2011, 04-19 Study Session AGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Tuesday,April 19,2011 6:00 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11707 East Sprague Avenue,First Floor
(Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting)
DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Mike Basinger First Reading: Ordinance 11-007,Comprehensive Advance to
Plan Amendments,CPA 01-11,and CPA 04-11 Second Reading
through CPA 08-11 [public comment]
2. Mike Basinger First Reading: Ordinance 11-008,Comprehensive Advance to
Plan Zoning Map Amendments, CPA 01-11,and Second Reading
CPA 04-11 through CPA 08-11 [public comment]
3.Mike Basinger First Reading: Ordinance 11-009,Comprehensive Advance to
Plan Amendment,CPA 03-11, Sprague/Appleway Second Reading
Subarea Plan(SARP) [public comment]
4.Mike Basinger First Reading: Ordinance 11-010, Comprehensive Advance to
Plan CPA 03-11, Sprague/Appleway Subarea Plan Second Reading
(SARP) Zoning Map [public comment]
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
5.Gerry Bozarth, Spokane Disaster Cost Recovery,FEMA Discussion/Information
Emergency Management
6.Neil Kersten Railroad Quiet Zones Discussion/Information
7.Neil Kersten Mission Trailhead Discussion/Information
8.Morgan Koudelka Detention Services Draft Interlocal Discussion/Information
Agreement with Spokane County
9.Mayor Towey Advance Agenda Discussion/Information
10.Mayor Towey Council Check in Discussion/Information
11.Mike Jackson City Manager Comments Discussion/Information
ADJOURN
Note: Unless otherwise noted above,there will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions. However,Council always
reserves the right to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. During meetings held by the City of Spokane
Valley Council, the Council reserves the right to take "action" on any item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term
"action"means to deliberate,discuss,review,consider,evaluate,or make a collective positive or negative decision.
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 maybe made.
Study Session Agenda,April 19,2011 Page 1 of 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 19,2011 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business ®new business n public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report IEI pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-007; Comprehensive Plan Amendments (includes
text and map amendments)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A(Growth Management Act)
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On April 12,2011,no action was taken by City Council.
BACKGROUND: All parts of the Comprehensive Plan can be amended during the annual cycle. The Community
Development Department received two privately initiated site specific map amendments. Sites that are approved for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment will automatically receive a zoning designation that is consistent with the new land use
designation.
The 2011 Comprehensive Plan text amendments include amendments to five Comprehensive Plan Elements: Chapter 2 -
Land Use, Chapter 3 — Transportation, Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and Public Services, Chapter 7 — Economic
Development, and Chapter 8 —Natural Environment. The amendments may also entail minor changes to other elements
referencing the proposed amendments.
Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission at a study session on February 10, 2011. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments on February 24,2011. The Planning Commission continued
the public hearing to March 10, 2011 to receive additional testimony and for deliberation. After hearing public testimony,
the Commission made recommendations on CPA-01-11 through CPA-08-11. Staff presented the proposed amendments to
the City Council on March 22, 2011. On April 12,2011, staff provided City Council goals and policies relating to CPA-02-
11. In addition, Council requested that CPA-02-11 be removed for one month to have staff work on a development
agreement to minimize the impacts of the proposed development. CPA-03-11 (SARP) will be addressed separately by
ordinance 11-009 and ordinance 11-010. CPA-02-11 will be considered in conjunction with the annual 2011
Comprehensive Plan Amendments pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSALS: Comprehensive plan amendment proposals are organized
into individual reports consisting of application materials, staff reports, comprehensive plan maps, zoning maps, aerial
maps,vicinity maps,transportation maps,and comments submitted to date to assist the City Council in their review.
OPTIONS: Advance the ordinance to second reading with or without modifications, or take other action deemed
appropriate.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Advance ordinance 11-007 to a second reading
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger,AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Draft Ordinance
Exhibit 2 Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation
Exhibit 3: Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes
1 of 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 11-007
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE 06-010 ADOPTING THE CITY OF
SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER
MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, through Spokane Valley Ordinance 06-010, the City of Spokane Valley
adopted Land Use plans as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and
Maps as the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Spokane Valley; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows
comprehensive plans to be amended annually(RCW 36.70A130); and
WHEREAS, amendments to the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan may be
initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), Citizens or by
the Community Development Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions
warrant adjustments; and 101
WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with
development regulations, including the zoning of property consistent with land use map
designations; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, City of Spokane Valley adopted Public
Participation Guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending
comprehensive plans; and
WHEREAS, the Uniform Development Code (UDC) provides that amendment
applications shall be received until November 1 of each year; and
WHEREAS, applications were submitted by the applicant, owner or by City staff to
amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for the purpose of beneficially using the
property described herein; and
WHEREAS, following the application to the City, staff conducted an environmental
review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklists, staff issued Determinations
of Non-significance (DNS) on February 4, 2011 for the proposals, published the DNS in the
Valley News Herald on February 4, 2011, and where appropriate posted the DNS on the sites and
mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and
Ordinance 11-007 Comp Plan Amendments Page 1 of 6
WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified on February 4,
2011 pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 providing a 60-day notice of intent to adopt amendments to
the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Commission conducted a briefing on February 10, 2011, to review the
proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2011, notice of the Commission public hearing was
published in the Valley News Herald; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2011, notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all
property owners within 400 feet of the subject property; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2011, notice of the hearing was posted on the subject
properties; and
WHEREAS, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony and a
staff report and recommendation at a public hearing on February 24, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Commission conducted a public hearing on February 24, 2011, to
consider proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan map and Zoning map.
After hearing public testimony, the Commission made recommendations on comprehensive plan
map amendments CPA-01-11 through CPA-08-11; and
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2011, Council reviewed the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2011, Council requested that CPA-02-11 be removed for one
month to have staff work on a development agreement to minimize the impacts of the proposed
development; and
WHERAS, on April 12, 2011, Council requested that CPA-03-11 be processed through
Ordinance 11-009 and Ordinance 11-010; and
WHEREAS, CPA-02-11 and CPA-03-11 are being considered in conjunction with the
annual 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130; and
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2011, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the
proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2011, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which
time Council approved written fmdings of fact setting forth their basis for recommending
approval of the proposed amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as
follows:
Ordinance 11-007 Comp Plan Amendments Page 2 of 6
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Comprehensive
Plan adopted through Ordinance No. 06-010.
Section 2. Findings. The City Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted
appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to
Comprehensive Plan and approves the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan map and text.
The City Council hereby adopts the Commission's findings, specifically that:
1. Notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on
February 4, 2011 and each site was posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a
description of the proposal.
2. Individual notice of the map amendment proposals was mailed to all property owners within 400
feet of each affected site.
3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA—RCW 43.21C) environmental checklists
were required for each proposed comprehensive plan map and text amendment.
4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and a threshold determination was made for each
comprehensive plan amendment request. Determinations of Non-significance (DNS) were
issued for the requested comprehensive plan amendments on February 4, 2011.
5. The DNS's were published in the city's official newspaper on February 4, 2011 consistent with
the City of Spokane Valley Environmental Ordinance.
6. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 24,2011, to
consider the proposed amendments. After hearing public testimony,the Commission made
recommendations on CPA-01-11 thru CPA-08-11
7. The planning goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA) were considered and the
proposed amendments are consistent with the GMA.
8. The goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan were considered and the
proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
9. The proposed zoning designations are consistent with the current use of the properties.
10. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria
contained in Section 17.80.140 H. (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide rezones)
of the Uniform Development Code (UDC).
11. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and text amendments will not adversely affect the
public's general health, safety, and welfare.
Section 3. Property. The properties subject to this Ordinance are described in
Attachment "A."
Section 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 the
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan as adopted through Ordinance No. 06-010, is
hereby amended as set forth in Comprehensive Plan Attachment "A" (maps) and
Comprehensive Plan Attachment `B" (text). The Comprehensive Plan Amendments are
generally described as follows:
Map Amendments
File No. CPA-01-11:
Ordinance 11-007 Comp Plan Amendments Page 3 of 6
Application/Description of Proposal: Privately initiated, site specific comprehensive plan map
amendment to change the designation on parcels 45231.0109, 45231.0210, 45231.0211,
45231.0212, 45231.0213, 45231.0214, 45231.0216, 45231.0218, 45231.0224, 45231.0226,
45231.0114 and 45231.0215 from Mixed Use Avenue (MUA)to Neighborhood Center(NCT)
with a corresponding zoning change from Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) to Neighborhood Center
(NCT). This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW 43.21C. This amendment
will not be necessary if CPA-03-11, removal of the Subarea Plan, is approved.
Applicant: Dwight Hume; 9101 North Mt. View Lane; Spokane,WA 99218
Amendment Location: The proposed site is located on the southeast corner of Progress Road
and Sprague Avenue; further located in the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section
23, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington.
Council Decision: To be determined
Text Amendments
File No.: CPA-04-11
Description of proposal: Chapter 2 — Land Use: City initiated comprehensive plan
amendments will update Table 2.1, Spokane Valley UGA Land Capacity Analysis, to reflect new
population numbers within the City of Spokane Valley; will update Map 2.1, Land Use,to display
land use designation changes approved through the 2011 amendment process.
Applicant: City of Spokane Valley, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Ste 106, Spokane Valley, WA
99206
Amendment Location: Text amendments to Chapter 2—Land Use will have citywide
implications.
Council Decision: Adopt amendments to Chapter 2—Land Use as proposed by staff.
File No.: CPA-05-11
Chapter 3 —Transportation: City initiated comprehensive plan amendment will update Map 3.2,
Bike and Pedestrian System,to display newly developed bike and pedestrian infrastructure.
Amendment Location: Text amendments to Chapter 3 —Transportation will have citywide
implications.
Council Decision: Adopt amendments to Chapter 3 —Transportation as proposed by staff.
File No.: CPA-06-11
Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and Public Services: City initiated comprehensive plan
amendments will incorporate changes in the 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) into
the Capital Facilities Plan to ensure consistency; will update special purpose district's and other
city service provider's facility and service data; will add capital projects such as city hall, parks,
and public works storage facility to be included for the use of REET funding; will update Maps
4.1, 4.2, and 4.5 to reflect the latest capital facilities and public services; will update the growth
assumptions to reflect population allocation numbers approved by the Spokane County Board of
Commissioners.
Amendment Location: Text amendments to Chapter 4—Capital Facilities and Public Services
will have citywide implications.
Ordinance 11-007 Comp Plan Amendments Page 4 of 6
Council Decision: Adopt amendments to Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and Public Services as
proposed by staff.
File No.: CPA-07-11
Chapter 7 —Economic Development: City initiated comprehensive plan amendment will update
Map 7.1 to display new building permits and land use actions in the 2010 development cycle.
Amendment Location: Text amendments to Chapter 7—Economic Development will have
citywide implications.
Council Decision: Adopt amendments to Chapter 7 — Economic Development as proposed by
staff.
File No.: CPA-08-11
Chapter 8 — Natural Environment: City initiated comprehensive plan amendment will update
Map 8.3 to display the field inventory work done in conjunction with DNR to update stream typing
in Spokane Valley and update Map 8.4 to display the latest Federal Insurance Rating Map (FIRM)
data.
Amendment Location: Text amendments to Chapter 8 — Natural Environment will have
citywide implications.
Council Decision: Adopt amendments to Chapter 8—Natural Environment as proposed by staff.
Section 5. Copies on File-Administrative Action. The Comprehensive Plan (with
Maps) is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well, as the City Department of
Community Development. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance,
is authorized to modify the Comprehensive Plan in a manner consistent with this Ordinance.
Section 6. Liability. The express intent of the City of Spokane Valley is that the
responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this ordinance shall rest with the permit
applicant and their agents. This ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent
to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any
particular class of individuals or organizations.
Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence,clause, or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5)
days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the
City of Spokane Valley as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council this day of April, 2011
Mayor, Thomas E. Towey
Ordinance 11-007 Comp Plan Amendments Page 5 of 6
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved As To Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date: '( ?<S1
Ordinance 11-007 Comp Plan Amendments Page 6 of 6
Comprehensive Plan Map
Si 0 a
0
} ,
CPA-01-11
Sm. ea .
�����
I� ® 1'c v1 v 4 cccc9
-,11�� 61.11 1 41.
�� 14,r1� 11114111
1,♦1h.11141~11`111`1. 1``.
/ 1 1 1 x 1 1 4 1 144:::::4 4 �..
t rA $$x,1414$$4,4~:41'141141~'~# \:.
♦414ti 111414141144111~4441111~14
14``,~,,&41:1``1`1`4`1`1~44 11,+*r
direr pro, ,,or ,
re, A
..,
Ad4 .4,4 A Aliti
■
ist
-",....:S%N. - ....N..4.. ■ -N44.N.N... iNNN ' 4,.... INN' 41
III
2nd 2nd
t
3
v ( I I 1 I r z� o
CPA-01-11 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map
City of Spokane Valley designation from MUA to NCT; subsequent zoning
Community Development Department change from MUA to NCT.
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
quality of water runoff. Furthermore, development of a wellhead protection program with the
various water providers should provide guidelines to avoid possible contamination.
Policies contained in the Natural Environment chapter provide direction for development near
wellheads and in aquifer recharge areas. For a complete discussion of water resources and water
purveyors in the City of Spokane Valley, refer to the Capital Facilities chapter.
2.3.3 Parks and Open Space
One of the most important and valued elements of a high quality living and working environment is
a parks and open space system. Providing parks and open spaces contributes to a reduction in
environmental impacts such as noise and air pollution; increases the value of adjacent properties;
provides areas for passive and active recreation; and helps preserve the natural beauty of the City.
2.3.4 Natural Environment
Spokane Valley's natural beauty is apparent. Streams, wetlands, surrounding mountains and the
Spokane River provide a scenic backdrop as well as a source for active and passive recreation for
the citizens of Spokane Valley. The Land Use chapter seeks to protect Spokane Valley's unique
natural resources through policies that support the preservation of these areas for future
generations. The Natural Environment chapter also includes a discussion of critical areas as
defined by GMA. For a complete discussion, please refer to the Natural Environment chapter.
2.3.5 Housing
Housing is a basic human need and a major factor in the quality of life for individuals and families.
An adequate supply of affordable, attractive, and functional housing is fundamental to achieving a
sense of community. The central issue related to land use is supplying enough land to
accommodate projected growth for a range of incomes and households. Presently, housing is
provided primarily in single-family subdivisions.
This plan sets forth strategies to increase housing options and choices. The Land Use chapter
advocates changes to current development codes to increase flexibility in platting land and
encourage housing as part of mixed-use developments in commercial areas. The latter provides an
opportunity to locate housing closer to employment and shopping, and to create affordable housing.
A complete discussion of housing can be found in the Housing chapter.
2.4 Potential Annexation Areas
2.4.1 Projected Growth
In October 2003, the City of Spokane Valley received a 2000 population certification from the U.S.
Census Bureau that indicated 80,927 people called Spokane Valley home on April 1, 2000. As of
April 1, 2003 the population had grown to 82,005 (based on the Washington State Office of
Financial Management (OFM) population estimates). Upon incorporation on March 31, 2003, the
City of Spokane Valley became the state's ninth largest city and second largest in Spokane County.
1 i --- -- - -- - - A- 9 9 i c 1-,'-e. - -
population estimate moved Spokane Valley from the state's ninth largest city to the state's eighth
largest city. The 2004 population estimate reflects an annual increase of approximately 2.4 percent
over the city's 2003 population estimate. The most recent OFM estimate for Spokane Valley is
X090.210 as of April 1,20062010. This figure population increase represents an annual growth
rate of approximately 1.51_0 percent since 2009. The average annual growth rate is approximately
1.91°/a1.37% over the_-47 year period from 2003 to 20072010. Future population growth is
forecasted at the state and county level by OFM. This future population growth was distributed
between jurisdictions and unincorporated Spokane County through a methodology prepared by the
Spokane County Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO). The City of Spokane Valley was
action took place. However, the County did allocate population to the "Spokane Valley IUGA",
which includes the new cities of Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake.
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 2—Land Use
Page 9 of 36
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
This process resulted in a population growth allocation of 39,431 to the Spokane Valley IUGA. This
IUGA also includes areas within the UGA that are still in unincorporated Spokane County. The
graph above indicates Spokane Valley's 20 y r population using a 1.5% and 2.5% annual growth
rate.
Using the 1.5%an average annual growth rate of 1.37%, which is consistent with past estimated
growth rates in the Spokane Valley area, the estimated 2025 2031 population of Spokane Valley is
11'l,765120,145 or an increase of30-84529,935 persons. The 2.5%annual growth rate results in a
e . .-- .-
--- - - --- -- --- -- - -- - • --- - - -- -- --
-- --
capacity methodology. This request was proposed as an "interim" request based on the
land/population capacity within the existing corporate boundaries of Spokane Valley. The reason
detail below. RCW 36.70A requires that at least every ten years the incorporated and
unincorporated portions of the designated urban growth areas and the densities permitted therein,
be reviewed and revised so as to ensure that the urban growth areas are sufficient to accommodate
the urban growth that is projected by OFM to occur in the county for the succeeding 20 year
period. •- --- - _e .- - - ---• ••' -- -•- - _ - - - -- - - -- --
allocation in November 200'1.
The City has continued to refine the population projections based on the preceding information. At
a City Council retreat held on February 11, 2006, the City Council directed staff to utilize a 1.89%
annual growth rate for purposes of population forecasting. This resulted in a 20 year population
forecast of 38,61'1 persons. This information was presented to the SCEO on February 15, 2006
In 2006On June 9, 2009, the BoCC approved via Resolution 06-043809-0531 a population
allocation of 33,12518,746 for Spokane Valley for planning purposes.
2.4.2 Land Capacity Analysis
The GMA does not require a Population and Land Capacity Element to be included in the
comprehensive plan. However, GMA does require that Land Use, Housing and Capital Facilities
Elements include population densities, building intensities and estimates of future population
growth. The GMA also requires a Land Capacity Analysis, or the theoretical holding capacity of the
designated Urban Growth Areas, which by definition includes cities. By assigning the expected
population growth to the results of the Land Capacity Analysis, the area required to accommodate
the population growth is shaped.
Countywide population forecasts are identified by the CWPPs, as one criterion for consideration in
developing a regional methodology or countywide population allocation. The countywide growth
target is based on the OFM growth management population forecast for Spokane County.
The Land Quantity Analysis Methodology for Spokane County was developed through the efforts of
the Land Quantity Technical Committee between March 1995 and October 1995. The Growth
Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials adopted that methodology on November 3,
1995.
The adopted methodology is patterned after the Washington State Department of Community,
Trade and Economic Development's (CTED) land quantity inventory guidebook entitled Issues in
Designating Urban Growth Areas Part I-Providing Adequate Urban Area Land Supply. Use of that
document was specified by the adopted Countywide Planning Policies (Policy Topic 1 (Urban
Growth Areas Policy#3). However, the step-by-step CTED process was modified somewhat by the
Land Quantity Technical Committee to reflect unique circumstances in Spokane County. The
following steps of the regional methodology were followed by Spokane Valley in conducting the
land capacity analysis:
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 2—Land Use
Page 10 of 36
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
1. Identify lands that are potential candidates to accommodate future growth - vacant,
partially-used and under-utilized land (in other words, subtract all parcels committed to
other uses).
2. Subtract all parcels that the community defines as not developable because of physical
limitation.
3. Subtract lands that will be needed for other public purposes.
4. Subtract all parcels that the community determines are not suitable for development for
social and economic reasons.
5. Subtract that percentage of land that the community assumes will not be available for
development within the community plan's 20-year time frame.
6. Build in a safety factor.
7. Determine total capacity.
Spokane Valley prepared a land capacity analysis of the city and surrounding UGAs based on the
above regional methodology. The results of the land capacity analysis are contained in the table
below:
Table 2.1 Spokane Valley UGA Land Capacity Analysis (updated 495I8SOctober 2010)
Vacant and Net Developable Potential New Population
Area Partially Used Acres Dwelling Units Capacity
Land
Spokane Valley 17,28016 4
(Incorporated Area) X1,3993,314 — 1,2931 370 7,9337 412 93
N ortheast 4 92 229
N orthwood 723 312 1,367 3,116
€ast 9$ 107 427 46
Southeast 48-7 248 95.2 2,381
South a64 470.8S 2,722
Po dderesa X5 5 484 4S
E dgccli f/D sh»,an 449 442 ` 4734S
TOTAL 6 458 27484 12,575 28,133
Spokane Valley recommended to the Steering Committee that both the City of Spokane Valley and
the City of Liberty Lake receive an interim population allocation that could be accommodated within
the existing city limits of each city. The rationale for this recommendation was based on the
situation regarding sanitary sewer throughout the entire Spokane region.
It is estimated that the Spokane County treatment plant will run out of capacity in 2009, and the
Liberty Lake Water& Sewer District treatment capability is currently at or near capacity. Permits to
expand the Spokane County and Liberty Lake plants from the Washington State Department of
Ecology and the Environmental Protection Agency are currently in doubt. Given the potential
constraint for both jurisdictions to provide this vital urban service, the Steering Committee
forwarded a recommendation to the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners to allocate
only the population that could be accommodated within existing city limits until such time as the
sanitary sewer issues are resolved.
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 2—Land Use
Page 11 of 36
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
2.4.3 Potential Annexation Areas
The purpose of this section is to identify the unincorporated areas within the existing Spokane
County UGA that are adjacent to the City of Spokane Valley, which would comprise potential
annexation areas for the City. Map 2.2 indicates potential annexation areas (PAAs) for the City of
Spokane Valley.
Spokane County adopted its first comprehensive plan developed under GMA in 2001. A complete
examination of urban services was required at the time the County established the UGA, moreover,
Spokane County was obligated to comply with the State Environmental Policy Act. The County's
plan included the designation of a regional UGA, which included the still unincorporated area of
Spokane Valley. The County utilized the SEPA/GMA integration process to fulfill the environmental
review requirements of the plan including the designated UGA.
When Liberty Lake incorporated in 2001 and Spokane Valley incorporated in 2003 much of the
"Valley UGA" was included as part of the newly created cities, but not all. In 2003 and again in
2006, Liberty Lake completed annexations totaling 975.69 acres of the County designated UGA.
These annexations resulted in a nearly 34 percent increase (from 4.5 square miles to just over 6
square miles) in land area for Liberty Lake.
As Table 2.1 indicates there are a number of unincorporated UGAs adjacent to Spokane Valley.
Several of to e UGAs are only contiguous to Spokane Valley (south, southeast, and northeast}
and would be logical areas for future annexation to the City of Spokane Valley. Spokane County
and the metro cities of Spokane Valley, Spokane, Liberty Lake and Airway Heights have begun the
process of updating the regional UGA consistent with the county wide planning policies (CWPPs).
Through this process, the City of Spokane Valley will identify areas needed to accommodate
allocated population growth by re-evaluating land quantity analysis and urban service delivery.
2.4.4 Development of Goals, Policies, and Actions for Annexation
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires counties to designate Urban Growth Area (UGAs)
within which urban growth shall be encouraged RCW 3610A.110 (1). UGAs are to include
sufficient land to accommodate the twenty-year population growth projected for the county. The
GMA imposes planning requirements to influence the ability of a city to annex UGAs. A city is
required by GMA to adopt policies for land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, and
transportation within the city's UGA. In order to meet this requirement the City of Spokane Valley
has developed policies and goals to provide policy guidance for annexation of territory within UGAs.
Annexation will have financial impacts on the city; it may be positive or negative. The City may
need to develop an annexation study to
assess the financial impacts especially for
larger annexations. The Capital Facilities
chapter identifies current service
providers within the Potential Annexation
Areas (PAAs) as a starting point for the
detailed analysis that may be needed
prior to annexation.
4-- -- � L- —+-
2.5 Land Use Designations ;•y, _- _
The land use designations in the SVCP
recognize the relationships between **_
broad patterns of land uses. The
designations set forth locational criteria
for each specific class of uses consistent err..
with the long-term objectives of the •
SVCP. These designations provide the
purpose and intent for specific zoning districts. The location of the comprehensive plan land use
designations are shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (Map 2.1).
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 2–Land Use
Page 12 of 36
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
4.4.2 Growth Assumption
On June 9, 2009, the Spokane County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) approved a population
allocation of 18,746 people for the City of Spokane Valley. The allocation is the amount of people
the City can accommodate within its current municipal boundary. In addition, the BoCC approved a
population allocation of 8,138 people for the unincorporated Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) adjacent
to the City of Spokane Valley. The City of Spokane Valley has identified the adjacent UGAs as
Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs). The City has identified existing service providers to help
determine the effects on existing levels of service in the event of annexation. Capital facilities
planning activities within these UGAs continue to be the County's responsibility.
The following population data is used for capital facilities planning purposes:
Tablo 4.4 Population Projoction
Yeaf -2948 2015 -2939
-12ep-u-lation 88449 43454 106,720
Table 4.4 Population Projection
Year 2011 2017 2031
Population 91.836 96.307 107.604
4.4.3 Level of Service
Cities are often defined by the quality of facilities and services that are provided to its residents.
Good road, sewer and water infrastructure are typical criteria used by businesses considering
relocation. Park and recreation facilities are increasingly used to judge the quality of a City.
Businesses want to locate where they can attract the best employees, and quality of life issues are
often the deciding factor for a person to move to a new area.
Level of service standards are quantifiable measures, such as acres of parks per 1000 people, or
the amount of time it takes to travel a road segment during peak morning and afternoon "rush
hours," the higher the level of service the higher the cost. This element establishes levels of
service which will be used to evaluate the adequacy and future cost of urban facilities and services.
4.4.3 Concurrency
The Growth Management Act introduces the concept of concurrency, which requires new
development to be served with adequate urban services at the time of development, or within a
specified time thereafter. The GMA allows six years for necessary transportation improvements to
be constructed as long as a financial commitment is made at the time of development. The GMA
strongly encourages concurrency for water and sewer, and it is good public policy to require the
same.
4.4.4 Financing Facilities and Services
The City is limited in its ability to finance all desired capital facility projects. Options must be
available for addressing funding shortfalls or decisions must be made to lower levels of service for
public facilities. In deciding how to address a particular shortfall, the City will need to balance
current needs versus future growth requirements; existing deficiencies versus future expansions.
Capital facilities plans must be balanced. When funding shortfalls occur, the following options
should be considered:
a. Increase revenues,
b. decrease level of service standards,
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 12 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Capital Projects and Financing Plan
Spokane Valley anticipates either constructing a new City Hall building, or purchasing and
remodeling an existing building within the six year time frame of this CFP. The following table
shows that Spokane Valley will use approximately $1,000,000 of Real Estate Excise Tax revenue
for Civic Buildings.
2
44-01ect 0 20.4 2808 2009 2040 2044 2042 I Total
61
I
Civic-Facilities 00 50 47200 3463
Total 0 0 0 7550 4,390 3463
Real Estate Excise Tax 250 250 400 400 1-,000
General Fund 34-3 390 3550 4,290 2,163
Total 0 0 0 563 550 750 47200 3,163
Table 4.6 Community Facilities Financing Plan
Project 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Civic Facilities 100 100 400 400 400 400 1800
Public Works 500
Maintenance Facility
Total 600 100 400 400 400 400 2300
Revenue Source
Real Estate Excise Tax 100 100 100 200 100 200 800
General Fund 0 0 300 200 300 200 1000
Street Fund 250 250
Stormwater Fund 250 250
Total 600 100 400 400 400 400 2300
4.4.8 Domestic Water
The City of Spokane Valley does not own or operate a public water supply system. Rather,water is
provided to Spokane Valley residences and businesses by special purpose districts, associations,
and public and private corporations. Water service is coordinated by Spokane County through the
Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP), which identifies service boundaries, establishes
minimum design standards and promotes the consolidation of regional water resource
management. The CWSP is updated as needed at the direction of the Board of County
Commissioners or the Washington State Department of Health (DOH).
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 16 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
East Spokane Water Dist 1 1700 94 1.277.000
Hutchinson Irrigation Dist#16 790 0 1,200,000
Honeywell Electronic Mfg LLC 0 1 0
Irvin Water District#6 1597 154 1- .900.000
Kaiser Alum-Trentwood Works 0 2 21.200
Model Irrigation Dist#18 2518 6 550.000
Modern Electric Water Co 7424 824 1,500,000
Orchard Avenue Irrigation Dist 6 1255 — 4 0
Pinecroft Mobile Home Park 143 0 400
Puerta Vallarta 0 1 0
Spitfire Pub And Eatery 0 2 87
Spokane Business&Industrial Park 0 252 478.000
Spokane Co-Mirabeau Park 0 2 200
Spokane Co Water Dist#3 9788 426 6.880.000
Trentwood Irrigation District 3 1727 162 1- .120.000
Vera Water&Power 9259 390 8- .650.000
Woodland Park Trailer Court 30 0 0
Approximately 620 connections within City of Spokane Valley
Source: Washington State Department of Health
Table 4.8 Group B Systems
Group B System Connections
Holiday Trailer Court 12
Janzen&Janzen 1
Levemier Const_Water System 1
Mercer Trucking Co Inc 1
Middco Tool&Equipment 1
Systems Transport Inc 1
Tci Water System 6
Tds 2
Union Pacific Railroad-Trentwood 1
Westco S Apparel Service 3
Western Structures Inc 2
WSDT-Pines Road Maintenance 1
Source: Washington State Department of Health i
Level of Service
The Countywide Planning Policies were amended in 2004 to defer level of service standards for
water supply and fire flow to the requirements of the Department of Health and local fire codes
respectively.
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4-Capital Facilities
Page 20 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Forecast of Future Needs
Spokane Valley adopts by reference water system plans for all water purveyors providing service
within the City of Spokane Valley.
Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities
Spokane Valley adopts by reference water system plans for all water purveyors providing service
within the City of Spokane Valley.
Capital Projects and Financing Plan
Spokane Valley adopts by reference capital project and financing plans for all water purveyors
providing service within the City of Spokane Valley.
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Service
Fire protection and emergency medical services
(EMS) are provided by Spokane Valley Fire
Department (District No. 1SVFD) and Spokane
County Fire District No. 8. Spokane Valley
FircSVFD serves over 90% of the Valley, whiles
District 8 serves a few small areas in the southern
part of the City (see Fire Districts Map at the end of - <
this chapter). Both districts serve the City with a full
range of fire suppression and EMS services.
Spokane Valley voters chose to annex to Spokane - 1 --_:
Valley Fircinto SVFD and District No. 8 in
September, 2004.
Insurance Rating
eity-fFire departments and fire protection districts are assigned a numerical fire protection rating by
the Washington Surveying and Ratings Bureau. Insurance companies fund the Bureau to perform
on-site inspections of fire districts to determine the rating. The Bureau analyzes five main areas:
average response time, water supply, communication network, schedule of fire inspections and fire
station evaluations (which focus on age of vehicles), personnel training and staffing of facilities.
Insurance companies use the fire protection rating to help determine insurance rates on all fire
insurance policies. The rating is on a scale of one to ten, with one representing the best score.
Quality of fire service can have a significant impact on fire insurance rates, particularly for
commercial businesses. As of April, 2006, Spokane Valley Fire DepartmentSVFD has a Fire
Insurance Rating of fa-IA-three (3) and District No. 8 has a Rating of five, both indicating geed
excellent fire protection services.
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 21 of71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Inventory of Existing Facilities and Apparatus
The Fire Districts Map shows the location of fire stations and service area boundaries for Spokane
Valley FireSVFD, District No. 8 and surrounding fire protection districts. All fire agencies have
mutual aid agreements to assist each other in major emergencies.
. _ - • - e e=SVFD 2011 apparatus inventory includes e-10 Class AType I
enginesEnciines, two-3 Type I I Engines, 3 Class A pumper/ladders, two medic vehicles, three brush
trucks and other miscellaneous vehicles for staff, training, rescue, maintenance, prevention and
command. Spokane Valley FireSVFD has ten stations, including ei seven within the City of
Spokane Valley. Locations of the stations are as follows:
Tablo A 9 Spokes o Vcelloy Ciro
District Station Locations
Station 1* 10319 East Sprague
Station 2* 8007 East Trent
Station 3 2218 North Harvard
Station 1 22106 East Wellesley
Station 5* 15510 East Marietta
Station 6*
Station 7* 1121 South Evergreen
Station 8* North 2110 Wilbur
Station 9 East 11511 164'
Station 10** � East 17217 Sprague
* Inside Spokane Valley City Limits
**Medic only station
Table 4.9 Spokane Valley Fire
Department Station Locations
Station 1* 10319 East Sprague
Station 2 9111 E Frederick
Station 3 2218 North Harvard
Station 4 22406 East Wellesley
Station 5* 15510 East Marietta
Station 6* 6306 East Sprague
Station 7* 1121 South Evergreen
Station 8* North 2110 Wilbur
Station 9* I East 12121 32*d
Greenacres Station* East 17217 Sprague
J * Inside Spokane Valley City Limits l
Fire District No. 8 has one fire station inside the City limits, station 84 in the Ponderosa
neighborhood, located at 4410 South Bates. The District has two stations located outside the City
limits providing additional coverage, No. 81 at 6117 South Palouse Highway and No. 85 at 3324
South Linke Road. Stations 81 and 84 each have two Class A engines and two wildland brush
engines. Station 85 has one Class A engine and one wildland brush engine.
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 22 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Level of Service
Spokane Valley Firc'sThe Level of Service goals for response time are as—fs,1-1-ows described in
SFVD's Standard of Cover. SVFD's Standard of Cover is consistent with the regionally adopted
minimum level of service for fire protection and emergency services.
• 5:00 minutcs 80%of the time for fire calls
• 5:00 minutes 80%of the time for Basic Life Support(BLS)
• 8:00 minutcs 80%of the time for Advanced Life Support (ALS)
procedures or administration of drugs. BLS providers can provide basic life saving and life
all medical care is built. Good basic life support is key to survival of critically sick and injured
patients.
squad members, if necessary. Members trained in Advanced Life Support techniques are often
life saving medications, perform advanced monitoring of heart rhythms, and are trained to perform
advanced procedures to open and manage a patient's airway.
Average response times for fire ca-11-8 the past 11 years are as follows:
• 2003 5 minutcs 22 seconds
• 2002 5 minutes 27 cecondc
• 2001 5 minutcs 28 seconds
• 2000 5 minutes 35 seconds
The District's historic response time data does not distinguish between types of calls. Future data
collection will divide ca-11-8 between fire,ALS and BLS.
--- - . - -- _ _ e - - _e- , '= - -- -_ - !If e .._. The
following table shows the number of calls per year.
Tablo 4.10 District 1 Firo Rosponsoe
Yea* 2009 2004 2092 2903
Responses 794 7406 7821 `
Table 4.10 Spokane Valley Fire Department City Responses
Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
City Responses 8270 9144 10080 9480 9394
The Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County establishes minimum levels of service for
fire and emergency medical services as follows:
Urban areas are required to be serviced by a Fire District with at least a Class Six Insurance rating.
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 23 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
• Urban areas must be within five road miles of an operating fire station that provides service
with a "Class A" pumper, unless structures are equipped with fire sprinklers.
• Urban areas shall be served by a state certified basic life support (BLS) agency within five
miles and an operating advanced life support unit within six miles or ten minutes response
time.
Both Fire District 1SVFD and 8 meet the minimum countywide level of service standards.
Forecast of Future Needs
District is planning to move Station No. 0 to the vicinity of 32 T;e and Pines Rd
The northeast area of the City is underdeveloped at present but as the City grows over the next ten
to fifteen years, the istrictSVFD recognizes that a new station will need to be constructed to
provide an adequate level of service. The stationStation 11 will be constructed in the vicinity ofat
Barker and Euclid.
Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities
Station No. 9 will be moved from its current location at 11511 East 164 to the vicinity of 3244
reconstruct Station No. 10 into a three bay facility with dorms for ten personnel. Station No. 11 will
be located in the vicinity of Barker and Euclid and will also-behave two 3 bays with dorms for eight
personnelfire apparatus. Construction for Station 11 is tentatively planned for 2011 or 20152016 or
when growth in the area will support the investment and ongoing costs.
Capital Projects and Financing Plan
Spokane Valley Fire DepartmentSVFD is a junior taxing authority thatdistrict and supplements its
regular taxes with special levies. As the restrictions on the taxes generated from the regular tax go
down, special levies are proposed to maintain needed funding. Special levies must be approved by
Fire District voters served by SVFD. The Department does not use its bonding capacity to fund
capital projects. The Department's philosophy is to reserve funds generated through its regular
revenues for future capital needs. The following table represents the Valley FiroSVFD planned
capital expenditures.
Project 2006 2007 2000 2009 20-1-0 2011 2012 Teta}
$1,000 51,800
51,800 51,800
(reconstruct ion)
Total $1,099 51,800 S2,800
Note: Reserve funds from regular district taxes will fund capital improvements.
{Amounts are times$1,000}
Table 4.11 SVFD Capital Protects Plan
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 24 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Project 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Administration Building
$3,400 $3,400
(New construction)
Fire Station No. 6
$1,600 $1,600
(Reconstruction)
Fire Station No. 11
$1,800 $1,800
_New construction)
Total $6,800
_(Amounts are times$1,000)
4.4.9 Library Service
Library services are provided by the Spokane County Library District, which serves the
unincorporated county and eleven of its thirteen cities and towns. The District has a long history of
excellent service and upon incorporation, the City of Spokane Valley executed a--one year
contracted with the District for continued service for its residents. After the initial year, Spokane
Valley and the Library District agreed to a five year contract for library services beginning in 2005.
Eighty seven percent of voters approved annexing back into the District in Ina May 2005 special
election, eighty-seven percent of voters approved annexing back into the District, with the
annexation effective January 1, 2006.
Fa
After incorporation, the Library District and the City of Spokane Valley collaborated on developing a
new capital facilities plan for the District In March 200/1, the capital facilities planning process
• Compal+sons with library facilities in other similar sized Washington cities
• Spokane Valley demographics
• Public library facility standards
• Pros and cons of various facility alternatives and
• Community research
•. -- - - - -
Valley residents in March and April of 200/1. The survey gathered information on local library use,
The District also conducted a community open house in May 2001, attended by 75 people, 75% of
which were City residents. Information was obtained on satisfaction with facilities and service,
current Valley Library, constructing either one or two new branches, and willingness to pay for new
libraries.
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 25 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
with library services and a high level of satisfaction with current facilities. The public identified two
access computer availability. Only a modest interest in funding new facilities was expressed,
Spokane Valley's Community Preference Survey
included a question to gauge Spokane Valley
citizen's satisfaction with current Library services. ,_
The majority of survey respondents viewed library .r-
services in a positive light, with 83% of
respondents reporting that library service* were
Yefy-ffeEHEI-er-e*Gelle-Rt, •-
Inventory of Existing Facilities -
Spokane Valley has one library located inside its
boundary, the District's Valley Branch, located at 12004 East Main. This resource library is the
District's largest facility, measuring 22,100 950 square feet, including branch administrative space.
The District has two other libraries within the greater Valley area located at 4322 North Argonne
and 22324 East Wellesley in Otis Orchards.
As of May 2-9942010, approximately 35,5'1'433.000 Spokane Valley residents were Library District
cardholders. Valley Library was the primary branch of VALLEY
registration, with Argonne second and Otis Orchards -
third. Spokane County Library District has a �� .
reciprocal library cardborrowinq agreement with the a
City of Spokane with over 1,500 Spokane Valley ■IEgu. BF�.El
residents o having a Spokane lie Public a ES•ea anA
library Library card.
Library Facility Master Plan E1Bth Av
In March 2008 voters defeated a proposal to establish
a proposed Greater Spokane Valley Library Capital Facility area to issue General Obligation Bonds
for construction of a new main library and a new neiqhborhood branch in the eastern area of the
City. The District subsequently undertook a capital facilities planninq process for its entire service
area, resulting in the July 2010 Board of Trustees approval of a 20-year Library Facilities Master
Plan (LFMP). Using 2031 population estimates based on Spokane County GMA population
allocations, the LFMP addresses current and future facility needs in each of its five geographic
service areas: the Greater Spokane Valley, North County, Southeast County, Southwest County,
and Moran/Glenrose Prairie.
LFMP development included community research (customer and community telephone surveys.
focus Groups. and community leader interviews): population Growth estimating by aeoaraphic area:
evaluations of existinq facilities and sites: and a public input process. The plan proposes
replacement of three existinq libraries with new facilities, the addition of three new branches, and
remodelinq/expansion of five others at a total cost of$50.8 million (2010 dollars).
Level of Service
The Spokanc County Library Dictrict has not established a level of service. The Library Facilities
Master Plan establishes a Level of Service (LOS) of 0.5 square feet per capita for the overall
District,with a target 0.5 square feet per capita within each of the five geographic regions served.
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 26 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Forecast of Future Needs
The District uses a target Spokane Valley population future projections, which i&
consistent with thc City of Spokanc Valley's population allocation for growth within thc existing City
limits. The District recognizes that a new library nccds to be built inside Spokane Valley to provide
adequate library services. Future facilities will be divided between a main branch and a future
The LFMP uses a 2031 Spokane Valley population estimate of 108,000 for
its future projections, consistent with the City of Spokane Valley's GMA population allocation for
growth within the existing City limits. The District recognizes that new library facilities need to be
built inside Spokane Valley to provide adequate library services to its residents. Future facilities will
be divided between a main branch and two future neighborhood branches.
Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities
-- --- - .. ... e - -- - -
8'1,000 people. The main branch should be located on an arterial street within about one half mile
of—the Sprague corridor between Dartmouth and Sullivan Roads. A neighborhood branch of
to three miles of the main branch. A new main branch to replace the existing Spokane Valley
Library should contain about 50,000 square feet of space and should be located on an arterial
street within about one-half mile of the Sprague corridor between Dartmouth and Evergreen Roads.
To better serve the Veradale and Greenacres areas, a new neighborhood branch of approximately
12.000 square feet should be built on District-owned property on Conklin Road, immediately south
of Sprague Avenue. A second new branch to serve the South Valley should be built between
Dishman-Mica and Evergreen Roads on or immediately south of 32nd Avenue.
Capital Projects and Financing Plan
The future main branch is estimated to cost $44-415.56 million in 2001 2010 dollars; the
neighborhood branch would cost about $3-65_1 million each. . - - - ---- _ _. __
bonds are the normal financing method for library projects of this size. Besides construction costs
and fees, the estimates include library materials, furnishings, and equipment. Voter-approved
general obligation bonds are the normal financing method for library projects of this size.
The District's Library Facilities Master Plan proposes a three phase capital improvement schedule
that includes all Spokane Valley projects in the first two phases. The earliest feasible date for a
District-wide bond election to carry out the proposed projects is early 2013, which for purposes of
the schedule is Year 1.
Phase 1: Years 1 to 4
• Complete property purchases (Year 1)
• Design, construct, and open replacement Spokane Valley branch (Years 1-4)
Phase 2: Years 3 to 8
• Design, construct, and open new Conklin Road branch (Years 3-5)
• Sell existing Spokane Valley branch (Year 5)
• Design, construct, and open new South Valley branch (Years 6-8)
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 27 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
The District proposes the following capital improvement schedule:
1-to-5-years
• Determine preferred locations for new libraries.
• Develop funding plan.
• Purchase land for libraries.
54040-year-S.
• Secure funding and purchase site(s) if not already done.
• Construct new main branch.
• Sell existing Valley branch.
40 to 20 years
• Secure funding and-senstruct neighborhood branch.
Table 4.12 Spokane County Library District six year Capital Projects and Financing Plan
Pr-eject 2006 2240 2448 -2404 2444 2011 2012 Total.
New Spokane Valley 44-00 $450 51,700 $87304 $8450 4 4 419,000
Library
Tota( 5400 54-50 S1,700 $8,300 58,750 4 4 $49400
GO-Beans S100 5444 S1,700 $87500 S8,750 4 4 44404
Tota( 54-00 $430 $4-,704 $8 500 444-54 4 4 4-9000
Table 4.12 Spokane County Library District six year Capital Projects and Financing Plan
(Assumes a 2013 bond issue approval)
Project 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
New Spokane Valley 0 0 $1,250* $800 $7,380 $7,380 0 $16,810
Library
New Conklin Road 0 0 0 0 $200 $2,450 $2,450 $5,100
Library
New South Valley 0 0 $250* 0 0 0 0 $250
Library**
Total 0 0 $1,500 $800 $7,580 $9,830 $2,450 $22,160
Revenue Sources
District Funds 0 0 $1,500 0 0 0 0 $1,500
GO Bonds 0 0 0 $800 $7.580 $9.830 $2,450 $20,660
Total 0 0 $1,500 $800 $7,580 $9,830 $2,450 $22,160
•
*These expenses are reimbursable from voter-approved bond funds.
**The South Valley Library's design,construction,and opening is in 2018-2020, outside the Six Year Plan
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 28 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
The Library District will continue coordinate to work with the City of Spokane Valley to further
develop plans to construct new libraries. As plans arc updated and refined, this Capital Facilities.
Plan will be amended to incorporate future changes. in identifying and procuring building sites,
planning the bond issue election, in carrying out design and construction of the new libraries. As
the LFMP is updated, this Capital Facilities Plan will be amended to incorporate future changes.
Operational Costs
The Library District assumes that with efficient building design and continuing staff productivity
improvements, a larger Valley Library and an eventual new branch can be operated at normal
District funding levels of 50 cents per$1,000 of assessed valuation.
4.4.10 Parks and Recreation
Spokane Valley has a wide range of t
recreational opportunities available to residents - ^.T _ 4
and visitors. City parks, school play fields, golf • a
courses, trails, County parks and conservations
areas are all within close vicinity to Spokane _
Valley residents. a �, , �' sue? ,-A, '1,14;
The City provides a system of local parks that r1 ; gi
is managed by the Spokane Valley Parks and Wii` ► *No- r\4$ l _
Recreation Department. The Parks
Department is in the process of developing a =new Parks, Recreation, and Open Spaces --
Master Plan. When finished, this plan will offer
a detailed picture of the park, recreation and
open space system, including changes and a
improvements that will be made in the future.
This section of the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) provides summaries of the parks inventory, level of
service (LOS),future park needs, proposed projects, and a financing plan for the next six years.
Park Types
Parks are classified by their size, service area and function. Spokane Valley uses the nationally
recognized Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines, to establish standard for
parks planning. Major classifications include mini-park, neighborhood, school-park, community,
large urban, various trail designations and special use facilities. The Parks Element, Chapter 9,
provides a thorough description of park types used for planning purposes.
Inventory of Existing Facilities
The Parks Map, found at the end of this Chapter, shows the location of all parks within Spokane
Valley. Table 4.13 provides an inventory of park and recreation facilities owned by Spokane Valley.
These parks are used to calculate Spokane Valley's level of service for parks. The Parks Master
Plan provides the most detailed inventory of parks, including equipment, structures and other
miscellaneous park facilities.
Table 4.13 Spokane Valley Park Facilities
Spokane Valley Parks Acreage Status
Neighborhood Parks
Balfour Park 2.86 Developed
Browns Park 8.03 Developed
Castle Park 2.71 Minimally Developed
Edgecliff Park 4.74 Developed
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 29 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Level of Service
The Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County requires all jurisdictions to adopt a level of
service (LOS) standard for parks. Spokane
Valley has the flexibility and freedom to adopt a
LOS standard for parks that reflects the ,,„:,;,7,,,,;:
expressed need and desire of our community. .:::'1:1-=',-.' ,
The National Recreation and Parks Association
suggest that cities adopt LOS standards for ,
different park types, such as mini (pocket), / V I
4, , ,neighborhood, community and major parks. ;. -i xT
Spokane Valley does not have a well-developed T _
park system and will use total City-owned park ,`, .*,.e
acres for its LOS measurement.
Spokane Valley currently owns 163 acres of
2006 population of 85,010 people, the current -
parks LOS is 1.32 acres of City park land for
every 1000 residents- In 2006. Spokane Valley adepts-adopted a LOS of 1.92 acres/1000 people
- as its minimum LOS standard for
Spokane Valley recognizes that
schools, churches, natural areas and
Poau►at+e� commercial enterprises all provide
recreation opportunities for Spokane
a e /100n
Valley residents. These will all be
85,5,0 0 163 92
taken into consideration when
Spokane Valley determines the best
location to purchase new park land.
Forecast of Future Needs
Spokane Valley has the capacity to accommodate an additional X16,493 people over the next
20 years within the current City limits. In order to maintain the current adopted LOS of 1.92
acres/1000 people, Spokane Valley would have to add about 40-35 acres of park land over the next
20 years, with 4-2-13 acres in the first six years, as shown in Table 4.15. The Parks Master Plan
provides a more detailed analysis of park and recreation needs by dividing the City into smaller
service areas.
Table 4.15 Future Park Demand
Year Population Total Park Acres Acres Required at 1.92 Net Deficiency Acres
Available acres/1000
20.062011 85,01091 836 -1-63172 43177 0-5
I20122017 92,24396.307 -163172 177185 -14-13
I20252031 105,676107,604 163172 203207 -48-35
I *Assumes 20-year growth of 24146416 493 people
Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities
In order to maintain the adopted 1.92 acres/1000 level of service standard, Spokane Valley must
would need to add 42-13 acres of park land by the year 20112017. In order to address this
deficiency, Spokane Valley will purchase 20 acres of park land within the six year time frame of this
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 31 of71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
will be used to determine the best locations for park land acquisitions.
Total Park Acres Required
ear AsFes at 1.92
Available a- es/1-009
2096 85,010 43 43 8
2012 I 92,2,13 183*
*20 acres of parkland will be purchased within first 6 years of plan
Capital Projects and Financing Plan
The following table details Spokane Valley's six year Parks and Recreation capital improvement
financing plan. The table details projects that address level of service deficiencies (capacity
projects) and other capital improvements (non-capacity) projects.
Table 4.17 Parks Capital Facilities Plan
Note: Amounts in$1,000
14e044 2006 20-07- 2008 2009 2048 2011 2012 fetal
Park Land Acquisition (20
4,004 51,000
Acres Capacity)
304 058 800 540 588 4-00 209 $3 38
Swimming Pool Upgrades 4480 $17690
Total 17309 27559 egg e94 589 4-04 280 $5,730
General Fund 1,300 300 $1400
REET#1 458 408 499 409 4-98 280 $15
,90
grants 200 400 109 1-809
Spokane County $1,600
Total 17309 27559 508 598 e3-0- 409 280 $5,730
Table 4.17 Parks Capital Facilities Plan
Note: Amounts in$1,000
Proiect 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
Park Improvements 1.959 100 100 100 100 100 100 $2,559
Swimming Pool Upgrades
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 32 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Table 4.17 Parks Capital Facilities Plan
Note: Amounts in$1,000
Total 1,959 100 100 100 100 100 100 $2,559
Revenue Source
General Fund 1,959 50 50 50 50 50 50 $2,259
REET#1 50 50 50 50 50 50 $300
500 $500
Grants -
Spokane County
Total 1,959 100 100 600 100 100 100 $3,059
4.4.11 Public Safety
The Spokane Valley Police Department is a contract law enforcement agency, partnering with the
Spokane County Sheriff's Department to provide a safe environment for the citizens, businesses,
and visitors of the City of Spokane Valley. This unique contracting relationship allows for the
sharing of many of our resources, allowing both agencies to operate at peak efficiency without
duplicating services.
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 33 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Spokane Valley also contracts with Spokane County for judicial, jail and animal control services.
The total contract for public safety for 2006 2011 totaled over $46—$15.3 million, including
approximately 100 commissioned police officers.
Spokane Valley supports community oriented policing and recognizes it as an important
complement to traditional law enforcement. In Spokane County, community policing is known as
S.C.OP.E., or Sheriff Community Oriented Policing Effort. The community policing model balances
reactive responses to calls for service with proactive problem-solving centered on the causes of
crime and disorder. Community policing requires police and citizens to join together as partners in
the course of both identifying and effectively addressing these issues. About 364 Spokane Valley
citizens are S.C.O.P.E volunteers.
Community Survey
The Community Preference Survey included questions to gauge the public's perception of police
services. Results show that 85% of Spokane Valley residents believe police services are good,
very good, or excellent, indicating a generally high level of confidence in the police force. Only 27%
of respondents expressed a willingness to pay additional taxes to have improved police services.
Inventory of Existing Facilities
The Spokane Valley Police Precinct is located at 12710 E. Sprague and houses patrol and
detective divisions, the traffic unit and administrative staff. The Precinct also includes a property
storage facility and a Spokane County District Court.
Spokane Valley is served by five four S.C.O.P.E. stations, shown in the following table.
Tablo 4.18 Spokano Valloy S.C.O.P.E station& I
Noi orhoo . Location . Noi er . Location
West Valley 3102 North Argonne Trentwood 2,100 N.Wilbur#79
University 10621 East 15 Central Valley 115 N. Evergreen Rd.
Edgecliff 522 S. Thierman Rd. East 4903 N. Harvard#3
Table 4.18 Spokane Valley S.C.O.P.E stations
Neighborhood Location Neighborhood Location
University 10621 East 15th Trentwood 2400 N.Wilbur#79
Edgecliff 522 S. Thierman Rd. Central Valley 115 N. Evergreen Rd.
Level of Service
Public safety is a priority for the City of Spokane Valley. It is difficult to determine at this time, an
adequate and measurable level of police protection. Spokane Valley will monitor the performance
of the Spokane County Sheriff's Department and will adjust the contract for services as necessary
to ensure an adequate level of police protection.
Forecast of Future Needs
Future needs for police protection will be determined as a part of the annual budget process.
Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities
Spokane Valley is not planning to construct any new law enforcement facilities at this time.
Capital Projects and Financing Plan
Spokane Valley is not planning to construct any new law enforcement facilities at this time.
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 34 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
In 1988, the intergovernmental agency known as the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System
(System) was formed by interlocal agreement between the City of Spokane, Spokane County and
all other cities and towns within the County. The System is responsible for implementing solid
waste management plans, planning and developing specific waste management programs and
updating solid waste plans for the entire County. The System is managed by the City of Spokane,
which uses its structure to carry out the various solid waste management programs for our region.
In Spokane Valley, solid waste services are provided by private haulers licensed by the Washington
Utility and Transportation Commission (W.U.T.C.) through franchise agreements. Waste
Management of Spokane provides residential and commercial garbage services and weekly
curbside recycling collection; Sunshine Disposal provides only commercial services. At this time,
Spokane Valley residents are allowed to self-haul their garbage to an appropriate dumping site.
Inventory of Existing Facilities
The Regional Solid Waste System includes a Waste to Energy facility located at 2900 South
Geiger, and two recycling/transfer stations. One of the stations is located within Spokane Valley at
3941 N. Sullivan Road south of Trent and across from the Spokane Industrial Park; the other is
located in north Spokane County at the intersection of Elk-Chattaroy Road and Highway 2.
Landfills are necessary to provide disposal for solid waste that cannot be recycled or incinerated, or
that exceeds the capacity of the WTE Facility. The Spokane County Regional Health District
licenses six privately owned landfills in Spokane County.
Level of Service
The minimum Regional Level of Service Standards requires solid waste services to meet all State
and Federal regulations.
Forecast of Future Needs
Spokane Valley is participating on the update of the Spokane County Waste Management Plan
(SCWMP). The SCWMP update process will determine future needs for solid waste disposal.
Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities
The updated Spokane County Solid Waste Management Plan will provide information on future
regional solid waste facilities.
Finance Plan
The updated Spokane County Solid Waste Management plan will include a financing plan for future
regional solid waste facilities.
4.4.15 Stormwater Facilities
Stormwater runoff in Spokane Valley flows to a combination of public and private facilities. In
developed areas, runoff infiltrates into the ground or flows down street gutters axis disposed
414ro- to drywells in public road rights-of-way, drywells on private property and grassy swales with
overflow drywells in easements on private property.
There are advantages and disadvantages to relying on on-site facilities for all stormwater
management. One advantage is that on-site facilities are typically constructed with private funds
and can be integrated into the development as a green space amenity. However, on-site facilities
are sometimes not well maintained. Their capacity may be diminished over time or they may fail
entirely during large runoff events. On-site facilities may take up large portions of a development
site,thereby reducing the effective density that can be accommodated in that area.
In 2004, the Spokane Valley City Council created a stormwater utility to develop and maintain storm
drainage systems on City owned island. To create revenues for the stormwater utility
operations, the Council adopted an annual fee per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). Residential
ERUs are based on the number of single-family dwellings, while Commercial ERUs are based on
the square footage of impervious surface associated with a business or commercial development.
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 47 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Inventory of Existing Facilities
Spokane Valley's inventory of stormwater facilities, most of which are integral to the safe function of
our street system, consists of about X997.200 drywells, 928 1900 bio-infiltration swales, six 61
detention ponds, and one retention pond. Other facilities include curb inlets, bridge drains, and
culverts, all of which require monitoring and maintenance. The retention pond, located at Dishman-
Mica Road. and 32nd Ave., was constructed as a part of a road project and provides a disposal point
for water flowing from Chester Creek. The inventory does not reflect stormwater structures located
on private properties that do not serve the public street drainage system.
Level of Service
The Spokane County Board of Commissioners adopted new regional level of service standards for
stormwater in 2004 as a part of the Countywide Planning Policies update_
"Flooding of property outside designated drainage-ways, defacto drainage-ways,
easements, flood zones or other approved drainage facilities, during the design
precipitation or runoff event prescribed in the standards of the governing local
agency or jurisdiction, shall be prevented within the reasonable probability afforded
by such standards. Impact to buildings and accessory structures shall be avoided to
the maximum extent practicable by evaluating the effects of a100 year rain event,
and implementing measures to ensure that the runoff attendant to such event is
directed away from such buildings and accessory structures. Any stormwater
discharge to surface or ground waters must meet federal, state and local
requirements for water quality treatment, stormwater runoff and infiltration."
The standards reflect current best practices that are established in adopted stormwater design
guidelines. Spokane Valley follows said guidelines in reviewing and approving new development
and is therefore in compliance with the regional LOS standards for stormwater runoff.
Forecast of Future Needs
Spokane Valley will continue to use private, on-site treatment facilities for new development and will
install drywells, swales and other facilities as needed for new street improvement projects.
Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities
Location and capacities of future facilities is dependent on the location and size of new
development, future public street projects, and projects that will address current problem areas
within the City. Future updates to this Capital Facilities Plan will incorporate capital programming
for stormwater facilities.
Capital Projects and Financing Plan
The City currently charges a $20$21 annual stormwater utility fee per Equivalent Residential Unit
(ERU) to generate revenues for stormwater facility engineering, maintenance and administration.
The stormwater fee is expected to generate$1.2$1.8 million annually.
Transportation Facilities
Inventory of Existing Facilities
This section of the Capital Facilities Plan includes transportation facilities within Spokane Valley,
including streets, bridges, pathways and sidewalks. Street maintenance is not included as a part of
the Capital Facilities Plan.
Spokane Valley is responsible for about 455 miles of public roads, including 51 miles of Urban
Principal Arterials, 61 miles of Urban Minor Arterials, 44 miles of Urban Collectors, and 298.85
miles of Local Access Streets. Table 4.36 provides a list of all arterial intersections within Spokane
Valley.
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 48 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Funding for the operation and expansion of the City's transportation system falls into several
categories, which include federal, state and city funds. Some sources consist of reliable annual
funds while others are periodic, such as grants. The use, availability and applicability of these
various sources are not always at the discretion of the City. Spokane Valley will develop a track
record with funding agencies as time goes on, which will help make to make more reliable funding
assumptions.
A summary of expected federal, state and local funding sources for the City's six year Capital
Improvement Program is shown in Table 4.39. The following is a summary of transportation
funding options.
Federal Assistance
These funds are authorized under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (SAFETEA-21) and are administered by the Federal Highway
Administration through Washington State Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (Spokane Regional Transportation Council). Federal funding programs
include Bridge Replacement (BR), Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) and the
Surface Transportation Program (STP).
State Assistance
The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board administers State transportation
programs, including the Urban Corridor Program (UCP), the Urban Arterial Program (UAP), and the
Sidewalk Program (SP).
City Funds
Spokane Valley contributes revenues from the General Fund and the Real Estate Excise Tax funds
for transportation projects. The City also receives State Motor Fuel Tax and Restricted State Fuel
Tax.
2048
item o.oje,.+Deser4pt o., Primary Olty Total
Source Amt Amount
4 Barker Road Bridge, 55 407
8 Broadway Ave 180 ft E.of Moore to Flora Unn 68 2,165
-3 Park Road #2(PE Only) Broadway to Indiana, STP(U) 31 216
4 Broadway Avenue Safety Project Pinec(SR 27)to Park Unn 167 831
• Indiana Ave Extension 3600'e/o Sullivan Rd to Mission&Flora 4dOP 261 1,871
6 Argonne Road 190 to Trent, OMAO 77 576
• Broadway/Sullivan Intersection PCG STA 253 1,230
8 Indiana/Sullivan Intersection PCG &TA 275 1,312
• _• - e-_ • _• _ _ e a a a STP(U) 10 298
44 Sullivan/Sprague Intersection PCG City 933 1,678
Other-Fed 2,000 1,000
48 Pavement Management Program Local Access Qty 2,000 2,000
43 STEP Paveback City 3,513 3,513
- - 2010 Totals: 9,708 20,493
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 61 of71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Table 4.38 Six-Year Transportation Capital Facilities and Financing Plan
2011
(dollars in thousands)
Item Project Description Primary Total
# _ Source Amount Amount
1 Park Road-#2(PE Onlv)-Broadway to Indiana. STP(U) 5 35
2 Indiana Ave Extension -3600'e/o Sullivan Rd to Mission&Flora UCP 53 375
3 Argonne Road-190 to Trent, CMAQ 101 713
4 Indiana/Sullivan Intersection PCC STA 249 1.216
5 Pines Corridor ITS:Sprague to Trent CMAQ 216 1,609
6 Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation (PE Only) Other Fed 0 1900
7 Broadway a Argonne/Mullan Intersections PCC(PE/RW Only) STP(U) 37 271
8 Mission Ave.-Flora to Barker(PE/RW Only) STP(U) 66 488
9 Pavement Management Program-Arterials Other Fed 2.000 4,000
10 Pavement Management Program-Local Access City 2.000 2,000
11 STEP Paveback City 602 602
12 Sullivan/Euclid PCC Intersection (PE/RW Only) STP(U) 22 163
13 Sullivan West Bridge BR 0 668
2011 Totals: 5,351 14,040
- - - •- _ - - - -- -
"
2011 - - - - - - -
Item .Profest-DaSar441.914. Primary 641} Total
4 - S^ e An t Amount
g Argonne Road 190 to Trent, GMAQ 101 713
4 Sullivan Road (PE only) Euclid to Wellesley STP(U) '10 298
44 Pavement Management Program Arterials Other FedR d 2,000 1,000
42 =• _e:••:• ' -- - • --- •--= City 2,000 2,000
43 STEP Paveback City 757 757
44 Pines Corridor ITS:Sprague to Trent GMAQ 280 2,081
4-5 Sullivan Road West Bridge 147 735
43 Mission Ave. Flora to Barker STP(U) 128 9'19
- - 2011 Totals: 5,453 11,533
Table 4.38 Six-Year Transportation Capital Facilities and Financing Plan
2012
(dollars in thousands)
hem Project Description Primary City Total
# _ Source Amount Amount
6 Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Se•aration PE On1 Other Fed 0 2 700
8 Mission Ave.-Flora to Barker(PE/RW Only) STP(U) 58 430
9 Pavement Management Program—Arterials Other Fed 2.000 4.000
10 Pavement Mana ement Pro ram-Local Access Cit 2 000 2 000
Sullivan West Bridge BR 0 1,435
Broadway Ave. Extension—Flora to Barker(PE Only1 City 265 265
Evergreen/32nd- 16th to 32nd,Evergreen to SR-27(PE Only) City 312 312
Park Road-#2(RW/CN Only)-Broadway to Indiana STP(U) I 135 1,000
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 62 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
17 Saltese/Sullivan Si.nal Develo.ers 62 250
18 Sullivan Rd.Corridor Traffic Study(1-90 to Wellesley) STP(U) 27 200
19 University Rd/I-90 Overpass Study STP(U) 34 250
20 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan Intersections PCC(CN Only) STP(U) 280 2.075
21 Sullivan/Euclid PCC Intersection(CN Only) STP(U) 169 1.253
2012 Totals: 5,342 16,170
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 63 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
2012
item Primary Oity Total
-# - Seu-ree A -t A .,,nt
_.o o• ,,,_•.e.:••:• ' __ _•• o _ Other-fed 2,000 4,000
42 Pavement Management Program Local Access City 2,000 2,000
1-5 Sullivan Road Wcst Bridge BR 147 735
46 ._. _ _ _ __ _ STP(U) 671 4,967
4; Park Road 17'2(CN Only) Broadway to Indiana STP(U) 262 1,912
48 litews4sla-RsasI--324d4e-8444 STP(U) 116 862
- - 2012 Totals: 5,196 14,506
Table 4.38 Six-Year Transportation Capital Facilities and Financing Plan
2013
(dollars in thousands)
Item Project Description Primary ay Total
# Source Amount Amount
9 Pavement Management Program-Arterials Other Fed 2 000 4 000
10 Pavement Management Pro.ram-Local Access Cit 2 000 2 000
13 Sullivan Road West Bridge BR 0 768
14 Broadway Ave. Extension-Flora to Barker(PE Only) City 265 265
15 Evergreen/32nd- 16th to 32nd,Evergreen to SR-27(PE Only) City 312 312
16 Park Road-#2(RW/CN Only)-Broadway to Indiana STP(U) 540 4,000
22 Mission Ave.-Flora to Barker(CN Only) STP(U) 536 3.969
2013 Totals: 5,653 15,314
2043
#t-ern Primary City Total
-# deu-r-ce Amount Amoun-t
44 Pavement Management Program Arterial& Other Fed 2,000 1,000
City —2000 X000
4-5 Sullivan Road West Bridge 13RR 1,300 6,500
4; Park Road 17'2(CN Only) Broadway to Indiana STP(U) 509 3,767
48 STP(U) 89 655
4-9 Park Road Bridging the Valley/BNSF Grade Separation Other Fed 31 750
20 Saltese/Sullivan Signet Developers 62 250
- - 2013 Totals: 5,991 17,922
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 64 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Table 4.38 Six-Year Transportation Capital Facilities and Financing Plan
2014
(dollars in thousands)
hem Project Description Primary City Total
# _ Source Amount Amount
9 Pavement Management Program-Arterials Other Fed 2.000 4,000
10 Pavement Mana•ement Pro•ram-Local Access Cit 2 000 2 000
13 Sullivan Road West Bridge BR 0 8,440
23 Barker Road-South City Limits to Appleway(PE Only) City 236 236
24 Bowdish Road-32nd to 8`"(PE Only' STP(U) 52 384
25 Broadway Ave. Extension-Flora to Barker(PE Only) UCP 100 500
26 Flora Road-Sprague to Mission (PE Only) City 216 216
27 Sidewalk Infill Program STP(E) 45 330
2014 Totals: 4.649 16.106
2044
tteru Primary City Total
4 - Source Amoun-t Amount
44 -.o o ..e.:••:• ' -- _•• o - Other Fed 2,000 —4440
14 Pavement Management Program Local Access City 2,000 2,000
4-5 Sullivan Road Wcst Bridgo BR 1,300 6,500
1-g _- - • ,e_- - •- - _ • STP(U) 1,051 7,782
49 Park Road Bridging the Valley/BNSF Grade Separation Other Fed 90 2,150
- _ - Developers 15 75
2014 Totals: --6 4-56 22,507
Table 4.38 Six-Year Transportation Capital Facilities and Financing Plan
2015
(dollars in thousands1
Item Project Description Primary City Total
# Source Amount Amount
9 Pavement Management Program-Arterials Other Fed 2,000 4,000
10 Pavement Mana•ement Program -Local Access Cit 2 000 2 000
13 Sullivan Road West Bridge BR 0 8,440
23 Barker Road-South City Limits to Appleway(PE Only) City 236 236
24 Bowdish Road-32nd to 8th(PE Only) STP(U) 52 384
25 Broadway Ave. Extension-Flora to Barker(RW/CN Only) UCP 100 500
26 Flora Road-S•ra•ue to Mission PE Onl Cit 216 216
27 Sidewalk Infill Program STP(E) 36 270
28 Ever•reen ITS Im•rovements CMAQ 17 126
Evergreen/32nd- 16th to 32nd,Evergreen to SR-27
29 (RW/CN Only) STP(U) 54 400
_ _ 2015 Totals: 4,711 16,572
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 65 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
2015
item Primary City Total
-# - Seine A euii4 Amount
1-1- _.o o __o _ ' __ _•• o _ Other Fed 2,000 4,000
42 Pavement Management Program Local Access City 2,000 2,000
49 - Pc.- = - - •- .. -. :.• _ - --- _-z.. - -• Oth Fed 286 6,809
21- -- ---= _- - -• - — - Davalspars 74 370
24 Appleway Extension University to Evergreen STP 6'1 205
23 =- = Pe—e' -- = _ - -= UAP 52 259
24 Mansfield Extension Pines(SR27)to 300 ft East of Houk Rd UAL' 73 —347
24 Sullivan Road (RW/CN only) Euclid to Wellesley STP(U) 51 100
24 -. - -- ' _ -- -- City 55 55
2; Trent(SR290) Del Ray to Barker Turn Lana Developers 133 532
28- Park I Sprague Intersection PCG STP(P) 19 138
29 __ _, _ -__ _ _ • • CMAQ 150 1,106
39 Citywide ITS Improvements CMAQ- 95 700
3-1- Evergreen/32nd 16th to 32nd,Evergreen to SR 27 STP(U) 161 1,215
- - 2015 Totals: 5,219 18,158
Table 4.38 Six-Year Transportation Capital Facilities and Financing Plan
2016
(dollars in thousands1
Item Project Description Primary City Total
# Source Amount Amount
9 Pavement Management Program-Arterials Other Fed 2.000 4.000
10 Pavement Management Program-Local Access Cit 2 000 2 000
25 Broadway Ave. Extension—Flora to Barker(RW/CN Only) UCP 812 4.062
27 Sidewalk Infill Program STP(E) 162 1,200
28 Evergreen ITS Improvements CMAQ 79 582_
Evergreen/32nd- 16th to 32nd.Evergreen to SR-27
29 (RW/CN Only) STP(U) 647 4.791
30 A..lewa Extension-Universit to Evergreen STP 127 406
31 Greenacres Trail Planning Study(Sullivan Rd.to Liberty Lake) STP(E) 28_ 210_
32 Mansfield Extension-Pines(SR27)to 300-ft East of Houk Rd City 136 136
33 Millwood Urban Trail-Fancher Rd.to Evergreen Rd. STP(E) 59 439
34 Park Rd/BNSF Grade Separation Other Fed. 31 750
35 Sullivan Rd ITS. Broadway to 24th CMAQ 183 1.356
2016 Totals: 6,264 19,932
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 66 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Seoure4Prejests Plan-necl-Prejests Totals
Ye4 €edefal State Other City •Tetat •Federal State Other Oity Te4al Federal State Other 0 Tetal
$3953 $3,825 $2,905 $2,166 449459 42404 49 $4 $7,513 $9,513 44953 43424 $2,005 497749 $20,493
2011 $2,671 $9 49 $421 $3,002 53,409 $4 $4 0432 4844 $6084 $0 $4 $5,453 $11,533
2012 44 44 44 $4 $4 587248 $4 $4 $5;-1-94 $44,4g4 $9,310 $4 $4 44494 $11,506
2013 44 44 44 $4 $4 S11,388 $348 $225 $5,991 $17,922 $11,388 S318 5225 $5,991 $17,922
2444 49 49 44 $4 $4 S11,976 $911 $164 $6,156 $22,507 $11,976 59-14 S161 $6456 $22,507
2045 49 49 49 49 49 58-477 43,349 $1,025 $5 $18,102 $8,4-# $3389 5025 $572-4 S18,102
Tatars 4424 43428 $2,905 $2,587 4147042 $497469 44764 S1,114 4357429 494924 $51,281. $8,114 $1,319 $38,016 $105,063
Table 4.39 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program Summary 2011 through 2016(in$1,0002
Secured Proiects Planned Projects Totals
rear Federal State Other Total Federal State Other C Total Federal State Other Total
12011 $2,832 $282 $1,007 $749 $4,870 $4,339 $134 95 $4,602 $9,170 $7,171 $416 $1,102 $5,351 $14,040
12012 372 $0 $0 $58 $430 $9.846 $287 $323 $5.284 $15.740 $10.218 287 323 $5.342 $16.170
2013 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9.507 $154 $0 $5.653 $15.314 $9.507 $154 50 $5.653 $15.314
12014 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9.369 $2.088 $0 $4.649 $16.106 $9.369 $2.088 $0 $4.649 $16.106
2015 §0 $9,773 $2,088 Q $4,711 $16,572 $9,773 $2,088 §0 $4,711 $16,572
2016 51 50 50 $10,057 $3,574 37 $6,264 $19,932 $10,057 $3,574 37 $6,264 $19,932
ats 3 204 282 11007 807 11300 §5/M §113 25 455 §31' §9/ :1 §5C 95 8 607 §31M 98 134
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 67 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Project-Name Xatal-Cost
32nd Avenue Evergreen to Reconstruct and widen to three lanes with
hest curbs and sidewalks. 2,237.00
8th Avenue Phase 1 Carnahan '-_e- __ a - • -. e - - -- --- -_
to Havana with curb, gutter, sidewalks and bike lanes. 3,183.00
8th Avenue Phase 2 Park to Reconstruct 8th Ave. to a three lane section
Dickoy with curb, guttor, cidowalkc and biko lanoc. 5,120.00
8th Avenue Phase 3 Dickey to Reconstruct 8th Ave_to a three lane section
Carnahan 4,667-00
Apploway Extoncion Evorgroon Extond Apploway Blvd.with a multi lano
to Tshirlcy facility including curbs and sidewalks. 13,219.00
Reconstruct to 3 lane roadway w/center
turn lane, sidewalks,curb&gutter and
- ___ _ • - •-_ _ - stermwater 5,175.00
Barker Road Spokane River to
Trcnt Reconstruct to a 2 lane curbed arterial 6430,00
Intersections PCC -__ • - _ __ -1-,556.00
Broadway Ave Flora to Barkcr Reconstruct to 3 lanes, Flora to Barker 64,-00
Carnahan Truck Lane 8th to
City Limits, Add SB truck Lane to road 5,973.00
Euclid Ave/Flora Rd Flora
Euclid to Euclid, Euclid Flora to Reconstruct to provide a 2 lane, shouldered
Barker arterial 5,10840
- - Pe-- -- .e.- e - P--e- - - - - - --- - 5,175.00
Kiernan&Sullivan PCC Reconstruct Intersection in PCC 1,350.00
Reconstruct and widen to a standard three
Broadway lane arterial street with curbs and sidewalks 4,24-4,04
Pines Corridor ITS: Sprague to _ _ _ _ _ -
16th 785.00
Improvements to intersection (Dual lane
SR27/Pines/16th Intersection Roundabout) 3,189.00
Univoreity/Spraguo Intorcoction Roplaco asphalt pavomont with portland
PCC 1,612.00
TOTAL - 74,47-7410
_Table 4.40 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program 2010 Through 2015(in $1,000)
Pro-ects without Local Match within Existin• Resources
Pro-ect Name Pro-ect Desch*bon Total Cost
32nd Avenue- Evergreen to Reconstruct and widen to three lanes with
Best curbs and sidewalks. 2.237.00
8th Avenue Phase 1-Carnahan Reconstruct 8th Ave. to a three-lane section
to Havana with curb 'utter sidewalks and bike lanes. 3 483.00
8th Avenue Phase 2- Park to Reconstruct 8th Ave. to a three-lane section
Dickey with curb, gutter, sidewalks and bike lanes. 5.120.00
8th Avenue Phase 3- Dickey to Reconstruct 8th Ave. to a three-lane section
Carnahan with curb 'utter sidewalks and bike lanes. 4 667.00
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 68 of 71
City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Appleway Extension- Evergreen Extend Appleway Blvd.with a multi-lane
to Tshirley facility including curbs and sidewalks. 13,219.00
Reconstruct to 3-lane roadway w/center
turn lane,sidewalks, curb&gutter and
Barker Road-8th to A.•lewa stormwater 5 475.00
Barker Road-Spokane River to
Trent Reconstruct to a 2-lane curbed arterial 6,530.00
Broadway(Argonne/Mullan
Intersections PCC Reconstruct intersections in PCC 1,556.00
Broadway Ave- Flora to Barker Reconstruct to 3-lanes, Flora to Barker 6.824.00
Carnahan Truck Lane-8th to
City Limits. Add SB truck Lane to road 5.973.00
Euclid Ave/Flora Rd - Flora
Euclid to Euclid, Euclid Flora to Reconstruct to provide a 2-lane, shouldered
Barker arterial 5.408.00
Flora Road -Sprague to Mission Reconstruct&widen to 3-lane roadway 5,175.00
Kiernan&Sullivan PCC Reconstruct Intersection in PCC 1,350.00
Park Road -#3- Sprague to Reconstruct and widen to a standard three-
Broadway lane arterial street with curbs and sidewalks 4,244.00
Pines Corridor ITS: Sprague to
16th Traffic Si•nal Control S stem for Corridor 785.00
Improvements to intersection (Dual lane
SR27/Pines/16th Intersection Roundabout) 3,189.00
University/Sprague Intersection Replace asphalt pavement with portland
PCC cement concrete •avement. 1 642.00
TOTAL _ 76,877.00
Potential Annexation Areas/Urban Services
The Growth Management Act requires that counties designate urban growth areas (UGAs). The City of
Spokane Valley identified lands adjacent to the City within existing UGAs that would likely be developed
for urban uses and potentially be annexed to the City. In order to assess the need for capital facilities, the
City has identified existing service providers within the Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs). This
assessment should help identify the effects a potential annexation area will have on existing levels of
service.
Table 4.41 Existing Urban Service Providers within Potential Annexation Areas(PAAs)
PAAs Northwood Northeast East Southeast South Ponderosa Edgecliff
Domestic Water Pasadena Park Consolidated Consolidated Vera Vera S.C.W.D.No.3 East Spokane
Hutton Settlement Consolidated S.C.W.D.No.3
Fire&Emergency Services F.D.No.1&9 F.D.No.1 F.D.No.1 F.D.No.1&8 F.D.No.1&8 F.D.No.8 F.D.No.1&8
Law Enforcement Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County
Libraries S.C.Library Dist. S.C.Library Dist. S.C.Library Dist. S.C.Library Dist. S.C.Library Dist. S.C.Library Dist. S.C.Library Dist.
Parks&Open Space Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County
Public Schools W.V.S.D.&S.D.81 E.V.S.D C.V.S.D. C.V.S.D. C.V.S.D. C.V.S.D. W.V.S.D.&S.D.81
Public Transit Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available
Sanitary Sewer Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Not Sewered Spokane County
Solid Waste/Recycle Waste Mgmt. Waste Mgmt. Waste Mgmt. Waste Mgmt. Waste Mgmt. Waste Mgmt. Waste Mgmt.
Storm water Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County
Street Cleaning Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County
Transportation Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County Spokane County
Adopted April 25, 2006 (Updated 04-27-2010) Chapter 4- Capital Facilities
Page 69 of 71
(111'
Spo OI'kane
,,„„,„::„:„,,,,:,,
Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106•Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000•Fax:509.921.1008•cityhall @spokanevalley.org
_. w_a.i;. .xx.acat.. .. .x,s�.�sme�r.;.,n yr,a's .<w,, c...a:• ., z:-..o; ,.er...r.: ,e a :a' :'sue«„�Mr
Memorandum
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: John Carroll,Chair-Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Date: March 10,2011
Re: Planning Conimission Findings and Recommendation:
CPA-01-11—Private Amendment for Sprague and Progress
CPA-04-11 —Chapter 2,Laud Use,Text and Land Use Map
CPA-05-11—Chapter 3,Transportation,Bike and Ped Map
CPA-06-11 —Chapter 4,Capital Facilities,Text and Water District,Fire District
and 6-year Sewer Maps
CPA-07-11—Chapter 7,Economic Development,Development Activity Map
CPA-08-11 —Chapter 8,Natural Environment,Wildlife Map and FEMA Map
BACKGROUND
On February 24, 2011, the Planning Commission was briefed on the 2011 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments (CPAs). The PIanning Commission received public testimony on CPA-01-11 through
CPA-08-11, The Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing to March 10, 2011 to accept
additional public testimony and for deliberations.
After receiving public testimony and deliberating on the proposed amendments, the Planning
Commission developed recommendations to City Council on the 2011 CPAs. City Council may
choose to adopt the individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission,
disapprove the amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to modify a
proposal, they mnst either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning
Commission for further consideration.
All parts of the Comprehensive Plan can be amended during the annual cycle. The Community
Development Department received two requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments
for 2011. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will automatically receive a zoning
designation consistent with the new land use designation.
The 2011 Comprehensive Plan text amendments include amendments to five Comprehensive Plan
Elements: Chapter 2 -Land Use, Chapter 3 —Transportation, Chapter 4—Capital Facilities and Public
Services,Chapter 7—Economic Development, and Chapter 8—Natural Environment. The amendments
may also entail minor changes to other elements referencing the proposed amendments.
The Planning Commission's findings and recommendation on CPA-0I-11 through CPA-08-1 I are
summarized below:
1 of 4
FINDINGS
1. Notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on February
4, 2011 and each site was posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing"sign, with a description of the
proposal.
2. Individual notice of the site-specific map amendment proposals were mailed to all property
owners within 400 feet of each affected site.
3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA—RCW 43.21C)environmental checklists
were required for each proposed comprehensive plan map and text amendment.
4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and a threshold determination was made for each
comprehensive plan amendment. Optional Determinations of Non-significance (DNS) were
issued for the requested comprehensive plan amendments on February 4,2011.
5. The DNS's were published in the City's official newspaper on February 4, 2011 consistent with
Spokane Valley Municipal Code,Title 21,Environmental Controls.
6. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 24, 2011, to
consider the proposed amendments.
7. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 10, 2011. to
accept additional public testimony and for deliberations.
8. After hearing public testimony, the Commission made recommendations on CPA-01-11 through
CPA-08-11. Detailed findings and conclusions specific to the comprehensive plan amendments
can be found in the individual staff reports for CPA-01-11 and CPA-04-11 through CPA-08-11,
or in the attached exhibits for CPA-02-11 and CPA-03-11.
RECOMMENDATION
File No.: CPA-01-11
Description of proposal: Privately initiated, site specific comprehensive plan map amendment to
change the designation on parcels 45231.0109, 45231.0210,45231.0211, 45231.0212, 45231.0213,
45231.0214, 45231.0216, 45231.0218, 45231.0224, 45231.0226, 45231.0114 and 45231.0215 from
Mixed Use Avenue to Neighborhood Center with a corresponding zoning change from Mixed Use
Avenue (MUA) to Neighborhood Center(NCT). This proposal is considered a non-project action
under RCW 43.21C.
Proponent: Dwight Hume
Location of Proposal: The subject properties are located on the southeast corner of Progress Road
and Sprague Avenue; further located in the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 23,
Township 25 North,Range 44 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane County,Washington.
PC Recommendation: Change to Neighborhood Center(NCT) and zone to Neighborhood Center
(NCT)
File No.: CPA-02-11
Description of Proposal: Privately initiated site specific comprehensive plan map amendment on
parcel 45174.2102 from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential with a
corresponding zoning change from Single Family Residential District(R-3) to Multifamily Medium
Density Residential District (MF-1). This proposal is considered a non-project action under RCW
43.21C.
Proponent: Ann Martin,Heylman Martin Architects
Location of Proposal: The proposed site is located at 503 North Walnut Road; further located in
the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 17, Township 25 North, Range 44 East,
Willamette Meridian, Spokane County,Washington.
2 of 4
PC Recommendation: Deny the proposed privately initiated site specific comprehensive plan map
amendment, leaving the subject property with the Low Density Residential (LDR) designation and
corresponding zoning of Single Family Residential District (R-3). Separate Findings and
Recommendations for this amendment follow this report.
File No.: CPA-03-11
Description of proposal: City initiated comprehensive plan amendment to remove the entire
Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP) and associated zoning designations and
return those areas to the City of Spokane Valley zoning in effect on October 15, 2009. Associated
Comprehensive Plan and Development Code text Amendments necessary to remove all reference
to the Subarea Plan are also considered.
Proponent: City of Spokane Valley
Location of Proposal: Generally, the plan area consists of approximately 1000 acres of properties
lining along and located in between the Sprague Ave. and the Appleway Boulevard rights-of-way,
and extending west from Interstate 90 to just east of Sullivan Road. The area generally lies
between E. Main Ave.JE Riverside Ave. to the north and E.451 Ave. to the south.
PC Recommendation: Retain the Sprague and Appleway Revitalization Plan and continue
with a public process to identify what components of the Plan are supported by the community.
Sepoarate Findings and Recommendations for this amendment follow this report
File No.: CPA-04-11
Description of proposal: Chapter 2—Land Use: City initiated comprehensive plan amendments
will update Table 2.1, Spokane Valley UGA Land Capacity Analysis, to reflect new population
numbers within the City of Spokane Valley; will update Map 2.1, Land Use, to display land use
designation changes approved through the 2011 amendment process.
Applicant: City of Spokane Valley, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Ste 106,Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Amendment Location: Text amendments to Chapter 2 — Land Use will have citywide
implications.
PC Recommendation: Adopt amendments to Chapter 2—Land Use as proposed by staff.
File No.: CPA-05-11
Chapter 3 — Transportation: City initiated comprehensive plan amendment will update Map 3.2,
Bike and Pedestrian System,to display newly developed bike and pedestrian infrastructure.
Amendment Location: Text amendments to Chapter 3 — Transportation will have citywide
iinpl ications.
PC Recommendation: Adopt amendments to Chapter 3—Transportation as proposed by staff.
File No.: CPA-06-11
Chapter 4 —Capital Facilities and Public Services: City initiated comprehensive plan amendments
will incorporate changes in the 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) into the Capital
Facilities Plan to ensure consistency; will update special purpose district's and other city service
provider's facility and service data;will add capital projects such as city hall,parks, and public works
storage facility to be included for the use of REET funding; will update Maps 4.1, 4.2, and 4.5 to
reflect the latest capital facilities and public services; will update the growth assumptions to reflect
population allocation numbers approved by the Spokane County Board of Commissioners.
Amendment Location: Text amendments to Chapter 4—Capital Facilities and Public Services will
have citywide implications.
PC Recommendation: Adopt amendments to Chapter 4---Capital Facilities and Public Services as
proposed by staff.
File No.: CPA-07-11
3 of 4
Chapter 7 — Economic Development: City initiated comprehensive plan amendment will update
Map 7.1 to display new building permits and land use actions in the 2010 development cycle.
Amendment Location: Text amendments to Chapter 7 — Economic Development will have
citywide implications.
PC Recommendation: Adopt amendments to Chapter 7—Economic Development as proposed by
staff.
File No.: CPA-08-11
Chapter 8 —Natural Environment: City initiated comprehensive plan amendment will update Map
8.3 to display the field inventory work done in conjunction with DNR to update stream typing in
Spokane Valley and update Map 8.4 to display the latest Federal Insurance Rating Map(FIRM)data.
Amendment Location: Text amendments to Chapter 8—Natural Environment will have citywide
implications.
PC Recommendation: Adopt amendments to Chapter 8 —Natural Environment as proposed by
staff.
ADOPTION OF FINDINGS: The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact
(Sections 17.80.140) when recommending changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Each staff report
contains findings applicable to the particular request. At the conclusion of the hearing for the
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, the Planning Commission, by separate motion, adopted the
findings of fact contained in the staff reports for CPA-01-11 and CPA-04-11 through CPA-08-11,and
in the attached exhibits for CPA-02-11 and CPA-03-11.
Approved his 10`h day of March,2011
/ //'‘'ll'A i.1.--
gym G.Carroll,Chair
ity of Spokane Valley Planning Commission
4of4
Exhibit 3
Spokane Valley Planning.Commission
Final Minutes
Council Chambers— City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
March 10, 2011
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
III. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Bates, Carroll, Hall, Mann, Stoy and Woodard were present.
Commissioner Sands was absent.
Staff attending the meeting: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director; Cary
Driskell, Acting City Attorney; Scott Kuhta, Planner Manager; Mike Basinger, Senior
Planner; Lori Barlow, Associate Planner; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Dean
Grafos, Councilmember; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Woodard made a motion to approve the March 10, 2011 agenda as
presented. This motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioner Carroll and Commissioner Woodard stated they had attended the City
Council meetings.
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Director McClung reported there would not be a meeting on March 24, however at the
April 14 and April 28 meetings staff would be providing training for the
Commissioners which will be open to the public.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Old Business: Continued Public Hearing on the City's Annual Comprehensive
Plan Amendments, Senior Planner Mike Basinger:
Chair Carroll confirmed that Commissioner Stoy had listened to the recording from
the February 24, 2011 meeting. Chair Carroll stated the public hearing, which had
been continued from the February 24, 2011 meeting, would continue after a staff
report from the Senior Planner,Mike Basinger.
03-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 11
Mr. Basinger gave a brief staff report on each of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendments:
CPA-O1-11: This amendment is a privately initiated site-specific map amendment
located at Sprague and Progress. The request is to change the Comprehensive Plan
designation to Neighborhood Commercial, Staff has also recommended adding two
parcels which are adjacent to these in order to not leave pockets of alternatively
zoned land surrounded by another zoning district. This amendment however will
not be necessary if CPA-03-11 were to be moved forward as requested.
CPA-02-11: This is a privately initiated site specific map amendment located at 503
N Walnut Road. This amendment is being proposed by St. John Vianney Catholic
Parish. This parcel is currently a parking lot serving the church. The request is to
change this parcel from low density residential to medium density residential, Mr
Basinger stated that at the last meeting when the question came up as to whether or
not Valleyway would have to be developed to become a through street. Mr.
Basinger stated that after a discussion with Development Engineering, at the time of
development the property owner would be required to dedicate an easement to the
City for future development; however, it would require redevelopment of the
property to the south in order for a complete street to be put in,
CPA-03-11: This amendment is council initiated to remove the Sprague and
Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. This proposed amendment is remove the area in
the Subarea Plan from the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code. All
areas will be returned to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations as they
were at the time the plan was adopted in October of 2007.
CPA-04-11: This is a staff initiated amendment, Chapter 2— Land Use: Table 2.1,
Spokane Valley UGA Land Capacity Analysis, will reflect new population numbers
within the City of Spokane Valley. Map 2.1, Land Use, will display land use
designation changes approved through the 2011 amendment process.
CPA-05-11: This is a staff initiated amendment, Chapter 3 --- Transportation: Map
3.2, Bike and Pedestrian System, will display newly developed bike and pedestrian
infrastructure.
CPA-06-11: This is a staff initiated amendment, Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and
Public Services: Amendments will incorporate changes in the 6-year
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) into the Capital Facilities Plan to ensure
consistency. Amendments will update special purpose district's and other city
service provider's facility and service data. Capital projects such as city hall, parks,
and public works storage facility will be included for the use of REET funding.
Maps 4.1, 4.2, and 4.5 will display updates to reflect the latest capital facilities and
public services. Amendments will also update the growth assumptions to reflect
population allocation numbers approved by the Spokane County Board of
Commissioners. Mr. Basinger pointed out that if projects are not included in the
Comprehensive Plan then the REET funds cannot be used for them.
03-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 11
CPA-07-11: This is a staff initiated amendment, Chapter 7 — Economic
Development: Map 7.1 will display new building permits and land use actions in
the 2010 development cycle.
CPA-08-11: This is the last amendment and also staff initiated, Chapter 8 —Natural
Environment: Map 8.3 will display the field inventory work done in conjunction
with DNR to update stream typing in Spokane Valley. Map 8A was also updated to
reflect the new FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
Director McClung introduced Acting City Attorney Cary Driskell who would be
explaining a memo the Commissioners received regarding laws which affect
religious facilities. Mr. Driskell stated the memo was addressing if the City had
authority to deny a religious institution's request for a rezone if the institution
wishes to build a multifamily housing near its own facility for low-income and
senior living in order to fulfill its religious mission. Mr. Driskell stated there was a
Federal law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA) which prohibits land use and zoning laws where it substantially burdens
the religious exercise of churches and other religious assemblies or institutions,
unless the implementation of that is the least restrictive means of doing so. In
simple terms the City would look to see if the requested action was within the
mission statement of the religious facility and if it is then that would be the answer
to the question if the City would be able to deny the action, Mr. Driskell went on to
state that the courts have looked at this subject and ruled that assisting the needy is
within the mission statements of the churches. Mr Driskell also stated that in
Washington, the Court has held that the Constitutional protections for free exercise
of religion are not limited to houses of worship, but extend to church facilities
intimately associated with the church's religious mission. As such, it is likely that a
religious institution could establish that prohibiting the religious institution from
building housing for low-income and senior citizens would present a substantial
burden on its religious exercise. In short Mr. Driskell stated that if it is in the
church's mission statement then the local authority does not have the right to deny a
rezone, such as the one that has been requested. Commissioners asked questions of
the Acting City Attorney regarding the strength of the law, rights of neighbors,
whether it was a' can't prohibit'or a `shouldn't prohibit'. Mr. Driskell stated that
the laws did not give more rights to the church just granted different rights to
religious institutions and that the City shouldn't deny the requested action.
Karla Kaley, 10516 E Main: Ms. Kaley stated she was speaking against the
removal of Subarea Plan, CPA-03-11. Ms. Kaley stated she had lived in other
communities and had seen what short sighted planning can do. Ms. Kaley stated
she hoped to encourage and inspire the Commission to do the right thing. Ms.
Kaley stated that this area is ripe for growth and development. By the year 2013
and Federal government standards, this area could become the 4th the largest
metropolitan area in the country. This metro area should be in line for new money,
the Subarea Plan is currently the only vehicle to direct our growth, Ms. Kaley
stated, Ms. Kaley said it is a cultural and an economic plan. Ms. Kaley shared that
in 2003 the citizens of this area thought they could do a better job than the county,
so they incorporated and became a city. Citizens must have enough energy and stay
03-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 11
the course, she shared. The Subarea Plan is not responsible for the economy and
decline of this area. Ms. Kaley stated that she felt that indecision, lack of planning,
and ineffective leadership were the problems. Ms. Kaley also shared in times like
these it is important to remember there have always been times like these, Ms.
Kaley said please do not let fear mongering drive this decision, this is alarmist and
unnecessarily paralyzing. Ms. Kaley said that doing the right thing does not always
mean you always win, get recognized or even cut off your feet in the end and throw
out your had work, but sometimes it means going on the record trying to do the
right thing, supporting having a planning effort. There is no other plan there is no
other road map or direction for our city to grow. The general mixed use zoning is
not the answer said Ms. Kaley, Please consider to move forward with a concerted
coordinated planning effort, maybe provide a modified recommendation, or suggest
some alternatives, but to throw the plan out is irresponsible and reckless especially
in the absence of a substitute. Please do the right thing Ms, Kaley requested.
Diana Wilhite, PO Box 14932: Ms. Wilhite is speaking in favor of the Subarea
Plan. Ms. Wilhite stated that she thought everyone was aware that she worked on
the Subarea Plan. Ms. Wilhite stated that in hindsight maybe the council had bit off
more than it could chew. Ms. Wilhite also stated she did not feel that throwing the
entire Subarea Plan out was the best thing to do. She said there are some good
elements of it, it should be looked at, move forward with those. She also said she
understood that once the City gets rid of plan, there is no plan for growth and
economic development. Ms. Wilhite wanted to clarify that during the time the
Council was adopting the Subarea Plan people thought we were talking about a 42
million dollar plan. She said people thought the City was going to go out and spend
$42 million right away. Ms. Wilhite stated she was a small business owner and she
understood making priorities and spending $42 million right off the get go was not
part of the plan. But we did have a plan and what we asked for in that plan was if
we did everything in the plan, how much would it cost. Council did think that was
quite a bit of motley, and they never expect to pay that right away. One of the
things Council did discuss doing soon was turning Sprague back to two-way. Ms.
Wilhite stated that it was estimated to cost $2.7 million to turn Sprague back to a
two-way street from University to Argonne. Ms. Wilhite stated she has talked to
other small business owners, like herself, and they have told her the one-way street
has impacted their businesses. Ms. Wilhite said that she understands that people
compare Ruby and Division couplet. She said you have to think about that couplet,
that couplet has streets every block. We don't have that, we have few cross streets.
Ms, Wilhite said we need to think about helping our business. Ms. Wilhite said, she
understood that $2.7 million was a lot of money, but that she knew the staff and
they would work to be able to come up with it. She said she knew the City could
change it back with signals and striping. Ms. Wilhite said she had heard people say
they did not want to make Appleway a two-way street but you cannot have one one-
way street, unless you have a corresponding street going the other way. It could be
possible tto make Appleway a two-way street possibly with a higher speed limit to
make the people who wanted to get home faster happier. There are less egresses
into the road now, leave the businesses to develop on Sprague. Ms. Wilhite stated
that a business, like Trader Joe's will not build on a one-way street like ours. Ms.
03-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 11
Wilhite also stated that a national site selector was recently in the City and stated he
would not locate on Sprague because there are too many vacant buildings, traffic
flow is only going one-way, they needed two-way traffic, Ms. Wilhite asked that if
it was necessary to eliminate the plan, what pieces of it could be retained, like the
two-way so it can be discussed and see how it can help the businesses.
Susan Scott, 205 S Evergreen: Ms. Scott is spoke in favor of the elimination of
the Subarea Plan. Ms. Scott stated that the need for the Subarea Plan had been
based on county zoning from 2003, Ms. Scott said that the Comprehensive Plan
and the 2007 zoning addressed the retail surplus and introduced the Mixed Use zone
concept. Ms. Scott said she did not think that this zoning was given a chance to
work before the Subarea Plan meetings were begun. Ms. Scott stated that the
Subarea Plan was written to underwrite the deficits in the location of the city
center, without a city center, Ms. Scott feels the City doesn't need the Subarea
Plan. Ms. Scott feels the corridor has been in an upheaval for too long for many
reasons, one of them being the Subarea Plan. Ms. Scott asked to have the Plan
revoked and for the City to return to the 2007 zoning.
Philip Rudy, 5647 N Fruithill Dr, 720 N Argonne: Dr. Rudy spoke in favor of
retaining the Subarea Plan. Dr. Rudy stated he would like to see Sprague and
Appleway be turned to two-way all the way from freeway, for environmental,
economic and neighborhood reasons. Dr, Rudy stated that two way helps retail, if
you have one-way and the cars are all going past the businesses and if you miss
your turn you cannot get back due to the absence of cross streets. Dr Rudy
explained that one-way roads impact neighborhoods, using Winco and Farr road as
an example. If a motorist misses the turn off for Winco, they travel to University
and back down 4th Ave, a small quiet neighborhood to get back to the store, or got
to Argonne, Broadway or Valleyway and down Farr, though the neighborhood, Dr.
Rudy also talked about how the old zoning would have made a problem for him
when he wanted to build on property he owned on Sprague Ave and how it would
not have been allowed then but the Subarea Plan would have allowed his wishes.
Dr Rudy stated he thought the City should consider allowing people to have
Subarea Plan zoning if they would want to. Dr. Rudy stated the most important
issue is the two-way.
Chuck Simpson, 9003 E Cataldo, 9 N Argonne: Mr. Simpson stated he was
speaking as a citizen in support of keeping the Subarea Plan. Mr. Simpson stated
that the City needed to get Sprague involved and to become active. Mr. Simpson
also stated he felt the need for a focus point, library, community center, or a city
hall, but it needed something to identify the area. Mr. Simpson stated that the
Subarea Plan should only be a block or two. As an engineer, Mr. Simpson feels the
type of building and location should be determined by site topography and the
developer. Mr. Simpson stated it is difficult to get around on the one way streets.
Mr. Simpson stated he has heard that major firms will not build on a one-way, if
this is true then consideration should be given to changing the roads so that we can
get more businesses back on Sprague.
Eldonna Shaw, 13805 E 28th: Ms. Shaw stated that although she might normally
be speaking for a group, however this evening she is speaking as a citizen, a
03-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 11
residential property owner. Ms. Shaw stated she was concerned about the
community growing and property values holding. Ms. Shaw said the City is no
longer the 7t largest city but the IOtt`, could it be because we are not the community
of choice, this is also a concern. Ms Shaw stated that our community is not the
most attractive and the area between University and the freeway west bound. Ms.
Shaw stated that this is not going to stop being an urban community, not going to
stop being a city. Ms. Shaw explained if the business community was not able to
maintain the tax base, it would fall on the residential property owners. Ms, Shaw
stated that the residents of this City can't wear blinders, and the City cannot
continue to grow with no plan. She said that what you see on Sprague Ave. now
had been developed without a plan. Ms. Shaw stated we need to think about the
future, we need a plan. We need a city we can be proud of. We need the core of
our city to be healthy, a place where people want to invest money. Ms. Shaw said
the City needs progressive thinking about our future.
Richard Belem, 9405 E Sprague Ave: Mr. Belun spoke in favor of keeping the
Subarea Plan. Mr Behm stated businesses are having a hard time surviving the one-
way street. Mr. Behm said he was glad when the Council re-visited each of the
zones made changes to accommodate. Mr. Behm said if the Subarea Plan is
eliminated, Sprague will continue decline. Mr. Behm stated he felt that the present
council and a few other people have driven this request. Mr. Behm asked that the
City survey the citizens. He said many citizens do not understand what is actually
going on. Many citizens think the Subarea Plan only has to do with the one-way
two-way issue, Mr. Belun feels that having a plan in place and modifying it, is
better than no plan at all. Mr. Behn suggested that it could be possible for
Appleway to become an expressway, with limited access. Mr. Behm said that
promises from the County were not kept, regarding how the one-way road came to
be, this lead to the business supporting the incorporation the City. The Spokane
Valley Business Associate had a study done by Gonzaga to show the decline of the
corridor since the installation of the one-way system. He said big businesses will
not locate on one-way streets. Mr. Behm said that the City needs a long range plan,
if not the Subarea Plan, then what.
Mike King, 9300 E. Sprague: Mr. King was speaking in favor of keeping the
Subarea Plan. Mr. King stated that the Subarea Plan is designed around the city
center, a core, it should be a place for families and a place the City can be proud of,
without a City Center there is no heart, and no soul. Mr. King said that some
business did not like the Plan, he thought the City could find places to could change
instead of throwing out. The Plan is pliable and be molded with the climate, He
said the City should not eliminate it, it is a plan, with no other plan, you start
eliminating business. He said when you begin to eliminate businesses you eliminate
the tax base, and government has to be fed. Mr. King added without the business
the residents will have to pay the difference. Mr. King also feels that the one-way
kiss of death for businesses. Mr. King said he did a comprehensive study a year
ago of the area between University and Argonne, and found there was 100 years of
vacancies on this part of the corridor since the one-way was put in, as a way to
funnel traffic around the freeway. Mr. King shared that in the last two weeks he
had been made aware of 2 major business will not move into the valley because of
03-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 11
the one-way on Sprague and the decline of the corridor, Without a plan, Sprague
will continue to decline, taxes will decline to the benefit of people who want to get
some place faster and want the two-way. Mr. King said we need a plan, we can
change it mold it but don't just give it up.
Marie Raschko-Soko, 2010 S Sunrise Rd: Ms Raschko-Soko was speaking in
favor of CPA-02-11. Ms. Raschko-Soko said that the church was a good neighbor,
the auditorium was built in 1949 and the church and school was built in 1953, the
new church was built in 1988. Ms Raschko-Soko stated she felt that the church has
a good history in the neighborhood. She also shared some sales information of the
homes on Walnut and Fan., stating that 60% residents had moved in since 2000.
Ms. Raschko-Soko said that the church is concerned about the neighborhood, it
wants to partner with the neighbors. Ms. Raschko-Soko stated that she felt that a
mistake the church made was it did not provide good community education. The
church wants to provide senior housing, it is a part of the church's mission as a
catholic church to provide services to the elderly, the frail and vulnerable. Ms.
Raschko-Soko said that the elderly is the fastest growing population in the nation
today, most are living in senior housing. Many thought that they would not be in
these circumstances to require they type of housing. It is our belief as a parish,
that a residential neighborhood is an ideal place for senior housing, it will also
provide inter-generationalized activities with the school, which they are already
doing but leaving the property to do now,
Patricia Wardian, 12022 E 4th Ave: Ms. Wardian spoke favor of CPA-02-11.
Ms. Wardian stated she has been member since it was founded, She feels that this
project would be a benefit to the neighborhood and to the children.
Mavourneen Daspit, 505 n Farr Rd.: Ms. Daspit spoke in favor of CPA-02-11,
Ms. Daspit stated she and her husband are members of the neighborhood and
church, and she works at the church, Ms. Daspit stated that the church has a policy
of helping the needy whether they are catholic or not. The church has distributed
more than 2 tons of food per year, $50,000 electrical bills, medical bills. Ms.
Daspit stated that because of the assistance program, she sees the need in the
neighborhood that this housing could provide.
Shelly Stevens, 312 N Walnut Rd.: Ms. Stevens spoke against CPA-02-11, Ms
Stevens said she held a neighborhood meeting, felt democracy was taking place.
Ms. Stevens based on the law recently has come forward, they feel they are out of
luck anyway. Ms. Stevens said if my children went to school at the church I would
not want them playing with a low income renter in the apartment complex. She
said she is proud to live in the neighborhood.
Rob McCann, 4012 S Dearborn St, Exec. Director Catholic Charities: Mr.
McCann spoke in favor of CPA-02-11. Mr. McCann stated he wanted to speak to
how Catholic Charities builds many housing types, one of the things they are good
at is housing that is beautiful, He said Catholic Charities is very good at how we
interact with our neighbors. Mr McCann also stated that there are times neighbors
have had fears and concerns but in the end the projects have made the neighborhood
better. Mr. McCann stated they care about traffic impact and community impact,
03-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 11
always willing to work with the neighbors. All residents, employees and caregivers
are given a background check. Mr McCann stated it is important to maintain
safety. Mr. McCann stated he believed the project would benefit the neighborhood.
Bill Zimmer, 622 N Farr Rd.: Mr. Zimmer spoke in favor of CPA-02-11. Mr.
Zimmer stated he has been a member of the parish for about 45 years. Mr. Zimmer
stated that one way to describe this development 40-50 unit apartment complex.
However, it is so much more than that. It is a significant part of the church mission
to provide for the needy, the needy in this case are the low-income elderly. Mr.
Zimmer feels this will be more, it will be well built and a well regulated facility and
an asset to the community.
Tim Bieber 312 N Farr Rd: Mr. Bieber spoke against CPA-02-11. Mr. Bieber
stated he has concerns for the neighborhood. He feels the traffic from Winco and
the one-way are already too much. Mr. Bieber stated he knew the church, felt the
mission was good and the intent is good, but 40 units was too much. He said he
knew the elderly needed a place to stay, but they have children who would visit,
which would be more traffic, employees would be more traffic. Mr. Bieber said the
neighborhood is a thing of beauty. Mr. Bieber stated he did not want his
neighborhood turned into felony flats.
Joe. McGrath, 9320 E Montgomery Rd: Mr. McGrath spoke in favor of CPA-
02-11. Mr. McGrath stated he lives in one of`those' places. Mr. McGrath said that
someone comes every day cleans the yard, the grass is done, they shovel the snow.
Mr. McGrath said the inside is clean, someone comes to check the elements and
appliances. Mr. McGrath stated that it is kept up by the nice people, it is a nice
clean place, and he has nice neighbors and it is nice to help his neighbors out.
Chris Carr, 322 N Walnut Rd.: Mr. Carr•stated he has a question, the picture of
the proposed change is a parking lot for the church, if this is the case then where
would all the parking go? Staff clarified that would be determined at the time a
project was presented.
Janeen Rilea, 9808 E Valleyway. Ms. Rilea spoke against CPA-02-11. Ms. Roala
stated that although she might be a few years shy of needing a place to similar to the
proposed, she wondered why with so many eye sores that are empty it was
necessary to build new and not reuse already existing building. She said she
thought that it could be put in so many areas but not in our neighborhood. She also
stated she was concerned about Valleyway being put through. She said we have a
lot of traffic because of Winco. Ms. Rilea said she knew we need to take care of the
elderly but don't know if she wanted to look at a building on Walnut.
Sandra Holder, 9814 E Valleyway: Ms. Holder spoke against CPA-02-11, Ms.
Holder stated traffic since Winco had increased. She didn't want a 2-3 story
building in her neighborhood.. Ms. Holder stated she understood what the church
was trying to do, but do it someplace else. She wanted to know why do you have to
put it up in our neighborhood, she said there are other properties. Ms Holder stated
she felt that not one of these are in a residential area, there might be residential by
them but not in them. She made the suggestion move to the 8.2 acres at the end of
the street. Ms. Holder said that the project will increase traffic, people going to
03-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 11
doctor's appointments, grocery stores, relatives visiting, limited staff coming and
going. Ms. Holders stated she has a deaf child and is concerned about her rights.
She shared she didn't want a building there.
Karen Strauss 302 N Walnut. Ms. Strauss spoke against CPA-02-11. Ms. Strauss
said she was disappointed the church wanted to do this in our neighborhood. Ms.
Strauss stated that parents late for school go over 30 mph. She shared she will not
let her kids walk or ride bikes to school because of the traffic. Ms. Strauss was
concerned about the design of the project. Ms. Strauss wondered if a three-way stop
could be installed at Valleyway and Farr and Valleyway and Walnut as well as
lowering the speed limit to 20 MPH. Ms. Strauss stated that if people wanted to
walk there are no sidewalks for people to be safe.
Ed Shiftner, 11310 E 30th Ave: Mr. Shiftner said that there is a complex between
Sprague and Fair. Mr. Shiftner stated that he felt it was very pristine for having this
type of complex and I plan on being a resident there.
Jerry Richardson 320 N Hearld: Mr. Richardson spoke against CPA-02-11, Mr.
Richardson was concerned about the lack of information from the church about
what is going on.
Jeff Westensee, 9820 E Valleway; Mr. Westensee spoke against CPA-02-11. Mr.
Westensee said he would like to know if the sewer and water pressure will be like if
this is approved. He stated he was concerned about the traffic on the dead end he
lives on which he said was busy already, Mr. Westensee said he was disappointed
there was not more communication from the church,
Seeing no one else that wished to testify, the chair closed the public hearing at 7:37
p.m. The commission took a break at 7:37 and returned at 7:50 p.m.
The Commission began its deliberations of the Comprehensive Plan amendments,
Commissioner Mann made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of
CPA-01-11. This motion was seconded. Vote on this motion was 6 in favor, 0
against, motion passes.
Commissioner Woodard made a motion, which was seconded to recommend
approval to the City Council of CPA-02-11. Commissioner Woodard stated he felt
that there was a need for this type of housing, that a project was not the issue.
Commissioner Stoy said he drove by the location and felt that this was the wrong
time, wrong place. Commissioner Bates, shared that Catholic Charities have long
term contracts, if not in neighborhoods near churches, where are they to go, they
must carry long term 40 yr contracts and they do not sell the properties,
Commissioner Mann stated this was a difficult issue. He had concerns about a big
building in single family neighborhood, the traffic and speed concerns.
Commissioner Hall stated he wondered how types of mitigation could be used to
help ease the impacts of any project. Staff reminded the Commissioners that this is
a land use issue not a project issue and to consider uses that could be allowed
based on the Comprehensive land use change. Staff also reminded the
Commissioners there will be development standards to help to mitigate issues at the
time there is an actual project submitted
03-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 11
Vote on the motion is 2 in favor and 4 against, Commissioners Carroll, Hall, Mann
and Stay dissenting. Motion fails.
Commissioner Mann made a motion to recommend denial of CPA-02-11 to the City
Council. This motion was seconded. Vote on this motion was 4 in favor and 2
against, Commissioners Bates and Woodard dissenting. Motion passes.
Commissioner Woodard made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council
of CPA-04-11 which was seconded. The vote on this motion was unanimous in
favor, motion passes.
Commissioner Woodard made a motion which was seconded to recommend
approval to the City Council of CPA-05-11. Commissioner Bates had a question
about the proposed bike paths which was discussed. Staff explained that they are
located where they might be appropriate and had been developed through a
community process. Staff also explained the reason for the need to have the
proposed information in the Comprehensive Plan. Vote is unanimous in favor,
motion passes.
Commissioner Woodard made a motion, which was seconded to recommend
approval to the City Council of CPA-07-11, vote is unanimous in favor. Motion
passes.
Commissioner Woodard made a motion, which was seconded to recommend
approval to the City Council of CPA-08-11, vote is unanimous in favor. Motion
passes.
Commissioner Stoy made a motion to recommend approval of CPA-06-11 to the
City Council. This motion was seconded. Commissioner Woodard had questions
for staff regarding the level of service for parks. Vote on this motion was
unanimous in favor, motion passes.
Commissioner Woodard made a motion, which was seconded, to recommend
approval of CPA-03-11 to the City Council. Commissioner Woodard stated he felt
that uncertainty is a killer, the plan was too big, the Subarea Plan placed
development standards on people in areas we cannot enforce. Commissioner
Woodard is in favor of elimination. Commissioner Bates stated he felt the Subarea
Plan was confusing, it imposes regulations which are hurting businesses.
Commissioner Mann stated he felt it was unfortunate that the plan had become such
a target. He said he had gone to the Subarea Plan meetings. It is a plan, we hardly
allowed it to get implemented and we do not have another plan. Mr. Mann said we
need to figure out what do we stand for, we currently have no identity.
Commissioner Mann said he would keep the Subarea Nan in place and modify it.
Commissioner Stoy stated he felt the Subarea Plan had a point, but did need
modifications. He said he agreed with Commissioner Mann suggestion to take it a
bit at a time and relax the requirements. Commissioner Hall stated he had felt
encouraged the City Council decided to drill down into the Plan and look at it zone
by zone. Commissioner Hall said he would like to see a survey as to what the
citizens really want, what direction they want to the city to go. Mr. Hall also said
that he does not remember any study saying the City should get rid of the plan.
03-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 11
Commissioner Hall said that the City should not confuse an election with a
statistical survey. Both Commissioners Mann and Hall stated that the Council
cannot blame the Plan for what has been years in the making of Sprague Ave.
Commissioner Hall asked if the City wanted a quality community or a cheap
community. Commissioner Hall would like to not see the Plan thrown out.
Commissioner CalToll stated that a city is about providing access to goods and
services for its citizens. He said the County solved a regional transportation
problem they had with our city streets. Mr. Carroll said they paid for it with the
businesses west of University. He said we created a city to get out from under the
County's thumb, and the couplet is a leftover problem from the County. The City
created a plan to help take the couplet weight off of our citizens. Commissioner
Carroll stated the City made a commitment to those businesses to help them, if we
eliminate the Plan then we are abandoning those businesses, Commissioner Carroll
stated no one wants to locate on the one-way streets. If we eliminate this Plan we
are ignoring them, they will not be paying any taxes because they will be gone.
Commissioner Carroll said if we eliminate the plan we will be telling the businesses
west of University we don't care about your problems.
The chair called for the vote, the vote is 2 in favor and 4 against. Commissioners
Carroll, Hall, Mann and Stoy dissenting.
Commissioner Mann made a motion to recommend retaining the subarea plan to the
City Council, This motion was seconded, Commissioner Hall made an amendment
to the motion requesting to add `continue to study the Plan'. This amendment was
seconded, Commissioner Hall stated that he felt that there needed to be more input
and investigation of the greater public of what is in the plan and how they feel about
it. Vote on the amendment is 4 in favor and 2 against, Commissioners Bates and
Woodard dissenting. Amendment passes.
The amended motion is recommend retaining the Subarea Plan with continued
study of the Plan. Vote on the amended motion is 4 in favor, 2 against, with
Commissioners Bates and Woodard dissenting. Motion passes
B. New Business: There was no new business
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
There was nothing for the good of the order
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m.
SUBMITTED: APPROVED:
Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant G.G. Carroll, Chairperson
03-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 11
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
1 Final Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
February 24, 2011
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
III. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Bates, Carroll, Hall, Mann, Sands, and Woodard were present.
Commissioner Carroll made a motion to excuse Commissioner Stoy; this was seconded
and approved unanimously.
Staff attending the meeting: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director; Scott
Kuhta, Planner Manager; Mike Basinger, Senior Planner; Lori Barlow, Associate
Planner; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner; Dean
Grafos, Councilmember;Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Woodard made a motion to amend the agenda to move CPA-03-11 to
the end of the end of the agenda, which was seconded. Vote on the amendment was
four in favor and two against, motion past. Commissioner Mann made a motion to
approve the amended agenda for February 24, 2011. This motion was seconded and
unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Woodard made a motion which was seconded and unanimously
approved to accept the minutes for January 27, 2011 as presented.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioner Woodard stated he had attended Spokane/Kootenai Real Estate Forum,
Commissioner Mann also attended the Spokane/Kootenai Real Estate Forum.
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Planning Manager Kuhta stated there was currently nothing to report.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Old Business: Continued Deliberations regarding CTA-02-11 -- Code
Amendment on keeping of livestock in Mixed Use Zones.
02-24.11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9
Assistant Planner Christina Janssen made a small staff report reminding the
Commission the amendment is to allow livestock on residential parcels in Mixed
Use zones. At the last meeting the Commissioners has asked of the residential
properties in the Mixed Use areas how many were actually over the 40,000 square
foot threshold, which is required in order to have livestock. Ms. Janssen presented
a map which shows that there are 19 parcels that are legally established residential
lots now in the Mixed Use areas. This was the only additional information
requested by the Commission from the last meeting. Commissioner Woodard asked
about being able to apply an overlay zone for this motion instead of an amendment,
Planning Manager Kuhta responded that it would be more difficult to administer
and there were not enough parcels to warrant that type of an overlay.
The motion from the February 10, 2011 meeting is: the Planning Commission
recommends approval to the City Council to allow livestock on currently
established residential parcels located in Mixed Use zoning districts as per the
current animal keeping regulations. Vote was six in favor, zero against, motion
passes.
B. New Business: Public Hearing Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments
CPA-41-11 through CPA-08-11.
Senior Planner Mike Basinger introduced himself and the Comprehensive
Amendment team for this year, Associate Planner Lori Barlow and Assistant
Planner, Karen Kendall. Mr. Basinger explained that due to the time constraints
from the last meeting, staff will be having a study session on the Comprehensive
Plan amendments prior to the public hearing, whereby the Commissioners will be
able to ask questions before the public hearing starts.
Sr. Planner Basinger explained why the City has an Comprehensive Plan and how
the annual amendments are proposed and taken care of. The Comprehensive Plan is
a road map to guide future development and growth in our City. Amendments
every year allow the plan to be updated and remain current while allowing citizens
to request changes, such as site specific map changes, of which there are two this
year. Mr. Basinger stated that each amendment would be reviewed individually.
CPA-0141: This amendment is a privately initiated site-specific map amendment
located at Sprague and Progress. This amendment is 10 parcels which includes a
small strip mall and some single family housing. Staff has also recommended
adding two parcels which are adjacent to these in order to not leave pockets of
alternatively zoned land surrounded by another zoning district. This amendment
however will not be necessary if CPA-03-11 were to be moved forward as
requested. The request is to change the Comprehensive Plan designation to
Neighborhood Commercial,
CPA-02-11: This is a privately initiated site specific map amendment located at 503
N Walnut Road. This amendment is being proposed by St. John Vianney Catholic
Parish. This parcel is currently a parking lot serving the church. The request is to
change this parcel from low density residential to medium density residential.
02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9
CPA-03-11: This amendment is council initiated to remove the Sprague and
Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. This proposed amendment is to remove the area
in the Subarea Plan from the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code. All
areas will be returned to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations as they
were at the time the plan was adopted in October of 2007.
CPA-04-11: This is a staff initiated amendment, Chapter 2 — Land Use: Table 2.1,
Spokane Valley UGA Land Capacity Analysis, will reflect new population numbers
within the City of Spokane Valley. Map 2.1, Land Use, will display land use
designation changes approved through the 2011 amendment process.
Commissioners asked how the Board of County Commissioners based their
population allocations. Mr. Basinger attempted to explain how the Technical
Planning Committee made a recommendation for the population allocations and the
County Commissioners made the decision for these allocation numbers.
CPA-05-11: This is a staff initiated amendment, Chapter 3 — Transportation: Map
3,2, Bike and Pedestrian System, will display newly developed bike and pedestrian
infrastructure. Commissioner Woodard asked if this amendment was passed is it
binding to the City. Sr. Planner Basinger explained that the map contains existing
infrastructure as well as proposed infrastructure. However, none of the proposed
infrastructure is binding and does not need to be done next year or the year after,
and it would depend on funding but it was put on the map based on the
community's vision for these types of facilities.
CPA-06-11: This is a staff initiated amendment, Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and
Public Services: Amendments will incorporate changes in the 6-year
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) into the Capital Facilities Plan to ensure
consistency. Amendments will update special purpose district's and other city
service provider's facility and service data. Capital projects such as city hall,parks,
and a public works storage facility will be included for the use of REET funding.
Maps 4.1, 4.2, and 4.5 will display updates to reflect the latest capital facilities and
public services. Amendments will also update the growth assumptions to reflect
population allocation numbers approved by the Spokane County Board of
Commissioners. Mr. Basinger pointed out that if projects are not included in the
Comprehensive Plan then the REET funds cannot be used for them. There was also
discussion regarding growth assumptions and how our City does not plan capital
facilities within the UGA's. Shortly after incorporation the City Manager
determined that the City would not plan for service into the UGAs. The UGAs are
not allocated to our city by the county. Commissioner Woodard wondered how the
level of service for the parks department was amended. Mr. Basinger stated that the
Planning Commission could make a different level if they thought something
different level was more appropriate.
CPA-07-11: This is a staff initiated amendment, Chapter 7 — Economic
Development: Map 7.1 will display new building permits and land use actions in
the 2010 development cycle. The question came up as to if there was a limit on
permits or was it any permit? The answer was any permit.
02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9
CPA-08-11: This is the last amendment and also staff initiated, Chapter 8 --Natural
Environment: Map 8.3 will display the field inventory work done in conjunction
with DNR to update stream typing in Spokane Valley. Map 8.4 has been updated to
reflect the current FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Maps. Mr. Basinger stated there
were places on Sprague Ave and Trent that stated there were classified ass fish
bearing streams and these needed to be updated.
Mr. Basinger stated that staff would recommend that the Commission take action on
CPA-03-11 which refers to the Subarea Plan, before it addresses the amendment of
CPA-O1-11. Mr. Basinger pointed out that if the recommendation is for the Subarea
Plan to go away then amendment in CPA-01-11 is not necessary.
Commissioner Carroll asked if there had been any comments received from the
adjoining parcels in CPA-01-11. Ms. Kendall stated there had been no written
comments received from either party but had been aware that there had been some
dialog between the proponents and Mr. Jankowski one of the parcel owners.
Commissioner Carroll asked what other uses are on site for CPA-02-11, which the
reply was a church and a K-8 school.
Commissioner Carroll asked in regard to CPA-03-11 if there had been any
additional studies or surveys done by staff or City Council as to why this
amendment is necessary. Ms. Barlow answered not that she was aware of.
Commissioner Carroll asked if there were any alternative plans in place or being
proposed; Ms. Barlow stated there was nothing other than to go back to the
designations and zoning that were previously in place. Commissioner Carroll asked
if the only change has been the City Council itself and Ms. Barlow stated that she
had documented the community meetings and the comments received from them
stated that some of the regulations in the Subarea Plan were hardships and
unwarranted, in the opinion of the public commenting. Commissioner Maim asked
how many people commented at the meetings,Ms. Barlow stated that each meeting,
of which there were five, had varying amounts of attendance and input, but the
largest had 30-40 people in attendance and it decreased at each meeting after. A
question was asked how many meetings were held to put the plan in place, Ms.
Barlow stated that she thought that there were probably 100 meetings.
Commissioner Sands stated we are not having the same level of discussion to
remove the plan as was had to implement the plan. Ms. Barlow stated that staff was
following the required protocol for notifications for such an amendment, that staff
was following all of the City's and the State's procedures for minimum notification
requirements. Commissioner Woodard asked if any input had been received on this
amendment, Ms. Barlow stated that the amendment was part of the whole list of
annual amendments and she had not received a letter, email or phone call regarding
this amendment. Commissioner Mann wondered if the public was actually aware of
what was going on. Commissioner Hall asked if he remembered that City Council
stated he thought from the Council Retreat that it was considered to do a citizen
survey but was it geared to the City Hall or the Sprague Avenue area? Ms. Barlow
stated she could not comment on the Council Retreat, however Director McClung
stated she did not feel that the survey was being geared to the Sprague Ave. but
more to economic development for the whole city. Mr. Hall thought that the
02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9
Subarea Plan could be a part of that survey. The Director did not feel the
conversation was about the Subarea Plan, but about where the City Hall might go.
Commission took a break at 7:11 p.m., resumed at 7:19 p.m.
Chair Carroll opened the public hearing by reading the rules at 7:20 p.m.
Matt Jankowski, 315 W. Riverside: Mr. Jankowski is speaking for CPA-01-11.
Mr. Jankowski stated he had received a letter from the proponent of the amendment,
Mr. Hume, regarding this amendment. Mr. Jankowski stated he would not have a
problem with the proposal as long as items he was worried about and his tenant is
comfortable, he would be ok. Mr. Jankowski turned in a letter with his concerns to
the Commission. Commissioner Sands asked about Mr. Jankowski about his
business that had been on the one way Sprague (KFC) just west of Farr. Mr.
Jankowski stated how hard the one-way had been on his business, how difficult on
sales, how his sales dropped, that he held on hoping that the road would change
back to two-way.
*In the application for CPA-02-11 it has been stated that the church is proposing a 40-unit low
income Sr. housing complex owned and run by Catholic Charities. Many comments address the
project and not the land use change requested.
Shelly Stevens,312 N Walnut Rd: Ms. Stevens stated she was against CPA-02-11.
Ms. Stevens stated she was worried about apartments in her neighborhood, the extra
traffic, the speeding families of church parishioners and school attendees. The City
has never replaced a stop sign at Valleyway and Walnut, making money off of the
neighborhood, wants to preserve her quiet neighborhood.
Levi Strauss, 302 N Walnut Rd.: Mr. Strauss stated he was against CPA-02-11.
Mr. Strauss stated he had talked to his neighbors, and they are worried about traffic,
decreasing property values, worried about police and at the other low income
apartments there have been homicides, changes in ownership, need to look at long
term effect, this is the heart of our neighborhood, it is about greed, Mr Strauss is
worried about Valleyway as a thoroughfare. He also stated he was worried there is
not enough parking for the church now and that the environmental review might not
be accurate enough.
Chris Carr, 223 N. Walnut Rd.: Mr. Carr stated he was against CPA-02-11. Mr,
Carr stated he was concerned about the traffic from the church parishioners now
and would not like the speeders to increase three fold.
Commissioner Mann asked if any of the people commenting attended St. John
V ianney.
Levi Strauss, Mr. Strauss stated he has a child that attends the school and this was
a difficult issue for him. Mr. Strauss stated that when the church hold events there
are people parking on the street.
Commissioner Woodard stated he knew there were about 1,000 families that attend
the church in question.
Sandra Holder, 9814 E Valleyway: Ms. Holder stated that she was against CPA-
02-11. Ms. Holder stated that she lives on a dead end street but people from the
02-24-11 PIanning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9
school still speed down the her street. She lives here because she has a deaf child.
She does not allow the child to play in the front due to traffic and feels it will
increase with the change. Ms. Holder stated she felt that unwanted people could
move into the complex, she is worried about theft, she said she knows that the
church says the housing is for seniors but she is not `buying into that' they could
later allow anyone to live there, event parking is excessive.
Chris Pierce, 404 N Farr: Mr. Pierce stated that he was against CPA-02-11 but
could be convinced if the following issues were addressed — Valleyway cannot go
through to Walnut. Mr. Pierce has a barn listed on the state register of historic
places. Mr. Pierce stated he was fine with senior use, but worried about down the
road that general low income people in the complex and turned over to some else.
Mr. Pierce also stated he did have a problem with the parking but not as big as the
Walnut people have.
George Birge, 611 N Walnut Rd: Mr. Birge stated he was against CPA-02-11 for
the reasons given previously. Mr. Birge stated that he was not against elderly
housing at the church. He stated that his mother lives in elderly housing through
the Spokane Housing Authority, however it wasn't the residents he was concerned
about but the associations and the people, the lower income folks he does not want
in his neighborhood.
Heidi Shutts, 116 N Walnut: Ms. Shutts stated she was against CPA-02-11 for the
reasons previously given. There is currently too much traffic, there is an assisted
living being built behind the old U-City mall, the soccer moms fly down the road to
get kids back and forth, liquor store speeders come down the street as well,
Marie Raschko-Sokol, 2110 S Sunrise Rd: Mr. Raschko-Sokol stated she was
supporting CPA-02-11. Ms. Sokol stated she was the chair of the St. John Vianney
parish council. She also stated she had worked in the field of aging for almost 30
years. Ms. Sokol stated she was currently a member of the planning and advisory
council for the area agency on aging, which is a five county area, primarily serving
older adults in Spokane County. She has also been appointed to the Washington
State Council on Aging by the Governor. Ms. Sokol stated it is estimated that in the
City there are approx. 14,000 people over the age of 60. And of that number 8%
are low income, which means approx. 1,100 people are below the poverty level,
most are women. 10% of people over 60 are disabled. Church looked at the parcel
south of the request for purchase, it had been on the market for some time and they
felt it would help fulfill part of their philosophy as well as that of the Catholic
Dioceses, to provide services low income adults within the community. HUD
projects are 40 year projects and Catholic Charities continue to operate beyond and
they have a commitment to these projects. There will not be any convicted felons
in the units, but neighbors, family, parents. She shares the concerns about speeders,
but feels that most of the people will not have cars. Commission asked if the church
had had any neighborhood meetings, the answer was no they had not so far but
would be more than willing to do so. Commissioner Woodard wanted to know if the
extension of Valleyway was being considered, and the answer was no.
Commissioner Sands asked what kind of assistance they would be acquiring, they
would be individual housing with in-service for daily needs but no common eating
02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9
areas. These are not buy-in/owned apartments. They are HUD subsidized rent.
How would people know that this would be the same as it progresses, Catholic
Charities is committed it to keeping its projects as they start out. Commissioner
Bates asked about parking requirements, Mr. Kuhta stated that the code would
dictate what the parking requirements would be.
Mr. Kuhta reminded the Commissioners that this is a land use decision not a project
decision.
Joseph Bell, 502 N Farr Rd: Mr. Bell stated he is the pastor for St. John Vianney
and is supporting CPA-02-11. Pastor Bell also stated he had been the pastor at a
previously mentioned senior housing development and that at the time, that parish
had wanted to make it a low income project but it was not possible and feels
privileged to be able to be involved with this one. Pastor Bell stated he did not feel
that parking would be an issue, however he too is concerned with speeders.
Dan Hipple, 313 N Walnut: Mr. Hipple stated he was adjacent to the property just
sold. Mr. Hippie stated that he was opposed to Valleyway being put through. Mr.
Hipple stated he was not opposed to the project, but he had concerns. Mr. Hipple
stated he was concerned about the employees coming in and speeding, worried
about the employees taking smoke breaks in the parking lot.
Jason Minnihan, 9802 E Valleyway: Mr. Minnihan stated he was against CPA-02-
11. Mr. Minnihan stated that he would not want this near his home. Mr. Minnihan
stated he understood the need, he was placing his grandmother into a nursing home
but does not want something like this in his yard, or his neighbors' yards. He felt it
would destroy the neighborhood and be an eyesore.
Mr. Basinger clarified that there is a shared use path that connects Valleyway
through the church area, that has been proposed that is on the bike and pedestrian
map.
Ann Martin, 101 N Stevens St: Ms. Martin stated she was a representative of the
applicant and a proponent of CPA-02-11. Ms. Martin stated that she was disturbed
that a project was being discussed when what has been asked for is a land use
decision. Ms. Martin also stated that the Growth Management Act encourages low
income housing, including for elderly. Ms. Martin stated that she understood that it
was an emotional decision, however asked that the Commission not confuse a land
use decision with a project that was not yet being proposed. Ms. Martin also stated
that a comment had been made that the project was going to be built to the
maximum allowed, she pointed out that if a boundary line adjustment was done, the
project could be increased to 51 units which is not being contemplated.
Monique Kolonko, 902 W Roland: Ms. Kolonko stated she is the Associate
Director of Senior Programs and Housing Programs for Catholic Charities. Ms.
Kolonko stated she was speaking in favor of CPA-02-11. Ms. Kolonko stated that
there are 800 units in Eastern Washington most with HUD support that belong to
Catholic Charities. She stated that the units are professionally managed, look
beautiful and add value to the neighborhoods. Ms. Kolonko stated it was offensive
to her it was being suggested that Catholic Charities would profit from such
02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9
projects, and it is not true. Each building is its own corporation and any money
made goes into the repair of that building. She also said that theft in the areas of
these housing units decreases because there are extra eyes as home watching the
neighborhoods.
Chris Pierce: Mr. Pierce stated that if there had been a neighborhood meeting
maybe there would not have been so much opposition, at least on his part. He also
stated it was nice to know that HUD would be guaranteeing the project. He would
like to see a bike trail but no extension to Valleyway. However, Mr. Pierce
expressed concern over the height of the possible building.
Brian Milspa, 216 N Walnut: Mr. Milspa stated that he is opposed to CPA-02-11.
Mr. Milspa stated he and his neighbors have small pets and children and are
concerned about the speeders. He also stated that a community meeting would have
been helpful. Mr. Milspa stated that on occasion that they also have various wild
animals come down and habitat the neighborhood. Mr. Milspa stated that he felt
that having older people would bring more theft instead of less.
Chris Carr: Mr. Carr stated he is living in his grandparent's home. Mr. Carr stated
he felt that the map being shown was incorrect. (Staff helped explain to Mr. Carr
that he was looking at the wrong parcel)
Dan Daly, 303 N Walnut Rd: Mr. Daly stated he was against CPA-02-11. Mr.
Daly stated he was in agreement with the rest of the neighbors in their objections to
this project. Mr. Daly stated he has spoken to an expert that the sewer line will not
handle 80 more people. Mr Daly asked if this had been considered and Mr. Kuhta
stated that the County had not been consulted, that would be the responsibility of
the applicant at the time of submittal of the project.
Gail Goodall, 515 N Farr Rd: Ms. Goodall stated that she appreciated the wildlife
that visits the neighborhood. Ms. Goodall stated that in her neighborhood that most
of the lots are one acre and that her concern was that if this amendment was allowed
it could lead to infrll of lots in her neighborhood. She would like to keep the
neighborhood the way it is now and not have anything change.
Dwight Hume, 9101 Mt View Lane: Representing the Hultman Family Trust. Mr.
Hume stated he was speaking in support of CPA-01-11. Mr. Hume also stated that
if the Subarea Plan is removed, then this amendment would not be necessary. Mr.
Hutne stated that he had contacted the two adjoining parcels to participate in this
amendment, at the suggestion of staff, in order to not leave single parcels zoned
differently in a pocket of an area. One of the participating parcels has concerns
about non-conforming issues on his parcel. Mr Hume will communicate with the
adjoining parcel and discuss the issues Mr. Jankowski is concerned with. Mr.
Hutne stated that he has reviewed the staff report and agrees with the findings in
this amendment. Mr. Kuhta clarified the non-conforming sign issue.
Commissioner Sands made a motion to continue the public hearing to March 10,
2011,which was seconded and was voted in favor unanimously.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
There was nothing for the good of the order
02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9
XL ADJOURNMENT
The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
SUBMITTED: APPROVED:
ii
Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant G. Carroll, Chairperson
02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 19,2011 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ®new business ❑public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report IEI pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-008,Official Zoning map amendments
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A(Growth Management Act)
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On April 12, 2011,no action was taken by City Council.
BACKGROUND: All parts of the Comprehensive Plan can be amended during the annual cycle. The Community
Development Department received two privately initiated site specific map amendments. Sites that are approved for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment will automatically receive a zoning designation that is consistent with the new land use
designation.
The 2011 Comprehensive Plan text amendments include amendments to five Comprehensive Plan Elements: Chapter 2 -
Land Use, Chapter 3 — Transportation, Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and Public Services, Chapter 7 — Economic
Development, and Chapter 8 —Natural Environment. The amendments may also entail minor changes to other elements
referencing the proposed amendments.
Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission at a study session on February 10, 2011. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments on February 24,2011. The Planning Commission continued
the public hearing to March 10, 2011 to receive additional testimony and for deliberation. After hearing public testimony,
the Commission made recommendations on CPA-01-11 through CPA-08-11.
Staff presented the proposed amendments to the City Council on March 22, 2011. On April 12, 2011, staff provided City
Council goals and policies relating to CPA-02-11. City Council requested that CPA-02-11 be removed for one month to
have staff work on a development agreement to minimize the impacts of the proposed development. In addition, City
Council requested that CPA-03-11 be processed through ordinance 11-009 and Ordinance 11-010. CPA-02-11 and CPA-
03-11 will be considered in conjunction with the annual 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments pursuant to RCW
36.70A.130.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSALS: Comprehensive plan amendment proposals are organized
into individual reports consisting of application materials, staff reports, comprehensive plan maps, zoning maps, aerial
maps,vicinity maps,transportation maps,and comments submitted to date to assist the City Council in their review.
OPTIONS: Advance the ordinance to second reading with or without modifications; or take other action deemed
appropriate.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Advance ordinance 11-008 to a second reading
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger,AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Draft Ordinance
1 of 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 11-008
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE 07-015 WHICH ADOPTED THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS
PROPERLY RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted the Uniform Development Code
(UDC) and the Official City Zoning Map pursuant to Ordinance 07-015, on the 25th day of
September, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the UDC and Official City Zoning Map became effective on the 28th day of
October, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows
comprehensive plans to be amended annually(RCW 36.70A130); and
WHEREAS, amendments to the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan may be
initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), Citizens, or by
the Community Development Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions
warrant adjustments; and
WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with
development regulations, including the zoning of property consistent with land use map
designations; and
WHEREAS, zone changes under consideration with the annual Comprehensive Plan
amendments are to be considered as area-wide rezones pursuant to 17.80.140 of the SVMC; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, City of Spokane Valley adopted Public
Participation Guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending
comprehensive plans and area-wide rezones; and
WHEREAS, 17.80.140 of the UDC provides that amendment applications shall be
received until November 1 of each year; and
WHEREAS, applications were submitted by the applicant, owner or by City staff to
amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps for the purpose of beneficially using the
property described herein; and
WHEREAS, following the application to the City, staff conducted an environmental
review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendments; and
Ordinance 11-008 Zoning Map Changes Page 1 of 5
WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklists, staff issued Determinations
of Nonsignificance (DNS) on February 4, 2011 for the proposals, published the DNS in the
Valley News Herald on February 4, 2011, and where appropriate posted the DNS on the sites and
mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified on February 4,
2011 pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 providing a 60-day notice of intent to adopt amendments to
the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Commission conducted a briefing on February 10, 2011, to review the
proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2011, notice of the Commission public hearing was
published in the Valley News Herald; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2011, notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all
property owners within 400 feet of the subject property ; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2011, notice of the hearing was posted on the subject
properties; and ,
WHEREAS, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony and a
staff report and recommendation at a public hearing on February 24, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Commission conducted a public hearing on February 24,2011, to
consider proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan map and Zoning map.
After hearing public testimony, the Commission made recommendations on comprehensive plan
map amendments CPA-01-11 through CPA-03-11; and
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2011, Council reviewed the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2011, Council requested that CPA-02-11 be removed for one
month to have staff work on a development agreement to minimize the impacts of the proposed
development; and
WHERAS, on April 12, 2011, Council requested that CPA-03-11 be processed through
Ordinance 11-009 and Ordinance 11-010; and
WHEREAS, CPA-02-11 and CPA-03-11 are being considered in conjunction with the
annual 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130; and
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2011, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the
proposed amendment; and
Ordinance 11-008 Zoning Map Changes Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2011, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which
time Council approved written findings of fact setting forth their basis for recommending
approval of the proposed amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as
follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Official Zoning
Map adopted through Ordinance No. 07-015 in order to permit the property described herein to
be used in a matter consistent with the same.
Section 2. Findings. The City Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted
appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the application and recommends
approval of the amendments to the Zoning Map and text. The City Council hereby adopts the
findings of the Commission, specifically that:
1. Notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on
February 4, 2011 and each site was posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a
description of the proposal.
2. Individual notice of the map amendment proposals was mailed to all property owners within 400
feet of each affected site.
3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA—RCW 43.21C) environmental checklists
were required for each proposed comprehensive plan map and text amendment.
4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and a threshold determination was made for each
comprehensive plan amendment request. Determinations of Non-significance (DNS) were
issued for the requested comprehensive plan amendments on February 4, 2011.
5. The DNS's were published in the city's official newspaper on February 4, 2011 consistent with
the City of Spokane Valley Environmental Ordinance.
6. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 24, 2011, to
consider the proposed amendments. After hearing public testimony, the Commission made
recommendations on CPA-01-11 thru CPA-03-11
7. The planning goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA) were considered and the
proposed amendments are consistent with the GMA.
8. The goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan were considered and the
proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
9. The proposed zoning designations are consistent with the current use of the properties.
10. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria
contained in Section 17.80.140 H. (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide rezones)
of the Uniform Development Code (UDC).
11. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and text amendments will not adversely affect the
public's general health, safety, and welfare.
Section 3. Property. The properties subject to this Ordinance are described in
Attachment "A."
Ordinance 11-008 Zoning Map Changes Page 3 of 5
Section 4. Map Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the City of Spokane
Valley Zoning Map as adopted through Ordinance No. 07-015, is hereby amended as set forth in
Attachment "A" (map). The Zoning map amendments are generally described as follows:
Map Amendments
File No. CPA-O1-11:
Application/Description of Proposal: Privately initiated,site specific comprehensive plan map
amendment to change the designation on parcels 45231.0109,45231.0210, 45231.0211,45231.0212,
45231.0213,45231.0214,45231.0216,45231.0218,45231.0224,45231.0226,45231.0114 and
45231.0215 from Mixed Use Avenue(MUA)to Neighborhood Center(NCT)with a corresponding
zoning change from Mixed Use Avenue(MUA)to Neighborhood Center(NCT). This proposal is
considered a non-project action under RCW 43.21C. This amendment will not be necessary if CPA-
03-11, removal of the Subarea Plan, is approved
Applicant: Dwight Hume; 9101 North Mt.View Lane; Spokane,WA 99218
Amendment Location: The proposed site is located on the southeast corner of Progress Road and
Sprague Avenue; further located in the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 23,Township
25 North,Range 44 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane County,Washington.
Council Decision: To be determined
Section 5. Zoning Map/Official Controls. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.100, for the purpose of
regulating the use of land and to implement and give effect to the Comprehensive Plan the City hereby
amends the Official Zoning Map of the City as set forth in Zoning Map Attachment "A."
Section 6. Adoption of Other Laws. To the extent that any provision of the SVMC, or any
other law, rule or regulation referenced in the attached Zoning Map(s) is necessary or convenient to
establish the validity, enforceability or interpretation of the Zoning Map(s), then such provision of the
SVMC,or other law,rule or regulation is hereby adopted by reference.
Section 7. Map - Copies on File-Administrative Action. The Zoning Map is maintained in
the office of the City Clerk as well as the City Department of Community Development. The City
Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is authorized to modify the Zoning Map in a
manner consistent with this Ordinance.
Section 8. Liability. The express intent of the City of Spokane Valley is that the
responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this ordinance shall rest with the permit applicant and
their agents. This ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health,
safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals
or organizations.
Section 9. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance shall be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause,
or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five(5) days after
publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane
Valley as provided by law.
Ordinance 11-008 Zoning Map Changes Page 4 of 5
PASSED by the City Council this day of April,2011
Mayor,Thomas E. Towey
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved As To Form:
" ?<S1
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 11-008 Zoning Map Changes Page 5 of 5
Zoning Map
* irlor a
..,,,,,...,..N.........,N-
...z.:-- ....,.. L
s4
\ a
_.,,._ 1
ii.
MIL
CPA—01-11
s N r Vr re' 1
...., , , z, A
'reZZA......,,,,,,,,,
A A A A A
ist
N.,•,sk, q-N -4.4
N...ik............>
'''-&..,,i4 ---vsi-ql
= Mifi ri— - .
1
2nd
2nd
M / N ii-,--•1111i
. -I■1:-M• . ci
,73
•
CPA-01-11 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map
City of Spokane Valley designation from MUA to NCT; subsequent zoning
Community Development Department change from MUA to NCT.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 19,2011 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ®new business ❑public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report IEI pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-009; Comprehensive Plan Amendments
(specifically pertaining to SARP)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A(Growth Management Act)
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On April 12,2011,no action was taken by City Council.
BACKGROUND: All parts of the Comprehensive Plan can be amended during the annual cycle. The Community
Development Department received two privately initiated site specific map amendments. Sites that are approved for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment will automatically receive a zoning designation that is consistent with the new land use
designation.
The 2011 Comprehensive Plan text amendments include amendments to five Comprehensive Plan Elements: Chapter 2 -
Land Use, Chapter 3 — Transportation, Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and Public Services, Chapter 7 — Economic
Development, and Chapter 8 —Natural Environment. The amendments may also entail minor changes to other elements
referencing the proposed amendments.
Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission at a study session on February 10, 2011. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments on February 24,2011. The Planning Commission continued
the public hearing to March 10, 2011 to receive additional testimony and for deliberation. After hearing public testimony,
the Commission made recommendations on CPA-01-11 through CPA-08-11.
Staff presented the proposed amendments to the City Council on March 22, 2011. On April 12, 2011, staff provided City
Council goals and policies relating to CPA-02-11. City Council requested that CPA-02-11 be removed for one month to
have staff work on a development agreement to minimize the impacts of the proposed development. In addition, City
Council requested that CPA-03-11 be processed through ordinance 11-009 and Ordinance 11-010. CPA-02-11 and CPA-
03-11 will be considered in conjunction with the annual 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments pursuant to RCW
36.70A.130.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSALS: Comprehensive plan amendment proposals are organized
into individual reports consisting of application materials, staff reports, comprehensive plan maps, zoning maps, aerial
maps,vicinity maps,transportation maps,and comments submitted to date to assist the City Council in their review.
OPTIONS: Advance the ordinance to second reading with or without modifications; or take other action deemed
appropriate.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Advance ordinance 11-009 to a second reading
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger,AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Draft Ordinance
Exhibit 2 Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation
1 of 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 11-009
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY
REPEALING THE SPOKANE VALLEY SPRAGUE APPLEWAY SUBAREA PLAN ADOPTED
BY COUNCIL BY ORDINANCE NO. 09-022 AND AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MAP.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,
Spokane County,Washington,as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley, (the "City") is a noncharter code city organized under
the laws of Title 35A RCW; and
WHEREAS, the City has the authority to amend the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive
Plan,(The"Comprehensive Plan")pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130;and
WHEREAS, through Spokane Valley Ordinance 06-010, the City of Spokane Valley adopted
Land Use plans as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and Maps as the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Spokane Valley; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, (the "City Council"), adopted
Ordinance 09-022 on September 15, 2009 amending the Comprehensive Plan and adopting the Spokane
Valley Sprague Appleway Subarea Plan,(the"Subarea Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows comprehensive
plans to be amended annually(RCW 36.70A130); and
WHEREAS, amendments to the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan may be initiated
by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), Citizens or by the Community
Development Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; and
WHEREAS, the Washington's Growth Management Act (the "GMA") requires comprehensive
plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of property consistent with
land use map designations;and
WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, City adopted Public Participation Guidelines to direct the
public involvement process for adopting and amending its Comprehensive Plans; and
WHEREAS,the Uniform Development Code (UDC)provides that amendment applications shall
be received until November 1 of each year; and
WHEREAS, application for CPA-03-11 was submitted by the City staff to amend the
Comprehensive Plan and Map for the purpose of beneficially using the property described herein;and
WHEREAS, following the application to the City, staff conducted an environmental review
pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed
amendment; and
Ordinance 11-009 Page 1 of 6
WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklists, staff issued a Determination of Non-
significance (DNS) on February 4, 2011 for the proposal,published the DNS in the Valley News Herald
on February 4, 2011, and where appropriate posted the DNS on the sites and mailed the DNS to all
affected public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified on February 4, 2011
pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 providing a 60-day notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Spokane
Valley Comprehensive Plan and Map; and
WHEREAS,the Commission conducted a briefing on February 10, 2011,to review the proposed
amendment; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2011, notice of the Planning Commission (the "Commission")
public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2011, notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property
owners within 400 feet of the subject property ;and
WHEREAS,on February 4,2011,notice of the hearing was posted on the subject properties;and
WHEREAS, staff conducted a briefing for the Commission on February 10, 2011, to review the
proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS,the Commission received evidence, information,public testimony and a staff report
and recommendation at a public hearing on February 24,2011; and
WHEREAS, the Commission conducted a public hearing on February 24, 2011, to consider
proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan and Map. After hearing public
testimony, the Commission made recommendations on this Comprehensive Plan and Map amendment
CPA-03-11; and
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2011, and April 12, 2011 Council reviewed the proposed
amendments; and
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2011, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the
proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2011, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which time
Council approved the findings set forth below setting forth their basis for recommending approval of the
proposed amendments;and
WHEREAS, this amendment is being considered in conjunction with the all of the amendments
submitted as part of the annual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and are considered pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.130 and SVMC 17.80.140(H);and
WHEREAS, at the time the Subarea Plan was approved, the City intended to make significant
investments in the City Center area designated on that plan through the purchase of property on which it
would construct and operate a new City Hall as well as construct improvements to streets and streetscapes
adjacent to the new City Hall; and
Ordinance 11-009 Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, the plan for the development of the City Center property also included the
construction of a Library within its boundaries by the Spokane County Library District; and
WHEREAS,the voters of the City rejected a bond proposal to construct a library within the City
Center property; and
WHEREAS, The City no longer has plans for the purchase of property within the Subarea plan
or for the construction of a public facility; and
WHEREAS, the Subarea and subsequent development regulations did not allow a number of
specific uses in certain zones, imposed design standards on all zones, required future roads to be
constructed, and imposed certain setback, signage and parking standards separate and distinct from those
imposed on the remainder of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a series of public meetings on May 5, 2010, June 24,
2010, July 22, 2010, August 19, 2010 and September 30, 2010 and held council meetings on May 4, 11
and 18, 2010; June 8 and 15, 2010; July 6, 13 and 20, 2010; August 10 and 17, 2010; September 14 and
28, 2010 and October 19, 2010, identifying community concerns with the restrictions on use, design and
construction imposed by the Subarea Plan;and
WHEREAS, the City Council implemented specific changes to the Development Code to
address those concerns until such time as the entire Subarea Plan could be reviewed as part of the annual
amendment process identified above adopting Ordinance No.'s 10-015, 10-016, 10-017,and 10-018;and
WHEREAS, the City removed the restrictions contained in the City Center designation in the
Comprehensive Plan and Map as well as the Zoning Plan and Map pursuant to Ordinance No.'s 11-001
and 11-002 on January 25,2011; and
WHEREAS, the City has been made aware of potential development that could occur within the
Subarea Plan that currently is precluded by the current designations;and
WHEREAS, a number of uses, buildings and signs have been made non-conforming by the
adoption of the Subarea Plan and development regulations implementing the same;and
WHEREAS, testimony before the City Council and Commission has demonstrated both the
economic hardships and the desire to remove the current limitations as is set forth in the Findings of Fact
below; and
WHEREAS, the issues and factors concerning the creation of the Subarea designation has been
the subject of three years of study and analysis, and public meetings and testimony, specifically as set
forth in Ordinance 09-022 and in additional public hearings and meetings identified in the Findings of
Fact below; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommendations fail to take into account some or all of
the specific factors set forth in the fmdings of fact below.
NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS FURTHER ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
Ordinance 11-009 Page 3 of 6
THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Notice for the proposed amendment was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on February 4,2011
and each site was posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing"sign,with a description of the proposal.
2. Individual notice of the map amendment proposal was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of
each affected site.
3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA—RCW 43.21C)environmental checklists were
required for the proposed comprehensive plan map and text amendment.
4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist and a threshold determination was made for the
comprehensive plan amendment request. A Determination of Non-significance(DNS)was issued for the
requested comprehensive plan amendment on February 4, 2011.
5. The DNS was published in the City's official newspaper on February 4, 2011 consistent with the City
Environmental Ordinance.
6. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 24,2011,to consider
the proposed amendment. After hearing public testimony,the Commission made recommendations on
CPA-03-11.
7. The planning goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA) were considered and the proposed
amendments are consistent with the GMA.
8. The goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed
amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
9. The proposed zoning designations are consistent with the current use of the properties.
10. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria
contained in Section 17.80.140 H. (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide rezones) of the
UDC.
11. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and text amendments will not adversely affect the public's
general health,safety,and welfare.
12. The City has provided notice and engaged in a public process to ensure citizen participation pursuant
to RCW 36.70A.035, RCW 36.70A.130 and RCW 36.70A.140, providing the public an opportunity
to be heard on the dates set forth in the fmdings and recitals above.The notice provided and meetings
identified constitute early and continuous public participation in the consideration of this proposed
amendment to the comprehensive plan and map.
13. The City Council does not accept the Findings of the Planning Commission for the reasons set forth
in these Findings of Fact as well as the following:
a. At the time the Subarea Plan was approved, the City of Spokane Valley intended to make
significant investments in the City Center area designated on that plan through the purchase of
property on which it would construct and operate a new City Hall as well as construct
improvements to streets and streetscapes adjacent to the new City Hall; and
b. The plan for the development of the City Center property also included the construction of a
Library within its boundaries;and
c. The voters of the City rejected a bond proposal by the Spokane County Library District to
construct a library within the City Center property;and
d. The City no longer has plans for the purchase of property within the Subarea plan or for the
construction of a public facility;and
e. Economic conditions in Spokane Valley, the State of Washington and the Country as a whole
have changed significantly since the Subarea Plan was adopted and the Subarea Plan is not longer
realistic or feasible in the current economic circumstances; and
Ordinance 11-009 Page 4 of 6
f. The Subarea and subsequent development regulations did not allow a number of specific uses in
certain zones, imposed design standards on all zones,required future roads to be constructed, and
imposed certain setback, signage and parking standards separate and distinct from those imposed
on the remainder of the City and those restrictions and the lack of flexibility found in the Subarea
Plan have increased the cost of development and has had a negative impact on economic
development and had a negative impact on employment and job creation;and
g. Uncertainty resulting from the adoption and implementation of the Subarea Plan has negatively
impacted development within the Subarea Plan, stymied economic development and resulted in a
single building permit application since the time the Subarea Plan was adopted;and
h. The City has been made aware of potential development that could occur within the Subarea that
currently is precluded by the current designations; and
i. A number of uses, buildings and signs have been made non-conforming by the adoption of the
Subarea Plan and development regulations implementing the same; and
j. Testimony before the City Council and Planning Commission has demonstrated both the
economic hardships and the desire to remove the current limitations from both citizens and
property owners within the Subarea.
Section 2: Amendment of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive
Plan is hereby amended by repealing Exhibit A: Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan, Book I:
Community Intent,as adopted by Exhibit A of Ordinance 09-022.
Section 3: Amendment of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Map. The Comprehensive
Plan Map is hereby amended as is set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein.
MI
Section 4: Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or lack of
constitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, clause or phrase of
this ordinance.
Section 5: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after
publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane
Valley as provided by law.
Passed by the City Council this day of April,2011.
Thomas E.Towey,Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved As To Form:
Ordinance 11-009 Page 5 of 6
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
1111111‘
Ordinance 11-009 Page 6 of 6
1.1 1 ;, ,vU11 iT�i'.__ 1�= �¢g�-ap� :!. ra' r f fy -...•..�. _ 's�'-cam"... ... N - _
ti i ' Z�'s"T:EL� 1,la-
_-L'E �IrlE.r' 11 ,i i�(.n-4learn 1�,.■�, , IIa7
' ■ �, .7C�FN a�$ "= �'fj-.^1S 1'-r"' -,I y -! °L 1 -r—� ssoaei
i. 6 E EE .. w "r ' °'/ /' , r.� ".2�• I ter-•
. t �odfl ®� -n-E '91�?�°�r F9T119.P{ &a f ! 1 Rl uu l2.J1;L._1' 11 11-. �' ■.
MM 1. L R11�II' ►1�4 i ;. _ J-IIt 'I '�1PLaiir�::::. rIfi 1�� _- I ran.1I 5 a v. I I—awlwa el 1 ._.rw till
m' IL. I u11 flGli;�,tt1ll� �/1 a a'�- � ,44/1WN.{■ ! I:t I_ . z r. a ' _ wr
EI : .: :Al:Il��311` 1' ".. h ••�'l7 I inti jr r ,III hh ! I'A f u!_ �i�,,'���;FF�1,ii..II1. c11 ! t
EirA liana'dniti IW�k ,r{ r'M `un sl "1111'I.,is sll ■ 111pI1� f `1.,;1 J{ILlllnr 1.' ..g. .3 ...1 .44,7 ll-g ala Iu' rtti jy�l�ll..uk
F�'L'lill 1 croitL' -,,,[1:- - 11.!1111 UI��._ i1Il J1111EI�'1F'.�IIe,T Y-�nuu:- F rlil 7t r__• I�i111 �:V J�� -11�
�.,ai' Ti J d . - _ .- s f4, `i-� - r 4"`yv irr -chi I o::• •
IIM.cTre Fe e{ a ��
L.-? x�t. -:= �'�- � a .�- - `. +l- 'tia. �r�..� k'
jf I ■ l * by u LL elne• ala n.._ e
/l� �� ' \'�r� �1 � yt� 1 h3Y1 -I( St � 1- � 1 "��
9 rat I tti. '" - {� I ,,ri n{�=`1�1t�-��I{,■ Iu�S wean nil �'F..t' Cfl. ...� .J'°�"'
eat `.: 1� ,311! a lFilll r -..1•. � � 1'2 1 .
„ .�� fy.!”S IIIIIII[illi `' 'r1'n"Sae'-ni n...J lCim ��"5 I... i 3'{,', '- - ' 1
eF 'I ■9{ �m sl.e-z I,,,.,- a s.1
■l�u�.�,1ppL�� -„I I n 7 ,h1.i ;., aYITIIII,\`4% i t..,stor i 11:1'P_l d u a _. i b :
-mod ; I Abe. .r� °r gal?„'; :) ti- c Bloom. irmMOM ,.. p .�. ti
111111 r "�” (. ,Z a a„ MI u`�r n
�• air !gym - - ,S<'t"��- I'C S �. ;: n::• i �-•.9'�'!!!! .1 ('�I.r i �:,in.
IIM N09h44M440r..e.is Clalexar Cam.ae.ml Ave OM. LE tIndust
, : ..� �! 61-W°1ri i1 3di11 Ela��� FyfJ
Maid Use At1�►ie Colunt It BaukFerd City Center _I v!•Ind.�ul i4'n 'w {°�k' r ,�i- t �E"`n �I�-y•....�'-nl 11
�rs� ti l L� Lw2�;::i:J'd:l r --Wo'r
k,_;Mged UaeCe{lrer
Low Density Rasidenlel ®NeiBFlbodpod Commute Pelt/Open Space
Corridor Motel Use leedlum density Re klentlal-Cammuney Carmne.dsl -Deer Saden 1?Sll�iit 2-'Existing f n.np*che■srve Plan N
-+�lanep Colmle�ial CsnfeK-llltfi paecly RCSi7CnVs1 -RCg1pplCgmmereiel �$p(2P Land Ilse 4esignations ll■■hVVVV
„� 4F W dire&
-` _ ��;r dl,,1 k'd-o Illu +�” `"r=16�1I - T I ri /l 4—N :r1:'El:. :'.'''..
\~ -. �,R]I Bpr.~ „.„p a`Y3 nlr-_.4''�"°s= p. tie& : 4 ells '7'1 r n�a ins P:!!.1.11,,'_v.-e z' y •imi
I - z Wi r. G I{I la 5. te !:-. �lLa E.11 -�4'r i N1 . L'2 �:.�lsl/�Nl••' ,'' h
-- pi.. rl�an 115=11 i.Fl _ m .,..- •-.."2:t3r_._ .:a ��.'mee 1A'...' I I r�I�
`C �=1! r.r.15.i1'i :.-rim Y7'innz yin.iir l:a s.-1. .C. 1`- -ar // i r,eS�,mw c /-11 I W 111,l I . ifl,"ry - ��urr��+
- J' .---:fl;l llc� z n-811- 1111": I �uetiaml "' II I.ii� rrr t:- r �-e imp .. .wt. r1'
.-IW.` � { -cam - e&4.9 1p `. f8,1•!_ ' 1 r' G
�AL� N -_- e.l�sll--IDC 174.5- t 41 1IIII�Vii " is
110E-11•�I'N��II�✓'`;:7-17-c .-.�j!=1=� ►s��'IIL_ lyl 71 .�' � �eu�i er� 1 e eF �� �� 1 �
',u 113'xll.-'limrll$� ° F i r'allelxlli�lllllll�llil!° .7.=.1..1:,1" I .' sqr ll r,,E� � alE �sr. t� I�vir I I�E ill "rte• I IF i r I� � I' Iiilll! -5..r.,2:_,-;-;.. .. f r'.�'i il'.�F" $- �p� "tea'
~' •F\\` i1• .'ate\\\m.e�r4 !.�d l `� •'_'a.. ,.
P. w-Z.11'�'9.. v 1 f L, - t 1 1 f71171 e�-'F''ll,1 � Ctu qq'u" , 1 t '� �.,t11 1 m>Cq•s .-
ii�i �__,�'"�.e®. ! -i'.�c �-°'.�„ -- t'.� .I:: '" .1e rrq�311 d1'�n1�..\ ar.a"E'inw.ru•n:lr•.nr 7 11 rn aI
WMed Use -{t gr Density Resldenu■ -Rewriel C urneaiml -aver 6odrs 7� � �.I e. a ail �.s4�11 IIIII
1.11111111 1PY! �' rp1�r""7ieF r47r11�',{e..4�1�1113a.IL1�� E1•I- .' Y2 1
RE Cmldar Mixed Use Office tighe Industrial 0 P � I:_ $a .�. ,( -+ Fy°I�_:_.�
Lin :II �.Le ..o..rllll= l�,_ Il I�: I'�=I—_ � �.�
Law hardly Reiden■d II.1 kelp :emoo■Camaevdel -HeaW ndusl ial ►i6it 3-Prapnstd Compreleretslve Wa■tJ
Land Use DesigEatiors
/aim Delaty Redderlla{-eCreeeetly farnmeraa PaP/dpen hers aF m e oFr.
Cf�St Sök2ne
Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106.Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 Fax:509.921.1008•cityhall@spokanevafley.org-
�Rt X.✓'-+vs-�s..JAV W- ‘5. ea.m-. .� =-r.�_v SI�k.. ;,;.: J,...s J'Y. i2.
Memorandum
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: John Carroll,Chair- Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Date: March 10,2011
Re: Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation: CPA-03-11, Removal of
the Subarea Plan
Background:
The Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan(Subarea Plan) was adopted in June 2009 and
became effective on October 15, 2009. Following the plan adoption, Council directed staff
to review the plan on a zone by zone basis with affected property owners, business operators
and interested citizens. Public meetings were conducted from May 2010 through September
2010. City Council passed a motion on October 26, 2010 to place the elimination of the
Subarea Plan from the Comprehensive Plan and reinstate the 2007 pre-Subarea Plan
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations. The item was added to the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Docket to be processed in conjunction with the annual amendments. The
proposal is described as follows:
Remove the entire Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan and
associated zoning designations, and return those areas to the City of
Spokane Valley zoning in effect on October 15, 2009. Associated
Comprehensive Plan and Development Code text Amendments necessary to
remove all reference to the Subarea Plan are also considered.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 24, 2011 and continued the
public hearing to March 10, 2011. After hearing public testimony and deliberations, the
Planning Commission recommends denial of the proposal.
The Planning Commission findings, conclusions and recommendation are summarized
below:
Findings:
1. SVMC 17.80.140(H) states that the City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments,
based on the specific findings and factors. The Planning Commission's findings are
italicized,
Findings
a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health,
safety,welfare,and protection of the environment;
1 of 4
The Planning Commission is concerned that if the plan is eliminated the
conditions along the corridor will continue to decline without a plan to provide
guidance and stability for future development. The Commission is also concerned
that sufficient public input has not been sought to determine community support
or opposition to the Subarea Plan and believe that the community should be
surveyed to determine what components of the Subarea Plan should be retained;
The Commission believes that it is not in the public interest to move into the
future without a plan to revitalize the Corridor.
b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and
with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment;
Elimination of the subarea plan will not cause the comprehensive plan to be
inconsistent with the GMA, and it will not cause the development regulations to
be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the plan.
c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond
the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject
property lies;
The Cotntnission believes that the Subarea Plan has been inaccurately identified as
the reason for a decrease in development along the corridor and further that the
decrease is a symptotn of the state of the economy. is a long term plan that
provides direction, and it has not been given adequate time for implementation.
Public review of the Subarea Plan has led to numerous changes addressing
property owner concerns. The amount of critical input of the Subarea Plan has
been minor in comparison to the amount of input received in the development of
the Subarea Plan. The Commission is concerned that eliminating the Subarea
Plan sends the message to the development community of instability and appears
to address the specific needs of a small minority of vocal citizens.
d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; and
The amendment does not correct an obvious snapping error.
e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive
Plan.
The Commission has not identified a deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan.
However; the Commission notes that the Subarea Plan may not be fully supported
by the Community and advocates that the plan continue to be studied and modified
accordingly. Additionally, the Commission believes that the community should be
surveyed utilizing a statistically valid method to determine community opinion.
Factors:
a. The effect upon the physical environment;
Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley
Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that the proposed amendment
does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment.
b. The effect on open space,streams,rivers, and lakes;
2 of 4
The proposed amendment is a non project amendment and will not affect open
space, streams, rivers, and lakes.
c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding
neighborhoods;
The previous comprehensive plan land use designations and zoning were
established consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan
adopted on April 25, 2006.
d. The adequacy of land impact on community facilities including utilities, roads,
public transportation,parks, recreation and schools;
Eliminating the plan does not create, nor address known impacts, but allows for
conditions to continue.
e. The benefit to the neighborhood,city and region;
The Planning Commission finds that eliminating the Subarea Plan is abandoning
the businesses located along the corridor. Business has suffered along the one-
ways and the corridor continues to decline. The City has a responsibility to all
segments of the community, and the businesses along the corridor represent a
considerable portion of the city's sales tax revenue. Business's west of University
are suffering as a result of the one-way couplet. Commitments were made by the
City to increase visibility and access. The city has a commitment to support the
businesses along the corridor recognizing their important sales tax revenue
contribution that supports the services provided by the city to its residents.
f The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and
density, and the demand for such land;
The Subarea Plan contains approximately 1,000 acres of underutilized land. The
proposal would return all acreage to the October 14, 2009 land use designations
and zoning. The elimination of the plan will allow additional commercial
development increasing the amount of land available for generalized commercial
uses.
g. The current and projected population density in the area; and
Eliminating the Subarea Plan will restore the previous commercial land use
designations. The Planning commission recognizes the trend for business to locate
near intersections or freeways and believes that vacancies will continue, and a
decrease in employment could result.
h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal would eliminate the mapped area and zoning associated with the
Subarea Plan. The pre-Subarea Plan land use designations were consistent with
the goals and policies within the SVCP at the time of adoption, and remain
consistent. The mixed use vision for Sprague Avenue is similar under the Subarea
plan, and the previous land use designations. However, mixed use development
may be less likely to occur under the use based zoning.
3 of 4
Conclusions:
The Commission concludes that the proposed amendment is not in the interest of the citizens
of Spokane Valley and that there is not significant community opinion supporting the
removal of the plan.
Recommendations:
The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends to the City Council
that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to remove the entire Sprague and
Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan and associated zoning designations and return those
areas to the City of Spokane Valley zoning in effect on October 15, 2009 be denied. The
Planning Commission further recommends that the associated Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code Text Amendments proposed to remove all reference to the Subarea
Plan also be denied.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Sprague and Appleway Revitalization
Plan be retained. It is further recommended study of the Subarea Plan continues with a
public process to identify what components of the Subarea Plan are supported by the
community.
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation reviewed and approved on this 10111 day of
Marc 011
n G. Carroll,-Chairman
ATTEST
Deanna Griffith,Administrative Assistant
4 of4
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 19,2011 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ®new business ❑public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report IEI pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-010, Official Zoning map amendments (specifically
pertaining to the SARP)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A(Growth Management Act)
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On April 12, 2011,no action was taken by City Council.
BACKGROUND: All parts of the Comprehensive Plan can be amended during the annual cycle. The Community
Development Department received two privately initiated site specific map amendments. Sites that are approved for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment will automatically receive a zoning designation that is consistent with the new land use
designation.
The 2011 Comprehensive Plan text amendments include amendments to five Comprehensive Plan Elements: Chapter 2 -
Land Use, Chapter 3 — Transportation, Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and Public Services, Chapter 7 — Economic
Development, and Chapter 8 —Natural Environment. The amendments may also entail minor changes to other elements
referencing the proposed amendments.
Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission at a study session on February 10, 2011. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments on February 24,2011. The Planning Commission continued
the public hearing to March 10, 2011 to receive additional testimony and for deliberation. After hearing public testimony,
the Commission made recommendations on CPA-01-11 through CPA-08-11.
Staff presented the proposed amendments to the City Council on March 22, 2011. On April 12, 2011, staff provided City
Council goals and policies relating to CPA-02-11. City Council requested that CPA-02-11 be removed for one month to
have staff work on a development agreement to minimize the impacts of the proposed development. In addition, City
Council requested that CPA-03-11 be processed through ordinance 11-009 and Ordinance 11-010. CPA-02-11 and CPA-
03-11 will be considered in conjunction with the annual 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments pursuant to RCW
36.70A.130.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSALS: Comprehensive plan amendment proposals are organized
into individual reports consisting of application materials, staff reports, comprehensive plan maps, zoning maps, aerial
maps,vicinity maps,transportation maps,and comments submitted to date to assist the City Council in their review.
OPTIONS: Advance the ordinance to second reading with or without modifications, or take other action deemed
appropriate.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Advance ordinance 11-010 to a second reading
STAFF CONTACT:Mike Basinger,AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Draft Ordinance
1 of 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 11-010
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE SPOKANE VALLEY UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE,
SPECIFICALLY REPEALING THE SPOKANE VALLEY SPRAGUE APPLEWAY CORRIDOR
SUBAREA PLAN ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE 09-021 AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,
Spokane County,Washington,as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley, (the "City") is a noncharter code city organized under
the laws of Title 35A RCW; and
WHEREAS, the City has the authority to amend its development regulations pursuant to RCW
35A.63.100; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, (the "City Council"), adopted
Ordinance 09-021 on September 15,2009 amending the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code(the
"UDC")specifically adopting the Spokane Valley Sprague Appleway Subarea Plan, (the"Subarea Plan");
and
WHEREAS, this amendment is an area-wide amendment to the UDC pursuant to Spokane
Valley Municipal Code (the "SVMC") Section 17.80.140 (H) as part of the annual comprehensive plan
amendment process and is being passed in conjunction with Ordinance No. 11-009.
WHEREAS, the Washington's Growth Management Act(the "GMA") requires comprehensive
plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of property consistent with
land use map designations;and
WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA,the City adopted Public Participation Guidelines to direct
the public involvement process for adopting and amending comprehensive plans;and
WHEREAS,the UDC provides that amendment applications shall be received until November 1
of each year; and
WHEREAS, application for CPA-03-11 was submitted by the City staff to amend its
Comprehensive Plan and Map and UDC and Official Zoning Map for the purpose of beneficially using
the property described herein; and
WHEREAS, following the application to the City, staff conducted an environmental review
pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed
amendment; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklists, staff issued a Determination of Non-
significance (DNS) on February 4, 2011 for the proposed amendment, published the DNS in the Valley
News Herald on February 4, 2011, and where appropriate posted the DNS on the sites and mailed the
DNS to all affected public agencies; and
Ordinance 11-010 Page 1 of 5
WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified on February 4, 2011
pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 providing a 60-day notice of intent to adopt this amendment to the UDC
and Official Zoning Map;and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2011,notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the
Valley News Herald;and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2011, notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property
owners within 400 feet of the subject property ;and
WHEREAS,on February 4, 2011,notice of the hearing was posted on the subject properties; and
WHEREAS,the Commission conducted a briefing on February 10, 2011,to review the proposed
amendment; and
WHEREAS,the Commission received evidence, information,public testimony and a staff report
and recommendation at a public hearing on February 24,2011; and
WHEREAS, the Commission conducted a public hearing on February 24, 2011, to consider
proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Map and the UDC and Official Zoning Map. After
hearing public testimony,the Commission made recommendations on this amendment(CPA-03-11);and
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2011,and April 12, 2011 Council reviewed the proposed amendment;
and
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2011, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the
proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2011, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which time
Council approved the findings set forth below setting forth their basis for recommending approval of the
proposed amendment.
WHEREAS, this amendment is being considered in conjunction with all of the amendments
submitted as part of the annual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and are considered pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.130 and SVMC 17.80.140(H);and
WHEREAS, at the time the Subarea Plan was approved,the City of Spokane Valley intended to
make significant investments in the City Center area designated on that plan through the purchase of
property on which it would construct and operate a new City Hall as well as construct improvements to
streets and streetscapes adjacent to the new City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the plan for the development of the City Center property also included the
construction of a library within its boundaries by the Spokane County Library District; and
WHEREAS,the voters of the City rejected a bond proposal to construct a Library within the City
Center property; and
WHEREAS, The City, no longer has plans for the purchase of property within the Subarea plan
or for the construction of a public facility; and
WHEREAS, the Subarea and subsequent development regulations did not allow a number of
specific uses in certain zones, imposed design standards on all zones, required future roads to be
Ordinance 11-010 Page 2 of 5
constructed, and imposed certain setback, signage and parking standards separate and distinct from those
imposed on the remainder of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a series of public meetings on May 5, 2010, June 24,
2010, July 22, 2010, August 19, 2010 and September 30, 2010 and held council meetings on May 4, 11
and 18, 2010; June 8 and 15, 2010; July 6, 13 and 20, 2010; August 10 and 17, 2010; September 14 and
28, 2010 and October 19, 2010, identifying community concerns with the restrictions on use, design and
construction imposed by the Subarea Plan;and
WHEREAS, the City Council implemented specific changes to the UDC to address those
concerns until such time as the entire Subarea Plan could be reviewed as part of the annual amendment
process identified above adopting Ordinance No.'s 10-015, 10-016, 10-017 and 10-018; and
WHEREAS, the City removed the restrictions contained in the City Center designation in the
Comprehensive Plan and Map as well as the UDC and Official Zoning Map pursuant to Ordinance No.'s
11-001 and 11-002 on January 25,2011; and
WHEREAS, the City has been made aware of potential development that could occur within the
Subarea Plan that currently is precluded by the current designations;and
WHEREAS, a number of uses, buildings and signs have been made non-conforming by the
adoption of the Subarea Plan and development regulations implementing the same;and
WHEREAS, testimony before the City Council and Planning Commission has demonstrated
both the economic hardships and the desire to remove the current limitations as is set forth in the findings
of fact below; and
WHEREAS, the issues and factors concerning the creation of the Subarea designation has been
the subject of three years of study and analysis, and public meetings and testimony, specifically as set
forth in Ordinance 09-021 and in additional public hearings and meetings identified in the Findings of
Fact below; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission recommendations fail to take into account some or all of
the specific factors set forth in the fmdings of fact below:
NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS FURTHER ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Notice for the proposed amendment was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on February 4,2011
and each site was posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing"sign,with a description of the proposal.
2. Individual notice of the amendment was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of each affected
site.
3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA—RCW 43.21C)environmental checklists were
required for the proposed amendments to the UDC and Official Zoning Map.
4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist and a threshold determination was made for the amendment
request. A Determination of Non-significance(DNS)was issued for the requested amendment on
February 4, 2011.
5. The DNS was published in the City's official newspaper on February 4, 2011 consistent with the City's
Environmental Ordinance.
Ordinance 11-010 Page 3 of 5
6. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 24, 2011,to consider
the proposed amendment. After hearing public testimony,the Commission made recommendations on
CPA-03-11.
7. The planning goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA) were considered and the proposed
amendments are consistent with the GMA.
8. The goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed
amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
9. The proposed zoning designations are consistent with the current use of the properties.
10. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria
contained in Section 17.80.140 H. (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide rezones) of the
UDC.
11. The UDC and Official Zoning Map amendments will not adversely affect the public's general health,
safety,and welfare.
12. The City has provided notice and engaged in a public process to ensure citizen participation pursuant
to RCW 36.70A.035, RCW 36.70A.130 and RCW 36.70A.140, providing the public an opportunity
to be heard on the dates set forth in the fmdings and recitals above. The notice provided and meetings
identified constitute early and continuous public participation in the consideration of this proposed
amendment to the comprehensive plan and map.
13. The City Council does not accept the Findings of the Planning Commission for the reasons set forth
in these Findings of Fact as well as the following:
a. At the time the Subarea Plan was approved, the City of Spokane Valley intended to make
significant investments in the City Center area designated on that plan through the purchase of
property on which it would construct and operate a new City Hall as well as construct
improvements to streets and streetscapes adjacent to the new City Hall; and
b. The plan for the development of the City Center property also included the construction of a
Library within its boundaries;and
c. The voters of the City rejected a bond proposal by the Spokane county Library District to
construct a library within the City Center property; and
d. The City, no longer has plans for the purchase of property within the Subarea plan or for the
construction of a public facility;and
e. Economic conditions in Spokane Valley, the State of Washington and the country as a whole
have changed significantly since the Subarea Plan was adopted and the Subarea Plan is not longer
realistic or feasible in the current economic circumstances; and
f. The Subarea Plan and subsequent development regulations did not allow a number of specific
uses in certain zones, imposed design standards on all zones, required future roads to be
constructed, and imposed certain setback, signage and parking standards separate and distinct
from those imposed on the remainder of the City and those restrictions and the lack of flexibility
found in the Subarea Plan have increased the cost of development and has had a negative impact
on economic development and had a negative impact on employment and job creation; and
g. Uncertainty resulting from the adoption and implementation of the Subarea Plan has negatively
impacted development within the Subarea, stymied economic development and resulted in a
single building permit application since the time the Subarea Plan was adopted;and
Ordinance 11-010 Page 4 of 5
h. The City has been made aware of potential development that could occur within the Subarea that
currently is precluded by the current designations;and
i. A number of uses, buildings and signs have been made non-conforming by the adoption of the
Subarea Plan and development regulations implementing the same; and
j. Testimony before the City Council and Planning Commission has demonstrated both the
economic hardships and the desire to remove the current limitations from both citizens and
property owners within the Subarea.
Section 2: Amendment of the Uniform Development Code. The City of Spokane Valley
Uniform Development Code is herby amended as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this
reference incorporated herein.
Section 3: Amendment of the Official Zoning Map. The City of Spokane Valley Official
Zoning Map is hereby amended as is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein.
Section 4: Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or lack of
constitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, clause or phrase of
this ordinance.
Section 5: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after
publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane
Valley as provided by law.
Passed by the City Council day of April, 2011.
Y t3' Y p
Thomas E.Towey,Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge A
Approved As To Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 11-010 Page 5 of 5
Exhibit 6
CPA-03-11 -Associated SVMC Code Text Amendments
List of Text Amendments
Title 19 Zoning Regulations
19.110.020 Spokane Valley Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan
19.140.010 Purpose.
Appendices
Appendix D Spokane Valley Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan
Title 5 Business Licenses and Regulations
Chapter 5.10 Adult Entertainment Establishments
CPA-03-11 -Associated SVMC Code Text Amendments Page 1
Chapter 19.110
SPECIAL OVERLAY ZONES
Sections:
19.110.010 Medical Office Overlay.
19.110.020 Spokane Valley Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan
19.110.030 Airport Hazard Overlay.
19.110.040 Pipeline Hazard Overlay.
19.110.020 Spokane Valley Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan.
All land use and development applications defined in SVMC 17.80.0.0 and 19.10.020 for property contained within the
Spokane Valley Sprague and Applcway Corridors Subarea Plan arca shall be governed by the terms and provisions of that
subarea plan which is incorporated herein by this reference and included as Appendix D. This subarea plan shall also
,supersede development standards set forth in Chapter 22.50 SVMC,Off Street Parking and Loading Standards; Chapter
22.60 SVMC,Outdoor Lighting Standards; Chapter 22.70 SVMC,Fencing, Screening and Landscaping;and Chapter 22.110
SVMC, Sign Regulations,except for those regulations that are specifically incorporated by the subarea plan. (Ord. 09 '28
§ 1,2009;Ord. 09 026 § 1,2009; Ord. 09 021 §2,2009;Ord. 09 012 § 2,2009;Ord. 07 015 §1,2007).
CPA-03-11 —Associated SVMC Code Text Amendments Page 2
Chapter 19.140
ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIONS
Sections: _
119.140.010 Purpose
19.140.010 Purpose.
An administrative exception may be considered only for adjustments necessary to correct errors resulting from the
inadvertent and unintentional placement of structures or incorrect identification of lot boundaries in the following
circumstances:
K. -: - " -: - • . ' . - - - .- - - . - - • - - -= -
. . ! I ! I- . . I I II
CPA-03-11 —Associated SVMC Code Text Amendments Page 3
Appendices
Appendix A Definitions
Appendix B Hearing Examiner Scheduling Rules and Rules of Conduct
Appendix C City Council Hearing Procedures
CPA-03-11 -Associated SVMC Code Text Amendments Page 4
APPENDIX D
SPOKANE VALLEY SPRAGUE AND APPLEWAY CORRIDORS SUBAREA PLAN
and by this reference adopted and incorporated herein and codified as Appendix D to the Uniform
Development Code. (Ord. 10 023 §§ 1, 3 7, 2010; Ord. 10 018 §§ 1 7, 2010; Ord. 10 017 § 2, 2010;
Ord. 10 015 § 3, 2010; Ord. 09 028 § 1, 2009; Ord. 09 026 § 1, 2009; Ord. 09 021 § 3, 2009; Ord. 09
012 § 3, 2009).
* Code reviser's note: Exhibit A is on file in the office of the city clerk.
CPA-03-11 -Associated SVMC Code Text Amendments Page 5
Chapter 5.10
ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS
Sections:
5.10.040 Applications.
5.10.040 Applications.
A.Adult Entertainment Establishment License.
10.The exterior design and/or signs of the adult entertainment establishment must meet the requirements set forth in
SVMC 19.110.020,adopting the Spokane Valley Sprague and Apploway Corridorc Subarea Plan,and Chapter 22.110
SVMC.
CPA-03-11 —Associated SVMC Code Text Amendments Page 6
-I \•'Q2 :vc:r:_a:;: emu, --- -i:1�01■..- _ .L�- ?_ =.= i.a_c -...40.•. _=.z.qiu'�� 2z x,,, [..�...�i_ �ii5s 41::: _ - -'sryam"-- -- -
IN■1 LuU .... - ..� ii• * 'SEES`li'_CII- _ _�?::SS:_ I'■ _ !•I'C ;•-II;�i= .. $$BS IIII,I�KK ....... lii� •='f..i;,yry... 4-" -
1`a_`- I `' M®:11'7:1 i11h�:-. ..a= _ i1n'a11=_■�1MNlid..:ill■f igi,sIIl11r:;; .1 .• *r mil _ �?
1�'� i�e.::,...,...,.._,.,_„ ,, ....0 ___emall:_G1i m:, =::nn =E �1�_ ■. 21!'11"II:IIz4s"" ' �... I:�-�: .. 1 1
I■ 71111 1 37.' ':11::111,111• �®ii=_'®' ! Ma_ 111=.L 3111- _ ��5`£=:r'a......o1T �'
ran: IP =x_:11'-=11R '-:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 19, 2011 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Disaster Cost Recovery
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND: Gerry Bozarth of Spokane Emergency Management, Mitigation & Disaster
Recovery, will give a presentation concerning Disaster Cost-Recovery and FEMA.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT:
ATTACHMENTS: Handout, PowerPoint
r
•pNP Public Assistance Guide
FEMA 322 /June 2007
When a disaster occurs, it is the responsibility of the local community. The State will
assist once local capability or resources are exhausted. Often, their combined efforts
are not sufficient to cope effectively with the direct results of the disaster. This
situation calls for Federal assistance to supplement State, Tribal, and local efforts.
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §5121
- 5207, authorizes the President to provide such assistance. Assistance is coordinated
through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a component of the
Department of Homeland Security.
Categories of Assistance (Reimbursement):
* Category A - Debris Removal
* Category B - Emergency Protective Measures
* Category C - Roads and Bridges
* Category D - Water Control Facilities
* Category E - Buildings and Equipment
* Category F — Utilities (Public or Non-Profit)
* Category G - Parks, Recreational, and Other
Process: Request for Public Assistance
1. Local — Spokane Emergency Management's (DEM) Recovery Specialist writes a
Supplemental Justification which explains the community's disaster and gives a
preliminary damage estimate.
2. Washington State Emergency Management Division (EMD) — reviews Spokane
Emergency Management's request and arranges for a Preliminary Damage
Assessment (PDA) with the Recovery Specialist. Preliminary damage must exceed
two thresholds; county and state.
Current thresholds:
(based on 2000 Census and Updated Oct. 1st each yr.)
Spokane County
Pop. 417,939 Threshold - $1,366,660.53
(Pop. 471,221 Census 2010 $1,540,892.67)
WA State
Pop. 5,894,121 Threshold - $7,662,357.53
(Pop. 6,724,540 Census 2010 $8,809,147.40)
Once the PDA has been certified by EMD, the Governor can request a Presidential
Declaration of Disaster. If the President concurs with the Governor, this triggers
FEMA Public Assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §5121 — 5207.
FEMA is then directed to work with the State's EMD to begin the process of
confirming the state's PDA, scheduling kick-off meetings, and field work to
determine how infrastructure will be rebuilt and emergency work will be
reimbursed. There are strict timelines for rebuilding or repairing approved damaged
infrastructure. The entire process is detailed in FEMA Public Assistance Guide 322,
June 2007.
Questions can be directed to:
Gerry Bozarth
Mitigation & Disaster Recovery
Spokane Emergency Management
509-477-7613
gbozarth@spokanecountv.org
yQ KA
� W
o
tieY MpN,
Disaster Cost Recovery
Gerry Bozarth
Disaster Mitigation and Recovery
yeOKk
z FEMA Programs
W
,A M•N
• Public Assistance (PA)
— Government Assistance
- Reimbursement maximum 75% of .-- +'
uninsured damage
— Additional 12.5% from WA State 'rill
possible ,
— Two types of disaster work— emergency ' 0
-. . 401,
& permanent
F
• Individual Assistance (IA) F ; ,' ..e _ -
— Minimum 25 citizen's primary residence
affected and 40% of damage uninsured.
• Small Business Administration (SBA) __
— Low interest loans made to qualifying
applicants that suffer economic or -- —1
physical damage to their business.
Five or more businesses must be L'
affected. -
Public Assistance ( PA)
tvt,
Categories of Assistance ( $ )
• A — Debris Removal
• B - Emergency Protective Measures
• C - Roads & Bridges
• D - Water Control Facilities
• E - Buildings & Equipment
• F - Utilities ( Publically owned or Non-Profit)
• G - Parks & Recreational Facilities
Emergency Protective Measures
■ Examples : Category B
• OT for Police and Fire
• Tire chains, hourly charge for
extraordinary use of police cars
and fire equipment _
• Snow removal from city streets, -
county roads, and roofs on 4 ; '} � `
government buildings and/or
qualifying non-profits (ie; STA & '
schools)
• Temporary reconstruction of
damage that left unattended will
cause more damage (ie;
Fairground's exhibit hall)
• Debris clearing (not removal)
from roadways and other
essential areas for 1st responder
and citizen access
Permanent Work
pkw,
Examples : Category A, C, D, E, F, G
• Physically picking up tree branches & hauling to a
Debris Management Site (A)
• Rebuilding a City or County owned bridge (C)
• Replacing damaged equipment at the Waste
Treatment Plant (D)
• Rebuilding Exhibit Hall at the Fairgrounds ( E)
• OT/infrastructure repair of Public/Non-Profit
utilities (Vera Power in Lincoln Co. 2008) ( F)
• Hangman Valley Golf Course permanent repairs
(2008) (G )
Damage Cost Thresholds
• Both county and state preliminary damage
cost estimate thresholds have to be exceeded :
- FEMA established a per/capita rate for County and
State
— Spokane County - $3 .27/resident or $1,366,660*
— Washington State - $1.30/resident or $7,662, 147*
*Thresholds will be adjusted Oct. 1st with 2010 Census numbers.
„ Fe Brief Overview
pkw,
Recovery Process
1 . Post-disaster: Recovery Specialist gathers data
and submits preliminary damage
estimate/report to WA Emergency Management
Division ( EMD) .
2 . EMD reviews/verifies both cost damage
thresholds have been exceeded and submits to
the Governor to request a Presidential
Declaration of Disaster
3 . If the President concurs, FEMA is directed to
begin work with the state and affected county(s)
• See Handout#1 and FEMA Public Assistance Guide 322,June 2007 for complete process and further information
voK
p1'W Conclusion
• Specifics of disaster cost recovery are complex
• Spokane Emergency Management is here to
assist you when disaster strikes
• We will guide you through the process
• We will ensure that you receive appropriate,
timely information to ensure you receive the
maximum allowed cost reimbursement
Questions ?
low
Er:j:
Ald
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 19, 2011 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Neighborhood request for Quiet Zone at Park Rd and Vista Road UPRR
Xings
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Discussion at 10/26/2010 and 12/7/2010 Council
Meetings
BACKGROUND:
A group of neighbors in the northwest part of Spokane Valley submitted a petition in 2010 asking
for the installation of a Quiet Zone at the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crossings of Park Road
and Vista Road. A Quiet Zone is a crossing that has been enhanced with additional safety
measures and has been approved by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as a location
where trains are not required to blow their whistle.
At the 12/07/2010 Council Meeting staff was asked to move forward by preparing a scope of work
with an engineering firm to further evaluate the quiet zone. We selected a consultant from our
roster and have attached their scope of work and fee. The scope of work includes stakeholder and
neighborhood meetings, coordination with UPRR and FRA, evaluation of different improvement
options, 90% design and cost estimates for the work, and filing of the preliminary paperwork with
the FRA to establish the quiet zone. This scope would take the City to the point where a decision
would need to be made on how to fund the required crossing improvements. The estimated fee for
this work is $82,551.
If the City desires to move forward with construction, then additional engineering, construction
inspection, and coordination with UPRR and FRA would be required. This stage is not covered in
the attached scope of work.
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. Scope of Work and Estimate.
City of Spokane Valley,WA
Spokane V alle uiet Zone Stud Y Y
,, , ....*" • '
co a and Fee Estimate
p
44 F,
Iii. M. _.
}.,.. -
a' •
■
Prepared by _ - _ _ - -
WI „ . -,- .', ,
- 0 -• -''''. „- - -,-,...7: , .
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC. . ' • ' • y - Ail► , March 7, 2011
JYF r .1 • -
-
II DAVID EVANS
wffoASSflCIATES ireo.
INTRODUCTION
David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) staff blends the skills, resources, and expertise necessary to evaluate the
feasibility of establishing a quiet zone for the City of Spokane Valley. DEA offers highly qualified individuals with
established experience in quiet zones and railroad crossing operational studies and design, as well as specific
experience with complex railroad coordination. DEA also offers the most responsive project personnel available to
provide the best client service. Led by Quiet Zone Project Manager, Susan Grabler, DEA will approach this project
with enthusiasm, focus, and commitment. DEA will provide the City of Spokane Valley with comprehensive railroad
operations and design experience, familiarity with railroad policies and practices, and a practical background in the
implementation and funding of railroad projects.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
DEA understands that the City of Spokane Valley wishes to reduce train whistle noise in Union Pacific Main Line
corridor at the Park and Vista crossings. A quiet zone study will identify the improvements, policies and strategies
needed to accomplish quiet zone implementation while meeting federal and railroad requirements and given
realistic potential funding sources. The timeline for the establishment of a quiet zone is highly variable, depending
on the FRA, UPRR< and road authority requirements unique to each crossing. The schedule for the initial work up to
the preliminary design is expected to be completed within six months of the start date for this project.
Project Objectives
DEA's approach to the quiet zone study will focus on early definition of project goals and identification of critical
project elements that will need to be addressed in order to achieve these goals.
Project objectives may include:
• Building a strong and effective agency/public coordination program with all of the key stakeholders,
such as the City of Spokane Valley and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission (WUTC), and affected property owners. Project Manager Susan Grabler has
a strong relationship with the UPRR.
• Evaluating the critical elements associated with the project and developing solutions that will
successfully address those issues and achieve the project goals.
• Identifying potential project constraints, such as special railroad requirements, right-of-way constraints,
utility impacts, and public concern early and developing a plan of action to efficiently comply with all
regulations with minimal impact on the primary project objectives and schedule.
• Developing an overall project design that achieves the project goals and provides the City of Spokane
Valley with an enhanced transportation district.
Recommended Project Phasing
Phasel—Quiet Zone Study and Preliminary Design
Phase one includes the work covered by this contract. The DEA team will analyze all of the FRA supplemental safety
devices for each Phase of the quiet zone study to determine the best and safest alternate for each crossing.
DEA will assist the UPRR and all regulatory agencies necessary to obtain approvals for the quiet zone. Project
Manager Susan Grabler spent 24 years as the Public Project Manager for the UPRR. In that position Susan has
worked with and negotiated numerous public projects through the regulatory agencies in several states and
numerous public agencies.
City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Quiet Zone Study
QDAVID EVANS
A"ASSOCIATES iNG.
Susan is familiar with the processes at each agency and has a track record for successfully completing several
challenging projects throughout her career. Susan will be able to provide the City of Spokane Valley with a "Letter of
Intent", which needs to be filed with the FRA once the quiet zone corridor has been selected.
DEA will assist the City with the implementation of the quiet zone by making sure the preliminary analysis of each
crossing is complete and concise before the actual diagnostic meetings are held. Once the diagnostic meetings are
completed, DEA will compile the information and run the FRA calculations for each crossing, and prepare the "Letter
of Intent" to be filed with the FRA. Susan Grabler has the experience and knowledge to keep the project moving
along, and will also work with the stakeholders to make sure there are no unknown issues; as any unknown issues
can derail the quiet zone process and delay the implementation.
DEA will provide preliminary design plans to 90% completion for the improvements needed to complete the quiet
zone. With such modifications as raised medians with channelizing devices, new crossing systems and gates, and
potential road closures, DEA will complete a set of plans for review by the City and UPRR for submittal to the FRA.
In conjunction with the analysis and preliminary design, DEA will coordinate the approval process through the
railroad company and the FRA. The FRA reviews and analyzes all quiet zone projects and proposed changes
annually with statistical information as well as input from stakeholders during the quiet zone process.
Phase 2- Implementation
Subsequent to the completion of the items contained within this scope of work,the City may select a consulting firm
to develop final design drawings, and provide construction assistance as necessary for the City and railroad
approved improvements to implement the quiet zone. DEA is a multi-disciplined engineering and planning firm and
we can plan, design, estimate and support a quiet zone project during design and construction after the City has
received approvals from the FRA, WUTC, UPRR and other stakeholders on the required improvements.
Critical Issues
There are several critical issues/challenges associated with this project that must be successfully addressed in order
to achieve the project objectives and goals, as addressed in the following tasks. Our approach to the City of Spokane
Valley Quiet Zone Study is to work collaboratively with the City and other stakeholders to develop a document that
achieves the technical, fiscal, and implementation objectives. Our key staff has successfully completed many
projects similar in scope. Through this experience, we have developed a technical and management approach that
blends our understanding of jurisdictional and agency procedures with specific project requirements. Because we
see the "big picture" of both the immediate tasks at hand and the overall objectives, we can provide an approach to
meet project schedules within fiscal constraints while delivering the highest quality work.
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1—Data Collection and Assessment
The project will begin with the collection and inventory of data relating to the crossings from the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) and the UPRR. This information will be used in subsequent tasks to evaluate the
crossings for improvements to bring them in compliance with Quiet Zone requirements. Also during this task, an
assessment of the adjacent crossings in the City of Millwood (Margeurite and Argonne) will be conducted and
coordination will take place to determine if the crossings will be included in the quiet zone. In the event that the
Margeurite and Argonne crossings are to be included, negotiations would be necessary with the City of
Millwood to provide funding for the analysis of those crossings.
2 City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Quiet Zone Study
I 0 DAVID EVAIUS
A"ASSOCIATES 1NO•
Task 2—Field Review
Engineering and design personnel will visit the sites to familiarize themselves with geometric, safety, operational
and environmental conditions related to the crossings prior to beginning the design of proposed improvements.
There is currently a planned shared use pathway (Millwood Trail) that will interact with this section of the
railroad. The field review would include consultation with Craig Aldworth to determine the location and impact
of the proposed trail.
Task 3—Summary of Legal Issues
DEA will develop a summary of the legal issues that accompany the establishment of a quiet zone. This
summary will be submitted to the City for review and included as an appendix in the final report. The legal
summary will include such topics as indemnification and the City's liability in relation to the crossings in the
quiet zone provided as a list and not intended as legal advice.
Task 4—Survey
Also to be completed prior to the design tasks, a topographic survey will be conducted to establish a base from
which to begin design of proposed improvements. The survey will gather data related to road edges,
centerlines, train rails, signals, traffic control, and one-call utility locates for the two crossings in the City of
Spokane Valley: Park Road and Vista Road. It is assumed that coordination with the railroad will be done by the
DEA Project Manager. Through coordination with the City of Millwood, additional survey efforts may be
necessary and would be funded through the City of Millwood.
Task 5—Documentation
Based on the field review and data collection, the sites will be documented within the FRA database for
compliance with the Quiet Zone requirements. A brief technical memorandum will be prepared summarizing
the sites and their requirements.
Task 6—Analysis of Safety Measures
Once components of the crossings have been entered into the FRA system, potential safety measures will be
identified and evaluated for inclusion in the Quiet Zone. Potential measures include Supplementary Safety
Measures (SSM) and Alternative Safety Measures (ASM) as included in the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-
Rail Grade Crossings; Final Rule. The five SSMs include temporary closure, four-quadrant gates, gates with
medians or channelization, and one-way street with gates, and permanent closure. ASMs are a safety system or
procedure other than an SSM that is reviewed and decided to be an effective substitute for the locomotive horn.
Examples include modified SSMs, non-engineering ASMs (enhanced enforcement), or engineering ASMs. It is
understood that it is the City's intention to keep adjacent street open to travel if possible. As such,
combinations of SSMs and ASMs will be considered to accomplish this.
Task 7—Quiet Zone Feasibility Evaluation
Based on the evaluation of the safety measures and site-specific information, the feasibility of a Quiet Zone at
the crossings will be evaluated. This includes data entry to the FRA database for a safety rating based on the
proposed safety measures.
With the current configuration of the UPRR crossings it will be difficult to meet all Federal regulations to
establish a quiet zone without some modifications to the crossings. One of the Federal requirements to
establish a quiet zone is that all driveways within 60-feet of a railroad-highway crossing must be closed. Several
options will need to be evaluated as potential solutions to mitigate the issue and meet the quiet zone
requirement at each of the actual roadway crossings. Curb and gutter or a concrete barrier may be constructed
on the approaches to the tracks.
3 City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Quiet Zone Study
•
II
DAVID EVANS
Al DASSOCIATES'N�-
Due to the proximity of the adjacent crossings in Millwood, the train horns would still be heard through the
quiet zone at a reduced volume. Although they are far enough away not to be included, the feasibility of their
inclusion will be evaluated and subsequent coordination with Millwood officials will be pursued, if necessary.
The FRA rules and regulations require that all crossings in a proposed quiet zone corridor be funded 100%by the
local entity requesting the quiet zone. Typically, Federal funding has not been used to fund quiet zone
improvements. Further research will be necessary to investigate all funding options.
DEA has successfully worked with other communities on creative strategies which may be negotiated with the
railroads. For example, the City and DEA may identify existing at-grade crossings which could be closed and
approach the railroad with this proposal. The railroad has a program whereby they will pay the road authority
for the closure of redundant public at-grade crossings, thereby offsetting a portion of the cost of improvements
to the remaining crossings.
Task 8—Diagnostic Review and Agency Coordination
DEA's Project Manager will coordinate contact with the FRA and UPRR throughout the project to identify
conflicts or concerns and effectively address them.
A full diagnostic review is required with all of the major stakeholders at each of the at-grade highway-railroad
crossings in any proposed quiet zone corridor. If it is determined at the diagnostic review that a railroad signal
installation or roadway improvements are required, then the railroad signal system design and estimate as well
as actual installation can typically take 12-18 months from the date of the on-site diagnostic. In addition, any
roadway improvements, including installation of curb and gutter, driveway closures, utility relocations and other
civil improvements, must be designed, estimated and installed before a quiet zone can be implemented.
Coordination and effective communications with the UPRR throughout the process is critical. Project Manager,
Susan Grabler will facilitate this process and keep it moving to meet the City's timeline.
Task 9—Conceptual Railroad Signal Cost Estimate
As part of the upgrades to the crossings, a new signal and gates will be necessary at Park Road to meet Quiet
Zone requirements for gates, lights, constant warning time devices and power out indicators. In addition,
depending on the age and functionality of the components of the Vista Road crossing, it is possible that a new
signal or additional gates would need to be installed there, as well. UPRR will provide a cost estimate for the
signal components necessary to meet these criteria.
Task 10—Conceptual Roadway and Crossing Improvements
Potential improvements to the site to meet Quiet Zone requirements include some aspects of roadway
improvements, such as a raised median and channelizing devices. In order to establish a quiet zone, the
roadway must be improved in such a way that vehicles cannot enter the crossing when a train is present and the
signal is active. The recommended improvements at the crossings will be displayed in a conceptual design for
presentation to the Client for approval.
Task 11—Draft and Final Reports
A draft report will be submitted to the City in electronic form summarizing the Quiet Zone study process and
results. It is expected that the City will have two weeks to review the draft report and return comments to DEA.
In turn, DEA will prepare a final report for submittal. The Final Report will consist of two hard copies as well as
an electronic copy.
4 City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Quiet Zone Study
QDAVID EVANS
A"ASSOCIATES'N4.
I
Task 12—Presentations and Public Involvement
During the early stages of the project, DEA will conduct a stakeholders meeting; most likely in coordination with
the field review task. In conjunction with the completion of Task 9, DEA will present the conceptual design and
cost estimate to the City Council for comment and approval prior to completing the preliminary design. In
addition, DEA will lead one public meeting to inform residents of the process and address comments and
concerns of the residents. It is possible that the improvements may include street closures at intersections
immediately adjacent to the crossing. DEA will provide alternative options to the closures and facilitate
discussion regarding the options at the public meeting. It is expected that the meeting will occur in conjunction
with Task 6—Quiet Zone Feasibility Evaluation, so that public comment may be considered prior to the
commencement of the design phase
A key to the success of this project will be to engage the many affected stakeholder agencies in an open,
coordinated project development process that begins with mutual project definition and continues through
completion of the project. Coordination, communication, and documentation are essential. This approach
requires that each entity that has jurisdictional approval authority, such as the FRA, WUTC, SRTC, and
emergency service providers, participate in a committed and consistent manner throughout the entire project
development process. This is an essential element in creating an efficient process. Our first priority in agency
coordination will be to seek a thorough understanding of all of the project issues. Our approach seeks effective
and efficient agency coordination through an early and continuous communications process. We will keep all
agencies and stakeholders "in the loop" throughout the project in order to minimize procedural oversights and
to avoid overlooking significant project elements or requirements. Regular coordination meetings with the City
and other agencies and stakeholders will be held throughout the duration of the project.
The coordination process must be effective and focus dually on keeping the City staff and the UPRR informed
and building consensus on the study. Based on our prior experience with similar projects, we envision close
interaction with City staff, including formal preliminary and final reviews of the quiet zone study. It is
anticipated that three meetings will be scheduled to be integrated strategically within the study process.
Task 13—Preliminary Design and Cost Estimate
As presented in the approved conceptual design, the 90% preliminary design of crossing improvements will
include the plan sheets necessary to construct the improvements and a project cost estimate. The preliminary
design will be contingent upon a defined set of improvements and it may be necessary to delay the completion
of this task until after the approval process is complete. It is assumed that the improvements included in the
design will include all or part of the following: raised median with channelizing devices, active warning systems
with crossing gates, four quadrant gate systems, concrete curb and gutter, asphalt pavement, roadway closure
and obliteration, and advanced warning signage. This submittal will include a detailed engineering estimate
based on the recommended improvements to be installed.
Task 14—Coordination of Approval Process
Following the submittal of the letter of intent to the FRA, DEA will continue administrative support of the quiet
zone process as it progresses through agency approval. Susan will be available during this period to address
concerns by either the City or the UPRR until the final decision has been made by the FRA.
Based on DEA's prior experience on similar quiet zone projects, we know that we need to identify the City's
public safety concerns as well as the Railroad's safety concerns, making sure that the safest quiet zone possible
is established. Additionally, we will make sure that all Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) processes are
considered and in place for the City to file its quiet zone "Letter of Intent" with the FRA. Identifying and
establishing positive solutions to the railroad's infrastructure are a critical element to this process as are the
5 City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Quiet Zone Study
6 O DAVID EVAluS
A"ASSOCIATES 1NO•
I
unique processes that the railroads use to implement public projects. DEA will coordinate the process with the
railroad agencies throughout this process for the City.
In addition, it is likely that the City of Millwood will want to include their crossings in the quiet zone. This task
will also encompass the coordination with that jurisdiction as needed to complete the quiet zone process.
Task 15—Miscellaneous Tasks
Other task such as accounting and administration, preparation of presentation materials, and travel to the site
will be completed commensurate with project progression. If required, Susan Grabler would make up to two
trips for meetings with City staff. It is anticipated that these trips will be coordinated with the public
involvement efforts.
KEY PERSONNEL
Susan Grabler, Project Manager
Susan Grabler is the Mountain West Regional Rail Manager in the DEA Denver office and will serve as the Project
Manager and the administrative point of contact for this project. She will be responsible for team coordination,
project schedule, and overall management of the tasks within this project. Susan has experience with all aspects of
the project, including railroad engineering, quiet zone documentation, railroad coordination, and railroad project
funding. This hands-on experience will provide project efficiency as Susan can usefully contribute to the team tasks
as well as manage the overall project. She also has strong interpersonal skills that will prove to be invaluable for the
success of this project. Other key personnel and their anticipated roles are described below. Our team organization
chart is located at the end of this section.
Ms. Grabler has more than 38 years of railroad engineering experience both working for a Class 1 Railroad and in the
private sector. Her experience includes ten years of railroad track design, as well as general railroad engineering
experience. She has managed hundreds of public projects over a 24 year period working as a Manager of Industry
and Public Projects for UPRR in nine states and has facilitated the administration of at-grade and grade separation
public projects from inception to completion. She has participated in all phases of the railroad process and assisted
city, county, and state authorities to move their projects through the railroad administration and construction
process. Susan has served on several technical advisory committees where the railroad was an integral part of the
transportation studies. She is an active member of Committee 36 (Communications and Signal Committee) of the
American Railroad Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association. Susan has managed several quiet zone studies
including San Diego, California, Sheridan, Wyoming, and Douglas County, Colorado. While working for the UPRR,
Susan participated in several on-site diagnostic reviews of proposed Quiet zones for the Town of Winter Park, the
City of Brighton and the City of Arvada.
Jerremy Clark, PE, Traffic Engineering
Mr. Clark has led the efforts to date for the proposed quiet zone projects as part of his three years of ongoing traffic
work with the City of Spokane Valley. With a background of nine years in the engineering field, he has extensive
experience in a range of projects from sidewalks to highways. Through the past five years of his experience in traffic
engineering, Jerremy has served both planning and design roles in numerous projects including traffic signals and
roadways. Through his work with the City of Spokane valley, Jerremy has led such tasks sight distance studies,
operational analyses and coordination optimization along City corridors, and traffic design relative to Capital
Projects. Jerremy will be the primary local contact for the project, assisting DEA's project manager and providing
support and coordination through preliminary design. Jerremy will also staff any needed City Council interaction.
6 City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Quiet Zone Study
s QDA1ulID EVANS
AMDASSOCIATES'NC.
Kevin Picanco, PE, Traffic Engineering
Mr. Picanco is a senior transportation engineer with more than 17 years of engineering and transportation planning
experience. His professional experience spans many aspects of transportation including roadway and freeway
transportation planning, traffic engineering, and roadway and freeway design. His recent professional focus has
been on roadway and channelization design, transportation planning studies, traffic operational analysis, traffic
impact studies, traffic signal design, and site access and circulation evaluation. Kevin has managed numerous
roadway design projects including projects with railroad crossing improvements.
Carole Richardson, PE, Quality Assurance
Ms. Richardson has 23 years of experience in transportation planning, engineering and management, emphasizing
multi-modal studies and projects. Richardson is a talented group facilitator and skilled presenter, capable of
explaining complex issues in terms that decision-makers and the public can easily understand. She is also a
seasoned veteran in the realm of transportation funding, and her prior experience with the Bridging the Valley
project provides her with a good handle on crossing issues related to the Union Pacific Corridor. As DEA's quality
assurance manager, Carole's role is to ensure that the City gets the best from the DEA team, and that DEA's quality
and value exceed the City's expectations.
7 City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Quiet Zone Study
Iiiiiir—a.ii I=11 Il=
^ O DAVID EVANS
-- - - - -
AND ASSOC 9ATES INC,
REFERENCES
Union Pacific Railroad(UPRR) `I have had the pleasure of working with David Evans and
John Trumbull Associates'railroad, bridge,and roadway engineers on
Retired Industry and several occasions.In each instance,DEA coordinated with
Public Projects Manager UPRR to prepare designs that were sensitive to our
2020 South West 4th Avenue, 3rd Floor standards,procedures,requirements and operations. This
Portland, OR 97201-4958 included close communication with railroad personnel
throughout each project.
(503) 736-4135
DEA's creativity in finding solutions that keep the project's
BNSF Railroad best interests at heart, while meeting our needs and those of
Andy A m p a r i n, Manager Public Projects their clients in each case, has gone above and beyond the
4515 Kansas Avenue call of duty."
Kansas City, KS 66106 -John Trumbull
(913) 551-4964
Town of Sheridan, Wyoming
Nic Bateson
PO Box 848
Sheridan, WY 82801
(307) 674-6483 extension 248
Douglas County, Colorado
Fred Cook
100 Third Street
Castle Rock, CO 80104
(303) 660-7490
8 City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Quiet Zone Study
OAVIO EVANS
av"A55001ATES"7-
Consultant Labor Hours
Project ool Principal Lngnclr 50710,UCSigncr Survey 2-70"0. Survey °rofecr
Manager Engine-Il Emarleor1 Manaym Survey Crow Technician Assituire
TASH DESCRIPTION Total Task Hours labor Total Direct Carts Total CO.
Orablcv I4chardwrr haanw Clark Prwae Lernrlclnrarl Der:Wrr
$ 174 on 3 741 on .1 14.7501 .$ 10710 5 109.00 3 7543 nn 5 I,. n $ nn nn $ 75 en
l .nl
I. DataedllccIlOn and Assessment - F- I- - ■ ! _ 9 _9 578.00_- 0 69600
704 Dac[COlcl0807 2 2 15 348.00 $ - S 34800
1209 D. C 2 30000 5 5 340 00
2. Field Roacw 'I8 $ 6,181.00 T $ 6.184.00
Park Road 2.,1 Visa,07013 i6 16 16 48 9 6.10100 5 $ 0,14100
a summary nr l near hsuee 5 S IIIMMM.
F arr.144141,a 0061 man, I 6 I 4 I I I 10 I S 1.57400 15 - I 1,47408
4. Survey ' 38 $ 4,535.00 $ 4,53500
Park Road 214 Vista Road 2 4 16 i6 33 S 4,53600 S 8 •1,13500
S. Documentation 12 $ 1,422.00 1.822.00
Park Read.rid Via.,RO<rd I 0 I I I 4 I I I I I I 12 I$ 1,022.00 I I I5 1,82200
6. Analysis of Safety Measures 12 5 1,70600 $ 1,706.00
Park Road aid Vista Road I 4 I I 4 I 4 I I I I I I 12 18 1.706.00 I$ - I 5 1.70600
J. 0valvohon ol1-caslbi111y o1LStablishinglJUlt Zone 16 $ 2.401.00 $ 2,402.00
Park Ronda.,Visa Rnael I 0 I 4 I I 4 I I I I I I IR I S 7,307 nn I5 I5 7407 Oil
3 Diagnosrir Review and Agenry Conrdinarion 70 $ 741600 5 2,41600
Park Road 7,d VOsct 40.x] I 4 I I I l6 I I I I I I 25 I S 2.4'6.00 I S - I 5 2,41600
9. Conceptual RR Signal Cost Estimate 8 8 1,392.00 $ 1,392.00
Park Aoad a,dVeal 000 0 0 5 1.39200 $ S 1,35200
10. Conceptual Roadway Improvements 28 5 3,236.00 5 3,23600
Park Road 2.,2 WV.,70.42 I 4 I I 8 hisaL I I I I I 28 is 3.23600 I$ - 15 3,23600
11. Draft and Final Reports FF 56 ■5 7.681.00 5 7.684.00
Park,Road old Virta asa I 16 I 8 I 6 I 24 I I I I I I 56 T5 7.604.001$ - 15 7,40*00
17.. P010100etions and Public Involvement 72 /J$_ 9.275.00 $ 9,225.00
Conduct stakeholder mooring 6 4 1 I1 $ 205100 $ - 0 2,05100
P.•pm-.Ind present Council upd.tve 2 4 ., 12 $ 1,573.00 $ S 1,57300
Po'p are.Indr.Ir.ii,1li•public mla•linu 2 16 16 12 46 $ 5.648.00 $ S 5,64000
13. Preliminary Design 06 $ 11.264,00 5 11564.00
Rid:ce,,d,,,dvl...,2..,,d I Ir. I I I V I 40 I I I I 97. 15 1107.40015 IS 1170400
14. Coordination ol Approval Process ISO S 15.100.00 5 25.110.00
Park Rnad an d Visra 27.x1 I 170 I I I 40 I I I I I I led I$ 25.1000015 - I5 25.10000
15. Miscellaneous 10 $ 1,013.00 $ 3,284.90
Ilepregrayl act;Report Yruducuunl Omer Itelleall Materials U 5 - 5 508.08 1 50808
Tr.IVrl 0 $ $ 1,771.90 S 1,77190
Account no and eillinc 2 2 6 10 5 1,0'3.00 $ - S 1,01300
T551A1 776 06 I9 137 92 1 I7. I6 6 590 5 80,770 on 5 2,771 on 5 03,58090
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 19, 2011 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information El admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Mission Trailhead
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND: At the March 29, 2011 City Council Meeting, Council request that Public
Works provide a cost estimate for improving Mission Road for trailhead access. The estimated
project cost to pave the road from the new Mission Parkway to the end of the road, pave a 10'
pathway from the parkway to the trailhead, provide 20 parking spaces and a vehicle turnaround
is $150,000. This cost does not include the cost of additional right of way which will be needed
at the end of the road for the vehicle turnaround.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten
ATTACHMENTS Mission Trailhead Map
/
,
i'
/ 1 0' SP HALT P A T H'ilihirA'••11
/
i
.
L_ --
-----
. ._.
--1 ---
i----- ----_____
--- -Fr. -.i 7-- 1-f- VIMMINP7•777. 7.
-------i
. ••0_ • _..._.--
. /
1 . . - ....•-_,_--_.,...—
.•• . ,,._.-
, /
I IL—EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD ,,-,-- .......---- --- i
1 ,
1 , /
. . I .,.,1,, ...-F . ....-- ..-- / /
. ,sF /
.. ?-
7/•• LEXISTIN G I N FORM A L /-7;',:-cir ....,,-----..----' /
.,-.7e6 • . ,--/ 7 • /
TR.A.I LH E,AD 0,..j.i / / Pi ti,, / /
z' /
/ .,r / - -
/-
f
f ,
/ 7
ei 7-
''''l • 7 0 / /
/
....- :
7
/ r .-
, -
._. ..„,,
7
,,
i.
.,„ 7
,,
ENNIAL TR ,AIL /
-------„..„„4„: ,
.:',..'',. , /
141'7' /-
7 /
/ i r
0, 1 /
D.,- I /
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 19, 2011 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information E[ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Detention Services Draft Interlocal Agreement with Spokane County
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 70.48
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approved Jail and Geiger Agreements in 2006
retroactive to January 1, 2005.
BACKGROUND: The City has contracted with Spokane County for incarceration services since
the City's inception. In 2010, Spokane County Jail and Geiger Corrections combined operations
into one enterprise fund. The new Detention Services fund created a cost methodology that did
not comply with the existing agreements. The County began negotiating with the City of
Spokane Valley and the City of Spokane to create a new interlocal agreement that would be
focused on creating and sustain partnerships and promote ongoing communication. The
attached interlocal will apply these principles and be retroactive to January 1, 2010 to align with
the beginning of the Detention Services Fund.
OPTIONS: Proceed to Motion Consideration at future council meeting, or ask City Manager to
Re-negotiate
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Estimated 2011 costs for Detention Services are $1,027,340
STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst
Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS PowerPoint Presentation, Draft Interlocal Agreement
1
Slio lane
��allc
DRAFT DETENTION SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH
SPOKANE COUNTY
(TO REPLACE EXISTING
JAIL AND GEIGER AGREEMENTS)
Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst
Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney
April 19, 2011
Existin g Agreements
2
❑ In place since January 1 , 2005
Separate agreements for Jail and Geiger
Jail agreement
Charged by the hour for confinement
Charged for each booking
Geiger Agreement
Charged for each day of confinement housing
Charged for each day of other incarceration programs:
Work Crew, Work Release, Electronic Home Monitoring
Reason for New Agreement
im
El The General Fund Jail Department and the Geiger
Enterprise Fund were combined into the Detention
Services Enterprise Fund (Self Sustaining)
County combined booking and confinement costs
Change in Cost Methodology
Highlights of New Agreement
Methodology changed
Share of net costs based upon % of confinement days
All costs now budgeted versus rate plan before
Retroactive to January 1 , 2010 (Beginning of Detention Services Fund)
Advisory Group
Meets quarterly
o Includes representatives from County and partner Cities
o Requires advanced notification to all parties of any change that may impact services or
cost
Includes build-up of fund reserve over time
This had been done with Geiger previously
Impact to City is small as City is only 3.5% of total usage
Returned to City upon termination of agreement
Local jurisdiction inmates have priority over Federal and State inmates
Settle and adjust reconciliation preserved
Challenges of New Agreement
5
❑ Lack of Correlation to Law Enforcement Cost Plan
County did not agree to tie costs allocated from
Sheriff 's Office to the Law Enforcement Cost Allocation
Plan used for the City's law enforcement agreement
• Consistency of Overhead Costs
County did not agree to define cost allocation plan
u Federal and State agencies not required to pay
same rate as cities
Different rate structure with lower priority if facilities
are full.
Cost Impact of New Agreement
❑ Neutral impact on immediate costs
Ability to work collaboratively to reduce costs and
pursue alternatives to incarceration
Cit y Budget
. .
7
❑ Current estimated costs exceed budget.
2011 estimated cost is $ 1 ,027,340
2011 City budget is $837,661
Public Safety Contingency will cover difference
Recommend making it a priority to reduce future
incarceration costs to align with available resources
County has eliminated lower cost alternative
programs but is considering adding some in the
near future (work release, community service)
Historical Spokane Valley Incarceration
Days Versus Costs.
SV Detention Services Days SV Costs
Year Combined Change Combined Change
r
2004 6,031 0% 387,209
2005 6,663 10% . 434,923 12%
2006 7,898 19%._ 574,464 32%
2007 7,249 -8% 664,197 16%
2008 10,390 43% . 926,976 40%
2009 12,098 16% 992,666 7%
2010 8,685 -28% 966,567 -3%
2011 10,068 16% 1,027,340 6%
Avg. Change 7% 14%
Historical Jail and Geiger Rater
Confinement Rate Booking Rate
Year Jail Change Geiger Change Jail Change
2003 $ 58.05 $ 42.25 79.86
2004 $ 56.64 -2% $ 48.20 14% $ 89.12 12%
2005 $ 66.24 17% $ 41.38 -14% $ 95.00 7%
2006 $ 81.30 23% $ 63.64 54% $ 85.99 -9%
_. 2007 $ 84.89 4% $ 77.83 22% $ 111.88 30%
2008 $ 80.26 -5% $ 79.80 3% $ 110.05 -2%
2009 $ 79.45 -1% $ 78.98 -1% $ 108.87 -1%
2010 * $ 126.26 59% $ 126.26 60% $ -
2011 * $ 102.04 -19% $ 102.04 -19% $ -
Avg Annual Change 11% 16%
* Blended Rate Combines Booking and Confinement
- 2011 estimated rates
Corn arative Incarcerati p on Costs
City Population 2010 Jail Budget Jail Cost per Capita Jail Cost per Crime Confinement Days Housing Rate
Seattle 602,000 $ 18,476,852 $ 30.69 $ 472.47 97,000 $ 106.00
Spokane 205,500 $ 6,500,000 $ 31.63 $ 447.97 57,378 $ 126.26
Tacoma 203,400 $ 8,062,704 $ 39.64 $ 503.51 38,000 $ 82.00
Vancouver 164,500 $ 4,817,513 $ 29.29 $ 724.55 44,750 $ 76.80
Bellevue 120,600 $ 1,476,171 $ 12.24 $ 357.60 16,790 $ 106.00
Everett 103,500 $ 3,820,000 $ 36.91 $ 504.42 53,367 $ 62.50
Spokane Valley 89,440 $ 1,232,225 $ 13.78 $ 347.69 8,685 $ 126.26
Federal Way 88,580 $ 2,368,041 $ 26.73 $ 481.80 24,820 $ 73.00
Kent 88,380 $ 3,710,729 $ 41.99 $ 854.61 45,3801 $ 82.00
Yakima 84,850 $ 4,175,911 $ 49.22 $ 743.31 72,270 $ 53.38
Average $ 31.21 $ 543.79 $ 89.42
-Confinement Days include all programs, not just housing
- Yakima rate is for City jail. Yakima also contracts with several other
jurisdictions at various rates.
Comparative Crime Rater
1
Population Total Crime 2009 Crime Rate
City
(2009) Index Offenses per 1,000
1 Seattle 602,000 39,107 64.96
2 Spokane 205,500 14,510 70.61
3 Tacoma 203,400 16,013 78.73
4 Vancouver 164,500 6,649 40.42
5 Bellevue 120,600 4,128 34.23
6 Everett 103,500 7,573 73.17
7 Spokane Valley 89,440 3,544 39.62
8 Federal Way 88,580 4,915 55.49
9 Kent 88,380 4,342 49.13
10 Yakima 84,850 5,618 66.21
Average 57.26
Opportunities to Control Cost
12
❑ Explore using Prosecutor's Office to expedite in-
custody cases
Take advantage of alternatives to incarceration
Work with partners to reduce population and
Mothball the Very Inefficient Geiger Facility
Next Sfepr
13
❑ Present Final Draft to Council
D If Adopted, Implement Cost Methodology
Retroactive to January 1 , 2010
Begin Advisory Group Meetings
Review Services
Explore Cost Control Measures
Maximize Prosecution Services
Identify Alternatives to Incarceration Options with
Partners
DRAFT
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE PROVISION OF
DETENTION SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
AND
SPOKANE COUNTY
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
hereinafter referred to as the"CITY",SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF,hereinafter referred to as the"SHERIFF",and
the COUNTY OF SPOKANE,hereinafter referred to as the"COUNTY". This Agreement supersedes any prior
Agreements entered into between the parties herein with regard to the terms and provisions set forth below.
The COUNTY,SHERIFF and CITY agree as follows:
SECTION NO. 1: RECITALS AND FINDINGS
(a.) The Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County has the care of County property and the
management of County funds and business under RCW 36.32.120(6);
(b.)Counties and cities may contract with each other to perform certain functions which each may legally
perform under chapter 39.34 RCW(Interlocal Cooperation Act);
(c.) Pursuant to the provisions of chapter 70.48 RCW, Spokane County operates two detention facilities for
holding and detaining individuals arrested, charged or serving terms for the commission of certain
criminal offenses, said facilities are located at 1100 West Mallon Avenue, Spokane, Washington and
3507 South Spotted Road,Spokane,Washington;
(d.)Pursuant to the provisions of RCW 70.48.090,contracts may be entered into between counties and cities
for jail services;
(e.) The City of Spokane Valley desires to utilize the services of Spokane County and Spokane County
Sheriff for the purpose of housing its prisoners;
(f.) The SHERIFF is responsible for the actual operation and maintenance of each detention facility and shall
have charge of all persons confined therein;and
(g.)The Parties will work together to provide cost-effective detention services and pursue programs that will
provide the safest,most efficient,and most economical services to the citizens,detainees,and employees.
SECTION NO.2: DEFINITIONS
(a.) Agreement: "Agreement" means this Interlocal Agreement between the CITY and COUNTY
regarding the detention of City prisoners.
(b.)Uncontrollable Circumstances: "Uncontrollable Circumstances" means the following events: riots,
wars, civil disturbances, insurrections, acts of terrorism, external fires and floods, volcanic eruptions,
or earthquakes at or near where the Services are performed and/or that directly affect providing of
such Services.
(c.) Detention Services: Refers to the department within the Sheriff's Office charged with overseeing the
Page 1 of 12
DRAFT
incarceration of adult offenders.
(d.)Detention Facility: Refers to either the downtown facility located at 1100 West Mallon Avenue,Spokane
Washington and the adult detention building including the third floor of the County-City Public Safety
Building located at 1100 West Mallon Avenue, Spokane Washington and/or the Geiger Corrections
facility located at 3507 South Spotted Road, Spokane, Washington, or other corrections facilities that
may be agreed to in writing by the Parties.
(e.) Booking: `Booking"means the completion of the process of entering all associated information into the
Offender Management System in the creation or completion of a period of detention.
(f.) City Prisoner: "CITY prisoner" means a person housed in a detention facility when a CITY charge is the
principal basis for booking the person as set forth in Section 6(f)of this Agreement
(g.)Prisoner day: The term "prisoner day" cost, for purposes of this Agreement, shall include all costs
connected with the maintenance, care and custody, and health of the inmate, including medical,
dental,meals,housing,clothing, insurance, administration,rent,personal services for detention facility
personnel,supplies,kitchen services,debt service,and any other related services,including indirect costs,
charges, capital reserve, capital outlay, reasonable and prudent fund balance, for the detention and
corrections of said inmates pro-rated on a daily basis per City Prisoner.
(h.)Detention and Corrections Services: Refers to providing services to the prisoner including: care and
custody; medical, dental, meals, housing, clothing, and appropriate inmate programming such as work
release, electronic home monitoring, in-custody work programs, educational programs, drug and alcohol
counseling,and cognitive therapy.
SECTION 3: PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to reduce to writing the Parties' understanding as to the terms and
conditions under which the COUNTY and SHERIFF will provide detention and corrections services on
behalf of the CITY.
SECTION 4: TERM
This Agreement shall be in force for three years beginning January 1, 2010. It shall be extended
automatically for additional one-year periods on the anniversary date unless one of the Parties provides notice
of termination under the notice provisions of this Agreement. Except as otherwise provided,all extensions shall be
subject to all terms and conditions of this Agreement. If a Party desires to terminate the relationship created by
this Agreement,it must provide not less than 180 days written notice to the other PARTIES and to the Washington
State Office of Financial Management. The notice shall state the grounds for termination and the specific plans for
accommodating the affected inmate population. The Parties recognize that the 180 day notice for termination
required herein exceeds the minimum 90 days notice stated in RCW 70.48.090
SECTION 5: SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY COUNTY
The COUNTY will provide detention and corrections services to City Prisoners equal to those provided to
COUNTY inmates including medical,pharmacy,mental health and dental treatment for all prisoners within the
detention facilities operated by the SHERIFF. The COUNTY will also make available and provide transport for
City prisoners at any County Detention Facility to be present at any and all City Court hearings at the present
Page 2 of 12
DRAFT
Spokane County District Court location in the Spokane County Courthouse Annex or any other location within
the Spokane County Courthouse Campus during regular business hours of 8:30AM—5:00PM Monday through
Friday excluding weekends and official court holidays unless otherwise agreed by the parties by separate written
Agreement. The terminology "Spokane County Courthouse Campus" shall mean only the Spokane County
Courthouse,Spokane County Public Safety Building and Broadway Center Building or Spokane County Jail.Such
routine costs are included-in the prisoner day charge.
If an emergency exists or the inmate population becomes too large to be handled, any or all of the CITY
prisoners may be released, transferred or temporarily held at another appropriate facility pursuant to
applicable policies and state and local laws and regulations.Additionally,the CITY realizes that there may be
occasions when certain CITY prisoners may not be accepted due to emergent conditions or as further set forth
under the criteria in General Orders of the courts and the Detention Services Policy Section VI "Emergency
Procedures", which is a document maintained separate from this Agreement. The COUNTY will notify the
CITY as soon as practical within the first 24 hours of any changes to normal operations.
Consistent with the terms contained herein, COUNTY shall accept all CITY inmates presented for
incarceration. This right is contrasted with the Federal government's contractual right for housing of Federal
inmates so long as COUNTY has adequate bed space, and so long as housing of Federal inmates does not
increase COUNTY'S personnel costs for corrections officers.
(a.) Delivery and Notification: The CITY shall be responsible for the delivery of CITY prisoners to the
custody of the SHERIFF at a detention facility designated by the SHERIFF. No person who appears to
be sick or injured will be booked at a detention facility until he/she has received proper medical attention.
(b.)Detention Services Operation: The SHERIFF is responsible for the actual operation and maintenance of
each detention facility and shall have charge of all persons confined therein.
SECTION 6: RATES FOR SERVICES
(a.) The CITY shall pay the COUNTY for the incarceration costs of CITY prisoners as follows:
(i.) The PARTIES agree Spokane County Detention Services needs to establish fund balance. The
previously established"cash reserve"from Geiger Fund 415 will be transferred to the fund balance
of the new Detention Services Fund 515. Fund balance of $650,000 will be included in the
budgeted and actual costs for the 2010 year and up to $800,000 each subsequent year until the
reserve reaches two months of budgeted expenses. This reserve threshold will be maintained
throughout the life of the Agreement. Should the Agreement be terminated, the COUNTY will
refund the CITY the amount contributed toward fund balance from what was transferred from the
Geiger fund 415, as well as the Detention Services Fund 515. The amount contributed to the
operating reserve by the CITY is a liability for the COUNTY. The COUNTY will provide annual
statements documenting the cumulative total of the CITY's contribution to the operating reserve.
(ii.) CITY'S Estimated annual costs will be computed as follows:
a. Taking the budgeted expenses and the provision of fund balance for the year less budgeted
revenue from housing federal inmates,state inmates(not mandated by law),work crew
program,and other Detention Service activities,to arrive at the budgeted net cost;
Page 3 of 12
DRAFT
b. Taking the total Average Daily Population(ADP)of inmates for the year two years prior to
the contract year and subtracting the ADP for federal and/or state prisoners to arrive at the
estimated net ADP;
c. Dividing the City's ADP by the net ADP to determine the City's ADP percentage;
d. Multiplying the budgeted net cost by each Party's ADP percentage to arrive at the estimated
annual cost to each Party.
(iii.) Each Party's estimated annual costs will be divided by twelve and the Party will be billed monthly
by the County.
(iv.) At the end of the calendar year, using the methodology set forth in Section 6.a.2 the PARTIES
shall apply the actual expenditures and the actual ADP percentage from the contract year to
determine the final cost. It is the PARTIES intent that any adjustments take place as soon as
possible but no later than August 31 of the following year. The actual cost calculation shall be
accompanied by the actual expense reports and the actual ADP for all users. The CITY will have
sixty (60) calendar days from its receipt of the expenditure documentation to provide the
COUNTY with any written objections(s) to such documentation. The written objection(s) must
specifically identify the expenditure(s) in question. The COUNTY agrees to consider all written
objections received from the CITY within thirty(30)calendar days of receipt of the objections(s).
In the event that the PARTIES cannot mutually resolve any written objection(s) submitted by the
CITY within the thirty (30) calendar days time frame, or such other time frame as the PARTIES
may mutually agree,the objections shall be resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution provisions
set forth in Section No. 12. To the extent that the CITY was over billed in any year and the
Agreement is still in effect,the COUNTY shall credit the CITY for such overpayment in the next
monthly payment owning by the CITY. Provided, however, in the event the Agreement is
terminated at such time that the overpayment is determined, the COUNTY shall reimburse the
CITY for any overpayment within thirty (30) calendar days. To the extent that the CITY was
under billed in any year and the Agreement is still in effect, the CITY shall reimburse the
COUNTY for any under payment in the next monthly payment owing by the CITY. Provided,
however, in the event the Agreement is terminated at such time that the underpayment is
determined, the CITY shall reimburse the COUNTY for any underpayment within thirty (30)
calendar days. Either Party may at its sole option charge interest on any overpayment or
underpayment based on lost interest earning had the amount determined due been invested in the
respective Party's investment pool at the end of the thirty (30) day time frame provided for
hereinabove to the date of payment. Any resolution of a disputed amount through use of the
arbitration process identified in Section 12 shall include at the request of either Party, a
determination of whether interest is appropriate,including the amount.
(v.) In the event there is a disagreement on any of the expenses,the amount billed under parts 2 through
4 within this section will be paid while the issue is resolved.
(b.)Medical Costs: The CITY shall pay for any and all medical costs incurred by a person who is in need
of medical services at the time of his/her arrest by a CITY officer, and prior to his/her being booked
into a detention facility. This provision is not intended to create any third party beneficiary rights.
The COUNTY, in instances where a medical service provider improperly bills the COUNTY for such
medical services,will forward the billing(s)to the CITY for payment.
Page 4 of 12
DRAFT
(c.) The Monthly prisoner day costs shall be that amount established for the ensuing calendar year by the
COUNTY effective January 1 of any contract year for the care and custody of CITY prisoners.The COUNTY
shall notify the CITY by memorandum letter of the estimated monthly costs no later than October 1'of the
preceding year when the costs will take effect. The memorandum shall be accompanied by the supporting
budget information and the ADP totals used to calculate the monthly costs.
(d.) The CITY will make payments within 30 days of the day in which it receives the invoice.
(e.) As part of the monthly billing the COUNTY shall detail the number of CITY prisoner days for which the
CITY was responsible the previous month. The Parties shall mutually agree on the format of the billing
statement,to include billing codes. The COUNTY will provide to CITY a year-to-date total of prisoner
days with each invoice, including corrections made for previous months. The COUNTY will provide
notification accompanied with agreed upon billing information for any changes to the CITY prisoner days.
The CITY will notify the COUNTY of any discrepancies contained in the monthly billing support within
45 days.
(f.) The CITY shall be responsible for the incarceration costs when a CITY charge is the principal basis
for booking a person where one or more of the following applies,whether pre-trial or post-trial:
(i.) The person is booked for violation of a CITY ordinance; or
(ii.) The person is booked for violation of any other misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor
committed within the CITY;or
(iii.) The person is booked for a warrant relating to(i)and(ii)above.
A CITY charge is not the principal basis for confming a person where:
(i.) The person is booked exclusively or in combination with other charges by reason of a felony
charge (including 72-hour hold). Provided, after the felony charge is released,the CITY shall
be responsible for incarceration costs as they relate to pending CITY charges; or
(ii.) The person is booked exclusively or in combination with other charges by reason of a
felony charge that has been reduced to a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor;or
(iii.) The person is a federal prisoner who can be removed by a federal agency without regard to
the CITY charges. Provided, this provision does not apply when the federal booking is an
administrative hold pending release of CITY charges.
On multiple charges, it is the intent of the Parties, that the CITY shall pay only those incarceration costs
directly attributable to the booking and detention of misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor charges
originating from the CITY'S jurisdiction. By way of example, prisoners held or processed on multiple
charges shall be billed as follows:
(i.) Prisoner held or processed on both felony and CITY misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor
charges.
a. Concurrent bookings/detention. No charge,the more serious felony offense will control.
Page 5 of 12
DRAFT
b. Consecutive bookings/detention. Upon release of the felony offense the billing for CITY
charges will commence.
(ii.) CITY misdemeanors or gross misdemeanor charges and COUNTY or another City's
misdemeanors or gross misdemeanor charges.
a. Concurrent bookings/detention.
b. Arresting agency will be initially billed when charges are at same level.
c. The CITY will be billed if during transport for another City/County in transit booking,a
CITY charge(s)is found and causes the individual to be booked and removed from in
transit until released on CITY charge(s).
d. For offenders with concurrent charges for multiple jurisdictions in which the above
criteria cannot be used to determine the COUNTY/CITY,the COUNTY will bill the
COUNTY/CITY delivering the offender to the detention facility until the
COUNTY/CITY charges are resolved. The financial responsibility will then pass to the
next highest COUNTY/CITY charge.
SECTION NO.7: LIABILITY AND INSURANCE
For the purpose of this Section,the terminology"COUNTY"shall also include the"SHERIFF."
(a) The COUNTY shall indemnify and hold harmless the CITY and its officers, agents, and employees,
from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature
whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any wrongful act or omission of the COUNTY, its
officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of performing Services pursuant to this
Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought
against the CITY,the COUNTY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the
CITY reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is
involved; and if fmal judgment in said suit be rendered against the CITY, and its officers, agents, and
employees, or jointly against the CITY and the COUNTY and their respective officers, agents, and
employees,the COUNTY shall satisfy the same.
(b) The CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless the COUNTY and its officers, agents, and employees,
from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature
whatsoever,by any reason of or arising out of any wrongful act or omission of the CITY, its officers,
agents and employees, relating to or arising out of performing Services pursuant to this Agreement.
In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the
COUNTY, the CITY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the COUNTY
reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved;
and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against the COUNTY, and its officers, agents, and
employees, or jointly against the COUNTY and the CITY and their respective officers, agents, and
employees,the CITY shall satisfy the same.
(c) If the comparative negligence of the PARTIES and their officers and employees is a cause of such
damage or injury, the liability, loss, cost, or expense shall be shared between the PARTIES in
proportion to their relative degree of negligence and the right of indemnity shall apply to such
Page 6 of 12
DRAFT
proportion.
(d) Where an officer or employee of a Party is acting under the direction and control of the other Party,
the Party directing and controlling the officer or employee in the activity and/or omission giving rise
to liability shall accept all liability for the other Party's officer or employee's wrongful act.
(e) Each Party's duty to indemnify shall survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement.
(f) The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each Party's immunity
under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, chapter 51 RCW, respecting the other Party only, and
only to the extent necessary to provide the indemnified Party with a full and complete indemnity of
claims made by the indemnitor's employees. The PARTIES acknowledge that these provisions were
specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them.
SECTION NO.8: RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
The PARTIES intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. The
SHERIFF shall be an independent contractor and not the agent or employee of the CITY, that the CITY is
interested only in the results to be achieved and that the right to control the particular manner, method and
means in which the care and housing of CITY prisoners is performed is solely within the discretion of the
SHERIFF. Any and all employees who provide the care and housing of CITY prisoners to the CITY under
this Agreement shall be deemed employees solely of the SHERIFF. The SHERIFF shall be solely
responsible for the conduct and actions of all employees under this Agreement and any liability that may
attach thereto. Likewise,no agent,employee,servant or representative of the CITY shall be deemed to be an
employee,agent,servant or representative of the SHERIFF for any purpose.
SECTION NO.9: ADVISORY GROUP
Purpose: Detention Services Advisory Group shall meet on a quarterly basis to ensure regular
communication and to seek joint consideration of all matters of concern regarding the jail
services contract. It is intended that the parties in these meetings review the Interlocal
Agreement and discuss matters of mutual interest; monitor cost trends, work jointly on
potential cost savings, revenue sources and other budgetary matters that may impact
service levels; seek long-term sustainability of contract terms; consider changes in labor
contracts, allocation of resources or other potential cost changes or changes to the cost
allocation plan that may impact either party, and provide summary reports of each
meeting to the SHERIFF and the Board of County Commissioners. The COUNTY shall
provide year-to-date expenditure and revenue reports, and year-to-date ADP totals for all
jurisdictions.
Meetings: The Advisory Group shall meet no less than four (4) times a year. Normal meeting times
shall be the third Tuesday of each month at 10:30 a.m. in the Jail Administration Conference
Room.
(a.) Membership: will consist of the following personnel or their duly appointed representative. Either party
may invite representatives from their respective organizations to attend:
(i.) COUNTY
1. One Elected Official
Page 7 of 12
DRAFT
2. County CEO or Sheriff as needed
3. Detention Services Commander(Chairman)
4. Detention Services Finance Manager
(ii.) ALL CITY USERS
1. One Elected Official
2,1.City Manager/Administrator or designee
2.City Finance Director or designee
Notices:if either Party has a desire to make substantial changes which may affect the responsibility or cost of
the other, the Party must provide no less than 180 day written notice to the Detention Services Advisory
Group chairman and all other members of the advisory group from each jurisdiction of their intention(s).
SECTION NO.10: MODIFICATION
This Agreement may be modified in writing by mutual written Agreement of the PARTIES.
SECTION NO.11: ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN/BINDING EFFECT
This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the PARTIES. The PARTIES agree that there
are no other understandings,oral or otherwise,regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. No changes or
additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the PARTIES unless such change or addition is in
writing,executed by the PARTIES.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the PARTIES hereto,their successors and assigns.
SECTION NO.12: DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Any dispute between the PARTIES which cannot be resolved between the PARTIES shall be subject to
arbitration. Except as provided for to the contrary herein, such dispute shall first be reduced to writing and
considered by the COUNTY CEO and the CITY Manager/Administrator. If the COUNTY CEO and the
CITY Manager/Administrator cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to arbitration. The provisions of
chapter 7.04A RCW shall be applicable to any arbitration proceeding.
The COUNTY and the CITY shall have the right to designate one person each to act as an arbitrator. The
two selected arbitrators shall then jointly select a third arbitrator. The decision of the arbitration panel shall
be binding on the PARTIES and shall be subject to judicial review as provided for in chapter 7.04A RCW.
The costs of the arbitration panel shall be equally split between the PARTIES.
SECTION NO.13: VENUE STIPULATION
This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the State of
Washington and it is mutually understood and agreed by each Party that this Agreement shall be governed
by the laws of the State of Washington both as to interpretation and performance. Any action at law, suit
in equity or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement, or any provision hereto, shall be
instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County,Washington.
Page 8 of 12
DRAFT
SECTION NO.14: SEVERABILITY
The PARTIES agree that if any parts, terms or provisions of this Agreement are held by the courts to be
illegal,the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected and the rights and obligations
of the PARTIES shall not be affected in regard to the remainder of the Agreement. If it should appear that
any part, term or provision of this Agreement is in conflict with any statutory provision of the State of
Washington,then the part,term or prevision thereof that may be in conflict shall be deemed inoperative and
null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith and this Agreement shall be deemed to modify to
conform to such statutory prevision.
SECTION NO.15: RECORDS
All public records prepared, owned, used or retained by the COUNTY or SHERIFF in conjunction with
providing Services under the terms of this Agreement shall be made available to the CITY upon request by
the City Manager/Administrator subject to the attorney client and attorney work product privileges set forth in
statute, court rule or case law as well as the provisions in RCW 70.48.100. The COUNTY and SHERIFF
will notify the CITY of any public disclosure request under chapter 42.56 RCW for copies or viewing of such
records as well as the COUNTY'S response thereto.
SECTION NO. 16: HEADINGS
The section headings appearing in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of
convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to, and shall not be deemed to define, limit
or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain.
SECTION NO. 17: TIME OF ESSENCE OF AGREEMENT
Time is of the essence of this Agreement and in case a Party fails to perform the obligations on its part to
be performed at the time fixed for the performance of the respective obligation by the terms of this
Agreement, the other PARTIES may, at their election, hold the Party liable for all costs and damages
caused by such delay.
SECTION NO. 18: UNCONTROLLABLE CIRCUMSTANCES/IMPOSSIBILITY
A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of this Agreement resulting from
Uncontrollable Circumstances shall be deemed not a default under this Agreement.
A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of this Agreement resulting from any
change in or new law, order, rule or regulation of any nature which renders providing of Services in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement legally impossible, and any other circumstances beyond the
control of the COUNTY which render legally impossible the performance by the COUNTY of its
obligations under this Agreement, shall be deemed not a default under this Agreement.
SECTION NO.19: FILING
The CITY shall file this Agreement with its City Cleric The COUNTY shall file this Agreement with its
County Auditor or will place the Agreement on its WEB site.
SECTION NO.20: EXECUTION AND APPROVAL
Page 9 of 12
DRAFT
The PARTIES warrant that the officers executing below have been duly authorized to act for and on
behalf of the Party for purposes of confirming this Agreement.
SECTION NO.21. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
The PARTIES shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent that
they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement.
SECTION NO.22: DISCLAIMER
Except as otherwise provided, this Agreement shall not be construed in any manner that would limit any
Party's authority or powers under laws.
SECTION NO.23: NOTICES
All notices shall be in writing and served either personally or by certified mail,return receipt requested,to the
following persons. Notices sent by certified mail shall be deemed served when deposited in the United States
mail,postage prepaid.
COUNTY: Chief Executive Officer or his/her authorized representative
1116 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane,Washington 99260
CITY: City of Spokane Valley City Manager
or his/her authorized representative
Redwood Plaza
11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley,Washington 99206
SHERIFF: Spokane County Sheriff
1100 West Mallon Avenue
Spokane,Washington 99260
SECTION NO.24: INSURANCE
During the term of the Agreement,the PARTIES shall maintain in force each insurance noted below:
(a.) Worker's Compensation Insurance in compliance with Title 51 RCW,which requires subject employers
to provide workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers and Employer's Liability
Insurance in the amount of$5,000,000;
(b.)General Liability Insurance on an occurrence basis, with a combined single limit of not less than
$5,000,000 each occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. It shall include contractual liability
coverage for the indemnity provided under this Agreement;
(c.)Automobile Liability Insurance with a combined single limit,or the equivalent of not less than
$5,000,000 each accident for bodily injury and property damage,including coverage for owned,hired
and non-owned vehicles; and
Page 10 of 12
DRAFT
(d.)Professional Liability Insurance with a combined single limit of not less than $5,000,000 each claim,
incident or occurrence. This is to cover damages caused by the error, omission,or negligent acts related
to the professional services to be provided under this Agreement. The coverage must remain in effect for
at least two years after the Agreement is completed.
There shall be no cancellation, material change, reduction of limits or intent not to renew the insurance
coverage(s)without 30 days written notice by the respective PARTIES.
As evidence of the insurance coverages required by this Agreement, the PARTIES shall furnish written
evidence of acceptable insurance no later than thirty (30) days from the execution of this Agreement. If
I requested, complete copies of insurance policies shall be provided-_ The PARTIES shall be fmancially
responsible for all pertinent deductibles,self-insured retentions,and/or self-insurance.
SECTION NO.25: NONDISCRIMINATION
No party shall discriminate in violation of Federal,State or local discrimination law.
SECTION NO.26 ASSURANCE
The COUNTY and SHERIFF represent and assure the CITY that no other city or town has or will receive
more favorable treatment under a contract with the COUNTY or SHERIFF in the care and treatment of its
offenders provided under this Agreement for CITY offenders, unless mutually agreed to in writing by both
parties.
SECTION NO.27: CHAPTER 39.34 RCW REQUIRED CLAUSES
(a.)Purpose. See Section No. 3 above.
(b.)Duration. See Section No.4 above.
(c.) Organization of Separate Entity and Its Powers. No new or separate legal or administrative entity is
created to administer the provisions of this Agreement.
(d.)Responsibilities of the Parties. See provisions above.
(e.) Agreement to be Filed. See Section No. 17 above.
(f.) Financing. Each Party shall be responsible for the financing of its contractual obligations under this
Agreement pursuant to its normal budgetary process
(g.)Termination. See Section No.4 above.
(h.)Property upon Termination. Title to all property acquired by the Parties in the performance of this
Agreement shall remain with the acquiring Party upon termination of this Agreement.
(i.) Administration. The CITY's representative for administering this Agreement shall be its City
Manager/City Administrator. The COUNTY's representative for administering this Agreement shall be
its Chief Executive Officer. The SHIERIFF's representative for administering this Agreement shall be
the County Sheriff.
Page 11 of 12
DRAFT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the PARTIES have caused this Agreement to be executed on date and year
opposite their respective signatures.
DATED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
AL FRENCH,Chairman
ATTEST:
Clerk of the Board
TODD MIELKE,Vice-Chairman
Daniela Erickson
MARK RICHARD,Commissioner
DATED: SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF:
OZZIE D.KNEZOVICH, Sheriff
DATED: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY:
A[F EST: _
Mike Jackson,City Manager
Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY:
Cary P.Driskell,Interim City Attorney
Page 12 of 12
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
as of April 14, 2011; 9:15 a.m.
Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative
To: Council & Staff
From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
#3 Mayor's State of the City Address/Community Forum
Thursday,April21,2011; 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm, Seth Woodard Elementary School, 7401 E. Mission Ave.
April 26,2011,Executive Session 5:00 p.m.
To evaluate the qualifications of candidates for appointment to elective office,Council#5 Vacancy
April 26,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 18]
Proclamations:Public Service Recognition Week; Worker's Memorial Day;Municipal Clerk's Week (5 minutes)
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes, Resolution set Planning Corn. Street Vacation Hearing)(5 minutes)
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-006 Livestock in Mixed Use—Christina Janssen (10 minutes)
3. 2nd Read,Ord. 11-007, Comp Plan Amendments CPA 01-11,& CPA 04-11 thru 08-11 —Mike B. (20 min)
4. 2nd Read,Ord 11-008 Comp Plan Amendments CPA01-11,&CPA 04-11-08-11 Zoning Map-Mike B. (5 min)
5. 2nd Reading,Ord. 11-009 Comp Plan CPA 03-11, SARP Ordinance—Mike Basinger (20 minutes)
6. 2nd Reading,Ord. 11-010 Comp Plan CPA 03-11,SARP Zoning Map—Mike Basinger (5 minutes)
7.Motion Consideration:Motions for May 10 Interviews of Applicants for Council Position#5 -Mayor(20 min)
8.Info Only:Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 90 minutes]
#4(and final)Mayor's State of the City Address/Community Forum
Thursday,April 28,2011; 12:30 to 1:30 pm,CenterPlace Regional Event Center 2426 N.Discovery Place
May 3,2011,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 25]
1.Draft 2012-2017 Six Year TIP—Steve Worley (20 minutes)
2.Airway Heights Plan Review Renewal—MaryKate McGee (15 minutes)
3. Permit Tracking System—Mary Kate McGee (20 minutes)
4.Investment Accounts—Ken Thompson (10 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 65 minutes]
May 10,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 2]
Proclamation:Lilac City Wings Motorcycle Awareness Day
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2.Proposed Resolution Authorizing Investment Accounts—Ken Thompson (10 minutes)
3.Motion Consideration: Airway Heights Plan Review Renewal—MaryKate McGee (10 minutes)
4.Mayoral Appointment:Planning Commission Vacancy—Mayor Towey (10 minutes)
5. Council Position#5 Interviews—Mayor and Council (-100 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 135 minutes]
May 17,2011,Executive Session 5:00 p.m.
To evaluate the qualifications of candidates for appointment to elective office,Council#5 Vacancy
Mav 17,2011,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 9]
1. Motion Consideration:Appt of Candidate to Council Position#5—Mayor(No public comment) (20 min)
a.Nomination&2nd of candidate:vote. b. Clerk Administers Oath c.New Councilmember Takes Position at the Dias
2.Admin Report:Draft 2012-2017 Six Year TIP—Steve Worley (15 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 35 minutes]
Draft Advance Agenda 4/15/2011 10:49:25 AM Page 1 of 3
May 24,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 16]
1. PUBLIC HEARING:Draft 2012-2017 Six Year TIP—Steve Worley (15 minutes)
2.Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
3.Admin Report: Spokane Regional CVB Presentation- CEO Cheryl Kilday (10 minutes)
4.Admin Report: 2011 Budget Amendment—Ken Thompson (10 minutes)
5.Info Only: Dept Reports ["estimated meeting: 40 minutes]
May 31,2011,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 23]
1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 Budget Amendment—Ken Thompson (10 minutes)
2.First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending 2011 Budget—Ken Thompson (10 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 20 minutes]
June 7,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 30]
1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes)
June 14,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,June 6]
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending 2011 Budget—Ken Thompson (10 minutes)
3.Proposed Resolution Adopting 2012-2017 Six Year TIP—Steve Worley (15 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 30 minutes]
June 21,2011, Possible no Meeting, (AWC Conference, Spokane, Wa.)
June 28,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,June 20]
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2.Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes]
July 5, 2011,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,June 27]
1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes)
July 12,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Tues,July 5]
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
July 19,2011,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,July 11]
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
July 26,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,July 18]
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes]
August 2,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,July 25]
1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes)
Draft Advance Agenda 4/15/2011 10:49:25 AM Page 2 of 3
OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS:
Alternative Analysis (contracts)
Bidding Contracts (SVMC 3.—bidding exceptions)
Budget 2012(August/Sept 2011)
Capital Projects Funding
CDBG(Fall 2011)
Centennial Trail Agreement
Clean Air Agency
Commute Trip Reduction Program Renewal
Developer Agreement, St. John Vianney Church
East Gateway Monument Structure#
Eastern Washington University Regional Services Presentation
Economic Development
Flashing Beacons
Governance Manual(resolution)Update
Joint Meetings:Planning Commission;BOCC
Liberty Lake City Sign
Lodging Tax Funding for 2012(Oct 2011)
Milwaukee Right-of-way
Mission Avenue Design
Monument(Veterans') Sign
Old Mission Ave Trail Access
Outside Agencies 2012(August 2011)
Parking/Paving Options (for driveways,etc.)
Pavement Management Program Update
PEG Funds: Allocation of P&E Funding
Permit Tracking System
Public Input Process for Capital Projects
Reimbursement Assessment Amendment
Retreat, Summer 2011
Shoreline Master Program,Chapter 1
Sidewalks
Signage(1-90)
Site Selector Update
Solid Waste Amended Interlocal
Speed Limits
Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ.Assessment
Sprague Avenue: One-way vs.two-way
Sprague Beautification
WIRA,Water Protection Commitment,Public Education
#=Awaiting action by others
* =doesn't include time for public or council comments
Draft Advance Agenda 4/15/2011 10:49:25 AM Page 3 of 3