Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Moratorium topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spokane council adopts one‑year moratorium on new drive‑throughs near planned BRT after heated debate
Summary
After extended public comment and a 5–2 vote, the Spokane City Council imposed a one‑year emergency moratorium on building permits for new drive‑through facilities near frequent‑transit stops, citing safety and transit‑oriented planning; opponents called the move a process overreach.
The Spokane City Council voted 5–2 to impose an immediate, one‑year moratorium on building permit applications for new drive‑through facilities located near frequent‑transit stops and planned rapid‑transit corridors.
Council members and dozens of public commenters spent more than an hour debating whether the temporary halt — presented as an emergency ordinance to take effect immediately — was the right procedural step. Supporters said the moratorium gives the city time to align land‑use rules with the Division corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) plans and to reduce curb‑cut safety hazards for pedestrians and cyclists. Opponents, including small‑business advocates, said the emergency label short‑circuited public outreach and would harm car‑dependent businesses.
"This is a cloak‑and‑dagger assault on working families and entrepreneurs in Spokane," said Brad Barnett, identified in the record as president of the Spokane Business Association, urging the council to reject the emergency ordinance and allow more public review. "You're trying to ram this through as an emergency to ensure the public has no time to breathe."
Council members who supported the moratorium framed it as a temporary measure to protect long‑term safety and economic planning. "This is not a ban on drive‑throughs; this is just a temporary moratorium while we finalize transit‑oriented planning in key corridors," said Council Member Martellus, who explained the moratorium is intended to prevent new permits that would be difficult to undo once built.
Other proponents stressed safety concerns on Division Street, citing multiple curb cuts and conflict points between vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. Supporters also raised the prospect of federal funding tied to transit projects; one council member referenced active advocacy for federal grants to support the North Division BRT.
Opponents pressed two main points: that the emergency designation lacked the suddenness that typically warrants immediate action, and that the city did not do sufficient outreach to affected business owners and property owners before placing the measure on the agenda. Several commenters said drive‑through access is essential for families, seniors and people with mobility constraints.
Council members said the moratorium will be temporary (the ordinance sets a one‑year limit) and that a public hearing will be held while it is in place. The ordinance passed by recorded vote (5 in favor, 2 opposed). The council directed staff to continue planning work for transit‑oriented development in coordination with the Division BRT schedule; a public hearing on the moratorium was scheduled as part of the ordinance process.
