Loading...
2021, 06-01 Study SessionAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday, June 1, 2021 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 the COVID-19 Emergency, which waives and suspends the requirement to hold in -person meetings and provides options for the public to attend remotely, physical public attendance at Spokane Valley Council meetings are suspended until the Governor's order has been rescinded or amended. Therefore, 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 WEB Meeting CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA ACTION ITEMS: 1. Resolution 21-001 Adopting Housing Action Plan — Chaz Bates [no public comment] 2. Motion Consideration, Bid Award, Appleway-Stormwater — Bill Helbig [public comment opportunity] NON -ACTION ITEMS: DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL 3. Briahna Murray, and Holly Cocci End of Legislative Session Update Discussion/Information of Gordon Thomas Honeywell 4. Jenny Nickerson Code Enforcement Program Discussion/Information 5. Chaz Bates Shoreline Master Plan Discussion/Information 6. Gloria Mantz, Pete Fisch Bridge Program Discussion/Information 7. John Bottelli, Tina Gregerson Aquatics Update Discussion/Information 8. Mayor Wick Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 9. Information Only (will not be reported or discussed): Police Department Monthly Report 10. Mayor Wick Council Comments Discussion/Information 11. Mark Calhoun City Manager Comments Discussion/Information ADJOURN Council Agenda June 1, 2021 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 1, 2021 Department Director Approval n Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution 20-001: Housing Action Plan (HAP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.600 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: September 24, 2019, City Council authorized staff to complete the grant application for funding to develop a HAP. March 2, 2021, Administrative report update on the HAP. May 18, 2021, Administrative report on draft HAP. BACKGROUND: A HAP defines strategies and implementing actions that promote greater housing diversity and affordability for residents of all income levels. The HAP includes five main components: a summary of community engagement, a Housing Needs Assessment, a review of policies and regulations affecting housing development, strategies to increase housing based on needs, and an implementation plan. The City applied for and received a $100,000 grant from the Department of Commerce (DOC) to partially fund the development of a HAP. The City used the grant dollars to contract with Maul, Foster, and Alongi (MFA) to assist in the completion of the HAP. MFA, their sub -consultant ECONorthwest, and City staff have completed the HAP. The HAP provides recommended policies and strategies to meet the housing needs within the City. The recommendations in the HAP were informed by public engagement, data analysis, and review of existing planning documents, and are intended to be options for the City to consider for future implementation. The guidance provided will be used as a basis for future conversations with staff, stakeholders, renters, homeowners, advocates, developers and many others to determine which strategies should be used to ensure the City has the ability to provide the necessary housing for our community. On March 2, 2021, staff provided an update to City Council that included an overview of the HAP and the anticipated adoption process and timeline. On March 12, 2021, staff determined that the adoption of the HAP did not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and issued a Determination of Non -Significance. On March 25, 2021, staff provided an overview of the proposed HAP to the Planning Commission. On April 8, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed HAP. After receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and deliberated on the HAP. After reviewing and deliberating on the HAP, the Planning Commission moved and voted 7-0 to forward the HAP to City Council with a recommendation of approval. On May 18, 2021, staff presented an overview of the draft HAP for the purpose of discussion with the City Council. Tonight, staff is seeking a motion for Council to consider adoption of the HAP by resolution. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None at this time. OPTIONS: Motion to approve the Housing Action Plan by resolution; or take other action deemed appropriate RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Resolution 21-001 adopting the Housing Action Plan for the City of Spokane Valley. STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 21-001 (see separate white binder for Housing Action Plan documents) 1 of 1 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 21-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE HOUSING ACTION PLAN FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act allows cities to adopt a Housing Action Plan (HAP) as described in RCW 36.70A.600(2); and WHEREAS, the goal of a HAP is to encourage the construction of additional affordable and market rate housing in a greater variety of housing types at prices that are accessible to a variety of incomes; and WHEREAS, the City applied for and received grant funding from the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) to develop and adopt a HAP and used the grant funds to contract with Maul, Foster, and Alongi (MFA) to assist in the completion of the HAP; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C (SEPA), and Title 21 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the City issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the HAP on March 12, 2021; and WHEREAS, the requirements of SEPA and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled; and WHEREAS, on March 12 and 19, 2021, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing for the HAP was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2021, the City issued a press release on the availability of the HAP, and sent direct email to the HAP distribution list and stakeholders; and WHEREAS, prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing, the City created a rotating banner on the City's website that linked to the HAP project page, and published social media posts on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram about the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on April 8, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received evidence, information and public testimony followed by deliberations; and WHEREAS, on April 8, 2021, after reviewing and deliberating on the HAP, the Planning Commission moved and voted 7-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of the HAP; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2021, the Planning Commission approved findings and recommendations, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the grant agreement with the Washington State Department of Commerce and RCW 36.70A.600(2), the HAP is required to include the following components: a. A summary of community engagement: The development of the HAP and its strategies included a robust citizen engagement process, which is summarized in the HAP as Appendix D; Resolution 21-001 Adopting the 2021 Housing Action Plan Page 1 of 2 DRAFT b. Housing needs assessment: The housing needs assessment included in the HAP as Appendix A identifies the City's housing needs for all income segments with detailed information about the City's demographics, including population and employment trends; c. Recommended policy and code changes: Section 3 of the HAP includes policy and code changes. Section 3 and Appendix C of the HAP include an analysis of the City's housing element and associated policies in meeting planned housing within the City; d. Housing strategies: Sections 3 and 4 of the HAP identify strategies to increase the supply and variety of housing types and ways to minimize and reduce displacement of low-income residents; and e. Implementation plan: Section 4 of the HAP includes an overview of the strategies including proposed timing and potential needed resources for implementation. WHEREAS, the HAP is a planning document and does not amend the City's Comprehensive Plan or development regulations; and WHEREAS, the implementation of any recommended strategies in the HAP will undergo its own process for review, adoption, and engagement; and WHEREAS, consistent with the grant agreement with Washington State Department of Commerce, the HAP is required to be formally adopted by the City. NOW THEREFORE, be is resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the recitals above as findings for the adoption of the Housing Action Plan. The City Council hereby finds that the HAP complies with all state and local requirements, including the grant with the Washington State Department of Commerce, and RCW 36.70A.600(2). SECTION 2. Adoption. The City Council hereby adopts the Housing Action Plan, attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Adopted this 1st day of June 2021. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Ben Wick, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 21-001 Adopting the 2021 Housing Action Plan Page 2 of 2 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED HOUSING ACTION PLAN April 22, 2021 A. Background: 1. The GMA allows cities to adopt a Housing Action Plan (HAP) as described in RCW 36.70A.600(2). The goal of a HAP is to encourage the construction of additional affordable and market rate housing in a greater variety of housing types and at prices that are accessible to a greater variety of incomes, including strategies aimed at the for -profit single-family home market. 2. In September of 2019 the City chose to develop a HAP to inform and provide the City guidance on how to increase housing supply for a variety housing types at all income levels. 3. To assist with the development of the HAP, the City sought and received a $100,000 grant from the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce). The City used the grant to enter into a contract with Maul, Foster, and Alongi to complete the HAP. 4. The HAP provides policies and strategies that may be used to work towards addressing the housing needs within the City pursuant to the criteria in RCW 36.70A.600(2). The recommendations in the HAP were informed by public engagement, data analysis, review of existing planning documents and staff input. These recommendations are intended to be options for the City to consider for future implementation. The guidance provided in the HAP will be used as a basis for future conversations with City Council, Planning Commission, staff, stakeholders, renters, homeowners, advocates, developers and many others to determine which strategies may be appropriate to provide various housing types for our community. B. Findings: I. The HAP is a planning document to guide future City actions on housing. The HAP does not amend the City's Comprehensive Plan or development regulations. The HAP is intended to be used for guidance on future updates to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing development regulations. 2. Consistent with the grant agreement with Commerce, the HAP is required to be formally adopted by the City. Pursuant to the grant agreement with Commerce and RCW 36.70A.600(2), the HAP is required to include the following components: a. Summary of Community Engagement — HAP Appendix D b. Housing Needs Assessment — HAP Appendix A c. Recommended policy and code changes — HAP Section 3 d. Housing Strategies — HAP Section 3 e. Implementation Plan — HAP Section 4 3. The HAP contains all the necessary components and meets the requirements of RCW 36.70A.600(2) (a)-(f): a. Quantify existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, including extremely Iow- income households, with documentation of housing and household characteristics, and cost - burdened households. The Housing Needs Assessment included in the HAP as Appendix A identifies the City's housing needs for all income segments, and detailed information about the City's demographics. b. Develop strategies to increase the supply of housing, and variety of housing types, needed to serve the housing needs identified in (a) of this subsection. Section 3 and 4 of the HAP include strategies to increase the supply and variety of housing types identified in the Housing Needs Assessment. c. Analyze population and employment trends, with documentation of projections; The Housing Needs Assessment included in the HAP as Appendix A identifies population and employment trends. Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation 2021 Housing Action Plan Page 1 of 2 d. Consider strategies to minimize displacement of low-income residents resulting from redevelopment. Section 3 and 4 identify strategies to minimize and reduce displacement of low- income residents. Section 4 also identifies the potential of each strategy has on its ability to reduce displacement. e. Review and evaluate the current housing element adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070, including an evaluation of success in attaining planned housing types and units, achievement of goals and policies, and implementation of the schedule of programs and actions. Section 3 and Appendix C of the HAP include an analysis of the City's housing element and associated policies in meeting planned housing in the City. f. Provide for participation and input from community members, community groups, local builders, local realtors, nonprofit housing advocates, and local religious groups. The development of the HAP included a robust citizen engagement process; Appendix D provides a full summary of the engagement findings. g. Include a schedule of programs and actions to implement the recommendations of the housing action plan. Section 4 of the HAP includes an overview of each strategy including proposed timing and potential needed resources. 4. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C (SEPA), and Title 21 SVMC, the City issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the HAP on March 12, 2021. 5. The Planning Commission finds the procedural requirements of SEPA and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled. 6. On March 12 and 19, 2021, notice of the public hearing for the HAP was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald. 7. On March 25, 2021, the City issued a press release on the availability of the HAP. The City also sent direct email to the HAP distribution list and stakeholders. Prior to the public hearing, the City created a rotating banner on the City's website that linked to the HAP project page. The City created and published social media posts on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram about the public hearing. 8. On April 8, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed HAP. After receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and deliberated on the HAP. After reviewing and deliberating on the HAP, the Planning Commission moved and voted 7-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of the HAP. Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds compliance the procedural and substantive requirements for adopting the HAP have been met. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Housing Action Plan. Approved this 22" day of April, 2021. Robert McKinley, Chairman ATTEST Marianne Lemons, Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation 2021 Housing Action Plan Page 2 of 2 City of Spokane Valley Housing Action Plan Index Index Tab No. Summary of Amendment 1 Request for Planning Commission Action; Meeting Minutes and Presentation (Public Hearing) 2 Draft Housing Action Plan 3 Section 2 — Draft Housing Action Plan 4 Section 3 — Draft Housing Action Plan 5 Section 4 — Draft Housing Action Plan 6 A -Appendices — Draft Housing Action Plan 7 B Appendices — Draft Housing Action Plan 8 C Appendices — Draft Housing Action Plan 9 D Appendices — Draft Housing Action Plan 10 E Appendices — Draft Housing Action Plan 11 F Appendices — Draft Housing Action Plan 12 G Appendices — Draft Housing Action Plan 13 Public Comments TAB #1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: March 25, 2021 Item: Check all that apply n old business ❑ new business n public hearing n information ® study session n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Housing Action Plan (HAP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.600 PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: None BACKGROUND: During the 2019 legislative session, E2SHB 1923 was passed which encouraged cities to address their ability to provide housing, and especially more affordable housing, by increasing urban residential capacity. Cities could accomplish these objectives by either adopting a set of zoning amendments or by adopting a HAP. In September of 2019, the City chose to develop a HAP to inform and provide guidance on housing. A HAP defines strategies and implementing actions that promote greater housing diversity and affordability for residents of all income levels. The HAP includes four main components: a Housing Needs Assessment, a review of policies and regulations affecting housing development, strategies to increase housing based on needs, and an implementation plan. To assist with the implementation of E2SHB 1923 the Department of Commerce (DOC) offered grants up to $100,000 to develop and adopt a HAP. In November of 2019 the City was awarded the full grant amount, and in April 2020 entered into a contract with DOC, and in May 2020, the City entered into a contract with Maul, Foster, and Alongi (MFA) to complete the HAP. MFA and their sub -consultant ECONorthwest have completed the HAP. This document is now ready for Planning Commission review. The purpose of the document is to assist the City in accommodating additional housing through 2037. This planning period is defined by the Growth Management Act and cities are required to evaluate their success in attaining planned housing types and units throughout this timeframe. The HAP identifies strategies to promote housing development to assist the City in meeting the projected housing needs. The recommendations in the HAP are meant to encourage more housing for people of all income levels. The HAP provides policies and strategies that could be used to meet the housing needs within the City. The recommendations in the HAP were informed by public engagement, data analysis, review of existing planning documents and staff input. These recommendations are intended to be options for the City to consider for future implementation. The guidance provided in the HAP will be used as a basis for future conversations with staff, stakeholders, renters, homeowners, advocates, developers and many others to determine which strategies should be used to ensure the City has the ability to provide the necessary housing for our community. Tonight, staff will provide an overview of the HAP and the anticipated adoption process and timeline. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Presentation 2. Draft Housing Action Plan and Appendices (white binder. Please keep the binder for the duration of the recommendation process) RPCA Study Session for Housing Action Plan Page 1 of 1 Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall March 25, 2021 I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Karl Granrath Walt Haneke Bob McKinley Nancy Miller Paul Rieckers Sherri Robinson Erik Lamb, City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant III. AGENDA: Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the March 25, 2021 meeting agenda as presented There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Rieckers moved to approve the March 11, 2021 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Commission Reports. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Deliberations: Shoreline Master Program — Legislative Update. Senior Planner Chaz Bates requested that the Planning Commission make a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of the Shoreline Master Program. He explained that the Department of Ecology did not start their public comment period as planned so the City is going to move forward with their standard approval process. It will be submitted to the Department of Ecology after adoption and they will run their own comment period. The City received two written public comments on this matter. One was received from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and one from a private resident. Mr. Bates stated that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to maintain consistency with state and local policies. 1 03-25-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Rieckers asked if the comments received from the private resident have been addressed. Mr. Bates answered that it is not typical to make a formal response to received comments. They are just included in the documentation for consideration by the Planning Commission when making their decision. Commissioner Haneke asked if there would be a way to exclude Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) from the shoreline in the future. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb answered that a code text amendment could be done to exclude ADU's but it would have to go through the formal process. Commissioner Haneke stated that he is not in favor of ADU's along the shoreline and is concerned about making the process easier. Commissioner Robinson moved to recommend that the City Council approve the 2021 Shoreline Master Program update. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. b. Public Hearing: CTA-2020-0004: Title 24 Update The public hearing was opened at 6:22 pm. Building Official Jenny Nickerson gave a presentation regarding the proposed update to Title 24 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The reason for the request is Title 24 adopts the Washington State Building Codes and the 2018 editions of all building codes replaced the 2015 editions as of February 1, 2021 in the state of Washington. The amendment will align the language of Title 24 SVMC with the state adoption of the codes. She explained that the proposed changes are predominantly housekeeping. The current SVMC has some outdated Washington Administrative Code (WAC) references that need to be corrected and the language regarding land disturbance needs to be aligned to provide permit processing consistency. These changes include new language that outlines that a land disturbance permit may be required when more than 50 cubic yards of fill is removed or four feet of unsupported excavation occurs. Joel White, Executive Officer with the Spokane Home Builders Association (SHBA) stated that the adoption of the 2018 building codes has added a projected $20,000 to the cost to build a typical single-family home and there is a big concern of the SHBA regarding all of the new changes based on this adoption. He explained that he is working with other members to find out how much these proposed changes will affect builders in the area. The public hearing was closed at 6:50 p.m. Commissioner Haneke stated that he would like to know from Mr. White if the SHBA is still reviewing the repercussions of this adoption. The public hearing was reopened at 6:52 p.m. to receive additional comment from Mr. White. Mr. White responded that there are a few members of the SHBA looking into this matter. He doesn't feel that these changes are a huge issue but the SHBA is definitely concerned about the additional single-family home costs and these additional land disturbance permits could add even more cost. Commissioner Beaulac and Commissioner Haneke stated they would like to continue the public hearing to the next meeting to get additional information from the SHBA members 2 03-25-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 before making a recommendation. The remaining members expressed that they are ready to move forward with a recommendation The public hearing was closed again at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Miller moved to recommend approval of CTA-2020-0004 to the City Council. Commissioner Granrath stated that there are some major housing issues that need to be addressed but this matter is mostly housekeeping and can be sent to City Council with a recommendation to approve. Commissioner McKinley stated that he is aware of unintended costs attributed to these types of changes but he agrees that it is a housekeeping item that does need to be passed along. The vote on the motion was five in favor, two against, with Commissioner Haneke and Commissioner Beaulac dissenting and the motion passed. A brief recess was called at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:32. c. Study Session: Housing Action Plan Chaz Bates gave a presentation on the Housing Action Plan (HAP). He explained that Washington legislation passed a bill (E2SHB 1923) in 2019 encouraging increased residential capacity through adoption of regulatory mechanisms or adoption of a HAP. The City decided to develop a HAP and was given a $100,000 grant from the Department of Commerce to hire the consulting firms to develop it. The HAP identifies strategies and implementing actions to promote housing for all income levels by providing housing diversity, housing affordability, and increased access to opportunity for housing. The plan is developed by the gathering of data and public input. However, the strategies and action are adopted at a later time. The HAP has four basic elements which includes a housing needs assessment, a housing policy review, proposed strategies and actions, and a proposed implementation plan. Mr. Bates explained that the housing needs assessment provides information on existing housing inventory, the projected housing needs, population trends, and employment trends. The assessment shows that the City is lacking diversity in housing stock and will need at least 6,660 new housing units by the year 2037 to handle new growth. However, 45% of these homes will be occupied by residents who make less than the Area Medium Income (AMI). This means that there is a growing need for affordable housing and the HAP is geared towards making sure that there are options for all residents. Mr. Bates stated that the housing policy review looks to see if the proposed strategies align with identified needs, align with community vision and engagement, identifies regulatory barriers, and evaluates available programs. The policy review identified that there is a need for housing for incomes below the AMI and housing that offer more affordable ownership options. Mr. Bates said that the housing strategies and actions outlined in the plan are based on five criteria. This includes zoning and other regulatory strategies, process improvements, affordable housing incentives, funding for affordable housing, and mitigating displacement. The three strategic goals outlined are to preserve affordable housing and mitigate displacement, increase both market -rate and affordable housing supply by creating focus zones that allow multifamily and missing -middle housing, and increase housing options and housing choice. Missing -middle housing includes duplexes, cottages 3 03-25-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 and townhomes because they provide a spectrum of affordability options. The implementation plan identifies steps to achieve strategies and a monitoring program. Commissioner Beaulac asked how the HAP will remain relevant and up-to-date as things change over time. Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger answered that staff has policies and goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and one of the goals could be that the HAP is reviewed annually to make sure that it remains consistent with trends. Also, the long-term strategies included in the HAP will be used to create code text amendments in the future to implement areas of the plan. This item will return to the Planning Commission for public hearing on April 8, 2021. IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Robinson moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Bob McKinley, Chair Deanna Horton, Secretary Date signed r/--/ 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: April 8, 2021 Item: Check all that apply n old business n new business 171 public hearing n information ❑ study session n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Housing Action Plan (HAP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.600 PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: Study Session, March 25, 2021 BACKGROUND: During the 2019 legislative session, E2SHB 1923 was passed which encouraged cities to address their ability to provide housing, and especially more affordable housing, by increasing urban residential capacity. In September of 2019, the City chose to develop a HAP to inform and provide guidance on housing. A HAP defines strategies and implementing actions that promote greater housing diversity and affordability for residents of all income levels. The HAP includes four main components: a Housing Needs Assessment, a review of policies and regulations affecting housing development, strategies to increase housing based on needs, and an implementation plan. To assist with the implementation of E2SHB 1923 the Department of Commerce (DOC) offered grants up to $100,000 to develop and adopt a HAP. In November of 2019 the City was awarded the full grant amount, and in April 2020 entered into a contract with DOC, and in May 2020, the City entered into a contract with Maul, Foster, and Alongi (MFA) to complete the HAP. MFA and their sub -consultant ECONorthwest have completed the HAP. The purpose of the document is to assist the City in accommodating additional housing through 2037. This planning period is defined by the Growth Management Act and cities are required to evaluate their success in attaining planned housing types and units throughout this timeframe. The HAP identifies strategies to promote housing development to assist the City in meeting the projected housing needs. The recommendations in the HAP are meant to encourage more housing for people of all income levels. The HAP provides policies and strategies that could be used to meet the housing needs within the City. The recommendations in the HAP were informed by public engagement, data analysis, review of existing planning documents and staff input. These recommendations are intended to be options for the City to consider for future implementation. The guidance provided in the HAP will be used as a basis for future conversations with staff, stakeholders, renters, homeowners, advocates, developers and many others to determine which strategies should be used to ensure the City has the ability to provide the necessary housing for our community. On March 12, 2021, the City has determined that the adoption of the HAP did do not have a probable significant adverse impacts on the environment and issued a Determination of Non -Significance. On March 25, 2021, staff provided an overview of the proposed HAP. Tonight, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing for the purpose of taking public testimony on the HAP. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that the Planning Commission approve and forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of the Housing Action Plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Presentation 2. Please bring your white binder with the draft HAP and appendices. RPCA Study Session for 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update Page 1 of 1 Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall April 8, 2021 I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Karl Granrath Walt Haneke Bob McKinley Nancy Miller Paul Rieckers Sherri Robinson Erik Lamb, City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Administrative Assistant III. AGENDA: Commissioner Rieckers moved to approve the April 8, 2021 meeting agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Miller moved to approve the March 25, 2021 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Robinson expressed concern about the fire access being padlocked for the Revere Ridge apartments on Union Road. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: Connie Jensen, Spokane Valley: Ms. Jensen stated that there is an apartment complex being constructed next to the cul-de-sac where she lives and she is concerned that the new owner/developer of the apartment complex will not adhere to the original conditions of approval. She wants to make sure that the cul-de-sac will still receive the promised fire gate and that Pines Road will be widened to accommodate the additional traffic. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Findings Of Fact: CTA-2020-0004 — Title 24 Update Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger presented the Findings of Fact for CTA-2020-0004, Title 24 Update for approval. He explained that the code text 1 04-08-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 amendment was modifying Chapters 24.40 and 24.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and was approved for recommendation by the Planning Commission at the March 25, 2021 meeting. Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the Planning Commission Findings of Fact for CTA-2020-0004 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. b. Public Hearing: Housing Action Plan The public hearing was opened at 6: 21 pm. Senior Planner Chaz Bates gave a presentation on the Housing Action Plan (HAP). He explained that Washington legislation passed a bill (E2SHB 1923) in 2019 encouraging increased residential capacity through adoption of regulatory mechanisms or adoption of a HAP. The City decided to develop a HAP and was awarded a $100,000 grant from the Department of Commerce to hire the consulting firm to assist in developing it. The HAP identifies strategies and implementing actions to promote housing for all income levels by providing housing diversity, housing affordability, and increased access to opportunity for housing. The plan was developed by the gathering of data and public input. However, the strategies and action are adopted at a later time. The HAP has four basic elements which includes a housing needs assessment, a housing policy review, proposed strategies and actions, and a proposed implementation plan. Mr. Bates explained that the housing needs assessment provides information on existing housing inventory, the projected housing needs, population trends, and employment trends. The assessment shows that the City is lacking diversity in housing stock and will need at least 6,660 new housing units by the year 2037 to handle new growth. However, 45% of these homes will be occupied by residents who make less than the Area Medium Income (AMI). This means that there is a growing need for affordable housing and the HAP is geared towards making sure that there are options for all residents. Mr. Bates stated that the housing policy review looks to see if the proposed strategies align with identified needs, align with community vision and engagement, identifies regulatory barriers, and evaluates available programs. The policy review identified that there is a need for housing for incomes below the AMI and housing that offer more affordable ownership options. Mr. Bates said that the housing strategies and actions outlined in the plan are based on five criteria. This includes zoning and other regulatory strategies, process improvements, affordable housing incentives, funding for affordable housing, and mitigating displacement. The three strategic goals outlined are to preserve affordable housing and mitigate displacement, increase both market -rate and affordable housing supply by creating focus zones that allow multifamily and missing -middle housing, and increase housing options and housing choice. Missing -middle housing includes duplexes, cottages and townhomes because they provide a spectrum of affordability options. The goal in the HAP to preserve affordable housing and mitigate displacement includes monitoring regulated properties, retaining affordable market rate units, using caution when proposing land use changes in areas at risk for displacement, providing tenant support, and providing homeowner assistance. The HAP proposes to increase market -rate and 2 04-08-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 affordable housing supplies in zones that allow multifamily and missing -middle housing by modifying the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to encourage production of townhomes and cottages, adopt a multifamily tax exemption program, create incentives to produce additional affordable housing, and adopt a planned action ordinance that allows large, mixed use phased developments to occur. In order to increase housing options and housing choices, the HAP proposes updating regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), allowing for tiny homes, planning for homeless shelters and transitional housing, and developing a housing fund program. The implementation plan identifies steps to achieve strategies and a monitoring program. Commissioner Miller asked how tiny homes will fit into the character of Spokane Valley and how the approval process will work. Mr. Bates answered that tiny homes are not currently allowed in the City limits so a code -text amendment would have to go through the public process of approval. Commissioner Miller also asked who monitors the Cities rent restricted properties. Mr. Bates answered that the City does not have anyone who monitors these properties so this proposal is to create a program or adopt an existing program. Commissioner Beaulac asked if the HAP is consistent with the other Cities in the area. He feels that they should be similar throughout the County. Mr. Bates answered that he has been in constant contact with the City of Spokane and the consulting agency that produced the HAP also created the one for the City of Spokane. Commission Beaulac also asked about the tax exemption program. Mr. Bates answered that the exemption could exempt the improvements done on the property but will retain the base value of the property for taxes. The exemption would last for either eight or twelve years but if a property is granted a twelve-year exemption, it would have to have an affordable housing component. Commissioner Haneke asked if there is enough land available in the City limits to meet the housing requirements based on current zoning and density. Mr. Bates answered that the projections are based on the land capacity analysis that was done in 2016. However, changes will have to occur in order to allow for the additional housing types to be incorporated onto the available land. The matter was opened to the public for comment. Darin Watkins, Government Affairs Director for the Spokane Association of Realtors: Mr. Watkins stated that the Association is disappointed in the projections that were made in the HAP. He feels that the data is too old to provide adequate numbers and the information is already outdated. He stated that the Association developed an assessment of the Spokane region outlining the market -based needs throughout the area. It outlines a 94% reduction in housing availability since 2010, escalating home prices (70% increase in home prices over the last five years), and a lack of inventory that leads to more people renting. Currently, there are only 106 homes for sale in Spokane County and only five of those are under $250,000.00. He expressed that the solutions proposed are similar between the Association's assessment and the HAP but he would like to make sure that all housing gaps are addressed and are based on current numbers of the 2020 census. Jennifer Wilcox, Spokane Valley: Ms. Wilcox stated that she is a proponent of the HAP because she feels that the there are many encouraging solutions proposed to 3 04-08-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 address the lack of housing availability. She feels that the goals outlined are good representations of the strategies needed for a growing city. One of the action items is to provide housing assistance and she feels that will help residents to be more receptive to affordable housing options. She stated that she is also a proponent of the proposed housing fund because it would provide a source of flexible funding specifically for housing needs. The public hearing was closed at 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Granrath commented that he would like to see the HAP updated regularly with current numbers when they become available. Commissioner Haneke moved to approve and forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of the Housing Action Plan. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Mr. Bates explained that the Findings of Fact will be returned to the Commission at the April 22' 2021 meeting. IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Beaulac moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:32 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Bob McKinley, Chair Marianne Lemons, Secretary Date signed 4 Housing Action Plan Planning Commission Public Hearing April 8, 2021 Chaz Bates, Senior Planner History Refresher WA Legislature passes E2S H B 1923 in 2019 Encourages increased residential capacity Adoption of regulatory mechanisms, OR Adoption of Housing Action Plan $100,000 grant to complete the work Adoption by June 30, 2021 Hired Maul, Foster and Alongi and ECONorthwest Housing Action Plan - Public Hearing 2 HAP -Community Engagement Tactics under COVID restrictions project web page, online surveys, stakeholder interviews, View (City newsletter), on -hold messages, media blasts (email, social and news) Survey highlights Both renting and buying affordability was an issue Single family housing type favored; interest in cottages and tow n h o m es Stakeholder highlights Funding limited for affordable housing units Limited inventory of starter / missing middle homes Encourage partnerships Project Update In March 202t, the project team finalized the draft Housing Action Plan (HAP) document. The draft Housing Action Plan (HAP) provides the City with a set of clear, actionable strategies to meet current and future housing needs based on community input, stakeholder interviews, policy and regulatory reviews and a housing needs assessment. The strategies identified in the HAP are recommendations. Strategies it pursues the will require further guidance and action by the City. The staff will present the draft HAP at the April 8 Planning Commission hearing. We welcome your feedback on the HAP! Review the draft Housing Action Plan Ways to share your feedback: • Email your comments to cbates@spokanevalfey.org • Leave a voicemail with your comments at (509) 720-5337 • Make a public comment at the April 8, 2021 Planning Commission hearing - Find hearing detail's, information on how to provide a public comment and information at the Planning Commission website. Following the April 8 Planning Commission hearing the project team will finalize the HAP and present it to the City Council for final adoption in June 2021. ago 1.E{Y WIFE JULY U6 SEPT OCT NW DEC FEB MLR r7R lay pm COMMUNITY E NGAE MF NT MOM Cornelunite Eng.,. ken stakeholder Inter.. 11.11111. Community Sum, HOUSING RI%I AkCH AND 0. NAIY515 Nov.,/ NxCSASSesmeM HOPJ fl RAM ant CCdi minriossass . Housing Action Plan - Public Hearing 3 What Does a Housing Action Plan Include Housing Needs Assessment Housing Policy " Strategies and Review Actions Housing Action Plan - Public Hearing Implementation Plan Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) Existing housing inventory Type, age, and amount Projected housing needs For all income levels Population trends Employment trends SPOKANE VALLEY HOUSING ACTION PLAN HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT, OCTOBER 2020 Housing Action Plan - Public Hearing 5 City's Housing Needs Assessment Population trends Millennials doubled - 21,144 Seniors continued growth - 20,910 Employment trends Growth in sectors below 100% AMI Housing stock lacks diversity Lacking SF Attached (only 9%) Housing Needs 6,660 new units by 2037 Share of Housing By Type, as of Mid-2020 Housing Type Average Age % of Housing Single-family Detached Apartment/Condo Single-family Attached Mobile/Manufactured Home 46 36 38 38 66% 20% 9% 5% Housing Units Needed by AMI Through 2037, Based on 2018 Trends AMI # of Units % of Units 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% 100%+ Housing Action Plan - Public Hearing 550 625 1,039 686 3,760 8% 9% 16% 10% 56% Housing Policy and Regulation Review Aligned with identified needs Types and affordability levels Aligned with community vision and engagement Identify regulatory barriers Lot sizes, density, parking Evaluation of programs Multi Family Tax Exemption, bonus density, fee waivers 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. 5: hark. Valley Municipal Code, Appendix A Image Credit: Realtar.com 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. S^.reee: Spokane Valley Municipal Lode, Appendix A I:: ::udons Image Credit: The Cottage Company Housing Action Plan - Public Hearing City's Housing Policy and Regulation Review Identified needs Housing for incomes below 100% AMI Need to increase housing production Aligned with vision and engagement More affordable ownership options Identified regulatory barriers Density limits Potential programs Multi Family Tax Exemption Townhouse Analysis MFTE Analysis Housing Action Plan - Public Hearing $19.8 22 du/a c 15.9 r $ 28.6 til.ifrn'., . du/ac 22 du/ac $26.5 22 du/ac & 12-Yea r MFTE $42.9 40 du/ac $55.2 40 du/ac & 12-Yea r MFTE 8 Housing Strategies & Actions Zoning and other regulatory strategies Process improvements Affordable housing incentives Funding for affordable housing Mitigating displacement Relax Ground Floor Retail Req. R-2 Reduce Off -Street Parking Req. R-1 Upzone MFTE A-1 0000a 00000 "0" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 r: r- Housing Action Plan - Public Hearing Bonus Height or Density for Affordable Housing A-2 00000 fl 11 DL)UOD 0 r] 0 0 03000 0 0 Planned Action P-4 Raise Height Limit Z-4 0000 Data SEPA Threshold Exemptions P-1 14111 Exemption P-2 0000 0000 OC.V0 Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning A-5 Missing -Middle Housing Z-6 Emmir Form Based Code R-4 Subarea Plan P-3 Streamline Permitting P-5 DOM"! )0 0 AD Us 2-8 rcio @n 9 City's Housing Strategies & Actions Three Strategic Goals: Preserve affordable housing and mitigate displacement. Increase both market -rate and affordable housing supply, in zones that allow multifamily and missing - middle housing Increase housing options and housing choice. Missing Middle Housing Types Defined Missing middle housing includes duplexes, cottages, and townhouses. These housing types support retail, and public transportation options. They provide a spectrum of affordability options to address the mismatch between the available housing stock and shifting demographics. Housing Action Plan - Public Hearing City's Housing Strategies & Actions Preserve affordable housing and mitigate displacement. • Monitor regulated properties • Retain affordable market rate units • Use caution when proposing land use changes in areas at risk for displacement • Provide tenant support • Provide homeowner assistance 4gend Limit$ a . .^.a: ement Vulnerability •-_rabl,lry keel by Block'vro.p o HS..h Vu-nerb;'y ` 8 ■7 5 4 3 2 AAeC:urn V`. lnera b I ry ow VWne,ab.I ty Housing Action Plan - Public Hearing 11 City's Housing Strategies & Actions Increase market -rate and affordable housing supply, in zones that allow multifamily and missing -middle housing ■ Modify the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to encourage production of townhomes and cottages ■ Adopt the 8-year and/or 12-year Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program ■ Create incentives to produce additional market rate and affordable housing ■ Adopt a planned action ordinance(s) in subareas with transit investment or where large, mixed -use phased developments can occur Housing Action Plan - Public Hearing $42.9 22 du/ac 22 du/ac & 40 du/ac 40 Diu/ac & 12-Year 12-Year MFTF MFTE Analysis METE 12 City's Housing Strategies & Actions Increase housing options and housing choice. • Update regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units • Allow for tiny homes • Plan for homeless shelters and transitional housing • Develop a housing fund program Housing Action Plan - Public Hearing GARAGE CONVERSION A Accessory dwelling writs (or ADUs) come In many shapes and styles. 13 Housing Implementation Plan Identify implementation strategies to achieve housing goals, include: Responsible parties Type of action Priority Funding options/sources STRATEGY F'I{IMAI{Y LtAUbc RELATED ELEMENT(S) TIMING PRIORITY ELEMENT PARTNERS Revise and update the City's website to meet accessibility standards, increase search engine optimization, improve user experience and streamline and simplify content. Evaluate and develop criteria to assist in the evaluation of annexations. Streamline permitting procedures to advance our business friendly environment based on feed back from business and landowners, developers, etc. Collaborate with the private sector to facilitate the successful redevelopment of Mirabeau Point. Coordinate transportation planning efforts with • Economic Development i Economic Development Land Use Housing Action Plan - Public Hearing • Land Use E.D. Division Ongoing HIGH E.D. Division 2019 HIGH • Building Division Ongoing HIGH • • E.D. Division 2020 HIGH E.D. and Engineering City's Housing Implementation Plan Identify steps to achieve strategies, including: Type of action Implementation lead/partners Funding and resources Proposed timing Target households and reduce displacement Monitoring program Figure 17. Summary of Recommended Actions and Implementation Considerations Goal A: Preservation of Affordable Housing and Displacement Mitigation. Task Description Type of Action Needed Implementation Lead/ Partners Potential Operational Funding and Staff Resources Proposed Timing Action Al: Monitor Rent -Restricted Properties Household Incomes Targeted: Low -Income (below 60%ANT) Moderate-wcome (60-80%AMI) I Middle -income (80-120%AMI} High -Income (above 120% AMI) Ability to Reduce Displacement: I Low Moderate High Document the level of effort and staffing resources needed to establish a monitoring program and identify the potential for a community partner to lead the effort. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time Short-term If City chooses to advance past fhe first task, then... Creation of contact list Tor all rent -restricted affordable housing properties and property owner/managers in Spokane Valley. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator or Community partner Existing staff time Short-term, ongoing Establish a data sharing relationship with housing providers. Provide them with a reporting agreement with reporting information and deadlines. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator or Community partner Existing staff time Short-term, ongoing Create a database and mapping system to monitor that flags at risk regulated properties of and plan for these upcoming expirations. Administrative Economic Development Division or Community partner Existing staff time Short-term, ongoing Develop a shareable database of funding sources that are available to support recapitalization and rehabilitation. Action A2: Retain Affordable Market Rate Units Household Incomes Targeted: Low-income (below 60% ANG) Administrative Moderate -income (60-80% AMI) Economic Development Division or Community partner Existing staff time Short-term, ongoing Middle -income (80-120% AMI) High -income (above 120% AMI) Ability to Reduce Displacement: I Low Moderate High Develop a work plan for and identify staffing needs and potential partners for the creation of a rental -housing monitoring program_ Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time Short -terra ItCity chooses to advance past the first task, then... Work directly with the Landlord Association to identify and mitigate challenges with the establishment of a monitoring program. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator or Community partner Existing staff time Short-term, ongoing Housing Action Plan - Public Hearing 15 Housing Action Plan Adoption Timeline City Council Admin Report 05/18/21 C06/01/21 1] 106/15/21 I Housing Action Plan - Public Hearing Questions Spokane jValley® Housing Action Plan - Public Hearing 17 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: April 22, 2021 Item: Check all that apply n old business Fl new business n public hearing n information ❑ study session n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Housing Action Plan (HAP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.600 PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: Study Session, March 25, 2021, Public Hearing, April 8, 2021 BACKGROUND: A HAP defines strategies and implementing actions that promote greater housing diversity and affordability for residents of all income levels. The HAP includes four main components: a Housing Needs Assessment, a review of policies and regulations affecting housing development, strategies to increase housing based on needs, and an implementation plan. To assist with the implementation of E2SHB 1923 the Department of Commerce (DOC) offered grants up to $100,000 to develop and adopt a HAP. On September 24, 2019, the City Council authorized staff to apply for a grant from DOC to develop and adopt a HAP. In November of 2019 the City was awarded the full grant amount, and in April 2020 entered into a contract with DOC, and in May 2020, the City entered into a contract with Maul, Foster, and Alongi (MFA) to complete the HAP. MFA and their sub -consultant ECONorthwest have completed the HAP. The purpose of the document is to assist the City in accommodating additional housing through 2037. This planning period is defined by the Growth Management Act and cities are required to evaluate their success in attaining planned housing types and units throughout this timeframe. The HAP identifies strategies to promote housing development to assist the City in meeting the projected housing needs. The recommendations in the HAP are meant to encourage more housing for people of all income levels. The HAP provides policies and strategies that could be used to meet the housing needs within the City. The recommendations in the HAP were informed by public engagement, data analysis, review of existing planning documents and staff input. These recommendations are intended to be options for the City to consider for future implementation. The guidance provided in the HAP will be used as a basis for future conversations with staff, stakeholders, renters, homeowners, advocates, developers and many others to determine which strategies should be used to ensure the City has the ability to provide the necessary housing for our community. On March 12, 2021, the City determined that the adoption of the HAP did not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and issued a Determination of Non -Significance. On March 25, 2021, staff provided an overview of the proposed HAP. On April 8, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed HAP. After receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and deliberated on the HAP. After reviewing and deliberating on the HAP, the Planning Commission moved and voted 7-0 to forward the HAP to City Council with a recommendation of approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that the Planning Commission adopt the findings and recommendations and forward to City Council a recommendation of approval of the Housing Action Plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Findings and Recommendations for the Proposed Housing Action Plan 2. Public Comment - Spokane Regional Housing Needs Summit, submitted at Public Hearing RPCA Findings and Recommendations for HAP Page 1 of 1 Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall April 22, 2021 I. Planning Commission Vice -Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Karl Granrath Walt Haneke Bob McKinley, absent Nancy Miller Paul Rieckers Sherri Robinson Erik Lamb, City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant There was a consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Chairman McKinley from the meeting. III. AGENDA: Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the April 22, 2021 meeting agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Haneke moved to approve the April 8, 2021 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Planning Commission reports. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson reminded the Planning Commission of a webinar to be held on Saturday April 24, 2021 regarding Roberts Rules Of Order (Mastering the Meeting). VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Findings Of Fact: Housing Action Plan Senior Planner Chaz Bates presented the Findings of Fact for the Housing Action Plan (HAP) for approval. He stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed HAP at the April 8, 2021 meeting. After receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission moved and voted 7-0 to forward the HAP to City Council with a 1 04-22-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 recommendation of approval. He explained that the approval of the Findings of Fact will formalize the recommendations that were made at the public hearing. Commissioner Haneke moved to approve the Planning Commission Findings of Fact for the Housing Action Plan as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Miller commented that legislation regarding condominiums is headed to the Governor's office for approval. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Haneke moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:11 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Bob McKinley, Chair Date signed Marianne Lemons, Secretary 2 TAB #2 DRAFT HOUSING ACTION PLAN •. MAUL FOSTER ALONGI ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING Prepared for CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Prepared by Maul Foster & Along'', Inc. 2815 2nd Avenue, Suite 540, Seattle, WA 98121 DRAFT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc., in collaboration with ECONorthwest, prepared this report for City of Spokane Valley. We are grateful to the numerous staff, elected officials, and community members who participated in this process and provided feedback to shape the plan. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL • Councilmember Rod Higgins - (position 1) • Councilmember Brandi Peetz — (position 2) - Deputy Mayor • Councilmember Arne Woodard — (position 3) • Councilmember Ben Wick — (position 4) - Mayor • Councilmember Pam Haley — (position 5) • Councilmember Tim Hattenburg — (position 6) • Councilmember Linda Thompson — (position 7) CONSULTANT TEAM • Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc • ECONorthwest SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY MEMBERS (ALPHABETICAL ORDER) • Lanzce Douglas, Douglas Properties • Deb Elzinga, Community Frameworks • Jim Frank, Greenstone • Michelle Girardot, Habitat for Humanity • Rob Higgins, Spokane Association of REALTORS • Julie Honekamp, SNAP WA • Ray Kimball, Whipple Engineering • Jonathan Mallahan, Catholic Charities • Jennyfer Mesa, Latinos en Spokane • Dave Roberts, Spokane Housing Ventures • Ben Stuckart, Spokane Low Income Housing Consortium • Todd Walton, Inland Development • Darin Watkins, Spokane Association of REALTORS • Joel White Spokane, Home Builders Association PAGE II DRAFT CONTENTS 1 PURPOSE 1 1.1 OVERVIEW 1 1.2 ORGANIZATION 2 2 SUPPORTING DATA AND ANALYSIS 3 2.1 SUMMARY OF HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 3 2.2 SUMMARY OF POLICY AND REGULATORY ASSESSMENT 15 2.3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 18 2.4 DISPLACEMENT RISK ANALYSIS 23 2.5 DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 25 3 HOUSING STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS 29 3.1 SUMMARY OF HOUSING STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS 30 3.2 ASSESSMENT OF HOUSING STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS 35 4 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 54 4.1 DEVELOP AND ASSIGN WORK PROGRAMS 54 4.2 USE TO INFORM HOUSING POLICY AND PLANNING PROJECTS 62 4.3 MONITOR IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS 62 APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT APPENDIX B HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT METHODS AND DATA SOURCES APPENDIX C HOUSING POLICY FRAMEWORK APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT APPENDIX E DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY AND MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ANALYSIS APPENDIX F AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDING SOURCES APPENDIX G ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND TINY HOME POLICY ANALYSIS PAGE III DRAFT 1 PURPOSE 1.1 Overview The City of Spokane Valley's (City) Housing Action Plan (HAP) defines strategies and implementing actions that promote greater housing diversity, affordability, and access to opportunity for residents of all income levels. This HAP is meant to implement a voluntary program of the Growth Management Act and fulfill a State of Washington Department of Commerce grant that Spokane Valley received through House Bill 1923 which aims to: • Quantify existing and projected housing needs for all income levels with documentation of housing and household characteristics. • Develop strategies to increase the supply of housing, and the variety of housing types, needed to serve the housing needs identified above. • Analyze population and employment trends, with documentation of projections. • Consider strategies to minimize low-income residents' displacement resulting from redevelopment. • Review and evaluate the current housing element adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070, including an evaluation of success in attaining planned housing types and units, achievement of goals and policies, and implementation of the schedule of programs and actions. • Provide for participation and input from community members, community groups, local builders, local realtors, nonprofit housing advocates, and local religious groups. • Include a schedule of programs and actions to implement the recommendations of this HAP. The purpose of this HAP is to: • Provide an overview of the housing landscape and planning environment. • Help the City plan for additional housing through 2037 by providing key data and analysis on the current housing inventory and future housing need in Spokane Valley. • Highlight current City development regulations and incentives that are effective. • Identify strategies that consider emerging development issues to promote housing development that will help meet Spokane Valley's projected housing needs. • Recommend actions that will encourage more housing development at all income levels to accommodate future and current residents. PAGE 1 DRAFT To develop this HAP, the City assessed housing needs, reviewed housing policies, and engaged the public. The results have led to three key housing objectives that are addressed in this HAP: • Preserve affordable housing and prevent or mitigate displacement. • Increase market -rate and affordable housing supply throughout Spokane Valley, but focus on areas that support multifamily and "missing -middle" housing types. • Increase housing options and housing choice. 1.2 Organization This HAP is organized as follows: • Supporting Data and Analysis offers background on the housing needs analysis, policy and regulatory review, and public engagement. • Housing Recommendations offers 13 policy and program recommendations as Spokane Valley works toward increasing housing supply through 2037. • Implementation Plan that provides Spokane Valley with near -term actions for City Councilmembers to consider. • Appendices provide technical appendices that support this HAP, including the full public engagement plan, data, methods for key parts of the analysis, affordable housing information, and the policy review. PAGE 2 DRAFT TAB" 2 SUPPORTING DATA AND ANALYSIS Incorporated in 2003, the City is the second most populated city in Spokane County, behind the City of Spokane. Spokane Valley can be described as an auto -oriented suburban community with commercial areas and improving mass transit service. Spokane Valley's population is currently 97,490 (Washington Office of Financial Management [OFM], 2020) and has increased by 25,246 people since 2003, translating to a 17.5 percent increase, which equates to an average of approximately one percent of growth per year. Spokane Valley is projected to add 14,103 more residents between 2018 and 2037 (OFM, 2020). The housing market in Spokane Valley has not kept pace with this increased demand brought on by new residents (ECONorthwest, 2020). This underproduction is one important factor in rising rents and home prices. To accommodate new residents, developers in Spokane Valley will need to produce housing at a modestly faster rate than has been done over the past ten years. The new unit production will also have to accommodate households across the income spectrum. The confluence of population growth with a need for more housing spurs many questions: What income and demographic characteristics will future households have? Where will households live and in what housing types? The answers to these questions and the ability of future households to meet their housing needs depend on decisions and policy choices that the City makes today. In response to the housing challenges facing many of its residents, the City has worked locally and regionally to analyze data on the housing needs of current and future residents and to develop strategies that can support housing at a variety of price points to meet these needs. Housing markets function at a regional scale so it can be challenging for individual jurisdictions to adequately address this issue on its own. Partnerships and coordination throughout the broader county/region will be needed to successfully implement this HAP. 2.1 Summary of Housing Needs Assessment The housing needs assessment fact packet (Appendix A) synthesizes background information on the current housing inventory, demographics, and employment trends in Spokane Valley. This assessment helps inform the development of potential strategies. In particular, the housing needs assessment focuses on housing affordability issues and identifies the types of housing that the City should plan for in the future. The data source for the following summary is predominantly 2018 and 2019 data from the OFM, with additional data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Public Use Micro Sample (PUMS) and American Community Survey (ACS). The methods and sources used to develop the housing needs assessment fact packet and the information below are found in Appendix B. PAGE 3 DRAFT 2.1.1 Spokane Valley Employment Trends EMPLOYMENT IN SPOKANE VALLEY CONTINUES TO GROW. The City's total employment grew from 46,205 jobs in 2010 to 51,305 jobs in 2017, an increase of 5,100 jobs (11 percent change). The top three largest industry sectors, in terms of total employment, were: (1) Retail Trade, with 10,032 employees; (2) Manufacturing, with 6,686 employees; and (3) Health Care and Social Services, with 6,273 employees. Combined, these industry sectors represent 45 percent of Spokane Valley's total employment base. The sectors with the greatest employment growth from 2010 to 2017 were: (1) Educational Services, with 1,978 new jobs or a 120 percent increase; (2) Construction, with 978 new jobs or a 45 percent increase, and (3) Wholesale Trade, with 684 new jobs or a 23 percent increase. Combined, these three industries representa gain of around 3,640 employees. Median salaries in 2018 also varied by industry. At opposite ends of the wage spectrum are the Accommodations and Food Services industry (average wage: $28,307 per year) and the Utilities sector (average wage: $69,936 per year). The Manufacturing sector, which makes up 13 percent of the workforce, averages an annual wage of $46,683 per year'. Figure 1 presents a travel shed map showing access to employment within a 45-minute drive and 45-minute transit trip. There are 260,178 jobs in the 45-minute drive shed from Spokane Valley and 63,115 jobs in the 45-minute transit shed. This indicates that a large majority of jobs are more accessible by driving an automobile rather than taking public transit. These are approximate estimates based on analysis of the following data sources: US Census LODES database, 2017 and census block geometries, 2010; ECONorthwest. PAGE 4 DRAFT Figure 1. Travel Shed Map, Access to Employment Transit and drive time of 45 minutes or less, departing at 7:00AM, midweek I 1 1 1 11omi WA ID ■ Spokane Valley Drive time Transit time Nate: Isachrones depicted here are only the largest by surface area for the given jurisdiction, not necessarily the most typical Sources: US Census LODES database, 2017 and census block geometries, 2010; and Spokane Transit Authority database. ECONorthwest Calculations 2.1.2 Who lives in Spokane Valley? SPOKANE VALLEY IS GAINING NEW RESIDENTS. Between 2010 and 2020, Spokane Valley's population grew 8.6 percent, from 89,755 people to 97,490, a gain of 7,735 new residents. For comparison, the City of Spokane grew by 7 percent or by 14,684 people during the same period. These two cities combined account for 43.6 percent of Spokane County's population growth of 51,379 people during this time (OFM, 2020). The housing needs assessment showed Spokane Valley's population between 2010 and 2018 grew by 6,055 people (OFM, 2020). Housing needs vary for different age groups and change over a person's lifetime. Consequently, it is important to track shifts among the share of different age groups to better comprehend how housing needs change as community demographics fluctuate. Between 2012 and 2018Spokane Valley's millennial population (25-34 years) almost doubled, growing substantially from 10 percent to 15 percent of the population total from 12,148 to 21,144 persons (U.S. Census ACS PUMS, 2012, 2018). Another growing sector is the senior population which includes persons over 65 years old. During 2012-2018, seniors grew from 13 percent to 15 percent of the total population settling at an estimated total of 20,910 persons, a total similar to the millennial population sector. PAGE 5 DRAFT SPOKANE VALLEY IS BECOMING SLIGHTLY MORE DIVERSE. Spokane Valley's population has become slightly more diverse, as illustrated in Figure 2. While all race and ethnicity categories increased in total share of population, the share of residents who are Black, indigenous, and persons of color increased more than white households in this period; most Spokane Valley residents (83 percent) identify as white non-Hispanic.2 Figure 2: Population by Race and Ethnicity, Spokane Valley 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2012 2018 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. (2012, 2018). ACS PUMS 1-Year Data • Hispanic/Latino Some Other Race Alone ■ Asian Alone • Black or African American Alone • White Alone Understanding Area Median Income The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculates affordability and income limits for metro areas and counties across the country, based on the area's Median Family Income (MFI), which is derived from Census data. Since housing needs vary by family size and costs vary by region, HUD also produces Area Median Income (AMI) benchmarks for different family sizes on an annual basis. These benchmarks are used for understanding what different households can afford to pay for housing. In 2018, the Spokane, WA, HUD Metro Area, which includes the City, AMI was $65,200 for a family of four. HUD adjusts the income limits up or down, based on family size (see Figure 3). Figure 3. HUD 2018 Income Limits for Spokane, WA, HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area Affordability Family Size (Number of People) Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 30% $13,700 $15,650 $17,600 $19,550 $21,150 $22,700 $24,250 $25,850 50% $22,850 $26,100 $29,350 $32,600 $35,250 $37,850 $40,450 $43,050 60% $27,420 $31,320 $35,220 $39,120 $42,300 $45,420 $48,540 $51,660 80% $36,550 $41,750 $46,950 $52,150 $56,350 $60,500 $64,700 $68,850 100% $45,700 $52,200 $58,700 $65,200 $70,500 $75,700 $80,900 $86,100 Source: https://www.spokanecounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/26421 /HUD-2019-MEDIAN-FAMILY-INCOME-LIMITS-effective-6-28- 2019. INCOME COMPARISONS IN SPOKANE COUNTY. Most households in Spokane Valley, 66 percent, earn more than 80 percent of AMI and 34 percent of households earn less than 80 percent of AMI (ACS, 2018). Compared the City of Spokane and to 'The U.S. Census Bureau considers race and ethnicity as two distinct concepts. The Census applies two categories for ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity and not a race, meaning that individuals who identify as Hispanic/Latino may be of any race. The share of the population that identifies as Hispanic/Latino should not be added to percentages for racial categories. PAGE 6 DRAFT Spokane County as a whole', Spokane Valley has the smallest share of households earning below 30 percent of AMI (eight percent) and the highest share of households earning above 100 percent AMI (56 percent). The shares of households in the 30 to 100 percent AMI range is similar across the three jurisdictions (ACS, 2018). Figure 4 summarizes this narrative. Figure 4: Income Distribution Comparison, 2018 City of Spokane Valley City of Spokane Spokane County 10% 56% 12% 11% 50% 54% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Household Income as a % of AMI 0-30% of AMI 30-50% of AMI • 50-80% of AMI ■ 80-100% of AMI • l 00%+ of AMI Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2018). ACS PUMS 1-Year Data. Describing AMI Affordability Levels Affordability levels categorized by income ranges. Figure 5 describes these income ranges by the 2018 Spokane County AMI rate and corresponding income limits for a family of four. Figure 5: Characterization of Affordability Levels Income Description AMI Range Income Range* Monthly Housing Payment Range** Extremely low-income Below 30% under $19,550 $489 or less Very low-income 30 to 50% $19,550- $32,600 $489 to $815 Low-income 50 to 60% $32,600- $39,120 $815 to $978 Moderate -income 60 to 80% $39,120-$52,260 $978 to $1,307 Middle -income 80 to 120% $52,260-$78,240 $1,307 to $1,956 High -income Above 120% above $78,240 More than $1,956 * Based on family of four income (HUD, 2018). ** Assumes that up to 30 percent of income is used for housing. THE PERCENTAGE OF MIDDLE- AND HIGH -INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN SPOKANE VALLEY IS INCREASING FOR BOTH OWNERS AND RENTERS. Comparing the distribution of owner and renter households over time, as shown in Figure 6, reveals two insights that inform this HAP strategies. First, while the shares of households described as middle- 3 The Spokane County data comprises unincorporated Spokane County and all the incorporated jurisdictions including the City of Spokane and the City of Spokane Valley. PAGE 7 DRAFT income or high -income increased between 2012 and 2018 there is still roughly one third of the households in the City that are described as moderate -income to extremely low- income. Production of missing - middle housing such as tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, cottages, townhomes and apartment buildings should be a focus of the strategies to provide new units to house these families as well as to help preserve existing affordable units. The second observation is that these missing - middle home types should be available for ownership, but the greater need is for rental units. What is Missing -Middle Housing? Missing -middle housing types bridge a gap between single family and more intense multifamily housing. They can generally be described as single-family attached housing units with two or more units such as duplexes, triplexes, quad homes, and multiplexes. Missing -middle housing types also includes accessory dwelling units, town homes, backyard homes, and row homes. In theory, these space efficient housing units can be more affordable than other units because they are smaller and more energy efficient and they use less land resources. Providing middle housing expands opportunities for housing that may be lower cost than single family detached housing. These units can be well -integrated into existing neighborhoods and often can be designed to resemble single-family detached housing. This housing could provide seniors housing options that would allow for "downsizing" and lower - maintenance living and would serve moderate to middle - income households. Figure 6: Income Distribution in Spokane Valley, 2012-2018 2018 Overall Renter % Owner % . 6% 10% 56% 2012 Overall Renter % Owner % 6% 10% 18% 34% 67% 46% 18% 28% 55% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Household Income as a % of AMI • Less than or equal to 30% 30 -50% • 50-80% ■ 80-100% • Over 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. (2012, 2018). PUMS. 100% Household incomes have increased overall in Spokane Valley over the last decade. Figure 6 shows that the share of households earning 100 percent of AMI or more (Including a portion of the middle - income households and all high -income households) increased between 2012 and 2018 overall for both renters and owners from 46 to 56 percent of the total households. Unsurprisingly, this figure also shows that households described as middle or high income consistently tend to be homeowners. Low to moderate income households (households earning below 80 percent AMI) decreased overall for both owners and renters from 42 to 34 percent of the total. INCOMES HAVE INCREASED, BUT MORE SO FOR HOMEOWNERS. Household incomes have increased at a greater rate in Spokane Valley for homeowners than for renters. Figure 7 shows that the median household income for homeowners in Spokane Valley was PAGE 8 DRAFT $77,299 in 2018, whereas the median household income for renters was $38,498. For both household types, this median income is higher than that of households in Spokane County and the City of Spokane. Incomes in Spokane Valley increased at an annual rate of 3.8 percent for homeowners, whereas households that rent saw a 1.9 percent increase per year (PUMS, 2018). For context, median single-family home prices increased at an inflation adjusted annual rate of 5.1 percent between 2012 and 2018 (Spokane County Assessor, 2020) while the average rental price for a two -bedroom unit increased at an inflation adjusted annual rate of 1.5 percent during the same period (CoStar, 2020). Figure 7: Median Household Income, 2012-2018 Median Household Renter Income $80,000 $70,000 E $60,000 8 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 1\ II II Spokane City of City of County Spokane Spokane Valley 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% a}od y}moae ionuu' Median $80,000 $70,000 N $60,000 o $50,000 U • $40,000 4 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Household Owner Income 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% Spokane City of City of County Spokane Spokane Valley a}od 4}moJe Ionuuy ■2012 ■2018 •Annual Percent Change Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2012, 2018). PUMS. Numbers were adjusted to 2018 inflation values, using the Consumer Price Index. 2.1.3 What are the current housing conditions in Spokane Valley? SPOKANE VALLEY'S HOUSING STOCK IS SIMILAR TO OTHER EDGE CITIES. • Spokane Valley's housing is predominantly single-family detached housing. As of mid- 2020, the majority (66 percent) of Spokane Valley's 38,730 housing units (Spokane County Assessor, 2020) are single-family detached. Most Spokane Valley residents living in single- family detached housing own their home (86 percent) rather than rent (ACS 1-Year, 2018). An additional 20 percent of the housing units are apartments and condos and only 9 percent of the housing stock is single-family attached (includes duplexes, triplexes, and quad homes). Data source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020. Spokane Valley lacks housing diversity needed to accommodate future demand particularly associated with aging baby boomers and young households forming. The city has a low supply (9%) of "missing - middle" housing or single-family attached housing which allows more seniors to downsize and remain in their community, while also providing more options for millennial households and working families to get a foothold in great neighborhoods. • Spokane Valley's housing stock is relatively new, with nearly one-third built before 1969 and over half built after 1980 (Spokane County Assessor, 2020). PAGE 9 DRAFT • Spokane Valley has more homeowners than renters. About 67 percent of occupied units are inhabited by homeowners and 33 percent of occupied units are inhabited by renters as of 2018 (ACS, 2018). SPOKANE VALLEY HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCING ENOUGH HOUSING TO MEET DEMAND. This continual growth has added pressure on a limited supply of housing. From 2010 to 2019, Spokane Valley saw an average of 345 new housing units built per year, for a total of 3,445 new housing units (Spokane County Assessor, 2020). This unit count includes all units, ownership homes and housing units for rent. Figure 8 illustrates the housing unit development trends in Spokane Valley between 2010 and 2019. Spokane Valley's population growth and housing development has remained steady for most of the decade. From 2010 to 2018, Spokane Valley's population grew by 7%, adding 6,055 new residents. Figure 8: Number of Units Built in Spokane Valley Per Year, 2010-2019 1,00L Units Delivered Annually 800 600 400 200 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Annual Cumulative --- Annual Average (345 units/yr) Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020. 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 tianllea ulun enilainwno Underproduction is the estimated number of housing units needed to satisfy the housing shortfall over the last decade. Over the last decade, Spokane Valley underproduced housing by approximately 1,463 units (ECONorthwest analysis of OFM and PUMS datasets)4. If too few housing units are constructed relative to the number of new households formed, underproduction occurs and contributes to price increases. Without including current underproduction in calculations of future need, the current mismatch of housing units to numbers of households will continue into the future. 4 Current underproduction of housing was calculated based on the ratio of housing units produced and new households formed over time. The average household size in the City is calculated and converted to a ratio of total housing units to households. This ratio is compared to that of the region as the target ratio. If the City's ratio is lower, then we calculated the underproduction as the number of units it would have needed to produce over time, to reach the target ratio. PAGE 10 DRAFT A useful way to detect whether the housing supply is meeting the demand is to examine vacancy rates. On average during the last decade, the vacancy rate was 5.4 percent for 2-bedroom apartments in the City. This is a standard rate of vacancy, indicating that the supply for this product type should be adequate to meet demand. However, nearby, the City of Spokane's vacancy rate was an average of 2.7 percent for 2-bedroom apartments over the last decade. This low rate is below the 5.0 percent standard, indicating an inadequate supply to satisfy demand. Vacancy rate trends should be monitored to track housing supply limitations to help build a more comprehensive understanding of emerging housing needs. SPOKANE VALLEY HOME PRICES AND RENTS ARE HIGHER THAN THOSE IN THE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SPOKANE. When demand for new housing exceeds the supply of new housing, the market tightens and prices rise. Supply and demand imbalances and subsequent price increases can also be exacerbated by rapid regional job growth and too few newly created housing units to meet the demand for in migration from the job growth. There has not been a substantial spike in employment in Spokane County; however, there has been an increase in in -migration with more households moving to the area from high -cost cities in search of a lower cost of living and the improved quality of life offered in Spokane Valley and the Spokane region. Between 2010 and 2020, Spokane Valley's average two -bedroom rent increased 15 percent, or an average of 1.4 percent annualized, while median sales prices increased 48 percent, or an average of 4.0 percent annualized. In 2020, the average rent for a two -bedroom apartment was $1,131 per month, while the median sales price for ownership housing was $300,000. What might an owner's monthly payment be on a $300,000 home? The payment on a $300,000 home in Spokane Valley would be about $1,500 per month if financed in 2020. This assumes a 20 percent down payment, a 3.8 percent interest, and $3,500 in taxes based on actual recent comps. Figure 9 illustrates this pricing progression. During this period, the average annual rate of inflation was 1.7 percent. The annual rate of change for an average two -bedroom apartment was in -line with inflation; however, home prices increased at a rate over three times inflation. Median household incomes in Spokane Valley increased by 3.8 percent per year for owners and 1.9 percent per year percent for renters between 2012 and 2018 (ACS, 2018). Figure 9: Spokane Valley Housing Costs, 2010 and 2020 2010 2020 Annualized Percent Change Average Rent $983 $1,131 1.4% Median Sales Price $202,461 $300,000 4.0% Source: CoStar, Spokane County Assessor, 2020. Numbers were adjn sted to 2020 inflation values, using the Consumer Price Index By comparison, two -bedroom rent increased by 13 percent and 11 percent in Spokane County and in the City of Spokane, respectively, between 2010 and 2020. The current average two -bedroom rent in Spokane County is $1,094 per month and $1,081 in the City of Spokane. The 2020 median home prices in Spokane County were $255,900 and $275,000 in the City of Spokane (CoStar, Spokane PAGE 1 1 DRAFT County Assessor, 2020). The escalating cost of housing, especially for those wanting to buy a home, is a top concern for people finding very few options of housing affordable at their income level. NEARLY HALF OF SPOKANE VALLEY'S RENTER HOUSEHOLDS ARE COST BURDENED AND THIS COST BURDENING DISPORTIONATELY IMPACTS LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. A typical standard used to determine housing affordability is that a household should pay no more than a certain percentage of gross household income for housing, including payments and interest or rent, utilities, and insurance. HUD's guidelines indicate that households paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing and utilities experience "cost burden," and households paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing and utilities experience "severe cost burden." Without enough rent -restricted and regulated affordable housing, many low-income households end up paying more than they can afford on housing. In Spokane Valley, an estimated 48 percent of renter households are cost burdened, and 25 percent are severely cost burdened (ACS, 2018). Recent figures (2018) show that lower income households and renters are paying a much greater share of their income on housing. In fact, those most cost burdened tend to be extremely low-income and very low-income (earning less than Households earning 50 percent or less of AMI) are disproportionally impacted. Nearly 6,500 Spokane Valley households earning 50 percent or less than AMI out of the 7,600 total households in this group are cost burdened, while approximately 4,350 households in this income group are severely burdened (ACS, 2018). The need for more affordable housing has expanded particularly for low to moderate -income owner households and low -to moderate -income renter households (less than 80% AMI). Low-income renters earning less than 50% AMI tend to be more severely cost burdened. This must be made between housing and paying for other essentials, such as food, clothing, and healthcare'. A Note on COVID-19 Another factor affecting housing is the COVID-19 pandemic. Since its emergence, the pandemic has slowed the production of housing in many regions and due to growing remote work practices, commuting rates have diminished and housing preferences are shifting. In addition, the pandemic has impacted the ability to pay for housing consistently, which will likely exacerbate housing availability and stability. These types of trends should be monitored as conditions and communities adjust. may mean trade-offs THERE IS A LIMITED SUPPLY OF RENT -RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND LOW-COST MARKET RENTALS. Spokane Valley has approximately 1,663 units of rent -restricted affordable housing for households earning less than 60 percent of AMI (ECONorthwest analysis of HUD, Spokane Housing Authority, and Washington State Housing Finance Commission data, 2020)7. 5 Cost burdening for owner -occupied households is not terribly common because mortgage lenders typically ensure that a household can pay its debt obligations before signing off on a loan, but it can occur when a household sees its income decline while still paying a mortgage. Households with incomes over 100% AMI are less burdened overall since their larger income will go farther to cover non -housing expenses. Cost burden does not consider accumulated wealth and assets. 6 Rent-restircted affordable housing is income- or rent -restricted to ensure that the housing is occupied by households earning a certain income. Rents for such units are set so as to be affordable to those income levels. Rent restrictions are set according to the types of funding used to develop the housing, such as the Low -Income Housing Tax Credit, or HUD finding,. The City does not regulate or influence the rates for these units. Most rent - restricted affordable housing is restricted to be affordable to households earning under 60 percent MFI, but these restrictions vary. 7 The data available for this section describes housing affordable to 60 percent of AMI or lower and in other sections housing affordability is described in different AMI categories. This is due to differences between various data sources. Household affordability information provided in US Census ACS PAGE 12 DRAFT The map in Figure 10 shows where in Spokane Valley these units are located. Given the limited supply of these units, Spokane Valley's population at this income level must compete for lower -cost / lower - amenity unregulated market rate housing. Like many places, Spokane Valley does not have enough rent -restricted affordable housing units, which are costly to build and operate. As a result, many low-income households live in low-cost market (unregulated) housing units (often called naturally occurring affordable housing, or NOAHs). There is no official definition of low-cost market rentals or NOAH units. They can be defined by condition/age/and amenity level, or by rent price (typically below 80 percent of AMI). The common factor is that they are affordable to low- income households, but their rents are unregulated by a funding or financing program. 2.1.4 Future Needs Figure 10: Rent -Restricted Unit Location Map, Spokane Valley Source: ECONorthwest analysis of HUD, Spokane Housing Authority, and Washington State Housing Finance Commission data, 2020. Housing TO ACCOMMODATE NEW RESIDENTS, DEVELOPERS IN SPOKANE VALLEY WILL NEED TO PRODUCE HOUSING AT A SLIGHTLY FASTER RATE THAN THEY HAVE IN THE PAST. The OFM medium population forecast indicates that by 2037, Spokane Valley's population will have risen to 109,913. Based on Spokane Valley's population estimate for 2018 (95,810 people), Spokane Valley is forecast to grow by 14,103 people by 2037 (14.7 percent), at an annual growth rate of 0.7 percent (ECONorthwest calculation; OFM, 2019 data). Spokane Valley is forecasted to grow at a rate similar to past rates, and this growth will continue to drive future demand for housing in the city over the planning period. To accommodate expected population growth through 2037 Spokane Valley will have to produce 6,660 new housing units of all types, sizes, and affordability levels (ECONorthwest analysis). This translates to 351 housing units per year. Between 2010 and 2019, an average of 345 new housing units were built in Spokane Valley each year. This means that slightly more housing would need to be built per year than the average produced from 2010 and 2019. Spokane Valley should continue to support robust housing growth and advance strategies that support a diversity of housing types and affordability levels. and PUMs analysis is not available at the 60 precent level while HUD helps to fund affordable housing developments that provide units to households earning less than 60 percent of AMI. PAGE 13 DRAFT If units are allocated based on recent income distribution trends, over half of Spokane Valley's needed housing units (3,760 units) should be for households earning at least 100 percent of AMI, and another 10 percent (686 units) targeted for households at above 80 percent AMI. The remaining 33 percent, or 2,214 housing units, needed through 2037 should be targeted for households earning less than 80 percent of AMI. Figure 11 provides the complete distribution of housing units needed among the five AMI ranges. Overall, a healthy housing market should have a variety of housing types at different price points that are affordable to a range of different household incomes. To meet future housing needs the preservation of NOAH units that may be displaced because of new development is important for helping to house very low to moderate - income households. Strategies in this HAP also need to support the creation of rent restricted affordable housing units for extremely low and very low- income households through public agency support and assistance programs since this type of housing is becoming increasingly difficult through the private market. Figure 11. Housing Units Needed in Spokane Valley by AMI, 2037 AMI Number of Units Need Percent of Total Units through 2037 Needed 0-30% 550 30-50% 625 50-80% 1,039 80-100% 8% 9% 16% 686 10% 100%+ 3,760 56% Tota I 6,660 100% Sources: ECONorthwest calculation; OFM, 2019; U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 PUMS. The housing needs analysis shows a mismatch in the type of housing units available. Around 44 percent of all the City households need housing priced below 100 percent of the AMI, yet this housing is inadequate since only 34 percent of the current housing stock includes housing types affordable for incomes below the AMI, such as less expensive detached single-family homes (ADUs, manufactured homes, cottage), attached single-family homes (duplexes and townhomes and multifamily developments). Figure 12 illustrates the type of home a household may afford based on its income. The information in Figure 12, together with Figure 11 above inform the strategies recommended in this HAP. PAGE 14 DRAFT Figure 12: Housing Types and Financial Attainability If your household earns . $19,560 $32,600 (30% of AM I) (50% of AM I) Then you can afford ... $489 $815 PER MONTH PER MONTH $52,260 (80% of AMI) $1,304 PER MONTH $65,200 $78,240 (100% of AMI) (12O% of AMI) $1,630 $1,956 PER MONTH PER MONTH Housing types generally affordable to these households are ... Single -Family Detached manufactured homes in parks/on lots cottage cluster small -lot single-family large -lot single-family Single -Family Attached duplex, tri-plex, quad-plex, townhomes higher -priced products • low -amenity apartments (rental) apartments (5+ units) Multifam ty condominium ,ot I■ Common characteristics ... LESS EXPENSIVE Predominantly renter occupied & existing construction Government subsidized MORE EXPENSI Predominantly owner occupied & new construction Source: ECONorthwest Note: All values are in 2019 inflation -adjusted dollars. 2.2 Summary of Policy and Regulatory Assessment A policy and regulatory assessment identified existing housing goals, policies, and strategies from the 2017 Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan as well as housing regulations, programs, and incentives currently available to encourage greater housing supply and the development of affordable housing in Spokane Valley. The information was used alongside the housing needs assessment and input from community members and stakeholders to develop strategy and policy options that could be used to meet housing needs within Spokane Valley. 2.2.1 Policy Review In its Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley identified three goals and four priorities specifically related to housing. Other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Land Use element, include several other goals and policies related to housing. The summary of housing -related policies and strategies is organized around four housing themes identified in the Comprehensive Plan: PAGE 15 DRAFT Ensure a Range of Housing Options for Residents: During the development of the Comprehensive Plan, community members identified a need for a greater diversity of housing types to serve people at all income levels and stages of life. A goal that exemplifies this theme is "allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community." • Key Action taken: In 2017, Spokane Valley implemented new regulations that allows missing -middle housing types such as accessory dwelling unit (ADUs); cottage housing; duplexes; manufactured homes, both on individual lots and in -home parks; and townhouses. In 2020 the City modified the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to establish a new zoning district, R-4 Single -Family Residential Urban that allows the full range of missing -middle housing products and focused where in the City townhomes and cottages maybe developed. Improve Housing Affordability: The current Comprehensive Plan includes a goal to allow for a diversity of housing options that are affordable to households at all income levels. One such goal is to "enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels." • Key Action taken: In 2020, Spokane Valley adopted a new ordinance to authorize a sales and use tax credit for affordable and supportive housing, which is expected to generate approximately $178,000 per year. Spokane Valley has not yet designated a specific use for such revenues. Enhance Distinctive Neighborhood Character/Support Neighborhood Commercial: Several goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan encourage neighborhood conveniences and mixed -use residential development. An example is Housing Element -Goal 3, "Allow convenient access to daily goods and services in Spokane Valley's neighborhoods." • Key Action taken: Spokane Valley modified its zoning regulations in 2020 to create a new Single -Family Residential Urban (R-4) zoning district that permits more diverse housing development within close proximity to public transportation and services. Encourage the Creation of Mixed -Use Destinations: The Comprehensive Plan cites the Kendall Yards area of Spokane as an example of a mixed -use destination development that combines housing, retail, and amenities in a walkable community connected to transit. Land Use Element Goal 3 calls for Spokane Valley to "support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed -use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity." • Key Action taken: Spokane Valley's mixed -use zones (MU and Corridor Mixed -Use [CMUD allow for concurrent development of residential and commercial space. These uses may be developed side by side or on top of each other, with the commercial space on the ground floor. A detailed review of the existing policies, actions taken by Spokane Valley to date, and an evaluation of these actions is available in Appendix C. PAGE 16 DRAFT 2.2.2 Regulatory Review A detailed review of Spokane Valley's existing zoning and permit procedures helped to identify where housing development is currently allowed and how it is permitted. Spokane Valley has five residential zones (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and MFR) that are specifically intended to support residential development; however, certain residential development is also permitted in mixed use zones and nonresidential zones. The residential zoning districts range from Single -Family Residential Estate (R-1), the least dense zone, which allows for lots of at least 40,000 square feet and one dwelling unit per acre (du/ac); to Multifamily Residential (MFR), which has no minimum lot size and allows up to 22 du/ac. No density bonuses are currently allowed, except in Planned Residential Developments. The City has placed a moratorium on new Planned Residential Developments and related regulations are currently under review. Appendix C includes a detailed review of dimensional requirements and parking standards for each zoning district. Spokane Valley has three main permit application types, which correspond to increasing levels of review procedures. For example, Type I permits generally have limited public notice and are administratively approved, while Type III permits require extensive public notice and are subject to a public hearing and approval by a neutral Hearing Examiner. Most residential development types fall under Type I or II application review, with the exception of cottage housing, industrial ADU development, and subdivisions, which require the more intensive Type III review. In addition, Spokane Valley has adopted the maximum State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) flexible exemption thresholds so that multifamily developments of 60 units or fewer are not required to go through SEPA review. 2.2.3 Barriers BARRIERS TO DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING HOUSING TYPES The housing development process is defined in the SVMC and in practice by Spokane Valley staff. There is sufficient development capacity on land in Spokane Valley to support a range of new housing, and the zoning regulations provide flexibility for developers to deliver housing at a pace to meet the identified housing needs assessment objective of at least 6,600 housing units by 2037, or around 351 units per year. Spokane Valley is primarily a large -lot, single-family community. While residents have voiced appreciation for those characteristics, a survey conducted for this project identified a desire for more housing choices, including townhomes, ADUs, and cottages. Spokane Valley should continue to support housing growth and advance strategies in support of housing growth for a diversity of housing types and affordability levels to meet its target. The community was asked... How can the City of Spokane Valley improve housing for our community? "More cottages and duplexes" "More housing options such as condos and townhouses." "More auxiliary housing, cottages on homeowner lots." "By not regulating so tightly the ability to put ADUs on properties." "Allow homeowners to build ADUs, cottages and co - housing." PAGE 17 DRAFT Several barriers impact the delivery of housing in general and specific types of housing such as the allowed maximum density in specific zones, open space requirements, and allowed building height for multi -family development are areas where the City may improve the quantity, quality, and range of new housing development. Other barriers identified are beyond Spokane Valley's control, such as the market's acceptance of different housing types or appeals of project from residents. AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDING AND INCENTIVES While its zoning regulations allow flexibility in the housing types permitted, Spokane Valley currently has limited incentives to support the development of a range of housing types that are attainable for a broad variety of household incomes. The policy and regulatory review found that Spokane Valley should explore additional funding mechanisms and incentives to encourage affordable housing development. Recommended strategies are discussed in Section 3 of this HAP. 2.3 Summary of Public Engagement MFA led a robust public engagement process to gather community input to inform the HAP. The purpose of the community engagement is to connect with and listen to residents, workers, businesses, nonprofit organizations, service providers, and other key stakeholders. The community's participation in this process includes qualitative, anecdotal input as well as quantitative input via a survey to develop and support the recommendations offered in the HAP. Below is a summary of the survey results and the interviews. In addition to public engagement efforts taken during the development of the HAP, additional public engagement will occurred as part of the adoption process. 2.3.1 Community Engagement Approach The outreach process was predicated on the need to conduct engagement reflecting the Spokane Valley community and to help illuminate the City's housing opportunities and challenges. Community input helped shape the direction of the HAP's strategies and recommendations. Draft strategies and recommendations were then reviewed by staff, and the final HAP, once prepared, will be distributed to the public for further comment prior to adoption. A list of the outreach tactics used in development of the HAP is summarized in Figure 13. Conducting community outreach amidst the COVID-19 pandemic presented unique challenges. All community outreach that has been conducted to inform the HAP was held by video or phone calls with people who had access to technology and via a public survey. Because of the challenge of scheduling and organizing effective focus groups, we concentrated our outreach efforts on a set of one-on-one interviews with a diverse group of community stakeholders and developers. Figure 13: List of Outreach Tactics Month Outreach Tactics Summer 2020 • Community engagement plan • Project web page, materials, and "on -hold" message for the City of Spokane Valley general phone line • Stakeholder interviews • Community and partner update describing the HAP purpose, need, and process PAGE 18 DRAFT Month Outreach Tactics Fall 2020 • Community survey # 1 about the current state of housing and housing needs (Survey was live 9/21-10/19) • Website updates regarding project status Winter 2020-21 • City magazine article about the HAP (quarterly magazine mailed to over 50,000 residents in November 2020) • Website updates regarding project status • Community and partner update on project status Appendix D contains the complete summary of the community engagement process, including goals, approach, and methodology for identified stakeholder input. 2.3.2 Public Engagement Results ONLINE SURVEY In September and October 2020, an online public survey was conducted. A total of 124 respondents completed the survey. The Spokane Valley community was well represented, and demographics of those that took the survey aligned closely to the makeup of the City. Key findings from the survey are summarized below. Appendix D contains additional information on the survey. Owners and renters in Spokane Valley: The survey asked whether the respondents owned or rented their homes. All respondents answered this question and 75 percent were owners-56 percent owned with a mortgage and 19 percent owned free and clear. Renters accounted for 23 percent of the responses. The other three respondents either occupied their unit without payment of rent or they did not have stable housing. Barriers to renting in Spokane Valley: Only 25 of the 124 respondents (20 percent) identified as renters. This question allowed respondents to select more than one choice. The 25 respondents provided a total of 31 responses. Of these 31 responses, 77 percent said finding affordable housing in the city was a barrier to renting. Challenges included not being able to find affordable housing (61 percent identified this as a barrier), 10 percent identified as a barrier not being able to find housing that accepted housing vouchers, and six percent said past evictions, or no ADA-available units was a barrier. The remaining 23 percent of renters did not experience any barriers to renting. Barriers to purchasing a home in Spokane Valley: This question asked if respondents had recently tried to buy or bought a home and allowed respondents to select more than one answer. The 102 responses include renters and homeowners. Of this total, 23 percent said affordability was a barrier, and 18 percent could not afford a down payment. Others noted difficulty finding the right type of housing, being outbid, or not finding a place in the location they wanted. Less than half of the respondents did not encounter any barriers (45 percent, or 29 of 64). Types of housing in Spokane Valley: Of the 124 respondents, 109 indicated the type of housing that they currently live in. Single-family homes accounted for 80 percent of where respondents live, while the next most common housing type was multifamily homes at 13 percent. PAGE 19 DRAFT Favored housing types for Spokane Valley: Respondents were also asked what type of housing they would like to live in. Of the 124 respondents 107 provided at least one answer. Respondents could select more than one housing type and a total of 159 housing types were selected. Single-family homes were the most desired housing type at 60 percent of responses, though nearly all the respondents (90 percent) included single-family homes as one of their choices. The next most favored were: • Cottages: 16 percent of the total responses selected this choice. • Townhomes: Nine percent of the total responses selected this choice. • Duplex: Seven percent of the total responses selected this choice. Housing options in the greatest need: Respondents were asked what kind of housing options are in greatest need in Spokane Valley. Of the 124 respondents, 93 provided at least one answer. Respondents could select more than one type of housing and a total of 206 responses were provided. Of the 93 respondents, 73 percent felt more affordable ownership housing options were in the greatest need. The other two most frequently selected needs were the desire for more affordable housing for seniors, with 48 percent selecting this choice, and the desire for more flexibility for single-family homeowners to build accessory dwelling units, such as backyard cottages, with 44 percent selecting this choice. The survey also asked respondents to address three open-ended questions. The questions and summary of the responses are below. Are there any issues or challenges that impact quality of life in your neighborhood? Respondents provided a total of 65 comments. Responses ranged from lack of affordable housing to pesky neighbors. Respondents noted that higher drug, crime, and homelessness areas are often also lower income housing areas. The desire for recreation and parks was mentioned several times. How can the City of Spokane Valley improve housing for our community? Respondents provided a total of 89 comments. The comments generally noted either the need to encourage the development of more affordable housing and to help promote more housing choices. What is the primary reason you chose to live in Spokane Valley? Respondents provided a total of 92 comments. Comments indicated that apart from train traffic, Spokane Valley is a quiet community with less vehicle traffic and fewer challenges associated with bigger cities. Good schools and great quality of life were noted many times, as well as ease of access to Interstate 90. ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEW SUMMARY The purpose of the one-on-one interviews was to discern and understand the current and historical housing situation of Spokane Valley through intentional discussion and analysis of the lived and professional experiences from local developers and community leaders. Below is a summary of feedback; Appendix D presents more details and supporting recommendations from stakeholders. PAGE 20 DRAFT Development Process Input from the developers interviewed was that development process in Spokane Valley is working efficiently for permitting and constructing new single-family and multifamily housing. Interviewees indicated positive experiences working with building officials and Spokane Valley staff navigating the permit process. The fee schedules are in line with the market. However, those involved with developing affordable housing noted there would be an added benefit to an otherwise challenging development pro forma if the City reduced or waived fees for affordable housing projects. Competitive and Limited Affordable Housing Funding Sources With regards to affordable housing, federal, state, and local funds are limited and highly competitive and there is limited funding available for distribution to projects annually. It was noted that there are only two qualified census tracts in the city, 117.02 and 118.00. Affordable housing developments in qualified census tracts that apply for low-income housing tax credit funding receive a boost in the amount of tax credits they can receive. These tax credits are important for making regulated affordable housing projects feasible. Interviewees noted the benefits that a City managed housing fund supported through a property tax levy for affordable housing and/or sales and use tax fund for affordable and supportive housing. Opportunities to Encourage Housing Development Several interviewees noted that there is very limited inventory for starter homes and the gap in missing - middle housing in Spokane Valley is real. The following summarizes the range of ideas offered based on the interviewees' professional experience and their conversations with the community: Low -Income Households • Rent deposits and documentation requirements can be hurdles for portions of the population. Consider programs or policies that address this hurdle. • Down payment assistance for first time home buyers — either through a City fund or a community partner. • Acknowledge equity and race in the City's Comprehensive Plan to position the City to address housing equity. • Limited equity co-ops are a means to create wealth and home ownership for long-term tenants. Challenges include patient investors and gap financing. The other model often noted is shared equity. These programs do not require City intervention. The city may provide resources and information, and/or provide financial support for limited equity co-ops if it creates a housing fund. Programs and Incentives • Provide housing around state and federally supported transportation investments. Planned Action Environmental Impact Statements may provide additional incentives for developing housing in these areas by reducing the project -level permitting process. • Implement a multifamily tax exemption program. PAGE 21 DRAFT • Offer nonprofits the first right of refusal to develop affordable housing units on City - owned properties or properties with a property tax lien. • Brownfields may provide land opportunities not sought by market -rate developers. Outreach and Partnerships • A regional communications campaign dispelling housing myths and showing the positive benefits of healthy homes. • Partner with neighborhood groups or support the creation of one that is focused on Spokane Valley. SNAP (Spokane Neighborhood Action Partners) is a model. • Seek partnerships with private entities seeking philanthropic endeavors. A local example is a project in northeast Spokane that was built by Spokane Housing Ventures in partnership with Empire Health Foundation. Traditional affordable housing funding sources were used as was support from the foundation. Threats to Housing Development and Preservation of Affordable Units Several interviewees mentioned threats to housing development and the need to preserve affordable units. A range of observations and ideas were offered based on the interviewees' professional experience and their many conversations with the community. • Lumber prices have gone up by more than 120 percent over the past year. There is not anything the City can do about this, but these increased costs directly impact housing prices. • Labor shortages impact development costs. It was noted that encouraging more trade jobs through apprenticeship programs or partnerships could help grow the workforce that may reduce labor availability and related development cost impacts. • Rent -restricted developments that need rehabilitation could be an area of focus. The rehabilitation costs require debt, and the financial package may require higher incomes. The unintended consequence is a loss of units that serve the 30 percent or less AMI households. • One developer shared about a single-family subdivision that was subject to public comment and SEPA review being held up because of protest from nearby residents despite complying with local code. External Forces Driving Developers from Spokane County Developers that have been active in Spokane County indicated that they are seeking development opportunities in northern Idaho where the housing market is similar but where there is significantly less state regulation. These observations are for information and context. The City has limited influence to improve these identified conditions. • Interviewees noted the diminishing availability of large tracks of unimproved land in Washington and the increasing cost of land relative to Idaho as driving forces. There was PAGE 22 DRAFT also a strong desire to expand the Urban Growth Boundary to provide more land to develop housing. • Several interviewees cited that the energy code revisions adopted by Washington will add costs to home development. These measures, which take effect in 2021, increase development costs which are passed through to the home buyer. • Finally, Washington state's condominium laws create a disincentive to develop this type of attainable housing due to insurance requirements. Condominium law reform is needed to encourage development of higher density condominium buildings that may offer affordable home ownership options. PRE HAP -ADOPTION OUTREACH Community input was used to shape the direction of the HAP's strategies and recommendations. Draft strategies and recommendations were then reviewed by staff, and the final HAP, once prepared, will be posted on the HAP project web page (www.spokanevalley.org/HAP), distributed to the public for further comment, and refined based on feedback prior to adoption. 2.4 Displacement Risk Analysis Displacement occurs when a household is forced to relocate because of changes in the housing market, either because their housing is being redeveloped or undergoing major renovations or because their housing costs are increasing to beyond what they can afford. With regional housing prices escalating and new housing development taking place, some existing residents in Spokane Valley may be at risk for displacement. The overarching intent of examining displacement risk is to help Spokane Valley proactively identify residents who may be at risk and help inform strategies for preventing and minimizing displacement. This analysis of socioeconomic and demographic displacement risk was modeled after the Puget Sound Regional Council's Displacement Risk Mapping Tool and is based off a method developed by ECONorthwest. Six variables that can highlight areas where households are most susceptible to displacement were evaluated at the block group level. The evaluated variables were: • Percent of population that is a race other than non -Hispanic white • Percent of households that speak a language other than English at home • Percent of population under 25 who lack a bachelor's degree • Percent of households that are renters • Percent of households paying more than 30 percent of gross income on housing • Per capita income These factors include renter households, low-income households, and households that are more likely to experience housing discrimination (including communities of color, seniors, and other marginalized (populations). PAGE 23 DRAFT 2.4.1 Types of Displacement There are typically three types of displacement referred to as economic, direct, and cultural displacement (ECONorthwest research). Economic or indirect displacement. Economic displacement can occur if new development or redevelopment in an area rents or sells at higher price points that encourage owners of existing units to increase rents, and these increases exceed what existing tenants can afford. The effects of (re)development renting at market rates may spill over to lower -cost rental units, causing rents to rise and potentially displacing existing residents. Economic displacement can happen without new development or redevelopment when high demand and low housing supply push prices up. Economic insecurity and displacement are a very important issue for existing communities, but they are difficult to measure quantitatively. Low-income households are at high risk of economic displacement, as they have fewer choices about where they can afford to live. Physical or direct displacement. Physical displacement occurs if existing housing is torn down for redevelopment and existing tenants are displaced. In some cases, public programs could encourage displacement by incenting a developer to rehabilitate or replace older, low-cost housing (unregulated affordable housing) with newer, higher -priced units. This could lead to the direct displacement of existing residents, who may not be able to afford the higher rents in the new development. In theory, any type of household could be at risk of physical displacement due to a new development demolishing their current housing. But in reality, low- income households, households of color, immigrant households, and other marginalized populations are at higher risk of physical displacement. Wealthy or "powerful" households are at lower risk of direct displacement, as they may not live in areas experiencing new development, and they may hold sway over decision makers or otherwise know how to exert influence in the process. Cultural displacement. Cultural displacement occurs when people move because their neighbors and culturally relevant businesses and institutions have left the area. The presence (or absence) of these cultural assets can influence racial or ethnic minority households, more than broader populations, in their decisions about where to live. While this is difficult to measure quantitatively, and one could consider whether these are "choices" or whether this is "forced" displacement, it is an important effect that can have broad equity implications beyond physical or economic displacement alone. Cultural displacement can also include business displacement. Marginalized communities —be they low-income, a specific race or ethnicity, or another group of people —are at higher risk of cultural displacement than dominant communities. When businesses and housing that serve these communities leave or are removed, people can feel pushed out of their neighborhoods. 2.4.2 Areas with Displacement Risk Figure 14 shows the results of the socioeconomic and demographic variables identified in section 2.4 that have been used to measure displacement risk. The layering of socioeconomic characteristics for each block group in Spokane Valley shows the neighborhoods that have the highest risk for all three types of displacement. Seventeen of the 64 Census block groups are identified as high vulnerability PAGE 24 DRAFT and 31 are identified as medium vulnerability. Of the total population that comprises these block groups, 27 percent is in a high -vulnerability block group and 46 percent is in a medium -vulnerability block group. Figure 14: Displacement Risk in Spokane Valley by Block Group Legend Spokane Valley City Limits Displacement Vulnerability .Inerebility Index by Block Group (11 9 Fgh Vulrerability U1 B 5 Medium Vurerabillry 1 Low Volnere.1 y Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2018). ACS. More conversations and analysis are needed to truly understand displacement risk. A deeper dive into economic displacement resulting from the spillover of new development requires a robust analysis of new and existing rent trends, which is beyond the scope of this work. In addition, measuring cultural displacement is difficult, and not quantifiable from data. It requires qualitative information from in - person engagement with people living near new development. When the City considers land use changes and planning projects it should track, monitor, and engage intentionally with high vulnerability areas. 2.5 Development Feasibility Analysis To inform recommendations about new and revised development incentive programs that can support more housing, including more affordable housing, development (or financial) feasibility was analyzed by ECONorthwest using several housing prototypes and market data unique to submarkets and different development types across Spokane Valley. PAGE 25 DRAFT This development feasibility sensitivity analysis helps identify regulatory and program recommendations that would most effectively advance Spokane Valley's goals of creating new housing to meet forecast demand and growth, creating a variety of housing types at different price points to meet the needs of current and future residents. The results of the sensitivity tests are summarized in the following sections and help to inform recommendations for changes to Spokane Valley's housing programs and development code. Potential regulatory modifications and programs tested herein were informed by the regulatory analysis. Appendix E provides more detail on this analysis, along with a summary of assumptions. Policy Evaluation and Financial Feasibility To compare development feasibility and the impact of policy options across different development types, ECONorthwest used a common method to identify economic feasibility called a residual land value analysis. Residual land value is an estimate of what a developer would be able to pay for land given the property's income from rental or sales revenue, the cost to build as well as any cost to operate the building, and the investment returns needed to attract capital for the project. In other words, it is the budget that developers have remaining for land after all the other development constraints have been analyzed. A few of the housing strategies recommended in this HAP to encourage more housing variety and housing supply include modifications to existing development code as well a recommendation for the City to consider the adoption of a multifamily tax exemption (METE) program. Code modifications and the potential addition of MF I'E program incentives were analyzed to evaluate their effectiveness in improving the likelihood of development of townhomes and multifamily apartments. A development feasibility analysis tests the impact that various changes to development standards and incentive programs have on market -realistic development examples called prototypes. 2.5.1 Analysis Overview The purpose of this analysis is to examine a set of key program changes and policy levers that can help "tip" project feasibility for the MF I'E program and regulatory changes in Spokane Valley. This section describes the findings from evaluating a set of key planning tools, specifically the MFTE and regulatory changes —including modifications to the allowed density in certain zones and changes to other development standards. These planning tools were selected for their potential to boost housing production, especially housing priced for low- to middle -income households. • MFTE: The MFTE allows a local jurisdiction to incentivize diverse housing options in urban centers lacking in housing choices or workforce housing units by providing taxing exemptions or credits for developers. Essentially this program supports increased housing availability, possibly including affordable units, largely in mixed -income developments conveniently located in urban centers. Chapter 84.14 RCW outlines the existing requirements for implementing a MFTE program. This program exempts eligible new construction or rehabilitated housing from paying property taxes for either an eight -year or a 12-year period. Only projects with four or more rental units are eligible for either the eight- or 12-year exemption, and only property owners who commit to renting or selling at least 20 percent of these units to low- and moderate -income households —earning less than 80 percent of the AMI—are eligible for the 12-year exemption. Spokane Valley currently does not have an established MFTE program. Additional detail on the MF I'E program is provided in Appendix E. PAGE 26 DRAFT MFTE Testing Parameters: Test out the addition of a MFTE program offering a 12-year tax exemption that would require that at least 20 percent of the units be set aside for households earning 80 percent of the AMI or less. In Spokane County, the AMI for a four -person household was $77,400 in 2020. Two ways that this program was tested were: — MFTE program without any increase in residential density in MFR zones. — MFTE program with an increase in allowed residential density up to 40 du/ac in MFR zones compared to the 22 du/ac that is allowed under the current regulations. • Density and Development Standards: The density of residential buildings is limited by the maximum density allowances that the SVMC sets for each zone. Density allowances differ by zone and sometimes are specific to the type of residential building. Residential density is important for housing development because it determines the number of dwelling units that can be built on a parcel. Minimum lot sizes can also influence residential development, since they can prevent development on lots below a certain size. The number and size of housing units that can be built on a parcel is also determined by requirements for nonresidential uses or areas to be set aside and not developed. Open - space requirements (as well as setbacks and minimum landscape requirements) limit the residential building size on a parcel. The size of the building can also be limited by maximum lot coverage, which determines the largest share of a parcel that a building can occupy. Residential density on a development site can increase by modifying standards affecting the horizontal aspects of a project (i.e., building footprints via setback and open space regulatory changes) or standards influencing the vertical profile of a project (i.e., the maximum building height). • Development Prototypes Tested: Three prototypes are evaluated in this feasibility analysis; two types of townhomes and garden style apartments. The financial feasibility findings would generally track with other similar missing -middle product types such as duplexes and cottages. Townhomes are side -by -side- attached single family housing types that are oftentimes associated with fee simple development and small lot sizes. Townhomes can also be built as attached single family condominium housing on larger parcels. 3-story townhomes on a 0.3-acre lot. Townhomes are 2-bedroom or 3-bedroom units with about 1,400 square feet (sf) to 1,700 sf of net floor area, sharing walls with neighboring units, a one -car garage on the ground floor, and a driveway that can function as an additional parking stall. They are assumed to sell at about $421,000 per unit on average. 3-story townhomes on a 1.0-acre lot. These townhomes are the same as above, but they are laid out on two rows and share a private alleyway. They are assumed to sell at about $429,000 per unit on average. Garden style apartments are generally characterized as three-story wood frame construction multifamily rentals. PAGE 27 DRAFT For this analysis ECONorthwest evaluated 3-story, garden -style apartments on a 2.5-acre lot. Apartments have a mix of various sizes ranging from 600 sf for a studio unit to 1,300 sf for a 3-bedroom unit. Residents and their guests have access to surface parking and a shared lobby or common space area. The average rent is assumed to be $1,400 per month. An example image of a garden -style apartment is show in Figure 15. Figure 15: Garden -Style Apartment Example 2.5.2 Summary of Development Feasibility Findings Below is a thematic overview of the findings from the development feasibility assessment. For more detail on the analysis, assumptions, and dollar values of the assessment results, please refer to Appendix E. • Based on existing development standards and land prices in Spokane Valley, the townhome prototype has limited feasibility in the R-4 zone and three-story garden -style apartments are not feasible in the MFR zone, given current land prices. The value of new development is limited by development standards that restrict the scale of development possible on a parcel. Increasing density allowances is an effective way to encourage development of townhomes and garden -style apartments in Spokane Valley. • For garden -style apartments, the 12-year MFIE also makes projects more cost-effective and feasible, but it is not as impactful as increasing density allowances to 40 du/ac. • The development prototypes that tested policy changes included townhomes and apartments at various densities. However, the development feasibility of other missing - middle housing types such as duplexes and cottages would also benefit from these density increases. • Decreasing open -space requirements, increasing maximum lot coverage, or increasing maximum building height is unlikely to have any meaningful effect on housing development in the near future. PAGE 28 DRAFT TAB#4 3 HOUSING STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS The strategy recommendations advanced in this HAP were informed by public engagement, data analysis, review of relevant policies and planning documents, staff input, and development feasibility. These recommendations are intended to be options for Spokane Valley that will, if implemented, provide tools to increase housing supply, increase variety of housing types, and/or increase the availability of housing affordable to all income levels in Spokane Valley. The housing needs assessment concluded that 6,660 new housing units are needed to support growth in the City though 2037. With 1,175 of those units needed for households earning 50 percent or less than AMI, this HAP provides recommended actions that focus on supporting this largely rental household population that is largely cost burdened or severely cost burdened. There is also an additional need for 1,039 units that needs to be targeted to households earning between 50 and 80 percent of AMI. Strategies that encourage and provide incentives to develop missing -middle housing types are provided because these are homes where many millennial families first start or where seniors move to down -size. There is no "silver bullet" for developing housing strategies, as each idea brings benefits, drawbacks, different levels of impact, and tradeoffs. These recommended actions are proposed because they can help to fulfill housing needs equitably across the spectrum of different household incomes. The recommendations are organized under the following goals, and are not ordered in any rank or priority: A. Preserve existing affordable housing and prevent and mitigate displacement. Housing preservation and anti -displacement recommendations can mitigate and minimize the negative effects that often arise from new housing development. Housing preservation and anti -displacement recommendations can expand housing affordability and availability in various ways. Of particular focus is aging housing stock that could be at risk of investment purchases (where they are bought, renovated, and rented at higher prices). This is important in the Census Block Groups identified as at high risk for development feasibility and physical displacement. B. Increase market -rate and affordable housing supply throughout Spokane Valley but focused on zones that support multifamily and missing -middle housing types. The housing needs assessment found that a range of housing types meeting the affordability needs for a range of household incomes will be needed to meet the identified goal through 2037 as illustrated in Figure 11. Recommended actions to encourage the development of a diversified housing stock include SVMC modifications, provision of incentives, and the consideration of a targeted tax exemption. C. Increase housing options and housing choice. Increasing housing choice and expanding options to households in Spokane Valley is a focus of several housing and land use policies and goals. The City has policies and regulations that support "middle housing" development, such as cottages, duplexes, triplexes, and ADUs. Recommended actions will PAGE 29 DRAFT encourage the development of more ADUs, provide for the development of tiny homes and tiny home villages, support transitional housing, and provide for the establishment a City program to fund efforts to supporting housing for the full range of income ranges. 3.1 Summary of Housing Strategy Recommendations Figure 16 provides an overview of each recommended action by category. These recommendations are within Spokane Valley's control, but work will span departments and involve meaningful contributions from stakeholders such as the City Council and the Planning Commission, as well as renters, homeowners, advocates, developers (both affordable and market -rate), and many others. Only Recommendations The adoption of this HAP by City Council does not mean these recommendations will all be advanced. The recommended actions will undergo their own process for review, adoption, and engagement. Each housing strategy recommendation presented in Figure 16 includes a description of how it advances Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan housing goals, the rationale for moving forward, and key next steps. Some recommended actions may cross over into other categories. The detailed assessment of each recommended action follows the summary of recommended actions found in Figure 16. PAGE 30 DRAFT Figure 16. Summary of Recommended Actions Action No. Recommended Action Description Implementation Considerations Goal A: Preservation of Affordable Housing and Displacement Mitigation Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies that support these recommended actions: • H-Gl 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. Recommended Comprehensive Plan Goal, Policy, or Strategy Updates to support these recommended actions: • Revise H-Pl "Support voluntary efforts by property owners to rehabilitate and preserve buildings of historic value and unique character" to "...preserve buildings that provide affordable housing and buildings of historic value and unique character." • Revise H-P3 "Use available financial and regulatory tools to support the development of affordable housing units." to "...support the development and preservation of affordable housing units." • Consider a Housing Element Strategy that encourages Spokane Valley to monitor its regulated affordable housing units. • Consider a Housing Element Strategy that encourages Spokane Valley to establish a rental housing business license program. Al Monitor Rent -Restricted Properties Implement a program to monitor the supply of rent - restricted affordable housing units in the City. Maintenance of such a knowledge base will allow the City and community housing partners to foresee and plan for threats to rent -restricted housing supply. Evaluate the feasibility from a City resource standpoint of establishing a monitoring program and consider working with housing partners in developing a monitoring program to receive data. A2 Retain Affordable Market Rate Units To address potential displacement risks, ensure safe rental housing and collect key data on rental housing properties by establishing a rental housing business license program. Research and evaluate the costs and benefits of a rental housing business license program for the City in order to monitor the rental housing stock and the income ranges they serve. A3 Evaluate Potential Displacement Impacts from Proposed Land Use Changes Identify and track key demographic and socioeconomic data for neighborhoods in Spokane Valley; pay attention to current conditions in areas targeted for growth. Develop a Spokane Valley program that includes methods to evaluate risks and engages in effective community outreach. A4 Provide Tenant Support Work with community partners to increase access to tenant supports. Consider establishing and monitoring compliance with fair housing policies. Seek funding for programs requiring financial aid or resources. Work with community organizations to identify new programs and partnerships; identify potential funding sources; consider relocation assistance for displaced renters. A5 Provide Homeowner Resource Assistance Work with community organizations to increase access to homebuyer supports; seek funding for down payment assistance and financial counseling classes. Work with community organizations and identify potential funding sources. PAGE 31 DRAFT Action No. Recommended Action Description Implementation Considerations Goal B: Increase Housing Supply Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies that support these recommended actions: housing types, including tiny homes, accessory types. housing units. support economic growth and vitality. centers and commercial areas. of vacant land at Mirabeau Point. recommended actions: • H-Gl 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. • H-P2 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative dwelling units, prefabricated homes, cohousing, cottage housing, and other housing • H-P3 Use available financial and regulatory tools to support the development of affordable • LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements • LU-P14 Enable a variety of housing types. • LU-P16 Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit • LU Strategy: Collaborate with the private sector to ensure the successful redevelopment Recommended Comprehensive Plan Goal, Policy, or Strategy Updates to support these • Revise LU-P13 "Work collaboratively with landlords and developers that seek to provide mixed -use residential projects" to "...that seek to provide affordable housing, mixed -income, or mixed -use residential projects." B1 Modify the SVMC to encourage production of townhomes and cottages Decrease minimum lot sizes, increase density limits, and modify the lot coverage ratios in R-4, multifamily, and mixed -use zones. Consider flexibility in open space requirements and setbacks for cottages. Review potential actions and draft regulations to revise the SVMC. B2 Adopt a MFTE program Adopt 12-year MFTE program in R-4, multifamily, and mixed -use zones with an emphasis on transit -served areas. Conduct a study and solicit input from stakeholders to weigh public benefit of affordable units with lost tax revenues. B3 Create incentives to produce additional market rate and affordable housing Allow increased density in exchange for inclusion of affordable units. Waive up to 80 percent of impact fees for projects with affordable units. Consider local sales tax waivers for projects that provide affordable housing at or below 30 percent of AMI. Conduct additional studies and solicit input to weigh public benefit of affordable units with lost revenues. B4 Adopt a planned action ordinance(s) in subareas with transit investment or where large, mixed- use phased developments can occur Subareas with a planned action ordinance will provide for streamlined development where a well- defined vision has been defined, infrastructure investments made, and specific incentives created to encourage mixed -income, mixed -use development. Weigh potential areas and resources needed to implement a planned action ordinance. PAGE 32 DRAFT Action No. Recommended Action Description Implementation Considerations Goal C: Increase Housing Choice Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies that support these recommended actions: housing types, including tiny homes, accessory types. housing units. from social and human services providers. and visitors. industrial, and mixed -use land. recommended actions: • H-Gl 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. • H-P2 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative dwelling units, prefabricated homes, cohousing, cottage housing, and other housing • H-P3 Use available financial and regulatory tools to support the development of affordable • H-P4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families needing assistance • LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, • LU-P9 Provide supportive regulation for new and innovative development types on commercial, • LU-P14 Enable a variety of housing types. Recommended Comprehensive Plan Goal, Policy, or Strategy Updates to support these • Add a Housing Element Strategy that focuses Spokane Valley on exploring the development of a housing fund to support the development of new units and preservation of existing units that target moderate -income to extremely low-income households. Cl Update regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units Development of ADUs has been slow modifications to the SVMC may increase the production of these attainable units. Revise ADU standards and established approved models. C2 Permit and clarify tiny home regulations Allow tiny homes as an alternative to ADUs. Allow for tiny house villages in MU zones or on publicly/ religious owned properties to promote development of lower -cost transitional housing. Consider minimum density requirements for tiny house villages. Review and modify land use and building codes to permit tiny homes in specific zones. C3 Coordinate with existing systems of care for effective Homeless Services Implementation Establish siting requirements for homelessness support centers and establish streamlined policies, regulations, and guidance relating to the siting of Homeless Services in City. Evaluate best practices and the feasibility of siting shelters or transitional housing. Continue to engage with the community and partners about the need for such facilities and how they will integrate in the area. PAGE 33 DRAFT Action No. Recommended Action Description Implementation Considerations C4 Develop a City Identify new funding sources that may formalize a Evaluate the range of ways these funds may be used managed housing housing fund program such as a housing trust fund for direct investment or to leverage additional fund program, such including, but not limited to an affordable housing dollars. Consider needed staffing resources to as a housing trust property tax levy, grants, consortium and manage a housing funds program. fund, to supporting supplement funds to be received from the recently Draft a plan to define how the City will expend the housing for moderate adopted sales and use tax credit for affordable sales and use tax funds it currently collects to support to extremely low and supportive housing. These funds may be used of low- and extremely low-income households. income households for direct investments, to leverage grants, and partner with non-profit service providers and affordable housing developer to support extremely low-income to low-income households. Develop the rationale for a housing tax levy including potential impacts to the average household and a detailed plan for how funds would be used and gauge community support. PAGE 34 DRAFT 3.2 Assessment of Housing Strategy Recommendations Goal A. Preserve affordable housing and prevent and mitigate displacement. Al. MONITOR RENT -RESTRICTED PROPERTIES Spokane Valley should consider a staff program that allows it to monitor its supply of rent -restricted affordable housing. As described in the Housing Needs Analysis section, Spokane Valley has approximately 1,663 units of rent -restricted affordable housing (see page 12). These properties have been built and maintained at different times, with different funding types and different restrictions on their affordability. They all have various expirations on those affordability restrictions as well. Rationale: When affordability restrictions end, rent -restricted properties are at risk of moving to market -rate housing, losing critical affordability for their tenants. This risk is particularly high if properties are owned by private, for -profit companies (nonprofit affordable housing owners and operators will typically work to keep the rents affordable). When affordability restrictions end, properties often must be recapitalized (get new funding and loans) and/or rehabilitated to improve their physical conditions and renew affordability limits. This funding is typically competitive and hard to find. In tight housing markets, for -profit developers may seek properties that need rehabilitation, finance the construction with debt, and then raise the rents to pay for the debt service, thereby removing units from the affordable housing stock. By monitoring rent -restricted affordable housing properties that are nearing their affordability expiration dates, Spokane Valley can be a strong partner and advocate. With the big -picture knowledge of rent -restricted property conditions the City may either directly work with the property owners through a housing fund program it establishes or direct owners to its housing partners to help secure needed funding and prevent the property from becoming market rate. Next Steps: • Evaluate the level of effort and staffing resources needed to establish a monitoring program or identify a community partner to lead the effort. • Ensure that Spokane Valley has a relationship with, and proper contact information for, all rent -restricted affordable housing property owner -operators in Spokane Valley. • Work with these housing providers to ensure that data sharing is possible; consider setting up a reporting agreement with reporting information and deadlines. • Create a database and mapping system to monitor and plan for these upcoming expirations. • Become familiar with the various funding sources that are available to support recapitalization and rehabilitation (see Appendix F for a list of national, state, and local funding sources for affordable housing). PAGE 35 DRAFT A2. RETAIN AFFORDABLE MARKET RATE UNITS Spokane Valley should collect key data on its rental housing properties by developing a rental housing business license program. A good starting point would be to establish reporting requirements of landlords and gather additional information on rental rates ranges and housing prices. This would provide Spokane Valley with a more detailed inventory of low-cost market rentals (also called NOAHs) across Spokane Valley. Rationale: Because regulated affordable housing is so difficult and costly to build, most low-income households live in unregulated, but affordable housing. This type of affordable housing is not a rent - restricted property, but a lower -cost property that is attainable to very low-income to moderate - income households. Because these housing units are not regulated, rents can increase by any amount at any time, putting these households at high risk of housing insecurity and displacement. Spokane Valley could evaluate the feasibility of implementing a monitoring program on its own or partnering with a non-profit. This program could provide a unique, low-cost, and low -barrier way to monitor and track the low-cost market rentals. Regular updated access to this type of data would allow Spokane Valley to actively monitor the rents and affordability levels of rental housing as well as to have readily available contact information for landlords when properties are listed for sale. An expanded program could inspect and license rental housing to ensure that landlords maintain their units consistent with livability standards. Tracking Housing Conditions in Spokane Valley A robust housing monitoring database would include the following. Most of these data points (such as address, size, and landlord contact information) likely are already collected through the annual licensing and inspection process, but the database could be more useful if additional information were gathered from landlords. As a start, this type of information could be voluntarily supplied by landlords, with required reporting coming as staffing and organizational capacity allows. In addition, some information (such as code enforcement) may be collected by other city departments or through collaboration with county agencies. The City of Tukwila and the City of Burien have established such programs. Basic Information • Property address • Property size (number of units) • Year built • Contact information for the landlord • Management company (if applicable) • Inspection results and schedules (with particular attention to deferred maintenance at the property) • Property violations or complaints Additional Information • Rents by unit type • Number of renters using rent assistance programs • Typical unit amenities • Amenities on site • Number of units and properties owned by landlord (can be provided in ranges) Next Steps: • Develop a work plan and identify staffing needs and potential partners. The work plan should consider the feasibility of managing a rental housing licensing program and fee structure to understand impacts for cost -recovery and staffing needs. Inspections and licensing programs can be structured to be revenue neutral, where fees cover all programmatic expenses. PAGE 36 DRAFT • Work directly with the Landlord Association to identify and mitigate challenges with the establishment of a monitoring program. • Establish criteria to identify properties at risk for displacement, such as those that have low rents, meaningful deferred maintenance, few units (e.g., fewer than 20), noninstitutional owners, and those that are in amenity -rich areas, near recent redevelopments, or on high -cost land. These factors all increase the risk that a mom-and- pop landlord might look at deferred maintenance needs and decide to sell their property to a willing investor. With this information the City or its partners may help match high risk properties with funds from a City housing fund or other resources available to housing partners such as with home repair grants and loan programs supported by the state. PAGE 37 DRAFT A3. EVALUATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM DISPLACEMENT WHEN PROPOSING LAND USE CHANGES Figure 13 shows only one of the many tools and strategies available to monitor displacement risk. Displacement does not happen equally across Spokane Valley, as some neighborhoods and some communities are more likely to be forced from their homes because of economic, physical, or cultural changes. Spokane Valley should continue to monitor these areas as development takes place, housing market conditions change, or development opportunities continue to expand. Special attention should be paid to historically marginalized communities such as communities of color, immigrants, and non -English-speaking communities. The Displacement Vulnerability Risk map in Figure 13 shows one point in time. Community -level demographic changes can occur relatively quickly. The methodology for this analysis is included in this report and can easily be updated regularly by City staff. In addition, before land use and Comprehensive Plan updates are enacted in areas with high displacement risk, Spokane Valley should reassess risk and proactively engage with the communities where such changes will be proposed. Spokane Valley should integrate this risk assessment with its approval criteria in SVMC 17.80.140.H for Comprehensive Plan amendments and develop safeguards in response to its findings. Rationale: With a nuanced understanding of the areas that might have the most vulnerability to physical, economic, and cultural displacement, Spokane Valley can employ its anti -displacement recommendations in a geographically focused way. Many of the tenants living in unregulated affordable properties will be at risk if their building is purchased and rents rise. In addition, Spokane Valley -led changes in zoning allowances to allow more intense housing development can increase the chances that households vulnerable to displacement will see increased displacement pressures. Consequently, displacement risk should be assessed before rezones and safeguards are developed in response to the findings. Next Steps: • Create an update process for identifying and assessing key factors associated with displacement risk, using the most up-to-date data. • Focus on historically marginalized communities such as communities of color, immigrants, and non -English-speaking communities. • Spokane Valley could choose to have more targeted outreach in these areas with high displacement risk to better understand the community's desired outcomes relative to proposed zone changes. PAGE 38 DRAFT A4. PROVIDE MORE TENANT SUPPORT Spokane Valley should explore additional tools and practices to strengthen tenant support. This recommendation suggests working with community organizations to provide a broad array of community -based supports and resources for tenants and renters. The City, either directly or with its housing partners, could better support tenants in accessing services by providing an accessible resource to understand legal protections through the state's Residential Landlord -Tenant Act (RCW 59.18). Additionally, a responsive code enforcement department for those rentals that are in disrepair or unfit for habitation when landlords are nonresponsive may also help. Rationale: Direct resources that support residents in Spokane Valley will help minimize and mitigate the effects of displacement pressures. At the federal level, the Federal Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability. (Tide VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended in 1988 (42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq.) and Civil Rights Act of 1866 Organizations such as the Fair Housing (Title 42 of the United States Code sections 1981 and Center of Washington serve as a resource for jurisdictions implementing projects 1982)). Tenants need to know their federal and state tenant that use federal funds to affirmatively rights and feel empowered to maintain their housing, further fair housing (AFFH). Local Housing particularly for households belonging to marginalized Solutions is another resource that communities (such as immigrant and refugee communities, connects housing strategies with AFFH. communities of color, and low-income communities). Next Steps: Spokane Valley could establish, update, or strengthen resources available to tenants involving: • Low -barrier application screening (e.g., Fair Choice Housing or Ban the Box efforts). • Create tenants' rights and education resources (e.g., funding for RentWell programs). • Require language translation of tenant information to increase the education available to immigrant and refugee communities. PAGE 39 DRAFT A5. PROVIDE HOMEOWNER RESOURCE ASSISTANCE Spokane Valley should work with community organizations to explore and expand on a range of homeownership assistance programs. There are many aspects of homeownership assistance that Spokane Valley could consider supporting through partnerships with regional organizations. Rationale: A major way to mitigate displacement is by increasing the homeownership rate, particularly for low-income households, households of color (who have historically lower homeownership rates than white households), as well as immigrants and refugees. Displacement often does not affect homeowners, in large part because they have fixed mortgage payments that cannot change without warning (taxes do change but they are a small portion of overall homeownership housing costs). In addition, because lenders size a mortgage to a buyer's income and ability to pay, homeowners are less susceptible to cost burdening and housing insecurity, absent a sudden change in income. Because homeowners are largely shielded from larger economic and housing market changes, encouraging homeownership is one of the best ways to prevent physical and economic displacement. It cannot, however, prevent cultural displacement. Next Steps: Homeownership down payment assistance programs can be challenging to maintain and can only help a limited number of households. Many homeowner and homebuyer resources require funding through grant programs such as the Washington State Housing Trust Fund grants and loans or HUD's HOME programs managed by Commerce. Spokane Valley's role can be to enhance its partnerships with regional organizations already working in these areas and explore avenues to educate and provide resources for prospective homeowners. Areas where the City can provide additional resource support include: • Hosting homebuyer education (classes educating renters on the home buying process). • Foreclosure assistance and counseling. • Energy assistance and counseling. • Provide resources on cooperative ownership housing models (information and guidance for tenants looking to buy out a landlord and establish a cooperative ownership structure). • Provide resources on community land trust models (which provide shared equity as home prices appreciate, while still maintaining long-term affordability). • Down payment assistance (funding would have to be identified, and income thresholds would have to be carefully considered to establish eligibility criteria). • Homeownership weatherization and rehabilitation grants. PAGE 40 DRAFT Goal B. Increase market -rate and affordable housing supply throughout the city but focused on zones that support multifamily and missing -middle housing types. B1. MODIFY THE SVMC TO ENCOURAGE PRODUCTION OF TOWNHOMES AND COTTAGES Townhouses and cottages are permitted under the supplemental use regulations in the R-4, MFR, MU, and CMU zoning districts. The Neighborhood Commercial zoning district also permits townhouses. Spokane Valley defines a townhouse development as one where between three and six attached single- family dwelling units are developed side by side, and a cottage development as one where small, detached, single-family dwelling units are developed as a group clustered around a common area. A limited number of townhomes have been developed in the City, and no cottage projects have been completed to date. This action recommends modifications to density requirements and minimum lot sizes in the R-4 zone, and allowing unit -lot subdivisions to improve development feasibility for townhome and cottage developments. Unit -lot subdivision defines boundary lines and use areas within a larger "parent" parcel for the purpose of defining and creating individual sellable lots. This is primarily used when multiple buildings are designed to fit on a single original lot such as for townhome and cottage developments. Site development standards apply only the parent site as a whole. New buildings are on individual lots allowing for fee simple transfer to new owners. Many cities have adopted code to support this type of subdivision including Spokane, Wenatchee, Arlington, Seattle, and Bellevue to name a few. The following recommended SVMC modifications would improve development feasibility and encourage the development of more missing -middle housing for moderate -income and middle - income households. • Increase the residential density in the R-4 zone from ten du/ac to 15 du/ac. • Decrease the minimum lot size for townhomes in the R-4 zone from 4,300 square feet to 2,000 square feet. • Reduce the building setback and open space requirements for cottage developments for projects that provide affordable housing. • Allow unit -lot subdivisions. Rationale: The City already accommodates townhouses and cottages as permitted uses in the R-4 zone, so modifications that help encourage these product types are likely to be more palatable politically than extending these changes to other residential zones. The regulatory review in Appendix C highlights regulatory barriers that limit townhome development. The development feasibility analysis in Appendix E found that the current code results in residual land values that fall at or below average land prices. Further, for lots with existing homes, the development economics become even more challenging. The analysis of the modifications found that developers likely will respond positively by producing townhome units in R-4. Because of challenging economics, cottage projects are not as common as townhomes. Reducing setbacks and open space requirements for cottage projects with affordable housing improves development economics and will encourage more missing - middle development. PAGE 41 DRAFT Next Steps: • Review potential actions and draft regulations to revise the SVMC. • Evaluate the potential impacts from displacement of residents in existing NOAH single- family rental homes and consider the potential benefits and resource costs/impacts to implement a relocation fee program. The fee would be paid by developers to the City's housing fund for supporting tenant relocation elsewhere in Spokane Valley. PAGE 42 DRAFT B2. ADOPT A MFTE PROGRAM Spokane Valley should consider establishing a 12-year MF I'E program in mixed -use and multifamily zones that are transit served. Spokane Valley should consider establishing a MFTE program with the 12-year affordability requirements to capture value from the financial incentive. This MFTE program should also be packaged with modifications to density standards. With the COVID-19 pandemic hurting cities' economic and fiscal outlooks, special consideration will have to be given to the impact of an MFTE program on Spokane Valley's tax revenues. Rationale: Tax abatements positively impact the feasibility of projects where market -rate projects are feasible and can help cross -subsidize the affordable units. When considering a MF I'E program, careful consideration of the temporary loss of tax revenue from the new affordable units against the potential attraction of new When a project is approved under investment. MFTE can help support increased housing a multifamily tax exemption production byincreasingthe feasibilityof multifamilyand program, the value of eligible housing improvements is exempted mixed -use development. If ME I'E were to be applied in areas from property taxes. Property tax planned for frequent transit, such as the Sprague, it could revenue is still collected on increase the development feasibility of the existing MFR and remainder of the project. mixed -use zones. The current development standards in the MFR zone create marginally feasible projects, but the MFTE program with the 12-year tax exemption will add new units at 80 percent of AMI or less that would not have been developed otherwise. The 12-year MF I'E program specifically increases the supply of affordable housing, and this incentive could be paired with an increased allowed density from 22 du/ac currently allowed in the MFR zone up to 40 du/ac. Such an incentive would improve the development feasibility of projects adding density. Multifamily development in the CMU and MU zones is considered commercial and has no density limits. Project in these mixed -use zones will not need the density bonus; however, the MF I'E program will improve project performance and provide units affordable to moderate income households. Next Steps: • Explore the programmatic implications for the City to create and manage a 12-year MFTE program for projects delivering at least 10-units to support both housing development and new affordable housing. The City could refer to other city's MFTE programs such as the City of Bellingham's (https://cob.org/services/planning/development/mfte). • To weigh the fiscal impacts and potential benefits associated with increased housing production (market and affordable units) study the potential impacts to the City's tax base. Specific to Spokane Valley is that it has not taken its property tax increases for 12 years, so the only increase in property tax is from new construction. An MF I'E program that reduces tax revenue from the affordable units in new developments would have an increased effect for the City's revenues compared to cities who take annual increases. • Conduct additional outreach with developers, impacted residents, and other stakeholders to determine the best approach to land use changes. Ensure that potential displacement is evaluated alongside any proposed land use density changes. PAGE 43 DRAFT • Map out the process to adopt a MFIL program including the creation of targeted areas (RCW 84.14.040) that are designated urban centers. The creation of urban centers requires a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Urban center means a center designated as such in the land use element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. An urban center is an identifiable district containing business establishments, adequate public facilities, and a mixture of uses and activities, where residents may obtain a variety of products and services (RCW 84.14.010(18)). PAGE 44 DRAFT B3. CREATE INCENTIVES TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING Several tools for incentivizing market rate and affordable housing may be adopted by Spokane Valley. These incentives provide an exchange where a city offers a benefit to a proposed project such as a density bonus, a mechanism for reducing project costs like reduced parking, or a means to streamline the permitting process. In exchange, the developer agrees to provide a certain percentage of affordable units for a certain number of years. These incentives could be limited to certain zones or overlay zones. Density bonus programs may also allow developers to contribute to a housing fund in lieu of building the units themselves. The following incentives are recommended strategies to increase affordable housing production (see Appendix E the analysis summary): • This HAP recommends modifying the permitted R-4 density from 10 du/ac to 15 du/ac to encourage townhome and cottage development. This strategy recommends increasing the modified permitted density from 15 du/ac to 22 du/ac for townhome and cottage developments if 20 percent of the units are set aside for households earning 80 percent or less of AMI. These units would also be eligible for the MF 1E incentive. • Increase the allowed density in the MFR zone from 22 du/ac to 40 du/ac if 20 percent of the units are set aside for households earning 80 percent or less of the AMI. These units would also be eligible for the MFTE incentive. • Consider a fee -in -lieu program for projects seeking the additional density but choosing to forego providing affordable housing on site. These funds would be managed by Spokane Valley's housing fund program to support affordable housing elsewhere in the City. • Waive up to 80 percent of impact fees for projects that provide affordable units targeted toward households earning 60 percent or less of the AMI. Rationale: The analysis in Appendix E found that the development economics create a strong motivation for the development community to respond positively to these incentives. Pairing the density bonus with affordable housing requirements provides housing choices for a broader range of household incomes. Next Steps: • Conduct additional studies and solicit input to weigh public benefit of affordable units with lost property tax and sales tax revenues. • Evaluate a fee -in -lieu program to access the density bonus in exchange for funds that Spokane Valley may use to support affordable housing development and preservation. PAGE 45 DRAFT B4. ADOPT A PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE(S) IN SUBAREAS WITH TRANSIT INVESTMENT OR WHERE LARGE, MIXED -USE PHASED DEVELOPMENTS CAN BE BUILT Planned actions, which are authorized under SEPA (RCW 43.21C.440 and WAC 197-11-164 through -172), provide more detailed environmental analysis during an areawide planning phase rather than during the permit review process. As a result, future projects in the designated planned action area do not require SEPA determinations at the time of permit application if they are consistent with the type of development, growth and traffic assumptions, and mitigation measures studied in the environmental impact statement or the threshold determination. Rationale: A planned action ordinance would help streamline the development process for projects in the planned area. Planned actions may help Spokane Valley increase its housing supply and add to its low- and middle -income housing stock near transit and jobs. Transit oriented development around Spokane Transit Authority (STA) investments also encourages more ridership helping to justify its investment. Next Steps: • Administering the planned action ordinance process can be an expensive endeavor for the City. It should estimate the resources to develop needed to implement a planned action ordinance and identify potential grants or funding partners such as the STA that may help offset these costs. • Identify potential subareas for a planned action. Two areas for consideration may be a portion of the Sprague Avenue corridor between Havana and Pines and the station area at Mirabeau Point. • Coordinate with the STA on its plans for future station areas and discuss the concept of partnering with housing developers to provide affordable housing its surface parking lots in a transit -oriented development. PAGE 46 DRAFT GOAL C. INCREASE HOUSING OPTIONS AND HOUSING CHOICE. Cl. UPDATE REGULATIONS FOR ADUS ADUs are currently permitted in all Spokane Valley zoning districts except for MFR. These units are regulated by SVMC 19.40.030, which contains the siting, building, parking, and ownership requirements for developing an ADU. Several recommended revisions to this section could increase the pace of ADU development. Appendix G provides additional background on ADUs. Spokane Valley could consider the following: • Eliminate or reduce the off-street parking requirement for an ADU if the owner can provide evidence it already has enough parking area to meet this requirement. Adding off- street parking space to the existing parking requirements can make development of an ADU cost prohibitive and physically impossible. • Remove the ownership requirement for developing an ADU. There are over 4,850 single- family homes in Spokane Valley for which the tax bills are mailed to different addresses. These homes are likely rental properties and would not be allowed to have an ADU. Generally, requiring owner -occupancy of one of the units can negatively impact ADU construction. Some cities have removed such requirements or has modified them —for instance, the City of Renton exempts owner occupancy requirements in exchange for 60- percent-AMI affordability. • Spokane Valley should explore whether there are feasible opportunities to relax the size limitations to allow for more flexibility and smaller units that could result from the conversion of garage spaces. • Relaxing the ADU setback requirements (particularly the side and rear) to five feet could make ADU projects more feasible, particularly on lots with irregular or elongated shapes. • Lower barriers to allow homeowners to consider developing ADUs and consider reducing costs by allowing strategic permitting fee waivers for affordable dwellings. • Increasing the density to allow for two ADUs per lot could be helpful, particularly if Spokane Valley sees increasing demand for ADU housing options. Jurisdictions will not see large numbers of ADUs being constructed until the market rents reach a level that makes development feasible. • Monitor: Cities may need to address short-term vacation rental use of ADUs and spillover effects in terms of parking, service, and neighborhood impacts. Rationale: The City recognizes that approximately 30 ADUs have been formally developed in Spokane Valley since 2012 based on available permit data. These recommendations are intended to encourage the development of ADUs. These units help to broaden housing diversity and choices in a wider range of neighborhoods, since they can be offered at a more affordable cost because of their small size. ADUs also offer additional options for seniors and younger populations, single -person households, etc. The AARP surveyed people 50 and older and found that they would consider creating an ADU to provide a home for a loved one in need of care (84 percent), provide housing for relatives or friends (83 percent), feel safer by having someone living nearby (64 percent), have a space for guests (69 percent), increase the value of their home (67 percent), create a place for a caregiver to stay (60 PAGE 47 DRAFT percent), and earn extra income from renting to a tenant (53 percent)$. Finally, ADUs can blend into single-family neighborhoods and be a source of added income to help pay housing expenses. Next Steps: • Evaluate the possible impacts from modifying the ADU regulations around parking and ownership requirements. • Revise ADU development standards in the SVMC. • Eliminate or reduce ADU-related permit fees. • Established approved ADU models to expedite permitting. 8 Source: AARP Horne and Community Preferences Survey, 2018. PAGE 48 DRAFT C2. PERMIT AND CLARIFY TINY HOME REGULATIONS Tiny houses are one way to provide a housing option for individuals and households who desire privacy and smaller home size but prefer single-family home amenities. Tiny homes, sometimes referred to as micro -homes, are small, single-family dwellings, typically 80 to 200 square feet but almost always less than 500 square feet and have a kitchen and a bathroom. Appendix G provides additional background on tiny home considerations. Until recently, state law, building codes, and local regulations have presented numerous legal and logistical barriers to siting and building these very small, detached dwellings. In 2019, the state legislature passed ESSB 5383, which updated state law to enable the development of tiny houses or tiny house communities throughout the state. This law defined tiny houses and mandated that the building code council write building codes for tiny homes by the end of 2019. Washington State has adopted Appendix Q Tiny Houses which relates to tiny homes on a foundation. Micro -home (i.e. Tiny homes) vs Micro housing units Micro housing units typically are very small dwelling units in multi -family buildings in which all living space other than a bathroom is contained in a single room (usually under 300 square feet). Generally, the units share common kitchen, laundry, and gathering spaces. Micro -housing in theory could be less expensive than a standard 1-bedroom apartment but this is not always the case. This type of housing usually is targeted to a very specific population — single -person households typically in their 20s and 30s either in college or working. Spokane Valley can do the following to study and improve its code and policies on tiny houses: • Add definitions for tiny houses to differentiate them from trailers, manufactured homes, and recreational vehicles. This includes clarifying that only tiny houses on foundations (not on wheels) are allowed. • Create a permit pathway for Binding Site Plans that allow siting of tiny homes (such as in a manufactured -home park). • Consider modifying the land use matrices to specify where tiny houses or tiny house villages would be permitted or conditionally allowed. In general, review the zoning code to identify potential hurdles associated with tiny home development. Tiny house village communities include property that can be rented or held by other others for the placement of tiny houses. These can also provide transitional housing for those experiencing homelessness (these villages have been built in Olympia and Seattle). • Allow tiny homes, set on a foundation, to be utilized as a detached ADU to lower construction costs. • Analyze the potential for the updated International Residential Code (IRC) with Appendix Q (2018) modified to be included in the building code to incorporate tiny house building standards. This IRC defines a tiny house as a dwelling smaller than 400 square feet excluding lofts. The Washington state legislature (via ESB 5383) recognizes that the IRC has issued tiny house building code standards in Appendix Q which can provide a basis for the standards requested within this act. This is important since the building code can be the most significant hurdle for legally constructing a tiny home. PAGE 49 DRAFT Rationale: Tiny houses are one way to provide a housing option for individuals and households who desire privacy but do not want or cannot afford a large, single-family home. They can also be used as a way of providing housing for people experiencing homelessness. Next Steps: • Review and modify land use and building codes to permit tiny homes in specific zones. • Update site plan approval criteria to account for unique site needs of tiny houses. This would benefit from a process soliciting input from tiny home developers. As a first step, the City should solicit input or convene a focus group or working group including tiny house owners and developers, city planners, and city building code experts to review how tiny homes would fit in the existing site plan approval process and identify regulatory barriers and possible areas of flexibility related to the use of the IRC. • Because a negative perception of tiny homes may present hurdles, develop material summarizing the rationale and benefits for this housing type. PAGE 50 DRAFT C3. COORDINATE WITH EXISTING SYSTEMS OF CARE FOR EFFECTIVE HOMELESS SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION Homelessness is a housing challenge in Spokane Valley. The Washington state Growth Management Act requires that communities plan for all economic segments of the population. This strategy addresses the very lowest income segments by recommending approaches to supporting shelters and transitional housing to help stabilize these households as they move into permanent housing. There are several ways that cities can address homelessness. The Homelessness & Housing Toolkit for Cities produced by Association of Washington Cities and Municipal Research and Services Center (2020) provides some resources and case studies. Rationale: Spokane Valley has identified a need to include goals and strategies related to homelessness in the current Comprehensive Plan update process. While the Comprehensive Plan includes goals and strategies related to affordable housing, it does not currently address homelessness. This strategy provides recommendations for supporting the very lowest income segments of Spokane Valley. Next Steps: • Include a land use and housing goal in the Comprehensive Plan that addresses Spokane Valley's intention to supporting transitional housing. • Identify best practices and potential siting requirements for shelters and transitional housing such as tiny home villages, including, but not limited to, land owned by the public or a religious institution. • Actively engage with existing service providers, faith -based organizations and regional bodies to coordinate housing resources. • Consider Spokane Valley's role in the countywide approach to addressing homelessness and evaluate the benefits and impacts from managing its portion of the real estate excise tax fees to support the homeless community as it seeks to transition to stability. PAGE 51 DRAFT C4. DEVELOP A HOUSING FUND PROGRAM A Spokane Valley housing fund program could serve three functions: (1) being a resource for the development community seeking input on funding options; (2) managing active funding resources such as Spokane Valley's recently adopted sales and use tax funds for affordable and supportive housing or other potential future funding sources; and (3) collaborating, educating and advocating on new projects, initiatives, and the pursuit of new funding sources. Rationale: A housing fund program will help facilitate more housing options at the moderate- to low- income levels. There is one active funding sources this program can manage plus several others it could help Spokane Valley evaluate and pursue. This program could also help manage monitoring activities identified in Strategies Al through A3. In the near term, this program would manage the sales and use tax fund for affordable and supportive housing. Spokane Valley has estimated the annual increase of funds from this program to be approximately $178,000. These funds can be used for acquiring, rehabilitating, constructing, or operating and maintaining new affordable housing units. These funds cannot be used to fund construction or operation of a homeless shelter, but instead are reserved for longer -term low income, affordable, and supportive housing. Spokane Valley can use these funds independently, or they can be pooled in partnership with funds from other regional organizations to pay for a larger regional affordable housing development. Spokane Valley may consider two other funding sources that may support a housing fund program promote housing choice and increase housing options: Homeless Housing Assistance Act (HHAA) funds and a city-wide property tax levy (RCW 84.52.105). To begin receiving HHAA funding from recording fees, Spokane Valley would need to take responsibility for homeless housing within its borders by forwarding a resolution to the Spokane County Board of Commissioners stating its intention and commitment to operate a separate program. Spokane Valley must then comply with the same requirements as Spokane County and the City of Spokane under the HHAA. Based on 2019 recording fee collections, this program could generate approximately $657,750 per year. The property tax levy requires voter approval and would place an additional tax of up to $0.50 per thousand dollars assessed for up to ten years. For a home valued at $300,000, this levy would increase the household property tax burden by $150. Funds must go toward financing affordable housing for households earning below 50 percent MFI. Based on current tax rolls, this could generate up to approximately $4.7 million per year. While these taxpayer supported funds could be leveraged to a range of affordable housing developments and initiatives, passing a levy can be very challenging. Even with a well-defined rationale communicated to the public, taxpayers may still not support an additional tax. A complete list of Washington state, local, and federal affordable housing funding sources can be found in Appendix F. A Spokane Valley program can coordinate with other regional housing providers and offer developers resources when seeking tax credit or bonding funding from the Washington State Housing Finance Commission as well as resources from Commerce -led funding programs. These funding sources are competitive statewide. PAGE 52 DRAFT Next Steps: • Identify and define the housing fund program including sources of revenue, programmatic priorities, and staffing resources needed in order to justify its creation. • Evaluate the resources needed to staff the program. • Ensure that its focus is on supporting the development and preservation of low- to moderate -income households in areas of Spokane Valley that are served by transit or where households are at greater risk for displacement. PAGE 53 DRAFT TAB #5 4 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN In the coming years, implementing the HAP require Spokane Valley to balance and coordinate its pursuit of actions, funding, and partnerships with its other policy and programmatic priorities. This section outlines an implementation process thatwill improve succes s with advancing this HAP's recommendations. 4.1 Develop and Assign Work Programs The city's implementation of the 13 recommendations in this HAP will require varying levels of effort. Each recommendation will require different levels of partnership and staff time and will function at varying scales (working at the property, neighborhood, or citywide level). Each of these recommendations is within Spokane Valley's control, but work will span departments and involve meaningful contributions from stakeholders such as the City Council, Planning Commission, residents, homeowners, neighborhood associations, advocates, developers (both affordable and market rate), and many others. The city will need to assess the varying levels of effort, assign staff, and examine technological solutions to develop work programs that can help complete the needed analysis and initiate important conversations with these stakeholders. It is important to have a HAP that balances different housing needs among its current and future residents. This HAP includes targeted actions to help compensate for where the supply is tight and to help those who are underserved or where demand is growing. The recommendations also address the need for both subsidized and non -subsidized market rate housing. Figure 17 provides an overview of each action, focusing on their impacts to Spokane Valley's key goals of increasing housing affordability and lowering displacement risk. PAGE 54 DRAFT Figure 17. Summary of Recommended Actions and Implementation Considerations Goal A: Preservation of Affordable Housing and Displacement Mitigation. Task Description Type of Action Needed Implementation Lead/ Partners Potential Operational Funding and Staff Resources Proposed Timing? Action Al: Monitor Rent -Restricted Properties Household Incomes Targeted: Low-income (below 60% AMI) Moderate -income (60-80% AMI) Middle -income (80-120% AMI) High -income (above 120% AMI) Ability to Reduce Displacement: Low Moderate High Document the level of effort and staffing resources needed to establish a monitoring program and identify the potential for a Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time Short-term community partner to lead the effort. If City chooses to advance past the first task, then... Creation of contact list for all rent -restricted affordable housing properties and property owner/managers in Spokane Valley. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator or Community partner Existing staff time Short-term, ongoing Establish a data sharing relationship with housing providers. Provide them with a reporting agreement with reporting information and deadlines. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator or Community partner Existing staff time Short-term, ongoing Create a database and mapping system to monitor that flags at risk regulated properties of and plan for these upcoming expirations. Administrative Economic Development Division or Community partner Existing staff time Short-term, ongoing Develop a shareable database of funding sources that are available to support recapitalization and rehabilitation. Administrative Economic Development Division or Community partner Existing staff time Short-term, ongoing Action A2: Retain Affordable Market Rate Units Household Incomes Targeted: Low-income (below 60% AMI) Moderate -income (60-80% AMI) Middle -income (80-120% AMI) High -income( above 120% AMI) Ability to Reduce Displacement: Low Moderate High Develop a work plan for and identify staffing needs and potential partners for the creation of a rental -housing monitoring program. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time Short-term If City chooses to advance past the first task, then... Work directly with the Landlord Association to identify and mitigate challenges with the establishment of a monitoring program. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator or Community partner Existing staff time Short-term, ongoing 9 Proposed tuning description: Short-term: 1 year, start after plan approval Medium -term: 2-3 years, completed by 2024 Long-term: 4-5 years, completed by 2026 Ongoing PAGE 55 DRAFT Task Description Type of Action Needed Implementation Lead/ Partners Potential Operational Funding and Staff Resources Proposed Timing' Implement work plan, informed by input from Landlord Association, including establishment of database, system for collecting information from landlords and tenants, and a potential fee system. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator or Community partner 0-1.0 FTE to manage program. Program fees and/or City funds Short-term, ongoing Establish criteria to identify properties eligible for resources. The list of properties identified would be flagged as at risk for displacement due to property disinvestment and/or increasing land values. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator or Community partner 0-1.0 FTE to manage program. Program fees and/or City funds Short-term, ongoing Create a tool -kit for eligible landlords of high -risk properties in need of upgrades to assist with resourcing funds to from a City housing fund or other resources available to housing partners. Administrative Economic Development Division or Community partner 0-1.0 FTE to manage program. Program fees, City funds and/or City housing fund Short-term, ongoing Action A3: Evaluate Potential Displacement Impacts from Proposed Land Use Changes Household Incomes Targeted: Low-income (below 60% AMI) Moderate -income (60-80% AMI) Middle -income (80-120% AMI) High -income (above 120% AMI) Ability to Reduce Displacement: Low Moderate High Using the most up-to-date data, update and maintain a GIS web map that identifies the areas with the greatest displacement risk. Create an update process for maintaining the web map. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time Short-term Conduct targeted outreach in these areas with high displacement risk to better understand the community's desired outcomes relative to proposed zone changes. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time Short-term, ongoing Create a review standard for assessing how potential policy changes may impact housing in neighborhoods facing displacement risk. Administrative Legislative Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time Short-term, ongoing Action A4: Provide More Tenant Support Household Incomes Targeted: Low-income (below 60% AMI) Moderate -income (60-80% AMI) Middle -income (80-120% AMI) High -income( above 120% AMI) Ability to Reduce Displacement: Low Moderate High Create a resources webpage that is updated regularly for tenant information that is accurately translated in multiple languages to increase the education available to immigrant and refugee communities. Administrative Economic Development Division Existing staff time Short-term, ongoing Related to Action Al, provide a web -based form for tenants to submit comments on the condition of their housing unit for monitoring trends. Administrative Economic Development Division Existing staff time Short-term, ongoing PAGE 56 DRAFT Task Description Type of Action Needed Implementation Lead/ Partners Potential Operational Funding and Staff Resources Proposed Timing' Action A5: Provide Homeowner Resource Assistance Household Incomes Targeted: Low-income (below 60% AMI) Moderate -income (60-80% AMI) Middle -income (80-120% AMI) High -income (above 120% AMI) Ability to Reduce Displacement: Low Moderate High Explore avenues to educate and provide resources for prospective homeowners through the City's existing or new partnerships with regional organizations already focused in providing homeownership assistance Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator or Community partner Existing staff time Short-term Host home ownership seminars and foreclosure assistance and counseling and counseling in partnership with regional organizations. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator or Community partner Existing staff time Medium -term, ongoing Host or collaborate with a partner organization to create a homeownership resource webpage for prospective buyers, for distressed homeowners, or for developers seeking information on cooperative ownership housing or community land trust models. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator or Community partner Existing staff time Long-term Create a tool -kit for eligible landlords of high -risk properties in need of upgrades to assist with resourcing funds to from a City housing fund or other resources available to housing partners. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator or Community partner 0-1.0 FTE to manage program. Program fees, City funds and/or City housing fund Medium -term, ongoing Goal B: Increase market -rate and affordable housing supply throughout the city but focused on zones that support multifamily and missing -middle housing types. Task Description Type of Action Needed Implementation Lead/ Partners Potential Operational Funding and Staff Resources Proposed Timing9 Action B1: Modify the SVMC to encourage production of townhomes and cottages Household Incomes Targeted: Low-income (below 60% AMI) Moderate -income (60-80% AMI) Middle -income (80-120% AMI) High -income (above 120% AMI) Ability to Reduce Displacement: Low Moderate High Review recommended potential actions and draft regulations to revise the SVMC. Administrative Economic Development Division, Building & Planning Division Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Short-term Evaluate the potential impacts from displacement of residents in existing NOAH single-family rental homes that may result from regulation modifications and weigh against potential new low- income and moderate -income unit production. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Medium -term 9 Proposed tuning description: Short-term: 1 year, start after plan approval Medium -term: 2-3 years, completed by 2024 Long-term: 4-5 years, completed by 2026 Ongoing PAGE 57 DRAFT Task Description Type of Action Needed Implementation Lead/ Partners Potential Operational Funding and Staff Resources Proposed Timing9 Consider the potential benefits and resource costs/impacts to implement a relocation fee program. Fee would be paid by developers to the City's housing fund for supporting tenant relocation elsewhere in Spokane Valley. Administrative/ Legislafive Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time to evaluate. 0-1.0 FTE to manage program. Program fees and/or City funds Medium -term, ongoing Seek code adopfion and related Comprehensive Plan Amendments Legislafive Economic Development Division, Building & Planning Division Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Medium -term Action B2: Adopt a MFTE Program Household Incomes Targeted: Low-income (below 60% AMI) Moderate -income (60-80% AMI) Middle -income (80-120% AMI) High -income (above 120% AMI) Ability to Reduce Displacement: Low Moderate High Map out the process and programmafic implicafions to develop, adopt, and manage a 12-year MFTE program. Administrative Economic Development Division, Building & Planning Division Existing staff time Short-term Study the fiscal impacts and potential benefits associated with increased housing production (market and affordable units). Administrative Economic Development Division Existing staff time Medium -term Conduct addifional outreach with developers, impacted residents, and other stakeholders to determine the best approach to land use changes. Administrative Economic Development Division Existing staff time Medium -term Seek code adopfion and related Comprehensive Plan Amendments Legislafive Economic Development Division, Building & Planning Division Existing staff time 0.5-1.0 FTE to manage program Medium -term Action B3: Create incentives to produce additional market rate and affordable housing Household Incomes Targeted: ow -income (below 60% AMI) Moderate -income (60-80% AMI) Middle -income (80-120% AMI) High -income (above 120% AMI) Ability to Reduce Displacement: Low Moderate High Study public benefit of potential new affordable and market rate units resulting from the recommended incentives against potential fiscal impacts and household displacement. Administrative Economic Development Division & Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Short-term to medium -term Evaluate a fee -in -lieu program to access the density bonus in exchange for housing program to support affordable housing development and preservation. Administrative Economic Development Division & Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Short-term to medium -term Map out the process and programmafic implicafions to develop, adopt, and manage the incentive program. Administrative Economic Development Division, Building & Planning Division Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Short-term to medium -term Conduct addifional outreach with developers, impacted residents, and other stakeholders to determine the best approach to land use changes. Administrative Economic Development Division & Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Medium -term PAGE 58 DRAFT Task Description Type of Action Needed Implementation Lead/ Partners Potential Operational Funding and Staff Resources Proposed Timing9 Seek code adoption and related Comprehensive Plan Amendments Legislative Economic Development Division, Building & Planning Division Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Medium -term Action B4: Adopt a Planned Action Ordinance(s) in subareas with transit investment or where large, mixed -use phased developments can be built Household Incomes Targeted: Low-income (below 60% AMI) Moderate -income (60-80% AMI) Middle -income (80-120% AMI) High -income (above 120% AMI) Ability to Reduce Displacement: Low Moderate High Estimate the resources to develop needed to implement a planned action ordinance and identify potential grants or funding partners such as the STA that may help offset these costs. Administrative Economic Development Division, Building & Planning Division Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Medium -term Identify potential subareas for a planned action. Administrative Economic Development Division Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Medium -term Coordinate with the STA on its plans for future station areas and discuss the concept of partnering with housing developers to provide affordable housing its surface parking lots in a transit - oriented development. Administrative Economic Development Division Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Medium -term to long-term Conduct SEPA and seek code adoption and related Comprehensive Plan Amendments Legislative Economic Development Division, Building & Planning Division 0.25-0.5 FTE to support process, City funded Long-term Goal C: Increase housing options and housing choice. Task Description Type of Action Needed Implementation Lead/ Partners Potential Operational Funding and Staff Resources Proposed Timing v Action Cl: Update regulations for ADUs Household Incomes Targeted: Low-income (below 60% AMI) Moderate -income (60-80% AMI) Middle -income (80-120% AMI) High -income (above 120% AMI) Ability to Reduce Displacement: Low Moderate High Evaluate the possible impacts from modifying the ADU regulations around parking and ownership requirements. Administrative Economic Development Division Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Short-term Revise ADU development standards in the SVMC. Administrative Economic Development Division, Building & Planning Division Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Medium -term 'Proposed tuning description: Short-term: 1 year, start after plan approval Medium -term: 2-3 years, completed by 2024 Long-term: 4-5 years, completed by 2026 Ongoing PAGE 59 DRAFT Task Description Type of Action Needed Implementation Lead/ Partners Potential Operational Funding and Staff Resources Proposed Timing9 Eliminate or reduce ADU-related permit fees. Administrative Economic Development Division, Building & Planning Division Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Medium -term Established approved ADU models to expedite permitting Administrative Economic Development Division, Building & Planning Division Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Medium -term Seek code adoption and related Comprehensive Plan Amendments Legislafive Economic Development Division, Building & Planning Division Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Medium -term Action C2: Permit and clarify tiny home regulations Household Incomes Targeted: Low-income (below 60% AMI) Moderate -income (60-80% AMI) Middle -income (80-120% AMI) High -income (above 120% AMI) Ability to Reduce Displacement: Low Moderate High Review and modify land use and building codes to permit tiny homes in specific zones. Administrative Economic Development Division, Building & Planning Division Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Short-term Update site plan approval criteria to account for unique site needs of finy houses informed by input from a focus group or working group of technical experts. Administrative Economic Development Division, Building & Planning Division Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Medium -term Develop material summarizing the rationale and benefits for this housing type. Administrative Economic Development Division Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Medium -term Draff amendments and legislation and seek code adoption and related Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Legislafive Economic Development Division, Building & Planning Division Existing staff time, Potential for grant funding Medium -term Action C3: Coordinate with existing systems of care for effective homeless services implementation Household Incomes Targeted: Low-income (below 60% AMI) Moderate -income (60-80% AMI) Middle -income (80-120% AMI) High -income (above 120% AMI) Ability to Reduce Displacement: Low Moderate High Update the Comprehensive Plan to addresses Spokane Valley's intention to supporting transitional housing. Administrative Economic Development Division & Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time Short-term Identify best practices and potential siting requirements for shelters and transitional housing. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time Short-term Actively engage with existing service providers, faith -based organizations and regional bodies to coordinate housing resources. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time Short-term, ongoing PAGE 60 DRAFT Task Description Type of Action Needed Implementation Lead/ Partners Potential Operational Funding and Staff Resources Proposed Timing? Given Spokane Valley's role in the countywide approach to addressing homelessness, determine if the City should manage its portion of the real estate excise tax fees to support the homeless community in Spokane Valley. Legislative Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time Short-term, ongoing Action C4: Develop a housing fund program Household Incomes Targeted: Low-income (below 60%AMI) Moderate -income (60-80% AMI) Middle -income (80-120% AMI) High -income (above 120% AMI) Ability to Reduce Displacement: Low Moderate High Identify and define the housing fund program including sources of revenue, programmatic priorities, and staffing resources needed to justify its creation. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time Short-term Evaluate the resources needed to staff the program. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time Short-term Ensure that its focus is on supporting the development and preservation of low- to moderate -income households in areas of Spokane Valley that are served by transit or where households are at greater risk for displacement. Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator Existing staff time Short-term Establish and operate the program, initially with funds from sales and use tax fund for affordable and supportive housing and expand as new funds (taxes, grants, etc.) are accessed. Legislative, Administrative Housing & Homeless Coordinator 0.5-0.75 FTE to manage program, City funded Short-term, ongoing PAGE 61 DRAFT 4.2 Use to Inform Housing Policy and Planning Projects Recommendations advanced in this HAP likely will inform future planning and zoning implementation projects that include modifications to development standards and allowances as well as area planning efforts. Spokane Valley could develop work plans and identify budget implications for recommendations provided in this HAP as an early step. Additionally, Spokane Valley should leverage near -term planning projects to advance this HAP's recommendations. 4.3 Monitor Implementation Progress The city should track its progress toward achieving its housing goals by developing a set of indicators to track on a regular basis. Determining the exact indicators and monitoring frequency will require additional research into availability of data and availability of staff time and tracking systems, as well as discussions with city leaders and the community, to ensure that the chosen indicators adequately gauge equitable housing progress. Figure 18 provides examples of potential indicators that Spokane Valley could track. Figure 18. Potential Indicators for Future Exploration, by HAP Goal Goals Potential Indicators A. Preservation of Affordable Housing and Displacement Mitigation Number of properties or units acquired by city, county, or nonprofit partner Share of rent -burdened residents County of households on waiting lists for rent - restricted units Number of requests the county receives for tenant assistance from the Spokane Valley zip code People seeking and receiving education and housing support on homeownership or the number of participants using a weatherization program Number of properties or units acquired or developed by city, county, or nonprofit partner B. Increase housing Amount of funding generated for affordable supply housing. C. Increase housing choice. Missing -middle housing development and split between ownership and rental The number of housing units produced from MFTE Number and type of new homes produced over time —location, tenure, size, sale price/asking rent, accessibility, and unit type Number of permitted ADUs and tiny homes Share of homebuyers receiving assistance (e.g., down payment assistance) Home purchases by transaction type —cash vs. mortgage by type (conventional, FHA, VA, etc.) Potential Data Sources Community and agency partners Census data Community and agency partners Community and agency partners City, Community and agency partners Assessor's data, community or agency partners City, community or agency partners Assessor's data City Costar, Assessor's data, Census data, or OFM data City Community partners Home Mortgage Disclosure Act NOTE: Proposed performance measures will require additional discussion to confirm them as well as how to integrate data collection and analysis into ongoing staff workflow. Potential data sources include City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, HMDA, the ACS, and proprietary sources (e.g., Costar and Property Radar). PAGE 62 APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT lt. if t SPOKANE VALLEY HOUSING ACTION PLAN HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT, OCTOBER 2020 City of Spokane Valley The City of Spokane Valley is developing a Housing Action Plan (HAP) to identify ways to meet housing needs now and into the future. The HAP is made possible due to a Washington State Department of Commerce Housing Bill 1923 Grant. The HAP will include strategies and implementing actions to encourage greater housing diversity and affordability, access to opportunity for residents of all income levels, and should address both affordable and market -rate housing needs. An initial step in the HAP process is to define the range of housing needs by analyzing the best available data that describes the area's housing and associated demographic, workforce, and market trends over the past few decades. This assessment helps answer questions about the availability of different housing types, who lives and works in the Spokane Valley area, and what range of housing is needed for all income levels through 2037, the planning horizon for the HAP which is also aligned with the 20-year growth target for the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. Housing analysis is an important exercise since a community's housing needs tend to continually evolve based on changes in the broader economy, local demographics, and regulatory environment. The City of Spokane Valley, like other communities in the Spokane County region, has changed and grown over the years, leading to greater demand for different housing types. Analyzing housing needs is complex because it represents a bundle of services that people are willing to or able to pay for, including shelter and proximity to other attractions (e.g., jobs, shopping, recreation); amenities (e.g., type and quality of home fixtures and appliances, landscaping, views); and access to public services (e.g., quality of schools, parks). Because it is difficult to maximize all of these services while minimizing costs, households must make decisions about trade-offs and sacrifices between needed services and what they can afford. In addition, housing markets function at a regional scale, which makes it challenging for individual jurisdictions to adequately address issues without regional partnerships. The following summary compares the City of Spokane Valley with Spokane County and the City of Spokane to provide a more complete picture of the county -wide housing landscape while also offering insights on localized versus regional trends, and a more nuanced view of housing market dynamics. Various U.S. Census Bureau, county assessor, and housing market datasets were used to assess the housing stock, workforce, demographics, and expected demand. The housing needs assessment findings are organized in the following topic areas: Executive Summary National Trends Spokane Valley Housing Trends Spokane Valley Demographics Spokane Valley Housing Affordability Spokane Valley Housing Needs Forecast Spokane Valley Workforce Trends Spokane County Trends This document and analyses were produced by: ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING 2 City of Spokane Valley I Housing Needs Assessment Executive Summary > Spokane Valley's population growth and housing development has remained steady for most of the decade. From 2010 to 2018, Spokane Valley's population grew by 7%, adding 6,055 new residents. (Demographics Section). > The City of Spokane Valley needs about 6,660 new housing units by 2037 when its population is expected to reach about 109,913 people. This includes 1,463 housing units to address housing underproduction over the last decade. Around 351 units per year should be produced through 2037 to meet forecast housing needs which means slightly more would need to be built per year than the average produced from 2010 and 2019 (345 housing units built per year). Spokane Valley should continue to support robust housing growth and advance strategies in support of housing growth for a diversity of housing types and affordability levels. (Housing Forecast Section). > Housing needs change over a person's lifetime. It is important to track shifts among the share of different age groups to better comprehend how housing needs change as community demographics fluctuate. Spokane Valley's millennial population (25-34 years) almost doubled, growing substantially from 10% to 15% of the population total (from 12,148 to 21,144 persons). Millennial population growth could explain the decline in Spokane Valley's median age to 35.2 years by 2018, a rate below the Washington State and Spokane County's median age of almost 38 years. (County Trends Section). > Another growing sector is the senior population (65+). During 2012-2018, seniors grew from 13% to 15% of the total population settling at an estimated total of 20,910 persons, a total similar to the millennial population sector. Spokane County projections from 2020 to 2030 estimate that the 65+ population will expand from 18% to 22% of the total population — a trend that is consistent with other communities across the country. Homeownership rates increase as age increases and younger and older people are more likely to live in single -person households which tend to be smaller in size. The aging of the Baby Boomer generation (born 1946-1964) could generate greater demand for living assistance and low -maintenance middle housing options such as townhomes. (County Trends Section). > Household incomes have increased in Spokane Valley. Spokane Valley's median household incomes for owners grew by nearly 25% between 2012 and 2018 (from $61,873 to $77,299). Renter incomes increased too by almost 12% from $34,417 to $38,498 during the same time period. Overall, these trends indicate increasing pressure on the already limited supplies of moderate and middle -income housing (60-120% AMI) and if they continue, will lead to increased financial hardships for households across the City. (Affordability Section). > Population growth coupled with housing underproduction throughout Spokane Valley and the region has added pressure on an already limited housing supply and contributed to rising housing costs. While rents have grown more than 15% since 2010 in the city, home prices increased by more than 48%. The escalating cost of housing is a top concern for people finding very few options of housing affordable at their income level. Home -ownership is increasing becoming out of reach and when people cannot find housing fitting within their financial means, they can end up becoming cost burdened, meaning they pay more than one-third of their gross income for housing. > Affordable housing problems have not affected all households evenly. Low and moderate -income households have been disproportionately affected. In fact, over 65% of extremely low-income households renting and owning were severely cost burdened, meaning paying more than 50% of their income on housing. In addition, 83% of low-income renters (30-50%), 56% low-income Housing Needs Assessment I City of Spokane Valley 3 Executive Summary home owners, and over one-third of moderate -income (50-80%) owners and renters were cost burdened, meaning paying more than 30% of their income on housing. Overall, the low -to -moderate income households (less than 80% of AMI) tend to be more cost -burdened. (Affordability Section). > Spokane Valley's housing stock mostly consists of single-family detached homes (66%) and lacks housing diversity needed to accommodate future demand particularly associated with aging baby boomers and young households forming. The city has a low supply (9%) of "missing middle" housing (e.g., townhomes, duplexes, quad homes, and cottages) which allows more seniors to downsize and remain in their community, while also providing more options for working families to get a foothold in great neighborhoods. (Housing Section). > Between 2012 and 2018, the share of 2 and 4-person households grew in Spokane Valley, while the number of 1-person households fell. In contrast, the City of Spokane's share of 1 to 3-person households grew. This trend shows Spokane Valley's housing tilting towards 2-bedroom housing and larger family -friendly housing with at least 2 bedrooms. (Demographics Section). > Spokane Valley's workforce, including around 51,305 workers, increased by 11 % from 2010-2017. Growth in industry sectors with salaries below 100% AMI is fueling demand for moderate -to middle -income housing. > As a result of the shifting demographics in Spokane Valley, at least 6,660 housing units are needed by 2037. If units are allocated based on recent income distribution trends, the majority of new housing units needed through 2037 would be for households earning over 100% AMI (56% of total units), and one-third of the total should be below 80% AMI. Overall, the findings indicate increased demand for moderate to middle -income housing options (60-120% AMI) that can mostly be met through single- family attached housing (e.g., townhomes and quad homes) and housing serving senior's needs. Median Income Levels* When examining household income levels, the Area Median Income (AMI) and Median Family Income (MFI) are helpful benchmarks for understanding what different households can afford to pay for housing expenses. Since housing needs vary by family size and costs vary by region, HUD produces a median income benchmark for different family sizes and regions on an annual basis. These benchmarks help determine eligibility for HUD housing programs and support the tracking of different housing needs for a range of household incomes. The median income value (100°%o) primarily used for this analysis is an annual income of $65,200 for a family of four (Spokane County rate for 2018). Below 30% of AMI is extremely low income (under $19,560), 30 to 50% of AMI is very low income ($19,560- $32,600), 50 to 60% of AMI is low income ($32,600- $39,120), 60 to 80% of AMI is moderate income ($39,120-$52,260), 80 to 120°%o AMI is middle income ($52,260-$78,240), and above 120°%o AMI is high income (above $78,240). To put these numbers into perspective, a dishwasher earns an estimated $26,580 per year on average and would be very low income. A pharmacy tech earns $40,940 annually and would be moderate income in the cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley metropolitan area. Income levels tend to vary throughout a lifetime and homeownership rates tend to increase as income increases. *Source of AMI: Spokane County/US Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2018, and Occupational Employment Statistics, US Bureau of Labor, 2019, Spokane -Spokane Valley Metropolitan.https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/chhs/ programs/homeinvestment/2018-spokane-home-income- and-rent.pdf 4 City of Spokane Valley I Housing Needs Assessment National Housing Trends Key National Demographic Trends Associated with Housing 0 0 Nuclear family households, the predominant type of household of the mid 20th Century, shrunk from 40% in 1970 to 20% in 2018 while the share of single -person households increased from 15% in 1970 to 28% in 2018, to take over as being the most prevalent household type. This trend could lead to fewer persons per household which would increase demand for housing units. In addition, around one-third of Americans between 18-34 years are living in their parent's homes (as of 2018) and the median age for first marriage increased to almost 30 in 2016. This trend could decrease housing demand for 18-34 aged persons or at least delay it. 0 0 America is aging, and the number of seniors will continue to grow over the next few decades to an estimated share of around 22% over age 65 by 2050. This is a big increase since only around 16% of US (and Washington state) residents were over 65 in 2018. Seniors are projected to outnumber children for the first time ever by 2035. Nationwide, the Hispanic/Latino population is predicted to be the fastest growing racial/ethnic group over the next few decades and these households tend to include multiple generations, requiring more housing space. Over the coming decade, minorities will make up a larger share of young households and constitute an important source of demand for both lower -cost rental housing and home -ownership opportunities. Note: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the production of housing in many regions and the ability to pay for housing consistently which will likely exacerbate housing availability and stability. Parts of this analysis relied on pre-COVID data. Sources: AARP (2018) Making Room for a Changing America, U.S. Census Bureau Annual Social and Economic Supplements 1950 and 1970, 2015 U.S. Census ACS, Washington State Office of Finance and Management, U.S. Census Bureau, 2019. Housing Needs Assessment I City of Spokane Valley 5 Spokane Valley Housing Trends 38,730 Number of total housing units as of mid 2020 Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020 3,445 Number of housing units built between 2010-2019 Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020 345 New housing units built on average every year since 2010 Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020 1.04 City Ratio of Housing Units to Households > Between 207 0-207 9 Source: Washington State Office of Finance and Management (OFM), 2019, ECONorthwest calculations. Note: The housing units to household ratio should be above one since healthy housing markets should have more housing units to allow for vacancy, demolition, second/vacation homes, and broad absorption trends. Because Wash- ington State does not have a regional approach to planning for housing production, ECONorthwest compared this city ratio to the Spokane County ratio of 1.07 to determine the amount of housing underproduction. Number of Units Number of Housing Units Number of Units Built by Year, 2010-2019 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 437 1 119 625 216 ■ 657 220 267 474 1 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020 Housing Type Built by Decade, as of Mid-2020 8,000 6,000 • 4,000 2,000 0 N , moo, N°' N°' N°' vo vo Qc •1 ■2to4 ■5to29 ■30to49 50to99 ■100+ . 345 Average Housing Scale Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020. Note: Housing with 5 or more units is considered multifamily and housing with 5 or less units is single-family Share of Housing By Type, as of Mid-2020 Housing Type Average Age % of Housing Single-family Detached Apartment/Condo Single-family Attached Mobile/Manufactured Home 46 36 38 38 66% 20% 9% 5% Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020. Note: Single-family attached includes duplexes, triplexes, and quad homes. 6 City of Spokane Valley Housing Needs Assessment Spokane Valley Housing Trends Age of Housing by Type Single -Family Detached Average Year Built Single -Family Attached NIEL Pre-1940 1940-1959 1960-1979 1980-1999 2000-2020 Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020 Type of Housing Built by Decade, as of Mid-2020 Mobile/manufactured home (n = 1,702) Detached single-family (n = 25,655) Condominium (n = 774) Attached single-family (n = 3,442) Apartment (n = 7,157) Year Built 6 46 23 41 8 ■ 57 25% 14 26 41 50% Share of units Pre-1940 1940-1959 1960-1979 1980-1999 2000-2020 Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020. 75% 100% Apartment Housing Needs Assessment I City of Spokane Valley 7 Spokane Valley Housing Trends > Overall, Spokane Valley lacks housing diversity particularly due to low supplies of single-family attached housing (comprising 9% of the total housing) such as town homes, triplexes, and cottages in single-family areas. The city could encourage the development of a variety of housing types and sizes to accommodate the diverse needs of residents through their changes in age and family size. Housing Units Built as of Mid-2020 Decade Percent of Units Before 1940 1940's 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's 2000's 2010's 4% 6% 11% 6% 20% 11% 18% 14% 10% Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020. 6% Change in number of households 2012 2018 Households 36,365 38,478 Source: OFM, retrieved in 2020 Housing Type Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020 Housing Unit Density Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020 City of Spokane Valley I Housing Needs Assessment Housing Type • Detached single-family Attached single-family • Mobile/manufactured home • Apartment • Condominium 8 Spokane Valley Demographics 7% Change in population 2010 2018 Population 89,755 95,810 Source: OFM, retrieved in 2019. 12% Change in median renter Household income 2012 2018 Median Income $34,417 $38,498 Source: PUMS (2012, 2018). Note: All values are in 2018 inflation -adjusted dollars. 25% Change in median owner household income 2012 2018 Median Income $61,873 $77,299 Number of Households Number of Households Change in Household Size, 2012 & 2018 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 - 1,000 - 2,000 -1,903 -3,000 2,671 1 418 1 2 3 People per Household Source: PUMS (2012, 2018) 3,876 1 4 Income Distribution by AMI, 2012 & 2018 60% 56% 50% 46% 19%16°�° 13% $% 10°/°10% r 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% 100%+ Household Income as a % of AMI ■ 2012 2018 40% 30% 20% 10% Source: PUMS (2012, 2018). Note: All values Source: PUMS (2012, 2018) are in 2018 inflation -adjusted dollars. 48% Increase in median home sales price 2010 2020 Median $202,461 $300,000 Sales Price Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020. Values are in 2020 inflation adjusted dollars. Notes: A household would need to earn over 100% AMI to afford the 2020 median home sales price. The Zillow Home Valley Index shows a 59% increase between 2010-2020 to 8283,374 for middle price -tiered homes. Income Distribution by AMI and Tenure, 2018 Renter Owner 17% 18% 34% 6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Share of Households Household Income as a % of AMI ■ 0-30% 30-50% ■ 50-80% ■ 80-100% ■ > 100% Source: PUMS, 2018 Housing Needs Assessment I City of Spokane Valley 9 Spokane Valley Housing Affordability Cost Burdened > A household who pays more than 30% of their income on housing. Severely Cost Burdened > A household who pays more than 50% of their income on housing. 1,663 Number of income restricted housing units as of mid-2020 Source: ECONorthwest analysis of public affordable housing data. Note: Restricted to low and moderate -household incomes. 15% Increase in average rent for 2-bedroom apartment 2010 2020 Average Rent $983 $1,131 Source: Costar. All values are in 2020 infla- tion -adjusted dollars. Notes: Average rents for a 2-bedroom apartment in Spokane County increased by 13% during the same time period. This 2020 average rent would be affordable to those earning 65% AMI or more. 5.2% 2-bedroom apartments were vacant as of mid-2020 Source: Costar, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Notes: On average during the last decade, the vacancy rate was 5.4% for 2-bedroom apart- ments. This is a standard rate of vacancy, indicating that the supply for this product type should be adequate to meet demand. This trend is similar to county and state rates. Share of Households Share of Households Number of Units Number of Units Share of Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened Households by Tenure, 2018 Cwnery 75% 50% 25% 85% 96' h 0-.306 73 ■ Coat Burdened Serer d y Cost Burdened 37% I 13' Renters 66% 6% 2Fi 3% 2Y . 2% 50-80% 80-100% Household Income as a % of AMI 7' Source: PUMS, 2018. Notes: Low and moderate -income households below 50% AMI tend to be more cost burdened and higher incomes above 100% AMI less since their larger income go further to cover expenses. Owners tend to be less cost burdened due to mortgage lending stipulations; however it can occur when households with mortgages see income decline. Cost burden does not consider accumulated wealth and assets. Housing Units Affordable by AMI and Tenure, 2018 Owner 16,000 10,000 5,000 6.613 905 0 0-30% 6,064 5,459 Renter 5,059 Household Income as a ofAMI 1,474 10 Source: PUMS, 2018 City of Spokane Valley I Housing Needs Assessment Spokane Valley Housing Affordability Financially Attainable Housing Types Another way to evaluate housing needs is to consider the different types of housing generally affordable to different household incomes in comparison to the current housing stock. As shown in the below exhibit, the 2018 area median income was $65,200 for a family of four in Spokane County (100% AMI). • Housing types affordable to households below this median annual income tend to be limited to apartments, manufactured homes, multiplexes (duplexes, triplexes, and quad homes) and townhomes. Much of this housing is rented, particularly when priced for lower income households earning below 80% AMI and most of the housing below 50% AMI (extremely low and very low income) tends to be government subsidized. • Around 44% of all the City of Spokane Valley households in 2018 need housing priced below the median income (100°%a AMI), yet this housing is inadequate since only 34% of the current housing stock includes multiplexes, townhomes, apartments, and manufactured homes. • Housing above the median income is predominantly newer construction and owner -occupied. This housing typically includes single-family detached homes, higher -priced single-family attached homes, and condominiums. Households earning above the median income tend to have more housing options available to them especially when considering that most of the current housing stock is single-family detached (around 66% in the City of Spokane Valley). Most Spokane Valley residents living in single-family detached housing own their home (86%) rather than rent (ACS 1-Year, 2018). If your household earns $19,560 $32,600 (30%ofAMI) (50%ofAMI) Then you can afford ... $489 $815 PER MONTH PER MONTH $52,260 (80% of AMI) $1,304 PER MONTH $65,200 $78,240 (100%ofAMI) (120%ofAMI) $1,630 $1,956 PER MONTH PER MONTH Housing types generally affordable to these households are ... Single -Family Detached manufactured homes in parks/on lots cottage cluster small -lot single-family large -lot single-family Single -Family Attached duplex, tri-plex, quad-plex, townhomes higher -priced products I: ■ low -amenity apartments (rental) apartments (5+ units) Common characteris LESS EXPENSIVE Predominantly renter occupied & existing construction Government subsidized Multifamily condominium ics ... MORE EXPENSIV Predominantly owner occupied & new construction Source: ECONorthwest. Note: All values are in 2019 inflation -adjusted dollars. Housing Needs Assessment I City of Spokane Valley 11 Spokane Valley Housing Needs Forecast 109,913 Projected population by 2037 (medium projection) Source: *Population Projections Appendix 742 Average annual population growth projected from 2018 to 2037 Source: OFM, 2019; *Population Projections Appendix; ECONorthwest calculation 6,660 Projected number of units needed by 2037 Source: OFM, 2019; *Population Projections Appendix; ECONorthwest Calculation 351 Average number of new units needed to add annually from 2019 to 2037 Source: OFM, 2019; *Population Projections Appendix; ECONorthwest Calculation. This number is higher than the 345 average housing units built from 2010-2019. 2% Increase in annual housing production to reach 2037 housing need forecast *City of Spokane Valley Appendix A: SEPA Analysis 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan Housing Units Needed Through 2037 Underproduction Future Need Housing Need 1,463 5,197 6,660 Source: PUMS, 2018; *Appendix; ECONorthwest Calculation. Note: Underproduction is the estimated number of housing units needed to satisfy the housing shortfall over the last decade. Future need is the number of housing units needed from 2020 to 2037 (based on the OFM forecast).. Housing Units Needed as a Share of Existing Stock Existing Units Housing Need % of Existing Units 38,730 6,660 17% Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020; ECONorthwest Calculation Housing Units Needed by AMI Through 2037, Based on 2018 Trends AMI # of Units % of Units 0-30% 30-50% 550 8% 625 9% 50-80% 1,039 16% 80-100% 686 10% 100%+ 3,760 56% Source: PUMS, 2018;*Appendix; ECONorthwest Calculation HUD Affordability Level by Housing Type, 2018 AMI Studio 1-bed 2-bed 3-bed 30% $342 $366 $440 $509 50% $570 $612 $734 $848 80% $912 $978 $1,174 $1,356 100% $1,140 $1,222 $1,468 $1,695 Source: HUD, 2018. Notes: The dollar values are for Spokane County and the AMI values were adjusted to include the family size that would be appropriate for the housing type. These are fair market rent values. 12 City of Spokane Valley I Housing Needs Assessment Spokane Valley Employment Trends Employment Trends Understanding Spokane Valley's workforce profile and commuting trends helps provide insights on the housing needs of workers today and into the future. Factors such as job sector growth and the city's commuting patterns may have implications for how many people are able to both live and work within the city. If such factors indicate many people are commuting into the city for work, it could be possible that the city does not have enough housing to accommodate its workforce or enough housing matching their needs and affordability levels. This employment profile for Spokane Valley highlights trends associated with workforce and wage growth. • As shown in the employment table, an estimated total of 51,305 people are part of the workforce in the City of Spokane Valley as of 2017. Overall jobs grew by around 11 % from 2010 - 2017 in the city. • Among this total, the largest share works in retail trade (almost 20% of total), manufacturing (13%), and health care/social assistance sectors (12%). Removing small job sectors (below 5% of the total), the employment sectors experiencing high increases in job growth between 2010-2017 were educational services (120°%a) and construction sectors (45%), both with an average salary below $50,000, which could indicate increasing demand needed for housing below 100% AMI (such as moderate -income housing). Access to Employment* Transit and auto access to regional employment was derived using 45-minute travel sheds for each mode. ECONorthwest calculated the number of jobs available within these travel sheds in each industrial sector catego- ry for the Spokane County region (2-digit NAICS). The transit travel sheds originated from every transit stop within the city while the auto travel sheds originated from the center of all block groups in the city. Spokane Valley ElDrive time Transit time *Transit and drive time of 45 minutes or less, departing at 7:00 AM, mid -week Source: US Census LODES database, 2017 and census block geometries, 2010; Spokane Transit Authority database; ECONorthwest Calculations. This analysis demonstrates how a large majority of jobs are more accessible by driving an automobile rather than taking public transit. In total, 260,178 jobs are within a 45-minute drive from the City of Spokane Valley while far fewer jobs, estimated at 63,115, are located within the 45-minutes transit shed. One quarter of the jobs are available via transit compared to driving within 45 minutes or less from the original location. The denser urban areas within the small orange area could be analyzed for potential opportunities to include housing development that is more transit -oriented. Mapping out commute sheds can be useful for estimating the extent of the regional housing market since most employed home buyers and renters tend to search for units with their commute in mind. Housing Needs Assessment I City of Spokane Valley 13 Spokane Valley Employment Trends Spokane Valley Employment Numbers Access to Regional Employment Industry (2-digit NAICS Code) Employees % # Change % Change Average Salary % Jobs by % Jobs by (2017) (2010-2017) (2010-2017) (2018) Auto Transit Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 513 777% $34,444 88% 19% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0.2% 35 69% $31,467 93% 14% Utilities 0.6% 46 19% $69,936 92% 21% Construction 6.1% 978 45% $46,683 93% 15% Manufacturing 13% -172 -3% $46,532 96% 16% Wholesale Trade 7.1% 684 23% $44,029 98% 24% Retail Trade 19.6% -278 -3% $33,904 97% 27% Transportation and Warehousing 3.9% 375 23% $49,020 97% 10% Information 0.8% -127 -23% $40,373 97% 24% Finance and Insurance 4% 343 20% $43,927 99% 36% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1.2% 59 10% $31,836 97% 30% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 2.8% 289 26% $48,292 97% 31% Management of Companies and Enterprises 1.2% 293 87% $46,964 98% 24% Administrative and Support and Waste Management and 7.8% 600 18% $31,520 97% 29% Remediation services Educational Services 7.1% 1,978 120% $48,057 93% 22% Health Care and Social Assistance 12.2% -409 -6% $41,440 98% 23% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.3% -116 -42% $34,583 71% 9% Accommodation and Food Services 7.5% 299 8% $28,307 97% 26% Other Service 2.5% -102 -7% $31,734 96% 24% Public Administration 0.9% -188 -28% $52,425 97% 13% Source: US Census LODES database, 2017 and census block geometries, 2010; ECONorthwest. Note: Median earnings was sourced from ACS 2018 5-year estimates at the tract level, joined to jurisdictional boundaries and summarized as the median for each industry by jurisdiction. Several estimates are missing, likely due to insufficient numbers of employees within that industry/jurisdiction pair. The estimated total number of Spokane Valley employees in 2017 is 57,305. The 2019 average annual salary for Spokane County was $50,234 (includes all industries) and this means housing below 80io of the AMI would be affordable to those earning this average salary 14 City of Spokane Valley I Housing Needs Assessment Spokane Valley Commuting Trends Approximately 32% of Spokane Valley's workforce lived and worked in Spokane Valley in 2017. This share increased above 2010 levels (26%). Around 40,029 workers (74%) of the total City of Spokane Valley workforce live elsewhere and commute into Spokane Valley for work while 30,476 workers (26%) live in Spokane Valley and commute elsewhere for their work. Among those working outside of Spokane Valley, 37% work in Spokane, 5% work in Liberty Lake, 2% work in Seattle, and 2% work in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Around 1 i of the workforce commutes to Airway Heights, Post Falls Idaho, , and Cheney. The remaining 19% commutes to other locations. The high rate of commuting to the City of Spokane Valley could be due to a shortage of affordable housing or suitable housing not meeting the needs of the workforce or it could mean they prefer living elsewhere in the region. Commuting Flow, 2017 Source: US Census LODES database, 2017; Census On the Map. Note: Dark green arrow is showing persons commuting into town (40,029) and the Tight green arrow (30,476) shows persons commuting out of town. Commuting Trends, 2017 Seattle Spokane Bellingham Yakima Coeur d'Alene, ID Olympia Spokane Valley Tacoma Cheney Post Falls, ID Medical Lake Airway Heights Liberty Lake 64% 56% 52% 48% 46% 36% 32% 30% 21% 20% ma 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% • Living and working in city Living in city, working outside Source: US Census LODES database, 2017; Census On the Map Housing Needs Assessment I City of Spokane Valley 15 Spokane County Trends 8% Change in population > Between 2010 and 2018 2010 2018 Population 471,221 507,950 Source: OFM, retrieved in 2020 7% Change in number of households > Between 2012 and 2018 2012 2018 Households 196,529 209,897 Source: OFM, retrieved in 2020 21% Change in median renter Household income > Between 2012 and 2018 2012 2018 Median Income Source: PUMS (2012, 2018). Note: All values are in 2018 inflation -adjusted dollars. 9% $28,726 $34,749 Change in median owner household income > Between 2012 and 2018 2012 2018 Median $68,833 $74,969 Income Source: PUMS (2012, 2018) Number of Households Share of Households Change in Household Size, 2012 & 2018 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 -1,000 -2,000 -3 000 4,228 2,363 2,671 1,982 1863 1 -1,903 2,078 1,719 418 4,347 3,876 -1,296 1 2 3 People per household Spokane County Spokane • Spokane Valley Source: PUMS (2012, 2018) Income Distribution by AMI, 2012 & 2018 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 16% 15% 12%11% 11%9% Id 1 I� 4 54% 46% 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% 100%+ Household Income as a % of AMI ■2012 ■2018 Source: PUMS (2012, 2018) Income Distribution by AMI and Tenure, 2018 Renter Owner 21% 19% 33% 1:1 6% 66% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Household Income as a % of AMI ■ 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% ■ > 100% 100% 16 City of Spokane Valley I Housing Needs Assessment Spokane County Trends 13% Change in average rent for 2-bedroom apartment > Between 2010 and 2020 2010 2020 Average Rent $968 $1,094 Source: Costar. Note: All values are in 2018 inflation -adjusted dollars. 50% Change in median home sales price > Between 2010 and 2020 2010 2020 Median Sales Price Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020. Note: All values are in 2018 inflation -adjusted dollars. $184,000 $275,000 Housing Units Built by Decade, as of Mid-2020 Decade Percent of Units Before 1940 11% 194O's 5% 195O's 8% 196O's 5% 197O's 15% 198O's 1O% 199O's 19% 2OOO's 17% 2O1O's 9% Source: Spokane County Assessor, 2020 Share of Households Share of Households Share of Households Population by Age, 2012 & 2018 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Spokane County 14% 12 % 2012 1 6% 14% • Under 5 years • 35 to 44 years 2018 Spokane 15 % 13 % 2012 2018 Spokane Valley 13% 10 % 2012 u 5 to 18 years ■ 18 to 24 years 45 to 64 years ■ 65 years and older Source: ACS(201 2, 2018); PUMS 1-Year Estimates 2018 25 to 34 years Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened by Tenure, 2018 Owners 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 91 % 74% 56% I 25% ■ Cost Burdened Severely Cost Burdened 38% Renters 100% 80% 66% 60% 47% 40% I 3% 86% o% 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% Household Income as a % of AM 83% 16% ■ 0% 13% o% 5% 0% 13% 9% Source: PUMS, 2018 Housing Needs Assessment I City of Spokane Valley 100%+ 17 Spokane County Trends About 82%, or 139,710, of Spokane County residents live and work in Spokane County. About 18%, or 31,388 of Spokane County residents work outside Spokane County. Most of Spokane County residents work in City of Spokane or City of Spokane Valley. Commuting Flow, 2017 Source: US Census LODES database, 2017; Census On the Map. Note: Dark green arrow is showing persons commuting into town (45,333) and the Tight green arrow (31,388) shows persons commuting out of town. Cities Where Spokane County Residents Work, 2017 Coeur d'Alene, ID 11% Medical Lake, WA 11% Cheney, WA ' 2% Airway Heights, WA ' 2% Seattle, WA ' 2% Liberty Lake, WA 1 3% Spokane Valley, WA All Other Locations Spokane, WA 18% 24% 47% 0% 20% 40% 60% 18 Source: US Census LODES database, 2017; Census On the Map City of Spokane Valley I Housing Needs Assessment APPENDIX B HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT METHODS AND DATA SOURCES ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING DATE: September 28, 2020 TO: City of Spokane Valley FROM: ECONorthwest SUBJECT: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT METHODS MEMO Background and Purpose Two cities in Spokane County, Washington —the City of Spokane Valley and the City of Spokane —gained funding through the Washington State Department of Commerce HB 1923 grant to develop housing action plans. These housing action plans include a housing needs assessment, results from public engagement, analysis of key policy options, and recommendations for housing strategies to meet housing needs now and into the future up until 2037. An initial step in the housing action plan development process is to analyze the best available data that helps define the range of unmet housing needs and the depth of housing affordability needs. This analysis should answer questions about the availability of different housing, who lives and works in the different cities, and what range of housing is needed to meet pent up demand into the future. Housing analysis is an important exercise since housing needs tend to continually evolve based on changes in the broader economy, local demographics, and regulatory environment. The housing needs assessments (Task 3) for the Cities of Spokane Valley and Spokane provide an analysis of the housing supply, demand, and needs in each city and housing trends associated with Spokane County. Overall, assessments on housing needs help inform strategies to meet these needs. The results of the housing context assessment were shared with each city via a "fact packet" containing data and analysis surrounding their existing housing stock and future housing needs. This memorandum accompanies these results to provide additional information on data sources and analysis methods. Figure 1. Study Area Source: ECONorthwest 77.1111111rA r •rity of Spokane Map Key i� City Boundaries Urban Growth Areas PUMA Boundaries East Central _ Greater Spokane Valley North Central _ Spokane City Outer Cheney City, Spokane County ',.........J South Central Spokane Ciry yam' 1 - 1.41.11, of Spokane Valley 6 Spokane Coun ECONorthwest I Portland l Seattle l Los Angeles l Eugene l Boise l econw.com 1 Defining the Study Area The Housing Needs Assessment focuses on the Cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley and provides key findings associated the broader, Spokane County context. The results compare the City of Spokane Valley with Spokane County and the City of Spokane to provide a more complete picture of the county -wide housing landscape while also offering insights on localized versus regional trends, and a more nuanced view of housing market dynamics. Most of the findings associated with the demographic trends were described using the U.S. Census Bureau's Public Use Micro Sample (PUMS) data from 2012 through 2018. As shown in the above study area map, the PUMS data findings are provided in specific geographic areas. Public Use Microdata Areas are statistical geographic areas defined for the dissemination of Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data The Spokane Valley demographic trends are mostly based on values within the East Central- Greater Spokane Valley PUMA (5310503) while the City of Spokane demographic trends mostly are based on the combination of the following PUMAs: North Central - Spokane City PUM (5310501) and South Central — Spokane City North PUMA (5310502). Most of the Spokane County demographic trends are based on the combination of the following PUMAs which cover the entire area of Spokane County: 5310501, 5310502, 5310503, and 5310504. Data Sources ECONorthwest primarily relied on 2019 data from the Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) to evaluate housing and demographic trends. Where OFM data was unavailable ECONorthwest relied on the U.S. Census Bureau's Public Use Micro Sample (PUMS) data from 2012 and 2018. The PUMS Census data provided several advantages for the analysis of demographic trends. The PUMS dataset provides more detailed information on housing characteristics (at the household level) and this helped ECONorthwest conduct analyses that would otherwise be unfeasible with other datasets that are aggregated such as the 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) data. With the PUMS data, ECONorthwest was able to create "cross -tabs" that look at the relationship between multiple housing characteristics. The analysis summarizing community and household demographic trends primarily relied on the ACS PUMS 1-Year Data for 2012 and 2018 (source link: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/pums.html). In addition to using OFM data on housing trends and existing housing types by size, we supplemented this analysis with Spokane County Assessor data. For housing market data on rents and sales prices, we relied on data from the Spokane County Assessor (retrieved in 2020) and CoStar (retrieved in 2020). CoStar is a proprietary data source commonly used for market analysis in the real estate industry. In addition, we used the county assessor data to describe housing types, ages, and housing density. The Spokane County Assessor Data includes parcel (housing lot) level information which is very fine-grained and detailed. This dataset, offered in ECONorthwest 2 a Geographic Information System format, needed to map trends, shows parcel specific information on the home type, home sales, home value, and use. For the housing demand analysis, we relied on the population projections forecasted for the 2037 forecast year which are provided in Volume V, Appendix E Population Projections City of Spokane Comprehensive Plan. The projections are based on the OFM medium series forecast for 2037 and applies the historic growth rate from 2003 through 2015 to forecast the future population of the cities and the unincorporated urban growth area. The employment trends analysis was based on several different datasets. The Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEHD) program at the US Census Bureau provides data describing statistics on employment, earnings, and job flows. Analysis Methods Total Housing Units Needed ECONorthwest calculated future housing needs as the current underproduction of housing plus the future needs based on 2037 household projections. Without accounting for past and current underproduction, development targets focused solely on future housing needs will continue to underproduce relative to the actual need. Figure 2. Total Needed Housing Units Current Under- production Future Need 1 1 Total Units Current Underproduction Using population forecast from OMF and the Shaping Spokane report, and selected Census information, we can estimate both the current underproduction and future housing need. For this analysis we calculated the total future housing need as the current underproduction of housing plus the future need based on the 2037 household projections. Current underproduction of housing was calculated based on the ratio of housing units produced and new households formed over time. The average household size in each city is calculated and converted to a ratio of total housing units to households. This ratio is compared to that of the region as the target ratio. If the ratio is lower, then we calculated the underproduction as the number of units it would have needed to produce over time, to reach the target ratio. ECONorthwest 3 Washington State does not have a regional approach for housing production. This approach to underproduction is simple and intuitive while using the best available data that is both local and most updated. This analysis does not differentiate between renter and owner households and relies on average household size to convert population counts to household counts. One drawback of this approach is that it does not identify the underproduction at different levels of affordability. Future housing need is calculated based on the forecasted growth. To calculate future housing need, we use a target ratio of 1.14 housing units per new household. This ratio is the national average of housing units to households in 2019. It is important to use a ratio greater than 1:1 since healthy housing markets allow for vacancy, demolition, second/vacation homes, and broad absorption trends. Total Units Needed by Income Once we arrive at the total number of units needed by 2037, the next step is to allocate the units by income level. We first look at the most recent distribution of households by income level (using PUMS to determine area median income or "AMI") in the Spokane County subregion. We then account for current and future household sizes at the city level to better understand nuances of how housing need by income can shift over time as household sizes change and subsequent changes to housing affordability. Because forecasting incomes at the household level over time can be challenging at best, and misleading at worst, this data evaluates housing need using current income distributions forecast forward. The forecast housing need by income category at both the city level and at the subregion is likely to vary depending on policy choices made over the next two decades. That is to say that if cities choose to take less action on increasing housing production and affordability worsens due to demand outpacing supply, the forecast need for lower income households is likely to be less because those low income households that are most at risk from housing price changes are more likely to be displaced from the subregion. The ultimate income distribution in 2037 will be the result of regional housing trends and policy decisions made at the local level. We then apply each distribution of households by income to the total units needed to get the share of new units needed by income level. Employment Analysis An employment analysis was conducted for two reasons. First, employment analysis and trends in job growth by industry is a requirements for local housing action plans. Secondly, findings from access to employment analysis can help inform housing action strategies such as those related to development allowances in urban centers. Understanding Spokane Valley's workforce profile and commuting trends will help provide insights on the housing needs of workers today and into the future. Factors such as job sector growth and the city's commuting patterns may have implications for how many people are able to both live and work within the city. If such factors indicate many people are commuting into the city for work, it could be ECONorthwest 4 possible that the city does not have enough housing to accommodate its workforce or enough housing matching their needs and affordability levels. We developed city -level employment estimates by 2-digit NAICS codes using the U.S. Census Bureau's Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin -Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data. For each city, the employment estimates show the total number of residents working in each 2-digit NAICS sector in that city, the change in employment in that sector in that city since 2010, and the 2018 average wages for the residents in that city in that sector. Access to Employment Transit and auto access to regional employment was derived using 45-minute travel sheds for each mode. ECONorthwest calculated the number of jobs available within these travel sheds in each industrial sector category for each city. We measured access to employment for both transit and auto use, using a preset limit of 45 minutes to generate isochrones (travel sheds). We used ESRI Services to create drive -time isochrones, simulating traffic conditions typical of 7:OOAM, Wednesday. Transit Isochrones We created isochrones originating from every transit stop within the jurisdiction. Each transit stop was also weighted by the population within a half -mile distance (straight-line). These isochrones were then joined to LODES job points at the Census Block Level, and the total number of jobs by NAICS industry was calculated for each isochrone. For each jurisdiction, the total number of jobs reachable by transit (and walking) within 45 minutes was calculated as the weighted mean number of jobs within the isochrones, using the transit -stop population as weights. Auto Isochrones For drive -time isochrones, we used a similar method as the transit isochrones. Instead of transit stops, however, we used block group centroids as the isochrone origin points, and the associated block group population estimates provided the weights with which we calculated the average number of jobs reachable by the "average resident." Share of Jobs Accessible Once we calculated the total number of jobs available by 45-minute transit or auto travel from each city, we calculated the share of total jobs in that industry. Caveats Wage estimates by industry from ACS are not available for every industry, usually due to low numbers of survey samples. Many of these estimates, especially for industries with low numbers of workers, show relatively high margins of error and should be treated as rough approximations. ECONorthwest 5 APPENDIX C HOUSING POLICY FRAMEWORK • MAUL FOSTER ALONG! MEMORANDUM To: Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley From: Matt Hoffman Ben Johnson, AICP RE: Housing Policy Framework Review Date: November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Project No.: 1932.01.01 The City of Spokane Valley (City) is developing a Housing Action Plan (HAP) to evaluate current and future housing needs and identify strategies to meet these needs. This memorandum meets the housing policy framework review (Review) requirements defined by Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.600(2) for completing a HAP. This Review identifies existing housing goals, policies, and strategies from the 2017 Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) as well as housing programs and incentives currently available to encourage greater housing supply and the development of affordable housing in the city. Figure 1: Context Map This Review contains three sections: • Section 1: A review of the Comp Plan Housing Element goals and policies • Section 2: Regulatory review • Section 3: Summary of findings The information will be used alongside the housing needs assessment and input from community members and stakeholders in developing strategies and policies to meet the city's unique housing needs and to complete the HAP. Rathr City of Spokane Valley p 2815 2nd Avenue, Suite 540, Seattle, WA 98121 www.maulfosteL.com R:\1932.01 City of Spokane Valley \ Documents \01_2021.01.29 Policy Memo \Mf Policy -Regulatory Memo_v3.docx Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 2 SECTION 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AND GOALS REVIEW In its Comp Plan, the City has identified three goals and four priorities specifically related to housing. Other elements of the Comp Plan, particularly the Land Use element, deal with several other goals and policies related to housing. Four housing themes identified in the Comp Plan are evaluated in this section. For each theme, the Comp Plan goals, policies, and strategies are presented, followed by a description of actions taken by the City since the adoption of the Comp Plan to advance housing objectives. Each theme concludes with an assessment of the progress achieved by the City to date. A complete list of housing -related goals, policies, and strategies is provided in Attachment A. Project No. 1932.01.01 COMMUNITY SNAPSHOT • Land Area: 38.5mi2 • Populafion: 95,810 • Total Employment: 46,573 • Key Employment Industries: - Retail Trade (19.6%) - Health Care/Social Assistance (12.2%) - Manufacturing (13.0%) • Median Age: 35.2 • Educational Attainment - High School or Higher: 91.9% - Bachelor's or Higher: 20.9% • Median Household Income: $48,274 Sources: Washington OFM (2019); Employment Security Department/LMEA; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics; U.S. Census ACS (2014); U.S. Census LEHD (2014). Housing Theme 1: Ensure a Range of Housing Options for Residents Comp Plan Policies, Goals, and Strategies During the development of the Comp Plan, community members identified a need for a greater diversity of housing types to serve people at all income levels and stages of life. The following Comp Plan goals and policies relate to housing variety: • H-G1: Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. • H-P2: Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative housing types, including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, prefabricated homes, cohousing, cottage housing, and other housing types. • LU-P14: Enable a variety of housing types. Abbreviation Key Abbreviation Definition H Housing Element LU Land Use Element G Goal P Policy Goals = broad statements of purpose. Policies = staff direction. Strategies = initial actions. Demographic shifts identified in the housing needs assessment underscore the importance of H-G1 and the related policies. Spokane Valley's millennial population (ages 25 to 34) almost doubled, growing substantially from 10 percent to 15 percent of the population total (from 12,148 to 21,144 persons) between 2012 and 2018. These households will continue to seek starter homes and homes Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 3 Project No. 1932.01.01 for growing families. On the other end of the spectrum, the senior population (65 and over) is expected to grow by approximately 11,500 people between 2020 and 2040. This age group could generate greater demand for living assistance and low -maintenance middle housing options such as townhomes. In addition to the policies and goals listed above, the Comp Plan featured a strategy to "continue to evaluate new housing typologies to meet market needs." One example of how this strategy is being implemented is through the HAP, which is planned to be finalized by June 30, 2021. Actions Taken In June 2016, the City implemented new zoning regulations to allow for a variety of housing types targeting smaller and more affordable housing options for first-time home buyers, young families, and renters not eligible for subsidized housing. They are also referred to as "missing middle housing types." Examples of these housing types can be found in Attachment B. The 2016 regulations allowed ADUs, cottage housing, duplexes, manufactured homes on both individual lots and in home parks, and townhouses. Duplexes were permitted in the denser residential (R) districts, Residential-3 (R- 3), and Multifamily Residential (MFR) and mixed -use districts. The other alternative housing types, including cottage housing, ADUs, and manufactured homes, were allowed in residential and nonresidential zoning districts throughout the city, if developments complied with the supplemental development regulations. Missing Middle Housing Types Defined Missing middle housing types provide diverse housing options, such as duplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, and multiplexes. These house - scale buildings fit seamlessly into existing residential neighborhoods and support walkability, retail, and public transportation options. They provide solutions along a spectrum of affordability to address the mismatch between the available U.S. housing stock and shifting demographics, as well as the growing demand for walkability. Source: https://missincmiddlehousincd.com New duplex developments in the city since 2016 raised concern among residents about the negative impacts duplex development may have on the character of certain existing single-family neighborhoods. As a result, the City amended its zoning regulations during the 2020 annual Comp Plan update. The revisions prohibit cottage housing, townhomes, and assisted -living facilities in R-3 single-family residential districts. Duplexes, ADUs, and manufactured homes are still permitted under the supplemental use regulations in the R-3 district. The 2020 amendment increased the allowable density for detached single-family homes from six dwelling units per acre to eight dwelling units per acre while maintaining the allowable density for ADUs and manufactured homes. The minimum lot size for a duplex was increased from 10,000 square feet to 14,500 square feet. These new restrictions in the R-3 district were offset by creating a new residential zone, R-4, that allows greater density and alternative housing types, specifically targeting areas served by transit. When Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 4 Project No. 1932.01.01 viewed comprehensively, these revisions to the zoning regulations address the goals of allowing for a range of housing types, creating density around mixed -use areas, and protecting existing neighborhood character. Overall, a broader range of housing options can be built in different zones (including duplexes, cottage housing, ADUs, townhouses, manufactured homes) in more areas than allowed before 2016. Evaluation of Progress The City has advanced H-G1, as construction of a variety of missing middle housing types is now permitted in the city. Since 2016, most of the new housing units have been multifamily apartments and duplexes; other product types such as cottage housing, townhomes, ADUs, and manufactured homes have not been introduced to the market. It is important to understand that development type allowances in zones will only be delivered when both market demand supports targeted housing types and there is enough zoned capacity with the right site characteristics. Single -Family -Home Dominant The current overall distribution of housing options in the city is weighted heavily toward single- family homes, which comprise 66 percent of the total dwelling units as of mid-2020 (approximately 25,665 single-family units out of 38,787 total units, Spokane County Assessor). Since 2016, a total of 1,941 units have been constructed, with 42 percent of new units (808) being multifamily apartments. Attached single-family homes and homes with more than one unit but fewer than five have represented 22 percent (427 units) of the total units constructed (Figure 2). Figure 2: Housing Option Unit Distribution Total Dwelling Units Condominium, 2% ADU, 0% Attached single- family, 9% Mobile/manufactured home, 4% Source: Spokane County Assessor, ECONorthwest, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. Total Built Since 2016 Condominium, 0% 1.. ADU, 2% 1 Attached single- family, 22% Mobile/manufactured home, 2% Before 2016, only 13 percent of the city's housing stock represented one of the missing middle housing types. Since 2016, nearly 25 percent of all new dwelling units have been missing middle housing types (as shown in Table 1.) Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 5 Table 1: New Housing Types Constructed since 2016 Project No. 1932.01.01 Type Units Percent of Subtotal Percent of Overall Missing Middle Housing Types ADU 30 6.1% 1.5% Cottage 0 0.0% 0.0% Duplex 384 77.9% 19.8% Triplex/Fourplex 17 3.4% 0.9% Town homes 26 7.3% 1.3% Manufactured Homes 36 5.3% 1.9% Subtotal 493 100% 24.5% Apartment 808 42.5% Single Family 640 33.0% Overall Built Since 2016 1,941 Source: Spokane County Assessor, ECONorthwest, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. Table 1 shows that since 2016, the market has responded to demand and delivered more attached single-family units. The majority-78 percent —have been duplexes. Despite policies supporting the construction of broadened housing options, built housing has largely been limited to single-family homes, multifamily apartments, and duplexes. This could be related to a slower adoption of these housing types by local developers and lack of education on new housing products such as ADUs, townhouses, and cottage housing. Housing Theme 2: Improve Housing Affordability Comp Plan Policies, Goals, and Strategies The current Comp Plan includes a goal to allow for a diversity of housing options that are affordable to households at all income levels. Housing affordability remains relevant todayH-G2 as well as two of the housing policies in the Comp Plan address the development of affordable housing. • H-G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels. • H-P3 Use available financial and regulatory tools to support the development of affordable housing units. • H-P4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families needing assistance from social and human services providers. In addition to the policies and goals, the Comp Plan lays out several strategies for improving housing affordability: • Identify low- and moderate -income housing needs. • Streamline permitting procedures based on feedback from businesses and landowners, developers, etc. Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 6 Project No. 1932.01.01 • Evaluate parking standards and reduce the amount of required parking if feasible. Actions Taken Selected recent actions taken by the City to help address housing affordability are described below. A more detailed list of implemented housing -supportive programs is available in Attachment C. Sales and Use Tax Funds for Affordable and Supportive Housing Purposes In February 2020, the City adopted Ordinance 20-002 to incorporate a sales and use tax for affordable and supportive housing. This ordinance and its subsequent incorporation into the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC; Section 3.06) authorized the City to receive a rebate of a portion of state sales and use tax collected in the city, in the amount of 0.0073 percent, which can be used only for qualifying expenses related to affordable and supportive housing. This sales tax option is a credit against the state sales tax rate of 6.5 percent, so it will not increase the tax rate for consumers. The City has estimated the annual increase of funds from this program to be approximately $178,000. These funds can be used for acquiring, rehabilitating, constructing, or operating and maintaining new affordable housing units.' They cannot be used to fund construction or operation of a homeless shelter, but instead are reserved for longer -term low income, affordable, and supportive housing. The City can use these funds independently, or they can be pooled in partnership with other regional organizations to pay for a larger regional affordable housing development. Funds can be spent on projects each year, or they can be used as a source of repayment of bonds sold to construct an affordable housing capital project. Per state law, cities with populations under 100,000 may use the funds to provide rental assistance to tenants. The city is projected to exceed 100,000 people in approximately three years and is seeking input from the state on whether it may use the funds in this manner once its population exceeds 100,000. Housing Needs Gap, Housing Action Plan The housing needs analysis included an assessment of the gaps between the currently available housing and the housing needed today and into through 2037. The assessment showed that the city has underproduced housing by around 1,463 housing units over the past decade and would need 5,197 new housing units built by 2037 to meet the estimated demand. Not only is there a shortage in the number of housing units available, but the housing needs analysis also showed a mismatch in the type of housing units available. Around 44 percent of all the city households need housing priced below 100 percent of the area median income (AMI), yet this housing is inadequate since only 34 percent of the current housing stock includes housing types affordable for incomes below the AMI, such as less expensive detached single-family homes (ADUs, manufactured homes, cottage), attached single-family homes (duplexes and townhomes and multifamily 1 RCW 82.14.540 Affordable and supportive housing- Sales and use tax. Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 7 Project No. 1932.01.01 developments). When examining household income levels, the AMI is a measure helpful for understanding what different households can afford to pay for housing expenses. Figure 3 illustrates the type of home a household may afford based on its income. Examples of housing types can be found in Attachment B. Figure 3: Financially Attainable Housing Types If your household earns ... $19,560 $32,600 $52,260 $65,200 $78,240 ( OP; of',MI, Ism ofAMl) ISM of&MI) I100%ofWI! :120o`AV Then you can afford ... $489 $815 $1,304 $1,630 $1,956 Mx MONTI Housing types generally affordable to these households are ... Single•Family Detached manufactured homes In parks/on Tots cottage duster small -lot single-family large -lot single-family duplex, trl-plea, quad -plea, townhomes tootamenity apartments Irental) apartrnent, (5* urob) Common characteristics ... LESS EXPENSIVE Predominantly renter moulded & ousting construction Government subsidized Source: ECONorthwest Note: All values are in 2019 inflation -adjusted dollars. Single -Family higher -priced products Multifamily condominium MORE EXPENSIVE Predominantly owner occupied & new construction As a component of the HAP, the housing needs assessment achieves the Comp Plan strategy of identifying low- and moderate -income housing needs. Table 2 shows the quantity of estimated housing units needed between 2020 and 2037 and the breakdown of needed housing based on household income levels. Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 8 Table 2: Total Housing Units Needed by AMI through 2037 AMI No. of Units % of Units 0-30% 550 8% 30-50% 625 9% 50-80% 1,039 16% 80-100% 686 10% 100%+ 3,760 56% Total Units Needed 6,600 Source: ECONorthwest, Spokane Valley Housing Needs Assessment Summary Report, October 2020. Project No. 1932.01.01 Table 3 provides context on home prices ranges and rent affordability thresholds for households in Spokane County. Table 3: Spokane County Housing Affordability Ranges Household Income Level (percent of AMI) Low End of Range— Home sale affordability High End of Range— Home sale affordability Rent Affordability 30% $93,000 $135,000 $805 50% $133,000 $196,000 $1,006 60% $173,000 $247,000 $ l ,207 80% $183,000 $272,000 $ l ,274 100% $195,000 $285,000 $1,305 Source: HUD, 2020, ECONorthwest Calculations. The AMI (100 percent) used for the below analysis is $71,700 annual income for a family of four. This is exclusive of transportation, utility, and other household expenses. Lower -end terms assume a 5 percent down payment, a 4.5 percent interest rate over 30 years, S800 per month for insurance, and 0.5 percent private mortgage insurance. Upper -end terms assume a 20 percent down payment, a 3.5 percent interest rate over 30 years, $800 per month for insurance, and no private mortgage insurance. As the HAP process continues, the project team will work with the City to continue evaluating potential housing types and to identify next steps and priority strategies. The recent building pattern data show that duplexes and multifamily apartments are being built; however, other housing types are being built at a much slower pace (townhomes and ADUs) or not at all (cottages). Interviews with nonprofit and for -profit developers will also help to identify existing barriers to development of affordable housing types and inform the next steps of the HAP. Urban County Consortium The City, along with Spokane County and other municipalities in the region (except for the City of Spokane), is a member of the Urban County Consortium. An interlocal agreement enables the county to manage several state and federal affordable housing and homelessness funding sources, including The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) HOME program, Community Development Block Grants, and document recording fee revenues generated through the Homeless Housing Assistance Act. These funds are distributed throughout the county to developers and service providers based on a competitive request -for -proposals process. City representatives are members of the advisory board that provides oversight on the use of these funds. Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 9 The City is currently evaluating the feasibility of assuming control of its portion of the document recording fee revenues from the Urban County Consortium. The primary advantage would be the City's direct oversight of homelessness funding, enabling better communication about how homelessness in the city is being addressed. Disadvantages include administrative costs not covered by the Homeless Housing Assistance Act program and possible duplication of current efforts by the City of Spokane and the county. Addressing Homelessness Addres sing and preventing homelessness has been a topic of discussion in recent Spokane Valley City Council meetings as the City evaluates its participation in the Urban County Consortium. The Comp Plan currently does not include any goals, policies, or strategies that address homelessness in the city. Creating such Comp Plan goals, policies, and strategies may help to direct City staff working on this issue. Project No. 1932.01.01 i Primary Subsidy Programs The primary programs used to support construction, rehabilitation or acquisition of affordable housing include: • HUD Section 202 provides housing for very -low-income elderly persons. • HUD Section 811 provides housing for persons with disabilities. • Low -Income Housing Bond/Tax Credit program provides affordable rental housing for low and moderate -income tenants. Of the 1,663 subsidized units in the city, 1,010, or 59 percent, are funded in part by the bond/tax credit program. HUD supports 418 units, or 24 percent, of the total units, with remaining units having an unidentified subsidy source. Limited availability of property where emergency housing uses are permitted has been a barrier to locating housing for people experiencing homelessness in the Spokane Valley. If the City identifies additional emergency or transitional housing as a priority, it will be important to consider and clearly identify where this type of use will be permitted. Currently, transitional housing is allowed only as a conditional use in the multifamily residential zones. Evaluation of Progress Subsidized Affordable Units An inventory of the City's stock of subsidized, rent -restricted affordable housing was conducted in July 2020. The results are shown in Table 4. As of mid-2020, 1,544 units targeted for households earning less than 80 percent of AMI had been constructed. A 119-unit multifamily development is under construction. When that development is completed, the total count of rent -restricted affordable housing units will increase to 1,663 units. Rent -restricted affordable units account for four percent of the 38,787 total housing units in the city. Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 10 Project No. 1932.01.01 Table 4: Spokane Valley Rent -Restricted Housing Units* by Building Age Year Built Properties % of Total No. of Low -Income Units % of Total Pre-2006 17 73.9% 1,026 61.7% 2006 1 4.3% 287 17.3% 2009 1 4.3% 37 2.2% 2014 1 4.3% 24 1.4% 2017 1 4.3% 51 3.1% 2019 1 4.3% 119 7.2% 2021** 1 4.3% 119 7.2% Total: 23 100.0% 1,663 100.0% Source: the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, HUD's Multifamily Housing Portfolio, the USDA Rural Development Multifamily Housing Program (no properties in Spokane Valley), the Spokane Housing Authority, ECONorthwest. * These data likely capture a robust share of the total rent -restricted affordable housing in the city. ** Construction expected to be complete by mid-2021. The Total Housing Units Needed by AMI through 2037 (Table 2) shows that 2,900 units, or 43 percent of the 6,600 total projected units needed through 2037, are for households earning at or below 100 percent of AMI. Table 5 demonstrates that the city currently has a shortage of rent -restricted units supporting households earning less than 50 percent of AMI, and especially for households earning less than 30 percent of AMI. The target for new units supporting households earning less than 30 percent of AMI by 2037 (shown in Table 2) is 550 units. The city currently has only approximately 60 rent -restricted units in this income bracket. This underscores the challenge faced by the City to encourage an increase in supply for homes attainable for these households through 2037. Table 5: Current Spokane Valley Affordable Housing Units by Income Level Affordability Level Units with Listed Rent Data* % of Total Estimated Total Units** 0-30% 40 4% 60 30-50% 292 26% 436 Over 50% 781 70% 1,167 Total: 1,113 100% 1,663 Source: the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, HUD's Multifamily Housing Portfolio, the USDA Rural Development Multifamily Housing Program (no properties in Spokane Valley), the Spokane Housing Authority, ECONorthwest * Rent -restricted units with targeted AMI strata identified. ** Extrapolated estimate of the number of rent -restricted units in each affordability level strata. This estimate assumes that the distribution of known units is the same for the unknown portion, to arrive at a total representing the total number of low-income units in the city. Table 5 does not account for naturally occurring affordable housing and includes only units subsidized using state and federal sources. Naturally occurring affordable housing —dwelling units that are attainable to households at different affordability levels without subsidy —are not included. Most existing naturally occurring affordable housing units will be in the 50 percent to 80 percent AMI range, which will partially help and which makes a case for preservation. Because affordable housing can be both difficult and expensive to build, strategies to support naturally occurring affordable housing and the preservation of affordable housing should be considered in addition to building new rent -restricted affordable housing. Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 11 Project No. 1932.01.01 Market Rate Rental The above tables summarize the status of the subsidized rental housing market in the city and demonstrates that the demand for these units is persistent. Regarding market rate multifamily rental units, Figure 4 shows that the average current asking rental rate for market units that are not subsidized is typically attainable for households earning at least 100 percent of AMI. The exception is for two - bedroom units where households earning 80 percent of AMI can afford the average asking rate. Figure 4: Monthly Rent Payments by HUD Affordability Level $ 2, 000 $1,500 E T f0 $1,000 L $500 so ■ Affordabiltyat 30%AMI O Affordabilty at 80%AMI ■ Current Asking Rent i� N c-I Q1 oi 00 t` ■ Affordabiltyat 50%AMI ■ Affordabilty at 100% AMI • • Current Asking Rent Level r.4 N N eI iA 1 01 Studio 1-bed 2-bed Source: HUD, ECONorthwest, CoStar. a-i 3-bed The current overall vacancy rate for units in multifamily developments is 5.4 percent. This represents a low vacancy rate and demonstrates that the rental market is not overly constrained. A five percent vacancy implies a balance between housing supply and demand. Figure 5: Multifamily Unit Availability Figure 5 shows that two -bedroom units (3,012 units) and one -bedroom units (1,732 units) are the most prevalent multifamily unit type. The current vacancy rate for these unit types is at or near the balanced rate of five percent. These data show that studio units have a 22.1 percent vacancy rate, representing a lack of demand, and that the three -bedroom units have a low vacancy rate of 3.1 percent. This market observation is bolstered by a demographic finding from the housing needs assessment, which found: "Between 2012 and 2018, the share of 2- and 4-person households grew in Spokane Valley, while the number of 1-person households fell. In contrast, the City of Spokane's share of 1- to 3-person households grew. This trend shows Spokane Valley's housing tilting towards 2-bedroom housing and larger family -friendly housing with at least 2 bedrooms." 3-Bed Units 849 units 3.1% Available 2-Bed Units 3,012 units 4.5% Available Studio Units 321 units _22.1%Available i I 1-Bed Units 1,732 units 5.0% Available Source: CoStar. Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 12 Project No. 1932.01.01 Attached single-family units such as townhomes and detached single-family units such as ADUs available for rent also supplement the rental market. As previously noted, nearly 450 of these types of units have been developed since 2016, and most of these are available for rent. Additional supply of these missing middle housing types is needed to improve housing attainability for all income -level segments, especially for households earning over 60 percent but under 120 percent of AMI. Offering incentives for missing middle housing and modifying the SVMC could assist in filling the gap for these needed housing types. Housing Theme 3: Enhance Distinctive Neighborhood Character/ Support Neighborhood Commercial Comp Plan Policies, Goals, and Strategies The city's current development pattern is primarily auto -oriented, as illustrated by its average Walk Score rating of 30 (indicating that most errands require a car). Comparatively, the City of Spokane's Walk Score is 49, indicating more walkable neighborhoods. Several goals and policies in the Comp Plan encourage neighborhood conveniences and mixed -use residential development. • H-G3 Allow convenient access to daily goods and services in Spokane Valley's neighborhoods. • LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. These goals and polices may not directly encourage the development of new housing units, but they do support the type of development and neighborhood services that help make communities healthy and vibrant. Actions Taken Retail commercial is permitted in most nonresidential zones but is not allowed in residential zones. Conversely, residential development is permitted in the neighborhood commercial (NC), mixed use (MU), and corridor mixed use (CMU), which support the intent of H-G3. The City established transitional regulations (SVMC 19.75) to protect residents in less intensively zoned areas that abut more intensive zones from development that takes place in those intensive zones. These transitional regulations influence setbacks and building heights. The City also modified its zoning regulations in 2020 to create a new single-family residential urban (R-4) zoning district. This code modification was a response to community input and the City's goal to increase housing options and density in areas near transit and services. The new R-4 zone is concentrated between East Broadway Avenue to the north, North Sullivan Road to the east, East Eighth Avenue to the south, and North Park Road to the west. The R-4 zone creates a buffer zone Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 13 Project No. 1932.01.01 that permits more diverse housing between the R-3 zone and the more intense CMU zone abutting Sprague Avenue. A map of the city's zoning districts can be found in Attachment D. Evaluation of Progress Most of the city's commercial properties are located along the principal arterials and are generally not neighborhood facing. Commercial land uses, including retail and services, are conveniently accessed by automobile, and are located along transit lines, but there are few examples of neighborhood -scaled commercial developments. The city has 16 areas of NC -zoned parcels generally located at key intersections along collector and minor street intersections. Most of these properties are improved with residential units and do not include commercial uses. There are 56 parcels totaling 43 acres zoned NC in the city. Of that total, 26 parcels are vacant or undeveloped and ten parcels have commercial improvements. There are development opportunities for neighborhood commercial uses in the NC zone; however, the market has not responded with new commercial or mixed -use developments since this zone was expanded throughout the city in 2017. Housing Theme 4: Encourage the Creation of Mixed -Use Destinations Comp Plan Policies, Goals, and Strategies The Comp Plan cites the Kendall Yards area of Spokane as an example of a mixed -use destination development that combines housing, retail, and amenities in a walkable community connected to transit. Another identified example of this type of multi -phased, mixed -use development is the River District in Liberty Lake. The Comp Plan notes that a certain level of residential density is needed to support new businesses in these areas. Multi -phased, mixed -use developments also provide opportunities for mixed -income housing. • LU-G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed -use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity. • LU-P13 Work collaboratively with landlords and developers that seek to provide mixed - use residential projects. Figure 6: Mixed -Use Examples Kendall Yards, Spokane West of Jefferson Mixed -Use Building, Planned Completion 2021 Source: Inland Northwest Business Watch/Baker Construction. River District Town Center, Liberty Lake Town center vision with housing above commercial Source: Shoesmith Cox Architects. 1111,011 Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 14 Project No. 1932.01.01 • LU-P16 Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas. Actions Taken The City's mixed -use zones (MU and CMU) allow for concurrent development of residential and commercial space. These uses may be developed side by side or on top of each other, with the commercial space on the ground floor. Planned residential developments (PRDs) also permit mixed - used developments in residential zoning districts on projects of at least 5 acres. Evaluation of Progress The CMU and MU zones comprise nearly 2,600 acres and 3,116 total housing units, of which 1,899 are multifamily. All these units are in two- or three-story walk-up apartments that do not include commercial uses. Several other areas in the City could support a multi -phased mixed -use development. For example, the Desmet Court multifamily development is under construction on 10 acres in the MU zone located near I-90 and North Sullivan Road. This garden -style apartment project will maximize the allowable density for this zone and result in approximately 300 rental units at a density of 30 units per acre. No commercial space is included in this project. SECTION 2. REGULATORY REVIEW Zoning Regulations The information below summarizes the SVMC Title 19 zoning, and more details on the SVMC can be found in Attachment D. Permitted Uses Table 6 shows the residential uses allowed in the city's residential and nonresidential zones. Residential uses featuring a "P" in the zoning district column are permitted outright, while those with an "S" are subject to supplemental code requirements.2 The City has five residential zones (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and MFR) that are specifically intended to support residential development; however, residential development is also permitted in nonresidential zones. • Single-family homes are permitted in all five residential zones, the two mixed -use zones (MU and CMU), and the NC zone. • Duplexes are permitted in R-4, MFR, and the two mixed -use zones, while multifamily residential uses are also permitted in the MFR zone and the mixed -use zones. Duplexes are 2 SVMC Chapter 19.40 Alternative Residential Development Options. Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 15 Project No. 1932.01.01 also permitted in the R-3 zone under the supplemental use regulations (SVMC 19.40.060) requiring a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet. • Townhouses and cottages are permitted under the supplemental use regulations in the R-4, MFR, MU, and CMU zones. The NC zone also permits townhouses. Table 6: Permitted Uses Matrix —Residential Uses Residential Use Type Residential Zones Nonresidential Zones Mixed Use Commercial Industrial R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I Dwelling, accessory units S S S S S S S S S Dwelling, caretaker's residence S S S S S Dwelling, cottage S S S S Dwelling, duplex S P P P P Dwelling, industrial accessory dwelling unit S S Dwelling, multifamily P P P Dwelling, single-family P P P P P P P P Dwelling, townhouse S S S S S Manufactured -home park S S S SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted Uses Matrix. P = Permitted. S = Supplemental Use Regulations. Site -Development Standards The City has five residential zoning districts ranging from Single -Family Residential Estate (R-1), the least dense zone that allows for lots of at least 40,000 square feet and one dwelling unit per acre, to MFR, which has no minimum lot size and allows up to 22 dwelling units per acre. No density bonuses are currently allowed, except for PRDs that set aside 30 percent of the development for open space. Table 7 details the dimensional standards for these residential districts. Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 16 Table 7: Residential Standards Project No. 1932.01.01 Standard R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MFR E D i= c Front and Flanking Street Yard Setback 35' 15' 15' 15' 15' Garage Setback 35' 20' 20' 20' 20' Rear Yard Setback 20' 20' 10' 10' 10' Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' Open Space N/A N/A N/A N/A 10% gross area Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 4,300 sq. ft. N/A D '>7 2 Lot Coverage 30% 50% 50% 60% 60% Density 1 du/ac 4 du/ac 6 du/ac 10 du/ac 22 du/ac Building Height 35' 35' 35' 35' 50' SVMC 19.70.020 Permitted Uses Matrix. Like the MFR zone, the CMU and MU zones allow for the full range of residential development from single-family residential to multifamily. Residential development in these nonresidential zones must comply with the density and dimensional standards of the MFR zone shown in Table 7. The exception is single-family development in the NC zone, which must comply with the density and dimensional standards of the adjacent single-family residential zone. Transition Regulations As mentioned earlier in the document, the City has transitional regulations that apply to properties where a more intensive zoning district abuts a less intensive zone. These code provisions place additional limitations on ground floor uses and regulate setbacks on effected properties. Parking Standards Off-street parking requirements range from one stall per unit for ADUs up to two stalls per unit for one- and two- family homes and townhomes. The required parking spaces for residential uses (SVMC 22.50) can be found in Attachment D. PRDs The flexible zoning requirements of PRDs are intended to encourage imaginative design and the creation of permanent open space and a variety of housing types, and to maximize the efficiency in the layout of streets, utility networks, and other public improvements and infrastructure. PRDs are allowed in all five residential zones for projects totaling at least 5 acres. Use and dimensional requirements shown in Tables 6 and 7 apply, with some exceptions. • For projects of 10 acres or larger, commercial uses that are allowed in the NC zone are also permitted. • A 20 percent residential density bonus can be applied in exchange for dedicating 30 percent of the total project area for open space. • Townhome setbacks may be reduced on one side from 5 feet to 2 feet. • Zero -lot line townhomes are also permitted (SVMC 19.40.100.A) . Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 17 Project No. 1932.01.01 Subdivision Regulations Residential subdivisions that require dividing the land into nine or fewer lots may utilize the City's short subdivision process, while those creating ten or more lots are subject to the full subdivision process. Short subdivisions are subject to Type II review procedures, while subdivisions require more stringent Type III review; these reviews are discussed below. Permit Procedures and Environmental review The City has three distinct permit review processes, depending on the size and nature of the proposed project, which are summarized in Table 8, below. Type I is the least intensive review, where permitting decisions are made administratively and notice of application to other agencies and public hearings are not required. Type II review processes are also made administratively. Preapplications are not required, except for short subdivisions and binding site plans, and a notice of public hearing is not required. Type III review processes are decided by a hearing examiner and all review processes are required, including a preapplication conference and a public hearing. Table 8: Required Application Procedures Application Type Decision Authority Pre- application conference Counter- complete determination Fully complete determination Notice of application Notice of public hearing Final decision and notice Final Decision timeline *** I Te Depahtment 0 X X N/A N/A X 60 days *II Te Depahtment **0 X X X N/A X 120 days III Hearing examiner X X X X X X 120 days X Required, 0 Optional, N/A Not Applicable. *Does not apply to SEPA threshold determinations. Refer to SVMC 21.20.070(B) (2) for noticing requirements. **Except for short subdivisions and binding site plans, which require a preapplication meeting. ***Timeline after the fully complete determination, fully complete determination is issued within 14 days of receiving the application. SMC 17.80.070. ADUs and residential building permits that do not require State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review are subject to Type I review. Projects requiring a SEPA determination and short subdivisions (nine or fewer lots) are subject to Type II reviews. Type III review is reserved for subdivisions (ten or more lots), PRDs, and conditional use permits, which are required for cottage housing and ADUs in industrial zoning districts. Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 18 Project No. 1932.01.01 Table 9: Assignment of Development Application Classification (portion) Type Land Use and Development Application Type I Accessory dwelling units Building permits not subject to SEPA Type II Binding site plan —preliminary and final SEPA threshold determination Short subdivision —preliminary and final Preliminary short subdivision, binding site plan —change of conditions Type III Conditional use permits (cottage housing, industrial ADUs) Planned residential developments (PRD) Subdivisions —preliminary Sl1C 17.80.030. SEPA Review The City adopted the maximum allowable SEPA flexible thresholds for residential development in 2016 (SVMC 21.20.040.B). This provides a SEPA review exemption for developments of up to 30 single-family units and 60 multifamily units. This helps to reduce permit processing times and environmental review requirements for projects that fall below these thresholds. In 2016, the City exempted residential and mixed -used infill developments in the following four areas of the city (SVMC 21.20.040.C) from SEPA review: • Carnahan Infill Development: Up to 698 new dwelling units. • East Sprague Infill Development: Up to 282 new dwelling units. • Mirabeau Infill Development: To qualify for an exemption, this area is subject to participation in a voluntary developer agreement based on a Mirabeau traffic study conducted by the City. • East Broadway Infill Development: Up to 852 new dwelling units. In addition, developments that meet the criteria established for each area are not required to go through SEPA review, reducing the time required for permitting and environmental analysis in these areas as well. The City is considering ending the SEPA infill requirement of its process as it evaluates adopting transportation impact fees. Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 19 SECTION 3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Project No. 1932.01.01 Barriers to Development of Existing Housing Types The housing development process is defined in the SVMC and in practice by City staff. There is sufficient development capacity on land in the city to support a range of new housing, and the zoning regulations provide some flexibility for developers to deliver housing at a pace to meet the identified housing needs assessment objective of at least 6,600 housing units by 2037, or around 351 units per year. For reference, between 2010 and 2019 an average of 345 housing units were built per year. The city is primarily a large -lot, single-family community. While residents have voiced appreciation for those characteristics, a survey conducted for this project identified a desire for more housing choices, including townhomes, ADUs, and cottages. Spokane Valley should continue to support robust housing growth and advance strategies in support of housing growth for a diversity of housing types and affordability levels in order to meet its target. Several barriers impact the delivery of housing in general and specific types of housing, and some barriers, such as market acceptance of housing types or the risk of prolonged appeal processes, are beyond the City's control. The following considerations are intended to help the City lower barriers to development. These recommendations will be assessed further in the development of the HAP. Comp Plan Policies and Goals • Consider policies that address housing displacement risk by encouraging housing accessibility, equity, and mixed -income housing. • Draft a housing policy that emphasizes the City's commitment to address homelessness. • Consider a land use policy that incentivizes the development of townhomes and cottages in the R-4 zone. • Develop a goal to continue engaging with the city's residents and the development community on the opportunities for and barriers to developing a range of new housing types. Regulatory • Further amend the SVMC to support mixed -use housing. Develop incentives for mixed -use projects that include commercial on the ground floor. • Ensure that the SVMC is prepared to encourage construction of modular homes for all types of housing. • Identify barriers to ADU development and modify the SVMC to incentivize infill development. Chaz Bates, City of Spokane Valley November 4, 2020 Revised January 29, 2021 Page 20 Project No. 1932.01.01 • Conduct subarea planning processes, including a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement. The resulting Planned Action Ordinance would streamline permit processes for needed missing middle residential development types. Affordable Housing Funding and Incentives Outside of the flexibility allowed in its zoning regulations, the City has limited incentives to support the development of a range of housing types that are attainable for a broad variety of household incomes. The following incentives are for the City's consideration and may be studied further as part of the HAP process: • Adopt the multifamily property tax exemption incentive promoting mixed -income developments. • Evaluate the use of public funds and partnerships to increase construction of affordable housing and mixed -income developments. Examples of public funds include HB 1590 and a voter -approved property tax levy (RCW 84.52.105), both of which support affordable housing creation. • Share stormwater charges and permitting fees between the City and developers of low- income housing. • Consider waiving the sales tax related to construction materials for projects that provide affordable housing. • While not necessarily an incentive, funds from a voter -approved affordable housing levy could be used to support the development of affordable housing. • Develop incentives focused on affordable housing preservation to encourage naturally occurring affordable units. ATTACHMENT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING -RELATED GOALS, POLICIES, STRATEGIES, AND PRIORITIES Chapter 2 of the 2017-2037 Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan lists the goals, policies, and strategies that will guide the City's efforts in realizing the community's vision. The Comprehensive Plan notes that: • Goals are broad statements of purpose. • Policies provide specific direction to City staff. • Strategies represent initial, concrete actions to effect implementation. Adopted Vision Statement A community of opportunity where individuals and families can grow and play, and businesses will flourish and prosper. The following captures verbatim the goals, policies, and strategies from Chapter 2 that are relevant to housing. The Community and Economic Development Priorities are included at the conclusion of each Comprehensive Plan Element. HOUSING ELEMENT Goals 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. H-G3 Allow convenient access to daily goods and services in Spokane Valley's neighborhoods. Policies H-P1 Support voluntary efforts by property owners to rehabilitate and preserve buildings of historic value and unique character. H-P2 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative housing types, including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, prefabricated homes, cohousing, cottage housing, and other housing types. H-P3 Use available financial and regulatory tools to support the development of affordable housing units. H-P4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families needing assistance from social and human services providers. Strategies • Identify low- and moderate -income housing needs. • Continue to evaluate new housing typologies to meet market needs. Community and Economic Priorities • Encourage the Creation of Mixed -Use Destinations: Regionally, Kendall Yards in Spokane has aroused interest as a relatively new style of development that embraces many of the tenets of a movement called new urbanism. Residents, as well as investors, have indicated interest in this type of development, which could anchor new regional retail, attract overnight visitors, amplify positive publicity, and create new mixed -use housing options. • Improve Housing Affordability: Substantial portions of the renter and homeowner population are cost -burdened by rent and mortgage payments. An increase in multifamily housing options would reduce the average rent for these units countywide, improving the livelihood of cost -burdened residents. Furthermore, providing housing options that meet the needs of local employees is critical to ensuring that local companies continue to have access to capable workers. • Ensure a Range of Housing Options for Residents: As the city's population ages and the proportion of households with children continues to decrease, the demand for smaller housing options will increase. During conversations with Spokane Valley residents, the desire for new housing typologies —including cottages and tiny homes— arose repeatedly. From an economic development standpoint, these typologies densify existing single-family neighborhoods while enhancing neighborhood character, and therefore provide a captive audience for neighborhood -serving retailers that create new jobs in the community and draw visitors from nearby towns. • Enhance Distinctive Neighborhood Character: The Spokane Valley community expressed a strong desire for more neighborhood amenities, such as nonchain restaurants, boutiques, and local entertainment. These commercial features thrive in walkable, high - density residential communities and may best be provided through mixed -use development, where multifamily units can improve the financial feasibility of the development project. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT Goals Relevant to Housing ED-G1 Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. Policies Relevant to Housing ED-P10 Enable the creation and retention of home -based businesses that are consistent with neighborhood character. LAND USE ELEMENT Goals Relevant to Housing LU-G1 Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. LU-G3 Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed -use areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity. LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. Policies Relevant to Housing LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. LU-P9 Provide supportive regulation for new and innovative development types on commercial, industrial, and mixed -use land. LU-P13 Work collaboratively with landlords and developers that seek to provide mixed -use residential projects. LU-P14 Enable a variety of housing types. LU-P15 Encourage development in commercial and mixed -use zones by reducing parking requirements. LU-P16 Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers and commercial areas. Strategies Relevant to Housing • Streamline permitting procedures based on feedback from business and landowners, developers, etc. • Evaluate parking standards and reduce the amount of required parking if feasible. • Collaborate with the private sector to ensure the successful redevelopment of vacant land at Mirabeau Point. Community and Economic Priorities • Support neighborhood retail. The market trend indicating demand for more retail space is mirrored by the community's desire for an increased number of neighborhood amenities. Spokane Valley residents reported significant demand for walkable retail options in the community, both to enhance the quality of life and to develop distinctive neighborhood identities. • Enhance local identity. The community has expressed a desire to develop more unique neighborhood character. This includes encouraging the types of development that support small, independent businesses, including mixed uses and greater density of housing in certain areas. At the same time, the quality of the city's single-family neighborhoods must be preserved. PUBLIC/PRIVATE UTILITIES ELEMENT Goals Relevant to Housing U-Gl Coordinate with utility providers to balance cost-effectiveness with environmental protection, aesthetic impact, public safety, and public health. Policies Relevant to Housing U-P2 Promote the development of citywide communication networks using the most advanced technology available. ATTACHMENT B HOUSING TYPE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES 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. Source: Spokane Valley -Municipal Code, Appendix A D efinitions Image Credit: RYN Built Homes 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. Source: Spokane Valley -Municipal Code, Appendix A D etiitions Image Credit: Keller Williams Spokane 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. Source: Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Appendix A D etiiitions Image Credit: Realtor.com 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. Image Credit: The Cottage Company Source: Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Appendix A D etiiitions Accessory Dwelling 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. Source: Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Appendix A D etiiitions . Manufactured (mobile) home: A preassembled dwelling unit transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities certified by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. The term "manufactured home" does not include a "recreational vehicle." Source: Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Appendix A D etiiitions . Image Credit: Keller Williams Spokane 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. Image Credit: Costar Source: Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Appendix A D etinitions . Modular construction: Residences constructed entirely in factories and transported to their sites on flatbed trucks. They are built under controlled conditions and must meet strict quality - control requirements before they are delivered. They arrive as block segments and are neatly assembled, using cranes, into homes that are almost indistinguishable from comparable ones built on site.' ,11111111111110 Image Credit: Timberland Homes Nick Gromicko, Modular vs. Manufactured Homes, National Association of Certified Home Inspectors, accessed 12/23/20, https://www.nachi.org/modular-manufactured-homes.htm. ATTACHMENT C LIST OF ACTIVE HOUSING -SUPPORTIVE PROGRAMS EXISTING HOUSING CODE AND PROGRAMS Program Description Housing Diversity Alternative Residential Development Options: • Accessory dwelling units • Industrial accessory dwelling units • Cottage development • Duplexes • Manufactured homes • Townhouses In June 2016, the City of Spokane Valley (City) implemented new zoning regulations to allow for a variety of new housing types targeting smaller and more affordable housing options.' The new housing included accessory dwelling units, cottage development, duplexes, manufactured homes on both individual lots and in home parks, and townhouses. Duplexes were permitted in the denser residential districts (R-3 and Multifamily Residential) and mixed -use districts. The other housing types were allowed in a variety of districts throughout the city, provided they complied with the new supplemental development regulations. This zoning change led to a significant increase in the number of new duplexes being permitted in the city. New duplex development in the city raised some concern among residents. As a result, an amendment is proposed, as a part of the 2020 comprehensive plan updates, that would prohibit cottage housing, townhomes, and assisted -living facilities in R-3 districts. It would also add supplemental use regulations to duplexes in R-3 zones. The proposed amendment would create a new residential zone, R-4, that would allow greater density and alternative housing types in areas served by transit. Streamlined Permitting State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Exemption— Flexible Thresholds The City has adopted the maximum allowable SEPA flexible thresholds standards for residential development, exempting developments of up to 30 single-family units and 60 multifamily units.2 This can limit permit processing times and environmental review requirements for projects that fall below these thresholds. SEPA Exemption—Infill Development The City has implemented an exemption from SEPA review for residential and mixed -use infill developments in four areas of the city.3 Developments that meet the criteria for each area are not required to go through SEPA review, reducing the time required for permitting and environmental analysis. Housing Sales and Use Tax for Affordable and Supportive Housing In February 2020, the City adopted a sales and use tax for affordable and supportive housing. Transactions are taxed at a rate of 0.0073 percent of the selling price or value. The funds can be used for acquiring, rehabilitating, constructing, or operating and maintaining new affordable housing units.4 Homeless Housing Assistance Act (HHAA) Funds HHAA document recording surcharges are authorized by two statutes: Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.22.179 and RCW 36.22.1971. The recording fee funds must be used for homeless services to further the goals of the local homeless housing plan. Currently, HHAA recording fees generated from activity in Spokane County support countywide homeless housing programs. Because the City of Spokane receives a direct allocation, two HHAA funds are administered locally —one by Spokane County (the County) and other by the City of Spokane. The County hosts an HHAA request -for -proposal (RFP) process for homelessness service providers to apply for funds. In November and December 2019, the County held an RFP process for its 2020 funding cycle to allocate more than $1.3 million to homelessness service providers with contracts spanning 18 months. Funding decisions were reviewed and approved by the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee, which includes three representatives from the City. 1 SVMC Chapter 19.40 Alternative Residential Development Options. 2 SVMC Section 21.29.040 Categorical exemptions. 3 Ibid. 4 RCW 82.14.540 Affordable and supportive housing- Sales and use tax. Progra m Description Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) LIHTC is the longest -running and only current federal funding source for the development of new affordable housing. In Washington, the program is administered by the Washington State Housing Finance Commission. LIHTC funds can also be used to rehabilitate existing affordable housing developments. A successful LIHTC application results in a tax credit being assigned to the project. This credit can be either retained by the developer to offset their tax obligations or sold to an equity investor to provide immediate funds for the development. The affordable units created are required to remain affordable for 30 years. Twelve projects in Spokane Valley have taken advantage of LIHTC, creating 675 affordable housing units since 2000.5 The application and selection process for LIHTC is extremely competitive, with far more applicants than funding available. The Housing Finance Commission allocates funding to geographic pools, which limits the number of applications that can be funded each cycle in Spokane County. As a result of recent changes to Washington State LIHTC policies, the County is currently developing a pre - application process to select one application per funding round to recommend for funding.6 Affordable Housing Trust Fund The County manages the region's Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Revenues for the fund are generated from a document recording fee of $10 authorized by RCW 36.22.178. The statute allows the County to use 60 percent of the revenue generated from the recording fee for building, operation, and maintenance of housing serving households making at or below 50 percent of the area median income. The County uses these funds to support new and existing affordable housing projects across the county. Federal HOME funds and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Spokane Valley is a member of an Urban County Consortium that allows the Spokane County Housing and Community Development Division to administer federal HOME and CDBG funds. The County does this based on their Annual Action Plan and guidance from the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee. The funds are typically offered through a competitive RFP to solicit affordable housing project proposals from other service providers. The County anticipates receiving $1.65 million in CDBG funds in 2020. Eviction Rent Assistance Program The County manages the Eviction Rent Assistance Program Grant that is intended to prevent evictions by paying past due, current, and future rent. The program serves households that earn at or below 50 percent of the area median income and that have not paid or partially paid one month of rent. Subsidized Housing and Housing Voucher program The Spokane Housing Authority owns and manages 846 units of affordable housing units in the region. They also manage Section 8 and grant -based housing voucher programs. The waitlist for the housing voucher program is currently closed because of high demand and limited funding. 5 HUD, "LIHTC Database," 2018, https://lihtc.huduser.gov. 6 Spokane County, "2021 9% LIHTC Metro -Pool Prioritization Pre -Application process," accessed Sept. 17, 2020, https.//wwwspokanecounty.org/4690/9-LIHTC. ATTACHMENT D ZONING CODE REFERENCE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ZONING DISTRICTS Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Zoning District Code Zoning District Single -Family Residential R-1 Single -Family Residential Estate Single -Family Residential R-2 Single -Family Residential Suburban Single -Family Residential R-3 Single -Family Residential Single -Family Residential R-4 Single -Family Residential Urban Multifamily Residential MFR Multifamily Residential Mixed Use MU Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use CMU Corridor Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial NC Neighborhood Commercial Regional Commercial RC Regional Commercial Industrial I Industrial Industrial Mixed Use IMU Industrial Mixed Use SVMC 19.20.010 Zoning districts RESIDENTIAL PERMITTED USE TABLE Residential Mixed -Use Commercial Industrial R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I Residential Dwelling, accessory units S S S S S S S S S Dwelling, caretaker's residence S S S S S Dwelling, cottage S S S S Dwelling, duplex S P P P P Dwelling, industrial accessory dwelling unit S S Dwelling, multifamily P P P Dwelling, single-family P P P P P P P P Dwelling, townhouse S S S S S Manufactured home park S S S SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted Uses Matrix P= Permitted. S= Supplemental Use Regulations. RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS TABLE R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MFR(1) D i= 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' Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' Open Space N/A N/A N/A N/A 10% gross areas Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft.(6) 4,300 sq. ft. N/A(4) E •X ci Lot Coverage 30% 50% 50% 60% 60% Density 1 du/ac 4 du/ac 6 du/ac 10 du/ac 22 du/ac Building Height(5) 35' 35' 35' 35' 50' —2 —3 —4 —5 —6 Where MFR abuts R-1 R-2, or R-3 zones, development shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.75 SVMC, Transitional Regulations. (hyperlink to existing code) Attached garages, where the garage door does not face the street, may have the same setback as the primary structure. Open -space requirement does not apply to single-family development in the MFR zone. 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. The vertical distance from the average finished grade to the average height of the highest roof surface. Duplex development in R-3 zone shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet. SVMC 19.70.020 Permitted uses matrix ZONING MAP •• tvlidwood MIR • 4 -• — Err 41 Spokane . —a Valley 77 T rent ' • • - - IMIMEMINE1111 Veradale Grepies E=2EZE21211=31111!I =WI dzi rim Yellowstone Pipeline tt•N SEPA Infill Zoning 7/. R1 R2 R3 Li R4 ▪ POS • MF • NC MU CMU RC IMU 1111111111111111 • • SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Definition: 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." Site • One ADU is allowed per lot. • One off-street parking space is required. Building • Must be similar in appearance to single-family home in finish, roof pitch, trim, and windows. Other • The entrance should be located on the side or rear of the unit. • Must be at least 300 square feet. • Cannot exceed 50 percent of the habitable square footage of the primary unit. • Footprint cannot exceed 10 percent of the lot area or 1,000 square feet, whichever is greater. • Cannot have more than two bedrooms. • Located behind the front building setback line and placed on a permanent foundation. • Preserve all side yard and rear yard setbacks for a dwelling unit. • Not allowed on lots containing a duplex, multifamily dwelling, or accessory apartment. • The owner must occupy either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU as their permanent residence for six months or more of the calendar year and at no time receive rent for the owner -occupied unit. • A deed restriction shall be recorded with the Spokane County auditor to indicate the presence of an ADU, the requirement of owner occupancy, and other standards for maintaining the unit as described in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Industrial ADUs Definition: A dwelling unit within a primary building located in the industrial zone for occupancy by a person or family for living and sleeping purposes. Site • An industrial ADU may be developed in conjunction with either an existing or new building. • The maximum number of allowed industrial ADUs is ten per site. • One off-street parking space for each ADU is required in addition to the off-street parking required for the primary use. Building • The ADU, excluding any garage area, is prohibited on the first floor of the building. • The ADU unit shall not have more than two bedrooms. Permit Type • Industrial accessory dwelling units shall require approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.150 SVMC. Cottage development Definition: 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. Site • The design of a cottage development shall take into account the relationship of the site to the surrounding areas. The perimeter of the site shall be designed to minimize adverse impact of the cottage development on adjacent properties and, conversely, to minimize adverse impact of adjacent land use and development characteristics on the cottage development. • The maximum density shall be two times the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. • Where feasible, each cottage that abuts a common open space shall have a primary entry and/or covered porch oriented to the common open space. • Buildings shall meet the following minimum setback standards: — Twenty -two -foot front yard setback. — Ten -foot rear yard setback. — Five-foot side yard setback. • Common open space is required and shall meet the following criteria: Four hundred square feet of common open space per cottage. Setbacks and private open space shall not be counted toward the common open space. One common open space shall be located centrally to the project, with pathways connecting the common open space to the cottages and any shared garage building and community building. Cottages shall surround the common open space on a minimum of two sides of the open space. Community buildings may be counted toward the common open space requirement. • One and one-half off-street parking spaces for each cottage are required. Building Other • Cottages shall not exceed 900 square feet, excluding any loft or partial second story and porches. A cottage may include an attached garage, not to exceed an additional 300 square feet. • The building height for a cottage shall not exceed 25 feet. • The building height for any attached garage or shared garage building shall not exceed 20 feet. • Buildings shall be varied in height, size, proportionality, orientation, rooflines, doors, windows, and building materials. • Porches shall be required. • ADUs are prohibited. • All other SVMC provisions that are applicable to a single-family dwelling unit shall be met. • SVMC Title 20, Subdivision Regulations. The design requirements of SVMC 20.20.090 are waived. Permit Type • Cottage development shall require approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.150 SVMC. Community buildings • Community buildings are encouraged in cottage developments. Community buildings shall meet the following criteria: — They shall be clearly incidental in use and shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. — They shall be no more than 20 feet in height. — They shall be commonly owned and maintained by the property owners. Duplexes Definition: 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." • Duplex development in the R-3 zone shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet. Duplex development in nonresidential zones shall meet the requirements set forth in SVMC 19.70.050(G). Manufactured homes on individual lots Definition: A preassembled dwelling unit transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities certified by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. The term "manufactured home" does not include a "recreational vehicle." Homes built to 42 U.S.C. 70 Sections 5401 through 5403 standards (as they may be amended) are regulated for the purposes of siting in the same manner as site -built homes, factory -built homes, or homes built to any other state construction or local design standard, provided that the manufactured home shall: • Be set upon a permanent foundation, as specified by the manufacturer, and that the space from the bottom of the home to the ground be enclosed by concrete or an approved product that can be either load -bearing or decorative. • Comply with all local design standards, including the requirement for a pitched roof with a slope of not less than 3:12, applicable to all other homes in the neighborhood in which the manufactured home is to be located. • Be thermally equivalent to the State Energy Code. • Otherwise meet all other requirements for a designated manufactured home as defined in RCW 35.63.160. SVMC 19.40.070 does not override any legally recorded covenants or deed restrictions of record. An existing single -wide manufactured home may be replaced with a new single -wide manufactured home when replacement is initiated within 12 months of the date of damage representing less than 80 percent of market value, or removal of the existing habitable manufactured home. Manufactured homes with dimensional features that match or closely match the predominant manufactured home type within a manufactured home subdivision may be placed in the manufactured home subdivision without regard to the age of the manufactured home (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). Manufactured home parks Definition: A site having as its primary use the rental of space for occupancy by two or more manufactured (mobile) homes, and the accessory buildings, structures, and uses customarily incidental to such homes. See "Residential, use category." Manufactured home parks shall require approval of a binding site plan and site plan review pursuant to SVMC Title 20, Subdivision Regulations, and Chapter 19.130 SVMC, Site Plan Review. Manufactured home park density shall be consistent with the zoning classification in which they are located, not to exceed 12 units per acre. A minimum of five manufactured -home spaces shall be required per park. Manufactured home parks shall provide at least 10 percent of the gross area of the park for common open space for the use of its residents. Each manufactured home space shall have direct frontage on a public or private street. The minimum setbacks shall be pursuant to Table 19.40-1. Minimum setback from the property lines of individual in park spaces Minimum setback from the boundary of the manufactured home park Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Right -of - Way Manufactured homes 5' 5' 5' 10' 10' 20' Patio covers, decks, landings, awnings 5' S' S' S' S' 20' Carports 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 20' Townhouses Definition: 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." In zero lot line developments approved as part of a planned residential development, zero setbacks along one side are allowed, provided a 2-foot maintenance easement is recorded as part of the subdivision plan. Townhouses located on individual lots shall meet minimum rear, front, and side yard requirements (where applicable), minimum area requirements, maximum lot coverage, and building height requirements shown in Table 19.70-1. Townhouses are subject to the following requirements: • No more than six dwelling units shall be attached in one continuous row or group. • A townhouse unit shall not be constructed above another townhouse unit. • There shall be a side yard on each side of a contiguous row or group of dwellings of not less than 6 feet. Townhouses included in a condominium development may limit the lot to the building footprint, provided that the yard area shared in common with all units is equivalent in area to the yard required by the underlying zone (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). Homeowner or property owner association required In a cottage development or manufactured home park, a property owners' or homeowners' association shall be established for the purpose of ownership, maintenance, and management of open spaces, common areas, buildings, and private streets as required by the provisions of the SVMC (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). PERMIT PROCESSES Permit Type and Land Use Application Application Type Decision Authority Pre- application conference Counter- complete determination Fully complete determination Notice of application Notice of public hearing Final decision and notice Final Decision timeline *** I The department O X X N/A N/A X 60 days II* The department O** X X X N/A X 120 days III Hearing examiner X X X X X X 120 days X Required 0 Optional N/A Not Applicable *Does not apply to SEPA threshold determinations. Refer **Except for short subdivisions and binding site plans, which ***Timeline after the fully complete determination; fully the application. to SVMC 21.20.070(B) (2) for noticing requirements. meeting. within 14 days of receiving require a preapplication complete determination is issued Type I Accessory dwelling units 19.40 Building permits not subject to SEPA 21.20.040 Floodplain development 21.30 Type II Binding site plan —preliminary and final 20.50 Binding site plan —change of conditions 20.50 SEPA threshold determination 21.20.060 Shoreline conditional use permit 21.50 Shoreline nonconforming use or structure review 21.50 Shoreline substantial development permit 21.50 Shoreline variance 21.50 Short subdivision —preliminary and final 20.30, 20.40 Preliminary short subdivision, binding site plan —change of conditions 20.30 Type III Conditional use permits 19.150 Planned residential developments 19.50 Subdivisions —preliminary 20.30 REQUIRED PARKING SPACES Table 22.50-1—Required Parking Spaces for Specific Uses Use Required Parking Residential Dwelling, accessory units 1 per dwelling unit Dwelling, multifamily, studio, and one bedroom 1 per dwelling unit, plus 5% of total for guests Dwelling, multifamily, two or more bedrooms 1.5 per dwelling unit, plus 5% of total for guests Dwelling, one- and two-family, townhouse 2 per dwelling unit Manufactured (mobile) home park 2 per dwelling unit plus 5% total for guest parking Group Living Assisted living facility/convalescent/nursing home 1 per 4 residents plus 1 per staff on largest shift Community residential facility 1 per 4 residents Dwelling, congregate 1 per sleeping room https://www.codepublislung.com/WA/SpokaneValley/#! /SpokaneValley22 /SpokaneValley2250.html#22.50 APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT • MAUL FOSTER ALONG! MEMORANDUM To: Chaz Bates Date: March 4, 2021 From: Kate Elliott Project No.: 1932.01.01 Matt Hoffman RE: City of Spokane Valley Housing Action Plan Public Engagement Summary SUMMARY OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. (MFA) led a public engagement process to gather stakeholder input to inform the Housing Action Plan (HAP) as it was developed. These efforts engaged key stakeholders including community members, workers, businesses, nonprofit organizations, service providers, housing developers and housing managers, and others to understand their priorities related to housing in the City of Spokane Valley (City). Their priorities were foundational in developing the HAP. The Community Engagement Plan (CEP) for the City of Spokane Valley's HAP was developed in accordance with the Washington State Department of Commerce's Guidance for Developing a Housing Action Plan (Public Review Draft). The summary below outlines the findings from the community engagement efforts which included an online survey and stakeholder interviews. Project updates were provided to our key stakeholders and the general public using email and listsery updates, media updates and media interviews, and an article in the city magazine which is mailed to every address in the city. The purpose of the project updates was to ensure the community was aware of project status, milestones, upcoming engagement opportunities, and ways to get involved and provide input. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT APPROACH The CEP details the goals, approach, and methodology that were conducted for this project. The final CEP is included in Attachment A of this summary. The engagement effort was developed around the goal of understanding the community's housing priorities including opportunities and challenges. The plan focused on providing background information necessary for the public to understand the purpose, need, and value of a HAP and the importance of providing diverse, affordable housing to support inclusive neighborhoods. Chaz Bates March 4, 2021 Page 2 Project No. 1932.01.01 Community input was used to shape the direction of the HAP's strategies and recommendations. Draft strategies and recommendations were then reviewed by staff and the City Council, and the final HAP, once prepared, will be distributed to the public for further comment and refined based on feedback prior to adoption. A list of the outreach tactics used in development of the HAP is summarized in the table. Table: List of Outreach Tactics Month Outreach Tactics Summer 2020 • Community engagement plan • Project web page, materials, and "on -hold" message for the City of Spokane Valley general phone line • Stakeholder interviews • Community and partner update describing the HAP purpose, need, and process Fall 2020 • Community survey # 1 about the current state of housing and housing needs (Survey was live 9/21-10/19) • Website updates regarding project status Winter 2020-21 • City magazine article about the HAP (quarterly magazine mailed to all addresses in November 2020) • Council/Commission check -ins with opportunity for public input • Website updates regarding project status • Community and partner update on project status COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FINDINGS In September and October 2020, MFA conducted an online public survey and stakeholder interviews. The survey garnered 124 responses. Following the survey, MFA conducted stakeholder interviews with 15 housing -related professionals involved in the development of housing, management of housing, and programs that support housing ownership and affordable housing. The interviews helped expand on the themes identified from the survey responses to help build out the context for the community's priorities around housing. SURVEY FINDINGS The following sections summarize the responses and sentiment in the community survey. The survey was fielded using SurveyMonkey from September 21 to October 19, 2020 and received 124 responses. The Spokane Valley community was well represented, and demographics of those that took the survey aligned closely to the overall makeup of the city. Survey demographics can be found in Figures 1 through 3 in Attachment B of this summary. COVID-1 9 impacts to housing At the time of the survey, 13 percent of responses noted impacts to their housing situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and an additional five percent said they expect to be impacted in the future. C:AUsers\cbates\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\HBQOH6P9\Community Engagement Summary Memo.docx Chaz Bates March 4, 2021 Page 3 Project No. 1932.01.01 Respondents noted a number of reasons they were unable to keep up with rent or housing payments including losing jobs, changes in income, and businesses shutting down. The figure summarizes this input. Figure: Impacts of COVID-19 Has COVID-19 impacted your housing situation? Open Ended Question: How COVID-19 has or is expected to impact the housing situation? 16 6 102 • Yes ❑ No, but I ant 111 No Changes in income making it unlikely I can afford the yearly rental increase every time lease is renewed Delay of the spring market, shortage of materials and it has enabled to stay at home and collect more money than they would if they worked, exacerbating the labor shortage I am now working out of my house, instead of the office. I have lost my job, have been trying to fknd another job, and depleted my savings to make ends meet. rnpactac o-re. rocert'esJob loss will affect business Lost my job, need to move, prices are ridiculous and I can't find anything affordable that isn't falling to pieces. My home has become my office, if that counts. We have seen an increase of tenants contacting our office due to inability to pay rent. Tenants are facing eviction once the moratorium expires. We own a small business, a restaurant and it has been shut down since mid March making it impossible to pay rent. Wife laid off work for 12 weeks Owners and renters in Spokane Valley The survey asked whether the respondents owned or rented their homes. All respondents answered this question and 75 percent were owners-56 percent owned with a mortgage and 19 percent owned free and clear. Renters accounted for 23 percent of the responses. The other three respondents either occupied their unit without payment of rent or they did not have stable housing. Barriers to renting in Spokane Valley Only 25 of the 124 respondents (20 percent) identified as renters. This question allowed respondents to select more than one choice. The 25 respondents provided a total of 31 responses. Of these 31 responses, 77 percent said finding affordable housing in the city was a barrier to renting. Challenges included not being able to find affordable housing (61 percent identified this as a barrier), 10 percent identified as a barrier not being able to find housing that accepted housing vouchers, and six percent said past evictions, or no ADA-available units was a barrier. The remaining 23 percent of renters did not experience any barriers to renting. Figure 4 of Attachment B includes a summary of this data and further demographic information. Barriers to purchasing a home in Spokane Valley This question asked if respondents had recently tried to buy or bought a home and allowed respondents to select more than one answer. The 102 responses include renters and homeowners. Of C:\Users\cbates\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Winldows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\HBQOH6P9\Community Engagement Summary Memo.docx Chaz Bates March 4, 2021 Page 4 Project No. 1932.01.01 this total, 23 percent said affordability was a barrier, and 18 percent could not afford a down payment. Others noted difficulty finding the right type of housing, being outbid, or not finding a place in the location they wanted. Less than half of the respondents did not encounter any barriers (45 percent, or 29 of 64). Figure 5 of Attachment B includes a summary of this data and further demographics. Types of housing in Spokane Valley Of the 124 respondents, 109 indicated the type of housing that they currently live in. Single-family homes accounted for 80 percent of where respondents live, while the next most common housing type was multifamily homes at 13 percent. Figure 6 of Attachment B includes a summary of this data and further demographics. Favored housing types for Spokane Valley Respondents were also asked what type of housing they would like to live in. Of the 124 respondents 107 provided at least one answer. Respondents could select more than one housing type and a total of 159 housing types were selected. Single-family homes were the most desired housing type at 60 percent of responses, though nearly all the respondents (90 percent) included single-family homes as one of their choices. The next most favored were: • Cottages: 16 percent of the total responses with 24 percent of the respondents selecting this choice. • Townhomes: Nine percent of the responses with 13 percent of the respondents selecting this choice. • Duplex: Seven percent of the responses with 10 percent of the respondents selecting this choice. Figure 7 of Attachment B includes a summary of the 159 responses and further demographics. Housing options with the greatest need Respondents were asked what kind of housing options are in greatest need in Spokane Valley. Of the 124 respondents, 93 provided at least one answer. Respondents could select more than one type of housing and a total of 206 responses were provided. Of the 93 respondents, 73 percent felt more affordable ownership housing options were the greatest need. The other two most frequently selected needs were the desire for more affordable housing for seniors, with 48 percent selecting this choice, and the desire for more flexibility for single-family homeowners to build accessory dwelling units, such as backyard cottages, with 44 percent selecting this choice. Figure 8 of Attachment B includes a summary of the 206 responses and further demographics. C:AUsers\cbates\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\HBQOH6P9\Community Engagement Summary Memo.docx Chaz Bates March 4, 2021 Page 5 Project No. 1932.01.01 Open-ended questions Impacts to the quality of living in Spokane Valley When asked about issues or challenges that impacted their quality of life, responses ranged from lack of affordable housing to pesky neighbors. Respondents noted that higher drug, crime, and homelessness areas are often also lower income housing areas. The desire for recreation and parks was mentioned several times. A list of quotes from this open-ended question can be found after Figure 8 of Attachment B. Ways the City can improve housing When asked about how Spokane Valley can improve housing for the community most respondents noted either a need for encouraging the development of more affordable housing and promoting more housing choices. A list of quotes from this open-ended question can be found after Figure 8 of Attachment B. Primary reason for living in Spokane Valley The final question asked respondents why they lived in the Spokane Valley. Many respondents were either born and raised or work in the area. Responses indicated that apart from train traffic, the Spokane Valley is a quiet community with less vehicle traffic and fewer challenges associated with bigger cities. Good schools and great quality of life were noted many times, as well as ease of access to Interstate 90. A list of quotes from this open-ended question can be found after Figure 8 of Attachment B. STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS The stakeholder interviews generated a wealth of information, and the content of each interview was analyzed to identify similar and distinct key themes and insights, all of which informed the HAP. The 15 interviewees, listed below, included housing developers, nonprofit service providers and developers, and housing advocates. Their experiences provided insights into housing challenges and opportunities specific to Spokane Valley and directly informed the development of the housing polices. 1. Dennis Crapo, Diamond Rock Construction 2. Lanzce Douglas, Douglas Properties 3. Deb Elzinga, Community Frameworks 4. Jim Frank, Greenstone 5. Michelle Girardot, Habitat for Humanity 6. Rob Higgins, Spokane Association of REALTORS 7. Julie Honekamp, SNAP 8. Ray Kimball, Whipple Engineering 9. Jonathan Mallahan, Catholic Charities 10. Jennyfer Mesa, Latinos en Spokane C:AUsers\cbates\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\HBQOH6P9\Community Engagement Summary Memo.docx Chaz Bates March 4, 2021 Page 6 Project No. 1932.01.01 11. Dave Roberts, Spokane Housing Ventures 12. Ben Stuckart, Spokane Low Income Housing Consortium 13. Todd Walton, Inland Group 14. Darin Watkins, Spokane Association of REALTORS 15. Joel White, Spokane Home Builders Association Summary of Findings Development process Input from the developers interviewed was that development process in Spokane Valley is working efficiently for permitting and constructing new single-family and multifamily housing. Interviewees indicated positive experiences working with building officials and Spokane Valley staff navigating the permit process. The fee schedules are in line with the market. However, those involved with developing affordable housing noted there would be an added benefit to an otherwise challenging development pro forma if the city reduced or waived fees for affordable housing projects. Competitive and limited affordable housing funding sources Federal, state, and local funds for affordable housing are limited and highly competitive and there is limited funding available for distribution to projects annually. There are only two qualified census tracts in the city, 117.02 and 118.00. Affordable housing developments in qualified census tracts that apply for low-income housing tax credit funding receive a boost in the amount of tax credits they can receive. These tax credits are important for making regulated affordable housing projects feasible. Opportunities to encourage housing development Several interviewees noted that there is very limited inventory for starter homes, and the gap in missing middle housing in Spokane Valley is real. A range of ideas were offered based on the interviewees' professional experience and their conversations with the community. The following bullets summarize the ideas: Low -Income Households • Rent deposits and documentation requirements can be hurdles for portions of the population. Consider programs or policies that address this hurdle. • Down payment assistance for first time home buyers. • Acknowledge equity and race in the comprehensive plan to position the city to address housing equity. • Consider a city compliance office to collect and address compliance incidents. • Limited equity co-ops are a means to create wealth and home ownership for long-term tenants. Challenges include patient investors and gap financing. The other model often noted is shared equity. These programs do not require city intervention. The city may C:AUsers\cbates\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\HBQOH6P9\Community Engagement Summary Memo.docx Chaz Bates March 4, 2021 Page 7 Project No. 1932.01.01 provide resources and information, and/or provide financial support for limited equity co-ops if it creates a housing fund. Programs and Incentives • Provide housing around state and federally supported transportation investments. Planned Action Environmental Impact Statements may provide additional incentives for developing housing in these areas by reducing the project -level permitting process. • Several interviewees noted the potential benefits of implementing a multifamily tax exemption program. • Create a Planned Residential Development track for smaller lots (less than five acres) that provide affordable housing and/or missing middle housing types. • Offer nonprofits the first right of refusal to develop affordable housing units on city - owned properties or properties with a lien. • Brownfields may provide land opportunities not sought by market -rate developers. Outreach and Partnerships • A regional communications campaign dispelling housing myths and showing the positive benefits of healthy homes. • Partner with neighborhood groups or support the creation of one that is focused on Spokane Valley. SNAP (Spokane Neighborhood Action Partners) is a model. • Seek partnerships with private entities seeking philanthropic endeavors. A local example is a project in northeast Spokane that was built by Spokane Housing Ventures in partnership with Empire Health Foundation. Traditional affordable housing funding sources were used as was support from the foundation. Threats to housing development and preservation of affordable units Several interviewees mentioned threats to housing development and the need to preserve affordable units. A range of ideas were offered based on the interviewees' professional experience and their many conversations with the community. The following bullets summarize the ideas: • Lumber prices have gone up by more than 120 percent over the past year. There is not anything the city can do about this, but these increased costs directly impact housing prices. • Labor shortages impact development costs. It was noted that encouraging more trade jobs through apprenticeship programs or partnerships could help grow the workforce that may reduce labor availability and related development cost impacts. • Vintage affordable housing units that need rehabilitation could be an area of focus. The rehabilitation costs require debt, and the financial package may require higher incomes. C:AUsers\cbates\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\HBQOH6P9\Community Engagement Summary Memo.docx Chaz Bates March 4, 2021 Page 8 Project No. 1932.01.01 The unintended consequence is a loss of units that serve the 30 percent or less AMI households. • One developer shared about a single-family subdivision that was subject to public comment and SEPA review being held up because of protest from nearby residents despite complying with local code. External forces driving developers from Spokane County Developers that have been active in Spokane County indicated that they are seeking development opportunities in northern Idaho where the housing market is similar but where there is significantly less state regulation. Interviewees noted the diminishing availability of large tracks of unimproved land in Washington and the increasing cost of land relative to Idaho as driving forces. There was a strong desire to expand the Urban Growth Boundary to provide more land to develop housing. Several interviewees cited that the energy code revisions adopted by Washington will add costs to home development. These measures, which take effect in 2021, increase development costs which are passed through to the home buyer. Finally, Washington state's condominium laws create a disincentive to develop this type of attainable housing due to insurance requirements. Condominium law reform is needed to encourage development of higher density condominium buildings that may offer affordable home ownership options. PRE HAP -ADOPTION OUTREACH Community input was used to shape the direction of the HAP's strategies and recommendations. Draft strategies and recommendations were then reviewed by staff and the City Council, and the final HAP, once prepared, will be posted on the HAP project web page (https://www.spokanevalley.org/HAP), distributed to the public for further comment, and refined based on feedback prior to adoption. C:AUsers\cbates\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\HBQOH6P9\Community Engagement Summary Memo.docx ATTACHMENT A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN City of Spokane Valley Housing Action Plan Community Engagement Plan Background In 2019, the Washington State Legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1923 (E2SHB 1923) encouraging all cities planning under the Growth Management Act to adopt actions to increase residential building capacity. Of the options provided by E2SHB 1923, the city opted to complete a housing action plan. The Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) provided grant funding for the development of a housing action plan. Source: City of Spokane Valley (City) RFP. The goal of a housing action plan is to encourage construction of additional affordable and market rate housing in a greater variety of housing types and at prices that are accessible to a greater variety of incomes. To do this the City will quantify existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, develop strategies to increase the supply of housing while minimizing displacement of low-income residents. Source: E2SHB 1923. An important part of the Housing Action Plan (HAP) is gathering input from the community and key stakeholders. This community engagement plan (CEP) outlines the goals, key messages, tactics, and an implementation schedule for the City to effectively engage its audiences for the purposes of developing its HAP. The community views City efforts positively. Like many Washingtonians, the Spokane Valley community would benefit from additional information about the current housing situation and the background on why the state passed E2SHB 1923. The Housing Action Plan CEP is designed to engage with stakeholders and solicit their input and engage with the broader community to gather feedback and increase awareness of housing needs and opportunities in the community. Due to the rapidly changing COVID-19 situation, this plan uses web -based technologies, online tools, and virtual meetings. This CEP for the City's HAP was developed in accordance with Commerce's Guidance for Developing a Housing Action Plan (Public Review Draft). Outreach and engagement goals • Integrate with City staff in the HAP planning process • Foster a two-way dialogue with stakeholders and community members • Allow stakeholders and the broader community to feel heard, informed, involved, and invested in • Build trust between the City and the community throughout the engagement process Key messages • In 2019, the Washington State Legislature passed a bill (E2SHB 1923) encouraging cities to adopt actions to increase residential building capacity. • The goal of this HAP is to encourage construction of a greater variety of housing types at prices that are accessible to a greater variety of incomes. • When complete, the HAP will include information on the existing housing stock in the City, projected housing needs for all income levels, and strategies to FINAL 7/15/2020 1 increase the supply of housing while minimizing displacement of low-income residents. • The development of the HAP is funded by a grant from Commerce. Key milestones Q2 April -June 2020 • Project initiation • Deliverable 1 Community Engagement Plan 6/30/2020 Q3 July -September 2020 • Stakeholder interviews • Community survey #1 • Deliverable 2 Housing Needs Assessment Report 7/30/2020 • Council/Commission check -in #1 Q4 October -December 2020 • City magazine article due Oct. 15 • Community survey #2 • Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce informational meeting • Council/Commission check -in #2 • Deliverable 3 Recommended policy and code changes 12/31/2020 • Deliverable 4 Housing Strategies report 12/31/2020 • Deliverable 5 Implementation Plan 12/31/2020 Q1 January -March 2021 • Deliverable 6 Housing Action Plan 2/01 /2021 • Council/Commission final presentation Q2 April -June 2021 • Deliverable 7 Adopted Housing Action Plan 5/31/2021 FINAL 7/15/2020 2 Audiences, goals, and tactics Audience Goals Tactics City staff • Involved and invested in the plan and its outcomes • Extend engagement opportunities for staff participation • Surveys • Interviews • City Council briefings City Council and Planning Commission • Informed on project purpose, goals, and timeline • Opportunities to communicate with the public through engagement activities • Early understanding of public perceptions • City Council briefings • Interviews • Surveys • Email updates City residents, homeowners, and landowners • Allow stakeholders and the broader community to feel heard, informed, involved, and invested • Build trust between the City and the community throughout the engagement process • City Council briefings • Interviews • Surveys • Email updates • Project web page • Media outreach • City magazine article • "On -hold" message • Chamber event • Social media posts Partners (e.g. County, community resource groups, housing developers and other housing -related partners, Spokane Homebuilders) • Involved and invested in the plan and its outcomes • Aware of opportunities to provide feedback and share information • Interviews • Surveys • Email updates • Project web page • Chamber event Local and regional media • Kept consistently updated throughout process • Informed about the Housing Action Plan purpose, goals, and timeline • Know the city is listening and wants to engage with its community • View the HAP as an important piece of the local planning and development • Media outreach • City Council briefings Engagement tools The following tools are recommended for the City to educate and engage with the community throughout the HAP development. The format or list may change in response to COVID-19. FINAL 7/15/2020 3 Project materials • Display or presentation materials (e.g. PowerPoint) • Informational fact sheet in translated languages • Materials posted on the City's web page • News releases for local newspapers at key milestones (local media covers city news with weekly and monthly papers and a weekly podcast) • City magazine (published twice annually, mailed to all 50,000 households) • Oct. 15, 2020 content deadline for November publication; notify Jeff of page requirements, use ECONorthwest graphics • "On -hold" messages play when people call the City, updated quarterly • Stakeholder lists (City has developed) Web -based tools • Project -specific public facing web page that includes all project materials, engagement opportunity information, project contact information (email and distribution list sign up), and is regularly updated • City homepage banner to drive traffic to project page • Host web page on City website platform • Sample web pages • City of Spokane Housing Action Plan project web page — Project fundamentals • City of Tacoma Affordable Housing Action Strategy project web page— 30 second overview video • City of Lynnwood Housing Action Plan project web page — embedded survey link • Email updates using existing distribution lists for project updates and engagement opportunities (Existing listservs include media list, Comprehensive Plan update distribution list, Bicycle and pedestrian plan distribution list, developers' forum list, City Planner list) • Online surveys to share information and request public feedback at key project milestones • Social media posts at key milestones and to solicit participation in online engagement activities • Facebook, 4,000 followers; ability to boost posts • Twitter, 1,000 followers • Linkedln: 1,150 followers • Instagram: 375 followers Events • Stakeholder interviews FINAL 7/15/2020 4 • City Council and/or Planning Commission meetings —online and recorded • Existing city -sponsored community events —online and recorded o Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce informational meetings (target third or fourth quarter; Chamber does Zoom meetings in lieu of in - person) Roles and responsibilities Maul Foster & Alongi's (MFA) communications staff, led by Charla Skaggs and Kate Elliott, will develop and assist with the implementation of this community engagement plan and related materials and content. City staff will be responsible for distributing notification letters and emails, posting web content, repurposing drafted content for social media posts, translating materials, serving as the primary point of contact for general public inquiries, and managing event and media relations including developing and distributing news releases and responding to media inquiries. As the community engagement plan is implemented, responsibilities for specific tasks will be determined through ongoing conversations, recognizing budgetary and time limitations for city staff. Outreach tactics and schedule (Schedule and tactics for planning purposes only and subject to change) Month Outreach Tactics Roles 2020 June • Draft and final community engagement plan • Stakeholder identification • MFA draft, city review • City lead July • Develop project web page and record "on -hold" message • Stakeholder interviews • Email/web update to describe Housing Action Plan purpose, need, and process • Community information web page and survey # 1 about housing needs assessment • Media outreach regarding survey # 1 • Council/Commission check -in #1—PowerPoint Presentation • City lead • MFA conduct • MFA draft content • MFA draft content • City lead • City lead August • Email/web update sharing housing needs assessment report findings and feedback • Media outreach regarding findings • MFA draft content • City lead September October • City magazine article, content due Oct. 15 • MFA draft content • MFA draft content • City lead FINAL 7/15/2020 5 Month Outreach Tactics Roles • Community information web page and survey #2 about policy and code changes • Media outreach regarding survey #2 November • Email/web update sharing policy and code changes feedback • Council/Commission check -in #2—PowerPoint Presentation • Media outreach regarding findings • MFA draft content • City lead • City lead December • Email/web update sharing housing strategies report findings and implementation plan strategies • Media outreach regarding findings • MFA draft content • City lead 2021 January • Email/web update sharing draft Housing Action Plan • Media outreach regarding draft Housing Action Plan • MFA draft content • City lead February • Council/Commission check -in #3—PowerPoint Presentation • City lead March • Email/web update sharing final Housing Action Plan and feedback received • Media outreach regarding final Housing Action Plan and feedback received • MFA draft content • City lead April May • Email/web update announcing plan adoption • Media outreach regarding final plan and adoption • City lead • City lead COVID-1 9 implications for engagement Social distancing measures enacted during the COVID-19 outbreak have significant implications on the outreach processes outlined in this community engagement plan. As of mid -June, the situation is still rapidly evolving. MFA and city staff will coordinate regularly and follow all government -recommended measures to discourage in -person gatherings of people to help reduce the spread of the virus. Although the duration and intensity of social distancing measures continues to change, this plan assumes no in -person gatherings of 10 or more people through summer 2020. FINAL 7/15/2020 6 ATTACHMENT B DEMOGRAPHIC CHARTS SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSES The following figures summarize the demographics of the respondents that participated in the City of Spokane Valley (City) Housing Action Plan (HAP) survey. Selected quotes from three open-ended questions asked in the survey follow Figure 8. FIGURE 1: RESPONDENT AGE BY ZIP CODE Don't live in CoSV D.N.R. Total 1 33 1% 34n 41% 15% 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 64 65 to 85 \ \ mfaspdx-fs1 \final_dir.net\1932.01 City of Spokane Valley \ Documents \01_2021.03.04 Memo \Attachment B Demographic Charts_.docx 2 9 27 12 21 18 26 124 D_N R_ =Did not respond Page B-1 FIGURE 2: RESPONDENT INCOME BY ZIP CODE Less than $20,000 99016 99027 99037 99206 1 99212 99216 Don't live in CoSV D.N.R. $100,000+ 28 3096 5100,00Gr $20,000 -$30,000 $30,000 - $45,000 596 596 1696 Less than $20,000 S20.000 - S30,000 $45,000 - $60,000 20 2296 $60,000-$100,000 20 22% 530,000 - $45,000 S45.000 - S00,000 S60,000 - 5100,000 95216 99216 99216 39216 99212 (2 99212 (2, (5) (1) c903- (21 9903- 99016 -' 990156 1IA�iQilCl(Z(Z(l4a \ \ mfaspdx-fs1 \fmal_dir.net\1932.01 City of Spokane Valley \ Documents \01_2021.03.04 Memo \Attachment B Demographic Charts_.docx D.N.R. 2 26 31 D.I. R. = Did not respond Page B-2 FIGURE 3: RESPONDENT RACE BY ZIP CODE 99016 White American Indian or Alaska Native Hispanic or Latinx Mixed Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander D.N.R. 7 1 99027 99037 99206 99212 99216 Don't live in CoSV D.N.R. Total 8 21 Nuu�1 19 16 83 1 1 26 496 4C. 1:t 1So White American I r.Alaska 1 c or Latinx Mixed Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander \ \ mfaspdx-fs1 \final_dir.net\1932.01 City of Spokane Valley \ Documents \01_2021.03.04 Memo \Attachment B Demographic Charts_.docx 31 Grand Total 9 2 9 27 12 21 18 26 124 D.N. R. = Did not respond Page B-3 FIGURE 4: BARRIERS TO RENTING If you have tried to rent or recently rented a home in Spokane Valley, what barriers did you encounter? Barriers -Rent ▪ Cculdn't=ird a place con : ;-o-d ❑ _c.. c-'"'c = -:- access' tie �r7- ▪ Ccuad-'ird a rer-a..-sc accept Section 3 housing. ❑ cr ., =-_.,.. -c=say harriers Responses in Zip Code Nobody would rent to me beta use of past evictions to- =5 co 34 Overall Responses 4 ■ 10 ■ ss than 420,000 111 Overall Responses 5.30,000 - 545.000 5.45 000 - S60000- S130000+ D.N.R. 111111111111 \ \ mfaspdx-fs1 \ final_dir.net \ 1932.01 City of Spokane Valley \ Documents \01_2021.03.04 Memo \Attachment B Demographic Charts_.docx "Other" Responses Bad credit anc high deposits Felony D.N.R. = Did not respond Page B-4 FIGURE 5: BARRIERS TO OWNING If you have tried to buy or recently bought a home in Spokane Valley, what barriers did you encounter? ▪ Couldn't find an ADA accessible unit ▪ Couldn't get finance ng ▪ Couldn't find the type of home l need Didn't haveer. Dog money for a down payment ▪ Couldn't find a home in the locatiolth at warted to live In Couldn't find a place l cou id afford Responses n Zip Code Responses by Zip Code 25 did not ermurter any barriers a 10 Responses by Income Range 1 Less than 520,000 - $30,000 - 545,000- 520000 530,000 $45,000 560,000 1 $60,000 - $100,000 5100,030+ D.N.0. 'Other" Responses Have not been able to afford to even look right now. I am a director ofa local Housing counseling agency and many of my clients are struggling to find affordable homeownership I spent many years on the Community Frameworks board, and realize the affordable housing crisis. I would like to help out in -ny way possi bl e Out bid on every house even when offer was ov n l ist They sold so fast we couldn't even get a bid in \\mfaspdx-fs1\ftnal_dir.net\1932.01 City of Spokane Valley \ Documents \01_2021.03.04 Memo\Attachment B Demographic Charts_.docx D.N.R. = Did not respond Page B-5 FIGURE 6: HOUSING TYPES, CURRENT What type of housing do you currently live in? C.N.?. 120 220 62 40 Overall Responses 14 2 14 D. N_R_ = Did not respond 20 Responses by Income Range Less than $20,000- $30,000 - $45,000 - 560,000 - 5100,000+ D.'g 520,000 530,000 $45,000 $60,000 5100,000 cm NE 1 People/Bedroom Count by Housing Type ■ 1 •.Ii ■• l people in 1 people In 1people in 1 people in 2 people in 2 peopie in 2 people In 2 people in 3 people In 3 people in 3 people In 4 people in 4 people In, 4 people in 4 people In, 5 people in 5 people In, 5 people in 5 people. in 6 people in 6 people. in 7 people in 7peapei- t bedrooms 2 bedrooms 3 bed'oom=_ 4 bedrooms 2 bed'oom=_ 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 5 bedrooms 2 bedrooms 3 bed'oom=_ 4 bedrooms 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 5 bedrooms 2 bed'oomE 3 bedrooms 4 bed'oorn=- 5 bedrooms 3 bed'oorn=- 4 bedrooms 3 bedroom =- 4 bec•oems \ \ mfaspdx-fs1 \ final_dir.net \ 1932.01 City of Spokane Valley \ Documents \01_2021.03.04 Memo\Attachment B Demographic Charts_.docx Page B-6 FIGURE 7: HOUSING TYPES, ASPIRATIONAL What type of housing would you most like to live in? Home Type Single Family Home Townhome Multifamily Cottage -_cessory Dwelling Unit Group ng Overall Responses Responses by Zip Code Other 3C 2C a 10 Responses by Income Range zc _ess r 20,000 - 330.000- S45.00C- 560.000 - 5=00.000+ 520.000 630.000 S45.000 560,CDC 5_CD,CCO N. "Other" Responses Farm with acreage Shop/house Anew mobile home Condominium Single family home with land for personal agricultural use. Any place that is affordable Zero at line i g e Famuy \ \ mfaspdx-fs1 \ final_dir.net \ 1932.01 City of Spokane Valley \ Documents \01_2021.03.04 Memo\Attachment B Demographic Charts_.docx D. N _R _ = Did not re spun d Page B-7 FIGURE 8: HOUSING OPTION NEEDS What kind of housing options do you think are in greatest need in your community? 14C 120 20 06 Respondent Comments Affordable housing for seniors. Apartments a ^0 other smaller ,ental Larger homes forhousin large or extended famil More fIeibityfoingIe-frneily homeowners to build "accessory dwelling u nits" such as backyard cottages. Short-term housing fo, migrant workers Affordable houses for rent Cost of names are increasing Would like to move to 3 different area but prises are tco high for a single family home .. • , . homes on large lots snar iii_CC• SC, fee= -eh:is for Half ehid_rdr tid 7_0osats. Shelters or more support for those struggling with not having a paceto live so we are not forcing our community to go downtown fors place to sleep, especially in the winter Single family homes for sale, less rentals. Single family -ie,mes ra,-ch style - all one flo(y- There is no shortage of housing. People want free housing and that is not reasonable \ \mfaspdx-fs1 \ fmal_dirmet\ 1932.01 City of Spokane Valley \Documents \ 01_2021.03.04 Memo \ Attachment B Demographic Charts_.docx Page B-8 QUESTION: ARE THERE ANY ISSUES OR CHALLENGES THAT IMPACT QUALITY OF LIFE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? • "My neighborhood is great but worry for friends who can't find an affordable rental in a safe neighborhood." • "Getting too many duplexes in the neighborhood, not enough single housing." • "Need more affordable housing options of all types." • "Old trailers and messy trashy houses." • "They are breaking up the large parcels and putting in high density housing. It has created way more traffic than the road was designed to support. It is making my once quiet neighborhood noisy and obnoxious." • "It is a mixed neighborhood and the renters do not take as good of care as the owners." • "Need more parks, especially with basketball courts for teens and zip lines for the kids." • "Stop building low-income housing. It will lower the price of other houses around and that's not fair. And also brings homeless to that area." • "Recreation. Need more areas to have biking/walking trails that connect to the Appleway Trail and Centennial neighborhood hubs with restaurants, shops and recreation." QUESTION: HOW CAN SPOKANE VALLEY IMPROVE HOUSING FOR OUR COMMUNITY? and neighborhood alcohol, drugs and Trail. Need more • "I wish I know. The biggest problem currently is lack of inventory in houses for sale and houses for rent. Apartments are popping up all over but not a lot of alternatives for those that don't want to live in an apartment." • "Help with affordable housing options in the form of `sweat equity' type units and/or first-time home buyers assistance (i.e. silent second mortgage, etc.)" • "By not regulating so tightly the ability to put ADUs on properties. We wanted to do this but getting electrical and the "hammer head" drive back to the spot was cost prohibitive. A parking spot is required for the ADU if it is separate from the house...Trying to put in a place for my elderly mother has been awful. We have been unable to find what we need somewhere else so we are going to have to build an addition." • "Keep plenty of open spaces and parks, while allowing more density in land use." • "Help with affordable housing for some our most vulnerable citizens as well as more support for those struggling with no housing." • "Incentivize low income, middle income, and mixed income housing." \ \ mfaspdx-fs1 \final_dir.net\1932.01 City of Spokane Valley \ Documents \01_2021.03.04 Memo \Attachment B Demographic Charts_.docx Page B-9 • "Allow single dwelling home owners to build tiny homes in their yards." • "More options for low income people to have a home instead of lumping us all together in crappy apartment complexes where problems are compounded by being around other low income people that can't get a foot up. Need a city-wide option like the Scattered Sites project that SHA is ending." • "We honestly just need more housing. There very much seems to be a lack of affordable homes available or being built." QUESTION: WHAT IS THE PRIMARY REASON YOU CHOSE TO LIVE IN SPOKANE VALLEY? • "Love the area. Lots of green areas. A touch of city with a touch of country." • "Large lots, family friendly, live and let live, less government." • "Low density living, quality school system and low traffic." • "It was sense of community, less traffic, better schools, easier shopping, less people...that, for the most part, is gone." • "The schools, the views, close to everything." • "I've lived in the Spokane Valley, City of Spokane, North Idaho, Cheney, etc. and the Spokane Valley just feels like home. There are community events anyone can participate in and Spokane Valley actually listen to the citizens instead of doing whatever they want, no matter what the citizens want." \ \ mfaspdx-fs1 \final_dir.net\1932.01 City of Spokane Valley \ Documents \01_2021.03.04 Memo \Attachment B Demographic Charts_.docx Page B-10 Tab #10 APPENDIX E DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY AND MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ANALYSIS ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING DATE: February 1, 2021 TO: Maul Foster & Alongi (MFA), Matt Hoffman FROM: ECONorthwest, Tyler Bump, Jennifer Cannon, and James Kim SUBJECT: Evaluation of Key Housing Strategies for the Spokane Valley Housing Action Plan, Feasibility Analysis Introduction ECONorthwest in partnership with MFA is supporting the development of a Housing Action Plan (HAP) for the City of Spokane Valley to evaluate current and future housing needs and identify strategies to meet those needs. The HAP is largely made possible due to a Washington State Department of Commerce Housing Bill 1923 Grant. The overarching aims for the HAP are to include strategies to increase the supply of housing, and variety of housing types and actions to increase the supply of housing affordable to all income levels. The approach for developing a HAP began with an assessment of housing needs, public involvement, and analysis of the effectiveness of existing policies and potential updates to key regulations. All of this information collectively informs the strategic actions to be including in the HAP. A few of the housing strategies include modifications to existing development code and expansion of multifamily tax exemptions (MFTE) to encourage more housing variety and housing supply. ECONorthwest analyzed development feasibility of certain code modifications and the potential addition of MFTE program incentives to evaluate their effectiveness in improving the likelihood of development of townhomes and multifamily apartments. A development feasibility analysis tests the impact that various changes to development standards and incentive programs have on market -realistic development examples called prototypes. In addition, ECONorthwest provided Housing Action Plan content useful for describing the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program policy updates to consider. This memo provides the following Housing Action Plan sections: 1. Development Feasibility Analysis Findings 2. MFTE Program Overview 3. Development Feasibility Assumptions Section 1: Development Feasibility Analysis This section describes the findings from evaluating a set of key planning tools, specifically the multifamily property tax exemption (MFTE) and regulatory changes including modifications to the allowed density in certain zones and changes to other development standards. These planning tools were selected due to their potential to boost housing production, especially housing priced for low- to middle -income households. • The multifamily tax exemption allows a local jurisdiction to incent diverse housing options in urban centers lacking in housing choices or workforce housing units. Essentially this program supports increased housing availability, possibly including ECONorthwest I Portland l Seattle l Los Angeles l Eugene l Boise l econw.com 1 affordable units, largely in mixed income developments conveniently located in urban centers. Washington State Chapter 84.14 RCW outlines the existing requirements for implementing a multifamily tax exemption (MFTE). This program exempts eligible new construction or rehabilitated housing from paying property taxes for either an 8-year or 12-year period of time. Only multiple -unit projects with four or more rental units are eligible for either the 8- or 12-year exemption, and only property owners who commit to renting or selling at least 20% of these units to low- and moderate -income households - earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) - are eligible for the 12-year exemption. The City of Spokane Valley currently does not have a MFTE program established. Additional detail on the MFTE program is provided in Section 2. • The density of residential buildings is partly determined by the maximum density allowances that the municipal code sets for each zone. Density allowances differ by zone and sometimes are specific to the type of residential building. Residential density is important for housing development because it determines the number of units that can be built on a parcel. Minimum lot sizes can also influence residential development since it can prevent development on lots below a certain size. • The number and size of housing units that can be built on a parcel is also determined by requirements for non-residential uses or areas to be set -aside and not developed. Open space requirements (as well as setbacks and minimum landscape requirements) limit the residential building size on a parcel. The size of the building can also be limited by maximum lot coverage, which determines the largest share of a parcel that a building can be built on. • Residential density can increase both horizontally and vertically and the maximum building height determines how high the building can be built, thus can restrict the height of residential development. PURPOSE OF THIS ASSESSMENT The purpose of this analysis is to examine a set of key program changes and policy levers that can help "tip" project feasibility for the MFTE program and regulatory changes in the City of Spokane Valley. The analysis focused on the following: R-4 zone (Townhomes): • Increasing the residential density in the R-4 zone from 10 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) to 15 du/ac. • Increasing residential density in the R-4 zone to 22 du/ac. • Increasing the maximum lot coverage from 60% to 80% of the parcel for townhomes. • Decreasing the minimum lot size for townhomes from 4,300 square feet to 2,000 square feet in the R-4 zone. Multi -Family Residential (MFR) zone (apartments): ECONorthwest 2 • Increasing the residential density in Multi -Family Residential (MFR) zone from 22 du/ac to 40 du/ac. • Elimination of Open Space Requirements for Multifamily Apartments within 1/4 mile of City Parks. • Increasing the maximum lot coverage from 60% to 100% for multifamily apartments. • Increasing the maximum building height from 50 feet to 65 feet in the MFR zone. MFTE: • Test out the addition of a MFTE program offering a 12-year tax exemption that would require at least 20% of the units be set aside for households earning 80% of the AMI or less. In Spokane County, the AMI for a 4-person household is $77,400 in 2020.1 • MFTE program without any increase in residential density in MFR zone. • MFTE program with an increase in residential density to 40 du/ac in MFR zone. Summary of Development Feasibility Findings Below is a thematic overview of the findings from the development feasibility assessment. For more detail on the analysis, assumptions, and dollar values of the assessment results, please refer to the next section. • Based on existing development standards and land prices in Spokane Valley, townhomes have limited feasibility in R-4 zone and 3-story garden -style apartments are not feasible in MFR zone given current land prices. The value of new development is limited by development standards that limit the scale of development that is possible on a parcel. Increasing density allowances is the best way to encourage development of townhomes and apartments in Spokane Valley. • For garden -style apartments, the 12-year MFTE also makes projects more feasible, but it is not as impactful as increasing density allowances to 40 du/ac. • Decreasing open space requirements, increasing maximum lot coverage, or increasing maximum building height is unlikely to have any meaningful effect on housing development in the near future. Development Feasibility Assessment Financial pro forma models are used to estimate the impact on development feasibility resulting from potential changes to development standards and incentive programs. More specifically, this analysis evaluates the residual land value (RLV) to understand development feasibility and the value that a change to development standards or tax abatements might provide. RLV is an estimate of what a developer would be willing to pay for land given the property's income from leases or sales, the cost of construction, and the investment returns needed to attract capital for 1 Based on 2020 income limits in Spokane County. https://www.spokanehousing.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/07/Spokane_Utilities_Payment_Standards_2020_GD_HAP.pdf. ECONorthwest 3 the project. (These assumptions can be found in Appendix.) Figure 1 demonstrates in green the development value that is remaining after development costs and is available for acquiring land. Figure 1. Illustration of Residual Land Value, or Land Budget Source: ECONorthwest Land Budget Hard Costs (Construction Costs) Soft Costs (Impact Fees, Architectural Fees, etc.) DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT COST VALUE Net Operating Income from Rents Parking Revenue Vacancy Rates Market Capitalization Rates While there are other quantitative methods for calculating regulatory and incentive changes, such as an internal rate of return (IRR) threshold approach, all of the potential methods share drawbacks regarding the quality of inputs and sensitivity to those inputs. An advantage of the RLV approach is that it does not rely on land prices as an input. Rather, observed land prices can be compared with the model outputs to help calibrate the model and ensure it reflects reality. Because RLV is essentially a land budget, higher values indicate better development feasibility. To understand the impact the various policies, we created an analysis model that employs the same financial considerations a real estate developer would use to determine if a proposed development is financially feasible. These financial calculations are referred to as a pro forma model. A pro forma considers the size of the building allowed by zoning and the revenue that building can deliver (from rents and sales prices) relative to the costs of constructing and operating the building. We ran the pro forma model on example developments (or prototypes) that are reflective of the types and scales of development in the Spokane Valley area. Three prototypes are evaluated in this feasibility analysis. 1. 3-story townhomes on a 0.3-acre lot. Townhomes are 2-bedroom or 3-bedroom units with about 1,400 square feet (sf) to 1,700 sf of net floor area, sharing walls with neighboring units, a one -car garage on the ground floor, and a driveway that can function as an additional parking stall. They are assumed to sell at about $421,000 per unit on average. 2. 3-story townhomes on a 1.0-acre lot. These townhomes are the same as above, but they are laid out on two rows and share a private alleyway. They are assumed to sell at about $429,000 per unit on average. ECONorthwest 4 3. 3-story, garden -style apartments on a 2.5-acre lot. Apartments have a mix of various sizes ranging from 600 sf for a studio unit to 1,300 sf for a 3-bedroom unit. Residents and their guests have access to surface parking and a shared lobby or common space area. The average rent is assumed to be $1,400 per month. Increase in Allowed Residential Density The current zoning standards for R-4 zone allows up to 10 du/ac. The assessment of development feasibility based on certain assumptions (in Appendix) results in RLV of $9.1 per square foot (psf) for townhomes on 0.3-acre lots and $6.8 psf for townhomes on 1.0-acre lots. In comparison, the average value of land in the R-4 zone is between $8.0 psf and $12.0 psf.2 Therefore, current zoning standards would allow some townhomes to be built in the R-4 zone, but they would not allow most townhomes to be built. Increasing the allowed density to 15 du/ac would allow an additional unit to be built on 0.3-acre lots and improve development feasibility by $5.2 psf. On 1.0-acre lots, the same density increase would allow 5 more units to be built and improve development feasibility by $9.1 psf. The increases in RLV are likely to make most townhome projects feasible since they raise the RLV above typical land prices ($8 psf to $12 psf). Moreover, increasing the allowed density to 22 du/ac would improve development feasibility to $24.8 psf for townhomes on 0.3-acre lots and to $28.6 psf for townhomes on 1.0-acre lots. The current zoning standards for MFR zone allows up to 22 du/ac, which results in RLV of $19.8 for a 3-story, garden -style apartment. This value is slightly below the typical land prices in the MFR zone, which ranges between $20 psf and $24 psf.3 Therefore, private developers are unlikely to build 3-story apartments under the current zoning standards without a discount in the land price. To encourage the development of apartments in MFR zone, the City of Spokane Valley could increase the allowed density. For example, increasing the density allowance to 40 du/ac would raise the RLV of apartments to $42.9, which is significantly higher than the typical land prices. A policy lever that results in such a large increase in RLV may be warranted since some lands in the MFR can cost $30 psf. Increasing density allowance is a powerful tool to enable apartment development. 2 Land value is based on assessor's data of properties in R-4 zone that were sold in 2019 and 2020. The average land price was about $10 psf. 3 Land value is based on assessor's data of properties in MFR zone that were sold in 2019 and 2020. The average land price was about $22 psf. ECONorthwest 5 Figure 2. Feasibility Impact of Increasing Residential Density Source: ECONorthwest Note: Grey bars indicate feasibility under current development standards. Navy bars indicate feasibility under modified development standards. Green bars indicate the range of typical land prices. $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $- $14.3 $9.1 Residual Land Value per Square Foot $24.8 $6.8 $15.9 $28.6 $19.8 $42.9 10 du/ac 15 du/ac 22 du/ac 10 du/ac 15 du/ac 22 du/ac 22 du/ac 40 du/ac (3 units) (4 units) (6 units) (10 units) (15 units) (22 units) (55 units) (100 units) TH (0.3 Acre) TH (1.0 Acre) Apartment (2.5 Acres) 12-Year MFTE Program Another policy tool to enhance development feasibility is the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) program. This statewide program grants an exemption from state property tax for eligible multifamily properties with more than 4 residential units. Cities can adopt an 8-year program that allows tax exemptions for eight years. Cities can also adopt a 12-year program that allows tax exemptions for twelve years for properties that designate at least 20% of their units to be income -restricted. Cities in Washington typically set the income limit at 80% of the AMI for rental units. From developers' perspective the 12-year MFTE program temporarily Figure 3. Feasibility Impact of 12-Year MFTE Program reduces property taxes while with and without an Increase Residential Density Source: ECONorthwest temporarily reducing rental income. On net, the benefit of the reduced property Residual Land Value per Square Foot taxes outweighs the cost of lower rental $60 $55.2 income. The 12-year MFTE program improves the RLV of 3-story, garden -style apartments from $19.8 psf to $26.5 psf, which is slightly higher than the typical range for land prices. Combining the 12-year MFTE program with an increase in density allowance (from 22 du/ac to 40 du/ac) would improve the RLV to $55.2 psf, well above the typical range for land prices. $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $- $19.8 $26.5 22 du/ac 22 du/ac with 40 du/ac with without METE 12-Year METE 12-Year MFTE Apartment(2.5 Acres) ECONorthwest 6 Elimination of Open Space Requirements for Multifamily Apartments within 'A mile of City Parks Under certain circumstances, open space requirements can be detrimental to development feasibility. Because open space takes up a portion of the lot's surface, it limits the number and size of units that can be built horizontally. It also competes for space with surface parking area. Even for multistory buildings that can accommodate more units vertically, open space requirements can limit development density once the buildings reach a certain height. However, all of the apartment prototypes analyzed under the current development standards or modified development standards described above have low enough maximum residential density so that open space requirements do not impact viability of developing the prototypes. Even with a density allowance of 40 du/ac, 3-story apartments are not expected to take up more than a third of the lot, leaving plenty of space for driveways, walkways, surface parking, landscaping, and open space. Eliminating or reducing the open space requirement would make very modest improvements in development feasibility. Any reductions in open space would likely be replaced with landscaping rather than more units because the limits on residential density do not allow more units to be built. The improvement in development feasibility can be approximated by the difference in the cost of building an open space area and the cost of landscaping. Other Modifications There are other suggestions for modifying the development standards that have not been analyzed with a pro forma model because they have no impact on development feasibility. First, increasing the maximum lot coverage does not affect development feasibility because residential density allowances in the current development standards and the modified development standards we are testing do not allow the lot coverage of developments to reach more than 40 percent. Although increasing the maximum lot coverage will be important when residential densities are higher, it is not likely to yield meaningful results in the near future. Similarly, a higher maximum lot coverage will be important if developers want to build apartments with structured parking, but such developments usually require density allowance of at least 60 du/ac. Second, increasing the maximum building height from 50 feet to 65 feet for multifamily apartments is relevant for developers of apartment buildings taller than 4 stories. The maximum density allowances in the current development standards can be reached with a 3-story or 4-story building, thus the increase in maximum height is not tested in the feasibility assessment. Third, decreasing the minimum lot size for townhomes from 4,300 square feet to 2,000 square feet is not directly tested because minimum lot size requirements are, in some ways, equivalent to maximum density requirements. A minimum lot size of 4,300 square feet implies 10.1 du/ac (= 43,560 square feet per acre / 4,300 square feet per unit) and a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet implies 21.8 du/ac (= 43,560 square feet per acre / 2,000 square feet per unit). These density ECONorthwest 7 limits are already tested in the feasibility assessment, though the 21.8 du/ac limit is tested as 22.0 du/ac. Minimum lot sizes can also be important for properties developed on small lots. However, because the smallest lot size tested in the feasibility assessment is 13,068 square feet (= 43,560 square feet per acre x 0.3), the reduction in minimum lot size is not relevant for the analysis. Summary of Feasibility Assessment by Prototype Townhomes are barely feasible or not feasible under the current development standards. Their RLVs are $9.1 psf on 0.3-acre lots and $6.8 psf on 1.0-acre lots. In comparison, the typical land price ranges between $8 psf and $10 psf. However, increasing the density allowances would make townhome projects feasible. For multifamily apartments, the 12-year MFTE program is not as effective as it would be to increase density allowances to 40 du/ac. The 12-year MFTE program raises RLV by $6.7 psf, whereas increasing the density allowance from 22 du/ac to 40 du/ac increases the RLV by $23.1 psf. Notably, the combined effect of the 12-year MFTE program and higher residential density is greater than the sum of the two policy changes enacted independently. This is because the net benefit of the 12-year MFTE program is multiplied by the increased number of units that becomes possible with greater density allowances. Figure 4. Feasibility Impact of Various Policy Changes for All Three Prototypes Source: ECONorthwest $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $- $9.1 10 du/ac $14.3 Vbill 15 du/ac TH (0.3 Acre) $24.8 Residual Land Value per Square Foot $ 6.8 $15.9 $28.6 $19.8 $26.5 $42.9 $55.2 22 du/ac 10 du/ac 15 du/ac 22 du/ac 22 du/ac 22 du/ac & 40 du/ac 40 du/ac & 12-Year 12-Year MFTE METE TH (1.0 Acre) Apartment (2.5 Acres) ECONorthwest 8 Section 2. MFTE Program Overview What is a Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program? The MFTE program enables a jurisdiction to incentivize mixed -income housing development and diverse housing options in urban areas lacking housing choices. Washington cities with a population of 15,000 can adopt a MFTE program to stimulate new multifamily affordable housing development. This program exempts eligible new construction or rehabilitated housing from paying property taxes for either an 8-year or 12-year period of time. Developers seeking to take advantage of this program must be within one of the city's designated residential target areas which are often located in urban center or urban growth areas. If a jurisdiction offers the 12-year tax exemption, only property owners who commit to renting or selling at least 20% of these units to low- and moderate -income households are eligible per state law. In contrast, there is no housing affordability requirement for the 8-year tax exemption option.4 Cities around Washington are using the MFTE program differently. For example, many cities in the southern portion of King County focus on using the 8-year program option to encourage redevelopment in target areas without housing affordability requirements since the initial goal was to redevelop older properties with newer, higher quality housing. Some cities are using the program to promote housing rehabilitation projects (such as the cities of Tacoma and Port Orchard). For housing rehabilitation projects, only the value of eligible housing improvements is exempted from property taxes. If a jurisdiction has aging multifamily developments or underutilized buildings suited to residential uses, they should consider whether rehabilitated units should be included in the MFTE program. Some jurisdictions restrict program use to multifamily projects with over 10 units and some other jurisdictions have made multiple -unit projects with 4 or more units (such as quad homes or townhomes) eligible for tax exemptions (City of Seattle). The MFTE program is increasingly being used in Washington state with an estimated 26 cities and one county establishing this program since 2007 and around 424 developments receiving tax exemptions (JLARC, 2019). Tax abatements positively impact the feasibility of projects where market -rate projects are feasible and can help cross -subsidize the affordable units. Cities considering a MFTE program should weigh the temporary loss of tax revenue against the potential attraction of new investment in target areas. State law does not prohibit MFTE from being paired with other incentives. Bonus units, incentives such as impact fee waivers, and the integration of a more flexible development agreement approach including performance requirements and a menu of corresponding incentives could help offset the costs incurred from affordable housing unit requirements and could be considered as a way to promote program usage. If the program requirements are not sufficiently mitigated by incentives, the profit required by the developer will not be actualized. The level of incentive necessary will vary greatly within a region and even vary within jurisdictions themselves depending on "submarket" conditions present at a site. Therefore, it's 4 Chapter 84.14 RCW provides MFTE guidance for Washington State. ECONorthwest 9 important to thoroughly evaluate —and constantly refine —the incentives to make sure that they are priced according to the market, or they will not produce housing. Program Example: City of Renton MFTE Renton, WA is similar in population size and growth rate to Spokane Valley. The City of Renton allows applications for 8-year or 12-year exemptions. If applying for the 12-year exemption, then 20% of rentable units must be for households at or below 80% AMI. If applying for ownership project, then 20% of units must be reserved for households at or below 120% AMI.5 Depending on the zone, the City requires a minimum of 10 or 30 housing units to be built to qualify for the exemption. Renton passed their MFTE program in 2007. As of 2019, the program has built 1,535 units including 92 affordable units. Renton's program has been successful in producing more market -rate units. Program Example: City of Spokane MFTE The City allows applications for 8-year or 12-year exemptions. If applying for the 12-year exemption, then they must reserve 20% of the housing units to renters with an income of no more than 115% AMI for moderate -income households and below 80% AMI for low-income households.6 If developing a mixed -use project, then 50% or more of the project must include residential uses. In 2019, the City updated its MFTE boundary to include Center and Corridor Zones, Residential Zones, and Commercial Zones (See Figure 5). MFTE projects are exempt from the minimum off-street parking if within the Center and Corridor Zones. To be considered, developers must apply for the program before construction. The City of Spokane passed their MFTE program in 2007. In the program's first four years, Spokane built 453 units.? As of 2019, the program has built 1,751 units including 509 affordable units. FIGURE 5. City of Spokane MFTE Boundary r Park 59Iland9..e 2i091 Sri Flufum linrt•ni Ieah .1 Pa k [ir Loi rra,n 291 — F.:enor: A.:e Ourer, Bridgeport Ave klinPark,rk , P Frederl GF. rc! s9n hAlsa�cn %.ve tHN .th nee Felts Field nt Skpr,r9Pe Ave 3rd Avc I.iihlll bill Ave r I irk 4thr:vve 14th A.e — u lfill, Ave 5 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/html/Renton04/Renton0401/Renton0401220.html 6 https://my.spokanecity.org/economicdevelopment/incentives/multi-family-tax-exemption/ https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/projects/multi-family-tax-exemption-2017-incentive-evaluation/2012-mfte- data-and-code-guide.pdf ECONorthwest 10 Key Program Variations: • Housing rehabilitation versus new construction or both. • Restricting program to only multifamily projects with over ten housing units or loosening up this restriction to allow "missing middle" housing with over four units (must be at least four units, per state law). • Pair with other incentives such as impact fee waivers. • A few programs (cities of Bellevue and Seattle) are providing a greater incentive for those providing family -sized units with over two bedrooms since program applicants tend to construct or rehabilitate one -bedroom or studio housing units rather than provide housing with over two bedrooms (JLARC estimates that approximately 75(Y° of the units created between 2007-2018 are studios or one bedroom). • MFTE Residential Targeted Areas can vary to include urban centers, mixed -use areas, transit -oriented development areas, or a mixture of these (RCW 84.14.040). • Time period of exemption: 8 year, 12 year, or both. • Depth of housing unit affordability (must be below 80%) and length of affordability (8 years, 12 years, or life of project). Policy Considerations: • MFTE is a property tax subsidy to underwrite the voluntary participation to set aside housing units, income -restricted. The capitalized value of the subsidy supports both the affordable housing provision and developer participation/risk. • More stringent restrictions could hurt participation in the program. • Making the program as user-friendly as possible, can broaden program usage. A housing liaison at the City or affordable housing nonprofit partner can help facilitate program usage. Benefits: • Tax abatements positively impact the feasibility of projects where market -rate projects are feasible. • Project can help cross -subsidize affordable units. Can help broaden housing choices in the City. Drawbacks: • Requires regular reporting to the state which helps track program usage. • City must weigh the temporary loss of tax revenue against the potential attraction of new investment in targeted areas. ECONorthwest 11 • Reduces general fund revenues for all overlapping taxing districts, which could make it harder to promote the tool to partner jurisdictions that do not perceive the same project benefits. • May provide insufficient incentive to lead to affordability unless paired with other tools. ECONorthwest 12 Section 3: Development Feasibility Assumptions Apartment/Unit Assumptions Variable Assumption Unit of Measure Site Size Unit Mix Leasable Unit Size Blended Leasable Unit Size Unit Efficiency Blended Gross Unit Size TownhomeA 0.3 Acres Townhome B 1.0 Acres Apartment 2.5 Acres Town home Studio 0% Percent of all units 1 Bedroom 0% Percent of all units 2 Bedroom 50% Percent of all units 3 Bedroom 50% Percent of all units Apartment Studio 21% Percent of all units 1 Bedroom 30% Percent of all units 2 Bedroom 38% Percent of all units 3 Bedroom 11% Percent of all units Town home Studio 800 Square Feet 1 Bedroom 1,000 Square Feet 2 Bedroom 1,380 Square Feet 3 Bedroom 1,680 Square Feet Apartment Studio 592 Square Feet 1 Bedroom 745 Square Feet 2 Bedroom 1,004 Square Feet 3 Bedroom 1,248 Square Feet Town home 1,530 Square Feet Apartment 866 Square Feet Town home 100% Gross to net ratio Apartment 95% Gross to net ratio Town home 1,530 Square Feet Apartment 912 Square Feet ECONorthwest 13 Operating Revenue and Cost Assumptions Variable Revenue Vacancy Rate Assumption Unit of Measure Townhome Sales Price $ 250 Per square foot Apartment Studio $ 1.96 Per leasable square foot. monthly 1 Bedroom $ 1.47 Per leasable square foot. monthly 2 Bedroom $ 1.28 Per leasable square foot. monthly 3 Bedroom $ 1.22 Per leasable square foot. monthly Blended Rent $ 1.47 Per leasable square foot. monthly Revenue Scaler 1.1 Townhome B Premium 2% Percent of Sales Price Townhome A Sales Price $ 420,750 Per unit Townhome B Sales Price $ 429,165 Per unit Apartment Rent $ 1,404 Per unit. monthly Operating Expenses Townhome 0% Percent Affordable Apartment 3% Percent Market Rate Apartment 4% Percent Apartment $ 271 Per unit. monthly ECONorthwest 14 Development Cost Assumptions Variable Hard Costs Parking Cost Stall Size Impact Fee Other Development Costs Assumption Unit of Measure Townhome $ Apartment $ Utilities/lobby $ 130 Per square foot 120 Per square foot 100 Per square foot Garage $ 10,000 Per stall Surface $ 5,000 Per stall Garage 350 Square foot per unit Driveway 234 Square foot per unit Surface 325 Square foot per stall Townhome $ 1,260 Per unit Apartment $ 713 Per unit Hardscape $ Open Space $ Landscape $ Soft Costs (including permitting) Contingency Fee Developer Fee/Commission Target Returns 15 Per square foot 10 Per square foot 5 Per square foot 20% Percent of hard costs 5% Percent of hard and soft costs 3% Percent of development costs/sales price Apartment 5.50% ECONorthwest 15 Affordability Policy Assumptions Variable Assumption Unit of Measure Taxes and MFTE Assumptions Property Tax Rate $ 11.93 Per thousand dollars of assessed value AV to MV ratio 95% Tax Abatement Discount Rate 7.00% PV of 12-Year Abatement 52% Percent Taxes Abated 100% Affordability Assumptions Set -Aside (12-year) 20% Percent of total units Set -Aside (IH) 20% Percent of total units Affordability Depth (12-year) 80% Percent of MFI Affordability Depth (IH) 80% Percent of MFI MFI (4 person household) $ 77,400 Income Toward Rent 30% Percent of income Affordable Rent $ 1,603 Per unit. per month Affordable Homeownership Budget $ 1,877 Per unit. per month Affordability Multiplier Studio 70% Percent of MFI 1 Bedroom 75% Percent of MFI 2 Bedroom 90% Percent of MFI 3 Bedroom 104% Percent of M FI TH Blended 97% Percent of MFI Apartment Blended 83% Percent of MFI Rental Utilities Allowances Ownership Units Studio $ 1 Bedroom $ 2 Bedroom $ 3 Bedroom $ Blended $ 193 Per unit 206 Per unit 229 Per unit 252 Per unit 217 Per unit Affordability Depth 100% Percent of MFI Homeowner's Insurance 0.3% Percent of Sales Price of Market Rate Unit Taxes and Other Fees 1.1% Percent of Sales Price of Market Rate Unit HOA Fees $ 40 Per unit. per month Mortgage Interest 4.00% Mortgage Term 30 Years Down Payment 20% Percent of Sales Price ECONorthwest 16 Policy Assumptions Variable Open Space Minimum Lot Size Townhome Apartment (current) Apartment (alternative) Town home (current) Townhome (alternative) Apartment Maximum Lot Coverage Townhome (current) Townhome (alternative) Apartment (current) Apartment (alternative) Maximum Density Parking Town home (current) Townhome (alternative 1) Townhome (alternative 2) Apartment (current) Apartment (alternative) Town home Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Blended Guest Assumption Unit of Measure 0% Percent of Lot Area 10% Percent of Lot Area 0% Percent of Lot Area 4,300 Square Feet Per Unit 2,000 Square Feet Per Unit - Square Feet 60% Percent of Lot Area 80% Percent of Lot Area 60% Percent of Lot Area 100% Percent of Lot Area 10 DUA 15 DUA 22 DUA 22 DUA 40 DUA 2.0 Stalls Per Unit 1.0 Stalls Per Unit 1.0 Stalls Per Unit 1.5 Stalls Per Unit 1.5 Stalls Per Unit 1.2 Stalls Per Unit 5% Percent of Total ECONorthwest 17 APPENDIX F AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDING SOURCES ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING DATE: February 5, 2021 T0: Maul Foster and Alongi, Inc. FROM: ECONorthwest SUBJECT: State, Local and Federal Affordable Housing Funding Sources for the Spokane Valley Housing Action Plan Washington State, Local and Federal Affordable Housing Funding Sources This section describes the main state, local, and federal affordable housing funding sources available to developers looking to construct affordable housing properties in the City of Spokane Valley. This section focuses solely on funding sources, not indirect financing sources that provide financial benefits to affordable housing projects via reduced costs. Many of the funding sources could be allocated by the federal government but are administered by state and local housing finance agencies. Washington State Funding Sources As shown below, the Washington State Housing Finance Commission offers several funding programs to build multifamily affordable housing. • The Low -Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program is the largest source of funding established for affordable housing and is an indirect subsidy (in the form of a reduced federal income tax liability) for private companies to invest in affordable housing. This program is administered by state and local housing finance agencies in accordance with U.S. Treasury Department stipulations. Generally, LIHTC recipients receive the credit over one decade and in exchange, the housing units must be kept affordable for at least three decades (states can stipulate a longer period). In Washington State, the Housing and Finance Commission provides two types of LIHTC programs: the 9% tax credit and the 4% bond tax credit program. o The 9% tax credit program is more valuable, but limited, and is awarded competitively through annual funding applications.' A few drawbacks are the competitive nature and the complex application process (can take several months) and reporting requirements. Large renovation projects tend to use the 9% option while smaller preservation and acquisition -rehab projects tend to take advantage of the 4% option. o The 4% bond tax credit program is less valuable for project financing, but the program is not always competitive. This option is available if more than half the project is financed with tax-exempt Multifamily Bonds. Any project that is able to make the funding program work can access the tax credits up to a certain bond Source: Washington State Housing and Finance Commission, https://www.wshfc.org/mhcf/9percent/index.htm. ECONorthwest I Portland 1 Seattle 1 Los Angeles 1 Eugene 1 Boise 1 econw.com 1 cap across the state. These programs typically fund housing units that are affordable to households earning below 60% of AMI. Although the 4% bond tax credit program tends to not be competitive, there could be competition for the bonds during certain years when demand exceeds availability 2 • The 80/20 Private Activity Bond program can fund construction and development costs for eligible affordable housing projects (e.g., multifamily rental housing, limited equity cooperative, assisted living, single room occupancy housing). The interest on the funding is tax exempt (also known as private activity bonds), thereby reducing total development costs and increasing project feasibility. This program typically funds housing units that are affordable to households earning below 60% of AML In return for this incentive, the developer must set aside a certain percentage of units for low-income residents.3 • Non -Profit Housing Bonds can assist 501(c)(3) nonprofits in financing numerous housing developments. These funds are more flexible than other types of financing programs. Nonprofit bonds cannot be combined with the LIHTC program incentives, but they can be used to finance a broader range of eligible activities and facilities (such as emergency shelters for the homeless).4 • The Land Acquisition Program assists qualified nonprofits and developers with purchasing land for affordable housing development (rental or homeownership). This loan helps developers buy land and then gives them the necessary time to build financing for building the housing. The Washington State Department of Commerce offers three additional funding programs for developing affordable housing. • The Washington State Housing Trust Fund (HTF) provides loans and grants to affordable housing projects through annual competitive applications. This program typically funds housing units that are affordable to households earning below 80% of AMI. Recently at the end of 2020, the DOC announced that $85.3M of funding will be granted/loaned from the state's HTF, with an additional $11.7M provided through HUD's HOME and National HTF programs (both federal but managed by the DOC). This funding amount sets a new annual record of investment by the state HTF. This funding will be allocated to 30 projects and will help provide an estimated 1,404 multifamily rental units/beds, 121 homes for first-time homebuyers, 86 units of modular housing, and 74 units in cottage -style communities. The DOC will post a call for 2 Although the 4% bond tax credit program tends to not be competitive, there could be competition for the bonds during certain years when demand exceeds availability. Sources: Washington State Housing and Finance Commission, https://www.wshfc.org/mhcf/4percent/index.htm and Local Housing Solutions: http s://www.localhousingsolutions. org/fund/federal-funding-for-affordable-housing/. 3 Source: Washington State Housing and Finance Commission, https://www.wshfc.org/mhcf/BondsOnly8020/index.htm. 4 Source: Washington State Housing and Finance Commission, https://www.wshfc.org/mhcf/nph/index.htm. ECONorthwest 2 applications for the 2021-23 biennial funds soon in 2021 at: https://www.commerce.wa. gov/building-infrastructure/housing/housing-trust- fund/applying-to-the-housing-trust-fund/. • The Housing Preservation Program provides funding for affordable housing rehabilitation, preservation, and capital improvement needs. It is only available for projects that have previously received Housing Trust Funds.5 • The HOME Program is a federal block grant program funded through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) used to preserve and build rental housing affordable to low-income households. The Washington State Department of Commerce runs the HOME Rental Development program for Washington State HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). This program offers funding for the preservation and development of affordable rental housing to non-profit organizations, public housing authorities, and local and tribal governments. HOME Funds typically build units that are affordable to households earning below 50% of AMI. Action plans are developed every spring to describe how the state will allocate funds for the next year. Participating jurisdictions must set aside at least 15% of their HOME funds for housing that is developed, sponsored, or owned by Community Housing Development Organizations.6 Local Funding Sources 1) A property tax levy (RCW 84.52.105) - allows jurisdictions to place an additional tax up to $0.50 per thousand dollars assessed for up to ten years. Funds must go toward financing affordable housing for households earning below 50% MFI. 2) A sales tax levy (RCW 82.14.530) - allows jurisdictions to place a sales tax up to 0.1 percent. At least 60 percent of funds must go toward constructing affordable housing, mental/behavioral health -related facilities, or funding the operations and maintenance costs of affordable housing and facilities where housing -related programs are provided. At least 40 percent of funds must go toward mental / behavioral health treatment programs and services or housing -related services. 3) A real estate excise tax (REET) (RCW 82.46.035) - allows a portion of city REET funds to be used for affordable housing projects and the planning, acquisition, rehabilitation, repair, 5 Source: Washington State Department of Commerce Housing Preservation Program, https://www. commerce.wa. gov/building-infrastructure/housing/housing-preservation-program/ 6 Through the federal HOME program, the King County Housing and Community Development Department administers a Housing Finance Program (HFP) to provide capital funds for acquisition, rehabilitation, site improvements, new construction, and other costs related to housing development. Projects must apply for program benefits and the process is competitive. The HFP includes funds from King County's local Housing Opportunity Fund. Sources: Washington State Department of Commerce HOME Rental Development Program, https://www.commerce.wa.gov/building-infrastructure/housing/housing-trust-fund/home-program/ and ARCH, https://www.archhousing. org/developers/other-funding-options.html. ECONorthwest 3 replacement, construction, or improvement of facilities for people experiencing homelessness. These projects must be listed in city's the capital facilities plan. Federal Government Funding Sources The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) offers several different programs for developing affordable housing. Select programs are described below. • Since 1974, HUD has provided Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) for the improvement of the economic, social and physical environment and quality of life for low - and moderate -income residents. Generally, these grants can address a wide range of community development needs including infrastructure improvements, housing rehab loans and grants as well as other benefits targeted to low- and moderate -income persons. A competitive process is typically used to allocate grants for individual projects and the amount of federal funding for CDBG has diminished over the past few years. o The local CDBG Program is administered by Spokane County's Community Services, Housing, and Community Development Department since the City of Spokane Valley is part of the Spokane County CDBG Consortium (via an interlocal agreement).' The City of Spokane Valley is currently allocated approximately 20 percent of the consortium's total CDBG award which ranges between $270,000 to $358,000. Eligibility is based on consistency with adopted priorities in the consolidated plan and whether the proposal targets broader community -wide benefits and low- and moderate -incomes (as determined by census tract) and residential uses. • The HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program is one mechanism available for CDBG (block grant) recipients to increase the capacity to assist with economic development, housing, public financing, and infrastructure projects by enabling a community to borrow up to five times its annual CDBG allocation. Communities can use these loans to either finance projects or to start loan funds to finance multiple projects over several years. The program has flexible repayment terms and is often layered with other sources of financing such as LIHTC.8 • HUD also provides two Section 8 funding programs that assist with rent payment. The Section 8 funding programs do not provide financial support to build affordable housing; rather, they provide support for households earning up to 80% of the AMI by paying the rent balance above 30% of the household income. HUD has a tenant -based Section 8 rental housing assistance offered primarily through the Housing Choice Voucher program. Source: Spokane County https://www.spokanecounty.org/1240/CDBG 8 HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program: https://www.hud.gov/program offices/comm planning/section108 ECONorthwest 4 o This voucher program is administered by the Spokane Housing Authority (SHA). Voucher holders gain a rental subsidy that can be used at any eligible rental housing. Consequently, this incentive moves with the eligible household rather than being tied to an affordable housing development. The other Section 8 program is a project -based voucher program providing a subsidy to specific housing units providing consistent affordability. SHA requires households to have 50% AMI or less and reserves 75% of units for incomes at or below 30% AMI. Since the assistance is connected to the housing unit, this program can help create or preserve affordable housing in high -cost, gentrifying areas. • HUD 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly: This program provides interest -free capital advances to private, nonprofit sponsors to finance housing development for low-income seniors. The capital advance does not have to be repaid as long as the project serves low- income seniors. The nonprofit must provide a minimum capital investment equal to 0.5 percent of the HUD -approved capital advance, up to a maximum of $25,000. Occupancy in Section 202 housing is open to any very low-income household comprised of at least one person who is at least 62 years old at the time of initial occupancy.9 • HUD Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities: This program provides funding to build and subsidize rental housing for eligible persons with disabilities, in household income levels ranging from very low (50% AMI) and extremely low (under 30% AMI). At least one adult member in the household must have a disability such as a physical or developmental disability or chronic mental illness. A general aim of this program is help persons with disabilities live independently as much as possible. The program provides interest -free capital advances and operation subsidies to nonprofit developers. In addition, assistance is provided to state housing agencies in a variety of ways such as Federal Low -Income Housing Tax Credits. 10 • Another HUD program supporting affordable housing rehabilitation is the Choice Neighborhoods grant program. This program is the successor to the HOPE VI program. This program funds the redevelopment, rehabilitation, and new construction associated with severely -distressed public housing and privately -owned HUD -assisted properties. A neighborhood revitalization plan (referred to as a Transformation Plan) describing the project goals and how it will address community problems and increase opportunities for the residents and the surrounding neighborhood is required." 9 Source: HUD, https://www.hud.gov/program offices/housing/mfh/progdesc/e1d202 10 Source: HUD, https://www.hud.gov/program offices/housing/mfh/progdesc/disab811. 11 Source: Local Housing Solutions, https://www.localhousingsolutions.org/fund/federal-funding-for-affordable- housing/. ECONorthwest 5 City of Spokane Valley Rent -Restricted Low -Income Housing Inventory Analysis Common Management Companies Numbe r of Properties %ofTotal Number of Low Income Units %ofTotal California Commercial Investment Group, Inc. 3 13.0% 261 15.7% Catholic Housing Services of Eastern Washington 1 4.3% 51 3.1% Community Frameworks 2 8.7% 49 2.9% Goodale& Barbieri Company 1 4.3% 59 3.5% Hearthstone Housing Foundation 1 4.3% 287 17.3% Kiemle& Hagood Co 4 17.4% 98 5.9% National Church Residences 2 8.7% 74 4.4% Security Properties Incorporated 1 4.3% 139 8.4% Spokane Housing Authority 1 4.3% 207 12.4% Spokane Housing Ventures 3 13.0% 96 5.8% Spokane United Methodist Homes 1 4.3% 24 1.4% Vinland Housing Corporation 1 4.3% 80 4.8% WhitewaterCreek,Inc. 2 8.7% 238 14.3% Grand Total 23 100.0% 1,663 100.0% Bedroom Count I l f p ro perty has ai i or Affordability Level (for p ra pert ies wit h same bedroom in farmatioN %ofTotal income limit data? %ofTotal =PD 0 3.3_ LIH 33'74 40 3.6% MR 10 _.0:'_ LIH 35i_ 36 3.2% _PR 518 5L.U:= LIH 40 _ 113 10.2% 2PR 354 35.3:. LIH 457/. 0 0.0% 3PP 97 3. ;= LIH 50 _ 143 12.85EE ; PP 24 2. ;= LIH 50 ' 781 70.25 5PP 0 0 0:, Grand Total 1,113 100.0% Grand Total 1,003 100.0 Project Type [Sou rce j awl of low Mamma Units C',n:1 =HFCI 140 HUD 202 136 HUD 811 61 HUD Section 8 221 Tax Cred it (WSH FC) 870 Unknown (Community Frameworks] 28 Unknown (Spokane HouSingAuthority) 207 Grand Total 1,663 City of Spokane Valley Rent -Restricted Affordable Housing Inventory Data Sources: Washington State Housing and Finance Commission (WSHFC), 2020, US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Spokane Housing Authority (SHA), and Community Frameworks (CF). Data Searches (mid 2020): HUD, USDA Rural Development Program (there were no properties in Spokane Valley), SHA, City of Spokane Valley, and PolicyMap. Notes: OBR: is a studio. SRO: Single Room Occupancy. BR: Bedroom. We de -duplicated properties that appeared in multiple databases by looking at property names, total units, and addresses. We did not gather information on affordable homeownership properties, nor information on any housing vouchers. This information does not include homeless shelters or transitional housing that is not income or rent restricted. Lastly, we assume the WSHFC properties are all currently rent restricted, even if their LIHTC Year-15 has passed. While we cannot guarantee that the data is fully complete, it likely captures a robust share of the total rent -restricted affordable housing across Spokane Valley. ECONorthwest 6 Federal Government Designated Geographic Areas for Affordable Housing Support Developing a regulated affordable housing property can be a complex and difficult process. Different funding sources may have different priorities, and the costs of land and development can be prohibitive. To help alleviate some of these difficulties, the federal government has designated certain geographic areas to receive higher priority or more funding for regulated affordable housing development. These include Qualified Census Tracts, Difficult to Develop Areas, and Opportunity Zones, each described below. Qualified Census Tracts HUD defines a Qualified Census Tract (QCT) as a Census Tract with "50 percent of households with incomes below 60 percent of the Area Median Gross Income (AMGI)" or one where the poverty rate exceeds 25 percent. 12 Affordable housing developments in QCTs that apply for LIHTC funding receive a boost in the amount of tax credits they can receive. The City of Spokane Valley has a few QCT (see image below). Map options 13 Current Zoom Level Show Difficult Development Areas (Zoom 7.) ig Color OCT Qualified Tracts (Zoom 7+) eiShaw Tracts Outline (Zoom 11 +) Show FMR Outline Room 4+) O Show L II -ITC Projects (Zoom tll+) Click here for full screen map Select Year 00 2021 0 2020 Map Satellite 113.00 114, 00 Hutton Settlement 'asadena Park , 1 Hills Area Go:: gle I I3.00 126.06 114.00 r ana� am12?01 Spokane Business & Industrial Park 114,00 114.04 130.0(1 Map data C2021 Google Terms or lime Report a mop error 131.( 12 HUD. 2020. "Qualified Census Tracts and Difficult Development Areas." www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/qct.html ECONorthwest 7 Difficult Development Areas HUD defines a Difficult Development Areas (DDA) as "areas with high land, construction and utility costs relative to the area median income" and uses HUD Fair Market Rents, income limits, 2010 census, and 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) data as determinants. DDA properties using the Low -Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program can receive a 30 percent basis boost in qualified costs, increasing tax credits and resulting in greater investment equity in a project. The City of Spokane Valley does not include any DDAs. Opportunity Zones In addition, the 2017 federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created the Opportunity Zone program which is designed to incentivize investment in low-income communities by providing tax benefits. Opportunity Zones are Census Tracts where the poverty rate exceeds 20%.13 While there are no specific funding boosts for affordable housing projects developed in Opportunity Zones, the tax incentives make other types of multifamily development more feasible. The City of Spokane Valley does not have any Opportunity Zones. 13 Washington State Department of Commerce. 2020. "Opportunity Zones -An Incentive to Invest in Lower -Income Areas." https://www. commerce.wa. gov/growing-the-economy/opportunity-zones/ ECONorthwest 8 Affordable Housing Development Information This section describes the affordable housing development and finance process and how it differs from market rate development. Typical Affordable Housing Development Process The development of new, multifamily regulated affordable housing is a long and complex process. It is subject to many of the same development conditions as market -rate development, with added complexity due to lower rents requiring additional, lower -cost funding. The development process begins in predevelopment (design and feasibility, land entitlements, and funding applications) then enters construction, before beginning operations. The following are typical development phases for regulated affordable housing projects. Design and Feasibility Affordable housing developers start with an understanding of the need for less expensive housing in an area. How many units are needed at what rent level? What income levels have the biggest gaps in housing supply? What populations are struggling with housing costs the most? Just like market rate developers, affordable housing developers test the financial feasibility of what they hope to build against the local political and economic conditions. They must estimate what it will cost to build, what affordability levels the region needs, and the amount of funding available to build the project. If the project is not financially or politically feasible (i.e., cannot find adequate funding sources or does not meet a neighborhood's goals), building the housing will be immensely challenging. Key challenges that are considered: cost of land, development allowed on the land (zoning), costs of construction, rents or prices, costs of operations (for multifamily), or local opposition to the project. How does affordable housing differ? Both affordable housing development and market -rate development need to go through design and feasibility. Affordable housing development differs from market -rate development in this stage due to limited funding. With the goal of providing below -market rents, the financing structure (often called the "capital stack") of an affordable housing development needs to fill a gap (often called a "funding gap") between what it costs to build the property and what the property's operations can support. A market rate development will typically have investor equity and one or two types of debt financing, but an affordable housing development may also need to secure public funding, grants, operating subsidies, and low-cost or forgivable debt on top of competitive investor equity sources (see exhibit below). Some affordable housing developers need to secure predevelopment loans or grants as they work out the logistics of project feasibility. ECONorthwest 9 Sometimes, affordable housing developments are given free or reduced cost land, which aids feasibility and reduces the amount of debt needed. Typical Capital Stacks in a Market Rate and a 9% LIHTC Affordable Housing Development Market Funding Sources uity Inv ors Developer Equit, Gap Financing/ Mezzanine Debt Long Term Debt Source: ECONorthwest 20% 15% 65% Land Use Entitlements 62% 21% 17% Affordable Housing Funding Sources ano ersources (7 total) Long Term Debt This is the process of getting control of the site (buying land or assembling parcels) and getting the legal authority to develop (zoning and permitting, design review, neighborhood opposition, etc.). This can take months or years depending on the type of project, the required level of public review, the time it takes to obtain permits, the amount of neighborhood opposition, and many other factors. Developers typically take out pre -development loans to cover these costs, meaning that delays incur "carrying costs" (the interest that accrues on the loan each month of the process). This loan may be wrapped into or repaid by the construction loan. How does affordable housing differ? Both affordable housing developments and market -rate developments need to secure land use entitlements. One major way that affordable housing development differs from market -rate development in this stage, is due to neighborhood opposition. It is common for neighborhoods to object to a new affordable housing development, and some may use the slow land use entitlements process to delay or "kill" a project. Some market -rate developments may face opposition in this process, but they may also be in a better financial position to weather delays ECONorthwest 10 (e.g., if a market rate developer does not need a pre -development loan, delays do not incur carrying costs). Public Funding Applications This is a unique step required of affordable housing development that does not apply to market - rate development. Often, affordable housing developments receive public funding in exchange for renting to low-income households. With rents set below market, the property will have insufficient rent revenue to cover its operating costs and support the loans needed to pay for development. Thus, the property must apply for a range of low-cost funding, project equity, or grants to reach feasibility and begin construction. This step adds cost, time, complexity, and uncertainty to the development process. Because public funding is limited, these application cycles are very competitive and not all projects will receive the funding to move forward. The policy goals attached to each funding amount can influence the type of housing built (e.g., housing for families or seniors) as well as the income levels served. Most often, a project needs to have site control before it can receive funding. How does affordable housing differ? Market -rate developments do not typically need to secure public funding for development. Construction Once a property has site control, entitlements, and a confirmed design concept, it can begin construction. This stage depends on the availability of labor, materials, and equipment, as well as the complexity and size of the development. The project will take out a construction loan to cover these costs, which means that delays in construction incur additional "carrying costs." The construction loan is repaid by the permanent loan, which is sized based on the net operating income of the project (rent revenues minus operating expenses). How does affordable housing differ? Affordable housing projects do not meaningfully differ from market -rate projects in the construction process. However, they may have simpler designs and prioritize faster construction timelines. Operations Once the project is built and leased, it begins operations. Rents are determined at the project feasibility stage and are very important in the project's operating phase. Feasibility and funding applications can occur several years prior to the project operating. The revenues from property rents need to be high enough to cover the cost of operating the property (including maintenance and repairs, landscaping, taxes, and numerous other fees and costs). The project's net operating ECONorthwest 11 income must also service the monthly debt payments on the permanent loan. Banks generally require an income "cushion" to assure that the property has enough operating income to pay its debts. This means that net operating income must be 15 percent to 20 percent higher than the debt payment. Any change in rent revenues (market softening, competition, vacancies, etc.), costs of operations (higher taxes, maintenance costs, capital repairs, etc.) can meaningfully disrupt a property's operations. How does affordable housing differ? Affordable housing properties operate under affordability restrictions for a specified period of time (e.g., 15-99 years), and are typically managed by mission -driven developers or non-profit organizations. In contrast, many market rate properties will sell to an institutional investor after the property stabilizes (after 5 or 8 years of operations). Another difference in affordable housing operations is that typically, affordable housing properties are required to put a portion of operating funds into reserves (both capital reserves and or operating reserves) which serve as a cushion for unexpected vacancies, disruptions to operations, or major capital repairs. These reserves help prevent most affordable housing properties from defaulting on debt service requirements (LIHTC properties, in particular, have very low default rates). Market rate properties are not required to keep reserves. Lastly, another difference in affordable housing operations, is that often the properties may have insufficient cash flow (funds left over after paying for operating expenses and debt) to pay for any cash -flow dependent line items (e.g., the developer fee, cash -flow dependent loans, etc.) In contrast, market rate properties seek financial returns from the property, to provide steady cash flow to the owner or investor. While cash flow is not always available due to market rent fluctuations and or vacancies, the deals are structured to seek financial returns. Development Context There are a large number of interrelated variables to consider where affordable housing will be the most profitable for developers; among these variables are: • Base regulations - base density, height limits, lot coverage or floor -area ratios, etc. • Incentives - fee waivers, density and height bonuses, direct financial contributions, etc. • Inclusionary requirements - length of restrictions, set aside amounts, income levels, etc. • Market conditions - base rents, area annual income growth, land costs, etc. • Infrastructure - mobility (transit, roads, and trails), parks, stormwater, etc. • Internal metrics - developer internal rate of return, finance costs, etc. ECONorthwest 12 The difficulty in balancing these variables is that since each site, each project, and each developer have such widely varying characteristics, there is no single equation that results in the provision of affordable housing; each party can only make decisions that affect their span of control: • Developer: Choosing a region with anticipated profit, controlling for land costs, reducing the quality of the units, or charging increased prices for the finished units; since the first is sometimes fixed, and the last two are tied to market rates, controlling for land is often the overriding factor. • Jurisdiction: Reducing regulatory burden —parking requirements, impact fees, permitting timelines, cost of compliance, etc. —or increasing incentives. • Outside of control of either party: Financial markets, regional economic growth/decline. The challenge with affordable mandates is to price the associated incentives in a way to mitigate the costs. ECONorthwest 13 TAB #12 APPENDIX G ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND TINY HOME POLICY ANALYSIS ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING DATE: February 1, 2021 T0: Maul Foster & Alongi (MFA), Matt Hoffman FROM: ECONorthwest, Tyler Bump, Jennifer Cannon, and James Kim SUBJECT: DRAFT Evaluation of Key Housing Strategies for the Spokane Valley Housing Action Plan Introduction ECONorthwest in partnership with MFA is supporting the development of a Housing Action Plan (HAP) for the City of Spokane Valley to evaluate current and future housing needs and identify strategies to meet those needs. The HAP is largely made possible due to a Washington State Department of Commerce Housing Bill 1923 Grant. The overarching aims for the HAP are to include strategies to increase the supply of housing, and variety of housing types and actions to increase the supply of housing affordable to all income levels. The approach for developing a HAP began with an assessment of housing needs, public involvement, and analysis of the effectiveness of existing policies and potential updates to key regulations. All of this information collectively will inform the strategic actions to be including in the HAP. ECONorthwest provided Housing Action Plan content useful for describing Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Tiny Home policy updates to consider. Accessory Dwelling Unit Policies ADUs, also referred to as mother-in-law apartments, carriage house, granny flat, second unit, are a self-contained residential unit that is an accessory use to a single-family home and is located on the parcel with a single-family home. An ADU typically contains all the basic facilities needed for living independent from the primary residence such as a kitchen and bathroom. ADUs tend to be smaller in size and scale to the primary single-family home. ADUs can be considered a form of missing middle housing helping to bridge a gap between single-family housing and multifamily housing. Generally, this type of housing can be built at a lower cost per unit than single-family detached housing; however, this is not guaranteed. An ADU can be configured in different ways such as being attached to a single-family home, above a garage, or detached from the primary residence. See the examples shown below. INTERIOR (LOWER LEVEL) INTERIOR (UPPER LEVEL) GARAGE CONVERSION ♦ Accessory dwelling units (or ADUs) come in many shapes and styles. Source: AARP, 2018 ABCs of ADUs Guide and images. ECONorthwest l Portland I Seattle I Los Angeles I Eugene I Boise I econw.com 1 Spokane Valley ADU Regulations:1 • Type: Both attached or detached are permitted. • Quantity: One ADU is allowed per lot. • Creation: ADU construction is allowed with new or existing primary unit. • Eligibility: ADUs are not allowed on lots with a duplex, multifamily dwelling, or accessory apartment. • Parking: One off-street parking space required for ADU in addition to existing parking requirements. • Design Standards: • Appearance: ADU must match primary dwelling unit's exterior finish materials, roof pitch, trim, and window proportions and orientation. No guidance on height limits. • Entrance: An attached ADU entrance must be on the side or in the rear to maintain single-family appearance. No guidance for detached ADU. Size: ADU cannot be larger than 10% of lot or 1,000 sq/ft (whichever is greater) and larger than 300 sq/ft while not exceeding 50% of the habitable square footage of primary dwelling unit. And have no more than two bedrooms. Setbacks: ADU must comply with existing side and rear setback requirements for a dwelling unit. For some properties this would be a 20-foot rear setback and for others the rear setback could be 10 feet. • Permit Fees: It is not clear from the Master Fee Schedule found in Resolution NO. 20-016 which fees apply to ADU permit fees. Clarifying which fees apply to ADU development will help reduce questions and streamline the process. Below are some fees that may: • ADU Planning: $300 • Building: $391.25 - $993.75 Site Plan Review: $80 • Certificate of Occupancy: $84.00 • Transportation Impact Fee: $1,260 • Other: Cargo shipping containers are not permitted as an ADU in residential zoning. • Industrial ADU: This is another type of ADU allowed in Spokane Valley. Code does not specify which zone it is permissible to build this type of ADU. Main difference from a regular ADU is that 10 industrial ADUs are allowed per site and are prohibited on the first floor of the building. Policy Considerations: 1 City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 19.40.030 Development standards - Accessory dwelling units. ECONorthwest 2 • Adding off-street parking space in addition to the existing parking requirements can make an ADU more expensive to develop. Parking space requirements tend to increase the cost of development and can make the development physically impossible when taking into account the primary and accessory parking unit requirements. Lowering parking space requirements can be a helpful way to encourage ADU development. If on - street parking is available or garage or driveway space is available, the City should consider waiving onerous parking requirements such as prohibiting the use of the driveway, garage, or carport areas to count for parking. Especially if owner -occupancy is required, ADUs tend to be located on a lot with shared parking arrangements and the availability of parking can be coordinated with the primary residence (likely the landlord) living on -site. Parking spaces could easily cost $5,000 to $7,000 which, given the cost of development of an ADU, can add substantial cost such that it becomes a barrier for homeowner financing. • Generally, requiring owner -occupancy of one of the units can negatively impact ADU production.2 The City of Renton exempts owner occupancy requirements in exchange for 60% AMI affordability. • The City should explore whether there are feasible opportunities to relax the size limitations to allow for more flexibility and larger units and smaller units that could result from the conversion of garage spaces. • Relaxing the ADU setback requirements (particularly the side and rear) to five feet could make ADU projects more feasible, particularly on lots with irregular or elongated shapes. • A city might institute strategic fee waivers for affordable units to encourage more development, or lower -cost development. • Increasing the density to allow for two ADUs per lot could be helpful particularly if the City sees increasing demand for ADU housing options. Jurisdictions will not see large numbers of ADUs actually being constructed until the market rents reach a level that makes development feasible. • Monitor: Cities possibly will need to address short-term vacation rental use of ADUs and spillover effects in terms of parking, service, and neighborhood impacts. Benefits Associated with Promoting ADU Development: • Broadens housing diversity and choices in a broader range of neighborhoods since it can be offered at a more affordable cost due to their small size. Although ADUs can be cheaper housing options, this lower cost is not always the case. • Offers additional options for Seniors and younger populations, single person households, etc. • Can be a source of added income to help pay housing expenses. 2 https://www.planning.org/knowledgebase/accessorydwellings/ ECONorthwest 3 • AARP surveyed people 50+ and found, they would consider creating an ADU to provide a home for a loved one in need of care (84%), provide housing for relatives or friends (83%), feel safer by having someone living nearby (64%, have a space for guests (69%), increase the value of their home (67%), create a place for a caregiver to stay (60%), and earn extra income from renting to a tenant (53%) Source: AARP Home and Community Preferences Survey, 2018. (AARP Home and Community Preferences Survey, 2018) • ADUs can blend into single-family neighborhoods and be a form of intergenerational housing. Tiny Home Policies Over the last decade, various factors have led to households downsizing and people choosing to live in smaller, more affordable, and environmentally sustainable dwellings. The concept of living smaller has been gaining momentum and new models of tiny housing have been popping up in cities throughout the country. Tiny houses are one way to provide a housing option for individuals and households who desire privacy and smaller home size but prefer single-family dwelling home amenities. Tiny homes, sometimes referred to as micro -homes, are small, single-family dwellings, typically 80 to 200 square feet but usually always less than 500 square feet.3 Tiny homes often have a kitchen and a bathroom and they can be on wheels (temporary or transitional) or on foundation (permanent). Tiny homes are an attractive option for home dwellers because they cost less than a traditional home and do not require a mortgage; units require less energy and utility services; and some tiny homes, especially those on wheels, provide dwellers the flexibility of movement. Tiny homes can be built entirely on the site (stick-built/site-constructed) or can be built elsewhere and transported to the site such as a factory -built modular home. Tiny house communities including property that can be rented or held by other others for the placement of tiny houses can also provide transitional housing for those experiencing homelessness (these villages have been built in Olympia and Seattle). Until recently, state law, building codes, and local regulations have presented numerous legal and logistical barriers to siting and building these very small, detached dwellings. In 2019, the state legislature passed ESSB 5383, which updated state law to enable the development of tiny houses or tiny house communities throughout the state. This law defined tiny houses, and mandated that the building code council write building codes for tiny homes. Washington state has adopted Appendix Q Tiny Houses which relates to tiny homes on a foundation. The City of Spokane Valley could consider the following policy updates/additions: 3 Brown, Emily (2016). Overcoming the Barriers to Micro -Housing: Tiny Houses, Big Potential. University of Oregon Department of Planning, Public Policy, and Management. ECONorthwest 4 • At a minimum, the City should define tiny houses to differentiate from trailers, manufactured homes, and recreational vehicles. Tiny homes on wheels might be challenging to address initially due to challenges with zoning compliance, waste -water treatment, and site design. Some communities have adopted building codes that allow for long-term occupancy of tiny homes, but in many towns and cities the legality of long-term occupancy hinges on whether the tiny home is on a permanent foundation and connected to public utilities. Consequently, focusing on clarifying regulations with tiny houses on foundations (not on wheels) could be addressed as a first step. The City could allow tiny homes, set on a foundation, to be utilized as an ADU. • Zoning code requirements can create additional barriers: Tiny homes may not be addressed in the zoning code as a permitted use, and if so, there may be a limit on which zoning areas allow them. Certain zoning areas have minimum lot size, setbacks, and parking requirements that are prohibitive. The City of Walsenburg, Colorado's city council eliminated a zoning code that prohibited residential dwellings of 600 square feet or less, allowing more housing in the mountain -town city.4 The permitted use table should be modified to identify where tiny houses or tiny house villages would be permitted outright or conditionally allowed. • The building code can be the most significant hurdle for legally constructing a tiny home. The City should consider whether to adopt the updated International Residential Code (IRC) with Appendix Q (2018) since this has been modified to encompass tiny house construction. This IRC defines a tiny house as a dwelling smaller than 400 square feet excluding lofts. The Washington state legislature (via ESB 5383) recognizes that the IRC has issued tiny house building code standards in Appendix Q which can provide a basis for the standards requested within this act.5 As a first step, the City should solicit input or convene a focus group or working group including tiny house owners and developers, city planners, and city building code experts to review how tiny homes would fit in the existing site plan approval process and identify regulatory barriers and possible areas of flexibility related to the use of the IRC. 4 For more information, visit: https://www.cityofwalsenburg.net/tiny-homes 5 The cities of Seattle, Tacoma, and Olympia have adopted Code to address tiny homes. ECONorthwest 5 Tiny Home Image Precedents Soc. arc-IF...3er 19,11/seattle-to-shul-twy-house-mllage-after-res d ent-lockout/ source: https://tinyhousebuild.com/rn.ny.faces.of.home/ M°rris°n raphy.com hOMe JyrriDwaynePhotog Source: https://tinyhausebuild.co rn/rnanyl aces- of -home/ Source nlips.11crosscut.corn/2019/09/cheap-practi.1-lite-saving-seattle-should-build-more-tiny-house-villages source: hill, s://rnynorthwest.corn/1627fil-9/seattle-northlake-tiny-horne, Olage-stays-oper/? ECONorthwest TAB #13 SPOKANE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS SUMMIT A MARKET BASED NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE SPOKANE REGION The housing supply in the Spokane continues to fall to record low levels at all pricing points. In February of 2021, we gathered the top minds in the industry at the national, regional, and local levels to provide a market -based analysis of housing needs for our region. This white paper serves as a guidepost that provides a full picture of the true need for housing, the impacts of housing policies in our region, the needs of Spokane, what residents want, the influence of buyer migration from larger metro markets, a history of under -supply and the social impacts to our community. 1 We must no longer turn a blind eye to the impacts in our community from a severe lack of housing. For more than a decade, we have failed to build enough homes to meet demands. As a result, housing prices are increasing at never -before -seen pace. To find answers as to why, the Spokane Association of REALTORS° gathered some of the greatest minds, with national, regional, and local standing, for a Spokane Region Housing Needs Summit. Their voices make it clear as to the impacts this is having on our community. This report lays out the challenges facing our industry and our communities. I encourage you to keep this as a reference guide for the discussions ahead. As REALTORS° - we are uniquely positioned to advocate for change. It is a responsibility we must now bear, to best serve our neighbors, our community, and our industry. Let us get to work! Eric Johnson 2021 President Spokane Association of REALTORS° 2 Executive Summary The housing crisis in the Spokane region has reached a critical level and is threatening the stability of our region. That is the consensus of a panel of national and regional economists and housing experts who came together for a Spokane Region Housing Needs Summit hosted by the Spokane Association of REALTORS®. These experts were brought together to help us better understand the true housing needs of the Spokane region, and the answers they provided were alarming. Among the key findings: • The Spokane area's housing supply is severe, with a 94% reduction in available homes for sale since 2010. • A lack of inventory has escalated the median home price in Spokane County 66.8% since 2015 with a median home increase from $179,000 (2016) to over $300,000 (2020). • From 2010 to 2019 the Spokane Region underbuilt approximately 32,000 housing units to meet demand. • This has resulted in lost economic opportunity - $6-billion dollars in wages and employment since 2010, $1.1-billion dollars in immediate and ongoing tax revenues. • A lack of inventory has led to thousands of families renting who cannot find a place to buy. • Vacancies in regional rentals remains at a dangerous level of around 1%. • The biggest lack of inventory lies in entry level or workforce housing. • From personal health to family stress, to student performance in school, to increased levels of homelessness, Spokane's lack of housing has triggered a severe impact on the health of our citizens — especially among minorities and our youth. • Spokane has high levels of cost -burdened families spending more of their income on shelter than most similar cities in the state and the US. • The Spokane Region is among the top places to move in the country with expected growth of 48,000 more people by the year 2030. • Many new homebuyers are migrating from larger West coast markets adding 8-to-14,000 new residents annually • The market has shifted with bulk of new homes in our region now built across the border in Idaho. • Local public policy has resulted in the lack of housing production. • In the City of Spokane's 20-year plan to build around centers and corridors not one single development has happened You can watch the summit for yourself here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t7NYNhMwYI 3 Table of Contents "Spokane Region Housing Costs and Supply" Spokane Association of REALTORS° 5 "Housing Affordability and the First Time Homebuyers Squeeze" James Young — Director of the Washington Center for Real Estate Research 7 "Housing Growth Continues as the Economy Recovers in 2021" Danushka Nanayakkara-Skillington - NAHB Assistant VP for Forecasting and Analysis 11 "Housing Underproduction for Washington State and Spokane" Mike Kingsella — Up For Growth National Director 15 "Spokane Emerges As A Top 10 Real Estate Market in a Post-COVID Environment" Jessica Lautz — VP of Demographics and Behavioral Insights National Association of REALTORS° 19 "A Summary of Population Forecasts and Origins of Recent Newcomers to Spokane County" D. Patrick Jones, PhD — Executive Director of EWU's Institute for Public Policy & Economic Analysis 22 "The Social Impacts of Low Housing Stock in Spokane" Vange M. Ocasio Hocheimer, PhD — Associate Professor of Economic, Whitworth University Research 28 "Housing Needs Assessment Survey for Spokane Spring 2020" Sara Stephenson —American Strategies 33 "The Shifting Marketplace: How Spokane Lost Market Share to Kootenai County." Jim Frank— Director of the Washington Center for Real Estate Research 37 "The Missing Housing Supply for Low Income Families " Ben Stuckart — Spokane Low Income Housing Consortium 40 "Broken Pledges Under the Growth Management Act" Al French — Spokane County Commissioner 42 4 Spokane Region Housing Costs and Supply -Data supplied by the Spokane Association of REALTORS° Spokane County is currently suffering from the lowest level of housing supply in history. In housing terms, there is under a 10-day supply of homes. By contrast, a 4-to-6-month supply represents a balanced market. This is a trend that we have seen growing since 2010. Spokane Association of REALTORS° MLS Housing Availability Data 2010-2021 2,348 1111111111111111111111 IVIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIVII 1,427 1111111111111 94.3% Decrease 2010-21 164 2010 2017 2021 Homes for Sale end of January Source: SAR Multiple Listing Service In raw numbers, there were 2,348 homes available in January of 2010. By the end January of this year, that number had fallen to 164 homes. This represents a housing inventory reduction of 94%. Spokane Association of REALTORS° MLS Lockbox Openings Data 2012 -2020 45% Increase Traffic 2012-20 14,664 2012 20,903 I 2016 Showings for August 21,274 111111111111111111111111111 2020 Source: SAR Multiple Listing Service During this time frame (data kept since 2012) we measured data for the number of home showings as a representation of customer demand. Was we have seen in an increase in the showings of homes by 45% as measured by the number of lockbox openings. 5 Spokane Association of REALTORS® MLS Housing Data 2010-2020 164,500 163,312 160,000 154,300 66.8% Increase 2015-20 168,000 179,900 1 195,000 1 210,000 1 234,900 283,527 300,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Median Home Prices for Spokane County Source: SAR Multiple Listing Service As a result of this increased demand, and reduced supply the cost of housing in the Spokane Region has continued to accelerate. Since 2015, the median priced home in the region has gone from $179,000 to $300,000. This represents an increase of median priced homes of 66.8% from 2015 through 2020. By comparison, median home prices increased from 2010-2014 by only 2.8% These statistics represent the sales of single-family homes on less than one acre, including condominiums. Source: Spokane Association of REALTORS° Multiple Listing Service. 6 Housing Affordability and the First Time Homebuyers Squeeze James Young — Director of the Washington Center for Real Estate Research "Since 2017, it has become less affordable for first time homebuyers in Spokane than the rest of the state." The Spokane Housing Market continues to show a rapid decline in affordable homes, particularly for those looking to enter the home ownership ranks for the first time. As recent as the third quarter of 2015, home ownership has been attainable by roughly 100% of buyers making 85% of the median income in the Spokane Region. Today, those numbers translate to under 75% of renters. Too often, those who have saved up and are ready to buy face a regional supply of less than a handful of homes. The market is seeing multiple offers (often 20 to 30 offers) on these entry level or workforce homes priced at $250,000 or below, with an average time on market of just a few days before going under contract. Spokane has long exceeded the rest of Washington for affordability, but in the past few years, that status has changed, especially for first time homebuyers. First Time Buyers Housing Affordability Index First Time Buyers Index 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 00007MMMM cc ccVn Vn 'o �o �o ion nn nw ww - m m o000 000.+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N -Spokane -Washington Source: Washington State Housing Market Report: WCRER WUNIVERSITY of V4 aHINGTON ,$11111 OM [(Nita rce w 7 As home prices continue to escalate, more and more buyers are being squeezed out of the marketplace. This is especially true for those seeking to buy their first home, or transition down to a smaller home. First Time Buyer Market Dynamics 220,000 210,000 200,000 190,000 180,000 170,000 160,000 150,000 140,000 130,000 120,000 2014 2015 Affordability Price and Proportion of Market Source: Washington State Housing Market Report: WCRER Wa�NWIkSrrr mf WASHINGTON wasenMGTOMCtMTti tat Rim CST*tt 2016 2017 2018 FTB Affordable Price t.Spokane % Sold CA, 2019 2020 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% w Since 2018, the available housing for first time home buyers has fallen to roughly 15% of the marketplace. This has resulted in tremendous pressure on the rental market with vacancies falling to an unhealthy rate of about 1%. Rental Housing Market Spokane Rents and Vacancies 1200 4.00% 1100 3.50% 3.00% 1000 2.50% 900 2.00% 800 1.50% 700 1.00% 600 0.50% 500 0.00% Spring F,II 2014 Spring F,II 2015 Spring F,II 2016 Spring F,II 2017 Spring F,II 2018 Spring F,II 2019 Spring Fall 2020 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average Rent ..Vacancy Rate Source: Washington State Housing Market Report: WCRER WU IVCRSr11 Wf WA$IIINGTQN N ILa•r �4-�Y �r:0 Hrry. !A;•-E Nr ♦l Ni M" w 8 These rising rental rates create what we call the Prisoner's Dilemma, where renters find themselves using more of their resources month -to -month for housing costs, instead of being able to save up for a down payment. Building Permits by Type Building Permits by Type 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 •Single Family ■ Multifamily Source: US Census Bureau, WCRER LNI k ktiY 13 4 WASHINGTON *4)en UR/IUh TtR fin Rix tST*T1 a w As a result, the marketplace has reacted with a dramatic increase in multi -family rental units during this same time period. To put this in context for each construction type - that is more than the TOTAL all of the building permits issues in the years 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011. Condominium construction is now less than 10% of the marketplace in 2020, with over half of these new units age restricted to those 55 and older. 9 Security and Tenure > Housing Ladder o`u`v�l;'rtilllp Tr de up Rental Tenure SF Houses close to the city Higher -end townhouses close to the city High-rise urban condominium - upper floors SF Houses inner suburbs TH close to the city High-rise urban condominium — lower floors SF Houses in suburbs TH in inner suburbs MISSING HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING OPTION Townhouses in mid -suburbs MISSING HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING OPTION Townhouses in outer suburbs MISSING RUNG OF THE LADDER ON SUPPLY High quality MF Suburban Housing Medium Quality MF Housing closer to the urban core High quality MFH in the suburbs Medium quality MFH closer to the urban core Older apartments and hotels - ADUs Rental properties far away from the urban core LIN4VLASIiY of WASHINGTON wkt..4Y,'NMff 4.14. fM I!!‘! f;,i ? yf1,1 Quality Rent/Price In conclusion, with steady interest rates we should see first-time buyers able to afford more of a home than in the past. But this major decline in existing home listings has created a shortage of supply, and has created a "Prisoner's Dilemma" in the marketplace. The pre-Covid demand trends have only been accelerated during this time period, making it clear that a lack of supply for first time buyers is creating acute problems in the Spokane housing market. As a result, this housing demand has nowhere to go but the rental market. This will become problematic in the next few years as Spokane finds itself unable to meet owner's expectations. Both for those living here, and those who are migrating here from West Coast Urban Centers. The key to solving this dilemma is clear. Housing supply leads to ownership opportunities. Without them, the market will continue to make home ownership more and more difficult. 10 Housing Growth Continues as the Economy Recovers in 2021 Danushka Nanayakkara-Skillington — National Association of Home Builders Assistant Vice President for Forecasting and Analysis "We believe the economic recovery will rebound in the second half of 2021, depending on the new mutations of the Covid virus and the roll out of vaccinations." The national economy was growing at a strong and steady pace of about a 3.4% GDP growth until the advent of the coronavirus shutdown. The result led to a complete reversal with a negative 3.6% fall in GDP for 2020. GDP Growth — Recovery Accelerates During 2H21 Growth continues into 2021 and 2022 40% - 30% 20% - 10% - 0% -10% - -20% - -30% - -40% - Q/Q Percent Change, SAAR Annual Growth LT avg (`58-'07) 3.4% 2018 3.0% 2019 2.2% 2020/ -3.6% 2021f 3.6% 2022f 4.0% 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and NAHB forecast. NAHB. National Association of Nan. B°iltl.rs We see this growth trend resuming once the effects of Covid 19 have been reduced. While there are immediate concerns with the effects of the emerging new mutations of the virus, we are optimistic that the roll out of vaccinations will help move the economy to a more normal pace. As such, we see the GDP growth nationally to reach 3.6% for 2021, and 4% in 2022. 11 Payroll Employment In December WA unemployment rate is at 7.1%; Spokane, WA is at 7.12% Thousands, SA 3,008 2,900 - Washington 237 00 01 Spokane MSA 02 03 04 94% 93% Thousands, SA 390 3,521 In Dec, 6% lower than February's level In Dec, 9% lower than February's level 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS 258 350 310 270 230 190 150 19 20 NAHB. Nemn.IM..a.ro. .rx.m. wild.rs Spokane's employment rates have lagged the rest of Washington, while the economic recovery appears to have resumed, but has flattened out slightly in comparison to the rest of the state. Fed Funds Rate — Fed All In on Supporting Economy Lender and buyer of last resort 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% Federal Funds — Top Rate 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Source: U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB). NAHB. NNIonIM.od.tion of Home Builders The good news is that the Feds are all -in with their financial support of the economy. Since 2009, the Federal Funds top rate has remained below 1%. While there was a temporary raising of the rates from 2017 to 2020, the rate has returned to below 1%, giving strong support towards interest rates staying low for the near -term. 12 Top 20 Markets for Home Price Growth Cumberland, MD -WV Idaho Falls, ID Pocatello, ID Boise City, ID Coeur d'Alene, ID Homosassa Springs, FL Utica -Rome, NY Dalton, GA Olympia-Tumwater, WA ;- Spokane -Spokane Valley, WA Winchester, VA -WV Crestview -Fort Walton Beach-Destin FLxit^ Twin Falls, ID " Yakima, WA Bremerton -Silverdale, WA Lake Havasu City -Kingman, AZ Phoenix -Mesa -Scottsdale, AZ Ilk Huntsville, AL 1.* Clarksville, TN -KY Pueblo, CO YOY Growth Rate in FHFA Home Prices (Q3 2020 vs Q3 2019) Source: U.S. Census Bureau (BOC) Growth Rate by Quintile Less or equal to 3.45% Between 3.46% and 4.56% Between 4.57% and 5.26% Between 5.27% and 6.36% Between 6.37% and 8.03% Top 20 Markets (8.04% - 12.15%) NAHB. NNIontM.od.tlon or Home Builders Home prices in Spokane are predicted to continue a strong upward movement with an average annual increase projected to be between 8.04% and 12.15%. This puts Spokane in the top 20 markets for Home Price Growth based on a lack of inventory and a growing demand for homes. (HousingAffordability— NAHB/Wells Fargo HOI 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 NAHB. Nxion.tM.od.tlon or Home Builders While Spokane still ranks above the National mark for housing affordability, we see that number continuing to fall into 2021 with ann affordability index going below 63%, 13 Regulatory Costs Rising— Up 29% Over 2011-2016 Total effect of building codes, land use, environmental and other rules Regulatory Costs as a Share of Home Price 30.3%* 14.0%* 4.O% 7.9"! Lower Quartile 24.3% 9.7% 14,6',, 12.7% 18.8% Average Upper Quartile • During Construction u During Development For quartiles, construction and development costs do not sum to the total Source. NAHB,Wells Fargo HMI survey. assumptions described in the Appendix NAHB. XNbmlR.mbtlinn .IHwn• WXtlm Spokane saw an increase in softwood lumber prices since mid -April of 177% (from $350 per thousand board feet, to $966 April 2020 to Feb 2021), which has added about $16,000 to the average price of a home. Yet, Spokane's Regulatory Costs related to the share of home prices stands between 24.3% and 30.3% of the home construction costs when compared to other markets in the country. Economic Impacts of Home Building Income/Employment Impacts of Building a Single-family Home on the U.S Economy Ful Time Wages Profits Before Taxes Wages and Equivalent and proprietors Corpor- Profts Jobs Salaries ations Combined All industries 2.90 6188,962 671,963 666,656 6327,581 Construction 1.71 $111,668 $45,029 $19,760 $176,457 Manufacturing 0.36 $22,197 $1,955 $18,259 $42,411 Trade, Transportation &Warehousing 0.37 $19,475 $3,097 $9,052 S31,623 Finance and insurance 0.06 $6,132 $151 $4,486 $10,768 Real estate and rental and leasing 0.02 $1,542 $8,650 $2,024 $12,216 Professional. Management. Admin. services 0.21 $16.585 $4.711 $3,148 $24.445 Other OE 18 S11.362 S8.371 S9.928 S29.661 NAHB. x.n.n.u.ma.mn ex«n. Wtu.r< The good news is that there is tremendous economic opportunity that comes with an increase of housing supply. On average, each new home adds $188,962 in wages and salaries to the economy, along with 2.9 jobs. (NAHB also projects $3.6 million in local tax revenues for each 100 homes built - The Economic Impact of Home Building in a Typical Local Area) 14 Housing Underproduction for Washington State and Spokane Mike Kingsella Up For Growth National Director "Spokane's housing stock is rapidly becoming unaffordable. From 2010-2017 Spokane ranked as the number one most affordable entry level home city in the country. Today it's 45th (of 100) and falling." Source: AEI Carpenter Index Across the State of Washington, and in Spokane County in particular, there are not enough homes relative to need. While this is a trend many attribute to being a nationwide problem, we see the biggest challenges to growth lies primarily on the West Coast. 22 States Underproduced 7.3 Million Units Since 2000 ,• + » 215,936 )urce. ECONorthwest Calculations, Up for Growth 25.475 MA CT 19,886 126,152 MD 259,556 DC 6,081 UNDERPRODUCTION AS % OF2015 HOUSING STOCK 2%-5% . 5.1%-10% - 10.1%-15% - 15.1%-41% No Underproduction In Washington State, this lack of production has not kept up with growth going back to 2010, with the State underproducing some 225,000 homes from 2010 to 2017. ECO Northwest that compiled this data for us determined that Spokane county's growth figure represents approximately .73 homes for every new family, with a national average of 1.06 homes per family. 15 Housing Production Has Not Kept Up With Growth 0.68 Housing units per household formed Statewide 2010 to 2017 Source. Census ACS 2010 and 2019 Clallam 0.63 - Less than 0.S 0-5-0.75 0.7510 _ 1.0.1.1 ® Mohr than 1.1 Decrease in households San Juan. 1.3T'j Afhreee 0.71 Men 042 Grays Harbor 0.8 7 Island SnOborirsh 2.d2 0.65 Thurston 0.76 Lewis 0.96 Cowlitz 0.66 Clark 0.77 Pierce Clew 1.00 Houghs 0.06 kitlrlas 0.66 Yakima 0.06 Grant Spokane 0.73 Franklin 0.81 w66Y02800 2017 MA1t0hw. WEW6E 2110M-2017 Asotin 0.65 www.upforgrowth.org UP FOR GROWTH' 7 The high cost of underproduction can be measured in several key areas, specifically in greenhouse gas emissions, loss of growth and revenue to residents and in lost tax revenue benefits. The Cost of Underproduction in Washington CLEAR SKIES AHEAD Shifting from current development patterns to an Accessible Growth scenario uses just 12% of the land to deliver the earns number of unite. These areas would be denser, transit- alacent, and nearerrioloyment eemers, which could reduce vehicle miles traveled by as much as 36'k. BSP BOOST Using an Accessible Growth develop- ment pattern, cumulative Gross State Product (GSP) increases by $25 billion over a 20-year period compared to a More of the Same growth pattern — deliverilg a total of $103 billion in cu- mulative GSP over M baseline forecast. $660M TAX REVENUE BENEFITS Building these units in an Accessible Growth development pattern would generate an additional $660 million in state revenue (via sales lax and business and occupation tax) compared to More of the Same development over the 20-year growth period. www.upforgrowth.org UP FOR GROWTH' 6 In Spokane, this lack of construction has dramatically shifted the cost burden of housing, both in terms of rent and ownership with severe impacts to 22% of homeowners and 48% of renters. This results in about 73,000 households facing cost burdening, averaging out to roughly one in three families. 16 Cost -burdening happens when families pay more than 33% of their income towards their total housing costs. The additional challenge for those renters who are cost -burdened is that it makes it incredibly difficult to save for a down payment to purchase a home. Cost Burdening Varies by Income in Spokane County 100% 9C% 80% 70% 60 % 50% 40 % 30 % 20% 10% 0% 68% Cost Burdening in Spokane County by Tenure and Household Income, 2018 ■Owners Renters Less than S2C_SCU 52°/a 1 29%a 29% 19% 19% S20,000 to S34,999 S35,000 to Sit=+9 1' S50,000 to S-4999 S75000 or more 22% of Homeowners and 48% of Renter! are Cost Burdened Source. Census ACS. 1 Year2018 The impact of home ownership continues to drop with each rising cost of housing. Across the board we are seeing fewer and fewer people able to afford a home in Spokane. How Affordable is Housing in Spokane? 40% 35% 30% 25 % 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Source, Census PUMS 2019 8% 0-30% Housing Stock Affordability by MFI in 2019 (ownership) (Assuming a 20% down payment) 17% 30-50% 38% 16% 50-80% 80-100% 13% 100-120% 120%+ Median Family Income in 2019 = $72,700 "al. .;r UP FOR GROWTH' vww.UPFORGROWTH.org 9 17 Updating our numbers from the 2017 study, we see a continuation of the housing underproduction in Spokane County. Given the aging housing stock in Spokane, with a higher percentage of post -WW2 housing built (in conjunction with ECO Northwest) we have determined that Spokane's housing unit needs are at 1.15 homes per new household. Housing Underproduction in Spokane County 223,061 Total Homes in 2019 1.05 Units per Household 221,723 Households in 2019 National target ratio of 1.15 254,981 Housing Units Needed Housing Underproduction = 31,920 units (14% of the current stock) Source: Census ACS In the final analysis, time is of the essence. With building costs, land acquisition and regulatory costs on the rise, the result is the cost of entry level housing is increasing, with fewer units being built. Long run affordability requires sustained production of housing units. We believe better planning, zoning, and land -use policies can help builders better meet the market, delivering more inventory, while increasing housing affordability in the process. 18 Spokane Emerges As Top-10 Post-Covid Real Estate Market Jessica Lautz — VP of Demographics and Behavioral Insights — National Association of REALTORS° "Spokane will be among the top 10 housing markets in the United States as a Top-10 Post- Covid Real Estate Market. The National Association of REALTORS° has released its Economic forecast for 2021-22 and has determined that Spokane will be among the top 10 housing markets in the United States as a Top-10 Post-Covid Real Estate Market. Top 10 Markets During and in a Post-Covid-19 Environment Spokane- Spokane Valley, WA LBoise City, imy ID Provo-Orem, UT l Phoenix -Mesa - Chandler, 4siiiimeAZ Madison, WI Des Moines- 11.4%, Indianapolis- Carmel - West Des Moines, lA Anderson, IN 11° soie\ 1oww, Dallas - Fort Worth- Arlington, TX Charleston - North Charleston, SC r Atlanta -Sandy Springs - Alpharetta, GA 19 The Spokane -Spokane Valley Metro area stands out as having the highest fraction of its movers from West Coast Areas, accounting for 23.8% of people who moved in the area in 2018. In terms of movers, Spokane stands with Phoenix/Scottsdale as the most attractive for West Coast movers. A high fraction of this migrating workforce works from home, at 7.1%. While house prices have gone up substantially in the last 5 years, prices here remain very attractive from expensive West Coast metro areas. Top 10 Markets During and in a Post COVID-19 Environment in 2020-2022 Data Table for Top 10 Markets During and In a Post Covid-19 Environment in 2020-2022 Released an December 10, 2020 NAR Real Estate Forecast Summit National Association of Realtors9 Mebn Mao tin alphabetical order' Atlanta -Sandy Springs -Alpharetta. GA Bose City, ID Cherlesten-NOrth CharieSten. SC Dallas -Fart Worth -Arlington. TX Dot Moires -Walt Dot Manes. IA I ndVenapo5s-Carmel-Anderson. IN Madison. WI Phoenix -Mesa -Chandler. AZ Provo -Oren, LIT Spokane -Spokane Valley, WA united States Percentof workers 16 years Share of OM aril Over who mvlUgeneraiianel worked from households In hone in 2019/1 2019/2 8.8% 4.5% 7.7% L6% 65% 63% 5,5% 5.6% 5.6% 79% 7.9% 7.2% 56% 31% 4.6% 2.7% 2.5% 1.5% 4.5% 3.9% 3.7% 3A8% Population who West Coast Moved out of movers as West coast percent of Net elomnubt metro area!' ro Total domestic doma0Gc migration in this metro area In movers into morels into 2019/3 2018/4 the area/4 this area/4 31..043 7.536 202.361 3.7% 18.759 5.280 36.045 14.68 10,340 1,408 41.342 3-314 46.601 19.222 245596 7.8% 3718 804 31.735 2-58 6,196 1.663 67256 2.514 1,418 1104 36292 3.6% 71.657 28.829 799244 14.5% 4,500 3,671 42142 8.7% 8.151 8112 34,896 23.8% 996,398 74556989 6.811. Shea* of wakens Unemployment In retail and rate In *PH* end September hospitality 2020/5 industries/6 6,7% 6.4% 4.7% 7.6% 50% 6.6% 4.3% 6.3% 4.2% 8,6% 79% 19.3% 22.3% 21.1% 20.3% 1B1% 202% 18.4% 21.4% 19.8% 20.4% 20.3% Small business 817anln9s at Or Nov 16 retatl4e Le San 2020/7 -27.9% -27.8% -79.4% -27.9% -26-3% -31.5% -27.9% -26.4% -18.4% -10.1% -28.9% Motility to retail nod remotion at of NOV 17 relative to len 2020/8 -7.2% -5.1% -12.9% -9.9% -1.9% -a.1% -23.6% -16.5% -12.6% -17.7% -20 0% Data saulCet, ,h U5 Census Bureau. American Community Survey. 2019 Table B08141 /2 NAR tabulation of US Census Bureau Amerken Community Survey. 2019 PUMS data /I U5 Census Bureau NAR tabulation Isom U5 Census Bureau, Metro -to -Metro Ina -Outs TabX* The West Coast metro ereas are Sin Francisco. San lose San Diego, Los Angeles. and Seattle /5 US Bureau o1 Labor Statistics /6 U5 Bureau of Leber Statistics /7 NAR tabulation from Harvard Un84ershy Oppartunity Insights county level data /8 NAR tabulation of the COog1e Could-59 Mobility Report county data MINATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS' Among the prominent numbers used in making our assessment, we noted that over 8,000 people moved here in 2019, mimicking a similar migration in 2018. This represents nearly one in four movers escaping West Coast metro areas. (8.312 of 34,896). Based on other regional cities, Spokane looks very attractive from a Qualifying Income perspective. With 5% down, buyers in Spokane can qualify for a home with an annual income of $61,500 versus say Seattle with a $116,300 qualifying income. 20 With the number of businesses that have closed due to Covid, there is an increased opportunity for small business creation in the Post-Covid era. One in six homebuyers are now seeking a multigenerational home, with fits the Spokane profile. Aging parents are the number one reason, with children under 30 the second reason at 54% Offsetting this number is falling number of buyers with children, at 58% of homes in 1985 down to only 33% today. Washington's economic recovery is moving slower than much of the country. 46.4% are working from home. 19.55% expect a loss of income in the next 2-months. 25.7% are having difficulty paying their usual household expenses, with 5.5% have slight or no confidence in paying next month's rent or mortgage on time. NAR Housing and Economic Forecast Existing -Home Sales Existing -Home Prices 30-fixed rate mortgage Unemployment rate GDP https://www.narsealtor/research-and-statistics 0 5.340 Million $271,900 3.9% 3.7% 2.2% 5.640 Million $296,500 3.1% 8.1% -3.5% 6.490 Million $316,000 3.0% 6.5% 4.0% iu AY*nw HAL MsOC A lON 0EALTORS There is good new on the horizon. The National Association of REALTORS° in our Housing and Economic Forecast are projecting mortgage rates to remain competitively low through 2021 at roughly 3% nationally for a 30-year fixed mortgage. With unemployment still high at 6.5% - but much lower than the Covid era in 2020 of 8.1%. 21 "A Summary of Population Forecasts and Origins of Recent Newcomers to Spokane County" D. Patrick Jones, PhD — Executive Director of EWU's Institute for Public Policy & Economic Analysis "We are seeing the growth rate ratcheting up in Spokane County as compared to the City of Spokane. We see the overall need for housing units in the City of Spokane to add an additional 8,420 homes in the next 9 years" Spokane and Spokane County have grown consistently over the past 20 years, but something began to happen in 2018 that saw these growth rates begin to change. In Spokane County, since 2010 we have seen about a 1% growth, adding about 51,000 residents. Yet, that growth rate started to increase in 2018 to 1.5%. In the City of Spokane, the annual compounded growth rate since 20010 has been about .7%, or roughly 15,000 residents. With a similar increase happening since 2018 increasing to a 1% growth rate. Surprisingly, the average household size in Spokane is about 2.25 residents per home compared to Spokane County at 2.4. This is a trend that looks like its going to continue that way. First, the record on local population growth See www.spokanetrends.org • Spokane County — Since 2010, annual compounded rate: 1.0% — Growth in number of residents:—51,000 — 2018-2020 average growth rate: 1.5% • City of Spokane (COS) — Since 2010, annual compounded rate: 0.7% — Growth in number of residents:—15,000 — 2018-2020 average growth rate: 1.0% • Estimated average household size in City of Spokane in 2019: -2.25 — Lower than County overall (2.4) men eemeehog big These numbers are reflected in the 2017 Growth Management Act forecast that show us growing at a steady rate to a population Spokane County wide of about 564,538. Historically, these estimates have been slightly underreported by a factor of about 0.1%. 22 Population trends in City of Spokane vs. County 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% City of Spokane share 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 One trend that continues is that Spokane continues to shrink its population when compared to that of the County. Mid -range forecast of Spokane County through 2030byWAOFM 2017 growth management projections 600 000 516,8071 50g0oo 400000 300000 200 000 10go0o 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2020 2027 2028 2029 2030 EASTERN Where has this growth occurred? 23 The largest increase has been in Airway Heights with over 5% growth since 2010, and Liberty Lake of about 4.25%. I believe we will see a replication of this pattern of growth that will continue in the decade ahead. Which parts of the County have experienced population growth > County as a whole? CAGR 2010-2020 Airway Heights Liberty Lake Deer Park Cheney Unincorporated Spokane County 1.3% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% • Will the pattern of growth this decade mirror that of the past decade? — To me, likely • Some considerations — Housing preferences of in -migrants — Ability of COS economy to foster "urban" businesses (tech, professional & scientific services) — Municipal regulations — Cost of land What will be driving this will be the housing preferences of in -migration families along with the ability of the City of Spokane to foster urban businesses such as the technology sector, professional and scientific services. Additionally, Spokane will need to address its municipal regulations to adapt to these changing patterns or else risk losing these arrivals to those that better address their needs. Putting the pieces together to arrive at a range of 2030 populations of City of Spokane (COS) • Assume three (slightly) different forecasts, based on: — COS average share from 2010-20 of County population — COS compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) 2010-20of County — COS share in 2020 of County population • Resulting COS population forecast for 2030 (gain from 2020) — COS average share from 2010-20: — COS CAGR 2010-20: — COS share in 2020 246,703 (23,103) 241,622 (18,022) 239,316 (15,716) 24 In trying to make a stronger forecast for population growth specific to the City of Spokane (COS), there are three separate models to consider that will each represent a different picture. The first, is a model based on the historical share of Spokane County's population (an average growth rate) The second is a compounded annual growth rate of the county, and finally the City of Spokane's 2020 share of the county's population. Using these approaches, we see a range of population gain in the next ten years of between 15,716 and 23,103 people — with a total population growth by 2030 of between 239,316 and 246,703 people. While the growth projected gain for Spokane County would be an additional 90,000 people by 2030. The challenge becomes one for us to answer: "How much do we want to grow?" While these are only 1 to 3 percent growth numbers, each represents its own set of consequences. Quick translation into additional housing units needed by 2030, using mean of estimates • Likely new housing units total, using COS's average household size: 8,420 • Assumptions for breakdown by owner -occupied vs. renter -occupied (from Spokane Trends source, ACS table DPO4) — Owner -occupied 2019 average household size: 2.33 — Rental -occupied 2019 average household size: 2.17 — Share of 2019 owner -occupied household units: 55% Based on these projections we see the overall need for housing units in the City of Spokane to add an additional 8,420 homes in the next 9 years. The housing need for these populations are different for owner - occupied versus those who are renting, with the average household size about 2.33 for homeowners. 25 Some demand numbers for housing units over the next decade in City of Spokane • If the same ratio of household units between owneoccupied and renter -occupied (55%/45%) were to hold in 2030, then... — 4,631single family homes needed between now and 2030, or 460/year — -3,790apartment units needed, or 379/year • This estimate likely conservative, assuming that population forecast is correct, because: — The current market in the City doesn't have an adequate supply — The trend in COS household size is showing smaller averages — Countervailing trend: COS share of population trending slowly down EA STERN If the current homeowner versus renter ratios stays the same (55% vs 45%) this projection equates to a need of 4,631 single family homes in the City of Spokane, and 3,790 apartment units needed by 2030. These numbers are likely to be conservative because they are making a few assumptions: • Spokane already is suffering from an adequate supply of homes. • The trend in the City of Spokane is to show smaller averages than the county. • The City of Spokane's share of the population continues to trend down (slowly) We should note that the trend of new families to Spokane really began to increase with a peak of 11,454 people in 2018 and continuing through 2020 with 8.412. This number represents driver license surrenders we saw with those new here that obtained a local driver's license. (Washington's DOL recognizes that drivers from Washington State may not be a quick to surrender in -state licenses) We should see these new families reflected in the upcoming estimates by the OFM for population in April of 2021, along with an actual count being developed from the 2020 US Census report. 26 Which states are contributing to Spokane County's growth? The top 10 CA ID OR AZ MT TX 2017-2020 Total CO FL AK NV 1,I55 CCC Where are these new visitors coming from? 3.221 CCC Top 10 states account for 73% of total — Only one state east of Mississippi • Out-of-state in -migrants accounted for ^'62/a of total in latest data (2017-2018) from IRS Key WA counties (all county ranking) — King (s$r) — Stevens (3rd) — Snohomish (4') — Pierce (s') Most are coming from California, Idaho, and Oregon. With Arizona, Montana and Texas following. This represents roughly three-quarters of all new families. Within the state King County is first, following by Stevens, Snohomish, and Pierce County. Additionally, we see 2017-2018 IRS data supporting the notion that a large portion of our incoming population is coming from outside Washington State. 27 "The Social Impacts of Low Housing Stock in Spokane" Vange M. Ocasio Hocheimer, PhD — Associate Professor of Economic, Whitworth University "A lack of available housing and increasing costs are having a dramatic impact in Spokane particularly on our youth and our minorities." Housing as a Social Determinant of Health combines several well -established standards seen in the literature. Specifically defined these are "the conditions that shape the health of individuals." Housing specifically is among the key social and economic conditions necessary for the individual and our communities. Here in Spokane, we are seeing the effects of a lack of housing as it impacts increasing rates of illness, mental health, and homelessness. Housing as a Social Determinant of Health LD SDOH Definition as "the conditions that shape the health of individuals...." (Raphael, 2009) Social & Economic Condtions 1. Gender Status 2. Education 3. Access to food & health care 4. Income 5. Job security 6. Housing WHO & HUD 1. Stable housing is a basic human need 2. Homelessness leads to illness Diamond, et. al. Study London Study San Francisco study. Lower migration rate Availability of Services combined with housing reduced homelessness Among the biggest factors is the increase in those spending more of their income for shelter costs. This increasing cost burden (more than 30% of their income on housing) is that over 48% of renters now in Spokane County, much higher than in the state. 3 Those considered to be "severely burdened," spending more than 50% of their income on housing, now tops 23% in Spokane County. 28 6.2.2 Total and Share of Renters Spending 30% or More of Their Household Income for Shelter Costs Total Renters 40,000 32,000 24,000 16,000 8,000 0 Spokane County - Renters Paying 30% or More + Spokane County - Share of Renters Washington State - Share of Renters - 0- United States - Share of Renters Risky Behaviors: Conventional Wisdom about Homelessness Vs. Data Trends Drug Use Academic underachievement And unemployment CLI Homelessness A 6 Conventional wisdom shows that Risky Behaviors, leads to Drug use, which leads to Academic Underachievement — and unemployment, which leads to Homelessness. But the data in Spokane is now clear. 100% 80 60 V Jo aiegS 4 0%, rD 20% cry 29 The social impact of a lack of available housing in Spokane has, in many cases reversed this process. Homelessness often happens first. Often from some traumatic event. Resulting in a completely different model for many local individuals, with a host of negative social impacts. We see this specifically with the student population where we have seen a 25% increase in children impacted by some level of homelessness since 2007. These impacts are greater in Spokane County than across the state and the US. The Spokane School District has identified 1,644 students that are affected by a lack of housing. With increases seen in the elementary schools, along with higher rates for High school. Many suffer from a wide range of housing experiences, including doubling up in beds, temporary housing in motels or shelters and 7% not having any shelter at all. This represents about 4.7% of students in the Spokane School District. Schoolhouse VT Spokane School WASHINGTON District a project of BUILDING CHANGES Note. The counts below are based on school -level data and vary from the district -level counts reported annually by OSPI_ The OSPI counts can be found by clicking here_ 1, 644 Students 701 635 4.9% Am,y Spokane Heights Mapbox ©OSM Spokane Select a District Spokane School District 47% Of All Students Of Students Experiencing 308 Elementary KS) Middle (6-8) High (9-12) Students Experiencing Homelessness by Grade Band 553fa 85% Homeless Housed Regular Attendance Rate 31% Homeless Housed Doubted -Up Hotels/Motels I3% Shelters _ 15% Unsheltered 7% Nighttime Residence of Students Experiencing Homelessness 19% Homeless Housed English Language Arts Mathematics Proficiency Proficiency Rate Student Outcomes Rate 7S% 76% Homeless Housed 4-Year (On -Time) Graduation Rate These students across the board suffer academically. Lower attendance rates, changing schools, lower English and Mathematic proficiencies. and a lower graduation success rate. 30 Schoolhouse PI WASHINGTON o project of BUILofNG CHANGES Mead School District Note. The counts below are based on school -level data and vary from the district -level counts reported annually by OSPI. The OSPI counts can be found by clicking here. 508 4.6% Students 222 116 170 Select a District Mead Schaal District 39% Of All Students Of Students Experiencing Elementary (K-5) Middle (6-8) High (9-12) Students Experiencing Homelessness by Grade Band Homeless Housed Regular Attendance Rate 42% Homeless Housed Doubled -Up Hotels/Motels 12% Shelters 1 2% Unsheltered Nighttime Residence of Students Experiencing Homelessness 39% Homeless Housed English Language Arts Mathematics Proficiency Proficiency Rate Student Outcomes Rate 6566 Homeless Housed 4-Year (On -Time) Graduation Rate Mead School District has seen a comparable number, about 4.6% of all students with similar academic challenges. But Mead is also seeing a lower graduation rate — only 65% of housing impacted students compared to 91% graduation rates. Other impacts to Spokane's youth include higher rates of suicide and greater use of drugs. Rates among Blacks and those who identify as 2 or more races is also on the increase. It is of note that these groups are disproportionally seen have having housing issues greater than White, Asian, and Hispanic families in Spokane County. 31 Serious mental illness, Overtime Geography ▪ Spokane County ▪ Washington State 80 6.0 40 While the rates of serious mental illness have grown exponentially in Spokane County since 2015, nearly doubling that of the rest of Washington State. With the largest group being individuals 18 years of age and younger. In summation, it is clear the pathway to improved health and wellbeing for all people in our community begins with housing. Renters that become homeowners have a greater sense of "home" shown to greatly reduce the stress of uncertainty, increases sense of neighborhood and well-being, increases available social interactions that brings a level of social support, and helps reduce financial stress. 32 "Housing Needs Assessment Survey for Spokane Spring 2020" Sara Stephenson —American Strategies "Across all of the groups we surveyed you can clearly see a pent-up demand reflected for more housing." American Strategies is a national polling firm specializing in housing issues. We did a survey in Spokane back in April of 2020. Our survey pool was over 500 voters in Spokane. This data has been weighted to match the demographics of Spokane. There is a perception of housing costs in Spokane that costs are too high. Half of voters (48% buying a home) say the cost to buy is too high, compared to over 2/3's who believe rents are too high. 2/3 of Spokane Voters Say the Cost of Rent is Too High; Almost Half Believe the Cost to Buy a House is too High Cost of Housing And Rentals 80% 60% 40% - 20% - 0% +0 48% 48% Cost to buy a house +41 67% 26% Cost to rent an apartment ■Too high ❑ About right Q.11 Generally speaking, would you say that the cost to buy a house in Spokane is (ROTATE FIRST TO LAST AND LAST TO FIRST) too high, a bout right, or too low? Q.12 And would you say that the cost to rent an a pa rtment in Spokane is (ROTATE F I RST TO LAST AND LAST TO FIRST) too high, about right, or too low? AMFRIC,.AN 4TEGlFS When this survey was conducted at the beginning stages of the Covid crisis, we saw that Spokane residents were already feeling the economic effects of rising housing costs. 40% reported that housing was putting either a severe or slight strain on their monthly budgets. 33 Northeast Residents, Younger Voters, and Renters More Likely to Feel Financial Strain of Rent or Mortgage Financial Strain of Your Rent/Mortgage by Region, Age and Homeownership Total ■Asignificant strain ❑A slight strain 14% 25% 39% Northeast East Central Northwest Far NW South West Central 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Rent 26% 28% 19% 22% 14% 26% 12% 21% 8% 20% 28% 33% 7% 33% 41% 40% 40% 54% 16% 31% 47% 18% 33% 15% 19% 8% 16% 24% 34% 51% Own 7% 30% 53% Q.19 And, prior to the coronavirus pandemic, how much of a financial strain on your budget was paying your rent or mortgage each month? Was it (ROTATE FIRST TO LAST AND LAST TO FIRST) a significant strain, a slight strain, not much of a strain, or no strain at all? AJIERIC,A, STRATEGIES The data is clear that the strain is being felt more geographically, specifically to renters in the Northeast, and the East and West Central Neighborhoods. These effects are also seen more with voters who are 35-49 years of age. Those with Lower Income, Lower Levels of Education, and People of Color Are More Likely to Report Financial Strain Financial Strain of Your Rent/Mortgage by Education, Race and Income ■Asignificant strain ❑A slight strain Total MEM- 25% 39% High school orles Post high school 22% 22% 44% 17% 30% 4-year college graduat 24% Postgraduate 111 20% 26% 33% 47% People of Color White 29% 23% 11% 25% 36% 52% Less than $50k $50k-$100k More than $100k 23% 28% ll 10% 26% 16% 21% 36% 51% Q.19 And, prior to the coronavirus pandemic, how much of a financial strain on your budget was paying your rent or mortgage each month? Was it (ROTATE FIRST TO LAST AND LAST TO FIRST) a significant strain, a slight strain, not much of a strain, or no strain at all? A.11ERICAN STRATEGIES 34 When we break down the data even further, we find significant differences with those who are of lower income, people of color and lower levels of education are feeling a greater financial strain. And remember, these numbers were done before the full effects of Covid were being felt. Were this survey to be repeated, we would see these numbers with even higher gaps between these groups. 1/3 of Spokane Voters Would Prefer to Move to a New Home Majority of renters want to buy a home; most homeowners plan to stay in their current home. 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Preference for Future Housing by Home Ownership All voters Renters • Continue to live where you are now ■ Buya new home or condo DMove to a new apartment Q.22 As you think ahead a few years, would you like to (ROTATE) continue to live where you are now, buy a new home or condo, or move to a new apartment? Homeowners AJIERICAN STR EV4'1S Surprisingly, one in three voters would prefer to move to a new home. We saw the greatest need among renters, with 51% telling us they are actively looking to buy a new home or condo. One of the key reasons we heard was that finding a home to buy is a serious challenge. Also, one in five people said they are looking to buy a new home. Non -White and Younger Residents Are More Likely to Want to Buy a New Home Percent Who Would Like to Buy a New Home in the Next Few Years Total Non -white Renters Non -college under5 18-34 Women under 50 Residence length < 5 yea Men under50 1112 45% 45% 38% Post high schoo ■Buya new home or condo Q.22 As you think ahead a few years, would you like to (ROTATE) continue to live where you are now, buy a new home or condo, or move to a new apartment? AMICA1 f tiik. LIA.illi 35 Of those wanting to buy, we found a significant higher number of non -white and younger residents wanting to purchase a home but are still in rental units. Across all of these groups you can clearly see a pent-up demand reflected for more housing. What type of policies would Spokane voters support for the building of more homes to address the lack of inventory and to lower the costs of homes? Broad Consensus for Providing Incentives to Developers, Mandatory Set -Asides, and More Multi -Family Housing Mixed opinions on reducing building regulations and tax increment financing. Favor/Oppose Proposals to Address Housing Affordability Provide incentives for developers, like tax breaks orfee reductions, to build more housing that is affordable 37% 36% 24%/74% Require developers to set aside a certain number of their units as below -market price housing. 14% 14% 36% 35% 28%j71% Change zoning laws to allow the development of alternative housing options, like carriage houses, garage apartments or tiny houses 11% 13% 32% 41% 24%/73% Change zoning regulations to allow the construction of more multi -family homes, like town homes, duplexes or apartment buildings 13% 16% 29% 39% 30%/68% Reduce local building regulations that increase housing costs 18% 24% 21% 32% 42%f 53% Leverage future property tax revenue to finance housing development in specific neighborhoods. 19% 24% 15% 38% 43%/53% ❑ Strongly oppose • Somewhat oppose • Strongly favor ❑ Somewhat favor Q.17 People have proposed different approaches to address Spokane's housing affordability problem. Next, I am going to read to you some of these proposals, which would aim to bring more affordable housing to Spokane's East Central and West Central neighborhoods. For each proposal, I want you to tell me whether you (ROTATE) favor or AMER AN 5I7(ATEGIES oppose it as a way to provide more affordable housing options in East Central and West Central Spokane. We saw broad consensus for providing incentives to developers, and for requiring set asides below market prices for housing, along with expanding zoning regulations to allow more alternative housing options like carriage homes, accessory dwelling units and tiny homes, along with more multi -family options like townhomes, duplexes, or apartment buildings. Many of these options are not currently available in Spokane. You should recognize that of the surveys we have done nationwide, we rarely see such levels of support for developer incentives like we see here in Spokane. This survey shows that voters in Spokane clearly want more options, are actively seeking opportunities, are feeling burdened by costs, and are willing to support policies that would foster these changes. 36 "The Shifting Marketplace: How Spokane Lost Market Share To Kootenai County. 11 Jim Frank — Founder/Developer — Greenstone Homes "The real lesson here is the importance of having middle -income housing, the importance of having housing diversity, the importance of having integrated neighborhoods with a wide range of housing types along with a wide range of economic opportunities and neighborhoods. It's going to take a dramatic change in our development regulations at both the state and local levels to allow that to happen." I have been a home builder in this market for almost 35 years. And we've seen key changes in this market over the past 10 years, particularly with a significant market share growth change between Spokane and Kootenai County. If you look at 2011, there were around 172 new home sales in Kootenai, about 25% of the regional market shared with Spokane. By 2020, the Kootenai County market closed over 1000 homes and for the first time exceeded 50% of the regional housing market. New Home Sales Market Share 80 60 Percent of Regional SF Closings 40 20 — Kootenai County — Spokane County 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 This graphic shows the consistent trend over the past 10 years. This is data we collect on closings that lag permits by about one year. Most of the losses in Spokane County has been seen primarily within the City of Spokane. There are several key reasons we are seeing this shifting housing market. 37 1 Reasons for Growth in Kootenai County Market Share • Land Costs have been lower in Idaho and abundant land for development has led to lower home pricing • Urban Growth Boundary in Spokane County has become very restrictive and has contributed to a shortage of building lots and escalating lot prices • Idaho has more effectively marketed regional quality of life ineffective implementation of urban infill strategies in Spokane Idaho allows lower priced home options such as condominiums While it is true that land costs are lower and more abundant in Idaho, we are also seeing critical reasons that Spokane is becoming less desirable for housing development. The urban growth boundaries in Spokane have become very restrictive. This is not something that is in place in Kootenai county. Coeur d' Alene, Post Falls, Rathdrum and Hayden have been able to annex boundary lands that have effectively expanded their growth opportunities. Idaho has done a great job marketing their regional quality of life. It's clear there are higher migration patterns into Kootenai County then there are into Spokane County based on our data. Virtually every home we sell in Kootenai County has more offers than we see in Spokane. While Spokane County is working to implement more urban infill strategies, Spokane's urban village corridor concept has never been implemented with development regulations that allow this to occur. Instead, what is happening in Spokane is we are building houses on large lots, and we build large apartment complexes, and we build nothing in between. We simply do not have the development regulations that allow this to happen. Idaho does. In fact, they offer different levels of condominium opportunities alone in the Coeur d' Alene area because of this flexibility in development opportunities. There has not been a condominium development built in Spokane since the State's condominium reform in 2009. This removed a critical step in the affordable housing ladder. We need to allow a wider range of uses and flexibility in housing projects. We are also seeing the impacts of out-of-town buyers to our region starting in the last four years. in Spokane, that number reached 44% in 2020, up from about 32% in 2017. 38 Out of Town Buyers Spokane -Kootenai County (Greenstone Sales 2020) Location Kootenai County Spokane County Out of Town Buyers 59% 30% To put that in a market perspective, we're seeing 59% of out-of-town buyers purchasing homes in Kootenai County — compared to 30% in Spokane County in 2020. A lot of that is due to the greater range of product, and more housing stock available, and the impact of Kootenai marketing the quality of life, such as the advantages of being near the lakes, rivers, and smaller town America. Covid has only accelerated that need. The real lesson here is the importance of having middle -income housing, the importance of having housing diversity, the importance of having integrated neighborhoods with a wide range of housing types along with a wide range of economic opportunities and neighborhoods. It's going to take a dramatic change in our development regulations at both the state and local levels to allow that to happen. 39 "The Missing Housing Supply for Low Income Families" Ben Stuckart — Spokane Low Income Housing Consortium "The City of Spokane has a Centers and Corridors Strategy BUT has never taken the step to create density around the 28 Centers and Corridors." First, a couple of definitions that define what Low -Income Housing means 1. Can you afford it if you make 80% of the median income or below? By afford it we mean you should be spending 35% or less of your monthly income on rent or a mortgage. This can include market rate housing at the lower end 2. Homes and apartments for rent that accept vouchers can be considered low-income 3. Homes and apartments that were built with government subsidy should be considered low-income. Once they use build with these funds they are required to keep rents low enough to be considered low-income. Spokane County has about 5000 subsidized units representing less than 5% of the units available in total in the county. If we are lucky another 3-4,000 accept vouchers. Successful cities have over 15-20% of their housing stock subsidized to take care of those on the edge of poverty or in poverty. Wait lists alone right now for the 12 largest managers/owners of subsidized housing could fill 2000 units tomorrow. A wait list for Spokane Housing Ventures today is typically 4 years. Other agencies experience waiting lists between 1 and 4 years. We do not have the housing supply to move people from the streets into housing. Government Funds to build low-income housing have been decreasing over time, not just not keeping up with inflation but decreasing. HOME funds are a popular federal fund to use. Amounts fluctuate but this one statistic is telling: In 1992 the City of Spokane received $1.3 million in HOME funds to build more housing. In 2018 the City of Spokane received $1.3 million in HOME funds to build low-income housing. The Housing Trust Fund (State) just returned to 2008 levels in 2020. No adjustment for inflation. State and Federal funding sources have not kept up with demand. The City of Spokane recently passed HB1590 which puts local sales tax dollars into building more low-income housing. The $6 million this will generate is a good start but we need the County and the Valley to also figure out a way to dedicate dollars to low-income housing. Market Rate Housing is just as important as the subsidized housing. A 2018 UC Berkeley study discussed how a new high end home allowed 6 different families to move up and free market rate housing at levels below the new home. 40 We have created our own issues in housing: • Using environmental standards like the States Evergreen standards to increase costs so now a non- profit who builds low-income housing and uses State dollars spends over 50% square foot than a market rate housing developer building the same unit. • The Growth Management Act said do not spread out BUT assumed cities would implement their comprehensive plans. The City of Spokane has a Centers and Corridors Strategy BUT has never taken the step to create density around the 28 Centers and Corridors. This is a byproduct of NIMBYism and strong neighborhood councils that favor the status quo over any change to current single-family zones. • The entire system is setup to continue the racial inequities of the last 100 years. Further entrenching those in poverty in the same neighborhoods with no ability to buy a home and create wealth. • The Federal and State say if you use any of their funds to build low-income housing in must be in a census tract with high poverty. Thus you never have mixed income neighborhoods and they are always in the same neighborhoods. The City perpetuates this by never spreading the multi -family zones to new neighborhoods and concentrating the density in west central and east central. We have to build more low-income housing. But we must also build more market rate housing, or the problem will continue to snowball. 41 "Broken Pledges Under the Growth Management Act." Al French — Spokane County Commissioner "When you restrict land, and limit housing types, you create a housing crisis that we are currently in. If we are committed to a plan, let's implement it. If not, then let's change it. But right now, what we are doing is not working." I have been closely involved in housing development and policies going back to 1995 when I first served on the City of Spokane's Planning Commission. I served eight years on the Spokane City Council and am now in my tenth year as a Spokane County Commissioner. So, I have had to deal with the State's Growth Management Act (GMA) for several decades (enacted in 1990). There were promises made 26 years ago when we adopted the comp plan under the GMA that just have never been realized. By design, this was aimed at moving more development and retail opportunities into the urban areas which lowered each county's ability to provide services from the correlating tax base. We have also seen this act now becoming a political tool, with efforts to add elements such as for climate change, and greenhouse gas reduction, but without any funding to help counties implement such strategies. These costs are passed on to consumers raising the costs of housing. One example is the recent changes in building codes that increase efficiency (by one or two percent) but add $15 to $20 thousand to the cost of a new home. Tragically, this prices many families from buying these homes. One key benefit of adding more infill to our urban areas is supposed to be to lower the cost of housing. Unfortunately, by restricting the access to lands, the simple rule of "supply and demand" results in land costs being artificially pushed up. We are seeing new jobs coming to such as the Spokane Valley, and Airway Heights without the equal number of workforce housing opportunities. As such, we are seeing a greater demand on our area roadways. Interstate 90 is suffering from traffic backups and delays seen in large metropolitan regions. In the county, we are working to remove some of these barriers to affordable homes by allowing for more homes to be built on smaller lots. But this is a short-term fix until the market begins to adjust. Home ownership is one of the hallmarks of this country, and a primary wealth -builder for many families. Because of restrictive condo legislation, we are seeing multi -family opportunities restricted to apartments or townhouses. When you restrict land, and limit housing types, you create a housing crisis that we are currently in. Increased density will also create more retail business opportunities closer to where people live. This can reduce travel times — something that is not seen in this state. Spokane's comp plan is predicated on a strategy of centers and corridor infill next to transportation corridors. Unfortunately, the City of Spokane has yet to develop strategies to implement this plan. In fact, there has not been a single development within this strategy as it was envisioned in the plan since it was first adopted 21-years ago. Kendall Yards was NOT in one of these areas. Yet stands as a perfect example of how infill strategies can be possible. It was developed as a "planned unit development" — and not part of one of the recognized centers. 42 I agree with former City Council member Ben Stuckart in that the city has failed to implement its urban development regulations to develop any urbanized areas. This strategy does not work. As a result, we have a lot of undeveloped land and missed housing opportunities. We need to change that. If we are committed to a plan, let's implement it. If not, then let's change it. But right now, what we are doing is not working. (Editor's note: Commissioner French has called on the City of Spokane to give up some of its GMA housing allotments for use in Airway Heights and Spokane Valley, with estimates the city has underbuilt GMA targets by 34,000 housing units it had originally promised by the year 2026.) 43 Conclusions and Findings The data is clear. A bad as Spokane's housing crisis stands, it may just be the beginning. Every expert we convened shared the same concern over policy and practices that are hampering housing development opportunities. By failing to build the estimated 31,920 homes, the Spokane Region may have missed out on lost economic opportunities, lost tax revenues and increasing environmental hazards from residents moving farther and farther away from employment centers. Using the numbers provided by our experts, Spokane has missed out on: • $6-billion dollars in wages and employment since 2010 • $1.1-billion dollars in immediate and ongoing tax revenues Additionally, each buyer who moves into Kootenai County and commutes to Spokane for work, shopping or school adds an additional 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the air. (source: EPA) Already, the census bureau estimates some 10,000 workers commute from Northern Idaho every day to work in the Spokane region. Spokane's housing market is lacking, and its changing. It has created hardships and suffering for many. We cannot fix this problem overnight. But we must get started. Understanding the true extent of the problem is just the first step. 44 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 1, 2021 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: Bid Award — Appleway Stormwater Improvements Project CIP #0317 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 — Contract Authority PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • April 24, 2012 — Council request to look at landscaping improvements on Appleway Blvd. • March 19, 2013 - Staff report/Council requests to study phasing. • May 21, 2013 — Council consensus to start design work for phase 1, Dora to Park Rd. • October 11, 2016 — Administrative Report discussing Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) stormwater grant opportunities resulting in consensus to apply for grants. • May 21, 2019 — Administrative Report: Appleway, Stormwater Improvement — Ecology Agreement. • May 28, 2019 — Motion consideration: Ecology Agreement — Appleway Stormwater Improvement Projects Water Quality Agreement where Council consensus was to place on Consent Agenda for authorization to execute. BACKGROUND: This project improves water quality to the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer by retrofitting existing drywells through the installation of bio-infiltration swales along Appleway Blvd. from Farr Rd. to University Rd. The project is funded by an Ecology grant for 75% of the costs up to $654,732. Most of the new swale areas will be sodded, irrigated and adjacent to the curb. These landscape areas will provide water quality treatment, greatly improve the look of the streetscape and provide snow storage. The project was advertised on April 30, 2021 and bids were opened on May 21, 2021. Three responsive bids were received. LaRiviere, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive, responsible bid of $1,667,086. The low -bid was $227,344 over the Engineer's Estimate of $1,439,742. Staff has conducted a thorough review of the bids to determine their validity, and the ability of the City to award the contract. During this construction season, the City has noticed substantial price increases for those items that deal in commodities, especially plastic, lumber, concrete, and asphalt. For this project, bid prices were higher than the Engineer's Estimate for irrigation items (plastic pipe), electrical conduit (plastic pipe), and concrete. The Engineer's Estimate had already anticipated higher concrete prices. Contractors have expressed concerns about additional inflation and shortage of labor. Labor shortage may be the reason for higher bid prices for excavation, surveying and traffic control in this bid. Financially, as this is a stormwater project that improves water quality, there are sufficient funds within the City's Funds 402 (Stormwater Management) and 403 (Aquifer Protection) to cover the additional costs. As the project provides a significant benefit to the aquifer and sufficient funds exist for the project, staff recommends awarding the Construction Contract to LaRiviere, Inc. in the amount of $1,667,086. A copy of the Bid Tabulation is attached. The project costs and budget will be: Project Costs Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Construction Total estimated costs $ 112,244 $ 65,000 $1,825,012 $2,002,256 Project Budget Ecology Grant $ 654,732 Fund 403 $1,190,824 Fund 302 $ 156,700 Total Budget $2,002,256 OPTIONS: 1) Move to award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, or 2) take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Appleway Stormwater Project CIP #0317 to LaRiviere, Inc. for bid amount of $1,667,086 which includes the applicable sales tax, and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Sufficient reserves exist in Aquifer Protection Area Fund #403 to accommodate the cost of this project including the $227,344 difference between the low bid and engineer's estimate. STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulation BID TABULATION Appleway Stormwater Improvements Project CIP No. 0317 Spo" ar e al ley Engineers Estimate LaRiviere, Inc. Selland Construction, Inc. Nat'l Native American Const., Inc. Description Units Quantity Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost MOBILIZATION L.S. 1 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $134,925.00 $134,925.00 $52,000.00 $52,000.00 $149,791.00 $149,791.00 DOCUMENTATION COMPLIANCE EST. 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 MINOR CHANGE CALC 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S. 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $68,000.00 $68,000.00 $135,000.00 $135,000.00 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN HR. 312 $4.50 $1,404.00 $12.00 $3,744.00 $12.00 $3,744.00 $3.75 $1,170.00 SPCC PLAN L.S. 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $624.00 $624.00 EROSION CONTROL AND WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION L.S. 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $46,000.00 $46,000.00 POTHOLE UTILITY EACH 19 $400.00 $7,600.00 $300.00 $5,700.00 $300.00 $5,700.00 $407.00 $7,733.00 RESOLUTION OF UTILITY CONFLICTS EST. 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 CLEARING AND GRUBBING L.S. 1 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $48,000.00 $48,000.00 $68,190.00 $68,190.00 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING L.S. 1 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $33,000.00 $33,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $38,560.00 $38,560.00 FIRE HYDRANT REVISION L.S. 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 $1,687.00 $1,687.00 REMOVE STORM DRAIN PIPE L.F. 60 $50.00 $3,000.00 $12.00 $720.00 $10.00 $600.00 $24.80 $1,488.00 PLUGGING EXISTING PIPE EACH 3 $200.00 $600.00 $350.00 $1,050.00 $800.00 $2,400.00 $428.00 $1,284.00 ABANDON EXISTING DRYWELL EACH 3 $2,000.00 $6,000.00 $600.00 $1,800.00 $1,400.00 $4,200.00 $1,003.00 $3,009.00 REMOVE CURB INLET EACH 5 $150.00 $750.00 $600.00 $3,000.00 $700.00 $3,500.00 $118.00 $590.00 REMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB L.F. 1710 $10.00 $17,100.00 $12.00 $20,520.00 $7.00 $11,970.00 $8.00 $13,680.00 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK / DRIVEWAY APPROACH S.Y. 3300 $12.50 $41,250.00 $9.00 $29,700.00 $11.00 $36,300.00 $11.72 $38,676.00 REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT S.Y. 1660 $14.00 $23,240.00 $6.00 $9,960.00 $13.00 $21,580.00 $5.95 $9,877.00 ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL C.Y. 960 $50.00 $48,000.00 $18.00 $17,280.00 $22.00 $21,120.00 $56.00 $53,760.00 SWALE EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL C.Y. 640 $40.00 $25,600.00 $18.00 $11,520.00 $22.00 $14,080.00 $56.25 $36,000.00 GRAVEL BORROW INCL. HAUL CY 2000 $40.00 $80,000.00 $30.00 $60,000.00 $40.00 $80,000.00 $22.53 $45,060.00 ADJUST EXISTING CATCH BASIN OR DRYWELL EACH 3 $1,200.00 $3,600.00 $650.00 $1,950.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $230.00 $690.00 ADJUST EXISTING MANHOLE EACH 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $650.00 $650.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $302.00 $302.00 ADJUST EXISTING UTILITY VAULT EACH 7 $1,000.00 $7,000.00 $850.00 $5,950.00 $1,000.00 $7,000.00 $500.00 $3,500.00 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE EACH 14 $600.00 $8,400.00 $300.00 $4,200.00 $1,000.00 $14,000.00 $225.00 $3,150.00 HMA CL. 3/8 IN. PG 64H-28 2 IN. DEPTH S.Y. 3000 $12.00 $36,000.00 $11.80 $35,400.00 $13.00 $39,000.00 $11.40 $34,200.00 HMA CL. 3/8 IN. PG 64H-28 3 IN. DEPTH PATCH S.Y. 300 $100.00 $30,000.00 $19.80 $5,940.00 $21.00 $6,300.00 $19.08 $5,724.00 HMA CL. 3/8 IN. PG 64H-28 4 IN. DEPTH S.Y. 650 $35.00 $22,750.00 $21.70 $14,105.00 $24.00 $15,600.00 $20.94 $13,611.00 HMA CL. 3/8 IN. PG 64H-28 6 IN. DEPTH PATCH S.Y 435 $150.00 $65,250.00 $37.80 $16,443.00 $41.00 $17,835.00 $36.40 $15,834.00 JOB MIX COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 COMPACTION PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 UTILITY CASTING DEPTH COMPLIANCE CALC 1 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 2 IN. DEPTH S.Y. 1400 $7.00 $9,800.00 $21.00 $29,400.00 $14.00 $19,600.00 $15.18 $21,252.00 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 3 IN. DEPTH S.Y. 450 $14.00 $6,300.00 $28.00 $12,600.00 $15.00 $6,750.00 $24.66 $11,097.00 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 4 IN. DEPTH S.Y. 4400 $20.00 $88,000.00 $28.00 $123,200.00 $16.00 $70,400.00 $10.17 $44,748.00 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 6 IN. DEPTH S.Y. 650 $20.00 $13,000.00 $35.00 $22,750.00 $20.00 $13,000.00 $28.60 $18,590.00 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 8 IN. DEPTH S.Y. 435 $28.00 $12,180.00 $38.00 $16,530.00 $22.00 $9,570.00 $59.00 $25,665.00 CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY APPROACH S.Y. 950 $70.00 $66,500.00 $70.00 $66,500.00 $70.00 $66,500.00 $120.64 $114,608.00 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK S.Y. 1200 $70.00 $84,000.00 $52.50 $63,000.00 $64.00 $76,800.00 $109.56 $131,472.00 CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP TYPE SINGLE DIRECTION A EACH 4 $2,000.00 $8,000.00 $2,028.00 $8,112.00 $3,400.00 $13,600.00 $3,200.00 $12,800.00 CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP TYPE PARALLEL A EACH 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,718.00 $1,718.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $2,483.00 $2,483.00 CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER L.F. 1635 $30.00 $49,050.00 $30.00 $49,050.00 $54.00 $88,290.00 $37.60 $61,476.00 CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB L.F. 80 $50.00 $4,000.00 $34.00 $2,720.00 $46.00 $3,680.00 $33.45 $2,676.00 CEMENT CONC. PEDESTRIAN CURB L.F. 140 $50.00 $7,000.00 $22.00 $3,080.00 $21.00 $2,940.00 $33.45 $4,683.00 CEMENTCONC. CURB WALL L.F. 85 $50.00 $4,250.00 $46.00 $3,910.00 $170.00 $14,450.00 $70.00 $5,950.00 SEGMENTAL CONCRETE RETAINING WALL S.F. 1310 $35.00 $45,850.00 $24.10 $31,571.00 $56.00 $73,360.00 $72.00 $94,320.00 TOPSOIL, TYPE A, 2 IN. DEPTH S.Y. 5950 $3.00 $17,850.00 $2.60 $15,470.00 $4.00 $23,800.00 $4.30 $25,585.00 TOPSOIL, TYPE A, 12 IN. DEPTH S.Y. 1550 $20.00 $31,000.00 $15.50 $24,025.00 $22.00 $34,100.00 $22.70 $35,185.00 SEEDING, FERTILIZING, AND MULCHING S.Y. 2800 $2.00 $5,600.00 $1.00 $2,800.00 $3.00 $8,400.00 $4.19 $11,732.00 SOD INSTALLATION S.Y. 7500 $5.00 $37,500.00 $4.77 $35,775.00 $7.00 $52,500.00 $7.07 $53,025.00 IRRIGATION SYSTEM EACH 5 $3,000.00 $15,000.00 $22,833.00 $114,165.00 $30,000.00 $150,000.00 $25,653.00 $128,265.00 IRRIGATION SYSTEM REVISION EACH 4 $2,000.00 $8,000.00 $2,274.00 $9,096.00 $1,600.00 $6,400.00 $2,905.00 $11,620.00 CURB INLET TYPE 1 EACH 35 $125.00 $4,375.00 $387.00 $13,545.00 $120.00 $4,200.00 $420.00 $14,700.00 CURB INLET TYPE 2 EACH 4 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,500.00 $10,000.00 $1,900.00 $7,600.00 $1,080.00 $4,320.00 CONCRETE SPLASH PAD S.Y. 15 $160.00 $2,400.00 $239.00 $3,585.00 $60.00 $900.00 $360.00 $5,400.00 CURB INLET TOP, TYPE 1 EACH 2 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $2,400.00 $4,800.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $2,131.00 $4,262.00 CONCRETE INLET TYPE 1 EACH 18 $1,500.00 $27,000.00 $2,800.00 $50,400.00 $2,300.00 $41,400.00 $1,642.00 $29,556.00 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 EACH 3 $2,500.00 $7,500.00 $3,200.00 $9,600.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.00 $1,670.00 $5,010.00 PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWELL TYPE A WITH SOLID COVER EACH 2 $5,500.00 $11,000.00 $3,200.00 $6,400.00 $5,100.00 $10,200.00 $2,800.00 $5,600.00 PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWELL TYPE B WITH SOLID COVER EACH 3 $6,500.00 $19,500.00 $3,700.00 $11,100.00 $6,700.00 $20,100.00 $3,419.00 $10,257.00 CONNECTION TO EXISTING DRYWELL EACH 2 $1,200.00 $2,400.00 $300.00 $600.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $465.00 $930.00 CONNECT TO EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 12 $1,000.00 $12,000.00 $300.00 $3,600.00 $1,500.00 $18,000.00 $1,150.00 $13,800.00 SOLID WALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE 10 IN. DIA. L.F. 395 $40.00 $15,800.00 $65.00 $25,675.00 $77.00 $30,415.00 $78.40 $30,968.00 DUCTILE IRON STORM SEWER PIPE 8 IN. DIA. L.F. 310 $65.00 $20,150.00 $68.00 $21,080.00 $85.00 $26,350.00 $94.00 $29,140.00 DUCTILE IRON STORM SEWER PIPE 10 IN. DIA. L.F. 410 $68.00 $27,880.00 $75.00 $30,750.00 $94.00 $38,540.00 $100.30 $41,123.00 PERMANENT SIGNING L.S. 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $10,450.00 $10,450.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 $11,925.00 $11,925.00 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE S.F. 130 $9.50 $1,235.00 $9.80 $1,274.00 $10.00 $1,300.00 $9.80 $1,274.00 PLASTIC STOP LINE L.F. 20 $20.00 $400.00 $19.55 $391.00 $21.00 $420.00 $12.70 $254.00 PAINT LINE L.F. 100 $1.75 $175.00 $0.72 $72.00 $1.00 $100.00 $2.65 $265.00 PAINTED WIDE LANE LINE L.F. 560 $1.25 $700.00 $0.95 $532.00 $1.00 $560.00 $1.05 $588.00 CHAIN LINK FENCE L.F. 470 $60.00 $28,200.00 $50.00 $23,500.00 $57.00 $26,790.00 $46.70 $21,949.00 PARK BOLLARD EACH 8 $1,300.00 $10,400.00 $1,000.00 $8,000.00 $300.00 $2,400.00 $2,968.00 $23,744.00 CONDUIT PIPE 2 IN. DIA. L.F. 3500 $17.00 $59,500.00 $30.48 $106,680.00 $25.00 $87,500.00 $23.32 $81,620.00 JUNCTION BOX, TYPE 1 EACH 10 $1,300.00 $13,000.00 $1,041.50 $10,415.00 $750.00 $7,500.00 $689.00 $6,890.00 ILLUMINATION SYSTEM REVISION L.S. 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $31,605.00 $31,605.00 $37,000.00 $37,000.00 $32,000.00 $32,000.00 Project Totals $1,439,742.00 $1,667,086.00 $1,708,747.00 $1,962,000.00 Competitive bids were opened on May 21, 2021. I hereby certify to the best of my ability that this is a true and correct bid tabulation for the Appleway Stormwater Improvements Project, CIP #0317. Glenn Ritter, PE Senior Engineer/Project Manager CHECKLIST Bid Proposal Checklist x x x Bid Proposal Form x x x Addendas Acknowledged x x x Cert-Wage Pymt. Compliance x x x Contractor Info x x x Bid Qualifications x x x Subcontractor List x x x Bid Bond x x x Reps & Certs x x x CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 1, 2021 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Legislative Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: n/a PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: n/a BACKGROUND: Ms. Briahna Murray and Holly Cocci of Gordon Thomas Honeywell will present Council a review of the end of the State Legislative Session. OPTIONS: Discussion only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown at this time STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun ATTACHMENTS: CITY OF SPOKANEVALLEY 2021 LEGISLATIVE SESSION Briahna Murray & Holly Cocci GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS PURPOSE Overview of the 2021 Legislative Session Outcome of 2021 City of Spokane Valley State Legislative Priorities Next steps OVERVIEW OF 2021 LEGISLATIVE SESSION First year of the two-year legislative biennium "Long" Session: lasted 105 days, virtual format Democrats held majority in both House of Representatives and Senate Total of 1,075 bills considered, 334 passed the Legislature Adopted operating, capital, and transportation budgets Big policy decisions: capital gains tax, low carbon fuel standard, cap and trade, police reform, and more. SPOKANEVALLEY 2021 STATE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES Pines Grade Separation Fairgrounds Exhibition Center Support for WWRP Program: Flora Road Park Economic Development Tools Defend Local Control Protect and Restore Local State -Share Revenues PINES GRADE SEPARATION $19.3 million transportation funding request Significant outreach leading up to the beginning of the legislative session No state funding unless transportation revenue package enacted Included in both the Miles Ahead and Forward Washington proposals No agreement on a transportation revenue package FAIRGROUNDS EXHIBITION CENTER $4 million capital request Final capital budget appropriates $750,000 Appreciation and thanks to Sen. Padden, Rep. McCaslin, and Rep. Chase Next steps How to use the $750,000? Lesson Learned: Request smaller funding amount WWRP PROGRAM: FLORA RD PROJECT If Washington Wildlife Recreation Program funded at $100 million, then the City would receive a $ I million grant for the Flora Road/North BankTrail project. Project just above the funding cutoff Final capital budget funds the Program at $100 million, allowing the City to receive the grant. ECO NOMIC DEVELOPMENT Legislature approved tax increment financing (TIF) 48 other states have some form of tax increment financing Tool that helps growth pay for growth Washington BEST Manufacturing Act Goal: Double the state's manufacturing employment base, number of small manufacturing businesses, and the number of women and minority -owned manufacturing businesses in 10 years. DEFE ND LOCAL CONTROL Local control House Bill 1220 Requires housing element to be updated Preempts on the siting on emergency shelter Senate Bill 5235 Number of unrelated persons in a home Vetoed section on owner -occupancy requirement on ADUs State -shared revenues fully funded and increased Cannabis funding Implementation funding for police reform Temporary fiscal flexibility approved ADDITIONAL ISSUES Condominium reform Governance over 91 I operations Public health governance Response to the Blake decision NEXT STEPS Lobbying is a year-round effort. Over the interim, we will focus on: Thanking Senator Padden, Rep. McCaslin, and Rep. Chase Position Pines Rd Grade Separation for ongoing discussions on transportation revenue package Following the activities of the Redistricting Commission Recommendations on district boundaries due November 2021 Prepare for the 2022 session early and often 2022 Legislative Session Begins: January 10, 2022 QUESTIONS? Briahna Murray Vice President Cell: (253) 310-5477 E-mail: bmurray@gth-gov.com Holly Cocci Governmental Affairs Consultant Cell: (253) 509-2403 E-mail: hcocci@gth-gov.com CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 1, 2021 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative report - Code Enforcement program overview GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 7.05 SVMC; Chapter 17.100 SVMC; Chapter 17.110 SVMC, Chapter 24.40 SVMC, and chapter 7.48 RCW PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: June 5, 2018: Code Enforcement Update presentation, admin report; January 22, 2019: Code Enforcement Update, admin report; September 3, 2019: Code Enforcement Revisions, admin report; September 24, 2019: First Reading Ordinance 19-014, Code Compliance Amendments October 8, 2019, Council adopted Ordinance 19-014 amending Chapters 7.05, 17.100 and 17.110 SVMC BACKGROUND: The City adopted Chapter 7.05 SVMC relating to nuisance properties shortly after incorporation in 2003. The most common type of code compliance case is nuisance including accumulations of trash, junk vehicles, and accumulation of broken machinery or equipment. Other types of code compliance cases include zoning/building code violations, clear view triangle obstructions, and animal keeping. The then -vacant Code Enforcement Officer position was filled in 2017 and a new part-time Attorney position was added in 2018. At that time, the average annual number of code compliance cases was 330. A second Code Enforcement Officer position was created and filled in January 2020 and the part-time Attorney position was increased to a full-time position. The number of code compliance cases in 2020 was 647, and 200 new compliance cases were created during the first quarter of 2021. Currently, the City employs two full-time Code Enforcement Officers as well as an Attorney to whom cases are referred following a responsible party's failure to address a violation before the compliance deadline. Code Enforcement Officers are supervised by the Building Official who provides direction as to compliance deadlines/extensions, authorizes the issuance/removal of Do Not Occupy and Stop Work orders, and provides oversight during investigation activities. Code Enforcement Officers often receive and investigate complaints which result in a determination of no violation; for example, numerous vehicles parked in the front yard of a residence may not be a violation unless the vehicles meet the strict definition of 'junk vehicle.' Similarly, determining whether a person is living in a recreational vehicle or simply using the recreational vehicle as a home office may not be possible using acceptable investigation methods. During the presentation, staff will outline the City of Spokane Valley Code Enforcement program by discussing historical and current case load, complaint and investigation statistics, the process of receiving and investigating a complaint, the appeal and abatement process, and ongoing projects. Staff will also discuss instances such as those described above where Code Enforcement Officers' authority to address common complaints may be limited. Future considerations may include code text amendments to strengthen or clarify regulatory language. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion topic BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Deputy City Manager; Jenny Nickerson, Building Official; Caitlin Prunty, Attorney; Nicole Montano, Code Enforcement Officer; Robin Holt, Code Enforcement Officer ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint presentation Co e Enforcement John Hohman — Deputy City Manager Jenny Nickerson- Building Official Caitlin Prunty — Attorney Nicole Montano — Code Enforcement Officer Robin Holt - Code Enforcement Officer Community and Public Works - Code Enforcement i Overview The following presentation is to inform the City Council and the community of the roles, responsibilities, and operations of the Code Enforcement Division. Code Enforcement Officers Two FTE Code Enforcement Officers Combined education and training: Certified ICC/AACE Zoning Inspector (International Code Council/American Association of Code Enforcement) WACE member (Washington Association of Code Enforcement) Certified Junk Vehicle Inspector Certified Erosion Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) Mental Health First Aid Certification Reserve Law Enforcement Officer Certification Associate's degree in Criminal Justice Bachelor's degree in Social Services 30 years combined experience conducting field investigations 3 Office of the City Attorney Full time attorney dedicated to Code Enforcement Provides support to Code Enforcement Officer outside of referred cases. Cases where a property owner fails to come into compliance are referred to City Attorneys Office. 4 Current code enforcement staff inherited a backlog of unresolved, open cases. • In October of 2017, vacant Code Enforcement Officer position was filled • At that time, there were 463 open and outstanding cases dating as far back as 2010 • In January of 2020, a 2nd Code Enforcement Officer position was created and filled • All outstanding cases were reinvestigated, brought into compliance, and closed Codes enforced Spokane Valley Municipal Code ❖Health and Safety/Nuisances ❖Development Standards and Zoning ❖ Environmental Controls ❖ Spokane Valley Street Standards ❖ International Property Maintenance Code ❖ International Building Code •I• International Fire Code International Residential Code Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 6 Subjects enforced Unpermitted work in the City Right -of -Way ❖ Graffiti, trash, and junk vehicles ❖ Fire Hazards or building concerns ❖ Unsafe buildings, structures, and fences •• Hazardous sidewalks and snow removal Non -permitted buildings and construction Land use, zoning, and setback violations Unlicensed businesses or permit violations Law Enforcement referrals: chronic nuisance properties Subjects not enforced through CE Parking, junk vehicles and abandoned vehicles on City right-of-way Trash and shopping carts in the City right-of-way Domestic animal complaints Civil disputes Illegal burning SVFD Public Works SCRAPS Law Enforcement Investigations Code enforcement protects the community by regulating violations: • Proactive community response approach Engage community members and provide opportunity to discuss concerns Contact property residents and owners before a possible violation is reported • Response to complaints received from members of the public and other agencies Complaints typically received by phone, email, or in writing (Citizen Action Requests) «�tNewer enhancements include Q Alert, SV Express, 311 • Determining violations — issuance of administrative warnings or notice and orders Code Enforcement Officers' first priority is public safety Officers strive to educate and work with residents to resolve violations 9 What is an investigation? "A systematic and thorough atternpt to determine if a violation, which can be complex or hidden, exists." City Code Enforcement Officers are experienced and trained in best practice investigative procedures: or er Knowledgeable in laws and applicable ordinances Remaining impartial Interviewing and collecting physical evidence Collecting and documenting testimonial evidence Researching — as it pertains to properties, property owners, business licenses, and pertinent codes Maintaining documentation during the course of investigation and through case closure Following up with complainant to understand concern and/or verify location Continuing education and expanding knowledge of current codes and regulations AttiH Challenges to investigations ➢Property owners may be unresponsive, defensive, or uncooperative Reported violations may not be visible from public right-of-way and difficult to verify y Especially difficult to verify reports from anonymous complainants Compliance timelines can be frustrating for neighborhood residents ➢Limited availability of physical and testimonial evidence Civil disputes 11 nitial complaint response time Investigation of a new complaint takes an average of 75 minutes: • Entry of new call into SmartGov tracking system Drive time to location — ALL complaints are investigated Contact with property owners, tenants, and complainants on -site Gathering of information, including taking and cataloging photos • Uploading of evidence to the file - including pictures, testimony, and case notes Researching property lines, plat information, setback requirements, historical permits, and applicable codes • Writing and issuing notices • Responding to complainants In 2020: 647 new complaints investigated ➢ Totaling roughly 809 hours of investigation ➢ 200 new complaints were investigated during first quarter of 2021 12 CALLS FOR . +TIC 11 1111111111111111111111111111 201.4 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 13 Code Enforcement Process 7 - VOluoILLrrnpJiL Ati reefelerli Vi win Abated I. Cat Cies et1 On:kg. _._.__ Nzlica aid i _,..— ' Vi011.1Eian Abated - Case , i 4.-. CIOSENLI il -.,-.-Al Ntaiui3 and Orde T Ur!1 )lid °ICU Lia C-12? ALLjiri -k! 7 'IL r , :: .!i,' I .F. :0 •11,:.0 "i i . .,' Abatement 14 Process when no violation is found Anonymous complainant - 21 complaints submitted in 2020. Complainant stated garbage was left everywhere, people living in vehicles, junk vehicles; a "pigsty". Officer responded to location, attempted to contact tenant. Investigation notes/photos are saved to the file to document findings. When no violation is found, a notice is not issued to the owner. Unable to contact anonymous complainant as person is unknown. All complaints are investigated, to include a physical inspection, which often triggers neighbors to call and contact code enforcement. 15 Living in RV — no violation r r 16, 2021 at 9:45:20 AM Spokane Valley In this example: 5 complaints from 2020-2021 5 separate and distinct investigations Conclusion - no violation found • RV exists on private property • Habitable home also exists on property • Unable to confirm person `lives' in RV i6 " wtote,thANt Living in RV - confirmed violation ••, • • • - • : ••• • ''''''•••• 17 Violations Specific violations may require the Code Enforcement Officer immediately post a: Stop Work order — unpermitted construction or remodel work Do Not Enter order — dangerous building, typically result of catastrophic damage to structure Do Not Occupy order — potentially dangerous building, typically result of isolated damage or neglect Dec 10, 2020 at 10:39:34 AM Community Si Public 10219 FSpragOm 11, DO NOT 'r`r'CLIpy BF. .S`r'FI]("ICl f(SJ Iti LN"'I'pIpP fII MAN Oc(I 1 Y OF SIr6KANE lAL!. E'!N1 ^,f.f_Y:Y Mt INK t„- FANCY I'IIRSIANT 9�I 7'&i LiF 17 Ilf E I Y COE luc1. f1fJlN[3 fi1J1 N) l rM! F R 1O fe 1701 Ilp y[?NfCAN[ LI f.a o NO l7_11rJ A n�erL__ 1'Irr liullJfnK ?Mail De __._ �—p�L—JhLT Any per�nur'+Illfll ruin„ l l Omer III L -- I! rude ruII if an Iil t'r6 �r rcmn a Ili noticwn, or e fru - ruf l 1 � willn p. -xU�dm rM1e Cot M ,o-Scut r, ' ll_!'erinii4nrer fur mwp�ny I`Ds� Q Y'� f _ fN1 Oo' 4s:a'/'Y.il/L2 � ummrn ED1III6 J2 I laser f f 0S2 hbe ac re weal frneu few nll ylve I Yf k, to -der ah,r rn= I.Ctp o/ vk L ! P.rr in ['ere.," �r ht i8 Violations Nov '3, 20711 at 4:1 Pi\,1 Land Use Violation — no erosion control or stabilization i�nC .,drt +�iNtn4er�r°"5;,.s"mm 7n,.,; Fire Hazard — reported or confirmed by SVFD 19 Code Enforcement -initiated complaint: Junk Vehicle violation SVMC and RCW 46.55.010 defines a junk vehicle as a vehicle meeting at least three of the four following criteria: Is three years old or older; Is extensively damaged, such damage including but not limited to any of the following: a broken window or windshield, or missing wheels, tires, motor, or transmission; Is apparently inoperable; Has an approximate fair market value equal only to the approximate value of the scrap in it. ;, 14, •,D,D , N 20 Frequent complaints regarding parking — no enforcement authority Vehicles parked in the front yard and on the grass Too many vehicles on private property RVs parked too close next to neighboring property lines Vehicles parked on the City ROW for too long Too many vehicles parked on the City ROW Trailers, boats, and RVs parked on the City ROW Vehicles parked on City ROW 114 21 '.14 OVA ))I ln�iii if 'iiil{Ilu Jill l{��u��t 'iii� iii µi if 'll �ii il{ 11 iiq riiit City ROW vs. Private Property N. Bates Rd. is a 60' ROW The Property line starts 22' west of the paved road (see green outline) Any vehicle parked on the unpaved portion of the road is on the City ROW orsur 22 Code Enforcement — initiated complaint: Clearview Triangle (SVMC 22.70) Figure 22.70-1 - Clearview Triangle for Commercial Approaches and Stop Sign Controlled Intersections REQUIRED SIGHT DISTANCE SEE SEE TABLE 22.70-1 POINT 'A' IS LOCATED AT THE CENTER OF THE SIDE STREET APPROACH LANE. REQUIRED SIGHT DISTANCE SEE TABLE 22.70-1 EDGE OF TRAVELWAY POINTS 'B' AND 'C' ARE LOCATED AT THE CENTER OF THE ONCOMFMC THROUGH LANE OR IN THE CENTER OF THE NEAREST ONCOMING THROUGH LANE IF MORE THAN ONE LANE EXISTS. 1 CLEARVIEW TRIANGLE Table 22.7G-1 - Clearview Triangle Calculation for Controlled Intersections Case Type Through Street Speed Limit (mph) Distance to Point A in Feet Required Sight z 3 Distance ' ' (BC) in Feet Commercial approaches and stop sign controlled intersections' 25 15 280 30 335 35 390 Signal controlled intersection, yield controlled or all -way stop sign controlled Per AASHT❑ Green Book 23 Clearview Triangle; example F,t+ I at I :SA: It) AM SNI:zna Vallav MOr 4, 2021 at 10:4832 AIVI Spokane Valley Before After 24 Unpermitted structure and outdoor storage in CMU zone i:),T)c0,'-OOI5L 11;0ANI 25 Unpermitted use in a CMU zone 26 Chronic Nuisances - SVMC 7.05.045 Defined as: "During any 12-month period, the property in question has five or more occurrences of ongoing criminal activi related to the premises." Ongoing criminal activity includes: • A search warrant by law enforcement, • Arrest of one or more individuals, • Commission of a crime in connection with the premises and such activity has a reasonable and proximate connection to the premises. 27 Proactive code enforcement Unpermitted/unsafe structure alle AI, Cargo container on City ROW i�nC .,drt +�iNtn4er�r°"5;,.s"mm 7n,.,; 28 Confirmed violations Prohibited animal " wtote,thANt Garbage 31 29 Commercial business office converted into multi -family apartment — referred by SVFD .. ...,....... ....,...„.„.:,...-... .... 3o Garage converted into dwelling — no permits Before After 31 , Graffiti Aff +®) 32 Critical area violation during development (SVMC 21.40) i�n t d rt +�ifi Mc,,M 33 Common violation types: Living in RV Unpermitted obstruction of public ROW. 34 Easement and ROW obstruction R92� { 10' U11LITY ESEIT, 15' WATER DRAGNAGE EASEMENT r 5 N&9'57'13'W 133.111' 6TH AVENUE / 13' BORDER ENT, R82 1- ;11rVtn+{�;incNr, 4 N39'5713"W 191,48' PU LIG HIQHT OF WAY C CA•flO 3„8315 S.F. 1 CpkpC ?,drs�i`f'�i , Norrtri 6TH AVENUE N89'S1i3'41 191.50' I17 13' BORDER 10' L'tury EASEMENTIJ LASE.ME:,NI 1 ° �'� 15,952 S.F. � ��•" GHAI:RGE [603 ] I. EASEIIEN' N89'45'3O"E 191.58' Cl"thct1 19 5fi' I11 5fl' } 3' BORDER EASt.NEN1 10' UTILITY LASLMLNI +6 Right Of Way Easements ..•_ _ess Easement Nt,atic Lands Easement _ -der Easement Lj Drainage Easement ❑ Easement ❑ Future Aquisition ❑ Ingress/Egress/Utility Easement ❑ Ingress/Egress/Utility/Sewer Easement No Value 35 Code Enforcement referrals to outside agencies: Child Protection Services Adult Protection Services Spokane Valley Fire Department Law Enforcement Homeless Outreach SNAP Catholic Charities Frontier Behavioral Health Department of Ecology Spokane Regional Health District Spokane Regional Clean Air SCRAPS Washington State Labor & Industries Spokane County Noxious Weed Board CrimeCheck — Junk vehicles, parking, RVs in the City right-of-way 36 Adams Road example: 1st complaint in 2006 City abatement in 2009 New complaint in 2017 Current Code Enforcement team started work on the case in2018 Upon investigation, Officers were concerned for the physical and mental health of the individual, a referral was made to Adult Protective Services. 37 Adams Road 2020 Adult Protection Services (APS) had a difficult time contacting the individual; requested assistance from Code Enforcement Code Enforcement met APS on site and were able to connect the social worker and property owner Social worker determined that the individual could no longer care for himself and he was admitted into a permanent care facility The property was sold, cleaned, and the case closed. 38 Compliance example - Empire Road Before After Voluntary compliance agreement example 40 Appeals of Code Enforcement Determination • The appeal process is represented by the City Attorney's Office • The Code Enforcement Officer testifies and presents evidence to support the violation of SVMC • The property owner is also given the opportunity to testify and present evidence supporting their appeal • In 2020, staff processed 6 appeals which were either settled or affirmed by the hearing examiner in favor of the City • Hearing examiner decisions can be appealed to Superior Court • Currently there are 2 code enforcement appeals in Superior court Complainants can also appeal a code enforcement determination: • This has only occurred once in the history of the City of Spokane Valley Appeal included multiple City staff members, City Attorneys, personal attorneys, witnesses, and 1/2 day of testimony • Hearing examiner affirmed the Code Enforcement determination. Since 2018, the City has been successful on all appeals of code enforcement determinations. 41 Abatements If there is no reasonable attempt to bring a property into compliance, staff may consult with City Attorney's Office for possible abatement. CE Officers manage the abatement process which includes: • Obtaining bids from contractors • Scheduling law enforcement, contractors, Geiger work crew • Arranging dumpster or similar waste removal services • Contacting SCOPE to tag junk vehicles before abatement • Contacting junk yards to arrange for vehicles to be received • Scheduling tow truck companies to haul junk vehicles • Determining extent of violation and what must be removed • Documenting the scene before, during, and after abatement • Obtaining invoices and forwarding to City Attorney's office 42 Pre -litigation process: ➢ Attorney reviews the case to make sure that all procedural elements have been met. Once a case is accepted, a letter is sent by the Office of the City Attorney outlining the requirements of compliance, explaining what happens in the event of non-compliance, and giving a deadline to come into compliance. Goal is voluntary compliance. Compliance Straight Ahead I t 43 Court Process If no cooperation, proceed to Superior Court. File lawsuit Court timelines (to ensure and protect due process) • Identify and serve defendants • Allow answer to be filed by defendants • Notice and hearing for motions for default or summary judgment • Obtain a Warrant of Abatement, which gives the City the right to enter the property and clean up the nuisance 44 " Before abatement: example ....... .......... ........ .......... ........ .......... .......... ........ .......... ........ .......... ........ .......... .......... 45 *MA After abatement --'••• • 1,44,10.,‘ i104•000400 .40•4000014044014,6011640,0„....„ • • ... • • '888788 788817 •:, t • V' • (V, • • • q• Code Enforcement Cases —the year of COVID January 1 through December 31, 2020 647 new complaints investigated 126 Officer/staff initiated complaints 619 cases closed (including previous year cases) 21 cases referred to the City Attorneys Office Cases opened from 2018 - 2020 0 Mrnib Pori Lincoln Park Mande I(3 2Alittry C.lub h} C RA N P R rE C!r: hprorr 1-I111 ornwokal;on Area ? t nr4'% a L'ni err Golf Course Ube rty La ke nrtana 4s� f. Spokane County, Bureau of Land Management, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE,... Legend Cases CLOSED itCLOSED - NO VIOLATION SUP COURT CANCELLED RULING/PAYMENT PEN D OPENED Other 48 Current open cases as of May 2021 tit 0 High Drlva Park. ail L1iirO r7 Man to Golfd n IrY ?A MOFAN P AtFirE t'I t 9 ``'4 4 'IM.I t1W' EtIshmAi alle',q IP t 'Pr undyr i — Kaiser Aluminum I• tlstiiYr fItp 9 Natural rea f.I { a I 9 14,1 99 Veradaie I- re IF 9 01ks Orchards Liberty LIId_ rty ' uInraar�r� Spokane County, Bureau of Land Management, Esri Canada, Esri, HERE,,., Legend Cases 9 t 1,110 SUP COURT WARNING NOTICE SENT OPENED PENDING VCA NOTICE AND ORDER SENT Other 49 CASES BY TYPE 2018-2020 11 4 Environmental 63 General 783 Property 1127 Nuisance 50 Fast Facts • 100% of complaints are investigated by a member of Code Enforcement staff • 96% of complaints are investigated on the same day the complaint is received • 33% of complaints are closed no violation • 33% of anonymous complaints come from repetitive complainants • 21 anonymous complaints for one property in one year (approx. 27 hours of investigative time) - no violation. • 13 abatements to be scheduled within the next year • 9 abatements performed between 2018 to 2020 • 350 - average Code Enforcement Officer case load in 2015 • 667 - average Code Enforcement Officer case load since 2018 (case load continues to grow) • 200 new cases from January to April 2021; due in large part to: • Enhanced public outreach • Population growth • New development • Proactive City staff 51 Considerations Moving Forward Outreach Initiate contact on site to provide access and knowledge to services and resources Garbage Accumulation The City does not require residents to have garbage service. This creates violations as many residents pile their garbage up in a location to haul off later Recreational Vehicles ➢ Living in RVs and number of RV on private property ➢ Living in RV often becomes complainant's word against property owner's word. Difficult to enforce, under current code, due to lack of evidence ➢ Living in RV, on City ROW, is not regulated by Code Enforcement Limited Code Enforcement Authority — SVPD Coordination Access to databases to run license plates or check officer safety flags on properties Authority to address vehicles, trailers, and recreational vehicles parked on the City right-of-way Parking on private property/Public ROW Public ROW parking regulations are found under RCW 45.61.570 — Time limit not regulated under the RCW's. 52 Considerations Moving Forward Property Maintenance Weeds, grass too long or no yard, paint chipping, dangerous or distressed trees, vehicles parked on lawns, and number of vehicles. Civil Disputes Graffiti Properties are often retagged after cleanup Need community involvement and reporting Coordination w/Housing and Homeless Coordinator Securing of abandoned structures > Trash and shopping carts in the City right-of-way Camping in tents on private and public property Storage of items on public right-of-way Encampment cleanup Reporting Data gathering and statistical analysis 53 Anw Thank you for your time! Questions? 54 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 1, 2021 Department Director Approval Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2021 Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Periodic Review GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-090, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: December 9, 2014: Council approved Ordinance 14-020 which adopted the SMP, which was subsequently repealed and replaced December 15, 2015 by Ordinance 15- 024, (codified in our Municipal Code as 21.50) a comprehensive update to the SMP. April 28, 2020: Council concurred that staff apply for a Department of Ecology grant to complete the SMP periodic update. March 2, 2021: staff presented an admin report. BACKGROUND: The SMP is the official document to guide development along the Spokane River and Shelly Lake. Finalized in 2015, the SMP includes goals and polices which are adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan. The implementing regulations related to shoreline development are in Chapter 21.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). RCW 90.58.080(4) requires the City to periodically review and, if necessary, revise the SMP. The purpose of the review is to ensure the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules. The periodic review for the City needs to be adopted by June 30, 2021. In 2020, the City hired the consultant firm The Watershed Company to conduct the periodic review. The scope of the 2021 periodic review was limited to changes required by modifications to state law that have occurred since the City completed its comprehensive update in 2015. The Gap Analysis completed as part of the periodic review provides a summary of the changes to laws and rules and identifies needed changes to the City's SMP. Overall, the SMP was found to be consistent with changes in local and state laws. The majority of the changes are minor and include items such as exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures. A noteworthy required change was identified relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline jurisdiction. These regulations need to be updated to be consistent with state law and the City's adopted critical area regulations in 2016. On February 12, 2021, the City issued a notice of the Planning Commission public hearing stating that the City was accepting public comments for 30 days. The City also published all the draft documents on the City's SMP project webpage and notified the public and interested individuals of their availability. On February 25, 2021, a study session on the proposed SMP amendments and adoption process was provided to the Planning Commission. On March 11, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the purpose of taking public testimony on the proposed amendments. After the public hearing on March 11, the public hearing was closed, except to allow written comments to be submitted by close of business on Friday, March 12. On March 25, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed all public comments and deliberated on the proposed SMP amendments. After deliberations, the Planning Commission moved and voted 7-0 to forward the draft amendments to City Council with a recommendation of approval. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None 1 of 2 OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action at this time. This item is currently scheduled to come before Council June 8, 2021, as a first ordinance reading. STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: White Binder (included separately contains PowerPoint, Planning Commission and other materials) 2 of 2 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 2021 PERIODIC UPDATE City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update Index Index Tab No. Summary of Amendment 1 Presentation 2 Draft Ordinance 3 Exhibit 1 to Ordinance (draft SMP amendment Ch. 21.50) 4 PC Findings 5 Gap Analysis 6 Request for Planning Commission Action; Meeting Minutes and Presentation (Public Hearing) CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 1, 2021 Department Director Approval Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2021 Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Periodic Review GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-090, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: December 9, 2014: Council approved Ordinance 14-020 which adopted the SMP, which was subsequently repealed and replaced December 15, 2015 by Ordinance 15- 024, (codified in our Municipal Code as 21.50) a comprehensive update to the SMP. April 28, 2020: Council concurred that staff apply for a Department of Ecology grant to complete the SMP periodic update. March 2, 2021: staff presented an admin report. BACKGROUND: The SMP is the official document to guide development along the Spokane River and Shelly Lake. Finalized in 2015, the SMP includes goals and polices which are adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan. The implementing regulations related to shoreline development are in Chapter 21.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). RCW 90.58.080(4) requires the City to periodically review and, if necessary, revise the SMP. The purpose of the review is to ensure the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules. The periodic review for the City needs to be adopted by June 30, 2021. In 2020, the City hired the consultant firm The Watershed Company to conduct the periodic review. The scope of the 2021 periodic review was limited to changes required by modifications to state law that have occurred since the City completed its comprehensive update in 2015. The Gap Analysis completed as part of the periodic review provides a summary of the changes to laws and rules and identifies needed changes to the City's SMP. Overall, the SMP was found to be consistent with changes in local and state laws. The majority of the changes are minor and include items such as exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures. A noteworthy required change was identified relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline jurisdiction. These regulations need to be updated to be consistent with state law and the City's adopted critical area regulations in 2016. On February 12, 2021, the City issued a notice of the Planning Commission public hearing stating that the City was accepting public comments for 30 days. The City also published all the draft documents on the City's SMP project webpage and notified the public and interested individuals of their availability. On February 25, 2021, a study session on the proposed SMP amendments and adoption process was provided to the Planning Commission. On March 11, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the purpose of taking public testimony on the proposed amendments. After the public hearing on March 11, the public hearing was closed, except to allow written comments to be submitted by close of business on Friday, March 12. On March 25, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed all public comments and deliberated on the proposed SMP amendments. After deliberations, the Planning Commission moved and voted 7-0 to forward the draft amendments to City Council with a recommendation of approval. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None 1 of 2 OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action at this time. This item is currently scheduled to come before Council June 8, 2021, as a first ordinance reading. STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: White Binder (included separately contains Planning Commission and other materials) 2 of 2 5/27/2021 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Periodic Update June 1, 2021 Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Spokane �•�Valley� Tonight's Agenda ' Shoreline Master Program review What and Where ' Periodic update requirement ' Adoption timeline/ process ' Review of proposed amendments State legislative amendments Critical Areas within SMP Jurisdiction Local plans and regulations 2 1 5/27/2021 What is a Shoreline Master Program? A set of policies and regulations required by state law that has three basic principles: Protect environmental resources of state shorelines Promote public access and enjoyment opportunities Give priority to uses that require a shoreline location Comprehensively updated in 2015 Codified SVMC 21.50 SMP -City Council Administrative Report 3 Where does Shoreline Master Program apply? "Shorelines of the State," and landward 200' of Ordinary High Water Mark (Shoreline Jurisdiction) Spokane Valley: Spokane River Shelly Lake Associated wetland Gravel pits not considered Shorelines until after reclamation 2 5/27/2021 What is an SMP periodic update? RCW 90.58.080 requires review and update every eight years Review keeps current with: Amendments to WACs & RCWs Amendments to local plans and regulations New or improved data and information Adopted by June 30, 2021 SMP - City Council Administrative Report SMP Periodic Update Adoption Timeline PC PC Study Public Session Hearing 02/25/21 03/11/21 PC Findings 05/13/21 Send to Ecology for review and comment 30-day State Review City Council Admin Report 06/1/21 City Response to Comment u City Council 1st Reading 06/08/21 - ative Report City Council 2nd Reading 06/22/21 6 3 5/27/2021 2021 Periodic Shoreline Master Program Update Gap analysis identified three main areas requiring updates: Changes for consistency with state legislative amendments Updates to Critical Areas within SMP Jurisdiction Changes for consistency with local plans and regulations SMP - City Council Administrative Report 7 Proposed amendments - State Legislative Amendments SMP Definitions Appendix A-1: Development and Nonconforming lot SMP administrative provisions Consistency with Ecology permit filing procedure Exemptions cost thresholds and ADA allowances SMP regulation provisions setback relief criteria for shoreline restoration Critical Areas 4 5/27/2021 Proposed amendments - SMP Critical Area Regulations Changes to Critical Area regulations within Shoreline Jurisdiction required due to changes in state laws and rules Wetlands Incorporate the 2016 CAO regulations into SMP Habitat score 4 Land use intensity Wildlife Habitat Add Habitat Conservation Area standards Include Riparian Management Zone Buffers Photo credit: Meenach, Dean. Shelley Lake. Google Earth. Accessed 2020. SMP - City Council Administrative Report Proposed Amendments - Local Changes Added Accessory Dwelling Units as an exempt use 2016 Comprehensive Plan has policy to expand housing choices ADUs permitted like single family homes Replacing Planning Director references with City Manager Similar to other provisions in the code and provides flexibility Accessory Dwelling 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. Smss<a Spokane \ II \I,�d�;p,l Code, dpp��d6- Dei�uuons. City Council Administrative Report 10 5 5/27/2021 Questions? SMP-CityCouncil Administrative Report 11 6 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 21-007 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN CHAPTER 21.50 SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the Shoreline Management Act (chapter 90.58 RCW) governs shorelines of the state and requires local governments to adopt shoreline programs in compliance with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA); and WHEREAS, RCW 90.58.080 requires local governments to develop or amend master programs for the regulation and uses of the shorelines of the state consistent with the guidelines adopted by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology); and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted a comprehensive shoreline master program (SMP) update pursuant to RCW 90.58.080(2), which was effective as of December 30, 2015; and WHEREAS, RCW 90.58.080(4) requires the City to periodically review and, if necessary, revise its SMP on or before June 30, 2021; and WHEREAS, the review process is intended to bring the SMP into compliance with current changes in laws and rules that have been added or changed since the last SMP amendment; and WHEREAS, in 2020, the City hired the consultant firm The Watershed Company to conduct the periodic review pursuant to RCW 90.58.080(4). The entire review is paid with a grant from Ecology; and WHEREAS, the City developed a public participation program for the periodic review in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(a) to inform, involve and encourage participation of interested persons and private entities, tribes, and applicable agencies having interests and responsibilities relating to shorelines; and WHEREAS, the City has followed the public participation program developed for the periodic update, including developing and maintaining a SMP website that identifies key dates and documents for review, email notifications to interested parties and stakeholder distribution lists, media releases including all the City's social media platforms, and on -hold messaging at various stages in the process; and WHEREAS, the City used Ecology's checklist of legislative and rule amendments to review amendments to chapter 90.58 RCW and department guidelines that have occurred since the SMP was adopted in 2015, and determine if local amendments are needed to maintain compliance in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(i); and WHEREAS, the City reviewed changes to the comprehensive plan and development regulations to determine if the SMP policies and regulations remain consistent with them in accordance with WAC 173- 26-090(3)(b)(ii); and WHEREAS, the City considered whether to incorporate any amendments needed to reflect changed circumstances, new information or improved data in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(iii); and Ordinance 21-007 Page 1 of 4 DRAFT WHEREAS, on February 12, 2021, the City issued a notice of the public hearing stating that the City was accepting public comments for 30 days. The City also published all draft documents on the SMP project webpage and notified the public of their availability; and WHEREAS, a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) environmental checklist was prepared and the City's SEPA responsible official issued and circulated a copy of the checklist and a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) on February 12, 2021; and WHEREAS, the City provided Notice of Intent to Adopt to the Washington State Department of Commerce in accordance with WAC 173-26-100(5); and WHEREAS, the City Solicited comments on the draft proposal from Ecology prior to local approval; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2021, an overview of the proposed SMP amendments and a summary of the adoption process was provided to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the purpose of taking public testimony on the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing on March 11, 2021, the public hearing was closed, except to allow written comments to be submitted by close of business on Friday, March 12, 2021; and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed all public comments and deliberated on the proposed SMP amendments; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 2021, after deliberations, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to adopt the findings recommending to the City Council to adopt the proposed amendments to the SMP; and WHEREAS, this completes the City's required process for periodic review in accordance with RCW 90.58.080(4) and applicable state guidelines (WAC 173-26). NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Review and Evaluation. The City hereby finds that the review and evaluation required by RCW 90.58.080(4) have occurred, as described in the recitals above, which are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in Section 2. Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed updates to the SMP and recommended approval of the revised SMP. The City Council has read and considered the Planning Commission's findings. The City Council adopts the foregoing recitals as findings for this Ordinance, which are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full, and also makes the following conclusions: Conclusions: A. The Council finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) for the SMP. The SMP is consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public Ordinance 21-007 Page 2 of 4 DRAFT health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Specifically the Council concludes the following: 1. The draft SMP amendments are consistent with the following policy and goal of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan: H-P2 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative housing types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, pre -fabricated homes, co -housing, cottage housing, and other housing types. NR-G3 Ensure that Critical Areas and Shoreline Master Program regulations are based on best available science and are consistent with required environmental policy. 2. The draft SMP amendments bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments to the SMP were identified after a review of changes to laws and rules. The proposed amendments implement changes to local and state laws and rules including best available science for wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The proposed amendments maintain the vision and goals adopted in the SMP and Comprehensive Plan. 3. The draft SMP amendments are in compliance with RCW 90.58, WAC 173-26, and the Washington State Shoreline Management Planning Guidelines. B. The Council finds that adequate public noticing was given to offer the public participation opportunities consistent with the adopted SMP Public Engagement Plan. C. The proposed updates to the SMP are necessary to maintain consistency with changes to local and state laws and rules. The proposed text amendments fulfill the City's obligations under state law to review and revise the SMP. Section 3. Amendment of Shoreline Master Program. The City's existing development regulations for the SMP, set forth in chapter 21.50 SVMC and Appendix A-1, are hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and fully incorporated herein. The remaining portions of the chapter 21.50 SVMC and Appendix A-1 shall remain unchanged. Section 4. Submission to Department of Ecology. The City Manager or designee is directed to submit the revised SMP and associated documents to the Department of Ecology for review and approval prior to formal adoption. Once approved by the Department of Ecology, no further action is necessary for compliance with RCW 90.58.080(4) for the periodic review update due on June 30, 2021. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause of phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. The amendments to chapter 21.50 SVMC and Appendix A-1 shall not be effective until 14 days after the Department of Ecology's final action as provided by RCW 90.58.090(7). Ordinance 21-007 Page 3 of 4 DRAFT Passed by the City Council this day of June, 2021 ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Ordinance Effective Date: (Amendments to chapter 21.50 SVMC and Appendix A-1 shall not be effective until 14 days after the Department of Ecology's final action.) Ordinance 21-007 Page 4 of 4 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Chapter 4 - CHAPTER 21.50 - SHORELINE REGULATIONS Article I. Shoreline Permits, Procedures, and Administration 21.50.010 Applicability, Shoreline Permits, and Exemptions To be authorized, all uses and development activities in shorelines shall comply with the City of Spokane Valley's (City) Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(1). All regulations applied within the shoreline shall be liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which they have been enacted. 21.50.020 Applicability A. The SMP shall apply to all shorelands, shorelines, and waters within the City that fall under the jurisdiction of chapter 90.58 RCW. The Shoreline Designations Map is shown in Appendix A. These include: 1. Lands extending 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of waters that fall under the jurisdiction of chapter 90.58 RCW, in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane; 2. Floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; 3. Critical areas within the shoreline and their associated buffer areas; and 4. Lakes that are subject to the provisions of the SMP, as may be amended. B. Maps depicting the extent of shoreline jurisdiction and shoreline designations are for guidance only. They are to be used in conjunction with best available science, field investigations, and on -site surveys to accurately establish the location and extent of the shoreline jurisdiction when a project is proposed. All areas meeting the definition of a shoreline or a Shoreline of Statewide Significance, whether mapped or not, are subject to the provisions of the SMP. Within the City, Shelley Lake is considered a Shoreline of the State and is subject to the provisions of the SMP. The Spokane River is further identified as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. C. The SMP shall apply to every person, individual, firm, partnership, association, organization, corporation, local or state governmental agency, public or municipal corporation, or other non-federal entity that develops, owns, leases, or administers lands, critical areas, or waters that fall under the jurisdiction of the SMA. D. Specific developments identified in WAC 173-27-044 and -045 are not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews. Hazardous substance remedial actions pursuant to a consen decree, order or agreed order iss ed p irci cant to char ter 70 1 050 R(`W are empt from all procedural requirements of the SMP. E. Development may require a shoreline permit in addition to other approvals required from the City, state, and federal agencies. F. The SMP shall apply whether the proposed development or activity is exempt from a shoreline permit or not. G. Definitions relevant to the SMP are set forth in Appendix A-1. If any conflict occurs between the definitions found in Appendix A-1, and Appendix A, the definition provided in Appendix A-1 shall govern. Page 1 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program H. When the provisions set forth in SVMC 21.50 conflict with other provisions of the SMP or with federal or state regulations, those which provide more substantive protection to the shoreline shall apply. 21.50.030 Administrative Authority and Responsibility A. The City Manager or designee is the City's has designated the Community Development Director (Director) as the City's shoreline administrator, who shall carry out the provisions of the SMP and who shall have the authority to act upon the following matters: 1. Interpretation, enforcement, and administration of the SMP; 2. Modifications or revisions to approved shoreline permits as provided in the SMP; and 3. Requests for Letters of Exemption. B. The -Director City Manage, shall ensure compliance with the provisions of the SMP for all shoreline permits and approvals processed by the City pursuant to SVMC 21.50.100, 21.50.110, 21.50.130, and 21.50.140. C. The')arectorCity Manage shall document all project review actions in the shoreline jurisdiction in order to periodically evaluate the cumulative effects of authorized development on shoreline conditions, pursuant to WAC 173-26-191(2)(a)(iii)(D). D. The DirectorCity CVianage shall consult with Ecology to ensure that any formal written interpretations are consistent with the purpose and intent of chapter 90.58 RCW and the applicable guidelines of chapter 173-26 and 173-27 WAC. 21.50.040 Types of Shoreline Permits Developments and uses within the shoreline jurisdiction may be authorized through one or more of the following: A. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.100, for substantial development. B. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.130, for projects identified in SVMC 21.50.190 or uses not specified in the SMP. C. Letters of Exemption, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.120, for projects or activities meeting the criteria of RCW 90.58.030(3)(e) and WAC 173-27-040(2). D. Shoreline Variance, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140. 21.50.050 Development Authorization Review Procedure A. Complete development applications and appeals shall be processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures, SVMC 17.90 Appeals, and with any specific process requirements provided in SVMC 21.50 including: 1. Submittals; 2. Completeness review; 3. Notices; 4. Hearings; 5. Decisions; and 6. Appeals. B. The following procedures shall also apply to development authorizations within the shoreline jurisdiction: Page 2 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 1 The public comment period for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits shall be 30 days, pursuant to WAC 173-27-110. 2. The public comment period for limited utility extensions and shoreline stabilization measures for bulkheads to protect a single-family residence and its appurtenant structures shall be 20 days, pursuant to WAC 173-27-120. 3. For limited utility extensions and bulkheads for a single-family residence, a decision shall be issued within 21 days from the last day of the comment period, pursuant to WAC 173-27-120. 4. The effective date of a shoreline permit shall conform to WAC 173-27-090 and shall be the latter of the permit date, or the date of final action on subsequent appeals of the shoreline permit, if any, unless the Applicant notifies the shoreline administrator of delays in other necessary construction permits. 5. The expiration dates for a shoreline permit pertaining to the start and completion of construction, and the extension of deadlines for those dates shall conform to WAC 173-27-090 and are: a. Construction shall be started within two years of the effective date of the shoreline permit; b. Construction shall be completed within five years of the effective date of the shoreline permit; c. A single one-year extension of the deadlines may be granted at the discretion of the DirectorCity Manager; and d. The DirectorCity Manager may set alternative permit expiration dates as a condition of the shoreline permit if just cause exists. 6 The decision and the application materials shall be sent to Ecology after the local decision and any local appeal procedures have been completed, pursuant to WAC 173-27-130. 7 For Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Ecology shall file the permit without additional action pursuant to WAC 173-27-130. 8. For Shoreline Conditional Use permits and Variance decisions, Ecology shall issue a decision within 30 days of the date of filing, pursuant to WAC 173-27-130 and WAC 173-27-200. 9. The appeal period to the Shorelines Hearings Board of an Ecology action shall be 21 days from the date of filing pursuant to WAC 173-27-190. The date of filling shall be as follows a. Ffor projects that orris require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit_; ethe i:fue date of a Shoreline Conditional Use permit or Varianccthat Ecology actually receives a final decision by the City; pursuant to WAC 173 27 190. b. For a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Variance: the date that Ecology's decision on the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Variance is transmitted to the applicant and the City. c. For Substantial Development Permits simultaneously mailed with a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Variance to Ecology: the date that Ecology's decision on the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Variance is transmitted to the applicant and the City. 10. The Shorelines Hearings Board will follow the rules governing that body, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. C. Development applications shall be reviewed for conformance with SVMC 21.50.180 through 21.50.560. Page 3 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 21.50.060 Authorization Decisions - Basis for Action A. Approval or denial of any development or use within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be based upon the following: 1. Danger to life and property that would likely occur as a result of the project; 2. Compatibility of the project with the critical area features on, adjacent to, or near the property, shoreline values and ecological functions, and public access and navigation; 3. Conformance with the applicable development standards in SVMC 21.50; 4. Requirements of other applicable local, state, or federal permits or authorizations; 5. Adequacy of the information provided by the Applicant or available to the UircctoFC. ty IVManagel ; and 6. Ability of the project to satisfy the purpose and intent of the SMP. B. Based upon the project evaluation, the DirectorCity Manage shall take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the development or use; 2. Approve the development or use with conditions, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.070; or 3. Deny the development or use. C. The decision by the DirectorCity Manage on the development or use shall include written findings and conclusions stating the reasons upon which the decision is based. 21.50.070 Conditions of Approval When approving any development or use, the t?irectorCity Manages may impose conditions to: A. Accomplish the purpose and intent of the SMP; B. Eliminate or mitigate any negative impacts of the project on critical areas, and on shoreline functions; C. Restore important resource features that have been degraded or lost on the project site; D. Protect designated critical areas and shoreline jurisdiction from damaging and incompatible development; or E. Ensure compliance with specific development standards in SVMC 21.50. 21.50.080 Prohibited Activities and Uses The following activities and uses are prohibited in all shoreline designations and are not eligible for a shoreline permit, including a Conditional Use or Shoreline Variance. See Table 21.50-1 and Table 21.50-2. A. Uses not allowed in the underlying zoning district; B. Discharge of solid wastes, liquid wastes, untreated effluents, or other potentially harmful materials; C. Solid waste or hazardous waste landfills; D. Speculative fill; Page 4 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program E. Dredging or dredge material disposal in wetlands; F Dredging or dredge material disposal to construct land canals or small basins for boat moorage or launching, water ski landings, swimming holes, or other recreational activities; G. Commercial timber harvest or other forest practices; H. Agriculture and aquaculture; Non water -oriented Industrial Uses and Mining; and J. The construction of breakwaters, jetties, groins, or weirs. 21.50.090 Minor Activities Allowed Without a Shoreline Permit or Letter of Exemption The SMP applies to the following activities, however, they are allowed without a shoreline permit or Letter of Exemption: A. Maintenance of existing landscaping (including paths and trails) or gardens within the shoreline, including a regulated critical area or its buffer. Examples include mowing lawns, weeding, harvesting and replanting of garden crops, pruning, and planting of non- invasive ornamental vegetation or indigenous native species to maintain the general condition and extent of such areas. Removing trees and shrubs within a buffer is not considered a maintenance activity. See SVMC 21.50.260 for regulations regarding vegetation removal. Excavation, filling, and construction of new landscaping features are not considered a maintenance activity and may require a shoreline permit or letter of exemption. B. Minor maintenance and/or repair of lawfully established structures that do not involve additional construction, earthwork, or clearing. Examples include painting, trim or facing replacement, re -roofing, etc. Construction or replacement of structural elements is not covered in this provision, but may be covered under an exemption in SVMC 21.50.110(B). C. Cleaning canals, ditches, drains, wasteways, etc. without expanding their original configuration is not considered additional earthwork, as long as the cleared materials are placed outside the shoreline jurisdiction, wetlands, and buffers. D. Creation of unimproved private trails that do not cross streams or wetlands and which are less than two feet wide and do not involve placement of fill or grubbing of vegetation. E. Planting of native vegetation. F. Noxious weed control outside of buffers pursuant to SVMC 21.50.110(M) except for area wide vegetation removal/grubbing. G. Noxious weed control within vegetative buffers, if the criteria listed below is met. Control methods not meeting these criteria may still apply for a restoration exemption, or other authorization as applicable: 1. Hand removal/spraying of individual plants only; and 2. No area -wide vegetation removal/grubbing. Page 5 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program H. Pruning, thinning, or dead or hazardous tree removal pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260(C). 21.50.100 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Required A. Classification Criteria - A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required for any substantial development unless the use or development is specifically exempt pursuant to SVMC 21.50.090 or 21.50.110. B. Process - Shoreline Substantial Development Permits shall be processed as a Type II review pursuant to SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures, subject to the exceptions set forth in SVMC 21.50.050. C. Decision Criteria - A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit may be issued when all applicable requirements of the SMA, WAC 173-27, and the SMP have been met. 21.50.110 Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permit The activities listed below, or as amended by RCW 90.58.030(3) and WAC 173-27-040, are exempt from the requirement to obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. T pursuant to WAC 173 27 N0. These activities still require a letter of exemption and may require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline Variance, or other development permits from the City or other agencies. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for a Letter of Exemption, then a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required for the entire proposed development project. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemptions from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. A. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value does not exceed $7,047$6,1116 or as adjusted by the State Office of Financial Management, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or Shorelines of the State. For purposes of determining whether or not a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required, the total cost or fair market value shall be based on the value of development as defined in RCW 90.58.030(`- (c3). The total cost or fair market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed, or found labor, equipment, or materials. B. Normal maintenance or repair of existing legally -established structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire, or elements. 1. Normal maintenance includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. 2. Normal repair means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location, and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resource or environment. 3. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is: a. The common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location, and external appearance; and Page 6 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program b. The replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment. C. Construction of a normal protective bulkhead common to residential lots: 1. A normal protective bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the OHWM for the sole purpose of protecting an existing residence and appurtenant structures from loss or damage by erosion. 2. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if constructed for the purpose of creating dry land. When a vertical or near vertical wall is being constructed or reconstructed, not more than one cubic yard of fill per one foot of wall may be used as backfill. 3. When an existing bulkhead is being repaired by construction of a vertical wall fronting the existing wall, it shall be constructed no further waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings. When a bulkhead has deteriorated such that an OHWM has been established by the presence and action of water landward of the bulkhead then the replacement bulkhead must be located at or near the actual OHWM. 4. Beach nourishment and bioengineered erosion control projects may be considered a normal protective bulkhead when any structural elements are consistent with the above requirements and when the project has been approved by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). D. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An "emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment that requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with Chapter 21.50. 1. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective structures are deemed by the Director to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation the new structure shall be removed or any permit that would have been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, WAC 173-27, or the SMP, shall be obtained. 2. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies and requirements of chapter 90.58 RCW and the SMP. As a general matter, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency. E. Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys. F. Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-family residence or appurtenance for their own use or for the use of their family, which residence does not exceed a height of 35 feet above average grade level, and which meets all requirements of the City, other than requirements imposed pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. Construction authorized under this subsection shall be located landward of the OHWM. G. Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private non-commercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single - Page 7 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program family or multiple -family residence. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage facilities, or other appurtenances. This exception applies when the fair market value of the dock does not exceed $22,500$20,000 for docks that are constructed to replace existing docks and are of equal or lesser square footage than the existing dock being replaced;- $11,200 for all other docks; or as amended by WAC 173-27-040. However, if subsequent construction occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, and the combined fair market value of the subsequent and prior construction exceeds the amounts specified in this subsection, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development.but if subsequent construction having a fair market value exceeding $2,500 occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development. The amounts in this subsection shall automatically be adjusted as provided by the State Office of Financial Management. H. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored ground water from the irrigation of lands. The marking of property lines or corners on state-owned lands, when such marking does not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water. J. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system. K. Any project with a State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council certification from the governor pursuant to RCW 80.50. L. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorization under this chapter, if: 1. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of surface waters; 2. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including but not limited to fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values; 3. The activity does not involve the installation of any structure, and upon completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity; and 4. The Applicant first posts a performance surety acceptable to the City to ensure that the site is restored to pre-existing conditions. M. Removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control published by the Department of Agriculture or Ecology jointly with other state agencies under RCW 43.21 C. N. Watershed restoration projects as defined in WAC 173.27.040(2)(o). The Director shall determine if the project is substantially consistent with the SMP and notify the Applicant of such determination by letter. Page 8 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program O. A public or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage as reviewed by WDFW and all of the following apply: 1. The project has been approved in writing by the WDFW; 2. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the WDFW pursuant to chapter 77.55 RCW; and 3. The Director has determined that the project is substantially consistent with the SMP and shall notify the Applicant of such determination by letter. 21.50.120 Letter of Exemption A. The proponent of an activity exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall apply for a Letter of Exemption. All activities exempt from the requirement for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall use reasonable methods to avoid impacts to critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction. Being exempt from the requirements for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit does not give authority to degrade a critical area, or shoreline, or ignore risk from natural hazards. B. The DirectorCity Manage shall review the Letter of Exemption request to verify compliance with the SMP and shall approve or deny such Letter of Exemption. C. If a Letter of Exemption is issued, it shall be sent to Ecology, the Applicant, and a copy retained by the City. D. A Letter of Exemption may contain conditions and/or mitigating conditions of approval to achieve consistency and compliance with the provisions of the SMP and the SMA. E. A denial of a Letter of Exemption shall be in writing and shall list the reason(s) for the denial. 21.50.130 Shoreline Conditional Use Permit A. Classification Criteria - Shoreline conditional uses are those uses within the shoreline jurisdiction identified in Table 21.50-1 Shoreline Use Table, which require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. B. Unclassified uses not specifically identified in Table 21.50-1 may be authorized through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, provided the Applicant can demonstrate consistency with the requirements of SVMC 21.50. C. Process - A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit shall be processed as a Type II review pursuant to SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. The lirectorCity Manager shall be the final authority for the City, whose recommendation is then forwarded to Ecology. Ecology shall have final approval authority pursuant to WAC 173-27-200. D. Decision Criteria - The iDirectc,rCity Manaoe 's decision on a conditional use shall be based upon the criteria set forth in SVMC 19.150.030 and 21.50.060 Conditions and Requirements, together with the criteria established below. The Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the JirectorL tv IVManager that the development meets all of the following criteria: 1. The use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020; 2. The use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; 3. The use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other permitted uses in the area; Page 9 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 4. The use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment designation in which it is located; and 5. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. E. Consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if Shoreline Conditional Use Permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist for similar uses and impacts, the total cumulative effect of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. F. The burden of proving that the project is consistent with the applicable criteria shall be upon the Applicant. 21.50.140 Shoreline Variance A. The purpose of a Shoreline Variance is to grant relief to specific bulk or dimensional requirements set forth in SVMC 21.50 where extraordinary or unique circumstances exist relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the standards would impose unnecessary hardships on the Applicant, or thwart the policies set forth in the SMA and the SMP. B. When a development or use is proposed that does not meet requirements of the bulk, dimensional, and/or performance standards of the SMP, such development may only be authorized by approval of a Shoreline Variance, even if the development or use does not require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. C. Process - A Shoreline Variance shall be processed as a Type II review pursuant to SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. Each request for a Shoreline Variance shall be considered separately and prior to any decision on a development application. Any decision to approve or conditionally approve the development will include and specifically cite only those variances approved for inclusion with the project. D. When a Shoreline Variance is requested, the DirectorCity Manage shall be the final authority for the City. The OirectorCity Manage 's determination shall be provided to Ecology for review. Ecology shall have final approval authority of Shoreline Variances pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(10). E. Decision Criteria - To qualify for a Shoreline Variance, the following shall be required: 1. Demonstrate compliance with the criteria established in SVMC 21.50.060 Authorization Decisions - Basis for Action. 2. A Shoreline Variance request for a development or use located landward of the OHWM, or landward of any wetland shall cite the specific standard or condition from which relief is requested and be accompanied by evidence that demonstrates the variance is consistent with all of the items below: a. That the strict application of a standard precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; b. That the hardship described in subsection (a) is specifically related to the property, and is a result of unique natural or physical conditions, such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features which do not allow compliance with the standard. The site constraint shall not be the result of a deed Page 10 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program restriction, a lack of knowledge of requirements involved when the property was acquired, or other actions resulting from the proponent's own actions; c. The project is generally compatible with other permitted or authorized uses in the project area, with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and the SMP, and will not cause adverse impacts to the area; d. The requested variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area, and the variance is the minimum necessary to afford the requested relief; and e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 3. A Shoreline Variance request for a development or use located waterward of the OHWM, or within any wetland shall cite the specific standard or condition from which relief is requested and be accompanied by evidence that demonstrates the variance is consistent with all of the items below: a. That the strict application of a standard would preclude all reasonable use of the property; b. That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection (2)(b) through (e) of this section; and c. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. 4. In the granting of any Shoreline Variance, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like variances in the area. For example, if Shoreline Variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of the SMA and SMP and shall not cause substantial adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. F. The burden of proving that a proposed variance meets the criteria of the SMP and WAC 173-27-170 shall be on the Applicant. Absence of such proof shall be a basis for denial of the application. 21.50.150 Nonconforming Development A. Classification Criteria — A use, structure, appurtenant structure, or lot is nonconforming if it was legally established but is inconsistent with a subsequently adopted regulation or regulations. Lawful uses, structures, appurtenant structures, and lots that are deemed nonconforming are subject to the provision of this section. B. Process and Decision Criteria 1. Decisions on projects that require review under this section shall be made pursuant to SVMC 21.50.060 Authorization Decisions - Basis for Action and the following criteria. 2. Legal nonconforming uses and structures shall be allowed to continue with no additional requirements except as otherwise addressed in this section. 3. Nonconforming Uses. a. Additional development of any property on which a nonconforming use exists shall require that all new uses conform to the SMP. b. Intensification or expansion of nonconforming uses that will not result in an increase of nonconformity shall be allowed and will be processed under these nonconforming provisions as a Type II review, pursuant to SVMC Title 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. Page 11 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program c. Change of ownership, tenancy, or management of a nonconforming use shall not affect its nonconforming status provided that the use does not change or intensify. d. If a nonconforming use is converted to a conforming use, a nonconforming use may not be resumed. e. Conversion from one nonconforming use to another may only be approved through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit pursuant to SVMC 21.50.130(E) if the following additional criteria are met: The property is located within a residential or conservancy shoreline environment; ii. The replacement use is either of a similar intensity to the previous nonconforming use, or is more conforming with the intent of the applicable Shoreline Environment Policies; and The impacts to the shoreline ecological functions from the existing use are reduced by changing the use. f. When the operation of a nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of 12 consecutive months, the nonconforming use rights shall expire and the future use of such property shall meet all current applicable regulations of the SMP. g. If a conforming building housing a nonconforming use is damaged, the use may be resumed at the time the building is repaired, provided a permit application for the restoration is received by the City within 12 months following said damage. h. Normal maintenance and repair of a structure housing a nonconforming use may be permitted provided all work is consistent with the provisions of the SMP. Legally established residences are considered conforming uses. 4. Nonconforming Structures. a. A nonconforming structure may be maintained or repaired, provided such improvements do not increase the nonconformity of such structure and are consistent with the remaining provisions of the SMP. b. Alterations to legal nonconforming structures that: Will result in an increase of nonconformity to the structures, including expanding within the buffer, may be allowed under a Shoreline Variance pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140; or ii Do not increase the existing nonconformity and will otherwise conform to all other provisions of SVMC 21.50 are allowed without additional review. c. A nonconforming structure that is moved any distance within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be brought into conformance with the SMP. d. A damaged nonconforming structure may be reconstructed or replaced, regardless of the amount of damage if: The rebuilt structure or portion of structure does not expand or modify the original footprint or height of the damaged structure unless: (1). The expansion or modification does not increase the degree of nonconformity with the current regulations; and (2). The reconstructed or restored structure will not cause additional adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; Page 12 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program ii. It is not relocated except to increase conformity or to increase ecological function, in which case the structure shall be located in the least environmentally damaging location possible; The permit application to restore the development is made within 12 months of the date the damage occurred; and iv. Any residential structures, including multi -family structures, may be reconstructed up to the size, placement, and density that existed prior to the damage, so long as other provisions of the SMP are met. 5. Nonconforming Lots. Legally established nonconforming, undeveloped lots located landward of the OHWM are buildable, provided that all new structures or additions to structures on any nonconforming lot must meet all setback, height, and other construction requirements of the SMP and the SMA. 21.50.160 Minor Revisions to Approved Uses or Developments A. Classification Criteria - Minor revisions to a project that have been approved under a shoreline permit are allowed in certain circumstances. 1. Changes that are not substantive are not required to obtain a revision and may be allowed as part of the original shoreline permit. Examples include, but are not limited to, minor changes in facility orientation or location, minor changes in structural design that do not change the height or increase ground floor area, and minor accessory structures such as equipment covers or small sheds near the main structure. 2. Substantive changes are those that materially alter the project in a manner that relates to its conformance with the shoreline permit and SMP requirements. Such changes may be approved as a minor revision if: a. The DirectorCity Manager determines that the proposed revision and all previous revisions are within the scope and intent of the original shoreline permit; b. The use authorized with the original shoreline permit does not change; c. The project revision does not cause additional significant adverse environmental impacts; d. No new structures are proposed; and e. The criteria in SVMC 21.50.160(A)(3) are met. 3. Substantive changes shall comply with the following to be approved as a minor revision: a. No additional over -water construction shall be involved, except that pier, dock, or swimming float construction may be increased by 10 percent from the provisions of the original shoreline permit; b. Lot coverage and height approved with the original shoreline permit may be increased a maximum of 10 percent if the proposed revisions do not exceed the requirements for height or lot coverage pursuant to SVMC 21.50.220 Dimensional Standards and SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations; and c. Landscaping may be added to a project without necessitating an application for a new shoreline permit if the landscaping is consistent with permit conditions (if any) and SVMC 21.50. 4. Substantive changes which cannot meet these requirements shall require a new shoreline permit. Any additional shoreline permit shall be processed under the applicable terms of this chapter. Page 13 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program B. Process - Requests for minor revisions to existing shoreline permits shall be processed as a Type I review, pursuant to SVMC Title 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. Parties of record to the original shoreline permit shall be notified of the request for revision, although a comment period is not required. A minor revision for a project within shoreline jurisdiction shall follow state filing, appeal, and approval standards pursuant to WAC 173-27-100 Revisions to Permits. C. Decision Criteria - Decisions on minor revisions shall be pursuant to SVMC 21.50.060 Authorization Decisions — Basis for Action. 21.50.170 Enforcement A. Enforcement of the SMP, including the provisions of SVMC 21.50, shall be pursuant to SVMC 17.100. Nothing herein or within SVMC 17.100 shall be construed to require enforcement of the SMP and SVMC 21.50 in a particular manner or to restrict the discretion of the DirectorCity Manage' in determining how and when to enforce the SMP and SVMC 21.50; provided all enforcement shall be consistent with the policies of the SMP and SVMC 21.50. B. Upon a determination that a violation of the SMP, including SVMC 21.50, has occurred, no further development may be authorized unless and until compliance with any applicable shoreline and development permit or process conditions and requirements of SVMC 21.50 have been achieved to the satisfaction of the >irectorCity IVlanaQer. C. For violations affecting a critical area, the party(s) responsible for the violation and the owner shall meet the following minimum performance standards to achieve the restoration requirements, as applicable: 1. A restoration plan shall be prepared and address the following: a. Restoration of historical structural and functional values, including water quality and habitat functions; b. Ensure that replacement soils will be viable for planting and will not create a less fertile growing conditions; c. Replacement of native vegetation within the critical area, and buffers with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types, sizes, and densities; d. Replication of the historic functions and values at the location of the alteration; e. Annual performance monitoring reports demonstrating compliance with mitigation plan requirements shall be submitted for a minimum two-year period; and f. As -built drawings and other information demonstrating compliance with other applicable provisions of the SMP shall be submitted. 2. The following additional performance standards shall be met for restoration of frequently flooded areas and geological hazards and be included in the restoration plan: a. The hazard shall be reduced to a level equal to, or less than, the pre - development hazard; b. Any risk of personal injury resulting from the alteration shall be eliminated; and c. The hazard area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation sufficient to minimize the hazard. Page 14 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 3. The )irectorCity Manager may, at the violator's expense, consult with a Qualified Professional to determine if the plan meets the requirements of the SMP. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the violator for revision and resubmittal. Article II. Shoreline Regulations 21.50.180 General provisions A. General Regulations. 1. Regulations in SVMC 21.50.180 through 21.50.290 are in addition to the specific use regulations in SVMC 21.50.300 through 21.50.450 and other adopted rules, including but not limited to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Spokane Valley Street Standards, and the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual, as adopted or amended. 2. All permitted and exempt projects within the shoreline jurisdiction shall ensure that the no net loss of ecological functions standard is met. SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing and SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation contain appropriate methods to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological function. The City may also condition project dimensions, location of project components on the site, intensity of use, screening, parking requirements, and setbacks, as deemed appropriate. 3. All shoreline uses and modifications shall obtain all necessary permits from the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies and shall operate in compliance with all permit requirements. 4. Deviations from regulations may be granted through a Shoreline Variance, which requires approval by both the City and Ecology. Shoreline modifications listed in Table 21.50-2 as "prohibited" are not eligible for consideration as a Shoreline Variance. 5. New projects, including the subdivision of land and related construction of single- family residences, are prohibited when the use or development requires structural flood hazard reduction or other structural stabilization measures within the shoreline to support the proposed or future development. 6. When a proposal contains two or more use activities, including accessory uses, the most restrictive use category shall apply to the entire proposal. 7 Structures, uses, and activities shall be designed and managed to minimize blocking, reducing, or adversely interfering with the public's visual access to the water and the shorelines from public lands which are within the shoreline jurisdiction and excluding public roads. 8. Structures and sites shall be designed with landscaping, vegetated buffers, exterior materials, and lighting that are aesthetically compatible with the shoreline environment. 9. When a study is required to comply with SVMC 21.50, it shall be performed by Qualified Professional registered in the State of Washington. 10. All clearing and grading activities shall comply with SVMC 24.50 Land Disturbing Activities. Adherence to the following is required during project construction: a. Materials adequate to immediately correct emergency erosion situations shall be maintained on site; b. All debris, overburden, and other waste materials from construction shall be disposed of in such a manner so as to prevent their entry into a water body. Such materials from construction shall not be stored or disposed of on or adjacent to Shorelines of the State; Page 15 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program c. The shoreline buffer shall be clearly marked on the ground prior to and during construction activities to avoid impacts to the buffer; and d. Infrastructure used in, on, or over the water shall be constructed using materials that do not contaminate the water or interfere with navigation. B. The City may consult with agencies with expertise or jurisdiction over the resources during the review of any permit or process to assist with analysis and identification of appropriate performance measures that adequately safeguard shoreline and critical areas. C. The LiirectorCity Manage may consult with a Qualified Professional to review a critical areas report when City staff lack the resources or expertise to review these materials. The City may require the Applicant to pay for or reimburse the City for the consultant fees. 21.50.190 Shoreline Uses Table A. Uses and activities are categorized within each shoreline environment as allowed, permitted, conditional use, or prohibited, as defined in this section. This priority system determines the applicable permit or process, administrative requirements, and allows activities that are compatible with each shoreline designation. Procedures and criteria for obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Letter of Exemption, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and Shoreline Variance are set forth in SVMC 21.50.040. These uses shall also meet the requirements of SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations. B. The following terms shall be used in conjunction with Shoreline Use and Modification Tables provided in SVMC 21.50.190 and SVMC 21.50.200. Allowed Use: These are uses that are exempt from the shoreline permit review process and do not require submittal of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Letter of Exemption application. Projects or uses shall be reviewed to ensure that all requirements contained in SVMC 21.50 are met. Building permit applications or site plans are the general method of review. Permitted Use: These are uses which are preferable and meet the policies of the particular shoreline environment designation. They require submittal of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or a Letter of Exemption application. An exemption is subject to an administrative approval process; a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit requires public notice, comment periods, and filing with Ecology. Conditional Use: A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is intended to allow for flexibility and the exercise of judgment in the application of regulations in a manner consistent with the policies of the SMA and the SMP. Prohibited: These are uses which are viewed as inconsistent with the definition, policies, or intent of the shoreline environmental designation. For the purposes of the SMP, these uses are considered inappropriate and are not authorized under any permit or process. Table 21.50-1 - Shoreline Uses, below, shall be used to determine the permit or process required for specific shoreline uses and activities within the shoreline jurisdiction. Page 16 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Table 21.50-1: Shoreline Uses SHORELINE USES Shoreline Residential — Upland Shoreline Residential — Waterfront Urban Conservancy Urban Conservancy — High Quality Aquatic Agricultural Activities Aquaculture Boating Facilities (Including launches, ramps, public/commercial docks, and private docks serving more than four residences) N/A P C 1 Commercial Use Water -dependent P2 P2 C Water -related and water -enjoyment P2 P2 P2 C Non water -oriented P2,3 Forest Practices Industrial Use Water -dependent P C Water -related and water -enjoyment P Non water -oriented P3 In -stream Structures As part of a fish habitat enhancement project N/A P P P P Other N/A P P P Mining Parking Facilities As a primary use As an accessory/secondary use P P P C Recreational Use Water -dependent P P P P P Water -related and water -enjoyment P P P P P Non water -oriented P P P C4 C Trails and walkways P P P C5 P Residential Use Single-family A A A A Single-family residential accessory uses and structures A A A A Multi -family P P P Private docks serving one to four single-family residences N/A P P P Accessory Dwelling Units Transportation Facilities Page 17 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program New circulation routes related to permitted shoreline activities P P C C Expansion of existing circulation systems P P P P New, reconstructed, or maintenance of bridges, trail, or rail crossings P P P P P Public Facilities and Utilities Public facilities C C C C Utilities and utility crossings C C C C C Routine maintenance of existing utility corridor and infrastructure A6 A6 A6 P7 A6 KEY: A= Allowed Applicable Notes: For Boating Facilities within the aquatic environment, the adjacent upland environment as set forth on the City Environment Designation Map shall govern (i.e., if the aquatic environment is adjacent to Shoreline Residential - Waterfront designated shorelines, the use would be permitted). 2 Commercial uses are allowed in the Shoreline Residential - Upland, Shoreline Residential - Waterfront and Urban Conservancy Environments only if the underlying zoning of the property is Mixed Use Center. 3 Permitted only if the applicable criteria in SVMC 21.50.320(B)(1) or 21.50.330(B)(1) are met. 4 Non water -oriented recreation uses are prohibited in Urban Conservation - High Quality Shorelines except limited public uses that have minimal or low impact on shoreline ecological functions, such as the Centennial Trail and appropriately -scaled day use areas which may be allowed through a Conditional Use Permit. 5 Modifications, improvements, or additions to the Centennial Trail are permitted in the Urban Conservancy - High Quality Environment. 6 A Letter of Exemption is required if the maintenance activity involves any ground disturbing activity. A Letter of Exemption is required. P= Permitted C= Conditional Use Blank= Prohibited N/A= Not 21.50.200 Shoreline Modification Activities Table Table 21.50-2, Shoreline Modification Activities, below, shall be used to determine whether a specific shoreline modification is allowed in a shoreline environment. Shoreline modifications may be permitted, approved as a conditional use, or prohibited, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.190. Shoreline modifications shall also meet the requirements of SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations. Page 18 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Table 21.50-2: Shoreline Modification Activities SHORELINE MODIFICATION ACTIVITY Shoreline Residential — Upland Shoreline Residential — Waterfront Urban Conservancy Urban Conservancy — High Quality Aquatic Shoreline/Slope Stabilization Structural, such as bulkheads P P 1 Nonstructural, such as soil bioengineering P P P Piers and Docks Piers N/A P C 1 Viewing Platforms P P P Docks N/A P C Dredging and Fill Dredging C C C C Fill C C C C Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects P P P P P Groins and Weirs N/A C C C KEY: P= Permitted C= Conditional Use Blank= Prohibited N/A= Not Applicable For these uses within the aquatic environment, the adjacent upland environment as set forth on the Environment Designation Map shall govern (i.e., if the aquatic environment is adjacent to Shoreline Residential - Waterfront designated shorelines, "hard" shoreline stabilization measures would be allowed by Shoreline Substantial Development Permit). 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing A. Applicability. This section applies to all shoreline activities, uses, development, and modifications, including those that are exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. B. Standards. 1. All projects shall result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The requirement for no net loss may be met through project design, construction, and operations. Additionally, this standard may be achieved by following the mitigation sequencing pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210(6)(4) and SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation. The City may condition project dimensions, location of project components on the site, intensity of use, screening, parking requirements, and setbacks, as deemed appropriate to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological function. 2. Required mitigation shall not exceed the level necessary to ensure that the proposed use or development will ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Page 19 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 3. Mitigation sequencing pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210(B)(4) is required when specified in these regulations or for projects that: a. Involve shoreline modifications; b. Request a buffer or setback reduction pursuant to SVMC 21.50.230 Shoreline Buffers and Building Setbacks; c. Are located within a wetland or its buffer; or d. Will have significant probable adverse environmental impacts that must be avoided or mitigated. 4. Mitigation measures shall be applied in the following order: a. Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; b. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology; c. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; d. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; e. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and f. Monitor the impact and the compensation projects and take appropriate corrective measures, as needed. 21.50.220 Height Limit Standards A. Applicability. This section applies to all new or redeveloped primary and residential accessory structures. B. Standards. 1. The maximum height limit for all new or redeveloped primary structures shall be 35 feet. 2. The maximum height limit for single-family residential accessory or appurtenant structures shall be 25 feet. 3. These height limit standards may be altered through a Shoreline Variance pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140. 21.50.230 Shoreline Buffers and Building Setbacks A. Applicability. This section applies to all new construction, new and expanded uses, and modifications. Shoreline buffers are shown on the City Shoreline Buffer Map in Appendix A-2 Shoreline Buffers. B. Standards. 1. Unless otherwise specified in SVMC 21.50, buffers shall be maintained in predominantly natural, undisturbed, undeveloped, and vegetated condition. 2. The shoreline buffer shall be clearly marked on the ground prior to and during construction activities to avoid impacts to the buffer. 3. Shoreline buffers for new and expanded uses may be reduced up to 25 percent by the ,lector' tv IVianacit, if the buffer widths have not been reduced or modified by any other prior action and one or more of the following conditions apply: a. Adherence of the buffer width would not allow reasonable use; b. The buffer contains variations in sensitivity to ecological impacts due to existing physical characteristics; i.e. the buffer varies in slope, soils, or Page 20 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program vegetation. This shall be supported by a Habitat Management Plan developed in conformance with SVMC 21.50.540(F€)(12)�; or c. Where shoreline restoration is proposed consistent with the City's Restoration Plan. 4. Building Setback from the shoreline buffer shall be as shown in Table 21.50-3: Table 21.50-3 Buffer Building Setbacks Environment Urban Conservancy Urban Conservancy — High Quality Shoreline Residential - Upland Shoreline Residential - Waterfront Setback 10 foot 15 foot 0 foot 1 0 foot 1 A 15-foot building setback from the shoreline buffer shall be required for any subdivision, binding site plan, or planned residential development in the Shoreline Residential — Upland and Shoreline Residential — Waterfront designations. a. Front, rear, and side setbacks and lot coverage shall conform to the SVMC Title 19, Zoning Regulations. 21.50.240 Flood Hazard Reduction A. Applicability. This section applies to development proposals: 1 Intended to reduce flood damage or hazard; 2. To construct temporary or permanent shoreline modifications or structures within the regulated floodplains or floodways; or 3. That may increase flood hazards. B. Standards. 1. All proposals shall conform to SVMC 21.30 Floodplain Regulation, SVMC 21.50.340, In -stream Structures and SVMC 21.50.410 Shoreline Modifications. 2. The following uses and activities may be allowed within the floodplain or floodway: a. Actions or projects that protect or restore the ecosystem -wide processes and/or ecological functions; b. New bridges, utility lines, and other public utility and transportation structures, with appropriate mitigation, where no other feasible alternative exists; c. Repair and maintenance of an existing legal structure, utility corridor, or transportation structure, provided that such actions do not increase flood hazards to other uses; d. Modifications, expansions, or additions to an existing legal use; and e. Measures to reduce shoreline erosion. 3. Natural in -stream features such as snags, uprooted trees, or stumps shall be left in place unless an engineered assessment demonstrates that they are causing bank erosion or higher flood stages. 21.50.250 Public Access A. Applicability. This section applies to all new projects by public and private entities. B. Standards. Page 21 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 1 Public access shall be consistent with the City's SMP Public Access Plan. 2. Public access may only be required as a condition of approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Conditional Use Permit to the extent allowed by law and in a manner consistent with the City's Public Access Plan, and only in the following circumstances: a. The use or development is a public project; or b. The project is a private use or development and one of the following conditions exists: The project impacts, interferes with, blocks, discourages, or eliminates existing access; ii. The project increases or creates demand for public access that is not met by existing opportunities or facilities; or The project impacts or interferes with public use of waters subject to the Public Trust Doctrine. 3. Public access shall not be required for activities qualifying for a letter of exemption or new single-family residential development of four or fewer units. 4. All developments, including shoreline permits or letter of exemption applications, which require or propose public access shall include a narrative that identifies: a. Impacts to existing access, including encroachment, increased traffic, and added populations; b. The access needs of the development consistent with those described for similar projects in the Public Access Plan, Section Four; and c. The proposed location, type, and size of the public access. 5. When public access is required pursuant to SVMC 21.50.250(B)(2)(b), the City shall impose permit conditions requiring public access that are roughly proportional to the impacts caused or the demand created by the proposed use or development. 6. Prior to requiring public access as a condition of approval of any shoreline permit or letter of exemption pursuant to SVMC 21.50.250(B)(2)(b), the .. arc ctorCAty Manage shall determine and make written findings of fact stating that the use or development satisfies any of the conditions in SVMC 21.50.250(B)(2)(b) and that any public access required is roughly proportional to the impacts caused or the demand created by the proposed use or development. 7 When public access is required or proposed, the following shall apply: a. Mitigation sequencing shall be required to mitigate adverse impacts resulting from the public access. b. Visual access to the shoreline may be established if any vegetation removal is pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation. c. Public access sites shall be connected to the nearest public street or other public access point. d. Future trails on private property, including trail extensions and new access points, shall incorporate enhancement and restoration measures and be contained within a recorded easement. e. Required public access sites shall be fully developed and available for public use at the time of occupancy or use of the project or activity. f. Public and private entities may establish user regulations, including hours of operation, usage by animals or motorized vehicles, and prohibited activities, such as camping, open fires, or skateboarding. Such restrictions may be approved by the DirectorCity Manager as part of the permit review process. Page 22 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program g. Public access improvements shall include provisions for disabled and physically impaired persons where reasonably feasible. h. Signage associated with public access shall be pursuant to SVMC 21.50.380 Signs and Outdoor Lighting, and SVMC 22.110 Sign Regulations. 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation A. Applicability. Vegetation conservation measures are required for all projects that propose vegetation removal. B. Standards. 1. A vegetation management plan shall be submitted for projects that propose to remove either of the following within the shoreline jurisdiction: a. One or more mature native trees greater than 12 inches in diameter at chest height; or b. More than 10 square feet of native shrubs and/or native ground cover at any one time by clearing, grading, cutting, burning, chemical means, or other activities. 2. When required, a vegetation management plan shall contain the following: a. A site plan showing: The distribution of existing plant communities in the area proposed for clearing and/or grading; ii. Areas to be preserved; Areas to be cleared; and iv. Trees to be removed. b. A description of the vegetative condition of the site that addresses the following: Plant species; ii. Plant density; Any natural or man-made disturbances; iv. Overhanging vegetation; v. The functions served by the existing plant community (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat values, slope stabilization); and vi. The presence and distribution of noxious weeds. c. A landscape plan showing: Proposed landscaping, including the species, distribution, and density of plants; the plan should be pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260(B)(3)(b), if applicable; and ii. Any pathways or non -vegetated portions, and the materials proposed. 3. Projects that propose to remove native vegetation within a shoreline buffer shall meet the following standards: a. The Applicant must demonstrate to the CiiTectorCity IViana�e 's satisfaction that the proposed vegetation removal is consistent with SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing, and that avoidance is not feasible; b. Vegetation shall be replaced per the following: 1:1 area ratio for herbaceous vegetation; ii. 2:1 stem ratio for shrubs and saplings; and Page 23 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 3:1 ratio for trees greater than 12 inches diameter at breast height or 2:1 ratio if tree stock is five years old or greater. For native trees greater than 16 inches diameter at breast height, replacement tree stock shall be at least five years old; c. All removed native plants shall be replaced with native vegetation; removed ornamental plants may be replaced with similar species; d. Applicant shall submit a vegetation management plan consistent with SVMC 21.50.260(6)(2) that demonstrates compliance with the standards of SVMC 21.50.260(6)(3); and e. Projects that propose a pathway or trail in the shoreline buffer shall meet the additional following standards: Pathways and trails that are roughly parallel to the OHWM may be allowed if: (1) It is a public non -motorized multi -use equestrian or pedestrian/bike trail; (2) It is located at the landward edge of the shoreline buffer with the following exceptions: (a) When physical constraints, public safety concerns, or public ownership limitations merit otherwise; or (b) When the trail will make use of an existing constructed grade such as those formed by an abandoned rail grade, road, or utility. ii. Pathways, trails, and river crossings that are perpendicular to the water, and lead to the OHWM, shall be sited in a location that has the least impact to shoreline ecological functions with mitigation sequencing pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210. Previously altered or disturbed locations shall be preferred. All pathways and trails shall be located, constructed, and maintained so as to avoid, to the maximum extent possible, removal and other impacts to perennial native vegetation, including trees, standing snags, forbs, grasses, and shrubs, consistent with the vegetation management plan. iv. Alternatives to impervious paving should be considered and are encouraged. v. Total trail width, inclusive of shoulders, shall be the minimum width necessary to achieve the intended use and shall not exceed 14 feet. vi. Disturbed areas (outside of the designated trail and trail shoulders) shall be re -vegetated with native vegetation consistent with the vegetation management plan. vii. Public, non -motorized multi -use equestrian pedestrian/bike trails shall only be allowed in the shoreline buffer for the Urban Conservancy -High Quality environment designation to connect to or from (in phases or otherwise) an existing regional multi -use non -motorized trail and only pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260(B). viii. Encroachments in the buffer allowed by the exceptions listed above shall be the minimum necessary to provide for the permitted use. 4. A performance surety may be required as a condition of shoreline permit approval to ensure compliance with the SMP. The performance surety shall be Page 24 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program substantially in the same form and for the same coverage as provided for in the City's Street Standards as adopted or amended. 5. Projects that require a critical areas report pursuant to SVMC 21.50.490 shall incorporate any specific vegetation conservation measures identified in the critical areas reports for the identified critical areas. Any application of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or other chemicals proposed in conjunction with the vegetation removal or management activities shall be addressed by the report. C. Minor vegetation conservation activities allowed without a shoreline permit or letter of exemption. 1. Pruning and thinning of trees or vegetation on public or private land for maintenance, safety, forest health, and view protection if the criteria listed below are met: a. No native vegetation is removed, including thinning; b. Pruning of native vegetation shall not exceed 30 percent of a tree's limbs. Tree topping shall not occur; c. Native shrubs shall not be pruned to a height less than six feet; d. Pruning any vegetation waterward of the OHWM is prohibited; and e. Pruning of any vegetation and thinning activities associated with non- native plants shall ensure the continued survival of vegetation. Whenever possible, pruning and thinning activities conducted to maintain or create views shall be limited to areas dominated with non-native vegetation and invasive species. Pruning and thinning on public land to establish a view for adjacent properties shall be prohibited unless written approval from the Washington State Parks Riverside Area Manager is given. 2. Pruning and thinning within a utility corridor by the utility service provider of both native and non-native trees and vegetation shall be allowed when the following criteria are met: a. Reasonable measures to reduce the adverse effects of the activity are implemented; and b. No net loss of buffer functions and values occur. 3. Dead or hazardous trees within the shoreline buffer that pose a threat to public safety or a risk of damage to private or public property may be removed if a letter from a certified arborist or Qualified Professional is submitted that confirms the tree is dead or is hazardous and includes: a. Removal techniques; b. Procedures for protecting the surrounding area; and c. Replacement of native trees, if applicable. Where possible, hazard trees within the shoreline buffer shall be turned into snags. 21.50.270 Water Quality, Stormwater, and Non -Point Pollution A. Applicability. This section applies to all projects that add any pollution -generating impervious surfaces. This standard supersedes the regulatory threshold specified in the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual, which is applicable outside the shoreline jurisdiction. B. Regulations. 1. All activities shall comply with the SVMC 22.150 Stormwater Management Regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency's Underground Injection Page 25 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Control program, the Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit requirements, applicable total maximum daily Toads laws and regulations, and other water cleanup plans. 2. Use of chemicals for commercial or industrial activities shall be pursuant to SVMC 21.50.530(C). 3. Herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers, and pesticides shall not be applied within 25 feet of a water body, except by a Qualified Professional in accordance with state and federal laws. 21.50.280 Archaeological and Historic Resources A. Applicability. This section applies to: 1. Projects with archaeological and historic resources on site that are either recorded at the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), or Spokane County; 2. Projects where archaeological and historical resources have been inadvertently uncovered; or 3. Permit applications that contain a ground -disturbing component. B. Standards. 1. Archaeological sites are subject to chapter 27.44 RCW Indian Graves and Records and chapter 27.53 RCW Archaeological Sites and Records. Development or uses that may impact such sites shall comply with WAC 25-48 as well as the regulations of this section. 2. A cultural resources site survey or assessment prepared by a Qualified Professional is required for all shoreline permit applications that contain a ground -disturbing component if the proposal meets the criteria below, which may be determined through review of Spokane County and/or DAHP resources: a. The project is on property known to contain archaeological, historic, or cultural resources; or b. The project is in an area mapped as having the potential for the presence of archaeological, historic, or cultural resources. 3. When required, the cultural resources site survey or assessment shall: a. Use standard procedures and methods to assess the potential for presence of archaeological, historic, or cultural resources that could be impacted by the project; b. Provide appropriate recommendations for protecting and preserving the archaeological, historical, or cultural resources; c. Make an inventory of buildings or structures over 50 years in age located within the project area in a DAHP Historic Property Inventory Database entry; and d. Record archaeological sites located within the project area on DAHP Archaeological Site Inventory Forms. 4. When required, the cultural resources site survey or assessment shall be circulated to DAHP and affected tribe(s). The ':)irectorCity Manager shall consider comments from DAHP and affected tribe(s) prior to approval of the survey or assessment. Based on the cultural resources site survey or assessment, the application may be conditioned to ensure that such resources are protected. 5. If archaeological, historic, or cultural resources are inadvertently discovered or uncovered during excavation, the Applicant shall immediately stop work on that portion of the project site and notify the City. The Applicant may be required to Page26of82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program prepare a cultural resources site survey or assessment pursuant to SVMC 21.50.280(6)(3), after coordinating with DAHP. 21.50.290 Gravel Pits A. Applicability. This section applies to existing and active gravel pit operations including but not limited to known gravel pits located at 2010 North Sullivan Road and 220 North Thierman Road. B. Standards. Active gravel pits are not regulated as Shorelines of the State until reclamation is complete and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources terminates the Surface Mine Reclamation Permit. Proposed subsequent use of mined property shall be consistent with the provisions of the Urban Conservancy Environment unless a different environmental designation is established through an amendment pursuant to WAC 173-26-201. 21.50.300 Specific Shoreline Use Regulations Applicability. The regulations in SVMC 21.50.300 through 21.50.450 apply to specific common uses and types of development to the extent they occur within the shoreline jurisdiction. 21.50.310 Boating Facilities A. Applicability. This section applies to new and existing boating facilities. B. Standards. 1. Boating facilities shall: a. Be allowed only for water -dependent uses or for public access; b. Be limited to the minimum size and height necessary to achieve the intended purpose of the facility; and c. Incorporate measures for cleanup of accidental spills of contaminants. 2. Public boating facilities shall be located only at sites identified in the Public Access Plan. 3. All new boating facilities shall incorporate public access when required by the Public Access Plan and SVMC 21.50.250 herein. 4. New launch ramps shall be approved only if public access is provided to public waters which are not adequately served by existing access facilities because of location or capacity. Documentation of need shall be required from the Applicant prior to approval pursuant to SVMC 21.50.250 Public Access. 5. Existing boating facilities may be maintained and repaired pursuant to SVMC 21.50, provided the size is not increased. 6. In addition to the regulations above, boating facilities shall comply with SVMC 21.50.320 Commercial Use, SMVC 21.50.360 Recreational Development and Use, and SVMC 21.50.430 Piers and Docks, as applicable. 21.50.320 Commercial Use A. Applicability. This section applies to all commercial uses. B. Standards. 1. New non water -oriented commercial uses shall be prohibited, except within the Urban Conservancy Environment, where such uses may be permitted if: Page 27 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program a. The use is part of a mixed -use project that includes water -dependent uses; and b. Provides a significant public benefit, such as public access or ecological restoration; or The site is physically separated from the shoreline by another parcel or public right-of-way. 2. New commercial uses shall comply with the following criteria: a. Windows, breezeways, and common areas should be oriented towards the shoreline or recreational amenities on the site; b. Buildings should provide at least one main entry that orients toward the shoreline, not including a service entry; c. Architectural features that reduce scale shall be incorporated, such as pitched roofs, offsets, angled facets, and recesses; d. Building surfaces on or adjacent to the water shall employ materials that minimize reflected light; e. Building mechanical equipment, noise generating systems, vents, utility cabinets, and small scale service elements shall be incorporated into building architectural features, such as pitched roofs. Where it is not possible to incorporate into architectural features, a landscaping screen consistent with SVMC 22.70.030(C) shall be utilized; f. Screening and buffering, or other visual screen consistent with the building exterior material and colors, shall be provided that conceals view of such equipment from the shoreline; g. Commercial uses shall be screened from any adjacent residential uses by providing a Type I -Full Screening Buffer pursuant to SVMC 22.70 Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping; h. Landscaping within the shoreline setback area shall incorporate native plant materials; Loading docks and maintenance facilities shall be located away from the shoreline to minimize visual, noise, or physical impacts on the site, street, adjacent public open spaces, and adjacent properties; and j. A site plan and landscaping plan shall be submitted showing all the applicable items listed in SVMC 21.50.320(B)(2). 3. Commercial wireless communication facilities shall not be allowed within the shoreline jurisdiction. 4. Home occupations shall be allowed within the Shoreline Residential - Upland and Shoreline Residential - Waterfront designations pursuant to SVMC 19.40.140 Home Occupations. 21.50.330 Industrial Use A. Applicability. This section applies to all new Industrial uses, including uses involved in processing, manufacturing, assembly, and storage of finished or semi -finished goods and food products. B. Standards. 1. New non water -oriented industrial uses shall be prohibited, except within the Urban Conservancy Environment, where such uses may be permitted if the use is part of a mixed -use project that includes water -dependent use and: Page 28 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program a. Provides a significant public benefit such as providing public access and ecological restoration; or b. The site is physically separated from the shoreline by another parcel or public right-of-way. 2. Industrial development shall be located, designed, constructed, and operated to avoid visual impacts to users of the Spokane River and Centennial Trail. 3. New industrial uses shall comply with the requirements of SVMC 21.50.320(6)(2) and (3). 4. Noise associated with operations or equipment, including volume, repetitive sound, or beat, shall be muffled or otherwise controlled so that it is not audible at a distance over 30 feet from the landward boundary of a buffer. 21.50.340 In -Stream Structures A. Applicability. This section applies to all projects proposing in -stream structures. B. Standards. 1. In -stream structures shall conform with the requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WDFW, SVMC 21.50.240 Flood Hazard Reduction, SVMC 21.50.270 Water Quality, Stormwater and Non -Point Pollution, SVMC 21.50.410 General Regulations for Specific Shoreline Modifications, and any other applicable federal, state, and local requirements. 2. In -stream structures shall provide for the protection and preservation of ecosystem -wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural resources pursuant to WAC 173-26-241(3)(g). 21.50.350 Parking Facilities A. Applicability. This section applies to all new parking facilities. B. Regulations. 1. A parking facility is permitted only if: a. It directly serves a permitted shoreline use, including the Centennial Trail, direct river access, and use areas; and b. It is not the primary use; for example, it cannot be a stand-alone parking facility. 2. Parking facilities serving individual buildings within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be located: a. Landward from the principal building being served; or b. Within or beneath a structure. 3. Parking facilities shall be screened from the shoreline and less intense adjacent land uses by providing a Type I - Full Screening Buffer pursuant to SVMC 22.70.030(B) Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping. A majority of the plant materials proposed to meet the vegetation mix requirements shall be native plants. 4. Parking shall be pursuant to SVMC 22.50 Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards. 5. Private projects, excluding single-family residential projects, which include public access features shall dedicate parking stalls for public use that are in addition to the number of parking stalls necessary to serve the proposed development pursuant to SVMC 22.50 Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards: a. Projects shall provide and dedicate additional parking for public use. Applicants shall either use a presumptive standard of one additional Page 29 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program space for public parking for every 25 parking spaces required to serve the proposed development or provide an assessment of public access need which supports a different ratio. Any proposal to change from this presumptive standard shall be approved by the `irectorCity Manager, which approval shall be based upon the unique factual circumstances of the development and surrounding shoreline uses; b. Spaces that are dedicated for public use shall be marked with appropriate signage; and c. Stalls dedicated for public use shall be near the public access point. 21.50.360 Recreational Development and Use A. Applicability. This section applies to public and commercial shoreline recreational facilities and uses, including but not limited to trails, viewing platforms, swimming areas, boating facilities, docks, and piers. B. Standards. 1 Non water -oriented recreation uses are prohibited in Urban Conservation - High Quality Shorelines except limited public uses that have minimal or low impact on shoreline ecological functions, such as the Centennial Trail and appropriately - scaled day use areas. 2. Water -oriented recreational structures, limited to boat launches, ramps, public docks or piers, commercial docks or piers, and private docks serving more than four residences may be allowed waterward of the shoreline buffer and setback. 3. Water -oriented recreational structures, limited to access routes, boat and equipment storage, viewing platforms, amenities such as benches, picnic tables and similar facilities for water enjoyment uses, including those related to the Centennial Trail shall be allowed within the shoreline buffer and setback area provided: a. Structures are located outside of an Urban Conservancy - High Quality area; b. Structures are not located in, on, or over water; and c. Structure height limit is less than 15 feet. 4. All recreational development shall provide: a. Non -motorized and pedestrian access to the shoreline pursuant to SVMC 21.50.250 Public Access; b. Landscaping, fencing, or signage designed to prevent trespassing onto adjacent properties; c. Signs indicating public right of access to shoreline areas, installed and maintained in conspicuous locations at the point of access and the entrance; and d. Buffering of such development and uses from incompatible adjacent land uses pursuant to SVMC 22.70.030 Screening and Buffering, and Table 22.70-2 - Buffers Required by Type, as applicable. 5. Recreational development and uses shall be pursuant to SVMC 21.50.310 Boating Facilities, SVMC 21.50.320 Commercial Use, and SVMC 21.50.430 Piers and Docks, as applicable. 21.50.370 Residential Development and Use A. Applicability. 1. This section applies to single-family and multi -family structures, lots, and parcels. Page 30 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 2. Residential uses also include Iccessory dwelling units (ADUs' accessory uses and structures normally associated with residential uses including, but not limited to, garages, sheds, decks, driveways, fences, swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, and tennis courts. 3. Clearing, grading, and utilities work associated with residential use are subject to the regulations established for those activities. B. Standards. 1. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is not required for construction by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-family residence, provided, any such construction of a single-family residence and all accessory structures meet the requirements of the SMP. 2. Residential development, including single-family structures, shall be required to control erosion during construction. Removal of vegetation shall be minimized and any areas disturbed shall be restored to prevent erosion and other impacts to shoreline ecological functions pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260. 3. New residential development, including accessory uses and structures, shall be sited in a manner to avoid the need for structural improvements that protect such structures and uses from steep slopes and shorelines vulnerable to erosion, including bluff walls and other stabilization structures. 4. New over -water residences and floating homes are prohibited. 5. New single-family residential accessory structures, excluding accessory dwelling units, may be located waterward of the shoreline setback provided that all of the following criteria are met: a. The combined building footprint of all accessory structures does not exceed 10 percent of the lot area; b. Structures are located outside of critical areas, their associated buffers, and the shoreline buffer; and c. Structures are set no closer than five feet to any side or rear property line. 6. New attached or detached accessory dwelling units shall: a. Be located landward of the shoreline buffer and outside of all critical areas and their buffers. and b. Be pursuant to SVMC 19.40.100 Accessory Dwelling Unit.: and c. Obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 7 New residential developments of four or more lots shall comply with the following requirements: a. The shoreline buffer shall be shown on the plat and permanently marked on the ground with methods approved by the 0irectorCity Manager; b. A site plan shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit application showing the project elements described in SVMC 21.50.370(6)(3); and c. Provide a project narrative describing how the project elements are being met. 8. Exterior lighting associated with single-family residences, such as pathway lighting and lighting directed at landscaping features, is permitted within the setback area so long as it is directed away from the shoreline. 9. Recorded plats shall include language that states that pursuant to SVMC 21.50.230, use and development within the defined shoreline buffer area is prohibited. Title notices shall be recorded with each newly created parcel with the restrictive language. Page 31 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 10. New fences shall meet the requirements of SVMC 22.70 Fencing, Screening and Landscaping. 11. Fences are prohibited in the following areas: a. Shoreline buffers; b. Critical areas; and c. Waterward of the OHWM. 21.50.380 Signs and Outdoor Lighting A. Applicability. This section applies to any commercial, industrial, or advertising sign directing attention to a business, professional service, community site, facility, or entertainment conducted or sold, and all outdoor lighting, except those associated with residential use and public street lighting. B. Standards. 1 All signs shall comply with SVMC 22.110 Sign Regulations; variances from these regulations may be granted pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140 Shoreline Variances. 2. Signage, including kiosks and directional signage to commercial uses or recreation areas, related to, or along, the Centennial Trail, is allowed without a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit provided: a. Signage is consistent with the SMP, the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and any applicable master plan of Washington State Parks; and b. Signage proposed within a buffer area shall not: Exceed 15 square feet in area; ii. Exceed six feet in height; Be illuminated unless warranted by safety factors; and iv. A building permit is obtained, if required. 3. Outdoor lighting shall comply with SVMC 22.60 Outdoor Lighting Standards. 4. New permanent outdoor lighting is prohibited within the shoreline buffer. 5. Pedestrian -oriented lighting along walkways and paths shall be allowed within the shoreline setback area if: a. The purpose of the light is safety; b. Lighting structure height is not greater than 12 feet; and c. Lighting fixtures are downward directed and fully shielded. 6. All outdoor lighting shall be oriented away from the shoreline and adjacent uses using directional lighting or shielding. 21.50.390 Transportation Facilities A. Applicability. This section applies to structures and developments that aid in land, air, and water surface movement of people, goods, and services. They include roads and highways, bridges, bikeways, heliports, rail, and other related facilities. Trails are addressed in SVMC 21.50.250 Public Access. B. Standards. 1. New road and bridge construction and expansion of existing roads and bridges shall only be located within the shoreline jurisdiction upon approval by the DirectorCity Manages when deemed necessary for the good of the community, or when deemed related to, and necessary to support permitted shoreline activities. 2. When allowed, transportation facilities shall be: Page 32 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program a. Consistent with an approved private project or applicable City plans, including the City's Transportation Improvement Plan, Public Access Plan and Restoration Plan; b. Located on the landward side of existing structures or uses; and c. Be designed to minimize clearing, grading, and alteration of natural features. Roadway and driveway alignment should follow natural contours and minimize width. 3. To the extent consistent with federal jurisdiction, new rail lines and corridors or expansion of existing rail lines and corridors shall be allowed only for the purpose of connecting to existing rail lines or rights -of -way. New rail lines, including bridges, shall be constructed within existing rail corridors or rights -of -way. 4. To the extent consistent with federal jurisdiction, new rail lines shall be constructed so that they do not compromise the public's ability to access the shoreline safely. 21.50.400 Public Facilities and Utilities A. Applicability. This section applies to all public facilities and utilities. This section does not apply to on -site utility features serving a primary use, such as water, sewer, or gas lines to a development or residence. These utility features are considered "service utilities" and shall be considered part of the primary use. B. Regulations. 1 New public facilities and utilities may only be allowed pursuant to Shoreline Conditional Use permit and if they meet the following conditions: a. Address conflicts with present and planned land and shoreline uses through site design or configuration, buffers, aesthetics, or other methods; and b. Identify the need to site within shoreline jurisdiction and why it is not possible to locate outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. 2. New wastewater and stormwater outfalls shall not be allowed. 3. Routine maintenance, replacement, and minor upgrades of existing utilities shall be allowed; provided that if the activity involves ground disturbance or is located in the Urban Conservancy - High Quality Environment, then such maintenance, replacement, and minor upgrades shall only be allowed by Letter of Exemption. If existing high -quality vegetated areas, as noted in the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis, are disturbed by maintenance activities in Urban Conservancy - High Quality designated shorelines, mitigation pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing, shall be required. 4. Transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power lines, cables, and pipelines, should be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. 5. New utility corridors shall be prohibited within the Urban Conservation — High Quality Environment. 6. New over -water utility crossings are allowed within existing utility corridors. 7 New or expanded service utilities shall: a. Be located underground, unless placement underground results in more damage to the shoreline area; b. Utilize low impact, low profile design, and construction methods; and c. Restore any areas disturbed to pre -project configurations, replant with native species, and maintain until the newly planted area is established. 8. Stormwater pipe systems shall not be allowed within the shoreline buffer. Page 33 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 21.50.410 General Regulations for Specific Shoreline Modifications A. Applicability. SVMC 21.50.410 through 21.50.450 apply to all shoreline modifications. Shoreline modification activities are structures, including in -stream structures, or actions that modify the physical configuration or qualities of the shoreline area. B. General shoreline modification standards. 1 All shoreline modification applications shall also comply with: a. SVMC 21.30 Floodplain Regulations; b. SVMC 24.50 Land Disturbing Activities; and c. Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines (WDFW, Ecology and Transportation, 2003 as adopted or amended). 2. All shoreline modification activities shall ensure that the no net loss of ecological function standard is met. 3. Structural shoreline modifications within the regulated floodplain, geologically hazardous areas, and in -stream shall only be allowed where it can be demonstrated that nonstructural measures are not feasible or the proposed activities are necessary to: a. Support or protect a legally existing shoreline use or primary structure that is in danger of loss or substantial damage; b. Reconfigure the shoreline or channel bed for an allowed water -dependent use; or c. Provide for shoreline mitigation or enhancement purposes. 4. All shoreline modifications within the regulated floodplain and in -stream, with the exception of docks proposed on the Spokane River that are located west of the City of Millwood, shall provide the following: a. Site suitability analysis that justifies the proposed structure; b. A Habitat Management Plan prepared by a Qualified Professional that describes: The anticipated effects of the project on fish and wildlife habitat and migration areas; ii. Provisions for protecting in -stream resources during construction and operation; and Measures to compensate for impacts to resources that cannot be avoided. c. An engineering analysis which evaluates and addresses: The stability of the structure for the required design frequency; ii. Changes in base flood elevation, floodplain width, and flow velocity; The potential for blocking or redirecting the flow which could lead to erosion of other shoreline properties or create an adverse impact to shoreline resources and uses; iv. Methods for maintaining the natural transport of sediment and bedload materials; v. Protection of water quality, public access, and recreation; and vi. Maintenance requirements. 21.50.420 Shoreline/Slope Stabilization A. Applicability. This section applies to shoreline modification activities for shoreline and slope stabilization projects, including structural and nonstructural measures. Page 34 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program B. Standards. 1. Nonstructural measures are the preferred method for slope and shoreline stabilization. 2. Nonstructural measures may include building setbacks, relocation of the structure to be protected, groundwater management, and planning and regulatory measures to avoid the need for structural stabilization. 3. Structural stabilization measures may include hard surfaces such as concrete bulkheads or less rigid materials, such as vegetation, biotechnical vegetation measures, and riprap-type stabilization. 4. New structural shoreline modifications require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. 5. New structural stabilization measures may be allowed under the following circumstances: a. To protect existing primary structures, public facilities and utilities, and the Centennial Trail. Prior to approval, a geotechnical investigation shall: Demonstrate that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion by currents or waves; and ii. Evaluate on -site drainage and address drainage problems away from the shoreline. b. To protect new non water -dependent uses from erosion, when all of the following apply: The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions; ii. Nonstructural measures are neither feasible nor sufficient; An engineering or scientific analysis demonstrates that damage is caused by natural processes; and iv. The stabilization structure shall incorporate native vegetation and comply with the mitigation sequencing in SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing. c. To protect water -dependent development from erosion when all of the following apply: The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions; ii. Nonstructural measures are neither feasible nor sufficient; and The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is demonstrated through a geotechnical report. d. To protect restoration and remediation projects when all of the following apply: The project is conducted pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW Model Toxics Control Act; and ii. Nonstructural measures are neither feasible nor sufficient. 6. Unless otherwise exempt from shoreline permit requirements, replacement of an existing shoreline stabilization structure may be approved with a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, provided the structure remains in the same location and the outer dimension changes by 10 percent or less. However, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit shall be required if existing shoreline stabilization measures are relocated or the outer dimension changes by more than 10 percent. 7 All new or replaced structural shoreline stabilization measures shall provide: a. Design plans showing the limits of construction, access to the construction area, details, and cross sections of the proposed stabilization measure, erosion and sediment controls, and re -vegetation of the project area; and Page 35 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program b. An engineered report that addresses the purpose of the repair, engineering assumption, and engineering calculations to size the stabilization measure. 8. A replacement structure shall not encroach waterward of the OHWM, unless all of the following apply: a. For residences occupied or constructed prior to January 1, 1992; b. There are overriding safety or environmental concerns; c. The replacement structure shall abut the existing shoreline stabilization structure; and d. The Department of Natural Resources has approved, if applicable, the proposed project if it is on state-owned aquatic lands. 21.50.430 Piers and Docks A. Applicability. This section applies to the construction or expansion of piers and docks constructed waterward of the OHWM. B. Standards. 1. Piers and docks designed for pleasure craft only, and for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single and multi -family residences, shall require a Letter of Exemption. Any other dock or pier permitted under the SMP requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. 2. Piers and docks serving more than four residences and public or commercial piers and docks shall comply with SVMC 21.50.310 Boating Facilities. Public or commercial piers and docks shall comply with SVMC 21.50.360 Recreational Development and Uses. 3. New piers and docks shall only be allowed for water -dependent uses or public access. A dock associated with a single-family residence and designed and intended as a facility for access to watercraft is a water -dependent use. 4. New piers and docks shall be the minimum size necessary based upon a needs analysis provided by the Applicant. However, the size shall not exceed 55 feet in length measured perpendicularly from the OHWM. Total deck area shall not exceed 320 square feet. 5. The City may require modifications to the configuration of piers and docks to protect navigation, public use, or ecological functions. 6. Wood treated with toxic compounds shall not be used for decking or for in -water components. 7 Existing legally established docks, piers, or viewing platforms may be repaired or replaced in accordance with the regulations of the SMP, provided the size of the existing structure is not increased. 8. Piers and docks proposed on the Spokane River and located east of the City of Millwood shall comply with SVMC 21.50.410(6)(4) and the following additional criteria: a. The site suitability analysis shall demonstrate that: The river conditions in the proposed location of the dock, including depth and flow conditions, will accommodate the proposed dock and its use; and ii. Any design to address river conditions will not interfere with or adversely affect navigability. b. The Habitat Management Plan for any such docks shall demonstrate that the proposed dock will not result in a net loss of ecological functions, and Page 36 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program shall include an analysis of the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. 9. A new pier or dock accessory to residential development- within the shoreline located east of the City of Millwood, and west of the Centennial Trail Pedestrian Bridge, shall provide joint use or community dock facilities, when feasible, rather than allowing individual docks for each residence. Application materials shall include documentation of the applicant's efforts to explore feasibility of and interest in a joint use dock with owners of any residential lots immediately adjacent to the applicant's sites. Such documentation may include copies of certified letters sent to owners of the immediately adjacent properties listed on title. Any proposal for a joint use dock shall include in the application materials a legally enforceable joint use agreement or other legal instrument, notice of which must be recorded against title of the properties sharing the dock prior to dock construction. The joint use agreement shall, at a minimum, address the following: a. Apportionment of construction and maintenance expenses; b. Easements and liability agreements; and c. Use restrictions. 21.50.440 Dredging and Fill A. Applicability. This section applies to shoreline modification activities for projects or uses proposing dredging, dredge material disposal, or fill waterward of the OHWM. B. Regulations. 1. Dredging and dredge material disposal is prohibited unless associated with a comprehensive flood management solution, an environmental cleanup plan, a habitat restoration, fish enhancement project, or when considered suitable under, and conducted in accordance with, the Dredged Material Management Program of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. These projects require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. 2. Fill shall be allowed only when necessary to support the following uses (a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is required unless stated otherwise): a. Water -dependent uses; b. Public access; c. Cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as part of an interagency environmental cleanup plan; these proposals may be exempt from a shoreline permit of any type by the Model Toxics Control Act; d. Expansion or alteration of transportation facilities. These proposals shall also demonstrate that alternatives to fill are not feasible and require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit; e. A mitigation action; and f. An environmental restoration or enhancement project. 21.50.450 Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects A. Applicability. This section applies to all shoreline habitat and natural system enhancement projects. B. Standards. 1. Shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement projects are encouraged. These projects shall: Page 37 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program a. Obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or a Letter of Exemption; b. Demonstrate that the main project purpose is enhancing or restoring the shoreline natural character and ecological functions by establishing the restoration needs and priorities; and c. Implement the restoration plan developed pursuant to WAC 173-26- 201(2)(f) and with applicable federal and state permit provisions. 2. Relief procedures for shoreline restoration projects. a. The City may grant relief from SMP development standards and use regulations resulting from shoreline restoration projects within urban growth areas consistent with criteria and procedures in WAC 173-27-215. Article III. Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations 21.50.460 General - Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations - Applicability A. SVMC 21.50.460 through 21.50.560 apply to critical areas and their buffers that are completely within the shoreline jurisdiction as well as critical areas and their buffers located within, but extending beyond the mapped shoreline jurisdiction boundary. Regulated critical areas include: wetlands, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARAs), Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs), geologically hazardous areas, and frequently flooded areas, pursuant to WAC 173-26-221(2) and (3), and WAC 365- 196-485. B. This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within the shoreline jurisdiction of the City, whether or not a shoreline permit or other authorization is required. No person, company, agency, or other entity shall alter a critical area or its associated buffer within the shoreline jurisdiction except as consistent with the purposes and requirements of the SMP. 21.50.470 Maps and Inventories A. The approximate location and extent of known critical areas are depicted on the Critical Areas and Priority Habitats Map updated and maintained by the Community Development Department. The Critical Areas and Priority Habitats Map is a reference tool, not an official designation or delineation. The exact location of a critical area boundary shall be determined through field investigation by a Qualified Professional. B. In addition to the Critical Areas and Priority Habitats Map, City staff may review additional reference materials to determine whether a proposed development has the potential to affect a critical area within the shoreline jurisdiction. Reference materials may include, but are not limited to the following as adopted or amended: 1 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for Spokane County, Washington, 2012; 2. USGS 7.5 Minute Series Digital Elevation Model; 3. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Spokane County, Washington and Incorporated Areas, July 6, 2010; 4. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory; 5. Aerial photos; 6. WDFW Priority Habitats and Species and Wildlife Heritage Maps and Data; and 7. City critical area designation maps. 21.50.480 Exemptions from Critical Area Review and Reporting Requirements Page 38 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program A. Activities exempt from critical area review and reporting requirements shall ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210. Exempt activities shall be conducted consistent with performance standards identified in SVMC 21.50.180 through 21.50.450, including mitigation sequencing. B. Any incidental damage to or alteration of a critical area or their buffers resulting from exempt activities shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the expense of the responsible party within one growing season. C. The following activities are exempt from critical area review and reporting requirements: 1. Conservation or enhancement of native vegetation. 2. Outdoor recreational activities which do not involve disturbance of the resource or site area, including fishing, hunting, bird watching, hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, and natural trail use. 3. Education, scientific research, and surveying. 4. Normal and routine maintenance and repair of: a. Legally -constructed existing irrigation and drainage ditches, utility lines and right-of-way, and appurtenances; b. Facilities within an existing right-of-way and existing serviceable structures or improved areas, not including expansion, change in character or scope, or construction of a maintenance road. The exemption includes the necessary vegetation management that keeps the existing right-of-way clear from hazard trees; and c. State or City parks, including noxious weed control and removal of hazard trees where the potential for harm to humans exists. 5. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. 6. Routine maintenance, repair, and minor modifications (such as construction of a balcony or second story) of existing structures where the modification does not extend the structure further into or adversely impact the functions of the critical area. 7 In Category III or IV wetlands only, stormwater dispersion outfalls and bioinfiltration swales located within the outer 25 percent of the buffer provided that no other location is feasible. 21.50.490 Critical Area Review A. All clearing, uses, modifications, or development activities within a shoreline critical area or its buffer shall be subject to review under SVMC 21.50 unless specifically exempted under SVMC 21.50.480. B. Applicant shall identify in the application materials the presence of any known or suspected critical areas on or within 200 feet of the property line. C. If the proposed project is within or adjacent to a critical area, or is likely to create a net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain a critical area, the City shall: 1. Require and review a critical area report for each applicable critical area; and 2. Determine if the proposed project adequately addresses and mitigates impacts to the critical area and is consistent with the requirements of the SMP. 21.50.500 Critical Area Report Requirements for all Critical Areas Page 39 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program A. When required by SVMC 21.50.490(C), the Applicant shall submit a critical area report subject to the requirements of this section and any additional reporting requirements for each critical area, as applicable. B. Critical area reports for two or more types of critical areas shall meet the report requirements for each relevant type of critical area. C. All critical area assessments, investigations, and reports shall be completed by a Qualified Professional. D. At a minimum, all critical area reports shall contain the following: 1. The name and contact information of the Applicant, a description of the proposal, and identification of the permit(s) requested; 2. The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site; 3. A statement from the Qualified Professional certifying that the report meets the critical area requirements; 4. A description of the nature, density, and intensity of the proposed use or activity in sufficient detail to allow analysis of such proposal upon identified critical area; 5. List of all references used and all assumptions made and relied upon; 6. A scaled site plan showing: a. Critical areas and their buffers; b. Ordinary high water mark; c. Proposed and existing structures and related infrastructure; d. Clearing and grading limits; e. Impervious surfaces; f. Location of temporary and/or permanent construction signage and fencing to protect critical areas and their buffers; g. Topographic contours at two foot intervals; h. Fill and material storage locations; Proposed and existing drainage facilities and stormwater flow arrows; and j. Title, date, scale, north arrow, and legend; 7 Identification and characterization of all critical areas, water bodies, and critical areas associated with buffers located on site, adjacent to, and within 200 feet of proposed project areas. If buffers for two contiguous critical areas overlap (such as buffers for a stream and a wetland), the wider buffer shall apply; 8. A mitigation plan which contains a description of the application of mitigation sequencing and offsetting of impacts pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing; 9. Erosion and sediment control plan and drainage plan, as applicable for conformance with SVMC 24.50; 10. Cost estimate for required mitigation when a financial surety is required pursuant to SVMC 21.50.510; 11. A discussion of the performance standards applicable to the critical area and proposed activity; and 12. Monitoring plan pursuant to SVMC 21.50.510(D) when mitigation is required. E. The DirectorCity Manage may modify the required contents or the scope of the required critical area report to adequately evaluate the potential impacts and required mitigation. This may include requiring more or less information and addressing only that part of a site affected by a development proposal. Page 40 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 21.50.510 Mitigation A. Applicants shall follow the mitigation sequencing put forth in SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss Mitigation and Sequencing. B. All impacts to critical areas and their buffers likely to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain the critical area shall be mitigated consistent with appropriate state and federal guidelines. C. Unless specifically addressed in specific critical area sections, compensatory mitigation may be provided by any of the following means, in order of preference: 1. Except as provided in SVMC 21.50.510(C)(2)(a), adverse critical area impacts shall be mitigated on or contiguous to the development site through resource expansion, enhancement, protection, or restoration. 2. Off -site mitigation. a. Off -site mitigation may be allowed if an Applicant demonstrates that mitigation on or contiguous to the development proposal site cannot be achieved and that off -site mitigation will achieve equivalent or greater ecological functions. b. When off -site mitigation is authorized, priority shall be given to the following locations within the same drainage sub -basin as the project site: Mitigation banking sites and resource mitigation reserves. ii. Private mitigation sites that are established in compliance with the requirements of SVMC 21.50.510(C)(2) and approved by the D4 ectorCity Manager. Offsite mitigation consistent with Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Eastern Washington) (Publication #10-06-07, Olympia, WA, November 2010 as adopted or amended). c. The njr -rCity Manager shall maintain a list of known sites available for use for off -site mitigation projects. 3. Title notices shall be recorded against the affected parcels for on -site mitigation, and easements shall be recorded for off -site mitigation, to avoid impacts from future development or alteration to the function of the mitigation. The mitigation site shall be permanently preserved. D. Monitoring. 1. The Applicant shall monitor the performance of any required mitigation and submit performance monitoring reports, as specified in the applicable permit conditions. 2. When required, the monitoring plan shall: a. Demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the SMP and specific permits and approvals; b. Describe the objectives and methods for monitoring and quantifying; c. Provide results with an estimate of statistical precision; d. Identify the length of monitoring and reporting requirements; e. Recommend management actions based upon the monitoring results; and f. Address the length of the mitigation consistent with the following: Page 41 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Mitigation monitoring shall be required for a minimum of two years for temporary impact restoration and up to 10 years for compensatory mitigation; and ii. If the mitigation objectives are not obtained within the initial monitoring period, the Applicant shall remain responsible for restoration of the natural values and functions until the mitigation goals agreed to in the mitigation plan are achieved. E. Sureties. 1. Performance and maintenance sureties shall be required from all private persons and entities required to provide mitigation and a maintenance plan. 2. The performance surety shall be in substantially the same form as provided for in the City's Street Standards as adopted or amended. 3. A performance surety shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Shoreline Substantial Development, Conditional Use Permit, or Grading Permit. The surety shall include costs to cover for construction and vegetation, annual maintenance for a five-year period, and a 25 percent contingency fee. 4. The performance surety shall be released when the following conditions have been met: a. The installation of the required mitigation is approved by the City; and b. The Applicant has submitted a warranty surety pursuant to SVMC 21 .50.51 0(E)(5). 5. All projects with required mitigation shall submit a warranty surety to ensure the success of the mitigation project before certificate of occupancy, final plat approval, or as required by the City. The warranty surety shall be for 40 percent of the total mitigation construction and planting costs and annual maintenance/ monitoring for five years, including but not limited to: costs for the maintenance and replacement of dead or dying plant materials; failures due to site preparation, plant materials, construction materials; installation oversight, monitoring, reporting, and contingency actions expected through the end of the required monitoring period. 6. The warranty surety shall remain in effect for five years from the release of the performance surety or a timeframe as otherwise determined by the irectorCity Manager. The Applicant shall have a Qualified Professional inspect the mitigation site within 30 days of the expiration of the warranty. Any deficiencies noted shall be repaired prior to the release of the surety. If the inspection is not conducted and/or the deficiencies are not repaired, the warranty surety shall be renewed by the Applicant until all deficiencies are corrected. The City shall conduct an inspection prior to releasing the warranty surety. 7 If any deficiencies identified while the warranty surety is in effect are not corrected in the time frame specified by the uw City Mann , the City may choose to conduct the necessary repairs. The City shall then either invoice the Applicant or collect from the surety for all costs for the related work, plus a $500 administrative fee. F. The Uii ector(ty IVianag may approve alternative mitigation provided such mitigation is based on the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available and provides an equivalent or better level of protection of shoreline ecological functions than would be provided by the strict application of the SVMC 21.50. The DirectorCity Manager shall consider the following for approval of an alternative mitigation proposal: Page 42 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 1 The Applicant proposes creating or enhancing a larger system of natural areas and open space in lieu of preserving many individual habitat areas. 2. There is clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the proposed site. 3. The approved plan contains clear and measurable standards for achieving compliance with the specific provisions of the plan. 21.50.520 Wetlands - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations to wetlands, unless specifically exempted by SVMC 21.50./180. Designation, delineation, and classification. 1. Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include, but are not limited to, s s, mar cs gs, pondss, d similiar areas. tl etlandr ono de those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals, those wetlands created after July 1, 1990 that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction or a road, strcct, or highway. Wctlandc may includc the conversion of wetlands. 2. Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries shall be determined through a field investigation by a Qualificd Profc&cional in accordancc with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to The Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (September 2008). Wetland delineations are valid for five years, after which the City shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary. 3. Classification. Wetlands shall be rated by a Qualified Professional according to the Ecology wetland rating system as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington (Ecology Di blication f0il_06 015 November 2010 as adopted or amended). The wetland categories are generally defined as follows: a. Category I (scorcc of 70 points or more): Wetlands that perform many functions very well. These wetlands are those that: Represent a unique or rare wetland type; ii. Are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetla-n-El-s; Are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that arc imposiblc to rcplace within a human lifetime; or iv. Provide a high level of function. h ACategory 11 (scores between 51_69oi pnts): Forested d wetlans in the floodplains of rivers or wetlands that perform functions well. c. Category III (scor betwccn 30-50 points): Wetlands that have a moderate level of functions. These wetlands have been disturbed in some way and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. Page 43 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program d. Category IV (scores fewer than 30 points): These wetlands have thc lowest level of fi inctions and are often heavily disti irbed b it have important functions that need to be protected. /1. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to any illegal modifications. C. Wetland buffers. 1. Applicability. These buffer provisions apply to all wetlands that: a. Are not associated with riparian areas or buffers; b. Do not contain habitat identified as essential for local populations of priority species identified by WDFW or Natural Heritage plant specie identified by the WDNR; c. Are not a vernal pool; d. Are not an alkali wetland; and e. Do not contain aspen stands. 2. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in SVMC 21.50.520(C)(1), wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. 3. Buffer widths. a. All buffers widths shall be measured perpendicularly from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. b. The total buffer width shall be calculated by adding thc standard and thc additional b iffer widths together. c. The standard buffer widths in Table 21.50 /1 are based on the category of wetland. In order to qualify for the standard buffer widths in Table 1, the measures in Table 21.50 5 shall be implcmcntcd, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses on the wetland(s). d. Additional buffer widths listed in Table 1 shall be added to the standard buffer widths based on the habitat score for the wetland. Table 21.50 4: Wetland Buffer Requirements Wetland Category Standard Buffer Width Additional Buffer Width if 21 25 Habitat Points Additional Buffer Width if 26_29 Habitat Points Additional Buffer Width if >30 mat Points 100 feet Add 15 feet Add /15 feet Add 75 feet Category II 75 feet Add 15 feet Add /1 5 feet Add 75 feet Category III 60 feet /1-0-feet Add 30 feet N/A Add 60 feet N/A N/A N/A /1. Increased buffer widths. a. If m asures listed in Table 21.50 5 arc not implcmcntcd, then thc standard buffer widths in Table 21.50 /1 shall be increased by 33 percent. b. Buffer widths may be increased on a case by case basic when thc wetland is used by a plant or animal species listed by the federal government or the state as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitored, or documented priority species or habitats, or essential or outstanding habitat for those species or has unusual nesting or resting sites. The buffer increase should be determined by the Qualified Professional in the critical areas report. Page 44 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program T, le-2a. 0 5:: Reg ed�Measur-es to nn rrze I,,,, cts to Wetla ds Distufbanse Required Measures to Minimize Impacts L i • Direct lights away from wetland Noiso Chemical Uso • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland • If warranted, enhance existing buffcr with nativc vegetation plantings adjaccnt to noisc sourcc • For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10 foot heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the outer wetland hi ffer • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetland • Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff • Route all untreated runoff away from wetland whilc ensuring wetland is not dewatered • Retrofit substandard stormwatcr facilitics • Prevent channelized flow that dircctly cntcrc the buffer • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns Pets and human-disturbancc • Use privacy fencing or plant dense, thorny vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriato for this aroo Bidet • Use best management practices to control dust Disruption of corridors or connection • Maintain conncctions to off site ar ac that arc undisturbed Vegetation alteration • Protect and maintain native plant communities in buffers 5. Buffer averaging. a. Buffer averaging to improve wetland protection may be allowed when all of the following conditions are met: The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its habitat functions and the buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion; �i. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging• and v Page 45 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program The buffer at its narrowest point is not lesc than either 75 percent of he-ireguired4vidrth oe•et r Category 1 and�rrcrirv0feet for Category III and 30 feet for Category I\/ whichever is greater b. Buffer averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be allowed when all of the following are met: �. There are no feasible alternatives to thc sitc dcsign that could bc accomplished without buffer averaging; ii. The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of thc wctland'D functions and values as demonstrated by a critical areas report; The total buffer area after averaging is equal or greater to the area iv. The buffer at its narrowest point is not less than either 75 percent of the regu red th Teet r Category 1 an�'�,d 11, Q0feet Category III and 30 feet for Category I\/ whichever is greater 6. Signs and fencing. a. Temporary. The outer perimeter of wetland buffers and the clearing limits shall be signed and fenced to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur during construction. ii. Temporary signs and fencing shall be placed prior to beginning permitted activities and maintained throughout construction. b. Permanent. The Director, at his/her sole discretion, may require installation of permanent signs and/or fencing along the boundary of a wetland or buffer. �i. Permanent signs shall bc made of an enamel coated mctal facc and attached to a metal post or another non treated material of equal durability. Signs, if rcquircd by thc Director, shall be posted at an interval not Ice, than ^ne per lot and .high sh ill be maintained in perpetuity by the property owner. The obligation to maintain permanent signs shall be recorded against the property in a form acceptable to the City. The signs shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the Director: Protected Wetland Area De -Nei -Disturb Community Development Department eg rdi Uses estrictiorns, and Opp i ies forStewards-h;p iv. Permanent fence shall be installed and maintained around the wetland buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced on site. v. Fencing shall be constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes impacts to the wetland and associated habitat and designed so as to not interfere with species migration, including fish runs. D. Mitigation. 1. Mitigation ratios. Page 46 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program a. Impacts resulting from alteration to wetlands shall bc mitigated using thc ratios specified in Table 21.50 6 below: Ti-able-21. 0 6: Wet and itigatFtiti-Ratios �ni e4l�nr! Wetland '� Creation or o^ AFC Rehabilitation Enhancement Category , . ^ 84 16:1 Category 24 64 12:1 Category 1 2;1- 44 Category IV 1.5:1 24 64 Refer to Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance, (Ecology Publication tf 06 06 011a March 2006), for further information on wetland creation, re-establishment, b. Impacts to buffers shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. Only fully vegetated buffer areas will be included in mitigation calculations. Lawns, walkways, draveways, they Ped ved eas ehal exceed f�T buffer area calculations. c. Credit/Debit Method. As an alternative to the mitigation ratios provided in Table 21.50 6, thc Director may allow mitigation based on thc Debits for Compensatory Mitiga+inn in Wetlands of Eastern Washington• -Fi-na-l- eport (Ecole y Publication f11_06 015 4ugust 2012, as adopted nr amended) 2. Wetland mitigation banks. a. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may bc approved as off site mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when: The bank program is certified under state rules; ii. The Director determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides appropriate compensation for the authorized imparts• and The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the certified bank instrument. b. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall be consistent with replacement ratios specified in the certified bank instrument. c. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within thc service ar a specified in thc certified bank instrument. In some cases, the service area of the bank may include portions of more than one adjacent drainage basin for specific wetland functions. d. When applying for a wetland mitigation bank, thc Applicant shall prepare a Wetland Mitigation Credit Use Plan that documents consistency with these criteria and shows how the identified wetland type and associated functions will be compensated for by purchase of the credits. 3. Design. a. Design of wetland mitigation projects shall be appropriate for its landscape position. Compensatory mitigation shall result in the creation, restoration, or enhancement of a wetland that matches the geomorphic setting of the site. Page 47 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program b. The design of a wetland that has a different Cowardin or hydrogeomorphic classification than the impacted wetland may bc justified if supported by a demonstrated need for, or scarcity of, thc wetland type being designed. /1. Timing. a. Compcnsatory mitigation is cncouraged to be completed prior to activities that will disturb wetlands. b. Compensatory mitigation shall be completed no later than immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the action or development. Construction of mitigation projccts shall bc timcd to rcducc impacts to existing fisheries, `niildlifo and flora c. The Director may authorizc a one timc dclay of mitigation whcn thc Applicant provides a compelling written rationale for the delay with recommendations from a qualified wetland professional if the delay shall Create or perpetuate hazardous conditions; ii. Create environmental damage or degradation; or Be injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. E. Additional critical area report requirements for wetlands. 1. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, wetland reports shall include: a. Documcntation of any ficldwork performed on the site, including but not limited to field data sheets for delineations, function assessments, ratings, or baseline hydrologic data; b. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland delineations fi inction assessments or impart analyses incli ding references; c. For each wetland idcntificd on sits, adjaccnt to and within 200 fcct of thc project site, provide: Required buffers; ii. A professional survey from the field delineation that identifies: (1) Wetland rating; (2) Hydrogeomorphic classification; (3) Cowardin classification of vegetation communities; ('1) On site wetland acreage; and (5) Ecological function of the wetland and buffer. Note: The above shall be based on entire wetland complexes, not only the portion present on the proposed project site. Estimates of acreage and boundary for the entire wetland area where portions of the wetland extend off site; iv. Description of habitat elements; v. Soil conditions based on site asreccment and soil survey information; and vi. The following information shall be provided to the extent possible: (1) Hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlet/outlets (if they can be legally accessed); (2) Estimated water depths within the wetland; and (3) Estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g., algal mats, drift lines, flood debris, etc.); d. A description of the proposed actions and survcy and an analysis. of sitc development alternatives, including a no development alternative; Page 48 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program c. An ac cscmcnt of thc probablc impacts to the wctlands and buffcrs resulting from the proposed development, including: An estimation of acreages of impacts to wetlands and buffers based on the field delineation; ii. Impacts associated with anticipated hydroperiod alterations from the project; a€ Impacted wetland functions; f. A description of how mitigation sequencing was applied pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing; g. A discussion of mitigation measures, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded by the current proposed land use activity; h. Methods to protect and enhance on -site habitat and wetland functions; A site plan, drawn to scale, with the following information: Delineated wetland(s) and required buffer(s) for on sitc wctlands as well as off site critical areas that extend onto the project site; ii. Areas of proposed impacts to wctlands and/or buffcrs (includc square footage estimates); Proposed stormwatcr managcmcnt facilitics and outicts for thc development, including estimated areas of intrusion into the buffers of any critical areas• and 0 j. A mitigation plan, if required. A. Applicability. This section applies to all clearing, uses, modifications, or development activities within or adjacent to wetlands, unless specifically exempted by SVMC 21.50.480. B. Delineation and classification. 1. Delineation. Wetland identification and delineation of wetland boundaries shall be determined by a qualified professional through a field investigation based on the protocols of the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual and applicable regional supplement, as adopted by Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and as hereafter amended. Wetland delineations are valid for five years, after which the City shall determine whether a boundary verification study or additional assessment is necessary. 2. Classification. a. Wetlands shall be rated pursuant to the Ecology wetland rating system as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington (Ecology Publication No. 14-06-030, or as amended and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for determining wetland categorical ranking and scores based on functions and values. b. Categories. Wetland categories are defined as follows: Category I: perform functions at very high levels as evidenced by scoring between 22 and 27 points on Ecology's wetland rating system; includes alkali wetlands, bogs, and forests with stands of aspen. ii. Category II: provide high levels of some functions, with a rating score between 19 and 21 points; difficult, though not impossible, to replace; includes forested wetlands in the floodplains of rivers, Page 49 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program mature and old -growth forested wetlands over one -quarter acre in size with fast-growing trees, and vernal pools. Category III: provide a moderate level of functions, with a rating score between 16 and 18 points; can be adequately replaced with a well -planned mitigation project. iv. Category IV: provide lowest level of functions, with a rating score less than 16 points; often heavily disturbed but may provide some important functions including groundwater recharge and the removal of pollutants from surface water. C. Wetland buffer areas. 1. Wetland buffer areas shall be required adjacent to all wetlands except isolated Category IV wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that: a. Are not associated with riparian areas or buffers; b. Are not part of a wetland mosaic (a patchwork of nearby, small wetlands); c. Do not contain habitat identified as essential for local populations of priority species identified by WDFW or Natural Heritage plant species identified by the DNR; d. Are not a vernal pool; e. Are not an alkali wetland; and f. Do not contain aspen stands. 2. Wetland buffers shall apply to any wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations in the same manner as natural wetlands. 3. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in SVMC 21.50.520(C), wetland buffers shall be retained in their natural condition. Where buffer disturbances have occurred before or during construction, revegetation with native vegetation and restoration of the hydrologic condition shall be required. 4. Buffer widths. a. All buffers widths shall be measured perpendicularly from the wetland boundary. b. The width of the wetland buffer area shall be determined pursuant to Table 21.50-5 based upon the associated wetland category and impact intensity category of the proposed use. Widths shall be increased pursuant to SVMC 21.50.520(C)(4)(c) and may be reduced pursuant to SVMC 21.50.520(C)(4)(d). Wetland categories shall be assigned in accordance with SVMC 21.050.520(6)(2) and consistent with Ecology's Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2; Protecting and Managing Wetlands, Guidance on Buffers and Ratios (Appendix 8-D), as may be amended. Land use intensity shall be determined as follows (uses not specifically listed shall be considered based upon the most similar use listed): Table 21.50-4: Wetland Impact Intensity Categories Impact Intensity Category (Impact from Proposed Change in Land Use) Types of Land Use Page 50 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Hiqh Impact Commercial, industrial, and institutional Residential (more than one unit/acre) Hiqh-intensity recreation (qolf courses, ball fields, etc.) Moderate Impact Residential (one unit/acre or less) Moderate -intensity active open space (parks with bikinq, jogginq, etc.) Paved trails Utility corridor with access/maintenance road Low Impact Passive open space (hikinq, bird-watchinq, etc.) Unpaved trails Utility corridor without road or veqetation manaqement Table 21.50-5: Standard Wetland Buffer Widths Wetland Minimum Buffer Width (in feet) Category Low Impact Moderate Impact High Impact I 125 190 250 11 100 150 200 III 75 110 150 IV 25 40 50 c. Increase in Standard Wetland Buffer Width. If the land adjacent to a wetland has an average slope of 30 percent or more, the minimum buffer width shall either: (1) Be extended one and one-half times; or (2) Extend to the upper break in slope (where the slope gradient is less than 30 percent for 20 feet or more perpendicular to the wetland, whichever is less). d. Reduction of Standard Wetland Buffer Width. The standard wetland buffer width for wetlands may be reduced to the next, lower land use intensity buffer width (e.g., from high to moderate), or reduced by no more than 25 percent if: (1) A relatively undisturbed vegetative corridor of at least 100 feet in width is protected between the wetland and any other priority habitats and the corridor is preserved by means of easement or covenant; or (2) All measures identified in Table 21.50-6 are taken to minimize the impact of any proposed land use. Table 21.50-6: Wetland Impact Minimization Measures Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Lights • Direct lights away from wetland. Page 51 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from • wetland. If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native • vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source. For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10-foot- wide, heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer. Chemical Use • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within • 150 feet of wetland. Apply integrated pest management. Stormwater runoff • Route all untreated runoff away from wetland while • ensuring wetland is not dewatered. Retrofit older stormwater facilities to meet current • standards. Prevent channelized flow that directly enters the • buffer. Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns. Pets and human disturbance • Use privacy fencing or plant dense, thorny vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the City. Dust • Use best management practices to control dust. Disruption of corridors or • Maintain connections to off -site areas that are connections • undisturbed. Restore corridors or connections to off -site habitats by replanting. Vegetation alteration • Protect and maintain native plant communities in buffers. e. Standard Buffer Width Averaging. Standard wetland buffer width may be averaged (reduced in width near a parcel or development but widened elsewhere along the parcel or development to retain the overall area of the standard wetland buffer) if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher -functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland, and decreased adjacent to the lower -functioning or less sensitive portion; (2) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; and Page 52 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program (3) The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either 75 percent of the standard buffer width. D. Signs and fencing. 1. Temporary. a. The outer perimeter of wetland buffers and the clearing limits shall fenced to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur during construction. Temporary fencing shall be designed and installed to effectively prevent construction and related impacts. b. Temporary signs and fencing shall be placed prior to beginning permitted activities and maintained throughout construction. 2. Permanent. a. The City Manager may require installation of permanent signs and/or fencing along the boundary of a wetland or buffer where public or high traffic pedestrian uses may occur to protect critical areas. b. Where required, permanent signs shall be made of an enamel -coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another nontreated material of equal durability. Signs shall be posted at an interval not less than one per lot or every 50 feet, whichever is less, and shall be maintained in perpetuity by the property owner. Any modification of the location or materials required for permanent signs shall be approved by the City Manager. The obligation to maintain permanent signs shall be recorded against the property in a form acceptable to the City. c. The signs shall be worded with language approved by the City Manager. d. Permanent fence shall be installed and maintained around the wetland buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced on site. e. Fencing shall be constructed in a manner that minimizes impacts to the wetland and associated habitat and designed to not interfere with species migration, including fish runs. Fencing materials shall not be made or treated with toxic chemicals. E. Wetland Mitigation. 1. Mitigation Ratios. a. Impacts resulting from alteration to wetlands shall be mitigated using the ratios specified below: Table 21.50-7: Wetland Mitigation Area Ratios' Category of Creation or Rehabilitation Enhancement Wetland Reestablishment Category I 4:1 8:1 16:1 Category II 3:1 6:1 12:1 Category III 2:1 4:1 8:1 Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1 Page 53 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 1 Refer to Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance, (Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011a, March 2006), for further information on wetland creation, reestablishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement. b. Impacts to buffers shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. Only vegetated buffer areas may be included in mitigation calculations. Lawns, walkways, driveways, and other mowed or developed areas shall be excluded from buffer area calculations. c. Credit/Debit Method. As an alternative to the mitigation ratios provided in SVMC 21.50.520(E), the City Manager may allow mitigation based on the "credit/debit" method developed by the Ecology in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Eastern Washington: Final Report (Ecology Publication No. 11-06-015, August 2012, as adopted or as amended). 2. Off -Site Mitigation. a. Wetland mitigation may be permitted off site if the primary drainage basin will not be substantially damaged by the loss of affected wetland hydrologic, water quality, or habitat functions as determined by a qualified professional; and On -site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, or other factors such as other potentially adverse impacts from surrounding land uses; ii. Existing functions off site are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values; or Goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat, or other wetland functions have been established and off -site mitigation is strongly justified by meeting such goals. b. Wetland Mitigation Banks and Fee -in -Lieu Programs. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank or fee -in -lieu program may be approved as off -site mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when: (1) The bank or fee -in -lieu program is certified under state rules; (2) The City Manager determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides appropriate compensation for the authorized impacts; and (3) The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the certified bank instrument. ii. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall be consistent with replacement ratios specified in the certified bank instrument. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the certified bank instrument. In some cases, the service area of the bank may include portions of more than one adjacent drainage basin for specific wetland functions. The use of bank credits out of the established service area of the nearest available bank must be approved by the City, WDFW, and Ecology. iv. When applying for a wetland mitigation bank or fee -in -lieu program, the applicant shall prepare a wetland mitigation bank credit use plan Page 54 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program that documents consistency with these criteria and shows how the identified wetland type and associated functions will be compensated for by purchase of the credits. 3. Design. a. Design of wetland mitigation projects shall be appropriate for its landscape position. Compensatory mitigation shall result in the creation, restoration, or enhancement of a wetland that matches the geomorphic setting of the site. b. The design of a wetland that has a different Cowardin or hydrogeomorphic classification than the impacted wetland may be justified if supported by a demonstrated need for, or scarcity of, the wetland type being designed. 4. Timing. a. To minimize temporal loss of wetland ecological functions, compensatory mitigation shall be completed prior to activities that disturb wetlands where feasible. b. Where mitigation cannot be completed prior to wetland impacts, compensatory mitigation shall be completed immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the action or development. c. Understanding that construction of mitigation projects should be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora, the City Manager may authorize a delay of mitigation when the applicant provides a compelling written rationale for the delay with recommendations from a qualified wetland professional. In such cases, the delay shall not: Create or perpetuate hazardous conditions; ii. Create environmental damage or degradation; or Be injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. F Additional critical area report requirements for wetlands. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, wetland reports shall include the following: 1. Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including but not limited to field data sheets for delineations, function assessments, ratings, or baseline hydrologic data; 2. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland delineations, function assessments, or impact analyses including references; 3. For each wetland identified on site, adjacent to and within 200 feet of the project site, provide: a. Required buffers; b. Wetland rating, hydrogeomorphic classification, Cowardin classification of vegetation communities, on -site wetland acreage, and ecological function of the wetland and buffer based on a professional survey from the field delineation. All assessments shall be based on entire wetland complexes, not only the portion present on the proposed project site; c. Estimates of acreage and boundary for the entire wetland area where portions of the wetland extend off site; d. Description of habitat elements; e. Soil conditions based on site assessment and soil survey information; and f. To the extent possible, hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlet/outlets (if they can be legally accessed), estimated water depths within the wetland, and estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g., algal mats, drift lines, flood debris); Page 55 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 4. A description of the proposed actions and survey and an analysis of site development alternatives, including a no -development alternative; 5. An assessment of the probable impacts to the wetlands and buffers resulting from the proposed development, including: a. An estimation of acreages of impacts to wetlands and buffers based on the field delineation; b. Impacts associated with anticipated hydroperiod alterations from the proiect; and c. Impacted wetland functions; 6. A description of how mitigation sequencing was applied pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210, No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing; 7 A discussion of mitigation measures, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded by the current proposed land -use activity; 8. Methods to protect and enhance on -site habitat and wetland functions; 9. A site plan, drawn to scale, with the following information: a. Delineated wetland(s) and required buffer(s) for on -site wetlands as well as off -site critical areas that extend onto the proiect site; b. Areas of proposed impacts to wetlands and/or buffers (include square footage estimates); and c. Proposed stormwater management facilities and outlets for the development, including estimated areas of intrusion into the buffers of any critical areas; and 10. A mitigation plan, if required. a. The plan shall address mitigation site selection criteria and goals and objectives in relation to the functions and values of the impacted critical area. Details in the mitigation plan shall include, but not be limited to: The proposed construction method, sequence, timing, and duration; ii. Grading and excavation details; Erosion and sediment control features; iv. Dates for beginning and completion of mitigation activities; v. A planting plan, if applicable, specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; and measures to protect and maintain plants until established; and vi. Detailed site diagrams, scaled cross -sectional drawings, topographic maps showing slope percentage and final grade elevations, and any other drawings appropriate to show construction techniques or anticipated final outcome. b. The mitigation plan shall include a monitoring plan to ensure success of the mitigation plan. The plan shall conform to the monitoring requirements outlined in SVMC 21.50.510. 21.50.530 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations A. Applicability. This section applies to the following developments and uses when proposed within designated CARAs: 1. Underground and aboveground storage tanks; 2. Vehicle repair and service uses, including automobile washers; 3. Chemical treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; 4. Hazardous waste generating uses; Page 56 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 5. Injection wells, not including Class V or injection wells for stormwater management; 6. Junk and salvage yards; 7. On -site sewage systems; 8. Solid waste handling and recycling facilities; 9. Surface mines; 10. Uses of hazardous substances, other than household chemicals for domestic applications; 11. Projects having the potential to adversely impact groundwater; and 12. Work within a wellhead protection area. B. Designation and classification. 1. CARAs are those areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water as defined by WAC 365-190-030(2). CARAs have prevailing geologic conditions associated with infiltration rates that create a high potential for contamination of ground water resources or contribute significantly to the replenishment of ground water. 2. Aquifer recharge areas are rated as having a high, moderate, or low susceptibility based on a scientific analysis of soils, hydraulic conductivity, annual rainfall, the depth to aquifers, the importance of the vadose zone, and wellhead protection information. The entire shoreline jurisdiction, as well as the entire City, is identified as a high susceptibility CARA. C. Performance standards. The uses listed in Table 21.50-8shall be conditioned as necessary to protect CARAs in accordance with the applicable state and federal regulations. Table 21.50-8: Statutes, Regulations, and Guidance Pertaining to Ground Water Impacting Activities Activity Statute — Regulation — Guidance Above Ground Storage Tanks WAC 173-303-640 Automobile Washers WAC 173-216; Best Management Practices Manual for Vehicle and Equipment Washwater Discharges(WQ-R-95-056) Below Ground Storage Tanks WAC 173-360 Chemical Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities WAC 173-303-300 Hazardous Waste Generator (Boat Repair Shops, Biological Research Facility, Dry Cleaners, Furniture Stripping, Motor Vehicle Service Garages, Photographic Processing, Printing and Publishing Shops, etc.) WAC 173-303-300 Injection Wells 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146;WAC 173-218 Junk Yards and Salvage Yards Vehicle and Metal Recycles — A Guide for Implementing the Industrial Stormwater General NPDES Permit Requirements (94-146) On -Site Sewage Systems (Large Scale) WAC 246-272B On -Site Sewage Systems (< 14,500 gal/day) WAC 246-272A, Local Health Ordinances Page 57 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Activity Statute — Regulation — Guidance Solid Waste Handling and Recycling Facilities WAC 173-304 Surface Mining WAC 332-18 Additional performance standards for storage tanks that store hazardous substances or waste. All storage tanks shall: 1. Comply with Title 24 SVMC Building Code and fire department requirements; 2. Use material in the construction or lining of the tank that is compatible with the substance to be stored; 3. Not allow the release of a hazardous substance to the ground, groundwater, or surface water; 4. Prevent releases due to corrosion or structural failure for the operational life of the tank; and 5. Be protected against corrosion and constructed of noncorrosive material or steel clad with a noncorrosive material. D. All new underground storage tanks shall include a built-in secondary containment system that prevents the release or threatened release of any stored substances. E. All new aboveground storage tanks shall include a secondary containment structure and meet either of the criteria below: 1. If the secondary containment is built into the tank structure, the tank shall be placed over a sealed impervious pad surrounded with a dike. The impervious pad/dike shall be sized to contain the 10-year storm if exposed to the weather; or 2. If the tank is single walled, the tank shall be placed over a sealed impervious pad surrounded with a dike. The impervious pad/dike shall have the capacity to contain 110 percent of the largest tank plus the 10-year storm if exposed to the weather. F Additional performance standards for vehicle repair and servicing. Vehicle repair and servicing must be conducted over impermeable pads and within a covered structure capable of withstanding normally expected weather conditions. G. Additional standards for chemical storage. 1. All chemicals used shall be stored in a manner that protects them from weather. Secondary containment shall be provided. On -site disposal of any critical material or hazardous waste shall be prohibited. 2. All developments and uses shall provide a narrative and plan to show how development complies with the regulations and performance standards in SVMC 21.50.530(C-F), or prepare a hydrogeological assessment in accordance with SVMC 21.50.530(H). 3. Proposed developments and uses that are unable to satisfy the performance standards in SVMC 21.50.530(C-F), shall submit a hydrogeological assessment report. H. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, hydrogeological assessments shall include: Page 58 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 1 Available geologic and hydrogeological characteristics of the site, including groundwater depth, flow direction, gradient, and permeability of the unsaturated zone; 2. Discussion of the effects of the proposed project on groundwater quality and quantity; 3. A spill plan that identifies equipment and/or structures that could fail, resulting in an impact. Spill plans shall include provisions for regular inspection, repair, replacement of structures and equipment that could fail, and mitigation and cleanup in the event of a spill; and 4. Best management practices proposed to be utilized. 21.50.540 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations \pplicability. This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within designated FWHCAs. Designation. the waters and land underneath the Spokane River are FWHCAs. The City its shoreline functions of these through the Shoreline Buffer established in SVMC 21.50.230 and the vegetation conservation standards in SVMC 21.50.260. an y formal identification are hereby decignated C\/VI- C c• a Area n h state or federal docignatod endangered threatened or sensitive species have a primary asociation; b. State priority habitats and areas associated with state priority species, a� identified by the WSDFW and are updated periodically; and c. State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas. Nate iral area preserves and nati iral recoi irce conservation areas are defined established and managed b y \A/flN C. Performance standards. All development and uses shall be prohibited within FWHCAs designated in SVMC 21.50.5/10(B)(2), except in accordance with this section. Buffers shall be required only for FWHCAs described under SVMC 21.50.5/10(B)(2), excluding FWHCA critical area report. Buffers shall not cxcccd 100 horizontal fcct from thc edge ofhe FWHCA. 1. General. a. A FWHCA may be altered only if the proposed alteration of the habitat or the mitigation proposed does not create a net loss of the quantitative and qualitative shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain the FWHCA. b. No plant, wildlife, or fish species not indigcnous to thc region shall bc introduced into a FWHCA unless authorized by a state or federal permit or approval. c. Contiguous functioning habitat corridors arc prcfcrrcd to minimize thc isolating effects of development on habitat areas. d. Vegetation. Vegetation shall be maintaincd in its natural state and shall bc dicta irbed only ac minimally necessary for Oho development• and v Page 59 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program �i. Riparian vegetation shall not be removed unless there are no other alternatives available. When it is ncccssa -en ecc areas of vegetation that are absolutely unavoidable magi be c}�T� dshall be re vegetated with nati iral riparian vegetation as soon aspsssible. c. The subdivision and short subdivision of land shall comply with thc following provisions: Land that is located wholly within a FWHCA or its buffer may not be subdivided; ii. Land that is located partially within a FWHCA or its buffcr may bc divided provided that an accessible and contiguous portion of cach new lot is located outside of thc habitat conservation area or its buffer; and Access roads and utilities serving the proposal may be permitted within the FWHCA and associated buffers only if the City determines that no other feasible alternative exists and when consistent with the SMP. f. The project may be conditioned to minimize or mitigate any potential adverse impacts. Conditions may include, but arc not limited to, thc following: Establishment of buffer zones; ii. Preservation. of critically important vegetation, including requirements for re_vegeta+ion of disturbed areas with native plants; Vegetation screenings to reduce the potential for harassment from people and/or domesticated animals; iy I imitation of access to the habitat area dfiring critical times of the rv. year; v. Fencing to protect wildlife and deter unauthorized access; vi. Dedication of all or part of the required open space to fish and n iildlife habitat conservation• and vii. Seasonal restriction of construction activities. 2. FWHCAs with endangered, threatened, or sensitive species. a. No development shall bc allowed within a FWHCA or buffcr where state or federal endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association without state and federal consultation and approval from WDFW and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), respectively. b. Approval for alteration of land or activities adjacent to a FWHCA having a primary association with state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species shall not occur prior to consultation with the WDFW. c. Bald eagle habitat shall be protected consistent with: WAC 232 12 292, Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules; artd ii The Bald and Golden Cagle Protection 4c4 which magi regi lire a permit obtained from the USFWS. D. Mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring for FWI-IC4c designated in SVMC 21.50.5'10(B)(2). 1. Mitigation sites shall be located: a. Preferably to achieve contiguous functioning habitat corridors that minimize the isolating effects of development on habitat areas• and v Page 60 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program b. Within the same aquatic ecosystem as the FWHCA disturbed. mitigation plantings. The design shall meet the specific needs of riparian and shrub steppe vegetation and be prepared by a Qualified Professional and/or landscape architect. 3. Mitigation shall be installed no later than the next growing season after completion of site improvements, unless otherwise approved by the Director. /1. Mitigation sites shall be maintained to ensure that the mitigation and management plan objectives are successful. 5. Maintenance shall include corrective actions to rectify problems, include rigorous, as nccdcd elimination of undcsirablc plants, protection of shrubs and small trees from competition by grasses and herbaceous plants, and repair and replacement of any dead plants. 6. Planting areas shall be maintained so they have less than 20 perccnt total non native/invasive plant cover consisting of exotic and/or invasive species. Exotic and invasivc spccics include any species on the state noxious weed list, or considered a noxious or problem weed by the Natural Conservation Services Department or local conservation district. 7. The Applicant shall monitor the performance of any required mitigation and submit performance monitoring reports to the City consistent with the following: a. Mitigation sites shall be monitored for five years. b. Monitoring reports shall be submitted by a Qualified Professional: One year after mitigation installation; ii. Three years after mitigation installation; and Five years after mitigation installation. c. The Qualified Professional shall verify whether the conditions of approval and provisions in the fish and wildlife management and mitigation plan have been satisfied. d. Mitigation planting survival shall be 100 percent for the first year, and 80 percent for each of the four years following. E. Additional critical area report requirements for FWHCAs designated in SVMC 21.50.5'10(B)(2). 1. Report Contents. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, FWHCA reports shall include: a. Habitat assessment, including: �. Detailed description of vegetation on and adjacent to the project area; �i. Identification of any species of local importancc, priority habitat and -species end ;gered, threatened, sensitive or candidate species that have a primary association with habitat on or adjaccnt to the project arema and assessment f potential project impacts to the use of the site by the species; A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management recommendations, including WDFW habitat management recommendations, that have been developed for species or habitats located on or adjacent to the project area; iv. A discussion of measures, including mitigation sequencing, proposed to preserve existing habitats or restore any habitat that was degraded prior to the current proposed land use activity• and 0 Page 61 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program v. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect habitat after the project site has been developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs. 2. Any proposal in a FWHCA or within 1,320 feet from a priority species den or nest site that the Director (in consultation with thc WDFW) dctcrmincs is likcly to havc an adverse impact on a FWHCA or associated species shall provide a Habitat Management Plan, including: a. A plan, drawn to scale, that identifies: �. The location of the proposed site; ii. The relationship of the site to surrounding topographic and built elementc• c�c�c rrcr, The nature and intensity of the proposed use or activity; iv. Proposed improvement(s) locations and arrangements; v. The location of the OHWM, shoreline jurisdiction, and riparian habitat area boundary lines; vi. The legal description and the total acreage of the parcel; vii. Existing structures and landscapc f aturcs including thc namc viii. The location of priority habitat types or priority species point locations within 1,320 feet of the proposal; b. An analysis of the impact of the proposed use or activity upon FWHCAs c. A mitigation plan that may include, but is not limited to: Establishment of perpetual buffer areas; ii. Preservation and/or restoration of native flora; Limitation of access to habitat area; iv. Seasonal restriction of construction activities; v. Clustering of development and preservation of open space; vi. Signs marking habitats or habitat buffer areas; vii. Use of low impact development techniques; viii. Recorded deed, plat, binding site plan, or planned unit development covenant, condition, or restriction legally establishing a riparian habitat area for subject property; ix. Conservation or preservation easements; and x. Dedication or conveyance of title of a riparian habitat area to a public entity for the purpose of concervation• and d. A summary of consultation with a habitat biologist with thc WDFW. If thc habitat management plan recommends mitigation involving federally listed threatened or endangered species, migratory waterfowl, or wetlands, the USFWS shall receive a copy of the draft habitat management plan and their review comments shall be included in thc final report. The Director shall have the authority to approve habitat management plans or require additional information. A. This section applies to all clearing, uses, modifications, or development activities within designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs) and associated buffers. B. Designation. All areas meeting one or more of the following criteria, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated FWHCAs: 1. The shoreline buffer as mapped by the City, which protects riparian habitat, and the waters and land underneath the Spokane River are FWHCAs. The City protects Page 62 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program shoreline functions of these through the Shoreline Buffer established in SVMC 21.50.230 and the vegetation conservation standards in SVMC 21.50.260. 2. Areas where the following species and/or habitats have a primary association: a. Federally designated endangered and, threatened species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service shall be consulted for current listing status. State -designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species pursuant to WAC 232-12-014 (state endangered species) and WAC 232- 12-011 (state threatened and sensitive species). The WDFW maintains the most current listing and shall be consulted for current listing status. b. State priority habitats and areas associated with state priority species. Priority habitats and species (PHS) are managed by the WDFW. Priority habitat maps are amended from time to time by WDFW. Within the City, priority habitats include wetlands, open waterways, riparian areas, urban open space, and the habitat associated with individual native species. Priority habitat data is included in the City's Fish and Wildlife Habitat Critical Areas Map. c. 3. Naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat, including those artificial ponds intentionally created from upland areas for mitigation purposes. Naturally occurring ponds do not include ponds deliberately designed and created from dry sites, such as stormwater treatment or detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, temporary construction ponds, and landscape amenities. To distinguish between ponds and wetlands, refer to current state or federal definitions and guidance. 4. Ponds or lakes artificially created as a result of mining once mining is complete and the mine reclamation plan has been implemented and deemed complete by DNR. 5. Waters of the State. Waters of the state include lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses, including wetlands, within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington, as classified in WAC 222-16-030. Water type classifications are as follows: a. "Type S water" means all waters, within their bankable width, as inventoried as "shorelines of the state" pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW including periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands. Type S waters have mean annual flows averaging 20 or more cubic feet per second. b. "Type F water" means segments of natural waters other than Type S waters, which are within the bankfull widths of defined channels and periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands, or within lakes, ponds, or impoundments having a surface area of one-half acre or greater at seasonal low water and which in any case contain fish habitat or are described by one of the following four categories: Waters that are diverted for domestic use by more than 10 residential or camping units or by a public accommodation facility licensed to serve more than 10 persons, where such diversion is determined by the City to be a valid appropriation of water and the only practical water source for such users. Such waters shall be considered to be Type F water upstream from the point of such Page 63 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program diversion for 1,500 feet or until the drainage area is reduced by 50 percent, whichever is less. ii. Waters that are diverted for use by federal, state, tribal, or private fish hatcheries. Such waters shall be considered Type F water upstream from the point of diversion for 1,500 feet, including tributaries, if highly significant for protection of downstream water quality. The City may allow additional harvest beyond the requirements of Type F water designation provided the City determines, after a landowner -requested on -site assessment by the WDFW, Ecology, the affected tribes, and interested parties that: (1) The management practices proposed by the landowner adequately protect water quality for the fish hatchery; and (2) Such additional harvest meets the requirements of the water type designation that would apply in the absence of the hatchery. Waters that are within a federal, state, local, or private campground having more than 10 camping units, provided that the water shall not be considered to enter a campground until it reaches the boundary of the park lands available for public use and comes within 100 feet of a camping unit, trail, or other park improvement. iv. Riverine ponds, wall -based channels, and other channel features that are used by fish for off -channel habitat. These areas are critical to the maintenance of optimum survival of fish. This habitat shall be identified based on the following criteria: (1) The site is connected to a fish habitat stream and accessible during some period of the year; and (2) The off -channel water is accessible to fish. c. "Type Np water" means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of defined channels that are perennial non -fish habitat streams. Perennial streams are waters that do not go dry any time of a year of normal rainfall. However, for the purpose of water typing, Type Np waters include the intermittent dry portions of the perennial channel below the uppermost point of perennial flow. If the uppermost point of perennial flow cannot be identified with simple, nontechnical observations then Type Np waters begin at a point along the channel where the contributing basin area is at least 300 acres. d. "Type Ns water" means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of the defined channels that are not Type S, F, or Np waters. These are seasonal, nonfish habitat streams in which surface flow is not present for at least some portion of a year of normal rainfall and that are not located downstream from any stream reach that is a Type Np water. Type Ns waters must be physically connected by an aboveground channel system to Type S, F, or Np waters. 6. State Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation Areas. Natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas are defined, established, and managed by the DNR. 7 Areas of Rare Plant Species and High Quality Ecosystems. Areas of rare plant species and high quality ecosystems are identified by the DNR through the Natural Heritage Program. Page 64 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 8. Lands designated on state, regional, or local government agency plans (e.g. parks or transportation) as useful or essential for preserving connections between habitat blocks and open spaces. C. Habitat Buffers and Riparian Management Zones. 1. Buffers to protect state- or federally designated sensitive wildlife FWHCAs shall be based on the recommendations of a FWHCA critical area report prepared by a qualified professional pursuant to SVMC 21.50.540(F). Habitat buffers shall not exceed 100 horizontal feet from the edge of the FWHCA. 2. Riparian Management Zones for Waters of the State. a. Designation. Riparian management zones (RMZs) are based on the water type classification as described in SVMC 21.50.540(B). RMZs are measured perpendicular to the ordinary high water line or bankfull channel width boundary of a delineated stream. RMZ widths are summarized as follows: Table 21.540-9. Riparian Management Zones Buffer Widths Stream Classification RMZ Width Type S — Shorelines of the state See SVMC 21.50.230 Type F — Natural waters not classified as 150' shorelines of the state with fish (e.q. Chester and Saltese Creeks) Type Np — Non -fish, -perennial 50' Type Ns-- Non -fish, seasonal 30' b. RMZ Requirements. RMZs shall be retained or maintained in a natural condition, and vegetation within RMZs shall be conserved as feasible to provide shade, habitat, and water quality functions for the associated stream. ii. Where activities are proposed within a RMZ, mitigation measures shall be specified in a habitat management plan and may include but are not limited to one or more of the following: (1) Fencing of riparian buffer area to protect remaining vegetation; (2) Non-native/noxious weed removal and maintenance; and/or (3) Enhancement of RMZ through planting of native vegetation. Proposed pedestrian/bike trails shall demonstrate though best available science that the location and width of the trail minimizes any adverse impacts on habitat and that measures to reduce effects during construction are implemented. iv. Off -road motorized vehicle use in riparian management zones is prohibited. Page 65 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program D. Performance standards. All development and uses shall be prohibited within FWHCAs and their buffers except when they are in accordance with this subsection (SVMC 21.50.540(D)). 1. No Net Loss. A FWHCA buffer may be altered only if the proposed alteration of the habitat or the mitigation proposed does not create a net loss of the quantitative and qualitative shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain the FWHCA. 2. No plant, wildlife, or fish species not indigenous to the region shall be introduced into a FWHCA unless authorized by a state or federal permit or approval. 3. Contiguous functioning habitat corridors are preferred to minimize the isolating effects of development on habitat areas. 4. Vegetation. a. Vegetation shall be maintained in its natural state and shall be disturbed only as minimally necessary for the development. b. Riparian vegetation shall not be removed unless there are no other alternatives available, as documented in a habitat management plan prepared by a qualified professional. When it is necessary, only those areas of vegetation that are absolutely unavoidable may be cleared, and shall be re -vegetated with natural riparian vegetation as soon as possible. 5. The subdivision and short subdivision of land shall comply with the following provisions: a. Plat area that is located wholly within a FWHCA or its buffer may not be subdivided; b. Plat area that is located partially within a FWHCA or its buffer may be divided; provided, that an accessible and contiguous portion of each new lot is located outside of the habitat conservation area or its buffer; and c. Access roads and utilities serving the proposal may be permitted within the FWHCA and associated buffers only if the City determines that no other feasible alternative exists and when consistent with Chapter 21.50 SVMC. 6. A project may be conditioned to minimize or mitigate any potential adverse impacts. Conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Establishment of buffer zones; b. Preservation of critically important vegetation, including requirements for re -vegetation of disturbed areas with native plants; c. Vegetation screenings to reduce the potential for harassment from people and/or domesticated animals; d. Limitation of access to the habitat area during critical times of the year; e. Fencing to protect wildlife and deter unauthorized access; f. Dedication of all or part of the required open space to fish and wildlife habitat conservation; and Seasonal restriction of construction activities. 7 FWHCAs with endangered, threatened, or sensitive species. a. No development shall be allowed within a FWHCA or buffer where state or federal endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association without state and federal consultation and approval from WDFW and USFWS, respectively. b. Approval for alteration of land or activities adjacent to a FWHCA having a primary association with state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species shall not occur prior to consultation with the WDFW. Page 66 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program c. Bald eagle habitat shall be protected consistent with the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which may require coordination with the USFWS. E. Fish and wildlife habitat mitigation. 1 When necessary, fish and wildlife habitat mitigation shall be documented in a habitat management plan (See SVMC 21.50.540(F)(1)). 2. Mitigation sites shall be located: a. Preferably to achieve contiguous functioning habitat corridors that minimize the isolating effects of development on habitat areas; and b. Within the same aquatic ecosystem as the FWHCA disturbed. 3. Where available, irrigation shall be installed for the mitigation plantings to ensure survival during the first two years of plant growth. 4. Landscaping plans shall be informed by local reference riparian and shrub - steppe vegetation conditions and be prepared by a qualified professional or landscape architect. Only native vegetation may be used in habitat mitigation plans, excluding sterile vegetation used for temporary erosion control. 5. Mitigation shall be installed no later than the next growing season after completion of site improvements, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager. 6. Mitigation sites shall be maintained to ensure that the mitigation and management plan objectives are successful. a. Maintenance shall include corrective actions to rectify problems, include rigorous, as -needed elimination of undesirable plants;; protection of shrubs and small trees from herbivory and competition by grasses and herbaceous plants; and repair and replacement of any dead woody plants. b. Areas proposed for mitigation shall be maintained so they have no more than 20 percent total plant cover consisting of invasive species. Invasive species include any species on the state noxious weed list. 7 Monitoring Required. An applicant shall monitor the performance of any required mitigation and submit performance monitoring reports annually to the City. a. Mitigation sites shall be monitored for a period of time appropriate to the proposed mitigation as determined in a habitat management plan prepared by a qualified professional. b. At the end of the monitoring period, the qualified professional shall be required to verify that the conditions of approval and provisions in the habitat management plan have been satisfied. c. Mitigation planting survival shall be 100 percent for the first year and 80 percent for each subsequent year. d. If the final annual monitoring report clearly demonstrates that the site has achieved all goals and objectives set forth in the approved habitat management plan, the applicant shall be released from additional mitigation obligations. If, however, performance objectives are not met, additional maintenance, adaptive management, and performance monitoring shall be required until all objectives are met. F. Additional critical area report requirements for FWHCAs. Page 67 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 1 Report Contents. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, FWHCA reports shall include: a. Habitat assessment, including: Detailed description of vegetation on and adjacent to the project area; ii. Identification of any species of local importance, PHS, or endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species that have a primary association with habitat on or adjacent to the project area, and assessment of potential project impacts to the use of the site by the species; A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management recommendations, including WDFW habitat management recommendations, that have been developed for species or habitats located on or adjacent to the project area; iv. A discussion of measures, including mitigation sequencing, proposed to preserve existing habitats or restore any habitat that was degraded prior to the current proposed land use activity; and v. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect habitat after the project site has been developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs. b. Habitat Management Plan. Any proposal in a FWHCA or within one - quarter mile of a priority species den or nest site shall provide a habitat management plan which includes at least the following: A plan, drawn to scale, that identifies: (1) The location of the proposed site; (2) The relationship of the site to surrounding topography and developed areas; (3) The nature and intensity of the proposed use or activity; (4) Proposed improvement(s) locations and arrangements; (5) The location of the ordinary high water mark, shoreline jurisdiction, and RMZ boundary lines; (6) The legal description and the total acreage of the parcel; (7) Existing structures and landscape features including the name and location of all waters within 300 feet of the proposalcach; and (8) The location of priority habitat types or priority species point locations within one -quarter mile of the proposal.; ii. An analysis of the effect of the proposed use or activity upon FWHCAs or associated species and riparian habitat area. A mitigation plan that may include, but is not limited to: (1) Establishment of perpetual buffer areas; (2) Preservation and/or restoration of native flora; (3) Limitation of access to habitat area; (4) Seasonal restriction of construction activities; (5) Clustering of development and preservation of open space; (6) Signs marking habitats or habitat buffer areas; (7) Use of low impact development techniques; (8) Recorded deed, plat, binding site plan, or planned unit development covenant, condition, or restriction legally establishing a riparian FWHCA for subject property; Page 68 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program (9) Conservation or preservation easements; and (10) Dedication or conveyance of title of a riparian habitat area to a public entity for the purpose of conservation. iv. A summary of consultation with the WDFW. If the habitat management plan recommends mitigation involving federally listed threatened or endangered species, migratory waterfowl, or wetlands, the USFWS shall receive a copy of the draft habitat management plan and their review comments shall be included in the final report. The DirectorCity Manager shall have the authority to approve habitat management plans or require additional information. 2. Conditions established by an approved habitat management plan shall be included as a condition of approval for a permit. 21.50.550 Geologically Hazardous Areas - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations A. Applicability. 1. This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within designated geologically hazardous areas. 2. Applications for development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall identify if it is located within a geohazard area as designated on the City Critical Areas and Priority Habitats Map. The DirectorCity Manager may require additional information based on the criteria in SVMC 21.50.550 to identify unmapped geohazards if application material and/or a site visit indicate the potential for geohazard. B. Designation and classification. 1. Areas susceptible to erosion, sliding earthquake, or other geological events are designated geologically hazardous areas in accordance with WAC 365-190-120, Geologically Hazardous Areas. 2. Categories. a. Erosion hazard areas are identified by the NRCS as having a "moderate to severe," "severe," or "very severe" rill and inter -rill erosion hazard. Erosion hazard areas also include areas with slopes greater than 15 percent. b. Landslide hazard areas are subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas susceptible because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope, slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors and include the following: Areas of historic failures, including: (1) Areas delineated by the NRCS as having a significant limitation for building site development; and (2) Areas designated as quaternary slumps, earthflows, mudflows, lahars, or landslides on maps published by the United States Geological Survey or WDNR; ii. Areas with all of the following characteristics: (1) Slopes steeper than 15 percent; (2) Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock; and (3) Springs or groundwater seepage; Page 69 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Areas that have shown movement during the holocene epoch (from 10,000 years ago to the present) or which are underlain or covered by mass wastage debris of this epoch; iv. Slopes that are parallel or subparallel to planes of weakness (such as bedding planes, joint systems, and fault planes) in subsurface materials; v. Slopes having gradients steeper than 80 percent subject to rock fall during seismic shaking; vi. Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action, including stream channel migration zones; vii. Areas that show evidence of, or are at risk from snow avalanches; viii. Areas located in a canyon or on an active alluvial fan, presently or potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or catastrophic flooding; and ix. Any area with a slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of 10 or more feet except areas composed of bedrock. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least 10 feet of vertical relief. c. Seismic hazard areas are subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement or subsidence, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. One indicator of potential for future earthquake damage is a record of past earthquake damage. C. Standards applicable to all geologic hazard areas. 1. Any development or uses proposed within 50 feet of a geologic hazard area shall prepare a critical areas report satisfying the general critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500 and the additional standards for Geologic Hazard Areas in SVMC 21.50.550(E). 2. Development or uses within geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers shall only be allowed when the proposed development or use: a. Does not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond pre -development conditions; b. Does not adversely impact other critical areas; c. Is designed so that the hazard is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than pre -development conditions; and d. Is determined to be safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a Qualified Professional. 3. New development that requires structural shoreline stabilization over the life of the development is prohibited, except in instances where: a. Stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses consistent with SVMC 21.50.420(6)(5); b. No alternative locations are available; c. Shoreline modifications do not negatively affect other critical areas pursuant to SVMC 21.50.460; and d. Stabilization measures conform to WAC 173-26-231, Shoreline Modifications. D. Standards applicable to erosion and landslide hazard areas. Page 70 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program 1 Development within an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area and/or buffer shall be designed to meet the following basic requirements unless it can be demonstrated that an alternative design that deviates from one or more of these standards provides greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other provisions of the SMP. The requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that require regular and periodic maintenance to maintain their level of function: a. Development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. Analysis of dynamic conditions shall be based on a minimum horizontal acceleration as established by the Uniform Building Code as adopted or amended; b. Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas and other critical areas; c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography; d. Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the site and its natural landforms and vegetation; e. The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on neighboring properties; f. The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is preferred over graded artificial slopes; and g. Development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage. 2. Buffers from all edges of Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas. a. The minimum buffer shall be equal to the height of the slope or 50 feet, whichever is greater. b. The buffer may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet when a Qualified Professional demonstrates that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses, and the subject critical area. c. The buffer may be increased where the flirectorCity Manages determines a larger buffer is necessary to prevent risk of damage to proposed and existing development. 3. Removal of vegetation from an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area and/or buffer shall be prohibited unless as part of an approved alteration plan consistent with SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation. 4. New utility lines and pipes shall be permitted only when the Applicant demonstrates that no other practical alternative is available. The line or pipe shall be located above ground and properly anchored and/or designed so that it will continue to function in the event of an underlying slide. 5. Stormwater conveyance shall be allowed only when the pipe design includes a high -density polyethylene pipe with fuse -welded joints, or similar product that is technically equal or superior. 6. New point discharges from drainage facilities and roof drains onto or upstream from Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas shall be prohibited except as follows: a. If it is conveyed via continuous storm pipe downslope to a point where there are no erosion hazards areas downstream from the discharge; b. If it is discharged at flow durations matching pre -developed conditions, with adequate energy dissipation, into existing channels that previously conveyed stormwater runoff in the pre -developed state; or Page 71 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program c. If it is dispersed or discharged upslope of the steep slope onto a low - gradient undisturbed buffer demonstrated to be adequate to infiltrate all surface and stormwater runoff, and where it can be demonstrated that such discharge will not increase the saturation of the slope. 7 Division of land in Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas and associated buffers is subject to the following: a. Land that is located wholly within a designated Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area or an associated buffer shall not be subdivided. b. Land that is located partially within a designated Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area or an associated buffer may be subdivided, provided that each resulting lot has sufficient buildable area outside of the Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area and buffer to accommodate reasonable development without impacting the critical area or requiring structural stabilization consistent with SVMC 21.50.180(B)(5) General Provisions. c. Access roads and utilities may be permitted within an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area and associated buffers if the City determines that no other feasible alternative exists. 8. On -site sewage disposal systems, including drain fields, shall be prohibited within Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas and associated buffers. E. Additional critical areas report requirements for geologically hazardous areas reports. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, geologically hazardous area reports shall include: 1. A site plan showing the following: a. The location of springs, seeps, or other surface expressions of groundwater on or within 200 feet of the project area or that have potential to be affected by the proposal; b. The topography, in two -foot contours, of the project area and all hazard areas addressed in the report; and c. The following additional information for a proposal impacting an Erosion Hazard or Landslide Hazard Area: The height of slope, slope gradient, and cross section of the project area; ii. Stormwater runoff disposal location and flow patterns; and The location and description of surface water runoff. 2. A geotechnical study that addresses the geologic characteristics and engineering properties of the soils, sediments, and/or rock of the project area and potentially affected adjacent properties, including: a. A description of the surface and subsurface geology, hydrology, soils, and vegetation found in the project area and in all hazard areas addressed in the report; b. A detailed overview of the field investigations; published data and references; data and conclusions from past assessments of the site; and site specific measurements, test, investigations, or studies that support the identification of geologically hazardous areas; c. Site history regarding landslides, erosion, and prior grading; d. A description of the vulnerability of the site to seismic and other geologic events; e. Proposals impacting an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area shall include the following additional information: A description of the extent and type of vegetative cover; Page 72 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program ii. An estimate of load capacity including surface and groundwater conditions, public and private sewage disposal systems, fills and excavations, and all structural development; An estimate of slope stability and the effect construction and placement of structures will have on the slope over the estimated life of the structure; iv. An estimate of the bluff retreat rate that recognizes and reflects potential catastrophic events such as seismic activity or a 100 year storm event; v. Consideration of the run -out hazard of landslide debris and/or the impacts of landslide run -out on down slope properties; vi. A study of slope stability including an analysis of proposed angles of cut and fill, and site grading; vii. Recommendations for building limitations, structural foundations, and an estimate of foundation settlement; and viii. An analysis of proposed surface and subsurface drainage, and the vulnerability of the site to erosion; f. A detailed description of the project, its relationship to the geologic hazard(s), and its potential impact upon the hazard area, the subject property, and affected adjacent properties; g. Recommendations for the minimum no -disturbance buffer and minimum building setback from any geologic hazard based upon the geotechnical analysis; h. A mitigation plan addressing how the activity maintains or reduces the pre-existing level of risk to the site and adjacent properties on a long-term basis (equal to or exceeding the projected lifespan of the activity or occupation); Proposals impacting an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area shall include the following additional information: An erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with requirements set forth in SVMC 22.150 Stormwater Management Regulations; and ii. Drainage plan for the collection, transport, treatment, discharge, and recycle of water; j. Location and methods of drainage, surface water management, locations and methods of erosion control, a vegetation management and replanting plan, or other means for maintaining long-term soil stability; and k. A plan and schedule to monitor stormwater runoff discharges from the site shall be included if there is a significant risk of damage to downstream receiving waters due to: Potential erosion from the site; ii. The size of the project; or The proximity to or the sensitivity of the receiving waters. 3. A geotechnical report, prepared within the last five years for a specific site, and where the proposed land use activity and surrounding site conditions are unchanged, may be incorporated into the required critical area report. The Applicant shall submit a geotechnical assessment detailing any changed environmental conditions associated with the site. 21.50.560 Frequently Flooded Areas - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations Page 73 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program A. Incorporation and applicability. SVMC 21.30 Floodplain Regulations are incorporated by reference herein and apply to all uses, activities, and structures within frequently flooded areas. B. Additional critical areas report requirements for frequently flooded areas. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, critical area reports for frequently flooded areas shall include: 1. A site plan showing: a. All areas of a special flood hazard within 200 feet of the project area, as indicated on the flood insurance map(s); b. Floodplain (100-year flood elevation), 10- and 50-year flood elevations, floodway, other critical areas, buffers, and shoreline areas; and c. Elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures, and the level to which any nonresidential structure has been flood proofed. Alterations of natural watercourses shall be avoided, if feasible. If unavoidable, the critical area report shall include: A description of and plan showing the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated; ii. A maintenance plan that provides maintenance practices for the altered or relocated portion of the watercourse to ensure that the flood carrying capacity is not diminished and downstream or upstream properties are not impacted; and A description of how the proposed watercourse alteration complies with the requirements of FWHCAs, the SMP, and other applicable state or federal permit requirements. Page 74 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Appendix A-1 Shoreline Master Program Definitions A. General Provisions. The definitions provided herein are supplemental to the definitions provided in Appendix A and only apply for use with the City's SMP, including chapter 21.50 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Solely for purposes of the City's SMP, if a conflict exists between these definitions and definitions in Appendix A, the definitions in Appendix A-1 shall govern. The definition of any word or phrase not listed in Appendix A-1 which is ambiguous when administering the SMP shall be defined by the City's Community Development Director, or his/her designee, from the following sources in the order listed: 1. Any City of Spokane Valley resolution, ordinance, code, or regulation; 2. Any statute or regulation of the State of Washington; 3. Legal definitions from the Hearings Board, from Washington common law, or the most recently adopted Black's Law Dictionary; or 4. The most recently -adopted Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. B. Definitions. Accessory or appurtenant structures: A structure that is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence, including garages, sheds, decks, driveways, utilities, fences, swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, tennis courts, installation of a septic tank and drainfield, and grading which does not exceed 250 cubic yards and does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the OHWM. Agricultural activities: Relating to the science or art of cultivating soil or producing crops to be used or consumed directly or indirectly by man or livestock, or raising of livestock. The term has the full meaning as set forth in WAC 173-26-020(3)(a) as adopted or amended. Amendment: A revision, update, addition, deletion, and/or reenactment to an existing SMP. Applicant: A person who files an application for permit under the SMP and may be the owner of the land on which the proposed activity would be located, a contract purchaser, or the authorized agent of such a person. Aquaculture: The culture or farming of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants and animals. Associated wetlands: Those wetlands (see "Wetlands" definition) that are in proximity to and either influence, or are influenced by, a lake or stream subject to the SMA. Average grade level: The average of the natural or existing topography of the portion of the lot, parcel, or tract of real property which will be directly under the proposed building or structure; provided that in case of structures to be built over water, average grade level shall be the elevation of OHWM. Calculation of the average grade level shall be made by averaging the elevations at the center of all exterior walls of the proposed building or structure. Best Management Practices (BMPs): Site -specific design strategies, techniques, technologies, conservation and maintenance practices, or systems of practices and management measures that minimize adverse impacts from the development or use of a site. Bioengineering: Project designs or construction methods which use living plant material or a combination of living plant material and natural or synthetic materials to establish a complex root grid within the bank which is resistant to erosion, provides bank stability, and promotes a healthy riparian environment. Bioengineering approaches may include use of wood structures or clean angular rock to provide stability. Page 75 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Boating facilities: Boating facilities include boat launches, ramps, public docks, commercial docks, and private docks serving more than four residences, together with accessory uses such as Americans with Disabilities Act -compliant access routes, boat and equipment storage, user amenities such as benches and picnic tables, and restroom facilities. Buffer or Shoreline buffer: The horizontal distance from the OHWM or critical area which is established to preserve shoreline or critical area functions by limiting or restricting development. See Appendix A-2, Shoreline Buffers Map. Permitted development and activities within buffers depend on the type of critical area or resource land the buffer is protecting. Clearing: The destruction or removal of ground cover, shrubs, and trees including, but not limited to, root material removal and/or topsoil removal. Commercial uses: Those uses that are involved in wholesale, retail, service, and business trade. Examples of commercial uses include restaurants, offices, and retail shops. Conditional use: A use, project, or substantial development which is classified as a conditional use or is not classified within the SMP. Degrade: To impair with respect to some physical or environmental property or to reduce in structure or function. Development: A use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the SMA at any stage of water level. Development" does not include dismantling or removing structures if there is no other associated development or re -development. Development regulations: The controls placed on development or land uses by the City, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, building codes, critical areas ordinances, all portions of the SMP other than goals and policies approved or adopted under chapter 90.58 RCW, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto. Dock: A floating platform over water used for moorage of recreational or commercial watercraft. Dredging: The removal of sediment, earth, or gravel from the bottom of a body of water, for the deepening of navigational channels, to mine the sediment materials, to restore water bodies, for flood control, or for cleanup of polluted sediments. Ecological functions or Shoreline functions: The work performed or role played by the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural ecosystem. Ecology: Washington State Department of Ecology. Ecosystem -wide process: The suite of naturally occurring physical and geologic processes of erosion, transport, and deposition; and specific chemical processes that shape landforms within a specific shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of habitat and the associated ecological functions. Enhancement: Alteration of an existing resource to improve its ecological function without degrading other existing functions. Exemption or Exempt development: Exempt developments are those set forth in WAC 173- 27-040 and RCW 90.58.030(3)(e), RCW 90.58.140(9), RCW 90.58.147, RCW 90.58.355, and RCW 90.58.515. See also "Shoreline exemption, letter of'. Page 76 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Feasible: An action, such as a project, mitigation measure, or preservation requirement, which meets all of the following conditions: 1. The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been used in the past in similar circumstances, or studies or tests have demonstrated in similar circumstances that such approaches are currently available and likely to achieve the intended results; 2. The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose; 3. The action does not physically preclude achieving the project's intended legal use; and 4. In cases where the SMP requires certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving infeasibility is on the applicant. In determining an action's infeasibility, the City may weigh the action's relative public costs and public benefits, considered in the short- and long-term time frames. Fill: The addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining structure, or other material to an area waterward of the OHWM, in wetlands, or on shorelands in a manner that raises the elevation or creates dry land. Depositing topsoil in a dry upland area for landscaping purposes is not considered a fill. Flood hazard reduction: Measures taken to reduce flood damage or hazards. Flood hazard reduction measures may consist of nonstructural measures, such as setbacks, land use controls, wetland restoration, dike removal, use relocation, biotechnical measures, and stormwater management programs, and of structural measures, such as dikes, levees, revetments, floodwalls, channel realignment, and elevation of structures consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program. Footprint: That area defined by the outside face of the exterior walls of a structure. Forest practices: Any activity relating to growing, harvesting, or processing timber, including, but not limited to, uses defined in RCW 76.09.020. Grading: The movement or redistribution of the soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, or other material on a site in a manner that alters the natural contour of the land. Habitat: The place or type of site where a plant or animal lives and grows. Habitat enhancement: Actions performed within an existing shoreline, critical area, or buffer to intentionally increase or augment one or more ecological functions or values, such as increasing aquatic and riparian plant diversity or cover, increasing structural complexity, installing environmentally compatible erosion controls, or removing non -indigenous plant or animal species. Hearings Board: The Shoreline Hearings Board established by the SMA. Height: Height is measured from average grade level to the highest point of a structure; provided that television antennas, chimneys, and similar appurtenances shall not be used in calculating height; provided further that temporary construction equipment is excluded from this calculation. In -stream structure: A structure placed by humans within a stream or river waterward of the OHWM that either causes or has the potential to cause water impoundment or cause the diversion, obstruction, or modification of water flow. In -stream structures may include those for hydroelectric generation, irrigation, water supply, flood control, transportation, utility service transmission, fish habitat enhancement, recreation, or other purpose. Industrial uses: Facilities for processing, manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, and storage of finished or semi -finished products. Page 77 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Landward: To, or towards, the land in a direction away from a water body. May: The action is acceptable, provided it conforms to the provisions of this SMP. Mining: The removal of sand, gravel, soil, minerals, and other earth materials for commercial and other uses. Mitigation or Mitigation sequencing: To avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse impacts. Native: For the purposes of this SMP, "native" means a plant or animal species that naturally occurs in Spokane County, or occurred in Spokane County at the time of Euro-American exploration and settlement, beginning in the early 19th century. No net Toss: The standard for protection of shoreline ecological functions established in RCW 36.70A.480 as adopted or amended, and as that standard is interpreted on an on -going basis by courts, the Growth Management Hearings Board, or the Hearings Board. The concept of "no net loss" as used herein, recognizes that any use or development has potential or actual, short-term or long-term impacts which may diminish ecological function and that through application of appropriate development standards and employment of mitigation measures in accordance with mitigation sequencing, those impacts will be addressed in a manner necessary to assure that the end result will not cumulatively diminish the shoreline resources and values as they currently exist. Where uses or development that impact ecological functions are necessary to achieve other objectives of RCW 90.58.020, the no net loss standard protects to the greatest extent feasible existing ecological functions and favors avoidance of new impacts to habitat and ecological functions before implementing other measures designed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. Nonconforming lot: means a legally established lot that met dimensional requirements of the applicable master program at the time of its establishment but now contains less than the required width, depth, or area due to subsequent changes to the master program. Nonconforming structure: A structure within t#e- shoreline jurisdiction which was lawfully constructed or established within the application process prior to the effective date of the SMA or the SMP, or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the SMP. Nonconforming use: A shoreline use which was lawfully established or established within the application process prior to the effective date of the SMA or the SMP, or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the SMP. Non water -oriented uses: Any uses that are not water -dependent, water -related, or water - enjoyment as defined by the SMP. Off -site mitigation: To replace wetlands or other shoreline environmental resources away from the site on which a resource has been impacted by an activity. Ordinary high water mark (OHWM): The mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by the City, provided that in any area where the OHWM cannot be found, the OHWM adjoining freshwater shall be the line of mean high water. Pier: A fixed platform over water used for moorage of recreational or commercial watercraft. Page 78 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Priority habitats and species: Habitats and species designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as requiring protective measures for their survival due to population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Priority species include State Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Candidate species; animal aggregations (such as bat colonies) considered vulnerable; and species of recreational, commercial, or tribal importance that are vulnerable. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains maps of known locations of priority habitats and species in Washington State. Provisions: Policies, regulations, standards, guideline criteria, or environment designations. Public access: The ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations. Public facilities: Facilities and structures, operated for public purpose and benefit, including, but not limited to, solid waste handling and disposal, water transmission lines, sewage treatment facilities and mains, power generating and transfer facilities, gas distribution lines and storage facilities, stormwater mains, and wastewater treatment facilities. Qualified professional: A person who, in the opinion of the Director, has appropriate education, training and experience in the applicable field to generate a report or study required in this SMP. 1. For reports related to wetlands, this means a certified professional wetland scientist or a non -certified professional wetland scientist with a minimum of five years' experience in the field of wetland science and with experience preparing wetland reports. 2. For reports related to critical aquifer recharge areas, this means a hydrogeologist, geologist, or engineer, who is licensed in the State of Washington and has experience preparing hydrogeologic assessments. 3. For reports related to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas this means a biologist with experience preparing reports for the relevant type of habitat. 4. For reports related to geologically hazardous areas this means a geotechnical engineer or geologist, licensed in the State of Washington, with experience analyzing geologic, hydrologic, and ground water flow systems. 5. For reports related to frequently flooded areas this means a hydrologist or engineer, licensed in the State of Washington with experience in preparing flood hazard assessments. 6. For reports related to cultural and archaeological resources and historic preservation, this means a professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional. RCW: Revised Code of Washington. Recreational use: Commercial and public facilities designed and used to provide recreational opportunities to the public. Residential use: Uses for residential purpose. Restore, restoration, or ecological restoration: The reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures, and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre -European settlement conditions. Page 79 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Riparian area: The interface area between land and a river or stream. The area includes plant and wildlife habitats and communities along the river margins and banks. Setback or shoreline setback: The minimum required distance between a structure and the shoreline buffer that is to remain free of structures. Shall: An action that is mandatory and not discretionary. Shorelands or shoreland areas: Those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the OHWM; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all wetlands associated with the streams and lakes which are subject to the provisions of the SMA and the SMP; all of which will be designated as to location by Ecology. Shoreline exemption, letter of: Documentation provided by the City that proposed development qualifies as an Exempt Development (as that term is defined herein) and that the proposed development is consistent with chapter 21.50 SVMC and other local and state requirements, including the State Environmental Policy Act as adopted or amended when applicable. Shoreline jurisdiction and shoreline areas: All "shorelines of the state" and "shorelands". Shoreline Management Act (SMA): The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 as set forth in chapter 90.58 RCW as adopted or amended. Shoreline Master Program (SMP): The comprehensive use plan applicable to the shorelines of the state within the City, including the use regulations, together with maps, goals and policies, and standards developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in RCW 90.58.020. Shoreline modifications: Those actions that modify the physical configuration or qualities of the shoreline area, usually through the construction of a physical element such as a dike, breakwater, pier, weir, dredged basin, fill, bulkhead, or other shoreline structure. They can include other actions, such as clearing, grading, or application of chemicals. Shoreline permit(s): Means any substantial development, variance, conditional use permit, or revision authorized under chapter 21.50 SVMC and chapter 90.58 RCW. Shoreline stabilization: Actions taken to prevent or mitigate erosion impacts to property or structures caused by shoreline processes such as currents, floods, or wind action. Shoreline stabilization includes, but is not limited to, structural armoring approaches such as bulkheads, bulkhead alternatives, and nonstructural approaches such as bioengineering. Shoreline substantial development permit: A permit required by the SMP for substantial development within the shoreline jurisdiction. Shorelines: All of the water areas of the state, including reservoirs, and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them, except (a) shorelines of statewide significance; (b) shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments; and (c) shorelines on lakes less than 20 acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes. Shorelines of statewide significance: Has the meaning as set forth in RCW 90.58.030(2)(f) as adopted or amended. Shorelines of the state: The total of all "shorelines" and "shorelines of statewide significance" within the state. Should: An action which is required unless there is a demonstrated, compelling reason based on policy of the SMA and the SMP, against taking the action. Page 80 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Substantial development: Any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $6,416, or any development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. The current thresholds will be adjusted for inflation by the State Office of Financial Management every five years, beginning from July 1, 2007. Temporary impact: Impacts to a critical area that are less than one year and expected to be restored following construction. Transportation facilities: Facilities consisting of the means and equipment necessary for the movement of passengers or goods. Upland: Generally described as the dry land area above and landward of the OHWM. Utilities: Services and facilities that produce, convey, store or process power, gas, sewage, water, stormwater, communications, oil, and waste. Variance: A process to grant relief from the specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards through submission of a shoreline variance. A variance is not a means to change the allowed use of a shoreline. Viewing platform: A platform located landward of the OHWM used for viewing pleasure. WAC: Washington Administrative Code. Water -dependent use: A use or portion of a use which cannot exist in a location that is not adjacent to the water and which is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. Water -enjoyment use: A recreational use or other use that facilitates public access to the shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general characteristic of the use and which through location, design, and operation ensures the public's ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water -enjoyment use, the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline -oriented space within the project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment. Water -oriented use: A use that is water -dependent, water -related, or water -enjoyment, or a combination of such uses. Water quality: The physical characteristics of water within the shoreline jurisdiction, including water quantity, hydrological, physical, chemical, aesthetic, recreation -related, and biological characteristics. Water quantity: The flow rate and/or flow volume of stormwater or surface water. Where used in the SMP, the term "water quantity" refers to uses and/or structures regulated under the SMP affecting water quantity, such as impermeable surfaces and stormwater handling practices. Water quantity, for purposes of the SMP, does not mean the withdrawal of groundwater or diversion of surface water pursuant to RCW 90.03.250 through 90.03.340. Water -related use: A use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location because: 1. The use has a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or 2. The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water -dependent uses and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient. Page 81 of 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Wetlands: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. Page 82 of 82 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2021 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE May 13, 2021 A. Background: The City has completed the periodic review of its Shoreline Master Program (SMP), as required by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), RCW 90.58.080. The SMA requires that the SMP be reviewed and revised, if needed, every eight years. This periodic update is required to be complete by June 30, 2021. The review ensures the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules, remains consistent with other City plans and regulations, and is responsive to changed circumstances, new information and improved data. B. Findings: 1. The City initiated a SMP periodic review in 2020. 2. RCW 90.58, WAC 173-26-090, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 set forth goals, policies and procedures to guide the development and adoption of the City's periodic review of the SMP. 3. In 2015, the City adopted a comprehensive update of its SMP after an extensive multi -year public process. 4. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.080(4)(a), the scope of the 2021 periodic review was limited to changes required to stay current with changes in laws and rules. 5. The Gap Analysis completed as part of the 2021 periodic review analyzed the changes required to maintain consistency with changes in laws and rule and overall the SMP was found to be consistent. Minor changes were recommended. 6. The changes to the SMP regulations include items such as exemptions, definitions, administrative procedures, and updates to critical area regulations within shoreline jurisdiction. 7. On February 12, 2021. a SEPA Determination of Non -significance (DNS) was issued determining the adoption of the Draft SMP to be a non -project action that does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. 8. On February 12, 2021, the City issued a notice of the public hearing stating that the City was accepting public comments for 30-days. The notice provided met all state and local requirements. 9. On February 12, 2021, the City published to the SMP project webpage all draft documents and review materials for the periodic review of the SMP. 10. On February 25, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a study session where the proposed SMP amendments were presented and discussed. 11. On March 11. 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the purpose of taking public testimony on the proposed amendments. No public testimony was received during the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing the Planning Commission continued to allow written comment on the draft SMP amendments until 5:00 PM March 12, 2021. One written public comment was received. 12. On March 25 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed all public comments and deliberated on the proposed SMP amendments. After deliberations, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to the City Council that the draft SMP amendments be adopted as presented. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission For the 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update Page 1 of 2 C. Conclusions 1. The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) for the Draft SMP amendments. a. The draft SMP amendments are consistent with the following policy and goal of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan: H-P2 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative housing types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, pre -fabricated homes, co -housing, cottage housing, and other housing types. NR-G3 Ensure that Critical Areas and Shoreline Master Program regulations are based on best available science and are consistent with required environmental policy. b. The draft SMP amendments bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment: The proposed amendments to the SMP were identified after a review of changes to laws and rules. The proposed amendments implement changes to local and state laws and rules including best available science for wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The proposed amendments maintain the vision and goals adopted in the SMP and Comprehensive Plan. 2. The draft SMP amendments are in compliance with RCW 90.58, WAC 173-26, Washington State Shoreline Management Planning Guidelines. 3. The proposed updates to the SMP are necessary to maintain consistency with changes to local and state laws and rules. The proposed text amendments fulfill the City's obligations under state law to review and revise the SMP. D. Recommendations 1. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the 2021 Shoreline Master Program update. Approved this 13th day of May, 2021 Robert McKinley, Chairman ATTEST Marianne Lemons, Planning Commission Secretary Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission For the 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update Page 2 of 2 City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review Gap Analysis Prepared on behalf of: Spokane _Valley City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Prepared by: 1 I' WATERSHED 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland WA 98033 - 425.822.5242 f 425.827.8136 watershedco.com The Watershed Company Reference Number: 190827 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. State Laws, Rules & Implementation Gap Analysis 2 3. Other Local Plans and Development Regulations Gap Analysis 2 List of Tables Table 3-1. Summary of potential gaps in consistency between the SMP and other local plans and development regulations. 2 Attachments Attachment A: Periodic Review Checklist i City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review The Watershed Company Gap Analysis April 26, 2021 1. Introduction In accordance with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, local jurisdictions with "Shorelines of the State" are required to conduct a periodic review of their Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs) (Washington Administrative Code [WAG] 173-26-090). The periodic review is intended to keep SMPs current with amendments to state laws, changes to local plans and regulations, changes in local circumstances, and new or improved data and information. The City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted its current SMP on December 15, 2015 (Ordinance No. 15-024). Shorelines of the State in the City include Shelley Lake and the Spokane River. The current SMP outlines goals and policies for shorelines in the City and establishes regulations for their development (codified in Spokane Valley Municipal Code [SVMC] Chapter 21.50). The current SMP includes regulations for critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction (SVMC 21.50.460-.560). As a first step in the periodic review process, the City's current SMP was reviewed by City staff and consultants. The purpose of this SMP Periodic Review Gap Analysis is to present a summary of the review and inform updates to the SMP. This document is organized into the following sections: • Section 2, in conjunction with Attachment A, presents the findings of a review for gaps in consistency between the SMP and state laws, rules and implementation guidance. • Section 3 presents the findings of a review for gaps in consistency between the SMP and other local plans and development regulations. This document includes tables that identify potential revision actions. Where potential revision actions are identified, they are classified as follows: • "Mandatory" indicates revisions that are required for consistency with state laws. • "Recommended" indicates revisions that improve consistency with state laws, but are not strictly required. • "Optional" indicates revisions that amend the SMP in accordance with state laws, but that are not necessarily required or recommended for consistency with state laws. • "No action necessary" indicates the SMP as written is sufficient and no change is needed at this time. 1 City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review The Watershed Company Gap Analysis April 26, 2021 2. State Laws, Rules & Implementation Gap Analysis The Washington State Department of Ecology's Periodic Review Checklist summarizes recent amendments to state laws, rules and implementation guidance that may trigger the need for local SMP amendments during periodic reviews. A completed version of the Periodic Review Checklist is appended to this document as Attachment A. Overall, the SMP was found to be consistent with changes in local and state laws. A majority of the changes are minor and include items such as exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures. A noteworthy required change was identified relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline jurisdiction. These regulations need to be updated to be consistent with state law and the City's adopted critical area regulations. 3. Other Local Plans & Development Regulations Gap Analysis The SMP was reviewed for gaps in consistency with other local plans and development regulations, including the zoning code. In general, the review found no major inconsistencies, but did reveal one area where the SMP might be amended to better reflect the priorities of the Comprehensive Plan. Table 3-1 summarizes a potential gap in consistency between the SMP and the Comprehensive Plan. Table 3-1. Summary of potential gaps in consistency between the SMP and other local plans and development regulations. No. Topic Review Action 1 Permitting for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) SVMC 21.50.370.B.6 requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for ADUs, whereas new single-family residences require a shoreline exemption per WAC 173-27- 040(2)(g). The 2017 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element encourages additional affordable housing options such as ADUs. The additional procedural requirements for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit compared to a shoreline exemption may be a disincentive to ADU applications. Amend Table 21.50-1, Shoreline Uses, as well as SVMC 21.50.370, to allow accessory dwelling units as part of a shoreline exemption, consistent with WAC 173-27-040(2)(g). 2 City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review The Watershed Company Attachment A Periodic Review Checklist April 26, 2021 Attachment A: Periodic Review Checklist The periodic review checklist summarizes amendments to state law, rules and applicable updated guidance adopted between 2007 and 2019 that may trigger the need for local SMP amendments during periodic reviews. Per guidance from the Department of Ecology, the city completed the periodic review checklist to document review considerations and determine if local amendments are needed to maintain compliance, see WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(i). To ease review and track potential amendments, the draft amendments to the city's SMP have been cross-referenced with the row of the checklist below. For each proposed amendment there is a comment bubble that references the row in the checklist. For example, the proposed amendment at 21.50.020 D. has the comment "Gap Analysis Attachment A, 2017c", which means the proposed amendment was in response to a change made in 2017 at row c. Prepared By Jurisdiction Date Alex Capron, The Watershed Company City of Spokane Valley 2/9/2021 Row Summary of change 2019 a. OFM adjusted the cost threshold for building freshwater docks b. The Legislature removed the requirement for a shoreline permit for disposal of dredged materials at Dredged Material Management Program sites (applies to 9 jurisdictions) c. The Legislature added restoring native kelp, eelgrass beds and native oysters as fish habitat enhancement projects. Review SVMC 21.50.110.G includes outdated cost threshold for freshwater docks and does not fully align with the language in WAC 173-27-040 or RCW 90.58.030(3). There are no DMMP sites in City limits. Therefore, this legislative amendment does not apply. There are no saltwater shorelines in City limits. Therefore, this legislative amendment does not apply. Action Reference the current cost threshold, in addition to WAC 173-27-040 to ensure the SMP always reflects the most current exemption language. No action necessary. No action necessary. 1 City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review The Watershed Company Attachment A Periodic Review Checklist April 26, 2021 Row Summary of change 2017 a. OFM adjusted the cost threshold for substantial development to $7,047. b. Ecology permit rules clarified the definition of "development" does not include dismantling or removing structures. c. Ecology adopted rules clarifying exceptions to local review under the SMA. d. Ecology amended rules clarifying permit filing procedures consistent with a 2011 statute. e. Ecology amended forestry use regulations to clarify that forest practices that only involves timber cutting are not SMA "developments" and do not require SDPs. f. Ecology clarified the SMA does not apply to lands under exclusive federal jurisdiction Review SVMC 21.50.110.A includes outdated cost threshold for substantial development, though it references RCW 90.58.030 and the Office of Financial Management for automatic cost threshold updates. Definition of "Development" (Appendix Al, Definitions) does not clarify that removing structures does not constitute "development." SVMC 21.50.020.D indicates that remedial actions are exempt from procedural requirements of the SMP. The SMP does not include specific guidance on permit filing procedures. Forestry uses are prohibited by the current SMP (Table 21.50-1: Shoreline Uses, within SVMC 21.50.190, Shoreline Uses Table). No federal lands exist within City shoreline jurisdiction. Action Reference current cost threshold under SVMC 21.50.110.A. In addition, include, "WAC 173-27-040 and RCW 90.58.030(3), or as amended" under SVMC 21.50.110 to ensure the SMP will reflect the most current exemption language. Modify the definition of "Development" to be consistent with Ecology's example definition. Reference the exceptions in WAC 173-27-044 and -045 at SVMC 21.50.020.D. Add specific guidance on permit filing procedures to SVMC 21.50.050.B.9 consistent with Ecology example language. No action necessary. No action necessary. 2 City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review The Watershed Company Attachment A Periodic Review Checklist Row g• Summary of change Ecology clarified "default" provisions for nonconforming uses and development. h. Ecology adopted rule amendments to clarify the scope and process for conducting periodic reviews. i. Ecology adopted a new rule creating an optional SMP amendment process that allows for a shared local/state public comment period. J• 2016 Submittal to Ecology of proposed SMP amendments. a. The Legislature created a new shoreline permit exemption for retrofitting existing structure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. b. Ecology updated wetlands critical areas guidance including implementation guidance for the 2014 wetlands rating system. Review The SMP contains its own provisions regarding nonconforming uses, structures and lots under SVMC 21.50.150. SMP Appendix A-1, Definitions, includes definitions of "Nonconforming structure" and "Nonconforming use," but not for "Nonconforming lot." The SMP does not include procedures for periodic reviews, nor is required. The SMP does not include procedures for the optional amendment process, nor is required. The SMP does not include procedures for submittal to Ecology of proposed SMP amendments. SVMC 21.50.110 does not include this exemption. The SMP references the 2004 wetlands rating system and does not include the most recent wetland critical areas guidance. April 26, 2021 Action Add a definition for "nonconforming lot" consistent with Ecology's example language. No action necessary. No action necessary. No action necessary. Reference WAC 173-27-040 and RCW 90.58.030(3) to ensure the SMP always reflects the most current exemption language. Add this exemption to SVMC 21.50.110. Update the SMP wetland regulations in SVMC 21.50.520 to reference the 2014 wetland rating system. 3 City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review Attachment A Periodic Review Checklist Row Summary of change 2015 Review The Watershed Company April 26, 2021 Action Note: SMP Locally Adopted December 15, 2015 a. The Legislature adopted a 90-day target for local review of Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) projects. 2014 a. The Legislature created a new definition and policy for floating on -water residences legally established before 7/1/2014. 2012 a. The Legislature amended the SMA to clarify SMP appeal procedures. 2011 a. Ecology adopted a rule requiring that wetlands be delineated in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual. b. Ecology adopted rules for new commercial geoduck aquaculture. c. The Legislature created a new definition and policy for floating homes permitted or legally established prior to January 1, 2011. The SMP does not acknowledge WSDOT review timelines, nor is it required to. The City does not have any floating on -water residences, nor does the SMP allow them per SVMC 21.50.370.B.4. SMP does not contain specific steps or language for appealing amendments, nor is it required to. The SMP, as well as the Citywide critical areas regulations in SVMC Chapter 21.40, Critical Areas, require the use of the current approved federal wetland delineation manual. There are no saltwater shorelines in City limits. Therefore, this legislative amendment does not apply. Not applicable. The City does not have any floating homes, nor does the SMP allow them per SVMC 21.50.370.B.4. No action necessary. No action necessary. No action necessary. No action necessary. No action necessary. No action necessary. 4 City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review The Watershed Company Attachment A Periodic Review Checklist April 26, 2021 Row Summary of change d. The Legislature authorizing a new option to classify existing structures as conforming. 2010 a. The Legislature adopted Growth Management Act (GMA) — Shoreline Management Act (SMA) clarifications. 2009 a. The Legislature created new "relief" procedures for instances in which a shoreline restoration project within a UGA creates a shift in Ordinary High -Water Mark. b. Ecology adopted a rule for certifying wetland mitigation banks. c. The Legislature added moratoria authority and procedures to the SMA. 2007 a. The Legislature clarified options for defining "floodway" as either the area that has been established in FEMA maps, or the floodway criteria set in the SMA. Review The SMP does not classify existing structures as conforming, nor is it required to. Maintenance and repair of existing structures is allowed. Alterations to existing structures that do not increase nonconformity are also allowed under SVMC 21.50.150.6.4. The SMP critical area regulations in SVMC 21.50.460 GMA — SMA clarifications. through 21.50.560 do not reflect the GMA - SMA clarifications. Action No action necessary. The SMP does not include or reference the relief criteria or procedures in WAC 173-27- 215. The SMP, as well as the Citywide critical areas regulations in SVMC Chapter 21.40, Critical Areas, address wetland mitigation banks. SMP does not reference moratoria authority. The City can rely on statute for moratoria authority and procedures. "Floodway" is not defined in the SMP. However, "floodway" is defined in SVMC Appendix A consistent with the FEMA definition. Update the SMP to reflect the Reference the relief criteria and procedures in WAC 173- 27-215. No action necessary. No action necessary. No action necessary. 5 City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review The Watershed Company Attachment A Periodic Review Checklist April 26, 2021 Row Summary of change b. Ecology amended rules to clarify that comprehensively updated SMPs shall include a list and map of streams and lakes that are in shoreline jurisdiction. c. Ecology's rule listing statutory exemptions from the requirement for an SDP was amended to include fish habitat enhancement projects that conform to the provisions of RCW 77.55.181. Review The list of shoreline jurisdictional areas is located under SVMC 21.50.020.E and Appendix B, Figure 51 of the adopted Comprehensive Plan includes streams and lakes within the shoreline jurisdiction. This exemption is included at SVMC 21.50.110.0. Action No action necessary. No action necessary. 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: February 25, 2021 Item: Check all that apply n old business n new business n public hearing n information Fl study session n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-090, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040. PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: None BACKGROUND: The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is the city's official document to guide development along the Spokane River and Shelly Lake. Finalized in 2015, the SMP includes goals and polices which are adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan and regulations related to shoreline development that can be found in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 21.50. The City of Spokane Valley is undertaking a Periodic Review of its SMP, as required by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), RCW 90.58.080. The SMA requires that the SMP be reviewed and revised, if needed, by June 30, 2021. The review ensures the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules, remains consistent with other City plans and regulations, and is responsive to changed circumstances, new information and improved data. In 2020, the City hired the consultant firm The Watershed Company to conduct the periodic review. Because the SMP was recently adopted in 2015 after an extensive multi -year public process, the scope of the 2021 periodic review is limited to changes required to stay current with local and state laws and rules. A summary of the changes to state laws and rules and their impacts to the City's SMP regulations can be found in the Gap Analysis completed as part of the 2021 periodic review. Overall, the SMP was found to be consistent with changes in local and state laws. A majority of the changes are minor and include items such as exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures. A noteworthy required change was identified relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline jurisdiction. These regulations will need to be updated to be consistent with state law and the City's adopted critical area regulations. These regulations reside in the SVMC Title 21 Environmental Controls, Chapter 21.40 Critical Areas. The critical area regulations were updated in 2016 through the periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan as required by the Growth Management Act. Tonight, staff and the City's consultant will provide an overview of the proposed SMP amendments and a summary of the adoption process. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report 2. Gap Analysis Memo 3. Draft amendments to the SMP and Definitions 4. Presentation RPCA Study Session for 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update Page 1 of 1 Spokane Valley COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE STAFF REPORT DATE: February 25, 2021 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: March 11, 2021, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. 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), the hearing will be conducted remotely using web and telephone conference tools. A link to the Zoom meeting will be provided on the Planning Commission's agenda and posted to the City's webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/planningcommission. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Statutorily required update the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to maintain consistency with changes in state and local laws and plans. The necessary changes are generally minor and include items such as exemptions, definitions, administrative procedures, and SMP critical areas regulations. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to Chapter 21.50 SVMC are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the criteria for review and approval for code text amendments. STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal. Process Date Department of Commerce 60-day Notice February 12, 2021 SEPA — DNS Issued February 12, 2021 Publish Notice of Public Hearing: February 12 and 19, 2021 BACKGROUND: The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is the City's required program to govern development along waters of the state. In the City, the waters of the state include the Spokane River and Shelly Lake. The SMP is required pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act (ch. 90.58 RCW) and provides additional protections for development within shoreline buffers to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. The SMP works in conjunction with and in addition to other applicable development regulations. The SMP consists of a number of components, including SMP Goals and Policies, Shoreline Environment Designations, Shoreline Inventory, Shoreline Public Access, Shoreline Restoration Plan, Cumulative Impacts Analysis, No Net Loss Report, Public Involvement Plan, and Shoreline Regulations. The SMP was initially adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-020 and is located on the City's website at Staff Report and Recommendation 2021 Periodic SMP Update http://laserfiche.spokanevalley.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=69831 &dbid=0&repo=SpokaneValley, and was again adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan in 2016. The Shoreline Regulations are located in Chapter 21.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The SMP adopted in 2015 was the result of a multi -year extensive public process that incorporated the SMP rules made by the state in 2003. As part of the statewide shoreline rules, the City is required to review and revise the SMP to incorporate changes to local and state laws, rules and plans by June 30, 2021. In order to assist the City in identifying needed changes to SMPs, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has provided a Periodic Review Checklist summarizing amendments made to state laws and rules. The checklist is included as an attachment to this staff report and provides an easy resource to review and track the proposed amendments to the City's SMP. The amendments have been cross-referenced with the row of the checklist. The proposed amendments to Chapter 21.50 SVMC are the minimum necessary to maintain consistency with changes to local and state laws, rules, and plans. ANALYSIS: The current SMP adopted in 2015 was a multi -year process developed and adopted with extensive citizen input. The 2015 SMP was comprehensive in scope incorporating the best available science. Since the SMP was updated just five years ago, the current 2021 review found that the SMP is generally consistent with currently applicable local and state laws and rules. The majority of changes are minor in nature and include items like adding exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures to be consistent with changes to state shoreline laws and rules. Another change is replacing the reference of Community Development Director with City Manager or designee to be consistent with amendments made by the city in 2016. A noteworthy required change was identified relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline jurisdiction. The general critical area regulations were updated in 2016 through the periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan as required by the Growth Management Act and they are currently found in chapter 21.40 SVMC. Staff are proposing to update the shoreline critical areas regulations to remain consistent with the generally applicable critical areas regulations Another noted change is to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to be permitted in the same way as a single-family dwelling. Under the existing SMP, ADUs are required to obtain a Substantial Development Permit, which could present a barrier to provide this more affordable housing type. The 2017 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element encourages additional affordable housing options such as ADUs, and by allowing ADUs in a similar way as single-family homes the proposed change removes the potential barrier ADUs. Overall, staff have determined that the proposed amendments to chapter 21.50 SVMC meet the requirement of the of the SMA to review and revise the City's SMP to maintain consistency with state laws, changes to local plans and regulations, changes in local circumstances, and new or improved data and information. A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria 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; Page 2 of 3 Staff Report and Recommendation 2021 Periodic SMP Update Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Pan and is consistent with the following policy and goal: H-P2 NR-G3 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative housing types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, pre -fabricated homes, co -housing, cottage housing, and other housing types. Ensure that Critical Areas and Shoreline Master Program regulations are based on best available science and are consistent with required environmental policy. ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment: Staff Analysis: The proposed amendments bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments to the SMP were identified after a review of changes to local and state laws and ensure that the SMP is consistent with all applicable laws and rules. The proposed amendments implement changes to local and state laws and rules including best available science for wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The proposed amendments maintain the vision and goals adopted in the SMP and Comprehensive Plan. 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: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for Periodic Review of the Shoreline Master Program in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Comments have been addressed and no concerns noted. B. CONCLUSION The proposed updates to the SMP are necessary to maintain consistency with changes to local and state laws and rules. The proposed text amendments fulfill the City's obligations under state law to review and revise the SMP. For the reasons set forth in Section A, the proposed amendments to the SMP are found to be consistent the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F). Page 3 of 3 Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall February 25, 2021 I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:01 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 Karl Granrath Walt Haneke Bob McKinley Nancy Miller Paul Rieckers Sherri Robinson, absent Cary Driskell, City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant There was a consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Commissioner Robinson from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the February 25, 2021 meeting 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 Granrath moved to approve the February 11, 2021 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: There were no Commission Reports. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There were no Administrative Reports. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Study Session: Shoreline Master Program — Legislative Update Senior Planner Chaz Bates introduced Alex Capron with The Watershed Company, who was hired by the City to assist with the periodic update of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Mr. Bates explained that Washington state law requires that the SMP be reviewed and updated every eight years. The original SMP was adopted comprehensively in 2015 through 1 02-25-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 an in-depth process. Due to that process, the update this year includes just the items that are required by state law. Mr. Capron gave a presentation explaining the proposed changes to the SMP. He explained that an SMP is a set of policies and regulations required by state law to protect the environmental resources of state shorelines, promote public access and enjoyment opportunities, and give priority to uses that require a shoreline location. The SMP applies to "Shorelines of the State", which are waterbodies that meet certain criteria and size. In Spokane Valley, this includes the Spokane River, Shelley Lake, and associated wetlands. Mr. Capron explained that the state Department of Ecology requires all SMP's to be reviewed every eight years. This periodic review is intended to keep SMP's current with amendments to state law, changes in local plans and regulations, and new or improved data and information. The updated SMP must be adopted by June 30, 2021. Mr. Capron stated that during the review process they looked at the 27 legislative amendments, critical areas regulations, and the Comprehensive Plan and municipal code. The proposed state legislative amendments included updating definitions, exemptions, and exceptions to be consistent with those in state law. The proposed amendments to the SMP critical areas will incorporate required City-wide critical areas ordinance updates which will update wetland buffers within shoreline jurisdiction. It will also provide updates to the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation areas by adding standards for habitat management plans requirements and including riparian management zone buffers. Previously, the SMP did not have regulations set up for streams that weren't shoreline. This amendment will establish those stream regulations. Mr. Capron explained that there is an additional "suggested" SMP amendment that the City has decided to add to their regulations that ensures the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are permitted like single-family residences. This means that any ADU requests will have to apply for a shoreline exemption, just like a regular single-family home. Mr. Capron outlined the adoption timeline. Joint Ecology/City public hearing will be held on March 11, 2021, submittal to Ecology for initial determination will occur in March 2021, initial determination response from Ecology should be received in April 2021, Planning Commission adoption of findings will occur in May 2021, City Council first and second reading will occur in June 2021, and local adoption of the SMP will occur in June 2021. Commissioner Haneke requested information about fish -baring streams that feed the river that would be included in the riparian management zone buffer area. Mr. Capron responded that he will get that information and present it at the public hearing. Commissioner Beaulac asked if gravel pits are included in the SMP. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb answered that gravel pits are included once they have been fully reclaimed and if they are exposed to the aquifer. The City does not currently have any gravel pits that meet the criteria. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Beaulac moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:43 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. 2 02-25-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 Bob McKinley, Chair Deanna Horton, Secretary Date signed 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: March 11, 2021 Item: Check all that apply n old business n new business ® public hearing n information n study session ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-090, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040. PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: Study session on February 25, 2021. BACKGROUND: The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is the City's official document to guide development along the Spokane River and Shelly Lake. Finalized in 2015, the SMP includes goals and polices which are adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan and regulations related to shoreline development that can be found in Chapter 21.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The City is undertaking a periodic review of its SMP, as required by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), RCW 90.58.080. The SMA requires that the SMP be reviewed and revised, if needed, by June 30, 2021. The review ensures the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules, remains consistent with other City plans and regulations, and is responsive to changed circumstances, new information and improved data. In 2020, the City hired the consultant firm The Watershed Company to conduct the periodic review. Because the SMP was recently adopted in 2015 after an extensive multi -year public process, the scope of the 2021 periodic review is limited to changes required to stay current with local and state laws and rules. A summary of the changes to state laws and rules and their impacts to the City's SMP regulations can be found in the Gap Analysis completed as part of the 2021 periodic review. Overall, the SMP was found to be consistent with changes in local and state laws. A majority of the changes are minor and include items such as exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures. A noteworthy required change was identified relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline jurisdiction. These regulations will need to be updated to be consistent with state law and the City's adopted critical area regulations. These regulations reside in Title 21 SVMC (Environmental Controls) and Chapter 21.40 SVMC (Critical Areas). The critical area regulations were updated in 2016 through the periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan as required by the Growth Management Act. On February 25, 2021, staff and the City's consultant provided an overview of the proposed SMP amendments and a summary of the adoption process. Tonight, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing for the purpose of taking public testimony on the proposed amendments. The City has opted to combine the required local and state public comment periods for the draft SMP amendments. The purpose is to allow a consistent and early public review of the proposed amendments and to streamline the adoption process. The joint process is open for public comment through Friday, March 12, 2021. At tonight's meeting, Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing for any verbal testimony. The public hearing will be closed, except to allow any written comments that are submitted by close of business on Friday, March 12. Planning Commission will then conduct deliberations on the proposed amendments at its next scheduled meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action at this time. However, at the close of the public hearing, the Chair should identify that the hearing is closed but that written comments will continue to be received until close of business on Friday, March 12, 2021. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report 2. Gap Analysis Memo 3. Draft amendments to the SMP and Definitions 4. Presentation RPCA Public Hearing for 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update Page 1 of 1 Spokane Valley COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE STAFF REPORT DATE: February 25, 2021 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: March 11, 2021, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. 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), the hearing will be conducted remotely using web and telephone conference tools. A link to the Zoom meeting will be provided on the Planning Commission's agenda and posted to the City's webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/planningcommission. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Statutorily required update the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to maintain consistency with changes in state and local laws and plans. The necessary changes are generally minor and include items such as exemptions, definitions, administrative procedures, and SMP critical areas regulations. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to Chapter 21.50 SVMC are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the criteria for review and approval for code text amendments. STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal. Process Date Department of Commerce 60-day Notice February 12, 2021 SEPA — DNS Issued February 12, 2021 Publish Notice of Public Hearing: February 12 and 19, 2021 BACKGROUND: The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is the City's required program to govern development along waters of the state. In the City, the waters of the state include the Spokane River and Shelly Lake. The SMP is required pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act (ch. 90.58 RCW) and provides additional protections for development within shoreline buffers to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. The SMP works in conjunction with and in addition to other applicable development regulations. The SMP consists of a number of components, including SMP Goals and Policies, Shoreline Environment Designations, Shoreline Inventory, Shoreline Public Access, Shoreline Restoration Plan, Cumulative Impacts Analysis, No Net Loss Report, Public Involvement Plan, and Shoreline Regulations. The SMP was initially adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-020 and is located on the City's website at http://laserfiche.spokanevalley.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=69831 &dbid=0&repo=SpokaneValley, and Staff Report and Recommendation 2021 Periodic SMP Update was again adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan in 2016. The Shoreline Regulations are located in Chapter 21.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The SMP adopted in 2015 was the result of a multi -year extensive public process that incorporated the SMP rules made by the state in 2003. As part of the statewide shoreline rules, the City is required to review and revise the SMP to incorporate changes to local and state laws, rules and plans by June 30, 2021. In order to assist the City in identifying needed changes to SMPs, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has provided a Periodic Review Checklist summarizing amendments made to state laws and rules. The checklist is included as an attachment to this staff report and provides an easy resource to review and track the proposed amendments to the City's SMP. The amendments have been cross-referenced with the row of the checklist. The proposed amendments to Chapter 21.50 SVMC are the minimum necessary to maintain consistency with changes to local and state laws, rules, and plans. ANALYSIS: The current SMP adopted in 2015 was a multi -year process developed and adopted with extensive citizen input. The 2015 SMP was comprehensive in scope incorporating the best available science. Since the SMP was updated just five years ago, the current 2021 review found that the SMP is generally consistent with currently applicable local and state laws and rules. The majority of changes are minor in nature and include items like adding exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures to be consistent with changes to state shoreline laws and rules. Another change is replacing the reference of Community Development Director with City Manager or designee to be consistent with amendments made by the city in 2016. A noteworthy required change was identified relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline jurisdiction. The general critical area regulations were updated in 2016 through the periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan as required by the Growth Management Act and they are currently found in chapter 21.40 SVMC. Staff are proposing to update the shoreline critical areas regulations to remain consistent with the generally applicable critical areas regulations Another noted change is to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to be permitted in the same way as a single-family dwelling. Under the existing SMP, ADUs are required to obtain a Substantial Development Permit, which could present a barrier to provide this more affordable housing type. The 2017 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element encourages additional affordable housing options such as ADUs, and by allowing ADUs in a similar way as single-family homes the proposed change removes the potential barrier ADUs. Overall, staff have determined that the proposed amendments to chapter 21.50 SVMC meet the requirement of the of the SMA to review and revise the City's SMP to maintain consistency with state laws, changes to local plans and regulations, changes in local circumstances, and new or improved data and information. A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria 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; Page 2 of 3 Staff Report and Recommendation 2021 Periodic SMP Update Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Pan and is consistent with the following policy and goal: H-P2 NR-G3 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative housing types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, pre -fabricated homes, co -housing, cottage housing, and other housing types. Ensure that Critical Areas and Shoreline Master Program regulations are based on best available science and are consistent with required environmental policy. ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment: Staff Analysis: The proposed amendments bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments to the SMP were identified after a review of changes to local and state laws and ensure that the SMP is consistent with all applicable laws and rules. The proposed amendments implement changes to local and state laws and rules including best available science for wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The proposed amendments maintain the vision and goals adopted in the SMP and Comprehensive Plan. 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: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for Periodic Review of the Shoreline Master Program in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Comments have been addressed and no concerns noted. B. CONCLUSION The proposed updates to the SMP are necessary to maintain consistency with changes to local and state laws and rules. The proposed text amendments fulfill the City's obligations under state law to review and revise the SMP. For the reasons set forth in Section A, the proposed amendments to the SMP are found to be consistent the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F). Page 3 of 3 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Periodic Update Spokane jUalley Planning Commission Public Hearing I March 11, 2021 What is a Shoreline Master Program (SMP)? • An SMP is a set of policies and regulations required by state law that has three basic principles: o Protect the environmental resources of state shorelines o Promote public access and enjoyment opportunities o Give priority to uses that require a shoreline ...Iocation • The City comprehensively updated its SMP in 2015 It • The SMP is codified in Spokane Valley; Municipal Code (SVMC) 21.50 Where does an SMP apply? m Ihwood Applies to "Shorelines of the State," which are waterbodies that meet certain criteria/size Landward of the OHWM — 200' and waterward to the center of the waterbody As relevant to Spokane Valley, this includes: o Watercourses greater than 20 cubic feet per second, mean annual flow — Spokane River o Lake 20 Acres or greater — Shelley Lake o Also includes associated wetlands Spokane River Ordi na Shore Buffe r ry High Water Line imummuni Centennial Trail ne Jurisdiction City of Spokane Valley Shelley Lake What is an SMP periodic update? • The state requires all SMPs to be reviewed every eight years • Periodic review is intended to keep SMPs current with: o Amendments to state law (WAC, RCW) o Changes in local plans and regulations o New or improved data and information o Must be adopted by June 30, 2021 Photo credit: MAKERS architecture & urban design LLC Gap Analysis Report Purpose o Consistency with: 1. State legislative amendments 2. Critical areas regulations 3. Comprehensive Plan & municipal code (development regulations) 4. Additional issues) to consider Proposed amendments — State Legislative Amendments • Definitions o Updating definitions to be consistent y} `` with those in state law o Development and Nonconforming lot, as examples • Exemptions o Updating development, pier cost thresholds, ADA allowances, per state law Proposed amendments — State Legislative Amendments • Exceptions to SMP • Rare instances where no local review is required • Ensure consistency with Ecology permit filing procedures • Add shoreline restoration - setback relief criteria for associated development Photo credit: Meenach, Dean. Shelley Lake. Google Earth. Accessed 2020. Proposed Amendments, SMP Critical Areas • Incorporate required City-wide Critical Areas Ordinance Updates • Update wetland buffers within shoreline jurisdiction. Proposed Amendments, Critical Areas Updates to Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas from City-wide CAO Add Habitat Conservation Area standards for habitat management plan requirements. • Include Ri•arian Mana!ement .11,,1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Proposed Amendments, Development Regulations • Ensure Accessory Dwelling Units are permitted like single family residences Replacing Planning Director references with City Manager A, DerochedADU I Courtesy of accessorydwell nrfs r,rq SMP Periodic Update - Adoption Timeline • Post SMP revisions\SEPA Determination on City website —February 9, 2021 • Joint Ecology\City public comment period —February 12 — March 12, 2012 • PC Study Session —February 25, 2021 • Joint Ecology\City public hearing — March 11, 2021 • Submittal to Ecology for Initial Determination — March 2021 • Initial Determination response from Ecology — April 2021 • Planning Commission Adoption of Findings — May 2021 • City Council 15t & 2nd reading June 2021 • Local adoption of the SMP —June 2021 Questions? Project website: https://www.spokanevalley.org/SMP Staff contact: Chaz Bates, AICP, Senior Planner (509) 720-5337, cbates@spokanevalley.org Sp'okanc jU•alley I1IL WATERSHED Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall March 11, 2021 I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Karl Granrath Walt Haneke Bob McKinley Nancy Miller Paul Rieckers Sherri Robinson Erik Lamb, City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant III. AGENDA: Commissioner Rieckers moved to approve the March 11, 2021 meeting agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Haneke moved to approve the February 25, 2021 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Commission Reports. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson commented that City staff presented the "Accomplishments Report" for 2020 to the City Council. She stated that the report showed a good year for the City. Senior Planner Chaz Bates showed the Comprehensive Plan area of Spokane Valley on the City website. VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing: Shoreline Master Program — Legislative Update. The public hearing was opened at 6:13 p.m. Senior Planner Chaz Bates introduced Alex Capron with The Watershed Company, who was hired by the City to assist with the periodic update of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Mr. Bates explained that Washington state law requires that the SMP be reviewed and updated every eight years so that it remains consistent with local and state laws. The original SMP was adopted comprehensively in 1 03-11-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 2015 through an in-depth process. Due to that process, the current update includes just the items that are required by state law. The changes will have very little impact on development within the shoreline jurisdiction. Mr. Bates also mentioned that the section regarding gravel pits is not be being amended. Gravel pits are not regulated by the SMP. However, once those areas go through the reclamation process, they will become a part of the SMP. None of the City's gravel pits are currently in the reclamation process. Mr. Capron gave a presentation explaining the proposed changes to the SMP. He explained that an SMP is a set of policies and regulations required by state law to protect the environmental resources of state shorelines, promote public access and enjoyment opportunities, and give priority to uses that require a shoreline location. The SMP applies to "Shorelines of the State", which are waterbodies that meet certain criteria and size. In Spokane Valley, this includes the Spokane River, Shelley Lake, and associated wetlands. Mr. Capron explained that the state Department of Ecology requires all SMP's to be reviewed every eight years. This periodic review is intended to keep SMP's current with amendments to state law, changes in local plans and regulations, and new or improved data and information. The updated SMP must be adopted by June 30, 2021. Mr. Capron stated that during the review process they looked at the 27 legislative amendments, critical areas regulations, and the Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code. The proposed state legislative amendments include updating definitions, exemptions, and exceptions to be consistent with those in state law. The proposed amendments to the SMP critical areas will incorporate required City-wide critical areas ordinance updates. These will update wetland buffers within shoreline jurisdiction. It will also provide updates to the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation areas by adding standards for habitat management plan requirements and will include riparian management zone buffers. Previously, the SMP did not have regulations set up for streams that weren't shoreline. This amendment will establish those stream regulations. The City received public comment from the Department of Fish and Wildlife stating that they have published an updated Priority Habitats & Species document regarding riparian ecosystem. They request that the City work with them during any future updates to possibly include their recommendations. Mr. Capron explained that there is an additional "suggested" SMP amendment that the City has decided to add to their regulations that ensures the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are permitted like single-family residences. This means that any ADU requests will have to apply for a shoreline exemption, just like a regular single-family home. Mr. Bates outlined the adoption timeline. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation on this matter at the March 25, 2021 meeting (after the public comment period which closes on March 12, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.). After the recommendation, the proposed amendment will be submitted to Ecology for initial determination. The initial determination response from Ecology should be received in April 2021. The Planning Commission will conduct the adoption of findings in May 2021. The City Council first and second reading will occur in June 2021 and local adoption of the SMP will occur in by June 30, 2021. Commissioner Haneke asked why ADU's are exempt from getting a permit. Mr. Bates answered that ADU's still have to meet all of the requirements and regulations of the SMP. The proposed amendment will just streamline the process. 2 03-11-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 Commissioner Haneke asked when the Planning Commission will receive the Ecology Report for review. He asked if it would be possible for the Commission to receive the report earlier than a week before the meeting to give additional time to review the documents. Deputy Attorney Lamb answered that staff will try to get those out as soon as possible but does want to make sure that staff has a chance to review and make their comments before sending it out. No requests to give public comment was received so the public hearing was closed at 6:54 p.m. However, written public comments can be received through March 12, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. b. Study Session: CTA-2020-0004: Title 24 Update Building Official Jenny Nickerson gave a presentation regarding the proposed update to Title 24 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The reason for the request is Title 24 adopts the Washington State Building Codes and the 2018 editions of all building codes replaced the 2015 editions as of February 1, 2021 in the state of Washington. The amendment will align the language of Title 24 SVMC with the state adoption of the codes. She explained that the proposed changes are predominantly housekeeping. The public hearing for this matter will be held on March 25, 2021. IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Granrath moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:13 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Bob McKinley, Chair Deanna Horton, Secretary 7,7,0/ Date signed 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: March 25, 2021 Item: Check all that apply n old business Fl new business ❑ public hearing n information n study session ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-090, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040. PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: Study session on February 25, 2021; public hearing March 11, 2021. BACKGROUND: The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is the City's official document to guide development along the Spokane River and Shelly Lake. Finalized in 2015, the SMP includes goals and polices which are adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan and regulations related to shoreline development that can be found in Chapter 21.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The City is undertaking a periodic review of its SMP, as required by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), RCW 90.58.080. The SMA requires that the SMP be reviewed and revised, if needed, by June 30, 2021. The review ensures the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules, remains consistent with other City plans and regulations, and is responsive to changed circumstances, new information and improved data. In 2020, the City hired the consultant firm The Watershed Company to conduct the periodic review. Because the SMP was recently adopted in 2015 after an extensive multi -year public process, the scope of the 2021 periodic review is limited to changes required to stay current with local and state laws and rules. A summary of the changes to state laws and rules and their impacts to the City's SMP regulations can be found in the Gap Analysis completed as part of the 2021 periodic review. Overall, the SMP was found to be consistent with changes in local and state laws. A majority of the changes are minor and include items such as exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures. A noteworthy required change was identified relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline jurisdiction. These regulations will need to be updated to be consistent with state law and the City's adopted critical area regulations. These regulations reside in Title 21 SVMC (Environmental Controls) and Chapter 21.40 SVMC (Critical Areas). The critical area regulations were updated in 2016 through the periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan as required by the Growth Management Act. On February 25, 2021, staff and the City's consultant provided an overview of the proposed SMP amendments and a summary of the adoption process. On March 11, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the purpose of taking public testimony on the proposed amendments. The City has opted to combine the required local and state public comment periods for the draft SMP amendments. The purpose is to allow a consistent and early public review of the proposed amendments and to streamline the adoption process. The joint process was open for public comment through Friday, March 12, 2021. After the public hearing on March 11, the public hearing was closed, except to allow written comments to be submitted by close of business on Friday, March 12. Tonight, the Planning Commission will conduct deliberations on the proposed amendments to forward to Ecology. Once Ecology provides an initial review, the Planning Commission will review Ecology's and staffs response and vote on a final recommendation and findings to forward to City Council, which scheduled for May 13, 2021. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to recommend and forward the proposed SMP amendments to Ecology as presented for their initial review and determination. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report 2. Presentation (from March 11, 2021) RPCA Public Hearing for 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update Page 1 of 1 Spokane Valley COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE STAFF REPORT DATE: March 17, 2021 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: The public hearing was held on March 11, 2021, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. 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), the hearing was be conducted remotely using web and telephone conference tools. A link to the Zoom meeting will be provided on the Planning Commission's agenda and posted to the City's webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/planningcommission. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Statutorily required update the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to maintain consistency with changes in state and local laws and plans. The necessary changes are generally minor and include items such as exemptions, definitions, administrative procedures, and SMP critical areas regulations. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to Chapter 21.50 SVMC are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the criteria for review and approval for code text amendments. STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner ATTACHMENT: Exhibit 1: Public and Agency Comments APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal. Process Date Department of Commerce 60-day Notice February 12, 2021 SEPA — DNS Issued February 12, 2021 Publish Notice of Public Hearing: February 12 and 19, 2021 BACKGROUND: The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is the City's required program to govern development along waters of the state. In the City, the waters of the state include the Spokane River and Shelly Lake. The SMP is required pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act (ch. 90.58 RCW) and provides additional protections for development within shoreline buffers to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. The SMP works in conjunction with and in addition to other applicable development regulations. The SMP consists of a number of components, including SMP Goals and Policies, Shoreline Environment Designations, Shoreline Inventory, Shoreline Public Access, Shoreline Restoration Plan, Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Staff Report and Recommendation 2021 Periodic SMP Update No Net Loss Report, Public Involvement Plan, and Shoreline Regulations. The SMP was initially adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-020 and is located on the City's website at http://laserfiche.spokanevalley.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=69831 &dbid=0&repo=SpokaneValley, and was again adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan in 2016. The Shoreline Regulations are located in Chapter 21.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The SMP adopted in 2015 was the result of a multi -year extensive public process that incorporated the SMP rules made by the state in 2003. As part of the statewide shoreline rules, the City is required to review and revise the SMP to incorporate changes to local and state laws, rules and plans by June 30, 2021. In order to assist the City in identifying needed changes to SMPs, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has provided a Periodic Review Checklist summarizing amendments made to state laws and rules. The checklist is included as an attachment to this staff report and provides an easy resource to review and track the proposed amendments to the City's SMP. The amendments have been cross-referenced with the row of the checklist. The proposed amendments to Chapter 21.50 SVMC are the minimum necessary to maintain consistency with changes to local and state laws, rules, and plans. ANALYSIS: The current SMP adopted in 2015 was a multi -year process developed and adopted with extensive citizen input. The 2015 SMP was comprehensive in scope incorporating the best available science. Since the SMP was updated just five years ago, the current 2021 review found that the SMP is generally consistent with currently applicable local and state laws and rules. The majority of changes are minor in nature and include items like adding exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures to be consistent with changes to state shoreline laws and rules. Another change is replacing the reference of Community Development Director with City Manager or designee to be consistent with amendments made by the city in 2016. A noteworthy required change was identified relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline jurisdiction. The general critical area regulations were updated in 2016 through the periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan as required by the Growth Management Act and they are currently found in chapter 21.40 SVMC. Staff are proposing to update the shoreline critical areas regulations to remain consistent with the generally applicable critical areas regulations Another noted change is to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to be permitted in the same way as a single-family dwelling. Under the existing SMP, ADUs are required to obtain a Substantial Development Permit, which could present a barrier to provide this more affordable housing type. The 2017 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element encourages additional affordable housing options such as ADUs, and by allowing ADUs in a similar way as single-family homes the proposed change removes the potential barrier ADUs. Overall, staff have determined that the proposed amendments to chapter 21.50 SVMC meet the requirement of the of the SMA to review and revise the City's SMP to maintain consistency with state laws, changes to local plans and regulations, changes in local circumstances, and new or improved data and information. A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria The City may approve a Municipal Code Text amendment if it finds that: Page 2 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation 2021 Periodic SMP Update 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 Pan and is consistent with the following policy and goal: H-P2 NR-G3 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative housing types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, pre -fabricated homes, co -housing, cottage housing, and other housing types. Ensure that Critical Areas and Shoreline Master Program regulations are based on best available science and are consistent with required environmental policy. ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment: Staff Analysis: The proposed amendments bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments to the SMP were identified after a review of changes to local and state laws and ensure that the SMP is consistent with all applicable laws and rules. The proposed amendments implement changes to local and state laws and rules including best available science for wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The proposed amendments maintain the vision and goals adopted in the SMP and Comprehensive Plan. 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: The City received one public comment during the comment period. The commenter was seeking whether affordable housing and apartments will be allowed along the shoreline and what will happen if sewer is not present at the time of development. The commenter also wanted to ensure that the aquifer and river be protected. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendments do not recommend any changes to the allowable shoreline uses, nor do the amendments change any of the shoreline environmental designations. The existing regulations allow for a variety of residential uses including multiple family housing. Spokane Regional Health District requires that all new development connect to the public sewer system. The intent of the SMP is to afford protect shorelines of the state while allowing reasonable use of shoreline areas. Adequate public noticing was conducted for Periodic Review of the Shoreline Master Program in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: Page 3 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation 2021 Periodic SMP Update The City received one comment from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The comment can be summarized as informing the City of updated science as it relates to Priority Habitat and Species on riparian ecosystems. The City is not required to incorporate the updated guidance during this 2021 periodic review. b. Conclusion(s): The City will weigh incorporation of the updated science during the next SMP Periodic Review in 2029. Comments have been addressed and no concerns noted. B. CONCLUSION The proposed updates to the SMP are necessary to maintain consistency with changes to local and state laws and rules. The proposed text amendments fulfill the City's obligations under state law to review and revise the SMP. For the reasons set forth in Section A, the proposed amendments to the SMP are found to be consistent the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F). Page 4 of 5 Exhibit 1: Public and Agency Comments Chaz Bates From: Connor Lange Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 1:26 PM To: Mike Basinger; Chaz Bates Cc: Jenny Nickerson Subject: FW: Shoreline Comments on the Shoreline. Thanks From: CenturyLink Customer <jandbhoward@q.com> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 12:13 PM To: Planning <planning@spokanevalley.org> Subject: Shoreline I would like to know if section 8 housing apartments will be allowed along the Shoreline...or affordable housing..and if the sewer is not there what will happen.. And how will the Aquifer and the River be PROTECTED... Thank You Barb Howard CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. i State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Eastern Region • Region 1 • 2315 North Discovery Place, Spokane Valley, WA 99216-1566 Telephone: (509) 892-1001 • Fax: (509) 921-2440 March 9, 2021 City of Spokane Valley, Economic Development Division Attn: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Amendment Dear Mr. Bates, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Periodic Review of the City of Spokane Valley's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) provides our comments and recommendations in keeping with our legislative mandate to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish and wildlife and their habitats for the benefit of future generations - a mission we can only accomplish in partnership with local governments. We understand the City has elected to use the optional joint review process with the Department of Ecology and there will be no additional comment period during the state review process. WDFW would like to take this opportunity to inform the City that we recently finalized our updated Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) publications on riparian ecosystems. In May 2018, we published the manuscript for PHS Riparian Ecosystems, Vol. 1: Science Synthesis and Management Implications which meets the criteria of being an independently peer reviewed source of Best Available Science on what riparian ecosystems need in order to be fully functioning habitat for fish and other aquatic species. In December 2020, we finalized the companion PHS Riparian Ecosystems, Vol.2: Management Recommendations in which we recommend to local governments and other landowners and land managers how to apply the science summarized in Volume 1. The PHS Riparian Ecosystems publications state that rather than simply serving as "buffers" for their adjacent waterbody, riparian areas are important as ecosystems in and of themselves, warranting levels of protection and management not based solely on a waterbody's typing according to fish use. While shoreline riparian areas do function as aquatic buffers by protecting and improving water quality, they also provide terrestrial habitat used by wildlife for movement, nesting, reproduction, foraging and refugia. We look forward to working with you to ensure that future updates of the SMP include the review of Site Potential Tree Height at 200-years (SPTH200) and the Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) as the method in which to determine the width of the Riparian Management Zone (RMZ). In locations where SPTHzoo information is not available, or is less than 100 feet, as indicated by this web map, the science informs us that a minimum 100- foot setback is still appropriate in most instances to ensure the RMZ can adequately provide its pollution removal function. (Certain site characteristics, including soil type and adjacent land uses, may require an even larger distance to ensure pollution removal.) WDFW provides its recommendations through the lens of our agency's mandate. We appreciate that local governments must weigh many considerations when making decisions about land use plans and activities, and that tradeoffs sometimes must be made. To that end, WDFW supports site -specific mitigation and decision making within the context of watershed and other landscape scales as appropriate. We recommend flexibility in mitigation requirements so that wildlife and human needs are accommodated; in locations where the level of riparian protection WDFW recommends cannot be observed, such as with setback distances, mitigation which preserves the functions and values of the RMZ should be developed and applied. WDFW is available and eager to assist the City of Spokane Valley in these situations. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this update process. WDFW understands that our new PHS Riparian Ecosystem volumes reflect some significant changes to the approach our state has taken to riparian ecosystem protection for decades, and that local jurisdictions may have additional questions about how best to implement the new guidance. Please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss these guidelines and future implementation. Sincerely, Leslie King Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Le slie.King@a,dfw.wa.gov 509-892-1001 ext. 323 cc: Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall March 25, 2021 I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Karl Granrath Walt Haneke Bob McKinley Nancy Miller Paul Rieckers Sherri Robinson Erik Lamb, City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant III. AGENDA: Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the March 25, 2021 meeting agenda as presented There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Rieckers moved to approve the March 11, 2021 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Commission Reports. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Deliberations: Shoreline Master Program — Legislative Update. Senior Planner Chaz Bates requested that the Planning Commission make a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of the Shoreline Master Program. He explained that the Department of Ecology did not start their public comment period as planned so the City is going to move forward with their standard approval process. It will be submitted to the Department of Ecology after adoption and they will run their own comment period. The City received two written public comments on this matter. One was received from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and one from a private resident. Mr. Bates stated that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to maintain consistency with state and local policies. 1 03-25-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Rieckers asked if the comments received from the private resident have been addressed. Mr. Bates answered that it is not typical to make a formal response to received comments. They are just included in the documentation for consideration by the Planning Commission when making their decision. Commissioner Haneke asked if there would be a way to exclude Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) from the shoreline in the future. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb answered that a code text amendment could be done to exclude ADU's but it would have to go through the formal process. Commissioner Haneke stated that he is not in favor of ADU's along the shoreline and is concerned about making the process easier. Commissioner Robinson moved to recommend that the City Council approve the 2021 Shoreline Master Program update. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. b. Public Hearing: CTA-2020-0004: Title 24 Update The public hearing was opened at 6:22 pm. Building Official Jenny Nickerson gave a presentation regarding the proposed update to Title 24 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The reason for the request is Title 24 adopts the Washington State Building Codes and the 2018 editions of all building codes replaced the 2015 editions as of February 1, 2021 in the state of Washington. The amendment will align the language of Title 24 SVMC with the state adoption of the codes. She explained that the proposed changes are predominantly housekeeping. The current SVMC has some outdated Washington Administrative Code (WAC) references that need to be corrected and the language regarding land disturbance needs to be aligned to provide permit processing consistency. These changes include new language that outlines that a land disturbance permit may be required when more than 50 cubic yards of fill is removed or four feet of unsupported excavation occurs. Joel White, Executive Officer with the Spokane Home Builders Association (SHBA) stated that the adoption of the 2018 building codes has added a projected $20,000 to the cost to build a typical single-family home and there is a big concern of the SHBA regarding all of the new changes based on this adoption. He explained that he is working with other members to find out how much these proposed changes will affect builders in the area. The public hearing was closed at 6:50 p.m. Commissioner Haneke stated that he would like to know from Mr. White if the SHBA is still reviewing the repercussions of this adoption. The public hearing was reopened at 6:52 p.m. to receive additional comment from Mr. White. Mr. White responded that there are a few members of the SHBA looking into this matter. He doesn't feel that these changes are a huge issue but the SHBA is definitely concerned about the additional single-family home costs and these additional land disturbance permits could add even more cost. Commissioner Beaulac and Commissioner Haneke stated they would like to continue the public hearing to the next meeting to get additional information from the SHBA members 2 03-25-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 before making a recommendation. The remaining members expressed that they are ready to move forward with a recommendation The public hearing was closed again at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Miller moved to recommend approval of CTA-2020-0004 to the City Council. Commissioner Granrath stated that there are some major housing issues that need to be addressed but this matter is mostly housekeeping and can be sent to City Council with a recommendation to approve. Commissioner McKinley stated that he is aware of unintended costs attributed to these types of changes but he agrees that it is a housekeeping item that does need to be passed along. The vote on the motion was five in favor, two against, with Commissioner Haneke and Commissioner Beaulac dissenting and the motion passed. A brief recess was called at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:32. c. Study Session: Housing Action Plan Chaz Bates gave a presentation on the Housing Action Plan (HAP). He explained that Washington legislation passed a bill (E2SHB 1923) in 2019 encouraging increased residential capacity through adoption of regulatory mechanisms or adoption of a HAP. The City decided to develop a HAP and was given a $100,000 grant from the Department of Commerce to hire the consulting firms to develop it. The HAP identifies strategies and implementing actions to promote housing for all income levels by providing housing diversity, housing affordability, and increased access to opportunity for housing. The plan is developed by the gathering of data and public input. However, the strategies and action are adopted at a later time. The HAP has four basic elements which includes a housing needs assessment, a housing policy review, proposed strategies and actions, and a proposed implementation plan. Mr. Bates explained that the housing needs assessment provides information on existing housing inventory, the projected housing needs, population trends, and employment trends. The assessment shows that the City is lacking diversity in housing stock and will need at least 6,660 new housing units by the year 2037 to handle new growth. However, 45% of these homes will be occupied by residents who make less than the Area Medium Income (AMI). This means that there is a growing need for affordable housing and the HAP is geared towards making sure that there are options for all residents. Mr. Bates stated that the housing policy review looks to see if the proposed strategies align with identified needs, align with community vision and engagement, identifies regulatory barriers, and evaluates available programs. The policy review identified that there is a need for housing for incomes below the AMI and housing that offer more affordable ownership options. Mr. Bates said that the housing strategies and actions outlined in the plan are based on five criteria. This includes zoning and other regulatory strategies, process improvements, affordable housing incentives, funding for affordable housing, and mitigating displacement. The three strategic goals outlined are to preserve affordable housing and mitigate displacement, increase both market -rate and affordable housing supply by creating focus zones that allow multifamily and missing -middle housing, and increase housing options and housing choice. Missing -middle housing includes duplexes, cottages 3 03-25-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 and townhomes because they provide a spectrum of affordability options. The implementation plan identifies steps to achieve strategies and a monitoring program. Commissioner Beaulac asked how the HAP will remain relevant and up-to-date as things change over time. Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger answered that staff has policies and goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and one of the goals could be that the HAP is reviewed annually to make sure that it remains consistent with trends. Also, the long-term strategies included in the HAP will be used to create code text amendments in the future to implement areas of the plan. This item will return to the Planning Commission for public hearing on April 8, 2021. IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Robinson moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Bob McKinley, Chair Deanna Horton, Secretary Date signed r/--/ 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: May 13, 2021 Item: Check all that apply n old business Fl new business ❑ public hearing n information n study session ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-090, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040. PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: Study session on February 25, 2021; public hearing March 11, 2021. BACKGROUND: The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is the City's official document to guide development along the Spokane River and Shelly Lake. Finalized in 2015, the SMP includes goals and polices which are adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan and regulations related to shoreline development that can be found in Chapter 21.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The City is undertaking a periodic review of its SMP, as required by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), RCW 90.58.080. The SMA requires that the SMP be reviewed and revised, if needed, by June 30, 2021. The review ensures the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules. In 2020, the City hired the consultant firm The Watershed Company to conduct the periodic review. Because the SMP was recently adopted in 2015 after an extensive multi -year public process, the scope of the 2021 periodic review is limited to changes required to stay current with laws and rules. A summary of the changes to laws and rules and their impacts to the City's SMP regulations can be found in the Gap Analysis completed as part of the 2021 periodic review. Overall, the SMP was found to be consistent with changes in local and state laws. A majority of the changes are minor and include items such as exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures. A noteworthy required change was identified relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline jurisdiction. These regulations need to be updated to be consistent with state law and the City's adopted critical area regulations. On February 12, 2021, the City issued a notice of the public hearing stating that the City was accepting public comments for 30-days. The City also published all the draft documents on the SMP project webpage and notified the public of their availability. On February 25, 2021, an overview of the proposed SMP amendments and a summary of the adoption process was provided to the Planning Commission. On March 11, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the purpose of taking public testimony on the proposed amendments. After the public hearing on March 11, the public hearing was closed, except to allow written comments to be submitted by close of business on Friday, March 12. On March 25, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed all public comments and deliberated on the proposed SMP amendments. After deliberations, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to the City Council that the draft SMP amendments be adopted as presented. Tonight, the Planning Commission will formalize their recommendation by forwarding the attached findings to the City Council. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to forward the findings and recommendations to the City Council for the 2021 Shoreline Master Program update. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings and Recommendations for the 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update 2. Final Draft Gap Analysis 3. Final Draft Amendments Chapter 21.50 RPCA Findings and Recommendations for 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update Page 1 of 1 Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall May 13, 2021 I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Karl Granrath Walt Haneke Bob McKinley Nancy Miller Paul Rieckers Sherri Robinson Erik Lamb, City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Marianne Lemons, Administrative Assistant III. AGENDA: Commissioner Robinson moved to approve the May 13, 2021 meeting agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Beaulac stated that the first sentence needed to be changed in the minutes to reflect that "Vice -Chair Robinson called the meeting to order." Commissioner Miller moved to approve the April 22, 2021 minutes as amended. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Planning Commission reports. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson stated that she will present some information regarding condominium weatherization regulations at a future Planning Commission meeting. VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Findings Of Fact: Shoreline Master Plan Senior Planner Chaz Bates presented the Findings of Fact for the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) for approval. He stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed SMP at the March 11, 2021 meeting and a formal recommendation of approval was done at the March 25th meeting. He explained that the approval of the 1 05-13-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 Findings of Fact will formalize the recommendations that will be made to the City Council. Commissioner Robinson moved to approve the Planning Commission Findings of Fact for the Shoreline Master Program update as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Beaulac asked if future Planning Commission meetings will be held in the Council Chambers. Building Official Nickerson answered that staff will make a decision regarding public meetings once further direction is received from Governor Inslee. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Haneke moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:19 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Bob McKinley, Chair Date signed Marianne Lemons, Secretary 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 1, 2021 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Bridge Preservation Program GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Staff will discuss the City of Spokane Valley Bridge Preservation Program. OPTIONS: Discussion Only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion Only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Discussion Only STAFF CONTACT: Gloria Mantz, Engineering Manager Pete Fisch, Engineering Tech II ATTACHMENTS: Presentation 1iP.1E711111119111111116Clllllli111M1311 tllll1l311AGl110111111111111211 W IlillilIIIItl dfi rl➢lllIIIM lldlllfiltii 111I ..,... City of Spokane Valley Bridge Preservation Progra Pete Fisch, Engineering Technician II. Gloria Mantz, Engineering Manager June 1, 2021 4,41 Ai Mill 11Y+ 411r1111 n►1111 urn Spok ine `Valley I Win' Local Bridge Program Spokane Valley Objective: To Ensure Public Safety through Inspection, Rehabilitation, and Replacement of National Bridge Inventory (NBI) Bridges UBIT Inspection Barker Road Over Spokane River Publication No. EHW.; NFU I?-WS U.S. Dtpucuuur of Transportation Federal BiPlir:n Adminisn•ariou Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual BIR.11 VolamP LACET 2 Spokane Valley Bridge Inventory pokane .00Val ey III 16 Bridges 13 City -Owned 3 Railroad -Owned 4.4 Spokane Valley Bridges labdulos. 4.4 Aim a 1,,,t17H • ;- Legend Spokane Valley bndges Streets akes/Rivers 3 Spokane Valley Bridge Inventory Bridges over Creeks Spokane Valley IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Steen Rd Over Saltese Creek Timber Structure, 1968 (short span) Sands Rd Over Chester Creek, 1977 Dishman-Mica Rd Over Chester Creek, 1999 Thorpe Rd Over Chester Creek Shortest bridge at 14 ft (short span), 1976 4 Spokane Valley Bridge Inventory Spokane River Bridges Spokane Valley Sullivan Rd South Bound, 2016 Sullivan Rd North Bound, 1973 (Scour Critical) Barker Rd, 2010 5 Spokane Valley Bridge Inventory City Owned Railroad Bridges Spokane _.Va11ey Sullivan Rd Over BNSF RR, 1960 Sullivan Rd Over UP RR South Bound, 1967 Fancher Rd Over BNSF RR Longest bridge at 679 feet, 1982 Sullivan Rd Over UP RR North Bound, 1973 6 Spokane Valley Bridge Inventory Bridges Over Roadways Spokane Valley Mission Ave Over Evergreen Rd, 2000 Sullivan Rd Over SR 290 (Trent Rd), 1960 7 Spokane Valley Bridge Inventory Railroad Owned Bridges Spokane Va11ey Argonne Rd Separation, 1996 Park Rd UC UP RR Tracks, 1962 Sprague Ave UC UP RR, 1975 Bridge Program Requirements Spokane Valley • WS DOT Local Programs Oversight • Maintain Bridge Files • Bridge Condition Inspection Program • BridgeWorks software; WSDOT managed bridge inventory system • Bridge Inspection Personnel Training • Bride Inspections Load Ratings, Scour Analysis, Critical Damage Bridge Repair Reports • Local Agency Quality Assurance/Quality Control Reviews Bridge Maintenance and Preservation Develop 6 year Capital Projects & Preservation Priorities 9 Bridge Program Inspections Spokane Valley ■ Routine Inspections at Least Every 2 Years ■ Underwater Inspections at Least Every 5 Years ■ Primary Safety Inspections on RR Owned Bridges Every 2 years ■ Inspections City Staff, Consultant & WSDOT Bridge Preservation Dive Team (Underwater Inspections) 10 Bridge Scour Analysis Spokane Valley Compare this area to photo form 8-26-15 Sullivan Road Over Spokane River- Scour Critical March 21, 2017 Streamflow = 42,900 cfs 11 Bridge Program Requirements I!x Load Ratings —Ongoing Effort I Load Rating Records Maintained by City Staff m Critical Damage Bridge Repair Report I No Weight Restriction —Currently Evaluation of Stability of Bridge Foundation for Bridges Over Water (Scour Evaluation) • Sullivan Rd Bridge (North Bound) — Scour Critics • Record River Cross Sections & Photos Annually • Scour Plan of Action SPDKV-4511 SID#08139800 SUUIVAN RD©VER SRO RIVER August 25, 2020 iFd4 4.14 i3•IO f.H.li b 4 lt•Ni 1•?1) 11. I{p 1•.14 I•$G 3.•0O N?0 ]•i4 ?.m ?,Al. 3+hi i*?L 344 tifA it. Asset Management Spokane Valley Bi-Annual Bridge Maintenance Activities • Deck Sweeping • Deck Flushing • Bridge Joint Cleaning Cyclical or Condition Based Activities Inspection Reports; Recommended Repairs • Crack Sealing • Deck Sealing • Emergency Inspections & Repairs Due to Crashes • N$16,600 in 2021 — Pedestrian Rail Damage • N$14,500 in 2020 — High Load Hit & Pedestrian Rail Damage • Preservation or Replacement (Capital Projects) ASSET MANAGEMENT 13 Bridge Maintenance Spokane Valley Steen Bridge Timber Deck Repairs, 2019 Sullivan Rd Over UP RR Abutment/Wing Wall Repairs, 2018-19 4510 Sawc..tt!ng the tiring wall; south east co ner 4510 NE abutment/wing wall 14 Bridge Maintenance Spokane Valley Sullivan Road Over UP Railroad Approach Repairs, 2018 approach4510 south side 4S1f] 'niith sirla annrnach 4510 north side approach 4RR1f) north eirla annrnach 15 Bridge Maintenance Spokane Valley Sands Road Bridge Deck Repair, 2013 & 2015 Fancher Rd Over BNSF Railroad Compression Seal Repairs, 2016 16 Bridge Maintenance Spokane Valley Graffiti painting, steel coatings... Joint/Crack Sealing & Repair 17 Bridge Capital Projects Spokane Va11ey Sullivan Rd Overcrossing UPRR Deck Repair, 2021 Preservation Cost $350K Replacement Cost $4M, if Maintenance Deferred Sullivan Rd West Bridge Replacement Project Cost $15.5M, 2016 18 6 Year Bridge Program Spokane _Valley Bridge Proiect Twe FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 Thorpe Rd Over Chester Cr New Superstructure- Pre -Stressed Concrete Slab $50,000 $150,000 Sullivan Rd Over UP RR Resurface Bridge Deck $310,000 Sullivan Rd OC SR 290 Replace bearing pads $50,000 $375,000 Sullivan Rd Over BNSF RR Replace bearing pads $50,000 $325,000 Sullivan Rd (NB) Over Spokane River Replace bearing pads $50,000 $375,000 Mission Ave Over ]Evergreen Rd Seal Deck $50,000 $261,000 Sands Rd Over Chester Creek New Superstructure- Prestressed Concrete Slab $50,000 $200,000 Barker Rd Bridge Over Spokane River Silane Treatment (Concrete Penetrant) $120,000 $360,000 $311,000 $200,000 $300,000 $800,000 $445,000 Bridge Capital Expenditures Are Not Included in the Unfunded Pavement Preservation Needs 19 Funding Spokane Valley IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII • Grants ■ Very Limited Opportunities ■ Most Bridges Don't Score Well or Meet Grant Award Criteria 2021 Brid I e Bud I et Fund 101 1/4 Full Time Employee Inspection Maintenance Miscellaneous Total $33,700 $36,000 $40,000 $6,100 $115,800 20 Spokane Val ley IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII QUESTIONS 21 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 1, 2021 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2021 Summer Aquatics Program Second Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council approved the 2021 Parks and Recreation Department budget on December 8, 2020. June 16,2020: Admin Report on Covid-19 impact on Parks & Recreation Summer Programs, including the aquatic program. May 4, 2021 Admin Report: 2021 Summer Aquatics Program Update. BACKGROUND: No one could have predicted COVID-19 or its impact on the State of Washington. In 2020, the Parks and Recreation Department found itself facing tough decisions related to the City's pool and recreation programs. In May of 2020, the Governor announced Washington's Phased Approach Plan, and on May 22 Phase 2 had begun for Spokane County. Anticipating a possible Phase 3 last year, the Parks and Recreation Department approached Council on June 16, 2020 about potential revised aquatics programming should the area progress to Phase 3. Ultimately the Parks and Recreation Department was not able to offer any summer aquatics programs in 2020. Fast -forward to January 11, 2021, the Governor replaced Washington's original Phased Approach Plan with the new "Healthy Washington Roadmap to Recovery" Plan with a regional approach to re -opening consisting of two phases with all regions beginning in Phase 1. On February 14, 2021 Spokane County moved into Phase 2 of the new Roadmap to Recovery. Then, on March 22, 2021, the Governor added a Phase 3 to the Roadmap to Recovery and began providing specific guidelines for various activities in Phase 3. Most recently, on May 13, 2021 Governor Inslee announced the state is moving toward a statewide June 30 reopening date and that the full reopening could happen earlier than June 30 if 70% or more of Washingtonians over the age of 16 have initiated vaccination. Parks and Recreation staff continue to work closely with the City of Spokane, Spokane County and the Regional Health District on aquatic issues in an effort to be consistent. On May 4, 2021 we presented to Council what a revised aquatics season for our citizens might look like in 2021, and recommended an aquatic program based on a rotating schedule of operating two weeks at a time at each of our three pools with an emphasis on swim lessons, water exercise, and limited open swim sessions. Staff will be providing an update on current staffing levels and a further refined anticipated schedule of offerings at Spokane Valley's three pools for the 2021 season. OPTIONS: Council discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No recommended action at this time. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There will be no additional financial impacts for these modifications as the anticipated expenditures will be within our existing 2021 Parks and Recreation Department budget. STAFF CONTACT: John Bottelli, Parks, Recreation & Facilities Director; Tina Gregerson, Recreation Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation SPOKANE VALLEY AQUATICS 2021 COVID-1 9 IMPACTS SECOND UPDATE Ale yMC4iNW.org/Careers STAFFING UPDATE • Currently at 33% of staffing needed for a full aquatics schedule • ONGOING RECRUITING EFFORTS: Billboards, banners at pools, and direct communication to Valley School Districts and local colleges 2 LIFEGUARD CERTIFICATION CLASSES • Lifeguard certification classes will be held at the City of Spokane Valley Pools • 2 week sessions • Scholarship opportunities June 19-June 26 Pool Swim Water Open Swim Lifeguard Drowning Lessons / Exercise / Certification Prevention Swim Team Lap Swim Classes Clinic Park Road Valley Mission Terrace View June 28-July 10 Pool Swim Water Open Swim Lifeguard Drowning Lessons / Exercise / Certification Prevention Swim Team Lap Swim Classes Clinic Park Road Valley Mission errace View lu °IA �,ui pr,iuu11111 q uuull July 12-July 24 Pool Swim Water Open Swim Lifeguard Drowning Lessons / Exercise / Certification Prevention Swim Team Lap Swim Classes Clinic Park Road Valley Mission Terrace View July 26-August 7 Pool Swim Water Open Swim Lifeguard Drowning Lessons / Exercise / Certification Prevention Swim Team Lap Swim Classes Clinic Park Road Valley Mission Terrace View mlllllllllllllllll\\. ,i111 Illlll 1p pull u rquuu,l,luuull Ill11u1l11I,°� JId4uuuuom ., mll11l1llllmumi w' dll1l11111I f'. August 9-August 21 Pool Swim Water Open Swim Lifeguard Drowning Lessons / Exercise / Certification Prevention Swim Team Lap Swim Classes Clinic Park Road Valley Mission Terrace View August 23-September 4 Pool Swim Water Open Swim Lifeguard Drowning Lessons / Exercise / Certification Prevention Swim Team Lap Swim Classes Clinic Park Road Valley Mission Terrace View Sunday August 22 !!! 0 0 11.10 PoL=N VALLEY MISSION POOL / PARK ROAD POOL . a� ...� I n11111111 6111,111011 V ! dVNONNshtU�NN�'u`sPiC' il1.1111111111111111191i11j1, '' www.spobanevaUey.og/pooIs DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of May 27, 2021; 2:00 p.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings June 8, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue June 1] Proclamation: June is PTSD Awareness Month 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2022-2027 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program — Adam Jackson (10 min) 2. Resolution 21-002 Adopting 2022-2027 Six Year TIP — Adam Jackson (no public comment) (5 minutes) 3. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 4. First Reading Ordinance 21-007 Adopting Shoreline Master Plan — Chaz Bates 5. Admin Report: Boys & Girls Club — Richard Hanlin 6. Admin Report: Union Gospel Mission & Homelessness — Phil Altmeyer 7. Admin Report: Gang Violence — Assistant Chief Richey, et al (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (20 minutes) 8. Admin Report: Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan (CROP) — Henry Allen, M.Koudelka (20 min) 9. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick (5 minutes) 10. Info only: Finance Dept Report [*estimated meeting: 105 mins] June 15, 2021, Budget Workshop 2022 Budget 8:30 am to approximately 3:00 pm June 15, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Cancelled AWC Conference: June 22-25 — live and recorded webinars June 22, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance 21-007 Adopting Shoreline Master Plan — Chaz Bates [due Tue June 15] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) 3. Resolution 21-003 Adopting Contamination Reduction & Outreach Plan (CROP)—E.Lamb, M.Koudelka (10 min) 4. Admin Report: Orchard Avenue Park — John Bottelli 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick 6. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports June 29, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Capital Improvement Program — Gloria Mantz 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick July 6, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. Proclamation: July is Parks & Recreation Month 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 45 mins] July 13, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Council Goals & Priorities for Use of Lodging Tax — Chelsie Taylor 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick July 20, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick Spokane Valley State of the City: July 21, 2021 [due Tue June 22] (30 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue June 29] (5 minutes) [due Tue July 6] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue July 13] (5 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 5/27/2021 2:15:26 PM Page 1 of 2 July 27, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Council Goals & Priorities for Use of Lodging Tax — Chelsie Taylor 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick 4. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports August 3, 2021: Tentative National Night Out Aug 3, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. (tentatively cancelled) Aug 10, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick Aug 17, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Council 2022 Budget Goals — Chelsie Taylor 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick Aug 24, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: 2022 Budget -Estimated Revenues & Expenditures — Chelsie Taylor 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick 4. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports Aug 31, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick Sept 7, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. Proclamation: Alcohol & Drug Recovery Month 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick Sept 14, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. Proclamation: Constitution Week- Sept 17-23 1. PUBLIC HEARING #1: 2022 Budget Revenues, Property Taxes — Chelsie Taylor 2. Motion Consideration: Set Budget Hearing for October 12, 2021 — Chelsie Taylor 3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Appleway Trail Amenities Arts Council Sculpture Presentations Artwork & Metal Boxes Consolidated Homeless Grant Core Beliefs Resolution Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt. No Parking Zones Park Lighting PFD Presentation Residency Ridgemont Area Traffic Spokane Housing Authority App't St. Illumination (owners, cost, location) [due Tue July 20] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue Aug 3] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue Aug 10] (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue Aug 17] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue Aug 24] (5 minutes) [due Tue Aug 31] (5 minutes) [due Tue Sept 7] St. O&M Pavement Preservation TPA Vehicle Wgt Infrastructure Impact Water Districts & Green Space Way Finding Signs (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (5 minutes) Dave Ellis Chief ofPolice Spokane Valley Police Department Accredited Since 2011 Services provided in partnership with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office and the Community, Dedicated to Your Safety. Ozzie Knezovich TO: Mark Calhoun, City Manager FROM: Dave Ellis, Chief of Police DATE: May 24, 2021 RE: Monthly Report April 2021 ADMINISTRATIVE: Lateral Deputy Matt Costello was commissioned with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office on 4/16/21. Matt is 35 years old, married, and a father of three. He grew up and attended high school in the Mead area. He comes to us from the Kalispel Tribal Police Department, where he has served since 2018. He also has a corrections background, serving as a corrections officer at the Airway Heights Correctional Center from 2007 to 2013, and has owned his own home remodeling business. Chief Ellis attended the monthly Spokane Regional Law and Justice Council meeting. He was also in attendance at the Spokane Regional Emergency Communications Governing Board meeting in mid - April. There were two legislative update meetings conducted in April by the WA Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, which Chief Ellis attended. These meetings provided members with the current status of bills of significance to law enforcement. Members of the Law Communications Board met in April and updates were provided on on -going projects. Chief Ellis also attended the Spokane Regional Emergency Communications Strategic Planning meeting in late April, along with other law and fire officials. The Sheriff's Office also held a Strategic Planning meeting at the Sheriff s Training Center, attended by Chief Ellis. A Joint Terrorism Task Force meeting was held in late April, attended by Chief Ellis along with others in local law enforcement. Page 1 The Clergy Police Council invited Chief Ellis to attend their monthly meetings, held at the Salvation Army. At the end of April, Chief Ellis attended the meeting and is looking forward to receiving updates on the group's future endeavors. SHERIFF'S COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING EFFORT (SCOPE): In the month of April, S.C.O.P.E. participated in: • Radar Speed trailers being located throughout Spokane Valley on a regular basis by our volunteers. Citizens are really appreciating S.C.O.P.E. and Spokane Valley Police Department for providing this service. • Latent Print service (S.C.O.P.E. Volunteers attempting to find fingerprints on Vehicle Prowls) • Valleyfest Cycle Celebration Meeting. • Clergy Police Council Meeting. • S.C.O.P.E. Volunteers deliver PPE supplies weekly to medical, fire stations, senior care facilities and others. • S.C.O.P.E. Volunteers helping with some Food Bank drop offs. • S.C.O.P.E. Volunteers patrolling neighborhoods and businesses April 2021 Volunteers Hours per Station *Includes estimated volunteer service hours that are provided in the City of Spokane Valley. These two locations cover both Sp Location # Volunteers Admin Hours L.E. Hours Total Hours Central Valley 6 27 21 48 East Valley* 25 163.5 316 479.5 Edgecliff 8 24 23 47 Trentwood 4 61 22.5 83.5 University 16 191.5 42.5 234 West Valley* 16 384 54 438 TOTALS 75 851 479 1330 Volunteer Value ($31.72 per hour) $42,187.60 for April 2021 The SCOPE Latent Fingerprint Team was given 67 cases for the month of April for latent prints; 21 of those cases were for incidents in Spokane Valley. For the 21 cases in Spokane Valley, 7 vehicles were processed and prints were found on 4 of those vehicles. The Latent Fingerprint Team currently has limited staff and is only open three days a week (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday by appointment). SCOPE DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT City of Spokane Valley # of Vol. # of Hrs. # of Disabled Infractions Issued # of Warnings Issued # of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 0 0 0 0 0 February 0 0 0 0 0 March 0 0 0 0 0 April 0 0 0 0 0 YTD Total 0 0 0 0 0 Page 2 Spokane County #of Vol, #ofHrs. #of Disabled Infractions Issued #of Warnings Issued #of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 0 0 0 0 0 February 0 0 0 0 0 March 3 6,5 0 9 0 April 0 0 0 0 0 YTD Total 3 6.5 0 9 0 S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 53 on -scene hours (including travel time) in April; 36 of those hours were for incidents in Spokane Valley, responding to crime scenes, motor vehicle accidents and providing traffic control. There was one special event in April, which was in the county. Total volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training, stand-by, response and special events is 918 for April; total for 2021 is 3,264. Abandoned Vehicles February 2021 March 2021 April 2021 Tagged for Impounding 38 59 46 Cited/Towed 0 18 0 Hulks Processed 10 11 14 Total Vehicles Processed 105 149 146 Yearly 'Total of Vehicles Processed 209 358 504 OPERATIONS: Detectives Investigate Bank Robbery on E. Sprague - Spokane Valley Deputies searched for the person(s) who robbed the Banner Bank branch on Sprague, near Sullivan. In mid -April, at approximately 4:15 pm., Spokane Valley Deputies began to respond to a holdup alarm at Banner Bank, located at 15606 E. Sprague. During that time, Spokane Regional Emergency Communications (SREC) Dispatchers advised deputies that an employee confirmed the bank was robbed. The suspect was last seen running through the parking lot toward the Dollar Store, possibly to a waiting vehicle. Deputies arrived quickly and established a perimeter, began a search for the suspect, and interviewed witnesses. Thankfully, none of the bank employees or customers were injured during the robbery. The suspect was described as a white, or possibly Hispanic, male, shorter in height (estimate of 5'05"-5'06") with a slender build. He was wearing a black t-shirt, black jeans, a dark baseball cap, and a facemask. Witness also described dark, arm's length (full sleeve) tattoos on both the suspect's arms. The following day, Spokane County Patrol Sheriff's Sergeant Clay Hilton noticed a white Chevrolet truck in the Airway Heights area just after midnight. The vehicle was occupied and matched the vehicle used during the Banner Bank robbery in Spokane Valley. Sergeant Hilton advised dispatch of his suspicion and conducted a traffic stop of the truck. He contacted the 39-year-old male driver and learned the suspect's driving privileges were suspended in Idaho and Washington. The suspect was arrested for driving while suspended and booked into the Spokane County Jail. With the truck Page 3 matching the pictures of the getaway vehicle used during the bank robbery, it was seized as evidence pending a search warrant. The Major Crimes Unit was provided the information regarding the arrest and seizure of the vehicle. Already working the bank robbery investigation, Major Crimes Detective Mike Drapeau began looking into this new evidence and worked to obtain a search warrant for the truck. Through the continued investigation, Detective Drapeau developed probable cause to charge the suspect with Robbery 1st Degree. Several law enforcement agencies have been working together to identify and locate the suspects involved in three bank robberies, which began on April 19, 2021, at the Wells Fargo Bank in Post Falls, Idaho. The second occurred on April 20, 2021, at Banner Bank in Spokane Valley, and the third, April 23, 2021, at First Interstate Bank in the City of Spokane. Personnel from the Post Falls Police Department, Spokane Police Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Spokane Valley Police Department, and the Spokane County Sheriffs Office have all been working together to identify and arrest these suspects. On April 27, 2021, at approximately 11:20 am, Spokane Sheriff's Major Crime Detective Mike Drapeau received information that a bank robbery suspect, a 33-year-old male, was observed walking in the area of Monroe and Broadway. The suspect was identified through the multi -agency investigation and is the suspect believed to have entered the banks and committed all three robberies. Investigators from all the agencies, assisted by Spokane Police Patrol Officers, flooded the area to search for the suspect. A short time later, the male suspect was found hiding in a bathroom stall of a business located on N. Monroe by Detective Drapeau. He was safely taken into custody without further incident. The suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for two counts of Robbery 1st Degree for the bank robberies committed in the City of Spokane and City of Spokane Valley. Post Falls Police Detectives have or are preparing to file charges in Kootenai County for the bank robbery in the City of Post Falls. These bank robberies highlight the fact, people who commit crimes do not recognize or care about jurisdictions or state lines. We are incredibly thankful for the positive and collaborative working relationships developed between the federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in our area. Day after day, law enforcement in this region continually work together, sharing information and assets, to professionally serve the communities of our region while holding those who choose to commit criminal acts and endanger others accountable. Suspect, Believed to be Impaired, Attempts to Flee and Wrecks — Just before midnight, near Pines and Trent, the driver of a vehicle failed to stop for a Spokane County Sheriff's deputy and accelerated initiating a pursuit. The suspect lost control of the vehicle on Montgomery east of Dartmouth and wrecked. The adult male driver and passenger, both wanted and well known to law enforcement, sustained serious but non -life -threatening injuries. In late April, at approximately 11:25 pm., Spokane County Sheriff's Deputy Catherine Horton attempted to conduct a traffic stop of a gray Saturn on Pines near Trent due to her observations of his poor driving pattern and belief that the driver may be impaired. The 27-year-old male driver slowed, but then continued south on Pines at a high rate of speed. Deputy Horton advised dispatch she was in pursuit with the driver fleeing and little or no traffic on the roadway. Several Spokane County and Spokane Valley Deputies began to respond to the area to assist. Ignoring traffic lights and signs, the male suspect continued to flee. Now traveling west on Montgomery, east of Dartmouth, the suspect lost control of the vehicle, slid sideways, and overcorrected, striking boulders and a fence before coming to rest. Deputies immediately approached the demolished car and provided medical attention to the male suspect and his adult male passenger until Spokane Valley Fire and AMR personnel arrived. Both occupants were transported to the hospital for serious but non -life -threatening injuries. A check of the suspect's name revealed an active felony Washington State Department of Corrections warrant. The passenger also had a felony warrant for his arrest. Traffic Unit Investigators were called to process the scene and collect items of evidentiary value, due to the extent of injuries and seriousness of the crime. Drug Page 4 paraphernalia was found and collected at the scene. SIRT Volunteers also responded to assist with traffic control, freeing up deputies to respond to calls for service. The male driver was hospitalized to receive treatment. A search warrant to obtain a sample of his blood was granted, and the sample was placed into evidence for testing. After being discharged from the hospital, the male suspect was booked into the Spokane County Jail on warrants as well as new charges of Vehicular Assault and Attempting to Elude a Police Vehicle. Bond is currently set at $100,000. DUI charges may be filed based on lab results. The passenger was not arrested due to receiving medical treatment at the hospital, and still faces charges stemming from his warrant. This investigation is ongoing, and additional charges are possible. Stolen Vehicle Recovered - Pistol Drops from Suspect's Waistband - An alert Spokane Valley Deputy checked a vehicle's Iicense plate and learned it was reported as stolen. During a high - risk traffic stop, a pistol fell from the passenger's waistband area as he complied with deputies' commands. The suspect kept his hand visible and continued to comply. He was safely detained and later arrested for Possession of a Stolen motor vehicle and an active misdemeanor warrant for Making False Statements. The driver was released at the scene without charges after it was determined the suspect asked her to drive, and she did not know the vehicle was stolen. The pistol, along with others found in the vehicle, were determined to be realistic -looking replicas and not actual firearms. In late April, at approximately 11:30 pm, Spokane Valley Deputy Keifer Smith's attention was drawn by a Chevy Equinox traveling north on University Road toward Sprague. He checked the license plate on the vehicle on his Mobile Data Computer (MDC) and was alerted the car was reported stolen. He confirmed the information with a Spokane Regional Emergency Communications Dispatcher via his radio and requested additional deputies to assist as he followed the Equinox west on Sprague. As the vehicle turned north on Farr, he activated his emergency lights to conduct a traffic stop as backup units arrived. Not knowing if anyone in the stolen SUV was armed, deputies conducted a high -risk traffic stop, safely and methodically calling out one occupant at a time as deputies remained behind cover. The adult female driver was compliant and followed instructions. She was detained in handcuffs, frisked for weapons, and safely placed in a patrol car. The 28-year-old male passenger was told to exit the vehicle with his hands visible. As he stepped out, an object deputies recognized as a possible handgun fell to the ground. The male suspect was ordered not to reach for the gun and to continue following commands, which he did. He was placed in handcuffs, informed he was detained, frisked for weapons, and placed in a separate patrol car, while deputies cleared the stolen vehicle to ensure no one was ignoring commands or hiding inside. The pistol was recovered with the scene now safe and, upon closer inspection, determined to be a realistic replica toy revolver. Two additional toy replicas were found inside the vehicle, along with a holster, a fixed blade knife, and a hatchet, all easily accessible to anyone inside the car. The driver was advised of her rights and agreed to answer questions. She explained she was visiting the male suspect, and he asked her to drive him around because she had a valid driver's license and he didn't. He gave her a key to the vehicle. She stated she had no idea the vehicle was stolen until they were stopped. The male suspect was advised of his rights and agreed to answer questions. He stated a friend, identified by a first name only, gave him the key to the Equinox. The friend said he could use the vehicle in exchange for the use of the suspect's SPDXANE OPl1NIY SHERIFF SIlEffIFFOZVE D.NNE1DVJcn Page 5 bedroom. He stated he didn't know the Equinox was stolen, but did know his friend had a history of stealing cars. When asked about the "shaved key" (a worn or filed down key commonly used to steal vehicles), the male suspect acknowledged it looked suspicious and added it was missing the chip. A check of the male suspect's name revealed a misdemeanor warrant for Making False Statements. He was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Possession of a Stolen Motor Vehicle and his warrant. The driver was not charged and was released at the scene. Attempts to contact the registered owner were unsuccessful, and the vehicle was towed for safekeeping. An Erratic, and Admittedly High, Male Safely Arrested for a Felony Warrant After Deciding to Follow Deputy's Commands - A Spokane Valley Deputy contacted and arrested a male who was reportedly acting erratic and jumped out in front of the caller's vehicle. At first, the male did not follow commands and appeared as if he planned to assault the lone deputy. After several commands and warnings that a Taser would be used, the suspect made the choice to comply. He was booked into jail for a felony Department of Corrections Escape Community Custody warrant with an original charge of Assault 3`d Degree (law enforcement). In late April, at approximately 8:40 pm., Spokane Valley Deputy Davis French responded to the area of Montgomery and University Road for a report of a male who jumped in front of the caller's vehicle. The caller stated the man seemed to be high or intoxicated, was acting erratically, and appeared to scare a female who was walking in the area with a baby. Deputy French, already close to the location, began looking for the 35-year-old male. Deputy French heard the male yelling loudly before seeing him walking at a fast pace on the side of the road. He noted the male suspect appeared very agitated as he screamed and waved his arms around in a highly animated fashion. The suspect was shirtless, extremely dirty, and sweating profusely. Believing the male posed a danger to himself and others in the area, Deputy French, knowing his backup wasn't close, decided to contact the male suspect, who was now walking in the travel lane of the roadway. Deputy French activated his emergency lights, identified himself, and told the suspect to stop. The suspect, appearing agitated and inconvenienced by the deputy's presence, turned his upper body back toward Deputy French, threw his arms in the air, and continued walking. The suspect then turned and hurriedly walked across both lanes of travel. Deputy French continued to order him to stop. The suspect finally stopped, turned toward Deputy French, threw up his hands again, and said, "No" before dropping his hands, now balled into fists, back to his sides. With the male suspect seeming to be preparing to assault Deputy French, he notified Spokane Regional Emergency Communications (SREC), he needed immediate assistance. As he tried to deescalate the situation, he could hear radio traffic that responding patrol units were still some distance away. Seeing no change in the male suspect's demeanor, Deputy French drew his Taser and told the male to get on the ground, warning him that he would be tased if he did not comply. The male suspect ignored the command and threw his hands in the air again as he stepped toward Deputy French. Deputy French, wanting to give the suspect a final opportunity to comply, repeated the command to stop and get on the ground. The male suspect reluctantly decided to follow this command and laid down on the ground. Deputy French maintained a safe distance until Deputy Joseph Adams arrived and helped take the suspect safely into custody. The male suspect told the deputies he had smoked some marijuana earlier and thought it might have been Iaced with something. A check of his name showed the suspect had an active felony Washington Department of Corrections Escaped. Community Custody warrant with an original charge of Assault 3rd Degree (law enforcement). The male suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for his warrant. UPDATE: Detectives Identify and Arrest Murder Suspect — At the end of March, Spokane Valley Deputies responded to a call of a possible shooting in the 9700 block of E. 6th Avenue in Spokane Page 6 Valley. Arriving deputies located a 15-year-old juvenile male suffering from life -threatening gunshot wounds and immediately provided medical aid. Spokane Valley Fire and AMR personnel arrived and took over the victim's care, but unfortunately, despite everyone's efforts, the victim died at the scene. Through the ongoing investigation, Spokane Valley Major Crimes Detectives identified a I9-year-old male as the suspect in the murder of the juvenile male. Investigators requested and obtained a felony arrest warrant charging the male suspect with Murder 1st Degree. In early May, at approximately 1:40 pm., members of the U.S. Marshals Pacific Northwest Violent Offender Task Force visually located the male suspect at a residence in the 500 block of S. Coach in Spokane Valley. Spokane Valley Patrol Deputies and Detectives began to respond to the location to assist. Due to the violent nature of the charge and the high risk associated with its service, the SWAT Team's assistance was also requested. The male suspect was observed outside the home and was quickly taken into custody without incident. He was later booked into the Spokane County Jail for Murder 1st Degree. Major Crimes detectives obtained a search warrant for the residence, which was served with the assistance of the SWAT Team. Continuing to work the investigation, detectives also identified a second suspect, a 17- year -old juvenile female. In early May, members of the Sparks Police Department in. Sparks, Nevada, located and arrested the second juvenile suspect. She will remain in their custody, awaiting extradition back to Spokane County. Additional arrests and charges are possible. This remains an active investigation. Spokane Regional Explosive Disposal Unit Receives U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation Accreditation - In March, the Spokane Regional Explosive Disposal Unit was notified they met the requirements for equipment and training required by the National Bomb Squad Commanders Advisory Board. Achieving these high standards certifies them as an Accredited Bomb Squad by the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Spokane Regional Explosive Disposal Unit (EDU) is comprised of members from the Spokane Police Department, Spokane Valley Police Department, and the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. Their mission is to provide a highly -trained and equipped unit of FBI -certified hazardous device technicians who can rapidly respond to incidents that include suspicious packages, suspected improvised explosive devices, found explosives, and components. Additionally, they provide event security and training for regional agencies and the public on explosives and hazardous incidents. EDU also has a robust robotic unmanned vehicle program, equipped with highly specialized tools and capabilities used to support tactical units such as Spokane County Sheriff's Office's and Spokane Police Department's SWAT teams. EDU has been certified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation routinely since the 1990s, with this new certification expiring in 2025. Next year will. be an important milestone in EDU's history as it marks the unit's 50th anniversary serving the communities of Eastern Washington and the North Idaho Panhandle. Some of their specialized equipment consists of seven robots used to safely inspect, move, and disable IEDs and explosives. They also respond to tactical environments to provide reconnaissance and as a two-way communication device for SWAT and Crisis Negotiators to communicate with a barricaded subject or person in crisis. Additional equipment carried by the team includes: torches, saws, detectors for radiological and nuclear isotopes, x-ray systems, water and projectile disruptors to disable IEDs, a large bomb -resistant metal sphere known as the Total Containment Vessel, used to transport located hazardous items to a safe disposal area, and bomb suits to protect from overpressure and fragmentation that weigh over 80 pounds each. Reflecting on the growth and evolution of the Explosive Disposal Unit, Undersheriff Kittilstved said, "Having been a member of this team since 2001 when I was a deputy and new bomb technician, I've seen a tremendous change. We've grown from one truck, a single robot, and the "vessel" to four response vehicles, seven robots, and highly technical equipment. All the current and former techs played a key part in the team moving forward, We're Page 7 known as one of the busiest squads in the Northwest; EDUs reputation is highlighted by their responses to several major incidents over the years, such as the MLK bomb attack attempt. However, the most important part of the unit is its members, an incredibly professional and dedicated group of techs that are experts in their tradecraft." Sheriff Knezovich added, "Thank you to all the members, past and present, of the Spokane Regional Explosive Disposal Unit for your hard work, professionalism, dedication, and expertise. You have and continue to provide a high level of service while performing an extremely dangerous task to keep all of us safe." We Will NOT Call & Demand Money for Warrants/Fines — EVER - The Spokane County Sheriff's Office/Spokane Valley Police Department continues to receive reports of scammers trying to lie, intimidate, trick, and threaten people into giving up their hard-earned money or personal information, leaving them vulnerable to identity theft. Law Enforcement, courts, or any other government agency will never call you and demand prepaid credit cards for immediate payment while threatening arrest, but scammers will, so don't be duped. Theses scammers/criminals continue to call, spewing their scandalous, fictitious lies, threaten people with arrest, and spreading fear while trying to trick people into immediately purchasing prepaid credit cards to avoid going to jail. In the most recent scam, the person claims to be "Sergeant Lance." The scammer states the victim failed to appear for a summons and now has a warrant for their arrest. This is a SCAM. The problem, in this case, the scammers have a correct name, which isn't hard to find by searching the interne, and they are "spoofing" the phone number on caller ID, falsely displaying one of our actual phone numbers. (Spoofing: is when a caller deliberately falsifies the information transmitted to your caller ID display to disguise their identity.) How does someone know this is a scam? Because we will never call anyone and demand immediate payment while threatening arrest. It WILL NOT happen. One potential victim said the stammer was very convincing and almost had him tricked into following the stammer's directions, but his wife called Crime Check 509-456-2233 or 911 and verified it was a scam before they lost their money. Several scams are active in the area right now, the IRS scam, the social security scam, Publisher's Clearing House Scam, and others. What do all these scams have in common? These criminals use fear to insist you pay your "fine" immediately to avoid arrest, provide them with personal banking information, or provide them with account/computer login/password information. The stories change, but the general plot remains the same. They threaten your arrest, tell you someone hacked your computer/bank accounts or stole your identity online. They are convincing and forceful, assuring you of certain doom. However, they are calling to help "save" you from this catastrophe as long as you follow their instructions. Don't fall for this. Hang up and do some research if you believe the story "might" be true. Only call the agency in question at phone numbers you have verified online, not the phone numbers they tell you to call. NEVER provide your personal banking information, social security number, or computer access passwords to anyone you don't know and trust with your financial future because that's what is on the line. People who receive calls from scammers can report the information to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/#/?pid=A or Crime Check at 509-456-2233. The FTC website has additional information, tips, and different scamming alerts. Warning: Suspicious Activity - As the weather gets warmer, we all start to spend more time outside enjoying the sun. This is also true of would-be criminals who are looking for their next target of opportunity to exploit. We want to warn you of some suspicious activity which could be examples of possible criminal activity and planning. Page 8 Home Security Salesman: Last April, a homeowner in the Northwood neighborhood reported that a male posing as a home security salesperson came to the caller's house. He continued to look past the resident, appearing to be more interested in the home's contents instead of trying to sell the product he claimed to be selling. They also reported the male continued to ask probing questions leading the caller to believe the man was trying to ascertain when the home would be vacant and for what length of time. Later in the month, a homeowner near Hwy. 27 and San Juan Lane/46th Avenue was contacted by a similarly suspicious acting male with a similar story. Both homeowners reported they later contacted the home security company and learned they did not have an employee with the name provided by the suspicious man. They also explained they do not sell their home security products by going door-to-door. The male was described as white, 20-30 years of age, 130-150 lbs., with brown hair and a goatee. He was driving a white, four -door sedan with damage to the rear driver's side bumper. Sprinkler Maintenance: In late April, a homeowner reported two men approached, stating they were at the home, located in the Glenrose area, to turn on the sprinkler system. The males wore shirts with what appeared to be the company logo on them. During the conversation, they mentioned a customer's name, which happened to be the name of the people who previously owned the home ten years prior. The caller believes this information was gained from an internet search. The homeowner became suspicious when the males seemed more interested in looking around the home and items that could be observed in the garage through the open door. The homeowner contacted the company and learned they did not have any employees in that area at the time. The males were described as white and in their 20s and drove a white utility -type truck with no company markings or insignia. Please be wary of anyone who contacts you unsolicited claiming to be front a business you Haven't contacted for service. Do not let them in your home and call the company at a phone number you looked up yourself to verify their identity. Stammers/potential criminals often provide a fake phone number answered by another scammer who is more than willing to confirm the phony information provided by their partner(s) in crime. If you believe a scammer has been to your home attempting to fool you into being their next target of opportunity, contact the business they claim to represent using a phone number you looked up. Let the company know what happened and the names of the people who claimed to represent them. If the company denies having employees in the area or having an employee by the name the person provided, please contact Crime Check at 509-456-2233 and report the incident. If you can safely obtain it, please provide specific information regarding the person's vehicle (license plate, stickers, insignia, damage, or anything that stands out that would help identify it) and a good description of the person(s). Lake and River Safety Reminder - With the weather getting warmer, our region's beautiful lakes and waterways look like a great way to cool off and have fun. However, our area lakes and rivers remain extremely cold, and the Spokane River flow changes, causing potentially dangerous currents and hazards covered by water. The Spokane County Sheriff's Office and Marine Enforcement Unit would like to remind everyone to remain Page 9 safe and wear a properly fitted personal flotation device (Coast Guard -approved type III-V, life jacket). Hypothermia can occur quickly in cold water, and even the most experienced swimmer could soon be in a life -threatening emergency. Already this year, there have been instances on the Spokane River of kayaks and canoes that have tipped over. Thankfully, the operators were prepared and wearing personal floatation devices. Recreational boaters and people testing their fishing abilities are urged to wear life jackets and remain sober while on the water. Have a plan, share it with family and friends, including where you will be and when you plan to be home. This information can be invaluable to rescuers if something happens and you need assistance. Remember, in Spokane County, children 12 years old and younger must wear a properly fitted and approved personal floatation device while the vessel is underway, regardless of the vessel's length or regardless if the boat has an enclosed cabin. Each summer, we see unfortunate accidents where people enjoying our beautiful waterways are drowned or are seriously injured. Most of these accidents are preventable if you remember to wear a life jacket, be informed of impending bad weather, know the waterways you're using, make good, safe choices, and remain sober while operating a boat. Please think ahead, think about your safety, the safety of those you're with, have a plan, be prepaid for the unexpected, and always wear a properly fitted and approved personal floatation device. LOCK OBSERVE CARS SHOULD KEEP GARAGE ITEMS IN AND REPORT NEVER RUN DOORS CLOSED YOUR TRUNK UNATTENDED We encourage residents who have operational surveillance cameras outside their home to go to the Sheriff's website and register their home and video cameras. Thank you. https://www.spokanecounty.org/1080/Sheriff VIP Video Identification Program CLICK HERE to voluntarily loin the 'OOP program Page 10 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Burglary (Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 Month Count Year 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021. January 51 33 40 53 February 26 20 56 45 March 33 37 53 41 April 36 35 70 39 May 34 57 69 June 29 38 59 July 44 48 63 August 51 57 58 September 38 50 67 October 48 46 68 November 49 40 57 December 47 40 63 Grand Total 486 501 733 178. * IBR Offense: Burglary/Breaking & Entering 220 Produced: 5/24/2021 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 4256.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Murder NonNeg Manslaughter 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 cC cC FEBRUARY A 7- 2 • SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER 2018 —--2019 —Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 Month Count Year 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 January February 1 1 March 1 April 1 May 1 June 1 July August September October November December 1 1 Grand Total 1 1 3 3 *18R Offense: Murder/Non-Negligent Manslaughter 09A Produced: 5/24/2021 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts 1BR Classification: Identity Theft 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 FEBRUARY x a a r 4 z SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER —1-2018 Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 Month Count Year 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 January 20 19 18 12 February 16 10 16 17 March 13 13 12 20 April 22 19 17 23 May 21 13 442 June 17 5 48 July 14 12 25 August 14 8 28 September 13 14 16 October 21. 17 18 November 23 12 15 December 16 7 16 Grand Total 210 149 671 72 *IBR Offense: Identity Theft 26F Produced: 5/24/2021 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Fraud 120 1ao 80 60 40 20 0 JANUARY FEBRUARY _ - > w > I- 0 X ¢ Z _I cn c a 2 7 7 7 0 2 a SEPTEM BER OCTOBER NOVEM BER DECEM BER —4—2018 -2019 —A-Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 Month Count Year 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 January 69 65 70 65 February 46 32 58 57 March 59 63 49 96 April 55 57 62 97 May 67 56 85 June 65 50 74 July 65 65 65 August 62 65 70 September 49 55 67 October 60 75 75 November 56 68 62 December 60 49 61 Grand Total 713 700 799 315 * IBR Offense: Fraud - Credit Card/ATM 2613, Fraud - False Pretenses/Swindling/Con Garnes 26A, & Fraud - Impersonation 26C Produced: 5/24/2021 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: DUI Month Count Year 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 January 21 32 25 21 February 18 21 28 25 March 39 21 9 16 April 13 27 18 19 May 33 18 16 June 23 27 27 July 15 25 25 August 28 23 22 September 37 40 22 October 33 29 28 November 31 35 21 December 22 21 22 Grand Total 313 319 263 81 * IBR Offense: DUI 90D Produced: 5/24/2021 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Drugs 80 70 40 41t 444440 30 60 50 20 10 JANUARY FEBRUARY u ec 4 J c. 4 4 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER —•-- 2018 — 2019 —1—Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 Month Count Year 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 January 42 52 49 30 February 38 42 61 36 March 64 58 53 4 April 57 67 38 1 May 36 40 65 June 56 30 54 July 57 45 38 August 43 54 35 September 33 43 36 October 52 44 35 November 41 56 40 December 48 40 32 Grand Total 567 571 536 71 * 1BR Offense: Drug Equipment Violations 35B & Drugs/Narcotics Violations 35A Produced: 5/24/2021 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Theft From Motor Vehicle 150 140 120 100 80 60 10 20 0 JANUARY FEBRUARY Acts.,4*A CC a > W a 2 J SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER — 0-2018 —i— 2019 — /Calendar 2020 - -Calendar 2021 Month Count Year 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 January 75 51 67 87 February 32 44 98 106 March 78 72 58 75 April 62 120 75 88 May 69 140 85 June 66 84 81 July 106 112 77 August 87 98 148 September 85 80 130 October 104 97 116 November 112 96 90 December 70 112 97 Grand Tota6 946 1106 1122 356. * IBR Offense: Theft From Motor Vehicle 23F Produced: 5/24/2021 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Motor Vehicle Theft —Ai—Calendar 2020 —IN--Calendar 2021 Month Count Year 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 January 36 34 32 28 February 24 22 32 26 March 28 19 31 25 April 27 29 29 24 May 25 33 29 June 24 25 33 July 39 31 25 August 18 31 25 September 26 37 27 October 31 25 32 November 45 36 29 December 29 35 29 Grand Total 352 357 353 103 * I8R offense: Motor Vehicle Theft 240 Produced: 5/24/2021 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriffs Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Robbery 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 JANUARY FEBRUARY -J SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER +2018 —A— 2019 —a—Calendar 2020 —E—Calendar 2021 Month Count Yea: 2018 )01') Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 January 0 3 8 7 February 2 8 12 7 March 5 4 6 5 April 6 4 8 9 May 8 6 3 June 3 2 8 July 7 8 5 August 6 11 6 September 6 8 8 October 5 7 6 November 3 11 3 December 4 10 5 Grand Total 61 82 78 28 * IBR Offense: Robbery 120 Produced: 5/24/2021 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Assault 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 r z tole* vorww v1/4\w FEBRUARY x u cc CC SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER + 2018 —III— 2019 -Calendar 2020 —■—Calendar 2021 Month Count Year 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 January 84 71 93 72 February 62 62 95 51 March 100 74 80 64 April 88 68 97 68 May 80 87 87 June 102 79 104 July 112 103 87 August 84 95 98 September 76 72 79 October 82 67 80 November 79 85 74 December 89 77 63 Grand Total 1038 940 1037 255 * IBR Offense: Aggravated Assault 13A & Simple Assault 13B Produced: 5/24/2021 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Theft —A—Calendar 2020 —i--Calendar 2021 Month Count Year 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 January 238 238 240 197 February 165 188 199 185 March 208 212 197 194 April 202 208 181 183 May 230 230 152 June 223 230 218 July 236 236 194 August 213 255 168 September 194 230 219 October 234 239 203 November 198 206 217 December 251 231 230 Grand Total 2592 2703 2418 * 1BR Offense: Theft - All Other 23H, Theft - Pocket -Picking 23A, Theft - Purse -Snatching 23B, Theft - Shoplifting 23C, Theft From Building 23D, Theft From Coin -Operated Machine 23E, & Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories 23G Produced: 5/24/2021 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Rape Month Count Year 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 January 16 3 2 2 February 4 3 2 1 March 8 4 2 5 April 6 5 4 May 9 3 3 June 7 5 4 July 5 3 1 August 3 4 2 September 3 9 4 October 1 4 November 6 2 3 December 7 4 5 Grand Total 75 49 28 12 *IBR Offense: Rape - Forcible 11A, Sodomy - Forcible 118, Sexual Assault with Object - 11C Produced: 5/24/2021 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts 1BR Classification: Counterfeiting Forgery Month Count Year 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 January 18 22 23 13 February 10 13 11 8 March 24 17 14 10 April 22 13 14 10 May 21 10 10 June 15 1.4 7 July 15 10 9 August 17 13 10 September 14 11 3 October 11 14 7 November 20 21 9 December 14 15 15 .:.}_ _. � + ,l'N' ,., -.,... � �:pNWW �. �FV�•. ..,.W 914v� I >� � 4� %fa ka.:.:�T_ *IBR Offense: Counterfeiting/Forgery 250 Produced: 5/24/2021 For Law Enforcement Use only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group Spokane Valley Districts IBR Classification: Destruction Damage Vandalism Month Count Year 2018 2019 Calendar 2020 Calendar 2021 January 146 124 113 132 February 95 67 141 120 March 121 122 105 104 April 127 144 158 133 May 142 161 118 June 140 133 154 July 141 156 147 August 132 144 172 September 155 141 191 October 165 165 174 November 155 140 151 December 125 174 143 Grand Total 1644 1671 1767 489' IBR Offense: Destruction/Damage/Vandalism 290 Produced: 5/24/2021 For Law Enforcement Use Only This document is confidential and may not be further disseminated or released to any unauthorized persons pursuant to RCW 42.56.420