Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2022, 01-25 Formal Meeting
AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT Tuesday,January 25,2022 6:00 p.m. Remotely via ZOOM Meeting and In Person at 10210 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting NOTE: In response to Governor Inslee's announcement reopening Washington under the "Washington Ready" plan, members of the public may attend Spokane Valley Council meetings in-person at City Hall at the address provided above, or via Zoom at the link below. Members of the public will be allowed to comment in-person or via Zoom as described below. Public comments will only be accepted for those items noted on the agenda as"public comment opportunity." If wishing to make a comment via Zoom, comments must be received by 4:00 pm the day of the meeting. Otherwise,comments will be taken in- person at the meeting in Council Chambers,as noted on the agenda below.Per Governor Inslee's expanded emergency order Proclamation 20-25 reinstituting a statewide mask mandate regardless of vaccination status, all those entering or remaining in City Hall must wear a mask or face covering. Masks are available for the public at City Hall. • 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 INVOCATION: Pastor Mike Munoz,Living Hope Community Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PROCLAMATIONS GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY 111: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except agenda action items,as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. Please keep comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Government.This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion. Diverse points of view are welcome but please keep remarks civil. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person. To comment via zoom: use the link above for oral or written comments as per those directions. To comment at the meeting in person: speakers may sign in to speak but it is not required.A sign-in sheet will be provided in Council Chambers.Whether in person or via zoom, speakers should indicate if they want to speak at General Public Comment Opportunity [1] or [2] and may only speak at one or the other,but not both. Council Agenda January 25,2022 Page 1 of 2 NEW BUSINESS: 1. Consent Agenda: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a.Approval of Claim Vouchers on January 25,2022,Request for Council Action Form: $1,217,353.39 b.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending January 15,2022: $446,967.71 c.Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of January 11 2022 Formal Meeting 2. First Reading Ordinance 22-001 Shoreline Management Program Amendments for Ecology's Final Approval—Chaz Bates 3.First Reading Ordinance 22-002 Appleway Street Vacation—Karen Kendall GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY 121: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except agenda action items,as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. Please keep comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Government.This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion. Diverse points of view are welcome but please keep remarks civil. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person. To comment via zoom: use the link above for oral or written comments as per those directions. To comment at the meeting in person: speakers may sign in to speak but it is not required.A sign-in sheet will be provided in Council Chambers.Whether in person or via zoom, speakers should indicate if they want to speak at General Public Comment Opportunity [1] or [2] and may only speak at one or the other,but not both. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 4. District Court Update—Cary Driskell 5. Salary Committee Update—Cary Driskell 6.Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley INFORMATION ONLY: (will not be reported or discussed) 7. Department Reports CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Council Agenda January 25,2022 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 25,2022 Department Director Approval: E Check all that apply: consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 01/04/2022 55656-55678 $ 305,072.47 01/05/2022 55679-55695 $ 171,301.00 01/07/2022 55696-55716 $ 169,507.13 01/12/2022 55717-55729 $ 430,569.55 01/12/2022 Park refunds 9230-9242 $ 2,764.00 01/13/2022 55730-55754 $ 138,139.24 GRAND TOTAL: $1,217,353.39 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists #001 - General Fund Other Funds: 001.011.000.511. City Council 101 —Street Fund 001.013.000.513. City Manager 103 —Paths&Trails 001.013.015.515. Legal 105 Hotel/Motel Tax 001.016.000. Public Safety 106—Solid Waste 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 107—PEG Fund 001.018.014.514. Finance 108—Affordable& Supplemental Housing Sales Tax 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 120—CenterPlace Operating Reserve 001.040.041. Engineering 121 —Service Level Stabilization Reserve 001.040.042. Economic Development 122—Winter Weather Reserve 001.040.043. Building 204—Debt Service 001.076.000.576. Parks &Rec—Administration 301 —REET 1 Capital Projects 001.076.300.576. Parks& Rec-Maintenance 302—REET 2 Capital Projects 001.076.301.571. Parks&Rec-Recreation 303 —Street Capital Projects 001.076.302.576. Parks&Rec-Aquatics 309—Parks Capital Grants 001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center 310—Civic Bldg. Capital Projects 001.076.305.571. Parks &Rec-CenterPlace 311 —Pavement.Preservation 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 312—Capital Reserve 001.090.000.514. General Gov't-Finance related 314—Railroad Grade Separation Projects 001.090.000.517. General Gov't-Employee supply 315 —Transportation Impact Fees 001.090.000.518. General Gov't- Centralized Serv. 316—Economic Development Capital Projects 001.090.000.519, General Gov't-Other Services 402—Stormwater Management 001.090.000.540. General Gov't-Transportation 403 Aquifer Protection Area 001.090.000.550. General Gov't-Natural &Eco. 501 —Equipment Rental&Replacement 001.090.000.560. General Gov't-Social Services 502—Risk Management 001.090.000.594 General Gov't-Capital Outlay 632—Passthrough Fees &Taxes 001.090.000.595. General Gov't-Pavement Preserv. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 01/04/2022 1:03:44PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 55656 114/2022 006143 ACTION DRAIN AND ROOTER WA LLC 360386 001.076.305.575 REPAIR SERVICES:CENTERPLACE 119.79 Total; 119.79 55657 114/2022 002543 AIR ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT&TOOLS 254572 101.000.000.542 MINOR EQUIPMENT:STREET 254.51 Total: 254.51 55658 114/2022 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 1GHD-XFLR-3KT9 001.040.041.558 CAR CHARGE POWER ADAPTER -32.27 1J7D-CW4Q-JRJ4 001.040.041.543 SUPPLIES:CPW 115.31 1R1M-NDDQ-JCGW 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES:PARKS 58.74 1RNG-FVFY 3HFD 001.090.331.514 OPERATING SUPPLIES:CLFR 239.04 Total: 380.82 55659 1/4/2022 004046 AMERICAN ONSITE SERVICES 441503 101.042.000.543 PORTABLE RESTROOM:MAINT.SHOP 97.14 Total: 97.14 55660 1/412022 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 324776 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES:STREET 150.15 Total: 150.15 55661 1/4/2022 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 0318153 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT CENT 69.81 S0280761 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT CENT 373.49 Total: 443.30 55662 1/4/2022 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST#1 December 2021 402.402.000.531 WATER CHARGES FOR DECEMBER 20 368.29 Total: 358.29 55663 1/4/2022 002632 HAYDEN HOMES EGR-2020-0046 001.237.10.95 SURETY DEPOSIT REFUND:EGR-2020 81,407.00 Total: 81,407.00 55664 1/4/2022 006328 KREM-TV 11-2021 SUMMARY BILL 001.040.042.558 ADVERTISING 2,500.00 Total: 2,500.00 55665 1/4/2022 007157 MASTERGRAPHICS AEC,LLC 010470 001.040.041.558 BLUEBEAM SOFTWARE 1,466.89 Total: 1,466.89 55666 1/4/2022 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 20393579 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES DECEMBER 2021 CPW 13,116.64 20393580 001.076.302.576 UTILITIES:DECEMBER 2021 PARKS 1,590.73 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 01/0412022 1:03:44PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount 55666 1/4/2022 000132 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO (Continued) Total: 14,707.37 55667 1/4/2022 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 217271058001 001.040.041.543 OFFICE SUPPLIES:CPW 79.97 Total: 79.97 55668 1/4/2022 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2153495 001.033.000.518 REPAIR&MA1NT.SUPPLIES:CITY HAL 15.22 2161732 001.033.000.518 REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES:CITY HAL 112.27 Total: 127.49 55669 1/4/2022 007677 PROCTOR SALES INC 0320577-IN 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 43.37 Total: 43.37 55670 114/2022 006427 RETAIL STRATEGIES LLC 528-3 001.040.042.558 PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING 5,000.00 Total: 5,000.00 55671 1/4/2022 007730 ROYAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS IN160240 001.040.043.558 DECEMBER 2021 COPIER COSTS 258.71 Total: 258.71 55672 1/4/2022 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 9020100711 001.090.000.514 2021 GENERAL ELECTION 49,539.32 9020100769 001.090.000.514 2021 VOTER REGISTRATION 85,815.14 Total: 135,354.46 55673 1/4/2022 007107 STANTEC CONSULTING SVCS INC 1870425 001.040.041.558 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,322.00 Total: 2,322.00 55674 1/4/2022 007120 TSHIMAKAIN CREEK LABORATORY E000165 001.076.300.576 ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING AT PARKS 25.00 Total: 25.00 55675 1/4/2022 000014 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC, 045-362775 001.143.70.00 EDEN SUPPORT RENEWAL 55,447.94 Total: 55,447.94 55676 1/4/2022 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 9895372014 001.076.000.576 DECEMBER 2021 CELL PHONEIDEVICE 2,323.99 Total: 2,323.99 55677 1/4/2022 006178 WALTER E NELSON CO 459704 001.040.041.543 OFFICE SUPPLIES:CPW 238.82 459918 001.018.014.514 OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE 96.93 Total: 335.75 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 0110412022 1:03:44PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 55678 1/4/2022 004741 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 38471 101.042.000.542 MEGA MARKERS AND BASE PLATES 1,858.53 Total: 1,858.53 23 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 305,072.47 23 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 305,072.47 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 01./0512022 11:51:50AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 55679 1/5/2022 008462 ABSCO SOLUTIONS 80644 001.090.099.594 ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM 6,191.93 Total: 6,191.93 55680 1/5/2022 008469 CORWIN FORD SPOKANE 486614 101.042.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES: 357.08 Total: 357.08 55681 1/5/2022 007901 DATEC INC 50217 001.090.099.594 RUBRIK BACKUP SOLUTION 92,519.27 Total: 92,519.27 55682 1/5/2022 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS INV704840 101.042.000.543 TOWER RENT 216.57 Total: 216.57 55683 1/5/2022 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 0917138 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES:SI 943.73 Total: 943.73 55684 1/5/2022 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 625161 001.040.041.543 ADVERTISING 41.08 625866 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 36.75 625867 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 34.50 625868 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 39.00 625869 001.040.041.543 ADVERTISING 39.00 625870 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 27.65 Total: 217.98 55685 1/5/2022 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 52495 001,013,000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 110.45 52496 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 124.55-- Total: 235.00 55686 1/5/2022 005474 FREIGHTLINER NORTHWEST PC001534874:01 101.000.000.542 TIRE CHAINS 587,73 PC001534876:01 101.000.000.542 TIRE CHAINS 195.91 PC001534877:01 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINTENANCE SU 4.63 Total: 788.27 55687 1/5/2022 007671 HORROCKS ENGINEERS INC 65660 001.040.041.558 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,340.00 Total: 2,340.00 55688 1/5/2022 002518 INLAND PACIFIC HOSE&FITTINGS 1078930 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES: 143.19 Page: 'l vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 01/05/2022 11:51:50AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 55688 1/5/2022 002518 002518 INLAND PACIFIC HOSE&FITTINGS (Continued) Total: 143.19 55689 1/5/2022 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 1582554 001.090.331.514 CLFR TOUCHPOINT CLEANING:CITY I- 3,311.88 1584035 001.076.305.575 DECEMBER 2021 MONTHLY CLEANING 8,085.09 Total: 11,396.97 55690 1/5/2022 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY SPOCM16852750 101.000.000.542 CORE RETURN -38.12 SPOIN4930073 101.000.000.542 TIRE CHAINS 184.06 5P01N4930073-2 101.000.000.542 TIRE CHAINS 555.38 Total: 701.32 55691 1/5/2022 004632 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS 254836830 001.090.000.518 TELECOM SERVICES 874.18 Total: 874.18 55692 1/5/2022 007881 LIVELYS FIRE EXTINGUISHER SERV 0395 501.000.000.548 FIRE EXTINGUISHER SERVICE 54.99 0401 101.000.000.542 FIRE EXTINGUISHER COVER&BRACK 51.07 Total: 106.06 55693 1/5/2022 002203 NAPAAUTO PARTS 0538-088761 501.000.000.548 FLEET MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 8.58 Total: 8.58 55694 1/5/2022 004621 OREILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES INC 2862-145649 501.000.000.548 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES: 70.98 2862-145878 101.042.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES: 67.78 2862-146846 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES: 14.27 2862-146884 101.000.000.542 MAINTENANCE SHOP TOOLS 11.48 2862-147345 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIESL 33.75 2862-147432 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT SUPPLIES: 77.54 2862-148092 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES: 60.94 2862-148151 501.000.000.548 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES: 11.33 2862-148169 101.000.000.542 MAINTENANCE SHOP TOOLS 11.97 2862-148225 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES: 14.15 Total: 374.19 55695 1/5/2022 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 110100309 101.042.000.542 NOVEMBER 2021 ENGINEERING 53,886.68 Total: 53,886.68 17 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 171,301.00 Page: 5 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 01/07/2022 10:09:54AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 55696 1/7/2022 004231 BELSBY ENGINEERING 65915 311.000.339.595 0339:2022 LOCAL ACCESS STREETS 6,546.64 Total: 6,546.64 55697 1/7/2022 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 77301805 001.033.000.518 DECEMBER 2021 FLEET FUEL BILL 1,684.49 Total: 1,684.49 55698 1/7/2022 000603 CONTRACT DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC 49440 001.013.099.594 RESOURCE OFFICER CUBICLE FURNI. 6,826.25 Total: 6,826.25 55699 1/7/2022 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE 46 JG6453 L013 314.000.223.595 0223 PINES RD AGREEMENT JG-6453 670.74 RE-313-ATB11213123 303.000.300.595 CIP 0300:PROJECT MGMT 81.34 Total: 752.08 55700 1/7/2022 007673 DIBBLE ENGINEERS INC 32415 001,000,322.518 CITY HALL STRUCTURAL REVIEW 1,252.50 Total: 1,252.50 55701 1/7/2022 002043 HDR ENGINEERING INC 1200397218 314.000.223.595 0223-FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN 39,074.63 Total: 39,074.63 55702 1/7/2022 000313 INLAND ASPHALT COMPANY INC. PAY APP 3 311.000.325.595 0325-LOCAL ACCESS STREETS;SOUL 3,750.00 Total: 3,750.00 55703 1/7/2022 008493 MATTOX,SARAH EXPENSES 001.018.014.514 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 44.97 Total: 44.97 55704 1R/2022 006997 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS 993022507 101.042.000.542 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-ENGINEE 3,466.25 Total: 3,466.25 55705 1R/2022 008135 OILWORX OW 123603 501.000.000.548 WASTE OIL COLLECTION 35.00 Total: 35.00 55706 1/7/2022 002510 POHL SPRING WORKS INC 186752 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES: 215.36 Total: 215.36 55707 1/7/2022 002520 RWC GROUP XA106023715:01 101.000.000.542 REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES:SNOW FL 116.18 XA106023847:01 101.000.000.542 REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES:SNOW FL 139.11 XA106023856:01 101.000.000.542 REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES:SNOW FL 347.11. Page: 11...„ [o vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 01/07/2022 10:09:54AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 55707 1/7/2022 002520 RWC GROUP (Continued) XA106023950:01 101.000.000.542 REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES:SNOW FL 64.69 XA106024015:01 101.000.000.542 REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES:SNOW FL 315.52 Total: 982.61 55708 1/7/2022 005012 SPOKANE CO ENVIRONMENTAL 40300111 311.000.309.595 LOCAL ACCESS STREETS:BARKER HI 584.64 40300112 311.000.309.595 LOCAL ACCESS STREETS:BARKER HI 13,058.44 Total: 13,643.08 55709 1/7/2022 000459 SPOKANE CO TITLE CO 5-SP26549 303.000.205.595 CIP 0205:55184.9018 WARRANTY DEE 433.00 Total: 433.00 55710 1/7/2022 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 51506144 101.042.000.542 NOVEMBER 2021 WORK CREW 4,885.30 Total: 4,885.30 55711 1/7/2022 001903 SPOKANE TRAFFIC CONTROL INC 6556 402.402.000.531 TRAFFIC CONTROL 362.00 Total: 362.00 55712 1/7/2022 007594 STREETSCAN INC 10667 101.042.000.542 TRAFFIC SIGNAGE 75,423.00 Total: 75,423.00 55713 1/7/2022 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL 1838458 101.042.000.542 TRANSFER STATION CPW NOVEMBER 2,937.70 Total: 2,937.70 55714 1/7/2022 003318 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 240023777-00 101.000.000.542 SNOWPLOW PARTS(SCREWS,BOLTS 1,023.33 Total: 1,023.33 55715 1/7/2022 007867 WIDENER&ASSOCIATES 453 314.000.223.595 0223-ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 4,567.20 Total: 4,557.20 55716 1/7/2022 007970 WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN INC 9012509448 101.000.000.542 MOBILE OFFICE RENTAL 1,601.74 Total: 1,601.74 21 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 169,507.13 21 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 169,507.13 Page: 7 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 01/12/2022 9:30:56AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apfbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 55717 1/12/2022 000150 ALLIED FIRE&SECURITY 1106719 001.076.305.575 SECURITY SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( 176.99 Total: 176.99 55718 1/12/2022 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 13MD-TTCN-TX66 001.033.033.518 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES:CITY HALL 103.24 171 P-CNH6-LVPR 001.018.014.514 OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE 49.83 19VK-CPPP-6LYN 001.033.033.518 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES:CITY HALL 155.08 1 PGT-C64C-36FW 001.040.043.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES:BLDG 21.22 Total: 329.37 55719 1/12/2022 001888 COMCAST 4466 12/26-1/25/22 001.090.000.518 INTERNET&PHONE:CITY HALL 345.22 Total: 345.22 55720 1/12/2022 001880 CROWN WEST REALTY LLC JANUARY 2022 101.042.000.543 COMMON AREA CHARGES MAINTENAI 156.82 Total: 155.82 55721 1/12/2022 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 627808 001.011.000.511 ADVERTISING:FINANCE 27.65 Total: 27.65 55722 1/12/2022 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 133285 001.076.305.575 2022 MEMBERSHIP DUES RENEWAL 775.00 Total: 775.00 55723 1/12/2022 004801 INLAND NW ECONOMIC ALLIANCE INEA 2022 001.040.042.558 INEA MEMBERSHIP&EMS!LISTINGS/.. 2,133.80 Total: 2,133.80 55724 1/12/2022 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 218818580001 001.018.016.518 OFFICE SUPPLIES:HR 56.02 Total: 56.02 55725 1/12/2022 000997 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY 100400617078 001.076.305.575 2022 ELEVATOR SERVICE CONTRACT: 1,991.82 Total: 1,991.82 55726 1/12/2022 002534 PEAK SOFTWARE SYSTEMS 023934 001.076.000.576 SPORTSMAN SQL SOFTWARE 2022 4,240.00 Total: 4,240.00 55727 1/12/2022 005012 SPOKANE CO ENVIRONMENTAL JANUARY2022 001.076.300.576 SPOKANE CO SEWER CHARGES JANI 1,330.50 Total: 1,330.50 55728 1/12/2022 000098 WA CITIES INSURANCE AUTHORITY 15405 502.502.000.518 2022 LIABILITY/PROGRAM ASSESSMEI 417,837.00 Page: -...4. vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 0111212022 9:30:56AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 55728 1/12/2022 000098 000098 WA CITIES INSURANCE AUTHORITY (Continued) Total: 417,837.00 55729 1/12/2022 001885 ZAYO GROUP LLC 2022010003578 001.090.000.518 INTERNET SERVICES 291.57 2022010005522 001.090.000,518 INTERNET SERVICES 626.70 2022010025710 001.090.000.518 INTERNET SERVICES 251.09 Total: 1,169.36 13 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 430,569.55 13 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 430,569.55 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: Q� vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 01/12/2022 3:15:51PM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept DescriptianlAccount Amount 9230 1/12/202.2 008509 336TH TRAINING GROUP PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREAT ROOM 190.00 Total: 190.00 9231 1/12/2022 008512 D.R.HORTON PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:ROOM 205 52.00 Total: 52.00 9232 1/1212022 001333 EAST VALLEY HS PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 OVERPAYMENT REFUND:FUN RUN 10.00 Total: 10.00 9233 1/12/2022 006433 EMPIRE EYE PHYSICIANS PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:FIRESIDE LOUNGE 210.00 Total: 210.00 9234 1/12/2022 008510 FAMILY ESSENTIALS COUNSELING PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:FIRESIDE LOUNGE 200.00 Total: 200.00 9235 1/12/2022 008519 HAYES,KARI PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:FIRESIDE LOUNGE 210.00 Total: 210.00 9236 1/12/2022 008511 HEIN,LORI PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREAT ROOM 500.00 Total: 500.00 9237 1112(2022 008513 MICHAELIS,MADISON PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total: 210.00 9238 1/12/2022 008514 MORLIN,CONNIE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total: 210.00 9239 1/12/2022 008515 RICKARD,KATIE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREAT ROOM 500.00 Total: 500.00 9240 1/12/2022 008516 SUMMIT SCHOOL CVSD PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:ROOM 205 52.00 Total: 5200 9241 1/12/2022 008517 TRINITY CHURCH-SPOKANE VALLEY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total: 210.00 9242 1/12/2022 008518 YOST GALLAGHER CONSTRUCTION PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREAT ROOM 210.00 Page: ` , 10 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 0111212022 3:15:51PM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 9242 1/12/2022 008518 008518 YOST GALLAGHER CONSTRUCTION (Continued) Total: 210.00 13 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref Bank total: 2,764.00 13 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 2,764.00 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the tabor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed; Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: vehlist Voucher List Page: 1 01113/2022 3:39:26PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 55730 1/1312022 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 13MD-TTCN-TX66 001.033.033.518 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES:CITY HALL 32.70 Total: 32.70 55731 1/13/2022 007718 APPLETREE 000023-553-751 001.076.305.575 ANSWERING SERVICE FOR CENTERP 59.74 Total: 59.74 55732 1/13/2022 008053 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,PETTY'CASH REI DECEMBER 2021#2 001.040.043.558 PE I I Y CASH:25495,25496 2.25 Total: 2.25 55733 1/13/2022 002469 COMMUNITY MINDED ENTERPRISES DECEMBER 2021 107.000.000.518 PEG REIMBURSEMENT 38,519.00 Total: 38,519.00 55734 1/13/2022 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION#19 December 2021 001.076.305.575 UTILITIES:DECEMBER 2021 CENTERP 72.46 Total: 72.46 55735 1/13/2022 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-313-ATB11213057 101.042.000.542 REIMBURSE TRAFFIC SVCS 14,285.63 RE-313-ATB11213065 101.000.000.542 REIMBURSE ROADWAY MAINTENANCI 5,616.28 Total: 19,901.91 55736 1/13/202.2 000278 DRISKELL,CARY EXPENSES 001.013.015.515 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 22.40 Total: 22.40 55737 1/13/2022 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 626558 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 36.75 626559 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 26.25 626560 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 13.43 626561 001,040,043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 94.01 627161 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 36.75 627162 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 26.25 627164 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 82.16 627165 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 85.32 Total: 400.92 55738 1/13/2022 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 52521 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 25.00 Total: 25.00 55739 1/13/2022 000070 INLAND POWER&LIGHT CO December 2021 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES:PARKS AND CPW DECEMBE 536.74 Page: 4 f+ vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 01/13/2022 3:39:26PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 55739 1/13/2022 000070 000070 INLAND POWER&LIGHT CO (Continued) Total: 536.74 55740 1/13/2022 006328 KREM-TV 12-2021 SUMMARY BILL 001.040.042.558 ADVERTISING 2,000.00 Total: 2,000.00 55741 1/13/2022 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 20393453 001.033.034.518 WHITE ELEPHANT UTILITIES:DECEME 298.30 Total: 298.30 55742 1/13/2022 007672 MULTICARE CENTERS OF 150430 101.000.000.542 EMPLOYEE PHYSICAL EXAMS-SNO\A 460.00 Total: 460.00 55743 1/13/2022 004850 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS,HRA PLAN 10402529 001.018.016.518 FLEX SPENDING ADMINISTRATION 400.00 Total: 400.00 55744 1/13/2022 003594 NICKERSON,JENNY EXPENSES 001.040.043.558 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 479.58 Total: 479.58 55745 1/13/2022 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 211337400001 001.018.016.518 OFFICE SUPPLIES:HR 30.69 Total: 30.69 55746 1/13/2022 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2F39350 001.076.305.575 REPAIR&MAINT SUPPLIES:CENTERF 297.17 2H38564 . 001.000.322.518 REPLACING HEAT TRACE UNDER THE 2,092.75 Total: 2,389.92 55747 1/13/2022 000041 PROTHMAN COMPANY 2021-7658 001.013.000.513 CITY MANAGER SEARCH 3,395.65 Total: 3,395.65 55748 1/13/2022 007133 PRUNTY,CAITLIN EXPENSES 001.013.015.515 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 11.20 Total: 11.20 55749 1/13/2022 006427 RETAIL STRATEGIES LLC 529-2A1 001.040.042.558 PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING 1,960.00 Total: 1,960.00 55750 1/13/2022 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 12626520 001.076.300.576 895 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 64,898.17 Total: 64,898.17 55751 1/13/2022 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3496704989 001.033.000.518 OFFICE SUPPLIES:CITY HALL 655.23 Total: 655.23 Page: a3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 0111312022 3:39:26PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 55752 1/1312022 007159 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 656393600 001.033.000.518 SUPPLIES:CITY HALL 321.02 657524831 001.033.000.518 SUPPLIES:CITY HALL 138.04 Total: 459.06 55753 1/13/2022 002597 TWISTED PAIR ENTERPRISES LLC 12222021 001.011.000.511 BROADCASTING COUNCIL MTGS 1,088.00 Total: 1,088.00 55754 1/13/2022 002651 WOODARD.ARNE EXPENSES 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT NOV 202' 4.48 EXPENSES 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT DEC 202' 35.84 Total: 40.32 25 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 138,139.24 25 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 138,139.24 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 25, 2022 Department Director Approval: Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business [' new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information [' admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Pay Period Ending January 15, 2022 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 377,959.84 $ - $ 377,959.84 Benefits: $ 69,007.87 $ - $ 69,007.87 Total payroll $ 446,967.71 $ - $ 446,967.71 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Formal Meeting Tuesday,January 11,2022 Mayor Haley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held in City Hall with Council, staff and some members of the public participating in person; and some members of the public participating remotely via Zoom meeting. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Pam Haley,Mayor John Hohman,City Manager Rod Higgins,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Tim Hattenburg,Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Laura Padden,Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Brandi Peetz, Councilmember John Bottelli,Parks,Rec&Facilities Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Adam Jackson,Planning/Grant Engineer Arne Woodard, Councilmember Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk INVOCATION: In the absence of a pastor, a few moments of silence were observed. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council,staff and the audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AMENDED AGENDA It was moved by Councilmember Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Wick: said he met with one of the representatives from Snohomish County and discussed some of the FMSIB projects and funding; said he also went over our federal legislative agenda. Councilmember Woodard: no report. Councilmember Hattenburg: said he has been contacted by many residents with concerns about the changes in the local Health Board and of taking away our representation; he also said that neither he nor other members of the Board were contacted about this change. Councilmember Peetz: mentioned our letter to the Spokane County Regional Law and Justice Coordinator of our topics of importance for discussion at the SRLJC meetings; said she got the letter e-mailed over and mentioned that the first meeting is tomorrow; and that many other committees didn't meet in December. Councilmember Padden: no report. Deputy Mayor Higgins: no report. MAYOR'S REPORT no report. PROCLAMATIONS Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Mayor Haley read the Martin Luther King,Jr.,Day proclamation. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY Ill:Mayor Haley invited public comment. Mr. Cal Clausen, Spokane Valley; said he has been in the tourism business since about 1990 and he is concerned with tourism in Spokane Valley and with Council's lack of interest in maintaining and developing tourism in our city dating back to his time on the Lodging Tax Committee; said as a major stakeholder, he is totally reliant on the tourism industry; said at times Council has totally ignored recommendations from the Lodging Tax Committee in order to fund pet projects that don't create any Council Meeting Minutes,Formal:01-11-2022 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT tourism; that some of those projects are total failures as it pertains to tourism; they might be great community events but they don't create any tourism; said there were some statements made by Councilmembers at the last Council meeting he attended, that are totally false; that one of those false statements is that there is no compression from downtown Spokane; said he is the only person in Spokane Valley that also has a hotel in downtown Spokane and there is a tremendous amount of compression; also the $3 million that was spent on the restaurant,will not bleed; said anyone who has been in the restaurant business and knows when they are not successful, they bleed like no other business, so there is a huge liability there or you'll lose the entire $3 million; said the problem seems to be worse now than in the past; that in March of 2015 numerous hoteliers signed a letter agreeing to the 1.3%tax to build a major facility, and the impression amongst those people...... Mr. Clausen's three-minutes expired. Mr.Dan Allison,Spokane Valley: said City Hall remains in disarray and that he hopes that whatever comes out on that,that the citizens who own this building will know exactly what happened; said Council needs to get back to the three-touch rule;the Flora Park was brought up at one meeting, at which time a map was shown which was dated a year prior,and Council voted on that night; same thing happened on the building at the fairgrounds; said we have a drawing on that building designed by the people we are suing on this building; said we don't need that; people need to be better informed, whether in a publication or the newspapers, people need to be better informed before something happens; and said that when something comes to Council,we hear that staff recommends this; said staff is the 104-105 people working here at City Hall,but we need to know as citizens,which department items come from and which staff are spending our money. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2022 Transportation Improvement Plan(TIP)Amendment#1 —Adam Jackson Mayor Haley opened the public hearing at 6:16 p.m. and invited Mr. Jackson to the podium. Mr. Jackson explained the purpose of amending the 2022 TIP is to add in new projects, as listed on his Request for Council Action form, including the pedestrian hybrid crossing from City Hall to the future Balfour Park, which he said is not specifically highlighted in the TIP; and to remove the Mission Avenue preservation project Mullan to University, as it was completed in 2021, and said there will be further changes in some of the projects as we move forward. After questions from Councilmember Padden about a few of the projects,Mr.Hohman explained that it is the overall project list that is the crux of tonight's public hearing, and that staff will be coming to Council shortly with further reports; and that having the list enables us to have more conversations with Council and the community and to further study the projects. There were no public comments and Mayor Haley closed the public hearing at 6:26 p.m. 2. Resolution 22-001 Amending the 2022 TIP—Adam Jackson It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to adopt Resolution 22-001 amending the 2022 TIP. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: 3. Consent Agenda: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a.Approval of Claim Vouchers on January 11,2022,Request for Council Action Form: $3,384,883.09 b.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending December 15,2021: $419,950.75 c.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending December 31,2021: $727,558.04 d.Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of December 14,2021 Formal Format e.Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of December 21,2021 Study Session f.Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of January 4,2022 Study Session City Clerk Bainbridge asked if Council would please remove the December 21,2021 minutes to be considered separately after the consent agenda. Council agreed. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda[minus the December 21, 2021 minutes]. City Clerk Bainbridge explained that during the December 21, 2021 meeting,it was reported that the motion to consider approval of the interim city manager contract was in follow-up to Council's November 24, 2021 Council Meeting Minutes,Formal:01-11-2022 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT motion to offer the position of Interim City Manager to Deputy City Manager John Hohman. However, the date was actually November 30, 2021; and said that she would include a `sticky note' on those minutes once approved to acknowledge the correct date of November 30, 2021, and that taking these minutes as a separate item tonight,will also document the correct date of November 30,2021. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the December 21, 2021 minutes. 4. Resolution 22-002,Banking Authority—Chelsie Taylor It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to approve Resolution 22-002 declaring which qualified public depositories the City is authorized to conduct financial transactions with and declaring which Councilmembers and City officers have signing authority on behalf of the City. Finance Director Taylor explained that similar resolutions have come forward in the past as needed,to reflect changes in the Mayor,Deputy Mayor,longest serving Councilmember,and relevant staff members. Mayor Haley invited public comments.No comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Project Prioritization — Chaz Bates It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to authorize the Interim City Manager or designee to present the ranked list in Table 1 to the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee or their staff prior to the allocation meeting on January 13, 2022. Mr. Bates said this is in follow-up to the December 21 Council meeting where Councilmembers were asked to independently rank the applications from 1 to 8,with 1 being the highest priority,and to return them to staff by January 4,2022;that as a result of those prioritizations, staff added the results to arrive at the total score shown in Table 1,where a lower number signifies a higher rank.Mayor Haley invited public comments.No comments were offered. Councilmember Woodard said since he serves on that advisory board,he knows we won't get both sidewalk projects because our allocation is approximately $655,000, and under the County Commissioners' direction, capital projects are not funded unless they are funded 100%; said our two projects amount to or exceed $655,000,which would be to the exclusion of everybody else, and there are some critical services there; said he ranked the 4th Avenue project as #8 because he knows it won't get funded; said our priority is Park Avenue;said he represents the Neighborhood Action Committee,Meals on Wheels,Valley Partners, and others for the part they do in the valley,we have to give some consideration to that;he also said he will not be able to vote on a Spokane Valley project as they have eliminated any vote from Spokane Valley delegation from voting on our projects as it is a conflict of interest;said the committee has to look at all the projects;said he will keep his ranking when he goes to the meeting Thursday;and if Council has a problem, he needs to know; and the maximum we can get for the other projects in the Valley that serve the Valley, include our#1 project. Councilmember Peetz said she would like to stay with the process that Council did with the ranking, but has no objection to moving one of those projects down. Councilmember Woodard said he will take the list to the meeting and follow it as best he can, but that he knows he won't be able to vote for either of our projects, so it will not get funded. Mr. Hohman said Council just went through a process to prioritize projects, and if Council adopts this prioritization, they would be looking to Councilmember Woodard to address that priority with HCDAC and not remove one or another projects; said he feels some clarity would be good; and he asked if Councilmember Woodard is intending to present the list as prioritized by Council. Councilmember Woodard said he will present the list,but is realistic on what the votes will be as we won't get the two projects at the detriment of some of the other small cities who have some major water and sewer projects that need to be done. Mr. Hohman noted based on the information, we are likely not to get two projects; and he confirmed with Mr. Bates that the prioritized list will be presented at that upcoming meeting. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. Council Meeting Minutes,Formal:01-11-2022 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT 5a Motion Consideration: Appointment of Councilmembers to negotiate an employment agreement with John Hohman for position of City Manager It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins and seconded to appoint Mayor Haley, Deputy Mayor Higgins, and Councilmember Peetz to meet as a committee to negotiate the terms of a proposed employment agreement with John Hohman as City Manager, which agreement will be brought forward for the full Council's consideration at a future date.Human Resources Manager Whitehead went over the background of this issue, including a January 4, 2022 motion that Council approved to appoint John Hohman as City Manager. There were no public comments. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY 121: Mayor Haley invited public comment. Mr. Clausen asked if he might continue his comments and Mayor Haley explained that the procedure is to just speak at one of the general public comment opportunities. Deputy Mayor Higgins said he would like to hear Mr. Clausen's comments if possible.Mayor Haley asked if there were any objections from Council to further hear from Mr. Clausen. There were no objections. Mr. Cal Clausen, Spokane Valley: voiced concern about the direction we are going now; said he was shocked when he learned Spokane Valley opted out of the County's TPA; said he doesn't know the rationale;that on December 29, Spokane County designated itself as Sports County,USA; said it seems we are alienating ourselves from Spokane and Spokane County at the same time the Board of County Commissioners is trying to emphasize sports; said he doesn't know the plan or if there is an intention to create another TPA,but that hoteliers he spoke with said it will be an uphill battle to get 40% of the rooms to agree to that;the County Commission gave an endorsement of Visit Spokane and the Sports Commission for the outstanding work they have done in the past; and that they plan to make the podium and the new semi-pro soccer team and the soccer field a very successful venture; said they have a plan but he doesn't know this Council's plan and would love to hear it and has great concerns. Ms.Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: speaking via Zoom,extended comments to John Hohman,and thanked him for stepping in and accepting the position to keep the Valley going the way Mr. Calhoun wanted it to go; said she trusts him wholeheartedly; and that he is a good,honest,hard-working person. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 6. Public Records Act, Open Public Meetings Training—Cary Driskell, Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney Lamb went through his PowerPoint presentation explaining about the Public Records Act and Open Public Meetings Act. 7.Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley Deputy Mayor Higgins said he would like to revisit our action on the TPA.Mr.Hohman reminded Council that the previous action on this was unanimous. Deputy Mayor Higgins said he feels he may have received new information tonight. There were at least four Councilmembers who agreed to add this to the advance agenda. Mr. Hohman said an administrative report will be brought to Council at an upcoming meeting,to review the process and discuss the action taken by Council. INFORMATION ONLY: (will not be reported or discussed) The (8)Finance Department Report, and the (9) Hearing Examiner Annual Reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Mr.Hohman made the following statement: "I would like to address an unfortunate incident that happened on Friday; there's a lot of talk out on social media apps about this particular incident, and I think the community needs to understand the back story and hear how this transpired.To re-wind the clock back two years when Councilmember Wick was selected as Mayor,at that time he elected not to utilize the existing, or the previous office,the designed office for the Mayor's office,and instead utilized a different area of the building and then brought in personalized furniture to do that. Unfortunately, the desk was very large, Council Meeting Minutes,Formal:01-11-2022 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT probably on the order of a couple hundred pounds, and it wouldn't fit through the front doors without removing - there's the two mullions in there that have to be unlocked and some wiring harnesses disconnected to make it through. So that was in place. At this transition, Mayor Haley has elected not to utilize,I think there was an offer from Councilmember Wick to have Mayor Haley utilize the furniture and that particular office.Mayor Haley has elected to go back to the former Mayor's office,which already had some component of city furniture in it, and she also elected not to utilize the private furniture. We are not in a position to store that here; I would be a little remiss, I wouldn't want to have it damaged, or anything else, and I don't think that was what Councilmember Wick had intended. So there were conversations between Councilmember Wick and myself last week,we were trying to figure out exactly when and how this would be accomplished.He had let me know that he had his own personnel to come move it, I would just have to coordinate the removal of the mullions to get that out.So we communicated,and I left a message for him on Thursday of last week saying please let me know what time that he would be there. I did not hear back from him at that point in time.As we were moving some other furniture for Mayor Haley's new office,because there was a love-seat and a table and some other items that needed, that were city owned furniture that needed to be re-located;our maintenance staff said this is a big item and we'd have to remove the mullions and we are concerned about potential damages to the elevator, and so they offered to do it. I said don't do anything until I get ahold of Mayor Wick,I haven't heard anything back. Unfortunately,there was a dis-connect there and for a period of time,about an hour and a half,the furniture made itself outside, which is very unfortunate and I understand that reflects really poorly on the city and we are sorry for that to have occurred;that was never our intent to have that happen. I think our staff felt that,hey,they figured out a way to squeeze it through the doors without taking the mullions off, so they got excited and out it went. As soon as I was aware of that,I did get ahold of Mayor Wick, apologized to him and at that point in time also apologized in a voice-mail yesterday and I do so again tonight, it was never our intent to embarrass him or do anything,we were trying to facilitate the removal of these two large pieces of furniture,both the desk and a long credenza.Part of it,I think the lessons learned on this had I known what time he was going to be there it would have been easy for me to facilitate that connection point, and I didn't know that. Mr. Wick had actually contacted a city staff member and I didn't hear at all what time that was going to occur. So one thing I did want to address tonight is the City Manager relationship with Council; I work for you but the staff works for me, and I would just ask to make this really efficient, is to have those points of communication channel either to myself, or to Marci Patterson, or to Chris Bainbridge, if we are not available,and Carrie Koudelka also,that way I can try to facilitate this,because I would really hate,I really feel poorly and I feel bad about what happened,it's really an unfortunate circumstance and I wouldn't want former Mayor Wick or any of the other Councilmembers to go through something like that and I don't want it to reflect poorly on the city either;but I think if we can work on channelizing that communication to me, I think, hopefully we would prevent these types of misunderstandings and miscommunications; so I just wanted to address that; again I extend my apologies to Councilmember Wick; it shouldn't have happened, and I'm sorry it did." Mr.Hohman also announced that there will be a Council of Governments Meeting,sponsored by Spokane County,this Friday,January 14,2022,at 9:00 a.m. at CenterPlace where they will have discussions on the American Rescue Plan funds and how to distribute that, and we will be prepared to speak to our process, which process will be brought to Council for discussion in February. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Higgins, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:27 p.m. ATTEST: Pam Haley, Mayor Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes,Formal:01-11-2022 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 25, 2022 Department Director Approval Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Ordinance 22-001 -Amendments for Ecology's Final Approval of Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Development Regulations GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-090, SVMC 21.50, 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 SVMC 21.50) a comprehensive update to the SMP. April 28, 2020: Council concurred that staff apply for a Department of Ecology (Ecology) grant to complete the SMP periodic update. June 8, 2021, Council approved Ordinance 21-007 which adopted the required periodic update to the SMP, subject to Ecology approval. On January 18, 2022, City Council agreed to bring Ordinance 22-001 forward for a First Reading. 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 policies 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. On June 8, 2021, the City adopted amendments to the SMP consistent with the periodic review requirement pursuant to Ordinance No. 21-007. As provided by State law and Sections 4 and 6 of Ordinance No. 21-007, the amendments are subject to Ecology review and approval before they can become effective. On June 10, 2021, consistent with WAC 173-26-110, the City submitted to Ecology for its review and formal action the SMP as adopted by Council. On January 3, 2022, Ecology submitted a letter to the City conditionally approving the SMP, subject to one required change. Ecology has identified that the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)cannot be considered under the single-family residential exemption and thus the City is required to change the regulations to require ADUs to go through the Substantial Development Permit process. The City included the amendment to allow ADUs under the single-family residential exemption based on recommendations from the City's consultant, consideration of the City's adopted Housing Action Plan to increase affordable housing options, and for consistency with how ADUs are allowed in other areas of the City. On January 18, 2022, staff presented City Council an administrative report on the proposed amendments required from Ecology. After the administrative report, Council agreed to proceed to the first reading of Ordinance 22-001 adopting amendments to the shoreline master program consistent with the action identified by Ecology in its conditional approval. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None OPTIONS: Move to advance Ordinance 22-002 to a second reading, with or without amendments RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance 22-001 to a second reading STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance 22-001; Conditional Approval Letter from Ecology dated January 3, 2022; Ordinance No. 21-007 1 of 1 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO.22-001 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 21-007 AND THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN CHAPTER 21.50 SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTED THEREIN, 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, on June 8, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 21-007 which adopted updates to the City's SMP as required pursuant to RCW 90.58.080(4). Pursuant to Section 4 of Ordinance No. 21-007, the City Manager was directed to submit the revised SMP to the Department of Ecology (Ecology). Section 4 provided that "[o]nce approved by [Ecology], no further action is necessary for compliance with RCW 90.58.080(4)...." Pursuant to Section 6 of Ordinance No. 21-007 and RCW 90.58.090(7),the amendments to chapter 21.50 SVMC adopted therein"shall not be effective until 14 days after the [Ecology's] final action..."; and WHEREAS,on June 10,2021,pursuant to WAC 173-26-110,the City submitted the SMP update as adopted by Council to Ecology for its review and formal action; and WHEREAS,on January 3,2022,Ecology submitted a letter to the City conditionally approving the SMP adopted on June 8, 2021, subject to one modification. Specifically,the conditional approval requires the City to agree on language that requires Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to complete a Substantial Development Permit under the City's SMP;and WHEREAS, the City must respond to Ecology within 30 days with the proposed language or submit an alternative proposal to be reviewed and approved by Ecology; and WHEREAS, the proposed change is not a new amendment but a response to a separate statutory process required for Ecology's approval of the SMP;and WHEREAS, Ecology concludes that the City's proposed SMP, with incorporation of Ecology's required change,can be considered consistent with the policy and standards of RCW 90.58.020 and RCW 90.58.090 and the applicable SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through 251 and WAC 173-26-020 definitions); and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to take the action identified by Ecology in its conditional approval to complete the SMP approval process; and Ordinance 22-001 Page 1 of 5 DRAFT 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. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council hereby finds that the review, consideration, and adoption process for Ordinance No. 21-007 complies with chapter 90.58 RCW and applicable City codes. The City Council hereby finds that Ordinance No. 21-007 and the SMP updated adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 21-007 complies with chapter 90.58 RCW and applicable SVMC subject to the modification required by Ecology as described in the above recitals.The City Council adopts the foregoing recitals as findings for this Ordinance,which are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full. The City Council finds that by amending Ordinance No.21-007 as required by Ecology will complete the necessary SMP update. Section 2. Ordinance No.21-007 Amended.The City Council hereby amends Ordinance No. 21-007 as follows: A. Table 21.50-1 on page 17 of Exhibit A is hereby amended as follows: 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. Table 21.50-1: Shoreline Uses '5 '5 U U c Cid 0 o cdt c c 1.. U U Q u o SHORELINE USES `s `A Z x 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 P' In-stream Structures As part of a fish habitat enhancement project N/A P P P P Ordinance 22-001 Page 2 of 5 DRAFT 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 CS 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 AP ar Transportation Facilities 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 P' A6 KEY: A=Allowed P=Permitted C=Conditional Use Blank=Prohibited N/A=Not 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. '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. B. SVMC 21.50.370 on pages 30 and 31 of Exhibit A is hereby amended as follows: 21.50.370 Residential Development and Use A. Applicability. 1. This section applies to single-family and multi-family structures,lots, and parcels. Ordinance 22-001 Page 3 of 5 DRAFT 2. Residential uses also include accessory 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; 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 City 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(B)(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. 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. C. The remaining portions of the Ordinance 21-007 shall remain unchanged. Ordinance 22-001 Page 4 of 5 DRAFT Section 3. Submission to Department of Ecology. The City Manager or designee is directed to submit a written notice to the Department of Ecology that the City has agreed to the required changes and made such modifications.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 4. Severability. If any section,sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,sentence,clause,or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 5. 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 the City receives a letter verifying Ecology has received the City's written notice as identified in Section 3. Passed by the City Council this day of February 2022 Pam Haley,Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 22-001 Page 5 of 5 4K��14s C1. I it; '11 ;, yl k yt 4:a STATE OF WASFIINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 •360-407-6000 711 For Washington Relay Service * Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 January 3, 2022 The Honorable Ben Wick City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Amendment—Conditional Approval Dear Mayor Wick: I would like to take this opportunity to commend the City of Spokane Valley(City)for its efforts in developing the proposed Shoreline Master Program (SMP) amendment. It is obvious that a significant effort was invested in this periodic review and amendment. As we have discussed with your staff,the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) considered the record and concluded that portions of the proposal were not consistent with applicable laws and rules.The findings and conclusions that support Ecology's decision are contained in Attachment A.The specific change identified as necessary to make the proposal approvable are detailed in Attachment B. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.090(2)(e), at this point,the City may: • Agree to the proposed changes as shown in Attachment B, or • Submit an alternative proposal. Ecology will then review the alternative submitted for consistency with the purpose and intent of the change originally developed by Ecology and with the Shoreline Management Act. Final Ecology approval will occur when the City and Ecology agree on language that meets statutory and guideline requirements. Please provide your written response within 30 days. Your response can be sent to me at laura.watson@ecy.wa.gov. We look forward to concluding the SMP periodic review amendment process in the near future. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the change identified, please contact our regional planner, Lauren Bromley, at lauren.bromlev@ecv.wa.gov or(509) 220-7750. Yours truly, $� Laura Watson Director cc: Chaz Bates,Senior Planner, City of Spokane Valley Sara Hunt, Regional Section Manager, Ecology Lauren Bromley Shoreline Planner, Ecology ATTACHMENT A: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT SMP Submittal accepted.June 10, 2021, Resolution No. 21-007 Prepared by Department of Ecology on December 7, 2021 Use of this Document Ecology's Findings and Conclusions(presented herein Attachment A), including references to Required Changes (Attachment B), provide the factual basis for the Department of Ecology's (Ecology) decision on the City of Spokane Valley's (City) proposed amendment to their Shoreline Master Program (SMP) as a result of their SMP periodic review.This document is divided into three sections: Findings of Fact, which provides findings related to the City's proposed amendment,amendment history, and the review process, Conclusions of Law,and Ecology's Decision and Effective Date of the amendment. Attachment B outlines Ecology's identified required change to the SMP amendment. FINDINGS OF FACT Brief Description of Proposed Amendment The City of Spokane Valley is undergoing a statutorily required periodic review of their SMP and has submitted an amendment to Ecology for review and approval. The City opted to use the standard review process in WAC 173-26-100 for this periodic review and associated amendment. Need for amendment The comprehensive update to the City's SMP went into effect in September 2015. The proposed amendment is needed to comply with the statutory deadline for a periodic review of the SMP pursuant to RCW 90.58.080(4).The amendment will bring the SMP into compliance with requirements of the Shoreline Management Act,or state rules that have been added or changed since the last SMP amendment,ensure the SMP remains consistent with amended comprehensive plans and regulations, and incorporate revisions deemed necessary to reflect changed circumstances, new information,for improved data. SMP provisions to be changed by the amendment as proposed The City prepared a checklist and an analysis documenting the proposed amendment. Spokane Valley's SMP is a standalone document containing goals and policies.SMP goals and policies are adopted by reference in the City's comprehensive plan. City regulations can be found in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) Chapter 21.50. The Official Shoreline Designation Map can also be viewed in the City's online mapping program tool1.The SMP regulates shoreline uses and development along segments of the Spokane River and Shelly Lake. 1 https://www.spokanevalley.org/content/6836/6896/7074/default.aspx Attachment A: Findings and Conclusions Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review Amendment The following SMP sections are proposed to be amended: Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Regulations 21.50.020.0 Applicability Referenced the exceptions changes in this chapter to clarify this section on remedial actions. 21.50.050 Development Authorization Review Procedure Specific developments identified in WAC 173-27-044 and -045 are not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews. A new sub-section (B9)was added to this chapter to outline specific guidance on permit filing procedures consistent with the language from the 2011 statute. 21.50.110 Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Added clarifying language for filing an appeal with the Shorelines Hearings Board. New language was also added to reference the WAC 173-27-040 and RCW 90.58.030(3) to ensure that the SMP reflects the most current exemption language including the new text,which allows for retrofitting existing structures to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act. (A) Reference current cost threshold under SVMC 21.50.110.A. (G)Adjusted language to reflect the current cost threshold for freshwater docks, in addition to WAC 173-27-040 to ensure the SMP always reflects the most current exemption language. 21.50.200 Shoreline Modification Activities Table Change to Table 21.50-1:Shoreline Uses—the table was updated to reflect the change from "Accessory Dwelling Units—Permitted"to"Allowed". 21.50.520 Wetlands--Shoreline Critical Area Regulations Updated the chapter to reference the 2014 wetland rating system. 21.50.460&560 General/Frequently Flooded Areas Shoreline Critical Area Regulations-Applicability The SMP was updated to reflect the current GMA-SMA clarifications. Appendix A-1 Shoreline Master Program Definitions Added definitions such as "Development" and Non-Conforming Lot. Amendment History, Review Process Local SMP Amendment Process The City prepared a public participation program 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.An important element of the public participation plan is the City's SMP Periodic Review project website2. The City hired the consulting firm Watershed Company to developed draft documents. The City used Ecology's Periodic Review checklist of legislative and rule amendments to review amendments to chapter 90.58 RCW and department guidelines,that have occurred since the master program was comprehensively updated,and determine if local amendments were needed to maintain compliance in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(i). The City also reviewed changes to the comprehensive plan and development regulations to determine if the shoreline master program policies https://www.spokanevaIley,org/SMP 2 Attachment A: Findings and Conclusions Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review Amendment and regulations remain consistent with them in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(ii).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). The City consulted with Ecology throughout the review process. The City opted to follow the standard adoption process in WAC 173-26-100.The record indicates that on February 12, 2021 the City issued a notice of the public hearing including a statement that the City was accepting comments for 30 days,from February 12th to March 12th. Notice of the hearing was published in the Spokane Exchange from February 16 thru February 24, 2021. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic,the City's public hearing was held by teleconference on March 11, 2021. The record indicates the City completed a SEPA checklist and issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)for the proposed SMP amendment on February 12,2021. Ecology did not comment on the DNS. Department of Commerce was notified of the City's intent to adopt on March 24, 2021 with the 60-day notice period ending May 23, 2021. The City Planning Commission reviewed comments and deliberated on the proposed amendment during their March 25, 2021 meeting.After further deliberation, on May 13, 2021 the Planning Commission unanimously voted to adopt findings passing the amendment onto the City Council with a recommendation for adoption. With the passage of Ordinance No. 21-007 on June 8, 2021,the City Council adopted the SMP periodic review amendment and authorized staff to forward the proposed amendment to Ecology for formal review and approval. Ecology SMP Amendment Review and Approval Process After the City completed the SMP periodic review process and locally adopted the associated SNIP amendment,the City submitted the amendment and its adoption record to Ecology for final agency approval as outlined in WAC 173-26-110. The proposed SMP amendments were received by Ecology for state review and verified as complete on June 18, 2021. When the local government opts to use the standard process of WAC 173-26-100, Ecology must follow the procedures of WAC 173-26-120(2)to provide reasonable notice and opportunity for written comment. Notice of the state comment period was distributed via email to state and local (identified by the City) interested parties on July 15, 2021, The Spokane Tribe of Indians was individually notified and invited to comment. The state comment period began on July 26, 2021 and continued through August 26, 2021. Notice of the comment period, including a description of the proposed amendments and the authority under which the action is proposed along with the manner in which interested persons may obtain copies and present their views was provided on Ecology's website3 and as part of the written notice. Ecology received one (1) comment letter,from the Department of Archaeology& Historic Preservation (DAHP), expressing concerns with the Cultural Resources section and survey requirements in high-risk areas.The concern was that exempt projects, such as docks and bulkheads, will not require surveys, but 3 https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Shoreline-coastal-management/Shoreline-coastal-planning/State- approved-Shorel ine-Master-Programs/Spokane-Valley 3 Attachment A: Findings and Conclusions Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review Amendment can involve a significant amount of ground disturbance. Since archaeological sites tend to cluster along riverbanks (high-risk areas),even small projects can impact resources. DAHP requested a language change to require landowners to adhere to an inadvertent discovery plan even on exempt projects.The City was sent this comment letter and the summary response matrix. In response,the City noted that it utilizes the exemption list in Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 21.50.110,which matches the exemption list in WAC 173-27-040(2). Projects that are exempt from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit process must still comply with all the provisions of the SMP, including the Cultural Resource provisions,which include inadvertent discovery. All exempt projects require a Letter of Exemption in accordance with SVMC 21.50.120.A Letter of Exemption may include and contain conditions of approval to achieve consistency and compliance with the provisions of the SMP and the SMA, including compliance with 21.50.280. The use of exemption letter for each project provides an additional layer of process to ensure that highly sensitive areas are monitored during the life of each project. Ecology finds that the SMP already has the provisions necessary to address this concern. No additional modification are needed. Consistency Review Consistency with Chapter 90.58 RCW The proposed amendment has been reviewed for consistency with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the approval criteria of RCW 90.58.090(3), (4), and (5). The City has also provided evidence of its compliance with SMA procedural requirements for amending their SMP contained in RCW 90.58.090(1) and (2). Consistency with applicable guidelines(Chapter 173-26 WAC, Partin) The proposed amendment has been reviewed for compliance with the requirements of the applicable Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through 251 and 173-26-020 definitions). This included a review of the SMP Periodic Review Checklist,which was completed by the City. Consistency with SEPA Requirements The City submitted evidence of SEPA compliance in the form of a SEPA checklist and issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) on February 12,2021,for the proposed SMP amendments. Other Studies or Analyses supporting the SMP amendment Ecology also reviewed documents prepared by or for the City in support of the SMP amendments.These documents include the public participation plan,the periodic review checklist,and staff reports. Summary of Issues Identified by Ecology as Relevant to Its Decisions Ecology is required to review all SMPs to ensure consistency with the Shoreline Management Act(SMA) and implementing rules including WAC 173-26,State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master Program Guidelines. WAC 173-26-186(11) specifies that Ecology"shall insure that the state's interest in shorelines is protected, including compliance with the policy and provisions of RCW 90.58.020." Based on review of the proposed amendments to the SMP for consistency with applicable SMP Guidelines requirements and the Shoreline Management Act,and consideration of supporting materials in the record submitted by the City,the following issues remain relevant to Ecology's final decision on the proposed amendments to the City's SMP,with Findings specific to each issue identifying amendments needed for compliance with the SMA and applicable guidelines: 4 Attachment A: Findings and Conclusions Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review Amendment Accessory Dwelling Units Under Shoreline uses in Table 21.50-1:Shoreline Uses—Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) were changed from Permitted(P)to Allowed(A) under all four upland shoreline environment designations. The change indicates that ADUs would be exempt from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SDP) process and would not require submittal of an SDP or Letter of Exemption application. The City also proposes to delete SVMC Section 21.50.370.B.6.c which explicitly requires that new attached or detached ADUs shall obtain an SDP.The City's rational for these changes was that the City's Housing Element under the 2017 Comprehensive Plan encourages ADUs as affordable housing options and they believed that requiring an SDP was creating a disincentive for ADU applications. To be eligible for an exemption from the SDP process a project must meet one of the allowances of WAC 173-27-040,which requires that exemptions from the substantial development permit process be construed narrowly based on the purpose, intent,and policies of the SMA. An additional or accessory dwelling unit is designed to be a separate or additional living unit that can be occupied separately and independent of the original single-family residence.There is no allowance in statue or rule that exempts a secondary dwelling on a parcel from the SDP process. As an additional dwelling unit designed to accommodate additional or separate families,this type of development and use can be authorized but it does not meet the narrowly construed terms and criteria for single-family residential development as provided in WAC 173-27-040(2)(g). ADU's can be encouraged as an allowed use providing for higher capacity in-fill development that may reduce harmful sprawl over time. However,the construction of a new structure to house an ADU meets the definition of development,and cannot be considered under the single-family residential exemption, and therefore should be processed as an SDP. Finding: Ecology finds that the single-family residential development allowance under WAC 173-27- 040(2)(g) does not include ADUs. Ecology further finds that the proposed changes to Table 21.50-1 and 21.50.370.B.6 are inconsistent with the allowances of WAC 173-27-040(2)(g)for an exemption from the SDP process. Therefore, Ecology finds that we cannot approve the above identified amendments related to ADUs. [Attachment B, Item Req--1]. Consistent with WAC 173-26-120(3)(a)(iii)the State process for approving/amending shoreline master programs, Ecology must either approve the locally adopted draft SMP as submitted, recommend specific changes necessary to make the proposal consistent with the SMA or guidelines (WAC 173-26) or deny the proposal if no alteration of the proposal appears likely to be consistent with the SMA. Ecology considered the record and concluded that a portion of the proposal was not consistent with applicable laws and rules. We identified one (1) required change (Appendix B) associated with the permit path for single-family residential ADUs,which is necessary for consistency with WAC 173-27- 040(2)(g). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW After a review of the complete record submitted and all comments received, Ecology concludes that the City's proposed amendment,with incorporation of Ecology's required change as shown in Attachment B, can be considered consistent with the policy and standards of RCW 90.58.020 and RCW 90.58.090 and the applicable SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through 251 and .020 definitions). 5 Attachment A: Findings and Conclusions Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review Amendment Ecology concludes that the proposed amendment,with the inclusion of required changes identified in Attachment B, satisfies the criteria for approval of amendments found in WAC 173-26-201(1)(c).This includes the conclusion that approval of the SMP amendment will not foster uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines (WAC 173-26-201(2)(c)(i)) and will assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions will result from implementation of the amended master program (WAC 173-26-201(2)(c)(iv)and WAC 173-26-186(8)). Ecology concludes that those SMP segments relating to shorelines of statewide significance continue to provide for the optimum implementation of Shoreline Management Act policy(RCW 90.58.090(5). Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the requirements of RCW 90.58.100 regarding the SMP amendment process and contents. Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the requirements of RCW 90.58.130 and WAC 173-26- 090 and WAC 173-26-100 regarding public and agency involvement in the SMP review and amendment process, including conducting public hearings, notice, consultation with parties of interest, and solicitation of comments from tribes,government agencies,and Ecology. Ecology concludes that the City has complied with requirements of Chapter 43.21C RCW,the State Environmental Policy Act. Ecology concludes that the City SMP submittal to Ecology was complete pursuant to the requirements of WAC 173-26-090,WAC 173-26-100,and WAC 173-26-110. Ecology concludes that we have complied with the state's procedural requirements for review and approval of shoreline master program amendments as set forth in RCW 90.58.090, WAC 173-26-100, WAC 173-26-110, and WAC 173-26-120. Ecology concludes that with this action the City has completed the required process for periodic review in accordance with RCW 90.58.080(4)and applicable state guidelines (WAC 173-26). DECISION AND EFFECTIVE DATE Based on the preceding, Ecology has determined the proposed amendments will be consistent with the policy of the Shoreline Management Act and the applicable implementing rules, once the required changes set forth in Attachment B are accepted by the City. As provided in RCW 90.58.090(2)(e)(ii)the City may choose to submit additional alternatives to all or part of the changes required by Ecology. If Ecology determines that the alternative proposal is consistent with the purpose and intent of Ecology's original changes and with RCW 90,58,then the department shall approve the alternative proposal and that action shall be the final action on the amendment. Ecology approval of the proposed amendment,with required changes or approved alternative language, will be effective 14 days from Ecology's final action approving the amendment. Ecology's final action will be a letter verifying the receipt of written notice that the City has agreed to the required changes identified in Attachment B. 6 Attachment B — City of Spokane Valley— Ecology Required Changes The changes in red are required to comply with the SMA(RCW 90.58)and the SMP Guidelines(WAC 173-26,Part III): ITEM SMP TOPIC BILL FORMAT CHANGES RATIONALE PROVISION (Cite) Req-1 Article II. Accessory Table21.50-1:Shoreline Uses Required Change:Table 21.50-1:Shoreline Uses—Accessory Dwelling Units Shoreline Dwelling (ADUs)change back to Permitted rather than Allowed and reject the Regulations Units Residential Use proposed deletion of 21.50.370.8.6.c.Replace"A"with"P"in this table row. 21.50.190 (ADUs) Single-family A A A A In this table Single-family residential Shoreline Uses accessory uses and structures A A A A A=Allowed uses that are exempt from the Shoreline Substantial Table Multi-family P P P Development Permit(SDP)process and do not require submittal of an SDP Private docks serving one to four single-family residences WA P P P or Letter of exemption application. A A A A P=Permitted uses which are preferable and meet the policies of the particular shoreline environment designation,but still require submittal of an SDP or Letter of Exemption application. r , r u 3 b The Accessory Dwelling Units row must be modified to clarify that ADU's can ' e a v, be allowed and even encouraged in the shoreline,but they are not one of _ s- 0 3 the narrowly construed exemptions from the Shoreline Substantial s = .2 . m Q Development Permit(SDP)process outlined in WAC 173-27-040.An SH°REl1NE USES % = 7= .z additional or accessory dwelling unit is designed to be a separate or Accessory : ° R p P additional living unit that is occupied separately and independent of the original Single Family Residence.WAC 173-27-040 requires that exemptions from the substantial development permit process be construed narrowly based on the purpose,intent,and policies of the SMA.There is no allowance in statue or rule that exempts a secondary dwelling from the SDP process.As New an additional dwelling unit designed to accommodate additional or separate 21.50.370.6.6 attached 6.New attached or detached accessory dwelling units shall: families,this type of development can be authorized but it does not meet Residential or the narrowly construed terms and criteria for single-family residential a.Be located landward of the shoreline buffer and outside of ail critical development detached development as provided in WAC 173-27-040(2)(g).ADU development can areas and their buffers; and use ADUs be allowed as a type of in-fill that may reduce harmful sprawl over time. b.Be pursuant to SVMC 19.40.100 Accessory Dwelling Unit;and standards c.Obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. However,construction of a new ADU meets the definition of development, and cannot be considered under the single-family residential exemption, therefore should be processed as an SDP as indicated by the"P"in this table. 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 identified 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 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 I2, 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 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 fulfil! 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 Passed by the City Council this 8t°' day of June ,2021 Ben Wick,Mayor AT ES )30;1:7A Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office the C'ty�Attor,ey Date of Publication: -`ft t! 2/ Effective Da, : - ~ eQ7'; uen Ordinance 21-007 Page 4 of 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. 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 1 of 72 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 designated 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 City Manager 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 City Manager 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 City Manager 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: 1. The public comment period for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits shall be 30 days, pursuant to WAC 173-27-110. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 2 of 72 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 City Manager; and d. The City 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. For projects that only require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: the date that Ecology actually receives a final decision by the City. 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. 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; Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 3 of 72 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 City Manager; and 6. Ability of the project to satisfy the purpose and intent of the SMP. B. Based upon the project evaluation, the City Manager 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 City Manager 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 City Manager 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; E. Dredging or dredge material disposal in wetlands; Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 4 of 72 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; 1. 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. H. Pruning, thinning, or dead or hazardous tree removal pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260(C). Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 5 of 72 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. 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 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(3). 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 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: Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 6 of 72 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- 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 for docks that are constructed to replace existing docks and are of Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 7 of 72 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. 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. 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. Exhibit I: Ordinance 21-007 Page 8 of 72 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 City Manager 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 City 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 City Manager'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 City Manager 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; 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 Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 9 of 72 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 City Manager shall be the final authority for the City. The City Manager'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 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 Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 10 of 72 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. 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; Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page I I of 72 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 iii. 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; 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; iii. 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 12 of 72 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 City 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. 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 WAG 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. Exhibit 1; Ordinance 21-007 Page 13 of 72 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 City Manager 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 City Manager. 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. 3. The City 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 ll. 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, Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 14 of 72 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; 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. Exhibit I: Ordinance 21-007 Page 15 of 72 C. The City Manager 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 16 of 72 Table 21.50-1: Shoreline Uses (73 C. a > c a 0 0 as m c C a o c c 0d? o 0 m a _ t 00 u e) m •21 c c -c cm co o o. o-C n .0 _a SHORELINE USES u) I = = I Q 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 I 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 A A A A Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 17 of 72 Transportation Facilities _ 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 P= Permitted C= Conditional Use Blank Prohibited N/A= Not Applicable Notes: 1 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. '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. 7A Letter of Exemption is required. 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 18 of 72 Table 21.50-2: Shoreline Modification Activities ca a) m c c ) ;a a) a) .— a m a� � o 0 E `+� E `t U Ua o L MI m °'' a) 7. as SHORELINE MODIFICATION ..c Z. . ., •E -° = a ACTIVITY U) I U) I m > I '¢ Shoreline/Slope Stabilization Structural, such as bulkheads P P _ Nonstructural, such as soil bioengineering P P P Piers and Docks Piers N/A P C Viewing Platforms P P P Docks N/A P C 1 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(B)(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. 3. Mitigation sequencing pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210(B)(4) is required when specified in these regulations or for projects that: Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 79 of 72 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 City Manager 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 vegetation. This shall be supported by a Habitat Management Plan developed in conformance with SVMC 21.50.540(F)(1)(b); or Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 20 of 72 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 Urban Shoreline Shoreline Conservancy Conservancy — Residential - Residential - High Quality Upland 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. 1. Public access shall be consistent with the City's SMP Public Access Plan. Exhibit I: Ordinance 21-007 Page 21 of 72 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 iii. 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 City Manager 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 City Manager as part of the permit review process. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 22 of 72 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; iii. 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; iii. 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 City Manager'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 iii. 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 Exhibit I: Ordinance 21-007 Page 23 of 72 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(B)(2) that demonstrates compliance with the standards of SVMC 21.50.260(B)(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. iii. 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 substantially in the same form and for the same coverage as provided for in the City's Street Standards as adopted or amended. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 24 of 72 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 Control program, the Eastern Washington Phase it Municipal Stormwater Permit requirements, applicable total maximum daily loads laws and regulations, and other water cleanup plans. Exhibit I: Ordinance 21-007 Page 25 of 72 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 City 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 prepare a cultural resources site survey or assessment pursuant to SVMC 21.50.280(B)(3), after coordinating with DAHP. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 26 of 72 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: 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. Exhibit I: Ordinance 21-007 Page 27 of 72 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: 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(B)(2) and (3). Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 28 of 72 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 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 City 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 Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 29 of 72 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. 2. Residential uses also include accessory 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 30 of 72 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. 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 City 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(B)(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. 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 31 of 72 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; iii. 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 City Manager 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: 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 Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 32 of 72 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. 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 Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 33 of 72 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; Provisions for protecting in-stream resources during construction and operation; and iii. 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; iii. 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. 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 34 of 72 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; iii. 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 iii. 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 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 Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 35 of 72 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(B)(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 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 Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 36 of 72 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: 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. Exhibit I: Ordinance 21-007 Page 37 of 72 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 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. Exhibit I: Ordinance 21-007 Page 38 of 72 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 Ill 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 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 39 of 72 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 City Manager 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. 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 40 of 72 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 City Manager. iii. 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 City 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: 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 41 of 72 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 21.50.510(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 City 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 City Manager, 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 City Manager 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 City Manager shall consider the following for approval of an alternative mitigation proposal: 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 42 of 72 21.50.520 Wetlands - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations 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 fioodplains of rivers, mature and old-growth forested wetlands over one-quarter acre in size with fast-growing trees, and vernal pools. iii. Category Ill: 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 43 of 72 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(B)(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 Types of Land Use from Proposed Change in Land Use) High Impact Commercial, industrial, and institutional Residential (more than one unit/acre) High-intensity recreation (golf courses, ball fields, etc.) Moderate Impact Residential (one unit/acre or less) Moderate-intensity active open space (parks with biking, jogging, etc.) Paved trails Utility corridor with access/maintenance road Low Impact Passive open space (hiking, bird-watching, etc.) Unpaved trails Utility corridor without road or vegetation management Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 44 of 72 Table 21.50-5: Standard Wetland Buffer Widths Wetland Minimum Buffer Width (in feet) Category Low Impact Moderate Impact High Impact 125 190 250 I I 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. 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 45 of 72 Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts 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 (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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 46 of 72 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 Wetland Reestablishment Rehabilitation Enhancement 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 I Refer to Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance, (Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011 a, 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). Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 47 of 72 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 iii. 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. iii. 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 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. E_xhibn 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 48 of 72 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 iii. 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); 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 project; 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: Exhibit I: Ordinance 21-007 Page 49 of 72 a. Delineated wetland(s) and required buffer(s) for on-site wetlands as well as off-site critical areas that extend onto the project 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; iii. 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; 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 Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 50 of 72 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 CARP,. C. Performance standards. The uses listed in Table 21.50-8 shall 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 WAC 173-216; Best Management Practices Manual for Vehicle and Equipment Washwater Automobile Washers 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 Vehicle and Metal Recycles —A Guide for Implementing the Industrial Stormwater Junk Yards and Salvage Yards 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 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 51 of 72 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: 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 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: Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 52 of 72 1. The shoreline buffer as mapped by the City, which protects riparian habitat, and the waters and land underneath the Spokane River are FVVHCAs. The City protects 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. b. 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. c. 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, 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 ❑NR. 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 Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 53 of 72 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. iii. 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 54 of 72 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 21.50-9. 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.g. 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. iii. 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 55 of 72 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 g. 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 56 of 72 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. 1. Report Contents. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, FWHCA reports shall include: a. Habitat assessment, including: Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 57 of 72 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; iii. 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 proposal; 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. iii. 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; (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. • Exhibit 1:• Ordinance 21-007 Page 58 of 72 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 City 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 City 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; iii. 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; Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 59 of 72 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(B)(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. 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 Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 60 of 72 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 City Manager 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 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 61 of 72 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 iii. 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; ii. An estimate of load capacity including surface and groundwater conditions, public and private sewage disposal systems, fills and excavations, and all structural development; Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 62 of 72 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 iii. 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 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. Exhibit I: Ordinance 21--007 Page 63 of 72 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 iii. A description of how the proposed watercourse alteration complies with the requirements of FWHCAs, the SMP, and other applicable state or federal permit requirements. Exhibit 1; Ordinance 21-007 Page 64 of 72 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 65 of 72 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), ROW 90.58.147, RCW 90.58.355, and RCW 90.58.515. See also "Shoreline exemption, letter of". Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 66 of 72 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 67 of 72 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 loss: 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 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. 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, Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 68 of 72 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. 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. Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 69 of 72 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 ali 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. 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 Exhibit 1: Ordinance 21-007 Page 70 of 72 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. 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 Exhibit 1. Ordinance 21-007 Page 71 of 72 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. Exhibit I: Ordinance 21-007 Page 72 of 72 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 25,2022 Department Director: Check all that apply: n consent n old business ®new business n public hearing n information n admin.report n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading of Proposed Ordinance 22-002 vacating a portion of Appleway Avenue GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.140; Revised Code of Washington(RCW) 35A.47.020 and RCW 35.79 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: At the September 28,2021, City Council meeting,a public hearing date was set with the Planning Commission for October 28, 2021. On January 4, 2022, City Council heard an administrative report on the proposed street vacation. BACKGROUND: On August 31, 2021, the City received a complete street vacation application from Derek Apartments, LLC to vacate 32 feet by 237 feet of right-of-way along the south side of Appleway Avenue. The right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located approximately 526 feet east of the intersection of Appleway Avenue and Fan Road, adjacent to parcels 45201.0513 and 45202.0813. The Appleway Stormwater Improvement project, a capital improvement project, has completed construction. During the design and review phase of the project, it was determined that the City does not need the 32 feet by 237 feet of right-of-way adjacent to the proposed Derek Apartments site. However, it was determined that 4,510 square feet of additional right-of-way was needed along the frontage of adjacent parcels 45201.0522, 45201.0516, and 45201.0518, that are also owned by Derek Apartments, LLC. Derek Apaitinents LLC has dedicated the 4,510 square feet of property to the City for the improvement project. Derek Apartments LLC is making the request with the following considerations: 1. No change will occur on the unimproved right-of-way,nor diminish the current street structure. 2. The area proposed to be vacated is excess right-of-way that was preserved for storm drainage or other improvements no longer needed as a result of the stormwater construction project along Appleway Avenue. 3. The area is outside of useable right-of-way. On September 28, 2021, the City Council passed Resolution 21-007 to set a public hearing date with the Planning Commission on October 28, 2021. The street vacation process is contained in chapter 22.140 SVMC. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on October 14, 2021, and a public hearing on October 28, 2021. Following public testimony and deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the proposal, subject to consideration of the criteria in SVMC 22.140.030 and to impose associated conditions. The findings and recommendations were approved by the Planning Commission on December 9,2021,with a 6-0 vote (one of the commissioners was absent). SVMC 22.140.040 provides that City Council must consider the Planning Commission's findings, conditions and/or limitations as appropriate to preserve the public use or benefit, the division of the vacated right-of-way among abutting property owners, and last whether to require compensation for the right-of-way and when it is to be paid. RCA 1 s`Ordinance Reading for Ordinance No.22-002 Page 1 of 2 Council established Resolution 07-009 to provide parameters on requiring compensation.Within the Resolution, Section 1 states, "The cost for property received as a result of a vacation initiated by an adjacent property owner shall equal 50%of the appraised value of the vacated property received " Section 1(1)(b)allows the property values to be averaged if value of adjacent properties differs. Section 1(2)also provides that the applicant shall only be required to pay the fee "to the extent that it exceeds the cost charged by the City of Spokane Valley to initiate the vacation process...." The table below includes the analysis conducted to determine the estimated appraised value of the vacated property. Staff determined an error was found from what was provided at the administrative report and the correct amount is as follows. It does not change the outcome.Upon a recalculation(shown in red below),the corrected averaged appraised value is $0.28 used to calculate 50 percent of fair market value. Parcel Number Appraised Market Lot Size in Appraised Value per Value (2019) 2 2 Si uare Feet ft Si uare Foot ft 45202.0813 $108,650 27,296 I $0.25 45201.0513 $60,000 18,517 I $0.31 2 $0.28 Average appraised value per ft Square feet of portion of Appleway Avenue 2 7,584 ft Appraised value for the area of street vacation 2 7,584 ft x$0.28 =$2,123.52 50% of appraised value $2,123.52 x 50%= $1,061.76 Subtracting amount paid for application processing $1,061.76- $1,365.00= $-303.24 Estimated value is less than application fee=$-303.24 After the recalculation, 50 percent of the appraised value for the unimproved portion of Appleway Avenue remains less than the application fee and thus,pursuant to Section 1(2)of Resolution 07-009,no fee shall be required from the applicant. OPTIONS: Move to advance to a second reading with or without further amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to advance Ordinance 22-002 to a second reading. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall,Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance 22-002 2. Signed Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations 3. Approved Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 14,2021 4. Approved Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 28,2021 5. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 9,2021 6. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission,including exhibits 7. Resolution 07-009 RCA 1 s`Ordinance Reading for Ordinance No.22-002 Page 2 of 2 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO.22-002 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR A RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION OF APPROXIMATELY 7,584 SQUARE FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF APPLEWAY AVENUE ADJACENT TO PARCELS 45201.0513 AND 45202.0813 AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, on August 3, 2021, an application for vacation was filed requesting the vacation for a portion of Appleway Avenue, 32 feet by 237 feet, approximately 7,584 square feet; and WHEREAS, on August 31, 2021, the City received all required application materials to be determined a complete application to begin processing; and WHEREAS, on September 28, 2021, the City Council by Resolution 21-007 set a public hearing date for October 28,2021,with the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS,on October 28,2021,the Planning Commission held a public hearing; and WHEREAS, following the hearing, the Planning Commission found that the notice and hearing requirements of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)22.140.020 had been met; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission findings and minutes have been filed with the City Clerk as part of the public record supporting the vacation; and WHEREAS, none of the property owners abutting the property to be vacated filed a written objection to the proposed vacation with the City Clerk;and WHEREAS,pursuant to SVMC 22.140.040 and Resolution 07-009, no compensation is required for the vacation; and WHEREAS,pursuant to chapter 22.140 SVMC,upon vacation of the road,the City shall transfer the vacated property to abutting property owners, the zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street shall attach to the vacated property, a record of survey shall be submitted to the City, and all direct and indirect costs of title transfer to the vacated street shall be paid by the proponent or recipient of the transferred property;and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to vacate the above portion of Appleway Avenue pursuant to chapter 22.140 SVMC. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington,do ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The City Council makes the following findings of fact: 1. The area proposed to be vacated is abutting two vacant parcels owned by Derek Apartments, LLC. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved land. Within the vacated area, a 15 foot by 20-foot easement shall be created as a drainage easement reserved for drywell maintenance. Power and cable lines intersect the vacated area, and easements to preserve Modern Electric Water and Power (MEWCO) and Century Link utilities are required. The area proposed to be vacated has existing services from MEWCO and Century Link. MEWCO provided a layout of all services to the Applicant to be submitted with the application material. No comments from MEWCO were received during the comment period. Century Link comments were provided with the application submittal, and formal comments were received during the comment period asking for an easement to protect existing services. The request for easements is included in the recommended conditions. The vacation is expected to have no impact on the general public. Ordinance 22-002—Vacating a portion of Appleway Avenue Page 1 of 4 DRAFT 2. The subject ROW is currently vacant land not being utilized for public access and is not required for current or future public access. The stormwater improvements to Appleway Avenue have been installed north of the area proposed to be vacated, except for a drywell that handles drainage from Appleway Avenue,that will be preserved in an easement. Should future development require improvements, the improvements will be reviewed and right-of- way needs assessed. The City reached out to Spokane Transit Authority two times, and no comments or requirements for public use or access were requested. 3. There is no need for a new and different public way. So long as access to the drywell for maintenance is provided,the public interest is served. The owner, Derek Apartments, LLC, of three parcels directly west of vacated area dedicated public right-of-way as part of a stormwater improvement project along Appleway Avenue. 4. It is not anticipated that changes would occur in the future which would require the use of the subject right-of-way for public access. Should future development require improvements,the improvements will be reviewed,and right-of-way needs assessed. 5. No objections or public comment were received. 6. Resolution 07-009 was adopted pursuant to RCW 35.79.030 to set the City's policy for imposing vacation charges. Pursuant to Section 1 of Resolution 07-009: a. The cost for property received as a result of a vacation initiated by an adjacent property owner shall equal 50% of the appraised value of the vacated property received to the extent the cost exceeds the amount charged by the City of Spokane Valley to initiate the vacation process. i. The appraised value shall be the same as the value of an equivalent portion of property adjacent to the proposed vacation as established by Spokane County Assessor at the time the matter is considered by the City Council. ii. If the value of adjacent properties differs, the average of the adjacent property values per square foot will be used. Based on the average assessed value of the adjacent properties, $1,061.76 is 50% of the assessed value. Therefore, $1,061.76 minus the $1,365.00 application fee equals $-303.24. The portion of Appleway Avenue is less than the application fee and thus, pursuant to Section 1(2)of Resolution 07-009,no fee shall be required from the applicant. Section 2. Property to be Vacated. Based upon the above findings and in accordance with this Ordinance, the City Council does hereby vacate the street or alley which is incorporated herein by reference,and legally described as follows: A parcel of land, portion of Tract 242 and 225 of the plat of Opportunity, as recorded with Spokane County in Book K'of plats Page 20, located in the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter, and the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of section 20, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, of the Willamette Meridian, being A portion of the existing right of way of Appleway Avenue, as shown on right of way plans for county road project 2396, pages 7 through 10, dated October 10th, 2002, and being more particularly described as follows; Beginning at the Northwest corner of that certain parcel of land shown as "Parcel B" in Book 150 of Surveys, Page 65, records of Spokane County, Washington. Said point being station 141+34.97, 86.00 feet right of centerline,per said county right of way plans; Thence North 0°05'05"East along an extension of the West line of said Parcel B, a distance of 32.85 feet, to station 141+35 .16, 54.00 feet right; Thence along said line, 54.00 feet offset from said centerline, said line being a 32 foot offset to the existing South right of way of said Appleway Avenue, North 89°45 '25"East, a distance of 236.78 feet, to station 143+71.94, 54.00 feet right. Said point being along the east line of the west 126.6 feet of Tract 225 of Opportunity. Ordinance 22-002—Vacating a portion of Appleway Avenue Page 2 of 4 DRAFT Thence South 00°14'35"East along said right of way, a distance of 32.00 feet, to station 143+71.94, 86 .00 feet right. Said point being an angle point in the existing right of way; Thence South 89°45'25" West along the existing right of way, a distance of 236.97 feet, to the True Point of Beginning and the terminus of this described parcel. Said parcel contains 7,584 square feet, more or less. Section 3. Division of Property to be Vacated. Pursuant to RCW 35.79.040 and SVMC 22.140.040(C),the vacated portion of the street or alley shall belong to the abutting property owners,one- half to each, unless factual circumstances otherwise dictate a different division and distribution of the street or alley to be vacated. There are only abutting owners on one side and all of the property will become part of abutting parcels. The completion of the vacation shall be recorded in the record of survey which shall be created and recorded with Spokane County as required pursuant to SVMC 22.140.090. Section 4. Zoning. The zoning designation for the vacated property shall be the designation attached to the adjoining properties as set forth within the respective property or lot lines. The City Manager or designee is authorized to make this notation on the official Zoning Map of the City. Section 5. Conditions of Vacation. The following conditions shall be fully satisfied prior to the transfer of title by the City. 1. Initial work to satisfy conditions of the street vacation (File No. STV-2021-0001), including all conditions below shall be submitted to the City for review within 90 days following the effective date of approval by the City Council. 2. The vacated property shall be transferred to the owner of the abutting parcels (45201.0513 and 45202.0813) as shown on the record of survey created and recorded with Spokane County Auditor's Office pursuant to condition 11. Such property shall become part of each abutting parcel. 3. The street vacation width shall be no greater than 32 feet. 4. The owner or applicant shall draft the legal description and exhibit for the now 15-foot by 20-foot storm drainage easement, to be dedicated to the City. The City Engineer shall receive the draft easement to review and upon acceptance by City Engineer of draft easement document,the owner or applicant shall record said document with the Spokane County Auditor's Office. The location and recording number shall be shown on the record of survey and written documentation of the easement shall be submitted to the City prior to final acceptance and all conditions have been satisfied. 5. The owner or applicant shall establish an easement acceptable to Modem Electric Water Company for access and preservation of existing services within the area to be vacated. The location and recording number shall be shown on the record of survey and written documentation of the easement shall be submitted to the City prior to final acceptance and all conditions have been satisfied. 6. The owner or applicant shall establish an easement acceptable to Century Link(Lumen) for access and preservation of existing services within area to be vacated. The location and recording number shall be shown on the record of survey and written documentation of the easement shall be submitted to the City prior to final acceptance and all conditions have been satisfied. 7. Following the City Council's passage of this Ordinance approving the street vacation, a record of survey of the area to be vacated,prepared by a registered surveyor in the State Ordinance 22-002—Vacating a portion of Appleway Avenue Page 3 of 4 DRAFT of Washington, including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be submitted by the owner or applicant to the City Manager,or designee,for review and approval. 8. All direct and indirect costs of the title transfer of the vacated street from public to private ownership, including but not limited to,title company charges,copying fees, and recording fees, shall be paid by the owner or applicant. The City shall not, and does not, assume any financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title. 9. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the entire vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the districts. 10. The record of survey and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 11. All conditions of City Council authorization and this Ordinance shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Section 6. Closing. Following satisfaction of the above conditions, the City Clerk shall record a certified copy of this Ordinance in the office of the County Auditor, and the City Manager is authorized to execute and finalize all necessary documents in order to complete the transfer of the property identified herein. Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of February,2022. ATTEST: Pam Haley,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 22-002—Vacating a portion of Appleway Avenue Page 4 of 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION STV-2021-0001 —Street vacation of a portion Appleway Avenue. Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E)the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. A. Background: 1. Chapter 22.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), governing street vacations, was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28,2007. 2. The privately-initiated street vacation, STV-2021-0001, proposes to vacate 7,584 square feet of improved right-of-way on the south side of Appleway Avenue, located adjacent to parcels 45201.0513 and 45202.0813. 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on October 28, 2021. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of STV-2021-0001 to the City Council. D. Planning Commission Findings: Compliance with SVMC 22.140.030 Planning Commission review and recommendation Findings: 1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public? The area proposed to be vacated is abutting two vacant parcels owned by Derek Apartments, LLC. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved land. Within the vacated area, a 15 foot by 20-foot easement shall be created as a drainage easement reserved for drywell maintenance. Power and cable lines intersect the vacated area, and easements to preserve Modem Electric Water and Power(MEWCO) and Century Link utilities are required. The area proposed to be vacated has existing services from MEWCO and Century Link. MEWCO provided a layout of all services to the Applicant to be submitted with the application material. No comments from MEWCO were received during the comment period. Century Link comments were provided with the application submittal and formal comments were received during the comment period asking for an easement to protect existing services. The request for easements is included in the recommended conditions. The vacation is expected to have no impact on the general public. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-2021-0001 Page 1 of 4 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access? The subject ROW is currently vacant land not being utilized for public access and is not required for current or future public access. The stormwater improvements to Appleway Avenue have been installed north of the area proposed to be vacated,except for a drywell that handles drainage from Appleway Avenue, that will be preserved in an easement. Should future development require improvements, the improvements will be reviewed and right-of-way needs assessed. The City reached out to Spokane Transit Authority two times, and no comments or requirements for public use or access were requested. 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public? There is no need for a new and different public way. So long as access to the drywell for maintenance is provided, the public interest is served. The owner, Derek Apartments, LLC, of three parcels directly west of vacated area is dedicating public right-of-way as part of the stormwater improvement project along Appleway Avenue. 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists? It is not anticipated that changes would occur in the future which would require the use of the subject right-of-way for public access. Should future development require improvements, the improvements will be reviewed, and right-of-way needs assessed. 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public? No objections or public comment were received. Conclusions: The findings confirm criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met. C. Recommendation: Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the proposal to vacate a portion of Appleway Avenue subject to the following: 1. Initial work to satisfy conditions of the street vacation (File No. STV-2021-0001), including all conditions below shall be submitted to the City for review within 90 days following the effective date of approval by the City Council. 2. The vacated property shall be transferred to the owner of the abutting parcels(45201.0513 and 45202.0813) as shown on the record of survey created and recorded with Spokane County Auditor's Office pursuant to condition 11. Such property shall become part of each abutting parcel. 3. The street vacation width shall be no greater than 32 feet. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission 5TV-2021-0001 Page 2 of 4 4. The owner or applicant shall draft the legal description and exhibit for the now 15 foot by 20 foot storm drainage easement, to be dedicated to the City. The City Engineer shall receive the draft easement to review and upon acceptance by City Engineer of draft easement document, the owner or applicant shall record with Spokane County Auditor's Office. The location and recording number shall be shown on the record of survey and written documentation of the easement shall be submitted to the City prior to final acceptance and all conditions have been satisfied. 5. The owner or applicant shall establish an easement acceptable to Modem Electric Water Company for access and preservation of existing services within area to be vacated. The location and recording number shall be shown on the record of survey and written documentation of the easement shall be submitted to the City prior to final acceptance and all conditions have been satisfied. 6. The owner or applicant shall establish an easement acceptable to Century Link (Lumen) for access and preservation of existing services within area to be vacated. The location and recording number shall be shown on the record of survey and written documentation of the easement shall be submitted to the City prior to final acceptance and all conditions have been satisfied. 7. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Washington, including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be submitted by the proponent to the City Manager, or designee, for review and approval. 8. All direct and indirect costs of the title transfer of the vacated street from public to private ownership, including but not limited to, title company charges, copying fees, and recording fees, shall be paid by the proponent. The City shall not, and does not, assume any financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title. 9. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation,and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the districts. The adopting Ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. 10. The record of survey and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 11. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-202 1-0001 Page 3 of 4 Approved this 9th clay of December, 2021 ./"--"- Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST Marianne Lemons,Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-202 1-000 1 Page 4 of 4 Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall October 14,2021 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 Marianne Lemons took attendance, and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Cary Driskell, City Attorney Karl Granrath, absent Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Walt Haneke Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Bob McKinley Karen Kendall, Planner Nancy Miller Marianne Lemons, Administrative Assistant Paul Rieckers Sherri Robinson There was consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Commissioner Granrath from the meeting. III. AGENDA: Commissioner Miller moved to approve the October 14, 2021 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 September 23, 2021 minutes as presented There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Rieckers and Commissioner Beaulac abstained from the vote due to being absent at the last meeting. V. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Commission reports. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson mentioned that the application for Planning Commission appointment is available on the City website at www.spokanevalleyorg/volunteer. She stated that members with terms that expire at the end of 2021 or any members of the public interested in appointment to the Planning Commission should submit those applications to the City Clerk. VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Findings Of Fact: CTA-2020-0006: Planned Residential Development Code Text Amendment 10-14-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 Senior Planner Lori Barlow presented the Findings of Fact for CTA-2020-0006 which eliminates Chapter 19.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and will prohibit Planned Residential Developments (PRD) in residential zones. She stated that the Planning Commission held a study session at the September 9, 2021 meeting regarding the proposed CTA and a public hearing was held at the September 23, 2021 meeting. She explained that the approval of the Findings of Fact will formalize the recommendations that will be made to the City Council. Commissioner Miller moved to approve the Findings of Fact and Recommendations for CTA-2020-0006 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Rieckers and Commissioner Beaulac abstained from the vote due to being absent at the last meeting. b. Study Session: STV-2021-0001 — Street Vacation Of A Portion Of Appleway Avenue Planner Karen Kendall gave a staff presentation regarding a street application request that was received by the City on August 31, 2021 from Derek Apartments, LLC to vacate 32 feet by 237 feet of right-of-way along the south side of Appleway Avenue. She explained that the right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located approximately 526 feet east of the intersection of Appleway Avenue and Farr Road. She said that staff reviews several items when reviewing a street vacation request. This includes street connectivity, traffic volumes, development/access, and a needs assessment. Planner Kendall explained that the property owner is submitting this request for the following reasons: • No change to unimproved right-of-way or current street structure. • Excess right-of-way is no longer needed after stormwater improvement project. • The area is outside of useable right-of-way. Planner Kendall also explained that the City Appleway Stormwater Improvement project was underway in the proposed vacation area. During the design and review phase, it was determined that the City does not need the requested vacation area. However, the City does need 4,510 square feet of additional right-of-way along the frontage of adjacent parcels that are also owned by Derek Apartments, LLC. Derek Apartments has agreed to dedicate the required square footage to the City for the improvement project. The City will also request a stormwater easement be preserved for the maintenance of a drywell that is located on the vacated property. Commissioner Beaulac asked if the vacation request will affect the City's Appleway Trail extension. Ms. Kendall responded that the expansion is not located on the southside of Appleway Avenue so that project will not be affected by the street vacation. Commissioner Robinson asked about the difference in square footage between the property that is being vacated (7,584 feet) versus the amount of property being dedicated on the adjacent properties (4,510 feet). Ms. Kendall answered that the City engineering department did not express any concern regarding the difference in right-of-way dedication amounts. Commissioner Haneke asked if there are any current utility easements located on the property. Ms. Kendall answered that there are no prescribed easements on the requested vacation property. All utilities are installed in the right-of-way. Commissioner Haneke 10-14-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 asked if the City will be requesting additional easements during the approval process. Building Official Jenny Nickerson answered that there will be a required condition of approval that will include granting easements to the existing utility providers to preserve the services located in the vacated area(Modern Electric and Century Link). Ms. Kendall stated that the Public Hearing for the project will be held on October 28, 2021. IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Beaulac reminded the Commission that election ballots had been mailed and he encouraged everyone to vote. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Haneke moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:03 p.m. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. / Bob McKinley, Chair Date Signed Marianne Lemons, Secretary Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall October 28, 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 attendance, and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Cary Driskell, City Attorney Karl Granrath Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Walt Haneke Karen Kendall, Planner Bob McKinley Levi Basinger, Planner Nancy Miller Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Paul Rieckers Marianne Lemons, Administrative Assistant Sherri Robinson III. AGENDA: Commissioner Miller moved to approve the October 28, 2021 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 moved to approve the October 14, 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 stated that there will not be a Planning Commission meeting held during the month of November due to Veterans Day and Thanksgiving. Ms.Nickerson reminded the Commissioners that anyone planning to submit their application for reappointment can send the applications to City Clerk, Chris Bainbridge. Ms. Nickerson also introduced Levi Basinger as the new City Planner. VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VIIL COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing: STV-2021-0001 —Street Vacation Of A Portion Of Appleway Avenue The public hearing was opened at 6:06 p.m. 10-28-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 Planner Karen Kendall gave a staff presentation regarding a street application request that was received by the City on August 31, 2021 from Derek Apartments, LLC to vacate 32 feet by 237 feet of right-of-way along the south side of Appleway Avenue. She explained that the right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located approximately 526 feet east of the intersection of Appleway Avenue and Farr Road. Ms. Kendall noted that a notice of public hearing was posted on each end of the proposed vacated area, was posted in three locations within the City limits (City Hall, Center Place, and the Spokane Valley Library), written notice was mailed to the property owner abutting the vacation location, and it was published twice in the Valley Herald and the Exchange. Planner Kendall explained that the property owner is submitting this request for the following reasons: • No change to unimproved right-of-way or current street structure. • Excess right-of-way is no longer needed after stormwater improvement project. • The area is outside of useable right-of-way. Ms. Kendall said that the City received five utility provider comments during the application submittal. Spokane Valley Fire and Spokane County Environmental Services commented that they do not have any objection to the street vacation. Modern Electric Water Company provided a map outlining their facilities in the vacated area. Lumen (CenturyLink) stated that they also have facilities in the vacated area. Comcast commented that they do not have services within the area. The application was routed a second time to Spokane Valley staff and the utility providers. The City received six comments. The Spokane Valley Engineering Department and Lumen(CenturyLink) provided recommended conditions of approval. The Spokane Valley Stormwater Department, Spokane Valley Fire Department, Avista, and Spokane County Environmental Services reported no concerns with the vacation. Planner Kendall explained that the City Appleway Stormwater Improvement project was underway in the proposed vacation area. During the design and review phase, it was determined that the City does not need the requested vacation area. However, the City does need 4,510 square feet of additional right-of-way along the frontage of adjacent parcels that are also owned by Derek Apartments, LLC. As a City Engineering recommended condition of approval Derek Apartments has agreed to dedicate the required square footage to the City for the improvement project. The City also requested a stormwater easement be preserved for the maintenance of a drywell that is located on the vacated property. Another condition of approval is that an easement acceptable to Modern Electric Water Company and Lumen (CenturyLink) be established for access and preservation of existing services within the area to be vacated. Ms. Kendall stated that staff suggests recommending approval of the street vacation subject to the proposed conditions to the City Council. Commissioner Beaulac asked if the City sent an agency comment to Spokane Transit Authority (STA). Ms. Kendall answered that the City did reach out the STA twice during the process but did not get a response. Public hearing was closed at 6:26 p.m. Commissioner Miller moved to recommend approval of the proposed street vacation (STV-2021-0001)for Appleway Avenue to the City Council with staff conditions. There 10-28-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 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 encouraged everyone to vote. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Robinson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:30 p.m. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. / Ili z/ Bob McKinley, Chair Date Signed Marianne Lemons, Secretary Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall December 9,2021 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 attendance, and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Karl Granrath Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Walt Haneke, absent Marty Palaniuk, Planner Bob McKinley Levi Basinger, Planner Nancy Miller Taylor Dillard,Administrative Assistant Paul Rieckers Marianne Lemons, Administrative Assistant Sherri Robinson There was consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Commissioner Haneke from the meeting due to technical difficulties. III. AGENDA: Commissioner Reickers moved to approve the December 9, 2021 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 Miller moved to approve the October 28, 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 Commission reports. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson asked the Commission about the Planning Commission meetings to be held on December 23, 2021 and January 13, 2022. There was consensus from the Commission to cancel the meetings on December 23, 2021 due to the Christmas holiday and January 13, 2022 to allow time for Planning Commission appointments. VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Findings Of Fact: STV-202 1-0001 — Street Vacation Of A Portion Of Appleway Avenue 12-09-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 Building Official Jenny Nickerson presented the Findings of Fact for STV-2021-0001 — Street Vacation Of A Portion Of Appleway Avenue. She stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the street vacation request on October 28, 2021. She explained that the approval of the Findings of Fact will formalize the recommendations that were made at the public hearing. Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the Findings OfFact for the proposed street vacation (STV-2021-0001)for Appleway Avenue. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing offered for the good of the order. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Robinson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:17 p.m. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Bob McKinley, Chair Date Signed Marianne Lemons, Secretary COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING&PLANNING Spokane STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE Valley PLANNING COMMISSION FILE: STV-2021-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE: October 21, 2021 FILE NO: STV-2021-0001 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Privately initiated street vacation request to vacate 7,584 square feet of improved right-of-way on the south side of Appleway Avenue, located adjacent to parcels 45201.0513 and 45202.0813. STAFF PLANNER: Karen Kendall, Planner, Community & Public Works APPLICANT: Todd Whipple, Whipple Consulting Engineers,21 S Pines Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PROPERTY OWNER: Derek Apaitiuents, LLC, 2602 North Sullivan Road, Spokane Valley, WA 99216 PROPOSAL LOCATION: The right-of-way proposed to be vacated is approximately 526 feet east of the intersection of Appleway Avenue and Farr Road, located on the south side of Appleway Avenue adjacent to two parcels (45201.0513 and 45202.0813), further located in the NE quarter of the NW quarter and the NE quarter of the NW quarter of Section 20, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane Valley, Washington BACKGROUND: On August 31, 2021 the City received a complete street vacation application from the owner, Derek Apaitinents, LLC, to vacate 32 feet by 237 feet of right-of-way along the south side of Appleway Avenue. The right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located approximately 526 feet east of the intersection of Appleway Avenue and Farr Road, adjacent to parcels 45201.0513 and 45202.0813. The Appleway Stormwater Improvement construction project, a capital improvement project, is currently under construction. During the design and review phase, it was determined that the City does not need the 32 feet by 237 feet of right-of-way. However, it was determined that 4,510 square feet of additional right-of-way was needed along the frontage of adjacent parcels 45201.0522, 45201.0516, and 45201.0518, that are also owned by Derek Apartments, LLC. Derek Apartments is dedicating the 4,510 square feet of property to the City for the improvement project. Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2021-0001 Page 1 of 6 October 21,2021 The property owner is making the request for the following reasons: 1. No change will occur on the unimproved right-of-way, nor diminish the current street structure. 2. The area proposed to be vacated is excess right-of-way that was preserved for storm drainage or other improvements no longer needed per the current stormwater construction project along Appleway Avenue. 3. The area is outside of useable right-of-way. On September 28, 2021 the City Council passed Resolution 21-007 to set a public hearing date with the Planning Commission on October 28, 2021. The street vacation process is prescribed in chapter 22.140 SVMC and conducted following the City's process of presenting three times each to Planning Commission and City Council. APPROVAL CRITERIA: 1. SVMC—Title 22 (Street Vacations) 2. City of Spokane Valley Street Standards ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Aerial Map Exhibit 3: Application Material Exhibit 4: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 5: Agency Comments I. PROPERTY INFORMATION Size and Characteristics of The area to be vacated is undeveloped land. The proposed vacation: proposed vacation accounts for 7,584 square feet of public right-of-way. Adjacent Comprehensive Plan Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Designation: Adjacent Zoning: Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Adjacent Land Use(s): Parcels 45201.0513 and 45202.0813 are currently vacant. The owner has submitted building permits for an apartment complex. II. STAFF ANALYSIS OF STREET VACATION PROPOSAL A. COMPLIANCE WITH SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE(SVMC)22.140.030 Findings: 1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public? The area proposed to be vacated is abutting two vacant parcels owned by Derek Apartments, LLC. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved land. Within the vacated area, a 15 foot by 20-foot easement shall be created as a drainage easement reserved for drywell maintenance. Power and cable lines intersect the vacated area,and easements to preserve Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2021-0001 Page 2 of 6 October 21,2021 Modern Electric Water and Power(MEWCO) and Century Link utilities are required. The area proposed to be vacated has existing services from MEWCO and Century Link. MEWCO provided a layout of all services to the Applicant to be submitted with the application material. No comments from MEWCO were received during the comment period. Century Link comments were provided with the application submittal and formal comments were received during the comment period asking for an easement to protect existing services. The request for easements is included in the recommended conditions. The vacation is expected to have no impact on the general public. 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access? The subject ROW is currently vacant land not being utilized for public access and is not required for current or future public access. The stormwater improvements to Appleway Avenue have been installed north of the area proposed to be vacated, except for a drywell that handles drainage from Appleway Avenue, that will be preserved in an easement. Should future development require improvements, the improvements will be reviewed and right-of-way needs assessed. The City reached out to Spokane Transit Authority two times, and no comments or requirements for public use or access were requested. 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public? There is no need for a new and different public way. So long as access to the drywell for maintenance is provided, the public interest is served. The owner, Derek Apartments, LLC, of three parcels directly west of vacated area is dedicating public right-of-way as part of the stormwater improvement project along Appleway Avenue. 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists? It is not anticipated that changes would occur in the future which would require the use of the subject right-of-way for public access. Should future development require improvements, the improvements will be reviewed, and right-of-way needs assessed . 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public? No objections or public comment were received. Conclusions: The findings confirm criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met. B. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 21 SVMC—ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS The Planning Division has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(2)(i) and SVMC 21.20.040 from environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA). Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2021-0001 Page 3 of 6 October 21,2021 III.PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: No public comments were received following the notice of public hearing posted on October 6, 2021 and emailed and mailed on October 7, 2021. A Notice of Public Hearing sign was posted on the property October 6, 2021, on each end of area proposed to be vacated. Notices were posted in the Spokane Valley Public Library, City of Spokane Valley main reception area and CenterPlace Event Center on October 6, 2021. The public hearing notice was mailed to all owners immediately adjacent to the properties fronting on the portion of Appleway Avenue to be vacated on October 7, 2021. All staff and agencies were emailed the notice on October 7, 2021. Lastly,the notice was published in the Spokane Valley Herald on October 8, 2021 and October 15, 2021. Conclusion(s): SVMC 22.140.020(F) requires noticing 20 days prior to the Public Hearing for street vacation applications. The City provided 20 days' notice through the published notice in the newspaper. IV.AGENCY COMMENTS Request for comments from agencies and service providers was sent on September 7, 2021. Notice of public hearing was provided to agencies and service providers on October 7, 2021. Comments were received from the following agencies and are attached as exhibits to this staff report. Where necessary, comments have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval in Section V. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Spokane Valley Public Works - Engineering Yes 9-13-21 City of Spokane Valley Public Works— Stormwater Yes 9-8-21 City of Spokane Valley Public Works - Traffic No City of Spokane Valley Public Works—Maintenance No Spokane Valley Fire District No.1 Yes 9-8-21 Spokane County Environmental Services Yes 9-17-21 Spokane Regional Health District No Spokane Transit Authority No Modern Electric Water Company No Avista Utilities Yes 10-5-21 Century Link(Lumen) Yes 9-21-21 Comcast No Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2021-0001 Page 4 of 6 October 21,2021 Findings: The application was routed to jurisdictional agencies, utilities, and public districts for review and comment. The City's Depailment of Public Works/Engineering/Capital Projects recommends approval with conditions specifying the total width of vacation area shall not exceed 32 feet and a storm drainage easement be drafted, accepted by the City and recorded at the owners expense within the area of vacation. MEWCO has an existing transmission power pole located along the south boundary of area being vacated and a power pole with a conduit riser along the east boundary of the area being vacated. There are no proposals to move either pole. An eight-inch pipe and meter are located along the west side and in the area being vacated. Lumen, previously known as Century Link, has two cables that cross into the area being vacated just north of parcel 45202.0813 and run west. The requestor shall coordinate with each utility purveyor to secure the necessary easements to preserve the existing services. Conclusion(s): Staff concludes that jurisdictional agencies, utilities, and or public districts have no concerns regarding the proposed street vacation for a portion of Appleway Avenue so long as conditions are met. V. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS Staff concludes that STV-2021-0001 as proposed is generally consistent, or will be made consistent, through the recommended conditions of approval based on the approval criteria stated herein. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request to vacate 32 feet by 237 feet of right-of-way along the south side of Appleway Avenue adjacent to two parcels (45201.0513 and 45202.0813) subject to the following: 1. Initial work to satisfy conditions of the street vacation (File No. STV-2021-0001), including all conditions below shall be submitted to the City for review within 90 days following the effective date of approval by the City Council. 2. The vacated property shall be transferred to the owner of the abutting parcels (45201.0513 and 45202.0813) as shown on the record of survey created and recorded with Spokane County Auditor's Office pursuant to condition 11. Such property shall become part of each abutting parcel. 3. The street vacation width shall be no greater than 32 feet. 4. The owner or applicant shall draft the legal description and exhibit for the now 15 foot by 20 foot storm drainage easement, to be dedicated from the City to the City. The City Engineer shall receive the draft easement to review and upon acceptance by City Engineer of draft easement document, the owner or applicant shall record with Spokane County Auditor's Office. The location and recording number shall be shown on the record of survey and written Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2021-0001 Page 5 of 6 October 21,2021 documentation of the easement shall be submitted to the City prior to final acceptance and all conditions have been satisfied. 5. The owner or applicant shall establish an easement acceptable to Modern Electric Water Company for access and preservation of existing services within area to be vacated. The location and recording number shall be shown on the record of survey and written documentation of the easement shall be submitted to the City prior to final acceptance and all conditions have been satisfied. 6. The owner or applicant shall establish an easement acceptable to Century Link (Lumen) for access and preservation of existing services within area to be vacated. The location and recording number shall be shown on the record of survey and written documentation of the easement shall be submitted to the City prior to final acceptance and all conditions have been satisfied. 7. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Washington, including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be submitted by the proponent to the City Manager, or designee, for review and approval. 8. All direct and indirect costs of the title transfer of the vacated street from public to private ownership, including but not limited to, title company charges, copying fees, and recording fees, shall be paid by the proponent. The City shall not, and does not, assume any financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title. 9. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the districts. The adopting Ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. 10. The record of survey and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 11. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2021-0001 Page 6 of 6 October 21,2021 Exhibit 1 iI 1 11 II I ' AA ' I 1 ■WJ ttL]1J lartI rIa {II Intl _[ f• 7,7 n�°L ' 11= 111 P IIL" R -i' �- _ii ... a me MILE rWIENIE. 'al" imullmmiall111W.... al gm 1 mom 1 imr! ..1•Misme-mmimm On NI • �� !-ilk ifilligionlini • a Illua:L• ilk, dr —, a )Nersuum mitaanimillgliMi Km piatTslai immil i J ; --t il�iw■ — ■■■��'to MIMII p is min EN LIB I IIMI■ ■iIII I in :1, ]1 III P191111111.1 VL 1 STREET � Lj' I ' 4 ` ll !' VACATION 1 111 MI JI 4`i i\t,:,,, ,..._. , , .: 1 , 4 . -err i i N :ii- II•. ���' f di Owe 1 I-4 lieu li in 1MN.ul' ■■- A� „'% -- ► ice+ . ~ _ I rnrh — +�. ��iiiinIN ,i r ,' .1.._ _i J 1it�111la �i r�■f " 1 r MK, sill It ■i ■111 gums mausUIii' 1� ►if�ililli; .....- F mi 'lii m1i"JtifV!h; Project #, ZOZ/-oz2,/ RECEIVED N AUG 3 2021 L C©SV PERMIT CENTER w-G- E SUB #1 I REV. #[] s PROD #: 20-2697 iliA--irc--E STREET VACATION DATE: 0325/21 VICINITY MAP DRAWN: SMM REVIEWED: TRW E APPLEWAY BLVD SCALE: NTS SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGT❑N WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING �/ 21 SOUTH PINES ROAD E X- 1 SPOKANE VALLEY.WASHINGTON 99206 PH 509-893-2617 FAX 509-926-0227 Exhibit 2 lir WINCO FOOQ 4 a.";Pr, E i- �''iyx "� 1r.� ,, r ' + ," 'Pf 1 --i ate?.t.a .._ Mgt r,- gSTREET cr VACATION E Appleway Blvd 0 - 236.62' N 7,571.84 SF "y runassl d P, 1ram! r") 110.016' 126.6' "� . Adams 45201.0513 .. 45201.0522 o .. _ 45202.0813 r . ..,:. : oillt U kIGNEf _ Project # V`Z0Z-Pz / RECEIVED IN AUG - 3 2021 COSV PERMIT CENTER N,-s- E SUB #E j REV. # S PROJ #: 20-2697 STREET VACATION DATE: O9/O 1/2 1 S ITE MA P 41A-107E DRAWN: SMM REVIEWED: TRW E APPLEWAY BLVD SCALE: NTS SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 21 SOUTH PINES ROAD EX-2 SPOKANE VAALLEY,WASHINGTON 99206 PH 509-893-2617 FAX 509-926-0227 Exhibit 3 mSTREET VACATION APPLICATION Project 2.iY z/ ,mooSc'pokane SVMC 22.140 RECEIVED valley 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valle) WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720-5240 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-Aik er tnter,c spoka ievallev.org COW rCRIMITULlN ILK STAFF USE ONLY SUB#I I REV. # Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: PLUS #: File#: PART I — REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** ❑ Completed Application Form ❑ Application Fee ❑ Notice of Application Packet (17.80.110)—Adjacent Property(ies) ❑ Written Narrative—A written narrative describing the reasons for the proposed street vacation, the physical limits of the proposed street vacation and the public benefit of the proposed street vacation. ❑ Written Correspondence from Utility Purveyors X Telephone X Cable X Electric Other(Specify)_ X Water District X Fire District _Gas Utility X Sewer Utility ❑ Vicinity Map—Submit a map showing the general area of the proposed vacation ❑ Record of Survey, if available, for the subject street and/or alley proposed for vacation, and abutting properties, streets and alleys within 100 feet on all sides of the proposed vacation. ❑ Written Evidence of all easements, allowances or reservations, if available, pertaining to the street and/or alley proposed for vacation. PART II — APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT NAME: Todd R.Whipple, P.E., Whipple Consulting Engineers MAILING ADDRESS: 21 S. Pines Road CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99206 PHONE: 509.893.2617 FAX: CELL: EMAIL: toddw@whipplece.com PROPERTY OWNER NO. 1: Derek Apartments, LLC. MAILING ADDRESS: 2602 N. Sullivan Rd. CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99216 PL-15 V1.0 Page 1 of NINI oI STREET VACATION APPLICATION Malley.. PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL: PROPERTY OWNER NO. 2: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL: If more than two(2)abutting property owners, include information and written authorization on a separate sheet of paper for each. NAME OF STREET/ALLEY TO BE VACATED: E. Appleway Boulevard DIMENSIONS OF STREET/ALLEY TO BE VACATED: EX. ROW-150' Requesting 32' width by 226.62' length on south side to be vacated SQUARE FEET OF STREET/ALLEY TO BE VACATED: 7,571.84 SF ABUTTING TAX PARCEL NO(S).: 45202.0813, 45201.0513, 45201.0522 ADDRESSES OF ABUTTING PARCELS: All are unassigned addresses ZONING DESIGNATION: (CMU) Corridor Mixed Use THE FOLLOWING IS CRITERIA EVALUATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN FORMULATING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS SHALL BE ANSWERED IN A DETAILED MANNER; 1. HOW DOES A CHANGE OF USE OR VACATION OF THE STREET/ALLEY IMPROVE SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC? 2. IS THE STREET OR ALLEY NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE OR PUBLIC ACCESS? EXPLAIN. 3. WOULD SUBSTITUTION OF A NEW AND/OR DIFFERENT PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC? EXPLAIN. 4. HOW WILL USE OR NEED FOR THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY BE AFFECTED BY FUTURE CONDITIONS? EXPLAIN. 5. WILL EASEMENTS BE RETAINED FOR ALL UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES? THE REQUESTED VACATION IS LOCATED IN THE SERVICE AREA OF WHAT UTILITY COMPANIES.(SPECIFY)? 6. DOES THE RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDE STORMWATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES(SPECIFY)? PLEASE NOTE: PER RCW 35.79.040 (TITLE TO VACATED STREET/ALLEY), THE PROPERTY WITHIN A PUBLIC STREET OR ALLEY VACATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BELONG TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS, ONE-HALF(1/2)TO EACH. THEREFORE, PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SIGN THE STREET VACATION APPLICATION. PL-15 V1.0 Page 2 of p okane STREET VACATION APPLICATION p Valley PER RESOLUTION 07-009 OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CHARGES FOR STREET/ALLEY VACATION PURSUANT TO RCW 36.79.030 PART III - AUTHORIZATION (Signature of owner or authorized representative) (A(kipp1 t I,�6 12' y= , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthf y and to the best of my knowled e. es/ iv ature) (Date) NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 31 day of Am? f , 20A NOTARY SEAL NOTARY SIGNATURE 1‘14 J FV �h Notary Public in and for the State of Washington -� S 0 +01.44 s Residing at: O [(I�fL S / WA "u21011220 ". TA.+��y ALst. ' ^_ r %/ 11` "ss,4/23 2% G 4.7 'l9 �'4147 WASNA�v. 1 My appointmentexpires: �- 23 — 2,5 IIIiitl\\os.`�� LEGAL OWNER NO. 1 AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; , owner of the above described property do hereby authorize Whipple Consulting Engineers to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this application. LEGAL OWNER NO. 2 AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; PL-15 V1.0 Page 3 of E Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Date 08/12/2021 WCE W.O. No. 20-2697 Project # 9-11-ZDz//),V()/ RECEIVED AUG 13 2021 City of Spokane Valley COSV PERMIT CENTER Planning Department SUB # 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I REV. #J j Spokane Valley, Washington Re: Appleway Street Vacation Narrative Dear Connor, This letter is intended to serve as the project development narrative The project proposes to vacate a portion of right of way on Appleway Ave on parcels 45202.0813 and 45201.0513 for 32' to make the right of way on Appleway to be 103' wide. The size of this street vacation is 7,591 sf. The subject property is in a portion of N 1/2 Section 20, T 25 N., R 44 E., W.M. Sewer System Spokane County environmental services has no sewer lines or services located in this street vacation. Power and Water System Modern Electric Water Company has a 10" pvc pipe in Appleway Ave which looks to be outside of the Street Vacation and has an 8" pvc pipe and meter running through the future vacation into the property. The meter and fire hydrant will stay intact and will be the responsibility of the future owner if need to be moved. There is a Modern transmission power pole on the currant property line and will not be moved. Dry Utilities Comcast have no lines or services located in this street vacation. 21 South Pines Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PO Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 • Fax 509-926-0227 • WhippleCE.com • Info@WhippleCE.com Civil, Structural, Traffic, Survey, Landscape Architecture and Entitlements WCE Project # August 12, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Stormwater Appleway Frontage stormwater is unchanged and follows the curb and gutter with no impacts to the future street vacation. If you have any questions or comments in regard to this letter, please feel free to contact us at (509) 893-2617. Sincerely, ft( . P4-6(----- -t Susan M. Moss PLA Cc: File 21 South Pines Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99206 A PO Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 • Fax 509-926-0227 • WhippleCE.com • Info@WhippleCE.com Civil, Structural, Traffic, Survey, Landscape Architecture and Entitlements AWC E Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Date 08/02/2021 WOE W.O. No. 20-2697 Street Vacation CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY STREET VACATION APPLICATION-NARRATIVE Avista - Appleway Blvd. Street Vacation-PROJECT 20-2697 1. How DOES A CHANGE OF USE OR VACATION OF THE STREET/ALLEY IMPROVE SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC? THE PUBLIC WILL NOT EXPERIENCE ANY CHANGE IN USE BY THIS VACATION AS NO DIMINISHMENT OF THE STREET STRUCTURE WILL OCCUR. 2. IS THE STREET OR ALLEY NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE OR PUBLIC ACCESS? EXPLAIN. THE AREA BEING VACATED IS EXCESS RIGHT OF WAY THAT WAS PRESERVED FOR POTENTIAL STORM DRAINAGE OR OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE NO LONGER NEEDED DUE TO THE CURRENT STORM WATER MITIGATION ALONG APPLEWAY THAT IS ONGOING. 3. WOULD SUBSTITUTION OF A NEW AND/OR DIFFERENT PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC? EXPLAIN. THE PUBLIC WILL BE BETTER SERVED BY ALLOWING THE LAND CONVERTING FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE SINCE THE CITY HAS NO PLANS TO USE THIS PORTION OF RIGHT OF WAY. 4. HOW WILL USE OR NEED FOR THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY BE AFFECTED BY FUTURE CONDITIONS? EXPLAIN. THE AREA BEING VACATED IS OUTSIDE THE AREA OF USEABLE RIGHT OF WAY AND WOULD REMAIN AS A BURDEN TO THE PUBLIC IF LEFT UNUSED. 5. WILL EASEMENTS BE RETAINED FOR ALL UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES? THE REQUESTED VACATION IS LOCATED IN THE SERVICE AREA OF WHAT UTILITY COMPANIES. (SPECIFY)? YES, ALL EXISTING EASEMENTS WILL BE MAINTAINED AS THE FUTURE USE WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THESE FACILITIES. 6. DOES THE RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDE STORMWATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES(SPECIFY)? THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY IS CURRENTLY UPDATING THE STORM DRAINAGE FACILITEIS ALONG APPLEWAY BOULEVARD AND COMPLETEING THEM IN THIS AREA. NO FUTURE STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES ARE PLANNED FOR THIS AREA AS THE CURRENT PROEJCTS BRINGS THE CITY ARTERIAL UP TO CURRENT SPOKANE REGIONAL STORM WATER MANUAL AND EASTERN WASHINGTON STORM WATER MANUAL GUIDELINES FOR TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL. 21 South Pines Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PO Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 • Fax 509-926-0227 • WhippleCE.com • Info@WhippleCE.com Civil, Structural, Traffic, Survey, Landscape Architecture and Entitlements iI 1 11 II I ' AA ' I 1 ■WJ ttL]1J lartI rIa {II Intl _[ f• 7,7 n�°L ' 11= 111 P IIL" R -i' �- _ii ... a me MILE rWIENIE. 'al" imullmmiall111W.... al gm 1 mom 1 imr! ..1•Misme-mmimm On NI • �� !-ilk ifilligionlini • a Illua:L• ilk, dr —, a )Nersuum mitaanimillgliMi Km piatTslai immil i J ; --t il�iw■ — ■■■��'to MIMII p is min EN LIB I IIMI■ ■iIII I in :1, ]1 III P191111111.1 VL 1 STREET � Lj' I ' 4 ` ll !' VACATION 1 111 MI JI 4`i i\t,:,,, ,..._. , , .: 1 , 4 . -err i i N :ii- II•. ���' f di Owe 1 I-4 lieu li in 1MN.ul' ■■- A� „'% -- ► ice+ . ~ _ I rnrh — +�. ��iiiinIN ,i r ,' .1.._ _i J 1it�111la �i r�■f " 1 r MK, sill It ■i ■111 gums mausUIii' 1� ►if�ililli; .....- F mi 'lii m1i"JtifV!h; Project #, ZOZ/-oz2,/ RECEIVED N AUG 3 2021 L C©SV PERMIT CENTER w-G- E SUB #1 I REV. #[] s PROD #: 20-2697 iliA--irc--E STREET VACATION DATE: 0325/21 VICINITY MAP DRAWN: SMM REVIEWED: TRW E APPLEWAY BLVD SCALE: NTS SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGT❑N WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING �/ 21 SOUTH PINES ROAD E X- 1 SPOKANE VALLEY.WASHINGTON 99206 PH 509-893-2617 FAX 509-926-0227 Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPLEWAY STREET VACATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION STV-2021-0001 A parcel of land located in the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter, and the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of section 20, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, of the Willamette Meridian, being A portion of the existing right of way of Appleway Avenue, as shown on right of way plans for county road project 2396, pages 7 through 10, dated October 10th, 2002, and being more particularly described as follows; Beginning at the Northwest corner of that certain parcel of land shown as "Parcel B" in Book 150 of Surveys, Page 65, records of Spokane County, Washington. Said point being station 141+34.97, 86.00 feet right of centerline, per said county right of way plans; Thence North 0`05'05" East along an extension of the West line of said Parcel B, a distance of 32.85 feet, to station 141+35.16, 54.00 feet right; Thence along said line, 54.00 feet offset from said centerline, said line being a 32 foot offset to the existing South right of way of said Appleway Avenue, North 89'45'25" East, a distance of 236.78 feet, to station 143+71.94, 54.00 feet right. Said point being along a North —South right of way jog in said Appleway Avenue; Thence South 00'14'35" East along said right of way, a distance of 32.00 feet, to station 143+71.94, 86.00 feet right. Said point being an angle point in the existing right of way; Thence South 89'45'25" West along the existing right of way, a distance of 236.97 feet, to the True Point of Beginning and the terminus of this described parcel. Said parcel contains 7,579.99 square feet, more or less. 21 South Pines Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99206 1 PO Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 •Fax 509-926-0227 • WhippleCE.corrm • Info@WhippleCE.com RIGHT OF WAY VACATION EXHIBIT LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST 1 /4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1 /4, AND THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTWEST 1 /4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH, RANGE 44 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN oo 0 0 0 o + + © + CV 0) V _ N89'45'25"E APPLEWAY AVE. AREA OF PROPOSED 39' STA:141+35.16 VACATION 54' 15' - OFF:54.00'R 86, STA:143+71.94 OFF:54.00'R N 89'45'25'E 236.7$' tir -T a�i S00'14'35"E 32' , 79.99 SO FT. 32.00' "236.97( V APN 45201.0522 APN 45202.0813 APN 45201.0513 STA:143+71.94 STA:141+34.97 PARCEL B AS SHOWN OFF:86.00'R I N OFF:86.00'R IN BOOK 150 OF SURVEYS, ;,� PAGE 65 EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY o APN 45202.0801 ;n PER COUNTY ROAD PROJECT 2396 o RIGHT OF WAY PLANS. SHEETS 7 THROUGH 10 W E o DATED 10/21/2002 S I PROJ #: 20-2e97 RIGHT OF WAY VACATION L / (C DATE: Si 1 9/2021 EXHIBIT B E DRAWN: DAC APPROVED: DAC WMIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS SCALE: 1"=S❑' SECTION Z❑ CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING T 25 N, R 44 E, W.M. 12528 NORTH SULLIVAN ROAD SPOKANE VALLEY.WASHINGTON 99216 P1-I:509-893-2617 FAX 509-926-0227 WINCO FOODS tntirSAM;-'141=, fi kj L V r Illik .. ',WWI ri/7 i , if T. „.... • S-J T�P'1�.F. 2 3 STREET cc VACATION E Appleway Blvd 0 In 236.62' Unasegne 4 . ... iv 7,579.99 SF cI x "1 110.016' 126.6' ., . . .-- ] dr-s Y� 45201.0513 45201.0522 • . .:� • :.h; 45202.0813 '; asaoros. U • -.f • • . , �� ' K , <JE 3 7LE4)1.1,kvE g52.'.OF,iii 5201.052 N W E S #: 2D-2697 STREET VACATION PRO,' DATE: DB/10/21 SITE MAP 4141% DRAWN: S M M REVIEWED: TRW E APPLEWAY BLV© WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS SCALE: NTS SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 21 SOUTH PINESEX-2 SPOKANE VALLEY WASHINGTON 99206 PH: 509-893-2617 FAX 509-926-0227 N. WNCO FOODS a 57 t-1,- f Y ( Ill- ` ,*wr$ ...nat l - MEWCO 8" MAINLINE EXTENDS .��:__ :,; ems':_ MEWCO 10" MAINLINE UNDER SIDEWALK 4 .':;'_`' '- STREET irwt VACATI D N E Appleway Blvd nl 7�579.99 SF N ") 11 0.016 126.6' No 7 \\_ MEWCO POWER POLE AND CONDUIT RISER MEWCO TRANSMISION POER POLE 45202.0813 45201.0513 45201.0522 N I W-G- E S PROD #: 20-2697 STREET VACATION ZiWG DATE: DB/1❑/2 1 UTILITY M A P DRAWN: 5MM REVIEWED: TRW E APPLEWAY BLVD SCALE: NTS SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON wANOTE CONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 21 SOUTH PINES ROAD EX-3 SPOKANE VALLEY.WASHINGTON 99206 PH. 509-893-2617 FAX 509-926-0227 Project kW-Z.7:177-27/Z' RECEIVED AUG - 3 2021 COSV PERMIT CENTER SUB #1 I REV. #1 I Depner, Colin <CDEPNER@spokanecou C/17 > - nty.org> i)okane Ciounty Environmental Seivicei -CT Ath nnor cdepner@spokanecounty,org . ewer Permit Application Spokane County, WA ESPlanReview@spokanecounty.org From: Collins,Ireland To: Susan Moss Cc: Austin Fuller Subject: RE:2697 Appleway Street Vacation Date: Monday,August 2,2021 10:13:41 AM Attachments: image005,onq image006.ong imaae007.onq jmaoe008.ona imaae009.onq Hi Susan, We have a manhole on the north side of the street with one cable in, one cable out and going underneath Appleway Rd then continuing to the West. We also have 4 inch conduit running the same route. Otherwise, anything we have will run on the North side of Appleway Rd. I have highlighted in blue on the screenshot. Thanks IRELAND COLLINS I Assigner Ireland.collins@centyurylink.com 206.806.7217 MOUNTAIN, LTD. \V\Vw.\10L.N1,\IN! 1 D,conm EGE,AA. LUMEN' From:Susan Moss<smoss@whipplece.com> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 2:06 PM To: Collins, Ireland <Ireland.Collins@lumen.com> Cc:Austin Fuller<afuller@whipplece.com> Subject: 2697 Appleway Street Vacation Hello Ireland, I am in the process of submitting a Street Vacation for a portion of Appleway Ave, shown on the attached documents. Please send any comments of Lumin utilities in or near this Street Vacation. Please contact me if you need more information. Thank you for your help. Best Regards, Susan M Moss, PLA Landscape Architect - rxi - / • • 4 3 i IVAii, l..fr . 1 f lot1 wu• tp tist n - i-1 u v�` �`k ti axt�,,11 lit rd. 1. - Lr7 G '7 } .' - s SINN i l' e'l.i i'''' ili. -_iI • q• •i i y L _. - t i Y h gppp„ LLtl f sy -'I�flil 0, N r- • '-Ir r j. _ lit a. i ` t 4Y iy ice• J. � g 3 , i ,' _�, OaLINVis (<-) Reply all ili Delete ® Junk Block RE: ?6 7-Streeet Vacation Engles, Ryan <Ryan Engles@comcast.c < ) ;o= am> Ryan Engles New build Account Executive 1 Market Development Business Development Group Comcast ryan engles@comcast.com • OUSiNESS OEYEtOPMENI ' die, COMCAST lo: ;_ 10" PVC 11999} MEWCo 10" MAINLINE, UNDER SIDEWALK _____ MEWCo 8" __ ---E Appleway Blvd-- -- - -- MAINLINE EXTENDS 10" PVC (1999) ---___ UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC w CONDUIT, STOPS SHORT OF ////-1 PROPERTY LINE B,� c�FEEDER" r1 7.M13 a 54;7S:EV.--0- N M 13455-55 FT 11 _ MEWCo POWER POLE AND ,.,.r.i iic CONDUIT RISER(s), NOT . • �0 WITHIN VACATION = 3332 POLYGON, BUT NEAR y50 kVA- 120/20: PROPERTY LINE w 2099 w MEWCo •• TRANSMISSIONtil . :��Ili POWER POLE ‘ ‘ �o 1 u► . . . t. » m MODERN MEWCo - STREET VACATION - UTILITIES Electric Water Company W 47- ' nllably a.r r.iy the SvuY.ary VaIIY aloe•i9C Date: /1 T!j 1/202 1 5 Susan Moss From: Morrell, Austin <MorrellA@SpokaneValleyFire.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 9:27 AM To: Susan Moss Subject: RE: [External] Fw: 2697-Street Vacation Hello Susan, We would have no comments on this street vacation. We would do our typical review once building permits are submitted for the future projects. If there are any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, e t.& '/ o 1e& Fire Protection Engineer(EIT) Spokane Valley Fire Department Office: 509-892-4121;Cell: 509-370-5511 Email: morrella@spokanevalleyfire.com From: Susan Moss<smoss@whipplece.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 9:20 AM To: Morrell, Austin <MorrellA@SpokaneValleyFire.com> Subject: Fw: [External] Fw: 2697-Street Vacation Hello Austin, Can you provide comments on this Right of Way vacation? I will forward all comments to the City of Spokane Valley once I have all purveyors' reply's. Please see the attached pdf. Please see the attached pdf. Best Regards, Susan M Moss, PLA Landscape Architect [WhippleCE.com]Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Phone: 509.893.2617 I Fax: 509.926.0227 1 From: Susan Moss<smoss@whipplece.com> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 9:34 AM To: Luse, John <John.Luse@avistacorp.com> Cc: Austin Fuller<afuller@whipplece.com>; Ben Goodmansen <bgoodmansen@whipplece.com> Subject: [External] Fw: 2697-Street Vacation Hello John, Please see the attachments referring to a street vacation along E Appleway Blvd east of Farr Rd. Please review your files and send easement documents within 100' of this project. I will forward to the City of Spokane Valley. This would only be for natural gas since this is in Modern Water and Electric district. Please contact me if you have any questions and thank you for your help. Best Regards, Susan Moss USE CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER Do not click on links or open attachments that are not familiar. For questions or concerns, please e-mail phishing@avistacorp.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s)and may contain confidential andlor privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or an agent of the intended recipient. or if this message has been addressed to you in error. please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. 3 Exhibit 4 "Id11 Community& Public Works Department ley Building&Planning Division NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING THE SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY&PUBLIC WORKS IS SENDING THIS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 400 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT RECORDS FROM THE SPOKANE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OR TREASURER'S OFFICE. Hearing Date: Thursday,October 28,2021 beginning at 6:00 p.m. The required public hearing for Street Vacation Application STV-2021-0001 shall be conducted before the Spokane Valley Planning Commission in such manner as provided by law on October 28,2021,beginning at 6:00 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as practical. Meeting Details: Join Zoom meeting by computer, smartphone,or tablet at: A link to the Zoom meeting will be provided on the agenda and posted to the City's webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/planningcommission. Application/Description of Proposal: Request to vacate 32 feet by 237 feet along the southside of Appleway Avenue adjacent to parcels 45201.0513 and 45202.0813. The right-of-way is 7,584 square feet in size. Applicant: Todd Whipple,Whipple Consulting Engineers,21 S Pines Road, Spokane Valley WA 99206 Owner: Derek Apartments,LLC,2602 North Sullivan Road, Spokane Valley,WA 99216 Location of Proposal: The right-of-way proposed to be vacated is approximately 526 feet east of the intersection of Appleway Avenue and Fan Road,located on the south side of Appleway Avenue adjacent to two parcels(45201.0513 and 45202.0813), further located in the NE quarter of the NW quarter and the NE quarter of the NW quarter of Section 20, Township 25 North, Range 44 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane Valley,Washington Approval Criteria: Section 22.140 (Street Vacations) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC); Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code; the City of Spokane Valley Street Standards; the Regional Stormwater Manual; and the Spokane Regional Health District regulations. Hearing Process and Appeals: The Planning Commission will conduct the remote hearing pursuant to the rules of procedure adopted in SVMC Title 18 (Boards and Authorities). The public is encouraged to submit written comments prior to the hearing by sending the comments to Karen Kendall, 10210 E Sprague Ave, Spokane Valley,WA 99206,or email to kkendall@spokanevalley.org. Comments will need to be submitted no later than 4:00 PM on October 28,2021 in order for them to be received and prepared for submission into the record. Comments received will be entered into the record at the time of the public participation portion of the Public Hearing. If you would like to deliver comments to City Hall you may contact City Hall at(509) 720-5000 prior to 4:00 PM on October 28,2021 to schedule an appointment for delivery and allow staff to scan and include in the report. Comments received through US Mail will be included if they are received prior to the hearing. All interested persons may testify at the remote public hearing via the zoom meeting address and/or phone number. Interested persons will need to sign up to speak no later than 4:00 p.m. on October 28,2021 at the link provided in the agenda posted at the link referenced above.Use the link above to sign up for oral public comments. The link will direct you to directions to sign up for oral public comments. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person. Written comments and documents may only be submitted prior to the hearing. Any appeal of the Planning Commission's decision will be based on the record established before the Planning Commission, pursuant to SVMC 17.90(Appeals). The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. Environmental Determination: The Planning Division has reviewed the proposal/project and has determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 and City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC); Title 21 (Environmental Controls) from environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA). Staff Report and Inspection of File: A staff report will be available for inspection seven(7)calendar days before the hearing. The staff report and application file may be inspected by logging on to the Spokane Valley SmartGov Public Portal at this web address: ci-spokanevalley-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/Public/Home. Go to applications and search for STV-2021-0001 to review or download the staff report. If you have any questions, please contact Karen Kendall,Planner,Building& Planning Division, at kkendall@spokanevallev.org. Exhibit 5 Karen Kendal! From: Glenn Ritter Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 8:58 AM To: Karen Kendall Cc: Chad Riggs; Gloria Mantz;Jared Fisher Subject: RE: Review requested of a street vacation on Appleway Avenue (STV-2021-0001) Attachments: 0317-PlanSheet24-CrapoROW-DerekApts.pdf Good morning Karen, Department of Public Works/Engineering/Capital Projects hereby approves this vacation request with the following conditions: 1. They correct the westerly dimension of the vacation area to match all other"offset" dimensions,at 32.00 feet and not 32.85 feet. The new right-of-way line should be parallel to the existing and the centerline. 2. They draft the legal description and exhibit for the new 15'x 20' Storm Drainage Easement,to be dedicated from the City to the City prior to vacation, as shown on attached which was sent to WCE previously. Once the City reviews and approves the easement documents,they will need to record them and send a conformed copy for our files. 3. They dedicate any other easements that may be required for the various utilities. Let us know if you have any questions. Thanks, Glenn From: Karen Kendall<kkendall@spokanevalley.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:31 PM To: Bill Helbig<bhelbig@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips<cphillips@spokanevalley.org>;Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org>; Shane Arlt<sarlt@spokanevalley.org>; Glenn Ritter<gritter@spokanevalley.org>; 'Spokane Valley Fire Disttict'<inspections@spokanevalleyfire.com>; 'Spokane Regional Health District'<psavage@srhd.org>; Knudson, Chris<CKnudson@spokanecounty.org>; 'Spokane Transit Authority'<kotterstrom@spokanetransit.com>; 'Avista Dave Byus'<dave.byus@avistacorp.com>;Weingart, LuAnn<LuAnn.Weingart@avistacorp.com>;'CenturyLink' <Karen.Stoddard@centurylink.com>;'Comcast'<bryan_richardson@cable.comcast.com>; Lange, Connor <Connor.Lange@avistacorp.com>; Depner, Colin<CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org>; Megan Bickley <MBICKLEY@SpokaneCounty.org>; Bruner,JenniferS.<JBRUNER@SpokaneCounty.org>; 'esplanreview@spokanecounty.org'<esplanreview@spokanecounty.org>;jbeesley@modernelectricwater.com; Ryan_Engles@comcast.com; Bart_Sistek@comcast.com; ireland.collins@lumen.com Cc:Chad Riggs<criggs@spokanevalley.org>; Morrell,Austin <MorrellA@SpokaneValleyFire.com> Subject: RE: Review requested of a street vacation on Appleway Avenue (STV-2021-0001) Corrected error on routing memo. Please refer to attached document for review. Thanks! Hi all, Please review the attached application material for a proposed street vacation of 23 feet along Appleway Avenue,just east of Appleway Avenue and Farr Road. Submit written comments via email, facsimile, or mail to Karen Kendall. Please note:Any conditions or easements required to preserve utilities or access in this area shall be noted and required in the written comments submitted. COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: Friday,September 24, 2021 @ 5:00 p.m. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 1 Best regards, Karen Kendall I Planner 10210 E.Sprague Avenue ; Spokane Valley,WA 99206 (509)720-5026 I kkendall@spokanevalley.org Spokane .0,0ValleyA This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act,chapter 42.56 RCW. 2 I �.8 Y _ i b f _i .II j 10000-ovoao-Q-o 8 , � 1. M1 .-L _ ., - e o I - .9- - -- -,. =min--,,_•___ " ,, ..`. -- - .. ,-P,1. M.r-�4-f\ • -_a/v. -_ _- - • f:e �e-- -_ -_- II/Y� R76 - FENLE.SF.-ii,. �.n _ - - __ 1 •. .• - sTA19.ax.Jarl - .1.. --.Pn.i_, 1 . - .`- .._ ._.- _ =a,.- -_-- -•.- --1 -- 4 ep •ems'.'.' . te • :. 1.- -.--, -..; � _ • - STA...JK1--csvaAagv-3i-�c ___ f■ � SWALESA�` ` _ SYIPIE]S A It' SWAlE 3C11 6 E O -�/.� 1 - - City's Appleway project is nowBTAx,.06.Jri •-1 = 0 - 1561E INLET TYPE IF OI n r STA19•>7,X1.- -- ,1 -STAx0.91,x6i '^ -5 M z 1 City staff will support -0r''. not installing driveway approach - - - -_ m BAR.T..xel sAu '' 6 __ z rn 1•a recommendation to t.. _1E•0J.0 nor thickened sidewalk section. 2^'60 m'a� m m r City Council for Apt.developer to remove curb BTA19 D.MR 570.20.77.Jlo- m BTA,T.J,.JDR -IBo+,GBa i1-vacation of excess - O- - 16.1,� -and gutter by sawcutting along - -O- - - -O- -c-am ---p - - m 1•ROW(-7,500+1-s.f.) 0 lip to install"radius"approach. _ D 11 N =Illir1,2 V, -: _ in J E 0 N1 1 Q I 1aEasement(D DW Er PE t(1n� SWALE 4A WALE 413.1 5'Border c #7074646) T �'�'�'�'�'��w�����'•�•-•�>..� a/��S'`B`� i� City requires a 15' O ��;•;•; ;�•;�•;�•;�•;�•;� � ��� '������> drainage easement • ♦_♦_♦_♦.♦_•. ♦,♦_♦_♦A,,♦ ♦,•,.,♦,i,♦,♦ ♦,♦. I reserved for drywell maintenance. STORM STRUCTURE SCHED O STORM PIPE SCHED o KEYNOTES METAL FRAMES GRATE(9WP1 QIS:9IO OIL ttKl P. 9LP,IP PVCO200% 0CMINLET TYPE I,COSVST0 PLM 8.110(YAOTH•P UNLESS NOTED) SD•IE BM20.61x1 J21SL 1APPLEWAY BM) ,o.p ECA 1040A0,79:18R(APPLEWAY BLL'D PAA JO L.P.10.PVC O IWIL A B C 0 F INLET IE2W9A9(7 DPq CBI NM MIN O CURB INLET TYPE x.COW STD PUN 8.1 II +1 PROPOSm 610E1YALR TYPE IE,..N(1P PVC 8) WS 61F.17PVC O9}O% EMSDNLl CZARS rt� �OR PEDEBTWAN PATH TYPE A METH MAME 6 SOLIDUW EMBDNOCB TYPE PAC ELF,IP CVO OM. O CGTEOQWN NNffEIICE VAMTOP MIL II'BEHND RETNNwO WALL) Ala 5174 ETA 11•15.60.07 R yVPIEwAY BLVD) M. 8941•2650.2917 RIFPPLEWAY DMZ e® ... I 1 OW IE JWD21(POPq CID RIM 1996.13 PAD 47 L.P.VT OP•0.50% O SEGYENTA1 RETNNNG WALL 1E 10117.7)(I09P W) 804.4 METAL FRAME10MTE 15LAJry 0 CONNECT TO E11511NG CATCH BASIN ey INLET STA 1T•b,10JP R 9wREwAY BLVD Ton EITAJU.662J QML(APPLEWAY UMTYYE1 NE MST.ORYWELL ,, SWALE DATA IE 19w.E6 P•Qvq DWI law 66 CONNECT TO is 19991x(I NW0 P PVC B) OP REPLACE GRATED UDVATH NONSJP SW000 START END SDAB META.70 OR0'GRATE 18WP) SWALE9 STATION STATION A B C D E INLET 'TA I6.TL69,15, R BLVD) rYPE1 IE 1999.5916.OPq ABBREVIATIONS JA 16055 11.75 I 4 42 JE 1E•xo Q. I 1 1 -2 METAL FRAME 1 ORME P.M POW FACE OF WALL SEGMENTAL 3 06fT waoan.JBa•RpwltwAY MVO) 5V6 START WALL Ew DO WALL NOTES AC 19.as x1.ST 1 1 1 RETAINING xa L LL ttPE1 1E1997.79(10-17PM BC BEGIN CURVE M i- BOA9INLET-CONQ9ETE BNIET TYPE I.QTY STANDARD PLW89.11J I5.63 1T•RI 1 4 1 4 , 5 METAL FRAIEELGRATE IBI'PAE9) EC rOOTED 'VE W71111.M ORATE TYPE J,Qtt WM.RO PIAN&172 48.1 16.J0 20•E 1 1 1 1 2 LLI S 60A0 BM 20.81,94 Ab'R(APPL£VAY BLVD) FO E.CUGRAOE INLET 1014.9.12 57 START FENCE 2 6D6CB" VA..TOSIDEWALK-SIDEWALK INLET ASSEMBLY PER DETML IED SEGMENTAL IB] A.M x5•u 1 1 1 RETMNTA i I TYPE 1E1097.72 DPW 1E1997A0 Dr OPq AP ANGLE POIM EF ENS FENCE tt 1 BWECB•GCH T BASIN. Pf 1.Ott G PL AN WALL Q 999�, l MATE GRATE TYPE I(SYPAl9).Qtt STANDARD PITH slx1. q 6, METAL ATE TYPE S(SUMP).OTT STANDARD PLA8.1x2 W i 'Eij E, SDa OW-PRECAST DiYWWL PLACED IN SWALE OR PAVEMENT C�c SECTION Ott WM.=PLAIT B10168109 TYPE NOTED ON PLANS. 7. 6046 OUR RM ALL-STO PIPE TO MALE MITN SPLASH PAD P.OETML 0 q19 0 ALL CATOMBASAJR MC INLETS MOM BE INSTALLED PER GTQI BASIN 10 x0 10 S INLEYINBTALUTION.TYPE 1 OR DOAUPI1CT200 Qtt BfANLMAO IL KM98.117. 1'•]O PPET Z I 9. STATION MO 0.8.8 ARE TO MAMA,BLVD...au OTTIERAss O I NOT. i U REVISIONS ��u.1;Y DRAWN BY �I.E_ 0317 APPLEWAY STORMWATER PROJECT SHEET I 1I NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY ^•,,, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY c • nn fl - -i COMMUNITY&PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DESIGNED BY --_ STORMWATER PLANS 24 i 1_ - J LJ][7® le 10210 EAST SPRAGUE AVENUE STA.16+00 TO 22+00 ,, Walley" SPOKANE VALLEY,WA.99206 CONFORMED SET •Know what's below Allj,05A �� d Call before you dig. 6/10/21 (509)720.5000 JUNE 10.2031 Karen Kendall From: Chad Phillips Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 8:33 AM To: Karen Kendall; Bill Helbig;Jerremy Clark; Shane Arlt; Glenn Ritter; 'Spokane Valley Fire Disttict; 'Spokane Regional Health District'; Knudson, Chris; 'Spokane Transit Authority'; 'Avista Dave Byus';Weingart, LuAnn; 'CenturyLink'; 'Comcast; Lange, Connor; Depner, Colin; Megan Bickley; Bruner,JenniferS.; 'esplanreview@spokanecounty.org'; jbeesley@modernelectricwater.com; Ryan_Engles@comcast.com; Bart_Sistek@comcast.com; ireland.collins@lumen.com Cc: Chad Riggs; Morrell, Austin Subject: RE: Review requested of a street vacation on Appleway Avenue (STV-2021-0001) Hi Karen OK Stormwater. This design/construction of current project along Appleway accounts for this vacation. Thanks Chad Chad Phillips,P.E. I Engineer,Stormwater 10210 E.Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley,WA 99206 (509)720-5013 I cphillips@spokanevallev.org Spokane ..Malley, From: Karen Kendall<kkendall@spokanevalley.org> Sent:Tuesday,September 7, 20213:31 PM To: Bill Helbig<bhelbig@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips<cphillips@spokanevalley.org>;Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org>;Shane Arlt<sarlt@spokanevalley.org>; Glenn Ritter<gritter@spokanevalley.org>; 'Spokane Valley Fire Disttict'<inspections@spokanevalleyfire.com>; 'Spokane Regional Health District' <psavage@srhd.org>; Knudson, Chris<CKnudson@spokanecounty.org>; 'Spokane Transit Authority'<kotterstrom@spokanetransit.com>; 'Avista Dave Byus'<dave.byus@avistacorp.com>; Weingart, LuAnn<LuAnn.Weingart@avistacorp.com>; 'CenturyLink' <Karen.Stoddard@centurylink.com>; 'Comcast'<bryan_richardson@cable.comcast.com>; Lange, Connor <Connor.Lange@avistacorp.com>; Depner, Colin<CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org>; Megan Bickley <MBICKLEY@SpokaneCounty.org>; Bruner,JenniferS.<JBRUNER@SpokaneCounty.org>; 'esplanreview@spokanecounty.org' <esplanreview@spokanecounty.org>;jbeesley@modernelectricwater.com; Ryan_Engles@comcast.com; Bart_Sistek@comcast.com; ireland.collins@lumen.com Cc: Chad Riggs<criggs@spokanevalley.org>; Morrell,Austin<MorrellA@SpokaneValleyFire.com> Subject: RE: Review requested of a street vacation on Appleway Avenue(STV-2021-0001) Corrected error on routing memo. Please refer to attached document for review. Thanks! Hi all, 1 Please review the attached application material for a proposed street vacation of 23 feet along Appleway Avenue,just east of Appleway Avenue and Farr Road. Submit written comments via email,facsimile, or mail to Karen Kendall. Please note: Any conditions or easements required to preserve utilities or access in this area shall be noted and required in the written comments submitted. COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: Friday,September 24, 2021 @ 5:00 p.m. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Karen Kendall I Planner 10210 E.Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley,WA 99206 (509)720-5026 I kkendall@spokanevalley.org Spokane .Malley This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act,chapter 42.56 RCW. 2 .,.>. i Acc,„ ?Fa Pursuing Excell nc' �PY � Vl oa � CFAI , BRYAN COLLINS,FIRE CHIEF FIREDEVr 2120 N.Wilbur Spokane Valley,WA 99206 (509)928-1700 Main September 8, 2021 (509)892 4125 Fax spokanevalleyfire.com Karen Kendall City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: STV-2021-0001 Technical Review Street Vacation of Appleway Avenue across frontage of 45201.0513 &45202.0803 The Spokane Valley Fire Department has completed a review for the above referenced project and takes no exception to the"Street Vacation" as proposed. All specific fire department requirements shall be conditioned on associated commercial permits. If there are any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Xelei Traci Harvey �/ Fire Protection Engineer Spokane Valley Fire Department Karen Kendall From: Dompier, Dawn <ddompier@spokanecounty.org> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2021 8:06 AM To: Karen Kendall Cc: toddw@whipplece.com Subject: STV-2021-0001 Attachments: ES COMMENTS - STV-2021-0001.pdf [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley.Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Please see the attached comments for the subject project. Thank You. Regards, Engineering Tech III Environmental Services 509.477.7681 1 To kkendall@spokanevalley.org From: ddompier@spokanecounty.org Date: 9-17-2021 Subject:STV-2021-0001 Project Name: Stage: Vacation of ROW/Street Description: Site Address: I I FA01 The Spokane County Environmental Services Department has no objection to the finalization of the above mentioned project. Karen Kendall From: Weingart, LuAnn <LuAnn.Weingart@avistacorp.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 11:19 AM To: Karen Kendall Subject: RE: [External] RE: Review requested of a street vacation on Appleway Avenue (STV-2021-0001) [EXTERNAL]This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley.Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Karen, I have reviewed the proposed vacation on behalf of Avista and have no comments or concerns. Our relocated gas line in Appleway still remains in ROW. Thank you, LuAnn Weingart Real Estate Representativ_ =urii/STA' Office 509.495.8536 Cell 509-220-2645 From: Karen Kendall<kkendall@spokanevalley.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:31 PM To: Bill Helbig<bhelbig@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips<cphillips@spokanevalley.org>;Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org>; Shane Arlt<sarlt@spokanevalley.org>; Glenn Ritter<gritter@spokanevalley.org>; 'Spokane Valley Fire Disttict'<inspections@spokanevalleyfire.com>; 'Spokane Regional Health District'<psavage@srhd.org>; Knudson, Chris<CKnudson@spokanecounty.org>; 'Spokane Transit Authority'<kotterstrom@spokanetransit.com>; Byus, Dave<Dave.Byus@avistacorp.com>; Weingart, LuAnn<LuAnn.Weingart@avistacorp.com>; 'CenturyLink' <Karen.Stoddard@centurylink.com>; 'Comcast'<bryan_richardson@cable.comcast.com>; Lange, Connor <Connor.Lange@avistacorp.com>; Depner,Colin <CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org>; Megan Bickley <MBICKLEY@SpokaneCounty.org>; Bruner,JenniferS.<JBRUNER@SpokaneCounty.org>; 'esplanreview@spokanecounty.org'<esplanreview@spokanecounty.org>;jbeesley@modernelectricwater.com; Ryan_Engles@comcast.com; Bart_Sistek@comcast.com; ireland.collins@lumen.com Cc: Chad Riggs<criggs@spokanevalley.org>; Morrell,Austin<MorrellA@SpokaneValleyFire.com> Subject: [External] RE: Review requested of a street vacation on Appleway Avenue (STV-2021-0001) 1 Corrected error on routing memo. Please refer to attached document for review. Thanks! Hi all, Please review the attached application material for a proposed street vacation of 23 feet along Appleway Avenue,just east of Appleway Avenue and Farr Road. Submit written comments via email,facsimile, or mail to Karen Kendall. Please note:Any conditions or easements required to preserve utilities or access in this area shall be noted and required in the written comments submitted. COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: Friday,September 24, 2021 @ 5:00 p.m. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Karen Kendall I Planner 1.0210 E.Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley,WA 99206 (509)720-5026 I kkendall@spokanevalley.org okane.000 P Valle y This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act,chapter 42.56 RCW. USE CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER Do not click on links or open attachments that are not familiar. For questions or concerns, please e-mail phishing@avistacorp.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s)and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or an agent of the intended recipient,or if this message has been addressed to you in error,please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. 2 Karen Kendal! From: Stoddard, Karen <Karen.Stoddard@lumen.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:09 AM To: Karen Kendall Subject: RE: Review requested of a street vacation on Appleway Avenue (STV-2021-0001) [EXTERNAL] This email originated outside the City of Spokane Valley.Always use caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Karen, Lumen has cable facilities in the right-of-way and would like to retain utility easement rights. These rights should provide for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction as needed. Thanks, Karen Karen Stoddard Capacity Provisioning Specialist _ 1020 E Cataldo Ave, Spokane, WA 99202 L U M c N. tel: 509-666-8534 Karen.Stoddard a(�lumen.com From: Karen Kendall<kkendall@spokanevalley.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:31 PM To: Bill Helbig<bhelbig@spokanevalley.org>; Chad Phillips<cphillips@spokanevalley.org>;Jerremy Clark <jclark@spokanevalley.org>; Shane Arlt<sarlt@spokanevalley.org>; Glenn Ritter<gritter@spokanevalley.org>; 'Spokane Valley Fire Disttict'<inspections@spokanevalleyfire.com>; 'Spokane Regional Health District'<psavage@srhd.org>; Knudson, Chris<CKnudson@spokanecounty.org>; 'Spokane Transit Authority'<kotterstrom@spokanetransit.com>; 'Avista Dave Byus' <dave.byus@avistacorp.com>;Weingart, LuAnn<LuAnn.Weingart@avistacorp.com>;Stoddard, Karen <Karen.Stoddard@lumen.com>; 'Comcast' <bryan_richardson@cable.comcast.com>; Lange, Connor <Connor.Lange@avistacorp.com>; Depner, Colin<CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org>; Megan Bickley <MBICKLEY@SpokaneCounty.org>; Bruner,JenniferS.<JBRUNER@SpokaneCounty.org>; 'esplanreview@spokanecounty.org'<esplanreview@spokanecounty.org>;jbeesley@modernelectricwater.com; Ryan_Engles@comcast.com; Bart_Sistek@comcast.com;Collins, Ireland<Ireland.Collins@lumen.com> Cc: Chad Riggs<criggs@spokanevalley.org>; Morrell,Austin<MorrellA@SpokaneValleyFire.com> Subject: RE: Review requested of a street vacation on Appleway Avenue (STV-2021-0001) Corrected error on routing memo. Please refer to attached document for review. Thanks! Hi all, Please review the attached application material for a proposed street vacation of 23 feet along Appleway Avenue,just east of Appleway Avenue and Farr Road. Submit written comments via email,facsimile, or mail to Karen Kendall. Please note:Any conditions or easements required to preserve utilities or access in this area shall be noted and required in the written comments submitted. COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: Friday,September 24, 2021 @ 5:00 p.m. 1 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Karen Kendall I Planner 10210 E.Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley,WA 99206 (509)720-5026 I kkendall@spokanevallev.org Spokane ��Val�ey, This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act,chapter 42.56 RCW. This communication is the property of Lumen Technologies and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments. 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO.07-009 RESOLUTION ADOPTING POLICIES FOR IMPOSING VACATION CHARGES PURSUANT TO RCW 36.79.030 WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has the authority to vacate roadways and right of ways pursuant to RCW 36.79.030; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has the authority to charge for said vacations in an amount that does not exceed 50% of the full appraised value or for the full appraised value of the area vacated where the street or alley had been part of a dedicated right of way for over twenty five years or if the property was acquired at public expense; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley wishes to establish a policy by which they determine the amount to be charged the benefited property owners of any such vacation. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING POLICY: SECTION 1. Policy. I. The cost for property received as a result of a vacation initiated by an adjacent property owner shall equal fifty per cent (50%) of the appraised value of the vacated property received. a. The appraised value shall be the same as the value of an equivalent portion of property adjacent to the proposed vacation as established by the Spokane County Assessor at the time the matter is considered by the City Council. b. If the value of adjacent properties differs, then the average of the adjacent property values per square foot will be used. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), the applicant shall pay the above- described fee only to the extent that it exceeds the cost charged by the City of Spokane Valley to initiate the vacation process, exclusive of any surveying or engineering costs that may be incurred by the applicant. 3. This charge shall be paid subsequent to council action and prior to recording the vacation with the Spokane County Auditor. 4. The City Council shall reserve the right to deviate from this policy upon the adoption of written findings of fact that demonstrate that the public interest shall be best served by an alternate approach. SECTION 2. This Resolution shall be in full force and effective immediately upon adoption. Resolution 07-009 Street Vacation Charges Page 1 of 2 Adopted this 10th day of July, 2007. i w atasz Diana Wilhite, Mayor ATTEST: hristine Bainbridge, Ci Clerk Approved a�.to Form: ,t Office the City ttorney Resolution 07-009 Street Vacation Charges Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 25,2022 Department Director Approval: Ei Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑new business ❑public hearing ❑information ®admin.report ❑pending legislation ❑executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative report—Spokane County District Court update. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Interlocal Agreement for Costs Incident to Adjudication of Misdemeanor and Gross Misdemeanor Offenses in the City of Spokane Valley(District Court Agreement). PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Prior updates from District Court to the Council. BACKGROUND: Spokane Valley receives court services from Spokane County District Court pursuant to the District Court Agreement for adjudication of gross misdemeanor, misdemeanor, and infraction offenses occurring within the City's boundaries. The City does not have any dedicated judges,and its cases are mixed with those coming from Spokane County and other cities contracting with Spokane County for similar services. As they do from time-to-time, District Court has requested time to present during a Council meeting to update Council on current events at the Court, service numbers,specialty courts/programs,and challenges. It has been several years since the Presiding Judge has been able to make this presentation due, in part,to the pandemic. Presiding Judge Amy Maurer will lead the discussion and may have additional judges in attendance as well. Council should feel free to ask questions during this discussion. OPTIONS: Not applicable. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:Not applicable. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:Not applicable. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Presiding Judge Amy Maurer. ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint presentation from Judge Maurer. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY January 25th, 2022 1 DISTRICT COURT PRESENTATION Presiding Judge Aimee Maurer MISSION STATEMENT The mission of Spokane County District Court is to serve our citizens through the prompt, courteous, and fair dispensation of justice 11.1 by adjudicating cases in a timely manner using effective and efficient case management techniques, adhering to the highest standards, monitoring enforcement of judgments, and being responsible stewards of publicfunds. DISTRICT COURT 40011 riflt . "7-tig - . Patti Walker Donna Wilson Jennifer Fassbender Patrick Johnson Debra Hayes Richard Leland Aimee Maurer Jeffrey Smith Presiding Judge • Court Administrator John Witter Office Therapeutic Courts Judicial Operations Asst. Court Manager/Admin Computer Applications Manager Probation Manager Manager Administrator Support Specialist • 1 Support Staff • 3 Support Staff • 16 Support Staff • 9 Support Staff • 32 Support Staff 3 WHO WE SERVE • Spokane County: • City of Spokane Valley • Liberty Lake • Deer Park /11 • Rockford • Latah • Fairfield • Millwood • Spangle Cheney/Medical Lake Municipal Court — Contract Judicial Officer, Weekend Jail and Jail First Appearances Spokane Municipal Court — Civil Actions and Civil Protection Orders 4 LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES • Washington State Patrol • Spokane County Sheriff's Department • City of Spokane Valley Police Department • City of Spokane Police Department • Cheney Police Department • Liberty Lake Police Department • Spokane County Animal Control • Washington State Fish and Wildlife • Washington State Liquor & Cannabis Board • Burlington Northern Railroad • Eastern Washington University Police 5 DISTRICT COURT CASE TYPES CRLVIINAL CIVIL Misdemeanors Civil Actions (up to $100,000) Gross Misdemeanors • Small Claims (up to $10,000) IN • Felony Complaints • Protection Orders (DV, Harassment, Stalking and Sexual Assault) • Infractions (Moving & Non-Moving) - - Name Changes Impounds 6 DISTRICT COURT HEARING TYPES • First Appearances • Name Change • • Arraignments Small Claims • Bond Hearings• Pre-Trial—Civil&Criminal • Infraction Mitigation/Infraction Contested • Mental Health Therapeutic Court • Veterans Therapeutic Court • Trial-Jury or Bench • DUI Intensive Supervision Therapeutic Court Probation Violations • Civil Protection Orders • Treatment Reviews • Felony First Appearances • Prosecutor Complaints • Felony Reductions • Impounds • Ex Parte • Weekend Jail • Alive @ 25 Program • Search Warrants • Attitudinal Dynamics of Driving 7 2019 - 2021 DISTRICT COURT FILINGS -,•- * 2020&2021 FILINGS HAVE BEEN IMPACTED DUE TO COVID ^,t _ UCAS° TYP 2019 2021." Infractions 37,844 28,779 22,455 Criminal Traffic 2,212 1,862 892 .1 DUI 1,855 1,375 1,067 Criminal Non-Traffic 1,511 1,373 958 IIII Domestic Violence — 1,278 1,177 1,047 Criminal Civil Protection Orders 602 588 589 Civil 10,985 8,455 9,308 Small Claims 933 606 721 Search Warrants 485 484 379 TOTAL FILINGS 57,705 44,699 37,416 8 2021 DISTRICT COURT FILINGS Percentage By Case Type: Infractions = 60.6% (22,455) Civil = 25.1% (9,308) DUI = 2.8% (1,067) Domestic Violence 2.8% (1,047) 1111 Criminal Non-Traffic = 2.5% (958) Criminal Traffic = 2.4% (892) Small Claims = 1.9% (721) Civil Protection Orders = 1.5% (589) Search Warrants = .4% (379) 9 1 INTERPRETERS 2021 INTERPRETER USE .- 7071 I c3r1<_1L1c1 _r(—?.r" Tc7lc]I 7C)71 I c3r5cj' c]cjc.s T<>Ic I VAmhciric 0 I c ac)I i€ar i [) /\rc3hi€: 40 I if,Ic-riiric3 • 527 Cases with Interpreters Ec c+i .rr; r,l " P,mericcin Sign a F Lcincucic€ INAClrf.:rticalic3 .: I "16. • 23 Different Languages Bosnicin 1 Persir_•in Fcirsi 1 IIIIII • Marshallese (146) riIc caric7n I c. c nicer c f3rarrrir s 4 • Spanish (133) C:hi — ' ur is 1iII C_clnl(}ric.sc_ Iti'jssicu Y /6 Chiriese —fvlcandcrrir-i 0 Scirrlocar-i I C_:ha_Jukcso I I S.:.rric]Ii :$ C_rcic]licari 0 Sr)c3rristi I :3.3 Czech 0 Swc ihili 36 DIRIICa 0Tcic cilc cJ CI I-trccl (I-thiopiciri) 0 rcar i 0I ic3rirjric3 0, French 0 I I-tcii €} Hindu 0 TurkisFi 0 HrnQn€c' 0 LJkrc3riic3r1 Ic:E-Ic ridic: 0 ''/iCt recur-r sC 1 Japanese 1 YorLJbci 0 Karen, Z ayein 16 Kinyc irwc ndca 8 I TC]TALS 527101 THERAPEUTIC COURTS RCW 2.30.030 Therapeutic courts authorized—Establishment of processes—Determination of eligibility—Persons mill not eligible—Use of best practices—Dependency matters—Foreign law limitations. (2) While a therapeutic court judge retains the discretion to decline to accept a case into the therapeutic court, and while a therapeutic court retains discretion to establish processes and determine eligibility for admission to the therapeutic court process unique to their community 111 and jurisdiction, the effectiveness and credibility of any therapeutic court will be enhanced when the court implements evidence-based practices, research-based practices, emerging best practices, or promising practices that have been identified and accepted at the state and national levels. Promising practices, emerging best practices, and/or research-based programs are authorized where determined by the court to be appropriate. As practices evolve, the trial court shall regularly assess the effectiveness of its program and the methods by which it implements and adopts new best practices. 11 THERAPEUTIC COURTS Therapeutic Courts H;nable District Court: • To better serve persons with complex challenges; • Provide individualized supervision, case planning and support; ▪ Tailor programming to meet specific needs (housing, food insecurity, job training, educational, medical, financial counseling, family reunification etc.. . .); ▪ Includes community providers, treatment agencies, and other support systems in decision making; 8 Well trained teams of Judges, attorneys, staff and partners; • Increased likelihood of positive outcomes = reduces recidivism. 12 __��_- THERAPEUTIC COURTS Components of Therapeutic Courts • Program Phases — Each phase is designed to support participants in achieving and maintaining compliance with their Court Order. In addition, each phase supports a life of sobriety and prosocial living. • After requirements are met for each phase, the participant will be presented with a certificate of completion for that phase and advance to the next phase. • At the completion of all phases the participant will "graduate" from the Therapeutic Court and will either have their charge dismissed or early termination of their probation. 13 1 THERAPEUTIC COURTS Components of Therapeutic Courts 1 Iii Incentives include: milIM Graduated Sanctions: Praise from Judge Admonishment from court Praise from court team Essay/Letter writing assignment Rocket Docket Increase court appearances or visit to Alpha Treat basket Docket Ill Phase movement Community Service Bracelets upon phase completion Impose or increase UA's Decrease in court appearances Extended, loss or suspended phase movement Decrease in Case Management/Probation Appt Jail/EHM/TAD Certificates Revocation or removal from SCMHC Gift cards Dismissal of charges 14 THERAPEUTIC COURTS Components of Therapeutic Courts Graduated/Progressive Sanctions: Will be documented to create a record of what type of sanction(s), when, and for what violation or issue of non-compliance. Flash Sanctions: Guidelines = flash means immediate but with enough flexibility to allow for people to not compromise housing, employment, schooling, treatment compliance, etc.. . . Sanctions: May progress to the point of in-custody sentence and/or termination from a Therapeutic Court Program. 15 __�-_- THERAPEUTIC COURTS . . .. __ _. Therapeutic Court's Resource Room .., Resource Room provides a safe space for participants to ask for assistance and guidance,and the opportunity for participants to grow their independence. r.. Ala ...., ni .4 lir, ,1 1 I Li l il ii Aug , st _ •, ,,fir:--t _ v„.,„ ,,,o,, rn . .. 21.7. .. . Lalli in ......„,.. -„---, lialirt IMP 1ti '� 16 ey - R THERAPEUTIC COURTS Therapeutic Court's Resource Room • Computer and printer access for: • Job applications and all job search related documents • DSHS applications /11 • Social Security applications • Housing applications • Insurance applications • Online tutorials to assist with life skills, job skills and overall mental health and wellbeing • Any court related forms, such as child support and custody forms • School applications • FAFSA applications 17 THERAPEUTIC COURTS Therapeutic Court's Resource Room • Educational Library I Confidential space to fill out paperwork • Meeting space with community agencies I Community classroom space I Informational brochures for numerous community resources • Staff member present in the Resource Room for questions and assistance on Friday afternoons (Pre-COVID) • Community Integration Program Events Calendar 18 1 THERAPEUTIC COURTS 1 Community Providers and Partners • SPARC • Frontier • DSHS • YFA • AIMS Behavioral Health • CPS • Spokane County • Revive Counseling • Jail Mental Health • Ideal Options HPRP Program 11111 and Reentry Services • CA Goodwill• CAReS Spokane Regional • VA Medical ▪ Salvation Army Health District • Supportive Livings • Second Harvest Center IN HARPS Opioid Treatment • Sacred Heart Food Bank Program • Childcare Assistance CHAS Medical Center •Program • Worksource • Eastern.State • Parents for Parents ▪ New Horizons • Absolute Drug Hospital Program ▪ Vanessa Behan Testing • Crisis Nursery ADEPT • CAPA/Prepares • Spokane Resource • Value Village • SNAP • Partners with • Rosauer's Families Center • Catholic Charities Supermarkets •• Community Colleges • Nurse-Family Dr.Chris • Homeless of Spokane Partnership Koorsgard Connect • Pioneer Center East 19 SPOKANE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT THERAPEUTIC AND SPECIALIZED COURTS Veteran's Therapeutic DUI Intensive Spokane Regional Domestic Violence Court Supervision Mental Health Specialized Court IIII Therapeutic Court Therapeutic Court 1111 * .7)(!1ip14 1` 11 _ , ih_ , AI ,r., ' fi ,,d,i/ p t y 11 I 1 1 s 1 i INCl CEM 7 E.TME tee MENTAL F€EALT I COURT 20 -. VETERAN'S COURT Established in 2011 Mentoring through Spokane Veteran's Forum Reduce recidivism and increase public safety Incentives and sanctions Treatment, community resources and supervision Collaborates with Veteran's Affairs, Goodwill Industries and the Veteran's Task Force Complete phases and graduate Initiall funded b 2012 federal rant µ+' Y Y g 21 /11 DUI INTENSIVE SUPERVISION COURT Created in 2009 Reduce DUI fatalities and injuries Address drug and alcohol dependent offenders Comprehensive supervision and treatment Graduated incentives and sanctions Initially funded by the Washington Traffic Safety Commission Participants are repeat offenders with three or more DUI offenses within 10 years �R�NKpl�hlt� 22 SPOKANE REGIONAL MENTAL HEALTH COURT Spokane County has implemented an expanded Mental Health Court. This was made available due to legislation enacted in 2005, (fZCW 82.14.- ). which allowed for a "Mental Health Sales Tax" of one tenth of 1% to be used for the operation of new or expanded therapeutic court programs and to provide new or expanded mental health treatment or chemical dependency services. The Spokane Regional Mental Health Court maintains the premise that crimes committed by mentally ill persons are not simply a law enforcement or criminal justice problem, but a public health problem. i� � I EATME MENTAL HFTH COURT SPOKANE REGIONAL MENTAL HEALTH COURT The Mental Health Court is Voluntary. • Pre or post adjudication. • Phases that outline goals and monitors progress. • Participants are monitored by Probation or by Case Managers. /11 In addition to any statutory probation requirements the following are standard SRMHC probation or SOC requirements: • Take all medication(s) as prescribed • Reside in a clean and sober home in Spokane County • Obtain a mental health evaluation and complete any recommended treatment • Submit to random monitoring with Probation and/or Case Management which may include UA, BA, PBT tests, etc.... • Attend all appointments with your Probation Officer and/or Case Manager • Appear for periodic Treatment Review Hearings • No possession or consumption of any alcohol or non-prescribed controlled substances, including marijuana • Other terms and conditions as appropriate for underlying charge � � MENTAL LTH COURT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SPECIALIZED COURT Specialized Court established in 1996 11111 Team approach to addressing domestic violence Victim advocacy support and services Evidence based practices Compliance with legal requirements Adherence to Procedural Fairness principles Future goal = Therapeutic Domestic Violence Treatment Court 25 1 DISTRICT COURT PROBATION 1 2020 & 2021 Probation Cases impacted due to COVID-19 Month/Year DUI Probation Domestic Misc.Court Vet Court ISTC Orders Mental Health Felony TOTAL Probation in 2020 Orders Violence Received Orders Court Orders Reductions Orders Office Contact tan Dec Received Orders Received IIII Received Year to Date 1,013 335 660 22 15 25 163 2,231 3,887 Totals Month/Year DUI Probation Domestic Misc.Court Vet Court ISTC Orders Mental Health Felony TOTAL Probation in 2021 Orders Violence Received Orders Court Orders Reductions Orders Office Contact Jan-Dec Received Orders Received Received Year to Date 1,164 586 954 21 29 40 265 2,794 3,964 y Totals imilmi.► gym► DISTRICT COURT PROBATION ALIVE @ 25 DRIVING PROGRAM: ATTITUDINAL DYNAMICS OF DRIVING PROGRAM: Registered Completed Percentage Registered Completed Percentage 2020 772 731 95% 2020 562 535 95% 2021 696 642 92% 2021 488 437 90% ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION • Drug&Alcohol Treatment(Inpatient/Outpatient) • Mental Health Treatment 11111 • Domestic Violence Perpetrator Treatment • Moral Recognition Therapy /11 • Theft Awareness Classes • Anger Management Classes • Diversion& Community Service Programs • Alive @ 25 Driving Program (for 15 to 25 year old's) • Attitudinal Dynamics of Driving Program (for over age 25) • Probation Supervision 28 TECHNOLOGY AND THE COURT Home Search P Spokane County District Court Explore/Find Search Portal Make a Payment Contact Us How Do I... MI 1114 r-- s � ' J` N _ Ili - ., ■ ■ If - • C" FIND COURT DATES&CASE TICKET OPTIONS RECORDS REQUEST JUDGES&ADMINISTRATION WEDDING INFORMATION View Our Online Portal Submit Your Payment Forms&Fees Find Courtrooms&Contacts Fees&forms 29 TECHNOLOGY AND THE COURT WEB BASED 1� AME AND CASE SEARCH Problems orSu99tas !I . Spokane County Court Viewer ' Court(Date&lase Intormanon Search may..c.wm _ - Hone Disbar Cast CPC7- Superior Cart tap- DC/SC brady i earrnus Cor triad District Court-Court Hearings By Date Ca"'pn Diantt Coat Hn i.UI nor[Qr16/3416 286 Resu11's for Her ir5s In Spokane County Dotact Court liar 22O11Q216 Persons xitedukd on Ube Mental feeler Thropeufo Cowl dochel Pray rot shwa on Ihrs bst ever though Itrey may Ran a lioannu.Please contact the Oblast Coral Iaerh'4orate at(509/477-4770, Please ole;The list Amy not be complete ha the bsaregs set tot today.PNmeemetert the Disbrtt Court Oak's office at Me/477-4770 it you mono!find Menem you we Noising for. Eaten Court Hearing Dela rncig4V16 ' #nine Seer& Fitter by last mine be90eM refill A BCDEFOCI ) K 1 MISOPQRS T U Y SV 5 Y 0 AI Snamng+SF Reties Show Elm estrief. fn2 Prc✓+n>ae 1 - - , _ lic.: _,. Search(AR 1060..n are search -x�for lettfrilnnbasenieredi: Naive -I Taw - Csseran. 3I 1 Lamborn - Hearing Type _ Case Type _ Official _ MAW ury AIKEN,MARLYN 10/19/20151:30 PM 1652831 boadvay CenterOida-fmr 2 2-Rove -3 '1 Tom' Sm3'Cars-SC (ELAND.R:CHARD M7 15/30 led Small Cairn NF10Iy RCNALD SR 15/113120161:30 PM 1637831 Brvadmay Ceder$idg Flour2 Room 203 Non bury Taal --ma SC LELND,RICHARD Mt _c^/dined Small Csaim ALFDRD,,LEVI 103030S 10110120169:03 AM 321074981 Public 5ately&+tlg-Poor 2-7'.00rn I dr53rial _ _'•arfir-CD HAVES.DEBRA' .:o:Hear-Canceled AIMUTArK ABIXILLAH SIILWA-1 G 10/10/20163.�O PM R100 047 Public Safely Bldg-Floor 2 Ask Receptionist for Roane 509477-29U11 a Pre:rc'-ry appears-,r.2. ^ T-enc-CD RIDGE,DUI 1ST APPEARANCE Scheduled 30 TECHNOLOGY AND THE COURT L C R T CC OR Benefits Fassbender Leland Walker CVSC• • �/ Other• fi) von p4, f CreaieFam' QuicklAtuu• innrecimm • kaym Maurer Wikon SSWdge `/`,, Ttanslate �/ Y 1-- ?yen:olden of Ili Uninterrupted Court Process: P lohmmn Smith Vdl VievrAM Si4" Rn.a(Sendl C Saves omenn �' Emeill§ertdPCl{ } Woad Cn,b'Smatr Claims • COVID=transition to ZOOM hearings and ability to continue the wed or lunge Signed document 2GAsq.a.c 3-rnr:n 4 Mese impound: nd2ne MI work of the Court criminal <<hminal6V • Increased Accuracy: • vten p a ea Si can Form: • Case and report numbers can easily be pulled and accessed from JIS Vet Court /I. SPOKANE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT,STATE " PANT. • Conditions for understandable and legible work product OF WASHINGTON A XTC Case Numbe CPC templatWemnm a • Forms are able to automatically correlate for complex legal issues STATE OF WASHINGTON. w"r PC do when multiple options are available CPC Qrdens V JUdginentanc pon.«re: • Immediate: Inireednn Pubite Safety Otsku iippw map, aloe Al 25 • Electronic routing to other stakeholders i.e.,jail,counsel,advocates, Interpreter Pommel victims,records,etc....) m ro" ar 10.T7 Aped•rdeASanity Cam L)Inmate LAshar:dhemer • Efficient Court Dockets: ` Paperlprint Version Free ryae;red.,.hove n blue a yeRnw bnrkg.•evod,yeir w frelds&so offer drop ct,..., • Saves time on dockets Additional forms Option:r(areas in gray,and line in red above will4eremovcd upon Cleanup) • Allows more time for the Judicial Officer to hear from litigants 0 •"~' ,t°'k ,,f.d",. nn°narkm remove tamaddeomenror. D Create TI.eeall at No Contact Order FMn+ (unctrect to remove ram added in error ❑ Crcale aft)pdrrns be1EM (united(to remove tam added n anal ❑ Create Notice of I,elgrtwliey Form below {untied:kt remove ram added in eau) 31 TECHNOLOGY AND THE COURT VIRTUAL C;( URTROO HEARINGS Joining a District Court Video hearing as a participant If you are a Spokane County District Court case participant and urich to by video Enr a hearing,please enntaet ynur �� - 1L, attorney to make arrangements. s / 1 /1.i 1111 Our court uses him Zoom to conduct our vid hearings,you Hill rereise an invite,generally by the court,to the hearing.If you plan i to participate in a video court appearance,prior to sour hearing please serify your hardware and connection readiness - L by clicking here to s eras Tent ; In r '^' df• i,..: l';':.-.- - IN' k---- -- - Requirements for participating in a video court appearance.Spokane County - District Court Decorum Rules,You agree to... a All attorneys appearing by Zoom shall wear professional business attire b.Appropriate dress is required for all non-attorney participants.Sunglasses are not permitted to be worn during a hearing unless for "•I ` • A. A. medically necessary purposes. c.A Zoom participant's actual or virtual background shall not be distracting or contain inappropriate subject matter. d.All persons appearing by Zoom shall Eon a quiet location with an adequate Internet connection.Participants shall prevent interruptions by children.significant others,pets_etc__ 1 - e.If an Internet connection is unstable or the surrounding environment is distracting the hearing may be rescheduled to a later date. l{ I 1 I I.All persons appearing by Zoom shall select a location where they can sit comfortably and shall remain seated and still during an entire r Zoom hearing.Participants shall not drive while attending a Zoom hearing. e g All persons appearing by Zoom shall he on time.Zoom participants shall not leave the Zoom hearing until the Court recesses or the litigant has been released by the Court. C'p 0 0 S IL 7 TECHNOLOGY AND THE COURT TEXT MESSAGE REMINDERS r . ® AT&T^^ 7:16 PM * 100%[�h .11 Messages 66746 Contact Thu,Jul 31.7.16 PM Hi Charlie, this is a reminder for your appointment on 5/12/15 @ 1pm. Reply Y to confirm, N to cancel or STOP to quit. 33 TECHNOLOGY AND THE COURT TEXT MESSAGE REMINDERS Fwd: WALKER, PATTI , you • Decreases failure to appear & warrantshave a court appearance for case number(s) 670487781 9:00 AM , 6Z0487782 9:00 • Requires Opt-In by the Court User AM on Thursday, October 6 . For further information go to the Court Date and Case Message includes a link to the On-Line Case information Search application at http:// Look-Up and the Clerk's Office email address cp.spokanecounty_org/ courtdocumntviewer or call ,your lawyer. To unsubscribe Also available to victims and attorneys from all District Court text reminders contact the court at Includes the Case Number dccaserrigmt spokafecount y.Org NO Cost to the District Court sp,kane County Court Viewer Dwtiwr L1cl TECHNOLOGY AND THE COURT 24/7/365 ELECTRONIC SEARCH WARRANTS 9 Benefits Law Enforcement, Defendant, and Judges Judges on call 24/7/365 fftmlomp • Warrant Processing Time Decreased from ' hours to minutes Allows for both community safety and - resource/cost savings TECHNOLOGY AND THE COURT ElectronicWeekend J ail Application >J�„y`aidge-F'orr -a v ul-.aroma- ie,...irks oiler r ee Cotat Cam �.. �t 1 I o I � File I-eIp -_- l II`l 2IIJ- =MT- BM - OC T Refresh Content I1v oun ems a Arar. cel H Split Winprs:s -Fab .a+Aows Close All Windows L Cow Eloatai.Lr4 � _ �-iviclu►ll6HLtr1_JEFF_297114-_pd _t I X 2016 1 0 013(S ti a day) -aMI —r,-- --—_-- • -L Y17 7 1 B FL$0 NI..14_11471AW_41 5219 lte ii.w.rsBRANF7a N_327145 ['t.1.5 #- la" -iLz !4C/ALJt5 I-ILLN JEFF_297114 !AC N aI LLY_Thsc,tutRS_.t06817 9TYTH ttEraT 6F...wESTKiATIMG OFr.ce hA1LLER OOU1 38443& arvtoa Nfrr 8F FACTa r. P EC'O R.'U4!?_Pi.I0,AJN_349533 tOi4 y SR ITH_M/LTH E'Id1F545O44 ccwarrav oc,. A . 2016-=ROOt Rah Isianwimibauliarr 3A, a1 .G IALI A�1i UFJ.297114 ©�, I I I waaarltraa - kQR.-hAC LALJ-GI-IL IN.JEFF 'M MCLAL-iG Fi LIN_JEFF_2'97___ Th s e vnde. Nienael. a law enfo e-ne rc , at o iivrr competent n r„copetet to telf b sees as io+ w aisr las: shot ha, beilc.res creme W.%o rnmltead W tha melaraa tta mad dn.-Foram Ott in the city a ndfor Oo.rrrta,of Spataar.Stoma-of !UR®:ivici_R\UGHLIN_„JEF._-.1 waaa.ln;.te.t.rvw: YOaoe 4.3l S r-Parr Jaw=wall taromtliy la lama.Mal lomasop:Ttrt cxa to-o7-201s at 42.'r7ltrf ha I 1i tsatoc ra la l la Ot6 i_LJharty air far an hama.olt wag_ ,1 That}ta swan worlcirta tar almaLJlaaaly 11 poll..dapseruetarrt at th a tir+'.a_ x That.lea noted -- +are ttr q.o.or at tar. Noma....._ 'Tina.ha woad root rai.aa a.:porfaa at dam alam r_ That ha arttarfd Ow romait1ara44_Th I .. Thai Jar Ka w a r<ta•etad Thw Taylor. rtara wail g entalat itIIo.-eagle 0or 0 d rt[r10 down dab Ow ra m- F]ogu/y PRdfar-alit as lifer to Ow fallaralrfp-That ors 111-0T-mart 0 at 2241.031ftra ha raapondad to 11110 S_tJlaarty dr.t3001.aeta Oaatrtty For a rapertaa a'aaasaatad MANS tools pi aw tfwra. TKat irom was 0ra.artr.O meta ta1,71.011rr.of tax day ar.d drtvloo.a Otarteecl patrol MINI_ .� That aM aaac+a-r a ia.rmala Tayler.Tatrtaa t tri U.o)Ire Oh bad e ae of ar.asatlaa.lattraca• a w law'rtrt ha nomad Kier ood la anal .ma-altarraoaa_ ,t That ha tools ...Vahan-wort,roar T1r he t e r.-att motad IM ti alaphtln ten acia. lat cll- T That ha teat hta atatetatarrt_ That M0t.e wadhit.t to. Karts Ka did net aaaauK Taylor and doaarlt know horn whom .ca Ile it]tarred- I.,.....trTy anruitIMBEr If,.whatty of rano,"candor Ira laws of ha atalto of Wasablatdota that all atatwrr.ents rr.ado train.aro tr0a and aeaasaea anal tr.af 1 havo altered my mattarlarc..aaar WA and pO.Seward to loath off eta it o..,-.1Waar;Ota rt.ecc_ 9i-.+aersa'Co.arply wasn...cro... SaOIW Wart: OMSMIadaaaar.Fttt.l. 11 >• a<a s -•7 . +Rupp,- -- t TECHNOLOGY AND THE COURT Electronic Weekend Jail Application • Judicial review of arrests occurring on Friday night — Sunday • Decreases overcrowding in the jail — enhances jail safety .11 • Immediate jail cost savings1111 • Out of Custody up to two (2) days sooner • 2 x S130.00 = S260.00/day per individual • Defendant/family stabilization • Defendant does not lose job, housing, etc.. . . • Saves Court staff time • Documents are available for processing immediately on Monday 37 TECHNOLOGY AND THE COURT Infraction Options viaWebsite Hnn,r v rr rr n mrnrnr,rarpsrrrnrntt A I r flarle-r rnrrrr r Perrknrr/Find a Ikafflr Tkrkrr.Inf,rrinn r'ncr- Court Date Text Message Rerninder Opt-in Cashiers Traffic Ticket/lnfracti.on Cases Fr,,ail r.,k k,-i k rnrrrt C,ar.hip.c Traffic Infraction Deferral Tr PYA r.�ni attic and NE-Al-Traffic Infractions Physical Address A violation of law not punishable by imprisonment.Speeding,fail to yield.no insurance.expired PubLic Safely Building .11 vphir le li4 en:e,riprs-.live ergrri F,n,pr,k,.Dori parking in.a rli�.aLi er1 parking roile�ar-r pxan�F,Irr.r3F 1100 Mahan Avenue S} e Traffic Infraction Mitigation n factions. k.arir,WA.9911 r1-2.352 Program Mailing Address Infraction Crone Cau.i+ CoSyrrrkar,F rrnly Cnvrrt Request Form FAQs PO BOX 2352 u Spokane,WA 9 9210-2352 Where do I apply for a Public Defender Traffic.Infraction'ticket ++ When do I have to reapply fora public defender?Fors Phone:.,{ 09-477-4770 ext.5 e I low to set a 13ench.Warrant Pe_zall I learingZ Alive 6)25 Program I Haurs.3.311 Errrr-5_PO pm, View All Mlcarrcltry-Fr ir.lny PI cur IL'freers. 3 30 urns- 10_30 Attitudinal Dynamics of Driving Class(Adult DDC) Contact Us Form PeLic�nsing Pengrarri l?irccennr Driver's License Help 38 TECHNOLOGY AND THE COURT On-Li ne Payment Options __ _ ._ O. ; y.__� - ..,� _�..�y -S �+' hoto. /opo Er county onday_ mJbnatdocId13035955 ..� . . .� company b I tome.Your Goya!,me nt=Departmema A-i.Ltstrot Co.,rt,Malt,a Faymont Payments to the Court Monthly Time Payments Make a Payment Through PAR ill Staff Nance Title Phone Email TiCIt tSfCoses in Collectl4n5 Jean Mettle C eshIe ring Supervisor 504-477-2934 IFtattiaerspokaneceunty.org District Court Fee Selledule Spokane County C7istrlet Court will accept payment en Crat-he infractions in full wl thin.30 days of receiving the citation(ticked)or within 30 days nr',Our r nnrl lea,in Dtive?t License Help Criminal citations ltickets)require a court appearance. Monthly time payments are managcd for the Court by PAR Acceptance. All rn..n.Shirr Ina-ark-roc nnw.arre-a r.rrlir.and deh'rr,-.1..1 f..aynnrnr.t. Co co „, air_t U 11311. ONLINE SERVICES FIND US MAPS&GIS AGENDAS E.MINUTES EMPLOYMENT AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN View AvellabLe Services County Depanrnent Locations AveIlabLe Mapping Services View Current Intormatlon Opportunities&Careers Slate E.Lrral Flw-tL Rernvery Funds 39 TECHNOLOGY AND THE COURT On-Line Payment Options 1• Debit/Credit Card On-Line SPoKANE COUNTY • WAS H I N G T O N "� y ; Payments DISTRICT COURT ••EA.,of"' -c `..- Ai `s MI e.—"g.eeme^e Payment Recent li•poi laid J1 S�► a payment by processingor .n phone,please of 355 53 a yoal ur ge rndisplayed To vent,.your amount Pease contact i/, ..- Citation Payment theed or rejected court at[sas1 arirrrlo - won anuue the sun you ¢p$ et cdahon fi�amnumbers are ,a,' eM NIT ere can I Ural .a mtsinase , ,/4 cr....."Enter the number orc ee,e Enter N ` t ' Am Enter Address tasiattue kill � � Y4S E �d 2*70- $ Save a add another car �' • ` Enter ///h]ti�Lt � mats seac.e o V♦s _41 `� Uz,a f ®[e.e.rth date Save andnue - -- • =r lik 40 2021 DISTRICT COURT END OF YEAR REPORT • IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: • • In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic began impacting the District Court's operations. District Court along with the State of Washington has experienced an ongoing State of Emergency since that time. While we have seen the number of COVID related statistics fluctuate across the State, and within our workforce, our /11 dedicated measures to reduce unnecessary exposure and limit the spread of the virus must continue. • During this challenging time our employees have stepped up and been instrumental in meeting not only the demands of our everyday work responsibilities but also the additional requirements necessitated by COVID. Without their dedication and service, the District Court could not have succeeded. • Significantly, District Court has worked through the backlog of cases/trials that resulted from Court closures and reduced docket size necessary to protect the health and safety of our employees and the public from COVID. Throughout the past 12 months our Judges have also consistently implemented a trial strategy,with the assistance of our Court Commissioner, that enabled us to bring our trial numbers back to pre-COVID levels. While we must still operate with reduced dockets, ZOOM, masking and social distancing which continues to place a strain on regular operations and docket coverage, we are pleased to have worked through our trial backlog. 41 2021 DISTRICT COURT END OF YEAR REPORT In 2021, the District Court saw many positive achievements which were accomplished through the work of many. • Grant Awards: • $256,621.00 AOC Grant Award for our Therapeutic Courts • $150,000.00 Traffic Safety Commissioner Grant Award • Race Equity Impact Assessment: r Partnered with stakeholders and members of the public to create a"Race Equity Impact Assessment" tool. .s" '` y` • Voted to be accepted and used at the discretion of the Judges by the majority of the District Court bench. 4�' ttl • Therapeutic Courts: r • One of the most significant accomplishments of 2021 has been made possible due to the award of Grant monies specifically directed 4 .__:4 for Therapeutic Courts. 1 „ • The Grant money has enabled the District Court to hire a Therapeutic Courts Manager. This position is responsible for coordinating the resources and services to all our Therapeutic Courts (Mental Health,Veterans and ISTC). For the first time, all of our Therapeutic Court participants have access to the resources and assistance of our therapeutic court team. 42 2021 DISTRICT COURT END OF YEAR REPORT In-House Anger Management and Theft Awareness Classes: • During 2021, the Probation Department developed the curriculum for in-house anger management and theft awareness classes. • These classes will be provided free of charge and may provide an alternative for diversion. • Implementation is scheduled for January 2022. • Free Public Access to Electronically Stored Public Records: • Free access to electronically stored public court records is an initiative with the Spokane County Superior Court Clerk's Office, Spokane County District Court and the Spokane County IT department. • This will encourage access to justice and better customer service to the public. It will also reduce foot- traffic to the Courthouse for those who are simply trying to obtain copies of public records. • Implementation is scheduled for January 2022 43 2021 DISTRICT COURT END OF YEAR REPORT Office of Law and Justice Hotline: • Partnered with the Office of Law and Justice to implement the Hotline Pilot Program which overall has shown success. • Between August 2020 and November 2021 there were 30,940 calls made to remind defendants of their Court dates. • Where a call is answered by a defendant there is a 45% "hearing held" rate which correlates to a defendant showing up for Court and a hearing being held on their matter as opposed to a warrant being issued. • Where a defendant has private counsel the "hearing held" rate is 49%. Office of Law and Justice Rideshare Initiative: • Partnered with stakeholders to create and implement the Rideshare Initiative to provide transportation to Court and Court required appointments for criminal defendants. 44 /11 2021 VOLUNTEER WORK OF THE COURT Throughout 2021, and in addition to the regular work of the Court, many of our Judges and Court Staff volunteered their time on committees and boards. This work increases the Court's knowledge base, encourages excellence in the work place and adds to the overall accomplishments of our Court. We are so grateful for the combined effort of so many who represent the Spokane County District Court in the following ways: 45 : •,., 2021 VOLUNTEER WORK OF THE COURT • Washington State Bar Association Civil Litigation Rules Drafting Task Force • Washington State Pattern Jury Instruction Committee • Washington State Department of Social and Health Services Trueblood General Advisory Council • Washington State Courts Historical Society— Committee Member, Editor /11 • Washington State Judicial College —Dean • Washington State Judicial College — Faculty • Washington State Judicial College — Curriculum Planning Work Group • AOC Washington State Legislative Funding/AOC Therapeutic Court Grant Work Group • AOC Multilevel Court User Group (MCLUG) • BJA Court Recovery Task Force — Chair, Therapeutic Court Sub-Committee 46 2021 VOLUNTEER WORK OF THE COURT * DMCJA Vice President DMCJA Board of Governors DMCJA Legislative Committee * DMCJA Chair, Education Committee • DMCJA Therapeutic Courts Committee • DMCJA Long Range Planning Committee 47 2021 VOLUNTEER WORK . „ OF THE COURT • DMCJA Conference Planning Committee • DMCJA Liaison to the Washington State Legislature Jail Standards Task Force • DMCJA Liaison to the DMCMA1111 • DMCJA Liaison to the Washington State Gender and Justice Commission Education Committee • DMCJA Diversity Committee • DMCJA Public Outreach Committee • DMCJA Council on Independent Courts • DMCJA Case and Document Management Steering Committee 48 2021 VOLUNTEER WORK OF THE COURT �-*1 14 • District and Municipal Court Mangers Association • Eastern Washington Court Managers Group • Office of Law and Justice Cell Phone Initiative Committee • Office of Law and Justice Rideshare Initiative • Spokane County Courthouse Security Committee • Spokane County Leader Build • Trial Court Coordinating Council • SCBA Racial Equity Committee • SCBA Racial Equity/Systemic Racism CLE Committee/Presenter • Spokane Regional Law and Justice Council CORE Committee • Spokane Regional Law and Justice Council Race Equity Disparity Committee • Gonzaga University School of Law—Adjunct Professor 49 A Favorite Quote "Proximity has taught me some basic and humbling truths, including this vital lesson: Each of us is more than the worst thing we've ever done. My work with the poor and the incarcerated has persuaded me that the opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice. Finally, I've come to believe that the true measure of our commitment to justice, the character of our society, our commitment to the rule of law, fairness, and equality cannot be measured by how we treat the rich, the powerful, the privileged, and the respected among us. The true measure of our character is how we treat the poor, the disfavored, the accused, the incarcerated, and the condemned." - Bryan Stevenson 50 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 25,2022 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—Spokane Valley Salary Commission. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.21.015; chapter 2.10 SVMC. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: November 16, 2021 administrative report on history and process of the Spokane Valley Salary Commission; December 18, 2021 Council consensus to convene a 2022 Salary Commission;January 18,2022 Mayoral appointment,Council confirmation of the 2022 Salary Commission members and one alternate. BACKGROUND: A thorough background explanation was provided by staff on November 16,2021,and a copy of the RCA from that meeting is provided as a reference rather than repeating that information. Pursuant to SVMC 2.10.020(A)(7)(e),the first meeting of the Commission shall occur no later than 20 days after the appointments are made by the Council, with any schedule of salaries due to the Clerk through a final report within 90 days of being appointed by Council. With that schedule, staff will contact the Commission to set the first meeting prior to February 7, 2022 (20 days), and the final report must be provided to the Clerk no later than April 18,2022. At the first meeting,the Commission will elect a chair and vice chair and adopt any rules of procedure for the efficient and fair conduct of its business. The Commission shall keep a written record of its proceedings (traditionally done by the Clerk)which shall be a public record, and the Commission shall actively solicit public comment at all meetings,which are subject to the Open Public Meetings Act(OPMA),chapter 42.30 RCW. Three members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for purposes of taking action as that term is defined under the OPMA. Once the Commission has completed a final report with salary schedules,it would be provided to Clerk to start the process for publication as outlined in the November 16,2021 RCA. Council may expect a request for information from the Commission (through staff) regarding the nature and extent of Council duties to be able to assess the adequacy of the current pay schedules. It will be important for individual Councilmembers to complete any request for information from the Commission and return the responses to staff as soon as reasonably possible to ensure the Commission can comply with the schedule mandated by the chapter 2.10 SVMC. OPTIONS: Not applicable at this time. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:Not applicable at this time. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:Not applicable at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: (1) RCA from November 16, 2021 administrative report; and (2) 2018 Independent Salary Commission Final Report CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: November 16,2021 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—Spokane Valley Salary Commission for Council pay. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.21.015; chapter 2.10 SVMC. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: September 25,2018 approval of amendments to chapter 2.10 SVMC updating provisions relating to salary commissions; November 6, 2018 appointment of a five- member 2018 Independent Salary Commission; January 15, 2019 administrative report with final report and recommendation of the Salary Commission,which included a recommendation to discuss potentially convening a salary commission every three years as discussed more fully below. BACKGROUND: There are two ways in which Council pay may be adjusted. First, the Council may adopt a salary ordinance establishing the new salary. However, pursuant to RCW 35A.13.040, "any increase or reduction in the compensation attaching to an office shall not become effective until the expiration of the term then being served by the incumbent: PROVIDED That compensation of councilmembers may not be increased or diminished after their election nor may the compensation of the mayor be increased or diminished after the mayor has been chosen by the council." As such,for example, Councilmember Hattenburg would not see increased pay under this method until the beginning of a second term if he chose to run and was re-elected to a second term in 2023. The second way council pay may be adjusted is through the recommendation of a salary commission. RCW 35.21.015 provides the authority and process by which a city may establish a salary commission. Under this method, an appointed salary commission would undertake a review of the council and mayor salaries, analyze what councilmembers for similarly-situated jurisdictions are paid, and then make a written report to the council regarding whether the pay levels should be adjusted and, if so, to what levels. A summary of the salary commission's report would be published in the official newspaper of the City for two weeks, with the second publication marking the date as the official date of action for the salary commission. If no referendum petition is filed with the City within 30 days of that second publication,the salary adjustment automatically goes into effect without any action of the Council, on the 31' day. Because the salary adjustment is made by the salary commission, and not the council, this is not considered an act by the council to perform a mid-term adjustment and is thus permitted. A salary commission may be appointed for a period of one year by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. This five-person commission serves without pay,and members shall be residents of the City,and registered to vote in Spokane County. No officer, official, or employee of the City or any of their immediate family members may serve on a salary commission. Upon incorporation, Council's pay was set pursuant to RCW 35A.13.040 at $400 per month, with the Mayor receiving$500 per month. In 2006,Council adopted SVMC 2.10.020 establishing the authority for Council to appoint a Salary Commission. Council then appointed a five-member Salary Commission to a one-year term. The 2006 Salary Commission met seven times,and then submitted a final report December 4,2006 recommending an increase in pay to $750 per month for Councilmembers, and$975 per month for the Mayor. There was no referendum petition filed with the City,so this recommendation became final and effective without action of the Council on January 17,2007. In 2018, Council again convened a Salary Commission,naming a panel of five citizen volunteers, which met six times. The Salary Commission finalized its report on January 8, 2019,no referendum by citizens was filed within 30 days of the second publication date,and the salary adjustments became finalized without action of Council. The revised salaries became $1,415 per month for Councilmembers, and $1,775 for the Mayor,which is what they continue to be paid. A copy of the 2018 Independent Salary Commission Final Report is included for additional background, including the criteria for consideration, and process used in arriving at the recommendation. Several staff members were assigned to assist the Salary Commission in collecting data for its consideration. Staff is bringing this issue forward at this time because one of the significant discussion points for the 2018 Salary Commission related to the length of time between the 2006 Salary Commission and the 2018 Salary Commission. The 2018 Salary Commission Final Report stated that although its recommendation for increased pay was justified, it was concerned the adjustment appeared unusually large due to the 12-year gap between Salary Commission actions. As such,the 2018 Final Report included a recommendation that Council consider convening a Salary Commission every three years to keep the Council salary analysis more current. If the Council is interested in convening the Spokane Valley Salary Commission to perform a current Council pay analysis, it should request for staff to schedule a subsequent administrative report regarding Council appointing a 2021-22 Salary Commission to get the process started. OPTIONS: (1) Request that staff start the process for the appointment of a 2021-22 Council Salary Commission; or(2)take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: At the discretion of Council. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:Not applicable at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell,City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: 2018 Independent Salary Commission Final Report. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 2018 INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION Final Report: January 8, 2019 Members: • Bill Gothmann, Chair • Tes Sturges, Vice Chair • Chuck Simpson • Kathe Williams • Steve Robertson • Michael Moore (alternate) Spokane Valley staff support: • Cary Driskell, City Attorney • Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk • John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager • Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Introduction The City of Spokane Valley was incorporated effective March 31, 2003. It has a current population of approximately 97,000 residents, making it the 10th largest city in the state of Washington. The Council recently adopted a budget of$78.3 million for 2019. Spokane Valley operates under a council-manager form of government. The legislative branch is made up of seven Councilmembers,with the Mayor chosen by his or her fellow Councilmembers for a two-year appointment. The City Council hires a professional City Manager as its Chief Executive Officer, who is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the City, carrying out the policy directives of the City Council. Setting salaries for Mayor and Councilmembers Pursuant to state law, upon incorporation of a city of 15,000 or more, the starting salary for council members is $400, and a couneilmember holding the position of mayor shall be entitled to an additional 25%. When the City incorporated, the Mayor received $500 per month, and the Councilmembers received $400 per month. The Spokane Valley City Council appointed an independent salary commission in 2006, which filed a report adjusting the salaries for the Mayor to $975 per month, and to $750 per month for Councilmembers,which became effective January 17, 2007. Salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers have not been adjusted since that time. These salaries may only be modified one of two ways. First, the Council may adopt a salary ordinance establishing the new salary. However, pursuant to RCW 35A.13.040, "any increase or reduction in the compensation attaching to an office shall not become effective until the expiration of the term then being served by the incumbent: PROVIDED That compensation of councilmembers may not be increased or diminished after their election nor may the compensation of the mayor be increased or diminished after the mayor has been chosen by the council." As such, for example, a sitting Councilmember would not see increased pay under this method until the beginning of a second term if that Councilmember chose to run and was re-elected. The second way Council pay may be adjusted is through the recommendation of a salary commission. RCW 35.21.015 provides the authority and process by which a city may establish a salary commission. Under this method, an appointed salary commission undertakes a review of the council and mayor salaries, analyzes what councilmembers for similarly-situation jurisdictions are paid, and then makes a written report to the council regarding whether the pay levels should be adjusted and, if so, to what levels. A summary of the salary commission's report would be published in the official newspaper of the City for two weeks, with the second publication marking the date as the official date of action for the salary commission. If there is no referendum petition filed with the City within 30 days of that second publication, the salary adjustment automatically goes into effect without any action of the Council, on the 31st day. Because the salary adjustment is made by the salary commission, and not the council, this is not considered an act by the council to perform a mid-term adjustment, and is thus permitted under Washington state law. Page 2 Description of 2018 Independent Salary Commission On September 25, 2018, the Spokane Valley City Council approved Ordinance 18-021 amending chapter 2.10 SVMC. The amendments updated the City Code so that references were not specific to a particular point in time, and so that future appointments of a salary commission will not require amending the Code. On November 6, 2018, the Mayor appointed a five-member 2018 Independent Salary Commission, which was confirmed by the City Council. Pursuant to SVMC 2.10.020(A)(2), the "purpose of the independent salary commission shall be to review and establish the salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers." Pursuant to SVMC 2.10.020(A)(7), the first meeting shall occur no later than 20 days after the appointments are made by the Council, and the Salary Commission shall review, and if it so determines, amend and file its schedule of salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers with the City Clerk within 90 days after being appointed. As such, the first meeting was required to be held no later than November 27, 2018, and the report of the Salary Commission regarding salary schedules required is to be submitted no later than close of business on February 6,2019. The Salary Commission met on November 20, November 29, December 6, December 13, December 20, 2018 and January 8, 2019. The Salary Commission is submitting this final report establishing a salary schedule for the Spokane Valley Mayor and Councilmembers on January 8, 2019. Appendix III contains a summary of each meeting. The Process The Salary Commission analyzed salary information for mayors and councilmembers compiled by the Association of Washington Cities for a number of cities throughout the state. The Salary Commission narrowed their comparison to the thirty largest cities in the state. Additional analysis led the Salary Commission to again refine its focus to nine cities that are most similar to Spokane Valley based on population and council-manager form of government: Lacey, Olympia, Shoreline, Burien, Richland, Pasco, Kennewick, IKirkland, and Yakima. Some of these are located on the east side of the state, and some on the west side, See Appendix II for more information on comparables. The Salary Commission considered three general factors in its analysis: 1. The amount of time Council spent and level of responsibility in performing their Council duties; 2. A market analysis of salary for mayors and councilmembers in comparable cities in Washington, set forth in Appendix II; and 3. Citizen survey results, set forth in Appendix I. A majority of survey respondents indicated support of a salary increase at some level. As noted above and at the direction of the Salary Commission, a citizen survey was placed on the City's website with questions regarding various potential salary levels. In addition, the City Page 3 sent notice of the survey to its general email list, as well as sending notice on the City's Twitter account. See Appendix I for a summary of the results of that citizen survey. Council Roles and Responsibilities The Salary Commission requested and received information from the Mayor and Councilmembers regarding how many hours each Councilmember spends, on average, each week attending to City business. This time included meeting with the public; preparing for weekly Council meetings; attending weekly Council meetings; preparing for and attending assigned committees within and outside the City organization that are related to City business; and attending in a representational capacity various events requiring a City presence. The time commitment is different for each Councilmember, and can change significantly each year for every Councilmember depending on committee and workload assignments. Based upon responses from each Councilmember, the average weekly amount of time for all Councilmembers is approximately 35 hours. The average weekly time spent by the Mayor is 43 hours. There are typically two regular Council meetings and two study sessions per month. These meetings and study sessions generally last between two and three hours each. Throughout the year, the Council also has several special Council meetings on various issues. In addition to the meeting attendance, the Mayor and Councilmembers prepare for each meeting by reading the material and following up with staff members as necessary in advance with questions they may have. In their role as City policymakers, Councilmembers stay informed on issues such as provision of public safety services (police, courts, prosecution, jail, public defense, probation, etc.); public infrastructure projects and funding; land use planning and development; economic development; determining appropriate levels of taxation and spending; labor issues; regional cooperation with all other jurisdictions (emergency management, regional growth planning, consideration of a new jail facility, regional transportation, etc.); and regional, state, and federal legislative proposals. In addition to these regular commitments, Councilmembers represent the City's interests on various City and regional boards and commissions, such as the Spokane Transit Authority (STA), the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC), the Spokane Regional Health District, the Aging and Long Term Care of Eastern Washington, Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency, the Growth Management Steering Committee, Greater Spokane Inc, (GSI), the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee, the Mayor's Association of Northeast Washington (Mayor only), Spokane County Continuum of Care for the Homeless, the Spokane Regional Tourism Promotion Area, Visit Spokane, and the Wastewater Policy Advisory Board. Various Co uncilmembers are also members of standing internal committees, including the City Finance Committee, the City Governance Manual Committee, and the Lodging Tax Advisory Page 4 Committee. Additionally, Councilmembers have contributed as members of ad hoc committees, such as the Economic Development Committee and the Sidewalk Snow Committee. The Mayor and Councilmembers also represent the City at the state and national level, with past Councilmembers serving in officer leadership roles with the Association of Washington Cities and the National League of Cities. The responsibilities of the Mayor and Councilmembers include maintaining frequent contact with the community to ensure familiarity with existing and emerging issues of concern and interest for our citizens. The Mayor and Councilmembers are also active in a wide range of community organizations and events. Councilmembers regularly receive and respond to letters, e-mails, and telephone calls. Many past and current Councilmembers have visited area high schools to discuss issues of importance to Spokane Valley's youth. A current Councilmember regularly conducts meetings of a youth group organized as the Spokane Valley Youth Voice, organized in an effort to engage high school aged young adults to generate ideas of interest for their age group where the City may have an ability to cause change. The Mayor and Councilmembers develop and deliver presentations to community organizations, such as the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce and Kiwanis. They write articles and guest editorials, conduct press conferences and conduct on-air interviews. They attend ceremonies such as ribbon cuttings, ground breakings, grand openings, open houses, graduations, and special events at local schools. At some of these events they are simply in attendance, and at others they are writing and delivering speeches or acting as master of ceremonies. In addition to the above responsibilities, the Mayor presides at Council meetings. The Deputy Mayor assumes the responsibilities of the Mayor in the Mayor's absence. Rationale for tbe Proposal The current salary for the Mayor is $975 per month, and $750 per month for Councilmembers, and these have remained unchanged since January, 2007. The City reimburses them for actual expenses incurred while performing City-related duties, generally relating to travel. The Salary Commission members uniformly agreed that the salary amount was too low for the amount of time elected officials are obliged to devote to the City, and for the responsibility of representing the City and its residents. However, the Salary Commission believes a component of being a Councilmember should be grounded to some extent in a sense of volunteerism, and a desire to serve the community. Every Salary Commission member expressed appreciation for the work of each member of the City Council, including past and present. The Commission recognizes that a Councilmember is never"off duty." He or she is approached by citizens not only at official events, but also in his or her everyday life, such as at work, at the grocery store and at church. The Salary Commission members feel this accessibility is important to the community. Page 5 While the Commission didn't feel it was appropriate to propose a full salary, they did feel the City should compensate its elected officials at a higher rate than they currently receive. The Salary Commission had a general discussion regarding total compensation, including salary and optional benefits. The purpose of the Salary Commission pursuant to SVMC 2,10.020(A)(2) is to establish the salary of the Mayor and Councilmembers, which excludes consideration of any benefits received outside of the monthly salary. They weighed this information as they developed the proposal; however, they recognized that the scope of their work was limited to salary,which does not include benefits. Salary Schedule Proposal Based upon a unanimous vote, the Spokane Valley 2018 Salary Commission proposes the following salary schedule for the City of Spokane Valley Mayor and Councilmembers: I_ft�l lli�CinI (Cti((ai(9n0[���k�i�i SV i IPwiiiox:n dI 0l uIl.lt.Fi Mayor $975 $1,775 Councilmember $750 $1,415 Pursuant to RCW 35.21.015, this salary schedule shall become effective and incorporated into the City budget without further action of the City Council or Salary Commission, subject to a referendum of the people. The Salary Commission also wanted to note that it believes the amount of time between the last time a Salary Commission was convened and this time was too great, and recommends to the Council that it consider re-convening a Salary Commission every three years. When review and adjustment occurs many years apart, any adjustment looks unnaturally larger than it would if regular adjustments had been made. Respectfully submitted, CAtoc,..id Bill Gothmann, Chair of the 2018 Spokane Valley Independent Salary Commission Page 6 APPENDIX I: Summary of Public Survey Results (1) Spokane Valley City Couiacilmembers work an average of 35 hours per week across their range of various duties, Given the responsibilities of the Couneilmembers, how much do you feel is an appropriate monthly salary? Their current monthly salary is $750. (Amount) (Percentage responding) (Total responses) $ 750 - $1,000 43.02% 37 $1,000 - $1,250 25.58% 22 $1,250 - $1,500 12.79% 11 $1,500 - $1,750 18.60% 16 *the City received one comment that these positions should be all voiwi/aiy, including Mayor. (2)The Spokane Valley Mayor works an average of 43 hours per week across the range of various duties. Given the responsibilities of the Mayor,how much do you feel is an appropriate monthly salary? The Mayor's current monthly salary is $975. (Amount) (Percentage responding) (Total responses) $ 750 - $1,000 34.88% 30 $1,000 - $1,250 17.44% 15 $1,250- $1,500 13.95% 12 $1,500- $1,750 11.63% 10 $1,750 -$2,000 22.09% 19 (3) What is your residential zip code? Of 86 respondents, 78 identified a zip code in the City. TOTAL RESPONSES - 86 Page 7 APPENDIX II: Comparable cities (Council-manager forms of government) Survey of monthly salaries: Municipality Population' Mayor salary** Councilmen'her salary** Lacey 48,700 $1,725 $1,475 Olympia 52,490 $2,086 $1,739 Shoreline 55,060 $1,250 $1,100 Burierr 56,080 $750 $600 Richland 56,243 $1,393 $1,143 Pasco 71,680 $1,450 $1,115 Kennewick 81,607 $1,400 $1,200 Kirkland 86,080 $1,531 $1,202 Yakima 93,900 $1,375 $1,075 * Official April 1, 2018 Population estimates: Office of Financial Management(OFM). **Source: AWC 2018 salary data. Page 8 APPENDIX III: Meeting Summaries Scrr5'l?r 110411111111111\111L„ OFFICE OF ME CITY CLERK pOli .11e Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Valley ' 10210 E Sprague Avenue . Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5102 ♦ Fax:(509)720-5075 ♦ www.spokanevalley.org cbainbridge@spokanevalley.org SPOIKANE VALLEY INDEPENDENT SALARY COMIVHSSION Spokane Valley City Hall, Conference Room N117 November 20, 2018 Commission Members Present: Staff Present: Bill Gothmann Staff Liaison: Cary Driskell, City Attorney Michael Moore Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Chuck Simpson John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Tes Sturges Carrie Koudellca,Deputy City Clerk Kathe Williams Commission Members Absent: Steve Robertson Meeting Summary: City Attorney Driskell convened the meeting at 11:00 a.m. and the attendees briefly introduced themselves. There were no members of the public in attendance. Mr. Driskell thanked everyone for volunteering and gave background information as to the limitations of setting the salary for Councilmembers as established by Article 30 of the Washington State constitution. He said that according to state law, the City has two ways to set salaries for councilmembers: 1) Council can vote to set their own salaries but the salary would not go into effect until the term following their own; or, 2) Council can establish an independent salary commission to analyze the workload of the Councilmembers and compare their workload and salaries with that of other similar cities. He said following the independent analysis, the commission will submit a final report and make a recommendation to Council. Any adopted changes would then become law and the new salary of Councihnembers within thirty days. Mr. Driskell explained that Spokane Valley is a Council/Manger form of government whereby Council decides policy issues and the City Manager and staff carry out the policies set by Council. He said the Mayor is selected by the Councilmembers to fill the largely ceremonial role of Mayor for a two-year period. He said it is also the role of the Mayor to chair the Council meetings. Final Report from 2006 Mr.Driskell referred the group to the packet materials and asked if there were any questions;there were none, He said the 2006 Final Report provides a good framework to consider for their analysis, adding that they are not obligated to follow it and they can make modifications to it at their discretion, He said by law, the final report from the commission must be issued to Council within ninety clays of Council appointing the commissioners. As a brief history, Mr. Driskell said that when Spokane Valley incorporated in 2003, the original salaries were set at $400 a month for Councihnembers and $500 a month for Mayor. In 2004, a change in salaries was adopted; however, a referendum was filed and the salary changes were rejected, In 2006,an independent review and analysis was conducted and salaries were changed at that time. He said no other changes have been made to the salaries since then, but the nature of the jobs for Councihnembers have become more complex and the City budget has increased. He said at a Council meeting a few months ago, a member of the public asked that the Salary Commission be reconvened to assist in attracting quality councilmember interest. Mr, Gothmann asked Mr. Driskell to explain the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and the Public Records Act (PRA) and how they relate to the Salary Commission, Mr. Driskell said the commission is established by Council and is subject to the requirements of the OPMA. Some of those requirements include notification to the public of the meetings so they can attend and give public comment. He said it also means that more than three members of the commission can't discuss the business of the commission outside of public meetings. He said all records of the commission are subject to the PRA upon request. Mr. Driskell said that another provision in the City code is that once the commission is convened, members are not to discuss anything fiom the meetings with any Council members. He said that it is important that the public has confidence that what we do is transparent, that we use reasoned analysis and that nothing is done in secret. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Mr.Gothmann nominated himself to chair the commission. Mr.Driskell said the role of Chair and Vice Chair is very limited and he said he is not exactly sure of their function. Mr. Simpson nominated M . Sturges to Vice Chair. The nominations were seconded and unanimously passed. Mr. Driskell asked if the group prefers to have the meetings run by the Chair or by the Staff Liaison; Mr. Gothmann suggested that he and Ms. Sturges meet with Mr. Driskell to set the agendas. Mr. Driskell said staff will draft questions for the next meetings based on what the commission wants answered by Councihnembers, such as their time commitment, as well as a survey of the public and analysis of other cities. Ms. Sturges said she is more interested in the details of the analysis of other cities, such as how many hours Councilmembers are putting into their roles. Mr. Whitehead said we may need to get a survey by those city's council members as well, Mr. Gothmann said they might try to pare down the list of cities to those that are most comparable to our form of government. Mr. Driskell said comparisons need to be within Washington State because all states have different laws and requirements so to go out of the state would make it difficult to compare and analyze. Mr. Driskell added that Spokane Valley is different from other jurisdictions because we do not provide fire, library, water, or utility services. Mr. Simpson said he thinks we should exclude all Puget Sound cities and stay in eastern Washington and the Vancouver area.Mr.Driskell said he doesn't know if compensation is skewed by the cost of living, but he recommends including those cities initially and they can be excluded later if that is the desire of the commission. Ms. Sturges said for the next meeting she would like the list updated with current information and pared down to cities more similar to Spokane Valley; Mr. Whitehead said he will provide an updated list and asked the group to give him a list of factors that he can compare. Mr. Driskell suggested population,type of government,and budget.Mr. Gothmann added the number of hours spent by Council members if we can get it.Ms.Williams said she is reluctant to gather information for comparison if it is not potentially good information, adding that the hours of other council members spent in their roles may not be good information to do the analysis. Mr. Driskell said Spokane is not usually a good comparison because of the difference in their form of government. Mr. Gothmann suggested that Mr. Whitehead gather the information and the commission will decide which jurisdictions to include in their analysis at the next meeting. Mr. Simpson asked about the benefits the Councilmembers get outside of wages.Mr.Driskell said the charge of commission is determining salary only, not including benefits. He said Councilmembers are offered health, dental and vision benefits, which he said is unusual for Councilmembers in the state, but that is what was adopted in 2003. Ms. Sturges asked if they can consider the benefits they receive when determining their salary. Mr. Driskell said he can't tell them they can't think about that as they move forward, but he again said the charge of the commission is to determine the salary of the Council. Mr.Gothmann said some Councilmembers may choose to not enroll in the insurance benefits. Finance Director Taylor said they can opt out, but that is not the norm.Ms. Sturges asked if they get retirement benefits and Mr. Whitehead said they are eligible for retirement benefits but they have to be vested before receiving any benefit; he said many choose not to enroll in retirement benefits. Future Meetings The next meetings will be approximately one hour and Mr. Driskell proposed the larger second floor conference room (N212) if possible. Upcoming meetings were scheduled as follows: Thursday,November 29, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. Thursday, December 6,2018 at 4:00 p.m. Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Driskell said the deadline for the commission to submit their report is February 4, 2019. He said next week they will identify those cities for which to compare and the criteria. He asked that the City Clerk include the website survey and data from Lasertiche in the packet materials for the next meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m. SpokaSury OF ne OFFICE Of THE CITY CLERIC Tolle Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk400° 10210 E Sprague Avenue 4 Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5102 4 Fax:(509)720-5075 ♦www.spokanevalley,org cbalnbridge a@spokanevalley,org SPOKANE VALLEY INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION Spokane Valley City Hall, Conference Room N212 November 29, 2018 Meeting Summary Commission Members Present: Staff Present: Bill Gothmann,Chair Staff Liaison: Cary Driskell,City Attorney Steve Robertson John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Chuck Simpson Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk Tes Sturges,Vice-chair Kathe Williams Alternate Commissioner:Mike Moore Other w Present:three citizens Meeting Summary: City Attorney Driskell convened the meeting at 3:00 p.m.,after which it was determined that staff would set the agendas, Mr. Gothmann would lead the meeting, and staff would contribute when appropriate. Mr. Gothmann said he learned when he was a councilmember, is that any time information comes to the committee,it is better if it comes from staff so as not to appear biased;and added that he has information that he prepared for today's meeting and will discuss later in the meeting. It was noted that commission members had a copy of the minutes but likely had not had a chance to review those.Mr. Gothmann mentioned Mr, Siimpson's list of questions given at the last meeting, and noticed they were not in the minutes, and City Clerk Bainbridge explained that they are not included in the minutes, but we all have the handout of those draft survey questions for councilmembers; and Mr, Driskell distributed copies to all of a revised version of those questions,and said we can discuss those under agenda item 144. Since not everyone was able to attend the first meeting, there were self-introductions. City Attorney Driskell briefly explained the duties of a mayor, councilmember, and a city manager in a council/manager form of government as noted in the stale statutes, a copy of which he distributed; and he noted that our council/manager farm of government is very different from a strong mayor form of government; and said that commissioners want to keep in mind our form of government will likely be used by this commission in terms of comparing our cities to other like cities, Mr. Gothmann stated that the mayor spends quite a bit more time on city business than the other councihnembers, as members of the public generally want to talk to the mayor when they have questions or concerns. Mr. Driskell turned attention to the draft survey questions, and regarding the question about time commitments, that there are various committee meetings that all councihnembers, including the mayor, are obligated to attend;and opened the floor for any changes to the list of questions.There was some discussion about the frequency of some of these committee meetings, and ultimately, it was decided that City Clerk Bainbridge would send commissioners a copy of the current committee assignments for Councilmembers. Salary Commission Meeting Sunnnery 1 1-29-2018 Pngc t of4 City Clerk Bainbridge noted that when commission members get the committee list, they will note that Councilmember Peetz is currently not on a committee;that she is fairly new,and was on one committee but it dissolved;so she will probably get assigned to a committee or two later.There was also discussion about the frequency of council meetings,i.e.,once a week generally;and that some councilmembers might immerse themselves more into their role than others; and that newer councilmembers might also take more time to familiarize themselves with the materials, There was mention that in looking over the list of committee assignments and time commitment, that this commission will look at the Mayor separately, and Mr. Gothmann added that the Mayor also receives a higher pay than the couneihnembers. Mr. Driskell clarified that currently the Mayor's salary is 30% higher than the councilmembers. There was also mention that different mayors would likely spend different amounts of time at their position, just as different councilmembers would, as it would depend on their own schedules and availability. City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned that members of council do not spend countless hours here at City Hall, as they can come in for council meetings,committee meetings, meetings with staff,and they have the opportunity of grabbing their council meeting materials and taking them home to read and study. Mr. Gothmann also noted that the job of mayor and councilmembers is considered part-time, as opposed to Spokane County Commissioners who work full time.Mr. Simpson said he views these positions not as a job, but as serving the city. There was also seine question about the city hierarchy,and Mr. Driskell explained that it is council's job to approve policy,and it is the job of the City Manager to carry out those policies; and it was clarified by Mr. Driskell that the City Manager would not be involved in this commission's process, There was some discussion about the difference between the legislative actions of council,and the administrative actions of staff;and that all staff are under the city manager,and it is the Council that has the responsibility of hiring or terminating the city manager. In response to a comment about the city manager and councilmembers time together,Mr.Driskell said the City Manager schedules regular time to meet with each councilmember. There was ultimate agreement with the survey questions and City Clerk Bainbridge said she will make sure these get to each councilmember, and per this commission, we will ask that councilmembers return those to the City Clerk in about two weeks. Once the surveys are returned, City Clerk Bainbridge said she will tabulate the answers for this commission.Mr.Driskell also suggested that at the end of th is meeting,to look at possible times and dates for future meetings, past the December 6 and 13 meetings already scheduled. Concerning the survey that was undertaken in 2006, there was brief discussion about those cities surveyed and of the salary ranges, Mr. Whitehead distributed copies of a spreadsheet with data on various cities including population, form of government (council manager or strong mayor), mayor compensation, councihnember compensation, hours worked, benefits, and budget. Mr. Whitehead explained that much of this information is courtesy of the Association of Washington Cities(AWC);that annually they pool a range of cities and compile salary/compensation data;said the cities are grouped with populations 30,000 to 49,999; and from 49,999 up. Mr. Whitehead said he added Bellevue because it wasn't part of the survey, but it was included in the city study done in 2006. He further explained that in looking at the sheet, the information from the right of`hours' is the information this group asked for,and the information to the left of`hours' is what was compiled by AWC, without the city of Bellevue. Mr. Whitehead noted that blanks under hours, benefits,or budget indicate that he has not heard back from those cities yet,which he said wasn't surprising given the short time frame to gather the data, as well as the Thanksgiving holiday; and entries of"no data" indicate that the city responded, but they didn't know; and he said that the benefits include the traditional benefits of health,vision,and dental,among other things.Mr.Whitehead said the first line on the spreadsheet is Spokane Valley with an estimated population of 95,000; we have a council manager form of government, our mayor makes $975 a month, councilmembers make $750, we provide full benefits, and our total city budget is about$81,000,000. in response to a question from City Clerk Bainbridge,Mr. Whitehead said the AWC information is from data collected in 2017; he noted the term `VBBA' under councilmember compensation stands for `voluntary employee benefits association,' which is similar to a medical savings account, but is contributed to on behalf of the councilmembers, Further, Mr. Whitehead said that as more data is submitted to him, he will be updating the list;end that this commission doesn't have to include all the cities when making a determination,and can certainly reduce those cities to just those this commission thinks are the most comparable.Mr.Whitehead said he removed the city of Seattle from this list due to its size,and that Tacoma did not respond. Salary Commission Meeting Summary 11-29-2018 Page 2 ord Mr. Gothmann distributed copies of linear regression charts he drafted showing 2008 population and 200G pay of various cities in a council-manager form of government,strong-mayor form of government,and one showing both. It was mentioned these handouts are for illustrative purposes only as a method of analyzing data. Mr. Driskell mentioned we are fairly unique as a city, as we have a lower budget as we are not a full service city;so the data would be skewed if we used budget rather than population,and again stated that this data is a factor, but not the only factor one might consider; and that after the data is compiled that this commission wants to consider, it is going to boil down to looking at the different possibilities for pay, and said he feels commissioners will know it when they see it. Mr. Simpson mentioned that to him, it is very important to also take into consideration the benefits, and Ms. Williams said she would like to know what the value of the benefit package is for our councihnembers. There was discussion about collecting benefit values from other cities,and the commission members said they did not want to do that; but to just consider the benefits our councilmembers receive from the city. Mr. Simpson said he would also like to concentrate on this unique community,and not include data from the west side of the state,with Mr.Robertson agreeing with the idea of keeping it simple. The topic of benefits was discussed further, with Mr. Whitehead explaining that the value of the benefits package depends on what each individual councilmember chooses;so the package would vary depending if a councilmember received benefits for themselves, for them and their spouse,and for them and their spouse and children. Mr. Simpson asked then to see what the benefits would be for those three categories. Ms, Williams said bringing that into the discussion,there would be an individual councilmember who has more time to devote to their duties as an elected official,versus another individual who might work full time and/or have a family;to simplify the information,we might want to only look at the cost for a single individual.Mr. Whitehead said he can supply all the figures this commission would like, but there are three different plans from which to choose, with five tiers on each plan. Ms. Sturges asked if staff could go back five years and give an average cost of benefits per councilmember; and Ms. Williams and Mr. Gothmann agreed with that suggestion.Mr. Whitehead added that for the current council,there were some who did not take benefits,and therefore, the zeros would skew the data, Several commission members suggesting taking out the zeroes, and Ms. Sturges remarked that the benefit is still available,even though some may have chosen not to accept it; and she suggested showing an average of cost for those who did use it; and to go back five years. Mr. Whitehead explained that even though a councilmember might have chosen not to accept benefits,depending on the qualifying event, they could at any time of the year, come back on to benefits; and Ms. Williams suggested deleting those months with a zero,and do an average monthly. Mr. Gothmann disagreed and said he would prefer to use just the current councilmembers,just for this past year, and divide it by seven; and Mr. Simpson agreed,Ms.Williams said the idea with going back five years and an average month,is to make sure this past year isn't an anomaly. There was also discussion about pay and benefits; that one single councilmember would be actually getting less in benefits than a councilmember with a family who elected to accept the benefits package. Ms. Sturges suggested getting figures for what the benefit value is this year, and what it has averaged over the last five years. Mr. Gothmann suggested including what the budget is for each year as well,and divide that number by seven;so the figure would be the average the city spent for each of the councilmembers for the last five years.Because of the amount of work,Mr.Driskell suggested having the figures for the last three years instead of five.Ms.Williams asked about the budgeting and if the council's benefit budget was calculated each year based on every councilmember getting full family benefits. Mr. Whitehead said he would need to check with the finance director for those figures.To recap,staff will gather actual expenses for the last three years for each councilmember, added together and divided by seven; and we will have the average budgeted amount for benefits for the last three years, and to have three separate ranges:single,married and married with family for the current cost going back three years. Mr. Driskell stated that the charge of this salary commission is to look at the salary for council;although he realizes commissioners will be looking at benefits as well.Mr.Whitehead added that concerning other cities, many have different plans, some larger or smaller staffs, and some are self-insured, so we won't know the value of those cities' benefits.Mr, Simpson mentioned that most people look strongly at available benefits. Salary Commission Meeting sunmrary t 129-20la Page 3 of4 The floor was opened to public comments. Ms. Barbara.Howard said she thinks councilmembers should also get gas mileage as an enticement; that she knows they attend various meetings here and downtown;and that she looks at the vouchers paid each month and knows that the health insurance dropped about$3,000 from what it was the previous year,as there are less children on the plan now as compared to then. There were no other public comments. Ms. Bainbridge said that councilmembers do put in for gas mileage reimbursement as it is related to their duties as an elected official, Mr. Driskell said regarding the issue of a citizen survey, that we can't do that until we have the time commitment outlined by our council so that will need to be put on hold for now. Mr. Simpson mentioned the previous 2006 survey is interesting reading, and Mr. Driskell added that at the time,there was an active group trying to disincorporation the city,so some were very anti-city. City Clerk Bainbridge made sure each commissioner had a copy of the special meeting notice for next week that she handed out at the beginning of the meeting;and the group was reminded that the December 6 meeting will begin at 4 pm,as will the December 13 meeting;and that she will send out the previous meeting summary to commissioners;and will get the survey out to the current councilmembers as soon as possible,with a quick return date. Mr. Whitehead said for the next meeting,he hopes to have a range of benefit costs as well as a good amount of other data about benefits that might help the group; and will continue to update the spreadsheet. There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 4:17 p.m. Salary Commission Meeting Summary 11-29-2018 Page 4 of 4 pokane OFFICE Or'I THE CITY CLERK j They Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk �I 10210 E Sprague Avenue 41 Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5102 ♦fax:(509)720-5075 a www.spokanevalley.org ebainhridge ct spokanevatley.org SPOKANE VALLEY INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION Spokane Valley City Hail, Conference Room N212 December 6, 2018 Meeting Summary Commission Members Present: Staff Present: Bill Gothmann,Chair Staff Liaison: Cary Di'iskell, City Attorney Tes Sturges, Vice-chair John Whitehead,Human Resources Manager Steve Robertson Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Chuck Simpson Kathe Williams Alternate Commissioner: Mike Moore Others Present Three citizens Meeting Summary:The meeting was convened at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Whitehead distributed and explained copies of an updated version of the compensation data he had provided at an earlier meeting as a few more cities responded, but said the data substantially remains the same; he noted this group previously discussed benefits; and explained that he compiled the data on this as shown;he mentioned that in looking at this in terms of the cost to the city,the word 'cost' could be changed to'benefits' of the individual councilmember, Mr, Whitehead explained that in response to our request about having a range of costs, Mr. Whitehead distributed copies of`Council Benefits Costs' which shows a range of city costs for years 2016,2017,and 2018 for just the councilmember,for the councilmember and spouse, and for the full family (which is the councilmember, a spouse and two or more additional dependents), and also included on that handout, is the average actual monthly costs; he explained that the lower figure is the least costly benefit plan,and then the highest costly benefit plan for each noted year; and noted these figures are from the budget showing what was actually spent in covering councilmembers,so the average spent for benefits per councilmember was$1,478 in 2016,$1,778 in 2017,and$1,490 in 2018,which figures included the last month for 2018, Mr.Whitehead noted the average is higher in 2017 as compared with 2018,because we had one more councilmember who covered their full family; and the plans the council was on in 2017 sunsetted, so they took a step down in coverage beginning January 2018, and because of that, the City also paid less, so all in all, it's about$1500 per month per councilmember, which includes health, dental, and vision; and they can choose which plan they want and the City picks up the difference in cost. There was some discussion about the cost of benefits, and what the councilmember pays and what the city pays, and Mr.Driskeil noted that is a council choice and is not determined by staff,and explained that these costs will vary from year to year,for the councilmember and for the city. Mr. Simpson said personally he likes to take the budget figure and divided it by the number of councilmembers.Mr.Whitehead also noted on that handout, there is a `health reimbursement account'which was implemented to help pay For medical benefits,and that amount is determined by a resolution passed by Council. Mr. Whitehead further explained that number reflects the deductible for that particular plan,so the City decided to cover the deductible,which is an annual cost,and which can only be used for certain medical expenses as determined by the IRS. Salary Commission Meeting&inanery 12-06-2018 Page 1 of 3 Mr.Gothmann said he feels that the benefits should be irrelevant to this commissions'decision,as the charge for this commission is salary and not benefits,also that the benefits are determined by a resolution passed by council, and that council could decide at any time, not to offer any health insurance benefits; hence he said this commission should focus on the salary, and use comparative salaries of other places. Mr. Gothmann added that any salary figure that this commission decides on could be increased or decreased based on other factors,such as benefits,or analysis of their workload,or citizen comments. Mr. Driskell said he thinks this answers the question of what is a round number for benefits for council; he brought attention to the sheet showing compensation of other jurisdictions, and said Mr. Whitehead continues to gather additional data, Mr. Driskell said we continue to collect data, and once we get the survey questions from council, that will give us important data, and from there we will be able to draft a survey to be placed among other places,on the city's website. Ms. Williams distributed a handout showing Moody's ratings; she suggested that the city of Shoreline is no longer very similar to our city;and that growth fate and financial health might be something else to consider in addition to benefits. Mr. Simpson said he simply took the salaries of the mayor of mayor cities, then divided that by ten,and took out the high and the low,and the larger cities as well as the smaller cities came out to between$1300 and$1400 a month; and for councilmembers it was$1,000 to$1,200.Mr. Gothmann also distributed copies of his updated linear regressions showing only the council-manager cities, and he briefly went over some of those figures on the two graphs; he noted the `bonus' for being a mayor averaged to about 30%,and that is what our city has been paying. Concerning the list of committees our Councilmembers are associated with, Ms. Bainbridge explained that this is just informational to let this commission know the various committees; and she mentioned that different committees have different workloads, that.STA would represent a large commitment, where Visit Spokane would not,and committees like Wastewater Policy only meet annually.Mr.Driskell stated that this helps the commission have a little better understanding of some of the council's commitments,but there is a lot of variation. Ms. Williams asked about the idea of having an escalation clause or have a salary tied to some index and Mr'.Driskell explained that we are not precluded by state statute,but it is not something we have done before; he said staff members don't have an automatic escalator or COLA (cost of living adjustment), and part of that is reflective of council's desire. Mr. Simpson suggested that once the salary is established to put in a percentage the same as given to the city administrator, which suggestion prompted discussion about who determines the city manager's salary,Mr. Driskell stated that Council determines the city manager's salary so tying council's salary to the city manager's increase, would be tying their own raises into the city administrator's raises, which does not fall into the state statues procedure for changing council's salary. Mr. Driskell also noted that at any time, any citizen or councilmember could reconvene this commission. Mr. Whitehead added that if there was a decline in the economy and the council automatically received a raise, when most citizens would not due to economic decline, that could cause concern among citizens. Mr. Gothmann remarked that he feels councilmembers aren't here for the pay, but they are here because they want to serve the citizens and do something for the city,while Mr. Driskell said he agreed, he also noted that if we don't offer a fair wage,we won't attract good candidates. Going back to the data from Mr. Whitehead,Ms.Williams asked how often those other cities change salaries and could we get that data;said if we are comparing salaries to those set five years ago,some of those cities might be on the verge of changing. Mr. Whitehead said he would have to research that and Mr. Driskell suggested waiting until we have as much information on that blue sheet as possible, then determine which cities this commission wants to use for comparative purposes, and then get the most recent updated figures just from the cities to use in our comparisons.Mr.Whitehead also noted the historical average annual inflation rate is 2.5%. Concerning comparing other cities, Mr. Simpson suggested not comparing cities in the Puget Sound area since home values are twice the value of our homes,therefore,those cities and our cities are not equal. Salary Commission Meeting Summnry 12-06-201S Page 2 013 Mr. Driskell said that at the last meeting, Mr.Simpson asked him to check state law about considerations on being on this commission, in that Mr. Gothmann works for the Current magazine which is owned by Councilmember Wick. Mr.Driskell said he researched the statutes,and having Mr.Gothmann in his capacity as working for the Current,is not precluded by state law; that his employment status was known by Council and the Mayor at the time of recommending him for this commission, and there is no legal reason why he can't be on this commission. Mr.Simpson thanked Mr. Drlskell and said he brought up the issue because he thought some citizens might bring up that concern. Public Comments were solicited. Ms. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: said she saw an article when Diana Wilhite was mayor that she spent 30 hours a week or better on committees and other things;said they put in a lot of time promoting our city; she also asked if any councilmember makes an insurance claim, does that cause the insurance rates to increase. Mr.Whitehead explained that we are part of an insurance pool through AWC(Association of Washington Cities), and we are part of thousands in their trust; said claims or lack of claims can impact our rates as insurance rates are based on claim rates;with having seven people with typical medical expenses, there will probably not be any noticeable rate change as they access their benefits. Ms. Howard said she also likes the idea of putting money aside for them,and Mr. Whitehead explained that each plan has an out-of-pocket maximum,and those funds are usually used to cover deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses; and he added that preventive care usually has no out-of-pocket expenses. Mr. Bruce Foreman, Spokane Valley: said he feels most people look for citizen servants as councihnembers; said it is good to look at data but most isn't relevant; said it seems we have a market full of people who want to become council members;and said he wants people on the council who don't have to work,perhaps retired folks;and concerning benefits,said it is a lot of money when you add in all the benefits. Mr. Driskell said that while it is true that retired people might have more time,we also want a broad view of what the community should look and feel like, and someone with a young family could give that view on needs like parks and walking paths,and again stated that having a broader view of what the community needs are is probably better addressed having younger people and retired people. Concerning the task of this commission,Mr.Robertson said that this commission should only be concerned with salaries and not benefits,and Mr.Driskell agreed,adding that this commission's task is to identify what an appropriate salary would be,taking into account different activities councilmembers have to do,and when the commission was active in 2006, they also had that task but they at least had benefits in mind, hut didn't base the salary on the benefits;and said the figures came in toughly comparable to similar jurisdictions at the time, and again stated that yes, the primary focus is salary. Mr. Robertson also asked if that state statute default amount when first forming a city is still the same as it was in 2006,and after checking,Mr. Drlskell said it has not changed:$400 for councilmembers and$500 for the mayor. Mr.Driskell noted that once we get the information back from the brief survey of councilmeniber's time,then we can work on salary ranges for the citizen survey, with one question for the council,and one for the mayor. It was determined that this commission will meet again December 13 at 4 p.m. and December 20 at 4 p.m. Mr. Simpson said he will be out of town December 23 through January I I, and said he has no problems if this commission meets while he is gone. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Salary Commission Meeting Summary 12-06-2018 Page 3 of 3 pokane OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Valley Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk 10210 E Sprague Avenue 1 Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5102 1 Fax:(509)720-5075 + www.spokanevalley.org cbuinbridge@spokanevalley.org spokancvalley.org SPOKANE VALLEY INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION Spokane Valley City Hall, Conference Room N212 December 13,2018 Meeting Summary Commission Members Present: Staff Present: Bill Gothmann,Chair Staff Liaison: Cary Driskell,City Attorney Tes Sturges,Vice-chair John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Steve Robertson Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk Chuck Simpson Kathe Williams Alternate Commissioner: Mike Moore Others Present.four citizens Meeting Summary: The meeting was convened at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Gothmann said he understands that Ms. Williams may be late but we can start the meeting now as we have a quorum,and she had asked not to delay the meeting for her. Mr, Driskell stated that Mr. Simpson had asked him a question about the authority of the charge of a salary commission to identify the salary for the council and the mayor;Mr. Driskell said he had advised him of that answer and was going to provide the answer to everyone here today. Mr. Simpson said he was asking the question that he didn't know who made that law,was it a state law and if so,who drafted the law about salary only.Mr.Driskell said that our City code section is in SVMC 2.10.020(2),purpose;and he read:"The purpose of the independent salary commission shall be to review and establish the salaries of the mayor and the council members." Mr.Driskell said that code section was passed by the City Council years ago. Mr. Gothmann said we received new city data last week, and council benefits average costs, and a chart showing percentage of growth; that this week we have the data on how long each councilmember spent in their role, Ms. Bainbridge explained the results of the survey questions submitted to couneilmcmbers as shown; that each question is answered by seven individual council members, and that each #1 is the same councilmember for each question;and the low end average and the high end average is derived from the range of figures.For example, if a councilmember's answer to the first question is 11-13,and another's answer is 5- 7, she said she averaged all the bottom figures; and then went back to average the high figures as well. She explained that this is for informational purposes to give an idea of the average range of time spent for each answer,and that as stated on the document, the councilmember responses do not correspond to their council position. Ms, Sturges said that she also added up all the answers to get the total average range of each councilmember:#1:36-52;#2: 8-1 I;#3:43-53;#4:38-46;#5: 34-37;#6; 17;#7;24-36, It was noted that Ms. Williams just arrived, Ms. Sturges said in her estimation, all but two conncilnlembers appear to be working the equivalent of a full-time job. Mr. Gothmann said he feels this commission now has all the data needed to make a decision. Mr.Whitehead mentioned that at the last meeting,there was some question about how old the data is on the blue spreadsheet, and said he again revised the data to show when the last increases occurred,as shown on the last column. Mr. Salary Commission Meeting Summary 12-13-2018 Page l at Whitehead further explained that the asterisk shown in that last column means there was a jump in their compensation but there was some data not recorded;so there was data in 2014 and different data in 2017 so it changed someplace but he is not sure when that occurred, and the year shown is the year whcrc he had the factual information. He also explained the `less than' 2008; and said he went back to 2008, and if there was no change, he didn't record a change; said it was interesting to look at that data as many of those were fairly low on the scale. Mr. Whitehead said the reports he gathered,which he didn't ask for but which some cities submitted, looked like salary commissions were setting three-year windows of time, likely in an effort not to have to convene the commission annually. Ms. Sturges asked if that is permissible per our code. Mr.Driskell replied that he doesn't believe there is a prohibition in doing that,however,he said he thinks everyone is aware that Council is very fiscally aware and takes a very responsible approach to the city's funds; and one of the ways that has played out is staff salaries;that the city has not granted a COLA (cost of living allowance) in nine or ten years;and feels there is a strong argument that if you just build in increases in how much it cost to do business,there will be an ever-expanding budget;from a management and council standpoint,we have not granted COLAs to employees;and whether that means more generally that the council would or would not be in favor of a graduated approach to their pay,said he does not know but he raised the issue because of the ever increasing cost to the city.Mr.Simpson said he would not be in favor of that because if the economy declines, private industry won't be giving their staff raises;and said he thinks this commission should just focus on the present. Mr. Whitehead added that the city government and community are fiscally conservative; the down side to future raises is if the economy declines and the future raises are built in,that could prove troublesome for not only the constituents but for councilmembers as well. Mr. Gothmann agreed and said he would not agree in treating council more favorably than council would be treating employees, so it would be better not to build in future salary increases. Further,Mr.Driskell explained that he and Mr.Whitehead also participate on the negotiating committee for the labor agreement for the city, and it is fair to say that if a COLA-like structure was built into what the council gets,we would hear that on the next negotiation,as what's good for one is good for all;and said that would create a difficult position from which to negotiate.Mr.Whitehead said the city has a performance system, and since about 2011 or 2012, we have moved away from automatic increases for staff;that we have a contract that goes into effect in January,which includes some adjustments to the pay structure. The question came up about the frequency of convening a salary commission, and Mr. Driskell said it the suggestion can come from the public or the council; and that this time it was as a result of comment from the public. Mr.Driskell mentioned that the alternate way to increase council salaries, is that council could adopt an ordinance but if they did so,any change would not be effective until the next election for their position;so they would not, in theory,benefit from any such change. Ms.Sturges asked if this committee can recommend that council salaries be reviewed every three years, and Mr. Driskell replied yes; that this commission can recommend that the Council should consider reconvening the salary commission every three, four, or five years; and that part becomes a recommendation for council discretion. It was again discussed among the commission members that councilmembers are not doing this job for the money,but for the community. Ms. Williams said she conducted an informal poll and as she was walking around, approached some people and told them of the task of this commission, and asked them their feelings of what council should be paid, and several said at the very least it should be minimum wage; adding that she doesn't know that these people answering knew councilmembers were working out of the goodness of their heart.Mr.Robertson said that the 2004 commission recommended$1200 for the mayor and$1,000 for councilmembers and that the referendum was defeated; and he asked if Mr. Driskell feels the atmosphere is different now. Mr. Driskell said the city had just incorporated in 2003 after a fifth attempt to do so;there was also a strong disincorporation effort and they had a ready group of people to contact;so it went to referendum and was over-turned in 2004;he said in 2006 he was the staff liaison and thinks the report in 2006 was more complete then 2004, in explaining the basis for the recommended change; and there was a very minor attempt to overturn that on referendum, and the petition didn't get even close to having enough signatures within the required time period,to put the issue on a ballot. Mr.Robertson asked if this commission should be concerned about a possible referendum.Mr.Driskell replied that is always a possibility;and a higher figure salary recommendation grossly disproportional to all else, that will always get people's attention, adding that there were always be some people who disagree with any Salary Commission Meeting summery 12-13-2018 Page 2 of4 increase; but said there is a greater acceptance of what this city does now. In response to a question about advertising this,Mr.Driskell said this won't be advertised,and that procedurally,this commission will analyze the data we provided,and he thinks we can likely wrap this up in another meeting or two; that he will draft the report summarizing the information and show the comparisons,and explain how this commission arrived at its decision; that once the report is finalized, that he will present the information to Council in an open session which will also help to disseminate the information; and there will be a better understanding of this process and this issue now as opposed to 2004, as it will be similar to what was done in 2006. It was also noted that it takes a hot of signatures on a referendum petition to place an issue on a ballot. Ms. Bainbridge mentioned the report needs to he published twice,at least one week apart,and the file deadline is February 4; so we will work backwards and shoot for publication January 18 and 25. Mr. Driskell said the survey will be put on our website, and Mr. Simpson suggested including what their salary is now. Mr. Driskell agreed. Mr. Driskell said he will get the draft for this commission as soon as possible,and once approved,we can get the report published,and Ms. Bainbridge added that once the report is filed,there is a window of 30 days in which to file a referendum petition. Mr. Driskell said if time permits, he will send the report out to commission members prior to a meeting,so any edits can be made and discussed at the meeting. Mr. Gothmann said he thinks the only data we don't have are public comments; and hopefully commission members will he ready to conic to an agreement; and it was agreed to have that discussion next week. The survey questions to be placed on the website were discussed, and Mr. Simpson suggested adding something to the effect that these figures are only salary and not benefits,said most people don't know they get benefits, and said he is still a strong advocate that benefits are part of the salary. Mr.Gotlunarun said the only numbers important are what salary are we recommending for Council,and what for Mayor.Ms,Williams said she feels people also need to know how many hours councilmembers generally work. It was agreed to include in the survey,the average number of weekly hours worked,about 35 hours a week,or an estimated range of 29.8 to 37.6, Mr. Simpson continued stating his view of benefits being a real bonus, or give them a salary with no benefits,or a smaller salary with benefits.There was continued discussion about what to include on the survey, what not to include,and discussion about the state minimum wage.Mr.Driskell said the purpose of the survey is to get public input on salary ranges; and that he hopes to get 100 responses, although the holidays might adversely impact the number of responses.It was agreed to include in the survey,the average 35 hours worked per week, include salary ranges from which to choose,to reflect the current numbers with 750 to 1,000 as the bottom range, then follow with consistent ranges, and to have a third item to include the survey taker's zip code in order to identify if the responder is actually a city resident. Mr. Driskell said he and Ms. Bainbridge will work to get a survey out on the website tomorrow. Mr. Gothmann said for next week he would like this commission to have specific dollar suggestions for council and percentages for the mayor,to see if by the end of that meeting, we could have something agreed upon if possible, by the end of the meeting. Mr. Driskell said after a week of having the survey out, if this commission feels we have enough data we'll go with what we have,or run it again if we need more responses;and that he suggests not having a deadline at this point for the survey. Mr. Driskell said we will do a press release,send out e-mail distribution to a list of about 1,000, and will send out a tweet;and unfortunately,there isn't time to place an ad in the newspapers. It was determined the next meeting will be Thursday, December 20 at 4 p.m. and based on what is accomplished at that meeting, we may or may not meet January 10, at 4 p.m., or perhaps to come in January 10 to vote on the report,then get it published. If the report is finalized January 10,Mr.Driskell said he would likely bring it to Council January 22,and then publish January 25 and February 1. Public comments were solicited. Ms, Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: said doesn't minimum wage go up January 1, to $12.00; and she asked if these figures are before or after taxes. Ms, Bainbridge said they are before taxes. Mr.Dan Allison,Spokane Valley:wonders about putting this out on Facebook and twitter. Ms. Bainbridge mentioned we don't use Facebook, and twitter is merely an additional way to publicize, but we will put it on our website and push the notice out about the survey,via our e-mail distribution.Mr.Dan Allison asked what Councilmember only spends 11 to 15 hours a week on their duties? Ms. Bainbridge said these figures were handed in anonymously, and Mr. Driskell noted that these figures change as councilmembers change and it is not uncommon to have one person who spends a great deal of time,and another who spends less, and he suggested not focusing on that, but to look at these as generally good numbers. Mr. Allison said Salary Commission Meeting Surnrnnry 12-132018 Page 3 014 what councilmembers make now, is way too low. Mr. John Harding. Spokane Valley: said there are some real outliers in the cities to use as comparisons, and said he wouldn't include any of the cities in the lower populations; and in the upper group, there are some cities giving their mayor three to four times more than what our councilmembers make;that he doesn't think we can look at this as an average.Mr.Driskell said this body has not decided how to use the data, they are simply different data points that could be used for some members of the commission;and we are trying to give more data for better rather than just a few comparisons, in order to give a better feel based on type of government,size and budget and what might be relevant to any salary. Mr. Harding said the job couriciimembers do on our behalf if remarkable, and that no one brought up salary issues for about 12 years is astounding, and said that it was Mr.Allison who did so this time. He also noted he wouldn't spend any time on politics, that whatever this commission comes up with, will be it, and that politics shouldn't be a concern,as that changes as the economy does;that he feels the concept should be kept narrow and not go for any long term planning. The meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m. Salary Conunissian Meeting Summary 12-13-20111 Page 4 of 4 SCITY of poane OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK �[ Talley a Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk 10210 E Sprague Avenue # Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5102 # Fax:(509)720-5075 # www.spokanevalley,org cbainbridge cr spokanevalley.org SPOICANE VALLEY INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION Spokane Valley City Hall, Conference Room N212 December 20, 2018 Meeting Summary Commission Members Present: Staff Present: Bill Gothmann, Chair Staff Liaison: Cary Driskel I, City Attorney Tes Sturges, Vice-chair John Whitehead,Human Resources Manager Steve Robertson Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk Chuck Simpson Kathe Williams Others Present: two citizens Meeting Summary: The meeting was convened at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Gothmann noted in case we have meetings further into January, that he would be out of town January 16 through 24. Mr. Driskell said the projected date for the report is January 10, 2019, depending on how much gets accomplished tonight; and he clarified that in order to get the report into the appropriate council agenda packet on time,a better date might be January 9,2019. To briefly recap the previous meeting,Mr. Gothmann asked Ms. Sturges about the averages she calculated last week from the amount of time spent per councilmember, and she noted the average weekly time spent was 29.8 on the low end, and 37.6 on the high end,which corresponds with the range of hours reported by each councilmember. The results from the on-line survey was discussed which was included on the draft `Final Report' submitted by Mr, Driskell. In looking at the survey results, Mr. Gothmann noted that citizens suggest a salary between $1,000 and $1,250. Ms. Sturges said for the councilmembers, there is 43% in favor of the $750 to $1,000; 18%on the bottom range, and about 38%in the middle; and based on that, said she thinks the salary would fall between$1,000 and$1,500. She noted the results were similar for the salary of the mayor; with 35%in the low range, 31%in the next two ranges combined, and 33%in the top two ranges.Mr. Simpson said those figures are about in line with what he was considering. Mr. Whitehead said he had no further updates on his data. In reviewing the blue spreadsheet, Mr. Driskell asked if commissioners had thought about which cities to use as comparison cities. Regarding his linear regression charts with the two graphs, one for Council-Manager only and eliminating Spokane Valley, and the other for council-manager only eliminating Vancouver, Belleview and Spokane Valley, Mr. Gothmann said he would prefer to look at a trend line, and said he found that the cities on both sides of the state follow the same trend line in looking at size of the city and council salary; and said if you include Spokane Valley, he comes up with a figure of about$1,279,which he said includes Bothell,Lacey,Olympia,Shoreline,Burien, Richland,Pasco,Kennewick,Kirkland and Yakima;that they all follow the trend line.Mr.Driskell,in seeking clarification, said that it appears in answer to which cities to use for comparisons, that Mr. Gothmann is identifying all of the cities included on that bottom graph, and Mr. Gothmann concurred that includes all the cities listed from Des Moines to Yakima, and said he therefore is ready to offer a figure, but Mr. Driskell suggested waiting until all the commissioners agree on which cities to use, and Mr. Driskell asked if anyone had any other suggestions. Ms, Bainbridge asked if the 2006 report showed how many cities were used for comparisons,because this list includes 15 cities.Mr. Driskell said there were four cities used last time but the ability to collect data last time was a bit more difficult as compared to this time, as this time we have the benefit of Mr. Whitehead's assistance. Concerning the mayor's salary, Mr. Gothmann said according to the RCW, initially the salary would be 25%greater than the councilmembers, and the figure our present council Salary Commission Meeting Summary 12-20-2018 Page 1 of 2 has is 30%; said he looked at the difference for the mayor's salary for all the cities on the list, and those average 22%, and said he likes a figure of 25%. Going back to the list of cities to use for comparisons, after further brief discussion,it was ultimately unanimously decided to just use the nine cities on the bottom graph, which include Lacey through Yakima.Mr. Driskell said he will include those nine cities into his draft report, with a note that after looking at several cities,this commission feels those cities are more directly comparable, and show that in Appendix III. Mr. Gothmann asked the commissioners if everyone agrees that the salaries of the present councilmembers are too low, and they all said agreed wholeheartedly. Mr. Gothmann invited public comments. Ms.Barb Howard, Spokane Valley,mentioned she has an article at home,possibly from 2009,that indicates then Councilmember Diana Wilhite was putting in 30 hours a week. Mr. Driskell said there are several factors that influence that number,one is the number of committees internal and external,the point of someone's working career as if someone is working they can't necessarily spend as much time as those who are not; and he cautioned that what it was in 2012 will be different from now which will again be different in 2022.Ms. Howard asked if there is any difference in benefits from what council gets and what staff gets. Mr. Driskell said that is outside the consideration of what this commission thinks the salary should be; and Mr. Whitehead said the plans and the benefits are the same, however, staff pays a flat rate for their insurance, and he noted that staff retirement is required by Washington State. There were no other public comments. Mr. Robertson said he feels the positions of mayor and councilmember are very important and carry with it great responsibility; that there is a sense of volunteerism, but their current pay is extraordinarily low. Mr. Driskell noted he thinks there is a sense of volunteerism in what the public expects and from those who serve, but that is a factor as to why they wouldn't get the full value of their work because they are contributing to the community; he said that is not to say that there is an expectation they will volunteer to do it, but rather it is a complex analysis of the amount of work, level of responsibility, size of the budget, the public safety issues being addressed, and the big picture is it is very important for the health of our community, is that they want to do this because they have a sense of community and volunteerism,and several others agreed there is a sense of volunteerism,but they should also be compensated for their work,including comments about the minimum hourly wage which will be$12.00 beginning this January,and Mr.Simpson noted again that benefits also play a part in the salary. After further discussion about minimum wage, the average amount of hours worked of about 25 to 30,responsibilities of the positions and the importance of the work,that there has been no increase in salaries for about 12 years, benefits, average wages of mayors and councilmembers of other cities, and some salary ranges to consider, it was decided unanimously that the salary of a councilmember should be $1415, and the salary of the mayor should be $1775.00, which is about 25% higher than that of a councilmember. It was noted the$1415 was based on$11.00 an hour for 30 hours a week. Mr. Driskell reminded everyone that when he writes the report,those nine comparable cities will be included, that he will include a general statement of how this commission arrived at the $1415 figure; and that this commission recommends the council consider reconvening a salary commission every three years. Mr. Driskell said once the final draft of the report is complete, it will be e-mailed to commission members; and he cautioned commissioners not to `reply all' to such e-mail as we don't want any perception of an illegal meeting. Mr.Driskell suggested perhaps the next meeting would only last five to ten minutes,and if there are no changes, the report will be signed by the Mr. Gothmann as chair of the commission, at which time this commission's work will be complete.Mr. Driskell said once that is accomplished,he will make a presentation to council,that commission members are free to attend if they choose,and that there will be no public comment on this report nor any discussion about it from council, as it would merely be presented to council as information;and that the goal is to give the report to Council January 15,and to publish the report January 18 and 25; and that the January 25 publication date triggers the thirty-day appeal period for the public should anyone wish to file a referendum petition; he noted that he would have to research the number of signatures required on a referendum petition;but if there is no referendum,at the 31't day after the January 25 publication, the salary would become final and part of the budget without any further action required, and would be reflected as such later by a budget amendment.It was determined that this commission's next and last meeting will be Tuesday,January 8,at 4:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 5:04 p.m. Salary Commission Meeting Summary 12-20-2018 Page 2 of 2 sCITY po an OFFICE OF THE CITY CL)rRI[ 4000.\7ailey Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk 10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5102 • Fax: (509)720-5075 ♦www.spokanevalley.org cbainbridge@spokanevalley.org spokanevalley.org SPOKANE VALLEY INDEPENDENT SALARY COMMISSION Spokane Valley City Hall, Conference Room N212 January 8, 2019 Meeting Summary Commission Members Present: Staff Present: Bill Gothrmann, Chair Staff Liaison: Cary Driskell,City Attorney Tes Sturges,Vice-chair Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Steve Robertson I(athe Williams Absent: Chuck Simpson Others Present: none Meeting Summary: The meeting was convened at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Driskell asked if there were any proposed changes to the finalized draft report. There were none. Mr. Driskell gave a brief summary of the report, the process this committee used to determine the new salaries, and the final process of giving this report to Council during their January 15, 2019 meeting; that the salary schedule will be published January 18 and 25,and if no referendum petition is filed by thirty days after January 25, the new salaries will be as stated, with no further action to be taken by Council. It was moved by Ms. Sturges,seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the 2018Independent Salary Commission Report, with the exception that the Clerk will add the meeting summary from the January 8, 2019 meeting. The meeting adjourned at 4:11 p.m. Salary Commission Meeting Summary 01-08-2019 Page I of I DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of January 20,2022; 8:30 a.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 January 27, 2022 AWC City Action Day (virtual) Feb 1, 2022,Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Jan 25] ACTION ITEMS; 1. Second Reading Ordinance 22-001 SMP Amendments for Ecology's Final Approval—Chaz Bates (10 minutes) 2.Motion Consideration: Barker GSP Change Order Authorization—Bill Helbig,Gloria Mantz (10 minutes) NON-ACTION ITEMS; 3.Federal Legislative Agenda—Erik Lamb(with members from Cardinal Infrastructure) (25 minutes) 4.ARPA Funds—Erik Lamb, Chelsie Taylor (20 minutes) 5.Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 70 mins] Feb 8,2022,Formal Meeting,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Feb 1] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance 22-002 Appleway Street Vacation—Karen Kendall (10 minutes) 3.Admin Report: Potential Grant Opportunity: City Safety Program—Adam Jackson (10 minutes) 4.Admin Report: Master Fee Schedule Update for Transportation Impact Fees—Jerremy Clark (10 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 40 mins] Feb 15, 2022, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Feb 8] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley (5 minutes) Feb 22,2022,Formal Meeting,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Feb 15] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Resolution Updating 2022 Master Fee Schedule,Transportation Impact Fees—Jerremy Clark (5 minutes) 3.Motion Consideration: Potential Grant Opportunity: City Safety Program—Adam Jackson (5 minutes) 4.Admin Report: Potential Grant Opportunity: National Highway Freight Program—A.Jackson (5 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Potential Grant Opportunity: Spokane Regional Transportation Council—A.Jackson (5 min) 6.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley (5 minutes) 7. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 30 mins] March 1,2022,Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Feb 22] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley (5 minutes) March 8,2022,Formal Meeting,6:00 p.m. [due Tue March 1] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Motion Consideration: Potential Grant Opportunity:Nat'l Hwy Freight Program—A.Jackson (5 minutes) 3.Motion Consideration: Potential Grant Opportunity: Spokane Reg'l Transport. Council—A.Jackson(5 min) 4.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 20 mins] March 15,2022, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue March 8] 1. 2022 Construction Project Updates—Gloria Mantz (15 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley (5 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 1/20/2022 1:32:48 PM Page 1 of 2 March 22,2022,Formal Meetin2,6:00 p.m. [due Tue March 15] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley (5 minutes) 3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports March 29,2022, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue March 22] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley April 5,2022, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue March 29] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley (5 minutes) April 12,2022,Formal Meetin2,6:00 p.m. [due Tue April 5] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley (5 minutes) April 19,2022,Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue April 12] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley (5 minutes) April 26,2022,Formal Meeting,6:00 p.m. [due Tue April 19] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley (5 minutes) 3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports May 3,2022, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue March 29] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley (5 minutes) May 10,2022,Formal Meetin2,6:00 p.m. [due Tue May 3] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley (5 minutes) May 17,2022, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue May 10] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley (5 minutes) May 24,2022,Formal Meetin2,6:00 p.m. [due Tue May 17] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley (5 minutes) 3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports May 31,2022, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue May 24] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Haley (5 minutes) *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Appleway Trail Amenities Park Lighting Artwork&Metal Boxes PFD Presentation Basement space Prosecutor Services City Lobby circulars/brochures etc. Residency Consolidated Homeless Grant Ridgemont Area Traffic Core Beliefs Resolution St.Illumination(owners,cost,location) Governor Auth.Emergencies(info only) St.O&M Pavement Preservation HHAA Funds TPA Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt. Vehicle Wgt Infrastructure Impact Neighborhood Restoration Water Districts&Green Space No Parking Zones Way Finding Signs Draft Advance Agenda 1/20/2022 1:32:48 PM Page 2 of 2 City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2021 - 12/31/2021 Page Title 1 Cover Sheet 2 Pre-Application Meetings Requested 3 Online Applications Received 4 Construction Applications Received 5 Land Use Applications Received 6 Construction Permits Issued 7 Land Use Applications Approved 8 Development Inspections Performed 9 Code Enforcement 10 Revenue 11 Building Permit Valuations Printed 01/05/2022 15:55 Page 1 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2021 - 12/31/2021 Pre-Application Meetings Requested A Pre-Application Meeting is a service provided to help our customers identify the code requirements related to their project proposal. Community& Public Works Department scheduled a total of 8 Pre-Application Meetings in December 2021. f 15 11 10 5 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Land Use Pre-Application j Commercial Pre-App Meeting Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial Pre-App 2 1 0 3 0 2 4 2 3 1 1 1 Land Use Pre-Application Meeting 6 7 7 5 5 8 2 0 4 12 6 7 Monthly Totals 8 8 7 10 6 2 7 13 7 8 Annual Total To-Date: 89 Printed 01/05/2022 15:55 Page 2 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2021 - 12/31/2021 Online Applications Received Community& Public Works Department received a total of 534 Online Applications in December 2021. 600 I 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Trade Permit Right of Way Permit Pre-Application Meeting Request Demolition Permit = Sign Permit Reroof Permit = Other Online Applications = Approach Permit Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Approach Permit 7 3 14 24 21 10 6 10 9 5 10 3 Demolition Permit 8 8 6 10 5 8 8 6 3 4 4 5 Other Online Applications 199 93 157 117 113 88 116 113 122 177 150 212 Pre-Application Meeting Request 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reroof Permit 29 44 109 126 80 63 70 72 79 57 44 27 Right of Way Permit 19 22 47 57 42 53 49 68 41 66 48 61 Sign Permit 9 9 14 11 17 11 13 4 15 8 9 9 Trade Permit 227 215 218 211 199 260 208 236 205 226 221 217 Monthly Totals 498 394 565 556 477 493 470 509 474 543 486 534 Annual Total To-Date: 5,999 Printed 01/05/2022 15:55 Page 3 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2021 - 12/31/2021 Constr ction Applications Received Community& Public Works Department received a total of 566 Construction Applications in December 2021. 600 400 200 0 Z Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial - New Commercial -TI Residential - New ® Other Construction Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial-New 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 42 Commercial-TI *6 *10 *14 *11 *16 *5 *14 *12 *12 *11 *13 *18 Residential-New 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 8 1 3 0 Commercial-Trade 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 7 Residential-Trade 0 4 0 1 0 3 7 16 31 8 16 8 Residential-Accessory 1 2 4 0 0 1 2 1 3 6 5 1 Demolition *8 *8 *6 *10 *6 *10 *10 *7 *4 *5 *5 *6 Sign *10 *10 *14 *12 *18 *11 *13 *5 *15 *8 *9 *9 Other Construction Permits *528 *377 *539 *563 *468 *495 *485 *533 *473 *514 *462 *475 I Monthly Totals 558 411 578 597 508 525 532 577 550 556 513 566 Annual Total To-Date: 6,471 *Includes Online Applications. Printed 01/05/2022 16:01 Page 4 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2021 - 12/31/2021 Land Use Applications Received Community& Public Works Department received a total of 79 Land Use Applications in December 2021. c 200 ,-7- . PP _ , _, ,, . _ _ _ __ 100 Iiiiiiiii -, ill , _ _ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment ICI Binding Site Plan Preliminary State Environmental Policy Short Plat Preliminary Final Platting Act(SEPA) Long Plat Preliminary Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment Administrative Exception/Interpretation = Other Land Use Permits I Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment 2 4 7 1 2 6 1 3 2 6 5 4 Short Plat Preliminary 1 5 0 3 5 4 6 8 4 3 2 3 Long Plat Preliminary 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Binding Site Plan Preliminary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Final Platting 1 2 4 6 2 3 3 4 3 3 0 4 Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Administrative 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 3 3 0 0 2 Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits *94 *100 *150 *125 *95 *96 *101 *67 *38 *64 *62 *65 Monthly Totals 99 115 165 135 108 114 114 85 51 78 72 79 Annual Total To-Date: 1,215 *Includes Online Applications. Printed 01/05/2022 16:01 Page 5 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2021 - 12/31/2021 Construction Permits Issued Community& Public Works Department issued a total of 436 Construction Permits in December 2021. 600 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial - New Commercial -TI Residential - New = Other Construction Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial-New 1 7 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 Commercial-TI 14 7 10 11 10 3 11 8 16 10 13 11 Residential- New 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 7 1 3 2 Commercial-Trade 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 7 Residential-Trade 0 1 4 1 0 2 8 16 26 11 14 10 Residential-Accessory 1 1 2 1 0 0 3 1 3 2 5 2 Demolition 8 10 4 5 4 9 6 9 5 5 3 2 Sign 4 11 9 10 12 17 7 5 11 11 7 10 Other Construction Permits 350 331 497 526 438 469 472 512 426 424 437 392 Monthly Totals 380 369 529 555 464 501 508 552 495 470 482 436 Annual Total To-Date: 5,741 Printed 01/05/2022 16:05 Page 6 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2021 - 12/31/2021 Land Use Applications Approved Community& Public Works Department approved a total of 41 Land Use Applications in December 2021. 100 P 50 IilIP'OI 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment MI Binding Site Plan Preliminary State Environmental Policy Short Plat Preliminary Final Platting Act(SEPA) Long Plat Preliminary Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment Administrative Exception/Interpretation = Other Land Use Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Short Plat Preliminary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Long Plat Preliminary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Binding Site Plan Preliminary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Platting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Administrative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits 3 1 4 6 7 1 0 80 46 54 33 40 Monthly Totals tigi 4 6 7 1_ 0 80 46 56 33 41 Annual Total To-Date: 278 Printed 01/05/2022 16:05 Page 7 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2021 - 12/31/2021 Development Inspections Performed Community& Public Works Department performed a total of 1,319 Development Inspections in December 2021. Development Inspections include building, planning, engineering and ROW inspections. 2,000 1,500 • 1,000 500 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019 2020 2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals ■ 917 977 1,555 1,668 1,530 1,447 1,517 1,492 1,235 1,319 1,385 1,319 ■ 997 1,179 1,233 735 1,406 1,674 1,731 1,559 1,464 1,401 1,136 1,063 1,114 773 1,051 1,402 1,417 1,363 1,300 1,486 1,285 1,527 1,138 1,030 Printed 01/05/2022 16:07 Page 8 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2021 - 12/31/2021 Code Enforcement Code Enforcement Officers responded to 38 citizen requests in the month of December. They are listed by type below. Please remember that all complaints, even those that have no violation, must be investigated. 150 100 k nir_ilipi. ini 50 ki___Pt 0 1 1 41 li r nril IMO" Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec F CE-Stop Work Order Environmental General Nuisance Property Complaint, Non-Violation Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CE-Stop Work Order 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Complaint,Non-Violation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Environmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 General 8 1 0 0 2 5 3 4 4 3 4 3 Nuisance 20 21 40 48 42 48 44 82 52 34 30 28 —Property 14 9 18 20 18 31 17 15 9 4 7 7 Monthly Totals 43 31 58 68 62 84 65 101 65 44 42 38 Annual Total To-Date: 701 Printed 01/05/2022 16:07 Page 9 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2021 - 12/31/2021 Revenue Community& Public Works Department Revenue totaled $329,244 in December 2021. 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 ::\Arae)<)s<:: 200,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021 2020 Five-Year Trend Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 2021 $1,087,3 $196,293 $364,569 $459,905 $239,948 $367,253 $433,461 $430,383 $323,636 $396,162 $292,643 $329,244 1.$4,920,807 10 Trend $191,303 $215,857 $273,512 $209,488 $308,880 $239,202 $220,296 $251,287 $228,539 $236,335 $224,434 $205,531 $2,804,663 2020 $230,256 $402,862 $371,956 $237,120 $402,525 $309,668 $226,943 $188,990 $268,487 $254,775 $246,368 $223,685 I$3,363,635 2019 $162,441 $228,717 $265,529 $195,244 $241,906 $233,496 $355,943 $304,988 $228,157 $294,794 $299,906 $349,821 t3,160,942 2018 $177,431 $117,425 $220,845 $206,090 $234,009 $158,168 $260,179 $362,478 $253,342 $270,649 $204,016 $169,751 1$2,634,383 2017 $174,349 $146,874 $133,382 $221,935 $309,558 $265,383 $134,394 $135,242 $149,194 $197,639 $232,319 $159,618 I$2,259,887 2016 $212,038 $183,405 $375,848 $187,053 $356,403 $229,293 $124,020 $264,735 $243,514 $163,819 $139,562 $124,77812,604,468 Printed 01/06/2022 08:09 Page 10 of 11 Community & Public Works Department Monthly Report 01/01/2021 - 12/31/2021 Building Permit Valuation Community& Public Works Department Building Permit Valuation totaled $13,480,900 in December 2021. 200,000,000 150,000,000 100,000,000 50,000,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021 2020 Five-Year Trend Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 2021 $8.86M $179.08M $16.72M $32.82M $22.43M $27.70M $65.19M $24.39M $18.16M $42.67M $17.71M $13.48M 1$469.21M Trend $14.46M $19.20M $29.27M $17.82M $31.26M $25.19M $22.14M $20.49M $19.65M $14.68M $32.48M $16.66M1$263.30M 2020 $22.13M $20.94M $36.69M $27.67M $51.38M $29.93M $17.95M $7.61M $20.62M $15.27M $26.89M $21.38M 1$298.46M 2019 $5.66M $22.21M $19.46M $12.46M $23.15M $15.02M $46.65M $18.80M $14.36M $17.16M $35.21M $32.93M1$263.07M 2018 $12.84M $6.35M $27.60M $7.87M $9.55M $26.26M $29.25M $25.44M $20.69M $21.88M $25.46M $6.70M 9M 2017 $23.82M $18.37M $6.98M $30.99M $35.66M $35.63M $9.78M $9.05M $8.88M $10.05M $67.10M $16.78M Ertr9M 2016 $7.83M $28.14M $55.64M $10.10M $36.56M $19.11M $7.07M $41.53M $33.68M $9.06M $7.76M $5.52M r562.00M Printed 01/06/2022 08:09 Page 11 of 11 Dave Ellis Ozzie Knezov'c!1 Chief of Police Sheriff ea�f C Spokane Valley Police Department �,��. �E asp ' ' :// fr , Accredited Since411 0.,„Services provided in partnership with °} the Spokane County Sheriff's Office and the Community, '� , F" Dedicated to Your Safety. TO: John Holtman, City Manager FROM: Dave Ellis, Chief of Police DATE: January 17,2022 RE: Monthly Report December 2021 ADMINISTRATIVE: Four new deputies were sworn in on December 1st: Devan McGraw is 25 years old and grew up in Goldendale, Washington. He served with the Navy on active duty from 2017 to 2021, and is now a Naval Reservist. His most recent employment was with Oxarc in Pasco, Washington. Edward "Eddie" Tomsik is 38 years old and a lateral deputy who comes to us from the Olympia Police Department. He was born and raised in North Hollywood, California, is married and has three children. He worked in the trades for several years prior to starting his career in law enforcement with the LA County Sheriff's Office in 2013. He lateraled to the Olympia Police Department in 2016. Lupita Tejeda is 27 years old and is from Wenatchee,Washington. Her most recent employment was with the Chelan County Juvenile Detention Center/CRC. She has a BA degree from Central Washington University in Law and Justice, along with an AA degree in Criminal Justice from Wenatchee Valley College. Ian Bally is 35 years old and a lateral deputy who comes to us from the Hemet (CA) Police Department. He grew up in Riverside County, California, is married and has two children. He served with the Hemet PD for 13 years and held assignments as a patrol officer, gang detective, corporal, SWAT team member, and sergeant. Page 1 The Annual Holidays and Heroes event was held in early December, again a bit modified due to Covid- 19. Local law enforcement members were teamed up with children to be taken shopping at Walmart and received all the fixings for a delicious Christmas dinner. n*TL_. rx 4z, . 4, . ,,,,,, \ AO J_Ill aori , ': ' q . '. ,4 : 'f 1 77f�fi c,.,,c,r,,rn+u iu U.nr L mmry I _t IN a,; 'ti -af 4rt ..—. Vic \4.;\ { I I , ., ,,\ S ow I il v mr_ rr� Iv }� .- L iiii,4101 op , , 04 • i, Page 2 Representatives from Amazon visited the Spokane Valley Precinct in late December to donate $5,000 to SCOPE for pro_ a.ms like the Police Activit League. liglik_ _ . — Si U' !' nE * #'t i **: i i''..,,, k p iill_t '..1 \ r jik .--..w. , , , , y 1' ,. vlR.. . ' � :N ,� 1 „___..,„ j. �; FIVE rHOUSANQ �Lk-, , L-, _{„ . w„ , -,,,,,,,1t 'r� i�- f 1 rc 41' N ItJ: I ;, i Two deputies graduated from the Basic Law Enforcement Academy in early December. Congratulations to Deputy Jillian Brant and Deputy Nerman Bajric. BLEA lass 825 ; Glass 825p 'i1'r:•--.iia••4II_.-:,_O7-.-:_,-_.--.-1!-=.I 1...MW,."..0- _ _ ~C}ore -A" *r- _ '1. ` -------"--M-F--_j._2I.1(-0z-_I4 `r4 _ ti T i -per .. ,.... A,_.i..-.,.-,,1----,--.-.-.1--..__,.-7.-,.i'..--._-=-.--:-7 '1,-----, i'-------,."1-,-1.t•V,,_.•1.±.--,t.•V,1 t /ll- ! . 1,. a r4 ., z-A fr "Y Page 3 Chief Ellis along with members of city hall and neighbors of the Eagle Point Apartment complex met in late December to discuss the large number of calls to law enforcement and code enforcement, the crimes being committed, and solutions to reduce these incidents. SHERIFF'S COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING EFFORT (SCOPE): In the month of December, S.C.O.P.E. participated in: • S.C.O.P.E.Basic Training (three new • S.C.O.P.E. Abandoned Vehicle Team out at volunteers) least two days a week following up on citizen • Spokane Valley Celebration of Lights requests • S.C.O.P.E.Volunteers patrolling neighborhoods and businesses December 2021 Volunteers Hours per Station *Includes estimated volunteer service hours that arc provided in the City of Spokane Valley. These two locations cover both Spokane Valley and the unincorporated portion of the county. Location #Volunteers Admin Hours L.E. Hours Total Hours Central Valley 9 64 24 _ 88 East Valley* 18 82 255.5 337.5 Edgecliff 7 35 0 35 Trentwood 3 117.5 39.5 157 University 11 212 15.5 227.5 West Valley* 18 255.5 46.5 302 TOTALS 66 766 381 1,147 Volunteer Value ($31.72 per hour) $36,382.84 for December 2021 The SCOPE Latent Fingerprint Team was given 8 cases for the month of December for latent prints; 3 of those cases were for incidents in Spokane Valley. Of the 3 cases in Spokane Valley, 1 vehicle was processed and printed; the team was unable to lift prints on the vehicle. Out of the 11 cases, 7 were cancelled,most attributed to the weather conditions and freezing temperatures. SCOPE DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT City of Spokane Valley # of #of Hrs. # of # of # of Non - Vol. Disabled Warnings Disabled Infractions Issued Infractions Issued Issued January 0 0 0 0 0 February 0 0 0 0 0 March 0 0 0 0 0 April 4 7.5 0 20 0 May 2 5.2 0 11 0 June 2 8 0 7 0 July 2 5 2 2 0 August 0 0 0 0 0 September 3 6.5 2 3 0 October 3 10 1 20 0 November 2 9 0 23 0 Page 4 December 2 2.5 0 7 0 YTD Total 20 53.7 5 95 0 Spokane County # of # of Hrs. # of # of #of Non- Vol. Disabled Warnings Disabled Infractions Issued Infractions Issued 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 May 0 0 0 0 0 June 0 0 0 0 0 July 2 5 2 2 0 August 2 11 3 2 0 September 2 6.5 0 3 0 October 0 0 0 0 0 November 2 4.5 1 4 0 December 0 0 0 0 0 YTD Total 11 33.5 5 20 0 S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 87 on-scene hours (including travel time) in December; 58 of those hours in December were for incidents in Spokane Valley, responding to crime scenes, motor vehicle accidents and providing traffic control. There were two special events in December, both in Spokane Valley. Total volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training,stand-by,response and special events is 730 for December;total for 2021 is 10,780. Abandoned Vehicles October 2021 November 2021 December 2021 Tagged for Impounding 80 45 31 Cited/Towed 0 0 0 Hulks Processed 37 5 31 Total Vehicles Processed 229 103 113 Yearly Total of Vehicles Processed 1495 1598 1711 OPERATIONS: Suspected Impaired Driver Hits Patrol Cars, Flees, and Crashes into Truck - Spokane Valley Deputies arrested a suspected impaired driver after hitting two patrol vehicles as he fled the scene. With suspicion of DUI falling under the limited exceptions where pursuits are allowed under the new legislative law enforcement reforms, deputies were authorized to pursue the fleeing suspect. The suspect chose to continue his attempt to elude deputies as he drove recklessly.He was arrested after blowing through a red light at an intersection and crashing into an uninvolved motorist. Thankfully, the two occupants of the victim's vehicle received only minor injuries. In early December,at approximately 12:20 a.m., Spokane Valley Deputies responded Page 5 to the 1700 block of N. Glenn Ct. for a suspicious vehicle. A caller reported an unknown vehicle arrived and parked in front of their home. The car appeared to have a temporary plate in the rear window, damage on the driver's side, and possibly a broken window. It was unknown if the vehicle was unoccupied or if someone was sitting in the passenger's seat. Deputy McKenzie, Deputy French, Deputy Pfeiffer, and his partner K9 Apache responded to the location to investigate. They found the vehicle was occupied by a 21-year-old male driver and an adult female seated in the front passenger's seat. Both appeared to be sleeping, but as deputies noticed items commonly used with illicit drug use (possibly opioids), they began to suspect the pair were passed out. A check of the VIN showed it had not been reported as stolen. Two patrol cars were placed at the front and rear of the suspect's vehicle to try and block any attempt to flee. Even with emergency lights flashing and deputies talking at a normal level, neither occupant seemed to react or gain consciousness. A short time later, the male suspect began to stir and partially opened his eyes. Deputy McKenzie, standing at the driver's side door,loudly identified himself. With the window already down,the suspect clearly should have heard Deputy McKenzie, but he did not respond. When asked if he had identification, the male suspect mumbled something similar to "Yeah," but did not attempt to locate it. The male suspect began moving around when he was explicitly asked for his ID. When the suspect did speak,he talked slowly and slurred his speech; his eyes were watery, and his eyelids were droopy, possible further indicating he was under the influence of an intoxicant/controlled substance. During the contact,the male suspect reached up and started the car despite several orders to the contrary. The suspect, with a very blank look, stared at Deputy McKenzie, appearing not to understand. Attempts to stop the male suspect by reaching through the window to open the driver's side door failed because the suspect rolled up the window. The suspect put the vehicle in gear and began moving it forward and backward, hitting the patrol car's reinforced bumpers as he repositioned the vehicle to flee despite orders to stop. He finally was able to squeeze past, accelerated, and slammed into a set of mailboxes as he attempted to escape. The deputies returned to their vehicles as they provided the information to additional units and their sergeant,who authorized the pursuit,per RCW. With little to no traffic on the road, deputies pursued the male suspect,who continued to drive recklessly and without headlights and ignored traffic signals at several intersections. The suspect initially fled down a dead-end and turned around,placing him head-on with pursuing deputies. Both deputies said the suspect accelerated and drove toward their fully-marked patrol cars with emergency lights activated, causing them to take evasive emergency actions to avoid a collision. Now southbound on University, approaching 32"d Avenue, deputies observed the light at the intersection was red. They slowed, also noting via radio that the suspect began to slow, but did not stop before entering the intersection where he collided with an uninvolved motorist, causing that vehicle to roll on its side. Deputies attended to the two occupants (one adult/one juvenile) of the victim's vehicle while others attempted to get the male suspect and the female passenger to follow commands.Neither the suspect nor the female passenger followed instructions, and with their view heavily obstructed due to the deployment of the vehicle's airbags,the deputies maintained a safe distance. With no response and not knowing if the suspect was armed, Deputy Pfeifer removed his K9 partner Apache from his patrol car, placed him on a long lead, and began giving K9 announcements/warnings. After several warnings and as K9 Apache began barking, confirming his presence, the male suspect opened the driver's door and began to communicate. Both suspects were subsequently taken into custody without further incident. The two victims from the vehicle the suspect crashed into received minor cuts and abrasions and were provided medical attention at the scene. The female passenger from the suspect's vehicle was not injured and was later released at the scene without charges. The male suspect was transported to the hospital for medical treatment before being transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Attempting to Elude a Law Enforcement Vehicle, two counts of Assault 2nd Degree, Malicious Mischief 3rd Degree, and DUI. Page 6 Driver Arrested for Vehicular Assault after Causing Head-On Crash-Spokane Valley Deputies and Traffic Unit Investigators arrested the driver of a vehicle that caused a head-on collision. The adult victim driver was taken to the hospital with substantial but believed to be non-life-threatening injuries. Mission Avenue was closed for several hours while this crash was investigated. In early December, at approximately 4:45 p.m., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to the 9600 block of E. Mission Avenue in Spokane Valley for the report of a two-car vehicle crash with one person trapped. Deputies, Spokane Valley Firefighters, and AMR personnel arrived on the scene. Firefighters worked to free the adult female victim from her vehicle. She was provided medical treatment before being transported to the hospital for further evaluation and care; she was believed to have sustained substantial but non-life-threatening injuries. Initial information from witness statements and evidence gathered at the scene indicates the victim was traveling west on Mission in a Honda passenger car as the 39 year-old male suspect driver was traveling east in a black Chevrolet Impala. Witnesses stated the suspect swerved, crossed the centerline, and collided with the victim's vehicle. Deputies and investigators worked together to gather statements and evidence. Probable cause was developed, indicating the male suspect was driving while under the influence/affected by alcohol/drugs. A search warrant was granted to obtain a blood sample from the suspect. After being medically cleared,the suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Vehicular Assault, a felony. Detectives Investigate Shooting on Barker Road - Spokane Valley Deputies detained an adult male who shot another male in the 18700 block of E. Boone in Spokane Valley. Detectives were at the scene to investigate what occurred. The gunshot victim was transported to the hospital with possible life-threatening injuries. In early December, at approximately 1:30 pm., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to a reported shooting at a residence located in the 18700 block of E. Boone. Arriving deputies detained the adult male who admitted to firing the handgun without incident. The gunshot victim was provided medical attention at the scene and quickly transported to the hospital with possible life-threatening wounds. The initial information into what occurred is conflicting as detectives continue to conduct interviews, collect evidence, and document the scene as they work to determine what led up to this shooting. Suspected Impaired Driver Faces Charges After Crashing into Tree- Spokane Valley Deputies and Traffic Unit Investigators responded to a one-vehicle crash. The driver and two of the five young adult passengers were transported to the hospital for continued care. The adult driver was believed to be impaired and could face Vehicular Assault charges when he's medically cleared. The injuries are believed to be serious, but non-life-threatening. In early December, at approximately 6:30 am., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to the report of a one-vehicle crash in the 2400 block of N. Park Road in Spokane Valley. The caller stated the vehicle, a Subaru Impreza, Page 7 left the roadway and struck a tree. Deputies, .,. v i ' ' �.� ,,}„ .„,,▪ : Spokane Valley Fire, and AMR personnel arrived ' '• • . _ a'rr71 [ 11FF and began assisting the occupants of the vehicle, "" _..i,, ,; µ ,.,- /;t'-�- all between the ages of 18 and 22-years-old. Two -- j ` of the passengers were transported to the hospital ' 4' for serious but believed to be non-life-threatening -:. >u t' \ injuries. The 22-year-old male driver was �,� . ' transported to the hospital for additional treatment _- and further evaluation. With the assistance of y i ,„, SIRT Team Volunteers, Park Road was closed to v `�.::,. z, , traffic while this incident was investigated. Initial �r r ',-,A,, K ' `' `. information indicates the car was traveling northj, ,� ' on Park Road from Trent Avenue when the male N suspect lost control on the snow-covered roads, ' - 9 :, - ::. �'k p ,f . left the roadway, and struck a tree. Impairment . {' � .w ,i' ' and speed are believed to be factors in this . g �t ,? '-1 ; 9c crash. With a valid search warrant, a blood Gam"' , .pow i sample from the male suspect was obtained and ,, �,'a a i' placed into evidence. After being medically ` ''`` 4.Ydt tE�' '' �; : * f_'�It� cleared the suspect was booked into the Spokane r `'� r 1 l A. . County Jail on two counts of Vehicular �c�, J~`L ' `. .`r Assault. This remains an active and ongoing investigation. Wanted Abduction Suspect and Focus of an Amber Alert Located and Arrested/Juvenile Female Safe and Reunited with Family - Spokane Valley Deputies, Spokane County Sheriff's Deputies, and Washington State Patrol Troopers converged on a caller's sighting of a stolen vehicle and focus of an Amber Alert initiated by the Lewiston Police Department. The 36-year-old male suspect was arrested after a short pursuit. The 15-year-old juvenile reportedly abducted by the suspect was safe, and she was reunited with her family. The Amber Alert advised that the suspect was with an abducted 15-year-old juvenile female victim who was last seen in Lewiston on Friday, December 3, 2021. It was believed they were traveling in a reported stolen 2007 maroon Chevrolet Trailblazer. The male suspect had multiple outstanding warrants for his arrest, including child molestation, and law enforcement was advised the suspect was to be considered armed and dangerous. In early December, at approximately 5:55 pm., Spokane Valley Deputies and Spokane County Sheriff's Deputies responded to assist Washington State Patrol Troopers in locating a reported stolen vehicle that was the focus of an Amber Alert initiated by the Lewiston Police Department. An alert citizen observed the SUV and called in, stating the vehicle was northbound on Pines near Sprague. The SUV was confirmed as the stolen Trailblazer associated with the Amber Alert. Deputies joined a WSP Trooper behind the vehicle as it traveled west on Trent from Pines. They activated their emergency lights, attempting to stop the SUV near Trent and Fowler. The vehicle, driven by the suspect, pulled over into a parking lot and stopped. A young female was observed in the passenger's side seat. Suddenly,the male suspect accelerated in an attempt to flee. Due to the nature of the crimes for which the suspect was wanted and for the safety of the 15-year-old victim,the trooper and deputies were authorized to pursue. The male suspect was driving recklessly and at a high rate of speed. At the intersection of Trent and Argonne, the suspect almost came to a stop due to the heavy congestion, but he suddenly turned, crossed over a large cement median, and into the oncoming eastbound lanes of travel. Continuing to drive without regard for anyone's safety, including the juvenile victim or his own,the male suspect turned north on Argonne. With the amount of traffic, deputies lost sight of the Page 8 Trailblazer near Argonne and Knox. Several additional law enforcement patrol units swarmed the area to try and locate the suspect and the victim. Spokane Valley Patrol Sergeant Justin Palmer observed two people walking south on Center Road from Mission a few minutes later. He turned his vehicle around to check on the pair and noticed they had quickened their pace and turned west on Maxwell Avenue. As Sergeant Palmer approached, he noticed the pair was a male and a much shorter female. Knowing the male suspect was reported as armed and dangerous, Sergeant Palmer illuminated them, quickly identified himself as Iaw enforcement, and asked them to turn around while showing their hands. As they did, Sergeant Palmer immediately recognized the male suspect and ordered him to place his hands on a nearby fence and asked for his name. The male suspect replied "Conner" before he took off,running across the street. Sergeant Palmer advised he needed emergency assistance and quickly caught up to the suspect, who resisted arrest. Sergeant Palmer deployed his OC spray, but it did not have the desired effect,and the male suspect began assaulting Sergeant Palmer,punching him twice. Sergeant Palmer swiftly gained control and took the suspect to the ground, but the male suspect continued to fight,pulling his arms toward his waistline. Additional force was needed to gain control of the suspect's hands. Additional deputies arrived and the suspect was taken into custody without further incident. He was provided medical treatment at the scene for OC exposure and medically cleared. The juvenile female victim was taken into protective custody, provided food, and reunited with her family later in the evening. The male suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for new charges of Attempting to Elude a Law Enforcement Vehicle,Assault 3rd Degree, Kidnapping 2nd Degree, Possession of a Stolen Motor Vehicle, Resisting Arrest, and Obstructing. He also faces extradition back to Idaho for his charges there. The stolen Trailblazer was located on N. Ely Road, south of Indiana Avenue. It was seized and towed as evidence pending a search warrant. This remains an active investigation as Spokane Valley, Spokane County Sheriff's Office, and Washington State Patrol Investigators continue to work with Lewiston Police Department and other Idaho agencies. Additional charges are possible pending the outcome. Four-Time Convicted Felon with Lengthy Criminal History Arrested After Pointing a .357 Revolver at a Victim's Face-Spokane Valley Deputies responded to the area of Railway Storage and located a suspect,who reportedly drew a pistol and pointed it at a victim's face. The victim was not injured, but stated he was in fear for his life. The suspect, a four-time convicted felon and prohibited from possessing a firearm, was arrested and booked into the Spokane County Jail. The suspect's loaded pistol, which he tried to hide prior to being contacted, was located and booked into evidence. In mid-December, just after 10:00 am., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to the report of a person with a weapon at Railway Storage, located at 4210 N. Progress. The caller/victim stated he contacted a male inside a truck that had been parked at the location for the last two days. The victim said the 29-year-old male smashed out the driver's side window of the truck with what the victim described as a .44 Magnum Revolver and pointed it right at the victim's face. The suspect told the victim,"F###off,I am not having a good day, and I am waiting for my friend to come to give me a jump." The victim was able to leave without being injured, but stated he felt threatened and was in fear for his life. Deputies began searching the area for the male suspect. A few minutes later, Deputy Moffett advised he located a male matching the suspect's description in the area of Rich and Upland Roads. During a consensual contact,the suspect lied about his name or having any knowledge of the incident. Deputy Moffett continued to monitor the male suspect's location while other deputies continued the investigation. Soon, Deputy Moffett was informed that the male he had contacted was believed to be the suspect involved. Deputy Moffett recontacted the male suspect and detained him, but the suspect was not found to be in possession of a weapon. Back at the storage area, deputies quickly determined the vehicle belonged to the male suspect. The victim confirmed the male suspect was the suspect who pointed the handgun at Page 9 him. Later,a search to locate the suspect's handgun was conducted. Deputy Moffett found the pistol hidden in the backyard of a residence located in the area where he first observed the male suspect. The handgun, a loaded .357 magnum revolver, had not been reported stolen. It was unloaded and later booked into the evidence facility. The male suspect, a four-time convicted felon (Assault with a Deadly Weapon (2 counts), Escape by a Felon, and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm), also had two misdemeanor convictions and multiple probation violations. The male suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Assault 2nd Degree and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm 1st Degree. Suspect Fires Gun Near Past Employer's Home-Business/No One Injured - Spokane Valley Deputies responded to a home/business early this morning for a reported person firing a gun. No one was injured, and the suspect and victim are acquaintances. The suspect fled prior to deputies arriving at the scene and has not been located yet. Major Crimes Detectives responded to the scene to investigate. In mid-December, at approximately 4:30 am., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to the report of someone firing a shot in the area of the 10800 block of E. Trent. The caller stated an acquaintance and past part-time employee arrived at his business/home and began yelling out front. The victim then heard a shot as he went to the door to investigate. He observed the suspect out front holding a firearm. The suspect pointed the gun at the victim and yelled something before fleeing the area. The victim said he does not know why the suspect did this, and he doesn't know of any conflict between them. The victim explained the suspect was possibly under the influence of drugs. Deputies searched the area, but the suspect was not located. Major Crimes were called to the scene to continue the investigation and collect evidence. Spokane Valley Major Crimes Detectives and Deputies continued this investigation and received information that the 41-year-old suspect was at a house located in the 1500 block of N. Vista. Due to the severity of the crime and knowing the suspect had a weapon earlier, the SWAT Team, negotiators, and additional support units were requested to assist as a perimeter around the residence was established. After a multiple-hours-long standoff,the suspect was finally taken into custody. The following day,Spokane Valley Major Crimes Detectives served a search warrant on the male suspect's residence. During the service of the search warrant, they located 16 firearms, ranging from pistols, shotguns, and rifles, including an AR-style pistol chambered in .300 Blackout, which is consistent with evidence found at the scene where the male suspect reportedly fired a weapon before pointing it at the victim. The firearms and other evidence were seized. The suspect is a convicted felon (1999 conviction for Robbery 1st Degree), which prohibits him from possessing firearms. The male suspect was booked into the Spokane County Jail for charges of Assault 2nd Degree and 16 counts of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm. We Will NOT Call & Demand Money for Warrants/Fines — EVER - The Spokane County Sheriff's Office and Spokane Valley Police Department are again receiving reports of scammers trying to lie, intimidate, trick, and threaten people into giving up their hard-earned money or personal information, which could leave them vulnerable to identity theft. Law enforcement, courts, or any other government agency will never call you and demand prepaid credit cards, gift cards, or other forms of payment while threatening arrest if you don't. However, stammers will, so don't be fooled. Recently, these criminals fraudulently claimed to be a deputy with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. The scammers insisted the victim pay over $6,000, using gift cards, to have warrants for her arrest to be quashed. Further, she was told she could not pay in person and needed to provide the stammers with the gift card information over the phone,allowing them to steal the victim's money. These stammers are very aggressive and convincing. Please do not fall into the falsehood people you know and care about would never fall for a scam like this. These predatory scammers use Page 10 fear and intimidation to trick unsuspecting victims, most of which have never been in legal trouble causing their fear to outweigh their judgment. Please take the time to talk to your friends and loved ones about this scam and ones like it. Even when you believe they wouldn't fall for a scam, making sure they understand is far better than wishing you would have if they happen to fall victim. People who receive calls from scanimers can report the information to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) https://www.ficcomplaintassistant.gov/#cmt&panell-2 or Crime Check at 509-456-2233. The FTC website has additional information, tips, and different scamming alerts, and you can also find scam information on our SCAM Warning webpage. (https://www.spokanecounty.org/3980/SCAM- Warnings) Suspect Uses Stolen Truck to Commit Multiple Burglaries, Causing Over an Estimated $40,000 in Damage to Businesses /Deputy Unable to Pursue the Truck per State Law - Spokane Valley Deputies and Spokane County Sheriff's Deputies responded to multiple burglary calls where a suspect was believed to have used a stolen truck to smash into businesses. A Spokane Valley Deputy spotted the suspect at a business while responding to a different burglary report. The deputy activated her emergency lights,but the suspect sped away in the stolen truck. The deputy was prohibited from pursuing the suspect due to the recent changes to state law. In mid- December, Spokane Valley Deputies and Spokane County Sheriff's Deputies began to respond to several burglary calls along the area of Trent, Pines, and Montgomery. As they began to investigate these independent reports, it became apparent they were probably all committed by the same suspect. From information gleaned during the investigation, it appears these incidents started when a suspect stole a GMC Sierra from Cascade Windows, located on Montgomery. The suspect seems to have then used the stolen truck to smash into at least four businesses located in Spokane Valley and Spokane County, causing over an estimated $40,000 worth of damage. While responding to one of the reported burglaries, a Spokane Valley Deputy noticed a truck that had smashed through the front doors of Arrow Concrete and Asphalt on E. Trent. The deputy activated her emergency lights,but the male suspect immediately accelerated at a high rate of speed and fled. The Deputy advised she had located the suspect vehicle, and it fled the scene. The request to pursue and/or use a PIT technique to stop the fleeing vehicle was denied due to the recent state legislative reform laws. The vehicle was quickly located a short distance away after the suspect parked in a citizen's driveway. The homeowner contacted the suspect, who fled on foot. Thankfully the citizen was not injured, and the stolen vehicle was seized for evidence. Spokane County Investigative Unit Detectives continued to investigate these incidents. They also coordinated with Spokane Police Department Investigators concerning three similar burglary reports that evening in Spokane. Just before Christmas, detectives identified the 21- year-old male suspect and booked him into the Spokane County Jail for 2nd Degree Burglary, Theft of a Motor Vehicle, 3rd Degree Malicious Mischief, Possession of Burglary Tools, Attempt to Elude Police Vehicle, and Vehicle Prowling. He is currently still in jail with a$15,000 bond. Washington State RCW 10.116.060 (Full Text) A peace officer may not engage in a vehicular pursuit, unless: (a)(i) There is probable cause to believe that a person in the vehicle has committed or is committing a violent offense or sex offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030, or an escape under chapter 9A.76 RCW; or (ii) There is reasonable suspicion a person in the vehicle has committed or is committing a driving under the influence offense under RCW 46.61.502 Page 11 (Additional provisions beyond the ones listed above follow-Full Text can be viewed at the provided link) https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.116.060 Wanted Convicted Felon Refuses to Exit Apartment After Assaulting Victim and Violating a No Contact Order - Spokane Valley Deputies, SWAT, Negotiators, EDU, K9 Units, and Spokane Valley Fire Rescue Task Force (RTF) members worked for several hours to eventually take a wanted convicted felon into custody. The suspect was wanted for a felony Washington State DOC warrant in addition to new charges stemming from this new domestic violence incident. SWAT, Negotiators, EDU, K9 Units, and Spokane Valley Fire RTF members made entry into the apartment and took the uncooperative suspect into custody after 4.5 hours of trying to get him to cooperate and peacefully surrender. The victim, who remained inside the apartment, was not injured during the SWAT entry, but did sustain some injuries during the violent domestic violence assault by the suspect. In late December, at approximately 6:00 pm., Spokane Valley Deputies responded to the report of a violent domestic violence call at an apartment located in the 10700 block of E. Riverside in Spokane Valley. During the call, several witnesses reported seeing the adult female victim being punched and strangled by the 35-year-old male suspect. Deputies contacted the suspect,who was inside the apartment and refused to exit. The adult female victim also refused to willingly leave. A check of the suspect's name revealed an active felony WA State Department of Corrections warrant (original charge: Criminal Mischief with a Deadly Weapon) in addition to a served and valid DV Protection Order barring the male suspect from contacting or assaulting the victim. Deputies also learned the suspect is a convicted felon (Burglary DV). He also has a conviction for DV Assault and several additional charges pending for Domestic Violence Order of Protection Violations and Domestic Violence Assaults. SWAT,Negotiators,EDU, and Valley Fire RTF were called to the scene to assist,and a search warrant was obtained. After several more hours of negotiations and attempts to de-escalate the situation, the suspect still refused to surrender peacefully. At approximately 10:30 pm., SWAT Team members made entry into the apartment and safely arrested the male suspect on multiple charges. The suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Assault 2nd Degree(DV),Burglary,Domestic Violence Order of Protection Violation, and Obstructing Law Enforcement in addition to his WA State DOC warrant; he remains incarcerated with a bond of$105,000. im L C C K LOCK OBSERVE CARS SHOULD KEEP GARAGE ITEMS IN AND REPORT NEVER RUN DOORS CLOSED YOUR TRUNK UNATTENDED Page 12 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. x. ,,.. F 0 Coogan u+ _ a VIP 6 Video Identification Program CLICK HERE to voluntarily}oln the VIP prtgearn https://www.spokaneeounty.org/1080/Sheriff Page 13 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ,-c0" 4:- Regional Intelligence Group 9 s. 1'h ti IBR Count by District , ,_ Time Period: December2021 RIG q Spokane Valley Districts Unincorporated Districts IBR Offense 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DP FF LAH ML MW RF SPA WAV OTHER TOTAL 09A Murder/NonNegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 09B Negligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Kidnapping/Abduction 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 11A Rape-Forcible 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 11B Sodomy-Forcible 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11C Sex Assault With Object 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 11D Fondling-Forcible 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 120 Robbery 1 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 13AAggravatedAssault 4 4 1 7 2 5 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 34 138 Simple Assault 10 15 7 14 9 14 1 4 2 1 1 4 7 5 0 2 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 8 110 13C Intimidation 5 5 4 2 1 8 2 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 37 36A incest 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 36B Rape-Statutory 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 64A Human Trafficking-Commercial Sex Acts 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 64B Human Trafficking-Involuntary Servitude 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 Violation of Protection Orders 7 9 4 1 4 5 1 0 2 0 1 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 46 Total Crimes Against Persons 29 37 17 26 16 39 6 7 6 1 5 8 16 8 0 2 1 0 4 7 0 0 0 14 249 200 Arson 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 210 Extortion/Blackmail 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 220 Burglary/Breaking&Entering 16 11 7 9 3 9 3 1 2 1 4 1 8 2 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 91 23ATheft-Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 238 Theft-Purse Snatching 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 23C Theft-Shoplifting 20 5 4 21 2 13 1 0 0 1 0 2 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 3 83 23D Theft From Building 2 6 4 6 3 11 2 3 1 6 0 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 54 23E Theft From Coin Operatied Machine 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 23F Theft From Motor Vehicle 11 21 7 28 3 14 2 3 6 2 1 6 11 3 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 127 23G Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories 8 8 1 10 2 0 3 4 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 49 23H Theft-All Other 11 23 6 14 7 8 11 3 9 5 4 12 6 8 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 11 144 240 Motor Vehicle Theft 7 21 7 8 2 9 3 1 2 1 3 0 4 2 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 4 80 250 Counterfeiting/Forgery 0 1 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 26A Fraud-False Pretense/Swindling 6 3 4 3 3 8 3 2 3 2 2 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 52 2613 Fraud-Credit Card/ATM 7 4 1 7 4 5 2 1 0 1 0 1 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 45 26C Fraud-Impersonation 0 4 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 26D Welfare Fraud 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 26F Identity Theft 1 2 3 2 1 4 3 1 2 1 2 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 34 26G Hacking/Computer Invasion 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE �Couhrt. . -rn e:: Regional Intelligence Group 9 , . 6.. d� IBR Count by District v- , . Time Period: December2021 kiG q Spokane Valley Districts Unincorporated Districts IBR Offense 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DP FF LAH ML MW RF SPA WAV OTHER TOTAL 270 Embezzlement 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 280 Stolen Property Offense {Receiving,etc.) 1 3 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 17 290 Destruction/Vandalism L 21 39 10 32 5 17 9 6 6 4 5 10 17 6 0 2 0 0 2 9 0 0 1 14 215 Total Crimes Against Property 113 156 57 147 36 106 43 27 33 27 24 41 79 27 0 16 1 0 5 37 0 2 2 59 1038 35A Drugs/Narcotics Violation 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 3513 Drug Equipment Violation 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 370 Pornography/Obscene Material 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 39A Betting/Wagering 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 39B Gambling-Operating Promoting Assisting 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 39C Gambling Equipment Violation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40A Prostitution 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 40B Prostiution-Assisting/Promoting 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 40C Purchasing Prostitution 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 510 Bribery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 520 Weapon Law Violation 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 12 720 Animal Cruelty 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 Total Crimes Against Society 3 5 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 22 09C Justifiable Homicide 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 90A Bad Checks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 90B Curfew/Loitering 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 90C Disorderly Conduct 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 90D Driving Under Influence 4 9 8 9 0 4 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 49 90F Family Offense-NonViolent 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 90G Liquor Law Violation 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 90H Peeping Tom 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 907 Trespass of Real Property 1 2 3 9 1 2 0 1 0 2 1 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 31 90Z All Other Offenses 7 12 2 10 2 4 5 1 1 1 3 1 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 10 72 Total Group B Offenses 14 24 16 30 5 13 6 4 1 3 7 4 8 5 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 19 166 NR Not Reportable 10 11 3 9 ' 1 2 0 2 0 0 3 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 54 Total All Offenses 1169 233 93 215 60 160 I 55 41 40 31 39 53 107 43 0 20 2 0 13 52 0 2 2 99 1 1529 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S IFFICE COUNT„.. ,} Regional Intelligence Group 9 �� Burglary - Spokane Valley „,,,97 r Time Period: December 2021 -, ..,„ ' "�' R1G () 90 80 70 I ) isollik I 60 I i 50 Ot .r� t 2017 —F 2018 40 AT —A-2019 30 12020 20 —X—2021 10 I 1 1 I 0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 55 51 33 40 53 February 52 26 20 56 45 March 42 34 37 53 43 April 49 36 35 70 40 May 47 34 57 69 49 June 58 29 38 69 44 July 51 44 48 63 54 August 56 51 57 58 59 September 77 38 50 67 39 October 37 48 46 68 37 November 32 49 41 57 60 December 34 47 40 63 55 Grand Total 590 487 502 733 578 * IBR Offense:Burglary/Breaking&Entering 220 Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE �,coUNrd. Regional Intelligence Group 9 Q. . r""1 /% Rape - Spokane Valley 4 Time Period: December 2021 f21cs 16 14 I . 12 10 i � - �2017 8 l -2018 6 —1—2019 —?-,- 2020 "41 F r i to 41.411&44 i 1‘ / L L N F, o LL N 0 N (u Z in 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 9 15 2 2 2 February 2 4 3 2 3 March 2 8 4 2 5 April 7 7 4 - 4 May 7 9 2 3 7 June 2 6 5 4 2 July 6 5 3 1 4 August 4 3 5 2 4 September 2 3 9 4 3 October 7 1 4 1 - November 1 7 2 3 3 December 2 _ 7 3 5 4 Grand Total 51 75 46 29 41 *IBR Offense:Rape-Forcible 11A,Sodomy-Forcible 11B,Sexual Assault with Object 11C Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE v. 1N�'} Regional Intelligence Group 9 ' Assault - Spokane Valley -' 4 `Time Period: December 2021 R i G c) 120 100 Rs v"..., ........-- Ail' all0 Niii' \ 1 frig * lir 80 1.111111411y4.4 -NVOIIPII- --*--2017 60 —II-2018 —e-2019 40 2020 -IF 2021 20 I I L Z 2 2 U) `a3 aU m m w L. o_ ? 7 n Ja SS m .a' 2 ¢ < UUi o E E i a 0 o aa) a) z ❑ 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 96 83 71 93 71 February 94 64 61 96 51 March 77 101 73 80 65 April 89 88 68 95 69 May 93 80 87 85 69 June 94 101 79 103 56 1 July 94 113 104 88 80 August 74 83 95 99 67 September 92 82 72 79 60 October 89 84 68 80 74 November 85 78 85 73 55 December 84 91 79 63 92 Grand Total 1,061 1,048 942 1,034 809 * IBR Offense:Aggravated Assault 13A&Simple Assault 13B Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE U�oC]Nt°!• Regional Intelligence Group 9 i t s✓r. Robbery - Spokane Valley ° 1 .� 4. Time Period: December 2021 � '� Rrc� q P 14 12 10 I 4 i 8 1 \is I —I-2017 --0—2018 6 f2019 001 4 / 11\ii Allik I - - 2020 —x4—zoza 2 , Y L L i 4 -, o o m v z c3 v) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 3 6 3 8 8 February 6 2 8 12 7 March 7 5 4 6 5 April 3 6 4 8 9 May 2 9 6 3 7 June 1 3 2 8 3 July 4 7 8 5 5 August 1 6 11 6 6 September 4 6 8 8 4 October 4 5 7 6 7 November 3 3 12 3 4 December 1 4 10 5 6 Grand Total 39 62 83 78 71 * IBR Offense:Robbery 120 Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ,,�,couNT;. Regional Intelligence Group 9 0 K �f <4 Motor Vehicle Theft - Spokane Valley M;.V '- Time Period: December 2021 RIG q 60 50 40 A 41161- PAP* ' --0—2017 30 l ` -'`W1041 rir I I —M-2018 Niar Abe- ''.."111011k 9 -A-2019 20 ' 2020 —W-2021 I 10 I I L ro L '- m C. a. ° , -CI . Cc Q -, ¢ EE . aiO ai uQ 0 c m zi L 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 47 36 35 32 29 February 37 27 22 32 25 March 47 27 20 31 25 April 42 26 30 29 24 May 27 25 34 29 29 June 28 24 25 33 26 July 43 40 32 25 24 August 36 20 30 27 41 September 43 27 37 27 40 October 39 32 25 31 42 November 33 45 36 29 54 December 29 32 34 29 54 Grand Total 451 361 360 354 413 * IBR Offense:Motor Vehicle Theft 240 Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE i c0UN11. s� f Regional Intelligence Group 9 Theft From Motor Vehicle (Vehicle Prowl) - Spokane Valley f :-� Time Period: December 2021 f?IG9 160 140 120IlLadi 100 ItbitirP\44— —40—2017 80 L .,,, I* 1-2018 60 i-2019 1 - 2020 40 —*-2021 20 1 u 7 > 2 " a`y u U w n` g < m u m aa) O ? ca Li- a) o v Li, ❑ 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 98 75 51 65 87 February 104 33 44 98 106 March 94 77 73 58 75 April 130 62 122 75 88 May 79 70 140 85 77 June 107 67 84 80 70 July 97 107 114 77 66 August 69 88 99 148 117 September 118 85 80 130 123 October 70 105 97 116 116 November 52 112 96 90 76 December 69 71 112 97 84 Grand Total 1,087 952 1,112 1,119 1,085 * IBR Offense:Theft From Motor Vehicle 23F Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ��.co \`r'; `fJ. Regional Intelligence Group 9 1 Damage/Destruction/Vandalism (MALMS) - Spokane Valley 64, la'v;,F ~` Time Period: December 2021 RIG q 250 200 440164Ibbh- A16 -,fge—Nk 150 ,/� ' No- 'N. 1 �2017 ak / -— lir 11)0 —e—2019 2020 — 2021 5O 1 �. L ? ? 'y_ t0 7" vJ l L N U N- a L .7 rU D. S 7 17 _a - - N �U Q Q N a N E IV E u a 0 a u . O N t Z 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 157 146 125 113 132. February _ 148 95 67 142 121 March 137 121 122 105 104 April 173 127 143 157 133 May 139 143 161 116 133 June 144 141 133 154 158 July 178 142 156 146 133 August 154 131 144 172 175 September 159 156 142 190 161 October 119 166 165 174 192 November 131 155 141 151 138 December 108 126 175 144 124 Grand Total 1,747 1,649 1,674 , 1,764 1,704 IBR Offense: Destruction/Damage/Vandalism 290 Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE `couNry r Regional Intelligence Group 9 aye Iil9 �� Homicide - Spokane Valley °' !' % Time Period: December 2021 RIG 31 I 2 , 2 —to—2017 -•2018 1 4 —iii-2019 2020 T '� �2021 I_ .� — u y ro ?, ti u u as a) co co a .o .ca .L] rca 15 2 4 � o v aEi ., .ill a oo v UI 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January -- _ - - - - February - - - 1 1 March - - - - 1 April - - - - 1 May - - - 1 - June - 1 - - - July _ 1 - - - 1 August - - - - 1 September - - - - 1 October - - - - 2 November 1 - - - 1 December - - 1 1 - Grand Total 2 1 1 3 9 *IBR Offense: Murder/Non-Negligent Manslaughter 09A Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE `"coUW?' �. Regional Intelligence Group 9 0' Identity Theft - Spokane Valley ,`" �' Time Period: December2021 R!G 9 500 450 400 350 300 - 4-2017 250 - -2018 200 I --#—2019 150 2020 —)K-2021 100 50 _ _ t c L- s .k 2 T om„ u '6 U a7 k. fa a m fa Q N 0 al a) . O n, z a 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 9 19 17 17 12 February 24 ! 16 10 17 18 March 22 13 13 12 20 April 16 22 20 17 23 May 31 21 13 442 18 June 19 17 5 47 12 July 23 14 12 26 13 August 12 15 8 28 22 September 17 13 15 16 22 October _ 15 21 17 18 16 November 18 23 12 15 13 December 24 16 7 17 13 Grand Total 230 210 149 672 202 *IBR Offense: Identity Theft 26F Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE �.,cOUNr� Regional Intelligence Group 9 0 I 171 NI DUI Spokane Valley 1 "` Time Period: December 2021 I2►Ci 9 45 1 I 40 35 )\ #4 30 \ '''' 25 } itiol°, NI -4—2017 .2018 ��,Me NA+0,,,, -A-2019 15 2020 10 -W-2021 5 ' c�i = spa c -�` N a m m u c 0 Q E w w U z 0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 22 19 32 26 21 February 25 18 22 28 24 March 32 39 22 8 15 April 19 14 27 17 18 May 19 32 18 15 21 June 28 23 24 27 30 July 26 17 25 25 17 August 24 28 24 21 7 September 20 37 37 22 19 October 24 32 27 27 25 November 18 28 31 21 19 T December _ 20 23 19 22 34 Grand Total 277 310 308 259 250 * IBR Offense; DUI 90D Produced:01/10/2022 coulv� SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE �4y Regional Intelligence Group 9 r., , �:Drugs - Spokane Valley g qi, ,'l qi Time Period: December 2021 RIG 9 70 60 50 'e 40 —2017 \(/// 2018 30 it 2019 1 2020 20 2021 10 u EL .s, G . yr m a trjr)o o m � � � i= E CR o N v Z a V) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January _ 23 39 51 45 31 February 28 38 40 62 36 March 28 58 57 51 4 April 38 55 63 36 2 May 23 39 39 64 4 June 21 54 29 51 1 July 17 55 46 38 - August 25 38 55 35 2 September 25 33 49 39 1 October 21 50 47 37 1 November 32 38 54 42 1 December 27 _ 47 44 30 6 Grand Total 308 544 574 530 89 * IBR Offense:Drugs/Narcotics Violations 35A and Drug Equipment Violations 35B Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE <<COUNr}: Regional Intelligence Group 9 '' 1, Fraud - Spokane Valley 0 r Time Period: December 2021 Ail i�r . R 1 G 9 120 100 80 l / '�. l i,. ,� !�2017 bIr 60or _. i ., _.`2018 —gii-2019 40 i 2020 r 4K—2021 20 1 oho oR co c 2 a .a (D ¢ , E o E E 1 a Q' 0 > u ti 0 0 Z 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 26 69 63 69 65 February 36 46 32 58 57 March 37 59 62 49 96 April 43 55 58 62 97 May 53 67 55 85 63 June 57 64 50 73 64 July 61 64 65 66 81 August _ 54 64 65 70 92 September 65 49 55 67 79 October 65 60 75 76 56 November 53 56 68 62 71 December 42 60 49 61 62 Grand Total 592 713 697 798 883 * IBR Offense: Pretenses/Swindling/Con Games 26A,Fraud-Credit Card/ATM 26B, and Fraud-False&Fraud-Impersonation 26C Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE , GOUN7 . Regional Intelligence Group 9 !`"I Forgery - Spokane Valley o J, ` m -.1 N` Time Period: December 2021 RIG 30 25 20 �r \\.\ \ 14\ � ��2017 —III—2018 10 ` friltik:4 04A111, —A-2019 2020 --2021 5 a ro 2 • t `m -' v `m �, ‹ct a E $ E E a: `t ate—, en > (-3 U.. v ,CU z a 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 9 18 20 23 13 February 11 10 13 12 8 March 20 24 17 14 10 April 19 21 14 14 10 May 26 21 10 10 10 June 15 15 14 7 6 July 21 15 10 9 13 August 15 17 13 10 3 V September 20 14 12 3 13 October 18 11 14 7 10 November 9 21 21 9 14 December 9 13 15 15 7 Grand Total 192 200 173 133 117 *IBR Offense:Counterfeiting/Forgery 250 Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE cOUNt Regional Intelligence Group 9 Theft - Spokane Valley .;.13 Time Period: December 2021 RIG 9 300 250 I 1 \ , - *OW NV 150 " - -2017 I v 2018 -6- 2019 100 .-)44 2020 -- 2021 50 u r, 2 -. v `a m as Q ^ -E f -E I' m �. a � � c a v Z C] 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 206 237 237 239 198 February 200 165 188 199 185 March 217 209 212 197 193 April 201 201 206 181 186 May 235 230 230 152 161 June 252 224 232 217 185 July 236 238 236 195 156 August 223 211 256 168 173 September 212 194 233 218 189 October 236 235 240 204 196 November 218 198 205 ' 218 194 December 199 251 231 230 195 Grand Total 2,635 2,593 2,706 2,418 2,211 * IBR Offense: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,and Theft-All Other 23H Produced:01/10/2022 couNry 5 r Spokane County Sheriff's Office Response Times by Priority RrG 9 December 2021 Spokane Valley SCSO Unincorporated SCSO All Priority Create To Dispatch Dispatch To Arrive Create To Arrive Create To Dispatch Dispatch To Arrive Create To Arrive Create To Dispatch Dispatch To Arrive Create To Arrive 1 00:01:48 00:03:03 00:04:51 00:01:51 00:08:35 00:10:26 00:01:50 00:05:57 00:07:47 2 00:14:56 00:08:28 00:23:24 00:14:53 00:13:57 00:28:50 00:14:55 00:10:47 00:25:42 3 00:47:14 00:11:34 00:58:48 00:39:30 00:15:15 00:54:45 00:43:55 00:13:09 00:57:04 4 00:41:38 00:06:38 00:48:16 00:41:48 00:19:09 01:00:57 00:41:43 00:13:06 00:54:50 Totals 0:32:04 0:10:01 0:42:05 0:28:10 0:14:43 0:42:53 0:30:24 0:12:01 0:42:25 Spokane Valley- Create to Dispatch Spokane Valley- Dispatch to Arrival by hour grouping by hour grouping 1:55:12 00:17:17 Alligli IH1 in ❑ 0:00:00 00:00:00 00:00- 04:00- 08:00- 12:00- 16:00- 20:00- 00:00- 04:00- 08:00- 12:00- 16:00- 20:00- 03:59 07:59 11:59 15:59 19:59 23:59 03:59 07:59 11:59 15:59 19:59 23:59 Priority 1 0:01:42 0:01:46 0:01:53 0:02:18 0:00:00 0:01:34 +Priority 1 00:03:28 00:02:18 00:01:22 00:05:52 00:00:00 00:04:06 —.I,—Prio rity 2 0:09:51 0:09:52 0:12:43 0:16:07 0:20:43 0:13:59 Priority 2 00:07:59 00:07:40 00:08:41 00:09:46 00:07:59 00:07:55 -•e—Priority 3 0:25:20 0:35:02 0:40:35 0:58:51 1:09:47 0:23:14 -•41—Priority 3 00:06:28 00:08:18 00:12:13 00:12:52 00:14:24 00:08:31 +Priority4 0:00:00 0:03:27 0:26:58 0:42:07 1:43:46 0:00:00 #Priority4 00:00:00 00:06:12 00:07:24 00:03:36 00:08:50 00:00:00 ..jOUNfy. 's�' Spokane County Sheriff's Office 2;5 Response Times by Priority , Glf RIG 9 December 2021 SCSO Unincorporated-Create to Dispatch SCSO Unincorporated- Dispatch to Arrival by hour grouping by hour grouping 1:04:48 00:43:12 0:57:36 �, J 00:36:00 E 0:50:24 00:28:48 _c 0:36:00 r 00:21:36 • 0:28:48 — O 0:21:36 — p 00:14:24 — J l 2 0:14:24 — = q 0:07:12 j`�� 1.2 OO:D7:1Z 0:00:00 n 00:00:00 00:00- 04:00- 08:00- 12:00- 16:00- 20:00- 00:00- 04:00- 08:00- 12:00- 16:00- 20:00- 03:59 07:59 11:59 15:59 19:59 23:59 03:59 07:59 11:59 15:59 19:59 23:59 #Prioirty 1 0:00:34 0:03:13 0:02:19 0:00:00 0:01:49 0:01:49 , .Priority 1 00:04:46 00:39:50 00:06:14 00:00:00 00:02:59 00:08:43 - —Priority 2 0:08:38 0:10:55 0:08:45 0:15:40 0:26:23 0:10:44 —Priority 2 00:11:28 00:11:31 00:15:25 00:15:48 00:13:34 00:13:44 #Priority 3 0:18:41 0:22:47 0:40:46 0:39:11 0:59:23 0:26:12 I #Priority 3 00:13:53 00:15:04 00:13:53 00:15:44 00:16:22 00:15:45 . 11R•Priority4 0:02:12 0:17:17 0:59:38 0:48:24 0:55:03 0:33:11 tPri©rity4 00:00:27 00:37:23 00:14:08 00:12:16 00:23:51 00:02:42 SCSO All - Create to Dispatch SCSO All - Dispatch to Arrival by hour grouping by hour grouping 1:26:24 00:2555 I 0023:021:1200 0020:10E 0:5736 0020:17Aii 0:4312 0014:24 0011:31p 0:2848 0008:38• 0:1424 �; "�_ 0005:460002:530 0:0000 00:00:00 00:00- 04:00- 08:00- 12:00- 16:00- 20:00- 00:00- 04:00- 08:00- 12:00- 16:00- 20:00- 03:59 07:59 11:59 15:59 19:59 23:59 03:59 07:59 11:59 15:59 19:59 23:59 . .Priority 1 0:01:08 0:02:30 0:02:06 0:02:18 0:01:49 0:01:39 Priority 1 00:04:07 00:21:04 00:03:48 00:05:52 00:02:59 00:05:39 —Priority 2 0:09:21 0:10:22 0:11:11 0:15:56 0:23:13 0:12:35 _--Prioirty 2 00:09:26 00:09:30 00:11:16 00:12:14 00:10:27 00:10:25 #Priority3 0:23:12 0:29:57 0:40:40 0:50:16 1:05:26 0:24:29 #Prioirty3 00:08:51 00:11:07 00:12:58 00:14:07 00:15:13 00:11:34 #Prioirty4 0:02:12 0:10:54 0:40:25 0:45:30 1:21:37 0:33:11 —Prioirty4 00:00:27 00:23:00 00:10:10 00:08:16 00:15:39 00:02:42 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE tcouNry.lr Regional Intelligence Group 9 p , Call Activity Heat Maps - Spokane Valley 4 V 5 co ,$riY "c1 � �lw December 2021 i Citizen Calls by Day of Week and Hour Rio `} ' Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Total 0 16 10 15 24 28 18 15 126 1 5 12 9 11 16 11 11 75 2 6 7 10 10 9 18 11 71 3 5 10 8 5 13 11 10 62 4 8 9 14 9 8 15 4 67 5 9 8 15 13 16 13 4 78 6 7 13 18 10 15 19 8 90 7 6 13 25 16 24 19 13 116 8 13 22 27 32 34 33 14 175 9 18 21 30 40 39 35 22 205 10 23 30 30 29 24 36 27 199 11 22 34 27 36 34 44 32 229 12 27 35 30 22 46 31 28 219 13 31 40 36 39 43 43 28 260 14 35 36 40 49 50 32 31 273 15 36 24 29 44 63 38 30 264 16 29 39 32 41 46 46 32 265 17 34 22 34 47 53 35 21 246 18 27 35 40 55 39 39 23 258 19 22 29 35 44 31 42 38 241 20 23 31 22 22 33 41 38 210 21 24 19 18 29 29 45 24 188 22 16 25 30 17 30 27 23 168 23 13 19 20 20 26 l 52 16 166 Total 455 543 594 664 749 743 503 4251. Total Deputy Involved Incidents by Day of Week and Hour Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Total 0 7 8 11 20 24 15 13 98 1 4 13 6 8 18 9 9 67 2 3 7 8 9 6 10 9 52 3 7 17 4 7 13 10 7 65 4 8 6 9 3 7 10 5 48 5 8 8 11 10 18 9 2 66 6 4 12 14 16 16 17 8 87 7 7 16 22 34 26 14 8 127 8 18 21 29 46 32 25 14 185 9 17 21 28 44 30 23 17 180 10 18 23 25 36 21 40 17 180 11 22 19 19 33 28 35 21 177 12 20 27 22 29 29 25 20 172 13 21 31 22 41 27 28 13 183 14 22 28 , 4.7 39 26 21 19 202 15 19 20 27 33 35 31 22 187 16 16 24 19 22 23 31 13 148 17 20 7 23 24 27 16 15 132 18 16 19 20 28 25 18 11 137 19 15 18 23 25 21 40 1 18 160 20 15 25 20 21 23 39 21 164 21 22 18 17 31 22 29 16 155 22 13 23 19 24 24 25 21 149 23 8 15 12 21 19 27 9 111 Total 330 426 457 604 540 547 328 3232 Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE .cOUN7J. Regional Intelligence Group 9 v- 1 `f. a. Citizen Call For Service (CFS) - Spokane Valley ,,, Time Period: December 2021 RIG 9 6,000 I 5,000 4,000 .- :" ----1 .. -.-2017 3,000 J . .. 2018 - -2019 2,000 I 2020 CIE--2021 1,000 1 i I y T. L L I- L. CO QO m - ¢ E u UUi UUi a 4- O ' u m z o V) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 3,088 3,405 3,351 3,521 3,680 February 2,942 2,862 3,170 3,638 3,342 March 3,546 3,597 3,711 3,504 4,052 April 3,416 3,460 3,839 3,405 4,078 May 3,987 4,331 4,516 3,941 4,415 June 3,955 4,006 4,349 4,153 4,810 July 4,459 4,467 4,976 4,570 4,993 August 4,204 4,286 4,680 4,319 4,583 September 3,799 4,048 4,318 4,259 4,397 October 3,718 3,927 4,072 3,909 4,471 November 3,353 3,582 3,646 3,392 3,966 December 3,406 3,530 3,668 3,678 4,251 Grand Total 43,873 45,501 48,296 46,289 51,038 *excludes calls handled by Crime Check only Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE c,,couNti._ Regional Intelligence Group 9 ! I' t^t Citizen CFS With Deputy Response - Spokane Valley �. Time Period: December 2021 Il1G 3,500 I 3,000 I --,%.4,.,441.1.e., , 2,000 -4-2017 I - •2018 1,500 -1-2019 I 1 2020 1,000 -)x-2021 500 1 u g. _ - " a ar a`i m s' a 'ci Cl 2 2 ? S _❑ o E E con Q Q m t; ; u t-, i cc o cu t z ❑ 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 1,941 2,208 2,189 2,319 2,295 February 1,787 1,865 2,011 2,364 2,072 March 2,224 2,375 2,386 2,321 2,399 April 2,119 2,230 2,418 2,416 2,475 May 2,478 2,731 2,851 2,650 2,605 June 2,416 2,516 2,654 2,677 2,712 July 2,609 2,685 2,983 2,660 2,544 August 2,589 2,639 2,852 2,708 2,527 September 2,336 2,555 2,725 2,524 2,312 October 2,292 2,510 2,547 2,462 2,453 November 2,131 2,350 2,416 2,170 2,221 December 2,157 2,314 2,402 2,301 2,325 Grand Total 27,079 28,978 30,434 29,572 28,940 Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ,,couNr},s, Regional Intelligence Group 9 Citizen CFS Without Deputy Response - Spokane Valley 5-, .. Time Period: December 2021 "I ci ) 3,000 2,500 2,000 --7-"Ne.....r....x � +2017 1,500 •- -a--2018 , _� 7 /' --A-2019 1,000 "�! 2020 I -*--2021 500 i i i L. L u c ?' �, v 'Is 'dia m awn .0 ..0 n -0 d "' ES E E a °. a u. R a w 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021. January 1,147 1,197 1,162 1,202 1,385 February 1,155 997 1,159 1,274 1,270 March 1,322 1,222 1,325 1,183 1,653 April 1,297 1,230 1,421 989 1,603 May 1,509 1,600 1,665 1,291 1,810 June 1,539 1,490 1,695 1,476 2,098 July 1,850 1,782 1,993 1,910 2,449 August 1,615 1,647 1,828 1,611 2,056 September 1,463 1,493 _ 1,593 1,735 2,085 October 1,426 1,417 1,525 1,447 2,018 November 1,222 1,232 1,230 1,222 1,745 December 1,249 1,216 1,266 1,377 1,926 Grand Total 16,794 16,523 17,862 16,717 22,098 Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE OUN/��� Regional Intelligence Group 9 0 '1 Deputy Initiated Incidents - Spokane Valley , 1 Time Period: December 2021 RIG C 2,500 2,000 A. . .' ,.., ...gip. .. ....., i 1,500 1 firirellike. -441' ' I 1 ''''' -0-2017 - 2018 1,000 --6-2019 2020 -HE-2021 500 ' I L' lJ L L L L a - o a Di t > Di I o o a1 m z o cn 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 1,446 1,694 2,024 1,601 1,114 February 1,328 1,481 1,608 1,518 983 March 1,870 2,063 1,614 1,166 1,000 April 1,425 1,683 1,650 1,172 997 May 1,553 1,789 1,157 1,567 1,003 June 1,503 1,699 1,724 1,070 1,155 July 1,504 1,793 1,600 1,036 767 August 1,737 1,637 1,565 1,130 567 September 1,671 1,773 1,779 1,285 725 October 1,560 1,595 1,472 1,239 813 November 1,732 1,841 1,487 1,164 1,102 December 1,574 1,661 i 1,436 1,208 907 Grand Total 18,903 20,709 19,116 15,156 11,133 Produced:01/10/2022 c.(aUN7, SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ,,, �4, Regional Intelligence Group 9 0r. ' �r Total Deputy Involved Incidents - Spokane Valley c , ,;I -A Time Period: December 2021 R to q 5,000 4,500 I '"Ill4 4 I 14 61 P4 4 i.1 01 I I illa > \ AN 4,000 <- � (^4 3,500 I . fr-r------- 1 Illimbh... . ! . 1 3,000 - -2017 2,500 -t-2018 2,000 I -i1-2019 1,500 2020 1 I -*--2021 1,000 500 u '1 ro c -� IA a) v nt (I) L faa 2 °° E ° E E , a Q 0 8 u U . o a ,,, z o 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 3,387 3,902 4,213 3,920 3,409 February 3,115 3,346 3,619 3,882 3,055 March 4,094 4,438 4,000 3,487 3,399 April 3,544 3,913 4,068 3,588 3,472 May 4,031 4,520 4,008 4,217 3,608 June 3,919 4,215 4,378 3,747 3,867 July 4,113 4,478 4,583 3,696 3,311 August 4,326 4,276 4,417 3,838 3,094 September 4,007 4,328 4,504 3,809 3,037 October 3,852 4,105 4,019 3,701 3,266 November 3,863 4,191 3,903 3,334 3,323 December 3,731 3,975 3,838 3,509 3,232 Grand Total 45,982 49,687 49,550 44,728 40,073 Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE :.cOUN 'k Regional Intelligence Group 9 ca a >1 '��'p Crime Check Call For Service (CFS) - Spokane Valley 05 r ;, ; i —n Time Period: December 2021 R i c 9 W 1,200 I 1,000 AL11111111111111111ftilll' 800 : "li J = :EEE 600 - 400 - - 2020 { -A- 200 I L' L u m c �- `ab 5 `m ICJ RS CO A n s o . .n ,12 E ° E E 2 ¢ a p Cl) u u o a 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 612 662 631 627 622 February 608 488 504 689 659 March 647 659 651 690 760 April 667 602 703 684 739 May 699 697 763 1,113 767 June 698 703 630 793 736 July 712 727 717 782 723 August 690 673 731 837. 728 September 667 626 655 812 656 October 667 713 747 735 603 November 571 661 615 643 500 December 635 609 683 668 481 Grand Total 7,873 7,820 8,030 9,073 7,974 Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE `- ,COUNTY Regional Intelligence Group 9 `-' Ticket Counts o ,S..�_, Date Range: December 2021 a. RIG 9 Spokane Valley Districts Unincorporated Districts All Districts Ticket Type Ticket Count Charges Count Ticket Count Charges Count Ticket Count Charges Count Criminal Non Traffic 70 75 47 57 117 132 Criminal Traffic 40 51 22 25 62 76 Infraction Non Traffic 3 3 1 1 4 4 Infraction Traffic 154 207 110 154 264 361 Parking 1 1 0 0 1 1 Totals: 268 337 180 237 448 574 Deer Park Medical Lake Millwood Ticket Type Ticket Count Charges Count Ticket Count Charges Count Ticket Count Charges Count Criminal Non Traffic 4 3 3 3 1 1 Criminal Traffic 0 0 0 0 1 1 Infraction Non Traffic 0 0 0 0 0 0 Infraction Traffic 2 4 2 2 2 6 Parking 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals: l 6 7 I 5 5 I 4 8 Produced: 01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ,COU, 4), Regional Intelligence Group 9 t Ticket Charge Details - Spokane Valley Ia j 'I Date Range: December 2021 RIG Charge - -- Count (blank) 4 26,50.110.1: ORDER,PROTECT VIO DV 12 46.16A,030.2: OPER VEH W/O CRNT/PRPR REG& PLATE 5 46.16A.030.4: FAIL TO INITIALLY REGISTER VEHICLE 2 46,16A.030.5.L: FL RENEW EXPIRED REG<=2 MTHS 2 46.16A.030.5.0: FL RENEW EXPIRED REG>2 MTHS 10 46.16A.180.2: OPER/POSSESS VEH W/O REGISTRATION 1 46.16A,320.6: TRIP PERMIT VIOLATION 1 46,20.005: DRIVING WITHOUTA LICENSE 4 46.20.015: DRIVING MOTOR VEHICLE WITH AN EXPIRED LICENSE WITH VALID IDENTIFICATION 10 46.20.017: LICENSE NOT IN POSSESSION _ 1 46.20.342,1A: DWLS 1ST DEGREE 2 46,20.342.1C.C: DWLS 3 AID-ABET 1 46.20.342.1C: DWLS 3RD DEGREE 4 46.20.500: CYCLE(OPERATE W/O ENDORSEMENT) 1 46.20.740: MV IGNITION INTERLOCK DRIVE VEH WO 2 46,30.020: OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT INSURANCE 34 46.32.020: VIOLATION OF MOTOR CARRIER RULES(EQUIP/LOGBOOK/MED CERT) 1 46.37.010: DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT MSC 1 46,37.020: LAMPS, OPERATE VEH WOHEADLGHT WHEN REQ 1 46,37.050: DEFECTIVE LIGHTS 2 46.37.100: LAMPS REFLECTORS IMPROPER COLOR 1 46.37.200: LAMPS, DEFECT TURN SIGNALS-STOP LAMPS 1 46.37.400: MIRRORS, NO MIRRORS 1 46.37.430.5A: GLAZED/TINTED WINDOWS-MAXIMUM TINT 1 46.37.517: BODY OR BODY HARDWARE PROTRUSIONS 1 46.52,020.2: DRIVER DUTY DAMAGE ONLY HIT/RUN 1 46.52.020: OLD CODE:VEH(HIT/RUN PERSON AT 2 46.61.022: FAILURE TO STOP WHEN REQUESTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT 1 46.61.050: DISREGARD TRAFFIC SIGNAL SIGN 1 46,61.055.3A: ENTER INTERSECTION STEADY RED CIRCLE 1 46.61.055: FAIL TO OBEY TRAFFIC CONTROL LEGEND 2 46.61.070: FAIL TO OBEY LANE CONTROL DEVICE 1 46,61.100,3: TRUCK/TRAILER LEFTHAND LANE 1 46,61.140: IMPROPER LANE USAGE 3 46.61.145.1: FOLLOW VEHICLE TOO CLOSELY 3 46.61.180.1: FAIL TO YIELD TO VEHICLE APPROACHING INTERSECTION 2 46,61.185.1: FAIL YIELD LEFT TURN MOTOR VEHICLE - � 1 46.61.190.2: FAIL STOP AT STOP SIGN/INTERSECTION 4 46.61.200: FAIL TO STOP AT INTERSECTION/STOP SIGN 3 46.61,205.1: FAIL YIELD PRIVATE RD MOTOR VEHICLE 2 46.61.235.1: FAIL TO YIELD PED IN CROSSWALK 1 46.61,290: TURN,PROHIBIT-IMPROPER 1 46,61.305.1: SIGNALS REQUIRED-SAFETY 2 46.61.305.2: IMPROPER LANE CHANGE(100 FT NOTICE) 1 46.61.305: FAIL TO SIGNAL STOP-TURN UNSAFE LANE 1 46,61.340: FAIL TO STOP RR CROSSING 1 46.61.370: PASS STOPPED SCHOOL BUS 1 46,61.400.05U: SPEED 5 OVER(40 OR UNDER) 10 46.61,400.1: SPEEDING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS 9 46.61,400.10: SPEED 10 OVER(OVER 40) 1 46,61.400.11U: SPEED 11 OVER(40 OR UNDER) 2 Produced:1/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE coUtvrt- Regional Intelligence Group 9 o F'T Ticket Charge Details - Spokane Valley 55 1 Date Range: December 2021 Charge _ Count 46.61.400.12U: SPEED 12 OVER(40 OR UNDER) 7 46,61.400.13: SPEED 13 OVER(OVER 40) 1 46.61.400.13U: SPEED 13 OVER(40 OR UNDER) 11 46.61.400,14U: SPEED 14 OVER(40 OR UNDER) 10 46.61.400.15: SPEED 15 OVER(OVER 40) 1 46.61.400.15U: SPEED 15 OVER(40 OR UNDER) 6 46.61.400.16U: SPEED 16 OVER(40 OR UNDER) 2 46.61.400,17U: SPEED 17 OVER (40 OR UNDER) 5 46,61.400.18U: SPEED 18 OVER(40 OR UNDER) 5 46.61.400.19U: SPEED 19 OVER(40 OR UNDER) 3 46.61.400.20U: SPEED 20 OVER(40 OR UNDER) 2 46.61.400.21U: SPEED 21 OVER(40 OR UNDER) 1 46,61.400.23U: SPEED 23 OVER(40 OR UNDER) _ 1 46.61.400.25U: SPEED 25 OVER (40 OR UNDER) _ 2 46.61.400.28: SPEED 28 OVER(OVER 40) 1 46.61.400,3: SPEED FAIL TOREDUCE SPEED FOR CONDITIONS _ 2 46,61.440,11-15: SCHOOL/PLAYGROUND CROSSWALK SPEED 11-15 MPH OVER 1 46.61.500: RECKLESS DRIVING ____~ 3 46.61.502: OLD CODE:VEH(DWUIL/DRUG)NEW 27 46.51.503: DRIVER<21 YO CONSUME ALCOHOL/MARIJU 1 46.61.504: OLD CODE:VEH(PHY/UNIL/DRUG)NEW _ 2 ER 46.61.519.2: POSSESSING OPEN ALCOHOL CONTAIN IN VEHICLE 1 46.61.525: NEGLIGENT DRIVING 2 DEGREE 2 46,61.575: PARKING VIOLATION 1 46.61.672.1: PER ELECTRONIC DEVICE WHILE DRIVING 11 46.61.687,1F: UNDER 13Y0 NOT IN BACK SEAT VIO 1 46.61,688: FAIL TO WEAR SAFETY BELT 1 66.44.270 GM: LIQUOR MINOR POSSESS-CONSUME-ACQUIRE-FURNISH 3 66.44.270.2A: LIQUOR MIP 1 9.41.250: WEAPONS VIO, POSS DANGEROUS WEAPON [POSSESS] 1 9A.36.041 GM: ASSAULT-4D _ 1 9A.36.041.2: ASSAULT 4TH DEGREE 31 9A.36.050: RECK ENDANGER 1 9A.46,020.1: HARASSMENT 3 9A.48,090: MALICIOUS MISCHIEF-3 6 9A.52.070.1: CRIMINAL TRESPASS FIRST DEGREE 1 9A.52.070: TRESPASS 1 1 9A.52.080: TRESPASS 2 5 _ _ - _ J 9A.56.050: OLD CODE:THEFT-3D 7 9A.56.330.1: UN LAW POSSESS OF OTHERS ID _ � 1 9A,76.175: OBSTRUCT GOVT-MAKING FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENT TO PUBLIC SERVANT 4 Grand fatal 341. Produced:1/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE �`couNri. Regional Intelligence Group 9 y3'' 'C�, Criminal Ticket Counts - Spokane Valley o -4 , _Ail' ; Time Period: December 2021 }t, RIG n 250 200 1 k-OA 11&11 1 11,° — — -' ft.' . 150 „„N___ _x /� `/ op-441 -2017 IPPPIF -m—2018 100 —A-2019 2020 —A-2021 50 i 1 — + .� 41 2 2Q 2. E 2 0 2 .n � ¢ m U w ai -, Li_ a O © a-i ar z o vi 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 152 175 207 173 124 February 140 130 174 185 128 March 165 195 172 140 117 April 102 149 171 153 123 May 116 175 131 154 126 June 149 179 186 171 125 July 165 184 172 130 107 August 147 147 168 152 88 September 125 169 174 162 109 October 164 178 176 175 111 November 163 157 169 130 113 December 148 188 168 132 110 Grand Total 1,736 2,026 2,068 1,857 1,381 *Ticket type of Criminal Non Traffic& Criminal Traffic Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE couNi.f• Regional Intelligence Group 9 g L..‘ ' , Non - Criminal Ticket Counts - Spokane Valley -� -i Time Period: December 2021 °0Fi fl1G9 600 500 400 IN0, 1 Iiiiiik \ 4 +2017 300 AIL —II-2018 Q 114 i 1 ,, —��2019 200 rr 2020 ).*--4----' Y y 1 I IILWIN* — —2021 100 z a 2 — to o o - u E E Q .' C > C..)a O a) L„ z a • 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 396 367 357 198 195 February 238 338 261 266 172 March 422 472 226 133 166 April 110 219 299 111 198 May 241 385 130 164 211 June 380 489 421 128 353 July 295 499 359 217 285 August 357 257 297 204 132 September 461 480 306 199 179 October 365 387 273 139 215 November 329 366 253 195 294 December 274 254 253 238 157 Grand Total 3,868 4,513 3,435 2, .92 2,557 *Ticket Type of Infraction Non Traffic&Infraction Traffic Produced:01/10/2022 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE cOUNi). Regional Intelligence Group 9 ' r All Ticket Counts - Spokane Valley ° ',,! i . 5,1 Time Period: December 2021 ‘, ,. RIG c 800 1II 1 700 600I 500 4A )11111kmihi.i.v: V I —�2017 400 ' / 40 '' -m—2018 300 I1 i 2020 200 I -*IF 2021 i 100 i 4'3 m m Q P, p 4 D 0 -, 0 Q °� © > u L` m z o v) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 January 548 542 564 371 319 February 378 468 435 451 300 _March 587 667 398 273 283 April 212 368 470 264 321 May 357 _ 560 261 318 337 June 529 668 607 299 478 July 460 683 531 347 392 August 504 404 465 356 220 September 586 649 480 361 288 October 529 565 449 314 326 November 492 523 422 325 407 December 422 442 421 370 267 Grand Total 5,604 6,539 5,503 4,049 3,938 *All ticket types except parking Produced:01/10/2022