Planning Commission and City Council consideration prior to approval. Since it was a Comprehensive Plan update, it was processed pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140, and was not subject to chapter 20.60 SVMC. The City provided all appropriate public noticing and provided ample opportunity for public comment pursuant to RCW 36.70A.035 and RCW 36.70A.140 for that process. While the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation for that parcel was changed to Neighborhood Commercial, no change was made to the restrictive covenants, and neither parcel was "removed from the restrictive covenants." You also explained that any alteration of a subdivision would be subject to chapter 20.60 SVMC and that subdivision alteration applications must be signed by the majority of the owners of property in the subdivision, and in some cases, by all property owners. That is correct as it applies to alterations of subdivisions. However, as 1 indicated above, comprehensive plan amendments and associated changes in zoning are processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140. See SVMC 17.80.020, Table 17.80-1; SVMC 19.30.010; SVMC 19.30.020. They are not subject to the requirements of chapter 20.60 SVMC because they do not alter the plats for subdivisions. Further, since a comprehensive plan amendment and associated zoning change are not an alteration of a subdivision, they cannot remove or otherwise alter existing privately enforced restrictive covenants. Finally, you have asked for a copy of "the notice of application and the final decision." Further, you requested "a copy of the minutes from that hearing," Pursuant to the Public Records Act (chapter 42.56 RCW), I am treating your request as a public records request. Pursuant to RCW 42.56.520, the City is required to respond to your request within five business days, This letter serves as the City's required response within the five business days. Although you have not specified a particular project for the notice of application and final decision, I will assume based upon the substance of the letter that you are referring to a project application related to alteration of the subdivision. Please provide a written response if this assumption is not correct. As I indicated above, the City has not processed any subdivision alteration for either parcel owned by the Schmautz' that would require a notice of application, and so we have no responsive documents to your request. You may find a copy of Ordinance No. 16-018, which was the final decision with regard to the Comprehensive Plan Update, on the City's website at www.spokanevalley.arg by selecting "Documents" from the top menu and then selecting "Ordinances." With regard to your request for a copy of the minutes from the hearing, it appears that is a request for Page 2 of 3 • • minutes of a hearing removing the parcel from the restrictive covenants. As 1 indicated above, no such action has occurred, there was no hearing on removal of the parcel from the covenants, and thus the City has no responsive documents to that specific request. There were several City Council meetings during which Ordinance No. 16-018, the ordinance adopting the Comprehensive Plan Update, was considered, and you may find the minutes for all meetings www.spokanevalley.org by selecting "Documents" from the top menu bar and then selecting "Minutes, Council Meetings." With this response, we will consider your public records request closed. Since your letter relates to CPA -2018-0004, we have treated it as public comment for the proposed amendment and included it in the packet provided to the Planning Commission. We will also provide a copy of this response letter to the Planning Commission at the public hearing. Thank you again for your questions and please contact me with any further questions. Sincerely, Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney cc: Cary Driskell, City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Martin Palaniuk, Planner • Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk Heather Bryant/Steve acid Tresa Schmautz Page 3 of 3 (0) L Y WITHERSPOON.KELLEY Attorneys & Counselors itY _E9 `jf$ Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 cit vat torney(aspokanevall ey. org Marty Palaniuk, Planner City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 mpalaniuk@spokaneyalley.org SPOKANE 1 COEUR IYALENE Stanley M. Schwartz Admitted in CITY OF SPOKANE VALLWPriail: sms@with aspoonkel eyc om LEGAL DEPARTMENT May 8, 2018 Re: Ray and Jane Seibert Restrictive Covenants Related to CPA -2018-0004 Dear Messrs. Lamb and Palaniuk: I am in receipt of Mr. Lamb's February 16, 2018 letter which states the opinion that the "City does not enforce privately enforceable restrictive covenants" similar to those provided by my clients, Ray and Jane Sebert. I do not take issue with your statement concerning the City's duty to enforce covenants and your citation to Washington law. With respect to CPA -2018-0004, it is acknowledged that the City has the right to change the zoning for parcel no. 45212.1348 as requested by the owner and applicant. However, with respect to any land use action the City elects to take on the subject property, we request the zoning map and associated files contain a notation that states "The parcel identified as no. 45212.1350 is subject to protective covenants filed at Spokane County Auditor's No. 24086613." For your information, I am enclosing a copy of the protective covenants for Old Orchard Subdivision (previously provided February 13, 2018 to City Attorney, Cary P. Driskell). In consideration of this request, I refer you to two Washington cases from Division III: Sunberg v. Evans, 78 Wash. App. 616 (1995) and Rogers v. City of Toppenish, 23 Wash. App. 554 (1979). As you will see, both of these cases create liability when the City fails to disclose or improperly discloses knowledge about real property that affects its use and enjoyment. Based upon correspondence from various parties (including this letter) the City is put on notice of the restrictive covenants. In turn, to avoid a misunderstanding and future claims, please place a notation on the zoning map (and file) as set forth above. 422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1100 Spokane, Washington 99201-0300 www.witherspoonkelley.com Tel: 509.624.5265 Fax: 509.450.2728 S1700063.DOCX May 8, 2018 Page 2 Thank you for your courtesies. Very Truly Yours, WITHERSPOON • KELLEY S ley M. Sch artz Enclosure cc: Ray and Jane Sebert V I 44. /• 1� 5F TH1 S DEED U(GAT aON KNOW ALL MEN 8Y THESE PRESENTS, THAT SOREN R. SORENSON, A WIDOWER, A.WADE ADAMS AND JOHANNA A. ADAMS, HES WIFE, DARREL 4. STRAUGHANAND VIRGINIA8.STRAUGHAN,HIS YIIFE,LOUISaSMITH AND ELSIEM.SMITH , HIS WIFE ,PAULR,BATES AND LEONAM.BATES, HIS WIFE, EULA L"PATTERSON, A WIDOW, GLAIN H. COOK AND ELEANOR H. COOK, HIS WIFE, JOHN HAUGAN AND MARGARET HAUGAN, HIS WIFE, HANS HAUGAN AND GUNHI L D HAUGAN,HIS WIFE, ADM MAE RlCEEL, A W1DOW HENRY J.GALES ADO HELEN M.GALES,HIS WIFE THE COLLEGE PLACE COMMUNITY CLUB,A D7RPORATION,GEORGE HARVEY AND HELEN )(.HARVEY1 HIS V1iFE,VlCTOR L. HATFIELD AND 1.FAITH HATFIELD, HIS WIFE, HAVE PLATTED INTO LOTS, BLOCKS AND ROADS THE LAND DESCRIBED AS: ` AND FORRESTRPPAP AND RUTH] .PAA P. HIS WtF£, THE SOUTH 165 FEET OF THE W112 Ei/22THE SOUTH 165 FEET OF THE W I/2 EI/2 E N2,OF TRACT 195 OF OPPORTUNITY; ALLOF TRACT 197, ANO ALL OF TRACT ts8,EXCEPT THE SOUTH 177.5 FEET OF THE EAST 34O FEET THEREOF; THE NORTH 1GO FEET OF THE WEST 100 FEET OF THE NE 114 NW 1/4 SWi/4; AND THE NI/2NWI/4NWN4SWIM, EXCEPTTHE EAST3o TFEETOFTHE SOUTH 246.7 FEET, ALSO EXCEPT THE SOUTH 7 FEET THEREOF; OF SECTION 21, T25N,R44EWM,SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON; TO BE KNOWN AS" OLD ORCHARD SUBDIVISION', AND00 HEREBY DEDICATE TOTHE PUBLIC USE FOREVER THE ROADS SHOWN UPON THEACCOMPANYING MAP. PROTECTIVE COVENANTS A. ASA CONDITION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PLAT BY THE SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, NO LOT IN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SOLD UNTIL SUCH LOT IS FURNISHED A DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY. B. ALL LOTS !NTH'S SUBDIVISION SHALL DE CLASSIFIED AND KNOWN AS RESIDENTIA L LOTS. C. NONE BUTNEW STRUCTURES SHALL BE ERECTED UPON ANY 1.01IN THIS SUBDIVISION. D. NOT MORETHAN ONE STRUCTURE SHALL BE ERECTED UPON ANY LOT, EXCEPT THATONE DETACHED GARAGE SHALL SE PERMITTED E. ONLY SINGLE—FAMILY DWELLINGS SHALL BE PERMITTED IN THIS SUBDIVISION.{See Exception Below) R NO RESIDENTIAL STROC TURE SHALL BE ERECTED HAVING LESS THAN 1000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR SPACE UPON THE GROUND FLOOR, EXCLUSiVE OF CAR PORTS,BREEZEWAYS, PATIOS,POR CHES OR OTHER AREA NOT DESIGNED FOR INDOOR LIVING QUARTERS. 6 NO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE SHALL BE ERECTED NEARER THAN 30 FEET TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE OF ANY LOT, NOR ANY DETACHED - GARAGE NEARER THAN 55 FEET , NOR SHALL ANY RESIDENCE BE NEARER A S IDE PROPERTY LINE THAN 10 FEET, AND ALL OTHER CONSTRUC- TION SHALL CONFORM IN ALL RESPECTS TO THE BUILDING REGULATIONS OF SPOKANE COUNTY. H. ANY STRUCTURE ERECTED SHALL BE COMPLETE AS TO EXTERNAL APPEARANCE,INCLUDING FINISHED PAINTING,AND SHALL BE CONNECTED TO PUBLIC SEWER OR SEPTIC TANK WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. Z. NO BASEMENT, GARAGE,TRAILER ,OROTHER TEMPORARY STRUCTURE, FIXED,MO8!LEOR PORTABLE ,MAY BE OCCUPIED OR USED AS LIVING QUARTERS AT ANY TIME. J. NO ADVERTISING SIGN, BILLBOARD, POSTER OR PUBLIC NOTICE MAY BE ERECTED OR DISPLAYED ON ANY LOTOR ROADSIDE ADJACENT THERETO, EXCEPTING SUCH SIGN OR SIGNS OF MODEST AND REASONABLE SIZE USED ONLY TO OFFER FOR SALE REAL ESTATE LYING WITHIN THIS PLAT. K. IFANY LOT OR LOTS IN THIS SUBDIVISION BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED, REARRANGED,OR PORTION OR PORTIONS THEREOF INCORPORATED WITH ANY OTHER LOT OR LOTS OR FORTION OR PORTIONS THEREOF, SUCH SUBDIVISION OR REARRANGEMENT SHALL NOT RESULT IN ANY PARCEL OF LAND OF LESS THAN 8800 SQUARE FEET IN AREA, AND NOT LESS THAN 70 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A ROAD, REMAINING AFTER SUCH REARRANGE- MENT, NOR SHALL ANY SUCH REARRANGEMENT BE PERMITTEDTTOT WILL LEAVE ANY STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURES ON ADJOtN I NG PARCEL OR PARCELS WITH LESS FRONT,SIDE OR REAR CLEARANCE THANADUTLINED ABOVE, L. NO BUSINESS, INDUSTRY OR COMMERCE SHALL PE PERMITTED WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION. M. ASA CONDITION OF ACCEPTANCE OF TH15 PLAT, NO STRUCTURE SHALL Be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yam: d-7 • 4'221} 4-.1c447z.c= •.1.0 lam. !6V • STATE OF WASHINGTON • f., I 11 1 [ / •'' , iii• .,, r. • ` ACK ©WLED EIM11EN '• Y Cf,e4 { r.� PRES. College ePPlace Camm ityClub '`j�RC 011egeP {iacemu t ty Club COUNTY OF SPOKANE S5 ON THIS j!t DAYOF, 4'A'- v' -j ,1954•BEFOREMEPERSONALLY APPEARED SOREN11SORENSON,A,WADEADAMS,JOHANNAA.ADAMS, DARREL iRAUGHAN,V1RGINIAB.ST>:tAUGHAN,PAUL R.BATES,LEONAM.BATES,I.AUISG.SMITH, ELSIEM.SMITH,RUTHL.PAAP, EULA L.PATTERSON, CLAIN H. COOK, ELEANOR H, COOK,JOHN HAUGAN,MARGARET HAUGAN,HANS HAUGAN,GUNHILD HAUGAN, AOOIE MAE RICKEL, HENRY J. GALES, HELEN M. GALES, GEORGE HARVEY,HELEN K. HARVEY, FORA EST R.PAAP,V1CTOR L. HATFIELD, Z.FAITH HATFIELD, TO ME KNOWN TO BE THE IDENTICAL PERSONS WHO EXECUTED THE WITHIN AND FOREGOING INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT TO- 61!H KR )ND VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES HEREIN MENTIONED.�;� •`. ^.•rye • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND AFFIXED MY OFFICIAL SEAL THE DAY AND THE YEAR FIRST ABOVE MEPFTIONEI70,. f. • y} Q' lla'�+J� LAC') z"'. sr `,0 PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESIDING AT OPPORTUNITY,WASHINGTON Provisions contained in Plat and Dedication of Old Orchard Subdiv- ision, Filed for record February 23, 1953, recorded in Book 3 of Plats, page 11, as follows: PROTECTIVE COVENANTS: A. As a condition of acceptance of this Plat by the Spokane County Planning Commission, no lot in this subdivision shall be sold until such lot is furnished a domestic water supply. B. All lots in this subdivision shall be classified and known as Residential Lots. C. None but new structures shall be erected upon any lot in this sub- division. D. Not more than one structure shall be erected upon any lot, except that one detached garage shall be permitted. E. Only single-family dwellings shall be permitted in this subdivision. (See exception below). F. No residential structure shall be erected having less than 1000 square feet of floor space upon the ground floor, exclusive of car- ports, breezeways, patios, porches or other area not designed for indoor living quarters. G. No residential structure shall be erected nearer than 30 feet to the front property line of any lot, nor any detached garage nearer than 55 Feet, nor shall any residence'be nearer a side;propety=:line than• 10 feet, and all other construction shall conform in all respects to the building regulations of Spokane County. H. Any structure erected shall be complete as to external appearance, including finished painting, and shall•be connected to public sewer or septic tank within six months from date of commencement of con- struction. I. No basement, garage, trailer, or other temporary structure, fixed, mobile or portable, may be occupied or used as living quarters at any time. J. No advertising sign, billboard, poster or public notice may be erected or displayed on any lot or roadside adjacent thereto, excepting such sign or signs of modest and reasonable size used only to offer for sale real estate lying within this plat. K. If any lot or lots in this subdivision be further subdivided, re- arranged, or portion or portions thereof incorporated with any other lot or lots, or portion or portions thereof, such subdivision or re- arrangement shall not result in any parcel of land of less than 8800 square feet in area, and not less than 70 feet of frontage on a road, remaining after such rearrangement, nor shall any such rearrangement be permitted that will leave any structure or structures on adjoining parcel or parcels with less front; side or rear clearance than that outlined above. L. No business, industry or commerce shall be permitted within this subdivision. M. As a condition of acceptance of this plat, no structure shall be erected upon Lot 2 in Block 5 until such time that the owner or owners shall have acquired such additional and adjoining land to permit con- struction of a structure that will comply with the clearances outlined above and provisions of the Spokane County Planning Commission. Such structure may be used as a community club or civic center. Public Viewer - [Plalt.h'nage Search Results). • e• Help r. File Numbe0783 21-2-44-2 '. ;Reording # 2236978 Recording Ladle 02I23ii 954 eC N me PLUS Ife lumher` 4370 PLk roger �ierrl�er :'92°51732 OLD ORCHARD SUB 75711 C �1. 11 �3. 11d F bet! • Type a question for hek, ige§ found Plat Map Bk: 3 g 11 A1,2EIM I wM t:2 El s vz9 zo �r 24137 15, a•tl'-aE lrr c;. I Ua7a i a.sas: .i :G7 A': # w.+.13'.5 v e7iN 1— Ir:a•ar G1 F3C.flc 1 l"1 -1 iisA�l4� TS NS.LR O �• ci o L'1 r`T i oat 3, I 2 I a k E 0 z q, 61 BJ.+p,z19.1 T^oEr 1 954.®Ickj , /r i{d 15 6�n 126 73.34 IA h 7L4* o n I0 K 13 t fiL 19 IE 4. PO _ 11 Et i i L1 113 - r _..... i-. C 22 u L. vaa< 9 h 7 e1541.65a 6 e' I n' T' *x!1 7� '], 6 `•,7 4. *" syr' r7t. Stk ., I 4 « .:1 f5 r zl' y} 3 1.. Z r�a �, rai'j rr m ' o at. z SE$2._.,_. m 177 o j.2 . o 31 X1. C. 2 ': n 70197 { ; 2I.4 Nt, 3..23J22721 ei 25 7'7.75 ". 2?�y 26 ' - 29 Ii s'.........I:C„.„.... c, ,g Y 17 c `7857., 1: N IV.I.LAT.93i1 .143 L13sty re F. _7TH.. ,_.,1r.:tt(LI: 60.r!r.2. ,,.. g _ .4'"<< ......--.... r __ _ 3 r .' 7V 1 1 ' 4 eb T' ' ' ' j - f .3q4, IM' - • -1 / 7T1 2r.' 9t1 Q 1I1 u a ▪ r g 7 3 1 4� _ az1 ” if a 4 F • .. :\: tt .......IC1. • - I v 3 WG' C. Ic F 4K �` a 57.W _ „1„.. . I% u ,.,M:. 9.P.-„,.4..,_. ”" 4II,.,,,!1,,a„,„..1`:.........,4 � !yb'r1 I �r]VQ B 1. 0 c K' - 4 I . IT.. j a - dN �"E � 3aa.rr� till' :A; lin 9 - _ . , t.: '.13 hi+� ;L- .,. IN .r, ry ▪ T, �� •_, IQ 12 t3 '14;q' /,r J.4 amt- \ - ' ' 171 r Ahf,] i CMG!. i�1G]�n • E=h- y':y'^2W' fr c'� \ .-..S. ..._. 3_: • •r .11.`3 4.._.,_�•5'i' t= ._...-11.17------1,-...' . �y�"S ,_]rRJrc1r. ;511 3�A ... .-----NO o 1116 cCR. •�? ». ° F,- f , , •cg• 2y A+35T4 ` tt CF lllFt.4 cµ.t �N•r 4i 'ev._SYJ 'i' lov rcou a.i4a id 69'?,7'4Q'E Y5 4 I a n n 'I '.T.E] a+ 2^i C? la, .1; .. �- 707.7-., �..- .._ 11. a '15' .4.1x sJ•,4.11..5.17 Ir nes .'1!10'P Gr:YSn4,. 7. f-' iff 7a ls.• rrti. Utl o 4 a r 1E. • 7 'i 1 Ar i tat Ia s Q1 571 • P j-- _ r^'T'-41 '-. ..J.. •(�A=A. [�F ... �.�':fit:. f�rrri:�ie�v:z tum.m. G] 1'1 las trr,7.e'a GF ta9'2 4 E 1Cc4.5p 1. • .7577 p? ?3-66 tir-.rc� •- 'I,3T7t;11 3^53r37Y 41Pa.L •j ' , „ •; ''ale ..ate lirm.c. op 1'10 fQ1E11.1h7L 1p1,11,0:• '7' "%:i lj !�� '•i i ; 1 " .i- z of •t - 1 temp £Nplorer.. :r43 Citrix'ICk IiF' �!o>Jrappbc�soR tT Lid;'It 6Lo oFF 014 rndav f?rt 7d 9n rig no•r,A R1dA .r_ ATTACHM E N T 5 Spokane ��Va11ey COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 15, 2018 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 22, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. Project Number: CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 Application Description: Non -project action to correet a map error on the Land Use Designation Map due to the City inadvertently bisecting the parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. CPA -2018-0005 CPA -20180006 Expand NC designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR), and the associated zoning of NC and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of IMU and Single Family Residential (SFR, and the associated zoning of IMU and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Location: Parcels 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354.9127; located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Owner: Five Fifty, LLC MPR Spokane LLC Applicant: City of Spokane Valley Staff Contact: Karen Kendall, Planner APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) General. Provisions, Title 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls. ATTACHMENTS: CPA -2018-0005 CPA -2018-0006 Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Comprehensive Plan Map Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 3: Zoning Map Zoning Map Exhibit 4: Aerial Map Aerial Map Exhibit 5: Environmental Checklist Environmental Checklist Exhibit 6: DNS Determination DNS Determination Exhibit 7: Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 8: Agency Comments Agency Comments Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment is a City initiated request to correct a mapping error. The following amendments are bisected with two different land use designations and zoning: 1. CPA -2018-0005: Parcels are currently designated Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR). 2. CPA -2018-0006: Parcel is currently designated Industrial Mixed Use (MJ) and Single Family Residential (SFR). PROPERTY INFORMATION: 1. Page 2 of 10 CPA -2018-0005 CPA -2018-0006 Size and Characteristics: The area is approximately 10 acres in size. The site has had earth disturbance over the years. Located in the NW corner of parcel 46351.9049 is a Type F stream. Currently, the entire area is located in a 100 -year floodplain. However, FEMA is reviewing a CLOMR application to modify the boundaries. Approval of the CLOMR is anticipated in the near future. Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has an overhead powerline and easement of 500 feet running through the subject area. The site is 0.83 of an acre is size. The site is fully developed with structures, pavement, stormwater facilities and landscaping. Comprehensive Plan: SFR and NC SFR and IMU Zoning: Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3) and NC Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3) and IMU Existing Land Use: Vacant Office/warehouse building Page 2 of 10 CPA -2018-0005: CPA -2018-0006: North Spokane County C: Rural Conservation Z: Rural Conservation (RCV) LU: Single family residences C: SFR Z: R-3 LU: Single family residences South C: SFR Z: R-3 LU: Single family residences C:Industrial (1) Z: Industrial(I) LU: Offices and warehouses East Spokane County C: Rural Conservation & Urban Reserve Z: Rural Conservation (RCV) & Urban Reserve (UR) LU: Single family residences and vacant land C: SFR Z: R-3 LU: Single family residences Page 2 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 West C: SFR Z: R-3 LU: Single family residences C: IM[ 7 Z: IMU LU: Offices and warehouses 2. APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Pre -Application Meeting: N/A Application Submitted: N/A Date of Complete Determination: N/A SEPA Determination of Non -Significance Issue date February 2, 2018 End of Comment and Appeal Period for DNS: Not Appealed February 16, 2018 Date of Posted Notice of Public Hearing February 7, 2018 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: February 2, 2018 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: February 7, 2017 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) SVMC, the lead agency has determined that neither proposal has a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required for either proposal under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(e). The Building and Planning Division issued a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) for each proposal on February 2, 2018. The determinations were made after review of a completed environmental checklist for each proposal, Titles 19, 21, and 22 SVMC, a site assessment for each proposal, public and agency comments, and other information on file for each proposal with the lead agency. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled for each proposal. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The affected parcels are inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two dfferent sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The affected parcel is inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two dfferent sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. Page 3 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 (2) 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; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The proposed amendment corrects a mapping error and allows for development consistent with adjacent zoned parcels. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update considered the Goals and Policies of GMA and ensured that the Comprehensive Plan was consistent throughout. Correcting the map designation error has no effect on the other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The proposed amendment corrects a mapping error and allows for development consistent with adjacent zoned parcels. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update considered the Goals and Policies of GMA and ensured that the Comprehensive Plan was consistent throughout. Correcting the map designation error has no effect on the other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. 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; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, properties designated NC were expanded and designated on portions of parcels associated with CPA -2018-0005. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, the land use designation IMUwas created and applied to parcel associated with CPA -2018-0006 to capture the existing diverse uses and focus future infill development along Trent Avenue. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created parcels to be burdened by two different sets of development regulations. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created parcels to be burdened by two different sets of development regulations. (3) (5) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 4 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. (2) The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: There are designated critical areas such as a Type F stream on the northwest corner of parcel 46351.9049. Parcels are located within a 100 year floodplain. FEMA is currently reviewing a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) application which will modify the boundaries and remove the floodplain from the majority of the site. The parcels are not located within shoreline jurisdiction, nor are there known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas associated with CPA -2018-0006. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, nor are there known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The existing land use designation of NC for the proposed amendment was evaluated and incorporated to the City's Comprehensive Plan through the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The City initiated amendment corrects minor mapping errors to eliminate split zoned parcels. The corrections are both minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA - 2018 -0005 parcels are vacant and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The existing land use designations of IMUfor the proposed amendments were evaluated and incorporated to the City's Comprehensive Plan through the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The City initiated amendment corrects a minor mapping error to eliminate a split zoned parcel. The correction is both minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA - 2018 -0006 parcel is fully developed and a swale is constructed within the split zoned portion of land designated SFR. Page 5 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. Currently the site is served with all utilities and public streets. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. As discussed in the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan the neighborhood - scale commercial development is limited in Spokane Valley. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan update designated a portion of parcels NC associated with CTA -2018-0005. (7) Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. Residential uses allowed in the _IMUdesignation are incidental and subservient to any commercial or industrial uses. The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment have an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. Page 6 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment have an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is correcting a mapping error. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is correcting a mapping error. Conclusion(s): For the reasons outlined above the proposed amendment is consistent with SVMC 17.80.140(11). 2. Compliance with Title 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations a. Findings: Either proposal corrects a land use designation mapping error. While portions of the properties described below will receive a new zoning district as the current zoning extends to the property boundaries, this is not a site specific rezone, and therefore the criteria associated with SVMC 19.30.030(B) is not applicable. Comp Plan amendments and area -wide rezones are processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140, 19.30.010 and 19.30.020. CPA -2018-0005: Change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning classification. CPA -2018-0006: Change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) zoning classification to Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation with an Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) zoning classification. b. Conclusion(s): Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a), proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan will be processed only once a year except for the adoption of original subarea plans, amendments to the Shoreline Master Program, 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. Pursuant to SVMC 19.30.010(B) and 17.80.140(H), Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria, annual amendments may be completed to correct a mapping error. The proposed amendment is consistent with Title 19 SVMC and state law regarding Comprehensive Plan amendments. See Section C(1) above. 3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings: CPA -20184005: 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. The amendment to correct a mapping error is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Page 7of10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 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 P1 Enable neighborhood -scale commercial uses in residential areas. LU -P5 Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. LU -P13 Work collaboratively with landowners and developers that seek to provide mixed-use residential projects. CPA -2018-0006: Industrial Mixed -Use (IMU) allows for light manufacturing, retail, offices, and lighter industrial types of uses such as contractor yards. The amendment to correct a mapping error is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. L U -G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. L U -G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity. LU -P5 Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. LU -P13 Work collaboratively with landowners and developers that seek to provide mixed-use residential projects. b. Conclusion(s): CPA -2018-0005: The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan. CPA -2018-0006: The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan. 4. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: CPA -2018-0005: The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The minor adjustment to land use designation amounts to correct the mapping error will have no impact on services or providers. Capital facilities and utilities were considered in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update and found to be adequate. CPA -2018-0006: The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The minor adjustment to land use designation amounts to correct the mapping error will have no impact on services or providers. Capital facilities and utilities were considered in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update and found to be adequate. b. Conclusion(s): CPA -2018-0005: The proposed amendment to correct a mapping error will have no impact on public facilities; Sites will have adequate urban services at the time of development. CPA -2018-0006: The proposed amendment to correct a mapping error will have no impact on public facilities; Sites will have adequate urban services at the time of development. Page 8 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any public comments to date for either proposal. This will be updated once the comment period has expired. 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns for either proposal are noted at this time. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has received the following agency comments to date for both CPA -2018-0005 and CPA -2018- 0006. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated Avista No Central Valley School District #356 No CentutyLink No S.okane Valley Police De artment No Washington State Department of Ecology No City of Liberty Lake No City of Spokane No City of Spokane Valley Building Division No City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering Yes I-8-18 City of Spokane Valley Parks Department No City of Spokane Valley Traffic Yes 1-22-18 City of Millwood No Comcast No Consolidated Irrigation District #19 No East Spokane Water District #1 No East Valley School District #361 No Inland Power & Light No Model Irrigation District #18 No Modern Electric Water Company No Washington State Parks Department No Spokane Aquifer Joint Board No Spokane County Fire District #8 No Spokane County Planning & Building No Spokane County Environmental Services Yes 1-16-18 Spokane County Water District #3 No Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency No Spokane Regional Health District No Spokane Regional Transportation Council No Spokane Transit Authority No Spokane Tribe of Indians No Spokane Valley Fire Department #1 No Trentwood Irrigation District No Vera Water & Power No Washington State Department of Commerce No Page 9 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 Washington State Department of Arch and Historic Preservation No Washington State Fish & Wildlife No Washington State Natural Resources No Washington State Transportation No 'West Valley School District #363 No 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted for either proposal. All comments are reflective of at the time of future development. F. Conclusion: CPA -2018-0005: For the reasons set forth in Section C (1 and 2) the request to expand the NC designation and zoning to eliminate the split designation of NC and SFR, and the associated zoning of NC and R-3 is consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(H) and the Comprehensive Plan. CPA -201.8-0006: For the reasons set forth in Section C (1 and 2) the request to expand the 1MU designation and zoning to eliminate the split designation of 1TVIU and SFR, and the associated zoning of 1MU and R-3 is consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(H) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 10 of 10 i81' 011 ddIvil II ,1 11 II lu 0-0 00 II 1) 1111 II II 11 1 dr, J11 1 I 1'11111111111111111 1111111 III 011 r 111 VIII , I 11 411 II iW'i 1111 d' 4 I n mf 11 11 1 111li 1 11 III 11 If I II 1111111111111 II LI 111 11111111 111111111 1 111111111111 11 11 111111111111 111 I II u I"^I IIII''11 oil I Irr ..ten mm',,,iiN u im V 171./111LLJ 1YAE..11-, 1._1 L'J VVl/✓ E Francis Ave E Sanson Ln E Sanson Ave a 0 0 z E &ere :kVA -111N • 1 I ro Grown -Ave," W M%, ■I1iil1f=i' -'_Q 1 • Q °T i e.Ave ■gt irlu����' Wabash �111111i�,\ hill ■11L��1inuIL' I u. E-Wabast E D ween E Heroy Ave p East c..; Valley Egad S Middle Ave Trentwood ■l . � ■11�j��� Elementary E Broad i i 1PN111k eray Ave ME !�!!�� ELon aellow� �■ "Lon ellow Lugs / _- �'flil r!1tuuu!Elll 1 111 ■_:rNMIii ERich Ave :Rockvv_el Ave M Lflh1111I Ci.: ■L.1Ir.rt Et til N Robbins Rd Antoine Pea eon se 0 East Valley Senior E 1 High.11vave Y sc1oot m E E Olympic •4',a w■. tom • �►11111�:� E Wellesley, E Longellow Ave ■u.. iiW■ RichAv_ E-Rockwell ' E 3loekwell ■��9�,`41 MA1m g Mi" iz Ave nL � r E Lonafel ew Herd} _flt&fel. owe. EXHIBIT 2 Comprehensive Plan Map X46362190521 1P6.1i00:14141 Study Area 46352.9052 0 ADDRESS UNKNOWN 46351.9049 0 ADDRESS UNKNOWN 0 z 46354.9127 0 UNKNOWN ADDRESS 114 E Ol inpic Ave46 a l E -Wabash Ave Spokane Valley CPA -2018-0005 Owner: Five Fifty, LLC Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: City initiated proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning ofparcel EXHIBIT 3 Zoning Map i Evei e t Ave —E -(queen -Ave' —E-Oi5 mpic.Axl z 46352.9052 0 ADDRESS UNKNOWN opgy.,, 91Y.46)76y _I �UNR q 3r19-�, V,y,rNS I N Study Area 46351.9049 0 ADDRESS UNKNOWN 46354.9127 0 UNKNOWN ADDRESS E -Wabash -Ave z 0 z Spokane Valley CPA -2018-0005 Owner: Five Fifty, LLC Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: City initiated proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning ofparcel EXHIBIT4 Legend BPA Easement FEMA 2010 Flood_Zone 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD fO A AE 46351.9049 0 ADDRESS UNKNOWN 46354:99.27 UNKNOWN ADDRESS ri *Mime Valley CPA -2018-0005 Owner: Five Fifty, LLC Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: City initiated proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel EXHIBIT 5 rnrne SEPA CHECKLIST 1� SVMC 21.20 1eV R 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-5075 ♦ perinitcenterAspokanevalley.org STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: 12-18-17 Received by: Fee: N/A PLUS #: File #: CPA -2018-0005: CPA -2018-0006 & CPA -2018-0007 PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL *"THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** ❑ Completed SEPA Checklist ❑ Application Fee ❑ Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 8h/21 by 11" or 11" by 17" size ❑ Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST; The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. JNSTRVCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS, This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS; Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). PL -22 V1.0 Page 1 of Spokane SEPA CHECKLIST For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words 'project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively, A. BACKGROUND 1 Name of proposed project, if applicable City -initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA) 2. Name of applicant: City of Spokane Valley 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Karen Kendall, Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 4. Date checklist prepared: December 28, 2017 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Anticipated adoption in May/June of 2018. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? No. If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Environmental impact Statement was completed as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? No. If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Spokane Valley Council approval. 11 Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) These are non -project actions associated with the City's annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle. The City is initiating three comprehensive plan amendments.. Two of the non -project actions are due to the City inadvertently bisecting the parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 major update and the CPA action will correct the error. CPA -2018-0005: Proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. CPA -2018-0006: Proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. CPA -2018-0007: Proposal to change comprehensive plan designation and zoning district PL -22 V1.0 Page 2 of Spokane from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Parks and Open Space (P/05). The Spokane Conservation District recently purchased the property and intends to keep it as natural area, with the exception of their offices. The proposal brings the designation in line with the Conservation District's intentions to conserve the land for public use as open space. SEPA CHECKLIST 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. CPA -2018-0005: 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354,9127 (Parcel numbers were updated). Located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA -2018-0006: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA -2018-0007: 35233.9191; 35233.9192; 35233.9176; 35233.0513; 35233.0709; 35233.0710; 35233.0604; 35233.0605; 35233.0606; 35233.0607; 35233.0608; 35233.0609 and 35233.0505; addressed as 4418 East 8th Avenue; located at the SE corner of 8th Avenue and Havana Street; further located in the north half of the SW quarter of Section 23, Township 25, Range 43, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? Yes. The general Sewer Service Area? Yes. Priority Sewer Service Area? Yes. (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). Not applicable. 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? Not applicable. PL -22 V1.0 Page 3 of Spokane r�Valley SEPA CHECKLIST 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. Not applicable. 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? Not applicable. b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? Not applicable. a. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential im after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 2. pacts. Not applicable. B. ENVIRONMENTALELEMENTS 2) Earth a. General description of the site (check one):E flat,❑ rolling, ['hilly, ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other Each amendment site has its own unique characteristics ranging from rolling to steep slopes. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percentslope)? Unknown. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland, Not applicable. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? Not applicable. If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. Not applicable. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not PL -22 V1.o applicable. Page 4 of *Wane alley PL -22 V1.0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY SEPA CHECKLIST Page 5 of *lime _ ."1FValley. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: At the time of future development, all grading activities will be reviewed per the City of Spokane Valley's Street Standards (SVSS). 3) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. 4) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is a Type F stream located northwest of the proposed amendment CPA -2018- 0005. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not applicable. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Not applicable. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR. AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 6 of *Wane .000%Iley. SEPA CHECKLIST Standards 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location (SVSS). on the site plan. 6) Yes, CPA -2018-0005. The property is within a 100 -year floodplain pursuant to Community Panel No. 53063C0579D of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) [Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 6, 2010]. Yes, CPA -2018-0007. The property is within a 100 -year floodplain pursuant to Community Panel No. 53063C0563D and 53063C0564D of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) [Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 6, 2010]. 7) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? Not applicable. If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Not applicable. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not applicable. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Not applicable. Will this water flow into other waters? Not applicable. If so, describe. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: At the time of future development, all grading activities will be reviewed per the City of Spokane Valley's Street PL -22 V1.0 Page 7 of SO'lane �Valley� EVALUATION FOR 5) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ❑ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ❑ shrubs ❑ grass ® pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, miifoil, other ❑ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not applicable. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not applicable. 6) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: 1-1 birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ❑ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: n fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. c. Is the site part of a migration route? Not applicable. If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 8 of Sifoikane VaHey. 6). Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Not applicable. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? Not applicable. List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not applicable. 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? Not applicable. If so, describe 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Not applicable. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Not applicable. SEPA CHECKLIST° EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 vi .o Page 9 of *Wane 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? CPA -2018-0005 is vacant property. It is surrounding by vacant land and single family residences. CPA -2018-0006 has a newly developed building for office and warehousing use. Similar uses exist to the west. Single family residences are located to the north and east. Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway is located to the south. CPA -2018-0007: The property has an office building and several warehouse buildings with the majority of the area vacant. The site is owned by the Spokane Conservation District and currently not occupied. Surrounding properties consist of a mix of single family and multifamily uses. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? Unknown. If so, describe. c. Describe any structures on the site. CPA -2018-0005: None. CPA -2018-0006: 9,375 square foot commercial structure built for office and warehouse use. CPA -2018-0007: Approximately 7,000 square feet of commercial buildings built in 2003 according to the Spokane County Assessor's Office parcel data. d. Will any structures be demolished? Unknown. If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? CPA -2018-0005: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) CPA -2018-0006: Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) CPA -2018-0007: Multifamily Residential (MFR) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? CPA -2018-0005: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR) CPA -2018-0006: industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Single Family Residential (SFR) CPA -2018-0007: Multifamily Residential (MFR) SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of Spokane ,000V.11ey, g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? None of the proposals are located within the shoreline designation. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. CPA -2018-0007 is located within a 100 year Floodplain. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Not applicable. 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Not applicable. Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not applicable. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not applicable. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of 14 Stamm �alley� 11). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. c. What existing off-site sources of Tight or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable. Proposed measures to reduce or control Tight and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are no designated or informal recreational opportunities in the immediate vicinity of each amendment. CPA -2018- 0007 will designate additional parks and open space for recreation uses. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? No If so, describe. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? None known. If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. CPA -2018-0005: Is located adjacent to Progress Road. CPA -2018-0006: Is located adjacent to Trent Avenue (SR -290). CPA -2018-0007: Is located adjacent to 8t'' Avenue. PL -22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLLST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 11 of 15 Shane ey. b. Is site currently served by public transit? Yes. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? Not applicable. If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? Not applicable. If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: At the time of future development transportation will be reviewed per the City of Spokane Valley's Street Standards (SUSS). 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? The CPA is a non -project action. There are services in the vicinity and anticipated to be available at the time of development. if so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable. 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: electricity, gas, water, n refuse service, n telephon , sanitary septic system, ' tither - describe natural wer, b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Not applicable. PL -22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 12 of 15 Spokane ..•.'d1ey SEPA CHECKLIST C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: cia (-7 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? It is anticipated as the sites develop impacts will be mitigated through the City's regulations and outside entities with jurisdiction. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: To be determined at time of development. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? It is not anticipated any site development will affect vegetation or habitats of any kind. Specifically CPA -2018-0008 intent for a zoning designation of parks and open space JP/OS) is to preserve and protect vegetation and animal habitats. b. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: To be determined at time of development. 2. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? It is not anticipated development of any kind would be likely to deplete energy or natural resources. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourcesare: To be determined at time of development. 3. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, tloodplains, or prime farmlands? it is not anticipated development would affect environmental sensitive areas, however protect and follow established critical area regulations within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. PL -22 V1.o Page 13 of 15 S ik. ne ley. a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: To be determined at time of development. SEPA CHECKLIST 4. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? It is not anticipated development would affect land and shoreline uses, however protect and follow established regulations within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: To be determined at time of development. 5. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? It is not anticipated development would increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities. Any impacts will be reviewed and mitigated at the time of development based upon the regulations within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: To be determined at time of development. 6. Identify, If possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. It is not anticipated the proposal will conflict with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: Signature: Please print or type: Proponent: Karen Kendall. Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department Address: 10210 East Spra iue Avenue: Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5026 Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL -22 V1.0 Page 14 of 15 EXHIBIT FILE NUMBER: CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: City initiated non -project actions associated with the City's annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle. The City inadvertently bisected various parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 major update; the CPA action will correct the error as follows: 1. CPA -2018-0005: Proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel and 2. CPA -2018-0006: Proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. PERSON COMPLETING CHECKLIST: Karen Kendall, Planner; City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PROPOSAL LOCATION: 1. CPA -2018-0005: Parcels 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354.9127. Located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington 2. CPA -2018-0006: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) ofthe SVMC, the lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. DETERMINATION: This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date issued. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department; 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509) 720-5026/FX (509) 720-5075, kkendall@spokanevalley.org RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department; 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509) 720- 5335/FX (509) 720-5075, Lbarlow@spokanevalley.org City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) File No. CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 2 DATE ISSUED: February 2, 201$ SIGNATURE: APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community & Public Works Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be 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 Appeals, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Schedule shall be paid at the time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) File No. CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 2 of 2 ntr Spa�k�ane ,.Valley COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Building and Planning Division 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5000 1 Fax: 509.720.5075 ♦ cityhall tr,spokanevallev.nrg LEAD AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW DATE: February 2, 2018 A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT NUMBER: CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 (CPA -2018-0007 -- withdrawn) 2. DESCRIPTION: Non -project actions associated with the City's annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle. The City initiated three comprehensive plan amendments. Two of the non -project actions are due to the City inadvertently bisecting the parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 major update and the CPA action will correct the error. The remaining amendment was to designate Conservation District Owned properties as parks and open space. (See below): CPA -2018-0005: Proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel; and CPA -2018-0006: Proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. CPA -2018-0007: Proposal to change comprehensive plan designation and zoning district from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Parks and Open Space (P/OS). Withdrawn by the City - not included in Environmental Review 3. PERSON COMPLETING CHECKLIST: Karen Kendall, Planner; City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 4. APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 5. OWNER: CPA -2018-0005: Five Fifty, LLC CPA -2018-0006: MPR Spokane LLC 6. LOCATION: CPA -2018-0005: Parcels 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354.9127. Located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA -2018-0006: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 4 REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS OF SECTION 14 OF PART A (BACKGROUND) FOR CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA (CARA) / AQUIFER SENSITIVE AREA (ASA) The entire City of Spokane Valley lies in the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA). The proposed site- specific ite- specifc comprehensive plan map amendment will not lead to any impacts to the aquifer. No concerns noted. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH The topography at each of the sites has its own unique characteristics ranging from rolling to steep slopes. All future development proposals will be reviewed for consistency with the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Regional Stormwater Manual and any relevant critical areas regulations. No concerns noted. 2. AIR This is a non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and consistent with Spokane Regional Clean Air Authority requirements to minimize air impacts. No concerns noted. 3. WATER Surface The SEPA Checklist states CPA -2018-0005 has a Type F stream located in the northwest portion of the site. Additionally, CPA -2018-0005 is located within a 100 -year floodplain pursuant to Panel No. 53063C0579D of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) [Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 6, 2010). CPA -2018-0006 is not located near a surface water nor located in a 100 -year floodplain. All conditions currently exist on the site. The designations proposed to be expanded to eliminate the bisected zoning will not create additional impacts. No concerns noted. Ground The non -project action has no impact on ground water; future development consistent with the zoning will adhere to regulations. No concerns noted. Water Runoff No future impacts are anticipated as a result of this non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Regional Stormwater Manual. No concerns noted. 4. PLANTS The non -project map amendment will have no effect on existing plants. Any impacts associated with future development proposals will be reviewed to identify site conditions and appropriately mitigated. No concerns noted. No concerns noted. 5. ANIMALS The non -project map amendment will have no effect on existing fish and wildlife conditions. Future development will be reviewed for potential impacts on wildlife habitat and mitigated as necessary. No concerns noted. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES Staff notes the proposal is a non -project map amendment and utility approvals will be required at the time of building permit review. No concerns noted. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 2 of 4 7A. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS The proposal is a non -project map amendment. No health hazards are anticipated as a result of the land use designation amendment or with future development. No concerns noted. 7B. NOISE The Checklist states this is a non -project map amendment. No concerns noted. 8. SHORELINE AND LAND USES CPA -2018-0005 is vacant property. It is surrounding by vacant land and single family residences. CPA -2018-0006 has a newly developed building for office and warehousing use. Similar uses exist to the west. Single family residences are located to the north and east. Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway is located to the south. Future development will adhere to applicable zoning regulations ensuring compatibility with the existing land use. No concerns noted 9. HOUSING This is a non -project map amendment. No concerns noted. 10. AESTHETICS This is a non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. No concerns noted. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE This is a non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. No concerns noted. 12. RECREATION The slight adjustment to the land use designation is not expected to have any impacts on existing recreational facilities or future needs.. No concerns noted. 13. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION The SEPA Checklist states that it is unknown at this time. No historic or cultural sites are known to be in the vicinity of the subject areas. No concerns noted. 14. TRANSPORTATION This is a non -project map amendment. CPA -2018-0005 is adjacent to Progress Road, CPA -2018-0006 is adjacent to Trent Avenue. No concerns noted. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES Spokane County Fire District No. 1 is the fire protection service provider for the City of Spokane Valley, and the police service provider is the City of Spokane Valley. The Spokane Transit Authority (STA) provides public transit service within the City of Spokane Valley. All properties included in the city initiated map amendment are located within the boundaries of the East Valley School District 4361. Adequate services are available to all sites. No concerns noted. 16. UTILITIES City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 3 of 4 The subject's property is located within the service boundaries of Spokane County Environmental Services and Trent Wood Irrigation District. Other utilities such as electricity, telephone and garbage are to be provided by franchise utility providers in conformance with applicable City standards and requirements. No concerns noted. REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS The non -project review is a tool to help the lead agency evaluate the environmental consequences of a non -project proposal and to provide information to decision -makers and the public. After reviewing the supplemental sheet for non -project actions, the City has determined the proposed amendment is not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. There are no significant changes in land use, density, or the built environment anticipated as a direct result of the adoption of the comprehensive plan amendments. If adopted, the comprehensive plan amendments will mitigate adverse impacts on the environment on a project -specific basis. Furthermore, proposed projects resulting from these amendments must comply with all applicable regulations. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 7 .00Valley® COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 10210 East Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5000 • Fax: 509.720.5075 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Date of Notice: February 7, 2018 Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.120, Notice of Public Hearing, the Planning Division is sending notice to all property owners withm 800 feet of the subject property. Public Hearing Date and Time: February 22, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Hearing Location: Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, City Hall Project Number: CPA -2018-0005 Application Description: This is a non -project action associated with the City's annual comprehensive plan amendment (CPA) cycle. This City initiated non - project action is due to the City inadvertently bisecting the parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 major update and the CPA action will correct the error. The proposal is to expand the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of the parcels currently designated as Single Family Residential (SFR) and zoned Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Location: Parcels 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354.9127. Located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Applicant(s): City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Owner(s): Five Fifty, LLC Tupper Inc Staff Contact: Karen Kendall, Planner (509) 7205026 kkendall(a7spokanevalley.org Hearing Procedures: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to the Planning Commission rules of procedure. Interested persons may testify at the public hearing and may submit written comments and documents before or at the hearing. The Planning Commission may limit the time given to speakers. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. 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) 720-5000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days before the hearing at the Community & Public Works Department, located at the Spokane Valley City Hall 10210 East Sprague Avenue, between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday -Friday, excluding holidays. Send written comments to the Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department. Comprehensive Plan Map ij z E E' er eft ,Hv E Crown Ave SFR etClu e[.'fli1oti ., a Spokane Valley CPA -2018-0005 Request: Owner: Five Fifty, LLC & Tupper Inc City initiated proposal to expand Parcel #: 46352.9052, 2.9014, 1.9049, Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 1.9005, 4.9127 designation and zoning to Address: Unknown eliminate split zoning of parcel EXHIBIT 8 Karen Kendall From: Chad Riggs Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 7:33 AM To: Karen Kendall • Subject: RE: Request for Comments - CPA -2018-0005 to 0008 Karen, DE does not have any comments for the CPA -2018-0005 to 0008 SEPA. Please check with Ray to verify he is ok with traffic review to be completed at time of development. Thank you, Chad Riggs, P.E. I Senior Engineer 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5033 1 criggs(a}.spokanevalley.org This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Karen Kendall Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 5:04 PM To: 'Avista Dave Byus' <dave.byus@avistacorp.com>; 'Central Valley School District #356' <jrowell@cvsd.org>; 'CenturyLink' <Karen.Stoddard@centurylink.com>; 'Chris Johnston' <crjohnston@spokanesheriff.org>;'Chris Knudson' <CKnudson@spokanecounty.org>; 'Cindy Anderson (cyan461@ecy.wa.gov)' <cyan461@ecy.wa.gov>; 'City of Liberty Lake' <atainio@libertylakewa.gov>; 'City of Spokane Tirrell Black' <tblack@spokanecity.org>;'Colin Depner' <CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org>; 'Comcast'<bryan_richardson@cable.comcast.com>;'Consolidated Irrigation District #19' <consolidatedirrigation@comcast.net>; Doug Powell <dpowell@spokanevalley.org>; 'East Spokane Water District #1' <distl@comcast.net>; 'East Valley School District #361' <smithLO@evsd.org>; 'Environmental Services Judy Green' <jagreen@spokanecounty.org>; 'Inland Power & Light' <connien@inlandpower.com>; 'Jacob McCann (Jmca461@ecy.wa.gov)' <imca461@ecy.wa.gov>; Mary Moore<mmoore@spokanevalley.org>;'Mike Makela' <MakelaM@spokanevalleyfire.com>; Mike Stone <mstone@spokanevalley.org>; 'Model Irrigation District #18' <jim@modirr.org>;'Modern Electric Water Company' <modern@mewco.com>; 'Patnode, Brian (PARKS)' <Brian.Patnode@PARKS.WA.GOV>; 'Randy Myhre' <Randy.myhre@avistacorp.com>; 'Spokane Aquifer Joint Board' <info@spokaneaquifer.org>;'Spokane County Fire District #8' <bwalkup@scfd8.org>; 'Spokane County Planning & Building'<jpederson@spokanecounty.org>;'Spokane County Utilities' <jred@spokanecounty.org>; 'Spokane County Water District #3' <scwd3@comcast.net>; 'Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency' <awestby@spokanedeanair.org>; 'Spokane Regional Health District' <psavage@srhd.org>; 'Spokane Regional Transportation Council' <rstewart@SRTC.org>; 'Spokane Transit Authority' <kotterstrom@spokanetransit.com>; 'Spokane Tribe of Indians' <randya@spokanetribe.com>;'Tom Richardson City of Millwood' <tom.richardson@millwoodwa.us>;'Traci Harvey, Spokane Valley Fire Dept No. 1' <HarveyT@spokanevalleyfire.com>; 'Vera Water & Power' <kwells@verawaterandpower.com>; 'WA Commerce' <reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov>; 'WA Dept of Arch and Hist Preservation <Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov>;'WA Ecology, Olympia' <sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov>; 'WA Fish & Wildlife' <SEPAdesk@dfw.wa.gov>; 'WA Natural Resources' <northeast.region@dnr.wa.gov>; 'WA Parks' <Chris.guidotti@parks.wa.gov>; 'WA Transportation' <FiggG@wsdot.wa.gov>; 'West Valley School District #363' <brian.liberg@wvsd.org>; Ray Wright<rwright@spokanevalley.org>;'planning@miliwoodwa.us' 1 <planning@millwoodwa.us>; Chad Riggs <criggs@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Lori Barlow <Ibarlow@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Request for Comments - CPA -2018-0005 to 0008 All, .Please review the attached Environmental Checklist and associated materials for the following_ project: Project Name: City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment File #: CPA -2018-0005 Parcels: 46351.9049; 46351.9005 and 46352.9027 Project Name: City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment File #: CPA -2018-0006 Parcel: 45015.1409 Project Name: City initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment File #: CPA -2018-0007 Parcels: 35233.9191; 35233.9192; 35233.9176; 35233.0513; 35233.0709; 35233.0710; 35233.0604; 35233.0605; 35233.0606; 35233.0607; 35233.0608; 35233.0609 and 35233.0505 Please submit written comments to me via email, or mail, by January 19, 2018 @ 5:00 p.m.. My contact information is listed below and noted on the attached documents. Thank you. Karen Kendall I Planner 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5026 1 kkendall@spokanevalley.org Spam' e Valls This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. 2 Karen Kendall From: Ray Wright Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 2:34 PM To: Karen Kendall Subject: CPA -2018-0005 & 0006 Karen: Traffic has reviewed CPA -2018-0005 and 0006 and determined that no traffic analysis is required for these proposed changes. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Ray Wright, PE Senior Engineer, Traffic 4.0001;Mlley. 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 rwright@spokanevallev. orq (509) 720-5019 1 Karen Kendall From: Red, Jim <JRed@spokanecounty.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 12:58 PM To: Karen Kendall Subject: Project: CPA -2018-0005 Attachments: r_PA_Comments.rtf 1 To: Karen Kendall (City of Spokane Valley - Community Development) CC: From: Jim Red (Spokane County - Environmental Services Dept) Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 Planning/Building #: Subject: CPA -2018-0005 Stage: Comprehensive Phase: Expand NC desigl Elimate split parcel Address: AO01 Parcels are curently vacant. Sewer requrirements will be addressed as the property is developed. ATTACHMENT 6 �Okan!` s �%1�� COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO '1111, PLANNING COMMISSION CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 15, 2018 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 22, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. Project Number: CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 Application Description: Non -project action to correct a map error on the Land Use Designation Map due to the City inadvertently bisecting the parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. CPA -2018-0005 CPA -2018-0006 Expand NC designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR), and the associated zoning of NC and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of IMU and Single Family Residential (SFR, and the associated zoning of IMU and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Location: Parcels 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354.9127; located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Owner: Five Fifty, LLC MPR Spokane LLC Applicant: City of Spokane Valley Staff Contact: Karen Kendall, Planner APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) General Provisions, Title 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls. ATTA CPA -2018-0005 CPA -2018-0006 Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Comprehensive Plan Map Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 3: Zoning Map Zoning Map Exhibit 4: Aerial Map Aerial Map Exhibit 5: Environmental Checklist Environmental Checklist Exhibit 6: DNS Determination DNS Determination Exhibit 7: Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 8: Agency Comments Agency Comments Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 A. BACKGROUNDINFORMATION The site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment is a City initiated request to correct a mapping error. The following amendments are bisected with two different land use designations and zoning: 1. CPA -2018-0005: Parcels are currently designated Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR). 2. CPA -2018-0006: Parcel is currently designated Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Single Family Residential (SFR). PROPERTY INFORMATION: 1. V ___v V A CPA -2018-0005 CPA -2018-0006 Size and Characteristics: The area is approximately 10 acres in size. The site has had earth disturbance over the years. Located in the NW corner of parcel 46351.9049 is a Type F stream. Currently, the entire area is located in a 100 -year floodplain. However, FEMA is reviewing a CLOMR application to modify the boundaries. Approval of the CLOMR is anticipated in the near future, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has an overhead powerline and easement of 500 feet running through the subject area. The site is 0.83 of an acre is size. The site is fully developed with structures, pavement, stormwater facilities and landscaping. Comprehensive Plan: SFR and NC SFR and IMO Zoning: Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3) and NC Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3) and IMU Existing Land Use: Vacant Office/warehouse building V ___v V A CPA -2018-0005: CPA -2018-0006: North Spokane County C: Rural Conservation Z: Rural Conservation (RCV) LU: Single family residences C: SFR Z: R-3 LU: Single family residences South C: SFR Z: R-3 LU: Single family residences C:Industrial (1) Z: Industrial(I) LU: Offices and warehouses East Spokane County C: Rural Conservation & Urban Reserve Z: Rural Conservation (RCV) & Urban Reserve (UR) LU: Single family residences and vacant land C: SFR Z: R-3 LU: Single family residences Page 2 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 West C: SFR Z: R-3 LU: Single family residences C: IMU Z: IMU LU: Offices and warehouses 2. APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Pre -Application Meeting: N/A Application Submitted: N/A Date of Complete Determination: N/A SEPA Determination of Non -Significance Issue date February 2, 2018 End of Comment and Appeal Period for DNS: Not Appealed February 16, 2018 Date of Posted Notice of Public Hearing February 7, 2018 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: February 2, 2018 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: February 7, 2017 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) SVMC, the lead agency has determined that neither proposal has a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required for either proposal under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Building and Planning Division issued a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) for each proposal on February 2, 2018. The determinations were made after review of a completed environmental checklist for each proposal, Titles 19, 21, and 22 SVMC, a site assessment for each proposal, public and agency comments, and other information on file for each proposal with the lead agency. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled for each proposal. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The affected parcels are inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two different sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The affected parcel is inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two different sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. Page 3 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 (2) 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; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The proposed amendment corrects a mapping error and allows for development consistent with adjacent zoned parcels. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update considered the Goals and Policies of GMA and ensured that the Comprehensive Plan was consistent throughout. Correcting the map designation error has no effect on the other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The proposed amendment corrects a mapping error and allows for development consistent with adjacent zoned parcels. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update considered the Goals and Policies of GMA and ensured that the Comprehensive Plan was consistent throughout. Correcting the map designation error has no effect on the other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. (3) 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; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, properties designated NC were expanded and designated on portions of parcels associated with CPA -2018-0005. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, the land use designation JMUwas created and applied to parcel associated with CPA -2018-0006 to capture the existing diverse uses and focus future infill development along Trent Avenue. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created parcels to be burdened by two different sets of development regulations. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created parcels to be burdened by two different sets of development regulations. (5) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 4 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: There are no known physical characteristics that would create d faculties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. (2) The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: There are designated critical areas such as a Type F stream on the northwest corner of parcel 46351.9049. Parcels are located within a 100 year floodplain. FEMA is currently reviewing a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) application which will modify the boundaries and remove the floodplain from the majority of the site. The parcels are not located within shoreline jurisdiction, nor are there known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas associated with CPA -2018-0006. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, nor are there known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The existing land use designation of NC for the proposed amendment was evaluated and incorporated to the City's Comprehensive Plan through the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The City initiated amendment corrects minor mapping errors to eliminate split zoned parcels. The corrections are both minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA - 2018 -0005 parcels are vacant and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses. Analysis CPA -2018.0006: The existing land use designations oflMUfor the proposed amendments were evaluated and incorporated to the City's Comprehensive Plan through the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The City initiated amendment corrects a minor mapping error to eliminate a split zoned parcel. The correction is both minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA - 2018 -0006 parcel is fully developed and a swale is constructed within the split zoned portion of land designated SFR. Page 5 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. (5) Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. Currently the site is served with all utilities and public streets. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. As discussed in the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan the neighborhood - scale commercial development is limited in Spokane Valley. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan update designated a portion of parcels NC associated with CTA -2018-0005. Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. Residential uses allowed in the .IMU designation are incidental and subservient to any commercial or industrial uses. (7) The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment have an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. Page 6 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 Analysis CPA -2018-0006: The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment have an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis CPA -2018-0005: The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is correcting a mapping error. Analysis CPA -2018.0006: The insignfcant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is correcting a mapping error. Conclusion(s): For the reasons outlined above the proposed amendment is consistent with SVMC 17.80.140(H). 2. Compliance with Title 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations a. Findings: Either proposal corrects a land use designation mapping error. While portions of the properties described below will receive a new zoning district as the current zoning extends to the property boundaries, this is not a site specific rezone, and therefore the criteria associated with SVMC 19.30.030(B) is not applicable. Comp Plan amendments and area -wide rezones are processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140, 19.30.010 and 19.30.020. CPA -2018-0005: Change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) zoning classification to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning classification. CPA -2018-0006: Change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) zoning classification to Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation with an Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) zoning classification. b. Conclusion(s): Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a), proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan will be processed only once a year except for the adoption of original subarea plans, amendments to the Shoreline Master Program, 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. Pursuant to SVMC 19.30.010(B) and 17.80.140(H), Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria, annual amendments may be completed to correct a mapping error. The proposed amendment is consistent with Title 19 SVMC and state law regarding Comprehensive Plan amendments. See Section C(1) above. 3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings: CPA -2018-0005: 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. The amendment to correct a mapping error is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Page 7 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 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. L U -P1 Enable neighborhood -scale commercial uses in residential areas. L U -P5 Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. L U -P13 Work collaboratively with landowners and developers that seek to provide mixed-use residential projects. CPA -2018-0006: Industrial Mixed -Use (IMU) allows for light manufacturing, retail, offices, and lighter industrial types of uses such as contractor yards. The amendment to correct a mapping error is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. 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 -P5 Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. LU -P13 Work collaboratively with landowners and developers that seek to provide mixed-use residential projects. b. Conclusion(s): CPA -2018-0005: The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan. CPA -2018-0006: The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan. 4. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: CPA -2018-0005: The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The minor adjustment to land use designation amounts to correct the mapping error will have no impact on services or providers. Capital facilities and utilities were considered in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update and found to be adequate. CPA -2018-0006: The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The minor adjustment to land use designation amounts to correct the mapping error will have no impact on services or providers. Capital facilities and utilities were considered in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update and found to be adequate. b. Conclusion(s): CPA -2018-0005: The proposed amendment to correct a mapping error will have no impact on public facilities; Sites will have adequate urban services at the time of development. CPA -2018-0006: The proposed amendment to correct a mapping error will have no impact on public facilities; Sites will have adequate urban services at the time of development. Page 8 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any public comments to date for either proposal. This will be updated once the comment period has expired. 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns for either proposal are noted at this time. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has received the following agency comments to date for both CPA -2018-0005 and CPA -2018- 0006. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated Avista No Central Valley School District #356 No CenturyLink No Spokane Valley Police Department No Washington State Department of Ecology No City of Liberty Lake No City of Spokane No City of Spokane Valley Building Division No City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering Yes 1-8-18 City of Spokane Valley Parks Depaitinent No City of Spokane Valley Traffic Yes 1-22-18 City of Millwood No Comcast No Consolidated Irrigation District #19 No East Spokane Water District #1 No East Valley School District #361 No Inland Power & Light No Model Irrigation District #18 No Modern Electric Water Company No Washington State Parks Department No Spokane Aquifer Joint Board No Spokane County Fire District #8 No Spokane County Planning & Building No Spokane County Environmental Services Yes 1-16-18 Spokane County Water District #3 No Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency No Spokane Regional Health District No Spokane Regional Transportation Connell No Spokane Transit Authority No Spokane Tribe of Indians No Spokane Valley Fire Department #1 No Trentwood Irrigation District No Vera Water & Power No Washington State Department of Commerce No Page 9 of 10 Staff Report CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 Washington State Department of Arch and Historic Preservation No Washington State Fish & Wildlife No Washington State Natural Resources No Washington State Transportation No 'West Valley School District #363 No 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted for either proposal. All comments are reflective of at the time of future development. F. Conclusion: CPA -2018-0005: For the reasons set forth in Section C (1 and 2) the request to expand the NC designation and zoning to eliminate the split designation of NC and SFR, and the associated zoning of NC and R-3 is consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(H) and the Comprehensive Plan. CPA -2018-0006: For the reasons set forth in Section C (1 and 2) the request to expand the IMU designation and zoning to eliminate the split designation of IMU and SFR, and the associated zoning of IMU and R-3 is consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(11) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT 1 V IV 1111icyiV1U•kf V1 i ha 1 V—VVVV IE Wabasb.Ct E Broad p Ave i Trentwood Elementary IHeroy L East Valley Senior E East r High Valleys b School 0 0 Wellesley Ave 4 1. .....111 Ki ii i■ i 111 Heroy Min E.lteroy_ i� i Aye MMI ii fella;"" Long. if�111k6 Ave iIa a ■ 1w►t 111i�� F 1iI n EXHIBIT 2 Comprehensive Plan Map Spokane —.0 Valley CPA -2018-0006 Owner: MPR Spokane, LLC Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Rpt' City initiated proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel EXHIBIT 3 Zoning Map 45015 T 1409 RENT 11 Study Area Spolkane .. Valley CPA -2018-0006 Owner: MPR Spokane, LLG Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: City initiated proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel EXHIBIT 4 *Mune Valley CPA -2018-0006 Owner: MPR Spokane, LLC Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map Request: City initiated proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel EXHIBIT 5 spci d ;x Kane SEPA CHECKLIST 1 SVMC 21.20 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-5075 ♦ permitcenter(rrispokanevalley.org STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: 12-18-17 Received by: Fee: NIA PLUS #: File #: CPA -2018-0005: CPA -2018-0006 & CPA -2018-0007 PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED`*` ❑ Completed SEPA Checklist ❑ Application Fee ❑ Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 8'/2" by 11" or 11" by 17" size ❑ Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST; The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. ,INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations, Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS; Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). PL -22 V1.0 Page 1 of Spokane 401,01rValley. SEPA CHECKLIST For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable City -initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA) 2. Name of applicant: City of Spokane Valley 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Karen Kendall, Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 4. Date checklist prepared: December 28, 2017 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Anticipated adoption in May/June of 2018. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? No. If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Environmental Impact Statement was completed as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? No. If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Spokane Valley Council approval. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) These are non -project actions associated with the City's annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle. The City is initiating three comprehensive plan amendments.. Two of the non -project actions are due to the City inadvertently bisecting the parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 major update and the CPA action will correct the error. CPA -2018-0005: Proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. CPA -2018-0006: Proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. CPA -2018-0007: Proposal to change comprehensive plan designation and zoning district PL -22 V1.0 Page 2 of Spokane ..ley, from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Parks and Open Space (P/OS). The Spokane Conservation District recently purchased the property and intends to keep it as natural area, with the exception of their offices. The proposal brings the designation in line with the Conservation District's intentions to conserve the land for public use as open space. SEPA CHECKLIST 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. CPA -2018-0005: 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354.9127 (Parcel numbers were updated). Located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA -2018-0006: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; Located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA -2018-0007: 35233.9191; 35233.9192; 35233.9176; 35233.0513; 35233.0709; 35233.0710; 35233.0604; 35233.0605; 35233.0606; 35233.0607; 35233.0608; 35233.0609 and 35233.0505; addressed as 4418 East 8" Avenue; located at the SE corner of 8' Avenue and Havana Street; further located in the north half of the SW quarter of Section 23, Township 25, Range 43, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? Yes. The general Sewer Service Area? Yes. Priority Sewer Service Area? Yes. (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). Not applicable. 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? Not applicable. PL -22 V1,0 Page 3 of Spokane �,.�Va11ey• SEPA CHECKLIST 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. Not applicable. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? Not applicable. b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? Not applicable. a. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential im after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 2. pacts. Not applicable. B. ENVIRONMENTALELEMENTS 2) Earth a. General description of the site (check one):❑ flat, I 1 rolling, ❑ hilly, ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other Each amendment site has its own unique characteristics ranging from rolling to steep slopes. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Unknown. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Not applicable. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? Not applicable. If so, describe. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. Not applicable. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not PL -22 V1.o applicable. Page 4 of Spokane ���a11ey� PL -22 V1.0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY SEPA CIIECKLIST Page 5 of Spokane 40,00Valley` h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: At the time of future development, all grading activities will be reviewed per the City of Spokane Valley's Street Standards (SVSS). 3) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that mayaffect your proposal? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. 4) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is a Type F stream located northwest of the proposed amendment CPA -2018- 0005. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not applicable. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Not applicable. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 6 of Spokane SEPA CHECKLIST Standards 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location (SVSS). on the site plan. 6) Yes, CPA -2018-0005. The property is within a 100 -year floodplain pursuant to Community Panel No. 53063C0579D of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) [Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 6, 2010]. Yes, CPA -2018-0007. The property is within a 100 -year floodplain pursuant to Community Panel No. 53063C0563D and 53063C0564D of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) [Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 6, 2010]. 7) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? Not applicable. If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Not applicable. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known, 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not applicable. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Not applicable. Will this water flow into other waters? Not applicable. If so, describe. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: At the time of future development, all grading activities will be reviewed per the City of Spokane Valley's Street PL -22 V1.0 Page 7 of Spokane .0100Valley. EVALUATION FOR 5) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ❑ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ❑ shrubs ❑ grass • pasture — crop or grain - wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ❑ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not applicable. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not applicable. 6) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: ❑ birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Hmammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. c. Is the site part of a migration route? Not applicable. If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable. SD1ARPFIEWPii� F EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 8 of pakane valley. 6). Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Not applicable. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? Not applicable. List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not applicable. 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? Not applicable. If so, describe 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Not applicable. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Not applicable. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 9 of 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? CPA -2018-0005 is vacant property. It is surrounding by vacant land and single family residences. CPA -2018-0006 has a newly developed building for office and warehousing use. Similar uses exist to the west. Single family residences are located to the north and east. Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway is located to the south. CPA -2018-0007: The property has an office building and several warehouse buildings with the majority of the area vacant. The site is owned by the Spokane Conservation District and currently not occupied. Surrounding properties consist of a mix of single family and multifamily uses. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? Unknown. If so, describe c. Describe any structures on the site. CPA -2018-0005: None. CPA -2018-0006: 9,375 square foot commercial structure built for office and warehouse use. CPA -2018-0007: Approximately 7,000 square feet of commercial buildings built in 2003 according to the Spokane County Assessor's Office parcel data. d. Will any structures be demolished? Unknown. If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? CPA -2018-0005: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) CPA -2018-0006: Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) CPA -2018-0007: Multifamily Residential (MFR) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? CPA -2018-0005: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR) CPA -2018-0006: Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Single Family Residential (SFR) CPA -2018-0007: Multifamily Residential (MFR) SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? None of the proposals are located within the shoreline designation. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. CPA -2018-0007 is located within a 100 year Floodplain. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and pians, if any: Not applicable. 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Not applicable. Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not applicable. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not applicable. SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY PL -22 V1.0 Page 10 of 14 S bkane ..0. Va11ey 11). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. c, What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are no designated or informal recreational opportunities in the immediate vicinity of each amendment. CPA -2018- 0007 will designate additional parks and open space for recreation uses. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? No If so, describe. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? None known. If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. CPA -2018-0005: Is located adjacent to Progress Road. CPA -2018-0006: Is located adjacent to Trent Avenue (SR -290). CPA -2018-0007: Is located adjacent to 8x" Avenue. PL22V1.0 SEPA CIECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 11 of 15 Spokane b. Is site currently served by public transit? Yes. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. d, Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? Not applicable. If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? Not applicable. If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: At the time of future development transportation will be reviewed per the City of Spokane Valley's Street Standards (SVSS). 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? The CPA is a non -project action. There are services in the vicinity and anticipated to be available at the time of development. If so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable. 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: nn electricity, natural gas, water, n refuse service, ® telephon'D sanitary wer, ❑ septic stem, ❑' dither - describe . b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Not applicable. PL -22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 12 of 15 Spokane .'cele. SEPA CHECKLIST C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make Its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for proiect actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? It is anticipated as the sites develop impacts will be mitigated through the City's regulations and outside entities with jurisdiction. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: To be determined at time of development. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marinelife? It is not anticipated any site development will affect vegetation or habitats of any kind. Specifically CPA -2018-0008 intent for a zoning designation of parks and open space AP/OS) is to preserve and protect vegetation and animal habitats. b. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: To be determined at time of development. 2. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? It is not anticipated development of any kind would be likely to deplete energy or natural resources. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourcesare: To be determined at time of development. 3. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? It is not anticipated development would affect environmental sensitive areas, however protect and follow established critical area regulations within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. PL -22 V1.0 Page 13 of 15 S�" okay P 'galley. rie a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: To be determined at time of development. SEPA CHECKLIST 4. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? It is not anticipated development would affect land and shoreline uses, however protect and follow established regulations within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: To be determined at time of development. 5. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? It Is not anticipated development would increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities. Any impacts will be reviewed and mitigated at the time of development based upon the regulations within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: To be determined at time of development. 6. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. It is not anticipated the proposal will conflict with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. E. SIGNATURE 1, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: \'l -� 1 Signature: Please print or type: Proponent: Karen Kendall, Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department Address: 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5026 Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL -22 V1.o Page 14 of 15 EXHIBIT I��IW�I�I III 411 VIVI � W ul�� IIII I WPI 11 I uluVlul '���mul Vlli a Iilml I�u01�ulu 911 I16uumuw rI( FILE NUMBER: CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: City initiated non -project actions associated with the City's annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle. The City inadvertently bisected various parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 major update; the CPA action will correct the error as follows: 1. CPA -2018-0005: Proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel and 2. CPA -2018-0006: Proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. PERSON COMPLETING CHECKLIST: Karen Kendall, Planner; City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PROPOSAL LOCATION: 1 CPA -2018-0005: Parcels 463529052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354.9127. Located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington 2. CPA -2018-0006: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the SVMC, the lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. DETERMINATION: This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date issued. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department; 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509) 720-5026/FX (509) 720-5075, kkendall@spokanevallev.org RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner, City of Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department; 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509) 720- 5335/FX (509) 720-5075, Lbarlow0,,spokanevallev.org City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) File No. CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 2 DATE ISSUED: February 2, 2018 SIGNATURE: APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community & Public Works Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be 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 Appeals, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Schedule shall be paid at the time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination_ City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) File No. CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 2 of 2 crtr /� Spokane lley COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Building and Planning Division 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720,5000 ♦ Fax: 509320,5075 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org LEAD AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW DATE: February 2, 2018 A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT NUMBER: CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 (CPA -2018-0007 — withdrawn) 2. DESCRIPTION: Non -project actions associated with the City's annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle. The City initiated three comprehensive plan amendments. Two of the non -project actions are due to the City inadvertently bisecting the parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 major update and the CPA action will correct the error. The remaining amendment was to designate Conservation District Owned properties as parks and open space. (See below): CPA -2018-0005: Proposal to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel; and CPA -2018-0006: Proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel. CPA -2018-0007: Proposal to change comprehensive plan designation and zoning district from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Parks and Open Space (P/OS). Withdrawn by the City - not included in Environmental Review 3. PERSON COMPLETING CHECKLIST: Karen Kendall, Planner; City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 4. APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 5. OWNER: CPA -2018-0005: Five Fifty, LLC CPA -2018-000G: MPR Spokane LLC 6. LOCATION: CPA -2018-0005: Parcels 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, 46354.9127. Located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA -2018-0006: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 4 REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS OF SECTION 14 OF PART A (BACKGROUND) FOR CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA (CARA) / AQUIFER SENSITIVE AREA (ASA) The entire City of Spokane Valley lies in the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA). The proposed site- specific comprehensive plan map amendment will not lead to any impacts to the aquifer. No concerns noted. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH The topography at each of the sites has its own unique characteristics ranging from rolling to steep slopes. All future development proposals will be reviewed for consistency with the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Regional Stormwater Manual and any relevant critical areas regulations. No concerns noted. 2. AIR This is a non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and consistent with Spokane Regional Clean Air Authority requirements to minimize air impacts. No concerns noted. 3. WATER Surface The SETA Checklist states CPA -2018-0005 has a Type F stream located in the northwest portion of the site. Additionally, CPA -2018-0005 is located within a 100 -year floodplain pursuant to Panel No. 53063C0579D of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) [Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 6, 2010). CPA -2018-0006 is not located near a surface water nor located in a 100 -year floodplain. All conditions currently exist on the site. The designations proposed to be expanded to eliminate the bisected zoning will not create additional impacts. No concerns noted. Ground The non -project action has no impact on ground water; future development consistent with the zoning will adhere to regulations. No concerns noted. Water Runoff No future impacts are anticipated as a result of this non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Regional Stormwater Manual. No concerns noted. 4. PLANTS The non -project map amendment will have no effect on existing plants. Any impacts associated with future development proposals will be reviewed to identify site conditions and appropriately mitigated. No concerns noted. No concerns noted. 5. ANIMALS The non -project map amendment will have no effect on existing fish and wildlife conditions. Future development will be reviewed for potential impacts on wildlife habitat and mitigated as necessary. No concerns noted. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES Staff notes the proposal is a non -project map amendment and utility approvals will be required at the time of building permit review. No concerns noted. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 2 of 4 7A. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS The proposal is a non -project map amendment. No health hazards are anticipated as a result of the land use designation amendment or with future development. No concerns noted. 7B. NOISE The Checklist states this is a non -project map amendment. No concerns noted. 8. SHORELINE AND LAND USES CPA -2018-0005 is vacant property. It is surrounding by vacant land and single family residences. CPA -2018-0006 has a newly developed building for office and warehousing use. Similar uses exist to the west. Single family residences are located to the north and east. Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway is located to the south. Future development will adhere to applicable zoning regulations ensuring compatibility with the existing land use. No concerns noted 9. HOUSING This is a non -project map amendment. No concerns noted. 10. AESTHETICS This is a non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. No concerns noted. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE This is a non -project map amendment. All future development will be constructed to standards established in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. No concerns noted. 12. RECREATION The slight adjustment to the land use designation is not expected to have any impacts on existing recreational facilities or future needs.. No concerns noted. 13. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION The SEPA Checklist states that it is unknown at this time. No historic or cultural sites are known to be in the vicinity of the subject areas. No concerns noted. 14. TRANSPORTATION This is a non -project map amendment. CPA -2018-0005 is adjacent to Progress Road, CPA -2018-0006 is adjacent to Trent Avenue. No concerns noted. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES Spokane County Fire District No. 1 is the fire protection service provider for the City of Spokane Valley, and the police service provider is the City of Spokane Valley. The Spokane Transit Authority (STA) provides public transit service within the City of Spokane Valley. All properties included in the city initiated map amendment are located within the boundaries of the East Valley School District #361. Adequate services are available to all sites. No concerns noted. 16. UTILITIES City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 3 of 4 The subject's property is located within the service boundaries of Spokane County Environmental Services and Trent Wood Irrigation District. Other utilities such as electricity, telephone and garbage are to be provided by franchise utility providers in conformance with applicable City standards and requirements. No concerns noted. REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT ACTIONS The non -project review is a tool to help the lead agency evaluate the environmental consequences of a non -project proposal and to provide information to decision -makers and the public. After reviewing the supplemental sheet for non -project actions, the City has determined the proposed amendment is not Likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. There are no significant changes in land use, density, or the built environment anticipated as a direct result of the adoption of the comprehensive plan amendrnents. If adopted, the comprehensive plan amendments will mitigate adverse impacts on the environment on a project -specific basis. Furthermore, proposed projects resulting from these amendments must comply with all applicable regulations. City of Spokane Valley Determination ofNon-Significance (DNS) CPA -2018-0005 & CPA -2018-0006 February 2, 2018 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 7 00°°\.. Si%lime Hey - COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 10210 East Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5000 • Fax: 509.720.5075 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Date of Notice: February 7, 2018 Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.120, Notice of Public Hearing, the Planning Division is sending notice to all property owners within 800 feet of the subject property. Public Dearing Date and Time: February 22, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Hearing Location: Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, City Hall Project Number: CPA -2018-0006 Application Description: This is a non -project action associated with the City's annual comprehensive plan amendment (CPA) cycle. This City initiated non - project action is due to the City inadvertently bisecting the parcels with land use designations/zoning during the 2016 major update, and the CPA action will correct the error. The proposal is to expand the Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of the parcel currently designated as Single Family Residential (SFR) and zoned Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Location: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Applicant(s): City of Spokane Valley; 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Owner(s): MPR Spokane LLC Staff Contact: Karen Kendall, Planner (509) 720-5026 kkendall�}a,spokanevallev.org Hearing Procedures: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to the Planning Commission rules of procedure. Interested persons may testify at the public hearing and may submit written comments and documents before or at the hearing. The Planning Commission may limit the time given to speakers. The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. 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) 720-5000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days before the hearing at the Community & Public Works Department, located at the Spokane Valley City Hall 10210 East Sprague Avenue, between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday -Friday, excluding holidays. Send written comments to the Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department. Comprehensive Plan. Map alow".%� Sioliane 40000 Valle Y CPA -2018-0006 Recluest: Owner: MPR Spokane, LLC Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map City initiated proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMO designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel EXHIBIT 8 Karen Kendall From: Chad Riggs Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 7:33 AM To: Karen Kendall Subject: RE: Request for Comments - CPA -2018-0005 to 0008 Karen, DE does not have any comments for the CPA -2018-0005 to 0008 SEPA. Please check with Ray to verify he is ok with traffic review to be completed at time of development. Thank you, Chad Riggs, P.E. Senior Engineer 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5033 1 criggs(a,spokanevalley.org KW Valley - 4,0,00 This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Karen Kendall Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 5:04 PM To: 'Avista Dave Byus' <dave.byus@avistacorp.com>; 'Central Valley School District #356' <jrowell@cvsd.org>; 'CenturyLink'<Karen.Stoddard@centurylink.com>; 'Chris Johnston' <crjohnston@spokanesheriff.org>; 'Chris Knudson' <CKnudson@spokanecounty.org>; 'Cindy Anderson (cyan461@ecy.wa.gov)' <cyan461@ecy.wa.gov>; 'City of Liberty Lake' <atainio@libertylakewa.gov>; 'City of Spokane Tirrell Black' <tblack@spokanecity.org>; 'Colin Depner' <CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org>; 'Comcast` <bryan_richardson@cable.comcast.com>; 'Consolidated Irrigation District #19' <consolidatedirrigation@comcast.net>; Doug Powell <dpowell@spokanevalley.org>; 'East Spokane Water District #1' <distl@comcast.net>; 'East Valley School District #361' <smithLO@evsd.org>; 'Environmental Services Judy Green' <jagreen@spokanecounty.org>;'Inland Power & Light'<connien@inlandpower.com>;'Jacob McCann (Jmca461@ecy.wa.gov)' <Jmca461@ecy.wa.gov>; Mary Moore <mmoore@spokanevalley.org>; 'Mike Makela' <MakelaM@spokanevalleyfire.com>; Mike Stone <mstone@spokanevalley.org>; 'Model irrigation District #18' <jim@modirr.org>; 'Modern Electric Water Company' <modern@mewco.com>; 'Patnode, Brian (PARKS)' <Brian.Patnode@PARKS.WA.GOV>; 'Randy Myhre' <Randy.myhre@avistacorp.com>; 'Spokane Aquifer Joint Board' <info@spokaneaquifer.org>; 'Spokane County Fire District #8' <bwalkup@scfd8.org>; 'Spokane County Planning & Building' <jpederson@spokanecounty.org>; 'Spokane County Utilities' <jred@spokanecounty.org>; 'Spokane County Water District #3' <scwd3@comcast.net>; 'Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency' <awestby@spokanecleanair.org>; 'Spokane Regional Health District' <psavage@srhd.org>; 'Spokane Regional Transportation Council' <rstewart@SRTC.org>; 'Spokane Transit Authority'<kotterstrom@spokanetransit.com>;'Spokane Tribe of Indians' <randya@spokanetribe.com>; 'Tom Richardson City of Millwood' <tom.richardson@millwoodwa.us>; 'Traci Harvey, Spokane Valley Fire Dept No. 1'<HarveyT@spokanevalleyfire.com>; 'Vera Water & Power' <kwells@verawaterandpower.com>; 'WA Commerce' <reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov>; 'WA Dept of Arch and Hist Preservation <Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov>;'WA Ecology, Olympia' <sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov>; 'WA Fish & Wildlife' <SEPAdesk@dfw.wa.gov>; 'WA Natural Resources' <northeast.region@dnr.wa.gov>; 'WA Parks' <Chris.guidotti@parks.wa.gov>; 'WA Transportation' <FiggG@wsdot.wa.gov>; 'West Valley School District #363' <brian.liberg@wvsd.org>; Ray Wright <rwright@spokanevalley.org>; 'planning@millwoodwa.us' 1 <planning@millwoodwa.us>; Chad Riggs <criggs@spokanevailey.org> Cc: Lori Barlow <Ibarlow@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Request for Comments - CPA -2018-0005 to 0008 All, Please review the attached Environmental Checklist and associated materials for the following: project: Project Name: City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment File #: CPA -2018-0005 Parcels: 46351.9049; 46351.9005 and 46352.9027 Project Name: City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment File #: CPA -2018-0006 Parcel: 45015.1409 Project Name: City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment File #: CPA -2018-0007 Parcels: 35233.9191; 35233.9192; 35233.9176; 35233.0513; 35233.0709; 35233.0710; 35233.0604; 35233.0605; 35233.0606; 35233.0607; 35233.0608; 35233.0609 and 35233.0505 Please submit written comments to me via email, or mail, by January 19, 2018 @ 5:00 p.m.. My contact information is listed below and noted on the attached documents. Thank you. Karen Kendall 1 Planner 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5026 1 kkendali@spokanevalley.org SiMane .0001;Val1m This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. 2 Karen Kendall From: Ray Wright Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 2:34 PM To: Karen Kendall Subject: CPA -201 8-0005 & 0006 Karen: Traffic has reviewed CPA -2018-0005 and 0006 and determined that no traffic analysis is required for these proposed changes. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Ray Wright, PE Senior Engineer, Traffic Wiane .000*Valley. 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 rwright@spokarre valley. orq (509) 720-5019 1 Karen Kendall From: Red, Jim <JRed©spokanecounty.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:06 PM To: Karen Kendall Subject: Project: CPA -2018-0006 Attachments: r PA Comments.rtf 1 To: Karen Kendall (City of Spokane Valley - Community Development) CC: From: Jim Red (Spokane County - Environmental Services Dept) Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 Planning/Building #: Subject: CPA -2018-0006 Stage: Comprehensive Phase: Expand NC desig/ Ellmate split parcel Address: AO01 Sewer requrirements will be addressed as the property is developed. ATTACHMENT 7-10 APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall February 8, 2018 L Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna 1 -Horton took roil and the following member's and staff were present: James Johnson Danielle Kaschtnitter Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Michelle Rasmussen, absent— excused Suzanne Stathos Matt Walton Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Larnb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Micki Harnois, Planner Marty Palaniuk, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission Commissioner Walton moved to excuse Commissioner Rasmussen from the meeting. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed_ ll. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to accept the February 08, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in fervor, zero against and ihe motion passed IH. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the January 11, 2018 minutes as presented. The vote on this notion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed, Commission Walton moved to approve the January. 25, 2018 minutes as presented. The vote on this notion was six in favor, zero c;gainst and this motion passed IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT; There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Continued Public Hearing, CTA -2017-2005, A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 22, SVMC 19.60.050, SVMC 17.80.030 and Appendix A to update wireless facility regulations to address siting of small cell wireless facilities within the public rights-of-way, Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated the Commission continued the hearing from January 25, 2018. Mr. l.arnb answered some of the questions raised at that meeting: • Can the City require a specific distance between new poles? Mr. Lamb said this was feasible. The industry suggested this could prove problematic the more people who entered the market. The industry said the distance requirement could make it difficult to find a location which worked with the technology. • Can the City require the providers to co -locate? Mr. Lamb said legally the City could require co -location however some of the utility companies do not allow it. He noted some of the technology doesn't work if there is more than one provider on the same pole • Can the City require a minimum height for equipment location? Mr. l.atnb said to the extent that it doesn't interfere with the technology. A minimum height of 20 feet would not pose a problem, but a higher level, above 60-80 feet, may cause issues from a technology standpoint. • Can the City require the ground base facilities to be buried? Mr. Larnb stated legally the City could require it, although there a practical considerations. The industry provided a significant number of comments regarding how detrimental to the equipment ungrounding can be. 21118.02-08 Planning commission hair s Page 2 o4'5 • Can the City require providers to transmit from the small cell to the macro cell via fiber? Mr. Lamb said the City cannot regulate the technology. By requiring (he method of transmission, we would be regulating their technology. • There were questions regarding radiation levels, type of bandwidth, possible impacts on people, Mr. Lamb said under federal law we cannot regulate based on type of signal, which would he regulating the technology. He said these items are regulated by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and as long as the equipment meets FCC criteria the City cannot regulate them. • The Commission requested crime statistics on ground based facilities, Mr. Lamb saki according to the industry comments these structures do not have an impact on crime. • Could the City tax wireless facilities? Mr. Lamb saki the City already has a tax on telephone/wireless. Ile said cities can do this under federal law, however we cannot tax the data. • Could the City require the provider to submit an engineering certification of the pole structures`? Mr. Lamb said the City could require this. Ile said this relates to the public safety of facilities placed in the right-of-way. While the City does not have any pole standards, the utility companies do. The providers would already be supplying this information to the utility providers so it would not hurt to ask for a copy of it with the application. • Who is responsible for the cost of relocation of poles with small cell facilities on them? Mr. Lamb staled the cost of relocation is the responsibility of the party making the request. Relocation costs are the responsibility of the utility company if it a capital project. Relocations cost are the responsibility of the developer when it is a private development, • is line of site a problem? Mr. Lamb said according to testimony at the last meeting, line of site was not an issue, I le said in Spokane Valley the topography does not pose a problem because of the nature of the valley. The City does not have issues similar to downtown Seattle with all the hillsides and buildings. Industry has representatives who can provide more clarification. Mr. Lamb said staff and the Commission received comments at the last meeting from the industry providers. He has reviewed them and offered comments on some of the topics which were brought up. • The industry requested to have the undergroundiing facilities requirement removed. Mr. Lamb said legally the City can require it. However, there are considerations due to the size of the vaults, vault safety and location, as pictures supplied by the vendors showed. • The industry requested removing the requirement for co-location or a minimum distance between new poles. Mr. Larnb said staff does not see an issue with those requirements. The industry commented it would hinder the last company into the market, The Commissioners expressed concern someone's house may have 3, 4 or 5 poles placed in front of it, Mr. Lamb offered that in front of city hall there is a pole on the edge of-City lall property and another existing pole 20-30 feet away, • The industry requested shortening (he permit processing time from 60 to 30 days. Mr. Lamb said 60 days is required under state and federal law. The City's permit processing time is much shorter than that, however he recommends keeping 60 days. • T-Mobile requested the City allow a unified camouflage design, Mr. Lamb said this would be facility that houses both the antenna and control equipment in one enclosure. T-Mobile has suggested a unit which would not be bigger than six cubic feet. This is smaller in size than the size of the antenna and control box together. Mr. Lamb said this was a reasonable request and the Commission could consider this, however staff suggested a name change to limit confusion. • The industry requested allowing small eel' facilities within oily parks. Mr. Lamb said given the size of our parks and their proximity the right-of-way there k no need for a facility in the park. The City has been working to clean up the overhead in its parks. Il would be inappropriate to allow small cell facilities within the boundaries of the park. 2018-02-08 Planning Commission Minulca Page 3 of 5 • The industry requested increasing the height of the electric transmissions structure from 50 to 60 feet. Mr. Lamb stated this related to the large macro -poles and he recommended not making this change. • The industry requested increasing the allowable deviation before an action is viewed as a substantial change. Mr. Lamb said this is the amount of deviation allowed before a Conditional Use Permit is required. He said the City regulations are relatively flexible and open, he would not recommend this change, Commissioner Johnson and Phillips expressed concerns regarding the requirement for private developer paying to move of the utility pole when there is a private development. Commissioner Johnson shared his fear that line of site could pose a problem when a new building is erected. Mr. Lamb saki it is the responsibility the carriers to determine if their equipment was able to communicate. Vice -chair Johnson asked for public comment Joel Aro, Links Consulting for Verizon. Mr. Aro said he was addressing a couple of questions which arose. I le stated there are naturally occurring gases in an underground vault. The equipment contained in the vault does not emit any kind of gas. He commented how damaged the equipment becomes if it is required to be buried. He requests the City eliminate this requirement. Commissioner Walton askedfor the size of the ground cabinet Verizon uses. Mr. Aro said he did not have the specifications with him. Mr. Aro said it would be the responsibility of the carrier for making sure that they have communication with their own facilities. Commissioner Johnson confirmed Verizon prefers fiber and that extensive damage, as shown in Verizon's comment is caused by putting the equipment underground. Steven Burke, Mobilitie, Coeur d'Alene ID: Mr. Burke said he felt the legal department had done a good job with the regulations and he wanted to encourage the Planning Commission to forward them to the City Council. He stated Mobilitie has a contained antenna and control equipment in one unit. He said crime will be difficult stating that Arista and CcnturyLink require equipment to be ten feet off the ground. Mr. Burke said with enough notice his company would move their own equipment. City Attorney Cary Driskoll clarified how Washington stale statutes regulates who pays to move a utility pole located in the right-of-way. He said under the statute if the City is doing a capital project and utility pole needs to be moved, the cost is on the utility company. It is being moved for the public benefit. The utility Trade Commission (UTC) has imposed tariff on utility rates which pays for these moves. The UTC determined that the person making the request pays for the movement. If it is a private development, then the developer pays. Commissioner Walton asked how many sites each of the carriers present were looking to deploy, Steven Burke for Mobilitie stated they had six, Mr. Aro stated Verizon was looking at three at this lime. Commissioner Stathos confirmed the equipment would be labeled for safety as required Dennis Crapo, Spokane VriIley: Mr. Crapo stated he wanted the Commission to be aware attic: unintended consequences of allowing more poles in the right-of-way. He said it would set a precedence, and could keep someone from being able to develop a property. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Vice -Choir Johnson closed the public haying at 6:54 Mr. Lamb suggested the Commission begin with the proposed amendments which were presented at the January 25 meeting. Then move to the proposed changes to that proposal: • the 20 foot minimum height requirement, • the facilities must be buried in the ground unless technically infeasible, 2018-112-08 Planning Commission Minutes Pit ,e 4 o15 • not located within a certain number of feet (currently bracketed with 250 in this holding spot) of other small cell facilities unless the applicant demonstrates that no other location can accommodate or is sufficient to (meet the wireless service needs, • if the provider cannot meet the 250-foot distance, then they must make an attempt to co- locate unless they demonstrate a reason why it is not possible. Mr. Lamb addressed the public. comment which said that this could set a precedence. He said cities, under state and federal law, are required to allow facilities to locate within the right-of-way. The City cannot preclude them, which was die reason for the amendment, Mr. Lamb confirmed facilities can locate on private property, but it requires an agreement with that private property owner allowing a recorded easement.. The Commission began deliberations of the issues which had been presented for change to the proposed amendment. Commissioners agreed to add a 250-foot distance requirement between facilities. They felt if the industry could demonstrate the problem of locating at this distance, they can change it. The Commissioners agreed to add the requirement for co-location, if it was at all feasible, The Commissioners discussed requiring a 20-foot height minimum and agreed to this addition, Then the Commissioners moved to the requirement of undergrounding the control equipment. After their discussion the Commissioners agreed to adding this language as well. There was a consensus that requiring transmission by fiber would not be added, because the City cannot regulate the technology. Commissioners agreed to adding the requirement of engineering certification for the pole. Commissioner Johnson felt parcels with a 50-foot frontage should be exempt from new poles. ConunissioncrPhillips said he feels the carrier should have to pay to move any utilities. Mr. Lamb said from practical standpoint he was not sure how the City would he male to enforce it. Commissioner Walton confirmed there is no public comment or noticing regarding installation of a new utility pole. Mr. Lamb asked how the Commission felt about reducing the permit processing timeline from 60-days. The Commissioners agreed to leave the 60-day time line. The Commissioners agreed to allow for a combined enclosure which might be a bit bigger than the allowable size for the antenna alone. The Commissioners agreed they did not want to allow small cell facilities in City parks. The Commissioners agreed not to change the height limitations on electrical transmission towers. The Commissioners agreed to not change the deviation standards, Mr. Lamb said the Commission should make a motion to approve the changes presented on January 25 along with the changes whicb were discussed tonight which include: a 250-foot separation along with the co-location requirement, a minimum height of20-feet, retain the existing language on the ground vaults, addition of a structural engineer certification with the application, and allowing unified camouflage facility with a different term as pari of those changes. Commissioner Walton moved to recd amend to the City Council the proposed amendment with the changes which had been had been recorded by the Deputy City Attorney. The vote on the notion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed Senior Planner Lori Barlow suggested changing the agenda to move the Comprehensive Plan study session ahead of the Open Space discussion due to the number of people in attendance who were interested in the topics. Commission gave consensus to proceed. Study Session — 21118 Comprehensive Plan amendments: Ms. Barlow presented an overview of the Comprehensive Plan process. She explained there were originally four privately initiated requests and three City initiated amendments. She explained after the docket was approved, one of the privately initiated amendments was withdrawn, One City initiated amendments was also withdrawn. After conversations with the property owner they requested the City hold off making the proposed change while they develop their plan for the property. Planner Micki Harnois explained CPA-2018-0001. The property is located approximately 300 feet east of Pines Road on Vaileyway Ave. The request is the change three parcels of approximately two acres from Single Family Residential and R-3 zoning to Multifamily Comprehensive Plan designation and toning. 'l'he site is surrounded by multifamily designation to the north and south and Corridor Mixed Use to the west of the property. There have been no comments received for this amendment. 20111-02.08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 Ms. Harnnis reminded the Commissioners that CPA -2018-0002 had been withdrawn by the property owner. Planner Marty Palaniuk explained CPA -2018-0003 is located atRowdish and Sands Roads. The request is to change the Single Family designation and R-2 zoning to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). CMU designation located across the railroad tracks and Dishman Mica Road. He said the lot was created after a subdivision of the property in 2010, which divided the properly for several single family lots on the south side orthe original lot. This lot was created as a drainage casement which has been dedicated to the City. The property is surrounded on three sides by a single family residential and the railroad tracks to the north. The property borders Chester Creek, is located in a tloodplain, has a Type F stream, a biologist has reported there are no wetlands on the site. Commissioner Walton asked if the properly would have been allowed to be divided if the drainage easement had not been a part of it. Mr. Palaniuk stated he would have to defer to engineers an answer. Mr. Palaniuk stated the Commissioners already had any comment which was provided up to the time of mailing the packet. Any comments received since then had been provided to the Commissioners that evening. Mr. Palaniuk discussed CPA -2018-0004 is located at the corner of 7th Avenue and University Road. The request is to change the designation from Single Family Residential and R-3 zoning to Neighborhood Cornmercial. He explained the subject parcel abutted another property owned by the same properly owner, which was changed to Neighborhood Commercial during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Palaniuk said the property was surrounded on other sides by single family. The site is bordered by University Road which is a minor arterial. Mr. Palaniuk said the Commissioners had any comments staff have received. Planner Karen Kendall was beginning her discussion of CPA -2018-0005, when Commissioner Phillips recused himself regarding this amendment, and left the council chambers. The City initiated amendments are both correcting snapping errors. The property for CPA -2018-0005 is located at the corner of Progress and Porker Road. 'I'hc parcels are split. between Neighborhood Commercial and Single Family Residential. The amendment is to designate the north and east edge of one parcel as Neighborhood Commercial and another along the BPA easement. Commissioner Stathos commented the area could not handle any more traffic if it was developed. Ms. Kendall explained the change proposed for CPA -2018-0006. The property is located on Trent Avenue approximately one and one half mile east of Sullivan. The parcel is developed and there is a stonnwater swale along the 15 feet to be rezoned. The parcel is split zoned with the 15 feet on the east side of this parcel is zoned Single Family Residential while the rest is Industrial Mixed Use. The proposed change is to zone the easterly side industrial Mixed Use. The next step is the public hearing which is scheduled for February 22, 2018. iii. Study Session, Open Space requirements in Mixed Use zones. The Commission agreed to postpone the discussion of open space requirements to another meeting. VIII. GOOD OF TIIE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting al 8:35 p.m. The vow on the motion was unanimous in favor, the 'notion passed Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed t A AI) _k6/61-1,4-0 Deanna Horton, Secretary Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall February 22, 2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood lbr the. Pledge of Allegiance. Secretary Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Danielle Kaschm itter Timothy Kelley Michelle Rasmussen Matthew Walton Suzanne Stathos, absent Mike Phillips, absent Cary Driskell, City Attorney Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Marty Palaniuk, Planner Micki Harnais, Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Mary Moore, Office Assistant Chair Rasmussen moved to eXc115e Commissioner Stathos and Commissioner Phillips frotn the meeting. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IT. Agenda: It was moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded to approve the February 22, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote waS five in favor, zero against and the !motion passed. III. Minutes: It was moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded to strike the February 8, 2018 minutes from tonight's agenda. The tote on this motion was five in favor, zero against, and motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: 'There were no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REIL'OW1': There was no report. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: '1' here was no comment, VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact CTA -2017-01)1)5 — Wireless Telecommunications Amendment Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb presented the Findings of Faets specifically identifying the modifications requested by Planning Commission for their approval as follows: a) Maintain a requirement for a separation for 250 ft. between small cell facilities. b) Maintain the requirement that if the separation is not possible, for applicants to make a good faith attempt to co -locate on the same pole. If co -location is not possible, new facilities within the 250 feet would be allowed. c) Maintain requirement that small cell facilities be located at least 20 ft. above grade unless technically infeasible. d) Maintain requirement for providers to bury or integrate facilities into surrounding unless technically unfeasible. e) Add a requirement that the applicant provide evidence that the small cell facility design will not impaet the structural integrity of the utility pole on which it is placed f) Add allowance for "unified design enclosure" to allow combined antenna and equipment enclosure of up to six cubic feet in volume in lieu of separate antenna and equipment enclosures. Make such other minor grammatical and minor corrections recommended from the public eotnancnts. ;) Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Pact fin. CTA -2017-0005, The vote on this motion was five in, favor, zero against and the 1710li071 passed. ii. Public Hearing: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, 02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 8 Senior .Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation) t0 the Commission and audience, which introduced the 2018 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. She explained this meeting is for the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and to take public comments on the proposals. Ms. Barlow explained the findings of facts had been scheduled for March 8 but have been deferred because of an appeal filed on the SE1'A decision for CPA -2018-0001 She stated all Comprehensive Plan amendments are required to submit a SI3PA review, and a Determination of Non -Significance was issued for all with a comment and appeal period. During the lit -day appeal period, an appeal was received for CPA -2018-0003, A hearing on the CTA -2018-0003 appeal is set for March 15, 2018 in font of the !leaving Examiner and a decision is expected within a couple weeks thereafter. a. CPA -2018-1)U01 A privately Initiated Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning to a Multifamily Residential (MFR) designation with a Multifamily Residential (MFR) zoning. Chair Michelle Ra.snrlrssen read the public hearing miles and opened the public hearing al 6:28 A 111. Planner Micki I larnnis introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2018-0001. This project site is 300 feet east of Valleyway and fines Road. The applicant for this project is Robin Petrie who requests to change existing land use designation from Single Family Residential to Multifamily Residential and the zoning from R-3 to Multifamily Residential, Ms. 11arnois explained the differences between the two zones taking into consideration the land use and the zoning that exist near the sites and in this area. Ms. Harnois said one comment had been received from the City's traffic engineer depending on future development, it would require atrip generation letter, The traftic engineer also stated that the capacity on the existing road would not be an issue. No public: comments were received regarding this site. There were no questions from Commissioners Chair Rasmussen opened the floor for public testimony: Sarah Neelan, 12420 E Mansfield Ave. Apt 5.: Ms. Neelan said she was representing Steven Arsey who resides at 12522 l s Valleyway. She said the arca is an open space for ail sorts of wildlife and to take that into account; and to please keep it rural and not urban. Muss Peterson 12525 E Olive Ave.: Mr. Peterson described the area as single family homes and he feels the zoning being proposed is out of character. There were nof Ther public comments and Chair Rasmussen closed public hearing for CPA 2018- °001 at 6:37 pm. b. CPA -2018-0005 A City Initiated Amendment to expand Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR) and the associated zoning of NC and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3) Chair Rasnnusserl opened the public hearing at 6:38p,m, for CTA -2018-0005 Planner Karen Kendall explained CPA -2018-0005 is a City initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment correcting a mapping error on the hand use designations and zoning maps from the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update which split the zoning. The site is located in the Northeast comer of the City and is bordered to the north by Porker Road and Progress Road, which are both urban minor arterials. Ms. Kendall explained that the need to correct this mapping error is to expand the Neighborhood Commercial Designation and Zoning to eliminate the split zoning of the parcel. The eurrent site is in a 100 year floodplain and there is a Conditional Letter of Map Revision application in the final review stages with FEMA to modify the boundaries of the floodplain. There is an 500 foot wide easement in the corner of the property that runs north/south and a Type F stream. in the Northwest corner of the property. The correction will result in more appropriate boundaries of the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation and zoning and Single Family Residential land 02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of8 use designation and R-3 zoning. The City received continents from Public Works and the Spokane County Environmental Setvices, but no public comments. There were no questions from Commissioners Chair Rasmussen invited public testimony; there were no comments and Chair Rasmussen closed public testimony for CPA 2018-0005 at 6:43 p.m. b. CPA -2018-0005 A City Initiated Amendment to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of IMU and Single Family Residential (SFR) and the associated zoning of 1MU and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3) Chair Rasmussen Opened the public hearing at 6:48 p.m, for CPA -2018-1)006 Planner Karen Kendall explained that CTA -2018-0006 corrects a mapping error that took place during the 2016 Annual Comprehensive Plan update. This site is located east of the intersection of Trent Ave, and Sullivan Rd. The proposal is to expand the Industrial Mixed use designation and zoning which would eliminate the split zoning of the parcel. The area is 15 feet wide along the easterly side of the site. The 15 feet wide area to be included in the Industrial Mixed Use designation contains stormwater facilities that serve the existing development. The site is currently zoned Industrial Mixed Use and R-3. The amendment will correct a mapping error and will eliminate the split zoning of the parcel. There were no public comments and Chair Rasmussen closed public hearing for CPI1 2016-0005 at 6;45 p.m. c. CPA -2018-0004 A Privately initiated Amendment request to change the Comprehensive Flan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Chair Rasmussen Opened the public hearing at 6:•46 p.m, for CPA -2018-0004 Planner Marty Palaniuk presented CPA -2018-0004, explaining this is a privately initiated amendment to change the land use designation from Single Fancily Residential and R-3 zoning to Neighborhood Commercial, The Neighborhood Commercial designation is to provide neighborhood scale commercial development such as offices and retail that serve a neighborhood. This site is on the southeast corner of University Road and 7th Avenue. University is an arterial street surrounded by Single Family Residential uses. The parcel adjacent to the proposed site was changed in 2016 during the legislative Comprehensive Plan update to Neighborhood Commercial. If the amendment is approved it would also be designated as Neighborhood Commercial. During the legislative update, the City evaluated intersections along some of the arterials south of Sprague, and various parcels were re -designated in those neighborhoods as Neighborhood Commercial. Staff received comments from the City's Senior. Traffic Engineer who evaluated the intersections at 811' Avenue and University Road as well as 4t'1 Avenue and University Road and he stated if intense development occurred, it would meet the level of service requirements. Staff received public comments regarding traffic in and out of the site as well as traffic along 7t't and 8th Avenues - This property is part of a plat from 1954 and some of the comments received have mentioned there were some covenants that could apply to the plat. Mr. Lamb explained the City Attorney's office received a letter regarding the covenants. The covenants would preclude business, commerce and industrial uses from operating on the site. However, with regard to restricted covenants, those are privately enforceable under Washington law. The Supreme Court has agreed that cities do not have authority to enforce private covenants. Citizens could seek a private action to preclude commercial, industrial or any other development. We do allow single family residential under the neighborhood commercial so there is not a conflict. Commissioner Walton Neighborhood Commercial zones are in Spokane Valley, Mr. Palaniuk responded that stall' evaluated the area or the City south of Sprague and at most of the arterial intersections of 8th, 16th, 32nd Avenues, University, Evergreen and Sullivan Roads and designated 02-22-2018 Planting Colainission Minutes Page 4 era those as Neighborhood Commercial. This was done during the legislative update. Commissioner Johnson asked for some examples of a commercial business that would be allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial zone, Mr. Palaniuk responded some of the things the Permitted Use Matrix allows include retail, gas stations, medical office, and kennels. The intent. is to provide neighborhood scale coiimieroial uses to serve the neighborhood, Commissioner Rasmussen asked how the City mitigates traffic problems. Mr. 1'alaniuk replied that any time development occurs; the City evaluates the traffic itnpact and may require a traffic impact analysis to identify, improvements or restrictions to the proposed development. Chair Rasmussen opened the public hearing on (.7'A- 2018-0004 at 6:58 pin. Ray Siebert, 10714 E. 8tl` Avenue: Mr. Siebert said that he is against changing the land east of University On 7th Avenue from Single Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. We have a protective covenant on the old Orchard Subdivision, which has been in effect since 1954. We want to keep the covenant and keep this being a nice place to raise a family. The City illegally changed the property east. of University on 8n'Avenue to commercial when there was a protective covenant. Mr. Siebert stated the neighborhood had hired a lawyer to protect them if this change goes into effect. Jane Siebert, 10719 E 8t'' Avenue: Ms. Siebert said site is against the land change at 7111 Avenue and University Road. She said the property has a covenant and the municipal code states the City is supposed to follow thein. She said she received a letter from the City Attorney stating the City has no authority under the Washington law to entoree or validate restricted covenants. By not enforcing the covenant, she said the City is definitely invalidating them. The covenant is binding unless by the majority of the residence owners agree to change them. There was a traffic- analysis from the Senior. Raffle Engineer, which showed that there would be an additional 208 trips a day with this change. This much traffic would affect their neighborhood, property values will go down and it will increase crime. Ms. Seibert stated she does not feel the neighborhood was informed well enough when the change to the parcel at 8th Avenue and University Road occurred in 2016. City Attorney Cary Driskoll suggested changing the time Iimits from three minutes to one and one half minutes in order accommodate everyone in the room who wished to testily this evening. The Commissioners agreed to this change. Mike Fritter, 10806 E 8'i' Avenue: Mr. 1:rmer shared his concern about crime, traffic and more people; he said the covenant was important in the 1950's so please leave it alone. Mark Conrad, 10804 E 7th Avenue: Mr. Conrad shared he is opposed to change because the- property heproperty values will decrease and traffic will increase; it does not tit the form or area. Lacey Zieler, 10811 It 7"' Avenue: Ms, Zieler shared her concerned for the children's safety and more traffic. William Braid, 11216 E 7th Avenue: Mr. Braid said he is concerned for the children in the area and putting commercial in will increase traffic and crime, and he asked the Commission please do not approve this, ICen Iloftinan, 10719 E 7th Avenue: Mr. 1 lotf'inan shared his concern about traffic, the value of property; said he bought in under the covenants and he is opposed to this change. Lonny Green, 10715 E 7th Avenue: Mr. Green shares his concerti this will lower property values, and increase crime and traffic. Jim Brown, 10714 E 6'h Avenue: Mr. Brown shared he is opposed to the plan and concerned about traffic. 1 -le said University is a racetrack. Andrew '4'Va11,10723 E 7t'' Avenue: Mr. Wall said he is concealed for children, more traffic and property values. Candice Wall,10723 E 7th Ave. Ms. Wall said she is concerned about more crime, foot traffic and children safety. 02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 8 Shcret*Tucker, 11372 E 7{'' Ave. Ms, Tucker said she is concerned with traffic, crime and safely of children. Heather Bryant, Schmautz family representative: Ms. Bryant shared in 2016 the corner of W' and University, was changed to Neighborhood Commercial. Currently the family has no plans to develop the properly and the site would slay the sonic. There is a blind spot at 8'i` Avenue and University Road and by expanding onto 7th, it would eliminate the blind spot. If rezoned the covenant would take precedence. Al Merkel, 3927 S Sunderland Drive: Mr. Merkel shared he is opposed to thisamendment because the covenants are in place. He said he knows the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, hut when you see neighbors like this coming out, the City should take note and let the neighbors resolve these issues in a non -adversarial way. Kurt Campbell, 10714 E 8"' Ave. Mr. Campbell shared his concern about more traffic. Scott Smith, 10819 E 8'6 Ave. Mr. Smith shared his concern about more traffic and cutting between streets to get to the businesses. Seeing Mere, was no *thee comment on CPA -.2011E-0004 Chair Rasmussen closed the public hearing for CPA 2018-0004 at 7:21 pm. d. CPA -2018-0003 A Privately Initiated Amendment request to ehnnge the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Suburban (R- 2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Chair Rasmussen Opened the public hearingfor CPA -2018-0003 at 7:22 pnr. Mr. Palaniuk explained CPA -2018.0003 is a privately initiated amendment to change the parcel from Single Family Residential and R-2 zoning to Corridor Mixed Use which allows commercial, light manufacturing, retail and office uses. This site is in the Ponderosa neighborhood along Dishman-Mica, south of the railroad tracks, along l3owdish and Sands Roads. The SEPA determination was appealed. The majority of this site is in the 100 -year floodplain. There was a subdivision in 2010 and the entirety of this lot was designated as an easement for stormwater treatment. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision was approved by FEMA to raise the level of lots one through six of the short plat and remove them from the floodplain. Chester Creek runs north of the site in a channel which is south of the railroad tracks. The stream is a'1'ype F', which means fish could be in the stream. It requires buffering if development should occur. This site also has alluvium soils, which are soils deposited from water action made of granulated silt and they do not drain well. The Comprehensive Land Use designation is Single 1-4unily Residential with a designated density of one unit per acre up to six units per acres. The area is single family. Corridor Mix Use allows commercial uses along transit corridors. Corridor Mixed lise is located along Sprague and Argonne, Mullen, Evergreen, Sullivan and Dishman-Mica. The R-2 zone height limit is 35 feet. Corridor Mixed Use has an unlimited height limit but transitional regulations would be applied to any development and would serve to limit the height adjacent to residential uses. The site would have a limit in height since it is next to residential uses. Staff received comments from Dept. of Fish and Wildlife who commented they were concerned about the Type F stream and said it would require buffering if development occurs. Staff received comments from the public regarding traffic, access in and out of site, access for fire safety, that the development docs not fit and concerns about the floodplain, and crowding in schools. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was at minimum setback for access onto Bowdish and how far off the intersection would the access have to be toward the south. Senior Traffic Engineer, Ray Wright explained at that location there would need to be a minimum of 60 feet of separation from the intersection, Currently staff is looking at the infrastructure to sec if the streets can accommodate the growth. 02-22-2018 Planning Cuntrnission Minutes Pstge 6 era Commissioner Kelley said there were concerns about escaping a forest fire in that area and traffic issues. Mr. Wright stated he did not believe a second access is required. With the rezoning, there would be an additional 800 trips over a 24-hour period; and peak traffic would be 10% of that. This does not address the fire but it would handle that volume easily. Chair Rasmussen asked about a couple of parcels which appeared to be land locked and how would rezoning effect those Mr. Palaniuk replied they are City owned parcels and are not developed. Ms. Barlow stated those properties are partly encumbered for drainage purposes by the City. Chair Rasmussen asked if they are zoned R-2 and Ms. Barlow confirmed they were. Commissioner Johnson asked does that extend all the way to University. Mr. Lamb replied that a change in zoning would not change access because they are privately owned and would remain so. If there were any access issues, those would be addressed at the time of development. Commissioner Johnson said the background information stated there were 24 acres available for commercial mixed use. Ile asked if this was before the nearby IGA planned project. Mr. Palaniuk responded this reference docs include the TGA project. Chair Rasmussen invited public comment. Mr. Todd 'Whipple, Whipple Consulting Engineers representing the applicant: Mr. Whipple explained his firm looked at the zoning code and get out the Comprehensive Plan and they toy to be consistent with the existing land use and future land use and what is adjacent to the property. The site has a railroad track and Chester Creek so from a development perspective they assume that since Corridor Mixed Use is adjacent to the property there is no reason to not to change the land use. As the applicant, he requested the Commission to leave the hearing open for addition& testimony after the SEPA appeal hearing and before the Commission issues its findings. Al Merkel, 2925 S. Sunderland Drive: Mr. Merkel stated the property is a flood zone and shared concerns about wildlife. Heidi Workman, 11406 E 44' Avenue: Ms, Workman shared concerns of tire evacuations and the overcrowding of school. Christian Workman, 11496 e 44th, Avenue: Mr. Workman shared that any kind of sail contamination from a flood can contaminate the stream. Rebecca Readiner, 11321 E 42". Court: Ms, Rcadiner shared concerns about the flooding and traffic. Megan Williams, 11401 E Sundown Drive Ms. Williams voiced her concern about fire, safety and traffic. Dave West, 4007 S Forest Meadow Dr. Mr. West requested the Commission look at the letter and attached picture he submitted as he is concerned about the flood encroaching on his property. As more and more development occurs upstream the flood will continue to encroach more onto his properly. Darrell Thom, 4409 S Hollow Court. Mr. Thom shared concerti about access and fire evacuations. I le said he has been promised an extra access point for fire access. Bev Thorn, 4499 S Hollow Court. Ms. Thom said she is concerned property values will decrease. She saki have been told there would never be any development because it is a floodplain. John Grevner, 3907 S Sunderland Drive. Mr. Grevner shared he is a wildland fire investigator and the last tire was a nightmare; and said he agrees with all that has been said. Steve McNulty, 4106 S Hollow Court. Mr. McNulty is concerned about reducing property values, traffic, access to the property, traffic accidents, and that it will be harder for emergency response and evacuation, I le said he is a geologist and the semi silty sands do not drain well and then ponding oceurs, Lot 7 is platted as a blanket drainage easement, We agree with staff report. Annette Conrad, 10920 E 4e Avenue: Ms. Conrad shared concerns about t access, flooding, bald eagles that come every year and the wildlife. 02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 8 Dave Johnson, 11307 E Sundown Drive: Mr. Johnson concurs that the Commission has to oppose this. It is a single family residential and we do not want anything else. Mark Broder, 4105 S Hollow Court; Mr. Broader shared that any time modifications are made to the land the flooding gets worse, and said he opposed this John Boyd, 4024 .S Forest Meadow Drive: Mr, Boyd expressed his thoughts for lot. 7 explaining if we planted obscuring trees, the trees would suck up the water, giving great access for the water to drain down through the silt soil and it would make an exquisite site or riding arca. Robert O'Dell, 11425E 441h Avenue: Mr. O'Dell shared he is opposed to the development and concerned about drainage and the disruption of the wildlife corridor. Jerry Johnson, 4506 8 Skipworth Road: Mr. Johnson said he is concerned about the property values dropping, Shawn Johnson, 11311 E Sundown Drive: Ms. Johnson expressed concerti chat property values will drop, wildlife concerns and she will have more water in her yard. She said there was a sign, which said there would be one home on the proposed lot, and if there is more, it will only raise the water on her lot, which is ankle deep now. Galen Pavliska, 11321 E Sundown Drive: Mr. Pavliska shared the property is a flood zone and in his backyard. I le is concerned his property value will drop; he said he is opposed to this. Kent Mayer, 4308 S Locust: Mr. Mayer shared the Comprehensive Plan was done Tess than two years ago and he thinks we need to stick to the plan. He said this is not an hnprovement. He asked if the 150 homes that are not built yet at the other end of 446 Avenue were included in the traffic analysis. Keith Cohen,12216 E 376 Court: Mr. Cohen shared concern that bringing in multifamily homes will bring in crime. Renee Porter, 3515 8 Woodward Road: Ms. Porter expressed this does not fit this property and runs along railroad tracks and a two-lane residential road. This property is over a mile away from a transit stop. Barney's I Iarvest foods, just right up the road, is planning to put that exact plan into place and not infringing on anybody's property or property values. Paul Henderson, 11303 E Sundown Drive: Mr. Henderson explained he was the first to buy in front of the subject parcel and his back yard is pure mush and he opposes the amendment. Oliva Brookshire, 4520 8 Skipworth Road: Ms. Brookshire is concerned when bringing in multifamily homes that it will bring in renters, which brings in more crime. Barbara Roads, 11315 E 46th Avenue: Ms. Roads explained this is a floodplain, and on the wrong side of the railroad tracks for commercial development and concerned for the impact on schools. Vicki Moore, 4215 S Forest Meadow Drive: Ms. Moore is concerned for the safety of her special needs child who walks to the bus every day in front of the driveway that would be built. She has safety, traffic and wildlife concerns. Denise Shnaugel, 10613 E 46'1' Avenue: Ms. Shnaugel is concerned about dealing with Diamond Rock, The property is a floodplain, there are only two exits - fowdish and -Schafer, and that will limit getting out. Megan Knolls, 11406 E 481' Avenue: Ms. Knolls is concerned about traffic accidents will occur, and she opposes the amendment. Heather Harvego, 401.5 S Forest Meadow Drive: Ms. Harvego is concerned about flooding and traffic. More traffic noise. She said we do not want it. It will not help the neighborhood it will only hurt. the neighborhood. Caleb Collier, 11307 E 42" Court: Mr. Collier shared he served on council and suggests a good solution with this vacant land would he a park, I le said a number of neighbors would contribute to the cost of purchasing this land, and the City might ,mediate some of the costs with it. 02-224018 Planning Commission Minutes Pup 8 of 8 Sandra Bright, 11024 E 43'"' Avenue: M. Bright is concerned for the safety of the children near the railroad, wetlands, wildlife and traffic concerns. Patrick Miller, 11302 E Sandstone Lane: Mr, Miller shared he is not against people coming into our neighborhood but in the right way, and he wants to keep R-2 zoning. Debbie Plant, 4318 S Forest Meadows Drive: Ms. Plant shared we are a single family residential development and that it should slay an R-2. Logan Crunihorg, 4311 S Hollow Street: Mr. Logan explained that between fire hazards, the railroad and wildlife, this plan is ludicrous. John Pierce, 4027 S Forest Meadow Drive: Mr. Pierce concurs. AI Mollya, 4224 S University Road: Mr. Mollya said he thought this area was a protected wetland area. He shared thea: is not enough technology to protect all the water movement and he is against it. Troy Hoffman, 11308 E Sundown Drive: Mr. Hoffman requested we go visit the site and Then sec that the development will not fit. This development is not necessary, and it will only benefit the developer. Rudy Worley, 11311 E Sundown Drive: Mr, Worley shared that his property abuts this project and his home has water damage, and he is opposed. Last summer it was truck atter truck of fill material. Everyone is excited about the development at Harvest Foods. As this fill continues to go into this spot, our homes are continuing to be damaged, He is in favor of R-2 zoning. Wayne Gruver,11404 E Sundown Drive: Mr. Gruver shared this site is a swamp. Ile is concerned for the children who ride bikes to go get ice cream. He said there are only two exits Schafer and Bowdish acid the engineer needs to have a real traffic study. Jacques Plant, 4318 S Forest Meadow Drive: Mr, Plant shared that his home does not have adequate water pressure and with construction and development, he will have even less water pressure. Les Baker, 11413 E 45°1i Avenue: Mr. Baker is concerned about the disruption of wildlife and said the coyotes will move into the residential areas. Seeing no one else who wished to test, Chair Rasmussen closed public hearing at 8:32 pm Ms. Barlow informed the audience that public comment is closed as far as the Planning Commission however, written comments will be provided to the City Council. She wanted to remind the Commission about the appeal. The 1learing Examiner will be Bearing the March 15, 2018 and a couple weeks later, we will have a decision on the appeal. 'Iiie matter will not be in front of the Planning Commission, until the Hearing Examiner issues a decision. It will be brought back at a typical meeting, without further noticing to the property owners. She advised the audience to check the City's website and/or go to the Planning Commission page and see the agenda, or sign up for the mailing list to he notified. VII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: 7'he Commissioners thanked everyone for their participation. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn at 8:48 p.m, The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Michelle Rasmussen, Chair trallek_C4‘)*(1' Mary Moore, Secretary (i7 Date signed APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning.Commmission Council Chambers — City Hall May 10, 2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Cary Driskell, City Attorney Danielle Kaschinitter Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Tim Kelley Jenny Nickerson, Assistant Building Official Mike Phillips Marty Palaniuk, Planner Michelle Rasmussen Mieki Harnois, Planner Suzanne Stathos, arrived at 6:04 p.m. Karen Kendall, Planner Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission Hearing no objections the Commission excused Commissioner Stathos II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the May 10, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: There were no minutes to approve. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow informed the Commission the city of Millwood is holding a Planning Short Course May 23, 2018 and suggested anyone who had not attended one previously should consider attending. This Short Course is produced by the Washington State Department of Commerce and provides good information. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: 1 Planning Commission Findings of Fact for CTA -2018-0002, a privately initiated code text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Coale 19.60 and 19.65 to allow lodging in the Industrial zone. Planner Marty Palaniuk presented the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact for CTA -2018- 0002, a privately initiated code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to allow hotels/motels in the Industrial zone. Mr. Palaniuk explained the Findings reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council: to allow hotels/motels with a building footprint of 25,000 square feet or less in the Industrial zone, a building footprint of more than 25,000 square feet, would need a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Also adopted were minor language changes recommended by staff, to bring the original amendment language in line with the way the rest of the SVMC code is written. Commissioner Johnson clarified the 25,000 square foot footprint only referred to the building size on the ground and did not dictate the overall size the building could be. Commissioner Kelley moved to accept the Findings for CTA -2018-0002 as presented Commissioner Walton stated he was still strongly opposed to the language allowing a structure with a building footprint larger than 25,000 square feet. He said the applicant was not seeking anything larger and it would be a mistake to allow larger structures to take up more Industrial zoned land. Commissioner Kelley confirmed Mr. Walton is comfortable with a structure which has a 25,000 square feet or smaller footprint. Commissioner Walton noted he had moved to adopt language which excluded a larger structure but that motion had died for lack of a second. Comrnissioner Kelley renewed his support of the hotels/motels for what they can bring into the City by means of tax base, employment, other services, retail sales, business sales. Commissioner Johnson agreed the amendment was a good idea but feels the CUP process was extra regulation which was unnecessary, and felt this part of the atnendrent needed further discussion and should 2018-05-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 have been removed from the proposal. He also felt that the Location of the project should be closer to the arterial, and that not adding language to the amendment to require it lacked proper prudence. The motion passed, by a show of hands, with four in favor and three against, with Commissioners Johnson, Stathos and Walton dissenting. ii. Deliberations: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA -2018-0001 Planner Micki Harnois reminded the Commission that CPA -2018-0001 is located approximately 300 east of Pines on Valleyway. The request is to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Multifamily Residential (MFR) and from R-3 to Multifamily zoning. The property is bordered to the north and south by MFR and to the west by Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Commissioner Johnson said he sympathized with people who did not want to have development intrude into their neighborhood but this was only a few hunched feet from the corridor and nothing stays the same forever. Commissioner Walton stated he felt it would match the rest of the surrounding areas, Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend approval of CTA -2018-0001. Commissioner Stathos asked where the line is drawn in order to stop development from encroaching into the neighborhoods. Commissioner Walton said he sympathized with Commissioner Stathos' comment and felt the Planning Commission exists to determine where change was appropriate, and he felt this change was appropriate in this area. The motion passed with a vote of six in favor, one against with Commissioner Stathos dissenting. CPA -2018-0003 Mr. Palaniuk reminded the Commission that CPA -2018-0003 was located on Bowdish Road just north of the intersection with Sands Road. The request is to change the designation from SFR to CMU and the zoning from R-2 to CMU. Mr. Palaniuk said this parcel is located in a floodplain, has alluvium soils, has a fish -bearing stream running through it and is south of the railroad tracks. The contiguous parcels which meet the criteria to snake the request for the change are across the railroad right-of-way to the north, which is designated CMU. Commissioner Kelley discussed many of the objections which had been raised during the public hearing, schools would be over crowded, the traffic would increase, property values would decrease, there was not enough notice given and crime would increase. He noted that these issues are often brought up when a multifamily project is proposed. He commented that rarely do any of these things actually happen. He noted Ms. Barlow said there was plenty of notice given. Commissioner Walton said the request was to change from SFR to CMU has more uses than just multifamily which need to be considered when before allowing the change. Commissioner Johnson said when he visited the site in February and the homes in the front of the site are an extension of the surrounding neighborhood. He felt the transition between those homes and Dishman-Mica needed to be preserved, and this is not the right change for this area. Commissioner Phillips said he does not feel the CMU should reach across the railroad tracks to the south into the residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Stathos said she was concerned about the floodplain on the property and comments the citizens had made. Commissioner I(aschmitter said she had concerns regarding the floodplain, fire evacuations, soil contamination and the outpouring of people who were against the change, Commissioner Walton said he noted all of the citizen comments, but in the staff report it noted that the request was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The allowable uses for the CMU designation were not appropriate for the area and the requested change was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Rasmussen said she was concerned about neighbors who. live next to the request stating they have had water in their backyards and not allowing the CMU to encroach past the logical division of the railroad tracks. Cominiss•ioner Johnson moved to recommend denial of CPA -2018-0003 to the City Council, The motion passed with a vote of six in favor and one against with Commissioner Kelley dissenting. 2018-05-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 CPA -2018-0004 Mr. Palaniuk said CPA -2018-0004 was located at the corner of 7'r' Avenue and University Road. The request is to change the designation from SFR to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and the zoning from R-3 to NC. The applicant owns an adjacent parcel which was designated NC during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. During the public hearing, several citizens had commented that language on the subdivision plat could prohibit commercial development on any property located within the subdivision without a vote of the subdivision members. The Commissioners asked City Attorney Cary Driskell to opine on how this covenant would affect the property change. Mr. Driskell stated that covenants are a civil matter between parties and does not affect any decision that the Commission would make. The City has the legal right to rezone the property. The covenants could affect development in the future; however, a single-family residence is still an allowed use on the property. Commissioner Johnson said he understood the comments regarding increased in traffic in the neighborhood as was suggested by many who testified, but there was also a need for more NC in many areas. He also confirmed a Councilmember had requested that staff add more areas of NC in the City during the Comprehensive Plan update. Commissioner Walton said he understood the objections but since both parcels were owned by the same person, he felt it placed the property owner at a disadvantage when the parcels were zoned differently. Commissioner Kelley said the Commission had discussions during the Comprehensive Plan Update about having more services in the neighborhoods. The two parcels are right on University Road and fit all the criteria discussed for the NC during the Update. Commissioner Kaschmitter agreed. Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend approval of CPA -2018-0004 to the City Council. The motion passed with a vote of seven in favor, and zero against. CPA -2018-000S Commissioner Phillips recused hiniselfFromm this amendment and left the room. Planner Karen Kendall reminded the Commission this amendment was correcting a mapping error where several parcels were split zoned during the Comprehensive Plan Update. The parcels are located at the apex of Progress and Forker Roads. The City is proposing to correct the zoning by having the NC zone along the north and east portion above the Bonneville Power Easement and south and west of the easement changed to SFR, . The Commissioners had rio concerns regarding this amendment. CommtissionerJohnson moved to recommend approval of CTA -2018-0005 to the City Council. The motion passed with a vote of six in favor and zero against. CPA -2018-0006 Commissioner Phillips returned to the room. Ms. Kendall explained the parcel for this amendment is located on Trent Road just east of Sullivan, and the easterly 15 feet of the parcel is designated as SFR and the remainder of the parcel is designated Industrial Mixed Use (IMU). The proposal is to designate the entire parcel as EMU. The Commissioners had no concerns regarding this correction. Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend approval of CTA -2018-0006 to the City Council. The motion passed with a vote of seven in favor and zero against. iii. Discussion to Rescind CTA -2018-0002 Commissioner Walton moved to rescind the motion regarding CTA -2018-0002 due to a procedural error. Commissioner Walton stated he felt the topic needed more discussion, especially since the vote to approve the findings was four to three. He also felt there had been an error in parliamentary procedure during the April 26, 2018 meeting while recommending approval of the amendment, a privately initiated code text amendment to allow hotels/motels in the Industrial zone. The vote on the motion to recommend approval of the amendment as submitted with minor changes passed with 2018-05-10 Planning Conunission Minutes Page 4 of 5 a vote of five in favor, two against. Although the Commissioners had discussed the merits of the amendment under small board rules, when the adopted motion was put to the floor, there was no discussion on the merits of the main motion itself before the Commission voted on it, which Commissioner Walton felt was in error. There was discussion as to whether the motion to rescind was the proper main motion and the Commission took a break for staff to research the topic. After review of Roberts Rules of Order, it was determined the motion to rescind was in order, however it would have been more timely had it been made prior to the Findings of Fact supporting the Planning Commission's decision on CTA -2018-0002. If the motion to rescind passes, then there will need to be extra work to reconsider the Findings since they currently support CTA -2018- 0002 as it passed. Commissioner Walton stated he felt the Commission moved too quickly to take the vote on the adopted motion and Commissioners should have been given an opportunity to discuss the merits of the main motion on the floor. He feels that were several strong viewpoints that could have changed minds, there could have been amendments to the motion had the opportunity been there. However in moving to vote right after the motion was made, did not allow for the proper discussion of the merits of the motion itself. Commissioner Kelley said there is a proper procedure but many times based on small board rules all the elements are there, but not necessarily in the correct order, While he agrees there should be discussion every time, it does not always happen with this group and up until now, no one has had an issue with this process. He believes the topic was thoroughly discussed before it was voted on. Commissioners Stathos and Kasohmitter had no comment. Commissioner Johnson said he remembered Commissioner Kelley making a motion without the 25,000 square foot requirement with the CUP requirement but the motion was not very clear to him. After some conversation, Mr. Kelley made a motion to accept the amendment as it was written. Commissioner Johnson said it seemed the motion was unclear, and then all of the sudden there was a vote on it. Commissioner Kelley said his only confusion was when Ms. Barlow interjected that he adopted staff's proposed language changes, otherwise he said he was aware of what his motion was. Commissioner Walton added he understands that while at times the Commission does follow small board rules, it does not relinquish its right to follow the proper procedures when adopting a motion for Commission business. He also said to Commissioner Johnson's point, he was confused about what the actual motion before he was asked to vote on it. Commissioner Phillips stated he seconded the motion made by Commissioner Kelley and he understood the motion, whether it was understood by anyone else, five people voted in favor of it. Someone understood it enough to vote on it. Commissioner Walton said he was going to make one more plea that there is order and procedure for a reason. If they are not followed, there has to be a remedy for it, especially if there was an opportunity to seek clarification or to add additional clarification. He appreciates the extensive discussion prior to the motion being made, but after the motion is made there needs to be opportunity offer amendments and additional discussion based on the language of the motion itself before there is a vote. This did not occur during the vote of CTA -2018-0002, which violated proper procedure; he encourages the Commission to consider this when voting on the motion to rescind the motion. The motion failed with a vote of three in favor and four against with Commissioners Kaschmilter, Kelley, Phillips and Rasmussen dissenting. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Thanks to staff and Commission members for discussion on parliamentary procedure. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:46 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor, the motion passed. 2018-05-10 Plannin ission Minute 2 ,5.-*//ff Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed ,04 Deanna Horton, Secretary Page 5 or 5 Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall 05/24/2018 I. Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Commissioners, staff and for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Moore took roll and the following members present: James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Matt Walton Cary Driskell, City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Marty Palaniuk, Planner Micki Harnois, Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Mary Moore, Office Assistant audience stood and staff were Hearing no objections the Commission excused Chair Rasmussen and Commissioner Stathos. II. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to amend the agenda to include the May 10, 2018 minutes to the agenda. The vote was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 26, 2018 minutes and the May 10th, 2018 minutes. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners Kelley and Johnson reported they attended the city of Millwood Planning Short Course. Commissioner Johnson shared it was very informative and educational. Commissioners Walton and Kelley reported they attended the State of the City. Commissioner Walton was happy to see the mayor move the City forward in a positive manner and looking forward to continued support of the council. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no report. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Findings of Fact: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Lori Barlow, Senior Planner explained the Findings of Facts are the last phase of the Commissioner's process, which formalize their decisions moving forward to the City Council. Staff suggests the Commission approve the findings for each request individually. When the recommendation moves forward to the City Council staff will wrap the individual findings into one document so that they are considered as a group. CPA -2018-0001 — Micki Harnois, Planner presented CPA -2018-0001 which is Located 300 feet east of Pines and Valleyway. It is R-3 zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Single Family Residential. The proposal is to change the zoning to Multifamily Residential and the Comprehensive Plan Designation to Multifamily Residential. The vote was six in favor and zero against to recommend approval. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CPA -2018-0001 Findings of Fact as submitted. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. CPA -2018-0003 — Marty Palaniuk, Planner presented CPA -2018-0003 to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Single Family Residential to Corridor Mixed Use and the zoning from R-2 to Corridor Mixed Use. The vote was six to one to deny the request. 05/24/2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 Commissioner Walton moved to approve CPA -2018-0003 as presented. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. CPA -2018-0004 -- Mr. Palaniuk presented CPA -2018-0004 located on University Road and 7th Avenue. The request is to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Single Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial and the zoning from R-3 to Neighborhood Commercial. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CPA -2018-00004 as presented. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. CPA -2018-0005— Commissioner Philips recused himself from the meeting regarding CPA -2018- 0005, and left the room. Karen Kendall, Planner presented CPA -2018-005 a City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment and is corrected a mapping error and expanding Neighborhood Commercial designation on property located at the corner of Progress Road and Forker Road. The decision to recommend approval six to zero in favor. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CPA -2018-0005 as presented. The vote on this motion was four in favor zero against, and the nlotlon passed. Commissioner Phillips returned to meeting. CPA -2018-0006 ---- Ms. Kendall presented CPA -2018-0006 a City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment correcting a mapping error to expand the Industrial Mixed Use designation on property east of Sullivan on Trent Avenue. The vote was seven to zero to recommend approval. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CPA -2018-0006 as presented. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. ii. Public Hearing — CTA -2018-0001 — A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.65.020 Agriculture and Animal keeping Ms. Harnois presented CTA -2018-0001 and shared some historical background. The proposal will change the minimum square footage required to have animals in SVMC 19.65.020(A)(1)(a) from one acre to 40,000 square feet. This is the same amount of ►ninimum square footage required prior to the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and development regulations update. The proposal will return the minimum square footage to the amount before the update. Ms. Harnois also outlined the steps involved in the process. This amendment to SVMC 19.65.020 revising the minimum lot requirement from one acre to 40,000 square feet will be consistent with the R-1 zone and eliminate the creation of non- conforming uses. The Commissioners discussed the difference between the minimum lot size and how many animals are allowed per acre. Chickens are in a different section and swine are not allowed. Commissioner Kelley clarified chickens are allowed with a lower minimum square footage of 2,000 square feet per chicken. Vice -Chair Johnson opened public hearing at 6:40 p.m. Seeing no who wished to testify the Vice - Chair closed the public hearing at 6:41 p.m. Commissioner Walton said he thought there would be the potential for confusion for the public regarding minimum square footage and how many animals are allowed per acre but he is in favor of the change. Commission Phillips confirmed large animals keeping was based on a gross acre. Ms. Barlow explained first staff confirms the amount of square feet the customers has. If they have more than 40,000 square feet, they can have animals, and how many and of what type of animals are calculated on the lot size. Commissioner Phillips stated he was in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Kelley supports people raising animals and is in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Kaschmitter shared this will allow people to be in conformance and is in favor. Commissioner Johnson agrees with the need to be standardized and returning back to 40,000 square feet is appropriate and is in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CTA -2018-0001 as presented. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. 05/24/201S Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:48 p.rn. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. Name, Chair Date signed Name, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 31, 2018 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 Proposed Ordinance 18-015: 2018 Official Zoning Map Amendments GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Admin. Report — July 17, 2018; Ordinance first reading — July 24, 2018. BACKGROUND: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 establishes an annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle that runs from November 1 st to October 31' of the following year. The Planning Commission considers applications during the following spring, with a decision by City Council generally occurring in late spring/early summer. The Community and Public Works Department received four privately initiated requests for site- specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. In addition, the City proposed two site specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment receive a zoning classification consistent with the new land use designation. On February 8, 2018, the Planning Commission was briefed on the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPAs), and a public hearing was conducted on February 22, 2018. The public hearing was closed at that time. On February 16, 2018 an appeal of the Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) issued for CPA - 2018 -0003 was received by the City. Pursuant to Chapter 17.90 SVMC appeals related to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) decisions are heard by the Hearing Examiner (HEX) and subject to a public hearing. Due to the SEPA appeal it was determined that the public hearing scheduled for February 22, 2018 in front of the Planning Commission would be conducted, but that deliberations or further action would be deferred until such time as the HEX ruled on the SEPA appeal. On March 27, 2018 the HEX conducted the appeal hearing. On April 17, 2018 the HEX issued a decision that denied the SEPA appeal. At the May 10, 2018 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission reviewed and deliberated on each of the proposed CPAs. The following recommendations to the City Council were voted on: CPA -2018-0001 The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2018-0001. CPA -2018-0003 The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to forward to City Council a recommendation of denial of CPA -2018-0003. CPA -2018-0004 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2018-0004. 1 of 2 CPA -2018-0005 The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2018-0005. Note: Commissioner Phillips recused himself due to a conflict of interest. CPA -2018-0006 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA -2018-0006. An Administrative Report was presented to City Council on July 17th. No public comment was taken at that time. The Council agreed by consensus to accept the Planning Commission Recommendation on each of the proposed amendments. CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005 and CPA -2018-0006 have been placed in the draft ordinance for adoption. CPA -2018-0003 is included in the ordinance stating that it will be denied. At this time the Council will consider the consolidated proposed zoning map amendments in one ordinance for final adoption at first and second readings with appropriate findings included. OPTIONS: Move to approve the ordinance with or without amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance 18-015, Official Zoning Map Amendments. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner Martin Palaniuk, Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Micki Harnois, Planner ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance 18-015 (for attachments 2 through 10, please see Agenda Item #1, RCA for Ordinance 18-014) 2 of 2 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-015 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AS DESCRBIED IN CPA - 2018 -0001, 2018-0004, 2018-0005, and 2018-0006; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and the Official City Zoning Map pursuant to Ordinance No. 16-018, on December 13, 2016 (the Official City Zoning Map); and WHEREAS, the SVMC and Official City Zoning Map became effective on December 28, 2016; and WHEREAS, comprehensive plans may be amended annually pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 of the Growth Management Act (GMA); and WHEREAS, amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan may be initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), citizens, or by the Community and Public Works Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of all properties in the City that are consistent with land use map designations; and WHEREAS, zone changes under consideration with the annual Comprehensive Plan amendments are to be considered as area -wide rezones pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140; and WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, the City adopted Public Participation Guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending comprehensive plans and area -wide rezones; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides that amendment applications shall be received until November 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, applications were submitted by the applicant, owner, or by City staff to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for the purpose of beneficially using the property described herein; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Environmental Protection Act (chapter 43.21C RCW) (SEPA) and chapter 21.20 SVMC, staff conducted an environmental review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2018, after reviewing the environmental checklists, staff issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for each of the proposals, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, and where appropriate posted the DNS on the sites and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2018 and February 9, 2018, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 1 of 11 DRAFT WHEREAS, on February 7, 2018 notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners within 800 feet of the subject properties; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2018, notice of the Commission hearing had been posted on all the subject properties; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2018, the Commission conducted a study session to review the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2018, an appeal of the DNS issued for CPA -2018-0003 was received by the City. Pursuant to chapter 17.90 SVMC, appeals related to SEPA decisions are heard by the Hearing Examiner (HEX) and subject to an appeal hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2018, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 of the City's intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2018, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, the HEX conducted the appeal hearing; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2018, the HEX issued a decision that denied the SEPA appeal; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2018, the Commission deliberated and voted to forward CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 to Council with a recommendation for approval; and CPA -2018-0003 to Council with a recommendation for denial with written findings of fact setting forth the bases for such recommendations to Council; and WHEREAS, CPA -2018-0002 was withdrawn by the applicant and CPA -2018-0007 was withdrawn by the City; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2018, Council conducted a briefing to review the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2018, the Council concurred to place CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA - 2018 -0005, and CPA -2018-0006 in an ordinance for consideration of approval and to place CPA -2018- 0003 in the ordinance for consideration of denial; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2018, Council considered a first ordinance reading to approve CPA -2018- 0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 and to deny CPA -2018-0003; and WHEREAS, on July 31, 2018, Council considered a second ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendments for CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 and to deny CPA -2018-0003. 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 amend the Official City Zoning Map as described in CPA -2018-0001, CPA -2018-0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006. Section 2. Findings. The Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Official City Zoning Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 2 of 11 DRAFT Map, and the Council hereby approves the amendments to the Official Zoning Map. with the exception of CPA -2018-0003, which is denied. The Council has read and considered the Commission's findings. Council's findings specific to each proposed amendment are contained in Section 4 below. The Council hereby makes the following general findings applicable to all proposed amendments: General Findings: 1. Pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), environmental checklists were required for each proposed Comprehensive Plan map and text amendment. 2. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and a threshold determination was made for each proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 3. On February 2, 2018, Determinations of Non -Significance (DNS) were issued for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. 4. On February 2, 2018, the DNS's were published in the City's official newspaper, the Valley News Herald, pursuant to chapter 21.20 SVMC. 5. The procedural requirements of SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. 6. On February 7, 2018, individual notices of public hearing for the proposed site-specific map amendments were, or had been previously, mailed to all property owners within 800 feet of each affected site. 7. On February 7, 2018 each site subject to a proposed site-specific amendment was, or had been previously, posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. 8. On February 2, 2018 and February 9, 2018, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald 9. On February 20, 2018, the Washington State Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 10. The procedural requirements in SVMC 17.80.140 for the amendment process, including public participation, notice, and public hearing requirements have been met. 11. On February 16, 2018, an appeal of the DNS issued for CPA -2108-0003 was received by the City. 12. On February 22, 2018, the Commission held a public hearing on each of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. After receiving public testimony the public hearing was closed. 13. On March 27, 2018, the HEX conducted the appeal hearing. 14. On April 17, 2018, the HEX issued a decision that denied the SEPA appeal. 15. On May 10, 2018, the Commission deliberated and voted to forward CPA -2018-0001, CPA - 2018 -0004, CPA -2018-0005, and CPA -2018-0006 to Council with a recommendation for approval, and CPA -2018-0003 to Council with a recommendation for denial. Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 3 of 11 DRAFT 16. The Commission adopted findings for CPA -2018-0001 and CPA -2018-0003 through CPA - 2018 -0006. Such findings were presented to Council. Specific findings for each Comprehensive Plan Amendment request are contained in Section 4, below. 17. The Commission and Council have reviewed the proposed amendments concurrently to evaluate the cumulative impacts. The review was consistent with the annual amendment process pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW. 18. The proposed amendments to the Official City Zoning Map with the exception of CPA -2018- 0003, are consistent with GMA and do not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. Section 3. Property. The properties subject to this Ordinance are described in Attachment "A" (2018 Official City Zoning Amendment Maps). Section 4. Map Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the Official City Zoning Map as adopted through Ordinance No. 16-018 is hereby amended as set forth below and in Attachment "A" (Maps). The Zoning Map amendments are generally described as follows: Map Amendments: File No. CPA -2018-0001: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Single -Family Residential (SFR) with a Single -Family Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning classification to a Multifamily Residential (MFR) designation with a Multifamily Residential (MFR) zoning classification. Applicant: Robin R & Lori R Petrie, 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99216- 0928. Amendment Location: Parcel No(s). 45153.2801, 45153.2835, and 45153.2836; addressed as 12402 East Valleyway Avenue and 12416 East Valleyway Avenue, located 300 feet east of the intersection of Valleyway Avenue and Pines Road (SR Hwy 27), further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment are promoted by standards established by the state and the City's regulations. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Allows opportunity for growth in an area with adequate public facilities. b. Creates opportunity for a range of residential uses and densities to develop in a neighborhood adjacent to commercial and high density residential uses. 3. The amendment provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. The properties on Pines Road were previously zoned Office (0) which curtailed retail uses. During the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update, the Office designation was eliminated and the designation was changed to CMU, which expanded the opportunity for a variety of retail and office uses. The proposed three parcels, which are adjacent to the CMU designated parcels, are designated as SFR for single family uses. The MFR would allow for a Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 4 of 11 DRAFT range of residential uses, including multifamily and single family, and would allow office uses consistent with the existing uses. 5. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 6. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. No significant effects upon the physical environment are expected if the property develops consistent with the MFR zone. 8. There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. 9. Development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations will ensure compatibility with the existing residential neighborhood. 10. The City addressed adequacy of community facilities through capital facilities planning The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City ensure that facilities and services meet the minimum level of service standards. This is implemented through chapter 22.20 SVMC, Concurrency. At the time of development, a Trip Generation Letter or Traffic Impact Analysis will likely be required, and appropriate safety mitigation measures considered to mitigate actual development impacts. Currently, the site is served with all utilities and improved public roads. 11. The proposed site-specific map amendment should not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The site has traditionally been residential, and the regulations ensure that future development will be compatible with the existing residential uses in the immediate area. A higher density of residential housing near retail areas will support retail uses. 12. The subject property would have an insignificant effect on the amount of land designated for both SF and MFR and/or the potential population increase. 13. If development did occur to meet all development standards in the MFR zone, a maximum of 46 residences would be allowed, with a projected population density of 53 persons per acre within the proposed amendment area. Considering the existing development of two single family residences, and the available area for new development, maximum density will not likely be achieved. Directing density to areas near transportation corridors and commercial areas is consistent with the intent of the MFR designation. 14. The amendment will have no substantive impact on other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan since the property will remain residential is use. 15. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 16. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 17. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 18. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Council Decision: Change the zoning designation for parcel numbers 45153.2801, 45153.2835, and 45153.2836 to Multifamily Residential (MFR). File No. CPA -2018-0003: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Suburban (R-2) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Amendment Location: Parcel number 45333.1807; located west of the Y intersection of East Sands Road and South Bowdish Road, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 33, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 5 of 11 DRAFT Council Findings: 1. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 18-014, CPA -2018-0003 was denied by Council and no subsequent change to the Official City Zoning map shall occur. Council Decision: Deny the request to change the zoning for parcel number 45333.1807 to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). File No. CPA -2018-0004: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Applicant: Heather Bryant, 108 N Washington, Suite 500, Spokane, WA 99201. Amendment Location: Parcel number 45212.1348; located in the SE corner of 7th Avenue and University Road, further located in the NW 1/4 of Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. Infrastructure in the form of roadways, parking, sewer, water, schools, and fire protection, is built through the course of development that will protect and serve the public health, safety, and welfare. The site has no environmentally sensitive areas. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. The amendment allows opportunity for growth in a centralized area with adequate public facilities, and creates opportunity for small scale businesses to develop in a neighborhood oriented commercial area within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. The request does not conflict with any other GMA goals. 3. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. This property and the property located adjacent to the south are under the same ownership. The southern property was zoned NC during the 2016 update however site characteristics constrain its development. Access to any neighborhood commercial development would be more easily accommodated if access can be gained from the amendment site. 4. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 5. The proposed amendment does address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update specifically sought to identify areas into which NC zoning could be clustered. The Comprehensive Plan identifies neighborhood areas served by arterial roadways. The parcel located adjacent and south of the subject parcel was identified and zoned as NC as part of the 2016 update. The amendment would allow the full use of this parcel and expand the NC zone. 6. The site will likely transition from a residential use with residential driveways, trees, lawn, and buildings to a commercial building with parking structures, commercial landscaping, and stormwater treatment areas. The transition would have some impact on the physical environment. 7. The site does not contain any streams, rivers or lakes. There will be negligible impact on the open space areas. 8. The commercial uses allowed in the NC zone are limited and are intended to be of a scale that is compatible with a neighborhood. A Neighborhood Commercial development is purposefully limited to reduce impacts to neighboring residential uses. Development standards will limit the height and location of any new commercial use. A positive impact would be created if the property is developed with a use that serves the surrounding residential uses. 9. Neighborhood commercial use will likely have minimal impact on parks, recreation or schools. No impacts are anticipated. Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 6 of 11 DRAFT 10. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update sought to increase the neighborhood commercial nodes. Providing a neighborhood commercial use within a residential neighborhood will provide both economic opportunity and a neighborhood amenity. 11. As part of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update, areas with the densities to support neighborhood scale retail were identified. The parcel adjacent and south of the subject parcel was identified as a suitable site and designated for neighborhood commercial land use and zoning as part of the 2016 update. Sloping terrain limits this site however. 12. The addition of a neighborhood retail development is not anticipated to increase or decrease the population or density in the area. The change will have no impact on population density. 13. The NC designation would support many of the Economic Development, Land Use, Transportation, and Housing goals. It would have little effect on the Capital Facilities and Public Services, Public and Private Utilities, Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources elements of the Comprehensive plan. 14. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 15. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 16. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 17. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Council Decision: Change the zoning for parcel number 45212.1348 to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). File No. CPA -2018-0005: Proposal: City -initiated site specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to expand the NC designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR), and the associated zoning of NC and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Applicant: City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206. Amendment Location: As modified by City Council, parcels 46353.9035 and 46355.9038; located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road; further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. The affected parcels are inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two different sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, properties designated NC were expanded and designated on portions of parcels associated with CPA -2018-0005. Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 7 of 11 DRAFT 4. The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created parcels burdened by two different sets of development regulations. 5. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 6. There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non -project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. 7. The site contains designated critical areas that include a Type F stream on the northwest corner of parcel 46351.9049, and parcels are located within a 100 -year floodplain. FEMA has accepted the conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) to modify the boundaries and remove the floodplain from the majority of the site. SVMC 21.40 Critical Areas will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. 8. The existing land use designation of NC for the proposed amendment was evaluated and placed on the property through the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The amendment corrects the minor mapping error and eliminates split zoned parcels. The corrections are minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA -2018-0005 parcels are vacant and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all applicable City and State requirements as it relates to adjacent uses. 9. The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. 10. The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. 11. The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. As discussed in the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan the neighborhood -scale commercial development is limited in the City. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan update designated a portion of parcels NC associated with CTA -2018-0005. 12. The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment have an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. 13. The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is correcting a mapping error. 14. During the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, the owner sought and received a boundary line adjustment (BLA) for the five parcels affected by the amendment. The BLA changes the impact of the amendment from affecting five parcels to affecting two parcels, although the total area affected remains the same: parcel no. 46353.9035 and 46355.9038. The two parcels reflect the same area previously affected. The Council hereby finds that modifying the proposed amendment to accurately reflect the new parcel numbers is appropriate. Further, the Council finds that the modification is not a substantial modification since the amendment remains the same except for the change in parcel numbers and no further action is required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(1)(3). 15. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 16. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 8 of 11 DRAFT 17. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 18. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Council Decision: : Expand the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation and zoning on Parcel numbers 46353.9035 and 46355.9038 to eliminate the split designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Single Family Residential (SFR), and the associated zoning of NC and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). The Council approves modifying the proposed amendment from parcels 46352.9052, 46352.9014, 46351.9049, 46351.9005, and 46354.9127 to parcels 46353.9035 46355.9038 due to a BLA that occurred during the Comprehensive Amendment process. File No. CPA -2018-0006: Proposal: City -initiated site specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to expand the Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of IMU and Single Family Residential (SFR, and the associated zoning of IMU and Single Family Residential Urban District (R-3). Applicant: City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206. Amendment Location: Parcel 45015.1409, addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue; located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290) and Lillian Road; further located in the north half of Section 1, Township 25, Range 44, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Findings: 1. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. The affected parcel is inappropriately and erroneously burdened by two different sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence by the mapping error. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the property to develop consistent with other properties in the area. 2. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning. The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes, the land use designation IMU was created and applied to parcel associated with CPA -2018-0006 to capture the existing diverse uses and focus future infill development along Trent Avenue. 4. The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. This created a parcel burdened by two different sets of development regulations. 5. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 6. There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non -project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. 7. There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas associated with CPA - 2018 -0006. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, nor are there known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed. Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 9 of 11 DRAFT 8. The City initiated amendment corrects a minor mapping error to eliminate a split zoned parcel. The correction is both minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA -2018-0006 parcel is fully developed and a swale is constructed within the split zoned portion of land designated SFR. 9. The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. Currently the site is served with all utilities and public streets. 10. The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error. 11. The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density. Residential uses allowed in the IMU designation are incidental and subservient to any commercial or industrial uses. 12. The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences. The amendment has an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated. 13. The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment corrects a mapping error. 14. The proposed amendment is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 15. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 16. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140(H) (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 17. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Council Decision: Expand the Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) zoning on parcel number 45015.1409. Section 5. Zoning Map/Official Controls. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.100, for the purpose of regulating the use of land and to implement and give effect to the Comprehensive Plan, the City hereby amends the Official City Zoning Map as set forth in Attachment "A". Section 6. Adoption of Other Laws. To the extent that any provision of the SVMC, or any other law, rule, or regulation referenced in the attached Zoning Map(s) is necessary or convenient to establish the validity, enforceability, or interpretation of the Zoning Map(s), then such provision of the SVMC, or other law, rule, or regulation is hereby adopted by reference. Section 7. Map - Copies on File -Administrative Action. The Zoning Map is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the City Department of Community and Public Works. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is authorized to modify the Zoning Map in a manner consistent with this Ordinance, including correcting scrivener's errors. Section 8. Liability. The express intent of the City is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall rest with the permit applicant and their agents. This Ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations. Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 10 of 11 DRAFT Section 9. 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 10. 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 as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of July, 2018. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Ordinance 18-015 2018 Zoning Map Amendments Page 11 of 11 Zoning Map Spokane ...•s Valley (' TA -2018-0001 Owner _ Parcel#:. Address: Petrie, Robin & Lori Green, Audrey See Map See Map Request: Citizen initiated proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan mapfrom SFR to MFR; subsequent Rezone from R-3 to MFR 721 S' UNIVERSIiTY,RD' 452/21348 Zoning Map E 7th Ave, Study Area 1:SthAvc Spokane Valley CPA -2018-0004 Owner: Steve & Tresa Schmautz Parcel#: See Map Address: See Map �ry 1 nnitelr iniriata'd .vric-�1�re:flr ('ninl�r.laensir� JSC(I..CSt• Han Afipand 7aning;Yfop anentinnanregi,esfing !a ehaugr the Cbtnprehensirr Man I and Use Designation livor Siuglc Family Residential (SFR) with a Single-litruila Residential lit ban District (R-3) :tatting classificattan !o Neighborhood Commercial (Nr Jr.+it=„nriatr with a Neighborhood Commercial (NC:) zoning classification Zoning Map fr11lF pokane dl Valley CPA -2018-0005 Owner: Parcels: Address: Five Fifty, LLC 46353.9035, 46355.90313, Unknown Request: City initiated proposal to expand Neighborhood Conanrercial (NC) designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel Zoning Map Spokane dll Valley CPA -2018-0006 Owner: MPR Spokane, LLC Parcef#: See Map Address: See Map Request: City initiated proposal to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMO designation and zoning to eliminate split zoning of parcel CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 31, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ['admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second reading, proposed Ordinance 18-016 — ExteNet Systems, Inc. — wireless telecommunications facilities. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.47.040; RCW 35A.11.020; chapter 35.99 RCW, chapter 22.121 SVMC regarding small cell regulations. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Information only report July 17, 2018; first reading July 24, 2018. BACKGROUND: The City was recently approached by ExteNet Systems, Inc. (Extenet), regarding new wireless facilities necessary to bring small cell technology to the residents and businesses of Spokane Valley. Staff then began negotiating the terms of a wireless franchise ordinance agreement with representatives of ExteNet. We used the standard telecommunications franchise agreement as the template, based on a number of telecommunication franchises previously approved by the Council. Staff and ExteNet have agreed on the proposed terms for a wireless franchise agreement, which are before the Council in proposed Ordinance 18-016. OPTIONS: Approve ordinance 18-016, or take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we approve proposed Ordinance 18-016 granting a wireless telecommunications franchise to ExteNet Systems, Inc. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 18-016 — ExteNet Systems, Inc., wireless telecommunications franchise. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-016 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, GRANTING A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO EXTENET SYSTEMS, INC. TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 authorizes the City to grant, permit, and regulate "nonexclusive franchises for the use of public streets, bridges or other public ways, structures or places above or below the surface of the ground for railroads and other routes and facilities for public conveyances, for poles, conduits, tunnels, towers and structures, pipes and wires and appurtenances thereof for transmission and distribution of electrical energy, signals and other methods of communication, for gas, steam and liquid fuels, for water, sewer and other private and publicly owned and operated facilities for public service;" and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 further requires that "no ordinance or resolution granting any franchise in a code city for any purpose shall be adopted or passed by the city's legislative body on the day of its introduction nor for five days thereafter, nor at any other than a regular meeting nor without first being submitted to the city attorney, nor without having been granted by the approving vote of at least a majority of the entire legislative body, nor without being published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city before becoming effective;" and WHEREAS, this Ordinance has been submitted to the City Attorney prior to its passage; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the grant of the Franchise contained in this Ordinance, subject to its terms and conditions, is in the best interests of the public, and protects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words and terms shall have the meaning set forth below: "City Manager" means the City Manager or designee. "Common costs" shall include necessary costs not specifically attributable to the undergrounding of any particular facility, such as costs for common trenching and utility vaults. "construction" or "construct" shall mean constructing, digging, excavating, laying, testing, operating, extending, upgrading, renewing, removing, replacing, and repairing a facility. "day" shall mean a 24-hour period beginning at 12:01 AM. If a thing or act is to be done in less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation of time. Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 1 of 16 DRAFT "Fair share" shall be determined for a project on the basis of the number of conduits of Grantee's facilities being undergrounded in comparison to the total number of conduits of all other utility facilities being undergrounded. "franchise area" shall mean the entire geographic area within the City as it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted. "hazardous substances" shall have the same meaning as RCW 70.105D.020(10). "maintenance, maintaining or maintain" shall mean the work involved in the replacement and/or repair of facilities with new facilities that are substantially identical to those being replaced or repaired, including constructing, relaying, repairing, replacing, examining, testing, inspecting, removing, digging and excavating, and restoring operations incidental thereto. "permittee" shall mean a person or entity who has been granted a permit by the permitting authority. "permitting authority" shall mean the City Manager or designee authorized to process and grant permits required to perform work in the rights-of-way. "product" shall refer to the item, thing, or use provided by the Grantee. "relocation" shall mean any required move or relocation of an existing installation or equipment owned by Grantee whereby such move or relocation is necessitated by installation, improvement, renovation, or repair of another entity's facilities in the rights- of-way, including Grantor's facilities. "rights-of-way" shall refer to the surface of and the space along, above, and below any street, road, highway, freeway, lane, sidewalk, alley, court, boulevard, parkway, drive, Grantee easement, and/or public way now or hereafter held or administered by the City. "streets" shall mean the surface of, and the space above and below, any public street, road, alley, or highway, within the City used or intended to be used by the general public, to the extent the City has the right to allow the Grantee to use them. "telecommunications facilities" shall mean, collectively or individually, any and all equipment, fixtures, appurtenances, antennas, receivers, equipment boxes, backup power supplies, power transfer switches, cut-off switches, electric meters, coaxial cables, fiber optic cables, telcom demarcation boxes and related materials and other facilities necessary to furnish and deliver telecommunications services, including but not limited to poles with crossarms, poles without crossarms, wires, lines, conduits, cables, communication and signal lines and equipment, braces, guys, anchors, vaults, and all attachments, appurtenances, and appliances necessary or incidental to the distribution and use of telecommunications services. The abandonment by Grantee of any telecommunications facilities as defined herein shall not act to remove the same from this definition. Section 2. Grant of Franchise. The City of Spokane Valley, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter as "City" or "the City"), hereby grants unto ExteNet Systems, Inc. (hereinafter "Grantee"), a franchise for a period of 10 years, beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance, to install, construct, operate, repair, maintain, replace and use all necessary equipment and facilities to place telecommunications Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 2 of 16 DRAFT facilities in, under, on, across, over, through, along, or below the public rights-of-way located in the City of Spokane Valley, as approved under City permits issued pursuant to this franchise (hereinafter the "franchise"). This franchise does not include the right to install or maintain facilities on, over, or above that portion of the rights-of-way utilized for vehicular travel and parking. This franchise does not convey any right to Grantee to install its facilities on, under, over, or across any facility or structure owned by a third -party without such written approval of the third -party. No substantive expansions, additions to or modifications (excluding modifications necessitated by replacement or repair) or relocation of any of the facilities shall be allowed without first having received prior authorization from the City through an amendment to this franchise, or pursuant to a permit issued by the City. Placement of all telecommunication facilities in the rights-of-way shall be pursuant to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, including applicable zoning requirements. Grantee shall be permitted to install, operate, maintain, upgrade, remove, replace, repair and/or restore its telecommunications facilities within the rights- of-way in order to provide telecommunication services to its customers. A) Grantee shall be permitted to erect or replace poles within the rights-of-way only as permitted and pursuant to applicable Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("City Code") sections. Grantee shall be responsible for providing an alternate site analysis together with Grantee's initial request for approvals. Such report shall be paid for by Grantee, and may be prepared either by a third party consultant/engineer agreed to by the Parties. B) The maximum height of any structure placed within the rights-of-way shall be 90 feet. C) Any cabinet, cabling, or other accessory equipment which can be placed underground shall be undergrounded as provided in Section 14. Other cabling or electrical equipment shall either be placed within the supporting pole or structure, or concealed from view in accordance with applicable sections from the City Code. D) Any above -ground electrical equipment placed upon a utility pole or structure shall be operated in a manner which permits it to be deactivated during maintenance, construction, or reconstruction of other utility equipment located on the utility pole or structure. Any above -ground telecommunications facilities, including any electrical facilities necessary to the operation of the telecommunications facilities, shall be co -located with the facilities of another utility provider whenever commercially reasonable. E) To the extent that such facilities are personal wireless services, Grantee and the City will subsequently enter into a site-specific agreement, including the payment of a site specific charge, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 35.21.860, in a form to be mutually agreed upon. F) The facilities shall not be used for cable internet services or Cable Services as those terms are defined in 47 U.S.C. § 522(6). G) Grantee shall have the right, without prior City approval, to offer or provide capacity or bandwidth to its customers consistent with this franchise provided: (a) Grantee retains exclusive control over its telecommunications system, facilities, and services, and remains responsible for constructing, installing, and maintaining its facilities pursuant to the terms and conditions of this franchise; Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 3 of 16 DRAFT (b) Grantee may not grant rights to any customer or lessee that are materially greater than any rights franchisee has pursuant to this franchise; (c) Such customer or lessee or Grantee shall not be construed to be a third -party beneficiary under this franchise; and (d) No such customer or lessee may use Grantee's telecommunications system or services for any purpose not authorized by this franchise, nor to sell or offer for sale any service to the citizens of the City without all required federal approvals Section 3. Fee. No right-of-way use fee is imposed for the term of this franchise. Any such right-of-way use or franchise fee that may be imposed by subsequent ordinance would apply to any subsequent franchise, if any, between the parties. Section 4. City Use. To the extent applicable to Grantee's use of the rights-of-way, the following provisions shall apply regarding City use. A) Grantee agrees to reserve to the City the right to access four dark fiber strands (two pair) along the route as mutually approved by both parties at a later date, within the boundaries of the City, for sole and exclusive municipal, non-commercial use or designation (the "City Reserved Fibers"). City agrees that it shall not use the City Reserved Fibers as a public utility provider of telecommunications business service to the public. B) The City has the right to access by connection to the City Reserved Fibers at existing Grantee splice points or reasonably established access points within the City limits; provided that all splicing shall be the sole responsibility of Grantee, except cost, pursuant to Section 4(D), below. The City shall provide at least 30 days' written notice of intent to access the City Reserved Fibers. Upon any access or use of the City Reserved Fibers, City shall pay Grantee a recurring monthly charge of $20.00 per fiber pair per mile in use by the City (the "City Fiber Rate") unless otherwise specifically agreed by both the parties in writing and shall negotiate and enter into a "Fiber License Agreement" which shall govern the terms and conditions for use of the City Reserved Fibers, except cost, which is set forth herein. Said recurring monthly charge shall not be imposed until such time as the fiber is put into use by the City. City and Grantee shall execute a Dark Fiber IRU Agreement to outline the terms for the fiber dedication prior to the time the City wants use the dark fiber. C) In the event the City Reserved Fibers are the last fibers remaining in Grantee's fiber bundle, then the following shall apply: 1) If the City is using the fibers, then the rate the City shall pay Grantee will change from the City Fiber Rate to Grantee's standard commercial rate. 2) If the City is not using the fibers, the City shall have the option of abandoning the City Reserved Fibers in lieu of paying Grantee's standard commercial rate. If Grantee installs additional fiber capacity, the City's right to use four dark fiber strands as set forth in subsections 1 and 2, immediately above, shall again be in effect. D) All access, interconnection and maintenance to and on the City Reserved Fibers shall be performed by Grantee. The City shall pay all costs associated with such work to the City Reserved Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 4 of 16 DRAFT Fibers. The City Reserved Fibers shall have a term that matches the duration of this franchise Ordinance. E) Pursuant to RCW 35.99.070, at such time when Grantee is constructing, relocating, or placing ducts or conduits in public rights-of-way, the City Manager may require Grantee to provide the City with additional duct or conduit and related structures, at incremental cost, necessary to access the conduit at mutually convenient locations. Any ducts or conduits provided by Grantee under this section shall only be used for City municipal, non-commercial purposes. 1) The City shall not require that the additional duct or conduit space be connected to the access structures and vaults of the Grantee. 2) This section shall not affect the provision of an institutional network by a cable television provider under federal law. 3) Grantee shall notify the City Manager at least 14 days' prior to opening a trench at any location to allow the City to exercise its options as provided herein. Section 5. Recovery of Costs. Grantee shall reimburse the City for all costs of one publication of a summary of this franchise in a local newspaper, and required legal notices prior to any public hearing regarding this franchise, contemporaneous with its acceptance of this franchise. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or under City Code. Section 6. Non -Exclusivity. This franchise is granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or further franchises or permits in any rights-of-way, so long as any subsequent franchise or permit does not unreasonably interfere with Grantee's use of the right-of- way. This and other franchises shall, in no way, prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its rights- of-way or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them. Section 7. Non -Interference with Existing Facilities. The City shall have prior and superior right to the use of its rights-of-way and public properties for installation and maintenance of its facilities and other governmental purposes. The City hereby retains full power to make all changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishments, improvements, dedications or vacation of same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new rights-of-way, streets, avenues, thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and description. Any and all such removal or replacement shall be at the sole expense of Grantee, unless RCW 35.99.060 provides otherwise. Should Grantee fail to remove, adjust or relocate its telecommunications facilities by the date established by the City Manager's written notice to Grantee and in accordance with RCW 35.99.060, the City may cause and/or effect such removal, adjustment or relocation, and the expense thereof shall be paid by Grantee. The owners of all utilities, public or private, installed in or on such public properties prior to the installation of the telecommunications facilities of Grantee, shall have preference as to the positioning and location of such utilities so installed with respect to Grantee. Such preference shall continue in the event of the necessity of relocating or changing the grade of any such public properties. Grantee's telecommunications facilities shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as not to unreasonably interfere with any public use, or with any other pipes, wires, conduits or other facilities that may have been laid in the rights-of-way by or under the City's authority. If the work done under this franchise damages or unreasonably interferes in any way with the public use or other facilities, Grantee Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 5 of 16 DRAFT shall wholly and at its own expense make such provisions necessary to eliminate the interference or damage to the satisfaction of the City Manager. Section 8. Construction Standards. All work authorized and required hereunder shall comply with all generally applicable City Codes and regulations. Grantee shall also comply with all applicable federal and state regulations, laws, and practices. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns, or agencies. Application of said federal, state, and City Codes and regulations shall be for the purposes of fulfilling the City's public trustee role in administering the primary use and purpose of public properties, and not for relieving the Grantee of any duty, obligation, or responsibility for the competent design, construction, maintenance, and operation of its telecommunications facilities. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns, or agencies. If Grantee shall at any time be required, or plan, to excavate trenches in any area covered by this franchise, the Grantee shall afford the City an opportunity to permit other franchisees and utilities to share such excavated trenches, provided that: (1) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the Grantee; and (2) such joint use shall not adversely affect Grantee's telecommunications facilities or safety thereof. Joint users will be required to contribute to the costs of excavation and filling on a pro -rata basis. Section 9. Protection of Monuments. Grantee shall comply with applicable state laws relating to protection of monuments. Section 10. Tree Trimming. Grantee shall have the authority to conduct pruning and trimming for access to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way subject to compliance with the City Code. All such trimming shall be done at Grantee's sole cost and expense. Section 11. Emergency Response. Grantee shall, within 30 days of the execution of this franchise, designate one or more responsible people and an emergency 24-hour on-call personnel, and the procedures to be followed when responding to an emergency. After being notified of an emergency, Grantee shall cooperate with the City to immediately respond with action to aid in the protection of the health and safety of the public. In the event Grantee refuses to promptly take the directed action or fails to fully comply with such direction, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action to prevent imminent injury or damages to persons or property, the City may take such actions as it believes are necessary to protect persons or property, and Grantee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for its costs and any expenses. Section 12. One -Call System. Pursuant to RCW 19.122, Grantee shall comply with Washington's One - Call statutes. Section 13. Safety. All of Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and operational condition. Grantee shall follow all safety codes and other applicable regulations in the installation, operation, and maintenance of the telecommunications facilities. Section 14. Movement of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities. If the City does not require the undergrounding of Grantee's facilities at the time of a permit application, the City may, at any time in the future, require the conversion of Grantee's aerial facilities to underground installation at Grantee's expense at such time as the City requires all other utilities, except electrical utilities, with aerial facilities in the area to convert them to underground installation. Unless otherwise permitted by the City, Grantee shall underground its facilities in all new developments and subdivisions where other utilities are to be constructed underground, and any development or subdivision where utilities are currently underground. Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 6 of 16 DRAFT Section 14 shall not apply to facilities that are required to remain above ground in order to be functional; provided, however, all other facilities and equipment capable of being installed underground shall be undergrounded by Grantee. Grantee may install a new pole to support antennas or other facilities that must be above ground to function with written approval from the City, and pursuant to adopted City code at the time any new pole is installed. In the event the City requires the undergrounding of the aerial utilities in any area of the City, Grantee shall underground its aerial facilities concurrently with and in the area of the other affected utilities. The location of any relocated and underground utilities shall be approved by the City. Where other utilities are present and involved in the undergrounding project, Grantee shall only be required to pay its fair share of common costs borne by all utilities, in addition to the costs specifically attributable to the undergrounding of Grantee's own facilities. Grantee shall be entitled to reasonable access to open utility trenches, provided that such access does not interfere with the City's placement of utilities or increase the City's costs. Grantee shall pay the City the City's actual additional cost to the City resulting from providing Grantee access to an open trench, including without limitation the pro rata share of the costs of access to an open trench and any costs associated with the delay of the completion of a public works project. Nothing in Section 14 shall be construed as requiring the City to pay any costs of undergrounding any of Grantee's facilities, except as may otherwise be required by Washington State law. Whenever any third party shall have obtained permission from the City to use any right—of-way for the purpose of moving any building or other oversized structure, upon at least 14 days' written notice from the City, Grantee shall move, at the expense of the third party desiring to move the building or structure, any of Grantee's telecommunications facilities that may obstruct the movement thereof; provided, that the path for moving such building or structure is the path of least interference to Grantee's telecommunications facilities, as determined by the City. Upon good cause shown by Grantee, the City may require more than 14 days' notice by the third party to Grantee to move its telecommunications facilities. Section 15. Acquiring New Telecommunications Facilities. Upon Grantee's acquisition of any new telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, or upon any addition or annexation to the City of any area in which Grantee retains any such telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, Grantee shall submit to the City a written statement describing all telecommunications facilities involved, whether authorized by franchise or any other form of prior right, and specifying the location of all such facilities. Such facilities shall immediately be subject to the terms of this franchise. Section 16. Dangerous Conditions - Authority of City to Abate. Whenever excavation, installation, construction, repair, maintenance, or relocation of telecommunications facilities authorized by this franchise has caused or contributed to a condition that substantially impairs the lateral support of the adjoining right-of-way, road, street or other public place, or endangers the public, adjoining public or private property or street utilities, the City may direct Grantee, at Grantee's sole expense, to take reasonable actions to protect the public and property. The City may require that such action be completed within a prescribed time. In the event that Grantee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public, adjacent public or private property, or street utilities, or to maintain the lateral support thereof, and all other actions deemed by the City to be necessary to preserve the public safety and welfare; and Grantee shall be liable to the City for all costs and expenses thereof to the extent the emergency condition was caused by Grantee's use of the Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 7 of 16 DRAFT right-of-way. Section 17. Hazardous Substances. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, regulations and orders concerning hazardous substances relating to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights—of-way. Grantee agrees to indemnify the City against any claims, costs, and expenses, of any kind, whether direct or indirect, incurred by the City arising out of the release or threat of release of hazardous substances caused by Grantee's ownership or operation of its telecommunications facilities within the City's rights-of-way. Section 18. Environmental. Grantee shall comply with all environmental protection laws, rules, recommendations, and regulations of the United States and the State of Washington, and their various subdivisions and agencies as they presently exist or may hereafter be enacted, promulgated, or amended, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all damages arising, or which may arise, or be caused by, or result from the failure of Grantee fully to comply with any such laws, rules, recommendations, or regulations, whether or not Grantee's acts or activities were intentional or unintentional. Grantee shall further indemnify the City against all losses, costs, and expenses (including legal expenses) which the City may incur as a result of the requirement of any government or governmental subdivision or agency to clean and/or remove any pollution caused or permitted by Grantee, whether said requirement is during the term of the franchise or subsequent to its termination. Section 19. Relocation of Telecommunications Facilities. Grantee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate, or remove from any street any of its telecommunications facilities when so required by the City in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35.99.060, provided that Grantee shall in all such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City, any section of its telecommunications facilities required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. If the City determines that the project necessitates the relocation of Grantee's then -existing telecommunications facilities, the City shall: A) At least 60 days prior to the commencement of such improvement project, provide Grantee with written notice requiring such relocation, and Grantor will make reasonable efforts to provide at least 90 days' advance notice; and B) Provide Grantee with copies of pertinent portions of the plans and specifications for such improvement project and a proposed location for Grantee's telecommunications facilities so that Grantee may relocate its telecommunications facilities in other City rights-of-way in order to accommodate such improvement project. C) After receipt of such notice and such plans and specifications, Grantee shall complete relocation of its telecommunications facilities at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project in accordance with RCW 35.99.060 (2). Grantee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its telecommunications facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives and advise Grantee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the telecommunications facilities. If so requested by the City, Grantee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by Grantee full and fair consideration. In the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable alternative, Grantee shall relocate its telecommunications facilities as otherwise provided in this section or may terminate the site-specific agreement associated with Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 8 of 16 DRAFT the affected installation. The provisions of this section shall in no manner preclude or restrict Grantee from making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its telecommunications facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the telecommunications facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City owned, operated, or maintained facilities, provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. If the City or a contractor for the City is delayed at any time in the progress of the work by an act or neglect of the Grantee or those acting for or on behalf of Grantee, then Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees to the extent arising out of or in connection with such delays, except for delays and damages caused by the City. This provision may not be waived by the parties except in writing. Section 20. Abandonment of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities. No facility constructed or owned by Grantee may be abandoned without the express written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. A. Underground facilities: The City has discretion and authority to direct Grantee to remove a facility abandoned by Grantee (whether or not the entity had permission to abandon the facility) and restore the rights-of-way to their pre -removal condition when: (a) a City project involves digging that will encounter the abandoned facility; (b) the abandoned facility poses a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the public; (c) the abandoned facility is 24 inches or less below the surface of the rights-of-way and the City is reconstructing or resurfacing a street over the rights- of-way; or (d) the abandoned facility has collapsed, broke, or otherwise failed. Grantee may, upon written approval by the City, delay removal of the abandoned facility until such time as the City commences a construction project in the rights-of-way unless (b) or (d) above applies. When (b) or (d) applies, Grantee shall remove the abandoned facility from the rights-of- way as soon as weather conditions allow, unless the City expressly allows otherwise in writing. B. Aboveground facilities: Grantee shall remove any facilities which have not been used to provide telecommunications services for a period of at least 180 days. C. The expense of the removal, and restoration of improvements in the rights-of-way that were damaged by the facility or by the removal process, shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. If Grantee fails to remove the abandoned facilities in accordance with the above, then the City may incur costs to remove the abandoned facilities and restore the rights-of-way, and is entitled to reimbursement from Grantee for such costs, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Section 21. Maps and Records Required. Grantee shall provide the City, at no cost to the City: A) A route map that depicts the general location of the Grantee's telecommunications facilities placed in the rights-of-way. The route map shall identify telecommunications facilities as aerial or underground and is not required to depict cable types, number of fibers or cables, electronic equipment, and service lines to individual subscribers. Grantee shall also provide an electronic map of the aerial/underground telecommunications facilities in relation to the right-of-way centerline reference to allow the City to add this information to the City's Geographic Information System ("GIS") program. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1, annually. Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 9 of 16 DRAFT B) In connection with the construction of any City project, Grantee shall provide to the City, upon the City's reasonable request, copies of available drawings in use by Grantee showing the location of such telecommunications facilities. Grantee shall field locate its telecommunications facilities in order to facilitate design and planning of City improvement projects. C) Upon written request of the City, Grantee shall provide the City with the most recent update available of any plan of potential improvements to its telecommunications facilities within the franchise area; provided, however, any such plan so submitted shall be deemed confidential and for informational purposes only, and shall not obligate Grantee to undertake any specific improvements within the franchise area. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1, annually D) In addition to the requirements of subsection 1 of this section, the parties agree to periodically share GIS files upon written request, provided Grantee's GIS files are to be used solely by the City for governmental purposes. Any files provided to Grantee shall be restricted to information required for Grantee's engineering needs for construction or maintenance of telecommunications facilities that are the subject of this franchise. Grantee is prohibited from selling any GIS information obtained from City to any third parties. E) Public Record Act. Grantee acknowledges that information submitted to the City may be subject to inspection and copying under the Washington Public Record Act codified in chapter 42.56 RCW. Grantee shall mark as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" each page or portion thereof of any documentation/information which it submits to the City and which it believes is exempt from public inspection or copying. The City agrees to timely provide Grantee with a copy of any public disclosure request to inspect or copy documentation/information which the Grantee has provided to the City and marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" prior to allowing any inspection and/or copying as well as provide the Grantee with a time frame, consistent with RCW 42.56.520, to provide the City with its written basis for non -disclosure of the requested documentation/information. In the event the City disagrees with the Grantee's basis for non- disclosure, the City agrees to withhold release of the requested documentation/ information in dispute for a reasonable amount of time to allow Grantee an opportunity to file a legal action under RCW 42.56.540. Section 22. Limitation on Future Work. In the event that the City constructs a new street or reconstructs an existing street, Grantee shall not be permitted to excavate such street except as set forth in the City's then -adopted regulations relating to street cuts and excavations. Section 23. Reservation of Rights by City. The City reserves the right to refuse any request for a permit to extend telecommunications facilities. Any such refusal shall be supported by a written statement from the City that extending the telecommunications facilities, as proposed, would interfere with the public health, safety, or welfare. Section 24. Remedies to Enforce Compliance. In addition to any other remedy provided herein, the City reserves the right to pursue any remedy to compel or force Grantee and/or its successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the City from thereafter declaring a forfeiture or revocation for breach of the conditions herein. Section 25. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this franchise, including any reasonable ordinances made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public, including but not limited to the Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 10 of 16 DRAFT currently adopted Spokane Regional Pavement Cut Policy. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of construction and maintenance of any telecommunications facilities by Grantee, and Grantee shall promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause Grantee to violate other requirements of law. In the event of a conflict between the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and this franchise, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code shall control. Section 26. Vacation. The City may vacate any City road, right-of-way or other City property which is subject to rights granted by this franchise in accordance with state and local law. In the event of a street vacation, the City shall include in the vacation ordinance a reserved easement for the continued location of Grantee's facilities. Section 27. Indemnification. A) Grantee hereby covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person arising from injury, sickness or death of any person or damage to property of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of this franchise agreement; except for injuries and damages caused solely by the negligence of the City. This includes but is not limited to injury: 1) For which the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by a franchise are a proximate cause; 2) By virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights granted herein; 3) By virtue of the City permitting Grantee's use of the City's rights -of -ways or other public property; 4) Based upon the City's inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by Grantee, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work authorized on the facility or property over which the City has control, pursuant to a franchise or pursuant to any other permit or approval issued in connection with a franchise; 5) Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction or work upon the facility, in any right- of-way, or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under a franchise; or B) Grantee's indemnification obligations pursuant to subsection 1 of this section shall include assuming liability for actions brought by Grantee's own employees and the employees of Grantee's agents, representatives, contractors and subcontractors even though Grantee might be immune under RCW Title 51 from direct suit brought by such an employee. It is expressly agreed and understood that this assumption of potential liability for actions brought by the aforementioned employees is limited solely to claims against the City arising by virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights set forth in a franchise. The obligations of Grantee under this subsection have been mutually negotiated by the parties, and Grantee acknowledges that the City would not enter into a franchise without Grantee's waiver. To the extent required to provide this indemnification and this indemnification only, Grantee waives its immunity under RCW Title 51. Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 11 of 16 DRAFT C) Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by Grantee at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided, that Grantee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim, and has the right to approve any settlement or other compromise of any such claim. D) In the event that Grantee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter), to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of Grantee, then Grantee shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorney fees, the reasonable costs of the City of recovering under this subsection. E) Grantee's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City against liability for damages caused by the concurrent negligence of (a) City or City's agents, employees, or contractors, and (b) Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors, shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a franchise is subject to the provisions of RCW 4.24.115, the parties agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be allocated as provided herein. F) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, Grantee assumes the risk of damage to its telecommunication facilities located in the rights-of-way and upon City -owned property from activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees and contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from any willful or malicious action or gross negligence on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under users of Grantee's facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Grantee's facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the sole negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. G) The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration, revocation or termination of this franchise. Section 28. Insurance. Grantee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the franchise, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and authority granted hereunder to Grantee, its agents, representatives or employees. Grantee's maintenance of insurance as required by this franchise shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Grantee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. A) Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 12 of 16 DRAFT accident for bodily injury and property damage. This insurance shall cover all owned, non -owned, hired or leased vehicles used in relation to this franchise. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage; and B) Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01, or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage acceptable to the City, and shall cover products liability. The City shall be named as an insured under Grantee's Commercial General Liability insurance policy using ISO Additional Insured -State or Political Subdivisions -Permits CG 20 12 or a substitute endorsement acceptable to the City providing equivalent coverage. Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations; broad form property; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU); and Employer's Liability. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Commercial General Liability insurance: A) Grantee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City as outlined in the Indemnification section of this franchise. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of Grantee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. B) Grantee's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled, except after 30 days' prior written notice has been given to the City. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. Grantee shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Grantee prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies required herein shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. Section 29. Performance Bond Relating to Construction Activity. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this franchise, Grantee, or any parties Grantee contracts with to perform labor in the performance of this franchise, shall, upon the request of the City, furnish a bond executed by Grantee or Grantee's contractors and a corporate surety authorized to operate a surety business in the State of Washington, in such sum as may be set and approved by the City, not to exceed $25,000, as sufficient to ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise. The bond shall be conditioned so that Grantee shall observe all the covenants, terms and conditions and shall faithfully perform all of the obligations of this franchise, and to repair or replace any defective work or materials discovered in the City's road, streets, or property. Said bond shall remain in effect for the life of this franchise. In the event Grantee proposes to construct a project for which the above-mentioned bond would not ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise, the City is entitled to require such larger bond as may be appropriate under the circumstances. In the event the City draws on the surety for purposes set forth in this franchise such that the remaining value of the surety falls below $10,000, the City may request that the surety be renewed to the full value of $25,000 as a condition of doing any additional work in the rights-of-way. Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 13 of 16 DRAFT Section 30. Modification. The City and Grantee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration, amendment or modification. Section 31. Forfeiture and Revocation. If Grantee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise, then the City shall notify Grantee in writing, stating with reasonable specificity the nature of the alleged default. Grantee shall cure any alleged default within 30 days after receipt of the notice. If Grantee fails to cure the default within such 30 -day period, and the City and Grantee do not otherwise reach an agreement with regard to such default, then Grantee shall, at the election of the City, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this franchise may be revoked or annulled by the City after a hearing held upon reasonable notice to Grantee. The City may elect, in lieu of the above and without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the Spokane County Superior Court compelling Grantee to comply with the provisions of this franchise and to recover damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of Grantee's failure to comply. Section 32. Assignment. This franchise may not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, except that Grantee can assign this franchise without approval of, but upon notice to the City from any parent, affiliate or subsidiary of Grantee or to any entity that acquires all or substantially all the assets or equity of Grantee, by merger, sale, consolidation or otherwise. Use of Grantee's telecommunication facilities by Grantee's customers or attachment of third -party owned telecommunication facilities shall not constitute an assignment under this Agreement. Section 33. Acceptance. Not later than 60 days after passage of this Ordinance, Grantee shall accept the franchise herein by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of Grantee to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof by Grantee, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the 60 -day period, absolutely cease, unless the time period is extended by a subsequent ordinance passed expressly for that purpose. Section 34. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of sections: 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38 and 39 of this franchise shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Grantee may have to the City at common law, by statute, by ordinance, or by contract, and shall survive termination of this franchise, and any renewals or extensions hereof. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this franchise shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of Grantee and City and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of Grantee shall inure to their respective heirs, successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein. Section 35. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should 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. In the event that any of the provisions of the franchise are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to reconsider the grant of the franchise and may amend, repeal, add, replace or modify any other provision of the franchise, or may terminate the franchise. Section 36. Renewal. Application for extension or renewal of the term of this franchise shall be made no later than 180 days of the expiration thereof. In the event the time period granted by this franchise expires without being renewed by the City, the terms and conditions hereof shall continue in effect until this franchise is either renewed or terminated. Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 14 of 16 DRAFT Section 37. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given by or to the parties under this franchise may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified, in writing: The City: Grantee: City of Spokane Valley Attn: City Clerk 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Attn: CFO 3030 Warrenville Road, Suite 340 Lisle, Illinois, 60532 With a copy to: ExteNet Systems, Inc. Attn: General Counsel 3030 Warrenville Road, Suite 340 Lisle, Illinois, 60532 Section 38. Choice of Law. Any litigation between the City and Grantee arising under or regarding this franchise shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Spokane County Superior Court, and if in the federal courts, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Section 39. Non -Waiver. The City shall be vested with the power and authority to reasonably regulate the exercise of the privileges permitted by this franchise in the public interest. Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligations to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise by reason of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance, nor does the City waive or limit any of its rights under this franchise by reason of such failure or neglect. Section 40. Entire Agreement. This franchise constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings, written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon execution and acceptance hereof. This franchise shall also supersede and cancel any previous right or claim of Grantee to occupy the City roads as herein described. Section 41. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this 31st day of July, 2018. ATTEST: L. R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 15 of 16 DRAFT Accepted by ExteNet Systems, Inc.: By: Name and official capacity The Grantee, ExteNet Systems, Inc., for itself, and for its successors and assigns, does accept all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing franchise. STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) ss COUNTY OF DuPAGE ) Before me, , on this day personally appeared , known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and known to me to be the of ExteNet Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and acknowledged to me that he executed the said instrument for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, on behalf of said Corporation. Given under my hand and seal of office this day of , 2018. Notary Public Printed Name: My Commission Expires: [SEAL] Ordinance 18-016 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Wireless Franchise Page 16 of 16 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 31, 2018 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ['admin. report Department Director Approval: ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second reading of proposed Ordinance 18-017 — ExteNet Systems, Inc. — fiber telecommunications facilities. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.47.040; RCW 35A.11.020; chapter 35.99 RCW, chapter 22.121 SVMC regarding small cell regulations. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Information only report July 17, 2018; first reading July 24, 2018. BACKGROUND: The City was recently approached by ExteNet Systems, Inc. (Extenet), regarding new facilities necessary to bring small cell technology to the residents and businesses of Spokane Valley. Staff then began negotiating the terms of a fiber franchise ordinance agreement with representatives of ExteNet. We used the standard telecommunications franchise agreement as the template, based on a number of telecommunication franchises previously approved by the Council. Staff and ExteNet have agreed on the proposed terms for a fiber franchise, which are before the Council in proposed Ordinance 18-017. OPTIONS: Approve proposed Ordinance 18-017, or take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we approve proposed Ordinance 18-017 granting a fiber telecommunications franchise to ExteNet Systems, Inc.. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 18-017 — ExteNet Systems, Inc., fiber telecommunications franchise. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-017 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, GRANTING A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO EXTENET SYSTEMS, INC. TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE FIBEROPTIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 authorizes the City to grant, permit, and regulate "nonexclusive franchises for the use of public streets, bridges or other public ways, structures or places above or below the surface of the ground for railroads and other routes and facilities for public conveyances, for poles, conduits, tunnels, towers and structures, pipes and wires and appurtenances thereof for transmission and distribution of electrical energy, signals and other methods of communication, for gas, steam and liquid fuels, for water, sewer and other private and publicly owned and operated facilities for public service;" and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 further requires that "no ordinance or resolution granting any franchise in a code city for any purpose shall be adopted or passed by the city's legislative body on the day of its introduction nor for five days thereafter, nor at any other than a regular meeting nor without first being submitted to the city attorney, nor without having been granted by the approving vote of at least a majority of the entire legislative body, nor without being published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city before becoming effective;" and WHEREAS, this Ordinance has been submitted to the City Attorney prior to its passage; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the grant of the Franchise contained in this Ordinance, subject to its terms and conditions, is in the best interests of the public, and protects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words and terms shall have the meaning set forth below: "City Manager" means the City Manager or designee. "construction" or "construct" shall mean constructing, digging, excavating, laying, testing, operating, extending, upgrading, renewing, removing, replacing, and repairing a facility. "day" shall mean a 24-hour period beginning at 12:01 AM. If a thing or act is to be done in less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation of time. "franchise area" shall mean the entire geographic area within the City as it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted. "hazardous substances" shall have the same meaning as RCW 70.105D.020(10). Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 1 of 14 DRAFT "maintenance, maintaining or maintain" shall mean the work involved in the replacement and/or repair of facilities, including constructing, relaying, repairing, replacing, examining, testing, inspecting, removing, digging and excavating, and restoring operations incidental thereto. "overbuilding" shall mean adding additional fiber capacity to an existing conduit housing fiber optic cable. "overlashing" shall mean the act of lashing new fiber optic cable to an existing aerial fiber optic cable. "permittee" shall mean a person or entity who has been granted a permit by the permitting authority. "permitting authority" shall mean the City Manager or designee authorized to process and grant permits required to perform work in the rights-of-way. "product" shall refer to the item, thing or use provided by the Grantee. "public property" shall mean any real estate or any facility owned by the City. "relocation" shall mean any required move or relocation of an existing installation or equipment owned by Grantee whereby such move or relocation is necessitated by installation, improvement, renovation or repair of another entity's facilities in the rights- of-way, including Grantor's facilities. "right-of-way" shall refer to the surface of and the space along, above, and below any street, road, highway, freeway, lane, sidewalk, alley, court, boulevard, parkway, drive, Grantee easement, and/or public way now or hereafter held or administered by the City. "streets" or "highways" shall mean the surface of, and the space above and below, any public street, road, alley or highway, within the City used or intended to be used by the general public, to the extent the City has the right to allow the Grantee to use them. "telecommunications facilities" shall mean any of the plant, equipment, fixtures, appurtenances, antennas, and other facilities necessary to furnish and deliver telecommunications services, including but not limited to poles with crossarms, poles without crossarms, wires, lines, conduits, cables, communication and signal lines and equipment, braces, guys, anchors, vaults, and all attachments, appurtenances, and appliances necessary or incidental to the distribution and use of telecommunications services. The abandonment by Grantee of any telecommunications facilities as defined herein shall not act to remove the same from this definition. Section 2. Grant of Franchise. The City of Spokane Valley, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter as "City" or "the City"), hereby grants unto ExteNet Systems, Inc., (hereinafter "Grantee"), a franchise for a period of 10 years, beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance, to install, construct, operate, maintain, replace and use all necessary equipment and facilities to place telecommunications facilities in, under, on, across, over, through, along or below the public rights-of-way and public places located in the City of Spokane Valley, as approved under City permits issued pursuant to this franchise (hereinafter the "franchise"). This franchise does not permit Grantee to use such facilities to provide cable services as defined by 47 C.F.R. § 76.5(ff). Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 2 of 14 DRAFT Section 3. Fee. No right-of-way use fee is imposed for the term of this franchise. Any such right-of-way use or franchise fee that may be imposed by subsequent ordinance would apply to any subsequent franchise, if any, between the parties. Section 4. City Use. The following provisions shall apply regarding City use. A) City may request that Grantee provide one or more strands (two pair) of dark fiber for City to use solely for City government administration purposes. Upon receipt of such request, City and Grantee shall meet as soon as practicable to determine whether Grantee has dark fiber available in the locations requested by City, and if Grantee has dark fiber available, City and Grantee will engage in good faith discussions to develop mutually agreeable terms for provision of such dark fiber. City and Grantee shall execute a Dark Fiber IRU Agreement to outline the terms for the fiber dedication. B) Consistent with and subject to RCW 35.99.070, at such time when Grantee is constructing, relocating, or placing ducts or conduits in public rights-of-way, the City Manager may require Grantee to provide the City with additional duct or conduit and related structures, at incremental cost, necessary to access the conduit at mutually convenient locations. Any ducts or conduits provided by Grantee under this section shall only be used for City municipal, non-commercial purposes. 1) The City shall not require that the additional duct or conduit space be connected to the access structures and vaults of the Grantee. 2) This section shall not affect the provision of an institutional network by a cable television provider under federal law. 3) Grantee shall notify the City Manager at least 14 days prior to opening a trench at any location to allow the City to exercise its options as provided herein. Section 5. Recovery of Costs. Grantee shall reimburse the City for all costs of one publication of this franchise in a local newspaper, and required legal notices prior to any public hearing regarding this franchise, contemporaneous with its acceptance of this franchise. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or under City Code. Section 6. Non -Exclusivity. This franchise is granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or further franchises or permits in any rights-of-way. This and other franchises shall, in no way, prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its rights-of-way or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them. Section 7. Non -Interference with Existing Facilities. The City shall have prior and superior right to the use of its rights-of-way and public properties for installation and maintenance of its facilities and other governmental purposes. The City hereby retains full power to make all changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishments, improvements, dedications or vacation of same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new rights-of-way, streets, avenues, thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and description. Any and all such removal or replacement shall be at the sole expense of Grantee, unless RCW 35.99.060 provides otherwise. Should Grantee fail to remove, adjust or relocate its telecommunications facilities by the date established by the City Manager's written notice to Grantee and in accordance with RCW 35.99.060 and Grantee has not experienced a force majeure or event beyond its control, the City may cause and/or effect such removal, Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 3 of 14 DRAFT adjustment or relocation, and the expense thereof shall be paid by Grantee. The owners of all utilities, public or private, installed in or on such public properties prior to the installation of the telecommunications facilities of Grantee, shall have preference as to the positioning and location of such utilities so installed with respect to Grantee. Such preference shall continue in the event of the necessity of relocating or changing the grade of any such public properties. Grantee's telecommunications facilities shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as not to interfere with any public use, or with any other pipes, wires, conduits or other facilities that may have been laid in the rights-of-way by or under the City's authority. If the work done under this franchise damages or interferes in any way with the public use or other facilities, Grantee shall wholly and at its own expense make such provisions necessary to eliminate the interference or damage to the satisfaction of the City Manager. Section 8. Construction Standards. All work authorized and required hereunder shall comply with all generally applicable City Codes and regulations. Grantee shall also comply with all applicable federal and state regulations, laws and practices. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns or agencies. Application of said federal, state, and City Codes and regulations shall be for the purposes of fulfilling the City's public trustee role in administering the primary use and purpose of public properties, and not for relieving the Grantee of any duty, obligation, or responsibility for the competent design, construction, maintenance, and operation of its telecommunications facilities. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns or agencies. If Grantee shall at any time be required, or plan, to excavate trenches in any area covered by this franchise, the Grantee shall afford the City an opportunity to permit other franchisees and utilities to share such excavated trenches, provided that: (1) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the Grantee; and (2) such joint use shall not adversely affect Grantee's telecommunications facilities or safety thereof. Joint users will be required to contribute to the costs of excavation and filling on a pro -rata basis. Section 9. Protection of Monuments. Grantee shall comply with applicable state laws relating to protection of monuments. Section 10. Tree Trimming. Grantee shall have the authority to conduct pruning and trimming for access to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way subject to compliance with the City Code. All such trimming shall be done at Grantee's sole cost and expense. Section 11. Emergency Response. Grantee shall, within 30 days' of the execution of this franchise, designate one or more responsible people and an emergency 24-hour on-call personnel, and the procedures to be followed when responding to an emergency. After being notified of an emergency, Grantee shall cooperate with the City to immediately respond with action to aid in the protection of the health and safety of the public. In the event Grantee refuses to promptly take the directed action or fails to fully comply with such direction, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action to prevent imminent injury or damages to persons or property, the City may take such actions as it believes are necessary to protect persons or property, and Grantee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for its costs and any expenses. Section 12. One -Call System. Pursuant to RCW 19.122, Grantee is responsible for becoming familiar with, and understanding, the provisions of Washington's One -Call statutes. Grantee shall comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the One -Call statutes. Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 4 of 14 DRAFT Section 13. Safety. All of Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and operational condition. Grantee shall follow all safety codes and other applicable regulations in the installation, operation, and maintenance of the telecommunications facilities. Section 14. Movement of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities for Others. Whenever any third party shall have obtained permission from the City to use any right—of-way for the purpose of moving any building or other oversized structure, Grantee, upon at least 14 days' written notice from the City, shall move, at the expense of the third party desiring to move the building or structure, any of Grantee's telecommunications facilities that may obstruct the movement thereof; provided, that the path for moving such building or structure is the path of least interference to Grantee's telecommunications facilities, as determined by the City. Upon good cause shown by Grantee, the City may require more than 14 days' notice to Grantee to move its telecommunications facilities. Section 15. Acquiring New Telecommunications Facilities. Upon Grantee's acquisition of any new telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, or upon any addition or annexation to the City of any area in which Grantee retains any such telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way, Grantee shall submit to the City a written statement describing all telecommunications facilities involved, whether authorized by franchise or any other form of prior right, and specifying the location of all such facilities. Such facilities shall immediately be subject to the terms of this franchise. Section 16. Dangerous Conditions - Authority of City to Abate. Whenever excavation, installation, construction, repair, maintenance, or relocation of telecommunications facilities authorized by this franchise has caused or contributed to a condition that substantially impairs the lateral support of the adjoining right-of-way, road, street or other public place, or endangers the public, adjoining public or private property or street utilities, the City may direct Grantee, at Grantee's sole expense, to take all necessary actions to protect the public and property. The City may require that such action be completed within a prescribed time. In the event that Grantee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public, adjacent public or private property, or street utilities, or to maintain the lateral support thereof, and all other actions deemed by the City to be necessary to preserve the public safety and welfare; and Grantee shall be liable to the City for all costs and expenses thereof to the extent caused by Grantee. Section 17. Hazardous Substances. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, regulations and orders concerning hazardous substances relating to Grantee's telecommunications facilities in the rights—of-way. Grantee agrees to indemnify the City against any claims, costs, and expenses, of any kind, whether direct or indirect, incurred by the City arising out of the release or threat of release of hazardous substances caused by Grantee's ownership or operation of its telecommunications facilities within the City's rights-of-way. Section 18. Environmental. Grantee shall comply with all environmental protection laws, rules, recommendations, and regulations of the United States and the State of Washington, and their various subdivisions and agencies as they presently exist or may hereafter be enacted, promulgated, or amended, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all damages arising, or which may arise, or be caused by, or result from the failure of Grantee fully to comply with any such laws, rules, recommendations, or regulations, whether or not Grantee's acts or activities were intentional or unintentional. Grantee shall further indemnify the City against all losses, costs, and expenses (including legal expenses) which the City may incur as a result of the requirement of any government or governmental Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 5 of 14 DRAFT subdivision or agency to clean and/or remove any pollution caused or permitted by Grantee, whether said requirement is during the term of the franchise or subsequent to its termination. Section 19. Relocation of Telecommunications Facilities. Grantee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate or remove from any street any of its telecommunications facilities when so required by the City in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35.99.060, provided that Grantee shall in all such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City, any section of its telecommunications facilities required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. If the City determines that the project necessitates the relocation of Grantee's then -existing telecommunications facilities, the City shall: A) At least 60 days' prior to the commencement of such improvement project, provide Grantee with written notice requiring such relocation; and B) Provide Grantee with copies of pertinent portions of the plans and specifications for such improvement project and a proposed location for Grantee's telecommunications facilities so that Grantee may relocate its telecommunications facilities in other City rights-of-way in order to accommodate such improvement project. C) After receipt of such notice and such plans and specifications, Grantee shall complete relocation of its telecommunications facilities at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project in accordance with RCW 35.99.060 (2). Grantee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its telecommunications facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives and advise Grantee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the telecommunications facilities. If so requested by the City, Grantee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by Grantee full and fair consideration. In the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable alternative, Grantee shall relocate its telecommunications facilities as otherwise provided in this section. The provisions of this section shall in no manner preclude or restrict Grantee from making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its telecommunications facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the telecommunications facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City owned, operated or maintained facilities, provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. If the City or a contractor for the City is delayed at any time in the progress of the work by an act or neglect of the Grantee or those acting for or on behalf of Grantee, then Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees to the extent arising out of or in connection with such delays, except for delays and damages caused by the City. This provision may not be waived by the parties except in writing. Grantee shall not be responsible for delay damages if Grantee's delay is the result of a force majeure or event beyond Grantee's control. Section 20. Abandonment of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities. No facility constructed or owned by Grantee may be abandoned without the express written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City has discretion and authority to direct Grantee to remove a facility Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 6 of 14 DRAFT abandoned by Grantee (whether or not the entity had permission to abandon the facility) and restore the rights-of-way to their pre -removal condition when: (a) a City project involves digging that will encounter the abandoned facility; (b) the abandoned facility poses a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the public; (c) the abandoned facility is 24 inches or less below the surface of the rights-of-way and the City is reconstructing or resurfacing a street over the rights-of-way; or (d) the abandoned facility has collapsed, broke, or otherwise failed. Grantee may, upon written approval by the City, delay removal of the abandoned facility until such time as the City commences a construction project in the rights-of-way unless (b) or (d) above applies. When (b) or (d) applies, Grantee shall remove the abandoned facility from the rights-of-way as soon as weather conditions allow, unless the City expressly allows otherwise in writing. The expense of the removal, and restoration of improvements in the rights-of-way that were damaged by the facility or by the removal process, shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. If Grantee fails to remove the abandoned facilities in accordance with the above, then the City may incur costs to remove the abandoned facilities and restore the rights-of-way, and is entitled to reimbursement from Grantee for such costs, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Section 21. Maps and Records Required. Grantee shall provide the City, at no cost to the City: A) A route map that depicts the general location of the Grantee's telecommunications facilities placed in the rights-of-way. The route map shall identify telecommunications facilities as aerial or underground and is not required to depict cable types, number of fibers or cables, electronic equipment, and service lines to individual subscribers. Grantee shall also provide an electronic map of the aerial/underground telecommunications facilities in relation to the right-of-way centerline reference to allow the City to add this information to the City's Geographic Information System ("GIS") program. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1, annually. B) In connection with the construction of any City project, Grantee shall provide to the City, upon the City's reasonable request, copies of available drawings in use by Grantee showing the location of such telecommunications facilities. Grantee shall field locate its telecommunications facilities in order to facilitate design and planning of City improvement projects. C) Upon written request of the City, Grantee shall provide the City with the most recent update available of any plan of potential improvements to its telecommunications facilities within the franchise area; provided, however, any such plan so submitted shall be deemed confidential and for informational purposes only, and shall not obligate Grantee to undertake any specific improvements within the franchise area. The information in this subsection shall be delivered to the City by December 1, annually D) In addition to the requirements of subsection 1 of this section, the parties agree to periodically share GIS files upon written request, provided Grantee's GIS files are to be used solely by the City for governmental purposes. Any files provided to Grantee shall be restricted to information required for Grantee's engineering needs for construction or maintenance of telecommunications facilities that are the subject of this franchise. Grantee is prohibited from selling any GIS information obtained from City to any third parties. E) Public Disclosure Act. Grantee acknowledges that information submitted to the City may be subject to inspection and copying under the Washington Public Disclosure Act codified in chapter 42.56 RCW. Grantee shall mark as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" each page or portion thereof of any documentation/information which it submits to the City and which it believes is Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 7 of 14 DRAFT exempt from public inspection or copying. The City agrees to timely provide Grantee with a copy of any public disclosure request to inspect or copy documentation/information which the Grantee has provided to the City and marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" prior to allowing any inspection and/or copying as well as provide the Grantee with a time frame, consistent with RCW 42.56.520, to provide the City with its written basis for non -disclosure of the requested documentation/information. In the event the City disagrees with the Grantee's basis for non- disclosure, the City agrees to withhold release of the requested documentation/ information in dispute for a reasonable amount of time to allow Grantee an opportunity to file a legal action under RCW 42.56.540. Section 22. Limitation on Future Work. In the event that the City constructs a new street or reconstructs an existing street, Grantee shall not be permitted to excavate such street except as set forth in the City's then -adopted regulations relating to street cuts and excavations. Section 23. Reservation of Rights by City. The City reserves the right to refuse any request for a permit to extend telecommunications facilities consistent with applicable federal and Washington state law. Any such refusal shall be supported by a written statement from the City Manager that extending the telecommunications facilities, as proposed, would interfere with the public health, safety or welfare. Section 24. Remedies to Enforce Compliance. In addition to any other remedy provided herein, the City reserves the right to pursue any remedy to compel or force Grantee and/or its successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the City from thereafter declaring a forfeiture or revocation for breach of the conditions herein. Section 25. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this franchise, including any reasonable ordinances made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of construction and maintenance of any telecommunications facilities by Grantee, and Grantee shall promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause Grantee to violate other requirements of law. In the event of a conflict between the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and this franchise, the Municipal Code shall control. Section 26. Vacation. The City may vacate any City road, right-of-way or other City property which is subject to rights granted by this franchise in accordance with state and local law. Any relocation of telecommunications facilities resulting from a street vacation shall require a minimum of 180 days' notice as provided in section 37. In the event of a street vacation, the City shall include in the vacation ordinance a reserved easement for the continued location of Grantee's facilities. Section 27. Indemnification. A) Grantee hereby covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person arising from injury, sickness or death of any person or damage to property of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of this franchise agreement; except for injuries and damages caused solely by the negligence of the City. This includes but is not limited to injury: Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 8 of 14 DRAFT 1) For which the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by a franchise are a proximate cause; 2) By virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights granted herein; 3) By virtue of the City permitting Grantee's use of the City's rights -of -ways or other public property; 4) Based upon the City's inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by Grantee, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with work authorized on the facility or property over which the City has control, pursuant to a franchise or pursuant to any other permit or approval issued in connection with a franchise; 5) Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction or work upon the facility, in any right- of-way, or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under a franchise; or 6) Based upon radio frequency emissions or radiation emitted from Grantee's equipment located upon the facility, regardless of whether Grantee's equipment complies with applicable federal statutes and/or FCC regulations related thereto. B) Grantee's indemnification obligations pursuant to subsection 1 of this section shall include assuming liability for actions brought by Grantee's own employees and the employees of Grantee's agents, representatives, contractors and subcontractors even though Grantee might be immune under RCW Title 51 from direct suit brought by such an employee. It is expressly agreed and understood that this assumption of potential liability for actions brought by the aforementioned employees is limited solely to claims against the City arising by virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights set forth in a franchise. The obligations of Grantee under this subsection have been mutually negotiated by the parties, and Grantee acknowledges that the City would not enter into a franchise without Grantee's waiver. To the extent required to provide this indemnification and this indemnification only, Grantee waives its immunity under RCW Title 51. C) Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by Grantee at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided, that Grantee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim, and has the right to approve any settlement or other compromise of any such claim. D) In the event that Grantee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter), to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of Grantee, then Grantee shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorney fees, the reasonable costs of the City of recovering under this subsection. E) Grantee's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City against liability for damages caused by the concurrent negligence of (a) City or City's agents, employees, or contractors, and (b) Grantee Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 9 of 14 DRAFT or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors, shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a franchise is subject to the provisions of RCW 4.24.115, the parties agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be allocated as provided herein. F) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, Grantee assumes the risk of damage to its telecommunication facilities located in the rights-of-way and upon City -owned property from activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees and contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from any willful or malicious action or gross negligence on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under users of Grantee's facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Grantee's facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the sole negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. G) The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration, revocation or termination of this franchise. Section 28. Insurance. Grantee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the franchise, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and authority granted hereunder to Grantee, its agents, representatives or employees. Grantee's maintenance of insurance as required by this franchise shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Grantee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. A) Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. This insurance shall cover all owned, non -owned, hired or leased vehicles used in relation to this franchise. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage; and B) Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01, or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage acceptable to the City, and shall cover products liability. The City shall be named as an insured under Grantee's Commercial General Liability insurance policy using ISO Additional Insured -State or Political Subdivisions -Permits CG 20 12 or a substitute endorsement acceptable to the City providing equivalent coverage. Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations; broad form property; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU); and Employer's Liability. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Commercial General Liability insurance: Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 10 of 14 DRAFT A) Grantee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City as outlined in the Indemnification section of this franchise. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of Grantee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. B) Grantee's insurance carrier or Grantee shall provide 30 days' prior written notice to the City of insurance cancellation. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. Grantee shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Grantee prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies required herein shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. Section 29. Performance Bond Relating to Construction Activity. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this franchise, Grantee, or any parties Grantee contracts with to perform labor in the performance of this franchise, shall, upon the request of the City, furnish a bond executed by Grantee or Grantee's contractors and a corporate surety authorized to operate a surety business in the State of Washington, in such sum as may be set and approved by the City, not to exceed $25,000, as sufficient to ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise. The bond shall be conditioned so that Grantee shall observe all the covenants, terms and conditions and shall faithfully perform all of the obligations of this franchise, and to repair or replace any defective work or materials discovered in the City's road, streets, or property. Said bond shall remain in effect for the life of this franchise. In the event Grantee proposes to construct a project for which the above-mentioned bond would not ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise, the City is entitled to require such larger bond as may be appropriate under the circumstances. Section 30. Modification. The City and Grantee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration, amendment or modification. Section 31. Forfeiture and Revocation. If Grantee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise, or through willful or unreasonable negligence fails to heed or comply with any notice given Grantee by the City under the provisions of this franchise, and an adequate opportunity to cure the violation or non-compliance has been given in writing to Grantee, then Grantee shall, at the election of the City, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this franchise may be revoked or annulled by the City after a hearing held upon reasonable notice to Grantee. The City may elect, in lieu of the above and without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the Spokane County Superior Court compelling Grantee to comply with the provisions of this franchise and to recover damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of Grantee's failure to comply. Section 32. Assignment. This franchise may not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, except that Grantee can assign this franchise without approval of, but upon notice to the City from any parent, affiliate or subsidiary of Grantee or to any entity that acquires all or substantially all the assets or equity of Grantee, by merger, sale, consolidation or otherwise. Use of Grantee's telecommunication facilities by Grantee's customers or attachment of third -party owned telecommunication facilities shall not constitute an assignment under this Agreement. Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 11 of 14 DRAFT Section 33. Acceptance. Not later than 60 days after passage of this Ordinance, Grantee shall accept the franchise herein by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of Grantee to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof by Grantee, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the 60 -day period, absolutely cease, unless the time period is extended by ordinance duly passed for that purpose. Section 34. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of sections: 5, 6, 7, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38 and 39 of this franchise shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Grantee may have to the City at common law, by statute, by ordinance, or by contract, and shall survive termination of this franchise, and any renewals or extensions hereof. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this franchise shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of Grantee and City and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of Grantee shall inure to their respective heirs, successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein. Section 35. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should 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. In the event that any of the provisions of the franchise are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to reconsider the grant of the franchise and may amend, repeal, add, replace or modify any other provision of the franchise, or may terminate the franchise. Section 36. Renewal. Application for extension or renewal of the term of this franchise shall be made no later than 180 days of the expiration thereof. In the event the time period granted by this franchise expires without being renewed by the City, the terms and conditions hereof shall continue in effect until this franchise is either renewed or terminated by the City. Section 37. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given by or to the parties under this franchise may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified, in writing: The City: Grantee: City of Spokane Valley Attn: City Clerk 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 ExteNet Systems, Inc. Attn: CFO 3030 Warrenville Road, Suite 340 Lisle, Illinois, 60532 With a copy to: ExteNet Systems, Inc. Attn: General Counsel 3030 Warrenville Road, Suite 340 Lisle, Illinois, 60532 Section 38. Choice of Law. Any litigation between the City and Grantee arising under or regarding this franchise shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Spokane County Superior Court, and if in the federal courts, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 12 of 14 DRAFT Section 39. Non -Waiver. The City shall be vested with the power and authority to reasonably regulate the exercise of the privileges permitted by this franchise in the public interest. Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligations to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise by reason of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance, nor does the City waive or limit any of its rights under this franchise by reason of such failure or neglect. Section 40. Entire Agreement. This franchise constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings, written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon execution and acceptance hereof. This franchise shall also supersede and cancel any previous right or claim of Grantee to occupy the City roads as herein described. Section 41. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this 31' day of July, 2018. ATTEST: L. R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 13 of 14 DRAFT Accepted by ExteNet Systems, Inc.: By: Name and official capacity The Grantee, ExteNet Systems, Inc., for itself, and for its successors and assigns, does accept all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing franchise. STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) ss COUNTY OF DuPAGE ) Before me, , on this day personally appeared , known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and known to me to be the of ExteNet Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and acknowledged to me that he executed the said instrument for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, on behalf of said Corporation. Given under my hand and seal of office this day of , 2018. Notary Public Printed Name: My Commission Expires: [SEAL] Ordinance 18-017 ExteNet Systems, Inc., Fiber Telecommunications. Franchise Page 14 of 14 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 31, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ® new business ['public hearing ['information ❑admin. report ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Council Goals and Priorities for Use of Lodging Tax Revenues. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Imposition of tax, set-up of Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) and determination of qualified expenditures is governed by RCW 67.28, as amended by Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1253 in 2013; and Spokane Valley Municipal Code 3.20. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: An administrative report was delivered to Council on this topic on July 17, 2018. BACKGROUND: On July 17, 2018 an administrative report was delivered to Council that addressed the process leading to the annual award of lodging tax proceeds to applying organizations. Topics in the report included a discussion on the tax itself as well as the roles of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) and City Council. At the conclusion of the discussion Council asked that staff refine the City Council's goals and priorities in consideration of Council discussion on July 17th with the intent of ultimately delivering these to the LTAC in order to inform that body of what Council will consider when it ultimately makes the 2019 awards. Council Goals and Priorities for Use of the Initial 2% Lodging Tax In August 2013 Council for the first time adopted goals and priorities for how it would distribute lodging tax revenues and that it encouraged the LTAC to consider when making award recommendations. Based upon subsequent discussion between Council and staff in 2014 through 2018, these have evolved as proposed below: 1. Council desires to direct awards toward funding new and innovative projects, activities, events or festivals that will distinguish Spokane Valley as a tourism destination and result in increases to Spokane Valley tourism. As part of this goal, Council will use lodging taxes for the purposes allowed in State law, which include: a. Tourism marketing b. The marketing and operations of special events and festivals c. The operation and capital expenditures of tourism related facilities owned or operated by a municipality or public facility district d. The operation (but not capital expenditures) of tourism related facilities owned or operated by non-profit organizations. 2. Council will emphasize the utilization of funds for capital expenditures to develop tourism destination facilities or venues within the City of Spokane Valley as a means of drawing additional visitors to the City (recognizing that this option is limited to facilities owned by a municipality or public facility district). Council would like to move in the direction of allocating a majority of lodging taxes toward this purpose. 3. Council recognizes that lodging nights are an important measure of a successful event or marketing program and will place higher consideration on events or programs with a demonstrable history of increasing overnight stays. Council may also take into consideration 1 to a lesser degree the economic impact of all major components of our tourism -based economy including shopping, dining and overnight visits. 4. Council will take into consideration revenues derived from lodging sources within Spokane Valley received by applicants from other municipal entities and agencies such as the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Authority and Spokane Public Facilities District. 5. An award to any particular applicant cannot be greater than the dollar amount requested in that applicant's application. 6. Council wishes to establish a future plan for the City to best utilize the 1.3% lodging tax that is accounted for in the Hotel/Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund #104. 2017 Timeline Leading to 2018 Awards of the Initial 2.0% Lodging Tax The calendar we plan to follow in 2017 for 2018 lodging tax awards is as follows: Tues 7/17/2018 Admin Report - Review Council goals and priorities for use of lodging tax proceeds. Tues 7/31/2018 Motion seeking Council consensus on Council goals and priorities for use of lodging tax proceeds. Tues 8/21/2018 Joint meeting between Council and LTAC at City Hall -review application -review Council Goals & Priorities for use of lodging tax Wed 8/31/2018 City runs notice in newspaper, places on web site, and sends letters to 2017 award recipients and others agencies that may have expressed interest. Fri 10/5/2018 Grant proposals are due to City by 4pm (no late submittals will be accepted). Fri 10/12/2018 Applications sent to Lodging Tax Advisory Committee for review. Thurs 10/18/2018 8:30 am Applicant presentations to Committee. Tues 11/13/2018 Formal Council Meeting Admin Report: LTAC Recommendations to City Council Tues 12/11/2018 Formal Council Meeting City Council Motion Consideration: Award Lodging Tax for 2019 RCW 67.28.1817 requires that the City wait for a period of at least 45 days after the LTAC meeting before action can be taken by the City Council. 12/11/2018 Council Action 10/18/2018 LTAC meeting 54 days OPTIONS: Approve Council goals and priorities for the use of lodging tax revenues with or without modifications. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve the Council goals and priorities for the use of lodging tax revenues as written. 2 BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: In 2019 the 2% portion of the lodging tax is currently anticipated to generate approximately $600,000. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • Evolution of Council Goals and Priorities in track changes format • 2017 Lodging Tax Reports o JLARC 2017 Lodging Tax Expenditures Update o JLARC 2017 Report — Municipal Summary o JLARC 2017 Report — Activity Specific 3 P:ICity ClerklAgendaPackets for Web1201812018, 07-3111tem 5 evolution of council goals and priorities v2.docx Council Goals and Priorities for Use of the Initial 2% Lodging Tax In August 2013 Council for the first time adopted goals and priorities that it encouraged the LTAC to consider when making award recommendations. Based upon subsequent discussions between Council and Staff in the years c: 2014_, 2015, 2016, andthrough 2017- , these have evolved as follows: 1. Council desires to direct awards toward funding new and innovative projects, activities, events or festivals that will distinguish Spokane Valley as a tourism destination and result in Council will focus on using lodging taxcs to crctiatc distinct and idcntifiablc increases Spokane Valley tourism. As part of this goal, Council will use lodging taxes for the purposes allowed in State law, which include: a. Tourism marketing b. The marketing and operations of special events and festivals c. The operation and capital expenditures of tourism related facilities owned or operated by a municipality or public facility district d. The operation (but not capital expenditures) of tourism related facilities owned or operated by non-profit organizations. 2. Council desires that 20% of total grant monies awarded be directed towards funding new and innovativc projccts, activitics, cvcnts or fcstivals that will distinguish Spokanc Vallcy as a tourism destination. Council will emphasize the utilization of funds for capital expenditures to develop tourism destination facilities or venues within the City of Spokane Valley as a means of drawing additional visitors to the City (recognizing that this option is limited to facilities owned by a municipality or public facility district). Council would like to move in the direction of allocating a majority of lodging taxes toward this purpose. 4.3. Council recognizes that lodging nights are an important measure of a successful event or marketing program and will place higher consideration on events or programs with a demonstrable history of increasing overnight stays. Council may also take into consideration to a lesser degree the economic impact of all major components of our tourism -based economy including shopping, dining and overnight visits. 5- Council will take into consideration revenues derived from lodging sources within Spokane Valley received by applicants from other municipal entities and agencies such as the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Authority and Spokane Public Facilities District. 5. An award to any particular applicant cannot be greater than the dollar amount requested in that applicant's application. 6. Council wishes to establish a future plan for the City to best utilize the 1.3% lodging tax that is accounted for in the Hotel/Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund #104. LODGING TAX REPORT: 2017 Lodging Tax Expenditures Update JLARC COMPILATION OF MUNICIPAL REPORTS About the Report Report presents data from municipalities about use of lodging tax revenue This report summarizes data for calendar years 2014 through 2017, as reported by cities, towns, and counties that received a distribution of lodging tax revenue. JLARC compiles but does not verify expenditure reports from municipalities In 2013, the Legislature directed the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) to collect and report local use of lodging tax revenues for tourism purposes (Ch. 196, Laws of 2013). JLARC staff establishes a reporting system, provides and compiles the reports each year. Municipalities are responsible for the accuracy of their data, and JLARC staff do not independently verify the information. Department of Revenue identifies municipalities receiving distributions of lodging tax revenue Municipalities report data to JLARC JLARC staff compiles and presents data as reported Municipalities collect and use lodging tax revenues for tourism activities Municipalities (cities, towns, and counties) may levy sales taxes on lodging in two ways: 1. Collect a lodging tax of up to 2 percent that is taken as a credit against the state sales tax due on lodging. 2. Collect an additional sales tax of up to 2 percent on lodging stays. 2017 Lodging Tax Expenditures Update July 2018 Page 1 Municipalities may use lodging tax revenues for these tourism -related activities: • Tourism marketing. • Operations of special events and festivals designed to attract tourists. • Capital expenditures for tourism -related facilities owned by the municipality. The municipality may spend the funds directly or award the funds to a convention and visitors bureau or destination marketing organization. With the exception of King County, any municipality that receives a distribution of lodging tax revenue must report information to JLARC (1, 67.28.1816). Questions about the reported information should be directed to the individual municipality. To learn more about the reporting process, please visit J LARC's Lodging Tax Data Collection page. JLARC COMPILATION OF MUNICIPAL REPORTS Statewide Summary 97% of municipalities reported in 2017 The Department of Revenue identified 198 municipalities that received a distribution of lodging tax revenue in 2017. Of these, 192 (97 percent) reported information to JLARC. An additional four municipalities reported information to JLARC. The Reporting Compliance tab includes more details. Received funds (report required) 2014 195 2015 195 2016 202 2017 198 Reported lodging tax expenditures 152 180 184 180 Reported no expenditures 13 12 14 12 Did not report 30 3 4 6 Did not receive funds, but filed a report* 4 * These municipalities may have received a distribution of lodging tax revenue in previous years. 2017 Lodging Tax Expenditures Update July 2018 Page 2 Statewide: Municipalities reported $55.5 million awarded, 60.4 million attendees, 26.3 million paid lodging nights The following table summarizes the data statewide. You can find additional detail on the Municipal Summaries and Activity -Specific Data tabs. Our i'y defines each term. 2014 2015 2016 2017 Funding Funds requested for activities $57,418,410 $44,201,383 $49,778,123 $56,394,096 Funds awarded by municipalities $37,134,016 $40,413,415 $46,908,930 $55,531,303 Total activity cost (including other funds) $142,352,632 $147,828,485 $162,993,138 $173,449,450 Attendance at activities funded by lodging tax revenue (actual) Overall attendance 35,425,504 54,877,411 56,921,660 60,400,053 Attendees who traveled 50+ miles 17,627,699 24,353,595 25,114,620 69,141,685 Attendees from out of state or country 5,150,003 8,765,332 8,697,034 32,261,190 Lodging Paid lodging nights 7,015,259 6,995,235 8,529,793 26,274,706 Attendees who did not pay for overnight lodging 4,327,691 9,852,330 14,286,640 50,853,067 Attendees who paid for overnight lodging 8,858,370 10,234,630 13,239,848 19,326,094 Note: Municipalities did not always report complete data to JLARC, so attendance and lodging totals may not equal the overall attendance. Source: Reports provided by municipalities that received a distribution of lodging tax revenue during 2014 - 2017, as identified by the Department of Revenue. Statute exempts King County from the reporting requirement. Some municipalities did not spend lodging tax revenues or submit reports. JLARC staff report but do not verify the information. 2017 Lodging Tax Expenditures Update July 2018 Page 3 JLARC COMPILATION OF MUNICIPAL REPORTS Municipal Summary View each municipality's annual funding, attendance, and lodging data This table presents annual totals for activities funded by lodging tax revenues in each municipality. Data includes projected and actual figures for attendance and lodging nights. • Scroll the spreadsheet window to the right to view all data columns. Our glossary defines each term. • Use the buttons on the left or the column filter to filter data by year, activity type, and municipality. • Highlighted fields indicate that the municipality did not report data. If you choose "activity type," the table will show the totals for all activities within the type. You can find data about individual activities (e.g., a community festival) on the Activity -Specific Data tab. JLARC COMPILATION OF MUNICIPAL REPORTS Activity -Specific Data View the funding, attendance, and lodging data for each activity This table provides funding, attendance, and lodging data for over 5,800 discrete activities funded by lodging tax revenues. • Scroll the spreadsheet window to the right to view all data columns. Our each term. defines • Use the buttons on the left or the column filter to filter data by year, activity type, and municipality. • Highlighted fields indicate that the municipality did not report data. JLARC COMPILATION OF MUNICIPAL REPORTS Reporting Compliance Reporting is required by state Law RCW 6%.28,1816 requires local governments to report expenditures of lodging tax revenue. Statute exempts Icing County from the reporting requirement. 2017 Lodging Tax Expenditures Update July 2018 Page 4 JLARC staff summarized compliance into four categories: 1. Did not report: the municipality received a distribution of lodging tax revenue during the year but failed to report expenditures to JLARC. 2. No state distribution: the municipality did not receive lodging tax revenues during this year and did not report expenditures to JLARC. 3. Reported: the municipality reported lodging tax expenditures to JLARC. 4. Reported no expenditures: the municipality received a distribution of lodging tax revenue and reported to JLARC that they did not expend any lodging tax revenue Use the buttons on the left or the column filters to filter data by year and municipality. JLARC COMPILATION OF MUNICIPAL REPORTS Download the Data You can view or save the data The Excel files linked below contain complete lodging tax data reported to JLARC for 2014 - 2017. • Please note that JLARC staff do not independently verify the data in these files. • Blank fields indicate that the municipality did not report data. To download the data, click the Save As button and save to your computer. Municipal Sulnmaiy Activity -Specific Data Reporting Compliance Complete 2014 - 2017 Data Washington Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee 106 11th Avenue SW, Suite 2500 PO Box 40910 Olympia, WA 98504-0910 Phone: 360-786-5171 Fax: 360-786-5180 Email: JLARC@Ieg.wa.gov 2017 Lodging Tax Expenditures Update July 2018 Page 5 Funds Funds Total Activity Requested Awarded Cost Year 2017 2016 2015 2014 Activity Type Event/Festival Facility Marketing Municipality Aberdeen Adams County Airway heights Anacortes Arlington Asotin Asotin County Auburn Bainbridge Island Battle Ground Bellevue Bellingham Blaine Rothe!! Bremerton Brewster Bridgeport 2017 Aberdeen Airway Heights Anacortes Arlington Asot3 Asotin County Auburn Bainbridge Island Battle Ground Bellevue Bellingham Blaine Bothell Bremerton Brewster Bridgeport Buckley Burlington Camas Cashmere Castle Rock Centralia Chehalis Chelan Chelan County Cheney Chewelah Clallam County Clark County Clarkston Cle Elum Colfax Colville Conconully Cannell Coulee City Coutee Dam Coupeville Cowlitz County Davenport Dayton Deer Park Des Moines Dupont East Wenatchee Eatonville Edmonds Electric City Ellensburg El ma Entiat Enumclaw Ephrata $56,394,096 555,531,303 517.3,449,450 589,001 563,500 5140,727 59,500 531,000 $31,000 5411,973 5291,000 5960,608 5155,528 5155,476 $427,564 $0 5124 51,497 $75,000 572,505 575,000 521,000 510,000 51,288,600 $303,746 5200,000 5398,985 534,033 534,033 $36,033 $0 50 59,698,177 55,155,425 $1,435,720 5579,077 5211,061 5183,051 5395,979 5335,200 5335,200 5283,630 5515,200 5506,200 52,534,578 538,180 536,546 $36,546 $191 5191 5191 515,203 515,203 514,268 5255,550 $256,550 5695,723 511,796 511,352 565,218 54,286 54,285 5113,201 514,558 514,558 527,283 5272,058 5211,058 5359,046 5214,935 5214,935 5843,398 51,014,963 51,015,540 52,485,006 5182,42 $148,500 51,360,735 525,260 515,940 5124,327 514,600 59,800 5105,564 5825,334 5825,3 5455,539 5455,639 $88,750 594,61 $20,315 $140,217 $28,934 528,93 5321,415 5144,828 54,500 54,500 514,140 513,005 55,938 585,58 530,000 522,00 5324,54 5772,44 541,50 5120,18 53,00 54,520,8 5239,08 5140,1 55,18 5528,86 5124,2 5513,96 5182,02 51,19 512,50 $71,295 540,000 5205,50 5828,334 $455,539 588,750 520,315 534,100 5351,478 54,500 515,240 $6,300 515,291 $447,555 56,500 50 53,000 5111,227 5252,868 5114,200 510,183 5131,167 573,000 5553,047 581,004 515,291 5388,155 $6,500 566,733 53,000 5111,227 5203,008 $114,200 $10,183 5130,467 573,000 5493,663 $78,936 512,500 512,500 OutafState/ Overnight Overall 50,- Miles Country Paid Lodging Unpaid Attendance Attendance Attendance Nights Attendance Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 34 4 4 8 0 6 6 0 4 1Z 7 13 3 2 44 Z 4 6 0 0 Out of State/ Overnight Overall 50-- Wes Country Unpaid Attendance Attendance Attendance Paid Lodging Attendance Actual Actual _ Actual Nights Actual Actual 80,574,819 65,776,392 27,123,255 23,935,929 43,412,451 60,400,053 64,141,685 32,261,190 26,274,706 50,853,067 9,750 4,375 4,175 2,560 6,100 14,040 5,445 6,045 3,215 8,000 1,000 50 20 5 1,000 900 42 12 - 900 628,100 264,476 85,263 11,695 41,990 578,249 375,895 90,690 26,550 71,291 113,100 28,940 5,907 1,545 97,886 92,374 18,731 6,798 752 82,546 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25,000 25,000 20,000 23,000 6,000 24,465 24,455 17,553 20,285 5,500 52,000 14,700 3,200 1,280 1,820 50,672 11,218 2,677 1,196 1,554 51,100 24,340 19,825 4,950 1,544 56,216 26,795 20,950 4,052 2,059 350 60 110 50 250 250 38 72 60 194 183,918 45,895 27,179 38,714 3,498 179,708 47,037 27,655 39,677 3,585 76,523 21,419 1,608 5,427 2,915 73,737 20,274 1,796 3,796 2,373 235,760 147,245 55,030 5,510 4,990 36,895 7,331 4,889 4,107 4,355 3,200 1 1 1 1 2,550 1 1 1 196,700 54,690 16,505 17,792 4,520 188,979 57,919 22,355 14,533 5,678 I I 1 - - - - - - 901 67 20 14 887 574,342 202,556 13,245 37,680 39,295 451,375 229,799 4,766 23,248 19,533 77 0, 000 1 1 1 1 769,000 I 1 1 1 4,400 1,250 155 1,340 3,040 4,639 1,371 156 1,357 3,262 1 1 1 1 5,000 538 360 42 2,950 56,007 37,732 4,360 14,011 10,695 62,422 36,851 6,977 13,533 10,930 37,887 8,175 2,277 3,481 943 29,966 12,966 2,570 3,335 9,764 I 1_ 1 1 1 1 1 I 186,695 102,501 17,819 54,378 28,827 1,013,153 108,754 18,809 49,341 26,283 9,750 1,650 810 50 50 8,862 1,848 932 51 50 102,180 56,005 10,241 515 2,787 71,554 50,313 8,118 346 1,106 923,744 799,893 391,835 221,849 94,502 955,063 819,946 401,040 232,697 110,717 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 I _ 25,150 25,070 20,025 23,050 6,020 24,587 24,503 17,565 20,303 5,503 1,985 815 80 200 230 1,907 750 98 317 300 10,825 25 25 25 1,800 4,272 1,505 627 1,991 1,558 51,216 18,133 17,511 10,410 8,697 33,839 6,372 2,596 2,509 1,501 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8,975 1,150 75 80 850 2,140 650 50 25 800 5,000 2,000 800 _ 200 1,000 4,600 4,000 1,400 500 500 50,000 40,000 15,000 40,000 55,759 48,657 _ 15,874 39,557 1 1 27,397 20,130 7,490 81,350 15,100 12,540 3,785 615 1 1,500 30 10 5 3 1,200 26 6 2 3 25,000 10,500 17,000 4,800 36,722 13,299 27,648 9,111 535,756 508,958 254,484 30,000 541,462 514,389 257,194 39,125 9,820 2,275 765 591 428 5,797 1,029 539 428 347 15,000 440 60 353 190 25,700 8,628 385 7,359 1,335 5,500 50 10 40 4,020 8,250 75 15 50 5,790 270,342 59,324 29,687 5,255 135,600 270,951 40,104 15,501 3,432 147,487 27,445 7,905 8,053 840 7,725 37,093 13,123 3,323 5,736 7,939 73,220 16,955 4,562 356,323 52,397 61,555 17,546 8,951 387,988 46,251 45,500 2,725 2,161 309 44,971 49,000 3,409 2,003 331 45,169 1 1 1 50,000 10,00094,510 81,447 138,500 30,200 25,400 26,600 21,700 169,500 30,100 25,400 26,700 21,800 Funds Funds Total Activity Requested Awarded Cost Everett Federal Way Ferndale Ferry County Fife Forks Friday Harbor Gig Harbor Goldendale Grand Coulee Grandview Grant County Grays Harbor County Ilwaco lone Island County Issaquah Jefferson County Kalama Kelso Kennewick Kent Kettle Falls Kirkland Kitsap County Kittites County Klickitat County La Conner Lacey Lakewood Langley Leavenworth Lewis County Liberty Lake Lincoln County Long Beach Longview Lyndon Lynnwood Marysville Mason County Monroe Montesano Moses Lake Mount Vernon Mountlake Terrace Mukilteo 5551,795 575,600 560,000 532,214 5657,050 5158,040 5505,058 5337,700 588,650 522,800 $7,938 5155,249 $246,453 $31,500 5500 5285,094 514,093 5482,886 510,408 $253,169 51,146,500 5277,535 51,000 5384,950 $632,565 5730,269 $65,500 5108,805 $535,940 51,041,150 5134,283 $1,621,674 5395,010 573,169 515,000 5437,344 571,2_00 $51,325 5484,412 5105,355 5372,546 579,839 59,682 5210,200 5225,215 536,621 5335,179 Newport $10,500 North Bend 514,000 North Bonneville 526,500 Northport 5800 Oak Harbor 5339,775 Ocean Shores 51,446,820 Okanogan 517,553 5574,181 553,325 552,000 525,100 5667,050 5148,679 5430,457 5337,700 584,250 520,922 51,774 594,001 $982,687 530,500 $500 5294,694 514,093 5445,000 59,981 $234,112 51,135,516 5277,535 51,000 5289,147 5418,000 5480,302 565,500 569,500 52,550,422 5917,441 5138,171 51,603,174 5381,500 561,000 515,000 5437,344 575,130 561,325 5714,262 $75,550 $326,700 579,334 58,042 5250,700 5197,300 $25,325 $309,030 510,500 514,000 526,500 5840 5250,000 51,010,541 1. 53,533,852 5273,002 5187,500 522,599 5811,854 $363,052 5610,760 5331,177 $227,456 5116,000 $7,938 51,369,318 $385,635 5741,871 $10,500 51,705,485 514,093 5497,011 518,505 51,478,520 55,400,319 5470,320 517,446 51,518,834 53,504,617 5710,698 565,500 5298,524 53,772,192 5709,556 5256,642 51,540,283 5812,492 5472,068 512,965 5999,737 5345,579 $60,037 5714,262 5207,147 5133,564 5129,187 $54,700 $1,274,557 52,593,575 5241,104 5680,539 5200,323 5200,960 526,500 5800 51,577,859 51,010,541 517,282 Overall 50+ Miles Attendance Attendance Projected Projected Out of State/ Country Attendance Projected Paid Lodging Nights Projected Overnight Unpaid Attendance Projected Overall Attendance Actual 50+ Miles Attendance Actual Out of State/ Country Attendance Paid Lodging Actual Nights Actual Overnight Unpaid Attendance Actual 201,120 24,142 6,603 10,506 130,570 527,518 34,146 7,167 14,145 123,279 39,901 11,600 54 23,794 - 45,135 15,541 11,008 848 - 11,300 850 520 1,125 1,500 13,892 858 599 1,200 1,753 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 967,128 57,436 13,065 45,765 10,370 1,099,923 73,938 24,937 60,908 10,580 55,841 61,788 42,389 18,683 1,850 70,182 66,471 45,313 25,347 5,997 701,649 496,011 171,264 391,832 121,002 715,112 545,381 208,320 407,893 127,982 1 1 1 18,100 4,581 5,112 3,411 3,093 316,000 205,500 202,500 17,500 20,000 305,125 175,082 284,353 11,705 18,007 �- - 1 1 I 534 20 - - 534 178,095 17,700 3,910 17,625 106,640 432,733 214,784 62,828 144,886 247,783 1,067,073 1,015,904 5,458 5,687 50,080 1,067,922 1,015,543 14,251 5,702 52,502 85,650 65,550 37,750 56,550 19,600 85,481 65,319 40,698 55,102 20,203 10,000 9,300 110 9,190 9,300 9,300 110 9,190 230,190 101,297 39,364 38,080 53,498 799,557 349,417 118,773 296,021 3,057,521 175 75 50 25 75 155 75 50 25 75 24,296,948 494,031 32,647 467,705 14,045 800,125 522,250 36,371 491,807 15,399 3,100 150 50 20 800 1,900 125 25 - 200 110,150 101,790 29,010 10,050 109,450 110,308 17,835 10,071 7,795 2,567 3424,333 629,497 128,111 1,184,494 1,473,176 3,068,923 654,571 109,548 1,201,316 1,468,989 248,200 64,120 17,000 17,135 221,580 308,795 87,386 15,445 17,003 283,025 1 1 1 1 709 149 58 121 582 1,261,467 557,245 144,400 239,999 305,142 1,354,222 603,171 185,945 289,665 564,357 1 1 1 1 1,534,143 158,787 - 9,641 210,015 150,007 65,792 7,873 539,706 82,787 133,038 63,627 13,511 636,976 75,540 9,000 1,850 3,100 3,300 600 6,234 2,651 3,846 3,335 502 512,710 225,571 132,950 71,591 52,521 422,664 285,384 119,054 64,379 42,924 3,023,250 1,215,365 476,286 85,198 56,925 3,297,273 1,331,902 518,854 65,749 62,534 329,000 80,891 37,560 69,425 47,945 304,755 102,149 56,616 90,852 89,106 17,000 1,300 560 750 2.50 33,432 14,572 2,141 8,549 4,556 3,172,840 3,013,368 1,506,029 1,808,561 1,363,429 2,497 1,515 95 1,438 140 54,100 17,950 8,220 10,150 15,100 59,790 24,202 10,573 12,567 14,907 189480 41,925 20,444 47,647 41,455 288,515 125,917 45,511 49,339 45,509 1 1 1 1 1- r 1 1 _ 1200,000 609,000 2440,900 300,000 245,000 1,433,488 771,649 328,632 411,575 316,187 64,950 3,637 2,350 1,788 23,997 76,423 4,132 2,461 1,982 30,713 200,925 80,200 40,550 40,100 30,000 200,919 90,119 50,085 55,100 30,068 121,595 r 1 1 1 119,679 1 1 1 169,859 22,921 10,043 3,128 1,831 42,656 3,131 13,354 1,873 930 18,763 13,134 14,072 9,381 4,128 246,843 132,413 18,834 120,899 71,131 21,100 8,804 5,045 4,786 16,614 21,763 7,371 5,287 2,122 8,133 5,650 1 1 1 1 7,984 1 1 _ 1 8,500 - - 100 3,500 153,991 104,987 20,764 24,385 27,248 779,477 316,025 149,357 130,355 55,795 776,634 315,972 150,078 132,181 55,728 113,692 33,251 28,453 230 1,142 120,948 20,229 14,083 283 1,207 401,220 193,250 8,275 25,955 335,035 1,124,592 84,076 9,278 10,304 1,213,424 22,646 8,354 2,104 1,052 1 23,575 10,030 1,614 504 13,951 2,700 1,250 550 50 2,150 2,190 1,226 834 143 1,925 2,500 1,450 500 200 1,500 2,230 1,348 614 325 1,224 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 53,306 21,085 6,579 5,801 4,333 53,306 21,085 6,579 5,801 4,333 195,550 1 56,772 138,788 234,056 1 60,892 173,164 15,131 6,449 1,704 2,095 14,699 6,222 1,694 2,093 Funds Funds Total Activity Requested Awarded Cost Okanogan County Olympia Omak Orav!Ile Othello Pacific Pacific County Pasco Pateros Pend Oreille County Pierce County Port Angeles Port Orchard Part Townsend Paulsbo Prosser Pullman Puyallup Quincy Raymond Redmond Renton Republic Richland Rittville San Juan County SeaTac Sethra-Woolley Selah Sequim Shelton Skagit County 5kamanie County Snohomish Snohomish County Snoqualmie Soap lake South Bend Spokane Spokane County Spokane Valley Sprague Stevens County Stevenson Sumas Sunnyside Tacoma Thurston County Toledo Tonasket Toppenish Tukwila Tumwater Twisp $436,015 $695,460 5109,000 $25,475 $108,915 5412,421 $4[10,34$ 5521,200 58,105,452 5108,500 $108,300 $23,875 520,343 $56,635 5180,963 55,291 55,291 $682,128 $582,910 5399,884 52,500 53,107,774 513,000 $37,800 5197,960 51,563,000 55,015,030 5797,910 52,512,548 591,855 5167,851 5385,926 5376,116 5137,245 598,500 $297,567 5891,826 5136,688 594,759 5529,898 54,707,782 $39,600 $4,912 575,029 52,770 5386,686 52,040,262 $293,901 5292,901 $12,636 5212,325 5714,809 54,603,946 580,100 1,037,858 5120,683 $3,560,007 51476,180 56,205,912 522,100 55,500 5251,205 $43,550 5177,133 55,500 5726,105 5234,851 5313,900 581,500 53,004,480 5778,499 537,000 1,938,454 537,000 56,184,34 $45,000 538,525 5100,050 58,940 591,406 58,94 584,800 51,592,82 5303,193 $612,7 $351,230 53,432,65 5113 511 536,237 5463,350 52,000 5106,081 54,560,097 5203,23 5856,22 59,00 5291,49 54,560,09 5522,47 $77 510 59,550 57,70 577,20.5 576,39 5545,101 58,201,56 5309,445 54,495,20 525,251 $31,25 50 530,000 5690,790 5524,000 52,500 550,113 51,795,200 5857,410 5117,928 5386,226 5167,245 5100,300 5347472 5952,163 539,600 $4,S00 5475,500 5312,643 513,000 5947,809 5105,300 $1,096,859 $1,177,030 $ 51,045 55,500 5271,246 543,550 5467,206 586,603 55,203 52,277452 545,000 5100,050 58,940 $185,000 5303,193 $785,330 $113 552,902 5478,615 52,000 5156,410 F $37,500 5100 510,600 5129,661 $582,800 5515,500 525,251 Overall Attendance Projected 6 0 D z9 8 3 1 7 0 1 7 0 0 9 1 5 7 1 Out of State/ Overnight 50*- Miles Country Paid lodging Unpaid Attendance Attendance Nights Attendance Projected Projected Projected Projected Overall Attendance Actual Out of State/ 50+Miles Country Attendance Attendance Paid Lodging Actual Actual Nights Actual Overnight Unpaid Attendance Actual 1,379,993 519,242 292,865 720,911 149,214 1,343,036 827,254 551,357 888,032 256,481 543,483 108,937 29,672 1,198,913 361,959 173,490 44,577 16,955 1,315,252 412,970 59,400 32,228 8,865 17,660 12,980 515,253 315,987 318,099 383,465 46,588 19,521 11,997 4,741 3,079 40 20,550 12,150 2,831 1,666 50 39,290 5,118 1,882 4,520 5,725 34,256 7,058 1,245 4,635 4,229 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1,866,639 1,545,106 880,361 '92,898 26,818 1,885,681 1,545,182 884,998 94,219 26,975 313,839 51,364 8,330 43,177 3,712 295,572 54,263 8,708 44,391 4,226 900 175 - 65 740 900 160 - 55 710 47,300 22,000 16,000 21,245 4,490 23,500 10,400 175 8 3,992 3,528,247 2,313,794 635,296 386,578 56,253 3,338,207 2,075,467 556,714 430,241 92,524 552,645 401,992 50,903 57,077 4,016 713,556 507,927 83,482 94,608 42,927 176,200 86,030 34,153 2,770 8,351 328,272 67,856 18,052 29,694 7,106 269,458 129,160 30,970 9,417 I 266,253 118,885 26,620 9,539 125,050 28,510 1,225 1,560 72,040 154,676 25,925 1,235 1,504 72,649 32,100 14,900 1,835 9,960 8,750 30,287 14,111 2,519 13,224 7,388 45,680 26,020 4,355 5,240 25 45,986 24,765 7,855 4,698 1,169 673,507 61,505 16,778 49,094 13,105 851,183 95,024 30,675 69,574 14,725 2,540 990 20 10 3,030 1,274 29 19 1 I I 1 I 134,450 30,465 17,290 20,430 6,655 216,810 29,599 16,111 18,257 2,100 13,790 2,176 1,175 1,759 12,970 15,061 2,919 1,375 4,645 16,409 19,600 12,840 2,726 8,281 4,650 18,600 12,411 2,314 8,154 4,258 155,307 61,881 6,567 54,586 27,030 118,536 23,975 6,480 7,308 29,615 500 1 I_ 1 [ 300 I I I 571,110 380,410 156,345 304,460 56,616 544,436 422,268 169,712 298,386 82,818 1,156,856 1,036,935 628,553 902,787 663,840 1,674,024 1,280,193 630,296 1,830,982 728,880 431,339 211,144 85,550 25,421 85,654 431,339 210,232 85,550 25,421 85,564 - 1 1 1. I 1 I 11 1 56,630 36,295 14,020 16,621 10,241 63,160 36,758 10,405 15,564 15,496 21,618 5,234 2,106 1,864 1,408 19,613 5,153 2,306 1,887 1,524 2,111,435 983,154 462,509 523,900 395,893 1,968,728 1,064,641 432,876 521,846 354,785 43,835 23,960 29,059 14,245 4,095 41,012 25,351 28,425 13,534 4,051 34,500 1,800 7741 4,214 2,501 642 500 31,101 1,864,674 178,706 8,050 71,903 1,672,446 451,295 235,199 73,297 124,609 50,000 1,500 500 4,500 51,582 2,621 2,973 3,903 42 5,0001 I' 1 10,979 I 1 1 1 650 300 75 225 700 525 243 62 175 598 44,000 1 58,950 369,981 209,943 75,666 101,218 1 1 1 I 924,297 547,195 255,629 246,046 203,324 995,948 494,534 237,839 275,712 208,933 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 14,000 550 190 50 4,050 14,349 432 55 30 3,409 41,905 37,120 29,778 9,327 600 45,209 31,793 28,639 6,735 2,398 3,000 750 400 40 750 3,000 750 400 40 750 58,911 17,521 2,226 196 5,266 83,951 17,415 2,176 121 3,361 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 43,500 10,800 2,390 5,700 25,960 41,181 10,944 2,544 4,370 19,801 200 230 1 1 I 18,060 5,673 225 2,476 1,145 47,794 16,235 2,059 9,614 16,235 36,414 8,510 498 7,509 8,435 2,357,755 672,519 369,354 127,858 1,485,288 2,375,858 882,870 380,331 149,981 1,490,988 443,492 38,405,529 15,366,906 9,254,075 27,934,786 446,191 42,246,052 16,903,444 10,179,021 30,795,458 .1 1 F 1 10,420 1 1 Funds Requested Funds Total Activity Awarded Cost Overall Attendance Projected 50+ Miles Attendance Projected Out of State/ Country Paid Lodging Attendance Nights Projected Projected Overnight Unpaid Overall Attendance Attendance Projected Actual Out of State/ 50+ Miles Country Attendance Attendance Paid Lodging Actual Actual Nights Actual Overnight Unpaid Attendance Actual Union Gap Vancouver Wahkiakum County Waitsburg Walla Walla Walla Walla County Washougal Wenatchee Westport Whatcom County Whitman County Winthrop Woodinville Woodland Yakima Zillah Adams County Cathlamet Naches Wilbur $334,1.57 $334,157 52,286,473 52,233,476 53,890,510 0 $10,500 $500 5500 57,559 51,259,850 51567,500 52,693,487 $72,500 541,300 51,239,849 594,570 $80,601 5204,051 52,065,665 52,010,665 51,686,115 $201,474 $200,619 5257,408 5670,000 5586,500 $2,915,603 522,000 $22,000 540,000 5157,100 5157,100 $301,279 571,980 571,683 $203,397 556,500 554,359 5111.372 51,583,570 51,527,735 53,174,566 512,175 512,175 511,712 53,000 56,500 $755,527 $320,910 670,460 81,296 40,0011 57,385 505,600 734,528 22,470 45,557 770,087 567,992 3,789,332 1,958,497 2,028,103 665,626 1,478,893 3,120,052 2,190,056 2,091,419 670,090 1,476,947 1 i 1 $2,700 5807,054 52,400 $2,700 5807,054 52,400 5,000 1,000 - 150 500 582,190 590,839 278,596 577,739 1,793 43,880 17,189 8,915 6,026 1,883 6,516 1,636 15 396 L 2,052,910 1,533,800 547,422 1,183,389 861,072 138,657 106,032 23,246 92,799 10,330 42,646 16,212 659 980 885 24,000 3,000 100 2,000 22,000 73,000 66,350 13,750 65,450 1,710 1,961,131 152,522 17,129 42,578 1,908,736 30,800 15,525 14,510 1,690 22,750 735,000 180,000 3,500 186,500 468,500 4,200 180 180 175 4,130 4,790 1,250 150 1,103,207 35,926 3,698,105 478,955 41,700 15,278 8,161 7,402 4,724 531 2 648 2,654,822 2,051,768 722,239 1,588,245 152, 662 121,093 19,181 101,355 40,292 9,548 5,924 5,934 24,563 2,400 40 2,000 113,259 93,442 17,131 91,112 2,068,511 206,540 23,343 58,832 24,476 14,285 12,793 1,483 771,007 192,359 4,211 202,100 4,200 160 180 175 2,000 1,000 650 350 950 575,000 40,090 50,000 55,000 500,000 450 457,819 3,324 1,053,310 9,459 2,803 22,000 8,459 2,009,678 19,967 508,747 4,130 1. 2,350 1,200 700 330 950 621,992 45,500 5,500 60,000 551,992 Grand Total 556,394,096 555,531,303 5173,449,450 80,574,819 65,776,392 27,123,258 23,935,929 43,412,451 60,400,053 69,141,685 32,261,190 26,274,706 50,853,067 Blaine Bothell Bremerton 1 Facility Event/Festival Bellevue Adams County Bellingham Airway Heights Auburn Bainbridge Island Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Year 2017 2016 2015 2014 Activity Type Marketing Municipality Aberdeen Anacortes Arlington Battle Ground Asotin Asotin County Aberdeen 2017 Aberdeen Revitalization Movement Aberdeen Art Walk City of Aberdeen City Beautification Greater Grays Harbor GGH Visitor Center Midnight Cruizers Car Club Midnight Cruiaers Rudfest Our Aberdeen Mural Project Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Dist Aberdeen App Janet Bess Aberdeen Founders Day GH Historical Seaport Adventure Sails GHCRAFT Cobain Days Airway Heights 2017 City of Airway Heights Airway Heights Days Anacortes 2017 Anacortes Arts Commission 98221 Artists Studio Tour Anacortes Arts Festival Art in Anacortes Art in Bloom Anacortes Chamber of Commerce Anacortes Marketing Program Visitor Information Center/public restrooms Anacortes Farmers Market Marketing Project Anacortes Museum Foundation Historic Downtown Marketing City of Anacortes Heart of Anacortes Public Restrooms Fidalgo Island quitters Anacortes Quilt Walk Port of Anacortes Rock the Dock Summer Concert Series Skagit Valley Tulip Festival Skagit Valley Tulip Festival Brochures $63,500 $140,727 563,500 5140,727 55,000 $6,800 $s,000 56,800 $10,000 545,318 510,000 545,318 520,000 540,000 520,000 540,000 $3,000 56,000 53,000 $6,000 $7,500 $19,000 57,500 519,000 52,500 52,624 52,500 $2,624 - 55,500 513,325 3,500 55,500 $13,325 3,500 $5,000 $4,056 150 55,000 $4,056 150 55,000 53,604 600 $5,000 53,604 600 $31,000 $31,000 1,000 $31,000 531,000 1,000 531,000 $31,000 1,000 531,000 531,000 1,000 5291,000 $960,608 628,100 5291,000 $960,608 628,100 55,000 $6,000 150 $5,000 56,000 150 520,000 545,000 127,000 510,000 520,000 120,000 510,000 525,000 7,000 5208,100 $671,501 82,000 5148,500 5371,501 60,000 $59,600 $300,000 22,000 $7,000 513,810 30,000 $7,000 513,810 30,000 54,450 $6,705 7,000 54,450 56,705 7,000 $4,200 54,200 54,200 $4,200 52,000 $2,700 52,000 52,700 515,000 567,200 $5,000 527,200 $10,000 $40,000 $2,400 539,750 52,400 $39,790 9,750 9,750 1,000 1,000 14,040 14,040 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,500 2,500 3,000 3,000 4,000 4,000 2,560 3,215 2,560 3,215 200 200 200 200 1,000 1,500 1,000 1,500 800 1,000 800 1,000 4,700 500 470 4,700 500 470 90 90 250 60 45 250 60 45 900 5 900 5 - 900 5 900 5 - 578,249 11,695 26,550 578,249 11,695 26,550 300 40 60 300 40 60 125,500 1,200 1,200 120,000 1,000 1,000 5,500 200 200 78,200 1,500 3,750 65,000 13,200 1,500 3,750 40,000 300 400 40,000 300 400 4,200 1,000 200 4,200 1,000 200 450 480 40 48 450 480 40 48 13,900 14,200 2,180 2,820 7,400 7,200 380 720 6,500 7,000 1,800 2,100 350,000 289,019 4,900 15,722 350,000 289,019 4,900 15,722 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging- Funds odgingFunds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual City of Anacortes Parks Department 4th of July Fireworks Sassy Press Co. Anacortes Vintage Market Or. Samuel G. Brooks Guild for Seattle Children's Hospital Home and Boat Tour Fidalgo Island Rotary Club Shipwreck Day Majestic Glass Corvette Club Water Front Festival Open Class Car Show Arlington 2017 Arlington Arts Council Enhancing Arlington with Art and Music Arlington Fly -In Arlington Fly -in City of Arlington Summer Outdoor Entertainment Series Arlington-Stillaguamish Eagle Festival Olympic Ave Sound System Stillaguamish Valley Genealogical Society Northwest Genealogy Conference 2017 Arlington Smokey Point Chamber of Commerce Visitor Information Center 4th ofJuly Parade Cascade Loop Membership Vision for a Cure Arlington Brewfest Downtown Arlington Business Association Hometown Holidays Arlington Street Fair Downtown Arlington Show and Shine Tourism Brochure Viking Fest Asotin 2017 City of Asotin Advertising Asotin County 2017 Visit Lewis Clark Valley Marketing Auburn 2017 City of Auburn Parks, Arts, Recreation - Events Petpalooza Tough Mudder Inc. 510,000 510,000 $10,000 $10,000 $750 5750 51,000 $1,000 51,100 51,100 5155,478 5155,478 $20,000 520,000 530,000 $30,000 518,700 57,900 54,900 $6,000 $40,000 540,000 $23,950 514,000 $5,000 54,950 52,500 52,500 520,328 $4,290 $3,300 55,280 52,508 $4,950 $124 $124 5124 5124 $72,505 572,505 572,505 $72,505 510,000 510,000 $2,500 52,500 55,000 525,000 525,000 566,000 $66,000 55,225 55,225 $5,000 $5,000 52,517 52,517 $427,564 $427,564 $28,000 $28,000 592,019 592,019 539,871 $12,060 512,035 515,776 5129,000 5129,000 589,178 572,858 58,820 57,500 59,457 59,457 540,038 57,183 53,007 $13,106 55,746 510,997 51,497 51,497 51,497 $1,497 575,000 575,000 575,000 $75,000 $1,288,600 $1,288,600 529,000 $29,000 51,250,000 1,000 1,000 10,000 10,000 600 600 5,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 113,100 113,100 2,000 2,000 50,000 50,000 7,500 3,500 1,000 3,000 400 400 10,000 5,000 5,000 1,20- 0 1,200 42,000 20,000 15,000 5,000 2,0- 00 7,000 7,000 7,700 7,700 450 450 10,000 10,000 1,200 1,200 92,374 92,374 1,950 1,950 31,400 31,400 4,625 2,825 1,000 800 387 387 11,000 5,000 6,000 1,012 1,012 42,000 20,000 15,000 5,000 2,00- 0 50 1,750 50 1,750 150 100 150 100 300 200 300 200 35 300 35 300 1,545 762 1,545 762 20 8 20 8 500 468 500 468 9 4 5 - 4 4 460 124 450 124 500 100 400 - 100 100 25 25 25 25 31 33 8 10 8 8 3 3 1- 2 12 25,000 24,465 23,000 20,285 25,000 24,465 23,000 20,285 25,000 24,465 23,000 20,285 25,000 24,465 23,000 20,285 52,000 50,672 1,280 1,196 52,000 50,672 1,280 1,196 15,000 16,500 80 105 15,000 16,500 80 105 12,000 9,172 1,000 891 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Tough Mu dder Seattle 2017 City of Auburn Parks, Arts, and Recreation - Events Veterans Day Parade Bainbridge Island 55,000 52,500 52,500 5200,000 2017 Arts &Humanities Bainbridge Bainbridge in Bloom Bainbridge island Chamber of Commerce Operations Special Events Tourism Marketing Bainbridge Island Historical Museum Hours Open for Visitors Bainbridge island Lodging Association Overnight Packages Website Development and Promotions Bainbridge island Museum of Art 2017 Exhibitions Bloedel Reserve Brochures Bainbridge island Parks Foundation 2017 Trillium Trail 10K and 51( Run Bainbridge Island Downtown Association Special Events Tourism Marketing North Kitsap Tourism Coalition Tourism Marketing Bainbridge Arts & Craft Washington State Ferry Advertising Winery Alliance of Bainbridge Island Wine on the Rock Events Battle Ground 2017 Best Western Battle Ground Inn and Suites Holiday Packages- Plan B Hospitality Lamar - billboard advertising Milestone Marketing -Online Banner Advertising WSDOT Directional Signs Get Bold Events North County Wine Run Battle Ground Chamber of Commerce Harvest Days Bellevue 2017 Bellevue Convention CenterAuthority(Meydenbauser Center) Bellevue Convention Center Authority Bellingham 5200,000 55,000 $5,000 556,000 $22,296 513,559 520,145 $8,000 58,000 $48,000 $19,400 $28,600 $8,000 58,000 $7,500 57,500 53,000 $3,000 $48,000 $20,500 527,500 57,500 57,500 53,000 53,000 56,000 56,000 534,033 534,033 $22,069 5530 511,700 58,792 $1,047 55,500 $5,500 56,464 $6,464 $0 50 50 $0 51,439,720 51,250,000 59,600 59,600 $398,985 $398,985 $5,459 55,459 $58,074 524,801 516,140 $17,134 548,822 $48,822 576,600 $25,615 550,985 512,985 512,985 519,315 $19,315 $5,153 55,153 $123,719 $72,259 $51,460 530,500 530,500 53,000 53,000 $15,357 $15,357 $36,033 12,000 25,000 25,000 51,100 51,100 700 700 27,500 9,172 25,000 25,000 58,216 58,216 600 600 31,071 1,000 200 200 4,950 4,950 50 S0 1,500 891 200 200 4,062 4,062 40 40 1,600 27,500 31,071 1,500 1,600 1,760 1,760 550 550 1,760 1,760 550 550 300 300 20,000 20,000 283 283 25,000 25,000 7 7 1,500 1,500 5 1,600 1,600 536,033 $22,069 $530 511,700 58,792 51,047 $7,500 $7,500 $6,464 56,464 $9,698,177 840 840 350 350 712 712 250 250 133 133 50 50 267 267 60 60 350 350 250 250 50 50 60 60 183,918 179,708 38,714 39,677 59,698,177 183,918 179,708 38,714 39,677 59,698,177 183,918 179,708 38,714 39,677 59,698,177 183,918 179,708 38,714 39,677 5579,077 76,923 73,737 5,427 3,796 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual 2017 Allied Arts of Whatcom County 2017 Promotion 2017 Promotion -The Art of Cascadia Bellingham Festival of Music 2017 Promotion - Festival Bellingham SeaFeast 2017 Bellingham SeaFeast Bellingham Whatcom County Tourism Regional Marketing Community Boating Center 2017 Promotion - Luminous Nights and Days Downtown Bellingham Partnership 2017 Promotion - Restaurant Week Mount Baker Bicycle Club 2017 Promotion / Chuckanut Classic Bicycle Ride Mount Baker Theatre Mount Baker Theatre Facility Operations Recreation Northwest 2017 Promotion - Bellingham Traverse 2017 Prornotion - EXPO Digital Trail Map System The Jazz Project 2017 Promotion /The Jazz Festival The Pickford Film Center 2017 Promotion / Bellingham Music Film Festival Western Washington University 2017 Promotion - Back2Bellingham Whatcom Community College 2017 Promotion - Chuckanut Writers Conference Whatcom Events 2017 Promotion - Ski to Sea 2017 Promotion - Tc u r de Whatcom Whatcom Symphony Orchestra 2017 Promotion - Whatcom Symphony Orchestra Fairhaven Historic Association 2017 Promotioin - Fairhaven Steampunk Festival Kuntz and Co, 2017 Promotion Max Higbee 2017 Promotion - April Brews Days Bellingham Northwest Wine Festival 2017 Promotion - Bellingham NW Wine Week Pickford Film Center 2017 Promotion - Doctober Film Festival CASCADIA International Women's Film Festival 2017 Promotion - Film Festival 51,439,720 $19,800 515,000 $4,800 $10,000 510,000 $50,000 550,000 $682,697 5682,697 $4,188 $4,188 $5,000 $5,000 $3,500 53,500 $400,000 5400,000 522,000 55,000 $12,000 55,000 54,500 54,500 $3,490 53,490 $15,000 515,000 54,205 54,205 515,000 510,000 $5,000 57,500 $7,500 55,000 55,000 $3,840 $3,840 54,000 $4,000 $5,000 55,000 510,000 510,000 55,000 55,000 5579,077 $30,973 521,373 $9,600 564,000 $64,000 76,923 500 73,737 855 5,427 3,796 10 500 5,500 5,500 855 4,960 4,960 880 880 10 307 307 5171,250 10,000 10,000 5171,250 10,000 10,000 54,705 $4,705 $10,500 $10,500 55,660 $5,660 261 261 1,500 1,500 400 400 215 215 1,100 1,100 320 320 50 50 20 20 100 100 65 65 $68,600 510,100 518,500 540,000 510,000 510,000 $3,490 53,490 547,500 547,500 $5,270 55,270 $ 67,500 $18,000 549,600 528,004 $28,004 $5,055 $5,055 510,670 $10,670 54,500 $4,500 $9,000 59,000 510,000 $10,000 512,300 512,300 1,350 450 900 2,427 427 2,000 140 40 100 109 22 87 9,927 9,927 400 400 2,500 2,500 170 170 3,600 3,000 600 9,000 9,000 3,000 3,000 9,788 9,786 473 473 1,696 1,696 164 164 3,369 2,512 857 8,310 8,310 2,700 2,700 250 250 200 200 87 87 2,350 2,150 200 150 150 75 75 55 55 2,158 1,878 280 236 236 75 75 4,500 4,500 7,065 7,065 800 800 436 436 425 425 8,368 8,368 1,131 1,131 1,200 1,200 100 100 25 25 406 406 125 125 35 35 4 4 54,705 $4,705 $10,500 $10,500 55,660 $5,660 261 261 1,500 1,500 400 400 215 215 1,100 1,100 320 320 50 50 20 20 100 100 65 65 $68,600 510,100 518,500 540,000 510,000 510,000 $3,490 53,490 547,500 547,500 $5,270 55,270 $ 67,500 $18,000 549,600 528,004 $28,004 $5,055 $5,055 510,670 $10,670 54,500 $4,500 $9,000 59,000 510,000 $10,000 512,300 512,300 1,350 450 900 2,427 427 2,000 140 40 100 109 22 87 9,927 9,927 400 400 2,500 2,500 170 170 3,600 3,000 600 9,000 9,000 3,000 3,000 9,788 9,786 473 473 1,696 1,696 164 164 3,369 2,512 857 8,310 8,310 2,700 2,700 250 250 200 200 87 87 2,350 2,150 200 150 150 75 75 55 55 2,158 1,878 280 236 236 75 75 4,500 4,500 7,065 7,065 800 800 436 436 425 425 8,368 8,368 1,131 1,131 1,200 1,200 100 100 25 25 406 406 125 125 35 35 4 4 Spark -Museum of Electrical Invention 2017 Promotional Marketing Whatcom Museum of History and Art Operational Blaine 2017 Bellingham Whatcom Tourism 2017 Marketing and Promotions Birch Bay Chamber of Commerce Blaine/Birch Bay Cooperative Promotions Blaine Chamber of Commerce Old Fashioned 4th of July Celebration Drayton Harbor Maritime Festival Holiday Harbor Lights City of Blaine Blaine Visitor Center Drayton Harbor Maritime Historic Plover Ferry Rides Pacific Arts Association Drayton Harbor Music Festival Bellingham Sail and Power Squadron 2017 Sea Skills Boating Festival International Peace Arch Association Hands Across the Border International Peace Arch Park Sculpture Exhibition Leah Crews Real Estate Summer Fun In the Park Wings Over Water Northwest, 501c3 Wings Over Water NW Girding Festival Bothell 2017 Greater Bothell Chamber of Commerce Bothell Beer Festival Bothell Visitor Information Center Fal! Downtown Wine Walk Shamrock Shuffle Wine Walk Summer -Downtown Wine Walk Red Propeller Advertising online/print & print production Professional Services for Program Management Professional Services and Collateral Design City of Bothell Tourism Coordinator Bremerton Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual 510,000 $10,000 15,450 17,000 $10,000 510,000 16,450 $150,000 $150,000 $183,061 $395,979 $183,061 $395,979 $2,500 $62,830 $2,500 $62,830 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $5,000 $18,000 $47,440 515,000 $41,000 $2,000 54,440 $1,000 52,000 5100,061 596,508 5100,061 596,508 530,000 $44,838 $30,000 $44,838 $10,000 $82,268 $10,000 $82,268 $500 $1,497 $500 51,497 512,500 $32,708 $5,000 $17,376 57,500 515,332 $1,000 52,700 51,000 52,700 56,000 520,190 56,000 520,190 5335,200 $283,630 5335,200 5283,630 59,900 59,900 17,000 235,760 235,760 36,895 36,895 5,610 5,610 4,107 4,107 16,960 18,500 1,160 1,085 15,000 15,500 900 825 1,500 2,500 250 250 460 500 10 10 4,700 4,075 2,000 1,940 4,700 4,075 2,000 1,940 7,000 7,367 400 400 7,000 7,367 400 400 2,500 2,500 210 228 2,500 2,500 210 228 300 325 20 10 300 325 20 10 202,000 1,678 1,700 350 2,000 1,678 100 350 200,000 1,600 300 650 20 24 300 650 20 24 2,000 1,800 100 70 2,000 1,800 100 70 3,200 2,550 59,900 $9,900 5217,000 5217,000 584,500 584,500 5112,500 5112,500 $20,000 520,000 5108,300 556,730 5108,300 $56,730 5506,200 52,534,678 2017 5506,200 52,534,678 Bremerton Chamber of Commerce $25,000 $41,977 Bremerton Visitor Center & Armed Forces Festival $25,000 $41,977 3,200 2,550 3,200 2,550 1,600 900 550 550 350 350 350 400 350 350 196,700 196,700 40,000 40,000 188,979 17,792 188,979 17,792 30,000 ;o,nno 14,533 14,533 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Bremerton Symphony Association Beason Concerts & Programs F'`<ap Admirals China Tour/Admiral Season/J Crawsover Pro Am tap Conference Center Conference Center sad Emrepreneurial Center 7:itsap Harbor Festival :sap Historical Society & Museum K:tsap History Museum Visit Kitsap Peninsula Tourism Marketing Service Washington State Science & Engineering Fair WSSEF Admiral Theatre Foundation Admiral Theatre 2017 Events Bremerton Historic Ships Association Turner Joy Valentinetti Puppet Museum $25,000 525,000 $15,000 $15,000 5155,000 $155,000 $373,368 $373,368 515,000 515,000 $1,572,544 $1,572,544 512,000 $33,500 $12,000 $33,500 521,000 5152,756 $21,000 5152,756 $18,000 518,000 $18,000 $18,000 $20,000 597,533 520,000 597,533 5150,000 5150,000 5150,000 5150,000 555,000 556,000 $55,000 $56,000 55,200 7,000 7,037 7,000 7,037 900 1,200 900 1,200 32,400 32,400 32,400 32,400 8,000 6,500 8,000 6,500 8,500 10,448 8,500 10,448 50 50 50 50 35 45 35 45 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800 200 38 200 38 200 218 200 218 3,500 3,500 2,170 2,170 3,500 3,500 2,170 2,170 51,000 51,230 4,137 51,000 51,230 4,137 40,000 40,780 5,000 6,000 40,000 40,780 5,000 6,000 5,000 5,684 100 175 Valentinetti Puppet Museum, Workshops, Private Tours 55,200 5,000 5,684 100 175 West Sound Art & Music Association $5,000 524,000 400 200 100 37 West Sound Ukulele Festive $5,000 $24,000 400 200 100 37 Brewster 535,546 $36,546 2017 $36,546 $36,546 City of Brewster 536,546 536,546 RV Park 536,546 $36,546 Bridgeport 5191 $191 2017 5191 5191 City of Bridgeport 5191 $191 Advertising 5191 $191 Buckley $15,203 $14,268 2017 $15,203 $14,268 Foothills Historical Museum/Visitor Center $13,453 512,392 City Visitor Center 513,453 512,392 City Veteran's Memorial 51,750 51,876 Veteran's Memorial 51,750 51,876 Burlington $256,550 $695,723 2017 $256,550 5695,723 Celtic Arts Foundation $2,500 5161,500 Skagit Valley Highland Games $2,500 $161,500 Children's Museum of Skagit County 585,000 $175,000 Marketing and/or operations for the 2nd Annual Children's Museum of Skagit County Winter Wonderland Festival Marketing for the Children's Museum of Skagit County visitors and new events 901 901 851 - 851 50 2 - 50 2 574,342 451,376 37,680 23,248 574,342 451,376 37,680 23,248 10,000 10,000 400 400 10,000 10,000 400 400 110,000 65,497 6,000 2,524 14 14 12 12 550,000 595,000 25,000 7,997 2,500 55 $35,000 $80,000 85,000 57,500 3,500 2,465 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Lincoln Theatre Center Foundation Expanding Marketing for Lincoln Theatre Live Performances McIntyre Hall Marketing of McIntyre Hall concerts, events, and venue Skagit Valley Tulip Festival Skagit Valley Tulip Festival Official Brochure and website upgrade Burlington Chamber of Commerce 54,000 $26,000 26,492 29,431 54,000 $28,000 26,492 29,431 $15,000 5105,500 40,000 37,044 515,000 $105,500 40,000 37,044 1,025 1,025 1,052 1,052 985 985 $6,800 $58,973 350,000 289,019 21,000 15,722 $6,800 $58,973 350,000 289,019 21,000 15,722 $133,000 5133,000 31,000 16,749 6,180 2,143 Berry Dairy Days Festival marketing to potentialtaurists $8,000 58,000 6,000 4,481 100 284 Harvest Festival Marketing $8,000 58,000 5,000 5,000 80 100 Operations of the Burlington Visitor's information Center and marketing and special events 5117,000 5117,000 20,000 7,268 6,000 1,759 Skagit River Bald Eagle Awareness Team (SRBEAT) $5,000 $26,500 3,500 3,108 2,000 402 Marketing for the Skagit River Bald Eagle Festival and Interpretive Center 55,000 $26,500 3,500 3,108 2,000 402 Skagit Valley Genealogical Society (SVGS) 51,250 51,250 100 53 25 10 Marketing of the Skagit Valley Genealogical Society 0' Canada Genealogy Seminar Weekend American Legion Memorial Post #91 54,000 $6,000 3,250 51,250 51,250 100 53 25 10 475 1,050 Military Historic Museum facility improvements and marketing $4,000 56,000 3,250 475 Camas 511,352 566,218 770,000 769,000 2017 $11,352 $66,218 770,000 769,000 Downtown Camas Association 56,885 560,373 395,000 397,000 FARMER'S MARKET 5150 542,000 500 500 Walking Maps 5988 $1,300 7,500 7,500 Camas Plant and Garden Fair $748 58,150 1,000 3,000 Regional Ads and an ad in Sunset Magazine $5,000 $8,923 386,000 386,000 Camas Washougal Chamber of Commerce 54,465 $5,845 375,000 372,000 Camas Days 52,500 $3,453 15,000 12,000 City Advertising - FMG Publishing 51,956 52,392 360,000 360,000 Cashmere $4,286 $113,201 4,400 4,639 2017 $4,286 $113,201 4,400 4,639 Cashmere Chamber of Commerce $4,286 5113,201 4,400 4,639 Apple Days 5350 $6,430 1,200 1,102 Founder's Days $2,936 511,896 2,000 2,400 Cashmere Float 5200 512,000 Wenatchee River Bluegrass Festival 5800 562,874 1,200 1,137 Castle Rock $14,558 $27.283 5,000 2017 $14,558 $27,283 5,000 City of Castle Rock 514,558 527,283 5,000 Visitor Center Operations 514,558 $27,283 5,000 Centralia $211,058 $359,046 66,007 62,422 2017 5211,058 $359,046 66,007 62,422 1,050 10 10 1,340 1,357 1,340 1,357 1,340 1,357 100 190 100 100 1,140 1,057 42 42 42 42 13,513 14,011 13,513 14,011 Paid lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Artrails of Southwest Washington Studio Tour Centralia -Chehalis Chamber of Commerce Tourism Scope City of Centralia Bond Repayment Bus Project Historic Fox Theatre Restorations Fox Event Promotions Lewis County Historical Museum Japanese Internment Exhibit Centralia Downtwon Association 360 Tour/ George Washington Museum Southwest Washington Fair Tnterm Events Garlic Fest Discover Lewis County Kiosk, social media websites Chehalis 2017 Centralia -Chehalis Chamber of Commerce Tourism Promotion and Visitor Center City of Chehalis The Chehalis Wedding Show Lewis County Community Trails Willapa Hills Fat Tire Ride and Festival Lewis County Historical Museum 2017 Operating Year Chehalis -Centralia Railroad and Museum 2017 Operating Season Chehalis Community Renaissance Team 2017 Operating Year Veteran's Memorial Museum 2017 Operating Year Chelan $10,000 $41,300 $10,000 $41,300 530,000 $30,000 530,000 530,000 $104,058 597,247 $94,058 594,058 510,000 53,190 515,000 $15,000 515,000 $15,000 $4,000 $127,500 54,000 5127,500 535,000 534,999 $35,000 $34,999 55,000 55,000 $5,000 55,000 $8,000 $8,000 58,000 $8,000 5214,935 5843,398 5214,935 $843,398 $40,000 5100,000 540,000 5100,000 512,435 520,183 $12,435 $20,183 $29,500 545,500 $29,500 $45,500 530,000 5167,800 530,000 5167,800 530,000 $277,575 530,000 5277,575 550,000 $90,380 $50,000 590,380 $23,000 5141,960 523,000 5141,960 $1,015,540 52,485,006 2017 51,015,540 $2,485,006 City of Chelan 5138,068 5138,068 Debt Service 5138,068 5138,068 Lake Chetan Chamber of Commerce 5530,000 5530,322 General Marketing 5317,200 5317,222 Operations & Maintenance of Facility $212,800 $213,100 City of Chelan Golf Course 5131,672 51,098,623 General Marketing $10,572 510,572 Maintenance & Capita! Expenses of Facility $121400 51,088,051 City of Chelan Parks 5215,800 5717,993 Maintenance & Capital Expenses of Facility 5215,800 5717,993 Chelan County 5148,500 $1,360,735 2017 5148,500 51,360,735 4,000. 4,000 6,000 6,000 30,207 30,000 207 10,000 10,000 9,000 9,000 300 300 6,500 6,500 2,800 2,800 6,000 6,000 31,316 31,250 66 12,000 12,000 4,096 4,096 350 350 5,860 5,860 50 50 1,200 1,200 9,686 9,500 186 800 B00 650 650 62 62 1,200 1,200 10,476 10,416 60 675 675 514 514 1,625 1,625 586 586 37,887 37,887 29,966 29,966 3,481 3,481 3,335 3,335 9,000 9,000 13,000 13,000 1,679 1,679 12,632 12,632 650 650 114 114 325 325 13,587 13,587 15,324 15,324 2,581 2,581 2,896 2,896 186,695 186,695 1,013,153 1,013,153 54,378 54,378 49,341 49,341 300 300 2,000 2,000 331 331 250 250 9,000 9,000 13,000 13,000 1,679 1,679 12,632 12,632 650 650 114 114 325 325 13,587 13,587 15,324 15,324 2,581 2,581 2,896 2,896 186,695 186,695 1,013,153 1,013,153 54,378 54,378 49,341 49,341 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Cascade Farmlands Mobile Map Cashmere Chamber of Commerce Christmas in Cashmere Website Gnomes of Cashmere Promotional Materials Scare -crazy fn Cashmere Visit Cashmere Brochure Leavenworth Golf Club Plubic/Semi Private Golf Leavenworth Summer Theater The Sound of Music Wenatchee Valley Museum and Cultural Center Various Programs and Events Chelan County Historical Society/Cashmere Museum 2017 Apple pays Icicle Creek Center for the Arts $4,000 54,000 59,500 $1,000 52,000 51,500 5500 5600 $3,900 $1,000 51,000 510,000 510,000 $5,000 55,000 55,000 $5,000 $7,500 $18,000 518,000 512,547 51,414 51,842 $1,518 $531 52,846 $4,395 53,000 $3,000 585,000 $85,000 5852,436 $852,436 $6,430 56,430 $85,000 5,000 5,000 8,300 300 10,000 10,000 8,250 500 500 500 1,600 100 100 100 1,100 100 3,500 3,650 1,000 600 4,500 4,000 500 400 15,000 15,000 9,975 9,975 40,000 40,000 1,200 1,200 8,300 7,500 7,500 10,207 10,207 870,776 870,776 1,102 1,102 8,380 2017 Performance season, summer camps and camp fairs 57,500 585,000 8,300 8,380 Washington State Autumn Leaf Festival Association $65,000 $65,000 9,000 12,000 Autumn Leaf Festival 565,000 565,000 9,000 12,000 Leavenworth Nutcracker Museum 53,000 525,000 2,500 1,011 Leavenworth Ale -Fest $3,000 525,000 2,500 1,011 Northwest Accordion Society $1,500 539,000 2,000 1,900 Leavenworth International Accordian Celebration $1,500 539,000 2,000 1,900 WRI 53,000 524,000 800 900 Leavenworth Spring Bird fest $3,000 524,000 800 900 Wenatchee Outdoors $2,000 52,000 20 16 Marketing for Tourism 52,000 52,000 20 16 Cashmere Float 53,000 $12,000 4,000 8,000 Parade Float $3,000 512,000 4,000 8,000 Stehekin Hertitage 52,500 $7,302 27,000 27,000 Stehekin Guidebook $2,500 57,302 27,000 27,000 Black Knight Society 51,500 $1,646 2,400 1,224 Two Rivers Medival Faire 51,500 $1,646 2,400 1,224 Manson Chamber of Commerce $20,000 539,500 50,000 43,750 7,000 7,000 7,100 7,100 7,500 7,500 100 100 1,245 1,245 5,000 5,000 1,900 1,900 1,400 1,400 275 275 8 8 90 90 4,000 4,000 7,272 7,272 10,650 10,650 127 127 1,598 1,598 6,000 6,000 811 811 1,300 1,300 206 206 6 6 90 90 60 60 20,000 250 750 15,250 Village of Lights, Apple Blossom, Tipsy Treating, 4th of July, Hydrofest, Rat Rod Show 520,000 539,500 50,000 43,750 20,000 15,250 Cashmere Community Center $5,000 582,874 1,200 1,137 600 581 Wenatchee River and BlueGrass Festival 55,000 582,874 1,200 1,137 600 581 Cheney $16,940 $124,327 9,750 8,862 60 51 2017 $16,940 $124,327 9,750 8,862 60 51 Cheney Events Association 54,580 5110,190 9,000 8,000 50 37 Cheney Rodeo $4,680 $110,190 9,000 8,000 50 37 Cheney Mayfesters 512,260 514,137 750 862 10 14 Mayfcst 2017 512,260 514,137 750 862 10 14 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Chewelah 2017 Chewelah Arts Guild Music on the Mountain Chewelah Chamber of Commerce Marketing Chokes & Spokes Antique Car Cub Nostalgia Days Car Show Community Celebrations Marketing Chewelah Farmers Market Chewelah Farmers Market (weekly) Chewelah Community Float Chewelah Float Parades Tri -County Economic Development District Northeast Washington Insider Clallam County 59,800 $9,800 51,000 51,000 52,000 52,000 5300 $300 $2,000 52,000 51,000 51,000 52,500 $2,500 51,000 51,000 5825,334 2017 $825,334 Clallam County Parks/Fair/Facilities 530,000 Clallam Bay Park 58,400 Day Use Parks $6,558 Out of Area Advertising- Fair 51,783 Out of Area Advertising - Parks 513,259 Dungeness River Audubon Center 569,710 Dungeness River Audubon Center Operations 569,710 Feiro Marine Life Center 554,000 Facility Study 554,000 Forks Chamber of Commerce 51,000 Forks Marketing $1,000 Olympic Peninsula Visitor Bureau $470,000 Visitor Bureau 5470,000 Port Angeles Chamber of Commerce $372 Port Angeles Marketing 5372 Clallam Bay/Sekiu Chamber of Commerce 522,971 Clallam Bay/Sekiu Marketing $22,971 Peninsula Area Public Access 533,000 Historical Sites Videos 533,000 Clallam County Public Works/Roads Department 5105,000 Olympic Discovery Trail $105,000 Sequim Picklers 534,000 Public Pickieball Facility Complex 534,000 Washington State Patrol $4,831 Sequim Lavender Festival Traffic Policing 54,831 Sequim-Dungeness Valley Chamber of Commerce & Visitor Center $450 Sequim Marketing $450 Clark County $455,639 2017 5455,639 $105,564 5105,564 511,318 511,318 $9,000 $9,000 51,638 $1,538 568,719 568,719 51,139 $1,139 52,500 52,500 511,250 $11,250 5825,334 $825,334 530,000 58,400 $6,558 $1,783 $13,259 569,710 569,710 554,000 554,000 51,000 51,000 5470,000 5470,000 $372 5372 522,971 522,971 $33,000 533,000 5105,000 $105,000 534,000 534,000 54,831 $4,831 $450 $450 $455,639 $455,639 102,180 102,180 280 280 350 350 350 350 50,000 50,000 200 200 50,000 50,000 1,000 1,000 923,744 923,744 71,554 71,554 292 292 375 375 500 500 35,000 35,000 220 220 35,000 35,000 157 167 955,063 955,063 515 346 515 5 6 75 80 75 80 10 4 10 4 100 120 100 120 4 4 4 4 120 120 120 120 200 18 200 18 221,849 232,697 221,849 232,697 346 17,000 22,938 17,000 22,938 100 100 100 100 2,000 2,000 10 10 2,100 2,100 10 10 905,644 929,071 906,644 929,071 219,833 219,839 230,267 230,267 Clark County Debt Service on Event Center S455,639 $455, Clarkston $88,750 $94,614 2017 $88,750 $94,614 Clarkston Rotary Club $3,750 $9,614 Rotary Rivers & Ridges Ride $3,750 $9,614 Hells Canyon Visitor's Bureau $85,000 $85,000 Visit LC Valley Visitor Bureau $85,000 $85,000 Cle Elum $20,315 $140,217 Funds Total Awarded Activity Cost $455,639 $455,639 639 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Projected Actual Projected Actual 2017 Cie Elum Roundup Association Cle Elum Roundup UKC Interact Flagpole Park Kerri Farnum Pioneer Days Fireworks Pioneer Days Pioneer Days Queen Coronation Kittitas County Parks and Recreation $20,315 5140,217 $6,800 $50,317 $6,600 $50,317 $3,267 514,000 $3,267 514,000 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 53,500 51,748 $2,400 51,748 $2,400 55,000 $70,000 Towns to Teanaway Corridor Project Master Plan Development $5,000 570,000 Colfax 528,934 528,934 2017 528,934 528,934 Colfax Chamber of Commerce 512,500 $12,500 Explore Colfax Insider App 52,500 $2,500 First Thursdays 510,000 510,000 Best Western Inn 51,434 $1,434 Murder Mystery on the Palouse $1,434 51,434 Colfax Downtown Association 515,000 $15,000 Unified Executive Director 515,000 515,000 Colville 5321,415 5144,1328 2017 $321,415 $144,628 Chamber of Commerce 5204,000 530,471 Home & Garden Show 534,000 $1,137 Home for the Holidays 534,000 $393 Moonlight Madness $34,000 $438 Sidewalk Sale 534,000 5534 Visitor Information Center 534,000 527,871 Golf Tournament 534,000 $98 City of Colville 534,875 $33,807 Tiger Triathlon $2,905 $2,905 Yep Kanum Electricity 526,470 $26,470 Yep Kanum Event Costs $5,500 $4,432 Colville Rendezvous 529,200 $19,200 Rendezvous Days $19,200 519,200 Colville Valley Roping Club 51,200 $927 2017 Roping Events 51,200 5927 25,150 25,150 150 150 25,000 25,000 1,985 24,587 24,587 122 122 24,465 24,465 1,907 23,050 20,303 23,050 20,303 50 18 50 18 23,000 20,285 23,000 20,285 200 317 1,985 1,907 200 317 1,500 1,292 10 27 1,500 1,292 10 27 50 50 - 50 50 - 300 415 150 200 300 415 150 200 135 150 40 90 135 150 40 90 10,825 4,272 25 10,825 4,272 25 1,825 1,680 25 25 531 1,800 1,149 25 20 20 9,000 2,572 9,000 2,572 51,216 33,839 10,410 51,216 33,639 10,410 5,721 4,771 1,020 1,010 900 45 400 200 40 300 100 30 400 400 65 3,321 2,971 750 300 200 9D 400 86 100 400 86 100 2,991 1,991 122 63 59 20 20 1,849 1,849 2,509 2,509 679 61 20 10 60 523 5 10 10 15,000 14,885 1,500 15,000 14,885 1,500 900 525 225 900 575 775 1,100 1,100 60 60 2,600 2,500 100 5,000 5,000 2,500 840 700 140 4,500 4,600 2,300 25 25 5 5 200 200 100 500 500 250 2,500 2,300 100 250 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Rotary Bike Maps Chill Cook-Off/Bike Ride Stevens County Historical Society Keller Heritage Center NE WA Fairgrounds Colville Rodeo NE Washington Fair New Year's Eve fireworks Heritage Network Historic Tours Jeff Weeman Memorial Rotary Field Electricity Colville Valley Swim Club Starting Blocks Tri County Economic Development District Tourism App Conconully 2017 $7,200 $2,200 $5,000 $17,481 $17,481 $11,500 $4,000 $6,000 $1,500 $12,520 $12,520 $2,939 $2,939 $8,500 $8,500 $2,000 $2,000 $4,500 $4,500 Concanully Chamber of Commerce $4,500 Advertising $4,500 Connell $14144 2017 $14,140 City of Connell $2,640 City of Connell Float $2,640 Connell Community Club $400 City Yard Sale $400 Connell Downtown Development Association $1,500 Mural $1,500 Coumbia Basin JuniorLivestockShow $600 Columbia Basin Junior Livestock Show $600 Miss Connell Scholarship Program $4,500 Connell Community Float $4,500 Greater Connell Chamber of Commerce $4,500 Connell Fall Festival $3,500 Wine & Brew Festival $1,000 Coulee City $5,938 2017 $5,938 Coulee City Chamber of Commerce $3,938 Chamber of Commerce Website $1,300 Coulee City Business Directory Signage $741 Coulee City Last Stand Rodeo $1,000 Eastern WA Vacation Travel Planner $898 Coulee City Rodeo Association $2,000 PRCA Last Stand Rodeo $2,000 Coulee Dam _ $30,000 2017 $30,000 $7,092 $2,092 $5,000 $17,481 $17,481 $10,931 $3,431 $6,000 $1,500 $12,520 $12,520 $2,939 $2,939 $7,460 $7,460 $2,000 $2,000 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $13,005 $13,005 11,120 11,000 120 1,500 1,500 13,700 1,500 12,000 200 1,025 1,025 1,000 1,000 850 850 80 80 2,466 2,466 8,300 2,000 6,000 300 669 669 1,088 1,088 300 300 5,560 5,500 60 250 250 255 15 240 50 50 316 316 30 12 18 400 400 900 900 200 200 32 32 200 200 $2,108 $2,108 $180 $180 $1,500 $1,500 $600 $600 $4,116 $4,116 $4,500 $3,500 $1,000 $85,588 8,975 8,975 3,000 3,000 2,000 2,000 2,140 2,140 80 80 30 30 25 25 1,375 1,300 1,375 1,300 25 25 20 20 $85,588 $3,938 $1,300 $741 $1,000 $898 $81,650 $81,650 $22,000 $22,000 2,500 2,500 50,000 50,000 2,300 2,300 55,759 55,759 100 100 15,000 15,000 250 250 15,874 15,874 669 669 - 32 32 ® $2,108 $2,108 $180 $180 $1,500 $1,500 $600 $600 $4,116 $4,116 $4,500 $3,500 $1,000 $85,588 8,975 8,975 3,000 3,000 2,000 2,000 2,140 2,140 80 80 30 30 25 25 1,375 1,300 1,375 1,300 25 25 20 20 $85,588 $3,938 $1,300 $741 $1,000 $898 $81,650 $81,650 $22,000 $22,000 2,500 2,500 50,000 50,000 2,300 2,300 55,759 55,759 100 100 15,000 15,000 250 250 15,874 15,874 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Grand Coulee Dam Area Chamber of Commerce Gen ral Advertising/Visitor Guides Coupeville 2017 Caupeville Chamber of Commerce Visitor Center Advertising Coupeville Historic Waterfront Association Annual Musselfest Island County Historical Museum Marketing Penn Cove Water Festival Association Annual Penn Cave Water Festival The Pacific Northwest Art School Annual Marketing Town of Coupeville Annual Town Event Marketing and Promotion Trust Board of Ebey's Landing Ebey's House/Visitor Contact Station Island County Tourism Board Annual Marketing Cowlitz County 2017 Cowlitz County Cowlitz County Big Idea Program Cowlitz County Grant Program Cowlitz County Tourism Dept Cumulative Reserve - LCC Athletics Davenport 2017 Celebrate Davenport Davenport Float Insurance Lincoln County Historical Society Museum Activities Fluid Desgn Products New City entrance sign Davenport Chamber of Commerce Visitor Information Center Dayton 2017 $30,000 522,000 50,000 530,000 522,000 50,000 515,291 5324,646 515,291 5324,646 52,758 54426 $2,758 54,126 $1,500 569,000 51,500 $69,000 $2,758 5198,566 $2,758 $198,566 52,758 54,355 52,758 54,355 $2,758 $2,770 $2,758 52,770 55,884 55,884 52,758 $6,283 $2,758 56,283 533,662 $33,662 5388,155 $772,446 5388,155 5772,446 5388,155 5772,446 $68,752 5139,191 533,890 599,735 5235,513 5316,020 $50,040 5217,500 $6,500 541,500 1,500 6,500 $600 $fi00 $1,000 541,500 1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $25,000 51,000 52,500 525,000 $8,500 $2,500 $8,500 52,400 52,400 $6,500 56,500 566,733 $120,184 $66,733 5120,184 $66,733 5120,184 $66,733 5120,184 $3,4x4 53,000 $3,000 $3,000 53,000 53,000 $3,000 53,000 $111,227 54,520,812 55,759 55,759 15,000 15,000 15,874 15,974 Dayton Chamber of Commerce Tourism and Promotion Deer Park 2017 City of Deer Park Deer Park Chamber of Commerce Des Moines 2017 1,200 1,200 5 5 2 2 1,500 1,200 1,500 1,200 28,000 36,722 28,000 36,722 28,000 36,722 28,000 36,722 5 5 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 2 2 27,646 27,648 27,648 27,648 535,756 541,462 30,000 39,125 5111,227 54,520,812 535,756 541,462 30,000 39,125 27,397 7,490 7,490 27,397 8,000 8,000 10,000 10,000 3,000 3,000 397 397 1,440 1,440 3,000 3,000 300 300 350 350 6,000 6,000 2,400 2,400 81,350 81,350 81,350 3,785 3,785 3,785 _ 36,350 1,185 45,000 2,600 Dayton Chamber of Commerce Tourism and Promotion Deer Park 2017 City of Deer Park Deer Park Chamber of Commerce Des Moines 2017 1,200 1,200 5 5 2 2 1,500 1,200 1,500 1,200 28,000 36,722 28,000 36,722 28,000 36,722 28,000 36,722 5 5 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 2 2 27,646 27,648 27,648 27,648 535,756 541,462 30,000 39,125 5111,227 54,520,812 535,756 541,462 30,000 39,125 535,756 535,756 9,820 9,820 1,050 541,462 541,462 5,797 5,797 181 30,000 30,000 591 591 32 39,115 39,125 428 428 750 44 10 200 44 20 100 93 2 1 1 f Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Seattle Southside Regional TourisrnAuthority Destination Marketing Dupont 2017 City of Dupont Heirloom Orchard Marketing Tourism Coordinator City Department Overtime Concerts in the Park Advertising Hudson Bay Heritage Days- Marketing Mayor's Cup GoIfToumament Moon Walk North American Golf Conference DuPont Historical Society Cherry Blossom Tea Hudson Bay Heritage Days Interpretive Signage Museum Freeway Sign Museum Website The Home Course Collegiate Open Tournament of Champions Classical Glass Car Club Classical Glass Car Show WA JR Golf Association Junior America's Cup American Legion Kansas City Barbeque Lions Club District 19 Lions Centennial Celebration Washington State Golf Association WA State Women's Amateur Championship East Wenatchee 2017 City of East Wenatchee Wenatchee Valley Sports Tourism Classy Chassis Cith of East Wenatchee Wings & Wheels Eatonville 5111,227 $111,227 $203,008 $203,008 5141,853 $4,000 514,000 $96,063 $15,290 51,500 52,500 $5,000 $1,500 52,000 54,955 51,000 52,000 51,200 5455 $300 $15,700 $14,700 51,000 $9,000 $9,000 $15,000 515,000 57,500 $7,500 $3,000 $3,000 $6,000 $ 6,000 $114,200 5114,20D $53,200 512,500 540,700 561,000 $61,000 510,183 54,520,811 $4,520,812 5239,087 $239,087 5136,698 52,502 513,902 596,063 512,624 51,500 $2,500 55,000 5797 51,809 $3,719 5219 51,545 $1,200 $a55 5300 523,411 522,411 $1,000 $10,066 510,066 $43,261 $43,261 510,411 $10,411 $6,521 56,521 55,000 $5,000 5140,113 $140,113 $54,776 1,200 451 54 200 275 4 1,000 276 50 450 458 220 258 200 300 200 200 250 158 20 58 700 203 50 2 700 203 50 8 800 700 70 75 800 700 70 75 2,000 2,200 50 48 2,000 2,200 50 48 3,500 1,480 45 2 3,500 1,480 45 2 120 124 70 37 120 124 70 37 15,000 25,700 353 7,359 15,000 25,700 353 7,359 7,000 17,700 153 7,141 10,700 1 6,925 7,000 7,000 153 216 8,000 8,000 200 216 8,000 8,000 200 218 5,500 8,250 40 50 5,500 8,250 40 50 5,000 7,500 20 25 5,000 7,500 20 25 554,776 $85,337 585,337 55,183 2017 $10,183 $5,183 Chamber of Commerce 52,500 July 3rd and 4th 52,500 Town of Eatonville 55,683 55,183 Daffodil Parade Float $5001 Facility 54,658 54,658 Event Brochure Rod Knockers Car Shaw Eatonville Historical Society Histrocial Society Museum Edmonds 2017 Cascadia Art Museum Museum advertising/marketing City of Edmonds Tourism Advertising and Marketing DeMiero Jazz Festival 2017 DeMieroJazz Festival Edmonds Center for the Arts 2017-18 Season Brochure Edmonds Driftwood Players Season brochures, printing & distribution of 12,000 Edmonds Noon Rotary Club Edmonds Waterfront Festival Olympic Ballet Theatre 2017 performances Snohomish County Tourism Bureau Visitor Information Centers and Visitor Services Sno-King Community Chorale Ticket to Broadway "Fiddler on the Roof" Edmonds Senior Center 2017 Creative Age Festival ArtWalk Edmonds 3rd Thursday Art Walks and Summer Wine Walks City of Edmonds Arts & Culture Program Cascade Symphony Cascade Symphony Concerts Edmonds Arts Commission Write on the Sound Concert Series Edmonds Arts Festival Edmonds Art Studio Tour Edmonds Arts Festival Association Edmonds Arts Festival Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Edmonds Visitor Information Center Edmonds Clam Chowder Cook -off Rotary Club of Edmonds Daybreakers Edmonds Jan Connection 2017 City of Edmonds Parks & Recreation Puget Sound Bird Fest Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual $525 $525 $1,000 500 $1,000 500 $1,000 $1,000 $130,467 $628,862 270,342 $130,467 $628,862 Z70,342 $2,000 $2,500 10,000 $2,000 $2,500 10,000 $72,767 $72,767 $72,767 $72,767 $2,000 $92,000 2,500 $2,000 $92,000 2,500 $12,500 $24,433 65,000 $12,500 $24,433 65,000 $2,000 $2,124 14,000 $2,000 $2,124- 14,000 $2,000 $109,083 22,000 $2,000 5109.083 22,000 $2,000 $101,000 6,000 $2,000 $101,000 6,000 $6,400 $117,700 38,000 $6,400 $117,700 38,000 $1,500 $2,086 1,200 $1,500 $2,086 1,200 $1,500 $18,000 300 $1,500 $18,000 300 $2,000 $2,850 3,600 $2,000 $2,850 3,600 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $2,000 $4,224 2,442 $2,000 $4,224 2,442 $9,300 $38,500 3,300 $7,500 $35,500 300 $1,800 $3,000 3,000 $1,100 $11,089 4,600 $1,100 $11,089 4,600 5400 90,000 $400 90,000 $3,500 $5,500 4,000 $2,500 $3,500 3,000 $1,000 52,000 1,000 $2,000 $17,100 3,000 $2,000 $17,100 3,000 51,500 $3,907 400 $].,5nn $3,907 400 750 750 20 20 25 25 270,951 270,951 11,789 11,789 5,286 3,432 5,286 3,432 100 20 100 20 2,437 2,437 79,288 79,288 14,124 14,124 22,000 22,000 5,450 5,450 31,598 31,598 875 875 250 250 2,600 2,600 350 286 350 286 1,600 1,500 1,600 1,500 100 100 100 100 20 12 20 12 3,040 1,441 3,040 1,441 6 6 2 2 2,500 2,500 4,329 329 4,000 4,805 4,805 80,000 80,000 5,386 4,576 810 3,000 3,000 520 520 60 40 20 59 41 18 10 10 5 5 7 7 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost ProjectedActual Projected Actual Elect ric City 573,000 $73,000 51,500 51,500 City of Electric City General Advertising GCDA Chamber of Commerce 516,500 Festival of America 54,000 Harvest Festival 54,000 Colorama Festival 58,000 Koulee Kids Fest $500 Port District 59,000 Golf Course Maintenace 59,000 540,000 540,000 Electric City Ice Age Trail/Park System Coulee Area Parks &Recreation District 56,000 56,000 $493,663 Maintenace & Operations nsburg $493,663 $3,803 Ellensburg Downtown Association Downtown Year-round activities $3,803 512,000 512,000 5459,360 Gallery One Annual Marketing Kittitas County Chamber of Commerce Destination Contract Services $459,360 $9,000 59,000 $9,500 59,500 Laughing Horse Arts Foundation Jazz in the Valley John Ford Clymer Museum Year Round Marketing 578,936 $78,936 Elma Chamber of Commerce $72,936 Elma City Wide Garage Sale Days 51,993 Elora Veterans Day Parade & Memorial Celebration $3,151 Elora Winter Wine Festival 519,984 Heat on the Street Car Show 511,804 Tourism Plan- $29,004 2017 Elle 2017 Elma 2017 5124 244 $124,244 27,445 37,093 27,445 37,093 840 6,736 840 6,736 Visitors Choice Magazine/Elma Brochures & Map Update Grays Harbor Mounted Posse Grays Harbor Indoor Pro Rodeo Entiat 2017 City of Entiat Advertising & Promotion Enumclaw 512,500 2017 $12,500 Visit Rainier 510,000 Visit Rainier Regional Marketing Program 510,000 514,716 514,716 $20,277 520,277 536,000 $36,000 5613,962 5613,962 516,900 516,900 $12,000 $12,000 $445,435 5445,435 $121,775 5121,775 $17,852 $17,852 5182,024 5182,024 $122,538 51,993 53,151 $66,836 514,554 529,004 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 450 450 450 45D 57,000 57,000 56,000 559,486 56,000 $59,486 21,445 21,445 73,220 73,220 17,000 17,000 38,220 38,220 3,000 3,000 15,000 15,000 45,500 45,500 6,500 1,500 500 1,500 3,000 17,269 17,269 61,558 61,558 15,150 15,150 29,302 29,302 2,777 2,777 14,329 14,329 49,000 49,000 10,245 5,000 500 1,645 3,100 390 390 356,323 356,323 3,612 3,612 1,274 1,274 350,000 350,000 1,437 1,437 309 309 331 209 223 2 2 3 80 124 746 746 387,988 387,988 2,490 2,490 976 976 381,010 381,010 1,512 1,512 2,000 2,000 331 2 95 124 39,000 39,000 38,755 38,755 100 100 108 108 51,198 51,198 $1,198 51,198 512,500 $53,250 13,824 5,540 517,624 6,500 50,000 3,412 517,386 2,414 50,000 811 516,893 4,500 1,267 $1,347 410 50 Visitors Choice Magazine/Elma Brochures & Map Update Grays Harbor Mounted Posse Grays Harbor Indoor Pro Rodeo Entiat 2017 City of Entiat Advertising & Promotion Enumclaw 512,500 2017 $12,500 Visit Rainier 510,000 Visit Rainier Regional Marketing Program 510,000 514,716 514,716 $20,277 520,277 536,000 $36,000 5613,962 5613,962 516,900 516,900 $12,000 $12,000 $445,435 5445,435 $121,775 5121,775 $17,852 $17,852 5182,024 5182,024 $122,538 51,993 53,151 $66,836 514,554 529,004 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 450 450 450 45D 57,000 57,000 56,000 559,486 56,000 $59,486 21,445 21,445 73,220 73,220 17,000 17,000 38,220 38,220 3,000 3,000 15,000 15,000 45,500 45,500 6,500 1,500 500 1,500 3,000 17,269 17,269 61,558 61,558 15,150 15,150 29,302 29,302 2,777 2,777 14,329 14,329 49,000 49,000 10,245 5,000 500 1,645 3,100 390 390 356,323 356,323 3,612 3,612 1,274 1,274 350,000 350,000 1,437 1,437 309 309 331 209 223 2 2 3 80 124 746 746 387,988 387,988 2,490 2,490 976 976 381,010 381,010 1,512 1,512 2,000 2,000 331 2 95 124 39,000 39,000 38,755 38,755 100 100 108 108 51,198 51,198 $1,198 51,198 512,500 50,000 $12,500 $10,000 510,000 50,000 Wild Horse Str City of Enumclaw Photography Portfolio Ephrata 2017 Chamber of Commerce Basin Summer Sounds Music Festival Car and Toy Show City of Ephrata Tourism Marketing Columbia Basin Youth Baseball Babe Ruth World Series Everett 2017 Arts Council of Snohomish County dba Schack Art Center 2017 Schack Art Center Promotion City of Everett Colors of Freedom Sorticulture Everett Tourism Marketing Plan Multi Purpose Facility Everett Music Initiative Fisherman Village Music Festival Imagine Children's Museum Imagine the Holidays Olympic Ballet Theatre Funds Total Attendance Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actua! Projected Actual $2,500 $2,500 50,000 52,500 $2,500 50,000 $40,000 $205,500 138,500 540,000 $205,500 138,500 $14,000 $89,500 15,500 $11,000 $85,000 15,000 $3,000 $4,500 500 $11,000 $11,000 100,000 $11,000 $11,000 100,000 515,000 $105,000 23,000 515,000 5105,000 23,000 $574,181 $3,633,852 201,120 $574,181 $3,633,852 201,120 578,950 $1,025,950 70,000 $78,950 $1,025,950 70,000 $354,000 5478,880 59,500 $30,000 5116,500 43,500 524,000 5113,000 16,000 $150,000 $99,380 5150,000 5150,000 326,485 519,770 553,000 4,000 3,700 500 375 $19,770 $53,000 4,000 3,700 500 375 513,840 $23,922 3,400 3,473 138 340 513,840 $23,922 3,400 3,473 138 340 55,000 $243,349 2,300 2,295 10 12 169,500 26,600 26,700 169,500 26,600 26,700 12,500 1,100 1,100 12,000 1,000 1,000 500 100 100 100,000 25,000 25,000 100,000 25,000 25,000 57,000 500 600 57,000 500 600 527,518 _ 10,506 14,145 527,518 10,506 14,145 65,785 1,392 1,315 65,785 1,392 1,315 388,000 890 583 43,500 440 423 18,015 450 160 Olympic Ballet Theatre's 2017 Spring and Winter Programs $5,000 5243,349 Village Theatre 540,000 51,535,944 Three Shows starting with a Proper Place $40,000 $1,535,944 Downtown Everett Association 525,000 5152,500 Downtown Everett Pedestrian WayfindingSignage $25,000 $152,500 Fre Events, LLC 523,200 571,301 Everett Craft Beer Fesitval $23,200 571,301 All in Stitches Quilt Guild 510,001 532,922 Everett Quilt Show 510,001 532,922 YMCA of Snohomish County 54,420 516,084 Yankee Doodle Dash 54,420 516,084 Federal Way $53,325 $273,002 2017 553,325 $273,002 Desna Soccer Club 52,500 $36,659 DESNA Cup 2017 52,500 536,559 Federal Way Harmony Kings 52,000 $10,132 2,300 2,295 10 12 55,420 59,075 7,126 11,329 55,420 59,075 7,126 11,329 3,500 2,700 3,500 2,700 2,000 1,800 2,000 1,800 1,000 690 1,000 690 39,901 45,135 39,901 45,135 300 104 300 104 100 47 100 47 50 40 50 40 23,794 848 23,794 848 9,070 11,790 60 68 9,070 11,790 60 68 1,700 1,618 108 108 Western Washington Barbershop Chorus and Quartet Contest $2,000 $10,132 1,700 1,618 108 108 Pacific Bonsai Museum 53,000 $26,975 22,000 25,250 22,000 30 Natives Exhibit 53,000 $25,975 22,000 25,250 22,000 30 Federal Way National Little League $5,000 50 2,214 2,554 420 218 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual 1142 Year Old State All Star Little League Tournament Rhododendron Species Foundation 2017 Rhododendron Species Foundation Symposium PowellsWood Garden 2017 Storytelling Festival Washington USSSA 2017 Washington USSSA Men's "0" State Championship Seattle Sports Commission Application of US Olympic Dive Trials 2020 Efelle Media Federal Way Tourism Website Greater Federal Way Chamber of Commerce Hospitality Education Tourism Training Program Twin Lakes Golf and Country Club Northwest Women's Open USA Taekwondo Washington WA State Taekwondo Championships Ferndale $5,000 $1,725 $1,725 $3,500 $3,500 $1,400 $0 $10,807 510,807 $49,368 349,368 $10,025 $1,400 $10,025 $5,000 $15,000 $5,000 $15,000 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $20,000 $60,000 $20,000 $60,000 $2,500 $31,603 $2,500 $31,603 35,000 $20,733 $5,000 $20,733 352,000 3187,500 2,214 298 298 994 994 1,700 1,700 2,554 204 204 955 955 1,143 1,143 420 152 152 122 122 212 212 218 94 94 94 94 136 136 2017 $52,000 $187,500 City of Ferndale $500 $4,000 Ferndale Public Market $500 $4,000 Femdale Chamber of Commerce $40,000 3169,000 Street Festival $1,000 $15,000 Ferndale Visitor Center $39,000 $154,000 Ferndale Heritage Society $10,000 $13,000 Olde Fashioned Christmas $2,000 $5,000 Pioneer Park Tour Guides $8,000 $8,000 Parks, Recreation, and Trails Advisory Board $1,500 31,500 Inspiring Public Spaces $1,500 $1,500 Ferry County $25,100 $22,599 2.017 $25,100 $22,599 Curlew Civic Club $1,800 $1,530 Barrel Derby Days $1,800 $1,530 Eagle Track Raceway $1,000 $1,000 Racing $1,000 $1,000 Kettle River History Cub $450 $450 Promotion $450 $450 Republic Chamber of Commerce $5,000 $4,247 Prospector's Days, Fireworks Display, Royalty, WInterfest, Advertising $5,000 $4,247 Ston erase Interpretive Center 57,250 $7,250 Promotion & Operation 37,250 $7,250 Wings Over Republic $2,000 32,000 Fly -In $1,000 $1,000 Northwest Aviation Conference 51,000 $1,000 Republic Regional Visitors and Convention Bureau $2,600 $2,600 600 449 180 64 600 449 180 64 1,325 1,172 540 36 1,325 1,172 540 36 11,300 13,892 1425 1,200 11,300 13,892 1,125 1,200 300 450 - - 300 450 - - 5,500 7,892 500 575 4,000 5,0001 1,500 1,892 500 575 5,200 5,400 625 625 1,200 1,400 25 25 4,000 4,000 600 600 300 150 300 150 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual County Promotion $2,600 $2,600 Eureka Arts/Gold Mountain Gallery $1,000 $469 Promotion $1,000 $469 Ferry County Search and Rescue $4,000 $3,053 WASAR Conference $4,000 $3,053 Fife $667,050 $811,854 967,128 1,099,923 45,765 60,908 2017 $667,050 $811,854 967,128 1,099,923 45,765 60,908 Children's Dance Theater $7,000 521,000 1,250 1,142 The Nutcracker 57,000 $21,000 1,250 1,142 - - City of Fife $365,550 5431,700 772,325 767,635 74 33 City Events 535,000 $60,000 7,500 7,500 15 15 Fife Marketing $77,000 5100,000 Aquatics Center Monument Sign 523,300 $75,000 365,000 365,000 - - Arts Commission 522,250 510,000 3,500 3,500 25 10 Dacca Labor $18,000 $18,000 5,000 5,000 - Dacca Park Restroom 5100,000 535,000 5,000 - - - Daffodil Float $10,000 510,000 5,000 5,000 - - Generator for Special Events 525,000 525,000 8,000 8,000 20 20 Music in the Park 525,000 $27,000 1,500 1,200 5 5 Paddle Board Yoga 58,500 $9,200 75 98 1 - Seasonal Supervisor 55,000 $25,000 3,000 3,537 3 3 SwimJitsu $6,000 57,500 250 300 5 - Tech Upgrade $15,000 $17,500 365,000 365,000 - - Timing System 515,500 $17,500 3,500 3,500 - - Daffodil Festival 510,000 5251,419 - 125,000 - 250 Daffodil Parade $10,000 $251,419 - 125,000 - 250 Fife Historical Society 584,500 $84,500 8,066 - 100 Dacca Barn & Museum Marketing 512,500 512,500 - 4,033 - 50 Museum Director 572,000 $72,000 4,033 - 50 Fife Milton Edgewood Chamber of Commerce 570,500 800 937 350 350 Fife Visitor Information Center 570,500 800 937 350 350 Tacoma -Pierce County Sports Commission $40,000 182,257 186,496 45,000 60,000 Sports marketing 540,000 182,257 186,496 45,000 60,000 Cossacks 54,500 54,500 7,500 7,500 15 15 Cossacks Motorcycle Group 54,500 54,500 7,500 7500 15 15 Travel Tacoma 550,000 248 201 - Destination Marketing 550,000 248 201 - FHS Booster Club $5,000 $7,500 300 275 125 100 Kickoff Classic -Football Game $5,000 57,500 300 275 125 100 FM EEC 510,000 511,235 2,696 2,624 - 40 Turkey Jamboree Soccer Tournament 510,000 $11,235 2,696 2,624 - 40 Forks 5148,679 5363,052 65,841 70,182 18,683 25,347 2017 $148,679 5363,052 65,841 70,182 18,683 25,347 Forks Chamber of Commerce 5117,999 $286,226 56,950 60,568 16,258 20,537 Visitor Center $95,999 $146,372 56,100 53,768 15,708 18,281 Forever Twilight in Forks Collection 58,500 $30,456 - 5,000 - 1,688 Forever Twilight in Forks Festival $13,500 5109,398 850 800 550 568 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Forks Merchants Coed Softball Club Slow Pitch Baseball Tournaments Forks Timber Museum Museum Operations Piecemakers Quilt Club Quilt Show & Quilt Classes Rainforest Council for the Arts Traditional Contra Dance West End Thunder Drag Racing & Car Shows Friday Harbor 2017 Pacific Islands Research Institute Friday Harbor Film Festival Port of Friday Harbor Friday Harbor Fly -in International airport service San Juan County Arts Council Summer Arts Festival San Juan Island Chamber of Commerce 4th of July Fireworks Something for Everyone Weekends Visitor Information Center San Juan Islands Museum of Art Exhibitions San Juan islands Visitors Bureau Destination Marketing TEDx San Juan Isiand TEDx San Juan Island Town of Friday Harbor Historical storyboards Marketing Public Restrooms Banner Lift Banners Branding Breezeway Pocket Park Public art map Viewpoint Binocular Whale Museum Off -island Marketing SALISH SEA BALLET Friday Harbor Nutcracker SAN JUAN ISLANDS SCULPTURE PARK Off-season Marketing Gig Harbor 2017 $2,500 $2,500 $12,830 $12,830 56,000 $6,000 $850 $850 $8,500 58,500 $430457 5430,457 58,716 58,716 $11,309 $1,609 59,700 $7,600 57,600 $65,735 515,000 52,735 548,000 $7,950 $7,950 5183,440 5183,440 52,900 $2,900 5122,447 $419 $510 $47,524 59,600 $3,203 5203 559,851 $686 5450 511,200 511,200 51,560 51,560 57,600 57,600 5337,700 $317,7110 $5,000 $5,000 $37,830 $37,830 56,168 $6,168 5935 $936 $26,893 526,893 5910,760 5910,760 $114,500 5114,500 511,309 51,609 $9,700 520,000 520,000 $202,757 568,000 $2,735 5132,022 $29,000 529,000 5183,440 5183,440 $25,000 $25,000 5290,996 $419 5510 $47,524 $32,000 53,203 5203 $206,000 $685 5450 $11,200 $11,200 56,144 56,144 516,414 516,414 5331,177 5331,177 350 350 6,751 6,751 500 500 90 90 1,200 1,200 701,649 701,649 1,200 1,200 5,000 3,000 2,000 400 400 55,000 10,000 25,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 131,000 131,000 500 500 424,379 44,461 700 700 6,473 6,473 393 393 60 60 1,988 1,988 715,112 715,112 1,191 1,191 1,762 1,261 501 800 800 72,825 16,500 32,500 23,625 5,637 5,637 132,957 132,957 589 589 423,032 44,319 100 100 2,195 2,195 100 100 15 15 15 15 391,832 391,832 150 150 100 10- 0 30,00- 0 8,000 22,000 2,50- 0 2,500 98,000 98,000 40 40 238,940 25,010 486 486 4,147 4,147 71 71 6 6 100 100 407,893 407,893 150 150 28 11 17 64 64 41,500 14,000 27,500 1,114 1,114 99,717 99,717 21 21 238,180 24,929 333,457 332,394 187,570 186,972 2,000 2,000 44,461 44,319 34,000 34,158 34,000 34,158 170 161 170 161 40,000 42,000 40,000 42,000 1,350 25,010 22,100 22,100 2 2 1,350 24,929 1,077 1,077 2 2 26,040 26,040 Funds Total Awarded Activity Cost City of Gig Harbor Tourism Marketing Goldendale 2017 Brighter Goldendale Christmas Committee Candy Cane Lane Parade Golden Phoenix Assembly #158 Festival of Wheels Goldendale Jaycees Goldendale Community Days Goldendale Motorsports Association Concours de Maryhill Open Car Show Community Days Show 'n Shine Car Show Abate of Washington Columbia Gorge Chapter Festival of Wheels Goldendale Chamber of Commerce Goldendale Chamber of commerce Home, Garden, and Sportsman's Show Goldendale Farmer's Market Goldendale Farmer's Market WE Rock Events, LLC Goldendale Rock Crawl Street Lounge Productions Maryhill Windwalk The Presby House Museum The Presby House Museum Grand Coulee $337,700 $337,700 $84,250 $64,250 $1,500 $1,500 $500 $500 $8,000 $8,000 $12,500 $6,250 $6,250 $4,000 $4,000 $50,000 $25,000 $25,000 $1,250 $1,250 $2,500 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $1,000 $1,000 $20,922 $331,177 $331,177 $227,456 $227,456 $2,068 $2,068 $157 $157 $9,732 $9,732 $10,300 $5,920 $4,380 $5,737 $5,737 $91,800 $89,000 $2,800 $6,208 $6,208 $10,491 $10,491 $90,000 $90,000 $964 5964 5116,000 Attendance Projected Attendance Actual Paid Lodging Nights Projected Paid Lodging Nights Actual 35,000 70 22,000 1,000 18,100 3,411 18,100 3,411 180 5 160 5 75 50 75 50 3,400 200 3,400 200 211 134 77 1,000 400 1,000 400 4,500 1,200 1,500 1,200 3,000 5,250 1455 6,250 1,155 965 200 965 200 500 100 500 100 1,019 100 1,019 100 2017 $20,922 5116,000 Ridge Riders 58,012 550,000 Colorama Rodeo 58,012 550,000 GCDA Chamber of Commerce 58,104 536,000 various festivals 58,104 536,000 Coulee Area Park & Recreation District 54,806 $30,000 maintenance 54,806 $30,000 Grandview $1,774 $7,938 2017 $1,774 $7,938 Chamber of Commerce 51,774 $7,938 Chamber Auction $1,029 53,746 Awards Banquet $373 $1,200 Car Show at Fair $373 $2,991 Grant County $94,000 $1,369,318 2017 $94,000 51,369,318 Columbia Basin Allied Arts $9,000 5120,000 Arts Performances 59,000 $120,000 Columbia Basin Youth Baseball 57,000 5125,000 Babe Ruth Senior World Series $7,000 5125,000 Coulee City Rodeo Association $3,000 $82,000 316,000 316,000 7,000 7,000 290,000 290,000 19,000 19,000 178,095 178,095 306,125 306,125 6,303 6,303 282,553 282,553 17,269 17,269 534 534 534 250 200 84 432,733 432,733 17,500 17,500 1,500 1,500 15,000 15,000 1,000 1,000 17,625 17,625 11,745 11,705 1,000 1,000 10,205 10,205 500 500 144,886 144,886 35,000 70 35,000 70 22,000 1,000 22,000 1,000 2,300 250 Funds Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Actual Coulee City Last Stand Rodeo 53,000 582,000 2,300 Ephrata Chamber afCommerce 513,500 578,164 16,495 16,514 1,250 Art and Wine Walk 51,000 $5,625 220 57 Basin SummerSounds Music Festival 510,000 $63,700 15,000 16,000 1,200 Car & Toy Show and Shine 51,500 56,289 500 400 Miracle on Main Street 51,000 $2,550 775 57 50 Grand Coulee Dam Area Chamber of Commerce 58,000 $33,688 252,334 Come to the Coulee 58,000 $33,688 252,334 Grant County Fairgrounds 525,000 $766,690 110,000 115,000 15,000 Grant County Fairgrounds 525,000 5766,690 110,000 115,000 15,000 Masquers Theater $7,000 561,000 3,313 Art Performances 57,000 561,000 3,313 Ridge Rider Saddle Club 53,000 $35,000 1,800 1,450 870 Colorama Pro -West Rodeo $3,000 535,000 1,800 1,450 870 Grant County Museum & Historical Society $11,000 $5,382 7,000 6,500 200 Living Museum / Pioneer Day 511,000 $6,382 7,000 6,500 200 Quincy Valley COC &Tourism $4,000 529,694 247 Pikeminnow Fishing Derby 52,000 522,556 98 Trout Fishing Derby $2,000 57,138 149 Royal City/ Royal Fest 51,500 526,500 4,800 5,575 35 Royal City Sumrnerfest Fiesta $1,500 $26,500 4,800 5,575 35 sage -n -Sun Family Festival 52,000 55,200 3,000 7,500 200 Sage -n -Sun 52,000 $5,200 3,000 7,500 200 Grays Harbor County $982,687 5385,635 1,067,073 1,067,922 5,687 2017 5982,687 $385,635 1,067,073 1,067,97.2 5,687 Aberdeen Revitalization Movement $1,000 $8,230 2,500 3,500 30 Aberdeen Founders Day Parade $1,000 58,230 2,500 3,500 30 Chocolate on the Beach Festival 55,000 54,832 2,000 2,500 500 Chocolate on the Beach Festival 55,000 54,832 2,000 2,500 500 City of Aberdeen $4,500 554,392 1,010,000 1,008,000 Splash Festival $1,500 $29,392 10,000 8,000 City Beautification Project $3,000 525,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Cranberry Heritage Group of Graylend $1,000 $5,244 2,500 2,000 350 Driftwood Show 51,000 $5,244 2,500 2,000 350 Elma Chamber of Commerce $6,000 566,836 5,000 5,100 120 Elma Winter Wine Festival 55,000 566,836 2,000 1,600 60 Heat on the Street Car Show 51,000 3,000 3,500 60 Grays Harbor Mounted Posse $4,934 $59,486 4,000 3,850 100 Grays Harbor indoor Pro Rodeo $4,934 $59,486 4,000 3,850 100 Lake Quinault innkeepers $3,000 53,000 Olympic PenninsulaTourism Commission Partnership 53,000 $3,000 Mcdeary Chamber ofCommerce $900 $0 Bear Festival $900 $0 Midnight Cruizers $1,000 $5,393 4,000 4,000 50 Midnight Cruizers Rod Fest $1,000 $5,393 4,000 4,000 50 Montesano Chamber of Commerce 57,800 Festival of Lights $4,600 250 1,130 10 1,100 10 10 124,869 124,869 17,000 17,000 35 35 345 345 16 16 232 232 5,702 5,702 30 30 500 500 100 100 130 50 80 95 95 51 51 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Catch Montesano Fish and Brew Festival $3,200MIME - Oakville Regional Event Center $1,000 Independence Day Jr Rodeo $1,000 Port of Grays Harbor $3,000 Ad in Good Sam for Friends Landing $3,000 Seabrook Community Foundation $29,500 Beach Volleyball Tournament $14,500 Big Foot Brew Daffodil Days Savur Seabrook Lake 0,uinauit Community Foundation Brochures Sanican WSU Extension Brochures 7th Street Theatre Assn Classic Film Series Historic Flim Rentals Westport/Grayland Chamber Cranberry Harvest Festival Grays Harbor Fairgrounds Fairgrounds/Tourism Fairground operations Grays Harbor Tourism City of Cosmopolis Festival in the Park Master Gardeners Foundation of GH and Pacific County GH Home and Garden Show Westcoastjet Sports Foundation Grayland Open Hoquiam Downtown Partnership Ho Ho Hoquiam Alder Creative Marketing Grays HarborTalk.com Organization $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $3,840 $3,000 $840 $750 $750 $4,000 $1,500 $2,500 51,800 $1,800 $798,663 $234,630 $79,008 $485,025 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $60,000 $21,430 $60,000 $21,430 $31,430 $31,430 $1,113 $1,113 $6,758 $6,758 1,000 1,000 28,123 28,123 1,300 1,300 28,352 28,352 40 35 40 35 2,733 2,962 2,733 2,962 $1,057 $1,057 $1,500 3,200 4,000 $1,500 3,200 4,000 64 64 60 60 r f 54,600 1,000 1,500 $4,600 1,000 1,500 750 750 780 780 $1Z,024 $1,2,024 $49,155 $49,155 2,500 2,500 500 500 2,520 2,520 650 650 5 5 425 425 14 14 425 425 Social Media Search Engine Content Marketing Program $31,430 $31,430 Grayland Open/WestcoastJet Sports Fdn $8,570 $49,155 Television/Advertising Partnership $8,570 $49,155 ilwaco $30,500 $741,871 2017 $30,500 $741,871 Columbia Pacific Heritage Museum $6,500 5130,215 Operations and Marketing $6,500 $130,215 Ilwaco Charter Association 51,000 58,000 Operations and Marketing $1,000 $8,000 Long Beach Peninsula Visitors Bureau 510,000 5566,656 Operations and Marketing 510,000 5566,656 750 650 520 520 750 650 520 520 85,650 86,481 56,550 55,102 85,650 86,481 56,550 55,102 10,000 10,062 2,500 2,504 10,000 10,062 2,500 2,504 45,000 45,000 35,000 35,000 45,000 45,000 35,000 35,000 20,000 19,369 15,000 13,698 20,000 19,369 15,000 13,698 Paid lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual City of Ilwaco Feel the Thunder 4th ofJuly Fireworks Ilwaco Merchant Association Operations and Advertising lone 2017 Trailblazers Down River Days Island County 2017 Camano Arts Association 2017 Camano Island Studio Tour Camano Island Chamber of Commerce Stanwood/Camano Winter Festivals Coupeville Chamber of Commerce Visitor Information Center Coupeville Historic Waterfront Association Musselfest 2017 Tourism Promotion Greater Freeland Chamber of Commerre Freeland Visitor Information -Center & Visitor Kiosk Oak Harbor Music Festival Marketing Oak Harbor Music Festival Oak Harbor Music Festival Marketing 59,000 59,000 54,000 $4,000 $500 $15,000 3,000 $15,000 3,000 522,000 7,650 $22,000 7,650 $10,500 10,000 $500 $10,500 10,000 $500 $10,500 10,000 $500 510,500 10,000 $294,694 $1,705,485 230,190 $294,694 $1,705,485 230,190 53,500 $42,475 4,000 53,500 $42,475 4,000 51,350 $34,700 4,000 51,350 534,700 4,000 531,649 548,653 14,233 $31,649 548,653 14,233 57,750 567,000 6,000 $7,750 567,000 6,000 530,000 587,050 6,390 $30,000 587,050 6,390 510,000 515,500 20,000 510,000 515,500 20,000 $24,000 $316,500 60,000 510,000 5150,500 20,000 Oak Harbor Music Festival Operations- Headliner Band $7,000 Operations- Headliner Band 57,000 PBY Memorial Foundation 518,200 PBY Tourist Marketing and Operations Project 518,200 Whidbey Island Bicycle Club $2,000 Mussels in the Kettles Mountian Bike Ride 52,000 Greater Oak Harbor Chamber of Commerce $31,145 2017 County Marketing Grant $31,145 City of Oak Harbor 515,000 2017 Whibey island Marathon 515,000 Pacific Northwest art School 516,600 Catalog Production & National Advertising 516,600 Whibey Island Conservation District $3,500 Farms and Food of Whidbey Island Brochure 53,500 Meerkerk Rhododendron Gardens $9,000 Four Seasons Tourism Promotion and Services $9,000 Island County Public Works/Parks 512,000 Fours Springs Lake Preserve $12,000 Camano Schoolhouse 56,000 Historic Sites Map and Touring Event 56,000 Langley Chmaber of Commerce 530,000 Information Center & Kiosk/Marketing 530,000 5150,500 $15,500 5138,810 5138,810 $5,500 55,500 5198,645 5198,645 5120,000 5120,000 516,600 516,600 $9,000 59,000 $12,000 512,000 20,000 20,000 4,627 4,627 300 300 4,000 4,000 8,050 8,050 9,300 9,300 9,300 9,300 799,557 799,557 5,000 5,000 2,000 2,000 2,050 2,050 110 110 110 110 38,080 38,080 100 100 75 75 2,000 2,000 1,900 1,900 110 110 110 110 296,021 296,021 350 350 80 80 58,000 58,000 5120,700 5120,700 1,900 1,900 485 485 15,000 15,000 8,000 8,000 2,500 2,500 300 300 10,455 10,455 22,382 22,382 8,000 000 800 8,000 600 800 10,402 10,402 23,000 23,000 69,000 12,000 12,000 23,000 6,000 6,000 23,000 6,000 6,000 23,000 1,276 833 1,276 833 318 100 111 318 100 111 550,000 250,000 550,000 250,000 2,035 350 1,850 2,035 350 1,850 419 420 354 419 420 354 17,300 2,100 156 17,300 2,100 156 6,048 859 6,048 859 1,750 250 150 1,750 250 150 500 100 273 500 100 273 11,671 3,493 3,271 11,671 3,643 3,779_ Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Island Shakespeare Festival [salmi Shakespeare Festival Promotion and Operations Whidbey Island Arts Council Off -island Marketing of the Programs of the W IAC Camano Chamber of Commerce Visitor I nformtion Center Tourism Marketing and Fulfillment Program Whidbey Island Center of the Arts 910,000 $200,000 $10,000 $200,000 $3,000 910,000 $3,000 $10,000 $25,000 $73,100 4,000 4,000 55,000 4,073 600 584 4,073 600 584 5,000 1,300 650 5,000 1,300 650 51,000 14,566 23,000 $25,000 $73,100 55,000 51,000 14,566 23,000 95,000 $181,252 13,000 11,659 750 700 WICA 2015-2017 Presenting Season:Regional Marketing Outreach Enhancement $5,000 $181,252 13,000 11,659 750 700 Issaquah $14,093 $14,093 175 155 25 25 2017 $14,093 $14,093 175 155 25 25 City of Issaquah $14,093 $14,093 175 155 25 25 VIP reception for the Association of Volleyball Professionals $14,093 $14,093 175 155 Jefferson County $445,000 $497,011 24,296,948 800,125 2017 $445,000 $497,011 24,296,948 800,125 Centrum 520,000 $36,462 18,398 Centrum $20,000 $36,462 18,398 Forks Chamber of Commerce $29,535 $29,535 17,000 18,570 Marketing of Western Jefferson County $29,535 $29,535 17,000 18,570 Jefferson County Chamber of Commerce $17,250 $30,492 23,644,038 92,500 Port Townsend Leader Getaway Guide 53,698 $3,698 40,000 92,000 Entryway Sign for Port Ludlow on the Highway 19 Corridor $6,812 Free Outdoor Movie Night in Port Ludlow $3,740 Jefferson County Chamber Map 93,000 Jefferson County Historical Society $129,076 Olympic Peninsula Gateway Visitor Center $65,000 Historical Museum $64,076 North Hood Canal Chamber of Commerce $53,800 Quilcene and Brinnon Visitor Centers 953,800 Quilcene Historical Museum $15,985 Quilcene Historical Museum $15,985 Jefferson County WSU Extension $5,000 Farm Tour $5,000 Jefferson County Tourism Coordinating Council $135,000 Marketing Jefferson County $135,000 Jefferson County Public Works $7,714 Olympic DiscoveryTrail $7,714 Jefferson County Parks and Recreation $28,140 Quilcene and Lake Leland Campgrounds $28,140 Quilcene Fair & Parade Association $3,500 Quilcene Fair & Parade $3,500 Kalama 99,981 203.7 $6,812 $9,732 $10,250 $129,184 $65,108 $64,076 $53,322 $53,322 $15,985 $15,985 $17,706 $17,706 $134,945 $134,945 25 25 467,705 491,807 467,705 491,807 6,807 1,345 6,807 1,345 8,500 9,285 8,500 9,285 10 22 800 23,603,238 45,500 9,500 36,000 27,000 27,000 2,700 2,700 1,700 1,700 555,180 555,180 500 10 22 44,531 8,500 36,031 29,528 29,528 2,494 2,494 1,805 1,805 587,815 587,815 9,085 5,500 3,585 12,000 12,000 1,000 1,000 150 150 426,973 426,973 9,962 6,377 3,585 13,569 13,569 800 800 189 189 452,651 452,651 $41,380 $41,380 $8,000 $8,000 $18,505 3,080 3,080 750 750 3,100 $9,981 $19,505 3,100 3,984 3,080 3,984 3,080 500 100 500 100 1,900 20 1,900 20 3,984 3,984 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual City of Kalama City Website/CEDC Library 100th Anniversary Street Dance Kalama Antique Association Highway Antique District Sign Untouchables Car Club Untouchables 21st Annual Car Show AMALAK Wine & Chocolate Event Kelso 2017 Chamber of Commerce S'Quatch Fest City of Kelso Wayfinding5ignage Installation Kelso Highlander Festival Commission Kelso Highlander Festival Kelso Longview Chamber of Commerce Kelso Visitor Center 2017 Visitor's Guide Lower Columbia College Athletics 2017 Lower Columbia Women's Holiday Classic 2017 NWAC Baseball Tournament 2017 Red Devil Classic Basketball Tournament Kelso Babe Ruth 2017 15y 01d Regional Tournament Columbia Theater Columbia Theater Cowlitz County Museurn Cowlitz County Museum Lower Columbia College College Story Field Kennewick 2017 City of Kennewick Southridge Sports and Event Complex Tri -City Regional Chamber of Commerce River of Fire Festival Visit Tri -Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau Marketing VenuWorks Toyota Center & Arena $7,253 $1,797 $2,4311 $3,025 $228 $228 $2,000 $2,000 5500 $500 $234,112 $4,822 51,797 800 300 20 $3,025 5683 5683 513,000 513,000 300 200 500 100 20 $1,478,520 $234,112 $1,478,520 $Z500 $20,000 $2,500 $20,000 5100,000 5100,000 $100,000 $100,000 515,000 $33,000 515,000 $33,000 555,612 $95,000 $54,500 $65,000 $1,112 $30,000 55,000 $31,000 51,000 55,000 $3,000 520.000 51,000 56,000 510,000 510,000 510,000 $10,000 $16,000 $728,520 516,000 $728,520 515,000 5111,000 515,000 5111,000 $15,000 $350,000 $15,000 $350,000 $1,135,516 55,400,319 $1,135,516 95,400,319 519,016 919,016 519,016 $19,016 $10,000 $69,626 510,000 $69,626 5233,000 $2,243,187 5233,000 $2,243,187 $873,500 53,068,490 5873,500 $3,068,490 2,000 2,000 300 300 110,150 110,150 500 500 1,500 1,500 100 100 110,308 110,308 1,408 1,408 10,050 10,050 200 200 7,795 7,795 250 250 5,000 5,000 15,000 15,000 5,000 5,000 17,000 17,000 100 100 100 100 3,000 3,250 3,000 3,250 Kent $277,535 $470,320 2017 5277,535 $470,320 Washington US5SA 55,000 537,785 The Deby Dual Njor NIT $5,000 937,785 10,000 2,500 5,000 2,500 250 250 32,000 32,000 5,000 5,000 42,400 42,400 3,124,333 3,124,333 28,050 28,050 10,000 10,000 2,588,000 2,588,000 498,283 498,283 248,200 248,200 2,300 2,300 9,100 2,000 5,000 2,100 400 400 30,000 30,000 5,000 5,000 42,400 42,400 3,068,923 3,068,923 28,050 28,050 9,724 9,724 2,606,000 2,606,000 425,149 425,149 308,795 308,795 3,145 3,145 1,300 1,235 200 160 1,000 1,000 100 75 250 300 250 300 200 360 200 350 3,000 300 3,000 300 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,184,494 1,201,316 1,184,494 1,201,316 14,025 14,025 14,025 14,025 390 249 390 249 1,048,000 1,068,000 1,048,000 1,068,000 122,079 119,042 122,079 119,042 17,135 17,003 17,135 17,003 325 753 325 7S3 Team Seattle National Events Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual $20,000 5154,000 5,400 4,260 16A USA Softball Girl's Fast Pitch National Championship 520,000 5154,000 5,400 4,260 Game Time Events - $5,000 531,000 3,500 4,500 150 Basketball Events 55,000 $31,000 3,500 4,500 150 Seattle Metro JO 55,000 55,000 7,000 7,800 4,000 Fund a need for a season worth of temp field fencing $5,000 55,000 7,000 7,800 4,000 Kent Chamber of Commerce $18,500 $18,500 Kent Chamber Marketing Activities 518,500 $18,500 Visit Kent 559,400 559,400 170,000 233,350 5,000 Seattle Thurderbirds 559,400 559,400 170,000 233,350 6,000 JayRay 5164,635 5164,635 60,000 60,000 2,400 Visit Kent Marketing 5164,635 5164,635 60,000 60,000 2,400 Kettle Falls $1,000 $17,446 709 2017 $1,000 517,446 709 Tri -County Music 51,000 517,446 709 Camp &Jam $1,000 517,446 709 Kirkland 5289,147 $1,518,834 1,261,467 1,354,222 239,999 2017 5289,147 51,518,834 1,261,467 1,354,222 239,999 Attain Housing $2,500 $33,303 1,800 1,329 75 7 Hills of Kirkland 52,500 $33,303 1,800 1,329 75 Bold Hat Productions 55,000 $165,000 30,000 30,000 1,500 Kirkland Uncorked 55,000 5165,000 30,000 30,000 1,500 City of Kirkland 5229,147 $229,147 1,074,000 1,167,000 231,950 Explore Kirkland Tourism Program 5229,147 5229,147 1,074,000 1,167,000 231,950 Kirkland Downtown Association 518,000 5248,100 102,900 103,800 420 Kirkland Classic CarShow 54,000 514,500 2,500 1,800 65 Kirkland Summerfest 55,000 5113,633 45,000 50,000 125 Celebrate Kirkland $3,000 562,767 45,000 45,000 125 Kirkland Wine Walks 2017 $3,000 $6,200 400 2,000 25 Kirkland Winterfest and Tree Lighting 53,000 551,000 10,000 5,000 80 Kirkland Events, LLC 54,500 5189,000 20,000 10,000 275 Kirkland Oktoberfest 54,500 5189,000 20,000 10,000 275 Kirkland Performance Center 51,000 519,065 800 698 40 Flying Karamozou Brothers $1,000 $19,065 800 698 40 Pro -Motion Events 52,500 $75,000 1,750 1,475 100 Mother's Day Half Marathon $2,500 $75,000 1,750 1,475 100 Snohomish Running Co 52,500 $45,000 2,750 2,100 100 12K's of Christmans 52,500 545,000 2,750 2,100 100 Seattle Repertory Jazz Orchestra 51,000 $19,100 309 408 10 Ella Fitzgerald's 100th Birthday Celebration 51,000 519,100 309 408 10 Little League Baseball/Jr Softball World Series $9,000 5133,775 6,000 8,000 5,500 Junior Softball World Series $9,000 5133,775 6,000 8,000 5,500 Kirkland Arts Center 55,500 513,773 2,000 1,750 15 Kirkland Artist Studio Tours 55,500 513,773 2,000 1,750 25 Seattle International Filrn Festival 57,500 548,571 4,158 1,462 14 SIFF-Kirkland $7,500 548,571 4,158 1,467 14 200 200 4,500 4,500 9,150 9,150 2,400 2,400 121 121 121 121 289,665 289,665 20 20 1,500 1,500 280,217 280,217 772 S5 400 125 87 105 225 225 20 20 100 100 20 20 2 2 6,600 6,600 3 3 151 141 Paid lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual StudioEast Studio East Summer Musical and StoryBook Season Kitsap County 2017 Kingston Chamber of Commerce Kingston Chamber Marketing Port Orchard Chamber of Commerce Port Orchard Chamber Brochures Silverdale Chamber of Commerce Silverdale Cirarnber of Commerce Water Trails Visit Kitsap Visit Kitsap Marketing Central Stage Theatre of County Kitsap (CSTOCK) CSTOCK CRM System Fathoms 0 Fun Fathoms 0 Fun Concerts and Parades Kitsap Historical Society and Museum Kitsap Historical Society and Museum Marketing Washington State Science and Fngingeering Fair W5SEF5cience Fair Kittitas County 2017 $1,000 $300,000 15,000 26,200 51,000 5300,000 15,000 26,200 $418,000 53,504,617 1,534,143 $418,000 $3,504,617 1,534,143 $25,000 567,440 7,326 $25,000 567,440 7,326 $3,000 534,824 53,000 534,824 $55,000 5512,253 117,339 555,000 5512,253 117,339 $270,000 5429,500 1,035,478 $270,000 5429,500 1,035,478 510,000 $25,650 4,500 510,000 525,650 4,500 55,000 599,510 366,000 $5,000 $99,510 366,000 530,000 5309,300 530,000 $309,300 520,000 52,026,140 3,500 520,000 52,026,140 3,500 $480,302 $710,698 150,007 133,038 $480,302 $710,698 150,007 133,038 Ellensburg Downtown Association 521,900 521,900 17,250 15,425 Downtown year round events/promotions 516,900 516,900 17,000 15,150 Revitalize WA Conference 55,000 55,000 250 275 Gallery One 512,000 512,000 38,220 29,302 Gallery One Annual marketing 512,000 512,000 38,220 29,302 High Country Log Show $0 High Country Log Show 50 Kittitas County 53,500 53,571 Laserfiche licensing $3,500 53,571 Kittitas County Chamber afCommerce $169,412 $200,993 8,174 Bike Map $4,000 510,000 7,874 Destination Contract of Services $183,122 5183,203 Quilt Show $0 $0 Roslyn Mtn. Ale Festival / Bikes & Brews 52,290 57,790 300 216 Kittitas County Historical Society $9,203 $13,288 10,625 7,990 Kittitas County Historical Museum $9,203 513,288 10,625 7,990 Kittitas Environmental Education Network 58,588 513,360 1,500 300 Yakima River Canyon Bird Fest $8,588 513,360 1,500 300 Laughing Horse Arts Foundation $9,000 5121,775 3,000 2,777 Jazz in the Valley $9,000 $121,775 3,000 2,777 RTown Community $2,652 $29,000 2,000 1,800 2017 Arts in Roslyn $2,652 $29,000 2,000 1,800 Spirit of the West $4,970 56,500 1,200 2,000 Spirit of the West 54,970 $6,500 1,200 2,000 Suncadia Fund for Community Enhancement $3,040 4,000 5,000 25 25 9,641 9,641 1,551 1,551 7,320 7,320 770 770 539,706 636,976 539,706 636,976 3,812 2,720 3,612 2,490 200 230 1,274 976 1,274 976 8,495 500,054 598,875 8,279 500,000 598,825 54 50 531 400 531 400 200 200 200 200 1,437 1,512 1,437 1,512 450 504 450 504 360 600 360 600 3,000 4,400 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Suncadie Harvest Festival Upper Kittitas County Rotary Cruise Cie Elum US Forest Service Cle Elum District Visitor Services Western Art Association Western Art Association National Fine Art Show & Auction John Ford Clymer Museum Year Round Marketing Washington State Horse Park Foundation 2017 Marketing & Promotions Campaign Plum Crazy Events 2017 Roslyn Canine Festival Kittitas County Administrative Support Administrative Support City of Kittitas City of Kittitas Branding Iron Horse Brewery Eastern Washington BrewFest 53,000 5500 $500 $6,874 $6,874 58,500 4,000 5,000 3,000 4,400 53,000 $3,000 300 500 300 500 $86,504 1,300 1,200 $8,500 586,504 1,300 1,200 51,401 517,852 15,000 14,329 51,401 $17,852 15,000 14,329 $30,000 555,000 36,190 30,500 530,000 555,000 36,190 30,500 57,847 510,954 248 2,000 $7,847 510,954 248 2,000 520,000 521,281 520,000 $21,281 55,910 $6,400 55,910 56,400 360 360 26,960 26,960 120 120 350 350 2,000 2,000 22,865 22,865 Kittitas Valley Event Center $100,000 Event Center Operations $100,000 Forterra $0 50 Flying Bighorn Derailleur 80k 50 50 First Things First dba Huffman Farms 54,520 555,000 Huffman Farms Pumpkin Festival $4,520 $55,000 Sherley, Becky -Junk-tiquen in the Burg 57,500 $13,494 Junktiquen in the Burg -Spring $7,500 513,494 Beckwith Consulting Group $4,200 Kittitas County Yakima River Access Development Strategy $4,200 Kittitas County $3,826 53,826 Laptop Computers for Committee Member Use $3,826 53,826 Kittitas Valley Vintners Association 515,000 $15,000 Year -Round Ag -Wine Tourism 515,000 515,000 Klickitat County $65,500 565,500 2017 565,500 $65,500 Greater Goldendale Chamber of Commerce 530,500 530,500 Visitor's Center Operation $30,500 530,500 Mt Adams Chamber of Commerce $35,000 535,000 Visitor's Center Operation 535,000 535,000 La Conner $69,500 5298,524 2017 569,500 5298,524 La Conner Art Commission 5250 5250 La Conner Sculpture Exhibition - Walking Tour $250 5250 La Conner Chamber of Commerce $49,000 5119,715 La Conner Tourism Promotion 549,000 5119,715 8,000 8,000 3,000 3,000 8,000 8,000 3,420 3,420 864 864 284 284 1,200 1,200 374 374 9,000 9,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 512,710 512,710 3,300 3,300 55,000 55,000 6,234 6,234 1,935 1,935 4,299 4,299 422,864 422,864 3,195 3,195 53,250 53,250 3,300 3,300 1,500 1,500 1,800 1,800 71,691 71,691 1,320 1,320 22,000 22,000 3,335 3,335 1,536 1,536 1,799 1,799 64,379 64,379 1,278 1,278 21,300 21,300 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Lincoln Theatre Center Foundation Curtis Salgado/Montreal Guitar Trio/Good Lovelies Skagit Artists Together NW Art Beat Studio Tour Skagit County Historical Museum Calendar of Events -2nd Half Skagit Valley Tulip Festival Skagit Valley Tulip Festival Official Brochure Town of La Conner La Conner Public Restrooms Skagit Community Band 2017 Concerts at Maple Hall Pacific Northwest Quilt & Fiber Arts Museum Japanese Quilt Exhibit "For the Love of Children" Museum of Northwest Art MoNA Mags Lacey 2017 City of Lacey $250 5250 5250 $250 51,000 $1,000 52,500 $2,500 514,000 514,000 $250 5250 $1,000 51,000 51,000 $1,000 $2,550,422 521,239 521,239 510,085 $10,085 $1,721 $1,721 $50,857 550,857 533,805 533,805 51,000 $1,000 312,753 $12,753 $47,100 547,100 $3,772,192 52,550,422 $3,772,192 5150,000 51,069765 Regional Athletic Complex Maintenance and Operations 5150,000 51,069,765 Club Oly Road Runners 535,000 535,000 Black Hills Triathalon 535,000 $35,000 Greater Olympia Dixieland Ian Society $35,000 $198,958 Greater Olympia Dixieland Jazz Festival 535,000 5198,958 Hawks Prairie Rotary 520,000 5102,547 Pacific Northwest Mushroom Festival 520,000 5102,547 Olympia Downtown Association $3,000 $3,000 Promotion of Lacey LTAC Events 53,000 $3,000 Olympic Right Museum 5126,470 $126,470 Olympic Air Show 5126,470 5126,470 The Washington Center for the Performing Arts 5141,950 5141,950 Marketing $141,950 5141,950 Washington State Senior Games 5140,000 5140,000 Washington State Senior Games 5140,000 5140,000 Lacey South Sound Chamber $50,185 5105,685 BBQ Festival 525,185 $25,185 Lacey Chamber Operations &Resource Guide $25,000 580,500 Gateway Rotary 533,755 $33,755 ?r. E 3ands/Tourde Lacey $33,755 $33,755 rilartir's university 5108,000 $108,000 5rz.gcn Boat Festival 3108,000 $108,000 City of Lacey Parks & Recreation $55,976 $55,976 Ethnic Celebration 512,894 512,894 Lacey in Tune Entertainment Series $36,300 536,300 STEM Fair $6,782 56,782 Summer's End at Lacey Car Show $0 30 26,500 26,500 750 750 3,500 3,500 350,000 350,000 55,000 55,000 160 160 2,500 2,500 16,000 16,000 3,023,250 3,023,250 350,000 350,000 550 550 4,500 4,500 10,000 10,000 962 962 659 659 2,916 2,916 289,019 289,019 53,250 53,250 204 204 2,409 2,409 17,000 17,000 3,297,273 3,297,273 361,220 361,220 640 640 4,300 4,300 9,580 9,580 1,022 1,022 30 30 400 400 21,000 21,000 22,000 22,000 4 4 75 75 3,840 3,840 85,198 85,198 65.000 65,000 10 10 1,705 1,705 250 250 105 105 18 18 499 499 15,722 15,722 21,300 21,300 5 5 72 72 4,080 4,080 65,749 65,749 44,670 44,670 15 15 1,550 1,550 250 250 6,000 6,000 100,000 100,000 1,500 1,500 17,200 16,000 1,200 1,300 1,300 5,000 5,000 12,500 3,000 7,000 2,500 8,250 8,250 100,000 100,000 1,750 1,750 21,300 20,000 1,300 933 933 5,000 5,000 15,775 3,000 7,775 5,000 400 400 1,540 1,540 420 420 1,700 500 1,200 200 200 300 300 20 20 439 439 1,400 1,400 476 476 1,800 500 1,300 2 2 320 320 20 20 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Lacey South Sound Chamber of Commerce Lacey Days City of Lacey Museum Lacey Museum Operations Lacey Community Events/Lacey Spring Fun Fair Lacey Spring Fun Fair Olympia-Lacey-Tumwater VCB Tourism Promotion Services Lakewood 2017 Asia Pacific Cultural Center 7th Annual Samoa Cultral Day City of Lakewood Communications Media Promotions Historic Fort Steilacoorn Historic Fort Steilacoom Lakewold Gardens Lakewold Gardens Lakewood Chamber of Commerce Lakewood Chamber of Commerce Lakewood Historical Society Lakewood Historical Society Lakewood Playhouse Lakewood Playhouse Lakewood Sister Cities Association SummerFest International Festival Tacoma Regional Convention & Visitors Bureau Tacoma Regional Convention & Visitors Bureau Tacoma South Sound Sports Commission Tacoma South Sound Sports Commission City of Lakewood Summerfest Asian Film Festival Fort Steilacoom Park PavIllion Gateways Sportsfeld Improvements City of Lakewood Farmers Market Clover Park Tecnical College McGavick Center Langley $17,630 $17,630 5122,955 $122,955 $51,300 $51,300 $51,300 51,459,201 $1,459,201 51,459,201 $1,459,201 $917,441 $709,556 $917,441 $709,556 $10,000 $10,000 $15,939 $15,939 $10,000 $10,000 $38,220 $38,220 $80,000 $80,000 $35,000 $35,000 $21,000 $21,000 $8,000 $8,000 $35,000 $35,000 $50,000 550,000 $284,547 540,000 57,499 $37,147 562,983 5136,918 $20,000 520,000 5101,850 5101,850 $256,642 $17,630 $17,630 $122,955 5122,955 551,300 510,000 $10,000 518,000 $18,000 $10,000 510,000 $40,000 540,000 580,000 $80,000 535,000 535,000 $21,000 $21,000 58,000 $8,000 535,000 535,000 $50,000 550,000 $590,441 540,000 57,500 5450,000 592,941 $0 520,000 $20,000 5138,171 2017 5138,171 $256,642 City of Langley 525,681 $25,681 Public Restrooms 525,681 525,681 Langley Chamber of Commerce $44,155 $65,000 Visitor information Center 544,155 565,000 Whidbey Island Center for the Arts 517,902 $R455R 15,000 25,000 800 800 16,000 16,000 2,482,900 2,482,900 329,000 329,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 6,000 6,500 6,500 3,475 3,475 1,000 1,000 12,500 12,500 5,000 5,000 4,265 4,265 182,257 182,257 37,216 15,000 350 68 21,700 9a 13,500 13,500 52,287 52,287 17,000_ 17,000 20,000 20,000 835 835 16,500 16,500 2,731,190 2,731,190 304,755 304,755 5,000 5,000 6,000 6,000 1,208 1,208 7,997 7,997 3,100 3,100 531 531 13,000 13,000 10,000 10,000 4,265 4,265 183,670 183,670 56,484 30,000 428 130 25,796 130 13,500 13,500 1,500 1,500 50 50 115 115 11,988 11,988 69,425 69,425 300 300 195 195 1,500 1,500 21 21 100 100 13,186 13,186 90,852 90,852 250 250 195 195 300 459 300 459 675 650 675 650 10 12 10 12 125 130 125 130 50 50 1,110 1,110 60,000 60,000 27,652 1,850 10 6 21,700 25,796 200 200 144 144 750 8,549 750 8,549 1,110 1,110 45,000 45,000 21,710 33,432 33,432 11,000 11,659 750 700 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Performing Arts Whidbey/Seatac Shuttle Bus Bus Wrap/promotion of tourism Island Shakespheare Festival Performing Arts Langley Main Street Association Promotion of events, website Seafloat Scramble Langley Whale Center Whale Museum Leavenworth 2017 Autumn Leaf Association Autumn Leaf Festival and State Festivals City of Leavenworth Facility Leavenworth Area Promotions Advertising Only Stevens Pass Partnership Funding Leavenworth Chamber of Commerce Visitors Bureau Leavenworth Golf Club Goff Course Advertising Leavenworth Museum - Upper Valley Historical Society Museum Operations Leavenworth Winter Sports Club Ski Hill Operations Support Chelan County Fire District t3 Volunteer Firefighters Assoc. Leavenworth Firefighter Challenge Icicle Creek Cetner for the Arts Music in the Me a duo. Timber Partners, LLC DBA Artist Home Timbrrrl Winter Music Festival Lewis County 2017 Artrails of Southwest Washington 2017 Studio Tour Destination Packwood Oktoberfest Visitor Center Fireside Events Lewis County Discover Lewis County Lewis County Museum Lewis County Community Trans Ride the Willapa Lewis County Historical Museum 517,902 56,983 56,983 510,000 $10,000 525,950 514,450 511,500 $36,558 $6,983 $6,983 520,000 $20,000 532,420 518,920 513,500 $7,500 $70,000 $7,500 $70,000 $1,603,174 $1,640,283 3,172,840 $1,603,174 $1,640,283 3,172,840 530,300 530,300 $30,300 $30,300 $652,874 $590,919 $652,874 5590,919 $606,000 $605,993 13,000 11,659 750 700 $586,000 5585,993 520,000 570,000 5270,000 5271,469 5270,000 5271,469 $5,000 55,000 $5,000 55,000 510,000 $10,000 510,000 $10,000 520,000 520,000 520,000 520,000 $5,000 56,043 200 $5,000 56,043 200 52,000 538,550 1,000 52,000 638,560 1,000 $2,000 562,000 1,200 52,000 $62,000 1,200 $381,500 5812,492 54,100 $381,500 $812,492 54,100 510,000 $32,850 4,000 510,000 $32,850 4,000 $68,000 $92,400 12,000 56,000 $23,000 500 560,000 $67,000 10,000 $2,000 $2,400 1,500 577,000 $204,500 560,000 5188,000 $17,000 $16,500 516,000 $53,689 $16,000 553,689 $22,000 5179,500 2,497 2,497 1,808,551 1,808,561 1,438 1,438 3,170,440 3,170,440 1,807,151 1,807,151 120 320 1,229 1,229 1,148 1,148 59,790 59,790 2,800 2,800 14,683 913 12,145 1,625 90 90 200 200 1,120 1,120 10,150 10,150 80 80 5,250 150 5,000 100 30 30 350 350 1,058 1,058 12,567 12,567 65 65 7,187 643 6,455 89 500 500 1,500 273 273 1,679 250 250 100 74 74 114 3,500 4,031 2,440 3,500 4,031 2,440 500 897 175 500 897 - 175 16,845 5,234 16,845 5,234 $586,000 5585,993 520,000 570,000 5270,000 5271,469 5270,000 5271,469 $5,000 55,000 $5,000 55,000 510,000 $10,000 510,000 $10,000 520,000 520,000 520,000 520,000 $5,000 56,043 200 $5,000 56,043 200 52,000 538,550 1,000 52,000 638,560 1,000 $2,000 562,000 1,200 52,000 $62,000 1,200 $381,500 5812,492 54,100 $381,500 $812,492 54,100 510,000 $32,850 4,000 510,000 $32,850 4,000 $68,000 $92,400 12,000 56,000 $23,000 500 560,000 $67,000 10,000 $2,000 $2,400 1,500 577,000 $204,500 560,000 5188,000 $17,000 $16,500 516,000 $53,689 $16,000 553,689 $22,000 5179,500 2,497 2,497 1,808,551 1,808,561 1,438 1,438 3,170,440 3,170,440 1,807,151 1,807,151 120 320 1,229 1,229 1,148 1,148 59,790 59,790 2,800 2,800 14,683 913 12,145 1,625 90 90 200 200 1,120 1,120 10,150 10,150 80 80 5,250 150 5,000 100 30 30 350 350 1,058 1,058 12,567 12,567 65 65 7,187 643 6,455 89 500 500 1,500 273 273 1,679 250 250 100 74 74 114 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Tourism and Promotion and operation Mossyroek Area Action Mossyrock Blueberry Festival Veterans Memorial Museum Veterans Museum Operations and Civil War Battle White Pass Country Historical Society Museum Operations White Pass Scenic Byway Marketing and Promotion Onalaska Alliance Apple Harvest Festival Cowlitz River Valley Historical Society Museum Operations Fire Mountain Arts Council Promoting Arts in East Lewis County Centralla/Chehalis Railroad Promotion of Railroad events and tours Liberty Lake 2017 Friends of Pavillion Park Summer Concert Series HUB Sports Center HUB Events Liberty Lake Community Theatre Community Theatre Liberty Lake Farmers Market Art at the Market Liberty Lake Rotary Club Rotary In Motion (RIM) Visit Spokane Annual Destination Marketing Liberty Lake Kiwanis Liberty Lake Yard Sales Lincoln County 2017 Lincoln County Visitor &Convention Bureau Advertising & Promotion Long Beach 2017 City of Long Beach Banners Annual Fireworks Long Beach Peninsula Visitors Bureau LBPVB Marketing Campaign llwaco High School Girls Basketball Battle on the Beach Long Beach Merchants Association $22,000 $13,000 $13,000 $100,000 $100,000 $17,000 $17,000 $20,000 $20,000 $8,500 $8,500 $9,000 $9,000 $11,000 $11,000 $10,000 $10,000 $61,000 $61,000 $179,500 $31,014 531,014 510,000 510,000 1,500 7,500 7,500 15,000 15,000 1,679 7,470 7,470 14,862 14,862 100 850 850 3,000 3,000 114 1,731 1,731 2,520 2,520 520,153 520453 3,715 3,715 500 500 $16,000 516,000 59,000 59,000 5153,386 5153,386 $10,000 510,000 5472,068 $472,068 $10,000 515,000 $10,000 $15,000 $15,000 5395,000 515,000 5395,000 52,500 52,500 $2,500 52,500 57,500 56,877 57,500 56,877 58,000 $23,391 $8,000 523,391 515,000 $25,000 515,000 $25,000 53,000 $4,300 $3,000 54,300 515,000 _ 512,965 515,000 512,965 515,000 512,965 $15,000 512,965 5437,344 5999,737 1,200,000 $437,344 $999,737 1,200,000 528,500 $28,500 $5,500 $5,500 $23,000 $23,000 $228,694 $566,657 $228,694 5566,657 $1,000 58,000 $1,000 $8,000 545,500 $88,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 500 500 250 250 8,600 8,600 10,308 10,308 120 120 126 126 189,180 189,180 2,000 2,000 173,000 173,000 250 250 2,500 2,500 430 430 11,000 11,000 288,515 288,515 2,000 2,000 180,000 180,000 615 615 2,500 2,500 473 473 90,927 90,927 12,000 12,000 47,647 47,647 50 50 10,500 10,500 12 12 49,339 49,339 35 35 37,000 37,000 50 50 10,800 10,800 25 25 2.5 25 44 44 38,425 38,425 20 20 1,433,488 1,433,488 300,000 300,000 411,575_ 411,575 i 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 3,500 3,500 28,450 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 2,500 2,500 6,500 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Holidays at the Beach Long Beach Razor Clam Festival Beach to Chowder5k/10k Jake's 75th Birthday Celebration Sandsations I lwaco Charter Association ICA Fishing Derby World Kite Museum Kite Festival Kite Museum Support Peninsula Saddle Club Long Beach Rodeo Loyalty Days Celebration Loyalty Days City of Long Beach Package Tours Summerfest/Big Stage Water Music Society Water Musir Society Fvents Longview 2017 City of Longview WayflndingSign Marketing Project Columbian Artists Association Art In The Park Spring Art Show Cowlitz County Historical Museum 2017 Tourism Fund Museum Allocation EthnicSupport Council International Festival 2017 Go 4th Festival Association Go 4th Festival 2017 Kelso Longview Chamber of Commerce Squatch Fest Longview Soccer Cub Cowlitz Kickoff Classic Longview World Series Babe Ruth World Series Unique Tin Car Club Unique Tin Car Show and Cruise Southwest Washington Symphony 2017-20113 Concert Season #51 Ladies of the Lake Quilt Guild Quilting for the Art of It Longview Noon Rotary Squirrelfest 2017 Lynden $6,000 $6,000 800 510,000 $24,000 6,500 $10,000 $18,000 350 $8,000 $20,000 800 $11,500 $20,000 20,000 $1,000 $8,000 45,000 $1,000 $8,000 45,000 $46,500 $121,500 100,000 $20,000 $95,000 100,000 $26,500 $26,500 $3,500 $28,000 2,500 53,500 528,000 2,500 $7,500 $30,000 20,000 57,500 530,000 20,000 574,150 $74,150 32,878 549,850 549,850 2,738 524,300 524,300 30,140 51,000 546,930 1,160 51,000 $46,930 1,160 575,130 $345,579 64,950 76,423 1,788 575,130 $345,579 64,950 76,423 1,788 524,430 524,430 - $24,430 524,430 - - 52,500 53,591 1,250 950 13 $1,000 $1,096 500 450 $1,500 52,495 750 500 13 $5,000 $20,000 5,000 5,000 300 $5,000 520,000 5,000 5,000 300 51,700 $7,870 700 $1,700 57,870 700 510,000 514,292 30,000 35,000 600 $10,000 $14,292 30,000 35,000 600 $2,500 $2,500 52,500 52,500 $5,000 520,977 1,800 2,000 300 55,000 520,977 1,800 2,000 300 $5,000 5120,000 20,000 20,000 320 $5,000 5120,000 20,000 20,000 320 $3,000 515,000 1,500 1,500 20 53,000 515,000 1,500 1,500 20 $5,000 $48,272 - 4,821 10 55,000 548,272 - 4,821 10 $1,000 $7,400 400 452 25 51,000 $7,400 400 452 25 310,000 $61,246 5,000 6,000 200 510,000 $61,246 5,000 6,000 200 $61,325 $60,037 700,925 2130,919 40,100 100 2,000 200 450 3,750 15,000 15,000 50,000 50,000 1,000 1,000 10,000 10,000 26,369 1,369 25,000 206 206 1,982 1,982 17 15 2 300 300 700 700 400 400 320 320 25 25 10 10 10 10 200 200 55,100 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual 2017 Bellingham Whatcom County Tourism Visitor Information City of Lynden Public Restroom Lynden Chamber of Commerce Marketing/Historical Statue Lynden Heritage Foundation CEMETERY TO U R/LYN DE 500 Lynnwood 2017 City of Lynnwood Annual Marketing Program Lynnwood Public Facility District Marysville $61,325 $4,000 54,000 $21,825 $21,825 $30,000 530,000 $5,500 55,500 $714,252 5714,262 $714,262 $229,850 5484,412 $75,550 2017 $75,550 City of Marysville $56,500 Opera House Advertising $25,000 Police Department Special Fventg Support 520,000 Strawberry Festival Support Services 511,500 Marysville Dog Owners Group $2,820 Poochapalooza $2,820 Marysville Historical Society 53,000 Museum Computer System Upgrade $3,000 Red Curtain Foundation fortheArts $2,700 2017 Play Season 52,700 Snohomish County Tourism Bureau 54,500 Snohomish County Visitor Information Center & Visitor Services Program 54,500 The Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce & Visitor Information Center $6,030 2017 Brew and Cider Fest 55,030 VICTechnology Upgrade 51,000 Mason County 5328,700 2017 5328,700 Blue Collar Agency $228,000 Bluegrass from the Forest Hama Hama Oyster Rama Hood Canal Highland Celtic Festival OysterFest Tourism Development Traveler 5K Run/Walk Shelton -Mason County Chamber Visitior Information Center Services North Mason ChamberVIC Visitor Information Center Monroe 2017 $60,037 54,000 54,000 519,336 519,336 530,000 530,000 56,701 56,701 5714,262 5714,262 5714,262 5229,850 $484,412 $207,147 $207,147 $53,807 $9,807 520,000 524,000 53,336 $3,336 52,991 52,991 514,470 514,470 5120,923 200,925 200,919 40,100 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 925 919 925 919 121,595 119,679 121,595 119,679 121,595 119,679 40,000 40,000 100 100 55,100 55,000 55,000 100 100 $120,923 $11,621 56,500 55,121 $133,664 5133,664 121,595 160,859 160,859 119,679 42,666 42,666 3,128 3,128 1,873 1,873 110,800 15 10,800 15 100,000 3,800 3,800 152 3,800 3,800 152 3,000 3,000 38,192 3,167 3,167 31,598 30 30 2,270 26 26 1,141 38,192 31,598 2,270 1,141 5,067 4,101 813 554 300 75 75 2 4,767 4,026 738 552 18,763 246,843 9,381 120,899 18,763 246,843 9,381 120,899 195,616 104,850 2,150 653 750 375 13,600 7,344 12,463 8,849 166,425 87,592 228 27 18,763 19,343 9,381 9,672 18,763 19,343 9,381 9,672 31,884 6,377 31,884 6,377 21,100 21,763 4,786 2,122 21,100 21,763 4,786 2,122 560,000 550,000 $40,700 540,700 $79,334 $129,187 $79,334 5129,187 5133,664 5133,664 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual City of Monroe Operations Monroe Chamber of Commerce Marketing City of Monroe Parks Department Destination Brochures Tri-Monore Triathlon Sky Valley Trout Unlimited Kid's Fishing Day at Lake Tye Monroe Historical Society Marketing Evergreen Speedway Rally Cross/Red 3u8 Rally 2017 Montesano 2017 Greater Grays Harbor Inc Showcase Grays Harbor Montesano Chamber of Commerce Festival of Lights Catch Montesano Fish and Brew Fest Full Monte Saturday Morning Market Chehalis Valley Historical Museum Chehalis Valley Museum Moses Lake 2017 City of Moses Lake Columbia Basin Allied Arts performing arts season Debt Service on Aquatic Center Moses Lake Chamber of Commerce Visitor Information Center 2017 Moses Lake Advertising Campaign Freedom Fest-Fireworks display Mount Vernon $517 $517 $61,638 $61,638 $8,000 $3,000 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $2,184 $2,184 $4,495 $4,495 $8,042 $8,042 $500 $500 $4,542 $2,182 $a,000 $1,000 $359 $3,000 $20,000 $3,000 $20,000 $250,700 $1,274,557 $250,700 51,274,557 580,700 51,042,570 510,000 $120,000 $70,700 5922,570 5170,000 5231,987 540,000 547,000 5100,000 5110,000 $30,004 574,987 5197,300 $2,593,575 5517 5517 - 596,189 10,000 596,189 10,000 58,000 800 53,000 - 55,000 800 $5,606 1,200 55,606 1,200 $14,380 4,100 514,380 4,100 54,495 5,000 $4,495 5,000 $54,700 5,650 554,700 5,650 54,700 150 $4,700 150 $30,000 5,500 515,000 5,000 510,000 300 55,000 200 11,208 3,500 1,000 11,208 3,500 1,000 766 800 696 800 696 6 6 6 6 766 975 975 4,014 4,014 4,800 4,800 7,984 7,984 134 134 7,850 7,060 500 350 480 4$0 420 420 8,500 8,500 3,500 3,500 5,000 5,000 779,477 2017 $197,300 $2,593,575 Celtic Arts Foundation $5,500 5114,385 Skagit Valley Highland Games 55,500 5114,385 Lincoln Theatre Foundation $18,000 $670,972 Lincoln Theatre $18,000 5670,972 McIntyre Hall Performing Arts & Conference Center 510,000 5782,200 McIntyre Hall Performing Arts & Conference Center 510,000 5782,200 META 51,000 555,662 Disney's The Little Merrnaid 51,000 555,662 Mount Vernon Chamber of Commerce $99,500 5198,000 Mount Vernon Visitor Information Center $99,500 5198,000 Mount Vernon Downtown Association 58,000 527,237 Annual Tulip Festival Street Fair $8,000 $17,237 779,477 12,000 12,000 32,000 32,000 37,044 37,044 2,200 2,200 300,000 300,000 40,000 40,000 153,991 153,991 85,841 3,483 82,358 68,150 24,315 7,650 2,500 55,000 20,000 5,500 1,815 776,634 130,355 132,181 776,634 130,355 132,181 12,000 535 500 12,000 535 500 32,000 553 553 32,000 553 553 37,044 620 620 37,044 620 620 3,257 50 62 3,257 50 62 311,100 90,000 93,730 311,100 90,000 93,730 25,000 5,000 3,100 25,000 5,000 3.100 100 24,385 100 24,385 100 70 100 70 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Mount Vernon Farmer's Market Mount Vernon Farmer's Market Shakespeare Northwest Association Skagit River Shakespeare Festival Skagit County Fairgrounds Skagit County Fair and Other Events Skagit River Salmon Festival Skagit River Salmon Festival Skagit Valley Chorale Celebrating in Song Skagit Valley Tulip Festival Skagit Valley Tulip Festival Theater Arts Guild 25th Anniversary Party and Always Patsy Cline Washington State University Bread Lab Grain Gathering Pacific Northwest Opera Don Giovanni and Tales of Hoffman Mount Vernon Parks and Enrichment Services Events & Activities and 4th of July Celebration Silver Arrow Bowmen Tournaments Ma untia ke Terrace 2017------ ----- Snohomish County Tourism Bureau $3,500 $3,500 $1,000 $1,000 $2,500 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $1,000 $1,000 $13,800 $13,800 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $73,000 $23,000 $3,000 $3,000 $25,325 $25,325 $2,725 $40,000 44,000 $40,000 44,000 $15,600 575 $15,600 575 $375,662 7,700 $375,662 7,700 $43,000 2,500 $43,000 2,500 $24,988 1,102 $24,988 1,102 $59,732 289,019 $59,732 289,019 $1,000 1,737 $1,000 1,737 $60,000 300 $60,000 300 $109,045 1,900 $109,045 1,900 $12,092 6,500 $12,092 6,500 $4,000 900 $4,000 900 5241,104 113,692 $241,104 113,692 $123,713 38,192 Visitor Information Center and Visitor Services Program $2,725 $123,713 38,192 Tour de Terrace $16,775 $85,095 71,000 Tour de Terrace $16,775 585,095 71,000 Cheeseburger Babies Foundation $2,000 514,200 3,000 3rd ofJuly Fireworks Celebration 52,000 514,200 3,000 Friends of the Arts $3,825 518,096 1,500 Arts of the Terrace 53,825 $18,096 1,500 Mukilteo $309,030 $680,639 401,220 2017 5309,030 5680,639 401,220 City of Mukilteo 5134,600 5151,039 305,000 Rosehill Community Center Marketing 510,600 59,386 25,300 Rosehill Community Center Staffing $30,000 $30,000 29,700 City Social Media 56,000 $6,000 Exterior Painting of Lighthouse Quarters A & B $42,500 $45,448 Lighthouse Festival City Staff Overtime $23,500 528,205 Rosehill Community Center Upgrades 522,000 $32,000 Historic Flight Foundation $5,000 54,978 10,000 10th Annual Vintage Aircraft Weekend: Kids Zonel $5,000 54,978 10,000 Jericho Bridge Church $6,380 56,103 11,000 Mukilteo Walking Tour $6,380 56,103 11,000 Mukilteo Chamber of Commerce 5100,050 $114,753 9,220 44,000 1,320 44,000 1,320 575 25 575 25 7,700 16,000 7,700 16,000 2,500 75 2,500 75 1,102 40 1,102 40 289,019 15,722 289,019 15,722 1,737 87 1,737 87 300 125 300 125 1,900 3 1,900 3 6,500 6,500 900 200 200 900 200 200 120,948 230 283 120,948 230 283 31,598 92 153 1,320 1,320 25 25 16,000 16,000 75 75 40 40 15,722 15,722 87 87 144 144 3 3 31,598 92 85,000 130 85,000 130 3,000 6 3,000 6 1,350 2 1,350 2 1,124,592 25,955 1,124,592 25,965 1,080,000 13,000 36,800 5,100 43,200 5,900 153 120 120 8 8 2 2 10,304 10,304 9,870 230 8,640 1 1 250,000 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 6,782 6,782 15,000 15,000 6,610 1,425 260 90 90 52 52 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual 2017 Mukilteo Community Car Show Amazing Race Mukilteo Discover Mukilteo Mukilteo Chamber Tourism Center Mukilteo Chamber Tourism Center Staffing Mukilteo Garden and Quilt Tour 2017 Mukilteo Garden & Quilt Tour Mukilteo Lighthouse Festival Association 2017 Mukilteo Lighthouse Festival Snohomish County Tourism Bureau 58,950 511,620 1,700 1,650 25 20 $1,750 53,125 100 75 530,000 525,265 820 685 400 - $4,350 $5,078 3,300 2,100 500 120 555,000 $69,665 3,300 2,100 500 120 513,000 $16,594 1,000 1,200 100 12 513,000 $16,594 1,000 1,200 100 12 545,000 5261,749 20,000 15,000 100 100 $45,000 5261,749 20,000 15,000 100 100 $5,000 5125,423 45,000 11,250 Snohomish County Visitor information Center Program 55,000 5125,423 Newport 510,500 5200,323 2017 $10,500 5200,323 Newport Rodeo Association 53,000 $75,000 Newport Rodeo 51,000 540,000 20th Annual John Swenson Bull -A -Rama 51,000 $20,000 Newport Rough Stock Event $1,000 515,000 NHHS Foundation 51,000 55,875 Newport Autumn Bloom Fun Run 51,000 55,875 Tri County Economic Development District $500 511,250 Licensing of the 468 Insider Tourism Ap $500 511,250 Brides Day Out 51,000 55,000 264 185 Brides Day Out 51,000 $5,000 264 185 Angel Paws of Pend Oreille County 52,000 51,098 32 20 Motorcycle Poker Run $1,000 51,098 32 20 7 Newport/Priest River Rotary Club $2,000 $75,250 11,250 11,250 255 Newport Rodeo Festivities 51,000 $5,250 2,250 2,250 75 SPORT, Scenic Pend Oreille River Train 51,000 570,000 9,000 9,000 - 180 Pend Oreille Valley Relay for Life 51,000 $15,000 200 200 10 4 Relay for Life for the American Cancer Society 51,000 515,000 200 200 10 4 Sponsoring Shops for Who Let the Girls Out 51,000 511,850 1,200 720 13 Who Let the Girls Out 51,000 511,850 1,200 720 13 North Bend 514,000 5200,960 2,700 2,190 50 143 2017 514,000 5200,960 2,700 2,190 50 143 North Bend Downtown Foundation $7,000 524,600 2,500 2,078 50 139 45,000 22,646 22,646 9,500 5,000 2,500 2,000 200 200 11,250 23,575 1,052 504 23,575 1,052 504 10,900 115 165 7,700 40 75 2,000 40 50 1,200 35 40 300 15 60 300 15 60 Visitor's Information Center & Mountain View Art Gallery City of North Bend $7,000 524,600 2,500 2,078 50 139 $7,000 5176,360 200 112 4 Visitor's Information Center & Mountain View Art Gallery $7,000 5176,360 200 112 4 North Bonneville 526,500 $26,500 2,500 2,230 200 326 2017 $26,500 526,500 2,500 2,230 200 326 NB Discovery Trails Committee/Trails Foundation $12,500 $12,500 1,000 680 Bigfoot GeoTour/Bigfoots Relay 512,500 512,500 1,000 680 City of North Bonneville 514,000 $14,000 1,500 1,550 200 326 Gorge Days 514,000 $14,000 1,500 1,550 200 326 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Northport $800 $800 2017 $800 $800 Town of Northport $800 $800 Website -Chamber of Commerce $800 $800 Oak Harbor $250,600 $1,577,859 53,306 2017 Fidalgo Avenue Merchants Association Oak Harbor Pig Fest Oak Harbor Chamber of Commerce- Marketing 365 Marketing 365 Oak Harbor Music Festival Music Festival PBY Memorial Foundation PBY Naval Air Museum Whidbey Island Race Week LLC Whidbey island Race Week 2% Joint Advisory Board 2% Joint Advisory Board Craig McKenzie Team Foundation Hydro's For Heroes North Whidbey Lions Club Lions Club CarShow Megan McClung Memorial Fund Megan McClung Memorial Run Oak Harbor Chamber of Commerce - Operations Visitor information Center Operations Island County Master Gardener Foundation Whidbey Gardeing Workshop Ocean Shores 2017 Ocean Shores Convention Center Facility Operations Marketing Campaign Okanogan $250,000 $1,577,859 53,306 $5,000 $42,500 12,000 $5,000 $42,500 12,000 $65,000 $487,255 $65,000 $487,255 $26,500 $120,000 20,000 526,500 $120,000 20,000 $5,000 $206,000 4,627 $5,000 $206,000 4,627 59,000 $102,061 750 $9,000 $102,061 750 $7,000 $31,250 1,700 $7,000 $31,250 1,700 $9,000 $77,000 10,000 $9,000 $77,000 10,000 $4,000 $5,500 3,750 $4,000 $5,500 3,750 $3,000 $7,027 88 $3,000 $7,027 88 $115,000 $487,255 $115,000 $487,255 51,500 512,011 $1,500 512,011 $1,010,541 51,010,541 $1,010,541 51,010,541 51,010,541 51,010,541 $937,941 $937,941 $72,600 $72,600 517,282 2017 517,282 Okanogan Chamber of Commerce $12,582 Advertising for Harvest Festival 5592 Farm Lights Festival & Harvest Fest Hot Summer Nights Movie Series Recreation Coordinator Activites 391 391 195,560 195,560 195,560 97,780 97,780 15,131 15,131 2,231 $897 275 $258 10 $9,938 1,466 53,306 53,306 12,000 12,000 5,801 5,801 500 500 20,000 2,160 20,000 2,160 4,627 833 4,627 833 750 626 750 626 1,700 1,105 1,700 1,105 10,000 536 10,000 536 3,750 29 3,750 29 88 88 391 391 234,056 234,056 234,056 117,028 117,028 14,699 14,699 2,149 12 12 56,772 56,772 56,772 28,386 28,386 1,704 1,704 54 5,801 5,801 500 500 2,160 2,160 833 833 626 626 1,105 1,105 536 536 29 29 12 12 60,892 60,892 60,892 30,446 30,446 1,694 1,694 44 Z00 10 1,459 2 20 12 Visitors Information Center in Okanogan Historical Museum $897 480 480 32 32 Okanogan County Historical Museum $4,000 1,900 1,550 150 150 2017 Museum Season $4,000 1,900 1,550 150 150 Okanogan/Ferry County Chapter of Washington Pilots Association 5700 11,000 11,000 1,500 1,500 N,W. Aviation Conference and Trade Show $700 11,000 11,000 1,500 1,500 Okanogan County $412,421 $400,34$ 1,329,993 1,343,036 720,911 888,032 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual 2017 Borderlands Historical Society Oroville Visitor Information Center Cascade Loop Association Cascade Loop Scenic Byway Conconully Chamber of Commerce Conconully Chamber of Commerce Grand Coulee Dam Area Chamber of Commerce Grand Coulee Dam Area Chamber of Commerce Loup Loup Ski Education Foundation Loup Loup Ski Area Methow Arts Alliance Methow Arts Alliance Molson Museum Association Molson Museum Okanogan County Fairgrounds Okanagan County Fairgrounds Okanogan County Tourism Council Okanogan County WO Marketing OMAKSTAMPEDE, INC. Ornak Stampede Orovllle Chamber of Commerce Rally at the Border Blues Fest Northwest Ice Fishing Festival Droville Chamber Marketing Tonasket Chamber of Commerce Tonasket Chamber Marketing Tonasket Visitor & Business Resource Center Tonasket Visitor & Business Resource Center- Capital Improvement $412,421 $5,720 $5,720 $4,665 $4,665 $3,552 $3,552 $4,500 $4,500 $5,198 $5,198 $15,435 515,435 $1,153 $1,153 $1,026 $1,026 $191,699 5191,699 $8,340 $8,340 $8,553 52,946 $345 $5,262 $1,416 51,416 $5,111 $400,345 $5,720 55,720 $4,665 54,665 $3,552 $3,552 54,500 $4,500 54,872 54,372 515,435 515,435 $795 $795 5356 5355 5191,699 S191,699 58,340 58,340 56,189 52,710 5345 $3,135 51,014 51,014 Max. 1,329,993 4,000 4,000 151,992 151,992 6,000 6,000 300,000 300,000 12,000 12,000 50,318 50,318 5,500 5,500 950 950 304,123 304,123 21,500 21,500 1,201 721 350 130 1,343,036 3,010 3,010 252,887 252,887 6,500 6,500 252,334 252,334 14,924 14,924 50,078 50,078 4,133 4,133 396,654 396,654 16,903 16,903 7.,091 622 325 144 350 350 6,000 1,720 720,911 1,284 1,284 151,992 151,992 3,500 3,500 141,750 141,750 3,121 3,121 7,765 7,765 2,500 2,500 950 950 232,510 232,510 3,600 3,600 446 396 35 15 30 30 1,600 888,032 752 752 252,887 252,887 4,000 4,000 124,869 124,869 11,044 11,044 7,934 7,934 2,741 2,741 303,253 303,253 3,214 3,214 250 140 100 10 40 40 512 54,721 $4,721 3,000 860 800 Z56 Tonasket Visitor & Business Resource Center Operations $390 $390 3,000 860 800 256 Twisp Chamber of Commerce $8,742 $8,742 2,222 10,420 1,288 498 Twisp Year Round Marketing 58,742 58,742 2,222 10,420 1,288 498 Twisp Visitor Information Center 54,580 54,580 2,222 10,420 1,288 10,420 Twlsp Visitor Information Center 54,580 $4,580 2,222 10,420 1,288 10,420 TwispWorks Foundation 52,604 52,604 200 550 28 29 TwispWorks Workshops 52,604 52,604 200 550 28 29 Winthrop Auditorium Association $1,133 51,133 7,655 9,050 3,750 3,000 Winthrop Barn 51,133 51,133 7,665 9,050 3,750 3,000 Cascadia; Methow Music Association 51,043 51,043 1,200 1,980 100 250 Cascadia; Methow Music Association Events 51,043 51,043 1,200 1,980 100 250 Community Cultural Center of Tonasket $985 5213 1,040 859 25 15 Community Cultural Center Events 5986 5213 1,040 859 25 15 Confluence Gallery and Art Center $5,670 55,670 18,000 18,000 500 500 Confluence Gallery and Art Center Events $5,670 $5,670 18,000 18,000 500 500 Methow Valley Sports Trails Association 573,693 $70,078 210,000 140,000 R0,000 80,000 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Methow Trails Capital Improvements Methow Vally Sports Trails Association Methow Trails Marketing Methow Music Festival Association Methow Valley Chamber Music Festival Oroville Borderlands Historical Society Oroville Museum The Marc Playhouse The Merc Playhouse I he Vintage Faire The Vintage Faire Olympia 2017 Greater Olympia Dixieland Jazz Society American Classic Jazz Festival Hands On Children's Museum Children's Museum Olympia Downtown Association Multiple Downtown activities Olympic Flight Museum Olympic Air Show Saint Martin's University Dragon Boat Festival The Washington Center for the Performing Arts Washington Center for the Performing Arts Washington State Senior Games Washington State Senior Games Wolf Haven International Wolf Haven Public Sanctuary Visits The PARC Foundation of Thurston County Capitol to Bay Relay exp- ;ante Olympia and Beyond Destination Marketing and Management Parrot Heads of Puget Sound Laid Back Attack XV Olympia Kiwanis Foundation Olympia Harbor Days Rainbow Community Center of Olympia DBA Capital City Pride Pride 2017 Festival and Parade $73,693 $41,426 $41,426 $6,150 $6,150 $5,063 $5,063 $3,092 $3,092 $1,871 $1,871 $621,200 $621,200 $25,000 $25,000 $51,500 $51,500 $25,000 $25,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $354,200 $354,200 $70,028 $41,426 $41,426 $6,150 $6,150 $1,545 $1,545 210,000 210,000 210,000 1,760 1,760 4,000 4,000 $3,092 5,500 $3,092 5,500 $1,871 2,600 $1,871 2,600 $8,105,452 543,483 543,483 5,000 5,000 307,152 307,152 10,000 10,000 $126,470 7,200 $126,470 7,200 $115,500 5,000 $115,500 5,000 $2,100,000 100,000 $2,100,000 100,000 $20,000 3,500 520,000 3,500 51,000,000 1,400 51,000,000 1,400 $65,000 500 $65,000 500 $1,359,201 33,381 51,359,201 33,381 $55,000 350 $55,000 350 5100,000 65,000 5100,000 65,000 569,000 5,000 569,000 5,000 5108,300 59,400 $108,300 59,400 $500 300 5500 300 $3,001 12,000 $3,001 12,000 $862 2,000 5862 2,000 $8,105,452 5195,281 5195,281 52,900,000 52,900,000 55,000 $5,000 510,000 510,000 $100,040 $100,000 511,500 $11,500 520,000 $20,000 57,000 $7,000 Omak $108,500 2017 5108,500 FRIENDLY OK CAR CLUB $500 Car Show 5500 LOUP LOUP SKI FOUNDATION $3,000 On going skiing event $3,000 Okanogan County Historical Museum $1,000 2017 Museum Season 51,000 140,000 80,000 80,000 140,000 80,000 80,000 140,000 80,000 80,000 1,600 600 622 1,600 600 622 3,010 1,284 752 3,010 1,284 752 4,513 700 250 4,513 700 250 2,050 300 200 2,050 300 200 173,490 1,198,913 1,315,252 173,490 1,198,913 1,315,252 4,500 674 613 4,500 674 613 2,239 2,239 25 25 350 350 82 82 5,400 5,400 8,250 8,250 5,000 6,000 80,225 80,225 5,250 5,250 1,200 1,200 2,400 2,400 265 265 55,000 55,000 5,000 5,000 515,253 515,253 152 60 25 152 60 25 14,924 2,700 2,928 14,924 2,700 2,928 1,500 75 75 1,500 75 75 27 27 439 439 200 200 660 475 660 475 1,500 1,000 1,500 1,000 25 25 1,191,813 1,310,994 1,191,813 1,310,994 250 210 250 210 1,235 1,214 1,235 1,214 60 80 60 80 17,660 383,465 17,660 383,465 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Projected Actual Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Okanogan CountyTourism Council $10,000 510,000 Jan -Dec $10,000 $10,000 OKANOGAN VALLEY ORCHESTRA & CHORUS $3,000 53,000 Concerts $3,000 $3,000 OMAK CHAMBER DOWNTOWN PROMOTIONS 57,500 57,500 Christmas on Main, parade $3,750 $3,750 Halloween Harvest 53,750 53,750 OMAK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 517,500 $17,500 Facility 517,500 $17,500 OMAK PERFORMING ARTS CENTER FOUNDATION $3,000 53,000 3 performances in the year, $3,000 $3,000 Omak Visitor Information Center 530,000 530,000 City Visitor Center $30,000 $30,000 Okanogan Valley Farmers Market $300 $300 Farmers Market $300 $300 Okanogan CountyJunior Rodeo Assoc $500 5437 JUNIOR RODEO $500 5437 The Omak Okanogan County Chronicle 51,200 51,200 Local Newspaper 51,700 $1,200 Omak Stampede inc $30,000 530,000 Omak Stampede Rodeo and Suicide rate 530,000 530,000 Okanogan/Ferry County Chapter WA Pilots Assoc 51,000 51,000 trade show 51,000 51,000 Oroville $23,875 $20,343 2017 523,875 520,343 City of Oroville $3,400 53,330 Recreation Land / Info Book / ATV Guide $3,400 $3,330 Molson Schoolhouse Museum and Molson GhostTown Museum 51,100 $914 2,500 2,500 750 500 250 9,000 9,000 1,050 1,050 Molson Schoolhouse Museum and Molson Ghost Town Advertising 51,100 $914 Okanogan/Ferry County Chapter Washington Pilots Association $700 5695 NW Aviation Conference & Trade Show $700 $695 Oroville Chamber of Commerce$7,500 54,503 Chamber Events Advertising $7,500 $4,503 Oroville Visitor Center and Depot Museum 55,500 $5,500 Oroville Visitor Center and Depot Museum 55,500 $5,500 Rally at the Border Blues Fest $1,500 $1,500 Rally at the Border Blues Fest 51,500 $1,500 Pacific North West Trail $900 $900 2017 Pacific NW Trail Days 5900 $900 Oroville Library Board $275 $0 Okanogan County Tourism Ag Guide Ad $275 $0 Oroville Visitor Center and Deposit Museum $3,000 $3,000 Route 97 Road Trip Guide 53,000 $3,000 Othello 556,635 $180,963 2017 $56,635 5180,963 Adams County Fair 55,087 $1.2,229 3,500 3,500 300 300 16,000 16,000 12,000 12,000 19,521 19,521 396,654 396,654 2,300 2,300 1,050 750 300 10,000 10,000 1,206 1,206 4,397 4,397 1,500 1,500 280 280 55,000 55,000 16,290 16,290 10,000 10,000 20,550 20,550 363,903 363,903 250 200 250 200 25 40 15 30 10 10 3,400 3,800 3,400 3,800 100 120 100 120 1,114 1,114 50 25 50 25 35 35 4,000 4,200 4,000 4,200 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 3,079 1,666 3,079 1,666 4,500 4,500 4,500 10,000 10,000 4,500 11,000 11,000 700 700 700 700 4,000 4,000 2,000 491 4,000 4,000 2,000 491 721 800 349 450 721 800 349 450 300 250 30 25 300 250 30 25 39,290 39,290 15,770 34,256 34,256 13,002 4,520 4,520 20 4,635 4,635 7 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Adams County Fair All Cities Classic Car Club Classic Car Show Coulee Corridor Consortium Coulee Corridor Consortium Grr a ter Othello Chamber of Commerce ,ity of Othello Branding Project • sitor information center & Community Events Cth AID Rod & Gun Club Othello Rod & Gun Club Othello Sandhill Crane Festival Othello Sandhill Crane Festival Old Hotel Art Gallery & 1946 Caboose Project Destination & Visitor Center City of Othello Othello Community Museum Othello Rodeo Rodeo Pacific 2017 City of Pacific Pacific Days Pacific County 2017 Columbia Pacific Heritage Museum Columbia Pacific Heritage Museum Text Panels for Railcar in Nahcotta Ilwaco Charter Association Ilwaca Charter Salmon Derby Ilwaco Charter Sturgeon Derby Northwest Carriage Museum Northwest Carriage Museum Ocean Park Area Chamber of Commerce 35th Annual Old Fashioned Fourth afJuly Parade 36th Annual Garlic Festival Pacific County Economic Development Council Regional Expo Social Media Marketing Seminar Pacific County Fair Pacific County Fair Peninsula Saddle Club Long Beach Rodeo Sunday Afternoon Live Sunday Afternoon Live Tokeland North Cove Chamber of Commerce Parade and Picnic Art Studio Tour $5,087 $2,308 $Z308 $985 $985 $26,129 915,000 911,129 $600 9600 98,276 $8,276 $5,000 $5,000 $650 $650 $7,600 97,600 $5,291 $5,291 $5,291 95,291 9682,128 $682,128 921,500 920,000 91,500 91,900 $950 9950 $20,000 $20,000 988,784 $44,392 944,392 925,650 $8,550 $17,100 $1,000 $1,000 91,425 $1,425 92,500 $2,500 916,000 94,000 94,000 $12,229 97,000 97,000 91,849 91,849 $88,198 917,211 970,987 97,424 97,424 $46,342 $46,342 95,685 $5,685 $1,200 91,200 $11,036 911,036 95,291 95,291 $5,291 $5,291 9582,910 1,866,639 15,770 675 675 4,375 4,375 1,552 13,002 700 700 4,190 4,190 1,102 20 100 100 1,825 1,825 450 7 100 100 1,750 1,760 192 1 1,552 90 90 1,458 1,458 3,400 3,400 70 70 11,900 11,900 1,102 67 67 1,672 1,672 5,533 5,533 70 70 7,920 7,920 450 25 25 525 525 875 875 192 21 21 1,135 1,135 620 620 700 700 500 500 1,885,681 92,898 94,219 $582,910 1,865,639 1,885,681 92,898 94,219 9131,715 20,000 20,124 4,000 4,004 $130,215 10,000 10,062 2,000 2,504 91,500 10,000 10,062 2,000 1,500 $9,500 55,000 60,000 30,000 30,000 $7,500 45,000 45,000 20,000 20,000 $2,000 10,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 $20,000 8,000 8,018 4,266 4,275 $20,000 8,000 8,018 4,266 4,275 914,233 7,327 7,327 3,002 3,002 98,000 3,716 3,716 2,230 2,230 96,233 3,611 3,611 772 772 94,325 450 352 50 15 $925 350 310 15 $3,400 100 42 SO 91,000 14,000 13,003 5 5 91,000 14,000 13,003 5 5 928,685 2,500 2,580 500 500 928,685 2,500 2,580 500 500 97,092 1,900 1,011 40 20 $7,092 1,900 1,011 40 20 $9,793 5,050 3,591 997 $2,597 2,200 1,350 255 52,181 550 420 180 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Tokeland Trek Wood and Art Festival Willapa Harbor Chamber of Commerce Astoria Seafood Festival Christmas on the River Easter Egg Hunt Kayak Day Visitor's Center Labor Day Raymond Lighted Parade Willapa County Christmas Willapa Harbor Festival World Kite Museum $4,000 $4,000 5220,797 $24,533 $24,533 $24,533 $24,533 524,533 524,533 524,533 524,533 524,533 524,566 $920 54,094 541,282 $7,689 $300 5200 5721 $6,637 527,435 5300 $500 57,500 524,566 100 2,200 23,400 14,000 100 250 100 350 4,500 350 250 3,500 58,000 73 1,748 24,061 14,000 60 250 23 759 4,500 819 150 3,500 58,075 World Kite Museum and Washington State International Kite Festival 524,566 524,566 58,000 58,075 Pacific County Historical Society and Museum Foundation $20,000 $20,000 4,000 5,725 Annual Museum and Visitor Center $20,000 520,000 4,000 5,725 Water Music Festival Society 58,000 540,713 1,195 1,190 Christmas Concert $2,000 $2,560 100 130 Jazz and Oysters 52,000 516,856 330 350 Water Music Festival 52,000 $17,178 450 360 Music in the Garden 52,000 54,119 315 350 Pacific County Sheriff 520,000 520,000 15,000 30,019 Fourth of July $10,000 $10,000 5,000 11,785 Rod Run to the End of the World Law Enforcement $10,000 $10,000 10,000 18,234 The Long Beach Peninsula Visitors Bureau $202,131 5202,131 1,650,000 1,650,000 Lure Brochure $30,000 $30,000 150,000 150,000 Pacific County Destination Marketing 5172,131 5172,131 1,500,000 1,500,000 AppeIoArchive Center 54,575 54,675 800 587 Newsletter and Advertising 54,675 54,675 800 587 Pacific County General Administration $3,200 $3,200 17 18 Staffing Support $3,200 $3,200 17 18 Pasco $399,884 $3,107,774 313,839 295,572 2017 $399,884 $3,107,774 313,839 295,572 Downtown Pasco Development Authority $5,000 525,000 10,000 17,000 Festival/Tourism Marketing and Operation 55,000 525,000 10,000 17,000 Pasco Chamber of Commerce $20,000 $339,075 4,700 4,100 215 22 540 214 10 50 98 100 100 5 50 16 15,000 15,019 15,000 15,019 425 825 425 825 295 197 25 9 81 95 111 71 78 22 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 100 146 100 146 43,177 44,391 43,177 44,391 100 250 100 250 398 408 Agricultural Trade Show/Bambumer Festival/Marketing $20,000 5339,075 4,700 4,100 398 408 City of Pasco $249,189 5411,514 261,000 235,797 4,540 5,058 Baseball Stadium $127,187 5167,510 96,000 101,357 3,540 4,500 Trade Recreation Agricultural Center-TRAC 5122,002 $244,004 165,000 134,440 1,000 558 Tri -Cities Visitor and Convention Center 5125,695 52,332,185 38,139 38,675 38,239 38,675 Destination Marketing 5125,695 52,332,185 38,139 38,675 38,139 38,575 Pateros $2,500 $13,000 900 900 65 55 2017 $2,500 $13,000 900 900 65 55 CITY OF PATEROS 52,500 513,0n0 900 900 65 55 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Apple Pie Jamboree Hydro Races Pateros Motorcycle Rally Pend Oreille County 2017 international Selkirk Loop Scenic Drive newport Chamber of Commerce Visitor and Information Center Newport/Priest River Rotary Scenic Pend Oreille River Train (SPORT) Pend Oreille County Fair Pend Oreille County Fair Pend Oreille County Historical Society Museum Tri County Economic Development District NE Washington insider App Pend Oreille River Tourism Alliance Lodging, Recreation, Activities, and Dining Tiger Museum Museum Pierce County $1,000 $1,000 5500 $37,800 $37,800 51,200 51,200 53,000 $3,000 $5,000 55,000 51,000 51,000 $800 5800 $2,000 $2,000 523,800 $23,800 55,000 55,000 $3,000 $197,960 $197,960 540,000 $40,000 513,810 513,810 583,000 583,000 $6,500 $6,500 $3,600 53,600 $11,250 511,250 $39,800 539,800 51,000 $0 $1,000 50 $1,563,000 $5,015,030 3,528,247 2017 $1,563,000 $5,015,030 3,528,247 Mt. Rainier Visitor Association $145,000 $152,000 700,000 Visitor Services &Tourism Promotion $145,000 $152,000 700,000 Puyallup Sumner Chamber of Commerce 560,000 5410,000 1,100,000 Puyallup & Sumner Visitor Centers 560,000 $410,000 1,100,000 Stay Crystal 5197,000 5213,000 407,000 Stay Crystal Marketing $197,000 5213,000 407,000 Tacoma Highland Games Association $5,000 $43,000 3,000 Tacoma Highland Games 55,000 543,000 3,000 Tacoma Regional Convention & Visitors Bureau 5500,000 52,633,816 94,387 Competitive & Effective Marketing for Pierce County 5500,000 $2,633,816 94,387 Tacoma -Pierce County Sports Commission 5100,000 5779,444 180,000 Tacoma South Sound Sports 5100,000 5779,444 180,000 Visit Rainier 5300,000 5381,000 1,008,456 Visit Rainier Marketing & Promotion 5300,000 5381,000 1,008,456 Pierce County Parks & Recreation 5240,000 5383,770 34,404 Chambers Bay Tourism Promotion 5240,000 $383,770 34,404 Town of Wilkeson & Carbon Valley Communities 516,000 $19,000 1,000 Microadventure 516,000 $19,000 1,000 Port Angeles $797,910 $2,512,548 552,645 2017 5797,910 $2,512,548 552,645 Port Angeles Marathon Association $12,000 $215,910 11,000 North Olympic Discovery Marathon $12,000 $215,910 11,000 Stormking Crossfit $2,000 56,100 Age is Just a Number 52,000 56,100 500 200 200 47,300_ 47,300 20,000 20,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 4,500 4,500 800 800 1,000 1,000 6,000 6,000 475 200 225 23,500 23,500 3,600 3,600 9,000 9,000 4,000 4,000 1,100 1,100 1,300 1,300 4,500 4,500 25 20 20 21,245 21,245 20,000 20,000 1,000 1,000 25 25 10 10 75 75 35 35 100 100 25 20 10 8 8 8 3,338,207 386,678 430,241 3,338,207 386,678 430,241 722,922 40,000 29,798 722,922 40,000 29,798 1,100,000 350 50,000 1,100,000 350 50,000 414,000 49,500 50,000 414,000 49,500 50,000 2,441 100 93 2,441 100 93 155,130 16,675 18,650 155,130 16,675 18,650 186,496 42,900 50,000 186,496 42,900 50,000 726,445 232,953 227,200 726,445 232,953 227,200 30,773 4,000 4,500 30,773 4,000 4,500 200 200 719,556 57,077 94,608 719,556 57,077 94,608 10,404 4,000 3,656 10,404 4,000 3,656 232 33 732 33 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Port Angeles Downtown Association Arts and Draughts Beer and Wine Festival Captain Joseph House Foundation Chowder Cook -off Run Forloe Marathon City of Port Angeles Parks Department Civic Field Improvements $8,000 $8,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $220,000 $150,000 $59,550 $59,550 510,486 $5,736 $4,750 5930,000 $860,000 Operation and Maintenance of the City's Recreation/Ball Fields $70,000 $70,000 Olympic Peninsula Celebrations $14,000 5234,500 Dungeness Crab and Seafood Festival $14,000 5234,500 City of Port Angeles Community and Economic Development Department $112,000 $152,000 Heritage Tourism Signage $12,000 $52,000 Wayfinding Signage 3100,000 5100,000 Port Angeles Swim Club $1,880 $3,585 January Challenge Meet $1,030 $2,110 March Masters Meet $850 $1,475 Juan de Fuca Foundation 312,000 $129,500 Juan de Fuca Festival for the Arts $17,000 $129,500 N -Dub Productions $5,000 $35,500 Northwest Cup $5,000 $35,500 Peninsula Adventure Sports $7,000 $53,012 THE BIG HURT 55,000 $23,387 Olympic Adventure Trail Run $3,000 $13,625 The Great Olympic Adventure Trail Run 51,000 $16,000 Olympic Culinary Loop Tourism Association $1,500 $45,365 Olympic Culinary Loop $1,500 $45,365 Olympic Peninsula Visitors Bureau $2,500 540,000 Olympic Peninsula Area Conversion Study 52,500 $40,000 Olympic Peninsula Tourism Commission 525,000 5145,180 1,300 1,300 625 500 125 17,000 17,000 1,150 1,150 634 600 34 47,315 40,000 7,315 21,000 21,000 185 185 250 200 50 5,0.00 5,200 250 250 214 200 14 7,147 2,080 5,067 6,500 6,500 16,500 16,500 1,050 1,050 670 220 250 200 500,000 500,000 17,000 17,000 969 969 606 167 258 181 587,814 587,814 1,500 1,500 140 35 35 70 45,454 45,454 2,150 2,150 984 984 177 54 42 81 67,587 67,587 Olympic Peninsula Tourism Commission Annual Destination Marketing $26,000 5145,180 Fiero Marine Life Center 515,125 $15,125 Outdoor Education Park Area 515,125 $15,125 Port Angeles Fine Arts Center 318,000 $61,230 Paint the Peninsula $18,000 $61,230 The Chamber of Commerce of Port Angeles, Washington $3,500 512,000 Ride the Hurricane $3,500 $12,000 The Story People of Clallam County $2,000 $30,100 The Forest Storytelling Festival $2,000 $30,100 Vertigo Marketing $258,814 5258,814 Visit Port Angeles $258,814 $258,814 The Chamber of Commerce of the City of Port Angeles, Washington $74,591 $74,591 Visitor's Center Operation $74,591 $74,591 Port Orchard $91,855 $167,851 2017 $91,855 $167,851 City of Port Orchard $7,500 $6,689 1,500 1,500 3,000 3,000 27,000 27,000 1,628 1,628 1,000 1,000 2,426 2,426 198 198 150 150 5,000 5,000 215 215 400 400 250 250 176,200 328,272 176,200 328,272 6,500 4,400 2,770 2,770 25 29,694 29,694 14 378 272 106 45 25 20 16,500 16,500 1,050 1,050 670 220 250 200 500,000 500,000 17,000 17,000 969 969 606 167 258 181 587,814 587,814 1,500 1,500 140 35 35 70 45,454 45,454 2,150 2,150 984 984 177 54 42 81 67,587 67,587 Olympic Peninsula Tourism Commission Annual Destination Marketing $26,000 5145,180 Fiero Marine Life Center 515,125 $15,125 Outdoor Education Park Area 515,125 $15,125 Port Angeles Fine Arts Center 318,000 $61,230 Paint the Peninsula $18,000 $61,230 The Chamber of Commerce of Port Angeles, Washington $3,500 512,000 Ride the Hurricane $3,500 $12,000 The Story People of Clallam County $2,000 $30,100 The Forest Storytelling Festival $2,000 $30,100 Vertigo Marketing $258,814 5258,814 Visit Port Angeles $258,814 $258,814 The Chamber of Commerce of the City of Port Angeles, Washington $74,591 $74,591 Visitor's Center Operation $74,591 $74,591 Port Orchard $91,855 $167,851 2017 $91,855 $167,851 City of Port Orchard $7,500 $6,689 1,500 1,500 3,000 3,000 27,000 27,000 1,628 1,628 1,000 1,000 2,426 2,426 198 198 150 150 5,000 5,000 215 215 400 400 250 250 176,200 328,272 176,200 328,272 6,500 4,400 2,770 2,770 25 29,694 29,694 14 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Summer Event Foot Ferry Services Port Orchard Say Street Association Marketing and Operations of Event/Vestival Port Orchard Chamber of Commerce Seagull Calling Festival Tourism Promotion Visitor Center Saints Car Club Cruz Sidney Museum and Arts Association Marketing Visit Kitsap Peninsula Annual Marketing Support Services Arthritis Foundation Jingle Bell Run Fathoms 0' Fun Festival, Inc. Marketing & Operations of Events Port Townsend 2017 $7,500 517,100 $17,100 523,875 $1,625 516,000 $ 6,250 52,300 52,300 $5,080 55,080 512,000 512,000 52,000 52,000 522,000 522,000 $6,689 520,610 520,610 $55,081 $3,500 $28,715 522,866 $28,185 528,185 $9,312 59,312 512,000 512,000 $923 $923 535,051 $35,051 6,500 5,000 5,000 76,500 5,000 60,000 11,500 19,000 19,000 5,000 5,000 1,200 1,200 63,000 63,000 5385,925 5376,116 269,458 5385,926 5376,116 269,456 City of Port Townsend 5385,926 5376,116 Artisan Food Festival 53,801 52,729 Centrum Events $17,495 512,562 Chetzemoka Park Facility Rentals 50 $24,645 Farmers Market 586,872 $62,378 Key City Public Theatre 517,374 512,476 Kinetic Sculpture Race 5326 5234 Main Street Events S14,453 $10,378 Port Townsend Film Festival 58,823 56,335 Race to Alaska 52,715 51,949 Rhododendron Festival 513,031 59,357 Steampunk Festival 51,303 $936 Strange Brewfest 52,009 51,442 Victorian Heritage Festival $271 $195 Visitors Center 5121,150 5121,150 Wooden Boat Festival 532,577 523,392 Yule Ball, Salon & Parlour Tours 5271 $195 Cotton Building Facility Rentals 50 529,536 Fort Worden Park 551,510 530,000 Jefferson Co. Fairgrounds Events $11,945 $8,577 Pope Marine Facility Rentals $0 517,650 Paulsbo $137,245 $136,689 2017 5137,245 5136,689 Historic Downtown Poulsbo Association 55,745 $5,746 Comcast Commercials $5,745 $5,746 Poulsbo Marketing Coalition $95,000 $95,000 Year Round Promotion of Poulsbo Events & Attractions 269,458 3,500 18,398 2,000 80,000 15,500 300 13,310 8,000 2,500 11,000 1,200 1,750 250 12,000 30,000 250 10,000 42,500 12,000 5,000 126,050 126,050 4,400 18,800 18,800 140,000 45,000 35,000 60,000 20,000 20,000 22,670 22,670 27,375 27,375 1,027 1,027 94,000 94,000 266,263 25 300 300 2,030 150 500 1,380 15 15 300 300 14 260 260 1,650 150 500 1,000 18 18 285 285 27,375 27,375 2E6,283 266,263 3,500 16,111 1,763 80,000 16,000 300 13,310 8,125 2,500 12,000 1,200 1,850 250 11,376 30,000 250 9,620 42,500 11,000 4,608 154,676 154,676 100 92 100 92 9,417 9,539 9,417 9,539 9,417 9,539 56 56 84 84 1,000 1,141 6 6 87 87 81 81 130 130 140 140 6 6 39 39 2 2 561 561 1 1 7,000 6,981 224 224 1,560 1,504 1,560 1,504 60,300 78,500 595,000 595,000 60,300 78,500 980 980 980 980 Visit Kitsap Peninsula City of Pouisbo Year Round Tourism Marketing Services Support North Kitsap Tourism Coalition Poulsbo North Kitsap Tourism Promotion Liquid Vella Poulsbo Twilight Criterium Prosser 2017 Prosser Chamber of Commerce Art Walk & Wine Gala Beer & Whiskey Festival Bottles, Brews and Barbeques Brewminatti Block Party Lemtober Fest Rising Stars Scottish Fest Tour Prosser Promotional Campaign Benton Co. Museum and Historical Society Rack Cards (Tourist Info) The Great Prosser Balloon Rally The Great Prosser Balloon Rally Pullman 2017 Palouse Summer Series Palouse Summer Series Pullman Youth Baseball Association Pullman Summer Classic Youth Baseball Tournament Tourism Department at the Pullman Chamber of Commerce 4th ofJuly Marketing National Lentil Festival Holiday Fest Operating Expenses Distinguished Young Women of Washington Distinguished Young Women Scholarship Program ASWSU iHeartPullman Benefit Concert City of Pullman Pullman ArtWalk WSU Women's Golf WSU Cougar Cup Puyallup 2017 Northwest Sinfonietta NW Sinfonietta Concert Season Programming Puyallup Antique District Association Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $8,500 $7,943 65,500 $8,500 $7,943 65,500 $4,000 $4,000 250 $4,000 $4,000 250 $98,500 $94,758 32,100 $98,500 $94,758 32,100 $95,300 $94,558 24,100 500 2,500 $3,000 3,000 $4,000 500 $2,000 300 $2,000 300 1,000 $84,300 $94,558 16,000 $200 $200 1,500 $200 $200 1,500 $3,000 6,500 $3,000 6,500 $297,567 $529,898 45,680 $297,567 $529,898 45,680 $10,000 $80,000 4,600 $10,000 $80,000 4,600 $3,525 $5,600 500 $3,525 $5,600 500 $276,758 $375,715 38,000 $6,500 $31,600 5,000 $119,591 $119,591 $40,000 $113,600 32,000 $2,273 $2,530 1,000 $108,394 $108,394 $2,084 $22,000 450 $2,084 $22,000 450 $1,200 533,000 1,200 $1,200 533,000 1,200 $1,500 $1,883 750 $1,500 $1,883 750 $2,500 $11,700 180 $2,500 $11,700 180 $891,8Z5 $4,707,782 673,507 $891,825 $4,707,782 673,507 $20,000 $100,000 1,800 $20,000 $100,000 1,800 $33,000 $43,000 32,000 75,710 75,710 466 466 30,287 30,287 22,287 300 1,000 2,300 150 173 204 1,160 17,000 1,500 1,500 6,500 6,500 45,985 45,985 3,994 3,994 680 680 39,500 6,000 580 505 580 505 19 19 9,960 13,224 9,960 13,224 7,960 10,724 150 200 400 250 180 180 600 6,000 500 500 1,500 1,500 5,240 5,240 4,150 4,150 200 200 740 200 75 125 290 10 104 120 400 9,600 500 500 2,000 2,000 4,698 4,698 3,394 3,394 400 400 740 200 1 i 32,000 1,500 500 40 500 40 1 i 420 420 400 400 818 818 174 174 851,183 851,183 1,358 1,358 32,000 20 20 10 10 10 10 110 110 49,094 49,094 25 25 10 10 17 17 112 112 69,574 69,574 1,750 1,750 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Puyallup Antique District Puyallup Main Street Association Art and Wine Walk Holiday Market Farmers' Market Meeker Days Art and Music Festival Social Media/Marketing Puyallup Public library Festival of Books Puyallup Sumner Chamber of Commerce Puyallup Area Restaurants Marketing Puyallup Visitor Promotions Ready to Rodeo Tacoma South Sound Sports Commission Sports Development Program The Daffodil Festival The Daffodil Parade Arts Downtown Arts Downtown Outdoor Gallery $33,000 $94,965 $8,000 $4,965 $30,000 $31,000 $21,000 $4C,000 $40,000 $67,800 $35,000 $31,750 $1,050 $40,000 $40,000 $33,069 $33,069 $67,455 $60,000 $43,000 $322,549 $19,600 $7,090 $128,493 $146,465 $21,000 $40,000 $40,000 $87,000 535,000 $47,000 55,000 $785,000 5785,000 $35,000 $35,000 567,778 560,323 32,000 300,800 800 100,000 100,000 100,000 32,000 335,800 800 100,000 100,000 135,000 1,750 20 5 1,750 20 5 5 10 5 10 500 500 491 491 Valley Arts Unlimited/Arts Downtown Outdoor Gallery/Bridge Project 57,455 $7,455 Fred Oldfield Center 515,000 5193,502 Fred Oldfield Center $15,000 5193,502 Puyallup Historical Society Meeker Mansion $42,739 $42,739 Meeker Mansion $42,739 $42,739 City of Puyallup 519,782 $19,782 Outdoor Art Gailery(Purchase) $19,782 519,782 City of Puyallup - Pioneer Park Pavilion 5270,816 5270,816 Pioneer Park Pavilion 5202,195 5202,196 Pioneer Park Pavilion Events & Farmers' Market $68,620 568,620 Tacoma Regional Convention & Visitor Bureau dba Travel Tacoma & Pierce County 580,000 $2,633,316 Tourism Destination & Marketing for Puyallup & Pierce County 580,000 52,633,316 Puyallup Sumner Chamber of Commerece 567,200 567,200 Tourism Facility Operations 567,200 $67,200 Quincy 539,600 $75,029 2017 539,600 $75,029 Quincy Valley Chamber of Commerce 513,250 513,250 Quincy Valley Event Promotions 513,250 $13,250 Quincy Valley Historical Society 521,600 $21,600 Reiman -Simmons Museum 521,600 521,600 Quincy Valley Chamber of Commerce and Quincy Valley Tourism Association $3,750 539,087 182,257 182,257 110,000 110,000 30,150 20,150 10,000 6,000 6,000 10,000 10,000 183,670 183,670 115,000 115,000 30,100 20.100 10,000 6,532 6,532 8,157 8,157 45,000 45,000 110 110 230 155 75 450 450 700 700 60,000 60,000 134 134 168 112 56 517 517 562 562 2,540 2,540 3,030 3,030 20 29 20 29 1,500 1,500 640 1,908 1,908 697 Balloon Festival During Farmer Consumer Awareness Day 51,250 57,553 450 450 Pikeminnow Fishing Derber $1,250 $22,650 70 98 Trout Fishing Derby $1,250 58,884 120 149 Pearly Whites Jr Guild 51,000 $1,097 400 425 20 20 29 29 136,575 5,589 136,575 1,500 1,500 5,589 834 834 834 834 2,540 2,540 3,030 3,030 20 29 20 29 1,500 1,500 640 1,908 1,908 697 Balloon Festival During Farmer Consumer Awareness Day 51,250 57,553 450 450 Pikeminnow Fishing Derber $1,250 $22,650 70 98 Trout Fishing Derby $1,250 58,884 120 149 Pearly Whites Jr Guild 51,000 $1,097 400 425 20 20 29 29 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual- Summer ctual Summer Cinema $1,000 Raymond $4,912 2017 $4,912 City of Raymond $4,912 Willapa Harbor Chamber of Commerce $4,912 Redmond $386,886 2017 $386,886 Bullseye Creative Experience Redmond Marketing Campaign City of Redmond Redmond Derby Days Redmond Lights Arts Program /So Bazaar Seco ndStory Repertory Crossfire Foundation Crossfire Challenge Tournament Marymoor Velodrome Association Marymoor Grand Prix Orswell Events $140,000 $140,000 $136,886 $32,097 $32,500 $66,289 $6,000 $20,000 $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 S7,500 $1,092 $2,770 $2,770 $2,770 $2,770 $2,040,262 $2,040,262 $140,000 $140,000 $628,650 $190,000 $155,000 $177,650 $106,000 $500,000 $500,000 400 425 134,450 134,450 216,810 216,810 20,430 20,430 18,257 18,257 33,500 13,500 10,000 $131,000 Overlake Medical Center Labor Day Half & 4 -mile run/walk $2,500 $68,000 Sounders FC Rave Green 9k/5k Run/Walk $5,000 $63,000 VALA Eastside $5,000 $49,779 Redmond Arts Festival $5,000 $49,779 Vedic Cultural Center $5,000 $130,000 Ananda Mele -Joyful Festival of India $5,000 $130,000 Crossfire Select $7,500 $133,000 Crossfire Select Cup $7,500 $133,000 Tom Roehl Foundation - dba NW Flag Football $5,000 $17,733 Flag Football Frenzy - Battle Seattle $5,000 $17,733 Modern Enterprises LLC $20,000 $75,100 Pacific NW Chalk Fest $20,000 $75,100 OneRedmond Foundation $20,000 $55,000 Rain Fest 2017 $20,000 $55,000 Washington Youth Soccer $15,000 $180,000 US Youth Soccer Far West Regional Championships $15,000 $180,000 Renton $292,901 $292,901 2017 $292,901 $292,901 City of Renton $87,901 $87,901 Multicultural Festival $22,901 $22,901 2017 Renton Community Marketing Campaign $65,000 $65,000 Renton Chamber of Commerce $172,000 $172,000 Return to Renton Car Show $5,000 $5,000 Renton City Comic Con "RenCon" $15,000 $15,000 Renton Visitors Center $152,000 $152,000 Tasveer $5,000 $5,000 Tasveer South Asian Film Festival $,000 $5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 2,150 2,150 4,500 69,520 15,000 8,000 34,834 11,686 25,000 25,000 5,190 5,190 3,500 2,000 1,700 2,500 1,800 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 25,000 22,000 25,000 22,000 12,000 14,000 12,000 14,000 800 800 800 800 10,000 50,000 10,000 50,000 1,500 2,500 1,500 2,500 15,000 14,300 15,000 14,300 13,790 15,061 13,790 15,051 1,000 1,600 1,000 1,600 250 1,100 100 150 5,750 5,750 70 70 40 160 137 200 700 200 6,500 6,500 40 100 60 150 150 200 200 1,125 1,125 425 425 200 200 100 100 12,000 12,000 1,769 1,769 75 62 350 350 100 100 1,280 1,280 350 350 100 100 8,300 8,300 4,645 4,645 f 4 7,590 4,000 1,500 2,090 750 750 8,821 3,000 3,000 2,821 560 580 1,509 10 245 1,254 30 30 4,416 4 64 4,348 65 65 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Attuat NW PremierJunior Football & Cheer All Star Weekend API Chaya & Ravishing Women Ravishing Women's Show, Miss India WA reelRenton Seattle Film Summit Republic 2017 Republic Chamber of Commerce Fireworks Prospectors Rays Winter Fest Stonerose Interpretive Center Advertising Expenses Wings Over Republic 18th Annual Wings Over Republic Fly In Visitor &Convention Bureau (VCR) Advertising Tri County Economic Developement Northeast Washington insider App Ferry County Search & Rescue Washington Search & Rescue Conference 2017 Richland 2017 Three Rivers Folklife Society Tumbleweed Music Festival Three Rivers Road Runners Richland Run Fest Tri -Cities Marathon Tri -City Regional Chamber Cool Desert Nights Visit Tri -Cities Destination Marketing Allied Arts Association Art In The Park City of Richland Parks and Public Facilities Columbia Playfield 5th Field, Phase 3 Outdoor Movie Screen Portable Bleachers Portable Chain Link Fence Tri -Cities Geocoin Challenge 2017 City of Richland Parks and Recreatio n Howard Amon Park RiverfrontTrail, Phase 1&2 Washington State University Tri -Cities Legacies of the Manhattan Projectat75 Years Richland Babe Ruth Baseball Organization Richland Babe Ruth Baseball Complex $7,500 $7,500 $5,000 $5,000 $15,500 $15,500 $12,636 $12,636 $4,000 $500 $3,000 $500 $3,386 $3,386 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $250 $250 $1,000 $1,000 $714,809 $7,500 $7,500 $5,000 $5,000 $15,500 $15,500 $212,325 $212,325 $27,450 $13,100 $13,800 $550 $109,000 $109,000 $10,000 $10,000 $6,005 $6,005 $11,250 $11,250 $48,620 $48,620 $4,603,946 $714,809 $4,603,946 $4,000 $33,561 $4,000 $33,561 $3,250 $26,182 $1,250 $10,500 $2,000 $15,682 $10,000 $35,438 $10,000 $35,438 $210,315 $2,332,185 $210,315 $2,332,185 $3,500 $23,705 $3,500 $23,705 $204,744 $530,394 $150,000 $475,000 $6,500 $6,500 $17,974 $17,974 $26,770 $26,770 $3,500 $4,150 $120,000 $303,400 $120,000 $303,400 $3,000 $22,530 $3,000 $22,530 $136,000 $281,000 $136,000 $281,000 1,200 1,200 3,000 3,000 250 250 19,600 19,600 9,500 4,000 4,500 1,000 6,200 6,200 600 600 3,000 3,000 300 300 155,307 155,307 4,000 4,000 800 300 500 15,000 15,000 37,557 37,557 30,000 30,000 700 1,140 1,140 2,600 2,600 340 340 18,600 18,600 8,500 3,800 3,500 1,200 6,199 6,199 650 650 2,302 2,302 669 669 280 280 118,536 118,536 4,000 4,000 785 335 450 15,000 15,000 30,000 30,000 838 100 100 80 80 50 50 8,281 8,281 500 200 200 100 5,271 5,271 120 120 2,100 2,100 290 290 54,586 54,586 400 400 200 100 100 580 580 37,557 37,557 129 129 200 82 82 50 50 32 32 8,154 8,154 600 200 225 175 5,271 5,271 150 150 2,000 2,000 23 23 110 110 7,308 7,308 400 400 185 135 50 65 65 128 128 278 1 700 833 200 273 250 250 163 163 160 180 72 72 Paid Lodging Paid lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual TC Sunrise Rotary Charity/Club SEE3SLAM 3 -ON -3 Basketball Tourney Tri -Cities Water Follies Association Tri -City Water Follies Columbia Cup Ritzville 2017 Ritzville Downtown Development Association Ghost Sign Restoration Ritzville Festivals Association Ritzville Community Float, Truck & Trailer Ritzville Museum Volunteers Marketing Ritzville Ritzville Rodeo Association Advertising Top Hat Motel Advertising Tree Board 1st Ave Beautification City of Ritzville 530 AM Transmitter Office-VIC improvements Ritzville insider Utilities at Burroughs & Deot Museum Wheatland Communities Fair Advertising & Promotion Ritzville Area Chamber of Commerce Events & Promotion Ritzville Downtown Development Kiosk Boots N Brushes Western Artists Memorial Day Art Show San Juan County 55,000 $5,000 $15,000 515,000 580,100 $80,100 $3,000 53,000 55,000 55,000 5750 5750 55,100 $5,100 5750 5750 $2,500 $2,500 526,000 54,000 510,000 $5,500 56,500 55,000 $5,000 525,000 525,000 52,000 52,000 55,000 55,000 51,037,858 $63,248 $63,248 5952,303 $952,303 2,000 2,000 65,000 65,000 2,750 2,750 65,000 65,000 360 360 15,000 15,000 180 180 6,000 6,000 5120,683 $120,683 53,000 53,000 514,400 $14,400 $9,950 59,950 513,100 513,100 58,645 $8,645 500 500 300 _ 300 500 300 500 300 S6,500 56,500 $7,000 57,000 549,888 549,888 51,200 51,200 $7,000 57,000 2017 $1,037,858 Lopez Island Chamber of Commerce 551,595 Visitor Center Office $51,595 Orcas Island Chamber of Commerce 526,850 Orcas Island Chamber of Commerce Visitors Center 526,850 Orcas island Historical Society 533,833 Agricultural Exhibit Shed 57,500 San Juan County Historical Museums Operations Grant 526,333 Orcas Open Arts 520,000 Fourth Annual Orcas Island Film Festival 515,000 Orcas Island Jazz Festival 55,000 San Juan Community Theatre 535,000 Operations - San Juan Community Theatre 535,000 San Juan County Parks & Fair $246,000 Parks & Fairgrounds Operations 5246,000 $3,560,007 571,110 $3,360,007 571,110 5104,000 2,800 5104,000 2,800 5120,000 13,000 5120,000 13,000 5130,000 20,000 520,000 10,000 5110,000 10,000 5118,180 1,280 $95,000 575 523,180 705 5541,030 8,930 5541,050 8,930 $1,380,200 121,000 $1,,380,200 121,000 544,436 544,436 3,015 3,015 13,000 13,000 20,900 10,450 10,450 1,787 1,125 662 13,352 13,352 85,435 85,435 304,460 304,460 298,388 298,388 10,800 5,400 5,400 363 213 150 232 232 56,950 56,950 11,278 5,639 5,639 575 375 Z00 373 373 22,984 22.984 I Chamber of Commerce Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual $26,850 $143,590 19,000 23,825 90 19,000 23.825 Chamber of Commerce Operations 526,850 $143, San Juan Islands Visitors bureau 5444,074 5444,074 2017 Destination Marketing 5444,074 5444,074 TEDx San Juan Island 510,000 532,000 TEDx San Juan Island 2017 510,000 $32,000 San Juan Islands Museum of Art (SJIMA) $7,950 528,000 2017 Exhibition Schedule 57,950 528,000 Lopez Center for Community and the Arts 549,500 5190,700 Marketing and Operations 535,000 5175,700 Asphalt pathways and water system 514,500 515,000 Pacific Islands Research Institute dba Friday Harbor Film Festival $8,740 $114,500 Friday Harbor Film Festival $8,740 5114,500 Eastsound Off Leash Dog Park dba Orcas Off Leash Area 521,000 $45,000 Orcas Off Leash Area $21,000 $45,000 San Juan Islands Sculpture Park LLC 53,800 516,414 Quiet Season Campaign 53,800 515,414 Lopez Island Historical Museum 526,333 580,799 San Juan County Historical Museums Operations Grant 526,333 580,799 San Juan Historical Museum 526,333 571,500 San Juan County Historical Museums Operations Grant $26,333 571,500 SeaTac $1,176,180 56,206,912 2017 51,176,180 $6,206,912 Museum of Flight $60,000 $1,124,505 Museum of Flight tourism promotion $60,000 51,124,505 Northwest Symphony Orchestra 55,000 5161,915 NWSOConcert Series 55,000 5161,915 Seattle Southside Regional Tourism Authority 5715,000 54,520,812 Destination Marketing 5715,000 54,520,812 City of SeaTac Community & Economic Development Department 5392,180 $391,180 City of SeaTac Tourism & Economic Development Program 5391,180 5391,180 55,000 58,500 Highline Botanical Garden Foundation 301,500 301,500 500 500 11,000 11,000 11,700 11,700 302,774 302,774 589 589 6,032 6,032 12,106 12,106 226,000 227,080 226,000 227,080 40 21 21 1,114 1,114 1,135 1,135 40 2,000 2,000 700 700 I 1 1 1,200 1,200 5,000 5,000 40,000 40,000 4,700 4,700 9,500 9,500 1,166,856 1,166,856 625,000 625,000 5,200 5,200 535,756 535,756 900 1,191 1,191 4,380 4,380 42,000 42,000 4,950 4,950 9,100 9,100 1,674,024 1,674,024 580,500 580,500 5,600 5,600 541,462 541,462 541,462 75 75 88 88 2,300 2,300 5,000 5,000 902,787 902,787 5,500 5,500 30 3D 770,312 770,312 126,870 26,040 26,040 2,400 2,400 5,300 5,300 1,830,982 1,830,982 5,097 5,097 30 30 912,910 912,910 912,910 541,462 126,870 912,910 5,000 75 35 Tourism Promotion and Marketing: Weddings in Highline SeaTac Botanical Garden, and Quinceanerras Celebrations Venue $5,000 58,500 900 5,000 75 35 Sedro-Woolley 522,100 $177,133 431,339 431,339 25,421 25,421 2017 522,100 5177,133 431,339 431,339 25,421 25,421 Sedro-Woolley Chamber of Commerce 510,000 $38,801 25,000 25,000 500 500 Visitor & Activity Center 510,000 538,801 25,000 25,000 500 500 Sedro-Woolley Museum 51,750 55,000 3,000 3,000 240 240 Museum all year 51,750 55,000 3,000 3,000 240 240 Skagit Valley Tulip Festival $100 558,432 289,019 289,019 23,121 23,121 Skagit Valley Tulip Festival 5100 $58,432 289,019 289,019 23,121 23,121 Sedro-Woolley Loggerodeo, Inc. 55,000 $60,000 75,000 75,000 1,000 1,000 Loggerodeo 4th of July Celebration $5,000 560,000 75,000 75,000 1,000 1,000 Sedro-Wooley Farmers Market 52,000 $4,200 4,070 4,070 160 150 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Sedro-Woolley Farmers Market Hidden Wave Boadshop Skate Competition Sedro-Woolley Rodeo Foundation Summer Concert Series Selah 2017 City of Selah Yakima Valley Sports Commission Selah Community Days Association Selah Community Days Sequim_ 2017 Boys & Girls Club of the Olympic Peninsula Sequim Lavender Weekend Shuttle Bus PartAngeles Marathon Association North Olympic Discovery Marathon Sequim Dungeness Valley Chamber of Commerce Visitor Information Center 5equim Irrigation Festival Sequim Irrigation Festival Sequim Lavender Farmers Association Tour de Lavender Sequim Lavender Growers Association Sequim Lavender Festival The City of Sequim Destination Marketing George Washington Society Northwest Colonial Festival Olympic Peninsula Bicycle Alliance Olympicpeninsulacycling.com website Sequim Museum and Arts Sequim Prairie Nights Shelton 2017 Kristmas Town Kiwanis Bluegrass from the Forest Mason County Forest Festival Association Forest Festival Mason County Historical Society Historical Museum Downtown Car Show/Pie and Ice Cream Social Mason County Chamber of Commerce Tourism & Visitor Information Skagit County 2017 Anacortes Arts Festival $2,000 $500 $500 $2,750 $2,750 $5,500 $5,500 $3,000 $3,000 $2,500 $2,500 $251,205 $251,205 $2,350 $2,350 $1,000 $1,000 $80,090 $80,090 $13,324 $13,324 $1,500 $1,500 $6,085 $6,085 $143,106 $143,106 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $750 $750 $43,550 $43,550 $7,000 $7,000 $8,000 $8,000 $11,800 $10,000 $1,800 $16,750 $16,750 $313,900 $4,200 $700 $700 $10,000 $10,000 $5,500 $5,500 $3,000 $3,000 $2,500 $2,500 $726,105 $726,105 $4,700 54,700 5215,910 $215,910 $80,090 $80,090 5132,749 5132,749 $15,144 $15,144 595,108 595,108 5143,106 $143,106 522,384 522,384 59,369 $9,369 57,545 $7,545 $234,851 5234,851 $29,562 $29,562 558,750 $58,750 $69,875 $65,875 54,000 $76,664 $76,664 $3,004,480 4,070 250 250 35,000 35,000 4,070 250 250 35,000 35,000 160 400 400 160 400 400 56,630 63,160 56,630 63,160 16,621 16,564 16,621 16,564 9,820 10,600 9,820 10,600 4,830 5,250 4,830 5,250 11,000 11,500 11,000 11,500 320 428 320 428 30,000 35,000 30,000 35,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 174 181 174 181 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 1,990 1,632 1,990 1,632 417 417 83 83 3,500 4,000 3,500 4,000 21,618 19,613 21,618 19,613 1,950 2,150 1,950 2,150 12,000 10,300 12,000 10,300 5,300 4,670 3,300 3,170 2,000 1,500 2,368 2,493 2,368 2,493 2,111,435 1,968,728 5313,900 53,004,480 2,111,435 1,968,728 55,000 58,873 90,000 95,000 200 50 200 50 1,864 1,887 1,864 1,887 200 240 200 240 400 340 400 340 80 86 50 60 30 26 1,184 1,221 1,184 1,221 523,900 521,848 523,900 521,848 4,000 4,300 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Anacortes Arts Festival Cascade Days Cascade Days Celtic Arts Foundation Skagit Valley Highland Games & Celtic Festival Children's Museum of Skagit County Year Round Activities and Events Concrete Chamber of Commerce Fall & Winter in Eastern Skagit County Concrete Heritage Museum Association Heritage Museum Heritage Flight Museum Heritage Flight Museum Lincoln Theatre Center Foundation Lincoln Theatre Northwest Agriculture Business Center 2017 Grain Gathering Sedro-Woolley Museum Sedro-Woolley Museum Sedro-Woolley Riding Club Sedro-Woolley Rodeo Shakespeare Northwest Association Skagit River Shakespeare Festival Skagit Artists Together Skagit Artist Together Studio Tour 2017 Skagit County Fairgrounds Skagit County Fairgrounds & Events Skagit County Historical Museum Skagit County Historical Museum Skagit County Parks & Recreation Recreation Guide Basketball Tournament Series Skagit River Bald Eagle Awareness Team Skagit River Bald Eagle Interpretive Center Skagit Valley Festival of Family Farms Skagit Valley Festival of Family Farms Skagit Valley Tulip Festival Skagit Valley Tulip Festival Tulip Festival- Roundabout & Flagging Economic Development Alliance of Skagit County (EDASC) Formation of TPA Skagit County Parks Howard Miller Steelhead Park McIntyre Hall PACO/Skagit Valley College McIntyre Hall Events & Facility Advertising Museum of Northwest Art (MoNA) Museum of Northwest Art (MoNA) $5,000 $6,000 $6,000 $3,000 $3,000 $5,000 55,000 $15,000 $15,000 $1,500 $1,500 55,000 $5,000 $3,000 53,000 52,500 52,500 51,500 51,500 52,000 $2,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 515,000 $15,000 567,000 $67,000 522,900 59,100 513,800 $5,000 55,000 $20,000 520,000 535,000 510,500 $24,500 515,000 515,000 525,000 58,873 518,875 518,875 5114,386 5114,386 5135,000 5135,000 $15,625 515,625 51,498 51,498 $550,000 5550,000 5670,972 5670,972 559,695 $59,695 55,000 55,000 $29,850 529,850 $14,000 514,000 $9,773 59,773 $35Z302 5352,302 5268,410 5268,410 568,080 59,825 558,255 $23,000 $23,000 $34,677 $34,677 $86,307 561,807 $24,500 515,000 $15,000 $272,563 525,000 5272,563 515,000 $78,220 515,000 $78,220 $6,600 5136,700 51,600 584,500 90,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 85,000 85,000 6,900 6,900 420 420 3,500 3,500 26,500 26,500 250 250 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 750 750 550 550 75,000 75,000 7,000 7,000 29,020 23,000 6,020 5,000 5,000 23,900 23,900 700,000 350,000 350,000 95,000 4,500 4,500 12,000 12,000 57,500 57,500 6,700 6,700 360 360 2,372 2,372 32,000 32,000 290 290 3,000 3,000 2,900 2,900 575 575 659 659 77,000 77,000 5,452 5,452 30,070 23,000 7,070 3,500 3,500 23,229 23,229 578,038 289,019 289,019 4,000 300 300 400 400 5,500 6,500 1,500 1,500 55 65 500 500 1,025 1,025 250 250 250 250 50 S0 60 60 60 60 15,000 15,000 800 800 12,570 9,485 3,085 2,000 2,000 2,400 2,400 23,100 21,000 2,100 4,300 246 246 500 500 896 896 850 850 15 15 184 184 1,052 1,052 144 144 240 240 20 20 20 20 18 18 15,500 15,500 500 600 7,963 3,580 4,383 400 400 2,810 2,810 31,444 15,722 15,722 114,975 114,975 32,626 32,626 114,975 114,975 32,626 32,626 40,000 37,044 900 935 40,000 37,044 900 935 17,350 15,846 954 975 17,350 15,846 954 975 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actuai Projected Actual William Cumming Mural Restoration 55,000 $52,200 Skagit County Chamber Executive Directors Association (SCCEDA) $35,200 Skagit Valley Tourism 535,200 WSU Skagit County Extension Master Gardeners 5700 Step -on -Guide Bus &Garden Tours 5700 Skamania County 581,500 2017 Skamania County Chamber of Commerce Chamber Operation Skamania County Community Events and Recreation Skamania County Fair and Timber Carnival Country Chic Skamania County Senior Services Oog Mountain Shuttle Skamania County Chamber of Commerce /Wind River Business Association Bigfoot Bash at Logtoberfest Columbia Gorge Interpretive Center Musium Cultural History Musium Snohomish $81,500 $45,000 545,000 $7,000 55,000 52,000 $2,500 $2,500 57,000 57,000 $20,000 $20,000 537,000 2017 537,000 Historic Downtown Snohomish 535,500 Television Ads $35,500 Snohomish County Tourism Bureau 51,500 Visitor Information Center 51,500 Snohomish County $1,938,054 2017 $1,938,054 Snohomish County 51,928,054 De Miero Jazz Festival 52,000 Arlington Arts Council 513,000 Arlington Fly In 510,000 Arlington Smokey Point Chamber -Cascade Loop Project Art Council of Snohomish County -Schack Art Center Ca ma no Arts Association -Island Artists Tour Cascade Loop Association -2017 Travel Guide 534,658 $34,658 51,016 51,016 5778,499 $778,499 5250,092 $250,092 565,305 561,305 54,000 529,014 529,014 $13,187 513,187 5420,900 5420,900 537,000 537,000 $35,500 535,500 51,500 51,500 $5,184,346 $6,184,346 56,165,845 $95,700 $26,000 536,828 862,920 852,920 1,400 1,400 43,835 43,835 9,635 9,535 6,700 6,000 700 2,000 2,000 1,500 1,500 24,000 24,000 34,500 34,500 30,000 30,000 4,500 4,500 1,864,679 1,864,679 1,860,579 2,500 5,000 25,000 $8,000 512,398 3,600 530,000 $305,295 50,000 513,000 542,475 5,000 $20,426 5100,366 151,992 City of Edmonds, Edmonds Art Commission -2017 Write on the Sound Conference 55,500 514,243 City of MITI Creek -Tourism Website Project $10,000 516,744 City of Snohomish -Kayak Storage Rack $3,700 $4,700 City of Stanwood -Discover Port Susan Visitor Guide 58,000 $42,000 Downtown Snohomish Association Promotion 517,700 574,340 Edmonds Center for the Arts -2017 Season Promotion $15,000 5102,500 Edmonds Public Facilities District -Roof Renovation $225,000 5382,315 Everett Public Facilities District -Retractable Seating Replacement Evergreen State Fairgrounds - Wayfinding Signage Friends of Flying Heritage 5125,000 5430,000 540,000 $90,000 545,000 5105,850 300 12,000 100 6,500 30,000 65,000 863,918 863,918 1,800 1,800 41,012 41,012 9,313 9,313 5,500 5,000 500 2,504 2,504 1,100 1,100 22,595 22,595 4,214 4,214 418,200 418,200 390 390 14,245 14,245 3,275 3,275 1,600 1,500 100 20 20 150 150 9,200 9,200 4,214 4,214 1,672,446 71,903 1,672,446 71,903 1,672,446 71,783 150 100 800 1,950 31,400 51,200 5,000 252,887 329 30,000 78,000 240 600 200 30,812 95 10 20 750 40 1,600 419,560 419,560 550 550 13,534 13,534 3,260 3,260 1,475 1,400 75 5 5 140 140 8,654 8,654 54D 500 60 60 440 440 73,297 73,297 73,297 4 468 665 350 39,961 91 9 1;200 800,000 575,000 250 8,000 30,000 47,500 3,000 4,912 Paid lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Historic Flight Foundation -2017 Special Events/Mrktg Plan Imagine Childrens Museum -2017 Awareness Campaign KSER Foundation -Public Radio Tourism Ads $30,300 $37,500 18,000 8,500 1,000 $15,000 $25,637 213,000 $20,000 554,575 30,000 Lynnwood Public Facilities District -Lynnwood Convention Center Site Development $125,000 $839,798 Marysville Tulalip Chamber-VIC Technology Upgrade $5,000 $13,774 4,767 Mill Creek Business Association -Festival 510,000 575,073 25,000 233,668 2,130 150 4,D46 Monroe Chamber of Commerce -2017 Promotion & Mrktg Mountlake Terrace Friends of the Arts Mukilteo Chamber of Commerce -Tourism WayfindingSign Olympic Ballet Theatre Sky Valley Chamber of Commerce- Events & Activities Promotion Sky Valley Events and Activities Magazine 55,500 $14,183 20,300 53,825 514,274 2,000 $3,000 $8,625 3,300 $15,000 5268,324 7,000 54,000 55,580 30,000 $9,300 517,900 30,000 Snohomish County Tourism Bureau -2017 Tourism Budget $999,878 $975,519 Snohomish Festival of Pumpkins 519,500 561,500 Stanwood Camano Arts Guild -Art by the Bay Festival $10,000 548,300 Stanwood Chamber of Commerce -Winter Festival Glass Quest 510,925 $28,100 Stillaguamish Valley Genealogy Society -Conference 59,000 5129,000 Town of Darrington -Destination Darrington Magazine $11,800 518,800 Village Theatre in Everett -Promoting Five Shows 530,000 51,647,629 Sky Valley Arts Council 510,000 $18,500 Startup Event Center Identification/Signing 510,000 $18,500 snaquatmie $45,000 $38,525 2017 545,000 $38,525 Northwest Railway Museum -Railroad Days 524,000 $20,294 Railroad Days 524,000 520,294 Snoqualmie Valley Historical Society $1,000 5941 Tourist Marketing 51,000 5941 Snoqualmie Visitor Information Center $20,000 $17,290 Visitor Information 520,000 517,290 Soap Lake $100,050 $91,406 1,500 20 500 5,450 100 12 330 19,160 330 2017 $100,050 591,406 MasquersTheater $2,500 52,500 Annual Advertising $2,500 52,500 Soap Lake Chamber of Commerce $83,800 $75,383 Winterfest $500 $500 Branding and Marketing 561,300 556,332 Smokian Days 52,000 53,363 Soap Lake Wine and Music Fest 520,000 515,188 Cannabus Alliance $2,250 $2,250 220,000 245,000 6,000 9,100 500 400 8,000 55,420 4,000 4,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 6,500 387 40 98 950 59,075 51,682 51,682 46,574 46,574 100 460 980 7,126 120 120 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 250 124 11,329 3,903 3,903 3,800 3,800 1,078 1,078 4,030 4,030 10,979 10,979 10 10 93 93 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,979 I 5,000 10,979 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Cannabus Kickball Tournament $2,250 Seattle Drag & Ski Sprint Boat Association $6,500 Hydroplane Regatta 56,500 Soap Lake Pow Wow Association 53,000 Soap Lake Pow Wow $3,000 Soap Lake Visitor's Center 52,000 Staffing 52,000 South Bend $8,940 2017 City of South Bend City of South Bend Spokane 2017 Eastern Washington University Get Lit Native Project 2017 Gathering at the Fails Powwow Northwest Museum of Arts & Culture ArtFest 2017 Spokane Lilac Festival Association Armed Forces Torchlight Parade & Related Events Spokane Symphony Society Holiday Symphony Concerts Connoisseur Concerts Northwest Bach Festival Spokane Regional Sports Commision Regional Sports Promotions Tinnabuiation Lt0 Tinnabulation Music Festival Spokane County 2017 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center $8,940 $8,940 58,940 $84,800 $84,800 $5,000 $5,000 $4,800 54,800 $6,090 56,000 $10,000 510,000 $6,000 56,000 $7,000 $7,000 $40,000 540,000 $6,000 $6,000 $303,193 $303,193 $303,193 52,250 $6,500 $6,500 $3,000 53,000 51,773 51,773 $8,940 $8,940 $8,940 $8,940 $1,592,820 51,592,820 650 525 650 525 650 525 650 525 44,000 _ 369,981 44,000 369,981 2,200 2,200 5,000 3,500 5,000 3,500 25,000 30,000 25,000 30,000 175,000 175,000 4,000 4,280 4,000 4,280 3,000 4,115 3,000 4,115 146,212 146,212 7,000 4,674 7,000 4,674 $71,222 571,222 560,000 $60,000 $1,461,598 $1,461,598 $612,729 $612,729 5612,729 Spokane County Fair & Expo Center Improvements Debt Service 5303,193 5612,729 Spokane Valley 5351,230 $3,432,658 924,297 995,948 246,046 275,712 2017 $351,230 53,432,658 924,297 995,948 246,046 275,712 Spokane Sports Commission 5115,000 51,436,000 65,000 146,212 45,000 52,322 Marketing $115,000 51,436,000 65,000 145,212 45,000 52,322 Spokane Valley Heritage Museum $9,500 $37,500 4,500 2,545 150 145 Marketing for Facility 59,500 $37,500 4,500 2,545 150 145 Visit Spokane 5103,130 5929,158 413,297 455,374 173,456 191,890 Tourism Marketing and Promotion 5103,130 5929,158 413,297 455,374 173,456 191,890 Valleyfest 536,600 5403,000 61,500 33,200 3,150 1,120 Valleyfest $31,600 $363,000 60,000 33,000 3,000 1,100 Cycle Celebration 55,000 540,000 1,500 200 150 20 Spokane County Fair and Expo Center Interstate Fair 547,000 5132,000 200,000 178,462 3,500 9,218 Interstate Fair 547,000 $132,000 200,n00 172,482 3,500 9,218 225 225 225 225 58,950 58,950 2,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 200 200 55,000 55,000 750 750 175 175 175 175 101,218 101,218 400 400 1,925 1,925 1,200 1.200 43,750 43,750 1,012 1,012 400 400 51,831 51,831 700 700 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual HUB Sports Center Sports Venue and Marketing Sprague 2017 Sprague Chamber of Commerce Sprague Days Stevens County 2017 Valley Community Fair Community FaIr Repairs Tri -County Economic Development District Licensing 468 Insider Tourism App Arden Old Timers Arden Rodeo Grounds Jerry Maestas Sponsor A -Youth Organization Area 36 Blues & Music Benefit for Shriners Hospital Tri County Music Camp &Jam 2017 Deer Park Fair Association dba Clayton Clayton Rodeo and Clayton Fair Deer Park Fair Association dba Clayton Fair Electrical upgrade Stevens County Fairgrounds and Ag Trade Center operations Springdale Fronitier Days Association Grounds repairs Stevenson 540,000 540,000 5113 5113 $113 5113 $36,237 $36,237 51,600 $1,100 5500 52,500 52,500 $7,500 57,500 5800 5800 51,000 51,000 51,500 $1,500 $5,000 55,000 514,500 514,500 51,837 51,837 $463,350 2017 $463,350 City of Stevenson 5185,000 21 NE Cascades Waterfront Park 5185,000 Skamania County Chamber of Commerce 585,000 Marketing, Promotion & Visit Information Services $85,000 Skamania County Senior Services $2,500 Seasonal Weekend Transit 52,500 Stevenson Business Association 520,500 4th ofJuly Fireworks $6,500 Christmas in the Gorge $5,000 Gorge Blues & Brows Festival $9,000 BOTG KiteFest 53,000 Bridge of the Gods Kite Festival 53,000 Port of Skamania 524,400 East Point Signage 56,400 Stevenson Landing Sign 518,000 Walking Man Brew Pub $7,800 Fools Fest 53,800 Hoptoberfest 54,000 5495,000 5495,000 180,000 180,000 180,155 180,155 20,790 20,790 21,017 21,017 5113 5113 5113 5113 5203,231 $203,231 $14,030 51,530 512,500 $7,500 57,500 $7,497 57,497 53,777 53,777 57,500 57,500 510,000 510,000 55,090 55,090 5146,000 5146,000 $1,837 51,837 $856,227 5856,227 5184,005 5184,005 5237,338 5237,338 $29,014 529,014 $62,548 $5,963 59,893 $46,692 $9,963 14,000 14,000 3,000 3,000 14,349 14,349 2,500 2,500 50 30 50 30 250 250 750 750 10,000 10,000 170 170 709 709 10,970 10,970 25 25 25 25 5 5 25 25 41,905 45,209 41,905 45,209 9,327 6,735 9,327 6,735 2,000 2,000 4,750 750 1,500 2,500 300 59,963 300 519,767 51,931 $17,835 510,361 55,611 54,750 7,313 7,313 2,504 2,504 4,549 810 1,758 1,981 350 350 3,535 3,535 20 20 1,550 300 375 875 20 20 2,614 2,614 5 5 1,549 266 435 848 15 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual DsaverYour Northwest Lodge $17,250 $13,//6 16,000 17,389 Forest Service Information Center at Skamania Lodge $17,250 $13,776 16,000 17,389 Waterwalker $5,000 523,000 Gorge Outrigger Race $5,000 $23,000 Skamania County Community Education and Recreation 514,000 5147,305 Gorgegrass - Bluegrass Festival 59,000 $86,000 Skamania County Fair 55,000 $61,305 Stevenson Downtown Association $30,000 530,000 Mainstreet Association $30,000 530,000 Columbia Gorge Interpretive Center 555,000 567,500 Multiple CGIC Events 555,000 567,500 Stevenson -Carson School District $5,000 $4,992 Promotion of Stevenson Community Pool 55,000 54,992 Stevenson Community Garden 54,500 $4,488 Public Outreach through a Community Demonstration Garden 54,500 54,488 Stevenson Farmers' Market 51,000 55,370 Stevenson Farmers' Market $1,000 55,370 Clark and Lewie's Restaurant $3,400 56,800 Stevenson Waterfront Music Festival $3,400 $6,800 Sumas $2,000 $9,000 2017 $2,000 $9,000 City of Sumas $2,000 59,000 Sumas Community Days Fireworks 52,000 59,000 Sunnyside 5106,081 $290,491 2017 5106,081 $290,491 American Legion Post73 517,000 $36,000 Jerry Taylor Veterans Plaza 517,000 $36,000 Sort 4 the Cause 53,500 5118,307 Sort 4 the Cause $3,500 $118,307 Yakima Valley Tourism 514,337 514,337 Tourism Marketing &Advertising Coordination 514,337 514,337 City of Sunnyside/YVTourism 522,000 522,000 2017 Marketing Sunnyside Campaign 522,000 522,000 A&A Promotions LLC $25,000 575,000 Cinco de Mayo Festival 525,000 575,000 Sunnyside Rotary $10,000 510,000 Lighted Farm Implement Parade 510,000 510,000 Miss Sunnyside $14,244 514,847 Sunshine Days $6,244 $6,244 Miss Sunnyside Community Float $8,000 $8,603 Tacoma _ 54,560,097 $4,560,097 2017 54,560,097 54,560,097 City of Tacoma 54,560,097 $4,560,097 Greater Tacoma Convention Center $4,560,097 $4,560,097 Thurston County $30,000 $522,470 2017 530,000 $522,470 43,500 41,181 5,700 4,370 900 900 15,000 10,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 5,000 850 850 3,300 1,800 1,500 950 950 1,400 1,400 50 50 168 168 17 17 56 56 243 111 243 111 2,705 2,705 35 200 35 6,143 6,143 15 15 50 50 168 168 17 17 56 56 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 58,911 63,951 58,911 63,951 200 140 5 200 140 5 300 400 20 40 300 400 20 40 16,411 16,411 1 16,411 16,411 1 25,000 30,000 100 25,000 30,000 100 15,000 15,000 30 15,000 15,000 30 2,000 2,000 40 1,000 1,000 20 1,000 1,000 20 40 40 40 40 196 196 40 40 40 40 121 121 1 1 20 20 30 30 30 10 20 43,500 41,181 5,700 4,370 243 111 243 111 200 35 200 35 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 58,911 63,951 58,911 63,951 200 140 5 200 140 5 300 400 20 40 300 400 20 40 16,411 16,411 1 16,411 16,411 1 25,000 30,000 100 25,000 30,000 100 15,000 15,000 30 15,000 15,000 30 2,000 2,000 40 1,000 1,000 20 1,000 1,000 20 40 40 40 40 196 196 40 40 40 40 121 121 1 1 20 20 30 30 30 10 20 43,500 41,181 5,700 4,370 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Thurston County Thurston County Fair 2017 Dragon Boat Festival Thurston County Olympic Air Show Washington State Senior Games Toledo 2017 Toledo Park Board park maintenance Tonasket 2017 Tonasket Airport Improvement Cub Fathers Day Fly in Tonasket Chamber of Commerce Founders Day and Winter Fest Tonasket Comancheros Founders Day Rodeo, Tractor Pull, Demo Derby Tonasket Visitor and Business Resource Center Visitor Center Community Cultural Center of Tonasket 2017 Activities Okanogan/Ferry County Chapter Wash Pilots Association N.W. Aviation Conference Trade Show Toppenish 2017 Central Washington Junior Livestock Show Central Washington Junior Livestock Show City of Toppenish City of Toppenish Toppenish Chamber of Commerce Toppenish Chamber of Commerce Yakima Valley Rail and Steam Museum Association Yakima Valley Rail and Steam Museum Association Yakima Valley Visitors and Convention Bureau dba Yakima Valley Tourism Tukwila $24,000 519,000 $5,000 $6,000 52,000 94,000 $77 977 977 977 $9,550 $9,550 $600 $600 $550 $550 51,750 51,750 $5,500 95,462 55,500 55,462 $550 $550 $550 $550 $600 $600 5600 $600 $77,215 975,391 $77,215 $76,391 52,359 52,359 52,359 $2,359 515,409 $14,585 915,409 914,585 943,100 543,100 543,100 943,100 $5,852 95,852 55,852 95,852 $10,497 510,497 910,497 510,497 $545,101 $8,201,565 $256,000 9148,000 5108,000 9266,470 9126,470 $140,000 5100 $100 9100 9100 97,709 $7,709 $538 $538 $559 $559 37,500 30,000 7,500 6,000 6,000 200 200 200 200 2017 $545,101 $8,201,565 Museum of Flight 550,000 $2,030,000 Museum of Flight Marketing and Event Support 950,000 $2,030,000 Starfire Sports $42,000 $66,000 2017 Tournament Sponsorship $42,000 $66,000 City of Tukwila 5183,101 5187,986 Administration of Lodging Tax Funds 553,176 953,176 City of Tukwila Tourism Branding Project {Southcenter Area, formally called "Day Marketing in 2016 Report." $90,000 52 Game Sponsorship $15,115 $110,000 47,794 47,794 540 540 15,000 15,000 15,850 15,850 5,060 5,060 11,344 11,344 2,357,756 2,357,756 570,000 570,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 2,000 27,431 21,431 6,000 13,750 8,250 5,500 230 230 230 230 18,060 18,060 550 550 200 200 4,325 4,325 860 860 125 125 12,000 12,000 36,414 36,414 520 520 15,000 15,000 9,546 9,546 2,420 2,420 8,928 8,928 2,375,858 2,375,858 582,910 582,910 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,486 5,100 4,800 300 600 3,830 3,430 400 540 - T 600 540 9,614 9,614 50 50 2,478 2,478 3 3 30 30 1,730 1,730 15 15 700 700 7,509 7,509 25 25 3,750 936 3,750 936 142 2,084 142 2,084 5,672 4,464 5,672 4,464 127,858 149,981 127,858 149,981 7,000 7,196 7,000 7,196 4,000 3,900 4,000 3,900 50 2,000 1,486 50 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Southcenter 50 Planning Seattle Southside Regional Tourism Authority (SSRTA) General Operations Tumwater $24,810 $270,000 $270,000 $309,445 2017 City of Tumwater Tumwater Artesian Brewfest Craft Brewing and Distilling Center Historic Building and Operations Old Brewhouse Emergency Repairs Greater Olympia Dixieland Jazz Society America's Classic Jazz Festival Olympia Lacey Tumwater Visitor and Convention Bureau Tourism Promotion Olympia Tumwater Foundation Historical/Cultural Activities Olympic Flight Museum Olympic Air Show Saint Martin's University 2017 12th Annual Dragon Boat Festival The Washington Center for the Performing Arts The Washington Center Presenting Season 2017 Tumwater Downtown Association Artesian Festival Fireworks and 4th of July Parade Tumwater Historical Association Historical Events and Activities Washington Distillers Guild South Sound Spirit Gathering 2017 Washington State Senior Games Washington State Senior Games Wolf Haven International Wolf Haven International Advertising Tumwater Soccer Club 38th Annual Kick in the Grass Soccer Tournament WSU Jefferson County Extension Cascadia Grains Conference 2017 Lakefair Run Organization Trials Legacy Marathon and Lakefair Runs Tumwater Marching Band Festival Turnwater Marching Band Festival $309,445 $100,725 $7,440 $20,000 $60,000 $13,285 $4,760 $4,760 $31,360 $31,360 $60,000 $60,000 $32,440 $32,440 $5,080 $5,080 $8,100 $8,100 $15,140 $15,140 $4,650 $4,650 $8,970 $8,970 $15,000 $15,000 $5,920 $6,920 $8,100 $8,100 $4,700 $4,700 $1,000 $1,000 $2,500 $2,500 Twisp $25,251 2017 $25,251 Twisp Chamber of Commerce $25,251 Visitor Information Center $6,000 Advertising/Outreach $10,251 Tourism/Promotion $9,000 Union Gap $334,1-57 $24,810 $5,917,579 $5,917,579 $4,495,207 $4,495,207 $149,039 $65,000 $10,753 $60,000 $13,285 $187,963 $187,963 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $60,000 $60,000 $126,470 $126,470 $90,000 $90,000 $2,100,000 $2,100,000 $38,540 $38,540 $3,941 $3,941 $7,491 $7,491 $140,000 $140,000 $44,779 $44,779 $45,346 $45,346 $51,530 $51,530 $31,435 $31,435 $18,673 $18,673 $31,251 $31,251 $31,251 $5,000 $13,251 $12,000 $320,910 535,756 535,756 443,492 443,492 7,375 4,100 3,000 200 75 4,500 4,500 31,791 31,791 251,000 251,000 6,861 6,861 6,000 6,000 100,000 100,000 13,000 13,000 3,025 3,025 450 450 1,000 1,000 12,000 12,000 3,500 3,500 290 290 200 200 2,500 2,500 541,462 116,808 138,885 541,462 116,808 138,885 446,191 9,254,075 10,179,021 446,191 9,254,075 10,179,021 6,718 200 206 2,769 200 93 2,769 93 180 1,000 4,300 4,300 24,000 24,000 256,500 256,500 8,250 8,250 5,500 5,500 100,000 100,000 13,500 13,500 2,500 2,500 158 158 1,750 1,750 13,320 13,320 6,550 6,550 412 412 33 33 2,700 2,700 10,420 10,420 10,420 10,420 20 1,697 1,550 1,697 1,550 9,247,500 10,172,250 9,247,500 10,172,250 377 385 377 385 338 439 338 439 300 320 300 320 1,540 1,400 1,540 1,400 10 10 10 10 45 45 45 45 150 3 150 3 250 476 250 476 750 750 750 750 750 1,064 750 1,064 66 91 66 91 100 17 100 17 2 15 2 15 670,440 734,58, 67,385 270,087 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual 2017 City of Union Gap Administrative Service Charges State Fair Park State Fair Park Yakima Valley Tourism Union Gap Marketing - Media Buys Union Gap Marketing-YVT Management Fees Olde Yakima Letterpress Museum Ben Franklin Live Central Washington Agricultural Museum Central Washington Agricultural Museum Grant.). Hunt Event Marketin Oid Town Days & Civil War Reenactment Union Gap Old Town Days Fullbright Park Full bright park Entrance Improvement Agricultural Museum Museum Utilities Power Show Power Show Advertising Sozo Sozo Facility Improvements Yakima Valley Sports Commission Yakima Valley Sports Commission Sports Comm WIAA Bid Fees Vancouver 2017 City of Vancouver Downtown Pedestrian Wayfind Signs - Phase I Independence Day at Fort Vancouver Waterfront Park Bravo! Vancouver 20th Anniversary Vancouver Wine&Jazz Festival Downtown Redevlopment Authority Bond payment - Hotel and Convention Center Visit Vancouver USA Destination Services Responsive Website Upgrade Regional Tourism Advertising Seasonal Travel Marketing Campaign South Sound Tourism Marketing Campaign Vancouver Downtown Association Flower Baskets, Transit Ads and Tourism Map Portland Vancouver Rowing Association Hosted Rowing Regattas Clark County Historical Society and Museum 5334,157 $320,910 670,440 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 55,000 - 522,500 522,500 575,000 621,992 55,000 60,000 522,500 $22,500 575,000 621,992 55,000 60,000 585,457 574,960 21,640 21,640 - 194,760 558,457 547,960 10,820 10,820 194,760 527,000 527,000 10,820 10,820 - 52,500 514,000 1,000 1,156 - 52,500 514,000 1,000 1,153 557,000 547,504 19,000 25,015 557,000 547,504 19,000 25,015 - 5118,000 5114,428 34,800 41,220 2,385 3,327 553,000 549,428 11,050 14,225 825 1,675 520,000 $20,000 8,000 8,400 560 560 $45,000 545,000 15,750 18,595 1,000 1,092 $5,000 55,000 - - - 55,000 55,000 - 55,700 $5,700 9,000 11,565 $5,700 55,700 9,000 11,565 54,000 52,818 - - $4,000 52,818 55,000 55,000 - 55,000 55,000 - 524,000 $24,000 10,000 522,500 $22,500 10,000 $1,500 51,500 $2,233,476 53,890,510 3,789,332 3,120,052 $2,233,476 53,890,510 3,789,332 3,120,052 5459,127 5370,092 715,000 41,600 575,000 555,000 500,000 590,444 5283,800 30,000 41,600 5293,683 531,292 185,000 539,625 538,615 7,500 8,295 $39,625 538,615 7,500 8,295 51,219,038 $1,219,038 205,767 203,863 $1,219,038 51,219,038 205,767 203,863 5328,074 52,082,506 1,630,528 1,630,528 529,175 529,175 145,000 145,000 $38,199 $37,899 189,849 189,849 $65,000 $65,000 323,050 323,050 5195,700 51,950,532 972,629 972,629 599,917 5100,000 200,000 200,000 $99,917 5100,000 200,000 200,000 515,000 56,231 9,937 10,733 515,000 56,231 9,937 10,733 535,995 $28,305 5,400 3,271 734,588 67,385 270,087 12,000 12,000 10,000 12,000 10,000 12,000 665,626 670,090 665,626 670,090 187,000 188,986 186,000 186,000 1,000 2,986 r 300 300 300 300 94,798 96,639 94,798 96,639 315,943 315,943 27,550 27,550 36,071 36,071 67,080 67,080 185,242 185,242 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 4,679 5,419 4,679 5,419 540 457 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Marketing Campaign for CCHM Friends of Fort Vancouver National Historic Site Marketing Website Development for the Friends Confluence Native Plant Walks, Confluence Story Gathering and Land Bridge Brochure Arts of Clark County Open Studios Program Wahkiakum County 2017 Wahkiakum County Wahkiakum County Waitsburg 2017 Waltsburg Commerical Club Waitsburg Celebration Days Walla Walla 2017 Borleske Stadium Association Borleske Operations Downtown Walla Walla Foundation FARMER'S MARKET Wheelie' Walla Walla Weekend Community Parades Downtown Wine & Dine Guides FEAST Summer Sounds Fort Walla Walla Museum Fort Walla Walla Museum Operations Kirkman House Museum Museum Operations Visit Walla Walla Tourism Operations Walla Walla Chamber Music Festiva! Walla Walla Chamber Music Festival Walla Walla Valley Chamber of Commerce Business Summit Walla Walla Valley Wine Alliance Celebrate Walla Walla Reveal Walla Walla Wine Auction Wander Walla Walla Blue Mountain Arts Alliance ArtWalla - First Friday Art Walk Blue Mountain Land Trust Learning on the Land Walla Walla Valley Guitar Festival WRIIs Walla Valley Guitar Festival $35,995 $20,000 520,000 $5,700 $5,700 $11,000 $11,000 $10,500 $10,500 $10,500 $10,500 $500 57,559 $500 $7,559 $500 57,559 $500 57,559 51,567,500 $2,693,487 $1,567,500 $2,693,487 575,000 5229,938 575,000 5229,938 $122,500 5227,060 517,500 $76,350 $17,500 $64,000 517,500 $12,497 517,500 $4,013 $35,000 556,000 517,500 $14,200 5601,000 $601,000 5601,000 5601,000 52,000 $2,113 52,000 52,113 5618,000 51,103,049 5618,000 51,103,049 55,000 $155,779 $5,000 5155,779 518,500 518,500 518,500 518,500 $112,500 $283,803 518,750 $127,000 $18,750 576,803 575,000 $80,000 51,000 52,816 $1,000 $2,816 51,000 527,578 51,000 $27,578 $11,000 541,850 511.000 541.850 $28,305 529,200 $29,200 55,602 55,602 5,400 1,015,000 1,015,000 200 200 3,271 1,020,500 1,020,500 240 240 540 12,346 12,346 20 20 457 12,346 12,346 510,820 510,820 1,022 1,022 _ 5,000 4,790 150 150 5,000 4,790 5,000 4,790 5,000 4,790 682,190 1,103,207 682,190 1,103,207 42,060 44,419 42,060 44,419 45,800 51,469 32,400 40,000 5,000 5,000 7,000 6,000 150 150 150 577,739 577,739 3,395 3,395 12,755 12,000 350 150 150 150 478,956 478,956 3,865 3,865 450 200 500 900 25,500 25,500 1,400 1,400 554,000 554,000 6,000 6,000 220 220 4,710 600 110 4,000 200 200 1,200 1,200 1,100 1.100 319 150 23,203 23,203 1,655 1,655 972,000 972,000 5,616 5,616 155 155 1,740 600 68 1,072 300 300 1,750 1,750 900 900 225 180 4,650 4,650 250 7,430 7,430 554,000 554,000 459 459 80 80 2,010 2,010 40 40 465,000 465,000 585 585 18 18 1,318 390 99 829 40 40 350 350 250 250 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Walla Walla County 2017 Downtown Walla Walla Foundation Feast Walla Walla Wheelin' Walla Walla Weekend Sweet Onion Festival Fort Walla Walla Museum $41,300 $41,300 $15,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $4,000 $1,239,649 $1,239,649 $121,099 $58,000 $33,099 $30,000 $649,000 43,880 43,880 1,875 475 400 1,000 25,500 Promote regional heritage through tourism in the Walla Walla Valley $4,000 $649,000 25,500 Waitsburg Commercial Club $4,000 $29,847 6,000 Waitsburg Celebration Days $3,500 $27,347 5,000 Windows on Art $500 $2,500 1,000 Walla Walla Chamber Music Festival $5,000 $230,500 6,000 Walla Walla Chamber Music Festival 2017 $5,000 $230,500 6,000 Walla Walla Valley Chamber of Commerce $3,000 $42,500 195 Walla Walla Business Summit $3,000 $42,500 195 Walla Walla Valley Wine Alliance $2,500 $82,275 110 Reveal Walla Walla Valley Wine Auction $2,500 $82,275 110 Blue Mountain Land Trust $2,000 $27,578 1,200 Learning the Land 2017 $2,000 $27,578 1,200 Friends of Children of Walla Walla $4,000 $41,850 1,500 2017 Walla Walla Guitar Festival $4,000 $41,850 1,500 Walla Walla Valley Quilt Festival Committee $1,800 $15,000 1,500 Walla Walla Valley Quilt Festival $1,800 $15,000 1,500 Washougal $80,681 $204,051 6,516 2017 $80,681 $204,051 6,516 CDM Caregiving Services $4,000 $48,000 2,000 Weird Beer Festival $4,000 $48,000 2,000 City of Washougal 550,234 $51,257 Tourism Consultant $17,999 $17,999 Tourism Website Promotion $4,440 $5,000 2017 Fireworks Show $16,000 $16,000 Employee Resource $11,498 $11,498 Visit Washougal discovery Guides $297 $760 Doomsday Brewing Company $3,000 $10,000 Zombie Brewfest 53,000 510,000 Downtown Washougal Association 51,950 $4,080 Pirates in the Plaza 51,950 $4,080 Get Bold Events 52,571 $20,000 15 Superhero 3 person relay 52,571 520,000 Washougal Lions Foundation 53,335 55,610 Washougal Festiva'I of Trees $3,335 55,610 NW Vintage Motocross 54,000 526,000 2017 4th Annual NW Challenge 54,000 526,000 Why Racing Events 54,000 $20,000 2017 Run to Remember 54,000 $20,000 Individual:Joyce Lindsay $745 5745 41,700 41,700 2,692 319 373 2,000 23,023 23,023 6,290 4,790 1,500 5,616 5,616 155 155 64 64 1,750 1,750 1,000 1,000 1,110 1,110 4,724 4,724 1,950 1,950 6,026 6,026 690 250 240 200 3,490 3,490 620 570 50 306 306 60 60 110 110 7,402 7,402 717 262 300 155 5,390 5,390 452 410 42 221 221 18 18 64 64 400 400 350 350 396 396 50 50 380 380 160 160 648 648 150 150 750 175 50 750 175 50 300 400 300 400 450 150 50 450 150 50 350 312 10 350 312 10 1,200 436 100 1,200 436 100 750 600 7 750 600 7 5 5 403 403 Lewis & Clark Geotourism Program Columbia River PicklebaII Club and Super Senior International Pickleball Association $2,500 54,959 200 337 100 88 Lewis & Clark Super Senior Pickleball 52,500 54,959 200 337 100 88 Friends of the Columbia Gorge 5365 56,000 16 14 9 2 Play and Stay Weekend: Beaches, Birds and Brew $365 $6,000 16 14 9 2 Washougal Arts and Culture Alliance $849 $2,000 Washougal Art Walk Map $849 $2,000 Awashougal Arts and Culture Alliance $3,132$5,400 500 350 20 Washougal Arts Festival $3,132 $5,400 500 350 20 - Wenatchee _ $2,013,565 $1,686,115 2,052,910 2,654,822 1,183,389 1,588,246 2017 52,010,665 $1,686,115 2,052,910 2,654,822 1,183,389 1,588,246 Wenatchee Convention Center 51,570,665 $1,570,665 77,000 49,523 12,500 44,571 Facility operation, improvements & debt service $1,570,665 51,570,665 77,000 49,523 12,500 44,571 Wenatchee Valley Chamber of Commerce 5430,000 1,972,910 2,600,903 1,169,739 1,542,075 Promotion of the Wenatchee Valley $430,000 1,972,910 2,600,903 1,169,739 1,542,075 Mariachi Huenachi Wenatchee School District $5,000 1,500 3,000 150 300 NW Regional Mariachi Festival & Concert $5,000 1,500 3,000 150 300 Throttle Town Productions $5,000 5115,450 1,500 1,396 1,000 1,300 Pacific Northwest Bike Festival 55,000 5115,450 1,500 1,396 1,000 1,300 Westport 5200,619 5257,408 138,857 152,682 92,799 101,355 2017 5200,619 5257,408 138,857 152,682 92,799 101,355 City of Westport 5136,200 5136,200 81,867 98,320 64,694 78,656 2017 Marketing Campaign 5136,200 5136,200 81,867 98,320 64,694 78,656 Westport Art Festival $3,500 518,000 6,000 2,416 2,200 1,116 Westport Art Festival $3,503 $18,300 6,030 2,416 2,200 1,116 Westport/Grayland Chamber of Commerce $48,438 $74,036 7 950 6,862 2,750 3,223 30 Miles of Junque $1,000 $606 1,200 1,200 200 300 VICOperations $43,188 $58,630 5,000 4,050 1,550 2,048 Annual Crab Races, Feed & Derby $2,500 $10,000 1,000 532 500 175 Annual Seafood Festival & Craft Show $1,750 $4,800 750 1,000 500 700 Windermere Westport $1,000 $1,032 1,000 1,000 250 250 Boat Basin Salmon Derby $1,000 $1,332 1,000 1,000 250 250 K95cooters NW $786 $695 140 140 40 40 K95cooters Goes to the Beach $786 5695 140 140 40 40 Westport/SB Historical Society 55,845 $6,039 25,400 27,52416,600 11,810 [Did Fashioned 4th of July $1,000 $270 800 700 400 300 Museum/Lighthouse Brochures 51,500 $1,499 14,000 13,187 8,000 5,680 Promotional Souvenir Tickets 51,500 $1,488 10,000 13,187 8,000 5,680 Westport Maritime Festival $2,845 $2,782 600 450 200 150 Rusty Scupper's Pirate Daze $2,350 520,800 16,000 16,000 6,240 6,243 Rusty Scuppers Pirate Daze $2,350 $20,800 16,000 16,000 6,240 6,240 WEfish 51,500 5606 500 400 25 20 Weekend with the Fleet 51,500 $606 500 400 25 20 Whatcom County $586,500 52,915,603 42,646 40,292 960 5,934 2017 $586,500 $2,915,603 42,646 40,292 980 5,934 Bellingham Festival of Music 510,000 5450,000 4,960 307 Music Festival 510,000 5450,000 4,960 307 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual $745 5745 Bellingham Whatcom Tourism Tourism Marketing 5325, Lynden Pioneer Museum $3,000 Museum 53,000 Sustainable Connections 530,000 Savor Whatcom Food & Farms - Agritourism $30,000 Whatcom Parks and Recreation Foundation 515,000 Hovender Homestead Bluegrass Festival 515,000 Whatcom Symphony Orchestra 510,000 All Season Music Festival 510,000 Bellingham Northwest Wine Festival 52,500 Wine Festival 52,500 Pickford Film Center 55,000 Film Festival 55,000 CASCADIA International Women's Film Festival $10,000 Film Festival 510,000 Bellingham Whatcom Chamber of Commerce/industry 525,000 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual 5325,000 51,123,262 Event Coordinator and development of resource guide 525,000 Whatcom County 59,000 Glacier Restrcoms 59,000 Whatcom Events $30,000 Ski to Sea and WonderMud Races $30,000 Ferndale Visitor's Center 512,000 Visitor Center 512,000 Mount Baker Foothills Visitor Center 5100,000 Visitor Center $100,000 Whitman County 522,000 2017 522,000 Whitman County $22,000 Palouse Empire Fair $22,000 Winthrop 5157,100 2017 5157,100 Winthrop Chamber of Commerce $16,000 Visitor information Center $16,000 Winthrop Rink 510,000 Ice Rink Operations 510,000 Winthrop 5126,100 Marketing 5126,100 Winthrop Auditorium Capital Outlay Winthrop Auditorium Operations Winthrop Restrooms Winthrop Rhythm and Blues Winthrop R&B Advertising Woodinville 2017 Woodinville Chamber of Commerce ,123, 510,000 510,000 $88,800 588,800 581,041 581,041 18,000 18,000 4,050 4,050 8,400 8,400 5,346 5,346 1,200 1,200 1,500 1,500 8,310 8,310 1,633 1,633 45 45 350 350 90 90 528,500 518,500 $8,300 $8,300 $99,500 599,500 $580,000 5580,000 $9,000 59,000 5246,000 5246,000 5201,200 5201,200 5,700 5,700 700 700 8,368 8,368 1,131 1,131 100 100 25 25 52 52 4 4 3,696 3,696 2,100 2,100 $5,000 55,000 $71,663 $71,683 566,683 540,000 540,000 540,000 540,000 $301,279 $301,279 516,000 516,000 $10,000 510,000 5270,279 $111,750 590,227 545,265 522,037 $5,000 $5,000 $203,397 $203,397 5191,060 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 73,000 73,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 60,000 2,932 2,932 1,892 1,892 4,653 4,653 24`563 24,563 24,563 24,563 113,259 113,259 8,477 8,477 12,404 12,404 88,378 79,328 855 855 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 65,450 65,450 2,750 2,750 60,000 60,000 1,878 1,878 575 575 1,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 91,112 91,112 1,458 1,458 3,400 3,400 82,654 79,654 9,050 3,000 3,000 4,000 2,700 3,600 3,000 4,000 2,700 3,600 1,961,131 2,068,511 42,578 58,832 1,961,131 2,068,511 42,578 58,832 1,950,131 2,052,511 42,495 58,778 Paid Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Celebrate Woodinville National & Regional Tourism Marketing Initiatvie Visit Woodinville -Visitor Center Visit Woodinville Website & Digital Presence Woodinville Farmers Market Woodinville Farmers Market- 2017 Season Woodland 2017 Downtown Woodland Revitalization Hot Summer Nights Get Bold Events Blooms to Brews Athletic run/walk Hulda Klager Lilac Gardens Lilac Days 2017 Woodland Historical Museum Woodland Historical Museum Planters Days Committee Planters Days Woodland Chamber of Commerce visitors Information Center Yakima 533,245 $10,166 $13,241 $10,030 55,000 $5,000 $54,369 554,369 5750 5750 $6,000 56,000 $3,700 $3,700 $ 919 5919 $3,000 $3,000 540,000 540,000 $1,627,735 $73,930 $30,300 563,200 $23,630 512,337 512,337 5111,372 5111,372 53,729 53,729 58,406 $8,406 58,000 58,000 5919 $919 519,284 519,284 $71,034 571,034 $3,174,666 10,267 13,200 82 422 1,939,864 2,049,311 42,413 58,356 11,000 11,000 30,800 6,000 6,000 24,476 30,800 24,476 600 800 600 800 200 200 200 200 12,000 8,500 12,000 8,500 2,000 1,800 2,000 1,800 6,000 5,977 6,000 5,977 10,000 7,199 10,000 7,199 735,000 771,007 83 83 1,690 1,690 10 10 54 54 1,483 1,483 8 8 80 80 71 71 2017 51,627,735 53,174,656 Capitol Theatre 5205,570 5327,501 Various $205,570 5327,501 Yakima Valley Sun Dome $75,000 51,500,000 Multiple Activities 575,000 51,500,000 Yakima Convention Center/Yakima Valley Tourism 51,347,165 51,347,165 Various $1,347,165 51,347,165 Zillah $12,175 $11,712 2017 512,175 $11,712 Yakima Valley Newspaper 53,625 $3,625 Marketing in Local Paper 53,625 $3,625 Yakima Valley Tourism $1,550 $1,550 Visitor Guide $1,550 $1,550 Zillah Chamber 53,000 52,537 Not Just A Farmers Market $3,000 52,537 Associated Clubs $3,000 $3,000 Community Float 52,500 52,500 Community Wide Yard Sale $500 5500 Zillah Civic Center 51,000 $1,000 Reader Board 51,000 $1,000 Adams County $3,000 2017 $3,000 Adams County Fairgrounds 53,000 Visitor's Guide Publication $3,000 Cathiamet $2,700 56,500 2017 82.700 56,500 735,000 50,000 60,000 500,000 500,000 175,000 175,000 4,200 4,200 500 500 1,000 1,000 500 500 1,600 1,000 600 600 600 771,007 65,245 65,245 515,479 515,479 190,283 190,283 4,200 4,200 500 500 1,000 1,000 500 500 1,600 1,000 600 600 600 500 702 500 702 1,100 702 1,100 702 186,500 202,100 186,500 202,100 1,500 1,304 1,500 1,304 50,000 56,277 50,000 56,277 135,000 144,519 135,000 144,519 175 175 175 175 10 10 10 10 50 50 50 50 10 10 10 10 55 55 50 50 5 5 50 50 50 50 2,000 2,350 2.000 2,350 350 330 350 330 Pad Lodging Paid Lodging Funds Total Attendance Attendance Nights Nights Awarded Activity Cost Projected Actual Projected Actual Wahkiakum Chamber of Commerce Wooden Boat Festival Bald Eagfe Fest Tsuga Gallery Cathla met Arts Festival Naches 2017 Yakima County Hotel/Motel Tax -Capital Bond Payment Central Washington Fair Association Facility improvements/Equipment Wilbur 2017 Wilbur Chamber of Commerce Goose Days Grand Total 51,500 5750 $750 51,200 $1,200 5807,054 $807,054 $566,554 $566,554 5240,500 $240,500 52,400 52,400 $2,400 52,400 51,500 5750 $750 $5,000 55,000 $755,527 $755,527 $566,554 $566,554 5188,973 $7.88,973 1,700 700 1,000 300 300 575,000 575,000 1,850 300 650 100 1,200 200 500 50 500 50 621,992 55,000 621,992 55,000 285 85 200 45 45 60,000 60,000 575,000 575,000 621,992 621,992 55,000 55,000 60,000 60,000 555,531,303 5173,449,450 80,574,819 60,400,053 23,935,929 26,274,706 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 31, 2018 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Retail Recruitment Plan GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: In 2015, the City engaged the services of Community Attributes, Inc. (CAI) to develop a retail improvement strategy and action plan to enhance the City's retail offerings. In 2016, the City updated its comprehensive plan and development regulations that incorporated many of the strategies and actions identified in the study, such as increased flexibility for retailers, increased residential density along commercial corridors, and new opportunities for neighborhood commercial. In late 2017, the City engaged Retail Strategies, a retail recruiter, consistent with the implementation strategy of the CAI study. Retail Strategies has completed the Spokane Valley — Market Guide which will be discussed tonight. This guide has been used for marketing the City to a national network of retailers, brokers, developers, and key industry contacts on behalf of the City. Tonight, Mr. Scott VonCannon of Retail Strategies will provide an overview of their work including a summary of the feedback they received from various retail merchants and developers they met on our behalf at The Global Retail Real Estate Convention held May 20-23, 2018 in Las Vegas, Nevada. OPTIONS: None RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Contract with Retail Strategies was budgeted at $20,000 for 2018. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager ATTACHMENTS: Spokane Valley — Market Guide Retail Strategies presentation City Contact Information nMike Basinger, AICP Chaz Bates, AICP Bike Basinger, er eenemeDe�ele4ment34ee�1,=t mbasinger@spokanevalley.org cbates@spokanevalley.org 10210 6. Sprague Ave., Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-720-5331 office 509-720-5315 office spa kaneva l leyed.org Demographics --mt, Focus Properties retai lstrategies.corn Retail Strategies has a catalogue of retail commercial real estate properties in this market. For more information, please contact the Portfolio Director and/or Retail Development Director listed on the front of this guide. Gt Population Average Age Household Income (Median) 116,419 39.3 $50,410 Peer Analysis The Peer Analysis, built by Retail Strategies along with our a nalytics partner (Tetrad), Identifies analogue retell nodes within a similar demographic and retell makeup. The Peer Analysis Is derived from a 5 or 10 minute drive time from malor comparable retell corridors throughout the country. Thevaria bits used are population,Income, daytime population, market supply and gross leasable area. The following are retail areas that most resemble this core city. Peer Trade Areas North Logan, UT Billings, MT Yakima, WA Redd ing, CA Mllwaukle, OR Sherwood, OR Logan, UT 1550 N Main St 2525 King Ave W 1600E Chestnut Ave 1515 Dana Dr 15600 Se Mcloughlin Blvd 21320 ad( (anger Farms Pkwy 11500100W Focus Categories Number of Households 46,933 6.43% $62,429 Growth Rate Household Income (Average) Daytime Population 145,697 rraMtp,�nmt, ▪ Children at Home 5,303 ▪ Retlred/Dieble persons 15,538 ▪ Homemakers 16,366 ▪ Student Population 32,407 ▪ Work at Home 2,520 ▪ Employed 69,259 Unemployed 4,304 The top categories for focused growth In the mu mope llty are pulled from a ombinatlon of leakage reports, peer analysis, retail trends and real estate intu itlon. Although these are the top categories, Retell Strategies' efforts are Inclusive beyond the defined fist. Let us know how we can help you find a site, 101 ro-o Health & Fitness Home Personal Care Furnishing & Hardware Restaurants ',4)retail strategies 4,� SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON Market Guide DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 2017 Estimated Population Daytime Population Median HH Income Number of Households 2017 Estimated Population Daytime Population Median HH Income Number of Households 3 Mile Radius 5 Mile Radius 10 Mile Radius 65,371 114,983 353,015 80,062 120,138 417,923 545,892 $52,230 548,083 28,089 46,232 144,605 5 Minute OT 10 Minute OT 15 Minute OT 36,182 116,419 211,473 50,679 145,697 288,815 541,027 550,410 548,423 15,558 46,933 86,161 Scott onCan non com 205.490.2827 office Joe uss vP Istrgs ®taDevelopmentrnttaits.tom 205 490 2831 office IZEITIOJKCWECTA HOBBY BOBBY T •Mobile• Pa: tyC7ty DXL Total Wine E:F.ruuiC Hil SPOK'ANE sears PiePlinpmlts WAY' Tuesday Morning , SHOE DEPT. GNC ENCORE p A C$ U N E•W ellesle PLACE SEPHORA ElBuckle 9 IHOP ®w" FOREVER21 r•�.ma nutrition e on )r tie HOLLISTER wet seal T,T Fele Eer ick•Ava WAY' T • •Mobile• 1-uS{Ice vICTORIAS Claire's ®REGAL S ECRF.T CINL.IAS , AERO NORDSTROM rack OLD NAVY 77,1 OREM 01%11111;1 o tH AArCys HomeGood JO -ANN ■ BARNES,, NOBLE verizon' Denniq GR ICERYOUIIET IlPRCSuild CAR01aX i[sonn A tO DOLLAR TREE tecSLma GIW:TYCZ,,,JTLU IZEGICEGIT SUPERCUTS TARGET SPRAGUE Papa Ntop*y3 SHOPKO �/GREEN �jEBIlrtlti. II caJ(agt, geedwlll Officct:wpxi B'w SAFEWAY OfeMV 'Fantastic Sams LOTS cricket.167 UF0,p717 Sprint SPOK'ANE PLAZA T SR s Walmart j E SALLY BEAUTY ii PETSMART inBOSS Great ClipsKO W ES k=.---.L--i F i A et, ,Nlags SPRAGUE SportClips HARBOR FREIGHT loots ��� RAMADA Deseret Book R'CrZgaY GNC 3f, Meyer T • •Mobile• WAONAPA tQ DOLLAR7REE petco CAR -TOYS 9 AICE„ uudwi11 FIVEWGUVS 70)_il,•ceesa �•jiffylube © 201]GlgllalGlohe ®CNES (201 7) Distribution Airbus e$ ®201] Microsoft Corporation retail strategies f Spokane Valley, Washington Retail Recruitment Plan There's a lot of potential here. Your Research Discover: Market Research — Research Investment $176,000 Trade Area Identification Drive Times Radius Rings Customized Trade Area Psychographic Profile Data Based Decision Making Tapestry Segmentation Market Opportunity Analysis Peer Community Analysis Void & Distance Tolerance Gap Analysis Mobile Data Collection $60,000 An industry leading report which utilizes cell phone data to identify the home location of consumers that visit a defined shopping area within the trade area. l ® UberRetail Sitewise SN FPO P tnstats Crittenden Research MIMED 87 specific reports 23,555 unique variables 7 geographies per variable 3,367 variables to analyze GIS Mapping & Data Resources $111,000 Sitewise, Site to Do Business, REGIS STI PopStats, ESRI, Applied Geographic Solutions, Land Vision Rt.stintninE zw Paid Subscriptions and Reports $5,000 Retail Lease Trac, Plain Vanilla Shell, Supermarket News, Sales Genie, Nation's Restaurant News, Crittenden Research, Loopnet TETRAD a LANUVISION STDB RLT REIZS Drive -Time & Radius Traditionally when retailers and developers first look at a market for the purpose of evaluating demographic information relevant to market potential they begin with radius rings. This approach can work for a quick simple analysis but fails to take into account the unique aspects necessary for an accurate and complete assessment. By assessing demographic make-up based on drive -time geographies we are able to overcome some of the short falls related to the radius ring method. Using distances along actual streets and highways provides a more narrowly focused way to look at a trade arca. This perspective takes in to account natural boundaries (mountains, rivers, lakes, etc.) as well as man-made factors (bridges, railroad tracks, interstate networks etc.) that traditionally affect consumers shopping patterns. Neither the drive -time nor the radius ring methods are able to take into account certain factors necessary to fully assess a retail trade area. In the next section you will see how we have taken this process a step further by using real consumer data to identify where consumers arc actually coming from to shop in your market. By combining mobile tracking data with an assessment of other factors unique to your community we are able to define a custom trade area that goes beyond these predefined boundary methods. Category 3 -Mile 5 -Mile 10 -Mile Radius Radius Radius 5 -Minute 10 -Minute 15 -Minute Drive Time Drive Time Drive Time Current Year Estimated Population 68,371 114.983 353,015 36,182 116,419 211,473 Number of Households Projected Annual Growth (5 YR) Median HH Income 2016 Current Year Average Age Average Home Value Current Year % Bachelor's Degree Daytime Population Labor Force Prepared farSpokane Valley WA by Retail Strategies 28,089 46,232 144,605 5.36% 6.18% 4.38% $45,892 $52,230 $48,083 38.9 39.5 39.1 $207,392 $233,905 $234,235 18% 23% 26% 80,062 120,138 417,923 34,284 57,496 173,109 15,558 46,.933 86,161 5.31% 6.43% 5.27% $41,027 $50,410 $48,423 37.8 39.3 38.9 $190,605 $225,106 $239,600 17% 22% 25% 50,679 145,697 288,815 17,983 57,840 103,455 The variables on the chart above are all important variables considered by retail site selectors Demographies culled from city cent: r asdzrti ied by internal fal5 /Data Sautce_S7(:PcpSt 4 Mobile Data Collection Our mobile tracking study uses data collected frorri rriobile phone users who have agreed within their apps and phone settings to enable location information. By drawing a polygon around a retailer, we are able to gather data about the home and work location of customers who have actively used their mobile device while in the defined arca. For this study, we have used mobile GPS tracking data to examine Spokane Valley's core consumer trade area using the Wal mart, Lowes, Eddie Bauer and Home Goods stores located in Spokane Valley, WA. The chosen retailers are large traffic generators that might attract different consumer groups drawn to different categories and levels of retail. The results of this study are displayed in a color -coded distribution map that indicates the percent of visitors who have travelled to the study area from each square -mile block in a map grid. Once we draw a polygon around a study area, we then specify a time frame in which to measure customer location patterns. The resulting data is gathered from shoppers who visited the defined location during the designated time period. When assessing the results of a rriobile study, we rriust keep iri rnirid that the number of visitors that are tracked is a very small percentage of the overall population who have visited the study area. These data give us accurate insights to the distribution of visitors, but not the overall quantity of visitors. Locations Tracked: Walrnart Lowe's Eddie Bauer Home Goods Time Period Tracked: January 31, 2017 — January 31, 2018 Distribution 0.01% to 0.25% 0.25%10 0.5% 0.5%tot% 0.75%101% et% Walmart Lowes Prepared for Spokane Val lwi WA by Retail Strategies Eddie Bauer Home Goods Primary Trade Area Che'taroy Each retailer has a specific formula of market criteria they use to determine if they will have a profitable store. Understanding your trade area is extremely important because it sets the parameters for measuring demographic criteria and spending potential sought by retailers and developers. Municipal boundaries, radius rings and drive times are a start to evaluating this information. However, these predefined boundaries are unable to take into account the unique aspects affecting the actual consumer pulling power and local geography of your community. For these reasons a customized trade area is the next step to analyzing a market. A trade area is the geographic area from which a community generates the majority of its customers. A community can have more than one trade area. We define your primary trade area the core base of consumers highly likely to shop and eat in the market at least once a month. Your primary trade area has been created by combining the results from the mobile tracking data with other factors such as, current retail mix in your community, traffic patterns, destination attractions and proximity to competing markets. 299,401 2017 Estimated Population Custom Trade Area Buckeye Gree butt • • 313,659 gro projected11 projectedgrowth rete 2022 population 2017-2022 38 40 male female avg age avg age Dynamite Duncan Jay Setters Retail Strategies has created the customized trade area shown in the map above and outlined in RED which is focused on a consumer who might travel for their primary shopping destination within Spokane Valley. Prepared for Spokane Valley WA by Retail Strategies; Discover: Total Market Supply 0 t�Jl Total Market Supply ▪ $1 to $5MM $5MM to $1UMM $1oMM to $25MM ▪ $25MM to $50MM $50MM to $75MM ▪ $75MM to $100MM ▪ $10oMM Total Market Supply S6,039,688,153 This represents the amount captured by businesses located in the defined trade area by block group. The areas with darker green are capturing more consumer dollars. Prepared forSpokane Valley WA by Retail Strategies 7 Discover: Total Market Demand 0 Total Consumer Demand ▪ S1 to $5MM ❑ $5MM to $1DMM ❑ S10MM to $25MM 625MM to $50MM ▪ $50MM to $75MM ▪ $75MM to $100MM ▪ > $100MM Total Market Demand $5,531,717,699 This represents the amount spent by consumers located In the defined trade area by block group. In the dark green areas the consumer demand is higher. 7 mi Prepared for Spokane Valley WA by Retail Strategies Discover: Opportunity Gap 0 Opportunity Gap ▪ -$5DMM 111-$50MM to -$25MM ❑ -$25MM to -$D ▪ $0.013-$25,000,000 GO ▪ $25MM to $50MM ▪ $50MM to $100MM ▪ > $100MM Total Market Leakage -$507,970,454 This means more people purchase items outside of the defined Spokane Valley trade area than in the Spokane Valley defined trade area for their consumer goods and services. Finding the specific categories where they are leaving the market is the key. Prepared forSpokane Valley WA by Retail Strategies 9 Discover: Peer Analysis O City State Residential Pop CITY COMPARISON REPORT Target - 5 Minute Drive Tirrie Total Daytime Population Median Household Income Market Supply Retail Shopping Center GLA Fresno CA 39,425 26,992 $47,690 $1,184,863,694 39,425 Chico CA 30,416 20,854 $45,916 $1,285,979,702 30,416 Yuba City CA 39,357 23,951 $44,325 $1,121,515,929 39,357 Clackamas OR 35,600 24,037 $51,399 $762,493,723 35,600 Springfield OR 32,776 17,947 $41,920 $497,494,359 32,776 Prepered for5pokase Valle WA by Retail Strategies Discover: Peer Analysis O City State Residential Pop CITY COMPARISON REPORT Safeway al 14020 E Sprague Ave - 10 Min Drive Tirne Total Daytime Median Population Household Income Median Age Market Supply Keizer OR 100,195 121,263 $44,432 34.7 $2,028,051,210 Bend OR 89,493 106,810 $58,125 38.8 $2,136,254,265 Lacey WA 96,414 106,430 $61,254 38.0 $2,085,949,594 Olympia WA 89,557 116,210 $58,987 38.3 $2,329,642,661 Tacoma WA 96,191 110,618 $54,901 38.4 $2,171,789,221 Puyallup WA 92,609 97,416 $58,063 36.5 $1,464,749,114 Prepered for5pekane Valle WA by Retail Strategies Discover: Peer Analysis O CITY COMPARISON REPORT Walrnart et 15727 E Broadway Ave 10 Min Drive Time City State Residential Total Daytime Median Pop Population Household Income Market Supply Retail Shopping Center GLA Billings MT 78,453 52,816 $53,454 $1,955,396,106 1,430,089 Milwaukie OR 88,438 47,488 $59,494 $2,409,415,740 1,381,997 Sherwood OR 76,097 48,558 $69,636 $1,821,500,032 2,528,373 Logan UT 79,796 45,482 $45,667 $1,202,221,256 1,275.545 Pre pared%r5pokene Valley WA by Retail Strategies #trendingnow Retail is Growing but Changing... EXPERIENCIAL RETAIL TRAINING CLASSES BOPUS E POP-UP SHOPS SHOWROOMS 2017 • 4,000 New Openings • 1,326 New "Core Retail" Stores Core Retail Is chains with > 50 Stores) • 2,754 New Restaurants Opening in 2017 2018 • 5,500 New Openings • 3,446 New "Core Retail" Stores • 2,071 New Restaurants SIMON'S TOP MALL I041151: I [ N:\N t h IN 1141 Company Nof SF %of % of Total Stores (0005) Total SF Base Rent Limited 155 1,126 21, 5.7% EW. .............__.....20.............04.................2....._.........3............... F. W. Woolworth 206 042 1.2% 9.5% Mev..l..eCo...............................1.35._......_.__.._x.__._...%....... Melville Corp. 135 442 O.B% Y.1% United aes._..ho......0.....109.0.0__.80.._0.7%_.__..2._%....... Unked States Shoo 109 3B0 0.7% 2.0% Edi.__...Brother...._.___.......__._...__.1_._._..041.%....... Edison Brothers 110 217 0.4% 1.1% Tllo........._........._Gr__.__...._.....__...__..._�..__.._...__ 1.1% ..... The Muskland Oroup 58 179 0.3% 1.1% .........eS.t.._.._.Co.................................................____.__..._.__.__.......... Petrie Storoa Corp. 88 340 0.0% t.1% Zalec0r1..P_........................._........5e...............n12..00o"% 6.016 ..... _ Kmart Corp_ 47 173 0.3% 1.0% Payless shoe Stores 56 171 0.3% 0.995 Scumar Simon ',ropey Gm"p: Be mk yv Glc M4% 014) 1 4,248 opens, 1 0,1 68 closure ) Segment Net Store Growth Sup S aIa Drug 674 sos SuparslonmWB Clues 81 Department Stores Spec iaxy tlardgaade 153 Specialty Sensors. Mass Merchandisers 1905 Convenience Stores 1 700 Dar l Restaurants 70g Fact Food OH +4,080 Net Stores Opening Souce 11-11_ Group Company ,coorts erc:er Sor.roc Conlerpnce almart Save money. Live better. 4000% 3500% 3000% 2000% 7000 �q b 1500% 1000% 300% 0% �aPG .1.m5Ht y t 5 A Gource. Lee Holman & Greg 6uzek, IHL Group, "Debunking the Retail Apocalypse, August 2017 Real Estate Analysis F7 = City Boundary - = Major N/S Corridods) - = Secondary N/S Corridor(s) - . Major E/W Corridods) r- — = Secondary EM' Corridor(s) = Dne Way Transit (any color) = Primary Sprague Aye. Intersections rrepmea iur Spursne vnuey vVA oy Reran auarey�es Real Estate Analysis: Current Real Estate Overview {INiY melBr¢� •1: • -Motel, -�a k 7 =" aieketoft lHOCOSMO waervart 1, .1,1ACENIMUT41, ® * rn cy JCPenney Potpie!!! war MUM GNC ,Irreg PACSUNSEPHORA E 11•1•5.1,311•1•5.1,3FOIE VER 21® ,7;t•;,. ettere We fen! <<.C: • `s ® ®R:f,": daire: AERO vam.rN tack NAW mf. mrr^rr.m r4;" 7.Y.T1m. Deseret Book =.=°Fm4Mo q:..mbitr WRY IiPA (( • CAR,w,s lo.telese NtlICU iui opunouc voucy vvn uy 001011 Strateg Real Estate Analysis Retail Focus Properties Retail Strategies can and will support retail growth and development in all areas within the city limits of Spokane Valley. However, based on our analysis, experienceand the current retail synergy as it exists in the market today, we feel the most immediate retail real estate opportunities are the following properties below. Therefore, our efforts will be primarily focused on these properties. EXISTING REAL ESTATE/ UNDER CONSTRUCTION Evergreen Crossing 13806 E Indiana Ave Hanson & Spokane Valley Mall & Plaza 14700E Indiana Ave DEVELOPMENT/ HIGHER & BETTER USE Wal-Mart/TRU Power Center 15505 E. Broadway Ave. Sprague Ave & Pines Rd Prepared for Spokane Palley WA by Retail Strate®es "5 Points" Applevalley Blvd & Dishman Mica Rd. Sprague Ave & Sullivan Rd. Implementing your Strategy Discover Focus imp Connect Implement T0I 4-04-•O Contact developers, retailers, tenant representatives and franchisee groups both regionally and nationally Make direct and indirect ki.1\connections through conference representation, in person IMIP meetings, phone calls and emails 3:14.4 Coordinate and communicate our efforts MI6with local brokers, property owners, and city staff on an on going basis Follow industry trends as well as changes in your local market to continuously adjust our strategy and improve our efforts to maximize the retail potential in your community • • 1� • all ANII Malls •' '• Retail Recruitment: Outreach Retail is a dynamic industry that is constantly changing... Retail decision makers may be in-house corporate real estate staff, local, regional, or national tenant representative brokers, preferred developers, consultants, etc, Retail Strategies maintains a database of nearly 10,000 unique industry contacts that is being constantly updated as these players change. As a result, your retail recruitrnent team can easily identify the appropriate decision makers and present sites in Spokane Valley quickly in order to determine level of interest and begin work to address any potential barriers to market entry. Retail Strategies database not only contains WHO makes the retail development decisions for Spokane Valley but also WHAT each retailer requires from a market ( i.e. demographics, psychographies, trade area parameters) arid real estate perspective ( i.e. site, co -tenancy, access, visibility). Each individual retailer has their own unique needs that must he met before taking a new store location to their real estate committee. By having this information available we are able to prepare custorn site specific packages of information to illustrate that Spokane Valley has the trade area and real estate to support a successful location. 9,703 retailers' contact information & site selection criteria Prepared for Spokane Valley WA by Retail Strategies Retail Recruitment: Conference Representation •k - Building relationships locally, regionally, NATIONALLY on behalf of Spokane Valley Od4 9 9 RETAIL LIVE. F TA II PAP CTAFI IVF 9 9 9 9 V V 9 2018 Conferences Nashville Las Vegas Austin Atlanta Chicago Dallas Ncw Orleans Ncw York City Washington DC Los Angeles Charlotte Orlando Prepared For Spokane Valley WA by Retail Strategies Who We Connect With On Your Behalf Marketing Guide ,n,Intraingicr cnm retail strategies SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON Market Guide kVA rVftr:,'ta': Demographics • . 11 EP 116,419 Chaz Bates AICP Fetsil Strategie3 hss a cat.gu, of retsil Director arkoior Rs., DevElo,nnent Director au the front of thi5 guide. $50,410 46,933 6.43% $62,429 Daytime Population 145,697 Peer Trade Areas mon, Lcgal, ut Mar. SI sofi,2 9 2, 3 ss 417..23 6a7 Sao V37 123...a3 2a osa ta.505 5 Ximgo 101.151515117 151Xnuto 315,13 Ineoeinee. ict,knowhavm can MD yo u fir do slc! Retail Prospects Discover: Top Categories for Recruitment O Hardware & Home Furnishings KI R KLA N D'S MTRACICIR SUPPLIIM FLOOR FT DECOR. 4 Ashley L AaB 0 Y. BED BATH & BEYONQ 41-10 Health/Fitness & Personal Care `rangetheorif ME Massage Envy Visionworks S1uitoi l LIFETIME TO Restaurants ritt—\A `°ei P ti0 Benum ; CD Okve .,JQILC a L *** Fcr the purpose of th's study Focus Categories identify where the market can support the mast significant growth with market conditions as they exist today. However Retell Strategies recruitment elicits will in no way be solely /i nited to retailers That fall within the top four categories. Prepared for Spokane Palley WA by Retail Strate®es Merchant/Tenant/Developer Feedback RECO!, 0 37,000 ATTENDEES 853,000 SQUARE FEET 1,200 EXHIBITORS PARTICIPANTS FROM 58 COUNTRIES 25 CTAI OTINOI SE SESSIONS 3 BLOCKBUSTER KEYNOTE SPEAKERS 15 SPECIALTY LEASING SESSIONS retail strategies Prepared for Spokane Valley WA by Retail Strategies Thank you! (04 retail strategies 120 18th Street South, Suite 120, Birmingham, AL 35233 205.311.0386 retailstrategies.com CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 31, 2018 Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['information ® admin. report Department Director Approval: ['new business ['public hearing ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Minor Stormwater Property Acquisition. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11.020 Powers vested in legislative bodies of noncharter and charter code cities. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley manages an extensive stormwater management system. Part of this system has been acquired and developed since incorporation on March 31, 2003, but part of the system was constructed by Spokane County prior to incorporation. Most of the parcels previously owned by the County were transferred to the City around the date of incorporation. The City and County have found several parcels that are part of the stormwater system but, for unknown reasons, were never transferred to the City for ownership and upkeep. This administrative report will deal with one of these, with two more potentially coming forward soon. Parcel number 55172.0159 is a narrow strip of property that includes the sidewall of an existing swale. The property is approximately seven feet wide by 220 feet long. (See Attachment). This property is considered necessary for the continued maintenance of the swale immediately to the north, which the City operates and maintains. Spokane County has informed staff that the cost to acquire this property is $112.64, plus recording fees of $110. Staff requests approval to complete this transaction with Spokane County. OPTIONS: 1) Place on a future consent agenda for motion approval; 2) Place on a future agenda for regular motion consideration; 3) Take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place on the August 14, 2018 consent agenda. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Parcel 55172.0159 $222.64 ($112.64 purchase price, plus $110 recording fee). STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Graphic of Parcel 55172.0159. Stormwater Property Acquisition Parcel 55172.0159 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 31, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['new business ['public hearing ['information ® admin. report ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Police Department Report GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: At Council's request, Inspector Lyons, standing in for Police Chief Werner will give an overview of the Police Department's report. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: n/a STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint, Report and charts SVPD Quarterly Report > SCOPE > Patrol > Investigative Unit SCOPE Sheriff's Community Oriented Policing Effort Admin Hrs LE Hrs Total Hrs Central Valley 147 191 338 East Valley* 872.5 1269.5 2142 Edgecliff 622 43 665 Trentwood 406 263.5 669.5 University 1370 383 1753 West Valley* 1207.5 166.5 1374 4625 2316.5 6941.5 Volunteer Value at $30.46/hr $211,438.09 *Includes estimated volunteer service hours that are provided in the City of Spokane Valley. These two locations cover both Spokane Valley and the unincorporated portion of the county. • Patrol • Average Patrol Staffing* per Shift o Dayshift = 6.43 o Nightshift = 6.40 o Power Shift = 3.06 *Does not include supervisors, Traffic Unit, or School Resource Deputies. •3 Patrol Statistics: 2nd Quarter 2017 vs 2nd Quarter 2018 2nd Qtr. 2017 2nd Qtr. 2018 % Increase Citizen CFS* 11436 11854 3.66% Citizen CFS with Response 7014 7482 6.67% Deputy Initiated Incidents 4480 5192 15.89% Total Deputy Involved Incidents 11494 12674 10.27% *Excluding: Crime Check reports. Patrol • The 6.7% increase in citizen initiated CFS receiving deputy response is due largely to the opening (Aug. '17) of the Pope Francis Haven Apartments in district 6 (16412 E. Sprague). • Pope Francis Haven includes 51 units that generate 1.54 CFS/day. This is not including the increase in CFS in the surrounding area. • Patrol • District 6 CFS increased 28.9%. By comparison, during the same timeframe, districts 1 through 5 cumulatively saw a 2.96% increase . •6 Patrol • Spokane Valley Legal and SVPD have begun working with Catholic Charities to reduce the police call load at Pope Francis Haven. • Catholic Charities has been very responsive and proactive in addressing the issues. Patrol • On another positive note, there were no formal citizen complaints made against SVPD personnel during the 2nd quarter of 2018. .g Patrol • 8 Deputies scheduled to attend the August CJTC Academy • 3 Lateral hires to begin orientation August • 12 Deputies currently in field training •9 Spokane Valley Investigative Unit (SVIU) January -June 2018 • 228 Persons Charged o 139 Booked o 89 Charged by affidavit • 1,002 felony and 223 misdemeanor charges Spokane Valley Investigative Unit (SVIU) • 68 Search Warrants o 36 Residences o 39 Vehicles o 2 Storage Units o 3 Motel Rooms o 14 Cell Phones o 5 GPS Trackers Spokane Valley Investigative Unit (SVIU) • Stolen Property Recovered: $363,770 in value • 49 Firearms Recovered or Seized o 17 Stolen o 2 Fully automatic machine guns • 20 Vehicles and $25,382 seized for possession/delivery of controlled substances 012 Spokane Valley Investigative Unit (SVIU) • 2,728 Property crimes reviewed o 1,941 (71.2%) Inactivated due to lack of leads/evidence o 380 (18.5%) Assigned and/or cleared between January 1 and June 30 o 282 (10.3%) Unassigned due to lack of investigators 013 Questions? Mark Werner Chief of Police Spokane Valley Police Department Accredited Since 2011 Services provided in partnership with the Spokane County Sherds Office and the Community, Dedicated to Your Safety. Ozzie Knezovich Sheriff TO: Mark Calhoun, City Manager FROM: Mark Werner, Chief of Police DATE: July 24, 2018 RE: Monthly Report June 2018 In August 2016, we switched from UCR to NIBRS classification, which means we went from reporting based on a hierarchy to reporting all the crimes for each incident. Consequently, comparing crime statistics before August 2016 to crime statistics after that timeframe is not recommended using the data provided in the attached charts and graphs. ADMINISTRATIVE: Chief Werner attended the mid -month SPOCOM Board meeting with other command staff officials from local law, fire, and communication agencies. The quarterly Spokane Regional Safe Streets Task Force Board meeting was held in mid-June, which Chief Werner attended along with other Sheriff's Office command staff members. Representatives from New World/Tyler Technologies were in Spokane to discuss the status of the computer system, issues agencies are having with some parts of the technology, and strategic planning for upcoming upgrades and problem solving. Mid -June saw the conclusion of the most recent law enforcement academy with a graduation ceremony held at Spokane Falls Community College. Chief Werner was there to congratulate the 10 deputies on graduating from the academy and welcomed them to their next phase of training within the department. Page 1 Quarterly Leadership Training was held in mid-June at the Sheriff's Training Center. Chief Werner and others from the Sheriff's Office and Spokane Valley Police Department attended. Chief Werner attended a meeting in late June for ALERT Spokane, which provided an overview of internal messaging capability of ALERT Spokane (powered by CodeRED mass notification system), discussed policies around internal messaging, and outlined the steps needed to test and implement the system in Spokane County. A Joint Terrorism Task Force briefing was held in the end of June, which Chief Werner attended along with other local law enforcement command staff. SHERIFF'S COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING EFFORT (SCOPE): In the month of June, S.C.O.P.E. participated in: • Adams Elementary School Carnival- Bike Helmet Giveaway • West Valley Parade and Carnival • Greenacres Elementary Bike Safety Training • ValleyFest Planning Meetings • East Farms Elementary STEAM Day - Bike Rodeo • Spokane Valley YMCA Youth Fair- Bike Helmet Giveaway • Moving Forward S.C.O.P.E. Regional Meetings • East Valley Community Coalition Meeting • Underage Drinking/Drug Prevention • GSSAC Coalition Meeting • Operation Family ID SCOPE members assist the Spokane Valley Police Department each month by placing speed radar boards throughout Spokane Valley in conjunction with the Traffic Unit, in an effort to reduce speed in locations that have been identified by law enforcement or brought to their attention by the community as having excessive speeding vehicles. For the month of June, the speed radar board was placed at 29 locations, capturing 618 hours of coverage. June 2018 Volunteers Hours per Station *Includes estimated volunteer service hours that are provided in the City of Spokane Valley. These two locations cover both Spokane Valley and the unincorporated portion of the county. Location # Volunteers Admin Hours L.E. Hours Total Hours Central Valley 4 55 69 124 East Valley* 28 279.5 400.5 680 Edgecliff 10 194.5 14 208.5 Trentwood 5 143.5 93 236.5 University 21 384.5 129.5 514 West Valley* 18 419 11 430 TOTALS 86 1,476 717 2,193 Volunteer Value ($30.46 per hour) $69,677.25 for May 2018 Page 2 S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 68 on -scene hours (including travel time) in June, responding to crime scenes, motor vehicle accidents and providing traffic control; 9 hours were for incidents specifically in Spokane Valley. There were 5 special events in June; 3 were in Spokane Valley: Felts Field Neighbor Days, Millwood Parade, and a Sheriff's Office exercise at North Pines Middle School. Total June volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training, stand-by, response and special events is 1,187; total for 2018 is 6,658. (Starting January 2018, a change was made in how actual hours of `stand-by' time is calculated. Due to the shortage of staff necessary to cover up to 62 shifts of 24 hours per day per month, a simple formula as used in the past, no longer reflects the actual time spent on stand-by. We now count each month the actual time members sign up for duty minus the time actually spent on -scene.) Abandoned Vehicles SCOPE DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT April May June Tagged for Impounding 24 37 40 Cited/Towed 8 3 5 Hulks Processed 12 24 13 Total Vehicles Processed 88 143 131 Yearly Total of Vehicles Processed 418 561 692 SCOPE DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT City of Spokane Valley # of Vol. # of Vol. # of Hrs. # of Disabled Infractions Issued # of Warnings Issued # of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 0 0 0 0 0 February 0 0 0 0 0 March 1 3.5 1 3 0 April 1 3 0 2 0 May 1 3.5 1 0 0 June 0 0 0 0 0 YTD Total 3 10 2 5 0 Spokane County # of Vol. # of Hrs. # of Disabled Infractions Issued # of Warnings Issued # of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 1 11.5 1 11 0 February 3 24 7 13 0 March 3 34.5 11 16 0 April 2 21.5 2 5 0 May 3 28.5 4 20 0 June 10 2 8 0 0 YTD Total 22 122 33 65 0 Page 3 OPERATIONS: Reckless Bicyclist Risks Safety and Fails to Comply; "Thank You" Unidentified Retired LEO for Your Assistance — We received a report of a reckless bicyclist weaving in and out of traffic during an evening commute; the incident continued as the bicyclist failed to stop for a Spokane Valley Deputy and resisted arrest before he was finally taken into custody with the assistance of an unnamed good samaritan who identified himself as retired law enforcement. In early June at approximately 5:40 p.m., Spokane Valley Deputies received a report of a 28 -year-old male bicyclist wearing a mask and riding a green bike and swerving between lanes/vehicles on Sprague at McDonald. Deputy Samuel Turner responded as the caller continued to update the suspect's location. Deputy Turner located the suspect riding east on Sprague in the center left turn lane at Adams. The male suspect swerved from the center turn lane, in front of traffic, into the far -right lane causing drivers to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting him, as he continued east on Sprague. Deputy Turner turned around and, with the high volume of traffic, eventually caught up to the male suspect as he rode north on Sullivan. The suspect continued his reckless behavior, swerving from the center turn lane and the northbound lane of travel in front of commuting drivers. Deputy Turner caught up to the suspect as he approached Valleyway, and activated the emergency lights and siren of his fully marked patrol car to conduct a traffic stop and contact the suspect due to numerous traffic violations/reckless behavior. The suspect looked over his shoulder and, instead of stopping, continued to ride northbound. Deputy Turner used the PA system advising the suspect to stop, but the suspect looked over his shoulder at the patrol car, turned east on Valleyway and continued to ride. Deputy Turner accelerated alongside the suspect, stopped rapidly and exited his vehicle while running toward the suspect, ordering him to stop. The suspect stopped and initially began to comply with Deputy Turner's commands, but as Deputy Turner started to detain the suspect, the male suspect turned around and said, "What you stopping me for?! You ain't got no reason to stop me!" Deputy Turner told the suspect he was detained and not to move, as he removed the suspect's backpack to place him in handcuffs. The suspect tensed up and began to resist as Deputy Turned pinned him against the patrol car, ordering him to stop fighting. The male suspect continued to struggle, causing Deputy Turner's radio mic to be ripped lose from his uniform. Now unable to reach his radio to request additional units to assist, Deputy Turner told the male suspect he was under arrest and to stop fighting as he tried to gain control and place the male in handcuffs. As the struggle continued, a good samaritan stopped his vehicle and identified himself as retired LEO (law enforcement officer). Deputy Turner requested his assistance and the gentleman complied. Not willing to comply even with the assistance of the good samaritan, the male suspect escalated and attempted to kick Deputy Turner. Deputy McNall arrived to assist as the pair gained control of the suspect and placed him in handcuffs. While Deputy Turner and Deputy McNall continued to address the suspect, who was now safely in custody, the retired LEO got back in his vehicle and continued on his way. The male suspect was advised of his charges and of his rights, which he acknowledged by yelling, "I know my rights!" He denied doing anything wrong and stated he planned to continue riding until he felt it was safe to stop. He was placed in the back of a patrol car and denied the need for any medical attention. While in the vehicle, the male continued to yell, thrash around and, at one point he slid his hands, still restrained in handcuffs, from behind his back down to the back of his knees. Seeing the suspect's attempt to bring his hands in front of him, deputies repositioned the suspect's hands, applied leg restraints to stop future attempts, and transported and booked him into the Spokane County Jail. The male suspect was charged with Failure to Obey a Police Officer, Obstructing and Resisting Arrest. He was issued traffic infractions for Improper Operation of a Bicycle, Failure to Signal Stops/Turns and Unsafe Lane Change. Page 4 Thank YOU to the good samaritan/retired LEO who stopped and helped gain control of the male suspect. Without your assistance, additional force would have been needed to gain control, increasing the risk of injury to both the suspect and Deputy Turner. Mother of Six -Month -Old Baby Arrested for Murder; Major Crimes Detective Investigation into the Baby's Death Continues - Spokane Valley Major Crimes Detectives arrested a 27 -year-old female charging her with Murder 2nd Degree for the death of her six -month-old baby. In mid-June at approximately 1:15 p.m., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to MultiCare, Valley Hospital's emergency room, for the report of an unresponsive infant who was brought in with severe head injuries by her parents, a 27 -year-old female and 24 -year-old male. A short time later, the infant was pronounced deceased by the attending doctor. The initial information provided to the responding deputy was that the mother had tripped with the baby in her arms. According to the mother, as she fell, the baby flew from her arms, hit a baby walker and fell to the floor. The mother stated that the father was not home at the time of the accident. Medical staff stated the observed injuries did not appear to be consistent with the reported account of the incident. Spokane Valley Major Crimes Detectives responded to the hospital to continue the investigation. The mother was found to be in violation of a Domestic Violence (DV) No Contact Order and was arrested that afternoon, in accordance with the order. During an autopsy the following day, the Medical Examiner's Office observed the infant suffered multiple impacts to her face and scalp, which were not consistent with accidental injuries. The cause of death was determined to be "complex skull fractures from blunt impacts to the head," ruling the manner of death as homicide. Major Crimes Detective Scott Bonney brought the mother to the Public Safety Building to be re -interviewed. After being advised of her rights, the mother continued with her fabricated story regarding the injury and subsequent death of her baby. She eventually said she was frustrated with the father, due to a recent argument. She admitted she intentionally and forcefully pushed the infant face -first into her basinet causing the injuries to the baby's face. She also punched the infant twice, with a closed fist in the back of her head in the area consistent with the observed skull fractures. A short time later, her baby stopped crying, became lethargic and then unresponsive. The mother stated the father was not present during the assault and she called him after, telling him she accidently dropped their baby. The father was also re -interviewed at the Public Safety Building and eventually released without charges. The mother was booked into the Spokane County Jail for Murder 2nd Degree (DV) with Aggravating Circumstances with a bond currently set at $1 million. Transient Male Points Pistol at Motorist Stopped at Traffic Light - Spokane Valley Deputies responded to the report of a male "panhandler" who pointed a pistol at the victim while he was stopped at a traffic light. When deputies contacted the suspect, he was uncooperative and told deputies to shoot him. Deputies located a pistol in the uncooperative male's pants pocket after a physical struggle. In mid-June just before 4:00 p.m., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to the report of a male panhandler who just pointed a pistol at a victim while he was stopped at a traffic light in the 5600 block of E. Sprague. The victim stated the male put the gun in his pocket and was last seen walking east on foot, pushing a shopping cart. Deputy Eric Reyes, the first to arrive at the scene, observed the 38 -year-old male sitting on a short brick wall in front of the bank. As Deputy Reyes exited his vehicle, he observed a large object/bulge in the male suspect's right front pants pocket where the victim stated the suspect had placed the pistol. At gunpoint, Deputy Reyes gave commands for the male suspect to show his hands, to not reach for anything and to get on the ground. The suspect refused to comply and began yelling "Just (expletive) kill me! Shoot me right here in the head!" Deputy Reyes told the male suspect he knew he had a gun and to not reach for it. The suspect replied "(expletive) you! I am not giving you my gun, you'll have to (expletive) kill me!" Deputy Page 5 Reyes advised dispatch and responding deputies via his radio that the suspect was uncooperative. Even after Deputy Tom Walker and Deputy Jeff Getchell arrived to assist, the suspect remained defiant, would not follow commands and continued to yell. With the male suspect's hands visible, Deputy Walker and Deputy Getchell approached from the sides as Deputy Reyes continued to provide lethal cover in the event the suspect tried to grab the pistol. As they took ahold of the suspect's arms, he began to physically resist and break free from their grasp. Both deputies struggled to gain control of the suspect's arms/hands, but he broke free and began reaching toward his waistband/pocket. Deputy Reyes holstered his weapon and quickly join the fight to gain control of the male suspect and prevent him from accessing the pistol he reportedly had. As the suspect continued to fight/resist, deputies used force/strikes to take him to the ground as they worked to keep the male suspect's hands away from his pockets. They eventually gained control of the suspect and placed him in handcuffs. They rolled him onto his side and Deputy Reyes located a Ruger LCP .380 in his pants pocket. When Deputy Reyes secured the weapon, he observed the magazine was loaded, but the chamber was empty. The serial number of the firearm was checked and had not been reported stolen. Spokane Valley Fire and AMR responded to the scene to provide medical attention to the suspect who continued to yell obscenities and thrash around while stating he wanted to be shot. He was transported to the hospital and the Spokane County Jail by AMR with a deputy inside the ambulance, due to his continued aggressive/violent behavior. The male suspect was booked for Assault 1st Degree. The victim was contacted after the suspect was taken into custody. He told Deputy Getchell that he heard the male suspect yelling as he was stopped in traffic at a red light. When he finally looked over at the suspect, he noticed he was pointing the pistol at the victim as he tried to remove it from a holster. The victim started honking his horn hoping the driver ahead of him would move so he wouldn't be shot, but he said the driver was on the phone and apparently oblivious to the events. He told Deputy Getchell he thought he was going to be shot and without a doubt, he was in fear for his life. Detectives Receive Help Locating DV Stabbing Suspect - Detectives attempted to locate a 40 - year -old DV Assault Suspect and requested the public's help. The suspect, a multi -time convicted felon who has been known to be armed in the past, made statements that he wanted to take his own life or commit "suicide by cop" by trying to provoke law enforcement into shooting him. Detectives had probable cause to arrest the suspect for Assault 1St Degree stemming from an incident the prior night where he stabbed his brother in the arm. In mid- June, just prior to 10:00 p.m., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to the emergency room at MultiCare Valley Hospital to contact a stabbing victim. The victim stated he had been arguing with his brother, the 40 -year-old male suspect, at a residence near the 3200 block of S. Gillis in Spokane Valley. The argument escalated and the suspect attempted to strike the victim in the head with a two -foot long pair of hedge trimmers; during the fight, he stabbed the victim in the arm with a knife. During the attack, the suspect stated he was going to make the victim kill him. The victim stated he has been attacked several times by the suspect in the last few months and he is in constant fear for his life whenever the suspect is around. A search warrant was obtained for the residence, but the male suspect was not located. Major Crimes Detectives were called to the scene to continue the investigation. The victim stated the suspect suffers from severe anger issues and has stated several times he wants to end his own life. Further, the male suspect regularly talks about how he doesn't want to go back to prison and would provoke law enforcement to "commit suicide by cop" given the opportunity. The male suspect's name and description were sent out in a media release along with what he was wearing and possible locations he may frequent. With the assistance of tips from the public, the following day, deputies located the male suspect, took him into custody, and booked him into the Spokane County Jail for 1st Degree Assault. Page 6 Citizens Report Vehicle Prowler Who Fails to Comply with Deputy - A suspect, who was observed by three citizens strolling through the parking lot of an apartment complex peering into vehicles and actually enter one through an open window, was aggressive and failed to follow the responding deputy's commands. The suspect was arrested and booked for Vehicle Prowling and Obstructing. In late June at approximately 1:30 a.m., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to an apartment complex in the 11900 block of E. Mansfield in Spokane Valley for a reported vehicle prowler. Deputy Walton arrived within minutes and contacted three citizens who witnessed the 42 - year -old male suspect enter the parking lot and walk from vehicle to vehicle as he peered inside. The suspect was also observed entering one vehicle by reaching through an open window. The suspect was confronted by the witnesses, but he didn't reply and walked off toward the pool area. Deputy Walton walked through the complex and observed a male (the suspect) matching the witnesses' description standing between two vehicles. As Deputy Walton approached the male, the witnesses confirmed that male was the suspect. Deputy Walton walked toward the suspect who immediately became upset, turned toward Deputy Walton, put his hands in the air, and yelled, "What?" Deputy Walton identified himself and explained why he was contacting the suspect. The suspect was advised he was being detained and told to turn away from the Deputy. The male suspect refused, squared his body and raised his hands in what appeared to be a fighting stance. The suspect was told several more times to turn around, but he remained defiant and refused to follow commands. Believing the suspect was about to assault him, Deputy Walton requested immediate assistance via his radio and attempted to turn the suspect around to detain him. The male suspect resisted and attempted to turn toward Deputy Walton, swinging his hand over his shoulder toward Deputy Walton's face/head. With the male suspect actively fighting while refusing to follow commands to get down on the ground and stop resisting, Deputy Walton used hand strikes in an effort to gain control, eventually taking the male suspect to the ground. The suspect continued to fight and grab toward his waistband area. With the assistance of additional arriving Deputies, the suspect was placed in handcuffs and secured in a patrol vehicle. Later, the male suspect was advised of his rights and refused to answer questions. The suspect did say he didn't know why he decided to fight Deputy Walton. The owner of the vehicle the suspect had entered was contacted. He stated he left his window down when he parked and confirmed no one had permission to enter the vehicle. The male suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Vehicle Prowling 2nd Degree and Obstructing. Wanted Suspect's Attempt to Hide Doesn't Fool K9 Bane - A wanted suspect's attempt to hide in an apartment, despite several warnings a K9 would be used to find him, ended when K9 Bane quickly located him and he was taken into custody by Deputies. In late June at approximately 5:55 p.m., Spokane County Deputies assisted by Spokane Valley Deputy Clay Hilton and his partner K9 Bane responded to a possible domestic violence incident in the 5000 block of E. Buckeye. The deputies learned the incident was an argument and not an assault or other crime. They asked the female if a 23 -year-old male suspect was inside since the location, which was his last known address and a check of his name showed an active felony Washington State Department of Corrections warrant Page 7 SPOKANE COUNTY XAOXANE COUNTY SHERIFF SHERIF! pzziE O. NNEZOVICH (original charge of burglary) for his arrest. Believing the male suspect was inside, the deputies asked for and were given permission to search the apartment. Deputy Hilton gave several advisories stating the suspect was under arrest and to surrender or K9 Bane would be used to find him. The advisories went unanswered. K9 Bane began to search, room to room, coming to the laundry room. Once inside, K9 Bane showed a change in behavior and alerted on a closed door. Several additional announcements were made, but the suspect did not reply or surrender as instructed. As Deputy Giacomini attempted to open the door, the suspect could be observed on the other side trying to hold the door closed. Deputy Giacomini was able to open the door far enough for K9 Bane to enter and contact the suspect, who immediately released his grasp on the door causing it to fly open. K9 Bane had pulled the male suspect from a shelf/table where he was hiding onto the floor. The male suspect then followed commands and he was taken into custody without further incident. The suspect was provided medical attention before he was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for his felony warrant. Operation Dry Water: Emphasis patrols target boating under the influence June 29 to July 1, 2018 - Spokane County Sheriff's Office Marine Enforcement reminds boaters to stay sober while boating. As part of a nationally coordinated effort, Operation Dry Water, state and local law enforcement agencies will be conducting boating -under -the -influence (BUI) emphasis patrols on waterways across Washington, from June 29 to July 1. "Operating a boat while under the influence puts everyone on the water at risk," said Deputy James Ebel Spokane County Marine Enforcement Coordinator. "Factors such as wind, sun, noise and a boat's rocking movement amplify the effects of alcohol and drugs. Balance, vision, reaction time and decision-making skills decrease and the likelihood of an accident increases." "The Boating Program's goal and the goal of Operation Dry Water is to educate boaters about the laws regarding boating under the influence and the dangers of boating while drunk or high," Deputy Ebel said. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, boating under the influence is the leading known contributing factor in fatal recreational boating accidents. Last year in Washington state, alcohol and drugs were a primary factor in 44 percent of fatal boating accidents, and from 2006 to 2016, 57 deaths were attributed to boating under the influence. In Washington State, it is illegal to use any substance that impairs a person's ability to operate a boat. The law applies to all boats, including kayaks, canoes, rowboats and inflatable fishing rafts. State law allows law enforcement officers to require suspected intoxicated boaters to submit to a breath or blood test. Refusing to submit to a test is a civil infraction with a maximum fine of $2,050. The penalty for operating a boat under the influence is a gross misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $5,000 and 364 days in jail. Additionally, a BUI is considered a prior offense if there are later convictions for driving under the influence (DUI). "Boat operators need to remember that other boaters and paddlers on the water depend on them to be alert and in control of their vessel at all times," Deputy Ebel said. Boaters can learn more about BUI laws in Washington State and about the risks of boating under the Page 8 influence by visiting boatsober.org. Follow social media: #NeverBUI, #opdrywater, #operationdrywater, #BoatSafeBoatSober, #BoatSober About 0 s eration Dr Water 1ERATION °DRY WATER Y;R04A[ER.Uxs June 29 -11��y �, 2 ti ON TINER AD OR NE WATER, r'u(JREH , PEChf1U,YEPEFAS, Operation Dry Water is a national awareness and enforcement campaign focused on reducing the number of alcohol and drug related boating accidents and fatalities. As part of the campaign, emphasis patrols are conducted annually near the Fourth of July, a holiday known for increased boating activities and use of alcohol, during which law enforcement sees an increase in the number of boating accidents and fatalities. The National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) coordinates Operation Dry Water in partnership with the Coast Guard, safety educators and local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Marine Enforcement Unit Warns of Lurking Thieves at Lakes & River - Spokane County Sheriff's Office Marine Enforcement Unit wants you to be aware predatory thieves are out exploiting our warmer weather to look for their next opportunity to continue their criminal ways. Marine Enforcement Unit Deputies have heard from residents and recreational users of Liberty Lake, Newman Lake and the Spokane River in the area between Boulder Beach and the Argonne Bridge. Deputies are hearing of boat prowlings, thefts and vandalism in these areas over the past few weeks. At this time, we have no suspects or suspect vehicle information although speculation in these communities is the criminals may be accessing docks, boats and private property by water under the cover of darkness. Please be vigilant in these areas and report thefts, suspicious activity, vehicles, and if possible without risking your safety, license plates of the vehicles. Don't leave valuables in boats or other unsecured areas. If possible, light areas around boats, docks and sheds to lessen a thief's ability to use darknessA "firjrA to skulk around and commit crimes. Most stereo equipment/recreational items and tools/equipment are mass produced. Record serial numbers or mark valuables with an engraver allowing your valuables to be identified if a suspicious person is contacted or a suspect is caught. If the crime hasn't been reported, including a record of specific identifiers for the stolen property, it is extremely difficult to match it back to victims or even prove it is stolen. If anyone has information regarding these thefts or notices suspicious/criminal activity, you are asked to call Crime Check at 509-456-2233. Page 9 We Will NOT Call & Demand Money for Warrants/Fines — EVER - The Spokane County Sheriff's Office continues to receive reports of scammers trying to lie, intimidate, trick, and threaten people into giving up their hard-earned money or personal information, leaving them vulnerable to identity theft. Law enforcement, courts or any other government agency will never call you and demand prepaid credit cards for payment while threatening arrest if you don't, but scammers will, so don't be duped. Theses scammers/criminals continue to call, spewing their scandalous lies, threaten people with arrest and spreading fear while trying to trick people into immediately purchasing prepaid credit cards (Green Dot) to avoid going to jail. The most recent ones come from a person claiming to be "Detective James Parry." The scammer states the victim failed to appear for a grand jury summons and now has a felony warrant for their arrest. The phone number associated with these most recent scams is 509-481-9067. The scammers demand payment and insist you pay your "fine" immediately. Through threats and intimidation, they convince victims to travel to the store, purchase Green Dot prepaid credit cards and provide the identification numbers which allows them to drain the money from the cards. This is a Scam!! Don't LOSE your money. Sheriff Knezovich Receives National Command & Staff College MAGNUS Princeps Award - On June 17, 2018, Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich received the MAGNUS Princeps Award, presented by the National Command & Staff College and the Criminal Justice Commission for Credible Leadership Development. Sheriff Knezovich received this award in recognition for his tireless work implementing bold initiatives, which have created synergy and trust between the citizens of Spokane County and the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. The award letter states, "You have done this by embracing the belief that `Every Officer Must Be a Leader' in the community that they serve. You have created a culture where character, collaboration, professionalism and service are embraced and on display at all times." The letter went on to state, "As a MAGNUS Leader you live as an inspiration for others to answer the call of supererogation with virtue and intellect while improving self and systems beyond the status quo, committing to continuous learning and being more and always becoming the beacon of light in the night. Sheriff, you are MAGNUS!" The National Command & Staff College was founded by the International Academy of Public Safety in collaboration with the National Sheriffs' Association and the National Tactical Officers Association to develop MAGNUS Leaders through modern learning experiences that build and promote community safety and mutual trust, maximize officer safety, wellness, performance and reduce liability and risk. Although unable to attend the National Sheriff's Association Conference in person to receive this prestigious award, Sheriff Knezovich stated, "I'm very honored to receive this award and humbled by the national recognition. Your Sheriff's Office continually works toward being the best trained, providing the highest level of service and being the leaders in our region. I am very proud of this award because it is a symbol that nationally recognizes the hard work, professionalism and dedication of all the men and women at the Sheriff's Office." LOCK ITEMS IN YOUR TRUNK OBSERVE AND REPORT CARS SHOULD NEVER RUN UNATTENDED KEEP GARAGE DOORS CLOSED Page 10 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Burglary Month Count Year 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 84 72 55 51 February 66 73 53 26 March 71 78 42 33 April 68 87 50 36 May 69 73 47 34 June 86 93 59 28 July 103 89 51 August 86 103 56 September 94 91 78 October 105 71 37 November 80 92 32 December 81 63 33 Grand Total 993 985 593 208'. * IBR Offense: Burglary/Breaking & Entering 220 Produced: 7/25/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Murder NonNeg Manslaughter 2.5 2 1.5 1 • ■ * ■ 0.5 0 JANUARY FEBRUARY S V a 2 CC a > W > E- < z J In D a SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER X2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 Month Count Year 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 1 February March 1 April May June 1 July 1 1 August 1 September October 2 November 1 1 1 December 1 Grand Total 5 4 2 1' *IBR Offense: Murder/Non-Negligent Manslaughter 09A Produced: 7/25/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts I BR Classification: Identity Theft Month Count Year 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 9 20 February 1 24 17 March 22 13 April 16 22 May 32 21 June 18 17 July 23 August 9 13 September 7 17 October 7 15 November 10 19 December 8 26 Grand Total 42 234 110" *IBR Offense: Identity Theft 26F Produced: 7/25/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Fraud Month Count Year 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 12 23 26 70 February 18 17 36 46 March 20 21 37 60 April 18 15 43 55 May 24 8 53 67 June 14 19 57 65 July 17 26 61 August 28 15 53 September 24 16 66 October 34 41 64 November 18 38 54 December 25 30 43 Grand Total 252 269 593 363. * IBR Offense: Fraud - Credit Card/ATM 26B, Fraud - False Pretenses/Swindling/Con Games 26A, & Fraud - Impersonation 26C Produced: 7/25/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: DUI Month Count Year 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 30 30 22 21 February 22 30 26 18 March 25 31 33 39 April 28 22 18 13 May 27 27 19 33 June 29 31 28 23 July 31 19 26 August 31 18 24 September 18 20 19 October 25 19 24 November 20 28 18 December 13 27 21 Grand Total 299 302 278 147. * IBR Offense: DUI 90D Produced: 7/25/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Drugs Month Count Year 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 2 5 19 44 February 3 30 38 March 2 2 30 63 April 4 1 37 56 May 1 5 23 34 June 2 2 20 56 July 3 1 21 August 4 16 26 September 5 28 25 October 3 20 24 November 1 20 39 December 3 27 25 Grand Total 30 130 319 291 * IBR Offense: Drug Equipment Violations 35B & Drugs/Narcotics Violations 35A Produced: 7/25/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Theft From Motor Vehicle Month Count Year 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 134 101 99 77 February 124 76 104 33 March 96 72 94 79 April 62 134 131 62 May 84 108 79 68 June 68 177 107 66 July 85 139 97 August 92 131 70 September 109 103 118 October 111 124 70 November 91 153 54 December 110 118 70 Grand Total 1166 1436 1093 385 * IBR Offense: Theft From Motor Vehicle 23F Produced: 7/25/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Motor Vehicle Theft Month Count Year 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 62 112 44 36 February 64 53 38 24 March 53 66 44 28 April 53 75 41 27 May 71 59 27 24 June 58 80 28 24 July 73 73 41 August 60 39 36 September 78 35 43 October 65 51 40 November 59 33 34 December 78 39 28 Grand Total 774 715 444 163. * IBR Offense: Motor Vehicle Theft 240 Produced: 7/25/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Robbery Month Count Year 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 11 3 3 6 February 9 7 6 2 March 12 8 7 5 April 6 3 3 6 May 6 8 2 8 June 5 5 1 3 July 8 5 4 August 7 3 1 September 15 2 4 October 7 10 4 November 3 10 3 December 11 3 1 Grand Total 100 67 39 30 * IBR Offense: Robbery 120 Produced: 7/25/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Assault I 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 JANUARY FEBRUARY 1 0 a 2 > W > E- < z J In D a SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER X2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 Month Count Year 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 157 131 96 98 February 141 140 95 67 March 138 145 78 114 April 131 142 90 94 May 151 143 93 86 June 140 115 93 103 July 143 122 95 August 136 63 73 September 130 81 92 October 148 99 88 November 124 97 86 December 127 88 85 Grand Total 1666 1366 1064 562 * IBR Offense: Aggravated Assault 13A & Simple Assault 13B Produced: 7/25/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Theft Month Count Year 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 233 240 205 242 February 240 208 199 172 March 258 215 214 208 April 239 232 204 203 May 226 193 235 230 June 239 263 252 225 July 259 242 237 August 264 203 224 September 247 222 213 October 227 232 238 November 193 244 219 December 278 225 199 Grand Total 2903 2719 2639 1280 * IBR Offense: Theft - All Other 23H, Theft - Pocket -Picking 23A, Theft - Purse -Snatching 23B, Theft - Shoplifting 23C, Theft From Building 23D, Theft From Coin -Operated Machine 23E, & Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories 23G Produced: 7/25/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Rape Month Count Year 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 7 7 8 17 February 10 7 2 3 March 6 9 3 8 April 10 8 7 5 May 9 12 9 9 June 5 9 1 9 July 5 4 6 August 13 2 5 September 3 4 2 October 14 5 8 November 9 6 1 December 8 4 3 Grand Total 99 77 55 51 *IBR Offense: Rape - Forcible 11A Produced: 7/25/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Counterfeiting Forgery Month Count Year 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 18 14 9 18 February 18 13 11 10 March 11 25 20 23 April 7 6 20 22 May 9 9 26 21 June 9 15 15 16 July 12 11 21 August 12 7 14 September 8 11 20 October 12 7 18 November 6 15 9 December 19 12 9 Grand Total 141 145 192 110. *IBR Offense: Counterfeiting/Forgery 250 Produced: 7/25/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Destruction Damage Vandalism Month Count Year 2015 2016 2017 Calendar 2018 January 162 133 159 145 February 130 111 148 95 March 127 148 136 121 April 126 151 173 127 May 130 134 139 141 June 130 176 143 139 July 125 154 178 August 141 160 149 September 130 118 160 October 156 165 119 November 129 196 132 December 163 161 106 Grand Total 1649 1807 1742 768 IBR Offense: Destruction/Damage/Vandalism 290 Produced: 7/25/2018 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 31, 2018 Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['information ® admin. report Department Director Approval: ['new business ['public hearing ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Recap of AWC Yakima Conference GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Several Councilmembers will give a recap of some of the workshop sessions they attended while at the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Annual conference, held this year at Yakima, Washington. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA. STAFF/COUNCIL CONTACT: Councilmembers ATTACHMENTS: Councilmember Peetz Community Engagement Burien Public meetings with Leadership in the community Partnerships with local nonprofits to establish relationships Town Hall for Youth Olympia Engage citizens where they are (Priorities over Budget) Include underrepresented voices Sequim Service Fest/Community Action Days Rally in the Alley A Councilmember Wick Road Map to Washington's Future Started in 2015 by WA State Legislature to review GMA Ruckelshaus Center project to articulate a vision of Washington's desired future and identify additions, revisions, or clarifications to the growth management framework needed to reach that future. Spokane County session this summer, report due in 2019 Redevelopment Tour of Empty Buildings Pop Up Businesses Place making and Community Engagement Paint By Numbers ► Comments/observations from other Councilmembers Road Map To Washington's Future WILLIAM D RUCKELSIiAUS (ENTER Welcome and Introductions • Ruckelshaus Center Staff and Volunteers • Participant Self -Introductions Road Map To Washington's Future WILLIAM D RUCKELSHAUS (ENTER Elected Officials Workshop AWC conference — June 27, 2018 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. • Welcome and Introductions • Project Overview • Information About Today's Workshop • Workshop Agenda 1 Road Map To Washington's Future �7 W�[I u t\iD RIJCKELSITAUS CENTER smoolis Background: Pre -Assessment • 2015: WA Legislators asked the Ruckelshaus Center to design a process to look at GMA • 2016/2017: Pre -Assessment - series of conversations with individuals from dozens of groups, organizations, tribal, state, and local governments. 1. Is now the right time for an assessment that would examine Washington's growth management framework? 2. Is the Ruckelshaus Center an appropriate neutral convener to facilitate such an assessment? 3. Would you be interested in participating in such an effort? Growth Planning Framework REVISED CODE or WASHINGTON GOVERNANCE&INST1TUTIONS U.S. CONSTITUTION FEDERAL LAW, LANDS & AGENCIES TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS Growth Management Act — RCW 36.70A Shoreline Management Act— RCW 90.58 State Environmental Policy Act—RCW 43.21 Local Project Review Act— RCW 36.708 Land Use Petition Act — RCW 36.70C Planning Enabling Act — RCW 36.70 Subdivision Statute — RCW 58.17 Water System Coordination Act — RCW 70.116 Regional Transportation Planning — RCW 47.80 City and County Governance — RCW 35, 35A, 36 Port Districts — RCW 53 School Districts RCW 28 Water and Sewer Districts — RCW 57 State Agencies and Universities Community Redevelopment Financing- RCW 39.89 Multi -Family Property Tax Exemption — RCW 84.14 Impact Fees - RCW 82.02 2 Road Map To Washington's Future WIL IAM D RIICKELSHAUS CENTER Pre -Assessment Report • Pre -Assessment Report to Legislature: Available at http://ruckelshauscenter.wsu.edu/a- roadmap-to-washingtons-future/ • 2017-2019 Biennium Budget: Legislature allocated funds to the Center to facilitate a two-year process to create a "Road Map to Washington's Future. Road Map To Washington's Future WILLI,\MD RUCKELSHAUS CENTER Road Map Project Overview PROJECT PURPOSE: To articulate a vision of Washington's desired future and identify additions, revisions, or clarifications to the growth management framework needed to reach that future. 3 Jul -Dec 2017 Jan•Jun 2018 Jul -Dec 2018 Jan -Jun 2019 Project Planning & Design Research & Data Review Scheduling & Conducting Interviews Multi -Sector Workshops Workshops with Elected Officials Next Generation oliow-up Interviews & Potennalty Group Convening, Intarrnate, Synthesis & Report WI MI -1g Project Schedule Workshop Regions and Schedule for 2018 Malcom Soling Whitman Summar Garfield 4 Road Map To Washington's Future Final Report June 2019 The Center's Final Report will include: A summary of the processes, issues, research, and findings Key themes that emerged describing a desired future for the State of Washington An appendix listing the people and organizations who participated Road Map To Washington's Future The Final Report will identify potential paths to the desired future including: Targeted research topics for further work Continued collaboration & agreement seeking Convening of interested parties to articulate agreed upon additions, revisions, or clarifications to the growth planning framework 5 Road Map To Washington's Future Final Report • Due to the Legislature June 2019 • Will be available to all who participated in the project. • Will be publicly available from the Center's website. Road Map To Washington's Future Final Report • Specific statements will not be attributed to individual participants • A list of names of individuals who participated in the project (workshops, interviews) will be provided an an appendix. • Participation in today's workshop is not contingent on having one's name published in the final report. Please let us know if you do not want your name listed. 6 Road Map To Washington's Future Today's Workshop misainimmisscom WLL'LIAM D RITC KELSHAIIS CENTER WORKSHOP PURPOSE: To better understand what people desire for Washington's future, and identify issues, challenges, strengths, and potential solutions or improvements to the planning framework. Road Map To Washington's Future W[LLIAMD RIICKELSHAUS CEN1ER Workshop Protocols • Workshop Questions were reviewed by Washington State University's Office of Research Assurances. • Your Participation in the workshop is voluntary. o You can choose at any time to decline to answer a question or leave the workshop. • Information gathered from workshops will be summarized in the Center's final report to the Legislature and used to inform the Center's recommendations about a road map to Washington's future. 7 Road Map To Washington's Future Agenda WILLIAM D RIJCKELSHAUS CENFER • Purpose and Value of State Growth Planning Framework • Current State • Future State • Public Engagement Road Map To Washington's Future 8 Road Map To Washington's Future Workshop Questions YYILLIAM L : RIJCKELSI-IAIJS CHER PURPOSE AND VALUE OF THE STATE GROWTH PLANNING FRAMEWORK 1) How would you describe the purpose and value of the state growth planning framework? Road Map To Washington's Future CURRENT STATE WLLIAMD RUCKELSIIAI JS Cin omeommil 2) What parts of the growth planning framework do you believe work well in your community/county/region and why? 3) What parts of the current growth planning framework do you believe do not work well and why? 9 Road Map To Washington's Future FUTURE STATE WILLIAM D RUCKELSHAUS CENTER 4) Based on your engagement in the community/county/region, describe the future that you believe people desire. 4b)What values have been expressed that are important to shape the future? Road Map To Washington's Future FUTURE STATE WiLI IAM D RUCKELSHAUS CENmR 6) What do you see as the major issues that would need to be addressed to achieve your desired future? 6b) How might these issues be addresses? Are there processes, statutory changes, etc. that you recommend to better address those issues? 10 Road Map To Washington's Future PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WELLIAM D RUCKELSHAUS CENTER 7) What is working well with the processes to engage the public, including comprehensive planning and the development permit process? Why? 7b) What is not working well? Why? 7c) How can these processes be improved? Road Map To Washington's Future WILLIAMD RIJCKELSHAUS (ENTER WRAP UP AND WHAT HAVEN'T WE ASKED? 8) What additional data or research is needed to inform possible changes to the state growth planning framework? 9) What haven't we asked that you want to comment on? 11 Road Map To Washington's Future Amanda Murphy, MMA Project Co -Manager amanda.g.murphy@wsu.edu 206.219.2409 Joe Tovar, FAICP, MUP Project Co -Manager jtovar@uw.edu 425.263.2792 E Li IAN! RUCKELSHAUS CErfrER 12 Community Engagement Case Study: City of Burien AWC Confereilk.. June 26, 2018 %v. ••••• • ,;-.•,•.• - asor.: ---••••`" , .......... _ ......._ -•••,.- - •-•.,‘,..u.---...". - --,- ..... __- - ---- .-.., ....i,...r, --:,,, -... ... ir .`"--1'.-"41111111'"•6161.-„, . ."" : ""Uo--y*-- - - ,•**'•'''-,'.=-`....! 'a,,Oriali -.• riit , ••••73,.: _ ..... .,___ _.. _.. ....0.....„0,. „..D.,,,,46, ...v. •-• - -' • •••••T ...,-..••• ..41,.,,.,....-....,,...........-.0,.' ...•„: -,. _ ... ...4-1.21 nIttar44:11006*.`.". •• -..... -..".74,' :"•••• ...., .....,,.....,.. ..--:',7•.-...0r7e...-... .... .,..._ -- _ ,•••.it -- k-...---- "--_t,•:' -14, „..,4„.,.._ -:41+e--'-- - - !`4..21.e,=:•`. -F.,.• - • - •••• •••• ,, - tr .„. •-st -,-,- .,.:' - • -'''*. * ''S';'- - 1 Strategic plan goal 3e. City's strategic plan: goal 3e. Establish new ways to better engage diverse communities in civic conversations and activities. Starting in 2017: Community Connectors outreach program Language Services and Accessibility Initiative Community Connectors program i1 Trusted community members are trained to serve as "connectors" between local city government and under- represented communities. Inclusive and equitable community engagement. Photo courtesy of Forterno. 2 Language Services and Accessibility Initiative Comprehensive look at how we can remove barriers to city services and programs Li Currently reviewing: • Contracts: Updating agreements with translation and interpretation vendors. ® Process: internal process and guidelines. ▪ Training: what type of training do staff need? 9 Prioritization: key information that needs to be prioritized 3 Police Services & Leadership: Community Conversations ■ How can the police department, and the new chief, best serve the Burien community? ® 6 public meetings at the community center, local coffee shops, and in an apartment complex. ■ Online survey ■ 450 people reached Photo credit Aaron Wells Photography Format ■ Paid community facilitators ® Food, child care, interpretation! • Conversation circles ® Partnership with local nonprofit ® Intentional choice of locations Photo credits here: 4 How was feedback used? o Interview questions and evaluation. o Enhance community engagement o Help new chief establish relationships with community. Photo credit: Aaron Wells Photography Town Hall for Youth Safety ■ Focus on solutions ■ 140 people ■ Youth representation ■ Multiple languages Photo credit: Aaron Wells Photography 5 Final takeways ® Don't just show up for the emergencies. Be consistent. ■ No matter the size of your community or staff, you can still be creative. ■ Community leaders are partners. ® Establish a culture of community engagement. ■ Be humble. Listen. Learn from your mistakes. Resource To see a video of Burien's April 9, 2018 Town Hall Meeting, visit: http://burien.vod.castus.tv/vod/?video=55714fc0-ec87-4d5f-bd64- 69a0d5b9e720 6 COMMUNITY CONVERSATION: POLICE SERVICES AND LEADERSHIP BACKGROUND The City of Burien is searching for a permanent Police Chief to lead the Burien Police Department. This change in leadership provides an opportunity to have a community conversation about how the police department, and its new leadership, can best serve the Burien community. Your ideas and feedback about what you would like to see in your police department and in the next police chief are essential and will be used to inform the police chief selection. Community voices must be heard and represented during this process and to help build community bridges early in the Chief's tenure. Learn more at: burienwa.gov/communityconversationpolice QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION 1. How do you hope the Burien Police Department will meet the needs of your neighborhood and community? 2. What changes do you hope to see in the Burien Police Department? 3. What should be the top three priorities of the Burien Police Department? 4. What personal qualities do you think are most important for the leader of the Burien Police Department? 5. Is there anything else you would like the City of Burien to consider regarding police services and/or the selection of a new Police Chief? BUILDING TRUST The City and Burien Police Department are committed to ensuring our policies and practices comply with the "immigration status ordinance" (Ordinance No. 651), which states City of Burien and Police personnel will not inquire, collect, or share information about a person's immigration status or religion. asook Burien ABOUT THE POLICE CHIEF SELECTION PROCESS The City contracts with King County Sheriff's Office (KCSO) for police services. City Manager Brian Wilson, appointed by the Burien City Council, is responsible for selecting a new police chief from a set of five candidates selected by King County Sheriff Mitzi Johanknecht. Former Chief Scott Kimerer retired on September 1, 2017. The King County Sheriff appointed interim police chiefs to serve during the police chief selection process (Mark Konoske followed by Marcus Williams). The community will have an opportunity to meet the candidates at public meeting on April 12, 6-8 p.m. at the Burien Community Center. The final selection of police chief will be made in April. For more information contact: Emily Inlow-Hood Communications Officer (206) 439-3167 or communications@burienwa.gov CITY 101: POLICE SERVICES THE CITY OF BURIEN IS A "CONTRACT CITY" King County Sheriff's Office (KCSO) has a contract with City of Burien to deliver police services in Burien under the name Burien Police Department. All Burien Police Department employees are employees of KCSO and report to the King County Sheriff. There are 43 police personnel in the Burien Police Department. However, they are also supported by other KCSO units, such as K9, SWAT, air support, specialty officers, marine and dive unit, etc. THE CITY OF BURIEN ISA COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. The council-manager form consists of an elected city council which is responsible for policymaking, and a professional city manager, appointed by the council, who is responsible for administration. The city manager provides policy advice, directs the daily operations of city government, handles personnel functions (including the power to appoint and remove employees) and is responsible for preparing the city budget. The City Manager is responsible for hiring the Burien Police Chief from a pool of internal KCSO candidates the Sheriff selects. The police chief reports directly to the city manager, who functions like any other department leader. Burien City Council City Manager (appointed) City Leadership Team L King County Council L King County Sheriff (elected) Burien Police Chief City Departments Burien Police Department BY THE NUMBERS: • 43 full-time police officers. • 3-8 officers on duty at any one time. • 73 police officers when specialty and support services are included. OTHER KCSO "CONTRACT CITIES" INCLUDE: ■ Town of Beaux Arts Village • City of Carnation • City of Covington ■ City of Kenmore • King County International Airport • City of Maple Valley • King County Metro Transit • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe • City of Newcastle • City of Sammamish • City of SeaTac ■ City of Shoreline ■ Town of Skykomish • Sound Transit ■ City of Woodinville LA CIUDAD DE BURIEN ES UNA "CIUDAD POR CONTRATO" La Oficina del Alguacil del condado de King (King County Sheriff's Office, KCSO) tiene un contrato con la ciudad de Burien para prestar servicios policiales en Burien bajo el nombre de Departamento de Policia de Burien. Todos los empleados del Departamento de Policia de Burien son empleados de la KCSO y se reportan ante el Alguacil del condado de King. Hay 43 integrantes del personal policial en el Departamento de Policia de Burien. Sin embargo, tambien cuentan con el apoyo de otras unidades de la KCSO, como el K9, el SWAT, apoyo aereo, oficiales especializados, unidades marinas y de buceo, etc. LA CIUDAD DE BURIEN ES UNA FORMA DE GOBIERNO DE CONSEJO-ADMINISTRADOR. La forma de consejo-administrador esta conformada por un consejo municipal electo que es responsable de la formulacion de politicas, y un gestor municipal profesional, designado por el consejo, que es responsable de la administracion. EI gestor municipal brinda asesoramiento sobre politicas, dirige las operaciones diarias del gobierno de la ciudad, maneja las funciones del personal (incluida la facultad de nombrar y destituir empleados) y es responsable de preparar el presupuesto de la ciudad. EI gestor municipal es responsable de contratar al Jefe de Policia de Burien de entre un grupo de candidatos internos de la KCSO seleccionados por el Alguacil. El jefe de policia informa directamente al gestor municipal, que funciona como cualquier otro jefe de departamento. Consejo de Ia ciudad de Burien Gestor municipal (designado) Equipo de Liderazgo de Ia Ciudad L Consejo del condado de King Alguacil del r }' condado de King (electo) Jefe de Policia de Burien Departamentos de la ciudad Departamento de Policia de Burien EN CIFRAS: ■ 43 oficiales de policia a tiempo completo. ■ De 3 a 8 oficiales de guardia en cualquier momento. ■ 73 oficiales de policia cuando se incluyen servicios especializados y de apoyo. OTRAS "CIUDADES POR CONTRATO DE LA KCSO" INCLUYEN: ■ El pueblo de Beaux Arts Village ■ La ciudad de Carnation ■ La ciudad de Covington ■ La ciudad de Kenmore ■ El aeropuerto Internacional del condado de King ■ La ciudad de Maple Valley ■ Metro Transit del condado de King ■ La tribu indigena Muckleshoot ■ La ciudad de Newcastle ■ La ciudad de Sammamish ■ La ciudad de SeaTac ■ La ciudad de Shoreline ■ El pueblo de Skykomish ■ Sound Transit ■ La ciudad de Woodinville CITY 101: POLICE SERVICES THE CITY OF BURIEN IS A "CONTRACT CITY" King County Sheriff's Office (KCSO) has a contract with City of Burien to deliver police services in Burien under the name Burien Police Department. All Burien Police Department employees are employees of KCSO and report to the King County Sheriff. There are 43 police personnel in the Burien Police Department. However, they are also supported by other KCSO units, such as K9, SWAT, air support, specialty officers, marine and dive unit, etc. THE CITY OF BURIEN ISA COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. The council-manager form consists of an elected city council which is responsible for policymaking, and a professional city manager, appointed by the council, who is responsible for administration. The city manager provides policy advice, directs the daily operations of city government, handles personnel functions (including the power to appoint and remove employees) and is responsible for preparing the city budget. The City Manager is responsible for hiring the Burien Police Chief from a pool of internal KCSO candidates the Sheriff selects. The police chief reports directly to the city manager, who functions like any other department leader. Burien City Council City Manager (appointed) City Leadership Team King County Council L King County Sheriff (elected) Burien Police Chief City Departments Burien Police Department BY THE NUMBERS: • 43 full-time police officers. • 3-8 officers on duty at any one time. • 73 police officers when specialty and support services are included. OTHER KCSO "CONTRACT CITIES" INCLUDE: ■ Town of Beaux Arts Village • City of Carnation ■ City of Covington • City of Kenmore • King County International Airport • City of Maple Valley • King County Metro Transit ■ Muckleshoot Indian Tribe • City of Newcastle • City of Sammamish ■ City of SeaTac ■ City of Shoreline • Town of Skykomish ■ Sound Transit ■ City of Woodinville ■ Listen actively—respect others when they are talking. Assume goodwill. ■ Speak from your own experience instead of generalizing ("I" instead of "they," "we," and "you"). ■ Do not be afraid to respectfully challenge one another by asking questions, but refrain from personal attacks—focus on ideas. ■ Participate to the fullest of your ability—community growth depends on the inclusion of every individual voice. ■ Instead of invalidating somebody else's story with your own spin on her or his experience, share your own story and experience. ■ The goal is not to agree—it is to gain a deeper understanding. ■ Be conscious of body language and nonverbal responses they can be as disrespectful as words. ■ What else? Come up with ground rules for your table. Case Study: Olympia, WA Jessica Bateman, Councilmember Stacey Ray, Senior Planner Through collaborative and open discussions, Olympians embrace a shared responsibility to make our community a better place. - 2014 Comprehensive Plan 1 Goals The City, individual citizens, other agencies and organizations all have a role in helping accomplish the vision and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. People of all ages, backgrounds and physical abilities con access public meetings and information. City decision processes are transparent and enable effective participation of the public. Citizens and other key stakeholders feel their opinions and ideas are heard, valued, and used by policy makers. advisory committees, and staff. Innovation to Practice Why are we trying new ways to authentically engage with citizens? • Build trust and relationships • Collaborate and problem -solve together • Engage people where they are in the community • Include typically underrepresented voices • Reduce barriers to involvement • Use data to tell stories and inform decision-making • Fully capture and reflect back what we hear from community members and stakeholders 2 Community Cony Budget Priorit' Community Conversation on Budget 225 invitations sent 72 responses 32 said "yes" 35 people attended Participant Demographics: People of color (14%) Income < $50K (20%) Renters (14%) Never participated in a planning process (40%) 3 What Were We Trying? • Better matching participants to our demo. profile • Asking about community priorities—not "budget" • More dialogue among citizens • Councilmembers as ethnographers; reflecting back what they heard at the end What Was the Result? Evaluation questions (2/10) 1 am confident that the feedback we provided today will influence decisions at City Hall. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 4 % 33 % Participant: "They actually listened to me!" 4 Olympia Economy Innovation Forum Economy Innovation Forum Purpose: How do we create an economy in our community that helps build stability and prosperity for those currently struggling to make ends meet? • 60 participants; representing non-profit, gov't, business, and citizens • Jointly planned and hosted by a core team of 9 community members • Culmination of 6 months of co -learning about the link between economic development and poverty 5 What Were We Trying? Developing a team of leaders to help address poverty in our community through an economic development lens Co -learn about a complex system and our roles in it Co -host a community dialogue to result in possible new connections or initiatives C44 I AK, d EcaaoM' u •�q1• <y5.i. The invitation matters More dialogue Use electronic polling (with alternatives) Involve youth 6 What We Are Learning • Choose the right facilitator(s) • Incorporate different ways to show we are listening • Go to where people are in the community What We Are Learning • Know your purpose; be clear and up front about it • Need to invest time in "co -learning" to build lasting partnerships • The City doesn't need to Iead...but strong and equal investment in purpose are needed to sustain initiatives 7 Next Steps • Record processes, identify best practices and develop "toolkits" • Develop skills in-house • Continue to engage with our participants • Share what we've learned • Continue to innovate! AI otninecsavw OCJC96[aaa uom �TV�y s fg' `Y�j7II J x. Q.. 221 A'f NF.W d� wba�e U7tCtyTw /u11li�C� '' 227. Avf oc b �,. � IS WOR.KINv- [\x U, nH �nver„kun. , ;,c.%,',1 -1 H O V V .,�.tPH�tl g..vi"r, '/ _ '''- . - b ((1 IPI, `o .'• y' a, '�;. ,1S j R` ppY -_; '-1oFr-t`n. s,'"...--'.m+w �'*^' nA . - -..- 4-nna:n. r--,+-, t ,, .�/r S "r .;.N ,nom \ .. his sw,..ry 1 8 April 14 Community Conversation Tonight • Conversation Purpose • Pilot • Participation • The Experience • What We Learned • Next Steps Administrative Services l Office of Performance and Innovation 6/15/2018 1 Community Conversation to Inform City Priorities Purpose: Listen to citizen's perspectives on the top priorities...to inform the City's budget investments over the next two years. Pilot We were testing: • Using the community survey to reach typically underrepresented voices • Matching our community demographic profile • How we extended the invitation • Reducing barriers: bus passes, child activities, food • Asking about budget priorities in a different way • Capturing participant input in new ways Administrative Services 1 Office of Performance and Innovation 6/15/2018 2 Participants 225 invitations sent 72 responses 32 said "yes" 35 people attended Participant Demographics: • People of color (14%) • Income < $50K (20%) • Renters (14%) • Never participated in a planning process (40%) Administrative Services 1 Office of Performance and Innovation Who Participated Mul[Iplrcholce poll How long have you lived in Olympia? 530 year= 2 1 -i11 40+ 1 6/15/2018 3 Who Participated What kinds of City meetings or processes have you participated in before? None -Pm new at this! Attended a City Council Meeting Commented on a proposed plan or project Attended an open house or neighborhood meeting Participated as a member of a locus group or special committee Administrative Services Office of Performance and Innovation I am confident that the feedback we provided today will influence decisions at City Hall. 6/15/2018 4 What We Heard from Participants • Liked the interaction with each other • Appreciated the effort • Felt heard • Enjoyed a positive atmosphere • Liked electronic polling • Could discuss a range of topics Administrative Services 1 Office of Performance and Innovation 6/15/2018 5 What We Heard from Participants Areas to Improve: • More time for dialogue • Alternative to Slido • Host more conversations • Send out materials in 0.6 Involve more youth • Choose other venues Administrative Services 1 Office of Performance and Innovation 6/15/2018 6 What Did We Learn? • The invitation matters • We can better match our demographic profile 010 with "small batch" invites and follow-up—this method takes resources • Interest in all 5 Focus Areas ,i0.T e GlaUnaL 7 edQ@Q0L U®L� r,, 11.7,1)18 ▪ 79-.7:0. N6w ', ;�:o ,ra+mt'nrvr�,rr I i /1:1 .' nttu4 ' °"`HQW vo {r rm:rn,H,rn. ..ire TYe 1 I I I I11 rcv r rwrr ,1 .ENV11S(INMFrIT \,!„-41[11j[\ ill Ll rant �eA3?'S '. NrY �1N�'• .}• tit MM V fV• - r,t'�ra tilt ��• Ftun rtr wr •7 1ISI 1.nl ,-'Mies n ' I,awvwury j What Did We Learn? • Less presentation; more citizen dialogue • Incorporate ways to show we are listening: — Reflections — Visual listening • Involve youth • Use electronic polling (with alternatives) 6/15/2018 7 Next Steps Community Conversation • Thank participants and share out what we heard • Identify best practices • Share what we learned with staff • Consider link to a broader communication strategy Administrative Services 1 Office of Performance and Innovation Next Steps 1111 Budget Process— • Confirm what priorities already have dedicated resources and/or actions underway • Consider what's new that has budget implications • Look for patterns in the feedback that suggest: — Future Council Study Sessions — Future Community Conversations Administrative Services 1 Office of Performance and Innovation 6/15/2018 8 *AIL Olympia March 12, 2018 City of Olympia 1 Capital of Washington State P.O. Box 1967, Olympia, WA 98507-1967 olympiawa.gov billgerman@hotmail.com Dear Bill: Thank you for participating in the City of Olympia's citizen survey last November, and thank you for saying you'd be willing to continue to engage with us on issues important to the City. We appreciate your time and your viewpoint. I'd like to take you up on your offer by inviting you to join us for a Community Conversation on Saturday, April 14, from 10:00 AM -12:00 PM at The Olympia Center (222 Columbia ST NW, Olympia, WA 98501). We would like to share some information and background on the City's annual budget. Then, most of our time together will be for us to hear from you about the following topics: • What do you think are the most important issues facing the City? • What areas should we invest more or less of our time and money? Your views will help inform the City's budget for the next two years. To make joining us as convenient as possible, we would like to offer a free bus pass, light snacks, and free child activities during the meeting. The Olympia Center also has free parking. Please let us know by Friday, March 30, if you can join us, so we can plan for your attendance. You can either accept or decline our invitation by contacting Stacey Ray at (360) 753-8046 or sray@ci.olympia.wa.us. When you respond, please let Stacy know if you would like any of the following: ❑ Bus pass ❑ Free child activities. Please include the number of children and age(s). ❑ Special accommodations (Examples: language interpretation, hearing assistance, visual impairment, etc.) If you would like to learn more about the citizen survey results, you may view the final report on the City's website: www.olympiawa.gov/takeaction or request a copy from Stacey at (360) 753-8046. We hope you will join us! Cheryl Selby Mayor MAYOR: CHERYL SELBY MAYOR PRO TEM: NATHANIEL JONES CITY MANAGER: STEVEN R. HALL COUNCILMEMBERS: JESSICA BATEMAN, JIM COOPER, CLARK GILMAN, LISA PARSHLEY, RENATA ROLLINS City of Olympia COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS 1 PURPOSE SHEET Draft Date: 3/19/18 WHAT 2018 Community Conversation to inform City Priorities PURPOSE (WHY) Listen to citizen's perspectives on the top priorities for the City of Olympia, so that City Council can use those perspectives to inform the City's budget investments over the next two years. WHO A focus group of 40 Olympia residents who collectively reflect a demographically representative sample of Olympia citizens. The focus group was drawn from a list of over 500 registered voters who participated in the 2017 citizen survey. WHEN Saturday, April 14, 2018 from 10:00 am to 12:00 noon Depending on level of interest and lessons learned from this initial conversation, the City may host or co -host additional meetings. WHERE Olympia Community Center light refreshments, parking/transit, and childcare provided HOW Conversation cafe exercises are designed and warmly hosted to include and accommodate people from a diversity of backgrounds, experiences and abilities. Human centered meeting design emphasizes generative listening and participatory leadership practices. INTENTION The hope and intention is to foster conditions where citizen voices may be more authentically expressed, and elected and appointed leaders may listen more deeply. In turn, we hope this will foster even more meaningful and inclusive dialogue, creating more cohesion and trust in our city. MORE INFO Stacey Ray Long Range Planner with the Office of Performance and Innovation Bray@ci.olympia.wa.us (360) 753-8046 www.ci.olympia.wa.us/actionplan On the Agenda 10:00 AM Welcome from Mayor Cheryl Selby 10:15 AM City Budget Overview 10:30 AM Community Conversation Share your insights and perspectives on what is most important to our community. City staff listens and captures priorities to be considered in the City's budget process. 11:30 AM Closing Reflections The City of Olympia is committed to the nondiscriminatory treatment of all persons in the employment and the delivery of services and resources. Welcome! Thank you for joining us to share your perspectives on the top priorities for the City of Olympia. This is a different kind of meeting than we've held in the past. Over the next two hours together, we invite you into a fun, interactive, and meaningful conversation with City Councilmembers, City staff, and fellow Olympians about what City priorities are most important to you. We will listen closely to your stories, experiences, and perspectives, and use them to help inform the City's budget investments over the next two years. We also want to learn from today's conversation: What worked well? What could we do differently next time? Because we hope that our conversation doesn't end today, but is the beginning of an ongoing dialogue about what's most important to you and our community. 360.753.8046 sray@ci.olympia.wa.us City of Olympia I olympiawa.gov Five Focus Areas In 2014, the Olympia City Council adopted a new and ambitious community vision to guide how the City grows and develops over the next 20 years. We have taken that vision and identified these five focus areas that help us organize, track, and share our progress.To learn more go to olympiawa.gov/takeaction. Community, Safety, & Health • Inclusive, Respectful, Civic Participation A Safe and Prepared Community • Health and Wellness • A Quality Education • Adequate Food and Shelter Downtown • A Safe and Welcoming Downtown for All • A Mix of Urban Housing Options • A Variety of Businesses • Connections to Our Cultural and Historic Fabric • Engaged Arts and Entertainment Experiences • A Vibrant, Attractive, Urban Destination Ways We Serve These are just some of the things the City does to ensure a vibrant, healthy, beautiful, capital city. • We provide Public Safety through law enforcement, fire, and emergency management • We regulate residential and business construction • We provide safe and clean water • We build and operate sewer and wastewater facilities to help protect our environment • We build and maintain roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks • We provide and maintain beautiful parks and recreation facilities • We promote culture, arts, and heritage 2 I Olympia 1 Community Conversations Economy • Abundant Local Products and Services • A Thriving Arts and Entertainment Industry • Sustainable Quality Infrastructure • AStableThriving Economy Environment • Clean Water and Air • A Daily Connection to Nature • A Toxin -Free Community • Preserved, Quality Natural Areas Neighborhoods • Distinctive Places and Gathering Spaces • Neighborhoods are Engaged in Community Decision Making • Safe and Welcoming Places to Live • Nearby Goods and Services City Council Adopt Budget Priorities, Performance, and Investments Planning and Budget Cycle Community Indicators View Budget 365 January City Council Annual Retreat Annual Report to the Community February Community Conversations March City Council Tell Our Story City Council Update City Priorities Learn & Engage Planning Commission Public Hearing Capital Facilities Plan April - Sept Committees Comm'. Review City Council Mid -Year Retreat Prelim. CFP City Council Public Hearing Capital Facilities Plan October City Council Preliminary Operating Budget, Utility Rates, Impact Fees, & Taxes .0411111111111100., City Council Public Hearing Operating & Capital Budget, Taxes, Rates, and Fees, November City Council Balance Budget End of Year Accomplishments December Invest Making the Budget Call We Do It Well If the City cannot deliver a service well, the service should not be provided at all. We Focus Programs on Olympia Residents and Businesses We Invest in Employees The City will invest in employees and provide resources to maximize productivity. We Preserve Physical Infrastructure The City will give priority to maintaining existing infrastructure. We Pursue Innovative Approaches to Service Delivery The City will implement operational efficiencies and cost saving measures to achieve community values as well as pursuing partnerships with others. We Make Trade -Offs The City will not start new services without either ensuring that revenue can pay for the service and can be sustained over time. We Maintain Capacity to Respond to Emerging Community Needs We Pursue Entrepreneurial Initiatives We Use Unexpected One -Time Revenues for One -Time Costs or Reserves One-time revenues or revenues above projections will be used strategically to fund prioritized capital projects. We Selectively Recover Costs On a selective basis, have those who use a service pay the full cost. *This is a summary of Key Financial Principles from the City's Long Term Financial Strategy adopted by the City Council in 1999. Olympia 1 Community Conversations 1 3 Meet Your City Council Cheryl Selby Mayor Lisa Parshley Nathaniel Jones Mayor Pro Tem Jessica Bateman Clark Gilman Jim Cooper Renata Rollins Olympia I At A Glance 1859 Year Incorporated J, Area of City 20 (Square Miles) 0 Household MIncomeedian $62,854 HousingSalAveerPriagece , $310 116 Population 52,1 60 erae 4.4% Unemployment Rate �e�i t���� acroma MWSI Minute Average 6 Response Time 1 Fire Training Center Q Fire Engines 2 Ladder Truck Police Vehicles 48 2 Frlits Units Minute Average __ Response Time 0 Elementary Middle 11 Schools 4 Schools 4, High Schools 114 P bl cs A t 400 Sportsams League Te 48 Sites 1,242 PAcres j 12 Drinking Water Sources 9 A Streets Lane Miles Maintained 526 Visit olympiawa.gov/budget for more information on Olympia's finances. 4 1 Olympia I Community Conversations Community Conversation 14 Apr 2018 Poll results sIi®do Table of contents * How long have you lived in Olympia? ® What kinds of City meetings or processes have you participated in before? ® What is one word to describe how you feel arriving here today? * Evaluation Questions skdo Multiple-choice poll How long have you lived in Olympia? 1-4 years 5-10 years 11-20 years 21-40 40+ 10 19 % 19 % 14% sll„do Multiple-choice poll (Multiple answers) What kinds of City meetings or processes have you participated in before? None --I'm new at this! 24 Attended a City Council Meeting 4E 014 kr 38 60 % Commented on a proposed plan or project 40 % Attended an open house or neighborhood meeting Participated as a member of a focus group or special committee 20 slindo 52 % Wordcloud poll What is one word to describe how you feel arriving here today? interested and curious stoked optimistic appreciative sofarsogood intrigued —curious wondering interested iloveoly! psyched! inclusive sIi,do Multiple-choice poll Evaluation Questions (1/10) 1 feel like the people from City Hall listened to my views and opinions today.. Strongly Agree ml.Jr/'r�i Agree Disagree 8 % Strongly Disagree 0 sll,do 33 0/0 Multiple-choice poll valuation Questions (2/10) 1 am confident that the feedback we provided today will influence decisions at City Hall. Strongly Agree Ag re e Disagree .)4% Strongly Disagree 4 % sli do Multiple-choice poll 33 % Evaluation Questions (3/10) 1 would encourage a friend to participate in a future meeting. 58 Strongly Agree r_ ... 63 % Agree Disagree 4 % Strongly Disagree 0% 33 % sh.do Multiple-choice poll Evaluation Questions (4/10) 1 think I will pay more attention to city government after this experience. Strongly Agree 46 % Agree Cit II 4rL "r.Ir JrAll Jr AiPirdr 54 % Disagree 0 Strongly Disagree 0% sli,do Open text poll Evaluation Questions (5/10) What is one thing that you appreciated about today's event? (1/3) The work put into it. But I think you seriously misjudged your audience. This is a company town. Government is the industry. The budget presentations were almost insulting. Like saying how complex it is to build a jet in "Everett" Really ? • I'm not sure. Time will tell. o Hearing from others -their knowledge and concerns o Openness to hold a public sharing opportunity, Great food, very cheerful and optimistic Organization Staff willingness to listen and seek community participation Interactive environment for all to share their perspectives. I was thankful to be a part of the process Breaking out into multiple focus groups to discuss elements in depth, sli.do Open text poll Evaluation Questions (5/10) What is one thing that you appreciated about today's event? (2/3) but having an opportunity to comment on all 5 focus areas. ▪ Liked the instant survey • Learning that other citizens outside my age/social group see the same issues with a preference for positive solutions rather than negative elimination. ▪ That it happened! • Interacting with other people in the broader community. • The opportunity to Open text poll listen & participate ▪ Very organizied. Good forum and proceedure to keep on task. • They actually listened to me! • Seeing people together * The effort made by the city • Talking with other community members and getting their perspectives. • Hearing others. • Collaborative and inclusive • People were overall positive sli.do Evaluation Questions (5/10) What is one thing that you appreciated about today's event? (3/3) and not too complain -y. sIl®do Open text poll Evaluation Questions (6/10) What's one thing we should consider to make future events better? (1/3) ▪ Stop the Staff and consultant members. There was a huge (s) from talking so much. A assumption about everyone conversation is 2 ways or it's a having their smart phone with presentation them. Not everyone uses smart • This was marketed as a phones or even brought their community conversation, phone so the slido format was however there was very limited awkward. Although the food time for us to converse. For the spread was a nice touch, there time allotted, there was too was way too much of it (and much podium time by the don't think it's necessary for a consultants & city employees, 2 -hour meeting). Mayor & city council • Provide tech to all ▪ "Spread the wealth" slido Open text poll Evaluation Questions (6/10) What's one thing we should consider to make future events better? (2/3) as much as possible; increase the different voices. Maybe leverage other community gatherings with smaller engagements for input/feedback. • Less introductory stuff • Knowledge of agenda and subjects beforehand so we could be better prepared. • More ability for the greater community to know. • Invite high school and college students to participate. ▪ This was spot on. I suggest sending us a follow-up summary. • Perhaps open the conversation to a wider audience of residents and community stakeholders. • Less time from speakers/facilitators • More openness for participation by the public. • Let us know ahead if sliado Open text poll Evaluation Questions (6/10) What's one thing we should consider to make future events better? (3/3) cell phones will be used. * More events or attendees for a broader perspective. 6 Encouraged ▪ More use of this technology ▪ Break out by the groups for more specific discussion • More than 2 hours. • All good • Facilitators for each group. Ours floundered for someone to keep on track. slLclo Open text poll Evaluation Questions (7/10) What else would you like to say or let us know about? (1/4) • The major obstacle to affordable housing is city taxes. At this moment city taxes are 50 percent of my house payment . Mortgage is700 taxes are300+ a month. • Personally, less 'cutesy-ness'. I was there to buckle down and here from other community members, and voice my opinion were appropriate. Perhaps even have my opinion swayed. There seemed to be a relatively small amount of time to do that in the 2 hour span. Most of the community in attendance seemed educated and I'd assume a good % work for state government. So 'budgets' are understandable. It appeared that Stacey worked hard to get this put together and ensure attendance. Please go to some communities that are sh do Open text poll Evaluation Questions (7/10) What else would you like to say or let us know about? (2/4) underrepresented or hard to reach, schools and talk to kids, senior centers, shelters, major employers, immigrant groups, people with disabilities • Communication challenges are not only transparency but clarity - sharing with a focus to what influenced decisions and choices so the public has a sense of how action is a planned/implemented. • Opportunity to see Open text poll budget mid -year and to be able to comment. Great job on your 1st meeting! Appreciate it! Have a great idea to encourage residents to work together. Can I get a person to email this to. Contact me Wndmyrstcm@outlook.co. Thank you for your time I love Olympia! I appreciate this opportunity to help shape some slido Evaluation Questions (7/10) What else would you like to say or let us know about? (3/4) of the priorities of the city budget. • I appreciate the opportunity to participate • Really liked the real time surveys . • Please do keep the peoplw of Olympia informed and aware of decisions being made and opportunities for public imput. (and not just via The Olympian) 6, More open dialogue regarding planning and the philosophy driving strategic goals. 6 It was great • Appreciate the effort by the city to hear from citizensinformative • A safe dog park downtown. • Be aware that the people who are unhappy with the city and upset about taxes and spending are most likely not here. The information sli.do Open text poll Evaluation Questions (7/10) What else would you like to say or let us know about? (4/4) gathered today is done so by people who are happy to give back financially or with time. Great job Thanks for doing this! slido Wordcloud poll Evaluation Questions (8/10) What is one word that describes your experience of this conversation? community focused confudence inclusiveness good skeptical complicated collaborative introspective thoughtful interested hopeful execution hesitant excited! intentions simple verygood productive interesting poor validated community enjoyable informative skdo Wordcloud poll Evaluation Questions (9/10) What other community conversation topics would interest you? homeless olympialevel small concerns partnerships parking support way police mini attitude sea pars learning improving situation neighborhoods seattledowntown training specificdig works them! diverse elder) ones? y growth ■ divided governing opinions public trends yes communit rise rpect k local related kindness people dog peace walkability interested expansion sll.do Multiple --choice poll Evaluation Questions (10/10) Would you be willing to provide a friend for us to contact about attending a future community conversation? descalation Yes 55 % No 9% Maybe sl l ,d0 GICAWC Center for Quality Communities nTHURSTON Can we build a local economy in CENTEMUSINESS 1 N NOVAT ION which everyone can prosper? 1076 Franklin St SE Olympia, WA 98501 360.753.4137 800.562.8981 Olympia "With pilot funding from the Center for Quality Communities, a core group of concerned community leaders has, in recent months, been discussing the question: How do we create an economy in our community that helps build stability and prosperity for those currently struggling to make ends meet? "The group feels that it's now time to expand the conversation in the community to address this question, and you have been identified as an important person to take part in it. Our purpose is to convene a new kind of community conversation to address this question, and you have been identified as an important person to take part in it. We invite you to join us for two preliminary learning sessions and a culminating Economy Innovation Forum on February 9, 2018 from 8 am -12 pm at the South Puget Sound Community College Lacey Campus, followed by a potluck lunch. We believe this is an urgent task, because in spite of today's relatively strong economy, a growing number of individuals and families in our community struggle with economic instability, underemployment, and rapidly rising housing costs. People who barely make ends meet — or who actually don't quite make ends meet — live with constant stress, worry, and crisis that is particularly harmful to children. Long-term economic instability also puts our whole community at risk of intractable economic division and growing homelessness. We want to explore what our community could do to ease the burdens of stress and want on low-income families and adults, and to create more accessible pathways to prosperity. There is good work already underway in our community, but we think it's time to consider new ideas and partnerships, and new local government policy initiatives. We hope you can also attend our evening learning session on February 7th. February 7, 2018 - Creating and improving pathways to economic equity and upward mobility - 7-9pm - Coach House, 211 21St Ave SW, Olympia, WA 98501 We'II hear stories of people who have pursued various pathways to employment and learn what obstacles they faced.We'll also discuss apprenticeships, career and technical education, mentoring programs, and programs that help start-ups and small businesses. We will imagine how these programs might be expanded or altered to remove barriers and create new pathways for economic success. more on back ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CiTiES www.cfqc.org C9( AWC Center for Quality Communities 1076 Franklin St SE Olympia, WA 98501 360.753.4137 800.562.8981 February 9, 2018 -The Economy Innovation Forum - 8am-12pm — South Puget Sound Community College Lacey Campus, 4220 6th Ave SE Lacey WA, 98506 Go to the following link to register for this event: http://events.constantcontact.com/reg ister/event?II r=ekcgx8iab&oeidk=a07eeziktzw2e562f50 We need to think and talk together to find ways to reduce poverty, prevent homelessness, and help all the children in our community get a strong, stable start towards a successful life. Come share your ideas.Truly, the future quality and prosperity of our community depends on our ability to tackle this problem. We sincerely hope you will join us for these conversations. Please RSVP by February 2nd and indicate if you plan to also attend the February 7 session: Creating and improving pathways to economic equity and upward mobility. Unable to attend? Know this is a long term effort, we welcome your support, wisdom, and creative efforts towards our shared intent to create an economy where everyone can prosper. Please be in contact to help us discover what we can do here! Thank you, Core Team Members Stacey Ray, City of Olympia; Michael Cade, Thurston Economic Development Council; Eric Trevan, The Evergreen State College; Mindie Reule, the Community Foundation of South Puget Sound; Kairie Pierce, Pac Mountain Workforce Development; Keith Stahley, City of Olympia, Jill Severn, former member of the board of Quixote Village; ConnorTibke, community member (unaffiliated); Kyle Wiese,Thurston Economic Development Council ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CI I IES CITY OF SEQUIM NMI ■ ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CiTiES 111111„1111114,.....ll4 i fffl1� fl I 1A rv,S Tlglml �MEMO 1 Am- 0 CiTi ES ORGANIZATIONAL PRIORITIES AWC CREATE PARTNERSHIPS C;T•I E • Establish relationships • Where do organizational vision and or goals overlap? • Understand the need • What does each organization bring to the table? • Start with one thing or pilot a program 1 2 Awr BUILD PARTNERSHIPS Evaluate the pilot as a team Connection developed Greater investment in the partnership as U JI AM" CONNECTED Et SUPPORTIVE PARTNERSHIPS .1.1.K.00,1•12 - al el lit 10C.te• fa First Federal F. 4, JUNE 4 THROUGH 15, 2018 2 Weeks of Service Projects • • 4 * WO wild smipw. Habitat Ng • / • 3 4 ewe CiTiES SEQUIM SERVICE FEST Awr SEQUIM SERVICE FEST CiTiES 5 • AWC SEQUIM SERVICE FEST CITiE'S 6 7 QUESTIONS CFF ES CANDACE PRATT Deputy Mayor cpratt@sequimwa.gov 360-582-0114 CHARISSE DESCHENES, AICP Assistant to the City Manager cdeschenes@sequimwa.gov 360-681-3432 1111111111111111111111111, 8 The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum of Public Participation IAP2'S PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SPECTRUM 19:1114JS.111.111 ui[7:[371 ming an International standard. INCREASING IMPACT ON THE DECISION INFORM To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions, We will keep you informed. CONSULT .110002 To obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions. We will keep you informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and aspirations, and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision. We will seek your feedback on drafts and proposals. INVOLVE Ifo work directly with tie public throughout the process to ensure That public concems wand aspirations sire consistently (understood and considered. We vAll work with you to ensure that your concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the alternatives developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision. To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of , alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution. We will work together with you formulate solutions and incorporate: your advice and recommendation into the decisions to the maximum extent possible. As a decision maker what is your goal for involving the public in decisions? What is the level of influence they can have over that decision? What is your promise to the public as to their impact on the decision and decision process? These are important questions to answer before beginning to involve the public. As you study the Spectrum, words matter. Inform means to tell; Consult — to seek advice; Involve — to engage or include; Collaborate—to work together; and Empower—to give power, to authorize. Now read the goals for each level. You will see that the public's participation and influence increases as you move to the right. Next, read the promise to the public for each level. How much influence are you willing to allow the public to have? How can you best manage their expectations for involvement? The public may want to collaborate while the decision maker is most comfortable with consult. It isn't "better" to be farther to the right; it is important that you are clear as to the extent the public can affect the outcome. Once you answer these questions, the best participatory process can be designed and techniques selected that will meet your objectives. It is better to "under promise" and "over deliver". As you begin to involve the public, you may find that you can to move to the next level of participation. Using the Spectrum The Rozelle Group Ltd. RGL97marty@rozellegroup.com 602.224.0847 • Higher is not necessarily better, select the level that is most appropriate to your project, community, and constraints. • The level you select will be the highest level of potential influence, many stakeholders will choose to engage at lower levels, or not at all. There is specific public input we seek and intend to take into account as we make our decisions (we are not simply seeking public buy -in)? Yes We are seeking to engage stakeholders early and throughout the process rather than just get public comment at one or two points? Yes We intend to bring together a diverse group of stakeholders to work on the problem and potentially seek consensus? INFORM 1 >"( CONSULT Yes We intend to give decision-making authority to the public on all or part of the decision? [No INVOLVE > C COLLABORATE [Yes ] Flowchart developed by Doug Sarno at doug@forumfg.com. EMPOWER Ask Yourself: • What aspects of the decision are already determined? • What aspects of the decision can the public actually affect? • At what points in the process can the public be most helpful and/or influential? • Are we too far down the path of decision-making and can we step back? • How much are we willing to change from what is proposed? • How much power are we really willing to share? The Rozelle Group Ltd. RGL97marty@rozellegroup.com 602.224.0847 vA° Habitat AS ir<< CITY OF for Humanity SEQUIM SERVICE FEST St, ``:. _.1' Iu I of Galla 11 County Building Community THE RIGHT PARTICIPATION FOR YOUR COMMUNITY • Engagement design matters. How much input are you seeking? How much power are you willing to share? What questions will you ask? Who are the decision makers, stakeholders? How does your council feel about what you are doing? Do you have the right people in the room? Are there unintended consequences of asking these questions? Can those consequences be mitigated? • Follow-up is critical. Deliver on what you promised. • Leverage resources in your community to deliver a better process and outcomes. In our case, Habitat, First Federal, service clubs, etc. • Keep your eyes on the prize — what are you really hoping to accomplish? • Be ready to unlock potential you did not know existed. Expect the unexpected, have fun, and allow yourself to be surprised. • Citizens working closely with their government and other partners to solve problems is increasingly important in our politically polarized society. It brings us back in communities to why we are really here, to support and serve each other to create a better life for everyone. PARTNERING FOR AN EVENT OR PROGRAM • Establish your common goal. • What do you bring to the table? What do the partner agencies provide? • Create a framework and playbook for the event • Meet regularly . For Sequim Service Fest and other events leading up to the two week engagement, players met for one hour every week. • Build in systems to support those people in the field. The City activated the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to run the event and also train for a real emergency. • Celebrate the success and provide marketing and coverage. Reach the public in many ways and utilize the partner agencies. Social Media, radio and news stations, news releases emails, RSS feeds, etc. • Give your event a social media hashtag. Example: #sequimservicefest • Review the event or program soon after the finale. What went well? What would you change? What would you stop doing? What is interesting? 1 PARTNER AGENCY TAKE -AWAY • Built stronger and better relationships with City Staff and the community • Prepare to make decisions on the fly once the event/project starts, unexpected things will come up • Advertise, advertise, advertise! No matter how far in advance, how many different ways you try to engage folks, there will still be those that miss the message (and complain). In our case we did the following: Community Presentations to Service Clubs, Realtors Associations, Churches in addition to social media, Radio, and newspaper articles. • Start planning early, as it make all the difference in a well -executed project • Have FUN — build some outside of the box events into your project i.e. pancake breakfast for staff and volunteers, concerts • Be GRATEFUL — show appreciation publicly and often for all of those involved! STAFF CONTACTS Charlie Bush City Manager, City of Sequim 152 W. Cedar St. Sequim, WA 98382 cbush@sequimwa.gov 360-681-3440 Charisse Deschenes Assistant to the City Manager, City of Sequim 152 W. Cedar St. Sequim, WA 98382 cdeschenes@sequimwa.gov 360-681-3432 Colleen Robinson Executive Director, Habitat for Humanity of Clallam County 728 East Front Street P.O. Box 1479 Port Angeles, WA 98362 colleen@habitatclallam.org 360-775-3742 2 Filling the Downtown Gaps: How to fill empty Tots and empty buildings SAVE YOUR .town Links and resources from Filling the Downtown Gaps: How to fill empty Tots and empty buildings Becky McCray SaveYour.Town 2 Why are those buildings empty? • Expensive code -compliance issues or huge remodeling needs? o Try targeted incentives for improvements o Adopt historic reuse codes or adaptive reuse zoning, • Seattle Existing Building Code (SEBC) http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/codesrules/codes/existingbuildingcode/default.ht m • Los Angeles Adaptive Reuse Ordinance https://preservation.lacity.org/incentives/adaptive-reuse-ordinance o Consider waivers for fees and streamlining processes • Absentee owners? o Appeal to their vanity o Talk about a future for their children and grandchildren o Layer them with positive info • Cheaper to let them rot than do something? o Blight fight' ordinance would levy $200 fee on owners of vacant buildings https://web.archive.org/web/zo16o8181g1847/http://standardspeaker.com/news/blight -fight-ordinance-would-levy-zoo-fee-on-owners-of-vacant-buildings-1.2072854 • Owners asking for too much in rent? o Take negotiation authority into your own hands • Clouded titles? o Prevention strategies http://www.communityprogress.net/blog/heirs-property-part • No activity downtown? o Start rebuilding activity http://smallbizsurvival.com/zo12/o6/how-to-rebuild-your- downtown-and-fill.html Tour of Empty Buildings • Why tour empty buildings? http://smallbizsurvival.com/2o13/o5/small-town-economic- development-idea-tour-empty-buildings.html • Vineland, New Jersey's vacancy tour http://buff.ly/22IY8av • Crowsnest Pass, Alberta, Empty Building Tour https://twitter.com/stonesthrowcafe/status/717on3g1153389c68 • Mulvane, Kansas, wants to fill empty storefronts in its downtown http://buff.ly/1JFiRXz • Does touring empty buildings lead to new businesses? http://goo.gl/fb/cyjnyE • Can't do a tour? Do a virtual conversation #OpportunityCork photos: http://www.hashatit.com/hashtags/OpportunityCork Ideas for new businesses • Retail leakage or gap statistics o Waterloo, Illinois: http://waterlooretail.com/retail-demand/retail-gap-analysis/ © 2018, Becky McCray 3 o Learn more about gap analysis from Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service (PDF) http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-go63/AGEC- ao49web.pdf • Small business ideas for small towns ebook o http://smallbizsurvival.com/2oo8/o5/small-business-ideas-for-small-towns.html • Specific businesses that have worked in other small towns: o Wisconsin Extension small-town innovative downtown businesses https://fyi.uwex.edu/innovativedowntownbusinesses/ Get beyond traditional business ideas: Other things you can do with downtown buildings • Shared spaces o Washington, Iowa: http://smallbizsurvival.com/2o13/o8/one-downtown-building-many- new-retail-stores.html o Ferdinand, Illinois (pop 2100) http://smallbizsurvival.com/2oso/o4/community-of- small-businesses.html • Business incubators o Make incubators work in small towns http://smallbizsurvival.com/2013/oq/business- incubator-ideas-for-small-towns.html • Maker spaces and co -working o Empty hospital building now home to Innovation Lab in Sonora, California http://smallbizsurvival.com/2o15/os/empty-hospital-building-innovation-lab.html o Vacant industrial spaces are reborn to support a new age of small-scale manufacturing http://buff.ly/1KoSfPo o Pella, Iowa, co -working: http://smallbizsurvival.com/2o11/o3/how-to-start-coworking- space-in-your.html o Arts and crafts incubator: http://buff.ly/1Bc2m2u • Pop-up businesses o What is a pop-up business? http://smallbizsurvival.com/2o14/o3/what-is-a-pop-up- business.html • Pop-up arts o Show off local artists, fill up empty buildings: Pop-up artisans take over Main Street for holidays (Canada) http://globalnews.ca/news/22g1o78/pop-up-artisans-to-take-over- main-street-for-the-holiday-season/ o How one town is doing pop up shops to fill an empty building: http://ow.ly/taLTA • Farmer's Market o Empty grocery store building to become farmers' market http://www.dailylocal.com/business/2o15o228/former-acme-in-westtown-to-become- farmers-market Westtown, PA, population 10,000 • Residential housing o Retain more youth: offer downtown housing http://smallbizsurvival.com/2o11/o6/want- to-retain-more-youth-offer-them.html © 2018, Becky McCray 4 o Downstairs, storefront apartments: http://www.kcrg.com/content/news/Storefront- apartments-could-fill-empty-buildings-in-downtown-Toledo-3677R5191.html • Short term lodging o Upstairs lodging, Buffalo, Oklahoma: http://snnallbizsurvival.com/2olo/oi/upstairs- downton.html o Empty store converted into hotel encourages exploration of the local area http://www.springwise.com/empty-store-converted-hotel-encourages-exploration- local-area/ • Community living room o A comfy meeting space where you hold conversations and listen to regular people o http://www.communityloversguide.org/gallery/agltw6x4oz3mRm7Ygxbjjloyohxawo o https://issuu.com/communitvloversguide/docs/woonkamer van de burgemeesterL3?e =4226548/2118933 Buildings in poor condition • Keep existing buildings up to code o Toolkit for preventing blight, keeping properties up to code and fighting long-term blight http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/swell/fromblighttobright/#/o • Finding Funding: Get neighbors together to buy and renovate o These small town neighbors bought vacant buildings, brought them up to code. Here's what happened next https://smallbizsurvival.com/2o18/o3/small-town-neighbors- bought-vacant-buildings-brought-code-heres-happened-next.html o Neighbors in Minneapolis Got Together to Buy Vacant Buildings. Now they're renting to local businesses: http://buff.ly/1zHxWkn • Show what it could be o Decals on store windows in Longview, Texas o City using vinyl window decals depicting historic scenes for vacant properties downtown http://buff.ly/iRd15eE o Fairy tales fill empty windows downtown http://www.rentonreporter.com/community/221725341.html Roofless Buildings Safety First • Inspect, weather seal, shore up Getting a Crowd Involved • Placemaking concepts of "lighter, quicker, cheaper." a. Lot Expo, Cincinnati b. Center for Community Progress: #LoveThatLot © 2018, Becky McCray 5 Not-for-profit ideas Ways to make a park more than just a park: Example: Cuba, Missouri, 20 years of improvement 1. Capture rainwater and head off drainage problems with green space: a. Empty lotto permaculture space: Stuanton, VA b. Vacant Lots into Sponges for Stormwater: Detroit, MI 2. Make it a community garden or flower garden. a. Add places to sit down in the shade: pergola and bench b. Add birdhouses and flowers: New Orleans 3. Add a public restroom. a. Pocket park with public restrooms in Tishomingo, Oklahoma 4. Add local art, or create an outdoor museum. a. Market Square ART Park, Paducah, KY b. ArtPark on Pine, Albany, GA 5. Make a free event space. a. Market place and an outdoor concert space Eden, Texas b. Empty lot to become art and performance space: Nicholasville, KY 6. Set up games and fun things to do together. a. Placemaking examples that include play. 7. Make it a beach instead of a park. a. Detroit, MI Bring people together in your "house." 1. Living room a. CFRA outdoor living room 2. Exercise room © 2o18, Becky McCray 6 a. Outdoor Gym equipment: Detroit, MI 3. Home theater room a. Lyons Storefront Theater, Lyons, NE Not -just -for-profit ideas Rent the space for special events. 1. Porterdale, Georgia, Outdoor eating space. 1. Saint Francis, Kansas: Union Square 2. A Beer Garden in Paris, Texas: https://eparisextra.com/blog/2o17/o9/18/paris-pairs/ Get commercial 1. Pop-up a village of shops. a. Tionesta, Pennsylvania b. Pascagoula, Mississippi: Anchor Square c. Cleveland, OH shipping containers © 2018, Becky McCray Get weekly ideas like this in my newsletter A Positive View of Rural Sign up here: http://saveyour.town/bonusioi POSITIVE VIEW OF RURAL Want me to come speak in your town? Details at beckymccray.com © 2018, Becky McCray Placemaking + Citizen Engagement through Public Art Elaine Cook, Deputy Mayor Kellye Mazzoli, Asst to the City Manager Hillary Long, Dev Services Records Clerk 1 acemaking + Citizen Engage What is Placemaking? Strengtheningthe conn ec fitirori_between people and the'places they share. Placemaking + Citizen Engagement Tell the story of your community Collaborative process Sense of Place Meaningful places in your city Useful places for citizens + visitors Arts + Your Local Economy • Positive impacts for businesses and you Arts + Your Tourist Economy • Reasons to visit + come back 3; Arts + the Community Benefit • Broken window theory • Anti -graffiti measure 2 3 Project Goals C3 Create inviting atmosphere @ entrance of our city O Revitalize our Downtown core Engage w/ community members + citizens. O Develop attractive spaces citizens want to use O Promote our industry + identity © Foster community partnerships Murals @ the Gateway Trestle a Create inviting entrance to our city Celebration of Woodinville's 251h Anniversary of Incorporation Alleviate an attractive graffiti site v 270 volunteers painted 20 staff members 0 Project Budget: $20,070 $11,570 grant / $8,500 city 0 <, Actual: $17,749 4 Materials: What did we use? Alumalite: strong + lightweight product Composed of two aluminum panels with a corrugated plastic core Commonly used for outdoor signs oComes in a variety of sizes ()Primer / Paint / Sealer Project Schedule Nov. Awarded grant: Port of Seattle Economic Development Partnership program Jan. x Mar. Closed Call to Artists: 6 applicants / Staff review Accepted Artist: City Council w/ 1st mural design Approved agreement: City Council + Port of Seattle Issued Call to Artists: City Dec. Community Paint day! Finishing touches + Sealant Installation + Dedication Accepted Final Design: City Council 1" +2^d mural designs Mural Outlining begins: Artist b Feb. 5 Project Cost Grant: $11,570 based on our population City: $8,500 Min. $5,875 - req. 50% match Supplies were less due to donations and discounts Actual spent: $6,179 tohil by Fvn*1a CakgA'''. . Sow Labels Consulting �tlisl Stn,ot.vnl Eng -near Consulting 'Total Event Caardlnedon and Meekelfng Point Dov Utopias t'ho6 , cher videcopropher Evenf Coo diaafion and Marketing Total Goods and Services f.ltfol poneb &into lotion /IW'ol:VPP IC: Goods and Services Total Grand Tafel City rc ponbe, Part of Seottlo want Total Sum of GL Amount 55321.5y $316.17 55,675.75 $1,335.45 ¢145945 }I 2 OU $3,65290 56954.09 51 466.06 58420.15 517,745.80 $ 6.178.&1 11,570.00 $ 17.748.80 • • • •• OLD (M �1' 11)x).) Choosing the Artist Concept by Will Schlough Local artist Experience with large scale projects o Attractive gateway piece • Feasible proposal for community project O Thoughtful consideration of Woodinville's economic strengths consistent w/ grant funding 6 Community Paint Day! Paint Day by -the -numbers! 270 Community Paint Volunteers 164 adults + 106 children 418.5 total volunteer hours 20 Staff Members on Logistics 45.5 staff hours on Paint Day 115 additional staff hours 3 Large Groups: Woodinville Rotary, Chamber of Commerce & Farmer's Market Th` Panes. ome oget O 2 Murals - each is 12'x24' O Each mural is divided into 9 sections O Each panel is 4' x 8' O Extends an inch off the wall to mitigate potential water damage Material used: Alumalite panels 8 Project Installation Contract w/ local sign company Spanned 2 Saturdays Support Structure / Panel Installation Public Works: Preparation / Power washing - 32 hours Traffic control - 28 hours Total: 60 hours 251" Anniversary Celebration C Held @ historic Schoolhouse ® Community members, city staff, and volunteer painters 9 King County council members sent a proclamation of celebration Members of community spoke on Woodinville's history - 15' Mayor Premiere of "The Making of the Mural" video 9 Placemaking + Citizen Engagement through Public Art Sl•.'. AMC.Woodinville vr .n.Fc t1e><IcanGnit I•. IF n �� NE 1/Sil ;; I i GE tdsthlSi O Partnership w/ local Rotary International chapter O Renovation of .62 acre - DeYoung Park O Centrally located, on main street w/ shopping • Partnership b/w businesses + Rotary to fund Eight 10' poles + four 16' poles Sponsors: $1,000 for 10' pole + $1,500 for 16' pole 10 BEFORE PHOTOS: DeYoung Park • Partnered with Woodinville's Rotary Charitable Foundation. • MOU presented to City Council for approval of partnership to create Peace Poles In DeYoung park. • City Issues call to artists at various locations. • Rotary begins to build relationships for peace pole sponsors among local businesses. • Submission deadline for artists designs of the poles. • Rotary, Arts Alliance, and City staff start to partner design submissions and sponsors. • Artists and sponsors are notified of match. • Artist sketch and color pallet due for review. • Consultation between column sponsor and artist to refine designs (if needed). • Final pole designs due to the city. • Poles are cleaned and primed. • Artists on site to paint the poles In DeYoung park and sealant Is applied. Engaging businesses ,4400 nd the community. Woodinville Rotary asked about putting a peace pole on city property. DeYoung park was being redesigned + home to 20 blank concrete poles. Rotary began networking w/ local businesses to find the sponsors. MOU w/ Rotary Charitable Foundation. Peace Pole Committee selected the artists + final designs. Committee matched artists w/ sponsors. Sponsors + artists worked together to refine designs. Final designs approved by the Committee. 12 Project Funding Sponsors chose b/w 10' or 16' poles. City provided primer + top coot sealant. Artists supplied their own paint. Public works staff helped with priming + sealing the poles. Peace Pole Funding Item 16' pole ($1,500/4 poles) 10' pole ($1,000/16 poles) Primer & top coat TOTAL TOTAL Park Budget Percentage of Total Budget Sponsorship Amount $6,000 $10,000 $130 $16,130 $800,000 2% Staff hours 30 13 O Painting took a week and a half. O Public Works employees helped with priming and sealing the poles. O Park construction has resumed now that the poles are done. O Park is estimated to be completed beginning of July. Trellis wit be reconstructed over the poles and swings added. Bright and colorful entry to the park. 1 1si 0 Woodinville Garden Club donated our original park sculptures 0 Asked to make another contribution to the park 0 Commissioned a unique drinking fountain Art + Function for the park 14 Takes a lot of coordination Conclusion Local artists were chosen All artists were professional artists w/ current involvement in public art Projects are feasible w/ low cost +many opportunities for sponsorships or donations. Think about new avenues for networking + finding the artist you want. Public art projects are not always part of city capital projects, but they should be. 15 Questions + Comments? Elaine Cook, Woodinville Council Deputy Mayor ecook@'ci.VJooclinville.wo.us OKellye Mazzoli, Woodinville Staff OAsst to the City Manager 0 kellyem@1,1))ci.V'looclinville.v'o.us 16 To: From: Re: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of July 26, 2018; 10:00 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative Council & Staff City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings August 7, 2018 Meeting Cancelled — National Night Out Au2ust 14, 2018, Formal meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 71 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes, property acquisition) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance 18-018 amending SVMC 2.75, Public Records — Erik Lamb (10 minutes) 3. Motion Consideration: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Grant (JAG) — Morgan Koudelka (10 minutes) 4. Admin Report: Repeal of SVMC 7.40: Electronic Cigarettes & Related Devises — Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Aging & Long Term Care — Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 6. Admin Report: Economic Analysis of Tourism Venues & Events — Chelsie Taylor (30 minutes) 7. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 85 mins] Au2ust 21, 2018, Special Meeting- 5 pm, Council Chambers —45 minutes Joint meeting with Lodging Tax Advisory Committee August 21, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Estimated Revenues & Expenditures 2019 Budget — Chelsie Taylor 2. Review of Potential and Pending Capital Projects — Chelsie Taylor 3. Sullivan Bridge Project Completion Update— Erica Amsden, Gloria Mantz 4. Park Regulations — Cary Driskell, Mike Stone 5. Council Budget Goals for 2019 — Mark Calhoun 6. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Au2ust 28, 2018, Formal Meetin2 Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: 2019 Legislative Agenda Discussion — Mark Calhoun 3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 4. Info Item: Department Reports [due Tue Aug 141 (20 minutes) (20 minutes) (15 minutes) (25 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 100 mins] [due Tue Aug 211 (5 minutes) (25 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 35 mins] Sept 4, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Integration of Combined Communication Center — Chief Werner, Chief Collins 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [due Tue Aug 281 (20 minutes) (5 minutes) Friday, September 7, 2018 - Special Meeting w/Spokane Regional Council of Governments 10:00 a.m. — 12:30 pm; Spokane county Fair & Expo Center, Expo Complex, 404 N Havana Street Sept 11, 2018, Formal Meetin2 Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 41 1. PUBLIC HEARING #1: 2019 Revenues including Property Taxes — Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes; motion to set Oct 9 budget hearing) (5 minutes) 3. First Reading Ordinance Amending Park Regulations — Cary Driskell, Mike Stone (20 minutes) 4. Admin Report: Street & Stormwater Maint. Programs — John Hohman, Harry Lorick, Consultant (30 minutes) 5. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 75 mins] Draft Advance Agenda 7/26/2018 10:02:18 AM Page 1 of 3 Sept 18, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 111 1. Admin Report: Proposed Ordinance Adopting 2019 Property Taxes — Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 2. Outside Agencies Presentations (Economic Dev & Social Services combined) — Chelsie Taylor — 90 minutes 3. Advance Agenda - Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 105 mins] Sept 25, 2018, Formal Meetin2 Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance Amending Park Regulations — Cry Driskell, Mike Stone 3. City Manager Presentation of 2019 Preliminary Budget — Mark Calhoun 4. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 5. Info Item: Department Reports [*estimated Oct 2, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Budget Amendment, 2018 — Chelsie Taylor 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [*estimated Oct 9, 2018, Formal meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING #2: 2019 Budget — Chelsie Taylor 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 3. First Reading Ordinance 18- , Property Tax — Chelsie Taylor 4. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [*estimated Oct 16, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Oct 23, 2018, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2018 Budget Amendment — Chelsie Taylor 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance 18- , Property Tax — Chelsie Taylor 4. First Reading Ordinance 18 -,adopting 2018 Budget Amendment — Chelsie Taylor 5. First Reading Ordinance 18- , adopting 2019 Budget — Chelsie Taylor 6. Motion Consideration: Outside Agency Allocation of Funds — Chelsie Taylor 7. Admin Report: Quarterly Police Department Report — Chief Werner 8. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 9. Info Item: Department Reports [*estimated Oct 30, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Nov 6, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Fee Resolution for 2019 — Chelsie Taylor 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [due Tue Sept 181 (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (45 minutes) (5 minutes) meeting: 70 mins] [due Tue Sept 25 (10 minutes) (5 minutes) meeting: mins] [due Tue Oct 21 (20 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) meeting: 40 mins] [due Tue Oct 91 (5 minutes) [due Tue Oct 161 (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (20 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) meeting: 80 mins] Nov 13, 2018, Formal Meetin2 Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING #3: 2019 Budget — Chelsie Taylor 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance 18 -,adopting 2018 Budget Amendment — Chelsie Taylor 4. Second Reading Ordinance 18-, adopting 2019 Budget — Chelsie Taylor 5. Admin Report: LTAC Recommendations to Council — Chelsie Taylor Draft Advance Agenda 7/26/2018 10:02:18 AM [due Tue Oct 231 (5 minutes) [due Tue Oct 301 (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue Nov 61 (15 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 55 mins] Page 2 of 3 Nov 20, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 2. Info Item: Department Reports Nov 27, 2018 — Meeting Cancelled — Thanksgiving Holiday Dec 4, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Dec 11, 2018, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Proposed Fee Resolution for 2019 — Chelsie Taylor 3. Motion Consideration: Award of Lodging Tax for 2019 — Chelsie Taylor Dec 18, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 2. Info Item: Department Reports No Meeting: Tuesday, December 25, 2018, and no meeting Tuesday, January 1, 2019 *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Animal Control Regulations (SVMC 7.30) Argonne Rd Broadway to Indiana Bid Award Camping in RVs Donation Recognition Duplex Density Electrical Inspections Governance Manual Legislative Remote Testimony (Chambers) Naming City Facilities Protocol Neighborhood Restoration Program Police Dept. Quarterly Rpt (April, July, Oct, Jan) Police Precinct Lease Renewal (Nov '18) Sign Ordinance Snowplows, sidewalk snow removal, etc. St. Illumination (ownership, cost, location) St. O&M Pavement Preservation Surplus Property Resolution Tobacco 21 Resolution TPA Utility Facilities in ROW Draft Advance Agenda 7/26/2018 10:02:18 AM [due Tue Nov 131 (5 minutes) [due Tue Nov 261 (5 minutes) [due Tue Dec 41 (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) [due Tue Dec 111 (5 minutes) Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 31, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['new business ['public hearing ® information ['admin. report ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Growth Management Act Planning Report (William D. Ruckelshaus Center — Road Map to Washington's Future) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Growth Management Act; Shoreline Management Act; SEPA; variety of other growth management planning laws and regulations. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A. BACKGROUND: The Growth Management Act (GMA) (chapter 36.70A RCW) was originally adopted in 1990. Since then, there have been a variety of amendments, but no comprehensive review or revisions. In 2015, the Washington State legislators tasked the William D. Ruckelshaus Center (Center) to design a process and conduct a comprehensive and collaborative look at the GMA. The Center developed the process from 2016 through mid -2017. As part of the process, the Center is now conducting extensive review with stakeholders, called the "Road Map to Washington's Future," to examine the planning framework that provides the path to reach that desired future. That framework being reviewed has been expanded from the GMA to also include the Shoreline Management Act (chapter 90.58 RCW), SEPA (chapter 43.21C RCW), and a number of other applicable laws and regulations that direct, govern, and assist in long-term community planning. The Road Map to Washington's Future includes extensive outreach to counties, cities, special purpose districts, private entities, and a number of other stakeholders to have conversations and collect information on the local views regarding the planning framework as it exists, as they believe it should exist, and what works well and what needs changing. These include a number of workshops across the State. The Center will take the information gathered and develop a report to summarize key findings and recommendations, as well as themes that may develop through the conversations. The report is due to the Legislature by the end of June 2019. On July 24, 2018, the Center conducted a workshop for elected officials in Spokane. Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney, attended at the request of City Council due to the timing conflict between the workshop and City Council's regularly scheduled meeting. At the workshop, three other elected officials attended — a City of Spangle Councilmember, Mead School District board member, and County Commissioner. Staff generally identified issues with growth planning dealing with (1) challenges in dealing with impacts from development in neighboring jurisdictions (including impacts on our transportation infrastructure, effective cooperation and collaboration between neighboring jurisdictions, and identifying and obtaining adequate funding to address those impacts), (2) ensuring local regulatory control, and (3) ensuring flexibility in our ability to plan to meet the needs of our community. The Center will continue to accept comments from Councilmembers via an online survey, which can be accessed at https://wsu.col.qualtrics.com/ife/form/SV 8oGL3XLRIksxe1T. OPTIONS: Information RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Documents from July 24, 2018 workshop Road Map To Washington's Future WIIii AM D. RtICKE€LSJIA€ISC I Nirk Elected Officials Workshop Workshop Questions — Agenda Background In 2015, Washington State legislators asked the William D. Ruckelshaus Center (Center) to design a process for a comprehensive and collaborative look at the Growth Management Act (GMA). To gauge support for this effort and identify an appropriate scope, the Center conducted a Pre -Assessment from October 2016 through June 2017. The Pre -Assessment consisted of a series of conversations with individuals from dozens of groups, organizations, tribal, state, and local governments. Based on input from the parties, the Center recommended a process to: (1) articulate a vision of a desired future for Washington, and (2) examine the planning framework that provides the path to reach that desired future. The growth planning framework in Washington •includes the Growth Management Act, the Shoreline Management Act, the State Environmental Policy Act and other laws, institutions and policies. The Legislature responded to the pre -assessment by allocating funds to the Center to facilitate a two-year process to create a "Road Map to Washington's Future." The budget proviso outlined a scope, schedule and general process for the project. Purpose and Description The purpose of the Road Map to Washington's Future project is to articulate a vision of Washington's desired future and identify additions, revisions, or clarifications to the growth management framework of state laws, institutions and policies needed to reach that future. In order to understand how the framework aligns with, creates barriers to, and/or supports the desired future of the communities it is meant to serve, we will be conducting workshops beginning in January 2018 through December 2018 across the state with individuals and representatives of entities with a role, interest, or knowledge of the planning framework. We will also be conducting individual and group interviews, as well as workshops with government elected officials to better understand the issues, challenges, strengths, and potential solutions or improvements to the planning framework. A copy of the workshop questions is provided in advance (see below). These,questions have been reviewed by Washington State University's Office of Research Assurances, which has determined that the project satisfies the criteria for Exempt Research (meaning it is exempt from needing further review by that office). Participation in the workshop is voluntary. Participants can choose at any time during the workshop to decline to answer a question or leave the workshop. Participants will be contacted prior to the workshop via email and asked to confirm that they are willing to participate. The information gathered from workshops will be used to inform the Center's recommendations about what may need to change to improve the state's planning framework to best serve the desired future. Because there is a relationship between the state's planning framework and local impacts/needs, it is important that recommendations be grounded in and reflect local realities, experiences, interests, and aspirations. Key findings and recommendations will be summarized in a final report to the. Legislature. Specific statements will not be attributed to individual participants. Participants may request and consent to be quoted and their Road Map to Washington's Future Workshop The William D. Ruckeishaus Center names attributed to their responses in the final report. They will be given an opportunity to review their attributed responses before published in the final report. A list of names of individuals who participated in the project will be provided as an appendix in the report. Participation in the workshop is not contingent on having one's name published in the final report. A participant can request to not have their name listed. The report will be available to all who participated in the project. The project is expected to be completed by the end of June 2019. More information about the Center is available at: http://ruckelshauscenter.wsu.edu/about/. WORKSHOP QUESTIONS - AGENDA Welcome and Introduction Purpose and Value of State Growth Planning Framework 1. How would you describe the purpose and value of the state growth planning framework? Current State 2. What parts of the current growth planning framework do you believe work well in your community/county/region and why? 3. What parts of the current growth planning framework do you believe do not work well in your community/county/region and why? Future State 4. Based on your engagement in the city, describe the future that you believe people in your community/county/region desire. What values have been expressed that are important to shape the future? 5. What would be included or not included in a statewide planning framework that best serves the desired future of your community/county/regioh? 6. What do you see as the major issues that would need to be addressed to achieve your desired future? How might these issues be addressed? Are there processes, statutory changes, etc. that you recommend to better address those issues? Public Engagement 7. What is working well with the processes to engage the public, including comprehensive planning and the development permit process? What is not working well? How can these processes be improved? Wrap Up 8. What additional data or research is needed to inform possible changes to the state growth planning framework? 9. What haven't we asked that you want to comment on? Adjourn Road Map to Washington's Future Workshop Updated 3:26.2018 The William D. Ruckelshaus Center Follow up Interviews & Potentially Group convenlings .° ROAD MAP TO WASHINGTON'S FUTURE Project Overview In 2015, Washington State legislators asked the William D. Ruckelshaus Center (Center) to design a process for a comprehensive and collaborative look at the Growth Management Act (GMA). To gauge support for this effort and identify an appropriate scope, the Center conducted a Pre -Assessment from October 2016 through June 2017. The Pre -Assessment consisted of a series of conversations with individuals from dozens of groups, organizations, tribal, state, and local governments. Based on input from the parties, the Center recommended a process to: (1) articulate a vision of a desired future for Washington, and (2) examine the planning framework• that provides the path to reach that desired future.The growth planning framework in Washington includes the Growth Management Act, the Shoreline Management Act, the State Environmental Policy Act and other laws, institutions and policies. The Legislature responded to the preassessment by allocating funds to the Center for a two year project to create a "Road Map to Washington's Future." The budget proviso outlined a scope, schedule, and general process for the project. The purpose of the project is to articulate a vision of Washington's desired future and identify additions, revisions, or clarifications to the state's growth management framework of laws, institutions, and policies needed to reach that future. Project Components and Schedule Provided is a brief description of the core components complexity of the project, the Center's Project Team recognizes that these components will evolve or may need to be modified. The Project Team also recognizes it is not possible to engage every individual involved in, affected by, or interested in the growth planning framework. The Team will implement inclusive engagement including a diversity of representatives from federal, tribal, state, county, and city governments, private and non-profit entities, advocacy organizations, associations, elected officials, underrepresented populations, and other interested parties. Individual and Group Interviews: The purpose of interviews is to identify the strengths, weaknesses, issues, and potential solutions or improvements to the growth planning framework. Multi -Sector Workshops: In order to understand how the framework aligns with, creates barriers to, and/ or supports the desired future of the communities it i5 meant to serve, the Center's project team will be conducting 25+ workshops across the state. Broad based input is needed in order for the project team to better understand what communities across the state desire for Washington's future, what communities care about and have challenges about, and to reflect what is unique and important about different regions of the state. of the Road Map project. Given the scope, schedule, and Jul -Dec 2017 Jan -Jun 2018 Jul -Dec 2018 Jan -Jun 2019 Protect Planning & Design Research & Data Review Scheduling & Conducting Interviews Multi -Sector Workshops ;51.31i.TrsVai" i5jh3:.ti�i�t{r?�.1e1?sli(ai=. Next Generation Information Synthesis & Report Writing Final Report WLLIAiM.D RUCK ELSHA us CENTER Fehr ua.ry 2018 Road Map To Washington's Future Elected Official Workshops: The project team will conduct an additional 25+ workshops across the state for elected officials, in order to understand how the framework aligns with, creates barriers to, and/or supports the desired future of their communities. Workshop Regions and Schedule for 2018 Spring San Juan Autumn Ferry C Ia{larrr Spring Mfersun Manu! ' ,, Spring Winter Lincoln !Summerl Moan Autumn Thurston ,Spring Stevens (Summer Adams Pend Oreille Spokane lSpnng l Whitman Garfield Yiiahkiakum spring CnwInz —1 . Autumn Walla Walla Columi3ra Regional/State-Wide Groups Workshops: As time and resources allow, the Project Team will conduct workshops for regional/state-wide groups and associations,including the Washington State Association of Counties and the Association of Washington Cities. Research: Throughout the project, and during interviews and workshops, the project team will be looking to identify pertinent data needs and partnering with state public universities on targeted research. The Team will also review pertinent independent studies, as appropriate, from other entities. Next Generation: Understanding what the next generation of Washingtonians (young adults) desire for the future, and the values that underlie that future, is an essential component of the project and will complement the workshops. The Project Team is working with university partners to create a project for students to design and implement the engagement strategy to solicit the ideas and opinions of the next generation of Washingtonians in defining that future vision. Potential Group Convening: A potential component of the project is a convening of key parties to explore areas of agreement on additions, revisions, or clarifications to the state's growth planning framework. Whether, and how the convening process will be crafted and conducted will be based on preliminary findings from the interviews and workshops. Final Report: The Center will submit a final report to committees of the Legislature by June 30, 2019. For more information, contact: Joseph Tovar Affiliate Instructor, College of Built Environments, UW Adjunct Faculty, WSU Extension Tel: 425.263.2792 Email: jtovar@uw.edu Amanda Murphy Sr. Project Lead, The William D. Ruckelshaus Center Extension Assistant Professor, WSU Extension Tel: 206-219-2409 Email: amanda.g.murphy@wsu.edu �� T l'HC �-y, The William D. Ruckelshaus Center is a neutral resource for collaborative problem solving in the State of Washington �l�JILLLAM 1.�: and the Pacific Northwest, dedicated to assisting public, private, tribal, non-profit, and other community leaders in their RUCI ELSHAUS .CENTER efforts to build consensus and resolve conflicts around difficult public policy issues. It is ajoint effort of Washington State University hosted and administered by WSU Extension and the University of Washington hosted by the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Governance. For more information visit www.ruckelshauscenter.wsu.edu The Planning Framework of Statutes, Institutions, and Policies REVISED CODE Of WASHINGTON GMA //'°°°°°°---OTHER PLANNING LAWS GOVERNANCE, INSTITUTIONS AND REVENUE AUTHORITY STATE CONSTITUTION U.S. CONSTITUTION and FEDERAL LAW Growth Management Act — RCW 36.70A Local Project Review Act — RCW .36.70B Land Use Petition Act — RCW 36.70C Planning Enabling Act— RCW 36.70 Shoreline Management Act — RCW 90.58 State Environmental Policy Act —RCW 43.21 Subdivision Statute - RCW58.17 Regional Transportation Planning -- RCW 47.80 Water System Coordination Act — RCW 70.116 Local Governance — RCW 35, 35A, 36 State, regional, local revenue authority WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY WILLIAM D RUCKELSHAUS CENTER UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON "Collaborative problem solving is an enormously powerful approach to resolving conflicts; it holds great promise for better, faster and more sustainable policy decisions. With the combined resources of our premier research institutions, this center establishes an invaluable neutral forum for addressing some of our most complex and pressing challenges." - WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS For more information on the William D. Ruckelshaus Center, please visit our web site at: RuckelshausCenter.wsu.edu About -the Ruckelshaus Center - Mission: The mission of the William D. Ruckelshaus Center is to help parties involved in complex public policy challenges in the State of Washington and the Pacific Northwest tap university expertise to develop collaborative, durable, and effective solutions. Vision: The Center envisions a future in which government leaders, policy makers, and citizens routinely employ tools of collaborative decision making to design, conduct, and implement successful public policy processes. Identity: We are a joint effort of Washington State University, hosted and administered by the WSU Extension, and the University of Washington, hosted through the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Governance. Building on the unique strengths of these two institutions, the Center applies university resources and knowledge towards solving challenging public policy issues. Values: Collaboration, consensus, neutrality, knowledge, education, inquiry, and civility. What we do: The Ruckelshaus Center partners with university faculty, staff, and students to help people work together to develop shared solutions to challenging policy issues. Areas where we work include: • Community and Economic Development • Land Use • Natural Resources • Transportation Agriculture Healthcare • Tribal, Federal, State, and Local Governance We build problem -solving capacity in the region by helping individuals and organizations better understand, initiate, participate in, and lead collaborative public policy efforts. Who we serve: The Center assists public, private, tribal, nonprofit, and other leaders to build consensus, resolve conflicts, and develop innovative, shared solutions for Washington and the Pacific Northwest. "Compliments to the Ruckelshaus Center for helping us all to forge a path forward. We certainly wouldn't have gotten to this point without you." —KAREN VALENZUELA Governor's Chehalis Work Group How We Do it: • Provide a neutral and safe forum for parties to constructively define shared goals and resolve differences • Conduct a situation assessment to determine how parties should proceed with a collaborative approach • Provide facilitation, mediation, dispute resolution, project management, strategic planning, and other services that help parties reach consensus and resolve issues • Provide diverse groups with a common information base via university research and fact finding • Provide knowledge, training, and tools to improve the collaborative problem -solving abilities of individuals and organizations • Host policy discussions in the form of guest lectures, conferences, and our Chairman's Circle and Statesperson luncheons Governance and Funding: The Center has offices in Seattle and Pullman. It is guided by an advisory board chaired by William Ruckelshaus and composed of prominent leaders representing a broad range of constituencies and geographic locations in the region. Funding for the Center is sought from a mix of sources, including foundations, corporations, individuals, agencies, other state and federal sources, and fee for service contracts when appropriate. WSU Extension and UW Evans School of Public Policy and Governance programs and employment are available to all without discrimination. To learn more about the Center, contact: William D. Ruckelshaus Center 121 Hulbert Hall PO Box 646248 901 Fifth Avenue Suite 2900 Pullman, WA 99164-6248 Seattle, WA 98164-2040 (509) 335-2937 (206) 428-3021 RuckelshausCenter@wsu.edu WASHINGTON STATE w EVANS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY & GOVERNANCE I V IJl V ERSI 1 1 UNIVERSITY of WASHINGTON "nrEXTENSION The William D. Ruckelshaus Center Advisory Board Bill Ruckelshaus, Board Chair Madrona Venture Group' Phyllis Campbell, Vice Choir JPMorgan Michael Kern, Director Sandra O. Archibald - UW Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Governance+ Jerry Baldasty- UW Provost+ Dan Bernardo -WSU Provost+ Brian Blake- WA State House of Representatives+ Ana Mari Cauce- UW President+ Bruce Chandler- WA State House of Representatives+ Megan Clubb - Baker Boyer Bank Elizabeth Cowles -The Cowles Company Jack Creighton (Emeritus)- Madrona' Venture Group Greg Devereux - WA Federation of State Employees Norm Dicks - Van Ness Feldman Bob Drewel - WSU North Puget Sound' Urban Eberhart- Irrigated Agriculture Daniel Evans Daniel J. Evans and Associates Anne Farrell -The Seattle Foundation (ret,)* Mike Gaffney - WSU Extension'+ William Gates (Emeritus) - Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Peter Goldrnark -WA State Department of Natural Resources (Former) Jay Gordon- WA State Dairy Federation Slade Gorton - US Senator, R -WA (ret.) Lisa J. Graumlich - UW College of the Environment+ Christine Gregoire - Governor of WA State (former) Gerald Grinstein -Madrona Venture Group'" Heather Hansen -WA Friends of Farms and Forests Denis Hayes - Bullitt Foundation Dave Herrera - Skokomish Indian Tribe Sally Jewell - UW College of Environment, US Secretar of the Interior (Former) Joe King - Joe King & Associates' Martha Kongsgaard - Kangsgaard I Goldman Foundation" Anita Krug - University of Washington Law School+ David F. McShea - Perkins Cole' Ralph Munro - WA Secretary of State (ret.)" Bill Neukom - K&L Gates Moldy Pengra - Cohassett Capital Partners, L.P. V. Lane Rawlins -WSU President (ret.) Christine Rolfes -WA State Senate+ Kirk Schulz - WSU Presienr+ Brian Surratt - Alexandria Real Estate Equities", Michael J. Tate- WSU Office of the Provost (ret.) Jim Waldo- Gordon Thomas Honeywell LLP Paul Ward - Yakama Nation' Cindy Zehnder- Gordon Thomas Honeywell LLP Hans Zeiger- WA State Senate+ 1 Ex -Officio Member :Executive Committee Member '-`Development Committee Member STATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT GMA Legislative Findings: The legislature finds that uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state. It is in the public interest that citizens, communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning. Further, the legislature finds that it is in the public interest that economic development programs be shared with communities experiencing insufficient economic growth. URBAN GROWTH Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. REDUCE SPRAWL Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low- density development. TRANSPORTATION Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. HOUSING Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. TURN PAGE OVER GMA Cont. PROPERTY RIGHTS Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. PERMITS Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability. NATURAL RESOURCE INDUSTRIES Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forestlands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses. OPEN SPACE & RECREATION Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities. ENVIRONMENT Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water. CITIZEN COORDINATION & PARTICIPATION Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts. PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. HISTORIC PRESERVATION Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures, that have historical or archaeological significance SHORELINES OF THE STATE See Separate Handout STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT SEPA PURPOSE 1 To declare a state policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humankind and the environment 2 To promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere 3 To stimulate the health and welfare of human beings 4 To enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the state and nation In order to carry out the policy set forth in this chapter, it is the continuing responsibility of the state of Washington and all agencies of the state to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of state policy, to improve and coordinate plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the state and its citizens may: © trustee of the environmen� r for succeedinggenerations; as Fulfill the responsibilitiesofeachgeneration g ©' Assure for all people of Washington safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without Odegradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; important historic, cultural, and aspects p pects of ournational tional` Q Preserve im heritage; Maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and Ovariety of individual choice; Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit Qhigh standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and 0 Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. n__:___J L. A nnn SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT SMA The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of statewide significance. The department, in adopting guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance, and local government, in developing master programs for shorelines of statewide significance, shall give preference to uses in the following order of preference which: 2 Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest Preserve the natural character of the shoreline 3 Result in long term over short term benefit 4 Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline 5 Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines 6 Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline 7 Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. Designed by Amanda Murphy, The William D. Ruckelshaus Center CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 31, 2018 Department Director Approval Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ['public hearing ['information ❑admin. report ['pending legislation ® executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EXECUTIVE SESSION: Review Performance of a Public Employee GOVERNING LEGISLATION: [RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)] PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I Move that Council adjourn into executive session for approximately sixty minutes to review the performance of a public employee, and that no action will be taken upon return to open session." BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: