Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2010, 03-09 Regular Meeting
AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL MEETING FORMAT Tuesday,March 9,2010 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor David Johnson,Valley United Methodist Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: Proclamation:March for Meals PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on the agenda for action. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 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. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 02/23/2010 19627-19663 $221,889.69 03/01/2010 19664-19696, &226100020 $1,358,077.06 03/02/2010 19697-19719 $94,403.14 03/02/2010 5001-5005 $300.00 GRAND TOTAL $1,674,669.89 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending February 28,2010: $336,186.06 c. Approval of Minutes of Council Retreat Meeting of February 9, 2010 d. Approval of Minutes of Council Formal Meeting of February 9, 2010 e. Approval of Minutes of Council Study Session Meeting of February 16, 2010 f.Approval of Minutes of Council Formal Meeting of February 23, 2010 g. Approval of Minutes of Council Special Executive Session Meeting of March 2, 2010 h. Approval of Minutes of Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting of March 2, 2010 NEW BUSINESS: 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 10-005 Uniform Development Code Amendment, CTA 08-09 — Marty Palaniuk [public comment] Council Agenda 03-09-10 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 2 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 10-006 Uniform Development Code Amendment CTA 01-10— Karen Kendall [public comment] 4. Proposed Resolution 10-006 Declaring Area near Broadway Surplus— Steve Worley [public comment] 5. Motion Consideration: Authorization to Notify Comcast to Suspend PEG Fees and Reimbursement— Cary Driskell [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on the agenda for action. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 6. District Court —Judge Vance Peterson and Court Administrator Virginia Rockwood 7. Detention Services Project —Lt Sparber 8. Review of Land Use Regulations (SARP, Subarea Plan) —Mike Connelly/Kathy McClung 9. Adult Entertainment— Cary Driskell 10. Proposed Amended 2010 Transportation Improvement Plan(TIP)— Steve Worley 11. Advance Agenda INFORMATION ONLY: (will not be reported or discussed) 12. Crosswalks 13. Response to Public Comments 14. Response to Public Correspondence 15. Community Development Monthly Report 16. Retreat Brainstorming Follow-up ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule(meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1St 3rd and sometimes 5th Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical,hearing,or other impairments,please contact the City Clerk at(509)921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 03-09-10 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 2 II CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 03-09-10 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE WNOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 02/23/2010 19627-19663 $221,889.69 03/01/2010 19664-19696,&226100020 $1,358,077.06 03/02/2010 19697-19719 $94,403.14 03/02/2010 5001-5005 $300.00 GRAND TOTAL $1,674,669.89 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists vchlist 02/23/2010 3:18:29PM Voucher List Page: 1 Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 19627 2/23/2010 000648 ABADAN 141638 BOUND COPIES-BROADWAY&SI. 1,501.42 142236 TIFFSCANS OF PLANS-BROADWA 75.95 Total: 1,577.37 19628 2/23/2010 001873 ACME CONCRETE PAVING INC Pay App#5 RETAINAGE RELEASE-.CONTRAC 63,181.18 Total: 63,181.18 19629 2/23/2010 001081 ALSCO LSP07336313 FLOOR MATS: PARKS 19.76 LSP0740525 FLOOR MATS: PARKS 19.76 Total: 39.52 19630 2/23/2010 002257 APWA 2010 SPRING CONFERENCE 2010272 APWA 2010 SPRING CONFERENCE 400.00 Total: 400.00 19631 2/23/2010 001816 BENTHIN&ASSOCIATES 1561 42143 BROADWAY AVE#0088 540.00 Total: 540.00 19632 2/23/2010 000168 BLACK BOX NETWORK SVC 168568 HANDSETS 85.87 Total: 85.87 19633 2/23/2010 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9088049 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY:CP 153.15 9089960 LINEN SUPPLY AND SERVICE AT C 239.90 9091893 LINEN SUPPLY AND SERVICE AT C 110.35 S0075239 LINEN SUPPLY AND SERVICE AT C 75.63 Total: 579.03 19634 2/23/2010 002078 CAPITAL TRAFFIC PRODUCTS 2009075 SCJOOL ZONE FLASHERS 4,300.00 Total: 4,300.00 19635 2/23/2010 000101 CDW-G RGN3381 42515 LAPTOP FOR PUBLIC INFO OFFICE 92.16 Total: 92.16 19636 2/23/2010 000863 CENTURY WEST ENG CORP 231531 42543 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES C1NTRr 4,680.87 Total: 4,680.87 19637 2/23/2010 000508 CONOCOPH1LLIPS FLEET 870166725001 09:FLEET FUEL BILL 1,812.84 Page: 1 vchlist 02123/2010 3:18:29PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher 19637 19638 19639 19640 19641 19642 19643 19644 19645 19646 19647 19648 19649 Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account 2/23/2010 000508 2/23/2010 002255 2/23/2010 001557 2/23/2010 001232 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET ENTERPRISE INFO SOLUTIONS INC. EWU FASTENAL CO PURCHASING 2/23/2010 001003 GEOENGINEERS INC 2/23/2010 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL 2/23/2010 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 2/23/2010 001723 HEDEEN&CADITZ, PLLC 2/23/2010 000259 HUMANIX INC. 2/23/2010 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW 2/23/2010 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER EHILS 2/23/2010 002203 NAPA AUTO PARTS 2/23/2010 000662 NAIL BARRICADE&SIGN CO (Continued) Appendix A 102-711 IDLEW66215 IDLEW66287 0102963 Jan 1042 71295 6388 173235 REC Postage 1/10 499 Jan 2010 67674 Total: MOUNTED GPS:ANTENNAS&WIR Total : GREENACRES PARK CULTURAL SI Total: 42527 2010 SMALL TOOLS&EQUIP 42527 2010 SMALL TOOLS&EQUIP Total: CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVI( Total : LOBBYIST SERVICES Total : ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES:CP Total : PROFESSIONAL SVCS Total: STAFFING SERVICE: LASERFICHE Total: MAILING—SPRING/SUMMER BROCt Total : OVERVIEW&SCOPE OF REPRESI: Total: 42531 2010 SMALL TOOLS&EQUIP Total : 42532 2010 SMALL TOOLS&EQUIP Total : Amount 1,812.84 19,330.00 19,330.00 4,104.66 4,104.66 117.75 35.89 153.64 3,123.50 3,123.50 3,090.90 3,090.90 650.00 650.00 742.50 742.50 454.40 454.40 577.00 577.00 157.50 157.50 50.23 50.23 50.87 50.87 Page: 2 vchlist 02123/2010 3:18:29PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code: Voucher 19650 19651 19652 19653 19654 19655 19656 apbank Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 2/23/2010 001035 NETWORK DESIGN&MANAGEMENT 17707 2/23/2010 000971 NORTHWEST IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY, 41478 2/23/2010 002260 NRPA 2/23/2010 000512 OFFICETEAM 2/23/2010 002243 ORBITCOM 2/23/2010 002258 PACER SERVICE CENTER 2/23/2010 001860 PLATT 19657 2/23/2010 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING, INC. 19658 2/23/2010 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC 19659 2/23/2010 000779 SOUTHARD, BRAD 94713 30655582 00313354 CS5410 7248610 7248899 7253216 7267390 7267440 7267899 7269475 7291938 QUARTERLY SENTINAL BILLING Total: COUNCILMEMBER PORTRAIT Total: NRPA RNEWAL CERTIFICAITON:M Total: STAFFING SVCS:LASERFICHE Total: EITHERNET: FEBRUARY 2010 Total : WA EASTERN DIST COURT PACER Total: SUPPLIES FOR CP SUPPLIES FOR CP SUPPLIES FOR CP SUPPLIES FOR CP SUPPLIES FOR CP SUPPLIES FOR CP SUPPLIES FOR CP SUPPLIES FOR CP Total 43178 42535 2010 SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACT 43179 42535 2010 SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACT Total : 6435 42230 REAL ESTATE SERVICES CIP 0088 Total: Jan 2010 42536 2010 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL Total: 1,047.00 1,047.00 81.40 81.40 55.00 55.00 652.00 652.00 634.38 634.38 68.08 68.08 23.46 97.63 211.64 26.90 6931 66.97 26.90 60.19 583.00 30,174.29 32,300.48 62,474.77 6,719.48 6,719.48 630.00 630.00 Page: 3 vchlist 02/23/2010 3:18:29PM Voucher List Page: 4 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 19660 2/23/2010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 41501151 19661 2/23/2010 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW 168823 19662 2/23/2010 000964 VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP 22209183 22248586 19663 2/23/2010 001885 ZAYO BANDWIDTH LLC 37 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 37 Vouchers in this report 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 to said claim. Finance Director Date Feruary 2010 DECEMBER 09: HOUSING 37,331.80 Total: 37,331.80 HOT TOPIC INSERT 714.47 Total: 714.47 STAFFING SVCS: IT 448.00 STAFFING SVCS: IT 448.00 Total: 896.00 DARK FIBER LEASE 228.27 Total : 228.27 Bank total: 221,889,69 Total vouchers: 221,889.69 Page: 4 vch l ist 03/0112010 3:07:58PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 19664 3/1/2010 001081 ALSCO 19665 3/1/2010 000135 APA 19666 3/1/2010 001938 BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS INC 19667 3/1/2010 000148 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS&EQUIP 19668 3/1/2010 001139 CATS EYE EXCAVATING INC 19669 3/1/2010 000101 CDW-G 19670 3/1/2010 001780 CLC ASSOCIATES, INC 19671 3/1/2010 001888 COMCAST 19672 3/1/2010 000683 DAVID EVANS&ASSOCIATES 19673 3/1/2010 002236 DEPT OF COMMERCE 19674 3/1/2010 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION LSPO753865 100486-091101 16540 792043 FLOOR MATS: CITY HALL Total : 2010 APA ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP:: Total : PROFESSIONAL SVCS: PLANNING Total : MISC EMBROIDERY Total: 580 42525 ON CALL EMERGENCY TRAFFIC CI 580 ON CALL EMERGENCY TRAFFIC CI Total: RSV2459 30562 FEBRUARY 2010 284474 286264 0003 RE-313-ATB00209062 RE-313-ATB00209065 RE-313-ATB00209075 42548 REPLACEMENT PROJECTOR BULE Total : 42488 SURVEY SERVICES FOR PROJECT Total : HIGH SPEED INTERNET-WINTER 1 Total : LONG-SHORT PLAT REVIEW SVS SURVEYING SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : Total: STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINT. SIGNAL&ILLUMINATION MAIN INTELLIGENT TRAFFIC SYSTEMS Total: 26.21 26.21 385.00 385.00 9,734.32 9,734.32 410.89 410.89 2,960.00 7,302.66 10,262.66 788.92 788.92 1,826.00 1,826.00 64.90 64.90 2,420.00 1,195.00 3,615.00 8,473.80 8,473.80 3,048.73 9,820.77 314.13 13,183.63 Page: 1 vchlist 03101/2010 3:07:58PM Voucher List Page: 2 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 19675 3/1/2010 001993 FISCH, PETE EXPENSES TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT 264.18 Total: 264.18 19676 3/1/2010 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 33632 LEGAL PUBLICATION 68.85 33633 LEGAL PUBLICATION 172.55 33634 LEGAL PUBLICATION 65.45 33669 LEGAL PUBLICATION 329.60 33672 LEGAL PUBLICATION 89.25 33673 LEGAL PUBLICATION 65.45 33699 LEGAL PUBLICATION 100.80 33701 LEGAL PUBLICATION 117.30 82081 LEGAL PUBLICATION 132.00 Total: 1,141.25 19677 3/1/2010 001003 GEOENGINEERS INC 0105322 42486 GEOTECH SVCS FOR PROJECT#0 528.22 Total: 528.22 19678 3/1/2010 000007 GRAINGER 9181091399 SAFETY VESTS 49.57 Total : 49.57 19679 3/1/2010 000002 H&H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. January 2010 COPIER COST 1,880.51 Total : 1,880.51 19680 3/1/2010 000259 HUMANIX INC. 173293 STAFFING SERVICE: LASERFICHE 113.60 173352 STAFFING SERVICE: LASERFICHE 454.40 Total: 568.00 19681 3/1/2010 001035 NETWORK DESIGN &MANAGEMENT 17749 42549 UPS FOR SERVER ROOM 2,924.04 Total : 2,924.04 19682 3/1/2010 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC_ 508058475001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 109.53 508058475002 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 8.86 508058737001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 10.24 508124129001 OFFICE SUPPLIES:ADMIN 11.20 508984370001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: BING 40.65 Total: 180.48 19683 3/1/2010 000512 OFFICETEAM 30690811 STAFFING SVCS:LASERFICHE 505.30 Page: 2 vchlist 03/01/2010 3:07:58PM Voucher List Page: 3 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 19683 3/1/2010 000512 000512 OFFICETEAM (Continued) Total : 505.30 19684 3/1/2010 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING, INC. 43175 42551 2010 STREET&STORMWATER MA 197.80 43176 42551 2010 STREET&STORMWATER MA 1,159.00 43177 42551 2010 STREET&STORMWATER MA 2,141.26 Total : 3,498.06 19685 3/1/2010 000322 QWEST 509-924-4707 470B FEB 2010 19686 3/1/2010 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE JANUARY 2010 19687 3/1/2010 001100 SPOKANE CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE JAN 2010 19688 3/1/2010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 41501163 51500016 19689 3/1/2010 000311 SPRINT 326088106-027 959698810-027 19690 3/1/2010 000065 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 8014635829 19691 3/1/2010 001895 TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC 2 2 42523 42523 42523 JAN 2010 PHONE SERVICE:TERRA. FEB PHONE SERVICE RECORDING FEES X-52 GRANT Total : Total : Total : DEC 09:WORK CREW JABN 2010:WORK CREW Total : WAPS FOR LAPTOPS SPRINT CELL PHONES OFFICE SUPPLIES Total : Total : ON CALL ENGINEER DESIGN SERI, ON CALL ENGINEER DESIGN SERI, Total: 109.57 362.40 471.97 981.00 981.00 1,467.38 1,467.38 5,79370 1,735.48 7,529.18 549.89 1,625.75 2,175.64 676.17 676.17 5,120.00 1,960.00 7,080.00 19692 3/1/2010 002262 THACHER,JONI SUE REIMBURSEMENT CITY LICENSE FEE REIMBURSEME 13.00 Total: 13.00 19693 3/1/2010 002254 TOWEY,TOM EXPENSES TOM TOWEYS MILEAGE FOR FEB 106.50 Total: 106.50 Page: 3 vchlist 03/01/2010 3:07:58PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 19694 3/1/2010 001464 TW TELECOM 03408806 NTERNET/DATA LILNES:CP 1,731.27 Total: 1,731.27 19695 3/1/2010 000964 VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP 22318418 STAFFING SVCS: IT 448.00 Total: 448.00 19696 3/1/2010 000152 WSDOT RE-31C-LA5926FINAL P1NES/MANSFILED CORR CONG 8,274.84 Total: 8,274.84 226100020 3/26/2010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER FEBRUARY2010 FEBRUARY 09:SHERIFF SERVICE; 1,266,811,17 Total: 1,266,811.17 34 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 1,358,077.06 34 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 1,358,077.06 1,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Page: 4 vchlist 03/02/2010 3:04:12PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# DescriptionlAccount 19697 3/2/2010 001606 BANNER BANK 19698 3/2/2010 000841 BC! CREATIVE INC 19699 3/2/2010 001409 BEST LINE 19700 3/2/2010 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 19701 3/2/2010 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION#19 19702 3/2/2010 002161 DELLWO, ROBERTS&SCANLON 19703 3/2/2010 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 19704 3/2/2010 000106 FEDEX 19705 3/2/2010 000858 FOOD EQUIPMENT INTL, INC. 19706 3/2/2010 002261 GRAY,STEVEN 0620 0638 4375 4458 4474 4720 6527 8861 9581 100201703 March 2010 Feb 2010 3901 785463 9-438-63619 7725 REFUND FEB 10:0620 FEB 10:0638 FEB 10:4375 FEB 10: 4458 FEB 10:4474 FEB 10:4720 FEB 10:6527 FEB 10:8861 DOMAIN NAME RENEWAL ANSWERING SVC: CP PETTY CASH:8793-8794 UTILITIES: PARKS SPECIAL COUNSEL Total : Total: Total: Total: Total : Total : RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS Total : SHIPPING CHARGES:ACCT 2675-6 Total: KITCHEN SUPPLIES: CP REFUND OF PERMIT FEES Total : Total : Amount 495.95 467.38 1,333.29 2,659.47 65.21 4,370.90 4,194.78 1,101.12 14,688.10 84.90 84.90 22.75 22.75 16.89 16.89 81.55 81.55 210.00 210.00 157.24 157.24 29.57 29.57 376.21 376.21 1,153.84 1,153.84 Page: 1 vch l ist 03/02/2010 3:04:12PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor 19707 3/2/2010 000778 GUEST SERVICES 19708 3/2/2010 002263 HALL VALLEY APARTMENTS Invoice March 2010 REFUND PO# Description/Account Amount 19709 3/2/2010 002256 HANDS ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 56453 19710 3/2/2010 002196 HOLTEN,MELISSA Expense 19711 3/2/2010 000265 JACKSON, MIKE Expense 19712 3/2/2010 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 3355831 19713 3/2/2010 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 JAN/FEB 2010 19714 3/2/2010 000406 SPOKANE REGIONAL CVB 2266 19715 3/2/2010 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 27579 19716 3/2/2010 002264 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN, DEPT 31-00003 Jan 2010 19717 3/2/2010 001024 UNITED RENTALS NW 85999735-001 19718 3/2/2010 002111 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 2660268-2681-6 5 DAY FOOD SERVICE REFUND OF PERMIT FEES Total : Total : REGISTRATION FEE FOR TRAININC Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : Total : CONTRACT MAINTENANCE: CP& F Total : WATER CHARGES:PARKS Total : LODGING TAX REIMBURSEMENT: Total: JAN 2010 MONTHLY MAINT PRECIls Total: OFFICE SUPPLIES UNITED RENTAL SEMINAR Total: Total: WASTE MGMT: MAINT FACILITY Total: 19719 3/2/2010 000676 WEST 819977761 LEGAL SUBSCRIPTION Total : 96.75 96.75 9,703.35 9,703.35 2,495.00 2,495.00 56.40 56.40 12.65 12.65 46,711.02 46,711.02 65.90 65.90 16,606.00 16,606.00 521.83 521.83 3.26 3.26 533.49 533.49 173.79 173.79 602.65 602.65 Page: 2 vchlist 03/02/2010 3:04:12PM Voucher List Page: 3 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 23 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 94,403.14 23 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 94,403.14 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Page: 3 vchlist 03/02/2010 11:05:01 AM Voucher List Page: 1 Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 5001 3/2/2010 002265 AMERIPRISE REFUND REFUND FEES:MEETING ROOM 11 27.00 Total : 27.00 5002 3/2/2010 002266 ANDERSON,JANE REFUND REFUND FOR CLASS CANCELLATI, 45.00 Total : 45.00 5003 3/2/2010 002269 MAIER, GLEE REFUND EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM i 32.00 Total : 32.00 5004 3/2/2010 002267 WA ASSOC. OF ACCOUNTANTS REFUND DEPOSIT FOR ROOM 109 144.00 Total : 144.00 5005 3/2/2010 002268 WILLIAMS INLAND DISTRIBUTORS REFUND AUDITORIUM/GREAT ROOM DEPO: 52.00 Total : 52.00 5 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref Bank total : 300.00 5 Vouchers in this report 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 to said claim. Finance Director Date Total vouchers: 300.00 Page: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 03 09-10 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Payroll for Period Ending February 28, 2010: GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Gross: $ 214,159.74 Benefits: $ 122,026.32 Total payroll $ 336,186.06 STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri ATTACHMENTS DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL RETREAT MEETING SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL CenterPlace Lounge, Second Floor 2426 N Discovery Place, Spokane Valley,Washington February 9,2010 10:00 a.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson,Acting City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Mike Connelly, City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Dean Grafos, Councilmember Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Mike Stone, Parks and Recreation Director Rick Van Leuven, Police Chief Absent: Ken Thompson,Finance Director Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Others Present: About twelve members of the public including representatives from the Spokesman Review and the Valley News Herald Mayor Towey opened the meeting at approximately 10:00 a.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Acting City Manager Jackson announced that he arranged a conference call with our Lobbyist today for about 1:15 p.m.to discuss what's occurring in Olympia now with bills that might be of interest,to visit regarding possible changes to our own 2010 Legislative Agenda, and as an aid to start thinking about our 2011 legislative agenda. 1. Land Use History—Mike Connelly and Greg McCormick City Attorney Connelly started by giving the history of our land use regulations, and he summarized all of the 1 and us e ordinances p assed since the C ity i ncorporated March 31, 200 3; he s aid m ost of these ordinances have been codified in the City's Municipal Code Chapters 17 through 24; he mentioned the three a ccompanying ordinances: 0 6-010 which a dopted the City's first C omprehensive Plan, 07-015 which adopted the Uniform Development Code (chapters 17 through 22), and 09-021 which adopted the Subarea Plan. Mr. Connelly said that each ordinance outlines the associated public involvement and the hearings prior to that ordinance being passed, and the last document in today's council packet for this item, is a memorandum from Planning Manager Greg McCormick explaining some of the reasons behind these ordinances. Mr. Connelly explained that 1 and use is not one thing but a c ombination of many things; that i t is mandated mostly by state 1 aw and in some circumstances by f ederal law v is the U nited States constitution;that the first component to discuss is our Comprehensive Plan. He said our comp plan is mandated by the Growth Management Act (GMA) and that the component parts are very specifically set forth in the statute concerning how to adopt them and how to change them; and said that we can adopt things favored by the citizens and the legislative bodies only within the constraints the comp plan sets forth; and emphasized that the comp plan is only a guideline and not zoning or a development code; and he explained that every time we pass a de velopment regulation or a djust the T IP (Transportation Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 1 of 20 DRAFT Improvement Plan) or change road standards, care must be taken to ensure such is consistent with the adopted comp plan. Mr. Connelly explained that the Comp Plan is a type of blueprint and can only be amended annually except under specific circumstances; and must be done only in a manner i n which items for change are posted to be amended prior to November of each year; that the proposed changes typically are reviewed annually by the Planning Commission,which then makes recommendation to the Council, and then Council makes the amendments to the Plan and then likewise to the zoning map so that all documents are consistent. Mr. Connelly explained that development regulations are made up of three parts: (1) zoning,which states what can occur on a given parcel of 1 and; (2) development standards, which are the regulations which address suc h t hings as p arking, setback, access, and signage, and said the s tandards c ontrol how development will occur such as height restrictions; and(3) a process: how do we do it;he said the process is a part of those development regulations and said this is governed by state law; adding that it is not a simple process and there are numerous requirements to follow. Mr. Connelly also mentioned some of the land use law, which he referred to as "state mandates" such as SEPA legislation, which states that any action that meets a certain threshold must have a checklist and such list must be mitigated; Shoreline Act, which is pertinent for us when it comes to our gravel pits,the River, and Shelley Lake, adding that this act was adopted County-wide in 1974 and not changed since. He discussed critical area ordinances and how they are mandated by state law by the GMA, subdivision laws which are regulated by state statutes, and he mentioned that long ago people subdivided property any way they wanted to, sometimes resulting in long flat lots or small lots impractical to build upon, or lots were divided in such a way that there was not access to all the lots; he mentioned that Boundary Land Adjustments or short plats are also implemented by local ordinances and stipulate that lots must have access to services like sewers; he said Floodplain is another rule to follow and he mentioned the federal rule under FEMA which is implemented by RCW 86.16;he said that flood plains are identified by FEMA maps and we must deal with them or risk losing our insurance provided by the federal government; and he briefly explained that there are other mandates we m ust f ollow s uch as t hose r elated t o s tormwater, a s w ell as the I nternational B uilding C ode regulations,which d eal w ith all types of bu ildings. Attorney C onnelly s aid just p rior to this C ity's incorporation, the City adopted a series of ordinances which comply with all the state rules, and said we adopted the County regulations as our own, and all the regulations were adopted to be effective March 31, 2003, the date of this City's incorporation. When the City adopted the County's comprehensive plan,the County had not fully implemented the comp plan so the county's zoning and comp plan did not match, and s ubsequently, M r. C onnelly e xplained, changes w ere m ade a s a result o f input from c itizens o n particular properties, and to implement the County's Comp plan,we adopted their Code,but they didn't match. He said the County was in the process of updating the zoning to implement the direction of the plan and they took a phased approach to implementation. Planning Manager McCormick showed a map depicting the regulations according to the interim comp plan adopt March 31, 2 003; and another map showing the actual zoning and he explained some of the inconsistencies;he said that our largest area comprising over 50%of our city is single family, and he said that di dn't c hange t oo m uch; h e e xplained how w e did a c ross-over m atrix to br idge the time from adoption of the comp plan to the time the county made all their necessary regulatory changes to fully implement t he pl an. Mr. McC ormick expl ained that t he U ACs, (urban activity cen ters)ha d two designated areas based on future locations of light rail stations at the Fairgrounds and the University City area; and he said a third UAC was designated just east of the City's boundary in an area now part of the city of Liberty 1 ake; he s aid the U AC wasn't the only de signation t hat allowed r ezoning, and others included the "mixed us e" designation that al lowed properties t o be rezoned t o any one o f five zoning districts. Mr. C onnelly continuing explaining his memorandum and the ordinances which implemented changes since our incorporation;he explained the termination requirement for non-conforming adult retail uses Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 2 of 20 DRAFT and that those establishments were not in an area that was lawful; and said the ordinance gave them five years then they had to move; but the previous Council took that away and allowed nonconforming uses to continue as Council didn't want to push all adult retail in one place as leaving them as nonconforming was less of an impact instead of forcing them to move to all one place,which would have had a more dramatic impact on businesses that surround those uses. Councilmember Gothmann added that the police department said from their point of view, it did not represent a significant problem. Mr. Connelly went over the remaining highlights of his memorandum, e xplaining the changes t hat took p lace and oft he effect of those changes, such as the UR-1 zone for Ponderosa and Rotchford; and of the ordinance that restricted development in the north Greenacres area. Mr. McCormick then explained the difference between the County's and our Comprehensive Plan;that there were not very many changes in the single family areas or the industrial areas, and he mentioned one change near the Industrial Park that was re-designated community commercial, and he said s ince that change, they have been working with people from the Industrial Park as the two lots are warehouses and staff is recommending a change back to industrial to reflect what is on the ground. He further explained that regional commercial along the freeway remained the same, but there were some differences on Urban Activity Centers designation as we don't have that designation; he said the Fairgrounds went to a public type designation; and the large area from V alleyway t o Stn shrank s ignificantly and includes regional commercial for car dealers; he said the high density reflects the development of the area, and the corridor is now c orridor mixed us ed. Mr. McCormick sai d the Community Commercial Centers are at Pines, Evergreen, and Sullivan. In changing from the interim comp plan to the first officially adopted comp plan, he explained there were numerous public meetings, and staff kept a detailed log of the community meetings and w orkshops dealing w ith t he c omp pl an pr ocess;t hat t here w as a n exhaustive publ is participation pl an which was al so adopted and executed as pa rt oft he pr ocess. Councilmember Gothmann s aid that Senior Planner Mike B asinger found about 400 di fferent parcels that w ere zoned improperly; and the P lanning C ommission and C ouncil w ent through e ach o ft hose to d etermine the correct z oning as in those i nstances,t he com p plan and the actual use w ere not the sam e or w ere inconsistent. Attorney Connelly added that the public process for the comp plan in 2006 i s shown on pages three and four of the first ordinance;that the extended UR-1 designation is also mentioned in his documentation, and said that the ann ual am endments w ere a s a result of citizens asking for sp ecific changes;t hat i n 2007 the UDC(Uniform Development Code)which implements the c omp pl an,w as adopted and page seven of that ordinance shows that public process. Mr. McCormick said the 2007 zoning map now mirrors and i s consistent with the c omp plan and the zoning on the ground, so the crossover matrix is no 1 onger needed, and the regulations are now put in place to implement t he z oning. Councilmember Gothmann s aid p rior to t hat time, there was no designation for office use,but only high density development; and Mr. McCormick said it was a quirk in the County's code that there was no office designation outside of a commercial area, which we corrected in the new zone. Mr. Connelly said other land use ordinances listed on page 4 and 5 of his memorandum address some cleanup or some item which was missing from the UDC; that those processes were usually driven by citizen concern or by staff identifying an inconsistency. In 2008, Mr. Connelly continued, the stormwater code was adopted, we did the annual amendments, and began a series of batch amendments to the 2007 UDC as a result of some things that didn't work when we started to apply the code,like the pitch for a manufacturer's home which was different from the standards, or lot sizes for duplexes which were too restrictive. In 2009, Mr. Connelly said, Book I of the Subarea Plan was adopted, as were Book 2 and 3 which were the development regulations which implement the comp plan; and he said ordinance 09-021 adopts the Subarea Plan we have today, and he noted pages 12 through 15 of that ordinance also list the public meetings held in regard to adoption of that plan. Councilmember Grassel said that it appears from 2006 to 2008, the regulations which were general became very specific; and Mr. Connelly said that the general language of the comp plan was intentional, and that the UDC is very specific as it must be or it would be difficult to enforce the regulations;that it is not any more or any less specific then the County's, Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 3 of 20 DRAFT just different. In response to Councilmember Grafos' question concerning the difference from the zoning codes of the County and ours, Mr. Connelly said staff can take the use list under the County and compare that with what we passed in 2007 to see what changed in terms of allowed uses and restrictions. Mr. McCormick continued by explaining and showing on the maps what was adopted city-wide in 2009, with one map showing the corridor areas of change between 2007 and the original comp plan, and the other map showing the 2009 changes; he said that the designation Regional Commercial was replaced with Gateway Commercial which was designed to address the AutoRow area and make it more conducive to existing dealerships, and recognize that end of Sprague as a major gateway into our City; he said that the C ity Center d esignation w as p art of the c orridor pl an; and he mentioned t he numerous pu blic participation opp ortunities that w ere h eld dealing w ith the dr aft of t he c omp pl an and the P lanning Commission recommendations, and said that a City Center was designated as part of the corridor plan; he said when the original comp plan got to Council,they discussed putting together more specific centers so they opted to pull out the city center to examine it in more detail; the final plan was not a designated city center in 2006,but was so designated under the corridor plan;he said the designation Mixed Use Avenue replaced a lot of the Corridor Mixed Use which allowed a wide variety of commercial uses and allowed stand alone r esidential; a nd M r. C onnelly a dded t hat t he S ubarea P lan B ook 2 de fines the us es. Councilmember Grafos said that the SARP further restricted the uses on the corridor, that Community Commercial moved all those t o the corners and pulled down the zoning and went t o mixed use along Sprague except for intersections,which he said is a further choke-down of allowed uses. Mr. McCormick said p rior t o our city's i ncorporation,w hen M r. S chimmels would c ome t o City H all and report the number of v acant buildings a long the c orridor; Mr. McCormick s aid that the intent w as t o ope n the corridor for uses that might actually locate there and not push an extensive commercial zoning that we can't physically fill out, and said this rationale has been successfully documented in several economic studies in this region. Councilmember Grafos said they still pay the taxes but their zoning is gone; and Mr. McCormick said the existing uses could continue. Mayor Towey asked regarding the SARP, how many properties are in noncompliance, and if the entire area w ere burnt down,how many businesses could re-build their businesses? Mr. McCormick said it would p robably be quite a few. Attorney C onnelly said i f council would like a 1 ist o f w hat uses are changed between SARP and the prior zoning, and the number of properties that became nonconforming, we can do that. Councilmember Grafos said the SARP includes about 1300 parcels that were changed or affected by the SARP. Mr. Connelly responded that the real question is what changed; do we have more or less allowed uses; and he said we can do that in a tabular manner to show what was allowed before and what was allowed after, but that it is not just a matter of adding and subtracting. Mr. McCormick stated that the Community Boulevard replaced the Corridor Mixed Use on the north side of Appleway and high and medium de nsity residential on the south side east o f Pierce;that the change on the south s ide of Appleway expanded allowed uses to include such things as corner store retail; and he said staff could tally that up as well. Councilmember Grafos said that the purpose of the GMA (Growth Management Act)is to reduce sprawl;but there are no requirements to set up zones to enforce that. Mr. Connelly said there is tremendous flexibility along the corridor within GMA to do what is de sired, that there are very little limitations;that where we are now is,we wanted to give the history and basis for changes, and he asked, where does this Council want to go with this? Mr. Connelly said that once we get Council consensus of where to go, staff can show the path to get there and apply the laws to those changes; and include what, if any consequences there would be for any change, including the consequences of changing back to an older zoning de signation; he explained that the Ponderosa area, and Greenacres would be impacted if those designations were to change; so that would be a consequence of that action, and he reiterated that staff needs to know where Council wants to go; and said that this is the legislation at its purest with the City Council getting to map out the City the way they want. Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 4 of 20 DRAFT Mayor Towey said the question now, is SARP zoning hampering buildings and businesses along Sprague now, or it is encouraging business. Mr. Connelly responded that the answer is probably both, as some areas are restricted in us e s uch as w here r etail is not a llowed; and other areas enhance use. Mr. McCormick added that the new residential developments on the south side of Appleway would not have been allowed under the previous zoning. Mr. Connelly again asked, what does Council want the city to look like; and a first step might be for Council to go through the SARP and identify things they don't like or would like to surgically change, keeping in mind likely some changes will be small while others that would major would take longer. Public Works Director Kersten said one of the things that was troubling was the economic study which showed that Sprague cannot support the commercial it has throughout the entire corridor; so the concept was to move the commercial entities to those Centers and open up some of the options in the rest of the corridor and thereby create a formed based code to bring in residential and to permit building residential next to an office,but not have the big box, high traffic retail; he said we were looking for a way to expand uses but still restrict some other uses; and said the big issue was it would be okay to bui ld r esidential ne xt to an office and it would be c ompatible; and developers would f eel comfortable building that. Councilmember Grafos said he understands the reason for that, and s aid he has a presentation on t hat issue, and he then read the following prepared statement: "Mr. Mayor, City Council, and City staff. I would like to speak to an issue of the utmost urgency for the economic health of our community, and an issue that should be the#1 priority of this council in 2010 and beyond. Shortly after the City was formed in 2003,the city council hired planning consultants from California and directed the City staff to begin what was termed "revitalization" of our city with loud cries of"too much retail"and "I have a vision"by council and City officials alike. This action set our City upon a course to downzone,restrict and re-allocate property values and uses to the U-City area. Despite heavy opposition and protest from the community,the previous council chose the SVBA and the leadership of the VALLEY C HAMBER OF C OMMERCE a s r epresentative of our c ommunity w ishes,t otally ignoring t he REAL community. After hundr eds of t housands of dol lars pa id t o t hese C alifornia consultants, and the immediate expansion of the city bureaucracy and its planning department,there emerged a plan that featured an intentional choke-down of traffic and businesses and the removal of individual property rights across the Valley. Thus was born an un-funded, multi-million dollar scheme begun in 2004,further refined and restructured with more city-wide restrictions in 2007,e merging in 2009 as the SPRAGUE-APPLEWAY REVITALIZATION PLAN or SARP. I'd also like to clarify that this SARP discussion is not just about one-way versus two-way at U-City, the building of a grand new city hall at U-City,or the extension of the Couplet on Appleway blvd. It i s a bout a huge ov er-reach of gov ernment, s hifting wealth from the backs of hundr eds of s mall businesses and property owners into the pockets of a few. SAYING IT IS AB OUT SOME FUTURE"VISION"OB SCURED THE T RUE INTENT OF T HIS PLAN SO I NAPPROPRIATELY N AMED" REVITALIZATION." I T S HOULD R EALLY B E CALLED THE"RE-ALLOCATION PLAN." The fact is,you cannot restrict economic activity and expect to increase economic activity. We live in a competitive world environment, are competing with our neighbors to the east in Idaho besides Spokane and Spokane County. To not acknowledge this reality of the marketplace, and trade the strengths of our community, which include an abundance of large close-in undeveloped parcels,proximity to downtown Spokane, good freeway acces s t o I-90,1 ack of congestion on c ity streets, City s ewer and utilities in place, and the probable future expansion of mass transit on the Appleway Couplet just to name a few, for an ever-expanding bureaucratic s tyle gov ernment i s not w hat t he c itizens had i n m ind up on Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 5 of 20 DRAFT incorporation. And though the citizens of this community know that hard decisions must be made,they should be made on the basis of economic opportunity for all,not just the few vocal self interests. THUS, THIS DISCUSSION TODAY NE EDS T 0 BE AB OUT J OBS A ND E CONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INSTEAD OF UNCERTAIN,DI SCRIMINATORY AND E VER-CHANGING REGULATIONS. Now,for t hose w ho are u naware of the e conomic i mpact of t hese gov ernment r estrictions on t he economic health and our ability to create jobs for our citizens,I would like to add the following into the record. I ha ve he re ov er t hirteen items and letters f rom com munity business leaders and ci tizens expressing frustration with the planning,permitting, and community development department and City staff. These are just a few of the complaints and troubles that have come to me and they are just the"tip of the iceberg."Many of these complaints come from those who are willing and able to bring economic development to the City enriching our tax base, and thus lessening the tax burden on our residential areas. First: 1. Jim Magnuson—Owner of University City(permits,delays, and zoning) 2. Orville Barnes —Univ. city management(zoning, site restrictions and lost projects including a bank on the corner of Mullan and Sprague) 3. Pring corporation to mayor Munson April 21,2009 (down zoning his properties) 4. Rob B. Gragg — Crown west realty representing the owners Spokane Industrial park (restrictions in industrial zones and what they can and cannot do with their properties) 5. Grant Person—NAI BLACK COMM. Real estate(zoning) 6. Jim Bonucceli—Village Square Realty,Trent Avenue project(zoning) 7. Clark Pacific Real estate Co. Bowdish & Sprague (loss of a bank at the corner of Argonne and Sprague,wasn't permitted by the zone change put in place by SARP and subsequent zone changes) 8. Clark Pacific Real Estate Co. Trent Avenue (zoning)(zoning) 9. Pring Corporation to city council Dec 30th 2009 (zoning) 11. Andrew Hovren—Building material supplier(building dept) [editor's note: there was no#10] 12. Shawn McGuire—Business insurance agency owner(problems with the building dept) 13. Guy Byrd—Property owner—Commercial R/E Broker(zoning and lost projects on Sprague Avenue due to restrictive zoning) AND L AST, The S pokane V alley N ews H erald retraction dated 2/5/2010 f rom A uto Row di strict dealers who represent over 20%of the s ales tax revenues to our city and although they favor some common sense revitalization projects in the area around the dealerships, such as crosswalks,reasonable business friendly signage regulations,trees,or street lighting,the Auto Row Group has not endorsed the other aspects of the multi-million dollar un-funded mandate known as SARP,including the return to two-way traffic or a dedicated city center in the U-City Area. T hey also wanted to make it clear that they w ere not affiliated with the S pokane Valley B usiness A ssociation and the Valley C hamber of Commerce endorsements of the SARP. Your city council is charged with the responsibility of setting the future direction of economic activity in our community honestly and fairly and to always be mindful of taxpayer's interests and to insure that the limited role of government serves all its citizens not just a select few. Our citizens know there are only a couple of ways to pay for the cost of government, higher taxes or by increasing economic activity through the private sector. Here are some alarming and sobering facts: Building permits (new const)2007 640 Building permits (new const)2008 555 Building Permits 2009 343 Decrease in Permits issued 46.40% Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 6 of 20 DRAFT And I might mention that the planning department and the budget of the planning department between 2004 and 2010 was an increase of 232% and projects between 2004 and 2014 will have about a 400% increase in the operating budget of that department. [Editor's note: this paragraph stated at meeting,but not included in written statement.] AGAIN:you cannot restrict economic activity with the hopes of increasing economic activity. I am asking the Council at this time to ask the city attorney and staff to prepare a motion for the next council meeting to impose an immediate Moratorium on the adoption and enforcement provisions of the SARP now in effect under RCW 35A.63.220. And as the c ouncil and staff be gin the process of di smantling SARP in its entirety, this moratorium would return the city to zoning entitlements in place prior to the first citywide downzone approved by council in 2007. This action would allow the zoning entitlements changed by this council action in 2007 to be reviewed and returned to the interim zoning in effect at the time of city incorporation. Residential area development would continue under present development criteria and changes could be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to protect the diverse residential areas that exist in the Spokane Valley. This process would provide immediate relief from the zoning restrictions and constraints imposed by the prior city council a nd pl anning de partment actions on c ommercial properties and jumpstart economic activity in our city simultaneously with the dismantling of the S ARP plan. Furthermore,I believe that it would be both enlightening and instructive to property owners and the public at large to see city maps which depict all of the non-conforming uses on the city arterials which were created by these multiple city wide downzones since 2004. To this day there are hundreds of property owners who are invested in our city, but still remain unaware of the land use restrictions and zone changes quietly enacted by their city officials. Additionally,the Growth Management Act does not limit a community from having more than a 20- year inventory of each type of commercial property (example: community commercial or industrial zoning)Were these commercial uses restricted by your city with multiple zone changes? THE ANSWER IS:YES Did your City planning department and council through multiple downzones and the unfunded multi- million dollar SARP create a large number of non-conforming businesses in our city? THE ANSWER IS:YES Does a non-conforming status for your property or business have an adverse affect on such issues as re- development,bank loans, appraisals,or insurance coverage? UNFORTUNATELY,THE ANSWER IS:YES The elimination of non-conforming uses on m ultiple properties citywide and the restoration of zoning entitlements to commercial z oned pr operties i n our C ity s hould be t he#1 pr iority project for t he planning de partment i n 2010. The ur gency of this project a nd its e conomic impact c annot be overemphasized. With the current economy and the looming budget challenges facing our City, these discussions must be about preserving jobs,growing our tax base and revenues, and promoting economic development. Thank you,Dean Grafos." The following were given as attachments to the letter from Councilmember Grafos: 1. RCW 35A.63.220 Moratoria,interim zoning controls—Public hearing—limitation on length. 2. Letter dated December 8,2009 from James Magnuson to Dean Grafos at Grafos Investment,Inc. 3. Letter dated December 23,2009 from Orville Barnes to Dean Grafos at Grafos Investment address 4. Letter dated April 21,2009 from Pring Corporation to Richard Munson,Mayor re draft SARP Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 7 of 20 DRAFT 5. Letter dated December 7, 2009 from C rown West R ealty to Greg M cCormick, Spokane Valley Planning Manager,re public hearing draft Comprehensive Plan 6. Undated three-page comments by Rob Gragg re the Comprehensive Plan,with eight pages from the Comprehensive Plan,with comments 7. E-mail dated December 22,2009 from Grant Person of NAI' Black to Dean Grafos 8. E-mail dated December 3, 2009 from Jim Bonuccelli to Dean Grafos; with attached one-page letter dated August 13,2009 t o Mark Lucas of Kiemle& Hagood Company; and attached flyer advertising Office/Warehouse/Yard for lease 9. Letter dated January 4, 2010 from M arshall C lark of C lark Pacific,t o Dean Grafos r e N EC o f Bowdish& Sprague 10. Letter dated January 7, 2010 from Marshall Clark of Clark Pacific to Dean Grafos re 11615 and 11617 E Trent Avenue. 11. Letter dated December 30,2009 from Kirk Owsley of Pring Corporation to City of Spokane Valley Council members,with copy of page 2 of a letter to Mayor Munson from Bradley Pring re regulatory taking. 12. E-mail dated January 26, 2010 from Shawn McGuire to Dean Grafos re "bums" and "beggars,"the "Appleway mess"and the permits and inspection department's"nasty reputation." 13. Letter dated February 5,2010 from Cornerstone Property Advisors to Dean Grafos re Proposed Use (Hite Crane)at 7102 and 7202 E. Sprague Avenue 14. Undated copy of"correction"to last week's News Herald concerning editorial cartoon dealing with the Auto Row not being affiliated with the SVBA or chamber. Discussion followed with mention from Councilmember Gothmann that what Councilmember Grafos just presented contains a large number of items, some of which are zoning, and some administrative and said it needs to be brought to the appropriate authority and allow them to solve the problem; and he suggested Councilmember G rafos t alk with Councilmembers rather than at councilmembers; and s aid s ince the Department Director is here,we let her reply to those problems;he added that the Planning Department increased substantially as a direct response to the public's concern that they were not getting the service desired, and as a result, additional staff w ere added; i n addition, he explained, several engineers w ere moved from the P ublic Works D epartment into the P lanning Department to provide better customer service. C ouncilmember G othmann said C ouncil n eeds to s it down and i dentify the p roblems,t hat Councilmember Grafos has identified a solution before identifying the problem;that zoning issues need to be id entified, sent to the Planning Commission with staff input to get the problems solved. Councilmember Dempsey agreed and said councilmembers need to talk to each other and find out where we are going;that she would hate to have an ordinance drafted and presented prior to examining all issues in an appropriate manner; adding that the staff is not out to "screw the public"but are there to do the best job they can with the parameters put in place by Council. Councilmember Gothmann suggested that a list could be started of what rights citizens had and have now been removed;then give that to the Planning Commission. C ouncilmember Grassel said she feels the immediate problem is lack of building permits, that they are down 46%,that she agrees with the moratorium idea and said the remainder of issues can be reviewed in t he interim, so at 1 east some pro jects can get st arted. C ouncilmember G rafos s aid h e advocates that we stop what we are doing and let the market develop the properties and move ahead and see if that will help the citizens, and in the meantime, look at the problems; he said he i s not pointing fingers at staff; but said there are some things put in place that are not the right idea, and this would stop the restrictions put in place and allow property to develop which will increase the tax base and increase jobs, and allow the Planning Commission and the council to discuss and develop a reasonable solution. Councilmember Gothmann said that he is not in favor of a moratorium as it means to stop building,which he said is not good for a city. Attorney Connelly said staff will need to research the legal implications to stopping SARP from being applicable. Mayor Towey said we have to stop and look at what we are doing and how we are encouraging business; he said we need to determine whether SARP is a road block; and to look at the desired end result that we Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 8 of 20 DRAFT want businesses to come in and to do that, stumbling blocks need to be removed;he said it might mean getting rid of the SARP or picking it apart piece by piece; and said we have to look at each component and ask if it is good for development, and if not, then change it. Councilmember Gothmann agreed that the free market does determine things, but said the ultimate solution would be no zoning so people could put anything they wanted anywhere; but he said he doesn't want that as he would not want a commercial building next t o his private house; perhaps residents don't want a bank on their corner; and he said council needs to decide what are the best restrictions that can be optimal for our city,both in terms of citizens and in introducing businesses; that the question remains, how to encourage business; and said he feels it would not be best to have the entire 10.25 miles of Sprague zoned commercial. Councilmember Grassel also stated she feels the free market should determine that and not council, and she gave Division as an example; she said we are trying to re-zone an already commercial area into the mixed used city center, and then say you can't have a business here; she said this would not be a moratorium on building but on t he S ARP z one and s uggested the regulations ne ed t o be a ddressed; and s he m entioned the problem with the bank not be ing a ble t o be built o n Sprague and A rgonne; she s aid w e ne ed those economic buildings; she said she is not advocating for a bank in a residential zone,but suggested the regulations go back to the commercial zone along Sprague. Councilmember Gothmann suggested each councilmember needs to be he and from;then w e need to ask the City Attorney about the affects o f a moratorium. Councilmember Grafos suggested Council suspend the rules and see what happens to private enterprise. Councilmember Dempsey suggested in order not to do any harm to any business or property owner,that things be done in an orderly fashion to protect everyone's rights, and that Council allow the City Attorney to do the needed research first. M r. Connelly said he is hearing from Councilmembers Grassel and Grafos that they want to suspend the application of SARP, and he asked for Mayor Towey's opinion. M ayor Towey s aid w e ha ve t o look a t it and de termine if it is h ampering or e ncouraging businesses. Mr. Connelly asked to confirm that what council wants is an analysis to see what is and is not or wasn't allowed; and Mayor Towey said we have to stop what we are doing, analyze it and if needed,go in a different direction;but not as it is,we need to put a stop to it. Acting City Manager Jackson said he would like an opportunity to take a few weeks to carefully lay out this problem; to address the staff issues separately from the SARP issues; see if development is encouraged or hampered; and put a pro cess together where staff can come to council and council c an identify the problem;he said these are complex problems and feels we shouldn't state the solution prior to identifying the problem; that over the next three or four meetings, can make sure we have clear direction and understanding and that Council has the necessary information to make a decision; that staff needs to research all the possibilities and ramifications of adopting a new code or stopping SARP, and stressed that whatever the solution i s,he cautioned that w e move forward carefully so that council can reach their ultimate objective. Mayor Towey said he feels that is an excellent idea; and Councilmember Gothmann suggested including why SARP was adopted including whatever problems SARP was trying to address, and the scientific basis for those problems, and ways others have solved similar problems. City Attorney Connelly said it appears there are short and long-term options; that he can put together options for short term goals, and a more detailed analysis for the long term goals. Public Works Director Kersten added that part of the study should include the health of the economy;that in this downturned economy many people are not willing to take a risk; so this research could end up with two different answers. Mayor Towey responded that it is not why or how it happened,but the question now is, is it beneficial to our city now; and if it is holding us back,then we need to get rid of it. Councilmember Grafos asked for a vote of council to suspend the SARP; and City Attorney Connelly suggested not taking such vote today as the agenda was not noted for action; and Mr. Jackson added that the public needs to know that some action is going to be taken; and he suggested Council let staff set a timeline to discuss it and make sure C ouncil reaches the conclusion legally and in the best interests of the community. Again, Mayor Towey said he feels that i s an excellent idea to have staff research, then present to council. Councilmember Grassel stressed the need for urgency and not to drag this out but come t o a quicker resolution; she s aid she realizes the reduction of sprawl is mandated by GMA and promoted by NLC and AWC, and they promote Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 9 of 20 DRAFT the concept of walkable green spaces; she said the question is, is it right for our community;that we don't necessarily want t o look 1 ike Portland, and she feels there i s an urgency for t hose businesses al ong Sprague to have this resolved and not be a year-long process. Councilmember Dempsey said she feels the public needs to be involved and have opportunity for comment. Acting City Manager Jackson said staff will take the sense of urgency under advisement and this will be one of the major goals;that we will work toward a timeline and process and bring that to council to advance this as rapidly as we can and still meet the de sire for public i nput, and said h e w ill assemble a ci ty team to a ddress t his. C ouncilmember Gothmann said that service problems are different issues; and he encouraged Councilmember Grafos to give those items to the Community Development Director, and maybe get a report back; and Mr. Jackson concurred. The meeting stopped for lunch at 11:50 a.m. and Mr. Jackson invited the members of the press and the citizens to join the group for lunch. The meeting reconvened at approximately 12:30 p.m. 2. Paveback (a) Interlocal Agreement—Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten explained that for the past seven years, we did paveback in conjunction with the County as they did their sewer projects;he explained that the County paid for paving over the trenches where sewer/side sewer lines were installed; and the City paid for any remaining paving beyond the sewer trenches; that at one point the entire city was on septic tanks, and now the STEP (septic tank elimination program) s hould be completed after just two more y ears — this y ear and next y ear. H e explained that when the County does the sewer project,they pay for the payment where they dig their trench; he said sewer has to be pretty deep because some subdivisions weren't designed for that line; and he said that in some places in the Ponderosa area,the trench dug was 24 or 25 feet deep;that sometimes a pump station was also installed to make the system work;that in some cases the trench covered all the road, but som etimes a lot of paving di dn't g et d one; so the C ounty c omes u p with an e stimate an d calculates the amount ne eded outside the trench; and w e have been paying for that a dditional cost so when the County's job is finished, we end up with a new street. Mr. Kersten said many projects were done in old neighborhoods with very old streets; he said we are matching their costs to do paving and last year we put in a little over$2 million; he explained if the project were not done in this fashion, we would end up with a trench and joints with roads not holding up for very long. Mr. Kersten said we have been struggling with funding in 2010 and the cost of paveback is not included in the current budget. Mr. Kersten distributed copies of and explained the map showing the 2010 sewer projects and the sewer areas, pointing out which areas are remaining to be paved;he mentioned that the West Farms area has a lot of gravel roads so there are several roads which will be paved for the first time; an additional issue,he explained is th at this y ear new street standards w ere adopted and the 1 evel of r esidential streets w as upgraded from the initial two inches of asphalt over four inches of base,to three inches of asphalt over six inches of base rock; he said an analysis was performed for long-term versus initial cost; and over the long term, these new standards are the best option as streets will last longer; traffic will have less of an impact; and it will afford us the ability to do a grind and overlay with three inches instead of doing the whole street; he said it is also easier to upgrade twenty to thirty years from now compared if there were only two inches, the whole thing would have to be torn out. Mr. Kersten said the cost will increase with the new standards, and it will result in an additional $760,000; with an additional estimated$900,000 cost to the county for their increased paving costs,which would result in the County adding a surcharge to the Capital Facilities Rate for each Equivalent Residential Unit(ERU) to cover the increase,thereby raising the total sewer connection fee for each homeowner from the current$5,780 cost per ERU to $6,730 per ERU; adding that the new rate could be pro-rated and paid monthly. Director K ersten also explained that the County handles the project, they bid it as part o f their sewer project, and we work with t hem and pay the cost t o the County, and they pay t heir contractor. Mr. Kersten said if Council wants to move ahead, a decision needs to be made to keep the two inches over four inches standard, or go with the three inches over six inches new standard; and he mentioned that the Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 10 of 20 DRAFT West Farms project is currently out for bid with a bid opening scheduled for February 23, s o a decision needs to be made s oon s o the C ounty w ill know how t o a ward the projects. There w as di scussion concerning the various projects,mention that Greenacres is fairly big;the question of paving or patching; that exceptions can be made not to follow the newer road standards; the idea of paying for roads now or paying for those same roads later and that $1 now could save $8 later or investing now to save a large future investment; mention by Mr. Kersten that the three inch is just for residential roads as arterials are different as they are heavier, stronger roads; and Mr. Kersten stating that the question remains can we afford it, and what is the best method. Mr. Jackson reminded everyone of the failed 2004 ballot issue for full-width paving, and that although the citizens did not want to pay for it, the City determined it would do so provided the funds were available; and that now funding is an issue. (b)Financing—Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson distributed a list of our current reserves; said that our share would be about $2.2 or $2.3 million this summer, and with that cost,there are only a few places that could finance that, and one would be the Civic Facilities fund,which he recommends, showing a current fund level of$5.8 million; and that payment could be handled by moving those funds back into the general fund and taking payment from that. Mr. Thompson said if the cost goes beyond the $2.2 or $2.3 million,he would have to start looking at moving revenues from a fund which will need to be replaced, like the general or street fund, and said those funds will also have their own problems over the next few years. Discussion included going with the older standard since the cost was not increased for the other projects; that some of the areas in question are lower income areas;mention from Mr. Thompson that the numbers mentioned already include the $310,000 CDBG grant(Community Development Block Grant); that the economy i s such that an increase for the citizens could prove difficult; mention that this is not in the budget because this represents the first time we would have to dip into reserves to cover the cost and we previously did not have the full costs as projects don't get designed until the winter, and Mr. Kersten said that until the trench is laid out and the needed depth determined, solid numbers are difficult to determine; and mention that if we use the lower standards this year,the same should be done the following final year. It was determined that this item will be on a future council agenda for two motion considerations: one for the interlocal, and the other for the financing. 3. Snow Plowing—Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten explained that last year,the County terminated our snow removal contract, and i n mid-May, council directed staff t o get a plan together;h e explained that he met with WS DOT (Washington S tate D epartment of T ransportation) o n num erous oc casions, a nd t hey de dicated t heir surplused six trucks with plows and sanders; and we purchased the trucks for about$100,000 total; and he said they were in reasonably g ood shape;t hat Waste Man agement just finished a new facility off o f Montgomery and were moving out of their old facility across from city hall on Sprague behind the Post Office, and the area includes about 1.5 acres,has a small building quarters for the crew, and some older bay maintenance in the garage, and he explained that the snow trucks fit in well;he said we have leased the area at the reasonable rate of about$4,000 monthly;that we needed some help and we contracted with Poe Asphalt after putting out a Request for Proposal;that Poe agreed to use the same terms we have with them for summer maintenance, for the winter cost and labor;that the initial contact for was $90,000 to get the trucks and facility ready; and said we have developed the contract for winter operations as noted on his agenda packet materials. Mr. Kersten said we are fortunate not to have received a lot of snow this year;that October and November were spent getting the facility ready; training the ne w pe ople w ith WSDOT's help; and said he has been working with Poe, and when we need them, they come in; and he said Poe has been doing a 1 of of de-icing at night, espe cially at the intersections and hillsides. M r. Kersten said the bill for January was $30,000 compared to last year's $600,000 in January and in 2008 the cost was $459,000, in 2007 the cost was $260,000; and he said we have almost hit a record low January this year for the lowest snow year. Mr. Kersten said he is comfortable with the program. Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 11 of 20 DRAFT There was discussion on the change in standards for snow plowing, and Mr. Kersten explained that a road which is "substantially impaired" means it is impassable; but said council can discuss the standards if they want to change that; and Mr. Jackson said staff can schedule a review of the snow removal plan with council if that is council's desire. Because oft he sc heduled conf erence cal 1 w ith the 1 obbyist, this di scussion w as s uspended, to be continued after the telephone conference call. Telephone Conference Call with Briahna Taylor, Governmental Affairs Consultant Ms. Taylor said that Tim Shelberg of her firm will be joining her on this call. Ms. Taylor explained that regarding the 20 10 L egislative A genda a pproved b y C ouncil 0 ctober 20 09, that the a genda can b e amended or changed; she mentioned they are trying t o get$3 18,000 funding for the S ullivan/Sprague intersection repaving, and it was submitted in the House and Senate; she said this is a difficult budget year; that she can ask but of course there is no guarantee, but she will do her best; she explained that she also submitted the request 1 ate; and added that she i s asking for a smaller amount t o try t o get m ore traction with the request. Ms. Taylor then reviewed and commented upon the eight items on the Council's Legislative Agenda: 1) Street Utility: explained that this was introduced about a week into the session; that there is a local option for cities to impose a utility fee like a garbage fee or telephone utility fee, and that it is based on trip generation; the bill was referred to the House Transportation Committee and she said that Matt Shea serves on that committee; there was a hearing on the bill but it did not pass out of committee before the deadline,which she said is today; she said the Transportation Committee met yesterday and there was a lot of discussion but the bill was not voted on. She explained that the Democrats make up the majority of the committee and they are concerned about how many provisions they are sending to the floor which would increase a fee or a tax and felt it would be a difficult vote to take; plus the economy the way it is is not the best year to move that forward. Ms. Taylor said this has been introduced multiple times and she expects it will be again in the future; adding that it was one of AWC's (Association of Washington Cities) top priorities. 2) 911 system: she said this was heard on Friday;that this would increase taxes on each line including internet p rotocol lines w hich haven't increased for many years; she said t hat a lthough t his i s not a significant increase, it is an increase nonetheless. She explained that the funding would go to 911 centers across the state; she s aid we a re funded by the C ounty's system w hich i s i n desperate need of improvement; and she explained as an example,that a texted 9-1-1 call would not come in now,but this increased funding would allow for it; she said it was heard on Friday,but it is unclear if it will move forward;that there are multiple versions of the bill; and that while it is still moving along, there is not a lot of momentum as it calls for a tax increase. 3) $300,000 Park Acquisition: Ms. Taylor said that no capital projects were funded this year, and that they are now 1 ooking at making t his request the following bi-annual; and that it w ill be k ept on the legislative agenda for next year; she said she started doing the ground work to pave the way to make sure that request is successful next year. 4) Law enforcement District Enabling Legislation: Ms. Taylor said this is an effort in a local area and there is no legislation introduced on this issue and we are now past the cut-off deadline; adding if this were introduced this year, it would not be passed. She explained that the idea was to create a 1 aw enforcement d istrict much like a fire d istrict,w hich w ould b e funded by t hat di strict; that this is something to consider for 2011 if Council wants to pursue it, she said they could lead the way in drafting the legislation and refining the concept. Police Chief VanLeuven asked if any other jurisdiction is trying to impose this concept, and she said she is unsure, and she is not sure where this idea originated from,but could look into the concept if Council wants to pursue this. M r. Jackson this is something council can discuss and decide if they want to pursue that legislation for 2011. Ms. Taylor said if that is Council's desire, to please let her know and she will look into the feasibility or if other jurisdictions in the state or Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 12 of 20 DRAFT even around the country have been successful; and said she will ask key players for a general reaction to see if this would get any traction at all. 5) Interoperability Infrastructure: Ms. Taylor said there has been some local effort to fund interoperability communications; and the question is how to create a state-wide interoperability system;that a lot of these requests stem from the 9-11 incident and the lack of communications among safety people. She explained that this is handled differently in various states,with some converting the Department of Transportation as well as emergency response frequencies and making them all similar,to others creating a consolidation in g overnment and t hereby a cost savings which w ould fund i nteroperability. She sai d she h eard the discussions on this topic and that due to the economic recession,this is not the best time to pursue this but it could be picked up after the sixty-day session adjourns. 6) Cap and Trade Provisions of Climate Control Regulations: she said that while efforts are ongoing at the State level, it was decided this would not be addressed during legislature and instead wait and see if the federal government does anything in this regard. She said these are items for discussion, but they haven't generated any legislation. 7)Access Enhanced State Fuel Purchasing Power: she explained that this was a r equest that her firm research the concept of the state purchasing wholesale fuel and making it available to local jurisdictions. Ms. Taylor said she did a great deal o f research and discovered the State already pur chases fuel at a wholesale level for multi-state agencies but not through private e ntities, only through its own fueling stations; she said a fueling station the city could use would be outside the city limits, and the cost of driving to it would not be a cost savings due to the extra driving. Ms. Taylor said if Council wants to pursue this, she needs more thought put into what it is we are looking for; and said the next step would be to research to make sure that wholesale fuel is available to all jurisdictions. 8) Support for AWC Legislative Agenda: Ms. Taylor discussed the three priorities of the AWC; i.e. City Flexibility Package, Stormwater Funding, and Street Maintenance Utility. She encouraged councilmembers to look at that agenda, consider the status of where things are, and look forward to the next legislative agenda and of what might benefit our city. She mentioned the transportation request for the S ullivan Road i ntersection,the Park Road Pool, and s uggested c ouncil m akes sure t hose are the priority projects to seek state funding; or whether to advocate for a 1 aw enforcement district, and with research, to see if the community would be receptive. Other things to keep in mind she said, are what other c ities are do ing, and she m entioned the recent public record request 1 egislation, and s aid s ome entities indicated this could be very burdensome because of the sheer magnitude of requests and that all requests must be complied with; she said she has worked with AWC and other cities to put together a concept of, if you post an ordinance for a meeting agenda to the website, instead of printing that agenda, staff could supply the requestor with the link to the website, which would represent a cost savings for staff not researching the item. She mentioned that the idea is in the Rules Committee and is in line for being voted on the floor; and City Attorney Connelly suggested including anything on the w ebsite be treated in the same manner; and Ms. Taylor noted that suggestion. In closing, Ms. Taylor explained that there is some leeway to change some of the state requirements, and she will look for direction on whether to add the public records legislation or other pieces that come up; she said in two days they will be halfway through the 2010 legislation; that new issues would be difficult at this point as all deadlines are past; that it is important to consider what goes on in session, and that an end-of session report will be forthcoming; she said she looks forward to the 2011 session,that there will be anew budget so there will be opportunities to get more funding, and she encouraged discussion on adding or changing the current legislative agenda and to look forward to the 2011 session. Mr. Jackson asked if Council wanted to discuss adding the public records legislation,would there be any impact to add that now for 2010; and Ms. Taylor said if it is Council's desire to add it, she would ask for support and she would advocate for the bill for the city and talk to the committee members to indicate that Spokane Valley supports that legislation. Mr. Jackson said Council will have that discussion and he will report back t o M s. Taylor. M s. Taylor s aid i f other issues on the agenda need to b e changed or do n't have traction, they can be removed for the 2010 s ession, and said sh e w ill a dvocate based on w hat t hose Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 13 of 20 DRAFT changes are. Councilmember Gothmann asked about the TIB (Transportation Improvement Board) consolidation with W SDOT and about the Governor withdrawing her support oft hat; and Ms. Taylor replied that the Transportation Committee refused to sponsor legislation that would call for consolidation so the Governor's office agreed to hold off on that; and Ms. Taylor said that if there are any issues that come up f or he r attention, Councilmembers can always e -mail he r w ith those de sires, and said she advocates on behalf of Council. Acting City Manager Jackson said with Council concurrence, he will get more information on the public records legislation, and put this matter in the packet for the next council meeting. Council concurred. 3. Snow Plowing— continued Mr. Kersten resumed this agenda topic discussion by outlining the options for future winter operations: (1) Continue with the current plan with minor changes Hire an additional full-time mechanic/operator Monitor future years to see if additional full-time or part-time staff are needed Purchase the Waste Management Facility In 2010,purchase one new and one surplus WSDOT truck/plow/sander (2) Hire one full-time and five part time operators Hire a contractor to provide additional back-up for drivers/operators Purchase the Waste Management Facility In 2010,purchase one new and one surplus WSDOT truck/plow/sander (3) Hire a private contractor for all winter operations Prepare a RFP (request for proposal) detailing all requirements for winter operations May require continuing emergency operations for one additional year. Mr. Kersten said that he currently has a street superintendent and two operators, and recommends after this winter to hire one more person to cover some of the daily issues, and said he would want this person to be stronger on the mechanic side; he said he has plenty of work to keep at least three people busy. Mr. Kersten said this was a pretty light year so they didn't get a strong test to see how it would go in future years;that he feels we should move ahead and buy the Waste Management facility as it is a great location as it is in the middle of the city instead of off to one part of the city; that the cost is reasonable and he mentioned they did a full appraisal for the market value,which is a little over$500,000; that it is not a new facility and needs some upgrades,but he feels we could get it for a reasonable price. Mr. Kersten said the site is currently up for sale as the owners initially didn't want to lease it;but they agreed to our lease,which is a month-to-month lease for one year; and he said if they find a buyer,they'll terminate the lease. Mr. Kersten said they could split the cost of the facility between the stormwater fund and the street fund;that it is clear they will need a couple more trucks as w e are at the maximum use with what we have; and said if they got into plowing multiple days,they would lose some of those trucks as they'd go down for maintenance; so Mr. Kersten said he recommends maybe buy one more used if possible, and buy a new one every year or two and start to replenish the fleet. Mr. Kersten also explained that the de- icer used in the trucks literally eats up the electrical; so if the truck gets a crack or leak,the salt gets in and destroys them. Concerning Option 2, Mr. Kersten said this would use a crew that comes back, and based on research,generally 80-90%come back so they get familiar with the city and become well-trained. Mr. Kersten said concerning Option 3,that last May he sent out a letter of interest all over,but only received two responses; one was local and the other was from Priest River. Mr. Kersten said he thinks from a cost standpoint,we probably have the most cost efficient system now; but the downside is the workers are not quite as familiar with the road,but said they are getting there. Mr. Kersten recommended Option 1; and said that contractors are willing to provide the labor, but contractors are not interested in gearing up for the operation; that we have six WSDOT units and converted two to liquid de-icers;that they will need a couple more trucks for plowing mainly,but he said we are in good shape for de-icing. Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 14 of 20 DRAFT Councilmember Gothmann asked if the County would back us up in case our system failed; and said the County said if a person was on duty for standby,that they would get eight hours pay;but Mr. Kersten said the County didn't have standby as their people were permanent; and we paid for them forty hours a week with overtime; but said with Poe and with twenty-four hour's notice,they will show up without standby; or if a big storm in coming,we can put them on standby for two hours, adding that we can usually see the weather coming far enough ahead to give several day's notice; and that it works well and saves money. Mr. Jackson asked if Council has a preference on the options. Councilmember Dempsey said she favors Option 1. Mr. Kersten said in reference to the other full time position,that would be mainly with stormwater, and he said there is a huge need in that regard and said he would give an update in the near future on stormwater as t hey are just g etting t hat program g oing, and c ould easily move t hose pe ople du ring the sum mer, between the street and stormwater funds. Mayor Towey said if option 1 is the preferred option,perhaps we should look at the facility right away; and Mr. Kersten said he can bring back details on the location, but c an't i magine losing money on i t as it i s a g ood deal, a g reat location and a g reat pr ice. Councilmember Grafos asked if staff had to re-zone that to put that operation there; and Mr. Kersten said the property is currently nonconforming and we can legally use it, but if there are significant upgrades needed, it may not be able to remain under the current zoning. Councilmember Grafos said that under the SARP, that facility sits next to a residential boulevard with a plan for condos, and asked rhetorically who would buy that next to the dump trucks. Mr. Kersten said it would need to be dressed up a little; and Councilmember Grassel said the zoning needs to be determined be fore we purchase the building. Mr. Kersten said if Council wants to pursue that, he will research the issue; and Councilmember Grafos said the problem is with all the downzoned parcels; now we would come back and say this is a great shop for dump trucks for the city. Mr. Kersten said he would pursue option 1 and bring council additional details. 4.Financial Forecast—Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson brought Council's attention to the handouts showing the general fund and street fund revenues and expenditures; regarding page one and the general fund, Mr. Thompson said if we did nothing more to the budget, this is probably what it would look like; and he said he feels a need to come closer to projections instead of having more extra money at the end of each year. Mr. Thompson said that the yellow sheet shows some changes in the general fund only; and he asked Council to keep in mind that none of the revenues or expenditures will be exact; and he explained the "From Service level reserve"line item on that yellow sheet, and said the expenditures have been increasing about 8%annually but always seem to be too high compared with the actual; so they decided to project the increase at 7% instead of 8%; and said they feel the departments can bring in their budgets at 97%of what is budgeted; and that the 3%cutback results in savings of several million dollars annually. Mr. Thompson said that regarding the emergency fund of$.5 million,we have never spent from it so we could pull that out to help with the budget. Mr. Thompson said that usually included in the projections are increases based on our business plans, such as adding positions,but said we have taken those out as we are not going to spend that. Mr. Thompson said we also must be careful with the public safety fund as that fund represents about two-thirds of the general fund budget, or about$20 million; and said that the public safety budget goes up 6-7%annually, he said public safety includes the district court,prosecutor, public defender, emergency management, animal control, Sheriff's Office, etc.,and there are still a couple years of settle and adjust on several of those contracts. Finance Director Thompson said that he feels the sales tax projections are actually what we think we will receive in 09; that it was bumped $50,000 in 2011; that he got the feeling Council is not interested in increasing the property t ax s o he left t hat a lone,but di d t ake into a ccount ne w c onstruction. Mr. Thompson said the general fund revenues now are flat with expenditures going up about 7%; and said we have to find some savings here and there. Concerning the third page of his handout showing the street fund, Mr. Thompson said it is difficult to predict the annual snowfall and truck maintenance; but said his Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 15 of 20 DRAFT estimates should be close; he said in 2010 we have a energy efficient grant of $712,000 which covers about six or seven items; that expenditures increased to about$4.5 million in 09, which jumps to about $5.2 million in 2010; that there is a little bit of a loan out there which was needed to replace our winter weather reserve fund, so we spent$355,000 from that fund last year so we need to pay that fund back; and in paying this back we will have $.5 million in the reserve fund. Mr. Jackson explained that the strategy has be en to budget for an average s now y ear and have those reserves for when we have a year like we did last year; he said the street preservation fund of$4 to $4.5 million is for preservation; but said we are also getting to a critical point in our ability to match capital projects because of lower REET (real estate excise tax) funds; and said it is difficult to get new grants as we don't have the revenue stream for the match. There was some discussion concerning REET 1 and REET 2 and the different rules associated with those; and staff mentioning that we don't apply for a grant if w e don't h ave the m atching funds. Mr. Jackson mentioned the ne ed t o h ave e ngineering de signs complete and have projects "shovel ready"in order t o be competitive; and Mr. Kersten said that the Sprague P roject is a g ood example of that as s timulus funds w ere u sed for that p roject;t hat i t was designed and we had it on the shelf, and if we had not been ready,we likely would have missed it. Mr. Kersten said we haven't lost any grant funds at this point. 5. Goals—2010 Council Budget Goals City Manager Jackson asked Council if they had changes or re-direction to staff in any way concerning the stated 2010 budget goals, and the goals were discussed individually: #1. Continue monitoring wastewater issues, including governance of wastewater facilities, and pursuit of the most efficient and economical methods to ensure the continuation of wastewater discharge licenses. Mr. Jackson said that we will have a presentation coming up on t hat soon, and Mr. Kersten added that Bruce Rawls from the County will be here next week; Mr. Kersten also distributed copies of information taken from the Department of Ecology's website, and he pointed out that it has been determined that the Spokane River was impaired; so they are going through the TMDL(total maximum daily load)process to try to improve that;that they collaborated with EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) for an abatement in March 200 7, they all agreed to the plan, and then in 200 8 the EPA said that was done in error and decided to throw it all out, so they had to re-do the process; and Mr. Kersten said they just received the final comments on the TMDL and in the next four or five months,they should be putting out the process to tell people what they need to do to meet those levels. Mr. Kersten also distributed copies of a p age from the County's website concerning the Spokane County Regional Water Reclamation Facility; and Mr. Kersten mentioned that he is on the selection committee for the DBO (design, build, operate) process for the plant; that CH2M Hill was hired as contractor; and it is scheduled to be completed in 2012 which he said ties into the projection for volume for sewer as we will need that plant on line to be able to continue development. Mr. Kersten said Council can familiarize themselves with the website to prepare for Bruce Rawls' presentation next week, and added that the County is still looking at all options in case they can't discharge into the river. It was determined to retain goal#1 as stated. #2. Implement records indexing and phase in a document imaging system City department by City department with the goal of achieving city-wide implementation in 2010. City Clerk Bainbridge gave an update on the process thus far; that she and IT Specialist Greg Bingaman researched which doc ument imaging company t o us e and selected Laserfiche;that temporary scanner operators have been hired and have scanned over 100,000 pages of documents; and said this is an ongoing process; and that having documents on Laserfiche saves staff time in searching for previous documents; and once our new website goes live March 31, 2010, the plan is to also have the scanned documents in Laserfiche available to the public. It was determined to retain goal#2 as stated. Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 16 of 20 DRAFT #3. Implement and Evaluate regulations specified in the Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan as adopted and amended by City Council. Mr. Jackson said we could discuss this now or go through the other goals and come back to this one later. Councilmember Dempsey suggested removing the words "implement and evaluate"and adding the words "re-evaluate." : • • - - -: Re-Evaluate regulations specified in the Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan as adopted and amended by City Council. It appeared there was no objection from Councilmembers on t hat s uggestion. Deputy May or S chimmels a sked i ft his would remain a s a budg et g oal, and Mr. Jackson replied that they are currently part of the 2010 budget; and said as we work forward, Council can direct staff for amendments. #4 Develop a Shoreline Master Program Community Development Director McC lung explained that the inventory i s complete for the sho reline master pr ogram;that w hen this w as budg eted the budget only included inventory,but s aid there w as actually enough budgeted to cover the inventory and the production of the plan; she explained that we are required by state law to revise a shoreline master program so we will hopefully be ahead of schedule; and she mentioned that the open house last week went well. Director McClung said that a joint meeting with Council and the Planning C ommission is planned for March, so we w ill pro ceed from there. It was determined to retain goal #4 as stated. #5 Pursue a legislative capital budget request for state funding for the acquisition of parkland adjacent to the Park Road Pool. Parks and Recreation Director Stone said that this is the $300,000 request we have into the legislature; that we heard from our Lobbyist and this project doesn't appear to have much support due to the capital budget; h e s aid t he P ark Road Pool is just a poo 1 and there is n o park, and that this acquisition i s a priority;he said he will continue to work on this if it is Council's desire; he said there is some private interest in the property and that w e stay in contact with the property owners, and he said the property owners desire to have a park there as well. In response to Councilmember Grassel's question about any connection to the school, Mr. Stone said it borders Centennial Junior High and we have the ability to do joint pr ogramming,but t here ha ve be en no discussions about s haring resources. Councilmember Dempsey asked about the feasibility of purchasing the property, and Mr. Jackson said it is feasible, but we would have to dip into our reserves as we don't have the $300,000 purchase price. It was determined to retain goal #5 as stated. #6 Develop and implement a multi year winter roads maintenance plan including availability, costs and effects of private sector vendors performing winter road maintenance for the City. There was no objection to keeping this goal as stated. 47 Pursue state funding of a demonstration project that constructs a city hall in accordance with "living building"standards. Mr. Jackson said this idea came about because of the interest in green buildings and other conservation measures; and of the possibility that funding might become available. Public Works Director Kersten said this would be pretty easy to achieve, that there would be some additional cost at first,but once built, a "living building"has net zero consumption, and would generate enough power during the day to power the building at night; that we would need wells and places to deal with gray water; but he said he has not seen any grant funding at this point, and said we don't know where council wants to go for a city hall; or whether to move ahead or not. Mayor Towey said the site is not compatible to this s o a 1 iving building i s out o f the que stion; and M r. Kersten s aid it would b e v ery e xpensive. Councilmember Gothmann suggested if this has a low probability of actually occurring,perhaps it would be best to remove this as a g oal. Mr. Kersten said staff could monitor this idea as i t progresses in the future. It was determined to remove this as a goal. Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 17 of 20 DRAFT Short-Term Goals: Mr. Jackson then ope ned the floor for any proposed short-term goals. Mr. Jackson mentioned that the Governance Committee has not yet convened, and that would be the opportunity to discuss any changes relative to telephone conference calls,adding that the manual can be revised as needed. Communications with Citizens. Mayor Towey said that we need to have a venue where we can give more information to the public, especially when ordinances and resolutions would have a financial impact on citizens; that he would like to have a way to get the information out to them in a reasonable amount of time, and he gave the alarm ordinance as an example; stating that he has received numerous e-mails and calls from citizens who were confused and who said the initial letters were confusing; and he proposed that any time we are going to pass a resolution or an ordinance that impacts citizens financially, that we have a w ay t o inform those pe ople a nd e xplain w hat it is, how i t a ffects t hem, a nd w by i t w as implemented. Mr. Jackson said staff can work toward a plan to address that;that we rely heavily on the media, but sa id that is no substitute for d irect m ail; an d staff w ill research t he co st and process. Councilmember Dempsey suggested pursuing the televising of council meetings, and said that would give people another avenue to gain information. Mr. Jackson said as part of the business plan, staff is working on ways to do a better job; and he mentioned the Hot Topics insert in the newspaper, and said staff tries to use all available resources. Councilmember Grassel suggested that Council review anything that goes out to the public, and make suggestions prior to information being sent out. Chief VanLeuven said once he explains the process and purpose of this alarm ordinance, people were less confused; he said he corresponded w ith t he A larm C ompanies i n or der t o c larify c itizen qu estions;he s aid the P olice Department follows up every call and once clarified, most of the citizens are very supportive; he also said that this is far cheaper than the original ordinance. Chief VanLeuven said cost recovery is only from the false alarms and that the administrative fee is to register the information for alarms. Chief VanLeuven said he feels we will see a different picture in six months; he said prior to this citizens were paying their alarm company to monitor their alarm, and if they couldn't contact a trigger;they'd call the Police;that this Public Safety Corporation maintains the database and does much more than what the alarm company does for them. Councilmember Gothmann asked if before this ordinance, did the Police even know who had the systems, and the Chief said only the ones which were registered;but the some alarm companies in the past, refused to give the Police Department alarm contact, or there were some where the police had no contact information. Mr. Jackson said he is confident we can do a better job on these types of situations in the future, and will strive toward that objective. Councilmember Grassel asked about panhandling regulations and what we are doing and can or can't do. Discussion included mention of Councilmember Gothmann's previous PowerPoint;t hat i t might be a good time t o present that information a gain; and it was determined t o put that topic on a n upc oming council agenda. Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked about the current city hall lease and Mr. Jackson said it runs through 2012. C ouncilmember Grafos asked how much space is available to use for a city hall at CenterPlace,what would be the restrictions if City Hall were at CenterPlace, and suggested staff start looking at that as an option to the current lease at the present city hall location. Mr. Jackson said staff has begun research on that and it will be brought to council at an upcoming council meeting. Citizen and ad- hoc committees was mentioned as another short-term goal, and it was suggested staff begin researching that ide a to determine w hat types of committees, a nd/or to ha ve a 1 ist of things a c ommittee c ould consider. It was mentioned there have be en ad-hoc committees in the p ast, such a s the P anhandling Committee, Sign Committee, and a Senior Citizen Committee. Due to time constraints, it was determined the next topic for discussion will be "brainstorming"which will be addressed after a short break. The group took a break at 3:07 p.m. and reconvene at 3:25 p.m. Brainstorming: Mr. Jackson s aid this i s a n o pportunity for a n open session t o d iscuss anything o r everything on Council's mind. Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 18 of 20 DRAFT Sense of Community: Councilmember D empsey mentioned that V alleyfest i s a huge and wonderful community-builder,we need more; and she suggested purchasing U-City and turn it into a big park. Communication: Councilmember G othmann s aid t hat i n pr evious g enerations,t he 1 argest communication device was television; while it remains large, one of the largest now is the Internet; and he suggested we explore ways to social network and have greater communication with the citizens. Mayor Towey sug gested exploring di fferent op tions, that t elevised meetings i sac ontroversial topic, and suggested exploring ways to televise two sides to issues by not having the city comment, but rather have two experts de bate the pros and cons so citizens can make rational decisions. Councilmember Grafos suggested contacting Lamar Advertising and Tom Hamilton's operation to see if they would donate a type of public s ervice announcement reader board or sign to the city;t hat the Sheriff's Office w ants some identification for their precinct, and said perhaps a reader board sign or rolling message on some type of LED board could be used, and said that perhaps the material and/or labor for such could be donated. The use of scientific focus groups to gather public opinion was suggested by Councilmember Gothmann,who said he believes the city of Bellevue uses this method. Economic Development: Mayor Towey said economic development w ill be one of our most difficult challenges;he said there are some options and we need to focus on that; and said if we don't, Sprague will still look like Sprague without any new development; and said he feels this would be the number one priority for 2010 and 2011. The following is a list of positive emphasis, strengths, or assets connected with our community: Police presence at the Mall Chamber of Commerce The city contributes financially to local organizations Lots of land and space Good traffic access; good roads Nice people Educated work force in a variety of fields Proximity to downtown Spokane and Coeur d'Alene Good police department Many recreation areas and natural resources Great fire department Industrial park; could be used more in consortium fashion In-place utilities (properties are ready to go) Excellent water and water supply Rural land with an agricultural history; could support a Green Bluff for example Diversity: Native Americans contributed to cultural richness Schools including institutions of higher education Foreign trade zone Answers to what challenges are there to our economic development: Zoning: how much and what kind Economy Finances Low income neighborhoods Housing Communications: need to develop a process to handle citizen concerns,from first expression to resolution Incentives to attract businesses Working with other entities, organizations and municipalities Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 19 of 20 DRAFT Water rights Sewer capacity State unfunded mandates Lack of a"welcome wagon" Urban wildfires A method to catalogue resources for economic development Answers to the question of what is our city best known for: Good place to raise a family Economical Suburb of Spokane Health care Quality of life Large suburban lots Compassionate people Kaiser Aluminum Dismal downtown or lack of a downtown Answers to the question of what would you like our city to be known for: Community feeling it has Quality of life Great place to do business Family wage jobs Good public safety CenterPlace Centennial Trail Discovery Playground Mayor Towey thanked staff for today's information; and thanked everyone for coming. There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Retreat minutes of 02/09/2010 Approved by Council: Page 20 of 20 DRAFT MINUTE S City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, February 9, 2010 Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Attendance: City Staff: Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Mike Connelly, City Attorney Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks &Recreation Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Absent: Rick VanLeuven,Police Chief Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Office Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Jerry Sponseller of Opportunity Baptist Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Towey led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City C lerk Bainbridge called roll; a 11 Councilmembers were pr esent ex cept Councilmember McCaslin. It was moved by Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember McCaslin from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Gothmann: s aid he went to Olympia last week for the legislative conference, and met with legislators on T uesday, attended the Association of W ashington C ities ( AWC) s essions on Wednesday; s poke w ith f ellow councilmembers on v arious t opics; and attended various e xcellent meetings;upon hi s return t o Spokane V alley he attended a H ealth Department meeting w here May or Verner w as se lected as Vice Chair; at tended the C hamber A wards Banquet; met with the Governor Affairs Committee;met with representatives on the Emergency Communication 911 committee; and later this w eek he and May or Towey w ill at tend an A ging and Long T erm Care of Eastern Washington meeting; and said he would like to introduce Council to this committee as they serve our seniors with the primary goal of enabling seniors to remain at home rather than having to move to care facilities. Councilmember D empsey: said she also attended the Legislative C onference in Olympia; had another meeting with members of the HUB; was asked to participate as a judge for the Chase Youth Awards; and went to a luncheon for the Commute Trip Reduction Awards. Councilmember Grafos: s aid he also went to Olympia and met with 1 egislators and had an orientation meeting with the Spokane Transit Authority(STA). Council Regular Meeting 2-09-2010 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT Deputy Mayor Schimmels: reported he too attended the conference in Olympia; had a meeting with the STA group for his orientation;met with the Spokane Regional Transportation Council a few weeks ago; and took a field trip through Wenatchee with the Douglas County solid waste advisory committee Councilmember Grassel: said she went to the Olympia AWC meetings; she met with Susan Fagan and had a courtesy meeting with Mark Peters of the International Trade Alliance; attended a GMA (Growth Management Act) S teering C ommittee m eeting; an d a ttended t he S horeline MasterPlan community meeting. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor T owey reported he met with Mayor Verner February 1; met with the West V alley S chool S uperintendent February 3; at tended the S pokane V alley's F inance Committee meeting; met with the Spokane Regional Sports Commission, and later met with the East Valley School Superintendent; attended the Shoreline MasterPlan community meeting; attended a Central Valley School District Summit with over 100 in attendance, where they concentrated on how the community can help the school district; earlier today he attended the council/staff retreat which he said was very informative and he enjoyed it; and said that tomorrow he w ill attend a presentation on the Discovery Playground Project,which has a grand opening scheduled for May 13. Mayor Towey then read the proclamation for "National Children's Dental H ealth Month"and t he pr oclamation of "F uture Business Leaders o f America"with representatives of those agencies accepting their respective proclamation. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments; no comments were offered. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of C ouncil m ay a sk t hat an item be r emoved from t he Consent A genda to be con sidered separately. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 01/15/2010 19357-19387 $204,429.01 01/20/2010 Payroll vouchers: 3057-3060, 19388 $62,049.27 01/22/2010 (for 2009) 19389-19439 $245,916.31 01/28/2010 (for 2009) 19440-19458 $128,951.64 01/29/2010 19459-19546 $353,061.03 02/03/2010 Payroll v ouchers: 30 70-3072; 3083, 19547-19551 $211 907.07 GRAND TOTAL $1,206,314.33 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending January 15, 2010: $263,889.81 c. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending January 31, 2010: $353,790.95 d. Confirmation of Mayoral Revised Committee Appointments e. Approval of Executive Session Council Meeting Minutes of January 12, 2010 f. Approval of Formal Council Meeting Minutes of January 12, 2010 g. Approval of Executive Session Council Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2010 h. Approval of Formal Council Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2010 i. Approval of Executive Session Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2010 It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda as presented. NEW BUSINESS: 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 10-003 Amending Alarm Regulations—Cary Driskell/ Rick VanLeuven After City Clerk B ainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to advance ordinance 10-003 to a second reading. Deputy C ity Attorney D riskell a gain Council Regular Meeting 2-09-2010 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT explained that the purpose of this amendment is to remove those items which were redundant, erroneous, or unnecessary, and those few changes were noted in the red-line version of the ordinance. Mayor Towey invited pub lic c omment; no c omments w ere offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried. 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 10-004—Christina Janssen/Mike Connelly After C ity C lerk B ainbridge read the o rdinance title, it w as moved by Councilmember Dempsey and seconded to advance ordinance 10-004 to a second reading. Assistant Planner Janssen explained that this ordinance would allow for creation of development agreements in conjunction with comprehensive plan amendments, that it i s permitted by state statute, and this would adopt anew section in our Municipal Code allowing ford evelopment agreements as w ell; and she expl ained that this al lows for greater flexibility of the city and the de veloper w hen con sidering ch anges t o the comp plan. Ms. Janssen explained the proposal and said that although some of the residents of nearby Shelley Lake had concerns, the developer proposed some increased conditions to help satisfy some of those concerns, specifically, greater setback, more landscape buffer, and no more than twelve units per acres in this area instead of the twenty-two permitted on the rest of the parcel, and that building height would also be limited from fifty feet to thirty-five feet to make the development consistent with the adjacent single family neighborhood. In response to Council question, Ms. Janssen explained that development agreements could only be used for increased c onditions and not t o lessen z oning c onditions. C ity Attorney C onnelly a dded t hat the development agreements are also recorded at the County's auditor's office and the agreement runs with the land, so it will pertain to the property even if the property were sold. Mayor Towey invited public comments. Arne Woodward, 25121 S Best Road: said he i s also a Planning Commissioner; that he supports the development agreements; and said that the Planning Commission suggested that the verbiage be changed to "development"ag reements rather than "developer"ag reements;he said he feels these agreements are good for the city as then staff can enter into negotiations concerning any possible land debates so that the agreement and the development would be bl ended; and he encouraged council to approve the ordinance and keep as much flexibility as possible for staff so developers can put something together t hat makes sense. There were no other public comments. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried. 4. Proposed Resolution 10-004 Adopting Planning Commission Rules of Procedure—Kathy McClung At the Mayor's request, the C ity C lerk B ainbridge r ead the Resolution title. I t w as t hen moved by Councilmember Dempsey and seconded, to approve Resolution 10-004 adopting the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure as amended December 10, 2009. Community Development Director McClung explained what the new rules would actually do in practice. City Attorney Connelly mentioned that a question was raised at the last meeting concerning the removal of Planning Commission members, and he explained that RCW 35.63.030 states that a member can be removed after a public hearing by the appointing official, and with the approval of this Council, and some of the reasons for removal include inefficient, or neglect of duty, which he said could be defined by failure to attend meetings; that they are to be selected and serve without political affiliation, and said the law attempts to shield them from any political i nfluence. D irector M cClung s aid t hat un der t he C ode of C onduct, missing s ix o r m ore unexcused meetings could be a reason for removal consideration; and she said there is one member who has had several absences due to his job, and that situation will be discussed more at the next Planning Commission meeting. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Arne Woodward, 25121 S Best Road, said he is opposed to any limitations on commissioners; and agreed they have one member who is not there and said he feels it hampers the discussion. There were no other public comments. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Spokane County Interlocal Agreement, JAG Grant— Cary Driskell It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey and seconded, to authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the proposed interlocal agreement authorizing the expenditure of the 2010 Edward Byrne Justice Council Regular Meeting 2-09-2010 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT Assistant Grant with Spokane County. Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that this is a follow-up item of a grant which was applied for last year for criminal justice related purposes; he said we don't provide our own criminal justice services as w e contract with Spokane County, that under the grant we are entitled to receive $50,367;that we executed an interlocal with the City of Spokane in December 2009 stating the terms and conditions for administration and that the City of Spokane would be the fiscal agent for the area; and that for this interlocal, Spokane County would be our contract service provider,that they would spend up to $12,500 for p rosecution pur poses between now and S eptember 30, 2012; and w e would reimburse Spokane County; adding that Spokane County wants to use the funds to help pay for a "Criminal History Specialist"at the Prosecutor's office; and then we would seek reimbursement from the City of Spokane,with the remainder of the funds used for other criminal justice-related services in the future on an as-needed basis. Mayor Towey invited public comment;no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried. 6. Motion Consideration: Acting City Manager Appointment Letter—Mike Connelly Council determined that they would hear Mr. Connelly's presentation first,then consider a motion. City Attorney Connelly explained that this is the third time this matter has been before Council for discussion; at the last meeting a resolution was approved designating Deputy City Manager Mike Jackson with the authority to act as C ity Manager, and that the Mayor and Mr. Jackson met and negotiated the letter of agreement w hich is now before C ouncil. M r. C onnelly went over the highlights o f the "Letter of Agreement"and said it is anticipated that this designation will be for no more than six months;that this is a temporary agreement to allow Mr. Jackson to serve for the term indicated, and give Council time to explore other options to permanently fill the city manager position. Mr. Connelly said that as part of their negotiations, Mayor Towey received a summary of the salary of other city managers, with a range for like-sized cities, which cities usually had higher salaries for those city managers,but he added that it is difficult to compare solely based on population as we are a very large city, but we contract a large part of our services, such as law enforcement and the c ourt sy stem; and the annual salaries from of her ci ties ranged from $130,000 to $140,000 and in excess of$160,000. Mr. Connelly said the first paragraph on the back of the Agreement should state that Council will make a determination "within" instead of "at the end of' six months and there were no council objections; and said if Mr. Jackson were selected as the permanent city manager, a new contract would have to be negotiated. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to approve the attached letter of agreement between the City and Mr. Jackson. In response to Councilmember Grafos' question concerning severance pay, Mr. Connelly said that if Mr. Jackson decided to leave, severance would not be included. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments w ere offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments; no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 7. Spokane County Community Services Housing and Community Development—Kate Kennedy Ms. Kate Kennedy of Spokane County Housing and Community Development Department explained that she is here to talk about linking our community with some of the homeless dollars; that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 dealing with resolving Homelessness, has allocated some funds to our area; that the funds are designed to provide assistance to households throughout our area; and the Act i s also designed to h ave the c ommunity pa rtners c ollaborate a s c losely a s pos Bible i n addressing homelessness; she explained about their 2-1-1 promotional poster and flyer, and she encouraged people who need assistance with rent or utilities,to contact them; and Mr. Jackson agreed she could send these flyers to our central reception for display purposes. Council Regular Meeting 2-09-2010 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT 8. Milwaukee Right-of-way—Mike Connelly City Attorney Connelly explained that the Milwaukee right-of-way, which is about from Dishman Mica Highway to the city limits and follows Fourth Street or Appleway,was an old abandoned railroad right- of-way; and in 1980, Spokane County purchased it from the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad via a quit claim deed in the amount of$3,250,000; that the funds used to purchase the right-of- way w ere from the Spokane C ounty S ewer Interceptor C onstruction Fund;which interceptor 1 ine was constructed under much of the right-of-way, and said the County also granted Avista authority to install and maintain high voltage power lines over portions of the north side of the right-of-way;that in 1986,the County transferred ownership of the right-of-way to the Spokane County Road Fund so it became more of a road project; in 1994, Spokane County recorded a dedication Resolution dedicating this property for public road purposes; that i n 20 01, the C ounty improved a portion of the right-of-way from D ishman Mica Roadway e ast to University, and he explained that the County does not dispute that portion was transferred to the City of Spokane Valley upon incorporation. Mr. Connelly further explained that prior to our City's incorporation, Spokane C ounty requested and received approval for approximately $4.2 million dollars in TIB (Transportation Improvement Board)funds to be used for the construction of the right-of-way from University to Evergreen;that a portion of the right-of-way was identified as a proposed Urban Principle on the S pokane C ounty A Aerial Road P lan; a nd subsequent t o ou r incorporation, Spokane County transferred the right to receive those funds to the City of Spokane Valley; but the funds have not b een accessed due t o uncertainties concerning the ow nership and future de velopment o f the roadway. Mr. Connelly continued the explanation of the background of the area a s pe r the February 9, 2009 Request for Council Action form; and said that appeals have now been exhausted so the road belongs to the County. City Attorney Connelly further explained that STA (Spokane Transit Authority) approached us to enter into an interlocal with them,to use our authority under zoning laws to preserve the right-of- way and that they'd pay for the acquisition of properties in some of those pinch points where the road is 50' in width; but he said that was never finalized because of the continued inability to reach agreement between S pokane V alley a nd S pokane C ounty; a nd he a dded t hat t he S ARP ( Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan) contemplates it will be constructed as a roadway, and the zoning plan and conditions of de velopment all anticipate t here will be a roadway i n t hat location. In the summer of 2009, M r. Connelly said that the City's resolution asked the County to enter into mediation;but we received a letter from the Board of County Commissioners thanking us for the resolution, but stating they are interested in moving ahead for mass transit and arterial purposes and were looking to recoup some of the investment. Mr. Connelly said the complicating factor is the funds they paid for that, as much of the funds were at the benefit of the citizens of Spokane Valley, and what weight to give that is something for future discussion. Mr. Connelly said that Mr. Jackson responded to the County's December letter, and that this will be the main subject of discussion at the upcoming joint meeting with the Board of County Commissioners. Discussion i ncluded mention of negotiations w ith S TA and o f t he v arious "pinch po ints"; w hat the preferred route is, i.e. Appleway or Sprague, and that such needs to be openly discussed. There was also mention of a similar situation with the City of Liberty Lake, and Mr. Connelly said he would have to examine a map to see the specific areas; and he added that we should try to avoid writing letters back and forth with offers since that has been notably unsuccessful in the past; and said it might be beneficial to have members of all three parties in a meeting to negotiate the topic, as STA has an interest and they have set aside significant funds to purchase right-of-way at the pinch points. Councilmember Grafos said that one of the items in this agreement which is very important to Spokane County was to preserve the 28' on the south side for mass transit; but Mr. Connelly said it was to preserve a corridor and not necessarily on the south side, but said the County has consistently expressed a desire to preserve a 28' corridor in the right-of-way. Councilmember Grafos said then,what they wanted from the City of Spokane Valley was that Spokane Valley preserve that 28' and they would purchase a portion of that possibly on the south side,and the City of Spokane Valley would purchase it on the north side. Mr. Connelly said he wasn't Council Regular Meeting 2-09-2010 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT sure if the County ever offered to purchase a portion,but one of the city agreements had a percentage,that if a dditional right-of-way were required,t here would be percentage for Spokane Valley t o pay and a percentage for Spokane County to pay. Councilmember Grafos said then, it was the City's unwillingness to work with those pinch points on the north side, or to purchase those north side pinch points that stalled this agreement. Mr. Connelly said he thinks it was more of a reluctance to pay for pinch points on the south side or pay a portion of those pinch points; or pay a part of the STA mass transit corridor; and he said he believes there was never a reluctance to purchase 25' on the north in those 50' areas; and said the difficulty is that a great deal of time was spent arguing about what was said and what was meant, instead of how to solve the problem; and he recommended setting aside all the "wheel spinning" and regardless of w here w e w ere, the discussion need t o focus o n w here w e w ant to be and how tog et t here. Councilmember Grafos stated that along the corridor were some of the properties that were down-zoned from com mercial t o residential-boulevard, or residential properties along the corridor,with the S ARP program. M r. Connelly said the corridor was affected by the SARP from University through just after Sullivan w here the S ARP e nded, a nd the pr operties w ere up -zoned or dow n-zoned,but they w ere changed. 9. Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey. It was confirmed that there will be no Council meeting March 16. INFORMATION ONLY: The franchise a greements, de partment qua rterly r eports, a nd r eport on Council Broadcasts were for information only and were not discussed or reported. 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(i)] It w as moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn to executive session for approximately thirty minutes to discuss pending litigation; and that no action is anticipated upon return. Council adjourned into executive session at 7:32 p.m. At 8:05 p.m. Mayor Towey declared Council out of executive s ession, and it w as then moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Regular Meeting 2-09-2010 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington February 16, 2010 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst Dean Grafos, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Rick Van Leuven, Police Chief Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Mike Stone, Parks &Recreation Director Absent: Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting. 1. Greater Spokane, Inc (GSI) Fourth Quarter Report—Robin Toth GSI's V P for Economic Development Robin Toth gave an overview of GSI's fourth quarter report of activities, which covers the time pe riod of 0 ctober 1 to D ecember 31, 200 9; she explained a bout the recruitment a ctivities,bus iness r etention a nd expansion a ctivities, i ndustry e ngagements,bus iness development project, s trategic e ngagements, and w orkforce and education activities, a s no ted in he r accompanying PowerPoint presentation. 2. Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Interlocal Agreement—Glenn Miles, Stan Schwartz SRTC Manager Glenn Miles and legal counsel Stan Schwartz gave some history and update on the SRTC in general and of the draft proposed amended Interlocal Agreement. Mr. Miles started by explaining the history and function of the S RTC, including 1 egal statutory authority and c ore functions of an M PO (metropolitan planning organization), and steps for transportation planning. Attorney Stan Schwartz went over the draft interlocal and the reasons for the proposed changes, as noted in his accompanying February 2, 2010 letter from Spokane City Assistant City Attorney Michael Piccolo. Mr. Schwartz explained the key issues and said the attorneys will get together to discuss council ideas which will be merged back into the document, and said they will again brief Council prior to action being taken on the interlocal. M r. Schwartz also explained the rationale behind section 5 setting out the governing body and officers. Mr. Miles ad ded that the last time member due s w ere est ablished was i n 2003 w hen S pokane V alley incorporated. Mr. Schwartz brought Council's attention to Section 8 of the interlocal,which addresses the work program and annual budget, and said that the second added sentence was directed at the small cities, and that if they were not previously required to contribute,they'll be given written notice of one year,which allows an entity to opt out,but he said if too many opt out,there would be a budget problem. Mr. Schwartz mentioned that Section 10 states that SRTC can acquire property, either personal or real, but the extent for acquiring real property is restricted to use for transportation related purposes only. Mr. Schwartz explained that the next SRTC Board meeting is scheduled for March 11; that they are trying to get comments from Spokane Valley, and merge any comments into this document, and circulate it once more to all entities; stating that the hope is to have enough common ground for a satisfactory agreement in April. In response to Council question, Mr. Schwartz said he would send the Council a copy of the prior agreement for comparison purposes. Council Meeting Minutes:2-16-2010 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT 3. Wastewater Management—Neil Kersten/Bruce Rawls Public Works Director Kersten introduced Spokane County Utilities Director Bruce Rawls, and explained that Mr. Rawls has worked long and hard to get ready for the wastewater needs and capacities,that it is a very complicated issue, and said Mr. Rawls has brought several staff with him tonight to help explain the issues. Mr. Rawls said he has reported to council many time to discuss wastewater issues, and that at the end of November,he met with then Mayor Munson and Mr. Mercier,who recommended Mr. Rawls give an overview oft he pr ogram and related i ssues t o the new councilmembers. Per t heir accompanying PowerPoint, Mr. Rawls and his staff discussed some of the history and upcoming issues involved with the septic tank e limination p rogram (STEP)including information about the City/County collaboration on those STEP projects; wastewater capacity; Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL); the Water Reclamation Facility including mention of pumping stations, pipelines, schedule, costs, and potential uses for Class A reclaimed water; the highlights of planning to date,the Reclaimed Water site layout plan; the building of the treatment operations facility and water resource center; the conveyance system; anticipated project schedule and current anticipated costs; Saltese Flats wetland project, including mention of Saltese Creek, Shelley Lake, and Steen Pit and of the potential benefits and feasibility study showing various options and concept designs and project status;the Wastewater Policy Advisory Board (WPAB), which was created last July by interlocal agreement and includes two councilmembers, two Commissioners, and one citizen at 1 arge,who i s former City C ouncilmember Dick D enenny. Mr. Rawls said that it i s anticipated the sewer program construction will be completed in 2011;that there are about 35,000 customers of which approximately 70%reside in Spokane Valley. Mr. Rawls also mentioned that after notice to the citizens, the monthly rates went from$27 to $40, and another large increase is expected next year;that this is an expensive problem but it is necessary to take care of water quality. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:50 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:07 p.m. 4. Holcim Access Agreement—Cary Driskell Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that the City inherited park property at Myrtle Point, and that approximately one acre oft that property i s contaminated with cement kiln dust(CKD) as a result of a cement factory that was operated on the property immediately south of the site, owned by Holcim. M r. Driskell said that Holcim acknowledges its responsibility to address the contamination, and is working with the City and the Washington State Department of Ecology, and also with Waste Management in a pilot project to use soils to keep heavy metals from migrating in landfills; and that based on this,the City entered into an access agreement so Holcim and Waste Management could take the sample. Mr. Driskell said Holcim has been trying to work with the property owner between the City's property and the public road, and t hat the p rocess i s close to finalization, but H olcim ha s requested some a dditional time t o complete access, and collecting the soil samples for the test, and that with this amendment to the Access and Indemnity Agreement,the City would grant Holcim the right to access the City property to conduct the CKD excavation and related activities, and to repair, rebuild, or replace the damaged fencing; and that this agreement would expire no later than July 31, 2010. There was Council consensus for staff to move this forward and place on the next council's consent agenda. 5. Cable Advisory Board-Morgan Koudelka Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained that the Regional Cable Advisory Board was created via a memorandum of understanding among Spokane County,the City of Spokane, and Spokane Valley on September 13, 200 3;that there are eleven board members,three of whom are appointed by the our City,two by the City of Spokane, and two by Spokane County; and that the Board only reached a quorum once in 200 9; and t hat du e t o the lack of i nterest and m oreover, that the B oard's ab ility to a ddress unresolved s ubscriber complaints ha s not be en us ed by the public,p erhaps i n part be cause S pokane Valley is accessible via a phone number printed on every subscriber's monthly bill; and that Comcast has a good history of customer service, that neither we nor the CAB regulates rates, and that overall interest has waned. Mr. Koudelka said that Spokane County's staff liaison has indicated they will recommend to the B oard of County Commissioners,that the County withdraws from the Board; and Mr. Koudelka i s presenting that option now before Council for their consideration; and that such withdrawal must be done Council Meeting Minutes:2-16-2010 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT via a resolution. There was council consensus to bring forth a resolution at the next council meeting for council consideration to withdraw from the Cable Advisory Board. 6. Council Broadcasting—Greg Bingaman and Morgan Koudelka Mr. Koudelka explained t hat staff w ants to ensure Council i s aw are of the available resources and potential options, and to gather Council's input on what additional information is desired concerning any broadcasting of council meetings. Mr. Koudelka explained that Council adopted the cable franchise last December, and within that franchise, C omcast agreed to pay the equivalent o f 35¢ per subscriber pe r month toward the capital reimbursement that goes toward public, educational, and governmental (PEG) broadcasting; he said that equates to approximately$92,000 annually; also in the franchise agreement is $150,000 lump sum payment to occur which would be entirely recovered through Comcast by diverting some of the 35¢ per month per subscriber fees; and said we continue to receive the 10¢ per month per subscriber; which is approximately$440,000 of potential capital funding over a five-year contribution period; and said the cable operator has an opportunity t o opt out after five y ears should there be an opportunity for a federal or state franchise agreement; and i f not,the agreement would continue and repeat in a second five years. Mr. Koudelka explained that qualifying expenditures are capital items such as e quipment a nd construction used t o r ecord and bro adcast P EG b roadcasting ov er the C omcast channels. Further, Mr. Koudelka explained, staff has looked at contracting with the provider in the past where Comcast would do everything,but Comcast said they did so,they would need to have the capital expenditures segregated from the operational expenditures. M r. K oudelka s aid that other revenue we receive f rom C omcast i ncludes 5%of C omcast's g ross r evenues as a f ranchise fee, which is approximately$1 m illion dollars annually; and with the new agreement, Comcast agreed to provide a $10,000 up-front payment to defray costs for auditing should the City choose to do so. Mr. Koudelka said we have received of her requests for this funding, from the Cable Advisory Board for Learning and Education (CABLE), of $63,000 i n annual capital contributions;and Community Minded Television (CMTV) which currently provides public access programming over the system, and they have requested $74,000 in annual capital contributions; and said staff recommends making a decision for our needs prior to making decisions for other entities. Mr. Koudelka said a community survey was conducted in 2009, which has been incorporated into the City's business plan, and he went over the results of that survey as noted in his PowerPoint presentation; adding that at the time of the survey, we were not broadcasting our council meetings. In response to council questions concerning the $150,000, Mr. Koudelka said we have not received those funds yet; and if we determine not to use the funds, Comcast has a right to review our expenditures at the end of the year, and if they believe we are not properly using those funds, Comcast could withhold an equivalent amount in subsequent years, and if we never used the funds, there is not a mechanism in the cable franchise which addresses returning the 35¢ to the subscribers, adding they have not s tarted to collect that 35¢ from the e stimated 2 2,000 users;t hat w e h ave ask ed Comcast for notification of when that might start. Councilmember Grafos said it was mentioned that Comcast would be giving the City$150,000,but said isn't that really a tax or an increase in fees from Comcast; as concerning the $150,000, Comcast advances those funds up front to the C ity,t hen t hey g o back and charge the 35¢ to their subscribers; and Mr. Koudelka confirmed Comcast will recover that from their customers and it is not currently being assessed. Councilmember Grafos said in addition,they are now charging the 5% franchise fee; and Mr. Koudelka explained that 5% franchise is in effect now. Mr. Grafos said in addition to the tax increase or fee increase, or that 35¢,they are putting limitations on the way those funds can be used;that those funds can only be used for channel 14, or for the learning and education channels. M r. Koudelka said there are three, the governmental broadcasting which would be our council meetings, and channel 14 is the public access and there are several channels which are educational programming; and he confirmed those costs cannot be used for staffing purposes,but only for equipment;which Mr. Koudelka explained, is according to an FCC interpretation. In response to further que stion from Councilmember Grafos, Mr. Koudelka said both surveys were statistically valid, which means their sample size was approximately 400 or large enough to assume a small margin of error; and he said that the citizen survey was not related to Comcast customers,but just Spokane Valley citizens, and the cab le survey i ncluded everyone and included a Council Meeting Minutes:2-16-2010 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT question if the respondent was a Comcast subscriber. Councilmember Grafos asked if the city has the option of rescinding the 35¢ or the 5% fee and going back to a lower rate for the customer; or are we "stuck with this because the prior Council approved it?" Mr. Koudelka said he doesn't know if there is an inability to change this, and such answer would require a legal review; and Councilmember Grafos said he would like to see if that is a possibility; and Mr. Koudelka said staff could research that information for Council. Deputy Mayor S chimmels said no one is being discriminated against except the people who would be paying the 35¢, as not everyone has Cable so they don't pay the fee; and he commented on the lack of clarify of the current re-broadcasting of the Council meetings on C hannel 14; he said he could support this if it were city-wide, as it would be just about the same basis in fact when we send out our"hot sheet" which only goes to part of the citizens; and said there are a"bunch of people left out." IT Specialist Greg Bingaman then spoke concerning the technical asp ects of broadcasting council meetings, and asked Council to keep in mind what it is they hope to accomplish with broadcasting, to only provide b roadcasting of C ouncil meetings, or p erhaps broadcast something more s imilar to w hat Channel 5 currently broadcasts. Mr. Bingaman said one option is to continue what we are now doing and said t hat the br oadcasting qua lity i s pr ovided by t he S VBA (Spokane V alley B usiness A ssociation) through an arrangement with Community Minded Television;that there are some limitations on where the cameras can be placed within the council chambers, but if this were an internal broadcast, we would have better camera locations to make the broadcast better; and said regarding audio, this council chamber was not designed with television broadcasting in mind, so the current audio feed CMTV is using is more of a complimentary hookup to allow them better audio then just picking up sound from the camera's microphones; and s aid if c ouncil wanted t o broadcast, a better audio system could be i nstalled. Mr. Bingaman w ent ov er the options, including what the current s et-up entails;th at the meetings are r e- broadcast the following Monday at 7:30 p.m. on the public access channel 14;that the cost of the current production is approximately $1400 monthly which provides for one camera operator, some post-editing, and one hour of replay; although Mr. Bingaman said they have been replaying the video up to about an hour and a half as a courtesy;but if we wanted to cover meetings of two or three hours each,the cost would be approximately $2,000 monthly. Another option, Mr. Bingaman said, would be to broadcast the meetings live which means we could negotiate with City Channel 5 for broadcasting with them;we could use the multi jurisdictional channel reserved by Comcast but not currently active, which would be shared with the City of Spokane,us, and Spokane C ounty; or w e could pos sibly negotiate with C ommunity Minded Television to broadcast on their public access channel;within our city limits, we could replace Spokane's City Channel 5 with our own channel; we could broadcast across the Internet; or w e could choose not to broadcast. Mr. Bingaman said each option could include a myriad of options,but tonight he seeks guidance from Council on which option to pursue. Councilmember G othmann distributed and referred t o hi s handout e ntitled"excerpts from F eb. 200 8 survey" which survey he conducted among cities in Wash ington state which broadcast t heir co uncil meetings; and said out of 54 cities,he received 26 responses, and referenced the mrsc.org website for the complete text of comments. In the spirit of disclosure, Councilmember Gothmann said that he has made donations t o C ommunity Minded Television; and t hat he joined S VBA 1 ast month for the first time because they were cooperating with CMTV. Councilmember Gothmann then read some of the comments contained on hi s handout dated 2-14-10. C ouncilmember Gothmann said he recommends we continue with Community Minded TV to do t he delayed broadcast; and if w e de sired, other elements could be added later. Councilmember Gothmann asked if we have been getting the $1 million annually from Comcast prior to the ne gotiation oft his co ntract. M r. Koudelka sai d yes, that w e i nherited the franchise ag reement between the County and Comcast when we became a city, and that was part of the franchise agreement. In response to the question if we have franchise contracts with other utilities, Mr. Koudelka said yes, but we don't receive fees;t hat the C able franchise i s different as it is g overned by the F CC which has Council Meeting Minutes:2-16-2010 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT oversight of the franchise fees, and said there are limitations in Washington State concerning what can be recovered on other franchises. Councilmember Gothmann said he assumes the 10¢ a month can only be used for capital equipment, and Mr. Koudelka confirmed that is correct. Councilmember Gothmann said it is his understanding there is federal legislation pending to allow PEG funds to be used for capital and operational funds, and he asked i f Mr. Koudelka was aware of any such pending 1 egislation; and Mr. Koudelka said he is not; that the last he heard is that the interpretations of the FCC on the Federal Cable Act were being disputed legally by several organizations including those representing municipalities; but the outcome is unknown. Councilmember Grafos asked Mr. Bingaman what he would anticipate the monthly staffing fees would be to implement this program; and Mr. Bingaman said an estimate would be difficult as it would depend on what level of information they wanted broadcast,but for something similar to what is being done now on a taped-relay, Mr. B ingaman s aid costs are minimum; if w e wanted to provide our own city channel, would have a greater cost and therefore greater participation;which is one of the questions staff has for council now, is what does council wish to pursue; and that any operational cost would likely come out of the general fund. Councilmember Grafos said in that case, it would basically be a t ax increase. Mr. Bingaman said from his research,the typical c ity of s imilar s ize, running a full channel of twelve t o eighteen hours of daily programming,usually has either one or one and a half, full time staff. In response to Councilmember Dempsey's question concerning broadcasting on the Internet; Mr. Bingaman said it is possible; but the advantage using cable would be that a 1 of of the hardware would be covered; as those PEG franchise funds could not be used just for broadcasting on the Internet, and an option could include doing both; and Councilmember Dempsey said she would like to have the Internet included as a possible option. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m. Mayor Towey said he couldn't give a recommendation unless he knows the start-up costs,the annual maintenance, and where the funds would come from; and he asked if it were possible to get a general idea of those costs for the six options mentioned in the materials tonight. Mr. Bingaman said he can explore those options and do the research,but said it will take some time to gather that information. Deputy City Manager Jackson said staff seeks council's recommendation on how to proceed on this topic; and if there is general consensus to explore all the options, staff can certainly do that. Councilmember Gothmann then stated some of the startup costs and other costs as noted on his handout;keeping in mind that the capital costs would be none as that would be supplied by C omcast, and he reminded Council that we receive $1 million annually from Comcast, and this would represent less than 2% of that contract; so the start up cost using our current method would be none,the operational cost would be $1,320 monthly, and the capital cost would be none. Councilmember Grafos said that the $1 million dollars we receive from Comcast has nothing to do with the $150,000 getting over the 35¢; but that is the franchise fee being paid now, and which we were getting before we were broadcasting. C ouncilmember Gothmann agreed with that statement, but said he suggested if we are getting $1 million from Comcast,what are we using that for; and said that a reasonable expense out of that$1 million would be to use it for the purpose of TV. Councilmember Grafos said those funds are going into the general fund, and there is about a$20 million deficit coming up, we're in the red, and there are wants and needs for the city; and he said that's why he's sure Mayor Towey would like to explore all the possibilities and the cost. C ouncilmember Gothmann said he feels that is a great idea,but corrected Mr. Grafos in that we do not have a deficit. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he strongly suggested we express to Comcast that we do not want that$150,000 passed on at this time, and also suspend the 35¢ at this time, and go from there. Mr. Jackson asked if Council wanted to do that prior to exploring all the options; and Deputy Mayor Schimmels said yes,that he thinks this could go on forever; and said he would hate to "go down the road after the gate's open, collect money on false pretenses;"and he suggested stopping now since we can't decide on this,to move on and go from there. Council Meeting Minutes:2-16-2010 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmember Dempsey said she feels there is not agreement on this; and Deputy Mayor Schimmels responded that that was her problem, and her question;but that he was stating a fact. C ouncilmember Dempsey as ked what f act he w as s tating, and Mr. Schimmels sai d he w ould suspend t he 35¢. Councilmember Dempsey said this is a proposal and not a fact; to which Mr. Schimmels replied that she could call it whatever she chose to; it's 35¢ and is a tax on the viewers, and he said he was directing that to staff. D eputy City Attorney D riskell s aid to clarify,he understands there is a request for the legal department t o examine the opt ions o f do ing a n a mendment t o t he a greement; a nd M r. D riskell recommended that research be conducted before council considers making other options, so that Council has all the necessary information to make such decision. There was no council objection. To clarify, Mr. Jackson said staff will bring back to council,the options of not accepting the $150,000 and Comcast not charging the 35¢ fee t o the s ubscribers, and t o further explore c osts associated with all th e options. Councilmember G rassel said she feels this is a g ood idea, and said she w ould like t o see an option perhaps on t he Internal, o r maybe even U-Tube; and s aid w e could probably find some "fat"i n ou r current budget t o c over minimal costs; that she has some ideas of areas i n our budget that c ould b e reduced to help cover this,if this is what citizens would like to see; and said perhaps we could ask staff what areas in our current budget could be reduced to cover these costs. Mr. Jackson said to clarify,he understands Council desires that staff bring back information on the options, and what mechanisms there are to consider turning down the $150,000 and declining the 35¢ subscription fee; and there w ere no Council objections. In addition, Mr. Jackson asked if council would like staff to pursue some basic costs or a range of costs on all the options, including the option of using just the Internet; and again,there were no objections from Council. 7. Paveback—Neil Kersten and Mike Jackson Public Works Director Kersten said that a s mentioned during hi s pre sentation at the retreat, there ar e several options to the paveback issue;that we would simply not do the paveback and just have the County do the trench work; or we could do the paveback at the two inches over the four inch base,which is what we have been doing since incorporation; or use the standards that were just passed which requires three inches over six inch base, which would bump the cost to about $2.5 million and the County have would have another$90 0,000 in costs; and he s aid that each opt ion takes into consideration the approximate $330,000 Community development Block Grant funded to be deducted from the costs; and said that we could waive the new standards for the pa veback of the S TEP projects i f council de sired. A fter brief discussion and mention that Council does not want to pass an additional expense to the public, and that the S TEP program i s almost complete, that s till w ill br ing forth a motion and an agreement for next week's council consideration to fund the remaining STEP projects and to use the former standards; and that the funds to be used to complete the paveback will be taken from the Civic Facilities fund. 8. Police Precinct Commander Position—Mike Jackson Acting City Manager Jackson said that as a result of last week's presentation requesting consideration of adding a precinct commander position, he met with the representatives of the Sheriff's Office and with Police Chief VanLeuven to discuss options but they have not come up with a suitable solution;that one alternative suggested by the Sheriff's Office is to consider adopting anew cost plan which he said, we anticipate w ill be a dopted i n A pril or M ay;but s aid that s taff doe sn't agree t o a dopt t hat a s t he components were not reviewed or agreed to; or an option would be to move 1.5 positions from the Valley precinct and begin to fund some other grant position which was funded by the county in the past; and the Sheriff and Undersheriff said that would not work for the County;that all believe a second-in-command is necessary at the V alley precinct and such would be included i n final negotiations; and that if council wants to fund the position, it would be a direct expenditure, and if so, staff could draft a Memorandum of Understanding to fund the position at an annual cost of$152,706, and that if council approves this option, the police department would begin recruitment as soon as the funding for the position is authorized by Council. Mr. Jackson said all involved agreed with the need t o be cognizant of not letting the cost increase over time, and of how to approach the negotiation of the new contract,that we need to have those discussions, and he would look for an opportunity in the new contract to offset this position. There was Council Meeting Minutes:2-16-2010 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT Council consensus of the ne ed t o fund the po sition, a nd Council therefore ask ed staff t o bring a Memorandum of Understanding to the next council meeting for council's consideration. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting an additional fifteen minutes, to 9:45 p.m. 9. Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey. There were no suggested changes to the advance agenda. 10. The Triangle Property near 16608 B roadway,the Capital Projects Future List, and the Community Service Program were for information only and were not reported or discussed. 11. Council Check-in—Mayor Towey Councilmember Gothmann said he 1 ives i n the P onderosa a rea, and t hat based upon a recent court decision relative to development in Ponderosa,that perhaps it is time for this city to issue a moratorium to building in the P onderosa. Deputy City Attorney D riskell said he would research that issue and bring information back to council for their consideration. Councilmember Grafos said that at last week's winter retreat,there was a heated discussion about zoning and a t that time he turned in about thirteen letters from property owners having problems with our building permit de partment or having problems w ith z oning and the changes in the z oning s ince w e incorporated, and h e s aid he now has five m ore of those 1 etters t o turn in for the record, from people having problems with the SARP (Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan)Zoning;that one i s from the Elephant Boys Boating Store which lost their zoning; the other is from the Plant Farm which is trying to work with the building code department which is requiring some information from them;the other is from the three largest sign companies in the City who feel that our zoning is too restrictive; and said he would like to put these five letters in the record for council's review. 12. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson Acting City Manager Jackson asked Council if there is a desire to support the public record legislation as noted on the draft amended legislative agenda; that this legislation would make it possible for a municipality to direct people to a website; that this has been done in the past but it appears that in some cities, citizens ask staff to look it up; that this legislation would provide for voluntary confirmation to clarify requests, and he asked if Council were amenable for him to submit this to our lobbyist. There was no c ouncil o bjection. M r. J ackson a lso mentioned that the lobbyist ha s s ubmitted ou r request for $318,000 for funding at the intersection of Sprague and Sullivan, and he hopes to have information on that by the end of the week. 13. Executive session. It was announced there would be no executive session. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes:2-16-2010 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTE S City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, February 23, 2010 Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Attendance: City Staff: Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson,Acting City Manager Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Mike Connelly, City Attorney Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks &Recreation Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Karen Kendall,Associate Planner Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Office Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner Marty Palaniuk, Planning Technician Inga Note, Traffic Engineer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Gary Hebden of The Intersection Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Members of Boy Scout Troop 426 led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Gothmann: said he attended the City of Spokane's State of the City address which he said included ideas that perhaps we could use for saving on expenditures; he discussed the funding of the HCDAC(Housing C ommunity D evelopment A dvisory Committee); said he attended t he E mergency Communications B oard 9 11 m eeting;w ent to 0 lympia on be half of the S pokane R egional H ealth Department; said he sent out a poll regarding televising council meetings and use of the internet; and said 72% people responded in favor of having a city broadcast, 65%favored use of the web, and 80%were in favor of either method. Councilmember Dempsey: said she attended a workshop with the International Trade Alliance where they discussed how to raise awareness in the community of what they do. Councilmember Grafos: s aid he attended a S TA(Spokane Transit Authority) Board meeting last week and said they are de aling with a 2%se rvice 1 evel r eduction for 2010 and 2011 due t o de creased tax revenues in the cities and rural areas served by the STA, and reported that sales tax revenues decreased county-wide about 5%with as much as 12%in Spokane Valley; said he participated in this City's finance committee meeting where they discussed the projected 2014 budget deficient of about $13 million; and Council Regular Meeting 2-23-2010 Page 1 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT said that M ayor Towey pr oposed t hat the council retreat this s ummer s hould a ddress the financial challenge and to ask that each department review their budgets line by line for the 2012 budget so that essential and non-essential city spending priorities could be identified. Councilmember McCaslin: no report. Councilmember Grassel: said she attended the Greater Spokane Chamber of Commerce business round table with Senator Maria Cantwell where they discussed how they could better address getting money such as lines of credit and other small business loans,to small businesses. Deputy Mayor Schimmels: said he met last week with Mayor Verner and Mayor Towey and Mr. Jackson and discussed the so lid waste i ssues and the governance i ssue with the so lid waste sy stem and what changes w ill be f orthcoming; also a ttended the S TA m eeting and the S pokane V alley's F inance Committee meeting here last week. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor T owey reported he met with Spokane Valley Chamber of C ommerce President and CEO Eldonna Shaw and discussed common commitments and challenges; attended the City's finance c ommittee meeting; m et w ith Commissioner Todd Mielke and to lked about c ommon commitments and challenges; met with the Greater Spokane, Inc. and said they have a good program of supporting and bringing businesses into our area and said members of that group will go to Washington, D.C. in April, and said he and Deputy Mayor Schimmels will also go to Washington, D.C. in March; and said they t alked a bout h aving one v oice t here and to discuss ou r ch allenges w ith the legislators in Washington, D.C.; said he addressed the leadership class at University High School; and that today he met with the Mayor of Cheney and discussed common challenges of the two cities. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments. Sharon O'Shaughnessy, 7307 E Stn Street: referred to (and gave the clerk a copy of) a newspaper article about the Taylor Cottages; said a traffic scoping meeting is set for February 24 to get community input; she said that this is a highly critical re-charge area, is normally in the flood area and the developer wants to put houses on it; she s aid the City would b e required to do all emergency accessing; they failed to identify vegetation on the property or locate floodplains; and neighbors are upset about the view; and said she wanted Council t o be aware of t his; and said some oft he failures on traffic i ssues resulted in a lawsuit. Randy C ourchaine, 7203 East 9 to Avenue: al so spoke conc erning the T aylor Cottages, and asked if council has regular business hours as he would prefer to visit with them and show them a map; Mayor Towey said they do not have regular business hours and suggested he call to schedule a time to meet. Councilmember G rassel asked i ft his project i s in S pokane C ounty and not Spokane V alley; and Mr. Courchaine said it adjoins the city boundary line, and the only way fire trucks and police can get there is from the City; and he confirmed that the housing development would be approved by the County,but said this Council could lend input. Councilmember Gothmann said that part of the County's process is to seek comments from adjacent municipalities, and said this City made comments on t hose, and since that i s public record,perhaps the City could make that available, and said he is aware that some of the comments were about traffic. Marcia Sands, 10618 E Ferret Drive: said she is a member of our Planning Commission;that she came to talk about some of the changes that Councilmember Grafos requested be put on the council agenda; she said Councilmembers were voted into office because the people believe Councilmembers will govern the city with the interest of all the residents and businesses in mind; and said she voted for and supported this City's incorporation because she believes an urban area of almost 90,000 deserves more representation then two c ounty c ommissioners; she s aid prior to this City's incorporation,her ne ighborhood was r e- zoned, or dow nzoned as some might c all it,without much public process; and she s aid that was the impetus for her to get involved; and she said that was one of the reasons she decided to volunteer toward this City's development; she said during her tenure on the Planning Commission, she observed the growth Council Regular Meeting 2-23-2010 Page 2 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT and development of the city and of the public process that has continually occurred as part of de fining who we are and what direction we want to go;that the City Comprehensive Plan is an outline of who we are and what is important; that it provides a basic vision and direction for this City's future; she said the Comp Plan is based on the hi story and resources of this area and was compiled through lengthy public processes w ith c ontributions from t hroughout t he c ommunity; a nd s aid the v ision s tatement i s "A Community of Opportunity Where Individuals and Families Can Grow and Play, and Businesses can Flourish and Prosper." M s. Sands said whether Council agrees with what was previously done or not, that Council should understand that the first seven years of this City's incorporation have been devoted to creating a community that is directed at making that vision a reality; and that this vision was created through intensive public involvement, and by asking city residents what was most important to them now and for their future. She further stated that the Uniform Development Code is a structure by which the implementation of the comp plan is achieved; that the City of Spokane Valley did not change the zoning for either the Sprague/Appleway area or any other neighborhood without multiple public meetings and a thorough public process. She said that the Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Project was also a process that involved the participation of businesses and residents who all had input, and of what they wanted to see in this zoning overlay; it was conceived because public input provided direction that the residents of Spokane Valley view this corridor as the heart of their city and want it to reflect what we are as a city, and not just a group of disconnected businesses along the highway between Spokane and the State of Idaho. Ms. Sands said that councilmembers have an obligation to understand the rationale for the decisions and the choices that went into the development of our current Comprehensive Plan,the Uniform Development Code and the S prague/Appleway R evitalization Plan before choosing t o dismantle s even years of dedicated work by this community and all of the people and businesses who have contributed. She said she realizes new Councilmembers are likely overwhelmed by the volume of information to understand, and said it is for this reason that she asks each councilmember to understand the reasons for the decisions that were made in the past, and understand the consequences of any Council action before fully undertaking any major changes to what has been accomplished to date. S he thanked Council for their time and c ontribution to the c ommunity. Ms. Sands confirmed that she sp eaks as a ci tizen oft his community. Tony Lazanis: said he came to speak concerning the sewers;that we paid for and have no voice; he said we paid 75%, so we should have a voice; and said further down the road he would like to see Council talk to the County Commissioners and maybe take it over three or four years from now; and he said we can't be a city without ownership of our own sewers. Margaret Mortz, 3420 S Ridgeview Drive: distributed a handout to the City Clerk for Councilmembers, and said she wanted to address videotaping of council and other city meetings; she said the videotapes should be shown on cable and U-Tube since m any people don't have cab le; she said citizens would benefit from us ing m odern audiovisual technology t o make meetings a ccessible t o all, thereby giving citizens more opportunity to be well-informed; she said regarding taxes, that taxes are reasonable when those being taxed derive direct benefit;that people paying cable charges would receive a hi gh quality video, far better than U-Tube; and said taxes are also reasonable when people get an indirect benefit as in enhancing democracy;that archived video on U-Tube would provide verification of what was actually said in the context in which it was said; she said the cost is reasonable and is even extremely inexpensive; that the ne ed i s timely and i s 1 ong ov erdue; and s he a dded t hat if the quality of the video tape is inadequate or the faces of the speakers cannot be easily seen,the information transfer is inadequate. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of C ouncil m ay a sk t hat an item be re moved from t he Consent A genda to be c onsidered separately. Council Regular Meeting 2-23-2010 Page 3 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 02/03/2010 19552— 19553 $1,368.80 02/05/2010 19554 $42,463.81 02/16/2010 19555 — 19573 $167,848.45 02/16/2010 19574— 19626; 129100029, 205100008 $1,739,597.41 02/17/2010 3085, 3089, 3090, 3091 $59,493.22 GRAND TOTAL $2,010,771.69 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending February 15, 2010: $258,808.26 c. Approval of Holcim Amendment to Access and Indemnity Agreement d. Approval of Study Session Meeting Minutes of February 2, 2010 Councilmember Grassel questioned voucher #19557, Bernardo Wills Architects, for$17,866.26 for City Hall conceptual site plan, and Mr. Connelly said this was for work done last summer, and said we would not incur any further costs without council direction. It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 10-003 Alarm Regulations—Cary Driskell/Rick VanLeuven After C ity C lerk B ainbridge read the o rdinance title, it w as moved by Councilmember Dempsey and seconded to approve ordinance 10-003. Deputy City Attorney Driskell said he had explained the changes previously, a nd i s open for que stions; adding t hat t hese ar e mostly m inor changes to the or iginal ordinance which was a dopted late 2009 w ith an effective date of January 1, 2010. Councilmember Grassel asked for a copy of the letter sent to citizens concerning the alarm registration. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Marcia Sands, 10 618 E Ferret Drive: said she has an alarm on her house and feels this is a legitimate charge;that her alarm system reduces her insurance cost and is a benefit and said it is reasonable to pay for the service as false alarms are very time-consuming; and that responding to false alarms stretches our resources and said a fee to help dissuade the cost of the false alarms will likely result in people making sure their alarm companies have contact information. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried. 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 10-004— Christina Janssen/Mike Connelly After C ity C lerk B ainbridge read the o rdinance title, it w as moved by Councilmember Dempsey and seconded to approve ordinance 10-004. Assistant Planner Janssen explained that this amendment add s language regarding the option o f a development ag reement i n conjunction with comprehensive plan amendments; and she briefly gave the background of this proposal as per her February 23 Request for Council Action form. M ayor T owey i nvited pub lic c omment; no c omments w ere offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried. 4. P roposed Resolution 1 0-005 Withdrawing from P articipation i n C able A dvisory B oard — Morgan Koudelka At Mayor Towey's request, City Clerk Bainbridge read the title of the Resolution. It was then moved by Councilmember Dempsey and seconded to approve Resolution 10-005 withdrawing from the Regional Cable Advisory Board. Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained the reasons for the proposed withdraw, which he said are mostly due to a 1 ack of participation and difficulty i n keeping our board appointments filled; and said once this resolution is approved, it would go into effect sixty days from the date of notification to the County. Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried. Council Regular Meeting 2-23-2010 Page 4 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT 5. Motion Consideration: Paveback Financing—Ken Thompson It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to authorize full width pavement above County sewer lines during the 2010 construction season and to transfer$1.5 million from the civic facilities fund to pay for the curb-to-curb payment above newly installed county sewer lines during 2010. Finance Director Thompson said this action will result in $1.5 million less in the Civic Facilities Fund for future projects,but would reduce street maintenance costs in future years on those streets. Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried. 6. Motion Consideration: Paveback Interlocal Agreement— Steve Worley It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey and seconded to approve the 2010 STEP Memorandum of Understanding with Spokane County, and authorize the City Manager or designee to sign the agreement. Senior Engineer Worley gave some background on t he i ssue, as noted in his F ebruary 23 R equest for Council Action form, and as was previously discussed with Council during the retreat and other meetings; and said the funds to handle payment of this would come from the stormwater utility fund; and that the difference between the $1.5 million mentioned in the previous agenda item and the $1.8 million needed for these projects is the C DBG(Community Development B lock Grant) of $3 31,000. D eputy Mayor Schimmels s aid the p oint of ow nership w as brought up by M r. Jackson concerning the W est F arms Project and full ownership of the right-of-way; and Mr. Worley s aid that there i s a portion of B oone Avenue,between Barker and Flora Roads, where part of that right-of-way is an old railroad right-of-way, some of which is owned by Spokane C ounty; that the C ounty i s currently going through a process to review all the deeds on how they acquired that in order to identify what is their property versus what is public right-of-way; and if public right-of-way with a street improved in it, then it is likely our right-of- way, and he said we notified the County that we cannot spend city money on paving any roads that are under County ownership, so until all deeds are reviewed by the County and County property identified as well a s pub lic p roperty,w e c annot de cide how m uch pa ying w e pa y for on B oone A venue. Councilmember Gothmann, for public disclosure, said he has a close relative who owns property along that right-of-way. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no c omments w ere offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried. 7. Motion Consideration: City Hall Negotiations—Mike Connelly It was moved by Councilmember Grassel and seconded to suspend negotiations with the property owner for the purchase of property for City Hall, and request that staff notify the property owner of this Council action. City Attorney Connelly explained that a few weeks ago he outlined the history of negotiations between our city and the property owner of the University City property,which is currently identified in our Subarea Plan as the City Center, or the likely location for a new city hall and city center development; in November when it was clear we would have new councilmembers to consider this topic, negotiations were informally suspended pending the opportunity to discuss with this council and hear their plans for the SARP (Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan) and for the development of city center; and said subsequent to this council taking office, staff initiated conversations with respect to SARP, and this was discussed at the Council/Staff retreat last month; and because we had received council direction to initiate negotiations, staff now asks if Council desires to provide direction to suspend those negotiations until we can resolve the direction of the SARP plan; and said if council wants further action taken at some point regarding city center property, Council can direct staff on that issue at that time. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried. 8. M otion C onsideration: L aw E nforcement Memorandum of U nderstanding ( Precinct C ommander Position)—Mike Jackson It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey and seconded to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the Memorandum of Understanding which adds an additional full-time equivalent position of Council Regular Meeting 2-23-2010 Page 5 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT lieutenant, who will be designated as the Spokane Valley Precinct Commander. Acting City Manager Jackson said that over the last few meetings, Chief VanLeuven has discussed the need for this position, and he has been before council to discuss the interlocal and the cost involved with this position; and Mr. Jackson gave the highlights of the memorandum of understanding that change the contract, e.g. changing from two to three lieutenants (section 3a section 3.2); and the following section b changing section 4 of the original contract, outlining the selection process involving the Chief of Police and the Spokane Valley City Manager, and said the Sheriffs uggested that the C ity Manager be involved in the hi ring of this position just as occurs with the hiring of a police chief. Mr. Jackson noted that the financial impacts would include an additional law enforcement support cost of$15,000 to cover vehicles, forensics support, etc. Councilmember Grassel voiced her concern over the sustainability of the position since the information states that the funds are available in the public safety 2010 budget, but said she is not clear what happens in future years; she said she feels this could be postponed; in looking at our budget and going back to the $14 million potential deficit, said if w e continue as we are now it would result in a $3 million a y ear shortfall;t hat s he w ondered how t he pub lic m ight f eel a dding a nother po sition in t his e conomic downturn; and said she feels that as council goes through the budget process,cuts will have to be made because we can't sustain our current spending; and said that she believes the position is needed; and she mentioned that she has not seen a job description and said she doesn't feel comfortable when she doesn't fully understand what this position would entail. Acting City Manager Jackson said currently there is $1 million in the public safety budget that can cover this cost,but we don't know if there will be other settle and adjust costs or other unanticipated costs, and therefore it is possible if there is a large settle and adjust that staff could come before council later seeking additional funds in 2010,but such is not anticipated;he said we are negotiating a new contract with the Sheriff and hope to have that before council this summer; and said he believes this will be a position that will be in the final contract even if other adjustments have to be m ade t o br ing us to a s uitable budg et level for the e ntire c ontract. In t erms of t he pos ition description, Mr. J ackson said the position f its i nto the lieutenant description w ith the a ssignment of Precinct Commander. City Attorney Connelly said this is a unique contract in that the Sheriff Office acts independent of the City of Spokane Valley regarding the daily duties and the performance of the jobs,that we don't define the job description for any of the officers, and we don't negotiate with them or engage in any collective bargaining with them, as all that is done through the Sheriff's Office; so any job descriptions or defined duties for any position other then the Police Chiefwould be handled by them independent of us; and the trade-off is we have no liability for their actions. Councilmember Grassel said if Council were to approve this position, and if they go over the budgeted amount, would that be left to the Sheriff's Office to sort out and she asked if the Sheriff's Office might come to this council in the future and state that since this Council funded this position, that we should increase our budget. Mr. Jackson said if we agree to fund this position,we would be responsible for any settle and adjust or any increases to the contract that would occur between now and a final, permanent contract is negotiated; and said he could not say it would be strictly up to the Sheriff or the Chief to find a way to save these particular funds. Councilmember McCaslin asked if there would be any harm in waiting until t he ag reement is finalized. Mr. Jackson said he couldn't say there is harm; Councilmember McCaslin asked then w by the h urry, and M r. J ackson said both the Chief and the Sheriff requested Council consider this position; and said as discussed previously with Council when this question originally came up,that it is part of a larger package that the Sheriff proposed would help offset some of the costs in the Sheriff's Department; he explained that we were going to move some positions out of the Valley Precinct and into the unincorporated area; and we were considering if we were to start to pay for some positions such as the drug and endangered child detective, gang detective, and a meth detective; and before this was brought to Council, it occurred to the County that scenario would not work for the county, and rather than not consider the precinct commander position,this request was brought to Council; so there would be no harm in waiting,but a matter that the Sheriff and Chief had wanted for a long time to Council Regular Meeting 2-23-2010 Page 6 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT fill that position; and because of their current financial condition,the Sheriff is going to find it necessary to move some specific po sitions from the precinct to other patrol duties which will take the qualified personnel that are able to act as a pre cinct commander now, out of the valley precinct thus making it more difficult for the Chief to fill that position with qualified personnel because of the changes that will happen;but said it is more a matter of trying to move forward and cooperate with request from the Sheriff and the Chief. Councilmember McCaslin asked if Mr. Jackson is advocating for this position, and Mr. Jackson said he supports this position at this time, and said he feels it will be a position that will be in the final contract; and through the process of negotiation, if other changes need to be made to hold down the cost of the contract, then that will be addressed at that time; and said he feels the Chief and the Sheriff would place this position higher than some other positions. C ouncilmember McCaslin said he is advocating against this; and said that Mr. Jackson is for it, and Councilmember McCaslin is against it. Mr. Jackson said to be clear, city staff suppo rts the request,but did not initiate it. Councilmember Dempsey asked if future economic c onditions w arrant i t, o r of her un foreseen c ircumstances oc cur, c ould t his p osition be de- funded; and Mr. Jackson said this i s a temporary ag reement, and if w e w ant t o make changes in the permanent contract,that would be something to consider in the negotiations. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he feels it should be stated that the Sheriff looked at this position and it was highly recommended by the law e nforcement assessment w e had 1 ast sum mer or 1 ast fall, and said he suppo rts t his pos ition. Councilmember Dempsey said she feels the C hief n eeds the relief o f a second-in-command. M ayor Towey invited public comment;no comments were offered. Councilmember Gothmann said whether the present contract were extended or not, or a new contract were negotiated or not,that this position is still needed. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels; and Councilmembers Dempsey, Gothmann, and Grafos. Opposed: Councilmembers Grassel and McCaslin. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments. Troy Dilley 2400 N Wilbur Road, Apt 150: spoke regarding the Pines and Mansfield intersection; and asked why there is a blinking yellow light; he said it is confusing; and he asked why not have something to stop the traffic as he has seen a lot of near misses. Mr. Jackson said it would be best to defer this to our Public Works Department to prepare a response; adding that the blinking yellow light has been discussed before and it is a recognized method of traffic control. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:25 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 9. Uniform Development Code Amendment CTA 08-09—Marty Palaniuk Planning Technician Palaniuk explained the proposal via his PowerPoint presentation;that the proposed changes include requiring a pre-application meeting for all commercial building permits;to restrict the height of fences in the front y and for a 11 z oning di stricts and not just for residential;t o a mend the clearview triangle distances in Table 22.70;to add exemptions to the clearview triangle regulations so that those regulations would not apply to living trees provided they are not planted in the form of a hedge and are trimmed to a specific height; to exempt new retaining walls under thirty inches or those in existence prior t o 0 ctober 10, 20 04;t o e xempt s tructures of her than fences and signs; and to include as an exemption to clearview triangle regulations, the intersection of two private streets; and to add provisions permitting the use of electric and barbed wire for confining animals in a residential district; and added that these amendments would correct errors and omissions, and resolve any ambiguity while clarifying standards. Councilmember Grafos asked M r. Palaniuk to explain the r ationale for the proposed changes in the clearview triangle and said the distances proposed would exceed the standard in the City of Spokane or Council Regular Meeting 2-23-2010 Page 7 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT Spokane C ounty. Traffic E ngineer N ote e xplained t hat the reason fort he c hange i s that upon incorporation, we adop ted the C ity of S pokane standard primarily be cause she thinks the first traffic engineer was from the City of Spokane; during the process this year of writing our new street standards, staff reviewed those distances and determined that what we had was possibly not large enough to match well with what was being used in development engineering for all of the new construction and it did not match well with the national guideline we are supposed to use, which is the AASHTO (Association of American State Highway and Transportation 0 fficials) Green B ook(a pol icy on g eometric d esign of highways and streets); and said it makes it a 1 ittle more defensible in case we are called into Court; and she said she worked extensively with City Attorney Connelly on the language of this. C ouncilmember Grafos asked if it is against federal law to keep the guidelines used by the City of Spokane, and said since this addresses a two-way stop controlled intersection, the distance change from 110 feet in a 35 miles an hour zone,to 160 feet, and on another intersection in looking at those side distances, if someone has a 100-foot lot,we have used up most of their lot just in the clearview triangle, and he asked why that is necessary. Ms. Note said we have had some accidents; that she monitors the collision reports as they come i n and s aid she tries t o report t o our C ode Enforcement Officers if there i s a clearview triangle notation on such collision reports; said it would not be against the law to keep what we have,but the guidelines she proposes would be more defensible if we were to be sued. Deputy City Attorney Driskell added that there a re r isk m anagement r easons w by we w anted to look at o ur i nitial standards and determine if w e are adequately protecting the pub lic; and regarding w hat the C ity of S pokane and Spokane County had adopted and what they maintain, he said it can be difficult to look at another jurisdiction's regulations since w e don't k now w hen t hey 1 ast updated those standards, or w hat their thought process was in any standard or changes; and all we can do is rely on the expertise of our traffic engineer. Ms.N ote s aid that s ince w e don't k now w hat y ear the C ity of S pokane de veloped their numbers, there have been several revisions to the AASHTO Green Book that we use, and she said what she is proposing is in accordance with the more recent revision of that Book; she said clearview triangles have changed quite a bit in the last ten or twenty years; so what they have could be based off the old book. Councilmember Grafos asked if perhaps staff could split the issue of the clearview triangle away from the fencing issue; and said he feels it is too extensive. Councilmember McCaslin, to clarify, stated that we hired an engineer from the City of Spokane who set the standards up which were incorrect; and Ms.Note said we hired a n e ngineer from the City of Spokane, and said that s he i s not assuming those were incorrect standards; but the Green B ook has be en updated recently and the n umbers she proposes are numbers sh e is m ore comfortable w ith as t he C ity's cur rent Traffic E ngineer; a nd what our 1 egal department has been comfortable with. Councilmember McCaslin asked if we would be liable if we didn't change our standards, and Deputy City Attorney Driskell said he would not say that we would be liable; but that it increases the likelihood that we could be found liable,and if the City wants to chart a safer course from the standpoint of being sued when there are accidents,this is more defensible and should put our citizens in a safer condition in terms oft hese intersections. M s.N ote s aid she doesn't have data available to state i f there have be en problems; and Councilmember McCaslin s aid that data would be helpful when explaining this change to citizens. Mr. Jackson said if council wants additional information when this comes back for consideration, staff could oblige. Councilmember Grassel asked if there are consequences of a citizen not being in conformity. Deputy City Attorney Driskell said while we do not anticipate any jail time associated with not being in conformance,there would be a financial consequence; that our code compliance officer would respond generally from a compliant of a fellow citizen, and the code c ompliance officer w ould measure t he i ntersection t o de termine c ompliance; and i f not in compliance,the process would be as it is for any non-compliance issue: the citizen would be contacted in an attempt to resolve the problem, including any corrective action needed and any correction done then would not involve any monetary fee;but if the citizen decided not to respond,then a warning would issue, formally advising of the upcoming process if the p roperty i t not br ought i nto compliance, and if the citizen continues to ignore the issue, a Notice and Order would issue along with a $500.00 fine; but that Council Regular Meeting 2-23-2010 Page 8 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT would be after several opportunities to correct the issue, which most often means trimming bushes o r removing some vegetation. Councilmember Grafos said if he's in compliance under the old rule, and the rule is changed and someone makes a compliant, would that be a violation; and Mr. Driskell said yes, as there is no grandfathering as it is a safety issue. Ms. Note said she can supply more information to allow further understanding of what the impact would be; she explained, for example,that the two-way stop i s the one proposed to be modified; that it has a triangle for a very short leg on one side and a very long leg on the other; and the proposal is to extend the very tip of this a little further out; and most of the time that tip would be within the city's right-of-way; and p robably not g et into pe ople's shrubbery; and she said that m ost o f the time w hen sh e s ees a clearview problem, it is usually within the zone within the corner with a bush right next to where a car parks; and things further out generally doesn't cause a great problem. C ouncilmember Grafos said if he has a 100 foot 1 ot, this would g o completely across the frontage o f the lot; and Ms. Note explained it would go across the frontage, but it is measured from the curb or five feet from the pavement, and is not necessarily measured across the right-of-way as that right-of-way is unknown to the staff out in the field. Councilmember Grassel s aid that in reference t o 22.70.020,the change is t o change the fencing from residential lot to any lot; and asked if that includes commercial property. Mr. Palaniuk confirmed that includes commercial anywhere in city limits. Councilmember Grassel said she sees a lot of issues with that as it is not a very high fence; like the Northwest Fence Company has fencing up which is part of their display of their business; and she asked if they were included in that. Mr. Palaniuk said they would be included; and anything existing there now would be legally nonconforming;meaning that the use could continue; but if they were to take it down;they would have twelve months to replace it, so they would be allowed to continue without any sort of legal issues; and said that this is twenty feet from the property line back; and said in some cases a building could be set back forty feet, but it would not be that entire forty feet but just the twenty feet from the property line back, as that is what is considered the front yard; so they would be restricted to either a three-foot site obstructing fence, or a four foot see-through type fence; and at the twenty-foot back mark,they would be able to go up to eight feet and continue the fence. Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked if most of the clearview triangle issues are complaint driven; and Ms. Note confirmed these issues are primarily complaint driven; that she'll get calls or she'll notice things on police accident reports; and occasionally while out in the field, staff might notice an issue and call it in; that there was some di scussion last y ear about doing a m ore complete an alysis and 1 ooking at all the intersections, but said she is not aware of the status of that. Mr. Palaniuk added that most of the changes dealing with clearview triangles are corrective in nature; and the only change of any substance deals with the figure on t he t able. I n response t o a que stion from C ouncilmember M cCaslin i f t his i s our 1 egal responsibility t o c hange t his, D eputy C ity A ttorney Driskell responded t hat w hether there is a n affirmative 1 egal duty t o change this, he s aid he feels Council has s ome di scretion within the bounds mentioned before, as Council should listen to the advice of the Senior Traffic Engineer and consider in the decision-making what is the safety aspect to consider for the citizens and at what level of risk do you want to put the city in the regulations council adopts;whether or not to be more restrictive on the property owners but safer for the traveling public according to the traffic engineer and the police. There was no council objection to bring this forward for a first reading March 9. 10. Uniform Development Code Amendment CTA 01-10—Karen Kendall Assistant Planner Kendall explained that this proposed amendment is a citizen-initiated amendment as the citizen proposes "secondhand stores and consignment sales" be allowed in the light industrial (L-1) zone with the conditions that the parcel must have frontage on an arterial; the minimum building size must be 15,000 gross square feet; and be limited to a single tenant. Ms. Kendall said the citizen would like this processed quickly and she mentioned the possibility of council considering at the first reading, to waive the s econd reading and approve the o rdinance; and s aid t hat the p roposed business is a 1 arge r etail, secondhand store. C ouncilmember McCaslin asked if this proposed change could be done without the Council Regular Meeting 2-23-2010 Page 9 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT 15,000 minimum gross square footage, or i f a change could b e made i n 1 ight industrial without that stipulation; and Ms. Kendall said c ouncil c an m ake a c hange from w hat w as r ecommended by the Planning C ommission. Councilmember McCaslin said when you put things i n statutes,you c reate a problem for people; so if somebody had 14,000 they couldn't do it; and said therefore we are restricting what people can do in light industrial, and said we should broaden rather than restrict in order to stimulate people coming up with such things as used furniture stores. Councilmember Dempsey said she would be leery of taking out the 15,000 as otherwise there could be small 200 square foot shops here and there. Councilmember M cCaslin responded by stating that we would b e stymieing business, and he asked if Councilmember Dempsey is against business. Councilmember Dempsey said she is not against business but is against a lot of little tiny shacks going up to sell secondhand items; and Councilmember McCaslin responded that the county was founded on that. Councilmember Grafos asked if this retail use in a light industrial zone is allowed in Spokane County. Ms. Kendall said she did not know; and Councilmember Grafos asked her to check on that as he knows that it is; and said they also allow other retail uses other than secondhand stores, and he asked if this was a downzone, or why don't we allow that; and asked if there was a z one change that restricted the retail use i n an industrial zoning. Ms. Kendall said when Council adopted the Uniform Development Code in 2007, the schedule of permitted uses was reviewed extensively;th at this i s one specific use within that twelve-page doc ument; and C ouncil at t hat time determined that retail is not allowed in the light or heavy industrial zones except if it is accessory to a specific manufacturing business; so there are some retail uses allowed but they are limited; and said the citizen proposed all of those criteria to keep with the current allowed uses. Councilmember Grassel asked about changing the wording on the square footage; Mr. Jackson responded that this is the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Councilmember Grassel said it wouldn't hurt this particular proposal i f t he square footage were 1 owered to 5,000; as it would still meet the citizen's criteria. Ms. Kendall said the particular applicant is a fairly large secondhand store which is actually greater than 15,000 square feet. Councilmember Grassel then suggested the square footage be changed to make a more fair playing field; and said although she mentioned 5,000, it could be 2, 3 or 1. There was no council objection to changing the square footage to 5,000 and to bring this forward for a first reading March 9. 11. Panhandling Update—Cary Driskell Deputy City Attorney Driskell gave an update on the panhandling issue as per the materials included in the council's packet; he mentioned his discussions with staff from the City of Spokane;that he examined Seattle's code provisions; the Ninth Court of Appeals cases which ultimately considers panhandling freedom of speech and expression; and that we sent a draft ordinance to the Center for Justice to get their input and the accompanying letter from them states their analysis of our draft under existing and new Constitutional cas e decisions. Mr. Driskell said we have provisions on obstructing traffic and or on aggressive pa nhandling and on disorderly conduct; that he recommends focusing on enforcing t hose provisions and proceed with an educational program to let citizens know they can donate to such places as the House of Charity or any of the Missions instead of giving money to panhandlers, as about 80%of money g iven t o panhandlers is u sed for drugs and alcohol. C ouncilmember G othmann mentioned the efforts of the Panhandling Committee and his report of September 26, 2008, and said that the "Card and Wooden Nickel" program used in Alaska appears to be an effective program (wooden nickels to give to the homeless for two days of food, clothing and shelter); and he said he would be willing to act as liaison to proceed with an education program and to report back to council periodically. Council concurred. 12. Property Tax Update—Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson said that Council previously expressed interest in reducing property taxes for the 2010 collections; he said that it is too late to reduce that because deadlines have to meet and we can't reverse it; but we could set aside the property tax levy coming to us based on growth, and not including the new construction, which would mean setting aside $110,566 this summer as it comes in to us, and to Council Regular Meeting 2-23-2010 Page 10 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT use that to reduce the property tax in 2011,which he said would mean there would be a reduction of $110,566 from the general fund as w ell if that i s C ouncil's de cision. C ouncilmember G othmann distributed a handout showing a scenario from two different property owners: one in the Edgeclift area with an assessed property valuation of $79,500, and the other in the Ponderosa area with an assessed value of$259,100; and said for property 1 i n Edgeclift, total taxes went up even though the evaluation actually went down;that the percentage of Spokane Valley's allocation went from 12.30%of the total tax bill in 2009 to 11.54%in 2010; and said the taxes are actually going down by $4.02 in 2010 compared with 2009. Councilmember Gothmann said the difference in millage rates between 2009 and 2010 was .0102 or approximately 1¢ per$1,000 valuation;with a percentage different of.6812%or two-thirds of 1%; s o fort his f irst p roperty,t he change increased their S pokane Valley por tion by .68 %or approximately two-thirds of 1%; and the dollar difference based on that is 520; so based on the action our Council took in the last quarter, this property pays 52¢ a year more or approximately 1¢ a week so he said the problem we are trying to solve regarding this first property, is how to prevent them from paying that 1¢ per week or 52¢ per year. Regarding property 2 in the Ponderosa, Councilmember Gothmann said the assessed valuation increased from 2009 to 2010, from$259,100 to $262,400; with the Spokane Valley portion going from$388.6 2 t o $396.25,h e s aid t he dollar value due t o t hat w as $1.79; and for this property,the action before this council would be to figure out how is that owner of that$262,400 home going to come up with an extra$1.79 over the next year, or approximately 3¢ per week; and he said the budget for the next year must be budgeted; and he wished to reserve any comments on that process until that process actually begins this summer. Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked Mr. Thompson, if this is such a minute amount,why did we do this; and Finance D irector Thompson replied t hat w e w ere looking i nto the future and trying t o make s ure w e collected as much revenue as possible just to avoid a potential problem down the road, and he said he believes he informed Council at the time that it was pretty small numbers. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he understood that and was on the backside of that issue all the way. Councilmember Grafos said he voted against that increase initially, and said he would like to set aside this money;that it isn't a lot of money to some people but the $110,000 is not chump change and he wants to set it aside for the taxpayers and refund it to them,whether it is 10¢ or 20¢ or $20.00. C ouncilmember Grassel agreed and said it is the principle of the property tax; as properties have gone down in value and we put i n an emergency property tax without reducing expenses; and she said she feels that is not fair to the taxpayers to increase their taxes, even a small amount, without looking at a ny kind of reduction in expenditures. Councilmember McCaslin asked what it would cost to refund the taxpayers; and Mr. Thompson said it would not be a refund to the individual property owners,but would be a reduction in the City's levy citywide for 2011; and Councilmember McCaslin suggested reducing the levy is better verbiage instead of refund. Councilmember Gothmann said he assumes in the process of adopting the 2011 budget, council would review six-year plans, and if this is one of the options,he would like to see the affect of this option on those s ix-year pl ans. Councilmember D empsey said from w hat she is hearing a bout the e conomy improving, if tim es actually do get better and our revenues increase, would this be necessary. Mr. Thompson replied that would be a council policy decision. A cting City Manager Jackson said staff is asking i f w e s hould b ring t his back for a m otion consideration later,b ased on C ouncil's pr eferred timeline. Councilmember McCaslin said he was told today that the Senate budget came out with $960 million in new taxes, and said if we can reduce a penny or two off our citizens, it would be good press and good publicity. Councilmember Dempsey said since this won't happen until 2011, she suggested we wait until we do the budget this summer. Deputy Mayor Schimmels suggested putting this on the agenda at the mid-year budget amendments. Finance Director Thompson said the budget is often amended in the spring, and again in the fall if needed; and said we could bring that up then; and said the budget process for next year starts this summer. There was Council consensus to bring this back in May or June. Council Regular Meeting 2-23-2010 Page 11 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT 13. Surplus Property: Parcel Near 16608 E Broadway— Steve Worley Senior Engineer Worley explained that the City is in the p rocess of designing the improvements to Broadway Avenue between Moore Road and Flora Road, and this particular property is on the south side of Broadway;he said during staff's research of the right-of-way, it was discovered that the owner had inherited this small triangular piece from her parents and she didn't know she owned it;we approached her because we needed to purchase ten feet and we asked to purchase the whole piece and she agreed so we purchased the entire triangular piece;he said we plan to keep the front ten feet as that is needed to make the improvements to Broadway; and he showed a small hatched area on the map which we now own but which he believes has no value to the City. Mr.Worley said the City is also purchasing right-of- way a nd dr ainage e asements from a nother pr operty ow ner of the adjoining pr operty a t 1660 8 E . Broadway; and the owner agreed to grant those drainage easements so that we can build a water-quality treatment swale to treat the runoff from the roadway; and said that tonight's proposal is to come back at a future council meeting for council to consider declaring the small triangular piece of property as surplus, which would allow us to trade that property to the owner of the other property to help offset the cost for purchasing the right-of-way and the drainage easements;he said we have not heard of any interest in that property. Councilmember McCaslin recused himself from any vote on this and said that property owner donated to h is c ampaign about twelve y ears ag o. There w as council consensus to m ove forward a s proposed. 14. Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey Councilmember Grassel said a few months ago there was an article about the Open Public Meeting Act regarding some councilmembers having coffee at the Yokes public area; and there was some concern by the Spokesman review report and by citizens that there may have been some violations to that because of the requirement that no four councilmembers be together; and in light of that article, she mentioned the meals available on Tuesday nights prior to Council meetings; she asked for a copy of the resolution which granted that,and she proposed that we have staff look at eliminating those dinners and perhaps consider having council meetings at 6:30 or 7:00 p.m.; she s aid Liberty Lake and Millwood start their council meetings at 7 p.m. and none of them have such meals. Councilmember Dempsey said that a later starting hour would be difficult for her due to her Wednesday schedule. Mayor Towey said he and Mr. Jackson discussed this matter and it will be put on a future agenda for discussion; and Mr. Jackson said we could put this on an agenda if council desires, but eliminating the regular meals prior to a council meeting only takes a nod from council; and said he assumes council would like to retain the ability to provide meals for such things as retreats. Mayor Towey s aid he prefers discussing t his issue at the M arch 9 meeting. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he would not suggest discussing the council meeting time change at this point. Councilmember Grassel said her proposal to start the meeting later was to give staff and council opportunity to eat prior to the meeting; and said due to her work schedule, she has difficulty arriving at 6:00 p.m. for the meetings. INFORMATION ONLY: The department reports, S pokane C ounty L ibrary D istrict F ourth Q uarter Report, and Transportation Benefit District were for information only and were not discussed or reported. 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(i)]. There was no executive session. It was moved by Councilmember McCaslin, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Regular Meeting 2-23-2010 Page 12 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Executive Session Tuesday,March 2,2010 Attendance: Councilmembers: Staff: Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Mike Connelly, City Attorney Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Dean Grafos, Councilmember Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Absent: Gary Schimmels EXECUTIVE SESSION: Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. 1 t was then moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately one hour to discuss pending litigation, and that no action is anticipated thereafter. Council adjourned into e xecutive s ession at 5: 02 p.m. A t a pproximately 6: 04 p.m ., M ayor Towey declared council out of exe cutive session, and it was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:04 p.m. Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Minutes:03-02-2010 Page 1 of 1 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL JOINT MEETING/STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington March 2,2010 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Dean Grafos, Councilmember Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Mike Connelly, City Attorney Bob McCaslin, Councilmember [left at 7:04 p.m.] Micki Harnois,Associate Planner Mike Stone, Parks &Recreation Director Absent: Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Lori Barlow,Associate Planner Planning Commissioners Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer John Carroll, Chair Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Marcia Sands,Vice Chair Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Rustin Hall,Planning Commissioner[left at 7:40 p.m.] Joe Mann, Planning Commissioner Art Sharpe, Planning Commissioner Arne Woodard, Planning Commissioner Absent: Craig Eggleston, Planning Commissioner Mayor T owey cal led the meeting t o order at approximately 6:05 p.m. and welcomed e veryone t o the meeting, and explained t hat tonight's meeting is an informal meeting. Members of C ouncil and the Planning Commission introduced themselves; and Rustin Hall said due to another obligation,he will be leaving tonight's meeting at approximately 7:30 p.m. It was moved by Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Deputy Mayor Schimmels from tonight's meeting. 1. Shoreline Masterulan Associate Planner Barlow explained that tonight staff and representatives from the Department of Ecology and from the consultant firm URS will give Council and Planning Commissioners an overview of the Shoreline Masterplan process and discuss what has been completed so far. Via her PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Barlow explained the background and requirements associated with adopting this plan, of the tasks completed including establishing a page on our City's website, of the inventory and analysis needed,that the timelines have been pushed back two months, and what the next steps are leading up to council review and acceptance by resolution. Mr. Pineo of the Department of Ecology expressed his gratitude to City staff for their professional job on this i ssue and s aid they h ave g one a bove and beyond the m inimums. Mr. Pineo s aid the Shoreline Management A ct of 1971 i s out lined i n R CW(Revised C ode of W ashington) 90.58 ; and s aid the statewide law is that this Act must be locally implemented through a local Shoreline Master Program; he explained the preferred uses as per state statute RCW 90.58.020,and listed the following items in order of preference: (1)recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest; (2) preserve the natural character of the shoreline; (3)result in long term benefit over short term benefit; (4)protect the resources and ecology oft he shoreline; (5) increase public access to publicly owned areas oft he shorelines; (6) Council Meeting Minutes:3-02-2010 Page 1 of 2 Approved by Council: DRAFT increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; and (7)provide for any other element as defined in R CW 90.58. 100 de emed a ppropriate o r necessary. B y us e of h is PowerPoint, Mr. P ineo discussed the SMP (Shoreline Master Program) and said they are designed as local expressions of the Shoreline M anagement A ct (SMA)as a m eans to protect and m anage 1 ocal shor eline r esources;h e discussed private p roperty r ights; w hich activities r equire pe rmits;w hich activities are exempt; a nd stressed that all activities and uses in the SMA jurisdiction must be consistent with SMP goals, policies and use regulations. He further explained that SMPs should be periodically reviewed for revisions, and that public participation is required throughout the planning process and is crucial to the success;that the Department of Ecology must formally review and approve the locally adopted SMP, and they too will have opportunities for public comment, including holding a public hearing. Mr. Pineo added that their commitment is to keep the process short, sweet and businesslike and said they are always available for comment;t hat he appreciates i t c an be difficult t o find time t o read the pr ogram,but he e ncouraged everyone to read through the document; and not to lose sight of the authorizing laws as the authorizing version is reviewed. [Note for the record: Councilmember McCaslin left the meeting at 7:04 p.m.] Mr. John Patrouche of URS explained that they were hired as consultants; that they are a large firm, and one of the top three in the nation. Mr. Patrouche went over the inventory and characterization showing the City of Spokane Valley shorelines and explaining the shoreline jurisdiction; he reviewed some of the significant resources s uch as WR IA 57 Watershed P lanning, and the S pokane C ounty C onservation District; he gave an overview of the Spokane River land use and natural environment, and discussed the various segments of the River and those associated potential management issues and relative public comments; and gave the same discussion concerning Shelley Lake and the Gravel Pits. URS Consultant Noah Herlocker explained about the areas in Spokane Valley via a"Google-earth"movie,which showed in greater detail some oft he vegetation and shoreline conditions of some of the areas just discussed by Mr. P atrouche. [Note for the record: Planning Commissioner Hall l eft the meeting at 7:40 p.m.] Mr. Herlocker also discussed some of the recreational uses and accesses to the shoreline, which he said was a part of the study, and mentioned there is not a great deal of area left for future shoreline development;but there is some infill potential and a parcel here and there. Senior Planner Kuhta explained that after the technical review groups and agencies review this document, it moves to the Planning Commission for a public he aring;t hey'll review i t and g ive recommendation t o C ouncil for ho peful a pproval t o m ove forward. In response to question about notifying the public, Mr. Kuhta said staff has a broad and large database of citizens to notify,that staff used direct notification to notify the shoreline property owners for the first open house; that the information is on our website, public notices have been published and press releases d istributed; and he sai d anyone w ith c omments c an s end t hem t o Administrative A ssistant Deanna Griffith to get comments into the public record. M ayor T owey thanked everyone for coming tonight, and for the information and for explaining the process. City Clerk Bainbridge said for the record,that Mr. McCaslin left the meeting earlier as he was not feeling well. 2. Information Only— The Amended 2010 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and Federal Earmark Requests for Barker Road were for information only and were not reported on or discussed. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes:3-02-2010 Page 2 of 2 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 9, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-08-09 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 1st reading proposed ordinance 10-005: Amendments to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures — Amend Table 17.80-2, Permit Type and Land Use Application to require pre-application conferences for commercial building permits. Chapter 22.70.020 (A), General provisions, Fencing — Remove language in order to restrict the height of fencing placed in the required front yard of all residential, commercial, mixed use and industrial lots. Chapter 22.70.020 (B), General provisions, Fencing — Consolidate language regulating fencing height in all zoning districts. Allow fence heights of up to eight feet in any zoning district. Chapter 22.70.020 (C) (1) General provisions, Fencing, Clearview Triangle — Refine the definition of an Uncontrolled Intersection. Replace "City traffic engineer" with "City's designated traffic engineer" to allow more flexibility when staffing clearview triangle issues. Reverse the illustrations to correctly match the preceding illustration. Chapter 22.70.020 Table 22.70-1 Two Way Stop Controlled Intersection — Correct the title and correct the distance in feet. Chapter 22.70.020 (D) General provisions, Fencing, Exemption from Clearview requirements — Required trees to be living, added retaining walls under 30 inches or in existence prior to October 10th, 2004, added structures other than fences and signs, added the intersection of two private streets. Chapter 22.70.020 (E) General provisions, Fencing — Eliminated this section of language restricting fence height as it is now restricted in Section 22.70.020 (B). Chapter 22.70.020 (E) General provisions, Fencing — Changed from section F to section E. Barbed, razor or concertina wire is allowed in mixed-use, commercial and industrial zones absent a residential component or when not adjacent to a residential use or zone. The use is restricted to the upper one-quarter of the fence. Barbed, razor and concertina wire are not allowed in residential zones. Chapter 22.70.020 (F) General provisions, Fencing — Changed from section G to section F. Chapter 22.70.020 (G) General provisions, Fencing - Added provisions allowing the use of electric and barbed wire for confining animals in a residential district. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.30.040 development regulation text amendments PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The Uniform Development Code was adopted in September, 2007 and was effective October 28th, 2007. Errors and omissions were discovered following the codes adoption while other issues were not clearly or fully addressed. These amendments will correct errors and omissions, resolve ambiguity and clarify standards. 1 of 2 Staff presented this series of proposed amendments to the Planning Commission at a study session on January 28th, 2010. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments on February 11, 2010. Based upon staff's recommendation, the Planning Commission made a motion 5 to 0 to move the proposed amendment on to the City Council for review and a decision. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Section 17.80.150(6) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code provides approval criteria for text amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amendment(s) must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. OPTIONS: Advance item to second reading of the ordinance as proposed, or as modified; direct staff further. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance ordinance 10-005 to a second reading at the March 23, 2010 Council meeting. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planning Technician ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Spokane Valley Municipal Code text amendments 2. 1st Reading Presentation 2 of 2 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO.10-005 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING ORDINANCE 07-015 SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 17.80.070 AND 22.70.020 BY ADDING THAT COMMERCIAL PRE- APPLICATIONS MEETINGS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS; LIMITING FENCE HEIGHT IN REQUIRED FRONT YARDS TO THREE FEET FOR SIGHT-OBSCURING FENCES AND FOUR FEET FOR A NON- SIGHT-OBSCURING FENCE,CORRECTING AND CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS AND ILLUSTRATION ERRORS, ADDING EXEMPTIONS TO USES NOT SUBJECT TO CLEARVIEW TRIANGLE PROVISIONS, CLARIFYING THE USE OF BARBED, RAZOR,AND CONCERTINA WIRE IN ALL ZONES,AND ALLOWING THE USE OF BARBED WIRE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES IN ORDER TO KEEP ANIMALS. WHEREAS,the City of Spokane Valley(City)adopted the Uniform Development Code(UDC)pursuant to Ordinance 07-015,on the 25th day of September,2007;and WHEREAS,the Uniform Development Code(UDC)became effective on the 28th day of October,2007; and WHEREAS,the amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS,after reviewing the Environmental Checklists,the City issued an Optional Determination of Non-significance(DNS)for the proposal,published the DNS in the Valley News Herald,posted the DNS at City Hall and the main branch of the library,and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies;and WHEREAS, the C ity p rovided a c opy of t he p roposed a mendment t o the D epartment o f C ommerce initiating a 60 day comment period pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106;and WHEREAS,the amended ordinance as set forth bears a su bstantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment;and WHEREAS,on January 28,2010,the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments;and WHEREAS, the C ommission r eceived e vidence, information,p ublic t estimony, a st aff report an d recommendation at a public hearing on February 11,2010;and WHEREAS,t he C ommission d eliberated on February 11 , 2010;the C ommission provided a recommendation;and WHEREAS,on February 23,2010,Council reviewed the proposed amendments;and WHEREAS, on March 9, 2010, Council c onsidered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment. Ordinance 10-005 CTA 08-09 Page 1 of 8 DRAFT NOW THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY ORDAINS AS SET FORTH BELOW: Section One:Pursuant to 19.30 of the SVMC,the City adopts this ordinance amending section 22.70.020 General Provisions-Fencing 22.70.020 General provisions—Fencing. A.No s ight-obstructing f ence more t han 36 inches i n he ight, nor a ny non-sight-obstructing f ence (cyclone)more than 48 inches in height may be erected and/or maintained within the required front yard of any lot.of any lot usod for residential purposos. B.Any fence or wall, erected or placed behind the minimum required front yard line may be erected or I maintained to a maximum height of eight feet above the adjacent grade in reos car*°l any zoning districts. Lots with double street frontage may have a fence constructed on the property line around the yard not used as the main point of access(the apparent backyard). C.Neither residential, commercial or industrial fencing, nor any sight obstruction including vegetation, which constitutes a hazard to the traveling public shall be permitted on any corner lot in any zone within the area designated as the"clearview triangle"as set forth below: 1.A clearview triangle is a measurement applied at the intersection of two streets or the intersection of an alley or co mmercial driveway and a st reet to ensure unobstructed vision of motorists and p edestrians. Within the clearview triangle,the space between three and one-half feet and seven feet above the street, or three feet above the sidewalk,must be unobstructed and calculated as follows: Figure 22.70-1 Clearview Requirements scsraxcox WIT=crrxsr v=ANGLE MEW ALE. I1 Sr REST 1 �i a.Uncontrolled Intersection. The right isosceles triangle having sides of 50 feet measure along the curb line of each intersecting local access street(or five feet from edge of pavement for a street with no curbs)7 alley or commercial driveway(see Figure 22.70-2);or Ordinance 10-005 CTA 08-09 Page 2 of 8 DRAFT Figure 22.70-2 Uncontrolled Intersection [Formatted:Font:Not Bold sn FL m Fr j LacoL oas�asfl T �acALox�9 rails arr Evlr-0Fwar , �PROP9IIY L� .I I,.... �TL3 F Lt7 CJ111B B PPFB6Vr,AEA91E N 31L7WAIC6 TFE mdsrr LJNE MEMTEE IEEE OF TEE PARENT ) CRY Po0111--OFWAY CRT FIIHTOWWAY 'J9 F[. 76FF I' LOCAL'CCM trrreEr Acce3s ErrweEr I _ . 11/ 1 ,FF R I LINE 1114SWAN,, , For 11:#04 - dr ri g "01 • NOt F C CU (T.MEASURE N S TOVRANTFE ar armor L..&FHtl i The aloe op VC ROADWAY CRY Fiafr—-WAY CRY ggF{r-OR-WAY b.Two-Way S top Controlled Intersection. The right triangle having a 16-foot side measured along the curb line of a local access street(or five feet from edge of pavement for a street with no curbs),alley or commercial driveway, and the distance shown on Table 22.70-1 based on posted speed along the side along the curb line of the intersecting street(or five feet from edge of pavement for a street with no curbs) (see Figure 22.70-3);or Ordinance 10-005 CTA 08-09 Page 3 of 8 DRAFT Figure 22.70-3 Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Formatted:Font:Not Bold 7•7-7.•- /-`_ 81,1 6.G1 / - < BEErIH7al.. _ -TFADI'1[�I'etji�r Tifioiiciii�r°� '; :a a.Fe 1:1014T-OF-WAY fe;• PROPERTY LFE .• N rE, F NO CUM T6 PFEBENT.AEABURE N 5 TOWAROE THE ..... PROPERTY LIE FROM TFE EDGE OF TT£PAYENENT QTY FIGHT-OF—WAY CITY PoL-IT-OFWAY • T/p F?VW ,. J•. fFr Tlx F]Cni '{II Cub nT •' TiNO1L14811SCf.' - 4 i R1eln G' Ix ' .'4620194074#1 ., ` ' dI6d RE'Sir.IEwANEhYTCNNILdM MOWP°MI RILL THE EOM 4^F 1I.RNDWAT an R711-014µT a n talraP•wrr Table 22.70-1—Yiold Controllod Two Way Stop Controlled Intersection Posted Speed(in MPH) Distance(in Feet) 25 744110 30 45.130 35 110160 c.In cases including,but not limited to,arterials with posted speeds in excess of 35 miles per hour,one- way streets,steep grades and sI4a94horizontal or vertical curves,the G4 City's designated-traffic engineer will determine the appropriate measurement;or d.Yield-Controlled Intersection.For intersections of local streets with 25 mile per hour speed limits,the right triangle having a 3 5-foot side measured a long the c urb line or edge of pavement oft he yield- controlled street,and an 80-foot side measured along the curb line or edge of pavement of the intersecting street.Triangles for yield-controlled intersections on collectors or arterials, or streets with speeds higher I than 2 5 miles per hour, will b e determined b y the Cam} City's designated traffic engineer(see Figure 22.70-4);or I e.All-Way Stop Controlled.The triangle determined by the f }City's designated traffic engineer using AASHTO sight distance requirements for all-way stop controlled intersections;or I Figure 22.70-4 Yield-Controlled Intersection Ordinance 10-005 CTA 08-09 Page 4 of 8 DRAFT Formatted:Font:Not Bold FT. 1F1i0FK�FP 6T 1}RU1104 BUM •. - —_ a—" LRYF M-or-wAT .49. 4 G� PAC7081i1IJ£ an NW-Cr-WAY art Wiifr-0F-WAY la rr. cum Oft noi-rr-or-wam mown'1.141 • f.Signal-Controlled Intersection. The triangle determined by the 4City's designated-traffic engineer using AASHTO sight distance requirements for signalized intersections;or Ig.Noncommercial Driveway Serving Three or More Residences.The right isosceles triangle having sides of 15 feet measured along the curb line of the street and the edge of the driveway(see Figure 22.70-5). Ordinance 10-005 CTA 08-09 Page 5 of 8 DRAFT Figure 22.70-5 N oncommercial Driveway . _ _ Formatted:Font:Not Bold 1 -is 7 sir ' on r�m�x w 0 "--N-,,,,,;74,11r:/: ..: ,: I. tr Vlip.'"" . - 44,,.. - . . Fr Ff 1 'MOW em t ixaaxfee 71 - FACPERTY Lie cm trtCF-WAV cm f -OF-kW D.Exemptions.Clearview triangle regulations of this chapter shall not apply to: 1.Public utility poles; 2.Living t-crees,so long as they are not planted in the form of a hedge and are trimmed to a height of at least seven feet above the street surface; 3.Properties where the natural ground contour penetrates the clearview triangle;and 4.Traffic control devices installed by the City. 5. New retaining walls under thirty(30)inches in height or retaining walls in existence prior to October 10th,2004. 6. S tructures other than fences and signs(as provided i n Section 22.110.090 Sign location and front setbacks). 7. The intersection of two private streets. E.Foncos in nonresidential, commercial, mixed use and industrial zoning districts shall not exceed eight feet in height. L14.Barbed, razor, wire or concertina wire may b e used for s ecurity p urposes in mixed us e, commercial, and industrial zones i n the absence of a residential c omponent, or when not adjacent to a residence or residential zoning district. The use of barbed, razor, or concertina w ire i n these zones i s restricted to only on the upper one-quarter of the fence_in industrial zoning districts.Barbed wiro,razor, or concertina or razor wire shall not be permitted in any residential zoning district(except for confining animals, see section 22.70.020(H))or i n any mixed use or c ommercial zoning district adjacent to any public right-of-way. FL-i.Electric fences may be used for the confinement of animals;provided,however,that: Ordinance 10-005 CTA 08-09 Page 6 of 8 DRAFT 1.The fence is marked with warning signs at least 24 square inches in area located every 150 feet;and 2.The electric fence is located not less than 24 inches from the property line;and 3.Access to the fence is limited by conventional fencing or enclosure. G. In any residential zoning district,electric and/or barbed wire fences may be used to confine animals, provided however,that: The lot o r tr act meets the requirements c ontained in section 19.40.150 Animal raising and keeping,and Electric fences meet the requirements in section 22.70.020(F). H.A combination of sight-obscuring fences and landscaping shall be required between incompatible land uses as established in SVMC 22.70.030. 1.Fencing shall not block the view of fire protection equipment from approach.(Ord.07-015§4,2007). Section Two:Pursuant to 19.30 of the SVMC,the City adopts this ordinance: amending section 17.80.070,Table 17.80-2—Permit Type and Land Use Application. Table 17.80-2—Permit Type and Land Use Application Pre- Counter- Fully complete Notice of Notice of Final Application application complete determination application public decision Type conference determination 17.80.100 17.80.110 hearing and notice 17.80.080 17.80.090 17.80.120 17.80.130 I ***O X X N/A N/A X *II **O X X X N/A X III X X X X X X X Required 0 Optional N/A Not Applicable *Does not apply to SEPA threshold determinations. Refer to SVMC 21.20.070(B)(2)for noticing requirements. **Except for short subdivisions and binding site plans which require a pre-application meeting. ***Except for commercial building permits. Section Three: All other provisions of SVMC Title 19 not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section Four: Severability. If any section, sentence,clause or phrases of this Ordinance should be held to be i nvalid or unconstitutional b y a c ourt of c ompetent j urisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section Five: Effective Date. T his ordinance s hall b e in full force and e ffect five(5)days after the publication of the 0 rdinance, or a s ummary t hereof,oc curs i n t he official ne wspaper of t he City as provided by law. Ordinance 10-005 CTA 08-09 Page 7 of 8 DRAFT Passed by the City Council this day of ,2010. ATTEST: Mayor,Thomas E.l owey City Clerk,Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 10-005 CTA 08-09 Page 8 of 8 "TY"A'"A"EU Department of Community Development Planning Division 410-°„,1112ffsmssa City Council First Reading March 9, 2010 Text Amendment to the SVMC CTA-08-09 Department of Community Development Planning Division Proposed Amendments Chapter 17.80 — Pre-application meeting required for all commercial building permits added to Table 17.80-2 • Chapter 22.70.020 (A) — Restrict height of fences in the front yard for all zoning districts not just residential. • Chapter 22.70.020 (C) (1 ) — Amend the title and distances in Table 22.70. 1 . • Chapter 22.70.020 (C) (1 ) — Refine the description for curves, clarify the term "City traffic engineer". CITYHALL[a]SPOKANEV ane Department of Community Development Planning Division Proposed Amendments Continued • Chapter 22.70.020 (C) (1) — Reverse the illustrations so they match the titles and context of the code. • Chapter 22.70.020 (C) (1) — Add three more exemptions to the exemptions section. • Chapter 22.70. 020 (E) — Eliminate this section because it is now addressed in a previous section. • Chapter 22.70. 020 (F) — Change to section E and clarify the allowable use of barbed, razor and concertina wire within all zones. • Chapter 22.70. 020 (G) — Added a section to allow the use of barbed wire in residential zones for keeping animals. " "�� TY"A P�K""EU *Siam Department of Community Development Planning Division Questions? CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 9, 2010 City Manager Sign off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-01-10 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading —Ordinance 10-006 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A privately initiated text amendment proposing to amend Sections 19.70.010 and 19.120 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to conditionally allow secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial (I-1) zone. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.30.040 development regulation text amendments PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The privately initiated text amendment is to amend Sections 19.70.010 and 19.120 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to conditionally allow secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial (I-1) zone. Staff presented the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission at a study session on January 28, 2010. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment on February 11, 2010 and recommended approval in a 5 to 0 vote. An administrative report was provided to City Council on February 23, 2010, which Council requested staff to report back information. COUNCIL REQUEST(S): A. Council asked staff to report on the history of allowing retail in industrial zones since incorporation and if Spokane County currently allows retail in industrial zones. 1. At the time of incorporation (March 31, 2003) the City adopted the Spokane County Code as an interim development code which allowed retail sales, only if directly related to, and accessory to allowed uses in all industrial zones (I-1, 1-2 and 1-3). 2. With the adoption of the Uniform Development Code on September 24, 2007 the Schedule of Permitted Uses (Title 19.120 of the SVMC) allows retail in industrial zones (1-1 and 1-2), but limits retail sales to items manufactured on the premise. For example, retail and service uses that serve the industrial uses such as convenience stores, restaurants, office supply, and equipment sales/repair to name a few. 3. Spokane County's regulations were changed in 2004 to allow accessory retail sales (those sales directly related to an allowed use) as a limited use in the Light Industrial (LI) and Heavy Industrial (HI) zones. However, Section 14.614.230.4 of the Spokane County Zoning Code indicates commercial uses in the Light Industrial zone (LI) may be permitted if consistent with the Regional Commercial (RC) zone. 1 of 2 B. The Council requested staff to modify one (1) of the criterion recommended by the Planning Commission. The request was to reduce the minimum size of required building from 15,000 gross square feet (gsf) to 5,000gsf. Neither the applicant nor the Planning Commission considered the reduction of minimum building size to less than 15, 000gsf, nor has such a reduction been considered in a noticed public hearing. If Council would like to proceed with such a modification, a public hearing before the Planning Commission is recommended. The applicant proposed 15,000gsf as a minimum required building size and the Planning Commission forwarded on a recommended approval of the initial proposal. The prospective business requesting the text amendment is intending on utilizing an existing building and already developed site that meets all the criteria as proposed in the text amendment. The City's Comprehensive Plan Goal LUG-10 states, "Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses." Additionally, Goal LUG-12 states, "Designate and protect a variety of strategically located light industry areas." The light industrial zone is intended to provide services to larger business, which require more land area where often land prices are less. Industrial land is zoned to provide a location in the City for those business which require more land for operations, emit noise and air pollution and do not require screening from adjacent uses that are residential, office or commercial zones in order to maximize their operations. The reduction in minimum required building size below 15, 000 square feet for a secondhand store and consignment sales may potentially reduce the land available for larger industrial uses. Additionally, larger buildings may be left vacant and not utilized for infill if the criterion becomes less restrictive. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Section 17.80.150(6) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code provides approval criteria for text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amendment must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. OPTIONS: Advance Ordinance 10-006 to second reading as recommended by the Planning Commission, remand the proposal to the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing on the further reduction of the square footage minimum, or provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance 10-006 to a second reading BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: (1): Planning Commission Findings (2): Ordinance 10-006 2 of 2 "TY"A'"A"EV Department of Community Development Planning Division 410-°„,1112isissa City Council 1st Reading of Ordinance 10-006 March 9, 2010 Text Amendment to the SVMC CTA-01-1O Department of Community Development Planning Division Chapter 19.120 PERMITTED AND ACCESSORY USES Sections Adding in I-1 zone with conditions LI C Q ar t= .! C 4 Cs 0 i } a: IP J I al a N ce u 4533 Secondhand stores, consignment sales P Permitted Use R Regional ftrn S Conditions Apply P P S SVMC 19.70.010(3?(9)I A Accessory Only TTemporary Permit C Conditional Use Permit Section 19.70.010.8 (Light Industrial) 9. The following shall apply to all secondhand stores, consignment sales; a. The subject property must have frontage on an arterial; and b. Minimum building size of 15,000 gross square feet (gsf); and c. Limited to a single tenant. " "�� TY"A P�K""EV *Siam Department of Community Development Planning Division 41•0°_,..1112ffsmssa CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 10-006 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING ORDINANCE 07-015 SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 19.70.010 AND 19.120 TO ALLOW SECONDHAND STORES AND CONSIGNMENT SALES TO BE CONDITIONALLY ALLOWED IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I-1) ZONE. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted the Uniform Development Code (UDC) pursuant to Ordinance 07-015, on the 25th day of September, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Uniform Development Code (UDC) became effective on 28th day of October, 2007; and WHEREAS, such a regulation is authorized by RCW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, title 19.70.010 (Light Industrial) of the SVMC has been amended by ordinances 09-017, 09-010, 08-026, 08-017 and 07-015; and WHEREAS, title 19.120 (Permitted and Accessory Uses) of the SVMC has been amended by ordinances 09-010, 09-006, 08-026 and 08-002; and WHEREAS, these amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklists, the city issued a Determination of Non-significance (DNS) for the proposals, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS at City Hall and at the main branch of the library, and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, the City provided a copy of the proposed amendment to Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC) initiating a 60 day comment period pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106; and WHEREAS, the amended ordinance as set forth bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare and protection of the environment; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing on February 11, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Commission deliberated on February 11, 2010; the Commission provided a recommendation; and Draft Ordinance 10-006 Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, on February 23, 2010, Council reviewed the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 2010, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY ORDAINS AS SET FORTH BELOW: Section One: Pursuant to 19.70 of the SVMC, the City adopts this ordinance adding section 19.70.0108.9 as set forth below. 19.70.010.B Light Industrial. 9. The following shall apply to all secondhand stores, consignment sales; a. The subject parcel must have frontage on an arterial; and b. Minimum building size of 15,000 gross square feet (gsf); and c. Limited to a single tenant. 19.120 Permitted and Accessory Uses. See amendment to Title 19.120 of the SVMC in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section Two: All other provisions of SVMC Title 19 not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section Three: Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrases of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section Four: Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after the publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of , 2010. Mayor, Thomas E. Towey Draft Ordinance 10-006 Page 2 of 3 ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Draft Ordinance 10-006 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A Chapter 19.120 PERMITTED AND ACCESSORY USES Sections: 19.120.010 General. P Permitted Use R Regional Siting S Conditions Apply A Accessory Only T Temporary Permit C Conditional Use Permit Revised 2-2-10 4- a o a ai = . C Reference Conditions (I) 0 r >+ r N M r N 0 3 X > z .0 c I ixec Cer rido UP ity C rderi Off ghb, >mrr )mn >mrr egi >mrr irks Spi Lig _ea V) ) Q N CL < 4533 Secondhand store, consignment sales P P P P P P S SVMC 19.70.010(B)(9) P Permitted Use R Regional Siting S Conditions Apply A Accessory Only T Temporary Permit C Conditional Use Permit Revised 2-2-10 ATTACHMENT 2 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION February 11, 2010 The following findings have been prepared by Staff for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence with the recommended approval. Background: A. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. B. Privately initiated request for a text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). C. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 11, 2010. The Planning Commission approved the following amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Title 19; 1. Chapter 19.70.010.B.9 — Add language pertaining to the allowance of secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial (I-1) zone; and 2. Chapter 19.120 — Conditionally allow secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial (I-1) zone to the schedule of permitted uses (appendix 19-A). Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) states that the City may approve amendments to the UDC if it finds that: A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and 1. Policy LUP-10.2: Encourages a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane Valley. 2. Goal LUG-12: Designate and protect a variety of strategically located light industry areas. 3. Goal TG-8: Adapt street and roadway design and facilities to manage traffic demand, address the need for freight movement, resolve traffic conflicts, and compliment land use and urban features. 4. Goal EDG-2: Encourage redevelopment of commercial/industrial properties within the City. B. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments to the zone meet the above outlined goals, and are thus consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions: The proposed amendments meet the applicable provisions of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 2 III i Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends approval to the City Council of proposed amendments to Title 19 and Appendices A (Definitions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Ap ved this 11th d of February, 2010 I ohn G. Carroll, Chairman i ATTEST 14 I . 4,_ia 4. Ai_ x`2 Dea, na Griffith, Adminis ive Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 9, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution 10-006: Surplus Triangular Parcel 43B2 adjacent to 16608 E. Broadway — Broadway Avenue Reconstruction — Moore to Flora Project (#0088) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 3.40.070 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Authorized Mayor to sign Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreement with the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) for the design and construction of the Broadway Avenue Reconstruction — Moore to Flora Project on January 22, 2008; Adopted the 2010-2015 Six Year TIP, Resolution 09-009 on June 16, 2009 which included the Broadway Avenue Reconstruction— Moore to Flora Project; Admin Report at 2/23/10 Council meeting. BACKGROUND: While acquiring right-of-way (ROW) for the Broadway Avenue Reconstruction — Moore to Flora Project, (#0088) a triangular piece of old railroad property was discovered that had not been properly transferred when adjacent property had subsequently been sold. As a result, the legal owner, Shelly White, an heir of the original owner, was unaware she owned the triangular piece until the City contacted her requesting purchase. See the attached exhibit, Surplus of Parcel 43B2. The City purchased the entire triangular parcel from Ms. White on December 14, 2009 as two separate parcels: a 771 SF parcel (43B1) to be used as future Broadway Avenue ROW and the remainder 1,300 SF parcel (43B2). The ten foot strip of ROW on the north edge of the property required by the street improvement project leaves a remainder too small for any future city use. The City is also purchasing ROW and drainage easements from J. Brent McKinley the owner of the adjoining property at 16608 E. Broadway. Public Works staff believes the triangular piece of old railroad ROW (parcel 43B2) has no value to the city as public ROW and proposes to trade this piece to Mr. McKinley to help offset the cost of ROW being purchased from Mr. McKinley for the road project. To complete this transaction in accordance with the city's Municipal Code, Council actions are required to surplus the triangular piece of property and approve trading it to Mr. McKinley. The approximate cost breakdown for the McKinley purchase involving the trade is as follows. These numbers are approximate and may change slightly as negotiations are finalized. ROW- 2,595 SF of RW Land @ $2.50/SF $6,488 Utility Easement—4,299.13 SF @ $1.25/SF $5,374 Swale Easement—6,975 SF @ $2.50/SF $17,438 Improvements — Fence $2,300 Trade Parcel 43B2 - 1,300 SF of RW Land @ $2.50/SF (Credit) <$3,250> Total estimated compensation $28,350 OPTIONS: 1) Approve surplus of property and trade to Mr. McKinley, or 2) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Resolution No. 10-006 for the surplus of the triangular parcel 43B2 adjacent to 16608 E. Broadway. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Surplus and trade of this triangular parcel will help reduce the project ROW costs. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, P.E. - Senior Capital Projects Engineer ATTACHMENTS: RCA Exhibit —Surplus of Parcel 43B2; Draft Resolution No. 10-006 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 10-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DECLARING REAL PROPERTY TO BE SURPLUS PURSUANT TO SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE (SVMC) SECTION 3.40.070(B); APPROVING THE TRADE OF REAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO SVMC 3.40.070(D); AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO CONVEY AND/OR SELL SAID REAL PROPERTY. WHEREAS, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 3.40.070(B) requires a declaration that real property be declared surplus by the Spokane Valley City Council prior to its disposal; and WHEREAS, the criteria for a declaration of surplus property is set forth in SVMC 3.40.070 includes the following: 1. The City has or anticipates no practical, efficient,or appropriate use for the property. 2. The purpose served by the property can be accomplished by use of a better, less costly, or more efficient alternative. 3. The purpose served by the property no longer exists as determined by a change of policy or practice. WHEREAS, upon such a declaration passed by resolution by the Spokane Valley City Council, the Finance Director is authorized to sell surplus property; and WHEREAS, department directors have been notified of the surplus nature of this property and no department other than the Public Works Department has any desire to acquire or use the proposed surplus property; and WHEREAS, a trade of real property is allowed pursuant to SVMC 3.40.070 (D) where, upon receipt of a report by the Finance Director, the City finds that the trade of real property would realize a greater benefit to the City than a sale for cash; and WHEREAS, approximately 1,330 square feet of real property was acquired as part of the acquisition of right-of-way for the Broadway Avenue Improvement Project No. 0088, commonly referred to as parcel 43B2. The property was appraised by Skillings-Connolly. The City subsequently determined that additional right-of-way and utility and swale easement was required from an adjacent property owner. By trading the unneeded parcel 43B2, the City is able to reduce the cost of acquiring the necessary right-of-way and utility and swale easement from the adjacent property. All of the parcels of property involved have been appraised, and the City is receiving full value for the traded property. The specific costs and property descriptions are set forth in the report by the Project Manager, Senior Engineer, Public Works Director and Finance Director attached hereto; and WHEREAS, as a result of this trade the City would realize a greater benefit than would be derived for the cash sale of the property in question; and WHEREAS, pursuant to SVMC 3.40.070 (D) upon the declaration of surplus real property and where a benefit to the City is established, such a trade of real property is authorized. Resolution No. 10-006 Declaring Property Surplus Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Now therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,Washington, as follows: Section 1. Declaration of Surplus. The City of Spokane Valley City Council hereby declares that the real property identified as: That portion of the East Half of Tract 3 of VERA, as per plat recorded in Volume "0" of Plats, Page 30, records of Spokane County; being all that part of the 50 foot right of way of the Great Northern Railway Company (formerly the Spokane, Coeur d'Alene and Palouse Railway) lying within 25 feet on each side of the centerline of the main tract of the railway of said Railway Company as formerly located and constructed, but now removed and abandoned, lying east of Lennox Subdivision, according to plat recorded in Volume 24 of Plats, Pages 95-96 records of Spokane County; EXCEPT the North 10.00 feet strip being parallel with the north line of said Tract 3; Situate in the City of Spokane Valley, County of Spokane, State of Washington. is hereby declared to be surplus in that the City has no practical, efficient or appropriate use for the property other than to trade it for property necessary for the completion of the Broadway Avenue Improvement Project No. 0088. Section 2: Authorization to Trade Real Property. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to trade the real property in question for the identified parcel of real property and that this trade will realize a greater benefit to the City than would be realized through a cash sale, and further that this benefit is confirmed by the adequate appraisals completed by a qualified independent appraiser. Section 3. Authorization to sell/trade property. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to execute any documents necessary to complete the trade of real property set forth above. Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Adopted this day of March, 2010. City of Spokane Valley ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey, Mayor City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution No. 10-006 Declaring Property Surplus Page 2 of 2 Public Works Department Spokane Capital Improvement Program Valle11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Surplus Property Report To: Mike Jackson, City Council From: Craig Aldworth, P.E. - Project Manager Steve Worley, P.E.--Senior Engineer(CIP) Nell Kersten, - Public Works Director Ken Thompson, -Finance Director Date: February 18, 2010 Re: Broadway Improvement Project(Moore - Flora) CIP 0088—ROW Trade While acquiring right-of-way (ROW) for the Broadway Avenue Reconstruction-- Moore to Flora Project, (#0088) a triangular piece of old railroad property was discovered that had not been properly transferred when adjacent property had subsequently been sold. See the attached Vicinity Map, Exhibit, Surplus of Parcel 43B2, and Quit Claim Deed 637152B. As a result, the legal owner, Shelly White, an heir of the original owner, was unaware she owned the triangular piece until the City contacted her requesting purchase. Skillings-Connolly, the consultant ROW agent working for the City on the project appraised the White property at $2.50/SF. See the attached Shelly White Administrative Offer Summary. The City purchased the entire triangular parcel from Ms. White on December 14, 2009 as two separate parcels: a 771 SF parcel (43B1) to be used as future Broadway Avenue ROW for $1,950 and the remainder 1,300 SF parcel (43B2)for$3,250. See the attached "B2 Quit Claim Deed, "B2" ROW Exhibit A, and Exhibit B. The City is also purchasing ROW and drainage easements from J. Brent McKinley the owner of the adjoining property at 16608 E. Broadway. The attached Summary Appraisal Report for the McKinley ROW parcel 43A, prepared by Appraisal Solutions Northwest appraised the McKinley parcel at $2.50/SF. The attached Real Property Appraisal Review for the McKinley property, conducted by Barrett Associates Real Estate concurred. Surplus Property Report Page 2 Public Works staff believes the triangular piece of old railroad ROW (parcel 43B2) has no value to the city as public ROW and since it has the same appraised square foot value, proposes to trade this piece to Mr. McKinley to help offset the cost of ROW being purchased from Mr. McKinley for the road project. The approximate cost breakdown for the McKinley purchase involving the trade is as follows. These numbers are approximate and may change slightly as negotiations are finalized. ROW-2,595 SF of RW Land @ $2.50/SF $6,488 Utility Easement—4,299.13 SF @ $1.25/SF $5,374 Swale Easement—6,975 SF @ $2.50/SF $17,438 Improvements-- Fence $2,300 Trade Parcel 43B2 - 1,300 SF of RW Land a$2.50/SF (Credit) <$3,250> Total estimated compensation $28,350 To complete this transaction in accordance with the city's Municipal Code, Council actions are required to surplus the triangular piece of property and approve trading it to Mr. McKinley. End.: Vicinity Map and the Exhibit, Surplus of Parcel 43B2. Quit Claim Deed 637152B. Shelly White Administrative Offer Summary. "B2"Quit Claim Deed, "B2" ROW Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Summary Appraisal Report for McKinley ROW parcel 43A, by Appraisal Solutions Northwest Real Property Appraisal Review of McKinley property 43A, by Barrett Associates Real Estate • i I , 7+ate I I ' / �/ / / _ j t In? r �®— �,�=rte"' .=,�.._ �.... ',� ,� l'',7-' �_VIM ter ' I f�_ C` � ��� S ` I ®j 10' R.O.W. TAKE, 2,595 S.F. 38.15 �*�� / PARCEL 4381, 771 S.F. Wv TO BE INCORPORATED INTO � ��C �� 77.73' BROADWAY R.O.W. PURCHASED FROM SHELLY WHITE \ DEC, 14, 2009 } PARCEL 4382, 1,300 S.F. TO BE SURPL USED PURCHASED FROM SHELLY WHITE DEC. 14, 2009 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT "A" A=4,299.13 SQ. FT. k ■ OWNER: J. BRENT MCKINLEY NJ \ 16608 BROADWAY AVE N 1 045134.0307) LEGEND Z 0 l isirazw rotemo j WHITE R.O.W. TAKE I l ,. WFI11E SURPLUS PROPERTY I N*r MCKINLEY R.O.W. TAKE _. L - -..,- -,/,,,,, MICKINLEY DRAINAGE EASEMENTS 1 -6 139.50' i s 1. I t. E °n SCITY®]bane 50 25 0 50 100 p r '�Talley® a s SCALE FEET RCA EXHIBIT a SURPLUS OF PARCEL 43B2 0. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 9, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion consideration — Comcast letter suspending Section 13.8 on PEG fee payment and reimbursement GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Ordinance 09-034 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of Comcast franchise December 1, 2009; discussion regarding PEG fees February 16, 2010. BACKGROUND: The Council adopted Ordinance 09-034, which approved the franchise between Spokane Valley and Comcast so that Comcast may place its cable facilities in the City's right-of-way so it can operate its business. One of the requirements of the franchise (a contract granted by ordinance) is for Comcast to advance the City $150,000 within 90 days of when the franchise is finalized. Comcast would then bill its Spokane Valley customers .25 cents per month until the advance was paid back (estimated around 18 months), along with an additional .10 per month for five years. These funds can only be used to pay for television- related capital needs for public, educational, and governmental (PEG) entities, and may not be used for television-related operational needs. Included with this RCA as Attachment 1 is a Memorandum dated February 9, 2010 from Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst for the City. This explains what PEG funds can legally used for. The City Council recently expressed concern that it has not determined how, or if, the City would spend the PEG funds. As such, Council requested additional time to make that determination. One option includes broadcast of Council meetings, and if so, whether that includes on television, on the internet, or both. The Council indicated a desire for additional time to make those determinations before the money is paid to the City and collected from the citizens. Staff seeks authorization to send Comcast a letter requesting that Section 13.8 of the franchise be held in abeyance until further notice from the City. This would have the effect of suspending the issuance of the PEG fee check of $150,000, and collection of .35 cents from each Spokane Valley customer each month. This would allow Council to have sufficient time to decide if it wants to utilize PEG capital funds, and if so, how they would be allocated, prior to the funds beginning to accumulate. The proposed letter is included as Attachment 2. OPTIONS: (1) pass motion authorizing staff to send letter to Comcast requesting suspension of Section 13.8 indefinitely until further notice; (2) do nothing, and the PEG funds are anticipated to arrive sometime in March. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: If the Council wants to suspend collection of PEG fees, an appropriate motion would look like the following: "I move that we authorize staff to send a letter substantially in the form as Attachment 1, requesting that the PEG fee payment and reimbursement by Comcast be suspended until further notice from the City." BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The potential loss of PEG capital fees in amounts set forth in Attachment 1, page 2 STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney; Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENTS: 1) Memorandum from Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst, dated February 9, 2010. 2) draft letter to Comcast requesting suspension of PEG capital payments and reimbursement. Sp"okane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager From: Morgan Koudelka Date: February 9, 2010 Re: Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) Funding The Spokane Valley City Council approved the cable franchise agreement with Comcast on December 1, 2009. As part of this agreement, Comcast agrees to provide funding for capital expenditures associated with public, educational , and governmental programming (PEG) programming provided to the citizens of Spokane Valley broadcast through the Comcast system. Amount The amount of funding will be the equivalent of$.35 per subscriber per month. There are approximately 22,000 Comcast subscribers in Spokane valley, resulting in a PEG contribution of $7,700 per month or $92,400 per year. Comcast has agreed to provide an up-front contribution of$150,000 (within 90 days of approval of the franchise agreement). This contribution will be paid back by means of Comcast withholding $.25 of the monthly $.35 contribution until the $150,000 is recouped. At the current subscriber number it would take 27 months for Comcast to recoup the upfront payment. In addition to the $150,000 payment, Comcast will remit the equivalent of$.10 per subscriber per month until the upfront payment is recouped. This scenario will repeat itself if the agreement is continued for the second five-year term. City of Spokane Valley PEG Funding February 9,2010 Page 2 of 5 The PEG contributions will be as follows. Year 1 - $150,000 + $20,000 (9 months @ $2,200) Year 2 - $26,000 (12 months @2,200) Year 3 - $13,000 (6 months @ $2,200) + $46,000 (6 months @ $7,700) Years 4 & 5 - $92,000 per year Total 5 year contribution - $440,000 -Rounded to the nearest thousand -Not adjusted for inflation or present value Qualifying Expenditures Capital items, such as equipment and construction costs that would be utilized to provide public access, educational, and governmental programming that is broadcast on Comcast channels are acceptable uses of the PEG funds. Operational costs such as staffing costs are unacceptable uses. Comcast has indicated that should the City contract for PEG services, the portion of the invoice that goes toward capital items would qualify an allowable expense as long it is clearly indicated on the invoices. Additional Revenue Comcast pays the City 5% of its gross revenues as a franchise fee in return for utilizing the public right-of-way. We have budget approximately $1 million dollars in the 2010 budget for franchise fee revenues. This is unrestricted general fund revenue. Comcast passes this fee along to its customers through a franchise fee line item charge. Comcast has also agreed to provide a $10,000 upfront payment to help the City defray costs for auditing Comcast should the City choose to do so. The funds, however, are unrestricted. If the agreement continues into the second five-year option, Comcast will provide another payment of $10,000 at the beginning of that term. Requests for PEG Funds The Cable Advisory Board for Learning and Education (CABLE) currently prepares and broadcasts educational programming on five cable channels. CABLE requested $63,000 in annual capital contributions from the City of Spokane Valley in 2006 in anticipation of a Comcast PEG contribution to the City. Community Minded Television (CMTV)is the operator for public access programming on one local access cable channel. In 2007 CMTV requested $74,000 in annual capital contributions from the City in anticipation of a Comcast PEG contribution to the City. City of Spokane Valley PEG Funding February 9,2010 Page 3 of 5 Comcast has indicated that it will pass on the PEG reimbursement to its subscribers in the form of a line item fee on the monthly invoice. Staff recommends the Council determine the governmental broadcasting needs associated with the PEG capital funds before considering any public and educational distributions. Community Interest in PEG The City conducted a community survey in 2009. The results below show that 21% attended a local public meeting while 40%watched a local public meeting on cable television. Both results are below the benchmark of like-sized cities that also had the survey performed. FICLRE 67:PARTIOPATICK IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES ,zrerded a nee:n, lo:o elecrec of* 21'rt occi ..lo . neer-g. '.':atoned a—ee: eC' C off C":]I {-•_. Ioca_ pu a l is M EE r:;c'cab a:e te•,it c• 0 � .'ol..ntee—d}ou-:me:csornegroup or activity it Spokane V IIe'y' 45% Participated in a dub or civic group r.Sp or:. - Valley Provided help Uoafriend o a' b{' 94^. 0`. 213-7. 40'IL 50`4 00`.4 100". Pei c--:of •e::D.cents who did each at least once in It 12 months How well utilized are the current City information outlets? The results below show that nearly a quarter of the respondents utilize the City's "Hot Topic" newsletter and/or the City's website. Both results are below the national benchmarks. FICLRE 71:USE OF INFE]Rw1ATIOV SOURCES Read Spo•:are',al ey"s 23% 'Hot Top C' 1e'r.s,etGe Visited the City of Spokane Valley Web site U'rF 2074 413'%. 60% •0°. 100% Percent of respondents who did each at least once in It 12 months City of Spokane Valley PEG Funding February 9,2010 Page 4 of 5 The majority of respondents rated local government's information disseminated through cable television and through public information services good or excellent. The cable TV result surpassed the national benchmark while the public information result was below the national benchmark. FIGLRE 73:RATINGS OF LOCAzGOVERVMEVT MEDIA.SERVICES AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION I Excellent Good Cab e e eci5ior. 20% 58% Pub r'nforrn etion se-,ices 141. 53% 07. 25% 30% 73' '104% 3e-ce°-o respondents. As part of the cable franchise renewal process, the City conducted a survey of Spokane Valley citizens to assess the performance of the current cable operator and to determine the future cable- related needs of the community. The following information comes from that survey. 32% of respondents felt that PEG is important or very important, 33%felt PEG is somewhat important while 34%felt it is not at all important. Importance of PEG Very Important 23% Important 9° Somewhat Important 334 Not At All Important 34% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% %Importance City of Spokane Valley PEG Funding February 9,2010 Page 5 of 5 When respondents were asked what type of programs they would like to see broadcast on local PEG channels, most did not know, but those that did preferred to see programs about Spokane Valley and City government meetings. Programs Respondents Would Like to See on Local Access Channels Don't Know 153% Programs About SPV I 10% Arts/Hist./Culture City Gov't Meetings I 8% K-12 Activities/Instructional 1. 1 8% Public Safety&Emergency 7% Info _ / 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % Responses Only 2% of respondents indicated they had used the public access channel studio and equipment. Local Public Access Studio Usage Yes 2% s No 98% Silkane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org March 9, 2010 Ken Watts, General Manager Comcast of Pennsylvania/Washington/West Virginia LP 1717 East Buckeye Avenue Spokane, Washington 99207 Terry Davis Comcast of Washington IV, Inc. P.O. Box 3042 Bothell, WA 98041-3042 Attention: Franchising Department Re: Request to suspend implementation of Spokane Valley/Comcast franchise Section 13.8 Dear Mr. Watts and Mr. Davis: This letter is intended to memorialize a telephonic discussion regarding a requested suspension of Section 13.8 of the franchise between the City of Spokane Valley and Comcast. Our City Council has expressed interest in deciding whether the PEG funds should be collected and spent, and if so, how they would be spent. As such, our City Council has requested that the PEG funds and subsequent reimbursement plan be put on hold until they have had sufficient time to consider those issues and take formal Council action. Given this, the City of Spokane Valley requests that Section 13.8 of the franchise recently executed by the parties be suspended until such time as the City notifies Comcast that it wants Section 13.8 implemented. Comcast has advised the City that it needs up to 90 days from the date of notice of reimplementation of Section 13.8 to issue the advance and implement the reimbursement. The City accepts this timeframe. The specific provisions of Section 13.8 are as follows: 8. Within ninety (90) days of Grantee's acceptance of the Franchise, Grantee will remit to the City as a capital contribution in support of PEG capital requirements: (1) one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) and (2) an amount equal to thirty five cents ($0.35) per Subscriber per month to be paid to the City on a quarterly basis for the life of the Franchise. Grantee will recoup the initial one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) in an amount equal to twenty five cents ($0.25) per Subscriber per month until the amount is recovered in full. To be clear, during the recovery period, the Grantee will remit to the City an amount equal to ten cents ($0.10)per Subscriber per month until the recovery of the initial PEG capital contribution is completed. After completion of the initial PEG capital contribution recovery, the Grantee will remit the entire thirty five cents ($0.35) per Subscriber per month to the City until the fifth year of the Franchise. Upon the fifth year anniversary date of the Franchise term, if the Grantee accepts the full continuation of the ten (10) year term, the Grantee will remit to the City, within ninety (90) days of the anniversary date, another upfront PEG capital contribution payment of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), which will be recovered, recouped, and remitted to the City in the same manner as the initial PEG capital contribution payment. The City shall allocate all amounts under this subsection to PEG capital uses exclusively. Grantee shall not be responsible for paying the PEG capital contribution with respect to gratis or bad debt accounts. Consistent with 47 C.F.R. § 76.922, Grantee may, in its sole discretion, add the cost of the PEG capital contribution to the price of Cable Services and to collect the PEG capital contribution from Subscribers. In addition, consistent with 47 C.F.R. § 76.985, all amounts paid as the PEG capital contribution may be separately stated on Subscribers' bills as a City of Spokane Valley PEG capital contribution. Upon Grantee's written request and due as agreed upon by both parties, the City shall provide the Grantee with documentation showing expenditures for PEG capital use of the previous fiscal years' PEG capital contribution and showing the budgeted use of the current year's PEG funding. In the event the City cannot demonstrate that PEG capital funding was used or budgeted for PEG capital needs, Grantee's PEG funding obligations going forward shall be reduced by an equivalent amount. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please sign three copies of this letter agreement to signify your approval. It will become effective on the date the last signature is attached. Please send back one copy for the City's records. Dated this day of , 2010 Dated this day of , 2010 Mike Jackson, City Manager , Comcast CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 03-09-10 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: District Court BACKGROUND: This is an oppor tunity f or Ju dge V ance P eterson and D istrict Court Administrator Virginia R ockwood to i ntroduce themselves to C ouncil a nd br iefly di scuss the District Court. Mission Statement: The mission o f S pokane County D istrict Court i s to se rve our ci tizens through the prompt, courteous, and fair dispensation of justice by adjudicating cases in a timely manner usi ng e ffective, e fficient ca se management t echniques, adh ering t o the hi ghest standards, monitoring enforcement of judgments and being responsible stewards of public funds. The Spokane County District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Between 80 to 90,000 cases are filed annually with Spokane County District Court. Spokane County District Court processes the following case types: Traffic and Non-Traffic Infractions: A v iolation of I aw n of puni shable by imprisonment. Speeding, fail to yield, no insurance, expired vehicle license, defective equipment, and parking in a disabled parking zone are examples of infractions. Criminal and Criminal-Traffic Misdemeanors and Gross Misdemeanors: Criminal misdemeanor ca ses carry a m aximum penal ty o f up t o 90 day s in j ail and a $1, 000 fine. Criminal gross misdemeanor cases carry a maximum penalty of up to 1 year in jail and a $5,000 fine. Some examples of criminal cases heard by the court are: • Driving under the Influence (DUI). • Domestic Violence Assault. • Driving While License Suspended • Civil Cases • General civil actions with damage claims in the maximum amount of $75,000. The court does not hear cases involving title to or possession of real property • Small claims actions with monetary claims in the maximum amount of $5,000. The small claims court may ONLY grant judgment for monetary damages. The court may not order the other party to return property or perform any action other than the payment of money. • Mental Health Therapeutic Court Proceedings The M ental H ealth T herapeutic Court ( MHTC) r epresents an e ffort to i ncrease e ffective cooperation be tween t wo sy stems t hat have t raditionally not w orked c losely t ogether - the mental health treatment system and the criminal justice system. Miscellaneous Proceedings • Anti-Harassment Petitions • Domestic Violence Petitions • Name Change Petitions • Vehicle Impound Hearings for vehicles impounded within the County of Spokane OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: Spokane County District Court 2009 Filings by Case Type Case Type DC Total Valley % Valley Infractions, Traffic 56,042 10,743 19% hnfractions, Non-Traffic 1,246 285 23% Parking 5,048 939 19% DUI/Physical Control 1,775 181 10% Misdemeanor, Traffic 5,509 1,300 23.5% Misdemeanor, Non-Traffic 3,504 1,076 31% TOTAL: 73,754 14,524 20% CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 9, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Detention Services Project GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Lt. Mike Sparber, Project Manager for the Jail Project, will give a presentation Regarding the detention services project. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Spokane County Sheriff's Office Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich Detention Services Project Agenda • Redefining the system — Bricks — Non — Bricks • Present status The numbers and why The plan with the assessment tool — what that means for all of us • Regionalization Redefining the System Horizontal Vs. Vertical Vertical Costs Phase 1 - Year 2014 $265 Million Phase 2 — beyond 2035 $146 Million Total Project Cost $411 Million Horizontal Costs Phase 1 - Year 2014 $229 Million Phase 2 — beyond 2035 $106 Million Total Project Cost $335 Million Flexibility in Expansion Vertical Tower Horizontal • Cost to build additional tower $ 146 Million • Requires a bond to construct Phase 2 • Build pod at a time at $21 Million • Build revenue base to support future expansions • Potentially no more bonds — can take us out 20 or more years to 2072 Vertical Tower 12 hour shift = Decrease $300,000 8 hour = Increase of $2.0 Million Delta 12 vs. 8 = $ 2,300,000 Staffing Horizontal 12 hour shift = Increase of $1 ,200,000 8 hour shift = Increase of $3.2 Million Delta 12 vs. 8 = $2 Million Vertical vs. Horizontal DELTA is an average of $1 .3 million difference in staffing and M&O Comparative Bonding Scenarios • Phase 1 Difference = $54, 304, 851 • Phase 2 Difference = $59,242 , 110 Total : $ 113, 546, 961 Essential Public Facility • The large difference in construction costs of a vertical structure verses a horizontal structure necessitated a new Essential Public Facility Siting Process (EPF) in 2009 • The top three sites, will be presented to the BoCC in the end of March and top site selected in the beginning of April Essential Public Facility Siting Process Presently: • Published Qualitative Report 12/30/10 • Conducted a Public Workshop 1/28/10 • Weighted Analysis available after meeting with BoCC over top six sites • Top three Sites presented to BoCC last week of March • Final site selected first week of April Spokane County Regional Siting Process for SOSEntitla yJu/blic�i�cilities r 10 Sites Being Evaluated 3 i 10 Sites Being Evaluated • McFarland Road — west of Hayford Road \ Airway Heights \ Spokane International Airport • McFarlane Road — at Larsen Road \ Private • Geiger Blvd. — Thomas Mallen Road \ Private • Flint and HWY 2 — on Campus Drive \ Private • Medical Lake Road — west of 190 at Medical Lake Exit \ Private • Gravel Pit — at Sprague and Russel \ Central Pre-Mix • Spokane County Campus \ Spokane County • Tschirley Road — Spokane Valley \ Spokane County • Flora Road — WSDOT near Scraps \ WSDOT • Appleway — at Liberty Lake \ Private EPF Sites Combined Scores Site F Q Comb Rank Cost 183 76 259 1 163 91 254 2 157 88 245 3 161 72 233 4 155 72 227 5 166 60 226 6 core of top ten is Simpson & Appleway A 212 Federal Community Programs • Project Safe Neighborhoods — Program geared to keep firearms out of the hands of felons and other prohibited persons — Aggressive Prosecution & the firearm crime enforcement (FACE) coalition made up of city, county, state, and doc agencies — combat gun crime • Project safe childhood — Designed to prosecute those who target our children on the internet or otherwise — Produce, transmit, or possess child pornography as well as the arrest of interstate or overseas — Partnered with Education Service District 101 to produce training videos for educators, parents, school administrators Federal Community Programs-Cont • Sobriety Treatment and Education Program (STEP ) Federal Supervised Released Inmates — Program focused on Drug and Alcohol free participation, healthy living arrangements, and steady employment — Successful participation can earn the offender a one year reduction in their sentence. • The Badge — Partnered with KXLY to air scams or brands of crime to the citizens of Spokane — Focused on identity theft, credit card theft, counterfeiting, on-line advance fees, and lottery scams — Also entire show dedicated to internet child luring Non Bricks Early Case Resolution — Expediting cases — Reducing transports to court — dropping the length of stay in jail Pre-trial — Designing Risk assessment tool Reentry Programs — Pilot project — Sheriffs Work Program Mental Health — Only Jail in Washington with certified treatment programs — Mental health committee involving LIE, Courts, Community Services, and BoCC Non-Bricks Impact on the Bricks • Reviewing the project numbers — Bookings down 1 % • 23, 104 in 2008 to 22,828 in 2009 — (Law changes) — Average Length of stay down 8% • 17.8 days in 2008 to 15.5 days 2009 — (ECR) — Average Daily Population down • 1126 in 2008 to 970 in 2009 (ECR — Pilot — Sheriff work program) Non-Bricks Impact on the Bricks • Possible reduction in the project costs — Construction — less chance of overbuilding — Operational Costs (working backward from projected 8 million toward a reduced scaled project) Decreased Population Allows Flexibility • Reevaluate staff to inmate ratios vs. actual space capacity and best practices • Implement State of Washington Static Risk Instrument or the Washington State Offenders Accountability Act Risk Tool • Shift the paradigm from determining offender program eligibility from Objective Jail Classification System (designed to select housing assignments within the jail) to the risk assessment tool which determines risk and propensity to reoffend • At the completion shift the workforce to meet the appropriate shift in the offender management What Does This Mean To You ? • Shifting the offender population into three categories — Very High Risk — Those that need to be housed in jail — (Includes the Violent Offender non DV) — High to Moderate Risk — Those that are appropriate in custody programs - Tool helps us target the right kind of programs — Low Risk — Those appropriate for out of custody programming THIS MEANS A SAVINGS TO ALL OF US IN HOUSING AND OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BY MATCHING THE OFFENDER TO PROPER SUPERVISION LEVEL Regionalization Develop an offender supervision continuum based on risk for the Community • Closed custody jail • In-custody program with step down component and reentry focus with appropriate continuum • Out of custody day-reporting center and work crew programs 3/4/2010 Bond Question • General Obligation Bond — April 2011 • Commitment — Spokane County wide support from Government Agencies With respect to local elected officials and their citizens and voters, we are asking that you support us by allowing us a non competing bond measure for April 2011 Why change the bond date ! • Tough choice to postpone to April but here are the reasons: — With respect to other entities with very important levies and bond — we will extend the opportunity to educate the public — The cost and scope of the project is dropping, we are waiting for the dust to settle — We want to hire the public information consultant to craft the message — The project is a community project and should not become entangled in the November elections Conclusion Questions ? WWW.Spokanesheriff.orq CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 9, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information EJ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Review of Land Use regulations GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.020, RCW 36.70A.390, Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and SVMC 17.80.140 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: See attached memorandum BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum OPTIONS: Council direction RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council discretion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Mike Connelly, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum with Exhibits OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MICHAEL F. CONNELLY-CITY ATTORNEY p CrrY S o' ane CARY P.DRISKELL-DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ValleY® 11707 East Sprague Avenue Suite 103 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.688.0235 ♦ Fax: 509.688.0299 ♦ cityattorney®spokanevafey.org Memorandum To: Tom Towey, Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Mike Connelly, City Attorney CC: Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager Date: 3-3-10 Re: Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Background The Spokane Valley Sprague and Appleway Subarea Plan (SARI') was adopted by the City Council pursuant to two separate actions. The first, Ordinance 09-022, effective October 15, 2009, amended the Comprehensive Plan Map and added Book One of Subarea Plan to the Comprehensive Plan. The second, Ordinance 09-021, effective October 15, 2009, amended the Uniform Development Code by adopting Book Two and Book Three of the Subarea Plan, amended the official zoning map and changed both zone classifications and conditions of development within the defined subarea. The City Council has requested that our office explore the alternatives available to rescind part or all of that Plan. These alternatives are discussed below. 1. Traditional Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are governed by RCW 36.70A.130 which states in pertinent part as follows: (1) (d) Any amendment of or revision to a comprehensive land use plan shall conform to this chapter. Any amendment of or revision to development regulations shall be considered with and implement the comprehensive plan. (2) (a) Each county and city shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program consistent with RCW 36.70A.035 and 36.70A.140 that identifies' procedures and schedules whereby updates, proposed amendments, or revisions of the comprehensive plan are considered 1 by the governing body of the county or city no more frequently than once each year. The City of Spokane Valley has adopted a public participation program which is attached as Exhibit A, and has further established an annual review process, which is attached as Exhibit B. The annual review process requires that the topic be placed on a docket prior to November 1 of each year to be considered in the following calendar year. This process is completed relatively quickly. For example, the amendments identified prior to November 1, 2009, are currently being presented to the Planning Commission and will come before the Council for their consideration within the next 4-6 weeks. If the Council chooses to follow this procedure they can immediately entertain a motion to place the revision and/or repeal of the SARP on the Comprehensive Plan annual docket for 2011. The Council may also begin consideration of a number of aspects of the Subarea Plan to ensure a complete and timely review. These could include a review of the economic data previously compiled and any additional economic data acquired; a detailed review of each segment of the plan to identify if any immediate changes should be made that are not inconsistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan; (see below for an explanation of this process) and a review of all transportation documentation compiled to date and discussion of recommended charges to transportation systems within the SARP. 2. Amendments to the Development Code Not Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan There are no timing restrictions on amendments to the Uniform Development Code. Such amendments however, do have to be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. (See RCW 36.70A.130 (d)) A number of specific development conditions and/or provisions of the SARP could be modified that may not be considered inconsistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan. The existing Comprehensive Plan (Book One) contains general language that discusses the purpose of the Subarea Plan, the specific plan area, the specific intention of the community, i.e. transform the visual character of Sprague Avenue, increase vehicular capacity, instigate the construction of City Center, and enhance property values, to name a few examples. The Comprehensive Plan also contains the specific development districts more specifically discussed in Book Two, along with general descriptions of use and design standards that are contemplated. While no specific time deadlines are discussed the Plan does recognize that development of a viable City Center should "move as swiftly as possible." A copy of Book One is attached as Exhibit C. A detailed review of each section of the SARP by the Council would identify those specific changes the Council wishes to immediately implement, and, if they are consistent with Book One, and after Planning Commission review, could be placed before Council for its consideration without being tied to the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process discussed above. 2 3. Exceptions to the Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendment Requirement RCW 36.70A.130 allows certain specific changes to the Comprehensive Plan to occur outside of the annual amendment process, they include: 1. The initial adoption of a Subarea Plan that does not modify the Comprehensive Plan policies and designations applicable to the subarea. 2. The adoption of a Shoreline Master Program; 3. The amendment of a capital facility element of the Comprehensive Plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a city budget; 4. Until June 30, 2006, the designation of recreational land under RCW 36.70A.1701; 5. The adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments necessary to enact a planned action under RCW 43.21C.031 (2). The statue further indicates that all proposals shall be considered concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained and concludes with a final caveat: However, after appropriate public participation a county or city may adopt amendments or revisions to its comprehensive plan that conform with this chapter whenever an emergency exists or to resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court. It does not appear that any of the above alternatives are applicable to the instant circumstance. In determining whether or not an emergency declaration was valid the court in Matson v. Clark County Board of Commissioners, 79 Wash. App. 641, 649 (1995), stated: A legislative declaration `is conclusive and must be given effect unless it is on its face `obviously false and a palpable attempt at dissimulation." (Citations omitted) To determine the truth or falsity of the declaration of an emergency, the court will not inquire into the facts, but rather must consider only what appears upon the face of the act and its judicial knowledge. The fact that a sitting council does not agree with a prior legislative enactment may not constitute an emergency. Even if a legitimate emergency was established, it would be difficult to establish that appropriate public participation had occurred. 4. Moratoria and Interim Zoning The process to enact either a moratorium or interim zoning ordinance is set forth in RCW 36.70A.390 (this is a companion statute to RCW 35A.63.220 and 35.63.220.) This Statute is attached as Exhibit D. Prior to the application of this provision, to repeal or delay the implementation of the SARP, we must first examine if, in fact, the action contemplated can legitimately be considered either a moratorium or interim zoning regulation. Generally, a moratorium is an emergency measure adopted without notice to the public or public hearings designed to preserve the status quo. (See above discussion of the validity of emergency declarations.) It suspends the rights of property owners to submit development applications or 3 obtain development approvals while a legislative body considers and adopts comprehensive plans and/or development regulations or amendments to the same. It also can be a public facility moratorium when utility service such as sewer and water, is unavailable. See Matson v. Clark County Board of Commissioners, 79 Wn. App. 641, 644 (1995) wherein the court defined moratoriums and interim zoning regulations as follows: Moratoriums and interim zoning are generally recognized techniques designed to preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development. Richard 1. Settle, Washington land Use and environmental Law and Practice Section 2.13, at 72 (ed. 1983). In my review of applicable case law and discussion with both MRSC and land use attorneys in Washington, I have found no examples of a municipality using a moratorium to suspend the application of a specific zoning regulation. Simply calling such an action a moratorium does not change the actual impact of the action, i.e. amending existing development regulations and allowing different uses with different development standards for a defined area. Interim zoning is an ordinance that may be adopted on an emergency basis without notice to the public or public hearings to change the land use designation or zoning classification of property limiting the property to uses that will be compatible with a zoning proposal under consideration by a municipality. In Smith v. Skagit County, 75 Wn. 2d 715 (1969), the court defined interim zoning (prior to the adoption of the Growth Management Act) as follows: Interim zoning describes a process whereby a governmental body in response to an emergency situation temporarily establishes an ordinance to classy or regulate uses of land pending either revision of the existing zoning code or adoption of a final, comprehensive zoning plan. While an ordinance suspending the application of SARP, or repealing the same, could fall within the above definitions it still must be compliant with the other provisions of RCW 36.70A. Specifically it must comply with RCW 36.70A.130 (d) which in part states: Any amendment of or revision to development regulations shall be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. An ordinance repealing or suspending the SARP would likely be found to be inconsistent with that portion of the Comprehensive Plan which generally describes the SARP. (See Exhibit C.) Either action, establishing a moratorium or adopting an interim ordinance, could be subject to challenge as a "development regulation" that was adopted without adherence to the requirements of the state law, including the goals and mandates of RCW 36.70A. (See RCW 36.70A.020, GMA planning goals attached as Exhibit E.) 4 Further, the factual basis for the underlying emergency must be well founded. See Biggers v,. Bainbridge Island, 169 P.3d 14 (2007) where a moratorium stated that it was necessary to allow the City adequate time to update its Shoreline Master Program although there was no statutory requirement for an update for several years. The Court found that the moratorium was founded upon a perception of potential harm, rather than actual demonstrated harm and reversed it. See also Byers v. Board of Clallam County Commissioners, 84 Wn. 2d 796 (1974), where in a case that predates the Growth Management Act, the validity of an interim ordinance is discussed. As in Smith, the term `interim' is somewhat a misnomer when applied to the Clallam County resolution. The ordinance here involved is actually a detailed zoning code which, according to its title, establishes `the boundaries of areas to be known as zones to which the use classifications are applied, and within which zones the heights of buildings, areas of lots, building sites and yard spaces are regulated. . . ' It includes 30 pages of detailed zoning regulations. Any so-called `interim zoning' ordinance of such detail, scheduled to be effective for 4 years, must be adopted pursuant to procedural requirements of the Planning Enabling Act, RCW 36.70. This is particularly true where, as here, there has been no determination that an `emergency' exists which requires `interim zoning. ' `Interim zoning, ' under RCW 36.70.790, is meant to be only a temporary protective measure. It is not intended to be used as a means of adopting a virtually complete zoning ordinance for a relatively extended period of time. Conclusion The alternative set forth in option 1 above is consistent with existing state law. The process could begin immediately by a Council action requesting that the review and/or repeal of the SARP be placed on the agenda for Comprehensive Plan amendments to be considered in 2011. The other steps outlined above could also commence immediately. The option set forth in option 2 above is also consistent with existing state law and again could commence immediately with review of each section of the SARP identifying what changes the Council wishes to send to the Planning Commission for consideration. If the changes are not inconsistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan they could be enacted, by Council, after the Planning Commission process is complete. The option of declaring an emergency as a basis for amending the Comprehensive Plan, initiating a moratorium or adopting an interim ordinance, are in my opinion, subject to challenge for the reasons set forth above. This could result in a scenario wherein the Council repeals the SARP, the Courts or Hearings Board reinstates it and the Council, once the Comprehensive Plan process is complete, repeals it again changing the zoning for the property in question two or three times over the next year. 5 Serf I'OP Spokane .0.010Valley COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Public Participation Program RCW 36.70A.140 of the Washington Growth Management Act requires that each city "establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program ... for early and continuous public participation in the development" of the city's Comprehensive Plan. Consistent with the recommendations of the GMA which emphasize the involvement of the broadest cross-section of the community, including the involvement of groups not previously involved, the City of Spokane Valley adopts the following program for citizen participation in the planning process: 1. Visioning Process --This process provides Spokane Valley citizens an opportunity to establish a framework and context upon which the comprehensive plan will be based. Planning Commission meetings will provide the forum for the initial community visioning process. A draft "Vision" will be tested for consistency during the development of the Plan as the community identifies priorities and implementation strategies and updated accordingly. The ultimate "Vision" will be established at the conclusion of the planning process as a result of community participation. 2. Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will play a key role in establishing the City's dialogue with community members, hosting a series of meetings and workshops during the development of the Plan. The Planning Commission will evaluate information provided by the community and develop recommendations for submission to the City Council. 3, Citizen Survey—The City will conduct a statistically valid survey of the citizens of Spokane Valley. Survey questions will address specific issues of the comprehensive plan that will provide city staff, planning commission and city council with meaningful input for development of the comprehensive plan. 4. Public Meetings. Conduct a series of public meetings hosted by the Planning Commission on the preliminary draft comprehensive plan. This ensures that the City will meet the requirement for "early and continuous" public participation in the comprehensive planning process. 5. Public hearings. A series of Public Hearings (not less than three) will be held before the Planning Commission to discuss the draft Plan. It is anticipated that at least two public hearings will be held by the governing body prior to adoption of the Plan. An additional public hearing will be held if substantive changes are made to the Plan document. 6. Public notice. The City will provide notice of all meetings and hearings pursuant to the requirements of ROW 36.70A.020, .035, and .140. Exhibit A 7. Written Comment. The public will be invited to submit written comments as each element of the Plan is developed, as part of any workshops or community meetings. Comments will be specifically solicited from residents, special interest organizations and business interests. Comments may be in the form of letters and other correspondence to the city regarding the plan or comments received electronically on the city's website. Log in all written comments received according to specific area of comprehensive plan. 8. Communications Programs & Informational Services —As staff and budgetary resources allow, the activities will be undertaken to ensure broad-based citizen participation: a. Comprehensive Plan newsletter— updating the community on planned meetings, workshops or other significant comprehensive plan events. Articles on topics related to the plan and a request for feedback from the community on topics related to the plan. The newsletter will be disseminated via the city's website, emailed to a mailing list and/or provided in paper copy as appropriate. b. Interest Groups— Contact local interest groups (i.e. Chamber of Commerce, home builders, environmental, neighborhoods, etc.) and arrange to meet and discuss relevant comprehensive plan issues. c. Community Workshops — Conduct community workshops hosted by the Planning Commission in different parts of the city to encourage neighborhood participation in the development of the comprehensive plan. These meetings will be held at neighborhood schools, churches or other community facilities. d. Press Releases & Public Service Announcements —Work with the local newspapers, radio stations and televisions stations to advertise and promote significant events related to the comprehensive plan. e. Provide written articles to local media for publication. f. Establish a Speaker's Bureau through the Planning Commission which will be available to address service clubs and interested citizen groups. g. Develop a database of interested citizens and provide regular correspondence concerning the status of Plan development. h. Identify key resource personnel representing agencies and groups whose plans will be integrated into the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to fire districts, utilities, libraries and school districts. i. Maintain a log of all public participation meetings, events and actions that the city engages in to provide documentation on the city's effort to meet the requirements of the GMA. Exhibit A 17.80.140 Type IV applications -- Comprehensive Plan amendments and area- wide rezones. A. Initiation. Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide rezones may be initiated by any of the following: 1. Property owner(s) or their representatives; 2. Any citizen, agency, neighborhood association, or other party; or 3. The department, planning commission, or city council. B. Applications. Applications shall be made on forms provided by the City. C. Application Submittal. 1. Applicant Initiated. Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide rezones shall be subject to a pre-application conference, counter-complete, and fully complete determinations pursuant to SVMC 17 S ).118{l, 17,S .090, and 1 7.80.I O. The date upon fully complete determination shall be the date of registration with the department. 2. Non-Applicant Initiated. After submittal of a non-applicant-initiated application, the application shall be placed on the register. D. Register of Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Area-Wide Rezones. The department shall establish and maintain a register of all applications. E. Concurrent and Annual Review of Register. 1. Sixty days prior to November 1st in each calendar year, the City shall notify the public that the amendment process has begun. Notice shall be distributed as follows: a. Notice published in an appropriate regional or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal; b. Notice posted on all of the City's official public notice boards; and c. Copy of the notice sent to all agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions with an interest. 2. All registered applications shall be reviewed concurrently, on an annual basis and in a manner consistent with RCW 36,70A.130(2). Applications registered after November 1st of the previous calendar year and before November 1st of the current calendar year shall be included in the annual review. Those registered after November 1st of the calendar year shall be placed on the register for review at the following annual review. Exhibit B 3. Emergency Amendments. The City may review and amend the Comprehensive Plan when the city council determines that an emergency exists or in other circumstances as provided for by RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a). F. Notice of Public Hearing. Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide rezones require a public hearing before the planning commission. 1. Contents of Notice. A notice of public hearing shall include the following: a. The citation, if any, of the provision that would be changed by the proposal along with a brief description of that provision; b. A statement of how the proposal would change the affected provision; c. A statement of what areas, Comprehensive Plan designations, zones, or locations will be directly affected or changed by the proposal; d. The date, time, and place of the public hearing; e. A statement of the availability of the official file; and f. A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the planning commission and to appear at the public hearing of the planning commission to give oral comments on the proposal. 2. Distribution of Noticc. The department shall distribute the notice pursuant to SVMC 17.80.120(B). G. Planning Commission Recommendation—Procedure. Following the public hearing, the planning commission shall consider the applications concurrently, and shall prepare and forward a recommendation of proposed action for all applications to the city council. The planning commission shall take one of the following actions: 1. If the planning commission determines that the proposal should be adopted, it may, by a majority vote, recommend that the city council adopt the proposal. The planning commission may make modifications to any proposal prior to recommending the proposal to city council for adoption. If the modification is substantial, the planning commission must conduct a public hearing on the modified proposal; 2. If the planning commission determines that the proposal should not be adopted, it may, by a majority vote, recommend that the city council not adopt the proposal; or 3. If the planning commission is unable to take either of the actions specified in subsections (G)(1) or (2) of this section,the proposal will be sent to city council with the notation that the planning commission makes no recommendation. Exhibit B H. Approval Criteria. 1. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide zone map amendments if it fmds that: a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: a. The effect upon the physical environment; b. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; e. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; g. The current and projected population density in the area; and h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. I. City Council Action. Within 60 days of receipt of the planning commission's findings and recommendations, the city council shall consider the findings and recommendations of the commission concerning the application and may hold a public hearing pursuant to council rules. The department shall distribute notice of the council's public hearing pursuant to SVMC 17. 0,120(B). All annual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall be considered concurrently. By a majority vote of its membership, the city council shall: Exhibit B 1. Approve the application; 2. Disapprove the application; 3. Modify the application. If the modification is substantial, the council must either conduct a public hearing on the modified proposal; or 4. Refer the proposal back to the planning commission for further consideration. J. Transmittal to the State of Washington. At least 60 days prior to final action being taken by the city council, the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development(LIED) shall be provided with a copy of the amendments in order to initiate the 60-day comment period. No later than 10 days after adoption of the proposal, a copy of the final decision shall be forwarded to C FED. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). Exhibit B r ,r r ,,,r 1.1 PURPOSE This Subarea Plan is established in response to the community's desire to reverse the visual and economic decline of the Sprague and Appleway corridors, restore the beauty and vitality of these corridors, and instigate _ the creation of the City of Spokane Valley's first City Center. It presents the community's vision for the future of these corridors. It establishes the primary means of regulating land use and development within the Plan Area (see Fig,i.1. Plan Area). Finally, it describes the City actions and public investments that will support the corridors' revitalization and creation of the City Center. The Subarea Plan is intended to implement the broad policies established in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan for a new City Center and the development/redevelopment of Sprague Avenue/Appleway Boulevard corridor into an area of quality commercial and mixed-use development. The regulations contained within the Subarea Plan replace land use and development regulations previously contained within the City Zoning Ordinance for this portion of the City. In the instance of conflicting regulations with other municipal planning documents containing policies for land use and development within the Plan Area, the Subarea Plan shall prevail. The Subarea Plan document does not replace or augment regulations pertaining to issues of building safety codes or other non-planning related codes. All applications for new construction, substantial modifications to existing buildings, and.for changes in land use, shall be reviewed for conformance with the policies contained in the Subarea Plan. L2 AUTHORITY This Subarea Plan is adopted under the authority of RCW Section 36.70A.080 of the Washington State Growth Management Act, which establishes Subarea Plans that are consistent with Comprehensive Plans as an authorized mechanism for regulating land use and development in the City. 1.3 PLAN AREA The Plan Area refers to all private and public properties that come under the purview of the Subarea Plan as indicated in the Subarea Plan Area Map (see Fig.i.1), and consists of approximately 1000 acres of properties lining along and located in between the Sprague Avenue and the Appleway Boulevard rights-of-way, extending west from Interstate 90 to Conklin Road. The Plan Area generally lies between E. Main Ave./E. Riverside Ave. to the north and E. Ave. to the south. In some locations,the Plan Area extends as far north as E. Valleyway Ave. West of N. Argonne and Mullan Rds., the Plan Area is geographically bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way to the north and Dishmnan Hills to the south. The entire Subarea Plan Area falls within the [Sprague & Appleway Subarea] of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. For a more precise record of the exact location of the Plan Area,refer to the Fig.i.l Subarea Plan Area map. 1.4 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION The Subarea Plan is organized into three sections, or"books,"as follows: Book!.• Community Intent describes the envisioned physical outcomes that the Subarea Plan is intended to instigate and the primary means by which the community intends to make those outcomes happen. It describes the primary goals, the envisioned form that the future district will take,and the strategy to achieve those intended results. Book ll Development Regulations describes the primary means of directing land use and development on privately owned properties located within the Plan Area. Book!!!: City Actions describes the investments and City resources that the community intends to utilize in order to complement private investments and to achieve the objectives of the Subarea Plan, Exhibit C Introduction Page 6 of 201 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 , f 1 This Subarea Plan establishes a planning and design framework to restore the vitality, functionality, and beauty of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors in accordance with the forces of the free market and the community's vision for its central spine. This first Book of the Subarea Plan sets forth what the community aspires to achieve and describes the physical outcomes that the Plan is intended to orchestrate as new investment creates change. This section also outlines the means by which the community intends to support and promote the realization of the vision of the future Sprague-Appleway Corridor. Finally, Book I is intended to provide guidance for actions not specifically covered by the development regulations or City actions in the subsequent sections of this Subarea Plan. 1.1. THE EVOLUTION OF THE SPRAGUE AVENUE CORRIDOR Sprague Avenue has been the region's prhnaiy east-west transportation and commercial corridor for over a century. By 1908 there was already a rail line along the roadway connecting Downtown Spokane with Liberty Lake and Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. The right-of-way was a segment of US Route 10, initially an unpaved pathway that may have extended from Seattle to Minneapolis by the end of the 1920s. At least one very large celebration was held locally in honor of its paving in the 1930s. During World War II Sprague Avenue (then called Appleway)was a segment of the sole connecting corridor between the Spokane region and the Pacific Northwest. When the explosion of post-war suburban development began all over the nation in the 1950's, Sprague Avenue became the central transportation and commercial arterial connecting the region's growing suburban communities with the City of Spokane. It was lined with shops, restaurants and tourist motels. At the center of what is now Spokane Valley,the first mall was constructed at University Village, anchoring what was then the central commercial spine serving the growing suburban communities of metropolitan Spokane, The shift of some commuter traffic away from Sprague Avenue began with the construction of Interstate 90 in the early 1960s. But the corridor remained the primary suburban commercial destination, as evidenced by the easy absorption of the land freed up along the northern frontage when the railroad right-of-way was relinquished in the mid-1970s. As part of that controversial relhiquishment process, Sprague Avenue was widened from four to seven lanes, which resulted in faster automobile traffic and reduced pedestrian comfort. But commercial strip development patterns were dominant nationwide, and property values were probably at their most stable for commercial development along the corridor up through the 1970s. (This development pattern was severely exacerbated by accelerated depreciation income tax which created a tremendous indirect government subsidy for low cost construction along suburban commercial arterials resulting in the overbuilding of low value commercial structures all out of proportion with real market demand—a primary cause of the severity of today's disinvestment.) The disinvestment along segments of Sprague Avenue that is currently so visible has its earliest roots in the nationwide trend of the shopping industry away from pure "strip' or"ribbon"development in favor of increasingly large anchored shopping centers located at major crossroads. In the 1980s and 90s, newer shopping centers anchored by increasingly large supermarkets and general merchandisers were opened primarily on or near strategic corner locations, draining investment away from the smaller properties in between. But by far the greatest shock to the business community along Sprague Avenue was the construction of the Spokane Valley Mall at the 1-90 interchange in 1997, and the ongoing gravitation of new and larger retail anchors and shops of all kinds to that new regional shopping destination. So the double-punch of the shift of traffic to grade-separated interstates and the corresponding development of the freeway interchanges corresponds with the accelerating concentration of retail investment in larger agglomerations at major crossroads of freeways and primary arterial intersections. This tectonic shift of customers and investment patterns has drained customers and investment away from the properties located in between those crossroads along the older suburban highway,resulting in a vast curtaihnent of property reinvestment and today's preponderance of under-maintained structures and low rent-paying ventures on what are now disadvantageously located properties. The resulting disinvestment and shabby visual character is the direct cause of this study and the reason that the leaders of the new City of Spokane Valley have established this Plan to re-center the community along its central spine, dramatically upgrade the thoroughfare, and reposition corridor properties to capture value in the contemporary marketplace. Book I—Community Intent Page 7 of 201 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 1.2. INTENT It is the intention of the Spokane Valley community and the purpose of this Plan to intervene in the evolution of this Corridor,to stem the forces of disinvestment and put in place a framework to restore the primacy, vitality and beauty of this,the City's central spine. More specifically,it is the community's intention to: 1) Transform the visual character of Sprague Avenue. Create a planning framework that instigates the delivery of attractive buildings,site unprovements and signage, and begin the implementation of streetseape improvements that will make Sprague Avenue the most attractive wide road in the region. 2) Re-position disinvestcd corridor properties to capture value in the contemporary marketplace. The market and financial conditions that supported commercial strip development are no longer in place. Establish a plan framework founded on updated market fundamentals. More specifically, support existing properties that have managed to remain valuable, most of which are located on large sites at prominent crossroad locations, while establishing a planning framework to re-position disinvestcd corridor properties along Sprague Avenue and Appleway Boulevard. Also, establish a planning framework to position new corridor properties along planned new portions of Appleway Boulevard to capture value in the contemporary marketplace. 3) Instigate the construction of the first City Canter for the new City of Spokane Valley. Spokane Valley was incorporated in 2003, and does not contain an existing or historic downtown district. The Spokane Valley community intends to see to it that a new City Center is constructed. A City Center is defined, in this context to mean a compact and synergistic cluster of activity-generating shops, services and eateries sharing a walkable-scaled district core with civic buildings, urban style homes and workplaces, all organized around public space and pedestrian-oriented street environments. 4) Increase the vehicular capacity of the Sprague-Appleway transportation corridor. The Sprague-Appleway Corridor does not currently have sufficient capacity to meet the needs of planned future city®ional growth. Increase the vehicular capacity of the Sprague-Appleway Corridor to meet the needs of the vision for the revitalized corridor,city growth and regional commute traffic. 5) Substantially enhance the development potential and value of the properties currently lining the undeveloped Appleway right-of-way. 6) Support the continued growth and success of Auto Row as the region's premier destination for Auto Sales. 7) Balance mobility and access,vehicular and pedestrian functionality along the Corridor. Coordinate public and private investments to insure that sufficient vehicular capacity is provided along with sufficient accessibility for corridor-fronting development, and that the needs of the automobile are met within a context of pedestrian comfort. Define a framework for the implementation of street improvements geared to the requirements of enfronting development for each segment of the Corridor. 8) Lncorporate transit planning into the vision for the Corridor. Establish a planning framework in which envisioned private development,planned public street improvements, and future regional transit infrastructure are integrated and mutually supporting. 9) Create a framework for sustainable development. Incorporate principles and guidelines for sustainable development to guide decision-making so that future actions further the City's dedication to meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, and to preserving the natural environment that the community values highly. Book I—Community Intent Page 8 of 201 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 10) Establish a planning framework that builds on and reilects the unique character of the City and Region. Establish a clear framework to guide the design of new and renovated buildings, landscaping and signage so that every built piece contributes to the expression of the distinctive character of Spokane Valley and of the unique architectural and landscape heritage of the Spokane Metropolitan region. 1.3. STARTING POINT: EXISTING CONDITIONS The condition of the Corridor at the inception of this Subarea Plan is detailed in Appendix A, Ultimately, the implementation of the planning framework contained herein will result in sufficient modification of these conditions as to make this Plan obsolete. At that point, a newly updated Corridors Subarea Plan will need to be prepared to engage the problems and opportunities presented by the modified existing conditions. As change occurs, the community intends to measure those changes against the existing conditions recorded herein to nxoniter the Plan's success and the degree to which it remains sufficiently current. 1.4. THE ENVISIONED FUTURE CORRIDORS DER ION CONC:,tIT, P .{TTI? ItN OP (,;THUS AND Sr:ab)HNTI City Center- Mixed Use Neighborhood 1 Gateway Commercial Neighborhood: Avenue: Cente r s: Avenue: r F I� °nnc.rrerni 9 '7� r i .�d 'ts I;,., HI Gateway ma" ��4 h 'if i 1 tLi ~`�/ - ;; Commercial City Residential Boulevard: Centers: Center-Core: The Sprague and Appleway Corridors are composed of one thousand, one hundred and eighteen individual privately held properties and over ten miles of public rights-of-way that are under the ownership and control of a variety of public agencies. The overarching purpose of the Subarea Plan is to orchestrate individual public and private investments to produce greater value than any separate project could ever achieve by providing a common purpose that all investors can rely upon, contribute to, and derive value from. This section describes the common purpose to which all investments shall be directed: the realization of a vision of the future that is sufficiently specific to provide a common purpose,yet loose enough to respond to opportunities and changes in the marketplace that will inevitably arise. From Commercial Strip to a Pattern of Centers and Segments: During the period of time in which development is guided by this Subarea Plan, the Sprague Avenue Corridor will begin its transformation from commercial strip to a pattern of Centers and Segments (see Figure 1.1), Whereas the commercial strip is undifferentiated—a linear pattern of exclusively commercial buildings,typically one-story(with very few notable exceptions), surface parking lots, and pole signs, — the future corridor will be increasingly characterized by emerging structural differentiation: there will be clusters of shops, activity, mix, and intensity - Centers, and there will be longer linear portions distinguished by cohesive building types, frontage landscaping, and dominant uses — Segments. Whereas the commercial strip caters to a narrow segment of market demand (the demand for commercial goods and services), the emerging Centers and Segments will have differentiated market focus. Neighborhood Centers will specialize in serving the needs of neighborhoods within a short drive; the City Center will offer community services as well as commercial goods and services that cater to the entire City in a lively pedestrian friendly environment;Appleway Boulevard will ultimately be lined primarily with large residential buildings facing a landscaped boulevard; the Gateway Commercial Segment of Sprague Avenue will continue to enhance its position as a regional Auto Row, and the Mixed Use Avenue Segments of Sprague will focus on a synergistic mix of workplace,commercial and high density residential uses. The implementation of this Subarea Plan is intended to begin this transformation from the linear commercial strip that has fallen out of favor with market trends to a pattern of centers, boulevard and avenue segments more in keeping with contemporary consumer and investor preferences. The particular characteristics envisioned for each of the Centers and Segments that will characterize the revitalized Corridors are as follows: Book I•—Community Intent Page 9 of 201 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 1) The City Center What is now the new City of Spokane Valley was long a collection of undifferentiated suburban developments anchored by their relationship to the urban center of downtown Spokane and to recognizable features of the beautiful natural terrain of the Spokane Valley. It is the dream and intention of this community to complete the formation of their City by establishing its Center. The City Center will provide the community with its symbolic, social, and geographic heart. The City Center will be, more than anywhere else in Spokane Valley, the place that tells you where you are,that you are in much more than a City defined only by legal jurisdictional boundaries. The City Center will provide the community with the center of its civic and social life. Citizens will be drawn to their center by shops, cafes, restaurants, community services, and by the offering of comfortable public streets and plaza spaces to linger in when the weather is fine. And the busy streets and public places will be presided over by the first City Hall built to house the government of the new City. The new City Center will be the antithesis of the linear strip: development in the City Center will not sprawl outward, low to the ground, it will be compact and clustered; it will not be only one type of land use, but a mixture of uses and destinations — retail, entertainment, civic, residential, and ultimately places of work and lodging will be found there. The shopping core will center on a main street with curbside parking and slow moving traffic reminiscent of historic downtown districts, but featuring contemporary businesses and accommodating the parking and services that they require. The Civic Center will preside over the City's main outdoor gathering space and its vista will be the iconic image that stands for Spokane Valley. The City Center will be built in the vicinity of the region's first shopping mall — a prominent location for successful retail.anchors lying at a major community crossroads and close to the precise geographic center of the City. Its main entrance and its most visible frontage will occupy the very central point along Sprague Avenue,the City and region's primary arterial. The Sprague Avenue frontage will provide the new district with the unmistakable identity of the City's most urban and Lively district,offering a hint to passing travelers of what is available inside the district(Fig.l.9.). People living in the City Center will be those who value convenience,enjoy being"where the action is"and like to walk. The City Center will provide businesses with a prominent address while offering workers and customers nearby places to lunch, shop, see and be seen. More than anything else, the district will attract people with its lively pedestrian activity and comfortable environment for walking and lingering, featuring a generous assortment of sitting places, warmly lit sidewalks and attractive window displays. Walking and bicycling will be made easy by the district's mixture of uses, concentrated development pattern, and its fine- grained network of streets shared by vehicles and pedestrians alike (Fig.1.2,). Along these streets, offices, housing, and lodging will easily mix in attractive buildings built right up to the sidewalk, forming a consistent "street wall"that creates the feeling of an outdoor living room(Fig,1.3.). Book I—Community Intent Page 10 of 201 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 ,laprrdp,A.,:fVFTP • . f,&7.T.2,1,..77.7,4: h r1,tpplf.4ppT f� p M1 4'� tt.. .4'f.t' F .e M1 p Ff:$i,4 Pp r.,, tf, tl• tf ::kg,Tq p} f t fIr1RQT }r 1.'i 17".1111,-111.,- gt:', �^ ri{' Pi F -Syr r r tSr .F. ' , 4l J gib; [ 4 r+ +�r 4-, 4, ^�.. a S 1 r a ' [{(S'''�^-�{``��'' �.�' r 1 {r�,-+�1 +,7. !� �,'r`7 t�ad"E U f"'��'` • {3.•�.eon, , 4n19 rfreci+6 vc-r1-01. 6.,T•vt"el• ii.vt=PTI'�r: P?Y£Pi"r l"f 1.613 1� "'a''A:I,.M r,.. iIT•vr6r.x`1,0:.. ,41 •il�Fpd 'pfQT! t4rrPt:T.k ann n t A4F. n �.��. �`�� '� a i P., "hrr4tq `ttr�•rrr ,r i.:•. l r # ap..y. .fifi,s ri , P J 'R�itli' ig4ir l',t flosp:::5..i, l'' . �.6 P r61{` , �4: +'+` ,2 .r' ;r+.Pn. -}Y,,-0: i•Frpprr't. r��.r i sJjr} � } l rrf: ''' 1' P 4f'h t 44i'fl�igy Py. �r d{fenSr.t f rpt fl nh fir' a:I' III srti f 1 124Si 4J: # 4 t-. I .�LOhPi v o` ;1'' P' tf irk'-$ r" ,p , . , + rl, .— + , a,� d t rl: i• t�x, t• r r T nr e`rrr.d rerr.t4tar� �.i'it `•ti c,=ll �t"�t •, • �r�i`.q�g Pttet•PP111 pn44PPSfq �e�+¢ 1 FFhF� rr tP.P.44,fhP 4 r ((�,,tiprt r.•° flkn rt^�54 kill [IIII[' [iU7�' i 3 ii i '�h rt . I11116 g ti run Fig.1.2. An example of a City Center district featuring a fine grained network of streets and blocks • ,.:\.1111‘ ,i ksitt..!.iii),5,1:'ill • ' N. 1 .'48711 r p.'1' , f 1 .i \ CC.V..''i,;yj ti \';`',.1 nl "irl 7 b/ ' , G:; �„ r� 44 11,Ax�'�,.,1„7......1,,,, f 7Y -,. � } 1 i f/(�}�A.f�• � !/ p l�.`fi/+,1�+p�..i- t�� 1�J �1 Y:.:;�:;,i r •. ' 'r 'k t..-, j;, - �' ; trif�, •1 '1SI,\\\la3 y + 44 � +6�1��f ,.,/% ,1 r, i 1-' mss' ' vim_... ,t , I i �' �h� ` 1,Ip !r. i 't 7L ! �{ri '+I\I !1��1lt , + 1��f� !Illy- ,.::',.'„:1,',.. .. , 6�M �`m '`fi I~i Ik . e 1,All ,.a'�. ft5°+ wr+^:)- i ",, . •,1ii "7f• s +.'1k`f ''.r4"-.4%,:-4-1 i _ 11r f�J fpi ) i i ! ?``a \\ l� f y�.! !]Irt14f kr ( I/ ;'% % "•1+xa + _ 1 I[ r�i*t r! +- r.:` 'j y- tite4'.ti, , �4 ',i 11 f, ,!rr'1{ ; 4 �.'.Q : "1 . ' lrLV f l� :t'��,• ii 7,rifyrl,�� �j 5. e '! .,. - 1 NOS ./ � t1 ��- in 4.1 : �4 lid i �,r,;t f `! :k1N`i 11 s':; 1 'r i f�I PI i r Y is-• �1f il•.`li •\ is�1::i� .t IS M 4 ..*04 i I /1 iii; ;' �i + "+ il'! �, I ' 4w. y( ,,{ e• .S �1��f;�� _ r' 1 �-. _,r � '�rf 1 ,T i Id IfD�rl ,...,__ §.•.,,...",...; .-z.7.. ,., ..__.... LiL41.42,_,0,.-_,,‘.., ., i., . . . .: . — ,.. ...r---- • w•• ,..„......16.,0111,...,,,: ii P'ig.1.3. The shopping core will center on a main street with curbside parking and slow moving traffic reminiscent of historic downtown districts Book I—Community Intent Page 11 of 201 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 a) The City Center-Core Near term development activity will take advantage of the large areas of vacant and underutilized land around the University Rd. intersection to plant the seeds that will grow into City Center's entertainment, shopping, and dining core. Larger retail establishments will anchor new boutique retail, restaurants with outdoor dining, and entertainment uses in mixed use buildings featuring continuous ground floor shop fronts. Shop windows and doors will adorn buildings with a high level of finish and detail (Fig.l.4.). Above these shops, residents, workers, and visitors will enjoy the excitement and convenience of the entertainment environment below while the soft, yellow light coming fi'onr their windows will add to the atmosphere (Fig.1,5.). The narrow streets, lined with street trees and decorative furnishings, will offer convenient parking spaces at the curb,with more spaces tucked behind buildings in lots and structures. The backbone of the City Center Core will be a new "Main Street," featuring continuous ground level shops, cafes, and small restaurants built close to the sidewalk that enhance the street's appeal for walking (Fig,1.6.). New public open spaces will provide ample opportunity for people to gather, relax, and experience the hustle and bustle of City Center life (Fig.l.7.)+ Buildings such as a City Hall and Public Library — terminating prominent views and presiding over civic spaces - will add to the long list of amenities that the Spokane Valley community will enjoy far into the future(Fig.1.8). Landmark features will celebrate the City Center and make the core highly visible and easy to reach from both Sprague Avenue and Appleway Boulevard(Fig.1.7.). 1, ;i- .Y s I • •I t ,. Mr�r s i t° dry I " 1' ., ..,• _ ` .0?I /f.}! {I` °I 111��.,11 �. 9'� ' ilk self r-Tri.�- + h ir'- ,r1'4.' 4 El.I� f I l ill 11� 11I �fHlr f ..� *twin 1 {r ..V4'�lr L.FkG I r �f f�l Fl 1.+` �1 I Y t .�� 1.I t , di ,., ._. �' r t'' - I r IF ' ` a �I �flll s w l� �ll�l���� - - h , W P ' rr 1' I 1f'��1' l!:. I 1i s} 1 1 r' a IP . ` ,4 1 1 • �� , I III , ∎`i Il!LI {I,Ir Pay 1;;� , 1 III 1 r- I , " l 1. I b all ",.e r'I 'r54�: Il' It�l ,li!' I,,l I. ral� ^II + I 4 y�� 1 b:1 :y" ` r. 1 f� .,� I ,{• I∎1 I 1 1 -III1I `, I� 1..41 r'' 41. , ,I i 1 Po i V. .y11 ' .i , I , .� �'�Y` ,a} 1� Yii" i� �+ i.O It II •I .i 1 r. • ,�1, 'l fili' {Yf4 li '',.i.:' I 'Eli l, I 1 ' Ill r {, ��a� 1 I ,rl� - �,�„ 1 L �� �.. 1tt 4 t �y I ,II ,.. 4t illt, 4 i,, .�, r- t• ': � /:'k {. °11'i:467:'i �� ti1 h iIrlr+�Il lr ` }r�l1l t Fy � 1 k l' .4 ` I 1. ___, I ,. .11 gia l' 1 1 ' I I li:''—'•',4,1..i 11.'1: ..k. ,P • 1 r �P I Fig.1..4. Ground floor shopfronts & sidewalls I. � , I ' Al r b 's' "` activity a', 1 i`" i : z + I •^ �!r'r 1'5 �,`1 t < ':ti1,, t !i i ,'Il i ,,I Ill• (1y:::..., *!f '' rtl�`Ill ,',.0.!- , G ti,3.,r r l i t ' ,'.,,,,,:,•1 1✓ J '�' r d' 'Vier' Fig.1.5 Mixed use buildings are the fundamental building blocks of the envisioned City Center. Book I—Community Intent Page 12 of 201 �''.Ij" E If'v� ?j;rl , ,11' Y'ai',tt 1r �,,,'r�,'1}1r'�1+11 ,& a,:;'" .1',TYr-1!y•,17.,.C';..r1'" '1r�.Tr.,w•,.r^',Irr'.,r.$.K.,a .ar'1 1/ r,:': ' ''p.%,r�"j,6r' , it 1''1j 41 m 11kry ,I.�I�'1.1J '.171 4,1t ,.- E`' 7 a r I P I (�F. L".7 r r tl I t r''m 7. lilt' Ily •rtrdl GYP I �.._ "•'. •I �, f, r :' ` ''PI: }N1P 11.1,.0..,I . �19r+y,,.: '�1!ik. 1i . -_I T' Ir',: �l7r 'i !'.I jl,lhry,��r Y"• I a N ':'':,,ti:`Ir7tl^'� " 14 4',9+e, I f t 5 ''�'� L�„..11.,4,I It. II'.i 1I, I . ',',1; r 1 1'I I �, I f .r 1•' ' 1,11 I L F' L 1�lailtP' i, r "a1 A!/ ). ,x417,1,14;14: I li!„1, ,r 1 I IR'fk I . Iryl tltlt7 1 lr r.'n r 'Y' ,',11M 1'' I _II'iI I S I" .' Y ' 6."'', ,7', F •1 r. Y+ P '' i Ip 1 Rn'r , ,V. t t e., P''r, II' �"fi F "' t.,1§1 i;,,, r..tl6. r y '171 114 1P 4"1 11 I I' II'' 'e.}' 'i 11:9;; I I� 'r N:•. 4:'4.1 '�„"'. {I r r. E I •• tg I y �, I ,ti,, , I:d. ht i�r I. 1 `iY'" 9r'I�l'1A,{{tvrl�rl�t r-' f,"rE^ „PIS'��' 71•'l/1;- } ',h M !,-Y'•:1YI 1' r �: It I I I 0e.v v' p7'. .r 1 L[4.Y T,ip p'•,r"', w^+ ,' 1)5 t�r +rY. p� 1Ya,r'I1+�', M7,', r I'r Y`r '+Pl'N. P's'> NI'. 'fj I,�se I� ..13y ',.�d.9•"r},. 'ytllf "- • 1 -_ At-.•L 1 'n d 1,1��'�1 r,. 'I•"'• 7 'i.1 1 � — I�'lP r, Ti F'�ffh' 'll-+r `I1 1.lr^. I hlI t w, �4 1+, VP l+l I tl'I r 1 1 I 4 i .4 N•.1�':.r.:r..1:.4`, E`r- LP a• Il rat,,: -- ly.,1�1 Ii0r11 1'I`�I I:'I'a'S'' 11 F Il:I'; . 1Pir•1.r ,'ICE�'i Y t' I' .• t: I iv.' •M'mlw ri iti�p,i'r I.. I,~i I ' I '' ''''.41'-'''I P 1fiT' fly,. 7i' 1.4".... •1,r' II ; 1°v jl ti a ,rr•e �,F j 1' rlj tl r }:1•• .,,, 1'r } "� I I , Vi'''e(it', 4".P7 fi7 a I' '4 I ,, N ,,Ir lI I I r'r Psri, I , �f I �%.�1' I' 1 k 11 Ir r7 toa., r1 1 I w. 9 U•. tiI V q 04(1!'rrl, t.y t,l I., r P� TI li �ie...-1.7...!4 i'. I" I..-'41,t'.,!""Te'a l4" i Ej ' +1'. ! , .1 �i`.YE.�i 1 �'.I F� y t11 tiri•'"1, , ',li .,rp'r r II li r.a'`r mF ,r II EFhY I"',•P'Ir 't— i; +.F L , ty!� t,p 1 1 F" n`Et 1 , {I,.{t l _ ,.•,:L.:y,• I 1f ar y,, - E..$ ..• ,1.!� , I�,krIJII�* I"I'' .71��,1 '`� ' ,e�/;"I r i!' wr y 1; r; IE tl m ,�', �`h '''''lyi r fahR'lirr 1+1, F 4",rI ,0.,I•.,,. y • .I,4, ryl'III o,'r"t'lr' .i;'r.•r 0;.o,r,4,,.i I �'' , .r r"' N•,it 111 I I� :�P. �, P,I r 1 1!' "+1�lfi'' Yf'''i . �S Nl'f1�"I IL,I• !hi 11 II i ],p I hl I I + • Ir•,i.0,py, It'h� I W t r l,`..- I 1'. .I JI,1 III.f. r , 1,.• _,111 a 11:1 IK, I + 'Pr tr 1 1 E,•i;�I ��' 11,I f*�4: r'.f'r Irv, r r(,I;''' '"t.a' ''1 t +F ,•,.1- jr.,'". NC, '•a tw W.IY r t�l''.1:7 rIr1'7i r ' d, ' ' �'1 ! I �tl 'I" 1"9 i'�'1 M" iY'i1a''J,r ti tli rp'.. ���;45.. �E �a :' 0.11°•� I nl•" a ' I ' t, r i t t,,5, ,.g�'11 Ia' 1'1' ttr' I ,'1'�''l ¢` h V� 'r' a r� �'tll�*r rktl I,I[ t`< !"',�y,a Ir" I�,r!'; I I ,r'r fr,,��I• I,y I • .7,1=1 i'I I I a wi�P+ rl f !": ' +,',1�,,i,,'jfi'it. ,:.''l,+,fa' I !it It,.11) ' ,, I�, 11� 9. '�I' 711 + � 4 ��I Y rF '� f '� r. j ��' t,1i iI 9�h- .11' I ', '"I•+a i Y"1 pa _ �1 + F'",,, Ili' 7 Y 1j t'- 1:7.... Pi} ,.apt Fig.1.6. An example of the type of City Center core envisioned by the community•I. .;_ 4,•: 7i, ••'•1.ht1,1 11,4 L!k 'h ��^�� .;rt•1k1"k• f,'" I -��r • ,�+r:b..4 i •;'1} ;. `c. ate • g, i'`'yr . -L rp.,fa}�[t (/12741 1/1r;�* ...;4 ,9'Pi71)9r"'- r. JhJ? _• /�1 'f t1 �) r ;i7r; ` y6 ! f • r 1'1 .s s J .I r ; .;,.-4,10.140 11 t11� '♦' ,.' ,�, ��?rl ¢ �i;r':`1ll�r.:rr � i�1 �t l�i'R 1:` Ale 1il �`J ,- .r+� 4 4I __.10111: i .. '-roe. I .�I ' l.w�;�I �ti.•sI�' I �' i'1}-� ee���ww SIII I' -�'JYS}.,,e0-.1-, 7 lik 1 •, ,r ` ,,,-•of , , i , t 1+74, 31�1E'' k 'R'I f I ;Li � Y[t .61.F. v` Ir 101—i1� '8' }� T fy t Ib v, 4t ..-10.—.?q "I itla a' d" ; itl 'l $ 1—; ,tart f�LF t{I;IFfP4 a fxt y'Tir IFfC E r t „ 1, '.3�. P ‘V ' { f!11 ra"CAI t- 141 ; lfily�,l� }`�� r� � +� , , �', � ' °t* r +r .,i.. t ' {jf / '1 4 I `' �I l' Y�" 11 Ii 1 flr,'I,' 'ri.A' ''- !-'� I•, i .a r�l +k I� 11tl ���s aI� I � J• yr Fig 1.7. The civic center will preside over the City's II " main outdoor gathering space I Fig 1.8. The new City Hail will provide the district with a memorable civic icon Page 13 of 201 Book I—Community Intent Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 b) The City Center--Sprague Avenue The character of Sprague Avenue within the City Center will create a notably unique atmosphere that distinguishes this portion of Sprague Avenue as obviously different from other portions of the Corridor. Streetscape improvements will feature a unique parallel access lane on the south side of the street with slow moving traffic and amenities that buffer the sidewalk from the fast-moving center of Sprague. Pedestrians will be able to stroll, eat outdoors when the weather is nice, and window shop. This main street-like environment along Sprague will also create a comfortable pedestrian zone for upper stories of housing; lodging and/or offices that will help make the City Center successful. c) The City Center-Neighborhood The urban neighborhood surrounding and supporting the City Center will be a City neighborhood with a difference, The City's widest range of housing types, the greatest mixture of homes, offices, and lodging, will begin to concentrate within walking distance of the City Center Core's theaters, shops, restaurants, cafes, nightlife, and amenities. Building off of the existing STA Plaza and potential future transit lines along Applcway Boulevard, the residents of the City Center will be served by the City's most extensive concentration of transit facilities(Fig.1.10.). This neighborhood will consist of artfully designed buildings built closer to the sidewalk featuring grand scale entrances, facades with richly detailed windows and doorways, building forecourts, terraced urban gardens, front stoops, and bay windows. This variety of buildings and entrances will add interest and activity to the sidewalk(Fig.1.11,). I I l a 1 t+ `r r ,;i 4,11 ,11 frr N. ?'' .15. rL 1 I iI , 1 a I -:,,,:c .+ .�', ,, x tI T fi _ g l 1 } ; r1, r t'1 s ,, r 1 I' , l 4..!:' , ,,..1,4:, ,i), 0-,1,,Y , J iyi�J J �, . i ! 4x,' 11 J a: Iii„ ; I, 5Y A p1Iiil'L ksi r a "1 1 /•'..,4 t+ i 1 1 `, 1 } iJtoon,S 0 4,1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PP P ;rill I qr { ly i *11.:111' ¢''�ry`[1J ,i r{'I j '. ,'I! 1. 1 ,1'. 0 C._"L..1 i l l I i i"4i6. tk �, 1 I " 'ta 1' I +1 .1 1.,�,a '3.. f 111 r° r ,R i L.--.�;' � - � C •�I .°J:1 r. - o flir��r . 'fi ,.0 if a q� J.I ,A -tiN� ,,,,. .. ,. ,'1. „.ji.04Gti ] d 14! :j' Jr +. ` ;1'} ,,tl 1� '. ' ' I �I 1 ,1. k 1 I IPb { !f '.' t I! fr 414''r �f �L�: Iv, 1 r. d �� r 1 ,� , t '. • 1 a 1. - �' , joi* Pig 1,9 Strectscape Improvement along Sprague Avenue will feature a unique parallel Access lane. Book I—Community Intent Page 14 of 201 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 • I e • t :titi /5 5 5 = " " d i1i..,'. ,5V fit':{ f y1'F 5 ,I " 1 i lr! ;� °47,..,',...z..;;*, l�' 5 `*� �._.Nv. g. II . I iy., l' •• I i .,'S.1• A ;4 ,> , ";F1_ 11 ...ryy ' 1 ";Jl IL1•I. ( ,ill ,I,t 1 i �76i' j -- - 1 I 1 d { ' I}} I i xi ill 4 r ; r°. ?;;r1 t { 1.t I t ,.' ;1 I I' •5555 A 1 rf 'h F I p 1,a, I F� .11'I.1 1�1 s 1 L ( '+ .j,„!I —lp I' l I . .41 .1).1.,, avit..i IA 1 1� 'F I�If d. II,yr, 41. �gilt g� 11 l ;I.. F„ .1 ^P �# rl .�f r '� �F #F.. �[[ /, .o,. I fi }{'' ',rld } }+ �`jt' I !� r . F 'I (, ;11 � r �' °+,I/';', � I. I�I I'F I }e}I,. ..1 ..�' A,y }�'fr..I�`;. ,.•tr.' I47-'1,,i. ,ii by g yy�'F'. ,,w,, I,�Af��� I"1 �,7�1 I ,y "---- � ) 41Y q F1' .e _F, ;a;", I 19�.�I yy i:''''ii r1 i+Y�. ,Vi Pig 1.10, The existing STA Plaza:A foundation !`.'i-I1� _4..u l for future transit facilities in the City Center 1y5'7,--7g. CIS; F,r"}: I1 z45-4` f I_ - 1 _ J. pf F1f `�G+Y}��- .'{Ir'+lr,.;;'0 _ I ,� '' IlY ,,{/ 17�.'gl'�t•.S^ 7;.T',': . i �FIJ "33RR 4 l� rl Ir II' 1 '..'°;J�I Y 1 w�` 4 H j : 1 F..11 1 .r r IA I F irs � lil I, I r F '1 `` I [ 11'j1. �}.1 ,'+ pil,111�.,,I "I 5 ; I'I i• Il �1�{ 1 41 la "� ;I d } " ��{j I f1II r Jr1 1 11 1 fJ - �t�.-.l.r I i' 1 I 41 lal A /' 1. [ t.. IA �;rat, 1 s II� I) J d '� "'1,-,, f-,- y F ..{ f ° F;� 1' `F�.Ill'F, 1 :Art ,"eky. If F'al. %. 5 l 9is4i-x.11 ati'A �I� � � 1°I RI I I fk i'it�yi k. } IIF' i ,� ,l i�f: . 4 + �s i � 1:1'4 I Iii 1 -4 �.,,_� t1, � d� 1l,7i 11.i"I '1, I 1 I"f.` r, ;kx ,J ._ I�'ri'I'11, lA. It; vL ' 1 'II I u ar I . rir 1 1� i�rt.1ll II {,I�,�,i!li t I��11 „7.0.;.,,,I,,,,,.,,,,,,,......1,„,,,:,, :�1' . II I' " [."�. _ Fig 111. The City center neighborhood will I feature a mixture of urban building types 2) Neighborhood Centers An even distribution of supermarkets and neighborhood serving convenience uses currently punctuate the corridor at major intersections along Sprague Avenue, As the corridor transitions, development in these neighborhood centers will introduce mixed-use buildings and line grocery anchors with shops that will be located closer to the sidewalk(Fig.1,12.). New mixed-use development hi these locations will be larger scale with parking lots that are screened from nearby housing in order to ensure compatibility with adjacent development (Fig.1.13.). A combination of new infill development and streetscape improvements with wide sidewalks and on-street parking will provide nearby residents with a safe and convenient pedestrian environment (Fig.1.14.). In contrast to the unique, entertainment oriented City Center,Neighborhood Centers and their services will continue to be distributed throughout the Plan Area. These centers, with their close proximity to surrounding neighborhoods,will supply nearby residents with all their daily needs(Fig,l.15.). Book I—Community Intent Page 15 of 201 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 Fig. 1.12 Neighborhood serving Retail close to the sidewalk dr • 11 . I 1 V,....�r4•#1!:.1,,,.., • ,y f _r .w 1 *d f lI � }y�4{ y � . till " Ir—,r"r ' ' I I. ' ,157[.!1 ill , ati e 5 Ali y - lry-, J304 d 5 r 1 1S .r I . $> y, il}} + k )-- f \t„, 'tv - ';i! r�� X1, 1 •� q -1 II 1 i f�'{ . � ' G! 1 I =" r i �} , � , 1 .11 ., i:, 11. rig I —� ; F ' "'..1 I H ' ) �� a' Ir' 67I. ,' � I I�r,a r,w 4 1 # s5z .. t ,, _. a ft . .." I 99 w,a ryI ", p.0 �, - X41 ++,I:' 4i+ !i"'h it r [ " L511 I I II 1�i 14 it''.Ii 1'•'4 hl ,l•'l1 ' —. 17. u Fig 1.14. A pedestrian oriented neighborhood Fig 1.13, Neighborhood serving retail shopfronts center sidewalk environment in a mixed use building uty Neighborhood' ^er•ter Cen'.crs , ` �— ---,r.! ll 1 U[111 -1r1K ' "--� -I ----v r, "`--f -'_ -, sr- .- Fig 1.15. The envisioned pattern of centers along the corridor Book I-Community Intent Page 16 of 201 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 3) Sprague Avenue-Between the Centers a) Mixed Use Avenue Segments 4•'s' In between centers new investment will ,k 4 gradually replace older strip 3'�' commercial development along Sprague � _P. `,� :/,,,...., Avenue. Step-by-step the corridor will s ,{ '�I11 I+ transform, moving toward an ?;� +,,4. .....,i '7 f I 'Ili ,F - environment where new multi-family s J ' I Iqi :;i - .;\,'' ,;\ housing, will mix compatibly with ti `g A � ' .,it I `:iLl 'yi ''" +fly,`;' i t r�'' commercial, office, and lodging .I '%r i,'w '"� . , r, 1, il; pl' jlll I 1 � � f °e r. neighbors (Fig.1.16.-1.18.). This F� Nem ^. y` `,r+ N ' r�Y�' t , transformation will be supported by +}I.:(t . '; a 1, €' + r , ,..'611.1`-114,..1, }, '*I 'r i streetscape improvements. Sprague f 1 +'� ` "� ' `c l,' P P � �.c � Twee+��,a-.n7;' ri � ' ,� 1 . �. Avenue will be narrowed and 'unproved r'� �r to convert the existing fast, wide road into a green, tree lined avenue that is - —---•—= appropriate for large scale residential l' �,.---1/- °�- ,.rte . buildings(Fig.1.19.). Development will r orient toward the street with design I + ', detail that matches the scale of a wide I - I road and a prominent Sprague Avenue '--' '`' s address. The streetscape improvements " ' will also allow pedestrians to enjoy ":. sidewalks buffered from moving traffic 7,'"' by street trees within planting strips, a _ �. „. decorative boulevard-scale lights, and y'#s . P,_ _ �� ,#•; � � P. — 1 ,:01. landscaping. These features will :l� j I. - ? eombine to project the community's r d Y, L`'' ll.\ r r P .1 ty � �. � ��, �r �'! �li'�14 desired image for these mixed-use rsli -!,ii.,'� 1f ;0 r� `1 ' 1 avenue segments. -,a r rgjrr ; r' ,, 4 ,k ll. °,' ' ! New investment on large properties '"' ��, 'F f along Sprague Avenue will help ,_,, „-°n, l -,�, establish an expanded medium sized V �' block and street network in between Sprague Avenue and Appleway d . Boulevard. These new streets and °4 "r� r,),l. blocks will allow portions of deep Ita� r I/' parcels that currently have limited .4, �.�< ,{ access to infi.11 a mix of office and '" .' ; {. medium density housing that will create ,-.1,,;. r, f� ,,Y ' .."..,4,,' a transition from Sprague's mixed use 4a, ',.E1 4 a yti environment to the housing along . ' 1 ,?r ,�:ai Ili �- ,,,-.., f,,� Appleway Boulevard and beyond a, ° "¢f_i,iIy I'�1� ,a� 1 ! ;'�� 1 , 40 ,. ra (Fig.1.20.), 51' , f1' r''��??��,r) r i 1 ,„.It l ; i%'' r ,{ I 4 a ri f ' M dd P 1� ,1{ € r Fig 1.16. Examples of compatible office,medium box commercial and residential buildings Book I-Community Intent Page 17 of 201 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 , . . 1 1 • • . . . -,. , • ,.... c. •,,,s,,i-nr• .r.t% 1 ' . 1'1-... . • ,. = '-k:P777F: -1'r.•:.;4'.1-, ""r ''i ....1.,. • • 1 /...+0 0 • i.,•&., :1- r • • r.i- 4 1" ' 1— 4 ' " r 11114.z' t liFiel. 1 IT 1-'1 1 ' . . ., .,,,. , .• . .; .w .. , - • , , .1 1 — ....",• , I ' ..4".t, 'i-1--,:r7f=4,:_b-lt-b!...r.4.Z-e-si_;. ".:-F-t-4,7t-Ver;r:i.:i...i..- s". r r.r. (2W-4- .r. e..1..„.e.--,-?,-,t,t,-..p.s.a..--e,ek,..-m-r....1!--t...r.,s.-,,,,, ,-,-,-t-...-- -1,- 4,.''''''--'"-' -, ' - ';-, ' ., • ,7, 7.A ----11,: . 1 4---1 Pi. ..'.4.,.ii 6. .r.- *NE. ,i 1111M,”-* -EN - •""''''''''.,-r ,,..4 -jh I I I • ;r'-'; F . ,-,-; -.''''..t4N'TY-•• , , Ti__Tir:=i 66 1 , I , t 11,-riquni i .„-„ :, ! _., .r i1 rrz ,evecmy,-4.,m..,,.., ,_.1- i'ffr ft4t: ,-,,,-,,,,,,.' , ,'i, ,, ' • ,..t, -nil .__] ......,-..=:.cmi,,,terrEn_cmce i'.5('‘.4,...,..1 r ---= .1=t13--"Zir• "7: , fIli I rrr rrr r A' - m t: 40,1/ 17- . a grn..q. - E.-trir-Em-br - ' • --,,'r.,.•1 . • rn M 173 c-.77:r5.37.74,-, E 71 ',rrl ITir.e.; 15.-- 1 1.11 en 4„,ttrn-F7pr All ...,-.,-,0,,„,,,,,,-,t,.-f..:#.047.%., .,..,•,.,..,..,.1b0-,0%K-4,,•=1,.-.1.,ttr„..1',,tAM. 'Tr .e ":.' 4,,,t-t: Appierwoy .gr44:01-1.:trolOri4-Pantot-tt-_+7.1 0‘406f,cceir, -. CI'.g.,1,t.e T.t e- •i.6• t.. , ' ' ' ' .. ' '-iti,' " t7.71 tro:Embcitri.,77.1, , fir..„,..;,.. ..,..„.,yzinl miE.E.r..,0„..quErtte, .. • 1 .5.. ..wr:.,.rri.irm.Y„r7.-7.:a'J=I..., •..111M,..1.7_,..., rixn D. •.. n ...11-41.p.,,,,rir-3 lb: 12-'44-rIt a l.rg:/,-.Pri EYE • ..,,, - ___ • — . --- • •________ i r - • . Fig 1.17. The envisioned mix of office, medium box commercial and housing along Sprague Par king - .,.%.,..".„..1.,'; •,‘fi .,A,!4 I1•16. .1'/'...-'.. s,;\ J, Fig 1.18. A compatible mix of uses 1..,,,..r....;._'....,.---',_...e.'' ..... • 41,4... •,,.. .,...2,1;r;If 91 _>:\.■"1 '■ il,ci., ,S.A_ „4,.• ..:01 ''' - ••■*'.rf), ili1Z,11:11.K 't._.711. ,. •• ' • ,itc,b4.:•, ,t 1 .4v. b Residential ;#* • \\,,,r\. sr ..?:z:t.., rel..(14....• if..., •:•. .,• v. .. 4.0(4.: ,•!t,:.s,,,., , ,...„,.. -7,./,•• 'ft..!*.!kli ,, , ' ..,. -- Medium Box , 47.:4:i.c.... %IA' _i5"•;.;,.,&_, 1..7.6. /4,!-.. .- , Commercial , - • ' .,'`'.'.r• ' $10 • ' .,154f$:.. U-'... .c..411t. •P ,..- • Irt .• -9. ' . .,A4.4 .0-tif3,4, 1.,Atr. Office ,,. lin 56.•)b..f •• . 4 li • •■ N '%I.5f;.:, • . 'I.%• .5. : . le . •• ......4., ... ,,,...,.,, 14;1' f4 BACK litf*.IDEWALK 0 :•..9.42." ■■.i Frontage '.. VI:•..A ' ;>., .37.-----------_..... ..t,;.. ; Requhentents ..01.•1, .Pitildq,re •ri4.t.1'.,'','.'.."i..1.',,-,.''.0,h , ..‘..S, I' i' . . - r, Icci' viTh r144) 0 cool Housing Fig 1.19. Envisioned frontage ,:. .;11 r It 1 ',LV it .II. j 1 11 , improvements support Sprague Avenue's 1:....-7---'- - transformation ._ . _... _ , ........._ I ., Book I—Community Intent Page 18 of 201 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 1 r I I . ,-7- 1. , -1.../,, r q - � G r "MU.n, IN rr d.r. I r. 4� 1,-,, 04.1. Jkl,, 7. e T rah r, ,.:K J ti ,.r ,„ :h , '1.:Y.0,.:-r I l F `• - W. 'A.: t-6 : g n`' ;`i 1 : - . r L ]1 I.� ;tr` 1 t^=r I'•°r_C 7•�rL7�C , T.� r ' T r r e�'h 'F 7^ rF •r_s.*e-Y•_f>-,, R•_+`4 4.-.—R r wJ%r, q,. A•7 n .T+C.C. P.-c.-Yr¢-4.,1".-7 Y.'.P Y q f• S 1`.-1- r'C e---r..F D F+ ":°F-•h. r.r..4.-..i. .T r.C.-C.-N..-+S_...,,. r. T°F., ,rte`.r7 -,•I r1.4 t * k ',i F .n . 7 11s•-�VtcL - ' -Ir /, kA r.. r %1 it lam:MJr�.Ir.*. 1 z i yL -a �� nr§"I r r� , pl ,w;„F °" , ' I ii.4E_eCr z.P.7 l-lw,1s: l•[ .1 YIT.11 -J 11'w}+,4.v.r- ,J•"'°' V_ _ , �`II' h.�I r1 r•rrr_vZt`+Ia -fin-, r�14,. - .� rra ei i [j � ,. y�--. , rrrr+• �-'-- rss7-{'��P+ ' , �I I tr rte c a Z 1V, I�M .{`.fw fi1.47- rYF 1 rt-;1 77I„r i f. es ' r.IS' F 'I t App.,ov.u} r r-:*.!.':r @ r1'q+?,C!.h rz R.rt• R-i.;r.G.r-.A',T 0.7.r;l 1-,•-1.,..'ry,'�75t e,it.9v'■w,?'.rt, h9.„7`r [•.r:r:'FTt ' h' F 1 r r 7tiN"r fill CI a+r rI31�1 I e T, r `�� I I _ I �ft_`7r,-lug`-`_.rtG':-11'L �..vi1L��"oY-t'ls 3 . Fig 1.20.Envisioned development along Sprague transitions to new Appleway Boulevard housing b) Gateway Commercial Avenue The community intends to maintain the specialty segment between I-90 and the railroad overpass as the region's premier destination for automobile sales. The Gateway Commercial Avenue will be a "themed" stretch of Sprague Avenue, home to a busy cluster of vehicle dealers and supporting services (Fig.1.21.). In this District, Sprague Avenue will provide easy access and on-street parking to all dealers and other businesses in the district. A unique streetscape design with special treatments will include architectural vehicle display spaces that reinforce the district's generally auto oriented character. Sprague Avenue's new streetscape improvements, with modern boulevard-scale streetlights, will be complemented by well designed signs advertising the District's brands and services. Interspersed with the automobile dealers, compatible uses such as "medium box" commercial sales and services will line Sprague Avenue, taking advantage of the District's clear identity anal proximity to I-90 (Fig.1.22.). Gateway features and coordinated signage will announce a revitalized Sprague Avenue and the new City Center to passing motorists on 1-90. c) Gateway Commercial Centers At select intersections, the Gateway Commercial Avenue will be punctuated by clusters restaurants and/or entertauunent. In these centers, destination uses will support district retailers by providing an opportunity for Gateway Commercial related entertainment and recreational gatherings. In these Centers, shopfronts with display windows and welcoming entrances will sit closer to the sidewalk than along the Gateway Avenue segments (Fig.1.23.). By taking advantage of the unique streetscape environment with on-street parking, landscaping, and Boulevard Scale streetlights, buildings will be able to be designed to help promote the pedestrian activity appropriate to the restaurant and entertainment uses within the centers. Book I—Community Intent Page 19 of 201 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 110: 1�,L34 y, f 0 { i :-4 rlIt,c I , 'r 'Ylty7 ,. J+ t-� 4 I }.'-T% �. � ta 1'R -f r1•141.N� �i!.',5 ty a t K�.�F 1 f5r-r- r rr k.3 3 l ti�il pr,{ i 1 � I' l4 & Y'�4a " Y1 a� .•.,Yp ,i ilia ij,1 �j� �w r1 .f } 'a S .,i- >t .,J/'„"f .,i.,rr;'la i,,, S f' •t ,„,, r�? f . I 45 4 r �i {',ii, firm' f 4 Y I. } ,..li J.%•//.,/=n1. r Fig 1.21. A"themed” auto sales cluster Fig 1.22. Envisioned development along the gateway commercial avenue • * � � ..L?� a axe s{ 417('- •** "•d sr -ice+'i4« .' I,5 — c•.. Ixkci .. 'F r ,1 i . 'a �' lull -� ��. .':mot ly a. u.._: __Itiii I ill J J.I" la !!'111 II y F I I .:M Awn,-_I-- .�� I iI _ - - 18 r''' 't �. i 16 s' I f` p 1 V fa4 �� 11 iiii.± It I r � ." I I i> d r e a f . . , ° 'G , : Page 20 of 201 Book I--Community Intent Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 11 I. i 1 -I r d I L•�-� a • 1 ,I I �� 1 a. n, prr Y 1, yl„ L ;*,{r �i I ' i ' + .b+, c[l, 14"' a '.a1 i . ' 1 Iwo It I :,' N " ,•• r , Ill ' Ti.., ' * � v•"" ,'• J 1 1 �, ''''.4.4-,,,,,‘..a.1...4 }. I . : l _ r F AS,.I I y „ 4� a`.� !- I Y ' '0,-., I r i -` I0.�Y � r �{ 5 � I. 1 ----°'7,..,...-"'.tly,-,1' . -- r i,14-..,..41. . l' or Irri),---,,,,,- -1.1„) li. v ! ti � � � �.�I -`"4 x 1 1 � 31 1 � '`ti'1 rc..f . 11 ,,,...----_-_, „.4;„._,1 ,...p..4[11,1;r6. .11, 1012. ?I:1-.1,, --t.-:,-. ,..... „,, I ',,c1..'4.01,1 1 r i 4 '.yam I'-}! ! I Ll :h IO I 'II Ira) l V. 4s *. ' r ' � �,1!+r !� a 144 ` 1"1.p. - --- I;T ' - ,. - - .• ! � f ._ _I � .11; ,. _ r • Fig L23. Envisioned development within the gateway commercial centers Page 21 of 201 Book I-Community Intent Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 4) Appleway-,The Community Boulevard The undeveloped Appleway right-of-way provides an immense opportunity to improve the Sprague-Appleway corridor and the City as a whole. Appleway Boulevard will be extended East of University Road, creating a lush, pedestrian friendly environment, This new "Grand Boulevard", with continuous planting strips along the sidewalk featuring street trees,decorative lighting,and pedestrian amenities will provide the perfect opportunity for previously undevelopable deep parcels to build new grand scale housing and sensitively designed residentially compatible office buildings (Fig.1.24). This new housing corridor will help transition between Sprague Mixed Use Avenue development and the single family residential neighborhoods South of Appleway (Fig.I.25.). As it passes through the City Center, Appleway Boulevard will build upon the rest of the corridor's Grand Boulevard character with attached housing that takes on a more urban character along the City Center's tree lined streetscape. This housing will be complemented well by similarly-scaled office buildings in the City Center(Fig.1.2.). Down the Center of this Community Boulevard, a wide, landscaped central parkway median with large, leafy trees accommodates multi-use pathways for biking or strolling (Fig.1.26.). This prominent open space is also located to maintain the potential to accommodate a future transit line. The transit line will take advantage of the existing bus transit center to provide easy access to the City Center to Spokane valley residents, workers, and visitors, from throughout the City and the region while further increasing the development potential of Appleway as a mixed-office/residential boulevard, 7577.77-77...;.A., I f;i 4 p',I I l,,,1,:. YI,i ,',.;11� ,r , r it ri t Fad? i 3. I ,, l h5 �t I i ; 0 ,- . g':T,i ,.� _ f/��,• }a I f �} ray al l;r ; . 4 i,� ti 1 '5 , i' °, 11,5 Al t y 4�. `l ', �I rY �i 1�.a ,li ..a r- + it '4 '.. I � I! d, M F � ''� �+, I J F R ':1:' I ;r 1] � 1.k i F I[s{l �'yi �( � I 1' ik,P ! 1 111h- l li .� ill I II I I �' 11 • I ' ' .FS , ,fir I - .M'I I I . 11 VI:�- 571 may,-. -_ V _ _---.. �c q yl. 5. I 'I a f� * l i7I ' ' y 1.'1 I.!. r �0 '. } fL r9 r ",.1.1.4 II Ili It Ill 1 I `` 1, - l i i i. a 4 .. 1 7I}/I,I�iI Iy. L 'fit; \'- I;yy" ta J'.' '„_,"-__-',2'.. ..'%y�1•a �=�I1�1 ;'ItIlI- 1'.: ";nF.`I I , 1 i I,,-.1 ,I Y I.. � 141 e� l 1t,!1�I��1I I++, f: 44 eI i I l r l 1 I I t 4U. �� . . "t'�� "Gli� '`r I I# "F � I l� 1 •:++ r f�Il � ! � ,',i, 0;06, ,.: eI+M1. .; iyi � . „ 1.:;r_ 14.1 5,,.. ,; ± 170` j '..YID 5i. ,,I...0:,tiF "E R! .r 4 Mlaj .il. 14 `l . ---- + I 5 iii A f. _;., „...L. 01;ii„fl- '11-,P Fig 1.24. Envisioned new"boulevard"housing or office Book I—Community Intent Page 22 of 201 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009• T.,,,,,_.,r T-,,,:._r t.e-ri Rtih w VP N. a-T.a-fr 6-c-ite-_e.e.e-rr-e--e.A-Y=ter-•ie,d'T-T-,r, e.r-h P.bP•t,C-P.,+e.!"F C.r.f+-E+Y-T4 r-hfi.t f.Fte.r-R Fe.n..... "n cn.e-e-es.r_e.V.-`n t r, mm -+-: �... r '? ... -' ,F F r-„,.1 ....ut"t.; �i..0s I.0pF n �f7?�r�t"(]�.ra�]��` kr,r l�! I .l.l+ q., f, r e..o?'I F �`S�p'�•�7�7�101. `"t. t. -rZ pFOl9wny nbt..Q.Ay hr."---,T " he,�tt i 1;0=0,g- - - - .).:411.l l.c-tr.t.h fv f+rtieve, - ,u,94:::t. . ggi. . . . : , 1 . 1 . . - Fig 1.25. Illustration depicting the envisioned future housing corridor in between Sprague Avenue and the neighborhoods south of Appleway Boulevard �i. z� a J i' w : 1 -,;..,.L...,.,,,..1:::..-,,:. aa�� r r� } Syr '' i. J i 5 ,°, K}y_ r4 SIr Y!`r,' a4 ice- • 3Y- it •1 X .. i" -•I ri. � `LP7 _5 r, .fij�1 ° Fig 1.26. The character of a wide,landscaped central parkway with a multi-use pathway 1.5. CORRIDOR REVITALIZATION STRATEGY The image of the Corridors that exists at the time of Plan adoption(see Starting Point: Existing Conditions section and the corresponding Appendix) contrasts vividly with the image of the Corridors portrayed in the Envisioned Future Corridor section that immediately preceded this one. To revitalize the Corridors in keeping with this vision, the City leadership intends to promote and guide new investment and change by employing municipal policies and resources strategically. Keeping in mind that strategy must always remain sufficiently nimble to respond to unexpected opportunities and to make best use of resources as they come available, the strategic action priorities that the City leadership intends to pursue are the following: 1) Place highest priority on the realization of the community's dream of a City Center. a) Move swiftly To leverage current investor preferences for City Center development projects and to take advantage of the region's lack of urban center projects to date,move as swiftly as possible to instigate the development of at least a substantial first phase City Center Core that contains a sufficient critical mass of shops,restaurants, Book I--Community Intent Page 23 of 201 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 civic buildings, public space and ambiance to begin functioning as a primary destination for the larger community. b) Public-private partnership Leverage City investments in civic buildings, public spaces and street improvements to stimulate the development of the first portion of the City Center, c) City Center must come first The successful delivery of a City Center for the City of Spokane Valley will create not only a district that functions as the Heart of the Community, but it will provide a substantial armature for beneficial change that will radiate out in ever-increasing rings from the Center. Therefore,notwithstanding the various needs clamoring for attention along the Corridors, place highest priority on actions and expenditures that stimulate and support investment in and delivery of a City Center district in the selected location. d) Flexible entitlements Provide a policy framework specific enough to insure that new investment adheres to the fundamental principles of the formation of lively pedestrian oriented city centers, but flexible enough to respond to changing opportunities. More specifically,provide a policy framework that accommodates both all-at-once City Center development as well as incremental development; and provide a policy framework that can accommodate the development of a City Center Core on either side of University Road,or on both sides of University Road. 2) Provide a Policy Framework that accommodates the market's preference for retail concentrations at major crossroads,while building on the patterns of value already in place. a) Realign development policy with contemporary shopping industry investment preferences The commercial strip pattern of retail development has fallen out of favor. While supporting successful existing retail ventures along the corridor, provide policy support and encouragement for the transition to the pattern of larger anchored centers at major crossroads that is favored by contemporary customers and investors. b) Refocus retail development over time to foster a mutually supportive hierarchy of retail-driven centers and mixed use segments Transition from miles of"anything goes retail"to a pattern that clusters mutually supportive types of retail in centers or segments with differentiated market focus. Use land use&development policies to focus city center retail types in the selected location for that special district; focus neighborhood center retail at the designated crossroad locations;cluster auto-row serving retail and services in convenient clusters,and limit retail in between crossroad-located centers to non-competing retail types that thrive on visibility and that make less sense in pedestrian-oriented districts. c) Support value already in place In keeping with this notion, support the presence of strong anchored neighborhood centers already located at strategic crossroad locations by limiting the tendency of such developments to overbuild. At the same time, recognize that some assets are in place that do not conform to a pure model of clustered retail: between the neighborhood centers, build on the multiplicity and range of medium-box commercial ventures along Sprague Avenue with supportive development policy and street improvements, 3) Reverse creeping disinvestment by identifying the long term "highest and best uses"for the Corridor as a whole. a) Widen the range of investment types To reposition properties no longer advantageously positioned for retail development, implement policy changes and capital improvements to widen the range of potential investment types permitted, and to provide an environment more suitable for a mixture of uses,including housing. b) Replace entitlements for retail types suited to city center and neighborhood center clusters with residential entitlements Book I—Community Intent Page 24 of 201 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 Economic analysis of property values revealed that with the exception of properties located at primary crossroad locations,the potential value of properties for residential development has caught up with their potential for retail development. Further investigations concluded that physical improvements to the corridor would likely result in residential development in long segments exceeding the value for retail development. Finally, given the vast reduction in real demand for rent-generating retail in the long segments,residential uses would increase the likelihood of rent generation in those locations. 4) Implement phased transportation design and strcetscape improvements to enhance mobility and access for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians in keeping with City and regional growth, while simultaneously supporting the land use and development pattern necessary to the upgrading of properties as envisioned by the Subarea Plan, a) Implement a cohesive plan for private property development and public right-of-way design Integrate transportation planning and development planning so that capital improvements combine with private development lining a public thoroughfare that forms one seamless and functional part of the City. b) Accommodate movement,access and civic beauty Integrate circulation hmprovements, streetscape design and transit planning. Establish a Plan Framework that avoids the discredited approach of designing circulation improvements as separate from the design of the pedestrian realm and elements for civic beauty. Consider long term transit plaiming in the development of both the extensions and improvements of Appleway Boulevard segments. 5) Give Appleway its own identity and market focus. Avoid allowing the continued development of Appleway as "the back of the development along Sprague." Accommodate strong demand for attached single family housing types such as duplexes and townhomes that cannot be easily accommodated along Sprague Avenue but that make complete sense in the residential context of the Appleway right-of-way and its environs. Use public improvements combined with Subarea Plan land use & development policies to organize buildings, site improvements and streetscape design to form a distinctive residential boulevard that figures prominently in the image of the City. 6) Protect and enhance Auto Row a) Land Use&Development Use land use& development policy to promote further clustering of new auto sales and restricting used car sales to limit the dilution of the specialized Auto Row segment with non auto-sales related uses. Support the development of complementary destination uses that enhance the convenience and experience of shopping for automobiles within Auto Row. Use transportation improvements to unlock the potential of the northern frontage. Emphasize district gateways and introduce shared parking lots to make way-finding and business access easier for visitors. b) Visibility&Identity Strengthen architectural and signage standards to reduce visual clutter and promote a coherent Auto Row identity. As resources allow, work with dealerships and other Auto Row stakeholders to finance street improvements that enhance the visibility,visual quality and convenience of Auto Row. 7) Use the Subarea Plan to organize public and private improvements to foster the emergence of integrated strectscape & development compositions along all Sprague and Appleway segments that flatter the community and capture value for property owners. a) Employ"form-based" development regulations Establish development regulations that are composed to achieve the envisioned physical form—the pattern of Centers and Segments described in earlier sections — for the Corridors. Rather than using policy to separate land uses,focus development regulations on physical specifications that permit a more harmonious mixture of uses on neighboring properties and that foster the creation of a more attractive public realm and City identity. Book I—Community Intent Page 25 (4'201 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Adopted June 16,2009 b) Use street design to stimulate and support desired forms of investment As resources become available, invest strategically in the beautification of Sprague Avenue and Appleway Boulevard, Target design improvements to the particular needs of the specific Centers and Segments that they enfront. 8) Provide a streamlined project approval process. Provide clear, detailed and appropriately flexible development regulations. Streamline the development application review and approval process. Provide investors with complete and detailed specifications for new development required for City approval. Book I—Community Intent Page 26 of 201 • I;l''.^r West's RCWA 36.70A.390 Page 1 West's Revised Code of Washington Annotated Currentness Title 36. Counties(Refs&Annos) '0 Chapter 36.70A. Growth Management--Planning by Selected Counties and Cities(Refs&Annos) -►36.70A.390.Moratoria,interim zoning controls--Public hearing--Limitation on length--Exceptions A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium,intcrim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption,whether or not the go- verning body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department.If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing.A moratorium,interim zoning map,interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing for such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal. This section does not apply to the designation of critical areas,agricultural lands, forest lands,and mineral resource lands,under RCW 36.70A.170,and the conservation of these lands and protection of these areas under RCW 36.70A.060,prior to such actions being taken in a comprehensive plan adopted under RCW 36.70A.070 and imple- menting development regulations adopted under RCW 36.70A.120, if a public hearing is held on such proposed actions. CREDITS) [1992 e 207 §6.] LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES The legality of Washington shoreline development moratoria in the wake of Biggers v, City of Bainbridge Island. Michelle E.DeLappe, 84 Wash.L.Rev. 67 (2009). LIBRARY REFERENCES 2003 Main Volume Zoning and Planning X22, 134. Westlaw Topic No.414. C.J.S.Zoning and Land Planning§§ 12, 13, 16. NOTES OF DECISIONS In general 1 Exhibit D West's RCWA 36.70A.390 Page 2 1.In general Property owner whose rezone request was denied by County Board of Commissioners waived its right to argue that county did not comply with notice and public participation procedures required under Growth Management Act; owner failed to present its challenge to Growth Management Hearings Board rather than to court,and owner failed to appeal the adoption of county's comprehensive land use plans,development regulations,or any subsequent amend- ments to the Growth Management Hearings Board.Peste v.Mason County(2006) 133 Wash.App.456, 136 P.3d 140, review denied 159 Wash.2d 1013, 154 P.3d 919. Zoning And Planning€. 562;Zoning And Planning C572 City had no statutory authority to impose moratorium on shoreline development;statutes relied on by city were limited to planning and zoning in code cities, and growth management,neither of which applied to shoreline management. Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island (2004) 124 Wash.App. 858, 103 P.3d 244,review granted 156 Wash,2d 1005, 132 P.3d 146, affirmed 162 Wash.2d 683, 169 P.3d 14. Zoning And Planning€—)86 West's RCWA 36.70A.390,WA ST 36.70A.390 Current with 2010 Legislation effective through February 15,2010 (C)2010 Thomson Reuters. END OF DOCUMENT Exhibit D Vp"1°Sf lL-1\A/. West's RCWA 36.70A.020 Page 1 West's Revised Code of Washington Annotated Currentness Title 36. Counties(Refs&Annos) NO Chapter 36.70A. Growth Management--Planning by Selected Counties and Cities(Refs&Annos) 436.70A.020. Planning goals The following goals are adopted to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations of those counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040.The following goals are not listed in order of priority and shall be used exclusively for the purpose of guiding the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations: (1)Urban growth.Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner, (2)Reduce sprawl.Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density develop- ment. (3)Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. (4)Housing.Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. (5)Economic development.Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans,promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons,promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities,and encourage growth in areas expe- riencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources,public services,and public facilities. (6)Property rights.Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. (7)Permits, Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability. (8)Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricul- tural lands, and discourage incompatible uses. (9)Open space and recreation.Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities,conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water,and develop parks and recreation facilities. (10)Environment.Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life,including air and water quality, and the availability of water. Exhibit E West's RCWA 36.70A.020 Page 2 (11)Citizen participation and coordination.Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts, (12)Public facilities and services.Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. (13)Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands,sites, and structures,that have historical or archaeological significance. CREDIT(S) [2002 c 154 § 1; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 §2.] CROSS REFERENCES Urban centers,development of additional and desirable residential units to help achieve planning goals man- dated by this section,see § 84.14.005. LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES Accommodating Growth or Enabling Sprawl?The Role of Population Growth Projections in Comprehensive Plan- ning Under the Washington State Growth Management Act. Brent D. Lloyd, 36 Gonz.L.Rev. 73 (2001). Chinks in the armor:Municipal authority to enact shoreline permit moratoria after Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island. Ryan M. Carson, 31 Seattle U.L.Rev. 177(2007). King County,Washington Ordinance 15053:Is"the most restrictive land-use law in the nation"constitutional?Thane D. Somerville,36 Envtl. L.257 (2006). The legality of Washington shoreline development moratoria in the wake of Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island. Michelle E. DeLappe, 84 Wash.L.Rev. 67 (2009). Religious land use jurisprudence: the negative ramifications for religious activities in Washington after Open Door Baptist Church v. Clark County. Beth Prieve,26 Seattle U.L.Rev. 365 (2002). Transportation planning and the prevention of urban sprawl.Michael M. Maya, 83 N,Y.U.L.Rev. 879 (2008). Urbanites versus rural rights: Contest of local government land-use regulations under Washington preemption statute 82.02.020. Donya Williamson, 84 Wash.L.Rev. 491 (2009). Washington's Vested Rights Doctrine:How We Have Muddled a Simple Concept and How We Can Reclaim It.Roger D. Wynne,24 Seattle U.L.Rev. 851 (2001). Washington's way: Dispersed enforcement of growth management controls and the crucial role ofNGOs.Henry W. McGee,Jr., 31 Seattle U.L.Rev. 1 (2007). Washington's way II: The burden of enforcing growth management in the crucible of the courts and hearings boards. ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov. Works. West's RCWA 36.70A.020 Page 3 Henry W. McGee,Jr. &Broek W. Howell, 31 Seattle U.L.Rev. 549(2008). LIBRARY REFERENCES 2003 Main Volume Zoning and Planning€ 1, 12. Westlaw Topic No.414. C.J.S.Zoning and Land Planning§§ 2, 5 to 7, 12, 17, 18,38. RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias 32 Am. Jur.Proof of Facts 3d 485,Zoning: Proof of Unreasonableness of Interim Zoning and Building Moratoria. 37 Am. Jur.Proof of Faets 3d 383,Zoning Action Not in Accordance With a Comprehensive Plan. 39 Am. Jur.Proof of Facts 3d 377,Change in Character of Neighborhood Sufficient to Preclude Enforcement of Restrictive Covenant. Treatises and Practice Aids Rathkopfs the Law of Zoning and Planning§ 51:6, Validity--Growth Management. Rathkopfs the Law of Zoning and Planning§ 14:34, "Spot Planning". 24 Wash,Prac. Series § 18.2,Goals of the Growth Management Act. 24 Wash. Prac. Series § 18.17,Adoption of Comprehensive Plans--Overview. 24 Wash.Prac. Series § 18.21,Development Regulations. 33 Wash.Prac. Series § 7:2,Planned Unit Developments. NOTES OF DECISIONS In general 1 Annexations 6 • Burden of proof 7 Conflicts,generally 3.5 Conflicts with county plans 5 Conflicts with zoning codes 4 County-wide planning policies 3 Presumption and burden of proof 7 Property rights 2 Review 8 0 2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov. Works. West's RCWA 36.70A.020 Page 4 1. In general Comprehensive plans adopted by counties under the Growth Management Act(GMA)serve as guides or blueprints to be used in making land use decisions.Whatcom County Fire Dist.No.21 v.Whatcom County(2009)215 P.3d 956. Zoning and Planning x'30 Growth Management Act(GMA)did not require county to designate,in its comprehensive plan,an urban growth area adjacent to city as a joint planning area for city, and thus growth management hearings board lacked authority to require county to designate area as a joint planning area;GMA sections recommending that cities provide urban goveiaunental services, encouraging cooperation and coordination between counties and cities, and requiring coun- tywide planning policies to address policies for joint county and city planning,did not address or require joint planning areas. Spokane County v,City of Spokane(2009) 148 Wash.App. 120, 197 P.3d 1228,reconsideration denied.Zoning and Planning€ 353.1 Growth Management Act(GMA)did not require,and thus growth management hearing board lacked authority to order,county to enter into a joint planning agreement with city for urban growth area adjacent to city,even though GMA encouraged cooperation and coordination between counties and cities and guided development of countywide planning policies. Spokane County v. City of Spokane(2009) 148 Wash.App. 120, 197 P.3d 1228,reconsideration denied.Zoning and Planning x'353.1 Growth Management Act(GMA)contains a legislative mandate for the conservation of agricultural land. Yakima County v.Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2008) 146 Wash.App. 679, 192 P.3d 12.Zoning and Planning 0279 The Growth Management Act(GMA)was spawned by controversy, not consensus and, as a result, it is not to be liberally construed.Thurston County v.Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Bd.(2008) 164 Wash,2d 329, 190 P.3d 38.Zoning and Planning C ''9 The Growth Management Act is not to be liberally construed. Woods v.Kittitas County(2007) 162 Wash.2d 597, 174 P.3d 25.Zoning and Planning C ;'9 The absence of a specific legislative or agency prohibition does not grant counties unfettered discretion in setting parcel sizes under the Growth Management Act(GMA).Futurewise v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd.(2007) 141 Wash.App. 202, 169 P.3d 499.Zoning and Planning '63 Growth management hearings board reasonably concluded that county's designation of area as a fully contained community(FCC)was consistent with Growth Management Act's(GMA's)urban growth and anti-sprawl goals,even assuming that the goals placed substantive limits on the location of FCCs; county asserted that failure to designate the area as urban,because the site was already subject to one-acre subdivision development applications,would result in the very sprawling,low-density development the GMA was designed to prevent. Quadrant Corp.v. State Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2005) 154 Wash.2d 224, 110 P.3d 1132.Zoning And Planning c 14 Enumerated goals under the Growth Management Act(GMA)did not provide substantive locational containment requirements for fully contained communities(FCCs). Quadrant Corp. v. State Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2005) 154 Wash.2d 224, 110 P.3d 1132. Zoning And Planning x'30 Substantial evidence supported the upholding by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board of a county ordinance designating property as fully contained community(FCC), since ordinance satisfied the stringent requirements of the Growth Management Act(GMA)designed to"guide the development and adoption of compre- O 2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. West's RCWA 36.70A,020 Page 5 hensive plans and development regulations";county was not required to satisfy general GMA requirements,which did not supersede the specific FCC requirements. Quadrant Corp. v. State Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2003) 119 Wash.App. 562,81 P.3d 918,review granted 152 Wash.2d 1012,99 P.3d 895, affirmed in part,reversed in part 154 Wash.2d 224, 110 P.3d 1132. Zoning And Planning C '30 In determining that certain property was not an Urban Growth Area (UGA)under the Growth Management Act, substantial evidence supported the conclusion of the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board that the Board was required to consider only present growth,rather than future development; statutory term"already characterized by urban growth" spoke to built environment in present tense. Quadrant Corp. v. State Growth Man- agement Hearings Bd. (2003) 119 Wash.App. 562, 81 P,3d 918,review granted 152 Wash,2d 1012,99 P.3d 895, affirmed in part,reversed in part 154 Wash.2d 224, 110 P.3d 1132. Zoning And Planning X359 In determining whether city's comprehensive plan complied with Growth Management Act (GMA),growth man- agement hearings board was required to consider goal of providing affordable housing, not just compliance with specific requirements of Act.Low Income Housing Institute v.City of Lakewood(2003) 119 Wash.App. 110,77 P.3d 653.Zoning And Planning >30;Zoning And Planning€ 62.1 County's amendment of its comprehensive plan and zoning code to allow active recreational uses for athletic fields within designated agricultural areas violated the Growth Management Act(GMA),where the areas did not have poor soil, or they were otherwise suitable for agricultural purposes.King County v. Ccntral Puget Sound Growth Man- agement Hearings Bd. (2000) 142 Wash.2d 543, 14 P.3d 133.Zoning And Planning e l67.1 2.Property rights In order to constitute an"innovative zoning technique"consistent with the overall meaning of the Growth Manage- ment Act(GMA),a development regulation must satisfy the Act's mandate to conserve agricultural lands for the maintenance and enhancement of the agricultural industry. King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2000) 142 Wash.2d 543, 14 P.3d 133. Zoning And Planning X279 Under"innovative zoning technique"provision of Growth Management Act(GMA),allowing a county or city to"use a variety of innovative zoning techniques in areas designated as agricultural lands of long-term commercial signi- ficance"and stating that a county or city"should encourage nonagricultural uses to be limited to lands with poor soils or otherwise not suitable for agricultural purposes," a county or city has no discretion to encourage nonagricultural uses of land that does not have poor soil or that is otherwise suitable for agricultural purposes.King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2000) 142 Wash.2d 543, 14 P.3d 133.Zoning And Planning €279 Growth Management Act does not prohibit adoption of plans and regulations that may negatively affect particular private property interest;therefore,RCW 36.70A.280 does not authorize Growth Planning Hearings Boards to grant relief to specific property owner if plans and regulations have negative impact on owner's specific property and owner cannot challenge plans or regulations based solely on claim that plans or regulations result in negative impact on owner's property. Op.Atty.Gen. 1992,No.23. Growth Planning Hearings Boards have jurisdiction over petitions that allege that private property rights have not been considered or have been considered in arbitrary or discriminatory manner.Op.Atty.Gen. 1992,No.23. One requirement of Growth Management Act is that governments adopting plans and regulations consider goal of protecting private property rights. Op.Atty.Gen. 1992,No.23. ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. West's RCWA 36.70A.020 Page 6 3. County-wide planning policies County resolution prohibiting urban developments beyond interim urban growth area boundaries,enacted in response to the Growth Management Act(GMA),had to be read in conjunction with the GMA and its objective policies and definitions, and,so read,was not unconstitutionally vague. Citizens for Responsible and Organized Planning(CROP) v. Chelan County(2001) 105 Wash.App.753,21 P.3d 304. Zoning And Planning County-wide planning policy may provide substantive direction to comprehensive plans if it: (1)meets a legitimate regional objective; (2) does not directly affect the provisions of an implementing regulation or other exercise of land use power; and(3)is consistent with other relevant provisions of the Growth Management Act(GMA). Stewart v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd. for King County(2000) 100 Wash.App. 165, 996 P.2d 1087.Zoning And Planning X30 3.5. Conflicts,generally A site-specific rezone cannot be challenged for compliance with the Growth Management Act(GMA). Woods v. Kittitas County(2007) 162 Wash.2d 597, 174 Pad 25. Zoning and Planning€154 When there is a conflict between the general goals found in the Growth Management Act(GMA)and the specific requirements for a fully contained community(FCC)found in a section of the GMA,the specific requirements control. Quadrant Corp. v. State Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2003) 119 Wash.App. 562, 81 P.3d 918,review granted 152 Wash.2d 1012, 99 P,3d 895, affirmed in part,reversed in part 154 Wash.2d 224, 110 P.3d 1132. Zoning And Planning C '14 4. Conflicts with zoning codes Density restriction in decades-old restrictive covenant governing all lots in subdivision did not violate public policy,as expressed in Growth Management Act(GMA),and city's comprehensive plan and zoning regulations;GMA was primarily prospective in nature,enforcement of covenant furthered GMA goals of protecting private property rights and preserving open space and, although city's zoning regulations called for minimum density of four dwelling units per acre,nothing in regulations compelled property owners to develop parcels to such minimum density, and city concededly had no authority either to enforce or to invalidate restrictive covenants. Viking Properties,Inc.v, Holm (2005) 155 Wash.2d 112, 118 P.3d 322. Covenants X69(2) City ordinance that exempted shopping center redevelopment from city's concurrency requirements concerning transportation impacts was invalid as conflicting with the Growth Management Act(GMA),under which,concur- rency was a requirement,not a goal.City of Bellevue v.East Bellevue Community Mun. Corp. (2003) 119 Wash.App. 405, 81 P,3d 148,review denied 152 Wash.2d 1004, 101 P.3d 865. Zoning And Planning X14 State Growth Management Act's(GMA)policies of encouraging development in urban areas and reducing sprawl did not provide a basis for allowing city's interim critical areas regulation,adopted pursuant to the GMA and requiring 3,000-square-foot building pad,to supersede city's zoning code requiring minimum lot area,minimum lot dimensions, and a minimum building rectangle,where there was no ambiguity in the language of the interim critical areas regu- lation or the zoning code,nor any actual conflict with the GMA or between the regulation and the zoning code.Faben Point Neighbors v, City of Mercer Island(2000) 102 Wash.App, 775, 11 P.3d 322,review denied 142 Wash.2d 1027, 21 P.3d 1149. Zoning And Planning C14 5. Conflicts with county plans D 2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov. Works. West's RCWA 36.70A.020 Page 7 A challenge to a site-specific land use dccision can be only for violations of the comprehensive plan and/or devel- opment regulations, but not violations of the Growth Management Act(GMA). Woods v.Kittitas County(2007) 162 Wash.2d 597, 174 P.3d 25.Zoning and Planning '12;Zoning and Planning =30 Neighboring landowner's challenge to site-specific rezone's compliance with the Growth Management Act(GMA) was a disguised challenge to the adequacy of the county's comprehensive plan,which was a matter within the exclu- sive jurisdiction of a Growth Management Hearing Board(GMHB),rather than the superior court. Woods v.Kittitas County(2007) 162 Wash.2d 597, 174 P.3d 25.Zoning and Planning ° 569 County's buildable lands report(BLR)submitted to Growth Management Hearings Board for review in accordance with the Growth Management Act(GMA)was inconsistent with the county's comprchensive plan,and thus,the county was required to adopt reasonable measures to increase consistency;the BLR revealed that a majority of new residential permits were issued in rural areas while the county's policy indicated that it would promote a development pattern directing 83 percent of new population growth to urban areas.Kitsap County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd.(2007) 138 Wash.App, 863, 158 P.3d 638, clarified on denial of reconsideration.Zoning And Planning C=30 Growth Management Board owed no deference to county's plan to extend sewer line from an urban treatment plant to a rural area,where county's plan conflicted with Growth Management Act and with county's own comprehensive plan. The Cooper Point Ass'n v,Thurston County(2001) 108 Wash.App.429,31 P.3d 28,review granted 145 Wash.2d 1033.,43 P.3d 20,affirmed 148 Wash.2d 1, 57 P.3d 1156, Counties C=107 6.Annexations City's petition with Boundary Review Board(BRB) to annex land that was designated agricultural in county's com- prehensive plan was premature,in the absence of an interlocal agreement to preserve the resource character of the land, as contemplated by the comprehensive plan. Stewart v.Washington State Boundaiy Review Bd. for King County(2000) 100 Wash.App. 165,996 P.2d 1087. Municipal Corporations x'33(8) 7. Presumption and burden of proof County failed to estahlish that goal of protecting or preserving agricultural activities on rural residential (RR)lands was furthered by application of agricultural exemption to its critical areas ordinance;record contained no information as to how many acres were being farmed,where those were located,and what their cumulative impact may have be on critical areas,record showed that only 60 acres of land in the R.R.zone was in the agricultural tax program,and county provided none of this RR"agricultural"activity with Growth Management Act(GMA)protections such as notifica- tion to adjacent landowners or application of its nuisance protection regulation. Whidhey Environmental Action Network v. Island County(2004)2004 WL 1153309,superseded l22 Wash.App. 156, 93 P.3d 885,reconsideration denied,review denied 153 Wash2d 1025, 110 P.3d 756.Zoning And Planning C=76 Landowner failed to rebut presumption that county was guided by factors in Growth Management Act in developing its comprehensive plan,which designated certain rural shoreline as interim rural forest with a housing density of one unit per 20 acres, where county stated in its comprehensive plan that it considered the factors outlined in the Growth Management Act,and landowner accepted findings based on county's statement. Manke Lumber Co.,Inc. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2002) 113 Wash.App. 615, 53 P.3d 1011,review denied 148 Wash.2d 1017,64 P.3d 649. Zoning And Planning X679 Landowner failed to meet his burden in showing that county comprehensive plan,which designated rural shoreline as interim rural forest with minimum lot size of 20 acres,was not developed with consideration of goal to promote af- fordable housing,where landowner offered no evidence of county housing inventory or future housing needs,pre- ()2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. West's RCWA 36.70A.020 Page 8 sumed that smaller lot size would reduce cost of lots,and county devoted entire chapter and appendix detailing housing inventory, including availability of affordable housing, and future housing needs that demonstrated that county fully considered that goal.Manke Lumber Co.,Inc.v.Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2002) 113 Wash.App. 615, 53 P.3d 1011,review denied 148 Wash.2d 1017, 64 P.3d 649. Zoning And Planning 63 8.Review On appeal of regional growth management hearings board's finding a county to be in noncompliance with Growth Management Act(GMA),Court of Appeals reviews board's conclusions of law de novo,giving great,but not binding, weight to the board's interpretation within its subject matter expertise. Ferry County v, Concerned Friends of Ferry County(2004) 121 Wash.App. 850,90 P.3d 698,review granted in part 153 Wash.2d 1016, 106 P.3d 243, affirmed 155 Wash.2d 824, 123 P.3d 102. Zoning And Planning€'745.1 On appeal of regional growth management hearings board's finding a county to be in noncompliance with Growth Management Act(GMA),Court of Appeals determines whether substantial evidence, that is, evidence that is suffi- cient to persuade a fair-minded,rational person of the truth of the matter, supports the board's findings of fact. Ferry County v. Concerned Friends of Ferry County(2004) 121 Wash.App. 850,90 P,3d 698,review granted in part 153 Wash.2d 1016, 106 P.3d 243,affirmed 155 Wash,2d 824, 123 P.3d 102. Zoning And Planning '703 On appeal of regional growth management hearings board's finding a county to be in noncompliance with Growth Management Act(GMA), Court of Appeals bases its review on the record before the Board. Ferry County v. Con- cerned Friends of Ferry County(2004) 121 Wash.App. 850,90 P.3d 698, review granted in part 153 Wash.2d 1016, 106 P.3d 243, affirmed 155 Wash.2d 824, 123 P.3d 102.Zoning And Planning C '574 The growth management hearings board's standard of review of a city's comprehensive land use plans amendments require it to invalidate the amendments only if it finds that city's actions in adopting the plan amendments were clearly erroneous in view of the entire record before the board and in light of the public participation requirements of the Growth Management Act(GMA); for the board to find that city's actions were clearly erroneous,board must be left with the firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been committed. City of Burien v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2002) 113 Wash.App. 375, 53 P.3d 1028. Zoning And Planning C '191 Landowner waived for appellate review the issue of whether county's designation of landowner's property in com- prehensive plan as rural residential was invalid as inconsistent with designation of land in Assessor's office as com- mercial,in landowner's challenge to adoption of comprehensive plan, where Iandowner failed to raise the argument before the Growth Management Hearings Board or the lower court.Manke Lumber Co., Inc. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2002) 113 Wash.App. 615,53 P.3d 1011,review denied 148 Wash,2d 1017,64 P.3d 649. Zoning And Planning743 West's RCWA 36.70A.020,WA ST 36.70A.020 Current with 2010 Legislation effective through February 15, 2010 (C)2010 Thomson Reuters. END OF DOCUMENT ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 9, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Adult entertainment GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 5.10; First Amendment to the United States Constitution PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Upon our City's incorporation, Ordinance 03-036 was adopted, adopting by reference the Spokane C ounty A dult Entertainment C ode C hapter 7.80 (which later beca me S VMC 5. 10); followed b y adoption o f 0 rdinances 03-053 a nd 03-054 relating to zoning (which were I ater repealed by 07-015 adopting the U niform Development Code); and adoption in late 2003 of Ordinance 03-097 dealing with nonconforming uses (which was also repealed by 07-015). BACKGROUND: There are two basic types of governmental regulations pertaining to adul t entertainment: t hose that i dentify where adul t entertainment facilities may I ocate ( land use issues), and t hose that r elate t o how t he act ivities are al lowed t o be conducted w ithin t he business premises (licensing issues). Tonight's proposal before you relates only to I icensing issues, although a brief review of both types of issues is being provided for context for this discussion. Upon incorporation on March 31, 2003, t he C ity C ouncil adopt ed Ordinance 03-036, w hich incorporated by r eference t he S pokane C ounty C ode pr ovisions on adul t ent ertainment licensing. As such, all of the licensing requirements and prohibitions on certain kinds of conduct on adult entertainment facilities were controlled as they had been while under County control. Also upon i ncorporation, the City adopted Ordinances 03-053 and 054 w hich established the existing Spokane C ounty zoning regulations and zoning m aps as our i nterim regulations and maps, including places where adult entertainment businesses could locate. One issue the City Council decided to look at changing was whether to keep the amortization schedule previously adopted by S pokane C ounty. T he C ounty passe d w hat are co mmonly referred to as "buffering requirements." These types of restrictions require that any such business be I ocated no cl oser t han 1000 feet from a place o f religious worship, sch ool, daycare/nursery school, park/playground, library, or another adult use. Distances are measured from the nearest property line of the adult retail use to the nearest property line of the buffered use. The net effect of the amortization schedule was to require that any businesses that could not m eet t he bu ffering r equirement w ould ha ve t o m ove t o a par cel that does meet t he requirements, of which there are very few, and are almost all within a confined area around the intersection of Fancher Road and Sprague Avenue. After consideration of the impacts of leaving the non-conforming businesses where they were relative to the anticipated impacts of consolidating the businesses into a "red light district," the Council voted to remove the amortization provisions. There were originally five adult oriented businesses at the time of incorporation, and one voluntarily elected to close around 2004. The Council kept the buffering requirements, which would apply to any new adult businesses. Current matter before the Council City staff attempts to keep up with current I egal issues relating to the City C ode and tries to identify changes that may be necessary to carry out the Code adopted by the Council, including with regard to adult entertainment. At this point, it would be helpful to explain that there are essentially two distinct types of adult oriented busi ness: adult r etail and adul t en tertainment. A dult ent ertainment i s generally considered "an ex hibition, per formance or dance t hat i s intended t o se xually st imulate a member o f t he publ ic', i nvolving so mebody who i s nude or se mi-nude, for t he publ is in a commercial business. It also includes what are refers to as "arcade" devices, which are generally enclosures showing movies or pictures of specified sexual activity. Adult r etail a ctivity is not de fined i n t he new pr oposed C ode pr ovisions (nor the o1 d C ode provisions for that matter) because it is primarily a zoning use issue, and is thus contained in the Uniform Development Code. The UDC defines "adult retail use establishment" as follows: "A retail use es tablishment w hich, for m oney or any of her form o f co nsideration, devotes a significant or substantial portion of stock in trade, to the sale, exchange, rental, loan, trade, transfer, or viewing of adult-oriented merchandise." We became aware that there may arguably be some ambiguity regarding what type of conduct is allowed in adult retail establishments. Thus, if certain conduct existed within an adult retail use and was properly classified as adult entertainment, that conduct should be subject to the licensing requirements of adult en tertainment establishments. In or der t o resolve potential ambiguities, staff has proposed these new Code provisions. Many of the provisions were taken from Spokane County's Code, which we had adopted by reference upon incorporation, with considerable attention given to more clearly defining the types of conduct than were previously stated. This Code al so est ablishes a cI ear se to f r ules for app eats of adm inistrative determinations, which is a legal necessity. An example of this would be a determination that a license hot der i s in v iolation oft he C ode, a nd thus should have its 1 ive adult entertainment facility license revoked or suspended. They could then appeal that determination to the Hearing Examiner, whose decision could then be appealed to Superior Court. These rules, if adopted, would apply to all existing and future adult entertainment facilities from the effective date oft he or dinance. Staff bel ieves they would ensu re t hat activities that are defined as being within the sphere of "adult entertainment" are confined to only those places so licensed, and with appropriate oversight. If a business exceeded the scope of its legal use, the City could use these regulations to stop the illegal use. These rules are justified as limited time, place or manner restrictions on expressive activity; based on the legislative record compiled for this ordinance and the prior C ounty C ode, the City i ntends to ad dress the ha rmful effects of such activity by these restrictions. Fee Resolution: The Council amends the Fee Resolution from time to time to include, remove, or m odify f ees charged by the C ity. S taff has pr oposed am ending the adult ent ertainment regulations by adopting our own specific regulations, rather than adopting Spokane County's by reference, as was previously done in 2003. The new regulations require the adoption of fees for appeals that may result from the new regulations. These are found on the second to last page of the Master Fee Schedule in underline/strikethrough format (Schedule F). The appeal fee is the same as it is for appeals of other administrative determinations going to the Hearing Examiner, $1,050.00. This is revenue neutral because we only seek cost recovery for any appeals, including adult entertainment. OPTIONS: (a) C ode R egulations: Bring t his matter bac k to C ouncil f or a f irst r eading, w ith or without modifications; continue oper ating w ith exi sting r egulations; or take of her act ion deem ed appropriate. (b) Bring this matter back to Council to revise the fee resolution to include adoption of an appeal fee; or do not charge a fee for adult entertainment appeals; or take other action deemed appropriate. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: A. Existing adult entertainment Code provisions B. Proposed adult entertainment Code provisions C. Fee Resolution Schedule F in track-change format D. Legislative record for proposed code [Copy available in Clerk's office] Chapter 5.10 Page 1 of 1 Chapter 5.10 ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS* Sections: 5.10.010 Incorporation by reference. 5.10.020 Adoption of certain other laws. 5.10.030 Reference to Spokane County and hearing bodies. * See also SVMC 19.80.020. 5.10.010 Incorporation by reference. Pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020 and 35A,12.140, the City adopts by reference Chapter 7.80, entitled "Adult Entertainment Establishments," of the Spokane County Code as presently constituted or hereinafter amended, as the adult entertainment regulations of the City. Chapter 7.80, entitled "Adult Entertainment Establishments," of the Spokane County Code, is attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter as "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. (Ord. 36 § 1, 2003). 5.10.020 Adoption of certain other laws. To the extent that any provision of the Spokane County Code, or any other law, rule, regulation or document(s) referenced in Chapter 7.80, entitled "Adult Entertainment Establishments," of the Spokane County Code, is necessary or convenient to establish the validity, enforceability or interpretation of the adult entertainment establishment section, such provision of the Spokane County Code, or other law, rule, regulation or document(s) is hereby adopted by reference. (Ord. 36 § 2, 2003). 5,10,030 Reference to Spokane County and hearing bodies. Unless the context requires otherwise, any reference to the "county" or to "Spokane County" shall refer to the City of Spokane Valley, and any reference to county staff or licensing officer shall refer to the city manager or designee. To the extent that Exhibit A of the ordinance codified in this chapter refers to the city council or other licensing body, the city council hereby designates and confers jurisdiction upon the hearing examiner to hold hearings and render decisions on matters which relate to Chapter 7.80, entitled "Adult Entertainment Establishments," of the Spokane County Code. (Ord. 36 § 3, 2003). Compile Title This page of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code is City Website: http://www.spokanevalley.org/ current through Ordinance 10-002, passed January 19, (http://www.spokanevaltey.org/) 2010. City Telephone: (509) 688-0177 Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Code Publishing Company Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Users should contact the City (http://www.codepublishing.com/) Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/SpokaneValley/spval05/spval0510.html 2/25/2010 Chapter 7.80 ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS Sections: 7.80,010 Preamble. 7.80.020 Findings. 7.80.030 Purpose, 7.80.040 Definitions. 7.80.050 License required. 7.80.060 License prohibited to certain classes. 7.80.070 Applications. 7.80.080 Adult entertainment establishment manager and entertainer licenses, 7.80.090 Standards of conduct and operation of adult entertainment establishments and personnel. 7.80.100 Premises--Specifications. 7.80.110 License fees, term, expiration, assignment, and renewals. 7.80.120 Licensing compliance with other county ordinances. 7.80.130 License suspension and revocation--Hearing. 7.80.140 Appeals, 7.80.150 Notices, 7.80.160 Liquor regulations. 7.80.170 Violation a misdemeanor. 7.80.180 Code violations and enforcement. 7.80.190 Conflicting sections or provisions. 7.80.200 Time frame for compliance of nonconforming adult entertainment establishments. 7,80,210 Chapter not intended towards particular group or class. 7.80.220 Liberal construction. 7.80.230 Moral nuisance. 7,80,240 Additional enforcement. 7.80.250 Severability. 7,80.010 Preamble. WHEREAS, the board of county commissioners of Spokane County,hereinafter "the board," is committed to protecting the general welfare of the unincorporated areas of the county through the enforcement of laws prohibiting obscenity, indecency and sexual offenses while preserving constitutionally protected forms of expression, and based upon public testimony and other evidence and information before it; and WHEREAS, having made a detailed review of the national record, the record in the city of Spokane and the state of Washington, and the conditions in the county of Spokane regarding live adult entertainment establishments and adult entertainment establishments with arcades, hereinafter collectively referred to as "adult entertainment establishments," the board has conducted an in depth study of the legal issues,regulatory and licensing options, expenses, actions and ordinances utilized by other jurisdictions. Spokane County finds that adult entertainment establishments require special supervision from the public safety agencies of Spokane County in order to protect and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the patrons and employees of such businesses as well as the citizens of Spokane County; and WHEREAS, the board finds that concerns about crime and public sexual activity within the adult entertainment establishments are legitimate, substantial and compelling concerns of the county which demand reasonable regulation; and WHEREAS, the board finds that adult entertainment establishments are frequently used for unlawful activities including prostitution, sexually explicit conduct in a public place, lewdness, drug activity, use and distribution of obscenity, and sexual exploitation of minors; and WHEREAS,the board finds that adult entertainment establishments, due to their nature, have secondary adverse impacts upon the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry through increases in crime and opportunity for spread of sexually transmitted diseases; and WHEREAS,the concern over sexually transmitted diseases is a legitimate health concern of the county which demands reasonable regulation of adult entertainment establishments in order to protect the health and well-being of the citizens of Spokane County; and WHEREAS, licensing is a legitimate and reasonable means of accountability to ensure that operators of adult entertainment establishments comply with reasonable regulations and to ensure that operators do not knowingly allow their establishments to be used as places of illegal sexual activity or solicitation, while providing to those who desire to operate or to patronize adult entertainment uses an opportunity to do so in a secure environment; and WHEREAS, there is convincing documented evidence that adult entertainment establishments, if not appropriately regulated and licensed,have a detrimental effect on both the existing businesses around them and the surrounding residential areas adjacent to them, causing increased crime,the downgrading of quality of life and property values, and the spread of urban blight. Reasonable regulation of these facilities will provide for the protection of the community,protect residents,patrons and employees from the adverse secondary effects of such arcade facilities; and WHEREAS, licensing of managers and requiring their presence on the premises during all times when adult entertainment is offered is necessary so that the individual responsible for the overall operation of establishment, including the actions of patrons, entertainers and other employees, will be available and accountable at all necessary times; and WHEREAS, licensing fees required herein are nominal fees imposed as necessary regulatory expenses incurred by the county in regulating adult entertainment establishments; and WHEREAS, locational criteria alone cannot adequately protect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of this county; and WHEREAS, it is not the intent of this ordinance to suppress any speech activities protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, or Article 1, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution, but to enact content neutral legislation which addresses the negative secondary impacts of adult entertainment establishments; and WHEREAS, it is not the intent of the board to condone or legitimize the distribution of obscene material, and the board recognizes that state and federal law prohibits the distribution of obscene materials; and WHEREAS, the board at its duly advertised public hearing on November 4, 1997, considered the subject matter of adult entertainment establishments within the unincorporated areas of county of Spokane, at which public hearing the board received comments from the public on that subject matter, which the board believes to be true, and which, together with the findings heretofore set forth as the basis for the enactment of Resolution No. 97-1052, form the basis for the adoption of this chapter; and Pursuant to the authority granted by the Constitution and the legislature of the state of Washington, be it enacted by the Spokane board of county commissioners the provisions of this Chapter 7.80. (Res, 97-1052 Attachment A(§ 1), 1997) 7.80.020 Findings. (a) Based upon a wide range of evidence presented to the board and that presented in other jurisdictions to legislators and courts, including but not limited to the testimony of enforcement officers,members of the public, and based upon other evidence, information,publications, articles, studies, caselaw, and materials submitted to and/or reviewed by the board and staff,the board finds that the commercial offering of adult entertainment establishments containing live adult entertainment and/or arcade devices is a use which, although afforded some constitutional protection in the material or performance to be viewed, often creates or enhances undesirable secondary effects, which include a wide range of criminal and unlawful activities that are detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of Spokane County, which have regularly and historically occurred within and around the adult entertainment facilities. These adverse secondary effects are well documented in the national record. The criminal activity complained of has included the following: narcotics and liquor law violations; breaches of the peace; assaults; criminal activity involving illegal contact between patrons and between entertainers and patrons; tax evasion; money laundering activity; sexually explicit conduct, acts of lewdness, and indecent exposure; prostitution, patronizing a prostitute, promotion of prostitution; sale,promotion, production, distribution, dissemination or display of obscenity or child pornography; soliciting,procuring, aiding and abetting, employing, authorizing, or causing a sexual performance by a minor; indecent conduct with a minor; communication with a minor for immoral purposes; sexual assault or rape; sexual solicitation, molestation or exploitation of a minor; contributing to the delinquency of a minor; maintaining a moral nuisance; having a minor on the premises of a commercial establishment where there are materials or performances depicting specified anatomical areas or activities. Adult entertainment facilities have engaged in practices which involve secreting ownership interests for the purpose of skimming profits and avoiding the payment of taxes in the absence of regulations such as those herein set forth. These hidden ownership interests have, on occasion, been held by individuals and entities reputed to be involved in organized crime. In order for the county to effectively protect the public safety and general welfare of its citizens and effectively allocate law enforcement resources, it is important that the county be fully apprised of the actual operation of adult entertainment establishments, and identities and backgrounds of persons responsible for management and control of the adult entertainment establishments. Sexually oriented businesses of this nature have historically produced adverse secondary effects that are often not controlled by the owners, operators, managers or personnel associated with the establishments. Such persons, and persons previously convicted of a specified criminal activity, have demonstrated an inability and/or unwillingness to maintain premises which are free from such adverse,secondary effects. In some instances, employees have been sanctioned by management for not cleaning up after patrons' sexual contacts in the facilities. Used condoms are frequently present in adult arcade premises. Some adult arcade facilities sell sexual devices which are then used on the premises. Masturbation and other sexual contacts within the arcade stations or booths is a frequent occurrence in arcade facilities. Much of the national legislative record is also documented in case law which has developed in Washington State and around the nation. Ino Ino Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 132 Wn.2d 103 (1997) (Municipality's ordinance regulating and licensing live adult entertainment facility is constitutionally valid; courts have recognized government's substantial interest in curbing secondary effects of adult entertainment establishments.) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that cities and states have a substantial governmental interest in preserving the character of their neighborhoods,preventing the deterioration therein, and that this reasoning is sufficient support for regulating adult entertainment establishments. Renton v. Playtime Theater, Inc. 475 U.S. 41, 89 L.Ed.2d 29, 106 S.Ct 925 (1986). In Renton,the Supreme Court further expanded the ability of the legislative body to rely upon the experiences of other cities and the notion of"legislative notice" to satisfy the requirement that the ordinance be narrowly tailored to achieve the governmental interest. Renton, 106 S.Ct. at 930. (b) Since 1985,the city of Spokane has been studying the issues attendant to adult entertainment facilities. In 1993, the city of Spokane enacted a comprehensive ordinance licensing, regulating and setting enforcement parameters for these facilities. Since that time the city of Spokane successfully defended many challenges to its adult arcade ordinance. In developing and implementing its program, the city of Spokane has worked with many cities, counties and law enforcement agencies around the country regarding the adverse secondary effects associated with adult entertainment facilities containing arcade booths and the best methods for addressing these secondary effects. Ordinances regulating arcade booths are narrowly tailored if they allow for reasonable alternative avenues of communication. Restrictions which require the booths be "open to an adjacent public room" are narrowly tailored so long as the regulation "promotes a substantial governmental interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation." Mitchell v. Comm'n on Adult Entertainment Establishment, 10 F.3d 123, 137 (3rd Cir. 1993). Adult Entertainment v. Pierce County, 57 Wn. App. 435 (1990) (Arcade ordinance requiring doors be removed is justified by the fundamental purpose of preserving the public health and safety); Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U.S. 697 (1986) (Evidence submitted which indicated booths were used for masturbation, fondling, and fellatio by patrons on the premises of the store); Wall Distributors, Inc. v. Newport News, VA., 782 F.2d 1165 (4th Cir. 1986) (Ordinance reasonable because it will prevent masturbation and related unsanitary conditions which occur in the adult arcade setting); Ellwest Stereo Theatres, Inc. v. Wenner, 681 F.2d 1243 (9th Cir. 1982) (Anticipated health and safety problems associated with adult arcade facility sufficient to justify ordinance). Many other cities and counties have experienced the same adverse secondary effects as those which were evident when the city of Spokane enacted its ordinance regulating and licensing adult arcade facilities. Much of the national legislative record detailing adverse secondary effects stems from land use studies which examined the effects of adult entertainment establishments. Even though many of the land use studies conducted across the country and rejected in the caselaw resulted in zoning regulations, the record also details facilities rampant with criminal activity and other adverse secondary effects, even after dispersal or restrictive zoning has been put in place. So, although some jurisdictions have utilized zoning as a sole method of minimizing the adverse secondary effects of these businesses, Spokane County finds that zoning alone is not sufficient to control the adverse secondary effects which arise from the operation of such a facility. As such, the resolution codified in this chapter seeks to supplement the efforts of the county's resolution zoning adult entertainment establishments. The following suits provide an overview of the efforts and results in the city of Spokane regarding the adult arcade ordinance enacted in 1993. Book City, Inc. v. City of Spokane, Superior Court Cause No. 93-06099-2 (Constitutionality of ordinance upheld - appeal pending); Book City, Inc. v. City of Spokane, Superior Court Cause No. 95-2-032987-0 (Writ of Review upholding denial of license- appeal pending); World Wide Video, et al. v. City of Spokane, Superior Court Cause No. 95-2-02795-9 (Upholding constitutionality under state constitution, appeal pending); City of Spokane v. Book City & Walton, Municipal Court Cause No. P960034 (Successful prosecution of a corporation and an individual for hiring an underage dancer-upheld on appeal); Spokane Arcade, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 75 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 1996) (Constitutionality of ordinance upheld under U.S. Constitution and finding no constitutional right to make a profit). Each action, the supporting documentation, and trial materials and testimony are contained in the legislative record and are herein incorporated by reference. It has been the experience of the city of Spokane that to be effective the facilities must adhere to all facets of the ordinance,must actively self-monitor, and must work closely with law and code enforcement personnel, To maximize the benefit of the city's education and experience in this area, and to supplement the county's resources to document the adverse secondary effects associated with adult entertainment facilities with arcades, Spokane County worked very closely with numerous city of Spokane departments to ensure the resolution codified in this chapter was responsive to the county's needs. A copy of the legislative record utilized by the city of Spokane in enacting its ordinance, as well as a copy of the transcript of the public hearing and a transcript of the testimony in Spokane Arcade, Inc, v. City of Spokane, 75 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 1996), are attached and incorporated as a part of this record. All other materials reviewed and relied upon,whether attached as copies or not, and entities/persons contacted are also incorporated as a part of this record. (c) Similarly,prior to the enactment of this chapter the county of Spokane worked closely with the city of Bellevue and other cities around the state in developing the portion of this resolution which seeks to license and regulate live adult entertainment establishments. Specifically,the legislative record of two such cities,the city of Bellevue, and the city of Federal Way, and the model "Proposed Senate Bill Regulating Live Adult Entertainment" are incorporated in Spokane County's legislative record in support of this resolution. The Spokane board of county commissioners,therefore, finds that the protection and the preservation of public health, safety and welfare requires enactment of this chapter. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A (§ 2), 1997) 7.80.030 Purpose. In the development and adoption of this chapter,the county recognized that there are adult entertainment uses which, due to their very nature, have serious objectionable operational characteristics,particularly when located in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools,thereby having a deleterious impact upon the quality of life in the surrounding areas. It has been acknowledged by courts and communities across the nation that state and local governmental entities have a special concern in regulating the operation of such businesses under their jurisdiction to ensure the adverse secondary effects of the establishments are minimized. This chapter is intended to protect the general public health, safety and welfare of the citizenry of the unincorporated areas of Spokane County through the regulation of the operations and licensing of the adult entertainment devices,premises and personnel of adult entertainment establishments. The provisions of this chapter have neither the purpose nor effect of imposing a limitation or restriction on the content of any constitutionally protected sexually oriented or explicit communicative materials, or communicative performances. The regulations set forth herein are intended to prevent and control health, safety and welfare issues, the decline in neighborhood conditions in and around adult entertainment establishments, and to prevent dangerous and unlawful conduct associated with these facilities. This chapter may not be construed as permitting or promoting obscene conduct or materials. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A(§ 3), 1997) 7.80.040 Definitions. The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. "Adult arcade device," sometimes also known as "panoram," "preview," "picture arcade," "adult arcade," or "peep show," means any device which, for payment of a fee, membership fee, or other charge, is used to exhibit or display a graphic picture, view, film, videotape, or digital display of specified sexual activity, or live adult entertainment in a booth setting. All such devices are denominated under this chapter by the term "adult arcade device." The term "adult arcade device" as used in this chapter does not include other games which employ pictures, views, or video displays, or gambling devices which do not exhibit or display adult entertainment. "Adult arcade establishment" means a commercial premises to which a member of the public is invited or admitted and where adult arcade stations, booths, or devices are used to exhibit or display a graphic picture, view, film, videotape, or digital display of specified sexual activity, or live adult entertainment in a booth setting to a member of the public on a regular basis or as a substantial part of the premises activity. "Adult arcade station" or "booth" means an enclosure where a patron, member, or customer would ordinarily be positioned while using an adult arcade device or viewing a live adult entertainment performance, exhibition, or dance in a booth. Adult arcade station or booth refers to the area in which an adult arcade device is located and from which the graphic picture, view, film,videotape, digital display of specified sexual activity, or live adult entertainment is to be viewed. These terms do not mean such an enclosure that is a private office used by an owner, manager, or person employed on the premises for attending the tasks of his or her employment, if the enclosure is not held out to any member of the public for use, for hire, or for a fee for the purpose of viewing the entertainment provided by the arcade device or live adult entertainment, and not open to any person other than employees. "Adult entertainment establishment" collectively refers to adult arcade establishments and live adult entertainment establishments, as defined herein. "Applicant" means the individual or entity seeking an adult entertainment establishment license. "Applicant control person" means all partners, corporate officers and directors and other individuals in the applicant's business organization who hold a significant interest in the adult entertainment business, based on responsibility for management of the adult entertainment establishment. "Employee" means a person, including a manager, entertainer or an independent contractor, who works in or at or renders services directly related to the operation of an adult entertainment establishment. "Entertainer" means any person who provides live adult entertainment within an adult entertainment establishment as defined in this section, whether or not a fee is charged or accepted for entertainment. "Hearing examiner" means the chief administrative officer of Spokane County or his/her designee. "Licensing administrator" means the director of the division of building and planning of Spokane County and his/her designee and is the person designated to administer this chapter. "Liquor" means all beverages defined in RCW Section 66.04.200. "Live adult entertainment" means: (1) An exhibition,performance or dance conducted in a commercial premises for a member of the public where the exhibition,performance, or dance involves a person who is nude or seminude. Adult entertainment shall include, but is not limited to performances commonly known as "strip tease"; (2) An exhibition,performance or dance conducted in a commercial premises where the exhibition,performance or dance is distinguished or characterized by a predominant emphasis on the depiction, description, simulation or relation to the following "specified sexual activities": (A) Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal, (B) Acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or bestiality, (C) Fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, or female breasts; or (3) An exhibition,performance or dance that is intended to sexually stimulate a member of the public. This includes, but is not limited to, such an exhibition, performance, or dance performed for, arranged with, or engaged in with fewer than all members of the public on the premises at that time, whether conducted or viewed in an arcade booth or otherwise, with separate consideration paid, either directly or indirectly,for the performance, exhibition or dance and that is commonly referred to as table dancing, couch dancing, taxi dancing, lap dancing,private dancing, or straddle dancing. "Live adult entertainment establishment" means a commercial premises to which a member of the public is invited or admitted and where an entertainer provides live adult entertainment, in a setting which does not include arcade booths or devices,to a member of the public on a regular basis or as a substantial part of the premises activity. "Manager" means a person who manages, directs, administers or is in charge of the affairs or conduct, or the affairs and conduct, or of a portion of the affairs or conduct occurring at an adult entertainment establishment, "Member of the public" means a customer, patron, club member, or person, other than an employee,who is invited or admitted to an adult entertainment establishment. "Nude" or "seminude" means a state of complete or partial undress in such costume, attire or clothing so as to expose any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or any portion of the pubic region, anus, buttocks,vulva, or genitals, or human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered. The words "open to the public room so that the area inside is fully and completely visible to the manager" mean that there may be no door, curtain,partition, or other device extending from the top of the door frame of an arcade booth or station, with the exception of a door which is completely transparent and constructed of safety glass as specified in the Uniform Building Code, so that the activity and occupant inside the enclosure are fully and completely visible by direct line of sight to the manager located at the manager's station which shall be located at the main entrance way to the public room. "Operator" means a person operating, conducting or maintaining an adult entertainment establishment. "Person" means an individual,partnership, corporation, trust, incorporated or unincorporated association, marital community,joint venture, governmental entity, or other entity or group of persons however organized. "Premises" means the land, structures, places, the equipment and appurtenances connected or used in any business, and any personal property or fixtures used in connection with any adult entertainment establishment. "Sexual conduct" means acts of: (1) Sexual intercourse within its ordinary meaning, occurring upon any penetration, however slight; or (2) A penetration of the vagina or anus, however slight,by an object; or (3) A contact between persons involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another; or (4) Masturbation, manual or instrumental, of oneself or of one person by another; or (5) Touching of the sex organs, anus, or female breast,whether clothed or unclothed,of oneself or of one person by another. "Specified sexual activities" refers to the following: (1) Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal; (2) Acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or bestiality; or (3) Fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks or female breasts. "Transfer of ownership or control" of an adult entertainment establishment means any of the following: (1) The sale, lease or sublease of the business; (2) The transfer of securities that constitute a controlling interest in the business, whether by sale, exchange, or similar means; (3) The establishment of a trust, gift, or other similar legal device that transfers the ownership or control of the business; or (4) Transfer by bequest or other operation of law upon the death of the person possessing the ownership or control. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A (§ 4), 1997) 7.80.050 License required. (a) A person may not conduct,manage or operate an adult entertainment establishment unless the person is the holder of a valid and subsisting license from Spokane County. (b) An entertainer, employee or manager may not knowingly work in or about, or knowingly perform a service or entertainment directly related to the operation of an unlicensed adult entertainment establishment. (c) An entertainer may not perform in an adult entertainment establishment unless the person is the holder of a valid and subsisting license from Spokane County. (d) A manager may not work in an adult entertainment establishment unless the person is the holder of a valid and subsisting license from Spokane County. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A (§ 5), 1997) 7.80.060 License prohibited to certain classes. No license shall be issued to: (a) A natural person who has not attained the age of twenty-one years, except that a license may be issued to a person who has attained the age of eighteen years with respect to adult entertainment establishments where no intoxicating liquors are served or provided; (b) A person whose place of business is conducted by a manager or agent, unless the manager or agent has obtained a manager's license; (c) A partnership, unless all the members of the partnership are qualified to obtain a license. The license shall be issued to the manager or agent of the partnership; (d) A corporation, unless all the officers and directors of the corporation are qualified to obtain a license. The license shall be issued to the manager or agent of the corporation. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A(§ 6), 1997) 7.80.070 Applications. (a) Adult Entertainment Establishment License. (1) An application for an adult entertainment establishment license must be submitted to the licensing administrator in the name of the person or entity proposing to conduct the adult entertainment establishment on the business premises and must be signed by the person and certified as true under penalty of peijury. An application must be submitted on a form supplied by the licensing administrator, which must require the following information: (A) For the applicant and for each applicant control person,provide: names, any aliases or previous names, driver's license number, if any, social security number if any, and business, mailing, and residential address, and business telephone number; (B) If a partnership, whether general or limited; and if a corporation, date and place of incorporation; evidence that the partnership or corporation is in good standing under the laws of Washington; and the name and address of the registered agent for service of process; (C) Whether the applicant or a partner, corporate officer, or director of the applicant holds another license under this chapter or a license for similar adult entertainment or sexually oriented business, including a motion picture theater, or a panoram, from Spokane County, another city, county or state, and if so, the name and address of each other licensed business; (D) A summary of the business history of the applicant and applicant control persons in owning or operating the adult entertainment or other sexually oriented business providing names, addresses and dates of operation for such businesses, and whether any business license or adult entertainment license has been revoked or suspended and the reason for the revocation or suspension; (E) For the applicant and all applicant control persons, all criminal convictions or forfeitures within five years immediately preceding the date of the application, other than parking offenses or minor traffic infractions including the dates of conviction,nature of the crime, name and location of court and disposition; (F) For the applicant and all applicant control persons, a description of business, occupation or employment history for the three years immediately preceding the date of the application; (G) Authorization for Spokane County, and its agents and employees to seek information to confirm any statements set forth in the application; (H) The location and doing-business-as name of the proposed adult entertainment establishment, including a legal description of the property, street address, and telephone number,together with the name and address of each owner and lessee of the property; (I) Two two-inch by two-inch photographs of the applicant and applicant control persons, taken within six months of the date of application showing only the full face; (J) A complete set of fingerprints for the applicant or each applicant control person,taken by the law enforcement agency for the jurisdiction, or such other entity as authorized by the law enforcement agency; (K) A scale drawing or diagram showing the configuration of the premises for the proposed adult entertainment establishment, including a statement of the total floor space occupied by the business, and marked dimensions of the interior of the premises. Performance areas, seating areas, manager's office and stations, restrooms, arcade booths or devices, overhead lighting fixtures, and service areas shall be clearly marked on the drawing. An application for a license for an adult entertainment establishment must include building plans which demonstrate conformance with Spokane County building code requirements. Upon request, a prelicensing conference will be scheduled with the licensing administrator, or his/her designee and pertinent government departments to assist the applicant in meeting the regulations and provisions of this chapter, as well as the Spokane County Code.No alteration of the configuration of the interior of the adult entertainment establishment or enlargement of the floor space occupied by the premises may be made after obtaining a license,without the prior approval of the licensing administrator or the administrator's designee. Approval for such enlargement may only be granted if the premises and proposed enlargement first meet the qualifications and requirements of the Spokane County Code, or other applicable statutes or laws. (2) An application will be deemed complete upon the applicant's submission of all information requested in subsection (a)(1) of this section, including the identification of"none" where that is the correct response. The licensing administrator may request other information or clarification in addition to that provided in a complete application if necessary to determine compliance with this chapter. (3) A nonrefundable license fee must be paid at the time of filing an application in order to defray the costs of processing the application. (4) Each applicant shall verify,under penalty of perjury that the information contained in the application is true. (5) If, subsequent to the issuance of an adult entertainment establishment license for a business, a person or entity acquires a significant interest based on responsibility for management or operation of the business, notice of such acquisition shall be provided in writing to the licensing administrator,no later than twenty-one calendar days following the acquisition. The notice required must include the information required for the original adult entertainment establishment license application. (6) The adult entertainment establishment license, if granted, must state on its face the name of the person or persons to whom it is issued, the expiration date, the doing-business-as name and the address of the licensed adult entertainment establishment. The license must be posted in a conspicuous place at or near the entrance to the adult entertainment establishment so that it can be easily read when the business is open. (7) A person granted an adult entertainment establishment license under this chapter may not operate the adult entertainment establishment under a name not specified on the license, nor may a person operate an adult entertainment establishment, or an adult entertainment device under a designation or at location not specified on the license. (8) Upon receipt of the complete application and fee, the licensing administrator shall provide copies to the sheriff, fire, and building and planning departments for their investigation and review to determine compliance of the proposed adult entertainment establishment with the laws and regulations which each department administers. Each department shall, within fifteen days of the date of such application, inspect the application and premises and shall make a written report to the licensing administrator whether such application and premises comply with the laws administered by each department. A license may not be issued unless each department reports that the applicant and premises comply with the relevant laws. If the premises is not yet constructed,the departments shall base their recommendation as to premises compliance on their review of the drawings submitted in the application. An adult entertainment establishment license approved before the premises construction is undertaken must contain a condition that the premises may not open for business until the premises have been inspected and determined to be in conformance with the drawings submitted with the application. The sheriff, fire, and building and planning departments shall recommend denial of a license under the subsection if it finds that the proposed adult entertainment establishment is not in conformance with the requirements of this chapter or other applicable law. The department shall cite in a recommendation for denial the specific reason for the recommendation, including applicable laws. (9) No adult entertainment establishment license may be issued to operate an adult entertainment establishment in a location which does not meet the requirements set forth in the Spokane County Zoning Code Sections 14.626.210(4) and 14.628.210(6)unless otherwise exempt. (10) The exterior design and/or signs of the adult entertainment establishment must meet the requirements set forth in the Spokane County Zoning Code Sections 14.804.040 and 14.804.120. (11) The licensing administrator shall issue an adult entertainment establishment license within thirty calendar days of the date of filing a complete license application and fee, unless the licensing administrator determines that the applicant has failed to meet any of the requirements of this chapter or provide any information required under this subsection or that the applicant has made a false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact on the application for a license. The licensing administrator shall grant an extension of time in which to provide all information required for a complete license application upon the request of the applicant. (12) If the licensing administrator finds that the applicant has failed to meet any of the requirements for issuance of an adult entertainment establishment license,the licensing administrator shall deny the application in writing and shall cite the specific reasons for the denial, including applicable laws. If the licensing administrator fails to issue or deny the license within thirty calendar days of the date of filing of a complete application and fee,the applicant shall be permitted, subject to all other applicable laws, to operate the business for which the license was sought until notification by the licensing administrator that the license has been denied, but in no event may the licensing administrator extend the applicant review time for more than an additional twenty days. (b) Adult Arcade Device License. In addition to the provisions set forth in subsection(a)of this section,the following conditions apply to adult arcade device license applicants: (1) It is unlawful to exhibit or display to the public any adult arcade device or device license upon any adult arcade establishment without first obtaining a license for each such device for a specified location or premises from Spokane County, to be designated an "adult arcade device license." (2) The adult arcade device license shall be securely attached to each such device, or the arcade booth, in a conspicuous place. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A (§ 7), 1997) 7.80.080 Adult entertainment establishment manager and entertainer licenses. (a) A person may not work as a manager, assistant manager or entertainer at an adult entertainment establishment without a manager's or an entertainer's license from the licensing administrator. An applicant for a manager's or entertainer's license must complete an application on forms provided by the licensing administrator containing the information identified in this subsection. A nonrefundable license fee must accompany the application. The licensing administrator shall provide a copy of the application to the sheriffs department for its review, investigation and recommendation. An application for a manager's or entertainer's license must be signed by the applicant and certified to be true under penalty of perjury. The manager's or entertainer's license application must require the following information: (1) The applicant's name, home address, home telephone number, date and place of birth, fingerprints taken by the sheriffs department (or such other entity as authorized by the sheriffs department or licensing administrator), social security number, and any stage names or nicknames used in entertaining; (2) The name and address of each establishment at which the applicant intends to work; (3) Documentation that the applicant has attained the age of eighteen years. Any two of the following are acceptable as documentation of age: (A) A motor vehicle operator's license issued by any state bearing the applicant's photograph and date of birth, (B) A state-issued identification card bearing the applicant's photograph and date of birth, (C) An official passport issued by the United States of America, (D) An immigration card issued by the United States of America, or (E) Any other identification that the licensing administrator determines to be acceptable and reliable; (4) A complete statement of all convictions of the applicant for any misdemeanor or felony violations in the jurisdiction or any other city, county or state within five years immediately preceding the date of the application, except parking violations or minor traffic infractions; (5) A description of the applicant's principal activities or services to be rendered; (6) Two two-inch by two-inch color photographs of applicant,taken within six months of the date of application showing only the full face; (7) Authorization for Spokane County, its agents and employees to investigate and confirm any statements in the application. (b) Every entertainer shall provide his or her license to the adult entertainment establishment manager on duty on the premises prior to his or her performance. The manager shall retain the licenses of the entertainers readily available for inspection by Spokane County, its agents, and employees, at any time during business hours of the adult entertainment establishment. (c) The licensing administrator may request additional information or clarification when necessary to determine compliance with this chapter. (d) The contents of an application for an entertainer's license and any additional information submitted by an applicant for an entertainer's license are confidential and will remain confidential to the extent authorized by RCW Chapter 42.17. Nothing in this subsection prohibits the exchange of information among government agencies for law enforcement or licensing or regulatory purposes. (e) The licensing administrator shall issue an adult entertainment establishment manager's or entertainer's license within fourteen calendar days from the date the complete application and fee are received unless the licensing administrator determines that the applicant has failed to provide any information required to be supplied according to this chapter, has made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact in the application, or has failed to meet any of the requirements for issuance of a license under this chapter. If the licensing administrator determines that the applicant does not qualify for the license applied for,the licensing administrator shall deny the application in writing and shall cite the specific reasons therefor, including applicable laws. (f) An applicant for an adult entertainment establishment manager's or entertainer's license shall be issued a temporary license upon receipt of a complete license application and fee. Such temporary license shall automatically expire on the fourteenth calendar day following the filing of the complete license application and fee unless the licensing administrator has failed to approve or deny the license application in which case the temporary license shall be valid until the licensing administrator approves or denies the application, or until the final determination of any appeal from a denial of the application. In no event may the licensing administrator extend the application review time for more than an additional twenty calendar days. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A (§ 8), 1997) 7.80.090 Standards of conduct and operation of adult entertainment establishments and personnel, (a) All employees of an adult entertainment establishment must adhere to the following standards of conduct while in any area in which a member of the public is allowed to be present: (1) An employee may not be unclothed or in such less than opaque and complete attire, costume or clothing so as to expose to view any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or any portion of the pubic region, anus, buttocks, vulva or genitals, except upon a stage at least eighteen inches above the immediate floor level and removed at least eight feet from the nearest member of the public. (2) An employee mingling with a member of the public may not be unclothed or in less than opaque and complete attire, costume or clothing as described in subsection (a)(1) of this section, nor may a male employee appear with his genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered or wear or use any device or covering that simulates the same. j (3) An employee mingling with a member of the public may not wear or use any device or covering exposed to view which simulates the breast below the top of the areola, vulva, genitals, anus, a portion of the public region, or buttocks. (4) An employee may not caress, fondle or erotically touch a member of the public or another employee. An employee may not encourage or permit a member of the public to caress, fondle or erotically touch that employee. (5) An employee may not perform actual or simulated acts of sexual conduct as defined in this chapter, or an act that constitutes a violation of RCW Chapter 7.48A, the Washington moral nuisance statute, or any provision regulating offenses against public morals. (6) An employee mingling with a member of the public may not conduct any dance, performance or exhibition in or about the nonstage area of the adult entertainment establishment unless that dance, performance or exhibition is performed at a distance of at least four feet from the member of the public for whom the dance,performance or exhibition is performed. The distance of four feet is measured from the torso of the dancer to the torso of the member of the public. (7) A tip or gratuity offered to or accepted by an entertainer may not be offered or accepted before any performance, dance or exhibition provided by the entertainer. An entertainer performing upon any stage area may not accept any form of gratuity offered directly to the entertainer by a member of the public. A gratuity offered to an entertainer performing upon any stage area or in any booth or arcade device must be placed into a receptacle provided for receipt of gratuities by the management of the adult entertainment establishment or provided through a manager on duty on the premises. A gratuity or tip offered to an entertainer conducting a performance, dance or exhibition in or about the nonstage area of the live adult entertainment establishment must be placed into the hand of the entertainer or into a receptacle provided by the entertainer, and not upon the person or into the clothing of the entertainer. (b) This chapter does not prohibit: (1) Plays, operas, musicals, or other dramatic works that are not obscene; (2) Classes, seminars and lectures which are held for serious scientific or educational purposes and which are not obscene; or (3) Exhibitions,performances, expressions or dances that are not obscene. The exemptions in subsection(b) of this section do not apply to sexual conduct defined in Section 7.80.040 of this chapter or the sexual conduct described in RCW Section 48A,010(2) (b) (ii) and (iii). Whether or not activity is obscene shall be judged by consideration of the standards set forth in RCW Section 7.48A.010(2). (c) At an adult entertainment establishment the following are required: (1) Admission must be restricted to persons of the age of eighteen years or older. An owner, operator, manager or other person in charge of the adult entertainment establishment may not knowingly permit or allow any person under the age of eighteen years to be in or upon the premises whether as an owner, operator, manager, patron, member, customer, agent, employee, independent contractor, or in any other capacity. This section is not intended to be used in a prosecution of a minor on or within an adult entertainment establishment. (2) Neither the performance, nor any photograph, drawing, sketch or other pictorial or graphic representation of the performance, displaying any portion of the breasts below the top of the areola or any portion of the pubic hair, buttocks, genitals, and/or anus may take place or be located so as to be visible to minors who are or may be outside of the adult entertainment establishment. (3) A member of the public may not be permitted at any time to enter into any of the nonpublic portions of the adult entertainment establishment, that includes but is not limited to: the dressing rooms of the entertainers, other rooms provided for the benefit of employees, or the kitchen or storage areas. However, a person delivering goods and materials, food and beverages, or performing maintenance or repairs to the premises or equipment on the premises may be permitted into nonpublic areas to the extent required to perform the person's job duties. (4) Restrooms may not contain video reproduction equipment and/or adult arcade devices. (5) All ventilation devices or openings between adult arcade booths must be covered by a permanently affixed louver or screen. Any portion of a ventilation opening cover may not be located more than one foot below the top of the booth walls or one foot from the bottom of booth walls. There may not be any other holes or openings between the booths. (6) No adult arcade booth or station may be occupied by more than one person at any time. (7) There must be permanently posted and maintained in at least two conspicuous locations on the interior of all adult arcade premises a sign stating substantially the following: OCCUPANCY OF ANY STATION OR BOOTH IS AT ALL TIMES LIMITED TO ONE PERSON. THERE MAY BE NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE STATIONS, BOOTHS, OR ON THE PREMISES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT (RCW 9.68A.011), ACTS OF LEWDNESS, INDECENT EXPOSURE, PROSTITUTION, DRUG ACTIVITY, OR SEXUAL CONDUCT, AS DEFINED HEREIN. VIOLATORS ARE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. Each sign must be conspicuously posted and not screened from the patron's view. The letters and numerals must be on a contrasting background and be no smaller than one inch in height. (8) Doors to areas of the adult entertainment establishment which are available for use by persons other than the owner, manager, operator, or their agents or employees, may not be locked during business hours. (9) No person may operate or maintain any warning system or device, of any nature or kind, for the purpose of alerting, warning, or aiding and abetting the warning of any patrons, members, customers, owners, operators, managers, employees, agents, independent contractors, or any other persons in the adult entertainment establishment, that police officers or county health, code enforcement, fire, licensing, or building inspectors are approaching or have entered the premises. (d) The responsibilities of the manager of an adult entertainment establishment shall include: (1) A licensed manager shall be on duty at an adult entertainment establishment at all times adult entertainment is being provided or members of the public are present on the premises. The full name and license of the manager shall be prominently posted during business hours. The manager shall be responsible for verifying that any person who provides adult entertainment within the premises possesses a current and valid entertainer's license. (2) The licensed manager on duty shall not be an entertainer. (3) The manager licensed under this chapter shall maintain visual observation from a manager's station of each member of the public and each entertainer at all times any entertainer is present in the public or performance areas of the adult entertainment establishment. Where there is more than one performance area, or the performance area is of such size or configuration that one manager is unable to visually observe, at all times, each entertainer, each employee, and each member of the public, a manager licensed under this chapter shall be provided for each public or performance area or portion of a public or performance area visually separated from other portions of the adult entertainment establishment. All adult arcade stations or booths must open to the public room so that the area and occupant inside the booths are fully and completely visible by direct line of sight to the manager located at the manager's station which shall be located at the main entrance way to the public room containing the arcade stations or booths. No curtain, door, wall, merchandise, display rack, or other nontransparent enclosure, material, or application may obscure in any way the manager's view of any portion of the activity or occupant of the adult entertainment establishment. (4) The manager shall be responsible for and shall ensure that the actions of members of the public,the adult entertainers, and all other employees shall comply with all requirements of this chapter. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A(§ 9), 1997) 7.80.100 Premises--Specifications. (a) Live Adult Entertainment Establishment Premises. The performance area of the live adult entertainment establishment where adult entertainment is provided shall be a stage or platform at least eighteen inches in elevation above the level of the patron seating areas, and shall be separated by a distance of at least eight feet from all areas of the premises to which a member of the public has access. A continuous railing affixed to the floor and measuring at least three feet in height and located at least eight feet from all points of the performance area must be installed on the floor of the premises to separate the performance area and the public seating areas. The stage and the entire interior portion of cubicles, rooms or stalls wherein the live adult entertainment is provided must be visible from the common areas of the premises and from at least one manager's station. Visibility shall be by direct line of sight and shall not be blocked or obstructed by doors, curtains, drapes, walls, merchandise, display racks or other obstructions. (b) Adult Arcade Entertainment Establishment Premises. All adult arcade stations or booths must open to the public room so that the area and occupant inside the booths are fully and completely visible by direct line of sight to the manager located at the manager's station which shall be located in the main entrance way to the public room containing the arcade stations or booths. No curtain, door, wall, merchandise, display rack, or other nontransparent enclosure, material, or application may obscure in any way the manager's view of any portion of the activity or occupant of the adult arcade station or booth, or the performance area. (c) Lighting. Sufficient lighting must be provided and equally distributed throughout the public areas of the entertainment establishment so that all objects are plainly visible at all times. A minimum lighting level of thirty lux horizontal,measured at thirty inches from the floor and on ten-foot centers is required for all areas of the adult entertainment establishment where members of the public are permitted. (d) Signs. A sign at least two feet by two feet with letters at least one inch high,which are on a contrasting background, shall be conspicuously displayed in the public area(s) of the adult entertainment establishment stating the following: THIS ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENT IS REGULATED BY THE LAWS OF SPOKANE COUNTY. ENTERTAINERS ARE: A. NOT PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN ANY TYPE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT. B. NOT PERMITTED TO APPEAR SEMI-NUDE OR NUDE, EXCEPT ON STAGE. C.NOT PERMITTED TO ACCEPT TIPS OR GRATUITIES IN ADVANCE OF THEIR PERFORMANCE. D. NOT PERMITTED TO ACCEPT TIPS DIRECTLY FROM PATRONS WHILE PERFORMING UPON ANY STAGE AREA OR IN ANY ARCADE STATION OR BOOTH. (e) Recordkeeping Requirements. All papers, records and documents required to be kept pursuant to this chapter must be open to inspection by the licensing administrator during the hours when the licensed premises are open for business, upon two days' written notice to the licensee. An adult entertainment establishment shall maintain and retain for a period of two years the name, address and age of each person employed or otherwise retained or allowed to perform on the premises as an entertainer, including independent contractors and their employees. The purpose of the inspection shall be to determine whether the papers,records and documents meet the requirements of this chapter, (f) Inspections. Prior to the issuance of a license, the applicant must be qualified according to the provisions of all applicable county ordinances, the laws of the United States and of the state of Washington. The premises must meet the requirements of all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations including but not limited to the Uniform Building Code, and the Spokane County Zoning Code. All premises and devices must be inspected prior to issuance of a license. Upon request,the licensing administrator will schedule a prelicensing conference with all pertinent county departments to assist the applicant in meeting the regulations and provisions of this chapter. In order to ensure compliance with this chapter all areas of a licensed adult entertainment establishment that are open to members of the public must be open to inspection by agents and employees of the jurisdiction during the hours when the premises are open for business. The purpose of such inspections must be to determine if the licensed premises are operated in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. It is expressly declared that unannounced inspections of adult entertainment establishments are necessary to ensure compliance with this chapter. (g) Hours of Operation. An adult entertainment establishment may not be operated or otherwise open to the public between the hours of two a.m. and ten a.m. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A(§ 10), 1997) 7.80.110 License fees, term, expiration, assignment, and renewals. (a) A license issued under this chapter expires on the thirty-first day of December of each year. A license fee may not be prorated, except that if the original application is made subsequent to June 30th, then one-half of the annual fee may be accepted for the remainder of such year. (b) Application for renewal of a license issued under this chapter must be made to the licensing administrator no later than thirty calendar days before the expiration for an adult entertainment - establishment license, and no later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration for an adult entertainment establishment manager's and entertainer's licenses. The licensing administrator shall issue the renewal license in the same manner and on payment of the same fees as for an original application under this chapter. The licensing administrator shall assess and collect, an additional fee, computed as a percentage of the license fee, on an application not made on or before such date, as follows: TABLE INSET: Calendar Days Past Due Percent of License Fee 7--30 25% 31--60 50% 61 and over 75% (c) The licensing administrator shall renew a license upon application unless the licensing administrator is aware of facts that would disqualify the applicant from being issued the license for which he or she seeks renewal, and further provided that the application complies with all the provisions of this chapter as now enacted or as the same may hereafter be amended. (d) License fees shall be as follows: TABLE INSET: Live Adult Entertainment Establishment License: $1,500.00 Adult Arcade Entertainment Establishment License: 1,500.00 Adult Arcade Device License: 150.00 Adult Entertainment Establishment Manager License: 150.00 Adult Entertainment Establishment Entertainer License: 150.00 (e) Adult entertainment establishments which offer both live adult entertainment and adult arcade devices or stations/booths shall be required to pay the fees associated with both live adult entertainment establishments and adult arcade establishments. (f) Licenses issued under this chapter may not be assigned or transferred to other owners, operators, managers, entertainers,premises, devices,persons or businesses. (g) A reinspection fee equal to the amount in effect for original application for any license shall be charged if the applicant requests approval for a proposed enlargement or alteration of the configuration of the interior of the adult entertainment establishment, or if the applicant requests the licensing administrator make an inspection of the premises in addition to the usual prelicensing inspection. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A(§ 11), 1997) 7.80.120 Licensing compliance with other county ordinances. All required county approvals and/or licenses other than those specifically set forth herein are separate from the licensing process set forth in this chapter. The granting of any license or any approval pursuant to this chapter shall not be deemed to be an approval of any county license or requirement not specifically set forth in this chapter. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A(§ 12), 1997) 7.80.130 License suspension and revocation--Hearing. (a) The licensing administrator may,upon the recommendation of the sheriff,the sheriffs designee, or on its own determination, and as provided in subsection(b) of this section, suspend • or revoke any license issued under the provisions of this chapter: (1) If the license was procured by fraud or false representation of fact; (2) For the violation of, or failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter by the licensee or by the licensee's servant, agent or employee when the licensee knew or should have known of the violations committed by the servant, agent or employee; (3) For the conviction of the licensee of a crime or offense involving prostitution,promoting prostitution, a liquor law violation or transaction involving controlled substances as defined in RCW Chapter 69.50, or a violation of RCW Chapter 9.68 or 9.68A committed on the premises, or the conviction of the licensee's servant, agent or employee of a crime or offense involving prostitution,promoting prostitution, liquor law violations or transactions involving controlled substances as defined in RCW Chapter 69.50, or a violation of RCW Chapter 6.68A committed on the premises in which his or her adult entertainment establishment is conducted when the licensee knew or should have known of the violations committed by the servant, agent or employee. A license may be suspended or revoked under this subsection only if the conviction occurred within twenty-four months of the date of the decision to suspend or revoke the license. (b) The licensing administrator shall revoke a license procured by fraud or misrepresentation. If another violation of this chapter or other applicable ordinance, statute or regulation is found, the license must be suspended for a period of thirty calendar days upon the first such violation, ninety days upon the second violation within a twenty-four-month period, and revoked for a third and subsequent violation within a twenty-four-month period, not including a period of suspension. A licensee whose license has been revoked is not eligible to re-apply for a license for a period of one year following the date the decision to revoke becomes final. (c) The licensing administrator shall provide at least ten calendar days prior written notice to the licensee of the decision to suspend or revoke the license stating the reasons for the decision to suspend or revoke. The notice must inform the licensee of the right to appeal the decision to the designated hearing examiner and must state the effective date of the suspension or revocation. (d) If the building official or fire department or the county health department find that a condition exists upon the premises of an adult entertainment establishment that constitutes a threat of immediate serious injury or damage to person or property, the official may immediately suspend any license issued under this chapter pending a hearing in accordance with subsection (c) of this section. The official shall issue a notice setting forth the basis for the action and the facts that constitute a threat of immediate serious injury or damage to persons or property, and informing the licensee of the right to appeal the suspension to the designated hearing body under the same appeal provisions set forth in Section 7.80.140. However, a suspension based on threat of immediate serious injury or damage may not be stayed during the pendency of the appeal. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A(§ 13), 1997) 7.80.140 Appeals. (a) Any applicant or licensee may appeal the decision of the licensing administrator refusing to issue or renew a license, or to suspend or revoke a license, under this chapter to the hearing examiner, by filing a written notice of appeal with the licensing administrator within ten calendar days of issuance of the notice of such action by the licensing administrator. The hearing examiner shall conduct the hearing within thirty calendar days following the filing of the notice of appeal of any decision refusing to issue or renew a license, or within forty-five calendar days following the filing of the notice of appeal of any decision to suspend or revoke a license. The hearing examiner shall provide at least fourteen calendar days written notice of hearing to the appellant and the sheriffs department. At the hearing, the appellant and other interested parties may be heard and submit evidence, subject to the rules of procedure adopted for the hearing examiner pursuant to county resolution. The hearing examiner shall render his/her decision in writing, supported by findings of fact and conclusions,within fifteen calendar days of the close of the appeal hearing. (b) Any person of record, including the Spokane County sheriff, aggrieved by the written decision of the hearing examiner rendered under subsection(a) of this section may file an appeal in writing with the board of county commissioners (board) within ten calendar days of the date of the written decision by the hearing examiner. All appeals shall be accompanied by a two- hundred-twenty-five-dollar appeal fee. Upon receipt of a written appeal and payment of the appeal fee, the appeal shall be forwarded to the hearing examiner. All written appeals shall be on a form available in the office of the board and shall include the following information: (1) The name and mailing address of the appellant, and the appellant's attorney, if any; (2) Identification of the hearing examiner,together with a copy of the decision of the hearing examiner being appealed; (3) Facts demonstrating that the appellant is both a party of record and a party aggrieved by the decision being appealed; II (4) A separate and concise statement of each error alleged to have been committed; and (5) A concise statement of facts upon which the appellant relies to sustain the statement of error. (c) The board shall not consider any new facts or evidence on a matter appealed to them; provided, additional evidence regarding the following items shall be admissible: (1) Grounds for disqualification of the hearing examiner that made the decision, where such grounds were unknown by the appellant at the time the record was created; (2) Matters that were improperly excluded from the record after being offered by a party to the hearing before the examiner; and (3) Matters that were outside the jurisdiction of the examiner. The board may require or permit corrections of ministerial errors or inadvertent omissions in the preparation of the record. (d) The appellant shall be required to pay all costs incurred by the hearing examiner in preparing the record for the hearing(s)held by the hearing examiner, and the cost of preparing six copies of such record as hereafter specified. Within three business days of the filing of the appeal with the board, the appellant shall pay a deposit of one hundred dollars to the office of hearing examiner as a condition precedent to the hearing examiner's preparation of such record and copies. Within three business days of being notified by the hearing examiner that the record has been prepared,the appellant shall reimburse the hearing examiner for the costs incurred by the hearing examiner in preparing such record and copies in excess of the deposit paid by the appellant, or shall be refunded any amount paid by the appellant in excess of such costs. The appeal may be dismissed by the board if the appellant fails to comply with subsection(a)or (b) of this section. (e) The hearing examiner shall cause preparation of a certified record of the hearing(s)before the examiner, including a verbatim transcript of the hearing(s) and a copy of all documents in the record, within fourteen working days of receiving the one-hundred-dollar deposit for the same. If the hearing examiner,the appellant and other parties of record agree, or upon order of the board, the verbatim transcript and documents in the record may be shortened or summarized to avoid reproduction and transcription of portions of the record that are duplicative or irrelevant to the issues to be reviewed by the board. The hearing examiner shall also prepare within such fourteen-day period a total of six copies of the official certified record, including one for each board member, one for the appellant, one for the prosecuting attorney's office and one for the county sheriff. Upon completion of the certified record and required copies, and payment of the costs owing for the same by the appellant, the hearing examiner shall promptly forward the certified record to the clerk of the board, and provide copies of the record to those entitled. Other parties of record may obtain copies of the record for the cost of reproduction. (0 At the next regular meeting of the board following receipt of the certified record from the hearing examiner, the board shall schedule a date at which it shall consider the appeal. Such date shall not be earlier than thirty-five days from the board's receipt of the certified record.Notice of the meeting at which the board will set the date of the hearing need not be provided by the board to the appellant or other parties of record. The appellant or other parties of record may address the matter of setting an appeal date either by appearing in person at the meeting or by filing a letter with the board prior to the meeting. Upon the board setting a date for consideration of the appeal,the clerk of the board shall give notice of time, place and date of such consideration to all parties of record by mailing notice to such parties at their addresses contained in the record or filed with the board. (g) The appellant and any other party of record may file a memorandum in support of the appeal with the clerk of the board,provided it is filed no later than twelve p.m, on the second Friday preceding the date set for consideration of the appeal. The respondent and any other party of record may file a response memorandum with the clerk of the board, provided it is filed by twelve p.m. on the Friday immediately preceding the date for consideration of the appeal. The memorandums filed shall not contain any new facts or evidence or discuss any matter outside the record, except as provided in subsection(c) of this section, Any memorandum containing information in violation of this subsection will either be stricken or have such information stricken from the memorandum by the board and not considered. (h) All parties of record desiring to make oral argument to the board have the obligation to communicate with other parties of record to align themselves either in support of or in opposition to the appeal, and shall attempt to reach agreement for the selection of a common speaker or to allocate the time allowed between them. The board, acting through its chair, will allow the appellant and other parties of record in support of the appeal up to thirty minutes to make oral argument in support of the appeal, answer questions by the board and rebut the arguments of those opposed to the appeal. Following the argument(s) in support of the appeal, the chair will allow the respondent(s) up to twenty minutes to make argument, respond to the questions from the board and rebut the arguments of those in favor of the appeal. This subsection authorizes the presentation of argument only,to persuade the board that a particular conclusion follows logically from the law or evidence in the record, and that the record or the law does not support the findings or decision of the hearing examiner, but does not authorize the presentation of any new evidence or facts. (i) The board shall review the record and such supplemental evidence as permitted under subsection(c) of this section. The board may reverse, modify or remand the decision of the hearing examiner only if the appellant has met the burden of establishing one of the following standards for relief: (1) The hearing examiner engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless; (2) The hearing examiner's decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of the law by a local jurisdiction with expertise; (3) The hearing examiner's decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the entire record; (4) The hearing examiner's decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts; or (5) The hearing examiner's decision is outside the authority or jurisdiction of the examiner. The board may also remand the hearing examiner's decision for further proceedings if the appellant seeks to enter information outside the record that was not previously available for reasons beyond the control of that party, and such information if admitted would more than likely affect the outcome of the appeal. If the board reverses, modifies or remands the decision of the hearing examiner, it shall set forth in its written order its findings and conclusions justifying such action. (j) The clerk of the board shall mail a copy of the board's written decision to the appellant and other parties of record before the board, which decision shall include a statement regarding appeal rights, Any party of record before the board aggrieved by the board's decision may appeal such decision to the superior court by filing a writ of certiorari,prohibition or mandamus pursuant to RCW 7.16 et seq. within twenty days of the date the decision by the board was mailed to the appellant. (k) The decision by the licensing administrator, hearing examiner or the board to deny the renewal of a license, upholding the denial of a license, suspending or revoking a license, or upholding the suspension or renewal of a license must be stayed during the pendency of an appeal pursuant to RCW 7.16 et seq., except as provided in subsection(d) of Section 7.80.130. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A (§ 14), 1997) 7.80.150 Notices. (a) Any notice required or permitted to be given by the licensing administrator,hearing examiner, or any other county office, division, department, or other agency under this chapter to any applicant, licensee, operator, owner, or manager of an adult entertainment facility or arcade device shall be given, either by personal delivery or by certified United States mail,postage prepaid,return receipt requested, addressed to the most recent address as specified in the application for the license, or transfer application which has been received by the licensing administrator, or any notice of address change which has been received by the licensing administrator. Notices mailed as above shall be deemed given upon their deposit in the United States mail. In the event that any notice given by mail is returned by the postal service, the licensing administrator or his/her designee shall cause it to be posted at the principal entrance to the establishment. (b) Any notice required or permitted to be given to the licensing administrator or hearing examiner by any person under this chapter shall not be deemed given until and unless it is received in the respective office. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A (§ 15), 1997) 7.80.160 Liquor regulations. Any license issued under this chapter shall be subject to rules of the Washington State Liquor Control Board relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor, If there is a conflict between this chapter and the applicable rules of the Washington State Liquor Control Board, the rules of the Washington State Liquor Control Board shall govern. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A (§ 16), 1997) 7,80.170 Violation a misdemeanor. A person violating this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person violating any of the provisions in this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation is committed, continued, authorized, or permitted; provided, no person shall be deemed guilty of any violation of this chapter if acting in an investigative capacity pursuant to the request or order of the sheriff or duly appointed agent thereof. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A (§ 17), 1997) 7.80.180 Code violations and enforcement. The remedies provided herein for violations of or failure to comply with provisions of this chapter, whether civil or criminal, are cumulative and in addition to any other remedy provided by law. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A (§ 18), 1997) 7.80.190 Conflicting sections or provisions. In the event there is a conflict or inconsistency between the sections and provisions set forth in this chapter and those set forth elsewhere in the County Code,the sections and provisions of this chapter govern and supersede those set forth elsewhere. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A (§ 19), 1997) 7.80.200 Time frame for compliance of nonconforming adult entertainment establishments. Any adult entertainment establishment lawfully operating on the effective date of this chapter that is in violation of the configuration or operational requirements of this chapter is a nonconforming use. The nonconforming use is permitted to continue for a period not to exceed ninety calendar days, unless sooner terminated for any reason or voluntarily discontinued for a period of thirty calendar days or more. Such nonconforming uses may not be increased, enlarged, extended or altered except that the use may be changed to a conforming use pursuant to the procedures set forth in this chapter. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A (§ 20), 1997) 7.80.210 Chapter not intended towards particular group or class. (a) It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for and promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public, and not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the terms of this chapter. (b) Nothing contained in this chapter is intended or shall be construed to create or form the basis for any liability on the part of the county or its officers, employees, or agents for any injury or damage: (1) Resulting from the failure of any owner, operator, manager, or other person in the adult entertainment establishment to comply with the provisions of this chapter; (2) By reason or in consequence of any inspection, notice, order, certificate,permission, or • approval authorized or issued or done in connection with the implementation or enforcement • pursuant to this chapter; or • (3) By reason of any action or inaction on the part of the county related in any manner to the implementation or enforcement of this chapter by its officers, employees or agents. 1 (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A (§ 21), 1997) 7.80.220 Liberal construction. This chapter shall be deemed to be an exercise of the police power of Spokane County to preserve the public health, safety and welfare, and its provisions shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of that purpose. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A (§ 22 (part)), 1997) 7.80.230 Moral nuisance. An adult entertainment establishment operated, conducted or maintained contrary to the provisions of RCW Chapter 7.48, Moral Nuisance, is unlawful and a public and moral nuisance and the prosecuting attorney may, in addition to or in lieu of any other remedies in this chapter, commence an action or actions,to abate, remove and enjoin the public and moral nuisance, or impose a civil penalty, in the manner provided by RCW Chapter 7.48A. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A (§ 22 (part)), 1997) 7.80.240 Additional enforcement. The remedies found in this chapter are not exclusive, and the county may seek any other legal or equitable relief, including but not limited to enjoining an act or practice that constitutes or will constitute a violation of the provisions in this chapter. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A(§ 24), 1997) 7.80.250 Severability. If any portion of this chapter, or its application to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the validity of the chapter as a whole, or any other portion thereof, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. (Res. 97-1052 Attachment A (§ 25), 1997) DRAFT PROPOSED REGULATIONS Section 1. Purpose. The pur pose o f this 0 rdinance is to a dopt a c omprehensive Adult Entertainment Business Code for the City of Spokane Valley. Section 2. Repealing Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 5.10. Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 5.10, and all of its sections as currently adopted, are hereby repealed in their entirety. Section 3. Definitions. The definitions i n t his section apply throughout t his chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. "Adult arcade device," sometimes also known as "panoram," preview," "picture arcade," "adult arcade,' or "peep show," means any device which, for payment of a fee, membership fee or other charge, i s used to exhibit or di splay a graphic picture, view, film, videotape, or digital display of specified sexual activities or sexual conduct. All such devices are denominated under this chapter by the term "adult arcade device." The term "adult arcade device' as used in this chapter doe s not i nclude of her games w hich e mploy pi ctures, vi ews, or vi deo di splays, o r gambling devices which do not exhibit or display adult entertainment. "Adult arcade establishment" means a commercial premises, or portion of any premises, to which a member of the public is invited or admitted and where adult arcade stations or adult arcade devices are used to exhibit or di splay a graphic picture, view, film, videotape, or digital display of a specified sexual activities or sexual conduct to a member of the public on a regular basis or as a substantial part of the premises activity. "Adult arcade station" means any enclosure where a patron, member, or customer would ordinarily be positioned while using an adult arcade device. Adult arcade station refers to the area in which an adult arcade device is located and from which the graphic picture, view, film, videotape, digital display of specified sexual activities or sexual conduct is to be viewed. These terms do not m can such an enclosure t hat i s a private office us ed by an owner, m anager, or person employed on t he pr emises for attending the t asks of hi s or he r e mployment, i f t he enclosure i s not held ou t t o any m ember of the public for use, for hi re, or for a fee for the purpose of viewing the entertainment provided by the arcade device, and not open to any person other than employees. "Adult e ntertainment e stablishment" c ollectively r efers to adult a rcade establishments and live adult entertainment establishments, as defined herein. "Applicant" means the individual or entity seeking an adult entertainment establishment license. "Applicant control person" means all partners, corporate officers and directors and other individuals in the applicant's business organization who hold a significant interest in the adult entertainment bus iness, based on r esponsibility for ma nagement of th e a dult e ntertainment establishment. Ordinance 10- Adult Entertainment Page 1 of 16 DRAFT PROPOSED REGULATIONS "Employee" m eans a person, i ncluding a m anager, entertainer or an i ndependent contractor, who works i n or at or r enders services directly r elated t o the operation of an adult entertainment establishment. "Entertainer" m eans any person who p rovides 1 ive a dult entertainment within an a dult entertainment establishment as d efined i n this s ection, whether or no t a f ee i s ch arged or accepted for entertainment. "Hearing Examiner" means the individual designated by the City Council who has the powers and duties as set forth in SVMC 18.20.030or his/her designee. "Licensing adm inistrator" m eans t he Community Development D irector and hi s/her designee(s) and is the person designated to administer this chapter. In the event of any appeal to the Hearing Examiner under this Chapter, the licensing administrator shall prepare and/or ensure the submittal of the"department" reports required under S VMC 17.90.060(A) and Appendix B, Section C. "Liquor" means all beverages defined in RCW Section 66.04.200. "Live adult entertainment" means: (1) A n e xhibition, pe rformance o r da nce c onducted in a commercial pr emises for a member of the public where the exhibition, performance, or dance involves a person who is nude or s eminude. A dult entertainment shall include, but i s not 1 imited to performances commonly known as"strip tease"; (2) An exhibition, performance or dance conducted in a commercial premises where the exhibition, performance or dance is distinguished or characterized by a predominant emphasis on the depiction, description, simulation or relation to the following"specified sexual activities": (A) Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal, (B) A cts of hum an m asturbation, s exual i ntercourse, s odomy, or al copulation, or bestiality, (C)Fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, or female breasts; or (3) An exhibition, performance or dance that is intended to sexually stimulate a member of the public. This includes, but i s not limited to, such an exhibition, performance, or dance performed for, arranged with, or engaged in with fewer than all m embers of the public on the premises at t hat t ime, whether condu cted or viewed directly or of herwise, w ith s eparate consideration paid, either directly or indirectly, for the performance, exhibition or dance and that is c ommonly r eferred toast able da ncing, c ouch da ncing, t axi da ncing, 1 ap da ncing, private dancing, or straddle dancing. "Live a dult e ntertainment establishment" m eans a commercial pr emises t o which a member of t he publ is i s i nvited or admitted a nd w here an e ntertainer pr ovides 1 ive a dult entertainment, in a setting which does not involve adult arcade stations or devices, to a member of the public on a regular basis or as a substantial part of the premises activity. Ordinance 10- Adult Entertainment Page 2 of 16 DRAFT PROPOSED REGULATIONS "Manager" m eans a p erson who manages, directs, administers or is i n charge of the affairs or conduct, or the affairs and conduct, or of a portion of the affairs or conduct occurring at an adult entertainment establishment. "Member of the public" means a customer, patron, club member, or person, other than an employee, who is invited or admitted to an adult entertainment establishment. "Nude" or "seminude" means a s tate of com plete or partial undress i n such c ostume, attire or clothing so as to expose any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or any portion of the pubic region, anus, buttocks, vulva, or genitals, or human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered. The words "open to the public room so that the area inside is fully and completely visible to the manager" mean that there maybe no do or, curtain, partition, or other device extending from the top and/or any side of the door frame of an arcade station, so that all portions of every arcade station and all of the activity and all occupants inside every arcade station are fully and completely vi sible at all time s by di rect line of sight to persons i n the a dj acent public room, including the manager. "Operator" means a person operating, conducting or maintaining an adult entertainment establishment. "Person" m eans an i ndividual, pa rtnership, c orporation, t rust, i ncorporated or unincorporated a ssociation, m arital c ommunity,j oint ve nture, governmental e ntity, or of her entity or group of persons however organized. "Premises" m eans t he 1 and, s tructures, pl aces, t he e quipment a nd a ppurtenances connected or used in any business, and any personal property or fixtures used in connection with any adult entertainment establishment. "Sexual conduct" means acts of: (1) S exual i ntercourse w ithin its or dinary m eaning, oc curring upon a ny pe netration, however slight; or (2) A penetration of the vagina or anus, however slight, by an object; or (3) A contact between persons involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another; or (4)Masturbation, manual or instrumental, of oneself or of one person by another; or (5) Touching of the sex organs, anus, or female breast, whether clothed or unclothed, of oneself or of one person by another. "Specified sexual activities" refers to the following: (1)Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal; (2) A cts of hum an m asturbation, s exual i ntercourse, s odomy, or al c opulation, or bestiality; or (3) Fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks or female breasts. Ordinance 10- Adult Entertainment Page 3 of 16 DRAFT PROPOSED REGULATIONS "Transfer of ownership or control" of an adult entertainment establishment means any of the following: (1) The sale, lease or sublease of the business; (2) The transfer of securities that constitute a controlling interest in the business, whether by sale, exchange, or similar means; (3) T he establishment of a trust, gift, or of her similar le gal d evice th at tr ansfers the ownership or control of the business; or (4) Transfer by bequest or other operation of law upon the death of the person possessing the ownership or control. Section 4. License Required. (a) A person may not conduct, manage or operate an adult entertainment establishment unless the person is the holder of a valid license obtained from the City. (b) A n e ntertainer, e mployee, or m anager m ay not know ingly work i n or a bout, or knowingly perform a service or entertainment directly related to the operation of an unlicensed adult entertainment establishment. (c) An entertainer may not perform in an adult entertainment establishment unless the person is the holder of a valid license obtained from the City. (d) A manager may not work in an adult entertainment establishment unless the person is a holder of a valid license obtained from the City. Section 5. License prohibited to certain classes. No license shall be issued to: (a) A natural person who has not attained the age of twenty-one years, except t hat a license may be issued to a person who has attained the age of eighteen years with respect to adult entertainment establishments where no intoxicating liquors are served or provided; (b) A person whose pl ace of business i s conducted by am anager or agent, unless the manager or agent has obtained a manager's license; (c) A partnership, unl ess a 11 the m embers of the partnership are qualified t o obtain a license. The license shall be issued to the manager or agent of the partnership; (d) A corporation, unless all the officers and directors of the corporation are qualified to obtain a license. The license shall be issued to the manager or agent of the corporation. Section 6. Applications. (a) Adult Entertainment Establishment License. (1) An application for an adult entertainment establishment license must be submitted to the 1 icensing administrator i n the name of the person or entity proposing t o conduct the adult entertainment e stablishment on t he bus iness premises and m ust be s igned by the pe rson and certified a s t rue unde r the pe nalty of pe rjury. A n a pplication m ust be submitted on a form supplied by the licensing administrator, which must require the following information: Ordinance 10- Adult Entertainment Page 4 of 16 DRAFT PROPOSED REGULATIONS (A)For the applicant and for each applicant control person, provide: names, any aliases or previous names, driver's license number, if any, social security number, if any, and business, mailing, and residential addresses, and business telephone number. (B) If a p artnership, whether general or limited; and if a corporation, date and place of incorporation; evidence that the partnership or corporation is in good standing under the laws of Washington; and the name and address of the registered agent for service of process; (C)W hether the a pplicant or a p artner, c orporate officer, o r di rector o f t he a pplicant holds another license under this chapter, or a license for similar adult entertainment or sexually oriented business from another city, county or state, and if so, the name and address of each other licensed business; (D) A summary of the business history of the applicant and applicant control persons in owning o r ope rating t he a dult e ntertainment o r ot her s exually or iented bus iness, providing names, addresses and dates of operation for such businesses, and whether any business license or adult entertainment license has been revoked or suspended and the reason for the revocation or suspension; (E)F or t he a pplicant a nd a 11 a pplicant c ontrol pe rsons, a 11 c riminal c onvictions or forfeitures w ithin five years imm ediately p receding t he da to of t he application, ot her t han parking offenses o r m inor traffic i nfractions i ncluding the d ates o f c onviction, nature oft he crime, name and location of court and disposition; (F)F or t he a pplicant and a 11 applicant control pe rsons, a d escription of bus iness, occupation or e mployment hi story for t he t hree years i mmediately preceding t he date of t he application; (G) Authorization for the City of Spokane Valley, and its agents and employees to seek information to confirm any statements set forth in the application; (H) T he 1 ocation a nd doing-business-as na me of t he pr oposed a dult e ntertainment establishment, i ncluding a 1 egal de scription of t he pr operty, s treet address, a nd t elephone number, together with the name and address of each owner and lessee of the property; (I) Two two-inch by two-inch photographs of the applicant and applicant control persons, taken within six months of the date of application showing only the full face; (J) A c omplete s et of fingerprints for the applicant and each a pplicant c ontrol person, taken by the law enforcement agency for the j urisdiction, or such other entity as authorized by the law enforcement agency; (K) A s cale dr awing or di agram s howing t he configuration of t he p remises for t he proposed adult e ntertainment e stablishment, including a s tatement of the tot al f loor s pace occupied by the business, and marked dimensions of the interior of the premises. Performance areas, seating areas, manager's office and stations, restrooms, adult arcade stations and a dult arcade devices, overhead lighting fixtures, walls and doorways, and service areas shall be clearly marked on the drawing. An application for a license for an adult entertainment establishment must i nclude building pl ans t hat de monstrate conformance w ith all ap plicable building c ode requirements. Upon r equest, a pr elicensing c onference will be s cheduled with t he 1 icensing administrator, or his/her designee and pertinent government departments to assist the applicant in meeting the regulations and provisions of this chapter, as well as the other City Code provisions. No a Iteration of t he c onfiguration of the i nterior of t he a dult e ntertainment e stablishment or enlargement of the floor space occupied by the premises may be made after obtaining a license, without the prior approval of the licensing administrator or his/her designee. Approval for such Ordinance 10- Adult Entertainment Page 5 of 16 DRAFT PROPOSED REGULATIONS enlargement m ay onl y be granted i f t he pr emises and pr oposed e nlargement first m eet t he qualifications and requirements of t his ch apter, all other C ity C ode provisions, and all other applicable statutes or laws. (2) A n a pplication w ill be de emed c omplete upon t he a pplicant's s ubmission of a 11 information requested in subsection (a)(1) of this section, including the identification of"none" where that is the correct response. The licensing administrator may request other information or clarification in addition to that provided in a c omplete a pplication if ne cessary to determine compliance with this chapter. (3) A nonrefundable license fee must be paid at the time of filing an application in order to defray the costs of processing the application. (4)Each applicant shall verify, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained in the application is true. (5) If, subsequent to the issuance of an adult entertainment establishment license for a business, a pe rson or e ntity acquires a s ignificant i nterest b ased on r esponsibility for management or operation of the business, notice of such acquisition shall be provided in writing to the licensing administrator, no later than twenty-one calendar days following the acquisition. The notice required must include the information required for the original adult entertainment establishment license application. (6) The adult entertainment establishment lic ense, if granted, must state on its face the name of the person or persons to whom it is issued, the expiration date, the doing-business-as name and the address of the 1 icensed adult entertainment establishment. The 1 icense m ust b e posted in a conspicuous place at or near the entrance to the adult entertainment establishment so that it can be easily read when the business is open. (7) A person granted an adult entertainment establishment license under this chapter may not operate the adult entertainment establishment under a name not specified on the license, nor may a person operate an adult entertainment establishment, or any adult arcade device under a designation or at a location not specified on the license. (8)Upon receipt of the complete application and fee, the licensing administrator shall provide copies to the police, fire and planning departments for their investigation and review to determine c ompliance o f the pr oposed adult e ntertainment e stablishment w ith the la ws a nd regulations which each department administers. Each department shall, within fifteen days of the date of such application, inspect the application and premises and shall make a written report to t he licensing a dministrator w hether s uch a pplication a nd pr emises c omply with the la ws administered by each department. A license may not be issued unless each department reports that the applicant and premises comply with the relevant laws. If the premises are not yet constructed, the departments shall base their recommendation as to premises compliance on their review of the drawings submitted in the application. An adult entertainment e stablishment 1 icense a pproved be fore t he pr emises c onstruction i s unde rtaken must contain a condition that the premises may not open for business until the premises have Ordinance 10- Adult Entertainment Page 6 of 16 DRAFT PROPOSED REGULATIONS been inspected a nd de termined t o be i n c onformance w ith t he dr awings s ubmitted w ith t he application. T he police, fire, and pl anning de partments shall r ecommend denial of a 1 icense under the subsection if any of them find that the proposed adult entertainment establishment is not i n c onformance w ith t he r equirements o f t his c hapter or of her applicable 1 aw. The department shall cite in a recommendation for denial the specific reason for the recommendation, including applicable laws. (9)N o a dult e ntertainment e stablishment 1 icense m ay be i ssued t o op erate an a dult entertainment establishment in a location which does not meet the requirements set forth in the City's Zoning Code Chapter 19.80 SVMC unless otherwise exempt. (10) The exterior design and/or signs of the adult entertainment establishment must meet the requirements set forth in the City's Zoning Code section 19.110.020 adopting the Spokane Valley Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan and Chapter 22.110 SVMC. (11) T he lic ensing administrator s hall is sue and m ail t o the a pplicant an a dult entertainment establishment license within thirty calendar days of the date of filing a complete license application and fee, unless the licensing administrator determines that the applicant has failed to meet an y of t he r equirements of t his cha pter, or failed to provide a ny i nformation required under this subsection, or that the applicant has made a false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact on the application for a license. The licensing administrator shall grant an e xtension of t ime i n w hich t o pr ovide a 11 i nformation r equired f or a complete 1 icense application upon the request of the applicant. (12) If the licensing administrator finds that the applicant has failed to meet any of the requirements f or is suance of a n adult e ntertainment e stablishment li cense, the lic ensing administrator s hall de ny the a pplication in writing and shall cite the s pecific r easons for th e denial, including applicable laws. If the licensing administrator fails to issue or deny the license within thirty calendar days of the date of filing of a complete application and fee, the applicant shall be p ermitted, subject t o all other a pplicable 1 aws, t o ope rate the business for which the license w as s ought until notification by the lic ensing a dministrator that the lic ense ha s be en denied, but i n no e vent may the 1 icensing a dministrator extend the applicant review t ime for more than an additional twenty days. (b) Adult Arcade Device License. In addition to the provisions set forth in subsection (a) of this section, the following conditions apply to adult arcade establishments: (1) It is unlawful to exhibit or display to the public any adult arcade device, or to operate any adult arcade station within any adult arcade establishment without first obtaining a license for each such device for a specified location or premises from the City, to be designated an"adult arcade device license." (2) T he adul t ar cade device 1 icense s hall be securely at tached to each such device, or the arcade station, in a conspicuous place. Section 7 Adult entertainment establishment manager and entertainer licenses. Ordinance 10- Adult Entertainment Page 7 of 16 DRAFT PROPOSED REGULATIONS (a) A person may not work as a m anager, a ssistant manager or entertainer at an a dult entertainment establishment without a manager's or an entertainer's license from the licensing administrator. A n applicant f or a ma nager's or e ntertainer's lic ense mus t c omplete an application on f orms p rovided b y t he 1 icensing administrator c ontaining t he information identified in this subsection. A nonrefundable license fee must accompany the application. The licensing administrator shall provide a copy of the application to the police department for its review, i nvestigation a nd r ecommendation. A n a pplication for a m anager's or entertainer's license must be signed by the applicant and certified to be true under penalty of perjury. T he manager's or entertainer's license application must require the following information: (1) The applicant's name, home address, home telephone number, date and place of birth, fingerprints t aken b y the police department(or s uch of her e ntity a s a uthorized b y the police department or lic ensing administrator), social s ecurity num ber, and any s tage na mes or nicknames used in entertaining; (2) T he n ame and address of each adult e ntertainment establishment a t w hich the applicant intends to work; (3)Documentation that the applicant has attained the age of eighteen years. Any two of the following are acceptable as documentation of age: (A) A m otor ve hide o perator's 1 icense i ssued b y any s tate be aring t he appl icant's photograph and date of birth; (B) A s tate-issued i dentification c and be aring the a pplicant's phot ograph and date of birth; (C) An official passport issued by the United State of America; (D) An immigration card issued by the United States of America; or (E) Any other identification that the licensing administrator determines to be acceptable and reliable. (4) A complete statement of a 11 c onvictions of the a pplicant for an y misdemeanor o r felony vi olations i n t he j urisdiction or a ny o ther c ity, county or s tate w ithin f ive years immediately pr eceding t he date of the application, except parking vi olations or m inor traffic infractions; (5) A description of the applicant's principal activities or services to be rendered at the adult entertainment establishment; (6) Two two-inch by two-inch color photographs of applicant, taken within six months of the date of application showing only the full face. (7) Authorization for the City, its agents and employees to investigate and confirm any statements in the application. (b)E very entertainer s hall pr ovide hi s or he r 1 icense t o t he a dult e ntertainment establishment manager on duty on the premises prior to his or her performance. The manager shall retain the licenses of the entertainers readily available for inspection by the City, its agents, and employees, at any time during business hours of the adult entertainment establishment. (c) The licensing administrator may request additional information or clarification when necessary to determine compliance with this chapter. (d) T he c ontents of a n a pplication f or a n entertainer's 1 icense and a ny a dditional information submitted by an applicant for a n entertainer's lic ense ar e confidential and will Ordinance 10- Adult Entertainment Page 8 of 16 DRAFT PROPOSED REGULATIONS remain confidential to the extent authorized by RCW Chapter 42.56 and other applicable law. Nothing in this subsection prohibits the exchange of information among government agencies for law enforcement or licensing or regulatory purposes. (e) T he licensing administrator s hall is sue and m ail t o t he a pplicant an a dult entertainment establishment m anager's or ent ertainer's 1 icense within fourteen calendar d ays from the date the com plete application and fee are received unless the lic ensing administrator determines t hat t he a pplicant ha s f ailed t o pr ovide a ny i nformation r equired t o be s upplied according to this chapter, has made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact in the application, or has failed to meet any of the requirements for issuance of a 1 icense under this chapter. If the licensing administrator determines that the applicant does not qualify for the license applied for, the licensing administrator shall deny the application in writing and shall cite the specific reasons therefore, including applicable law. (f) A n applicant for a n a dult e ntertainment establishment ma nager's o r e ntertainer's license shall be issued a temporary license upon receipt of a complete license application and fee. Such temporary license shall automatically expire on the fourteenth calendar day following the filing of the complete license application and fee unless the licensing administrator has failed to approve or deny the license application, in which case the temporary license shall be valid until the licensing administrator approves or denies the application, or until the final determination of any appeal from a denial of the application. In no event may the licensing administrator extend the application review time for more than an additional twenty calendar days. Section 8. Standards of conduct, personnel, and operation of adult entertainment establishments. (a) All employees of an adult entertainment establishment must adhere to the following standards of conduct while in any area in which a member of the public is allowed to be present: (1) An employee may not be unclothed or in such less than opaque and complete attire, costume or clothing so as to expose to view any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or any portion of the public region, anus, buttocks, vulva or genitals, except upon a stage at least eighteen inches above the immediate floor level and removed at least eight feet from the nearest member of the public. (2) An employee mingling with a member of the public may not be unclothed or in less than opaque and complete attire, costume or clothing as described in subsection (a)(1) of this section, nor may a male employee appear with his genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered or wear or use any device or covering that simulates the same. (3) An employee mingling with a member of the public may not wear or use any device or c overing exposed t o view which s imulates the br east be low the t op of the areola, vul va, genitals, anus, a portion of the public region, or buttocks. (4) An employee may not caress, fondle or erotically touch a m ember of the public or another employee. An employee may not encourage or permit a member of the public to caress, fondle or erotically touch that employee. (5) An employee may not perform actual or simulated acts of sexual conduct as defined in this chapter, or an act that constitutes a violation of RCW Chapter 7.48A, the Washington moral nuisance statute, or any provision regulating offenses against public morals. Ordinance 10- Adult Entertainment Page 9 of 16 DRAFT PROPOSED REGULATIONS (6) A n employee m ingling with a m ember of the publ ic m ay not conduct any d ance, performance or exhibition in or about the nonstage area of the adult entertainment establishment unless that dance, performance or exhibition is performed at a distance of at least four feet from the m ember of the publ ic for whom the dance, pe rformance or exhibition i s pe rformed. The distance of four feet is measured from the torso of the dancer to the torso of the member of the public. (7) A tip or gratuity offered t o or accepted by an e ntertainer m ay not be offered or accepted be fore any p erformance, d ance or exhibition pr ovided b y t he e ntertainer. An entertainer performing upon any stage area may not accept any form of gratuity offered directly to the entertainer b y a member of the public. A gratuity offered to an entertainer performing upon any stage area or in any booth or arcade device must be placed into a receptacle provided for receipt of gratuities by the management of the adult entertainment establishment or provided through a manger on duty on the premises. A gratuity or tip offered to an entertainer conducting a performance, dance or exhibition in or about the nonstage area of the live adult entertainment establishment must be placed into the hand of the entertainer or into a receptacle provided by the entertainer, and not upon the person or into the clothing of the entertainer. (b) This chapter does not prohibit: (1)Plays, operas, musicals, or other dramatic works that are not obscene; (2) C lasses, seminars and lectures which are he ld for s erious s cientific or educ ational purposes and which are not obscene; or (3)Exhibitions, performances, expressions or dances that are not obscene. The exemptions in subsection (b) of this section do not apply to sexual conduct defined in this chapter or the sexual conduct de scribed i n RCW Section 7.48A.010(2) (b) (ii) and (iii). Whether or not activity is obscene shall be judged by consideration of the standards set forth in RCW Section 7.48A.010(2). (c) At an adult entertainment establishment the following are required: (1) Admission must be restricted to persons ofthe age of eighteen years or older. A n owner, operator, manager or other person in charge of the adult entertainment establishment may not knowingly permit or allow any person under the age of eighteen years to be in or upon the premises whether as an owner, operator, manager, patron, member, customer, agent, employee, independent contractor, or i n any other capacity. T his section i s not intended to be used i n a prosecution of a minor on or within an adult entertainment establishment. (2)Neither the performance of any live adult entertainment, nor any display of specified sexual act ivities or s exual conduc t, nor any photograph, d rawing, s ketch or of her pi ctorial or graphic representation of any such performance, activities and/or conduct may take place or be located so a s t o be v isible t o m inors w ho a re or maybe out side of t he a dult e ntertainment establishment. (3) A member of the public may not b e permitted at any time to enter into any of the nonpublic portions of the adult entertainment establishment, which includes but is not limited to: the dressing rooms of the entertainers, other rooms provided for the benefit of employees, or the kitchen or storage areas. However, a person delivering goods and materials, food and beverages, or pe rforming m aintenance or r epairs t o the pr emises or e quipment on t he premises m ay be permitted into nonpublic areas to the extent required to perform the person's job duties. Ordinance 10- Adult Entertainment Page 10 of 16 DRAFT PROPOSED REGULATIONS (4)Restrooms may not contain video reproduction equipment and/or adult arcade devices and each restroom may not be occupied by more than one person at any time. (5) All ventilation devices or openings between adult arcade booths must be covered by a permanently affixed 1 ouver or screen. Any portion of a ventilation opening c over may not be located more than one foot below the top of the adult arcade station walls or one foot from the bottom of adult arcade station walls. There may not be any other holes or openings between the adult arcade stations. (6)No adult arcade station may be occupied by more than one person at any time. Any chair or other seating surface within an adult arcade station shall not provide a seating surface of greater than 18 i nches i n either 1 ength or width. Only one such chair or other s eating surface shall be placed in any adult arcade station. No person may stand or kneel on any such chair or other seating surface. (7) T here m ust be a pe rmanently posted and maintained i n a t 1 east t wo c onspicuous locations on t he i nterior of a 11 a dult a rcade establishments a s ign stating s ubstantially the following: OCCUPANCY OF ANY STATION (VIEWING ROOM)IS AT ALL TIMES LIMITED TO ONE PERSON. THERE MAY BE NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE STATIONS, OR ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE PREMISES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT (RCW 9.68A.011), ACTS OF LEWDNESS,INDECENT EXPOSURE,PROSTITUTION, DRUG ACTIVITY, OR SEXUAL CONDUCT,AS DEFINED HEREIN. VIOLATORS ARE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. Each sign must be conspicuously posted and not screened from the patron's view. The letters and numerals must be on a contrasting background and be no smaller than one inch in height. (8) When doors are permitted i n areas of the adult entertainment establishment that are available for us e b y persons of her than the ow ner, m anager, ope rator, or t heir a gents or employees, those doors may not be locked during business hours. (9)No person may engage in any conduct, or operate or maintain any warning system or device of any nature or kind, for the purpose of alerting, warning, or aiding and abetting the warning of a ny pa trons, m embers, c ustomers, ow ners, ope rators, m anagers, e mployees, agents, i ndependent c ontractors, or a ny other pe rsons i n t he a dult e ntertainment establishment, t hat pol ice officers or c ounty he alth, c ode e nforcement, f ire, licensing, or building inspectors are approaching or have entered the premises. (10)N o pe rson in an a dult e ntertainment e stablishment m ay m asturbate, or expose to view any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or any portion of the public region, anus, buttocks, penis, vulva or genitals. (d) T he responsibilities of the ma nager of an adult e ntertainment e stablishment s hall include: Ordinance 10- Adult Entertainment Page 11 of 16 DRAFT PROPOSED REGULATIONS (1) A licensed manager shall be on duty at an adult entertainment establishment at all times a dult e ntertainment i s be ing provided or members of the public are present on t he premises. T he full n ame and license o f t he m anager s hall b e p rominently pos ted du ring business hours. The manager shall be responsible for verifying that any person who provides adult entertainment within the premises possesses a current and valid entertainer's license. (2) The licensed manager on duty shall not be an entertainer. (3) T he m anager 1 icensed under t his chapter s hall m aintain vi sual obs ervation from a manager's s tation of e ach member o f t he publ is and each entertainer at all t imes an y entertainer i s pr esent i n t he publ is or pe rformance a reas o f t he adult e ntertainment establishment. Where there is more than one performance area, or the performance area is of such size or configuration that one manager is unable to visually observe, at all times, each entertainer, each employee and each member of the public, a m anger 1 icensed unde r t his chapter s hall be provided for each public or performance area or portion of a public or performance area vi sually s eparated from of her por tions of t he a dult e ntertainment establishment. All adult arcade stations must open to the public room so that the area inside is fully and completely visible to the manager. No curtain, door, wall, merchandise, display rack, or other enclosure, material, or application may obscure in any way the manager's view of any portion of the activity or occupants of the adult entertainment establishment. (4) The manager shall be responsible for and shall ensure that the actions of members of the public, the adult entertainers, and all other employees shall comply with all requirements of this chapter. Section 9. Premises—Specifications. (a) Live Adult Entertainment Establishment Premises. The performance area of the live adult e ntertainment establishment w here adult entertainment is pr ovided shall be a s tage or platform at least eighteen inches i n elevation above the 1 evel o f t he patron seating areas, and shall be separated by a distance of at least eight feet from all areas of the premises to which a member of the public has access. A continuous railing affixed to the floor and measuring at least three feet in height and located at least eight feet from all points of the performance area must be installed on the floor of the premises t o separate the performance area and the public s eating areas. The stage and the entire interior portion of all rooms or other enclosures wherein the live adult entertainment is provided must be visible from the common areas of the premises and from at least one manager's station. Visibility shall be by direct line of sight and shall not be blocked or obstructed by doors, curtains, drapes, walls, merchandise, display racks or other obstructions. (b) Adult Arcade Entertainment Establishment Premises. All adult arcade stations must open to the public room so that the area inside is fully and completely visible by direct line of sight t o t he m anager. All adul t ar cade s tations s hall be m aintained in a cl can and sanitary condition at a 11 time s. A 11 floors, walls and ceilings s hall c onsist onl y of ha rd, cleanable surfaces. A 11 a dult arcade stations s hall be thoroughly cleaned with a diluted bl each solution whenever necessary for the removal of any potentially infectious materials (including, without limitation, s emen, bl ood a nd va ginal s ecretions), but a t 1 east one e da ily. A record of s uch cleaning, listing the d ate and time, shall be po sted in each adult ar cade s tation. A ny s uch potentially infectious materials, together with any cleaning rags, cloths or other implements, and Ordinance 10- Adult Entertainment Page 12 of 16 DRAFT PROPOSED REGULATIONS any condoms, needles, or other items that may contain such potentially infectious materials, shall be placed in a properly labeled "medical waste" bag and disposed of pursuant to applicable laws or regulations. (c) Lighting. Sufficient lighting must be provided and equally distributed throughout the public areas of the entertainment establishment so that all objects are plainly visible at all times. A minimum lighting level of thirty lux horizontal, measured at thirty inches from the floor and on t en-foot centers is r equired for all a reas o f the a dult entertainment e stablishment w here members of the public are permitted. (d) Signs. A sign at least two feet by two feet with letters at least one inch high, which are on a contrasting background, shall be conspicuously di splayed i n the public area(s) of the adult entertainment establishment stating the following: THIS ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENT IS REGULATED BY THE LAWS OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY. ENTERTAINERS ARE: A. NOT PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN ANY TYPE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT. B. NOT PERMITTED TO APPEAR SEMI-NUDE OR NUDE, EXCEPT ON STAGE. C. NOT PERMITTED TO ACCEPT TIPS OR GRATUITIES IN ADVANCE OF THEIR PERFORMANCE. D. NOT PERMITTED TO ACCEPT TIPS DIRECTLY FROM PATRONS WHILE PERFORMING UPON ANY STAGE AREA OR IN ANY ARCADE STATION OR BOOTH. (e)Recordkeeping Requirements. All papers, records and documents required to be kept pursuant t o t his chapter must be ope n t o i nspection b y the licensing administrator during the hours when the licensed premises are open for business, upon two days' written notice to the licensee. An adult entertainment establishment s hall maintain and retain for a period of tw o years the name, address and age of each person employed or otherwise retained or allowed to perform on t he pr emises a s a n e ntertainer, i ncluding i ndependent c ontractors a nd t heir employees. The purpose of the inspection shall be to determine whether the papers, records and documents meet the requirements of this chapter. (f) Inspections. P rior t o t he i ssuance of a 1 icense, t he applicant m ust be qua lified according to the provisions of all applicable City ordinances, the laws of the United States and of the State of W ashington. T he pr emises mus t meet the r equirements of a 11 a pplicable laws, ordinances, and regulations i ncluding but not 1 imited t o the Uniform B uilding C ode, and the City's Zoning Code. All premises and devices must be inspected prior to issuance of a license. Ordinance 10- Adult Entertainment Page 13 of 16 DRAFT PROPOSED REGULATIONS Upon request, the licensing administrator will schedule a prelicensing conference with all pertinent City departments to assist the applicant in meeting the regulations and provisions of this chapter. In order to ensure compliance with this chapter all areas of a licensed adult entertainment establishment that are open to members of the public must be open to inspection by agents and employees of the j urisdiction during the hours when the premises are open for business. The purpose of s uch i nspections m ust be t o de termine i f t he 1 icensed p remises a re op erated i n accordance with the requirements of t his c hapter. It i s expressly de dared t hat una nnounced inspections of adult entertainment establishments are ne cessary to ensure compliance with this chapter. (g)Hours of Operation. An adult entertainment establishment may not be operated or otherwise open to the public between the hours of two a.m. and ten a.m. Section 10. License fees, term, expiration, assignment, and renewals. (a) A license issued under this chapter expires on the thirty-first day of December of each year. A 1 icense fee m ay not be pr orated, except t hat i f t he original a pplication i s m ade subsequent to June 30th, then one-half of the annual fee may be accepted for the remainder of such year. (b) Application for renewal of a license issued under this chapter must be m ade to the licensing administrator no later than thirty calendar days before the expiration for an adult entertainment establishment lic ense, and no 1 ater t han fourteen c alendar da ys be fore t he expiration for an adult entertainment establishment manager's and entertainer's license. The licensing administrator shall issue the renewal license in the same manner and on payment of the same fees as for an original application under this chapter. The licensing administrator shall assess and collect, an additional fee, computed as a percentage of the license fee, on an application not made on or before such date, as follows: Calendar Days Past Due Percent of License Fee 7—30 25% 31 - 60 50% 61 and over 75% (c) The licensing administrator shall renew a license upon application unless the licensing administrator is aw are o f facts t hat w ould di squalify the a pplicant from be ing i ssued the license for which he or she seeks renewal, and further provided that the application complies with a 11 the provisions oft his chapter a s now enacted or as the s ame m ay he reafter b e amended. (d) License fees shall be adopted by the City Council through a separate resolution. Ordinance 10- Adult Entertainment Page 14 of 16 DRAFT PROPOSED REGULATIONS (e) A dult entertainment e stablishments w hich offer bot h live a dult e ntertainment a nd adult arcade devices or stations shall be required to pay the fees associated with both live adult entertainment establishments and adult arcade establishments. (f) Licenses issued under this chapter may not be assigned or transferred to other owners, operators, managers, entertainers, premises, devices, persons or businesses. (g) A r einspection fee equal t o the a mount i n effect for original a pplication for any licenses hall be charged if t he appl icant requests approval for a p roposed enlargement or alteration of the interior of the adult entertainment establishment, or if the applicant requests the licensing administrator make an inspection of the premises in addition to the usual prelicensing I inspection. Section 11. Suspension or Revocation of Licenses. The 1 icense administrator may upon 14 calendar days' written notice de livered to the 1 icense hol der, temporarily suspend or permanently r evoke an y 1 icense issued pur suant t o t his c hapter w here one or m ore of t he following conditions exist: (a) The 1 icense application, or any report or record required t o be filed with the City, includes one or more false, misleading, or fraudulent statements of material fact; or (b) The building, structure, equipment or location of the business for which the license was i ssued doe s not c omply with the requirements or standards of the chapter, the applicable building or zoning codes, or other applicable law; or (c) T he 1 icensee, hi s or her employee, agent, p artner, di rector, officer or m anager ha s knowingly allowed or pe rmitted, in or upo n t he pr emises of a ny adult e ntertainment establishment, any violations of this chapter or acts made unlawful under this chapter. Section 12. Appeal and Hearing. Any person aggrieved by the action of the license administrator i n r efusing t o i ssue or r enew a ny 1 icense unde r t his c hapter, or i n t emporarily suspending or permanently revoking any license under this chapter, shall have the right to appeal such action to the City's hearing examiner under S VMC 17.90.040 through .060, except to the extent that such sections relate only to land use matters under the S VMC. Notwithstanding the provisions of S VMC 17 .90.060(A) and A ppendix B, S ection E, all t estimony at any h earing affecting a license under this chapter shall be taken under oath. The filing of such appeal shall stay the action of the license administrator. Any person aggrieved b y the decision of the hearing examiner s hall have the right t o appeal the decision to the Spokane County Superior Court by writ of certiorari filed and served upon the City within 14 c alendar days after the date of the hearing examiner's decision. T he filing of such appeal shall stay the action of the hearing examiner. Section 13. Compliance by Existing Adult Entertainment Establishments. Any a dult entertainment establishment 1 awfully ope rating o n the effective d ate of t his cha pter that is in violation of the specifications for the premises of adult entertainment establishments set forth in Section 9 must correct any configuration, and b ring the adult entertainment establishment into full compliance with those premises specifications not later than ninety calendar days after the effective date of this chapter. All other provisions of this chapter are operative and enforceable on the effective date. Ordinance 10- Adult Entertainment Page 15 of 16 DRAFT PROPOSED REGULATIONS Section 14. Penalties. A person violating this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof du ring which any violation i s committed, continued, authorized, or permitted; provided, no pe rson s hall b e de emed guilty o f any vi olation of thi s chapter if acting in an investigative capacity pursuant to the request or order of law enforcement. All violations of this chapter are hereby determined to be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare and are hereby declared public nuisances. Section 15. Additional Remedies. Any 1 icense i ssued under t his ch apter s hall be subject t o t he r ules o f the W ashington S tate Liquor C ontrol B oard r elating t o t he s ale of intoxicating liquor. If there i s a conflict between this chapter and the applicable rules of the Washington State Liquor Control Board, the rules of the Washington State Liquor Control Board shall govern. The remedies provided herein for vi olations of the provisions of t his chapter, whether civil or criminal, are cumulative and i n a ddition t o any of her remedy provided b y 1 aw. T he remedies are not exclusive, and the City may seek any other legal or equitable relief. An adult entertainment establishment operated or maintained contrary to the provisions of RCW Chapter 7.48, Moral Nuisance, is unlawful and a public and moral nuisance, and the City may in addition to any other remedies commence an action to enjoin, abate or remove any such nuisance. Section 16. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be he ld t o b e i nvalid or unc onstitutional b y a court of c ompetent j urisdiction, such invalidity or unc onstitutionality s hall not a ffect t he va lidity or c onstitutionality of a ny of her section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 17. Effective Date. T his Ordinance s hall be come effective five days after publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City. Adopted this day of , 2010. City of Spokane Valley Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance 10- Adult Entertainment Page 16 of 16 Schedule E — Administration COPY FEE: Copy of audio tapes,video tapes, DVD, CD's, etc. At Cost Copy of written documents (see Spokane Valley Municipal Code 2.75.070) $.15 per page Copy large format documents $3.00 per page NSF Check return fee $26.00 Schedule F — Other Fees BUSINESS REGISTRATION Business Registration $13.00 annual Nonprofit Registration $3.00 annual Late Business Registration Fee: (charged in addition to the business registration fee) (SVMC 5.05.050) Failure to pay the registration fee by the applicable date shall result in a late fee of 50%of the annual registration fee. Failure to pay the annual fee may result in non-issuance of a Washington State license, as determined by the Washington State Department of Licensing. Adult Entertainment Establishment License, Live Adult Entertainment $1,575.00 Establishment License,Adult Arcade $1,575.00 Adult Arcade Device License $157.00 Manager License $157.00 Entertainer License $157.00 Late Adult Entertainment License Fee: (charged in addition to the license fee) 7 to 30 calendar days past due 25%of license fee 31 to 60 calendar days past due 50%of license fee 61 and more calendar days past due 75%of license fee I Appeal of Administrative Decision Relating to Adult Entertainment Licensing- $1,050.00 TOW OPERATOR REGISTRATION FEE $105.00 annual OVERSIZED LOAD PERMIT FEE $26.00 STORMWATER UTILITY CHARGE ON DEVELOPED PARCELS: Each single-family unit $21.00 annual All other properties each $21.00 per 3,160 sq. ft impervious surface CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 9, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Admin. Report: Proposed Amended 2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adopted 2010-2015 Six Year TIP on June 16, 2009, Resolution #09-009; Info RCA in Council's March 2, 2010 packet. BACKGROUND: Council adopted the 2010-2015 TIP based upon information staff had at that time relative to available funds and how these funds could be utilized for transportation projects. Since the adoption of the 2010-2015 TIP, staff submitted applications for a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) for the following projects that were selected for funding: • 2009 ADA Improvements — (CDBG) • Sprague Avenue ITS — (EECBG) Additional proposed changes identified in the Amended 2010 TIP include the following: • Pines Corridor ITS Project was rescheduled from 2011 to 2010 to allow the design to begin later this year and position it better for bidding early in 2011. • The Pines/Mansfield, West Ponderosa Sewer Paveback, 44th Ave Pathway and Sprague Resurfacing #2 projects are carryovers from 2009. • The Sullivan Road (PE Only, Euclid to Wellesley) and Pavement Management Program- Local Access projects have been deleted from the 2010 TIP. The funding for the Sullivan Road project was transferred to the Pines-Mansfield Project to cover construction cost overruns. The Pavement Management Program for local access streets is currently unfunded. • The 2010 STEP Paveback projects (Corbin, Cronk, West Farms, and South Greenacres) have been added based on Council approval February 23, 2010. Based on this information, it is recommended that the 2010 TIP be amended to reflect the deletion of the projects that did not receive funding, include those projects that were not completed in 2009 and have been carried over to the 2010 construction year, and those projects added to the 2010 construction year. Attached is a summary of the proposed changes. A public hearing on these changes to the 2010 TIP is currently scheduled for March 23, 2010. Adoption of the Amended 2010 TIP is currently scheduled for March 30, 2010. There are sufficient capital project funds to cover these 2010 costs. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2010 budget will be amended to reflect changes associated with this proposed Amended 2010 TIP. STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer Neil Kersten, Public Works Director; ATTACHMENTS: Draft Amended 2010 TIP City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Adopted 2010 Transportation Improvement Program Primary City Total 2010 Proj.# Project From To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0003 Barker Road Bridge @ Spokane River BR $ 55,000 $ 407,000 2 0088 Broadway Ave Reconstruction 180 ft. E of Moore Flora UAP $ 68,000 $ 2,465,000 3 0069 Park Road Project 2(PE Only) Broadway Indiana STP(U) $ 34,000 $ 246,000 4 0063 Broadway Ave Safety Project Pines(SR 27) Park UAP $ 167,000 $ 834,000 5 0112 Indiana Ave. Extension e/o Sullivan Flora UCP $ 264,000 $ 1,874,000 6 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Improvements 1-90 Trent CMAQ $ 77,000 $ 576,000 7 0114 Broadway/Sullivan Intersection PCC STA $ 253,000 $ 1,230,000 8 0113 Indiana/Sullivan Intersection PCC STA $ 275.000 $ 1.342.000 9 Pavement Management Program-Arterials Various locations City $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 10 Pavement Management Program-Local Access Various locations City $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 11 STEP Paveback Various locations City $ 3,543,000 $ 3,543,000 12 0070 Sullivan Road (PE Only) Euclid Wellesley STP(U) $ 40,000 $ 298,000 13 0065 Sullivan/Sprague Intersection PCC STP(U) $ 933,000 $ 1,678,000 $ 9,709,000 $ 20,493,000 Funded Projects City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works DRAFT Amended 2010 Transportation Improvement Program Resolution 10-???,March 30,2010 Primary City Total 2010 Proj.# Project From To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0003 Barker Road Bridge @ Spokane River BR $ 402,000 $ 2,968,000 2 0005 Pines/Mansfield Montgomery Pines(SR-27) TPP $ 775,000 $ 775,000 3 0088 Broadway Ave Reconstruction 180 ft. E of Moore Flora UAP $ 68,000 $ 1,817,000 4 0069 Park Road Project 2(PE Only) Broadway Indiana STP(U) $ 33,200 $ 246,000 5 0063 Broadway Ave Safety Project Pines(SR 27) Park UAP $ 186,300 $ 931,400 6 0112 Indiana Ave. Extension 3600-ft e/o Sullivan Flora TIB $ 264,000 $ 1,874,000 7 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Improvements 1-90 Trent CMAQ $ 85,500 $ 633,500 8 0114 Broadway/Sullivan Intersection PCC STA $ 248,000 $ 1,207,000 9 0113 Indiana/Sullivan Intersection PCC STA $ 21,000 $ 101,000 10 Pavement Management Program-Arterials Various locations City $ 250,000 $ 250,000 11 STEP Paveback Various locations City 12 0106 W. Ponderosa 11 City $ 38,000 $ 38,000 13 0130 Corbin ($330,000 CDBG Grant Anticipated) City/CDBG $ 345,000 $ 675,000 14 0131 Cronk City $ 295,000 $ 295,000 15 0129 South Greenacres City $ 405,000 $ 405,000 16 0128 West Farms City $ 440,000 $ 440,000 17 Misc. Paveback City $ 300,000 $ 300,000 18 0065 Sullivan/Sprague Intersection PCC STP(U) $ 464,300 $ 1,209,400 19 0061 Pines ITS Trent Sprague CMAQ $ 32,400 $ 239,900 20 0054 44th Ave Pathway Sands Woodruff STP(E) $ - $ 275,000 21 0127 2009 ADA Improvements Various locations CDBG $ 20,100 $ 100,700 22 0133 Sprague ITS University Sullivan EECBG $ - $ 400,000 23 0115 Sprague Resurfacing#2 Evergreen Sullivan Federal $ 10,000 $ 1,954,000 $ 4,682,800 $ 17,134,900 *The Pavement Management Program-Arterials will be completed as staff and funding levels allow. Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances,and are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. Funded Projects Added Projects 2009 Carry Over Projects P:\Clerk\AgendaPackets for Web\agendapacket 03-09-10\Item 10 Draft Amended 2010 TIP 3/4/2010 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of March 4, 2010; 12:00 p.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of Acting City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings March 13-17, 2010:National League of Cities, Congressional City Conference, Washington, D.C. March 16,2010 NO COUNCIL MEETING March 23,2010: Council/Staff Jail Tour, 8:45 a.m. March 23,2010,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,March 15] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amended 2010 TIP— Steve Worley (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda: Claims,Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 10-005 UDC Amendment CTA 08-09—Marty Palaniuk (15 minutes) 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 10-006 UDC Amendment CTA 01-10—Karen Kendall (15 minutes) 5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 10-007 Regarding Adult Entertainment—Cary Driskell (20 minutes) 6. Admin Rprt: Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan Update— Suzanne Tresko; Russ Menke (30 min) 7. Admin Rprt: SRTC Draft Interlocal—Neil Kersten/Mike Connelly (30 minutes) (20 minutes) 8. Admin Report: Barker Bridge Update— Steve Worley (20 minutes) 9. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 10. Info Only: Department Reports; Taylor Cottages PUD; Refreshment Policy 11. Executive Session [estimated meeting: 145 minutes] Tuesday,March 30,2010, 2:00 p.m.- 4:30 p.m. Spokane Valley Council Chambers [due Mon March 22] Joint Meeting with City of Spokane Mayor and Council Tentative Topics: Animal Control; Solid Waste;Jail; Transportation Benefit District March 30,2010, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,March 22] 1. International Trade Alliance 4th Quarter Report—Mark Peters, Exec. Dir. (15 minutes) 2. Code Enforcement Update—Kathy McClung (20 minutes) 3. Energy Efficiency Block Grant Update—Mike Basinger (20 minutes) 4. Annual Comp Plan Proposed Amendments— Christina Janssen/Mike Basinger (30 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Accomplishments Report—Mike Jackson (30 minutes) 6. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 7. Executive Session [*estimated meeting: 120 minutes] April 6,2010, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,March 29] 1. Comp Plan Update—Greg McCormick (15 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 3. Spokane Valley Arts Council Update—Dr. Harkin (15 minutes) 4. Snow Operations—Neil Kersten (15 minutes) 5. Executive Session: restimated meeting: 50 minutes] April 13,2010 Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. 'due date Mon,April 5] Proclamation: Take Kids to Work Day 1. Consent Agenda: Claims,Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Adult Entertainment Appeal Process—Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Comp Plan— Christina Janssen/Mike Basinger(20 min) 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Zoning Map—Christina Janssen/Mike Basinger(10 min) 5. Proposed Amended Fee Resolution,Adult entertainment Appeal Process— Cary Driskell (10 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 3/4/2010 4:05:55 PM Page 1 of 3 6. Proposed Resolution Adopting Amended 2010 TIP- Steve Worley (10 minutes) 7. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 8. Executive Session: [estimated meeting: 70 minutes] April 20, 2010, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 191 1. Advance Agenda 2. Executive Session [*estimated meeting: minutes] April 27,2010,Format Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 191 1. Consent Agenda: Claims,Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Comp Plan- Christina Janssen/Mike Basinger(10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Zoning Map-Christina Janssen/Mike Basinger(10 minutes) 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Council Broadcasting-Greg Bingaman/Morgan Koudelka (60 minutes) 6. Info Only: Department Reports 7. Executive Session [*estimated meeting: 90 minutes] May 4,2010, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 26] 1. Six-Year 2011-2016 Transp. Improvement Plan- Steve Worley (20 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda 3. Executive Session [*estimated meeting: 165 minutes] May 11,2010 Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. 'due date Mon,May 3] 1. Consent Agenda: Claims,Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 3. Executive Session: [*estimated meeting: minutes] May 18, 2010, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 101 1. Advance Agenda 2. Executive Session [*estimated meeting: minutes] May 25,2010,Format Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 171 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Six-Year 2011-2016 Transp. Improvement Plan (10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda: Claims,Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 4. Info Only: Department Reports 5. Executive Session [*estimated meeting: minutes] June 1,2010, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 24] 1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 2. Executive Session [*estimated meeting: minutes] June 8,2010 Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 311 1. Consent Agenda: Claims,Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Proposed Resolution Adopting Six-Year 2011-2016 TIP- Steve Worley (10 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 4. Executive Session [*estimated meeting: minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 3/4/2010 4:05:55 PM Page 2 of 3 OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: ADA Plan Affordable Housing Participation Alternative Analysis (contracts) Bidding Contracts (SVMC 3. —bidding exceptions) Budget(2010 Amendment) Budget 2011 (fall 2010) Community Development Block Grant(Fall 2010) CTR Ordinance (Commute Trip Reduction) Concurrency Council Remote Voting: Governance Manual East Gateway Monument Structure # Hotel/Motel Grant Proposals for 2011 (Nov 2010) Jail Project tour Law Enforcement Contract I Lobbyist Presentation(Gordon, Thomas,Honeywell) Outside Agencies Presentation (August) Overweight/over size vehicle ordinance Planned Action Ordinance Retreat, summer(June,July?) Sheriff Office Request, Emergency Mgmt Update I Solid Waste Board/Governance I Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ. Assessment Transportation Benefit District: (a). Establish ord.; (b)set public hearing; (c) draft resolution; (d) ballot language Transportation Impacts Waste Management Leased Site WIRA,Water Protection Commitment,public education =request for Council's early consideration #=Awaiting action by others * =doesn't include time for public or council comments Draft Advance Agenda 3/4/2010 4:05:55 PM Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 9, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Crosswalks on Sprague Avenue GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Council has asked staff to explore the feasibility of adding marked uncontrolled crosswalks on the one-way segments of Sprague and Appleway. Currently all crosswalks on one-way Sprague and Appleway are at locations controlled by a traffic signal. Spokane Valley uses the 2005 Federal Highway Administration guidelines as a basis for all decisions to put marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations (i.e. not controlled by a signal or stop sign). The guidelines make recommendations on whether a marked crosswalk is appropriate for a particular location based on travel speed, number of lanes, and traffic volume; and also when that crosswalk should be accompanied by additional safety measures such as overhead signage, flashing warning lights, nighttime illumination or a pedestrian traffic signal. One of the primary concerns with pedestrian crossings of two, three, four and five-lane roadways is the increased risk of a multiple-threat crash. This occurs when a driver in one lane stops to allow a pedestrian to cross. But the driver in the next lane over may not see the pedestrian due to inattention or an obscured view and will drive into the crosswalk at full speed, striking the pedestrian. An example is shown in the diagram below, which indicates two lanes travelling in the same direction. But the more lanes in a single direction, the more likely this type of incident would occur. Atale The City of Airway Heights has two marked, uncontrolled crosswalks on US 2. Even though these crosswalks were fitted with signage, crosswalk markings, and pushbutton operated flashing lights, they experienced one multiple-threat and one rear-end collision that both resulted in fatalities. Traffic volumes on the one-way segments of Sprague and Appleway range between 12,000 and 22,000 vehicles per day. Using the Table 11 from the FHWA guidelines (attached to this memorandum), the installation of marked crosswalks alone on 35 mph, four-lane, two-way arterials with 12,000+ vehicles per day is not recommended. So the one-way configuration of Sprague and Appleway, four and five lanes across, with travel speeds between 35 and 40 miles per hour makes them especially unsuitable for uncontrolled crosswalks. In summary, the addition of marked uncontrolled crosswalks to the one-way segments of Sprague and Appleway would be hazardous to pedestrians. We may be able to install crosswalks by using a pedestrian signal. A single pedestrian signal with mastarms on each side of the road, a signal controller, and refuge islands would likely cost at least $200,000. Pedestrian signals could be worked into the signal coordination plan so they would have little impact on traffic flow. However, due to the low pedestrian volumes currently crossing the street, midblock locations on Sprague and Appleway would not have the minimum pedestrian volumes required to meet traffic signal warrants in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Pedestrian Volume Warrant requires 100 or more pedestrian crossings in four hours or 190 or more during a single hour. OPTIONS: Please let us know if you have questions or would like additional information. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director; Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1. Table 11 from FHWA's "Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations". Table 11. Recommendations for installin:x marked crosswalks and other needed pedestrian improvements at uncontrolled locations.* Roadway Type (Number of Travel Lanes and Median Type) Vehicle ADT _9,000 _ Vehicle ADT >9,000 to 12,000 Vehicle ADT >12,000-15,000 Vehicle ADT >15,000 Speed Limit** <48.3 km/h (30 mi/h) 56.4 km/h (35 mi/h) 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h) <48.3 km/h 56.4 km/h (35 mi/h) 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h) <48.3 km/h (30 mi/h) 56.4 km/h 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h) <48.3 km/h (30 mi/h) 56.4 km/h (35 mi/h) 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h) (30 mi/h) (35 mi/h) Two lanes C C P C C P C C N C P N Three lanes C C P C P P P P N P N N Multilane(four or more lanes) with raised median*** C C P C P N P P N N N N Multilane(four or more lanes) without raised median C P N P P N N N N N N N *These guidelines include intersection and midblock locations with no traffic signals or stop signs on the approach to the crossing. They do no apply to school crossings. A two- way center turn lane is not considered a median. Crosswalks should not be installed at locations that could present an increased safety risk to pedestrians,such as where there is poor sight distance,complex or confusing designs,a substantial volume of heavy trucks,or other dangers,without first providing adequate design features and/or traffic control devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer,nor will they necessarily result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Whether or not marked crosswalks are installed,it is important to consider other pedestrian facility enhancements (e.g..raised median,traffic signal,roadway narrowing,enhanced overhead lighting,traffic-calming measures,curb extensions),as needed,to improve the safety of the crossing. These are general recommendations;good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases for deciding where to install crosswalks. **Where the speed limit exceeds 64.4 km/h(40 mi/h),marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations. ***The raised median or crossing island must be at least 1.2 m(4 ft)wide and 1.8 m(6 ft)long to serve adequately as a refuge area for pedestrians,in accordance with MUTCD and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO)guidelines. C=Candidate sites for marked crosswalks. Marked crosswalks must be installed carefully and selectively. Before installing new marked crosswalks,an engineering study is needed to determine whether the location is suitable for a marked crosswalk. For an engineering study,a site review may be sufficient at some locations,while a more indepth study of pedestrian volume,vehicle speed,sight distance,vehicle mix,and other factors may be needed at other sites. It is recommended that a minimum utilization of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour(or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians)be confirmed at a location before placing a high priority on the installation of a marked crosswalk alone. P=Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk may occur if crosswalks are added without other pedestrian facility enhancements. These locations should be closely monitored and enhanced with other pedestrian crossing improvements,if necessary,before adding a marked crosswalk. N=Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient,since pedestrian crash risk may be increased by providing marked crosswalks alone. Consider using other treatments,such as traffic-calming treatments,traffic signals with pedestrian signals where warranted,or other substantial crossing improvement to improve crossing safety for pedestrians. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 9, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Citizen Response —Troy Dilley at February 23rd meeting GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Mr. Dilley commented at the February 23rd City Council Meeting on the flashing yellow arrow traffic signal at Pines/Mansfield. He asked why it flashes yellow rather than operating as a typical red-yellow-green signal. Installations in Spokane Valley The majority of the signalized left turn movements in Spokane Valley are controlled by "protected" phasing, where drivers must wait for a green arrow to make the turn. At many of the newly built traffic signals in the City (Pines/Mansfield, Sprague/Conklin, Appleway/Barker), the Public Works Department has installed Flashing Yellow Arrows (FYA) for the left turn movements rather than using protected only phasing. This reduces the wait time for left-turning vehicles. Vehicles can turn left during the protected phase (steady green arrow) and also during the permitted phase (flashing yellow arrow) after yielding to on-coming traffic. To date the City has six signals with flashing yellow arrows. 0 0 Protected Configuration Flashing Yellow Arrow configuration The Pines/Mansfield signal operates in coordination with the other signals on Pines Rd. During coordination the signal will hold the northbound and southbound through movements for a specified period of time. During this period the yellow arrow will flash. The flashing yellow allows left turning vehicles to proceed after yielding to oncoming traffic, thus minimizing their delay while maintaining the green for the heavier north-south traffic. This also happens during night time and other low-volume hours when the signal operates independently, not in coordination, and rests in the northbound and southbound green phase if there is no side-street traffic. As with any unprotected left turn, drivers must select an appropriate gap in traffic. Some drivers will select shorter gaps and make riskier turns that appear to be near misses. The Traffic Division does monitor all the collision reports and has the ability to shut off the FYA and switch to protected only at the busier times of the day if a collision problem arises. About the Flashing Yellow Arrow The Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA) was developed as a way to clarify to drivers that they need to yield to oncoming traffic. After recent studies reported better driver understanding and safety with the FYA, the Federal Highway Administration released an interim approval of the FYA in March 2006. It is included in the 2009 edition of the MUTCD. In the interim, the State of Washington has received approval to use the FYA statewide. The FYA is currently used in more than 15 cities in the northwest. A diagram of the signal phasing is shown below. * C o T ® • Red (20 sec) — Mansfield traffic has a green. ® Protected Left Turn (10 sec) — Pines left turns. J � Yellow Change Interval (3 sec) — Pines protected left turn phase is ® ® ending. U. Red (1 sec) —All red clearance between Pines left and through phases. • rak t_ Permissive Left Turn (30 sec) — Pines lefts must yield to oncoming traffic, Pines through and right have a green. � Yellow Change Interval (3 sec) — Pines phase is ending. • Red — Return green to Mansfield traffic. • OPTIONS: Please let us know if you have questions or would like additional information. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director; Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: None CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 9, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Response to Council Retreat Letters and Comments GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: I have reviewed Councilmember Grafos' prepared statement and citizen letters provided at the February 9th Council retreat and provide the following review. Response to Letters and Email. Generally the letters fall into three areas of concern. There were 8 that had concerns over the Sprague Appleway Plan (Plan) or properties within the Plan area;there were 2 that had concerns over uses not permitted in the industrial zones, and the remaining had general concerns over permits or zoning. Staff followed up on many of the letters to get more information. Please see Attachment A for more detailed information. Most of the stated concerns can be addressed through amendments of the regulation portion of the Plan. The regulations of the City Code (including the Plan) can be amended through a Planning Commission hearing and city council adoption at any time. There are criteria for changing regulations, one of which is that the changes have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. For most code amendments this requirement is not an obstacle. The city council can add flexibility to the requirements as it is appropriate. The staff implement whatever regulations are adopted by the city council. Changes to the Comprehensive Plan are placed on a docket which has a deadline of November IS`. All potential changes are processed the following year. This is to be consistent with state law which only allows the Comprehensive Plan to be changed once a year. From the two letters regarding the industrial areas, one has been addressed through a pending code amendment, the other highlights a policy decision the council can consider about opening up industrial areas for more commercial uses. One potential idea for assisting the Industrial Park is to have the city initiate a subarea plan and Planned Action Ordinance that would look at the future potential for the Park, and complete the environmental analysis so that they are in a better position to compete with Idaho and the rest of the Spokane County for uses. The third group of general concerns over permits or zoning address a variety of issues. There are a number of letters that provide secondhand knowledge of the permit experience. The Community Development Department has made a concentrated effort to improve customer service and adopt procedures so that permits are issued as quickly as possible. We have markedly improved plan review times and are committed to continued improvement. We have conducted 6 Developer Forums since 2007 to discuss, review and make improvements. Additionally, all the managers are poised to respond timely to complaints if and when we get them. It is also important to recognize that Community Development receives a number of complimentary letters from the public. Two letters and a "Do Not Occupy" notice were reactions to code compliance action the city has taken. All three of these were in response to complaints. A few letters were in response to uses not permitted in their zoning district. Whether responding to a complaint or determining whether a use is permitted or not, the staff enforces the code by relying on the adopted rules. Regardless of the rules adopted, there may be someone who is unhappy if they are enforced or not enforced. Sometimes it will be the property owner and sometimes it will be the neighbor. We strive to enforce the rules fairly, consistently and with respect to all parties. The staff is working on providing the council with additional information on nonconforming uses in the PIan area, and will have that for you in a week or so. In response to the perception that the city expanded the Planning Department to work on the Plan: One senior planner position was added in fall of 2007 because of the work on the Plan and other long-range planning projects. In 2007, the City responded to a large number of complaints regarding the length of time it was taking to get a permit. In reaction to these complaints, the city council approved a customer service plan that did two things: 1) it added the development engineering division of Public Works to Community Development (4 FTE) and 2) added seven FTE to improve customer service. These were all put in place in spring and summer of 2007. Many of the new positions replaced temporary positions. Since 2007,the Community Development Department has strived to hold costs down. Most notably: Eliminated the consultants for Flood Plain Management and outside engineering review Reduced an administrative assistant position by .5 FTE Reduced Development Engineering by 1 FTE Reduced the consulting budget for the ADA study by$200,000 Not filled 2 additional FTE's that were in the Business Plan. Staff also examined the permit information provided and offer the following: Although the city has certainly experienced a downturn in permit activity,when you subtract out the residential permits,the city has actually experienced a slight increase in commercial permits since 2007. This is in number of permits only, not valuation. There is a table attached that has permit activity information from other jurisdictions in the area and other similar sized cities in the state. Most cities are experiencing the same lower permit activity as the City of Spokane Valley. STAFF CONTACT: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS Response to Letters &Email-Attachment A Prepared Statement from Councilmember Grafos Letters and notice &Order submitted by Councilmember Grafos Pictures of Hite Crane Business Email from Dwight Hume Letter from Mike Connelly to F.J. Dullanty Permit History for Alternative High School Permit History for Luxury Box Permit Activity chart ATTACHMENT A Response to Letters & Email Provided by Councilman Grafos at Council Retreat 2-9-2010 Letters regarding the Sprague Appleway Plan (the Plan) or properties with Plan area: 1. Orville Barnes, Barnes Consulting Company-dated 12/23/2009 Summary of Letter- concerned that the regulations (the Plan) are crafted too tightly and may not work for all properties. Aware of one property where building was designed and told that siting of building would not be approved because it was too far from the street. More Information: Staff called Mr. Barnes and asked him if he could share more information about the building not approved. He said he couldn't. He had heard about it from someone else. Staff Response: Staff can add more flexibility into the Plan by a code amendment if it is something the Council wishes to do. 2. Pring Corporation by Bradley Pring- Dated 4/21/2009 Summary of Letter- Comments in response to draft Subarea Plan document. Properties zoned B3 and in the Plan area may be negatively impacted by drafted plan. He objects to restrictions that require uses to be allowed only in the City Center for an undetermined time. More Information- Staff called Mr. Pring regarding his comments and asked if the restrictions were removed would the Plan be acceptable to him. His response was that he was opposed to any regulations on his property. He did say that he couldn't identify any business they have lost so far due to the Plan. Staff Response; The limitation of uses in the city center was put there to stimulate the city center core before the rest of the area. If the council is not moving forward with an emphasis on the city center core, this part of the Plan can be removed through a code amendment. 3. Pring Corporation by Kirk Owsley dated December 30, 2009 Summary of Letter- Restatement of Pring letter by Brad Pring dated 4-21-09. Concern over City Center temporary restrictions More Information- Staff called Mr. Owsley. His opinions are closely aligned with Brad Pring. He doesn't like any beautification requirements or any restrictions on uses. He feels regulations devalue property. Staff Response- The limitation of uses in the city center was put there to stimulate the city center core before the rest of the area. If the council is not moving forward with an emphasis on the city center core, this part of the Plan can be removed through a code amendment. 4. Clark Pacific by Marshall Clark-dated January 4, 2010 Summary of letter- Wanted to place bank on property at the northeast corner of Bowdish & Sprague. The Subarea Plan did not permit a bank at that location. Property is now used as a residence and convenience store. Staff Response: The Plan does not permit a bank on Mr. Clark's property. The thinking behind that restriction was that the city wanted to ensure the success of the city center before opening up certain uses to other areas. Mr. Clark did inquire about locating a bank at this location before the Plan was adopted (2008) but the property was not large enough to accommodate the required parking and the tenants need to have a drive-through. 5. Cornerstone Property Advisors by Guy Byrd dated February 5, 2010 Summary of Letter: Relocate Hite Crane business to property at 7102 and 7202 E. Sprague in the Gateway Commercial Ave district zone. Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the proposal for Hite Crane to locate on Sprague Ave. This use is not permitted under the current SARP regulations, or the prior regulations (adopted 2007). The Plan envisions this area for automobile sales and uses that are compatible and supportive to automobile sales. Hite Crane has very large equipment and equipment storage yards that are more appropriate for the industrial zones. In addition, representatives for the car dealerships have expressed numerous times, that they would like the properties in that area to be more aesthetically pleasing. Please see pictures attached. 6. Douglass Properties by Harlan Douglass January 11,2010 Summary of Letter- Boat sales not permitted at 12606 E Sprague More Information: The boat sales operation relocated from behind the current White Elephant store to the lot next door without approval from the City. It was referred to code compliance after staff received two complaints from other businesses. This matter is currently under appeal, with a hearing set for March 11, 2010 in front of the Hearing Examiner. Boat sales were also not permitted under the previous zoning. Staff Response: Since there is a pending appeal, staff is not able to comment. 7. Steve Wineinger, Nicol Whipple, John Johnston dated February 11, 2010 Summary of Letter-Representatives from 3 sign companies have some issues with SARP sign regulations. Response- Staff and council anticipated there would be parts of the SARP that would have to be adjusted after we had a chance to apply the regulations as written. The sign regulations are no exception. Just like we do several code amendments a year for the existing code, the SARP can be amended to address specific issues 8. Copy of"Do Not Occupy" Notice for 9126 E Sprague dated January 27, 2010 More Information- This notice was posted as a result of the Fire Marshall being in the tenant space next door and observing that the space that has been vacant for quite some time was being used by a group of people and there was an exit that was blocked. Since the City did not have any information (permits) on this tenant space, the space was posted by the building inspector. Staff Response- This is not a zoning issue. City staff will always be required to respond to potential life safety issues. Letters about Industrial Zones- 9. Crown West Realty by Rob Gragg -Dated 12/7/09 Summary of letter: Would like retail and commercial uses allowed in industrial zoned properties. More Information: This letter was provided to the city staff and Council originally dated May 27, 2005, regarding the adoption of the city's first Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response: Some retail and commercial uses are permitted in the industrial zones that serve the tenants of the industrial uses. The Council chose not to further expand retail and commercial uses in the industrial zones due to market studies that showed that Spokane Valley has a surplus of retail and commercially zoned land. Further expansion of these uses could dilute the vitality and drive down property values of properties already zoned for commercial in other areas of the city. There is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan to protect industrial land. This goal was established because industrial type uses generally provide family wage jobs. If the industrial land is used up by commercial and retail uses than the city runs the risk of not having land available for potential industrial users. Additionally, industrial development standards are not conducive to high auto/pedestrian activity mixed with heavy truck traffic. At the time the city incorporated, the city adopted the county's zoning code as an interim code. At that time the county did not permit commercial uses in the industrial zones. When the city adopted the new zoning regulations additional retail and commercial uses to serve the tenants of the industrial area were added as permitted uses. In 2005, the County changed their industrial regulations to allow regional commercial uses. 10.Village Square Realty by Jim Bonuccelli - Dated 12/3/2009 Summary of letter- The owner lost a tenant. He would like Spokane Valley to allow retail uses in the industrial zone. More Information- Volunteers of America would like to open a thrift store in the industrial area at 6206 E Trent Ave. Dwight Hume asked for an interpretation to allow a thrift store. Since retail uses are not permitted in industrial zones, they were told it would not be allowed. Staff suggested that they apply for a code amendment. Staff Response: The owner did not lose the tenant. Dwight Hume applied for a code amendment on January 5, 2010 to permit this use in the industrial zone. The Planning Commission conducted a hearing on February 1i'. The issue was reviewed by council on February 23rd and will have a first reading of the ordinance on March 9th. The tenant is still pursuing this site. Attached is a complimentary email from Dwight Hume regarding the code amendment. Letters on Other Zoning Issues: 11.Grant Person email dated 12/22/09 Summary of letter - The new zoning code is much more restrictive and increases construction/development costs. More Information-Staff contacted Mr. Person to get clarification. He had a number of comments on zoning and building codes. He felt that the existing zoning has too many zoning classifications which causes too many unknowns. He favors the old county zoning that mixed office and multifamily. He doesn't like forced design on projects including the Plan requirements which brings buildings up to the street. He would like to see more flexibility in site design. He didn't like having to provide sidewalks for his self-storage facility. He thinks outdoor storage should be permitted for retail uses if it is screened. He thinks retail should be allowed in the industrial areas. The International Building Code makes building expensive. Staff Response: The sidewalk requirement has been addressed in the new street standards. The former code had no flexibility but the recently adopted code does give discretion to staff based on certain criteria. The State of Washington adopts the International Building Code. Certain provisions are given local discretion but not most of it. Sprinkler requirements are a state wide requirement for commercial buildings and were recently adopted for residential. The balance of Mr. Person's concerns could be addressed through a code amendment process or through comprehensive plan changes. 12. Clark Pacific by Marshall Clark dated January 7, 2010 Summary of Letter - Lost two buyers for the properties at 11615 and 11617 E Trent. The uses (tractor and/or car sales and auto repair) wanted by purchasers no longer allowed. More Information- The properties at this location are zoned for Corridor Mixed Use. The purpose of the Corridor Mixed Use District is to encourage development of commercial/retail uses, higher density residential, lodging and office along major transportation corridors. Staff Response- This may be an area that the city should revisit in their next Comprehensive Plan Amendment to incorporate more uses that are compatible with the higher speed corridor. 13.Cornerstone Pentecostal Church by Pastor Rick Mayo dated January 8, 2010 Summary of Letter- Value of land decreased because of rezone. Wasn't notified of rezone. More Information-The property is located west of Greenacres Rd and immediately south of 1-90. This property is zoned R3 (7500 square foot lots). At the time of incorporation the property was zoned UR3.5 (10,000 square foot lots) under county zoning. Staff Response- I am continuing to work with Pastor Mayo to see where the misinformation came from regarding the zoning of this property. In 2007, staff did review properties on the east side of Greenacres Road for commercial designations. There were a large number of residents in the area that did not want to see commercial areas expanded but properties west of Greenacres Road were not even considered. The low density residential does permit churches. 14.Witherspoon, Kelley, Davenport & Toole by F.J. Dullanty dated December 14, 2009 Summary of Letter- Does not believe that a greenhouse requires a site plan review. More Information: The City became aware of a new greenhouse at 14208 E 4th when a neighbor complained about it. Staff Response-Staff verified that a building permit is not required for the structure but a site plan review is required to verify that the building meets setback requirements and that any additional parking required has been accommodated. Please see latest letter from Mike Connelly attached. Letters about permit process/staff 15.James Magnuson, Owner of University City-dated 12/8/2009 Summary of Letter- According to Orville Barnes the Building Department is negative and has caused delay to their permits. More Information- Staff contacted Mr. Barnes regarding any comments he had regarding the permit process or Building Department. He told us he was referring to the last two permits at the Magnuson property. The last two permits were for the alternative high school that located in the old Rite Aid building and the restaurant (Luxury Box) locating in the old Percy's tenant space. The contractor started the work on the high school without a permit. Since this use was a change from the previous use (by both building and zoning codes) they did have to play catch up after starting the construction. I have attached the permit history for this project. The City worked very closely with the architect to resolve some building code issues since the building was not originally designed for this type of occupancy. Most of the review times were within a day or two but there was quite a bit of back and forth with the main building permit. The permit history for the Luxury Box is also attached. Most permits were issued within a week (many within a day). Staff Response: See permit history sheets for Alternative High School and Luxury Box. 16. Email by Andrew Hovren dated February 1, 2010 Summary of Letter- Does not want residential zoning too close together however, has heard that permit and inspection process is difficult. More Information- It is my understanding that Mr. Hovren is a regional manager for Home Depot. We do not have contact information for him. Staff Response- I would like to know when the comments were made to Mr. Hovren and when. We have reduced the review time for single family homes to 3 days. Timeframes for multi-family projects will have to be longer because they require a State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) review (minimum 45 days), a pre-application meeting (1-2 weeks depending on demand) and a complete application. Complaints regarding inspectors are very rare. The department has worked very hard at improving customer service in the last two years and managers are prepared to respond to any complaints. 17. Email by Shawn McGuire dated January 26, 2010 Summary of Letter- Too many panhandlers, no law against public intoxication, business won't locate along corridor due to lack of conviction regarding road direction, permit and inspection department needs customer service lessons. More Information- Staff called Mr. McGuire regarding his comments. His biggest complaint is with the panhandlers. He has not personally had any experience with permits and inspections. He was hearing complaints in the summer two years ago and hasn't really heard any since. He did have a concern that Pizza Rita didn't get their Certificate of Occupancy until they put in their required landscaping. He does not have a problem with the city trying to beautify Sprague. Staff Response- The Community Development Department has worked very hard at improving customer service in the last two years. We know we still have work to do but have improved considerably. When the managers are informed of a customer service issue, we take it seriously and follow through with whatever action is appropriate. Mr. Mayor, City Council, and City staff I would like to speak to an issue of the utmost urgency for the economic health of our community, and an issue that should be the#1 priority of this council in 2010 and beyond. Shortly after the City was formed in 2003, the city council hired planning consultants from California and directed the City staff to begin what was termed "revitalization" of our city with loud cries of"too much retail" and "I have a vision" by council and City officials alike. This action set our City upon a course to downzone, restrict and re-allocate property values and uses to the U-City area. Despite heavy opposition and protest from the community, the previous council chose the SVBA and the leadership of the VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE as representative of our community wishes, totally ignoring the REAL community. After hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to these California consultants and the immediate expansion of the city bureaucracy and its planning department, there emerged a plan that featured an intentional choke-down of traffic and businesses and the removal of individual property rights across the Valley. Thus was born an un-funded, multi-million dollar scheme begun in 2004, further refined and restructured with more city-wide restrictions in 2007, emerging in 2009 as the SPRAGUE -APPLEWAY REVITALIZATION PLAN or SARP. I'd also like to clarify that this SARP discussion is not just about one-way versus two-way at U-City, the building of a grand new city hall at U-City, or the extension of the Couplet on Appleway Blvd. It is about a huge over-reach of government, shifting wealth from the backs of hundreds of small businesses and property owners into the pockets of a few. SAYING IT IS ABOUT SOME FUTURE "VISION" OBSCURES THE 1'RUE INTENT OF THIS PLAN SO INAPPROPRIATELY NAMED "REVITALIZATION." IT SHOULD REALLY BE CALLED THE "RE- ALLOCATION PLAN." The fact is, you cannot restrict economic activity and expect to increase economic activity. We live in a competitive world environment, are competing with our neighbors to the east in Idaho besides Spokane and Spokane County. To not acknowledge this reality of the marketplace, and trade the strengths of our community, which include an abundance of large close-in undeveloped parcels, proximity to downtown Spokane, good freeway access to I-90, lack of congestion on city streets, City sewer and utilities in place, and the probable future expansion of mass transit on the Appleway Couplet just to name a few, for an ever-expanding bureaucratic style government is not what the citizens had in mind upon incorporation. And though the citizens of this community know that hard decisions must be made, they should be made on the basis of economic opportunity for all, not just the few vocal self interests. THUS, THIS DISCUSSION TODAY NEEDS TO BE ABOUT JOBS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INSTEAD OF UNCERTAIN, DISCRIMINATORY AND EVER-CHANGING REGULATIONS. Now, for those who are unaware of the economic impact of these government restrictions on the economic health and our ability to create jobs for our citizens, I would like to add the following into the record. I have here over thirteen items and letters from community business leaders and citizens expressing frustration with the planning, permitting, and community development department and City staff. These are just a few of the complaints and troubles that have come to me and they are just the "tip of the iceberg." Many of these complaints come from those who are willing and able to bring economic development to the City enriching our tax base, and thus lessening the tax burden on our residential areas. First: 1. Jim Magnuson —Owner of University City (permits, delays, and zoning) 2. Orville Barnes - Univ. city management (zoning, site restrictions) 3. Pring corporation to mayor Munson April 21, 2009 (zoning) r�. 4. Rob B. Gragg—Crown west realty representing the owners Spokane Industrial Park (zoning) 5. Grant Person — NAI BLACK COMM. Real estate (zoning) 6. Jim Bonuccelli -- Village Square Realty (zoning) Trent Avenue project 7. Clark Pacific Real estate Co. Bowdish & Sprague (zoning) 8, Clark Pacific Real Estate Co. Trent Ave (zoning) (zoning) 9. Pring Corporation to city council Dec 30th 2009 (zoning) 11. Andrew Hovren—Building material supplier (building dept) 12. Shawn McGuire —Business insurance agency owner (building dept) 13. Guy Byrd—Property owner— Commercial R/E Broker ( zoning) AND LAST, The Spokane Valley News Herald retraction dated 2/5/2010 from Auto Row district dealers who represent over 20 % of the sales tax revenues to our city and although they favor some common sense revitalization projects in the area around the dealerships, such as crosswalks, reasonable business friendly signage regulations, trees, or street lighting, the Auto Row Group has not endorsed the other aspects of the multi-million dollar un-funded mandate known as SARP, including the return to two-way traffic or a dedicated city center in the U-City Area. They also wanted to make it clear that they were not affiliated with the Spokane Valley Business Association and the Valley Chamber of Commerce endorsements of the SARP. Your city council is charged with the responsibility of setting the future direction of economic activity in our community honestly and fairly and to always be mindful of taxpayer's interests and to insure that the limited role of government serves all its citizens not just a select few. gr() r Our citizens know that there are only a couple of ways to pay for the cost of government, higher taxes or by increasing economic activity through the private sector, Here are some alarming and sobering facts: Building permits (new const) 2007 640 Building permits (iiew const) 2008 555 Building permits 2009 343 Decrease in Permits issued 46.40% AGAIN: You cannot restrict economic activity with the hopes of increasing economic activity. I am asking the council at this time to ask the city attorney and staff to prepare a motion for the next council meeting to impose an immediate Moratorium on the adoption and enforcement provisions of the SARP now in effect under RCW 35A.63.220. And as the council and staff begin the process of dismantling SARP in its entirety, this moratorium would return the city to zoning entitlements in place prior to the first citywide downzone approved by council in 2007. This action would allow the zoning entitlements changed by this council action in 2007 to be reviewed and returned to the interim zoning in effect at the time of city incorporation. Residential area development would continue under present development criteria and changes could be reviewed on a case-by- case basis to protect the diverse residential areas that exist in the Spokane Valley. This process would provide immediate relief from the zoning restrictions and constraints imposed by the prior city council and planning department actions on commercial properties and jumpstart economic activity in our city simultaneously with the dismantling of the SARP Plan. Furthermore, Y believe that it would be both enlightening and instructive to property owners and the public at large to see city maps which depict all of the non-conforming uses on the city arterials which were created by these multiple city wide downzones since 2004. To this day there are hundreds of property owners who are invested in our city, but still remain unaware of the land use restrictions and zone changes quietly enacted by their city officials. Additionally, the Growth Management Act does not limit a community from having more than a 20-year inventory of each type of commercial property (example: community commercial or industrial zoning) Were these commercial uses restricted by your city with multiple zone changes? THE ANSWER IS: YES Did your City planning department and council through multiple downzones and the un-funded multi-million dollar SARP create a huge number of nonconforming businesses in our city? THE ANSWER IS: YES Does a non-conforming status for your property or business have an adverse affect on such issues as re-development, bank loans, appraisals, or insurance coverage? UNFORTUNATELY, THE ANSWER IS: YES The elimination of non-conforming uses on multiple properties citywide and the restoration of zoning entitlements to commercially zoned properties in our City should be the #1 priority project for the planning department in 2010. The urgency of this project and its economic impact cannot be overemphasized. With the current economy and the looming budget challenges facing our City, these discussions must be about preserving jobs, growing our tax base and revenues, and promoting economic development. Thank you, Dean Grafos (4, BARNES CONSULTING COMPANY 1110 North Stanley Road — Spokane Valley,WA 99212-0923 Phone: 509.777.0008 — Fax: 509.777.0012 December 23, 2009 Dean Grafos 16120 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99037 Dear Mr. Grafos: As you may be aware, I have been involved in the development of various commercial properties in Spokane and the area now covered by the City of Spokane Valley for over fifty years. As I have followed the process of adoption of a new zoning ordinance for the City of Spokane Valley, l have been concerned about how tightly that ordinance was being drawn. I don't believe that all of the restrictions placed on properties on how and where buildings could be placed would work for all properties and that it could very well result in fewer properties being developed and redeveloped. I am aware of at least one building that had been designed,the owner took the plan to the �iuiTdmg department and was told that the siting of the building would not be approved. As I understand; the new building was to be located too far from the street. The company reviewed their options, and with all their alternatives, they decided not to build. I'm sure there were other problems over the above the zoning, but had there not been the zoning restrictions, they could very well have gone forward. We are not opposed to changes in the zoning code but believe that those changes need to ensure sufficient flexibility to allow property owners to develop their property in a reasonable and prudent manner. . --. Obviously, the City of the Spokane Valley needs commercial development and updating of existing buildings to make it an attractive place to do business. The owners of University City have worked with the present Council and city administration and look forward to working with the new Council. Very truly yours, BARNES CONSULTING COMPANY Orville L. arses OB/cj Copy PRIG GRPORAT1[ON April 21, 2009 The Honorable Richard Munson,Mayor City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Reference: City Council Draft Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan Public Hearing on April 28, 2009 • Dear Mayor Munson: Pursuant to Notice of Public Hearing received by the undersigned,I wanted to take this opportunity to address you and all of the Council Members of the Spokane Valley City Council regarding the above referenced City Council Draft (hereinafter the "Draft") and Public Hearing. The John A. Pring family has continuously conducted business in the Spokane Valley since 1928, owning and operating Appleway Chevrolet, Inc. until October 31, 1977, when the Corporation was sold to AutoNation. During those years it also established many other business entities and currently owns and operates Pring Corporation, and Appleway Equipment Leasing, Inc., both Washington corporations based in the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, (hereinafter the "City"). Pring Corporation, a real estate Development Corporation established in the Spokane Valley in 1961, owns a substantial amount of land, buildings and additional improvements thereon in the City. A large portion of those properties all currently zoned primarily_B-3,_are locate within the Sprague and-_Appleway_.Corridors_Subarea Plan which may be negatively impacted pursuant to the provisions of the.Draft. With respect to the terms and provisions of the Draft, we believe it is fair to say the Draft has been one of much concern and controversy within the community. Notwithstanding, the City has continued to incur initial and substantial ongoing expenditures, despite the opposition in the community, As set forth in the Draft numerous changes and provisions have been prevalent, even to the extent under Book II Development Regulations Section 2.1.2, page 6, the City intends to "incubate" a District Core within the City Center District Zone, a new Pre-located Core Street. That Core Street, of course, is further identified as the immediate area that surrounds the area where the intended New City Hall is to be built, 15404 E. Springfield Avenue/SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 99037-0457/(509] 921-8880 FAX(509) 928-5435 Real Estate Development Commercial Loans Investments Mayor Munson City of Spokane Valley Page•2 The regulation goes on further to provide "REGULATORY RESTRICTIONS" on the entire City Center District Zone to the extent it prohibits development on other properties in the City Center District Zone for an undetermined time. Pring Corporation owns' substantial properties surrounding this area, which regulatory restrictions, in our. opinion, may be an appropriation or diminution of private property rights by a governmental regulation that exceeds the government's legitimate police power. Such an action may be interpreted to be a "REGULATORY TAKING" under Federal and Washington State law. Should such a restriction be implemented by the City, we may be required to take whatever action necessary, including legal action, to protect our interest in our property and to assure our property rights and expectations for our property are protected. We have other objections to many other provisions in the Draft, and we are generally against the provisions thereof. In summary, we oppose the City Council Draft as written, and trust based on the above, you can understand our concerns: Very truly yours, • Pring Corporation_ Bradley . Pring President cc: Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny Council member Rose Dempsey Council member Bill Gotlunann Council member Gary Schinunels Council member Steve Taylor Council member Diana Wilhite PRJ[NG GJRPORATONDecember 30, 2009 City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear City of Spokane Valley Council Member: At this time Pring Corporation is requesting that all permitted uses under the prior zoning designations be reestablished and available to owners of parcels in the City of Spokane Valley Center District Zone. On April 21, 2009, Bradley T. Pring, President of Pring Corporation Submitted a letter to Mayor Munson with copies going to all council members and the Deputy Mayor regarding the Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan. In it he stated our concerns regarding the "Regulatory Restrictions ontheEntiry Center District Zone". He further described the action as a "Regulatory Taking". In other wor s it is being regulated to such a degree that many economically viable uses are no longer available to the owners. The prior zoning allowed land owners to work with company's that would bring economic vitality back to Spokane Valley. Currently those options are limited at best. I have attached a copy of the aforementioned letter for your review. Sincerely, PRING CORPORATION e3/4 Kirk M. Owsley General Manager Attachment cc: Brenda Grasse) Dean Grafos Rose Dempsey Gary Schimmels Bob McCaslin Bill Gothmann Tom Towey 15404 E. Springfield Avenue I SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99037-0457/(509) 921-8880 FAX(509) 928-5435 Real Estate Development Commercial Loans Investments CLARK PACIFIC REAL ESTATE COMPANY January 4, 2010 Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley City Council Member 16120 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99037 RE: NEC of Bowdish & Sprague, Spokane, WA Dear Dean, I am writing to you in regards to the above mentioned property and the Sprague- Appleway revitalization plan. I went to the City of Spokane Valley last year when I purchased the house north and adjacent to the Shamrock Pawn building that I owned. The house was zoned commercial already, so I was going to put a bank on the combined lots. I expressed my concerns about zoning changes to some City Council members and the planning staff, both in person and in writing. The response I received from the staff was to "hurry up and get your approvals" for the bank. The problem with this approach was that if I didn't get the bank, I would have spent a substantial amount of money that I could not recapture. I tried to explain to the above parties that bank is state or federally chartered and can't just go where you tell them to. I asked them o leave my zoning in place. This of course did not happen. I've now resold the house at a loss and I have placed a convenience store in the existing corner building. I certainly would have liked to have had the bank, but is not allowed under the city's new plan, even though am on the corner of a signalized intersection. Sincerely, 7/7,/e--eeo' Marshall K. Clark President and Designated Broker Clark Pacific Real Estate Co., inc. MC/kmm Y.mWr of ( �^t•�.rb.=`: Commercial Sales and Leasing m snoppry a�r.n N. Atlantic, Suite 100 • Spokane, WA 99205 • (509) 325-3333 • Fax (509) 325-4534 • email: clark©clarkpacific.net www.clarkpacific.net CORNERSTONE , PROPERTY ADVISORS, LLC February 5,2010 Mr. Dean Grabs 1707 E.Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 RE: Proposed use (Hite Crane) for property located at 7102 & 7202 E. Sprague Avenue, City of Spokane Valley.Current Zoning is GCA(Gateway Commercial Avenue). Dear Dean: As a property owner and Real Estate Broker I feel compelled to express my frustration over the current GVA Zoning designation for property located at 7102 & 7202 E. Sprague Avenue in the City of Spokane Valley. An opportunity-is being missed—IV-IF-6 commune o have the subject property redeveloped in a manner consistent or better than other properties within the immediate area. • Hite Crane has expressed interest to purchase property located at 7102 & 7202 E. Sprague Avenue. Hite Crane would operate their equipment rental business on this property. Hite Cranes would need to build a new 3,000 SF Equipment Leasing office and a 5,000 square foot storage/shop facility to maintain their equipment rented to customers. Hite Crane leases large and small lifting equipment for construction projects to those in the construction trade.They are in the equipment leasing business and not a manufacturing business. Hite Crane's use of the property would seem appropriate a general Commercial Zone. Presently there are other equipment leasing businesses on Sprague Avenue corridor such as A to Z Equipment Rental and United Rentals to name a few. Given Hite Cranes Interest in this property l have reviewed the GCA Zoning and have found nothing specific that would prohibit equipment leasing as an accepted use on a GCA Zoned property. Therefore, t have contacted the Spokane Valley Planning department for an interpretation of the GCA zoning for Hite Crane's intended use in the GCA Zone. Louie Barlow at the Community Development Department acknowledged there was no specific exclusion or permission for equipment leasing in the GCA Zone. However, she expressed it washers and others opinion withia..ttie department that Hite Cranes use is not consistent th�Jntent.o.to GCA Zoning.Therefore, Hite Crane would-not be permitted to operate at this particular location I believe Hite Crane's use would have been acceptable under previous General Commercial Avenue Zoning. However, the arbitrary nature of and the process under which an interpretation of use is determined seems to have exerted the personal choice of a few rather than what may have been in the best interest of the community as a whole. 1015 North Calispef Street I Suite A r Spokane,WA 99201 Ph 509.321.2000 ] Fax 509.321.2001 www.cornerstonepropertyadv.com • Page 2 February 5,2010 Dean, this is an example of a development and use that will not happen under the present GCA Zoning designation. I am sure there are many examples of positive development being constrained by the recently enacted GCA Zoning. This area of the Sprague and Appleway couplet could benefit from Hite Crane's intended redevelopment and use of the subject property. I would appreciate any advice you might have regarding how I might obtain the approval of the Spokane Valley building department's approval for Hite Crane to purchase and redevelop the property located at 7102 and 7202 E. Sprague Avenue. Sincerel , Jk Guy::-/yrd Cornerstone Property Advisors Owner/Broker 3,,. I"_� ,5_,i S, ?n s , .,,i 41-i Pti ,E,.13+k;/ 'f ■1i514 = r tirar:.E S? Sr�,*x�• theaMs M aau w a�urm 'did . .. M il/ ■. 14 9uciAss O PE AT I ES January 11, 2010 411' P 1 Dean Grafos ti 16120 E Sprague Veradale, WA 99037 i RE: 12606 E Sprague Avenue, Elephant Boys Boating Store S a —MEP Dear Mr. Grafos, Here is information regarding the sale of boats on our property located at 12606 E Sprague Ave oin the Spokane Valley. I want to make you are aware of the situation about the zoning of the oo boat sales and what determines the "mixed Use Avenue" retail zone. If you wish to discuss this further please contact me directly. Thank you for your attention to this matter. co v 63 / 0 to Sincerely, .. 1)6TI/ Si?-a- 3 S) 0 gp al Harla ID 1ouglass Hdd i o . N m m Q o N Q 1 n f o o r N O CC luJ to a www.spokane-rentals.com _ . AWC E C,.‘ ,,_ [P y , _, , Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc. Civil and Transportation Engineering December 29, 2009 RECEIVED W.O. No. 09-681 DEC 31 2009 City of Spokane Valley HARLAN D. DOULAS 11707 E. Sprague Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Attn: Kathy McClung,Director, Community Development Re: 12606 E Sprague Avenue Elephant Boys Boating Store Appeal of an Administrative Determination Dear Sirs, We are in receipt of your letter dated December 15, 2009 wherein you have administratively determined that "New Boat Sales" are not allowed in the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone. We disagree and feel that the prohibition was strictly for"Used Vehicle Sales". We believe that the current use, Elephant Boys Boating store(new boat sales and service)is allowed in the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone. Therefore,per this letter and payment of the applicable fee($1,050.00) we choose to appeal that decision to the Hearing Examiner for further consideration. Should you have any questions related to this action do not hesitate to call with any questions at 893-2617. Sincer ly, r i Todd R. Whipple, PE President Enc: Appeal Application, Supplemental Sheet, Dec. 15 2009 CSV Decision(copy) Cc: Joe Delay, Attorney Harlan Douglass,Property Owner Andrew Worlock, Planner File. 2528 N. Sullivan Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99216 d PO Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 • Fax 509-926-0227 APPEAL APPLICATION CITY O SVMC 17.90.070 S pokane Community Development- Planning Division 1•00.Valley 11703 E Sprague Ave Suite B-3 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.688.0197 4 Fax: 509.688.0037+ planning @spokanevattey.org (Please check the applicable type of appeal you are requesting) ❑ SEPA ❑ SHORELINE ❑ CONSTRUCTION ® ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ❑ COMPLIANCE NOTICE OF VIOLATION ❑ OTHER PART I - APPLICATION INFORMATION APPELLANT NAME:Whipple Consulting Engineers,Inc.; Attn: Todd R. Whipple, PE MAILING ADDRESS:2528 N. Sullivan Road CITY:Spokane Valley STATE:WA ZIP: 99216 PHONE: 893-2617 FM:926-0227 CELL: 995-2939 EMAIL:twhipplec whipplece.com REPRESENTATIVE(IF DIFFERENT THAN APPELLANT OR ATTORNEY) REPRESENTATIVE NAME: Delay Curran Thompson Pontarolo &Walker, P.S.; Attn: Joe Delay MAILING ADDRESS:601 W. Main Street, Suite 1212 CITY:Spokane STATE:WA ZIP:99201 PHONE:455-9500 FAX:623-1446 CELL: n/a EMAIL: n/a APPLICANT(IF DIFFERENT THAN APPELLANT OR ATTORNEY) APPLICANT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: PHONE: FAX: CELL: EMAIL: PART II - REASON FOR APPEAL ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER SUBMIT RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. State the facts demonstrating the appellant has standing to appeal. 2. Submit a separate and concise statement of each error alleged to have been committed. 3. Submit a separate and concise statement of facts upon which the appellant relies to sustain the statement of error. CODE APPEAL APPLICATION Page 1 of 2 EFFECTIVE 01/27/09 Spokane �,�Valley° P RT III - SIGNATURE /2/ a ellant/Appellant's Repr-sentative Date THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY WITHIN THE APPEALABLE PERIOD AS SPECIFIED IN THE FINAL DECISION ALONG WITH THE FOLLOWING: Q Required fee Q File number and a copy of the decision. © Reasons for appeal, as required in Part II, on a separate sheet of paper. ATTENTION: Please be advised that if you file an appeal of a project determination,you are responsible for mailing a public notice to area residents within a 400-foot boundary around the applicant's project site. The notices mailed to parcels which are adjacent to the project site need to be sent by Certified Mail - Returned Receipt Requested. You are required to obtain a listing of the names and addresses of those people within 400 feet from a title company. You are required to post a sign on the project site. We will provide you with a public notice packet, which includes all of the information you will need in order to complete this process. - Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: PLUS Number: File#: • CODE APPEAL APPLICATION Page 2 of 2 EFFECTIVE 01/27/09 December 28, 2009 Appeal Application -Re: Elephant Boys Boating Store Appeal of Administrative Determination--Supplemental Sheet Page 1 of3 SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET—PART II REASON FOR APPEAL 1. Facts demonstrating the appellant has standing to appeal: Standing to appeal a Type I decision, as provided in SVMC 17.90.030, is given to the following parties: "1. The applicant and the owner of property to whom the decision is directed; and 2.The adjacent property owners whose interests are a required part of the application approval." On December 15, 2009, the City of Spokane Valley Director of Community Development mailed a letter containing a written interpretation of zoning issues regarding the Elephant Boys Boating Store to Mr. Todd Whipple, President, Whipple Consulting Engineers whose business address is 2528 N.Sullivan Road, Spokane Valley, 99216. Whipple Consulting Engineers is the representative of the owner of the property located at 12606 E.Sprague Avenue,Spokane Valley,WA (the Property) upon which is located the business known as"Elephant Boys Boat Store."A copy of the Director of Community Development's fetter is attached to this appeal. Therefore, based on the facts as outlined above,the appellant, Whipple Consulting Engineers has standing to appeal. 2.Statement of error alleged to have been committed: The error of the Director of Community Development (the "director") is her conclusion that the business use conducted by Elephant Boys Boat Store at their place of business at 12606 E.Sprague Avenue falls exclusively under the category of"vehicle sales" and that such use is not permitted in the Mixed Use Avenue Zoning District under the Sprague and Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan. 3.Statem-nt of facts u•an which the a• .eflant relies to sustain the state ent of error: The property which is the subject of this appeal is located at 12606 E.Sprague Avenue,on the south side of Sprague Avenue, east of Pines Road. It is rectangular in shape and contains approximately 3.78 acres and approximately 260 feet of frontage on Sprague Avenue. It is developed with a 35,000+/-single story retail building and approximately 115,000 s.f of paved parking area. In the vernacular of the commercial real estate industry, the property would be characterized as an older"medium box" retail facility. It is typical of the development pattern on the south side of Sprague Avenue, between Pines and Evergreen Roads. The Elephant Boys business sells boats, boating accessories and parts, and provides service and repair from the property.There is some outdoor display and storage which is within a fenced and screened portion of the parking area. Most of the stock on hand is smaller fishing and hunting boats.These types of boats are commonly sold from sporting good stores that have a focus on hunting, fishing and outdoor activities and may also be found at"big and medium box warehouse retail" stores.The Elephant Boys also maintain an offsite warehouse and a second retail facility(in the City of Spokane) which is not a part of, nor subject to the director's interpretation or this appeal. The property and surrounding areas are within the Sprague and Appleway Subarea Plan (the "Subarea Plan"). According to the City of Spokane Valley website, the "Sprague and Appleway Subarea Plan has been a multi-year effort to revitalize the Sprague/Appleway corridor,to improve opportunities for economic success and create an attractive place for people to live, work and play."The culmination of this effort was the adoption of the Subarea plan on June 16, 2009. The zoning changes to implement the subarea plan become effective on October 15, 2009. December 28,2009 Appeal Application-Re: Elephant Boys Boating Store Appeal of Administrative Determination —Supplemental Sheet Page 2 of 3 Figure 2.1, the District Zones Map, of the Subarea Plan shows the Property and the adjoining properties immediately east and west as being within the Mixed Use Avenue District Zone.The property to the south is the old railroad corridor now owned by Spokane County and is outside of the Subarea Plan. For those properties fronting on Sprague Avenue, the Mixed Use Avenue District Zone accommodates a variety of uses including "Mixed Use Avenue" retail uses, office uses, lodging uses, light industrial uses, civic and cultural uses and residential uses. Rather than providing an exhaustive list of uses permitted within a given zone such as is found within the Spokane Valley Zoning Code, the Subarea Plan takes a much more generalized approach to regulation of building use.As the director says in her letter, "the listing of permitted and prohibited uses in the code was not intended to be all inclusive, but to identify the types of uses allowed or not."This accomplishes two goals for the City: 1) it provides the desired flexibility necessary to achieve the City's objectives for creating economic opportunities to revitalize the corridor and, 2) it allows the City to focus on the form of the built environment rather than the use as the means to achieve the ends.This type of regulation is often referred to as "form-based"code and is much different than the traditional zoning code, requiring a completely separate and distinct set of regulations.That is why the Subarea Plan was adopted completely separate from the existing zoning code and requires a different approach to its interpretation. For the retail components of the Mixed Use Avenue District Zone,the code provides the following list of permitted and prohibited uses: c)Mixed Use Avenue Retail i)Permitted Uses: (1)"Medium Box"Commercial Sales&Services including the following: (a)Establishments selling or servicing Large Scale Goods such as party goods, art supplies, sporting goods,auto parts,electronics or appliances,outdoor accessories,furniture,home furnishings,hardware,and home improvements stores. (b)Commercial services such as miscellaneous Repair Service uses with no outdoor storage, including plumbing services, laundry services,cleaning and janitorial service and supplies, vacuum cleaning and sewing repair and rental shops,etc. (c)Print and Graphics Supply and Service,including typesetting, lithography,graphics and art services,etc. (d)Big Box and Medium Box Warehouse retail,restaurant supply retail,and warehouse scale buying club retail. (e)Warehousing is permitted as an accessory to retail or light industrial use. The total area of a building to be used for warehousing may not exceed 30%of the total floor area. (2)Drive-in/Drive-up Fast Food Restaurants and espresso stands. (3)Gas stations and auto repair shops. (Gas station may be exempt from 2.2.3.Minimum Building Height Regulations and 2.2.12. Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (4)Convenience Stores (5)Veterinary clinics and "doggy day care"facilities. (6)Pawn shops, check cashing stores and casinos. (7)Funeral homes. ii)Prohibited Uses: (l)Full service restaurants (2)Used vehicle sales. . t A December 28, 2009 Appeal Application-Re: Elephant Boys Boating Store Appeal of Administrative Determination—Supplemental Sheet Page 3 of 3 Although,according to her letter, the director concludes that the Elephant Boys Boat Store is a use that falls under the category of"vehicle sales", there is no definition of"vehicle sales" provided within the Spokane Valley Municipal Code nor definition of boats as"vehicles"and the Elephant Boys Boat Store could just as easily be categorized as a permitted use under the"medium box" retail category because it operates from a "medium box" retail building and because it involves the sales of large scale goods which are consistent with those uses that are listed as examples of uses that are permitted: "sporting goods,auto parts, appliances, outdoor accessories, hardware and home improvement stores" etc. From an operational and land use perspective, the Elephant Boys Boat Store is much more consistent with the medium box retail environment of the Mixed Use Avenue District than the "auto-row" environment of the Gateway Commercial District as is suggested by the director. Further, because the Mixed Use Avenue Retail specifically identifies"used vehicle sales" as a prohibited use,there is an implicit presumption that other types of"vehicle sales"are permitted In the Mixed Use Avenue retail category. If this were not the case,the prohibited use would have been "all vehicle sales" not just"used vehicle sales" and there would be no reason to make a distinction and single out used vehicle sales. But a distinction was made and one can only conclude it was done for the purpose of identifying the specific type of vehicle sales that could not be permitted under any circumstance. Consequently, it would follow that other types of"vehicle sales" might be allowed if they were otherwise consistent with the use and form based elements of the Plan relative to the specific zoning category such as is the case with the Elephant Boys Boat Store and the Mixed Use Avenue District. In conclusion, we believe that the Mixed Use Avenue District zone does not categorically preclude all vehicle sales; that the Elephant Boys Boat Store, being consistent with all other permitted retail uses within the zone is a type of use that meets the intent and purpose of the Mixed Use Avenue District Zone and should be allowed; and, that to limit a use such as the Elephant Boys Boat Store to only the Gateway Commercial zones ("auto-row") as the director suggests would be in contradiction of the facts as outlined above and inconsistent with the intent of the Subarea Plan. February 11, 2010 Council Member Dean Grafos City Of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Spokane Valley, WA 99206 dg rafos Ccspokane val ley.org Re: City of Spokane Valley Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP) Dear Councilman Grafos: We represent the three largest electrical sign companies in the greater Spokane area. This letter is to inform you of some concerns that we have regarding the SARP and with doing business in the City of Spokane Valley. It is our opinion that these concerns create a difficult environment in which to conduct business in City of Spokane Valley. Our first concern is with the interpretation of the code by members of the City's building and planning departments. There seems to be much uncertainty caused by the subjectivity of the SARP sign code. One example of this would be the interpretation of 2.6.2 Sign Type Regulations Section 6) a) viii under Freestanding Sign Standards that reads, "A single unornamented pole support design topped by a can sign typical of a commercial strip shall not be used." There can be two different interpretations of this, either a sign pole with ornamentation Qan be used or that no single pole sign designs can used. Currently the City is interpreting that to mean that signs must have at least two pole supports. Many existing properties would not have sufficient area to have a double pole sign and therefore would not be able to have a pole sign. Another issue is that currently, business signage must conform to SARP even though the buildings and streetscapes may not conform to the SARP within the lifetime of the business proprietor. Very little of the SARP applies to existing buildings built prior to implementation of SARP. This puts the business community in Spokane Valley at a definite disadvantage over competing businesses in other municipalities. Permit application submittals in the City of Spokane Valley are excessive compared to other municipalities. The City currently requires a landscaping plan attached to the permit application, There are no clear guidelines on what constitutes landscaping at the base of a sign. In one instance in the Valley, a business has put several inches of dirt on top of the asphalt and surrounded it with paving stones. In another situation, a landscaping plan was required to obtain a permit for awnings on a building. These seem to be subjective interpretations of the code as well. It is our professional opinion that the signage required under the SARP plan is not sufficient to ensure a healthy business environment. We propose that the City vote to revert to the sign code that was in place prior to the SARP adoption. Page 2 February 11,2010 Thank you for your time. Please feel free to contact us if we can help in any way. Sincerely, Steve Wineinger President ProSign Inc. 1 0021 E Knox Ave Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509.927.3925 steve@prosigninc.com Nicol Whipple President • Baldwin Signs 6409 N Pittsburg • PO Box 6819 Spokane, WA 99217 509.489.9191 nicok baldwinslans.corn John Johnston Sign Corp. 111 N Vista Rd Ste 6 Spokane Valley, WA 99212 509.535.2913 signcorpsales@icehouse.net Address Cr/ NOTICE 4 Building Division 11703 E Sprague Avenue Suite B-3 Spokane valley.WA 99206 THIS S TRUCfURETFENANT SPACE IS NOT APPROVED FOR OCCUPANCY BY PEOPLE OR tkIERCHA}fDISE DO NOT OCCUPY Contact the City of Spokane Valley Building Division for occupancy requirements POSTED THIS :7 DAY OF b- 201Q �7 Building Inspector 726 ,E-3k . Phone Number TAG TO BE REMOVED ONLY BY BUILDING INSPECTOR 4024e- : 4,a-1- 1j " rte,-cH -1 -1D -Pre _ f. December 7,2009 Sent via U.S. Mail and via email Iannin Ds okanevalle .or Mr. Gregory McCormick, AICP Planning Manager CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 11707 E.Sprague,Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 RE: PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Dear Mr. McCormick: Thank you for the opportunity to provide written comment on the city of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"). I have issue with the section 2.5.6 of the Plan concerning proposed land use regulations for "Industrial- Heavy Industry." The picture you have used in this section is our facility, The Spokane Business and Industrial Park. Since our purchase of The Park we have invested an additional 20 million dollars, much of which has to do with aesthetics. While I agree that heavy industry may have "aesthetic impacts to surrounding areas," we have conducted our business and taken pride in our ownership such that our impact to the surrounding area has been a dramatic upgrade. The rationale in the Plan for suggesting that commercial and retail not be allowed in industrial areas is seriously flawed. The Plan states: "limiting incompatible uses insures a competitive advantage in business recruitment by providing adequate land supply, reducing land conflicts and preventing inflation of land prices." With all due respect, this is absurd. Our company exists and survives because of business recruitment. I serve on the Economic Development Council board of trustees and our company has three full time marketing people who spend the majority of their time on business recruitment. A competitive advantage to business recruitment is achieved by having multiple uses within a given area. Our tenants and/or owners include a hotel, a gas station convenience store, a fast food restaurant (Mc Donald's), a sandwich shop (Sub-Way), a day care center, an automotive repair and tire store (Altons), and numerous other small retail outlets. These services are an essential part of business recruitment, not a detriment as suggested in the Plan. There currently exists a more than adequate supply of industrial land. Currently the Park is about 12% vacant. This represents almost 600,000 square feet of vacant industrial buildings in just this one location. With the current political climate in Washington, the lack of business incentives, the Labor and Industries rate, unemployment compensation insurance costs, the third highest minimum wage in the country, and new bureaucratic layers of government, our current of surplus industrial land in Spokane Valley will last for generations. By example, for these reasons Buck Knives located in Post falls. To compound the non-existent absorption of industrial land manufacturers now compete in a "world economy." Jobs and industry are moving overseas at an December 7, 2009 Page 2 alarming rate. For a planner to suggest that there is any meaningful opportunity to absorb industrial land especially for "heavy industrial use" in Washington when competing against the world-economy is naïve! The concern of government should be how we help industrial property owners survive this "perfect-storm" environment and allow them to create opportunity for the community via creative solutions using the current zoning regulations. Changes under the Plan should not include a change of what industrial owner's can now do with their zoned land. It is not the function of government to attempt to prevent inflation of property prices as the Plan suggests. Land prices would only inflate if all of the industrial land was absorbed. It could only be absorbed if users were willing to pay the inflated rate_. And, if this happened it would dramatically increase the tax base and the employment base. The result would be a good thing for the citizens of Spokane Valley, the owners of industrial land in Spokane Valley and the government of Spokane Valley. I would also suggest that changing what an owner is allowed to do with their land might constitute a "taking" and create an expensive liability for the city. I also remind you that we live in an environment of increasing fuel costs and diminishing supply. Our roads are becoming more congested, yet the Plan would disallow uses that currently exist under the present zoning regulations which lessen the use of fossil fuels and road use. By making services available to workers in industrial areas without a commute to "growth nodes at the intersections of major streets" we are helping the environment and providing a service to the citizens of the community. I strongly urge you to reject the proposed change to Industrial Zoning as did the commissioners of Spokane County when it was proposed to them approximately two years ago. I am available for public comment or consultation if I can be of service to you. Respectfully, CROWN WEST REALTY, L.L.C. Rob B. Gragg Vice President& Asset Manager • cc via U.S. Mail and email Mayor Diana Wilhite (dwilhite @spokanevalley.org) Deputy Mayor Rich Munson (rmunson@s)okanevalley.org) Michael DeVleming (mdevlemin gsg p anevalley o g) Steve Taylor (staylor@spokanevalley.org) Gary Schimmels (gschimmels @spokanevalley.org) Mike Flanigan (rnflanipan @snokaneya11ey org) Dick Denenny (ddenennv @sokanevall .or g) • Comments by Rob Gragg Page 1 of 3 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the city of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"). LAND USE COMMENTS I have issue with the section 2.5.6 of the Plan concerning proposed land use regulations for "Industrial-Heavy Industry." The picture you have used in this section is our facility, The Spokane Business and Industrial Park. Since our purchase of The Park we have invested an additional 20 million dollars, much of which has to do with aesthetics. While I agree that heavy industry may have "aesthetic impacts to surrounding areas," we have conducted our business and taken pride in our ownership such that our impact to the surrounding area has been a dramatic upgrade. , The rationale in the Plan for suggesting that commercial and retail not be allowed in industrial areas is seriously flawed. The Plan states: "limiting incompatible uses insures a competitive advantage in business recruitment by providing adequate land supply, reducing land conflicts and preventing inflation of land prices." With all due respect, this is absurd. Our company exists and survives because of business recruitment. I serve on the Economic Development Council board of trustees and our company has three full time marketing people who spend the majority of their time on business recruitment. A competitive advantage to business recruitment is achieved by having multiple uses within a given area. Our tenants and/or owners include a hotel, a gas station convenience store, a fast food restaurant (Mc Donald's), a sandwich shop (Sub-Way), a day care center, an automotive repair and tire store (Alton's), and numerous other small retail outlets. These services are an essential part of business recruitment, not a detriment as suggested in the Plan. There currently exists a more than adequate supply of industrial land. Currently the Park is about 12% vacant. This represents almost 600,000 square feet of vacant industrial buildings in just this one location. With the current political climate in Washington, the lack of business incentives, the Labor and Industries rate, unemployment compensation insurance costs, the third highest minimum wage in the country, and new bureaucratic layers of government, our current supply of surplus industrial land in Spokane Valley will last for generations. By example, for these reasons Buck Knives located in Post Falls. To compound the non-existent absorption of industrial land, manufacturers now compete in a "world economy." Jobs and industry are moving overseas at an alarming rate. For a planner to suggest that there is any meaningful opportunity to absorb industrial land especially for "heavy industrial use" in Washington when competing against the world- economy is naïve! The concern of government should be how we help industrial property Comments by Rob Gragg Page 2 of 3 owners survive this "perfect-storm" environment and allow them to create opportunity for the community via creative solutions using the current zoning regulations. Changes under the Plan should not include a change of what industrial owners can now do with their zoned land. It is not the function of government to attempt to prevent inflation of property prices as the Plan suggests, Land prices would only inflate if there was meaningful absorption of industrial land. It could only be absorbed if users were willing to pay the inflated rate. And, if this happened it would dramatically increase the tax base and the employment base. The result would be a good thing for the citizens of Spokane Valley, the owners of industrial land in Spokane Valley, and the government of Spokane Valley. I would also suggest that changing what an owner is allowed to do with their land might constitute a "taking" and create an expensive liability for the city. I also remind you that we live in an environment of increasing fuel costs and diminishing supply. Our roads are becoming more congested, yet the Plan would disallow uses that currently exist under the present zoning regulations which lessen the use of fossil fuels and road use. By making services available to workers in industrial areas without a commute to "growth nodes at the intersections of major streets" we are helping the environment and providing a service to the citizens of the community. I strongly urge you to reject the proposed change to Industrial Zoning as did the commissioners of Spokane County when it was proposed to them approximately two years ago. I am available for further public comment or consultation if I can be of service to you. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS As a trustee for the Economic Development Council as well as an employee of the largest organized industrial park in the region, attracting new business is my job. Chapter 7.0 states "examples of activities primarily directed toward economic development include allocating land for manufacturing uses...." As previously stated, there is ample land for manufacturing uses. Last week the United States Department of Commerce said the price of oil would impact the United States less than the rest of the world because our GNP has dropped from 40% manufacturing twenty years ago to 14% today and the drop is expected to continue as we move toward an "information based economy." What this means for our region's economic development is that we have abundant land and we don't need government dictating how we allocate our reasonable uses as long as it is socially correct. Moreover, I would suggest that if the City wishes to "allocate land" they should buy it, and they can allocate as they see fit. Comments by Rob Gragg Page 3 of 3 Based on my economic development experience, I agree with the Department of Commerce concerning declining manufacturing. If we want manufacturing jobs in the City of Spokane Valley we must be realistic about our weaknesses (Section 7.3.2) and overcome the true weaknesses, not weaknesses listed to be politically correct. If I were a manufacturing company owner and I saw the strengths listed in section 7.3.1 I would further investigate the area. And then move my business to Idaho. Why? Because Washington's sales tax is 3.5% higher than it is 15 miles from here in Idaho. Washington's Gas Tax is substantially higher and going up. If I were to buy a new vehicle for my business in Washington it would need to conform to California emissions standards, adding more expense. I would have to pay B & 0 tax in Washington not Idaho. In Idaho I would not have to deal with WISHA. Our Labor and Industries worker's compensation rates are among the highest in the nation. Our health insurance is very expensive. By example, for a company the size of Crown West there are only four providers because health insurance companies do not want to do business in Washington. Washington's minimum wage is the third highest in the nation. And, if my business were in Idaho, I would not need to worry about what else King County could do to destroy my livelihood! As Crown West and the EDC I worked closely with Buck Knives to place them in Washington but they located just across the state line for a plethora of reasons all similar to those mentioned above. Section 7.3.2 is incomplete without including the aforementioned in the weaknesses. Focusing on land use issues for economic development is diversionary from the real problems we face. We need an economic development plan that addresses the real issues that I must deal with on a daily basis as my company competes with other states. Retrofitting industrial buildings to "different standards" per section 7.3.2 is not going to attract industry and jobs. As private industry and an EDC trustee over the last several years, I have competed for many call centers against other cities. We have proposed retrofit, or build-to-suit, or purchase of existing ready-to-go buildings like the Safeco building on Sprague and we have not successfully landed one call center for this region. I respectfully submit that the plan drafters must think like entrepreneurs and seek the input and guidance of those with experience before a plan without merit containing only rhetoric is put in place. The plan should specifically contain an action plan to overcome the damage King County and Olympia do to our local economy and how we can compete against other states not burdened by regulated competitive disadvantages. Only then can we move the City forward in economic development. Thank you for your time City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Draft 2.5.6 Industrial Designations Providing for Industrial land and facilities areis important for the economic health of Spokane Valley. The broad range of tindustrial businesses ['mini-ILO-tech to basic industry help drive the local economy and create an economic multiplier effect throughout the region. Recognizing that there exists an Providing an adeq-brt-eabundant supply of usable land and existing facilities these assets must be coupled with a pro- business attitude which will create opportunities for recruitment and expansion of industry. wit—tWinimal environmental constraints and access to infrastructure will in ptaee-helps ensure that Spokane Valley }vill to be an attractive place for industrial businesses to locate and prosper. (See Chapter 7, Economic Development, for additional policies that encourage recruitment and retention of industrial business.) Industrial-Heavy Industry Heavy industry is characterized by intense industrial activities which include, but are not I limited to, manufacturing, processing, fabrication, assembly/disassembly • freight- handling. warehousing. distribution and similar operations. Although unlikely, 1-lheavy industry may have significant noise, odor or aesthetic impacts to surrounding areas. - , - Residential and most some recreational uses should not be allowed in areas designated for heavy industry unless compatibility can be demonstrated} . It is generally recognized that some commercial and retail uses are highly compatible within an except for smaller scale-ancillary-uses selwing the--industrial area. Heavy industry, by virtue of the property use. dictates construction of large facilities. Redevelopment of those large facilities for commercial use such as a furniture store that requires substantial floor space at an affordable rent or an office building for executives and ancillar sus sort of the industrial user such as attornc ,s and accountants ma - be the highest and best use for redevelopment of existing industrial buildings as our national economy shifts away Qom industrial/manufacturing. Alternate uses of industrial land and facilities should be driven by economic considerations which allow the owner flexibility and income to maintain his/her property in a first--class condition, The conversion of designated vacant industrial lands to other uses should be limited. However, Limiting incompatible- uses ensues-a coin-paid-ye ad-vantage in business recruitment by providing •• tnd ll`+E eo T it t`r ' • • • . hind prices. Moreover. nllowilagnot allowing a wide-reasonable variety of commercial;, retail and other uses in the lndustria-i industrial areas would be in conflict with section 2.5.5 of other portions of this Plan related to concentrating-major commercial growth in nodes at the intersection of major streets.thc_potential benefits of mixed use develgpment. Industrial-Light Industry City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Draft The Hight 'industry designation is often found in a planned industrial area with-where special emphasis and attention may be given to aesthetics, landscaping and internal and community compatibility. Uses may include high technology and other low-impact industries. Light "industry areas may incorporate office. retail and other commercial uses as ancillary uses with—in an overall plan for the industrial area. • • . . should be limited and in the nt - r-ity of eases be-ass ltcd "4111 permitted industrial tes7 The 'bight I-industry category may serve as a transitional category between heavy industrial areas and other less intensive land use categories. The category may also serve as a visual buffer for heavy industrial areas adjacent to aesthetic corridors. Industrial Goals & Policies Goal LUG-10 Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses. THE CITY OF SPOKANE VAI..LEY, THE CITY OF SPOKANE AND THE ADJACENT COUNTY LAND 1-LAVE VAST AMOUNTS OF INDUSTRIAL AREAS. AS - OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY SHIFTS TO A SERVICE ORIENTED ECONOMY IMPOSITION OF NEW LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL LAN[) WILL BENEFIT NO ONE! Policies LUP -54 Program capital facility expenditures to facilitate the development of lands designated for industrial uses. I HOPE THERE ARE NO FUNDS BEING EXPENDED FOR TI-IIS TODAY AS THERE IS NO ECONOMIC RATIONAL FOR THIS AT Ti-IIS TIME LUP-55 Encourage low-polluting industries to relocate in Spokane Valley. SINCE WHEN HASN'T ANY COMMUNITY IN THE UNITED STATES NOT DONE THIS? IT TAKES MUCH MORE TI-IAN "ENCOURAGEMENT" TO LANI) A NEW COMPANY IN SPOKANE, VALLEY. Please see my comments made at the public input forum. LUP-56 Encourage shared-use parking, pedestrian access and transit, incentive programs in industrial development projects. SOUNDS NICE BUT OF NO VALUE! I CAN TESTIFY AS A AMMEMI3ER Ol: THE EDC AND BUSINESS RECRUITER FOR MY COMPANY TO THE FACT THAT THIS WILL NOT ATTRACT NEW INDUSTRY. THIS WILL ONLY INCREASE TI-IE NEW CITY'S EXPENSES AND NOT BOLSTER THE ECONOMY. City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Draft Goal LUG-11 A variety of strategically located heavy industrial areas should 1)eshould be designated and protected from conflicting land uses. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? HEAVY INDUSTRIAL IS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. 110W WILL WE GET A "VARIETY?" Policies LUP-57 Residential and some recreational uses should not be allowed in areas designated for heavy industry unless compalibiIiiy can be demonstrated. It is generally recognized that some commercial and retail uses are h1,Thly compatible iyilh an industrial area. Heavy industrial by virtue of the property use dictates construction of large facilities. Redevelopment of those large tacilitics for commercial use such as a furniture store that requires substantial floor space at an_afforclable rent or an office building for executives including ancillaipport of the industrial user such as attorneid accountants may be the highest and best use for redevelopment of existing industrial buildin rs as our national economy shifts away from industrial/matiutacturina. Alternate uses of industrial land and facilities should be driven by economic considerations which allow the owner flexibility and income to maintain his/her property in a first-class condition. the conversion of designated vacant industrial lands to other uses should be limited. However. not allowing a reasonable variety of cone ercial, retail and other use in the industrial areas would be in conflict with section 2.5.5 of this Plan related to the potential benefits of mixed use devclotmem_ COffifflerei-a-Lresidetifiakiiid recreational tics should be limited or not allowed-in areas designated for indastiy. except kw sn)a}l-seal - i-Itch corn m ore ia-1 ai)d recreational uses intended-to primftrifj-serve lire-i+ldust-flat-areii: LUP-58 Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited in order to ensure adequate land supply and prevent inflation of land prices. I assure you that the laws of supply and demand will dictate the inflation rate of land prices not this land plan." This language has no place in a professional and formal document. LUP-59 Provide appropriate buffering, landscaping and other development standards for industrial areas. Goal LUG-12 A variety of strategically located light industry areas should be designated and protected. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? MOW WILL WE GET A "VARIE'T'Y?" PROTECTED FROM WHOM OR WHAT? • • City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Draft Policies LUP-60 Commercial, rResidential and recreational uses shall be limited or not allowed in areas designated for light industry exeept for small scale ancillary commercial and recreational uses -pyirati-1-y- -3 e--te-i-tkr,. tfi-a4 ^ to the extent that they are not compatible with the light industrial uses. LUP-61 A planned Might industry areas slitaThinav include sidewalks, bike lanes and landscaping to provide a safe and attractive working environment. (Remember this is the same planner that was concerned about price inflation under LUP 58 and they want to add all of this expense to the infrastructure! City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Draft 2.5.6 Industrial Designations Industrial land and facilities are important for the economic health of Spokane Valley. The broad range of industrial businesses from high-tech to basic industry help drive the local economy and create an economic multiplier effect throughout the region. Recognizing that there exists an abundant supply of usable land and existing facilities these assets must be coupled with a pro-business attitude which will create opportunities for recruitment and expansion of industry. Minimal environmental constraints and access to infrastructure will help Spokane Valley to be an attractive place for industrial businesses to locate and prosper. (See Chapter 7, Economic Development, for additional policies that encourage recruitment and retention of industrial business.) Industrial —Heavy Industry Heavy industry is characterized by industrial activities which include, but are not limited to, manufacturing, processing, fabrication, assembly/disassembly, freight-handling, warehousing, distribution and similar operations. Although unlikely, heavy industry may have significant noise, odor or aesthetic impacts to surrounding areas. Residential and some recreational uses should not be allowed in areas designated for heavy industry unless compatibility can be demonstrated. It is generally recognized that some commercial and retail uses are highly compatible within an industrial area. Heavy industry, by virtue of the property use, dictates construction of large facilities. Redevelopment of those large facilities for commercial use such as a furniture store that requires substantial floor space at an affordable rent or an office building for executives and ancillary support of the industrial user such as attorneys and accountants may be the highest and best use for redevelopment of existing industrial buildings as our national economy shifts away from industrial/manufacturing. Alternate uses of industrial land and facilities should be driven by economic considerations which allow the owner flexibility and income to maintain his/her property in a first—class condition. The conversion of designated vacant industrial land to other uses should be limited. However, not allowing a reasonable variety of commercial, retail and other uses in the industrial areas would be in conflict with section 2.5.5 of this Plan related to the potential benefits of mixed use development. Industrial—Light Industry The light industry designation is often found in a planned industrial area where special emphasis and attention may be given to aesthetics, landscaping and internal and community compatibility. Uses may include high technology and other low-impact industries. Light industry areas may incorporate office, retail and other commercial uses as ancillary uses within an overall plan for the industrial area. City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Draft The light industry category may serve as a transitional category between heavy industrial areas and other less intensive land use categories. The category may also serve as a visual buffer for heavy industrial areas adjacent to aesthetic corridors. Industrial Goals & Policies Goal LUG-10 Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses. THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, THE CITY OF SPOKANE AND THE ADJACENT COUNTY LAND HAVE VAST AMOUNTS OF INDUSTRIAL AREAS. AS OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY SHIFTS TO A SERVICE ORIENTED ECONOMY IMPOSITION OF NEW LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND WILL BENEFIT NO ONE! Policies LUP -54 Program capital facility expenditures to facilitate the development of lands designated for industrial uses. I HOPE THERE ARE NO FUNDS BEING EXPENDED FOR THIS TODAY AS THERE IS NO ECONOMIC RATIONAL FOR THIS AT THIS TIME LUP-55 Encourage low-polluting industries to relocate in Spokane Valley. SINCE WHEN HASN'T ANY COMMUNITY IN THE UNITED STATES NOT DONE THIS? IT TAKES MUCH MORE THAN "ENCOURAGEMENT" TO LAND A NEW COMPANY IN SPOKANE VALLEY. Please see my comments made at the public input forum. LUP-56 Encourage shared-use parking, pedestrian access and transit incentive programs in industrial development projects. SOUNDS NICE BUT OF NO VALUE! I CAN TESTIFY AS A MEMBER OF THE EDC AND BUSINESS RECRUITER FOR MY COMPANY TO THE FACT THAT THIS WILL NOT ATTRACT NEW INDUSTRY. THIS WILL ONLY INCREASE THE NEW CITY'S EXPENSES AND NOT BOLSTER THE ECONOMY. Goal LUG-11 A variety of strategically located heavy industrial areas should be designated and protected from conflicting land uses. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? HEAVY INDUSTRIAL IS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. HOW WILL WE GET A "VARIETY?" City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Draft Policies LUP-57 Residential and some recreational uses should not be allowed in areas designated for heavy industry unless compatibility can be demonstrated. It is generally recognized that some commercial and retail uses are highly compatible with an industrial area. Heavy industrial by virtue of the property use dictates construction of large facilities. Redevelopment of those large facilities for commercial use such as a furniture store that requires substantial floor space at an affordable rent or an office building for executives including ancillary support of the industrial user such as attorneys and accountants may be the highest and best use for redevelopment of existing industrial buildings as our national economy shifts away from industrial/manufacturing. Alternate uses of industrial land and facilities should be driven by economic considerations which allow the owner flexibility and income to maintain his/her property in a first—class condition. The conversion of designated vacant industrial lands to other uses should be limited. However, not allowing a reasonable variety of commercial, retail and other uses in the industrial areas would be in conflict with section 2.5.5 of this Plan related to the potential benefits of mixed use development LUP-58 Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited in order to ensure adequate land supply and prevent inflation of land prices. I assure you that the laws of supply and demand will dictate the inflation rate of land prices not this "land plan." This language has no place in a professional and formal document. LUP-59 Provide appropriate buffering, Iandscaping and other development standards for industrial areas. Goal LUG-12 A variety of strategically located light industry areas should be designated and protected. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? HOW WILL WE GET A "VARIETY?" PROTECTED FROM WHOM OR WHAT? • City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Draft Policies LUP-60 Residential and recreational uses shall be limited or not allowed in areas designated for light industry to the extent that they are not compatible with the light industrial uses. LUP-61 A planned light industry area may include sidewalks, bike lanes and landscaping to provide a safe and attractive working environment. (Remember this is the same planner that was concerned about price inflation under LUP 58 and they want to add all of this expense to the infrastructure! r ,. From: Jim Bonuccelli Page 1 of 1 [P►int] [Close] From: "Jim Bonuccelll" <jimb @vs-reaity,com> To: " Cc: "Ron Sahnow" <ron @pancocon.com>,"Dwight Fiume" <dhume @spokane-landuse.com> Subject: Retail Use In An Industrial Zone Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009 10:30:05 AM Re: Trent Center 6206 E. Trent Avenue Spokane Valley, Washington 99 Dean Grafos Grafos Investment, inc. • 16120 E. Sprague Avenue _ Spokane Valley, Washington 99037 Dean: The referenced commercial property located at 6206 E. Trent Avenue, in the Spokane Valley, was originally built for retail I wholesale of building materials, and occupied by Diamond Lumber Company for many years. Subject property has been occupied by multiple tenants since Diamond Lumber Company vacated the site, with uses ranging from fabrication,warehouse distribution, to office and retail sales. Attached is a "Lease Flyer"on the property, and a copy of a Letter Of Intent to lease Building#1 on the site to Classic Vision Enterprises, Inc. dba Volunteers of America. The Lease was contingent upon Volunteers of America operating a Retail Thrift Store in the uilding. Craig Soehren, the realtor representing the Lessee, visited the City of Spokane Valley and inquired if the use would be acceptable, given the property zoning of Light Industrial, I-1. Mr. Soehren was advised that said use was not acceptable. Ron Sahnow, property owner, hired Dwight Hume to represent the Lessor and make further inquiries with staff at City of Spokane Valley, about reaching a compromise in order to allow Volunteers of America to occupy the site. Basically the city staff held firm on their position that the zoning matrix did not allow for retail use in Light Industrial I-1 zone. I asked staff if the site would be grandfathered in retail use, but was informed that once the site is vacant for a twelve (12) month period, said grandfather clause goes away. In this case, not only did the property owner lose a good tenant and the rental income,-but the City of Spokane Val a so lost_potential tax revenue. -" Both the Cit of Spokane and Spokane County allow retail use in an Industrial Zone. My position is that the o pokane Ta ey, s ou • I ewise, a ow sal, us-. Jim Bonuccelli Village Square Realty, Inc. 12309 E. Mirabeau Parkway, Suite 2 P.O. Box 141449 Spokane, Washington 99214-1449 Phone No. (509) 924-9730 Fax No. (509) 924-9734 E-Mail:jimb nvs-reaity.com Attachment 1: Flyer6206eTrent#1 #2-#4(K&H10-1-09).pdf (application/pdf) Attachment 2: 6206eTrentLOI_Volunteers of Americadf (appllcation/pdf) i,i -�'.. .•1 -,.,;f •!+ „ .{+,. TWO', ...,-,,1,1n+1-11 cncnn n^n^nnnrnnLl1-)rlr"-In'I'l0/01-71OP0 1')/'1')f100 IZ;TEjj ;14FF.. ix � V 5 - � f9 �'-<�' i.1 3° s �.✓ �.L,,'ri..., ,,,.,,!>7,.:.tii . .Fl t ,„„.:.-' ra,:;_,. v fi '.,! .,.`:„,.,,?i .....F, i t '`i,a:_ :,'■ I F` ,' rr�y - HAGOOD ., , /. .X„ .^'R: U 4 _ . Pl W p".X•. , . f t ,COMPANY OFFICE/WAREHOUSE/YARD FOR LEASE 6206 E. TRENT AVENUE, BUILDINGS 1, 2 & 4 SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99212 � ,, Yn �5. 6 i', '.' a;ji ''ii 4 ` Common use clock• . y 1 4t,,� ?,1 t 1 a ,? 5�� fir .t, Fl r i, r s ,' t•- r ' 1i:. ,�-; 4 � , ,�- 1. � L - -• 5 .. . < , k�� i e w L_ 't` F -' , _i.,S � l ,; Ct is • r ;, ie,o f;Buidi g#12• LOCATION: Located one block east of Fancher Road, in the City of Spokane Valley. This properly has excellent arterial exposure with approximately 23,500 cars/day on Trent Avenue.An ideal industrial/retail location,minutes from the 1-90 freeway. The site was previously occupied by BMC West Building Materials Center, with Tuff Shed the former tenant in buildings 2&4, SITE: A portion of a multi-tenanted complex,consisting of±183,550 SF or±4.21 acres.A portion of Parcel No. 35123.1205 ZONING: Spokane Valley 1-1,Light Industrial IMPROVEMENTS: This entire site consists of seven separate buildings totaling±56,650 SF of which building#'s 1, 2&4 are described as follows: Bldg,#1: ±21,217 SF footprint, of which±8,878 SF of recently remodeled sales/display area and±2„461 SF office. The balance of±9,878 SF is heated whse that is insulated with R30 in the ceiling&R19 in the walls. Bldg.#2• *18,531 SF footprint, of which±530 SF is office and sales area. The balance of t18,001 SF is heated warehouse, including a±3,500 SF fire rated saw shop/production area. Bldg.#4: ±1,960 SF footprint storage/warehouse covered and enclosed on 3 sides. Beam clearance*12'9"to ±13'6". Yard Area:Fenced yard area as shown on attached Site Plan,t23,057 SF or*0.53 acres. The entire site is paved and fenced. The property is connected to City of Spokane sewer(per Colleen at City Engineering Services)and City of Spokane water. Common use dock is available. See Site Plan for location. 2008 OPERATING EXPENSES: Estimated at$3,424/mo($1,830/mo-Bldg 1 and$1,594/mo-Bldgs 2&4)(*8.6¢/SF/mo). LEASE PRICE: $15,213/mo/NNN (Bldg.#1 @ 35¢/SF/mo/NNN-Whse;500/SF/mo/NNN-Salos/Display;650/SF/mo/NNN-Office) (Bldg#2 @ 30¢/SF/mo/NNN--Whse;60¢/SF/mo/NNN--Office)(Bldg#4 with respective Yard Area included.) (Please See Attached Floor Plans, Site Plan and Aerial) • CONTACT: TRACY LUCAS, CCIM I MARK LUCAS, SIOR JIM BONUCCELL!I ROB AMSDEN KIEMLE&IlAGOOD COMPANY VILLAGE SQUARE REALTY (509) 755-7558/(509) 755-7524 (509)924-9730 (509)755-7538 FAX/(509) 755-7570 Fax (509)924-9734 Fax Al!information herein is furnished by the owner and believed to be complete and correct. The Agent,however,cannot be responsible for changes,errors,omissions or withdrawals of this offering Without notice. The above information is from sources deemed reliable but should be verified by part eS that could be adversely affected by an"statements or information. This is not an Blegns gg 01 sub agency, mh commission splits to be determined.094'8.VP 1p J.Ierokers4 uoas DocslFlyrers4Trent E 6206,t3ldgs r 2&4doc , . r,, , . „, .'i, . ., - 601 West Main Avenue i. . ' . < .4",;,0,,,:.:t.','.,_• 1 i' / t k'll ff 't S ''2}:,, t \i'i. t y�. i l (r.l ' '<5 1 fit i r YY x� 4 4},.,':',A.".",'';':',;'-7';,-,. 6 Spokane, Y '99 201 Ell ,, f iL.Y ,, y yyr Er ;;Ii t5 ,„.:: ,�4 lr , 3� jb l }1 (' rJ 1• iqI , fi i 1 "S ,, (5,:,--•:..-:::...,,,,,,..,,,,,,,:%,,,,," + :4', r, . . , .; ;'i '' t''' h; .1'l �. , !:.',:..j.:...-.1:',' : f ` Y r. 09) 838-6541 �i Al�q, p11r • KIEML,E HAGOOD C O M P A N Y iimairmiggaNINIIMPIP August 13, 2009 Mr. Mark Lucas Kiemle&Hagood Company 601 W. Main Suite 400 Spokane, WA 99201 RE: 6206 E. Trent Dear Mark, Kiemle&Hagood Co. has been retained by Classic Visions Enterprises, Inc. to assist them in their search for space in Spokane. They have selected the location at the above address as one possible site that could suit their needs. The following Letter of Intent will outline the requirements and business points we ask that you forward for your clients consideration, Premises: Approximately 21,217 square feet of the building Term: 3 years. Occupancy Date: Upon delivery of the premises subsequent to the completion of Landlords Work. Base Rent and NNN expense payments to commence 90 days alter occupancy. The parties shall execute a letter agreement documenting the occupancy date and subsequent date for rental payments to commence. The Tenant shall he allowed to access the premises during the period of Landlords Work to begin their setup of the premises. Option to Renew: Two (2) five year options to renew. Rent during the option terms to. increase 3% annually on the anniversary date. Notice shall be provided 120 days prior to the end of the initial term and first option term to exercise the option. Base Rental: Year 1 $ 8,200/month (3 months free per above) Year 2 $ 8,446/month From: Grant Person Page 1 of 1 [Print] [am) F " cperson @nalbfack.com> Subject: Spokane Valley Date: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 9:03:32 AM Dean, ■ I'm very pleased to see you in leadership of the City of Spokane Valley. j _new zoning_r.adels- much more restri tive and Increases construction/develo•ment costs, This increases the time required to secure a permi , orces rents o •- a r icialiy higher, an. .iscourages growth of our community. The zoning code In place at the time of Valley Incorporation certainly was not a perfect set of regulations to work from, but was Far superior to what's in place today. I would encourage the city council to seriously consider returning to the Land Use Regulations originally Inherited by Spokane County. Best regards, J. Grant Person NAB B lack 107 S. Howard, Suite 500 Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 622-3575 Fax: (509) 622-3578 E-mail: gpersorgaablack,c Please review the Washington State Law of Agency Pamphlet to know your rights in relationships with real estate brokers and agents by using the following link: http_:/1 b ck com/PQrtals/123/dv_Cs/lay+!!9f_ftal_ t-a e„AgencY.�R • L4,,. ,.,,AL.,,,n;l n++ „G.1-Alri-N,..Io„_T Tci.,,.Arn,14u1,07,4Pannn�F(9nnnnn6RR47-7•71 RR65S69RO... 12/23/2009 • • . • CLARK • PACIFIC January 7, 2010 • Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley City Council Member 16120 E, Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley, WA 99037 RE: .11 615 $ 11617 E.Trent Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA Dear Mr, Grafos, The above site is currently fisted for sale by the property owner. It has a6tually • been listed for sale for the last two and a half years. I have had two purchasers . that both lost interest after speaking with the City of Spokane Valley about the zoning. One purchaser wanted to do Tractor Sales and the other wanted to do Car Sales and Auto Re air. Both wanted to construct a new building on the site. • This property was a contractor landscaping yard use previously, but the City of Spokane Valley, without notice to the property owner char ed the zoning front B- • - fixed Use Center District, whic is a lighter zoning and now precludes - Auto Repair/Vehicle a es an• 'Jew Tractor Sales, Service and a contractor yard. Now the zoning is basically fixed for office, n•t the uses historically allowed. I can tell you --= is 1 * •errand for office space on Trent! Therefore, as you might expect, this property just sits unused and unable to be sold, It is very unfortunate that the City of Spokane Valley chose to do this to its own • citizens. It certainly has caused a good deal of harm to this property owner who • is now in financial hardship because he is unable to sell his property. I hope that the new City Counsel will see fit to correct this injustice and restore the previous • zoning. Sincerely, ,l1 v C.f f Marshall K. Clark President and Designated Broker Clark Pacific Real Estate Co., Inc. • MC/kmm • iln3ery r(54 ;,tee: .' mci (_C� 1111111' 1L1i l Sales and Le su g ra'I.r.4L14/y'�sn+�.[ LY N. Atl,I!rtie, Suite 1{)t! ? Spoinct, WA 99205 + (509) 325-3333 • Fax (50'1) 325-4534 • email: cladac1.arkpacific.n:t www.clarkpacific.net ic.net January 8,2010 i 0 fr Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley City Counsel Member 16120 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA. 99037 Dear Mr. Grafos, My name is Rick Mayo, I pastor Cornerstone Pentecostal Church in Spokane Valley. Recently and in view of an impending building-project on our..new.property, we had a bank appraisal done on our new property, Greenacres rd. and 1-90 in Spokane Valley. This project has been 5 years in the making and we were depending on this appraisal to reflect our investment and planning to receive Bank financing. What came back to us was mildly shocking. Not just because of a devastating hit to the overall project due to lowered economy but, the value of our land, It was brought to my attention that our property had been"re-zoned"without my knowledge, consent or approval thus affecting the value of this land. I am appealing to you to look into this matter and reverse this re zoning. I am not sure how my neighbors feel about the re zone, However,seeing that we are building a multi million dollar project,this act by the city counsel without permission or notification appears to be grossly unfair at best and presumptuous at worst. Thank you for your time. Si PastorRi, :yo Cornerst+ 'entecostal Church qc2 / 514 3 500 Washington, United States, North America 4Greenacres Alpine Motel and RV Park 90 GFa 819 N Greenacres Rd Greenacres,WA 99016 E—Alle Ave Broadway Ave 0 yds 100 200 300 400 Copyright®1988-2003 Microsoft Corp.andror its suppliers.All rights reserved. htp://www.microsoft.corWstreets _ ®Copyright 2002 by Geographic Data Technology,Inc.All rights reserved.©2002 Navigation Technologies.All rights reserved.This data includes information taken with permission from Canadian authorities Ci 1991-2002 Government of Canada (Statistics Canada andlor Geomatirs Canada),all nghts reserved. Fax sent '6y : 5E194S1#27i7 WIVE-WON"I Year"•' 01'4Z- n:20 Pg; 4' RECEIVED OF.e ICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY %Nara, DEC 1 4 2009 D9CHp.Ei,F, COMMIX•CITY ATTORNEY WIYHEH8POON,f{ELLE ,ARV P,DR1SKEL1.-DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 4000 WileY® DAVENPORT R TOOLS 11707 it Sprague Avenue Suitt 103 f Spokane Valley WA 09106 509,6AB,0135 + ax:509.6880299$cityettornempokanevalley,ort imm December 11,2009 F.J.Dullanty,Jr, Witherspoon,Kelley,Davenport&Toole /1/1° • 422 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 1 100 , fV Spokane,WA 99201 s RE, Temporary Greenhouse Dear Rink, I have reviewed the e-Trails between yourself, your client and the City of Spokane Valley staff. Apparently, you are relying upon, a statutory exception to building permit requirements set forth is WAC 51,50.007. I agree that this code provision does exempt • "temporary growing structures used solely far the commercial production of horticultural plants including ornamental plant![; flowers, vegetables, and fruits..." from compliance with the International Building Coda However, it does not exempt the proposed land development from the specific provisions of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Specifically,the Uniform Development Code comprised of chapter 17-24 of the SVMC. I have attached a copy of the legislative history for this particular provision. In pertinent pert it states: The intent of the legislation was that local jurisdictions would continue to have authority to determine'where they could he located. For example, the legislation was not intended to modify local land use and zoning requirements." The speeifie provisions of the UDC that are applicable are as follows: SVMC 17.30.010 states in pertinent as follows. All development of and use of land within the corporate limits of the City shall conform to all of the requirements of this code,unless specifically exempted herein or by the operation of law. SVMC 19.10.020 further states as follows: Applicability. This section shall govern the occupation, use, erection, alteration, removal,demolition or.conversion.of any and all buildings,structures, and land located within the corporate limits of the City of Spokane Valley, • • Fax sent ty 5094513Z717 ' 01-2Z-1U 1=1;40 r$. a-o 1 • The specific provision applicable to your clients' property Is chapter 19.130, which requires a sfte plan review to ensure that the location of the building meats cutrent zoning requirements. Let me know if you have any questions, Very truly yours, Michael F. Connelly End legislative history _:;. :, ,': . • cct Kathy McClung,Community Development Direotor Greg McCormick,Planning Manager Karen Kendall,Assistant Planner • fax sent IA : 5$34592717 ti/MERU OON'"HELIX Y uz—zc—lu La.J.7 ry• c.•�, i J } WITHERSPOON,IELLEY,DAVENPORT dgz TOOLE A PttOVESS1ONA7 SBRVICS CORPORATION ' ATTORNEYS 4 COUNSELORS risz,,kurw rotssr idy o� 114Q LJ,S,HAI*9U119 WO costa or otI1,�RRtAYog 14Kil fit 417waarreva1 pa.A.m.fs „nrg ,E,W xo VS*" ta�Two arwobe> .i MEANS,WMH MO TN 4997G1.49OD cone a ib tuMau. gawk=v s'�Fn�t si.iai T�lrphb0e+(300424424a T`ri a ni non ,7�ii "� Pas WO 436-277,1 1�,�1 wf trio- f ' h1l'+Rol Id �, , December 14,2009 1• " Mike Connelly , '�'*' City,Attoi'ney , 1(41,4. 11707 B.Sprague,Suite 106 ' 2114feydvin City of Spokane Valley,WA 99206 P• Re: Temporary Greenhouses ,. bbear Mike:.. - . �' Thank you for your letter of Deeember 11,2009,including the second page on the OP 001.11m. legislative history with respect to the,exemptior�-, f"temporary green houses" from the applicability of the International Building Code:, No-would also request that you provide x`m; , us with a copy of page 1 of the legislative history as well. , .. i .�.t • We agree with your analysis that the City of Spokane Valley continues to have '' z,,,,,;"`. jurisdiction with respect to the location of temporary greenhouses, and that they must Comply with the local zoning code, That has never been the issue. To our knowledge, Creech Greenhouse complies with the appropriate zoning code requirements, and we are unaware of any specific violation with respeot to their compliance that may exist. • Again.,our question is not the applicability of local land use regulations,but rather our question has to do with what pennit is required by Creech Grcertliouse that would trigger site plan review pun is t to SVC 19.130, . Please note that SVC 19,130;020 "Applicability" relates to the issuance of a "building permit." Since no building permit is required,SVC 19.130 is not applicable, Additionally, SVC 19,130,030,wltich reIates'to criteria discusses the approval and issuance of a building permit. Clearty►'•thus section would indicate that SVC 19.130 is not applicable since the issuance of a buildiing.permit is not at issue, . Again,'our question is, "where in Spokane Valley Municipal Code does it say that a site plan must be submitted when it:-permit is requited." bill r • Fax sent by : 5594582717 wrrrtisxorvvn net Lzr 1 Nike Coolly • December 14,2409 • Page 2 pxovided that the City indicates where a W would be most happy to comply, emit is involved,permit for a site plan is requited when no bui din p • Thank you for your help and cooperation, , • T Very truly youtsi . 'Ar 3RS,POON,KELLY,LIAVF.NPORRT . '' iiir . P 0LTLLA.NTF, PJAlkwb cc; O]ients , 5aosgat�;l • H. J-M s MAGNUSON ATTORNEY AT LAW MAGNUM CENTER H. cJAMES MAGNUSC ATTORNEY AT LAW 1250 NORTHWD00 CENTER COURT 1 250 NORTHWOOD CENTER CO POST OFFICE BOX 2266 POST OFFICE BOX 2288 COEUR O'ALENE. +OAW0 63818 COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO 0381 TELEPHONE (208) 666-1596 [208) 886-1696 FAX (208) 666-1700 FAX(208) 888•1700 December 8, 2009 Dean Grafos Grafos Investment, Inc. 16120 E. Sprague Spokane Valley, WA 99037 Dear Dean: Thank you for taking the time to meet with us and discussing some of the issues you will be dealing with. With your background and experience, you are well qualified to address the Spokane Valley issues, One issue we did not discuss is regarding the Building Department. We have had numerous projects and seem to encounter much delay and negativity in obtaining building permits from the Building Department. Our architects and contractors are usually very capable and well-versed in this area, but nonetheless encounter unnecessary delays in what most would view as a normal process. Orville Barnes has advised me on multiple occasions that the Spokane Valley Building Department has a reputation as the most difficult to deal with in our area. Thanks again and good luck. incerely, ~ H.'4JA ES MAGNUSON Atf'orney at Law HJM:slb Reply Reply to all i4 Forward X( ( 4► ! Close j Help From: Andrew Hovren [ahovren©yahoo.com] Sent: Mon 2/1120I0 1:56 PM t 4 To: Brenda Grassel;Dean Grafos Cc: Subject: Building Permits and Inspections Attachments: View As Web P Brenda and Dean- as a resident of this city and someone who works for a company that sells building materials to contractors I would really like to see something done about the building.permit process and thdnspection process. I have ieard from numerous contractors that the City of Spokane Valley is one of the worst cities that they have ever had to deal with. I am not sure thats something this city wants to be known for. I think it would be in this cities best interest to have new construction going on to increase the tax base. I am not.in favor pf having a ton of houses 6 inches apart from each other but when a company wants to put up a new hotel or apartment building it shouldn't take an act of God to get it built. Thanks for your consideration, Andrew Hovren Reply Reply to all Cai,Forward a ) 4 Close a Help From: Shawn McGuire [shawn.mcguire.gj31 @statefarm.com] Sent: Tue 1/26/2010 12:53 PM To: Dean Grafos Cc: Shawn McGuire Subject: Congrats Attachments: View As WebP�a e Hi Dean, Congratulations on your new seat on the City Council. That election gave me about as much hope for change as did the recent Scott Brown Senate victory in Mass! A couple of things that have been on my mind for some time now concerning the City of Spokane Valley: - Our bum situation in Spokane Valley is out of control. The summer months are littered with be ars on eve ma'or intersection and we have even seen them living in tent cities in the bushes at the I-9 and Sullivan intersection Vim+I'iy they can't be moved along or an ordinance against such activities can't be passed is beyond me. I was told by one of the older city council members that this right to beg is protected by the 15t amendment what? How about just mowing down the tall vegetation on the Sullivan clover leaf so they can't hide in their tent cities? - A couple of years ago I had a drunk come into the agency and hassle one of my staff and tear up a bunch of literature before he said "I'm so angry today that I could shoot someone." We called the police, they came out, chased the guy down, hauled him off the bus he just got onto and then let him go once they found that he had no weapon on him. He was really drunk and when I asked them why they didn't make an arrest, they told me that t ere is no law on the books for Spokane Valley against Public intoxication and that sense he had no weapon on him,the threat wasn't serious. Let's give the police the laws they need to run these vagrants out of the city for good. Last fall I was starting my car and I was watching the police talk to an obvious drunk on a ten speed behind what will be the Rite Aid on Sprague and Pines. They left him there staggering back and forth next to his ten speed and as soon as they proceeded down the alley to the West, he urinated right on the spot with all the traffic going by on Sprague. Nice- - The A,I lewa i ess needs to be resolved once and for all by the Council. Businesses are hesitant to locate themselves along this corridor for Iack of conviction on the Council's part to make a permanent statement. This needs to be addressed immediately so that we can see the business growth in the area that we would expect. rte_ The permit and inspection department has developed a nasty reputation for being a nightmare to deal with. I have tons of clients in the trades at all levels and they all say the same thing, "The Valley is the worst department that we deal with bar none." They need a serious change of attitude and a refresher course on dealing with the public. A statement of who is responsible for their paychecks _world be a great thing to post in their offices. They treat people like second class citizens- That's enough for one email! Congrats again. I look forward to your years in the contracting business -d iF Gt-c s 642.4 15 o-k-+a-e v/fe e r�,�c e77 &U't" e c:. ✓S s: ((0 _pl eo-yi.t;,Qc�c , - not ,.s� )L-, ..e - r�,1s/aeG s'/F'Zdf 5eLtI N-5- !teac-lc_ li-D / da fir(° Q-ve` [)let .3 4---At c' 71/40.6 .�-r�m�r�e rS 4 I I Kathy McClung From: Kathy McClung Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 8:46 AM To: Mike Jackson Cc: Deanna Griffith Subject: FW: Amendment conditions A compliment from Dwight Flume. From: Greg McCormick Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 7:34 AM To: Kathy McClung Subject: FW: Amendment conditions FYI. 0,egory I(cerw;eA 4/CP Planning Division Manager City of Spokane Valley (509) 720-5330 gmccormickaspokanevalley,orq "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate." Thomas Jefferson. From: Dwight Hume [mailto:dhume @spokane-landuse.com] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 10:30 AM To: Karen Kendall Cc: Greg McCormick Subject: Amendment conditions Karen: I agree with Art's comments concerning multiple tenants under one roof, so maybe we should add one more condition to the effect that: "Only one tenant is allowed within this or any other larger space. We might also want to consider limiting it to only one use per parcel. Maybe you and Greg can come up with some language. Thanks for all your help on this. As usual, it never ceases to amaze me how enjoyable it is to work with you guys, you are so productive in getting things done! The contrast between City Valley Planning and all the rest in the area in terms of getting it done, is amazing. Dwight : Maine Land Use Planning Services 9101 N Mt. View Lane Spokane, WA 99218-2140 509-435-3108 (V) 1 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Sol7ane MICHAEL F.CONNELLY-CITY ATTORNEY p CARY P.DRISKELL-DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue Suite 103 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.688.0235 • Fax: 509.688.0299 • cityattorney @spokanevalley.org February 23, 2010 F.r. Dullanty, Jr. Witherspoon, Kelley, Davenport&Toole 422 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 1100 Spokane, WA 99201 RE: Temporary Greenhouse Rick: Thank you for your correspondence of December 14,2009. The specific verbiage, "a site • plan must be submitted when no permit is required,"is not contained within the code. There is no question, however, that any"occupation, use, erection, alteration, removal, demolition or conversion of any and all buildings, structures and land located within the corporate limits of the City of Spokane Valley" is subject to the UDC (see section 19.10.020),and further, there is no question that all development within the City must comply with the UDC. (See section SVMC 17.30.010.) It is also clearly expressed that SVMC 19.130 requires site plan review to ensure, "efficient and safe land development, compatible use of land, compliance with appropriate design standards, safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation,parking and loading, and adequate water supply." That is, all the development standards applicable to any construction. (19.130.010) The section discussing site plan review does contain language concerning building permits with respect to the timing of the site plan requirement, (see sections 19.130.020 and 030.) This reflects the usual course of events, i.e. where a building permit is requested. It does not, however, exclude application of the requirements in the unique circumstance wherein a building permit is expressly waived by statute but zoning obligations are not. The obligation of your client is to comply with the existing zoning regulations when establishing a structure. The site plan is the only device identified in the code to allow such a review. I would also point out that it is in your client's interest to have such a review to avoid potential enforcement actions for code violations that may occur if the zoning requirements are not met or potential economic waste if a structure would have to be relocated or removed. This is not a complicated or involved procedure. I would urge your client to meet with staff to expedite this as soon as possible. Very truly yours, Michael F. Conne cc: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner Permit Chronology 115 S University Rd- Old Rite Aid Bldg. 12/17/2007 Demo Permit application received Permit Issued 12/17/2008 06/12/2008 Tenant Improvement-"Future unspecified tenant" application received Review completed 07/10/2008 Permit issued 07/11/2008 07/1512008 Plumbing permit application received Issued 07/15/2008 07/29/2008 Mechanical permit application received Issued 07/30/2008 08/12/2008 Tenant Improvement-Façade upgrade application received Review complete 09/12/2008 Issued 09/17/2009 08/18/2008 Regrade/repave and add swales and landscaping application received Issued 09/18/2008 09/18/2008 Add 67 sprinkler heads to existing system/relocate 85 heads application received (received prior to application for the interior tenant improvement) Resubmittal 02/04/2009 Approved 02/06/2009 Issued 02/10/2009 09/19/2008 Stop Work order posted- interior work and change of occupancy without a permit 09/19/2008 Tenant Improvement West Valley School District Alternative School application received City of Spokane Valley approved 10/23/2008 Other Agency approved 11/05/2008 Issued 11/07/2009 Final approved 04/03/2009 10/29/2008 Tenant Improvement for west and north façade upgrades application received Approved 01/08/2009 Not issued 1213112008 Alarm system permit application received Approved 01/05/2009 Issued 01/07/2009 03/26/2009 Sign permit application received Approved 03/30/2009 Issued 04/17/2009 Permit Chronology 10512 E Sprague Ave- Luxury Box 09/01/2009 Demo Permit application received Permit Issued 09/01/2009 10/05/2009 Sign Permit application received Review approved 10/12/2009 Applicant notified 10/12/2009 Issued 10/22/2009 10/23/2009 Tenant Improvement-Kitchen hood installation w/wall and ceiling repair application received CSV review approved 11/09/2009 Other Agency approved 11/18/2009 Applicant notified 11/18/2009 Issued 11/25/2009 10/27/2009 Mechanical permit for HVAC and Type 1 hood application received Issued 10/27/2009 11/04/2009 Ansul kitchen hood fire protection system application received (}LA Other Agency approved 11/24/2009 • ec Issued 11/30/2009 L 11/09/2009 Fire sprinkler system alterations application received Other Agency approved 11/24/2009 �� Issued 11/25/2009 V\� "" 01/19/2010 Mechanical/Plumbing permit application received Review approved 01/19/2010 Issued 01/19/2010 Jurisdiction # of Permits Valuation Fees 2007 2009 2007 2009 2007 2009 Post Falls 1073 10581 $118.8 mil $65.2 mil $2.8 mil $2.2 mil Spokane 4699 4004 $315 mil $242 mil $3.6miI $2.9 mil Spokane County 8,555 5,957 $253.2 mil $178.7 mil $4.1 mil $2.4 mil Liberty Lake 512 2552 $51.3 mil $13.6 mil $.787 mil $.217 mil Cheney 304 3293 $29.1 mil $30.3 $.317 mil $.291 mil Yakima 2578 10854 $116.5mil $80.8 $1.3miI Not Available Bellingham 3996 31135 $127.5 mil $200.2 mil Not Available Not Available Federal Way 3742 2692 Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Kennewick 1963 1868 $166.6 mil $106.2 mil $1.1 mil $.801mi1 Kent 3949 3069 $205.1 mil $84.4 mil Not Available Not Available Spokane Valley 3971 29306 $146.9 mil $105.1 mil Not included in report $1.3 mil Residential permits reflect larger downturn: 2007-478; 2009-303 2Both residential and commercial applications showed substantial decreases in 2009. 3There were 22 permits for single family residences in 2007, 5 permits for single family residence in 2009. Several large projects for Eastern and several large multi-family projects 4Permit report format changed in 2008. 2009 permit number does not include mechanical and plumbing permits nor is revenue information available 5Single-family alterations/accessory buildings is the only category showing an increase. Single-family permits are down from 195 in 2007 to 57 in 2009. Commercial permits are down significantly as well. 6The largest drop was in residential permits from 1,110 permits in 2007 to 687 permits in 2009. Commercial permits showed a modest increase from 258 permits in 2007 to 290 permits in 2009. poka.ne Community Development 0 Ville Monthly Report y January 2010 PERMIT CENTER Revenue Permits Permit revenue for t he month of January was $72,321. This is a n i mprovement o ver J an. '09 b y 6.81%. Permit Revenue $200,000 $150,000 - $100,000 — — $50,000 i — — - so 111 I _ 4 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2010 Revenue 2009 Revenue Land Use Land Use revenue for the month of January is $13,055. Land Use revenue for January 2010 is 65% over January 2009. Land Use Revenue $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 "1 1—' !'t; so Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 02010 Revenue 02009 Revenue Page 1 of 9 SOOkane Community Development Valle Monthly Report V January 2010 Valuation The valuation' for January was $7,037,131. $30,000,000 Permit Valuation $25,000,000 - • $20,000,000 i $15,000,000 $10,000,000 J $5,000,000 .' P • $0 -M-N-l- -U---Mwr-W-.w Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec oir2010 Valuation 2009 Valuation L ee f7inancia1 1anaagementPermitlnf tion (Permits lsscued) January 2010 Dwelling Residential New Separate Demolition Units Structures Dwelling Units Permits Demolished Single Family Residence 6 0 0 0 Duplex 2 0 0 0 Triplex 0 0 0 0 4-Plex 0 0 0 0 Apartments 0 0 0 0 January 2010 New Tenant Commercial Buildings Improvements Additions 5 8 1 1 Per the currently adopted Master Fee Schedule, valuations reported above for commercial and residential construction permits are"assigned based on the value of the construction work as stated by the applicant or the value calculated by the Building Official using the latest valuation data published in the Building Safety Journal by the International Code Council, whichever is greatest." Page 2 of 9 pok .ne Community Development .000 Valley Monthly Report y January 2010 Permit Activity Certificate of Occupancy The C ommunity D evelopment staff i ssued 10 Certificates of 0 ccupancy in January. They w ere Joann's Fabric, API Drywall & Stucco, Vera Water & Power, Lumber Yard Supply, Anderson Masonry, Granite Point Apt Bldg B, Sub-Division Ste 5&6, Inland NW Bank, Alliance Machine, Charlie P's. Permits Issued Community Development issued a total of 158 permits in January, this is almost identical to January of last year Construction Permits Issued 350 '/ 300 250 UUU1 200 • IUUUUI 150 I 100 UU • IIUUUU • • 50 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec •2010 Permits 158 •2009 Permits 159 192 221 250 260 302 305 275 255 331 200 243 Page 3 of 9 poka.ne Community Development 40000 Valley Monthly Report y January 2010 Land Use Applications In the month of January there were 5 land use applications, 2 preliminary short plats, 2 pre- application meeting requests, 2 temporary sign permit applications, 1 temporary use permit and 1 final short plat. Commercial Pre-application Meetings During t he m onth of January, C ommunity Development s taff hel d 3 commercial pre-application meetings which included an equipment storage business, maintenance building and medical office. . SEPA Determinations Four SEPA determinations were issued in January, a Determination of Non Significance (DNS) for a 52-lot subdivision, 2 code amendments and a grade and fill. Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner had one hearing in January. SUB-04-07, a subdivision to divide 3.8 acres into 17 single family lots with 4 lots designated as single family attached development. Business Licenses Staff Approved 134 business licenses in January. Home Occupation Permits Staff approved 8 home occupation permits in January. Entertainers Licenses Staff processed 11 adult entertainment licenses for the month of January. Express Permits Staff processed 1 Express Permit in January. CustomerSerrIce The Permit Center staff assisted 355 customers at the counter and handled 357 customers' inquires by phone in the Permit Center during January. A total of 10,393 total customers served just at the Permit C enter i n person or on the ph one during the year. The Permit C enter s taff provided an average target d ate of 10 working d ays for C ommercial projects, 5 working d ays for R esidential platted and 10 working days for Residential un-platted. This target date represents the time to first comments issued to the applicant. Page 4 of 9 SO„Okane Community Development V Valle Monthly Report January 2010 Infections Right of Way The Right-of-Way inspector performed 221 inspections in January. Right-of-Way Inspections 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 • 0 Jan Feb ar Apr May June Ju y Aug Sept Oct Nov ®_- 0 2010 221 0 2009 164 265 506 774 1137 1058 1058 641 860 718 555 17• Building Plans Examiners reviewed 29 projects January and have 50 pending projects were awaiting review at the end of month. There were 393 commercial inspections and 229 residential inspections in January. 700 — - Building Inspections Performed 600 — 500 — 400 - 300 200 100 — 0 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ■2010 Commercial 393 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■2010 Residential 229 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 Commercial 221 237 304 257 302 628 649 582 580 584 459 438i —.-2009 Residential 220 188 199 181 143 189 222 219 202 322 166 253 Page 5 of 9 pok .ne Community Development .000 Valley Monthly Report y January 2010 Development Engineering During the month of January the Development Engineering Inspector performed 24 inspections. Development Engineering Inspections 40 20 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec — 2010 • 2009 UPDATES Planning Planning Commission The Planning Commission met tw ice in January. During the first meeting the Commission he Id a public hearing regarding a c ode am endment t o al low de veloper's agr eements i n conjunction w ith Comprehensive Plan amendments. The second meeting was two study sessions, both code amendments, one regarding a change to fencing and modifications to some clearview triangle standards t he o ther a p rivately i nitiated am endment t o c onditionally a Ilow s econd-hand a nd consignment stores in an I-1 zone. City Center Environmental Impact Statement and Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) The final City Center EIS was issued in January. The Final EIS includes comments and responses to comments received on the Draft EIS. The next step is to draft a "Planned Action Ordinance"that addresses impacts identified in the FEIS. Staff will schedule this item with the Planning Commission. Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials The Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) met on January 20, 2010. The SCEO elected a new chair and vice-chair. The SCEO has a number of new members; an orientation was provided by members o f t he Planning T echnical A dvisory Committee (PTAC). G reg Mc Cormick provided a n overview and update on the work program for the U GA 10 Year Review. The PTAC m et twice i n January to discuss the ongoing 10 year Urban Growth Area Review effort. 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Updates The 2010 C omprehensive Plan U pdate includes ho usekeeping changes t o C hapter 2 - Land U se, Chapter 3 - Transportation, Chapter 4 - Capital Facilities, and Chapter 7 — Economic Development. The pr oposed am endments al so include on e c itizen-initiated r equest f or a s ite-specific m ap amendment, and two c ity-initiated s ite-specific map amendments. Environmental documents w ere circulated using the optional Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) process. Page 6 of 9 Community Development S�pvkane Monthly Report V January 2010 Code Amendments The Planning Commission held study s essions in January on code amendments. A "batch" code amendment that includes clear view triangle, fencing and other amendments is scheduled for hearing in February. A second c ode am endment i s a privately i nitiated amendment t o conditionally a Ilow second hand/consignment stores in the I-1, Light Industrial zoning district. Shoreline Master Program Work continued on t he S MP u pdate. At t his time an an alysis oft he field information i s al most complete, and City staff is in the final stages of developing corresponding maps that will characterize the shoreline ecological conditions. The next open house has been schedule for Feb 4, 2010. D_partment Mek Energy Grant Energy Grant funds became available in January. Public Works has begun accessing the account for their projects. The first report was made to the funder in January with the next report due in April. Also a presentation on the EECDBG is scheduled for the March 30 Council Study session. ADA Study The city work group has been formed and met in January. Staff finalized the survey tool and began the field survey of the curb ramps. Bike/Pedestrian Plan (BPMP) Staff met with Public Works to provide an overview of the project timeline and to identify their roles and responsibilities in relation to the BPMP. A webpage was developed displaying the work program to date, an anticipated timeline, public meetings, a nd m aps. Staff attended a w ebinar on h ow t o obtain and leverage Federal and State funding opportunities for bike and pedestrian facilities. Staff is compiling a s takeholder contact list i n an ac cess dat abase c ategorizing interest i n t he B PMP t o ensure an inclusive public participation process. Training On J anuary 20, 2 010 Greg McCormick, S cott K uhta, Mary Ma y and M ike B asinger at tended a webinar sponsored b y I nland Empire S ection — American P Tanning Association (AICP c ontinuing education) on performance measures for transportation systems. Mary Kate McGee and Mary May attended a training class on grant writing. Wellhead Protection Scott attended a wellhead protection committee meeting, a regional committee that recently became active after an extended time off. The focus of the group is to collaboratively develop regulations that will protect drinking water. Page 7 of 9 Sikokane Community Development V Tale Monthly Report January 2010 Cote Compliance Citizen Action Requests Code Compliance officers received 62 Citizen Action Requests for the month of January. 2010 Code Total Violations Reported - by Category 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Clear View Triangle 2 +Complaint- No Violation 3 •Environmental 0 Junk Auto 10 Property 16 Signs 15 •Solid Waste 16 Code Violation Totals 120 100 80 60 —11j) 40 4 — 20 UU ' 11 I Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov =2010 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.2009 33 36 97 94 111 50 89 98 51 61 22 Page 8 of 9 Siiokane Community Development V Valle Monthly Report January 2010 Right-of-Way Site Distance Compliance Code Compliance Officers continue to collect data points. Staff is currently processing a code amendment regarding the Clearview Triangles and held a study session for this amendment during the January 28 meeting of the Planning Commission. UPCOMING DATES OF INTEREST DATE INTEREST Feb. 4 I Shoreline Master Program, Open House–City Hall Feb. 9 I Council Retreat, CenterPlace — Feb. 10 I Planning Short Course Feb. 11 Planning Commission Regular meeting Public Hearing, Code Amendment Fencing and Clearview Triangles, Public Hearing on Code Amendment Conditional Second- hand an d C onsignment s tores in an I -1 Z one, S tudy Session – 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Feb. 15 I President's Day, City Hall Closed Feb. 25 Planning C ommission R egular Meet ing – Public H earing 201 0 C omprehensive Plan Amendments. March 2 Joint m eeting with C ity C ouncil a nd Planning C ommission – Shoreline Mas ter Program update March 5 REDCON –Kathy McClung on the panel. March 11 Hearing Examiner–Sub 03-09, Riverpoint at Coyote Rock, Elephant Boys Appeal March 11 Planning Commission Regular Meeting –Cancelled No Business. March 25 Hearing Examiner–SUB-01-09 Rezone r-3 to R-4 and 12 lots between 4th and 6th off Progress March 25 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing regarding the Planned Action Ordinance. Page 9 of 9 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 9, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Follow up: Retreat Brainstorming PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The following are the notes taken at the retreat during the "brainstorming" portion of the meeting: Sense of Community: Councilmember Dempsey mentioned t hat V alleyfest i s a huge and wonderful community-builder,we need more; and she suggested purchasing U-City and turn it into a big park. Communication: Councilmember G othmann s aid t hat i n pr evious g enerations,t he 1 argest communication device was television; while it remains large, one of the largest now is the Internet; and he suggested we explore ways to social network and have greater communication with the citizens. Mayor Towey sug gested exploring di fferent op tions, that t elevised meetings i sac ontroversial topic, and suggested exploring ways to televise two sides to issues by not having the city comment, but rather have two experts de bate the pros and cons so citizens can make rational decisions. Councilmember Grafos suggested contacting Lamar Advertising and Tom Hamilton's operation to see if they would donate a type of public service an nouncement reader board or sign t o the city;t hat the S heriff's Office w ants some identification for their precinct, and said perhaps a reader board sign or rolling message on some type of LED board could be used, and said that perhaps the material and/or labor for such could be donated. The use of scientific focus groups to gather public opinion was suggested by Councilmember Gothmann,who said he believes the city of Bellevue uses this method. Economic Development: Mayor T owey s aid e conomic development w ill be one of our most difficult challenges;he said there are some options and we need to focus on that; and said if we don't, Sprague will still look like Sprague without any new development; and said he feels this would be the number one priority for 2010 and 2011. The following is a list of positive emphasis, strengths, or assets connected with our community: Police presence at the Mall Chamber of Commerce The city contributes financially to local organizations Lots of land and space Good traffic access; good roads Nice people Educated work force in a variety of fields Proximity to downtown Spokane and Coeur d'Alene Good police department Many recreation areas and natural resources Great fire department Industrial park; could be used more in consortium fashion In-place utilities (properties are ready to go) Excellent water and water supply Rural land with an agricultural history; could support a Green Bluff for example Diversity: Native Americans contributed to cultural richness Schools including institutions of higher education Foreign trade zone Ideas: what challenges are there to our economic development: Zoning: how much and what kind Economy Finances Low income neighborhoods Housing Communications: need to develop a process to handle citizen concerns,from first expression to resolution Incentives to attract businesses Working with other entities, organizations and municipalities Water rights Sewer capacity State unfunded mandates Lack of a"welcome wagon" Urban wildfires A method to catalogue resources for economic development Ideas: what is our city best known for: Good place to raise a family Economical Suburb of Spokane Health care Quality of life Large suburban lots Compassionate people Kaiser Aluminum Dismal downtown or lack of a downtown Ideas: what would you like our city to be known for: Community feeling it has Quality of life Great place to do business Family wage jobs Good public safety CenterPlace Centennial Trail Discovery Playground