The URL can be used to link to this page

2020, 08-11 Formal Regular Meeting AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT Tuesday,August 11,2020 6:00 p.m. Remotely via ZOOM Meeting 10210 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting NOTE: In response to Governor Inslee's March 24, 2020 Proclamation concerning our recent State of Emergency, which waives and suspends the requirement to hold in-person meetings and provides options for the public to attend remotely,all meeting guidelines contained in the Governance Manual are hereby superseded until the Governor's order has been rescinded or amended. Therefore,effective immediately and until further notice,a live feed of the meeting will be available on our website and on Comcast channel 14.Public comments will only be accepted for those items noted on the agenda as "public comment opportunity," will be accepted via the following links, and must be received by 4:00 pm the day of the meeting. • Sign up to Provide Oral Public Comment at the Meeting via Calling-In • Submit Written Public Comment Prior to the Meeting • Join the Zoom Meeting CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PROCLAMATION GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY[1]: Use the link above to sign up for oral public comments.The link will direct you to directions to sign up for oral public comments.This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those action items above, as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person. 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 Ajienda. a.Approval of claim vouchers on Aug 11,2020,Request for Council Action Form Total: $2,729,539.64 b.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending July 31,2020: $554,597.20 NEW BUSINESS: 2.Motion Consideration: Justice Assistance Grant(JAG) 2020—Morgan Koudelka [public comment opportunity] GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY[2]: Use the link above to sign up for oral public comments.The link will direct you to directions to sign up for oral public comments.This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those action items above, as public comments will be taken Council Agenda August 11,2020 Page 1 of 2 on those items where indicated. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 3.Valleyfest Update—Peggy Doering 4. Code Text Amendment(CTA-2020-0001,Annexation)—Mike Basinger,Erik Lamb 5. Code Text Amendment(CTA-2020-0002,Essential Public Facilities)—Lori Barlow 6. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Mike Basinger 7.Memorandum Of Understanding,Wa. Dept of Commerce Manufacturing Roadmap—Chaz Bates 8.Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick INFORMATION ONLY(will not be reported or discussed): 9.Finance Monthly Report CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Council Agenda August 11,2020 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: Augsut 11, 2020 Department Director Approval: 1►'/ Check all that apply: 11 consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 07/22/2020 51265-51293 $163,628.62 07/22/2020 8786-8790 $1,120.00 07/22/2020 7214; 7225; 7226; 7231; 7232; 7234 $89,820.39 07/24/2020 51294-51308 $30,775.19 07/28/2020 51309-51310 $149,443.00 07/30/2020 8791-8806 $4,716.00 08/03/2020 51311-51318; 10389851; 10389938 $2,149,019.49 08/04/2020 51319-51341 $137,473.52 08/04/2020 51342 $3,543.43 GRAND TOTAL: $2,729,539.64 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 001.018.0 14.514. 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 & Ree-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 07/22/2020 12:19:48PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 51265 7/22/2020 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 1MJW-G7NY-7NDX 001.040.041.543 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIP. 239.38 Total: 239.38 51266 7/22/2020 007671 HORROCKS ENGINEERS INC 56723 001.040.041.558 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,187.50 Total: 1,187.50 51267 7/22/2020 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 10022681 402.402.000.531 895 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 3,915.22 Total: 3,915.22 51268 7/22/2020 005400 WESTERN PACIFIC SIGNAL LLC 26837 101,042,000.542 ETHERWAN WIRELESS 3,205.47 Total: 3,205.47 51269 7/22/2020 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY 66906 001.013.000.513 ELECTRONIC CODE UPDATE 428.79 Total: 428.79 51270 7122/2020 003392 EPICENTER SERVICES LLC 2020-05 106.000.000.537 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 631.13 Total: 631.13 51271 7/22/2020 003210 WEST CONSULTANTS INC. 013717 402.000.000.531 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,170.70 Total: 4,170.70 51272 7/22/2020 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 1HHM-QGTM-J1M1 001.090.000.518 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT 108.88 Total: 108.88 51273 7/22/2020 007019 DIGICERT INC 141277 001.090.000.518 DIGICERT WILDCARD CERTIFICATE RE 688.00 Total: 688.00 51274 7/22/2020 000796 BUDINGER&ASSOCIATES INC M20246-2 303.000.291.595 0291-MATERIALS TESTING 3,177.90 Total: 3,177.90 51275 7/22/2020 007637 COMMONSTREET CONSULTING LLC CSROW 20177 314.000.223.595 0223-RIGHT-OF-WAY SERVICES 4,136.24 Total: 4,136.24 51276 7/22/2020 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE 46 JG6515 L001 311.000.285.595 0285-SIGN INSTALLATION 260.05 Total: 260.05 51277 7/22/2020 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC 0620-0857 303.000.249,595 0249-REAL ESTATE SERVICES 3,555.68 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 07/22/2020 12:19:48PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 51277 7/22/2020 003682 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC (Continued) Total: 3,555.68 51278 7/22/2020 002043 HDR ENGINEERING INC 1200279340 303.000.273.518 0273-DESIGN SERVICES 4,314.27 Total: 4,314.27 51279 7/22/2020 004231 BELSBY ENGINEERING 56757 403.000.317.595 0317-SURVEY SERVICES 8,872.42 Total: 8,872.42 51280 7/22/2020 007637 COMMONSTREET CONSULTING LLC CSROW 20176 303.000.275.595 0275/0313-RIGHT-OF-WAY SERVICES 2,338.79 Total: 2,338.79 51281 7/22/2020 003261 FEHR&PEERS 139006 314.000.311.595 0311-DESIGN ENGINEERING 2,100.20 139166 303.000.300.595 0300-ENGINEERING SERVICES 1,915.00 Total: 4,015.20 51282 7/22/2020 005353 INTERMOUNTAIN MATERIALS 12041 309.000.304.594 0304MATERIALTESTING 466.20 Total: 466.20 51283 7/22/2020 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 50319737 001.040.041.543 COUNTY IT SUPPORT JUNE 2020 16,625.81 Total: 16,625.81 51284 7/22/2020 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 68154 402.402.000.531 STORM DRAIN CLEANING 32,823.03 68155 402.402.000.531 STREET SWEEPING 64,854.26 Total: 97,677.29 51285 7/22/2020 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 274632 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES 13.61 274935 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES 414.88 275134 101.042.0001.542 SUPPLIES 27.01 Total: 455.50 51286 7122/2020 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS INV638594 101.042.000.543 TOWER RENT 216.57 • Total: 216.57 51287 7/22/2020 002920 DIRECTV INC 37580724715 101.042.000.543 CABLE SERVICE FOR MAINTENANCE: 69.99 Total: 69.99 51288 7/22/2020 002518 INLAND PACIFIC HOSE&FITTINGS 1050135 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 935.15 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 07/22/2020 12:19:48PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 51288 7/22/2020 002518 002518 INLAND PACIFIC HOSE&FITTINGS (Continued) Total: 935.15 51289 7/22/2020 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY SPOIN4100647 101.000.000.542 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT 533.61 SPOIN4102038 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 352.90 SPOIN4103847 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 226.07 Total: 1,112.58 51290 7/22/2020 003090 NORTH 40 OUTFITTERS 096569/3 101.042.000.542 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT 59.87 Total: 59.87 51291 7/22/2020 002520 RWC GROUP 125055N 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 180.28 Total: 180.28 51292 7/22/2020 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 10022741 101.042.000.542 895 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 531.43 Total: 531.43 51293 7/22/2020 007159 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 556762938 101.042.000.543 SUPPLIES -32.66 559000856 101.042.000.543 SUPPLIES:MAINTENANCE SHOP 84.99 Total: 52.33 29 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 163,628.62 29 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 163,628.62 Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page G/ - r 07/2212020 2:52:13PM Spokane Valley f Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 8786 7122/2020 007902 DUCKETT,SCOTT PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:GREENACRI 159.00 Total: 159.00 8787 7/22/2020 007903 GOODRICH,JUSTIN PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:VALLEY MIS 159.00 Total: 159.00 8788 7/22/2020 007904 KUPLACK,CHRISTIAN PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:AUGUST SU\ 95.00 Total: 95.00 8789 7/22/2020 007905 SHELTERING TREE CHURCH PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:EDGECLIFF 199.00 Total: 199.00 8790 7/22/2020 000295 VALLEYFEST PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:MIRABEAU P 508.00 Total: 508.00 5 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref Bank total: 1,120.00 5 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 1,120.00 `Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: —i"-- 07122/2020 4:44:17PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 7214 7/20/2020 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION 6en94409 001.231.50.03 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE:PAYMENT 1,566.60 Total: 1,566.60 7225 7/20/2020 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A PLAN Ben94411 001.231.14.00 401A:PAYMENT 38,010.60 Total: 38,010.60 7226 7/20/2020 000682 EFTPS Ben94413 001.231.11 A0 FEDERAL TAXES:PAYMENT 38,283.19 Total: 38,283.19 7231 7/20/2020 007303 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS,457 RO'Ben94415 001.231.23.00 457 ROTH OPTION:PAYMENT 1,674.45 Total: 1,674.45 7232 7/20/2020 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS,457 PL) Ben94417 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION:PAYI 9,582.24 Total: 9,582.24 7234 7/20/2020 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A EXEC PL Ben94419 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN:PAYMENT 703.31 Total: 703.31 6 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 89,829.39 6 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 89,820,39 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: y 07/24/2020 12:37:06PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 51294 7/24/2020 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 480 314.000.143.595 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 13,966.53 Total: 13,966.53 51295 7/24/2020 006767 ATLAS INTEGRATED 2019-12746 001.040.042.558 ADVERTISING:SUPPORT/MAINTENAN 1,625.00 2019-13251 001.040.042.558 CONSULTING SERVICES 3,075.00 Total: 4,700.00 51296 7/24/2020 007882 MAUL FOSTER&ALONGL INC 39297 001.040.319.558 0319-HAP CONSULTING 1,628.88 Total: 1,628.88 51297 7/24/2020 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC INC 127085 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES--505 E 141 45.00 Total: 45.00 51298 7/24/2020 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL June 2020 1042 001.011.000.511 GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SERVICES 5,000.00 Total: 5,000.00 51299 7/24/2020 000197 ACRANET 14300 001.018.016.518 EMPLOYEE BACKGROUND CHECKS 35.00 Total: 35.00 51300 7/24/2020 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 1TN3-FNYP-4KN1 001.018.016.518 SUPPLIES FOR HR 17.40 1XDR-WFDK-31N7 001.090.000.517 SUPPLIES FOR GEN GOVNT 72.95 1XRV-6GRH-7YT9 001.090.000.517 SUPPLIES FOR GEN GOVNT 389.85 Total: 480.20 51301 7/24/2020 007672 MULTICARE CENTERS OF 138174 001.018.016.518 EMPLOYEE PHYSICAL EXAMS 200.00 Total: 200.00 51302 7/24/2020 004850 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS, HRA PLAN 10264361 001.018.016.518 FLEX SPENDING ADMINISTRATION 392.00 Total: 392.00 51303 7/24/2020 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 100145354001 001.090.000.517 SUPPLIES FOR GENERAL GOVNT 141.13 Total: 141.13 51304 7/24/2020 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC 113844 001.018.016.518 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-COV1D RI 462.00 Total: 462.00 51305 7/24/2020 004437 COMMUNITY ATTRIBUTES INC 2859 001.040.312.556 312-APPLEWAY TRAIL ED STUDY 2,567.50 Page: -1---- vchlist Voucher List Page:7 - — 0712412020 12:37:06PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 61305 7/24/2020 004437 004437 COMMUNITY ATTRIBUTES INC (Continued) Total: 2,567.50 51306 7/24/2020 003694 IEDC July 2020 001.040.042.558 MEMBERSHIP-BASINGER 455.00 Total: 455.00 51307 7/24/2020 001944 LANCER LTD 0477670 001.040.042.558 POSTCARD MAILER 426.35 Total: 426.35 51308 7/24/2020 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW,THE 2881128 001.011.000.511 SUBSCRIPTION:COMM DEV 275.60 Total: 275.60 15 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 30,775.19 15 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 30,775.19 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: S 07/2812020 3:30:30PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 51309 7/28/2020 000815 BNSF RAILROAD CO July 27 2020 314.000.143.595 BARKER RD GRADE SEP CIP 0143:EA 144,223.00 Total: 144,223.00 51310 7/28/2020 000815 BNSF RAILROAD CO July 27 2020 314.000.143.595 CIP 0143: EASEMENT PARCEL 45017.01 5,220.00 Total: 5,220.00 2 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 149,443.00 2 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 149,443.00 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: ( -I " 07/30/2020 2:53:04PM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 8791 7/30/2020 007906 AL MHANA,HAITHAM PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 REISSUE DEPOSIT REFUND:GREAT R 210.00 Total: 210.00 8792 7/30/2020 001729 HALME CONSTRUCTION, INC. PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:GREENACR! 243.00 Total: 243.00 8793 7/30/2020 007908 KIEHN,HUGH PARK REFUND 001.237.10,99 CANCELLATION REFUND:EDGECLIFF 243.00 Total: 243.00 8794 7/30/2020 007909 LUEDTKE,STEVE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:VALLEY MIS 159.00 Total: 159.00 8795 7/30/2020 007910 MERRIFIELD, KRISTY PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:GREENACR! 159.00 Total: 159.00 8796 7/30/2020 007911 NORTH 40 OUTFITTERS PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:MIRABEAU h 159.00 Total: 159.00 8797 7/30/2020 007912 NW BRITISH CLASSICS CAR CLUB PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:MIRABEAU h 159.00 Total: 159.00 8798 7/30/2020 007406 PAYTRACE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 REISSUE DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY h 75.00 Total: 75.00 8799 7/30/2020 007913 FOIRIER,JULIE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:GREENACR 384.00 Total: 384.00 8800 7/30/2020 007895 SCHICK SHADEL HOSPITAL PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:MEETING R( 1,197.00 Total: 1,197.00 8801 7/30/2020 007914 TARITA,ROMAN PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:GREAT ROC 500.00 Total: 500.00 8802 7/30/2020 001452 VALLEY BIBLE CHURCH PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:VALLEY MIS 159.00 Total: 159.00 8803 7/30/2020 000877 VALLEY FOURTH CHURCH PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:TERRACE V 159.00 Page: ' i ) vehlist Voucher List Page: 07/30/2020 2:53:04PM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 8803 7/30/2020 000877 000877 VALLEY FOURTH CHURCH (Continued) Total: 159.00 8804 7/30/2020 007534 WESTERN DANCE ASSOC. PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:SULLIVAN R 508.00 Total: 508.00 8805 7/30/2020 006862 WHEATLEY,JILL PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:GREENACRI 159.00 Total: 159.00 8806 7/3012020 007395 WILLS,BRETT PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND:MIRABEAU f 243.00 Total: 243.00 16 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref Bank total: 4,716.00 16 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 4,716.00 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 1 am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: // ''r 08/03/2020 1:48:22PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 51311 8/3/2020 007919 ATV TRACKS.NET BLD-2020-1876 001.040.043.345 BLD-2020-1876 PERMIT REFUND 198.44 Total: 198.44 51312 8/3/2020 000278 DRISKELL,CARY EXPENSES 001.013.015.515 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 12.28 Total: 12.28 51313 8/3/2020 007498 FOSTER,AZIZA EXPENSES 001.013.015.515 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 9.20 Total: 9.20 51314 8/3/2020 001181 KOUDELKA,CARRIE EXPENSES 001.013.000.513 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 21.17 Total: 21.17 51315 8/3/2020 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT July 2020 001.016.016.521 SUPPLIES:MAINT.SHOP,CITY HALL,F 680.58 Total: 680.58 51316 8/3/2020 007920 OLESEN,MARIE PRE-COMM-2020-0050 001.040.043.345 PERMIT REFUND PRE-COMM-2020-00f 250.00 Total: 250.00 51317 8/3/2020 001285 UNITED PLUMBING INC. BLD-2020-2314 001.040.043.322 BLD-2020-2314 PERMIT REFUND 121.00 Total: 121.00 51318 8/3/2020 000842 WM WINKLER COMPANY PAYAPP 7 309.000.268.595 0268-CONSTRUCTION 247,501.46 Total: 247,501.46 10389851 7/31/2020 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 9290201777 001.016.000.521 LE CONTRACT JULY 2020 1,714,674.00 Total: 1,714,674.00 10389938 8/5/2020 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER JULY 2020 001.016.000.512 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES 185,551.36 Total: 185,551.35 10 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 2,149,019.49 10 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 2,149,019.49 Page: /Z— vchlist Voucher List Page: "r 08/04/2020 10:30:05AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 51319 8/4/2020 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC INV04533 101.042.000.543 JANITORIAL SVCS:CITY HALL, PRECIN 9,115.45 INV07714 001.033.000.518 JANITORIAL SVCS:CITY HALL,PRECIN 9,714.84 INV07789 001.033.000.518 JANITORIAL SVCS:DISINFECT TOUCH 550.00 Total: 19,380.29 51320 8/4/2020 007673 DIBBLE ENGINEERS INC 26609 001.033.099.518 CITY HALL STRUCTURAL REVIEW 5,287.50 Total: 5,287.50 51321 8/4/2020 000869 EVCO SOUND&ELECTRONICS 14656 001,033,000.518 ELECTRIC PARTS:CITY HALL 369.70 Total: 369.70 51322 8/4/2020 007740 EVERGREEN STATE TOWING LLC 13812 001.040.043.524 CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICE 544.50 Total: 544.50 51323 8/4/2020 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3450848640 001.040.043.558 SUPPLIES FOR BLD DEPT 270.81 Total: 270.81 51324 8/4/2020 007159 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 558494316 001.016.016.521 SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT 99.82 Total: 99.82 51325 8/4/2020 000335 TIRE-RAMA 8080002487 001.033.000.518 TIRE REPAIR ON 38910D 2005 CHEVY 18.03 Total: 18.03 51326 8/4/2020 007882 MAUL FOSTER&ALONGI INC 39687 001.040.319.558 0319-HAP CONSULTING 3,048.62 Total: 3,048.62 51327 8/4/2020 000012 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS 326160 001.040.042.558 ADVERTISING FOR ED 1,785.00 Total: 1,785.00 51328 8/4/2020 007907 LEMONADE GRAPHIC DESIGN 070120 001.040.042.558 SPRING SUMMER LAYOUT 3,000.00 Total: 3,000.00 51329 8/4/2020 007635 TODAY'S MAIL 1714 001.040.042.558 PRINTING AND MAILING SPRING NEW: 18,245.21 Total: 18,245.21 51330 8/4/2020 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 11NJ-KK74-94PH 001.076.301.571 SUPPLIES FOR PARKS AND REC 28.44 1QK4-FJC7-T1 F4 001.076.301.571 SUPPLIES FOR PARKS AND REC 18.49 Page: /-5 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 08/04/2020 10:30:05AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 51330 8/4/2020 007136 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC (Continued) Total: 46.93 51331 8/4/2020 004046 AMERICAN ONSITE SERVICES 341443 001.076.300.576 PORTABLE RESTROOMS AT PARKS FA 245.00 346198 001.076.300.576 PORTABLE RESTROOMS AT PARKS 289.00 348525 001.076.300.576 PORTABLE RESTROOMS AT PARKS 247.20 Total: 781.20 51332 8/4/2020 007718 APPLETREE 000017-653-311 001.076.305.575 ANSERING SERVICE FOR CENTERPLP 39.44 Total: 39.44 51333 8/4/2020 007652 FIRE CONTROL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS 20-071020 001.076.305.575 FIRE CONTROL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS 430.49 Total: 430.49 51334 8/4/2020 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 108217716001 001.076.000.576 OFFICE SUPPLIES CENTERPLACE 211.68 108218825001 001.076.000.576 OFFICE SUPPLIES CENTERPLACE 75.09 Total: 286.77 51335 8/4/2020 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 0M07608 001.076.305.575 REPAIR AND MAINT SUPPLIES CP 35.90 0M38460 001.076.305.575 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE SUPPLIE: 77.00 Total: 112.90 51336 8/4/2020 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 10022740 001.076.300.576 CONTRACT MAINT PARKS:JUNE 2020 63.630.03 10037922 001.076.300.576 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE TO CLEAN PA 1,524.60 10061909 001.076.300.576 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE TO CLEAN PP 1,524.60 10077539 001.076.300.576 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE TO CLEAN PP 1,524.60 Total: 68,203.83 51337 8/4/2020 006940 STRIPE RITE INC M-20-4114 001.076.300.576 PARK RULES&REG SIGNS 2,085.98 Total: 2,085.98 51338 8/4/2020 000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW June 2020 001.076.302.576 OPERATING EXPENSES/MGMT FEE JL 11,472.19 Total: 11,472.19 51339 8/4/2020 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 14HCE-L1PG❑-4TGC 001.033.000.518 SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL 748.80 1KK4-4RKX-C4FC 001.033.000.518 SUPPLIES CITY HALL 161.08 1MPV-Y4LQ-RNHF 001.040.043.558 SUPPLIES FOR BLD DEPT 55.72 Total: 965.60 Page: / vchlist Voucher List Page: 08104/2020 10:30:05AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 51340 8/4/2020 000900 DEPT OF L&i 264173 001.033.000.518 ANNUAL OPERATING CERTIFICATE-E 160.30 Total: 160.30 51341 8/4/2020 004740 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST 842587337 001.013.015.515 SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES 838.41 Total: 838.41 23 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 137,473.52 23 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 137,473.52 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 am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Pate Council Member Date Page: .3� vchlist Voucher List Page: '-1--- 08/0412020 11:49:05AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 51342 8/4/2020 001606 BANNER BANK 3169 June B 2020 001.076.301.571 WALMART 22.90 3169 June B 2020 001.076.301.571 WALMART 12.02 3169 June B 2020 001.076.305.575 PILOT 10.58 3169 June B 2020 001.076.305.575 HOME DEPOT 70.52 3169 June B 2020 001.076.301.571 ORIENTAL TRADING CO 71.22 3169 June B 2020 001.076.301.571 WALMART 90.64 3169 June B 2020 001.076.301.571 MICHAELS 26.08 3169 June B 2020 001.076.305.575 HOME DEPOT 26.01 3169 June B 2020 001.076.301.571 URM CASH AND CARRY 32.09 3169 June B 2020 001.076.305.575 MAGGIE'S GARDEN 50.00 3169 June B 2020 001.076.305.575 THE HOME DEPOT 21.67 3169 June B 2020 001.076.305.575 THERMAL SUPPLY 306.04 3169 June B 2020 001.076.301.571 HOBBY LOBBY 18.24 3169 June B 2020 001.076.000.576 CCS 85.00 3169 June B 2020 001.076.301.571 CCS 170.00 6368 June B 2020 001.040.041.543 UPLIFT DESK 1,105.34 6368 June B 2020 001.040.042.558 FACEBOOK 7.21 6368 June B 2020 001.018.014.514 CREDIT:ACCIS DOUBLE CHARGED LA -75.00 6368 June B 2020 001.033.000.518 MAVERIK 9.19 6368 June B 2020 001.013.000.513 MRSC 35.00 6368 June B 2020 001.013.000.513 UW EXTENSION CEOEL 250.00 6368 June B 2020 001.033.000.518 GIBSONS NURSERY 149.72 6368 June B 2020 001.033.000.518 GIBSONS NURSERY 54.43 6368 June B 2020 001.016.016.521 GIBSONS NURSERY 255.92 6368 June B 2020 001.033.000.518 MAVERIK 8.61 8573 June B 2020 101.042.000.542 INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENC 337.00 8573 June B 2020 001.018.014.514 GFOA 159.00 8573 June B 2020 101.042.000.542 INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENC 199.00 8573 June B 2020 001.013.015.515 MRSC 35.00 Total: 3,543.43 I Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 3,543.43 1 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 3,543.43 Page: ~ CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 11, 2020 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 July 31, 2020 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 334,116.30 $ 10,265.00 $ 344,381.30 Benefits: _ $ 197,959.48 $ 12,256.42 $ 210,215.90 Total payroll $ 532,075.78 $ 22,521.42 $ 554,597.20 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 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 11, 2020 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) 2020 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council approved JAG applications for the years 2009-2018. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley has been allocated $24,157 as part of the 2020 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program. These funds are designed to support all components of the criminal justice system. Spokane Valley staff has relied on recommendations of the Spokane Valley Police Chief to identify proposed projects to be funded with the grant. The Police Chief and the City Manager have recommended spending the funds to support Officer Safety and Wellness, an identified area of emphasis for the JAG. The components identified are lighting and cameras to cover the Spokane Valley Police Precinct rear lot, immediately to the south of the existing precinct building. The initial quote for the lights is $20,488. Any remaining funding will go toward cameras. As the award is less than $25,000, the award period is for two years beginning on October 1, 2020. The award formula is based upon population and violent crime statistics for states. The state portion is then split, with local jurisdictions receiving 40% of the funds. The split between local jurisdictions is based upon each jurisdiction's proportion of the three-year violent crime average. OPTIONS: Consider whether to authorize staff to submit an application for the Justice Assistance Grant for items listed above or as modified. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Authorize the City Manager or designee to Apply for the Justice Assistance Grant to purchase lighting and cameras to cover the Spokane Valley Police Precinct rear lot, immediately to the south of the existing precinct building. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: $24,157 in grant funds, no match required STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENTS: JAG Solicitation, Allocation Sheet, Technical Report (Allocation Methodology) OMB No. 1121-0329 Approval Expires 11/30/2020 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs = F `. Bureau of Justice Assistance : •._. Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program Fiscal Year 2020 Local Formula Solicitation CFDA#16.738 Solicitation Release Date: July 9, 2020 Application Deadline: 11:59 p.m. eastern time on August 19, 2020 The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is seeking applications for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, This program furthers the Department's mission by assisting state, local, and tribal law enforcement efforts to prevent or reduce crime and violence. This solicitation incorporates the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide by reference. The OJP Grant Application Resource Guide provides guidance to applicants on how to prepare and submit applications for funding to OJP. If this solicitation expressly modifies any provision in the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide, the applicant is to follow the guidelines in this solicitation as to that provision. This solicitation expressly modifies the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide by not incorporating the "Limitation on Use of Award Funds for Employee Compensation; Waiver" provision in the "Financial Information" section of the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide. Eligibility The following entities are eligible to apply: • Units of local government By law, for purposes of the JAG Program, the term "units of local government" includes a town, township, village, parish, city, county, borough, or other general purpose political subdivision of a state; or, it may be a federally recognized Indian tribal government that performs law enforcement functions (as determined by the Secretary of the Interior). A unit of local government also may be any law enforcement district or judicial enforcement district established under applicable state law with authority to independently establish a budget and impose taxes; for example, in Louisiana, a unit of local government means a district attorney or parish sheriff. Eligible allocations under JAG are posted annually on the JAG web page. See the allocation determination and Units of Local Government requirements section for more information. Applicants with eligible allocation amounts of less than $25,000 will apply to Category 1, and applicants with eligible allocation amounts of$26,000 or more will apply to Category 2. All recipients and subrecipients (including any for-profit organization) must forgo any profit or management fee. Contact Information For technical assistance with submitting an application, contact the Grants Management System (GMS) Support Hotline at 888-549-9901, option 3, or via email at GMS.HelpDesk@usdoi.00v. The GMS Support Hotline operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including on federal holidays. An applicant that experiences unforeseen GMS technical issues beyond its control that prevent it from submitting its application by the deadline must email the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Response Center at grants(a�ncirs.ciov within 24 hours after the application deadline in order to request approval to submit its application after the deadline. For information on reporting technical issues, see "Experiencing Unforeseen GMS Technical Issues" under How to Apply (GMS) in the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide. For assistance with any other requirement of this solicitation, applicants may contact the NCJRS Response Center by telephone at 1-800-851-3420; via TTY at 301-240-6310 (hearing impaired only); by email at grants(cr�ncirs.gov; by fax to 301-240-5830, or by web chat at https://webcontact.ncirs.gov/ncichat/chat.isp. The NCJRS Response Center hours of operation are 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, and 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. eastern time on the solicitation close date. Applicants also may contact the appropriate BJA State Policy Advisor. Deadline details Applicants must register in the OJP Grants Management System (GMS) at https:/lgrants.oip.usdoi.gov/ prior to submitting an application under this solicitation. All applicants must register, even those that previously registered in GMS. Select the"Apply Online" button associated with the solicitation title. All registrations and applications are due by 11:59 p.m. eastern time August 19, 2020. For additional information, see the "How to Apply (GMS)" section in the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide. 2 BJA-2020-17276 Contents Eligibility 1 Contact Information 2 A. Program Description 4 Overview 4 Program-specific Information 4 Objectives 8 Evidence-based Programs or Practices 8 Information Regarding Potential Evaluation of Programs and Activities 8 B. Federal Award Information 8 Type of Award 9 Financial Management and System of Internal Controls 9 Budget Information 9 Cost Sharing or Match Requirement 9 Pre-agreement Costs (also known as Pre-award Costs) 9 Prior Approval, Planning, and Reporting of Conference/Meeting/Training Costs 9 Costs Associated with Language Assistance (if applicable) 9 C. Eligibility Information 9 D. Application and Submission Information 10 What an Application Should Include 10 How to Apply 13 E. Application Review Information 13 Review Process 13 F. Federal Award Administration Information 13 Federal Award Notices 13 Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements 13 Information Technology (IT) Security Clauses 14 General Information about Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements 14 G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s) 15 H. Other Information 15 Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552 and 5 U.S.C. 552a) 15 Application Checklist 16 3 BJA-2020-17276 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program FY 2020 Local Solicitation CFDA #16.738 A. Program Description Overview The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program is the primary provider of federal criminal justice funding to states and units of local government. BJA will award JAG Program funds to eligible units of local government as described in this FY 2020 JAG Program Local Solicitation (BJA will issue a separate solicitation for states). Statutory Authority: The JAG Program is authorized by Title I of Pub. L. No. 90-351 (generally codified at 34 U.S.C. 10151-10726), including subpart 1 of part E (codified at 34 U.S.C. 10151 - 10158); see also 28 U.S.C. 530C(a). Program-specific Information Permissible uses of JAG Funds In general, JAG funds awarded to a unit of local government under this FY 2020 solicitation may be used to provide additional personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, training, technical assistance, and information systems for criminal justice, including any one or more of the following: • Law enforcement programs • Prosecution and court programs • Prevention and education programs • Corrections and community corrections programs • Drug treatment and enforcement programs • Planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs • Crime victim and witness programs (other than compensation) • Mental health programs and related law enforcement and corrections programs, including behavioral programs and crisis intervention teams Additionally, JAG funds awarded to a unit of local government under this FY 2020 solicitation may be used to enforce state and local laws that establish offenses similar to offenses established in 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. and/or to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, with emphasis on violent crime and serious offenders, by providing additional personnel, equipment, training, technical assistance, and information systems for the more widespread apprehension, prosecution, adjudication, detention, and rehabilitation of persons who violate these laws and to assist the victims of such crimes (other than compensation). Additional details can be found on the JAG Resource Page. 4 BJA-2020-17276 Note that the statute defines "criminal justice" as "activities pertaining to crime prevention, control, or reduction, or the enforcement of the criminal law, including, but not limited to, police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or to apprehend criminals, including juveniles, activities of courts having criminal jurisdiction, and related agencies (including but not limited to prosecutorial and defender services, juvenile delinquency agencies and pretrial service or release agencies), activities of corrections, probation, or parole authorities and related agencies assisting in the rehabilitation, supervision, and care of criminal offenders, and programs relating to the prevention, control, or reduction of narcotic addiction and juvenile delinquency." BJA Areas of Emphasis BJA recognizes that many state and local criminal justice systems currently face challenging fiscal environments and that an important, cost-effective way to relieve those pressures is to share or leverage resources through cooperation among federal, state, and local law enforcement. BJA intends to focus much of its work on addressing violent crime, enforcing firearms laws, officer safety and wellness, safe policing for safe communities, and fentanyl detection. BJA encourages each recipient of a FY 2020 JAG award to join federal law enforcement agencies across the board in addressing these challenges. Additional details on the BJA areas of emphasis can be found on the JAG Resource Page. Limitations on the Use of JAG Funds Prohibited uses of funds—JAG funds may not be used (whether directly or indirectly) for any purpose prohibited by federal statute or regulation, including those purposes specifically prohibited by the JAG Program statute as set out in 34 U.S.C. § 10152. JAG funds may not be used (directly or indirectly) for security enhancements or equipment for nongovernmental entities not engaged in criminal justice or public safety. Additionally, JAG funds may not be used (directly or indirectly) to pay for any of the following items unless the BJA Director certifies that extraordinary and exigent circumstances exist making them essential to the maintenance of public safety and good order: • Vehicles, vessels, or aircraft* • Luxury items • Real estate • Construction projects (other than penal or correctional institutions) • Any similar matters *Police cruisers, police boats,and police helicopters are allowable vehicles under JAG and do not require BJA certification. For a list of prohibited expenditures under JAG and information about requesting BJA certification for a prohibited item (including unmanned aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and/or unmanned aerial systems purchases) or for examples of allowable vehicles that do not require BJA certification, refer to the JAG Prohibited Guidance section of the JAG Resource Page or the JAG FAQs. Cap on use of JAG award funds for administrative costs— Up to 10 percent of a JAG award, including up to 10 percent of any earned interest, may be used for costs associated with administering the award, which can include indirect costs. 5 BJA-2020-17276 Prohibition of supplanting; prohibition on use of JAG funds as match —JAG funds may not be used to supplant state or local funds but must be used to increase the amounts of such funds that would, in the absence of federal funds, be made available. See the JAG FAQs for examples of supplanting. Although supplanting is prohibited, the leveraging of federal funding is encouraged. Absent specific federal statutory authority to do so, JAG award funds may not be used as a match for other federal awards. Other restrictions on use of JAG funds that require compliance, certification, and/or prior approval — If a unit of local government chooses to use its FY 2020 JAG funds for particular, defined types of expenditures, it must satisfy certain preconditions. Examples of items that require compliance, certification, and/or prior approval by BJA before purchase include: body-worn cameras, body armor, interoperable communications, DNA testing of evidentiary materials, uploading DNA profiles to a database, and entry of records into state repositories. Additional information, including the process to obtain prior approval and as well as a body armor and/or body-worn camera certification form, can be found on the JAG Resource Page. AIlocation determination and Units of Local Government requirements regarding use of JAG funds Eligible allocations under JAG are posted annually on the JAG web page. Award allocations are determined by a four-step statutory formula. Additional information can be found on the JAG Resource Page or the JAG Technical Report. According to the JAG program statute, a "disparity" may exist between the funding eligibility of a county and its associated municipalities. See 34 U.S.C. § 10156(d)(4). Units of local government identified by BJA as disparate must select a fiscal agent that will submit a joint application for the allocation to include all disparate municipalities. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) that identifies which jurisdiction will serve as the applicant or fiscal agent for joint funds must be completed and signed by the authorized representative for each participating jurisdiction. Once an award is made, the fiscal agent will be responsible for distributing award funds to the other jurisdictions in the disparate group through subawards that include all appropriate award conditions. To verify eligibility on the JAG web page, an applicant should click on its respective state and note the following regarding the state's allocation table: (1) Disparate units of local government are listed in shaded groups, in alphabetic order by county, Units of local government identified as disparate must select one unit of local government to submit an application on behalf of the disparate group. (2) Counties that have an asterisk (*) under the"Direct Allocation" column did not submit the level of violent crime data to qualify for a direct award from BJA, but are in the disparate grouping indicated by the shaded area. The JAG legislation requires these counties to remain a partner with the local jurisdictions receiving funds and must be a signatory on the required MOU; and (3) Direct allocations are listed alphabetically below the shaded, disparate groupings. Please note that disparate jurisdictions do not need to abide by the listed individual allocations, which are provided for information only. Jurisdictions in a funding disparity are 6 BJA-2020-17276 responsible for determining individual amounts within the Eligible Joint Allocation and for documenting individual allocations in the MOU. A unit of local government that applies for and receives a FY 2020 JAG award must note the following: • Trust Fund — Units of local government may draw down JAG funds either in advance or on a reimbursement basis. To draw down in advance, a trust fund must be established in which to deposit the funds. The trust fund must be in an interest-bearing account, unless one of the exceptions in 2 C.F.R. §200.305(b)(8) apply. If subrecipients draw down JAG funds in advance, they also must establish a trust fund in which to deposit the funds. For additional information, see 2 C.F.R. § 200.305. • Certifications and Assurances by the Chief Executive of the Applicant Government (which incorporates the 30-day governing body review requirement) —A JAG application is not complete, and a unit of local government may not access award funds, unless the chief executive of the applicant unit of local government (e.g., the mayor) properly executes, and the submits, the "Certifications and Assurances by the Chief Executive of the Applicant Government." The most up-to-date version of this certification can be found at https://bia.ojp.gov/sites/q/files/xyckuh 186/files/media/documentffy-20-local-iag-ce- certification.pdf. Please note that this certification takes the place of the review narrative attachment and contains assurances that the governing body notification and public comment requirements, which are required under the JAG statute (at 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(2)), have been satisfied. OJP will not deny an application for a FY 2020 award for failure to submit these "Certifications and Assurances by the Chief Executive of the Applicant Government" by the application deadline, but a unit of local government will not be able to access award funds (and its award will include a condition that withholds funds) until it submits these certifications and assurances, properly executed by the chief executive of the unit of local government (e.g., the mayor). • National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) 3 Percent Set-aside— In preparation for the FBI's 2021 NIBRS compliance deadline, BJA requires, through the application of a special condition, JAG award recipients not certified by the FBI as NIBRS compliant to dedicate 3 percent of their JAG award toward achieving full compliance with the FBI's NIBRS data submission requirements under the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Additional information can be found on the JAG Resource Page. Required compliance with applicable federal laws All applicants should understand that OJP awards, including certifications provided in connection with such awards, are subject to review by DOJ, including by OJP and by the DOJ Office of the Inspector General. Applicants also should understand that a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement (or concealment or omission of a material fact) in a certification submitted to OJP in support of an application may be the subject of criminal prosecution, and also may result in civil penalties and administrative remedies for false claims or otherwise. Administrative remedies that may be available to OJP with respect to a FY 2020 7 BJA-2020-17276 award include suspension or termination of the award, placement on the DOJ high-risk grantee list, disallowance of costs, and suspension or debarment of the recipient. Objectives In general, the FY 2020 JAG Program is designed to provide additional personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, training, technical assistance, and information systems for criminal justice. Although the JAG Program provides assistance directly to states, through pass-through (and similar) requirements, the JAG Program also is designed to assist units of local government with respect to their criminal justice needs. As discussed in more detail in the General Information about Post-federal Award Reporting Requirements discussion, a unit of local government that receives a FY 2020 JAG award will be required to produce various types of reports and to submit data related to performance measurement and accountability. The objectives are directly related to the JAG Program performance measures described at https:llbiapmt.oip.gov/helpljagdocs.html and demonstrate the results of the work completed, as discussed under What an Application Should Include. Evidence-based Programs or Practices OJP strongly emphasizes the use of data and evidence in policy making and program development for criminal justice,juvenile justice, and crime victim services. For additional information and resources on evidence-based programs or practices, see the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide. A useful matrix of evidence-based policing programs and strategies is available through the BJA-supported Matrix Demonstration Project. It offers a number of program models designed to effectively implement promising and evidence-based strategies through the BJA Innovation Suite of programs, including Innovations in Policing, Prosecution, Supervision, Reentry, and others (see https:llwww.bja.gov/Programs/CRPPE/innovationssuite.html). BJA encourages units of local government to use JAG funds to develop and implement these crime innovation strategies, including effective partnerships with universities and research partners and with nontraditional criminal justice partners. Information Regarding Potential Evaluation of Programs and Activities Applicants should note OJP may conduct or support an evaluation of the programs and activities funded under the JAG Program. For additional information, see the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide section, entitled, "Information Regarding Potential Evaluation of Programs and Activities." B. Federal Award Information Maximum number of awards BJA expects to make 1,058 Period of performance start date October 1, 2019 Period of performance duration 2 or 4 years Category 1 — Eligible Allocation Amounts of Less than $25,000 (Competition ID BJA-2020- 18275)— Units of local government that are listed on the JAG web page as eligible for an allocation amount of less than $25,000 should apply under Category 1. This includes direct and joint 8 BJA-2020-17276 (disparate) allocations. Category 1 awards of less than $25,000 are 2 years in length, and performance periods will be from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2021. Extensions of up to two years can be requested for these awards via GMS no fewer than 30 days prior to the grant end date, and will be automatically granted upon request. Category 2— Eligible Allocation Amounts $25,000 or More (Competition ID BJA-2020-18276) — Units of local government that are listed on the JAG web page as eligible for an allocation amount of$25,000 or more should apply under Category 2. This includes direct and joint (disparate) allocations. Category 2 awards of at least $25,000 are 4 years in length, and performance periods will be from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2023. Extensions beyond this period may be made on a case- by-case basis at the discretion of BJA and must be requested via GMS no fewer than 30 days prior to the grant end date. All awards are subject to the availability of appropriated funds and to any modifications or additional requirements that may be imposed by statute. Type of Award BJA expects to make awards under this solicitation as grants. See the "Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements" section of the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for additional information. Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Award recipients and subrecipients (including recipients or subrecipients that are pass-through entities) must, as described in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements' as set out at 2 C.F.R. 200.303, comply with standards for financial and program management. See OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for additional information. Budget Information Cost Sharing or Match Requirement The JAG Program does not require a match. Please see the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for information on the following: Pre-agreement Costs (also known as Pre-award Costs) Prior Approval, Planning, and Reporting of Conference/Meeting/Training Costs Costs Associated with Language Assistance (if applicable) C. Eligibility Information For information on eligibility, see the title page. For information on cost sharing or match requirements, see Section B. Federal Award information. The"Part 200 Uniform Requirements" means the DOJ regulation at 2 C.F.R Part 2800,which adopts(with certain modifications)the provisions of 2 C.F.R. Part 200. 9 BJA-2020-17276 D. Application and Submission Information What an Application Should Include See the"Application Elements and Formatting Instructions" section of the OJP Grant Application_ Resource Guide for information on what happens to an application that does not contain all the specified elements. (This solicitation expressly modifies the"Application Elements and Formatting Instructions" section of the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide by not incorporating paragraph two of that section (referring to nonresponsive applications or applications missing critical elements not "[proceeding] to peer review").) 1. Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form (SF)-424) The SF-424 is a required standard form used as a cover sheet for submission of pre- applications, applications, and related information. See the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for additional information on completing the SF-424. Intergovernmental Review: This solicitation ("funding opportunity") is subject to Executive Order 12372. An applicant may find the names and addresses of State Single Points of Contact (SPOCs) at the following website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp±-content/uploads/2020/01/spoc 1 16 2020.pdf. If the applicant's state appears on the SPOC list, the applicant must contact the State SPOC to find out about, and comply with, the state's process under E.O. 12372. In completing the SF-424, an applicant whose state appears on the SPOC list is to make the appropriate selection in response to question 19, once the applicant has complied with its State E.O. 12372 process. (An applicant whose state does not appear on the SPOC list should answer question 19 by selecting the response that the: "Program is subject to E.O. 12372, but has not been selected by the State for review."). 2. Project Identifiers Applications should identify at least three project identifiers that would be associated with the proposed project activities. The list of identifiers can be found at wmv.bja.gov/funding/JAGIdentifiers.pdf. 3. Program Narrative Category_1 —Eligible Allocation Amounts of Less than $26,000 The program narrative for Category 1 applications should include a description of the project(s), including subawards, if applicable, to be funded with JAG funds over the 2 year grant period. Category 2—Eligible Allocation Amounts of$25,000 or More The program narrative for Category 2 applications should include: (a) Description of the Issue— Identify the unit of local government's strategy/funding priorities for the FY 2020 JAG funds, the subgrant award process (if applicable, including disparates) and timeline, any progress or challenges, and a description of the programs to be funded over the 2 to 4 year grant period. (b) Project Design and Implementation — Describe the unit of local government's strategic planning process, if any, that guides its priorities and funding strategy. This should include a description of how the local community is engaged in the planning process and the data and analysis utilized to support the plan. It should identify the stakeholders 10 BJA-2020-17276 currently participating in the strategic planning process, the gaps in the needed resources for criminal justice purposes, and how JAG funds will be coordinated with state and related justice funds. (c) Capabilities and Competencies— Describe any additional strategic planning/coordination efforts in which the units of local government participate with other criminal justice juvenile justice agencies in the state. (d) Plan for Collecting the Data Required for this Solicitation's Performance Measures—OJP will require each successful applicant to submit specific performance data that demonstrate the results of the work carried out under the award. The performance data directly relate to the objectives identified under " Objectives" in Section A. Program Description. Applicants should visit OJP's performance measurement page at www.oip.gov/performance for an overview of performance measurement activities at OJP. The application should demonstrate the applicant's understanding of the performance data reporting requirements for this grant program and detail how the applicant will gather the required data should it receive funding. Please note that applicants are not required to submit performance data with the application. Rather, performance measures information is included as an alert that successful applicants will be required to submit performance data as part of the reporting requirements under an award. Post award, recipients will be required to submit quarterly performance measures through BJA's PMT, located at https://bjapmt.ojp.gov. The application should describe the applicant's plan for collection of all of the performance measurement data listed in the JAG performance measures at https://biapmt.oip.gov/help/iaadocs.html. Note on Project Evaluations An applicant that proposes to use award funds through this solicitation to conduct project evaluations should follow the guidance under Note on Project Evaluations in the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide. Please see the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for information on the following: 4. Budget information and Associated Documentation Please note that the budget narrative should include a full description of all costs, including funds set aside for the NIBRS project(s) and administrative costs (if applicable). General requirement for federal authorization of any subaward; statutory authorization of subawards under the JAG Program statute. Generally, a recipient of an OJP award may not make subawards ("subgrants") unless the recipient has specific federal authorization to do so. Unless an applicable statute or DOJ regulation specifically authorizes (or requires) particular subawards, a recipient must have authorization from OJP before it may make a subaward. 11 BJA-2020-17276 However, JAG subawards that are required or specifically authorized by statute (see 34 U.S.C. § 10152(a) and 34 U.S.C. § 10156) do not require prior approval. This includes subawards made by states and unites of local government under the JAG Program. For additional information regarding subawards and authorizations, please refer to the subaward section in the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide. 5. Indirect Cost Rate Agreement(if applicable) This rule does not eliminate or alter the JAG-specific restriction in federal law that states charges for administrative costs may not exceed 10 percent of the award amount, regardless of the approved indirect cost rate, 6. Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire (including applicant disclosure of high risk status) 7. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities 8. Applicant Disclosure of Pending Applications 9. Applicant Disclosure and Justification— DOJ High Risk Grantees2 (if applicable) 10. Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity 11. Certifications and Assurances by the Chief Executive of the Applicant Government A JAG application is not complete, and a unit of local government may not access award funds, unless the chief executive of the applicant unit of local government (e.g., the mayor) properly executes, and then submits, the"Certifications and Assurances by the Chief Executive of the Applicant Government."The most up-to-date version of this certification can be found at https://bia.oip.gov/sites/q/files/xvckuh186/files/media/document/fv-20-local-jag-ce- certification.pdf. 12. Information regarding Communication with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and/or Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE) Each applicant must provide responses to the following questions as an attachment to the application: (1) Does your jurisdiction have any laws, policies, or practices related to whether, when, or how employees may communicate with DHS or ICE? (2) Is your jurisdiction subject to any laws from a superior political entity (e.g., a state law that binds a city) that meet the description in question 1? (3) If yes to either: • Please provide a copy of each law or policy. • Please describe each practice. • Please explain how the law, policy, or practice complies with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Note: Responses to these questions must be provided by the applicant as part of the application. Further, the requirement to provide this information applies to all tiers of funding 2 A'DOJ High Risk Grantee" is a recipient that has received a DOJ High Risk designation based on a documented history of unsatisfactory performance, financial instability,management system or other internal control deficiencies, or noncompliance with award terms and conditions on prior awards, or that is otherwise not responsible. 12 BJA-2020-17276 and for all subawards made to state or local government entities, including public institutions of higher education. All subrecipient responses must be collected and maintained by the direct recipient of funding and must be made available to DOJ upon request. Responses to these questions are not required from subrecipients that are either a tribal government/organization, a nonprofit organization, or a private institution of higher education. OJP will not deny an application for a FY 2020 award for failure to submit these required responses by the application deadline, but a recipient will not receive award funds (and its award will include a condition that withholds funds) until it submits these responses. How to Apply An applicant must submit its application through the Grants Management System (GMS), which provides support for the application, award, and management of awards at OJP. Find information, registration and submission steps on how to apply in GMS in response to this solicitation in the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide. E. Application Review Information Review Process BJA reviews the application to make sure that the information presented is reasonable, understandable, measurable, achievable, and consistent with the solicitation. See the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for information on the application. Pursuant to the Part 200 Uniform Requirements, before award decisions are made, OJP also reviews information related to the degree of risk posed by the applicant. Among other things to help assess whether an applicant that has one or more prior federal awards has a satisfactory record with respect to performance, integrity, and business ethics, OJP checks whether the applicant is listed in SAM as excluded from receiving a federal award. In addition, if OJP anticipates that an award will exceed $250,000 in federal funds, OJP also must review and consider any information about the applicant that appears in the nonpublic segment of the integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, FAPIIS). Important note on FAPIIS: An applicant, at its option, may review and comment on any information about itself that currently appears in FAPI IS and was entered by a federal awarding agency. OUP will consider any such comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in FAPI IS, in its assessment of the risk posed by the applicant. Absent explicit statutory authorization or written delegation of authority to the contrary, the Assistant Attorney General will make all final award decisions. F. Federal Award Administration Information Please see the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for information on the following: Federal Award Notices Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements 13 BJA-2020-17276 OJP strongly encourages prospective applicants to review information on post-award legal requirements and common OJP award conditions prior to submitting an application. For additional information on these legal requirements, see the "Administrative, National Policy, and Other Legal Requirements" section in OJP Grant Application Resource Guide. Information Technology (IT) Security Clauses General Information about Post-Federal Award Reporting Requirements In addition to addressing the objectives described in Section A. Program Description, any recipient of an award under this solicitation will be required to submit the following reports and data: Category 1 -- Eligible Allocation Amounts of Less than $25,000 Recipients must submit: • Quarterly financial status reports (and one final financial report after all funds have been obligated and expended) through OJP's Grants Management System (GMS) • Quarterly performance measures report and final performance measures report through BJA's Performance Measurement Tool (PMT). Please note that as soon as all project activity has concluded, that report may be marked final • An annual progress report and final progress report through OJP's GMS. If all project activity has concluded at the time the first annual progress report is submitted, that report may be marked final • If applicable, an annual audit report in accordance with the Part 200 Uniform Requirements or specific award conditions should also be submitted Category 2—Eligible Allocation Amounts of$25,000 or More Recipients must submit: • Quarterly financial status reports (and one final financial report after all funds have been obligated and expended) through OJP's Grants Management System (GMS) • Quarterly performance measures reports and a final performance measures report(at any time once all project activity has concluded) through BJA's Performance Measurement Tool (PMT) • Semi-annual progress reports and a final progress report (at any time once all project activity has concluded) through OJP's GMS • If applicable, an annual audit report in accordance with the Part 200 Uniform Requirements or specific award conditions Future awards and/or fund draw-downs may be withheld if a recipient of an OJP award fails to report the required reports in a timely manner. See the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for additional information on specific post- award reporting requirements, including performance measurement data. 14 BJA-2020-17276 Performance measurement data must be submitted through BJA's Performance Measurement Tool (PMT). The performance measures are available at: https://biapmt.oip.gov/helpfiagdocs.html. (Note that if a unit of local government provides funding to a law enforcement agency, the unit of local government must submit quarterly performance measurement data on training that officers have received on use of force, racial and ethnic bias, de-escalation of conflict, and constructive engagement with the public.) G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s) For OJP contact(s), see page 2 of this solicitation. For contact information for GMS, see page 2. H. Other Information Please see the OJP Grant Application Resource Guide for information on the following: Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552 and 5 U.S.C. 552a) Provide Feedback to OJP Certain Relevant Federal Laws, as in Effect on February 26, 2020 See the JAG Resource Page for more information. 15 BJA-2020.17276 Application Checklist Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program: FY 2020 Local Solicitation This application checklist has been created as an aid in developing an application. What an Applicant Should Do: Prior to Registering in GMS: ❑ Acquire a DUNS Number (see OJP Grant Application Resource Guide) El Acquire or renew registration with SAM (see OJP Grant Application Resource Guide) To Register with GMS: ❑ For new users, acquire a GMS username and password* (see OJP Grant Application Resource Guide) ❑ For existing users, check GMS username and password*to ensure account access (see OJP Grant Application Resource Guide) ❑ Verify SAM registration in GMS (see OJP Grant Application Resource Guide) ❑ Search for and select correct funding opportunity in GMS (see OJP Grant Application Resource Guide) ❑ Register by selecting the"Apply Online" button associated with the funding opportunity title (see OJP Grant Application Resource Guide) ❑ Read OJP policy and guidance on conference approval, planning, and reporting available at oip.qov/financialauide/DOJ/PostawardRequirernentsfchapter3.10a.htm (see OJP Grant Application Resource Guide) If experiencing technical difficulties in GMS, contact contact the NCJRS Response Center (see page 2) *Password Reset Notice—GMS users are reminded that while password reset capabilities exist, this function is only associated with points of contact designated within GMS at the time the account was established. Neither OJP nor the GMS Help Desk will initiate a password reset unless requested by the authorized official or a designated point of contact associated with an award or application. Overview of Post-Award Legal Requirements: ❑ Review the "the "Overview of Legal Requirements Generally Applicable to OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements- FY 2020 Awards" in the OJP Funding Resource Center. Scope Requirement: 11 The federal amount requested is within the allowable limit(s) of the FY 2020 JAG Allocations List as listed on BJA's JAG web page, 16 BJA-2020-17276 Eligibility Requirement: Only units of local government may apply under this solicitation. By law, for purposes of the JAG Program, the term "units of local government" includes a town, township, village, parish, city, county, borough, or other general purpose political subdivision of a state; or, it may be a federally recognized Indian tribal government that performs law enforcement functions (as determined by the Secretary of the Interior). A unit of local government also may be any law enforcement district or judicial enforcement district established under applicable state law with authority to independently establish a budget and impose taxes; for example, in Louisiana, a unit of local government means a district attorney or parish sheriff. What an Application Should Include: ❑ Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) (see OJP Grant Application Resource Guide) ❑ Intergovernmental Review (see page 10) ❑ Program Narrative (see page 10) ❑ Budget Detail Worksheet (including Budget Narrative (see page 11) ❑ Indirect Cost Rate Agreement(if applicable) (see OJP Grant Application Resource Guide) ❑ Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire (see OJP Grant Application Resource Guide) ❑ Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) (see OJP Grant Application Resource Guide) ❑ Applicant Disclosure of Pending Applications (see OJP Grant Application Resource Guide) • Applicant Disclosure and Justification— DOJ High Risk Grantees (see OJP Grant Application Resource Guide) (if applicable) ❑ Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity (if applicable) (see OJP Grant Application Resource Guide) ❑ Certifications and Assurances by Chief Executive (see page 12) ❑ Information regarding Communication with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and/or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (see page 12) 17 BJA-2020-17276 2020 WASHINGTON LOCAL JAG ALLOCATIONS Listed below are ail jurisdictions in the state that are eligible for FY 2020 JAG funding,as determined by the JAG formula.For additional details regarding the JAG formula and award calculation process,with examples,please refer to the JAG Technical report here:https://www.bja.gov/Jadpdfs/JAG-Technical- Report.pdf and current JAG Frequently Asked Questions here:https://www.bja.gov/Funding/JAGFACt.pdf. Finding your jurisdiction: (1)Disparate jurisdictions are listed in shaded groups below,in alphabetic order by county. (2)Direct allocations are listed alphabetically below the shaded,disparate groupings. (3)Counties that have an asterisk(*)under the"Direct Allocation"column did not submit the level of violent crime data to qualify for a direct award from BJA,but are In the disparate grouping Indicated by the shaded area.The JAG legislation requires these counties to remain a partner with the local jurisdictions receiving funds and must be a signatory on the required Memorandum of Understanding(MOU).A sample MOU is provided online at: https://www.bja.gov/Funding/JAGMOU.pdf.Disparate jurisdictions do not need to abide by the listed individual allocations,which are provided for information only.Jurisdictions in a funding disparity are responsible for determining Individual amounts within the Eligible Joint Allocation and for documenting individual allocations in the MOU. State Jurisdiction Name overnment Type Direct Allocation Joint Allocation WA BENTON COUNTY County WA KENNEWICK CITY Municipal $16,047 $16,047 WA CLARKCOUNTY County $26,503 WA VANCOUVER CITY Municipal $61,956 $88,459 WA COWLITZ COUNTY County WA LONGVIEW CITY Municipal $10,688 $10,688 WA I FRANKLIN COUNTY County * WA PASCO CITY Municipal $13,614 $13,614 WA KING COUNTY County $37,220 WA AUBURN CITY Municipal $30,935 WA BELLEVUE CITY Municipal $14,164 WA BURIEN CITY Municipal $19,580 WA DES MOINES CITY Municipal $10,283 WA FEDERAL WAY CITY Municipal $39,219 WA KENT CITY Municipal $37,655 WA RENTON CITY Municipal $29,226 WA SEATAC CITY Municipal $12,542 WA SEATTLE CITY Municipal $399,631 WA TUKWILA CITY Municipal $13,729 $644,184 WA PIERCE COUNTY County $105,607 WA TACOMA CITY Municipal $163,073 $268,680 WA SPOKANE COUNTY County $17,263 WA SPOKANE CITY Municipal $127,620 $144,883 WA WALLA WALLA COUNTY County WA WALLA WALLA CITY Municipal $11,354 $11,354 WA WHATCOM COUNTY County $12,832 WA BELLINGHAM CITY Municipal $20,652 $33,484 WA YAKIMA COUNTY County $12,021 WA YAKIMA CITY Municipal $43,998 $56,019 WA BREMERTON CITY Municipal $16,5fi8 WA EVERETT CITY Municipal $39,943 2020 WASHINGTON LOCAL JAG ALLOCATIONS Listed below are all jurisdictions in the state that are eligible for FY 2020 JAG funding,as determined by the JAG formula.For additional details regarding the JAG formula and award calculation process,with examples,please refer to the JAG Technical report here:https://www.bja.gov/Jag/pdfs/JAG-Tech nical- Report.pdf and current JAG Frequently Asked Questions here:https://www.bja.gov/Funding/JAGFAQ.pdf. Finding your jurisdiction: (1)Disparate jurisdictions are listed in shaded groups below,in alphabetic order by county. (2)Direct allocations are listed alphabetically below the shaded,disparate groupings. (3)Counties that have an asterisk(*)under the"Direct Allocation"column did not submit the level of violent crime data to qualify for a direct award from BJA,but are In the disparate grouping indicated by the shaded area.The JAG legislation requires these counties to remain a partner with the local jurisdictions receiving funds and must be a signatory on the required Memorandum of Understanding(MOU).A sample IVIOU Is provided online at: https://www.bja.gov/Funding/JAGMOU.pdf.Disparate jurisdictions do not need to abide by the listed Individual allocations,which are provided for information only.Jurisdictions In a funding disparity are responsible for determining individual amounts within the Eligible Joint Allocation and for documenting Individual allocations in the MOU. -- �,ri — --- — — 9 ' --. -ie! — .—-Joint A ,c4$fJai • WA KITSAP COUNTY County $35,279 WA LACEY CITY Municipal $10,196 WA LAKEWOOD CITY Municipal $36,959 WA LYNNWOOD CITY Municipal $11,065 WA MARYSVILLE CITY Municipal $13,990 WA OLYMPIACITY Municipal $20,420 WA PUYALLUP CITY Municipal $11,065 WA SNOHOMISH COUNTY County $50,892 WA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY Municipal $24,157 WA THURSTON COUNTY County $23,664 U.S.Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau ofJustice Statistics TECHNICAL REPORT September 2016,NCJ 250157 Justice Assistance Grant Program, 2016 Alexia D.Cooper,Ph.D.,EIS Statistician Introduction HIGHLIGHTS As part of the Consolidated FIGURE 1 Appropriations Act of 2005,the 108th Distribution of fiscal year 2016 JAG awards Congress merged the discretionary Edward Byrne Memorial Grant $6.7 million Program with the formula-based to U.S.territories and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant District of Columbia program to establish the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant(JAG)program.The Bureau of $86.4 million $181.8 million Justice Assistance(BJA)administers to local to state governments the JAG program,and the Bureau of governments Justice Statistics(BJS)calculates the JAG formula-based award amounts t using specifications outlined in $274.9 million the legislation. total allocation JAG awards may be used for the following seven purposes- 0 100 200 300 ■ law enforcement Millions(dollars) ■ prosecution and courts Nate:Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Source:Bureau of Justice Statistics calculations based on data from the Uniform Crime Reporting • prevention and education program and the U.S.Census Bureau. • corrections and community corrections • The total allocation for the 2016 JAG funding was approximately • drug treatment $274.9 million,of which$268.2 million went to states and$6.7 million to U.S.territories and the District of Columbia. • planning,evaluation,and technology improvement • The five states with the largest total allocations included California ($30.5 million),Texas($21.4 million),Florida($17.8 million),New York ▪ crime victim and witness programs. ($15.6 million),and Illinois($10.4 million). A total of$274,906,565 was available • A total of 1,501 local governments were eligible for awards,either for the 2016 JAG awards(figure 1), directly or through a joint award with other governments within This report describes the steps in the their county.The five local governments eligible to receive the largest JAG award calculation process and awards were New York City($4.3 million),Chicago($2.1 million), presents summary results of the 2016 Houston($1.7 million),Philadelphia($1.7 million),and Los Angeles JAG formula calculations. ($1.4 million), • Two states had 100 or more local governments eligible to receive award funds either directly or through a shared award,California(214)and Florida(118). or U.S.territory's share of violent receives the minimum award plus Overview of process crime and half of the funds using the amount based on its share of the Once the fiscal year(FY)JAG its share of the nation's population.' violent crime and population. allocation has been determined, The most recent 3-year period of Congress has made one exception BJS begins its four-step award official violent crime data for states to this rule:American Samoa and and U.S.territories from the FBI calculation process: the Northern Mariana Islands are covered the period between 2011 and required to split one minimum award, • Computing an initial allocation for 2013.The population shares for the with American Samoa receiving 67% each state and U.S.territory,based 50 states,the District of Columbia,and ($460,on its share of violent crime and U.S.territories were determined based Islands receiving68)and the Northern Mariana population(weighted equally). on the results of the 2015 midyear Islands 33%($226,798). • Reviewing the initial allocation population estimates published by the (See Methodology.) amount to determine if it is less U.S.Census Bureau. In 2016,four states(North Dakota, than the minimum(de minimus) Examples— South Dakota,Vermont,and award amount defined in the Wyoming)and four U.S.territories • California accounts for 12,89% (American Samoa,Guam,Northern JAG legislation(0.25%of the of the nation's total violent crime total).If this is the case,the state Mariana Islands,and the Virgin and 12.03%of the nation's total Islands)received only the minimum or U.S,territory is funded at the Therefore California's minimum level,and the funds population. award as their total JAG allocation. required for this are deducted from initial allocation equals 12.89%of The remainder of the states,the the overall pool of funds.Bach of $137,453,283(half of$274,906,565) District of Columbia,and Puerto plus 12.03%of$137,453,283, Rico were all awarded the minimum the remaining states receives the totaling$34255164 minimum award plus an additional , , award plus an additional allocation.A amount based on its share of violent • Wyoming accounts for 0.10%of total of$37,799,653 was allocated for crime and population, the nation's total violent crime minimum awards under the 2016 JAG and 0.18%of the nation's total program,leaving$237.1 million to be • Dividing each state's final amount at allocated based on the states'share of a rate of 60%for state governments population.Wyoming's initial allocation is 0.10%of$137,453,283 population and violent crime. and 40%for local governments. plus 0.18%of$137,453,283,totaling Examples— ■ Determining local award $380,324. • Wyoming's initial allocation of allocations,which are based on $380,324 is less than the minimum a jurisdiction's proportion of the Step 2:De minimus awards value,so Wyoming's total state's 3-year violent crime average. [Legislative mandate:42 USC§ JAG allocation will be the minimum If a local jurisdiction's calculated 3755(a)(2)] amount of$687,266. award is less than$10,000,the funds are returned to the state to The JAG legislation requires that each • California's initial allocation of distribute.If the calculated local state or U.S.territory be awarded $34,255,164 exceeds the minimum award is$10,000 or more,then the a minimum allocation equal to value,so California will receive local government is eligible to apply 0.25%of the total JAG allocation the minimum plus an award based for an award. ($687,266 in 2016),regardless of its on its share of total violent crime population or crime average.If a state and population. or U.S.territory's initial allocation To compute the additional amounts, The four-step award calculation based on crime and population is the crime and population data for process less than the minimum amount, states and U.S.territories receiving that state or U.S.territory receives only the minimum award are removed the minimum award amount as from the pool,and the remaining Step 1:Initial allocation to states its total JAG allocation.If a state and U.S.territories or U.S.territory's initial allocation JAG funds are reallocated to the rest of [Legislative mandate:42 USC§ exceeds the minimum amount,it the states based on violent crime and 3755(a)(1)] population as in Step 1. 'For purposes of the initial calculations for Using the congressional appropriation the 2016 state and t7.S.territory allocations, and formula for the 2016 JAG the FBI legacy definition of rape was used program,BJS calculates the initial for the 2014 violent crime total to maintain allocation amounts for the 50 states consistency within the 3-year violent crime average,See Methodology. and U.S.territories.BJS allocates half of the available funds using a state JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM,20161 SEPTEMBER 2016 2 Examples— Step 4:Determining local award 10-year limit was applied for the first • Wyoming receives only the allocations time in FY 2012 and has been in effect minimum award,so its crime and [Legislative mandate:42 USC§ for each year since, population data are removed from 3755(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)] After determining which law the pool' To allocate local awards,BJSenforcement agencies have the 3 years • After removing the crime and determines which jurisdictions should of reported violent crime data required population data for the states and be included in the calculation of the to be included in the calculations, U.S.territories receiving only 3-year violent crime averages on BJS computes the average number the minimum award,California which local awards are based.These of violent crimes reported by all accounts for 12.96%of violent crime averages are computed using law enforcement agencies in each crime and 12,15%of the nation's data reported to the FBI's Uniform jurisdiction,such as local government, population.California's new JAG Crime Reporting(UCR)program. for the 3 most recent years in which allocation is equal to$15,360,486 To be eligible,a jurisdiction must they reported data. (12.96%of half of$237.I million) have provided to the UCR a count of Since awards to local governments plus$14,409,349(12,15%of half of the number of Part I violent crimes are based on their share of all $237.1 million),plus the minimum known to law enforcement each year violent crimes reported by the amount of$687,266.These three for a minimum of 3 years in the past law enforcement agencies in their components equal$30,457,101. 10 years.'Jurisdictions that have not state,BJS computes the sum of ($237.1 million equals the original met the reporting requirements are these averages within each state to. $274.9 million total JAG 2016 award excluded from the calculations and are determine the jurisdiction's share of allocation minus the$37.8 million not eligible to receive an award, the total local award allocation. JAG 2016 minimum allocation.) The 10-year limit on the age of Examples— UCR data used for JAG local award California has$12.2 million set Step 3:60%14t)%split to state and calculations was applied for the local governments first time during the 2009 Recovery aside for local awards.The 3-year [Legislative mandate:42 USC§ Act.3 For the 2010 JAG,the 10-year violent crime averages reported 3755(b)] window for eligible UCR data was by local jurisdictions in California waived because some agencies were equal 152,220.67 crimes.Dividing Except for the U.S.territories and the having difficulty meeting the new the$12.2 million set-aside by the District of Columbia,60%of the total state crime total(152,220.67)results allocation to a state is retained by the requirements.Instead,all of the FBI's in the number of dollars available state government,and 40%is set aside UCR data dating back to 1991 were for each crime($80.03).Therefore, to be allocated to local governments. used to meet the 3-year reporting a local California jurisdiction needs requirement.Agencies that used this Examples— waiver signed an agreement indicating a 3-year violent crime average of at they would begin to report timely least 124.95 violent crimes($10,000 • California's state government retains divided by$80.03)to be eligible for 60%of$30,457,101,or$18,274,260. data on Part 1 violent crimes to the a direct award. The remaining 40%,or$12,182,840, FBI starting no later than the end is set aside for distribution to local of FY 2010(September 30,2010). ■ Wyoming has$274,907 set aside governments in California. All agencies that used the waiver in for local governments.The sum 2010 reported updated UCR data of 3-year average violent crimes ■ Wyoming's state government by the required deadline,making it reported is 1138.67.The dollars retains 60%of the minimum unnecessary to authorize any further per crime ratio in Wyoming equals award of$687,266,or$412,359. waivers of the 10-year rule.The $274,907 divided by 1138.67 The remaining 40%,or 274,907,is crimes,or$247.43 per crime(after set aside for distribution to local 2For purposes of the 2016 local award rounding).The threshold is 41.42 governments in Wyoming. calculations,Part I violent crime totals violent crimes($10,000 divided included the definition of rape(legacy or 2013 revised)that an agency reported to the by$247.43)to be eligible for a FBI.See Methodology. direct award. 3Before 2009,all years of the FBI's UCR data could be used to meet the 3-year reporting requirement.Although the 10-year limit was stipulated in the 2005 legislation that created the JAG program,it was not implemented until 2009 per the"Transitional Rule."See 42 USC§3755(d)(2)(B). JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM,20161 SEPTEMBER 2016 3 TABLE 1 State and local allocation amounts,fiscal year 2016 Initial allocations Total state State Local Dollars per Eligible local awards Reallocated government Total State government governments crime Threshold Number Amount to state award allocation Total $160,940,804 $107,293,869 - - $1,501 $79,523,714 $20,862,037 $181,802,841 $268,234,673 Alabama 2,727,487 1,818,325 $89.96 $111,16 28 1,069,493 626,248 3,353,735 4,545,812 Alaska 846,506 564,337 160.31 62.38 6 455,275 70,696 917,203 1,410,844 Arizona 3,541,625 2,361,083 87.35 114.48 32 1,922,528 245,959 3,787,584 5,902,708 Arkansas 1,890,836 1,260,557 92.58 108.02 26 804,516 387,322 2,278,159 3,151,394 California 18,274,260 12,182,840 80.03 124.95 214 10,291,887 1,141,661 19,415,922 30,457,101 Colorado 2,571,827 1,714,552 106.83 93.61 27 1,347,132 231,990 2,803,817 4,286,379 Connecticut 1,758,045 1,172,030 130.67 76,53 17 953,437 172,132 1,930,177 2,930,075 Delaware 901,210 600,807 188.16 53.15 10 494,825 46,540 947,750 1,502,017 Florida 10,654,235 7,102,823 77,33 129.32 118 5,795,701 684,953 11,339,188 17,757,058 Georgia 4,892,851 3,261,901 89,63 111.57 60 2,188,767 797,871 5,690,722 8,154,752 Hawaii 937,517 625,011 253.97 39.38 4 577,958 0 937,517 1,562,528 Idaho 979,852 653,234 193.26 51.74 15 404,126 201,899 1,181,751 1,633,086 Illinois 6,260,165 4,173,444 84,07 118.95 42 3,105,966 850,726 7,110,891 10,433,609 Indiana 3,254,115 2,169,410 98.36 101.66 25 1,600,759 404,176 3,658,291 5,423,525 Iowa 1,595,275 1,063,517 131.93 75.80 17 620,502 393,497 1,988,772 2,658,792 Kansas 1,651,202 1,100,801 111.53 89.66 17 687,929 325,682 1,976,884 2,752,003 Kentucky 1,948,730 1,299,153 154.03 64.92 15 890,943 327,934 2,276,664 3,247,883 Louisiana 2,836,034 1,890,689 82.28 121.54 34 1,358,666 402,574 3,238,609 4,726,724 Maine 805,839 537,226 357.44 27.98 13 270,062 239,720 1,045,559 1,343,065 Maryland 3,368,259 2,245,506 86.29 115,88 21 1,936,802 171,435 3,539,694 5,613,765 Massachusetts 3,497,694 2,331,796 89.17 11215 39 1,701,242 511,413 4,009,106 5,829,489 Michigan 5,196,955 3,464,637 80.75 123.83 52 2,608,255 695,810 5,892,765 8,661,592 Minnesota 2,363,729 1,575,820 124.56 80.28 15 909,443 559,694 2,923,423 3,939,549 Mississippi 1,552,532 1,035,021 159.75 62.60 26 630,073 337,282 1,889,814 2,587,553 Missouri 3,331,900 2,221,267 83.35 119.97 21 1,381,219 713,433 4,045,332 5,553,166 Montana 817,995 545,330 184.82 54,11 15 296,276 196,089 1,014,085 1,363,326 Nebraska 1,126,185 750,790 156.88 63.74 5 543,742 159,079 1,285,264 1,876,975 Nevada 2,065,865 1,377,243 81.65 122.48 9 1,183,308 57,151 2,123,016 3,443,108 New Hampshire 871,073 580,715 235,71 42.42 9 301,744 257,632 1,128,705 1,451,788 New Jersey 3,859,921 2,573,281 106.62 93.79 43 1,813,444 630,250 4,490,171 6,433,202 New Mexico 1,601,499 1,067,666 93.04 107.48 20 783,554 198,920 1,800,420 2,669,166 NewYork 9,349,451 6,232,967 82.69 120.93 27 5,359,612 S05,567 9,855,018 15,582,418 North Carolina 4,609,949 3,073,299 96,14 104.02 54 2,049,823 817,743 5,427,692 7,683,248 North Dakota 412,360 274,907 143.83 69.53 7 164,97S 98,379 510,738 687,266 Ohio 4,971,782 3,314,521 102,92 97.16 29 2,414,222 786,071 5,757,853 8,286,303 Oklahoma 2,278,235 1,518,824 89,96 111,16 16 1,053,034 400,091 2,678,326 3,797,059 Oregon 1,859,790 1,239,860 131,93 75.80 18 828,034 334,538 2,194,328 3,099,650 Pennsylvania 5,760,492 3,840,328 98.99 101,02 29 2,588,651 1,121,056 6,881,548 9,600,820 Rhode Island 796,449 530,966 211.91 47.19 10 424,595 69,010 865,460 1,327,416 South Carolina 2,962,180 1,974,787 80.00 125.00 42 1,439,257 448,034 3,410,214 4,936,967 South Dakota 412,360 274,907 103.83 96.31 3 158,378 118,920 531,279 687,266 Tennessee 4,209,060 2,806,040 71.05 140,74 29 1,967,521 705,044 4,914,104 7,015,100 Texas 12,853,519 8,569,013 80.30 124.54 96 6,498,782 1,398,464 14,251,983 21,422,532 Utah 1,445,707 963,805 149.68 66.81 15 653,725 233,004 1,678,711 2,409,512 Vermont 412,360 274,907 487.14 20,53 7 109,956 139,483 551,842 687,266 Virginia 3,213,588 2,142,392 135,31 73.90 35 1,558,265 427,141 3,640,728 5,355,979 Washington 3,191,998 2,127,998 106.19 94.17 39 1,528,027 426,833 3,618,831 5,319,996 West Virginia 1,157,136 771,424 192.81 51.87 25 498,526 206,110 1,363,246 1,928,560 Wisconsin 2,650,810 1,767,207 109.72 91.14 17 1,178,998 445,306 3,096,116 4,418,017 Wyoming 412,360. 274,907 241.43 41.42 8 119,759 141,477 553,836 687,266 Note:Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. -Not applicable. Source:Bureau of Justice Statistics,state calculations based on data from the Uniform Crime Reporting(UCR)program,2012'-14,and U.S.Census Bureau,2015;and local calculations based on data from the UCR Program,2005-14, BJS then calculates the initial amount reserved for local governments.A total Additional JAG provisions of each local award.Each local award of 1,501 local governments had law amount is equal to the product of a enforcement agencies with a sufficient local jurisdictions 3-year violent crime number of Part 1 violent crimes that Disparate jurisdictions and joint average and the dollars per crime ratio were reported to the FBI to receive a allocations for the state in which it is located.By JAG award—either directly or through [Legislative mandate:42 USC§ statute,the minimum award a local a joint award with other governments 3755(d)(3)(4)1 jurisdiction may receive is$10,000. within their county.These local Jurisdictions that are eligible for an governments were eligible for a In some cases,as defined by the initial award greater than or equal to collective total of$86.4 million.The legislation,a disparity may exist $10,000 are eligible to apply to receive balance of unawarded local allocations between the funding eligibility the funds for their own use.If the ($20.9 million)was returned to state of a county and its associated initial award is less than$10,000,the governments for redistribution to municipalities.Three different types of award funds are transferred to the state state law enforcement agencies and disparities may exist. administering agency for distribution local governments. The first type is a zero-county to the state police or any units of Two states had 100 or more local disparity.This situation exists when local government that were ineligible governments eligible to receive award one or more municipalities within for a direct award greater than or a countyare eligible for a direct equal to$10,000. (See"Pass-through funds either directly or through requirement"[42 USC§3"Pass-through a shared award,California(214) award and the county is not,yet the and Florida(118).The five local county is responsible for providing Examples— governments eligible to receive the criminal justice services(such as ■ The city of Los Angeles,California, largest awards were New York City prosecution and incarceration)for the has a 3-year average of 18,080.67 ($4.3 million),Chicago($2.1 million), municipality.In this case,the county violent crimes,or about 12.0% Houston($1.7 million),Philadelphia is entitled to part of the municipality's of all violent crimes reported by ($1.7 million),and Los Angeles award because it shares the cost of potentially eligible jurisdictions in ($1.4 million), criminal justice operations,although California.Los Angeles exceeds the it may not report crime data to the g In addition,the District of Columbia FBI.This is the most common type state threshold of 124.95 violent was eligible for$1.7 million and crimes and is eligible for 12.0%of of disparity. g Puerto Rico was eligible for$2.9 the$12.2 million set aside for local million(table 2).Guam and the U.S. Example— governments in California,or about Virgin Islands were each eligible for • Lansing City,Michigan,is eligible $1,447,069(18,080.67 multiplied the minimum award of$687,266. for an award of$95,990.Ingham by$80.03). American Samoa($460,468)and the County,Michigan(which includes • The town of Pine Bluffs,Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands($226,798) the city of Lansing),is not eligible has a 3-year average of 5.67 violent split one minimum award. for a direct award,but it provides crimes.This does not meet the criminal justice services to Lansing. state threshold of 41.42,so it is TABLE 2 In this case,Ingham County and ineligible for a direct JAG award.Its Allocations to U.S.territories and Lansing are considered zero-county crimes,less than 1.0%of all violent the District of Columbia,fiscal disparate.Lansing must share its crimes in Wyoming,account for year 2016 award funds with Ingham County about$1,368 of award funds.These Award amount as mutually agreed upon. funds are transferred to the state Total $6,671,892 A second type of disparity exists when for redistribution. American Samoa 460,468 Guam 687,266 both a county and a municipality Northern Mariana Islands 226 798 within that county qualify for a direct Puerto Rico 2,874,288 award,yet the award amount for the Results of the calculations for the Virgin Islands 687,266 municipality exceeds 150%of the 2016 JAG program District of Columbia 1,735,805 county's award amount. Note:Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Example-- For the 2016 JAG awards, Source:Bureau of Justice Statistics,based an approximately$268.2 million of the data from the Uniform Crime Reporting program, ■ Pima County,Arizona,is eligible for $274.9 million available was allocated 2012-14,and the U.S.Census Bureau,2015. a direct award of$62,574.The city to the 50 states,with the remainder of Tucson in Pima County is eligible allocated to the District of Columbia for a direct award of$310,484. and U.S.territories(table 1).As Tucson's award amount is more required by the legislation,40%of this than 150%of Pima Countys award amount($107.3 million)was initially JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM,2016 I SEPTEMBER 2016 5 amount.Consequently,the two is individually more than 150% state government in the most recently governments'awards are pooled of Alameda County's award,so completed fiscal year to(B)the total together($373,058)and shared as Oakland's award will be pooled expenditure on criminal justice by mutually agreed upon. together with the county's award. the state government and units of The third type of disparity occurs The other nine cities'awards sum local government within the state in when a county and multiple to$216,224.This summed amount such year." is more than 400%of Alameda municipalities within that county are County's direct award of$50,341. The determination of proportionate all eligible for direct awards,but the As a result,the funds for all 11 criminal justice spending by state sum of the awards for the individual and local governments is referred to municipalities exceeds 400%of the jurisdictions($876,345)are pooled as the variable pass-through(VPT) county's award amount.In the 2016 together and must be shared. process under JAG.The VPT process JAG calculations,this type of disparity • Allegheny County,Pennsylvania, identifies the amounts each state must only occurred with another type of is eligible for an award of$12,044, pass down to local governments within disparity within the same county. The jurisdictions of McKeesport the state. An example of a situation in which ($39,629),Pittsburgh($232,988)' During 2014,the U.S.Census this was the only type of disparity Wilkinsburg($15,475),and Penn Bureau finished compiling the most within a county is available in Justice Hills($14,586),are also eligible recent criminal justice expenditure Assistance Grant(JAG)Program,2014, for awards.The award amount for information(from FY 2010)to (NCI 247137,BJS web,August 2014). Pittsburgh is more than 150%of calculate updated VPT amounts. These three types of disparity are the award amount for Allegheny Several sources of data were used to examined in order,If a municipality County The award amount for calculate the percentages,including is found to be disparate in one of McKeesport is also more than initial expenditure data from the 2010 these three ways,its award is not 150%of the award amount of the Annual Survey of State and Local included in calculations to test other county.These two jurisdictions Government Finances conducted by disparity situations.For instance, are disparate with the county,and the U.S.Census Bureau(http://www. the three jurisdictions will share ( if a municipality is found to be census.gov/govs/local/historical_ the combined total of$284,661. 150%disparate with the county,its The remaining jurisdictions of data_2010.html)and federal justice award is set aside,and the rest of the grant data from the Federal Award municipalities within the same county Wilkinsburg and Penn Hills are Assistance Data System(http://www. are checked for 400%disparity.If no individually less than 150%of census.gov/govs/www/faads.html). other disparity is found,the single the award amount for Allegheny Source data were assigned to state and County,and the two awards municipality and county share the local governments.Intergovernmental sum of their two awards.However,it combined are less than 400%of the expenditures and grants were removed is possible for a county to have both a County's award.Accordingly,they from the total justice expenditure for are eligible for direct awards,and 150%disparity and a 400%disparity the appropriate type of government, simultaneously.For instance,counties the awards for these two cities will The resulting expenditure data can have one or more municipalities remain separate, were then used to calculate the whose individual awards are more For disparate situations,regardless VPT percentages by comparing than 150%of the county's award and of the type,the total of all award the total justice expenditures of all other municipalities whose combined funds for the separate units of local governments in a state to the award is more than 400%of the local governments(counties and expenditures of the state government county's award. municipalities)are pooled together itself.A simple percentage resulted, Examples— and split among the units of local which represented the combined local government as agreed upon by the government expenditures within the • Alameda County,California,is affected jurisdictions.To qualify for state divided by the total state criminal eligible for an award of$50,341. payment,the disparate units of local justice expenditures.These updated The cities of Alameda($12,352), government must submit a joint VPT percentages were used for the Berkeley($39,483),Emeryville application for the aggregated funds. 2016 JAG program and can be found ($11,311),Fremont($23,023), on the BJA website at https:l/www.bja. Hayward($48,207),Livermore Pass-through requirement gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?Program ($21,529),Newark($10,698), ID=59. Oakland($609,780),San Leandro (Legislative mandate:42 USC§37551 ($32,014),and Union($17,607) According to the JAG legislation, (all located in Alameda County) states may only retain award amounts are also all eligible for awards.The that bear the same ratio of"(A)total award for Oaldand($609,780) expenditures on criminal justice by the JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM,2016 I SEPTEMBER 2016 6 result,these jurisdictions received a required for this are deducted from the Sex Offender Registration and combined$6,168,218 reduction to overall pool of funds.These states and Notification Act penalty and their FY 2016 Byrne JAG award.These U.S.territories are then removed from compliance bonus funds jurisdictions were allowed to apply to the calculations.Each of the remaining [Legislative mandate:42 USC§ reallocate the 10%penalty to promote states receives the minimum award 16925(a)(c)] SORNA implementation.Six states plus an additional amount based were SORNA noncompliant and did on its share of violent crime and not apply to reallocate the penalty.Per population for the remaining states Penalty the SORNA legislation,the$1,003,487 and US.territories. The Sex Offender Registration and withheld from these jurisdictions will For FY 20I6,a total of$1,038,782 was Notification Act(SORNA),Title I of be reallocated to jurisdictions that did available from the FY 2015 SORNA the Adam Walsh Child Protection and substantially implement SORNA[(42 reductions from the noncompliant Safety Act of 2006,required that the USC§ 16925(c)].These funds will be states.These funds were distributed 50 states,the District of Columbia, reallocated to compliant states as part to the 20 states and U.S.territories the five principal U.S.territories, of the FY 2017 JAG award. that substantially implemented and some federally recognized tribes implement SORNA bySORNA during the fiscal year.Of substantially rm P Bonus funds from FY 2015 the 20 states eligible for bonus funds, July 27,2009.Two full-year deadline extensions were provided,and a final Per 42 USC§16925(c),any Florida($203,389)and Pennsylvania statutory deadline afJuly 27,2011, state or U.S.territory that has ($113,613)received the largest was established.SORNA mandated a substantially implemented SORNA awards(table 3).Of the eligible 10%reduction in JAG funding for any during the current fiscal year,as U.S.territories,the U.S.Virgin Islands jurisdictions that failed to substantially determined by the Office of Sex received$2,597,Guam received implement SORNA by the deadline.For Offender Sentencing,Monitoring, $2,597,and the Northern.Mariana those jurisdictions that failed to meet Apprehending,Registering,and Islands received$857. Tracking(SMART),will be eligible this deadline,the SORNA penalty was For additional information regarding calculated by subtracting 10%from the to receive compliant bonus funds the SORNA penalty and bonus state government's allocation(60%of addition to its JAG award for the funds,including implementation the total award),after deducting the following year.This bonus allocation mandatory VPT that states are required is calculated using SORNA penalty funds from nonimplementing states TABLE 3 to send to local governments.The Sex Offender Registration and penalty applies to the portion of JAG and U.S.territories during the current Notification Act bonus fund funding that is returned to the state to fiscal year.For example,any state that allocations,fiscal year 2016 be shared with localgovernments that substantially implemented SORNA in FY 2015 would have bonus funds Bonus award amount were not eligible for a direct JAG award Total $1,038,781 added to its FY 2016 state JAG (less than$10,000 jurisdictions). award,made up of SORNA penalty Alabama 49,020 Colorado 45,927 The penalty does not apply to the funds from nonimplementing states Delaware 12,548 VPT,which is the portion of JAG and U.S, territories in FY 2015.The Florida 203,389 funds awarded directly to local law amounts available for compliant bonus Guam* 2,597 enforcement,as the state cannot funds will vary from year to year, Kansas 27,700 retain any portion of that award. depending on the amount of SORNA Louisiana 51,724 Penalizing local agencies would also penalty funds from the previous year. Maryland 62,862 seriously undermine the purpose of Michigan 99,109 Bonus funds are allocated using the the statute,since doing so would be Mississippi 25,804 detrimental to local law enforcement same general approach as the overall Missouri 61,384 efforts,including the investigation, JAG award allocation calculations. Nevada 34,416 prosecution,and apprehension of sex First,an initial allocation is calculated Northern Mariana Islands* 857 offenders.An example of how the for each eligible state and U.S.territory Ohio 96,166 SORNA penalty was assessed can be using its share of violent crime and Pennsylvania 113,613 found in BJAs JAG Frequently Asked population(weighted equally).Next, South Carolina 54,911 Questions(FAQ) on the BJA website this initial allocation is reviewed South Dakota 9,418 to determine if it is less than the Tennessee 78,021 at hltpsJlwww.bja.govlFundingt Virgin Islands* 2,597 minimum award amount(defined as JAGFAQ.pdf.Q.P p Wyoming 6,719 0.25%of the total funds available). In FY 2016,a total of 36 states and If this is the case,the state or Note;Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. *Us.territory. U.S.territories were not compliant U.S.territory is allocated 0.25%of the Source:Bureau of Justice Statistics,based on data with SORNAs requirements.As a total funds available,and the funds from Justice Assistance Grant awards,2015. JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM,2016 I SEPTEMBER 2016 7 requirements and a list of states and For FY 2016,39 states,District of TABLE 4 U.S.territories that were affected in Columbia,and 5 U.S,territories were FY 2016,contact the SMART Office not compliant with PREA requirements. Prison Rape Elimination Act bonus fund allocations,fiscal year 2016 Policy Advisor assigned to assist the As a result,these jurisdictions suffered jurisdiction of interest:http://www.ojp. a combined$3,877,473 reduction to Bonus award amount their FY 2016 ByrneJAG award.'These Total $150,562 usdoj.gov/smart/sorna.htm, yr Alabama 2,548 jurisdictions were allowed to apply to Alaska 784 reallocate the 5%reduction to achieve American Samoa* 252 Prison Rape Elimination Act compliance with PREA standards Arizona 3,312 certification reduction and and become certified.Two states California 17,134 bonus funds and two U.S.territories were PREA Colorado 2,403 noncompliant and did not apply to Connecticut 1,639 [Legislative mandate:42 USC§ Delaware 835 15607(e)] reallocate the reduction.Per the PREA District of Columbia* 966 legislation,the$150,562 withheld from Florida 9,984 Reduction these jurisdictions was reallocated to Georgia 4,580 jurisdictions that either were certified or Guam* 869 The Prison Rape Elimination Act were working to achieve certification. Hawaii 909 (PREA)statute dictates that a state Illinois 5,863 whose governor does not certify full Bonus funds Indiana 3,043 compliance with the U.S.Department Iowa 1,486 of Justice(DOD National Standards to PREA bonus funds are allocated using Kansas 1,539 Prevent,Detect,and Respond to Prison the same general approach as the overall Kentucky 1,818 Ra e,42 US,C.15607(e),is sub'ect to JAG award allocation calculations.First, Louisiana 2,650 p J an initial allocation is calculated for each Maine 746 the loss of 5%of any DO).grant funds Maryland 3,149 that it would otherwise receive for eligible state and US.territory,using its Massachusetts 3,271 prison purposes,unless the governor share of violent crime and population Michigan 4865 submits to the Attorney General an (weighted equally}.Next,the initial Minnesota 2,208 assurance that such 5%will be used only allocation is reviewed to determine if it Mississippi 1,446 to enable the state to adopt and achieve is less than the minimum award amount Missouri 3,115 full compliance with the National PREA (0.25%of the total funds available).If Montana 757 Standards in future years. this is the case,the state or U.S.territory Nebraska 1,046 is allocated 0.25%of the total funds Nevada 1,927 For those without a certification of full available,and the funds required for this New Hampshire 807 compliance,the PREA reduction was are deducted from the overall pool of New Jersey 3,611 New Mexico 1,492 calculated by subtracting 5%from the funds.These states and U.S.territories New York 8,761 state government's allocation(60%of are then removed from the calculations. North Carolina 4,315 the total award),after deducting the Each of the remaining states receives North Dakota 376 VPT that states are required to send the minimum award plus an additional Ohio 4,654 to local governments.The reduction amount based on its share of violent Oklahoma 2,127 applies to the portion of JAG funding crime and population for the remaining Oregon 1,735 returned to the state to be shared states and U.S.territories. Pennsylvania 5,394 with local governments that were not Puerto Rico* 1,608 eligible for a direct JAG award(less For the FY 2016 JAG awards,a Rhode island 737 total of$150,562 was available South Carolina 2,768 than$10,000 jurisdictions). South Dakota 376 from PREA reductions from the The reduction does not apply to the four noncompliant states and U.S. Tennessee 3,938 VPT,which is the portion of JAG territories that did not apply to Texas 12,048 Vermont 376 funds awarded directly to local law reallocate the reduction.These Virgin Islands' 376 enforcement,as the state cannot funds were distributed to the states, Virginia 3,005 retain any portion of that award.An the District of Columbia,and US. Washington 2,985 example of how the PREA reduction territories that were PREA certified West Virginia 1,075 was assessed can be found in BJA's or were working to become certified. Wisconsin 2,477 JAG program FAQ regarding the Of the states that were eligible for Wyoming 376 PREA certification requirement and bonus funds,California($17,134) Note:Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. 5%reduction FAQ located on the and Texas($12,048)received the *U.S.territory or the District of Columbia. BJA website at https://www.bja.gov/ largest awards(table 4).Of the eligible Source:Bureau of Justice Statistics,based on data g from Justice Assistance Grant awards,2016. Programs/JAG-PREA-FAQ.pdf. U.S.territories,Puerto Rico($1,608) received the largest bonus award. JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM,2016 I SEPTEMBER 2016 8 For additional information regarding The sum of the UCR violent crimes The new definition was approved in the PREA reduction and bonus for all local governments within a 2011,and the FBI encouraged agencies funds,including implementation state for a given year will not equal to begin reporting data using the requirements and a list of states and the estimated crime total published by revised definition starting on January U.S.territories that were affected in FY the FBI for that state.These state-level 1,2013,However,in 2013,some 2016,contact the PREA Management estimates are based on crimes reported agencies reported rape counts using Office at PREACompliance@usdoj.gov by all state,local,and special district only the legacy definition,while other law enforcement agencies within a agencies reported data using only - state,plus an imputation adjustment to the revised definition.Accordingly, Maximum allocation to units of account for nonreporting agencies and the FBI chose to report rape counts local government agencies reporting less than 12 months collected under both definitions in [Legislative mandate:42 USC§ of data.These imputed values do not the Crime in the United States(CIUS) 3755(e)(1)] appear on the electronic data file that publication.The published 2013 and BJS used and are not used to calculate 2014 violent crime totals were created According to the legislation,units the local award. using the revised definition.However, of local government may not receive to be consistent with prior years,the a JAG award that"exceeds such UCR modification to the definition legacy definition of rape was used unit's total expenditures on criminal of rape to calculate the violent crime counts justice services for the most recently in any tables that showed trend data Historically,the UCR program completed fiscal year for which data (multiyear estimates). are available:'Award amounts in defined rape as"the carnal knowledge excess of total expenditures"shall be of a female forcibly and against her For the initial part of the JAG allocated proportionately among units will:'Many agencies recognized that calculations,which determines the of local government whose allocations this definition excludes a long list initial allocation to each state and do not exceed their total expenditures of sex offenses that are criminal in how much is available for local awards most jurisdictions,such as offenses within each state,the formula uses the on such servicee involving oral or anal penetration, most recent 3 years of crime data as penetration with objects,and rapes published by the FBI.Therefore,to be Methodology of males.Because these sex offenses consistent with the totals published in were excluded,the UCR rape data CIUS,BJS used the FBI's legacy rape The population data used to calculate represented an undercount of rape counts for the first part of the formula. state and U.S.territory Justice known to law enforcement. BJS will begin using the revised Assistance Grant(JAG)allocations rape counts once there are 3 years of To be more inclusive and increase are from the 2015 census estimates accuracy in the scope and volume of published revised rape counts,which is provided to the Bureau of Justice anticipated to occur in 2017. Statistics(BJS)by the U.S.Census rape,in December 2011,FBI Director Bureau.The state level violent crime Robert S.Mueller III approved For local award allocations,BJS uses data are estimates published by the revisions to the UCR's 80-year-old an electronic data file provided by the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting(UCR) definition of rape.The new definition FBI.The file includes agency-level program in its annual publication, (referred to as the revised definition) counts of homicide,rape,robbery,and Crime in the United States.The 2016 was broadened to"penetration,no aggravated assault that are summed JAG program used state-level crime matter how slight,of the vagina or together to create the violent crime data for the years 2012 through 2014, anus with any body part or object, total used in the formula.Unlike or oral penetration by a sex organ of the estimates published in CIUS, The UCR program also provided another person,without the consent of the electronic file has only a single the crime data used to calculate the victim.."' category for rape for each agency.This local JAG allocation amounts.BJS 'Frequentlycategory reflects the counts provided obtained data for local jurisdictions o asked questions about the revised bythe agency but does not indicate definition of rape are available at https,//www. g in electronic format directly from the fbi.gov/about-us/cjislucrirecent-program- which definition of rape was reported. FBI and processed the data to link updates/new-rape-definition-Frequently- This variable was used in the 2016 JAG each crime-reporting entity to a local asked-questions. calculations for local awards. government.The 2016 JAG used local crime data from 2005 through 2014. For additional information on the UCR program's changes to the definition of rape and how the changes affects CIUS,contact the FBI's UCR program via email at crimestatsinfo@ ic.fbi.gov. JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM,20161 SEPTEMBER 2016 9 Allocations to U.S.territories Sources of additional information Puerto Rico was the only U.S,territory For more information on the legal to receive an initial allocation larger foundation of the allocation formula, than the minimum amount,and see 42 USC§3754 and 42 USC§3755. it was also the only U.S,territory The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice for which violent crime data were available.The JAG calculations for Assistance Grant Program was the other U.S.territories were based established to streamline justice solely on population data.Because the funding and grant administration. other U.S,territories have relatively Administered by the Bureau of Justice small populations(none exceeding Assistance(BJA),the JAG program 162,000),it is unlikely the inclusion of allows states,tribes,and local crime data would have changed their governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and minimum staters, control crime based on local needs The current JAG legislation specifies and conditions.JAG consolidates that 40%of the total allocation for the previous Byrne Formula and Puerto Rico be set aside for local Local Law Enforcement Block Grant awards.However,as of 2016,the programs.More information about the local-level UCR data provided by JAG program and application process the FBI did not include any crime can be found on the BJA website at data for local jurisdictions in Puerto http:l/www,bja,gov. Rico.Therefore,the local government JAG program allocation in Puerto Rico was$0. JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM,2016 I SEPTEMBER 2016 10 :::::/ .. 1: ----1,r-: -.--:-:'7,- ---..:47\": _l �� ;--1.. 7fri -,, A.A5/:- -(;:v_,I,;--.- --,, •-•••:.,-"'-e-', (J x r �1�� -4- .0 totr- , ,',\• �F i 0 �-;.1 rr a y - % , ' via ‘r--e-.5'--, .-7,6 '----It it AO: 4). R-;./ , The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S.Department of Justice is the principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization,criminal offenders,victims of crime,correlates of crime,and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal,state,tribal,and local levels.BJS collects,analyzes,and disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States,supports improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems,and participates with national and international organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics.Jeri M.Mulrow is acting director. This technical report was prepared by Alexia D. Cooper,Marshay Lentini verified the report. Brigitte Coulton and Jill Thomas edited the report.Tina Dorsey and Barbara Quinn produced the report. September 2016,NCJ 250157 -'Us ,=_,...,.... lIE I III 11IUI 1 1 II l 11 II 1I1I1111 I III III NCJ250157 Office of Justice Programs Innovation•Partnerships•Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 11, 2020 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Valleyfest Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Valleyfest Executive Director Ms. Peggy Doering will give an update on the status of Valleyfest for 2020. BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: n/a ATTACHMENTS: Letter to Council Valleyfest 2020 Report to the City of Spokane Valley City Council August 11, 2020 Dear Mayor and fellow City Council members, These are interesting times with a pandemic and the many changes business, schools and government agencies are making to respond to this public health crisis. Valleyfest has to make changes in our delivery of community events as well.Throughout the past months,we have remained hopeful that the new COVID 19 cases would lessen, crowds could gather, our friends and neighbors could meet and enjoy our parks, river and Valleyfest events. Valleyfest Cycle Celebration was cancelled because we were not in Phase 3. Cycle Celebration committee worked very hard to comply with the phase requirements on masks, social distancing and sanitation. Currently we are in the Phase 2, and I don't think that Phase 4 will be open by September 25, 26 and 27th Our volunteers, Board of Directors, and sponsors, have been communicating during the past several months with the hope that Valleyfest could be done in real time. However,this is the time that the reality is to move several of our events to virtual or online, and assist our friends and neighbors to make their own festival at home. Valleyfest reimagined for 2020. These are our current ideas with the help of our several software management platforms that are used by Valleyfest. Event Hub is assisting us with our booths and vendors to give them an economic platform to share their business and brand. What will it look like? Virtual Event The show must go on! As you all have seen over the past couple of weeks, live virtual events have taken off. From concerts to conferences, it seems like everyone is finding a way to keep fans and audiences involved during quarantine. With many organizers trying their hand at virtual programming for the first time,we wanted to offer some of the most popular virtual event tools to help you be successful. 1. Valleyfest Vendor Village Village includes virtual vendors, exhibitors, and sponsors integrated into our virtual event. It will allow event partners to have high quality touch points with attendees,and engage them in real-time from virtual booths. Gives the opportunity to sell their products or give out information to shoppers. Booths will be live on September 26th from 12-4pm and then open for 30 days after. Main Stage Live Streaming for Virtual Events: Opportunity to stream live entertainment from YouTube live, Twitch or stream pre-recorded music, and do short ads from our sponsors. Attendee Interaction Video Streams for Live Virtual Events: Vendors can interact live with shoppers or do a demonstration to a large group on Zoom. Storefronts for Virtual Events: Vendors are responsible for setting up and collecting their own money. They can easily connect with Shopify or Etsy. http://eventhu b.sho p/Va I leyfest-2020?preview Click on Nash Potatoes to view a sample booth 2. Multisport Sunday will also move to virtual 5k/10k, triathlon, duathlon using Race Roster as the software management tool. https://raceroster.com/ The committee for this event are developing the format and our unique event with our sponsors. RR Ebook A Guide _to_Helping_Your_V 3.Valleyfest Procession/Parade Everyone loves a parade! Our committee has worked with our partners and met with the City of Spokane Valley police department and SCOPE. How to have fun but not bring attendees,floats, kids to a large event that might spread or exasperate the virus? From our many Zoom meetings,we have borrowed ideas from other regional communities and are adapting them to Spokane Valley. The Portland Rose Festival has been very helpful and our volunteers are taking their own creative ideas and adapting their Porch Parade ideas to Spokane Valley. https://www.paradinginplace.com/ Parading in Place is the title that the PRF used to bring the parade/procession to their neighborhood. Residents were invited to decorate their porches or yards with a theme from the festival or one that they created.There are rules on the content,judging was done, displays were up for two weeks,and cars could get the map and drive to those neighborhoods. The idea is that the parade comes to the neighborhoods. The Valleyfest Procession with our royalty and SCOPE could go to the award-winning neighborhoods and to the neighborhoods where the royal court live. This year there are five girls from Central Valley, University,West Valley and East Valley High Schools.This procession of our royalty could be viewed from your home or from a curb. At this time, in working with the City, roads would not be closed. This would be done with the restrictions of our current phase in September. Virtual Parade or the shoebox floats which kids can make and submit pictures of their creations to be shown on the Valleyfest live stream and YouTube channels. These are some of the ideas that Val leyfest is working on for the festival for 2020.Valleyfest is ever mindful of public safety and the guidelines put forth regarding the re-opening stages for our community.Valleyfest mission is committed to engaging and strengthening the community. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 11, 2020 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 Code Text Amendment to the Chapter 19.180 SVMC, Annexation. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150, SVMC 19.30.040; RCW 36.70A.106 and chapter 35A.14 RCW PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: In 2019 the City adopted amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that included the following policies and strategy: ■ LU-P19 Develop criteria to identify, process, and assess the annexation of land into Spokane Valley ■ LU-P20 Identify land designations for potential annexation areas in the Comprehensive Plan for the adjacent Urban Growth Areas to the City ■ CF-P16 Plan and coordinate the location of public facilities and utilities in potential annexation areas, including identifying the fiscal impacts of providing the facilities, utilities, services, and maintenance. ■ Strategy: Evaluate and develop criteria to assist in the evaluation of annexations. BACKGROUND: Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update in late 2016, the City has received a number of informal inquiries regarding annexation into the City. During these discussions it was determined that the existing policy framework for annexation needed to be strengthened to provide direction to potential applicants and staff regarding annexation requests. The proposed amendment to Chapter 19.180 of the SVMC is the implementation measure to provide criteria for considering proposed annexations, including review of public facilities and fiscal impacts. While the proposal doesn't identify land designations, it provides a mechanism to address zoning of newly annexed areas. It implements the Comprehensive Plan policies and strategies. Annexation is a tool allowing the City to "annex" and incorporate areas outside of the City boundaries into the City boundaries. Property that is annexed becomes subject to all City laws, including land use, taxation, and other regulatory laws. Further, since the property becomes part of the City, the City becomes responsible for providing services to citizens within the annexed area, as well as for providing and maintaining any public infrastructure or facilities within the annexed area. Thus, it is important for the City to carefully review proposed annexations to understand the fiscal impact to the City to provide necessary services and infrastructure, as well as to understand what value the annexed area will bring to the City, such as adding new available industrial, commercial, or park land for development and beneficial use. Notably, the City does not provide water, sewer, power, or gas, so the primary services are street-related services (sweeping, maintenance, plowing, stormwater, etc.) and public safety. Staff will provide a detailed overview of the criteria, but generally it (1) identifies the process for either City Council or an outside person or entity to propose an annexation, (2) identifies criteria to be evaluated, including existing facilities, new facilities needed, anticipated services to meet City service levels, anticipated expenses, and anticipated revenues, (3) identifies a process to address zoning upon annexation, and (4) establishes clearly that City Council may approve or deny any annexation brought by petition at its sole discretion. OPTIONS: Consensus to proceed to first ordinance reading; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consensus to place on a future agenda for an ordinance first reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Amended Chapter 19.180 SVMC; and 2. Presentation. DRAFT Chapter 19.180 ANNEXATIONS 19.180.005 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the process and criteria to annex adjacent and contiguous areas into the City, and to ensure that the fiscal impacts of providing the facilities, utilities, services, and maintenance of the annexation area are adequately considered prior to annexation. 19.180.010 Annexation Methods and Applicability. A. All annexations shall occur pursuant to the procedures set forth in chapter 35A.14 RCW, as adopted or amended and as otherwise allowable by law. In addition to all other procedures allowed by law, all voter-initiated, City Council initiated, and direct petition annexations shall be subject to the procedures set forth in this chapter 19.180 SVMC. Other types of annexations may, but are not required to use these procedures. B. To be eligible for annexation the entire subject area must be within an adopted Urban Growth Area and be contiguous with the City boundary. 19.180.020 Annexation Evaluation Criteria. A. The purpose of this section is to provide criteria to evaluate annexations on the basis of their short-and long-term community impact. Annexations shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Prior to approval or disapproval of any annexation as allowed by law, the City shall consider at a minimum the following: 1. The ability of the City and other applicable entities to provide required public services at a level equal to or better than that available from current service providers; 2. The financial impact of providing the required public services at the City's adopted levels of service, including potential sources of revenue. Review of financial impact shall include at a minimum an analysis of the costs to provide services and anticipated revenues from the proposed annexation area to support required levels of service; 3. The impact of annexation on any applicable City bonded indebtedness, including an analysis of the impact of City bonded indebtedness upon property within the proposed annexation area; 4. Whether the annexation would follow logical boundaries, such as streets, waterways, or substantial topographic changes; 5. Whether the annexation would eliminate an irregularity or irregularities in the City's boundaries, thereby improving service delivery; 6. Review of existing infrastructure prior to defining boundaries of the proposed annexation to determine logical inclusions or exclusions, including but not limited to the review of the following factors: a. Whether right-of-way will be needed for the provision of utilities or transportation links. Page 1 of 3 DRAFT b. Whether there are pre-existing utilities from a particular district or jurisdiction that are currently in a right-of-way. c. Whether the existing transportation network will produce an unfair burden on the City for the operation, maintenance and preservation or replacement of assumed infrastructure. 7. Zoning that will be applicable for the proposed annexation area, subject to the requirements of SVMC 19.180.040; and 8. Review of any other impact identified as necessary by the City. C. Prior to any annexation, the City will confer with affected special districts and Spokane County to assess the impact of the annexation. Where possible, boundaries should be mutually resolved by the jurisdictions before final action on the proposed annexation. D. The City may request that petitioner(s) provide information regarding the identified impacts as part of a petition or part of the petition process, may require the petitioner(s) to respond to inquiries regarding the impacts, and may require the petitioner(s)to conduct any studies necessary to evaluate any of the identified impacts at their cost or to pay for such studies undertaken by the City. 19.180.030 Jurisdictional cooperation. A. The City shall, as appropriate, cooperate with Spokane County and other municipalities to identify, review, and address area-wide comprehensive planning, zoning, and service provision to urban growth areas that are contiguous to the City's municipal boundaries. B. When determined to be advantageous to the City,the City should assist in the creation of interlocal agreements to provide technical and financial support to contiguous urban growth areas for the extension and improvement of public services and facilities. C. The City will cooperate with Spokane County and other service providers to establish uniform street and utility standards within adopted service areas of the City as appropriate. 19.180.040 Newly annexed areas. A. Annexed areas shall be annexed with the following Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations: 1. The Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation set forth in joint planning designations; or 2. The closest comparable City Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation to that imposed by Spokane County. B. Upon annexation of property, in the absence of a pre-established zoning designation, the City Council shall, within the annexation ordinance, establish an interim classification for the property on the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning map. The interim zone shall be consistent with the annexation area's Comprehensive Plan designation. If an interim Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation(s) are established, it shall be in place no longer than 12 months unless otherwise provided by ordinance.The process for establishing an interim zoning district shall meet the requirements of RCW 36.70.795. For all property classified in the interim zone, Page 2 of 3 DRAFT the City shall commence all steps necessary to establish an official zoning classification pursuant to the procedure described in SVMC 17.80.140. C. The City may seek to mitigate increased expenses due to annexation through any means allowed by law. An example would be to seek agreement from all property owners within the annexed area that they will not object to the formation of a local improvement district to bring existing infrastructure into compliance with adopted City standards. 19.180.050 Decision on Annexation. Subject to applicable law regarding annexations by election, the City Council shall not be obligated to approve or disapprove any annexation, regardless of the outcome of the review undertaken pursuant to this chapter 19.180 SVMC. Page 3 of 3 Annexations CTA-2020-0001 August 11, 2020 Mike Basinger, AICP, Economic Development Manager Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Spokane �Va11ey° Planning Context Comprehensive Plan - CPA-2019-0006 LU-P19 Develop criteria to identify, process, and assess the annexation of land into Spokane Valley. LU-P20 Identify land designations for potential annexation areas in the Comprehensive Plan for the adjacent Urban Growth Areas to the City. CF-P16 Plan and coordinate the location of public facilities and utilities in potential annexation areas, including identifying the fiscal impacts of providing the facilities, utilities, services, and maintenance. Annexation implementing regulations Methods Evaluation Criteria Cooperation Comp Plan & Zoning svmc 19 . 180 . 010 Methods & A i • _ ... . .. i _. i i „.._ PP Methods ..------) , , ! _ Voter-initiated Jr 1 = — Pr111.1.1 1 City Council • Felts Field } 1 —ems 1 � — -._ Liberty Lake Direct petition , =ak~. _ = EMisaxxiAW Spokane 1 E BYy µ Aan t - 1111 Applicability .r iY " l ey E. x , 0. E Spypm A Contiguous 1 a c Within U GA � r *,II I A � E93+A kwe F Spokane I County Land Use m.ideal Boundaries QSpokane Ualey 0 Spokane Valet' k i6an Growth Area mi... ;II 3 Evaluation Criteria SVMC 19 . 180 . 020 Ability to provide public services Financial impact of providing adopted level of service 3 . Impact of bonded indebtedness 4. Logical boundaries 5 . Eliminate irregular boundaries 6. Existing Infrastructure review 7 . Zoning Jurisdictional cooperation . _ Spokane County other jurisdictions -,- „, . ..r_ ,___, - Iti. Special purpose districts -„at +: � . ir. - Water/irrigation district(s) imai , - Fire district(s) - } .._ 2 e• 1 a - . -- tip Library district School Districts6 ill, ins. , L. L L 1 - ,t Comp P and Z Interim Comp Plan = la. ,� .../4 ; e Ehr N1 . �. - - 7. designation l.— JIkf _�gInterim Zonin 6 —44t„,. _. classification r ,. - ; _ E — , v _ ' i. „ n j� Off Ic Ia I Comp Plan _��. E__ -� - �.� ; INIZIM ',MIMI." E ffIly 1 MI ,,Q ,/„.0, designation (CPA) 1111%, : , " III .r.,IN - i 2 r`2 f ?f ,,, ti Ey,, 1 it 0 Official Zoning ,;.;", , 1 ! , I a. //..!, • ..' — ///./.-,/-,-.,,e � i -Ess„e' Pa4e spolr.a. cl a ss i f i c a t i o n 1 1*'' . ..°\.,..,`1 Coodeky Cd<ih /.._7. K f ._. Rim • Questions CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 11, 2020 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ®Admin. Report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Essential Public Facilities (EPF) Code Text Amendment—CTA-2020-0002 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150; SVMC 19.30.040; SVMC 19.90; and SVMC 19.60; RCW 36.70A.106; and 36.70A.200; WAC 365-196-550 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment is a City-initiated code text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) chapter 19.90 SVMC and chapter 19.65 SVMC to prohibit locally significant EPFs in residential zones, allow EPFs in the Mixed Use Zone, and other housekeeping items. EPF's are facilities that are typically difficult to site due to the use or resulting impacts. EPF's are defined in various state laws including RCW 47.06.140, 81.112.020 and 71.09.020. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities to establish a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities. The State has identified a list of EPF's pursuant to WAC 364-196-550, which includes state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient facilities, that includes substance abuse facilities, mental health, group homes,and secure community transition facilities.The City may not preclude the siting of essential public facilities within their jurisdiction. The City of Spokane Valley is signatory to the Interlocal Agreement regarding Siting of Essential Public Facilities within Spokane County. The interlocal Agreement defines the process applicable to uses meeting the definition of an EPF. Generally speaking, a proponent would submit a request for determination of appropriate siting process to the Spokane County Planning Department for a decision by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). If the use is determined to be regionally or statewide significant, a regional siting process is undertaken that considers a location analysis and public involvement that ultimately results in a ranking of the sites from the BOCC. If the site is determined to be locally significant, the proponent works directly with the local jurisdiction to meet the regulatory requirements. The City regulates EPFs pursuant to chapter 19.90 SVMC. The current regulations categorize the uses as statewide, regionally, or locally significant and identifies the process as noted above. Additionally, the regulations provide that a conditional use permit (CUP) is required pursuant to chapter 19.150 SVMC to address the unanticipated impacts of the use. Lastly the permitted use matrix in SVMC 19.60.050 identifies the zones where EPFs are allowed. Currently EPFs are allowed in all zones except Mixed Use and Parks and Open Space. Although the City cannot prohibit the siting of EPFs within the City limits, the City can prohibit the siting of EPFs in single-family residential zones so long as there is adequate, appropriate land available in other zones including allowing EPFs in at least one residential zone (in this case the Multi-family zone). At this time the City has proposed a code text amendment to prohibit EPFs in the Single-family Residential zones, allow EPFs in the Mixed Use zone and also proposed a reformatting of the chapter to improve the clarity. Staff will discuss the regulations as they exist and discuss the desired code change. The Planning Commission (Commission) conducted a study session on the proposed CTA at the June 11, 2020 meeting. On July 9, 2020, the Commission conducted a public hearing and deliberations. At that meeting, the Commission voted 7-0 to recommend to the City Council that CTA-2020-0002 be approved. On July 23, 2020 the Commission adopted Findings and Recommendation. OPTIONS: Consensus to place this on a future agenda for a first ordinance reading as drafted or modified; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consensus to place an ordinance on a future agenda for first reading to consider approval of CTA-2020-0002. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner, Community and Public Works Dept. ATTACHMENTS: A. PowerPoint Presentation B. Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and recommendation C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: 6/11/2020, 7/09/2020, and 7/23/2020 D. Staff Report CTA-2020-0002 with attachments, including draft proposed amendment ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY REGULATIONS CTA- 2020-0002 Administrative Report City Council Meeting August 11 , 2020 ..., : Process • Administrative � � Study Session a4 o �i N •� June 11 2020 Report „ � N © p 7 o N August 11, 2020 4 ' E 72" , o Public Hearing E cu a cuta July 9, 2020 : Ordinance 1st Reading o o TBD o ► °4 : Findings of Fact : o Pill July 23, 2020 Z Ordinance 2nd Reading W 4 a'' TBD Today� Issue: Locally Significant EPFs have Backround applied for a CUP to locate in residential g zones. HEX has determined the use to be incom atible with residential uses. 3 ❑ GMA requires Cities to establish a siting process Can not be prohibited ; Allows for zoning restrictions ❑ Interlocal Agreement — Siting of EPF o 3 types — Determination required by the BOCC Statewide Significance Requires Regional Siting Process and CUP if located in COSV Regionally Significant Subject to local regulations only; CUP required Locally Significant if located in COSV EPF Permitted Zones Proposal allows EPF's in SVMC 19.60.050 ( Proposed Standards) the MU zone Zones R1 R2 R3 MFR M CMU NC RC IMU I POS U Public/Quasi-Public CommunityPPP PPP P PP P P Essential public facilities ER ER ER ER g ER ER ER ER ER Public utility local S SS SSS SPPP S distribution facility Public utility transmission S S S S S S S S S S S facility Tower, wind turbine support s s s s E = Essential Public Facility. Note that the language that prohibits Locally Significant EPF's in residential zones is contained in chaster 19.90 SVMC. see next slide EPFs Chapter 1 9 . 90 SVMC - Proposed Amendments u Highlights the process — CUP required for all EPFs ❑ Reformats chapter for clarity ❑ Adds specific language to preclude EPFs in the residential zones a All EPFs having local significance may only be permitted in the MFR, M(J CMU, C, RC, IMU, and I zones and shall not be permitted in the R-1, R-2, or R-3 zones. n Makes no other substantive changes to the regulations Planning Commission 6 ❑ July 1 1 , 2020 Public Hearing No public comment ❑ Recommend that City Council approve CTA- 2020 - 0002 to prohibit EPF's in residential zones, permit in the Mixed Use Zone, and other housekeeping items. Vote 7-0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2020-0002 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 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13,2016,with December 28,2016 as the effective date. 2. CTA-2020-0002 is a City-initiated text amendment to the SVMC, amending chapter 19.90 of the SVMC and SVMC 19.60.050 to prohibit locally significant Essential Public Facilities (EPFs) in the single-family residential zones, to allow EPFs in the Mixed Use Zone, and to address other housekeeping items. 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on July 9,2020. The Commissioners voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment. Planning Commission Findings: 1. 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 amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following goals and policies: LU-G 1 Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. CF-P19 Collaborate with Spokane County jurisdictions in determining the best locations for public and private essential public facilities. LU-P5 Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. H-P4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families needing assistance from social and human service providers. CF-G 1 Coordinate with special districts,other jurisdictions,and the private sector to effectively and affordably provide facilities and services. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the goals and policies. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CfA-2020-0002 Page 1 of 2 Findings: The proposed amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Precluding locally significant EPFs in the single family residential zones protects the character of the existing single family residential uses and allows those EPFs that have a residential component to located in other mixed use or high density residential zones. The proposed amendment protects residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and provides for EPFs that require a residential character. The amendment addresses community concerns and protects community character. The amendment will also direct locally significant EPFs into zones and sites more suitable and allow for more efficient processing and permitting of the necessary services they provide. 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. 2. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve CTA-2020- 0002 as proposed. Attachment: Exhibit 1 —Proposed Amendment CTA-2020-0002 Approved this 23rd day of July,2020 arming Commission airman ATTEST Marianne Lemons,Office Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2020-0002 Page 2 of 2 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall June 11,2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II, Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Secretary to the Commission Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Erik Lamb, City Attorney Fred Beaulac Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Walt Haneke Lori Barlow, Senior Planner James Johnson Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Danielle Kaschmitter Mike Basinger, Economic Development Timothy Kelley Manager Robert McKinley Taylor Dillard, Administrative Sherri Robinson Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant Deanna Horton, Secretary to Planning Commission IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter made a motion to approve the June 11, 2020 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. MINUTES; Commissioner Kaschmitter made a motion to approve the May 14, 2020 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Chairman Johnson reported that he has continued to attend the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force meetings. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Nickerson thanked the commission for adjusting to the new Zoom meeting platform. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Study Session: CTA-2020-0001: A proposed change to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.180,Newly Annexed Areas Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger gave a presentation to the commission explaining the city initiated code text amendment that will amend Chapter 19.180 of the SVMC to clarify the process and criteria to annex adjacent and contiguous areas into the city and to ensure that the fiscal impacts of providing the facilities,utilities, services, and maintenance of the annexation area are adequately considered prior to annexation, Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb provided additional information regarding annexation. He explained that the amendment will clarify the annexation process for the three types of 1 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6 annexation requests: voter initiated, City Council initiated and direct petition. It will outline the criteria that will be evaluated including existing and new facilities, services, expenses and revenues. It will also clearly identify the process to address zoning upon annexation. Chair Johnson asked for clarification regarding zoning for specific parcels as they request to annex into the city limits. Mr. Basinger answered that when the city annexes a property it is zoned with a designation that:is the most similar to its current designation with the County. It will then be brought through the amendment process to evaluate what the zoning should be and go through the public process to make that final designation. Chairman Johnson asked for information regarding financial impact, He asked if a property would still be considered for annexation if it is found that the tax value received would be lower than the cost to the city. Mr. Basinger answered that this criteria will just be used as guidelines for the Council to consider when they make those decisions regarding annexation. b. Study Session: CTA Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments Mr. Basinger explained that local jurisdictions are allowed to make amendments to the Comprehensive Plan once each year. There are five proposed amendments that will be considered during 2020; four map amendments and one text amendment. A public hearing will be held on June 25, 2020. Notice of hearing will be published twice prior to the fifteen day requirement, the site was posted with a"Notice of Hearing" sign, and individual notice was mailed to all residents within a 400 foot radius of the subject properties. After the public hearing, the request will move to Council where they will review Planning Commission findings, consider the public hearing, and approve/modify/deny the request. The floor was given to Senior Planner Chaz Bates to discuss the details of each proposed amendment. CPA-2020-000.1: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential(SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) and to change the Zoning District,from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). Mr. Bates said that this amendment is privately initiated for the property located at 1311 N McDonald Road, between Mission and Broadway. It is owned by Land Use Solutions and Entitlement. The request is to rezone the property from single-family residential (R-3) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). The property to the east is zoned multi-family, the property to the south is corridor mixed use, and the west and south are zoned single family residential. Findings show there are no critical areas on the site, the site would support the redevelopment of the parcel, is supported by the transportation network, and is compatible with the surrounding uses. CPA-2020-0002: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial(I) to Regional Commercial(RC) and to change the Zoning District from Industrial(I) to Regional Commercial(RC). 2 06-1 1-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 • Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a privately initiated request for the property located off of Sprague and Fancier and is owned by Lawrence B. Stone Properties. The request is to convert the zoning on 3 acres of land from Industrial (1)to Regional Commercial (RC). The properties to the north are zoned industrial and the property to the south and the west are regional commercial. Findings show that there are no critical areas,the site is completely paved,the change would support redevelopment of an underused property, is supported by the transportation network and is compatible with the surrounding uses. CPA-2020-0003: Request to change the Comprehensive Plrar Land Use Designation from Multifamily Residential(MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Multifamily ily Residential(MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a privately initiated request for the property located south of Mission and west of Pines and is owned by Jay Rambo. The request is to convert the zoning of 6.24 acres from Multifamily Residential (MFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). The properties to the west is corridor mixed use,the north is industrial, the east is corridor mixed use and the south is single family residential. Findings show that there are no critical areas, the site supports redevelopment of an underused property, is supported by the transportation network and is compatible with the surrounding uses. A trip generation and distribution letter was completed by the City of Spokane Valley's Senior Engineer and shows a net increase of traffic volumes of one car during the PM peak hour. All other times of the day remain the same. Commissioner Haneke asked if the developer wants to build additional apartment buildings on the property and expressed concern about traffic flow in the area. Mr. Bates answered that this zoning designation would allow for additional multifamily dwelling units or retail. Attorney Lamb responded that the analysis done for this change shows the change from multi-family to corridor mixed use, it is not for a specific proposal. The current zoning of multi-family allows for a significant amount of trips. Corridor mixed use zoning will add more flexibility of uses but according to the traffic study it should not impact the traffic flow more than one car during the peak PM period. Commissioner I(aschmitter asked about the open space requirement for corridor mixed use designation. Building Official Nickerson responded that there are different requirements in the current Spokane Valley Municipal code between multifamily versus corridor mixed use zones. Multifamily does require open space but corridor mixed use does not. If open space was still required, Mission Park would provide the multifamily open space requirement. CPA-2020-0006: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial(I) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Industrial(I) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a city-initiated request to change the 9 acre property located at 3830 N Sullivan Rd from Industrial (I) to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). The property is owned by East Valley School District(EVSD) and currently houses the district's Walker Center. This location includes the EVSD administrative services and maintenance 3 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6 building. The properties to the west, north, and east are all industrial uses, and to the south are retail service and industrial uses. Findings show that there are no critical areas, supports expanded educational uses, is supported by the transportation network, and is compatible with the surrounding areas. The proposed amendment allows flexibility so that that EVSD can provide educational services in this location. Education services are prohibited in the industrial zone and EVSD would like to move their Parent/Partner program to this location. CPA-2020-0007: Amend Chapter 2 Goals and Policies to provide policy guidance for increased housing density with access to support services like transit and corrrntercial services, and provide implementing regulations. Mr. Basinger said that this is a city initiated text amendment that will apply city-wide. It will address alternative housing types such as duplexes, cottages, and townhomes. It is policy language that will help protect residential neighborhoods by incentivizing alternative housing in areas that are supported by existing infrastructure. Staff is proposing an area-wide rezone in hopes to address concerns from the residents regarding the influx of duplex developments and provide appropriate locations for alternative housing. The objective of this amendment is to address those concerns by creating areas that can support denser housing because of its location to transit and services. The vision is that there will be a larger variety of housing types available for residents and will help with housing affordability. The proposal will rezone 1218 acres within the City limits to the new zoning district,R-4. There is 57 vacant acres and 67 acres that are partially used. Studies show that there is potential for 1240 housing units which would lead to 3100 new residents. The proposed area is surrounded by multifamily and corridor mixed use zoning districts. The code text amendment will create the R-4 zone in the code and provide a description and outline permitted uses. The change specifies that duplex development in the R-3 zone shall have a minimum,lot size of 14,500 square feet. There is also an additional text change in the Appendix A definitions that states that townhouses are not considered multifamily. Mr. Basinger stated that staffs analysis shows that single family development will incentivize the R-3 zone because the change will allow eight single family units per acre. The new R-4 zone will promote development of alternative housing types in those areas where transit and services are available giving a greater variety of housing types in areas that can handle an influx of residents. Commissioner McKinley asked what the ultimate intent is for the amendment. Mr. Basinger answered that the vision is to offer a variety of alternative housing within the city. Staff is optimistic that due to the density change in this amendment,the City might see some cottage or townhome developments that would offer more affordable options. Commissioner Kaschmitter asked if the Appleway Trail could be extended. She also asked if Spokane Transit Authority is considering making their services more frequent in this area. Mr. Basinger answered that there are plans to extend the Appleway Trail to Dishman Hills. The Transit Authority is optimistic that they would be able to extend their services as more development happens. They feel that more demand would drive them to offer additional services. Commissioner Beaulac asked about the notification process for the properties affected by this change. 4 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 Mr. Basinger answered that the public hearing has been published twice in the newspaper, it will be sent to the Comprehensive Plan distribution list that includes any person that has ever signed up to receive notifications about comprehensive plan changes (approximately 370 people), it will be published on all of the City's social media platforms, and a media release will be sent out prior to the public hearing. Chairman Johnson asked for clarification about sending notification out regarding the City- wide rezone. Mr. Basinger responded that the City does not send out letters to individual property owners when a City-wide rezone is done. However, staff hopes that the additional notices on social media, press releases, and the distribution list will get the word out to the residents about the change. c. Study Session: CTA-2020-0002.A proposed change to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.90,Essential Public Facilities. Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation on the city-initiated code text amendment to amend regulations on essential public facilities(EPF). The proposal is to prohibit locally significant essential public facilities in residential zones. She explained that essential public facilities are facilities that are typically hard to site because of their size and the nature of' their use. These facilities include state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, inpatient facilities which includes substance abuse facilities,mental health group homes and secure community transition facilities. Pursuant to the Growth Management Act, cities and counties are required to have procedures to site essential public facilities. They can't be precluded from being allowed within the city limits. However,the City can control the zones where they are located. This request is to preclude all of the residential zones; R-1, R-2, and R-3. The reason for this change is because there have been numerous detoxification facilities proposed within the City limits in the last few years. There was a controversial public hearing held recently for a detoxification center that wanted to move into a residential zone. Staff made the decision that it would be appropriate to look at making a change to limit the zones where these types of facilities can be sited. The City regulates essential public facilities pursuant to chapter 19.90 SVMC. The current regulations stipulate that a conditional use permit(CUP) is required for all essential public facilities to address any possible impacts. Currently, essential public facilities are allowed in all zones except mixed use and parks and open space. Chairman Johnson asked if the new R-4 zone would also be included. Ms. Barlow answered that the City will probably look to exclude that zone if it is created but the current code text amendment only addresses the zones that are in the code right now. Chairman Johnson asked the timefranue for this amendment, Ms. Barlow answered that the public hearing will be held in July,the findings of fact at the following meeting and then moving onto the City Council for their review and decision. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commissioners welcomed Commissioner Haneke to the board. Commissioner McKinley asked for an update regarding opening the City Hall for in person meetings. 5 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 Ms. Nickerson answered that the governor's order for COVID phase three does include allowing face-to-face with customers for government facilities. However, there is no date yet for when phase three will begin. The City has begun preparations for when opening does happen and is putting protocols in place to keep people safe while they are in City Hall. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner McKinley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:06 pm. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed - e27 27/0 0 Z James ohnson, Cha r Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 6 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall July 9,2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. Il. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Secretary to the Commission Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Walt Haneke Jenny Nickerson,Building Official James Johnson Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Danielle Kaschmitter Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Timothy Kelley Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant Robert McKinley Taylor Dillard,Administrative Assistant Sheen Robinson IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the agenda for July 9,2020,with the exception of removing the corrected draft minutes from June 11, 2020, due to a technical error. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschrnitter moved to approve the minutes for June 25,2020 minutes as presented. Chairman Johnson moved to amend the stated location of the parcels for CPA-2020-0003 from south of Mission to north of Mission. The vote on the amendment was seven in favor, zero against and the amendment passed. The vote on the amended motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Commission reports. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Jenny Nickerson,Building Official offered a suggestion for the Planning Commission to voice their concerns with staff prior to the meeting so staff can provide information and acknowledge those concerns during their presentation. Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager stated that the Planning Commission use the staff as their resource. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing: CTA-2020-0001.A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) 19.180 Annexations. 1 07-09-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 ad The Public Hearing was opened at 6:10 pm. Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager explained the code text amendment would amend Chapter 19.180 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to provide further clarification for annexations. He explained that the only areas that can be considered for annexation must be in the Urban Growth Area.The city has received many informal inquiries regarding annexation and during these discussions, staff determined the existing regulations for annexation needs to be expanded to provide clear direction to potential applicants and staff regarding these requests. He stated that the proposed code text amendment will provide criteria to evaluate annexations. The criteria includes the impacts on existing residents,the ability to serve the new area at the adopted level of services, the financial impacts of the annexation and the methods for determining zoning upon annexation. Chairman Johnson expressed concern regarding the financial analysis criteria and that it may show that the area being annexed will not pay for itself. He also mentioned that the economic evaluation is a piece of information that the Planning Commission should utilize to help inform their decision. Mr.Basinger stated he appreciated Chairman Johnson's comment and that this is one of many criteria used to evaluate annexations. Deputy City Attorney, Erik Lamb stated that the criteria is not in any particular order and that City Council may approve or disapprove any annexation that comes forward. The meeting was open up for public testimony. No public testimony was offered on this matter. The public hearing was closed at 6:18. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to recommend approval of CTA-2020-0001 to City Council. Commission Haneke added that people spend money in the city,which creates additional revenues for the surrounding businesses. Commission Robinson commented that residential areas in the county would still be using the city's infrastructure and that it would be beneficial if those residential areas were in the city. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. b. Public Hearing: CTA-2020-0002. A proposed amendment to Chapter 19.90 Essential Public Facilities SVMC and Chapter 19.60 Permitted Uses SVMC. The Public Hearing was opened at 6:18 pm. Senior Planner, Lori Barlow explained that this code text amendment would modify regulations for essential public facilities. Ms. Barlow explained that it would prohibit Essential Public Facilities (EPFs) from locating in residential zones and it would allow EPFs in the Mixed Use(MU) zone, Ms. Barlow explained that the proposed changes to Chapter 19.90 SVMC will reformat the regulations to highlight the process and then specifically add language to the regulations applicable to locally significant EPFs. She stated that the language added to the last section of 19.90 specifically states that EPFs with local significance are not permitted in the R-1, R-2, or R-3 zones. Ms. Barlow highlighted that the city does have the ability to determine which zone locally significant EPFs may be located in as long as there are adequate areas in the city that can provide for these EPFs. She stated that through this process, it has been determined that locally significant EPFs are not compatible with the single-family residential zones. The proposal is to prohibit locally significant EPFs from locations in the R-1,R-2, and R-3 zones. 2 07-09-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Beaulac asked about adding the Multi-Family residential zone to the R-1, R-2 or R-3 zones. Ms. Barlow explained that there are some EPFs designed to be in residential zones so it was determined that allowing these to be in the Multi-Family residential zone would meet the need for these locally significant EPFs to be located in a residential setting while still preserving the character of the other residential zones. Commissioner Beaulac asked for an example of what would be allowed in the Multi-Family residential zone for EPFs. Ms. Barlow explained a brief history of what prompted this amendment and gave an example of a small scale detox center. Commissioner Robinson requested clarification for facilities like NAOMI and other women's shelters. There was a short discussion on what services those shelters would need to provide to be considered and EPF. Commission Kaschmitter requested clarification on state and regional correctional facilities and if they could be included. Ms. Barlow answered that those would not be locally significant and they would have to go through the siting process with the Board of County Commissioners. She further explained the process that these EPFs would have to go through to determine the most suitable locations. The meeting was open up for public testimony. No public testimony was offered on this matter. The public hearing was closed at 6:32. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to recommend approval of CTA-2020-0002 to City Council. Commissioner Beaulac stated that he would like to see Multi-Family residential added to the list of residential zones that EPFs could not locate in. Mr. Lamb provided clarification that an identified residential zone should be left as a potential zone for EPFs to locate. Chairman Johnson stated that these are essential services and moving them to a Multi-Family zone will make it more expensive to create these facilities. Commissioner McKinley stated that he is in favor of these facilities moving from the R-1,R-2, and R-3 zones. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Kelley read a statement regarding core values. He stated the importance of the commissioner's votes during the election of officers and for the comprehensive plan amendments. He asked the commissioners to bring their core values to each meeting. He welcomed the new commissioners to be a part of the conversation. Commissioner Robinson thanked everyone for their patience and stated that although she cannot change her vote on CPA-2020-0007 from the June 25,2020 meeting but she wishes she could. She provided further information as to why she's reached this decision and going forward she will be in support of the R-4 zone. Commissioner McKinley offered a reminder that tax returns are due Wednesday, July 15, 2020. He also thanked staff for their work on the EPFs. Commissioner Kaschmitter thanked the commission for caring about the community and thanked staff for their patience. Chairman Johnson thanked staff and mentioned that the commission should never question staffs motives. He stated he is in favor of medium density. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner McKinley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:48 pm. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. 3 07-09-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 dam• ‘07,12 C�C7 James ohnson, Chair Date signed i--4-neic_ 446-k-) Deanna Iloiton, Secretary 4 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall July 23rd,2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac, (Joined ilf 6:25 pm) Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Walt Haneke Jenny Nickerson,Building Official James Johnson Mike Basinger,Economic Development Manager Danielle Kaschmitter Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Tim Kelley Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Bob McKinley Taylor Dillard,Administrative Assistant Sherri Robinson Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant There was a consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Commissioner Beaulac from the meeting, IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the July 23,2020 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the amended June 11, 2020 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the July 9,2020 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Chairman Johnson reported that he has continued to attend the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force meetings. The task force sent out nomination forms to find recipients for human rights awards and the winners have been selected. There will be a virtual awards ceremony in September. VH. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson reminded the commissioners to drop off their yellow binders to City Hall so they can be used for the City Council packets. Ms.Nickerson also requested that the letter from applicant Jay Rambo regarding CPA-2020-0003 and the agency comments included for CTA-2020-0003 be removed from the Planning Commission Packet. They were included in error. 07-23-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Findings of Fact: 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments Senior Planner Chaz Bates gave a presentation to the commission. He explained that there were two study sessions held on March 6,2020 and June 11, 2020 regarding these amendments. The public hearing was held on June 25,2020 and the Planning Commission deliberated on each amendment individually and came up with recommendations to be submitted to the City Council. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of CPA-2020-0001, CPA-2020-0002, and CPA-2020-0006. The Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of CPA-2020-0003 and CPA-2020-0007. This item is being heard to formalize those findings and the Planning Commission vote on each amendment. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve and forward to City Council the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments CPA-2020-0001, CPA-2020-0002, CPA-2020-0003, CPA-2020-0006, and CPA-2020-0007. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. b. Findings Of Fact: CTA-2020-0001,A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) 19.180 Annexations Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger explained that this proposed amendment to the SVMC is to clarify the process and criteria to annex adjacent and contiguous areas in the City and to ensure that the fiscal impacts of providing the facilities, utilities,services, and maintenance of the annexation area are adequately considered prior to annexation. The process included a study session on June 11,2020 and a public hearing on July 9, 2020. The During the public hearing,the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed change. This item is being heard to formalize those findings and the Planning Commission vote. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve and forward to City Council the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission for the proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) CTA-2020-0001.There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed c. Findings Of Fact: CTA-2020-0002,A proposed amendment to SVMC 19.90 Essential Public Facilities Senior Planner Lori Barlow stated that this proposed amendment is to prohibit locally significant Essential Public Facilities(EPF) in residential zones and allow EPF's in the Mixed-Use zone. The process included a study session on June 11, 2020 and a public hearing on July 9,2020. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed change. This item is being heard to formalize those findings and the Planning Commission vote, 2 07-23-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve and forward the City Council the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission for proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) CTA-2020-0002. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. d. Study Session: CTA-2020-0003,Nonconforming Use Code Text Amendment Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a staff presentation. She explained that Chapter 19,25 of the SVMC regulates nonconforming uses and structures and defines what is considered a legal nonconforming use or structure. According to the code, nonconforming uses are uses or structures that were legally permitted under the applicable regulations at the time the use or structure came into existence and began lawful operations. At some point after the original setup, a change to the zoning code has occurred that has made the use or structure nonconforming. Under this section of the code, these nonconforming uses are allowed to continue and are subject to regulations of this chapter. The chapter also outlines the circumstances that a nonconforming use can be expanded. There are two reasons that the City has been prompted to look at this item. The first reason is regarding single family residential uses in a non-residential zoning district. In the applicability section of the code(19.25.010.04) states that existing legally established single- family residential uses located in a nonresidential zoning district are defined as a legal nonconforming use or structure. According to 19.25.020.02, if a structure is damaged by fire,flood, neglect, or act of nature more than eighty percent of the market value, it may not be rebuilt. This notation in the code is causing problems for residents to get financing to either refinance a current mortgage or get a new mortgage. Banks want to make sure that they can retain their value in the event of a disaster, Staff is proposing to make a change to item four of the applicability regulation that states"existing legally established single-family residential uses located in a nonresidential zoning district shall not be deemed nonconforming and shall be permitted as a legal use." Commissioner Beaulac joined the meeting at 6:25 pin. Ms.Barlow continued that the second reason that has prompted the code text amendment is regarding the ability for property owners to expand nonconforming uses. The current regulations state that nonconforming uses can be expanded within the boundaries of the original lot and any lot adjacent to the original lot if they meet all criteria laid out in the code. Staff is proposing to remove the language from the code allowing expansion onto adjacent lots. Nonconforming uses will continue to be allowed to expand only within the confines of the boundaries of the original lot. Commissioner Hanelce asked if a nonconforming use is only allowed to expand one time onto an adjacent lot. Ms. Barlow answered that staff interpretation would be that owners are limited to expand only one time onto an adjacent lot. However,this isn't a situation that has come up for review yet. However,the proposed amendment would limit expansions to only occur on the confines of the original lot and would prohibit expansion onto any adjacent locations. Commissioner Haneke and Commissioner McKinley expressed concern over the change because it would really limit businesses from growing. It's substantially less expensive to expand than relocate. 3 07-23-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 ol'4 Commissioner Haneke asked how many nonconforming residential units there are within the City limits. Ms. Barlow that she will try to get that data from the GIS analyst for the next meeting. Deputy City Attorney Lamb mentioned that this will also apply to all mining operations. Currently in the code,all mining within the City limits is considered a nonconforming use because mining really isn't appropriate within an urban setting. However, under the current regulations mining can be expanded onto adjacent properties if the owners purchase the land. This change will eliminate that ability. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Beaulac apologized for being late to the meeting. Commissioner Haneke and Commissioner Kaschmitter thanked staff for all of their hard work. XL ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner McKinley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:54 pm. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chair Date signed Deanna Morton, Secretary 4 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING&PLANNING Sa."I\Mak% pokane Val STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE 4000 Valley` PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2020-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE: July 2,2020 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: July 9,2020,beginning at 6:00 p.m.;Due to the restrictions on public gatherings arising from the covid-19 outbreak,and pursuant to Governor Inslee's Stay Home,Stay Healthy Proclamation (No. 20-25) and Proclamation 20-28 (and associated extensions), this hearing will be conducted remotely using web and telephone conference tools. A link to the Zoom meeting will be provided on the agenda and posted to the City's webpage: www.spokanevalley.orglplanningcommission. Proposal Description: A city-initiated code text amendment to chapter 19.90 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and SVMC 19.60.050 to prohibit locally significant Essential Public Facilities (EPFs)in the single-family residential zones,to allow EPFs in the Mixed Use Zone, and to address other housekeeping items. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to chapter 19.90 SVMC and SVMC 19.60.050 are consistent with minimum criteria for review and approval, and consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner. REVIEWED BY: Jenny Nickerson, Building Official. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed Amendment APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 SVMC,Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal. Process Date Department of Commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to June 15,2020 Adopt Amendment SEPA—DNS Issued June 19,2020 Published Notice of Public Hearing: June 19 and 26,2020 Background: EPFs are facilities that are typically difficult to site due to the use or resulting impacts. EPFs are defined in various state laws including RCW 47.06.140, 81.112.020 and 71.09.020. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities to establish a process for identifying and siting EPFs. The State has identified a list of EPFs pursuant to WAC 364-196-550, which includes state and local correctional facilities,solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient facilities, which includes substance abuse facilities, mental health, group homes, and secure Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0002 community transition facilities. The City may not preclude the siting of EPFs within their jurisdiction. The City is signatory to the Interlocal Agreement regarding Siting of Essential Public Facilities within Spokane County with Spokane County,the City of Spokane, and other municipalities. The Interlocal Agreement defines the siting process applicable to EPFs. Generally speaking, a proponent submits a request for determination of appropriate siting process to the Spokane County Planning Department for a decision by the Board of County Commissioners(BOCC). If the use is determined to be an EPF of regional or statewide significance, the project will be sited using the regional siting process. This process utilizes a location analysis with significant public involvement that ultimately results in a ranking of the sites from the BOCC. If the EPF is determined to be locally significant, the EPF is sited through the local EPF siting process established by each jurisdiction. The city regulates EPFs pursuant to chapter 19.90 SVMC. The current regulations categorize the uses as statewide, regionally, or locally significant and identify the process as noted above. Additionally the regulations require all EPFs to receive a conditional use permit(CUP)pursuant to chapter 19.150 SVMC to address the unanticipated impacts of the use. Lastly, the permitted use matrix in SVMC 19.60.050 identifies the zones where EPFs are allowed. Currently EPFs are allowed in all zones except Mixed Use(MU)and Parks and Open Space(POS). Although the City cannot prohibit the siting of EPFs within the City limits,the City may prohibit the siting of EPFs in residential zones so long as there is adequate, appropriate land available in other zones. At this time the City is proposing a code text amendment to prohibit EPFs in the single-family residential zones and also proposed a reorganization of chapter 19.90 SVMC improve the clarity. ANALYSIS: Currently EPFs are allowed in all zones except MU and POS pursuant to SVMC 19.60.050,Table 1, Permitted Use Matrix(Table 1 below) and subject to a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to chapter 19.150 SVMC. Table 1 19.60.050 Permitted Uses Matrix Zones RI R2 R3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I PO5 Public/Quasi-Public Community facilities PPP P P P PP PP P Essential public facilities R R R R R R R RR Public utility local distribution facility S SS S S S S P PP S Public utility transmission facility SSS S S S S S SS S Tower, wind turbine support S S SS The proposed amendment: 1. Prohibits locally significant EPFs from locating in single family residential zones because they are incompatible with residential uses. Page 2 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0002 As noted above,EPFs are defined and categorized as such due to the necessity for such facilities and uses and the implicit challenges due to the impacts on surrounding properties. However, EPFs that primarily serve local populations may be categorized as locally significant. Locally significant EPFs are subject to City regulatory approval,which requires a CUP process. They are also currently allowed in all residential zones. The City has recently processed CUP's for several small scale substance abuse detoxification facilities determined to be locally significant through the siting process,one of which was proposed in a residential zone. The Hearing Examiner (HEX)determined through the CUP process that the facility was not compatible with the residential uses,due to the commercial nature of the service,traffic impacts,physical changes proposed to the site,and various operational impacts that included shift changes and even deliveries. The HEX denied the CUP, The decision for that project highlights the contradictory nature of allowing EPFs in single-family residential zones. While all EPFs have some level of challenge in fmding an appropriate site,the impacts are generally magnified in single-family residential zones due to the limited residential uses in such zones. The proposed amendment will prevent incompatible uses from locating within single family residential zones. 2. The proposed amendment is consistent with state laws. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.200(1)Cities are required to establish a process for identifying and siting EPFs. Generally there is a distinction between EPFs of statewide and regional significance and locally significant EPFs. A City has more authority to zone locally significant EPFs and may preclude them from single family residential zones so long as they are allowed in at least one residential zone and other zones within the City. The proposed amendment precludes locally significant EPFs from the single family residential zones(R-1, R-2 and R-3) but allows the use in all other zones(MFR,MU,CMU, RC,NC, IMU, I) except POS. 3. Allows EPFs in multifamily residential zones and mixed use zones. The amendment recognizes that certain EPFs are designed to be located in residential zones,such as group homes or residential substance abuse treatment facilities, and continues to allow EPFs in the multi-family residential zone and mixed use zones where a wide range of residential uses are allowed. Table 2 Proposed Amendment to 19.60.050 Permitted Uses Matrix Zones R1 R2 R3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Public/Quasi-Public Community facilities PPP P P P P P PP P !Essential public facilities EEE E E E E E E , E Public utility local distribution facility SSS S S S S P PP S Public utility transmission facility S SS S S S S S SS S Tower, wind turbine support S S SS Page 3 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0002 A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT L 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 The City may approve a Municipal Code Text amendment if it finds that: i. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan: Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following Comprehensive goals and policies: LU-G1 Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents,employees, and visitors CF-P19 Collaborate with Spokane County jurisdictions in determining the best locations for public and private essential public facilities. LU-P5 Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. H-P4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families needing assistance from social and human service providers. CF-G1 Coordinate with special districts, other jurisdictions, and the private sector to effectively and affordably provide facilities and services. ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health,safety, welfare,and protection of the environment: Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment. Precluding locally significant EPFs in the single family residential zones protects the character of the existing single family residential uses and allows those EPFs that have a residential component to located in other mixed use or high density residential zones. The proposed amendment protects residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and provides for EPFs that require a residential character. The amendment addresses community concerns and protects community character. The amendment will also direct locally significant EPFs into zones and sites more suitable and allow for more efficient processing and permitting of the necessary services they provide. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC 17.80.150(F). 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: Page 4 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2020-0002 No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA-2020-0002 pursuant to adopted public noticing procedures. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: The City has not received any agency comments to date. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns noted. B. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in Section A the proposed code text amendment to preclude locally significant EPFs from the R-1, R-2, and R 3 zones, allow EPFs in the MU zone, and other housekeeping items is consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 5 of 5 DRAFT CIA-2020-0002(Prohibiting EPFs in Residential Zones) Chapter 19.90 ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES(EPFs) Sections: 19.90.005 —EP Essentiai Public Facilities`procedures 19.90.010 Essential Public Facilities•EPFc Ffacilities of regional/statewide significance. 19.90.020 Essential Public FacilitiesEP s facilities of local significance . 19.90.005 EPF siting-procedures A. General. All Essential Public Facilities (EPFs)shall be subject to the requirements of this section. B. Determination of Scope. The City is signatory to an interlocal agreement relatin to the sitin of EPFs of statewide and regional significance in accordance with RCW 36.70A.200. 1. Applica#ion far EPF siting shalleinitially be made through the Spokane County department of planning and building(or similar applicable department if modified) in accordance with the adopted procedures of Spokane County. 2. The Board of County Commissioners will make a determination of whether an EPF has regional/statewide significance or is of local significance. C. All EPFs located within the City shall be subject to the conditional use permit approval process and shall require a conditional use permit,subject to any limitations on that process pursuant to applicable law regarding siting of EPFs of regional/statewide significance. _ permit pursuant to Chapter 19.150 SVMC, Conditional Use Permits. D. Spokane Valley shall require EPFs approved through the regional/statewide siting process in SVMC 19.90.010 to meet all Ds licable SVMCaocal re uirements xce t hose ex ressl obviated as a result of that regional/statewide sitinge process.The City shall consider all information submitted as part of the_regional/statewide siting rop cess. E. EPFs of regional/statewide significance shall be further subject to the siting process and requirements of SVMC 19.90.010. EPFs of local significance shall be further subject to the siting process and requirements of SVMC 19.90.020. 19.90.010 Essential Public FacilitiesEPF <�..- ie of regional/statewide significance. A. EPFs having statewide significance are major facilities that provide a needed public service affecting, or potentially affecting, residents and/or property located in two or more Washington state counties CTA-2020-0002 Page 1 July 23, 2020 and may be included on the Washington State Office of Financial Management list of EPFs.These facilities include,but are not limited to, regional transportation facilities,such as commercial and military airports;freeways, highways,and beltways;state correctional facilities;secure community transitional facilities;state social services;state parks;and state higher educational facilities. B. EPFs having regional/countywide significance are local or interlocal facilities providing a needed public service affecting, or potentially affecting, residents and/or property located in two or more Spokane County jurisdictions.They include, but are not limited to,general aviation airports; county correctional facilities; regional transportation system; public transit maintenance and operational facilities; regional solid waste disposal/recycling/composting/handling facilities; community colleges; regional wastewater treatment facilities;arenas,stadiums, and other entertainment facilities; and regional social and health services such as in-patient hospitals, mental health facilities, and substance abuse treatment centers. Chapter 19.60 SVMC, Permitted Uses, identifies those facilities subject to the Statewide/Regional EPFs shall be sited through the applicable-regional/statewide siting process, including applicable procedures established pursuant to any interlocal agreement between the City and Spokane County. C._Following ranking of sites by the board of county commissioners,the applicant shall work directly with the City to meet the regulatory requirements for the construction and operation of the facility nder the plans and regulations that were in effect at the time of initial application under the regional siting process._ (ication lender the �cginnal siting process prowl of a conditional asc permit pur5eant to Chapter F. • -(.O.d. 1-6 918§6 (Att. B), 2016). 19.90.020 Essential Public Facilities ens of tlocal siting procedures significance. A. EPFs having local significance are facilities providing a needed public service affecting,or potentially affecting,only residents and/or property within the jurisdiction in which they are located.The City 4ncludcs such facilities in the Comprehensive Plan-ac"commu-nT cilities," including, but not limited .(Att. B), 2016). B.All locally significant EPFs having local significance mayshall only be permitted in the MFR, MU,CMU, NC, RC, IMU,and I zones and shall not be permitted in the R-1, R-2, or R-3 zones. CTA-2020-0002 Page 2 July 23, 2020 Chapter 19.60 PERMITTED USES Sections: 19.60.010 General. 19.60.020 Use categories. 19.60.030 Uses not listed. 19.60.040 Explanation of table abbreviations. 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. 19.60.040 Explanation of table abbreviations. The following describe the abbreviations used in SVMC 19.60.050, Permitted uses matrix: A. Permitted uses are designated with a "P." Permitted uses are allowable uses within a zoning district. B. Conditional uses are designated with a "C." Conditional uses are authorized pursuant to Chapter 19.150 SVMC, Conditional Use Permits. C. Regional sitingEssential Public Facility uses are designated with an "RE."Regional sitingEssential Public Facility uses are of statewide,-ec-regional/countywide, or local significance. Essential Public FacilitiesEPF5 shall be subject to They arc authorized pursuant to Cchapter 19.90 SVMC, Essential Public Facilities (EPFs). D. Uses subject to supplemental use regulations are designated with an "S."The Supplemental regulations are set forth in Chapter 19.65 SVMC and shall apply to the corresponding supplemental uses listed in SVMC 19.60.050, Permitted uses matrix. E. Prohibited uses are designated with a blank cell. (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). SVMC 19.60.050 Zones R1 R2 R3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Public/Quasi-Public Community facilities PPPP P P PPPPP Essential public facilities RE RE RE RE E RE RE RE RE -RE - Public utility local distribution facility SSSS S SSPPPS Public utility transmission facility SSSS S S SSSS S Tower, wind turbine support SS S S CTA-2020-0002 Page 3 July 23, 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 11,2020 Department Director Approval El Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2020 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Admin Report GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On December 13, 2016,City Council approved Ordinance 16-018 adopting the Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations as required every eight years. On November 19, 2019, the City Council approved the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. BACKGROUND:The Growth Management Act allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year. The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC).Consistent with state law and the SVMC,staff published notice on August 23 and 30, 2019, advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31, 2019. The notice was also sent to all agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. On November 19, 2019, the City Council approved and forwarded the 2020 Docket to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. On March 6, 2020, the Planning Commission held a study session on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing on the proposed amendments was scheduled for March 26, 2020,but was canceled due to COVID-19 and state mandated regulations concerning holding remote meetings and adherence to prescribed social distancing. The Planning Commission process for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments was restarted with an additional study session on June 11,followed by a public hearing held remotely on June 25,2020. In addition to the minimum legally required notice,the City issued a press release and sent direct emails to the Media,Comp Plan Updates,City News, and City Planning Commission Agenda distribution lists, for a total of 2,104 emails. The City also created a rotating banner on the City's homepage that linked to a webpage about the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Finally,the City created and published social media posts on Facebook,Twitter and Linkedln about the public hearing. After the public hearing was closed on June 25,2020,the Planning Commission reviewed and deliberated on each of the proposed CPAs. On July 23, 2020, the Planning Commission voted on the following Findings and Recommendations to the City Council: • The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation to approve CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002 and CPA-2020-0006. • The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation to deny CPA- 2020-0003 and CPA-2020-0007. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None 1 of 2 OPTIONS: Discuss the Planning Commission recommendations. The City Council may accept, deny, or modify the Planning Commission recommendations. If the Council chooses to modify a proposal and the modifications are substantial, the City Council must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to proceed to First Reading. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger,AICP,Economic Development Manager; Chaz Bates,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation; Yellow Binder Distributed Separately 2 of 2 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Timeline c 0 .+7. 2020 Docket CO 13A •}, •C 1p1) Overview _ .i c 2-27-2020 4) V o Administrative 4) _ O +r a) •'tn 2in 0 _ Study Session Report 4) .v 'E 3- 12-2020 8/ 1 1 /2020 •o o ca TD E 6- 11-2020 C Q c = p _ Ordinance 1st V •000 c Q 4) 0 131) Public Hearing Reading O -2 -2 2 = CO = 6 5 0 0 c.)Q v 2 4) •— O Q _ c c.) c () Ordinance 2nd '> 0 a3 Findings of Fact Reading Q c) w z E 7-23-2020 ca iiiii ill Vii A Today 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council Administrative Report Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process '.4***\ Staff Planning City Council • Facilitates Process Commission • Reviews PC • Conducts review • Conducts Public Findings and and analysis Hearing Deliberations • Prepares staff • Deliberates and • Considers public reports and public recommendation comment notices to Council • May approve, modify, or deny requests 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council 3 Administrative Report Notice of P Hearing ( Required ) ._ _ , Published in paper . ,J EMaxwell Ave - 3-6-2020 & . -13-2020 ) r Pe ,,;•••fr) 5-29-2020 & 6-5-2020 /jo- A Az,,;(,,,.4,_ Posted on property , 1 F VA . x , ,/ - 3-6-2020 - 3-26-2020iffram% V f 0,5 - 6-25-2020A41 /,%-/ 2�0,1/2" 4 €s`lar. ,A0 4 Mailed to property owners i ,/, ;.,/ //4-4 /,,,kor, // JJ - �-��-GUG� rjAO 1 er „ . /E �of�eAve Legend �' 5-28-2020 Q Project Site I %2,/, 400 foot buffer E t UAve E- eL m fAve I _ I I i I I I I I I / I I 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council Administrative Report Additional Issued a press release to media contacts 1:5 ss Sent ema i is to the distribution lists: Media (283), Comp Plan Updates (336), Cityc1111/ 43 Social Med News (722),and City Planning Commission Agenda (763) (271 Posted an article on City's " NEWS" page Created a rotating banner on the city's homepage Created and published social media posts on Facebook, Twitter and Linkedln 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council 5 Administrative Report 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket File Number Location Type / Who Description CPA-2020-0001 1311 N McDonald Map / Private Change 0.47 acres from SFR to CMU CPA-2020-0002 Fancher Road/ Sprague Map / Private Change 2.98 acres from Ito RC CPA-2020-0003 1723 & 1724 N Union Map / Private Change 6.24 acres from MFR to CMU CPA-2020-0006 EVSD Walker Center Map / City Change 8.8 acres Ito CMU CPA-2020-0007 Applies citywide Text & Area-wide Policy and corresponding implementing changes to Rezone / City maps for alternative housing types 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council Administrative Report CPA-2020-0001: PrivatelyInitiated MapAmendment _ _ vM ...4 z 4; I 90 . kt, 4,.�s I A l l ca nt: Land Use �' p pFL I ts�a�Ave Solutionsiiri . , '1 A t, Q Owner: Tucker Roy, LLC (27 'fit 'k .:� E Broadway Ave N' ,, 0- t I ir; r 1 , 1 4 Amendment: Change from �- - - Single Family Residential • - .- �, r ic. , 1 (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use . A. „tzy,- .. ,.: .,i, r 4 � .�,_ . , — Alj 00 fft i 1(CMU ) - .1„.c. F , )1,44' *IL '-- ' M ' jf 'I1 I' _ _ 1 Application Number: CPA-2020-0001 Proposed Change: SFR to CMU 0.47 ac o 100 200300 400 5000 Feet Feet 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council Administrative Report CPA-2020-0001: Staff Anal sis y Expands the CM U by 0.5 ac �� • �, ). ' ,44 No critical areas � ¢s .. y ( 4 il pgp Supports development o "� vacant properties Er I _ -..-- T- IE 4.6-_ _ ft , .,,,, _ _ _,......,_ ,12 Provides land for employment 3 Su orted b _ �� ^s .� . ' . fi ffi. w" ' d5 � mow. �,;_" .' 74! . 6, '5i' transportation network p : � Il� �, g 1 . may ^ �� it". a 4 di �� } ' �^ � a ;,+g am• t° tig '' ' t� General ) compatible with f' °t' la € ,�i ,,1C(r I •, .a:i � - surroundinguses I � � � /t . , ,,.,,:.? - - -_..., -...ems__— •. _._. - 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council Administrative Report Planning Recommendation_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ , ._ ..._ . _ _ CPA-2020-0001 E Mission Ave ' r 7-0 consensus to forward to ,.,.. , � Z,., ( , r_, . ,,., 0 ti! - 1 ... _ .,,. _ • City Council a11L f �� , _,... ,,, 2a, _r,„ ?ii_ �t 1 fit- I .: recommendation of ay Ave 1 ti � ., approval , ,k, - v.,- -A. . t1 \t,_ , i , 4 1"040-- - . * ,, , 1 1 .. , , , s j,,.l#41111i07 : '14,_ 1 ` �� Q lid Application Number: CPA-2020-0001 Proposed Change: SFR to CMU 0.47 ac 0 100 200 400 500 (1.1, Feet Feet 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council Administrative Report CPA-2020-0002 : PrivatelyInitiated MapAmendment ._, _ - -I cc z I Applicant: LB Stone I Z Properties - �. �. _-- i, ip 1 • Owner: LB Stone Properties 80 90 _�./ „pr . ._ , Amendment: Change from 111* , . Industrial ( I ) to Regional �► , 90 Com m e rcial ( RC) *i�� v‘oit It :' 3 A ,c's -- / / 1- - - - 1 o ` �- E Sprague Ave w Application Number: CPA-2020-0002 Proposed Change: I to RC 2.98 ac 0 100 200 300 400 5000 Area: Feet 08/11/2020 2020 Comprerrensive Plan minenarn nts - City Council 10 Administrative Report CPA-2020-0002 : Analysis _. ._ Expands the RC by —3 ac •,• , :.1...... ,: , .. :. %_ ,,, .. . . .. ,. . . . .:, . No critical areas —y -. ... , .. ._. .:-' - '�.�r-PR ', t lI� - ., � fir. ,„ �7 � _ s Supports redevelopment = � - e underused properties -),-x-m-s-,:x/--:-\\-440A74.4%10..... 67.4.,;'..N..:"...4,-/,-,... ..„..„...,...,... s,„,,,,,,,,,,\ ,,q•- , \L., 4401.0r-,.- ... . . . . . : , '''- • a , *. . , . Land for employment . .. . ... .,..,,. . ,_ . „, . .. . ,.. Supported by .. -,',1:..- . ii transportation network (44 1,%,%T. ' - � Compatible with p . .. -.,;-:_-::' ,--A-f.::::::,,;,•.1,. .. . -. _.."....,,,,..,....--,;.,..,,,...ier, surrounding uses „. _, .. . . . . . :-.7....7,7,•ti.J...,_'...,c.,::,-... .lri,,, ' ' ,,,- ', -, .---.--.-.:.::_ -..,,,,:,.. - _ ._ ._ _ = _ 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council 11 Administrative Report pi • • • a n n i ngcom m fission Recommendation_ _ _ CPA-2020-0002 _cL � - / z --1 7-0 consensus to forward to .. ,L - , . Q .. City Council a ll r i - - . d ao 9° ■ recommendation of1 r _i 1. approval — 5 �yE,„ . klit. — 90 .yw • .tea s� E Sprague l 1 --- - _- Ave - . Application Number: CPA-2020-0002 Proposed Change: I to RC 2.98 ac 0 100 200 300 400 5000 Area: Feet 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amenunierirs - City Council 12 Administrative Report CpA.2020.0003 : privately initiated map Amendment , ----N - - --,'!--"------ ' - E Mansfield Ave Pt ' • s _ • 4 iM=1111111 1 !---.=-J,- Applicant: Jay Rambo .. . i _ ltir,_„,' , r111,, _-.1 I E montgomery Ave- 90 .. - , - 1 , • Property Owner. Revere_ z E Mission Ave E in d Ian a Ave , . . ._ . 1 1 . DECE III INV, LLC.1 Brill - , 1 I 4..) w -?,---- 11 i- 1, ,10,4,hi 73 4,......... ---.0awaig, " --.- ,,,_:.-7::•-' .`..i-Q..,V".,,,,,,, .1j0 'igl Properties, LLC „ . , , Al , - Amendment: Change from _ _. ... . ,_ .. , , _ . g _ .-.. Multifamily Residential , .. , \-,..1,,,--3t- ..,, • _.,„ 1 ..' ( MFR) to Corridor Mixed Or t i L - ff 1 I Use (CMU ) I c.: ". a 0 ti J,' 45 - 1 .-. ' - - = — ---' -- - — —--„? E Mission Ave------ Application Number: CPA-2020-0003 Proposed Change: MFR to CMU 0 150 300 450 600 750 (1.1 Area: 6.24 ac Feet 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council Administrative Report CPA-2020-0003 - Analysis ° ;�r '� 5 �r f- . 36 .§+' 'R w Expands CMU by 6 . 25 ac � �• -- - ! �'fi, "i`p yF� _ `� t' J I fir. Ni No criticalareas �.y Z , a y � -.--,„':',,r,,., ---, rip.r.3 I _ ,,i Supports redevelo p m ent :_.z , # ,1.{ _ _,sfr 'w,�, _ ti ,_ �* underused properties N -----"0"--. -siiii .-- __. Supported by .,.., ,,... ., ,, ,i,-\ „ . transportation network 4,„.„.....:14..xit.. .... , ,--..4.;:,-.4-..gp,„•.3tiv .3;,,.......1i,t,i.,,, . ,„. * � � Com patible with ,..,,,,e._ , ,., , ...:4.• \ , : ‘, .. . �4 ,„....7 _ ____ surrounding uses 5 r i _ ', i t L � _ _ .L.._,_ _ ' 1 _ ..„..,„ ._ dd�� 1T 1 �t1 I Ali 1,1 .}.' r~; M G lour,wep --- - - �. 4r Y ` _. J �` V . tea. Q .o-`3-S y";z. ip 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council Administrative Report pi • • • a n n i ngcom m fission Recommendation_ _ : , _ CPA-2020-0003 E Mansfield Ave 1 1..._____-..„� Pt , r ii E Indiana Avei 1 i . Ei- . • ,,, lMor�tgemery Ave 2 z 7-0 consensus to forward to 90 90 City Co u nci I aInl 1111 a T recommendation of denial ' 90 - ,ro, - R F . . - F.Y .: • e '. L f `Is\ t -.,, - .'', 1 iiiiii , _ , . . • ii _ fer, � � `, t Mission Ave � u Application Number: CPA-2020-0003 Proposed Change: MFR to CMU 6.24 ac 0 150 300 450 600 75000 Area: Feet 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council 15 Administrative Report CpA.2020.0006 : City initiated map Amendment , .. Applicant: Spokane ,4,. . . IIKIIIIIII' ,,,9. ,._. i g ! , . i II! 1 . . . , Valley , _ iloow • _,_ . . . L Owner: East Valley 4,. '''• ' _ .. .,. - School District > .-- p.m. I Amendment: Change . .., en z - , ) , .., from Industrial ( I ) to I . . . Tv. . r.,. ,.71E.J 7 I , Corridor Mixed Use . . __,..._.:„... ., ,,,i,„ ,c, , • , ,,,,r,1 - - Allirom klotirz.,,,,...,,,,.„. PR l' :i r' . 1" (C M U ) ;:%::'-?.-*174:411610114:114-"t—:1-'` . '211 , Ar-r-_--: . 10 . MR : ,- rt I 7- ., .c. 1 , Application Number: CPA-2020-0006 Proposed Change: I to CMU 0 150 300 450 600 750 0 Area: 8.81 ac Feet 08/11/2020 _ 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council Administrative Report CPA-2020-0006 • Analysis Expands CMU by —9 ac .,,, , , I ., \ -,,„/ _ _m.o. ,. ,No critical areas _ : _ _ ....;_., —.7-. .�� ER • I'� - S u o its expanded i4,4.t... _ , , - m. �� -_ - I� . , ;. _ _ _... <. , _ ... _____ education uses .- „ 0. ____ ___e:: -. ._____ _ __ a . . ... ...— , - ��Far .at^ "fir y � Supported by ,, ___--....._, • �i� two .... ., transportation ne ti „ --, , TIA-0 -: lls Compatible with 4 irr BIIILCING v surrounding . _ uses '' ''' - 1. As _ ..:. - - -AEA ate r ..z� -` ".' � �� ,. s 4 F� � iRESP9SSIN6 t' .. -y: � No nNc 1 - - — —. --- _ ; ..r. y x 17 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council Administrative Report pi • • • a n n i ngcom m fission Recommendation_ _ _ — T w ,CPA-2020-0006 Leg...----- - I- II- 111 112. II' , . . 004,4 .. 4.IS IN 5-2 consensus to forward to . , . ..,,. '411111111.- 11 ..,. , , Mb- • City Co u n c I I a ,,,, . recommendation of • .. - -. am Ce -4 � Ff' I approval ppm a' s 4 _ 4- 4 +i r-'. ^ Application Number: CPA-2020-0006 Proposed Change: I to CMU 8.81 ac 0 150 300 450 600 7500 Area: Feet 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council Administrative Report CPA-2020-0007: City Initiated Text Amendment _ J _ Applicant: Spokane Valley 6 o 6 .__ ----E-aellesley Ave ID 1 z Owner: applies citywide 0 o 0 . p .., ,,- LD, CHAPTER 2 ___Alio'.' 1 1 GOalS, PaCieS w•Egi v Amendment: Add policies I 8r. ; Strategies -.. ...-....... 1 o I "o . ,__ EliMissio_n loci . for alternative housing and i .R• 1 or E're _ ., - _..... $ — . 4 f` Xi 1 e r 'a — +/- area-wide rezone 4 1 i •i i MN 1 . *a zit rimm.armig7,--mummem1E4. . I - rEm *4t. i 1 g ig A "r1 4 $ _ rirA8th 1, ve rz r- r, › f i rt \ — = V) su ..v 1 A ,_4_. co 4 ret C 3241Ave I° cn E 32nd ca $ t ming ift P 0 S CM 1 R 1 MF RC 1 —„,.., .., A.,4,09409r/la 444.WIRM76,419.7 ',”--,,e w ; .. ".*14'14''''- '1 -E 44th Ave _J n2 t wewoul,it,y.v...0 ,,,,,....,,,,,,,,,, ".. NC R4 U E 57th Are --k-,_ iff \ R3 MU I R4 08/11 2020 --- 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council 19/ Administrative Report CPA-2020-0007: City Initiated Text Amendment ..,_ _ . Background t�� i e _[L,L,,, _., , ..___ Concerns from residents ' ni Fu ; rl, ' ` - �_. r[ about influx of duplex developments !ii N Lim, .� "— —.•I j_l _____ I I Felts Field ° { Ill cep Appropriate locations for 01 40� ngl-„Iw �, J e III' . c m` ,Ai E alternative housing �'I 9� '° '''r t._. t i_ 'Nil 0, _ �� "t'r q Bob ®2 � ESP,�c� _11 I ill u - _ , an•Y II�III 'I,Y in¢.. r m._-_=m - t Ii ' ��. IPJ o n� Fri T�II &ar1°m D , Mio c% 'M ICI n o ', I'I II IT.el IG'I� q J'q �il!..� Objective of Amendment _ "� 4 [it mom„ �Ihrn -,no I ^r �l m I e 1 U Addresses concerns of SEA° , ' 7 � II'_ - Llli ° a LEtt . .. ° - aura ' FITH a '.. ,°m ir_• ��F \ residents \\\12 ' m Denser housing supported =0 . by transit & services m_gid. Legend R3 parcels re:a that ' Housing affordability Greater than are: so ft and Vacant or Partially Used. r -- STA Frequent Service (15 min) STA Basic Service 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council )n Administrative Report CPA-2020-0007: CityIni tiated Text Amendment .._ Amend Goals and Policies for alternative housing t es Housing types GOALS H-Gi Allow fora broad range of lousing opportunities to Enable a variety of housing types at increased �tl,e{ommuit> meet the needs -G2 Enable tlredeve,'a Is STRATEGIES prnent of affordable housing fatal'income leMs. :enntitnit:ow-toLnillrate- k-G2H-(� �densities within 1/2 mile o unded high uan -5nef�„bom to«arty gy and sery;cgs,n Skawou> s. hausi tgtypalogies to meet performance transit networks. POLICIES market�eedg H-p1 Support voluntary ef'orls by property owners to rehabilitate andii�.i/ vii preserve lxAl ��r.rri!mc...y. ..w ri sc'is stork value and unique character. Preserve and enhance the city's established single- HA2 d expand by allowerm ra unruv pre f housing types Maid/iv t housingclmkessory and other housing typos. times,ro-housing,cottage lrousirrg; family neighborhoods by minimizing the impacts of HP3 fi�na rite deg�,aryn, srdable housing units using�a;fa�e H'P4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families more dense housing typologies such as duplexes needing assistance Frow social and human service providers. and cottage development. Associated regulatory changes to implement policy. Kenn to r4ll,.ofC.., 27 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council 21 Administrative Report CPA-2020-0007: Zoning Code Changes - Map Li_ I 11 I ,+ if. Mission, ae I al . 7 \ Z al 1,218 acres rezoned to R4 a 57 acres vacant IF T --,11 LijilLr j 67 acres partially used 496 net housing units y 411P p te wp IP d-_ — 1,240 net residents j--1 lit 8th .,..4,i3 1J r-ii Avece --4-1 of/ LL, [1:iii.k, A ®13 fit U,, '—, 67 ,. Ave 'fibi, E . r fr-A — - 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council Administrative Report CPA-2020-0007: Zoning Code Changes - Text 19.20.010 Establishment of Zoning Districts Comp Plan Land Use Designation Map Symbol Zoning District Single-Family Residential R-3 Single-Family Residential Urban Single-Family Residential R-4 Single-Family Residential Urban 19.20.015 Zoning districts purpose D. R-4 — Single-Family Residential Urban . Allows for single-family residential development at an urban density that provides flexibility and promotes reinvestment in existing single-family neighborhoods. 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council Administrative Report CPA-2020-0007: Zoning Code Changes - Text 19.40.060 Development standards - 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix Duplexes Residential Mixed Use Duplcxcs_shall meet the minimum lot R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR CMU MU size per dwelling unit, setback standards, Group Living Assisted living/ maximum lot coverage, and building nursing h • P P P P m height standards shown in Table 19.70 1. home Residential Duplex development in the R-3 zone Dwelling, cottage S S S shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 Dwelling, duplex S P . S P. S square feet. Duplex development in Dwelling, townhouse S S S non-residential zones shall meet the Transportation requirements set forth in 19.70.050(G). E.V. infrastructure P P P 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council Administrative Report CPA-2020-0007: Zoning Code Changes - Text 19.70 Residential Standards (Table 19.70-1) R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MFR(1) Front and Flanking Street Yard Setback 35' 15' 15' 15' 15' Garage Setback(2) 35' 20' 20' 20' 20' Rear Yard Setback 20' 20' 10' 10' 10' Minimum Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' Open Space N/A N/A N/A N/A 10% gross area(3) Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft,- 4,300 sq. ft. N/A Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 60% 60.0% Maximum Density 1 du/ac 4 du/ac 6 8 du/ac 10 du/ac 22 du/ac Building Height(5) 35' 35' 35' 35' 50' 1) Where MFR abuts R-1, R-2, or R-3 zones, development shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.75 SVMC, Transitional Regulations. (2) Attached garages, where the garage door does not face the street, may have the same setback as the primary structure. (3) Open space requirement does not apply to single-family development in the MFR zone. (4) Single-family residential development in the MFR zone shall have a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Only one single-family dwelling shall be allowed per lot. (5) The vertical distance from the average finished grade to the average height of the highest roof surface. (6) Duplex development in the R-3 zone shall haveADiep ocl tc iFuUT4AppnEq ,ectub 08/11/2020 Administrative Report CPA-2020-0007: Zoning Code Changes - Text Appendix A Definitions Dwelling, multifamily: A building designed for occupancy by three or more families, with separate entrances and individual facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation . Townhouses are not considered multifamily development. See "Residential , use category. 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council 26 Administrative Report CPA-2020-0007: Analysis . . . _ _ Allows density to be obtained in the R3 zone for SF —, development _ _ _ , �._- , �-- r f, Fens Field jp., -------- -ai {l '�I ��f Incentivizes single-family (SF) iii development 4 T,_ :77 :�- _ Provides a greater variety of I I I _- r w housing types - r- Ird�� = -'-�• ,� Increases density in areas with im Li2 ffi% f high performance transit and ti services - s Establishes a minimum lot size �!; for duplex development f'r/%'''` p4, .- STA Frequent Service (15 min) ) \ f STA Basic Service 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council 08/11/2020 27 Administrative Report Planning Recommendation , . 5. s � ic CPA-2020-0007 Mission 5/ f Ave 7-0 consensus to 1 z iq I forward to City E r d a Ave -T-- 1 IN d air ki. I" Lu I Council a 1 ®oil II mg— pew I ' i recommendation ku rnaimi tee , _ ��u - , . im 7riiii, mr-L of denial f - milmi 7 E 8th Ave L 5 N i 5 -,.. E lieth I, g r Ave It iX '. g 2 I, 0 f 13 ' 08/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council 2 Administrative Report Discussion SCITY poKane •ONalley® 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - City Council 08/11/2020 29 Administrative Report City of Spokane Valley 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Index Index Tab No. File Number Map or Text Summary of Amendment Findings of Fact. 1 PC Meeting Minutes, RPCAs, and Presentations. CPA-2020-0001 Land Use Change the designation for parcel 2 Map 45152.1004 from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). CPA-2020-0002 Land Use Change the designation for parcel 3 Map 35133.2321 from Industrial (I) to Regional Commercial (RC). CPA-2020-0003 Land Use Change the designation for parcels 4 Map 45094.0133, 45094.0134 and 45094.0121 from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). CPA-2020-0006 Land Use Change the designation for parcel 5 Map 45013.9024 from Industrial (I) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). 6 CPA-2020-0007 Text Amend Chapter 2 Goals and Policies for alternative housing types. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003, CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 July 23,2020 A. Background: 1. The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year. The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Consistent with state law and the SVMC, staff published notice on August 23 and 30, 2019, advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31, 2019.The notice was also sent to all agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. 2. On November 19, 2019, the City Council approved the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket.The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: four map amendments and one text amendment. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findings: 1. Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 provides the framework for the public to participate throughout the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including notice and public hearing requirements. 2. On November 25, 2019, the Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act,RCW 43.2IC(SEPA),and Title 21 SVMC, environmental checklists were required for proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. 4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)for the Comprehensive Plan amendments on February 21,2020. 5. The Planning Commission finds the procedural requirements of SEPA and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled. 6. On March 6 and 13, 2020, notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald and each site subject to an amendment was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing"sign with a description of the proposal. 7. Individual notice of the map amendment proposals were mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of each proposed amendment site,except for CPA-2020-0007. 8. The duly noticed public hearing scheduled for March 26, 2020 was cancelled to COVID-19 and efforts to maximize social distancing. 9. On May 29 and June 5,2020 notice of the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald and each site subject to an amendment was posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing"sign with a description of the proposal. 10. On May 28,2020,notice of the map amendment proposals were mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of each proposed site,except for CPA-2020-0007. Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020- 0007 Page 1 of 3 11. Additional notice beyond the minimum legally required notice included, on June 18, 2020, the City issued a press release and sent a direct email to the Media and Comp Plan Updates distribution lists,283 and 336 email addresses respectively. On June 24,2020 another direct email was sent to the City News and City Planning Commission Agenda distribution lists, 722 and 763 email addresses respectively. Prior to the public hearing, the City created a rotating banner on the city's homepage that linked to a story in the"NEWS"page of the city website about the public hearing. The City created and published social media posts on Facebook,Twitter and Linkedln about the public hearing. 12. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments concurrently to evaluate the cumulative impacts.The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act). 13. On June 25, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. After receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and deliberated on the Comprehensive Plan amendments. While reviewing and deliberating on the Comprehensive Plan amendments, Planning Commission gave consensus as follows: a. CPA-2020-0001: 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA-2020-0001. b. CPA-2020-0002: 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA-2020-0002. c. CPA-2020-0003: 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of denial of CPA-2020-0003. d. CPA-2020-0006: 5-2 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA-2020-0006 e. CPA-2020-0007: 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of denial of CPA-2020-0007. After deliberations and based upon the consensus for each proposed Amendment identified above,Planning Commission moved and voted 7-0 to forward to City Council the following recommendations: Recommend approval of CPA-2020-0001, CPA-2020-0002, CPA-2020- 0006, and denial of CPA-2020-0003 and CPA-2020-0007. 14. The Planning Commission hereby adopts and incorporates findings specific to each Comprehensive Plan Amendment as attached(see attachments 1-5). Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H) — Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2020-0001, CPA-2020-0002, and CPA-2020-0006. These proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The Planning Commission finds that CPA-2020-0003 and CPA-2020-0007 do not comply with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment criteria required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140. These proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are not consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,and do not promote the public health,safety,welfare,and protection of the environment. Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020- 0007 Page 2 of 3 The Planning Commission hereby adopts and incorporates conclusions specific to each Comprehensive Plan Amendment as attached(see attachments 1-5). Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,and CPA-2020-0006. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments CPA-2020-0003 and CPA-2020-0007. Approved this 23rd day of July,2020. —045 .41 -s o 'i son,Chairman ATTEST "tl T Deanna Horton,Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020- 0007 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT-CPA-2020-0001 July 23,2020 A. Background: 1. The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year. The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC).Consistent with state law and the SVMC,staff published notice on August 23 and 30,2019,advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31,2019. The notice was also sent to all agencies,organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. 2. On November 19,2019,the City Council approved the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket.The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: four map amendments and one text amendment. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findings: 1. These findings are specific to CPA-2020-0001. All findings in the general Findings and Recommendations are hereby incorporated by reference into these specific findings for CPA- 2020-0001. Findings required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(1): 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health,safety,welfare, and protection of the environment.The proposed amendment changing the land use designation from Single Family Residential (SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU)has a substantial relationship to the public health,safety,welfare,and protection of the environment. The adopted Comprehensive Plan describes the CMU designation as"allow[ing] for light manufacturing,retail,multifamily, and offices along major transportation corridors.It is primarily used along Sprague Avenue,and the north-south arterials."McDonald Road is an improved north-south Minor Arterial that is consistent with the description of the CMU designation. Additionally,the proposed amendment provides flexibility that can be used to support the applicant's indicated desire to expand the McDonald Professional Center use on the subject property.Changing the designation to CMU, increases the allowed types of uses to include office and parking. Increasing office and parking opportunities in the McDonald Road corridor has a substantial benefit to public health,safety,and welfare. 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment.The Growth Management Act(GMA)adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations.The request allows opportunity to provide an expansion of office use on a designated Minor Arterial with supporting infrastructure.The proposal is consistent with goals of GMA and the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies.The amendment does not respond directly to a substantial change in conditions from the 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan.However,the two parcels to the south of the proposed amendment were Attachment I-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page I of 4 changed from Office to CMU as part of the 2016 legislative update as part of a larger 2016 amendment to eliminate the Office designation,and the owner of the subject property is the same owner of the McDonald Professional Center. 5. The proposed amendment is not in response to or corrects an obvious mapping error. 6. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan.While not directly identified as a deficiency,the Comprehensive Plan has identified the following goals and policies that support increasing employment opportunities while taking advantage of existing supportive infrastructure.The proposed amendment contributes to the long-term success of the City: ED-P6 Promote the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties, particularly those with potential to serve as a catalyst for economic development. LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents,employees,and visitors. T-G2 Ensure that transportation planning efforts reflect anticipated land use patterns and support identified growth opportunities. Findings for factors required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(2): 7. The effect upon the physical environment: The change to CMU will allow for expanded office and office related uses such as parking.The change could result in more intensive development in the future,though the site immediately to the south is vacant and designated and zoned CMU.There is no concern on the effect of the physical environment. 8. The effect on open space,streams, rivers, and lakes; There are no known critical areas associated with the site,such as wetlands,fish and wildlife habitat areas,frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas.The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction,and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues.The City's critical areas ordinance ensures adequate protection of critical areas and stormwater associated with commercial development will be retained and treated on the site. 9. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods: The property is adjacent to CMU to the south and MFR to the east.To the north and west are existing single family homes on SFR designated properties. If approved,the development of the site will be subject to the transitional regulations that will ensure protection of the adjacent homes to the north and south. Potential development consistent with the CMU zone will be compatible with properties to the south and east. The projected impact to the surrounding neighborhood is minimal.Any future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses at the time of development. 10. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads,public transportation,parks, recreation,and schools: McDonald Road is a Minor Arterial and is expected to accommodate the projected change.While the subject property was not considered in the 2016 legislative update,the property immediately to the south was part of the 2016 analysis.The projected LOS for McDonald Road in 2040 is A- C,and no mitigations or transportation projects are planned for this section of McDonald Road within the 20-year planning horizon. Additionally,the subject property is approximately 0.5 acres and its overall impact to the transportation system is minimal. Attachment 1-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 2 of 4 The subject property and the property immediately to the south are considered infill development, as such,the expansion of office in this area is ideal because of the supporting infrastructure that is in place. 11. The benefit to the neighborhood,City, and region: The proposed change would allow the property to support the expansion of the McDonald Professional Center,increasing employment opportunities and growing the City's economy.The change will benefit the City and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: ED-G1 Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley ED-P3 Encourage businesses that provide jobs and grow local markets. 12. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land: The proposal would add approximately 0.5 acres of CMU property to the 1,666 acres of existing CMU designated property within the City.While additional demand for CMU property may be limited,the CMU designation in this location allows for the expansion of an existing office development on the McDonald Road corridor in an area supported by existing infrastructure. The proposal is limited to a reasonable area and if developed under CMU standards the type of use and density would be appropriate for the location. 13. The current and projected population density in the area: There is one dwelling unit proposed to be removed.While CMU allows residential development, it is not expected that residential development would occur and therefore the City would lose one single family house as a result of the amendment.The change is not expected to have significant impacts to population density in the area. 14. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: The CMU designation will support the goals and policies identified above. There will be no effect on other elements of the Comprehensive Plan,including Housing,Capital Facilities and Public Services,Public and Private Utilities,Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources. C. Conclusions: The Planning Commission fmds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H)—Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2020-0001. The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,and will promote the public health,safety,welfare,and protection of the environment. D. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2020-0001. Approved this 23ra day of July,2020. James Jo , h • Attachment 1-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 3 of 4 ATTEST ti Deanna Horton,Planning Commission Secretary Attachment 1-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA-2020-0002 July 23,2020 A. Background: 1. The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year. The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC). Consistent with state law and the SVMC, staff published notice on August 23 and 30, 2019, advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31,2019.The notice was also sent to all agencies, organizations,and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. 2. On November 19, 2019, the City Council approved the 2020 Docket. The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan:four map amendments and one text amendment. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findings: 1. These findings are specific to CPA-2020-0002. All the findings made in the general Findings and Recommendations are hereby incorporated by reference into these specific findings for CPA-2020- 0002 Findings required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(1): 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health,safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment provides the opportunity to aggregate parcels creating greater depth to provide for a larger format structure.Based on the application,the intent is to combine the two Regional Commercial (RC) parcels to the south with the proposal. Both the Industrial(I)and RC designations and zoning districts allow for intensive uses.Providing opportunity for development and redevelopment where there is existing infrastructure has a substantial benefit to public health,safety,and welfare. 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity to aggregate parcels in an area that is already served by supporting infrastructure. The proposal does not conflict with any other GMA goals.The amendment is not in conflict with any other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. 5. The proposed amendment is not in response to or corrects an obvious mapping error. 6. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan.While not identified as a deficiency, the Comprehensive Plan includes the following goals and policies that support increasing employment opportunities while taking advantage of existing supportive infrastructure.The proposed amendment contributes to the long-term success of the City by: ED-G1 Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. Attachment 2-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 1 of 3 ED-P6 Promote the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties, particularly those with potential to serve as a catalyst for economic development. LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. LU-G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity. CF-P2 Optimize the use of existing public facilities before investing in new facilities. Findings for factors required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(2): 7. The effect upon the physical environment: The change to RC will allow uses similarly allowed along the Sprague corridor. The change may result in a more people-oriented active use in the area versus a vacant or industrial use, but the intensity would be similar to existing nearby uses. There is no concern on effect of physical environment. 8. The effect on open space,streams, rivers,and lakes: There are no known critical areas associated with the site,such as wetlands,fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed when future development occurs and stormwater associated with commercial development will be retained and treated on the site. 9. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods: The property is adjacent to RC to the west and south; and Ito the north and east. To the north are existing industrial developments and users. To the south is a vacant used motor vehicle sales lot that is under the same ownership. To the west is Home Depot. The projected impact to the surrounding neighborhood is minimal. Any future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses at the time of development. 10. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation,parks, recreation,and schools: Sprague Avenue is a Principal Arterial and is expected to accommodate the projected change.The 20-year Transportation Improvement Plan identifies a concrete intersection at Sprague and Fancher by 2039. The existing and projected LOS for this segment of Sprague Avenue is D within City's adopted standard. Additionally, the change from Ito RC is expected to have a minimal impact to the transportation network and other utilities. 11. The benefit to the neighborhood,City, and region: The proposed change would allow the property to be combined with the two properties fronting Sprague Avenue, increasing employment opportunities and growing the city's economy. The change benefits the neighborhood, City, and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: ED-G 1 Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. ED-P6 Promote the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties, particularly those with potential to serve as a catalyst for economic development. LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. Attachment 2-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 2 of 3 LU-G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity. CF-P2 Optimize the use of existing public facilities before investing in new facilities. 12. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land: The proposal would add approximately 3 acres of RC property to the 809 acres of existing RC designated property within the city. As of 2018, there are approximately 111 acres of vacant RC property within the city. The amendment allows for commercial development on the Sprague Avenue corridor in an area supported by existing infrastructure. The proposal is limited to a reasonable area and if developed under RC standards the type of use and density will be appropriate for the location. 13. The current and projected population density in the area: Under the existing conditions the subject property is a paved vacant lot.It appears the property was used in conjunction with the RC designated property to the south for used motor vehicle sales, which is presently vacant. The change of the property from I to RC will not impact current or projected population density in the area. 14. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: The RC designation will support the goals and policies identified above. It would have very little to no effect on other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including Housing, Capital Facilities and Public Services,Public and Private Utilities,Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources. C. Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H)—Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2020-0002.The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,and will promote the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. D. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2020-0002. Approved this 23'day of July,2020. James J son, Chairm. ATTEST 3 € I , -4 .._ Deanna Horton,Planning Commission Secretary Attachment 2-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA 2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT-CPA-2020-0003 July 23,2020 A. Background: 1. The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year. The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC).Consistent with state law and the SVMC, staff published notice on August 23 and 30, 2019, advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31,2019.The notice was also sent to all agencies, organizations,and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. 2. On November 19, 2019, the City Council approved the 2020 Docket. The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan:four map amendments and one text amendment. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findings: 1. These findings are specific to CPA-2020-0003. All the findings made in the general Findings and Recommendations are hereby incorporated by reference into these specific findings for CPA-2020- 0003. Findings required pursuant to SVMC 17.80140(H)(1): 2. The adopted Comprehensive Plan describes the CMU designation as "allow[ing] for light manufacturing,retail,multifamily,and offices along major transportation corridors. It is primarily used along Sprague Avenue, and the north-south arterials." The subject properties are between CMU properties to the west, east, and south. Access is provided by Union Road via Mission Avenue.Mission Ave is a Minor Arterial.Changing the land use designation to CMU increases the flexibility of allowed uses and allowed density on the sites in an area. The Planning Commission finds that the potential for increased density in the area may result in safety concerns related to the transportation infrastructure along Union Road, it does not find the amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety,and welfare. 3. The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations.The request allows opportunity to provide an expansion of the multiple family development on the site and the opportunity to provide the neighborhood with access to daily goods and services in a centralized area with adequate public facilities; there are two projects in the 6-year TIP along Mission Avenue just south of this area to improve capacity. The proposal does not conflict with any other GMA goals.The amendment is not in conflict with any other portions of the comprehensive plan. However, the Planning Commission finds that impacts on the local access street of Union Road have not been adequately considered and have further found that changing the land used designation to CMU may increase access concerns along Union. 4. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. While the Attachment 3-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 1 of 4 amendment does not respond directly to a substantial change in conditions beyond the owner's control, the 2016. legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan eliminated the Office designation generally replacing it with the CMU designation, which was the case for the parcels to the west, east, and south.While the 2016 plan changed the designation of the surrounding vacant lands from Office to CMU, the properties subject to the amendment request had a multifamily development and the designation of Multifamily was not changed. The CMU designation provides more flexibility than the Office and Multifamily designations. The changing of the surrounding properties from Office to CMU created a situation whereby the subject properties may not use their property to the similarly situated properties to the west,east,and south. 5. The proposed amendment is not in response to or corrects an obvious mapping error. 6. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment adds diminutive capacity to the CMU designation; all three parcels have existing structures and two have multifamily developments on them. Changing the designation from MFR to CMU on an existing developed parcel provides the opportunity to increase density on developed parcels using pre-existing infrastructure and provide flexibility to add service related retail to the area that may be supported by the multifamily housing. While the proposal does not address a direct deficiency,the Comprehensive Plan identifies the following goals and policies that support the proposed change: LU-G 1 Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-P16 Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas. H-G1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. H-G3 Allow convenient access to daily goods and services in Spokane Valley's neighborhoods. CF-P2 Optimize the use of existing public facilities before investing in new facilities. Findings for factors required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(2): 7. The effect upon the physical environment: The change to CMU will allow existing uses as well as commercial, office and higher residential development of the properties. The properties will have the opportunity to transition, add density and add a mix of uses to serve the surrounding neighborhood. There is no concern on effect of physical environment. 8. The effect on open space. streams,rivers, and lakes: There are no known critical areas associated with the site,such as wetlands,fish and wildlife habitat areas,frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas.The parcels are not located within shoreline jurisdiction, and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed should future development occur. 9. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods: The 6.25-acre site is currently developed with a multifamily development and one single-family home. The adjacent use to the south is single-family, to the west self-storage, to the east office, multifamily and vacant CMU.The CMU land use designation surrounds the proposed amendment site to the west, east, and north. The amendment is consistent with the adjacent land use designations. Attachment 3-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 2 of 4 If approved future development of the site will be subject to the transitional provisions adopted in the development regulations. Potential development consistent with the CMU zone will be compatible with properties to the west, east, and south. The projected impact to the surrounding neighborhood is minimal. Any future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses at the time of development. 10. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation,parks, recreation,and schools: Mission Avenue is a Minor Arterial. There are two projects in the 6-year TIP along Mission Avenue just south of this area, one of which is the intersection capacity improvement and signal modification at Pines/Mission. Site-specific improvements and their impact to this project would be identified through the development review process,and development on the parcels within the Mirabeau Subarea Study area. The subject properties are considered infill development, as such,the expansion of allowed uses and increased densities are supported by the infrastructure that is in place. However, the Planning Commission finds that impacts on the local access street of Union Road have not been adequately considered and have further found that changing the land use designation to CMU may increase access concerns along Union. The Planning Commission concludes that Union Road is not adequate to support the proposed change. 11. The benefit to the neighborhood,City,and region: The proposed change would allow the property to increase density and support infill development in an area planned for growth. The change may support increased housing opportunities, office, employment, or access to daily goods and services. The change benefits the neighborhood, city, and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: ED-Gl Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley ED-P3 Encourage businesses that provide jobs and grow local markets. 12. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land: The proposal would add approximately 6.5 acres of CMU property to the 1,666 acres of existing CMU designated property within the city. While additional demand for CMU property may be limited, the CMU designation in this place would allow for increased options for development including retail services serving the existing multifamily development.The proposal is limited to a reasonable area and if developed under CMU standards the type of use and density would be appropriate for the location. 13. The current and projected population density in the area: Changing the land use designation to CMU increases the flexibility of allowed uses and allowed density on the sites in an area. This proposed amendment is not expected to have significant impacts to population density in the area. 14. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: The CMU designation will support the goals and policies identified above. It would have very little to no effect on other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including Housing, Capital Facilities and Public Services,Public and Private Utilities, Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources. C. Conclusions: Attachment 3-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 3 of 4 The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H)—Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2020-0003 except for the potential unaddressed impacts to Union Road as it relates to findings 2, 3, and 10 above. The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,and will promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment except for the potential unaddressed impacts to Union Road as it relates to findings 2, 3,and 10 above. D. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2020-0003. Approved this 23n'day of July, 2020. James hnson, Ch.' an ATTEST *\i , C -- 1 Deanna Horton,Planning Commission Secretary Attachment 3-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT-CPA-2020-0006 July 23,2020 A. Background: 1. The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year. The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC). Consistent with state law and the SVMC, staff published notice on August 23 and 30, 2019, advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31,2019.The notice was also sent to all agencies, organizations,and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. 2. On November 19, 2019, the City Council approved the 2020 Docket. The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan:four map amendments and one text amendment. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findings: 1. These findings are specific to CPA-2020-0006. All the findings made in the general Findings and Recommendations are hereby incorporated by reference into these specific findings for CPA-2020- 0006. Findings required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.1 40(H)(1): 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare,and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment provides more flexibility of uses on a property allowing East Valley School District (EVSD) to broaden and enhance their educational service mission. Under the Industrial zone educational activities are limited to professional, vocational and trade schools. While this may continue to be an essential component to EVSD curriculum,flexibility is needed to meet existing and future demand for other educational services. Changing the designation to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU), increases the allowed types of educational services legally permitted to occur in the existing facility. Increasing educational opportunities to local youth has a substantial benefit to public health,safety, and welfare. 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity to strengthen EVSD mission to provide for education of local youth in an area with adequate public facilities.The proposal does not conflict with any other GMA goals. The amendment is not in conflict with any other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. The amendment does respond to a substantial change in conditions from 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan.At that time the subject parcel was not changed from the designation in place since at least 2014.Since the 2016 legislative update,EVSD has experienced changes in enrollment and interest in vocational education, under the existing designation only professional, vocational and trade schools are allowed in the Industrial designation changing the designation to CMU allows EVSD to adapt the educational services they provide in a location they own and have made Attachment 4-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 1 of 3 substantial improvements for educational purposes.The demographic and interest shifts are beyond EVSD control the proposed change allows them to continue to serve district educational needs. 5. The proposed amendment is not in response to or corrects an obvious mapping error. 6. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan.While not directly identified as a deficiency, the Comprehensive Plan has identified the following goal and policy that support workforce development and education, which are integral to the long-term success of the City: ED-G5 Support and encourage the development of a strong workforce that is globally competitive and responds to the changing needs of the workplace ED-P16 Support local educational institutions in the development of educational and training programs that meet the needs of businesses. Findings.for factors required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(2): 7. The effect upon the physical environment: The change to CMU will allow existing uses as well as more expanded educational uses. The change could result in more intensive development in the future, though the site is currently developed.There is no concern on effect of physical environment. 8. The effect on open space,streams,rivers, and lakes: There are no known critical areas associated with the site,such as wetlands,fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed should future development occur. 9. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods: The property is generally surrounded by Spokane Industrial Park to the north and east; however, the property is not part of the Spokane Industrial Park.The property to the south is designated and zoned CMU.The institutional use on the proposed site is generally compatible with both the light industrial uses to the north and east and the retail service uses to the south.The projected impact to the surrounding neighborhoods is minimal. Any future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses at the time of development. 10. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation,parks, recreation,and schools: B Street is a local access street and Sullivan Road is a Principal Arterial. There are two capacity related projects in the 6-year TIP near the project area: intersection improvement at Sullivan and Wellesley and improvement to Sullivan and SR 290(Trent)interchange. The subject properties are considered infill development, as such, the expansion of allowed uses and increased densities are supported by the infrastructure that is in place. 11. The benefit to the neighborhood,City,and region: The proposed change would allow the property and structure owned by EVSD to be used for educational purposes beyond professional, vocational and trade school use, increasing the school district's ability to provide educational services. The change benefits the neighborhood, City, and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: ED-G5 Support and encourage the development of a strong workforce that is globally competitive and responds to the changing needs of the workplace Attachment 4-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-000l,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 2 of 3 ED-P16 Support local educational institutions in the development of educational and training programs that meet the needs of businesses. 12. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land: The proposal would add approximately 9 acres of CMU property to the 1,666 acres of existing CMU designated property within the City. While additional demand for CMU property may be limited,the CMU designation allows for additional educational uses,which has been indicated as needed from EVSD. The proposal is limited to a reasonable area and if developed under CMU standards the type of use and density would be appropriate for the location. 13. The current and projected population density in the area: Under the existing conditions and the Industrial designation there is very little population that resides in the area.While CMU allows residential development, it is not expected that residential. development would occur. The proposed change in land use designation is not expected to have significant impacts to population density in the area. 14. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: The CMU designation will support the goal and policy identified above. It would have very little to no effect on other elements of the Comprehensive Plan,including Land Use,Transportation,and Housing,Capital Facilities and Public Services,Public and Private Utilities,Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources. C. Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H)—Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2020-0006.The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,and will promote the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. D. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approval the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2020-0006. Approved this 23rd day of July,2020. AtIleti James Johnson,Chairman ATTEST . ,k Deanna Horton,Planning Commission Secretary Attachment 4-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA-2020-0007 July 23,2020 A. Background: 1. The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year. The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC). Consistent with state law and the SVMC, staff published notice on August 23 and 30, 2019, advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31,2019. The notice was also sent to all agencies, organizations,and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. 2. On November 19, 2019, the City Council approved the 2020 Docket. The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan:four map amendments and one text amendment. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findings: 1. These findings are specific to CPA-2020-0007. All the findings made in the general Findings and Recommendations are hereby incorporated by reference into these specific findings for CPA-2020- 0007. 2. In regards to noticing,the Planning Commission finds that the City met all legal requirements for notice for CPA 2020-0007. The Planning Commission finds that the City provided notice above legal requirements in the form of press releases, social media releases, and email list releases. However, Planning Commission finds that given the scope of the impact of the proposed amendment, additional noticing would have been beneficial as indicated by the relatively limited number of public comments received. Findings required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(1): 3. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health,safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. Housing is an important component of the economic infrastructure of the city. Ensuring that there is a variety of housing types is an important competitive advantage for economic development. The proposed amendment will allow the City to more closely align its housing needs with locations within the City to ensure adequate infrastructure is available. This will also enable the provision of quality,affordable housing for all Spokane Valley residents. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The GMA provides that the housing element serves to encourage the availability of affordable housing to residents of all economic backgrounds, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage the preservation of existing neighborhoods. The proposed amendment will provide increased housing options in locations that have adequate infrastructure that can affordably support increased densities. The Planning Commission finds that additional noticing would serve the GMA's requirements to allow for effective public participation. 5. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. The amendment is Attachment 5-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA- 2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 1 of 4 not related to a specific piece of property.This amendment looks to incentivize alternative housing development where there is frequent transit and commercial services. 6. The proposed amendment is not in response to or corrects an obvious mapping error. 7. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies that the city will need an additional 6,389 homes by 2037 (3,962 single family homes and 2,417 multifamily). The plan also identifies that the median household income in the city was about$2,000 less than the average countywide annual earnings.Additional data indicates that residents are cost-burdened with 51% of renters and 26% of homeowners spending at least 33 percent of their monthly budget on rent or mortgage payments.The following adopted goals,policies,and strategy support the proposed amendment: H-GI Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. H-G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels. Strategy: Continue to evaluate new housing typologies to meet market needs. Findings for Factors required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(2): 8. The effect upon the physical environment: The proposed amendment is policy oriented and as a non site-specific amendment does not have a direct effect on the physical environment. Future development that may result will be evaluated under city regulations for physical development. 9. The effect on open space,streams,rivers,and lakes: The proposed amendment is policy oriented and does not have a direct effect on open space, streams, rivers and lakes. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed should future development occur. 10. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods: The proposed amendment is policy oriented and includes implementing development regulations that are aimed to protect neighborhood character and locate alternative housing in areas with frequent transit and commercial services. The Planning Commission finds that increasing the density in the R-3 zoning district from six dwelling units per acres to eight dwelling units per acre as identified in the proposed implementing regulations would have a negative impact on the quality of life for residents in those areas by potentially increasing crime and decreasing property values. 11. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation,parks,recreation,and schools: Capital Facilities Policy CF-P6 recommends that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standards. LOS standards have been adopted for water, sewer, transportation, stormwater, law enforcement,libraries,parks,street cleaning,public transit,fire,and schools.The proposed amendment seeks to take advantage of available infrastructure to minimize the need to develop and maintain new infrastructure. 12. The benefit to the neighborhood,City,and region: Increasing housing options that protect neighborhood character and minimize the need for new infrastructure can potentially reduce housing costs and thereby reducing the amount of city residents paying more than 33 percent of their income toward housing, which would benefit the Attachment 5-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA- 2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 2 of 4 neighborhood, city and region. The change benefits the neighborhood, City, and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: ED-P8 Provide and maintain an infrastructure system that supports Spokane Valley's economic development priorities. LU-Gl Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality LU-P 14 Enable a variety of housing types. LU-P 16 Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas. H-G3 Allow convenient access to daily goods and services in Spokane Valley's neighborhoods. 13. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land: The proposed amendment does not change the location or quantity of land designations. Implementing changes to the zoning code may increase densities in locations with adequate infrastructure support, and may reduce densities in other locations. Any future change would be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the demand forecasted. 14. The current and projected population density in the area: The implementing regulations may increase density in areas that are supported by adequate infrastructure and may reduce densities in other locations.The proposed amendment is not expected to have significant impacts to population density on a citywide level.Implementing regulations will be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the demand forecasted. 15. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: The proposed amendment will support the Comprehensive Plan's housing goals, policies, and strategies. The amendment will not have a direct impact on other Comprehensive Plan elements. Implementing regulations will be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the demand forecast. C. Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H)—Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2020-0007 except for the need for additional notice above what is legally required and the negative impacts from the increase in density in the R-3 zone. The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,and will promote the public health,safety,welfare,and protection of the environment. D. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2020-0007. Approved this 23rd day of July, 2020. James Johnson,Chairman Attachment 5-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA 2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA- 2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 3 of 4 ATTEST Deanna Horton, Planning Commission Secretary Attachment 5-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA- 2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 4 of 4 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers —City Hall June 11,2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Secretary to the Commission Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Erik Lamb, City Attorney Fred Beaulac Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Walt Haneke Lori Barlow, Senior Planner James Johnson Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Danielle Kaschmitter Mike Basinger, Economic Timothy Kelley Development Manager Robert McKinley Taylor Dillard, Administrative Sherri Robinson Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant Deanna Horton, Secretary to Planning Commission IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter made a motion to approve the June 11, 2020 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter made a motion to approve the May 14, 2020 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Chairman Johnson reported that he has continued to attend the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force meetings. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Nickerson thanked the commission for adjusting to the new Zoom meeting platform. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Study Session: CTA-2020-0001: A proposed change to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.180,Newly Annexed Areas Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger gave a presentation to the commission explaining the city initiated code text amendment that will amend Chapter 19.180 of the SVMC to clarify the process and criteria to annex adjacent and contiguous areas into the city and to ensure that the fiscal impacts of providing the facilities, utilities, services, and maintenance of the annexation area are adequately considered prior to annexation. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb provided additional information regarding annexation. He explained that the amendment will clarify the annexation process for the three types of 1 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6 annexation requests: voter initiated, City Council initiated and direct petition. It will outline the criteria that will be evaluated including existing and new facilities, services, expenses and revenues. It will also clearly identify the process to address zoning upon annexation. Chair Johnson asked for clarification regarding zoning for specific parcels as they request to annex into the city limits. Mr. Basinger answered that when the city annexes a property it is zoned with a designation that is the most similar to its current designation with the County. It will then be brought through the amendment process to evaluate what the zoning should be and go through the public process to make that final designation. Chairman Johnson asked for information regarding financial impact. He asked if a property would still be considered for annexation if it is found that the tax value received would be lower than the cost to the city. Mr. Basinger answered that this criteria will just be used as guidelines for the Council to consider when they make those decisions regarding annexation. b. Study Session: CTA Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments Mr. Basinger explained that local jurisdictions are allowed to make amendments to the Comprehensive Plan once each year. There are five proposed amendments that will be considered during 2020; four map amendments and one text amendment. A public hearing will be held on June 25,2020. Notice of hearing will be published twice prior to the fifteen day requirement, the site was posted with a"Notice of Hearing" sign, and individual notice was mailed to all residents within a 400 foot radius of the subject properties. After the public hearing,the request will move to Council where they will review Planning Commission findings, consider the public hearing, and approve/modify/deny the request. The floor was given to Senior Planner Chaz Bates to discuss the details of each proposed amendment. CPA-2020-0001: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). Mr. Bates said that this amendment is privately initiated for the property located at 1311 N McDonald Road, between Mission and Broadway. It is owned by Land Use Solutions and Entitlement. The request is to rezone the property from single-family residential (R-3)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). The property to the east is zoned multi-family, the property to the south is corridor mixed use, and the west and south are zoned single family residential. Findings show there are no critical areas on the site, the site would support the redevelopment of the parcel, is supported by the transportation network, and is compatible with the surrounding uses. CPA-2020-0002: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation,from Industrial(I)to Regional Commercial(RC) and to change the Zoning District from Industrial(I) to Regional Commercial(RC). 2 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a privately initiated request for the property located off of Sprague and Fancher and is owned by Lawrence B. Stone Properties. The request is to convert the zoning on 3 acres of land from Industrial (I)to Regional Commercial (RC). The properties to the north are zoned industrial and the property to the south and the west are regional commercial. Findings show that there are no critical areas, the site is completely paved, and the change would support redevelopment of an underused property, is supported by the transportation network and is compatible with the surrounding uses. CPA-2020-0003: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Multifamily Residential(MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Multifamily Residential(MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a privately initiated request for the property located north of Mission and west of Pines and is owned by Jay Rambo. The request is to convert the zoning of 6.24 acres from Multifamily Residential (MFR)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). The properties to the west is corridor mixed use, the north is industrial, the east is corridor mixed use and the south is single family residential. Findings show that there are no critical areas, the site supports redevelopment of an underused property, is supported by the transportation network and is compatible with the surrounding uses. A trip generation and distribution letter was completed by the City of Spokane Valley's Senior Engineer and shows a net increase of traffic volumes of one car during the PM peak hour. All other times of the day remain the same. Commissioner Haneke asked if the developer wants to build additional apartment buildings on the property and expressed concern about traffic flow in the area. Mr. Bates answered that this zoning designation would allow for additional multifamily dwelling units or retail. Attorney Lamb responded that the analysis done for this change shows the change from multi-family to corridor mixed use, it is not for a specific proposal. The current zoning of multi-family allows for a significant amount of trips. Corridor mixed use zoning will add more flexibility of uses but according to the traffic study it should not impact the traffic flow more than one car during the peak PM period. Commissioner Kaschmitter asked about the open space requirement for corridor mixed use designation. Building Official Nickerson responded that there are different requirements in the current Spokane Valley Municipal code between multifamily versus corridor mixed use zones. Multifamily does require open space but corridor mixed use does not. If open space was still required,Mission Park would provide the multifamily open space requirement. CPA-2020-0006: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial(I) to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU)and to change the Zoning District from Industrial(I) to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a city-initiated request to change the 9 acre property located at 3830 N Sullivan Rd from Industrial (I)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). The property is owned by East Valley School District(EVSD) and currently houses the district's Walker Center. This location includes the EVSD administrative services and maintenance 3 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6 building. The properties to the west,north, and east are all industrial uses, and to the south are retail service and industrial uses. Findings show that there are no critical areas, supports expanded educational uses, is supported by the transportation network, and is compatible with the surrounding areas. The proposed amendment allows flexibility so that that EVSD can provide educational services in this location. Education services are prohibited in the industrial zone and EVSD would like to move their Parent/Partner program to this location. CPA-2020-0007: Amend Chapter 2 Goals and Policies to provide policy guidance for increased housing density with access to support services like transit and commercial services, and provide implementing regulations. Mr. Basinger said that this is a city initiated text amendment that will apply city-wide. It will address alternative housing types such as duplexes, cottages, and townhomes. It is policy language that will help protect residential neighborhoods by incentivizing alternative housing in areas that are supported by existing infrastructure. Staff is proposing an area-wide rezone in hopes to address concerns from the residents regarding the influx of duplex developments and provide appropriate locations for alternative housing. The objective of this amendment is to address those concerns by creating areas that can support denser housing because of its location to transit and services. The vision is that there will be a larger variety of housing types available for residents and will help with housing affordability. The proposal will rezone 1218 acres within the City limits to the new zoning district, R-4. There is 57 vacant acres and 67 acres that are partially used. Studies show that there is potential for 1240 housing units which would lead to 3100 new residents. The proposed area is surrounded by multifamily and corridor mixed use zoning districts. The code text amendment will create the R-4 zone in the code and provide a description and outline permitted uses. The change specifies that duplex development in the R-3 zone shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet. There is also an additional text change in the Appendix A definitions that states that townhouses are not considered multifamily. Mr. Basinger stated that staff's analysis shows that single family development will incentivize the R-3 zone because the change will allow eight single family units per acre. The new R-4 zone will promote development of alternative housing types in those areas where transit and services are available giving a greater variety of housing types in areas that can handle an influx of residents. Commissioner McKinley asked what the ultimate intent is for the amendment. Mr. Basinger answered that the vision is to offer a variety of alternative housing within the city. Staff is optimistic that due to the density change in this amendment, the City might see some cottage or townhome developments that would offer more affordable options. Commissioner Robinson asked if the city will be looking to add additional open space or parks into the urban area to help accommodate some of the additional residents that will be brought into the high density area. Mr. Bates answered that this proposed change will accommodate the level of parks services with this change. The level of service is driven by the number of residents in the area so more people will need more parks space. Mr. Basinger responded that the majority of the properties in the proposed R-4 area will be associated with the Appleway Trail which will allow the residents to have access to that 4 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 linear path throughout the city. The city considers that to be a linear park and the intention is to improve the park as funds become available. Commissioner Kaschmitter asked if the Appleway Trail could be extended. She also asked if Spokane Transit Authority is considering making their services more frequent in this area. Mr. Basinger answered that there are plans to extend the Appleway Trail to Dishman Hills. The Transit Authority is optimistic that they would be able to extend their services as more development happens. They feel that more demand would drive them to offer additional services. Commissioner Beaulac asked about the notification process for the properties affected by this change. Mr. Basinger answered that the public hearing has been published twice in the newspaper, it will be sent to the Comprehensive Plan distribution list that includes any person that has ever signed up to receive notifications about comprehensive plan changes (approximately 370 people),it will be published on all of the City's social media platforms, and a media release will be sent out prior to the public hearing. Chairman Johnson asked for clarification about sending notification out regarding the City- wide rezone. Mr. Basinger responded that the City does not send out letters to individual property owners when a City-wide rezone is done. However, staff hopes that the additional notices on social media,press releases, and the distribution list will get the word out to the residents about the change. c. Study Session: CTA-2020-0002.A proposed change to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.90,Essential Public Facilities. Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation on the city-initiated code text amendment to amend regulations on essential public facilities (EPF). The proposal is to prohibit locally significant essential public facilities in residential zones. She explained that essential public facilities are facilities that are typically hard to site because of their size and the nature of their use. These facilities include state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, in-patient facilities which includes substance abuse facilities, mental health group homes and secure community transition facilities. Pursuant to the Growth Management Act, cities and counties are required to have procedures to site essential public facilities. They can't be precluded from being allowed within the city limits. However, the City can control the zones where they are located. This request is to preclude all of the residential zones; R-1, R-2, and R-3. The reason for this change is because there have been numerous detoxification facilities proposed within the City limits in the last few years. There was a controversial public hearing held recently for a detoxification center that wanted to move into a residential zone. Staff made the decision that it would be appropriate to look at making a change to limit the zones where these types of facilities can be sited. The City regulates essential public facilities pursuant to chapter 19.90 SVMC. The current regulations stipulate that a conditional use permit(CUP)is required for all essential public facilities to address any possible impacts. Currently, essential public facilities are allowed in all zones except mixed use and parks and open space. Chairman Johnson asked if the new R-4 zone would also be included. 5 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 Ms. Barlow answered that the City will probably look to exclude that zone if it is created but the current code text amendment only addresses the zones that are in the code right now. Chairman Johnson asked the timeframe for this amendment. Ms. Barlow answered that the public hearing will be held in July, the findings of fact at the following meeting and then moving onto the City Council for their review and decision. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commissioners welcomed Commissioner Haneke to the board. Commissioner McKinley asked for an update regarding opening the City Hall for in person meetings. Ms. Nickerson answered that the governor's order for COVID phase three does include allowing face-to-face with customers for government facilities. However,there is no date yet for when phase three will begin. The City has begun preparations for when opening does happen and is putting protocols in place to keep people safe while they are in City Hall. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner McKinley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:06 pm. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chair Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 6 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall June 25,2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:19 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. Meeting was late due to technical difficulties. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Secretary to the Commission Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Fred Beaulac Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Walt Haneke Lori Barlow, Senior Planner James Johnson Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Danielle Kaschmitter Mike Basinger, Economic Development Timothy Kelley Manager Robert McKinley Marty Palaniuk, Planner Sherri Robinson Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant Deanna Horton, Secretary to Planning Commission IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the agenda for June 25, 2020 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner McKinley joined the meeting at 6.23 pm. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the minutes for June 11, 2020 minutes as presented. Commissioner Robinson moved to amend the minutes to include an addition regarding a discussion that was held during CPA-2020-0007 regarding open space and the Appleway Trail will be considered a linear park per Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger. The vote on the amendment was seven in favor, zero against and the amendment passed. The vote on the amended motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Chairman Johnson commented that he has continued with the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force. The task force has issued several public statements recently and they will be holding a virtual awards ceremony later this year. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson stated that now that the meetings are being held via the Zoom platform, the meeting recordings on the website will now include visual and audio capabilities. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. 1 06-25-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing: 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The Public Hearing was opened at 6:27 pm. Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger explained that local jurisdictions are allowed to make amendments to the Comprehensive Plan once each year. There are five proposed amendments that will be considered during 2020; four map amendments and one text amendment. This evening is the public hearing. He explained that the Findings of Fact will be heard by the Planning Commission on July 23, 2020 and then the amendments will advance to the City Council for their three reviews. The process for Comprehensive Plan amendments includes staff facilitating the amendments, conducting the review and analysis of each proposal,preparing the staff reports, and public notices. The Planning Commission conducts the public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council reviews the Planning Commission's findings and deliberations, considers public comments and makes the decision to approve/modify or deny the request. Notice of public hearing was published twice prior to the fifteen day requirement, the sites are posted with a "Notice of Hearing" sign for site specific map amendments, and individual notice was mailed to all residents within a 400 foot radius of the subject properties. Email notification regarding the public hearing was also sent out to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Planning Commission, and City Council distribution lists. A notice was posted to the City website in two separate locations including the home page and the news section of the website, a notice was published on the City's social media sites including Facebook,Twitter and Linkedln pages, and a press release was sent out on June 18'2020. It was explained that public testimony will be held at the end of each proposed amendment. CPA-2020-0001: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). Senior Planner Chaz Bates said that this amendment is privately initiated for the property located at 1311 N McDonald Road, between Mission and Broadway. It is owned by Land Use Solutions and Entitlement. The request is to change the land use designation/rezone the property from single-family residential (R-3)to CMU. The property to the east is zoned multi-family,the property to the south is CMU, and the west and south are zoned SFR. Mr. Bates explained that McDonald Road is an improved minor arterial road with sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides, it has a center turn lane and'single traffic lane in both directions. The CMU designation is used on north/south arterials such as McDonald Road and the proposal is consistent with the CMU description in the Comprehensive Plan. Findings show there are no critical areas on the site, the site would support the redevelopment of the parcel, is supported by the transportation network, and is compatible with the surrounding uses. Mr. Bates stated that the City did not receive any comments from outside agencies and only received one public comment regarding the proposal. The submitter was not opposed to the project as discussed in the application but was unhappy with the openness of the CMU zoning. The meeting was opened up for public testimony. Chairman Johnson read the guidelines for public testimony. 2 06-25-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 Dwight Hume, Spokane: Mr. Hume is the agent for the landowner and stated that he has reviewed the staff report and finds that it is consistent with what he submitted. He explained that this change will enable the owner to expand his building because there is pressure to have more services at that site. The owner would like to be able to utilize property that he already owns and provide additional services at an already established location. They plan to use this portion of the site for parking when they expand the building that is already on the adjacent lot. No additional public testimony was offered on this matter. CPA-2020-0002: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial(I) to Regional Commercial(RC) and to change the Zoning District from Industrial(I) to Regional Commercial(RC). Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a privately initiated request for the property located at 5901 E Sprague Avenue and is owned by Lawrence B. Stone Properties. The request is to convert the land use designation/zoning on 2.98 acres of land from Industrial to RC. The properties to the north are zoned Industrial and the property to the south and the west RC. Findings show that there are no critical areas,the site is completely paved, and the change would support redevelopment of an underused property, is supported by the transportation network and is compatible with the surrounding uses. The City did not receive any comments from outside agencies or public comment on the proposal. The meeting was opened for public testimony. Ed Lukas, Spokane: Mr. Lucas is the real estate transaction director for the property owner, Larry Stone. He stated that he concurs with the staff report and feels that this would be an appropriate change to the Comprehensive Plan. No additional public testimony was offered on this matter. CPA-2020-0003: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Multifamily Residential(MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Multifamily Residential(MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a privately initiated request for three parcels located north of Mission and west of Pines and is owned by Revere-Dece III Inv, LLC &Brill Properties, LLC. The request is to convert the land use designation/zoning of 6.24 acres from MFR to CMU. The properties to the west is CMU,the north is Industrial, the east is CMU and the south is SFR. The properties currently have an existing 240 unit multifamily development and if approved would allow increased flexibility and density of the property and may increase redevelopment potential of the vacant lot to the southwest. The property is directly accessed by Union Road and Mission Avenue. Mission Avenue is designated a minor arterial road. Findings show that there are no critical areas, the site supports redevelopment of an underused property, is supported by the transportation network and is compatible with the surrounding uses. Based on a comment received from Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT),the City's Senior Traffic Engineer completed a trip generation and distribution letter which shows a net increase of traffic volumes of one car during the PM peak hour. All other times of the day remain the same. No other agency comments or public comment were received. 3 06-25-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 Chairman Johnson asked for additional information on the trip generation letter. Senior Traffic Engineer Jerremy Clark responded that he did an analysis that included the capacity of the lot for maximum build-out of multi-family versus the maximum build out of the existing multifamily plus additional CMU possibilities to come up with the net increase in traffic volumes of one car. Commissioner Haneke expressed concern about the possibility of unlimited density in the CMU zoning and feels that that there could be substantially more than 22 units per acres if this amendment is approved. Mr. Bates responded that the CMU zone has additional flexibility and uses that can be developed. The designation would allow commercial or retail use in that location as well as housing units. He also explained that this proposal is not for a development specific project, it is just for a land use change. Any impact related to development specific project will be reviewed when they are submitted. Commissioner Beaulac asked about possible future road improvements in the area. Senior Engineer Clark answered that there is a project underway right now to improve the current footprint of Pines Road and Mission Avenue. Once additional funding is available, the improvements will include a southbound turn lane from Pines onto Mission. Commissioner Kaschmitter asked if there is an additional exit on this property. Mr. Bates answered that there is another exist onto Nora Avenue going towards Wilbur Road. Commissioner Kelly commented that he went to this location and found the exit onto Nora Avenue chained and locked. The meeting was opened for public testimony. Secretary Horton read into the record a comment from Greg Figg with WSDOT. The comment was in regards to both CPA-2020-0003 and CPA-2020-0006. The comment stated that the change to land use would not result in a significant increase in traffic from what the current zoning allows. No additional public testimony was offered on this matter. CPA-2020-0006: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation front Industrial(I) to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Industrial(I) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a City-initiated request to change the 8.81 acres property located at 3830 N Sullivan Rd from Industrial to CMU. The property is owned by East Valley School District (EVSD) and currently houses the District's Walker Center. This location includes the EVSD administrative services and maintenance building, but it also includes classrooms. The properties to the west, north, and east are all industrial uses, and to the south are retail service and industrial uses zoned CMU. Findings show that there are no critical areas, the changes supports expanded educational uses, is supported by the transportation network, and is compatible with the surrounding areas. The proposed amendment allows flexibility so that that EVSD can provide educational services in this location. Education services are prohibited in the industrial zone and EVSD would like to move their Parent/Partner program to this location. Comments were received from WSDOT requesting additional traffic information. A trip generation and distribution letter was completed showing details on both the designation of educational use and CMU. The CMU designation shows that the change would result in one additional net trip. Changing the use 4 06-25-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 4 to educational would create a decrease in trips. The letter summed up that sufficient roadway capacity exists. The City did not receive any additional agency or public comments. The meeting was opened up for public testimony. Secretary Horton read into the record a comment from Greg Figg with WSDOT. The comment was in regards to both CPA-2020-0003 and CPA-2020-0006. The comment stated that the change to land use would not result in a significant increase in traffic from what the current zoning allows. CPA-2020-0007: Amend Chapter 2 Goals and Policies to provide policy guidance for increased housing density with access to support services like transit and commercial services, and provide implementing regulations. Mr. Basinger said that this is a City initiated text amendment that will apply City-wide. It will address alternative housing types such as duplexes, cottages, and townhomes. It is policy language that will help protect residential neighborhoods by incentivizing alternative housing in areas that are supported by existing infrastructure. Staff is proposing an area-wide rezone in hopes to address concerns from the residents regarding the influx of duplex developments and provide appropriate locations for alternative housing. The objective of this amendment is to address those concerns by creating areas that can support denser housing because of its location to transit and services. The vision is that there will be a larger variety of housing types available for residents and will help with housing affordability. The proposal will rezone 1218 acres within the City limits to the new zoning district,R-4. There are 57 vacant acres and 67 acres that are partially used in the designated are between 8t1' Avenue and Broadway, between Park and Sullivan. This change could allow for a net change of 496 new housing units and it could allow for a net of 1240 new residences. The proposed change area has 130 parcels that are less than half an acres, there are 36 parcels that are one to two acres, seven parcels that are two to three acres, and two parcels are three to five acres. There are no parcels that are greater than five acres. The proposed area is surrounded by Multifamily and CMU zoning districts. The code text amendment will create the R-4 zone in the municipal code and provide a description and outline permitted uses. The change specifies that duplex development in the R-3 zone shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet. The change outlines that assisted living/nursing homes, cottage developments and townhomes will no longer be permitted in the R-3 zone. There is also an additional text change in the Appendix A-Definitions that states that townhouses are not considered a multifamily product. Mr. Basinger stated that staffs analysis shows that single family development will incentivize the R-3 zone because the change will allow eight single family units per acre. The new R-4 zone will promote development of alternative housing types in those areas where transit and services are available giving a greater variety of housing types in areas that can handle an influx of residents. There were no staff or agency comments received on this change and there were two comments received from the public. Commissioner Beaulac expressed concern about the parcel owners not being directly notified about this proposed change. He feels that the staff should have sent notification to the affected parcels. 5 06-25-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 Commissioner Kaschmitter asked if nursing/retirement homes that are already located in R-3 zones will continue to be allowed. Mr. Bates answered that these properties will be classified as legal non-conforming uses. Commissioner Johnson asked how much it would cost to send notification to everyone within 400 feet of the properties being rezoned. Mr. Basinger answered that this area is a very large zone and it would be a very large mailing. According to the RCW code,the noticing requirements have been sufficiently met and staff has added several additional means of notification to get word out to the residents. The meeting was opened for public testimony. John Conard,Liberty Lake: Mr. Conard expressed support for the new R-4 zoning classification to develop single-story townhouses and said that he is excited by the opportunities this could open for the City. Secretary Horton read three letters into the record: Barry Beck, Spokane Valley: Mr. Beck expressed support of the proposed amendment and encouraged adoption of the change. Pete Miller, Spokane Valley: Ms. Miller expressed that this change will provide welcome relief to the residents in the R-3 zone and requested full support from the Commission of the amendment. Stephanie Woodruff, Spokane Valley: Ms. Woodruff expressed concern about the influx of apartments, duplexes and rental homes being built in the Valley. She encouraged the Commission to pass the amendment. No additional public testimony was offered. The public hearing was closed at 7:23 pm. Commissioner Kelley moved for the Commission to take a ten minute break. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Discussion regarding CPA-2020-0001: Commissioner Kelley read a statement and provided four pictures of McDonald Rd. He expressed that residents would not be putting themselves at risk walking to and from the medical office building or driving in/out of the proposed parking lot. He also stated that the developer, Tucker Roy LLC did a great job with the original building on the property and feels that the reason they are outgrowing the location is due to the high quality work they put into the location and their determination to support City residents. He is pleased that there are developers like Tucker Roy, LLC interested in reinvesting in the City and stated that he will support the request. (Statement and pictures provided by Commissioner Kelly are attached to the public record). Commissioners Johnson and Robinson expressed support for the request. Discussion regarding CPA-2020-0002: Commissioners McKinley, Kaschmitter, Haneke, Commissioner Beaulac and Johnson all expressed support for the request. Commissioner Robinson asked if the change would force landscaping requirements during the development process. Building Official Nickerson answered that the Industrial zone did not require landscape but the change to Regional Commercial does require landscaping. Storm water management will be addressed during the building process. 6 06-25-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Robinson stated that she supported the request. Commissioner Kelley read a statement saying that he would be voting to approve the amendment based on three goals and objectives: to promote development of vacant and underutilized property,to support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed use district to accessible district that promote economic activity and to support the employment growth in the City. (Statement is attached to the public record). Discussion regarding CPA-2020-0003: Commissioner Kelly read a statement saying that he does not support the amendment due to traffic concerns on Union Road and Mission Avenue and because it fails to meet the goals and objections set forth to guide the Commission in their decision making process. (Statement is attached to the public record). Commissioners Beaulac, Haneke, Robinson, McKinley, Johnson and Kaschmitter all expressed concerned about the width of Union Road. They feel that there needs to be improvements done on Union Road to widen the street or to prohibit street parking if there's going to be additional development utilizing this road. They were not in favor of this amendment. The Commission came to a consensus not to recommend approval of this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion regarding CPA-2020-0006: Commissioners Kaschmitter, Haneke, Beaulac, Robinson, and Johnson expressed that they are all in favor of this change to the amendment Commissioner Kelley read a statement saying that he would not be voting to approve this amendment because it would allow a K-12 school to be located in a busy industrial park, it does not meet the goals and objectives for public health, safety and welfare of citizens, it would be located in an area where an unlimited number of I-502 manufacturing and 1-502 grow operations are allowed which is not in the best interests of school aged children,and there is a hotel located directly across the street. (Statement is attached to the public record). Commissioner Robinson asked for clarification about whether or not a K-12 school would be going into this location or if the classrooms would be used strictly for programs. Mr. Bates answered that the school intends to use the facility for their Parent/Partner program. This is a program that assists parents and children who are homeschooling or using other non-typical education systems to get the assistance they need to teach their children. There are no plans to have any kind of K-12 school in this location. Commissioner Kelley responded that this land use change would allow a K-12 school to be located on this property if it is approved. Mr. Basinger responded that the commission does need to look at what could be placed on the property based on the land use designations. This new designation would allow a K-12 school to be located on this property. However, the school district does not have any intentions to do that because they do not feel that location would be an appropriate place for a school. The Commission took a poll on the matter. Commissioners Kaschmitter, Haneke, Beaulac, Robinson, and Johnson were in favor of the amendment. Commissioners Kelly and McKinley were not in favor of the change. Discussion regarding CPA-2020-0007: 7 06-25-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 Commissioner Kelly read a statement saying that he would not support the amendment because it appears to be an attempt to punish investors in the community that have supported the City and that the amendment is not in line with the vision that was formed during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Review. (Statement attached to the public record). Chairman Johnson expressed concern about the way the amendment was advertised and the need to let the residents know about such a big change. However, he feels that there are a lot of good ideas in the amendment and that there is a great need in the City for medium density lots. Commissioner Kaschmitter and Beaulac both expressed that the R-4 zone would be a good addition to the Comprehensive Plan because it would give options for alternative/affordable housing and help preserve the R-3 zone as envisioned but that the City really needs to do a better job notifying the property owners that will be affected by the change. Commissioner Johnson moved to extend the meeting time to 9:15 pm. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Robinson mentioned that there is a very low vacancy factor for rentals in the City. She feels that it is a good idea to get more people into home ownership instead of forcing people to stay in rentals. The City needs to have options for alternative housing and this is a good way to achieve that option. She expressed that she is in favor of the change. Commissioner McKinley expressed that he is not in favor of this change because it changes the character of the area too much and he doesn't feel that the added density is a good addition to the City vision. Commissioner Haneke stated that he thinks the concept is a great idea. However, he is concerned about the property owners not being notified. With the current notification process, he is not in support of the change. The Commission took a poll on the matter. It was decided to recommend to the City Council not to approve this change to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Beaulac moved to extend the meeting by fifteen minutes to 9:30 pm. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner McKinley moved to recommend approval on CPA-2020-0001, CPA-2020- 0002 and CPA-2020-0006 and recommend not approving CPA-2020-0003 & CPA-2020- 0007. The Commission came to a consensus that the basis for denying approval on CPA-2020-0007 was the lack of notification to the affected residents, increasing the density will have a negative impact on the standard of living that the Valley has had in the past, but the proposed R-4 zone could have some potential in the future with further study and changes. This information will be put into the findings of fact for approval at the July 23, 2020 meeting. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commissioners commended the staff on their work on these amendments. 8 06-25-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 XL ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner McKinley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:24 pm. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Or- James ohnson, Chair Date signed 4i/o Deanna Horton, Secretary 9 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall June 11,2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Secretary to the Commission Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Erik Lamb, City Attorney Fred Beaulac Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Walt Haneke Lori Barlow, Senior Planner James Johnson Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Danielle Kaschmitter Mike Basinger, Economic Development Timothy Kelley Manager Robert McKinley Taylor Dillard, Administrative Sherri Robinson Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant Deanna Horton, Secretary to Planning Commission IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter made a motion to approve the June 11, 2020 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter made a motion to approve the May 14, 2020 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Chairman Johnson reported that he has continued to attend the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force meetings. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Nickerson thanked the commission for adjusting to the new Zoom meeting platform. VIIL PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Study Session: CTA-2020-0001: A proposed change to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) 19.180,Newly Annexed Areas Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger gave a presentation to the commission explaining the city initiated code text amendment that will amend Chapter 19.180 of the SVMC to clarify the process and criteria to annex adjacent and contiguous areas into the city and to ensure that the fiscal impacts of providing the facilities, utilities, services, and maintenance of the annexation area are adequately considered prior to annexation. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb provided additional information regarding annexation. He explained that the amendment will clarify the annexation process for the three types of 1 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6 annexation requests: voter initiated, City Council initiated and direct petition. It will outline the criteria that will be evaluated including existing and new facilities, services, expenses and revenues. It will also clearly identify the process to address zoning upon annexation. Chair Johnson asked for clarification regarding zoning for specific parcels as they request to annex into the city limits. Mr. Basinger answered that when the city annexes a property it is zoned with a designation that is the most similar to its current designation with the County. It will then be brought through the amendment process to evaluate what the zoning should be and go through the public process to make that final designation. Chairman Johnson asked for information regarding financial impact. He asked if a property would still be considered for annexation if it is found that the tax value received would be lower than the cost to the city. Mr. Basinger answered that this criteria will just be used as guidelines for the Council to consider when they make those decisions regarding annexation. b. Study Session: CTA Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments Mr. Basinger explained that local jurisdictions are allowed to make amendments to the Comprehensive Plan once each year. There are five proposed amendments that will be considered during 2020; four map amendments and one text amendment. A public hearing will be held on June 25, 2020. Notice of hearing will be published twice prior to the fifteen day requirement, the site was posted with a"Notice of Hearing" sign, and individual notice was mailed to all residents within a 400 foot radius of the subject properties. After the public hearing, the request will move to Council where they will review Planning Commission findings, consider the public hearing, and approve/modify/deny the request. The floor was given to Senior Planner Chaz Bates to discuss the details of each proposed amendment. CPA-2020-0001: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). Mr. Bates said that this amendment is privately initiated for the property located at 1311 N McDonald Road, between Mission and Broadway. It is owned by Land Use Solutions and Entitlement. The request is to rezone the property from single-family residential (R-3)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). The property to the east is zoned multi-family,the property to the south is corridor mixed use, and the west and south are zoned single family residential. Findings show there are no critical areas on the site, the site would support the redevelopment of the parcel, is supported by the transportation network, and is compatible with the surrounding uses. CPA-2020-0002: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial(I)to Regional Commercial(RC) and to change the Zoning District from Industrial(I) to Regional Commercial(RC). 2 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a privately initiated request for the property located off of Sprague and Fancher and is owned by Lawrence B. Stone Properties. The request is to convert the zoning on 3 acres of land from Industrial (I) to Regional Commercial (RC). The properties to the north are zoned industrial and the property to the south and the west are regional commercial. Findings show that there are no critical areas,the site is completely paved,the change would support redevelopment of an underused property, is supported by the transportation network and is compatible with the surrounding uses. CPA-2020-0003: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Multifamily Residential(MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Multifamily Residential(MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a privately initiated request for the property located south of Mission and west of Pines and is owned by Jay Rambo. The request is to convert the zoning of 6.24 acres from Multifamily Residential (MFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). The properties to the west is corridor mixed use,the north is industrial,the east is corridor mixed use and the south is single family residential. Findings show that there are no critical areas, the site supports redevelopment of an underused property, is supported by the transportation network and is compatible with the surrounding uses. A trip generation and distribution letter was completed by the City of Spokane Valley's Senior Engineer and shows a net increase of traffic volumes of one car during the PM peak hour. All other times of the day remain the same. Commissioner Haneke asked if the developer wants to build additional apartment buildings on the property and expressed concern about traffic flow in the area. Mr. Bates answered that this zoning designation would allow for additional multifamily dwelling units or retail. Attorney Lamb responded that the analysis done for this change shows the change from multi-family to corridor mixed use, it is not for a specific proposal. The current zoning of multi-family allows for a significant amount of trips. Corridor mixed use zoning will add more flexibility of uses but according to the traffic study it should not impact the traffic flow more than one car during the peak PM period. Commissioner Kaschmitter asked about the open space requirement for corridor mixed use designation. Building Official Nickerson responded that there are different requirements in the current Spokane Valley Municipal code between multifamily versus corridor mixed use zones. Multifamily does require open space but corridor mixed use does not. If open space was still required, Mission Park would provide the multifamily open space requirement. CPA-2020-0006: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial(I)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Industrial(I) to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is a city-initiated request to change the 9 acre property located at 3830 N Sullivan Rd from Industrial (I)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). The property is owned by East Valley School District(EVSD) and currently houses the district's Walker Center. This location includes the EVSD administrative services and maintenance 3 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6 building. The properties to the west,north, and east are all industrial uses, and to the south are retail service and industrial uses. Findings show that there are no critical areas, supports expanded educational uses, is supported by the transportation network, and is compatible with the surrounding areas. The proposed amendment allows flexibility so that that EVSD can provide educational services in this location. Education services are prohibited in the industrial zone and EVSD would like to move their Parent/Partner program to this location. CPA-2020-0007: Amend Chapter 2 Goals and Policies to provide policy guidance for increased housing density with access to support services like transit and commercial services, and provide implementing regulations. Mr. Basinger said that this is a city initiated text amendment that will apply city-wide. It will address alternative housing types such as duplexes, cottages, and townhomes. It is policy language that will help protect residential neighborhoods by incentivizing alternative housing in areas that are supported by existing infrastructure. Staff is proposing an area-wide rezone in hopes to address concerns from the residents regarding the influx of duplex developments and provide appropriate locations for alternative housing. The objective of this amendment is to address those concerns by creating areas that can support denser housing because of its location to transit and services. The vision is that there will be a larger variety of housing types available for residents and will help with housing affordability. The proposal will rezone 1218 acres within the City limits to the new zoning district,R-4. There is 57 vacant acres and 67 acres that are partially used. Studies show that there is potential for 1240 housing units which would lead to 3100 new residents. The proposed area is surrounded by multifamily and corridor mixed use zoning districts. The code text amendment will create the R-4 zone in the code and provide a description and outline permitted uses. The change specifies that duplex development in the R-3 zone shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet. There is also an additional text change in the Appendix A definitions that states that townhouses are not considered multifamily. Mr. Basinger stated that staffs analysis shows that single family development will incentivize the R-3 zone because the change will allow eight single family units per acre. The new R-4 zone will promote development of alternative housing types in those areas where transit and services are available giving a greater variety of housing types in areas that can handle an influx of residents. Commissioner McKinley asked what the ultimate intent is for the amendment. Mr. Basinger answered that the vision is to offer a variety of alternative housing within the city. Staff is optimistic that due to the density change in this amendment, the City might see some cottage or townhome developments that would offer more affordable options. Commissioner Kaschmitter asked if the Appleway Trail could be extended. She also asked if Spokane Transit Authority is considering making their services more frequent in this area. Mr. Basinger answered that there are plans to extend the Appleway Trail to Dishman Hills. The Transit Authority is optimistic that they would be able to extend their services as more development happens. They feel that more demand would drive them to offer additional services. Commissioner Beaulac asked about the notification process for the properties affected by this change. 4 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 Mr. Basinger answered that the public hearing has been published twice in the newspaper, it will be sent to the Comprehensive Plan distribution list that includes any person that has ever signed up to receive notifications about comprehensive plan changes (approximately 370 people), it will be published on all of the City's social media platforms, and a media release will be sent out prior to the public hearing. Chairman Johnson asked for clarification about sending notification out regarding the City- wide rezone. Mr. Basinger responded that the City does not send out letters to individual property owners when a City-wide rezone is done. However, staff hopes that the additional notices on social media,press releases, and the distribution list will get the word out to the residents about the change. c. Study Session: CTA-2020-0002. A proposed change to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.90, Essential Public Facilities. Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation on the city-initiated code text amendment to amend regulations on essential public facilities (EPF). The proposal is to prohibit locally significant essential public facilities in residential zones. She explained that essential public facilities are facilities that are typically hard to site because of their size and the nature of their use. These facilities include state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, inpatient facilities which includes substance abuse facilities, mental health group homes and secure community transition facilities. Pursuant to the Growth Management Act, cities and counties are required to have procedures to site essential public facilities. They can't be precluded from being allowed within the city limits. However, the City can control the zones where they are located. This request is to preclude all of the residential zones; R-1, R-2, and R-3. The reason for this change is because there have been numerous detoxification facilities proposed within the City limits in the last few years. There was a controversial public hearing held recently for a detoxification center that wanted to move into a residential zone. Staff made the decision that it would be appropriate to look at making a change to limit the zones where these types of facilities can be sited. The City regulates essential public facilities pursuant to chapter 19.90 SVMC. The current regulations stipulate that a conditional use permit (CUP) is required for all essential public facilities to address any possible impacts. Currently, essential public facilities are allowed in all zones except mixed use and parks and open space. Chairman Johnson asked if the new R-4 zone would also be included. Ms. Barlow answered that the City will probably look to exclude that zone if it is created but the current code text amendment only addresses the zones that are in the code right now. Chairman Johnson asked the timeframe for this amendment. Ms. Barlow answered that the public hearing will be held in July,the findings of fact at the following meeting and then moving onto the City Council for their review and decision. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commissioners welcomed Commissioner Haneke to the board. Commissioner McKinley asked for an update regarding opening the City Hall for in person meetings. 5 06-11-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 Ms. Nickerson answered that the governor's order for COVID phase three does include allowing face-to-face with customers for government facilities. However, there is no date yet for when phase three will begin. The City has begun preparations for when opening does happen and is putting protocols in place to keep people safe while they are in City Hall. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner McKinley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:06 pm. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. , e9r James ohnson,Chair Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 6 Regular Meeting Draft Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers —City Hall March 12, 2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. H. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Secretary to the Commission Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney James Johnson Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Timothy Kelley Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Robert McKinley Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Sherri Robinson Deanna Horton, Secretary to the Commission Matt Walton IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the March 12,2020 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in figvor. zero against, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the meeting minutes from January 9, 2020 as presented. There was a short discussion related to the removal of the minutes from the February 27, 2020 meeting due to technical errors. The current minutes are accurate. The vote on this motion was seven in_favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Walton moved to approve the meeting minutes from February 27, 2020 as presented. Commissioner Johnson requested a date correction to in item five, a language change to the second to last sentence in item six, and requested an addition in item five,section four, to include Commissioner Kaschmitter in the last paragraph. Commissioner Johnson moved to amend the meeting minutes as amended. The vote on this motion was seven in fitvor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The vote on this motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson introduced new commissioner, Commissioner Robinson. Commissioner Robinson introduced herself, noting herself as a resident of Spokane Valley of 35 years. Commissioner Beaulac announced the Census forms had been sent out and advised everyone the importance of completing those forms. Commissioner Johnson reported he attended the City Council meeting on March 3, 2020. He also attended two Spokane County Human Rights Task Force meetings. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson reported an update on online access to Planning Commission information. She also reported the audio information is a work in progress and audio thumb drives will be provided until the glitches are resolved. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: 03-12-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 i. Study Session: Proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger gave some background and introduced the 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Mr. Basinger explained that applications were accepted through October 31, 2019. During this time period, pre- application meetings were performed with those interested in submitting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Basinger noted that City Council did choose to remove two amendments this year, as recommended by staff. a. CPA-2020-0001: A Privately Initiated Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential(SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Senior Planner Chaz Bates introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2020- 0001. Mr. Bates stated that the property is located along McDonald Road, east side of McDonald Road and south of Mission Avenue. The applicant is Land Use Solutions and Entitlement and the owner is Tucker Roy LLC. The proposal is to change the Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). Mr. Bates reviewed the approval criteria, which included the expansion of the CMU, no critical areas, it supports development of vacant properties, it provides land for employment, the transportation network supports it, and it is generally compatible with the surrounding uses. Commissioner Johnson requested clarification that the change is only being made to the property with the existing house or if it includes the vacant lot next to it as well. Mr. Bates confirmed it is only the property with the existing house as the lot next to it is already zoned CMU. b. CPA-2020-0002: A Privately Initiated Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial (1) to Regional Commercial (RC) and to change the Zoning District from Industrial (I) to Regional Commercial (RC). Mr. Bates introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2020-0002, stating the applicant as LB Stone Properties and the owner as LB Stone Properties. The proposal is to change the land use designation from Industrial (I) to Regional Commercial (RC). Mr. Bates provided details related to the site. Mr. Bates went on to review the approval criteria, which included the expansion of the RC, no critical areas, it supports redevelopment of underused properties, it provides land for employment, it is supported by the transportation network, and it is generally compatible with the surrounding uses. c. CPA-2020-0003 A Privately Initiated Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Mr. Bates introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2020-0003, listing the applicant as Jay Rambo and the owners as Revere-Dece III, LLC and Brill Properties, LLC. The proposal is to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Mr. Bates reviewed the approval criteria, which included the expansion of the CMU, no critical areas, it supports redevelopment of underused properties, it provides land for employment, it 03-12-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 oF 5 is supported by the transportation network, and it is generally compatible with the surrounding uses. He describes where you can find the location of this property, as it can be difficult to locate. Commissioner Robinson asked a question on the CMU zone and what it allows. Mr. Bates explained the CMU zone is a more flexible zone, allowing a retail component, multi-family development, and light industry. Commissioner Robinson asked if it could increase the walkability of this neighborhood. Mr. Bates confirmed that it could. Mr. Basinger offered more background, detailing meetings held with developers during the Periodic Update of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that these developers were interested in having a retail component as part of their multi-family development. CMU allows this to happen. d. CPA-2020-0006 A City Initiated Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial(I) to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Industrial (I) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Mr. Bates introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2020-0006, explaining where this location can be found. Mr. Bates reviewed the approval criteria. Mr. Bates mentioned that through the pre-application discussions the school district explained their plan to move their parent child partner program to this location. However; the Industrial zone does not allow any K-12 education components, which is the reason for this request. There is discussion on the zoning of the surrounding area, the operations happening on the surrounding industrial lots, and how the proposed lot is currently being utilized. e. CPA-2020-0007 A City Initiated Text Amendment to amend Chapter 2 Goals and Policies to provide policy guidance for increased housing density with access to support services like transit and commercial services; and provide implementing regulations. Mr. Basinger introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2020-0007 by providing background. He explained the objective of this amendment is to address the concern about the influx of duplex developments expressed by residents in several areas around the City. Mr. Basinger continued by offering research gathered from the Spokane-Kootenai Real Estate Research Committee 2020 Market Forum showing that the housing inventory is low, creating a high demand. Mr. Basinger reviewed the two goals for alternative housing types. First, enable a variety of housing types at increased densities within 1/2 mile of the high performance transit network. Second, preserve and enhance the City's established single-family neighborhoods by minimizing the impacts of more dense housing typologies such as duplexes and cottage development. Mr. Basinger referenced the map representing the zoning code changes, expressing the intent is to see this kind of development in an area that offers more walkability. Mr. Basinger moved on to explain the code text amendment that would add a new Single-Family Residential Urban (R-4) zone. He noted the changes made to the 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. There is a short discussion on requirements for cottage development. 03-12-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 Mr. Basinger moved forward in explaining the R-4 19.70 Residential Standards. There was a short discussion on accessibility to green space and parks. Mr. Basinger explained that the Appleway Trail is a linear park that would be within walking distance from most of this proposed rezone. There are plans for the trail to expand from University Road to Dishman Hills. He explained for those that are further from the trail, that there are plans within the Parks Master Plan to increase development of parks. Mr. Bates offered additional insight on the 20-year plan outlined in the Parks Master Plan. This 20-year plan outlines various acquisitions to increase the City's level of service for parks. Mr. Basinger explained how cottage development would offer a density bonus. Cottage developments require an open space for people to gather and recreate. Mr. Basinger explained there is a shortage of parks in portions of the City where some of the properties are located. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the cost of housing and property values. Commissioner Kelley asked a question regarding the cost of housing and property values. Mr. Basinger explained that when there is a low supply, that housing costs are higher. He described that there is fair amount of vacant and partially used land that could be redeveloped within the proposed area-wide rezone. He further explained, that the proposed rezone would allow for higher density and more opportunity for housing increasing supply and potentially lower the cost of housing in the area. Mr. Basinger clarified that the area-wide rezone should not lower property values. He stated that it would increase density and the opportunity to develop more lots on parcels of land and therefore it should increase the value of property with the proposed area-wide rezone. There was a discussion clarifying what lots would be changing to the R-4 zone. Commissioner Johnson requested the map be updated for further clarification. Commissioner McKinley expressed his concern for the agricultural areas changing due to the addition of smaller lots. The agricultural areas have been the culture of Spokane Valley for many years and he has seen that go away with denser housing developing. He does not want to see a decrease in these agricultural areas. Mr. Basinger explained staff want to preserve the character of the Valley, but that there needs to be a balance. He stated the City is preserving the character of Spokane Valley with estate zoning, one-acre lots in areas like Ponderosa, and the 10,000 square foot lots in the Single-Family Residential Suburban (R-2) zone. He noted that there needs to be a variety of opportunities for development and that the areas surrounding the Sprague corridor, where there is transportation and services, the City would like to promote infill development. Mr. Bates explained that animal raising and animal keeping is still permitted in this area to help preserve the character. Commissioner McKinley asked for the median income for the area. Mr. Bates stated they can provide a number at the next meeting. There was a lengthy discussion regarding how the access to transportation will benefit those that would be living in the affordable housing within this proposed zone. The access to transportation will allow these residents to reach jobs in different areas. Commissioner Kaschmitter pointed out that having more rooftops in this area would increase our high frequency bus service to help more people to where they need to go. She also described how the high performance transportation network connects to the Valley Transit Center allowing for residents to travel to their jobs throughout the County. 03-12-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Pages of 5 The study session ended with a conversation on what plan B will be if public meetings are cancelled or postponed due to the coronavirus. Mr. Basinger offered insight on staffs plans moving forward and how information will be shared to citizens. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Secretary to the Commission Deanna Horton announced a Department of Commerce planning short course on April 16, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Walton encouraged the community to check in with neighbors and elderly, as the efforts to slow down the coronavirus increase. Commissioner Robinson stated she is delighted to be at this first meeting. Commissioner Johnson added to Commissioner Walton's statement and expressed that COVID-19 should be a wakeup call. He hopes everyone encourages our leadership to make real workable plans to keep us safe. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn at 7:35 p.m. The vote on the motion was seven in.favor, zero against, and the motion passed. 7 C z/ze James Johnson, Chair Date signed 6L-A-4 Deanna Horton, Secretary Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall February 27, 2020 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. Assistant Deanna Horton called roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Jenny Nickerson, Building Official James Johnson Cary Driskell, City Attorney Danielle Kaschmitter Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Timothy Kelley Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Robert McKinley Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant Sherri Robinson, absent Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Matt Walton Chaz Bates, Economic Development Planner Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant With consensus, the Commission excused Commissioner Robinson from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the February 27, 2020 agenda. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor. zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: The January 9,2020 minutes were withdrawn from consideration by staff because they were incomplete. They will be finished and submitted for approval at the March 12, 2020 meeting. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Beaulac introduced himself, he was on the Planning Commission from 2003 to 2008, and appointed again.in 2012. This was his fourth request to serve the City on the Commission. His background is in commercial transportation. Commissioner Johnson reported he attended the City Council meetings on January 14, January 21, February 4, February 18 and February 25. He also attended the Spokane County Human Rights task force meetings which are working on an awards banquet and a web portal where citizens can report hate incidents which will allow the Task Force to be able to track the incidences. They hope to have it working by summer. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Election of Officers Chair Johnson called for nominations for the office of Chair. Commissioner Walton nominated Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner McKinley nominated Commissioner Kelley. In a show of hands, the vote for the office of Chair was as follows: Commissioners Beaulac, Johnson, Kaschmitter, and Walton voted for Commissioner Johnson. Commissioners Kelley and McKinley voted for Commissioner Kelley. With four votes to two, Commissioner Johnson remains the Chair for 2020. Chair Johnson called for nominations for the office of Vice-Chair. Commissioner Johnson nominated Commissioner Walton, Commissioner Kelley nominated Commissioner McKinley. In a show of hands, the vote for the office of Vice Chair was as follows: 02-27-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Commissioners Beaulac, Johnson, Kaschmitter, and Walton voted for Commissioner Walton. Commissioners Kelley and McKinley voted for Commissioner McKinley. With four votes to two, Commissioner Walton remains the Vice-Chair for 2020. ii. Findings of Fact: STV-2019-0005, a proposed street vacation of portions of 12th and 13th Avenues, the alley between 12th and 13'1' Avenues and a portion of Chronicle Road. Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained the findings of fact presented to the Commission. She explained they reflect the decision the Commission made during their deliberations after a study session and public hearing. The request is to vacate a portion of 126'Avenue, 13'1' Avenue, the alley between 12'h and 1 3'1' Avenues, and Chronicle Road, west of Carnahan Road. All of these areas are unimproved. She stated that the staff recommendation is to retain the portion of 12'1' Avenue, but the other portions of the privately initiated vacation request be vacated. Ms. Barlow explained that the Commission is being asked to approve the findings if they accurately represent the action that the Commission took on the matter. Chair Johnson made a motion to approve the findings oljact for the street vacation ofSTV- 2019-0005, a proposed street vacation of a portion of 12th and 131" Avenues, the alley between 12'1' and 13th Avenues and a portion of Chronicle Road as presented and move them fbrward to the City Council. Attorney Driskell put on record that Commissioner Beaulac and Commission Walton will not be voting on this item, as they had not been appointed at the time of the public hearing. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. iii. Annual Training: Public Records Training, Open Public Meetings City Attorney Cary Driskell gave the annual public records and open public meetings training to attending Planning Commissioners and staff. iv. Training Session: Comprehensive Plan Amendments History and Docket Overview Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager and Chaz Bates, Senior Planner introduced themselves to the Commission. Mr. Basinger gave a brief history of the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This included the development of the land use map, zoning areas, and the periodic update process. Staff is looking at a city-wide rezone in certain areas and Mr. Basinger wanted the Commission to understand the history of what has been done with the comp plan in the past and give an explanation of the development and implementation of the different land use zones within the City. Mr. Bates gave an overview of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process and site specific map amendments. He explained that any applications for amendment must be received by October 31s to be considered in that year's amendment process. The City does publish notice 60 days prior to the application due date. Once applications are received, they are reviewed and docketed for the City Council. The Council does have the authority to remove items from the consideration docket. Once the docket is approved, it begins the process through Planning Commission. Mr. Basinger stated that there were two items that were removed from the 2020 consideration docket. Mr. Bates clarified the timeline of the 2020 process and stated that there will be five amendments to be considered. There are four map amendments and one text amendment. The first map amendment (CPA-2020-0001) is privately initiated by Land Use Solutions and is located on McDonald. The applicant would like to change their designation/zoning from Single-Family-Residential (SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). 02-27-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 The second map amendment (CPA-2020-0002) is privately initiated by LB Stone Properties and is located on Fancher/Sprague. The applicant would like to change their designation/zoning from Industrial (I)to Regional Commercial (RC). The third map amendment (CPA-2020-0003) is privately initiated by Jay Rambo and is located at 1723/1724 N. Union. The applicant would like to change their designation/zoning from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). The fourth map amendment (CPA-2020-0006) is city initiated and is for the East Valley School District Walker Center. The City would like to change the designation/zoning from Industrial (I) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). This would allow the school district to move their parent/child classes related to home schooling to this location and it cannot occur under the current zoning. Mr. Basinger gave information regarding the code text amendment (CPA-2020-0007). This amendment applies city-wide and implements changes to allow for alternative housing types and brings forward an area-wide rezone with implementing regulations. He explained that there was concern about duplex development throughout the city that really needed to be addressed and he feels that that the staff has come up with some good ideas that will help address some of those concerns. Staff reasoned that it would be best to have the denser housing zones located near services and transit and limit duplexes and cottage home building in the R-3 zones. He explained that staff developed a new R-4 zone that is located between 811'Avenue and Broadway Avenue. This area was determined to be a good location because it is within walking distance of the transit system that Spokane Transit Authority (STA) currently has in place. They hope to be able to incentivize alternative housing within areas that have transit and services. Mr. Basinger explained that staff is looking at 10 units per acre in the new R-4 zone. Cottage and townhome developments would be allowed in this zone but they would no longer be allowed in the R-3 zone. They will increase the units allowed to eight units per acre and increase the minimum lot size to 14,500 square feet to do a duplex within the R- 3 zone. The requirement for duplexes will only be six units per acre so the hope is that this will incentivize single family residences in this zoning area. Commissioner Kelly asked if tiny homes will be allowed in the R-4 zone. Building Official Jenny Nickerson answered that the building code will have a new appendix addressing tiny homes. A tiny home will be interchangeable with the cottage standards and a single family residential home. The only caveat to that code will be tiny homes that are on trailers or on wheels. These are considered recreational vehicles and would not be allowed in the residential zones. Commissioner Walton asked how the staff came to the density regulations in the R-3 zone. Mr. Basinger stated that staff wanted to increase the density in the R-3 zone and utilize the 5000 square foot lot size. They hope that this change will really encourage developers to go with a single-family development in the R-3 zone and keep the high density developments in the R-4 zone. Commissioner Kelly asked if there was consideration to extend this zone to skirting the industrial to the north of Sprague. Mr. Basinger answered that staff really wanted to stick to the policies and goals outlined in the current Comprehensive Plan, which states that the higher density areas would be located near transportation and services. Staff looked at some other industrial areas but this location made the most sense geographically because of its location to those services. 02-27-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 01.4 Chair Johnson mentioned that the STA did a presentation to the City Council that they are considering expanding their services to Barker Road. Commissioner Kaschmitter commented that if the City is going to basing this R-4 change on access to services and transit on Sprague, it would be important for there to be bus service from one end of Sprague to the other end without having to change buses. Mr. Basinger agreed and said that the City is in conversations with STA about the possibility of getting additional transit service if there are more rooftops developed in this area. Chair Johnson expressed that he would like to make sure that the public is well notified of these amendment changes to the plan so that they can give their input. Mr. Basinger responded that all of these amendment changes will be broadly posted on all of the City's social networks to let people know. Commissioner Walton asked if property owners will be notified that their property is being rezoned. Mr. Basinger answered that they will not be individually notified because it is an area-wide rezone. The City is allowed to make these changes through this process without sending individual notification. However, the City will do everything possible to get notice out so that the residents are aware of any changes that happen. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Kaschmitter thanked staff for the Comprehensive Plan preview. Commissioner Walton expressed that since the Commissioners are not able to get to know each other outside of Council Chambers. he wanted to give a little background on who he is and what he is about. He encouraged the other Commissioners to do the same in the upcoming meetings. He gave a quick biography of himself outlining his personal life and his values and ideas. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner McKinley moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:46 pm. The vote on the motion was six in flivor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. 6'97 ----James Johnson, Chairman Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: July 23, 2020 Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ study session ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2020 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Findings of Fact GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010. PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: Study Session on March 6,2020; Study Session on June 11, 2020; Public Hearing on June 25,2020. BACKGROUND: On March 6,2020,the Planning Commission held a study session.A public hearing on the proposed amendments was scheduled for March 26,2020,but was canceled due to COVID-19 and efforts to maximize social distancing. The Planning Commission process for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments was restarted with an additional study session on June 11,followed by a public hearing on June 25,2020.At the public hearing the Planning Commission deliberated on each CPA and gave consensus as follows: CPA-2020-0001 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA-2020- 0001. CPA-2020-0002 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA-2020- 0002. CPA-2020-0003 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of denial of CPA-2020-0003. CPA-2020-0006 5-2 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA-2020- 0006 CPA-2020-0007 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of denial of CPA-2020-0007. After providing consensus on each individual proposed amendment,the Planning Commission moved and voted 7-0 to recommend approval of CPA-2020-0001,0002,0006,and to recommend denial of CPA 2020- 0003 and 0007. City Council may choose to adopt the proposed individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission,deny the proposed amendments,or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to modify a proposal and the modifications are substantial,they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that the Planning Commission approve and forward to City Council the Findings and Recommendation of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments CPA-2020-0001, CPA-2020-0002, CPA-2020-0003, CPA- 2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger,AICP,Economic Development Manager; Chaz Bates,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: General Findings and Recommendations for CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003, CPA- 2020-0006,CPA-2020-0007; Specific Findings and Recommendations for CPA-2020-0001, CPA-2020- 0002,CPA-2020-0003, CPA-2020-0006, CPA-2020-0007. RPCA Public Hearing for 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 of 2 Please bring your Yellow Binder to the meeting. RPCA Public Hearing for 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 2 of 2 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002, CPA-2020-0003, CPA-2020-0006, and CPA-2020-0007 July 23,2020 A. Background: 1. The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year. The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Consistent with state law and the SVMC, staff published notice on August 23 and 30, 2019, advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31,2019. The notice was also sent to all agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. 2. On November 19, 2019, the City Council approved the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: four map amendments and one text amendment. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findings: 1. Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 provides the framework for the public to participate throughout the Comprehensive Plan amendment process,including notice and public hearing requirements. 2. On November 25, 2019, the Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act,RCW 43.21C(SEPA), and Title 21 SVMC, environmental checklists were required for proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. 4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)for the Comprehensive Plan amendments on February 21,2020. 5. The Planning Commission finds the procedural requirements of SEPA and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled. 6. On March 6 and 13, 2020,notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald and each site subject to an amendment was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing"sign with a description of the proposal. 7. Individual notice of the map amendment proposals were mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of each proposed amendment site,except for CPA-2020-0007. 8. The duly noticed public hearing scheduled for March 26, 2020 was cancelled to COVID-19 and efforts to maximize social distancing. 9. On May 29 and June 5,2020 notice of the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald and each site subject to an amendment was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign with a description of the proposal. 10. On May 28,2020,notice of the map amendment proposals were mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of each proposed site,except for CPA-2020-0007. Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020- 0007 Page 1 of 3 11. Additional notice beyond the minimum legally required notice included, on June 18, 2020, the City issued a press release and sent a direct email to the Media and Comp Plan Updates distribution lists,283 and 336 email addresses respectively. On June 24,2020 another direct email was sent to the City News and City Planning Commission Agenda distribution lists, 722 and 763 email addresses respectively. Prior to the public hearing, the City created a rotating banner on the city's homepage that linked to a story in the "NEWS"page of the city website about the public hearing. The City created and published social media posts on Facebook,Twitter and Linkedln about the public hearing. 12. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments concurrently to evaluate the cumulative impacts.The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act). 13. On June 25, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. After receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and deliberated on the Comprehensive Plan amendments. While reviewing and deliberating on the Comprehensive Plan amendments, Planning Commission gave consensus as follows: a. CPA-2020-0001: 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA-2020-0001. b. CPA-2020-0002: 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA-2020-0002. c. CPA-2020-0003: 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of denial of CPA-2020-0003. d. CPA-2020-0006: 5-2 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of CPA-2020-0006 e. CPA-2020-0007: 7-0 consensus to forward to City Council a recommendation of denial of CPA-2020-0007. After deliberations and based upon the consensus for each proposed Amendment identified above,Planning Commission moved and voted 7-0 to forward to City Council the following recommendations: Recommend approval of CPA-2020-0001, CPA-2020-0002, CPA-2020- 0006, and denial of CPA-2020-0003 and CPA-2020-0007. 14. The Planning Commission hereby adopts and incorporates findings specific to each Comprehensive Plan Amendment as attached(see attachments 1-5). Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H) — Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2020-0001, CPA-2020-0002, and CPA-2020-0006. These proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The Planning Commission finds that CPA-2020-0003 and CPA-2020-0007 do not comply with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment criteria required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140. These proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are not consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and do not promote the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020- 0007 Page 2 of 3 The Planning Commission hereby adopts and incorporates conclusions specific to each Comprehensive Plan Amendment as attached(see attachments 1-5). Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments CPA-2020-0001, CPA-2020-0002, and CPA-2020-0006. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments CPA-2020-0003 and CPA-2020-0007. Approved this 23rd day of July, 2020. James Johnson, Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton,Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020- 0007 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT- CPA-2020-0001 July 23,2020 A. Background: 1. The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year.The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Consistent with state law and the SVMC, staff published notice on August 23 and 30,2019,advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31,2019. The notice was also sent to all agencies,organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. 2. On November 19,2019,the City Council approved the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: four map amendments and one text amendment. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findings: 1. These findings are specific to CPA-2020-0001. All findings in the general Findings and Recommendations are hereby incorporated by reference into these specific findings for CPA- 2020-0001. Findings required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(1): 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment changing the land use designation from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)has a substantial relationship to the public health,safety,welfare,and protection of the environment. The adopted Comprehensive Plan describes the CMU designation as"allow[ing] for light manufacturing,retail,multifamily, and offices along major transportation corridors. It is primarily used along Sprague Avenue, and the north-south arterials."McDonald Road is an improved north-south Minor Arterial that is consistent with the description of the CMU designation. Additionally,the proposed amendment provides flexibility that can be used to support the applicant's indicated desire to expand the McDonald Professional Center use on the subject property. Changing the designation to CMU,increases the allowed types of uses to include office and parking. Increasing office and parking opportunities in the McDonald Road corridor has a substantial benefit to public health, safety, and welfare. 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. The Growth Management Act(GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations.The request allows opportunity to provide an expansion of office use on a designated Minor Arterial with supporting infrastructure. The proposal is consistent with goals of GMA and the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies.The amendment does not respond directly to a substantial change in conditions from the 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan.However,the two parcels to the south of the proposed amendment were Attachment 1-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 1 of 4 changed from Office to CMU as part of the 2016 legislative update as part of a larger 2016 amendment to eliminate the Office designation,and the owner of the subject property is the same owner of the McDonald Professional Center. 5. The proposed amendment is not in response to or corrects an obvious mapping error. 6. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. While not directly identified as a deficiency,the Comprehensive Plan has identified the following goals and policies that support increasing employment opportunities while taking advantage of existing supportive infrastructure.The proposed amendment contributes to the long-term success of the City: ED-P6 Promote the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties, particularly those with potential to serve as a catalyst for economic development. LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents,employees,and visitors. T-G2 Ensure that transportation planning efforts reflect anticipated land use patterns and support identified growth opportunities. Findings for factors required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(2): 7. The effect upon the physical environment: The change to CMU will allow for expanded office and office related uses such as parking.The change could result in more intensive development in the future,though the site immediately to the south is vacant and designated and zoned CMU. There is no concern on the effect of the physical environment. 8. The effect on open space, streams,rivers, and lakes: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands,fish and wildlife habitat areas,frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance ensures adequate protection of critical areas and stormwater associated with commercial development will be retained and treated on the site. 9. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods: The property is adjacent to CMU to the south and MFR to the east.To the north and west are existing single family homes on SFR designated properties. If approved,the development of the site will be subject to the transitional regulations that will ensure protection of the adjacent homes to the north and south. Potential development consistent with the CMU zone will be compatible with properties to the south and east. The projected impact to the surrounding neighborhood is minimal.Any future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses at the time of development. 10. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads,public transportation,parks,recreation, and schools: McDonald Road is a Minor Arterial and is expected to accommodate the projected change. While the subject property was not considered in the 2016 legislative update,the property immediately to the south was part of the 2016 analysis. The projected LOS for McDonald Road in 2040 is A- C,and no mitigations or transportation projects are planned for this section of McDonald Road within the 20-year planning horizon.Additionally,the subject property is approximately 0.5 acres and its overall impact to the transportation system is minimal. Attachment 1-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 2 of 4 The subject property and the property immediately to the south are considered infill development, as such,the expansion of office in this area is ideal because of the supporting infrastructure that is in place. 11. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region: The proposed change would allow the property to support the expansion of the McDonald Professional Center,increasing employment opportunities and growing the City's economy. The change will benefit the City and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: ED-G1 Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley ED-P3 Encourage businesses that provide jobs and grow local markets. 12. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land: The proposal would add approximately 0.5 acres of CMU property to the 1,666 acres of existing CMU designated property within the City.While additional demand for CMU property may be limited,the CMU designation in this location allows for the expansion of an existing office development on the McDonald Road corridor in an area supported by existing infrastructure. The proposal is limited to a reasonable area and if developed under CMU standards the type of use and density would be appropriate for the location. 13. The current and projected population density in the area: There is one dwelling unit proposed to be removed. While CMU allows residential development, it is not expected that residential development would occur and therefore the City would lose one single family house as a result of the amendment.The change is not expected to have significant impacts to population density in the area. 14. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: The CMU designation will support the goals and policies identified above.There will be no effect on other elements of the Comprehensive Plan,including Housing,Capital Facilities and Public Services,Public and Private Utilities,Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources. C. Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H)—Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2020-0001. The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. D. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2020-0001. Approved this 23rd day of July,2020. James Johnson,Chairman Attachment 1-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 3 of 4 ATTEST Deanna Horton,Planning Commission Secretary Attachment 1-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA-2020-0002 July 23,2020 A. Background: 1. The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year. The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Consistent with state law and the SVMC, staff published notice on August 23 and 30, 2019, advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31,2019.The notice was also sent to all agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. 2. On November 19, 2019, the City Council approved the 2020 Docket. The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: four map amendments and one text amendment. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findings: 1. These findings are specific to CPA-2020-0002. All the findings made in the general Findings and Recommendations are hereby incorporated by reference into these specific findings for CPA-2020- 0002 Findings required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(1): 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment provides the opportunity to aggregate parcels creating greater depth to provide for a larger format structure.Based on the application,the intent is to combine the two Regional Commercial (RC) parcels to the south with the proposal. Both the Industrial(I)and RC designations and zoning districts allow for intensive uses.Providing opportunity for development and redevelopment where there is existing infrastructure has a substantial benefit to public health, safety,and welfare. 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity to aggregate parcels in an area that is already served by supporting infrastructure. The proposal does not conflict with any other GMA goals.The amendment is not in conflict with any other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. 5. The proposed amendment is not in response to or corrects an obvious mapping error. 6. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan.While not identified as a deficiency, the Comprehensive Plan includes the following goals and policies that support increasing employment opportunities while taking advantage of existing supportive infrastructure. The proposed amendment contributes to the long-term success of the City by: ED-G1 Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. Attachment 2-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 1 of 3 ED-P6 Promote the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties, particularly those with potential to serve as a catalyst for economic development. LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. LU-G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity. CF-P2 Optimize the use of existing public facilities before investing in new facilities. Findings for factors required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(2): 7. The effect upon the physical environment: The change to RC will allow uses similarly allowed along the Sprague corridor. The change may result in a more people-oriented active use in the area versus a vacant or industrial use, but the intensity would be similar to existing nearby uses. There is no concern on effect of physical environment. 8. The effect on open space, streams,rivers, and lakes: There are no known critical areas associated with the site,such as wetlands,fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed when future development occurs and stormwater associated with commercial development will be retained and treated on the site. 9. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods: The property is adjacent to RC to the west and south; and Ito the north and east. To the north are existing industrial developments and users. To the south is a vacant used motor vehicle sales lot that is under the same ownership. To the west is Home Depot. The projected impact to the surrounding neighborhood is minimal. Any future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses at the time of development. 10. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation,parks,recreation, and schools: Sprague Avenue is a Principal Arterial and is expected to accommodate the projected change. The 20-year Transportation Improvement Plan identifies a concrete intersection at Sprague and Fancher by 2039. The existing and projected LOS for this segment of Sprague Avenue is D within City's adopted standard. Additionally, the change from Ito RC is expected to have a minimal impact to the transportation network and other utilities. 11. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region: The proposed change would allow the property to be combined with the two properties fronting Sprague Avenue, increasing employment opportunities and growing the city's economy. The change benefits the neighborhood, City, and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: ED-G1 Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. ED-P6 Promote the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties, particularly those with potential to serve as a catalyst for economic development. LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. Attachment 2-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 2 of 3 LU-G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity. CF-P2 Optimize the use of existing public facilities before investing in new facilities. 12. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land: The proposal would add approximately 3 acres of RC property to the 809 acres of existing RC designated property within the city. As of 2018, there are approximately 111 acres of vacant RC property within the city. The amendment allows for commercial development on the Sprague Avenue corridor in an area supported by existing infrastructure. The proposal is limited to a reasonable area and if developed under RC standards the type of use and density will be appropriate for the location. 13. The current and projected population density in the area: Under the existing conditions the subject property is a paved vacant lot.It appears the property was used in conjunction with the RC designated property to the south for used motor vehicle sales, which is presently vacant. The change of the property from I to RC will not impact current or projected population density in the area. 14. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: The RC designation will support the goals and policies identified above. It would have very little to no effect on other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including Housing, Capital Facilities and Public Services,Public and Private Utilities,Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources. C. Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H)—Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2020-0002.The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,and will promote the public health, safety,welfare,and protection of the environment. D. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2020-0002. Approved this 23rd day of July, 2020. James Johnson,Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton, Planning Commission Secretary Attachment 2-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT- CPA-2020-0003 July 23,2020 A. Background: 1. The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year. The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Consistent with state law and the SVMC, staff published notice on August 23 and 30, 2019, advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31,2019.The notice was also sent to all agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. 2. On November 19, 2019, the City Council approved the 2020 Docket. The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: four map amendments and one text amendment. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findin2s: 1. These findings are specific to CPA-2020-0003. All the findings made in the general Findings and Recommendations are hereby incorporated by reference into these specific findings for CPA-2020- 0003. Findings required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(1): 2. The adopted Comprehensive Plan describes the CMU designation as "allow[ing] for light manufacturing,retail,multifamily, and offices along major transportation corridors. It is primarily used along Sprague Avenue, and the north-south arterials." The subject properties are between CMU properties to the west, east, and south. Access is provided by Union Road via Mission Avenue.Mission Ave is a Minor Arterial.Changing the land use designation to CMU increases the flexibility of allowed uses and allowed density on the sites in an area. The Planning Commission finds that the potential for increased density in the area may result in safety concerns related to the transportation infrastructure along Union Road,it does not find the amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, and welfare. 3. The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity to provide an expansion of the multiple family development on the site and the opportunity to provide the neighborhood with access to daily goods and services in a centralized area with adequate public facilities; there are two projects in the 6-year TIP along Mission Avenue just south of this area to improve capacity. The proposal does not conflict with any other GMA goals. The amendment is not in conflict with any other portions of the comprehensive plan. However, the Planning Commission finds that impacts on the local access street of Union Road have not been adequately considered and have further found that changing the land used designation to CMU may increase access concerns along Union. 4. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. While the Attachment 3-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 1 of 4 amendment does not respond directly to a substantial change in conditions beyond the owner's control,the 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan eliminated the Office designation generally replacing it with the CMU designation, which was the case for the parcels to the west, east, and south.While the 2016 plan changed the designation of the surrounding vacant lands from Office to CMU, the properties subject to the amendment request had a multifamily development and the designation of Multifamily was not changed. The CMU designation provides more flexibility than the Office and Multifamily designations. The changing of the surrounding properties from Office to CMU created a situation whereby the subject properties may not use their property to the similarly situated properties to the west,east,and south. 5. The proposed amendment is not in response to or corrects an obvious mapping error. 6. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment adds diminutive capacity to the CMU designation; all three parcels have existing structures and two have multifamily developments on them. Changing the designation from MFR to CMU on an existing developed parcel provides the opportunity to increase density on developed parcels using pre-existing infrastructure and provide flexibility to add service related retail to the area that may be supported by the multifamily housing. While the proposal does not address a direct deficiency,the Comprehensive Plan identifies the following goals and policies that support the proposed change: LU-G 1 Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-P16 Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas. H-G1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. H-G3 Allow convenient access to daily goods and services in Spokane Valley's neighborhoods. CF-P2 Optimize the use of existing public facilities before investing in new facilities. Findings for factors required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(2): 7. The effect upon the physical environment: The change to CMU will allow existing uses as well as commercial, office and higher residential development of the properties. The properties will have the opportunity to transition, add density and add a mix of uses to serve the surrounding neighborhood. There is no concern on effect of physical environment. 8. The effect on open space, streams,rivers, and lakes: There are no known critical areas associated with the site,such as wetlands,fish and wildlife habitat areas,frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas.The parcels are not located within shoreline jurisdiction, and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed should future development occur. 9. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods: The 6.25-acre site is currently developed with a multifamily development and one single-family home. The adjacent use to the south is single-family, to the west self-storage, to the east office, multifamily and vacant CMU.The CMU land use designation surrounds the proposed amendment site to the west, east, and north. The amendment is consistent with the adjacent land use designations. Attachment 3-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 2 of 4 If approved future development of the site will be subject to the transitional provisions adopted in the development regulations. Potential development consistent with the CMU zone will be compatible with properties to the west, east, and south. The projected impact to the surrounding neighborhood is minimal. Any future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses at the time of development. 10. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation,parks,recreation, and schools: Mission Avenue is a Minor Arterial. There are two projects in the 6-year TIP along Mission Avenue just south of this area, one of which is the intersection capacity improvement and signal modification at Pines/Mission. Site-specific improvements and their impact to this project would be identified through the development review process,and development on the parcels within the Mirabeau Subarea Study area. The subject properties are considered infill development, as such,the expansion of allowed uses and increased densities are supported by the infrastructure that is in place. However, the Planning Commission finds that impacts on the local access street of Union Road have not been adequately considered and have further found that changing the land use designation to CMU may increase access concerns along Union. The Planning Commission concludes that Union Road is not adequate to support the proposed change. 11. The benefit to the neighborhood,City, and region: The proposed change would allow the property to increase density and support infill development in an area planned for growth. The change may support increased housing opportunities, office, employment, or access to daily goods and services. The change benefits the neighborhood, city, and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: ED-G1 Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley ED-P3 Encourage businesses that provide jobs and grow local markets. 12. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land: The proposal would add approximately 6.5 acres of CMU property to the 1,666 acres of existing CMU designated property within the city. While additional demand for CMU property may be limited, the CMU designation in this place would allow for increased options for development including retail services serving the existing multifamily development.The proposal is limited to a reasonable area and if developed under CMU standards the type of use and density would be appropriate for the location. 13. The current and projected population density in the area: Changing the land use designation to CMU increases the flexibility of allowed uses and allowed density on the sites in an area. This proposed amendment is not expected to have significant impacts to population density in the area. 14. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: The CMU designation will support the goals and policies identified above. It would have very little to no effect on other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including Housing, Capital Facilities and Public Services,Public and Private Utilities,Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources. C. Conclusions: Attachment 3-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 3 of 4 The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H)—Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2020-0003 except for the potential unaddressed impacts to Union Road as it relates to findings 2, 3, and 10 above. The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,and will promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment except for the potential unaddressed impacts to Union Road as it relates to findings 2, 3,and 10 above. D. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2020-0003. Approved this 23rd day of July, 2020. James Johnson, Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton, Planning Commission Secretary Attachment 3-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT- CPA-2020-0006 July 23,2020 A. Background: 1. The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year. The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Consistent with state law and the SVMC, staff published notice on August 23 and 30, 2019, advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31,2019.The notice was also sent to all agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. 2. On November 19, 2019, the City Council approved the 2020 Docket. The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: four map amendments and one text amendment. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findin2s: 1. These findings are specific to CPA-2020-0006. All the findings made in the general Findings and Recommendations are hereby incorporated by reference into these specific findings for CPA-2020- 0006. Findings required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(1): 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment provides more flexibility of uses on a property allowing East Valley School District (EVSD) to broaden and enhance their educational service mission. Under the Industrial zone educational activities are limited to professional, vocational and trade schools. While this may continue to be an essential component to EVSD curriculum,flexibility is needed to meet existing and future demand for other educational services. Changing the designation to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU), increases the allowed types of educational services legally permitted to occur in the existing facility. Increasing educational opportunities to local youth has a substantial benefit to public health, safety, and welfare. 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity to strengthen EVSD mission to provide for education of local youth in an area with adequate public facilities.The proposal does not conflict with any other GMA goals. The amendment is not in conflict with any other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. The amendment does respond to a substantial change in conditions from 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan.At that time the subject parcel was not changed from the designation in place since at least 2014.Since the 2016 legislative update,EVSD has experienced changes in enrollment and interest in vocational education, under the existing designation only professional, vocational and trade schools are allowed in the Industrial designation changing the designation to CMU allows EVSD to adapt the educational services they provide in a location they own and have made Attachment 4-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 1 of 3 substantial improvements for educational purposes.The demographic and interest shifts are beyond EVSD control the proposed change allows them to continue to serve district educational needs. 5. The proposed amendment is not in response to or corrects an obvious mapping error. 6. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan.While not directly identified as a deficiency, the Comprehensive Plan has identified the following goal and policy that support workforce development and education, which are integral to the long-term success of the City: ED-G5 Support and encourage the development of a strong workforce that is globally competitive and responds to the changing needs of the workplace ED-P16 Support local educational institutions in the development of educational and training programs that meet the needs of businesses. Findings for factors required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(2): 7. The effect upon the physical environment: The change to CMU will allow existing uses as well as more expanded educational uses. The change could result in more intensive development in the future, though the site is currently developed.There is no concern on effect of physical environment. 8. The effect on open space, streams,rivers, and lakes: There are no known critical areas associated with the site,such as wetlands,fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed should future development occur. 9. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods: The property is generally surrounded by Spokane Industrial Park to the north and east; however, the property is not part of the Spokane Industrial Park. The property to the south is designated and zoned CMU. The institutional use on the proposed site is generally compatible with both the light industrial uses to the north and east and the retail service uses to the south.The projected impact to the surrounding neighborhoods is minimal. Any future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses at the time of development. 10. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation,parks,recreation, and schools: B Street is a local access street and Sullivan Road is a Principal Arterial. There are two capacity related projects in the 6-year TIP near the project area: intersection improvement at Sullivan and Wellesley and improvement to Sullivan and SR 290(Trent)interchange. The subject properties are considered infill development, as such, the expansion of allowed uses and increased densities are supported by the infrastructure that is in place. 11. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region: The proposed change would allow the property and structure owned by EVSD to be used for educational purposes beyond professional, vocational and trade school use, increasing the school district's ability to provide educational services. The change benefits the neighborhood,City, and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: ED-G5 Support and encourage the development of a strong workforce that is globally competitive and responds to the changing needs of the workplace Attachment 4-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 2 of 3 ED-P16 Support local educational institutions in the development of educational and training programs that meet the needs of businesses. 12. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land: The proposal would add approximately 9 acres of CMU property to the 1,666 acres of existing CMU designated property within the City. While additional demand for CMU property may be limited,the CMU designation allows for additional educational uses,which has been indicated as needed from EVSD. The proposal is limited to a reasonable area and if developed under CMU standards the type of use and density would be appropriate for the location. 13. The current and projected population density in the area: Under the existing conditions and the Industrial designation there is very little population that resides in the area. While CMU allows residential development, it is not expected that residential development would occur. The proposed change in land use designation is not expected to have significant impacts to population density in the area. 14. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: The CMU designation will support the goal and policy identified above. It would have very little to no effect on other elements of the Comprehensive Plan,including Land Use,Transportation,and Housing,Capital Facilities and Public Services,Public and Private Utilities,Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources. C. Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H)—Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2020-0006.The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,and will promote the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. D. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approval the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2020-0006. Approved this 23'day of July,2020. James Johnson, Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton,Planning Commission Secretary Attachment 4-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA-2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA-2020-0007 July 23,2020 A. Background: 1. The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year. The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Consistent with state law and the SVMC, staff published notice on August 23 and 30, 2019, advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31,2019.The notice was also sent to all agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. 2. On November 19, 2019, the City Council approved the 2020 Docket. The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: four map amendments and one text amendment. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment require and receive a zoning classification amendment consistent with the new land use designation. B. Findings: 1. These findings are specific to CPA-2020-0007. All the findings made in the general Findings and Recommendations are hereby incorporated by reference into these specific findings for CPA-2020- 0007. 2. In regards to noticing,the Planning Commission finds that the City met all legal requirements for notice for CPA 2020-0007. The Planning Commission finds that the City provided notice above legal requirements in the form of press releases, social media releases, and email list releases. However, Planning Commission finds that given the scope of the impact of the proposed amendment, additional noticing would have been beneficial as indicated by the relatively limited number of public comments received. Findings required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(1): 3. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,welfare,and protection of the environment.Housing is an important component of the economic infrastructure of the city. Ensuring that there is a variety of housing types is an important competitive advantage for economic development. The proposed amendment will allow the City to more closely align its housing needs with locations within the City to ensure adequate infrastructure is available. This will also enable the provision of quality, affordable housing for all Spokane Valley residents. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The GMA provides that the housing element serves to encourage the availability of affordable housing to residents of all economic backgrounds,promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage the preservation of existing neighborhoods. The proposed amendment will provide increased housing options in locations that have adequate infrastructure that can affordably support increased densities. The Planning Commission finds that additional noticing would serve the GMA's requirements to allow for effective public participation. 5. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. The amendment is Attachment 5-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA- 2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 1 of 4 not related to a specific piece of property.This amendment looks to incentivize alternative housing development where there is frequent transit and commercial services. 6. The proposed amendment is not in response to or corrects an obvious mapping error. 7. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies that the city will need an additional 6,389 homes by 2037 (3,962 single family homes and 2,417 multifamily). The plan also identifies that the median household income in the city was about$2,000 less than the average countywide annual earnings.Additional data indicates that residents are cost-burdened with 51% of renters and 26% of homeowners spending at least 33 percent of their monthly budget on rent or mortgage payments. The following adopted goals,policies,and strategy support the proposed amendment: H-G1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. H-G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels. Strategy: Continue to evaluate new housing typologies to meet market needs. Findings for Factors required pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140(H)(2): 8. The effect upon the physical environment: The proposed amendment is policy oriented and as a non site-specific amendment does not have a direct effect on the physical environment. Future development that may result will be evaluated under city regulations for physical development. 9. The effect on open space, streams,rivers, and lakes: The proposed amendment is policy oriented and does not have a direct effect on open space, streams, rivers and lakes. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed should future development occur. 10. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods: The proposed amendment is policy oriented and includes implementing development regulations that are aimed to protect neighborhood character and locate alternative housing in areas with frequent transit and commercial services. The Planning Commission finds that increasing the density in the R-3 zoning district from six dwelling units per acres to eight dwelling units per acre as identified in the proposed implementing regulations would have a negative impact on the quality of life for residents in those areas by potentially increasing crime and decreasing property values. 11. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation,parks,recreation, and schools: Capital Facilities Policy CF-P6 recommends that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standards. LOS standards have been adopted for water, sewer, transportation, stormwater,law enforcement,libraries,parks, street cleaning,public transit,fire,and schools.The proposed amendment seeks to take advantage of available infrastructure to minimize the need to develop and maintain new infrastructure. 12. The benefit to the neighborhood,City, and region: Increasing housing options that protect neighborhood character and minimize the need for new infrastructure can potentially reduce housing costs and thereby reducing the amount of city residents paying more than 33 percent of their income toward housing, which would benefit the Attachment 5-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA- 2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 2 of 4 neighborhood, city and region. The change benefits the neighborhood, City, and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: ED-P8 Provide and maintain an infrastructure system that supports Spokane Valley's economic development priorities. LU-G 1 Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality LU-P14 Enable a variety of housing types. LU-P16 Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas. H-G3 Allow convenient access to daily goods and services in Spokane Valley's neighborhoods. 13. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land: The proposed amendment does not change the location or quantity of land designations. Implementing changes to the zoning code may increase densities in locations with adequate infrastructure support, and may reduce densities in other locations. Any future change would be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the demand forecasted. 14. The current and projected population density in the area: The implementing regulations may increase density in areas that are supported by adequate infrastructure and may reduce densities in other locations.The proposed amendment is not expected to have significant impacts to population density on a citywide level.Implementing regulations will be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the demand forecasted. 15. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: The proposed amendment will support the Comprehensive Plan's housing goals, policies, and strategies. The amendment will not have a direct impact on other Comprehensive Plan elements. Implementing regulations will be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the demand forecast. C. Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H)—Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2020-0007 except for the need for additional notice above what is legally required and the negative impacts from the increase in density in the R-3 zone. The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,and will promote the public health,safety,welfare,and protection of the environment. D. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2020-0007. Approved this 23rd day of July,2020. James Johnson, Chairman Attachment 5-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA- 2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 3 of 4 ATTEST Deanna Horton,Planning Commission Secretary Attachment 5-Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2020-0001,CPA-2020-0002,CPA-2020-0003,CPA- 2020-0006,and CPA-2020-0007 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: June 25, 2020 Item: Check all that apply n old business n new business Fl public hearing n information n study session n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2020 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Public Hearing GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010. PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION:None BACKGROUND: The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year.The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC).Consistent with state law and the SVMC,staff published notice on August 23 and 30,2019, advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31,2019.The notice was also sent to all agencies,organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. On November 19, 2019, the City Council approved the 2020 Docket. The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: four map amendments and one text amendment. On February 27, 2020, staff provided an overview on the 2020 Docket, background information on the adopted Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations and provided additional detail on the City initiated text amendment.On March 12,2020,the Planning Commission conducted a Study Session on the five proposed amendments. On February 21, 2020, the City issued a Determination of Non-significance (DNS) for the proposed comprehensive plan amendments pursuant to Title 21, Environmental Controls of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Comments on the determination have been incorporated into the staff reports where appropriate. A public hearing on the proposed amendments was scheduled for March 26,2020. The public hearing was canceled due to COVID-19 and efforts to maximize social distancing. Prior to the cancellation,the Notice of Public Hearing (NOPH) was published on March 6, 2020 and March 13, 2020, and posted on the sites and mailed to residents within a 400-foot radius of the subject properties on March 10,2020. The public hearing was rescheduled for June 25, 2020. The NOPH was published May 29, 2020 and June 5,2020 and each site was posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing"sign,with a description of the proposal on May 27,2020.Individual notice was mailed to residents within a 400-foot radius of the subject properties on May 28,2020. Tonight,the Planning Commission will conduct the public hearing on the proposed amendments,consider public input and deliberate on the proposed amendments. Written public comment received thus far is attached for your information. Please add the documents to the appropriate application sections of the yellow binder. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: The Planning Commission may recommend approval, approval with modifications,or denial of the proposed amendments. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger,AICP,Economic Development Manager; Chaz Bates,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. PowerPoint Please bring your Yellow Binder to the meeting. RPCA Public Hearing for 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 of 1 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments June 25, 2020 Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Chaz Bates, Senior Planner 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Timeline c 0 .+7. 2020 Docket CO 13A •}, .0 1p1) Overview _ .i c 2-27-2020 4) V p Administrative a) }' O +r 4) 'tn in 4) I Study Session Report a) _ '—E 3- 12-2020 ,O = > • E 6- 1 1 -2020 Ordinance 1 St — co c a c = O = Reading C) 0 a) C.) C Hearing c , 131) Q }' Q O = Ordinance 2nd CO ._ C C5-2020 < •_ c O • V 'c 0 Reading EL) a = 0 '> 0 Findings of Fact Q 0 W z 0 7-23-2020 C) 1411:( 1/7 aia&11 A Today 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Pan Amer-laments - Planning Commission Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process Staff Planning City Council Commission• Facilitates Process • Reviews PC • Conducts review • Conducts Public Findings and and analysis Hearing Deliberations • I Pre ares staff • Deliberates and • Considers public p0 reports and public recommendation comment p notices to Council • May approve, rove, modify, or deny requests 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing 3 Notice of P Hearing Published in paper E-Maxwell Ave — 3-6-2U2U & . —13-2020 r ce 5-29-2020 & 6-5-2020 I 44 / P;;; -- - 71 Posted on property °0 ,/ ,/ r r r Frjr :wzA A w//, /// — 3-6-2020 — 3-26-2020 , 00*/);')°#11.0 "5-27-2020 — 6-25-2020AAA A1,4 €S`ltar. , Mailed to property owners �, Am, reoe,Frem,. fr //ie• - /E .re•Xediri ve - .�-11-2U2U , / 4Z'ZAger Legend , 5-2 8-2 0 2 0 Q Project Site %2,/, 400 foot buffer E e UAve I E eL m fAve Ir I I I_ I I I I I I ( I I 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 4 Approval - SVMC 17. 80 . 140 Required Findings Additional Factors Supports public health , safety, and Effect on environment protection of the environment Effect on open space, streams, rivers, Consistent with GMA and Comp Plan and lakes Responds to change in conditions Compatibility and impact on existing Corrects an error uses and neighborhoods Addresses deficiency Adequacy and impact on services Benefit to City and Region Quantity, location and demand for land Projected population for area Other effects on Comp Plan 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket File Number Location Type / Who Description CPA-2020-0001 1311 N McDonald Map / Private Change 0.47 acres from SFR to CMU CPA-2020-0002 Fancher Road/ Sprague Map / Private Change 2.98 acres from Ito RC CPA-2020-0003 1723 & 1724 N Union Map / Private Change 6.24 acres from MFR to CMU CPA-2020-0006 EVSD Walker Center Map / City Change 8.8 acres Ito CMU CPA-2020-0007 Applies citywide Text & Area-wide Policy and corresponding implementing changes to Rezone / City maps for alternative housing types 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing CPA-2020-0001: PrivatelyInitiated MapAmendment y ,: i 44 _ _ tJ i tfi ,.r Applicant: Land Use E Mission Ave E Solutions .4-.) 1.. t..-A , ... . Owner: Tucker Roy, LLC 7 _ � 417- rC:'': I E Broadway Ave 4 fir'� �I:7 _ .. MFR - ' -� � Amendment: Single Family SFR 11'''..: If: Residential (SFR) to Corridor yr p- a4 CMU ' Mixed Use (CMU ) • , r'''' ...A.Z.:•:- • r. ,Ni Location : Parcel 45152 . 1004, .- F -.1himmom ram. eit: 1311N . McDonald Road i .i. Application Number: CPA-2020-0001 Proposed Change: SFR to CMU Area: 0.47 ac 0 100 200 300 400 5000 Feet 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing CPA-2020-0001: Staff Analysis Adds 1/2 acre to CM U zone F - . I p —.. '\j, ] No critical areas I:. 1 ? - Supports development of vacant properties 1, . (.. _ f; = Provides land for employment f �yx N�ti �.t .p Supported by transportation . . ` sty � d V ^p <. r °1 4d l,F,'�' _ 'Pf F i }', 1 7. 'tN1� y i network �R s �.�F . .. � # �: i .111 w A> i"� �- a- ,1 r x ..tip, - - ��` -; . ',G ° V ',1 . - - ,>H r - - sic � General ) compatible ble with - g,7+� f Ii , y A • Es-614* MNh'4JiT '' ' "' a A surrounding uses r �tip .,. � - x w ^ ... �$f646 ,1.,:/i:,.;',:. ,:,:',:,...!' :„Iic..:',.:;'1.:t.'„:,(,,,.;.•. , -,,:r.; , : .. .. ., ..,.. ,,,, ,,,,,, ) 1 i _:.—. _._. + i .h+ixatxm.ri.. 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing 8 CPA-2020-0001: Staff, Agency, Public Comment Staff and Agency Comment Public Comment No comments received Not opposed to the project as discussed in the application, but unhappy with the openness of CMU zoning 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing 9 2018 Aerial Map CPA-2020-0001: Public Testimony , iwr .1,1 6 , , _ .-..,,1 i g. , ; ' I1.. , , .:1„.11,.. , "Ilk F „ 0 Study Area R r ,,. `I i II • i 4. C : 1 0. 0... 7 t , lit ` >.-.1 �. __ illiaw "'�.. .i .., ce.. m .y ': t i 41i l �ii t c ' 0 '" ''. _- ,,,. .V:,,.. , tik- ‘4,,...,;:..,="if`, ,,I. 1,1 'II .:r114:11.1:,..„_,• l'''''° �ft 1, H Boone: oone Ave u.. a. RT ;. .., ! t .. I` .-- •. CPA-2020-0001 Request: pokan""'x Owner: Tucker Roy LLC Proposed change.Land Use e Parcel#: 45152.1004 designation from SFR to CMU 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning 1 valley Address:1311 N McDonald Rd and Zoning fromR3toCMU CPA-2020-0002 : PrivatelyInitiated MapAmendment x .. _ JI AMMO -G Ct / Z Applicant: LB Stone . :5 s i . t,_ z . Properties — , •, ,, z 1 diaismpor. —4 _ a, Owner: LB Stone Properties _9U sa _ 11 .1. , re op - -, L. Amendment: Industrial ( I ) to ict "' _ Regional Commercial ( RC) 14N' e.. I i ,, j Location : Parcel 35133 . 2321, � . 00i�e4 � :47 E 5901 E. Sprague Avenuet., E Sprague ye- yz - a .. " r .L r ^ ' Application Number: CPA-2020-0002 Proposed Change: I to RC 0 100 200 300 400 500CI Area: 2.98 ac Feet 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing CPA-2020-0002 : Staff Analysis Adds 3 acres to RC zone No critical areas ,, 4 1 isi. Supports redevelopment _ _, .._,, . il cl � 44 A'''' underused properties � �4;44t��x - , h :. ,._ ,,. , ..,..: .. Land for employment .. _.,, Supported by .• .... r- , .... - .. transportation network R �4.r . � 4,_ . • 1_ r•-• . , .":.,,EF Com pa t i b l e with ,..� =_- ' ---.. -- _ '' , ,,,, . '," surrounding uses a ��ts ., .. , ._ ._... ._ . . .... __ _ . . _,_ ,. .. 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing 12 CPA-2020-0002 : Staff, Agency, Public Comment Staff and Agency Comment Public Comment No comments received . No comments received 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing 13 2018 Aerial Map CPA-2020-0002 : Public Testimony } < �_ n® � . , 4 - -.... - �, 1 Olive Ave . .., . . 3 ' ----—4-------2-''i- '. .,.,.:- i-„•. '1 IF:171:'' }:1 iii Ti--'4'771.1i - ''' --L-1-1'1-1 '1" J, . � _ , .. 1, 1 , , ... . ._ ili.zwrii,.... ,. _ .. „r„,: w i i f 1 -! ❑ II �S� �. ' 1yj'P .-t „.`l r 1 Z - Main Ave 333f - _ - !' a . ri Study Area ' F E, „it_ uul[1,r . ) = kio .'S . ,, . tip: ' nu T- -. -.• .{: , s III .,ig ,:e 3 Sprague gsge • =__ _. i ¢ `��. 03 sn-ten. -0 ,_ . ... I • xp i�w, CA E 1st Ave �' ' S I i r / `:: 1st Ave P s' .2g$OFF I ' 7``I'' %'• , r � I " , .✓ �d Ave 9 , y�'W'y �^ - E 3rd•Ave —•-°" r "'ti [.' . — w7. 1 �•' �' m CPA-2020-0002 Reuuest: "I' Owner: Lawrence B Stone Proposed change:Land Use designation 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning I pOk V Properties#50LLC from 1 to RC and Zoning from 1 to RC Valley Parcel#: 35133.2329 Address: NFancherRd CPA-2020-0003 : PrivatelyInitiated MapAmendment . „ E Mansfield Ave Ad r F Applicant: JayRamboIII r i on � � F Ilia p p E Montgomery Avtx '27 80 90 Property Owner: REVERE- 1 _, E Mission Ave ,.r• DECE III INV LLC■ BRILL r;� sz7; 90r - ..r, r _ PROPERTIES, LLC F li IFifiti :,..,:_ _ �It Amendment: Multifamily CMU A \ '` Residential ( MFR) to Corridor - - k Ilk Mixed Use (CMU ) _ ■ Tw Location: Parcels � ' �� 45094.0133, 45094.0134, 1 SFR _, t.�.z . -a . _,, - : H , _ ! — and 45094.0121. 1723 and K _ = = 17 24 N Union Road Application Number: CPA-2020-0003 Proposed Change: MFR to CMU 0 150 300 450 600 75001 Area: 6.24 ac Feet 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing CPA-2020-0003 - Staff Analysis _, V ; •!; `r t fi, Adds 6 1/4 acres to CM U zone . . _., � . � � � , AA No critical areas , rA• i R .. h�. - _ .isil�._.I 54 1 - Supports redevelo mentp - .. f. .ao. underused properties ... . _.4� 4 Supported by transportation � L }7.4gf ,.s .._ network , dw ,,, ,_ "„ _,..,.. „ } ,,,,---,,,,,,,,, .i.L_ ', ,, TGDL: 29 trips ( 1 net new trip) �� .,,,i ..,,,. , .. ,,,,,, . li. q, '"f_ 4S-1 / - AEA .. .i NJR 3r'a /� .� 4 it,,,,,:_ :.,,,,..,, q ,,. J�_,tee 9 .' _ ' _. Family nip "I Compatible with surrounding . r m, uses zy _ is, . .. 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing CPA-2020-0003 : Staff, Agency, Public Comment Staff and Agency Comment Public Comment Request from WSDOT for No comments received . additional traffic information ; Response from WSDOT on TGDL 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing 17 2018 Aerial Map CPA-2020-0003: Public Testimony v �1 : rt. ^� - .,.. - ., ' ... � .,„ + � _ FF , -1 : rs-- '' , 04,... . rehth . , r` r ow...4 . - , , „.", . - ,-1.- stohy-'. hi ' .i,' - t , 1[ [ p 1 -.,.. i cl't 1 ` cc,a E+IndtanaT: -EiMonAgomer-' _ . A _T_EIndia�A•ve E�MontgomeryAve. �,_ -. i riiis .!. I Study Area ---: n 4 } • , III _ • -. - --- -,--------- . Ey .I90 W2890n Rasrnp '- / I`90 Fw — k �. .+, e -_ ----—- . I 90 Fwy' - '- �~ EI90E2 ~ -_ • .-OFERam-'p .' s..` .y Z. valley �_ ENoraAve - - LI 0.4 Park ZE+ ora.093 !ive'• +: ^ Y + ,- r ..w- p•v- 1 4Vlaxwel -. . . ,.4 -] i . i Mil= , : L +_'1_ I d.' 1 E S ip ESinto�n�: ' { _ + a.+ ' 1_,,, Igisi I! r xr I lie a Ile 1 E—:, 14 ICI CPA-2020-0003 Request: Sp okane Owner: Revere-neceIII Inv LLC Proposed change:Land Use Revere-➢ee2 202 BWkOng ONner LLC LLC designation from MF to CMU 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning 1 W a4alley Parcel#: 40094 094 010133, 0134, 0121 anoZoningfromMFtoCMU Address: 1723/1724 N Union Rd CPA-2020-0006 : CityInitiated MapAmendment Applicant: Spokane ValleyP.14Iii �F ,. r Owner: East ValleySchool . District ` _ � -v, ,i e., .., . fq Amendment: Industrial ( I ) to , > co _ z Corridor Mixed Use (CM U ) 111 . _, • Location : Parcel 45013 .9024, - -. M 3830 N Sullivan . � ' �- ,_, " • PM ' ` Application Number: CPA-2020-0006 Proposed Change: I to CMU 8.81 ac 0 150 300 450 600 7500 Area: Feet 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing 19 CPA-2020-0006 : Staff Analysis Adds 9 acres to CMU zone „,,. .. . ., No critical areas ... ,• __ _--_ __ ._ . . 4.',,,2 - . \: V. expanded WALKER * � I Supports , � =� P _ A education uses - .,` ate. Supported by iIt-_ , c.:_,, -- _4.,r-.-- transportation network F� j. --477, TG DL: decrease in trips as educational . • _ n �s ..r - __'V s . J 1 l A Compatible with - .. � ,ta w }� -ill- � ��,� . � surrounding uses - __ ____. ....... 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing CPA-2020-0001: Staff, Agency, Public Comment Staff and Agency Comment Public Comment Request from WSDOT for No comments received . additional traffic information ; Response from WSDOT on TGDL 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing 21 2018 Aerial Map CPA-2020-0006: Public Testimony L . a E Tn11::vv. Trenr Ave. -...:CCIM 'P` E Trent Ave"ES Off+Ramp t y, i. T 1 Study Area N r It *lima p +y E Industrial PartTA St - -"" yT • 4 �� F 'r'et Rl _ -_ :: trl. C� i it ram"r • 's A f, "I 1 1 r'r 4 1ri #• i' _ - � E-Kiernan Aye. M Indust.rial aa T rw-° _ 1 '• -r 1 lila $ i i 44 k-e+'Srzr 7'rP .sue �. xM -I- ir r r _ r r r r '"tee-: �,, - .. ._ 1 r 'h „ ..,.:. I i .0*.:.-1:% 1 M.. , f 1 , I I 1 }M Iri _� 1M Industrial C� CPA-2020-0006 Request: pokaniFx Owner: East Valley School Proposed change:Land Use e District#361 designation from I to CMU 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning l Valley Parcel#: 45013.9024 and Zoning from/to CMU Address: 3830 N Sullivan Rd C PA-2 0 2 0-0 0 0 7: City Initiated Text Amendment ._ Applicant: Spokane Valley $ o 0 ■ I Ave z' Ave 0 CHAPTER 2Li 1 o Owner: Applies cit wide ° �� '�°�'" eOP y ; t co ra . ; .�- ,. 0 E Mission c r/ar te Ave d an ..i, -r7 14 .� W I 3116‘7:1, Amendment: Add policies "" �,, P�p � 7�r� '7�-ice:■u i■��w.�"+� Bit for alternative housing and th ve c area-wide rezoneCO 6 I N,' .. , g f .. v - a m co0 a..., C 32dElAve—T-, - E 32nd ce 1 cm _ III Pos cm. 4 R1 ME RC ,rr+ '��ii°t'"�r//u �"`•asr-C 44ih Ave 3 mr,..,,'r,,,,,, �Ifmrram, ,,,,ivvs'�nwwAs , NC IMU ■ Locate o n : Applies citywide �� - � R3 ImEmml MU I E 57thAre R4 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing 23 CPA-2020-0007: Context __h Background _u„L,,_, , ..___, Concerns from residents ' ,LuLl rl1 ` - - �~ about influx of duplex j_l _ 1 ____ , _ developments jii Felts Field { 1Ln L IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL Appropriate locations for �iIrJin -�i� alternative housing 9� W T°�''"r +' 1 ui c . F `s,-, .v b o o i in,�¢.. ._-_=m - ° Hi a ��. lPJo n' Fri -,II too m I M'o cki i'ipo W m 'o 9' Ii1i.el PIT Q I'� VI objective of Amendment _ "� Pf� [it � „ �Irhrn ___ / 1 Ill 111441'Ur .0 t o m o 0=. x c ,, bra=7i. Ilrl� �I iu Addresses concerns of �� Wuo" 4 To,� oFITH '- residents v. �' Denser housing supported by transit & services -,a4 Legend R3 parcels that are: Housingaffordabilit Greater than 10,000 sgftand y 1 j Vacant or Partially Used. STA Frequent Service (15 min) STA Basic Service 0 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing CPA-2020-0007: Zoning Code Changes - Map ...L. I 11 I ,+ if. Mission, ae i I E:� ti CD k i . 7 \ Z al 1,218 acres rezoned to R4 a 57 acres vacant IF T --/-11 LijilLr j 67 acres partially used 496 net housing units t ,. d-_ _ 1,240 net residents nth ---1-"-% 4-1 . i/ jj lit e c ,..4:i3 ix ®la fit • , 1J LL, [1:„gm k, A 67 , Ave 00 4i.., 4.— \ i . E 'fibi,t E 0 r 4 - - • 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing CPA-2020-0007: Establishment R-4 Zone 19.20.010 Establishment of Zoning Districts Comp Plan Land Use Designation Map Symbol Zoning District Single-Family Residential R-3 Single-Family Residential Urban Single-Family Residential R-4 Single-Family Residential Urban 19.20.015 Zoning districts purpose D. R-4 — Single-Family Residential Urban . Allows for single-family residential development at an urban density that provides flexibility and promotes reinvestment in existing single-family neighborhoods. 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing CPA-2020-0007: Standards and Uses 19.40.060 Development standards - 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix Duplexes Residential Mixed Use Duplcxcs_shall meet the minimum lot R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR CMU MU size per dwelling unit, setback standards, Group Living maximum lot coverage, and building Assisted living/ P P P height standards shown in Table 19.70 1. nursing home Duplex development in the R-3 zone Residential shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 Dwelling, cottage S S S S square feet. Duplex development in Dwelling, duplex � S P P -R S PS s q p p Dwelling, townhouse c S S S non-residential zones shall meet the Transportation requirements set forth in 19.70.050(G). E.V. infrastructure P P P P 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing CPA-2020-0007: Residential Standards 19.70 Residential Standards (Table 19.70-1) R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 M FR(1 Front and Flanking Street Yard Setback 35' 15' 15' 15' 15' Garage Setback(2) 35' 20' 20' 20' 20' Rear Yard Setback 20' 20' 10' 10' 10' Minimum Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' Open Space N/A N/A N/A N/A 10% gross area(3) Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft - 4,300 sq. ft. N/A Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 60% 60.0% Maximum Density 1 du/ac 4 du/ac du/ac 10 du/ac 22 du/ac Building Height(5) 35' 35' 35' 35` 50' 1) Where MFR abuts R-1, R-2, or R-3 zones, development shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.75 SVMC, Transitional Regulations. (2) Attached garages, where the garage door does not face the street, may have the same setback as the primary structure. (3) Open space requirement does not apply to single-family development in the MFR zone. (4) Single-family residential development in the MFR zone shall have a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Only one single-family dwelling shall be allowed per lot. (5) The vertical distance from the average finished grade to the average height of the highest roof surface. (6) Duplex development in the R-3 zone shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet. 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing CPA-2020-0007: Definitions Appendix A Definitions Dwelling, multifamily: A building designed for occupancy by three or more families, with separate entrances and individual facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation . Townhouses are not considered multifamily development. See "Residential , use category. 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing 29 CPA-2020-0007: Staff Analysis Incentivizes single-family (SF) development Provides an appropriate place - - riFaRts Field y for alternative housing typesffili t, _ - ncreases density in areas with _ T i t i high performance transit and I I 4 I __ .1111 r N services �� r- fig �; -+-i;i ,� rii. .,.J— Establishes a minimum lot size , for duplex development \\,,k. • ,.41—E43 I ,r7z/ % 'f f// ///f I f/i //2 ' �,4;/.fl� .— STA Frequent Service (15 min) / STA Basic Service / \ 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing 30 CPA-2020-0007: Staff, Agency, Public Comment Staff and Agency Comment Public Comment No comments received . John Conard , supports new R4 zoning classification to develop single-story townhouses. Kay Huhs, stop over-building and preserve Spokane Valley character. 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing CPA-2020-0007: Public Testimony ci 1 -1--1-1 „___-/- . 11 ,-- --\ Falls Field -' "— ,r A � _, , _____, _. __ , , - r =to? ,4*,__ - _Mil -- _ II • r ,,_,:\i, .., j i _, \\): iii 1 t ,/..7 •47,/�'rf%, 1 STA Frequent Service (15 min) r . STA Basic Service / !J 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing 32 Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Chaz Bates, Senior Planner sokane Valley® 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning 06/25/2020 33 Commission Public Hearing CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: June 11, 2020 Item: Check all that apply Fl old business n new business n public hearing n information Fl study session n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2020 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Study session GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010. PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION:None BACKGROUND: The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year.The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC). Consistent with state law and the SVMC,staff published notice on August 23 and 30,2019, advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31,2019.The notice was also sent to all agencies,organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. On November 19, 2019,the City Council approved the 2020 Docket. The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: four map amendments and one text amendment. On February 27, 2020, staff provided an overview on the 2020 Docket, background information on the adopted Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations and provide additional detail on the City initiated text amendment. On February 21, 2020, the City issued a Determinations of Non-significance (DNS) for the proposed comprehensive plan amendments pursuant to Title 21, Environmental Controls of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Comments on the determination have been incorporated into the staff reports where appropriate and no appeal of the DNS was received. A public hearing on the proposed amendments was scheduled for March 26,2020. The public hearing was canceled due to COVID-19 and efforts to maximize social distancing. Prior to the cancellation,the Notice of Public Hearing (NOPH) was published on March 6, 2020 and March 13, 2020, and posted on the sites and mailed to residents within a 400-foot radius of the subject property on March 10,2020. The public hearing was rescheduled for June 25, 2020. The NOPH was published May 29, 2020 and June 5,2020 and each site was posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing"sign,with a description of the proposal on May 27, 2020. Individual notice was and mailed to residents within a 400-foot radius of the subject property on May 28,2020. Tonight staff will present the proposed comprehensive plan amendments for review and discussion. On June 25, 2020, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:No action recommended at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Economic Development Manager; Chaz Bates,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Presentation 2. Yellow Binder RPCA Study Session for 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 of 1 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments June 11, 2020 Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Chaz Bates, Senior Planner 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Timeline c 0 +_' Docket Overview CO 13A •}, •C �A 2-27-2020 .4= 73V p Administrative O s ) c ,_ Study Session 4) '— _ �_ 3- 12-2020 Report • c E 4) 6 1 -2- 1 020 O = > Ordinance 1 St •— (I) co c a c = O Public Hearing _ Reading V 0 Q y,� 6-25-2020 c O = Ordinance 2nd a CO 'v 4) •— O < _ c O C) c Findings of Fact (,) Reading EL) a 0 0 CO 7-23-2020 Q c.) w z E c.) li. kilf ki7 11( Aling_ ri •..._ mi. . Am_ Today 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process Staff Planning City Council • Facilitates Process Commission • Reviews PC • Conducts review • Conducts Public Findings and and analysis Hearing Deliberations • Prepares staff N , • Deliberates and 0 • Considers public reports and public recommendation comment notices to Council • May approve, modify, or deny requests 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 3 Notice of P Hearing Published in paper . /1 E Maxwell-Ave - -b-2U?U & .�-LS-2020 r /// .,,,re 5-29-2020 & 6-5-20201, r ///// A'//, 4/7‘,/4 e A A i0 04.. Posted on property Q -V00 3-6-2020 3 26 2020 r r rooreir", re , - /2 /- \ r r400 r 40 AO' ;,� 5-27-2020 - 6-25-2020 %� ` E-JliarI • 7i 4A/M. Mailed topropertyowners ' 4, re7/ rorreli - 'J-11-2U2U 4 Pifff 'V rfrY ://A A. dili t . Legend 5-2 8-2 0 2 0 Q Project Site - 2 /, 400 foot buffer EZ)esmeUAve I E eL m fAve 1 L I I I I I I I I I ' ( I i 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session ann ■ nCommission Materials _ , , ,___ _ w7 .�Yellow Binder � aw- _.r _ _, _,,-,_,- A..::„,...-, • ..„ .,..,„....4„..___ " 'Staff Report '"�. ria _fir .„. ji roc. Air MO a ii t ,q, lig tug i■i■�■■_ Application materials ,,,,. . �„ �� Ma s - �_� p m SEPA Checklist City of Spokane Valle Annual Comprehensivey N Otl CeS Plan Amendments Agency comments Public comments Spokane - - 'Th.. SOL ... .Valley � . 102 SupplementoI documents Spokane Valley, WA 94?06 www.SpukarteUailey ary 1 za}. _.' 5 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session Approval - SVMC 17. 80 . 140 Required Findings Additional Factors Supports public health , safety, and Effect on environment protection of the environment Effect on open space, streams, rivers, Consistent with GMA and Comp Plan and lakes Responds to change in conditions Compatibility and impact on existing Corrects an error uses and neighborhoods Addresses deficiency Adequacy and impact on services Benefit to City and Region Quantity, location and demand for land Projected population for area Other effects on Comp Plan 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket File Number Location Type / Who Description CPA-2020-0001 1311 N McDonald Map / Private Change 0.47 acres from SFR to CMU CPA-2020-0002 Fancher Road/ Sprague Map / Private Change 2.98 acres from Ito RC CPA-2020-0003 1723 & 1724 N Union Map / Private Change 6.24 acres from MFR to CMU CPA-2020-0006 EVSD Walker Center Map / City Change 8.8 acres Ito CMU CPA-2020-0007 Applies citywide Text & Area-wide Policy and corresponding implementing changes to Rezone / City maps for alternative housing types 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session CPA-2020-0001: PrivatelyInitiated MapAmendment _ . . _ _ _,. to , , . {- , 0 VC Applicant: EMssionAve Land Use f 0 Solutions _0r. '. Owner: Tucker Roy, LLC 27 1 E Broadway Ave " Amendment: Changefrom , ' =� 1 44 , f Single FamilyResidential „,. *rim _._ __ jai i 1.a : (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use ,, ,T„-- -1-mt- 1 , " 0 ., , ,, 4.1 . CMU .r.4 A = Application Number: CPA-2020-0001 Proposed Change: SFR to CMU 0.47 ac 0 100 200300 400 5000 Feet Feet 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session CPA-2020-0001: Staff Analysis .. -,,.„ , . Expands the CMU by 0.5 ac ... v,T . • I 1 , a . 1' 4 1 - --1":111 4:1:u = No critical areasIli �µ - Su Supports development of , .,-ET _* . 11 vacant properties .. - - - y Provides land for x '‘V...''i..'.7;1,...fg..,' 4,1,,,4*,./.1'1''''''il'17;,t,,:'.:.t: :7:4' 41:71:!''''-'1'4-Y''c x -1--::1";;:. ''''f''''' employment S u ortedb p p by transportation network " °w _ o 1 � t " , � l ,'-- � "1111il: �. "p're a,. �' `"a, ; iE6"1� 9 '�Z° ,.: 1 � �" ,a ^t �' , ry {}� Generallycompatible with i, � ,,� � 7 f �� 7� 3 3 � 1 4p`� r #��" d ! 7` rry.'� .k,„: ! (&5 r r '� aS 7.�, .t 4 3,,,4 � a tr I, i ` vF a ter' surroundin uses , . i g .� 1..:�3Y, ,fir ..,, .,,.A_.x.�xa. .. 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session CPA-2020-0002 : PrivatelyInitiated MapAmendment .R =' Applicant: LB Stone ,, c, , , Properties 'air all i � � � Owner: LB Stone Properties 90lilt 3 , go mr____ Amendment: Changefrom z Industrial ( I ) to Regional . , Commercial ( RC) .. _ 1 .... , .1 , , -...oviNfoosit Ito* - : ,, P �®� ? I - - __ E Sprague Ave Application Number: CPA-2020-0002 Proposed Change: I to RC 2.98 ac 0 100 200 300 400 50000 Area: Feet 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 10 CPA-2020-0002 : Analysis Expands the RC by 1.4 ac .... .:.,..:!;...::......,. ,, ,. .:„ .,...„ :. _ ,:_ . .,_ . No critical areas , , , - ' ' ' ' " iImit, . Ft, • Supports redevelopment ent . . . , a _ - _ _. .... , ......„.„.„ ,.... .. . .. ... 4.-1,.......0,440xv„:„.!.. .. . ... _., _ .. ,........ . - . 4:!,....,, . . . „.:. • . underused properties ,,,. ` „ _ ,. „ ,,....,. .• —_ , ... ,. -,..„..„ .__,,.......,.... -- . ... ...........4.41,74._„44...„-. • . . . . _ .. t.,,,r-,.. Land for employment ..,.,,-0*.--.--*-1.4.-- --s-7,-., _.14.. ,,,,,,„.r.:,...„„,:„..F. .:,4,,,,,x,,• ••Supported by _ ,... ,,, .,.. transportation network ., .._ ik tII Compatible withA. •. - 2 ,,,,_,.... . :. ,,,....,,,,,.. . .44. st y surrounding• ..., uses _.: _.: _,,,..... . .. .,,,,...: ., ._ . , __ ..,..,..,. . _ , • ..,... . ___-...... ..__ _.. . _. .. ._,.._... • _ . . ,....- .--,,--4,..„-;._--.. --.;__ . . . .. ........... .. ..„.., . . .. , _IiiiNtik,' ., 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 11 CPA-2020-0003 : Privately Initiated map Amendment : , ,. • . , , .. \ „ - _•:.__N _ ... ,,,,t_.„... ,_•.._, . . . . ,,,, ._ : ..., „ E Mansfield Ave ..,,,,' '. 41 1 MI 1 1----- 1 1 . ' Applicant: Jay Rambo - v‘ -, 27) . t i Ifluv I, 90 _ ..• ' , • Property Owner: REVERE- Emontgomery Ave E Indiana Ave 11111 E_MissiGn-A IVIII la .---------- . ,. .1 - , 1, DECE III INV LLC, BRILL i .-- --- @7 _ ... ' . . .. ... .. T., . - • it i i - - PROPERTIES , LLC . . , k• - ' 9 , .., _410:',. . -. _ . . ' F ; ,)•- Amendment: Change from ..„ .. • . . ,4, - . . . . i. . .._ ... , . . Multifamily Residential .. . •Nlik -.._..1,k ... ," -a, .,,;,- ,.' ..:-- •1,,, ..4.__ ,I!.. , --..; :_-,_ _•. ..:r- i LI ,... ,, . - , - - ... 1 . .. :',. --, '-.:'),:\ , ( MFR) to Corridor Mixed ,,, , :1-L.!". . .._.., r, _ . , . _,-- ... . ,. _ . --il ,,"~ oli .---,k , U s e (CMU ) . ( , .., i,. „,, .., „ • . . . „.]_. r-, I ' . fl. frA 1• -71- 1 . . '1:-.L__4:,,,.! " *5 7:--'rr-- ---'"' -----' kilkiA.:4•:\ '''*.-74-:: 7,.., '. ._ 'Er-Pias-siori Ave _ . ... Application Number: CPA-2020-0003 Proposed Change: MFR to CMU 7-1__I--1__77 0 150 300 450 600 750 0 Area: 6.24 ac Feet 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 12 CPA-2020-0003 - Analysis . . ...„,„ .„,,,,.. ,. , ,,,,,,..„,>. „,...L...,....;,...,...„ ,...:.„,:,, ,. .„,,,,,.,i i 1 a t.:. . -..J.,„'.....:j 1. i '<>xf' .�„" 1 ,es ,y ��..'�a ' Expands CMU by 6 . 25 ac � .. � � �r ' � r ; r tir, . r s ' � . * _ ` 4 No critical areas t ` r S s y4 v g _3 is i a.. `,. .l� Pi�`iiir .. ik'&;,a' - ; — I _ , , 1 Supports redevelopment - � » k r 'r 11 - r underused properties .. , . _ awomoakow , 0 i w,: r s�i.4 ac- - -- _ ., m+b<r ... a . , Supported by ....„..._ „transportation network -)7,-„,,,„..,„, 4 -.-,-,,,,-.t,„„wq-1,1:1,•...nitc,,. q 1 Compatible with i4, surrounding uses i, - 4 . — , - '' ' ..#- ''''' . Ar .g �r � ; � _ .rm. ., f _ Uf 1—noji VI helnm, ,u I. FBI F --, ��I� ,.. - - our,wep i GGu -f' •..F - ' `Y n.�.�.5 0.`.h Viz '.. ,-. ,per. 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session CPA-2020-0006 : CityInitiated MapAmendment Applicant: Spokane 11!' '1':II ill''' Valley 111111111"41111.1 I :. . , „:1111111.1.1- . 4111/1121 Owner: East Valley �� .. W�I I School District •:4' Amendment: Change z n '. ) it , , ,. - from Industrial ( I ) to . . ,,.**$ , . v. - :.,. . - .:„__: .._ ..1,1 ,_., . , ,. .., , . . _, 1,,,u Corridor Mixed Use -f - _- 4 x « (CMU ) Application Number: CPA-2020-0006 Proposed Change: I to CMU 8.81 ac 0 150 300450 600 7500 Feet Feet 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session CPA-2020-0006 : Analysis Expands CMU by —9 ac .,. ,, , , No critical areas �, __ , /F WALKER CENTER • r .c. I ,. F'' F Supports expanded _ �.m�� tf s NI� education uses 3 ... � .w -_,, . , __ _..„ Supported by ______________ _. , . . cy_ __ ",,,,,,, transportation network x '', , , ..., . Compatible with = L.... .. i,,,, ' ,, : z _ — "b+E ac [ ia r-�L lr - - - L%IIHII r, MAIVE61NCE 4 1;4 .e^4 1 FED. surrounding usesEN I E . - � _ ,- __ .,a � NE1 ` IEf L4 d�' • . — a.A sr? ,,,-�"' � =� gP � 180‘rRESP9SSIN6 T 8 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 1G CPA-2020-0007: City In i t i a t e d Text Amendment ._ 0 Applicant: Spokane Valley �_ . .._.,. .----_ -- !E Wellesley 5. ` z Ave Owner: applies citywide 1 I. 1 �T�� ID 011 Coals, p°iieiexi s & y1,14 Amendment: Add policies • co ----- ,sri, .. I Strategies io ,,-a. o for alternative housing a nd ' '°" i � neqve 1l 3 4 !' w' 1 '� r 3 area-wide rezone El v, s - _ �Q*4' �1 - 7MG1' r=7rirM "' n■/•■ I ve ce rs 1 a C Ri f y > 1 ni - : CO _ fr---E_3241.Ave !E ' vn E 32nd ca 1 ofang ift POS CM 6 MF RC vfH " f44hAve J R2 ra„m/.i ,e/m/mbyN ' '''''X//1NNl / 1#4w.a9' ..1. NC T IMU R3 MU I E 57th Are R4 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 16 CPA-2020-0007: City Initiated Text Amendment .._ _ — Background _ , 1 .L /,,Ji: � ] �I,��°tea a o _ c u„ __________... m Concerns from residents ___ r about influx of duplexill developments j _ Felts Field 4, Appropriate locations for , — iIla1M Kill in -�i� alternative housing I —ILA a ; L „ ,-C 5n `� o oo 0 1 t c, 5 W9 1 9 E illn J'W rP I'', L ill + i,a ®o - _ �� ' e ®� ��illtr... CIT,t b �o of fil�e c r o i�o m ro 9 cif.El II lig i ; JIII irr .0 Objective of Amendment - _ - "� "- [t ® r �Irhrn ,no 1 i -4 '�1 WPM� _ Addresses concerns of f �= ut; . an_o o a „� a°El® L ' a =ram, r v residents Li.._., 7 \..\\2 ,,,,, n „,. Denser housing supported Illi o® _ Legend by transit & services [:‘ R3 parcels that are: Greater than 10,000 so ft and HousingaffordabilityA 1 Vacant or Partially Used. STA Frequent Service (15 min) N f 1 1 STA Basic Service 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 1 CPA-2020-0007: City Initiated Text Amendment _ _ . ,O/--f; 4t4Z ' A. , Spokane-Kootenai Real Estate • . -34f- ,,-- e, 4 Research Committee 2020 Market ?I '0-,‘.:;, Forum ,.. ,, . AIIIMP :7-.--: - - Housing inventory is at an all-time low ...____---, - - $385,000 Low supply/high demand results in 4 beds $285,000 appreciation 2 baths 4 beds Increased supply results in more --- ,_ 2 baths affordability raill "VI _ utirrii 2019 median sales for SF home is . ril ite ......-e-...20--- -- $287,995 up 10.8% from 2018 _ 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session C PA-2020-0007: CityIni ti a ted Text Amend ment Amend Goals and Policies for alternative housing types Housing GOALS H-G1 Allow fora broad Lange of housing opportunitles to Enable a variety of housing types at increased �tbe{omm�ltr meet The needs Enable the development 4 STRATEGIES pment of affordable hausFne torah income leMs. Identi Inn,-ar H-(� 1 tv d moderate. densities within 1/2 mile offunded high ualn° -5ne;„eom access to«aifyg�dyand�ery;oods. rgsinSka iwhousingn�d$ > Continue toeval.ate news hausingtyAvlgglew.to meet performance transit networks. POLICIES marketneeda H-p1 Support voluntary ef'orls by property owners to rehabilitate and Aleleed wii preserve buildings "'��.rrii ,syr��.kw rungs c`hisfork value and unique character. Preserve and enhance the city's established single- "A2 d" '°u,tr,. ,•,nlatlnn:that expand 5 by allover a unruv Are fatrrica e types lrecludirrg tiny hemsesrhokesaccessory artdolher fmusingti+Aes. h5rmes..ro-housing,cottage housirrg; family neighborhoods by minimizing the impacts of HP3 financial a��ddregulattotools. rdabfe housing units using available I+P4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families needing social and humanserviceproviders. more dense housing typologies such as duplexes and cottage development. Associated regulatory changes to implement policy. Kenn to r4ll,,,C.., 27 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 19 CPA-2020-0007: Zoning Code Changes - Map I.J.. I 11;;Zir IIMPI.....11.111) ,C'' 1., Z � ' E Mission ik V/ . 11 . brg / _ • . It 1 7 ; i_i_ Ave im-r le F2) 1,218 acres rezoned to R4 57 acres vacant _r_LS L____ 5 67 acres partially used 1,240 housing units 3,100 new residents L 1 idm . 15 / L„....„i A E 1J 1 th .. Aver \ -a ix *§t. Z% \ io co .,_ E "le 60 06/25/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Planning Commission Public Hearing CPA-2020-0007: Zoning Code Changes - Text 19.20.010 Establishment of Zoning Districts Comp Plan Land Use Designation Map Symbol Zoning District Single-Family Residential R-3 Single-Family Residential Urban Single-Family Residential R-4 Single-Family Residential Urban 19.20.015 Zoning districts purpose D. R-4 — Single-Family Residential Urban. Allows for single-family residential development at an urban density that provides flexibility and promotes reinvestment in existing single-family neighborhoods. 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session CPA-2020-0007: Zoning Code Changes - Text 19.40.060 Development standards - 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix Duplexes Residential Mixed Use Duplcxcs_shall meet the minimum lot R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR CMU MU size per dwelling unit, setback standards, Group Living maximum lot coverage, and building Assisted living/ P P P height standards shown in Table 19.70 1. nursing home Duplex development in the R-3 zone Residential shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 Dwelling, cottage S S S S square feet. Duplex development in Dwelling, duplex -PS P P �R S � S q p p Dwelling, townhouse c S S S non-residential zones shall meet the Transportation requirements set forth in 19.70.050(G). E.V. infrastructure P P P P 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session CPA-2020-0007: Zoning Code Changes - Text 19.70 Residential Standards (Table 19.70-1) R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MFR(1) Front and Flanking Street Yard Setback 35' 15' 15' 15' 15' Garage Setback(2) 35' 20' 20' 20' 20' Rear Yard Setback 20' 20' 10' 10' 10' Minimum Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' Open Space N/A N/A N/A N/A 10% gross area(3) Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft.J2 4,300 sq. ft. N/AfAl Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 60% 60.0% Maximum Density 1 du/ac 4 du/ac du/ac 10 du/ac 22 du/ac Building Height(5) 35' 35' 35' 35' 50' 1) Where MFR abuts R-1, R-2, or R-3 zones, development shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.75 SVMC, Transitional Regulations. (2) Attached garages, where the garage door does not face the street, may have the same setback as the primary structure. (3) Open space requirement does not apply to single-family development in the MFR zone. (4) Single-family residential development in the MFR zone shall have a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Only one single-family dwelling shall be allowed per lot. (5) The vertical distance from the average finished grade to the average height of the highest roof surface. (6) Duplex development in the R-3 zone shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet. 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session CPA-2020-0007: Zoning Code Changes - Text Appendix A Definitions Dwelling, multifamily: A building designed for occupancy by three or more families, with separate entrances and individual facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation . Townhouses are not considered multifamily development. See "Residential , use category. 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 25 CPA-2020-0007: Analysis . . . _ _ Allows density to be obtained in the R3 zone for SF — r development ;; _ _ - _ , —._- r �=��Fens Fieldd y, _ Incentivizes single-family (SF) S development "' N•iillI T, � .ram Provides a greater varietyof 4. r il�r -° housing types -RN .... . ,� r -I - ncreases density in areas with ti , __,_,11_ 3.mfr,,/,- -' highperformance transit and g is services .__\,_- \s 1 Establishes a minimum lot size ��°, for duplex development ,;,�, f, ( ii��, .— STA Frequent Service (15 min) JI STA Basic Service 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 26 Discussion SCITY poKane Valley® 6/11/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 27 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: March 12, 2020 Item: Check all that apply n old business Fl new business n public hearing n information Fl study session n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2020 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Study session GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010. PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION:None BACKGROUND: The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year.The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC). Consistent with state law and the SVMC,staff published notice on August 23 and 30,2019, advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31,2019.The notice was also sent to all agencies,organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. On November 19, 2019,the City Council approved the 2020 Docket. The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: four map amendments and one text amendment. On February 27, 2020, staff provided an overview on the 2020 Docket, background information on the adopted Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations and provide additional detail on the City initiated text amendment. On February 21, 2020, the City issued a Determinations of Non-significance (DNS) for the proposed comprehensive plan amendments pursuant to Title 21, Environmental Controls of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Comments on the determination have been incorporated into the staff reports where appropriate and no appeal of the DNS was received. On March 6, 2020, notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald and each site was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. Individual notice of the proposals was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of each amendment. The notice will be published again in the Spokane Valley News Herald on March 13,2020. Tonight staff will present the proposed comprehensive plan amendments for review and discussion. On March 26, 2020,the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Economic Development Manager; Chaz Bates,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Presentation 2. Yellow Binder RPCA Study Session for 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 of 1 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments March 12, 2020 Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Chaz Bates, Senior Planner 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Timeline c 0 .+7. 2020 Docket CO 131) }, .0 `01) Overview _ .i c 2-27-2020 4) C) o Administrative 4) } o +.+ 4) �� CI 4) _ Study Session Report E 4) � •-c _a 3- 12-2020 O = > Ordinance 7 St ._ (I) co c a c = o Public Hearing _ Reading C.) ,o 4) _ C.) 3-26-2020 o Q }' Q O 131) = Ordinance 2nd CO ._ C C .— O < V c O V c Findings of Fact 0 Reading EL) a = 0 —> 0 4-09-2020 Q c) w z E c.5 lidl_ V V A&NO A = Today 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process Staff Planning City Council • Facilitates Process Commission • Reviews PC • Conducts review • Conducts Public Findings and and analysis Hearing Deliberations • Prepares staff N , • Deliberates and 0 • Considers public reports and public recommendation comment notices to Council • May approve, modify, or deny requests 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 3 Notice of P Hearing Published in paperI . ,J E"Maxwell-Ave 3-6-2020 and 3-13-2020 Posted on property o /j,0 0 '' ./.;& Fre" - 3-6-2020 - 3-26-2020 // I 4 ; , ' Prerr r F FpreZA 4 p,r/i Mai led to property owners a ZAelam ' r/.7;,:ii,. 3-11-2020 ,�� ° � � �a Y A,/��, E-S,ha.1 ., . , . 4/ v 4 W / ,,, 0/7", 1/ro, / /E �if a Ave Legend AroO �' Project Site I %2,/, 400 foot buffer 1 E- eUAve E eL m fAve IV J I- I I I I I I I / 1 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session ann ■ nCommission Materials _ , , ,___ _ w7 .�Yellow Binder � aw- _.r _ _, _,,-,_,- A..::„,...-, • ..„ .,..,„....4„..___ " "Staff Report '"�. ria _fir .„. ji roc. Air MO a ii t ,q, lig tug antrum■_ Application materials ,,,,. . �„ �� Ma s - �_� p m SEPA Checklist City of Spokane Valle Annual Comprehensivey N Otl CeS Plan Amendments Agency comments Public comments Spokane - - 'Th.. SOL ... .Valley � . 102 SupplementoI documents Spokane Valley, WA 94?06 www.SpukarteUailey ary 1 za}. _.' 5 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session Approval - SVMC 17. 80 . 140 Required Findings Additional Factors Supports public health , safety, and Effect on environment protection of the environment Effect on open space, streams, rivers, Consistent with GMA and Comp Plan and lakes Responds to change in conditions Compatibility and impact on existing Corrects an error uses and neighborhoods Addresses deficiency Adequacy and impact on services Benefit to City and Region Quantity, location and demand for land Projected population for area Other effects on Comp Plan 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket File Number Location Type / Who Description CPA-2020-0001 1311 N McDonald Map / Private Change 0.47 acres from SFR to CMU CPA-2020-0002 Fancher Road/ Sprague Map / Private Change 2.98 acres from Ito RC CPA-2020-0003 1723 & 1724 N Union Map / Private Change 6.24 acres from MFR to CMU CPA-2020-0006 EVSD Walker Center Map / City Change 8.8 acres Ito CMU CPA-2020-0007 Applies citywide Text & Area-wide Policy and corresponding implementing changes to Rezone / City maps for alternative housing types 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session CPA-2020-0001: PrivatelyInitiated MapAmendment _ . . _ _ _,. to , , . {- , 0 VC Applicant: EMssionAve Land Use f 0 Solutions _0r. '. Owner: Tucker Roy, LLC 27 1 E Broadway Ave " Amendment: Changefrom , ' =� 1 44 , f Single FamilyResidential „,. *rim _._ __ jai i 1.a : (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use ,, ,T„-- -1-mt- 1 , " 0 ., , ,, 4.1 . CMU .r.4 A = Application Number: CPA-2020-0001 Proposed Change: SFR to CMU 0.47 ac 0 100 200300 400 5000 Feet Feet 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session yStaff Anal sisCPA-2020-0001: .. 7.,, , Expands the CMU by 0.5 ac No critical areasIli µ - , _ - PP yoallrA, Supports development of , #ii. u. _* 1'. II vacant properties .. - - Provides land for employment S u ortedb p p Yh transportation network � . _ °� � , ;j � ' -, 3 ry {}� Generally • compatible with �o, I, ' � 7 f �� 7� 3 3 � 1 4p`� r #�" d ! 7` rry.'� k,„: ! (&5 r r '� aS �, .t 4 ,,, a tr I, %`�: Otg• vF .�a ter' surrounding uses � F � � g .i ..:43Y, ,fir .4.. s_.rx.N€ 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session CPA-2020-0002 : PrivatelyInitiated MapAmendment .R =' Applicant: LB Stone ,, c, , , Properties 'air all i � � � Owner: LB Stone Properties 90lilt 3 , go mr____ Amendment: Changefrom z Industrial ( I ) to Regional . , Commercial ( RC) .. _ 1 .... , .1 , , -...oviNfoosit Ito* - : ,, P �®� ? I - - __ E Sprague Ave Application Number: CPA-2020-0002 Proposed Change: I to RC 2.98 ac 0 100 200 300 400 50000 Area: Feet 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 10 CPA-2020-0002 : Analysis Expands the RC by 1.4 ac .... .:.,..:!-,...,:"....,. ,, :. •:„ •,...„ :. _ .._ . .,_ . No critical areas , , , - ' ' ' ' " iIw.f . Ft, • Supports redevelopment . . . , a _ -- _ _. .... , „....„.„... Y 4:!,....,, ,.... . . . . _!.,.,„.,_:. • . -- . . underusedproperties .i ... ,. r .. ... ....,tr......,roor.4„oor,...r7•••,:,:•, • _ ,.. 404.....441,74._„.44...„- • . a . . . _ .. t.,,,r- Land for employment ..,.,,-0*.--.—. .*-1.47, --s-7-, _•14.. „,,,,.„.r.:,,,,„,:„..F. .:.4,,,,,x,,• ••Supported by _ ,... ,,, .,.. transportation network 4. ,„..._....,....,.• • . ., ......., , . ik tI. Compatible withA. •. - 2 ,,,,_,.... . :. ,,,....,,,,,..4. st y surrounding• ..., uses _.: _.: _,,,..... . .. .,,,,...: ., ._ . , __ ..,..,..,. . _ , • ..,.... . __-...... ..__ _.. . _. .. •_,.._.; • _ . . ,....- .--,,--4,....-;•_--.. --;__ . . . .. .......... .. ..„.., . . .. , _IiiiNtik,' ., 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 11 CPA-2020-0003 : Privatel Initiated MapAmendment y : , ,. • . , , .. \ „ - _•:.__N _ ... ,,,,t_.„... ,_•.._, . . . ._ : ..., „ E Mansfield Ave , ,,,, Applicant: Jay Rambo � IndianaAve i �; EI`'Mor�tgerrsery Ave + —� z� 1 Ifluv `:F+ 90 - - .__�ua�uss�,.. _ . .r ..• ' , • Property Owner: REVERE- M sEG A , } DECE III INVLLC; BRILL @7 ego -�r ��. R .. T., . - • it i PROPERTIES , LLC _ k• t 9 \ Amendment: Changefrom1.__r_ . - ., 1 Multifamily Residential .. . •Nlik rvLI :'), ( MFR) to Corridor Mixed = - IL r r 1 P k ]_. r-, 'Gi.3, �V�I - 1 4 Us e (CMU ) -� rt � p = _ . - a , :\ _*. ' R_ - E Mission Ave_ .. Application Number: CPA-2020-0003 Proposed Change: MFR to CMU 6.24 ac 0 150 300 450 600 7500 Area: Feet 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 12 CPA-2020-0003 - Analysis . . ...„,„ .„,,,,.. ,. , ,,,,,,..„,>. „,...L...,....;,...,...„ ,...:.„,:,, ,. .„,,,,,.,i i 1 a t.:. . -..J.,„'.....:j 1. i '<>xf' .�„" 1 ,es ,y ��..'�a ' Expands CMU by 6 . 25 ac � .. � � �r ' � r ; r tir, . r s ' � . * _ ` 4 No critical areas t ` r S s y4 v g _3 is i a.. `,. .l� Pi�`iiir .. ik'&;,a' - ; — I _ , , 1 Supports redevelopment - � » k r 'r 11 - r underused properties .. , . _ awomoakow , 0 i w,: r s�i.4 ac- - -- _ ., m+b<r ... a . , Supported by ....„..._ „transportation network -)7,-„,,,„..,„, 4 -.-,-,,,,-.t,„„wq-1,1:1,•...nitc,,. q 1 Compatible with i4, surrounding uses i, - 4 . — , - '' ' ..#- ''''' . Ar .g �r � ; � _ .rm. ., f _ Uf 1—noji VI helnm, ,u I. FBI F --, ��I� ,.. - - our,wep i GGu -f' •..F - ' `Y n.�.�.5 0.`.h Viz '.. ,-. ,per. 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session CPA-2020-0006 : CityInitiated MapAmendment Applicant: Spokane 11!' '1':II ill''' Valley 111111111"41111.1 I :. . , „:1111111.1.1- . 4111/1121 Owner: East Valley �� .. W�I I School District •:4' Amendment: Change z n '. ) it , , ,. - from Industrial ( I ) to . . ,,.**$ , . v. - :.,. . - .:„__: .._ ..1,1 ,_., . , ,. .., , . . _, 1,,,u Corridor Mixed Use -f - _- 4 x « (CMU ) Application Number: CPA-2020-0006 Proposed Change: I to CMU 8.81 ac 0 150 300450 600 7500 Feet Feet 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session CPA-2020-0006 : Analysis Expands CMU by —9 ac ,,,, , .,, , , , ,,, No critical areas , .., _ , /F WALKER CENTER • �r .c. ` ,. F''Y F Supports expanded _ �.m�� tf s t . _ •• • education uses 3 =� .w Supported by �- _ . cy_ �. ' __ ..,. ii-- transportation network ,o, _ x I , ,. 4` t.1 , 1. ..„ _ ..c. .,_. , , Compatible with = ., ., "b+E ac [ '1, r-�k lr - - - „kJ11H11 r, IdAIMfEM1INCE 4 54 .e^4 1 ty ,E. surrounding uses 1 _l__ i..- _ _ ..E -,- .�, . NE1 I IEf k4 d ' . rr ;.d ^". a.A sr?" '.,..- � =� � - - �iRESP9SSIN6 T _ Kcal , a 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 1G CPA-2020-0007: City Initiated Text Amendment ._ Applicant: Spokane Valley -_ E Wellesley ___,,, z ! Ave Owner: applies citywide 1 CHAPTER 2 crc 2 1 a als, F�J�IGIL' > Amendment: Addpolicies ,.. Strategies for alternative housinga nd `o" i alanaAke z E area-wide rezone W I II.iIre .. 1 ■l "r 'y R P��t a _ ! i 7mG1' rtmm. rm a■imig. e c v 1 \ J r . L N Vi 47 Y co !° _ _ vy E 32nd cn Zoning Od POS CMU 7 R1 3r$, nwr dn/,o,,,e MF RC .q�ynr,. nr. '•,esr..rrrr 'wavr rrr�A+rv1,¢ "'�,r'l�r� f 44th Ave - NC I M U _ 71 R3 MU I E 57th A L R4 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 16 CPA-2020-0007: City Initiated Text Amendment .._ _ . - Background i e -, , i Concerns from residents - fil — about influx of duplex 1 developments li Felts Field t' II d Ir 1111111111111111LIMINNIPPINW Appropriate locations for , 0 . J rk -'' -4111%41. III1 ka idillialk:Z'',--,,,\W .-,-. alternative housing .-m ,. i • J ,,T,Y iii ' '. ,=...-'-m - ° t I Objective of Amendment 1 ?____ 1 - , bL,rinikA "=.--_ J-m M',[Cm i• lin.lo . nu, oMp'E '' a*, — o-- . - II 17.il irr Pp I ; 411:1-,T,! .0 71 0.11W 1 1- . i -r-yggi 1A:3—= 11111441'LU I f t 1- 11 a i o= : 1 '.4. H[i ! (‘'--- diL -•,,e r, J .,,.'I'll" I ,, = 9 Fi Is I ..1 °a , Addresses concerns of . , ,„L H . 4 1. _EFEll 'U 1 7'11= 4- iii% .-- residents . \C 4\\\' V, 14. 4 \, 1 , . ° Denser housing supported ___ It =0 . by transit & services _,mar2 Legend R3 parcels that are: Housing affordability A Greater than 10,000 so ft and Vacant or Partially Used. ) _ 1 — STA Frequent Service (15 min) I N L 1 i STA Basic Service 1 0 11/12/2019 1-7 CPA-2020-0007: City Initiated Text Amendment .. , *-..i..... = - , ..„ „.. xv./ ,,,..... , _ Spokane-Kootenai Real Estatef1 . ,,,,:„1:-.r,.#4--; Research Committee 2020 Market Forum _ - ---- ... Housing inventory is at an all-time low I .4p, _..,.„ ,;-,,,, I _., , --___ , ,-6%-r, ...........1.,„ - . r, _ v. $385,000 Low supply/high demand results in 4 beds Ammiikw, $285,000 appreciation 2 baths 4 beds „----.. Increased supply results in more ----- . , ____ 2 baths affordability \ _ _ 71 ila Irmi 1 2019 median sales for SF home is 1 ...... _., , .,,.. • -1' -' - $287,995 up 10.8V0 from 2018 IF 11/12/2019 18 C PA-2020-0007: CityIni ti a ted Text Amend ment Amend Goals and Policies for alternative housing types Housing GOALS H-Gi Allow fora broad Lange of housing opportunitles to Enable a variety of housing types at increased �tl,e{omm�ltr neat The needs H-G2 Enable the deve'o 4 STRATEGIES pment of affordable hausFog for all income leMs. Identi IQ,u-ar H-(� 1 tv d moderate. densities within 1/2 mile offunded high uafn -5ne;„eom access to«aifyg�dyand�ery;oods. rgsinSka iwhousingn�d$ > Continue toeval.ate news hausingtyAvlgglew.to meet performance transit networks. POLICIES marketneeda H-p1 Support voluntary ef'orls by property owners to rehabilitate and Aleleed wii preserve buildings "'��.rrii ,syr��.kw rungs c`hisfork value and unique character. Preserve and enhance the city's established single- HA2 d" '°u,tr,. ,•,nFat,an:that bouskg by allover a unruv Are fatrrica g types Mclud'rrg tam bbsmeschokesaccessory andoloe.housing types. ixrmes,ro-housing,cottage irousirrg; family neighborhoods by minimizing the impacts of HP3 financial nrxi regulatoSuppor-the rytools. rdabfe housing units usingavailable I+P4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families needing social and humanse viceproviders. more dense housing typologies such as duplexes and cottage development. Associated regulatory changes to implement policy. Kenn to r4ll,.ofC.., 27 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 19 CPA-2020-0007: Zoning Code Changes - Map ...... -,. 14:4VII . 'I - ivit) Z E Mission 0 Ave cu a I 1 , z E Zroaclw Ave a 02 al PI 11 Mil M.in. I laag wit, e Pvcv -E. glipptevroy, Blvd- ---,--- mow wmalliolii. ..MIMI ire 01114.•-•=ra If--iiill'i. 1 r E 8th At 4, S , Ave V . . ' ce • ct .. . >pa Ey) 7. N \ . , 4.— IraiE, co 0 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session CPA-2020-0007: Zoning Code Changes - Text 19.20.010 Establishment of Zoning Districts Comp Plan Land Use Designation Map Symbol Zoning District Single-Family Residential R-3 Single-Family Residential Urban Single-Family Residential R-4 Single-Family Residential Urban 19.20.015 Zoning districts purpose D. R-4 — Single-Family Residential Urban. Allows for single-family residential development at an urban density that provides flexibility and promotes reinvestment in existing single-family neighborhoods. 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session CPA-2020-0007: Zoning Code Changes - Text 19.40.060 Development standards - 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix Duplexes, Triplexes, and Fourplexes Residential Mixed Use R-1 R-2 R-3 M F R C M U MU Duplcxes_shall meet the minimum lot Group Living size per dwelling unit, setback standards, Assisted living/ PP P P maximum lot coverage, and building nursing home height standards shown in Table 19.70 1. Residential Duplex development in the R-3 zone Dwelling, cottage SS S S S shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 Dwelling, duplex -PS P P -R S PS square feet. Duplex, Triplex, and Dwelling, triplex PP S S Fourplex development in non-residential Dwelling, fourplex PP S S zones shall meet the requirements set Dwelling, townhouse SS S S S forth in 19.70.050(G). Transportation E.V. infrastructure PP P P 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session CPA-2020-0007: Zoning Code Changes - Text 19.70 Residential Standards (Table 19.70-1) R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 M FR(1 Front and Flanking Street Yard Setback 35' 15' 15' 15' 15' Garage Setback(2) 35' 20' 20' 20' 20' Rear Yard Setback 20' 20' 10' 10' 10' Minimum Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' Open Space N/A N/A N/A Li8k 10% gross area(3) Lot Size ``' 40,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft 4,300 sq. ft. N/A Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 60% 60.0% Maximum Density 1 du/ac 4 du/ac du/ac 10 du/ac 22 du/ac Building Height(5) 35' 35' 35' 35' 50' 1) Where MFR abuts R-1, R-2, or R-3 zones, development shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.75 SVMC, Transitional Regulations. (2) Attached garages, where the garage door does not face the street, may have the same setback as the primary structure. (3) Open space requirement does not apply to single-family development in the MFR zone. (4) Single-family residential development in the MFR zone shall have a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Only one single-family dwelling shall be allowed per lot. (5) The vertical distance from the average finished grade to the average height of the highest roof surface. (6) Duplex development in the R-3 zone shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet. CPA-2020-0007: Zoning Code Changes - Text Appendix A Definitions Dwelling, triplex: An attached building designed exclusively for occupancy by three families, with separate entrances and individual facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation, but sharing a common or party wall or stacked. See "Residential, use category. " Dwelling, fourplex: An attached building designed exclusively for occupancy by four families, with separate entrances and individual facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation, but sharing a common or party wall or stacked . See "Residential, use category. " Dwelling, multifamily: A building designed for occupancy by three five or more families, with separate entrances and individual facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation . Townhouses are not considered multifamily development. See "Residential , use category. 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session CPA-2020-0007: Analysis . . . _ _ Allows density to be obtained in the R3 zone for SF — r development ;; _ _ - _ , —._- r �=��Fens Field y, _ Incentivizes single-family (SF) S development "' N•iillI T, � .ram Provides a greater varietyof 4. r il�r -° housing types -RN .... . ,� r -I - ncreases density in areas with ti , __,_,11_ 3.mfr,,/,- -' highperformance transit and g is services .__\,_- \s 1 Establishes a minimum lot size ��°, for duplex development ,;,�, f, ( ii��, .— STA Frequent Service (15 min) JI STA Basic Service 3/12/2020 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Study Session 25 Discussion -00%.„1, SpAlliane Mike Basinger, AICP 3/12/2020 �� Economic Development Manager CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: February 27, 2020 Item: Check all that apply n old business Fl new business n public hearing n information Fl study session n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2020 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Study session GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010. PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION:None BACKGROUND: The GMA allows local jurisdictions to consider amendments to their Comprehensive Plans once each year.The City codified this process in Section 17.80.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC). Consistent with state law and the SVMC,staff published notice on August 23 and 30,2019, advising the public of the annual amendment process and that the City would accept applications for the 2020 cycle through October 31,2019.The notice was also sent to all agencies,organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions that may have an interest in amending the comprehensive plan. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA) are divided into two categories: map amendments and text amendments. CPAs may be privately initiated or proposed by City Council,Planning Commission or staff As part of the annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle, the City Council is presented the proposed amendments that may be considered for this year's amendment cycle.This process known as docketing. The City Council reviews and approves the Docket, which is forwarded to the Planning Commission to review the CPAs and make a recommendation to City Council for their final approval. On November 19, 2019,the City Council approved the 2020 Docket. The Docket includes five proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: four map amendments and one text amendment. Tonight staff will provide an overview of the 2020 Docket, background information on the adopted Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations and provide additional detail on the City initiated text amendment.On February 13,the Planning Commission will hold a study session on the entire 2020 Docket. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger,AICP,Economic Development Manager; Chaz Bates,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Docket 2. Presentation RPCA Study Session for 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 of 1 Exhibit 1 City of Spokane Valley 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket PRIVATELY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS File Number Map or Text Summary of Amendment CPA-2020-0001 Land Use Map Change the designation for parcel 45152.1004 from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). CPA-2020-0002 Land Use Map Change the designation for parcel 35133.2321 from Industrial (I) to Regional Commercial (RC). CPA-2020-0003 Land Use Map Change the designation for parcels 45094.0133, 45094.0134 and 45094.0121 from Multifamily Residential (MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS File Number Map Summary of Amendment CPA-2020-0006 Land Use Map Change the designation for parcel 45013.9024 from Industrial (I) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS File Number Text Summary of Amendment CPA-2020-0007 Text Amend Chapter 2 Goals and Policies for alternative housing types. 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments February 27, 2020 Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Chaz Bates, Senior Planner History Spokane Incorporation 2003 y Interim Comp Plan/ regulations 2003 Comp adoption ado tion 2006 Implementing regulations adoption 2007 SETS - Periodic update 2016 p Spokane Valley Implementing regulations Comprehensive Plan - FE I S 2017 2037 ADOPTED:DECEMBER2016 ORDINANCE NO.16-018 7/30/2020 2 Comprehensive Plan Basics Vision for s City' growth Selley Adopted and amended with public participation Goals, policies and strategies Comprehensive PlanElements r h n iv Economic development Land Use ti Transportation - = Housing Capital facilities Spokane Valley Public and private utilities Comprehensive Plan Parks and Open Space 2017 2037 ADOPTED:DECEMBER2016 Natural resources ORDINANCE NO.16 018 7/30/2020 3 Land Use Map and Zoning Map Comprehensive Plan Designation Zoning Districts � R-1 - Single-Family Residential Estate Single Family Residential (SFR) R-2 - Single-Family Residential Suburban � R-3 - Single-Family Residential Urban Multifamily Residential (MFR) MFR - Multifamily Residential Neighborhood Commercial (NC) NC - Neighborhood Mixed Use Mixed Use (MU) MU - Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) CMU - Corridor Mixed Use Regional Commercial RC - Regional Commercial Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) IMU - Industrial Mixed Use Industrial (I) I - Industrial Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (POS) 4 P/OS - Parks/Open Space 7/30/2020 2016 p • • er • o isinj disu m ma r ___ ___ .. ._. .. STRATEGY ELEMENT RELATEDELEMENT(S) PARTNERS TIMING PRIORITY Undertake a comprehensive branding process to Pr E c o n o m i c D eve l o p m e n t fo c u s create and market an identity for Spokane Valley • E.D.Division; 2017 HIGH that sells the City's inherent assets to would-be Economic • • Visit Spokane residents.employers and visitors Development ' Data driven (speCia I studies) Continue participation in regional tourism-pro- • E.D.Division; Va1leyFes[,Visit motion efforts and increase the City's presence in Economic r or�oir HIGH regional events Development Spokane,Sports ii. Concise and understandable p Commission Evaluate the return on investment of potential • E.D.Division: tourism anchors and allocate available funds Economic ` • • •• Visit Spokane 2018 HIGH according tothefindings Development Includes strategic actions Consider using GIS and web-based technologies to • assist business development Economic • E.D.Division 2018 HIGH Development ' Combined goals and policies Intensify targeted retail recruitment efforts • E.D.Division;Economic • . � • Consultant 2019 MEDIUM ' Development Evaluate local interest in the creation of a Business • E.D.Division; 2019 MEDIUM Improvement District Economic Spokane County Development 7/30/2020 2016 Periodicupdate Summar Reduced the number of Comp Plan Designations and Zoning Districts _Th______„...\_ 12 Designations and 17 Zones 4 9 Designations and 11 Zones Lrh„---------- ,4.. ..,..t..litigi ,,..„:„.:,,,,: vain o __,..,er _1 it ........ __If itriregj. , ......_, ,zik ,..,-- lem..,,,-ii.tft—r. _0 F 1 i..,„- di i KT I ea"A if; if • . = INEw-, .7 r t 4.1a .-_Ap MN m, ri Imo =!n■ rn :.C•C x ,� � * ate' n � 1 Ea ill NaMb•6 ■ Nmar ' aiai�.rmaire oimimm■r= III A _11 ; I V 1%AcYmu■Tan in g � .._.. i RI gave �■ ` Community Alternative ��! w n C'y er 5ps.,ar.a WAIF* Pd.ed U. AMni Roaat -..2 au Cn.w.ra. 'Nu vta�WOGY �kt.ptt TOW mmn tocW CorepnbaMaw Pita OW gratlent _y...••r r,* 4, Fufun Lana U,.flap 7Y17 I=Rev,tea Cann.raal ......,..- --. .r SaPCb pamM ..aaMal.4..tl Uaa -W..i.ab+ drlo-F.mly ...o..�rr...�d -a..,w�+ IN ne..a ua,.,,o.m..y„d.ay _Camas.maw um.[. -ar.4«.'-wra -Pr.mei span soma 7/30/2020 6 2016 p • • ergo � cu dis _ ..._ --- iirin ,,,na u m ma r Added Commercial _ 1'irliiiiiie. Fri- J Ns 0 ortu n ities9:44;;; _r � ■ " i::-E—,17. 11iii...7",11: .ram Changed Office 4 CMuI p { 11 >, •-- .��... T SIG Ili a ,l Ii 1 , 111i�M�1' ; �a ` . •Multifamily office retail and light 1111 '- -- -. _� �!� r�� manufacturin -'- _ll �� .1.111 r �_r Neighborhood boyhood Commercial win 1swE 07 'm' �� '=�g .. .��. 111 .. 'r1� ��.l�r.illrr11. =1 211PRIMII El YrAir,,,,,7700.2witn.r. -m I Major intersections in "_...Ilia1#iL0fei4rigti, j_ 1 =pi.=" . r ►, :• -AIL ■ • neighborhoods .,z 111E t_ 11 l.111111 111r ;i■ II ►A r.. . ; l i E,211 �Transitional Provisions Eng # ?ie ��► • � g ce_ = � m rro � _atiii 1 ' :maims A — �RepIace dimensional i n I standards . . � .. ; : Him Air-- 1. { ■ �s�I:! is , � -�rzi F gloll rir45151111 Mai. + -r --Altair a rya e I I :s:2‘,71,414...7,41 I a ansi I I i 1 i IR I Ul 1- V00 f�+rya [hn.. i L W1S�l_Y 1 �� 7 2016 Periodic update Summary 1 , 1 Added Industrial 1 ,.. _ Opportunities PAO Boundary i --e 1 , _ — -- P a ., One Industrial designation 1 ,..,_ _ _ __ , _ - __-- - - y . ., . , Industrial Mixed Use 1- ti........- . B NSF iMa i 7 i ne _ — ------ Implementing PAO , — - _ ....-__...____.., i, . „1" , -- . . • -4. ,,_ ,, clZs ' • 't-- — - ,,. _ ___ 0- 0 , ,c - — City --- : .. ,.. ,,, 0 , Limits ,1 , • 1 / li . ' _ - . . 9 c Avenue -, w...-_- Avenue -.4--31 amodolidfo.ign,rm..;...1m41 Eki . . _________ r04.. A -- t - _-•-••:"- '1 1..!...liiolg T.R.• 1111g=c,',i".. g` . • FOOo ."''''''''''irr A --. iiii is, "; ii! .. illiiir.en IFir"'"1 11 br-, - 0 , urom,",,....11,il 11! , • 1 , , 1 .iiiii■---- r,,,..„---:........... ...,..„......., ,.: :._ .--,—.1 -4 _A IIIP—) 'a'' M 5.1wiirmrk- 1 111111 .BRIEN= . _ - ' akest. .4mose n_ WIl lig ;=-,. NI .a.,.,011.,,,,„„.../...-,al r LIT11 iniSIVOO-Vr'rw....--. "--- E .111i4i ... WM ; -111,11- I IP ' +lit 1 Initti .-. 1111.11.109 , /0 I to;,,,,,z,. : I ,— '' "del NuFAMPli_... Tifill , 1 i,..,,,pt.:1:-.:lik n t-4- ' -vskzlny.,,100 1111110747"aii Illrr7.10;i1ff__ 11-z.i.,!5*.-"",_ oliillitriff:- nomiro....,________„„ gr.. Z114 Ell All.olltimmoo = nom:•,!L•orgh,..,,, .,t4Ft.,. . Ad'7W.j1 le r4....'lltINEIJE7' -',.. ••.I• -o.• to ,...1.m•.-, ,• NI_ 1 ilin'ilVlikillit"NiPill'74 \ 1 111111 i .11:011-1::7 111:1451.41110 -,h, Euclid Periodicu dis_ . u m ma r • Legend New / Incentivized Housing 7n Mil I.1/2 e Buffer from Transit Line AMPIIIMIP illN: Zoning R3 NC - RC - el R1 POs MU M IMU n Opportunities Missi R2 � MF CMU I � , - . ■ 4 a y N/S corridors to CMU • /r Consolidated R3 and R4 "117/ , AIA:f' 1IrA c I' o /�/ tar g. / .:/ r /. o//% One Multifamily zonesIV,- ��% A Iewa Trail ark land ` rrieLirri1:0-4. `. -Or Alirr Focus around Transit and Services ( 1/2 mile) iI L E 16th Ave 1 , m , 511 01 .y I v p ce r a 0 --/—z//—/:/i„ m Vi ■ en 1 C 9 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process Initiated by: COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS Aliarie Property owners/representatives s Valley DEPARTMENT Citizens, agencies, neighborhood NOTICE OF CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY'S ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE �+I ty The City of Spokane Valley is providing notice that the application windowfor the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle will close on October 31, 2019. Completed applications must be received by 5:00 p.m.on October 31,2019 to be Application deadline October 31st considered during the 2020 amendment cycle. Applications received after October 31,2019,will be docketed for consideration during the 2021 amendment cycle. All proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan require a pre- application conference prior to submitting an application. Notice published 6 0 d ays prior The City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan is the primary policy document that governs how the City will accommodate and respond to the growth of the community over time. . Notice sent to agencies, organizations, and The annual amendment cycle provides the opportunity to propose changes to the Comprehensive Plan to address changing land use conditions or emerging issues. Proposed amendments will be subject to review and a public hearing by the adjacent jurisdictions Spokane Valley Planning Commission before recommendations are made to the City Council. To schedule a pre-application meeting or get more information on the process and F re-a p p required anticipated schedule,please contact Senior Planner Chaz Bates at(509)720-5337 or cbates@spokanevalley.org. For more information about the comprehensive plan or application materials cation (s) are docketed pleasevisit www.spokanevalley.org/cp,Corn p1 ete appIi 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Timeline c 0 +r 47. . 3 _ 2020 Docket CO 31 }, .0 131) Overview ,c _ .E 2-27-2020 4) C) O Administrative 4) _ 0 +r 4) to in 4) _ Study Session Report c _a4) �- 3- 12-2020 0 = 0 E Ordinance 1st •— to co c a c = O Public Hearing _ Reading C.) ,0 Cl 4) V 3-26-2020 c Q }' Q O 131) = Ordinance 2nd .— o Q _ • c 2 V c Findings of Fact 0 Reading EL) a = 0 —> O 4-09-2020 0- Q 0 w z E c.5 kilf ki7 11( V ri Today 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket File Number Location Type / Who Description CPA-2020-0001 1311 N McDonald Map / Private Change 0.47 acres from SFR to CMU CPA-2020-0002 Fancher Road/ Sprague Map / Private Change 2.98 acres from Ito RC CPA-2020-0003 1723 & 1724 N Union Map / Private Change 6.24 acres from MFR to CMU CPA-2020-0006 EVSD Walker Center Map / City Change 8.8 acres Ito CMU CPA-2020-0007 Applies citywide Text & Area-wide Policy and corresponding implementing changes to Rezone / City maps for alternative housing types 11/12/2019 PrivatelyInitiated MapAmendment - CPA-2020-0001 _ . . _ _ _,. to Applicant: Land Use E Mission Ave '1 kso , At, r I 1 Solutions _OM& $" - f #aTr::: Owner: Tucker Ro , LLC z7 X '' rE Broadway Ave � itor4 -17eAmendment: Chan e from ' =, 1 , Family R i n i l Single es de t a t I; ,,. ,r .t ' (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use a , , :.v ,,, .. ,, " it -- U A mti (CM ) I Application Number: CPA-2020-0001 Proposed Change: SFR to CMU 0.47 ac 0 100 200300 400 50040/ Feet Feet 11/12/2019 Administrative Report - 2020 Comprehensive Plan Docket PrivatelyInitiated MapAmendment - CPA-2020-0002 , ,:,_ • _ D c z Applicant: LB Stone I. I Si L Properties 70 3 E�pra F ve �._(.0 .e 7 Owner: LB Stone Properties 73 � h -: Amendment: Change from . ... ... Industrial ( I ) to Regional ... ,,,,,„,...„,r ,. _ )t,y , , ' . .,___, . • .. . J ,t 01��. i r ' 90' Commercial ( R( RC) / 1 ..a ! " a: :,:� jam, K.- �'.0*, • �- r fir, c 6 Application Number: CPA-2020-0002 Proposed Change: I to RC 2.98 ac 0 100 200 300 400 50000 Area: Feet 11/12/2019 Administrative Report - 2020 Comprehensive Plan Docket 14 Privatel Initiated MapAmendment - CPA-2020-0003 y : , ,, E Mansfield Ave , _ ._ r Applicant: Jay Rambo � Indiana Ave i :2 EI`'Mor�tgerrsery Ave + —� z� �' wil r Property Owner: REVERE- E-M sEG A ' ....-.'. , } DECEIIIINVLLC; BRILL �27 - o -�...,,, � �� _ R - ice. PROPERTIES LLC - ,.,„, I,. .„2.....,,:.....,..., ..,,,:,_ _. ..,..1.,,.,•, ..„‘ . ... ,... .4. . ,K.,. . . • ..,,, . , : . \ .. ... ,, „ . , _ ,-4,11.0 ?,,, • • F ; '' Amendment: Change from ,. . __ _. , ., . ,. �: 1 if Multifamily Residential ` .. _ i' it r: • ( MFR) to Corridor Mixed _ �.; , Use (CM U ) ::� N ,f r E Mission Ave u Application Number: CPA-2020-0003 Proposed Change: MFR to CMU 6.24 ac 0 150 300 450 600 7500 Area: Feet 11/12/2019 Administrative Report - 2020 Comprehensive Plan Docket 15 CityInitiated MapAmendment - CPA-2020-0006 i IA +90-.--..."."...- Applicant: Spokane _ 0 11_4 . 4.-IN Valley . . y . R Owner: EastValley ,. m , 1 ji a 11 School District 4.61'ilir- a �Rp�, i 0 i'7, s Amendment: Change r 7.... .. 7 ,, from Industrial ( I ) to ,, iii - 4--i-fer*,, . ,,40 ---n, Corridor Mixed Use . ,, ,z „,t.4{ „ ee (CMU ) j tl Application Number: CPA-2020-0006 Proposed Change: I to CMU 8.81 ac 0 150 300450 600 7500 Feet Feet 11/12/2019 Administrative Report - 2020 Comprehensive Plan Docket City Initiated Text Amendment - CPA-2020-0007 1 � ■ y ., _ �elleW slay, ---' Applicant: Spokane Ave Valley ; . \,_,. __________------____], _ - -,t „,- ' o - - ; _ , Owner: applies citywide _ {� ► � , pv�icies �' Bsion �, .6ve i��Dana.4l 1 --1/44, -rs E Mkokni Amendment: Add s � �e • _ ;� r '" ■ _ ■f "n ._ policies for alternative ,� E$tn -�';®� ...�.=" e. Ave H housing and area-wide ate 3 IX a X rezone i i U) 12nd Av. t\' co E 32nd co oning p05 CM R3 MF RC i R2 3 NC IMU 4 0 R3 i MU I ner/.s�i'rrfro�/�ru',r/rlmrisifirrN�l�rhovx R4 rlrrnx+rfxi.W �1Nr/A` ,,err 9,/,2/l.ClNlr ,,,,,rr,,,,w,/uew/r. /�'Jr�I,v/1f/✓Ni' '�t 11/12/2019 Administrative Report 2020 Comprehensive Plan Docket 17 _______ _ limm„,-,,[ 151:: ' - ' - • City Initiated Text Amendment - CPA-2020-0007 .11MIL .1= 11 1,L Background 1 _____----\_ . I 1 I 1 : 1 ':Tc 1-1-1 Concerns from residents about influx of duplex ,---- --„,,developments 1-1 Felts Field t: I _----- ' ILD L .%,. ......./ 11111.11— —um' 11111111111111111L16 ----, — inimmor - IMIIV Appropriate locations for - alternative housing - •L_, ggiAt50.,0 t•."n."Co['IIM,_R_I1.—ilEiDf'.E„,,: --,-—IFd.r-1.a,1-1a-1l7•47' , ,a,9.'E-F'T°.Lt,a,, I / 7 '1 111111'.."11111110110a11n11NM 1 IIII 6o.L,r1G[-1 H1.d,I IEMRi11l 1lI1i1 II1:lI1Ia1P.I yn',T,[Liil 11lr.Pcl1v_2r:+,: ILg'h-,. I —Lvg 111r—ii-1—FINN I I Objective of Amendment L51311 'L Mii .-- Addresses concerns of . w4 residents =0 . Denser housing supported \ Le9 endR3 parcels that by transit & services A ) i 1 - are: Greater than 10,000 so ft and Vacant or Partially Used. - STA Frequent Service (15 min) STA Basic Service 0 11/12/2019 City Initiated Text Amendment - CPA-2020-0007 CTA-2018-0005 Private Initiated CodeAlt - _ Amendment to limit duplexes in R-3 zone - - - _ s _ Li Cottage developments _ ' proposed in areas without transit or services Affordable issues4. ffi __ _,. , statewide Iu'w 11/12/2019 19 City Initiated Text Amendment/Area-wid e Rezone - CPA-2020-0007 ...... ...... 1 1 ,____,_-_, ---_-- Create new zone ( R-4) e ese — --1 Ave . cocc w ncentivize alternative } ItiPE Eu lid E Frederick '/ z 73 A _ i Ave 4, _ . Ai 14114 housing in areas with ,1114111" P z E sion I ha _ , transit and services - Ave ��e .. z I rinim •. . E Broadwa, Ave 11 Pt". Reduce impacts to _ p _ x Q* rr nir G - 1 ii� ra . Blvd JI"'�m1�■�` u= g _ 1 • A neighborhoods ®- _� Es�h disproportionatelyE17thr - 3 E16th a a Ave1 a w - cc N a) affected by duplex a rL. CO CO E 29th1 E is co E 32nd Cl) Aue.. development I Ave §' ,_) I zoning Pas CMU E 37t Ave off; RI MF RC 4 �� f 44th Ave 1R2 NC IMU R3 MU I E 57th A , re `i R4 11/12/2019 20 Discussion Spokan � Valley® Mike Basinger, AICP Economic Development Manager COMMUNITY& PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING&PLANNING DIVISION Spocr�YaFkane STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION v CPA-2020-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE: June 3,2020 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: June 25,2020,beginning at 6:00 p.m.,remotely via Zoom. Project Number: CPA-2020-0001 Application Description: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban(R 3)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Location: Parcel number 45152.1004 addressed as 1311 N.McDonald Road,further located in the NW 1/4 of Section 15,Township 25 North,Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County,Washington Applicant: Land Use Solutions and Entitlement,9101 N Mt View Lane, Spokane,WA 99218 Owner: Tucker Roy LLC, 1215 N McDonald, Spokane Valley,WA 99216 Date of Application: October 2,2019 Staff Contact: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner, 10210 E Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) General Provisions, Title 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Application Exhibit 6: SEPA Checklist Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit 7: Environment Determination Exhibit 3: Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 8: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 4: Zoning Map Exhibit 9: Agency and Public Exhibit 5: Aerial Comments A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment is a privately-initiated request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of parcel 45152.1004 from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). The existing use on the property is a single family residence owned by the applicant.The site is flat and does not contain any critical areas.The property is to the north of the McDonald Professional Center and adjacent to a vacant parcel designated and zoned CMU. The property and adjacent vacant CMU property and are being considered for future office expansion. A 44 unit multifamily development,McDonald Place,is directly east across McDonald Road;to the north of McDonald Place is another 19 unit multifamily development. Immediately to the north and west of the Page 1 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0001 06/03/20 subject property are single-family residences.To the south is a vacant property designated and zoned CMU;beyond the vacant property further south is the McDonald Professional Office building. The property is served by McDonald Road.McDonald Road is minor arterial with a 3-lane urban cross- section with a single-travel lane north and south, a center turn lane,with bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street.The Average Daily Traffic(ADT)for this segment of McDonald,in 2015,is estimated at nearly 5,000 vehicular trips per day with a level of service of A-C. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size and Characteristics: The property consists of one parcel totaling 0.46 acres in size with frontage on McDonald Road. Comprehensive Plan: Single Family Residential(SFR) Zoning: Single Family Residential Urban(R-3) Existing Land Use: A single-family home is located on the property. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,ZONING,AND LAND USES: Comp Plan: Single Family Residential(SFR) North Zoning: Single Family Residential Urban(R-3) Uses: Single-family home Comp Plan: Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) South Zoning: Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Uses: Vacant Comp Plan: Multifamily Residential(MFR) East Zoning: Multifamily Residential(MFR) Uses: Multifamily residences (44 units) Comp Plan: Single Family Residential(SFR) West Zoning: Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) Uses: Single-family home IMPLICATIONS: The adopted Comprehensive Plan describes the CMU designation as"allow[ing] for light manufacturing, retail,multifamily,and offices along major transportation corridors. It is primarily used along Sprague Avenue, and the north-south arterials."McDonald Road is an improved north-south Minor Arterial that is consistent with the description of the CMU designation. The proposed amendment provides flexibility that can be used to support the applicants indicated desire to expand the McDonald Professional Center use to the subject property. Changing the designation to CMU,increases the allowed types of uses to include office and parking. The designation change and rezone of the site to CMU allows for a broader range of uses than the R-3 zone permits,including retail and office uses.The residences to the north and west are likely to experience impacts from the increased intensity of use on the property.Any development on the property will be subject to the adopted transitional provisions to minimize the impacts of the allowed uses.The transitional provisions include height limitations, screening and landscaping requirements. Page 2 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0001 06/03/20 APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Pre-Application Meeting: October 2,2019 Application Submitted: October 2,2019 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance: February 21,2020 End of Appeal Period for DNS: March 6,2020 Posted Notice of Public Hearing: March 6&May 27,2020' Published Notice of Public Hearing: March 6, 13,May 29 &June 5,2020' Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: March 10&May 27,2020' 1:Additional public notification required; a result of cancelling a duly noticed public hearing due to COVID-19 and efforts to maximize social distancing. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) SVMC, the lead agency has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The city issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal on February 21, 2020. The determination was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Titles 19, 21, and 22 of the SVMC, a site assessment, public and agency comments, the Comprehensive Plan and associated Environmental Impact Statement. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions)of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Analysis: The proposed amendment changing the land use designation from SFR to CMU has a substantial relationship to the public health,safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. The adopted Comprehensive Plan describes the CMU designation as "allow[ingj for light manufacturing, retail, multifamily, and offices along major transportation corridors. It is primarily used along Sprague Avenue, and the north- south arterials."McDonald Road is an improved north-south Minor Arterial that is consistent with the description of the CMU designation. Page 3 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0001 06/03/20 Additionally, the proposed amendment provides flexibility that can be used to support the applicants indicated desire to expand the McDonald Professional Center use on the subject property. Changing the designation to CMU, increases the allowed types of uses to include office and parking. Increasing office and parking opportunities in the McDonald Road corridor has a substantial benefit to public health, safety, and welfare. The amendment area is not covered by critical areas or designated natural resources. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment are promoted by standards established by the state and the City's regulations. (2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity to provide an expansion of office use on a designated Minor Arterial with supporting infrastructure. The proposal is consistent with goals of GMA and the Comprehensive Plan. (3) The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; Analysis: The amendment does not respond directly to a substantial change in conditions from the 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan. However, the two parcels to the south of the proposed amendment were changed from Office to CMU as part of the 2016 legislative update as part of a larger overhaul to eliminate the Office designation, and the owner of the subject property is the same owner of the McDonald Professional Center. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The amendment is not in response to a mapping error. (5) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: While not directly identified as a deficiency, the Comprehensive Plan has identified the following goals and policies that support increasing employment opportunities while taking advantage of existing supportive infrastructure. The proposed amendment contributes to the long-term success of the City: ED-P6 Promote the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties, particularly those with potential to serve as a catalyst for economic development. LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. T-G2 Ensure that transportation planning efforts reflect anticipated land use patterns and support identified growth opportunities. ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Page 4 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0001 06/03/20 Analysis: The change to CMU will allow for expanded office and office related uses such as parking. The change could result in more intensive development in the future, though the site immediately to the south is vacant and designated and zoned CMU. There is no concern on effect of physical environment. (2) The effect on open space, streams,rivers,and lakes; Analysis: There are no known critical areas associated with the site,such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas,frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance ensures adequate protection of the critical areas and stormwater associated with commercial development will be retained and treated on the site. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis: The property is adjacent to CMU to the south and MFR to the east. To the north and west are existing single family homes on SFR designated properties. If approved, the development of the site will be subject to the transitional provisions adopted in the development regulations that will ensure projection of the adjacent homes to the north and south. Potential development consistent with the CMU zone will be compatible with properties to the south and east. The projected impact to the surrounding neighborhood is minimal. Any future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses at the time of development. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads,public transportation,parks,recreation, and schools; Analysis: McDonald Road is a Minor Arterial and is expected to accommodate the projected change. While the subject property was not considered in the 2016 legislative update, the property immediately to the south was part of the 2016 analysis. The projected LOS for McDonald Road in 2040 is A-C, and no mitigations or transportation projects are planned for this area of McDonald Road within the 20- year planning horizon. Additionally, the subject property is approximately 0.5 acres and its overall impact to the transportation system is minimal. The subject property and the property immediately to the south are considered infill development, as such, the expansion of office in this area is ideal because of the supporting infrastructure that is in place. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis: The proposed change would allow the property to support the expansion of the McDonald Professional Center, increasing employment opportunities and growing the City's economy. The change will benefit the City and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: ED-G1 Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley ED-P3 Encourage businesses that provide jobs and grow local markets. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Page 5 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0001 06/03/20 Analysis: The proposal would add approximately 0.5 acres of CMU property to the 1,666 acres of existing CMU designated property within the City. While additional demand for CMU property may be limited, the CMU designation in this places allows for the expansion of an existing office development on the McDonald Road corridor in an area supported by existing infrastructure. The proposal is limited to a reasonable area and if developed under CMU standards the type of use and density would be appropriate for the location. (7) The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: There is one dwelling unit proposed to be removed. While CMU allows residential development, it is not expected that residential development would occur and therefore the City would lose one single family house as a result of the amendment. The change is not expected to have significant impacts to population density in the area. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The CMU designation will support the goals and policies identified above. There will be no effect on other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including Housing, Capital Facilities and Public Services, Public and Private Utilities, Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources. Conclusion(s): For the reasons outlined above the proposed amendment is consistent with SVMC 17.80.140(H). 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings:The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.The Comprehensive Plan describes the CMU designation as"allow[ing] for light manufacturing,retail,multifamily, and offices along major transportation corridors.It is primarily used along Sprague Avenue,and the north-south arterials." McDonald Road is an improved north-south Minor Arterial that is consistent with the description of the CMU designation. Additionally, the amendment is supported by the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: ED-GI Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. ED-P3 Encourage businesses that provide jobs and grow local markets. ED-P6 Promote the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties, particularly those with potential to serve as a catalyst for economic development. LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. T-G2 Ensure that transportation planning efforts reflect anticipated land use patterns and support identified growth opportunities. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. 3. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The Growth Management Act(GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. Page 6 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0001 06/03/20 The area is currently served with adequate public facilities and services.Modern Electric Water Company,Spokane County Environmental Services,Spokane Valley Fire District,and Central Valley School district provide water, sewer, and fire protection and schools services in this area. The projected LOS for McDonald in 2040 is A-C, and no mitigations or transportation projects are planned for this area of McDonald within the 20-year planning horizon. Urban services are available. Specific site needs,including transportation will be addressed at the time a development is proposed for the site. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff received one written comment which can be summarized as a general dissatisfaction with the openness of a mixed use zone. The comments can be reviewed in their entirety in Exhibit 9. Comments received following the date of this report will be provided to the Planning Commission at the June 11,2020 meeting. 2. Conclusion(s): The scheduled public hearing on March 26, 2020 was canceled due to COVID-19 and efforts to maximize social distancing. Prior to the cancellation,the Notice of Public Hearing(NOPH)was published on March 6,2020 and March 13,2020.The NOPH was also posted on site and mailed to residents within a 400-foot radius of the subject property on March 10,2020. The public hearing was rescheduled for June 25,2020.The NOPH was published May 29, 2020 and June 5,2020 posted on site on May 27,2020 and mailed to residents within a 400-foot radius of the subject property on May 28,2020. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any agency comments to date. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Spokane Valley Senior Traffic Engineer City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering City of Spokane Valley Building&Planning City of Spokane Valley Parks&Recreation Spokane Valley Fire Department City of Millwood City of Liberty Lake City of Spokane City of Spokane Valley Police Depaitiuent Spokane County,Building and Planning Spokane County,Environmental Services Spokane County, Clean Air Agency Spokane County,Fire District No. 1 Spokane County,Fire District No. 8 Spokane County Regional Health District Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency Page 7 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0001 06/03/20 Spokane Aquifer Joint Board Spokane Transit Authority(STA) Spokane Regional Transportation Council(SRTC) Washington State Dept of Commerce Washington State Dept of Ecology(Olympia) Washington State Dept of Ecology(Spokane) Washington State Dept of Fish&Wildlife Washington State Dept of Natural Resources Washington State Dept of Transportation Washington State Parks&Recreation Commission WA Archaeological&Historic Preservation Avista Utilities Inland Power& Light Modern Electric Water Company Central Valley School District#356 East Valley School District#361 West Valley School District#363 Century Link Comcast Model Irrigation District#18 Consolidated Irrigation District#19 East Spokane Water District#1 Vera Water&Power Spokane County Water District#3 Spokane Tribe of Indians 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. F. CONCLUSION: For the reasons set forth in Section C(1 and 2)the proposed amendment to change the land use designation from SFR to CMU and the rezone from R-3 to CMU is consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(H) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT 1 Project # '--tom LCf X i Spokane RECEIVED jVal .y OCT 01-2019 C•MPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION tr#210 imc arRt a ed resses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive SUB # REV. #V I tK • , Date Submitted: `� '�Cl Received by: �-� Fee: 1I kc 0 ' 0 0 PLUS #: File#: CPA —oZU e2O—O00 PART II - APPLICATION INFORMATION Map Amendment; or ❑ Text Amendment APPLICANT NAME: Land Use Solutions and Entitlement, Dwight Hume agent MAILING ADDRESS: 9101 N Mt.View Lane CITY: Spokane STATE: WA Zip: 99218 PHONE: 435-3108 FAX: CELL: same EMAIL: dhume@spokane- landuse.com PROPERTY OWNER: Tucker Roy LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 1215 N McDonald Suite 203 CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA Zip: 99216 PHONE: 710-1074 FAX: CELL: same EMAIL: Eric@ellingsen- flynn.com SITE ADDRESS: 1311 N McDonald Rd. PARCEL No.: 45152.1004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Community Mixed Use ZONING DESIGNATION: R3 PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: CMU BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT(attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper): To enable expansion of applicant's adjacent office complex and provide required parking on the subject parcel. PL-06 V1.0 Page 3 of S""okan�� p COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION j Val ley PART III - AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) I, Eric Ellingsen , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made trut Ily and to the best of my knowledge. _ /40/2a (Signature) Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2- LIday of 0< , 20 1 `A NOTARY SEAL e—k-CiLi (Ai NOTARY SIGNATURE r Notary Public in and for the State of Washington RACHEL WILHELM Notary Public Residing at: lc') 1 • f A` State of Washington Commission#204128 My Comm. Expires Nov 28, 2022 My appointmentexpires: ( f Z a >J a LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I, Eric Ellinqsen dba Tucker Rov LLC , owner of the above described property do hereby authorize Dwight J Hume to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. PL-06 V1.0 Page 6 of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Supplement 1. State the reason for the Comprehensive plan Map Amendment. To provide for a parking area when the applicant's adjacent office property is expanded. 2. Describe how the proposed changed meets the approval criteria below; a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; The proposed amendment to CMU would enable the expansion of the existing CMU office site pursuant to adopted performance standards of the adopted Municipal Code. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of ROW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; This is being submitted and processed pursuant to adopted amendment procedures. c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; N/A d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; and N/A e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment enables the applicant to expand an existing medical office complex per the demands of this location. The subject property expands the existing office site for building and parking purposes, thus responding to market demand and in compliance with applicable development regulations. 3. Describe how the proposal addresses the following specific factors; a. The effect upon the physical environment; The physical environment is urban and consist of various office and apartment complexes in proximity to the subject site. Furthermore, the adjacent property is designated Community Mixed Use, thus allowing more variations of such bulk and scale. b. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; N/A c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; The site is adjacent to existing CMU office uses and will be made a part of the parking area when the office complex is expanded. The orientation is to McDonald Rd and faces 2 story apartments across McDonald. The existing office use has demonstrated compatibility with the surrounding residential uses and this extension will be similar to these improvements. Landscape screening has effectively buffered the current use. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation and schools; This amendment enables the expansion of an existing office building. No new utilities or public services will be needed. The site is served with all urban services and no new utilities are anticipated. The frontage along McDonald is currently improved with sidewalks and a center turn lane for safe ingress and egress. e. The benefit to the neighborhood, city and region; This allows the market demand for office services to remain consolidated into one site rather than displacing it into multiple sites. f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density, and the demand for such land; The site is a half-acre site and adjoins an existing major office development. This site will become part of the common office complex and provide additional parking as requested by tenants and users of the site. g. The current and projected population density in the area; The area is a mix of Community Mixed Use, Multi-Family and Single-Family zoned properties. Projected population density is unknown. This will eliminate one dwelling unit. h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed CMU designation adjoins existing CMU designations and has no effect upon roads, public services or other elements of the comprehensive plan. (End of Supplement) Project # CPI ' 0 -CC° RECEIVED • Land Use Solutions OCT 0 2 2019 & Entitlement COSV PERMIT CENTER SUB # REV. # Land Use Planning Services 9101 N. MT. VIEW LANE Spokane, WA 99218 509-435-3108(V) dhume@spokane-landuse.com Spokane Valley Planning Department 10210 E Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Ref: Proposed Map Amendment at 1311 N McDonald Rd To whom this may concern: This site is located north and adjacent to the applicant's existing CMU designated and zoned property which currently contains the McDonald Professional Center, a two story 11000 sf medical office complex. Between this building and the subject property is a vacant portion of CMU zoned property which will be the focal point of future office expansion. With the approval of this request, the 2nd phase of office expansion can be optimized with this parcel as additional parking area. The subject property contains a single-family residence and was recently purchased by the applicant. Part of the purchase agreement allows the seller to use the house pending completion of their future home site. In addition, the seller has permission to use whatever material from this house as part of the future home construction. Then, upon vacation, the house will be demolished, and the site cleared for future office parking. As stated in the application narrative,the site is suitable for this planned expansion based upon the current land use pattern and improvements to the area. There are other two- story apartment complexes nearby and the orientation of the expansion is away from single-family housing and does not rely upon access to local access streets. Furthermore, McDonald is fully improved with adequate sidewalks, turning lanes and arterial improvements. If approved, this one-half acre addition merely provides for parking demands of the medical office uses and optimizes the development of this combined site. Respectfully Submitted g-tvel4fgenee Dwight J Hume, agent EXHIBIT 2 Vicinity Map CPA-2020-0001 iLIijrI Et Id`. �.' �,�� Nii _Montgomery Dri ,'s) ll Eill. Q'` 5�.nsfieldeJI ) t1klijillill11z � � � i . g n _ ( ------,........ 1 a lndiaria Awe Mont ome Ave �� I r ■ y = 'IUII1tUI!1 ,,' -d ana Ct nn iui.■■i■ip -90•Ew I'g EEO -289.OFF-• A9pE2S9 O -Ra - -"bra Ave E_90_ 0 W290.ON-Ramp II MU iiiIMIIIIIIIII111111.1,,Ilimpim Valley ! IIIWEIF— . bm'aPP- 4,„ Mission II , I E I'90- N RaFh \ Park iiii I1■„'■ ■ l ■' ■ E_Mission_Ave IbII`luill ronsompumumiew milli! IR — ■■I■■■■■I ■ �I I j �� - . MI Ill Ala•I. ■ilEE::mIIIIL" ■ a ■■ ■■■■■■i= ■�II1 p ■©Sinto Ave 11 - tiro_, I I I I T �� ,�, = mM . , ■■ 11111 ani — ��I�j��,� i-Sharp . ■� cG ■11■ ■ I ■o ■1�■��1e •—In xj ■ x Q n'a]i M■■■■■ ,z l I �E sharp AveIt lib J I I • CI zl■ E iBoone Ave ? +��■■■■■ I - E ■ . ,��' E-Boone L� W ■■ • z'M■■1� P; -+ 1 � .••••••■■■■ AA ImmTp!!�Pl�l■■■■■■ I I z ■l�■ ,M.�; ■,__ • NE - ME Desmet Ave z, 1■■��r� ■■■■■■■■■ �, • - •p l u c4' f �� ■ o , 1■■■■1■j■■ii 111■■ECataldo I I - ■■■■■■■ ■ l' N - w�N a - • ■■■■E Cataldo Ave Z� �1 ■ ■ z' y - MIII■■■■■■■ I I I Barker High b z o 4 <go �� 9_ E Mallon Ct School and z-.s �111�� ■ 1 E. ---- , -z, _ No : m P4 �■■�� Learning IIIM i - I E Mallon Awe ■1��1■ ■■■ �' I -,�°] Pin es Q ■ ± J I 1 Middle L — _ _ �� - �- —_ - g -� — I _ _ � �E1Spri 4ie1d�A�e E 1 Aye -- �: I I I z�,, - I T E Olive Av_eI J= 1 - _ - r S ] i L o , I E1Ualleyway Ay_e I ( 1 1 _- I b Z _ l 3 5 o- �'( - - �, E Nixon Ave F- - pc, • R- r _„_- ¢6b =�I- r �` I 14 z - . z � cG 1 - E_Mam1.JAve I I J1 ,-- i n_ I I � Z --�, Ill 1 _ I I I III I I zi.-11 11 I I I i 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 . i -._z. LJ--0i1 - d. �._ I I . I I bj Miles O 0 0.25 0.5 1 EXHIBIT 3 Comprehensive Plan Map Study Are] E Sinto Ave 0 0 z Legend CMU NC E Sharp Ave I POS IMU RC MF SF MU v T I I CPA-2020-0001 Request: Sikilian#se\a' Owner: Tucker Roy LLC Proposed change: Land Use Parcel#: 45152.1004 designation from SFR to CMU *Valley Address: 1311 N McDonald Rd and Zoning from R3 to CMU EXHIBIT 4 Zoning Map Study Are] E Sinto Ave -71 -71 • 0 z Legend E Sharp Ave R 1 MF r RC R2 NC IMU R3 MU POS CMU � J CPA-2020-0001 Request: """` Owner: Tucker Roy LLC Proposed change: Land Use Parcel#: 45152.1004 designation from SFR to CMU *Valley Address: 1311 N McDonald Rd and Zoning from R3 to CMU EXHIBIT 5 2018 Aerial Map F ■ 9` w t Y. ' % ! : EMaxwelil pW7.'1 P '{ ' = r ,,,,,"lere7 7 �- it % is _ ,y� IF pikiril4 II ,1,_ 4, B. - :F r , .. 1 Study Area a - fit i . ',IP _ . _....,_ A, ,i.,,,,r,,,,,.: , , -... . . . .„ ,. r ., _ 1• r' Ii I ` - -V - —V , I likifilifil lit 14 ' .;4.. . .1 1 S ryh y x I . ,. .,., f "max a. �Sj.,9 ,Is '., P,� Ave ,. � .. f I ,, _ 3 Boone Awa , _-- Ow 11 _ _.if i I B m; — ,4 a TA , . , ' W.. il CPA-2020-0001 Request: pokar"""' Owner: Tucker Roy LLC Proposed change: Land Use ie Parcel#: 45152.1004 designation from SFR to CMU 400000*Valley Address: 1311 N McDonald Rd and Zoning from R3 to CMU EXHIBIT 6 Project #( 4 ,14 -(-)oui SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane RECEIVED SVMC 21.20 j Val ley' OCT 0 2p 2019 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 hone: (509)720-5240 • Fax:(509)720-5075 •permitcenter(a,spokanevallev.ors CCSV PERMIT CENTER STAFF USE ONLY SUB #I I REV. # 1 Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: PLUS #: File#: PART I—REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** ® Completed SEPA Checklist Uj Application Fee ❑ Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 81/2" by 11" or 11" by 17"size ❑ Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement(EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment.The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS.Answer the questions briefly,with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases,you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal,write "do not know" or"does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects.The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON-PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non-project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). SEPA CHECKLIST ��,m e �- 40 Val 1e y For non-project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of applicant: Eric Ellingsen dba Tucker Roy LLC, 1215 N McDonald Rd. Ste 203, Spokane Valley 99216 509-710-1074 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Land Use Solutions and Entitlement, Dwight Hume agent;9101 N Mt. View Lane Spokane WA 99218;509-435-3108 4. Date checklist prepared: September30, 2019 5. Agency requesting checklist: Spokane Valley Planning 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):Spring of 2021 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? No If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? No If yes, explain 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Approval of an annual Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and zone change. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal.You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The subject site is approximately.50 acres and is adjacent to and northerly of the applicants 3.20 acres, zoned CMU and containing an existing two story Page 2 of 14 PL-22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane Valley 11,000 sf medical office complex with parking. If approved, the subject site will enable the expansion of the existing medical office complex, by providing space within the subject parcel for parking and landscaping, thereby allowing the office expansion to occur on the adjacent southerly parcel. The subject site is one half acre and if approved, will be part of the existing CMU site for a total of 3.70 acres of office development. (This parcel only provides additional parking, not office location). 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan,vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The parcel is located at 1311 N McDonald Rd and is the site of an existing single-family residence. The site is located on the west side of McDonald and one lot south of the intersection with Sinto Avenue. 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? The general Sewer Service Area? Priority Sewer Service Area? (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). The subject site lies within all of the above. 14. The following questions supplement Part A: a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA)/Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of materials to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? Page 3 of 14 PL-22 V1.0 Spokane SEPA CHECKLIST Walley. 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater?This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater?N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock(if known)?N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground?N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. If so, describe any potential impacts. B. Environmental Elements 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one):flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? None c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand,gravel, peat, much)? If you know the classification of agricultural souls, specify them and note any prime farmland. N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity?N/A, this is a non- project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose,type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.Also indicate source of fill. N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. Page 4 of 14 PL-22 V1.0 Spokane SEPA CHECKLIST jValley' If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion or other impacts to the earth, if any: N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? No If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. 3. Water a. Surface: 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds,wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No water bodies within the vicinity. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected and the source of fill material. N/A Page 5 of 14 PL-22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane jValley 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? No Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? No If so, note location on the site plan. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities known. N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. Describe the general size of the system,the number of such systems,the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. c. Water runoff(including stormwater): 1. Describe the source of runoff(including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. Where will this water flow? When built, drainage will flow to approved storm drain retention systems. Will this water flow into other waters? No If so, describe. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? No If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: See above comment in C-1. 4. Plants Page 6 of 14 PL-22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane _Valley a. Circle types of vegetation found on the site: 1. Deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other 2. Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other 3. Shrubs 4. Grass 5. Pasture 6. Crop or grain 7. Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other 8. Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other 9. Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Unknown d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: 1. Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds,other 2. Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other 3. Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part off a migration route? No If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy(electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. Page 7 of 14 PL-22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLIST ` ikane jValley b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? No If so, describe. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. Fire, police 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Development to City development standards. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project(for example: traffic, equipment, operation,other)? Traffic along McDonald Rd will not adversely affect the use of this property. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example:traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site contains a vacant S/F residence. North:SF Dwelling;East:Apartments;South Medical Office; West:SF Dwelling b. Has the site been used for agriculture? No If so, describe. c. Describe any structures on the site. Vacant SF Home and garage d. Will any structures be demolished? Yes, all structures on site If so,what? Page 8 of 14 PL-22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane . Valley e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R3 to be changed to CMU f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?SF to be changed to CMU g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? No If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans. If any: Development pursuant to applicable adopted Spokane Valley development standards. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any,would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. One middle income housing unit, currently being rented by the seller, during construction of their new home. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas? What is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. Page 9 of 14 PL-22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane _Malley c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce?N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. What time of day would it mainly occur? b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? N/A b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses?No If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on,or proposed for, national, state,or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site?unknown If so,generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. Transportation Page 10 of 14 PL-22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane _Valley a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access is to and from McDonald Rd. Sidewalks and two-way turning lane exist for safe ingress and egress to and from this site. b. Is site currently served by public transit? yes If not,what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? No If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The trips generated for the common site are part of the existing CMU portion. This will only provide off-street parking. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Development to applicable adopted development standards. 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? No If so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: 1. Electricity 2. Natural gas 3. Water 4. Refuse service 5. Telephone 6. Sanitary sewer 7. Septic system Page 11 of 14 PL-22 V1.0 e SEPA CHECKLIST nr�a j%l ley 8. Other-describe b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. N/A, this is a non- project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make ' deci ion. Signature: 7/ � Date: /,0-/ Submitted: /O-Z"/ 2 D. Supplemental Sheet for Non-Project Actions (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent of the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal,would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The project will generate dust during construction; but no hazardous substances are anticipated from demolition and/or clearing as such are subject to adopted regulations. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: N/A, this is a non-project action. To be determined at time of building permit review. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? No impact a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: None 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? No impacts are anticipated a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None Page 12 of 14 PL-22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane .Valley 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness,wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands,floodplains, or prime farmlands? No impacts a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: None 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The area is a mix of office, apartments and single-family dwellings. This allows the expansion of the existing medical office complex, thus avoiding displacement to other new sites. The area is trending toward office use in this immediate vicinity. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Development to adopted performance standards of the Municipal Code. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No impacts on existing services are anticipated. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None 7. Identify, if possible,whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. There are no impacts to existing state and/or federal regulations. E. Signature I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. c� Date: Signature: Please print or type: Proponent: Land Use Solutions and Entitlement Dwight Hume agent Page 13 of 14 PL-22 V1.0 SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane .Valley Address: 9101 N Mt. View Lane Spokane WA 99218 Phone: 509-435-3108 Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Same as above Address: Phone: Page 14 of 14 PL-22 V1.0 S L City of Spokane Valley Land Use ane ....ONalley. .----L-L- r-----C. I4M A►i L L L t4.'.' L. !Ill E S INT 0 LAVE , ,r,,,,,, 1 \--- r-- -- „ E BOO I 1 E DES? l Legend Layer List Valley Parcels 1 Layers Valley Parcels Valley Parcels City of Spokane Valley Land Use City of Spoka' �� City of Spokane Valley Zoning jValley- — E r«1xx ►'�'ELLAVE L _ _ E -S1t11 ,_ A.; L j - •__-_ 1 -------____L -\___________ , I l - - E BOONE AVE 1 Legend Layer List Zoning Layers Yellowstone Pipeline Eig Zoning Parcels n Spoka City of Spokane Valley Land Use L hlekAc L L L 144'. t • E S INTO AVE VE I E BOO i E D ESI egend Layer List Valley Parcels Layers Valley Parcels JValley Parcels City of Spokane Valley Land Use v City of Spokar EXHIBIT 7 /'� COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Sun 1� e DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE jvP I1 10210 East Sprague Avenue• Spokane Valley WA 99206 aller 509.720.5000 •Fax: 509.720.5075 •planning@spokanevalley.org FILE NUMBERS:CPA-2020-0001; CPA-2020-0002; CPA-2020-0003; CPA-2020-0006; CPA-2020-0007 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTIONS: CPA-2020-0001: Privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45152.1004(0.47 acres)from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). CPA- 2020-0002: Privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 35133.2321 (2.98 acres) from Industrial(I)to Regional Commercial(RC). CPA-2020-0003: Privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcels 45094.0133,45094.0134,and 45094.0121 (6.24 acres total)from Multifamily Residential(MFR)to CMU. CPA-2020-0006: City initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45013.9024(8.8 acres)from Ito CMU.CPA-2020-0007: City initiated text amendment to Chapter 2 Goals and Policies for alternative housing types and area-wide rezone to implement new policies APPLICANT/OWNER: CPA-2020-0001: Land Use Solutions/Tucker Roy LLC; CPA-2020-0002: Ed Lukas/Lawrence B. Stone Properties,Lawrence B. Stone Properties#50 LLC; CPA-2020-0003: Jay Rambo/Revere-Dece III, LLC, Revere-Dece, Brill Properties LLC; CPA-2020-0006: Spokane Valley/East Valley School District; CPA-2020-0007: Spokane Valley/Citywide. PROPOSAL LOCATIONS: CPA-2020-0001: 1311 N. McDonald Road, further located in the NW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 44 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane County,Washington CPA-2020-0002: 5901 E. Sprague Avenue, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 13, Township 25 North, Range 43 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA-2020-0003: 1723 and 1724 N Union Road, further located in the SE 1/4 of Section 09, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA-2020-0006: 3830 N Sullivan, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 01, Township 25 North, Range 44 East,Willamette Meridian,Spokane County,Washington CPA-2020-0007: Spokane Valley/Citywide LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley. DETERMINATION: Determination of Non-Significance is issued under Washington Administrative Code(WAC) 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date issued. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m.on March 6,2020.Pursuant to Title 21,Environmental Controls of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC),the lead agency has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required under Revised Code of Washington 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates,AICP, Senior Planner,City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509)720-5337; cbates cr spokanevallev.org RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Mike Basinger, AICP, Economic Development Manager, City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509) 720-5333, mbasinger@spokanevalley.org spokanevalley.org DATE ISSUED: February 21, 2020 SIGNATURE: APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community& Pucific Works Department within fourteen(14)calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and specific factual objections made to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with SVMC 17.90 Appeals, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Schedule shall be paid at the time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. City of Spokane Valley February 18,2020 Determination of Non-Significance(DNS) Page 1 of I File Nos.CPA-2020-0001;CPA-2020-0002;CPA-2020-0003;CPA-2020-0006;CPA-2020-0007 EXHIBIT 8 Notice of Remote Public Hearing City of Spokane Valley 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Due to the restrictions on public gatherings arising from the covid-19 outbreak,and pursuant to Governor Inslee's Stay Home,Stay Healthy Proclamation(No.20-25)and Proclamation 20-28(and associated extensions),this hearing will be conducted remotely using web and telephone conference tools,as described below. HEARING DATE AND TIME: June 25,2020 beginning at 6:00 p.m. ZOOM MEETING DETAILS: Join Zoom Meeting A link to the Zoom meeting will be provided on the agenda and posted to the City's webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/planningcommission. HEARING BODY:Spokane Valley Planning Commission The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive public comment on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests and make a recommendation to the City Council on each of the following applications: FILE No.CPA-2020-0001:A privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45152.1004(0.47 acres),addressed as 1311 North McDonald Road from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). FILE No.CPA-2020-0002: A privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 35133.2321 (2.98 acres),unaddressed,from Industrial(I)to Regional Commercial(RC). FILE No.CPA-2020-0003:A privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcels 45094.0133, 45094.0134,and 45094.0121 (6.24 acres total),addressed as 1723 and 1724 North Union Road from Multifamily Residential(MFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). FILE No.CPA-2020-0006:A City initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45013.9024(8.8 acres),addressed as 3830 North Sullivan Road Bldg 1,from Industrial(I)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). FILE No.CPA-2020-0007:A City initiated text amendment to Chapter 2 Goals and Policies to provide policy guidance for increased housing density and provide implementing regulations,including an area-wide rezone of approximately 1,200 acres. STAFF CONTACT:Chaz Bates,AICP,Senior Planner;(509)720-5337 cbates@spokanevalley.org ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City issued a Determination of Non-significance(DNS)on February 21, 2020 pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)and chapter 21.20 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). HEARING PROCEDURES: The Planning Commission will conduct the remote hearing pursuant to the rules of procedure adopted in SVMC Title 18(Boards and Authorities). The public is encouraged to submit written comments prior to the hearing by sending the comments to Chaz Bates, 10210 E Sprague Ave,Spokane Valley,WA 99206,or email to cbates@spokanevalley.org. Comments will need to be submitted no later than 4:00 PM on June 25,2020 in order for them to be received and prepared for submission into the record. Comments received will be entered into the record at the time of the public participation portion of the Public Hearing.If you would like to deliver comments to City Hall you may contact City Hall at(509)720-5000 prior to 4:00 PM on June 25,2020 to schedule an appointment for delivery and allow staff to scan and include in the report.Comments received through US Mail will be included if they are received prior to the hearing. All interested persons may testify at the remote public hearing via the zoom meeting address and/or phone number. Interested persons will need to sign up to speak no later than 4:00 p.m.on June 25,2020 at the link provided in the agenda posted at the link referenced above.Use the link above to sign up for oral public comments.The link will direct you to directions to sign up for oral public comments. This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those action items above,as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion.Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person.Written comments and documents may only be submitted prior to the hearing. Any appeal of the Planning Commission's decision will be based on the record established before the Planning Commission,pursuant to SVMC 17.90 (Appeals). The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. STAFF REPORT AND INSPECTION OF FILE: A staff report will be available for inspection seven(7)calendar days before the hearing.The staff report and application file may be inspected by logging on to the Spokane Valley SmartGov Public Portal at this web address:ci-spokanevalley-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/Public/Home Go to applications and search for CPA-2020 to review or download the staff reports for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests. If you have any questions,please contact Chaz Bates,Senior Planner,Economic Development Division,at cbatesgspokanevalley.org. Carrie Koudelka,Spokane Valley Deputy City Clerk Publish:May 29,2020 and June 5,2020 EXHIBIT 9 Public and Agency Comments (Will be inserted as received) Chaz Bates From: Connor Lange Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 1:55 PM To: Chaz Bates; Mike Basinger Cc: Jenny Nickerson Subject: FW: Chas Bates This came through the Planning email today.Just passing it along. From: Selma Hair<selmahkh@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2020 1:37 PM To: Planning<planning@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Chas Bates RE:Parcel #45152 1311 N. McDonald Chas: On Monday, March 23, we spoke about the building permit on the property on McDonald. After our discussion, I was not very happy about the way the Planning Commision had changed the wording of the zoning permits that you issue. The words MIXED USE can mean many things. Business, Apartment, Medical, Auto Shop, Used Car Lot, etc. However you did tell me the person applying for the permit was planning on a Medical Buiding, although he could change his mind and build a Apartment Building. In the best interest of the people living in the city, it would be more helpful to be more clear of the type of building on said properties. This open end permitting can really turn into a bad situation. I do realize this type of zoning makes it much easier for you to monitor. But please consider the people you represent. Thank you for taking time to talk with me and please pass this on to the rest of the board and have a discussion. Respectfully, Selma Hair 12820 E. Sinto Spokane Valley 924 7352 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. COMMUNITY& PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING&PLANNING DIVISION Spocr�YaFkane STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION v CPA-2020-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE: June 3,2020 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: June 25,2020,beginning at 6:00 p.m.,remotely via Zoom. Project Number: CPA-2020-0002 Application Description: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial(I)to Regional Commercial(RC)and to change the Zoning District from Industrial (I)to Regional Commercial(RC) Location: Parcel number 35133.2321, located at 5901 E. Sprague Avenue, further located in the SW I/4 of Section 13, Township 25 North, Range 43 East, Willamette Meridian,Spokane County,Washington Applicant: Lawrence B. Stone Properties,PO Box 3949, Spokane,WA 99220 Owner: Lawrence B. Stone Properties#50 LLCs,PO Box 3949, Spokane,WA 99220 Date of Application: October 31,2019 Staff Contact: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner, 10210 E Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) General Provisions, Title 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Application Exhibit 6: SEPA Checklist Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit 7: Environment Determination Exhibit 3: Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 8: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 4: Zoning Map Exhibit 9: Agency and Public Exhibit 5: Aerial Comments A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment is a privately-initiated request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of parcel 35133.2321 from Industrial(I)to Regional Commercial (RC)and to change the Zoning District from Industrial(I)to Regional Commercial(RC). The stated intent of the proposal is to allow the subject property to be combined with the two properties to the south fronting Sprague. The existing use on the property is a paved parking lot. The site is flat and does not contain any critical areas.The property is south of a vacant used motor vehicle dealership. The properties to the north are industrial food manufacturing(Franz Bakery)and industrial manufacturing. The properties on the west are regional commercial uses(Home Depot)and to the east is I-90. The property is served by Sprague Avenue, a principal arterial,which at this location is a six-lane cross- section with dedicated left and right turn lanes and two-through lanes in each direction. The Average Page 1 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0002 06/03/20 Daily Traffic(ADT) for this segment of Sprague is just over 20,000 vehicular trips per day with a level of service of D. The Sprague Avenue and Fancher Road intersection is identified as being reconstructed with concrete in the 10-20 year timeframe. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size and Characteristics: The property consists of one parcel totaling 2.98 acres in size with frontage on Sprague Avenue and Fancher Road(no access on Fancher). Comprehensive Plan: Industrial (I) Zoning: Industrial (I) Existing Land Use: Vacant paved lot. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,ZONING,AND LAND USES: Comp Plan Industrial(I) North Zoning: Industrial(I) Uses: Industrial manufacturing Comp Plan: Regional Commercial(RC) South Zoning: Regional Commercial(RC) Uses: Vacant(former used motor vehicle sales) Comp Plan: Industrial(I) East Zoning: Industrial(I) Uses: I-90 right-of-way Comp Plan: Regional Commercial(RC) West Zoning: Regional Commercial (RC) Uses: larger format retail(Home Depot) IMPLICATIONS: The adopted Comprehensive Plan describes the RC designation as"Allows for range of commercial development. It includes areas like Auto Row along Sprague Avenue,the Valley Mall, and areas along arterials near Interstate 90. Generally,the development in these areas serve the region." Sprague Avenue contains retail services that meet the needs of the larger region: Costco,Walmart,Home Depot are all located in this area on property designated RC. The I zone would not allow the development of a retail sales and service use. Changing the land use designation and zoning from Ito RC would allow uses similar to nearby uses and will not negatively impact the area. APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Pre-Application Meeting: October 2,2019 Application Submitted: October 2,2019 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance: February 21,2020 End of Appeal Period for DNS: March 6,2020 Posted Notice of Public Hearing: March 6&May 27,2020' Published Notice of Public Hearing: March 6, 13,May 29 &June 5,2020' Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: March 10&May 27,2020' 1:Additional public notification required,- a result of cancelling a duly noticed public hearing due to COVID-19 and efforts to maximize social distancing. Page 2 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0002 06/03/20 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) SVMC, the lead agency has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The City issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal on February 21, 2020. The determination was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Titles 19, 21, and 22 of the SVMC, a site assessment, public and agency comments, the Comprehensive Plan and associated Environmental Impact Statement. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Analysis: The proposed amendment provides the opportunity to create a parcel of greater depth to provide for larger format structure. Based on the application, the intent is to combine the two RC parcels to the south with the proposal. Both the Industrial and Regional Commercial designations and zoning districts allow for intensive uses.Providing opportunity for development and redevelopment where there is existing infrastructure has a substantial benefit to public health, safety, and welfare. The amendment area is not covered by critical areas or designated natural resources. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment are promoted by standards established by the state and the City's regulations. (2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity to aggregate parcels in an area that is already served by supporting infrastructure. The proposal does not conflict with any other GMA goals. The amendment is not in conflict with any other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. (3) The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; Page 3 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0002 06/03/20 Analysis: The amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions from 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The amendment is not in response to a mapping error and would not correct any error. (5) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: While not identified as a deficiency, the Comprehensive Plan includes the following goals and policies that support increasing employment opportunities while taking advantage of existing supportive infrastructure. The proposed amendment contributes to the long-term success of the City by: ED-G1 Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. ED-P6 Promote the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties, particularly those with potential to serve as a catalyst for economic development. LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. LU-G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity. CF-P2 Optimize the use of existing public facilities before investing in new facilities. ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis: The change to RC will allow uses similarly allowed along the Sprague corridor. The change may result in a more people oriented active use in the area versus a vacant or industrial use, but the intensity would be similar to existing nearby uses. There is no concern on effect of physical environment. (2) The effect on open space, streams,rivers,and lakes; Analysis: There are no known critical areas associated with the site,such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas,frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed when future development occurs and stormwater associated with commercial development will be retained and treated on the site. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis: The property is adjacent to RC to the west and south; and Ito the north and east. To the north are existing industrial developments and users. To the south is a vacant used motor vehicle sales lot that is under the same ownership. To the west is Page 4 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0002 06/03/20 Home Depot. The RC designation will increase the intensity of people potentially visiting the site, this intensity is similar as the neighbors in the area. The projected impact to the surrounding neighborhood is minimal. Any future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses at the time of development. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads,public transportation,parks,recreation, and schools; Analysis:Sprague Avenue is a Principal Arterial and is expected to accommodate the projected change. The 20-year Transportation Improvement Plan identifies a concrete intersection at Sprague and Fancher by 2039. The existing and projected LOS for this segment of Sprague Avenue is D within City's adopted standard. Additionally, the change from Ito RC is expected to have a minimal impact to the transportation network and other utilities. The subject property and the property immediately to the south are considered infill development, as such, the expansion of RC related uses in this area is ideal because of the supporting infrastructure that is in place. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood,City, and region; Analysis: The proposed change would allow the property to be combined with the two properties fronting Sprague Avenue, increasing employment opportunities and growing the city's economy. The change benefits the neighborhood, City, and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: ED-G1 Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. ED-P6 Promote the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties, particularly those with potential to serve as a catalyst for economic development. LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. LU-G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity. CF-P2 Optimize the use of existing public facilities before investing in new facilities. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: The proposal would add approximately 3 acres of RC property to the 809 acres of existing RC designated property within the city. As of 2018 there are approximately 111 acres of vacant RC property within the city. The RC designation in this places allows for development of RC on the Sprague Avenue corridor in an area supported by existing infrastructure. The proposal is limited to a reasonable area and if developed under RC standards the type of use and density would be appropriate for the location. (7) The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: Under the existing conditions the subject property is a paved vacant lot. It appears the property was used in conjunction with the RC designated property to the Page 5 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0002 06/03/20 south for used motor vehicle sales, which is presently vacant. The change of the property from I to RC will not impact current or projected population density in the area. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The RC designation will support the goals and policies identified above. It would have very little to no effect on other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including Housing, Capital Facilities and Public Services,Public and Private Utilities, Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources. Conclusion(s): For the reasons outlined above the proposed amendment is consistent with SVMC 17.80.140(H). 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings:The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.The Comprehensive Plan describes the RC designation as "Allow[s] for range of commercial development. It includes areas like Auto Row along Sprague, the Valley Mall, and areas along arterials near Interstate 90. Generally,the development in these areas serve the region." This area of Sprague contains retail services that meet the needs of the larger region: Costco, Walmart, Home Depot are all located in this area.Allowing the subject property to develop under RC provision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the amendment is supported by the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: ED-G1 Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. ED-P6 Promote the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties, particularly those with potential to serve as a catalyst for economic development. LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. LU-G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity. CF-P2 Optimize the use of existing public facilities before investing in new facilities. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. 3. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The Growth Management Act(GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The area is currently served with adequate public facilities and services. Avista, Spokane County Environmental Services, Spokane Valley Fire District, Spokane County Water District #3,and Spokane District#81 provide electric and gas,sewer,fire protection,water,and schools services in this area. The existing and forecast level of service for the Sprague and Fancher intersection is D which is acceptable with the City's adopted standards. The only mitigation planned within the 20-year planning horizon is reconstructing the Sprague and Fancher intersection with concrete.Urban services are available. Specific site needs will be addressed at the time a development is proposed for the site. Page 6 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0002 06/03/20 b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has received no public comments to date. Comments received following the date of this report will be provided to the Planning Commission at the June 11,2020 meeting. 2. Conclusion(s): 3. The scheduled public hearing on March 26,2020 was canceled due to COVID-19 and efforts to maximize social distancing.Prior to the cancellation,the Notice of Public Hearing(NOPH) was published on March 6,2020 and March 13,2020.The NOPH was also posted on site and mailed to residents within a 400-foot radius of the subject property on March 10,2020. The public hearing was rescheduled for June 25, 2020. The NOPH was published May 29, 2020 and June 5, 2020 posted on site on May 27, 2020 and mailed to residents within a 400- foot radius of the subject property on May 28,2020. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any agency comments to date. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Spokane Valley Senior Traffic Engineer City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering City of Spokane Valley Building&Planning City of Spokane Valley Parks&Recreation Spokane Valley Fire Department City of Millwood City of Liberty Lake City of Spokane City of Spokane Valley Police Department Spokane County,Building and Planning Spokane County,Environmental Services Spokane County, Clean Air Agency Spokane County,Fire District No. 1 Spokane County,Fire District No. 8 Spokane County Regional Health District Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency Spokane Aquifer Joint Board Spokane Transit Authority(STA) Spokane Regional Transportation Council(SRTC) Washington State Dept of Commerce Washington State Dept of Ecology(Olympia) Washington State Dept of Ecology(Spokane) Washington State Dept of Fish&Wildlife Washington State Dept of Natural Resources Washington State Dept of Transportation Washington State Parks &Recreation Commission Page 7 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0002 06/03/20 WA Archaeological&Historic Preservation Avista Utilities Inland Power& Light Modern Electric Water Company Central Valley School District#356 East Valley School District#361 West Valley School District#363 Century Link Comcast Model Irrigation District#18 Consolidated Irrigation District#19 East Spokane Water District#1 Vera Water&Power Spokane County Water District#3 Spokane Tribe of Indians 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. F. CONCLUSION: For the reasons set forth in Section C(1 and 2)the proposed amendment to change the land use designation from Ito RC and the rezone from Ito RC is consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(H) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT 1 IProject # CP•2020-0) r?ECEIVFr- COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the;; 1 2U19 C$ Comprehensive Plan. STAFF USE ONLY COSV PERMIT CENTER RI 1R #� RFV p .) Date Submitted: �/>f 3//7C}% Received by: C�3 ee_• _ <Yr PLUS #: File#: ca2 ` PART II - APPLICATION INFORMATION Map Amendment; or n Text Amendment APPLICANT NAME: Ed Lukas, owner representative MAILING ADDRESS: PO Box 3949 CITY: Spokane STATE: WA ZIP: 99220-3949 PHONE: FAX: CELL:: EMAIL: (509)789-8641 (509) 343-9060 (509) 688-5385 ed@Ibstoneproperties.com PROPERTY OWNER : Lawrence B. Stone Properties #50, LLC MAILING ADDRESS: PO Box 3949 CITY: Spokane STATE: WA Zip: 99220-3949 PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL: (509) 343-9000 (509) 343-9060 SITE ADDRESS: PARCEL No.: N. Fancher Road 35133.2321 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Regionall Commercial ZONING DESIGNATION: Industrial PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: Regional Commercial BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT(attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper): See Attached PL-06 V1.0 Page 3 of S""okan ` P j Val ley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION Lawrence B. Stone Properties #50, LLC, desires to combine the subject parcel, #35133.2321 , with the two adjacent parcels, #35133.2403 and #35133.2404 immediately to the south in order to consolidate all three parcels for the construction of improvements in compliance with City of Spokane Valley codes for Regional Commercial tenants. Rezoning the subject parcel from Industrial (I) to Regional Commercial (RC) makes it compatible and consistent with the adjacent parcels and others in the surrounding area already established Regional Commercial businesses. We believe this amendment supports the economic goals and policies set forth in the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. PL-06 V1.0 Page 4 of SPokanee COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART III - AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) I, Lawrence B. Stone , (print name)swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. 51- tkis - 11 ignature) (Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of co-08-tr_ ,201 9 State a;;iidf t l�tl NOTARY SIGNATURE My Comrrdds:don Expires Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Se en-mber 1312021 Residing at: c)(4 ,, 1/1/11S4M-0-6k) My appointmentexpires: ' 113I2 2-I LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; Lawrence B. Stone ,owner of the above described property do hereby authorize Ed Lukas to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. PL-06 V1.0 Page 5 of Re: Lawrence B. Stone Properties #50, LLC October 29, 2019 Industrial (I) to Regional Commercial (RC) Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Narrative L.B. Stone Properties Group is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment for parcel number 35133.2321, situated along the east side of North Fancher Road in the City of Spokane Valley. This parcel is currently zoned Industrial (I) and is directly adjacent to parcels 35133.2403 and 35133.2404 which are zoned Regional Commercial (RC). 1. Our company is requesting this amendment to rezone the parcel along North Fancher Road from Industrial (I) to Regional Commercial (RC) zoning to accommodate a future development which will be constructed across all three parcels, and will have future uses designated under Regional Commercial zoning. Our company believes that this parcel is ideally located for permitted uses within the Regional Commercial (RC) zone, due to it being adjacent to other Regional Commercial properties and Interstate-90. Additionally, we believe that this amendment will fully support the economic development goals and policies set forth in the current edition of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. 2. A) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment in a number of ways. The proposed zoning change would keep Regional Commercial uses in the same area as laid out in the current comprehensive plan, thus keeping Regional Commercial uses separate from any residential areas, open space, or other pedestrian-oriented uses. The soil in the subject parcels is mostly covered with asphalt at the current time, but will be tested prior to any future development to ensure that proper protection of the environment is maintained at all times. B) This amendment is consistent with the City of Spokane Comprehensive Plan due to its alignment with the goals and policies of the Economic Development element. Page 1 of 3 Specifically, this proposed amendment would align with ED-G1, ED-G3, ED-G4, and ED- G6, while also being supported by the economic development policies laid out in the Economic Development element. C) Under the proposed amendment, it is not anticipated that there would be any substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. D) The proposed amendment does not address or correct any obvious mapping error in the Comprehensive Plan. E) The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. A) The effect of this proposal on the physical environment will be minimal. Future development will require the site to be graded, due to an elevation change between the two lower parcels (35133.2403 and 35133.2404) and the subject upper parcel (35133.2321). If anything, the physical environment will be improved, as a contemporary new commercial building for Regional Commercial uses will replace an old used car lot and dilapidated building. B) The subject parcel, as mentioned above, is situated near the corner of North Fancher Road and East Sprague Avenue, where there is no designated open space or any existing natural areas or sources of water present that could be disturbed by any future development that may take place on the parcels. C) The proposed amendment will be highly compatible with adjacent land uses, due to all adjacent uses being either (RC) or (I) so there would not be any negative impact anticipated on the surrounding neighborhoods. The area surrounding the parcels that the proposed amendment would affect currently has a high amount of traffic with East Sprague Avenue being classified as a principal arterial, so any increase in traffic could be easily handled by Sprague Avenue and by North Fancher road, which is classified as a minor arterial. Page 2 of 3 D) The impact on community facilities would be minimal due to the existence of adequate utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools in the area. Future development may cause short-term one-lane closures of North Fancher Road for short periods of time during construction, but the time frame for such closures would be limited. E) The primary benefit to the neighborhood, city and region would be an economic one in that new family-wage jobs would be increased with the addition of new tenants in the proposed commercial building. A secondary benefit is one of an aesthetic nature and has already been mentioned, i.e. the replacement of an old, used car lot and building with a contemporarily-styled new commercial building accented with attractive landscaping. F) The total acreage for the proposed commercial site is approximately 5 1/2 acres. Density impact to the area should be minimal as adequate entrances and exits are planned from the site, along with plenty of parking for employees, customers and visitors. The demand for such use of the land is high, as demonstrated by the success of the many other commercial properties along East Sprague Avenue. G) The current population density of the area is minimal, as there is practically no residential housing built in the industrial/commercial zones in which the subject property is located. The projected population density in the area will not be affected by the development. H) It is not anticipated that there will be any effects upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 2 Vicinity Map CPA-2020-0002 _ -esme_ ve fi� I � 1 IE Cataldo Awe a L� J''''1IIIIII III o �S/59, , _ Pi E MallonlA_v_e] _E Dean_Ave . ! c4 = Park y' z- I 1 � 1 �� o = Road Pool I II y II 1 �06° .g _ E Bro.adwa Ae III I I 190 a z' rI 1 111 Q I I 4_, z H U I I� I — J I Z $S� ,pringifE A�uer � e I� I IIICI■ ��eacox E AlkiAve ■■MI i I _1j_ 1 D-vv,Raxnp U ]q 6 / 1 o E II lire Ague, /0(3 / ,: I F e° r- E V lleyway Ave Z 1 - �—, --- I■■III■ L b z, I r I ■IIIII■ E Nixon Ave P • • • kane l 1111 Ia l � .l 1 l V E-Main_AueJ P, 1 �� - E Riverside_Ave spear I Ill II �U I II I I I III C L � � � � � � � � � � _ E,Sprague Ave �II ■■■ E_1 st AY_e R. AV Fire 6 f I II: ■ i I \ - Fikppleway1Blu I— 7 ■11111111 j wnlst�i�t>III 1 11 IIIIIms � �a ^ LA E-2ndAveJ fT111 1111111111 11111111�11 L 1111111111 11111111 �� 1 _ I .' b N �� II. ��50� ELI ® ® 1111111111 1111111M— ■11111■1■ ■1111■1 E 3rdAye I _q ] w f nil]_® ■IIIIIII: ■11111111 -I-90-0811-0N-Ramp w I9owas a�`' a '90 -� �m�� Pratt III 111 111 ■■1111111 E-4th Ave IIII TfT171C�111 �P � 111111111b, 1111111111 ' nn . . O Elementar �• �• Distunan ] Iflll IIII s tI flit iiilliiyl III �o IIIIII I .:111■] 1 Hills b — ■■�� ■■■ 'I II ,—�. E-Barldy-En11I IIII 111II I I� =NaturalArea II I —i III E■ �, 4 o xi _ HhIlllIIllhI I d I I I I I 11 I I I I I I f E srt1111 b _ a E 6thtyel II I I�! ■IIIII■IIII11111111 A AIIIII■■ f' 1L I III E. o � — IMMI v]' — 1 ■fi�� I - - 1 I J I II I I I ��I�1111■IIII .�� II Dr 1 1 1 I III I I E 2tha�e' I IIIIII I— �� E'6tn Ln - I■IIIIIIp ~ 1 `� — — o�`/in 1 vfi — MEd I-1 I I f'R. ■ I T �� 1 1 1 1 iE sth Ave I I 1 1 1111111111 I I I I I I 111■IIIIII I E 7th I 1 ■J 11 11 11111111M ETT 111111 / I I I 1111111■ ' ' 1111111111 1111■■1■1111111111■1 — IIIII■ F` — I 1 1 11 ■111111, 1111111 I p --f 111111111E 9th Ave 111i :11111111■ q, I I 1U J 111�■6 111111111 W _ - - 1■11111111111111111E 'a .'1 �� 1 I 1111111� �� - a C III II■■IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1 �� a, "iI � I— IIIIII IIIIII■ IIE110;na,e 11 I.11111■11 �' I H IIIIIt■ IIIIIIIE1dtliaue II 1 1 ■11111111 IIIIII I I 11III I I 1 "� �� 1 1 1 111 III 1 111 1 1 1 1 1111111E 1112th Ave I II I ,...■■ a�■■TIs. I I / I I I J 1 i l-{ I _ L1 u I I I —I� E 13th I 11.1 I I I 1 I I I I_l Ave E 13th Ct Miles O 0 0.25 0.5 1 EXHIBIT 3 Comprehensive Plan Map -, E Nixon Ave 0 a 1111 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1--„, �E-Main-Ave I -.., •• P4 Study Area U ct w z I / AIM qo w� E Sprague Ave �— qo wz Legend U CMU NC w c I POS IMU RC i MF SF MU CPA-2020-0002 Request: *Mime Lawrence B StoneProposed change: Land Use designation Owner: Properties#50 LLC from Ito RC and Zoning from Ito RC .000 Valley Parcel#: 35133.2321 Address: N Fancher Rd EXHIBIT 4 Zoning Map 1z xE Nixon Ave 0 a 1111 1 1 I I I I I I II 1 1--„. �E-Main-Ave I -.., •• P4 Study Area U ct w z I / AIM k, qo w, E Sprague Ave �— qo w, Al a4 _. Legend w c,' R1 MF RC NC IMU MU/ Ja. CMU CPA-2020-0002 Request: i—i""° Owner: Lawrence B Stone pUane Proposed change: Land Use designation Properties#50 LLC from Ito RC and Zoning from Ito RC *Valley Parcel#: 35133.2321 Address: N Fancher Rd EXHIBIT 5 2018 Aerial Map i -- --- - ---- Ilir` t �. .L d I' 1' `f�Y,?, - ili a: I .t .:x-4. � h- k ` t, �� rl - }I H,1*11 !r"�L Iil ', '.. AL ?i. 3 Nixon % - R-tO f ry° F° p _I •& . , — _,i` 1.. -- - Fad" i ::ems, 1�-° St.` - Main AM _ - , t.. � . r�,, �'iiii�� Study Area u r r 5' .. e :F ' • _NM ..§4,,1/4. _ Y J,„ , � y J ' 1 ,,s, . / ,..... , . ... . ._ i ....r4..e. • ._ i c4. •Li, L!! _ E Sprague A ve , '" Z� -I —'Fire ` f A } ' - *" District 1 1- I ill . ,,,„ "� a, a - x f. t ry, . O " O , ,, � , . ._ 1. .. •, c: r,. f •;t� �� .31 st Ave . ky:es,6112111 .., ; --- ... _ 4 ." iti 0 ,?6 , i A ... c„ , -9 - ./. .4. 2g SOOFF'W: Et ar,1 3 alpvo l # �• � d0 r. jL9 ._ am O X�P� r o E3rd Ave J ' > ciS N. Sr m t s `$ r CPA-2020-0002 Request: pooan"""` Owner: Lawrence B Stone Proposed change: Land Use designation e Properties#50 LLC from Ito RC and Zoning from 1 to RC s Valley Parcel#: 35133.2321 Address: N Fancher Rd EXHIBIT 6 Spokane SEPA CHECKLIST jValley SVMC 2I.20 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5240 • Fax: (509)720-5070 •pernnitcenter(a),spokanevallev.org STAFF USE°NI,Y Date Submitted: D/ f/2 iy Received by: Fee:7 fU` IVY PLUS #: File#: G?I - 2 L2c 62_ �' t6vt PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL -2d?�' **THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** RECEIVED € Completed SEPA Checklist OCT 31 2019 `� € Application Fee € Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 8'/z" by 11" or 11" by 17;',s�- . T € Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by MN- • It SUB # r REV. # PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: ._ The State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement(EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. JNSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know"or"does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON-PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non-project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). For non-project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant,"and "property or site"should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. PL-22 V1.0 Page 1 of 15 kalle SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR 111.0 AGENCY USE ONLY j Val ley A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable Fancher Commerce Center, Building 4 2. Name of applicant: Ed Lukas, owner representative for Lawrence B. Stone Properties #50, LLC, property owner. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: PO Box 3949 Spokane, WA 99220-3949 Ed Lukas, office (509) 789-8641 4. Date checklist prepared: October 30, 2019 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle. Any future project plans if any, will occur only after the Comp Plan process is finished. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes, consolidation of tax parcels #35133.2403, #35133.2404, and #35133.2321, and construction of a commercial building at 5901 east Sprague Avenue. Change of zoning enables consolidation of parcels without split zoning. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment performed by Alan T. Blotch Consulting Services, LLC, dated 9/19/03; and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment performed by TechCon, Inc., dated 10/23/03. Planning Level Trip Generation and Distribution Letter. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Yes, City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. SEPA Approval 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. PL-22 V1.0 Page 2 of 15 Kane SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Val ley You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) There is one (1) parcel included in the proposed map amendment. The property is currently listed and zoned as Industrial (I). The first parcel is located on North Fancher Road, near the intersection of North Fancher and East Sprague Avenue. The parcel is 2.98 ac +/- and is currently developed as a paved parking and storage area, accessed via driveways at the eastern portion. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposal site is near the northeast corner of East Sprague Avenue and North Fancher Road in the City of Spokane Valley. There is not a street address of record. Tax parcels: #35133.2321. The proposal site is within the SW '/4 of the SW '/4 of Section 13, Township 25 North, Range 43 East, W.M. 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? The general Sewer Service Area? Priority Sewer Service Area? (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). The proposal is within the ASA and the general Sewer Service Area. 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spill, or as a result of firefighting activities). As this is a non-project action no systems are to be constructed or put in place with this proposal. 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? As this is a non-project action no chemicals are proposed to be stored on the subject properties. 3. What protective measures will be taken to ensure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to PL-22 V1.0 Page 3 of 15 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR Spokane AGENCY USE ONLY Valkn. groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. As this is a non-project action that proposes no chemicals to be stored on site there are no protective measures proposed with this proposal. 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? For this non-project action, no chemicals are proposed to be stored or handled on site. b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? The depth to Groundwater on the subject properties is unknown at this time. 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. For this non-project action, there is no system proposed to discharge stormwater. PL-22 V1.0 Page 4 of 15 Kane SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY jValley B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (check one)e) rolling, hilly, steep slopes,mountainous, other Site is generally flat. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Site is generally flat with 5%+/- grade at driveway leading to adjacent parcel to the north. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Gravelly loam, no farmland. 7105 Urban land gravelly substratum, 0 to 15 percent slopes. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No, there are no indications or a history of unstable soils on the subject properties. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. As this is a non-project action there is no grading of any kind proposed on the subject properties. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. As this is a non-project action the subject properties are not proposed to have any grading activities and is therefore not anticipated to have any erosion occur as a part of this proposal. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? As this is a non-project action the proposal will not be changing the percentage of impervious surfaces of the subject properties. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: As this is a non-project action no earth disturbing activities are proposed and therefore no erosion is anticipated on the subject properties. PL-22 V1.0 Page 5 of 15 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR Spokane AGENCY USE ONLY jVal ley 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. For this non-project action, there are no emissions proposed, with future industrial uses associated with the construction of improvements typical building and vehicular emissions would be anticipated. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. There are no known off-site sources of emissions that would affect the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: There are no proposed measures at this time. 3. Water a. Surface: 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Central Pre-Mix pond approximately 2,200 feet to the northeast. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No work is proposed with this non-project action. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A, this non-project action has no proposed fill or dredge activities. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A, this non-project action has no water withdrawals or diversions. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No, the subject properties are not within a floodplain. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No, the proposed non-project action has no discharges to surface waters. PL-22 V1.0 Page 6 of 15 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR Spokane AGENCY USE ONLY .Valley b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No, Groundwater is proposed to be withdrawn from this non-project action. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No wastewater is proposed to be withdrawn from this non-project action. c. Water runoff(including stormwater): 1. Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. For this non-project action, no stormwater systems are proposed, stormwater will continue to flow as it currently does. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No, systems are proposed with this non-project action that would allow waste materials to enter the ground. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: No measures are proposed as no system is proposed. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? For this non-project action, no vegetation is proposed to be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no known endangered species on the subject properties. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: PL-22V1.0 Page7of15 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR Spokane AGENCY USE ONLY jVallev For this non-project action, there is no landscaping proposed. For future development the landscaping as required by City code is anticipated to be used. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: None known. birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no known endangered species on the subject properties. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Spokane County is within the Pacific Flyway. An online review of the available maps through the City of Spokane Valley did not list or show any, therefore no Migration route is anticipated to utilize the project site. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: There are no measures proposed with this non-project action. 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. NA, for this non-project action however for future development electricity and natural gas will be made available for heating, air conditioning and lighting. Additionally, solar, wind, and other sources of power would be available if installed by the property owner. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Future development is not anticipated to affect the potential use of solar energy. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Future development may include energy conservation features as required by state, county and national energy guidelines. PL-22 V1.0 Page 8 of 15 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR Spokane AGENCY USE ONLY Val Icy- 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe For this non-project action, no chemicals are proposed to be on site and would therefore have no risk of exposure, fire or explosion. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. For this non-project action, no special emergency services are required. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: For this non-project action, no measures are proposed with this proposal. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Minor traffic noise along East Sprague Avenue and North Fancher Road. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. For this non-project action, no noise is anticipated to be created. Future development may generate construction noise for a short period of time. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: For this non-project action, no measures are proposed. 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The parcel is currently developed as a paved parking and storage area. Property is vacant as of 10/18/19. Adjacent properties to the north are industrial; to the south, regional commercial. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Unknown, the subject properties are not known to have been used in agriculture. c. Describe any structures on the site. No permanent structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? For this non-project action, no structures are proposed to be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The subject property is currently zoned as Industrial (I). PL-22 V1.0 Page 9 of 15 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR Spokane AGENCY USE ONLY Val ley f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The subject property is listed as Industrial (I). g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? There is no shoreline designation of the subject properties. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The subject property has not been classified as environmentally sensitive. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? For this non-project action, no change would occur. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? For this non-project action, no people would be displaced. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: For this non-project action, no measures are proposed. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Regional Commercial land uses are quite common in the area. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? There are no proposed structures with this non-project action. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No views would be altered or obscured by this non-project action. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: PL-22 V1.0 Page 10 of 15 Spok SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR ane AGENCY USE ONLY Val ley There are no proposed measures for this non-project action. 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? For this non-project action, no light or glare is proposed to be produced. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? For this non-project action, no light or glare can be a safety hazard or interfere with views as there is none produced. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? There are existing Street lights on 8th Avenue and Sullivan Road. As well as the lights of the tennis courts and stadium of the Central Valley High School. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: For this non-project action there are no measures proposed. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None known. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. The proposed non-project action would not displace any recreational uses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: There are no proposed measures for this non-project action. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. b. Generally, describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. There are no known landmarks or evidence on the property. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: There are no proposed measures for this non-project action. 14. Transportation PL-22 V1.0 Page 11 of 15 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR Spokane AGENCY USE ONLY jVallev a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Subject property is near the northeast corner of the intersection of East Sprague Avenue and North Fancher Road. Access to 1-90 is immediately south of Sprague Avenue. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? For this non-project action, no parking spaces would be completed. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). For this non-project action, no roads or street improvements will be completed. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. This non-project action does not occur within the immediate vicinity of these services, therefore, the non-project or any future actions are not anticipated to use alternative modes of transportation. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Unknown at this time. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: There are no anticipated impacts from this non-project action, future development of a real project would generate trips that may have impact and would be evaluated at that time. 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. For this non-project action, additional public services will not be applicable. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. There are no proposed measures for this non-project action. 16. Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: PL-22 V1.0 Page 12 of 15 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR Spokane AGENCY USE ONLY Val ley ✓ Electricity ✓ Natural gas ✓ Water ✓ Refuse service ✓ Telephone ✓ Sanitary sewer o Septic o Other b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. For this non-project action, no utilities are proposed to be used. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is re ing on them to make its decision. Signature: Date: �'� PL-22 V1.0 Page 13 of 15 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR Spokane AGENCY USE ONLY jValley D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal would allow commercial uses to be developed, with such development there would be an increase to stormwater, vehicular and building emissions to the air as well as vehicular noise. There may also be the storage of fuel with applicable permits that would not be proposed to be released under such permits. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: For this non-project action there is no proposed measure other than City code providing landscape requirements that would serve as a buffer between a proposed project and the existing land uses. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal is not anticipated to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: There are no proposed measures at this time. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The property does not provide energy or natural resources for a business of industry, a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: There are no proposed measures, other than existing rules and regulations. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposal is not anticipated to affect environmentally sensitive or designated areas. a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: There are no proposed measures, other than existing rules and regulations. PL-22 V1.0 Page 14 of 15 SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR Spokane AGENCY USE ONLY , Val ley 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? There are no shorelines on the subject properties, so there is not going to be an impact. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are There are no proposed measures, other than existing rules and regulations. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal may increase traffic on local roads and intersections please see the planning level trip generation letter. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: There are no proposed measures at this time. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. There are no known conflicts with local, state, or federal laws. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this c k list. Date: /1/ 7/1 Signature: Please print or type: Proponent: Ed Lukas on behalf of Lawrence B. Stone Properties #50, LLC Address: PO Box 3949, Spokane, WA 99220-3949 Phone: (509) 789-8641 Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Address: Phone: PL-22 V1.0 Page 15 of 15 EXHIBIT 7 /'� COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Sun 1� e DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE jvP I1 10210 East Sprague Avenue• Spokane Valley WA 99206 aller 509.720.5000 •Fax: 509.720.5075 •planning@spokanevalley.org FILE NUMBERS:CPA-2020-0001; CPA-2020-0002; CPA-2020-0003; CPA-2020-0006; CPA-2020-0007 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTIONS: CPA-2020-0001: Privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45152.1004(0.47 acres)from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). CPA- 2020-0002: Privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 35133.2321 (2.98 acres) from Industrial(I)to Regional Commercial(RC). CPA-2020-0003: Privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcels 45094.0133,45094.0134,and 45094.0121 (6.24 acres total)from Multifamily Residential(MFR)to CMU. CPA-2020-0006: City initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45013.9024(8.8 acres)from Ito CMU.CPA-2020-0007: City initiated text amendment to Chapter 2 Goals and Policies for alternative housing types and area-wide rezone to implement new policies APPLICANT/OWNER: CPA-2020-0001: Land Use Solutions/Tucker Roy LLC; CPA-2020-0002: Ed Lukas/Lawrence B. Stone Properties,Lawrence B. Stone Properties#50 LLC; CPA-2020-0003: Jay Rambo/Revere-Dece III, LLC, Revere-Dece, Brill Properties LLC; CPA-2020-0006: Spokane Valley/East Valley School District; CPA-2020-0007: Spokane Valley/Citywide. PROPOSAL LOCATIONS: CPA-2020-0001: 1311 N. McDonald Road, further located in the NW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 44 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane County,Washington CPA-2020-0002: 5901 E. Sprague Avenue, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 13, Township 25 North, Range 43 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA-2020-0003: 1723 and 1724 N Union Road, further located in the SE 1/4 of Section 09, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA-2020-0006: 3830 N Sullivan, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 01, Township 25 North, Range 44 East,Willamette Meridian,Spokane County,Washington CPA-2020-0007: Spokane Valley/Citywide LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley. DETERMINATION: Determination of Non-Significance is issued under Washington Administrative Code(WAC) 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date issued. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m.on March 6,2020.Pursuant to Title 21,Environmental Controls of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC),the lead agency has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required under Revised Code of Washington 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates,AICP, Senior Planner,City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509)720-5337; cbates cr spokanevallev.org RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Mike Basinger, AICP, Economic Development Manager, City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509) 720-5333, mbasinger@spokanevalley.org spokanevalley.org DATE ISSUED: February 21, 2020 SIGNATURE: APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community& Pucific Works Department within fourteen(14)calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and specific factual objections made to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with SVMC 17.90 Appeals, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Schedule shall be paid at the time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. City of Spokane Valley February 18,2020 Determination of Non-Significance(DNS) Page 1 of I File Nos.CPA-2020-0001;CPA-2020-0002;CPA-2020-0003;CPA-2020-0006;CPA-2020-0007 EXHIBIT 8 Notice of Remote Public Hearing City of Spokane Valley 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Due to the restrictions on public gatherings arising from the covid-19 outbreak,and pursuant to Governor Inslee's Stay Home,Stay Healthy Proclamation(No.20-25)and Proclamation 20-28(and associated extensions),this hearing will be conducted remotely using web and telephone conference tools,as described below. HEARING DATE AND TIME: June 25,2020 beginning at 6:00 p.m. ZOOM MEETING DETAILS: Join Zoom Meeting A link to the Zoom meeting will be provided on the agenda and posted to the City's webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/planningcommission. HEARING BODY:Spokane Valley Planning Commission The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive public comment on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests and make a recommendation to the City Council on each of the following applications: FILE No.CPA-2020-0001:A privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45152.1004(0.47 acres),addressed as 1311 North McDonald Road from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). FILE No.CPA-2020-0002: A privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 35133.2321 (2.98 acres),unaddressed,from Industrial(I)to Regional Commercial(RC). FILE No.CPA-2020-0003:A privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcels 45094.0133, 45094.0134,and 45094.0121 (6.24 acres total),addressed as 1723 and 1724 North Union Road from Multifamily Residential(MFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). FILE No.CPA-2020-0006:A City initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45013.9024(8.8 acres),addressed as 3830 North Sullivan Road Bldg 1,from Industrial(I)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). FILE No.CPA-2020-0007:A City initiated text amendment to Chapter 2 Goals and Policies to provide policy guidance for increased housing density and provide implementing regulations,including an area-wide rezone of approximately 1,200 acres. STAFF CONTACT:Chaz Bates,AICP,Senior Planner;(509)720-5337 cbates@spokanevalley.org ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City issued a Determination of Non-significance(DNS)on February 21, 2020 pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)and chapter 21.20 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). HEARING PROCEDURES: The Planning Commission will conduct the remote hearing pursuant to the rules of procedure adopted in SVMC Title 18(Boards and Authorities). The public is encouraged to submit written comments prior to the hearing by sending the comments to Chaz Bates, 10210 E Sprague Ave,Spokane Valley,WA 99206,or email to cbates@spokanevalley.org. Comments will need to be submitted no later than 4:00 PM on June 25,2020 in order for them to be received and prepared for submission into the record. Comments received will be entered into the record at the time of the public participation portion of the Public Hearing.If you would like to deliver comments to City Hall you may contact City Hall at(509)720-5000 prior to 4:00 PM on June 25,2020 to schedule an appointment for delivery and allow staff to scan and include in the report.Comments received through US Mail will be included if they are received prior to the hearing. All interested persons may testify at the remote public hearing via the zoom meeting address and/or phone number. Interested persons will need to sign up to speak no later than 4:00 p.m.on June 25,2020 at the link provided in the agenda posted at the link referenced above.Use the link above to sign up for oral public comments.The link will direct you to directions to sign up for oral public comments. This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those action items above,as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion.Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person.Written comments and documents may only be submitted prior to the hearing. Any appeal of the Planning Commission's decision will be based on the record established before the Planning Commission,pursuant to SVMC 17.90 (Appeals). The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. STAFF REPORT AND INSPECTION OF FILE: A staff report will be available for inspection seven(7)calendar days before the hearing.The staff report and application file may be inspected by logging on to the Spokane Valley SmartGov Public Portal at this web address:ci-spokanevalley-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/Public/Home Go to applications and search for CPA-2020 to review or download the staff reports for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests. If you have any questions,please contact Chaz Bates,Senior Planner,Economic Development Division,at cbatesgspokanevalley.org. Carrie Koudelka,Spokane Valley Deputy City Clerk Publish:May 29,2020 and June 5,2020 EXHIBIT 9 Public and Agency Comments (Will be inserted as received) COMMUNITY& PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY aF BUILDING&PLANNING DIVISION Spu okane v Talle STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA-2020-0003 STAFF REPORT DATE: June 3,2020 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: June 25,2020,beginning at 6:00 p.m.,remotely via Zoom. Project Number: CPA-2020-0003 Application Description: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Multifamily Residential(MFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Multifamily Residential(MFR)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Location: Parcel numbers 45094.0133, 45094.0134, and 45094.0121 addressed as 1723 and 1724 N Union Road, further located in the SE I/4 of Section 09, Township 25 North,Range 44 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Applicant: Jay Rambo,PO Box 212011, Spokane Valley,WA 99214 Owners: Revere-Dece III,LLC; Revere-Dece 202 (building owner),760 SW 9th Ave St 200,Portland OR 97205; Brill Properties LLC,2910 E 57th 5-122 Spokane WA 99223 Date of Application: October 29,2019 Staff Contact: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner, 10210 E Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) General Provisions, Title 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Application Exhibit 7: Environment Determination Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit 8: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 3: Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 9: Agency and Public Exhibit 4: Zoning Map Comments Exhibit 5: Aerial Exhibit 10: Trip Generation and Exhibit 6: SEPA Checklist Distribution Letter A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment is a privately initiated request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for parcels 45094.0133,45094.0134,and 45094.0121 from Multifamily Residential(MFR)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)and to change the Zoning from Multifamily Residential (MFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). The existing use on parcels 45094.0133,45094.0134 is a 204 unit multifamily development(Revere Ridge) and a single-family residence on parcel 45094.0121.The site is moderate to steeply sloped and Page 1 of 9 Staff Report CPA-2020-0003 06/03/20 does not contain any critical areas.To the east of the properties are duplexes and a self-storage facility,to the north is I-90,to the east are offices, and to the south are single family homes. The property is accessed via Union Road, a local access road that ends in a cul-de-sac at the properties. Union Road connects to Mission Avenue about 500 feet to the north and is approximately I/4 mile west of Pines Road.Union Road does not have sidewalks but sidewalks were installed along Mission in 2019, connecting to Pines on the east and Mission Park to the west.The Average Daily Traffic(ADT)for Mission Avenue at Union,in 2015,was estimated at just over 7,600 vehicular trips per day with a level of service of D. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size and Characteristics: The properties consists of three parcels totaling 6.24 acres in size. Comprehensive Plan: Multifamily Residential(MFR) Zoning: Multifamily Residential (MFR) Existing Land Use: An apartment complex with approximately 200 units and a single- family home is located on one of the properties. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,ZONING,AND LAND USES: Comp Plan: Industrial(I) North Zoning: Industrial(I) Uses: I-90 Comp Plan: Single Family Residential(SFR) South Zoning: Single Family Residential Urban(R 3) Uses: Single-family homes Comp Plan: Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) East Zoning: Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Uses: professional office Comp Plan: Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) West Zoning: Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Uses: Duplex homes IMPLICATIONS: The adopted Comprehensive Plan describes the CMU designation as"allow[ing] for light manufacturing, retail,multifamily,and offices along major transportation corridors. It is primarily used along Sprague Avenue, and the north-south arterials."Mission Avenue is an improved east-west Minor Arterial that generally meets the description of the CMU designation.While the subject properties do not have frontage on Mission,they are sandwiched between CMU properties to the east,west and portions to the north. The designation change and rezone of the site to CMU allows for a broader range of uses than the MFR zone,including retail and office uses.The CMU also would allow increased density. The residences to the north may experience impacts from the increased intensity of use on the property,though the Mission and Pines area already provides fairly intense uses.Any development on the property adjacent to the R-3 zone will be subject to the adopted transitional provisions to minimize the impacts to the neighboring zone. The transitional provisions include height limitations, screening and landscaping requirements. Page 2 of 9 Staff Report CPA-2020-0003 06/03/20 APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Pre-Application Meeting: October 2,2019 Application Submitted: October 2,2019 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance: February 21,2020 End of Appeal Period for DNS: March 6,2020 Posted Notice of Public Hearing: March 6&May 27,2020' Published Notice of Public Hearing: March 6, 13,May 29 &June 5,2020' Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: March 10&May 27,2020' 1:Additional public notification required; a result of cancelling a duly noticed public hearing due to COVID-19 and efforts to maximize social distancing. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) SVMC, the lead agency has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The city issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal on February 21, 2020. The determination was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Titles 19,21,and 22 SVMC,a site assessment,public and agency comments,the Comprehensive Plan and associated Environmental Impact Statement 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions)of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Analysis: The proposed amendment changing the land use designation from Multiple Family Residential to (MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) has a relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The adopted Comprehensive Plan describes the CMU designation as "allow[ing] for light manufacturing, retail, multifamily, and offices along major transportation corridors. It is primarily used along Sprague Avenue, and the north-south arterials."The subject properties are between CMU properties to the west, east, and south.Access is provided by Union Road via Mission Avenue. Mission Ave is a Minor Arterial. Changing the Page 3 of 9 Staff Report CPA-2020-0003 06/03/20 land use designation to CMU increases the flexibility of allowed uses and allowed density on the sites in an area with supportive infrastructure, which has benefit to public health, safety, and welfare. The amendment area is not covered by critical areas or designated natural resources. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment are promoted by standards established by the state and the City's regulations. (2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity to provide an expansion of the multiple family development on the site and the opportunity to provide the neighborhood will access to daily goods and services in a centralized area with adequate public facilities; there are two projects in the 6-year TIP along Mission Avenue just south of this area to improve capacity. The proposal does not conflict with any other GMA goals. The amendment is not in conflict with any other portions of the comprehensive plan. (3) The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; Analysis: The amendment does not respond directly to a substantial change in conditions beyond the owner's control. However, the 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan eliminated the Office designation generally replacing it with the CMU designation, which was the case for the parcels to the west, east, and south. While the 2016 plan changed the designation of the surrounding vacant lands from Office to CMU, the properties subject to the amendment request had a multiple family development and the designation of Multiple Family was not changed. The CMU designation provides more flexibility than the Office and Multiple Family designations. The changing of the surrounding properties from Office to CMU created a situation whereby the subject properties may not use their property to the similarly situated properties to the west, east, and south. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The amendment is not in response to a mapping error and would not correct any error. (5) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The proposed amendment adds little capacity to the CMU designation; all three parcels have existing structures and two have multiple family developments on them. Changing the designation from Multiple Family Residential to Corridor Mixed Use on an existing developed parcel provides the opportunity to increase density on developed parcels using pre-existing infrastructure and provide flexibility to add service retail oriented to the area. While the proposal does not address a direct deficiency, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the following goals and policies that support the proposed change: LU-G1 Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. Page 4 of 9 Staff Report CPA-2020-0003 06/03/20 L U-P16 Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas. H-GI Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. H-G3 Allow convenient access to daily goods and services in Spokane Valley's neighborhoods. CF-P2 Optimize the use of existing public facilities before investing in new facilities. ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis: The change to CMU will allow existing uses as well as commercial, office and higher residential development of the properties. The properties will have the opportunity to transition, add density and add a mix of uses to serve the surrounding neighborhood. There is no concern on effect of physical environment. (2) The effect on open space, streams,rivers,and lakes; Analysis: There are no known critical areas associated with the site,such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas,frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The parcels are not located within shoreline jurisdiction, and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed should future development occur. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis: The 6.25-acre site is currently developed with a multiple family development and a one single family home. The adjacent use to the south is single family, to the west self-storage, to the east office, multiple family and vacant CMU. The CMU land use designation surrounds the amendment site to the west, east,and north. The amendment is consistent with the adjacent land use designations. If approved future development of the site will be subject to the transitional provisions adopted in the development regulations. Potential development consistent with the CMU zone will be compatible with properties to the west, east, and south. The projected impact to the surrounding neighborhood is minimal.Any future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses at the time of development. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads,public transportation,parks,recreation,and schools; Analysis:Mission Avenue is a Minor Arterial. There are two projects in the 6-year TIP along Mission Avenue just south of this area, one of which is the intersection capacity improvement and signal modification at Pines/Mission. Site-specific improvements and their impact to this project would be identified through the development review process, and development on the parcels within the Mirabeau Subarea Study area. Page 5 of 9 Staff Report CPA-2020-0003 06/03/20 The subject properties are considered infill development, as such, the expansion of allowed uses and increased densities are supported by the infrastructure that is in place. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis: The proposed change would allow the property to increase density and support infill development in an area planned for growth. The change may support increased housing opportunities, office, employment, or access to daily goods and services. The change benefits the neighborhood, city, and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: ED-GI Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley ED-P3 Encourage businesses that provide jobs and grow local markets. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: The proposal would add approximately 6.5 acres of CMU property to the 1,666 acres of existing CMU designated property within the city. While additional demand for CMU property may be limited, the CMU designation in this place would allow for increased options for development including retail services serving the existing multiple family development. The proposal is limited to a reasonable area and if developed under CMU standards the type of use and density would be appropriate for the location. (7) The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: Under the existing conditions and there is one dwelling unit proposed to be removed. While CMU allows residential development, it is not expected that residential development would occur and therefore the City would lose one single-family house as a result of the amendment. The change is not expected to have significant impacts to population density in the area. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The CMU designation will support the goals and policies identified above. It would have very little to no effect on other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including Housing, Capital Facilities and Public Services,Public and Private Utilities, Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources. Conclusion(s): For the reasons outlined above the proposed amendment is consistent with SVMC 17.80.140(H). 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings:The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.The Comprehensive Plan describes the CMU designation as"allow[ing] for light manufacturing,retail,multifamily, and offices along major transportation corridors.It is primarily used along Sprague Avenue,and the north-south arterials."The subject properties are between CMU properties to the west,east,and south.Access is provided by Union Road via Mission Avenue.Mission Ave is a Minor Arterial. Changing the land use designation to CMU increases the flexibility of allowed uses and allowed density on the sites in an area with supportive infrastructure. Additionally, the amendment is supported by the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: ED-GI Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley Page 6 of 9 Staff Report CPA-2020-0003 06/03/20 ED-P3 Encourage businesses that provide jobs and grow local markets. LU-G1 Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-P16 Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas. H-G1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. H-G3 Allow convenient access to daily goods and services in Spokane Valley's neighborhoods. CF-P2 Optimize the use of existing public facilities before investing in new facilities. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. 3. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The Growth Management Act(GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The area is currently served with adequate public facilities and services.Modern Electric Water Company, Spokane County Environmental Services, Spokane Valley Fire District, and East Valley School district provide water, sewer, and fire protection and schools services in this area. Regarding transportation,future development on the subject properties would be subject to the Mirabeau Subarea Update,which identified costs for developments within the area to ensure the City will have the street infrastructure needed to support planned development.As a result, it is expected that sufficient roadway capacity exists or is programmed to exist with future road improvements on the City street system to accommodate the uses resulting from the CPA. Urban services are available. Specific site needs will be addressed at the time a development is proposed for the site. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has received no public comments to date. Comments received following the date of this report will be provided to the Planning Commission at the June 11,2020 meeting. 2. Conclusion(s): 3. The scheduled public hearing on March 26,2020 was canceled due to COVID-19 and efforts to maximize social distancing.Prior to the cancellation,the Notice of Public Hearing(NOPH) was published on March 6,2020 and March 13,2020.The NOPH was also posted on site and mailed to residents within a 400-foot radius of the subject property on March 10,2020. Page 7 of 9 Staff Report CPA-2020-0003 06/03/20 The public hearing was rescheduled for June 25, 2020. The NOPH was published May 29, 2020 and June 5,2020 posted on site on May 27, 2020 and mailed to residents within a 400- foot radius of the subject property on May 28,2020. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff received one comment from the Washington State Department of Transportation requesting additional information on the impacts of the land use change on the state's transportation network. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Spokane Valley Senior Traffic Engineer City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering City of Spokane Valley Building&Planning City of Spokane Valley Parks&Recreation Spokane Valley Fire Department City of Millwood City of Liberty Lake City of Spokane City of Spokane Valley Police Department Spokane County,Building and Planning Spokane County,Environmental Services Spokane County, Clean Air Agency Spokane County,Fire District No. 1 Spokane County,Fire District No. 8 Spokane County Regional Health District Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency Spokane Aquifer Joint Board Spokane Transit Authority(STA) Spokane Regional Transportation Council(SRTC) Washington State Dept of Commerce Washington State Dept of Ecology(Olympia) Washington State Dept of Ecology(Spokane) Washington State Dept of Fish&Wildlife Washington State Dept of Natural Resources Washington State Dept of Transportation X 12/11/19 Washington State Parks&Recreation Commission WA Archaeological&Historic Preservation Avista Utilities Inland Power& Light Modem Electric Water Company Central Valley School District#356 East Valley School District#361 West Valley School District#363 Century Link Comcast Model Irrigation District#18 Consolidated Irrigation District#19 East Spokane Water District#1 Vera Water&Power Page 8 of 9 Staff Report CPA-2020-0003 06/03/20 Spokane County Water District#3 Spokane Tribe of Indians 2. Conclusion(s): A Trip Generation and Distribution Letter(TGDL) was completed for the proposed amendment. The subject properties are within the updated Mirabeau Subarea Study, which identified costs for developments within the designated study area to ensure the City will have the street infrastructure needed to support planned development. If the land owners were to redevelop upon the approval of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a mechanism exists as outlined in the Mirabeau Subarea plan to mitigate for traffic impacts.As a result,it is expected that sufficient roadway capacity exists or is programmed to exist with future road improvements on the City street system to accommodate the uses resulting from the CPA.No concerns are noted. F. CONCLUSION: For the reasons set forth in Section C(1 and 2)the proposed amendment to change the land use designation from MFR to CMU and the rezone from MFR to CMU is consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(H) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT 1 S"nokan r COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION ,�r�Valley STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: 10-,27 '19 ,Received by: CL Fee:ff/to OQ .b- PLUS#: File#: CPA- occ)3 PART II — APPLICATION INFORMATION RECEIVED roject # �� RECEIVED X Map Amendment; or ❑Text Amendment OCT 2 9 2019 COSV PERMIT CENTER APPLICANT NAME: Jay Rambo SUB # RFV # MAILING ADDRESS: PO Box 142011 CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99214 PHONE: 509-879-0865 FAX: CELL: EMAIL: jay@jrambo.net PROPERTY OWNERS: Revere-Dece III Inv, LLC, Revere-Dece 202 Building Owner, LLC and Brill Properties, LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 760 SW 9th Ave., St. 200 / 2910 E. 57th Ae. 5-122 CITY: Portland / Spokane STATE:OR/WA ZIP: 97205 / 99223 PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL: 45094.0133, 45094.0134 and SITE ADDRESS: 1723 and 1724 N. Union PARCEL NO.: 45094.0121 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential (MFR) PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) ZONING DESIGNATION: Multi-Family (MF) PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT(attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper): Change from Multi-Family Residential to Corridor Mixed Use to more fully conform with the surroundinq designations. PL-06 V1.0 Page 3 of 5 Spokane Val ley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART III - AUTHORIZATION �,�J / (Signature of legal owner or applicant) I, X/4.1 / !N Zthe print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made trutfull n to the best of my k •dge. 7 (-2-� 0 az1 20l �' (Si ature) (Date) D Rt.bon®z"I9 NOTARY STATE OF N) Mu I+no1Y , ss: COUNTY OF f&POKAF1E e ) Z,o-t -9 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this -CIA a day of DGtb .€ f , 20 11 NOTARY SEAL NOTARY SIGNATURE 0� 'A CH STIE OFFICIAL Notary Public in and for the State of +rngterr,o12- r� NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON `,,,. COMMISSION NO.949274 ,, 17 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 12,2020 Residing at: Vona)6 u-eI , w My appointment expires: 1-12-2 62_ LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I, Ivaj Mvi128 I , owner of the above described property do hereby authorize Jav Rambo to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. PL-06 V1.0 Page 5 of 5 S" okan�` p Valley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION j PART III - AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) I, Ccirx. 7 , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. .67,7 104yo70 r (Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2 2,d day of 044..9e , 20 19 NOTARY SEAL NOTARY SIGNATURE SEAN C SALMON Notary Public N Public in and for the State of Washington State of Washington Commission if 205368 My Comm. Expires Dec 19, 2022 2-2_ �� I tt O 1 �_� _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Residing at: ^(J� Sfok.AL Jo,I iev wA 99o3'si My appointmentexpires: DEC. 19 2.022. LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I, G.1/J1t_.b.tArA 'JP- • , owner of the above described property do hereby authorize Jay Rambo to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. PL-06 V1.0 Page 5 of 5 Below in bold text are the approval criteria, in italic text is the analysis in responding to criteria. a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; The proposed amendment would be entirely consistent with the surrounding zoning designations and thereby be consistent with public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; The proposed amendment would modify the zoning and make all of the adjoining properties consistent with the CMU designation. c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the owner's control but rather modifies the uses of the property so that it may be developed consistently with the neighboring properties. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or The amendment is not in response to a mapping error and would not correct any error. e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. There is no apparent reason or justification for the differing zones in the Comprehensive Plan. Additional factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: a. The effect upon the physical environment; Other than adding structures to the parcels, the proposal will have no adverse effect on the physical environment. b. The effect on open space,streams, rivers, and lakes; The proposed change should have no effect on any open space, streams, rivers or lakes. c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; The current zoning designation essentially does not allow the owners of Parcel #45094.0139 to utilize their property as the City does not allow the development of mixed zones in a single project. Since it is necessary for Parcel#45094.0121 to provide access to Parcel#45094.0139(as Parcel#45094.0139 does not otherwise have access), it is necessary for Parcel#45094.0121 to have its zoning designation modified so that Parcel#45094.0139 may be utilized. If the zoning for Parcel#45094.0121 is modified, the remaining two parcels(45094.0133&.0134)should be modified as well to be consistent with all adjoining parcels. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment should have no impact on utilities, roads, public transportation,parks, recreation and schools since this infrastructure is already in place and would merely be utilized by the community as a whole. e. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; The neighborhood would benefit as Parcel#45094.0121 would be able to be utilized as currently allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; The land quantity, location and demand for this land is such that it would be immediately utilizable in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. g. The current and projected population density in the area; and While there may be no density limitation for the CMU zone, it will be necessary for the parcels to comply with the parking and transitional requirements imposed by the City of Spokane Valley. h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. There should be no effects on other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. EXHIBIT 2 Vicinity Map CPA-2020-0003 ,� -m■■■■■■■ mm� ■ ■ -Thi ■11111 ' 11111111■ E$uckeyeAv_e �� ."'.' 'LA11111111 1 ■1111■11■111111111■ ill Mirabeau E MariettalLn �� _Buc1eyeLn p� : :.. „win",- ■t Stlstl�� S■ �� f 1j��I�w i E Marietta Ave ■ ■■ ■ ■� �� Jack�I zl �'�I� II im E Montgorn�r} Dr II� E Jackson_4v_e °z1 - - ., � / ■ ECarlisleA� ..� ,1 �� o� - � � Y ip p ., I III■■ , _ F li �G� IEIlliki I I I hi••..hill Emina Age 1 - 1111 MI o li o NEI illi — r �� EMansfieldA,v �� FireMt . aEKnox_Ave �� II IIll District 1 , �� Spo . ---=_ = \ III '� M••� EMontgome�e E-'�iariaA, �� am:u 1 on 0UIIitUIIi o ra dzan I� �' E-I 90 W 289 E I 90 Fwy I■ ,g, :9-0.V-.'i..—E•NoraAve —i I■ =Li HUM E:I�O—E289-OFF-Ramp �19� 0.1 tiir�1111�i� �1111�p►��o�Il•� �= b � I 1 IE Augusta Ln E Au usta ' �� MissionRiiil �41 111k ■1 ■■■■■■■■■11111 ■■■■mini z' E Ii. 1MI I I I 1111111 — — 11 ■ El j ils li°�Ave I I, — 1 H 1111111 J I ■ ,�� ■1■■ E Maxwell Aue g -III 1111111 I '_MaayellLn M� ` ff �■ ■��— A■■■■ = a g1111 < < < =r1 I � I , ■■■ 111■ ■11■ I III p =_�I Z poliltgmoirm _11111 E Sinto AVe • �Sinto Ln-■��' '■i7 1 z 111111111. ' U i111111■ 111174 MTJ �■ irisilii:IIi maim—1— aiI ■. E I.-- ■1111 ■11. -A ■ E sharp A�� 1111 _ ■ II I, Iii j ■I■, 111 E Boone Ave iIhi : IIIII�1■' I I I I ? JJ JJ I I ll z i■� I■ EBalfour 1 11,•g on MI MIME ME ■: ■M ■■■111 . — 1 rI- VIM I IIIII 1 1 1 I-7 I I I I �I 16 ■■■■■■ M1� ■F �■ M' - _ IE Desmet Ave z 111/11/11 ' 11 ■■■■■ z I z ■ ■■■p ■ ;• p4'a 1.• i w a-_ _ • 11111111110 I I I I I■ e ■II a■ b, • • z =■ z��_ NM Barker,High I ; z ■� l�� I 3; �o IE Cataldo Ave o, ■ E Dean Ave■ 1111111■■�� ■ $� �, go �J I 1 � � School and - ■_ E:Mallon Ave �,- zi i_= t �" ■ E Mallon Ct Learning III �` 1 ■■■■`u . - g •,,Ih111111 ■■ ■"1■■■■1■■o I ■■■ ai ■N — I E_Broadway_Avea j North nil o�,�. - . II NM Pines ■ .L�'�1��;1 , 11111111 ' Nzb, z1 ! 11■■ 111 ■ ■11 1Middle ■ �1111 —� I �� ;-= %• 1._: hh■■ ■ ■ E Springfield Aye, ■� IIIIIIII ��■1 Broadway n r g ��,t'�1111� _ ■ -■ ■■■■ —liiuiiii� Im ... ■ . _ : -� 11111111 ,l1�1�■ 11 Elementary ■■■■■■/ E A1ki Av_e �rinim\■■■ ■11■. I I I I z; . i�■■■■■■I -- �:-•■■■■■i■os.�1■11■.NMI u 1 z W!Iii111111u- --_ I Miles O 0 0.25 0.5 1 EXHIBIT 3 Comprehensive Plan Map 1111. E Montgomery Ave E 190 W 289 On Ramp E I 90 Fwy E I 90 Fwy Study Area E I 90 E289 OFF Ra ,. liäTve -.717— IIIM i= :z z L E Mission Aye I 1 1 • Legend _ Eli CMU NC — POS -41MI IMU MI RC E Maxwell Ave MF SF — MU [ CPA-2020-0003 Request: Spo Of kane Owner: Revere-Dece III LC Proposed change: Land Use Revere-Dece 20202 Bu Building Owner LLC 40000 ill Properties LL designation from MF to CMU ValleY Parcel#: Br450940133C.0134,.0121 and Zoning from MF to CMU Address: 1723/1724 N Union Rd EXHIBIT 4 Zoning Map 1111. E Montgomery Ave ------/- *---------_____--------191pr E 190 W 289 On Ramp E 190 Fwy• Study Area E I 90 E289 OFF Ra ,. IE Nora Ave -cl 0-g — o jir1. :z z L E Mission Aye —\ ,- M Legend _ R1 IMF RC R2 NC IMU lE-Maxwell Ave R3 MU I _ ill POS CMU 1 I I I 1 1 1 CPA-2020-0003 Request: t'iip ors Owner. Revere-Dece III LC Proposed change: Land Use Revere-Dece 20202 Bu Building Owner LLC 40000 ill Properties designation from MF to CMU Valley Parcel#: Br450940133C.0134,.0121 and Zoning from MF to CMU Address: 1723/1724 N Union Rd EXHIBIT 5 2018 Aerial Map 7 r ii,...... F: ilifi'. LI tr ..—!. .z 1... i-- .D. ''.42! 4 r isik .. ,. •- .� E {+j fi • r 14 , ,/ t ' , .4 . .1;,-=----; .: •, • • ,,,7 0' ....... :. -or, :•,•-•.. ... - .„-- T.:-.• : 1,4jA-0.4(,, . : . • 14 .4011.12-• • 'Wit 1 - MontgomelY.' .. '- - • IidianaA� . EMont .o 1- s�i /%' .; ue,- . w ' • Study Area I T WU ii , •. . .1.111)11 ... 1 . 1, r . . klalt �. �Y�-- EyI 90 W 289 On Rarnp= ,..I �r _ —� — -'-_I 90 Fwy la 1 •w a _ E I 'O.; - ' OFF#Ramp:• .I '-. a-:_- _ '...s. ..— , ` t • Valley .• . ,o Ave + 1 gin Park " • .d l — a oA "' b ugusta _ • .- VIA 1 1; AI r r • c. ae 3 Mission ivs F ': '' i . E M11 A� a MM.well i ,: o ave` 1 . . , tc:-! i'tillird:Tt'..';'; . ! E.Smto‘wn w _ a -Wire ] • • l .. ..1,'...,•, CPA-2020-0003 Request: Spokane Owner: Revere-DecellllnvLLC Proposed change: Land Use Revere-Dece 202 Building Owner LLC ill Properties LLC designation from MF to CMU 400000 Valle Parcel#: Br45094.0133, .0134,.0121 and Zoning from MF to CMU Address: 1723/1724 N Union Rd EXHIBIT 6 Orid SEPA CHECKLIST A ne Valle svMc 21.20 y 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5240 • Fax: (509)720-5075 •permitcenterAspokanevalley.org STAFF USE ONLY Project #(OA 2U2D-O005 RECEIVED Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: PLUS #: File#: OCT 2 9 2019 COSV PERMIT CFNTFR SUB #E.-1 REV. # 1 PART I — REQUIRED MATERIAL - **THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** ❑ Completed SEPA Checklist ❑ Application Fee ❑ Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 81/2" by 11" or 11" by 17" size ❑ Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement(EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or"does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON-PROJECT PROPOSALS; Complete this checklist for non-project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS(Part D). PL-22 V1.0 Page 1 of SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane 4000 Valley For non-project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable Revere Ridge Apartments 2. Name of applicant: Jay Rambo 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: PO Box 142011, Spokane Valley, WA 99214 509-879-0865 4. Date checklist prepared: October 24, 2019 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Checklist is required as part of Comp Plan Amendment. Not sure of proposed timing. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Not aware of any applications pending for government approval. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Not aware of any government approvals for permits needed for our proposal. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) PL-22 V1.0 Page 2 of SEPA CHECKLIST ne _i Valley This is necessary as part of the Comp Plan Amendment. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The location of this proposal is at 45094.0133, 45094.0134 & 45094.0121 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? No. The general Sewer Service Area? Yes. Priority Sewer Service Area? (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) /Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of(including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). None. 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? No. 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. No chemicals will be stored in sufficient quantities to warrant concern 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? No. PL-22 V1.0 Page 3 of ""`" SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane �'�Valley b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? Approximately 100+ feet to groundwater. 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. Property owners will work with City of Spokane Valley staff to contain runoff. B. ENVIRONMENTALELEMENTS EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 1 ) Earth a. General description of the site (check one): rj'flat, /rolling, I I hilly, (l steep slopes, I I mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? \ ' >C1 t > c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. pci ,. iL ,✓i,_, . d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Not aware of any unstable soils. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. There is no proposed grading at this time.. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Any potential erosion would be mitigated and contained in conjunction with the requirements of the City of Spokane Valley. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not known at this time. PL-22 V1.0 Page 4 of S okane SEPA CHECKLIST P Valle y h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2) Air EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. No air emissions are anticipated at this time. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None. 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. PL-22 V1.0 Page 5 of SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane Val ley EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No. c. Water runoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. There should be no runoff. What runoff there is will be contained and treated on site in accordance with the requirements imposed by the City of Spokane Valley. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: No. PL-22 V1.0 Page 6 of Spokane SEPA CHECKLIST ley. EVALUATION FOR 4) Plants AGENCY USE ONLY a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ❑ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other I1 evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs Mgrass ❑ pasture crop or grain El wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other El other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Grass and small shrubs c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: A Landscape Plan will be developed in conjunction with the City of Spoakne Valley. 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: l birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:None. PL-22 V1.0 Page 7 of o okaile SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 6). Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and possibly gas will be used for lighting and possibly heating. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None. 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe None. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise from 1-90. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. There would be no meaningful increase in noise from the property. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. PL-22 V1.0 Page 8 of ""`" SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane .Valley EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Multi-Family Residential and Commercial. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. Apartments and garages. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Garages may possibly be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Multi-Family f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Multi-Family Residential g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not Applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? No. If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not known at this time. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? The project should not displace anyone. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not Applicable. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None. PL-22 V1.0 Page 9 of S okane SEPA CHECKLIST 0 Valle y EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not known at this time. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not known at this time. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. 11 ). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? None. What time of day would it mainly occur? b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. PL-22 V1.0 Page 10 of 14 Spokane `'' SEPA CHECKLIST j Val ley EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Parks and trails. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? No. If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? No. If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Union Road. Show on site plans, if any. b. Is site currently served by public transit? No. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Approximately 500 feet. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? Not known. How many would the project eliminate? None. PL-22 V1.0 Page 11 of ""or • SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane Val ley d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? Assume a private road will be necessary. If so, generally EVALUATION FOR describe (indicate whether public or private). Private road or driveway. AGENCY USE ONLY e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? No. If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? Not known. If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? Probably not. If so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at th site: I�el tricity, r�natural I gas, Gvater, 1,4 refuse service, (telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other- describe b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. PL-22 V1.0 Page 12 of "okane SEPA CHECKLIST 40.0.Val ley C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: _ A to 2- I' Date Submitted: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? No. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Owners with work with City Oof Spokane valley staff to mitigate any increases. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? No affect. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: No measures should be needed. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? No. PL-22 V1.0 Page 13 of T'�kalle SEPA CHECKLIST _Valley a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands. floodplains, or prime farmlands? No affect. a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: No measures needed. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Not likely. PL-22 V1.0 Page 14 of " pol�ane SEPA CHECKLIST S ��Valley a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts Are none are needed. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Not likely. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. There should be no conflicts. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. • Date: Signature: c �-1 Please print or type: Proponent: Address: Phone: Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Jay Rambo Address: PO Box 142011, Spokane Valley, WA 99214 Phone: 509-879-0865 PL 22 V1.0 Page 15 of EXHIBIT 7 /'� COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Sun 1� e DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE jvP I1 10210 East Sprague Avenue• Spokane Valley WA 99206 aller 509.720.5000 •Fax: 509.720.5075 •planning@spokanevalley.org FILE NUMBERS:CPA-2020-0001; CPA-2020-0002; CPA-2020-0003; CPA-2020-0006; CPA-2020-0007 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTIONS: CPA-2020-0001: Privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45152.1004(0.47 acres)from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). CPA- 2020-0002: Privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 35133.2321 (2.98 acres) from Industrial(I)to Regional Commercial(RC). CPA-2020-0003: Privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcels 45094.0133,45094.0134,and 45094.0121 (6.24 acres total)from Multifamily Residential(MFR)to CMU. CPA-2020-0006: City initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45013.9024(8.8 acres)from Ito CMU.CPA-2020-0007: City initiated text amendment to Chapter 2 Goals and Policies for alternative housing types and area-wide rezone to implement new policies APPLICANT/OWNER: CPA-2020-0001: Land Use Solutions/Tucker Roy LLC; CPA-2020-0002: Ed Lukas/Lawrence B. Stone Properties,Lawrence B. Stone Properties#50 LLC; CPA-2020-0003: Jay Rambo/Revere-Dece III, LLC, Revere-Dece, Brill Properties LLC; CPA-2020-0006: Spokane Valley/East Valley School District; CPA-2020-0007: Spokane Valley/Citywide. PROPOSAL LOCATIONS: CPA-2020-0001: 1311 N. McDonald Road, further located in the NW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 44 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane County,Washington CPA-2020-0002: 5901 E. Sprague Avenue, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 13, Township 25 North, Range 43 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA-2020-0003: 1723 and 1724 N Union Road, further located in the SE 1/4 of Section 09, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA-2020-0006: 3830 N Sullivan, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 01, Township 25 North, Range 44 East,Willamette Meridian,Spokane County,Washington CPA-2020-0007: Spokane Valley/Citywide LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley. DETERMINATION: Determination of Non-Significance is issued under Washington Administrative Code(WAC) 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date issued. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m.on March 6,2020.Pursuant to Title 21,Environmental Controls of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC),the lead agency has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required under Revised Code of Washington 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates,AICP, Senior Planner,City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509)720-5337; cbates cr spokanevallev.org RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Mike Basinger, AICP, Economic Development Manager, City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509) 720-5333, mbasinger@spokanevalley.org spokanevalley.org DATE ISSUED: February 21, 2020 SIGNATURE: APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community& Pucific Works Department within fourteen(14)calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and specific factual objections made to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with SVMC 17.90 Appeals, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Schedule shall be paid at the time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. City of Spokane Valley February 18,2020 Determination of Non-Significance(DNS) Page 1 of I File Nos.CPA-2020-0001;CPA-2020-0002;CPA-2020-0003;CPA-2020-0006;CPA-2020-0007 EXHIBIT 8 Notice of Remote Public Hearing City of Spokane Valley 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Due to the restrictions on public gatherings arising from the covid-19 outbreak,and pursuant to Governor Inslee's Stay Home,Stay Healthy Proclamation(No.20-25)and Proclamation 20-28(and associated extensions),this hearing will be conducted remotely using web and telephone conference tools,as described below. HEARING DATE AND TIME: June 25,2020 beginning at 6:00 p.m. ZOOM MEETING DETAILS: Join Zoom Meeting A link to the Zoom meeting will be provided on the agenda and posted to the City's webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/planningcommission. HEARING BODY:Spokane Valley Planning Commission The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive public comment on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests and make a recommendation to the City Council on each of the following applications: FILE No.CPA-2020-0001:A privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45152.1004(0.47 acres),addressed as 1311 North McDonald Road from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). FILE No.CPA-2020-0002: A privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 35133.2321 (2.98 acres),unaddressed,from Industrial(I)to Regional Commercial(RC). FILE No.CPA-2020-0003:A privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcels 45094.0133, 45094.0134,and 45094.0121 (6.24 acres total),addressed as 1723 and 1724 North Union Road from Multifamily Residential(MFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). FILE No.CPA-2020-0006:A City initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45013.9024(8.8 acres),addressed as 3830 North Sullivan Road Bldg 1,from Industrial(I)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). FILE No.CPA-2020-0007:A City initiated text amendment to Chapter 2 Goals and Policies to provide policy guidance for increased housing density and provide implementing regulations,including an area-wide rezone of approximately 1,200 acres. STAFF CONTACT:Chaz Bates,AICP,Senior Planner;(509)720-5337 cbates@spokanevalley.org ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City issued a Determination of Non-significance(DNS)on February 21, 2020 pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)and chapter 21.20 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). HEARING PROCEDURES: The Planning Commission will conduct the remote hearing pursuant to the rules of procedure adopted in SVMC Title 18(Boards and Authorities). The public is encouraged to submit written comments prior to the hearing by sending the comments to Chaz Bates, 10210 E Sprague Ave,Spokane Valley,WA 99206,or email to cbates@spokanevalley.org. Comments will need to be submitted no later than 4:00 PM on June 25,2020 in order for them to be received and prepared for submission into the record. Comments received will be entered into the record at the time of the public participation portion of the Public Hearing.If you would like to deliver comments to City Hall you may contact City Hall at(509)720-5000 prior to 4:00 PM on June 25,2020 to schedule an appointment for delivery and allow staff to scan and include in the report.Comments received through US Mail will be included if they are received prior to the hearing. All interested persons may testify at the remote public hearing via the zoom meeting address and/or phone number. Interested persons will need to sign up to speak no later than 4:00 p.m.on June 25,2020 at the link provided in the agenda posted at the link referenced above.Use the link above to sign up for oral public comments.The link will direct you to directions to sign up for oral public comments. This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those action items above,as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion.Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person.Written comments and documents may only be submitted prior to the hearing. Any appeal of the Planning Commission's decision will be based on the record established before the Planning Commission,pursuant to SVMC 17.90 (Appeals). The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. STAFF REPORT AND INSPECTION OF FILE: A staff report will be available for inspection seven(7)calendar days before the hearing.The staff report and application file may be inspected by logging on to the Spokane Valley SmartGov Public Portal at this web address:ci-spokanevalley-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/Public/Home Go to applications and search for CPA-2020 to review or download the staff reports for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests. If you have any questions,please contact Chaz Bates,Senior Planner,Economic Development Division,at cbatesgspokanevalley.org. Carrie Koudelka,Spokane Valley Deputy City Clerk Publish:May 29,2020 and June 5,2020 EXHIBIT 9 Public and Agency Comments (Will be inserted as received) From: Fog,Greg To: Chaz Bates Cc: Kay,Charlene Subject: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA-2020-003 and CPA-2020-006 Date: Tuesday, December 10,2019 4:53:56 PM Good afternoon Chaz, Thank you for the opportunity to review the above requested comprehensive plan amendments. The applications as submitted provide little information regarding what traffic would be generated by these changes. Without further information WSDOT cannot determine what impacts these requests will have on the state transportation system.These impacts need to be estimated as part of the transportation element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. WSDOT requests that additional information be provided regarding these changes and the traffic generation that may result. Please let me know if you should have any questions on this request. Sincerely, Greg Figg Development Services Manager WSDOT Eastern Region Planning 2714 N. Mayfair Street Spokane, WA 99207 (509) 324-6199 figgg@wsdot.wa.gov CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. From: Fog,Greg To: Chaz Bates Cc: Kay,Charlene Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA-2020-003 and CPA-2020-006 Date: Thursday,June 25,2020 2:20:20 PM Attachments: image001.pnq Good afternoon Chaz, WSDOT has reviewed the traffic information prepared for the above two comprehensive plan amendments. The information presented shows that these two amendments will not result in a large increase in traffic over what the current zoning allows. Consequently WSDOT does not have any further comment on these proposals. Please let me know if you should have any questions. Thanks, Greg Figg Development Services Manager WSDOT Eastern Region Planning 2714 N. Mayfair Street Spokane, WA 99207 (509) 324-6199 figgg@wsdot.wa.gov From: Chaz Bates <cbates@spokanevalley.org> Sent:Thursday,June 25, 2020 7:39 AM To: Figg, Greg<FiggG@wsdot.wa.gov> Cc: Kay, Charlene<KayC@wsdot.wa.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA-2020-003 and CPA- 2020-006 WARNING:This email originated from outside of WSDOT. Please use caution with links and attachments. Greg, You mentioned about following up our phone call about the TGDL for two of our comp plan amendments referenced above. Today at 4 is the deadline if you want to share written comments. Chaz Bates,AICP I Senior Planner 10210 E.Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley,WA 99206 509.720.5337 I cbates@spokanevalley.org July 2, 2020 Chaz Bates City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Comments Regarding Proposed Amendments Chaz; I would like to submit this letter to clarify our position for the three parcels which we seek to amend the Comprehensive Plan from the zoning classification MFR to CMU. These three parcels are TPNs 45094.0134, 45094.0133 and 45094.0121. Two of these parcels are owned by Revere Ridge. The third is owned by Brill Properties (which is owned by a local developer of apartments). We have spoken with the City a fair amount about this proposed change. However, based on the comments from the Planning Commission, we feel that some issues were not communicated properly, and members of the Planning Commission were certainly not privy to our conversations. Let me start by saying that I think we would agree that there is a fair amount of parking on Union which inhibits the flow of traffic on the street. I believe this is something to which we can all agree, and I believe the concerns of the commissioners are legitimate. There have also been discussions about how best to address these concerns and fix any problem(s). However, it was our understanding that any issues would be addressed at the time of development, not at re-zoning. We therefore decided to not address any of these issues with the Planning Commission as any future actions related to these parcels would be hypothetical. We were afraid that anything we said may be misconstrued and we did not want to have the City feeling that we had misrepresented our true intentions, or that the owners would be bound by some preliminary comments. At the present time Revere Ridge is interested in possibly making some improvements to their apartments. They would also like to clean up the strip of land adjacent to 1-90 where an abandoned basketball court is located. Based on several conversations with the Building Department, it would be much easier for Revere Ridge to update their apartments if the Comprehensive Plan is amended as there are no density requirements for the CMU zone. While there may be no density requirements with the CMU zoning designation, there are other applicable requirements with which Revere Ridge would need to comply. These requirements would include fire access, water flow and parking. In terms of the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, we would like those involved in the decision-making process to know the following as it relates to Revere Ridge: - At such time as Revere Ridge is updated and the lower area is paved for parking, the owners have no issues with the City restricting the on-street parking on Union. The owners of Revere Ridge feel that many of the vehicles parked on Union are a poor reflection on their apartment complex, especially those which are located at the entrance to their complex(i.e., older vehicles on stands which are being worked on and are present for an extended period of time). The owners are constantly asking their property managers to monitor and remove these vehicles. - If the Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved, the strip of land adjacent to 1-90 would be cleaned up and converted to on-site parking as part of the development. This additional parking would serve the needs of the residents of Revere Ridge and help relieve the current congestion on Union (which should benefit the neighboring properties). - At the present time Revere Ridge is contemplating removing approximately 20 of their garages and replacing them with 40 studio and one-bedroom apartments. The exact mix of units would be made based on market conditions (at the time of submittal) and is subject to approval by the Building Department (and the SVFD). As an FYI, Revere Ridge currently has 104 apartments and 52 garages. Please see the attached drawings by David Rodeback. If the Comprehensive Plan is amended, Revere Ridge would provide more detailed architectural and engineering for the Building Department to review as part of the development process. Brill Properties owns the third parcel which is subject to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Brill Properties also owns an additional, contiguous parcel (TPN 45094.0139) immediately to the east of TPN 45094.0121. ft is challenging for Brill Properties to develop their two parcels due to their layout as TPN 45094.0121 will provide access for both parcels. When jointly developing the two parcels, Brill Properties must comply with the more restrictive of the two zoning designations (i.e., the MFR). By rezoning TPN 45094.0121, it will allow Brill Properties to take advantage of the CMU on both parcels. Brill Properties has recently submitted a Phase 1 to construct three four-plexes. If the rezoning is approved, Brill Properties would like to construct additional apartments on these two parcels. It is my understanding that Brill Properties will have ample on-site parking for their residents and guests. Our goal is to accomplish the following by modifying the zoning to the three parcels: - Allow some additional apartment construction by Revere Ridge. Our understanding is that any changes are not a function of zoning but are subject to the requirements of the Building Dept. - Clean up the stretch of land adjacent to 1-90 where the abandoned basketball court is currently located by adding some on-site parking and thereby relieving congestion on Union Road. - Enable the owners of Brill Properties to maximize any apartments constructed on their land, which it really cannot do now even though TPN 45094.0139 is currently zoned CMU. Modifying the zoning would in fact allow additional uses. However, based on my conversations this is not the intent of the owners. The current owners develop and invest in apartments. Changing to an alternative use would require demolishing the existing and proposed investment which has already been made for apartments(which are occupied). The owners would simply like to utilize the CMU zone which the adjoining parcels to the east and to the west currently enjoy so that they may make additional investments in their properties. Please let me know if there are any questions. I have provided some diagrams of the parcels in question. In addition, Revere Ridge has forwarded some potential designs to provide the City an idea of their preliminary intentions. Sincerely, C)4\1/41 Jay Rambo `; *_,r . City of Spokane Valley Zoning Click Here for Permitted Use Matrix I �) - -_- ...v c 2LEES ip.-raG2 n. iii E 14,1I . 'ILFJb E: 1 Aerial view of TPN's 45094.0134, 45094.0133 and 45094.0121 showing the topography and layouts of the lots. 8 SCOUT X _ ` ill ¢ C) {,b' cp.spokanecounty o._ ••• ;I:.- 1` f Measure More Info 10- 15 r, 9,: 094.0591 94.0508. 1 - 450' 3119 + J Si Feet a aIII it �� Measurement Result - -- 1111. Vilk w F 1.. li Ill's w M' I., ' Press CTRLto enable snapping.Turn off the Measurement tool to turn on is- e or parcel selection. 45094.0134 ` arriTou 4509'4.1005 µ +t 45094.0121 5 0J 45094:1 «3 - i A - ,n - 4509 .t19' ; 45094.0139+ • 45094:110 45094.110 ,y . - maim Tin" 6 -'a t. t• a; 45.94.0009 , . e .5. ._ - -.� �. II o - {cri'34.i131 NO i l 6Kr '4 45094.0117 011 • '.,: le a _- „� _ss 450'4.0002 _ '�. rr; ' ,45D94.t1136 . �.: 4509a.0132Q 45094.002 (;�� ¢}�� iti _ ' �,. +'i7'`Xit1 45094,0801 - w i, ! art t , . y - "_ Spokane Co,: raIon I 10 • s •`Wine .j.. ElA Type here to searelt 0 l'9 Egi 2.S a x"° 01 Q q • r' Location of the abandoned basketball court which would be converted and used for on-site parking for residents of Revere Ridge el 1 scour N i a[j Measure 1.+ More info ip- �, — _ -- • lib Ilk Ili 'A INT wow 1141111.11MISINMIMO • PP i.. _ et • - y V • ,i +: �., �t _ a _.:aneCo4,i[;�nformationTechno g ..a•. - I. C. ® ...0 Type hereto search 0 PH i .- z .. 0 � his Area for the proposed parking lot would be in excess of 17,000 square feet or approximately .4 of an acre. A more precise area would be detailed with engineering, but ample area appears to exist. SCOUT X 1111111 -.. IIIIIIM L G1 cp.spo><anecoum, _, ®- •tr . t' t_ its -.. lit- MI = Measure I.' More Info •- -' 1111rmill , 4 :. I Sq Feet d b Measurement Result a gib N 17,465.5 Sq Feet 'f Wens CTin to enable snapping.Turn 1 n,N the Measurement tool to turn on i chi RbS Ili _..erce!selection------ Pr s Illaik . . - ,;:, sue,.- .. M r. F .. rRlitt A. ' *,'l: ` Y .*"' ,-4. �' 4 + Y` iram,_ � .�µ � S •CC I. 4. l r�l= S1 . i s_______:..:_-__ Inh cs. ,..,4: - - . it- i , , „,,„.L: ___ __ .• , „, _ i„„,* ....7-,,,Ez• _..4. 4. rs_ " .. K y - - `.`.' - ; - as a. { ... I -.� _ _ _ J : _ c LL1t star _1. __1.r_::.. -_,-ctL..1: s. -C•�.tu D13 Type here to search 0 in Li S Z '' ., > e' o 2-STORY(40 UNIT)APT BUILDING W/TUCK UNDER PARKING AND/OR GARAGES 120' 120' STUDIO : _ ., STUDIO STUDIO 1-BED 1-BED STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO 1-BED 1-BED 400 SF 400 SF 600 SF 600 SF 400 SF 400 SF 400 SF 600 SF 600 SF 400SF ,v LOBBY , STUDIO _1-BED 1-BED STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO 1-BED 1-BED STUDIO STUDIO 6p0 SF _ - - -400 SF 400 SF 400 Sf 400 SF 408 SF ll 400 SF . 600 SP 600 SF 400 SF _ __ .. -- f 1 • (E)GARAGE BLDG TO BE . N. • • REMOVED TYP 0 `' • i \ <s - , ' 7Elt___________, . kJ, 1 / ,i .. .' • .. .D \ \ , : 4. : -------7 o a L n WODFBAch =iITECT LLC AdditionalTitle:Revere Ridge Apartments - Proposed Units CONCEPTUAL PARTIAL SITE PLAN 1723 North Union Rd (11;r) Date _11 1 812 02 0PO Box �� 503-502.5490.Po„�d.oR97zap Spokane Valley, Washington o da»dOdlrsrrll.mm. Project: fi1606 Z Scale: 1" =40'-0' 1 OF 1 July 17, 2020 Chaz Bates City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Comments Regarding Proposed Comprehensive Amendment CPA-2020-0003 Chaz; I wanted to pass along some additional comments regarding proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2020-0003. I realize that the Planning Commission has issued their recommendation and my comments are obviously not going to change their minds. However,we would like to get our comments on the record as a) it is hard to know how best to convey our thoughts to the City Council in light of the current pandemic and b)the Planning Commission will likely have future Amendments to consider and this information may be useful for future decision making processes. Let me start by saying that I personally believe the Planning Commission took their role seriously and voted for what they honestly believe to be in the best interests of the great City of Spokane Valley. The Planning Commission voiced their concerns over the increased traffic on Union Road and the negative impact it would have on the neighboring property owners. The overriding concern was that any increased traffic would exacerbate the parking along Union Road and make local access more difficult. We would concur that the parking along Union Road is far from optimal. To this we all agree. It is also very clear that City staff recommended that the Comprehensive Plan be amended for these three parcels. We don't believe the fact of the staff recommendation is nearly as important as the reasons for their recommendations (which is what I would like to address in this letter). If we start with the premise that local access on Union Road is less than ideal (and you won't get any argument from us), it is a matter of how best to address the situation. I think there are two options. - The first is to do nothing and hope that the situation somehow rectifies itself. The existing uses were all approved at one time and are thereby grandfathered. The result of the Planning Commission's recommendation is to do nothing and not make things any worse. Things won't get any better, and hopefully they also won't get any worse. - The second approach is to sit down with the owners, engineers and architects to figure out if it makes sense to improve to the existing infrastructure to relieve the congestion and increase the water flow for fire safety. There are other elements but let me address these two issues. Before I get into the weeds, I hope no one is naïve enough to think that if the Comprehensive Plan is amended,that construction will begin on the site later this summer. This is not how the process works. Rather, the property owners will need to sit down and visit with the City staff as to how best to bring the existing infrastructure up to current standards. This will require extensive discussions, considerable engineering and a fair amount of time. No permits will be issued until all the concerns get resolved. I get the sense that if the Planning Commission approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment,that they felt additional construction would begin without the current shortcomings being addressed. Let me touch on the two infrastructure issues I see. The first is parking. The second is water flow. At the present time Revere Ridge has a strip of land on the northern boundary of their property which is approximately a half acre in size where there is an abandoned basketball court. I assume everyone who has driven east on 1-90 and taken the Pines exit has seen this land. One of the first things the new owners of Revere Ridge did was to contact me and see if we might be interested in buying the land and cleaning up this area for storage units. After several conversations with the owners of Revere Ridge and City staff, we determined that it would probably be best if Revere Ridge used to strip of land for parking should they ever wish to expand. Without engaging some engineers, it is difficult to get a precise count as to how many parking spots could be constructed on the northern strip of land (especially when you do not know exactly how many additional apartments would be built). However, based on the size of the area, it looks like there could be somewhere in the vicinity of 50 parking spots created. The preliminary architectural drawings would have 40 apartments being created on the second and third levels, while maintaining 20 ground level parking spaces (see attached). Based on a rough calculation, it appears that there could be as many as 30 additional parking spaces created over and above that which is required (50 new spots+20 ground level spaces—40 required stalls = 30 remaining). There appear to be approximately 8—10 cars parked along each side of Union Road. If the parking lot were constructed on the northern strip of land, it looks like this area would have more than enough room to handle the additional stalls required for the 40 apartments plus all the cars along Union Road, and still have additional spots available. This should relieve much of the congestion on Union Road. If the Planning Commission is going to take into account traffic flow and parking, I would think they will need an engineer to evaluate these matters, which I don't believe they have. If there is no engineer or other expert to advise the Planning Commission, I don't know how the Planning Commission will go about determining the adequacy of the traffic flow and parking, other than to just look at Union Road and give it a thumbs down. Attached are two diagrams of water lines maintained by MEWCO. The first shows the water lines before we constructed Wilbur Road Self Storage in 2017. The seconds shows what MEWCO would like to see if there is additional construction (and MEWCO has been in the loop and will not approve anything unless the existing water lines are improved). I assume the Planning Commission, nor the City Council is intimately familiar with water lines so I would like to make a couple of remarks. - Based on my conversations with MEWCO and the SVFD,the existing water lines do not meet the current standards of what would be required if Revere Ridge were to be constructed from scratch today.These water lines are deficient in two respects. First, many of the water lines are 4" in diameter and current regulations would require 8" - 12" lines. Second,the water lines terminate or dead end, whereas water line design now requires the lines to be looped. Looping the water lines with upsized pipes will dramatically increase the flow(which I would assume the SVFD will require if there is new construction). - If folks have a little time and would like to see a current example of the water lines, please come by and visit with me at Wilbur Road Self Storage. I promise I will not try to talk anyone into a storage unit or a U-Haul truck. Rather, I will show you our site where we installed an 8" line which is looped from Wilbur&Augusta through our property over to Bates&Augusta and has four fire hydrants installed. For those of you who have better things to do than talk to me, please see the water line we installed which is depicted on the attached diagram from MEWCO. Under the MFR zone, it makes no sense for Revere Ridge to grade their land and turn it into parking. Nor does it make any sense to start digging, upsizing water lines and repaving asphalt to service their existing apartments. However, if there are no density limitations on their land (per CMU), it may be financially viable for Revere Ridge to add some additional apartments and thereby justify the costs of updating the infrastructure. If the unused strip of land is utilized for parking and the water lines are upsized, this will benefit the surrounding properties as the traffic congestion will be alleviated and the water flow will be improved. If the Planning Commission is going to weigh in on the traffic as a basis for denying the Comprehensive Plan amendment, one would think they would also want to do so for the water flow. Again, I don't know if they have the expertise to evaluate the adequacy of the water flow and any modifications. When the Planning Commissions starts taking factors into account which are beyond their area of expertise and opining as to the adequacy of the infrastructure as a basis to approve or deny a Comprehensive Plan amendment, I think this becomes a rather slippery slope. I do not want to put words into the mouths of the City staff, especially since they will receive a copy of this letter and can speak to these issues much better than I could ever dream of. However, I believe that the reason why the staff has supported the Comprehensive Plan amendment is that they understand that any current inadequacies in the infrastructure will need to be addressed prior to any permits being issued. I don't mean to slight the Planning Commission (which was trying to do what is best for the great City of Spokane Valley), but I believe City staff is in a much better position to see the big picture and then evaluate the plans, the engineering and the nuances of a project (as that is their job). Please note that if the Comprehensive Plan is amended and the owners are not able to reach an agreement with the City on the extent of the improvements to be made to the infrastructure (and based on our conversations we are confident that an agreement could be reached), the City is no worse off. The only thing that will happen is some building permits will not get issued. The first shovel of dirt will not be moved until everyone agrees as to what needs to be done to improve the infrastructure and address any existing short comings. If the City Council is fine with the status of N. Union Road, the related infrastructure and the weed patch at the Pines exit off 1-90 and chooses not to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment,then we understand. If the City Council would like to address these matters and find out what can be done to improve the site, we would suggest that you discuss with Jenny Nickerson and get her take on the specifics. If the existing infrastructure can be updated to provide better access and improved fire safety, then we think the amendment does fall within the criteria for approving the Comprehensive Plan amendment and would ultimately be a Win-Win for everybody. I appreciate those of you who took the time to read this letter and hear our thoughts. Two is my limit so I promise not to write any more letters regarding this matter. Please be safe. Sincerely, Jay Rambo 2-STORY(40/ UNIT120)APT BUILDING W/TUCK UNDER PARKING • AND/OR GARAGES __ _ 0, 120' BED - 1-BED STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO 1-BED S}U{yt0 STD 600SF - -- 600 SF 400 SF 400 SF 400 SF 600 SF Eo v 1-BED STUDIO 400 SF 400 SF 400 5F -- 4 60a SF LOBBY 1-BED 1-BED STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO 1-BED m yuDIO STUDIO $TP-12 6045E --. ------400SF 400Sf 4005E 4005E 65053i 1-6ED 400 SF 400 SF _-__-_-___- 1 d005F 4405E _.__. '{- - a _ I (E)GARAGE BLDGTO BEr , I _ r REMdVED,TYP L_ � a - f - � 1 Eal p 4 0 r , , DAVE 0 RODEBACX Revere Ridge Apartments - Proposed Additional Units Title: CONCEPTUAL PARTIAL SITE PLAN 3r I CHITECT U_C 1723 North Union Rd o2) Date: 1116rz020 (��,(� Po 9�a8822,Portland,OR 67280 Spokane Valley,Washington V f` 1"1 508-502.549C Z Scale: „1" -40'-0" 1 OF 1 david@dIrarch.cum Project: #1806 MEWCO water lines ft, as of 2017 „._,..,. 1 , ,...,,______. __________ __. ------ Current dead-end fine -- -: __.__ ___ No water line yet installed __ __________ ______ . , Area where water line ----....s\ at Revere Ridge I : ) 1723 would be installed 0 1,1 , e....N. .1-1----1--. ...•N ,- i : ; . i , , .. ! ' I • ' V>\. . 1721 \ ' 1 ,... . . . . .,,,.. i . , • 11715 1171i 1 '''''"-L"-'-". ' 1723 / Fir-7 1723 i J '''' Iva* 4 try.A. al .. ..... ..,.. 1705, ' 7----E Nora Ave = ,e 198 ... i --"*-'"'-` ; C i i 1 1 I , 7--...1. 1 --.7 —: ): ----r•i ,-_--, i4 ---. -7-,--1 ., 1\.723 1 sgs 11704 11716 11722 11724 L '.'. 1--..-- ' 3—•.,rt , .30 Z IH n172L I z.=cl6 I•.1.1 723,6,: '..-. EAugusta.Av.e , gl, ,._.. , 1.-.4 irt 1 1 42, i .. -1 . Pa-11 - i .,.4 , . , , .5,7*.tri o 1615 XI . ! 3.•,,n 1 : r--7, 11 oi;A I; , , m ;1-1,r 1 •, .•• 0 N3 1622 L___,.... L.--; ,.-t t i li < 7-1; 1 I Z t/' . ' .-4 I , .., ' n 1-1 , ri '1. • , 1 .tartC13 I ri0 fb I .11—I • Lin = 1 A . , 1-7 . . ,i 1723 11801 o. ,,73,31 , --11825-1 ' . ;! rr7 I 1 rri 1 z '-7. *.r-• ---2 1 i/909 " ' 1° Z i 115439 1115.115 L.t.„.„,1523 111 x' ,r7.'.1.. /!liST71., , '4"; 1 i623 ' ,..._. 11707,...._11713:- 1'.1719 0 : . T I .g -. • '." ' i r .-...-..2'''''''' I3/4" 4'' 't ' •.,.7 '''''‘ .•,,,--‘,... i -•:, - . s : 130 1 ,,. ":1 4' '. .. .- -: 183 202 154 187 - ,... ,- - 186 1 . ao AC(1948)- *E Mission'Ave 22 —17 -1176 -,.... .... - .,-_ '-• : -..,. ,''' 1 "'....,„.. ' i wi W - , 189 5 ---,,, 177 .....,,,, , . , ,,,,,. ; ,.„, , -,,1 , , 1 , ',g ' I '-"-1 • 4.i . ;• -6 •--r15rL21s; fti"- ; . . ro uiP-,22.,, ±1,6 ri l-1''• ,) =a1I 1 17A 12., i)1 Eval20 1 2A'.;,' rl 1 *-1 ' i Lis - i 1 r1 1694 : ' 1180 11814 i i l iP a,.....— u CEn ! D `L , sis f i i53 0 igT 11902I r1514 1 , II1 i 116161t , i - 7`•. • . , . i . . i 1 1 1 ..,1N-„.„ 1 • 1 I r---t Istint 19029 I Proposed Water Lines from MEWCO Existing 8" water line installed Proposed by Wilbur Road Self-Storage Parking Area Proposed water line to • be installed by Revere Ridge� x `W - .,. M Proposed water line to t r ,fi- be ins#ailed by Brill Properties i Lk s i + 74, -- .-� a-.s% u + - � itu. L-L •flsa - •�. � - ' < _ L"I - r� iY = d -r'�� - F � Z ,a � , _ � y �� -Ain / � 4 . � 't` - m <•� � �` � , r � w E x 1F - _ fi .FF ' i. I" +� ;. $ 4 }- 3' " h x 1:. - € 'F 2 - 's :.:- - -fir, il s - spira" �"� I =" _ rt �. ca = - `s= 4 a _ � �- .v� �' %., s � fir" +Q� "_ . ' n ""^' _. g - - :. T Y-� .:. _ te. -�r 4 am 4r. ::.1111 74 k .a _ v,x _ eta } ;" sra R == • � - 1 ' ,. -„a- ,,, '7_ ;'lid.:`.ir_ - - " _ • 'rt .., .,..;. ....# a., }roc EXHIBIT 10 Project Name: 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment File #: CPA-2020-0003 Parcels: 45094.0133, 45094.0134, and 45094.01213 This Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL) is being prepared to support the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing an existing Multifamily Residential (MFR) to a Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) land designation. This letter estimates the trip generation of the current zoning versus the trip generation that could occur if the land were developed under the proposed new land use. Project Description CPA-2020-0003 is bounded to the north by 1-90 and the Pines Road exit ramp and to the south by parcels zoned R-3 and CMU adjacent to the 11900 block of Mission Avenue, between Wilbur Road and Union Road. The CPA is situated between interchanges of 1-90's Exit 287 at Argonne and Exit 289 at Pines (SR27), as shown in Figure 1. r - I-90 Exit 289 1-90 Exit 287 Pines(SR-27) �I Argonne �l.. • Wires 1 ,. R k tee, p r' L . r 4 • .i CPA-2020-0003 , , 4e rk 'fir n'. . ... -- .- - + N � ! i;f -T,.�� r ,mow, !a .q k ,1.,.RA S � q 1 3 w tha 1047 P iWi • f *_ s _-,..a7 �plt } s :•} - r - 1 ®YRn M4PaauitoLwi-EPSo leau a- fl 4I� ep w 14r+w�3 y�,� �ffii a ,� sr e q.. ; L"• a 1"96511 aE- awed now, # ay {" Figure 1. Vicinity Map Trip Generation There are 3 parcels for this proposed comprehensive plan amendment totaling approximately 6.24 acres. Under the current zoning (MFR), the available density allows 22 apartments per acre. If these densities could be realized, 137 apartment units could be built within the area. There are currently 103 multifamily units within the area. This would allow for 35 additional MFR units to be developed. The total expected trips for existing and available property using the current land use is shown in Table 1 for both the AM and PM peak periods. Table 1.MFR Land Designation Generated Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Allow- Volume Volume @ Directional Directional Land Use (220) Zoning able @ 0.46 0.56 PM AM Trips Distribution Trips per Distribution Units per Unit 23% 77% Unit 63% 37% In Out In Out Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) MFR 137 64 15 49 77 49 28 1 I Page Corridor Mixed Use under the City of Spokane Valley's (City) zoning allows for apartments, general and medical/dental offices, retail and commercial development, and storage uses. A land-to-building ratio of 4.5 is typical in the City, which would result in a building square footage of 60,403. Because of the site's area, opportunities with the proposed zoning includes more multifamily housing and potentially an extension of the storage unit (mini-warehouse) development to the west. This could result in 32 additional multi-family housing units and a 7,200 square-foot mini warehouse. The potential development if the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is permitted includes the land uses and expected peak hour trips summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Estimated CMU Generated Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Volume Directional Volume @ Directional Land Use (220) Zoning Units @ 0.46 Distribution 0.56 PM Distribution AM Trips Trips per per Unit 23% 77% Unit 63% 37% In Out In Out Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) CMU 135 63 14 49 76 48 28 AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Volume Directional Volume @ Directional Land Use (151) Zonin Units g KSF @ 0.1 Distribution 0.17 PM Distribution AM Trips Trips per 0 per Unit 60% 40% Unit 47/ 53/ In Out In Out Mini-Warehouse CMU 7.2 1 1 0 2 1 1 Subtracting the peak hour trips for the current zoning of MFR from those that would be expected if CMU were allowed to develop gives a difference between the two land uses. The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment could have a net increase on traffic volumes of 0 during the AM peak hour and 1 during the PM peak hour. This is summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Trip Generation Summary Summary Zoning AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Existing Potential MFR 64 15 49 77 49 28 Future Potential CMU 64 15 49 78 49 29 Net New Trips CMU 0 0 0 1 0 1 2IPage Traffic Trip Distribution Using current traffic information for Argonne and Pines and the CPA-20202-0003 location, a trip distribution on a percentage of trips is shown in Figure 2. h..x n[6°me.ry Ave t..vv _ - a z N Held Avn _ -__. De EMarI,r1dd Ave. �\ �cl fv n 1_ c E. -..�:r.9vP — ~ 3 z ` `—�_ a e _ e a — eahann�r Ave w — _ _ --- �➢ CPA-2020-0003 r.m°'ria",•"` n --= - ti— _ __ -Q_ Lin-r iv.. ENaEa Avt --- _ _ Park 15% ry EAngr[x[aAye 50% =L Aa y..e Mfaalmn Ave 44 1 s M.aR,on A.e r— i O _ 5% — 20% 80% 30% O a¢Pirol L Sltia[ptAv me „ y 1 — ] ' �. .1. 3 y a : .. x = a tin- E r;.arala°Ave - 8 ECalaldtr Ave rr &fleazt P•e+ . i.Mahan Ave E Hn,adx•ay Ave B Hr°adway A.. E a adway Avc A Springfield Ave e1e1 Figure 2. Trip Distribution & Net PM Peak Hour Trips Traffic Mitigation The City initiated an evaluation of the street network traffic operations through the Mirabeau Subarea Study in 2016 and the Mirabeau Subarea Study Update in 2019. The Mirabeau and North Pines Subareas identified in the 2019 update generally include the Pines Road (SR-27) corridor from Valleyway Avenue to Trent Avenue between University Road and Adams Road. The proposed CPA parcels are within the North Pines Subarea. The Mirabeau Subarea Study Update identified costs for developments within the designated areas based on trips generated within the area to ensure the City will have the street infrastructure needed to support planned development. If land owners were to redevelop upon the approval of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a mechanism exists as outlined in the Mirabeau Subarea plan to mitigate for traffic impacts. Redevelopment fees could be charged for a proportionate share of the new street improvements in lieu of a traffic analysis and mitigation. As a result, it is expected that sufficient roadway capacity exists or is programmed to exist with future road improvements on the City street system to accommodate the uses resulting from the CPA. ,� E.UGEtti .Q�'oc 'NASryfy '9,P � �w "� 4ic t p)k 4 v -o p q.;.r p p ' 90' ficisT Fs, c , SlpNM-E� 3I ,Page COMMUNITY& PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDING&PLANNING DIVISION Spocr�YaFkane STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION v CPA-2020-0006 STAFF REPORT DATE: June 3,2020 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: June 25,2020,beginning at 6:00 p.m.,remotely via Zoom. Project Number: CPA-2020-0006 Application Description: Request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial (I)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Industrial(I)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Location: Parcel numbers 45013.9024 addressed as 3830 N Sullivan,further located in the SW I/4 of Section 01, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian,Spokane County,Washington Applicant: City of Spokane Valley, 10210 E Sprague, Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Owners: East Valley School District#361, 3820 N Sullivan, Spokane Valley WA 99216 Date of Application: October 31,2019 Staff Contact: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner, 10210 E Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) General Provisions, Title 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Application Exhibit 7: Environment Determination Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit 8: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 3: Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 9: Agency and Public Exhibit 4: Zoning Map Comments Exhibit 5: Aerial Exhibit 10: Trip Generation and Exhibit 6: SEPA Checklist Distribution Letter A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment is a city-initiated request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for parcel 45013.9024 from Industrial(I)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and to change the Zoning from Industrial(I)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). The existing use on parcel 45013.9024 is East Valley School District's Walker Center,which includes EVSD administrative services and maintenance building. The building also has classrooms that were used for the District's professional and trade school services. The site is flat and does not contain any critical areas. The properties to the west,north, and east are industrial uses,to the south are retail service and industrial uses. The property has frontage along Sullivan but is accessed via B Street of the industrial park.B Street is a local access road that services the Spokane Industrial Park and connects the property to Sullivan Road Page 1 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0006 6/03/20 which is a Principal Arterial. The site is served by public transit Route 96 of Spokane Transit Authority (STA), and sidewalks only exist on Sullivan.The Average Daily Traffic(ADT)for Sullivan Avenue at B Street,in 2015,is estimated at just over 19,000 vehicular trips per day with a level of service of D. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size and Characteristics: The properties consists of one parcel totaling 8.81 acres in size. Comprehensive Plan: Industrial(I) Zoning: Industrial (I) Existing Land Use: East Valley School District's Walker Center(EVSD administration and formerly professional and trade school). SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,ZONING,AND LAND USES: Comp Plan: Industrial(I) North Zoning: Industrial(I) Uses: Industrial distribution Comp Plan: Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) South Zoning: Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Uses: Hotel and offices Comp Plan: Industrial(I) East Zoning: Industrial(I) Uses: Industrial services Comp Plan: Industrial(I) West Zoning: Industrial(I) Uses: Industrial(Spokane County transfer station) IMPLICATIONS: The adopted Comprehensive Plan describes the CMU designation as"allow[ing] for light manufacturing, retail,multifamily, and offices along major transportation corridors. It is primarily used along Sprague Avenue, and the north-south arterials." Sullivan is an improved north-south Principal Arterial that generally meets the description of the CMU designation. The proposed amendment provides flexibility that can be used to support the applicants indicated desire to provide educational services for K-12 that are currently prohibited in the I zone. APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Pre-Application Meeting: October 2,2019 Application Submitted: October 2,2019 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance: February 21,2020 End of Appeal Period for DNS: March 6,2020 Posted Notice of Public Hearing: March 6&May 27,2020' Published Notice of Public Hearing: March 6, 13,May 29 &June 5,20201 Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: March 10&May 27,2020' 1:Additional public notification required,- a result of cancelling a duly noticed public hearing due to COVID-19 and efforts to maximize social distancing. Page 2 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0006 6/03/20 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) SVMC, the lead agency has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The city issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal on February 21, 2020. The determination was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Titles 19, 21, and 22 of the SVMC, a site assessment, public and agency comments, the Comprehensive Plan and associated Environmental Impact Statement. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Analysis: The proposed amendment provides more flexibility of uses on a property allowing East Valley School District to broaden and enhance their educational service mission. Under the Industrial zone educational activities are limited to professional, vocational and trade schools. While this may continue to be an essential component to EVSD curriculum,flexibility is needed to meet existing and future demand for other educational services. Changing the designation to Corridor Mixed Use, increases the allowed types of educational services legally permitted to occur in the existing facility. Increasing educational opportunities to local youth has a substantial benefit to public health, safety, and welfare. The amendment area is not covered by critical areas or designated natural resources. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment are promoted by standards established by the state and the City's regulations. (2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity to strengthen EVSD mission to provide for education of local youth in an area with adequate public facilities. The proposal does not conflict with any other GMA goals. The amendment is not in conflict with any other portions of the Comprehensive Plan. Page 3 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0006 6/03/20 (3) The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; Analysis: The amendment does respond to a substantial change in conditions from 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan.At that time the subject parcel was not changed from the designation in place since at least 2014. Since the 2016 legislative update, EVSD has experienced changes in enrollment and interest in vocational education, under the existing designation only professional, vocational and trade schools are allowed in the Industrial designation changing the designation to CMU allows EVSD to adapt the educational services they provide in a location they own and have made substantial improvements for educational purposes. The demographic and interest shifts are beyond EVSD control the proposed change allows them to continue to serve district educational needs. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The amendment is not in response to a mapping error and would not correct any error. (5) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: While not directly identified as a deficiency, the Comprehensive Plan has identified the following goal and policy that support workforce development and education, which are integral to the long-term success of the City: ED-G5 Support and encourage the development of a strong workforce that is globally competitive and responds to the changing needs of the workplace ED-P16 Support local educational institutions in the development of educational and training programs that meet the needs of businesses. ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis: The change to CMU will allow existing uses as well as more expanded educational uses. The change could result in more intensive development in the future, though the site is currently developed. There is no concern on effect of physical environment. (2) The effect on open space, streams,rivers, and lakes; Analysis: There are no known critical areas associated with the site,such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas,frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed should future development occur. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis: The property is generally surrounded by Spokane Industrial Park to the north and east; however, the property is not part of the Spokane Industrial Park. The property to the south is designated and zoned Corridor Mixed Use. The institutional use on the proposed site is generally compatible with both the light industrial uses to Page 4 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0006 6/03/20 the north and east and the retail service uses to the south. The projected impact to the surrounding neighborhoods is minimal. Any future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses at the time of development. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads,public transportation,parks,recreation, and schools; Analysis: B Street is a local access street and Sullivan Road is a Principal Arterial. There are two capacity related projects in the 6-year TIP near the project area: intersection improvement at Sullivan and Wellesley and improvement to Sullivan and SR 290 (Trent) interchange. The site is served by Spokane Industrial Park, Avista, Spokane Valley Fire District, and East Valley School district provide water and sewer, electricity and natural gas,fire protection, and school services in this area. The subject properties are considered infill development, as such, the expansion of allowed uses and increased densities are supported by the infrastructure that is in place. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis: The proposed change would allow the property and structure owned by EVSD to be used for educational purposes beyond professional, vocational and trade school use, increasing the school district's ability to provide educational services. The change benefits the neighborhood, City, and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: ED-G5 Support and encourage the development of a strong workforce that is globally competitive and responds to the changing needs of the workplace ED-P16 Support local educational institutions in the development of educational and training programs that meet the needs of businesses. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: The proposal would add approximately 9 acres of CMU property to the 1,666 acres of existing CMU designated property within the City. While additional demand for CMU property may be limited, the CMU designation allows for additional educational uses, which has been indicated as needed from the school district. The proposal is limited to a reasonable area and if developed under CMU standards the type of use and density would be appropriate for the location. (7) The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: Under the existing conditions and the Industrial designation there is very little population that resides in the area. While CMU allows residential development, it is not expected that residential development would occur. The proposed change in land use designation is not expected to have significant impacts to population density in the area. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The CMU designation will support the Economic Development goal and policy identified above. It would have very little to no effect on other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including Land Use, Transportation, and Housing, Capital Facilities and Public Services,Public and Private Utilities,Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources. Conclusion(s): Page 5 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0006 6/03/20 For the reasons outlined above the proposed amendment is consistent with SVMC 17.80.140(H). 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings:The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.The Comprehensive Plan describes the CMU designation as"allow[ing] for light manufacturing,retail,multifamily,and offices along major transportation corridors.It is primarily used along Sprague Avenue,and the north-south arterials."The subject property is accessed via B Street and fronting Sullivan Road. Changing the land use designation to CMU increases the flexibility of allowed uses and allowed density on the sites in an area with supportive infrastructure. Additionally, the amendment is supported by the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: ED-G5 Support and encourage the development of a strong workforce that is globally competitive and responds to the changing needs of the workplace ED-P16 Support local educational institutions in the development of educational and training programs that meet the needs of businesses. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. 3. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The Growth Management Act(GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The area is currently served with adequate public facilities and services. Spokane Industrial Park, Avista, Spokane Valley Fire District, and East Valley School district provide water and sewer,electricity and natural gas,fire protection,and schools services in this area. Regarding transportation, there are two capacity related projects in the 6-year TIP near the project area: intersection improvement at Sullivan and Wellesley and improvement to Sullivan and SR 290(Trent) interchange. The expected volumes and corridor improvements necessary to maintain operations are identified and estimated for inclusion in City plans. It is expected that sufficient roadway capacity exists or is programmed to exist with future road improvements on the City street system to accommodate the uses resulting from the CPA. Urban services are available. Specific site needs will be addressed at the time a development is proposed for the site. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has received no public comments to date. Comments received following the date of this report will be provided to the Planning Commission at the June 11,2020 meeting. 2. Conclusion(s): The scheduled public hearing on March 26, 2020 was canceled due to COVID-19 and efforts to maximize social distancing. Prior to the cancellation,the Notice of Public Hearing (NOPH)was Page 6 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0006 6/03/20 published on March 6,2020 and March 13,2020.The NOPH was also posted on site and mailed to residents within a 400-foot radius of the subject property on March 10,2020. The public hearing was rescheduled for June 25,2020. The NOPH was published May 29, 2020 and June 5,2020 posted on site on May 27,2020 and mailed to residents within a 400-foot radius of the subject property on May 28,2020. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff received one comment from the Washington State Department of Transportation requesting additional information on the impacts of the land use change on the state's transportation network. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Spokane Valley Senior Traffic Engineer City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering City of Spokane Valley Building&Planning City of Spokane Valley Parks&Recreation Spokane Valley Fire Department City of Millwood City of Liberty Lake City of Spokane City of Spokane Valley Police Department Spokane County,Building and Planning Spokane County,Environmental Services Spokane County,Clean Air Agency Spokane County,Fire District No. 1 Spokane County,Fire District No. 8 Spokane County Regional Health District Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency Spokane Aquifer Joint Board Spokane Transit Authority(STA) Spokane Regional Transportation Council(SRTC) Washington State Dept of Commerce Washington State Dept of Ecology(Olympia) Washington State Dept of Ecology(Spokane) Washington State Dept of Fish&Wildlife Washington State Dept of Natural Resources Washington State Dept of Transportation X 12/11/19 Washington State Parks&Recreation Commission WA Archaeological&Historic Preservation Avista Utilities Inland Power& Light Modern Electric Water Company Central Valley School District#356 East Valley School District#361 West Valley School District#363 Century Link Comcast Model Irrigation District#18 Page 7 of 8 Staff Report CPA-2020-0006 6/03/20 Consolidated Irrigation District#19 East Spokane Water District#1 Vera Water&Power Spokane County Water District#3 Spokane Tribe of Indians 2. Conclusion(s): A Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL) was completed for the proposed amendment. Given the similarity and wide range in potential development between Industrial and Corridor Mixed Use,the resultant range in trip generation could net either an increase in trips or a decrease in trips. The ultimate trip generation is entirely dependent on the direction of development on the parcel and whether it remains as an educational use. As a result, any necessary mitigation is expected to be bore by the development at the time of development. The Sullivan Corridor Study, completed in 2015 and currently being updated, identified the improvements necessary to maintain operations. It is expected that sufficient roadway capacity exists or is programmed to exist with future road improvements on the City street system to accommodate the uses resulting from the CPA.No concerns are noted. F. CONCLUSION: For the reasons set forth in Section C(1 and 2)the proposed amendment to change the land use designation from I to CMU and the rezone from I to CMU is consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(H)and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT 1 Sokan�` jUp COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION alley STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: Sr Zal9 Received by: eR Fee: C(*_,„&atoirl PLUS #: File#: CPO —2020 _0004 Project # L eft; -��P RECEIVED PART II — APPLICATION INFORMATION i5ex-23 1 1019 ✓Map Amendment; or ❑ Text Amend@j3V PERMIT CENTER SUB # REV. #J APPLICANT NAME: City of Spokane Valley MAILING ADDRESS: 10210 E Sprauge Ave CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99206 PHONE: 509-720-5000 FAX: CELL: EMAIL: PROPERTY OWNER : East Valley School District#361 MAILING ADDRESS: 3830 N Sullivan Road WA CITY: Spokane Valley ZIP: 99216 PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL: SITE ADDRESS: East Valley School District#361 PARCEL No.: 45013.9024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial (I) PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) ZONING DESIGNATION: Industrial (I) PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT(attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper): During the last periodic update the activities occurring on the property were not appropriately accounted for and the Industrial designation was applied to the property. The designation and zone change will more accurately reflect existing school related uses. PL-06 V1.0 Page 3 of S<I"oi e� COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION P Val ley Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Supplement a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; The proposed amendment provides more flexibility of uses on a property allowing East Valley School District to broaden and enhance their educational service mission. Under the Industrial zone educational activities are limited to professional, vocational and trade schools. While this may continue to be an essential component to EVSD curriculum, flexibility is needed to meet existing and future demand for other educational services. Changing the designation to Corridor Mixed Use, increases the allowed types of educational services legally permitted to occur in the existing facility. Increasing educational opportunities to local youth has a substantial benefit to public health, safety, and welfare. The amendment area is not covered by critical areas or designated natural resources. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment are promoted by standards established by the state and the City's regulations. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; The Growth Management Act(GMA) adopts thirteen goals to guide the development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations. The request allows opportunity to strengthen EVSD mission to provide for education of local youth in an area with adequate public facilities. The proposal does not conflict with any other GMA goals. The amendment is not in conflict with any other portions of the comprehensive plan. c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change inconditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; The amendment does respond to a substantial change in conditions from 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan. At that time the subject parcel was not changed from the designation in place since at least 2014. Since the 2016 legislative update, EVSD has experienced changes in enrollment and interest in vocational education, under the existing designation only professional, vocational and trade schools are allowed in the Industrial designation changing the designation to CMU allows EVSD to adapt the educational services they provide in a location they own and have made substantial improvements for educational purposes. The demographic and interest shifts are beyond EVSD control the proposed change allows them to continue to serve district educational needs. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error;and The amendment is not in response to a mapping error and would not correct any error. e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. While not directly identified as a deficiency, the Comprehensive Plan has identified the following goal and policy that support workforce development and education, which are integral to the long-term success of the city: ED-G5 Support and encourage the development of a strong workforce that is globally competitive and responds to the changing needs of the workplace ED-P16 Support local educational institutions in the development of educational and training programs that meet the needs of businesses. 2. The proposal addresses the following specific factors; a. The effect upon the physical environment; PL-06 V1.0 Page 4 of SA O'1(m.� COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION Valley The change to CMU will allow existing uses as well as more expanded educational uses. The change could result in more intensive development in the future, though the site is currently developed. There is no concern on effect of physical environment. b. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction, and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed should future development occur. c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; The property is generally surrounded by Spokane Industrial Park to the north and east; however, the property is not part of the Spokane Industrial Park. The property to the south is designated and zoned Corridor Mixed Use. The institutional use on the proposed site is generally compatible with both the light industrial uses to the north and east and the retail service uses to the south. The projected impact to the surrounding neighborhoods is minimal. Any future development will be evaluated for compliance with all municipal requirements as it relates to adjacent uses at the time of development. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation,parks, recreation and schools; The project site takes access from A neighborhood commercial use will likely have minimal impact on parks, recreation or schools. Sullivan Road is a Principal Arterial which is designed to serve through trips and connect Spokane Valley with the rest of the region. The site is served by public transit Route 96 of Spokane Transit Authority (S TA). e. The benefit to the neighborhood, city and region; The proposed change would allow the property and structure owned by EVSD to be used for educational purposes beyond professional, vocational and trade school use, increasing the school district's ability to provide educational services. The change benefits the neighborhood, city, and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: ED-G5 Support and encourage the development of a strong workforce that is globally competitive and responds to the changing needs of the workplace ED-P16 Support local educational institutions in the development of educational and training programs that meet the needs of businesses. f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density, and the demand for such land; The proposal would add approximately 9 acres of CMU property to the 1,666 acres of existing CMU designated property within the city. While additional demand for CMU property may be limited, the CMU designation allows for additional educational uses, which has been indicated as needed from the school district. The proposal is limited to a reasonable area and if developed under CMU standards the type of use and density would be appropriate for the location. g. The current and projected population density in the area; and Under the existing conditions and the Industrial designation there is very little population that resides in the area. While CMU allows residential development, it is not expected that residential development would PL-06 V1.0 Page 5 of COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION Spokane Valley occur. The proposed change in land use designation is not expected to have significant impacts to population density in the area. h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. The CMU designation will support the Economic Development goal and policy identified above. It would have very little to no effect on other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including Land Use, Transportation, and Housing, Capital Facilities and Public Services, Public and Private Utilities, Parks and Open Space and Natural Resources. PL-06 V1.0 Page 6 of S „O''^n�� COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION p Valley PART III - AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. (Signature) (Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of , 20_ NOTARY SEAL NOTARY SIGNATURE Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at: My appointmentexpires: LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; , owner of the above described property do hereby authorize to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. PL-06 V1.0 Page 7 of i,:%;'•I 4 1 ' — 9 24 it' fo 11 e Al-. i•''''', i 1 1 "" ".4 t* • ' . !I I 1( 1 [ 1 I ' •-• ,... II Z -H( ; ' ... ... '',.-••. ,1 • I , co8146 k 1 -..4. .. , 6.1 re —- rt.'., -7-• ' '," ... i,, r--- .. 'rt , . fr 1 tl , ,f.•••' .. itEe , P*- .1- oN ,.., . - .....o...-- r ir 7 f'... 4.4 y 4 t r- Z(1) • hal ft ,-- .,. -4 7:'g , gli,, , 6.- , m PP.• p r cfp 1 .4 . FOOT,' ; • Z ' t'. ' 1 . C . I- At l 1, • 401Lit ! 0 i „.: , - . ??? . . ,•• . ,..,..---- ... i -,. ,......=....r --- . - ..... r--...-..1.r, _, _....._,_, ...,_remS1111=510.44 ..tix4.-;--:, . • , tc , ... ' .k 4.1"...•••••••...14.0, g - N'4!.,f;r; MM.. ff.. 1211 :;!ma ° - -r ' t'•,-11 .... , „..-- . 0 . OA MISiatiabiim 1 1 4, ' - 471011n. % 7.,. • Illeek,Zee4t."%A.4614411' - ' " =II"'W.. ' pal poi , ' . VIE-,-,-.:----__. - --.. i ,. ''''.. ;0, rirto - MLIIIPOR .11.• I i C.--8 - _ . ' e " •-- --i I i Application Number: CPA-2020-0006 Proposed Change: I to CMU I 1 0 150 300 450 600 750 • Area• 8.81 ac Feet EXHIBIT 2 Vicinity Map CPA-2020-0006 1 `xl I LI I I ' i i i i� _�' ' ' ' ' ' �_ —_ — East Valley Senior High ad E V� f> - ' 17, l - East r �I ' ' I I �� :�Wg lig I.��_ b�_� - _ — — x,(E Wabash q � ■■■■■ • Spokane _ _ cG -~— _ — Valley �I vot,II E Broad Avie II.z —1—oc' =z� _ _ Middle E� yS°h�ol I I I I I�� 1111 County —z ,z z. — -z!- g -g; 1 1p —I zl■■■■■11��m t' —1_ _z 111111p 1 I� E WellesleyAve I ii■■■■I■■■•_ ��AIII� A C I I 'i I I T' ' 0' 'od� — 11 b z FriMINEMM z ) ) 1��x ■ ■ — Skyview ntar — I — Elementary -�, — o ■ x41 ■ ,��I E Heroy Ave��A •• . z — Elementary EHeroI � O --,, ou � mm a� y En— . o,m ��Upland_Dr ;� Z O — b Z1 ai m�/�� EL Longfellow AKe Z Z Zl NM= on T Will __ ■1■ f x L I z 1111 ��'' r4,..� iiiuiiuuu i_Luui 4 -- lim ��II ill1=— IIIII m. .� E Rich A ` .. •.,„ II 111 z ,1 II =� z- , _ec III= H . llpF�. 1 E Rockwe,I...-1 ll Pc-e�—`-- I I I I I 1 � �o- r� 1 INN II —1 ow ETen-Ave. _—. N1 _ Ramp z E Trent Ave EB Off ' ��'-- _ IIII E-Lacrosse1Ln . g a alle z E Industrial Park A St zl • 1 HI II _ 1 1 1 -1----1"---+[ ...:");) E Kiernan( _ E Industrial Park B St ft x ,- of i 1 1 ui a E Industrial Park C St z x y z a , , , , , I I I I I I I 1 I I 7. z _}'1 E Industrial Park D St ,5 I I I I1 yl a E Industrial Park E St J ---------„4' ' 1 L .� �� z ,i E Fairview n ��L 0 i _,__I I / ve a iea A L2- E ar z Miles O 0 0.25 0.5 1 EXHIBIT 3 Comprehensive Plan Map Study Are] E^Industrial Via:St cip F�1 E Kiernan Ave y 3 Industrial Park B St r -d I- Legend CMU Me NC � I Er POS IMU RC MF SF MU I I CPA-2020-0006 Request: Sp"""' Owner: East ValleySchool okane Proposed change: Land Use District#361 designation from Ito CMU .000 Valley Parcel#: 45013.9024 and Zoning from Ito CMU Address: 3830 N Sullivan Rd EXHIBIT 4 Zoning Map Study Are] E^Industrial Via:St cip F�1 E Kiernan Ave Y 3 Industrial Park B St C z Legend R1 MF RC R2 NC IMU R3 MUMIL IL I POS CMU CPA-2020-0006 Request: Sp"""' Owner: East Valley School okane Proposed change: Land Use District#361 designation from Ito CMU .000 Valley Parcel#: 45013.9024 and Zoning from Ito CMU Address: 3830 N Sullivan Rd EXHIBIT 5 2018 Aerial Map :4 v. s - � 3 • ,� , F ocv -% o Off Ramp ° t P`'e listen' t Ave �� o -ROB amh _— ETren �__ E �Ra mp - 1, Trent&wo Off .. ■ ! le .. Study Area --- . - 1 al a , 955 1l M .. -E Industrial Park A7 St— 9s " I ` 11} — ' IF 1. Fr _ 8 it g j Y ir V -- i -- a Kiernan per�. - - • a Industrial Park-B"St _ CiD E- F - - I— tr,..'-'''''' — ' -' g3:. _ Industrial Etna C ga #` - -. y - i • • _ _.i., . Tlie . ' - . , :„..... e.e ....- ' .. s I i CPA-2020-0006 Request: tiokane ""1 Owner: East Valley School Proposed change: Land Use District#361 designation from Ito CMU s Valley Parcel#: 45013.9024 and Zoning from 1 to CMU Address: 3830 N Sullivan Rd EXHIBIT 6 S "" /` SEPA CHECKLIST pokane SVMC 21.20 .Valley' 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5240 ♦ Fax: (509)720-5075 ♦permitcenternspokanevallev.org STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: October 31. 2019 Received by: Fee: Not Applicable_ PLUS #: File#: CPA-2020-0006 Project #( - ' RECEIVED PART I — REQUIRED MATERIAL h "THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT Pkuv utl)* 2019 ❑ Completed SEPA Checklist COSY PERMIT CENTER ❑ Application Fee SUB# REV. # ❑ Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 81/2" by 11" or 11" by 17"size ❑ Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST; The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions.An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. JNSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS; This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or"does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON-PROJECT PROPOSALS; Complete this checklist for non-project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS(Part D). PL-22 V1.0 Page 1 of 14 "i`"ka SEPA CHECKLIST pone 00Valley For non-project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: CPA-2020-000X. An amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan. 2. Name of applicant: City of Spokane Valley 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner, Economic Development Division, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 4. Date checklist prepared: October 31, 2019 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Anticipated adoption May 2020. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? No. If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. An Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) was completed for the City's Comprehensive Plan. The document is titled 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS) and supporting Development Regulations. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? None If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Approval by City Council 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The amendment is to change approximately 9 acres of Industrial (I) designated land to Corridor Mixed (CMU). The change would allow for additional educational uses, which has been indicated as needed from the school district. PL-22 V1.0 Page 2 of 14 Spokane SEPA CHECKLIST jValley' 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposal is located at 3830 N Sullivan Road, parcel number 45013.9024, or 47.692425, -117.195908. 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)?Yes. The general Sewer Service Area? No. Priority Sewer Service Area? No. (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA)/Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). This is a non-project action changing the future land use map and does not evaluate a specific future use. 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? This is a non-project action changing the future land use map and does not evaluate a specific future use. 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. This is a non-project action changing the future land use map and does not evaluate a specific future use. 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? This is a non-project action changing the future land use map and does not evaluate a specific future use. b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? Unknown. PL-22 V1.0 Page 3 of 14 "i'`"' SEPA CHECKLIST Clan jValley' 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. This is a non-project action changing the future land use map and does not evaluate a specific future use. Any future changes will be reviewed under existing stormwater regulations. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 1) Earth a. General description of the site (check one):❑ flat,❑ rolling, ['hilly, ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other The site is flat and developed. Future development would be analyzed under separate SEPA process. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 0 percent. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. This is a non-project action changing the future land use map. The site is currently developed and the application does not evaluate a specific future use. Any future changes will be reviewed under a separate SEPA process. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? No. If so, describe. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. Not applicable. c. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not applicable. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Not applicable PL-22 V1.0 Page 4 of 14 "" SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane Valley 2) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, EVALUATION FOR automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke)during construction and when the AGENCY USE ONLY project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? Yes. If so, generally describe. The site is adjacent to the Spokane Industrial Park, which has various industrial users. No emissions or odors were observed in a recent site visit. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? Not applicable. If yes, please describe and attach available plans. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. PL-22 V1.0 Page 5 of 14 `" SEPA CHECKLIST pokane ��Valley. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? No. If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not applicable. c. Water runoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The site is currently developed. This is a non-project action changing the future land use map and does not evaluate a specific future use. Any future changes will be reviewed under existing stormwater regulations. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The proposal is a non-project action and does not have a direct effect on the surface, ground or runoff water. PL-22 V1.0 Page 6 of 14 Spokane SEPA CHECKLIST Walley EVALUATION FOR 4) Plants AGENCY USE ONLY a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ❑ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ✓evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ❑shrubs ❑ grass El pasture ❑ crop or grain 111 wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ❑ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None proposed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The proposal is a non-project action development of any future development will be analyzed under a separate SEPA. The city has adopted development standards to preserve and enhance vegetation. 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: none observed ❑ birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ❑ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? Not applicable. If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The proposal is a non-project action. Future re-development of the site will be analyzed under a separate SEPA. The city has adopted development standards to preserve and enhance fauna. PL-22 V1.0 Page 7 of 14 Spok""`" ane" SEPA CHECKLIST 4. j Valley EVALUATION FOR 6). Energy and natural resources AGENCY USE ONLY a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Not applicable. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not applicable. 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe: The proposal is a non- project action changing the land use designation from Industrial to Corridor Mixed Use, while the amendment does not contemplate a specific use the, the CMU designation is more restrictive than the I in terms of environmental health hazards. Future re-development of the site will be analyzed under a separate SEPA. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The site is adjacent to the Spokane Industrial Park, which has various industrial users. No equipment and operation noises were observed in a recent site visit. The site is adjacent to Sullivan Road a Principal Arterial and traffic noise was observed. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Not applicable. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Not applicable. PL-22 V1.0 Page 8 of 14 Spokane SEPA CHECKLIST �fValley EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?The site is currently used by East Valley School District as administration building and a maintenance building. The site is north of commercial uses on Sullivan and west of Spokane Industrial Park. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not known. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are two main buildings on site for about 24,000 sq ft. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Industrial. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Industrial. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?The number of employees and students that may work and attend classes is known. There are no residents. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Not applicable. PL-22 V1.0 Page 9 of 14 SCITI SEPA CHECKLIST EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not applicable. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not applicable. 11). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. PL-22 V1.0 Page 10 of 14 Sail SEPA CHECKLIST 4000Valley EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? East Valley has middle and high school about 3/< miles to the north and Sullivan Park is about 1 mile to the south of the project site. Sullivan Park connects to the Spokane River and the Centennial Trail. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:The city's adopted comprehensive plan adopts a level of service for park space. The city has an adopted Park and Recreation Master Plan that provides strategies meet adopted levels of service for projected growth. 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is served by B Street of the Spokane Industrial Park. Sullivan Road, a Principal Arterial, provides access to Spokane Industrial Park. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes the site is served by Spokane Transit Route 96 a stop is available adjacent to the site. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. PL-22 V1.0 Page 11 of \1111 Spokane SEPA CHECKLIST •0Va.11ey. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to EVALUATION FOR existing roads or streets, not including driveways? Not applicable. If so, AGENCY USE ONLY generally describe (indicate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? Not applicable. If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The city's adopted comprehensive plan adopts a level of service for transportation services. The city has an adopted 20-year Transportation Improvement Plan that identifies projects to meet adopted levels of service for projected growth. 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable. 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: ❑ electricity, ❑ natural gas, ❑water, ❑ refuse service, ❑ telephone, ❑ sanitary sewer, ❑ septic system, ❑ other- describe. The site is developed and has access to a variety of utilities including water, sewer, refuse service, and electricity. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Not applicable. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them o make s decision. Signature: ,�GlCf Date Submitted: l03 /2-40/� PL-22 V1.0 Page 12 of SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane dojValley.. D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposed amendment is not likely to increase emissions to air, production of noise, and discharge to water. The amendment is within the scope of impacts analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan and supporting development regulations. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Consistent with the FEIS of the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan, the city adopted implementing regulations while mitigating impacts to the natural environment including an updated critical areas ordinance. On a planning level the adopted regulatory scheme has been identified as sufficient to avoid and reduce impacts to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise. Site specific impacts will be reviewed and mitigated at the time of development based upon these adopted regulations within the Spokane Valley. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed amendment anticipated not to have impacts on plants and animals. The amendment is within the scope of impacts analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan and supporting development regulations. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Consistent with the FEIS of the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan, the city adopted implementing regulations while mitigating impacts to the natural environment including an updated critical areas ordinance. On a planning level the adopted regulatory scheme has been identified as sufficient to protect and conserve plants and animals. Site specific impacts will be reviewed and mitigated at the time of development based upon these adopted regulations within the Spokane Valley. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?The proposed amendment anticipated not to have impacts on energy and natural resources. The amendment is within the scope of impacts analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan and supporting development regulations. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Consistent with the FEIS of the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan, the city adopted implementing regulations to protect and conserve energy and natural resources. On a planning level, the adopted regulatory scheme has been identified as sufficient to protect and conserve energy and natural resources. Site specific impacts will be reviewed and mitigated at the time of development based upon these adopted regulations within the Spokane Valley. PL-22 V1.0 Page 13 of "T'`" SEPA CHECKLIST pokane 40000Valley 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?The proposed amendment will not impact environmentally sensitive areas as none exist on the site. a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed amendment will not affect any shorelines as none are near or on the site. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Not applicable. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities?The proposed amendment may increase demand on transportation and public services if the site is redeveloped or developed more intensively. The amendment is within the scope of impacts analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan and supporting development regulations. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: The Comprehensive Plan adopts a level-of-service for transportation. The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan and the 6-year Transportation Improvement Program identifies the necessary projects to maintain the adopted LOS. These transportation and public service projects are implemented both by the city and state and at the project level through concurrency. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal does not conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Any specific issues that may arise during the development of the site will be identified and addressed based upon regulations within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this cheek list. , i = Date: �� a(/ y Signature: 4 7 a Please print or type: Proponent: City of Spokane Valley Address: 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PL-22 V1.0 Page 14 of kane SEPA CHECKLIST Spo Valley Phone: (509) 720-5000 Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner, City of Spokane Valley Economic Development Division Address: 10210 E Sprague Ave Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: 509-720-5337 PL-22 V1.0 Page 15 of EXHIBIT 7 /'� COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Sun 1� e DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE jvP I1 10210 East Sprague Avenue• Spokane Valley WA 99206 aller 509.720.5000 •Fax: 509.720.5075 •planning@spokanevalley.org FILE NUMBERS:CPA-2020-0001; CPA-2020-0002; CPA-2020-0003; CPA-2020-0006; CPA-2020-0007 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTIONS: CPA-2020-0001: Privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45152.1004(0.47 acres)from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). CPA- 2020-0002: Privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 35133.2321 (2.98 acres) from Industrial(I)to Regional Commercial(RC). CPA-2020-0003: Privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcels 45094.0133,45094.0134,and 45094.0121 (6.24 acres total)from Multifamily Residential(MFR)to CMU. CPA-2020-0006: City initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45013.9024(8.8 acres)from Ito CMU.CPA-2020-0007: City initiated text amendment to Chapter 2 Goals and Policies for alternative housing types and area-wide rezone to implement new policies APPLICANT/OWNER: CPA-2020-0001: Land Use Solutions/Tucker Roy LLC; CPA-2020-0002: Ed Lukas/Lawrence B. Stone Properties,Lawrence B. Stone Properties#50 LLC; CPA-2020-0003: Jay Rambo/Revere-Dece III, LLC, Revere-Dece, Brill Properties LLC; CPA-2020-0006: Spokane Valley/East Valley School District; CPA-2020-0007: Spokane Valley/Citywide. PROPOSAL LOCATIONS: CPA-2020-0001: 1311 N. McDonald Road, further located in the NW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 44 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane County,Washington CPA-2020-0002: 5901 E. Sprague Avenue, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 13, Township 25 North, Range 43 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA-2020-0003: 1723 and 1724 N Union Road, further located in the SE 1/4 of Section 09, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA-2020-0006: 3830 N Sullivan, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 01, Township 25 North, Range 44 East,Willamette Meridian,Spokane County,Washington CPA-2020-0007: Spokane Valley/Citywide LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley. DETERMINATION: Determination of Non-Significance is issued under Washington Administrative Code(WAC) 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date issued. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m.on March 6,2020.Pursuant to Title 21,Environmental Controls of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC),the lead agency has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required under Revised Code of Washington 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates,AICP, Senior Planner,City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509)720-5337; cbates cr spokanevallev.org RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Mike Basinger, AICP, Economic Development Manager, City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509) 720-5333, mbasinger@spokanevalley.org spokanevalley.org DATE ISSUED: February 21, 2020 SIGNATURE: APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community& Pucific Works Department within fourteen(14)calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and specific factual objections made to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with SVMC 17.90 Appeals, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Schedule shall be paid at the time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. City of Spokane Valley February 18,2020 Determination of Non-Significance(DNS) Page 1 of I File Nos.CPA-2020-0001;CPA-2020-0002;CPA-2020-0003;CPA-2020-0006;CPA-2020-0007 EXHIBIT 8 Notice of Remote Public Hearing City of Spokane Valley 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Due to the restrictions on public gatherings arising from the covid-19 outbreak,and pursuant to Governor Inslee's Stay Home,Stay Healthy Proclamation(No.20-25)and Proclamation 20-28(and associated extensions),this hearing will be conducted remotely using web and telephone conference tools,as described below. HEARING DATE AND TIME: June 25,2020 beginning at 6:00 p.m. ZOOM MEETING DETAILS: Join Zoom Meeting A link to the Zoom meeting will be provided on the agenda and posted to the City's webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/planningcommission. HEARING BODY:Spokane Valley Planning Commission The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive public comment on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests and make a recommendation to the City Council on each of the following applications: FILE No.CPA-2020-0001:A privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45152.1004(0.47 acres),addressed as 1311 North McDonald Road from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). FILE No.CPA-2020-0002: A privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 35133.2321 (2.98 acres),unaddressed,from Industrial(I)to Regional Commercial(RC). FILE No.CPA-2020-0003:A privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcels 45094.0133, 45094.0134,and 45094.0121 (6.24 acres total),addressed as 1723 and 1724 North Union Road from Multifamily Residential(MFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). FILE No.CPA-2020-0006:A City initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45013.9024(8.8 acres),addressed as 3830 North Sullivan Road Bldg 1,from Industrial(I)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). FILE No.CPA-2020-0007:A City initiated text amendment to Chapter 2 Goals and Policies to provide policy guidance for increased housing density and provide implementing regulations,including an area-wide rezone of approximately 1,200 acres. STAFF CONTACT:Chaz Bates,AICP,Senior Planner;(509)720-5337 cbates@spokanevalley.org ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City issued a Determination of Non-significance(DNS)on February 21, 2020 pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)and chapter 21.20 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). HEARING PROCEDURES: The Planning Commission will conduct the remote hearing pursuant to the rules of procedure adopted in SVMC Title 18(Boards and Authorities). The public is encouraged to submit written comments prior to the hearing by sending the comments to Chaz Bates, 10210 E Sprague Ave,Spokane Valley,WA 99206,or email to cbates@spokanevalley.org. Comments will need to be submitted no later than 4:00 PM on June 25,2020 in order for them to be received and prepared for submission into the record. Comments received will be entered into the record at the time of the public participation portion of the Public Hearing.If you would like to deliver comments to City Hall you may contact City Hall at(509)720-5000 prior to 4:00 PM on June 25,2020 to schedule an appointment for delivery and allow staff to scan and include in the report.Comments received through US Mail will be included if they are received prior to the hearing. All interested persons may testify at the remote public hearing via the zoom meeting address and/or phone number. Interested persons will need to sign up to speak no later than 4:00 p.m.on June 25,2020 at the link provided in the agenda posted at the link referenced above.Use the link above to sign up for oral public comments.The link will direct you to directions to sign up for oral public comments. This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those action items above,as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion.Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person.Written comments and documents may only be submitted prior to the hearing. Any appeal of the Planning Commission's decision will be based on the record established before the Planning Commission,pursuant to SVMC 17.90 (Appeals). The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. STAFF REPORT AND INSPECTION OF FILE: A staff report will be available for inspection seven(7)calendar days before the hearing.The staff report and application file may be inspected by logging on to the Spokane Valley SmartGov Public Portal at this web address:ci-spokanevalley-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/Public/Home Go to applications and search for CPA-2020 to review or download the staff reports for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests. If you have any questions,please contact Chaz Bates,Senior Planner,Economic Development Division,at cbatesgspokanevalley.org. Carrie Koudelka,Spokane Valley Deputy City Clerk Publish:May 29,2020 and June 5,2020 EXHIBIT 9 Public and Agency Comments (Will be inserted as received) From: Fog,Greg To: Chaz Bates Cc: Kay,Charlene Subject: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA-2020-003 and CPA-2020-006 Date: Tuesday, December 10,2019 4:53:56 PM Good afternoon Chaz, Thank you for the opportunity to review the above requested comprehensive plan amendments. The applications as submitted provide little information regarding what traffic would be generated by these changes. Without further information WSDOT cannot determine what impacts these requests will have on the state transportation system.These impacts need to be estimated as part of the transportation element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. WSDOT requests that additional information be provided regarding these changes and the traffic generation that may result. Please let me know if you should have any questions on this request. Sincerely, Greg Figg Development Services Manager WSDOT Eastern Region Planning 2714 N. Mayfair Street Spokane, WA 99207 (509) 324-6199 figgg@wsdot.wa.gov CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. From: Fog,Greg To: Chaz Bates Cc: Kay,Charlene Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA-2020-003 and CPA-2020-006 Date: Thursday,June 25,2020 2:20:20 PM Attachments: image001.pnq Good afternoon Chaz, WSDOT has reviewed the traffic information prepared for the above two comprehensive plan amendments. The information presented shows that these two amendments will not result in a large increase in traffic over what the current zoning allows. Consequently WSDOT does not have any further comment on these proposals. Please let me know if you should have any questions. Thanks, Greg Figg Development Services Manager WSDOT Eastern Region Planning 2714 N. Mayfair Street Spokane, WA 99207 (509) 324-6199 figgg@wsdot.wa.gov From: Chaz Bates <cbates@spokanevalley.org> Sent:Thursday,June 25, 2020 7:39 AM To: Figg, Greg<FiggG@wsdot.wa.gov> Cc: Kay, Charlene<KayC@wsdot.wa.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA-2020-003 and CPA- 2020-006 WARNING:This email originated from outside of WSDOT. Please use caution with links and attachments. Greg, You mentioned about following up our phone call about the TGDL for two of our comp plan amendments referenced above. Today at 4 is the deadline if you want to share written comments. Chaz Bates,AICP I Senior Planner 10210 E.Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley,WA 99206 509.720.5337 I cbates@spokanevalley.org EXHIBIT 10 Project Name: 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment File #: CPA-2020-0006 Parcels: 45013.9024 This Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL) is being prepared to support the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) application for a city initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing an existing Industrial (I) to a Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) land designation. This letter estimates the trip generation of the current zoning versus the trip generation that could occur if the land were developed under the proposed new land use. Project Description CPA-2020-0006 is at the northeast corner of Sullivan Road and B Street. The CPA is situated west of the City of Spokane Valley's (City) Northeast Industrial Area (NIA), as shown in Figure 1. M . III r ..i �� w.,Y7 F �� ,, N • Trent --'I 1 4-0% Er_: 7 „• Ave/Sullivan Rd " - - - • a -, - Pa le. . CPA-2020-0006 = - j — - '.• I a.,!. "• ) �;-• City of Spokane �"' C- r • --rt , i .Y -�_ - -- Valley's NIA g ., 1-90 Exit291 B 4 -. F 4 .:. . ,. 0 A ' �° Sullivan Rd a -..,..r.„_____.., ,miejsz. ;10 Jr., fr.„.„: -I.'. t':-,:".4L-1. ' :.-i,' .. Y I• , k • •. • Figure 1. Vicinity Map 1 ' Page Trip Generation There is 1 parcel for this proposed comprehensive plan amendment measuring at 8.81 acres.The parcel is currently owned by the East Valley School District and is used for administrative, educational, and maintenance purposes. Under the current Industrial zoning and development in the area, the allowable and likely uses would be a general office building and/or a fast food restaurant. A land-to-building ratio of 4.5 is typical in the City, which would result in a building square footage of 85,280. The total expected trips for existing and available property in the proposed comprehensive plan amendment using the current land us is shown in Table 1 for both the AM and PM peak periods. Table 1. Expected Trips for Existing Zoning AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Units Volume Directional Volume @ Directional Land Use (934) Zoning (1,000 @ 40.19 Distribution 32.67 PM Distribution sf) AM Trips 51% 49% Trips per 52% 48% per Unit Unit In Out In Out Fast Food w/Drive thru I 3.5 141 72 69 115 60 55 AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Units Volume Directional Volume by Directional Land Use (150) Zoning (1,000 by Fitted Distribution Fitted Curve Distribution sf) Curve 86% 14% 16% 84% In Out In Out General Office Building I 81.78 104 89 15 95 15 80 Corridor Mixed Use under the City's zoning allows for apartments, general and medical/dental offices, retail and commercial development, storage, education, and restaurant uses. Given the expected building square footage of 85,280 sf, a variety of permitted and likely land uses were identified for evaluation in the CMU zone, as noted below: • 47,000 sf General Office Building • 25,000 sf School District Office • 9,780 sf Shopping Center (Retail/Commercial) • 3,500 sf fast food restaurant The potential development if the City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is permitted includes the land uses and expected peak hour trips summarized in Table 2. 2IPage Table 2. Estimated CMU Generated Trips (Redevelopment) AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Units Volume by Directional Volume by Directional Land Use (710) Zoning (1,000 Fitted Distribution Fitted Distribution sf) Curve 86% 14% Curve 16% 84% In Out In Out General Office Building CMU 47 71 61 10 56 9 47 AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Units Volume @ Directional Volume @ Directional Land Use (538) Zoning (1,000 2.36 AM Distribution 2.04 PM Distribution sf) Trips per 76% 24% Trips per 17% 83% Unit Unit In Out In Out School District Office CMU 25 59 45 14 51 9 42 AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Units Volume @ Directional Volume @ Directional Land Use (820) Zoning (1,000 0.94 AM Distribution 3.81 PM Distribution sf) Trips per 62% 38% Trips per 48% 52% Unit Unit In Out In Out Shopping Center CMU 9.78 10 6 4 38 18 20 AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Units Volume @ Directional Volume @ Directional Land Use (934) Zoning (1,000 40.19 AM Distribution 32.67 PM Distribution sf) Trips per 51% 49% Trips per 52% 48% Unit In Out Unit In Out Fast Food w/Drive thru CMU 3.5 141 72 69 115 60 55 Subtracting the peak hour trips for the current zoning of I from those that would be expected if CMU were allowed to develop gives a difference between the two land uses. The City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment could have a net increase on traffic volumes of 36 during the AM peak hour and 50 during the PM peak hour. This is summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Trip Generation (Redevelopment) Summary Summary Zoning AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trips Trips Existing Potential I 245 161 84 210 75 135 Future Potential CMU 281 184 97 260 96 164 Net New Trips CMU 36 23 13 50 21 29 3IPage A separate analysis was conducted based on the expected land use solely as an educational facility by the East Valley School District. The expected land uses consistent with school expectations were identified for evaluation in the CMU zone, as noted below: • 25,000 sf School District Office • 16,200 sf Elementary School • 1,800 sf Automobile Care Center The potential development if the City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is permitted including only educational land uses and expected peak hour trips is summarized in Table 4. Table 4. Estimated CMU Generated Trips (Education) AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Units Volume @ Directional Volume @ Directional Land Use (538) Zoning (1,000 2.36 AM Distribution 2.04 PM Distribution sf) Trips per 76/ 24/ Trips per 17% 83% Unit In Out Unit In Out School District Office CMU 25 59 45 14 51 9 42 AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Units Volume @ Directional Volume @ Directional Land Use (520) Zoning (1,000 6.97 AM Distribution 1.37 PM Distribution sf) Trips per 76/ 24/ Trips per 17% 83% Unit In Out Unit In Out Elementary School CMU 16.2 113 86 27 23 4 19 AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Units Volume @ Directional Volume @ Directional Land Use (942) Zoning (1,000 2.25 AM Distribution 3.11 AM Distribution sf) Trips per 76% 24% Trips per 17% 83% Unit In Out Unit In Out Automobile Care Center CMU 1.8 5 4 1 6 1 5 Subtracting the peak hour trips for the current zoning of I from those that would be expected if CMU were allowed to develop with educational uses gives a difference between the two land uses. The City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment could have a net decrease on traffic volumes of 68 during the AM peak hour and 130 during the PM peak hour. A summary of the existing potential development and the two CPA potential development trip generation impacts is provided as Table 5. Table 5. Overall Trip Generation Summary Summary(school use) Zoning AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Existing Potential I 245 161 84 210 75 135 Future Potential (Redevelopment) CMU 281 184 97 260 96 164 Future Potential (Education) CMU 177 135 42 80 14 66 4IPage Traffic Trip Distribution Using current traffic information for Sullivan Road and the CPA-2020-0006 location, a trip distribution based on a percentage of trips is shown in Figure 2. weed Ave x E Wellesley Ave n E Heroy Ave Sr j N .116 olost TRENTWOOD E Rich Ave VELOX CPA-2020-0006 E Industrial - - E K+ern 50% 'reel Park B SI 2 ' 50% trial Park C St Y m WS E 1€rJuctrcal Park D St E Industrial Park E St E Euclid Ave to„0 ra A ve rn E Hatratxe Pve E Buckeye AT c ,t she Spokane River ra Sp°k (:ar,lennral Siifa E,MonIgTrodery Dr Park Trod o. t` '" Figure 2. Trip Distribution Traffic Mitigation Given the similarity and wide range in potential development between Industrial and Corridor Mixed Use, the resultant range in trip generation could net either an increase in trips or a decrease in trips. The ultimate trip generation is entirely dependent on the direction of development on the parcel and whether it remains as an educational use. As a result, any necessary mitigation is expected to be bore by the development. The City initiated an evaluation of the street network traffic operations through the Sullivan Corridor Study in 2015 and an update that is currently underway. The expected volumes and corridor improvements necessary to maintain operations were identified and estimated for inclusion in City plans. As a result, it is expected that sufficient roadway capacity exists or is programmed to exist with future road improvements on the City street system to accommodate the uses resulting from the CPA. wA vf ► s 40A 4fr fi�St(}NA�- '� 5IPage COMMUNITY& PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT poCITY 0kane BUILDING&PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION v CPA-2020-0007 STAFF REPORT DATE: June 3,2020 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: June 25,2020,beginning at 6:00 p.m.,remotely via Zoom. Project Number: CPA-2020-0007 Application Description: Amend Chapter 2 Goals and Policies to provide policy guidance for increased housing density with access to support services like transit and commercial services; and provide implementing regulations. Location: Citywide Applicant: City of Spokane Valley, 10210 E Sprague, Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Owners: Various owners Date of Application: October 31,2019 Staff Contact: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner, 10210 E Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Title 17 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) General Provisions, Title 19 SVMC Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Application Exhibit 4: SEPA Checklist Exhibit 2: Comprehensive Plan Text Exhibit 5: Environment Determination Amendments Exhibit 6: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 3: Spokane Valley Municipal Exhibit 7: Agency and Public Comments Code Amendments A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The periodic update the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations identified that minimum lot sizes were a barrier to infill development. The analysis also showed that many subdivision requests were happening in conjunction with a rezone request(rezone from R-3 to R-4)to reduce the minimum lot size from 7,500 square feet to 6,000 square feet. Generally,these subdivision/rezones were approved as the requests were consistent with the rezone criteria and supported by the Comprehensive Plan. The process for the subdivision/rezone added approximately 3-4 months to development permits and the process would often result in frustrated residents as the rezones would ultimately be approved consistent with city policy and regulations despite public opposition. To reduce the negative impacts to both residents and the development community,the periodic update reduced the number of implementing zoning districts.To provide flexibility to develop irregular shaped parcels,common in the City,the minimum lot size was reduced to 5,000 square feet in the R-3 zone,but the density was maintained at six-dwelling units per acre. These changes were intended to make infill development easier and minimize impacts to neighborhoods. Page 1 of 7 Staff Report CPA-2020-0007 As the economy has improved,infill and new development has been intensifying. Duplexes,in particular, have been increasing over the past five years as compared to single-family dwellings.Duplex development has occurred both as infill development(isolated developments of one or two duplexes) and as"duplex subdivisions"(multiple new lots sized for accommodating duplexes). In 2018,the City began hearing citizen concerns related to negative impacts to neighborhoods resulting from duplex development in the R-3 zone. Generally,the concerns were in areas with larger lots that easily accommodated"duplex subdivisions". In May 2019,the City Council directed staff to prepare a City Initiated Amendment for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Docket that would provide additional policy guidance to identify the most appropriate location for alternative housing types to reduce the disproportional impacts in certain neighborhoods. IMPLICATIONS: If adopted the amendment will add two policies to guide the development of alternative housing types along with implementing zoning code amendments. These amendments include changes to the zoning map creating a new R-4 zoning district. It is anticipated that the new R4 classification would provide more housing options for residents where there is frequent public transit and commercial services. APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Application Submitted: October 2,2019 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance Issue date February 21,2020 End of Appeal Period for DNS: March 6,2020 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: March 6, 13,May 29 &June 5,2020' 1:Additional public notification required; a result of cancelling a duly noticed public hearing due to COVID-19 and efforts to maximize social distancing. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) SVMC, the lead agency has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The city issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal on February 21, 2020. The determination was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Titles 19, 21, and 22 of the SVMC, a site assessment, public and agency comments, the Comprehensive Plan and associated Environmental Impact Statement. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions)of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Approval Criteria Page 2 of 7 Staff Report CPA-2020-0007 i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Analysis: Housing is an important component of the economic infrastructure of the city. Ensuring that there is a variety of housing types is an important competitive advantage for economic development. The proposed amendment will allow the city to more closely align its housing needs with locations within the city to ensure adequate infrastructure is available. This will also enable the provision of quality, affordable housing for all Spokane Valley residents. (2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Analysis: The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) stipulates that the housing element serves to encourage the availability of affordable housing to residents of all economic backgrounds,promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage the preservation of existing neighborhoods. The proposed amendment will provide increased housing options in locations that have adequate infrastructure that can affordably support increased densities. (3) The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; Analysis: The amendment is not related to a specific piece of property. It does, however, respond to a substantial change in conditions from 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan. This change relates to increased duplex development in neighborhoods with larger lots. This amendment looks to incentivize alternative housing development where there is frequent transit and commercial services. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The amendment is not in response to a mapping error and would not correct any error. (5) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The Comprehensive Plan identifies that the city will need an additional 6,389 homes by 2037(3,962 single family homes and 2,417 multifamily). The plan also identifies that the median household income in the city was about$2,000 less than the average countywide annual earnings.Additional data indicates that residents are cost- burdened with 51%of renters and 26%of homeowners spending at least 33 percent of their monthly budget on rent or mortgage payments. The following adopted goals, policies, and strategy support the proposed amendment: H-G1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. H-G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels. Strategy: Continue to evaluate new housing typologies to meet market needs. Page 3 of 7 Staff Report CPA-2020-0007 ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis: The proposed amendment is policy oriented and as a non-site specific amendment does not have a direct effect on the physical environment. Future development that may result will be evaluated under city regulations for physical development. (2) The effect on open space, streams,rivers,and lakes; Analysis: The proposed amendment is policy oriented and does not have a direct effect on open space, streams, rivers and lakes. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed should future development occur. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis: The proposed amendment is policy oriented and includes implementing development regulations that are aimed to protect neighborhood character and locate alternative housing in areas with frequent transit and commercial services. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads,public transportation,parks,recreation, and schools; Analysis: Capital Facilities Policy CF-P6 recommends that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standards. LOS standards have been adopted for water, sewer, transportation, stormwater, law enforcement, libraries,parks, street cleaning, public transit, fire, and schools. The proposed amendment seeks to take advantage of available infrastructure to minimize the need to develop and maintain new infrastructure. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis: Increasing housing options that protect neighborhood character and minimize the need for new infrastructure can potentially reduce housing costs and thereby reducing the amount of city residents paying more than 33 percent of their income toward housing, which would benefit the neighborhood, city and region. The change benefits the neighborhood, City, and region by supporting the following adopted Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: ED-P8 Provide and maintain an infrastructure system that supports Spokane Valley's economic development priorities. LU-G1 Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality LU-P14 Enable a variety of housing types. LU-P16 Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas. H-G3 Allow convenient access to daily goods and services in Spokane Valley's neighborhoods. Page 4 of 7 Staff Report CPA-2020-0007 (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: The proposed amendment does not change the location or quantity of land designations. Implementing changes to the zoning code may increase densities in locations with adequate infrastructure support, and may reduce densities in other locations. Any future change would be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the demand forecasted. (7) The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: The implementing regulations may increase density in areas that are supported by adequate infrastructure and may reduce densities in other locations. The proposed amendment is not expected to have significant impacts to population density on a citywide level. Implementing regulations will be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the demand forecasted. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The proposed amendment will support the Comprehensive Plan's housing goals,policies, and strategies. The amendment will not have a direct impact on other Comprehensive Plan elements. Implementing regulations will be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the demand forecast. Conclusion(s): For the reasons outlined above the proposed amendment is consistent with SVMC 17.80.140(H). 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings:The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.The Comprehensive Plan identifies that the city will need an additional 6,389 homes by 2037(3,962 single family homes and 2,417 multifamily). The plan also identifies that the median household income in the city was about $2,000 less than the average countywide annual earnings. Additional data indicates that residents are cost-burdened with 51%of renters and 26% of homeowners spending at least 33 percent of their monthly budget on rent or mortgage payments.The following adopted goals and implementing strategy from the Comprehensive Plan support the proposed amendment: H-G1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. H-G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels. Strategy: Continue to evaluate new housing typologies to meet market needs b. Conclusion(s)The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan 3. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The Growth Management Act(GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The City has adopted minimum Levels of Service (LOS) standards for water, sewer,transportation, stormwater,law enforcement,libraries,parks, street cleaning, public transit,fire, and schools.The proposed amendment seeks to take advantage of available infrastructure to minimize the need to develop and maintain new infrastructure. Specific site needs will be addressed at the time of development. Page 5 of 7 Staff Report CPA-2020-0007 b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has received no public comments to date. Comments received following the date of this report will be provided to the Planning Commission at the June 11,2020 meeting. 2. Conclusion(s): The scheduled public hearing on March 26, 2020 was canceled due to COVID-19 and efforts to maximize social distancing. Prior to the cancellation,the Notice of Public Hearing(NOPH)was published on March 6,2020 and March 13,2020. The public hearing was rescheduled for June 25,2020.The NOPH was published May 29, 2020 and June 5,2020. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff has not received any agency comments of significance to date. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Spokane Valley Senior Traffic Engineer City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering City of Spokane Valley Building&Planning City of Spokane Valley Parks&Recreation Spokane Valley Fire Department City of Millwood City of Liberty Lake City of Spokane City of Spokane Valley Police Department Spokane County,Building and Planning Spokane County,Environmental Services Spokane County, Clean Air Agency Spokane County,Fire District No. 1 Spokane County,Fire District No. 8 Spokane County Regional Health District Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency Spokane Aquifer Joint Board Spokane Transit Authority(STA) Spokane Regional Transportation Council(SRTC) Washington State Dept of Commerce Washington State Dept of Ecology(Olympia) Washington State Dept of Ecology(Spokane) Washington State Dept of Fish&Wildlife Washington State Dept of Natural Resources Washington State Dept of Transportation Washington State Parks&Recreation Commission WA Archaeological&Historic Preservation Page 6 of 7 Staff Report CPA-2020-0007 Avista Utilities Inland Power& Light Modem Electric Water Company Central Valley School District#356 East Valley School District#361 West Valley School District#363 Century Link Comcast Model Irrigation District#18 Consolidated Irrigation District#19 East Spokane Water District#1 Vera Water&Power Spokane County Water District#3 Spokane Tribe of Indians 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. F. CONCLUSION: For the reasons set forth in Section C(1 and 2)the proposed amendment to amend the Comprehensive Plan and adopt implementing zoning regulations, including the area-wide rezone of properties to a new R-4 zoning district is consistent with the requirements of the SVMC 17.80.140(H)and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT 1 Sokan�' p COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION jvalley STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: Or 7- 3(, 20/q Received by: C-2 Fee:_01 Ci•fyjit Oka PLUS #: File#: C-7W -ZO20-- 0067 PART II — APPLICATION INFORMATIuI��ect #1�1r'ft ' o -caooz RECEIVED ❑ Map Amendment; or Text Amendment OAT 31 2019 APPLICANT NAME: City of Spokane Valley COSY PERMIT CENTER SUB # REV. # MAILING ADDRESS: 10210 E Sprauge Ave CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA Zip: 99206 PHONE: 509-720-5000 FAX: CELL: EMAIL: PROPERTY OWNER: Not Applicable—Citywide Applicability MAILING ADDRESS: WA CITY: Spokane Valley ZIP: 99216 PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL: SITE ADDRESS: Various (Citywide Applicability) PARCEL NO.: N/A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT(attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper): During the last periodic update the city adopted policies and regulations that support the increase of housing, such as: reduced lot sizes, SEPA infill exemption area, and cottage housing. The proposed amendment will provided additional policy guidance to narrow the focus of the location of alternative housing types to locations with access to support services like transit and commercial services; and to reduce impacts in neighborhoods disproportionately impacted by alternative housing types. PL-06 V1.0 Page 3 of • Spokane COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION jValley Proposed Text On page 2-27 of the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan, add the following: H-P5 Enable a variety of housing types at increased densities within %mile of funded high performance transit networks. H-P6 Preserve and enhance the city's established single-family neighborhoods by minimizing the impacts of more dense housing typologies such as duplexes and cottage development. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Supplement a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Housing is an important component of the economic infrastructure of the city. Ensuring that a variety of housing types that match the city's needs is an important competitive advantage for economic development. The proposed amendment will allow the city to more closely align its housing needs with locations within the city to ensure adequate infrastructure is available. This will also enable the provision of quality, affordable housing for all Spokane Valley residents. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; The Washington State Growth Management Act(GMA) stipulates that the housing element serves to encourage the availability of affordable housing to residents of all economic backgrounds, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage the preservation of existing neighborhoods. The proposed amendment will provide increased opportunities to increase housing options in locations that have adequate infrastructure that can affordably support increased densities. c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change inconditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; The amendment is not related to a specific piece of property and does not respond to a substantial change in conditions from 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error;and The amendment is not in response to a mapping error and would not correct any error. e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies that the city will need an additional 6,389 homes by 2037(3,962 single family homes and 2,417 multifamily). The plan also identifies that the median household income in the city was about$2,000 less than the average countywide annual earnings. Additional data indicates that residents are cost-burdened with 51%of renters and 26% of homeowners spending at least 33 percent of their monthly budget on rent or mortgage payments. While adopted goals, policies, and strategies enable the city to address these needs, the proposed amendment provides additional tools and opportunities to meet the city's housing needs. 2. The proposal addresses the following specific factors; a. The effect upon the physical environment; The proposed amendment is policy oriented and as a non-site specific amendment does not have a direct effect on the physical environment. Future development that may result would be evaluated under city regulations for physical development. PL-06 V1.0 Page 4 of Spokane` COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION jValley b. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; The proposed amendment is policy oriented and does not have a direct effect on open space, streams, rivers and lakes. The City's critical areas ordinance will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed should future development occur. c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; The proposed amendment is policy oriented and as a non-site specific amendment does not have a direct effect on the neighboring properties. However, the intent of the amendment would be to development implementing development regulations that are aimed to protect neighborhood character and locate additional housing in locations with adequate infrastructure that supports the added housing. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation,parks, recreation and schools; Capital Facilities Policy CF-P6 recommends that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standards. LOS standards have been adopted for water, sewer, transportation, storm water, law enforcement, libraries, parks, street cleaning, public transit, fire, and schools. The proposed amendment seeks to take advantage of available infrastructure to minimize the need to develop and maintain new infrastructure. e. The benefit to the neighborhood, city and region; Increasing housing options that protect neighborhood character and minimize the need for new infrastructure can potentially reduce housing costs and thereby reducing the amount of city residents paying more than 33 percent of their income toward housing costs, which would benefit the neighborhood, city and region. Further, the amendment further implements the goals of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, especially Housing Goal 1 — `Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs." f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density, and the demand for such land; The proposed amendment do not change the location or quantity of land designations. Future changes to the zoning code may increase densities in locations with adequate infrastructure support, and may reduce densities in other locations. Any future change would be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the demand forecasted. g. The current and projected population density in the area;and While primarily policy oriented, the amendment does not directly effect a specific area. The implementing measures may increase density in areas that are supported by adequate infrastructure and may reduce densities in other locations. The proposed amendment not expected to have significant impacts to population density on a citywide level. Future development code changes would be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the demand forecasted. h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment will support the Comprehensive Plan's housing goals, policies, and strategies. While primarily policy oriented it will not have a direct impact on other Comprehensive Plan elements, future amendments to the development code would be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the demand forecast, especially as it relates to Transportation, Capital Facilities and Public Services, Public and Private Utilities, and Parks and Open Space. PL-06 V1.0 Page 5 of Spokane`` COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION jValley PART III - AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. (Signature) (Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of , 20 NOTARY SEAL NOTARY SIGNATURE Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at: My appointmentexpires: LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; , owner of the above described property do hereby authorize to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. PL-06 V1.0 Page 6 of EXHIBIT 2 CPA-2020-0007 (City Initiated Text Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan) On page 2-27 of the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan, add the following policies: H-P5 Enable a variety of housing types at increased densities within 'z mile of funded high performance transit networks. H-P6 Preserve and enhance the city's established single-family neighborhoods by minimizing the impacts of more dense housing typologies such as duplexes and cottage development. EXHIBIT 3 19.20.010 Zoning districts. The City has established the following zoning districts: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Designation Symbol Zoning District Single-Family R-1 Single-Family Residential Residential Estate Single-Family R-2 Single-Family Residential Residential Suburban Single-Family R-3 Single-Family Residential Residential Urban Single-Family RR=4 Single-Family Residential Residential Urban Multifamily MFR Multifamily Residential Residential Mixed Use MU Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use CMU Corridor Mixed Use Neighborhood NC Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Regional RC Regional Commercial Commercial Industrial I Industrial Industrial Mixed IMU Industrial Mixed Use Use Parks, Recreation, P/OS Parks/Open Space and Open Space (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). 19.20.015 Zoning districts purpose. A. R-1—Single-Family Residential Estate. Preserves the distinct character of existing single-family large lot development, while allowing for a limited number of large animals. B. R-2—Single-Family Residential Suburban. Preserves existing single-family development patterns, while allowing for development that is similar in size and scale to the surrounding neighborhood. C. R-3—Single-Family Residential Urban. Allows for single-family residential development at an urban density that provides flexibility and promotes reinvestment in existing single-family neighborhoods. D. R-4—Single-Family Residential Urban.Allows for single-family residential development at an urban density that provides flexibility and promotes reinvestment in existing single-family neighborhoods. DE. MFR—Multifamily Residential. Allows for multifamily housing located near business and commercial centers, the arterial street system, and public transit. Adjacent single-family zones are protected through transitional standards. €F. MU—Mixed Use. Allows for two or more different land uses within developments. Mixed-use developments can be either vertical or horizontally mixed, and could include employment uses such as office, retail, and/or lodging along with higher-density residential uses, and in some cases, community or cultural facilities. Adjacent residential zones are protected through transitional standards. € . CMU—Corridor Mixed Use. Allows for light manufacturing, retail, multifamily, and offices along major transportation corridors. Adjacent residential zones are protected through transitional standards. H. NC—Neighborhood Commercial. Allows for small-scale neighborhood retail and office uses while allowing for single-family development. Mi. RC—Regional Commercial.Allows a broad range of retail, wholesale, service, and other compatible uses,with a wide range of development types.Adjacent residential zones are protected through transitional standards. -[J. I—Industrial. Allows all types of industrial development such as manufacturing, processing, fabrication, assembly, disassembly, and freight-handling.Transitional standards protect adjacent nonindustrial zones from industrial uses that have significant noise, odor, or aesthetic impacts. 4K. IMU—Industrial Mixed Use.Allows retail, office, light manufacturing, and other light industrial uses such as contractor yards.Transitional standards protect adjacent nonindustrial zones from industrial uses that have significant noise, odor, or aesthetic impacts. a4L. P/OS—Parks/Open Space. Protects and provides for parks, open space, and other natural physical assets of the community. 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. Parks Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Agriculture and Animal Animal processing/handling P Animal raising and/or keeping S S S S S S Animal shelter S P P Beekeeping, commercial P Beekeeping, hobby S S S Community garden S S S S S S S Greenhouse/nursery, commercial P P P Parks Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Kennel SS S S PP Orchard, tree farming, commercial P P Riding stable P P C Communication Facilities Radio/TV broadcasting studio P P P P Repeater facility P P P P P P PP Small cell deployment S S S SSSSSSSS Telecommunication wireless antenna S S S S SS S SSS array Telecommunication wireless support S S S S SS S SSS tower Tower, ham operator S S S S SS S SSS Community Services Community hall, club, or lodge P P PP P P P Church, temple, mosque, synagogue P P P P PP P P and house of worship Crematory P P P P Funeral home P P Transitional housing C Day Care Day care, adult P P P P PP P PPP Day care, child (12 children or fewer) P P P P PP P PPP Day care, child (13 children or more) C C C P PP P PPP Eating and Drinking Establishment PP P PPP S Education Schools, college or university P P P Schools, K through 12 P P P P PP P P Schools, professional, vocational and P P P P P P trade schools Schools, specialized training/studios PP P P Entertainment Adult entertainment and retail S Casino P P P Cultural facilities PP P P Exercise facility SS S S Off-road recreational vehicle use P P Major event entertainment P P P Parks Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial and Open Space I R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Racecourse P P P P Racetrack P P Recreational facility P P P P P P Theater, indoor P P P Group Living Assisted living/convalescent/nursing P P P home Community residential facilities (6 P P P P P P residents or less) Community residential facilities (greater than 6 and under 25 P P P residents) Dwelling, congregate P P P Industrial, Heavy Assembly, heavy P Hazardous waste treatment and S S storage Manufacturing, heavy P Processing, heavy P Mining S Industrial, Light Assembly, light P P P P P Manufacturing, light P P P Processing, light P P Recycling facility S S S S Industrial service P P Lodging I 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 Medical S P P P P P Office Parks Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Animal clinic/veterinary S S S SS Office, professional P PP P P PP Parks and Open Space Cemetery P PPF Golf course P PPF P P PP P Golf driving range C C CC C P C PP P Parks P P P F P PP P P P Public/Quasi-Public Community facilities P PPF P PP P P PP P Essential public facilities R R R F, R R R R RR Public utility local distribution facility S S S E S SS S P PP S Public utility transmission facility S SSS S SS S S SS S Tower, wind turbine support S S SS Residential Dwelling, accessory units S S S SS S SS Dwelling, caretaker's residence S S S SS Dwelling, cottage S S S Dwelling, duplex P Dwelling, industrial accessory dwelling S S unit Dwelling, multifamily P P P Dwelling, single-family P PPF P PP P Dwelling, townhouse S S S SS S Manufactured home park S S S Retail Sales and Service PP S PPS S Transportation Airstrip, private P P Battery charging stations S S S P PPP PPP S Electric vehicle infrastructure P P P P P P P Heliport P P Helistop C C P Parking facility—controlled access P P P P P Railroad yard, repair shop and roundhouse Transit center P P P P P Vehicle Services Parks Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial and Open Space R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Automobile impound yard P P Automobile/taxi rental P P P P P Automobile parts, accessories and P P P P P tires Automobile/truck/RV/motorcycle P P P P painting, repair, body and fender works Car wash P P S P P P Farm machinery sales and repair P P P Fueling station P P S P P P Heavy truck and industrial vehicles P P sales, rental, repair and maintenance Passenger vehicle, boat, and RV P P P sales, service and repair Towing P P P P Truck stop P P Warehouse,Wholesale, and Freight Movement Auction house P P P Auction yard (excluding livestock) P P Catalog and mail order houses P P P P P Cold storage/food locker P P Freight forwarding P P Grain elevator P P Storage, general indoor P P S P P P Storage, general outdoor S S S S P P Storage, self-service facility P P P P P P Tank storage, critical material above S S ground Tank storage, critical material below S S S ground Tank storage, LPG above ground S S S S S S Warehouse P P P P P Wholesale business P P P P P 19.40.060 Development standards — Duplexes. Duplexes shall meet the minimum lot size per dwelling unit, setback standards, maximum lot coverage, and building height standards shown in Table 19.70 1. Duplex development in the R-3 zone shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet. Duplex development in non-residential zones shall meet the requirements set forth in 1970.050(G)(Ord. 16 018§6(Att. B), 2016}. 19.70.020 Residential standards Residential development shall meet the standards shown in Table 19.70-1. Standards for alternative residential development are set forth in Chapter 19.40 SVMC,Alternative Residential Development Options, and standards for planned residential developments are set forth in Chapter 19.50 SVMC, Planned Residential Developments. Table 19.70-1 - Residential Standards R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 M F Ro> Front and Flanking 35' 15' 15' 15' 15' Street Yard Setback Garage Setback(2) 35' 20' 20' 2( 20' Rear Yard Setback 20' 20' 10' 1( 10' Minimum Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 5' S 5' Open Space N/A N/A N/A N/A 10%gross area(3) Lot Sizes 40,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. 5,000 sq.ft.— 4,300 sq.ft. N/A— Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 60% 60.0% Maximum Density 1 du/ac 4 du/ac 6 du/ac 10 du/ac 22 du/ac Building Heights) 35' 35' 35' 35' 50' (1) Where MFR abuts R-1, R-2, or R-3 zones, development shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.75 SVMC,Transitional Regulations. (2) Attached garages,where the garage door does not face the street, may have the same setback as the primary structure. (3) Open space requirement does not apply to single-family development in the MFR zone. (4) Single-family residential development in the MFR zone shall have a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Only one single-family dwelling shall be allowed per lot. (5) The vertical distance from the average finished grade to the average height of the highest roof surface. Duplex development in the R-3 zone shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet. APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS Dwelling:A building or portion thereof designed exclusively for residential purposes. Dwelling,accessory unit:A freestanding detached structure or an attached part of a structure that is subordinate and incidental to the primary dwelling unit located on the same property, providing complete, independent living facilities exclusively for a single housekeeping unit, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, and sanitation. See "Residential, use category." Dwelling, accessory unit—industrial:A dwelling unit within a primary building located in the Industrial zone for occupancy by a person or family for living and sleeping purposes. Dwelling,accessory unit—industrial mixed-use:A dwelling unit within a primary building located in the Industrial Mixed-Use zone for occupancy by a person or family for living and sleeping purposes. Dwelling,caretaker's residence:A dwelling unit provided for the purpose of on-site supervision and security that is occupied by a bona fide employee of the property owner. See "Residential, use category." Dwelling,congregate:A residential facility under joint occupancy and single management arranged or used for lodging of unrelated individuals, with or without meals, including boarding or rooming houses, dormitories, fraternities and sororities, and convents and monasteries. See "Group living, use category." Dwelling,cottage:A small single-family dwelling unit developed as a group of dwelling units clustered around a common area pursuant to SVMC 19.40.050 as now adopted or hereafter amended. Dwelling,duplex:An attached building designed exclusively for occupancy by two families, with separate entrances and individual facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation, but sharing a common or party wall or stacked. See "Residential, use category." Dwelling,single-family:A building, manufactured or modular home or portion thereof, designed exclusively for single-family residential purposes, with a separate entrance and facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation. See "Residential, use category." Dwelling, multifamily:A building designed for occupancy by three or more families, with separate entrances and individual facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation. Townhouses are not considered multifamily development. See "Residential, use category. Dwelling,townhouse:A single-family dwelling unit constructed in groups of three or more attached units in which each unit extends from foundation to roof, open on at least two sides. See "Residential, use category." Dwelling unit: One or more rooms, designed, occupied, or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters, with an individual entrance, cooking, sleeping, and sanitary facilities for the exclusive use of one family maintaining a household. VP BUCKEYE AV tL P G zCe _ 7 7G ONT�,GOMERY AV r'' m,r > KNOXAV II 114Interstate 90 Interstate 90 Interstate a9�s�d�o Interstate 90 INDIANA AV tnterstate 90 'nterstate 90 s,�914 ate ir MISSION AV -a1 MISSION A1� o xsteC 0 .i1 tiate90 w '01ep,,,e \'�`teiy z ce 90 O o an r O ce re _1 cc ce f Q BROADWAYA: . MI MP 1 pa=��.��I II� ■IIII ■ HIM 1 �' :�111 �II II � +r � 1 IIILIIIIi III I II Ina Ce• �•_..a nIII 11111121: m.-III�1 la - ' diimiIII 'ill ' .n !.!: Ina REM:n~n 11 I NIB mum■h IIL._11 :1111- -i1111111 I _ +i i�;r.:;m_• __� a €C�l Amino Emma _II_ i _ , II _--_ I IL iiiim 1 =E Ira "rill! _� ." _t. _ '1■i.I�III!; '=.[=1! =ui1��::I! ffiM-1 i- I — I:11�1 e1IL 11 I I fii+1 7 IIIIF ALkiYWAY A:.' AILI!!lIIIIIdIIIII .II:�II�,�� • ,::- ° ��f;� ll!! ��JIC��Y AV .1111.: =II l! ■ ■■ inl.—•.0�/ IJ—IV nn I I IIg1111 ■r�I 1J o 1 I S .P g IIHHIN :NIP - JJ� J■M EII I -I� IIIIII�711L_�1I:=11r E..=71'•■ �f ,■■■�11■■■■■1■Me Eo&inrl - ■ IIICIII••!II" .p . =i �� III - Fi-1 - E=- �■11 =llll=nn� II ■�� C7lo_ 111 I �:Edllll::al:.11ll=�a -llll7�,. .. -��. � all 1+11G 11i.11€€-:I_=l.11.,: �_ _ � � MI IM=ME SPRAGUE AV =-II M.11 gH MI - �= - ■� 1r� Q ce illikliPLEWAY BV 1hiliMMilli� 0 p 4TH AV, n ■I mn p- n"nn■ll••• . fl _�I �611a1111 Ill ,�1�' IIIL'C'.Illllllnnnn t "irdill"I �I 1.11111111ruir)\11. 71111 � ��1�= :�1 =11:=IIIII[_ n 1� ° iiimili �11l WHIll i l-F!! .--ice +c:—.1. III_ alliii+ °ei'm' l11 :19 Ul 7 8T-nn, bllllll�: 'Jilll■■IdG nl�nun l ■I 1n:■:: is o w o w Ce o a oN 00 Q W tx 2 = 16TH AV 16TH AV Legend qI.rSRo Proposed Zone Existing Zoning R4 NC RC R4 R1 POS MU IMU 24TH AVre a ce 24TH AV 1 R2 co MF CMU I w 25TH AV Y Z R3 Q a m I-1J I I I 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 Miles 32ND AV h EXHIBIT 4 S" , SEPA CHECKLIST pokaile SVMC 21.20 40000 Vallee 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5240 • Fax: (509)720-5075 •perinitcenter(a)spokanevalley.org STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: October 31. 2019 Received by: Fee: PLUS #: File#: CPA-2020-0007 PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** ❑ Completed SEPA Checklist ❑ Application Fee ❑ Reduced Site Plan of proposal in 81/2" by 11" or 11" by 17" size ❑ Trip Distribution and Generation Letter, if requested by Development Engineering. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions.An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or"does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON-PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non-project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS(Part D). PL-22 V1.0 Page 1 of 14 p4kane SEPA CHECKLIST 4.00.0 Valley For non-project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: CPA-2020-0007. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Name of applicant: City of Spokane Valley 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner, Economic Development Division, Spokane Valley,WA 99206 4. Date checklist prepared: October 31, 2019; minor updates for clarity February 4, 2020 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Anticipated adoption May 2020. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal?Yes. If yes, explain. The proposed amendment will provide additional policy guidance related to housing. It's expected that implementing development regulations would follow, if adopted. Those development regulations are considered under this SEPA process. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)was completed for the City's Comprehensive Plan. The environmental document is titled 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan FEIS(FEIS)and supporting Development Regulations. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? None If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Approval by City Council 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site.There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The proposed amendments will provided policy and regulatory guidance to narrow the focus of the location of alternative housing types to locations with access to support services like transit and commercial services; and to reduce impacts in neighborhoods disproportionately impacted by alternative housing types. PL-22 V1.0 Page 2 of 14 p4kane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposal is a non-project action. Projects that might result in impacts were analyzed in the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan FEIS and supporting Development Regulations. 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? Not applicable. The general Sewer Service Area? Not applicable. Priority Sewer Service Area? Not applicable. (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) /Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). 1. Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). Not applicable. 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? Not applicable. 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. Not applicable. 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? Not applicable. b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? Not applicable. 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. Not applicable. PL-22 V1.0 Page 3 of 14 p4kane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley EVALUATION FOR B. ENVIRONMENTALELEMENTS AGENCY USE ONLY 1 ) Earth a. General description of the site (check one):❑ flat,❑ rolling, ❑hilly, ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other Varies citywide. The proposal is a non-project action. Development of individual sites will be analyzed under a separate SEPA. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Not applicable. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Not applicable. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? Not applicable. If so, describe. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. Not applicable. c. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not applicable. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Not applicable PL-22 V1.0 Page 4 of 14 p4kane SEPA CHECKLIST _. Valley 2) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, EVALUATION FOR automobile,odors, industrial wood smoke)during construction and when the AGENCY USE ONLY project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that mayaffect your proposal? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Not applicable. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not applicable. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. PL-22 V1.0 Page 5 of 14 p4kane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Not applicable. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? Not applicable. If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Not applicable. Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not applicable. c. Water runoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow?Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Not applicable. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters?Not applicable. If so,generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The proposal is a non-project action and does not have a direct effect on the surface, ground or runoff water. PL-22 V1.0 Page 6 of 14 p4kane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley EVALUATION FOR 4) Plants AGENCY USE ONLY a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ❑ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ❑ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ❑ shrubs ❑ grass ❑ pasture ❑ crop or grain ❑ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ❑ other types of vegetation A variety of plants exist citywide. The proposal is a non-project action. Development of individual sites will be analyzed under a separate SEPA. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not applicable. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The proposal is a non-project action development of individual sites will be analyzed under a separate SEPA. The city has adopted development standards to preserve and enhance vegetation. 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: ❑ birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ❑ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. c. Is the site part of a migration route? Not applicable. If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: A variety of animals exist citywide. The proposal is a non-project action. Development of individual sites will be analyzed under a separate SEPA. The city has adopted development standards to preserve and enhance fauna. PL-22 V1.0 Page 7 of 14 p4kane SEPA CHECKLIST _. Valley EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 6). Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing,etc. Not applicable. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not applicable. 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? Not applicable. If so, describe: 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Not applicable. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Not applicable. PL-22 V1.0 Page 8 of 14 p4kane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The proposal is non-project action that applies citywide. Land use varies across the city. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Areas within the city have been historically used for agriculture; the city has no designated agricultural lands. c. Describe any structures on the site. The proposal is non-project action that applies citywide. A variety of structures exist across the city. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not applicable e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? There are a variety of zone classifications across the city, ranging from low density single-family to industrial. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? There are a variety of land use designations across the city, ranging from single-family to industrial. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? There are a variety of shoreline designations across the city. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes the city has critical areas within its jurisdiction. The proposal is a non-project action and will not impact these area. Future projects will be subject to the adopted critical areas ordinance as applicable. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? This is a non-project action; the comprehensive plan forecasts that the city will have a total population of 109,913 by 2037. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: This is a non-project action that aims to increase housing opportunities within the city. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Not applicable. PL-22 V1.0 Page 9 of 14 p4kane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not applicable. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not applicable. 11 ). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. PL-22 V1.0 Page 10 of 14 p4kane SEPA CHECKLIST _. Valley EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are a variety of recreational opportunities across the city. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Not applicable c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:The city's comprehensive plan has a level of service for park space. The adopted Park and Recreation Master Plan provides strategies to meet adopted levels of service for projected growth. 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. The proposal applies citywide. Places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state or local preservation registers will be identified at the time of project development and will be evaluated under a separate SEPA process. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Not applicable. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Not applicable. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. PL-22 V1.0 Page 11 of p4kane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to EVALUATION FOR existing roads or streets, not including driveways? Not applicable. If so, AGENCY USE ONLY generally describe (indicate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? Not applicable. If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? Not applicable. If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The city's comprehensive plan adopts a level of service for transportation services. The city has a 20-year Transportation Improvement Plan that identifies projects to meet adopted levels of service for projected growth. 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)?Not applicable. If so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable. 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: ❑ electricity, ❑ natural gas, ❑water, ❑ refuse service, ❑ telephone, ❑ sanitary sewer, ❑ septic system, ❑ other- describe. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Not applicable. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: PL-22 V1.0 Page 12 of p4kane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposed amendments are anticipated to increase emissions to air, production of noise, and discharge to water as a result of increased development over the next 15 years. The amendment is within the scope of impacts analyzed in the FEIS for the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan and supporting development regulations. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Consistent with the FEIS of the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan, the city adopted implementing regulations while mitigating impacts to the natural environment including an updated critical areas ordinance. On a planning level, the adopted regulatory scheme has been identified as sufficient to avoid and reduce impacts to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise. Site specific impacts will be reviewed and mitigated at the time of development based upon these adopted regulations within the Spokane Valley. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed amendment is anticipated to have impacts on plants and animals by increased development over the next 15 years. The amendment is within the scope of impacts analyzed in the FEIS for the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan and supporting development regulations. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Consistent with the FEIS of the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan, the city adopted implementing regulations while mitigating impacts to the natural environment including an updated critical areas ordinance. On a planning level the adopted regulatory scheme has been identified as sufficient to protect and conserve plants and animals. Site specific impacts will be reviewed and mitigated at the time of development based upon these adopted regulations within the Spokane Valley. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed amendment anticipated to have impacts on energy and natural resources by increased development over the next 15 years. The amendment is within the scope of impacts analyzed in the FEIS for the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan and supporting development regulations. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Consistent with the FEIS of the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan, the city adopted implementing regulations to protect and conserve energy and natural resources. On a planning level, the adopted regulatory scheme has been identified as sufficient to protect and conserve energy and natural resources. Site specific impacts will be reviewed and mitigated at the time of development based upon these adopted regulations within the Spokane Valley. PL-22 V1.0 Page 13 of p4kane SEPA CHECKLIST 4000 Valley 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposed amendment anticipated to have impacts on environmentally sensitive areas by increased development over the next 15 years throughout the city. The amendment is within the scope of impacts analyzed in the FEIS for the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan and supporting development regulations. a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Consistent with the FEIS of the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan, the city adopted implementing regulations while mitigating impacts to environmentally sensitive areas including an updated critical areas ordinance. On a planning level the adopted regulatory scheme has been identified as sufficient to avoid, protect and reduce impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. Site specific impacts will be reviewed and mitigated at the time of development based upon these adopted regulations within the Spokane Valley. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Impacts to the shoreline area is known.While the proposed amendment may increase development, it's likely these increases will occur outside shoreline jurisdiction as these locations are generally designated for low density residential development, but the location and extent of those regulatory changes will occur later. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: The city has an up-to-date shoreline master program. The recent comprehensive plan and FEIS are consistent with the SMP. Site specific impacts will be reviewed and mitigated at the time of development based upon these adopted regulations and policies. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed amendment anticipated to increase demands on transportation and public services from increased development over the next 15 years throughout the city. The amendment is within the scope of impacts analyzed in the FEIS for the 2017- 2037 Comprehensive Plan and supporting development regulations. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: The Comprehensive Plan adopts a level-of-service for transportation. The FEIS for the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan and the 6-year Transportation Improvement Program identifies the necessary projects to maintain the adopted LOS. These transportation and public service projects are implemented both by the city and state and at the project level through concurrency. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal does not conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Any specific issues that may arise during the development of individual projects will be identified and addressed based upon regulations within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. E. SIGNATURE PL-22 V1.0 Page 14 of °�'�� SEPA CHECKLIST Spokane _Valley I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: Signature: Please print or type: Proponent: City of Spokane Valley Address: 10210 East Sprague Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5000 Person completing form (if different from proponent): Name: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner, City of Spokane Valley Economic Development Division Address: 10210 E Sprague Ave Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: 509-720-5337 PL-22 V1.0 Page 15 of EXHIBIT 5 /'� COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Sun 1� e DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE jvP I1 10210 East Sprague Avenue• Spokane Valley WA 99206 aller 509.720.5000 •Fax: 509.720.5075 •planning@spokanevalley.org FILE NUMBERS:CPA-2020-0001; CPA-2020-0002; CPA-2020-0003; CPA-2020-0006; CPA-2020-0007 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTIONS: CPA-2020-0001: Privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45152.1004(0.47 acres)from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). CPA- 2020-0002: Privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 35133.2321 (2.98 acres) from Industrial(I)to Regional Commercial(RC). CPA-2020-0003: Privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcels 45094.0133,45094.0134,and 45094.0121 (6.24 acres total)from Multifamily Residential(MFR)to CMU. CPA-2020-0006: City initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45013.9024(8.8 acres)from Ito CMU.CPA-2020-0007: City initiated text amendment to Chapter 2 Goals and Policies for alternative housing types and area-wide rezone to implement new policies APPLICANT/OWNER: CPA-2020-0001: Land Use Solutions/Tucker Roy LLC; CPA-2020-0002: Ed Lukas/Lawrence B. Stone Properties,Lawrence B. Stone Properties#50 LLC; CPA-2020-0003: Jay Rambo/Revere-Dece III, LLC, Revere-Dece, Brill Properties LLC; CPA-2020-0006: Spokane Valley/East Valley School District; CPA-2020-0007: Spokane Valley/Citywide. PROPOSAL LOCATIONS: CPA-2020-0001: 1311 N. McDonald Road, further located in the NW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 44 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane County,Washington CPA-2020-0002: 5901 E. Sprague Avenue, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 13, Township 25 North, Range 43 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA-2020-0003: 1723 and 1724 N Union Road, further located in the SE 1/4 of Section 09, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington CPA-2020-0006: 3830 N Sullivan, further located in the SW 1/4 of Section 01, Township 25 North, Range 44 East,Willamette Meridian,Spokane County,Washington CPA-2020-0007: Spokane Valley/Citywide LEAD AGENCY: City of Spokane Valley. DETERMINATION: Determination of Non-Significance is issued under Washington Administrative Code(WAC) 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date issued. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m.on March 6,2020.Pursuant to Title 21,Environmental Controls of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC),the lead agency has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required under Revised Code of Washington 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates,AICP, Senior Planner,City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509)720-5337; cbates cr spokanevallev.org RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Mike Basinger, AICP, Economic Development Manager, City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, PH: (509) 720-5333, mbasinger@spokanevalley.org spokanevalley.org DATE ISSUED: February 21, 2020 SIGNATURE: APPEAL: An appeal of this determination shall be submitted to the Community& Pucific Works Department within fourteen(14)calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and specific factual objections made to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be conducted in conformance with SVMC 17.90 Appeals, and any required fees pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Schedule shall be paid at the time of appeal submittal. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. City of Spokane Valley February 18,2020 Determination of Non-Significance(DNS) Page 1 of I File Nos.CPA-2020-0001;CPA-2020-0002;CPA-2020-0003;CPA-2020-0006;CPA-2020-0007 EXHIBIT 6 Notice of Remote Public Hearing City of Spokane Valley 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Due to the restrictions on public gatherings arising from the covid-19 outbreak,and pursuant to Governor Inslee's Stay Home,Stay Healthy Proclamation(No.20-25)and Proclamation 20-28(and associated extensions),this hearing will be conducted remotely using web and telephone conference tools,as described below. HEARING DATE AND TIME: June 25,2020 beginning at 6:00 p.m. ZOOM MEETING DETAILS: Join Zoom Meeting A link to the Zoom meeting will be provided on the agenda and posted to the City's webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/planningcommission. HEARING BODY:Spokane Valley Planning Commission The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive public comment on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests and make a recommendation to the City Council on each of the following applications: FILE No.CPA-2020-0001:A privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45152.1004(0.47 acres),addressed as 1311 North McDonald Road from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). FILE No.CPA-2020-0002: A privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 35133.2321 (2.98 acres),unaddressed,from Industrial(I)to Regional Commercial(RC). FILE No.CPA-2020-0003:A privately initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcels 45094.0133, 45094.0134,and 45094.0121 (6.24 acres total),addressed as 1723 and 1724 North Union Road from Multifamily Residential(MFR)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). FILE No.CPA-2020-0006:A City initiated map amendment to change the designation for parcel 45013.9024(8.8 acres),addressed as 3830 North Sullivan Road Bldg 1,from Industrial(I)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). FILE No.CPA-2020-0007:A City initiated text amendment to Chapter 2 Goals and Policies to provide policy guidance for increased housing density and provide implementing regulations,including an area-wide rezone of approximately 1,200 acres. STAFF CONTACT:Chaz Bates,AICP,Senior Planner;(509)720-5337 cbates@spokanevalley.org ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City issued a Determination of Non-significance(DNS)on February 21, 2020 pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)and chapter 21.20 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). HEARING PROCEDURES: The Planning Commission will conduct the remote hearing pursuant to the rules of procedure adopted in SVMC Title 18(Boards and Authorities). The public is encouraged to submit written comments prior to the hearing by sending the comments to Chaz Bates, 10210 E Sprague Ave,Spokane Valley,WA 99206,or email to cbates@spokanevalley.org. Comments will need to be submitted no later than 4:00 PM on June 25,2020 in order for them to be received and prepared for submission into the record. Comments received will be entered into the record at the time of the public participation portion of the Public Hearing.If you would like to deliver comments to City Hall you may contact City Hall at(509)720-5000 prior to 4:00 PM on June 25,2020 to schedule an appointment for delivery and allow staff to scan and include in the report.Comments received through US Mail will be included if they are received prior to the hearing. All interested persons may testify at the remote public hearing via the zoom meeting address and/or phone number. Interested persons will need to sign up to speak no later than 4:00 p.m.on June 25,2020 at the link provided in the agenda posted at the link referenced above.Use the link above to sign up for oral public comments.The link will direct you to directions to sign up for oral public comments. This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those action items above,as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion.Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person.Written comments and documents may only be submitted prior to the hearing. Any appeal of the Planning Commission's decision will be based on the record established before the Planning Commission,pursuant to SVMC 17.90 (Appeals). The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. STAFF REPORT AND INSPECTION OF FILE: A staff report will be available for inspection seven(7)calendar days before the hearing.The staff report and application file may be inspected by logging on to the Spokane Valley SmartGov Public Portal at this web address:ci-spokanevalley-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/Public/Home Go to applications and search for CPA-2020 to review or download the staff reports for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests. If you have any questions,please contact Chaz Bates,Senior Planner,Economic Development Division,at cbatesgspokanevalley.org. Carrie Koudelka,Spokane Valley Deputy City Clerk Publish:May 29,2020 and June 5,2020 EXHIBIT 7 Public and Agency Comments (Will be inserted as received) Chaz Bates From: Kay Huhs <kayhuhs@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 10:45 AM To: Chaz Bates Subject: R-3 Rezone My name is Kay Huhs. I have lived in Riverwalk since 1998, and have lived in the valley all my life. I have never seen such a mutilation all the time I have been here. I cannot believe you have allowed all this unnecessary building of apartments. It has run down our property value, declined our quality of life 10 fold. Our very fabric of our so called "City of Spokane Valley" is not a valley anymore at all. It is just a city. Greed has raised it's ugly head once again and has created nothing but a discusting outcome. The very reason people were attracted to this area is because it was a peaceful, serene, nature loving area. No more, that's is all gone and it is trashy, over populated and sad. You have allowed so much abuse to this area I want to move. I am sure the one's whom allowed this destruction are not from here and do not care and don't have the same compassion as the people who were raised here have. I hope you stop allowing the over building and let City of "Spokane Valley" be a valley not a metropolis! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Spokane Valley Villas 13420 E. Broadway Avenue Spokane Valley,WA 99216 (509)599-8454 spokanevalleyvillas@gmall.com June 18,2020 Dear City of Spokane Valley, As business owners and contractors of 55+communities,we were excited to hear that the City of Spokane Valley is considering a change that will address a great need in our city,the establishment of a new zone that fits between the existing R3 and multi-family zone. To give you historical context, in the fall of 2012,Canard&Hill Development purchased property at 13420 E. Broadway Avenue in the Spokane Valley with intent to build a 55+community consisting of single-story townhomes.This particular property was zoned R4,which fit our needs perfectly for construction&development. When purchasing the adjacent property at 13406 E.Broadway, which was zoned R3,we were successfully able to change the zoning to R4 in order to match our first property.This was the start of a successful community model for senior citizens in our city. In the summer of 2015,we were able to build the same type of a community at 19106 E. Sprague.However,in 2016,the model of zoning in the City of Spokane Valley was changed,knowing this would make it much more difficult for us to build another townhome complex in the future. In the prior zone of R4,we were allowed to build one dwelling unit per every 4,500-5,000 square feet as a secure gated community.This flowed perfectly with our model of 55+townhomes that had neighborhood curb appeal and would fit the needs of a demographic that is very under-served. In our eight year tenure of building 55+communities,we have learned that there is a massive need for seniors that want an affordable transition from a single-family residence to same-age peer independent living,without being in a facility that costs thousands of dollars. The amount of inquiries and our long waiting list proves just this.Our complexes are built with seniors in mind;single story, ADA friendly,low barrier thresholds,access to individual backyards,attached garages,and a clubhouse for community events. Currently,we can only continue to develop these property types in the current zoning regulation that takes place today,which means we have to compete with big-time builders who care more about the maximum density allowed in order to help them pay for the high price of the land. Over the years,we have appreciated and enjoyed our relationship with the City of Spokane Valley. We share a common goal in making Spokane Valley a desirable community to live in for all. It is our hope that with a new zone that fits our needs,we can continue to develop land with our existing building model,appeasing the citizens of Spokane Valley with a quiet and enjoyable `neighborhood' look instead of the existing multi-story,high density,apartment buildings you see today. Thank you for your time, c` Daniel Hill & John Conard Owners of Spokane Valley Villas&Whispering Pines From: DON AND STEPHANIE WOODRUFF To: Chaz Bates Subject: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2020-0007 Date: Thursday,June 25,2020 12:22:40 PM Spokane Valley Planning Comission RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2020-0007 Thank you to all involved for all the time, effort and consideration regarding this amendment. Tough, complicated and hot topic for many of us. After downsizing from our home of 30 years by East Valley Jr. High, we moved to our new home in Greenacres. The draw was the rural and quiet feeling. Fields around our home and area.There is a certain ambiance or slower more relaxing pace of life in the valley area. People know each other more. Fast forward to the present. We are still here. but we are now surrounded by a sea of apartments and duplexes and rental homes. If you drive on Flora between Broadway and Mission There are several more groups of apartments being constructed. If you drive east on Indiana Avenue from Sullivan to Barker, it is like entering another world. Valley of the apartments. Have any of you driven around this area and really looked at what has happened over the past few years? Correct me if I am wrong, it is my understanding developers have been offered incentives to build more homes. HOMES. Not duplex homes or condos. Very few homes are being built. My realtor has called several ties asking for referrals of people selling their homes. The demand is high and the supply very low. Yet more and more apartments are going up. In my opinion, the only ones making money and getting what they want are the developers. But yet you are approving what they ask for.What about the homeowners who have spent many years of their lives nurturing their homes. How are we compensated? By reduced property values, increased traffic and crime? The developers rule! What will you do when you become the age where you need to change your lifestyle. For many of us, that is not too far off. Would you want to live in an apartment or a duplex because you aren't able to find a house you are able to live in? Would you be able to afford the thousand and some dollars paying to a landlord every month and be at their mercy as they raise the rent? Think about it. Really think about it. I understand there needs to be progress. However, enough is enough! My point is, you have the power to stop ruining what is left of the valley. Please do the right thing and pass this amendment. Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts. Stephanie Woodruff CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. From: o4oetesake@comcast.net To: Chaz Bates Subject: CPA 2020-0007/Can this be READ into the record?:-) Date: Thursday,June 25,2020 9:38:41 AM 6/25/2020 SVPC To those of you on the Planning Commission that made the effort to work with our text code amendment, CTA- 2018-0005, thank you for your patience and understanding. I have voiced so many objections on the record over the years about the current R3 zoning debacle I won't take your time and repeat myself. To most of us who live in the R3 zone, this CPA is going to provide welcome relief. KUDO's to Mike Basinger, Chaz Bates and Staff. Requesting your full support for CPA 2020-0007. Thank you, Pete Miller 18124 E Mission Ave. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. From: beckbarrv7l To: Chaz Bates Subject: CPA 2020-0007 Date: Thursday,June 25,2020 2:24:16 PM Chaz, After reviewing your proposed CPA I am in full agreement with all of your hard work. I am urging the Planning Comission to approve the proposed Comp Plan Amendment. Regards, Barry Beck 1515 N. Greenacres Rd Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 11, 2020 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Draft Memorandum of Understanding with Washington State Department of Commerce Regarding a Manufacturing Regulatory Roadmap GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: In January of 2020, the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) launched a new program called Regulatory Roadmap for Manufacturing Siting Feasibility (Manufacturing Roadmap). The program is the latest addition to a series of localized online portals designed to help ease the process of getting preliminary regulatory requirements satisfied for expanding or siting a new manufacturing facility. In 2015, the City participated in the Restaurant Roadmap, which continues to be a valuable tool for customers seeking to open a restaurant in Spokane Valley. The Manufacturing Roadmap would provide a similar service oriented toward customers seeking to develop a manufacturing site. Participation in the program requires that the City enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Commerce. The MOU sets out the terms for the development and maintenance of the Manufacturing Roadmap. The draft MOU is attached. A distinct difference between the Restaurant Roadmap and the Manufacturing Roadmap is that the Manufacturing Roadmap is maintained and hosted on Commerce's website via an online portal. A major benefit of Commerce hosting the site is that it provides a bigger audience for those seeking to develop a manufacturing facility because it is at the state level versus the local level. While the site would be hosted on Commerce's site, the City would be responsible for developing content and graphics consistent with Commerce's templates. Participation in the program does not have a fee. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None, as noted above. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager; Chaz Bates, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Draft Memorandum of Understanding DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON This memorandum of understanding (MOU) is made between the undersigned Parties as follows. The Parties hereto are Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) and City of Spokane Valley, Washington (City), which hereby enter into the following memorandum of understanding (MOU). For the purposes of this MOU, the Parties shall be known collectively as "Partners". PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to establish an agreement between the Partners regarding the collaborative development and maintenance of an online regulatory guide, or"Manufacturing Regulatory Roadmap", maintained and hosted by Commerce and accessed through City's website/direct URL. AGREEMENT The Partners agree that the Regulatory Roadmap for Manufacturing Siting Feasibility(Manufacturing Roadmap), is a collaborative project, and the Partners will work together to maintain and market it according to the following: 1. Commerce will provide content and/or templates for developing content, to include graphic elements, wording, and overall design. City-specific content will be developed by and/or approved by the City, in accordance with Commerce guidelines, to ensure a consistent statewide Regulatory Roadmap presence. The Washington Regulatory Roadmap logo will be used on all content. Commerce will review all materials prior to publishing. 2. The Partners will mutually determine appropriate placement of the Manufacturing Roadmap content and links to it within and throughout the City's website. Commerce will provide guidance, if needed, for the development of the webpage used to host the Manufacturing Regulatory Roadmap links or materials.. 3. The Partners will develop and implement a communication plan for outreach and messaging to ensure consistent and comprehensive messaging. 4. The Partners agree that maintaining accurate and current information within the Manufacturing Roadmap materials is paramount for the success of this project. The Partners will develop a plan for regularly reviewing, maintaining, and updating the content at least quarterly. The City will update City- specific content, and Commerce will ensure updates of their content. 5. Commerce will use analytics to track visitor activity on the Manufacturing Road map application. The City agrees to review the analytics with Commerce periodically or as needed. 6. The Partners agree that any work or intellectual property, created jointly or individually by the Partners for the purposes of the Manufacturing Roadmap will be available for use by either partner for uses related to this agreement. 7. The Manufacturing Roadmap content is specific to manufacturing site selection. Use and/or expansion of the content for other business needs and activities may be undertaken. Either Party may invite the other to undertake development of roadmaps for other business needs, which would be done in collaboration between the Partners and require a separate MOU. DRAFT 8. The City will provide a Project Manager to support project activities and coordinate other appropriate City staff to participate in the development of the tool, including, but not limited to, assigning appropriate subject matter experts to review and edit when applicable, maintaining communications with Commerce, developing and implementing a marketing and outreach plan, ensuring timelines are met, and assisting with coordinating business introductions and joint meetings when necessary. The Project Manager will be the direct liaison for Commerce during the term of this MOU. 9. No separate entity is created by this agreement. The City's designee and Commerce shall jointly administer this project. STRUCTURE COMMERCE shall be represented by Lynn Fetch, Program Manager, WA State Department of Commerce, 1011 Plum St SE, Olympia, WA 98501, Telephone: 360-725-2810, Email: Lynn.Fetch@commerce.wa.gov. City of Spokane Valley, Washington, shall be represented by, Chaz Bates, Senior Planner, 10210 E Sprague Ave, Spokane Valley, WA 99216, Telephone: 509-720-5337, Email: cbates@spokanevalley.org. TERMINATION Either Partner may terminate this agreement by providing 90 days written notice to the other Partner. CHANGES, MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS This agreement may be changed, modified, extended, or amended by written agreement executed by all Partners. EXECUTION We, the undersigned, agree to the terms of the foregoing agreement. This agreement shall become effective upon execution, and shall remain in effect for a period of three years from execution date, unless terminated sooner or extended as provided herein. WA Department of Commerce Spokane Valley, WA Chris Green, Assistant Director Mark Calhoun, City Manager Office of Economic Development& Competitiveness Date Date DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of August 5,2020; 2:30 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 August 18,2020, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 111 1. Council 2021 Budget Goals—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) August 25,2020,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 181 Proclamation:Recognizing 100th Anniversary of 19th Amendment Adoption 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.First Reading Ordinance Code Text Amendment(CTA-2020-0001,Annex)—Basinger,Lamb (10 minutes) 3.First Reading Ordinance Code Text Amendment(CTA-2020-0002 Ess. Public Fac)—Lori Barlow(10 min) 4.First Reading Ordinance Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Mike Basinger (10 minutes) 5.First Reading Ordinance Comprehensive Plan Zoning Map Amendment—Mike Basinger (5 minutes) 6.Motion Consideration: Mem. Of Understanding Wa. Dept of Commerce Mfg Roadmap— C.Bates(10 mins) 7.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) 8. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 55 mins] Sept 1,2020, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 251 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) Sept 8,2020,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 11 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance Code Text Amendment(CTA-2020-0001,Annex)—Basinger,Lamb(10 min) 3. Second Reading Ordinance Code Text Amendment(CTA-2020-0002 Ess. Public Fac)-Lori Barlow(10 mn) 4. Second Reading Ordinance Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Mike Basinger (10 minutes) 5. Second Reading Ordinance Comprehensive Plan Zoning Map Amendment—Mike Basinger (10 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Estimated Revenues&Expenditures,2021 Budget— Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 7.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 65 mins] Sept 15,2020, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 81 1. Outside Agency Presentation(max 5 minutes each)—Chelsie Taylor (—60 mins) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) Sept 22,2020,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 151 1. Public Hearing#1 —2021 Budget Revenues and Property Taxes—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3.Motion Consideration: Set 2021 Budget Hearing#2 for Oct 27—Chelsie Taylor (5 minutes) 4.Admin Report: Washington State Dept. of Trans Land Acquisition,Flora Road—C. Driskell (10 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) 6. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 40 mins] Sept 29,2020, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 221 1. Proposed Ordinance Adopting 2021 Property Taxes—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) Oct 6,2020, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 291 1.Admin Report: City Manager Presents 2021 Preliminary Budget—Mark Calhoun (60 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 8/6/2020 8:32:56 AM Page 1 of 2 Oct 13,2020,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Oct 61 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) Oct 20,2020, Study Session,6:00 p.m. 1due Tue Oct 131 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) Oct 27,2020,Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Oct 201 1. Public Hearing#2—2021 Budget—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3.First Reading Property Tax Ordinance —Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 4.Admin Report: 2020 Budget Amendment—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) 6. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 45 mins] Nov 3,2020, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Oct 271 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) Nov 10, 2020,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Nov 31 1. Public Hearing: 2020 Budget Amendment—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Property Tax Ordinance —Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 4.First Reading Ordinance 2020 Budget Amendment—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 5.First Reading Ordinance Adopting 2021 Budget— Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 6.Motion Consideration: Allocation of Outside Agency Grants— Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 7.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) Nov 24,2020,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Nov 101 1. Public Hearing#3—2021 Budget—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance 2020 Budget Amendment—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 4. Second Reading Ordinance Adopting 2021 Budget—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 5.Admin Report: LTAC Recommendations to Council—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 6.Admin Report: 2021 Fee Resolution— Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 7.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) 8. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 70 mins] Dec 1,2020,Study Session, 6:00 p.m. - Cancelled due to Thanksgiving Holiday *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Appleway Trail Amenities St. O&M Pavement Preservation Arts Council Sculpture Presentations Tourism Venues(12/8/2020) Artwork&Metal Boxes TPA Interlocal Agreement Core Beliefs Resolution Trunk or Treat Donation Recognition Water Districts& Green Space Fee Resolution Cost of Service Analysis Way Finding Signs Flashing Beacons/School Signage Health District Stats Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt. Naming City Facilities Protocol Park Lighting PFD Presentation SPEC Report/Update St. Illumination(owners,cost,location) Draft Advance Agenda 8/6/2020 8:32:56 AM Page 2 of 2 FINANCE DEPARTMENT Sijökane Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director 4000\s'l1e ' 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 [[ii J Phone: (509)720-5000 •Fax: (509)720-5075 • www.spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mark Calhoun, City Manager From: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Date: August 5, 2020 Re: Finance Department Activity Report—June 2020 Following is information pertaining to Finance Department activities through the end of June 2020 and included herein is an updated 2020 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures through the end of June. 2019 Year-end Process The 2019 books were closed in May and the annual financial report was completed and filed on June 17th. The State Auditor's Office arrived on site on June 22nd and are currently working on completing the single audit and financial statement portions of the audit. We do not expect the audit to be completed before the end of the summer. 2021 Budclet Development The 2021 Budget development process began in the Finance Department in early March, and on April 7th we sent detailed budget requests to all departments to complete by mid-May. By the time the budget is scheduled to be adopted on November 24th, the Council will have had an opportunity to discuss the budget on seven occasions including three public hearings. • August 4 Council budget workshop • September 8 Admin report on 2021 revenues and expenditures • September 22 Public hearing #1 on the 2021 revenues and expenditures • October 13 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2021 Budget • October 27 Public hearing #2 on 2021 Budget • November 10 First reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2021 Budget • November 24 Public hearing #3 on the 2021 Budget • November 24 Second reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2021 Budget 2021 Property Tax Levy A significant part of the budget development process includes the annual levy of property taxes which in 2021 are expected to account for approximately 29.58% of recurring General Fund revenues. Council discussions specifically related to this topic will take place at the following meetings: • September 22 Public hearing on 2021 revenues including property taxes • September 29 Admin Report on proposed ordinance levying 2021 property taxes • October 27 First reading of ordinance levying 2021 property taxes and confirming tax levy • November 10 Second reading of ordinance levying 2021 property taxes and confirming tax levy P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202012020 06 30.docx Page 1 Outside Aciency Fundinci in the 2021 Budciet The City has historically provided funding for local organizations involved in either social services or economic development activities and the preliminary 2021 Budget currently has $244,000 collectively available for this, with $62,000 being set aside for contracted economic development. The schedule leading to awarding funds is as follows: • July 10 Letters mailed to agencies that have historically received funding, media release to City website and notice to newspapers • August 7 Agency requests are due at City Hall • September 15 Economic development and social service agency presentations to Council • October 20 Council makes final determination of awards Budciet to Actual Comparison Report A report reflecting 2020 Budget to Actual Revenues and Expenditures for those funds for which a 2020 Budget was adopted is located on pages 6 through 18. Because we attempt to provide this information in a timely manner, this report is prepared from records that are not formally closed by the Finance Department at month end or reconciled to bank records. Although it is realistic to expect the figures will change over subsequent weeks, I believe the report is materially accurate. We've included the following information in the report: • Revenues by source for all funds, and expenditures by department in the General Fund and by type in all other funds. • A breakdown between recurring and nonrecurring revenues and expenditures in the General Fund, Street O&M Fund and Stormwater Fund. • The change in fund balance including beginning and ending figures. The beginning fund balance figures are those that are reflected in our 2019 Annual Financial Report. • Columns of information include: o The 2020 Budget as adopted o June 2020 activity o Cumulative 2020 activity through June 2020 o Budget remaining in terms of dollars o The percent of budgeted revenue collected or budgeted expenditures disbursed A few points related to the General Fund #001 (page 6): Recurring revenues collections are currently at 41.23% of the amount budgeted with 50.00% of the year elapsed. • Property taxes are paid to Spokane County in two installments each year on April 30 and October 31 and are then remitted to the City primarily in May and November with lesser amounts typically remitted in June and December. Property taxes received thus far in 2020 are $5,929,455 or 47.69% of the amount budgeted. The amount is less than the same period in 2019 due to Spokane County extending the deadline for property owners to pay property taxes. • Sales tax collections represent only five months of collections thus far because taxes collected in June are not remitted to the City by the State until the latter part of July. Collections are currently at$8,997,638 or 36.53% of the amount budgeted. The Department of Revenue allowed delayed filing of sales tax returns due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We expect a higher percentage to be received once the delayed filings are received. P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202012020 06 30.docx Page 2 • Gambling taxes are at $29,003 or 7.55% of the amount budgeted. Gambling taxes are paid quarterly with first quarter payments due by April 30 and second quarter payments due by July 31st. However, due to COVID-19, Council approved the delay of first quarter payments of gambling taxes until September 30 and second quarter until November 30. • Franchise Fee and Business Registration revenues are typically received in the month following a calendar year quarter. So far in 2020 we have received $336,399 or 27.57% of the amount budgeted. • State shared revenues are composed of State of Washington distributions that include items such as liquor board profits, liquor excise tax, streamlined sales tax mitigation and criminal justice monies. Most of these revenues are paid by the State in the month following a calendar quarter. Through June we've received remittances totaling $826,051 or 48.93% of the amount budgeted. • Fines and forfeitures revenues are composed of monthly remittances from Spokane County with payments made in the month following the actual assessment of a fine and false alarm fees. Through June we've received remittances through the month of May with receipts of $317,206 or 29.43% of the amount budgeted. • Community and Public Works service revenues are largely composed of building permit and plan review fees as well as right of way permits. Revenues are currently at$1,937,615 or 90.98% of the amount budgeted. • Recreation program revenues are composed of revenues generated by the variety of parks and recreation programs including classes, swimming pools (in-season), and CenterPlace. Currently, revenues total $136,269 or 20.67% of the amount budgeted. We're seeing a significant decrease in 2020 revenues due to not being able to operate the City's normal recreation and aquatics activities with the COVID-19 pandemic. Recurring expenditures are currently at$19,047,497 or 44.07% of the amount budgeted with 50.00% of the year elapsed. Investments (page 19) Investments at June 30 total $72,122,623 and are composed of $66,987,403 in the Washington State Local Government Investment Pool and $5,135,220 in bank CDs. Total Sales Tax Receipts (page 20) Total sales tax receipts reflect State remittances through June and total $10,195,005 including general, criminal justice, and public safety taxes. This figure is $365,373 or 3.46% less than the same five-month period in 2019; however, the decrease in June was 14.80%. The June drop reflects the effects of COVID-19 on City tax collections, which we began seeing in May. Part of the decrease is due to the Department of Revenue allowing delayed filings for sales tax returns, and we expect to make up some of the decrease once those delayed filings are received. Economic Indicators (pages 21 —23) The following economic indicators provide information pertaining to three different sources of tax revenue that provide a good gauge of the health and direction of the overall economy. 1. Sales taxes (page 21) provide a sense of how much individuals and businesses are spending on the purchase of goods. 2. Hotel / Motel taxes (page 22) provide us with a sense of overnight stays and visits to our area by tourists or business travelers. 3. Real Estate Excise taxes (page 23) provide us with a sense of real estate sales. P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202012020 06 30.docx Page 3 Page 21 provides a 10-year history of general sales tax receipts (not including public safety or criminal justice) with monthly detail beginning January 2011. • Compared with calendar year 2019, 2020 collections have decreased by $342,784 or 3.67%. • Tax receipts reached an all-time high in 2019 at $24,204,762, besting the previous record year of 2018 when $22,642,856 was collected. • This activity reflects the beginning of the effects of COVID-19 on the economy. Page 22 provides a 10-year history of hotel/motel tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2011. • Compared with calendar year 2019, 2020 collections have decreased by $70,977 or 32.64%. • Collections reached an all-time high in 2019 of$743,851, exceeding the previous high set in 2018 of$646,976. • This activity reflects the beginning of the effects of COVID-19 on the economy. Page 23 provides a 10-year history of real estate excise tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2011. • Compared with calendar year 2019, 2020 collections have decreased by $8,705 or 0.77%. • Collections reached an all-time high in 2018 of $3,800,432, and subsequently decreased to $3,333,549 in 2019. • This activity reflects the beginning of the effects of COVID-19 on the economy. Debt Capacity and Bonds Outstandinci (page 24) This page provides information on the City's debt capacity, or the dollar amount of General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds the City may issue, as well as an amortization schedule of the bonds the City currently has outstanding. • The maximum amount of G.O. bonds the City may issue is determined by the assessed value for property taxes which for 2020 is $10,200,357,539. Following the December 1, 2019 debt service payments, the City has $11,715,000 of nonvoted G.O. bonds outstanding which represents 7.66% of our nonvoted bond capacity, and 1.53% of our total debt capacity for all types of bonds. Of this amount: o $4,390,000 remains on bonds issued for the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds are repaid with a portion of the 1/10 of 1% sales tax that is collected by the Spokane Public Facilities District. o $590,000 remains on bonds issued for road and street improvements around CenterPlace. The bonds are repaid with a portion of the real estate excise tax collected by the City. o $6,735,000 remains on bonds issued for construction of the new City Hall. The bonds are to be repaid with General Fund revenues. Street Fund Revenue Sources (pages 25 and 26) The last two charts reflect a history for the two primary sources of revenue in Street Fund #101. These include: • Page 25 provides a 10-year history of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2011. o Compared with calendar year 2019, 2020 collections have decreased by $100,927 or 12.76%. o Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at just approximately $2.1 million, and subsequently decreased to a range of approximately $1,858,000 to $2,027,000 in the years 2011 through 2019. o This activity reflects the beginning of the effects of COVID-19 on the economy. P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202012020 06 30.docx Page 4 • Page 26 provides a 10-year history of Telephone Utility Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2011. o Compared with 2019, 2020 collections have decreased by $64,327 or 9.60%. Unlike tax revenues collected by the State and remitted monthly, these taxes are paid to the City directly by the service provider. Consequently there is not a"clean cutoff' in terms of when a vendor pays the tax. o Tax receipts peaked in 2009 at $3,054,473 and have decreased each year since due to what we suspect is the reduction in land lines by individual households. o The 2020 Budget is set at $1,521,000. We will watch actual receipts closely as the year progresses. o The City has hired a consultant to perform an audit of providers who pay the telephone utility tax. The audit will assess whether providers are accurately remitting all taxes owed to the City, and the consultant will be paid on a contingent basis out of revenues recovered from the telephone providers. Three audits have been completed, and the City has received payments totaling $398,865 which is comprised of recovered revenue plus interest and penalty fees. Per the contract with the consultant, the City paid $99,716 or 25% of the amount recovered. P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202012020 06 30.docx Page 5 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2020 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.00% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2020 2020 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget #001 -GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Property Tax 12,432,400 1,172,157 5,929,455 (6,502,945) 47.69% Sales Tax 24,632,900 1,651,937 8,997,638 (15,635,262) 36.53% Sales Tax-Public Safety 1,162,600 81,470 436,061 (726,539) 37.51% Sales Tax-Criminal Justice 2,052,300 141,929 761,306 (1,290,994) 37.10% Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 384,000 10,924 29,003 (354,997) 7.55% Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,220,000 9,461 336,399 (883,601) 27.57% State Shared Revenues 1,688,200 258,852 826,051 (862,149) 48.93% Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties 1,077,700 54,907 317,206 (760,494) 29.43% Community and Public Works 2,129,800 294,350 1,937,615 (192,185) 90.98% Recreation Program Revenues 659,200 21,797 136,269 (522,931) 20.67% Miscellaneous Department Revenue 21,000 2 20,940 (60) 99.72% Miscellaneous&Investment Interest 791,700 18,122 177,578 (614,122) 22.43% Transfers in-#105(h/m tax-CP advertising) 30,000 0 0 (30,000) 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 48,281,800 3,715,905 19,905,522 (28,376,278) 41.23% Expenditures City Council 622,187 48,197 305,476 316,711 49.10% City Manager 997,882 72,414 441,963 555,919 44.29% City Attorney 707,942 53,751 308,622 399,320 43.59% Public Safety 26,599,214 2,061,478 12,202,309 14,396,905 45.87% Deputy City Manager 277,187 19,740 152,891 124,296 55.16% Finance/IT 1,478,523 107,953 657,691 820,832 44.48% Human Resources 313,316 23,397 146,285 167,031 46.69% City Hall Operations and Maintenance 296,270 21,940 144,425 151,845 48.75% Community&Public Works-Engineering 1,971,731 120,680 750,214 1,221,517 38.05% Community&Public Works-Econ Dev 1,119,829 95,241 448,436 671,393 40.05% Community&Public Works-Bldg&Plan 2,420,414 177,559 1,119,725 1,300,689 46.26% Parks&Rec-Administration 352,227 24,387 148,628 203,599 42.20% Parks&Rec-Maintenance 917,500 73,111 372,793 544,707 40.63% Parks&Rec-Recreation 325,921 15,060 82,427 243,494 25.29% Parks&Rec-Aquatics 501,853 9,402 28,020 473,833 5.58% Parks&Rec-Senior Center 43,447 3,023 15,079 28,368 34.71% Parks&Rec-CenterPlace 965,359 41,076 344,164 621,195 35.65% General Government 1,321,111 25,588 416,768 904,343 31.55% Transfers out-#204('16 LTGO bond debt service) 401,450 33,454 167,271 234,179 41.67% Transfers out-#309(park capital projects) 160,000 13,333 80,000 80,000 50.00% Transfers out-#311 (Pavement Preservation) 982,023 81,835 491,012 491,012 50.00% Transfers out-#501 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) 36,600 3,050 18,300 18,300 50.00% Transfers out-#502(insurance premium) 410,000 34,167 205,000 205,000 50.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 43,221,986 3,159,836.33 19,047,497 24,174,489 44.07% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 5,059,814 556,069 858,024 (4,201,790) Page 6 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2020 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.00% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2020 2020 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget #001 -GENERAL FUND-continued NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Potential Settlement Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0.00% Grant Proceeds 70,000 2,648 14,337 (55,663) 20.48% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 70,000 2,648 14,337 (55,663) 20.48% Expenditures Public Safety(carpet&workstation replacement) 15,000 0 0 15,000 0.00% Public Safety(full facility generator) 0 0 86,109 (86,109) 0.00% Public Safety(SV Police Athletic League Grant) 0 0 1,263 (1,263) 0.00% City Hall Chambers(east wall repairs) 0 42,834 186,053 (186,053) 0.00% Building(equipment for new code enf officer) 13,700 0 0 13,700 0.00% Community&Public Works(Appleway Trail ED Sti 0 3,603 22,718 (22,718) 0.00% Parks&Rec(CenterPlace carpeting) 9,500 0 0 9,500 0.00% General Government (City Hall generator) 0 0 250 (250) 0.00% General Government-IT capital replacements 190,000 3,401 85,054 104,946 44.77% Gen Gov(Covid-19 Emergency Social Serv.) 0 0 33,000 (33,000) 0.00% Transfers out-#122(replenish reserve) 0 0 0 0 0.00% Transfers out-#309(CenterPlace West Lawn) 1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000 0.00% Transfers out-#501 (new code enf vehicle) 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,758,200 49,836.99 414,446.35 1,343,754 23.57% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (1,688,200) (47,189) (400,110) 1,288,090 Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures 3,371,614 508,880 457,915 (2,913,699) Beginning fund balance 37,427,218 37,427,218 Ending fund balance 40,798,832 37,885,132 Page 7 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2020 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.00% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2020 2020 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #101 -STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Telephone Utility Tax 1,521,000 118,018 605,712 (915,288) 39.82% Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 2,046,700 162,444 720,108 (1,326,592) 35.18% Multimodal Transportation 131,500 0 32,965 (98,535) 25.07% Right-of-Way Maintenance Fee 70,000 0 6,870 (63,130) 9.81% Investment Interest 17,000 217 347 (16,653) 2.04% Miscellaneous Revenue 10,000 193 344 (9,656) 3.44% Total Recurring Revenues 3,796,200 280,872 1,366,346 (2,429,854) 35.99% Expenditures Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 1,059,613 65,428 484,196 575,417 45.70% Supplies 146,050 3,246 76,532 69,518 52.40% Services&Charges 2,426,467 268,685 761,406 1,665,061 31.38% Snow Operations 543,776 3,133 460,483 83,293 84.68% Intergovernmental Payments 922,000 40,593 232,263 689,737 25.19% Transfers out-#501 (non-plow vehicle rental) 14,500 1,208 7,250 7,250 50.00% Transfers out-#501 (plow replace) 48,500 4,042 24,250 24,250 50.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 5,160,906 386,335 2,046,380 3,114,526 39.65% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures (1,364,706) (105,463) (680,034) 684,672 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Insurance Proceeds(traffic signal cabinet) 0 0 1,258 1,258 0.00% Transfers in-#312 1,364,706 113,726 682,353 (682,353) 50.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 1,364,706 113,726 683,611 (681,095) 50.09% Expenditures Spare Traffic Signal Equipment 0 0 0 0 0.00% Trailer for Sidewalk Snow Removal 0 0 0 0 0.00% Emergency Traffic Control Repairs 0 0 7,142 (7,142) 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 0 0 7,142 (7,142) 0.00% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,364,706 113,726 676,469 (688,237) Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures 0 8,262 (3,565) (3,565) Beginning fund balance 556,265 556,265 Ending fund balance 556,265 552,700 #103-PATHS&TRAILS Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 8,600 685 3,037 (5,563) 35.32% Investment Interest 400 4 51 (349) 12.80% Total revenues 9,000 690 3,088 (5,912) 34.32% Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0.00% Transfers out-#309(Appleway Trail-Sullivan to C 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 9,000 690 3,088 (5,912) Beginning fund balance 14,115 14,115 Ending fund balance 23,115 17,204 Page 8 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2020 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.00% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2020 2020 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #104-TOURISM FACILITIES HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel Tax 420,000 11,041 92,382 (327,618) 22.00% Investment Interest 24,000 728 9,002 (14,998) 37.51% Transfers in-#105 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 444,000 11,768 101,384 (342,616) 22.83% Expenditures Capital Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 444,000 11,768 101,384 (342,616) Beginning fund balance 2,690,945 2,690,945 Ending fund balance 3,134,945 2,792,329 #105-HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 650,000 16,906 146,499 (503,501) 22.54% Investment Interest 6,000 161 1,959 (4,041) 32.64% Total revenues 656,000 17,067 148,457 (507,543) 22.63% Expenditures Transfers out-#001 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00% Transfers out-#104 0 0 0 0 0.00% Tourism Promotion 795,000 0 50,802 744,198 6.39% Total expenditures 825,000 0 50,802 774,198 6.16% Revenues over(under)expenditures (169,000) 17,067 97,655 (1,281,741) Beginning fund balance 518,240 518,240 Ending fund balance 349,240 615,895 #106-SOLID WASTE Revenues Solid Waste Administrative Fees 225,000 11,074 87,761 137,239 39.01% Solid Waste Road Wear Fee 1,500,000 129,429 587,184 912,816 39.15% Investment Interest 12,000 310 6,116 5,884 50.97% Total revenues 1,737,000 140,813 681,061 1,055,939 39.21% Expenditures Transfers out-#311 1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000 0.00% Education&Contract Administration 237,000 6,214 35,839 201,161 15.12% Total expenditures 1,737,000 6,214 35,839 1,701,161 2.06% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 134,599 645,222 (645,222) Beginning fund balance 540,182 540,182 Ending fund balance 540,182 1,185,404 #107-PEG FUND Revenues Comcast PEG Contribution 79,000 0 19,573 59,427 24.78% Investment Interest 0 38 441 (441) 0.00% Total revenues 79,000 38 20,013 58,987 25.33% Expenditures PEG Reimbursement-CMTV 39,500 0 0 39,500 0.00% Capital Outlay 45,500 0 1,331 44,169 2.93% Total expenditures 85,000 0 1,331 83,669 1.57% Revenues over(under)expenditures (6,000) 38 18,682 (24,682) Beginning fund balance 128,255 128,255 Ending fund balance 122,255 146,937 Page 9 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2020 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.00% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2020 2020 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #108-AFFORDABLE&SUPPORTIVE HOUSING TAX FUND Revenues Affordable&Supportive Housing Tax 0 12,763 12,865 (12,865) 0.00% Investment Interest 0 3 3 (3) 0.00% Total revenues 0 12,766 12,869 (12,869) 0.00% Expenditures Affordable&Supportive Housing Program 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 12,766 12,869 (12,869) Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 12,869 #120-CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0.00% Transfers in 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 300,000 300,000 Ending fund balance 300,000 300,000 #121 -SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0.00% Transfers in 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 5,500,000 5,500,000 Ending fund balance 5,500,000 5,500,000 #122-WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 5,400 6 1,122 (4,278) 20.79% Transfers in-#001 0 0 0 0 0.00% Grant Proceeds-Windstorm Cleanup 0 0 0 0 0.00% Subtotal revenues 5,400 6 1,122 (4,278) 20.79% Expenditures Snow removal expenses 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00% Transfers out-#101 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures (494,600) 6 1,122 (504,278) Beginning fund balance 23,336 23,336 Ending fund balance (471,264) 24,458 Page 10 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2020 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.00% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2020 2020 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget DEBT SERVICE FUNDS #204-DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 459,500 0 84,750 (374,750) 18.44% Transfers in-#001 401,450 33,454 200,725 (200,725) 50.00% Transfers in-#301 80,375 6,698 40,188 (40,187) 50.00% Transfers in-#302 80,375 6,698 40,188 (40,187) 50.00% Total revenues 1,021,700 46,850 365,850 (655,850) 35.81% Expenditures Debt Service Payments-CenterPlace 459,500 0 84,750 374,750 18.44% Debt Service Payments-Roads 160,750 0 10,375 150,375 6.45% Debt Service Payments-'16 LTGO Bond 401,450 0 118,225 283,225 29.45% Total expenditures 1,021,700 0 213,350 808,350 20.88% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 46,850 152,500 (1,464,200) Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 152,500 Page 11 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2020 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.00% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2020 2020 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #301 -CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 -Taxes 1,000,000 99,778 545,273 (454,727) 54.53% Investment Interest 35,000 824 11,230 (23,770) 32.09% Total revenues 1,035,000 100,602 556,503 (478,497) 53.77% Expenditures Transfers out-#204 80,375 6,698 40,188 40,187 50.00% Transfers out-#303 1,089,148 0 32,354 1,056,794 2.97% Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 772,639 0 0 772,639 0.00% Transfers out-#314 49,041 0 120,883 (71,842) 246.49% Total expenditures 1,991,203 6,698 193,425 1,797,778 9.71% Revenues over(under)expenditures (956,203) 93,904 363,078 (2,276,275) Beginning fund balance 2,798,194 2,798,194 Ending fund balance 1,841,991 3,161,272 #302-SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 2-Taxes 1,000,000 99,778 545,273 (454,727) 54.53% Investment Interest 35,000 1,274 17,060 (17,940) 48.74% Total revenues 1,035,000 101,053 562,333 (472,667) 54.33% Expenditures Transfers out-#204 80,375 6,698 40,188 40,187 50.00% Transfers out-#303 404,318 0 25,147 379,171 6.22% Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 772,638 0 0 772,638 0.00% Total expenditures 1,257,331 6,698 65,335 1,191,996 5.20% Revenues over(under)expenditures (222,331) 94,355 496,998 (1,664,663) Beginning fund balance 4,391,870 4,391,870 Ending fund balance 4,169,539 4,888,868 Page 12 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2020 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.00% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2020 2020 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #303 STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 6,596,718 78,699 336,464 (6,260,254) 5.10% Developer Contribution 110,499 0 4,173 (106,326) 3.78% Transfers in-#301 1,089,148 0 32,354 (1,056,794) 2.97% Transfers in-#302 404,318 0 25,147 (379,171) 6.22% Transfers in-#312 114,512 0 42,576 (71,936) 37.18% Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 8,315,195 78,699 440,715 (7,874,480) 5.30% Expenditures 205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 195,499 15,506 59,694 135,805 30.53% 249 Sullivan&Wellesley Intersection 100,000 25,461 46,754 53,246 46.75% 259 North Sullivan ITS Project 810,232 270,925 327,928 482,304 40.47% 267 Mission SW-Bowdish to Union 19,852 0 134 19,718 0.67% 273 Barker/I-90 Interchange 90,000 4,398 72,128 17,872 80.14% 275 Barker Rd Widening-River to Euclid 3,729,143 46,740 186,920 3,542,223 5.01% 276 Barker Rd Widening-Euclid to Trent 0 5,545 29,797 (29,797) 0.00% 285 Indiana Ave Pres-Evergreen to Sullivan 300,000 114,710 171,157 128,843 57.05% 291 Adams Sidewalk Infill Project 444,645 147,682 167,063 277,582 37.57% 292 Mullen Preservation: Broadway-Mission 0 875 4,822 (4,822) 0.00% 293 2018 CSS Citywide Reflective Signal BP 99,000 178 1,105 97,895 1.12% 294 Citywide Reflective Post Panels 47,775 17,763 19,364 28,411 40.53% 295 Garland Avenue Extension 150,000 909,346 927,580 (777,580) 618.39% 299 Argonne Rd Concrete Pvmt Indiana to Mont 32,000 5,180 28,046 3,954 87.64% 300 Pines&Mission Intersection Improvements 516,000 3,646 31,113 484,887 6.03% 301 Park&Mission Intersection Improvements 0 11,998 20,587 (20,587) 0.00% 302 Ella Sidewalk: Broadway to Alki 371,760 151,108 268,133 103,627 72.13% 303 S.Conklin Road Sidewalk 124,125 39,689 53,618 70,507 43.20% 310 Sullivan Rd Overcrossing UP RR Deck Rep. 0 1,378 2,038 (2,038) 0.00% 313 Barker Road/Union Pacific Crossing 0 10,115 15,857 (15,857) 0.00% 318 Wilbur Sidewalk: Boone to Mission 0 782 782 (782) 0.00% Contingency 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 0.00% Total expenditures 8,030,031 1,783,025 2,434,620 5,595,411 30.32% Revenues over(under)expenditures 285,164 (1,704,326) (1,993,905) (13,469,891) Beginning fund balance 67,402 67,402 Ending fund balance 352,566 (1,926,503) Note: Work performed in the Street Capital Projects Fund for preservation projects is for items such as sidewalk upgrades that were bid with the pavement preservation work. Page 13 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2020 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.00% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2020 2020 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #309-PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 2,500 0 704,421 701,921 28176.86% Transfers in-#001 1,660,000 13,333 80,000 (1,580,000) 4.82% Transfers in-#312 7,500 0 146,743 139,243 1956.57% Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0.00% Miscellaneous Revenues 0 0 (0) (0) 0.00% Total revenues 1,670,000 13,333 931,165 (738,835) 55.76% Expenditures 268 Appleway Trail-Evergreen to Sullivan 5,000 444,615 1,109,908 (1,104,908) 22198.15% 296 Browns Park 2019 Construction Improvements 5,000 4,859 (58,299) 63,299 -1165.97% 304 CenterPlace West Lawn Phase 2 1,500,000 436,555 874,459 625,541 58.30% 305 CenterPlace Roof Repair 0 3,275 30,871 (30,871) 0.00% 314 Balfour Park Frontage Improvements 0 181 1,050 (1,050) 0.00% 315 Brown's Park 2020 Improvements 0 2,693 3,131 (3,131) 0.00% 316 Balfour Park Improvements-Phase 1 0 9,044 10,947 (10,947) 0.00% Total expenditures 1,510,000 901,222 1,972,066 (462,066) 130.60% Revenues over(under)expenditures 160,000 (887,888) (1,040,902) (276,769) Beginning fund balance 78,627 78,627 Ending fund balance 238,627 (962,275) #310-CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Investment Interest 17,000 224 2,814 (14,186) 16.55% Total revenues 17,000 224 2,814 (14,186) 16.55% Expenditures Transfers out 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 17,000 224 2,814 (14,186) Beginning fund balance 855,985 855,985 Ending fund balance 872,985 858,799 Note: The fund balance includes$839,285.10 paid by the Library District for 2.82 acres at the Balfour Park site. If the District does not succeed in getting a voted bond approved by October 2017 then the City may repurchase this land at the original sale price of$839,285.10. Page 14 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2020 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.00% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2020 2020 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #311 -PAVEMENT PRESERVATION FUND Revenues Transfers in-#001 982,023 81,835 491,012 (491,012) 50.00% Transfers in-#106 1,500,000 0 0 (1,500,000) 0.00% Transfers in-#301 772,639 0 0 (772,639) 0.00% Transfers in-#302 772,638 0 0 (772,638) 0.00% Grant Proceeds 10,588 0 84,251 73,663 795.72% Developer Contribution 0 0 0 0 0.00% Investment Interest 0 1,053 7,608 7,608 0.00% Total revenues 4,037,888 82,888 582,871 (3,455,017) 14.44% Expenditures Pre-Project GeoTech Services 50,000 0 0 50,000 0.00% Pavement Preservation 4,217,523 0 0 4,217,523 0.00% 248 Sprague Street Pres-Sullivan to Corbin 0 0 (167) 167 0.00% 267 Mission SW-Bowdish to Union 0 117 470 (470) 0.00% 269 Evergreen-Mission Connector to Indiana 0 87 237 (237) 0.00% 284 Argonne Rd. Pres-Valleyway to Broadway 0 0 40 (40) 0.00% 285 Indiana Ave Pres-Evergreen to Sullivan 0 858,176 919,672 (919,672) 0.00% 287 University Pres-Dishman Mica to 16th 0 0 7,500 (7,500) 0.00% 290 2019 Local Access Streets(Midilome) 0 0 7,500 (7,500) 0.00% 292 Mullen Preservation: Broadway-Mission 0 483 1,914 (1,914) 0.00% 297 2019 SCWD#3 Street Preservation 0 0 (3,199) 3,199 0.00% 309 Local Access Streets: Barker Homes 0 1,056 31,120 (31,120) 0.00% Total expenditures 4,267,523 859,919 965,089 3,302,434 22.61% Revenues over(under)expenditures (229,635) (777,031) (382,219) (6,757,451) Beginning fund balance 4,425,201 4,425,201 Ending fund balance 4,195,566 4,042,982 #312-CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in-#001 0 0 0 0 0.00% Transfers in-#310 0 0 0 0 0.00% Investment Interest 100,000 3,155 46,763 (53,237) 46.76% Total revenues 100,000 3,155 46,763 (53,237) 46.76% Expenditures Transfers out-#101 1,364,706 113,726 682,353 682,353 50.00% Transfers out-#303 114,512 0 42,576 71,936 37.18% Transfers out-#309 7,500 0 146,743 (139,243) 1956.57% Transfers out-#314 64,192 0 0 64,192 0.00% Land Acquisitions 0 0 4,110 (4,110) 0.00% Total expenditures 1,550,910 113,726 875,782 675,128 56.47% Revenues over(under)expenditures (1,450,910) (110,570) (829,020) (728,365) Beginning fund balance 12,936,816 12,936,816 Ending fund balance 11,485,906 12,107,797 Page 15 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2020 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.00% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2020 2020 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #313-CITY HALL CONSTRUCTION FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Transfers out-#312 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 0 #314-RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 12,808,751 0 1,621,007 (11,187,744) 12.66% Investment Interest 0 253 263 263 0.00% Transfers in-#301 49,041 0 120,883 71,842 246.49% Transfers in-#312 64,192 0 0 (64,192) 0.00% Total revenues 12,921,984 253 1,742,153 (11,179,831) 13.48% Expenditures 143 Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation 11,475,292 90,772 1,635,521 9,839,771 14.25% 223 Pines Rd Underpass 1,562,500 11,844 55,771 1,506,729 3.57% 311 Sullivan Rd./SR 290 Interchange Project 0 0 1,335 (1,335) 0.00% Total expenditures 13,037,792 102,615 1,692,628 11,345,164 12.98% Revenues over(under)expenditures (115,808) (102,362) 49,525 (22,524,995) Beginning fund balance 1,008,638 1,008,638 Ending fund balance 892,830 1,058,163 Page 16 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2020 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.00% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2020 2020 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402-STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Stormwater Management Fees 1,900,000 249,902 927,825 (972,175) 48.83% Investment Interest 40,000 694 7,770 (32,230) 19.42% Total Recurring Revenues 1,940,000 250,595 935,595 (1,004,405) 48.23% Expenditures Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 519,582 33,839 203,049 316,533 39.08% Supplies 14,750 236 34,640 (19,890) 234.85% Services&Charges 1,298,153 127,972 336,066 962,087 25.89% Intergovernmental Payments 37,500 0 19,536 17,964 52.10% Vehicle Rentals-#501 14,000 1,167 7,000 7,000 50.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 1,883,985 163,213 600,291 1,283,694 31.86% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 56,015 87,382 335,304 279,289 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 59,828 0 304 (59,524) 0.51% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 59,828 0 304 (59,524) 0.51% Expenditures Capital-various projects 500,000 0 9,285 490,715 1.86% 285 Indiana Ave Pres-Evergreen to Sullivan 0 17,925 18,087 (18,087) 0.00% 302 Ella Sidewalk: Broadway to Alki 0 14,066 31,095 (31,095) 0.00% 303 S.Conklin Road Sidewalk 0 13,987 14,981 (14,981) 0.00% 309 Local Access Streets: Barker Homes 0 0 1,585 (1,585) 0.00% Watershed Studies 80,000 2,969 29,299 50,701 36.62% Stormwater Comprehensive Plan 100,000 0 0 100,000 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 680,000 48,946 104,332 575,668 15.34% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (620,172) (48,946) (104,029) 516,143 Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (564,157) 38,436 231,275 795,432 Beginning working capital 2,180,773 2,180,773 Ending working capital 1,616,616 2,412,048 Note: Work performed in the Stormwater Fund for preservation projects is for storm water improvements that were bid with the pavement preservation work. #403-AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 460,000 0 203,098 (256,902) 44.15% Grant Proceeds 349,000 0 0 (349,000) 0.00% Investment Interest 20,000 574 6,948 (13,052) 34.74% Total revenues 829,000 574 210,046 (618,954) 25.34% Expenditures Capital-various projects 500,000 92,554 131,599 368,401 26.32% Total expenditures 500,000 92,554 131,599 368,401 26.32% Revenues over(under)expenditures 329,000 (91,980) 78,447 (987,355) Beginning working capital 2,118,299 2,118,299 Ending working capital 2,447,299 2,196,746 Page 17 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2020 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 50.00% For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30,2020 2020 Actual Actual through Budget %of Budget June June 30 Remaining Budget INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS #501 -ER&R FUND Revenues Interfund vehicle lease-#001 28,000 2,333 14,000 (14,000) 50.00% Interfund vehicle lease-#101 14,500 1,208 7,250 (7,250) 50.00% Interfund vehicle lease-#101 (plow replace) 48,500 4,042 24,250 (24,250) 50.00% Interfund vehicle lease-#402 14,000 1,167 7,000 (7,000) 50.00% Transfers in-#001 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) 36,600 3,050 18,300 (18,300) 50.00% Transfers in-#001 (Code Enforcement Vehicle) 30,000 0 0 (30,000) 0.00% Investment Interest 19,000 376 4,659 (14,341) 24.52% Total revenues 190,600 12,176 75,459 (115,141) 39.59% Expenditures Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 0 538 4,024 (4,024) 0.00% Small tools&minor equipment 20,000 0 0 20,000 0.00% Vehicle purchase 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00% Snow plow purchase 235,000 0 125,590 109,410 53.44% Total expenditures 285,000 538 129,614 155,386 45.48% Revenues over(under)expenditures (94,400) 11,638 (54,156) (270,527) Beginning working capital 1,496,093 1,496,093 Ending working capital 1,401,693 1,441,938 #502-RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 36 36 36 0.00% Transfers in-#001 410,000 34,167 205,000 (205,000) 50.00% Total revenues 410,000 34,203 205,036 (204,964) 50.01% Expenditures Auto&Property Insurance 410,000 0 337,987 72,013 82.44% Unemployment Claims 0 0 4,529 (4,529) 0.00% Total expenditures 410,000 0 342,516 67,484 83.54% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 34,203 (137,479) (272,448) Beginning working capital 276,004 276,004 Ending working capital 276,004 138,524 SUMMARY FOR ALL FUNDS Total of Revenues for all Funds 90,026,301 5,020,905 29,595,415 Per Revenue Status Report 90,026,301 5,020,905 29,595,415 Difference - - - Total of Expenditures for all Funds 89,713,567 7,681,376 31,324,087 Per Expenditure Status Report 89,713,567 7,681,376 31,324,087 Total Capital expenditures(included in total expenditures) 28,000,346 3,788,714 7,442,448 Page 18 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 7/28/2020 Investment Report For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30, 2020 NW Bank UMPQUA Total LGIP" CD#2068 CD#0689 Investments Beginning $ 69,615,013.36 $ 3,033,287.68 $ 2,101,932.42 $ 74,750,233.46 Deposits 2,351,435.19 0.00 0.00 2,351,435.19 Withdrawls (5,000,000.00) 0.00 0.00 (5,000,000.00) Interest 20,954.72 0.00 0.00 20,954.72 Ending $ 66,987,403.27 $ 3,033,287.68 $ 2,101,932.42 $ 72,122,623.37 matures: 7/23/2020 11/15/2020 rate: 2.50% 1.75% Earnings Balance Current Period Year to date Budget 001 General Fund $ 34,878,020.08 $ 11,024.52 132,717.98 $ 700,000.00 101 Street Fund 693,131.94 216.82 347.28 17,000.00 103 Trails&Paths 14,332.69 4.48 51.19 400.00 104 Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel 2,326,358.23 727.72 9,002.03 24,000.00 105 Hotel/Motel 513,117.31 160.51 1,958.59 6,000.00 106 Solid Waste Fund 991,135.61 310.04 6,115.80 12,000.00 107 PEG Fund 122,416.94 38.29 440.61 0.00 108 Affordable&Supportive Housing 10,721.16 3.35 3.39 0.00 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 5,500,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 122 Winter Weather Reserve 20,376.61 6.37 1,122.46 5,400.00 301 Capital Projects 2,633,733.83 823.87 11,230.06 35,000.00 302 Special Capital Projects 4,073,037.06 1,274.11 17,060.32 35,000.00 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 309 Parks Capital Project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 715,486.63 223.82 2,813.81 17,000.00 311 Pavement Preservation 3,365,127.81 1,052.67 7,608.03 0.00 312 Capital Reserve Fund 10,087,305.05 3,155.47 46,762.51 100,000.00 313 City Hall Construction Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects 809,349.79 253.18 263.22 0.00 402 Stormwater Management 2,217,090.17 693.54 7,769.81 40,000.00 403 Aquifer Protection Fund 1,834,781.37 573.95 6,947.82 20,000.00 501 Equipment Rental &Replacement 1,201,693.28 375.91 4,658.62 19,000.00 502 Risk Management 115,407.81 36.10 36.10 0.00 $ 72,122,623.37 $ 20,954.72 $ 256,909.63 $ 1,030,800.00 "Local Government Investment Pool Page 19 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2020\2020 06 30 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 7/28/2020 Sales Tax Receipts For the Six-Month Period Ended June 30, 2020 Month Difference Received 2019 2020 $ February 2,530,639.23 2,559,296.59 28,657.36 1.13% March 1,861,849.29 2,015,206.15 153,356.86 8.24% April 1,758,550.64 1,897,614.47 139,063.83 7.91% May 2,208,350.09 1,847,551.89 (360,798.20) (16.34%) June 2,200,987.91 1,875,335.44 (325,652.47) (14.80%) 10,560,377.16 10,195,004.54 (365,372.62) (3.46%) July 2,333,320.72 August 2,530,196.67 September 2,405,945.26 October 2,504,583.31 November 2,422,514.22 December 2,341,644.57 January 2,284,009.79 27,382,591.70 10,195,004.54 Sales tax receipts reported here reflect remittances for general sales tax, criminal justice sales tax and public safety tax. The sales tax rate for retail sales transacted within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley is 8.9%. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the vendor to the Washington State Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to the various agencies that have imposed the tax. The allocation of the total 8.9%tax rate to the agencies is as follows: - State of Washington 6.50% - City of Spokane Valley 0.85% - Spokane County 0.15% - Spokane Public Facilities District 0.10% * - Criminal Justice 0.10% - Public Safety 0.10% * 2.40% local tax - Juvenile Jail 0.10% * - Mental Health 0.10% * - Law Enforcement Communications 0.10% * - Spokane Transit Authority 0.80% * 8.90% Indicates voter approved sales taxes In addition to the .85% reported above that the City receives, we also receive a portion of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety sales taxes. The distribution of those taxes is computed as follows: Criminal Justice: The tax is assessed county-wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 10%of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the County and the cities within the County. Public Safety: The tax is assessed county-wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 60%of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County. Page 20 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Sales Tax\2020\sales tax collections 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA \ 6/26/2020 Sales Tax Collections- For the years 2011 through 2020 ii, ,Ts. __ 2019 to 2020 Difference 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $ ok January 1,460,548 1,589,887 1,671,269 1,677,887 1,732,299 1,863,225 1,992,273 2,078,412 2,240,908 2,253,852 12,944 0.58% February 990,157 1,009,389 1,133,347 1,170,640 1,197,323 1,316,682 1,369,740 1,536,252 1,648,657 1,776,898 128,241 7.78% March 1,015,762 1,067,733 1,148,486 1,201,991 1,235,252 1,378,300 1,389,644 1,564,282 1,549,275 1,687,355 138,080 8.91% April 1,284,180 1,277,621 1,358,834 1,448,539 1,462,096 1,640,913 1,737,933 1,926,551 1,955,470 1,627,596 (327,874) (16.77%) May 1,187,737 1,174,962 1,320,449 1,400,956 1,373,710 1,566,178 1,564,119 1,762,119 1,946,112 1,651,937 (294,175) (15.12%) Collected to date 5,938,384 6,119,592 6,632,385 6,900,013 7,000,680 7,765,298 8,053,709 8,867,616 9,340,422 8,997,638 (342,784) (3.67%) June 1,248,218 1,290,976 1,389,802 1,462,558 1,693,461 1,641,642 1,751,936 1,871,077 2,067,987 0 July 1,332,834 1,302,706 1,424,243 1,545,052 1,718,428 1,776,653 1,935,028 2,053,961 2,232,342 0 August 1,279,500 1,299,678 1,465,563 1,575,371 1,684,700 1,746,371 1,877,899 1,980,940 2,121,051 0 September 1,294,403 1,383,123 1,466,148 1,552,736 1,563,950 1,816,923 1,946,689 2,019,198 2,223,576 0 October 1,291,217 1,358,533 1,439,321 1,594,503 1,618,821 1,822,998 1,898,067 2,005,836 2,134,985 0 November 1,217,933 1,349,580 1,362,021 1,426,254 1,487,624 1,652,181 1,768,817 1,925,817 2,064,504 0 December 1,247,920 1,323,189 1,408,134 1,383,596 1,441,904 1,664,983 1,856,989 1,918,411 2,019,895 0 Total Collections 14,850,409 15,427,377 16,587,617 17,440,083 18,209,568 19,887,049 21,089,134 22,642,856 24,204,762 8,997,638 Budget Estimate 14,210,000 14,210,000 15,250,000 16,990,000 17,628,400 18,480,500 19,852,100 20,881,900 22,917,000 24,632,900 Actual over(under)budg 640,409 1,217,377 1,337,617 450,083 581,168 1,406,549 1,237,034 1,760,956 1,287,762 (15,635,262) Total actual collections as a%of total budget 104.51% 108.57% 108.77% 102.65% 103.30% 107.61% 106.23% 108.43% 105.62% n/a %change in annual total collected 5.34% 3.89% 7.52% 5.14% 4.41% 9.21% 6.04% 7.37% 6.90% n/a %of budget collected through May 41.79% 43.07% 43.49% 40.61% 39.71% 42.02% 40.57% 42.47% 40.76% 36.53% %of actual total collected through May 39.99% 39.67% 39.98% 39.56% 38.45% 39.05% 38.19% 39.16% 38.59% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of May May 10,000,000 9,000,000 0 ir 8,000,000 7,000,000 - ■May 6,000,000 5,000,000 ■April March 4,000,000 - 3,000,000 ■February 2,000,000 ■January 1,000,000 .- M 0 , 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Page 21 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Lodging Tax\2020\105 hotel motel tax 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 6/26/2020 Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts through- ' Actual for the years 2011 through 2020 r! 2019 to 2020 Difference 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $ % January 22,212 21,442 24,185 25,425 27,092 31,887 27,210 28,752 31,865 36,203 4,338 13.61% February 22,792 21,549 25,975 26,014 27,111 27,773 26,795 28,878 32,821 31,035 (1,786) (5.44%) March 24,611 25,655 27,739 29,384 32,998 34,330 31,601 31,906 40,076 37,395 (2,681) (6.69%) April 38,230 52,130 40,979 48,246 50,455 52,551 52,242 57,664 59,117 24,959 (34,158) (57.78%) May 33,791 37,478 40,560 41,123 44,283 50,230 50,112 51,777 53,596 16,906 (36,690) (68.46%) Total Collections 141,637 158,255 159,438 170,191 181,939 196,771 187,960 198,977 217,475 146,498 (70,977) (32.64%) June 41,403 43,971 47,850 52,618 56,975 55,060 60,637 62,048 73,721 0 July 49,312 52,819 56,157 61,514 61,809 65,007 69,337 71,865 84,628 0 August 57,452 57,229 63,816 70,384 72,697 73,700 76,972 79,368 91,637 0 September 58,908 64,299 70,794 76,100 74,051 70,305 80,173 79,661 97,531 0 October 39,028 43,699 43,836 45,604 49,880 55,660 56,631 61,826 77,932 0 November 37,339 39,301 42,542 39,600 42,376 46,393 47,090 52,868 59,252 0 December 32,523 30,432 34,238 33,256 41,510 33,478 37,180 40,363 41,675 0 Total Collections 457,603 490,004 518,672 549,267 581,237 596,374 615,980 646,976 743,851 146,498 Budget Estimate 480,000 430,000 490,000 530,000 550,000 580,000 580,000 580,000 600,000 650,000 Actual over(under)budg (22,397) 60,004 28,672 19,267 31,237 16,374 35,980 66,976 143,851 (503,502) Total actual collections as a%of total budget 95.33% 113.95% 105.85% 103.64% 105.68% 102.82% 106.20% 111.55% 123.98% n/a %change in annual total collected 2.02% 7.08% 5.85% 5.90% 5.82% 2.60% 3.29% 5.03% 14.97% n/a %of budget collected through `• 29.51% 36.80% 32.54% 32.11% 33.08% 33.93% 32.41% 34.31% 36.25% 22.54% %of actual total collected through May 30.95% 32.30% 30.74% 30.99% 31.30% 32.99% 30.51% 30.75% 29.24% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of May May 250,000 200,000 May 150,000 ■April ■March 100,000 ■February ■January 50,000 0 • 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Page 22 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\REET\2020\301 and 302 REET for 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 7/15/2020 1st and 2nd 1/4% REET Collections through May Actual for the years 2011 through 2020rin 2019 to 2020 Difference 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $ % January 64,128 46,359 56,898 61,192 96,141 104,446 153,661 239,437 120,809 212,512 91,703 75.91% February 36,443 56,115 155,226 67,049 103,508 83,583 124,514 146,892 199,209 242,927 43,718 21.95% March 95,880 71,730 72,172 81,724 165,868 220,637 282,724 310,562 193,913 203,774 9,861 5.09% April 79,681 86,537 90,377 105,448 236,521 205,654 169,060 218,842 347,528 197,928 (149,600) (43.05%) May 124,692 111,627 116,165 198,870 165,748 192,806 202,734 646,397 263,171 258,784 (4,387) (1.67%) Collected to date 400,824 372,367 490,838 514,282 767,786 807,128 932,693 1,562,130 1,124,630 1,115,925 (8,705) (0.77%) June 81,579 124,976 139,112 106,676 347,421 284,897 248,768 277,424 465,044 0 July 79,629 101,049 128,921 208,199 217,375 248,899 449,654 302,941 327,636 0 August 129,472 106,517 117,150 172,536 202,525 231,200 472,420 261,626 300,312 0 September 68,020 63,517 174,070 152,323 179,849 178,046 187,348 259,492 335,824 0 October 61,396 238,095 117,806 123,505 128,833 253,038 207,895 584,792 225,216 0 November 74,753 104,886 78,324 172,227 129,870 186,434 229,800 263,115 319,161 0 December 65,077 74,300 75,429 117,682 157,919 164,180 278,995 288,912 235,726 0 Total distributed by Spokane County 960,751 1,185,707 1,321,650 1,567,429 2,131,578 2,353,822 3,007,573 3,800,432 3,333,549 1,115,925 Budget estimate 780,000 875,000 975,000 1,100,000 1,400,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 2,800,000 2,000,000 Actual over(under)budget 180,751 310,707 346,650 467,429 731,578 353,822 1,007,573 800,432 533,549 (884,075) Total actual collections as a%of total budget 123.17% 135.51% 135.55% 142.49% 152.26% 117.69% 150.38% 126.68% 119.06% n/a %change in annual total collected (0.16%) 23.41% 11.47% 18.60% 35.99% 10.43% 27.77% 26.36% (12.28%) n/a %of budget collected through May 51.39% 42.56% 50.34% 46.75% 54.84% 40.36% 46.63% 52.07% 40.17% 55.80% %of actual total collected through May 41.72% 31.40% 37.14% 32.81% 36.02% 34.29% 31.01% 41.10% 33.74% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of May May 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 - 1,200,000 - •May 1,000,000 - ■April 800,000 - •March 600,000 •February 400,000 •January 200,000 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Page 23 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Debt Capacity\2020\debt capacity 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 4/1/2020 Debt Capacity 2019 Assessed Value for 2020 Property Taxes 10,200,357,539 Maximum Outstanding Remaining Debt as of Debt ok Capacity 12/31/2018 Capacity Utilized Voted(UTGO) 1.00%of assessed value 102,003,575 0 102,003,575 0.00% Nonvoted(LTGO) 1.50%of assessed value 153,005,363 11,715,000 141,290,363 7.66% Voted park 2.50%of assessed value 255,008,938 0 255,008,938 0.00% Voted utility 2.50%of assessed value 255,008,938 0 255,008,938 0.00% 765,026,814 11,715,000 753,311,814 1.53% 2014 LTGO Bonds Road& LTGO Bonds Period Street 2016 LTGO Grand Ending CenterPlace Improvements Total Bonds Total 12/1/2014 225,000 135,000 360,00 0 360,000 Bonds 12/1/2015 175,000 125,000 300,00 0 300,000 Repaid 12/1/2016 185,000 130,000 315,000 75,000 390,000 12/1/2017 190,000 130,000 320,000 150,000 470,000 L12/1/2018 230,000 135,000 365,000 155,000 520,000 12/1/2019 255,000 140,000 395,000 160,000 555,000 1,260,000 795,000 2,055,000 540,000 2,595,000 12/1/2020 290,000 140,000 430,000 165,000 595,000 12/1/2021 320,000 145,000 465,000 170,000 635,000 12/1/2022 350,000 150,000 500,000 175,000 675,000 12/1/2023 390,000 155,000 545,000 180,000 725,000 12/1/2024 430,000 0 430,000 185,000 615,000 12/1/2025 465,000 0 465,000 195,000 660,000 12/1/2026 505,000 0 505,000 900,000 705,000 12/1/2027 395,000 0 395,000 "05,000 600,000 12/1/2028 300,000 0 300,000 15,000 515,000 12/1/2029 245,000 0 245,000 2'0,000 465,000 12/1/2030 225,000 0 225,000 2. ,000 450,000 Bonds 12/1/2031 180,000 0 180,000 23.,000 415,000 Remaining 12/1/2032 130,000 0 130,000 246,000 370,000 12/1/2033 165,000 0 165,000 250,000 415,000 12/1/2034 0 0 0 260,100 260,000 12/1/2035 0 0 0 270,600 270,000 12/1/2036 0 0 0 280,010 280,000 12/1/2037 0 0 0 290,060 290,000 12/1/2038 0 0 0 305,00' 305,000 12/1/2039 0 0 0 315,001 315,000 12/1/2040 0 0 0 330,000 330,000 12/1/2041 0 0 0 340,000 340,000 12/1/2042 0 0 0 355,000 355,000 12/1/2043 0 0 0 365,000 365,000 12/1/2044 0 0 0 375,000 375,000 12/1/2045 0 0 0 390,000 390,000 4,390,000 590,000 4,980,000 6,735,000 11,715,000 5,650,000 1,385,000 7,035,000 7,275,000 14,310,000 Page 24 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\MVFT\2020\motor vehicle fuel tax collections 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Motor Fuel(Gas)Tax Collections- -., For the years 2011 through 2020 1,t 2019 to 2020 Difference 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $ % January 154,792 159,607 146,145 152,906 152,598 163,918 150,654 162,359 148,530 152,686 4,156 2.80% February 146,353 135,208 145,998 148,118 145,455 163,037 164,807 175,936 181,823 170,461 (11,362) (6.25%) March 141,849 144,297 135,695 131,247 140,999 145,537 138,205 139,826 131,009 146,280 15,271 11.66% April 165,019 153,546 156,529 156,269 157,994 167,304 168,000 168,796 144,080 90,589 (53,491) (37.13%) May 154,700 144,670 151,595 156,850 156,259 171,829 174,211 193,986 185,669 130,168 (55,501) (29.89%) Collected to date 762,713 737,328 735,962 745,390 753,305 811,625 795,877 840,903 791,111 690,184 (100,927) (12.76%) June 158,351 159,827 167,479 161,965 164,872 157,737 174,838 144,308 175,985 0 July 165,398 160,565 155,348 157,805 168,205 177,427 177,019 194,267 169,733 0 August 153,361 164,050 173,983 172,308 186,277 177,567 195,780 205,438 195,107 0 September 173,820 171,651 195,397 173,299 174,505 194,640 184,342 180,874 180,605 0 October 158,889 153,022 133,441 160,539 161,520 166,369 163,780 158,062 162,187 0 November 160,461 162,324 164,303 165,871 181,771 176,178 194,814 199,282 196,240 0 December 124,714 138,223 142,140 141,298 153,338 152,787 154,298 148,960 155,728 0 Total Collections 1,857,707 1,846,990 1,868,053 1,878,475 1,943,793 2,014,330 2,040,748 2,072,094 2,026,696 690,184 Budget Estimate 1,875,000 1,905,800 1,868,900 1,866,400 1,867,700 2,013,400 2,048,900 2,061,100 2,039,500 2,055,300 Actual over(under)budg (17,293) (58,810) (847) 12,075 76,093 930 (8,152) 10,994 (12,804) (1,365,116) Total actual collections as a%of total budget 99.08% 96.91% 99.95% 100.65% 104.07% 100.05% 99.60% 100.53% 99.37% n/a %change in annual total collected 142.05% (0.58%) 1.14% 0.56% 3.48% 3.63% 1.31% 1.54% (2.19%) n/a %of budget collected through May 40.68% 38.69% 39.38% 39.94% 40.33% 40.31% 38.84% 40.80% 38.79% 33.58% %of actual total collected through May 41.06% 39.92% 39.40% 39.68% 38.75% 40.29% 39.00% 40.58% 39.03% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of May May 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 ■May 500000 ■April 400,000 ■March 300,000 ■February 200000 ■January 1_ 4_ 100000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Page 25 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Telephone Tax\2020\telephone utility tax collections 2020 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 7/15/2020 Telephone Utility Tax Collections- For the years 2011 through 2020ME 2019 to 2020 Difference 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $ % January 241,357 193,818 217,478 210,777 177,948 182,167 162,734 130,196 136,615 123,292 (13,323) (9.75%) February 230,366 261,074 216,552 205,953 212,845 173,971 163,300 164,060 132,538 122,448 (10,090) (7.61%) March 245,539 234,113 223,884 208,206 174,738 177,209 162,536 158,416 138,727 121,938 (16,789) (12.10%) April 238,561 229,565 214,618 206,038 214,431 171,770 157,285 146,519 126,455 120,016 (6,439) (5.09%) May 236,985 227,469 129,270 210,010 187,856 174,512 161,506 149,434 135,704 118,018 (17,686) (13.03%) Collected to date 1,192,808 1,146,039 1,001,802 1,040,984 967,818 879,629 807,361 748,625 670,039 605,712 (64,327) (9.60%) June 239,013 234,542 293,668 210,289 187,412 170,450 156,023 150,780 129,602 0 July 244,191 226,118 213,078 205,651 190,984 174,405 157,502 147,281 130,723 0 August 349,669 228,789 211,929 205,645 185,172 171,909 150,644 148,158 127,303 0 September 241,476 227,042 210,602 199,193 183,351 170,476 155,977 141,290 128,018 0 October 237,111 225,735 205,559 183,767 183,739 166,784 153,075 142,925 127,214 0 November 240,246 225,319 212,947 213,454 175,235 166,823 151,208 139,209 125,027 0 December 236,449 221,883 213,097 202,077 183,472 168,832 161,115 140,102 126,226 0 Total Collections 2,980,963 2,735,467 2,562,682 2,461,060 2,257,183 2,069,308 1,892,905 1,758,370 1,564,152 605,712 Budget Estimate 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,900,000 2,750,000 2,565,100 2,340,000 2,000,000 1,900,000 1,600,000 1,521,000 Actual over(under)budg (19,037) (264,533) (337,318) (288,940) (307,917) (270,692) (107,095) (141,630) (35,848) (915,288) Total actual collections as a%of total budget 99.37% 91.18% 88.37% 89.49% 88.00% 88.43% 94.65% 92.55% 97.76% n/a %change in annual total collected (0.17%) (8.24%) (6.32%) (3.97%) (8.28%) (8.32%) (8.52%) (7.11%) (11.05%) n/a %of budget collected through May 39.76% 38.20% 34.54% 37.85% 37.73% 37.59% 40.37% 39.40% 41.88% 39.82% %of actual total collected through May 40.01% 41.90% 39.09% 42.30% 42.88% 42.51% 42.65% 42.57% 42.84% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of May May ■May 1,400,000 - ■April 1,200,000 March A February 1,000,000 ■January 800,000 111[Firilhillis:Eti 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Page 26