The URL can be used to link to this page

2019, 07-09 Regular Meeting AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT Tuesday, July 9, 2019 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 10210 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION: Pastor Brad Bruszer of Genesis Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PROCLAMATION:Parks and Recreation Month 1.CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group.Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on July 9, 2019 Request for Council Action Form Total: $1,252,914.85 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending June 30, 2019: $525,718.45 c. Approval of Council June 11, 2019 Special Meeting Minutes Workshop d. Approval of Council June 18, 2019 Study Session Meeting Minutes e. Approval of Council June 24, 2019 Special Meeting Minutes, Formal Format f. Approval of Council July 2, 2019 Study Session Meeting Minutes NEW BUSINESS: 2. First Reading Ordinance 19-009 Street Vacation 2019-0001, Industrial Area—Mike Basinger [Public Hearing Previously Held: No Public Comments] 3. First Reading Ordinance 19-010 Street Vacation 2019-0002, Baldwin Ave, Glenn Rd—Connor Lange [Public Hearing Previously Held: No Public Comments] 4. First Reading Ordinance 19-011 Marijuana Transportation—Erik Lamb [Public Hearing Previously Held: No Public Comments] 5. Proposed Resolution 19-011 to apply for CERB Grant—Mike Basinger [Public Comments] PUBLIC COMMENTS: Thus is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those action items above. Public comments will be taken on the above action items where indicated, at the time those items are discussed.When you come to the podium,please state your name and city residence,spell your last name for the record, and limit remarks to three minutes. Council Agenda 07-09-19 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 6.New Employee Report—John Whitehead 7. Indiana Avenue Crosswalk Lighting—Bill Helbig 8. Homelessness Related Issues Discussion—Cary Driskell, Erik Lamb 9. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins INFORMATION ONLY(will not be reported or discussed): n/a CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Council Agenda 07-09-19 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 Spokane Valley rodamation City of SMgne Valley, Washington Tarkj and Wcreation Month WHEREAS, Parks and recreation activities provide opportunities for citizens of all ages to grow and develop into contributing members of their communities; and WHEREAS, Parks and recreation programs strengthen the community, foster individual growth, and increase cultural diversity; and WHEREAS, Parks and recreation programs provide outlets for physical activities, socialization and stress reducing experiences; and WHEREAS, Parks,playgrounds, nature trails, open spaces, aquatic facilities, senior and event centers make our community an attractive and desirable place to live, work,play and visit which contributes to our economic vitality; and WHEREAS, Parks, greenways and open spaces provide a welcome respite from our fast- paced, high-tech lifestyles while protecting and preserving our natural environment; and WHEREAS, Thousands of Spokane Valley children, adults and seniors benefit from the wide range of services,facilities, and programs provided by the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Rod Higgins, Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley, on behalf of the Spokane Valley City Council and the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley, do hereby proclaim the month of July, 2019 as Parks and Recreation Month and 1 encourage all citizens to participate in and support the many recreational programs and facilities provided by public and private agencies. Dated this 9th day of July, 2019. L.K. Higgins, Mayor CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 9, 2019 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: i1 consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 06/2012019 6704; 6723; 6724; 6726; 6728 $80,724.91 06/2612019 8260-8284 $2,454.00 06/26/2019 47905-47934 $280,771.14 06/26/2019 47935-47968 $500,462.98 06/28/2019 47969-47974 $4,025.34 07/02/2019 6656; 6725; 6727; 6729; 6743-6745; 6747; 6763; 47975 $384,476.48 GRAND TOTAL: $1,252,914,85 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists #001- General Fund 001.090.000.560. General Gov't-Social Services 001.011.000.511. City Council 001.090,000.594 General Gov't-Capital Outlay 001.013.000.513. City Manager 001.013.015.515. Legal Other Funds: 001.016.000. Public Safety 101 —Street Fund 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 103—Paths &Trails 001.018.014.514. Finance 105—Hotel/Motel Tax 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 106—Solid Waste 001.040.041. Engineering 120—CenterPlace Operating Reserve 001.040.042. Economic Development 121 —Service Level Stabilization Reserve 001.040.043. Building 122---Winter Weather Reserve 001.076.000.576. Parks &Rec—Administration 204—Debt Service 001.076.300.576. Parks &Rec-Maintenance 301 —REET 1 Capital Projects 001.076.301.571. Parks &Rec-Recreation 302—REET 2 Capital Projects 001.076.302.576. Parks &Rec-Aquatics 303 —Street Capital Projects 001.076.304.575. Parks &Rec- Senior Center 309—Parks Capital Grants 001.076.305.571. Parks &Rec-CenterPlace 310—Civic Bldg. Capital Projects 001.090.000.511. General Gov't-Council related 311 —Pavement Preservation 001.090.000.514. General Gov't-Finance related 312—Capital Reserve 001.090.000.517. General Gov't-Employee supply 314—Railroad Grade Separation Projects 001.090.000,518. General Gov't-Centralized Serv. 402—Stormwater Management 001.090.000.519. General Gov't-Other Services 403 —Aquifer Protection Area 001.090.000.540. General Gov't-Transportation 501 —Equipment Rental &Replacement 001.090.000.550. General Gov't-Natural &Eco, 502—Risk Management 001.090.000.595. General Gov't-Pavement Preser. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 0612012019 9:28:50AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 6704 6/20/2019 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION Ben87272 001.231.50.03 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: PAYMENT 1,789.47 Total: 1,789.47 6723 6/20/2019 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A PLAN Ben87274 001.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 34,987.74 Total: 34,987.74 6724 6/20/2019 000682 EFTPS Ben87276 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 34,036.29 Total: 34,036.29 6726 6/20/2019 000145 VANTAGEPOINTTRANSFERAGENTS,457 PLS Ben87278 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: PAYE 9,235.15 Total: 9,235.15 6728 6/20/2019 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A EXEC PL Ben87280 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 676.26 Total: 676.26 5 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 80,724.91 5 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 80,724.91 Page: 1 7 vchiist Voucher List Page: 1-- • 06/26/2019 11:40:29AM Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher _ Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 8260 6/26/2019 004379 AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYS PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:AUDITORIUM 52.00 Total : 52.00 8261 6/26/2019 006581 COMUNIDAD CRISTIANA DE SPOKANE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 8262 6/26/2019 007305 DAVIS, ALISHA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 SWIM TEAM REFUND 20.00 Total : 20.00 8263 6/26/2019 001753 DINGUS, ZARECOR &ASSOC PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME) 75.00 Total : 75.00 8264 6/26/2019 000818 EASTPOINT CHURCH PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:TERRAC 159.00 Total : 159.00 8265 6/26/2019 007307 FROST, PAUL PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU SPF 300.00 Total : 300.00 8266 6/26/2019 007308 GUTIERREZ, OLIVIA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 480.00 Total : 480.00 8267 6/26/2019 007309 HARNASCH, KIM PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MEi 75.00 Total : 75.00 8268 6/26/2019 007310 HESS,TODD PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF 75.00 Total : 75.00 8269 6/26/2019 007311 HIGBY,ALANA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 8270 6/26/2019 007312 JENSEN, RHIANNON PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PL 75.00 Total : 75.00 8271 6/26/2019 007313 JONES, JOHN PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PL 75.00 Total : 75.00 8272 6/26/2019 007314 LIESEKE, REBECCA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 SWIMMING LESSON REFUND 40.00 Page: --- f vchlist Voucher List Page -Q- 06/26/2019 11:40:29AM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 8272 6/26/2019 007314 007314 LIESEKE, REBECCA (Continued) Total : 40.00 8273 6/26/2019 006713 MARTE, KARISSA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 76.00 Total : 76.00 8274 6/26/2019 007315 MIKELSON, CRAIG PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 111 52.00 Total : 52.00 8275 6/26/2019 007324 PHILLIPS,ANN PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 8276 6/26/2019 007316 ROESTEL, SHAUNA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 8277 6/26/2019 007325 RUGGLES, STEVE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME, 75.00 Total : 75.00 8278 6/26/2019 004363 SCHMIDTLEIN,JESSICA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY P1. 75.00 Total : 75.00 8279 6/26/2019 007317 SIMONS,WALT PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS PARI' 75.00 Total : 75.00 8280 6/26/2019 007319 THOMAS, KIM PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: SULLIVAN PARI 75.00 Total : 75.00 8281 6/26/2019 007320 VANSICKLE, KAYLA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PL 75.00 Total : 75.00 8282 6/26/2019 007321 VOLIVA,ANITA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND: SULLIVA 75.00 Total : 75.00 8283 6/26/2019 006706 WESCHE, SHANNON PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME/ 75.00 Total : 75.00 8284 6/26/2019 007322 WILSON-SEGER, HEIDI PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS PARK 75.00 Total : 75.00 25 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref Bank total : 2,454.00 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: / 01"--- 06/26/2019 2:14:42PIVI Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 47935 6/26/2019 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 64659-A 402.402.000.531 HYDROEXCAVATION 892.28 Total : 892.28 47936 6/26/2019 000648 ABADAN REPROGRAPHICS 104083 303.000.267.595 PRINTING &BINDING 1,268.57 104084 314.000.143.595 PRINTING& BINDING 341.95 Total : 1,610.52 47937 6/26/2019 004231 BELSBY ENGINEERING 18534 303.000.291.595 0291-SURVEY SERVICES 7,801.47 18538 001.040.041.558 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,392.50 Total : 11,193.97 47938 6/26/2019 001545 BERNARDO WILLS ARCHITECTS PC 19394 309.000.268.595 0268-LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 4,679.62 Total : 4,679.62 47939 6/26/2019 000796 BUDINGER&ASSOCIATES INC S18777-5 001.033.000.518 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 369,85 Total : 369.85 47940 6/26/2019 000101 CDW-G SRH8934 001.090.000.518 COMPUTER HARDWARE NON-CAF 40.35 Total : 40,35 47941 6/26/2019 000683 DAVID EVANS &ASSOCIATES 444776 314.000.143.595 0143-DESIGN SERVICES 160,239.88 446061 101.042.000.542 TRAFFIC SERVICES 7,877.43 Total : 168,117.31 47942 6/26/2019 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 534616 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 22.12 Total : 22.12 47943 6/26/2019 003261 FEHR& PEERS 130485 001.040.042.558 TRAFFIC STUDY 3,970.90 Total : 3,970.90 47944 6/26/2019 007304 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS 149844 001.090.000.518 1T SUPPORT 136.13 149847 001.090.000.518 IT SUPPORT 424.82 149893 001.090.000.518 IT SUPPORT 152.46 Total : 713.41 47945 6/26/2019 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING [NC 49980 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 25.00 Page: ---1----- 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: -2--- 06/26/2019 2:14:42PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 47945 6/26/2019 001447 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING [NC (Continued) Total : 25.00 47946 6/26/2019 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY 29626 001.040.042.558 BUSINESS CONNECTIONS 70.00 Total : 70.00 47947 6/26/2019 002043 HDR ENGINEERING INC 1200195479 303.000.273.518 0273-DESIGN SERVICES 17,879.54 1200196291 303.000.276.595 0276-RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES 4,814.52 1200196537 314.000.223.595 0223-PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 6,242.70 Total : 28,936.76 47948 6/26/2019 003297 HIGGINS, LEWIS ROD EXPENSES 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 237.81 Total : 237.81 47949 6/26/2019 000012 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS 324173 001.040.042.558 ADVERTISING 1,755.00 Total : 1,755.00 47950 6/26/2019 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. 0125887 101.042.000.542 2019 TIP MAINTENANCE& UPDATE 2,871.06 Total : 2,871.06 47951 6/26/2019 001944 LANCER LTD 0474025 001.040.043.558 BUSINESS CARDS 43.02 0474026 001.040.041.543 BUSINESS CARDS 38.12 Total : 81.14 47952 6/26/2019 007323 MIOVISION TECHNOLOGIES INC 40090 303.000.273.518 TRAFFIC DATA 767.98 Total : 767.98 47953 6/26/2019 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 328210553001 001.076.301.571 OFFICE SUPPLIES:CENTERPLACE 173.95 329074321001 001.018.014.514 OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE 27.72 329717071001 001.076.000.576 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE 327.78 Total : 529.45 47954 6/26/2019 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER MAY 2019 001.016.000.589 STATE REMITTANCE 36,481.03 Total : 36,481.03 47955 6/26/2019 006427 RETAIL STRATEGIES LLC 372-8 001.040.099.558 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,000.00 Total : 5,000.00 47956 6/26/2019 003264 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP B10158645 001.040.042.558 ADOBE CREATIVE CLOUD RENEW 4,008.96 Page: vChlis# Voucher List Page: --3---- 06/2612019 2:14:42PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 47956 6/26/2019 003264 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP (Continued) B10158665 101.042.000.542 ADOBE ACROBAT PRO RATED 44A5 Total : 4,053.41 47957 6/26/2019 000994 SIMPSON ENGINEERS INC. 16889-01 001.016.000.521 BOUNDARY LINE ADJ 3,500.00 Total : 3,500.00 47958 6/26/2019 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY MAY 2019 001.016.000.589 CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F 583.38 Total : 583.38 47959 6/26/2019 000459 SPOKANE CO TITLE CO SP20960-63 311.000.292.595 PLANT INFO GUARANTEE 1,306.80 Total : 1,306.80 47960 6/26/2019 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 110100240 101.042.000.542 MAY 2018 ENGINEERING 72,696.52 42000626 001.016.000.554 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES JUL`, 21,792.39 51504931 001.016.000.523 JUNE 2019 HOUSING 116,443.56 Total : 210,932.47 47961 6/26/2019 000257 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L131611 001.090.000.514 SAO AUDIT OF 2018 1,401.40 Total : 1,401.40 47962 6/26/2019 001875 STRATA INCORPORATED SP190160-IN 303.000.278.595 0278-MATERIALS TESTING 2,545.00 Total : 2,545.00 47963 6/26/2019 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL 1410097-1 101.042.000.542 TRANSFER STATION CPW FEB 201 -1,111.93 1425815 101.042.000.542 TRANSFER STATION CPW MAR 20 317.92 1440067 101.042.000.542 TRANSFER STATION APRIL 2019 1,318.15 1440513 001.040.043.524 ABATEMENT 760.60 Total : 1,284.74 47964 6/26/2019 002092 THOMPSON, CHRIS EXPENSES 001.040.043.558 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 14.01 Total : 14.01 47965 6/26/2019 006273 T-O ENGINEERS INC 170209-9714 311.000.252,595 0252-SURVEY SERVICES 1,677.70 Total : 1,677.70 47966 6/26/2019 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 67800 311.000.287.595 POSTAGE SERVICES 720.66 Page: 7 vchlist Voucher List Page: 06/26/2019 2:14:42PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 47966 6/26/2019 000140 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD (Continued) Total : 720.66 47967 6/26/2019 000158 WELCH COMER&ASSOC_ INC 51060001-008 303.000.249.595 0249-DESIGN SERVICES 1,788.46 51068000-007 101.042.000.542 ENGINEERING SERVICES 1,754.39 Total : 3,542.85 • 47968 6/26/2019 000842 WM WINKLER COMPANY PAY APP 9 309.000.237.595 0237-CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 535.00 Total : 535.00 34 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 500,462.98 34 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 500,462.98 • I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: -1-- 0612612019 2:17:52PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 47905 6/26/2019 000394 AM LANDSHAPER INC Pay App 4 309.000280.594 0280-CONSTRUCTION 158,945.18 Total : 158,945.18 47906 6/26/2019 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC INV05455 001.033.000.518 JANITORIAL SVCS: CITY HALL, PRI 9,229.99 Total : 9,229.99 47907 6/26/2019 000030 AVISTA May 2019 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA MA 26,548.61 May 2019 001.076.300.576 UTILITIES:PARKS MASTER AVISTA 9,218.08 Total : 35,766.69 47908 6/26/2019 001545 BERNARDO WILLS ARCHITECTS PC 19284 309.000.280.594 0280-DESIGN SERVICES 6,145.50 19393 309.000280.594 0280-DESIGN SERVICES 1,084.50 Total : 7,230.00 47909 6/26/2019 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 0062146 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 633.62 0063959 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 464.75 0065981 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 579.09 0067913 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY ATC 552.43 0071754 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 564.28 50215889 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 264.57 S2158387 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY ATC 61.96 Total : 3,120.70 47910 6/2612019 000795 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING INC. 361407 001.076.305.575 RECYCLING COLLECTION AT CP 27.50 Total : 27.50 47911 6/26/2019 000007 GRAINGER 9191699116 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 54.78 919713009 001.076.300.576 SUPPLIES FOR PARKS 19.28 Total : 74.06 47912 6/2612019 000917 GRAYBAR 9310455297 001.016.016.521 SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT 106.05 Total : 106.05 47913 6/26/2019 000070 INLAND POWER& LIGHT CO May 2019 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: MAY 2019 438.84 Total : 438.84 47914 6/26/2019 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 1387461 001.076.305.575 EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE 21.07 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: t— 06/26/2019 2:17:52PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 47914 6/26/2019 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES (Continued) 1387462 001.076.305.575 EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE 42.14 1387463 001.076.305.575 EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE 105.35 1387464 001.076.305.575 EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE 84.28 1390924 001.076.305.575 MAY 2019 MONTHLY CLEANING AT 8,085.09 Total : 8,337,93 47915 6/2612019 006729 JAKT FOUNDATION 2019 105.000.000.557 2019 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 1,500.00 Total : 1,500.00 47916 6/26/2019 007302 LAWLER, BRIAN Expenses 001.016.099.521 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 1,329.96 Total : 1,329.96 47917 6/26/2019 007109 LSB CONSULTING ENGINEERS PLLC 5884 001.033.000.518 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,923.75 Total : 1,923.75 47918 6/26/2019 001002 M&L SUPPLY CO INC 8100388086.001 001.016.016.521 SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT 99.16 Total : 99.16 47919 6126/2019 000157 MOAT, BRIAN Expenses 001.033.000.518 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 10.27 Total : 10.27 47920 6/26/2019 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO April/May 2019 001.076.300.576 UTILITIES: PARKS APRIUMAY 2019 5,801.57 April/May 2019 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES:APRIL/MAY 2019 PW 23,682.86 Total : 29,484.43 47921 6/26/2019 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY V287164 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 243.61 Total : 243.61 47922 6/26/2019 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. 6555 309.000.280.594 APPLEWAYTRAILTOPSOIL 173.04 Total : - 173.04 47923 6/26/2019 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 9042216 402.402.000.531 895 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 530.94 9112935 402.402.000.531 895 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 531.43 9182392 001.033.000.518 INTEGRATED GROUNDS MAINT CI- 1,261.07 9204457 001.033.000.518 INTEGRATED GROUNDS MAINT-C 196.02 9214711 001.033.000.518 EARLY SUMMER PLANT AND LAWS 373.53 Page: --2------ (0 vchlist Voucher List Page: 06/26/2019 2:17:52PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 47923 6/26/2019 000709 000709 SENSKE LAWN &TREE CARE INC. (Continued) Total : 2,892.99 47924 6/26/2019 000994 SIMPSON ENGINEERS INC. 16889-01 001.016.000.521 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTF 3,500,00 Total : 3,500.00 47925 6/26/2019 005012 SPOKANE CO ENVIRONMENTAL May/June 2019 001.076.302.576 SPOKANE CO SEWER CHRGS: MA 3,280.43 Total : 3,280.43 47926 6/26/2019 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 June 2019 402.402.000.531 WATER CHARGES FOR JUNE#1 1,625.98 Total : 1,625.98 47927 6/26/2019 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW,THE 4786 001.076.301.571 ADVERTISING ACCT 42801 784.93 Total : 784.93 47928 6/26/2019 007159 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 491693743 001.033.000.518 CREDIT MEMO: SUPPLIES FOR Cll -185.71 493478416 001.016.016.521 SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT 314.72 494145212 001.033.000.518 SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL 452,82 495554198 001.016.016.521 SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT 138.26 Total : 720.09 47929 6/26/2019 003175 VISIT SPOKANE May 2019 105.000.000.557 2019 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 4,000.00 Total : 4,000.00 47930 6/26/2019 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE April & May 2019 402.402.000.531 WASTE MGMT:VACTORING WAST 4,715.66 Total : 4,715.66 47931 6/26/2019 007231 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY 2055914 001.016.016.521 MONTHLY SERVICES PRECINCT 189.49 2055956 001,033.000.518 SERVICES:CITY HALL 161.17 Total : 350.66 47932 6/26/2019 002501 WHITE BLOCK COMPANY 0261460-1N 309.000.280.594 SUPPLIES FOR APPLEWAY TRAIL I 252.33 Total : 252.33 47933 6/26/2019 004917 WHITE, KARLA Expenses 001.018.014.514 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 18.85 Total : 18.85 47934 6/26/2019 002497 WILBERT PRECAST INC 1085333 309.000.280.594 SUPPLIES:APPLEWAY TRAIL 588.06 Page: vchlist • Voucher List Page: 06/26/2019 2:17:52PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 47934 6/26/2019 002497 002497 WILBERT PRECAST INC (Continued) Total : 588.06 30 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 280,771.14 30 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 280,771.14 • • I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed'as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim, Finance Director Date • Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: vch list Voucher List Page: 06128/2019 1:30:05PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 47969 6128/2019 001606 BANNER BANK 8599 001.076.305.575 HOME DEPOT 88.33 8599 June 2019 001.076.305.575 FRED MEYER 90.60 8599 June 2019 001.076.301.571 NRPA 785.00 8599 June 2019 001.076.305.575 RSD SPOKANE 72.86 8599 June 2019 001.076.305.575 GTS DRYWALL 343.39 8599 June 2019 001.076.305.575 RSD SPOKANE 106.59 8599 June 2019 001.076.305.575 CREDIT: RSD SPOKANE -167.25 8599 June 2019 001.076.301.571 TARGET 43.54 8599 June 2019 001.076.301.571 TARGET— 73.09 8599 June 2019 001.076.305.575 RSD SPOKANE 33.28 Total : 1,469.43 47970 6/28/2019 001606 BANNER BANK 5214 June 2019 001.040.042.558 HYATT REGENCY 641.55 Total : 641.55 47971 6128/2019 001606 BANNER BANK 8573 June 2019 001.018.016.518 WHATCOM OCCUPATIONAL HEALT 150.00 8573 June 2019 001.090.000.518 DIGICERT 127.30 8573 June 2019 001.018.014.514 VALLEY GLASS 100.19 8573 June 2019 001.033.000.518 HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS 350.14 8573 June 2019 001.016.016.521 RSD SPOKANE 310.84 8573 June 2019 001.016.016.521 RSD SPOKANE 117.95 Total : 1,156.42 47972 6128/2019 001606 BANNER BANK 9713 June 2019 001.033.000.518 CHICAGO FAUCET 229.37 9713 June 2019 001.033.000.518 AMAZON.COM 193.71 Total : 423.08 47973 6/28/2019 001606 BANNER BANK 8557 June 2019 001.011.000.511 SIMPLEVIEW 120.00 Total : 120.00 47974 6/28/2019 001606 BANNER BANK 6368 June 2019 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE INC 70.00 6368 June 2019 001.090.000.518 DIGICERT 84.86 6368 June 2019 001.013.015.515 MRSC WEBINAR 35.00 6368 June 2019 001.018.016.518 CRAIGSLIST.ORG— 25.00 Total : 214.86 Page: 1------ /1.3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 0612812019 1:30:05PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 6 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 4,025.34 6 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 4,025.34 1,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: >' vchlist Voucher List Page: ^1----- 07/02/2019 4:22:48PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 6656 7/5/2019 000164 LABOR&INDUSTRIES Ben87526 001.231.17.00 LABOR&INDUSTRIES:PAYMENT 27,470.54 Total: 27,470.54 6725 7/5/2019 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Ben87508 001.231.15.00 PERS:PAYMENT 116,727.70 Total: 116,727.70 6727 7/5/2019 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES Ben87510 309.231.21.00 UNION DUES:PAYMENT 2,703.98 Total: 2,703.98 6729 715/2019 006345 IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING Ben87512 001.231.20.00 IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING: 153.33 Total: 153.33 6743 7/5/2019 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A PLAN Ben87514 001.231.14.00 401A:PAYMENT 35,438.50 Total: 35,438.50 6744 7/5/2019 000682 EFTPS Ben87516 106.231.12.00 FEDERAL TAXES:PAYMENT 37,237.37 Total: 37,237.37 6745 7/5/2019 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS,457 PU Ben87518 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION:PAY] 10,235.15 Total: 10,235.15 6747 7/5/2019 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A EXEC PL Ben87520 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN:PAYMENT 676.26 Total: 676.26 6763 7/5/2019 D00682 EFTPS Ben87528 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES:PAYMENT 2,045.01 Total: 2,045.01 47975 7/5/2019 000120 AWC Ben87506 001.231.16.00 DENTAL PLAN:PAYMENT 140,722.20 Ben87522 001.231.16.00 DENTAL PLAN(COUNCIL):PAYMENT 11,066.44 Total: 151,788.64 10 Vouchers for hank code: apbank Bank total: 384,476.48 10 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 384,476.48 Page: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 09, 2019 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Pay Period Ending June 30, 2019 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 315,197.99 $ 10,265.00 $ 325,462.99 Benefits: $ 188,252.77 $ 12,002.69 $ 200,255.46 Total payroll $ 503,450.76 $ 22,267.69 $ 525,718.45 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING BUDGET WORKSHOP Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington June 11,2019 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Rod Higgins, Mayor Mark Calhoun, City Manager Pam Haley, Deputy Mayor John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney Linda Thompson, Councilmember Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Ben Wick, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Sam Wood, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks &Rec Director Arne Woodard, Councilmember Mark Werner, Police Chief Bill Helbig, City Engineer Gloria Mantz, Engineering Manager John Whitehead,Human Resources Manager Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Admin. Analyst Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Mike Basinger, Economic Development Mgr. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. WELCOME: Mayor Higgins welcomed everyone to the meeting. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. Worksheet Overview—Mark Calhoun, Chelsie Taylor City Manager Calhoun explained that the purpose of today's workshop is to discuss the 2020 budget. He noted the workshop is being recorded so it may be viewed later, but it will not be broadcast; and he encouraged Councilmembers to ask questions as they arise. He explained that the budget reflects the City's priorities in terms of budget commitment and staff effort, and stresses the priorities of public safety, pavement preservation, transportation and infrastructure, which he said includes parks and recreation and various capital projects, and economic development, and that we will focus on those combined items throughout the meeting. Mr. Calhoun expressed appreciation to Finance Director Taylor and the directors and support staff for pulling these materials together and said he hopes everyone will find this first budget presentation helpful. Mr. Calhoun said that there will be changes as we move forward but the changes will not be material; said the revenue estimates are reflective that we are only four to five months into this year, and said the revenue estimates show the general fund trends. Mr. Calhoun noted that the state revenues in the general fund will be updated about mid to late July, and he briefly explained the contents of today's budget packet including Tab 23 for an executive session,which he said should only take about 20 minutes. City Manager Calhoun noted that Tab 22 includes the Business Plan and said that budget companion document is for informational purposes, and it will not be discussed today. Mr. Calhoun stated that this time last year we were in one of the longest economic expansions, but that with each passing day we are one day closer to the next recession;that the 2020 general fund recurring expenditures show a 2.3%increase over 2019 and reflect what will allow the City to deliver a status quo level of service. However, he continued, Tab 14 includes supplemental budget requests which could increase the recurring expenditures; he noted the CPI (consumer price index) for Pacific cities average 2.9% and we are about 2.23% in the budget, and that each year we have been able to do better than the CPI as we very responsibly manage our Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-11-2019 Page 1 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT budget. He mentioned there is variation in individual departments due to department operations, and some changes are a result of a change in staff,and said we can come to Council in future study sessions if needed to follow up on any of these items. Finance Director Taylor gave a brief overview of the pages immediately prior to Tab 1, including the proposed 2020 budget calendar which shows among other dates, the November 12 proposed adoption of the 2020 budget; she mentioned General Fund #001 recurring revenues and expenditures and the ending unrestricted fund balance of $36,203,666, and explained that the ending fund balance as a percent of recurring expenditures equals 84.48%; she went over the General Fund Department Changes from 2019 to 2020 for items such as wages, supplies, and services and charges, which includes a summary by category. Director Taylor noted the property tax figure does not include the construction estimate, and Mr. Calhoun added that this budget is being prepared without a 1%property tax increase, and if that holds true to the adoption of the budget,this will be the eleventh time our City has not taken the 1%increase allowed by law for property tax. Ms. Taylor explained that the updated figures on the state shared revenues should be coming out soon, as well as estimates from MRSC(Municipal Research and Services Center),and that the recurring expenditures will be explained as the day progresses. Director Taylor noted that the street fund summary shows estimated 2020 revenues of$3.9 million, which is about $94,000 less than the previous year, and said it is primarily related to the utility tax which appears to be declining less rapidly, but is still declining. She also mentioned that at this point last year the deficit was about $907,000; today's figures show a negative $506,000 if there are no changes. Mr. Calhoun said we will need to talk about expenditure reduction since as can't make revenues greater,and how we might go about developing the 2020 street fund budget. Director Taylor noted that the last page prior to Tab 1 shows a ten-year history of our full-time equivalent employees (FTE); and that for 2020, some employees have been reallocated but the number did not increase. Tab 1: City Council Mr. Calhoun noted the total Council budget increase of 1.6%; said the nonpayroll portion decreased by 2% and one of the biggest change was the federal lobbyist reduction of$10,000; he explained that we usually see the biggest changes during an election year as medical coverage can change depending on selected family coverage. After going over some of the major items under City council general fund, Mr. Calhoun noted that the figures are generally status quo from the previous year. There was brief discussion about monitoring of legislative issues and of the benefit of having a resource in Olympia for that purpose. Tab 2: City Manager Mr. Calhoun stated that overall this budget increased 2.65%, although the nonpayroll portion of the budget did not change nor did the number of FTEs; said one of the larger items is the $20,000 for professional services, which he said he often uses for other departments; and noted that the legal notices include publication in the Valley News Herald and the Exchange. Tab 3: City Attorney City Attorney Driskell briefly explained the purpose of his office,and said that his department is also status quo from the previous year, with 3.5 FTEs, which includes a half-time code compliance attorney and two interns; said his budget often uses funds for outside counsel to help on items where we might not have expertise,and said that any funds not used are returned to the general fund.Mr. Calhoun said that statement applies to all budgets; if funds are unexpended they return to the general fund, fund balance as we do not have a 'use it or lose it' philosophy. There was a question from Councilmember Wick about buying new office chairs upon moving to this building,and Mr. Driskell said that office chair in the budget is to replace a chair we got 14 years ago;said some staff elected not to get new furniture if we didn't need it.Mr.Hohman added that prior to the move,we conducted an inventory and assessment on which chairs to bring over,and said that staff was very careful not to increase the budget by buying new materials if current materials and supplies were still functional. Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-11-2019 Page 2 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT Tab 4: Public Safety Mr. Koudelka explained that this budget is mostly comprised of our Spokane County contracts for public safety; he said this budget is more challenging in that we can't tell County directors how to budget,but we do try to control costs, and in some cases we try to negotiate, and we always try to do the best we can to determine costs for the year. Mr. Koudelka said the centerpiece of this budget is the law enforcement contract at$21 million. Mr.Koudelka said that we are facing a staffing shortage and are trying to maximize the number of officers on the street; said Council previously saw a presentation about possible state funding as a result of the Trueblood* settlement,which could mean funding for mental health professionals as part of a co-response team,thereby reducing police officer overtime. Regarding officer vacancies,he stated that we want to make sure we are only charged for positions that are filled. Chief Werner added that overtime is an issue they are trying to control although training sometimes necessitates overtime; said they are identifying how many people do we need at these tests to get to the number of people we need to hire; and said that the pre-academy is still moving forward. There was some discussion on a co-response team and our hope to have one dedicated mental health professional on such a team, and Chief Werner mentioned that we currently do not have the staff to pursue that. The topic of officer uniforms was brought up and Chief Werner acknowledged buying uniforms is a large expense; he said the County has agreed to assist with a clothing allowance over the first two to three years once the officer has successfully passed their probationary period. It was also mentioned that it is not known if the funding for co-response teams would be long-term funding, but the goal is to have a successful model. There was brief discussion about recruitment efforts with Chief Werner explaining that their best recruitment is often from their own employees. Concerning the actual costs over the last few years under non-departmental,Mr.Koudelka noted the overall number of cases going to court has decreased for various reasons;mentioned the largest portion of supplies falls under the JAG grant; noted the $500,000 need for the contingency as a few items remain unsettled; said the law enforcement cost methodology is still new and they are trying to make some corrections regarding overtime where they hope to see additional savings; said SCRAPS is a fixed 20-year contract and that organization is having some difficulty as they don't have sufficient revenues.Mr. Koudelka mentioned the intergovernmental services is where we have our contracts like District Court, which increased 11%, some of which was due to an error that the County discovered when auditing,that apparently some deputies were not properly logged in so some valley costs were being charged to the County, although it appears those figures are leveling off. Mr. Koudelka said that we just received word that Spokane is pulling out from Emergency Management so there have been discussions about what that means to the remaining jurisdictions as the County might be passing some additional costs to other jurisdictions. Tab 5: Deputy City Manager Mr.Hohman said this is mainly a status quo budget; said he worked to refine some of the figures for office supplies, small tools and minor equipment; he noted that the software item and maintenance isn't just for him; and said Q-Alert is in this budget,which was a little higher last year due to start-up costs. Tab 6: Finance & Information Technology Finance Director Taylor gave a brief explanation of what her department does,mentioned they have 11.75 FTEs, and said the budget is very much status quo from the previous year,with just .09%decrease. Tab 7: General Government Finance Director Taylor explained that anything city-wide not attributable to any single department falls under the General Government; that it includes a lot of the general IT (Information Technology) expenditures for hard and software; and mentioned the $3.3 million total recurring expenditure which is about .03% less than the previous year's budget. Councilmember Wick mentioned that there are some council areas on the third floor that don't have power yet,and Mr. Calhoun said he will make that sure that happens in the near future. Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-11-2019 Page 3 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT Tab 8: Human Resources Human Resources Manager Whitehead went over the highlights of his budget information; said the budget is mostly status quo with a decrease in supply costs as the employee identification access cards were ordered in bulk so we don't need to do that annually; said training includes first aid and CPR, and this year AED (automated external defibrillator) will be included; he mentioned that he likes to use the training services of AWC (Association of Washington Cities) and/or WCIA (Washington Cities Insurance Authority) as those costs are reasonable as those agencies have an interest in keeping our liability down; said the professional services item covers things like offers to employees like a field person who would need a physical. A recess was called at 9:58 a.m., and the meeting reconvened at 10:15 a.m. Tab 9: City Hall Operations & Maintenance Building Official Nickerson gave a summary of this budget, noting it too is mostly status quo, with some increases in supplies and professional services. Tab 10: Community&Public Works—Building& Planning Building Official Nickerson explained that the Building and Planning division includes 20 FTEs with several new team members hired over the year;and she gave the highlights of the areas of code enforcement, building, and planning. Councilmember Wick asked if overtime is a concern and Ms.Nickerson explained that those figures are due to staff vacancies and not an ongoing trend,and said now that this division is fully staffed, overtime should not be a concern other than the end of the year. Tab 11: Community&Public Works - Engineering City Engineer Helbig said that the shaded area is general engineering, and the non-shaded area is development review engineering; he explained a little about what they do, and said the biggest changes were reallocating people to where they actually serve; after going over the number of FTEs in each area,he noted that there is no change in FTEs to the city; said the supplies budget shows an increase due to reallocation of vehicle maintenance supplies in general and in development engineering; said professional services also increased but the budget is generally status quo; and mentioned that the added staff this year has proven to be very beneficial. Tab 12: Community&Public Works—Economic Development Mr. Basinger said this budget is mostly status quo; that memberships and registrations are a little more accurate; and he highlighted what the department does with its five FTEs. Tab 13: Parks & Recreation Parks&Recreation Director Stone explained what his department does; said he has 9 FTEs and is currently down two: an office assistant and a senior center specialist; said overall his budget increased 2.23% but also it is primarily status quo; and noted that the minimum wage increases have affected the budget. Mr. Stone said that CenterPlace is open seven days a week and in some cases, can be open from eighteen to twenty hours a day due to the variety of events. In going through the various divisions, Mr. Stone noted that as they embark on the master park process,they want to look at re-purposing the horse arena area; said they anticipate a grant for Balfour Park;they have a park maintenance contract with Senske,and a contract with the YMCA to manage the city's pools. Mr. Stone noted his department processes about 450 park reservations a year; said they also handle the City's special event permit process which includes things like Valleyfest. Mr. Stone noted the maintenance contract includes Appleway and Centennial Trail; the dog park, and the gateway area, and said water is the largest utility cost. Under recreation, Mr. Stone noted an organizational change as they do not intend to fill the senior specialist position; and said the Senior Center is under the recreation budget. Mr. Calhoun added that they are not removing support from the Senior Center, as this is just an internal reorganization and an opportunity to take advantage of not needing 40 hours a week for the Senior Center. Councilmember Wick asked about having a separate budget for the Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-11-2019 Page 4 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT senior center versus putting it all under recreation, and Finance Director Taylor replied that splitting it allows us to segregate expenditures related to the Senior Center. Mr. Calhoun said that having the separate budget is not a substantial amount of effort,but we could look at that in the future. For the recreation budget,Mr. Stone noted the temporary seasonal wages of his ten to fifteen seasonal staff who manage the summer day camp, free park programs, new teen camp and other programs. For the aquatics division,Mr. Stone said there are no staff as we contract with the YMCA for the pools maintenance and operations,and said without the YMCA,we could not offer the free outdoor swims; said we pay a small administrative fee and the rest we pay the Y based on actual expenses. Councilmember Thompson asked if we are running out of scholarships and Mr. Stone said we are not; said we partner with the Spokane Parks Foundation as they reimburse for 100%of those who qualify and apply. Mr. Stone said the Senior Center is a small budget and that he will look where they might best fit that in in future years. Mr. Calhoun noted that the Senior Specialist shifted to a recreation specialist and a portion of what that position does will be in the senior center. Mr. Stone said he will have a newly hired office assistant at CenterPlace starting next Monday. At CenterPlace, Mr. Stone noted there are two maintenance workers who do primarily all the setups and maintenance; said there were over 1,000 events at CenterPlace last year and noted we have the ability to rent the Senior Facility after 4 pm and on weekends,and having the lounge makes it a very popular place to rent. Mr. Stone noted that the cost of linens has increased; said this service was started a few years ago and is gaining in popularity; said he hopes to replace some of the Center's inventory as the chairs and banquet tables are showing wear and tear. He mentioned the RFQ (request for qualifications) process for janitorial services this spring and that there has been no increase over the last five years, so this increase is modest. Mr. Stone stated that CenterPlace is now 15 years old and they try very hard to maintain it and keep it looking as good as possible but it is starting to show its age. Deputy Mayor Haley asked if staff feels it is still valuable to continue advertising in the Hagadone Black Book as the books are getting smaller,and Mr. Stone said staff needs to look at that to see where we might get the most for our advertising dollars. Councilmember Wood asked about getting swings for Edgeclift Park and Mr. Calhoun mentioned there is funding in the 2020 budget. Tab 14: Supplemental Budget Requests City Manager Calhoun said that Council has heard a lot today about departments staying with the status quo level of service,but each year we include a section for consideration for supplemental budget requests in addition to what has been done historically. Finance Director Taylor gave an overview of the supplemental requests, followed by a more detailed explanation by each department/division for each request as noted on the documents included in the packet. Following Mr. Basinger's explanation of the retail recruitment contract request, Councilmember Wick suggested continuing retail recruitment more as an ongoing expense.Mr.Hohman said that it would be prudent to incorporate that in the next year's budget, and Mr. Calhoun agreed. Under the Building & Planning Department, Mr. Calhoun noted the justification for an additional code enforcement officer and said if this request is approved, we envision our half-time attorney moving to a full-time position;and if we don't get the additional code enforcement officer,then we won't need the other half-time attorney. Building Official Nickerson stated that fuel and supplies could be shared for the two code enforcement officers; that a new officer would help not only with the older cases but also with new cases, like people working in the right-of-way without a permit; said when we dropped to one code enforcement officer, we saw calls drop, but now calls have increased to a similar level when we had two officers. There was some discussion about vehicle use with Mr. Hohman noting that we would acquire a new vehicle for that new person, and the other older vehicle would continue as a pool vehicle, and Mr. Calhoun stated that we have a replacement fund for all vehicles. Councilmember Thompson asked about additional budget funds for cameras for building security.Ms.Nickerson said there are no security cameras in this building, although there has been some discussion about having them in CenterPlace, and said staff is examining ways to better use our existing security. Mr. Calhoun mentioned that Deputy Johnson came through City Hall and had some suggested security changes,one of which will be incorporated immediately, Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-11-2019 Page 5 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT that of keeping the upstairs doors locked at all times. Councilmember Thompson asked to get some ID badges since many Councilmembers only have a plain white card and Mr. Calhoun asked Councilmembers to bring in the cards and said we will get a photo printed for the cards. As Parks &Recreation Director Stone went through requests for his department,the discussion focused on the request to repair the CenterPlace roof leaks,which led to mention of possibly appropriating more in the 2019 budget to get the entire roof addressed during the dry season instead of waiting until next fall. Mr. Calhoun said staff will follow up on this issue and report again to Council,noting it is important to maintain the facility and that we have the general fund reserves that could make this happen.Director Taylor brought attention to the CenterPlace West Lawn summary page where it appears we are paying out$2 million,but noted that figure doesn't show the transfer in. Councilmember Thompson expressed her concern with having a special event beer garden so close to the playground and suggested moving the farmers market once the west lawn is completed. Concerning the past debates of funding the west lawn all at once or by phases, Mr. Calhoun noted phasing can be expensive and inefficient and he asked for Council's input. Concerning farmers market, Councilmember Woodard said he heard from several handicapped people who like having the event on the hard surface; noted we will also have to prepare Balfour in the next couple of years,but he suggested Council strongly consider getting the west lawn completed and agreed phasing will hinder a lot of things. Deputy Mayor Haley agreed and said she too is for finishing the west lawn and not doing it in phases. Concerning the snowplow replacement, Deputy City Manager Hohman explained that we were on a program to have this in the 2019 budget, but we deferred that to complete the consultant review of maintenance activities; said he feels this is the time to get a new vehicle;we had a program for replacement every three years and we want to maintain that three-year cycle. Councilmember Woodard said he is in full support of replacing a snowplow, not adding another. Mr. Calhoun said that we had the funds in 2019 budget but didn't make that purchase, so the one scheduled for 2019 would be moved to 2020,and then the next would be in 2022; said we have ten trucks and two in reserve and are not increasing the number of that fleet. Mr. Hohman said when it comes time to make the purchase, staff will check to see if any of the local dealers would be able to beat the state price. When Councilmember Thompson asked what happens to the oldest vehicle,Mr.Hohman said once we don't need them any more for parts or otherwise,we auction them off or dispose of them otherwise. There was further discussion about having an additional mental health officer(co-response team)and Mr. Calhoun said that will be built into the conversation as a place holder at the August 20 Council meeting so he can get a sense if we could get that through the grant funding, or should use other funding mechanisms like a general fund expenditure. Mr. Calhoun noted that all of the supplemental requests will be before Council again when Council sees the 2020 budget; but if anyone is opposed to any request,he'd like to hear about that now. There were no opposing comments. Tab 16: Stormwater Fund At Mr. Calhoun's suggestion, it was decided to move to Tab 16 and skip Tab 15 until after lunch. City Engineer Helbig explained the functions associated with stormwater; said there are two FTEs within the stormwater fund and noted the increase in labor/wages was more of a reallocation of some staff; said they have taken on a lot more facilities including the public facilities on the public rights-of-way; mentioned they were very successful in obtaining grants but that grants have corresponding costs; said an update to the comprehensive stormwater master plan hasn't been done in many years and they will start in 2020 to hire a consultant to help update that plan. Mr. Hohman added that stormwater fees haven't changed since incorporation and that will also be reviewed. Finance Director Taylor mentioned that as seen in the summary for fund 402, over the years there have been shrinking recurring revenues, which suggests inadequate revenues to cover our costs. Mr. Hohman noted the street sweeping contract also has not increased over the years and we don't have enough funds to sweep the entire city. The meeting recessed at 11:45 a.m. for lunch. The meeting reconvened at 12:18 p.m. Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-11-2019 Page 6 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT Tab 15: Street Operations & Maintenance Fund Deputy City Manager Hohman said this department has 7.475 FTEs and includes three components: street, snow, and bridges; said some of the increases and decreases are due to wages, and he summarized the figures. Mr. Helbig mentioned the reports Council has heard from Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE) about pavement management and that we are switching vendors this year for the scanning and management system; said there were associated decreases in the budget for 2020 as costs go down, but there are other areas where costs increase. Concerning bridges, Finance Director Taylor said there has been some fairly recent development in splitting out those costs as we do more work on the bridges, so those costs are still being refined. Concerning the waste disposal services and charges,Mr. Hohman said more items are being dumped in the right-of-way which increases costs; said the street maintenance contract increased as it has not seen an increase for several years;mentioned this is the final optional year for the Poe Contract so staff will be putting that out for bid shortly. There was brief discussion about employees with Mr. Hohman explaining that the individuals are only in the street fund during snow plow operations and as noted on the top of the page in the yellow highlights, the snow plow wages as well as the snow plow temp/seasonal wages were increased for 2020. Councilmember Thompson asked how do we handle a situation where a utility company does repair and the repair isn't adequate, and Mr. Hohman explained that Mr. Scott Wallace,the City's right-of-way inspector,is fully dedicated to reviewing street cuts and rights-of-way and that he has a reputation for being the a tough inspector; said he tries to be there on the larger patches so he can verify the work; said he and the utility companies get together twice a year with a discussion facilitated through Avista; also there is a five-year warranty on each of the patches and when Mr. Wallace conducts the final inspection,if there is any deviation from the utility policy,the work must be re-done. Mr. Hohman continued giving the highlights of the funds, and reminded Council of last year's evaluation of street and stormwater maintenance programs by LA Consultants and said it might be a good time to look further info that now;he mentioned for sign maintenance,the County has a sign shop but staff can research to see if there are other viable options. Councilmember Thompson asked if wayfinding signs are in the budget and Mr.Hohman said they are not,as that item is currently on the pending agenda; said Council had a report on that topic several years ago and that staff will look for a time to bring that forward. Mr. Calhoun mentioned that in looking at the street fund#101 summary document prior to Tab #1, that we just looked at the line item expenditures and expenditures are greater than revenues by over $1 million; said we will have to address that as we move through the 2020 budget process; said that last year Council agreed to take a portion of the reserve, $907,000 to prop up the street fund for another year; he said we need additional revenues of $1.244 million or in the alternative, need to reduce expenditures by that amount, or some combination;said we do not need to solve that issue today but we do need to discuss it at some point.Mayor Higgins agreed we need to solve the bigger longer term problem. Mr. Calhoun also noted that the street operation and maintenance is one part and that pavement preservation is the other piece;he said next week Council will hear an administrative report on pavement preservation with a staff recommendation that Council consider appointing an ad hoc committee with the ultimate goal of having a recommendation later this fall as a determination needs to be made on what condition does Council and the community want to see for our roads: good, fair, or poor, and to try to come to conclusions on pavement preservation. Mr. Hohman explained that the idea for an ad hoc committee came up as a way to generate more public information at community meetings. Councilmember Peetz said it is difficult for her to implement a tax and feels we should use the reserve and then talk about a more permanent income source later. Mr. Calhoun said that proposal is what Council did last year. There was mention of the waste management contract and the use fee for the trucks, which would be part of the $5 million we spend on average every year. Mr.Hohman again referenced the Nicholas engineering evaluation and said the feeling is the ongoing budget of$10 million is required to keep the roads in their current condition,and just to maintain what we have at the current level,assuming we spend$5 million;he said we are going to scan the roads again this year and we learned with working with the consultants,they recommend a different scanning frequency of scanning 100% of the roads every three years; he said he doesn't think$1.5 million is enough to make a difference and we will continue with the degeneration of the Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-11-2019 Page 7 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT numbers if we stay with the$1.5 million. Mr.Helbig added that in working with the pavement management systems, the numbers are continually updated, so even with the amount of funds we have, there is still degeneration system-wide. Mr. Calhoun noted when we heard the Nichols report, we had split the information between residential and arterials,and the consultants zeroed in for pavement preservation at$5 million. Councilmember Woodard mentioned we have lost millions over the years in state shared revenues, which funds could have been put to pavement preservation. Mr. Hohman said as we are about to embark on an intense public participation process, if Council has no confidence in the figures generated, we need to know now and not go forward with that public process yet; said about a year and a half ago we separated the pavement preservation from the street fund issue,then Council said to combine them and come with a total picture, which staff did; that if Council wants to postpone pavement preservation a couple of years, we can keep an eye on that, but we still need to solve the street fund issue; and we need a solution for revenue or cut the street maintenance contract,and said that some clarity would be helpful. Councilmember Woodard said the issue is not necessarily a lack of confidence; that last year we approved that one-time payment,but said he would have a difficult time moving funds again and that we can't keep going on one- time solutions; said we have to have some influx of new money/taxes; that we are a growing city with a growing number of cars on the streets. Mr.Hohman reminded Council that they have options now since we are in a robust economy, but we need to look to the future and when we are in a recession,there won't be the option of using surplus funds. Deputy Mayor Haley said she is not opposed to an ad hoc committee and questioned if we should try to get input on the idea of a new tax; that if citizens want better roads without taxing,then there needs to be a means to determine how much citizens are willing to pay. Councilmember Wick said we had three different consultants come up with different numbers; so he too thinks a committee would be a good way to get community feedback. Mayor Higgins agreed and said he feels there is a need to educate the citizens on the issue, but not necessarily how to pay for that, as that is Council's purpose. Councilmember Thompson said she supports the idea of using reserves this year as well as the need to look at next year to do something to prevent roads from getting worse. Councilmember Peetz agreed with the idea of involving the public and that prevention and education are key pieces to this issue. Tab 17: General Fund—Fund Balance City Manager Calhoun briefly explained the math behind the six-month operating reserve, and that it is a cash flow issue;followed by further detailed explanation from Director Taylor concerning items to consider in setting the minimum fund balance. Tab 18: Potential & Pending Capital Projects City Manager Calhoun said this spreadsheet gives a sense of what we have accomplished and what is remaining to be accomplished,and between him and Ms. Taylor,they explained about the various projects, went through the information in the box in the left-hand side of the page,and asked for discussion of where Council might want to see that$3.9 million applied,adding that Council might want to consider these over time as we work toward the Sullivan Road project,and as Bigelow Gulch is completed. Discussion ensued about the CRISI Grant award and that we likely will need an additional$1.5 million to complete the design on Pines and acquire the needed right-of-way; about perhaps earmarking some funds as unallocated; the idea of keeping pressure on the Pines/Barker Road Corridor projects, the Balfour Project, taking care of CenterPlace, and the idea of purchasing come pieces of land for parks; that Pines is extremely important but we don't want to spend funds we don't have; and that ultimately this topic can be discussed further as we move through the budget development process. Mr. Calhoun said this might be a good discussion for August 20, and that we will need to talk more about the street fund as well. Tab 19: Fiscal Policies Mr. Calhoun explained that as we adopt our entire budget document,these are the fiscal policies important for the long-range fiscal strength of our City; he said that Moody's Corporation likes these fiscal policies and that we not only state them, but we live by them. Mr. Calhoun went through the policies, and Councilmembers had no suggested edits. Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-11-2019 Page 8 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT Tab 20: Council Goals 1. Work with state and federal legislators towards advancing the concepts outlined in the Bridging the Valley study including obtaining financial assistance for the Pines and Park Grade Separation Projects. After brief discussion, it was determined to add in Sullivan and have the projects listed in the following order:Pines, Sullivan and Park. 2. Continue to pursue a plan to sustain the City's Pavement Preservation Program to include sustained financing in Street Fund#101 and Pavement Preservation Fund#311. There were no suggested edits. 3. Pursue state and federal financial assistance to address transportation concerns along the entire Barker Corridor. There were no suggested edits. 4. Continue with and expand where possible, economic development efforts including the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses. There were no suggested edits. 5. Continue to foster relationships with federal, state, county and local legislators. Although initially there were no suggested edits, Councilmember Thompson said she isn't sure this is a budget goal, and she suggested adding something like `while continuing to.foster relationships with... " to have that more of a working goal. Further, Councilmember Thompson suggested adding something like working hand-in-hand; said relationships are fostered already;mentioned she attended a local government meeting yesterday where there was an announcement about the Liberty Lake Barker Project with Senator Padden mentioning that the Department of Transportation would administer the funds as it was intended and Spokane Valley would pick up part of the portion not covered by the funds. Councilmember Thompson said she was taken aback by that as she didn't recall our City ever committing to cover any overruns from Liberty Lake's project. Deputy City Manager Hohman said staff can work to refine that goal's language, and he concurred that Council has not had that conversation about us picking up the overrun; he said staff will keep Council appraised if there are any changes with the Department of Transportation. Speaking to the goal, Councilmember Woodard added that those relationships are important for many reasons, such as knowing what projects people are working on as that information would be a direct benefit to citizens. Mr. Calhoun said some goals are budget related and some are not, but they are all goals to aspire towards. Councilmember Thompson suggested including a statement at the beginning that would cover all the goals, adding that she is ok with the way the goal is stated now. 6. Pursue financing for Browns Park,Balfour Park and Appleway Trail amenities,and continue acquisition of park land. Discussion included whether to keep Browns Park and/or add in other parks,and it was ultimately decided to remove Browns Park and leave the rest as stated. 7. Update the Bike and Pedestrian Masterplan to include connections between the Appleway Tail, Balfour Park, Dishman Hills and the Centennial Trail to create a continuous loop for users. There were no suggested edits. Mr. Calhoun asked if there were suggestions for other goals, and Councilmember Wick suggested adding something about community engagement and identifying that we are trying to get more community involvement;he mentioned the criminal justice system and to identify cost savings or that we are judiciously involved in that to keep costs under control,regardless of whether or not we support the jail. City Attorney Driskell said that he and Deputy City Attorney Lamb are currently on that jail task force so are participating in that issue. Councilmember Thompson said she likes that idea; said that since 67%of our budget goes to law enforcement and public safety,maybe add something about enhancing the opportunity to recruit,train Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-11-2019 Page 9 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT and retain Spokane Valley Police officers and to provide growth opportunity for our officers to become leaders in the Police Department. Mayor Higgins reminded everyone that we have a contract with the Sheriff's Office and they operate under a union. Mr. Calhoun said perhaps we could write a general goal in support of law enforcement and the efforts of our officers. Councilmember Thompson agreed. Deputy Mayor Haley mentioned the idea of adding our support of the police and fire departments, and again Councilmember Thompson mentioned that it seems public safety is missing from the goals. Tab 21: Advance Agenda There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda, and it was mentioned that likely the Tuesday, June 25 Council meeting will be cancelled as Councilmembers attend the AWC Conference, and that we will schedule a special Council meeting for Monday, June 24. Mr. Calhoun said he hopes to know by Thursday. Tab 22: Business Plan This was for information only and was not discussed or reported. Tab 23: Executive Session It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately twenty minutes to discuss pending litigation, and that no action would be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into executive session at 2:19 p.m. At 2:41 p.m.,Mayor Higgins declared Council out of executive session, at which time it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk *According to Washington State Association of Counties,the state legislature introduced bills that attempt to address the Trueblood settlement agreement, which passed out of the Senate March 7 and does several things, including expanding police authority to divert individuals to treatment rather than for criminal production. Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-11-2019 Page 10 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington June 18, 2019 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Rod Higgins, Mayor John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Pam Haley, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Linda Thompson, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks &Rec. Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Mark Werner, Police Chief Sam Wood, Councilmember Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Arne Woodard, Councilmember Karen Kendall, Planner Mike Basinger, Economic Dev. Manager Gloria Mantz, Engineering Manager Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded, and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. ACTION ITEMS: 1. CONSENT AGENDA: consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on June 18, 2019 Request for Council Action Form Total: $2,705,654.79 b. Payroll Approval for Payroll ending May 31, 2019: $523,738.54 c. Approval of May 28, 2019 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Meeting Executive Session d. Approval of May 28, 2019 Council Meeting Minutes, Regular Formal Format e. Approval of June 4, 2019 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Meeting Executive Session f. Approval of June 4, 2019 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session Format It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. 2. Second Reading Ordinance 19-007,Amending Addressing Standards—Karen Kendall After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve Ordinance 19-007 adopting a new Chapter 22.135 and amend Appendix A of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Building Official Nickerson, standing in for Ms. Kendall, explained that there have been no changes since the first reading, and this ordinance formalizes the procedures and standards that align with the current addressing protocol. As a public hearing on this issue was previously held, no public comments were solicited. Vote by acclamation:In favor: unanimous. Opposed: none.Motion carried. 3. Resolution 19-009 Setting Planning Commission Hearing for a Privately-Initiated Street Vacation (Broadway Ave)—Karen Kendall It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to approve Resolution 19-009 setting July 25, 2019 as the date for a public hearing before the Planning Commission, on Street Vacation application STV-2019- 0003. After Planner Kendall explained about the proposed street vacation, Mayor Higgins invited public Council Study Session: 06-18-2019 Page 1 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT comments. No comments were offered. Vote by acclamation:In favor: unanimous. Opposed:none.Motion carried. 4. Motion Consideration: Pines Grade Separation Project Preferred Design Selection—Gloria Mantz It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to advance the design of the project using Alternative 2 alignment with a roundabout as intersection control. Ms. Mantz briefly explained about the project,the project timeline, and the alternatives, along with staff's recommendation based on the Phase I alternative analysis,to advance the design with alternative 2 alignment with a roundabout intersection control. Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: said she encourages Council to go with the recommendation and said she feels the roundabout would be workable. Mr. James Johnson, Spokane Valley: mentioned he is the current chair of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission, and said he didn't notice until today, that the alternative design includes an option to turn on to Portland Avenue off the northwest corner in the roundabout, and said he is curious why Portland was chosen instead of curving around and going on to Euclid. Ms. Mantz explained that they are working in coordination with Spokane County to provide access to the County's facility where they have large trucks. Mr. Andrew Tate, Spokane Valley: said that intersection onto Portland goes in front of his house and the intersection to turn on to Cement doesn't seem to work; said he assumes there will be additional design coming to this to handle vehicles coming back to the area like from the County sewage plant. There were no further public comments.After brief comments from Council, vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous; opposed: none.Motion carried. 6. End of Legislative Session Report—Josh Weiss of Gordon, Thomas,Honeywell Mayor Higgins explained that this item is being moved up as Mr. Weiss has a plane to catch. Mr. Weiss went through his PowerPoint giving Council an overview of the 2019 session, including a summary of the operating,capital and transportation budgets,the City's legislative priorities including the funding received for Browns Park,mention of the Pines Road/BNSF Project not receiving funding;he briefly mentioned the Liberty Lake Barker to Harvard Interchange project, and then went over some of the other Spokane Valley legislative items such as defending local control, protecting local state-shared revenues, condominium liability reform, increased funding for the Basic Law Enforcement Academy with two additional classes held in Spokane annually,and affordable housing and HB 1406. Council thanked Mr.Weiss for his report. 5. Motion Consideration: Bid Award,Wellesley Avenue Sidewalk—Gloria Mantz It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to award the Wellesley Avenue Sidewalk Project CIP #265 to Cameron Reilly, and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Engineering Manager Mantz thanked Council for considering this bid award tonight as staff would like to get this project going before the school year begins; she explained the proposed project as noted in her Request for Council Action form, and said this project was designed in-house, adding that there was a lot of coordination with property owners. Ms. Mantz also noted that one of the property owners notified staff that a rock wall located within the right-of-way had historic value, and in order to comply with NEPA (National Environmental Protection Agency),the City hired an archeologist to conduct a cultural resource report,and during the process,the City learned that the property owner had applied to have his property as well as the rock wall, listed in the historic register. Ms. Mantz said to avoid delays, the project was redesigned to avoid removal of the rock wall; said the project was advertised in May with bids opened June 14; and said that three bids were received, with Cameron Reilly coming in slightly higher than the engineer's estimate. Mayor Higgins invited public comment;no comments were offered. Councilmember Wick stated that since these types of motions usually include the dollar amount, he moved to amend the motion to include the amount of$694,969. The motion was seconded. There were no public comments. Vote by acclamation to amend the motion: in favor: unanimous; opposed: none. Motion passed. Councilmember Wick also noted Council Study Session: 06-18-2019 Page 2 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT his family owns property along the area but he doesn't believe he has a conflict of interest. Vote by acclamation on the fully amended motion: in favor: unanimous; opposed: none. Motion carried. 5a. Motion Consideration: Real Property Acquisition [public comment] It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to authorize staff to finalize and execute any documents necessary,for the purchase of Spokane County parcel number 45222.0228.for$225,000 plus closing costs, and that there are sufficient,funds in Capital Reserve Fund#312 to,facility the acquisition. City Attorney Driskell explained that this parcel is the vacant property immediately behind the Spokane Valley Police Precinct;that it is slightly larger than an acre and is owned by the parent company for Players&Spectators; said there have been several discussions with the owner in the past that if they were ever interested in selling,to let us know; he said the property appraised at $4.22 per sq. ft. which price was used as a basis for negotiation; said the assessed value is $315,000 and the parties feel this is a good proposed price,plus closing costs. Mayor Higgins invited public comment;no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous; opposed: none.Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: After Mayor Higgins explained the process, he invited public comments. Ms. Lucille Hanson, with Naomi Community: said on behalf of naomi, she wanted to express their appreciation to the City of Spokane Valley for past support; said naomi is a transformational, recovery community which has been in the area since 2011,and with the support of the City of Spokane Valley,has been able to grow; said it is a privilege to be here tonight and again thanked Council for supporting this extremely important issue;and with thanks and with gratitude, she handed Council a plaque thanking them for their partnership. Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: said she wanted to talk about burned houses, and she gave the City Clerk photos to share with Council; said there is no time limit from when a home gets burned out until they get it cleaned up; said she called the Health Department as well as the City's Code enforcement, and Code Enforcement said they did not know how long it would take to get the property cleaned up; she also mentioned the property at 11611 E Carlisle and said people there work on vehicles,including painting cars in their garage and they are not supposed to be doing any of that in an R-3 zone; said she wants to know when this property will be cleaned up,this and other similar properties in the valley; said it is not healthy; regarding St. John Vianney's proposal, said she wishes it would be closed up for good. Ms.Mary Martin, Spokane Valley: said she lives on Herald Road and that the area is somewhat of a freeway from Sprague to Mission as the traffic moves fast; said that on Valleyway and Herald from St. John Vianney, when the kids are getting out of school, it is pretty risky at the stop sign on that corner; and said that she can't see the project as an improvement. Ms. Debbie Hippie, Spokane Valley: said she has lived on Walnut Road since 2006 and she greatly opposes what St. John Vianney is allowing Catholic Charities to do. Mr. Thomas Dixon, Spokane Valley: said he thought the Planning Commission was petitioned by Catholic Charities and St. John Vianney to change the R-3 zone; said many people attended a meeting a couple weeks ago at the Planning Commission and spoke at that time regarding changing it from R-3 to multi- family; said he understood the Planning Commission would present that they felt it was inappropriate and they were against it; and said he's here to see what's going to happen as there were quite a few people against that proposal. Mr. Tim Bieber, Spokane Valley: said he lives on N Farr and opposes this proposal; said the City has done great work and made great changes like the Appleway Trail and maintaining trees, and said he knows Council won't allow this proposal to come in as he knows Council has a lot of wisdom and that he hopes Council doesn't move something there that shouldn't be there. Council Study Session: 06-18-2019 Page 3 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT Ms. Janet Hoyt, Spokane Valley: said she lives on the corner of Herald and Valleyway and agrees that Herald is a freeway and a dangerous road; said the area doesn't have infrastructure for such a large proposal as they don't have sidewalks, and are an historic community; said it would be a huge mistake to move in a large multifamily complex and that she objects to people trying to change the rules so they can get what they want; said they don't need multi-family. Mr. Greg Wozny, Spokane Valley: said he knows this proposal came up several years ago and he thought it was put to rest,but evidentially not as it seems to keep coming back; said there would be increased traffic and it could affect property values; said he wonders if there would also be an increase in car prowling; said St. John Vianney is an elementary school; and that he wanted to have a chance to voice his opinion against this and said it is not a good move. Ms. Marie Raschko-Sokol, St. John Vianney Parish: said she has served on the Governor's State Council on Aging, and is a member of the Area Aging Advisory Board, and she thanked Spokane Valley Council for agreeing to be part of that agency; said affordable senior housing for people over 60 has been a hot issue and senior housing is a major issue for everyone as we all grow old; said there is federal funding for housing for homelessness but not for senior housing; said there will be a crisis in the next six to seven years as we are getting older and don't have available resources; said you want an older person in your neighborhood as they watch out for the neighbors and with seniors in the neighborhood,there is a decrease in crime; said she doesn't agree with some of the statements tonight; said this shouldn't be an emotional issue but should be a matter-of-fact issue; that there is a need to provide intergenerational housing and we need to look at all those issues. Ms. Peggy Cannon, Spokane Valley: she spoke about a home (N. Burns) which is a chronic nuisance as well as a criminal nuisance; said law enforcement in Spokane Valley tries to help neighbors be safe and protect property; that she sees cars come up to that house and then leave; there are a lot of vehicles there that don't even have license plates; said they need help to get rid of the people who are there and are squatters; said the property is owned by CITI Bank and not by an individual; said they want to get the water turned off to allow law enforcement to declare no trespassing; she mentioned there is an elementary school two blocks away;there is a five-year old who lives across the street from this house and she isn't allowed to play in her front yard; she asked to please help expedite the eviction of these people and cooperate with the water district and law enforcement. City Attorney Driskell stated that he and Deputy City Attorney Lamb spoke with some citizens tonight to let them know the City is fully aware of this situation and is working with and is significantly engaged with the owner bank and their representatives, as well as with Vera Water and the Police Department and staff believes we will be making significant progress on this very shortly. Ms. Danielle Romero, Spokane Valley: she also spoke about the home on N Burns and thanked city staff for having plans for action; said her kids call that house the `scary house;' said her daughter can't ride her bike in her own front yard as it is not safe; and she is hopeful things will get taken care of soon. Ms. Jessica Goad, Spokane Valley: said she lives on N Burns across from the house mentioned above; said she has been there seven years now and there have been ongoing issues; car thefts, frequent public altercations,and general nuisance; said she feels unsafe in her own home and avoids the front yard; said all that contributes to the reason why they are relocating; and trying to sell her home, it also makes it difficult to sell her home. Mr. Mark Zielfelder, Spokane Valley: said he lives on Herald Road and is against the proposed code text amendment; said that should not be in an R-3 zone;that it is the wrong place for this; said he has lived there for fifteen years and doesn't want a three-story building in his backyard;said he spoke with Modern Electric Council Study Session: 06-18-2019 Page 4 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT and was told such a huge development would put a strain on the infrastructure and they would have to run an entire new main for that. Mr. Joe Ward, Spokane Valley: said he lives next door to that house on Burns and it has been a ten-year nightmare; said his family has been assaulted; said they call the police but by the time they get there, nothing is happening and the violators are gone. Ms. Christine Fode, Spokane Valley: said affordable housing is a concern and there are other zones more conducive to that; said Walnut is an R-3 zone; said nine years ago this proposal was for 40 units; now it is for 70; said multi-family should not be permitted in R-3 zones and that she wants to maintain the character and quality of Walnut Road,which is a historical neighborhood. Mr. Dave Fode said he agrees. Mr.Jonathan Mallahan,Catholic Charities: said he represents Catholic Charities and he values their mission to bring dignity to older people; said he believes this proposal would allow them to apply for a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct multi-family, although no project has been designed yet; said they would include the public process and engage the neighbors, adding that they would not be able to build past what they could support; said he feels this supports the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan goals;that he won't move any project forward until they have a public process and a CUP; and that this code text amendment would require development to be according to standards and that it would also be consistent with the character of the neighborhood; again said it is his intent to engage the neighbors and develop something that adds value to the neighborhood. Ms. Linda Dixon, Spokane Valley: said this project started out with 12 units, then 24, 36 and now in the 70's; said the property is not bigger and the roads are not wider,and the water supply is barely serving them now. Ms. Sandy Holder, Spokane Valley: said she is opposed to this proposal. Ms. Linda Lehman, Spokane Valley: said she has lived on Broadway over 30 years and it is a beautiful area; said the proposal would damage the current property if they put in another 70 dwelling units; said people deserve some respect and should not have to keep coming back just to maintain their home and environment; said she'd like to stay there for the rest of her life; said she loves Catholic Charities and admires what they do,but she doesn't want 70 homes in her backyard and doesn't want to have to fight this every several years; said Catholic Charities should come to the property owners about what can be done with that property. Mr. Ray Lefrado: said he lives on Herald Road and there has been a huge influx of people and not far from the proposed site is a pornographic outfit that sells porn; across from that is cannabis sales; add in people who can't care for themselves; opportunities there to get into trouble; said he has already seen many difficulties with those properties,and a school as well as a day care isn't far away; said there has to be some cleaning up before bringing in people who are already having difficult time maintaining themselves; said we need affordable housing but have enough to take care of now in the community. Ms. Karen Strauss, Spokane Valley: said she lives on Walnut Road and is opposed to the property at St. John Vianney; said no one wants it there; it would be right next to the school. Mr. Levi Strauss: said he is also against this proposal. Mr. Daniel Hipple: said he lives south of the proposed property on Walnut;is concerned about Valleyway; said he is against this proposal but is not against what Catholic Charities does;voiced his concern that this is not the right place to put this and is concerned having another 76 people on one acre,not counting parking; Council Study Session: 06-18-2019 Page 5 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT said it is not feasible or reasonable;that the Planning Commission except for one member, seemed to agree and that one person appeared to be on the fence. There were no further public comments and at 7:34 p.m. Mayor Higgins called for a recess;he reconvened the meeting at 7:45 p.m. NON-ACTION ITEMS: 7. Re-Opening of 10th Avenue— Chad Riggs Engineer Riggs explained the background of the closing of 10th Avenue, and that to open it we would need a resolution,and asked for Council consensus to place such resolution on the next Council Consent Agenda; there was general Council consensus to do so. 8. Proposed Code Text Amendment 2018-0006 Affordable Housing—Lori Barlow Senior Planner Barlow explained that this proposed code text amendment is privately initiated from Catholic Charities to allow affordable multi-family housing in the R-3 zone if certain conditions are met, and have it subject to a conditional use permit which would include the review and approval process conducted by the Hearing Examiner. Ms. Barlow gave an overview of the proposed amendment including having an applicability section that development may be permitted if at least 51%of the units are used for affordable housing and subject to additional criteria, as noted in the subsequent PowerPoint slides. Ms. Barlow noted that during the Planning Commission public hearing, comments were generally directed toward a project at St. John Vianney and not necessarily toward the code text amendment, but concerns such as traffic increase,and that it would not be consistent with the character of the existing neighborhood. Ms. Barlow noted the Planning Commission voted six to zero to recommend Council deny the request;and that Council options include moving the denial forward, moving an approval forward, or remanding back to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Woodard explained that when he was on the Planning Commission about ten years ago, he had recused himself when he was on Council and this project came forth; said we need to give faith communities of all types opportunities to build senior housing; but he would like this to go back to the Planning Commission with some guidelines;that affordable housing is not low or no barrier type housing; and do to a more open type of requirement on the size of the property so multi-faith communities could participate; said he would still like it to be for seniors and to also have all units be handicapped accessible; said other ideas could be addressed like having a maximum number of units; said he realizes no project has come forth yet. Councilmember Wick questioned whether we have a lack of developable land in multi- family zone; and suggested when Council re-addresses the topic of duplexes in R-3, that Council should have this multi-family desire and need discussed; said affordability comes down to density and more units in a smaller area lend to affordability; said he is not sure an R-3 zone is where this should go and said perhaps better areas would be along the Appleway Way corridor; said he is not sure this amendment aligns with the goal of protecting more R-3 zone; said perhaps Council should also examine other options like bringing back the R-4 or MF-1 zone;and again stressed he wants to protect the R-3,single family residential zone. Deputy Mayor Haley said one of her concerns is parking;in looking at the aerial photo it appears the parking lot is full; said she is also concerned about density as 70 seems like a lot and it appears not to have the infrastructure to support that; said she too would be aggregable to sending this back to the Planning Commission and have it come back with what can be done for senior housing; said senior housing is needed but this proposal seems extreme for the location; said she would like to see what the Planning Commission would recommend. Mayor Higgins invited Deputy City Attorney Lamb to speak to the issue of senior housing. Mr. Lamb explained that the Federal Fair Housing Act as well as the corresponding Washington law against Council Study Session: 06-18-2019 Page 6 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT discrimination, prohibits us from adopting land use regulations that discriminate based on familiar status; for example, you can't prohibit kids; but under both laws, there is an exemption for housing for older persons as it has been recognized by the federal and state government that there is a need for senior housing. Mr. Lamb said that the challenge would be for the City to ensure regulation compliance under the Fair Housing Act, and the City as the agency attempting to comply with that exemption, would have to ensure that all the necessary criteria would be met and to do that, we would have to adopt some age verification requirements and procedures to ensure that everyone in the housing,would meet the requirements; so if we did that,the City would be getting into some form of housing business. Deputy Mayor Haley mentioned we already have senior housing,or mobile home courts for 55+, so how would this be different. Mr. Lamb explained that it wouldn't be different as those owners would be complying with the same laws; the difference would be they are the operators of those sites and would be taking the applications and checking for meeting the criteria; but in this case,the City would have a city-wide R-3 zoning amendment, and we would have multiple sites, and in each site, we would be responsible for compliance of all applicants meeting all requirements; and further, it would be difficult since the City would not be the entity operating the facility. Mayor Higgins asked if Catholic Charities would be operating that facility, how would that differ from the operation of a trailer park. Mr. Lamb said there would not be any difference, but the City would have to ensure, possibly through a contract, that Catholic Charities would be doing everything mandated through those laws, and the City would or could be liable if anything was missed, so any discrimination claim would come against the City. Ms. Barlow added that part of the difference is we have senior housing projects, and senior housing manufactured home parks, but we don't look at them in terms of senior housing projects, instead we look at them in terms of a manufactured home park, and if they privately choose to limit it to seniors,that is something they would handle. Mayor Higgins said he is hearing a concern and there's a very real fear that this would have the potential of becoming something like 2nd and Division;and he asked if we could craft legal language to make it more narrowly binding. Mr. Lamb replied that staff can research that; that to-date staff has looked at the limitations specific to senior housing; he said the Planning Commission and/or staff could look at other options. Councilmember Peetz said the stated intention of senior housing is a barrier,but for this code text amendment, it would benefit a single site; she also agreed with the parking issue; said this does not fit the character of the neighborhood; said she feels Council has enough information and would therefore be in agreement with the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the proposal. Councilmember Wood asked if they didn't do a code text amendment that would apply city-wide, could they do a site specific conditional use permit just on that lot alone. Mr. Lamb said if we had criteria for such a conditional use permit,but as of right now,we don't and this is attempting to put forward the criteria to allow a conditional use permit request;said he feels we would face the same questions regarding the City meeting all the criteria and requirements of the Federal Fair Housing Act even for that specific site;but if there is a conditional use permit process that allows that, it would still be city-wide in whatever zone or areas Council ultimately decided; but if an entity wanted to provide senior housing, they could do so and limit it and that it would be on them and not part of a condition in a conditional use process. Councilmember Wood asked if they could make an application to do that without changing or amending the code,and Mr. Lamb said not at this time for that site. Councilmember Thompson also stated her desire to protect the R-3 and said perhaps we could look at options like an R-4 zone;that in looking at the map that shows other sites that might meet the criteria for this change,it is in areas where there are tight-knit communities or where she thinks they would not benefit from a change; and said she would also be opposed to moving this forward. Mayor Higgins said the options for consensus is to move it forward to approve, or move it forward to disapprove, or send it back to the Planning Commission with some guidance for modification; such as not setting it up as a no barrier or low barrier housing project. Councilmember Woodard suggested including size of unit, number of units, and accessibility for each unit. Councilmember Wick said he thinks the intentions are good for affordable and senior housing,but he doesn't want to put a burden on the City with senior housing as explained by Mr. Lamb, and that he is not sure he wants to do that in an R-3 zone as he Council Study Session: 06-18-2019 Page 7 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT wants to protect the R-3 zone. Councilmember Wood said he would vote to deny a project it if wasn't just for seniors over 60; and Mr. Lamb noted the Federal Housing age for every unit to qualify, would be 62 and over. Deputy Mayor Haley said she feels 70 is too many units. Mayor Higgins said another issue for the Planning Commission is to have the property owner manage the project and avoid the City being involved. Deputy City Manager Hohman said if it is Council's preference to send to the Planning Commission, he would ask the Commission to look at all options and try to accomplish the overriding goals; and that it would take some time to go through that and evaluate all options. There was no Council consensus to approve or deny the proposal; and a majority of Councilmembers indicated their preference to send this back to the Planning Commission. 9. Transportation Improvement Board(TIB) Potential Grant—Adam Jackson Via his PowerPoint presentation, Engineer Jackson explained the function of the TIB and of the 2019 funding potential,with applications due August 16,2019; said funding falls under either the Urban Arterial Program (UAP) or the Sidewalk Program; he said there were many more projects but he has narrowed the list to the four top priorities,which he feels are all conducive to the typical TIB award.After brief discussion there was Council consensus to bring this back in a few weeks for a motion consideration. 10. Pavement Management Ad-Hoc Commission—Adam Jackson Deputy City Manager Hohman explained that this topic was briefly mentioned during the budget workshop; that there was concern from several Councilmembers about where we are in the process,and based on some of the comments, said he feels it is premature to move forward now with a commission. Mr. Hohman said staff will put a report together to discuss the history of pavement management program and identify each opportunity that this and past councils have talked about this topic;to also identify which PCI (Pavement Condition Index)number is correct; said he wants to condense the information from the April 2nd meeting as perhaps there was some confusion as what aspects of pavement management needs further discussion, and said staff will work on that and in another month or two bring this back to Council; he said before engaging in a robust public process,we wants each Councilmember to be confident of where the needs are. Mr. Hohman mentioned the new program shows the network graphically with different color codes of green, yellow and red and that staff could run some scenarios and do more background prior to going on with the public process. There was full Council consensus. 11. Advance Agenda-Mayor Higgins Councilmember Thompson asked about including vaping on an upcoming agenda to examine the possibility of having a regulation similar to marijuana,to perhaps limit the number and regulate vaping stores so they cannot be closer than 1,000 feet from schools. City Attorney Driskell said our previous code section was to be temporary until the state law governing electronic cigarettes and vapor products was enacted, which occurred in 2016, and said he would have to research the issue. There was Council consensus to include vaping on a future agenda. Councilmember Peetz said she has been talking with the Homebuilders Association and would like to have them do a presentation on what things changed during the legislative process and to hear about what they are seeing regarding the housing crisis. There was Council consensus to include that issue on a future agenda. Councilmember Peetz also mentioned place-making grants to get amenities for trails and benches and said she has a connection of someone who would like to work with our planners. Mr. Hohman said staff will reach out and report back on that issue. 12. Council Check-in—Mayor Higgins Mayor Higgins Councilmember Woodard spoke about the SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) and the opportunity to support two grants, one for our underpass, and the other for the airport. 13. City Manager Comments—Mark Calhoun Mr. Hohman explained that Mr. Calhoun was not feeling well and went home early, but asked that Mr. Hohman please be sure to mention the successful CRISI grant award of$1.25 million for Pines; he also Council Study Session: 06-18-2019 Page 8 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT noted the draft letters before each Councilmember and there was consensus to have the Mayor sign the various grant thank you letters and send to our federal delegation via our federal lobbyist; and he also reminded everyone that next week's Tuesday meeting is cancelled and we will be meeting Monday, June 24, at 6 pm instead. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session: 06-18-2019 Page 9 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING SPECIAL MEETING, FORMAL FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington June 24, 2019 Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Rod Higgins, Mayor Mark Calhoun, City Manager Pam Haley, Deputy Mayor John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney Linda Thompson, Councilmember Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks &Recreation Director Sam Wood, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Bill Helbig, City Engineer ABSENT: Jeff Kleingartner,Public Information Officer Arne Woodard, Councilmember Connor Lange, Planner Mike Basinger, Economic Development Mgr. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: In the absence of a pastor, a few moments of silence were observed. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, staff, and the audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Woodard. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Woodard from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Wood: no report. Councilmember Peetz: said she represented our City at the SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) Training held at the WSU downtown campus where she heard about innovative land use and transportation; attended the Farmer's Market and said she heard nice feedback from citizens; went to the Midilome Community meeting; attended the Neighbor Day event at Felts Field; and that she went to the Spokane Regional Law & Justice Council meeting where they talked about the idea of recreating a pre- booking office and having extended hours for court appearances. Councilmember Thompson: said she also attended the Farmer's Market; attended the Board of Health Opioid Task Force meeting where they are working on some education material for providers and subscribers. Councilmember Wick: said he went to the Board of Health meeting and they conducted a few on-line interviews to fill the position of executive director; and attended the Visit Spokane annual meeting where they discussed statistics and their annual report on the impact of tourism. Deputy Mayor Haley: said she attended a ribbon cutting at the Boone NW Garage where they are setting up the area to bring in new electric buses they are purchasing this fall through state contract; said the STA (Spokane Transit Authority)meeting discussed the idea of income based bus tickets and it was decided that Council Special Meeting: 06-24-2019 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT can't be done now as it would put the City of Spokane's grant at risk for their central line,and that they had their 18th consecutive clean audit. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Higgins reported that he attended the grand opening of REBEL, which is an upscale retirement center; went to the Aging and Long Term Care Directors meeting and said the more he is involved with that organization,the more he realizes he didn't know about the wide variety of services they provide; and said he went to the Sir Speedy opening. PROCLAMATIONS: Smoke Ready Communities Day After Mayor Higgins read the Smoke Ready Communities Day Proclamation, it was accepted by Ms. Lisa Woodard, communications Outreach Manager at Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on June 24, 2019 Request for Council Action Form Total: $1,916,126.67 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending June 15, 2019: $ 363,964.02 c. Approval of Resolution 19-010 Re-opening 10th Avenue It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 2. Mayoral Appointment, Interim Planning Commissioner—Mayor Higgins After Mayor Higgins explained the background of having an interim planning commissioner,it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded, to confirm the Mayor's nomination,for interim appointment to the Planning Commission, of Raymond Friend, .for a term beginning immediately upon appointment and expiring December 31, 2019. Mayor Higgins invited public comment;no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous; opposed: none.Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: After explaining the process, Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: said she attended the meeting at Parks & Recreation and someone brought up the $3 million surplus we supposedly have and them wanting to have another park; she asked what happened to roads, or to CenterPlace, and she asked why so many people are wanting to do so many parks; said Balfour park would be about$6 million;also mentioned that she wished council would have an agenda item to explain bonds and grants and what it does to the City's credit rating; and said it is her understanding that bonds must be repaid. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 3. Street Vacation 2019-0001, Industrial Area—Mike Basinger After Mr. Basinger explained this street vacation proposal, Councilmember Wick asked if we purchased the right-of-way and Mr. Basinger said this is really an old right-of-way so he would have to research when it was established; said it has never been in use and the intent is to allow the under-used industrial land to be considered for future development; said he will determine if the City paid for the right-of-way and report when this comes back for a first reading. There was full Council consensus to proceed with an ordinance first reading. 4. Street Vacation 2019-0002, Baldwin Ave, Glenn Road— Connor Lange After Mr. Lange explained this street vacation proposal, including the formula to determine the land value and fees for the applicant,there was full Council consensus to proceed with an ordinance first reading. 5. Code Text Amendment 2019-0002: Marijuana Transportation—Erik Lamb Council Special Meeting: 06-24-2019 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT Deputy City Attorney Lamb gave the background of this proposed code text amendment concerning marijuana transportation, specifically that the proposed regulations would allow marijuana transport businesses to be located in the Regional Commercial (RC), Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Industrial (I) zones. Mr. Lamb explained the licensed marijuana transport uses per state law and also went over some potential impacts should this amendment be approved; and said that on a four to one vote, the Planning Commission recommended Council approve this proposed amendment. Mr. Lamb said staff is seeking consensus to move forward with an ordinance. Councilmember Wick asked about buffers around the Appleway Trail. Mr. Lamb explained there is a buffer for retail shops; and at the time the regulations were adopted, the production and processing were limited to being indoor for production; and that Council felt that would limit the impacts to the Appleway Trail. Concerning the processing in that zone,Mr.Lamb said it is limited to preparing for useable marijuana only, which includes cutting it up and rolling it to put into bags, but no extracts or other combustible type of processing; he said the proposal would allow the office use but would require the aforementioned lockable enclosure if it were in an RC zone adjacent to the Appleway Trail, adding that there are no I or IMU zones adjacent to the Appleway Trail. Concerning the IMU,Councilmember Wick said it doesn't look like we have any other types of marijuana businesses in that zone. Mr. Lamb explained that the uses were initially adopted before the 2016 comprehensive plan update, so an IMU zone didn't exist at that time;that the IMU zone is primarily around Trent Avenue, and with this particular use,the office use and associated fleet use was viewed by staff to be appropriate in that zone; adding that if Council desires, staff can look at the applicability of the IMU for those other uses. Councilmember Wick said for the first reading of the ordinance, he would like to see the maps showing where the IMU zones are. Councilmember Thompson asked if there are transport businesses in cities near us. Mr. Lamb said there is at least one in Spokane;that the company that approached Council is located in Spokane and they were seeking to leave Spokane; and in speaking with the LCB (Liquor Control Board), there are about seventeen or eighteen transport businesses that have been licensed; and in speaking with the licensed transporter from Spokane,there are only about six to ten operating companies and at this point, this is a very small operating group. Councilmember Thompson asked if this proposed change would allow this to be expanded in the future to a home delivery business. Mr. Lamb said not at this time, and that any such changes would need Council approval. There was general Council consensus to move this forward for an ordinance reading. 6. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 7. Department Reports These reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Mr. Calhoun said he had no additional comments. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:41 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Special Meeting: 06-24-2019 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington July 2, 2019 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Rod Higgins, Mayor Mark Calhoun, City Manager Pam Haley, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Brandi Peetz, Councilmember Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Linda Thompson, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks &Rec. Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Mark Werner, Police Chief Sam Wood, Councilmember Adam Jackson, Planning, Grants Engineer Arne Woodard, Councilmember John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Bill Helbig, City Engineer Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded, and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. ACTION ITEM: 1. Motion Consideration: Transportation Improvement Board(TIB) Potential Grant—Adam Jackson It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley and seconded to authorize the City Manager or designee to apply for TIB grant projects as listed in Table 1. Table 1 projects include Urban Arterial Program Projects (1) Mullan Road Preservation, Broadway to Mission, (2) Argonne/Montgomery Intersection Reconstruction; and Sidewalk Program Projects (3)Park Road, Mission to Cataldo, and(4)Farr Road, 6t'to 8t''. After Mr. Jackson went over the projects as shown in his PowerPoint, Mayor Higgins invited public comment. No comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous; opposed: none. Motion carried. NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2. Update by Visit Spokane—Meg Winchester,Jamie Rand Visit Spokane President and CEO Ms.Meg Winchester,and Marketing Director Mr.Jamie Rand, explained that tonight is an opportunity to show some of program results and discussion of where they are going in the future. Mr. Rand talked about the visitor guide, which he said had been out-sourced but is now back in-house and has increased to about 80 pages from approximately 48 pages previously; said it features Liberty Lake and Spokane Valley will full spreads; he noted the map is a custom illustrated, tear-off map and is designed for fun;he said they worked with staff from the Chamber of Commerce as well as Spokane Valley staff to designate what spots to include on the map; said it should go to print this or next month with an intended distribution of 10,000, primarily to hoteliers. Mr. Rand said that as outlined in their contract, they wanted to give Spokane Valley its own website or at least its own domain,and said they purchased the domain name VisitSpokaneValley.com, which he said is a more marketable domain and that so far it has been very successful.He mentioned google search advertising and the associated data;that for social media they are doing a lot to highlight the Crave festival,and said they have a partnership with Mr. Stebbins from Crave and have placed advertisements in seven different publications including the Seattle Public News to Council Study Session: 07-02-2019 Page 1 of 2 Approved by Council: DRAFT promote the event. Mr. Rand said they previously did not have a means of capturing the actual data for room nights so they are working with a company called Adara, which is a digital attribution company for the hospitality industry, and that the data shows the number of rooms booked,how much spent on a room, where the person is from, and whether they booked in Spokane, Spokane Valley or Liberty Lake. Ms. Winchester said they have put some different programs together this year as they are starting from the ground floor,and will use the data annually to study growth patterns. There was discussion about the map with Councilmember Thompson noticing that there are not many family focused restaurants. Mr. Rand explained that the food and beverage hits different segments, either couples without kids, or people in the younger market of ages 23 to about 35; said activities are usually more important to families as family travel is driven by what kids want and not what parents what. Mr. Rand also noted that the map has gone through several edits and that everything listed has an illustration, which means that space is tight. Councilmember Woodard asked about homelessness impacts on long term and repeat bookings on 2nd and Division and 3rd and Division and the expansion on the downtown area and if that has an impact on the bookings. Ms.Winchester said there is a concern voiced at times as a couple of groups said they haven't felt safe, so we might have lost a business; said they are keeping an eye on this and working with different entities on how Visit Spokane can help.Councilmember Wick suggested putting a date on the map, of at least the year and Mr. Rand agreed that is a good idea. Ms. Winchester also encouraged people to look at the website as it continues to grow. Mayor Higgins said they welcome the obvious changes, and Council thanked Ms.Winchester and Mr. Rand for their update. 3. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 4. Council Comments—Mayor Higgins Councilmember Wick extended congratulations to Councilmember Thompson for her appointment on the Association of Washington Cities Board representing large cities on the east side of Washington. 5. City Manager Comments—Mark Calhoun City Manager Calhoun had no additional comments. 6. Executive Session: Pending litigation—Mayor Higgins It was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley,seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately fifteen minutes to discuss pending litigation and that no action will be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into executive session at 6:29 p.m. At 6:39 p.m. Mayor Higgins declared Council out of executive sessions, at which time it was moved by Deputy Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session: 07-02-2019 Page 2 of 2 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 9, 2019 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing [' information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading of proposed Ordinance 19-009 for STV- 2019-0001. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.140, Revised Code of Washington (ROW) 35A.47.020 and ROW 35.79. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On April 9, 2019, City Council approved Resolution 19- 005 initiating the street vacation process, and Resolution 19-006 setting a Planning Commission Public Hearing for May 23, 2019. On June 24, 2019, City Council heard an administrative report on the proposed street vacations. BACKGROUND:. On May 23, 2019, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of STV-2019-0001 to the City Council. This request is being initiated as part of the City's Economic Development Program. The rights of way, as they currently exist, are not needed and limit the usability of the adjacent parcels. None of the rights-of-way (ROWs) contain any city facilities or utility improvements. Adequate vehicular access will be provided at the time of development. The ROWs include 1,266 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road. The ROW width is 30 feet on Tschirley Road, 30 feet on Long Road, 30 feet on Rich Avenue, and 30 feet on Greenacres Road. The vacation will remove physical barriers that may impede future development. The intent is to allow underutilized industrial land to be considered for future development. The areas of vacation are located northwest of the intersection of Barker Road and Euclid Avenue adjacent to eleven parcels: 55065.0107, 55061.9062, 55065.0105, 55065.0190, 55065.0171, 55064.0169, 55064.0170, 55065.0170, 55064.1107, 55064.9030 and 55061.9066. OPTIONS: Move to advance to a second reading with or without amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance No. 19-009 to a second reading at the July 23, 2019 Council meeting. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. PowerPoint Presentation 2. Proposed Ordinance No. 19-009 3. Signed Planning Commission Findings 4. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission 5. Approved Planning Commission meeting minutes Northeast Industrial Area City Initiated Street Vacation STV-19-0001 July 9, 2019 Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Process : _ , ox .- 1 cu 4 � Z col eio Study Session TS Z CI) tg cu c cu cu czt C �, 4-25-19 t L,Tczt E Admin Report c cs 1 4 �� c Public Hearing 6-24-19 ,� zs o o a. 7:$ Z ° © 5-23-19 j cu o "E a tU o Ts U .. 1st Reading .. © .61 c cFindings of Fact j 7-9-19 0 U a 6-13-19 U °' 2nd Reading 7-23-19 To day Street Vacation r_ . , _ _I ° - . 000111111111. . . / w Ii' • I P I,1 I . l ; 1111 U —_ 1�, Tschirley ROW Long ROW Greenacres ROW �!° - II ''...!"..:?.!..4._._' rte-. Legend � ECaurEland Ave �" Rich ROW lii• a, ,r rs_I� t ' • _ Proposed Vacations 0- Affected Parcels .,. r Spokane Valley Boundary 9 —• $ t-rT '?, . 1p• a zlJ ,tyi 3 ROW Dedication _ r t P,[AT NO.,3 dF _ "° f : West Farms Irrigated Tracts a�:. 1f'EST�AAMS./AR/61.57472 TRACTS ,„11le; --- - b� S/ r 3cAL6 /',Foo JAN, 1911. Platted January 1911 t bs[ti^ e'J ArR Rf. d I ,p�SNY i ♦T — a. mitil a ao c n a`d't y-- t ---- ~_ _ - --v ;._._._,,sr.,.. Li sevafr 1,24 -,t Cy_—/2,26'�.»w ',to,Mc.L - [i - - I Dedicated public streets4 J s 3 q, - . s _59 g 55 1 - g - -- h ki R S - EE N v �Ys Cari. -E _ ....a W IM - sm...4,6,9 f1 —241.04' 2K-eAr Sec= - - ------------.01.- - - _ mem.w. z53n7�s.s'3r x � r ._ 489.7.4 I 60 6/ 62 + �s c°.2 A'.39.4...Jr an&Ia. 66 ° 'r0 � n J 6 S r�7 - e eo • .. - _ .++a. w m 1'y ,b>'o r 64 0 A N6 71 nt _ N`7.7;',w 1' 74 1 • N ,,. r,F 75 . a: - .zra^•w _ o �,�asaa•aa c+vra. L .,,a e�s�'�+r h 8 7.3 i l „aa I¢ 7/5/2019 4 Questions *Wane Valleys Mike Basinger, AICP Economic Development Manager DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 19-009 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR A RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION OF 1,266 FEET OF TSCHIRLEY ROAD, 1,565 FEET OF LONG ROAD, 1,328 FEET OF RICH AVENUE,AND 2,615 FEET OF GREENACRES ROAD. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH IS 30 FEET ON TSCHIRLEY ROAD, 30 FEET ON LONG ROAD, 30 FEET ON RICH AVENUE, AND 30 FEET ON GREENACRES ROAD. THE AREA OF VACATION IS LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF BARKER ROAD AND EUCLID AVENUE ADJACENT TO ELEVEN PARCELS: 55065.0107, 55061.9062, 55065.0105, 55065.0190, 55065.0171, 55064.0169, 55064.0170, 55065.0170,55064.1107,55064.9030 AND 55061.9066,AND FOR OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, on April 9, 2019, the City Council passed Resolution 19-005 initiating the vacation of 1,266 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road. The right-of-way (ROW) width is 30 feet on Tschirley Road, 30 feet on Long Road, 30 feet on Rich Avenue, and 30 feet on Greenacres Road of unnamed right-of-way; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2019,the City Council passed Resolution 19-006 setting a public hearing before the Planning Commission for May 23, 2019; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2019,the Planning Commission held a public hearing; and WHEREAS, following the hearing, the Planning Commission found that the notice and hearing requirements of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.140.020 had been met; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission findings and minutes have been filed with the City Clerk as part of the public record supporting the vacations; and WHEREAS, none of the property owners abutting the property to be vacated filed a written objection to the proposed vacation with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS,pursuant to chapter 22.140 SVMC,upon vacation of the roads,the City shall transfer the vacated property to abutting property owners,the zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street shall attach to the vacated property, a record of survey shall be completed, and all direct and indirect costs of title transfer to the vacated street shall be paid by the proponent or recipient of the transferred property. In this particular case, the vacated property shall be transferred to eleven parcels: 55065.0107, 55061.9062, 55065.0105, 55065.0190, 55065.0171, 55064.0169, 55064.0170, 55065.0170, 55064.1107, 55064.9030 and 55061.9066; and WHEREAS,the City Council desires to vacate the above streets pursuant to chapter 22.140 SVMC. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, do ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The City Council makes the following findings of fact: 1. The portion of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road proposed to be vacated are unimproved. The vacations are expected to have no impact on the general public as surrounding parcels currently do not use the ROWs for access. 2. The ROWs consists of vacant land not being utilized for public access. The ROWs are not required for current or future public access. 3. There is no need for a new and different public way. Ordinance 19-009 Street Vacation Page 1 of 4 DRAFT 4. It is not anticipated that changes would occur in the future which would require the use of the subject ROWs for public access. Future development may require improvements, which will be reviewed and ROW needs assessed at such time. 5. No objections or public comments were received for any of the ROWs. 6. The ROW is adjacent to parcels 55065.0107, 55061.9062, 55065.0105, 55065.0190, 55065.0171, 55064.0169, 55064.0170, 55065.0170, 55064.1107, 55064.9030 and 55061.9066 and title shall vest in those parcels. 7. Pursuant to Resolution No. 07-009, Policy for Imposing Vacation Charges Pursuant to RCW 35.70.030: a. The City of Spokane Valley has the authority to charge for vacations in an amount that does not exceed 50% of the full appraised value or for the full amount of the area vacated where the street has been part of a dedicated right-of-way for over twenty five years or if the property was acquired at public expense. b. Alternatively, the Council shall reserve the right to deviate from this policy upon the adoption of written findings of fact that demonstrate the public interest shall be best served by an alternative approach. The following facts are relevant to Council's determination of an alternative approach: i. The proposed vacation of the Tschirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road were initiated by the City. The ROWs are unimproved and not anticipated to be used for public access. Based on the above findings, the City does not seek payment for the vacated rights-of-way. Section 2. Property to be Vacated. Based upon the above findings and in accordance with this Ordinance, the City Council does hereby vacate the street or alley which is incorporated herein by reference,legally described as follows: Tschirley Road right-of-way lying west of Barker Road, north of Union Pacific Railroad and Euclid Avenue, West half of Section 6, Township 25 North, Range 45 East, W.M.; and further defined as follows: That portion of an unnamed street in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof recorded in Volume T ofPlats,page 6, lying north of the easterly extension of the North line of Tract 61 of said West Farms Irrigated Tracts, said street being between Tracts 57 and 58 and a portion of Tract 62. Long Road right-of-way lying west of Barker Road, north of Union Pacific Railroad and Euclid Avenue, East half of Section 6, Township 25 North, Range 45 East, W.M.; and further defined as follows: That portion of an unnamed street in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof recorded in Volume T ofPlats,page 6, lying north of previously vacated street(by County vacation number 2093)said street being between Tracts 55 and 56 and between Tracts 63 and 64 and a portion of Tract 67. Rich Avenue right-of-way lying west of Barker Road, north of Union Pacific Railroad and Euclid Avenue, East half of Section 6, Township 25 North, Range 45 E., W.M.;and further defined as follows: That portion of an unnamed street in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof recorded in Volume T of Plats, page 6, being the north 20 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 6, said street being north of and adjacent to Tract 54, and Tract 55. Greenacres Road right-of-way lying west of Barker Road, north of Union Pacific Railroad and Euclid Avenue, East half of Section 6, Township 25N, Range 45E., W.M.; and further defined as follows: That portion of an unnamed street in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof recorded in Volume T ofPlats,page 6, lying north of the westerly extension of the North line of Tract 76 of said West Farms Irrigated Tracts, said street being east of and adjacent to Tract 54, Tract 65, Tract 66 and a portion of Tract 75. Ordinance 19-009 Street Vacation Page 2 of 4 DRAFT Section 3. Division of Property to be Vacated. Pursuant to RCW 35.79.040 and SVMC 22.140.040(C),the vacated portion of the street or alley shall belong to the abutting property owners, one- half to each,unless factual circumstances otherwise dictate a different division and distribution of the street or alley to be vacated. The ROW to be vacated shall be divided amongst parcels 55065.0107, 55061.9062, 55065.0105, 55065.0190, 55065.0171, 55064.0169, 55064.0170, 55065.0170, 55064.1107, 55064.9030 and 55061.9066 as recorded in the record of survey which shall be created and recorded with Spokane County as required pursuant to SVMC 22.140.090. Section 4. Zoning. The zoning designation for the vacated property shall be the designation attached to the adjoining properties as set forth within the respective property or lot lines. The City Manager or designee is authorized to make this notation on the official Zoning Map of the City. Section 5. Conditions of Vacation. The following conditions shall be fully satisfied for each ROW prior to the transfer of title by the City. 1. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcels (55065.0107, 55061.9062, 55065.0105, 55065.0190, 55065.0171, 55064.0169, 55064.0170, 55065.0170, 55064.1107, 55064.9030 and 55061.9066) as shown on the record of survey created and recorded with Spokane County Auditor's Office. 2. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a record of survey of each of the areas to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Washington,including an exact metes and bounds legal description,and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be completed. 3. The surveyor shall locate a monument at the intersection of the centerline of each of the vacated rights-of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the Spokane Valley Street Standards. 4. All direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated ROWs from public to private ownership, including but not limited to, title company charges, copying fees, and recording fees shall be paid by the City. 5. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining each ROW to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in each of the vacations shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the industrial district. The adopting Ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. 6. The record of survey and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 7. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Section 6. Closing. Following satisfaction of the above conditions, the City Clerk shall record a certified copy of this Ordinance in the office of the County Auditor, and the City Manager is authorized to execute and finalize all necessary documents in order to complete the transfer of the property identified herein. 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 Ordinance 19-009 Street Vacation Page 3 of 4 DRAFT 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 of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of July, 2019. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance 19-009 Street Vacation Page 4 of 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(e) the Planning. Commission shall coresider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval of File No. STV-2019-0001. A. Background: 1. Chapter 22.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), governing street vacations, was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. 2. STV-2019-+001 is a City-initiated street vacation proposing to vacate 1,266 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road. The Right of Way (ROW) width is 30 feet on Tschirley Road, 30 feet on Long Road, 30 feet on Rich Avenue, and 30 feet on Greenacres Road, 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on May 23, 2019. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of STV-2019-0001 to the City Council. B. Planning Commission Findings: Compliance with SVMC 22.140.030 1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public? The area proposed to be vacated is UrriMproved The vacation is expected to have no impact on the general public as srrr•rawrding parcels currently do not use the ROWfor access. 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access? The subject ROW is currently vacant land not being utilized for public access and is not requiredforfuture public access. I. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public? The City of Spokane Valley is canslr-zrcting a nest raid(Garland Avenue)between Flora Road and Barker Road that will provide access to future development in the area. 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists`? The construction of Garland Avenue will provide access to fibre development and the existing ROW as presently configured will not provide a greater use or need 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the genera] public? No objections were received C. Conclusions: The findings confirm that the criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met, ELndings and I?ecomrnendotions of the Spokane Walley Planning C.imrn iprt STV-2019.OU 1 Pagc l of 2 11 Recommendation The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve STV-2019-0001. I. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcels (55065.0107, 55061.9062, 55065.0105, 55065.0190, 55065.0171, 55064.0169, 55064.0170, 55065.0170, 55064.1107, 55064.9030 and 55061.90660 as shown on the record of survey. 2, Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a Record of Survey EROS) shall be prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Washington. The ROS shall include an exact metes and bounds legal description specifying any applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services. 3. The surveyor shall locate a monument at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the Spokane Valley Street Standards. 4. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining each side of the street or alley to be vacated shall be automatically extendedto the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall be subject to the regulations of the extended districts. 5. The ROS and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 6. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Approved this 13th day of June, 2019 s Jirl nson, Chan an 411111° ATTEST C',V✓jf{fry J 4 710.0 Deanna Horton,Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations at lila Spokane valley Planning Cnmmissicn STV-2,019-0001 I'agc2 oft czr� COMMUNITY&PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT polane STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 41.000 Valley FILE No: STV-2019-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE: May 23, 2019 FILE NO: STV-2019-0001 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: City initiated street vacation for 1,266 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road. The ROW width is 30 feet on Tschirley Road, 30 feet on Long Road, 30 feet on Rich Avenue, and 30 feet on Greenacres Road. STAFF: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager; 509.720.5331;mbasinger@spokanevalley.org PROPOSAL LOCATION: The portion of right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located northwest of the intersection of Barker Road and Euclid Avenue adjacent to eleven parcels (55065.0107, 55061.9062, 55065.0105, 55065.0190, 55065.0171, 55064.0169, 55064.0170, 55065.0170, 55064.1107, 55064.9030 and 55061.9066), further defined as follows: that portion of Tschirley Road located in the West half of Section 6, Township 25 North, Range 45 East, W.M, in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume T of Plats, page 6, lying north of the easterly extension of the North line of Tract 61 of said West Farms Irrigated Tracts, said street being between Tracts 57 and 58 and a portion of Tract 62; and that portion of Long Road located in the East half of Section 6, Township 25 North, Range 45 East, W.M. in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume T of Plats, page 6, lying north of previously vacated street (by County vacation number 2093) said street being between Tracts 55 and 56 and between Tracts 63 and 64 and a portion of Tract 67; that portion of Rich Avenue further located in the East half of Section 6, Township 25 North, Range 45 E., W.M., Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume T of Plats, page 6, being the north 20 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 6, said street being north of and adjacent to Tract 54, and Tract 55;that portion of Greenacres Road located in the East half of Section 6, Township 25N., Range 45E.,W.M. in Plat No. 3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume T of Plats,page 6, lying north of the westerly extension of the North line of Tract 76 of said West Farms Irrigated Tracts, said street being east of and adjacent to Tract 54, Tract 65, Tract 66 and a portion of Tract 75, in Spokane Valley, Washington. BACKGROUND: On April 9, 2019 the City Council passed Resolution 19-005 initiating the vacation of four unimproved rights-of-way(ROW) and Resolution 19-006 setting the public hearing date with the Planning Commission. This request is being initiated as part of the City's Economic Development Program. The rights of ways, as they currently exist, are not needed and limit the usability of the adjacent parcels. None of the ROW contain any city facilities or utility improvements. Adequate vehicular access will be provided at the time of development. The ROW includes 1,266 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road. The ROW width is 30 feet on Tschirley Road, 30 feet on Long Road, 30 feet on Rich Avenue, and 30 feet on Greenacres Road. The vacation will remove physical barriers that may impede future development. The intent is to allow underutilized industrial land to be considered for future development. This request is being initiated as part of the City's Economic Development Program. The rights of ways, as they currently exist, are not needed and limit the usability of the adjacent parcels. The vacation will remove physical barriers that may impede future development. The intent is to allow underutilized industrial land to be considered for future development. Page 1 of 4 The proposed vacation will eliminate public ROW access to parcel 55061.9060 Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 20.20.090.F states "Every lot shall have direct access to a paved public street, private street or an easement for a private driveway."The owner may consolidate the parcels,reconfigure the parcels with a Boundary Line Adjustment, or create an easement for access as proposed in the recommended conditions. Adequate vehicular access will be provided at the time of development. APPROVAL CRITERIA: 1. SVMC—Title 20 (Subdivision Regulations) 2. SVMC—Title 21 (Environmental Controls) 3. SVMC—Title 22 (Street Vacations) 4. City of Spokane Valley Street Standards ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Aerial Map Exhibit 3: Resolution 19-005 and Resolution 19-006 Exhibit 4: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 5: Agency Comments I. PROPERTY INFORMATION Size and Characteristics of The ROW consists of 1,266 feet on Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet of proposed vacation: Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road. The ROW width is 30 feet on Tschirley Road, 30 feet on Long Road, 30 feet on Rich Avenue, and 30 feet on Greenacres Road. Adjacent Industrial(I) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning Adjacent to Industrial(I) ROW: Adjacent Land Use(s): All eleven parcels abutting the four ROW are vacant. II. STAFF ANALYSIS OF STREET VACATION PROPOSAL A. COMPLIANCE WITH SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE(SVMC)TITLE 22.140.030 Findings: 1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public? The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved. The vacation is expected to have no impact on the general public as surrounding parcels currently do not use ROW for access. 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access? The subject ROW is currently vacant land not being utilized for public access and is not required for current or future public access. 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public? The City of Spokane Valley is constructing a new road (Garland Avenue) between Flora Road and Barker Road to service new industries in the area. Page 2 of 4 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists? The construction of Garland Avenue will provide access to future development and the existing ROW as presently configured will not provide a greater use or need. 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public? No objections or public comment has been received. Conclusions: The findings confirm criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met. B. COMPLIANCE WITH SVMC TITLE 21—ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS The Planning Division has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 and SVMC 21.20.040 from environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA). III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: A Notice of Public Hearing signs was posted on the property on April 25, 2016 and public hearing notices were mailed to all petitioners of the vacation the same as the eleven parcels abutting the four ROW on the same day. Notices were posted in the Spokane Valley Public Library, City of Spokane Valley main reception area and CenterPlace Event Center on April 25, 2016. Lastly,the notice was published in the Spokane Valley Herald and Exchange on April 26, 2019 and May 3, 2019. Staff received no public comment(s). Conclusion(s): Staff concludes that adequate public noticing was conducted for STV-2017-0001 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. No concerns were raised in public comment received. IV. AGENCY COMMENTS Notice was provided to agencies and service providers. Comments are attached as exhibits to this staff report. Conclusion(s): Spokane Valley Fire Department provided a response stating that they completed a review of the proposed vacations and have no comments. V. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS Staff concludes that STV-2019-0001 as proposed is generally consistent, or will be made consistent,through the recommended conditions of approval based on the approval criteria stated herein. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request to vacate 1,266 feet by 30 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet by 30 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet by 30 feet of Rich Avenue, and 2,615 feet by 30 feet of Greenacres Road subject to the following conditions. Page 3 of 4 1. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcels (55065.0107, 55061.9062, 55065.0105, 55065.0190, 55065.0171, 55064.0169, 55064.0170, 55065.0170, 55064.1107, 55064.9030 and 55061.9066) as shown on the record of survey created and recorded with Spokane County Auditor's Office. 2. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Washington, including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be completed. 3. The surveyor shall locate a monument at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the SVSS. 4. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the industrial district. The adopting Ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. 5. The record of survey and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 6. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Page 4 of 4 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall April 25, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson,Building Official. Danielle Kaschmitter Lori Barlow,Senior Planner Timothy Kelley,absent-excused Karen Kendall,Planner Robert McKinley Michael Phillips,absent-excused Michelle Rasmussen,absent-excused Matt Walton Robin Hutchins,Office Assistant Hearing no objections,Commissioners Kelly,Rasmussen and Phillips were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 25, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 11, 2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he attended the last few City Council meetings. Commissioner Johnson also attended the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force executive committee where they discussed considering a region wide leadership meeting. He is pleased to be a part of this team that is looking out for human rights in the area and is excited to be a part of the coming changes. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: CTA-2019-0001, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Title 22 and Appendix A, regarding addressing standards. Planner Karen Kendall provided a brief overview of the amendment and discussed the procedural guidelines for the proposed text amendment to SVMC Title 22 and Appendix A. Ms. Kendall explained that this meeting is to finalize the recommendation from the Commission. Following public comment at the public hearing held April 11, 2019 the Commission deliberated and voted six in favor and zero opposed to approve CTA-2019- 0001 as presented and forward a recommendation to the City Council. 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6 There was no further discussion. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CTA-2019-0001 Planning Commission Findings of Fact recommendation as presented to the City Council. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. ii. Study Session: STV-2019-0001, a proposed street vacation of a portion of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road in the Northeast Industrial Area. Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation to the Commission outlining the Northeast Industrial Area City Initiated Street Vacation.Ms.Barlow explained that this area is located between Flora Road and Barker Road and is South of Trent Avenue. The proposed vacations are the unimproved Right of Ways (ROW) of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Greenacres Road and Rich Avenue that connects Long Road with Greenacres Road. Ms. Barlow noted that this property is predominantly owned by one property owner. However, there is one parcel located off of Rich Avenue with a separate property owner. Mr. Barlow highlighted this being a City Initiated Street Vacation the City is working to ensure there is easement access for the property that would be affected by the vacation. Staff stated that these ROW's are not necessary as all parcels will have access off of Garland Avenue once construction is completed. Ms. Barlow provided brief background information on the Garland Avenue project that was also a City initiated proposal. The proposal is currently undergoing environmental review and is expected to begin construction soon. It should be completed by the end of 2019. Ms.Barlow continued,that there is not an application on file at this point,and it is uncertain how the properties will be reconfigured. It is anticipated that once development is considered the property owner will come forward with a Binding Site Plan (BSP) to r identify access points to the properties in the development. Commissioner Walton asked if there will be a stipulation on the property owner to continue providing access for emergency services off of Garland Avenue. Ms. Barlow spoke to the BSP review process at which time parcels would be divided up and access points would be determined prior to development occurring. Ms. Barlow added this proposal has been routed to all agencies,and the Spokane Valley Fire Department advised they would manage situations as development occurs. Commissioner Johnson asked if the access will be maintained by the City. Ms. Barlow explained that if done through the BSP it would be a private street maintained by the property owners. Garland Avenue is a public road and would be maintain by the City. Commissioner Johnson spoke about the amount of property involved and asked if there would be any monetary compensation to the City. Ms. Barlow explained that is not being forwarded as a recommendation as this is a City initiated proposal with no expectations of reimbursement from the property owner. Ms. Barlow concluded that the current ROW may be an impediment to the future development.The City is trying to make this area more adaptable for future developments. iii. Study Session: CTA-2018-0006, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affordable housing. 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 Ms. Barlow provided background information into the privately initiated Code Text Amendment (CTA) Ms. Barlow corrected the numbering error to be CTA-2015-0006 not CTA-2019-0006. Ms. Barlow advised this proposal was originally submitted in 2018, , then revised and resubmitted earlier in 2019. Ms. Barlow advised that staff had reviewed the application for environmental impact and a determination of non-significance was issued March 29, 2019. The notice of public hearing was posted in the newspaper as well as on the City's website. Ms. Barlow clarified that this proposal is a CTA which is not site-specific, therefore on site posting requirements do not apply. Ms. Barlow clarified procedural requirements. The Commission is conducting the study session, and the public hearing is scheduled for May 9, 2019. Once a recommendation is made by the Planning Commission, it will be formalized in the Findings of Fact scheduled for May 23, 2019. Ms. Barlow highlighted a recent change the City Council has made to the Governance Manual. The Council will no longer take public comment on items that have had a public hearing by the Planning Commission during their review process. Ms. Barlow stressed that the opportunity for public comment will only be during the Planning Commissions public hearing. Once that hearing is closed, there will be no further opportunity for public comment. Ms. Barlow continued, the proposals intent is to allow multifamily in the residential (R-3) zone as long as it meets supplemental regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that currently multifamily is not allowed in the R-3 zone. Multifamily is only allowed in multifamily residential and both mixed use zones. Ms. Barlow continued that this proposal would change the Permitted Use Matrix SVMC 19.60.050 by adding an "S" indicating multifamily could be allowed but subject to supplemental use regulations. Ms. Barlow described that this proposal would add supplemental language to SVMC 19.65.130 stating that multifamily could be allowed if it complies with Chapter 19.40 of SVMC Alternative Residential Development Options. Newly added section 19.40.035 identifies that multifamily in the R-3 zone would be allowed if specific criteria are met for applicability, site and building standards and other related agreements. Ms. Barlow continued that in order for a development to utilize this section of the code at least 51% of the units proposed must be used for affordable housing. Commissioner Johnson asked how the City would monitor that the 51% is being maintained? Ms. Barlow explained that this would be part of the agreement section. An agreement would be signed and recorded with the County, that during the lifetime of the project they would maintain 51% of the units as affordable housing units. Ms. Barlow continued that similarly during multifamily application review with affordable housing units the applicant provides evidence that the units meet an affordable housing standard. Commissioner Johnson asked what is included in affordable housing costs? Ms. Barlow stated it refers to the Federal definition that annual housing costs shall not exceed 1/3 of a families' annual income and is calculated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Commissioner. Johnson asked if the percentage included utilities,etc., or just the direct housing cost. Ms. Barlow said she was uncertain and that she will provide that information at the next meeting. Ms. Barlow explained some of the criteria. Key criteria would require the property to be a single parcel, under single ownership. The parcel uses must include a church, school and the multifamily units all located on one parcel at least 10-20 acres in size. Ms. Barlow continued that the entire site can be used to calculate the six dwelling units per acre as the maximum density allowed in the R-3 zoning district. Currently the R-3 zone does not allow multifamily development but does allow single family development at a density of six dwelling units per acre. Ms. Barlow explained this amendment proposes to utilize the 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6 entire site to calculate what could have been allowed for single family development, but then allows the units to be clustered in the form of a multifamily development.The proposal intends to maintain the density. For example, if you have a 10-acre parcel allowing six dwelling units per acre it would allow for 60 single family residential dwelling units. The proposal would allow you to develop a site that has a school and church with 60 single family dwelling units in a multifamily complex which would still maintain the density that is established within the R-3 Zone. Commissioner Walton asked how many 10-20 acre parcels are in the valley that would qualify. Ms. Barlow advised she did provide analysis in the staff report and used a query that identified a church on the property and any adjacent properties owned by same owner. Staff did find through this query that there are 75 church sites in the city and of those 75, 25 of them fit within the 10-20 acres. Only one site had a church,school,and fit the criteria. However, a site could be developed. Commissioner Walton asked how many vacant parcels meet the criteria that do not currently have a school/church combination? Ms. Barlow concluded it would be difficult to compile that information as properties could be aggregated. Ms. Barlow continued that on site the school, church and multifamily may share parking and open space to help prevent overbuilding. Commissioner Kaschmitter asked for clarification if parking can be used for open space. Ms. Barlow advised that would not be the case and explained how the City would calculate need during the review process for uses to share without building additional parking spaces. There was some additional discussion related to the intent,and that the hours of operation vary for each use with some concern of overflow street parking. Ms. Barlow mentioned the Conditional Use Permit (CUP)process would allow the opportunity to determine adequate parking and what"share "specifically means. Commission Johnson asked if staff knows of any advantage to limiting the size of this development to 20 acres, and why require both a church and a school? Ms. Barlow reminded the Commission that this is a privately initiated CTA and that during the public hearing the applicant can address questions as to what their intent may be. Ms. Barlow continued with other criteria that applies when specific circumstances exist, such as natural amenities shall be incorporated into the site, buildings, including parking structures, shall have design continuity to look as if they are part of a campus, pedestrian areas shall be delineated and protected to provide clear areas for pedestrian activity. Ms. Barlow continued with development standards and noted that the proposal identified that it must meet residential standards in the dimensional and standards table 19.70-01, which includes building height of 35 feet, and setbacks, to maintain the surrounding character already in place. Ms. Barlow continued that the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet is not applicable. Ms. Barlow continued that the density is still applicable 6 dwelling units per acre and lot coverage of 50% or greater. However, that should not be an issue with lot sizes of 10-20 acres. Ms. Barlow explained other requirements would be agreements to ensure compliance and that the conditions will run with the land and will not transfer with the owner. The agreement would be specific to the land, and that the affordable housing component will remain for the life of the project, Lastly, Ms. Barlow concluded this would be processed as a type three permit that requires a CUP. Ms. Barlow gave an overview of the CUP process and advised the permit would be considered by the hearing examiner,requires public notice, a public hearing, and can be denied or conditioned. Ms. Barlow explained that through the Hearing Examiner process 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 uses that may have unanticipated impacts could be conditioned to mitigate those impacts, or the permit could be denied completely. Mr. Walton asked for clarification how this would run with the land? Would the City put a covenant on the property moving forward? Should the 10-20-acre property have affordable housing built on one portion and later wanted to sell off the undeveloped portions of the property would they be able to do so as they utilized the 10-20 acre and max number of units. Ms. Barlow said agreements would be recorded and the site would be bound to the agreement; in theory property could be sold off it wasn't needed to meet the minimum requirements of the criteria. Commissioner Walton asked if they have 20 acres and they only use the minimum 10 acres and build 60 dwelling units could they create a secondary project within the 20 acres and use the additional 60 dwelling units available to them? Ms. Barlow explained that yes, the CUP process would allow for that. Ms. Barlow gave an example that if someone came in with a proposal of 20 acres and only proposed to build to a density that is less than max, they could come back and ask for modification to CUP. Commissioner Walton asked if they chose to use a portion of property and the dwelling units available to them which would only utilize half of the property, and sell 10 acres of the overall portion, is that locked in since they applied under the 20 acres. Ms. Barlow explained the City would have to review what the original capacity to determine if they had extra land to eliminate from the site and still meet the conditions. Ms. Barlow highlighted that if a CUP is granted that is identifying all criteria are met it is the baseline to determine what they could do moving forward. The process may require the Hearing Examiner revisit the CUP Commissioner Johnson asked how would the City know if someone decides to sell five acres.Ms. Barlow advised the criteria defines this would have to be one parcel under single ownership. The owner would have to go through segregation process in order to divide off a piece of land. The City would be involved in that process and would be aware of the underlying CUP, and the encumbrances recorded with County Auditor. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of a comment made by Ann Fritzel with the Commerce Department and read a statement from her comment: "affordable housing gross density of 6 units per acre on the five-acre parcel". Commissioner Johnson provided a Birdseye view and zoning map of the only viable location that fits all of the criteria. He explained that there are five parcels that would be owned by the entity. Commissioner Johnson stated he has dealt with Catholic Charities and their hearts are always in the right place. He continued explaining that if the five parcels depicted on the map are converted to one single parcel there would not be much room left for development. He continued the three parcels on Walnut Road, the parcel facing Far Road, and on Valleyway Avenue are all somewhat developed. The only parcel remaining without development must be the five acres referenced by Ms. Fritzel. Commissioner Johnson continued that the 17 acres combined could develop 103 dwelling units on that five-acre parcel and asked if that would make this a high density development in an R-3 zone with no transitional requirements? Ms. Barlow explained that transitional regulations are not required,however a CUP would be required. Ms. Barlow continued that if it were to show impacts such as a three story building backed up to single family residence with obvious conflict some transitional regulations could be required by the Hearing Examiner. Ms. Barlow explained the development in question does have 5 pieces of property however they could aggregate and reduce the size or increase the size. She added that it is difficult not to focus on the one existing opportunity, but it is not our only focus as there is no proposal at this time. Commissioner Johnson wanted to make sure the commission is considering the worst case scenario. Should this move forward and be approved by the City Council, it does become 04-25-2OI9 P1 arming Commission Minutes Page 6 orb less probable that public testimony will be taken due to it already been approved. Commissioner Johnson's concern also lends to public notification and hopes the applicant contacts the neighboring properties. Commissioner Walton asked if there is anything that would prevent the applicant from applying for a rezone to multifamily residential to meet R-3 zone criteria? Ms, Barlow explained they couldn't apply for a rezone due to land use designation, A rezone could be considered through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, however that process is only allowed on an annual basis Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on approved land use regarding cottage developments being allowed in the R-3, multifamily and both mixed use zones? Ms. Barlow explained cottage developments are allowed in those zones and at twice the underlying density of the R-3 zone. A cottage development could be proposed in the R-3 zone with up to 12 dwelling units per acre and it is required to be aggregated around the site to speak to open space requirements. Commissioner Johnson asked ifthat is calculated on the aggregate land and the entire parcel. Ms. Barlow stated it is assumed that it is on the entire site and only being used for cottage development. There was discussion regarding affordable housing and it was noted that there is no affordable housing component in cottage development. Commissioner McKinley asked if this proposal conflicts with the previous density related Duplex CTA proposed in the R-3 zone that the Commission voted against? Ms. Barlow explained the Duplex CTA was attempting to limit the number of duplexes that could be allowed on a per acre basis. Currently attached and detached single family development is allowed in the R-3 zone as long as you meet the minimum lot size. The previous Duplex CTA was limiting the number of duplexes developed even if the minimum lot size was met. The CTA being reviewed tonight is proposing to add a use that is not currently allowed in the R-3 zone. The only commonality is the R-3 zone component. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Johnson encouraged the Commission to bring items to share for the Good of the Order as he feels it is important. Commissioner Johnson read aloud a heartfelt statement he wrote illustrating his sentiments of pride and concerns for his hometown the City of Spokane Valley. XL ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 p.m. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. P,'.--rtec,:47/Zeii James Johnson, Chairman Date signed 1 Robin Hutchins, Secretary Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall May 23,2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. IL Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III, Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Timothy Kelley Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Robert McKinley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Michael Phillips, absent -excused Connor Lange, Planner Michelle Rasmussen, absent- excused Matt Walton Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioners Phillips and Rasmussen were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the May 23, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote an the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to amend the May 9, 2019 minutes to correct the misspelling of his last name on page 8 from Walter to Walton. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported on May 14, 2019 he attended the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force executive committee to discuss the confluence of leadership meeting where it was determined that meeting will be a long range plan. He also attended the City Council meeting and expressed his concerns for the lack of accurate representation by the 4th legislative district and requested a more diverse invocation at the City Council meetings. On May 21, 2019 he attended the Spokane County Human Right Task Force regular meeting where they received rapid response training, The training was to prepare for public acts of hate received through a portal developed by the task force to report hate crimes. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger advised that after the first reading with the City Council of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments the Council agreed with all of the Planning Commission's recommendations. Mr. Basinger added that Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2019-0003 that had no recommendation from the Planning Commission was denied by the City Council. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. Chair Johnson asked the Commission for a consensus on standardizing a three-minute lime limit for all public comment excluding proponent comments. A standard three- minute time limit was concluded to be essential in keeping order. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Findings of Fact: CTA-2018-0006, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affordable housing and multifamily development. Senior Planner Lori Barlow summarized the Findings of Fact for the privately initiated code text amendment (CTA). The intent of the amendment is to allow multifamily (MF) development as a conditional use in the residential R-3 zone subject to specific criteria. This proposal came before the Planning Commission on two prior occasions. A study session was held on April 25, 2019 and a public hearing on May 9, 2019. After hearing considerable public testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated and voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council. Ms. Barlow explained that the Findings of Fact formalize the pivotal actions and capture the Planning Commission's recommendation and vote. Ms. Barlow concluded that as this item moves forward to the City Council there will be no further opportunity for public comment unless the Council takes specific action to do so. Commissioner Walton stated this CIA was one of the more contentious items reviewed in his time with the Commission. He appreciated the public for their participation and the deliberation from the Commission. He added that despite the struggles the Commission may have had in moving forward he felt this was the correct outcome and is in support of the Findings of Fact. Commissioner Walton moved to approve Findings of Fact CTA-2018-0006 as presented. There was no discussion The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. ii. Public Hearing: STV-2019-0002, a privately initiated street vacation of a portion of Glenn,University Roads and Baldwin Avenue. Planner Connor Lange provided a presentation outlining the privately initiated application to vacate unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue,University Road and Glenn Road. Mr. Lange explained the right-of-ways (ROW) are located between I-90 to the north, Nora. Avenue to the south and further bordered by Overland Avenue to the west. Mr. Lange provided procedural overview advising the application was submitted March 8, 2019, the study session was conducted on May 9,2019, and tonight the public hearing is being held. Mr. Lange advised the majority of the property surrounding the proposed ROWs to be vacated are owned by Circle M Properties. The applicant feels the request will allow for maximum use of abutting properties and that a right of way connection for an overpass is not feasible at University Road. Mr. Lange highlighted a study done in 2015 reviewed the feasibility for an overpass crossing at University Road, the project was determined to be costly and not viable at the time. However, it is unknown if a project on University Road may provide a greater level of service in the future. Due to future development, staff is recommending an amendment to the proposal by removing University Road from the vacation proposal. Mr. Lange advised that all required notices have been satisfied. Notice was posted at CenterPlace, City Hall and the library. Notice was also posted in the newspaper of record on two separate occasions. Written notice was provided to the owner's adjacent to the 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 unimproved portions of University Road and Baldwin Avenue and signs were posted at the end of each street to be vacated. Mr. Lange advised that in processing a street vacation, staff reviews a number of criteria for approval to determine if the street is still required for public access. Staff does not anticipate that either Baldwin Avenue or Glenn Road would serve any public use and are still part of the recommendation from staff to vacate. Mr. Lange added that there has been a request for both ingress/egress and sewer easements that have been added as a recommended condition of approval. Staff also reviews conditional changes and feels University Road may provide a public benefit in the future should an overpass be proposed. There were no public objections during the comment period. Commissioner Kelley asked for clarification pertaining to University Road and what the City was asking. Mr. Lange advised the City would like to retain University Road and not allow it to be vacated in order to preserve it for future projects. Commissioner Johnson referenced an email from Jen Brunner requesting a 20-foot public sanitary sewer easement and asked where that would be located. Mr. Lange advised that is yet to be determined however; it would most likely be along the proposed access point parallel to Baldwin Road. chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:20 PM Todd Whipple; 212 N Pines Road: Mr. Whipple stated the retention of University Road. by the City was a surprise to his client. He advised that when his client had come to him asking about this piece of property, they had done their research before purchasing. He cautioned his client not to purchase the property until they had clarification concerning the crossing at University Road from the City that they had located in the 1985 SR90 Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Whipple continued that during their Pre- Application meetings they brought the University Road crossing information to the City's attention and were advised by City staff to move forward and vacate University Road,now they have changed their mind. Mr. Whipple advised the customer has done a considerable amount of work,provided plans to the City and had received a grading permit. He added that the grading permit restrictions specified that until the street vacations were approved they were not to do any work on the ROWs. He explained that it became too difficult to maneuver around the property and then the customer had to stop the project. Staff has taken University Road out of the proposal completely. Mr. Whipple stated they received correspondence that the City would entertain a license agreement in order to use the property as if it were vacated to protect the possible future public improvements while the City retains ownership. Mr. Whipple asked the Planning Commission to maintain the University Street Vacation in order to give them time to go before the City Council with a request for a license agreement to use University Road.ROW while the City retains ownership. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Whipple, if the Iicense agreement is obtained and years down the road the City decided to build a bridge, at whose expense would it be to remove the work they had done? Mr. Whipple advised it would depend on the license agreement and would most likely be the responsibility of Circle M Properties. Mr. Whipple gave some details into what they have done and hope to do. He advised they would grade to highway elevation to create the access road between the two distinct properties on either side and explained their road would be well below University Road. Mr. Whipple gave details into building a crossing structure over 1-90 and stated the work they have and will do should not affect future bridge development. He added they would be willing to work with the City in regards to abutment and girder locations at that time. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 Commissioner Kaschmitter asked that if the access road they would build is lower than University Road and should a bridge be built; would the bridge have to be longer in order to accommodate? Mr. Whipple explained that may be the case adding that currently there isn't enough ROW to widen University Road. He explained that University Road is 50- feet wide and building a 45-foot road to go over 1-90 would require walls straight up and down. He explained that would be cost prohibitive and would be cheaper to build girders and a deck. Commissioner Walton asked for clarification that should it be decided to move forward as amended and University Road is retained how would that impact what they are currently doing until they obtain the license. Mr. Whipple advised the work would stop and could potentially kill the project. They will need to enter on one side and exit on the other due to the size of equipment they use in order to move their materials. If they cannot use University Road, then they purchased a piece of property they can't use. He added that they are moving their corporate headquarters to this site, losing University Road was a big deal and losing the license agreement would be detrimental. Patrick J Mitchell, 4107 E Broadway Avenue; Mr. Mitchelli explained Mr. Whipple covered all of their concerns. He added that before purchasing the property they made sure University Road would be able to be vacated and explained that if that is no longer the case that will put their business in a tough spot. Mr. Mitchelli added that directly across from University Road is the junk yard and stated that isn't going anywhere in the near future. Justin Fabio,302 N Walnut Road; Mr. Fabio asked if the traffic was going to run north of University Road and where it would exit. It was determined that the street would run north of University Road,through Circle M Properties and would exit onto Raymond Road. chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 6:39 PM Commissioner Johnson asked staff why they concluded to remove University Road from the proposal and creating a license agreement. Mr. Basinger stated staff recognized that there may be a potential use for University Road sometime in the future adding that not knowing when that might happen the license agreement is an appropriate means to move forward. He highlighted that currently Circle M Properties is located on prime retail property on Pines Road and them moving would open that property to better uses. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb spoke to the license agreement terms stating the City can require that the applicant's improvements are subject to the City putting in a future project. He added that the license agreement would allow Circle M Properties to use the property while the City retains control to build a future project. It was determined the license agreement details do not require Planning Commission action. Commissioner Kelley spoke about his experience driving truck while serving in the United States Army and how difficult they are to turn around in small spaces. He is concerned for the applicant's future as they invest their funds and work for a number of years and then the City builds a bridge. Commissioner Johnson advised that in the early 1990's he was involved in a two-year long process with Spokane County where an overpass was discussed for University Road trying to mitigate the traffic flow on Argonne Road. At the time, the bypass would start near Bigelow Gulch Road, above Hutton settlement,across the river and to University Road, he is unsure if that is still the long range plan. An interchange at University Road is not feasible at this time however, an overpass may be needed in twenty years. Commissioner 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 Johnson is opposed to leaving University Road in the proposal and is in support of the amendment presented by staff. Commissioner McKinley asked staff if the City would have eminent domain rights. Mr. Lamb explained that if in fact University Road was vacated the City would have eminent domain. The City could either purchase or condemn the property and it would be a matter of retaining the right to do so in the future or the City may feel comfortable enough not to develop and willing to pay the cost in the future if necessary. Currently it is City property and should a bridge be developed at a later date the City would have all rights to the property. Commissioner Walton stated the possibilities in cost associated with repurchasing or condemning the property and the legal implication are concerning. He added that looking. at the future and how approvals impact the valley as a whole he feels the City needs to leave all possible mechanisms in place. Commissioner Kaschmitter stated she feels the license agreement will help and is in favor of it. She also agrees there may be a need for a bridge in the future. Commissioner Walton moved to approve STV-2019-0002 for Baldwin Road and Glenn Road with the removal of University Road from the street vacation application as amended by staff Commissioner Kelley advised in looking at the map it appears there are four structures that would have to be removed in order build a bridge at a later date. He added that he is opposed to the motion and feels the street vacation for University Road should remain. Commissioner Walton advised he understands where the proponent and applicant stand as it seems the City changed their mind late in the process. He added that in doing so staff was looking to do what's right for the future of the City and feels the City was well within the right to make the change as the vacation had not yet occurred. He strongly urges City Council to consider the license agreement to run concurrent as it continues to move forward. Commissioner Walton added that he can't, in good conscience, support the promise to obtain licensure if the vacation is approved and is in support of the motion as it stands. Commissioner Kaschmitter agreed with Commissioner Walton. Commissioner McKinley supports the motion and also agreed with Commissioner Kelly regarding the structures that would need to be removed. The vote on the motion was four in favor, one opposed with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, and the motion passed iii. Public Hearing: CTA-2019-0002,a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Chapter 19.60, Chapter 19.85 and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations on licensed marijuana transportation businesses. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:57 PM Mr. Lamb provided a presentation outlining the code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transport operators to operate within the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Lamb provided background into Washington Initiative 1-502 that passed in 2012 legalizing marijuana in Washington State. The City responded with adopting comprehensive regulations for the allowable state license uses to be production, process and retail stores. As part of the regulations the City Council adopted a provision 19.85.040 that prohibits all other uses within the City of Spokane Valley. In the fall of 2018 the City had a citizen 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of9 inquiry from a license transporter hoping to do business in the City. Staff presented an administrative report to the City Council and the Council gave consensus to bring a proposal forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Lamb continued that transportation is only between the licensed production, process, retail stores and research facilities and is not for home delivery. The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) oversees the licensing and licensed transporters are subject to WSLCB requirements. Mr. Lamb continued that license marijuana transporters are required to have a physical location or office to store their fleet and state law prohibits them from storing marijuana in an office or physical location. State requires transportation logs and manifests in keeping with the state mandate that marijuana be suitably tracked from seed to sale. Mr. Lamb explained the product is transported in secured compartments, required to be attached to the vehicle or vehicle body and are locked at all times. Delivery has to be made within 48 hours from the time of pick up as there may be an instance where the marijuana is left in the vehicle overnight. Commissioner Johnson asked about shorter stops such a dinner and lunch breaks. Mr. Lamb advised it is allowed to be in the vehicle in a secured compartment no matter the length of the break. Commissioner Kelley asked if a truck could be stored in a storage facility or garage? Mr. Lamb advised that is an option, adding that under state law the product cannot be stored in an office and there is no mandate that the vehicle has to be stored in a garage or storage facility. Mr. Lamb added that state law prohibits licensed marijuana transporters from being within 1,000 feet of enumerated sensitive uses such as schools, playgrounds, public transit and libraries. Mr. Lamb gave an example that currently under state law a marijuana shop could be built near an empty park like property with no current use. The City's buffers already in place prohibit marijuana shops from being built within 1,000 feet of vacant uses in order to prohibit non-conforming uses. Mr. Lamb addressed the questions posed by the Commission during the study session starting with the transportation of live plants. Transporting live plants is allowed in a secured compartment,those compartments could be metal partitions,cages or shatter proof acrylic to allow the plant to stay alive. Mr. Lamb added that the vehicle transporting the live plants must be windowless to the maximum extent possible. Mr. Lamb addressed advertising concerns advising state law prohibits advertising on or in private vehicles to limit the draw of attention. Mr. Lamb addressed the question regarding being stopped by law enforcement and identifying themselves. Transporters are required to keep a binder with their license details in the vehicle at all times to easily provide to law enforcement. Transport vehicles under the law are considered to be an extension of the licensed premises and can be stopped and inspected at any time. Mr. Lamb concluded that staff identified potential impacts to be traffic; as there are no restriction on fleet size, odor; as marijuana will be kept in vehicles, and crime; also due to marijuana being kept in vehicles. WSLCB is not aware of any complaints regarding odor or any break-ins to transport vehicles. Mr. Lamb concluded that this proposal is to allow licensed transporters in the Regional Commercial(RC), Industrial Mixed Use(IMU) and Industrial(1)zones as this will address traffic issues by placing them near arterials. The proposal includes the City buffers related to vacant school, library and City properties and also requires a lockable enclosure for the fleet if they are in the RC zone. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 or Commissioner Kelley asked what the definition of Regional Commercial zone is. Mr, Basinger explained that RC zones are for commercial regional uses located throughout I- 90 along high traffic exits like the Spokane Valley Mall. Mr. Basinger added the enclosure suggested are due to the fact that there would be a lot of individuals shopping in these zone. The City wants to ensure the vehicles and products are stored properly. Kevin Lynch, 722 W Wedgewood; Mr. Lynch advised there are other transport companies in the state that already stay the night in the City of Spokane Valley during transport. He spoke to the topic of smell advising the product is vacuum sealed for packaging, then placed in sealed totes and then in a compartment in the van preventing odor. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Lynch if he currently ships live plants? Mr. Lynch advised he does periodically as it is 1% of his business. He added that per state law the vehicle that ships live plants cannot have any windows as Mr. Lamb had mentioned. Commissioner Walton asked Mr. Lynch to describe what a law enforcement interaction would look like. Mr. Lynch explained that his staff are required to wear ID badges to prove they are an employee. He continued that the binder carried in the vehicles as mentioned before include their common carrier license,business license, insurance card and affidavit. There is a manifest and invoice in the primary tote that can be provided to law enforcement when requested. Mr. Lynch explained that it can range from law enforcement knowing the business being conducted before even making contact with them to being asked to provide all documents in the vehicle and in the totes. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Lynch why the information isn't offered to the officer and it was explained that would be breaking the chain of custody due to the seed to sale laws. Mr. Lynch added that by law he does not have to prove to law enforcement what is being transported in the totes unless instructed to do provide documentation. Commissioner Walton asked Mr. Lynch what impacts the City's request to have a secure enclosure would have on his business? Mr. Lynch advised it does add to cost. He stated that he is a proponent of the request as it will make his staff, drivers, product and vehicles more secure. He added that buildings are hard to find and cost ranges from $1,800 to $2,500 dollars a month, it is also difficult to find a landlord that will rent to him. Mr. Lamb addressed the discussion pertaining to law enforcement stops highlighting that there is a preemption prevision in state law that WSLCB provides all operations of the licensed uses. The City would not be able to ask for any additional forms of identification or supplemental documentation. Commissioner Walton asked staff why the City chose to exempt Appleway trail from the 1,000-foot exclusion zone? Mr, Lamb advised that the City Council does provide a prohibition on retail sales within 1,000 feet of Appleway trail to prevent the end users from using the trail. Council felt it appropriate to exempt Appleway trail due to its extent across the City and crossing multiple zones. Mr. Lamb added the limitations in place such as production staying indoors and no chemical processing. This was a compromise for business rights and property rights verses the trail and its beneficial use by citizens. chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page S or9 Commissioner Walton stated he was intrigued by this proposal due to the attitudes and state adoption of marijuana usage across the country. He feels it's a good idea to stay at the cutting edge of the process within state guidelines and state law,adding that the City wants to promote growth of all kinds, Commissioner Walton likes the proposal and feels there is a good compromise in the adoption of the enclosures and is in support. Commissioner Kelley explained his understanding of the process due to an acquaintance having a similar business and how it operated. Commissioner Kelly explained he feels this will attract criminals that want to steal the trucks and the product. Commissioner Kelly stated he does not appreciate the confrontational attitude toward law enforcement. He added that having been part of this first hand, landlords have the right not to lease to businesses they feel will be a detriment to the community. Commissioner Kelly believes there is a lot of crime attracted to and associated with marijuana businesses and is concerned for people's safety. Commissioner Walton move to approve CTA-2019-0002 as presented. Commissioner Kelley reminded the Commission that when 1-502 was first presented, the marijuana grow, production and retail facilities were voted down by the Commission. He added that his belief is that if the legalization of marijuana would have been brought to the vote of the people of Spokane Valley it would not have passed and he is greatly opposed. Commissioner Walton thanked Commissioner Kelley for the background. He added that he is in support as the City allows this type of business and are staying on the cutting edge. Commissioner Walton advised that location and regulations have addressed many concerns. Commissioner Walton continued one of his primary considerations was to understand how this business is being perceived by local law enforcement and appreciated the perspective from the proponent as well as Commissioner Kelley's position. The vote on the motion was four in favor, one opposed with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, and the motion passed. iv. Public Hearing: STV-2019-0041, proposed street vacations of a portion of Tshirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road in the Northeast Industrial Area. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Basinger provided a presentation to the Commission outlining the Northeast Industrial Area City Initiated Street Vacation. Mr. Basinger provided background advising on April 29, 2019 City Council initiated the Street Vacation and set a public hearing with the Planning Commission. On April 25, 2019 a study session was conducted and tonight the public hearing is being held. Mr. Basinger explained this area is located in the Northeast Industrial Area were the City has taken action to advance development. The City rezoned the property to allow a broader variety of industrial uses,extended the sewer from Sullivan Road to Barker Road and have adopted a planned action ordinance to streamline development. The proposed street vacations will further prepare the area for development. Mr. Basinger advised Garland Avenue will provide access for future development. He added that the current ROW may be an impediment for a large industrial user to developed in the future. Mr. Basinger continued,the proposed vacations are the unimproved Right of 05-23-2019 Nanning Commission Minutes Page 9 of9 Ways (ROW) of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Greenacres Road and Rich Avenue. Public notice was posted and mailed on April 25, 2019, posted in the Valley Herald and the Exchange on April 26, 2019 and May 3, 2019 and signs were posted on each end of proposed vacation areas. There have been no public or agency comments to date. Mr. Basinger added that the City has been working with Consolidated Irrigation District as they would like to loop their water system. The City will have art easement in place once Tschirley Road ROW is removed to accommodate for their loop. Staff is requesting the approval to vacate the ROWs subject to the conditions in the staff report. Mr.Basinger provided a list of the conditions. Vacated property will be transferred into the abutting parcels, if approved the area will be surveyed to identify applicable easements. There was some discussion regarding a Pre-Application meeting that determined there would be a land locked parcel once the ROWs are vacated. However, the applicants are proposing to apply for a boundary line elimination to make one parcel mitigating this issue. Mr. Basinger concluded that the zoning will he extended to include the vacated ROWs, a survey will be recorded and all conditions will be fully satisfied prior to transfer of title. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Commissioner Walton moved to approve STV-2019-0001 as presented There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in,favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Kasehmitter thanked the public for their comments. Commissioner Walton spoke about his reflection on the previous meeting and overall dedication from the Commission and community. He thanked Commissioner Kelley for reminding himself and staff of his passion in allowing the public to have their free speech. Commissioner Walton apologized to the Commission and members of the public if his comments felt as if they were dissuading the public from speaking as that was not his intent. Commissioner Walton concluded with thanking the Commission for their dedication. Mr. Basinger added currently the Planning Commission is the forum where comments will be received, so it is with utmost importance they are heard. It is also important to forward a recommendation that synthesizes the Commission's vote and he appreciated the Commissions service. Commissioner Johnson stated he concurred with Commissioner Walton and also appreciated being a part of this team. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p.m. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed _l 7 dal James Johnson, Chairman Date signed 2iAh Robin Hutchins, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 9, 2019 Department Director: Check all that apply: n consent n old business ®new business n public hearing n information n admin. report n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading of Proposed Ordinance 19-010 — Street Vacation of Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.140; Revised Code of Washington(RCW) 35A.47.020 and RCW 35.79 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: At the April 9, 2019 City Council meeting, a public hearing date was set with the Planning Commission for May 23, 2019. On June 24, 2019, City Council heard an administrative report on the proposed street vacation. BACKGROUND: The City received an application on March 8, 2019, from Whipple Consulting Engineering representing Circle M Family Properties, requesting to vacate the unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road. The total area requested to be vacated for Baldwin Avenue (669 feet in length) is 40,144 square feet, for University Road (225 feet in length) approximately 12,926 square feet, and for Glenn Road (19 feet in length) approximately 878 square feet. The right-of- way widths are 50-60 feet. The property owner has identified the following reasons for making the request: 1. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and not maintained; 2. The vacation will allow maximum use of abutting properties because parcels 45093.1519 and 45084.0401 owned by Circle M Family Properties accounts for the majority of ownership along the unimproved right-of-ways; and 3. Interstate 90 intersects University Road and Glenn Road to the north hindering future right-of- way connection; and Baldwin Avenue right-of-way is offset from the constructed Baldwin Avenue to the west,which prohibits connection. A 2015 study by Fehr&Peers evaluated the feasibility of an overpass connection at University Road. The study examined the cost of the project in comparison with level of service that would be provided by the improvements. Due to the relatively high cost and low level of service an overpass at University Road would provide, other alternative projects were chosen to be completed. However, recent discussions among City staff regarding the University Road right-of way concluded that the University Road right-of- way may provide potential public benefit if a pedestrian or vehicle access crossing becomes viable in the future. Therefore, due to these recent discussions, it is the City's recommendation to remove the vacation of University Road from the proposal. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on May 9, 2019 and a public hearing on May 23, 2019. Following public testimony and deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the amended proposal (as described above) to vacate Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road but retain the right-of-way for University Road. The findings and recommendations were approved by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2019. SVMC Section 22.140.040 directs City Council to consider the Planning Commission's findings, conditions and/or limitations appropriate to preserve the public use or benefit,the division of the vacated RCA 1st Ordinance Reading for STV-2019-0002 Page 1 of 2 right-of-way among abutting property owners, and lastly whether to require compensation for the right- of-way and when it is to be paid. Council established Resolution 07-009 to provide parameters on requiring compensation. Within the Resolution, Section 1(Policy); states "The cost for property received as a result of a vacation initiated by an adjacent property owner shall equal 50% of the appraised value of the vacated property received." Section 1.1.a allows the property values to be averaged, if value of adjacent properties differs. The table below includes the analysis for associating an estimated appraised value for the vacated property. Parcel Number Appraised Market Lot Size in Square Appraised Value per Square Value (2019) pp Feet (ft ) Foot (ft ) 45093.1519 $32,940 131,745 I $0.25 2 $0.25/1 = $0.25 Average appraised value per ft Square feet of Baldwin Avenue& Glenn Road 2 41,022 ft Appraised value for the area of street vacation 2 41,022 ft x$0.25 = $10,255.50 50%of appraised value $10,255.50 x 50%=$5,127.75 Subtracting amount paid for application processing $5,127.75 -$ 1,365.00= $3,762.75 Estimated value of Baldwin Avenue& Glenn Road=$3,762.75 Therefore, 50%of the appraised value for the unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road minus the application fees total $3,762.75. Section 1.4 of Resolution 07-009 allows City Council to take an alternative approach,if it is determined the public interest is better served. OPTIONS: Move to advance to a second reading with or without further amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to advance Ordinance # 19-010 to a second reading at the July 23, 2019 Council meeting. STAFF CONTACT: Connor Lange, Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Presentation 2. Draft Ordinance 19-010 3. Signed Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation 4. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission 5. Approved Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 9, 2019 6. Approved Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 23, 2019 7. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 13, 2019 8. Resolution 07-009 9. SVMC Section 22.140 (Street Vacations) RCA 1"Ordinance Reading for STV-2019-0002 Page 2 of 2 Circle M Properties Street Vacation STV-2019-0002 City Council First Ordinance Reading July 9, 2019 Spokan� Valley 7 1 Process : tz 7,t, .5 t, 78 ct .1 .zek ,,., .- CA O "C Z ^C = '7, Study Session cN c = Admin Report z C Z �� Public Hearing 6-24 19 .- zs o a? Z �° © 5-23-19 C j o 0 .� .Z L7 U .5 t, 1St Reading 7Z © °4 cFindings of Fact j 7-9-19 a g ct o a 6-13-19 a a 2nd Reading 7-23-19 1,1 V( i✓ 711-' 1•1E11141 A Today *plane 2 Vicinity Map . University Road, Baldwin _ I J Avenue & Glenn Road _� street vacation - \. go z Iiiii m. _ _ _ • TI „„ m,. ill■ t - I I y~~-�-,may` ENO _!..L�=1 �a�\.;. rvreft,, r T I \ CT'REa6Esro e_Jn !'�. J c \�\ - s gEE-vaeA:efi 30'm 0 SMAi<_� TA%FARCFI TA%PARCEL - I Fan\\ .,4 1019 :0.50931519 1 16.00 fi00.7 '9 90' II //BA,LOW/N AVLNUL "FNUE,)//// ]�I `, • - - : Ci F+ I F a �J p ,fi �S�F D/� PONOIT e H A,.‘„ VACARON UMtTS TAX PARCEL.945097 1519 ;z< PROVO 50 FEET I 2 e TAX PARCEL F Mi.SSL N. .'i mom END ac Ram tt 845098,2401 MI ' iMPROVEI 15 � �„ 99 I I 1 I c — —I g I E.H. '7 V 12 3 4 15 6 R B O I 11 l2 13 I I ¢LILLIVAN . III • �� ? \ 1 J MISSION I LUG END;ADD rrox ADDITION i.. ■M [.-.1 ,NOVA AV ENU!', E �'^ �' 7 MISSION RIDGE FIRST AUDIT'IV1� — _ 1 � 1 011.11#1.11\4191(16 C 1--,s,NT„.„ ' cvicwcoe. N FCI6S fAzi EXHIBIT [1!i:I V` p('�`c"ne i _ L MCeLE =oM PR❑POSED STREET VACATION lJ119AlDWIN AWEnNUE ` J7]eyW SPOKANE VALLEY, SHINGTON {♦ry47L1■■11.1- 1- I � 3 City's Recommended Proposal Change : CITY'S REASON FOR -_-____ I L , '''' .4'' '-'.-fl.' 791. ;:": '-5'.r:E'jt,'•;- # N-fl,a," :ig: 1::::•'.* • ':. '',.'-`.**; • '''* • �. # -"aii i, ''' *..ifs. i� . ��..� mer x� � ;� ..._ I.4.: ➢ Fehr & Peers (2015) r. NI Baldwin Avenue evaluated feasibility 111.11.1ir . - and Glenn Road PI i°Y still to be vacated of overpass w., r , t ' - - ,� - n connection at 1 University Road. r• { Retain University 1 ➢ Right-of-way could *� Road 1110.111iL ` provide public benefit 1_44 I nthe future.IN m- IrllibireirliliFirri ' .-` I 0 CITY'S r - : ' :rrkt. E16 ^P '� -, ,; ► -. . - -- -' RECOMMENDATION: ...�—�,.r -, 1, City recommends 7 retainin Universit lie1.'..,..1.1..... _......�'�' massoa ., ,� _ M. Road. ...t 41444.-.......77,' ......Nir - ,,,•,9. '.. ' r ili :; F.4, ,, i lir- militr r.. rhirdribtrik ,, wok rK Spokane 4000 Valley iiii imIl I 4 City Council Considerations : ➢ Planning Commission findings; ➢ Conditions and/or limitations deemed appropriate to preserve public use or benefit; ➢ Feasibility to require compensation based on Resolution 07-009 . Spokane ■ 5 Estimated Value of Vacation p e r RES 07-009 : Parcel Number A ppraised Market Lot Size in Square Appraised Value per Square Value (2019) 22 eet ft ) Foot (ft ) 45093.1519 $32,940 131,745 I $0.25 Average appraised value per ft 2 $0.25/1 = $0.25 Square feet of Baldwin Avenue & Glenn Road 2 41,022 ft Appraised value for the area of street vacation 2 41,022 ft x $0.25 = S10,255.50 50% of appraised value $10,255.50 x 50% = 5 127.75 Subtracting amount paid for application processing $5,127.75 - $ 1,365.00 = $3,762.75 Estimated value of Baldwin Avenue & Glenn Road = $3,762.75 Spok e ..� ,.10Valley 6 L ..--1...=".J71...14', R. 11_3E50.00' - - _ •=...,N, ';',..:7'4: :':-...::4 } 4,L -5i� r E UE�tlr. +' ax ' —/— F1 . 4 1fi ?' n— __ cL .—_� _ ' '' i ''''....:4:4.-4q0' Cn AI'I WrnaMATELY T A}C r'.+ ncEL. "f'�' "4e" ` .'02.--...-:-.....-,,:c....., }ti- 045[0943 1539 r,� 11145092_ ag e . O.: o. 4 -,..,..;!:::-.*,k,....::". ....tiE"..iC_ , 7: 19.'' 0.— 7,707 V t� G � � ; Fir r r`,. / 'r r'r r r p. .. r yg�a: .l r f /....",r ' .r. . + -:A - ' ;;e l� .a:...s • i r r: .,V..--'.../.",.,f^ ,,.,r, + ` :- a'ti , r''r't rr '.r' - t r f$".",C# +eW I ,A V>1 NUE''r r r'rr'i`r'r(_I_D 1 ,e`�!�A A YF P..' r 1 r."')-5„----.,,,--„,,,,_;-,.„fr1 f'ir - .,._.+ a-..6:2',I ,....N7‘.:::"..:'...,' A2;`3a xaPfr ' r,X� af� eJ. ,t. . '�'Jff frfif Fr sem_•' • J// f s rir t it r °-' ir.— 1 °357 +. z ! r ld., r t'! .� '''.7:-- 41'wA AA_4'h -.0 ,ff f 'rJ f e'r-.. f�J,r'.A,F r F+Z.f' 4,"e'e'...2' ff":,,,e ,"..,rrir J .....e ., f.rf 9d f/.-,,,-...":„: {f r r J..„, ..,, .fr��., fr+',� r 4 Ei Elm NTT . ;A . `' ''i:`./ r,frr%ter- -. .ti4. .�;rQui "tipPESUKLIr1 TEL r i as .1!hi j; •ir r rF`1� '' .a`.r'.-%i J .. �otva 5 M A A'ti A-� 1\. hhtti. a . 06g.08. aS ' l t, 4.h j -a - I -Ir �4 in n. •„.- WAC.,ATIOCV LIFIIIITS ^ ocari rroz `, PROPOSED Ea 5.fd FES 0 ftno 1 4509•ta Z 9 I MV1ZC7 hA Er11 - I .. I It= �. ! LCL r ATM rTR W =! '` I I Ng!ss IC N r�tu :E' 2rrrrnl7r I II I1 C C Ci N. i LP;; .: h'!KS T A T J i i T'r C?p - - — —-__ - --- 1 `- 7 r ..3,., 41: 1 1.1-Ii2U-7 AN b I r wr n n -TIS an: P CI , E T T #fi .fit C r-+ 1 ® , '+t SpokaneEt . L—� I , :�. 4000 Valley c A LE. a ' I 0 OE F''oK.-fes! E V.A.LLLCY, WA SI-11NGYuN I 9 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 19-010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR A RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION OF APPROXIMATELY 41,022 SQUARE FEET OF BALDWIN AVENUE AND GLENN ROAD WHICH BISECTS PARCEL 45093.1519 AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, on March 8, 2019, a completed application for vacation was filed requesting the vacation of Baldwin Avenue approximately 40,144 square feet, University Road approximately 12,926 square feet, and Glenn Road approximately 878 square feet; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2019, the City Council by Resolution 19-007 set a public hearing date for May 23, 2019 with the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2019,the Planning Commission held a public hearing; and WHEREAS, following the hearing, the Planning Commission found that the notice and hearing requirements of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.140.020 had been met; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission findings and minutes have been filed with the City Clerk as part of the public record supporting the vacation; and WHEREAS, none of the property owners abutting the property to be vacated filed a written objection to the proposed vacation with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 22.140 SVMC, upon vacation of the road, the City shall transfer the vacated property to abutting property owners, the zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street shall attach to the vacated property, a record of survey shall be submitted to the City, and all direct and indirect costs of title transfer to the vacated street shall be paid by the proponent or recipient of the transferred property. In this particular case, the vacated property shall be transferred to parcel 45093.1519; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to vacate the above street pursuant to chapter 22.140 SVMC. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, do ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The City Council makes the following findings of fact: 1. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and no utilities are located within the right- of-way. However, Spokane County Environmental Services requested an easement for sanitary sewer. The applicant stated in the application materials that an ingress/egress easement would be created to provide future access to parcel 45093.2401. The vacation of Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road is expected to have no impact on the general public as surrounding parcels currently do not use the right-of-way for access. However, the vacation of University Road has potential to impact the general public. Therefore, staff recommends the City retain the University Road right-of-way for projects that are unforeseen at this time. 2. The subject right-of-way is unimproved and not being utilized for public access. The site is bordered by Interstate 90 to the north which provides no reasonable means of connection for Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road. However, University Road right-of-way could provide potential future public benefit if a pedestrian or vehicle access crossing was ever proposed. There is no need for a new and different public way around the subject ROW. So long as access to the drywell for maintenance is provided,the public interest is served. Ordinance 19-010 -Street Vacation STV-2019-0002 Page 1 of 4 DRAFT 3. Public access is not needed in this area because no properties currently utilize the right-of- way for access and the majority of ownership along the unimproved right-of-way is owned by Circle M Family Properties. There is no need for a new and different public way. An ingress/egress access easement will be required to ensure access for parcel number 45093.2401. 4. Based on the comprehensive plan, it is not anticipated that changes will occur in the future that would require the use of the Baldwin Avenue or Glenn Road right-of-way for public access. However, University Road has potential to serve a greater purpose than currently exists. The right-of-way could provide future public benefit with a pedestrian or vehicle access overpass. 5. No objections or public comment was received. 6. The subject ROW bisects parcel 45093.1519 and title shall vest in that parcel. 7. Resolution 07-009 was adopted pursuant to RCW 35.79.030 to set the City's policy for imposing vacation charges. Pursuant to Section 1 of Resolution 07-009: a. The cost for property received as a result of a vacation initiated by an adjacent property owner shall equal 50% of the appraised value of the vacated property received to the extent the cost exceeds the amount charged by the City of Spokane Valley to initiate the vacation process. i. The appraised value shall be the same as the value of an equivalent portion of property adjacent to the proposed vacation as established by Spokane County Assessor at the time the matter is considered by the City Council. ii. If the value of adjacent properties differs, than the average of the adjacent property values per square foot will be used. Based on the average assessed value of the adjacent properties, $5,127.75 is 50% of the assessed value. Therefore, $5,127.75 minus the $1,365 application fee equals $3,762.75. Section 2. Property to be Vacated. Based upon the above findings and in accordance with this Ordinance, the City Council does hereby vacate the street or alley which is incorporated herein by reference, and legally described as follows: BALDWIN AVENUE VACATION A STRIP OF LAND, 60 FEET IN WIDTH, BEING A PORTION OF BALDWIN AVENUE AS DEDICATED BY THE PLAT OF SULLIVAN ADDITION AS RECORDED IN VOLUME "K" OF PLATS, PAGE 47, RECORDS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, (SAID BALDWIN AVENUE DEPICTED AS INDIANA AVENUE ON SAID PLAT); LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH, RANGE 44 EAST, W.M., CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WA; SAID STRIP BEING BOUND ON THE WEST BY THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY OF UNIVERSITY ROAD (SANDS ROAD PER SAID PLAT); AND BOUND ON THE EAST BY THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF GLENN ROAD (PATRICK STREET PER SAID PLAT). GLENN ROAD VACATION A STRIP OF LAND, 60 FEET IN WIDTH, BEING A PORTION OF GLENN ROAD AS DEDICATED BY THE PLAT OF SULLIVAN ADDITION AS RECORDED IN VOLUME "K" OF PLATS, PAGE 47, RECORDS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON (SAID GLENN AVENUE DEPICTED AS PATRICK STREET ON SAID PLAT); LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH, RANGE 44 EAST, W.M., CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WA; SAID STRIP BEING BOUND ON THE SOUTH BY THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF BALDWIN AVENUE (INDIANA AVENUE PER SAID PLAT); AND BOUND ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF INTERSTATE 90. Ordinance 19-010 -Street Vacation STV-2019-0002 Page 2 of 4 DRAFT Section 3. Division of Property to be Vacated. Pursuant to RCW 35.79.040 and SVMC 22.140.040(C),the vacated portion of the street or alley shall belong to the abutting property owners, one- half to each, unless factual circumstances otherwise dictate a different division and distribution of the street or alley to be vacated. In this particular instance a different division and distribution of the vacated property is necessary. The property to be vacated bisects parcel 45093.1519 which requires that the entirety of the vacated property belong to that single parcel. The completion of the vacation shall be recorded in the record of survey which shall be created and recorded with Spokane County as required pursuant to SVMC 22.140.090. Section 4. Zoning. The zoning designation for the vacated property shall be the designation attached to the adjoining properties as set forth within the respective property or lot lines. The City Manager or designee is authorized to make this notation on the official Zoning Map of the City. Section 5. Conditions of Vacation. The following conditions shall be fully satisfied prior to the transfer of title by the City. 1. Initial work to satisfy conditions of the street vacation (File No. STV-2019-0002), including all conditions below shall be submitted to the City for review within 90 days following the effective date of approval by the City Council. 2. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcel (45093.1519) as shown on the record of survey created and recorded with Spokane County Auditor's Office pursuant to condition 8. 3. The following easements shall be established. Submit the recording number on the record of survey and written documentation of the easement for City verification. a. All existing lots shall have access to a public street or existing driveway easement prior to finalization. Parcels shall be reconfigured through a boundary line adjustment or an easement shall be created to provide access to parcel 45093.2401. b. An easement acceptable to Spokane County Environmental Services for access to public sewer to serve parcel 45093.2401. If parcel 45093.2401 is consolidated with an adjacent parcel that has access to the sanitary sewer system, no easement is required. 4. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Washington, including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be submitted by the proponent to the City Manager or designee,for review. 5. The surveyor shall locate a monument at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the Spokane Valley Street Standards. 6. All direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated street from public to private ownership, including but not limited to, title company charges, copying fees, and recording fees shall be paid by the proponent. The City shall not and does not assume any financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title. 7. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the districts. The Ordinance 19-010 -Street Vacation STV-2019-0002 Page 3 of 4 DRAFT adopting Ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. 8. The record of survey and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 9. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. 10. Payment in the amount of$3,762.75 shall be paid to the City by the property owner(s) requesting vacation. Section 6. Closing. Following satisfaction of the above conditions, the City Clerk shall record a certified copy of this Ordinance in the office of the County Auditor, and the City Manager is authorized to execute and finalize all necessary documents in order to complete the transfer of the property identified herein. 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 of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of July, 2019. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 19-010 -Street Vacation STV-2019-0002 Page 4 of 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION STV-2019-011O2 —Street vacation of a portion. of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E)the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. A. Background: 1. Chapter 22.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC),governing street vacations,was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. 2. The privately-initiated street vacation, STV-2019-0002, proposes to vacate unimproved sections of Baldwin Avenue(669 feet in length), University Road (225 feet hi length) and Glenn Road(19 feet in length) 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on May 23, 2019 and conducted a study session on May 9,2019. The Commission voted four to one to recommend approval of the amended proposal (from staff to vacate Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road but retain the right-of-way for University Road. B. Planning Commission Findings: Compliance with TALC 22.140.030 Planning Commission review and recommendation Finding(s): 1, Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public? The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and no utilities are located within the right-of-way. However, Spokane County Environmental Services requested an easement for sanitary sewer.The applicant stated in the application materials that an ingress/egress easement would be created to provide future access to parcel 45093.2401. The vacation of Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road is expected to have no impact on the general public as surrounding parcels currently do not use the right-of- way for access. However,the vacation of University Road has potential to impact the general public Therefore,staff recommends the City retain the University Road right-of-way for projects that are unforeseen at this time. 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access? The subject right-of-way is unimproved and not being utilized for public access.The site is bordered by interstate 90 to the north which provides no reasonable means of connection for Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road. However, as referenced in the Background section University Road right-of-way could provide potential future public benefit if a pedestrian or vehicle access crossing was ever proposed. ?indingsanti Recommendations orate 5pokarze'alley Planning COM mission STV-21J19•0002 Page 1 of -- 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public? Public access is nut needed in this area because no properties currently utilize the right- of-way ight- of way for access and the majority of ownership along the unimproved right-of-way is owned by Circle M Family Properties. There is no need for a new and different public way. An ingress/egress access easement will be required to ensure access for parcel number 45093.2441. 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists? Based on the comprehensive plan it is not anticipated that changes will occur in the future that wauid require the use of the Baldwin Avenue or Glenn Road right-of-way for public access. However,as discussed in the background section University Road has potential to serve a greater purpose than currently exists.The right-of-way could provide future public benefit with a pedestrian or vehicle access overpass, 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public? No objections or public comment was received. C Conclusion: The findings confirm criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met. ft Recommendation: Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the amended proposal to vacate Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road but retain the right-of-way for University Road subject to the following: 1. Initial work to satisfy conditions of the street vacation(File No. STV-20 19-0002), including all conditions below shall be submitted to the City for review within 90 days following the effective date of approval by the City Council, 2. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcel(45093.1519) as shown on the record of survey created and recorded with Spokane County Auditors Office pursuant to condition 8. 3. The following easements shall be established. Submit recording number on record of survey and written documentation of easement for City verification. a. All existing lots shall have access to a public street or existing driveway easement prior to finalization_ Parcels shall be reconfigured through a boundary line adjustment or an easement shall be created to provide access to parcel 45093.2401. b. An easement acceptable to Spokane County Environmental Services for access to public sewer to serve parcel 45093;2401. If,parcel 45093240] is consolidated with an adjacent parcel that has access to the sanitary sewer system, no easement is required. 4. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Washington, including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be submitted by the proponent to the City Manager,or designee, for review. Findings and Recommendations of the Spaltw Valley planning Commission STV-2019.-C1002 Page 2 or 2 5. The surveyor shall locate a monument at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-ef- way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the SVSS. 6. All direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated street from public to private ownership, including but riot limited to,title company charges,copying fees,and recording fees shall be paid by the proponent. The City shall not and does nut assume any financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer oftitic. 7. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall he automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the districts, The adopting Ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. S. The record of survey and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 9. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Approved this 13th day of June,2019 acnes Anson,Chairman ATTEST fleann€l Horton,Administratiye Assistant Findings and Recommendations oFteSpokaneValleyPlanningCommissionS1 -2419-1:1002 Pagc3of3 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING&PLANNING Spokane Val 4 STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FILE: STV-2019-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE: May 16, 2019 FILE NO: STV-2019-0002 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Request to vacate unimproved sections of Baldwin Avenue (669 feet in length), University Road (225 feet in length) and Glenn Road (19 feet in length). The right-of-way widths vary ranging from 50 to 64 feet. STAFF PLANNER: Connor Lange, Planner, Community & Public Works PROPERTY OWNER: Circle M Family Properties LLC; 2123 N Pines Road; Spokane Valley, WA 99216 PROPOSAL LOCATION: The portion of right-of-ways proposed to be vacated are located between Interstate 90 (north) and Nora Avenue (south) and adjacent to three parcels (45093.1519, 45084.0401 and 45084.1314) further located in the SW quarter of the SW quarter of Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane Valley, Washington BACKGROUND: The City received an application on March 8, 2019 from Whipple Consulting Engineering representing Circle M Family Properties, requesting to vacate the unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road. The total area requested to be vacated for Baldwin Avenue is 40,144 square feet, for University Road approximately 12,926 square feet and for Glenn Road approximately 878 square feet. The property owner has identified the following reasons for making the request: 1. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and not maintained; 2. The vacation will allow maximum use of abutting properties because parcels 45093.1519 & 45084.0401 owned by Circle M Family Properties accounts for the majority of ownership along the unimproved right-of-ways; and 3. Interstate 90 intersects University Road and Glenn Road to the north hindering future right of way connection; and Baldwin Avenue right-of-way is offset from the constructed Baldwin Avenue to the west, which prohibits connection. A 2015 study by Fehr& Peers evaluated the feasibility of an overpass connection at University Road. The study examined the cost of the project in comparison with level of service that would be provided by the improvements. Due to the relatively high cost and low level of service an overpass at University Road would provide, other alternative projects were chosen to be completed. However, recent discussions among city staff regarding the University Road right-of-way concluded that the Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 1 of 11 May 15,2019 University Road right-of-way may provide potential public benefit if a pedestrian or vehicle access crossing becomes viable in the future. Therefore, due to these recent discussions it is the City's recommendation to remove the vacation of University Road from the proposal. The site does not contain any city facilities or utility improvements. All improvements stop at the edge of the pavement for University Road which will remain as dedicated right-of-way. Although the majority of the lots are owned by one entity a vacation of the right-of-way would leave parcel number 45093.2401 without access for both ingress/egress and sanitary sewer. Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 20.20.090.E "Every lot shall have direct access to a paved public street, private street, or an easement for a private driveway. " The application states that an ingress/egress easement would be established to allow access to University Road across parcel 45093.1519 that is owned by Circle M Family Properties. Spokane County Environmental Services has requested a 20 foot public sanitary sewer easement in lieu of the public right of way. APPROVAL CRITERIA: 1. SVMC— Title 20 (Subdivision Regulations) 2. SVMC— Title 21 (Environmental Controls) 3. SVMC— Title 22 (Street Vacations) 4. City of Spokane Valley Street Standards ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Aerial Map Exhibit 3: Application Material Exhibit 4: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 5: Agency Comments I. PROPERTY INFORMATION Size and Characteristics The unimproved right of way area is approximately 40,144 of proposed vacation: square feet for Baldwin Avenue, 12,926 square feet for University Road and 878 square feet for Glenn Road. The entirety of the subject right of way is unimproved and covered in grass and weeds. Adjacent Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Adjacent Zoning: Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Adjacent Land Parcel 45093.1519, 45084.0401 and 45093.2401 are all Use(s): vacant. Parcel 45084.1314 is Tract C of the University View Estates Planned Unit Development which is utilized for drainage and is planted with grass. Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 2 of 11 May 15,2019 II. STAFF ANALYSIS OF STREET VACATION PROPOSAL A. COMPLIANCE WITH SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE(SVMC)TITLE 22.140.030 Findings: 1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public? The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and no utilities are located within the right- of-way. However, Spokane County Environmental Services requested an easement for sanitary sewer. The applicant stated in the application materials that an ingress/egress easement would be created to provide future access to parcel 45093.2401. The vacation of Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road are expected to have no impact on the general public as surrounding parcels currently do not use the right-of-way for access. However, the vacation of University Road has potential to impact the general public. As referenced above in the Background section, the right-of-way could provide future public benefit and therefore, staff recommends the City retain the University Road right-of-way for projects that are unforeseen at this time. 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access? The subject right-of-way is unimproved and not being utilized for public access. The site is bordered by Interstate 90 to the north which provides no reasonable means of connection for Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road. However, as referenced in the Background section University Road right-of-way could provide potential future public benefit if a pedestrian or vehicle access crossing was ever proposed. 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public? Public access is not needed in this area because no properties currently utilize the right-of- way for access and the majority of ownership along the unimproved right-of-way is owned by Circle M Family Properties. There is no need for a new and different public way. An ingress/egress access easement will be required to ensure access for parcel number 45093.2401. 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists? Based on the comprehensive plan it is not anticipated that changes will occur in the future that would require the use of the Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road right-of-way for public access. However, as discussed in the Background section the vacation of University Road has potential to provide a greater use than currently exists. The right-of-way could provide future public benefit with a pedestrian or vehicle access overpass. 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public? No objections or public comment has been received. Conclusions: Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 3 of 11 May 15,2019 The findings confirm criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met. B. COMPLIANCE WITH SVMC TITLE 21—ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS The Planning Division has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(2)(i) and SVMC 21.20.040 from environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA). III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: No public comments have been received following the notice of public hearing issued, mailed and posted on April 19, 2019. A Notice of Public Hearing sign was posted on the property April 19, 2019 in three separate locations and public hearing notices were mailed to all owners adjacent to the right-of-ways being vacated. Notices were posted in the Spokane Valley Public Library, City of Spokane Valley main reception area and CenterPlace Event Center on April 19, 2019. Lastly, the notice was published in the Spokane Valley Herald on April 19, 2019 and April 26, 2019. Conclusion(s): Staff concludes that adequate public noticing was conducted for STV-2019-0002 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. IV. AGENCY COMMENTS Notice was provided to agencies and service providers. Comments were received from the following agencies and are attached as exhibits to this staff report. Where necessary, comments have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval in Section V. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Spokane Valley Public Works Yes 4-19-19 Spokane Valley Fire District No.1 Yes 4-18-19 Spokane County Environmental Services Yes 5-10-19 Spokane Regional Health District No Avista Utilities Yes 3-4-19 Spokane Transit Authority No City of Spokane Valley Police No Department Century Link Yes 3-4-19 Comcast Yes 3-1-19 Modern Electric Water Company Yes 5-10-19 WA Archaeology and Historic Yes 4-23-19 Preservation WA Department of Transportation No Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 4 of 11 May 15,2019 Spokane County Division of Utilities No Findings: Notice of application was routed to jurisdictional agencies, utilities, and public districts for review and comment. On April 19, 2019 comments were received from Ryan Kipp (Spokane Valley Traffic Engineer) which did not recommend the approval of the vacation for University Road due to the potential future public benefit of an overpass at University Road. Spokane County Environmental Services submitted comments on May 10, 2019 that requested a 20 foot sanitary sewer easement for vacant parcel 45093.2401 because it will no longer have any access to the public right-of-way. No other substantive agency comments have been received to date. Conclusion(s): Staff concludes that jurisdictional agencies, utilities, and or public districts have no concerns regarding the proposed street vacation for Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road. V. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS Staff concludes that STV-2019-0002 as proposed is generally consistent, or will be made consistent, through the recommended conditions of approval based on the approval criteria stated herein. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request to vacate a 669.08 foot unimproved portion of Baldwin Avenue and 19.90 feet of Glenn Road subject to the following: 1. Initial work to satisfy conditions of the street vacation (File No. STV-2019-0002), including all conditions below shall be submitted to the City for review within 90 days following the effective date of approval by the City Council. 2. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcels (45093.1519, 45084.0401 and 45084.1314) as shown on the record of survey created and recorded with Spokane County Auditor's Office pursuant to condition 8. 3. The following easements are required to be established. Submit recording number on record of survey and written documentation of easement for City verification. a. All existing lots shall have access to a public street or existing driveway easement prior to finalization. Parcels shall be reconfigured through a boundary line adjustment or an easement shall be created to provide access to parcel 45093.2401. b. An easement acceptable to Spokane County Environmental Services for access to public sewer to serve parcel 45093.2401. If, parcel 45093.2401 is consolidated with an adjacent parcel that has access to the sanitary sewer system, no easement is required. 4. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 5 of 11 May 15,2019 Washington, including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be submitted by the proponent to the City Manager, or designee, for review. 5. The surveyor shall locate a monument at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right- of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the SVS S. 6. All direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated street from public to private ownership, including but not limited to, title company charges, copying fees, and recording fees shall be paid by the proponent. The City shall not and does not assume any financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title. 7. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the districts. The adopting Ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. 8. The record of survey and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 9. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 6 of 11 May 15,2019 EXHIBIT 1 Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 7 of 11 May 15,2019 1 11 - J - r-,_,_,, / II ,./ . ., 1(... / , I ---‘=--.---- -'-'-'-'-'-'--s._ I. --- ---- -- -.-F-___._ - ---- 7-'-.--- ..... .,... --, [-"-"- _ L . ..,„__ -.-'-`-.--'-'-- I I . *IiI%RD 90 - .. - ____ _ ---- - r i_ '-r , 1 : !,,.-..j_. - ,_ 17-= - i• ___________ -r-••=1= 1 [. I Il 1 1 1 ----- 'MMI ' ____L-Isi"jil -______ - ____ _ . - 1 - T II 111 . 'glillM 1 1 _T : 1 ' ilmill 1] JL . i 1 i _ , -- _ -n- __ i NO _ I Ill _ r- I lib, _ J Li 7 1 - - I . I 1 In I -- .ft .:.- NI.7v. z; I ' . V. Ill• NE --ri i-1111111- ., I . _ nu / , T __ 1 . ' ... >6_,,.. =. MN. imil - 1 EMI „us _ -- .___ ,,.____ c .,. ,4. L ... • ___, r _ , . L'LATO I.! -a • - , n -L--, „ 41. EA -14.A41-_:-,-; :-F-T-1 -1 ---,._- - r 1 ' ,,e4— EXH I BIT 2 Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 8 of 11 May 15,2019 - 0.. -.. 4.1.1' 4,, i:., ' .',,..r" • i geP/Ibi, _ . lin .0 ;4 --—---_ "` • 1 -, ., . . •-. efeN- . t 2• 4a:„. , IN''' . I *Ma .1.1.0r. e... r 7 ' - ,r,,,,-v /14 '',..4.%.744:". INF .:I ug . A it . •-, IV IP .1.• 0 _14 ...„ .. - ritee- ;1-0 IL - 4610%, . ft 4 fo , ----------........„,_ . 1,16 .... L4 %il....,- A, . la . -, .. _., I __ _ ii IP, --I---- -- --_ 44 1''' ill ----- .-- - 0 16- ., ..„ ' . . .. , --icau . .,... ,.., .0 11111.1111111101 4111,011.' - .11., P . 1- . lilt'''. 1, 8.. 111!MI Ill HOMIIIIIIIII A niii, .t. 4 1 • 1,.j _. _1 n fillir 1 ..ff,.- 1 4116 m... If: air ila .- ..= 1 1.4 ill i ri:IF- I,' .-. INIMilladill."N/ .. 1111 r. v. 1Pr * _ ! ell -. lii lip , II --1...• ;M.# .i . P. , ' 11--- 7 1 I •i... , * id6omii i 4 .=- 1111111at . 11 ' 'tlil i II Vie Ae / tr- P iriktkfiLk IP t . .\ ' 1 - I& ,. li i leM Vale iik- le i 1--IL ....iiriaildwimOW41 ,„._ rot 414: q,Fib gAIIIMPIN.11.01... -7. Villa , ., . LIP . L' k h 5 • ' I, Nell •a _ •4, I , . EXHIBIT 3 Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 9 of 11 May 15,2019 STREET VACATION APPLICATION SpokaneSVMC 22.14D Valle Community Development - Planning Division 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5310 ! Fax: 509,688.0037 • planning®spakanevaltey.Or2 STAFF USE ONLY r i � � _ - Date Submitted: 7 I Received by: - Fee: (L). PLUS#: - PLUS#: File#: typ 3± PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL RECEIVED "THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED"' 2019 ❑ Completed Application Form ❑ Application Fee CSV PERMIT CENTER ❑ Notice of Application Packet (17.80.110) --Adjacent Property(ies) I S uB # REV. ;;‘Lf_____Ii ❑ Written Narrative - A written narrative describing the reasons for-TrierTirapased -street-vacatinn„ t physical limits of the proposed street vacation and the public benefit of the proposed street vacation. ❑ Written Correspondence from Utility Purveyors Telephone Cable Electric Other(Specify ) Water District Fire District Gas Utility Sewer Utility ❑ Vicinity Map- Submit a map showing the general area of the proposed vacation ❑ Record of Survey, if available, for the subject street and/or al ey proposed for vacation, and abutting properties, streets and alleys within 100 `eet on all sides of the proposed vacation. ❑ Written Evidence of all easements, allowances or reservations, if available, pertaining to the street and/or alley proposed for vacation. PART II - APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT NAME:Whipple Consulting Engineers, Brett Griffith MAILING ADDRESS: 21 S. Pines Road CITY: Spokane Valley STATE:WA ZIP: 99206 - - PHONE: 509-893-2617 FAX: CELL: EMAIL: bgriffith[u7whipplece.com PROPERTY OWNER No.1: Circle M Family Properties, Brandon Michielli MAILING ADDRESS: 2123 N. Pines Road CrTY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99216 PL-15 V1.0 Page 1 of 3 Spo ' n STREET VACATION APPLICATION ...so Val ley PHONE: 509-928-3255 I FAX: CELL: EMAIL: brandon@spokanelandscae.net PROPERTY OWNER No.2: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL: If more than two(2)abutting property owners, include information and written authorization on a separate sheet of paper for each. NAME OF STREET/ALLEY To BE VACATED: Baldwin Avenue& Glenn Road& University Road DIMENSIONS OF STREET/ALLEY TO BE VACATED: Baldwin= 60'wide, University E. ROW to Glenn W.ROW l Glenn =60'wide, Baldwin S. ROW to 1-90 S.ROW/University=50'wide, 1-90 S. ROW—225.50'south SQUARE FEET OF STREET/ALLEY To BE VACATED: -53948 S.F. ABUTTING TAX PARCEL No(s),: 45093.1519,45084.0401 &45084.1314 ADDRESSES OF ABUTTING PARCELS: Unknown addresses ZONING DESIGNATION: Corridor Mixed Use THE FOLLOWING IS CRITERIA EVALUATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN FORMULATING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS SHALL BE ANSWERED IN A DETAILED MANNER; 1 How DOES A CHANGE OF USE OR VACATION OF THE STREET/ALLEY IMPROVE SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC? 2. IS THE STREET OR ALLEY NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE OR PUBLIC ACCESS? EXPLAIN. 3. WOULD SUBSTITUTION OF A NEW AND/OR DIFFERENT PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC? EXPLAIN 4. HOW WILL USE OR NEED FOR THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY BE AFFECTED BY FUTURE CONDITIONS? EXPLAIN. 5. WILL EASEMENTS BE RETAINED FOR ALL UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES? THE REQUESTED VACATION IS LOCATED IN THE SERVICE AREA OF WHAT UTILITY COMPANIES (SPECIFY)? S. DOES THE RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDE STORMWATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES(SPECIFY)? PLEASE NOTE: PER RCW 35.79.040 (TITLE TO VACATED STREET/ALLEY), THE PROPERTY WITHIN A PUBLIC STREET OR ALLEY VACATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BELONG TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS, ONE-HALF(1/2)TO EACH. THEREFORE, PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SIGN THE STREET VACATION APPLICATION. PL-15 V1.0 Page 2 of 4 STREET VACATION APPLICATION Valley PER RESOLUTION 07-009 OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CHARGES FOR STREET/ALLEY VACATION PURSUANT TO ROW 36.79.030 PART III - AUTHORIZATION I I (Signature of owner or authorized representative) I,R,VI,M()() j) ltE+}II , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. ignatureT � (Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) ffn ,w- SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this lit day of 1CIVO.. \ , 2019 NOTARY SEAL Z/, OT Y SIGNATI E ,`,tt1i 1111V1111lrrr :•'`�y ''�. Notary Public in and for th State of Washington `�\� K-v/•••/• z , ,1��M��d`��,ya •; z =T. Residing at: _��In t Q Ce_v� _ • • V ti • • • My appointment expires: STAGE' 'hos/itlittioo LEGAL OWNER NO. I AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement: t, • , owner of the above described property do hereby authorize 6/(1-7- to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. LEGAL OWNER NO. 2 AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; PL-15 V1.0 Page 3 of 4 C#TY OF SPOKANE VALLEY STREET VACATION APPLICATION - NARRATIVE 1. How does a change of use or vacation of the street/alley improve service to the public? A change of use or vacation of this street will improve service to the public because the street is geographically separated from the City of Spokane Valley by Interstate-90 from the North and a large slope from the south just north of Mission Ridge 2"Addition,and should have been vacated when 1-90 was extended through the area.This vacation would also increase tax revenue(Land Use Tax) for the City,turning public right-of-way into taxable land. 2. Is the street or alley no longer required for public use or public access?(Explain) The subject street is no longer required for public use or public access. Parcel#45093.2401 is essentially land-locked with no reasonable means of access.The proposed project plans to provide a utility easement to Parcel#45093.2401, therefore access will also be provided through a proposed drive aisle of the project. Parcel#45093.1519 has access from University Road. The City has also mentioned no interest for an overpass at University Road over I-90.Current road improvements also stop South of Baldwin Avenue,at the proposed vacation limits per the exhibit attached. 3. Would substitution of a new andjor different public right-of-way better serve the public? (Explain) No, a substitution of a new/different public right-of-way would not better serve the public due to the geographical separation (as explained in Question#1) and no interest to the City of Spokane Valley(as explained in Question#2). 4. How will use or need for this right-of-way be affected by future conditions? (Explain) The use/need for this right-of-way will not be affected by future conditions because WCE already has a "conditioned" project. 5. Will easements be retained for all underground and overhead utilities?The requested vacation is located in the service area of what utility companies? (Specify) No easements were found in the subject area; therefore, no easements will be retained for underground/overhead utilities. Utility companies servicing the subject area include: County Sewer, Modern Electric Water, Century Link, Comcast,Avista_(Refer to correspondence with Utility Purveyors included in application packet). 6. Does the right-of-way include stormwater drainage facilities? (Specify) No,the right-of-way does not include any stormwater drainage facilities. Project == -� � `__� RECEIVED MAR U b 1U19 CSV PERMIT CENTER Page 1 SUB # 1 REV. # I Ryan Andrade From: Ryan Andrade Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 1:47 PM To: 'Chris Wafstet; Bryan StClair; 'Harvey, Traci'; 'Depner, Colin'; 'mark.welch@centurylink.com'; 'bryan_rithardson@comcast.conn john.luse@avistacorp.com': 'michael.truex@avistacorp.com' Cc: Save Whipple (save@whipplece.com); Brett Griffith Subject: 2207 - Circle M Street Vacation Attachments: 2207-STREET-VACATIUN-MAP-030119.pdf All, Attached is a PDF showing an exhibit of a proposed street vacation we are proposing for the Circle M Landscape Yard project located at 10620 E Baldwin Avenue in Spokane Valley. Can we please get correspondence from you regarding this vacation,on whether you are good with it or not? Also, if you happen to have any easements or easement documents in this area could you send those to us as well? If you do not have any easements, then no need to worry about sending us anything for that. Let me know if you have any questions with this. Thank you, Ryan Andrade, EIT Project = ,1V '2c' -t-DG I Civil Engineer RECEIVED Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Phone: 509.893 2617 1 Fax: 509.926.0227 MAR U 8 21119 loWC E CSV PERMIT CENTER Wr ppie Consulting Engineers SUB # REV. = wce J:WINKS61 r.a oeue4cr neer sconces lir rhe Wowing aleaS.Land Sttre,rr.+xf,Crv.' .SMICMra111117 Tfa ft c Engewer h J L. ;±! ~nog And t zuirl5C s Alt _Purr • ,vf.Spokane Vnitcy:.WA 997+x( E I,prd*CF tore. Ili Lai D 1 Ryan Andrade From: Koschalk, Robb <Robb.Koschalk@avistacorp.com> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 3:34 PM To: Luse, John; Davis, Blake; Byus, Dave; Ryan Andrade Cc: Save; Brett G-iffith Subject: RE: [External] 2207 - Circle M Street Vacation To All. There are no gas facilities that would be affected by the vacation of Baldwin. No objections. Robb Koschalk, Customer Project Coordinator 1411 E Mission Ave MSC-050, Spokane, WA, 99202 P 509.495.2034 I C 509.2803383 www.avistaublittes.com r..r 1115 TA 811 u Call Wars yam From: Luse,John Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 3:09 PM To: Davis, Blake <Blake.Davis@avistacorp.corn>; Byus, Dave <Dave.Byus@avistacorp.com>; Ryan Andrade <ra ndrade@whi pplece.com> Cc:Save<save@whipplece.com>; Brett Griffith <bgriffith@whipplece.corn>; Koschalk, Robb <Robb.Koscha1k@avistacorp.cor > Subject: RE: [External] 2207 -Circle M Street Vacation 4 will differ to Robb for the gas response. Thanks, John Luse Customer Project Coordinator r1111 aVESTA 611x 3727 MSC—lb Spokane.WA 99220 1411 E Mission Ave 5pakane WA 99202 P 509 495 2967 1 '3 P' ,8111 as From: Davis, Blake Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 2:36 PM To: Byus, Dave<Dave.Byus@avistacorp.cam>; Luse,John<John.Luse@avistacnrp.coma; Ryan Andrade <ra nd ra d e @w K i p p lece.com> Cc:Save<save@whipplece,com>; Brett Griffith <bgriffith@whipplece,corn>; Koschalk, Robb <Robb.Koschalk@ avistacorp.com> Subject: RE: [External] 2207 -Circle M Street Vacation To All, No objections from the Avista electric side. Thank you Blake Davis Customer Project Coordinator u4VIST PO Box 3727 MSC-46 Spokane,WA 99220 1411 E Mission Ave Spokane WA 99202 P 509.495 2211 C 509 795.9554 http.Nvi,wor.a vtstautillties c am rYltzi gi This email(Including any attachments)may contain confidential and privileged Information,and unauthorized disclosure or use Is prohibited If you are not an Intended recipient please notify the sender and delete this email from your r_ystem Thank you From: Byus, Dave Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 1:47 PM To: Luse,John<John.Luse@avistacorp.com>; Ryan Andrade<randrade@whipplece.com> Cc:Save<save@whipplece.com]; Brett Griffith cbgriffith@whipplece.com>; Koschalk, Robb <Robb.Koschalk@avistacorp,com>; Davis, Blake<Blake,Davis@avistacorp.com> Subject: RE: [External] 2207- Circle M Street Vacation Ryan, I reviewed the area of Baldwin Ave you are wanting to vacate and have no issues with the request, I believe Modern Electric is the primary service provider for electricity and Avista is the primary service provider for gas. We dont have any gas facilities installed in this portion of Baldwin Ave. I could not locate any easements other than the utility dedication from the original Sullivan Addition plat which I have attached. Unless John, Robb, or Blake have an issue with something I have overlooked I would not oppose this request to vacate this section of Baldwin Ave 2 Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks Dave Byus Real Estate Representative �lll�1►«r TAS PC)b M ,C-e;a Spokane,WA 99220 1411 E Mission Ave MSC-25 Spokane.WA 99202 P 509.495 2013 C 509 993 7852 i,r,n .,,,v avistautllllles.corn 8,11 'ALT beta. This email(including any attachments)may contain confidential and privileged information.and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited If you are not an intended recipient.please notify the sender and delete this email from your system.Thank you From: Luse,John Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 10:25 AM To: Ryan Andrade<randrade@whipplece.com>; Byus, Dave cDave.Byus@avistacorp,com> Cc: Save.clave@whipplece.com>; Brett Griffith rbgriffith@whipplece.com>; Koschalk, Robb <Robb.Koschalk@avistacorp.com>; Davis, Boake <Blake.Davis@ avistacorp.com> Subject: RE: [External] 2207 -Circle M Street Vacation Ryan, I believe the gentleman you are looking for would be Dave Byus. Dave is the Avista Real Estate Rep for the area. Dave, are you aware of this vacation or have any insight for Ryan? Thanks, John Luse Customer Project Coordinator PO Box 3727 MSC-46 Spokane.WA 99220 1411 E Mtssinn Ave Spokane WA 99202 P 509.495.2957 C 509.795.9150 ttttp_rLywyvv avislautilities.corn 3 From: Ryan Andrade [mailto:randrade@whipplece.com] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2019 1:47 PM To:Chris Wafstet<cwafstet@mewco.com>; Bryan StClair<BStClair@mewco.com>; Harvey,Traci <HarveyT@SpokaneValleyFire.com>; Depner, Colin<CDFPNER cx spokanecounty.org>; mar k.welchtcenturylink.cpm; bryan richardson@comcast.com; Luse,John <John.Luse@avistacorp.corn>;Truex, Michael <M ichaeI.Truex@avistacorp.corn> Cc:Save save@whipplece.com>; Brett Griffith<bgriffith@whipplece.coma Subject: [External] 2207-Circle M Street Vacation All, Attached is a PDF showing an exhibit of a proposed street vacation we are proposing for the Circle M Landscape Yard project located at 10620 E Baldwin Avenue in Spokane Valley. Can we please get correspondence from you regarding this vacation,on whether you are good with it or not? Also, if you happen to have any easements or easement documents in this area could you send those to us as well? If you do not have any easements,then no need to worry about sending us anything for that. Let me know if you have any questions with this. Thank you, Ryan Andrade, ElT Civil Engineer Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Phone: 509.893.2617 I Fax: 509.926.0227 E Whipple Consulting Engineers INCE provides Land Development services in rhe kisovvng areas Land&rnryug.Co* Structural And Tral'c Engineering.Lane Miming tend Lar theape Aftluf'flute. tl 841rrh P.iwi Ped•SOOkAnt YO11Fy_WA MN 4 MWlippleCfti m loll USE CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER Do not click on links or open attachments that are not familiar. For questions or concerns, please e-mail phishing@avistacorp.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addresseels)and may contain confidential andtor privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure, if you are not the intended recipient of this message or an agent of the intended recipient,or if this message has been addressed to you In error.please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments, 4 • Ryan Andrade From: Welch, Mark <Mark.Welch©CenturyLink.com Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 1:53 PM To: Ryan Andrade Subject: RE: 2207 - Circle M Street Vacation Hi Ryan, Looks like we have no Facilities in the area of your project. Let me know if you need any more information,.. Thanks! 1-90 • g 0 do (yip o >_ E BALDWIN Lel/5 r� 0 0 0 CO > N_GRA , dLr ,. 11 Mark Welch Engineer II 904 N. Columbus St.. Spokane, WA. 99202 tel: 509,835.4604 cell: 509.700.2705 mark. welchi'a?centuryiink.com ►' CenturyLink• From: Ryan Andrade [ma ilto:randrade@wh i pplece.com] Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 1:47 RM To: Chris Wafstet; Bryan StClair; Harvey, Traci; Depner, Colin; Welch, Mark; bryan_richardson@comcast.com; john.luse@avistacorp.com; michael.truex@avistacorp.com Cc: Save; Brett Griffith Subject: 2207 - Circle M Street Vacation All, Attached is a PDF showing an exhibit of a proposed street vacation we are proposing for the Circle M Landscape Yard project located at 10620 E Baldwin Avenue in Spokane Valley. Can we please get correspondence from you regarding this vacation,on whether you are good with it or not? Also, if you happen to have any easements or easement documents in this area could you send those to us as well? If you do not have any easements, then no need to worry about sending us anything for that. Let me know if you have any questions with this. Thank you. Ryan Andrade, EIT Civil Engineer Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Phone: 509.893.2617 I Fax: 509.925.0227 iWCE Whipple Consulting Engineers L`Jf:f p.`vv+des Land DeKAVrnent ser'ce tan the toioter g areas:Ldnd Sufvrrrny.CM/. StrtrCtttrdr 4/10 Traffic Enclarreerrn9.Lwid r+Ltru av zwd tarutscape ArdateCtuce 21 Sancta P,nilt Rnad1•Syrokanc Vdrte•.WA P12"04 WhIppliCf corn tri atei This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments. COMCAST March 1, 2019 Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. ATTN: Ryan Andrade 21 SPines Rd Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Vacation of right of Way. Circle M Street Vacation Comcast has reviewed the vacation request. We have no objections to the vacation. If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, e.��;t/• Jf +� `t3rvan Ri` hardkon J if—7 Contractor Coordinator for Comcast Cable, Spokane (509)755-4717 1717 E Buckeye Spokane. WA 99207 www,comcastcorporation.eom L=5034', R=11360.00' -- -�--.__ •.�\ CJ a' CITY REQUESTED / '' TATE 9p �, �`� `1 STREET VACATION o 0 ,�; 90 m APPROXIMATELYTAX PARCEL TAX PARCEL E-4b - 12,926 S.F. . #450931519 50.86' #46093.1518 14.00 609.12` 19.90` f / //////////////2 /rrrTfi,,////,rifi/i/ /� AA D1rIN AYENU (INDI, NA A V ENUF� ) , 0 9_32' o- 1-9a /PROPOSED STREET VACATION APPROXIMATELY 41,022.45 S.F. ' ca PONENTI4N //./.iai//fi/i/rr//11rsf//iirlff ,,rz,,,,,r//FiG POND L o \`.\ 0 669.0€3' 1 g '''`,74' \ pu:4 --s., 54.00' VACATION LIMITS TAX PARCEL #45093,1519 1 PROPOSED 5.0 FEET TAX PARCEL FROM END OF ROAD W #45093.2401 '__ IMPROVEMENTS I 1 I f r 1 E4 GO' 1I 1 I I { 'I Cf) 1 2 3 I4 5 6 7r� 8 9 10I 1II I3- � I f I 14 l SULLIVAN Co; q� I ADDITION 00 00 MISSION RIDGE 2ND ADDITION f n NORA AVENUE in — -- - — cLI MISSION RIDGE FIRST ADI3ITION ~ _ I PROJ #: 1 S-2207 N DATE: 03-0B-19 EXHIBIT AWC-E DRAFTEE) BY: BAG TRW PROPOSED STREET VACATION REVIEWED ay;TRW SCALE: t"=1❑n W E B A L d W I N AVENUE WHI3PtE CoNsULTING ENGINEERS SPOKANE VALLEY, WASH INI TON 21SPINES MAO SHEET T ❑f T SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9l E PH 544-993-2637 FAX 4-P2&g737 Project #(-'-''.40---,:9-014?-"C= I RECEIVED MAR 08 2019 CSV PERMIT CENTER SUB # - , REV. # Spokane4.000 �``"' Val ley NOTICE OF APPLICATION MAILING PACKET P r ca peat =j3-11 { !r WO MEMORANDUM RECEIVED To: Title Company MAR U 8 "2OI9 FROM: Department of Community Development. Planning Division SUBJECT: Notice of Application Owner/Taxpayer List CSS PERMIT CENTER SUB 1 REV. # 1 1 Please furnish a list of the owners and taxpayers of record of all properties adjacent to the proposal (or total adjoining ownership; including optioned land, to the extent known) as outlined on the accompanying Spokane County Assessor's map(s). FILE No, : PART III TITLE COMPANY AND APPLICANT CERTIFICATION TITLE COMPANY CERTIFICATION I do hereby certify that the following list of names and addresses, consisting of the attached pages from the Spokane County Assessor's or Treasurer's most current computer records, is to the best of my knowledge correct. I also certify i have provided loan numbers, if possible. when the owner is fisted as a finance company. Signed by: Debbie Richardson Date: 211912019 'Title Company Official) For. Spokane County Title tCanpany game) APPI ICANT cFRTIFICATION I. the applicant or agent for the applicant, have verified the attached ownership list with the attached Assessor's map(s) and find that all tax parcel numbers adjacent to the project site, including owned or optioned land as shown on the Assessor's map(s) have been listed by the Title Company. Applicant: KI HIPPIE CONS iL-TwGz 1A 61,(EE,?S (Fant Name) Signed by: Date: 3 — I 1 I PL-33 Vi 0 Page 3 of 45084.1314 45084.0401 University View Estates Pud Owners 45093.1519 Circle M Family Properties LLC Assoc Circle M Family Properties LLC 4107E Broadway 4107E Broadway Spokane, WA 99202 1806 N Oberlin Rd Spokane, WA 99202 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 45093.2401 Thomas Flake 4729 View Cr Everett, WA 98203 EXH I BIT 4 Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 10 of 11 May 15,2019 on- a Community & Public Works Department .Mdl ley Building &Planning Division NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING THE SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS SENDING THIS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ALL PETITIONERS(IF ANY)AND ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING THE STREET PROPOSED TO BE VACATED BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT RECORDS FROM THE SPOKANE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OR TREASURER'S OFFICE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE LAND USE APPLICATION LISTED BELOW: HEARING DATE: May 23, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. HEARING LOCATION: Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, City Hall, 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206. REVIEW AUTHORITY: Spokane Valley Planning Commission STAFF: Connor Lange, Planner; (509) 720-5332; clange@,spokanevalley.org. FILE NUMBER: STV-2019-0002 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Request to vacate unimproved sections of Baldwin Avenue (669 feet in length), University Road (225 feet in length) and Glenn Road (19 feet in length). The right-of-way widths vary ranging from 50 to 64 feet. PROPOSAL LOCATION: The portion of right-of-ways proposed to be vacated are located between Interstate 90 (north) and Nora Avenue (south) and adjacent to three parcels (45093.1519, 45084.0401 and 45084.1314) further located in the SW quarter of the SW quarter of Section 9, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane Valley, Washington APPLICANT:Whipple Consulting Engineers (Attn: Brett Griffith); 21 S Pines Rd; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 OWNER: Circle M Family Properties LLC; 2123 N Pines Road; Spokane Valley, WA 99216 HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEALS: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct the hearing pursuant to 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 proposed amendment to the Spokane Valley City Council. Appeals shall be pursuant to SVMC 19.90 Appeals ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Planning Division has reviewed the proposal/project and has determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 and City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC); Title 21 (Environmental Controls) from environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA). STAFF REPORT AND INSPECTION OF FILE: A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days prior to the hearing at 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 City of Spokane Valley Department of Community and Public Works, 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206; Attn: Connor Lange, File No. STV-2019-0002 SPECIAL ASSISTANCE: Individuals planning to attend the public hearing who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 720-5102 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. EXHIBIT 5 Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2019-0002 Page 11 of 11 May 15,2019 To: Connor Lange CC: From: Jenn Bruner Date: Friday, May 10, 2019 Planning/Building Subject STV-2019-0002 Stage: Final Phase: Vacate sections of Baldwin, University, Address:Baldwin and University CO01 Comment: Because the street vacation would leave a parcel that will not have access to public sewer, a sanitary sewer easement, with a width acceptable to the Environmental Services Department, will be required for parcel 45093.2401. A 20' public sanitary sewer easement will be required in lieu of using the public right of way that is to be vacated. Connor Lange From: Chris Wafstet <cwafstet@mewco.com> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 1:39 PM To: Connor Lange Subject: RE: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Connor: Modern Electric Water Co does not have any facilities (electric or water) that would be impacted by the vacation process. If the owner has any requirement for new infrastructure and/or the relocation of any existing infrastructure in and around the project site, they will need contact us (MEWCo) to initiate the new construction procedure. Any other questions, please let me know. Thank You GIS Operator Modern Electric Water Company Phone: (509) 928-4540 Direct: (509) 755-9006 cwafstet@mewco.com F7.7 ODERN ELECTRIC ,. COMPANY reliably serving the Spokane Valley since 1905 Cali 8I1 tYafore yim dig,. From:Connor Lange <clange@spokanevalley.org> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 1:30 PM To: Chris Wafstet<cwafstet@mewco.com>;jbruner@spokanecounty.org; CKnudson@spokanecounty.org; CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org Subject: FW:STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Good afternoon all, I am working on my Staff Report for the street vacation south of 1-90 for portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road. 1 didn't see in the application materials where either Spokane County Environmental Services or Modern Electric had provided a response to Ryan Andrade and didn't see any comments during the Agency Comment period. 1 am just checking to make sure that SC Env.Services & Modern doesn't have any facilities that would be impacted by the vacation process.Thank you From:Connor Lange Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2019 3:53 PM To: Bill Helbig<bhelbig@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips<cphillips@spokanevalley.org>; Ray Wright 1 \ ( Connor Lange From: Wardlaw, Dennis (DAHP) <dennis.wardlaw@dahp.wa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 9:47 AM To: Connor Lange Subject: RE: 5TV'2019'0002_AgencyRouting Hi Conner, DAHP has no concerns with this project. Regards, Dennis Dennis Wardlaw, MA. Transportation Archaeologist Dept. of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 111UCapitol Way South,Suite 30 Olympia, WA 98501 Voice: 360'386'3085 Cell: 360-485-5014 please consider the environment before printing this email From: Connor Lange<clangespokanevalley.org> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 10:35 AM To:SEPA(DAHP) <sepa@dahp.wa.gov> Subject: FW: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Please review the attached proposal to vacate a portion of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road between Interstate 90 (north) and Nora Avenue (south). Comments are requested by Thursday, May 2, 2019. Thank you From:Connor Lange Sent:Thursday, April 1O, Z0193:33PK8 To: Bill Helbig<bhelbigPspokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips<cphillips@spokanevallev.org>; Ray Wright <rwright@spokanevalley.org>; Shane Arlt<sarlt@spokanevalley.org>;Traci Harvey<harveyt@spokanevalleyfire.com>; Spokane Valley Fire (inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com) <inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com>; CKnudsonVDspokanecounty.org; CBEPNER@spokanecountVorg; 'jb/uner@spokanecounty.org' <ibruner@spokonecountv.org>; 'Paul Savage' <psavaqe@srhd.orq>; Chris Wafstet (Modern Electric) <cwafstet@mewco.com>; figgg@wsdot.wa.gov; `N3tterstnom@spukanetransit.cono' <KOtteotronn@spokanetransit.cono>; dave.byus@avbtacorp.com; Karen. Stoddard /karen,stoddard@century|ink.conn\ <karen.stoddard@centurylink.com>; bryan richardsonff@cab\e.comcast.com; Christine 1 Connor Lange From: Chad Phillips Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 8:57 AM To: Connor Lange Cc: Ray Wright; Ryan Kipp; Bill Helbig; Shane Arlt; Chad Riggs;Aaron Clary Subject: RE: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Connor Stormwater has no concerns with the proposed vacations. Existing stormwater facilities are in place at end of current roadway improvements. Thanks Chad Chad Phillips, P.E. I Engineer,Stormwater 10210 E.Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley,WA 99206 (509)720-5013 I cphillips@spokanevalley.org lite .. .•.. r ne Eley_ This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act,chapter 42.56 RCW. From:Connor Lange Sent:Thursday,April 18, 2019 3:53 PM To: Bill Helbig<bhelbig@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips<cphillips@spokanevalley.org>; Ray Wright <rwright@spokanevalley.org>;Shane Arlt<sarlt@spokanevalley.org>;Traci Harvey<harveyt@spokanevalleyfire.com>; Spokane Valley Fire (inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com) <inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com>; CKnudson@spokanecounty.org; CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org;jbruner@spokanecounty.org; Paul Savage <psavage@srhd.org>; Chris Wafstet (Modern Electric)<cwafstet@mewco.com>;figgg@wsdot.wa.gov; KOtterstrom@spokanetransit.com; dave.byus@avistacorp.com; Karen.Stoddard (karen.stoddard@centurylink.com) <karen.stoddard@centurylink.com>; bryan_richardson@cable.comcast.com; Christine <CMCMAHONCHASE@spokanecounty.org>; Grepp@spokanecounty.org;crjohnston@spokanesheriff.org;Wardlaw, Dennis (DAHP) <dennis.wardlaw@dahp.wa.gov>; Stephanie.Jolivette@dahp.wa.gov Subject:STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Hello all, Please review the attached proposal to vacate a portion of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road between Interstate 90 (north) and Nora Avenue (south). Comments are requested by Thursday, May 2, 2019. Thank you Connor Lange I Planner 10210 E.Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley,WA 99206 1 Connor Lange From: John Hohman Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 4:46 PM To: Connor Lange; Ryan Kipp Cc: Jenny Nickerson; Ray Wright Subject: RE: STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Connor, I suggest that you incorporate a statement such as "Staff recommends the City retain the University right of way for future needs that are currently unforeseen" or something similar. I believe this is a safe position for us to take. Thanks, John From:Connor Lange Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 3:04 PM To: Ryan Kipp<rkipp@spokanevalley.org>;John Hohman<jhohman@spokanevalley.org> Cc:Jenny Nickerson<jnickerson@spokanevalley.org>; Ray Wright<rwright@spokanevalley.org> Subject: RE:STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Hello Ryan &John, I am requesting some clarification regarding the comments made on April 19th from Traffic for the Street Vacation (SW- 2019-0002). It was my initial interpretation based on feedback I received that the Fehr& Peers study demonstrated that the cost of the University overpass was significant based on the level of service it would actually provide.Therefore, not making it feasible. I am preparing my staff report for the Public Hearing to Planning Commission and want to clear up the record regarding the University Road overpass issue. At this point it appears the application complies with appropriate portions of SVMC and I could recommend approval to the PC. However,without amended comments from Traffic my recommendation would exclude University Road from the proposal to be vacated? If the position of the city is that the University Road overpass scenario is infeasible then I would request updated comments from Ryan stating that Traffic has no issues with the vacation going forward as is. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you From: Ray Wright Sent: Friday,April 19, 2019 9:06 AM To:Connor Lange<clange@spokanevalley.org> Cc: Ryan Kipp<rkipp@spokanevalley.org> Subject: FW:STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Connor, please see Ryan's Traffic comments below. Thank you, Ray 1 From: Ryan Kipp Sent: Friday,April 19,2019 8:33 AM To: Ray Wright<rwright@spokanevalley.org>; Bill Helbig<bhelbig@spokanevalley.org>; Shane Arlt <sarlt@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips<cphillips@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Riggs<criggs@spokanevalley.org> Subject: RE:STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Traffic would not recommend the vacation of University ROW. There are have numerous discussions in the past of there being some type of overpass over 1-90. Traffic would be okay with the vacation of the ROW of Baldwin. However are there any requirements for there being some type of turn around on University? Ryan From: Ray Wright Sent:Thursday,April 18, 2019 4:04 PM To: Ryan Kipp<rkipp@spokanevailey.org> Subject: FW:STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting FYI From:Connor Lange Sent:Thursday,April 18, 2019 3:53 PM To: Bill Helbig<bhelbig@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips<cphillips@spokanevalley.org>; Ray Wright <rwright@spokanevalley.org>; Shane Arlt<sarlt@spokanevalley.org>;Traci Harvey<harveyt@spokanevalleyfire.com>; Spokane Valley Fire (inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com) <inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com>; CKnudson@spokanecountv.org; CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org; jbruner@spokanecounty.org; Paul Savage <psavage@srhd.org>;Chris Wafstet (Modern Electric)<cwafstet@mewco.com>; figgg@wsdot.wa.gov; KOtterstrom@spokanetransit.com; dave.byus@avistacorp.com; Karen. Stoddard (karen.stoddard@centurylink.com) <karen.stoddard@centurvlink.com>; bryan richardson@cable.comcast.com; Christine <CMCMAHONCHASE@spokanecounty.org>; Grepp@spokanecounty.org;criohnston@spokanesheriff.org;Wardlaw, Dennis (DAHP)<dennis.wardlaw@dahp.wa.gov>; StephanieJoiivette@dahp.wa.gov Subject:STV-2019-0002_AgencyRouting Hello all, Please review the attached proposal to vacate a portion of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road between Interstate 90 (north)and Nora Avenue (south). Comments are requested by Thursday, May 2, 2019. Thank you Connor Lange I Planner 10210 E.Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley,WA 99206 (509)720-5332 I clanae@spokanevallev.org ' t ne This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act,chapter 42.56 RCW. 2 BRYAN COLLINS, FIRE CIIIEF En Orin 4)46.20$6.- 2120 N.Wilbur SpokunoVaUey,VWA002O6 (5O9)9]8l700Main (509)892-4125 Fax April 1O. 2O19 ��'- a'- r�' osmokanava|leyMre.com ��r .,' ,- ' m - � � City ofSpokane VoUay �~ =��D 10210 E. Sprague Avenue � ��U Spokane VoUay. VVA 99206 " � ~"'� RE: GT\/ 2019-0002 �|ryk 1� SPOK�NEV'LL LEY Between 1-90 and Nora Avenue-Baldwin Avenue; University Road & Glenn Road The Spokane Valley Fire Department has completed a review for the above referenced project and has no comments on the Street Vacation. AH specific fire department requirements shall be conditioned on future commercial permits. If there are any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, :-.:9/9aftY r_^_y&ive,«�Y� ,� Traci Harvey Fire Protection Engineer Spokane Valley Fire Department , , . " " " Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall May 9, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. LI Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter,absent- excused Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Timothy Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McKinley Connor Lange, Planner Michael Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Matt Walton Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioner Kaschmitter was excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to amend the May 9,2019 agenda. The motion was to add item La, Findings and Recommendations for CTA-2018-0005 to review and correct an error. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six irifavnr, zero opposed, and the motion passed V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 25, 2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he did not attend any City Council meeting however he did watch the televised meetings. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. V11I. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: La. Amended Findings and Recommendations for CTA-2018-0005 Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained that staff recognized a discrepancy in the Findings and Recommendations for CTA-2018-0005 being forwarded to the City Council for review at the Tuesday May 14, 2019 meeting. The Commission denied the request, however the discrepancy found was in the last sentence of the introductory paragraph of the Findings and Recommendations. The language struck from the Findings and Recommendations read "`l'he following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation that City Coune�h= R ;ndme t". The language was changed to accurately reflect the Commission's action by striking the last six words of the sentence. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 12 Commissioner Walton moved to approve the amended Findings of Fact for CTA-20.18- 0005 TA-2018- 0005 as presented. Commissioner Walton explained the intent was to correct the language in order to reflect the deliberation and vote,he was in favor of the adopted language. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed and the motion passed. Public Hearing: CTA-2018-0006, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 1.9.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affordable housing and multifamily development. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. Ms. Barlow provided background information into the privately initiated code text amendment (CTA). Ms. Barlow advised that staff reviewed the application for environmental impact and a determination of non-significance was issued March 29,2019. The notice of public hearing was posted in the newspaper as well as on the City's website. Ms. Barlow clarified that this proposal is a CTA which is not site-specific,therefore on site posting requirements did not apply. Ms. Barlow continued that the Commission conducted a study session of this proposal on April 25, 2019 and are conducting the public hearing to consider public comment. Ms. Barlow highlighted a recent change the City Council made to the Governance Manual. The Council will no longer take public comment on items that have had a public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission. Ms. Barlow stressed that the opportunity for public comment will only be during the Planning Commissions public hearing. Once a recommendation is made by the Planning Commission, it would be formalized in the Findings of Fact scheduled for May 23,2019. Ms. Barlow continued, the proposals intent is to allow multifamily (MF) in the residential (R-3) zone as long as it meets supplemental regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that currently multifamily is only allowed in multifamily residential and both mixed use zones. This proposal would change the Permitted Use Matrix SVMC 19.60.050 by adding an"S" indicating multifamily could be allowed but subject to supplemental use regulations. Ms. Barlow described that this proposal would add supplemental language to SVMC 19.65.130 stating that multifamily could be allowed if it complies with Chapter 19.40 of SVMC Alternative Residential Development Options.The newly added section, 19.40.035 identifies that multifamily in the R-3 zone would be allowed if specific criteria are met for applicability, site and building standards and other related agreements. Ms. Barlow continued that in order for a development to utilize this section of the code at least 51%of the units proposed must be used for affordable housing. Ms.Barlow continued the property must be a single parcel under single ownership. The parcel uses must include a church, school and multifamily units all located on a site at least 10-20 acres in size. Ms. Barlow continued that the entire site can be used to calculate the six dwelling units per acre as the maximum density allowed in the R-3 zoning district, Currently the R-3 zone does not allow multifamily development but does allow single family development at a density of six dwelling units per acre. Ms. Barlow explained this amendment proposes to utilize the entire site to calculate what could have been allowed for single family development, but then allows the units to be clustered in the form of a multifamily development, For example, if you have a 10-acre parcel allowing six dwelling units per acre it would allow for 60 single family residential dwelling units. The proposal would allow you to develop 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 12 a site that has a school and church with 60 dwelling units in a multifamily complex which would maintain the density that is established within the R-3 Zone. Ms.Barlow advised the school,church and multifamily may share parking and open space to help prevent overbuilding. Ms. Barlow continued highlighting other criteria that applies when specific circumstances exist, such as natural amenities will be incorporated into the site,buildings that include parking structures shall have design continuity to look as if they are part of a campus and pedestrian areas shall be delineated and protected. Ms. Barlow continued with development standards and noted that the proposal identified that it must meet residential standards in the Dimensional and Standards Table 19.70-01, which includes a building height limit of 35 feet, and setbacks,to maintain the surrounding character. Ms. Barlow continued that the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet is not applicable since the criteria requires the lot size has to be 10-20 acres in size. The development must provide at least 10% of the gross area of the site for open space. Ms. Barlow explained other requirements would be agreements to ensure compliance with all criteria for the life of the project. The conditions will run with the land and will not transfer with the owner. Ms. Barlow continued this would be processed as a Type III Permit that requires a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)and gave an overview of the process.Ms. Barlow explained that through the CUP process uses that may have unanticipated impacts could be conditioned by the Hearing Examiner to mitigate those impacts, or the permit could be denied completely. Ms. Barlow highlighted the items discussed by the Commission during the study session. As part of the proposal at least 51% of the units proposed must be used for affordable housing and it was asked what that figure included. Ms. Barlow explained the federal standard for affordable housings definition includes housing and utilities. The other item discussed was pertaining to the number of existing sites in the City that could support this proposal. Staff's analysis within the staff report identified 75 properties within the City owned by churches. Out of those 75 sites, 25 of them are in the R-3 zone and two of those properties meet the 10 acre minimum criteria. Of those two sites one has both a school and a church. Ms. Barlow explained that this information shows a snap shot in time as all circumstances could change. Ms. Barlow added that these regulations are not limited to existing churches and schools, the regulations state that if multifamily were to be allowed in the R-3 zone it would have to be in conjunction with a church and a school. Anyone could aggregate land and propose a development with a church, school and multifamily component. Ms.Barlow explained the City's GIS specialist queried single property owners within the R-3 zone that would meet the criteria and identified eight sites. If this proposal were adopted this could apply to those eight sites owned by a single property owner within the R-3 zone. Ms. Barlow highlighted procedural recommendations and urged the Commission to consider the public comments provided. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was a determination as to why the limit was 20 acres? Ms. Barlow advised the applicant may be able to address that question. Ms. Barlow stressed that this proposal is not a City initiated proposal and has been proposed by Catholic Charities, the City is processing the request. Commissioner Johnson asked if the City has a definition of a church and a school in order to determine if anyone could open a church and one grade level school and meet the criteria. Ms. Barlow explained the City does have a definition for schools, this proposal does not identify as a public or private school. However, it is assumed to be private as it is associated with a church. It was determined the City has a definition for a church and it was read aloud. It was concluded the City would automatically defer to the City's definition if the language was not provided in the 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 12 proposal. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of nonprofit not being identified in the definition and it was concluded that either profit based or nonprofit organizations could apply. Commissioner McKinley asked for clarification that currently only one site fit the criteria; it was concluded to be accurate. There was discussion that a property could exceed the maximum and only utilize the amount the property needed; but property could also be aggregated to fit the criteria. Ms. Barlow added that the City received three additional comments, from Daniel and Deborah Hipple, Sara Goulart and Kim Helm. Each comment stressed they are in opposition and all live within close proximity to the St. Vianney church site. Johnathan Mallahan Vice President of housing for Catholic Charities of Eastern Washington provided an informational video depicting Catholic Charities mission. Mr. Mallahan spoke about the need for affordable housing for seniors. Mr.Mallahan explained that Catholic Charities strives to develop the support of communities and bring dignity to vulnerable individuals. He explained Catholic Charities has a variety of programs that provide basic needs to include food, security, access to employment, counselling and housing. He continues that Catholic Charities provides over 1,300 units of affordable housing throughout Easter Washington that serves seniors, families, homeless and farmworkers. Mr. Mallahan explained Catholic social teachings believe that individuals deserve basic human dignity that these project provide. Mr. Mallahan touched on other developers and explained that their mission may be different than Catholic Charites. Mr. Mallahan explained they have been transparent to surrounding neighbors and will do what they can to mitigate any impacts. Mr. Mallahan discussed discriminating to one population and explained that natural limits dictate who can be served on a campus with a church and a school. He went on to explain you couldn't put a low barrier housing project on a parcel that has a school as you wouldn't be able to attain funding. Adding that it wouldn't be in compliance as you have to accept individuals into those project with criminal history and with a school on site that wouldn't be appropriate. Lastly, Mr. Mallahan continued that seniors often times downsize due to retirement and income changes and this would allow seniors to stay in the community they are accustom to. Mr. Mallahan stated this proposal is in keeping with the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding affordable housing. He addressed housing costs stating they have increased by 29% with only a 6%household income increase. This will push individuals out of housing and is disproportionate to seniors due to fixed incomes. Catholic Charities would like to afford seniors the opportunity to age in place, reduce the frequency of moving and explained the importance of the onsite social services affording the assistance to help seniors to live independently. Mr. Mallahan concluded by thanking the Commission and stated that if this proposal passes Catholic Charities will proceed with applying for funding and a CUP for development. Commissioner Walton identified for the record that he knows Mr. Mallahan as they attended Gonzaga University together. Commissioner Walton stated he has no affiliation with Catholic Charities and did not intended to recuse himself from deliberation. Commission Johnson also advised he has worked with Catholic Charities and Rob McCann is a member of the Spokane County Human Rights Tasks force with him. Commissioner Johnson does not have reason to support the charity other than their ultimate goals and is viewing the proposal and how it would affect other properties within the City. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 12 Commissioner Kelley asked the applicant if the main goal is intended for Senior Citizens then why isn't it stated as such? Mr. Mallahan explained that listing a specific population in code could be a liability and a violation of fair housing standards. Deputy City Attorney Eric Lamb explained that the Office of the City Attorney would also have concerns with listing specific protected classes whether based on disability or age, the City does not discriminate and does not want to discriminate. Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant why they chose the 51%as the number of units to be low income? Mr. Mallahan advised that is a common standard with public funding and aids in obtaining funding. Commissioner Johnson also asked what the reason was for limiting to 20 acres? Mr. Mallahan explained the internet was to narrow the amount of land that this would apply too,but at this time realized that the upper limit didn't add value to this proposal. Commissioners Johnson asked about parking and the overflow concerns with overlap of those at home during church services. Mr. Mallahan explained that parishioners typically traveling to attend the services would now be living on site and attending the services with no additional parking impacts. Commissioner Johnson asked staff if there was a way to limit or encourage additional parking? Ms. Barlow explained those items would be worked out through the CUP process. Ms. Barlow stressed how the CUP process is the tool to address unanticipated impacts that the Hearing Examiner would review. Commissioner Johnson asked about shared space and asked what the applicants vision was? Mr. Mallahan explained that this project is an appropriate context for shared as well as separate space for the school. Commissioner Johnson stated his concerns for open space and security issues for the school. Ms.Barlow explained that security measures would be put in place by the owner and operator of the schools. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of nonprofit or for-profit business and his concern is the entities that might take advantage of the locations that staff identified. Mr. Mallahan stated that naturally the 51%requirement provides a disincentive to develop for-profit. Net operation income potential for a property with 51% affordability is limited and drives down the revenue, those developers would find less cumbersome opportunities in other areas of the City. Commissioner Johnson asked if the applicant would be opposed to 60% and Mr. Mallahan advised they would not. Commissioner Walton asked staff if the City currently asks for trip generation studies within the MFR zone if they exceed density? Ms. Barlow explained that trip generation studies are required based on the number of trips generated during peak hour traffic. If a project is expected to generate more than 10 peak hour trips a study would be required. Ms. Barlow added that concurrency is also required as part of the study from the City's Senior traffic engineer. Commissioner Walton asked the applicant to explain the application process. Mr. Mallahan explained they are a fair housing provider and everyone is welcome to apply. He continued that there is ability within the fare hosing rules to have communities that serve senior populations exclusively. The applicant would have to be 62 years of age or older, they perform a background and credit check to ensure a safe environment and that the applicant has the ability to afford the housing.Mr.Mallahan noted not each property would use the same criminal background check standards depending on location. Commissioner Walton asked if citizenship was required as part of the population served were farmworkers? Mr. Mallahan advised that is not a part of the process. Kathi Lankford, Walnut Road; Ms. Lankford stated she lives directly across the street from the site. She understands the need for affordable housing however feels it needs to be in the right area, not in an R-3 zone. Gary Graupner, 10219 E Valleyway Avenue; Mr. Graupner advised his largest concern is the same now as it was before, traffic impacts. He stated that between Felts Road and 05-09-2019 Nanning Commission Minutes Pale G of 12 Harold Road their will a new development of thirteen houses. He does not want to see Valleyway Avenue become another Broadway by making Valleyway Avenue a through street from Argonne Road to University Road. He asked that they find another location and is opposed. Mark Zielfelder,417 N Harold Road; Mr. Zielfelder explained that his concerns are the same as they were 8 years ago. He is concerned about traffic impacts and for the infrastructure. He works for the City of Spokane Water and stated the water infrastructure would not be able to support this project and gave examples as to why. He feels there are too many variables that need to be looked at. He added that no one wants to see the removal of the Walnut trees to accommodate for sidewalks. Mr. Zielfelder stated the video presented showed that the project was clearly in a commercial zone not in a neighborhood. Thomas Dixon, 608 N Farr Road;Mr. Dixon explained the church is in his backyard, He and his wife chose to buy in this area due to the character and location. He is concerned with traffic impacts. He advised he supports Catholic Charities however is opposed to this proposal. Linda Dixon, 608 N Farr Road; Mrs. Dixon explained this is the second time they have gone through this. Mrs.Dixon continued they live in a great neighborhood and do not want to see this neighborhood ruined. She added they didn't know this was happening until last night when someone put a note on their door. Michael Lehman,9920 E Broadway;Mr. Lehman was concerned with the unknowns and that there were no studies being done regarding traffic or water. He found it hard to believe there were no adverse impacts. He continued that he was thankful for the video presented but felt it was terrible as it proved to be in a commercial zone with access to public transit, none of these items would be accessible on Walnut Road. He feels there are too many unanswered questions and is opposed, IKen Marks 10001 E Broadway Ave; Agrees with Mr. Lehman Dave Fode, 124 N Walnut Roadd; Mr. Fode explained that current zones protect us from situations like these. He feels this would decrease his property value and also agrees with the concerns for the infrastructure. Christine Fode,124 N Walnut Road; Mrs.Fode explained she moved to the area because she liked the street. She was shocked to receive a letter dated April 30th from Catholic Charities and St.Vianney Church. She is not opposed to affordable housing;she is opposed to the CTA as the zoning needs to stay Single Family. Joann Maxfield,205 N Walnut Road; She agrees with all public comments and it mostly concerned with traffic. Sandy Holder, 9814 E Valleyway, Ms. Holder agrees with all public comments and expressed her concerns for property values going down and the unknowns. Ms. Ilolder is concerned with traffic impacts should Valleyway Avenue be opened up. She has a deaf child and is concerned for the safety of those with disabilities. She is also concerned with overflow parking as the church holds events a few times a year wherethey block off the street. She is opposed to this proposal and suggested relocating this to a commercial property. Sadie Lieuallen, 123 N Walnut Road,Ms. Lieuallen agrees with all public comments and is opposed. Ryan Lieuallen, 123 N Walnut Road,agrees with MCS. Licuallen. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 12 Levi Strauss, 302 N Walnut Road, Mr. Strauss explained that eight years ago it was determined to be a bad idea and still is. He continued that parking and traffic are already a problem as the current students get dropped off and picked up by their parents. Mr. Strauss continued that Catholic Charities is big business trying to make money with no respect for the neighborhood. Mr. Strauss continued that this monstrosity is too big and doesn't fit and asked the commission not to institutionalize the neighborhood. Mr. Strauss concluded that he had a problem with Commissioner Walton not recusing himself. Chair Johnson reminded the audience to remain respectful to all those in the room. Commissioner Walton staled he felt it important that the Commission is professional and appreciated the statement in terms of the audience, Commissioner Walton pointed out that the Commission is allowing extended public comment rather than limiting comments to three-minutes that they have the ability to do. Ne reminded the audience that ifthey are repeating comments to keep them succinct. Karen Stroud, 302 N Walnut Road; Ms. Stroud stated she received a letter left on her front door regarding this meeting. Her concern is that the church already creates a lot of traffic from the school and is also concerned with parking and is opposed. Claudia Nelson, 707 N Walnut Road; Ms. Nelson stated that she and Mr. Kuder agree with all comments, it is hard to get out onto Walnut Road as it is and they are opposed. Tim Bieber, 312 N Farr Road; Mr. Bieber explained he will use the same statement lie used eight years ago. The founders of the valley built Walnut Street to symbolize a hub of the valley and created building restrictions to protect it. Mr. Bieber stated we have to respect unwritten constitution. Mr. Bieber stated he doesn't want to move out of the neighborhood as it's worth keeping pure.Mr.Bieber added that if this proposal is approved it will destroy the neighborhood and he is opposed. Shelly Stevens, South Hill; Ms. Stevens explains she no longer lives on Walnut Road partially due to the proposal eight years ago and she gave details into the trials the neighborhood had. Ms. Stevens reminded the Commission that Rob McCann advised all of the City council members to resign based on their decision to deny the previous request. Ms. Stevens explained the 51% suggested does apply to for-profit builders as long as they are a low income property for a specific number of years. Ms. Stevens added that this is about money, and stated that St Vianney is listed in bankruptcy. Ms. Stevens added that she could not believe Rob McCann wasn't present and sent someone else. Commissioner Walton wanted to reiterate that public comments needed to be directed to the dais. He,felt it unfortunate that while tensions are high with strong opinions that members of the audience would get personal and asked again that those comments be directed to the dais. Commissioner Kelley slated he,felt that everyone present knows what Commissioner Walton just said. He agreed that some individuals may have been carried away due to emotion and added that Commissioner Walton's' constant interrupting or comments when someone speaks to the issue is intimidating. lie told Commissioner Walton that he feels he needs to stand down as the audience knows what the rules are and are doing a good job cit holding back emotions and stated he had heard enough. Commissioner Walton moved for a three-minute recess; with no second, the motion failed for the lack of a second. Daniel Hipple, 313 N Walnut Road; Mr, Hippie explained that he has the most to lose out of anyone due to where he is located. He continued by thanking the Commission for representing the public and hearing what is being said. Mr. Hippie advised he had done some calculations and advised that within 10-20 acres there could be 76 units however,this 05-09-20 9 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 12 proposal is talking about one acre within the property. Mr. Hippie asked the Commissioners if this were going to happen a few feet from where they live would they be attending the meeting on the other side? Rick Woods, 608 N Walnut Road; Mr. Wood explained that he works downtown one block away from the IIouse of Charity. He is concerned that the type of individuals he sees at work will move into his neighborhood and is strongly opposed. Robert Popendick, 426 N Walnut Road; Mr. Popendick lives directly across the street and stated the traffic is already a problem. He added that his concern is also the infrastructure. He heard the school is in bankruptcy and if it goes under does it disqualify the property from being built? He's also concerned that they are using this building to keep the school funded and feels that is wrong. Mike Gleason,5211 N Allen Place; Mr. Gleason advised he does not live in the area and was there in support of the Hippie's at 313 N Walnut Road. Mr. Gleason stated he has been in the real estate business for 28 years and has a 10 unit building in Browns Addition. He gave examples of his average rent to be $750.00 and has two vacancies. Mr. Gleason asked the Commission if they lived in the neighborhood would they want a 76 unit building across the street? Jan Rulea, 3218 N Elton Road; Ms. Rulea used to own a home at 9802 E Valleyway Avenue. She too is concerned with what the building will look like, traffic problems and with the water and sewer. There have been problems with the sewer before. Ms. Rulea is also concerned with the possibility of extending Valleyway Avenue,she is opposed. Todd Shucks, 116 N Walnut; Mr. Shucks is opposed to the proposal. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 8:04 PM Commissioner Rasmussen asked staff about the concerns she heard regarding water and how the City reviews water uses? Ms. Barlow explained that this proposal is to consider the legislative action to make a change to our code. The request is to allow for a development like this to be proposed and Catholic Charities is being transparent with their hope to move forward. Ms. Barlow explained that during review of an application, agencies with jurisdiction would be contacted, including the water and sewer purveyors. Currently there is no project under review therefore those items have not been looked at. Mr. Lamb added that during review of an application the City does have water concurrency requirement. The applicant would have to demonstrate that there is adequate water for the project and would have to obtain a certificate of water concurrency from the specific water agency before being allowed to move forward, Commissioner Johnson asked if the letter provided by Catholic Charities was a requirement? Ms. Barlow explained that it was not a requirement and Catholic Charities took it upon themselves in an effort to be transparent with the surrounding neighbors. Commissioner Walton stated it is clear by the turn out that there is strong opinion and a lot of good valid concerns were brought up. Commissioner Walton added he can sympathize that if something like this were to happen in his neighborhood he would be on the other side in the audience. He added that there are a lot of unanswered questions for the proposal and that the Commission were reviewing a zoning change that would allow any applicant to apply. He added that he understands bow difficult it may be to focus on the broad implications when currently there is only one property that fits the criteria, Commissioner Walton continued that he is on the fence as lie has strong concerns related to the for-profit entity could come forward,the definition of a church provides some issues moving forward and the idea of a school on the property is the most limiting factor. Commissioner Walton 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 32 continued that he struggles that this is a narrowly tailored idea. He concluded that there arc zones within the Valley that are more conducive to this type of development, however asking a church to purchase property in these areas does put a burden on them due to cost. Commissioner Walton thanked the public for testifying. Commissioner McKinley thanked Catholic Charities for the presentation and the public for their comments. He stated his concerns are due to only one property currently fitting the criteria and he cannot support this due to its small pinpointed scope. Commissioner Kelly stated he can't support the proposal,because it goes against the code. Commissioner Kelley stated the question should be, is the Commission willing to build a 76-unit apartment complexes in an R-3 zones. He is opposed. Commissioner Rasmussen thanked the public for coming and for their comments. Commissioner Rasmussen is concerned with what this could open up in other R-3 zones. She is concerned that public transit infrastructure isn't in place and is also concerned with increased traffic due to delivery trucks and visitors. Commissioner Rasmussen added that nothing has changed since last time the proposal was denied by both the Commission and Council, Commissioner Rasmussen also mentioned this is not entirely in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan that states we will retain a resemblance of what Spokane Valley is. She understands growth and progress and the City has to find affordable housing but does not feel that the R-3 zone is the right location. Commissioner Johnson thanked Catholic Charities for listening to the Commission and providing public notice. He added that he has worked with Catholic Charities and if the Commission was not looking at a Valley wide change he may have different considerations. He is concerned with the opportunity for individuals whom may not be as neighborly as Catholic Charites, He is also concerned with parking and overflow. He agrees that this type of multifamily construction project would not fit in the R-3 zone and is opposed. Commissioner McKinley moved to recommend denial of CTA-2018-0006 to the City Council, No further discussion. The vole on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. Study Session: STV-2019-0002, a proposed street vacation of a portion of Baldwin Avenue. Planner Connor Lange provided a presentation outlining the privately initiated application to vacate unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue,University Road and Glenn Road. Mr. Lange explained the vacation is located between 1-90 to the north, Nora Avenue to the South and further boarded by Overland Avenue to the west. Mr. Lange provided procedural overview advising the application was submitted March 8, 2019, the study session is being conducted, the public hearing is scheduled for May 23, 2019 and the Findings of Fact is scheduled for June 13, 2019. Mr. Lange advised that in processing a street vacation staff reviews connectivity, traffic volume, future developments and access. Potential conditions to consider would be utility and easement access,removal of the portion of the street vacated and design or construction improvements. Mr. Lange advised the request is to vacate 669 feet of Baldwin Avenue, 225 of University Road and 19 feet of Glenn Road ranging in widths from 50-64 feet with no known easements in the area to be vacated. The request will allow for maximum use of abutting properties owned by Circle M properties. Mr. Lange advised that I-90 prevents future connection with the unimproved rights of ways. He highlighted a study done in 2015 that 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 12 reviewed the potential for a pedestrian overpass at University Road and the study concluded the cost was too significant. Commissioner Johnson advised that in the early 1990's he was on a citizen advisory committee for Pasadena park were they developed a number of traffic solutions to include a bypass that would tie in with University Road and asked if this was no longer the case? Mr. Lange concluded this to be correct as the costs were too significant to warrant the bypass and not feasible. Commissioner Johnson asked if there is a permit issued? Mr. Lange advised a determination of non-significance was issued on March 15, 2019 for the grading work and an engineered grading permit was issued April 25,2019 for grading work to be completed at the Circle M Properties landscape yard. ii. Study Session: CTA-2019-0002, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 19.6, Chapter 19.85 and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations on licensed marijuana transportation businesses. Mr. Lamb provided a presentation outlining the code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transport operators to operate within the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Lamb provided background into Washington Initiative 1-502 that passed in 2012 legalizing marijuana in Washington State. The City responded with adopting comprehensive regulations for the allowable state license uses. The three primary license uses were production to allow growing,process to make the product usable and retail to purchase the product. As part of the regulations the City Council adopted a provision 19.85.040 that prohibits all other uses within the City of Spokane Valley. In the fall of 2018 the City had a citizen inquiry from a license transporter hoping to do business in the City. Staff presented an administrative report to the City Council and the Council gave consensus to bring a proposal forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Lamb advised this is a City initiated amendment even though it was brought to our attention by a citizen. Mr. Lamb continued explaining that state law was amended after the initial adoption to allow license marijuana transporters. Transportation is only between the licensed production, process, retail stores and research facilities not for home delivery. The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) oversees the licensing as such, licensed transports are subject to WSLCB requirements. Mr. Lamb continued that license marijuana transporters are required to have a physical location or office to store their fleet and state law prohibits them from storing marijuana in the office or physical location. The operator or vehicle are considered a common carrier and must obtain Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission common carrier permits that regulate commercial travel over public right of ways and state highways. State requires transportation logs and manifests in keeping with the state mandate that marijuana be suitably tracked from seed to sale as the state has a robust system due to Federal prohibition. Mr. Lamb explained the product is transported in secured compartments, required to be attached to the vehicle or vehicle body and are locked at all times. Delivery has to be made within 48 hours from the time of pick up as there may be an instance where the marijuana is left in the vehicle overnight. Mr. Lamb added that state law prohibits licensed marijuana transporters from being within 1,000 feet of enumerated sensitive uses such as schools, playgrounds, public transit and libraries. Mr. Lamb continued that staff has identified potential impacts to be traffic; as there are no restriction on fleet size, odor; as marijuana will be kept in vehicles, and crime also due to marijuana being kept in vehicles. WSLCB is not aware of any complaints regarding odor or any break-ins. Mr. Lamb added that during the development of this proposal staff was 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 12 cognizant of other uses transported that might entice crime such as beer,money and jewelry however; marijuana is treated differently. Mr. Lamb concluded that this proposal is to allow licensed transporters in the Regional Commercial(RC),Industrial Mixed Use(IMU) and Industrial (I) zones as this will address traffic issues by placing them near arterials. The proposal includes the City buffers related to vacant school, library and City properties. Mr. Lamb gave an example that currently the vacant property across the street from the City Hall is owned by the Library with the intent to build a library. Under the current state law, a marijuana shop could be built near the vacant property as there is no library on the site. The City's buffers already put in place for marijuana producers and processors would not allow for non-conforming uses to be built. The proposed amendment also requires a lockable enclosure for the fleet if they are in the RC zone. Mr. Lamb concluded with an illustration of the proposed amendments adding marijuana transporters to the Permitted Use Matrix 19.60.050 subject to supplemental regulations in the RC, IMU and I zone. This will also add them to 19.85.040 established buffers to prevent nonconforming marijuana shops being built near a school or library to be constructed at a later date. This will also prohibit them from being within 1,000 feet of CenterPlace or City Hall. Subsection B states they must have a lockable enclosure and a marijuana transporter definition has been added to Appendix A in order to track with statutory requirements. Commissioner Rasmussen asked about the transportation of immature plants and that the products must be in sealed packages and is wondering how immature plants are transported and how that might affect the odor? Mr. Lamb advised that plants are allowed to be transported however there may be additional requirements that he will research and provide at the public hearing. Commissioner Walton asked about firearm carrying stipulations and wanted clarification if that was a state law? Mr. Lamb advised that is state law. Commissioner Walton asked how transport vehicles will be identified and if markings or advertising of the vehicle was a requirement? Mr.Lamb stated he is not aware of any state law or regulations that requires them to identify they are a delivery however;there are businesses that do advertise the use. Commissioner Walton asked how local or state law enforcement will interact with the transporters and how they identify themselves? Mr. Lamb advised they are a licensed marijuana transporter and it is a lawful use under state law and would be treated as such once the driver demonstrated his transporter license credentials. Commissioner McKinley asked if this business is specific to transporting with no other components such as production and it was concluded to the case. Mr. Lamb added that there are over 20 producers/processors and 3 retailers in the City. In speaking with WSLCB they have 17 or 18 statewide licensed marijuana transporters at this time. Commissioner Johnson spoke about the City not having these types of restrictions for alcohol,nicotine,oxycodone or opioids and Mr. Lamb stated that was correct but could not speak to the Federal or State restrictions. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner McKinley stated he supported Commissioner Kelley in his earlier statement regarding interrupting the speakers during the public hearing. He recommended that in the future with a large crowd the Commission should put a three- minute time limit on the comments to reduce emotion. Commissioner Walton stated that when emotions are high it is important to remember that rules and process are in place for a reason. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 12 IIe felt the outcome of the Commission was clear, that audience participation was greatly valued. Iie stressed that if there was any idea that what he was saying was meant io dissuaded the public from speaking he strongly pushes back. He added that the incivility of the Commission members toward each other should be avoided at all times as they arc there for the same purpose. He appreciated that it was brought to his attention that it was concern and he did not interrupt any speaker at any time. IIe thanked the members of the Commission for conducting a fair and dedicated meeting. Commissioner Kelley added that Chair Johnson did an excellent job at running the meeting and gave direction when appropriate. Commissioner Johnson stated he didn't feel as though any of the Commissioners weren't civil. He understood the points and felt as though Commissioner Walton was supporting him in keeping order. Commissioner Johnson read a statement illustrating that your beliefs do not change the reality. Xi. ADJOURNMENT. Commissioner McKinley moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:57 p.m. The vote on the motion was,six infavor. zero opposed, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chairman Date signed Robin Hutchins, Secretary Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall May 23,2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. IL Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III, Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Timothy Kelley Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Robert McKinley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Michael Phillips, absent -excused Connor Lange, Planner Michelle Rasmussen, absent- excused Matt Walton Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioners Phillips and Rasmussen were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the May 23, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote an the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to amend the May 9, 2019 minutes to correct the misspelling of his last name on page 8 from Walter to Walton. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported on May 14, 2019 he attended the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force executive committee to discuss the confluence of leadership meeting where it was determined that meeting will be a long range plan. He also attended the City Council meeting and expressed his concerns for the lack of accurate representation by the 4th legislative district and requested a more diverse invocation at the City Council meetings. On May 21, 2019 he attended the Spokane County Human Right Task Force regular meeting where they received rapid response training, The training was to prepare for public acts of hate received through a portal developed by the task force to report hate crimes. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger advised that after the first reading with the City Council of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments the Council agreed with all of the Planning Commission's recommendations. Mr. Basinger added that Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2019-0003 that had no recommendation from the Planning Commission was denied by the City Council. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. Chair Johnson asked the Commission for a consensus on standardizing a three-minute lime limit for all public comment excluding proponent comments. A standard three- minute time limit was concluded to be essential in keeping order. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Findings of Fact: CTA-2018-0006, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affordable housing and multifamily development. Senior Planner Lori Barlow summarized the Findings of Fact for the privately initiated code text amendment (CTA). The intent of the amendment is to allow multifamily (MF) development as a conditional use in the residential R-3 zone subject to specific criteria. This proposal came before the Planning Commission on two prior occasions. A study session was held on April 25, 2019 and a public hearing on May 9, 2019. After hearing considerable public testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated and voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council. Ms. Barlow explained that the Findings of Fact formalize the pivotal actions and capture the Planning Commission's recommendation and vote. Ms. Barlow concluded that as this item moves forward to the City Council there will be no further opportunity for public comment unless the Council takes specific action to do so. Commissioner Walton stated this CIA was one of the more contentious items reviewed in his time with the Commission. He appreciated the public for their participation and the deliberation from the Commission. He added that despite the struggles the Commission may have had in moving forward he felt this was the correct outcome and is in support of the Findings of Fact. Commissioner Walton moved to approve Findings of Fact CTA-2018-0006 as presented. There was no discussion The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. ii. Public Hearing: STV-2019-0002, a privately initiated street vacation of a portion of Glenn,University Roads and Baldwin Avenue. Planner Connor Lange provided a presentation outlining the privately initiated application to vacate unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue,University Road and Glenn Road. Mr. Lange explained the right-of-ways (ROW) are located between I-90 to the north, Nora. Avenue to the south and further bordered by Overland Avenue to the west. Mr. Lange provided procedural overview advising the application was submitted March 8, 2019, the study session was conducted on May 9,2019, and tonight the public hearing is being held. Mr. Lange advised the majority of the property surrounding the proposed ROWs to be vacated are owned by Circle M Properties. The applicant feels the request will allow for maximum use of abutting properties and that a right of way connection for an overpass is not feasible at University Road. Mr. Lange highlighted a study done in 2015 reviewed the feasibility for an overpass crossing at University Road, the project was determined to be costly and not viable at the time. However, it is unknown if a project on University Road may provide a greater level of service in the future. Due to future development, staff is recommending an amendment to the proposal by removing University Road from the vacation proposal. Mr. Lange advised that all required notices have been satisfied. Notice was posted at CenterPlace, City Hall and the library. Notice was also posted in the newspaper of record on two separate occasions. Written notice was provided to the owner's adjacent to the 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 unimproved portions of University Road and Baldwin Avenue and signs were posted at the end of each street to be vacated. Mr. Lange advised that in processing a street vacation, staff reviews a number of criteria for approval to determine if the street is still required for public access. Staff does not anticipate that either Baldwin Avenue or Glenn Road would serve any public use and are still part of the recommendation from staff to vacate. Mr. Lange added that there has been a request for both ingress/egress and sewer easements that have been added as a recommended condition of approval. Staff also reviews conditional changes and feels University Road may provide a public benefit in the future should an overpass be proposed. There were no public objections during the comment period. Commissioner Kelley asked for clarification pertaining to University Road and what the City was asking. Mr. Lange advised the City would like to retain University Road and not allow it to be vacated in order to preserve it for future projects. Commissioner Johnson referenced an email from Jen Brunner requesting a 20-foot public sanitary sewer easement and asked where that would be located. Mr. Lange advised that is yet to be determined however; it would most likely be along the proposed access point parallel to Baldwin Road. chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:20 PM Todd Whipple; 212 N Pines Road: Mr. Whipple stated the retention of University Road. by the City was a surprise to his client. He advised that when his client had come to him asking about this piece of property, they had done their research before purchasing. He cautioned his client not to purchase the property until they had clarification concerning the crossing at University Road from the City that they had located in the 1985 SR90 Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Whipple continued that during their Pre- Application meetings they brought the University Road crossing information to the City's attention and were advised by City staff to move forward and vacate University Road,now they have changed their mind. Mr. Whipple advised the customer has done a considerable amount of work,provided plans to the City and had received a grading permit. He added that the grading permit restrictions specified that until the street vacations were approved they were not to do any work on the ROWs. He explained that it became too difficult to maneuver around the property and then the customer had to stop the project. Staff has taken University Road out of the proposal completely. Mr. Whipple stated they received correspondence that the City would entertain a license agreement in order to use the property as if it were vacated to protect the possible future public improvements while the City retains ownership. Mr. Whipple asked the Planning Commission to maintain the University Street Vacation in order to give them time to go before the City Council with a request for a license agreement to use University Road.ROW while the City retains ownership. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Whipple, if the Iicense agreement is obtained and years down the road the City decided to build a bridge, at whose expense would it be to remove the work they had done? Mr. Whipple advised it would depend on the license agreement and would most likely be the responsibility of Circle M Properties. Mr. Whipple gave some details into what they have done and hope to do. He advised they would grade to highway elevation to create the access road between the two distinct properties on either side and explained their road would be well below University Road. Mr. Whipple gave details into building a crossing structure over 1-90 and stated the work they have and will do should not affect future bridge development. He added they would be willing to work with the City in regards to abutment and girder locations at that time. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 Commissioner Kaschmitter asked that if the access road they would build is lower than University Road and should a bridge be built; would the bridge have to be longer in order to accommodate? Mr. Whipple explained that may be the case adding that currently there isn't enough ROW to widen University Road. He explained that University Road is 50- feet wide and building a 45-foot road to go over 1-90 would require walls straight up and down. He explained that would be cost prohibitive and would be cheaper to build girders and a deck. Commissioner Walton asked for clarification that should it be decided to move forward as amended and University Road is retained how would that impact what they are currently doing until they obtain the license. Mr. Whipple advised the work would stop and could potentially kill the project. They will need to enter on one side and exit on the other due to the size of equipment they use in order to move their materials. If they cannot use University Road, then they purchased a piece of property they can't use. He added that they are moving their corporate headquarters to this site, losing University Road was a big deal and losing the license agreement would be detrimental. Patrick J Mitchell, 4107 E Broadway Avenue; Mr. Mitchelli explained Mr. Whipple covered all of their concerns. He added that before purchasing the property they made sure University Road would be able to be vacated and explained that if that is no longer the case that will put their business in a tough spot. Mr. Mitchelli added that directly across from University Road is the junk yard and stated that isn't going anywhere in the near future. Justin Fabio,302 N Walnut Road; Mr. Fabio asked if the traffic was going to run north of University Road and where it would exit. It was determined that the street would run north of University Road,through Circle M Properties and would exit onto Raymond Road. chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 6:39 PM Commissioner Johnson asked staff why they concluded to remove University Road from the proposal and creating a license agreement. Mr. Basinger stated staff recognized that there may be a potential use for University Road sometime in the future adding that not knowing when that might happen the license agreement is an appropriate means to move forward. He highlighted that currently Circle M Properties is located on prime retail property on Pines Road and them moving would open that property to better uses. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb spoke to the license agreement terms stating the City can require that the applicant's improvements are subject to the City putting in a future project. He added that the license agreement would allow Circle M Properties to use the property while the City retains control to build a future project. It was determined the license agreement details do not require Planning Commission action. Commissioner Kelley spoke about his experience driving truck while serving in the United States Army and how difficult they are to turn around in small spaces. He is concerned for the applicant's future as they invest their funds and work for a number of years and then the City builds a bridge. Commissioner Johnson advised that in the early 1990's he was involved in a two-year long process with Spokane County where an overpass was discussed for University Road trying to mitigate the traffic flow on Argonne Road. At the time, the bypass would start near Bigelow Gulch Road, above Hutton settlement,across the river and to University Road, he is unsure if that is still the long range plan. An interchange at University Road is not feasible at this time however, an overpass may be needed in twenty years. Commissioner 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 Johnson is opposed to leaving University Road in the proposal and is in support of the amendment presented by staff. Commissioner McKinley asked staff if the City would have eminent domain rights. Mr. Lamb explained that if in fact University Road was vacated the City would have eminent domain. The City could either purchase or condemn the property and it would be a matter of retaining the right to do so in the future or the City may feel comfortable enough not to develop and willing to pay the cost in the future if necessary. Currently it is City property and should a bridge be developed at a later date the City would have all rights to the property. Commissioner Walton stated the possibilities in cost associated with repurchasing or condemning the property and the legal implication are concerning. He added that looking. at the future and how approvals impact the valley as a whole he feels the City needs to leave all possible mechanisms in place. Commissioner Kaschmitter stated she feels the license agreement will help and is in favor of it. She also agrees there may be a need for a bridge in the future. Commissioner Walton moved to approve STV-2019-0002 for Baldwin Road and Glenn Road with the removal of University Road from the street vacation application as amended by staff Commissioner Kelley advised in looking at the map it appears there are four structures that would have to be removed in order build a bridge at a later date. He added that he is opposed to the motion and feels the street vacation for University Road should remain. Commissioner Walton advised he understands where the proponent and applicant stand as it seems the City changed their mind late in the process. He added that in doing so staff was looking to do what's right for the future of the City and feels the City was well within the right to make the change as the vacation had not yet occurred. He strongly urges City Council to consider the license agreement to run concurrent as it continues to move forward. Commissioner Walton added that he can't, in good conscience, support the promise to obtain licensure if the vacation is approved and is in support of the motion as it stands. Commissioner Kaschmitter agreed with Commissioner Walton. Commissioner McKinley supports the motion and also agreed with Commissioner Kelly regarding the structures that would need to be removed. The vote on the motion was four in favor, one opposed with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, and the motion passed iii. Public Hearing: CTA-2019-0002,a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Chapter 19.60, Chapter 19.85 and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations on licensed marijuana transportation businesses. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:57 PM Mr. Lamb provided a presentation outlining the code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transport operators to operate within the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Lamb provided background into Washington Initiative 1-502 that passed in 2012 legalizing marijuana in Washington State. The City responded with adopting comprehensive regulations for the allowable state license uses to be production, process and retail stores. As part of the regulations the City Council adopted a provision 19.85.040 that prohibits all other uses within the City of Spokane Valley. In the fall of 2018 the City had a citizen 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of9 inquiry from a license transporter hoping to do business in the City. Staff presented an administrative report to the City Council and the Council gave consensus to bring a proposal forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Lamb continued that transportation is only between the licensed production, process, retail stores and research facilities and is not for home delivery. The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) oversees the licensing and licensed transporters are subject to WSLCB requirements. Mr. Lamb continued that license marijuana transporters are required to have a physical location or office to store their fleet and state law prohibits them from storing marijuana in an office or physical location. State requires transportation logs and manifests in keeping with the state mandate that marijuana be suitably tracked from seed to sale. Mr. Lamb explained the product is transported in secured compartments, required to be attached to the vehicle or vehicle body and are locked at all times. Delivery has to be made within 48 hours from the time of pick up as there may be an instance where the marijuana is left in the vehicle overnight. Commissioner Johnson asked about shorter stops such a dinner and lunch breaks. Mr. Lamb advised it is allowed to be in the vehicle in a secured compartment no matter the length of the break. Commissioner Kelley asked if a truck could be stored in a storage facility or garage? Mr. Lamb advised that is an option, adding that under state law the product cannot be stored in an office and there is no mandate that the vehicle has to be stored in a garage or storage facility. Mr. Lamb added that state law prohibits licensed marijuana transporters from being within 1,000 feet of enumerated sensitive uses such as schools, playgrounds, public transit and libraries. Mr. Lamb gave an example that currently under state law a marijuana shop could be built near an empty park like property with no current use. The City's buffers already in place prohibit marijuana shops from being built within 1,000 feet of vacant uses in order to prohibit non-conforming uses. Mr. Lamb addressed the questions posed by the Commission during the study session starting with the transportation of live plants. Transporting live plants is allowed in a secured compartment,those compartments could be metal partitions,cages or shatter proof acrylic to allow the plant to stay alive. Mr. Lamb added that the vehicle transporting the live plants must be windowless to the maximum extent possible. Mr. Lamb addressed advertising concerns advising state law prohibits advertising on or in private vehicles to limit the draw of attention. Mr. Lamb addressed the question regarding being stopped by law enforcement and identifying themselves. Transporters are required to keep a binder with their license details in the vehicle at all times to easily provide to law enforcement. Transport vehicles under the law are considered to be an extension of the licensed premises and can be stopped and inspected at any time. Mr. Lamb concluded that staff identified potential impacts to be traffic; as there are no restriction on fleet size, odor; as marijuana will be kept in vehicles, and crime; also due to marijuana being kept in vehicles. WSLCB is not aware of any complaints regarding odor or any break-ins to transport vehicles. Mr. Lamb concluded that this proposal is to allow licensed transporters in the Regional Commercial(RC), Industrial Mixed Use(IMU) and Industrial(1)zones as this will address traffic issues by placing them near arterials. The proposal includes the City buffers related to vacant school, library and City properties and also requires a lockable enclosure for the fleet if they are in the RC zone. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 or Commissioner Kelley asked what the definition of Regional Commercial zone is. Mr, Basinger explained that RC zones are for commercial regional uses located throughout I- 90 along high traffic exits like the Spokane Valley Mall. Mr. Basinger added the enclosure suggested are due to the fact that there would be a lot of individuals shopping in these zone. The City wants to ensure the vehicles and products are stored properly. Kevin Lynch, 722 W Wedgewood; Mr. Lynch advised there are other transport companies in the state that already stay the night in the City of Spokane Valley during transport. He spoke to the topic of smell advising the product is vacuum sealed for packaging, then placed in sealed totes and then in a compartment in the van preventing odor. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Lynch if he currently ships live plants? Mr. Lynch advised he does periodically as it is 1% of his business. He added that per state law the vehicle that ships live plants cannot have any windows as Mr. Lamb had mentioned. Commissioner Walton asked Mr. Lynch to describe what a law enforcement interaction would look like. Mr. Lynch explained that his staff are required to wear ID badges to prove they are an employee. He continued that the binder carried in the vehicles as mentioned before include their common carrier license,business license, insurance card and affidavit. There is a manifest and invoice in the primary tote that can be provided to law enforcement when requested. Mr. Lynch explained that it can range from law enforcement knowing the business being conducted before even making contact with them to being asked to provide all documents in the vehicle and in the totes. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Lynch why the information isn't offered to the officer and it was explained that would be breaking the chain of custody due to the seed to sale laws. Mr. Lynch added that by law he does not have to prove to law enforcement what is being transported in the totes unless instructed to do provide documentation. Commissioner Walton asked Mr. Lynch what impacts the City's request to have a secure enclosure would have on his business? Mr. Lynch advised it does add to cost. He stated that he is a proponent of the request as it will make his staff, drivers, product and vehicles more secure. He added that buildings are hard to find and cost ranges from $1,800 to $2,500 dollars a month, it is also difficult to find a landlord that will rent to him. Mr. Lamb addressed the discussion pertaining to law enforcement stops highlighting that there is a preemption prevision in state law that WSLCB provides all operations of the licensed uses. The City would not be able to ask for any additional forms of identification or supplemental documentation. Commissioner Walton asked staff why the City chose to exempt Appleway trail from the 1,000-foot exclusion zone? Mr, Lamb advised that the City Council does provide a prohibition on retail sales within 1,000 feet of Appleway trail to prevent the end users from using the trail. Council felt it appropriate to exempt Appleway trail due to its extent across the City and crossing multiple zones. Mr. Lamb added the limitations in place such as production staying indoors and no chemical processing. This was a compromise for business rights and property rights verses the trail and its beneficial use by citizens. chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page S or9 Commissioner Walton stated he was intrigued by this proposal due to the attitudes and state adoption of marijuana usage across the country. He feels it's a good idea to stay at the cutting edge of the process within state guidelines and state law,adding that the City wants to promote growth of all kinds, Commissioner Walton likes the proposal and feels there is a good compromise in the adoption of the enclosures and is in support. Commissioner Kelley explained his understanding of the process due to an acquaintance having a similar business and how it operated. Commissioner Kelly explained he feels this will attract criminals that want to steal the trucks and the product. Commissioner Kelly stated he does not appreciate the confrontational attitude toward law enforcement. He added that having been part of this first hand, landlords have the right not to lease to businesses they feel will be a detriment to the community. Commissioner Kelly believes there is a lot of crime attracted to and associated with marijuana businesses and is concerned for people's safety. Commissioner Walton move to approve CTA-2019-0002 as presented. Commissioner Kelley reminded the Commission that when 1-502 was first presented, the marijuana grow, production and retail facilities were voted down by the Commission. He added that his belief is that if the legalization of marijuana would have been brought to the vote of the people of Spokane Valley it would not have passed and he is greatly opposed. Commissioner Walton thanked Commissioner Kelley for the background. He added that he is in support as the City allows this type of business and are staying on the cutting edge. Commissioner Walton advised that location and regulations have addressed many concerns. Commissioner Walton continued one of his primary considerations was to understand how this business is being perceived by local law enforcement and appreciated the perspective from the proponent as well as Commissioner Kelley's position. The vote on the motion was four in favor, one opposed with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, and the motion passed. iv. Public Hearing: STV-2019-0041, proposed street vacations of a portion of Tshirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road in the Northeast Industrial Area. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Basinger provided a presentation to the Commission outlining the Northeast Industrial Area City Initiated Street Vacation. Mr. Basinger provided background advising on April 29, 2019 City Council initiated the Street Vacation and set a public hearing with the Planning Commission. On April 25, 2019 a study session was conducted and tonight the public hearing is being held. Mr. Basinger explained this area is located in the Northeast Industrial Area were the City has taken action to advance development. The City rezoned the property to allow a broader variety of industrial uses,extended the sewer from Sullivan Road to Barker Road and have adopted a planned action ordinance to streamline development. The proposed street vacations will further prepare the area for development. Mr. Basinger advised Garland Avenue will provide access for future development. He added that the current ROW may be an impediment for a large industrial user to developed in the future. Mr. Basinger continued,the proposed vacations are the unimproved Right of 05-23-2019 Nanning Commission Minutes Page 9 of9 Ways (ROW) of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Greenacres Road and Rich Avenue. Public notice was posted and mailed on April 25, 2019, posted in the Valley Herald and the Exchange on April 26, 2019 and May 3, 2019 and signs were posted on each end of proposed vacation areas. There have been no public or agency comments to date. Mr. Basinger added that the City has been working with Consolidated Irrigation District as they would like to loop their water system. The City will have art easement in place once Tschirley Road ROW is removed to accommodate for their loop. Staff is requesting the approval to vacate the ROWs subject to the conditions in the staff report. Mr.Basinger provided a list of the conditions. Vacated property will be transferred into the abutting parcels, if approved the area will be surveyed to identify applicable easements. There was some discussion regarding a Pre-Application meeting that determined there would be a land locked parcel once the ROWs are vacated. However, the applicants are proposing to apply for a boundary line elimination to make one parcel mitigating this issue. Mr. Basinger concluded that the zoning will he extended to include the vacated ROWs, a survey will be recorded and all conditions will be fully satisfied prior to transfer of title. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Commissioner Walton moved to approve STV-2019-0001 as presented There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in,favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Kasehmitter thanked the public for their comments. Commissioner Walton spoke about his reflection on the previous meeting and overall dedication from the Commission and community. He thanked Commissioner Kelley for reminding himself and staff of his passion in allowing the public to have their free speech. Commissioner Walton apologized to the Commission and members of the public if his comments felt as if they were dissuading the public from speaking as that was not his intent. Commissioner Walton concluded with thanking the Commission for their dedication. Mr. Basinger added currently the Planning Commission is the forum where comments will be received, so it is with utmost importance they are heard. It is also important to forward a recommendation that synthesizes the Commission's vote and he appreciated the Commissions service. Commissioner Johnson stated he concurred with Commissioner Walton and also appreciated being a part of this team. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p.m. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed _l 7 dal James Johnson, Chairman Date signed 2iAh Robin Hutchins, Secretary Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall June 13, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Timothy Kelley Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Robert McKinley Conner Lange, Planner Michael Phillips, absent- excused Michelle Rasmussen Matt Walton, absent- excused Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioners Phillips and Walton were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve the June 13, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve the May 23, 2019 minutes. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Rasmussen attended the Chester Creek pavement preservation presentation given by the City. She was impressed by the proactive approach and the high level achieved in reaching out to the community. Commissioner Johnson attended the Inlander Volume music festival on the 31st of May and Pt of June, he was amazed at the quality and variety of music by local musicians. He also attended the Spokane County Human Right Task Force on the 11th of June where they discussed a media release pertaining to their hate crimes portal and how to gather hate crime data from higher education entities. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger gave an update of the Barker Road and Garland Avenue projects. He highlighted that the City has been working on Barker Road for two weeks and have installed 1,000 feet of the 3,700-foot sewer line total. Mr. Basinger advised USDOT awarded the City a $1.25 million dollar grant for the Pines Road BNSF grade separation project. The City has secured $5.1 million dollars in project funding that puts the City in a position of 100 percent for design and 80 percent for right of way acquisitions. Mr. Basinger advised the Parks and Recreation Department will be holding a workshop on Thursday June 20, 2019 from 6:00-7:30 p.m. at CenterPlace conducted by Chaz Bates. Mr. Basinger concluded with items coming before the City Council to include the Pines grade separation design, an administrative report on Catholic Charities Code Text Amendment(CTA) and a request for a pavement management ad hoc committee to represent the community as a whole. 06-13-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: STV-2019-0002, a privately initiated street vacation of a portion of Glenn Road, University Road and Baldwin Avenue. Mr. Lange explained the Findings of Fact reflected the process and decision the Commission made regarding STV-2019-0002, the privately initiated street vacation of a portion of Glenn Road, University Road and Baldwin Avenue. Mr. Lange advised the Commission conducted a public hearing on May 23, 2019. After deliberations the Commission voted four in favor and one opposed to forward a recommendation of approval of the amended proposal to the City Council. The amendment was to vacate a portion of Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road while retaining University Road. Mr. Lange advised there was a scrivener error related to a parcel number that has been corrected. There was some discussion regarding a scrivener error of the Commission's vote in the Findings of Fact that reflected an incorrect vote of five to one, the correct vote being four to one. Commissioner Rasmussen moved to amend the Findings of Fact STV-2019-0002 to reflect the correct vote from five to one, to four to one. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve Findings of Fact STV-2019-0002 as amended. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. ii. Findings of Fact: CTA-2019-0002, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Chapter 19.60, Chapter 19.85 and Appendix A to allow and provide regulation on licensed marijuana transportation businesses. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb summarized the Findings of Fact for the proposed code text amendment CTA-2019-0002, allowing licensed marijuana transport businesses to operate within the City with certain limitations. Mr. Lamb explained the Commission conducted a public hearing on May 23, 2019. After deliberations the Commission voted four in favor, one opposed to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council. Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve Findings of Fact CTA-2019-0002 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. iii. Findings of Fact: STV-2019-0001, proposed street vacations of a portion of Tshirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue and Greenacres Road in the Northeast Industrial Area. Mr. Basinger summarized the Findings of Fact for the City initiated street vacation STV- 2019-0001, a proposed street vacation in the Northeast Industrial Area. Mr. Basinger explained the Commission conducted a public hearing on May 23, 2019. After deliberations the Commission voted five in favor, zero opposed to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council. Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve Findings of Fact STV-2019-0001 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner McKinley advised that his wife lost her father on Memorial Day. In light of Father's Day, he encouraged everyone to spend time with their families as you never know when it will be the last. Commissioner Rasmussen apologized for missing the last meeting and the miscommunication. Commissioner Johnson spoke about a 06-13-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 speech Jon Stewart gave to Congress regarding the 911 Victims Compensation Fund. Commissioner Johnson feels it is of utmost importance that all countries take care of their first responders and is abhorrent when that does not occur. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:20 p.m. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chairman Date signed Robin Hutchins, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO.07-009 RESOLUTION ADOPTING POLICIES FOR IMPOSING VACATION CHARGES PURSUANT TO RCW 36.79.030 WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has the authority to vacate roadways and right of ways pursuant to RCW 36.79.030; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has the authority to charge for said vacations in an amount that does not exceed 50 % of the full appraised value or for the full appraised value of the area vacated where the street or alley had been part of a dedicated right of way for over twenty five years or if the property was acquired at public expense; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley wishes to establish a policy by which they determine the amount to be charged the benefited property owners of any such vacation. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING POLICY: SECTION 1. Policy. I. The cost for property received as a result of a vacation initiated by an adjacent property owner shall equal fifty per cent (50%) of the appraised value of the vacated property received. a. The appraised value shall be the same as the value of an equivalent portion of property adjacent to the proposed vacation as established by the Spokane County Assessor at the time the matter is considered by the City Council. b. If the value of adjacent properties differs, then the average of the adjacent property values per square foot will be used. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), the applicant shall pay the above- described fee only to the extent that it exceeds the cost charged by the City of Spokane Valley to initiate the vacation process, exclusive of any surveying or engineering costs that may be incurred by the applicant. 3. This charge shall be paid subsequent to council action and prior to recording the vacation with the Spokane County Auditor. 4. The City Council shall reserve the right:to deviate from this policy upon the adoption of written findings of fact that demonstrate that the public interest shall be best served by an alternate approach. SECTION 2. This Resolution shall be in full force and effective immediately upon adoption. Resolution 07-009 Street Vacation Charges Page 1 of 2 Adopted this ]0th day of July, 2007. islasz.) Diana Wilhite, Mayor ATTEST% hristine Bainbridge, Ci Clerk Approved a�.to Form: 1 Office the City ttorney Resolution 07-009 Street Vacation Charges Page 2 of 2 Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 22.140 STREET VACATIONS Page 1 of 6 Chapter 22.140 STREET VACATIONS Sections: 22.140.010 Purpose. 22.140.020 Initiation of vacation. 22.140.030 Planning commission review and recommendation. 22.140.040 City council decision. 22.140.050 Vacation of waterfront streets. 22.140.060 Application of zoning district designation. 22.140.070 Recording of ordinance. 22.140.080 Compliance to city council conditions. 22.140.090 Record of survey required. 22.140.100 Monumentation. 22.140.110 Costs of title transfer to be borne by proponent. 22.140.010 Purpose. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... This chapter establishes the procedures, notice requirements and fees for the vacation of public streets and alleys within the City in conformance with the authority granted to the City by Chapter 35.79 RCW and RCW 35A.47.020. (Ord. 07-015§ 4, 2007). 22.140.020 Initiation of vacation. ..............................................:........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ The owners of an interest in any real property abutting any public street or alley who may desire to vacate the street or alley, or any part thereof, may petition the city council. In the alternative, the city council may itself initiate a vacation by resolution. The petition or resolution shall be filed with the city clerk. A. Petition for Vacation. The petition shall be in a form prescribed by the city manager or designee and shall be signed by the owners of more than two-thirds of the property abutting the portion of the street or alley sought to be vacated. B. Petition Fees. Every petition for the vacation of any public street, alley or any part thereof shall be accompanied by a fee in an amount established by resolution of the City to defray the administrative costs incurred in processing the petition and publishing, posting and mailing notices. The set amount shall be stated in the City of Spokane Valley Master Fee Schedule. Once paid, the fees shall not be refunded. C. Submittal Requirements for Petitions. Every petition shall be accompanied by the following: 1. A Spokane County assessor's map showing with a solid red line the portion of the street or ie Spokane Valley Municipal Code is current through Ordinance No. 19-008, and legislation passed through June 4, 201 Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 22.140 STREET VACATIONS Page 2 of 6 alley sought to be vacated; 2. A vicinity map showing the general area of the proposed vacation; 3. A copy of the record of survey, if available, for the subject street and alley proposed for vacation and abutting properties, streets and alleys within 100 feet on all sides of the proposed vacation; 4. Written evidence of any and all utility easements, other allowances or reservations, whether public or private, pertaining to the street or alley proposed for vacation; and 5. A written narrative describing the reasons for the proposed street vacation, the physical limits of the proposed street vacation and the public benefit of the proposed street vacation. D. Setting of Hearing. Upon receipt of the petition, the fee and all required documents, the city clerk shall forward the petition and required documents to the city manager or designee, who shall determine whether the petition has been signed by the owners of more than two-thirds of the property abutting the part of the street or alley to be vacated. If the petition has been signed by the requisite percentage of such owners, the city manager or designee shall bring the petition before the city council within 30 days of receipt of the petition, and the city council shall by resolution fix the time when the petition will be heard by the city council, or a committee of the city council, which time shall not be more than 60 days nor less than 20 days after the adoption of the resolution. Where the city council initiates the vacation by resolution, that resolution shall fix the time when the proposed vacation will be heard by the city council or a committee of the city council. E. Staff Report. The city manager or designee, in conjunction with the public works department, shall prepare a report concerning the proposed vacation. The public works department shall evaluate the advisability of the proposed vacation based on the existing and future transportation system needs and requirements. The report shall address the criteria to be considered by the city council in determining whether to vacate the street or alley, and such other information as deemed appropriate by the city manager or designee including, but not limited to, drainage requirements and street closure requirements, such as the removal and replacement of concrete and asphalt, and placement of barriers limiting vehicle movements. In preparing the report, the city manager or designee shall solicit comments from the police department and the fire department and may solicit comments from other governmental agencies and utility companies having jurisdiction or utilities within the boundaries of the City. The report shall be submitted to the planning commission and to the petitioner and his or her representative not less than seven calendar days before the hearing. F. Notice of Hearing. Upon the passage of the resolution fixing the time for hearing the petition or proposal for vacation, the city clerk, or the city manager or designee, acting under direction and supervision of the city clerk shall give not less than 20 days' notice of the time, place and purpose of ie Spokane Valley Municipal Code is current through Ordinance No. 19-008, and legislation passed through June 4, 201 Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 22.140 STREET VACATIONS Page 3 of 6 the hearing by: 1. Posting of a written notice in three conspicuous places in the City; 2. Publishing written notice once in the City's official newspaper; 3. Posting a minimum 24-inch by 36-inch notice sign in a conspicuous place at each end of the street or alley sought to be vacated describing the proposed vacation and the date, time and location of the public hearing; and 4. Mailing written notice to all petitioners at the addresses on the petition and all owners of property abutting the street or alley proposed to be vacated, as shown on the records of the Spokane County assessor, not to exceed 90 calendar days from the date of the public hearing. The city manager or designee shall send the same written notice to the representative of the petitioners at the address on the petition. G. Protest. If 50 percent or more of the abutting property owners file written objections to a city council-initiated vacation with the city clerk, prior to the time of the hearing, the City shall be prohibited from proceeding with the vacation. (Ord. 17-004§ 3, 2017; Ord. 07-015§ 4, 2007). 22.140.030 Planning commission review and recommendation. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... A. The hearing on the petition or proposal shall be held before the planning commission upon the day fixed by resolution or at the time to which a hearing may be adjourned. In its consideration of the proposed vacation of the street or alley, the planning commission shall render a recommendation based on the following criteria: 1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public; 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access; 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public; 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists; and 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public. B. Following the hearing, the city manager or designee shall forward the planning commission's recommendation and the hearing minutes to the city council at a regularly scheduled meeting. If a hearing is held before the planning commission, it shall not be necessary to hold a hearing before the city council; provided, that the city council may, at its discretion, determine to hold a separate hearing ie Spokane Valley Municipal Code is current through Ordinance No. 19-008, and legislation passed through June 4, 201 Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 22.140 STREET VACATIONS Page 4 of 6 on the proposal. (Ord. 17-004 §3, 2017; Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.140.040 City council decision. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... A. Following the hearing and receipt of the planning commission's recommendation, the city council shall determine whether to vacate the street or alley. The determination shall consider, but not be limited to, the findings of the planning commission. B. If the city council determines to grant the vacation, the action shall be made by ordinance with such conditions or limitations as the city council deems necessary and proper to preserve any desired public use or benefit. The ordinance shall contain a provision retaining or requiring conveyance of easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services. C. Pursuant to RCW 35.79.040, the city council, in approving a street vacation request, shall specify that the vacated portion of the street or alley shall belong to the abutting property owners, one-half to each, unless factual circumstances otherwise dictate a different division and distribution of the street or alley to be vacated. D. The city council reserves the right to require compensation as a condition of approval of ordinance action; provided, that such compensation shall comply with the requirements of RCW 35.79.030; and further, that any required compensation shall be paid to the City prior to the City's participation in required title transfer actions. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). 22.140.050 Vacation of waterfront streets. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... A. The city shall not vacate a street or alley if any portion of the street or alley abuts a body of water unless: 1. The vacation is sought to enable the City to acquire the property for beach or water access purposes, or launching sites, park, public view, recreation, educational purposes, or other public uses; 2. The city council, by resolution, declares that the street or alley is not presently being used as a street or alley and that the street or alley is not suitable for any of the following purposes: a. Beach or water access; b. Launching sites; c. Park; d. Public view; ie Spokane Valley Municipal Code is current through Ordinance No. 19-008, and legislation passed through June 4, 201 Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 22.140 STREET VACATIONS Page 5 of 6 e. Recreation; f. Education; or 3. The vacation is sought to enable the City to implement a plan, adopted by resolution or ordinance, that provides comparable or improved public access to the same shoreline area to which the street or alley sought to be vacated abuts, had the properties included in the plan not been vacated. B. Before adopting an ordinance vacating a street or alley under subsection (A)(2) of this section, the city council shall: 1. Cause an inventory to be compiled of all rights-of-way within the City that abut the same body of water that is abutted by the street or alley sought to be vacated; 2. Cause a study to be conducted to determine if the street or alley to be vacated is unsuitable for use by the City for any of the following purposes: a. Launching sites; b. Beach or water access; c. Park; d. Public view; e. Recreation; or f. Education; 3. Hold a public hearing on the proposed vacation in the manner required by Chapter 35.79 RCW and this chapter; and 4. Include in its written decision a finding that the street or alley sought to be vacated is not suitable for any other purposes listed under subsection (B)(2) of this section, and that the vacation is in the public's interest. C. Notice of the public hearing on the proposed vacation shall be provided in accordance with SVMC 22.140.020(F); provided, that the City shall also post notice of the public hearing conspicuously on the street or alley sought to be vacated, which notice shall indicate that the area is a public access, that the street or alley is proposed to be vacated, and that anyone objecting to the proposed vacation should attend the public hearing or send a letter to the city manager or designee indicating the objection. (Ord. 17-004 § 3, 2017; Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). ie Spokane Valley Municipal Code is current through Ordinance No. 19-008, and legislation passed through June 4, 201 Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 22.140 STREET VACATIONS Page 6 of 6 22.140.060 Application of zoning district designation. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining each side of the street or alley to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the extended districts. The adopting ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.140.070 Recording of ordinance. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... A certified copy of the ordinance vacating a street or alley or part thereof shall be recorded by the city clerk in the office of the Spokane County auditor. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.140.080 Compliance to city council conditions. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ All conditions of city council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. (Ord. 07-015§ 4, 2007). 22.140.090 Record of survey required. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Following the city council's passage of the ordinance approving the proposal to vacate the street or alley, a record of survey prepared by a registered surveyor in the state of Washington and including an exact metes and bounds legal description and specifying, if applicable, any and all easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services shall be submitted by the proponent to the city manager or designee. Said record of survey shall contain the professional stamp and signature of the registered surveyor, and the proponent indicating acceptance of the vacated property. (Ord. 17-004 §3, 2017; Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.140.100 Monumentation. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The surveyor shall locate a monument at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by this chapter. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 22.140.110 Costs of title transfer to be borne by proponent. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... All direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated street or alley from public to private ownership including, but not limited to, title company charges, copying fees, and recording fees are to be borne by the proponent. The City assumes no financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). ie Spokane Valley Municipal Code is current through Ordinance No. 19-008, and legislation passed through June 4, 201 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 9, 2019 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business ® new business [' public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance No. 19-011 adopting proposed amendments to allow licensed marijuana transporters. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: ROW 36.70A.106; RCW 69.50 (codifying Initiative 502); WAC 314-55-310; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040; Chapter 19.85 SVMC; SVMC 19.60.050. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted comprehensive marijuana regulations in 2016. On November 20, 2018, Council heard an administrative report and gave consensus to have Planning Commission hear a proposal to allow marijuana transporters in the City. On June 24, 2019, City Council heard an administrative report on CTA-2019-0002 to allow marijuana transporters. BACKGROUND: In 2016, the City Council adopted comprehensive marijuana regulations governing all licensed and registered marijuana use within the City which are set forth in chapter 19.85 SVMC. As part of those regulations, the City Council determined to allow licensed marijuana production, marijuana processing, and the existing three marijuana retailers within certain zones of the City and subject to a number of other requirements. Understanding that in the future, there could be additional rule changes by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) or other types of marijuana uses authorized by the State Legislature, City Council adopted a prohibition on all other licensed and registered marijuana uses in the City. This prohibition is set forth in SVMC 19.85.040. Thus, the prohibition acts as a proactive measure to allow measured review of new uses prior to them being allowed, rather than having to rely on a reactive approach such as through a moratorium. Pursuant to RCW 69.50.382 and .385, and rules promulgated by the WSLCB in WAC 314-55- 310, applicants may receive a license to operate as a licensed marijuana transport business to transport marijuana and marijuana products between other licensed marijuana producers, processors, and retail stores. A marijuana transportation license requires that the license holder have a physical location as the primary business location, that all vehicles for the business be permitted by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission as common carriers, that the license holder carry certain insurance, and that the license holder maintain detailed records of the marijuana items being transported, including clear documentation of the chain of custody for each delivery. WAC 314-55-310(2-4). Only the licensee or employees of the licensee who are at least 21 years old may transport any product. Id. Marijuana must be in sealed containers in a locked storage unit within the vehicle. Live plants may be transported. Id. Pursuant to direction from City Council, staff developed proposed regulations to allow licensed marijuana transport uses within the City for Planning Commission consideration. Specifically, the proposal will amend SVMC 19.60.050 (the permitted use matrix), chapter 19.85 SVMC, and Appendix A. The proposed regulations are similar in form to the City's regulations for licensed marijuana producers, processors, and retail stores. The proposed regulations allow marijuana transport businesses to be located in the RC, IMU, and I zones. In the RC zones, the transport business must have a lockable enclosure to keep the fleet in, as the WSLCB rules allow transporters to have marijuana in the vehicles for up to 48 hours and staff understand that there are instances where transporters will have marijuana in the vehicles overnight. Further, as with the production and processing uses, the proposed regulations have added buffers to certain sensitive uses in addition to those set forth by the State. These buffers prohibit marijuana transport uses from being within 1,000 feet of undeveloped school, library, and City property (other than stormwater and ROW), and prohibit such uses from being within 1,000 feet of City Hall and CenterPlace. After conducting a public hearing on May 23, 2019, Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend that City Council approve the proposed marijuana transporter amendments. On June 24, 2019, City Council heard an administrative report and requested (1) zoning maps to show the allowable zones, (2) information regarding law enforcement interaction, and (3) information regarding odor control. A zoning map has been attached to highlight the zones where marijuana transport businesses would be allowed: RC, IMU, and I zones. Staff contacted Police Chief Mark Werner, who provided the following information regarding the interaction of commercial vehicle officers with marijuana transporters. First, he indicated that there have been limited interactions between officers and transporters. However, those that have occurred did not have any noticeable difficulties or issues. Officers generally look to whether the transporter has the necessary time-stamped LCB-approved information to identify them as a licensed transporter and to identify the cargo. Additionally, there cannot be access between the cab and cargo and officers would check to confirm this. Generally, the primary issue for officers was to seek and verify the appropriate documentation to confirm that the transporter was a licensed transporter, but that it would not be a problematic issue for any licensed transporter who is complying with LCB requirements. Notably, the amendments are only land-use amendments to address the impacts from the business' primary location. The amendments do not address such police-transporter interactions, as delivery operations are solely governed by the LCB and the City is preempted from regulating such aspects of the business. Finally, even if the City does not allow licensed marijuana transporters from locating within the City, transporters may still operate their vehicles on City streets to pick-up and drop-off at licensed marijuana producers, processors, and retailers located in the City. Finally, as staff indicated during the administrative report, state law prohibits transporters from keeping any product inside their facilities, which thereby limits the City's ability to minimize odor. However, any marijuana that is kept in vehicles must be in a lockable container inside the vehicle. In speaking with a marijuana transporter, they indicated a desire to minimize odor because they did not want to draw attention to the vehicles in order to limit crime. As mentioned during the administrative report, the WSLCB was not aware of any odor issues from transporters. The proposed zones do limit the impacts from odor on residential uses, as they are in major commercial and industrial zones that are generally located away from residential uses. Notably, the City allows production and processing facilities in the RC zone, which likely have greater odor issues due to the larger amount of marijuana present at such facilities. OPTIONS: Move to advance to a second reading, with or without further amendments; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance No. 19-011 adopting amendments to allow licensed marijuana transporters, to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed Ordinance No. 19-011 B. Presentation C. Zoning map D. Planning Commission meeting minutes: May 9, May 23, and June 13, 2019 E. Findings and Recommendation adopted by Planning Commission on June 13, 2019 F. Staff Report Proposed Ordinance No . 19 -011 : Adopting Marijuana Transport Amendments Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley July 9, 2019 ___________ CTA-2019-0002 Process Study Session May 9, Administrative Report .0 2019 •'cJ June 24, 2019 . v, = : © : E Public Hearing May U Ordinance 1St Reading pil E 23, 2019 July 9, 2019 a o ,,P U U Findings of Fact Ordinance 2nd June 13, 2019 Reading TBD A Today State - S .- - _ Tra nsport Uses RCW 69.50.382 and 69.50.385 and WAC 314-55-310: Authorize licensed marijuana transport businesses. ONLY transport marijuana and marijuana products between licensed marijuana producers, processors, retail stores, and research facilities. NO home delivery. Subject to WSLCB licensing. Must have physical location (e.g., an office); no marijuana inside. Considered a "common carrier," so must also get UTC common carrier permit. Vehicle markings? - no advertising permitted. • Transportation logs and manifests required. • Secured compartments that are attached to vehicle body. • Live plants - in metal partitions, cages, or shatterproof acrylic. Must be windowless (other than windshields and windows necessary for driving). All deliveries must be made within 48 hours from the time of pick-up. Note: This means that marijuana may be in vehicles onsite overnight. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney State law — Licensed MarijuanaTransport Uses Prohibited from being within 1,000 feet of: • School; • Playground; • Recreation center; Child care center; Public park; Public transit center; Library; or Game arcade. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 4 ,Pmed Amendments Generally: Allow marijuana transporters in RC, IMU, and I zones. Addresses traffic issues and limits impacts on residential and mixed-uses. Additional City buffers for vacant school, library, and City property (other than swales, ROW, and Appleway Trail). Consistent with City regulations for marijuana production and processing. Requires lockable enclosure for fleet in RC zone. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Pro o ell._ 1 ,:. 2ME '- We Wellese A - 4,10 qui r. m : r - 2 Amendments — j + -_ 1 w utlid f r Eutliti p sS Av6 _-'_--� �_.. E'�C.f? - Eudld Ave Ave ■. . __ _ Zoning I\ 1ap ; A : _ InSaAwen6x — InH13�3/ lamino Ave } Mission �' Mission Ave Shy • ` k_ Apr l'6*'..- r - f ., a� II ..... ., Ave erpa.L.., 1,.. 2_ A. r Im lam 4Ill 4-fig-. r c ~1.tea r 1'7 S..ra uo Ik G '° [1 .. _1A1,'3i - l:[ .----_ - iiiii u ISL-- • _ y _. _ 4th AVe rr 4U1 9th Ave . — et' g _Sdi Ave r F •--` 9 t !' — g T a ro.... ima w 16th T liww®ww L' A 0 s 1 Mil Av 11111111 Awe� � 0 Lemsemir"mit 4 K Av r.. 2dih Ave wtw 32 d Ave e1 v Legend ,t zoning I - dish Ave I m -RC IItlit 1_.. I City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Ils.i 6 Pro ._o _ _ — Consi Interaction between Police and Transporters? No problems identified by our Commercial Vehicle Officers to date. Drivers required to provide WSLCB time-stamped information. No access from cab to cargo. Primary issue for officers is to confirm proper documentation for legal use. Note: these are land use amendments, which do not get at operational issues during deliveries. Delivery-related regulations would be preempted by State law. Odor? Clean Air Agency regulations allow enforcement actions against odor in certain instances by Spokane Regional Clean Air. No marijuana allowed in offices, so limited ability to address odor through building HVAC systems. No odor complaints reported by WSLCB. Proposed allowable zones are higher intensity use zones intended to limit impacts on residential uses. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Questions ? City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 8 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 19-011 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE APPENDIX A, SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.60.050, AND CHAPTER 19.85 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE DEFINITIONS AND ALLOW LICENSED MARIJUANA TRANSPORTER USES, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, since 1970, federal law has prohibited the manufacture and possession of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, based on the federal government's categorization of marijuana as having a"high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment." Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005), Controlled Substance Act (CSA), 84 Stat. 1242, 21 U.S.C. 801 etseq; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012,voters of the State of Washington approved Initiative Measure No. 502 (I-502), now codified in various chapters of the RCW, including chapters 69.50, 46.04, 46.20, 46.21, and 46.61 RCW, which provisions, (1) decriminalized possession and use of certain amounts of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia; (2) amended state laws pertaining to driving under the influence of intoxicants to include driving under the influence of marijuana; and (3) established a regulatory system licensing producers, processors, and retailers of recreational marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older, and provide for the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board ("WSLCB") to adopt rules governing licensed marijuana uses; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted chapter 19.85 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC"), which provides comprehensive regulations governing licensed marijuana uses within the City, but which prohibits marijuana transporter uses; and WHEREAS,the State has adopted RCW 69.50.382 and .385, and the WSLCB has adopted WAC 314- 55-310 to authorize and regulate licensed marijuana transporters to transport marijuana and marijuana products between licensed marijuana producers,processors, retailers,and researchers; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to allow licensed marijuana transporter uses as provided in the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2019,the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106,providing a 60-day notice of intent to adopt amendments to Spokane Valley development regulations; and WHEREAS, on May 3, 2019, and May 10, 2019, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report followed by deliberations, and provided a recommendation to approve the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2019,the City Council reviewed the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2019, the City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendments; and Ordinance 19-011 Page 1 of 7 DRAFT WHEREAS, on July 23, 2019, City Council considered a second ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS,the amendments below bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, and welfare and protection of the environment. NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed amendments and recommends approval of the amendments. The City Council has read and considered the Planning Commission's findings. The City Council hereby makes and adopts the following findings and conclusions: A. Growth Management Act Policies — The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. B. Compliance with Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.150(F): 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the following applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan: ED-G1: Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. ED-G6: Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility,predictability, and stability. ED-P2: Identify and encourage business and employment growth in new and innovative industries and occupations. LU-G1: Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-P5: Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. LU-P9: Provide supportive regulations for new and innovative development types on commercial, industrial, and mixed-use land. LU-P10: Ensure that freight-intensive operations have convenient access to designated truck routes and intermodal terminals. 2. The proposed amendments bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment as follows: The proposed amendments will allow compliance with state law and allow state- licensed marijuana transport businesses to locate within Spokane Valley while separating such uses from identified sensitive uses and the City's existing and future residential uses. Further, the amendment will allow transportation businesses near transportation infrastructure. Ordinance 19-011 Page 2 of 7 DRAFT Section 2. Amendment. Appendix A of the SVMC is hereby amended with the following additions and amendments,to be added alphabetically: APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS A. General Provisions. 1. For the purpose of this Code, certain words and terms are herein defined. The word "shall" is always mandatory. The word "may" is permissive, subject to the judgment of the person administering the Code. 2. Words not defined herein shall be construed as defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. 3. The present tense includes the future, and the future the present. 4. The singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular. 5. Use of male designations shall also include female. B. Definitions. *** Manufacturing, petroleum and coal products: The manufacture of asphalt paving, roofing and coating and petroleum refining. See "Industrial,heavy use category." Marijuana club or lounge: A club, association, or other business, for profit or otherwise, that conducts or maintains a premises for the primary or incidental purpose of providing a location where members or other persons may keep or consume marijuana on the premises, whether licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board or not, or such other similar use pursuant to RCW 69.50.465, as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana cooperative: A marijuana cooperative formed pursuant to chapter 69.51A RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. A marijuana cooperative is comprised of up to four qualifying patients or designated providers and formed for the purposes of sharing responsibility for acquiring and supplying the resources, and producing and processing marijuana for the medical use of the members of the marijuana cooperative. Marijuana processing: Processing marijuana into usable marijuana, marijuana-infused products, and marijuana concentrates; packaging and labeling usable marijuana, marijuana-infused products, and marijuana concentrates for sale in retail outlets; and sale of usable marijuana, marijuana-infused products, and marijuana concentrates at wholesale by a marijuana processor licensed by the State Liquor Control and Cannabis Board and pursuant to Chapter 69.50 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder, as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana production: Production and sale of marijuana at wholesale by a marijuana producer licensed by the State Liquor Control and Cannabis Board and pursuant to Chapter 69.50 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder,as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana sales: Selling usable marijuana, marijuana-infused products, and marijuana concentrates in a retail outlet by a marijuana retailer licensed by the State Liquor Control and Cannabis Board, along with any applicable other use allowed as part of the marijuana sales pursuant to an endorsement associated with marijuana retail including, but not limited to, marijuana sales with a medical endorsement, operation of a marijuana club or lounge pursuant to an endorsement, or delivery of marijuana that may require an endorsement, all as provided pursuant to Chapter 69.50 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder, as now adopted or hereafter amended. Ordinance 19-011 Page 3 of 7 DRAFT Marijuana sales with medical endorsement: Marijuana sales and medical marijuana sales by a marijuana retailer licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board that has been issued a medical marijuana endorsement pursuant to Chapter 69.50 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder, as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana transporter: A common carrier engaged in marijuana-related transportation or delivery services licensed for such marijuana-related transportation or delivery, all as provided pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder, as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana transporters shall only include common carriers providing marijuana-related transportation services between licensed marijuana producers, marijuana processors, marijuana researchers, and marijuana retailers and shall not include any residential delivery or delivery to end-users. Marijuana uses, category: Marijuana uses conducted in compliance with state law, including but not limited to Chapters 69.50 and 69.51A RCW and rules promulgated thereunder, as now adopted or hereafter amended. Market, outdoor: A temporary or seasonal location where produce and agricultural products including, but not limited to,pumpkins, Christmas trees and firewood, as well as crafts and other items, are offered for sale to the public. See "Retail sales and services,use category." *** Section 3. Amendment. SVMC 19.60.050 is hereby amended with the following additions: 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. Parks and Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Lodging Bed and breakfast P P P P P Hotel/motel P P P P S Recreational vehicle park/campground S Marijuana Uses Marijuana club or lounge Marijuana cooperative Marijuana processing S S Marijuana production S S Marijuana sales S S S Marijuana transporter Medical S P P P P P Section 4. Amendment. Chapter 19.85 SVMC is hereby amended as follows: Ordinance 19-011 Page 4 of 7 DRAFT Chapter 19.85 MARIJUANA USES 19.85.010 Marijuana production standards. A. Marijuana production shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana production facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter 27.12 RCW; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.010: a. Any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document, plan, or program adopted by the council; and b. The Appleway Trail; or 4. a. Any facility or building designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the Council as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term that identifies such facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location; or b. CenterPlace. B. Marijuana production in the RC zone shall only be permitted indoors. 19.85.020 Marijuana processing standards. A. Marijuana processing shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana processing facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter 27.12 RCW; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.020: a. Any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document, plan, or program adopted by the City; and b. The Appleway Trail; or 4. a. Any facility or building designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the City as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term that identifies such facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location; or b. CenterPlace. B. Marijuana processing in the RC zone shall be limited to packaging and labeling of usable marijuana. 19.85.030 Marijuana retail sales standards. A.New marijuana sales shall not be permitted within any zoning districts. Ordinance 19-011 Page 5 of 7 DRAFT B. Marijuana sales uses in existence and in continuous and lawful operation prior to July 27, 2016, shall not be deemed nonconforming and shall be permitted as a legal use subject to the following: marijuana sales shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line,measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana sales facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Centennial Trail; 2. Appleway Trail; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; 4. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter 27.12 RCW; 5. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided any stormwater facility or right- of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right- of-way in any document, plan, or program adopted by the council shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.030; or 6. a. Any facility or building designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the council as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term that identifies such facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location; or b. CenterPlace. 19.85.040 Marijuana transporter standards. A. Marijuana transporter uses shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana transporter facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A; 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in chapter 27.12 RCW; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under SVMC 19.85.040: a. Any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document, plan, or program adopted by the City; and b. The Appleway Trail; or 4. a. Any facility or building designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the City as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term that identifies such facilities or buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location; or b. CenterPlace. B. Marijuana transporter uses in the RC zone shall include a lockable enclosure for any vehicles used for marijuana-related transport. Such enclosure shall be subject to applicable setback, transitional, and screening requirements. 19.85.0450 Other licensed or registered marijuana uses prohibited. Marijuana production, marijuana processing, and existing marijuana sales, and marijuana transporters shall be permitted pursuant to SVMC 19.85.010, 19.85.020, and 19.85.030, and 19.85.040. All other commercial and noncommercial licensed or registered marijuana uses are prohibited within all zoning districts of the City. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, marijuana clubs or lounges and marijuana cooperatives. This Ordinance 19-011 Page 6 of 7 DRAFT prohibition does not apply to home growing or processing of marijuana by qualified patients or designated providers in residential zoning districts as set forth in SVMC 19.85.060 and in compliance with state law. 19.85.0560 Marijuana production and processing in residential zones. Washington state law authorizes qualified patients and designated providers to produce marijuana and to process marijuana in dwellings, residences, domiciles, and similar housing units under limited circumstances and with limited processing methods. Subject to applicable federal, state, and local laws, any owner, lessor, or leasing agent may request or require disclosure of a renter or lessee's desire to produce or process marijuana within a rented or leased dwelling unit. In addition to compliance with any applicable state or federal laws and regulations, lawful production or processing of marijuana by any person in a dwelling, residence, domicile, or other similar housing unit shall be subject to all locally applicable land use, development, zoning, and building regulation requirements including, but not limited to, all applicable requirements set forth in SVMC Titles 17 through 24 as the same are now adopted or hereafter amended, and the following regulations: A. Any home production or processing of marijuana by any person pursuant to state law shall not be permitted outside of the dwelling or accessory structure; B. Any home production or processing of marijuana by any person or allowed by state law in a dwelling or accessory structure shall be enclosed, blocked, or sight-screened from the public right-of-way and from adjacent properties so that no portion may be readily seen by normal unaided vision or readily smelled from such locations. Accessory structures shall be permanent structures enclosed by a roof and walls on all sides and connected to a permanent foundation. For purposes of SVMC 19.85.060, accessory structures shall not include cargo containers, recreational vehicles, or other similar types of structures. Accessory structures shall be completely opaque in addition to necessary site-screening; C. Home processing of marijuana shall not involve any combustible method and shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws and rules, including all standards adopted by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board; and D. Production or processing of marijuana by any person pursuant to state law in a dwelling or accessory structure shall only be allowed in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. Section 5. Other sections unchanged. All other provisions of Appendix A and Title 19 SVMC not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section 6. 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 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of July, 2019. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Date of Publication: Approved as to Form: Effective Date: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance 19-011 Page 7 of 7 Fes% o Proposed Allowable Zones000000000 �o� p ° G071710777771 ellesley Ate• S�e�`e : �e� 00 ❑ a w Q77� ° y�e n rn ,. ° D OCC o c 0 a ZA 0 o 0%°�O 7�� 000 2 illE co n J°°0 c� °teeIve A o °o �❑❑❑a°Euclid �� m.�< `' L.T. Euclid u Ave ❑ �� Fpcff Aveci Euclid Ave Ave ° e Buckeye ❑ r -c y o L/ me Ave .dj omerY ;? ❑ �. Ave c Mohr `�To ❑ m m gots. M:nsfield Ave u o Knox Av , �. Indiana -a u Aar,,, co ` .�. o ' Mission A • 1 Mission Ike , aQ�� Mission Ave E o Sa .0 Md`at\ o n. ca _ 00 = E Ce Broadway n co° ami d d Ave Broa. ,: o y ❑ !1 _ y ® a H •.ac0 c = a B oadwa ve — Nro. ,; _co co Y Sprague Ave v 3rd Ave �� PI LL O ❑ DEI :_ ' �u� Ave s �4thAve c a �� °° o°° 8th Ave �, FED c 8.h Ave q nr 8t vel 0 I� r � � CJ i 00 2 W Q u ��7 _ ( ❑ Cav� n co i ❑07700❑ Ute, rJ ce ,>_ 16th Cb❑ �' F 0 c ❑ 0 x 00000 Ave o � � C 16th Av Sa,t f7177777117777-10 o 'ov Rd o �� eSe 17700077 • , 24th Ave tt 2 24th Ave VO�Ui' y Aye.. ( ❑❑777 L"3� ^(, 0 3 c ' Cp777777DE= cG-, 007 a COm u - 32nd Ave Cp❑7 70 .... ._•7.7" o CP a °o p°, er 11 �7�=EU Legend m -o N i' ti 0 Zoning (9 do �q 1:: g �o0 44th Ave �� RC o ❑ e' NUu O o� o dam❑ 0n o a ,J Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall May 9, 2019 Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. HI. Office Assistant Robin I-Iutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter, absent - excused Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Timothy Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McKinley Connor Lange, Planner Michael Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Matt Walton Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioner Kaschmitter was excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to amend the May 9,2019 agenda. The motion was to add item i.a. Findings and Recommendations for CTA--201.8-0005 to review and correct an error. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in firvor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 25, 2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he did not attend any City Council meeting however he did watch the televised meetings. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i.a. Amended Findings and Recommendations for CTA-2018-0005 Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained that staff recognized a discrepancy in the Findings and Recommendations for CTA-2018-0005 being forwarded to the City Council for review at the Tuesday May 14, 2019 meeting. The Commission denied the request, however the discrepancy found was in the last sentence of the introductory paragraph of the Findings and Recommendations. The language struck from the Findings and Recommendations read "The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation 4hat-C4ty-ce-inei4-ac it n t". The language was changed to accurately reflect the Conunission's action by striking the last six words of the sentence. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 12 Commissioner Walton Moved to approve the amended Findings of Fact fir CTA-2018- 0005 as presented. Commissioner Walton explained the intent was to correct the language in order to reflect the deliberation and vote, he was in favor of the adopted language. The vote on the motion was six in favor•, zero opposed, and the motion passed. Public Hearing: CTA-2018-0006, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affordable housing and multifamily development. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. Ms. Barlow provided background information into the privately initiated code text amendment (CTA). Ms. Barlow advised that staff reviewed the application for environmental impact and a determination of non-significance was issued March 29,2019. The notice of public hearing was posted in the newspaper as well as on the City's website, Ms. Barlow clarified that this proposal is a CTA which is not site-specific,therefore on site posting requirements did not apply. Ms. Barlow continued that the Commission conducted a study session of this proposal on April 25, 2019 and are conducting the public hearing to consider public comment. Ms, Barlow highlighted a recent change the City Council made to the Governance Manual. The Council will no longer take public comment on items that have had a public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission. Ms. Barlow stressed that the opportunity for public comment will only be during the Planning Commissions public hearing. Once a reconunendation is made by the Planning Commission, it would be formalized in the Findings of Fact scheduled for May 23, 2019. Ms. Barlow continued, the proposals intent is to allow multifamily (MF) in the residential (R-3) zone as long as it meets supplemental regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that currently multifamily is only allowed in multifamily residential and both mixed use zones. This proposal would change the Permitted Use Matrix SVMC 19,60.050 by adding an"S" indicating multifamily could be allowed but subject to supplemental use regulations. Ms. Barlow described that this proposal would add supplemental language to SVMC 19.65.130 stating that multifamily could be allowed if it complies with Chapter 19.40 of SVMC Alternative Residential Development Options.The newly added section, 19.40.035 identifies that multifamily in the R-3 zone would be allowed if specific criteria are met for applicability, site and building standards and other related agreements. Ms. Barlow continued that in order for a development to utilize this section of the code at least 51%of the units proposed must be used for affordable housing. Ms.Barlow continued the property must be a single parcel under single ownership. The parcel uses must include a church, school and multifamily units all located on a site at least 10-20 acres in size. Ms. Barlow continued that the entire site can be used to calculate the six dwelling units per acre as the maximum density allowed in the R-3 zoning district. Currently the R-3 zone does not allow multifamily development but does allow single family development at a density of six dwelling units per acre. Ms. Barlow explained this amendment proposes to utilize the entire site to calculate what could have been allowed for single family development, but then allows the units to be clustered in the form of a multifamily development. For example, if you have a 10-acre parcel allowing six dwelling units per acre it would allow for 60 single family residential dwelling units. The proposal would allow you to develop 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 12 a site that has a school and church with 60 dwelling units in a multifamily complex which would maintain the density that is established within the R-3 Zone. Ms. Barlow advised the school, church and multifamily may share parking and open space to help prevent overbuilding. Ms. Barlow continued highlighting other criteria that applies when specific circumstances exist, such as natural amenities will be incorporated into the site, buildings that include parking structures shall have design continuity to look as if they are part of a campus and pedestrian areas shall be delineated and protected. Ms. Barlow continued with development standards and noted that the proposal identified that it must meet residential standards in the Dimensional and Standards Table 19.70-01, which includes a building height limit of 35 feet,and setbacks, to maintain the surrounding character. Ms. Barlow continued that the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet is not applicable since the criteria requires the lot size has to be 10-20 acres in size. The development must provide at least 10% of the gross area of the site for open space. Ms. Barlow explained other requirements would be agreements to ensure compliance with all criteria for the life of the project. The conditions will run with the land and will not transfer with the owner. Ms. Barlow continued this would be processed as a Type III Permit that requires a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) and gave an overview of the process. Ms. Barlow explained that through the CUP process uses that may have unanticipated impacts could be conditioned by the Hearing Examiner to mitigate those impacts, or the permit could be denied completely. Ms. Barlow highlighted the items discussed by the Commission during the study session. As part of the proposal at least 51% of the units proposed must be used for affordable housing and it was asked what that figure included. Ms. Barlow explained the federal standard for affordable housings definition includes housing and utilities. The other item discussed was pertaining to the number of existing sites in the City that could support this proposal. Staff's analysis within the staff report identified 75 properties within the City owned by churches. Out of those 75 sites, 25 of them are in the R-3 zone and two of those properties meet the 10 acre minimum criteria. Of those two sites one has both a school and a church. Ms. Barlow explained that this information shows a snap shot in time as all circumstances could change. Ms, Barlow added that these regulations are not limited to existing churches and schools, the regulations state that if multifamily were to be allowed in the R-3 zone it would have to be in conjunction with a church and a school. Anyone could aggregate land and propose a development with a church, school and multifamily component. Ms.Barlow explained the City's{GIS specialist queried single property owners • within the R-3 zone that would meet the criteria and identified eight sites. If this proposal were adopted this could apply to those eight sites owned by a single property owner within the R-3 zone. Ms. Barlow highlighted procedural recommendations and urged the Commission to consider the public comments provided. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was a determination as to why the limit was 20 acres? Ms. Barlow advised the applicant may be able to address that question. Ms, Barlow stressed that this proposal is not a City*initiated proposal and has been proposed by Catholic Charities, the City is processing the request. Commissioner Johnson asked if the City has a definition of a church and a school in order to determine if anyone could open a church and one grade level school and meet the criteria. Ms. Barlow explained the City does have a definition for schools, this proposal does not identify as a public or private school. However, it is assumed to be private as it is associated with a church. It was determined the City has a definition for a church and it was read aloud. It was concluded the City would automatically defer to the City's definition if the language was not provided in the 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 12 proposal. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of nonprofit not being identified in the definition and it was concluded that either profit based or nonprofit organizations could apply. Commissioner McKinley asked for clarification that currently only one site fit the criteria; it was concluded to be accurate. There was discussion that a property could exceed the maximum and only utilize the amount the property needed; but property could also be aggregated to fit the criteria. Ms. Barlow added that the City received three additional comments, from Daniel and Deborah Hippie, Sara Goulart and Kim Helm. Each comment stressed they are in opposition and all live within close proximity to the St. Vianney church site. Johnathan Mallahan Vice President of housing for Catholic Charities of Eastern Washington provided an informational video depicting Catholic Charities mission. Mr. Mallahan spoke about the need for affordable housing for seniors. Mr.Mallahan explained that Catholic Charities strives to develop the support of communities and bring dignity to vulnerable individuals. He explained Catholic Charities has a variety of programs that provide basic needs to include food, security, access to employment, counselling and housing. He continues that Catholic Charities provides over 1,300 units of affordable housing throughout Easter Washington that serves seniors, families, homeless and farmworkers. Mr. Mallahan explained Catholic social teachings believe that individuals deserve basic human dignity that these project provide. Mr. Mallahan touched on other developers and explained that their mission may be different than Catholic Charites. Mr. Mallahan explained they have been transparent to surrounding neighbors and will do what they can to mitigate any impacts. Mr. Mallahan discussed discriminating to one population and explained that natural limits dictate who can be served on a campus with a church and a school. He went on to explain you couldn't put a low barrier housing project on a parcel that has a school as you wouldn't be able to attain funding. Adding that it wouldn't be in compliance as you have to accept individuals into those project with criminal history and with a school on site that wouldn't be appropriate. Lastly, Mr. Mallahan continued that seniors often times downsize due to retirement and income changes and this would allow seniors to stay in the community they are accustom to. Mr. Mallahan stated this proposal is in keeping with the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding affordable housing. He addressed housing costs stating they have increased by 29%with only a 6%household income increase. This will push individuals out of housing and is disproportionate to seniors due to fixed incomes. Catholic Charities would like to afford seniors the opportunity to age in place, reduce the frequency of moving and explained the importance of the onsite social services affording the assistance to help seniors to live independently. Mr. Mallahan concluded by thanking the Commission and stated that if this proposal passes Catholic Charities will proceed with applying for funding and a CUP for development. Commissioner Walton identified for the record that he knows Mr. Mallahan as they attended Gonzaga University together. Commissioner Walton stated he has no affiliation with Catholic Charities and did not intended to recuse himself from deliberation. Commission Johnson also advised he has worked with Catholic Charities and Rob McCann is a member of the Spokane County Human Rights Tasks force with him. Commissioner Johnson does not have reason to support the charity other than their ultimate goals and is viewing the proposal and how it would affect other properties within the City. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Pttge 5 of 12 Commissioner Kelley asked the applicant if the main goal is intended for Senior Citizens then why isn't it stated as such? Mr. Mallahan explained that listing a specific population in code could be a Iiability and a violation of fair housing standards. Deputy City Attorney Eric Lamb explained that the Office of the City Attorney would also have concerns with listing specific protected classes whether based on disability or age, the City does not discriminate and does not want to discriminate. Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant why they chose the 51% as the number of units to be low income? Mr. Mallahan advised that is a common standard with public funding and aids in obtaining funding. Commissioner Johnson also asked what the reason was f©r limiting to 20 acres? Mr. Mallahan explained the Internet was to narrow the amount of Iand that this would apply too, but at this time realized that the upper limit didn't add value to this proposal. Commissioners Johnson asked about parking and the overflow concerns with overlap of those at home during church services. Mr. Mallahan explained that parishioners typically traveling to attend the services would now be living on site and attending the services with no additional parking impacts. Commissioner Johnson asked staff if there was a way to limit or encourage additional parking? Ms. Barlow explained those items would be worked out through the CUP process. Ms. Barlow stressed how the CUP process is the tool to address unanticipated impacts that the Hearing Examiner would review. Commissioner Johnson asked about shared space and asked what the applicants vision was? Mr. Mallahan explained that this project is an appropriate context for shared as well as separate space for the school. Commissioner Johnson stated his concerns for open space and security issues for the school. Ms. B'arlow explained that security measures would be put in place by the owner and operator of the schools. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of nonprofit or for-profit business and his concern is the entities that might take advantage of the locations that staff identified, Mr. Mallahan stated that naturally the 51% requirement provides a disincentive to develop for-profit. Net operation income potential for a property with 51% affordability is limited and drives down the revenue, those developers would find less cumbersome opportunities in other areas of the City. Commissioner Johnson asked if the applicant would be opposed to 60% and Mr. Mallahan advised they would not. Commissioner Walton asked staff if the City currently asks for trip generation studies within the MFR zone if they exceed density? Ms. Barlow explained that trip generation studies are required based on the number of trips generated during peak hour traffic. If a project is expected to generate more than 10 peak hour trips a study would be required. Ms. Barlow added that concurrency is also required as part of the study from the City's Senior traffic engineer. Commissioner Walton asked the applicant to explain the application process. Mr. Mallahan explained they are a fair housing provider and everyone is welcome to apply. He continued that there is ability within the fare hosing rules to have communities that serve senior populations exclusively. The applicant would have to be 62 years of age or older, they perform a background and credit check to ensure a safe environment and that the applicant has the ability to afford the housing.Mr.Mallahan noted not each property would use the same criminal background check standards depending on location. Commissioner Walton asked if citizenship was required as part.of the population served were farmworkers? Mr. Mallahan advised that is not a part of the process. Kathi Lankford, Walnut Road; Ms. Lankford stated she lives directly across the street from the site. She understands the need for affordable housing however feels it needs to be in the right area, not in an R-3 zone. Gary Graupner, 10219 E Valleyway Avenue; Mr. Graupner advised his largest concern is the same now as it was before, traffic impacts. He stated that between Felts Road and 05-09-2019 Punning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 12 IIarold Road their will a new development of thirteen houses, He does not want to see Valleyway Avenue become another Broadway by making Valleyway Avenue a through street from Argonne Road to University Road. He asked that they find another location and is opposed. Mark Zielfelder, 417 N Harold Road; Mr. Zielfelder explained that his concerns are the same as they were 8 years ago. He is concerned about traffic impacts and for the infrastructure, I-Ie works for the City of Spokane Water and stated the water infrastructure would not be able to support this project and gave examples as to why. He feels there are too many variables that need to be looked at. He added that no one wants to see the removal of the Walnut trees to accommodate for sidewalks. Mr. Zielfelder stated the video presented showed that the project was clearly in a commercial zone not in a neighborhood. Thomas Dixon, 608 N Farr Road;Mr. Dixon explained the church is in his backyard. He and his wife chose to buy in this area clue to the character and location, He is concerned with traffic impacts. He advised he supports Catholic Charities however is opposed to this proposal. Linda Dixon, 608 N Farr Road; Mrs. Dixon explained this is the second time they have gone through this, Mrs.Dixon continued they live in a great neighborhood and do not want to see this neighborhood ruined. She added they didn't know this was happening until last night when someone put a note on their door. Michael Lehman,9920 E Broadway;Mr. Lehman was concerned with the unknowns and that there were no studies being done regarding traffic or water. He found it hard to believe there were no adverse impacts. He continued that he was thankful for the video presented but felt it was terrible as it proved to be in a commercial zone with access to public transit, none of these items would be accessible on Walnut Road. He feels there are too many unanswered questions and is opposed. Ken Marks 10001 E Broadway Ave; Agrees with Mr. Lehman Dave Fode, 124 N Walnut Roadd; Mr. Fode explained that current zones protect us from situations like these. He feels this would decrease his property value and also agrees with the concerns for the infrastructure, Christine Fode,124 N Walnut Road; Mrs.Fode explained she moved to the area because she liked the street, She was shocked to receive a letter dated April 30th from Catholic Charities and St.Vianney Church. She is not opposed to affordable housing; she is opposed to the CTA as the zoning needs to stay Single Family. Joann Maxfield,205 N Walnut Road; She agrees with all public comments and it mostly concerned with traffic. Sandy Holder, 9814 E Valleyway, Ms. Ilolder agrees with all public comments and expressed her concerns for property values going down and the unknowns. Ms. Holder is concerned with traffic impacts should Valleyway Avenue be opened up. She has a deaf child and is concerned for the safety of those with disabilities. She is also concerned with overflow parking as the church holds events a few times a year where.they block off the . street. She is opposed to this proposal and suggested relocating this to a commercial property. Sadie Lieuallen, 123 N Walnut Road,Ms.Lieuallen agrees with all public comments and is opposed. Ryan Lieuallen, 123 N Walnut Road, agrees with Mrs. Lieuallen. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 12 Levi Strauss, 302 N Walnut Road, Mr. Strauss explained that eight years ago it was determined to be a bad idea and still is. He continued that parking and traffic are already a problem as the current students get dropped off and picked up by their parents. Mr. Strauss continued that Catholic Charities is big business trying to make money with no respect for the neighborhood. Mr. Strauss continued that this monstrosity is too big and doesn't fit and asked the commission not to institutionalize the neighborhood. Mr. Strauss concluded that he had a problem with Commissioner Walton not recusing himself. Chair Johnson reminded the audience to remain respectful to all those in the room, Commissioner Walton stated he jell it important that the Commission is professional and appreciated the statement in terms of the audience, Commissioner Walton pointed out that the Commission is allowing extended public comment rather than limiting comments to three-minutes that they have the ability to do. He reminded the audience that if they are repeating comments to keep them succinct, Karen Stroud, 302 N Walnut Road; Ms. Stroud stated she received a letter left on her front door regarding this meeting. Her concern is that the church already creates a lot of traffic from the school and is also concerned with parking and is opposed. Claudia Nelson, 707 N Walnut Road; Ms. Nelson stated that she and Mr. Kuder agree with all comments, it is hard to get out onto Walnut Road as it is and they are opposed. Tim Bieber, 312 N Farr Road; Mr. Bieber explained he will use the same statement he used eight years ago. The founders of the valley built Walnut Street to symbolize a hub of the valley and created building restrictions to protect it. Mr. Bieber stated we have to respect unwritten constitution. Mr. Bieber stated he doesn't want to move out of the neighborhood as it's worth keeping pure. Mr. Bieber added that if this proposal is approved it will destroy the neighborhood and he is opposed. Shelly Stevens, South Hill; Ms. Stevens explains she no longer lives on Walnut Road partially due to the proposal eight years ago and she gave details into the trials the neighborhood had. Ms. Stevens reminded the Commission that Rob McCann advised all of the City council members to resign based on their decision to deny the previous request. Ms. Stevens explained the 51% suggested does apply to for-profit builders as long as they are a low income property for a specific number of years. Ms, Stevens added that this is about money, and stated that St Vianney is listed in bankruptcy. Ms. Stevens added that she could not believe Rob McCann wasn't present and sent someone else. Commissioner Walton wanted to reiterate that public comments needed to be directed to the dais. He felt it unfortunate that while tensions are high with strong opinions that members of the audience would get personal and asked again that those comments be directed to the dais, Commissioner Kelley stated he felt that everyone present knows what Commissioner Walton just said. He agreed that some individuals may have been carried away due to emotion and added that Commissioner Walton's' constant interrupting or comments when someone speaks to the issue is intimidating. He told Commissioner Walton that he feels he needs to stand down as the audience knows what the rules are and are doing a good job at holding bacic•emotions and stated he had heard enough. Commissioner Walton moved for a three-minute recess, with no second, the motion,failed for the lack of a second. Daniel Hippie, 313 N Walnut Road; Mr, Hipple explained that he has the most to lose out of anyone due to where he is located. He continued by thanking the Commission for representing the public and hearing what is being said. Mr, Hippie advised lie had done some calculations and advised that within 10-20 acres there could be 76 units however, this 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 12 proposal is talking about one acre within the property. Mr. Hippie asked the Commissioners if this were going to happen a few feet from where they live would they be attending the meeting on the other side? Rick Woods, 608 N Walnut Road; Mr. Wood explained that he works downtown one block away from the House of Charity. He is concerned that the type of individuals he sees at work will move into his neighborhood and is strongly opposed. Robert Popendick, 426 N Walnut Road; Mr. Popendick lives directly across the street and stated the traffic is already a problem. He added that his concern is also the infrastructure. He heard the school is in bankruptcy and if it goes under does it disqualify the property from being built? He's also concerned that they are using this building to keep the school funded and feels that is wrong. Mike Gleason, 5211 N Allen Place; Mr. Gleason advised he does not live in the area and was there in support of the Hippie's at 313 N Walnut Road. Mr. Gleason stated he has been in the real estate business for 28 years and has a 10 unit building in Browns Addition. He gave examples of his average rent to be $750.00 and has two vacancies. Mr. Gleason asked the Commission if they lived in the neighborhood would they want a 76 unit building across the street? Jan Rulea, 3218 N Elton Road; Ms. Rulea used to own a home at 9802 E Valleyway Avenue. She too is concerned with what the building will look like, traffic problems and with the water and sewer. There have been problems with the sewer before. Ms. Rulea is also concerned with the possibility of extending Valleyway Avenue, she is opposed. Todd Shucks, 116 N Walnut; Mr. Shucks is opposed to the proposal. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 8:04 PM Commissioner Rasmussen asked staff about the concerns she heard regarding water and how the City reviews water uses? Ms. Barlow explained that this proposal is to consider the legislative action to make a change to our code. The request is to allow for a development like this to be proposed and Catholic Charities is being transparent with their hope to move forward. Ms. Barlow explained that during review of an application, agencies with jurisdiction would be contacted, including the water and sewer purveyors. Currently there is no project under review therefore those items have not been looked at. Mr. Lamb added that during review of an application the City does have water concurrency requirement. The applicant would have to demonstrate that there is adequate water for the project and would have to obtain a certificate of water concurrency from the specific water agency before being allowed to move forward. Commissioner Johnson asked if the letter provided by Catholic Charities was a requirement? Ms. Barlow explained that it was not a requirement and Catholic Charities took it upon themselves in an effort to be transparent with the surrounding neighbors. Commissioner Walton stated it is clear by the turn out that there is strong opinion and a lot of good valid concerns were brought up. Commissioner Walton added he can sympathize that if something like this were to happen in his neighborhood he would be on the other side in the audience, He added that there are a lot of unanswered questions for the proposal and that the Commission were reviewing a zoning change that would allow any applicant to apply. He added that he understands how difficult it may be to focus on the broad implications when currently there is only one property that fits the criteria. Commissioner Walton continued that he is on the fence as he has strong concerns related to the for-profit entity could come forward,the definition of a church provides some issues moving forward and the idea of a school on the property is the most limiting factor. Commissioner Walton 05.09.2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 12 continued that he struggles that this is a narrowly tailored idea. He concluded that there are zones within the Valley that are more conducive to this type of development, however asking a church to purchase property in these areas does put a burden on them due to cost. Commissioner Walton thanked the public for testifying. Commissioner McKinley thanked Catholic Charities for the presentation and the public for their comments. He stated his concerns are due to only one property currently fitting the criteria and he cannot support this due to its small pinpointed scope. Commissioner Kelly stated he can't support the proposal, because it goes against the code. Commissioner Kelley stated the question should be, is the Commission willing to build a 76-unit apartment complexes in an R-3 zones. He is opposed. Commissioner Rasmussen thanked the public for coming and for their comments. Commissioner Rasmussen is concerned with what this could open up in other R-3 zones. She is concerned that public transit infrastructure isn't in place and is also concerned with increased traffic due to delivery trucks and visitors. Commissioner Rasmussen added that nothing has changed since last time the proposal was denied by both the Commission and Council. Commissioner Rasmussen also mentioned this is not entirely in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan that states we will retain a resemblance of what Spokane Valley is. She understands growth and progress and the City has to find affordable housing but does not feel that the R-3 zone is the right location. Commissioner Johnson thanked Catholic Charities for listening to the Commission and providing public notice. He added that he has worked with Catholic Charities and if the Commission was not looking at a Valley wide change he may have different considerations. He is concerned with the opportunity for individuals whom may not be as neighborly as Catholic Charites. He is also concerned with parking and overflow. He agrees that this type of multifamily construction project would not fit in the R-3 zone and is opposed. Commissioner McKinley moved to recommend denial of CTA-2018-0006 to the City Council. No further discussion. The vole on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. Study Session: STV-2019-0002, a proposed street vacation of a portion of Baldwin Avenue. Planner Connor Lange provided a presentation outlining the privately initiated application to vacate unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue,University Road and Glenn Road. Mr. Lange explained the vacation is located between 1-90 to the north, Nora Avenue to the South and further boarded by Overland Avenue to the west. Mr. Lange provided procedural overview advising the application was submitted March 8, 2019, the study session is being conducted, the public hearing is scheduled for May 23, 2019 and the Findings of Fact is scheduled for June 13, 2019. Mr. Lange advised that in processing a street vacation staff reviews connectivity, traffic volume, future developments and access. Potential conditions to consider would be utility and easement access,removal of the portion of the street vacated and design or construction improvements. Mr. Lange advised the request is to vacate 669 feet of Baldwin Avenue, 225 of University Road and 19 feet of Glenn Road ranging in widths from 50-64 feet with no known easements in the area to be vacated. The request will allow for maximum use of abutting properties owned by Circle M properties. Mr. Lange advised that 1-90 prevents future connection with the unimproved rights of ways. He highlighted a study done in 2015 that 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 12 reviewed the potential for a pedestrian overpass at University Road and the study concluded the cost was too significant. Commissioner Johnson advised that in the early 1990's lie was on a citizen advisory committee for Pasadena park were they developed a number of traffic solutions to include a bypass that would tie in with University Road and asked if this was no longer the case? Mr. Lange concluded this to be correct as the costs were too significant to warrant the bypass and not feasible. Commissioner Johnson asked if there is a permit issued? Mr. Lange advised a determination of non-significance was issued on March 15, 2019 for the grading work and an engineered grading permit was issued April 25,2019 for grading work to be completed at the Circle M Properties landscape yard. ii. Study Session: CTA-2019-0002, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 19.6, Chapter 19.85 and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations on licensed marijuana transportation businesses. Mr. Lamb provided a presentation outlining the code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transport operators to operate within the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Lamb provided background into Washington Initiative 1-502 that passed in 2012 legalizing marijuana in Washington State, The City responded with adopting comprehensive regulations for the allowable state license uses. The three primary license uses were production to allow growing,process to make the product usable and retail to purchase the product. As part of the regulations the City Council adopted a provision 19.85.040 that prohibits all other uses within the City of Spokane Valley. In the fall of 2018 the City had a citizen inquiry from a license transporter hoping to do business in the City. Staff presented an administrative report to the City Council and the Council gave consensus to bring a proposal forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Lamb advised this is a City initiated amendment even though it was brought to our attention by a citizen. Mr. Lamb continued explaining that state law was amended after the initial adoption to allow license marijuana transporters. Transportation is only between the licensed production, process, retail stores and research facilities not for home delivery. The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) oversees the licensing as such, licensed transports are subject to WSLCB requirements. Mr. Lamb continued that license marijuana transporters are required to have a physical location or office to store their fleet and state law prohibits them from storing marijuana in the office or physical location. The operator or vehicle are considered a common carrier and must obtain Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission common carrier permits that regulate commercial travel over public right of ways and state highways. State requires transportation logs and manifests in keeping with the state mandate that marijuana be suitably tracked from seed to sale as the state has a robust system due to Federal prohibition. Mr. Lamb explained the product is transported in secured compartments, required to be attached to the vehicle or vehicle body and are locked at all times. Delivery has to be made within 48 hours from the time of pick up as there may be an instance where the marijuana is left in the vehicle overnight. Mr. Lamb added that state law prohibits licensed marijuana transporters from being within 1,000 feet of enumerated sensitive uses such as schools, playgrounds, public transit and libraries. Mr. Lamb continued that staff has identified potential impacts to be traffic; as there are no restriction on fleet size, odor; as marijuana will be kept in vehicles, and crime also due to marijuana being kept in vehicles. WSLCB is not aware of any complaints regarding odor or any break-ins, Mr. Lamb added that during the development of this proposal staff was 05-019-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 12 cognizant of other uses transported that might entice crime such as beer,money and jewelry however; marijuana is treated differently. Mr. Lamb concluded that this proposal is to allow licensed transporters in the Regional Commercial (RC),Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) and Industrial (I) zones as this will address traffic issues by placing them near arterials, The proposal includes the City buffers related to vacant school, library and City properties. Mr. Lamb gave an example that currently the vacant property across the street from the City Hall is owned by the Library with the intent to build a library. Under the current state law, a marijuana shop could be built near the vacant property as there is no library on the site. The City's buffers already put in place for marijuana producers and processors would not allow for non-conforming uses to be built. The proposed amendment also requires a lockable enclosure for the fleet if they are in the RC zone. Mr. Lamb concluded with an illustration of the proposed amendments adding marijuana transporters to the Permitted Use Matrix 19.60.050 subject to supplemental regulations in the RC, IMU and I zone, This will also add them to 19.85.040 established buffers to prevent nonconforming marijuana shops being built near a school or library to be constructed at a later date. This will also prohibit them from being within 1,000 feet of CenterPlace or City Hall, Subsection B states they must have a lockable enclosure and a marijuana transporter definition has been added to Appendix A in order to track with statutory requirements. Commissioner Rasmussen asked about the transportation of immature plants and that the products must be in sealed packages and is wondering how immature plants are transported and how that might affect the odor? Mr. Lamb advised that plants are allowed to be transported however there may be additional requirements that lie will research and provide at the public hearing, Commissioner Walton asked about firearm carrying stipulations and wanted clarification if that was a state law? Mr. Lamb advised that is state law. Commissioner Walton asked how transport vehicles will be identified and if markings or advertising of the vehicle was a requirement? Mr.Lamb stated he is not aware of any state law or regulations that requires them to identify they are a delivery however; there are businesses that do advertise the use, Commissioner Walton asked how local or state law enforcement will interact with the transporters and how they identify themselves? Mr. Lamb advised they are a licensed marijuana transporter and it is a lawful use under state law and would be treated as such once the driver demonstrated his transporter license credentials. Commissioner McKinley asked if this business is specific to transporting with no other components such as production and it was concluded to the case. Mr. Lamb added that there are over 20 producers/processors and 3 retailers in the City. In speaking with WSLCB they have 17 or 18 statewide licensed marijuana transporters at this time. Commissioner Johnson spoke about the City not having these types of restrictions for alcohol,nicotine,oxycodone or opioids and Mr, Lamb stated that was correct but could not speak to the Federal or State restrictions. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner McKinley stated he supported Commissioner Kelley in his earlier statement regarding interrupting the speakers during the public hearing. He recommended that in the future with a large crowd the Commission should put a three- minute time limit on the comments to reduce emotion. Commissioner Walton stated that when emotions are high it is important to remember that rules and process are in place for a reason. 05-09-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 12 He felt the outcome of the Commission was clear, that audience participation was greatly valued. He stressed that if there was any idea that what he was saying was meant to dissuaded the public from speaking he strongly pushes back. He added that the incivility of the Commission members toward each other should be avoided at all times as they are there for the same purpose. He appreciated that it was brought to his attention that it was concern and lie did not interrupt any speaker at any time. He thanked the members of the Commission for conducting a fair and dedicated meeting. Commissioner Kelley added that Chair Johnson did an excellent job at running the meeting and gave direction when appropriate. Commissioner Johnson stated he didn't feel as though any of the Commissioners weren't civil. He understood the points and felt as though Commissioner Walton was supporting him in keeping order. Commissioner Johnson read a statement illustrating that your beliefs do not change the reality. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner McKinley moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:57 p.m. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed .s/z-3/v James Johnson, Chairman Date signed -14(4ufc Robin Hutchins, Secretary Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers —City Hall May 23, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III, Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Timothy Kelley Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Robert McKinley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Michael Phillips, absent- excused Connor Lange, Planner Michelle Rasmussen, absent-excused Matt Walton Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioners Phillips and Rasmussen were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the May 23, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to amend the May 9, 2019 minutes to correct the misspelling of his last name on page 8 from Walter to Walton. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported on May 14, 2019 he attended the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force executive committee to discuss the confluence of leadership meeting where it was determined that meeting will be a long range plan. He also attended the City Council meeting and expressed his concerns for the lack of accurate representation by the 4th legislative district and requested a more diverse invocation at the City Council meetings, On May 21, 2019 he attended the Spokane County Human Right Task Force regular meeting where they received rapid response training. The training was to prepare for public acts of hate received through a portal developed by the task force to report hate crimes. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger advised that after the first reading with the City Council of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments the Council agreed with all of the Planning Commission's recommendations. Mr. Basinger added that Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2019.0003 that had no recommendation from the Planning Commission was denied by the City Council. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. Chair Johnson asked the Commission for a consensus on standardizing a three-minute time limit for all public comment excluding proponent comments. A standard three- minute time limit was concluded to be essential in keeping order. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 019 There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: CTA-2018-0006, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affordable housing and multifamily development. Senior Planner Lori Barlow summarized the Findings of Fact for the privately initiated code text amendment (CTA). The intent of the amendment is to allow multifamily (MF) development as a conditional use in the residential R-3 zone subject to specific criteria. This proposal came before the Planning Commission on two prior occasions. A study session was held on April 25, 2019 and a public hearing on May 9, 2019. After hearing considerable public testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated and voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council. Ms. Barlow explained that the Findings of Fact formalize the pivotal actions and capture the Planning Commission's recommendation and vote, Ms. Barlow concluded that as this item moves forward to the City Council there will be no further opportunity for public comment unless the Council takes specific action to do so. Commissioner Walton stated this CTA was one of the more contentious items reviewed in his time with the Commission. He appreciated the public for their participation and the deliberation from the Commission, He added that despite the struggles the Commission may have had in moving forward he felt this was the correct outcome and is in support of the Findings of Fact. Commissioner Walton moved to approve Findings of Fact CTA-2018-0006 as presented. There was no discussion The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed ii. Public Hearing: STV-2019-0002, a privately initiated street vacation of a portion of Glenn,University Roads and Baldwin Avenue. Planner Connor Lange provided a presentation outlining the privately initiated application to vacate unimproved portions of Baldwin Avenue, University Road and Glenn Road. Mr. Lange explained the right-of-ways (ROW) are located between I-90 to the north, Nora Avenue to the south and further bordered by Overland Avenue to the west. Mr. Lange provided procedural overview advising the application was submitted March 8, 2019, the study session was conducted on May 9,2019, and tonight the public hearing is being held. Mr. Lange advised the majority of the property surrounding the proposed ROWs to be vacated are owned by Circle M Properties. The applicant feels the request will allow for maximum use of abutting properties and that a right of way connection for an overpass is not feasible at University Road. Mr. Lange highlighted a study done in 2015 reviewed the feasibility for an oveipass crossing at University Road, the project was determined to be costly and not viable at the time. However, it is unknown if a project on University Road may provide a greater level of service in the future. Due to future development, staff is recommending an amendment to the proposal by removing University Road from the vacation proposal. Mr. Lange advised that all required notices have been satisfied. Notice was posted at CenterPlace, City Hall and the library. Notice was also posted in the newspaper of record on two separate occasions. Written notice was provided to the owner's adjacent to the 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 unimproved portions of University Road and Baldwin Avenue and signs were posted at the end of each street to be vacated. Mr. Lange advised that in processing a street vacation, staff reviews a number of criteria for approval to determine if the street is still required for public access. Staff does not anticipate that either Baldwin Avenue or Glenn Road would serve any public use and are still part of the recommendation from staff to vacate. Mr.Lange added that there has been a request for both ingress/egress and sewer easements that have been added as a recommended condition of approval. Staff also reviews conditional changes and feels University Road may provide a public benefit in the future should an overpass be proposed. There were no public objections during the comment period. Commissioner Kelley asked for clarification pertaining to University Road and what the City was asking. Mr. Lange advised the City would like to retain University Road and not allow it to be vacated in order to preserve it for future projects. Commissioner Johnson referenced an email from Jen Brunner requesting a 20-foot public sanitary sewer easement and asked where that would be located. Mr. Lange advised that is yet to be determined however; it would most likely be along the proposed access point parallel to Baldwin Road. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:20 PM Todd Whipple; 212 N Pines Road: Mr. Whipple stated the retention of University Road by the City was a surprise to his client. He advised that when his client had come to him asking about this piece of property, they had done their research before purchasing. He cautioned his client not to purchase the property until they had clarification concerning the crossing at University Road from the City that they had located in the 1985 SR90 Enviromnental Impact Statement. Mr. Whipple continued that during their Pre- Application meetings they brought the University Road crossing information to the City's attention and were advised by City staff to move forward and vacate University Road,now they have changed their mind. Mr. Whipple advised the customer has done a considerable amount of work,provided plans to the City and had received a grading permit. He added that the grading permit restrictions specified that until the street vacations were approved they were not to do any work on the ROWs. He explained that it became too difficult to maneuver around the property and then the customer had to stop the project. Staff has taken University Road out of the proposal completely. Mr. Whipple stated they received correspondence that the City would entertain a license agreement in order to use the property as if it were vacated to protect the possible future public improvements while the City retains ownership. Mr. Whipple asked the Planning Commission to maintain the University Street Vacation in order to give them time to go before the City Council with a request for a Iicense agreement to use University Road ROW while the City retains ownership. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Whipple, if the license agreement is obtained and years down the road the City decided to build a bridge, at whose expense would it be to remove the work they had done? Mr. Whipple advised it would depend on the license agreement and would most likely be the responsibility of Circle M Properties. Mr. Whipple gave some details into what they have done and hope to do. He advised they would grade to highway elevation to create the access road between the two distinct properties on either side and explained their road would be well below University Road. Mr. Whipple gave details into building a crossing structure over 1-90 and stated the work they have and will do should not affect future bridge development. He added they would be willing to work with the City in regards to abutment and girder locations at that time. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 Commissioner Kaschmitter asked that if the access road they would build is lower than University Road and should a bridge be built; would the bridge have to be longer in order to accommodate? Mr. Whipple explained that may be the case adding that currently there isn't enough ROW to widen University Road. He explained that University Road is 50- feet wide and building a 45-foot road to go over 1-90 would require walls straight up and down. He explained that would be cost prohibitive and would be cheaper to build girders and a deck. Commissioner Walton asked for clarification that should it be decided to move forward as amended and University Road is retained how would that impact what they are currently doing until they obtain the license. Mr. Whipple advised the work would stop and could potentially kill the project. They will need to enter on one side and exit on the other due to the size of equipment they use in order to move their materials. If they cannot use University Road, then they purchased a piece of property they can't use. He added that they are moving their corporate headquarters to this site, losing University Road was a big deal and losing the license agreement would be detrimental. Patrick J Mitchells, 4107 E Broadway Avenue; Mr. Mitchelli explained Mr. Whipple covered all of their concerns. He added that before purchasing the property they made sure University Road would be able to be vacated and explained that if that is no longer the ease that will put their business in a tough spot. Mr. Mitchelli added that directly across from University Road is the junk yard and stated that isn't going anywhere in the near future, Justin Fabio, 302 N Walnut Road; Mr. Fabio asked if the traffic was going to run north of University Road and where it would exit. It was determined that the street would run north of University Road,through Circle M Properties and would exit onto Raymond Road. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 6:39 PM Commissioner Johnson asked staff why they concluded to remove University Road from the proposal and creating a license agreement. Mr. Basinger stated staff recognized that there may be a potential use for University Road sometime in the future adding that not knowing when that might happen the license agreement is an appropriate means to move forward. He highlighted that currently Circle M Properties is located on prime retail property on Pines Road and them moving would open that property to better uses. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb spoke to the license agreement terms stating the City can require that the applicant's improvements are subject to the City putting in a future project, He added that the license agreement would allow Circle M Properties to use the property while the City retains control to build a future project. It was determined the license agreement details do not require Planning Commission action. Commissioner Kelley spoke about his experience driving truck while serving in the United States Army and how difficult they are to turn around in small spaces. He is concerned for the applicant's future as they invest their funds and work for a number of years and then the City builds a bridge. Commissioner Johnson advised that in the early 1990's he was involved in a two-year long process with Spokane County where an overpass was discussed for University Road trying to mitigate the traffic flow on Argonne Road. At the time, the bypass would start near Bigelow Gulch Road, above Hutton settlement, across the river and to University Road,he is unsure if that is still the long range plan. An interchange at University Road is not feasible at this time however, an overpass may be needed in twenty years. Commissioner 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 Johnson is opposed to leaving University Road in the proposal and is in support of the amendment presented by staff. Commissioner McKinley asked staff if the City would have eminent domain rights. Mr. Lamb explained that if in fact University Road was vacated the City would have eminent domain. The City could either purchase or condemn the property and it would be a matter of retaining the right to do so in the future or the City may feel comfortable enough not to develop and willing to pay the cost in the future if necessary, Currently it is City property and should a bridge be developed at a later date the City would have all rights to the property. Commissioner Walton stated the possibilities in cost associated with repurchasing or condemning the property and the legal implication are concerning. He added that looking at the future and how approvals impact the valley as a whole he feels the City needs to leave all possible mechanisms in place. Commissioner Kaschmitter stated she feels the license agreement will help and is in favor of it. She also agrees there may be a need for a bridge in the future. Commissioner Walton moved to approve STV-2019-0002 for Baldwin Road and Glenn Road with the removal of University Road from the street vacation application as amended by staff Commissioner Kelley advised in looking at the map it appears there are four structures that would have to be removed in order build a bridge at a later date. He added that he is opposed to the motion and feels the street vacation for University Road should remain. Commissioner Walton advised he understands where the proponent and applicant stand as it seems the City changed their mind late in the process, He added that in doing so staff was looking to do what's right for the future of the City and feels the City was well within the right to make the change as the vacation had not yet occurred. He strongly urges City Council to consider the license agreement to run concurrent as it continues to move forward. Commissioner Walton added that he can't, in good conscience, support the promise to obtain licensure if the vacation is approved and is in support of the motion as it stands. Commissioner Kaschmitter agreed with Commissioner Walton. Commissioner McKinley supports the motion and also agreed with Commissioner Kelly regarding the structures that would need to be removed. The vote on the motion was four in favor, one opposed with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, and the motion passed, iii. Public Hearing: CTA-2019-0002,a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) Chapter 19.60, Chapter 19.85 and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations on licensed marijuana transportation businesses. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:57 PM Mr. Lamb provided a presentation outlining the code text amendment to allow licensed marijuana transport operators to operate within the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Lamb provided background into Washington Initiative 1-502 that passed in 2012 legalizing marijuana in Washington State, The City responded with adopting comprehensive regulations for the allowable state license uses to be production, process and retail stores. As part of the regulations the City Council adopted a provision 19.85.040 that prohibits all other uses within the City of Spokane Valley. In the fall of 2018 the City had a citizen 05..23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 inquiry from a license transporter hoping to do business in the City. Staff presented an administrative report to the City Council and the Council gave consensus to bring a proposal forward to the Planning Commission for consideration, Mr. Lamb continued that transportation is only between the licensed production, process, retail stores and research facilities and is not for home delivery. The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) oversees the licensing and licensed transporters are subject to WSLCB requirements. Mr. Lamb continued that license marijuana transporters are required to have a physical location or office to store their fleet and state law prohibits them from storing marijuana in an office or physical location. State requires transportation logs and manifests in keeping with the state mandate that marijuana be suitably tracked from seed to sale. Mr. Lamb explained the product is transported in secured compartments, required to be attached to the vehicle or vehicle body and are locked at all times. Delivery has to be made within 48 hours from the time of pick up as there may be an instance where the marijuana is left in the vehicle overnight. Commissioner Johnson asked about shorter stops such a dinner and lunch breaks. Mr. Lamb advised it is allowed to be in the vehicle in a secured compartment no matter the length of the break. Commissioner Kelley asked if a truck could be stored in a storage facility or garage? Mr. Lamb advised that is an option, adding that under state law the product cannot be stored in an office and there is no mandate that the vehicle has to be stored in a garage or storage facility. Mr. Lamb added that state law prohibits licensed marijuana transporters from being within 1,000 feet of enumerated sensitive uses such as schools, playgrounds, public transit and libraries. Mr, Lamb gave an example that currently under state law a marijuana shop could be built near an empty park like property with no current use. The City's buffers already in place prohibit marijuana shops from being built within 1,000 feet of vacant uses in order to prohibit non-conforming uses. Mr. Lamb addressed the questions posed by the Commission during the study session starting with the transportation of live plants. Transporting live plants is allowed in a secured compartment,those compartments could be metal partitions,cages or shatter proof acrylic to allow the plant to stay alive. Mr. Lamb added that the vehicle transporting the live plants must be windowless to the maximum extent possible. Mr. Lamb addressed advertising concerns advising state law prohibits advertising on or in private vehicles to limit the draw of attention. Mr. Lamb addressed the question regarding being stopped by law enforcement and identifying themselves. Transporters are required to keep a binder with their license details in the vehicle at all times to easily provide to law enforcement. Transport vehicles under the law are considered to be an extension of the licensed premises and can be stopped and inspected at any time. Mr. Lamb concluded that staff identified potential impacts to be traffic; as there are no restriction on fleet size, odor; as marijuana will be kept in vehicles, and crime; also due to marijuana being kept in vehicles. WSLCB is not aware of any complaints regarding odor or any break-ins to transport vehicles. Mr. Lamb concluded that this proposal is to allow licensed transporters in the Regional Commercial (RC),Industrial Mixed Use(IlvIU) and Industrial (I)zones as this will address traffic issues by placing them near arterials. The proposal includes the City buffers related to vacant school, library and City properties and also requires a lockable enclosure for the fleet if they are in the RC zone. 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 ot`9 Commissioner Kelley asked what the definition of Regional Commercial zone is. Mr, Basinger explained that RC zones are for commercial regional uses located throughout I- 90 along high traffic exits like the Spokane Valley Mall. Mr. Basinger added the enclosure suggested are due to the fact that there would be a lot of individuals shopping in these zone, The City wants to ensure the vehicles and products are stored properly. Kevin Lynch, 722 W Wedgewood; Mr. Lynch advised there are other transport companies in the state that already stay the night in the City of Spokane Valley during transport. He spoke to the topic of smell advising the product is vacuum sealed for packaging, then placed in sealed totes and then in a compartment in the van preventing odor. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Lynch if he currently ships live plants? Mr. Lynch advised he does periodically as it is 1% of his business. He added that per state law the vehicle that ships live plants cannot have any windows as Mr. Lamb had mentioned. Commissioner Walton asked Mr. Lynch to describe what a law enforcement interaction would look like. Mr. Lynch explained that his staff are required to wear ID badges to prove they are an employee. He continued that the binder carried in the vehicles as mentioned before include their common carrier license, business license, insurance card and affidavit, There is a manifest and invoice in the primary tote that can be provided to law enforcement when requested. Mr. Lynch explained that it can range from law enforcement knowing the business being conducted before even making contact with them to being asked to provide all documents in the vehicle and in the totes, Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Lynch why the information isn't offered to the officer and it was explained that would be breaking the chain of custody due to the seed to sale laws. Mr. Lynch added that by law he does not have to prove to law enforcement what is being transported in the totes unless instructed to do provide documentation. Commissioner Walton asked Mr. Lynch what impacts the City's request to have a secure enclosure would have on his business? Mt. Lynch advised it does add to cost. He stated that he is a proponent of the request as it will make his staff, drivers, product and vehicles more secure. He added that buildings are hard to find and cost ranges from $1,800 to $2,500 dollars a month, it is also difficult to find a landlord that will rent to him. Mr. Lamb addressed the discussion pertaining to law enforcement stops highlighting that there is a preemption prevision in state law that WSLCB provides all operations of the licensed uses. The City would not be able to ask for any additional forms of identification or supplemental documentation. Commissioner Walton asked staff why the City chose to exempt Appleway trail from the 1,000-foot exclusion zone? Mr. Lamb advised that the City Council does provide a prohibition on retail sales within 1,000 feet of Appleway trail to prevent the end users from using the trail. Council felt it appropriate to exempt Appleway trail due to its extent across the City and crossing multiple zones. Mr. Lamb added the limitations in place such as production staying indoors and no chemical processing. This was a compromise for business rights and property rights verses the trail and its beneficial use by citizens. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m, 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 cr9 Commissioner Walton stated he was intrigued by this proposal due to the attitudes and state adoption of marijuana usage across the country, He feels it's a good idea to stay at the cutting edge of the process within state guidelines and state law, adding that the City wants to promote growth of all kinds. Commissioner Walton likes the proposal and feels there is a good compromise in the adoption of the enclosures and is in support. Commissioner Kelley explained his understanding of the process due to an acquaintance having a similar business and how it operated. Commissioner Kelly explained he feels this will attract criminals that want to steal the trucks and the product. Commissioner Kelly stated he does not appreciate the confrontational attitude toward law enforcement. He added that having been part of this first hand, landlords have the right not to lease to businesses they feel will be a detriment to the community. Commissioner Kelly believes there is a lot of crime attracted to and associated with marijuana businesses and is concerned for people's safety. Commissioner Walton move to approve CTA-2019-0002 as presented. Commissioner Kelley reminded the Commission that when I-502 was first presented, the marijuana grow, production and retail facilities were voted down by the Commission. IIe added that his belief is that if the legalization of marijuana would have been brought to the vote of the people of Spokane Valley it would not have passed and he is greatly opposed. Commissioner Walton thanked Commissioner Kelley for the background. He added that he is in support as the City allows this type of business and are staying on the cutting edge. Commissioner Walton advised that location and regulations have addressed many concerns. Commissioner Walton continued one of his primary considerations was to understand how this business is being perceived by local law enforcement and appreciated the perspective from the proponent as well as Commissioner Kelley's position. The vote on the motion was four in ,favor; one opposed with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, and the motion passed. iv. Public Hearing: STV-2019-0001, proposed street vacations of a portion of Tshirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road in the Northeast Industrial Area. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Basinger provided a presentation to the Commission outlining the Northeast Industrial Area City Initiated Street Vacation. Mr. Basinger provided background advising on April 29, 2019 City Council initiated the Street Vacation and set a public hearing with the Planning Commission, On April 25, 2019 a study session was conducted and tonight the public hearing is being held. Mr. Basinger explained this area is located in the Northeast Industrial Area were the City has taken action to advance development. The City rezoned the property to allow a broader variety of industrial uses,extended the sewer from Sullivan Road to Barker Road and have adopted a planned action ordinance to streamline development. The proposed street vacations will further prepare the area for development. Mr. Basinger advised Garland Avenue will provide access for future development. He added that the current ROW may be an impediment for a large industrial user to developed in the future. Mr. Basinger continued, the proposed vacations are the unimproved Right of 05-23-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 or9 Ways (ROW) of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Greenacres Road and Rich Avenue. Public notice was posted and mailed on April 25, 2019, posted in the Valley Herald and the Exchange on April 26, 2019 and May 3, 2019 and signs were posted on each end of proposed vacation areas. There have been no public or agency comments to date. Mr, Basinger added that the City has been working with Consolidated Irrigation District as they would like to loop their water system. The City will have an easement in place once Tschirley Road ROW is removed to accommodate for their loop. Staff is requesting the approval to vacate the ROWs subject to the conditions in the staff report, Mr. Basinger provided a list of the conditions. Vacated property will be transferred. into the abutting parcels, if approved the area will be surveyed to identify applicable easements, There was some discussion regarding a Pre-Application meeting that determined there would be a land locked parcel once the ROWs are vacated. However, the applicants are proposing to apply for a boundary line elimination to make one parcel mitigating this issue. Mr. Basinger concluded that the zoning will be extended to include the vacated ROWs, a survey will be recorded and all conditions will be fully satisfied prior to transfer of title. Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 7:49 p,rn, Commissioner Walton moved to approve STV-2019-0001 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in,favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Kaschrnitter thanked the public for their comments. Commissioner Walton spoke about his reflection on the previous meeting and overall dedication from the Commission and community. He thanked Commissioner Kelley for reminding himself and staff of his passion in allowing the public to have their free speech. Commissioner Walton apologized to the Commission and members of the public if his comments felt as if they were dissuading the public from speaking as that was not his intent. Commissioner Walton concluded with thanking the Commission for their dedication. Mr. Basinger added currently the Planning Commission is the forum where comments will be received, so it is with utmost importance they are heard. It is also important to forward a recommendation that synthesizes the Commission's vote and he appreciated the Commissions service. Commissioner Johnson stated he concurred with Commissioner Walton and also appreciated being a part of this team. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p.m. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. .72 4101P0111111' 7 James Johnson, Chairman Date signed Robin Hutchins, Secretary Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall June 13, 2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Timothy Kelley Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Robert McKinley Conner Lange, Planner Michael Phillips, absent - excused Michelle Rasmussen Matt Walton, absent - excused Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioners Phillips and Walton were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve the June 13, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed V. MINUTES: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve the May 23, 2019 minutes. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Rasmussen attended the Chester Creek pavement preservation presentation given by the City. She was impressed by the proactive approach and the high level achieved in reaching out to the community. Commissioner Johnson attended the Inlander Volume music festival on the 31St of May and l of June, he was amazed at the quality and variety of music by local musicians. He also attended the Spokane County Human Right Task Force on the 11111 of June were they discussed a media release pertaining to their hate crimes portal and how to gather hate crime data from higher education entities. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger gave an update of the Barker Road and Garland Avenue projects. He highlighted that the City has been working on Barker Road for two weeks and have installed 1,000 feet of the 3,700-foot sewer line total. Mr. Basinger advised USDOT awarded the City a$1.25 million dollar grant for the Pines Road BNSF grade separation project. The City has secured $5.1 million dollars in project funding that puts the City in a position of 100 percent for design and 80 percent for right of way acquisitions. Mr. Basinger advised the Parks and Recreation Department will be holding a workshop on Thursday June 20, 2019 from 6:00-7:30 p.m. at CenterPlace conducted by Chaz Bates. Mr. Basinger concluded with items coming before the City Council to include the Pines grade separation design, an administrative report on Catholic Charities Code Text Amendment (CTA) and a request for a pavement management ad hoc committee to represent the community as a whole. 06-13-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: STV-2019-0002, a privately initiated street vacation of a portion of Glenn Road,University Road and Baldwin Avenue. Mr. Lange explained the Findings of Fact reflected the process and decision the Commission made regarding STV-2019-0002, the privately initiated street vacation of a portion of Glenn Road, University Road and Baldwin Avenue. Mr. Lange advised the Commission conducted a public hearing on May 23, 2109. After deliberations the Commission voted four in favor and one opposed to forward a recommendation of approval of the amended proposal to the City Council. The amendment was to vacate a portion of Baldwin Avenue and Glenn Road while retaining University Road. Mr. Lange advised there was a scrivener error related to a parcel number that has been corrected. There was some discussion regarding a scrivener error of the Commission's vote in the Findings of Fact that reflected an incorrect vote of five to one, the correct vote being four to one. Commissioner Rasmussen moved to amend the Findings of FactSTV2019-0002 to reflect the correct vote from five to one, to four to one. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in fervor, zero opposed, and the motion passed Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve Findings of Fact STV-2019-0002 as amended. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. ii. Findings of Fact: CTA-2019-0002, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) Chapter 19.60, Chapter 19.85 and Appendix A to allow and provide regulation on licensed marijuana transportation businesses. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb summarized the Findings of Fact for the proposed code text amendment CTA-2019-0002, allowing licensed marijuana transport businesses to operate within the City with certain limitations. Mr. Lamb explained the Commission conducted a public hearing on May 23, 2019. After deliberations the Commission voted four in favor, one opposed to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council. Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve Findings of Fact CTA-2019-0002 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed iii. Findings of Fact: STV-2019-0001, proposed street vacations of a portion of Tshirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue and Greenacres Road in the Northeast Industrial Area. Mr. Basinger summarized the Findings of Fact for the City initiated street vacation STV- 2019-0001, a proposed street vacation in the Northeast Industrial Area. Mr. Basinger explained the Commission conducted a public hearing on May 23, 2019. After deliberations the Commission voted five in favor, zero opposed to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council. Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve Findings of Fact STV-2019-0001 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner McKinley advised that his wife lost her father on Memorial Day. In light of Father's Day, he encouraged everyone to spend time with their families as you never know when it will be the last. Commissioner Rasmussen apologized for missing the last meeting and the miscommunication. Commissioner Johnson spoke about a 06-13-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 speech Jon Stewart gave to Congress regarding the 911 Victims Compensation Fund. Commissioner Johnson feels it is of utmost importance that all countries take care of their first responders and is abhorrent when that does not occur. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:20 p.m. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chaitinan Date signed Robin Hutchins, Secretary FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2019-0002—Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E) the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. Background: 1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13, 2016,with December 28,2016 as the effective date. 2. CTA-2019-0002 is a City-initiated text amendment to chapter 19.60 SVMC, chapter 19.85 SVMC and Appendix A.The proposal is to amend chapters 19.60 and 19.85 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and Appendix A by (1) amending the permitted use matrix to allow licensed marijuana transportation uses in the RC, LMU, and I zones, subject to additional supplemental regulations; (2) adding supplemental regulations to set buffers between marijuana transportation uses and certain sensitive uses, and requiring marijuana transportation uses in the RC zone to provide a lockable enclosure for fleet vehicles, and (3) adding a related definition for"marijuana transporter". 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on May 23,2019. The Commissioners voted 4-1 to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Recommended Modifications The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments presented by staff in CTA-2019-0002. 2. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) Approval Criteria a. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan: Findings: The proposed text amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. ED-G1: Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. ED-G6: Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability. ED-P2: Identify and encourage business and employment growth in new and innovative industries and occupations. LU-G1: Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-P5: Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. LU-P9: Provide supportive regulations for new and innovative development types on commercial, industrial, and mixed-use land. LU-P 10: Ensure that freight-intensive operations have convenient access to designated truck routes and intermodal terminals. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2019-0002 Page 1 of 2 b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: The proposed amendment will allow compliance with state law and allow state-licensed marijuana. transport businesses to locate within the Spokane Valley while separating such uses from identified sensitive uses and the City's existing and future residential uses. Further the amendment will allow transportation businesses near transportation infrastructure. 3. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 4. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve CTA-2019- 0002. Attachments: Exhibit I —Proposed Amendment CTA-2019-0002 Approved this 13th day of June,2019 41" mes Jo n on, .hairman ATTEST 1 • / , Deal a Horton,Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2019-0002 Page 2 of 2 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING&PLANNING Spokane 1 STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2019-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE: May 3, 2019 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: May 23, 2019, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 102 I0 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A city initiated text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to amend chapter 19,60 SVMC, chapter 19.85 SVMC and Appendix A to allow and provide regulations governing the zoning and limits on licensed marijuana transportation businesses and to add related definitions. PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Ave, Spokane Valley, WA 99206. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSION: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to chapters 19.60 and 19,85 SVMC and Appendix A are consistent with minimum criteria for review and approval. STAFF: Erik Iamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendments to chapters 19.60 and 19.85 SVMC and Appendix A. A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The Following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date SEPA Determination May 2, 2019 Published Notice of Public Hearing May 3, 2019 and May 10, 2019 Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies May 8, 2019 Department of Commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to April 17, 2019 Adopt Amendment PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposal is to amend chapters 19.60 and 19.85 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Appendix A by(1) amending the permitted use matrix to allow licensed marijuana transportation uses in the RC, MU, and I zones, subject to additional supplemental regulations; (2) adding supplemental regulations to set buffers between marijuana transportation uses and certain sensitive uses and requiring marijuana transportation uses in the RC zone to provide a lockable enclosure for fleet vehicles, and (3) adding related definition for"marijuana transporter". Background on Existing Regulatory Framework: Recreational marijuana was legalized within Washington State with the passage of Initiative 502(I-502) in November 2012. In response to State legislation,the City undertook an expansive process to identify appropriate marijuana regulations to address recreational, medical, and home growing of marijuana within the City. The City has adopted chapter 19.85 SVMC to govern the siting and restrictions for licensed marijuana uses. Currently,the City allows licensed marijuana production, licensed marijuana processing, and three licensed marijuana retail stores within the City. State law provides 1,000 foot buffers between licensed marijuana facilities and several sensitive uses, including schools, libraries, and public parks, but excludes trails and undeveloped school or library property. In response, the City has adopted additional local buffer limits,prohibiting licensed marijuana uses from being within 1,000 feet of undeveloped school, library, and City property, excluding City rights-of-way and swales. Further, the City prohibits marijuana uses from being within 1,000 feet of City Hall and CenterPlace. Finally,the City prohibits marijuana retail shops from being within 1,000 feet of the Appleway Trail and Centennial Trail. Marijuana uses require licensing by the Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB), and such licensing includes strict operational requirements, including security measures, employee background checks, traceability measures to ensure no illegal distribution of marijuana, and clear operational plans for such businesses. The State has preempted the City from imposing restrictions that impose upon the ability of the WSLCB to license such businesses, but statutory and case law makes it clear that the City may still impose reasonable land use restrictions, including zoning on marijuana businesses. In addition to allowing certain licensed marijuana uses,the City has expressly prohibited all other marijuana uses, including marijuana collectives, marijuana clubs, and any future marijuana use that the State may authorize. The City does allow some home growing for medical purposes pursuant to state law. See SVMC 19.85.040. In late 2015,the State adopted RCW 69.50382 and 69.50.385,which authorize licensed common carriers to transport marijuana(i.e., marijuana transporter)between licensed marijuana producers,processors, retailers, and researchers. Further,the WSLCB has adopted regulations to implement the marijuana transporter authorization in WAC 31.4-55-310. The requirements for marijuana transporters include the following relevant provisions: 1. Marijuana transporters may transport marijuana, useable marijuana, marijuana concentrates, immature plants or clones,marijuana seeds, and marijuana infused products solely between licensed marijuana businesses. No home delivery is authorized by these provisions. 2. Marijuana transporter is considered a "common carrier" and subject to applicable"common carrier"regulations, including necessary Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission common carrier permits. 3. No firearm carrying or usage by employees unless the employee has a private security guard license. 4. Must have a physical location for operations and insurance. 5. Must keep printed transport manifest with the product at all times. 6. Transportation log documenting chain of custody for each delivery, including driver and vehicle used. 7. Drivers must be at least 21 years old. 8. Marijuana and marijuana products must be in sealed packages,which cannot be opened during transport. Page 2 of 4 9. Marijuana and marijuana products must be in a locked, safe and secure storage compartment that is secured to the inside body/compartment of the transportation vehicle. 10. All deliveries must be made within 48-hours from the time of pick-up. Impacts Generally, marijuana transportation businesses will be similar to other delivery services. The WSLCB requires a physical location,which generally means an office for the operator to keep business records and schedule deliveries. The operator will maintain a fleet of delivery vehicles,which to date generally include vans, although there is no restriction on the size of vehicle. Marijuana is not permitted to be kept on site in the physical location, so there is no risk associated with the office use. However, since deliveries are allowed to take up to 48 hours, marijuana may be inside of the locked compartments within the vehicles at the physical location overnight until the delivery is made the next day. This could pose potential odor or increased risk of break-ins to the vehicles. Further,there is no limit on fleet size and so there could be potential traffic impacts to neighboring areas. Given the similarity of office use and the combination of the unique aspect of marijuana, staff propose zoning uses similar to other allowable marijuana uses within the city. This will allow the use in the RC, IMU, and I zones,which will allow flexibility in use, but also ensure that the potential impacts that stem from the traffic, as well as the unique aspects of the marijuana product, are minimized on surrounding mixed-use and residential zones. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment, if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals by protecting residential areas, encouraging diversity among commercial uses, maintaining a flexible and consistent regulatory environment, and promoting compatibility between adjacent land uses. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: ED-G1: Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. ED-G6: Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability. ED-P2: Identify and encourage business and employment growth in new and innovative industries and occupations. LU-G 1: Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-PS: Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. Page 3 of 4 LU-P9: Provide supportive regulations for new and innovative development types on commercial, industrial,and mixed-use land, LU-P 10: Ensure that freight-intensive operations have convenient access to designated truck routes and intermodal terminals. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis: The proposed amendment will allow compliance with state law and allow state-licensed marijuana transport businesses to locate within the Spokane Valley while separating such uses from identified sensitive uses and the City's existing and future residential uses. Further the amendment will allow transportation businesses near transportation infrastructure. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA-2019-0002 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. In the absence of public comments, staff makes no conclusions. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No substantive agency comments have been received to date, b. Conclusion(s): In the absence of substantive agency comments, staff makes no conclusions. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. D. STAFF CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in Section A, the proposed code text amendments are consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F)and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 9, 2019 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business ® new business [' public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution 19-011: CERB Planning Grant — Appleway Trail Economic Development Study GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A — City of Spokane Valley has adopted a comprehensive plan and is in compliance with the Growth Management Act. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On April 16, 2019, staff provided an Administrative Report on the Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) planning grant. BACKGROUND: On April 16, 2019, City Council had consensus for staff to move forward and apply for the CERB planning grant. The grant would be used for the direct costs associated with the development of a feasibility study for business improvements along the Appleway Trail. Applications for CERB's grant programs are considered on an ongoing basis. Approval of the applications occur at the CERB meetings every two months. The deadlines for 2019 grant applications are, July 29, September 30, and November 25. Upon further investigation, staff identified a number of improvements to strengthen the application including formalizing a scope of work and identifying potential consultants to assist in conducting the study. In order to complete this work, staff intends to apply by the July 29, 2019, deadline which moves our potential award date to September 19, 2019. Tonight, staff is seeking approval of a resolution formalizing the Council's authorization for staff to proceed with the CERB planning grant. Staff has also procured a letter of support from the Associate Development Organization (GSI). These combined efforts will result in a more competitive application. OPTIONS: Approve or not, Resolution 19-011 as written or modified. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve Resolution 19-011 formally authorizing the CERB application. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: If awarded project funding, the City match requirement of 25% would amount to $6,250. The Economic Development Division's 2019 budget has sufficient funds to cover the local match. Table 1 Est. Total Cost CERB Funds City Funds Project Estimate $31,250 $25,000 $6,250 STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution 19-011 authorizing applying for CERB grant; GIS Support letter Draft CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 19-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDING ASSISTANCE TO THE COMMUNITY ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION BOARD (CERB),FOR A CERB PLANNING ONLY GRANT FOR AN APPLEWAY TRAIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, CERB's Planning Grant program offers up to $25,000 to local agencies to conduct feasibility and planning work that furthers economic development initiatives; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley(the City)has approved a Comprehensive Plan that includes a strategy to leverage the Appleway Trail to improve adjacent business opportunities; and WHEREAS,the City seeks access feasibility, design considerations and potential mechanisms for supporting private business improvements along the Appleway Trail corridor; and WHEREAS,it would benefit the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City to complete the project described in the application. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,Washington,that: 1. The City Manager is authorized to make formal application to the CERB for grant assistance,not to exceed $25,000; 2. Any grant assistance received may only be used for direct costs associated with the development of a feasibility study for business improvements along the Appleway Trail; 3. The City hereby certifies that it will provide a matching share of the study up to 25 percent of the grant award; 4. The City acknowledges that the grant assistance,if approved,will be paid on a reimbursement basis; and 5. This Resolution shall become part of a formal application to the CERB grant. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Spokane Valley,Washington,this day of July, 2019. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 19-011 CERB Grant Page 1 of 1 1141110 GREv►TER SPOKANE • May 20, 2019 Janea Delk Program Director&Tribal Liaison Community Economic Revitalization Board P.O. Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 Dear Ms. Delk, It is with pleasure that I write this letter of support for the City of Spokane Valley's Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) planning grant for the Appleway Trail Economic Development Study.The study would assess feasibility of trail access, design, and wayfinding to support business development and tourism. The Spokane region currently has over 600 miles of regional trails. Our region recognizes that one of our greatest assets is the quality of life and the recreational activities available to our residents and tourists, and Appleway Trail is developing to be a key component of that asset. The Appleway Trail, scheduled for completion in the fall of 2019, is one of the region's newest paved trails. The trail extends over five miles through the heart of Spokane Valley's economic corridor. As the Associate Development Organization (ADO)for Spokane County, Greater Spokane Incorporated (GSI) works with partners and stakeholders to put the pieces in place to attract organizations,talent and people that create a vibrant community.The development of the Appleway Trail, and the opportunities to take advantage of the trail's proximity to Spokane Valley's business corridor, will undoubtedly contribute to a vibrant community, We support the City of Spokane Valley in their efforts to leverage the trail for business development. The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for Spokane County identifies Quality of Life as one of five key areas for the regional economic vision. In part, the Quality of Life vision states "A distinctive identity creates a quality of life that is attractive for business retention, future residents and private investment. Focused efforts to create and preserve our sense of uniqueness, attractiveness, history, cultural and social diversity will help differentiate our region from our peers." Further,the CEDS recognizes that improving environmental assets to attract economic development opportunities and enhance the region's quality of life is part of achieving the Quality of Life vision. GSI is excited to support the City of Spokane Valley's CERB grant application and looks forward to our continued partnership with the City, While many projects will be under your consideration, we believe the return on this planning study enabled by the CERB grant is valuable not only to the City of Spokane Valley but to the greater Spokane region. Sincerely, Todd Mielke Chief Executive Officer Greater Spokane Incorporated TOGETHER WE'RE GREATER 801 W RIVERSIDE l SPOKANE,WA 99241 I GREATERSPOKANE.ORG I ADVANTAGESPOKANE.COM CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 9, 2019 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: New Employee Report GOVERNING LEGISLATION: n/a PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Spokane Valley City Council previously requested to be informed quarterly of new employees that are appointed to City positions. BACKGROUND: The following employees have been appointed in the second quarter of 2019: Randy Budano, Appointed 5-16-2019 to the position of Engineering Technician I, to support capital improvement projects. Laura Goulding, Appointed 6-12-2019 to the position of Office Assistant I working at CenterPlace in support of the City's Parks and Recreation and facility management programs. Jeff Kleingartner, appointed 6-12-2019 to the position of Public Information Officer in our Economic Development division supporting the city wide communications effort. OPTIONS: Discussion/information RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion/information BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: These five positions are included as part of the 93.75 FTEs included in the 2019 Budget, and reflect the filling of vacated positions. STAFF CONTACT: John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager ATTACHMENTS n/a CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 9, 2019 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ['consent ❑old business [' new business [' public hearing ❑information ®admin. report [' pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: East Indiana Avenue Crosswalk Lighting Infrastructure GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Ordinance 17-014 adopting the 2018 Budget included $110,000 for a crosswalk and lighting on East Indiana. The necessary funds to finance the project were identified as a portion of Capital Reserve Fund #312. BACKGROUND: During 2017, in working with the Spokane Transit Authority (STA), the City and STA identified the need for additional bus stops along East Indiana Avenue as well as a mid-block pedestrian crossing to meet the growing need of the area. To acknowledge the need, Council appropriated $110,000 in the 2018 Street Capital Projects Fund #303 budget for bus stops and crosswalks along East Indiana Avenue with the source of financing being $110,000 from Capital Reserve Fund #312. The project was not completed in 2018, but we have continued to reflect a $110,000 earmark from Fund #312 in the Potential and Pending Projects worksheet During 2019, CHAS Health purchased property along East Indiana Avenue for the development of a parking facility for their clinic located across East Indiana Avenue (see attached). As part of their parking lot development, they are required to construct a mid-block pedestrian crossing on East Indiana Avenue. To provide additional safety measures for pedestrians at that location, the City is requiring that street lights be installed at the crosswalk. At this time, the crosswalk itself has been constructed and CHAS Health is awaiting direction on the street lights. The initial project, as developed in 2017 with STA, now has a third partner in CHAS Health. This partnership allows for development of the project as initially envisioned, at a lower cost to the City. CHAS Health is agreeable to install the street lights identified by the City, however, because the long-term operations (including power bills) and maintenance of the street lights will become the City's responsibility, CHAS would like the City to acquire them from CHAS. Staff has reviewed their request and the potential for long-term asset protection, and believes that acquiring the lighting infrastructure is in the City's best interest. Acquisition of the lighting infrastructure is anticipated to cost approximately$72,000, at which time it will be placed into the City's inventory. OPTIONS: 1) Move forward with the crosswalk lighting infrastructure acquisition; 2) Other direction as Council deems. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff is seeking Council consensus to move forward with the crosswalk lighting infrastructure acquisition. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Assuming Council consensus to proceed, Staff will return with a future 2019 Budget amendment that will appropriate the necessary funds into Street Capital Projects Fund #303 utilizing a portion of Capital Reserve Fund #312 as the source of financing. The City has previously earmarked sufficient money in Capital Reserve Fund #312 to accommodate the projected project cost of$72,000. STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, PE, City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Location Map I. _ ,,..; " i . CHAS CROSSWALKii" -, --- , -. cas u) LOCATION .c f Nilo * NON. yam° 1 ° co r , . 1�__ Ana4n,�`S 1 Existing Bus Stop `. gp • • •:••,,,4\4444.4. CHAS @LOH@ it 0 PARKING_:L©T ,: I" [Proposed Bus Stop • Proposed Street Light, [Existing Bus Stop CHAS COC , ' NEW CROSSWALK, [Proposed Street Light and ISLAND . ./15812EIndanaAve r r, frolo r, _ -- Proposed Bus Stop r :r lb r' NE • . ii" , S2Fith .?•4ve? . (--* .: , d 111141111V :' . ' ' 1 ' -- -- w-..wil it i i. E c;;0.'-'"-\\..___..._ .111 :i 4 illt:a t. , - I-7.- Siaane \ _.7'04.As- . Spokaneliansit /, 4 VllHo a gram city ma+es. t Date:7/3/2019 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 9, 2019 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑ new business ❑public hearing ❑information ®admin. report ❑pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Discussion regarding homelessness-related issues. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: First Amendment to the United States Constitution;Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution; Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; RCW 35A.11.020-.030; and RCW 35A.11.060. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: March 19, 2019 Administrative Report on HB 1406; March 26,2019 discussion on funding for homeless issues;June 4,2019 discussion on City of Spokane's Homeless and Rehousing Program's 2019 Point in Time homeless count. BACKGROUND: The Council heard a report on June 4, 2019 from staff of the City of Spokane's Homeless and Rehousing Program regarding its Point in Time (PIT) Count of people experiencing homelessness. In general terms, the region continues to have a significant issue regarding homeless individuals and families, although the number of those counted has decreased over the past several years. There are no identified homeless shelters or designated shelter beds in Spokane Valley although we understand churches may provide some shelter services. The total PIT Count included 1,309 individuals, and of those, 315 were unsheltered. The PIT Count showed that approximately eight to ten percent of the region's homeless are in Spokane Valley, so numbers for each would be around 125 total homeless in the City,with around 30 being unsheltered. Anecdotally,there appear to be more homeless people in our parks and other public places than in the recent past. 1. Overview ofMartin v. Boise case. There are a number of factors that may lead a person to become homeless,which were explained June 4 in the Point in Time Count discussion. Aside from the causes of homelessness,there are a number of factors that come into play for a jurisdiction in addressing the status of being homeless within the community. The central holding in a recent case in 2018,Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th. Cir. 2019)was that the City could not enforce laws prohibiting camping in public (including imposition of fines) if there was no home or shelter space where they could reasonably go to sleep. The Court said cities cannot criminalize basic tenets of survival such as lying, sitting, or sleeping on a sidewalk or other public place if they have nowhere else to go, and that doing so violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibition again cruel and unusual punishment (which includes placing substantive limits on what types of conduct the government may criminalize). As noted in Martin, "whether sitting, lying,and sleeping are defined as acts or conditions, they are universal and unavoidable consequences of being human." Id. at 616-17 (quoting Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1136 (9th Cir. 2007)). As such,the Martin Court went on to state that the government may not criminalize the act of being homeless in public places. Specifically in Martin, the Court found that although Boise had some shelter beds available when the defendant homeless persons were cited, not all of those shelter beds qualified as "available" because two of the three shelters in the City had religious requirements or strong religious influences. Both offered(but did not apparently require) religious services for attendees, had religious iconography (crosses, pictures, scripture quotes) on the walls, and the intake form included a religious message. One shelter included an "intensive, Christ-based residential recovery program" of which "religious study is the very essence." Further,there were limits on the number of nights one could stay at a particular facility, with some being also limited to only men, only women, or only families. The Court said the government could not require Page 1 of 7 attendance at a religious-based organization as the only other alternative to being cited and jailed. Lastly, there were significant restrictions on how late in the day a person could sign up for or check into several of the facilities. The Court determined that these requirements created significant barriers to access and, as such,could not be counted as being generally available in determining available beds to allow enforcement of certain criminal codes. In summary, the majority in the Martin Court ruled that a city is not required to provide homeless shelter space for all those who need it. However, if the city does not provide shelter space, it is precluded under Martin from enforcing general laws prohibiting camping in parks and other public places. We believe the Martin decision also creates significant questions about the validity of regulations prohibiting camping in parks and rights-of-way without concurrently providing for adequate shelter services. The Court in Martin did state that their holding was a narrow one, and identified that it did not cover individuals who do have access to adequate temporary shelter(because they can pay for shelter or can get it for free)but who choose not to use it. Similarly,the Court identified that it may be constitutional for a city to prohibit camping in a way that obstructs public rights-of-way or the erection of certain structures. Unfortunately, there is no certainty in this as there were no bright-line rules provided on what would or would not be allowed. Further, such prohibitions would likely be limited and would result in a piecemeal approach that would not address the totality of the negative impacts or issues. 2. Further Court Review of Martin v. Boise? It is important to discuss the dissenting opinion in the request for rehearing because it outlined several important points. As noted by the lead dissenting Judge, the decision by the majority "is legally and practically ill-conceived,and conflicts with the reasoning of every other appellate court that has considered the issue." Other appellate courts with contrary decisions on the same or similar issues were the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits,which creates a split of authority between several Circuits. As noted by the dissent in the request for rehearing, it will be nearly impossible for a city to know with much certainty whether the number of homeless is greater than beds available at a shelter. The dissenting opinion also expressed concern that other common attributes of homelessness, such as prohibitions on urinating and defecating in public places, could similarly be set aside because they could be viewed as a natural outgrowth of not having a home with bathroom facilities, raising significant health and safety concerns. The Boise City Council voted in May, 2019 to seek its final opportunity for review in this case from the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only accepts approximately 80 cases per year to receive oral argument and decide, out of the average of 7,500 requests the Court receives each year. It should be noted,however,that a key basis for accepting review in past cases was the fact there was a split of authority between various Circuit courts,which has now happened here. In the event the Supreme Court accepts discretionary review in this matter, there will be national organizations representing cities across the country asking the Court for permission to file an amicus brief, or`friend of the court"brief. These may be allowed by a court when the organization is considered capable of providing informative briefing to assist the Court on one or more issues of the case. The Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys(WSAMA)may seek to file an amicus brief as well,and has been a strong advocate for asserting the local authority of cities and towns in Washington. As Council knows, Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb is one of 12 attorneys across Washington on the WSAMA Amicus Committee that files amicus briefs in appellate courts in Washington in support of municipal authority. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals includes Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Nevada, California,Alaska,Hawaii,and Arizona. Page 2 of 7 3. Immediate impacts ofMartin v. Boise for Spokane Valley. The Martin decision is binding law unless (and until) the United States Supreme Court overturns it. Accordingly, the City is currently precluded from adopting regulations to prohibit camping in parks and likely in other public places,including rights-of-way,until it demonstrates compliance with the requirement in Martin to provide some form of shelters for homeless. As mentioned, there currently are no City- identified or designated homeless shelter bed facilities within our jurisdictional limits. As identified during the PIT Count and discussed above, Spokane Valley appears to have roughly 30 homeless and unsheltered individuals at any one time,which undoubtedly fluctuates over time. a. Current City funding for regional response. The City does contribute significant funds into the regional response. On March 26, 2019, Senior Administrative Analyst Morgan Koudelka and Economic Development Specialist Chaz Bates led a discussion with Council regarding various ways our City provides funding for homelessness and very low income housing through the regional Continuum of Care (CoC), a broad-based community program. As noted on the City of Spokane's website, "the CoC provides a suite of services for people experiencing homelessness that is supported through multiple local, state, and federal funding sources." That March 26 report showed that Spokane Valley contributes over a million dollars a year to the CoC for addressing regional low income housing issues (funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, recording fees, etc.). Most of these funds flow through Spokane County, which then allocates them to the various entities for use. Spokane Valley can assert that these funds would allow the City to claim some of the homeless shelter beds in Spokane because they are paid in part by Spokane Valley,and thus that we could enforce laws prohibiting camping in RVs along the roadsides and in parks. However, all of the homeless shelter beds are located in downtown Spokane,a number of miles from Spokane Valley's border. This issue of proximity was one of the issues considered in the Martin case and may prove problematic if challenged. Further,the City does not currently have an efficient mechanism to verify beds are available at the downtown shelters. Likely, this would require working with Spokane to ensure development of a workable system. b. Cooperative effort with Spokane and Spokane County? On July 1, 2019, the Spokane City Council voted to approve a purchase and sale agreement to buy commercial property on the southwest corner of Sprague and Havana with the intent of operating a homeless shelter. Spokane has requested that other regional jurisdictions partner with it to acquire and operate this facility in conjunction with Spokane County, located where the former Grocery Outlet and East Side Cinema operated. Media reports indicate the intent is to operate it as a low barrier facility. This location is immediately adjacent to the City border, so would not present the same logistical difficulties as other downtown shelters may. Staff is seeking consensus from Council to engage in discussions with Spokane and potentially Spokane County regarding potential participation in the Havana facility,or other facility as appropriate. It is unclear what that would entail and, if approved for the discussions, staff would report back to Council as appropriate. As mentioned, the City already contributes substantial funds into the regional approach, but obtaining a clear and workable system may require additional City funding. The City's intent would be to be able to assert the right to fill a certain amount of space or beds at this facility or existing facilities so that when our law enforcement officers encounter a person in Spokane Valley attempting to use a public space for camping purposes,they can direct them to the shelter and, if they refuse to go,to cite them. Page 3 of 7 4. What does low barrier homeless shelter space mean? There is apparently no commonly agreed definition of a "low barrier" shelter. Generally speaking, a low barrier homeless shelter would be one where there are no mandatory requirements for staying there. A statement from one low barrier facility includes the following: "We accept people as they are and provide a safe,warm place of shelter for those who may have no other option."(Springs Mission Rescue in Colorado Spring, CO). Examples of a low barrier facility may include a shelter that: -Allows a person needing shelter to show up intoxicated or under the influence of illegal drugs, which may or may not include being able to bring alcohol or drugs into the facility; - Does not require a criminal background check, which would likely include the need for government-issued identification; -Accepts men,women, and families in the same facility; -Has no religious requirements/religious environment; -Has no limits on how long a person may stay; -Allows a person to bring pets; -Permits visitors to store a minor amount of personal belongings during their stay; -Allows registered sex offenders to stay; -Has no requirement to work toward sobriety; and -Allows a person to show up for shelter at any point in the day or night. (This is not intended to be an exhaustive list.) It is important to know that a jurisdiction can craft its own set of requirements for what is allowed at a shelter to reflect the desires of the particular community. However, the more requirements or limitations that are imposed may impact a judicial determination of whether shelter beds are actually available for general use by the homeless under a Martin situation of trying to enforce certain laws. If Spokane Valley were to seek a partnership with Spokane and/or Spokane County for operation of a homeless shelter,we could consider some minimal requirements for staying at the shelter. Examples could include: -Require those who are physically able to perform at least minimal work at the facility to assist in its operation, such as routine cleaning,meal preparation/serving/cleanup; -Direct people to the EnVision Center in Spokane at 130 South Arthur,where they can meet with Worksource to develop a plan to gain employment if they are not working(may need to include providing bus passes). Other resources at EnVision include information and assistance for addiction,parenting,mental health treatment,affordable housing,a food bank,a clothing bank, and other services; -Precluding admittance by registered sex offenders; - Setting a reasonable limit on the number of nights a person may stay; -Prohibiting possession of drugs and alcohol within the facility; and -Having separate areas for women, men, and families. If the City seeks to partner with Spokane and/or Spokane County on a joint homeless shelter facility, we may want to discuss having separate criteria for staying than what Spokane has, or have separate space designated for people coming from Spokane Valley. These would be issues to negotiate with Spokane/Spokane County to determine whether such a partnership would be feasible. Page 4 of 7 5. SHB 1406 funding to address affordable housing issues. This issue is being included in this presentation even though staff has determined that the funding available under a recently adopted bill could not be used for homeless shelters, and is instead intended to fund more permanent low income housing options. As the Council is aware from both a March 19,2019 Administrative Report and discussions with the City's lobbyist, Gordon, Thomas,Honeywell, Substitute House Bill 1406 was adopted in 2019,which provides a potential funding source for very low income housing. SHB 1406 provides several revenue options for local jurisdictions to generate funding for affordable housing-related issues. The bill differentiates the funding in the first year from all following years, but the intent appears to treat the funding the same regardless. The bill states that if a jurisdiction approves a resolution of intent prior to January 31, 2020 to utilize SHB 1406 funding,and also adopts an ordinance implementing it prior to July 31,2020,then a participating city or county will be credited back .0073%of sales tax from Washington State Department of Revenue. These funds can only be used for the purposes stated in the bill (acquiring, rehabilitating, or constructing affordable housing; operations and maintenance of new affordable or supportive housing facilities). The baseline amount to be rebated back each year is based upon 2019 sales tax numbers, and the projected amount each year of the 20-year program for Spokane Valley would be approximately $178,000. This would not increase the total tax incurred on any purchase, and instead redirects that portion from the state to the local jurisdiction. If the City adopts the first .0073% sales tax credit, counties may concurrently adopt resolutions implementing the tax rebate in the amount of.0073% in the unincorporated areas, plus in any cities that chose or failed to participate in this funding option. The county would then be required to use the funds for a qualifying expense (outlined in the previous paragraph). A participating county and various cities within that county can enter into an interlocal agreement to pool funds for a regional approach. A second option exists in the bill to encourage cities and counties to raise additional funds for affordable housing related issues. If a jurisdiction successfully submits a ballot measure for approval by its citizens under one of four (one does not apply to Spokane Valley) sections of state law (increase sales tax under RCW 82.14.530,increase property tax under RCW 84.52.105 or RCW 84.55.050),the state will credit back a second .0073%to the jurisdiction for qualifying expenses. This would result in a total of.0146 percent for 20 years, based on 2019 sales as the permanent baseline, for total annual revenue of$356,000. This would be in addition to whatever funds are generated by the qualifying local tax. While the $356,000 is credited against existing sales taxes,the additional qualifying local tax would require an increase in either sales or property taxes. Again, the SHB 1406 funds cannot be used to fund homeless shelters, but they could be used by Spokane Housing Authority for things like low income housing vouchers, or to assist in constructing low income housing facilities. If the Council is interested in generating additional revenue to dedicate to providing homeless shelter beds, then the City would likely need to adopt a property tax levy lid lift pursuant to RCW 84.55.050, which would have to be approved by a simple majority of voters. The ballot language could identify specifically how much could be levied, and that all funds generated shall be used for a particular purpose, such as funding to acquire, construct, or operate shelter space for those experiencing homelessness. If the Council is interested in taking advantage of the second .0073% of funding available in SHB 1406, then the Council would need to submit the question to the voters of whether to impose one of the three qualifying local tax options (likely RCW 84.55.050). The ballot measure must be approved and in place prior to July 31, 2020 to take advantage of the second .0073%of SHB 1406 sales tax credit. Page 5 of 7 6. Other local funding options to address homelessness issues. As discussed above, on March 26, 2019, Spokane Valley staff provided Council with detailed information regarding the funding for homeless and low income citizens,with the amount contributed to the system by Spokane Valley exceeding $1 million annually. The City of Spokane receives proportionately similar funds, but has also chosen to allocate amounts from its general fund to provide additional funding for homeless issues. Spokane Valley also allocates General Fund amounts each year that benefit the same population through its outside agency funding process. Since 2013,the City has awarded funds to a variety of groups such as Big Brothers Big Sisters, Children's Home Society, Greater Spokane County Meals on Wheels, Naomi (formerly Hearth Homes), Project Access, Spokane Neighborhood Action Partners (SNAP), Spokane Valley Partners, Feed Spokane, and others. These organizations have a significant focus on providing various services to the low-to-no income population that often ends up in a homeless situation, however they do not provide shelter bed facilities. More information on the various expenditures by the City on these issues can be found in the March 26,2019 presentation materials. Lastly, there are also community organizations operating in Spokane Valley and the broader region that provide benefits to low income residents, including Spokane Valley Partners, SNAP, and various faith- based organizations. 7. Enforcement of prohibitions on camping in public spaces. City staff have identified a need for additional no-camping regulations in parks and other public places to ensure that public spaces are used for appropriate recreational, public, and transportation public purposes. However,until such time as the City fully identifies available shelter space,it will not have any confidence that enforcement of such regulations would withstand a challenge under Martin. There are several possible options. As stated above,the City provides substantial annual funding contributions into the Continuum of Care and may be able to articulate that there are available shelter spaces in downtown Spokane. However,there are logistical and practical risks and challenges with this approach,as it will require coordination with the City of Spokane and other shelters to identify if the number of shelter spaces would even accommodate the number of homeless in the region, including those in Spokane Valley. Alternatively,if Spokane Valley works with Spokane/Spokane County for homeless shelter beds in or near the Spokane Valley city limits, it can have more confidence in adopting and enforcing prohibitions on camping in public places such as in vehicles(RVs,campers,trucks,etc.)along roadways,and from camping in the City's parks. Even if the City acquires a right to use a certain number of shelter beds, our Code will need to include a provision stating that enforcement of the public camping prohibition will be suspended if the City/law enforcement determines that a bed is not available at the time a citation is being considered. This will require a good pattern of communication or system that will allow immediate checks. If this verification is unable to be made,then a citation cannot be issued and the person would be allowed to camp in the public space so long as they did not significantly limit the intended use of the space, such as blocking a sidewalk. Page 6 of 7 OPTIONS: Staff is looking for consensus direction from Council on several items: (1) Generally whether to initiate discussions with Spokane and/or Spokane County regarding utilizing homeless beds in some fashion for use by Spokane Valley homeless. Staff would recommend at this time not defining any specific parameters for negotiation, understanding staff will come back for a more detailed discussion on this later. (2) Determine whether there is Council support to bring back a proposed ordinance relating to camping in public rights-of-way. Similarly, staff brought forward proposed changes to the City's park regulations in 2018, but have been holding off on bringing the latest draft forward until the issues under Martin could be addressed. Depending upon Council's answer to the first consensus question, staff could bring the revised park regulations forward in the near future for discussion. (3)Determine whether Council wants staff to bring back further discussion on a resolution of intent regarding the first .0073%of SHB 1406 funds. If so, such a resolution of intent is required to be passed by the Council no later than January 31,2020,with an implementing ordinance required to be adopted by July 31, 2020. (4) Determine if there is Council consensus for staff to bring back additional discussion regarding a qualifying local tax to qualify for additional funds under SHB 1406. If so,there are special elections in February and April of 2020, and any voter-approved qualifying local tax ordinance would need to be adopted no later than July 31, 2020 to qualify for the additional .0073%sales tax credit from the State. (5) If staff is unable to negotiate a deal with Spokane/Spokane County to jointly fund a homeless shelter, determine if Council wants staff to investigate the option of funding a shelter in Spokane Valley to be operated by a private provider. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consensus on the five items listed under options. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Page 7 of 7 DISCUSSION REGARDING HOMELESSNESS Cary Driskell City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley July 9, 2019 City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Overview of discussion topics 1. Overview of Martin v. City of Boise case; 2. Further court review of the Martin case; 3. Immediate impacts of the Martin case for Spokane Valley; a. Current City funding for regional homeless response; b. Potential cooperative effort with Spokane and Spokane County; 4. Discussion of what low barrier shelter space means; 5. Funding option pursuant to SHB 1406 for affordable housing; 6. Other potential funding options to address homelessness issues; and 7. Enforcement prohibitions on camping in public spaces. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Options for Council consideration — ( 1 ) Generally, whether to initiate discussions with Spokane/Spokane County regarding utilizing existing homeless beds in some fashion for Spokane Valley homeless. If so, staff recommends not defining any set parameters at this time to allow us to determine what may be available. Staff would of course come back to Council to discuss further options once those become known. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Options for Council consideration — ( 2 ) Determine whether there is Council support to bring back a draft ordinance relating to camping in the public rights-of-way. Determine whether there is Council support to bring back an amended draft of proposed park regulations, including discussion regarding camping in parks being prohibited. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Options for Council consideration — ( 3 ) Determine whether Council wants staff to bring back further discussion on a resolution of intent regarding use of the first .0073% of credited state sales tax revenue pursuant to SHB 1406. If so, this resolution must be adopted prior to January 31, 2020. To reiterate, these would not be additional sales tax funds, but instead would be existing funds diverted from the state to the City. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Options for Council consideration — (4 ) Determine if there is Council consensus for staff to bring back additional discussion regarding seeking a qualifying local tax to qualify for additional funds under SHB 1406. If so, there are special elections in February and April of 2020, and any voter-approved qualifying local tax ordinance would need to be adopted no later than July 31, 2020 to qualify for the second .0073% of states sales tax funds to be credited back from the state pursuant to SHB 1406. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Options for Council consideration — ( 5 ) If staff is unable to negotiate a deal with Spokane/Spokane County to jointly fund a homeless shelter, determine if Council wants staff to investigate the option of funding a shelter in Spokane Valley to be operated by a private provider under contract with Spokane Valley. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Quesuons • City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 8 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of July 5,2019; 12:00 p.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council& Staff From: City Clerk,by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings July 16,2019, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue July 9] 1. Council Goals/Priorities for use of Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC)Funds—C.Taylor (15 min) 2. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) July 23,2019,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue July 16] Proclamation:Nick Mamer Days 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance 19-009 Street Vacation 2019-0001, Industrial Area—Mike Basinger(10 mins) 3. Second Reading Ordinance 19-010 Street Vacation 2019-0002, Baldwin Ave, Glenn Rd— C. Lange (10 min) 4. Second Reading Ordinance 19-011 Marijuana Transportation—Erik Lamb (10 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Police Department Quarterly Report—Chief Werner (10 minutes) 6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 7. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 50 mins] July 30,2019, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue July 23] Proclamation: Goodguys Great NW National Rod& Custom Show ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: Bid Award,Appleway Trail Project, Evergreen to Sullivan—Gloria Mantz (10 min) 2. Motion Consideration: Council Goals/Priorities, Lodging Tax Advisory Cmte (LTAC)-C.Taylor(10 min) NON-ACTION ITEMS: 3. Proposed 2019 TIP Amendment#2—Adam Jackson (10 minutes) 4. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 35 mins] August 6,2019, Study Session,6:00 p.m.—Meeting cancelled Councilmembers attend National Night Out August 13,2019,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 6] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amended 2019 TIP—Adam Jackson (10 minutes) 2. Proposed Resolution Adopting Amended 2019 TIP—Adam Jackson (10 minutes) 3. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 4. Admin report: DNR Pinecroft Property Discussion—Mike Stone, Cary Driskell (15 minutes) 5. Admin report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting 45 mins] August 20,2019, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 13] 1. 2020 Budget: Estimated Revenues &Expenditures—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 2. Council Draft 2020 Budget Goals—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 3. Potential and Pending Projects—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 4. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 50 mins] August 27,2019,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 20] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 3. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: mins] Draft Advance Agenda 7/5/2019 12:03:23 PM Page 1 of 2 Sept 3, 2019, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 27] 1. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) Special Meeting: Friday, September 6,2019, Spokane County Council of Governments, 9:30 a.m.to Noon, Spokane Co. Fair&Expo Center; Conference Facility, 404 N Havana Street Sept 10,2019,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 3] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: #1 —2020 Budget Estimates Revenues &Expenditures—Chelsie Taylor(10 min) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Motion Consideration: Set 2020 Budget hearing for Oct 8, 2019—Chelsie Taylor (5 minutes) 4. Admin report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) Sept 17,2019, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 10] 1. Outside Agencies Presentations— Chelsie Taylor — 90 minutes 2. Proposed Ordinance 2020 Property Taxes— Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 3. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 105 mins] Sept 24,2019,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 17] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. 2020 Preliminary Budget Presentation by City Manager—Mark Calhoun (60 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 4. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 70 mins] Oct 1,2019, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 24] 1. Proposed 2019 Budget Amendment— Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) Oct 8,2019,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 3] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: #2—2020 Budget— Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance,2020 Property Tax— Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 4. Motion Consideration: Set 2020 Budget hearing for Oct 8, 2019—Chelsie Taylor (5 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 35 mins] *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Affordable Housing SHB 1406 Police Dept. Qtr Rpt(Jan,April,July, Oct) Appleway Trail Amenities Right-of-Way process Camping in RVs Safe Routes to School Crisis Co-response team funding Sign Ordinance Donation Recognition Snow Removal: Streets, Sidewalks Duplexes, Townhouses, Cottages Spokane Co Conservation District-Vicki Carter Graffiti St. Illumination(ownership, cost, location) Health District Re SV Stats St. O&M Pavement Preservation Land Use Notice Requirements Studded Snow Tires Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt. Utility Facilities in ROW Naming City Facilities Protocol Vaping New Employee Qrt Rpt(Jan,April,July, Oct) Water Districts &Green Space Park Lighting Way Finding Signs Park Reg. Ord. amendments PFD Presentation Draft Advance Agenda 7/5/2019 12:03:23 PM Page 2 of 2